MPs 'likely to' recall James Murdoch over claims he misled hacking committee as 'devastating' new information comes to light.
Copy of same letter released to MPs by News International has many of the explosive claims removed.
Revelations will cause more embarrassment for Prime Minister David Cameron because he decided to employ Mr Coulson.
Downing Street refuses to comment on the explosive letter.
NotW former lawyer Tom Crone, editor Colin Myler, head of human resources Daniel Cloke and director of legal affairs John Chapman will appear in front of MPs on September 6.
Reader NomadicView suggested a post about certain hypocrites and I'm happy to oblige...
Criminal acts appear to be ok, depending on who commits them.
Both Bill O'Reilly and Sarah Palin are employed by Rupert Murdoch, whose organisation hacked into thousands of people's phones and possibly into e-mail accounts as well.
O'Reilly and Palin were very clear about how they felt about a young guy managing to access Palin's Yahoo account by guessing the answer to her secret question and then re-setting her password.
Murdoch's News International hired private investigators and bribed police officers to illegally access people's accounts and also paid considerable amounts of money in out-of-court settlements (with confidentiality clauses) to make things go away.
How come David Kernell was deemed a despicable, devious criminal for what amounted to a silly prank, but the multiple, planned, no-holds-barred illegal acts by their employer's organisation received no condemnation from either O'Reilly or Palin?
Organised crime is ok for a corporate media mogul, but a young person's prank is a major felony.
Yes, it's all very fair and decent if the criminal pays your salary...
*****
I can't help myself, so I'll indulge in a bit of frivolity. I thought this was Sarah Palin's worst wig:
But then she sported this item on Greta's show last night:
I find it hard to decide which one looks more ridiculous.
Her latest style is quite similar to Michele Bachmann's, who looks a bit softer. Here she is, talking to Hannity last night, some time before Sarah Palin went on air with Greta:
An article by Sarah Ellison, which appeared in the October 2010 edition of Vanity Fair, had already addressed many of the points that re-emerged in the recent scandal involving Rupert Murdoch. It's a very long article, but this passage caught my attention:
In the U.S., Murdoch’s influence in politics has come mainly through Fox News. In Britain, his presence looms over every election, large and small. The famous headline IT’S THE SUN WOT WON IT—after the 1992 British election for prime minister went to the Conservatives—has been a reference point in U.K. elections ever since. Tony Blair courted Murdoch assiduously in his successful 1997 bid for prime minister, once traveling halfway around the world to attend a News Corp. conference—a supreme moment of ring kissing. The relationship between Blair and Murdoch was close. In his diaries, Blair’s top spin doctor, Alastair Campbell, described a Downing Street dinner for Mr. Murdoch and his sons, James and Lachlan, in 2002: “Murdoch pointed out that his were the only papers that gave us support when the going got tough. ‘I’ve noticed,’ said TB.” Lance Price, who worked for Campbell, later wrote, “I have never met Mr. Murdoch, but at times when I worked at Downing Street he seemed like the 24th member of the cabinet. His voice was rarely heard … but his presence was always felt.” Murdoch’s power, says Price, is rooted in fear of what he might do as much as in fear of what he has actually done. It comes not only from what his papers print, but also from what they might know but do not print. He holds sway by implicit threat.
As I said in previous posts, the hacking of private communications by News International goes beyond the hunger for explosive headlines. It provides ample material to be used in order to control people in positions of power.
Blair's ascension to power appears to have been manufactured and subsequently controlled by Murdoch. I shudder to think that we had at least ten years of Murdoch's agenda being implemented in 10 Downing Street, including an illegal, criminal war. It's well known how Fox News promoted the invasion in the US.
A public inquiry into the war in Iraq will have the report published later in the year, but some of their findings have been leaked:
Tony Blair is to face scathing criticism from the official inquiry into the Iraq War for the role he played in leading Britain into one of its biggest foreign policy fiascos in modern history.
The Mail on Sunday has been told that the former Prime Minister will be held to account on four main failings:
* Bogus claims that were made about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. * Not telling the British public about his secret pledge with George Bush to go to war. * Keeping the Cabinet in the dark by his ‘sofa government’ style. * Failing to plan to avoid the post-war chaos in Iraq.
Mr Blair may face harsh criticism for his handling of the invasion of Iraq. Unfortunately, the report doesn't look into the relationship between Murdoch, Blair and Bush. It gives Blair too much credit for being his own man and making his own decisions.
Blair was dubbed Bush's poodle, when if fact he was Murdoch's lap dog.
How many more obedient pets does Murdoch has around the world?
Rupert Murdoch provides the propaganda arm for a group of people with a very dangerous agenda, together with the covert harvesting of compromising information about selected targets. His motivation is not world domination, but he's very comfortable playing his part in helping those who call the shots behind the scenes. Murdoch is an opportunist, motivated by money.
His greed has caused too much harm and is infectious, with a very corrupting effect on his minions. People like Sarah Palin, for example, through her own greed and a large dose of fear, has been well employed as the poster girl for Murdoch's partners in crime.
Tony Blair, damned by his vanity and dreams of grandeur, will have to face his doom alone, an abandoned puppet. Murdoch and his gang make them, then leave them when no longer useful.
We have to pin our hopes on the FBI investigations into hacking in the US and Murdoch being held responsible.
The damning of Rupert Murdoch would at least help silence the propaganda machine...
The judge leading the inquiry into the phone-hacking scandal was last night urged to 'come clean' about his links to the Murdoch family.
Lord Justice Leveson was facing questions over his impartiality after it emerged he attended two parties in the past year at the London home of Rupert Murdoch's daughter, Elisabeth, and her husband, PR supremo Matthew Freud.
In his role as chairman of the independent Sentencing Council, he is also reported to have had dinner last year with Mr Freud to discuss an offer from Freud Communications to give free PR advice on improving public confidence in the criminal justice system.
Labour MP Chris Bryant last night said the revelations raised 'serious questions' about whether Lord Justice Leveson would be able to command public confidence in his role as head of the inquiry, which is likely to take evidence from Mr Murdoch and his son James.
Lord Justice Leveson is believed to have informed David Cameron of his social links to Mr Freud before he was appointed to lead the inquiry.
But Mr Bryant said the judge was ‘compromised’ by the revelations.
He added: ‘I’m afraid this does raise serious questions and he does now need to come clean about exactly who he met and what they discussed.
‘He may well be very independent but the way this has come out makes it look as if he has got something to cover up.’
A spokesman for Lord Leveson confirmed he attended ‘large evening events’ at Mr Freud’s home in July last year and January this year. But he declined to say who the judge had met, and added that there was ‘no continuing relationship’.
Of all the judges in the UK, Mr Cameron had to choose one with links to the Murdochs?
Everywhere you look, there's a Murdoch fingerprint: in the Police, in the government and now the judge in charge of the public inquiry into the Murdoch scandal has links to the family!
I said there was another surprise about the scandal, but I'm not surprised at all...
The Murdoch scandal in the UK is being examined by two select committees: Culture, Media and Sports Committee and the Home Affairs Committee. The first focuses on the role of News International and the second on the role of the police.
The report by the Home Affairs committee has already been published and they're not impressed at all. (The pdf of the report was briefly available on The Guardian, but the link to it has been removed.)
Their views on News International:
We deplore the response of News International to the original investigation into hacking. It is almost impossible to escape the conclusion voiced by Mr Clarke that they were deliberately trying to thwart a criminal investigation. We are astounded at the length of time it has taken for News International to cooperate with the police but we are appalled that this is advanced as a reason for failing to mount a robust investigation. The failure of lawbreakers to cooperate with the police is a common state of affairs. Indeed, it might be argued that a failure to cooperate might offer good reason to intensify the investigations rather than being a reason for abandoning them. None of the evidence given to us suggests that these problems were escalated for consideration by the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police or by Ministers. The difficulties were offered to us as justifying a failure to investigate further and we saw nothing that suggested there was a real will to tackle and overcome those obstacles. We note that neither of these carefully-crafted responses is a categorical denial: Ms Brooks’s denial of knowledge of hacking is limited to her time as editor of News of the World; and on payments to police, she did not say that she had no knowledge of specific payments but that she had not intended to give the impression that she had knowledge of specific case.
On the police:
Leaving aside the fact that his approach to our evidence session failed to demonstrate any sense of the public outrage at the role of the police in this scandal, we were very concerned about Mr Hayman’s apparently lackadaisical attitude towards contacts with those under investigation. Even if all his social contacts with News International personnel were entirely above board, no information was exchanged and no obligations considered to have been incurred, it seems to us extraordinary that he did not realise what the public perception of such contacts would be—or, if he did realise, he did not care that confidence in the impartiality of the police could be seriously undermined. We do not expressly accuse Mr Hayman of lying to us in his evidence, but it is difficult to escape the suspicion that he deliberately prevaricated in order to mislead us. This is very serious.
Mr Hayman’s conduct during the investigation and during our evidence session was both unprofessional and inappropriate. The fact that even in hindsight Mr Hayman did not acknowledge this points to, at the very least, an attitude of complacency. We are very concerned that such an individual was placed in charge of anti-terrorism policing in the first place. We deplore the fact that Mr Hayman took a job with News International within two months of his resignation and less than two years after he was—purportedly—responsible for an investigation into employees of that company. It has been suggested that police officers should not be able to take employment with a company that they have been investigating, at least for a period of time.
We are seriously concerned about the allegations of payments being made to the police by the media, whether in cash, kind or the promise of future jobs. It is imperative that these are investigated as swiftly and thoroughly as possible, not only because this is the way that possible corruption should always be treated but also because of the suspicion that such payments may have had an impact on the way the Metropolitan police may have approached the whole issue of hacking. The sooner it is established whether or not undue influence was brought to bear upon police investigations between December 2005 and January 2011, the better.
We are concerned about the level of social interaction which took place between senior Metropolitan Police Officers and executives at News International while investigations were or should have been being undertaken into the allegations of phone hacking carried out on behalf of the News of the world. Whilst we fully accept the necessity of interaction between officers and reporters, regardless of any ongoing police investigations senior officers ought to be mindful of how their behaviour will appear if placed under scrutiny. Recent events have damaged the reputation of the Metropolitan Police and led to the resignation of two senior police officers at a time when the security of London is paramount.
The other committee has not published a report yet, but I don't think it will have much of an effect of Murdoch.
News International have very long tentacles and Murdoch said a few times yesterday that he couldn't answer some of the questions because he didn't want to interfere with the great job the police are doing on the case. It would appear that he's still pretty confident that the police investigations are going to let him off the hook.
All three main players said repeatedly how sorry and appalled they are by the conduct of their employees. They were let down by people they trusted and are not to blame for anything. Murdoch chose to appear frail and forgetful. It was an act, not terribly convincing.
One thing that became clear from the Rebekah Brooks testimony was the close relationship between News International and Tony Blair. I don't think it's a coincidence that Fox News pushed for the invasion of Iraq based on the weapons of mass destruction lies and that Blair used the same arguments to take Britain into an illegal war. Murdoch has an uncanny ability to spot narcissists and exploit their weaknessess.
A couple of MPs tried to establish some connections between News International and the government, but unfortunately, their questions fell outside the remit of the inquiry. The police will be singled out as the bad guys and politicians will be left untouched.
Murdoch has a much wider agenda, far more sinister than just hacking into people's communications for a newspaper's story. The explosive headlines and stories obtained by these methods are the things we see. What about the things we don't? How much damaging information does Murdoch have about people who make the big decisions? How much has he paid to have powerful advocates for his twisted agenda?
Murdoch's media empire provides him with revenue and gives him a platform to influence the public's perceptions. What really worries me are the power games he plays behind the scenes. They are very unlikely to become public or subject to any inquiries...
Being an opportunist, Rupert Murdoch would have jumped into bed with whoever gave him the most power. He tried to invoke his father, a fine journalist, and freedom of the press to paint himself as someone in a quest for the truth.
The truth is, he chose the corporations and those who champion their causes. The corporations run America and have unlimited power. Murdoch's quest has nothing to do with the truth and everything to do with power.
[Link to the UK Parliament website, where the pdf of the full report by the Home Affairs Committee maybe found. H/T to HS]
News International have been denying any wrongdoing for a long, long time.
The Guardian has provided excellent coverage of the hacking scandal and are awaiting confirmation of some further wrongdoing:
IPCC investigating whether John Yates helped daughter of Neil Wallis get job at Metropolitan police, the Guardian learns. Yates denies the claim.
John Yates is the Metropolitan assistant commissioner, who resigned earlier today. It follows the resignation of commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson yesterday.
Neil Wallis was deputy editor of the News of the World.
It seems that there's been a lot of mutual back scratching among News International, the police and some politicians over the years.
So far, a few people have resigned, including Murdoch's protegee Rebekah Brooks, who was arrested on Friday, which could make her appearance before the select committee tomorrow less than spectacular. She may refuse to answer some questions on the grounds of compromising the police investigation.
It's all very dodgy, and I don't trust Murdoch at all. There appears to be some manipulation of the events behind the scenes, or perhaps I'm too cynical, having seen the results of numerous inquiries by select committees in the past.
If this inquiry bears any fruit, many other heads will roll and it will help events in the US gain momentum.
Rupert Murdoch is assembling a team of US lawyers with expertise in fighting large federal criminal cases, suggesting he is readying himself for a bitter legal battle in America as a result of the phone-hacking scandal.
It may have something to do with a certain "Brain Room" that was built in the Fox News headquarters in New York:
A former producer with Fox News claimed in a lengthy essay gaining new traction this week that the conservative television station has a "Brain Room" in its New York headquarters, which enables employees to view private telephone records with ease.
Though published years ago, the allegations have returned to relevance in the wake of the phone hacking scandals that have rocked News Corporation to its very core, threatening to topple one of the world's largest and most powerful media conglomerates.
In addition, people are starting to make information about hacking available, and not in the UK...
An alleged 2003 News of the World phone hack of actor Jude Law and his personal assistant Ben Jackson while the duo were in New York is the first specific case of Rupert Murdoch’s law-breaking reporters operating in America.
Because the mobile phones were operating on American networks, United States law applies. Hacking into phones is a violation of Federal law and could also involve civil suits. Both Jude Law and Ben Jackson have retained counsel.
The plot is getting very convoluted and thickening by the minute.
On the UK side, I have some hope that the Guardian and the Independent won't let go of any of this, forcing the authorities to act decisively. Not all politicians and not all the police are under a cloud of suspicion and many of them are clean, with nothing to fear from Murdoch. I place my trust in them.
As for the American side, we don't know the extent of any hacking or who has the most to fear in case Murdoch has any dirt on them. His legal team may be able to make things go away, we'll have to wait and see.
One thing I know for sure: The penalties in the US are much stiffer than in Britain when people are found guilty of any crime.
Sean Hoare, the former News of the World showbiz reporter who was the first named journalist to allege Andy Coulson was aware of phone hacking by his staff, has been found dead, the Guardian has learned.
Hoare, who worked on the Sun and the News of the World with Coulson before being dismissed for drink and drugs problems, is said to have been found dead at his Watford home.
Hertfordshire police would not confirm his identity, but the force said in a statement: "At 10.40am today [Monday 18 July] police were called to Langley Road, Watford, following the concerns for the welfare of a man who lives at an address on the street. Upon police and ambulance arrival at a property, the body of a man was found. The man was pronounced dead at the scene shortly after.
"The death is currently being treated as unexplained, but not thought to be suspicious. Police investigations into this incident are ongoing."
I thought I'd include this update, even though the police are not treating his death as suspicious at the moment. They're very cagey at the start of any investigation. The timing of Hoare's death is certainly suspicious, and I'll keep an eye on any further developments.
If this proves to be murder, it will change everything. Let's hope it doesn't come to a complete whitewash.
