Rebekah Brooks stated the legal services paid for and the agreement to pay for them by News Corp is a form of accommodating the crime.
I am going to displace the concept to bring focus. Let's say there is malpractice in a hospital and a lawsuit if filed. The hospital employs many people. Those people are witnesses to any malpractice or negligence. Commonly, very commonly, nurses and those that document are mentored into 'documenting defensively.' In other words they are not suppose to implicate any physician, staff member or anyone else in any way in committing any incident the hospital might be legally responsible.
That is a fact and it happens in the medical profession everyday.
In the larger world professionals such as physical therapists, nurses, respiratory therapists have the option of having a personal liability policy to cover any such incident so they aren't impacted by others or themselves in their lives.
This is getting ugly and lengthy, but, then imagine a nurses working on a hospital unit having their own insurance and some not having their own 'practice' insurance. (practice insurance is know by the public as malpractice insurance). Now, imagine 'an incident' of negligence occurring on that unit. There are anywhere from two to three shifts per unit with professionals rotating through to cover the 'care needs' of the patients on that unit. The documentation by the 'staff' is not necessarily going to be identical for several reasons, but, one of those reasons is that some see themselves as 'safe' to practice according to ethical and legal standards of their profession and some are not. Where professionals providing patient care are only insured by the hospital their 'demeanors' and 'their advice' regarding any incident that requires testimony in court is dictated by the same legal team serving the hospital. There are hospitals in this country that ask all their staff to not carry independent practice policies for that reason alone. Because if a nurse has a personal practice policy the lawyers involved with her policy will be different than those representing the hospital and the testimony of that nurse, based on her documentation, could be very different and implicate others rather than exonerate them.
The same dynamic is playing out here with the testimony of the people subpoenaed to testify today to the British panel. Rebeckah Brooks stated the legal fees were paid and will be paid by New Corp because the employees leaving asked that to be the case. It is my estimation the legal fees were offered as a settlement to those leaving the paper so News Corp had control of the outcome through their legal team. At any rate, it is unethical for such dynamics to exist, even though it does, because of conflict of interest between the employees and the company. Actions by employees are not necessarily within policy, especially where that corporate culture is corrupt and over reaches its authority.
In regard to USA Entitlements and the Debt Ceiling.
Oh, yeah, Brooks also contradicts the amount of 'contact' between the Managing Editors and Rupert. He stated, 'when he had to' and she stated, 'one or twice a week.' Once or twice a week of a global organization the size of New Corp is micromanagement, company policy and practice and not a casual interest. It is my estimation Brooks is more correct as she has been arrested and has more on the line as her testimony will be considered in her legal charges which could even extend them.
I want to entertain the thought that 'extending and strengthening' Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid might be an excellent strategic move for the Middle Class and Poor.
If I may.
There was a profound reality that existed in the years of Bush and Cheney and that was SSI, Medicare and Medicaid were under attack in a very unique way. I have mentioned this before. :Literally, Bush would remove the military budget and submit it to Congress annually in that context. It was "W"rong and unethical, but, always seemed to be justified in one way or another and never received the attention it should except perhaps in the pages of newsprint concerned with the topic.
President Obama is looking at the future of the programs and deciding how best to protect them after his years as President. One of the ways is to reduce the size of the PERCENTAGE these programs carry in the federal budget especially since the country and the Joint Chiefs are actively seeking to reduce their budget as time goes by.
We cannot admit there was no such strategy or attack against our entitlement programs that protects the most vulnerable in our country. I happened and if allowed to continue long enough would have succeeded. Part of the goal that is actively generated over and over and over again by this House of Representatives is to bring spending down without raising taxes to provide more stress on the entitlement programs to fall under scrutiny to end them or change them. They don't care about destroying Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid. They have already proven to be hostile to the citizens of the USA in their repeal of the Affordable Health Care Act which never passed the Senate.
Eventually, President Obama will leave the Oval Office and the American citizen will be vulnerable to the ravages of extremist conservatives, which Bush and Cheney are, all over again. I am fairly sure that all problems with our entitlements are being looked at by President Obama and I am also sure he means what he says when stating, "to extend and strengthen' the entitlements.
It is "W"rong that so many Republicans hate the agenda of the American citizens to provide security to our most vulnerable and portraying a country committed to their people without question. It can even be said that destroying entitlements is a human rights violation. But, that does not change the 'status' of the potential to destroy these programs should 'the wind change again' and hostile political interests come into power over our government.
That perspective might be laughable by some. I hope it is. But, the President I elected does the best he can for all of us and I still believe that without any doubt. He doesn't even come close to being "Bush Light" and I'll discuss the issue of the military later.
It has been a day not to forget.
Regards.
