A) You can mind read and determine my interest? Neat trick. (I am interested on where the lines for this, if any, are drawn)
B) I would believe you believe your answer. I personally may or may not agree with it but can’t say till I see what you write (also noting that I can agree a given law is as written but disagree with the law itself). Since when is providing an answer here contingent on other readers believing you? We are to now accept your pronouncements as “Truth” or expect no answer?
That isn’t his style. You carefully select people that will recognize opportunities and act on their own. That way there are no tapes to erase.
I wouldn’t be so sure… we know Obama loves pie… his fingerprints are all over this one.
To the extent there’s a serious question here, yes, it’s arguably a gift for Obama in that it discredits NewsCorp and in that the FBI will be investigating them to see if they hacked into the phone of September 11th victims or their families. (And based on what’s happened so far, I think they probably did.) Does that mean Obama planned any of it? No, of course not. It does work out well for him. At least, it works out well until it really spreads stateside, at which time Fox News stops ignoring the story and starts trying to convince its viewers that Obama is trying to destroy them because they are conservative truth tellers and he hates free speech and he’s always had it in for them.
You’re just lucky I’m not the Obamerator for this forum, or else I’d give you an Oba Note so fast it would make your head spin.
Thou shalt not take thy Lord’s Name in vain?
(Attempted joke, referencing “The One” thread in the Elections subforum. here )
It used to be fairly common for shareholders to sue the company, the board and the managers for dereliction of duty, which would include not managing by prudent business standards. The allowing of many employees over a period of years to abuse privacy certainly states a case for that. However, shareholder derivative suits have been scaled back enormously in the past 15 years because of complaints that they were frivolous and interfered with the operations of the company. So yes, there used to be civil liability for being below the prudent businessman standard. Whether there still is I cannot say. All that falls under the fiduciary duty of a employee (manager) to the owner (shareholder). Whether Mr. Murdoch in particular was in such a position I cannot say. There does appear to be probable cause to investigate criminal activity and for the minority owners to demand an accounting.
To try to get this back on some kind of track (I realize I was reaching in the OP) the culpability of Murdoch and News Corp. in the US isn’t so much in regard to phone hacking. What they are shitting their pants over is that there are laws on the books whereby it is illegal for US citizens and corporations to bribe foreign officials. That is what News Corp. is going to have difficulty explaining to the Justice Dept.
It’s pretty well been established that they bribed foreign officials. Just look at the casualty list. Now they have to answer to the Justice Dept. as an election ramps up. That may have a huge affect on their influence and credibility in an election where Murdoch’s goal was to be kingmaker, just like in the UK. The British Prime Minister suddenly finds himself neck deep in shit. He met with the kingmaker something like 26 times. The shit is spreading fast and stinking more.
Again, this thing has been brewing for years, maybe they got checkmated. We’ll see where it goes.
I hadn’t thought of this. The bribing foreign officials has been a pretty serious criminal charge against US corporations in the past. And the evidence here is strong, as in already pleaded to in some instances. I can’t imagine the Obama administration zealously pursuing one of its political opponents in court however. They seem to think that is not gentlemanly and it would look partisan.
Turns out that Soros isn’t the evil old foreign villain that has gained US citizenship to influence US politics and control the media so much as that describes Rupert Murdoch.