Posted on 02/24/2011 2:01:57 PM PST by Cardhu
It was an incendiary allegation — and a mystery of great intrigue in the media world: After the publishing powerhouse Judith Regan was fired by HarperCollins in 2006, she claimed that a senior executive at its parent company, News Corporation, had encouraged her to lie to federal investigators two years before.
The investigators had been vetting Bernard B. Kerik, the former New York City police commissioner who had been nominated to become homeland security secretary and who had had an affair with Ms. Regan.
The goal of the News Corporation executive, according to Ms. Regan, was to keep the affair quiet and protect the then-nascent presidential aspirations of former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, Mr. Kerik’s mentor and supporter.
But Ms. Regan never revealed the identity of the executive, even as her allegation made headlines and she brought a wrongful termination suit against HarperCollins and News Corporation.
But now, affidavits filed in a separate lawsuit reveal the identity of the previously unnamed executive: Roger E. Ailes, chairman of Fox News.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Headline seems to be baloney. Those aren’t “records” in the sense of neutral/ unbiased, bureaucratically-generated documents. They’re affidavits in a lawsuit seeking to gain millions of dollars. It’s just “Stuff the Plaintiff swears is true.” That’s not “documentary evidence” like a receipt, a plane ticket or a tape recording.
Affiant alleges Fox News...
Because you're right. The word "records" used in this context, is misleading. These are records of someone's allegation, that's all.
Does this smell like blackmail to anyone else?
Oh. Judith Regan.
What a pathetic attention whore. She even went on “Millionaire Matchmaker” to desperately try to stay in the public eye.
But somehow I think this entire article was written with only one purpose - to insert this sentence:
the tape could be highly embarrassing to Mr. Ailes, a onetime adviser to Richard Nixon whom critics deride as a partisan who engineers Fox News coverage to advance Republicans and damage Democrats, something Fox has long denied.
LOL. I almost feel sorry for the obsessing rodents at the NYT.
Who really cares? MSDNC, CNN, ABCCBSNBC goons lie ALL the time if it involves their diversity president in a bad way.
Well, for an old coot like Gaffer, Judi is a definite ‘do’.....
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1755454/posts
Publisher allegedly cited ‘Jewish cabal’ [Judith Regan]
AP ^ | December 18, 2006 | HILLEL ITALIE
“In an explosive telephone argument that led to her firing, publisher Judith Regan allegedly complained of a “Jewish cabal” against her in the book industry and stated that “Of all people, Jews should know about ganging up, finding common enemies and telling the big lie.”
A spokesman for Regan’s former employer, Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp., told The Associated Press on Monday that the remarks were based on notes taken by HarperCollins attorney Mark Jackson... “
Its just about sex.
Why is the NY Times so obsessed with sex?
Its time to move on, this is old news.
Someone should call this reporter at 2am and let her know 2 pieces of news. 1. She is now a witness and 2. The brother of another witness was just killed in a hit and run.
ahhh, the good old clinton days...
I can just imagine putting her on my to-do list and then showing the list to Mrs. P2 as she gives it the daily management review.
Well, the problem is that yer apparently supervised too much...ha ha....
Hmmm ... I'd say she's broad where a broad should be broad ...
But she's also daft, and that gets boring quickly.
WRONG. What's 'incendiary' is when a woman accuses the President of the United States of rape and the FBI finds it 'credible'.
Too bad the New York Times had the hots for Clinton - or they might not have missed that story. Eff the New York Times - they suck more.
Well now. That’s just plain racist! You’re making a direct slam at the double-wide beam of our First Lady! Hell, them boob belts cover it up some, don’t they?
She looks like she weighs a little more than one hundred and one.
New York Times stoops to a new low. If that is possible.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.