Wednesday, July 20, 2011

Wall Street Journal Continues Counterattack On Basic Morality

The Wall Street Journal has always been a foaming-at-the-mouth right wing rag on its editorial and op-ed pages. This preceded Murdoch's takeover by decades. Nothing has changed in that regard since.

So no doubt they would be rabidly defending "News" Corp. even if it wasn't now part of "News" Corp.

Today they're at it again (apparently this is going to be a daily thing going forward from now on), this time with an op-ed by a couple of legal hitmen from the GOP, name of David B. Rifkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey, oppressors who operated out of the Department of "Justice" during the regimes of Reagan and Bush the Elder. They INSIST, bizarrely, that the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act DOES NOT APPLY TO MEDIA CORPORATIONS. (I know, it's ridiculous. It's not worth bothering repeating their pseudo-legal legerdemain here, much less refuting it.) The reason they are saying this is because some U.S, senators think "News" Corp. may have violated it by bribing British policemen. [In fact, bribing police in the UK would MOST DEFINITELY BE  a violation of the FCPA.]

So this is an attempt to head off at the pass any motion to investigate "News" Corp. for criminal violations in the U.S. Not to worry, the FBI is a rightwing political police who can surely be counted on to give "News" Corp. protection in this regard. And since the U.S. is in an advanced state of political degeneracy, totally dominated by reactionaries and neofascists, nothing will come of it. But reactionaries are nothing if not hysterical, thus the overreaction. The title of this commentary shrieks of "The New First Amendment Threat." See, raise a finger to enforce laws against Rupert Murdoch, and you're assaulting our precious freedoms!

Get bent, you right-wing dogs.

Murdoch Hush Money To Chief Phone Hacker Finally Stops

Turns out that all these years News International (corp. umbrella for all Murdoch's UK papers, headed until Friday by redhaired harridan Rebekah Brooks) was paying the legal bills for "private investigator" Glenn Mulcaire, the snoop convicted back in 2007 for hacking the "royals'" phones. At that time, Murdoch's minions and their co-conspirators in the Metropolitan police thought they had successfully contained the scandal with the cover story that two "rogues" did all the hacking, and that the hacking wasn't of 4000 victims, but just a handful.

Somehow, Brooks knew nothing about any of this. Didn't know her company was paying Mulcaire's legal bills all these years? Was that yet another rogue in the co. paying them on his own authority without telling anyone?

And Brooks and Murdoch are thick as thieves- she's described as "like a daughter" to him- he was in the dark. Just endless lies from these people- as well as fake pledges of  "internal investigations" and "cooperation" while they stonewall, cover up, and destroy evidence.

Meanwhile one key witness, Sean Hoare, mysterious "dies" just in time to prevent his use in prosecutions. Hmmm. But it only took police a few minutes to say it wasn't "suspicious." A day later they insisted it was a perfectly natural death for a man in his 40s- although they couldn't give a cause of death, nor have toxicology tests been completed.

Kind of like how they "knew" that the phone hacking was down to just 2 people, and only involved the "royals."

Tuesday, July 19, 2011

Next Stop For Dominique Strauss-Kahn's Victim: Prison?

That would be ironic, but well within the realm of possibility. We've seen the unprecedented spectacle of a District Attorney, Cyrus Vance Jr. (spawn of Jimmy Carter's Secretary of State) of Manhattan publicly and thoroughly trash his own key witness, the victim herself. He's all but dropped the case already.

The victim has been caught committing immigration fraud (lying on an asylum application), tax fraud (claiming someone else's child as her own dependent for the extra deduction) and laundering money for drug dealers/counterfeit goods peddlers. At a minimum she's looking at deportation.

Which just goes to show, people with legal vulnerabilities CANNOT GO TO THE POLICE IF THEY ARE CRIME VICTIMS. Police and courts are ONLY for  WORTHY victims. That's nothing new in America.

Meanwhile DSK and his rich and power French elite cronies and backers will claim he was innocent, vindicated, a victim of a "barbaric" U.S. legal system. (Of course it is barbaric in many instances, but not this one.) They'll gnash their teeth at the "injustice" of DSK losing his cushy post as head of the IMF, an enforcement agency for international finance capital and enemy of millions of people.

His lawyers floated the story that the assault victim asked him for money afterwards, and he refused. Maybe that's when he bellowed "DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM?" The way he looks at it, being used for his sexual pleasure is a privilege. Ungrateful Hottentot!

Monday, July 11, 2011

British Judge Quashed Case Against Murdoch Spies

Something really rotten in Albion. A British judge, who should be considered a criminal accomplice, quashed a strong case against Murdoch-hired spies who targeted top Labour party politicians. One of their methods was getting info from police databases via a corrupt cop.

The details are at The Guardian:

"Evidence of illegal data checks on Gordon Brown buried by 2005 ruling:
Judge ruled that proposed trial based on key discoveries by Plymouth police would be a waste of taxpayers' money"


British Police Stonewalled PM On Murdoch's Spying On Him

Almost unbelievably, when then-Prime Minister of Britain Gordon Brown asked the police whether Murdoch's malevolent minions had spied on his telephone messages, the police STONEWALLED THE PRIME MINISTER OF THE COUNTRY to PROTECT RUPERT MURDOCH. So who's the real power in Britain? Obviously Murdoch.

See The Guardian: "Gordon Brown must have felt the Sun was out to destroy him: News that the Sun obtained details of the former prime minister's son's illness will confirm his entourage's worst suspicions"

Friday, July 01, 2011

Dominique Straus-Kahn Beating Rape Rap

I was just thinking yesterday about how he was probably going to beat the rap, based on sliming the accuser/victim. Today the news hits that the prosecutors' case is falling apart, and they're changing bail conditions to free on own recognizance (he gets the bail money back, he's not under house arrest, he can fire his guards), because the housekeeper was caught in a number of lies. Lies about her activities, and about her asylum application.

Worse, she's mixed up with drug (marijuana) dealers. She called one in jail the day after the incident, which was recorded of course, during which she made a comment about turning it to her advantage. And $100,000 was laundered through her bank account. And she had 4 or so cellphones she hid from the prosecutors, claiming she had only one phone. So her credibility is shot.

None of which doesn't mean she wasn't assaulted. The fact is, there was no time delay between her "encounter" in the hotel room and her reporting it, apparently upset so her managers and the police and prosecutors all found her credible. She probably didn't know who he was. And he apparently didn't tell the police that he had consensual sex with her. Recall that his lawyers were saying IF there was sex, it WAS consensual. Doesn't sound like a consensual situation.

Imagine if instead the case was being mugged in the park, No witnesses, just the word of the victim vs. the robber. The robber says the victim 1) didn't give him any money, or 2) gave him a handout, or 3) gave him a loan. Show that the victim "has a history" of giving people money doesn't cause everyone to disbelieve the robbery victim! In such a case, the victim's word is believed, even if the victim isn't a perfectly pristine, upstanding, totally "respectable" citizen. Likewise with most crimes where there are no third party witnesses.

Somehow rape is different. The victim is always on trial.

Of course, it's possible that the sex was "consensual." That is one crafty, quick-thinking African hustler in that case. She would have immediately had to think to herself, "I'll have sex with him and then say I was assaulted." But why wouldn't she have had intercourse with him in that case? Wouldn't she figure it would be easier to prove sex occurred with his semen in her? I think so.