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.
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.
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...
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.
New York Times stoops to a new low. If that is possible.
Well.......goll-eeee if the NYT prints it, it MUST be true!
bump