|
Cacique's Recomended Reading List for week of November 12, 2007
|
Posted on 11/14/2007 8:19:49 AM PST by IrishMike
It’s hard to find good scapegoats these days. After taking the fall for the O.J. Simpson book deal last year, Judith Regan is back with a $100 million defamation suit against News Corp.
In her case, Regan claims that HarperCollins told her to lie about her affair with Bernard K. Kerik, the former New York police commissioner. How Regan and Kerik got together remains a mystery, but conservative America is starting to seem like one big high school.
According to the suit, Regan told a company executive in 2001 about her relationship with Kerik, whose memoir she published following the September 11 attacks. After Bush nominated Kerik to be homeland security secretary, one executive told Regan to “lie to, and to withhold information from, investigators concerning Kerik” according to the suit.
The company allegedly told Regan to cover up her relationship with Kerik to protect Rudy Giuliani, who had recommended Kerik to Bush. Of course, Kerik’s own sketchy background including, but not limited to, accepting free construction work from a contract company which may have had ties to the mob, tax fraud and hiring an illegal immigrant, would provide more than enough embarrassment to Giuliani even without the Regan affair.
Regan also continues her claim that she had never made the anti-Semitic comment that News Corp. used to fire her over the O.J. Simpson book. The suit also contends that Rupert Murdoch and Jane Friedman, the president of HarperCollins, loved the book until everyone else was like, “are you for serious?”
Whether this suit will be dismissed and ridiculed like Dan Rather’s remains to be seen. The sad truth for Regan is that Don Imus’s lawsuit/redemption story is her best case scenario.
(Excerpt) Read more at jossip.com ...
|
Cacique's Recomended Reading List for week of November 12, 2007
|
When you treat so many people so shabbily as Regan has allegedly done, bad things will come around.
Who is "conservative" in this story exactly?
Not those involved, or the ‘valley girls’ writing it.
I particularly liked the way the NYT managed to slip in a alleged conversation between Regan and Murdoch which allegedly took place on Feb 14th, 2006. Regan is ever the publicist, and the NYT hates Murdoch, particularly now that he has arranged to purchase the WSJ. So, given the opportunity - the Times enjoyed making the insinuation.
What fascinates me is the fact that had I been tasked to make her look foolish, my ideas would have been hopelessly outclassed by her own bimboness (tm). And... this is supposedly a progressive example of new womanhood? Pshaw!! I’ll take Anne Coulter, Laura Ingraham, etc anytime. Our ladies have intelligence, class... and are tough chicks to boot!
I agree.......bad for Rudy suits me just fine!
“There is a cabal all right, the liberal media.”
I didn’t know that Rupert Murdoch is a liberal.
I didn’t know that Rupert Murdoch is a liberal.
.......................................................
Murdoch is definitely no liberal. His News Corp adventures are a breath of fresh air, in contrast to the media, the vast majority being Liberal.
he has shown some troublesome tendency to ‘promote’ liberals such as Hildabeast, but over all I believe News Corp has been so successful because it entered a market leaning right and grabbed a sizable % market share.
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.
