BARRETT: FOX NEWS CHIEF ROGER AILES WILL BE NAMED AS EXEC WHO TOLD REGAN TO LIE - COULD GET 5 YEARS

[Dems Will Win]

Did Fox News chief Ailes try to protect Rudy Giuliani?

In her suit against News Corp., publisher Judith Regan never names the man she claims told her to lie for Giuliani, but he sounds a lot like Giuliani pal Roger Ailes.

Nov. 16, 2007 | In two recent televised interviews, investigative reporter Wayne Barrett ventured an educated guess about the identity of the unnamed heavy in former ReganBooks publisher Judith Regan's lawsuit -- the suit in which Regan claims that her former bosses at News Corp., the parent firm of Fox News, want Rudy Giuliani to be president. A longtime observer of Giuliani from his perch at New York alternative weekly the Village Voice and the author of "Grand Illusion: The Untold Story of Rudy Giuliani and 9/11," Barrett takes as a given what many observers suspect, that the executive whom Regan claims urged her to lie to protect Giuliani is none other than Fox News chief Roger Ailes.

"The funny thing about Judith Regan's complaint is that she doesn't refer to Roger Ailes by name for the first 16 pages, right?" Barrett told Keith Olbermann of MSNBC on Wednesday. "But Roger Ailes is ... clearly the person she is referring to as this senior executive who made all these suggestions to her."

The next day, on "Democracy Now," host Amy Goodman opened her segment with Barrett by stating as fact that "Regan ... was talking about Roger Ailes." Barrett responded, "I'm sure you're correct."

Ailes was a veteran GOP political operative before he launched Fox News in 1996, and is also a personal friend and former employee of Giuliani's. But is he really the unnamed "senior executive" in Regan's 70-page complaint?

...

In her complaint, Regan describes introducing Kerik to the unnamed senior executive, "who was also a close ally of Rupert Murdoch," and "confid in this executive regarding the details and nature of her relationship with Kerik."

"At the end of 2001," continues the complaint, "this senior News Corp. executive knew full well that Kerik and Giuliani -- fresh from carrying the heroic halo of September 11th -- were well-positioned for greater political power. So when Regan became the victim of a theft at the Fox News Channel, and Kerik -- not Regan -- used his authority as NYC Police Commissioner to send NYPD detectives out to investigate, this executive spun the story that it was Regan -- not Kerik -- who caused the detectives to knock on the doors of Fox News employees, and that it was Regan -- not Kerik -- who was out of control."

"Inside the company, this senior News Corp. executive openly blamed Regan for the incident, even though he absolutely knew that it was not the case. He convinced others (including Rupert Murdoch) that somehow Regan was out-of-control."

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/11/16/ailes/index1.html

Well, that senior News Corp executive has to be Roger Ailes, after Karl Rove and Dick Cheney, possibly the main reason Bush got elected and re-elected. So it looks like Barrett is right. The obstruction of justice and tampering was committed by Roger Ailes himself!

But that's not all. There is another direct tie to Ailes in this paragraph of the lawsuit, where Regan mentions the exec giving out his typical marching orders to Fox News talent. This is the real smoking gun showing that Barrett is correct -- it is Roger Ailes:

"In December 2004, this News Corp. senior executive told Regan that he believed she had information about Kerik that, if disclosed, would harm Kerik's Homeland Security nomination, and more importantly Giuliani's planned presidential campaign. This senior executive was concerned about this information being made public, and counseled Regan to lie and withhold information from investigators concerning Kerik. In fact, as is typically done when Fox News on-air talent and commentators receive their 'talking points,' this executive attempted to influence any information Regan might be asked to give regarding Kerik."

So there you have it folks. Our nemesis, Roger Ailes himself, appears to be charged with Obstruction of Justice by Judith Regan. The penalty is 5 years:

§ 1505. Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees

Whoever, with intent to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance, in whole or in part, with any civil investigative demand duly and properly made under the Antitrust Civil Process Act, willfully withholds, misrepresents, removes from any place, conceals, covers up, destroys, mutilates, alters, or by other means falsifies any documentary material, answers to written interrogatories, or oral testimony, which is the subject of such demand; or attempts to do so or solicits another to do so; or

Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress —

Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

If you would like to get my points out there, send them to KO. Roger Ailes is likely to get up to 5 years, if Regan has the "damning and extensive" audio tapes she claims to have.

Spare some K&Rs?

[Mz Pip]

1. How much coverage is this getting?

Other than KO is this getting any deserved attention? It hasn't been in our newspaper that I know of.

Roger Ailes is sleaze and fancies himself as a kingmaker. He was successful with Georgie and his "news" organization sure has been the major cheerleader for BushCo's talking points.

I hope this gets the attention it deserves.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[liberalnurse]

3. Roger Ailies also hired Chris Matthews

in the early 90's, just pre-Fox News, at CNBC/ MSNBC....best buddies, his idea for Matthews to do a show. Matthews is a loyalist and the rest is history.

[City Lights]

17. Dan Abrams has also covered it.

That's still the same network, but at least it's not just KO. Since MSNBC is covering it, I would expect it to get some coverage on NBC, but I don't know that it has.

Also, since this directly involves a competing network, I'd expect all the other networks to be hitting Fox Noise hard. Why they apparently aren't is a mystery to me.

[Mz Pip]

18. Maybe they are waiting

for more tidbits to come out. If there are tapes that would rachet up the coverage I would hope.

Interesting the Mitwit pulled out of the Fox debate. Wasn't he the one who said of the Democrats when they refused to debate on Fox, "If they can't handle a Fox debate how can they deal with terrorism? Or something similar to that.

Perhaps he suspects how serious this could be for the GOP and wants to distance himself from the fray once it hits. We shall see.

I've stocked up on :popcorn:

Mz Pip
:dem:

[Dems Will Win]

19. They are claiming to have damning tapes

[City Lights]

24. Frank Rich wrote about it today.

What 'That Regan Woman' Knows

[seemslikeadream]

2. When I choose a word it means just what I choose it to mean

[OregonBlue]

4. So if this suit fails and she settles, wouldn't congress be interested in those tapes?

Wouldn't they want to know what went on?

[hisownpetard]

5. Can you run a TV network from prison? Let's hope not.

[MidwestTransplant]

6. Couldn't the FBI or DOJ supponea this information from her?

The fact that she states she has them and wants to negotiate based on this fact itself would seem to open them up to disclosure to law enforcement. I don't know why she would disclose publicly. Sounds like blackmail even.

[librechik]

7. A few years back Fax was sued by reporters who claimed they were forced to lie--Faux won.

I know, I know. I'm just sayin, if we think this is a slam dunk, get ready for a surprise.

[The Backlash Cometh]

12. I wondered if it was appealed, because their argument was that news organizations

had the first amendment right to lie to the public, if they wanted to.

[librechik]

16. I doubt it--I think we would have heard

:puke:

[havocmom]

22. That was the first thing came to mind for me too. FAUX has court OK to demand lies

from employees.

[samsingh]

8. kr

[HCE SuiGeneris]

9. He is a terraist. Lock 'em up and throw away the keys. n/t

[VP505]

10. Roger Ailes

gets convicted and a 5 year sentence, sure, and those monkeys that just flew out of my ass are on their way to to deliver the news to Ailes personally.

[Dems Will Win]

15. Unless the case is brought by a Democratic President

[DemoTex]

11. Roger Ailes: Just another name for the Bu$h ever-expanding Pardon List.

As the assholic Poppy Bu$h would say, "Watch and learn."

[Dems Will Win]

13. The question to Giuliani is: would he pardon Kerik AND Ailes, if elected President?

[otohara]

14. Sweet

Oh how lovely it would be to see propagandist fat ass sit in jail for a few years

[Dems Will Win]

20. kick

[Dems Will Win]

21. kick

[HughMoran]

23. Darn, no death penatly for this infraction?

:evilgrin:

[Dems Will Win]

25. kick