Early in the afternoon of Friday, July 22, Gretchen let me know that someone wanted an anonymous telephone consultation. I conduct them occasionally, the only requirement being that I receive my usual ninety-minute minimum fee in advance. Gretchen explained these terms and instructed my would-be anonymous interlocutor on the procedure for an electronic funds transfer to the bank account I maintain in Zurich for these and similar such situations. Less than an hour later I remember reflecting that, whoever they were, this person certainly seemed to know the drill – the money was in place and the appointment time set. Given my schedule on Friday, it turned out to be rather late, but still daylight, when Gretchen put my mystery guest through on Line One.
Anonymous Caller: Hello? Tom Collins?
Tom: At your service, madame.
Anonymous Caller: “Madame?” What makes you think I’m a woman? Couldn’t I just be a man with a high voice?
Tom: Why yes, I suppose you could. Bu hao yi si. Dui bu qi.
Anonymous Caller: What are you speaking Chinese to me for? Do I sound Chinese to you?
Tom: Well, um… I do, in fact, detect a distinct residual Jiansu Mandarin accent to your admittedly excellent English – sir or madame, as the case may be.
Anonymous Caller: They told me you’re pretty smart, Tom Collins. But you better watch out you aren’t too smart for your own good.
Tom: I shall do my utmost in that regard, I assure you.
Anonymous Caller: Good, because you’ll be pretty sorry if you don’t. I’m rough and I’m tough and if you dare to cross me, I will deflect you like a shaving cream pie!
Tom: Understood.
Anonymous Caller: I’m not kidding, Collins! I’m very rich and I’m very mean; I always get what I want, and I always, always win – every time, do you hear me?
Tom: Consider me adequately warned, duly chastised and sorely afraid. Now – how may I be of assistance?
Anonymous Caller: I’m calling about Rupert Murdoch.
Tom: I see. What about him?
Anonymous Caller: I just found out the US Justice Department is going to subpoena him.
Tom: I think that they’re going to subpoena News Corporation in New York, actually, but I see your point – as Charles de Gaulle said, “I am France,” so Rupert Murdoch might as well say, “I am News Corporation.” As I’ve heard it, DOJ is interested primarily in two things – whether News Corporation employees hacked the cell phones of September 11 victims and whether the bribes recently discovered to have been paid by News Corporation employees to British police officials constitute a violation of the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
Anonymous Caller: Well, do they?
Tom: I am not a lawyer. I’m a policy consultant. I would say, however, that it sounds like a rather novel application of the FCPA. The intent of Congress has generally been understood to be that the law is intended to keep American companies – say, Lockheed – from bribing government officials in foreign countries – Japan, for instance – to get contracts – to build aircraft, for example. My layman’s guess regarding the current legal situation is that DOJ will have to prove that News Corporation’s business derived material benefit to its revenues and profits by paying those bribes to Scotland Yard.
Anonymous Caller: Can they do that?
Tom: I suppose it might not be too much of a stretch, considering that the… arrangements… which Andy Coulson alledgedly made with John Yates and Paul Stephenson at Scotland Yard, allegedly through Clive Goodman and Neil Wallis at the alleged behest of Les Hinton, were allegedly connected with covering up alleged cell phone hacking, the commission of which apparently lead to the sale of a lot of Mr. Murdoch’s newspapers. Not that everyone involved couldn’t be as innocent as the Bobbsey Twins – except Glenn Mulcaire, of course, because he’s already plead guilty and gone to jail for cell phone hacking.
Anonymous Caller: What about hacking the 9/11 victims’ cell phones?
Tom: Oh, that… well… if the FBI can prove that, you don’t have to be a lawyer – even an ordinary mortal can see that would be pretty clear violation of United States telecommunications and privacy protection laws, not to mention a whole slew of New York state statutes, too.
Anonymous Caller: But how can they hold Rupert responsible? He’s a good man! He didn’t know anything about this!
Tom: Well, his son James seems to have gotten into some pretty hot water lately by claiming he didn’t know anything. Now he’s been accused of lying to Parliament about it.
Anonymous Caller: James? Of course James knew! Of course he lied about it! Screw him! He’s a bum! A lousy son, that’s what he is! An incompetent fool! A big ingrate! Rupert ought to throw him out of the business and cut him out of his will, too!
Tom: Golly, tell me how you really feel.
Anonymous Caller: I hate him, that’s how! Who does he think he is, anyway? Rich, spoiled brat born with a silver spoon in his mouth! Taking everything for granted, like he has some kind of hereditary right to run News Corporation! Well, he doesn’t, okay? News Corporation is a great empire, built by Rupert Murdoch – and Rupert Murdoch alone, you understand? And it deserves to be run by someone who knows how to work hard and be successful, not have everything handed to them on a golden platter!
Tom: Uh, right. So, then, I take it you called me because you’re concerned with development of an appropriate strategy to address the extra-legal ramifications and consequences of…
Anonymous Caller: Why are they persecuting him?
Tom: You mean, Mr. Murdoch?
Anonymous Caller: Yes! Why? Why? Why are they hounding this honest, decent, brilliant man as if he were some kind of tawdry, scheming, amoral media tycoon with no conscience, no scruples, no ethics, no integrity and no decency whatsoever?
Tom: I can’t imagine. I mean, it’s not like you can say Rupert Murdoch has gotten bad press, is it? He owns most of the press, after all. Even the newspapers and networks Murdoch doesn’t own have been pussy-footing around the story for months; while Fox News is afraid to even ask him questions about this stuff and the Wall Street Journal actually published an editorial saying… well, basically, what you just said – that he’s being persecuted.
Anonymous Caller: It’s the damned Internet!
Tom: Well, Rupert owns some of the Internet, doesn’t he?
Anonymous Caller: Hulu! Indya! Fatso! MySpace!
Tom: Pardon me, but didn’t News Corporation sell MySpace?
Anonymous Caller: Yeah, in June – for a piddling, stinking thirty-five million dollars! James knows nothing about buying Internet properties! If he would have listened to those who know about that kind of thing, by now News Corporation would own the whole damned Internet, and none of this would be happening!
Tom: I suppose the Guardian should get some credit too, though – or perhaps I should say, blame.
Anonymous Caller: Perhaps you should! Those slimy, conniving Communists at the Guardian! It’s nothing but a cheap vendetta!
Tom: Yes, well, be that as it may, moving right along to the formulation of an appropriate strategy, I would point to the lessons learned by the Nixon administration – in Washington, it’s not the crime that gets you, it’s the cover-up. While it’s up to DOJ to prove whatever it is they allege concerning the activities of News Corporation employees, Rupert must resolutely resist any temptation to attempt a cover-up. And, I suppose, with what has already happened with his son over in England…
Anonymous Caller: That’s not fair!
Tom: Fair?
Anonymous Caller: Rupert is nowhere near that stupid. Rupert’s a genius! If Rupert wanted something covered up, then the cover-up would work!
Tom: That’s pure, hypothetical speculation, I’m sure.
Anonymous Caller: You are? Draw your own conclusions, then. But there’s nothing to cover up, anyway, at least not as far as Rupert’s concerned. He knew nothing – absolutely nothing. How could he? He’s eighty years old!
Tom: But you just said he’s a genius.
Anonymous Caller: That’s right – Rupert Murdoch is a fabulously wealthy, senile old genius who doesn’t know diddly-squat! That’s the way I like them! That’s the reason I…
Tom: The reason you… what?
Anonymous Caller: Never mind. The point is, he told his people he wanted see solutions, not hear about problems. He told his people he wanted results, not excuses. And that’s all he did. Therefore, he’s not responsible if some of his people – or his people’s people, even – went over the line and did bad things coming up with those solutions and producing those results. The ones who did the bad things should be punished, not Rupert!
Tom: Unfortunately, there is the legal concept of willful blindness.
Anonymous Caller: Meaning what?
Tom: If it can be demonstrated that Mr. Murdoch intentionally put himself in a position where he would be unaware of facts which would render him liable for wrongful acts and profited from those acts nonetheless, that would be an act of knowing recklessness for which the law could hold him responsible.
Anonymous Caller: Could?
Tom: If his lawyers can’t beat up DOJ’s lawyers, yes, definitely. But I’m sure that’s not going to be a problem.
Anonymous Caller: Absolutely not. He has more lawyers than a shar pei has wrinkles, and the best ones money can buy, too!
Tom: Okay, good. I notice Rupert’s been doing some serious apologizing over there in Britain.
Anonymous Caller: But he’s got nothing to apologize for!
Tom: Maybe so, but did the right thing, scraping and groveling like he did, and when the rubber hits the road here in the United States, he needs to keep doing it. If it comes out that News Corporation hacked 9/11 victims’ cell phones, then he should personally apologize to every family member of every 9/11 victim and make sure Fox News covers it, wall-to-wall. If DOJ convicts News Corporation for violations of the FCPA, he should go on prime time Fox television and apologize as believably and as tearfully as possible. He must not deny any of it, try to make excuses for any of it, or try to explain any of it.
Anonymous Caller: You think that will be enough?
Tom: No, not quite. Although Americans are complete suckers for that kind of malarkey, to seal the deal here, Rupert will have to do some other things, too.
Anonymous Caller: Like what?
Tom: I recommend he follow the example of other such… distinguished personages, such as John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, and Bill Gates. He should found a grand philanthropic foundation.
Anonymous Caller: Charity? He already gives money to charity.
Tom: Oh, come on now – he’s currently dead last among the world’s wealthiest individuals in charitable funding. He will have to turn that around, and pronto. The public in general and Americans in particular find it extremely difficult to work up ire and hatred for noted philanthropists. It’s simply the best way for any scoundrel to escape opprobrium.
Anonymous Caller: I don’t know if I can talk him… that is, I’m not sure he’ll go for that.
Tom: I don’t doubt it, but nevertheless, I strongly suggest he start giving away money like it’s going out of style.
Anonymous Caller: Oh, all right – and what else?
Tom: He should find Jesus.
Anonymous Caller: Well, he’s certainly no atheist at the moment, you know.
Tom: Yes, I’m sure he’s going to Heaven, but I mean he’s got to become a Born Again fundamentalist Christian and go on all the major American talk shows to be interviewed about it.
Anonymous Caller: Hmm… Actually, I think that will be easier for him than giving away all that money. Anything else?
Tom: No, that’s it.
Anonymous Caller: And you think this will work?
Tom: I guarantee, if he does all that, the Department of Justice won’t be able to touch him with a ten foot writ of capias.
Anonymous Caller: Okay, I’ll tell… I mean, I need to analyze your consultation. Can I call you back later?
Tom: Certainly. According to my watch, you have sixty-two minutes left.
Anonymous Caller: Mine says sixty-seven.
Tom: No problem, sixty-seven minutes it is.
Anonymous Caller: Okay. Good bye, then.
Tom: Thanks, and have a nice day.