The New York Times reported today that Fox News president Roger Ailes is identified in affidavits as the News Corp. executive who allegedly encouraged one of his colleagues to lie to federal investigators who were vetting Bernard Kerik's nomination to lead the Department of Homeland Security:
It was an incendiary allegation -- and a mystery of great intrigue in the media world: After the publishing powerhouse Judith Regan was fired by HarperCollins in 2006, she claimed that a senior executive at its parent company, News Corporation, had encouraged her to lie to federal investigators two years before.
The investigators had been vetting Bernard B. Kerik, the former New York City police commissioner who had been nominated to become secretary of Homeland Security and who had had an affair with Ms. Regan.
The goal of the News Corporation executive, according to Ms. Regan, was to keep the affair quiet and protect the then-nascent presidential aspirations of former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, Mr. Kerik's mentor and supporter.
But Ms. Regan never revealed the identity of the executive, even as her allegation made headlines and she brought a wrongful termination suit against HarperCollins and News Corporation.
But now, affidavits filed in a separate lawsuit reveal the identity of the previously unnamed executive: Roger E. Ailes, chairman of Fox News.
What is more, the documents say that Ms. Regan taped the telephone call from Mr. Ailes in which Mr. Ailes discusses her relationship with Mr. Kerik.
The Times further reported:
Recently, Fox & Friends' hosts and guests have made a series of sexist comments to and about women. Indeed, Fox & Friends has a long history of sexism which also permeates throughout Fox News and mirrors a culture at parent company News Corp that has led to numerous sexual harassment and discrimination lawsuits.
It doesn't take long to spot a lie in the new tea party book by Scott Rasmussen and Doug Schoen -- Mad as Hell: How the Tea Party Movement is Fundamentally Remaking Our Two-Party System.
On page four in the book's introduction, the authors write (highlighting added):
For something to be "patently false" it must actually be false and not demonstrably true. Unfortunately for Rasmussen and Schoen, the later happens to be the case.
Let's look at this piece-by-piece, shall we?