Transcripts For CSPAN2 Today In Washington 20110908

>> i am just telling you there were very strict -- you seem to be missing what i just said. this document came from the police. it hasn't been looked at, considered experts that you pay close attention to in a perfect area which is -- increasing this country. >> the police have questions to answer as well but the case, if a crime had been committed, they could not hold you to a confidentiality clause. you knew that. you were embarrassed. >> there was a confidentiality clause on both sides. the normal thing would be to stick to the confidentiality clause. >> did james murdock send you a limit? >> i can't remember that. i don't have authority to settle the best figure. >> or any figure. >> again i can't remember -- take half a million and managed to get from there to settle at -- >> were there any other civil cases, open-ended agreement? >> i think i met james murdock place. another one i can remember. wasn't about this series of pages. >> you can throw of what the second meeting was. >> no. absolutely not. >> did you keep him in the loop? did you e-mail him or phone him or send him memos? >> no. i don't remember. >> you don't remember but they might exist. >> a can't remember. >> given there was no current investigation into phone hacking do you accept you lied to was when you told us you investigated this and were satisfied with the explanation you received. >> noaa didn't. >> at the time you told us there was an inquiry. >> maybe. the trend suggested this is the last occasion. when a new development -- evidence for this committee and you say this is devastating evidence of a cover-up, mr. chairman said this means it was last time or it was contradictory. it wasn't a contradiction in any way, shape or form. i hope you will accept that. it was not contradictory. we did not contradict our souls when we put up that statement. i invite you to read it. >> you told us the big question in my mind is -- [inaudible] -- no real suggestion that anybody opened. >> up possible answer. [talking over each other] >> there was no evidence. clearly that this e-mail came through. that settled the case. >> also said that you have a record of it being open to the public or reported. >> that is true. >> the impression you start to give to us didn't matter. >> i challenge anyone to read it because i don't agree with that. >> it is your job to see that the criminal phone hacking at "news of the world" was concealed. you did this on clive goodman's expensive lawyers and continued to pay them even when he pleaded guilty. >> it is not remotely surprising. at the time he was arrested we had no idea -- whether he was not guilty or plead guilty. we will start off by supplying legal representation. that is the decent and correct thing to do. in some states he would plead guilty. the financing of his representation continued. i don't think it is a bad thing. >> even when he was in prison or found guilty. paid salary in prison. >> how the salary was paid -- >> gross misconduct. it was paid then. was it right to pay him 240,000 pound pay off? >> i had nothing to do with that. >> what is your view? >> my view -- >> the truth is you didn't see it. you just thought he had his job and "news of the world". >> that is absolute nonsense. >> the only problem was he got caught. >> that is nonsense. >> you had to conceal the crime. you were desperate to ensure that the hacking was standard at practice at "news of the world" and that is what you told clive goodman he could have his job back and if he did not implicate the paper or its staff. >> confidentiality in this this -- discussions have been waived -- it may be that if you ask them they will tell you that the allegation just made by clive goodman has no truth. >> you promised in order to suppress evidence of criminality at "news of the world". >> that is not true. >> that is why james murdoch agreed to pay the taylor settlement. >> that is not true. >> and payment of the legal fees. >> i didn't know about it. the legal fees were not just criminal representation but when the civil case started, he wasn't cooperating with us in any way, shape or form. he had to have lawyers and they were financed in the hope of actually telling us the full story. >> who agreed? >> i can't remember. >> you did not review obstacles where it was clear that information, only be obtained from that? >> yes. >> did you arrange for lawyers of victims to be monitored by a private detectives? >> yes. >> did you arrange for dossiers to be kept and followed up on that. >> no. >> how much have you received in your employment? nothing? >> i have not had a package. >> and the negotiation? >> i am hoping there will be. >> you expect it. >> i think so. >> what do you settle the derivative? >> most people have -- [talking over each other] >> supposed to be for 90 days. >> provisions about what you can say to this committee? >> no. provisions are there. >> you discussed with news international's lawyers giving evidence? have you ever been in contact with jonathan reese? >> the discussion is left. >> have you been in contact with jonathan reese? >> i met him many years ago. >> when was that? >> many years ago. maybe 10 years ago. >> what was that to do with? >> communication with "news of the world". sometimes on the investigations they need someone to play the role of the chauffeur or undercover investigation bodyguard and he and his partner were used to perform those. >> were you aware of his surveillance of dave cook? >> no. >> were you aware he was contradicted to work for "news of the world" in 2004-5? >> no. >> are you aware now? >> what was on the panorama. >> have you been in contact with philip cameron smith? >> no. >> were you aware of any civil claims against the sun as a result of phone hacking? >> no. >> have you any indication that the sun was implicated in the glen mulcare saga? >> no indication that all. >> are you where the sun may have commissioned glen mulcare? >> i don't have that. >> why did you tell the committee that copeland carry out investigations to go through everything and find out everything that had gone on but vincent copeland told us they carried no indication into phone hacking whatsoever? >> when i came back clive goodman was arrested in august of 2006. went i came back on tuesday which would have been seven days after the arrest, the first meeting at went to -- they were clearly instructed to deal with whatever inquiries that the police put forward. they were actively involved in that role throughout the period. so why would probably think late autumn. >> how many times have you met glen mulcare? how much the objective you have with his lawyers when you were negotiating with the proceedings? >> with his lawyers? i doubt if i had any contact. >> would they have kept you abreast of negotiations with the legal team? >> i am not sure they're as much in the way of negotiations. >> did you follow glen mulcare nondisclosure structure? >> social structures? >> the disclosure structures in the civil case. >> the disclosure discloses whatever. >> when glen mulcare was instructed in march of 2010, did glen mulcare tell you who the people were? >> certainly didn't tell me. >> were you aware that anyone in the company was told who at that time had instructed him? >> no. >> did you ever order surveillance? did you ever ordered commission private investigations to do any surveillance at all? >> i don't know. >> have you received commission reports on the civil case lawyers? >> let me think about last question. i may have had an indication. certainly not in the last few years but maybe -- probably did in fact. maybe a bit of surveillance. maybe something else. it is not unusual. >> did you ever have news international journalists to persuade them to settle their claims? >> no. >> are you aware of any former colleagues who might have done that? >> i am not aware of that. >> are you aware rebecca bob brooks once contacted civil claims? >> no. >> did you advise clive goodman to plead guilty? >> no. >> you mentioned in relation -- to get this absolutely right -- after clive goodman pleaded guilty of these interceptions, ways for him to come back from his sentence? that he felt the country had a duty of care for the secretary and politicians? as he felt that clive goodman, once he had this sentence, once he paid his penalty, that he hoped he could persuade that clive goodman could still come back. in a different role. >> a second chance. >> we heard evidence before the committee that he started into -- to ensure that he was -- clive goodman was looked after. do you think andy colson had something to do with that? >> the day was satisfied. >> to meeting james murdoch to clarify that james murdoch to this committee, he says in that evidence that tom crone told me wrongdoing extended beyond clive goodman and easily for the investigation as necessary. and actual reflection on that meeting. >> that is contrary to what you said. an indication that from what you told mr. murdoch in that meeting he must have been aware wrongdoing extended beyond clive goodman. you are saying that is not the case. >> that is what he said before. i thought you were asking me whether during that meeting it was made known to him. >> and was it? he was made aware? >> as i said, of the document. >> clive goodman is saying he wasn't made aware of the wrongdoing on clive goodman. >> that is what i was saying. >> is that what you said to him? >> a reflection which i said -- told him about the document and the effect of that document clearly is beyond clive goodman. >> there is an important connection here. in that meeting in the full significance of that document, what it meant. >> the document clearly suggests news of the world -- [talking over each other] >> i can't remember. it is three years ago. >> are funded difficult because the ambiguity and something that should be incredibly clear. [talking over each other] >> i can't remember the exact phrases used but i am certain that i explained to him that the case on this basis and production of that document, it is clear that news of the world -- >> you can't be sure -- you do explain to james murdoch -- [talking over each other] >> i just answered the question. [talking over each other] >> you said his relation was correct. >> would you just said. >> you did tell me. on his part, there should be no ambiguity as to whether this evidence meant wrongdoing extended to clive goodman. >> i can't tell you whether on his part. i can only tell you that i explained about "news of the world". >> real ambiguity and the significance of the document that the police required -- out side of the council and outside lawyers, tom crone agreed the significance of this document meant there were two choices. either settle the case or fight the case. fighting the case would have meant going to trial. in that respect, i don't believe there was any ambiguity. the significance of the document being produced was quite clear to be found. >> navigation of the document, was there any ambiguity in what was explained to james murdoch that was made clear to him but only that this document settled the case but this document was in effect proof that there were more at "news of the world" involved in a phone hacking that clive goodman. >> there was evidence to show that clearly one potential journalist may have been implicated but at the time when tom crone talked he denied any knowledge of this document. >> the document is very clear. he relies on the explanation of tom crone to this document exists -- and was absolutely as a result of your discussions in that meeting any indications that you pointed out some detail and wrongdoing extended to clive goodman. >> based on the fact that those outside the consulate extended lawyers. >> and going -- >> it is important because you don't rush into these things. you take time by getting outside advice as it were. with respect, it is significant that that was the advice that they gave. >> of course it was. but in terms of -- an understanding of the broad issues, this is absolutely crucial. james murdoch has been very clear and if that is wrong it is a serious matter. reflection is very important on the crucial second part. >> it seemed to be clear to people. i can speak for james murdoch's recollection of this and can't speak for james murdoch's view that he took away from that meeting. what i took away from that meeting was that there was agreement to settle and that is what happened. >> i would have thought in your position that you would have been extremely clear and made absolutely clear that in a settlement there is evans of further wrongdoing but significant to the company and that has to be dealt with. and was extremely clear. there would have been no room for ambiguity. would be uncertain about that and you would have known for sure. >> i didn't think there was any ambiguity about what had been taken. >> there were two issues. there was settlement of the case and what the settlement of the case meant to the company and is very unclear how it was properly communicated that all land with you missed the meeting it was up in the air and the interview convinced me that you made clear today. the settlement of the company that used to form that. >> with respect, james murdoch was chief executive of the company. he was experienced. i am experienced in what i do. i think everybody understood the seriousness and significance of what was being discussed. i am not sure what you are alluding to to what he should have said or what we should have said from that meeting. he was probably dealing with it as we were. >> the significance is very clear from james murdoch's testimony. he did not -- tom crone did not say anything about wrongdoing. nothing discussed in the meeting led me to believe further investigation was necessary. he is very clear on his reflection of that meeting. you are not. >> i am sorry but i am clear there was no ambiguity about the significance of that document and what options were there for the company to take. one was to settle and one was to fight the case. we took the one to fight the case. as far as i am concerned there was no ambiguity. there was no suggestion then or now that anybody tried to conceal anything. that was a document produced by the police. >> you could not support james murdoch's recommendations from that meeting. he misremembers what was discussed? >> the reason why the clarification was put out in the first place was simply because it was alleged wrongfully that as a result of what james murdoch said, we were guilty of either concealing or covering up a sequence of events and that had to be clarified because that is not factually correct. >> in terms of further investigation, further investigation, this is a very serious matter. was it reflected on a full investigation with lawyers looking to get to the bottom of this? highly significant information? >> it was never suggested to me. with hindsight we now know how devastating the evidence the police had then they gathered from glen mulcare in 2006, wasn't followed. we now know the evidence that was gathered from an e-mail internal investigation of e-mail that was handed over to the police in january of this year that lead to the reopening of the police inquiry. there are lots of things that have come to light from different areas that if we had known then what we know now i think things would have been massively different for everybody. >> compare it to the combination of the clients, relating to what was copied and the decision that will be a review that clive goodman had and you conducted interviews and e-mails. in this case you had a highly significant meeting where he should be made aware or was made aware of the taylor settlement in the e-mail document that any kind of -- where the company decided to have an investigation of what happened. >> that is what happened. i don't think the rest of the team will see this, of the document. he was underestimating the seriousness that had to be taken to settled the case. >> back to when you joined "news of the world". gave evidence to the committee in september of 2009, you said you had come 2 two things. make sure any misconduct was identified and anything would be ruled out. you gave evidence to the committee about the reforms of the newspaper. and make sure any previous misconduct was identified. you suggest there never was in the investigation into wrongdoing at "news of the world" as a result of clive goodman. there were specific paths the commission -- there was never a review. i wonder if you could say that you were remiss, you should have done more? >> i will take personal responsibility for my actions. i am comfortable with what i did. have a sad, hindsight emerged from the police evidence that they had and the internal evidence provided by news international subsequently. if i may clarify what happened when i understood the situation, win glen mulcare and clive goodman were arrested, if you look at my testimony you will see i understood them to be a bridge head as well as provide any evidence the police required and i think that was primarily a position of transparency that nobody could accuse a specialist of prohibiting what was required from them. or anything else. if you look back also you will see from mr. colson's testimony and mr. les hinton's testimony from the time of the rest it was made clear they had to get to the bottom of what was happening. they pled guilty and were tried and convicted. when i came and, i indicated several reforms and changed personal decisions. the first thing i did was send an e-mail to the staff within a week and explained the significance of their responsibility. >> you repeatedly give some detail and at the beginning, tell us what you did. the investigation into wrongdoing conducted by a third party that was very specific briefs given -- there never was a big investigation. >> here we are in september of 2009. i am going back to january of 2007. i certainly believe there had been more of an investigation than i was led to believe. >> and the -- [talking over each other] >> as far as -- the other thing to remember is the police inquiry have understood it at the time was made sorrow -- thorough. that was not the case. so yes. the police inquiry was not as thorough as i believe it to be. forgive me but if the police take away three lines of evidence from glen mulcare's house i would have assumed if they wanted to talk to anybody else it may have been indicated in criminal act they would have interviewed and they chose not to. the only member of staff who was interviewed from "news of the world" with clive goodman. maybe assuming too much but i am a journalist. i am not a detective and i am not a lawyer. i would have assumed that if the police had given -- if you look back at what the assistant commissioner who led the inquiry said at the time, the phrase he used was no stone was left unturned. we might look back at that and say that wasn't the case. by some measure. i acknowledge that. as i said, i did what i thought i had to do and did what i did. and other things may have been necessary but at the time i genuinely did believe -- because of what the police did in their inquiry or when they didn't do. >> mr. gimbel said he was clear about what was identified. in his mind maybe things had been uncovered and you as the new editor coming in uncertain information on clive goodman's conviction that he wanted you to get to the bottom of this. >> i did. when clive goodman appealed i thought it was an extraordinary experience and when i was told about this, on what grounds did he believe he was unfairly dismissed. as the new editor of was told by the human-resources director ahead to sit and listen to him. as confidence of the allegations he made that supported without any evidence whatsoever he was asked many times do you have these allegations and that is when the 2,000 e-mails will look at. at the time that seemed like a lot. as a direct result of the allegations clive goodman made against certain individuals i sat down and talked to them about the allegations and they denied every single one of them. in the absence of any evidence to put before them, now we know potentially i don't know that evidence did exist. there are allegations bravo people had been arrested. >> if i could get into detail. in this review, did you understand that the agreement the public was given limited to dealing with the effect of a wider investigation into whether there was evidence -- >> i had no involvement. note contact with list whatsoever. ahead no interaction with him. >> how this was explained to you, they explained to you that the e-mail review -- >> i had hardly any contact through this process. my main deck of contact -- and if i'm a i would like to clarify one point. i played no part in any conversation of any negotiation regarding any financial settlement made with clive goodman. none whatsoever. >> one final question. going back to the meeting, since that meeting did you have any conversations with him or with any of the senior executives of these corporations to suggest there should be further investigation with the newspaper system, what you have done or there should be other notifications into wrongdoing at "news of the world" as a result of the e-mail as discussed? >> at that particular time i didn't have any specific conversations with anybody related to that or any other issues relating to this always reported. >> you never discussed it? they were never discussed again? >> i never discussed it again. >> you might talk above -- >> well -- >> you appreciate it -- >> in the last 18 months, a lot of discussions have taken place because of what was imagined. >> one more question going back do you not think it would be slightly sloppy that at this meeting with james murdoch the agreement was made. from your view, everyone understood the significance of what james murdoch was told. the idea of investigating that and getting to the bottom of it and back to james murdoch to say are we doing anything about this? >> i don't think it is extraordinary. the responsibility if i might say regarding the regard of the company goes beyond my pay rate and therefore if anybody wanted to talk to me about my performance, what i was doing wasn't doing, they would have come to me and said i am sorry, we don't think you are doing the right job or not doing the job at all and we want to remove you. it is like a football manager's job. you stay when you perform and you go when you don't. it is very clear that no gray areas, is black and white. if anyone was not happy with my performance i would have -- dealing with the staff or the budgets or any other issues they would tell me. >> a few things -- giving evidence of "news of the world" and such access. >> that is completely wrong. mr. lewis will confirm that later. >> and the question for my colleague mr. watson at some stage in pass someone specified and involved in surveillance. >> in civil cases, we have run a story about having an affair and if you believe they are having an affair -- >> i am sorry about the question. in terms of what we are pointing to, watching this committee, what are the activities of the run of the mill or routine public experience and if you could explain exactly what you mean? >> most legal firms involved in this case on a regular basis will use private investigation to check out when they believe to be true but don't have evidence to prove is true. one of the things is obviously the personal relationships. in the history of divorce and proceedings it is very often someone saying i am a private investigator and i was commissioned by the husband's lawyers to watches wife over a period of a week. that is part of the investigation. doesn't have to the affairs of the heart. it could be other things involved in the activity which they are suing over and suggesting they are involved in. you think it is something that if they are watched for a while then you may well get the evidence. >> can i ask specifically about routinely the activities of -- trying to obtain information by people or individuals? >> going undercover is something people do to pretend to be someone else in order to get information which one would hope is in the public interest. so that when one of the greatest -- last year was the pakistani -- in general the pakistani crickets corruption story revealing in the course of the lord's testimony that pakistani players for an agent had to do things on the field knowing people were placing money on it. that information was gathered by someone pretending to be someone he was not. we put undercover journalism. >> this is just so people understand -- to have to help out or not. >> freelance reporters come to as with a journalistic package. one of the worst of the last three weeks. going undercover somewhere. they came to was without knowledge of when they were doing so it would not be true. if they come and that i am in a position where i can get a story of interest to you and i can do it by posing as something or other, we will look at what is being posed to us and -- >> and that speech the extent to which that was more about -- >> absolutely. >> tom crone, you issued a challenge midway through the session which was to demonstrate where what you said back in 2009 might not be accurate. mr. watson has already done that by pointing out the question 1333 about the payment was kept in order that the procedure be kept secret. he said absolutely not which we now know wasn't the case. we could check out a few letters to you. you said back in 2009 to mr. watson that you had agreed with the advice that was given. quite clearly that wasn't the case either because the letter made clear the outside advice that you were given was that the award would be around 100,000 pounds or 250,000 pounds. >> after that document was our intention by mr. taylor's lawyers was that we should settle the case. and realized mr. taylor was asking for a large sum of money. that is correct. the outside lawyers that we should get out of the case. >> they didn't see it was settled at 420,000. >> i am absolutely clear that we need to settle this case and if it took a lot more than we will acknowledge, we should still get on the sentiment. the other cases might be -- >> a further question mr. watson post about 2,009, the reason you gave was actually if the case had gone to court it could have ended up costing more. that wasn't the case at all. you know that wasn't the case. >> for two -- two week it would cost more. >> three million pounds? >> possibly. hy have had at least we to cases in the last four years where it was a weekend half or two weeks and not particularly high and we came out with too many. >> can i ask the question? i am rather confused about your meeting with james murdoch that you both had. what i struggle with is if you were both adamant that james murdoch knew the extent of what he was telling them what i struggle with is this meeting lasted at the absolute maximum 15 minutes. it seems to me if you were telling james murdoch we have got evidence here that shows other people at news of the world were involved in phone hacking, that is what we have got an hour briefcase and why we must settle this case i can't imagine how you could go through all the ramifications of that for < 15 minutes. >> that is how long it would have taken. i can speak for what mr. barack understood at the time. i am prepared that he got his recollection wrong. i am certain i explained to him the document emerged and what it was and what it meant the defense in the case couldn't be any further. >> can i move on to the payment of clive goodman? would you didn't tell as in 2009 and what you seem to be saying now is correct me if i am wrong, but you seem to be authorizing clive goodman's legal fees were paid by news international. >> certainly i would have had discussions with people. >> you didn't tell us in 2009 but you did know that the time. >> are you sure i didn't tell you in 2009 that the -- >> back to point out -- [talking over each other] >> maybe there was another review. >> maybe you should too. who would have authorized that to pay legal fees? >> i can't remember. i imagine -- >> but -- [talking over each other] >> when i put that into it. i said that, who knew about legal fees being paid, he said if we paid for legal fees the company would no. i do not. who authorized your decision to pay those legal fees? >> i don't know. >> you have got to. >> it is possible. >> on what basis? your last evidence in 2009 you were distressed on number of occasions that you were in no way an employment lawyer and could be expected to know about those matters. if you were deciding whether or not to pay the legal fees of an employee who was being dismissed for gross misconduct surely that would have been discussed with either the director of h r to see if there were any other legal ramifications. >> in february of 2007 he needed representation when he was arrested in august of 2006. legal representation to the cost of newspapers in order -- >> pleading guilty to a criminal offense -- >> at an end of november of 2006. >> employed as a great expense pleaded guilty to criminal offense which came with gross misconduct. why did you not check with the director of h r or the legal lawyer, the employment lawyer whether or not it was still a proper thing to be paid legal fees? >> the legal fees were being paid for in turn and -- >> by who? >> the editor of news of the world at the time. certainly higher up than that. if someone felt they should have the payment of legal fees than someone would have told me that. >> as far as you are aware, news international paying his legal fees included the caucus. >> i am fairly sure. >> you said not too long ago a 5 heard correctly that you disputed what mr. klugar said that the payments made to clive goodman prior to dismissal, he made it clear you would have -- you were aware of those payments. you made that have authorized them but you were aware they were made. >> i was not aware of any financial settlement between the company and mr. clive goodman. at any stage. >> you weren't aware of payment had been made at any time? you are saying categorically that you were not aware any payment whatsoever had been made? >> that wasn't aware of any payment or any negotiation or conversation or meeting. >> let me point out if i may that as an editor as i said before, i did what i did because human-resources lawyer or expert so there were several parts to this. i was sitting there as editor because that is what had to do. i listened to the appeal and spoke to the executive that clive goodman made allegations against. the e-mail surge was authorized and mr. chapman dealt with the outside fellow and mr. chapman with the e-mails and whatever action was taken. all i know as i said to you in my written letters to the chairman and the committee was that he said to me after a period of time, good news, there's no smoking gun in the e-mails. i remember that quite clearly. respect his recollection. but it is not something that i would have said if i didn't remember it. >> you are a journalist. journalists are quite in quizzes of characters. did you not ask what on earth clive goodman had dropped his claim? what happened to that clive goodman? >> with respect, mr. klug was a journalist--a law-enforcement terrible damage journalist but the explain this episode to the committee in 2009. if i have fallen short of will take responsibility for that and you will not find me falling short in any kind of humility. >> you didn't ask about what happened to that case? [talking over each other] >> it was a case that i inherited. and quite frankly my focus at that time was trying to get the paper back on track and change the culture within the paper, change the system that protocol within the paper and that is what i was doing. >> could you think the reason he would say you did know about those payments when you say you didn't? >> no i don't. >> those decisions were clearly way above my pay grade. >> one final thing. in your evidence in 2009, when i put it to you that it was the idea that it was one maverick journalist with the discredited theory, in 2009. and your answer was no idea and. it was produced internally or externally by the police or any lawyers. you have been saying today that as far as you were concerned, the e-mail was absolutely categorical evidence that the one maverick journalist theory was discredited. what you said today and what you said back then you can't reconcile. >> the existence of that e-mail was made known to mr. taylor's lawyers by the police. the police had this information and had this evidence. >> you said no evidence had been produced to suggest what you said is the case. >> i made a point clearly in my opening statement in that hearing that the e-mail was clearly a significant development. >> the payments to glen mulcare that were made. you said back in 2009 that apparently some payments were made and your understanding of this was because he worked so long for the company but was an employment lawyer, he did think he understood that that person would have certain employment rights and that is why he was paid off. who gave you that advice that he had employment rights? >> right at the beginning asked harris did you not think to ask the director of h r and news international what the standard employment rights were to somebody in that position? >> you don't understand was doing what. i had nothing whatsoever to do with glen mulcare and his employment papers except that the very beginning. >> so who dealt with these sort of bogus employment claims? >> hr does with. [talking over each other] >> john chapman certainly didn't. i can't imagine through some -- >> so you would question what mr. chairman made about -- [talking over each other] [inaudible] >> during the appeal suggested by mr. chapman earlier that you and your team with invoice payments referred to by mr. goodman, tell us more about that. >> i am not sure what he is referring to specifically. a lot of allegations been spread around at the time. i don't have that exact note at the time. i would have to be reminded of that. mr. chapman said we looked at in voices and i'm sure it would we did but specifically what it was i can't be clear about what that was. >> it seems unusual to me that you cannot recall activities -- >> you have more information than i have about the allegation mr. goodwin was making about invoice payments. if you could help with that. >> in a letter on the field, clive goodman made various accusations about activities and asked subsequently for a series of evidence including authorization of payments and that kind of history and invoices and records and e-mails which led to this review which you are fully aware of and it has been suggested that you looked at those invoice payments. >> the contents of the 2,500 the males were never shown to me. can i explain? [talking over each other] >> it has a significance. some of those e-mails relating to criminal behavior and clive goodman is relating to invoices that support that allegation i am not aware of those in a voices and that specifically was what was being looked at the time. >> no review of in a voices in any way. >> i undertook a very wide ranging review of practices within the newspaper including essentially not banning cash payments but reducing and changing the protocol in the system of how cash payments would be paid and reduce that by 89%. the invoices mr. chapman is referring to i need a little more information before i can answer that. >> okay. just to put aside, in the appeal process there was no investigation of in a voices undertaken by you or anyone who work for you. >> i am not saying it didn't take place. >> tell me what you did do. [talking over each other] >> in regard to other information. >> the main thrust of mr. goodman's allegations for executives and people in the newsroom and what he was doing. as a result of the e-mail surge we spoke to the individuals mr. goodman named and they denied all knowledge of the allegations and that is what happened. that was in relation to the allegation that he made. >> from that i am taking away today that you did not or somebody working for you did not look at specific invoices. >> that may have happened. >> i am trying to understand. in terms of looking at financial transactions. >> i changed the whole system. >> that is not what i am talking about. a review to the appeals undertaken before mr. goodman did you look at any transactions as a consequence of the appeal made by mr. goodman? >> i don't recall any financial transactions that were being investigated. if we could go back to any notes that were taken at the time or mr. chapman could elaborate about what specifically this particular invoice he is referring to we could clarify that. if that was asked of me it could have been done and would have been done by the managing editor. >> tom crone leaders of trying to clear in my own mind, you are referring to the documents that suggest we for other people would choose essentially if that was made public. have any of those people sued? .. >> right. so there were four other people suggesting that they had been, um, hacked -- >> that's a matter of record that -- [inaudible] pleaded guilty to five individuals in five separate charges. >> right. i just want, also, to go back for my understanding, what i heard mr. myler say earlier is that your recollection of that meeting is that james murdoch heard that he needed to settle, or that was the recommendation, and that's what he agreed. i don't recall you saying any of the recollection, mr. myler, of that meeting was what mr. collins was suggesting or referring to. you did not seem to state that you had a recollection that there was discussion that other people were involved in illegal practices. >> i'm -- >> you only suggested earlier your recollection of that meeting was that mr. murdoch had agreed to, basically, to do the settlement. >> no, no. it was perfectly clear the purpose of what the meeting was about. the purpose of the meeting was to discuss -- >> yeah. >> to discuss the development that had been present today mr.-- presented to mr. taylor's legal team, and that development was the fact that the police had handed over the so-called e-mail. that was the purpose for outside counsel, external counsel, mr. crone and, eventually, my view to present to the chief executive, mr. james murdoch, that they were the grounds to either settle or not and go to trialment -- trial. there was no ambiguity about that. >> well, there's ambiguity in my mind, so what i'm trying to get at, there were just three of you at the meeting. >> yes. >> and the purpose of the meeting was to say this e-mail has been revealed now, um, we, therefore, with our external advice believe there's no point in trying to defend the case. >> well, if -- sorry. >> that this is kind of the area we need to settle. >> i think it's a bit of an oversimplification, with respect. this was not decided in 15 minutes. conversations had been taking place for weeks between lawyers. >> i understand that. >> and mr. taylor's legal team. so, you know, the outside senior counsel and outside junior counsel, mr. crone, would not have come to the decision they did and say we're going to do it in 15 minutes. these would have been conversations that would have taken place over a matter of days and weeks. >> i understand that. but 15 minutes is referring to the meeting you had with mr. murdoch when, ultimately, he had to make the decision to agree to settle. >> yes. >> what i'm confused about is that was the only recollection i thought you offered. the impression eye got from mr. crone's evidence today was that mr. murdoch was clear there was other aspects to the e-mail which implied wrongdoing was more than mr. goodman and mr.-- [inaudible] now, if that's not your recollection? that's what i'm trying to clarify in my mind. of course; i've looked at the transcripts in detail. can you clarify? was the discussion in that conversation with mr. james murdoch? >> well, the discussion was really about the neville document. there was not, as far as i remember, suspicion about anyone else because there was no evidence to support anybody else being allegedly involved. >> that's very helpful. >> sorry, if i sounded vague, i didn't know if -- [inaudible conversations] >> sorry, you're at a meeting -- >> yeah, sure. >> mr. crone, from what i heard earlier, my inferrell from what you said was that you felt be other things were discussed at that meeting, it was not simply about the settlement and who was involved. have i misinterpreted -- >> the meeting was all about settling the case on the basis of the document that had arrived which showed that "the news of the world" was implicated in the gordon taylor -- [inaudible] up to which we hadn't seen -- >> you're being very careful -- >> let me finish. clive goodman was not charged with gordon taylor. gordon taylor was extruce ily a -- [inaudible] charge. we had no evidence that the newspaper was involved in that matter. we had seen no evidence that n.o.w. were imi my candidated. -- implicated. the first we saw of that was the e-mail which reached us in the spring of 2008, and that document was the reason that we decided to settle the case -- [inaudible] so we went to mr. murdoch, and it was explained to him that this document had emerged and what it meant, and he decided to settle. >> have you been involved, mr. crone, with the subsequent actions with si yen that miller and other people? >> i was until just three month ago. >> and referring to the home office affairs investigation back in 2005 and 2006, peter kraft had suggested that news international did what it could to thwart the investigation. were you involved in that? >> i wouldn't say so, no. i mean, that was the role -- [inaudible] that they were brought in for, toly craze with the police, to deal with what the police were asking for from us, to come back and give us legal advice, special eyesed criminal -- specialized criminal legal advice on what was needed. >> were you directly involved in interviews with peter clark and -- >> no, no, i didn't meet the police. no, nothing to do. >> you said you explained to james murdoch what the e-mails meant. you accepted it was a genuine e-mail from the "news of the world "reporter. >> yes. >> so you agreed that it implicated a junior reporter -- [inaudible] >> yep. >> did you tell, you said you never talked to murdoch about it in term t of -- [inaudible] >> no. >> did you tell mr. murdoch that the e mill had neville's name on the top? >> i can't remember. >> the fact that the reporter called neville, that wasn't something -- >> listen, i can't remember. i've got a feeling i probably did, but i can't -- >> you probably told him -- >> yeah. >> our chief reporter -- [inaudible] [inaudible conversations] >> okay, thank you. >> [inaudible] do i take it from what you're saying that the meeting implicated, it was clear that it had gone beyond one reporter in the meeting you had about the neville e-mail, have we moved on to two rogue reporters? >> i'm sorry? >> have we moved on on to two rogue reporters, or did you in this meeting suggest that evidence had been brought to your attention that hacking was widespread throughout the "news of the world"? >> what the document showed and what i related in the meeting was that it, a transcript of gordon taylor voicemails had passed through our office actually backed by e-mail -- [inaudible] now, clive goodman had not been charged with that. >> yes. i'm not interested -- i'm interested in -- let me try and be more specific. >> that is what was related to mr. murdoch. but this document, the difference this document made was it implicated the "news of the world "and gordon taylor without any doubt at all. >> it implicated the paper, but in terms of the widespread nature or narrow nature at the paper, it proved that the paper as a corporate body had knowledge, but did it prove that there were many reporters -- >> no. it had proved that it had been done through the computer system of a junior reporter. >> okay. that doesn't -- >> now, the obvious, the obvious inference you can draw from that is that others, an other or others knew of it because a junior reporter, clearly, wasn't doing this on husband own because -- on his own because he was just told to transcribe it. >> [inaudible] >> well, neville's name was on it, but neville doesn't accept -- [inaudible] >> can i ask you about the conflict of on-duty lawyers which mr. schaapman told me they would report to you. >> yes. >> how many on-duty lawyers would there be on any given day or night? >> one each evening except for saturdays and some sundays, there'd be someone -- [inaudible] >> what happened if a story came in on a thursday height? who would they check that legal? >> if i'm around, me. >> you? >> or at home. >> but there would always be a lawyer available to check stories if there was thought there was some legal risk. >> yeah. >> the in the-house lawyers, would they make reports to you if they had received a query from a reporter or they were checking a story, and there was something legally dodgy, would they subsequently make a report to you? >> if it was of any significance. they look at stories and quite often they have some sort of legal risk side to them which can be eliminated by by saying, well, that paragraph could get us in trouble with contempt of court or potentially libelous -- [inaudible] and they would suggest either saying it in a different way or just removing the paragraph or paragraphs. >> okay. >> that's quite routine. there'll be half a dozen or a dozen of those per evening. >> sure. you were the legal director of nudes international -- news international on the 19th of april, 2002, were you not? >> the title is legal manager and, yes, i would be. >> sorry. you would have been legal manager 12k3w4r-689 yeah. >> and that was a faculty -- >> can you say it again, i'm sorry? >> saturday the 13th of april, 2002. it was a saturday night. >> sure. >> you were the legal manager in charge? if well, i don't know whether i was this office on holiday, but yes, at the time i was legal manager. >> it wouldn't have been a nonduty -- >> unless i was on holiday. >> unless you were on holiday. would you have records to say whether or not you were on holiday that night in. >> i doubt it. not going back that long, i very much doubt it. >> would the employment records -- >> not then, no. >> the nudes of the world wouldn't record when you went on vacation? >> no, they wouldn't. >> the reason i ask about that saturday night is that stories about the murder victim minnie dowd were published on that night, saturday night, the 13th of april. and a story came out in "the wall street journal" the 20th of august subsequent to the committee's last session which made very serious allegations, indeed, about the story. previously, the focus had been on the story that appeared in most editions of news of the world which contained a passing reference to a voicemail left on minnie dowd's -- [inaudible] early editions of the paper published in scotland -- [inaudible] and in england under a different byline, dr. robert callaway, contained a different story with detailed phone messages left on minnie dowd's phone. one of them said, hello,man day, give me a call because we have started -- [inaudible] and that was in the midlands. the story goes on to discuss the fact that authorized reporters to stake out the endson factory to discover if minnie dowe was still alive and had taken a job. and when it was discovered after three days that she hadn't, he called that off. did you have any knowledge at all that he had authorized that stakeout? >> i can't remember that, sor are ri. and i'm sorry, but i can't remember. it was a story, i'm not even sure it rings bells. >> the story about the stakeout of the endson factory was never published. what was published was the story that was pulled and replaced by a different story. therefore, somebody flags up the first story as being legally dangerous and said it ought to have been pulled. >> i don't know. if you showed me the two reports, maybe i can familiarize myself, but i can't find them being outside the company. >> [inaudible] >> let me have a look at them, please. >> [inaudible] >> thank you. >> that's the early english edition, that's the early scottish edition, and that's the final edition of the story. >> so this first edition of the story there was reported it was a story that concentrated on voicemails, and three specific voicemails were referred to in that story. the first was that she was, had been offered a job, told to come in at the epsom factory. the second was a message from somebody that said, hey there, baby. and the third said it was an intimate voicemail that they could not understand. all these references were excised from subsequent editions of the story that came out on the 14th of april, and furthermore, the two journalists to whom -- separate journalists to whom the same story was described, robert callaway in england and -- [inaudible] in scotland denied they had anything to do with the story or that they filed it or that their bylines were correctly ascribed to it. i'm sure you'll agree that is pretty much pry ma fair she evidence that some lawyer at news of the world replaced it with another edition. >> well, i have no recollection of giving that advice or actually of seeing this story. >> can you categorically deny that you gave -- i can't believe it would not -- >> no, i can only do, i can only remember to the best of my reck election. i absolutely promise you i can't remember that particular, particular story, and i certainly have no recollection whatsoever of -- >> you will forgive me, mr. crone, if i put it to you that since this is the murder victim we are talking about on which all attention has been focused that it's literally not credible that you do not remember whether you did or did not flag a story about voicemails on her phone on saturday, the 13th of august, 2002. >> since i can't remember it, i don't think i did, to be perfectly honest. but i am very well aware of how serious it is. i'm not trying to underplay it. it is hugely serious, and it's quite disgusting that if what is published there came about -- [inaudible] and i feel quite strongly about it. i have no recollection of advising on that story. >> if it was not you, mr. crone, it would have been a lawyer at "news of the world." >> not necessarily. at first glance this story would appear to come from police sources. now, that is not unusual in a murder information or any other big investigation a reporter will, perhaps, get some information from a police officer, hopefully in a proper way or, perhaps -- no, allow me to finish, please, this is important. please. >> okay. >> or the police for their own intelligence reasons, i think it's important to put messages out there in the investigation. now, the detail on that suggests that it's a police briefing of some sort, either only to "news of the world" or in a different way. now, what could have happened is the police see the first edition and say, no, i didn't mean you to identify it that way, and they would ring many, and they would say that's ridiculous. the news desk just put it out. >> okay, forgive me, but quite unsettling. the first story is based on phone messages. >> yes, yes. >> you are saying that the police would have been, would have intercepted these phone messages and then leaked them to "news of the world" because the actual words that are in the first story is not generic story, they're actually the words used in the phone messages that appear in the first story. so you are suggesting to me that it is possible that the police would have listened to minnie's messages and passed them on word for word to a reporter at "news of the world" that would have put them in a story? >> taking that one at a time, i think it's almost inevitable that the police investigating a disappearance would have gone to whatever was available on her mobile phone which, presumably, is with the network. i don't know that. i am not an investigator. but i assume that the police would have had that information, and they would have thought it very important. now, if that is the case and reading that one assumes that the police have released it for some to do with the -- for some reason to do with the investigation. one explanation for that especially as i don't remember legal involvement in this which means it probably didn't happen is that the police would have seen the first edition of it, were aware of what was in the first edition and said, no, that's not what we intended, let's get rid of it. and that contact would be to whoever the police contacted at the news desk, and the news desk said get it out of the subsequent edition, it shouldn't be there because the police don't want it there. >> and would there have been any record kept of police involvement? >> no, not with me. no, it wouldn't. well, a saturday -- probably would be me, but the changes later on would have taken place at a time long after i'd left the building. now, if i was involved, that would have been a phone call, and i probably would remember the phone call more than most things, so i don't think i was involved. >> [inaudible] that the police might have leaked something important to the "news of the world "and then requested that it be pulled, would that have been reported to the duty lawyer? >> not necessarily. >> not necessarily? gone directly to the reporters? >> does this sound credible to you, mr. myler? >> it's impossible for me to say -- >> clearly, you weren't there at the time. >> i was not in the same country at the the time. i was working away. i don't know. you have to talk to the people who were on duty that evening to find out about what happened. there could be many reasons why the story was pulled. >> i'm not asking that, mr. myler. asking you a your experience of as an editor, is the scenario a plausible one that the police might leak something to "news of the world," then see it in an early edition and ask it to be pulled? >> i think it's plausible that the police talk to crime journalists that they know about all manner of things during different investigations. and as mr. crone said, i mean, nobody can defend what happened in this case. >> i'm asking you slightly be the they'd leak a specific story -- >> [inaudible] >> right off. fair enough. then let me -- then let me put it to you, mr. croen. i don't know if i speak for others on the committee, but to me it seems that the evidence you've given and the reason we were originally called here is your contradiction of mr. james murdoch's testimony about whether or not he was made aware of the full neville e-mail and it broader consequences. and as mr. collins said, his evidence was critically clear he wasn't made aware there was any wider involvement than the reporters. but i have to say your ed has been clear as mud. there has been no clarity whatsoever that he was made aware that the -- [inaudible] the meeting took 15 minutes, no subsequent action, nobody said, hey, we should carry on. if mr. james murdoch were sitting here, might he be able to say they're completely muddled, meeting lasts saw 15 minutes, there was no subsequent action, i stand by my testimony? >> [inaudible] we had pursued a course of action which was defense because we'd seen no evidence that there was "news of the world" involvement in the gordon taylor matter. we then were given some evidence in the form of that document. the advice was to settle the action, and we went to mr. murdoch to get his authority for setting the action. it is absolutely inconceivable that it was not -- [inaudible] come to our attention which showed "news of the world" had an involvement, were implicated in if gordon taylor. >> yes, sure. everybody gets that. it's whether or not he understood the guilt meant that there was wire hacking. that's the key question, not the settlement of gordon taylor, whether he, james murdoch, knew -- >> but since, since the ding that he got -- description that he got about the e-mail was it was prepared by a junior reporter and sent back, then it's quite clear that it goes beyond -- [inaudible] >> you said many things you can't remember about this meeting. you said you can't remember if you showed an e-mail or not. that would seem to be a fairly significant piece of information you can't remember. the other thing i note is that you have not said that james murdoch himself commented in any way that, you know, you've said nothing about -- >> all i'm doing is answering your questions. >> yes. did he say, did james murdoch say at any point during the meeting, clearly, this has been more widespread, we must do something about it, in other words, did he act thong himself in his comments to you during the meeting that has to be more widespread than clive goodman? >> he, essentially, gave us the -- [inaudible] in the context of what we'd said to him. i would take it that he understood -- >> did the authorities settle the case? >> for the first time, he realized the "news of the world" was involved, and that involvement involved people beyond clive goodman. and on that basis he authorized a set almost. >> would he anytime -- >> [inaudible] >> last question, mr. chairman. would you not admit that your credibility has been somewhat damaged by the questions that my colleague, tom watson, put to you when you were clearly stated that confidentiality was not a factor? >> secrecy. [inaudible conversations] there was no hiding this. last time the committee knew very well there was a confidentiality clause in the agreement. they knew very well that the deal was clause by clause, pay him some money, give him confidentiality, pay his costs. of course it was a factor. of course it was a tack to have. and we've never hid than. but it wasn't secrecy gets more money. >> seem to be -- >> we have a couple more questions, then we'll be done. jim sheraton. >> mr. myler, it's been a long day, and i hope that my recollection of facts is correct. in response to mr. davis, he said he didn't know anything or wouldn't get involved in any individual payments. >> i wasn't involved in the negotiation or conversations about mr. goodman. >> yes, i know the question you posed, i understand it was why you were making a payment at all. >> i didn't pose any question. i'm just trying to put the record straight from my point of view about my lack of involvement in any negotiation or conversation regarding what payments mr. goodman received. >> -- [inaudible] transaction as i understand it. the only question you say i posed is why you were making any payment at all. who did you pose that question to? is. >> no. i think the question i posed at the beginning was i felt that it was a pretty extraordinary sequence of events that a man who had pleaded guilty and served a prison sentence then had the opportunity to appeal against his dismissal. and as i said, i'm an employment expert, but i just found that quite extraordinary. but, of course, he had every right to do that -- >> did you make your views clear to them? >> i mean, i think i almost said to him, are you serious? >> [inaudible] >> well, yes, he was incredibly serious because, you know, i think this was touched upon in the last meeting in 2009. i mean, you know, employment laws and human resources are now increasingly something that executives have to understand. we actually send our executives on semithat ares to understand the process of -- seminars to understand the process of complaints and everything surrounding this because it is an absolute minefield. and however extraordinary i felt the decision was that we had to hear mr. goodman's appeal after he left prison, the reality was he had every right on his side to say he felt he'd been unfairly dismissed. >> just one final, brief question but before, can i read a paragraph from other members of the committee i've received from a rather senior former member of news international who says for all kinds of reasons i wish to remain anonymous. i hope you will understand this. you have -- highly complex matters and ruthless individuals who will do anything to keep the -- [inaudible] under wraps because it could well blow up a global empire. -- [inaudible] >> i have no idea. but i think given the forensic scrutiny the "news of the world" has been under now for the past, well, since 2006, your own inquiries with the select committee, the police inquiry, the levinson inquiry, i would doubt very much, indeed, whether anything remains under wraps. i think everything, rightly, will emerge. and hopefully one day it will. >> mr.-- [inaudible] your sort of flippant attitude to surveillance tactics, what do you think -- [inaudible] >> what do i think? >> [inaudible] >> if i came across as being flippant, i apologize. i don't know whether it's genuine. you quoted a line from it. the history of how this matter's unfolded with those two sources of information, one is everything. first and foremost, everything that was seized by the police. now, bit by bit that has emerged in the civil litigation case by case. we have found out about it when it has emerged through the civil litigant lawyers. the other source of information is the internal e-mail system at news international which was properly investigated, it seems, quite recently and that was done under police supervision. and they are seeing what's coming out of that. i don't know what's in there. i haven't seen -- >> thank you. >> [inaudible] did you seek documents on the private lives of claimant lawyers? >> i saw one thing in relation to two of the lawyers, yeah. >> do you know the origin -- >> except i don't know whether it was a dossier. it involves their private life. >> did you feel the need not to answer that question when i had a round of questions with you earlier? >> well, i think didn't you ask if i -- >> you gave me a lawyer answer, now you've given me an accurate answer. do you know the origin of those dossiers? >> freelance journalist, i think. >> employed by news international? >> freelance journalist employed by news international, yes. >> and do you know who commission today employ thoses do yeas? is. >> i know who contacted the free lantz -- >> who was that? >> i don't think we should do that because of the police investigation. >> are you aware of any members of this committee that were subjected to covert -- >> no, i only know about that one thing i've just referred to. >> so in the 2009 inquiry you were not aware that either freelance journalists or private investigators were commissioned to follow or surveil any member? >> that is news to me. >> okay. are you aware of any civil or criminal cases that involved the use of computer hacking or trojan, trojan devices put on computers? >> no. >> are you aware of the use of tracking devices in any of the civil cases or criminal cases? >> no. >> thank you very much. >> david, did you have -- last? >> [inaudible] it's about process. the difference between the two stories that my colleague described -- [inaudible] obviously, there are quotes from phone messages in the early version, and there aren't any in the later versions. and as a matter of process if a journalist was seeking to write a story and wished to use direct quotations from messages left on the voicemails on his mobile phone given that the hacking is going on, is that the sort of thing that would have been referred to a lawyer in the newspaper before it's published? >> not if it's come from the authoritys, no. >> so it would have been enough -- >> i mean, the only places, well, in retrospect in 2002 i wasn't aware that phone hacking existed. so looking at that, the only source that i could have seen for those messages would have been the police. >> well, in this case if journalist had said it was from a police source, that would have been enough? >> yes. >> if they weren't able to say that would it have been referred to a lawyer before printing? >> if they weren't able to say it? >> yeah. >> you'd have to ask the question, where'd you get the information for that? or the desk would have to. [inaudible] well, the desk, the desk would ask that information. and then if it involved going and asking a lawyer, then that would happen after. >> is there any question the material about to be used may be necessary to the story, but -- >> but that would be right. that's why i assume that it came from the police. >> thank you. >> we're done. thank you very much. [inaudible conversations] >> booktv features 9/11 authors this weekend. saturday with richard miniter, thomas cain and sunday marion fontana, patrick creed, lawrence wright. also this weekend on after words, washington post reporter dana priest suggests that the federal government's effort toss protect america after september 11th are secret, dangerous and need to be exposed. also "in my time," a personal and political memoir. dick cheney talks about his experiences during 9/11 and the lessons he's learned since then. you can also look for the former vice president interviewed by bob woodward on october 2nd on "after words." find our complete schedule online at booktv.org. the day after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. this weekend on american history tv on c-span3, senate floor speeches from september 12th from senators schumer, clinton, warner and allen. on american artifacts from the smithsonian, recovered objects from new york, the pentagon and shanksville, pennsylvania. also this weekend from lectures in history, northwestern university professor katherine burns howard on how societal changes in the first half of the 19th century led to the birth of the women's rights movement. get the complete schedule at c-span.org/history or get our schedules e-mailed directly to you. >> white house counterterrorism adviser john brennan says the u.s. is fundamentally safer ten years after the september 11th attacks. at an event hosted by the center for strategic and international studies and the national security alliance, he also talked about what the killing of osama bin laden means for homeland security. he was interviewed by frances townsend, former homeland security advisor to president george w. bush. this is a little less than an hour. [background sounds] [applause] >> hi. i thought before we started, john, i thought it was appropriate. in my office i hung this flag of honor which has the names of all of the victims of the 9/11 attacks, and i thought it would be appropriate to hajj it today -- hang it today for the conversation. >> very nice. t >> ladies and gentlemen, john brennan is a friend, a colleague, a patriot and anrenn enormously talented individual. he was appointed as assistant ta the president in 2009, he is a 25-year veteran of the cia having held several key overseas positions particularly in the middle east. s they provide him a unique perspective regarding current conflicts and challenges. he was instrumental in the establishment of the terrorism threat integration center inlict 2003 and managed its transition to the national counterterrorise center that it is today.rans upon leaving government service in 2005, john formed his own successful company and also served as the chairman of -- [inaudible] from 2007 to 2008. and i sort of like to say we did a jobs swap. i came out of government. i became chairwoman, he went into government. we are fortunate to talk about to john about the threat to the homeland and the way ahead with regard to protecting our homeland.the john, why don't you start?bout >> you ready to swap jobs again? back? [laughter] well, thank you very much, fran, for inviting me here and to ncis for sponsoring this event. it's nice looking out in theev audience and seeing so many familiar faces and so many of those faces that i worked with ten years ago and since then. fc and i was mentioning that it seems like in many respects yesterday, but in others it seems like a lifetime ago that tragedy on 9/11. ago, that tragn 9/11. this week is a week for remembrance of the victims as well as taking stock about where we have been the last decade. i met with several members of the 9/11 commission over the last decade. they gave report card on things we have done well and it thinks that we have not. i was talking to judy woodruff for the "newshour." we have done an impressive job over the last decade in terms of the threat that we face from overseas and making the united states and much less hospitable environment for terrorist operations. we have taken steps to fill those gaps that are out there that terrorists take advantage of. we still face the terrorist threat from al qaeda core. when this anniversary passes and everything is conjured up in our minds, that we not become complacent. we have to maintain that exceptionally high level of readiness. it is a level of vigilance that we need to keep as a country. both as a government as well as the people. one of the things that i think this country has done well over the past decade is to make sure this is going to be a whole of government effort and a whole of nation effort. there have been tremendous strides in the integration of information between intelligence and law-enforcement communities. there has been coordination among the state and local elements. it is not all the way there. it is not the perfect architecture, but we have come a long way. this demonstrates the ability of two successive administrations to enable and empower the counter terrorism community to do what they need to do. they are working harder than the american people are -- understand. whether they are at the airports, whether they are abroad, taking the latest threat peace that has come in. when i look back at the last 10 years, i feel good about what this country has been able to accomplish. the fact that we have been able to prevent another calamitous attack like 9/11. al qaeda is still up there. there are other groups that had been planning attacks. we do have the trustees of iraq, yemen, and other areas. we are not going to relent. one of the things that president obama has said is that we need to do everything possible to protect the american people. we need to do it with the law. we need to make sure we are working with our partners overseas. that is the big difference that i see. the international partnerships that have really blossomed. 10 years ago, there were a lot of countries in the middle east that were in denial. saudi arabia out was one of those. he acknowledges that saudi arabia was in denial. they realized after the attacks within the kingdom in 2003 that they had a real cancer within their country. they took the steps necessary to prevent al qaeda from using it as a base for attacks. the capacity building that we have done with other countries working with our traditional allies and establishing relationships with other countries, giving them the intelligence that they need, and giving them the training, letting them know how we have been able to make progress against al qaeda, these are things that as a country we should feel proud of. people here today should take pride in the work they have done in the government or the private sector to allow this to flourish. >> before i begin the questions, i should congratulate you, the president, andy and administration. having sat in your seat for a time, i understand at a personal level the courage and the strength it took for the president to make the decision he made to invade pakistan. i do not think that people fully understand the burden on the president and the weight of the responsibility of that moment. i speak for a lot of people in this room when i say that the nation owes him and you a debt of gratitude and we are safer for the killing of bin laden. [applause] >> as you know the credit goes to those brave operators to carry out the raid, those diligent and extremely proficient intelligence officers who were able to pull the thread over so many years. then to the president who was able to take that information in terms of what we knew but also it reflected the tremendous confidence he has in the u.s. military as well as the intelligence services. failures are talked about quite a bit. sometimes the lawyers are attributed to intelligence. i think the president felt we did as good a job as possible as being able to understand what was happening in the compound. we basically had as much information we could get without risking the operation. at the same time, these operators have trained and carried out to these types of raids repeatedly. one of the things after the ladenf and raid -- bi n raid, people say only to the united states could do that. we have that to termination, persistence, and capability to grow to another part of the world and do it effectively. that is one of the things it we were impressed with, that we can keep a secret. the president insisted on that. doing it in a way that led to success. it is not one person or group of operators. this is a product of work that was done or the last decade. people have been going after him for a couple of decades. it was a time of reflection, also in a time of remembrance of the victims. this was justice. this was something the people wanted and the search. >> post the killing of osama bin laden, will orchitis seek to retaliate? -- al qaeda seek to retaliate? >> we took material side of the compound. he is trying to direct operations. it also reflected his, how much she was distanced from reality. he kept pushing for these operations but the al qaeda authorization -- authorization -- operation were not able to carry out of those attacks. i see a combination of attacks that have sat cockeyed a back lot. den, who wasa active and engaged. he was orchestrating a lot of activity in yemen. these are the senior types who had the experience, the respect, they had the ability to orchestrate. you take them off and have a few other guys. they are still out there and we will be relentless in going after them but the senior leadership really has taken some severe body blows. we need to maintain that pressure and hopefully we're over the real speed bumps because of the raid against the osama bin laden compound. we need to do things, cockeyed in iraq is still active. they are attacking our troops street outside in the peninsula is active. they have a domestic agenda. is taking on many characteristics of an insurgency as a push to yemeni forces and civilian government out of the southern portion of the country. did you have people who are determined to carry out attacks against the homeland. that has a domestic and international agenda. they're looking at libya and the arms bazaar that is available. the threat is still evident. the arabs spring has resulted in some people and a number of countries, the egyptians have been a close partner of ours or the years. there service who have been affected by this recent turmoil. i think the effort needs to continue. the challenges are still there. i think we put in place a good foundation and a lot of these countries that have been able to withstand some of these political upheavals. we had a relationship with the libyan government. we had close relations now. we recognize the pnc. we rely on these countries a very heavily. why don't we capture more of the terrorists and take them to guantanamo? we capture them when they can. -- we can. he is now in united states facing trial. we now rely and are able to rely on all lot of other countries. saudi arabia, the moroccans, the egyptians and others are now doing what they need to do. we do not need to do these things unilaterally. we work with them so they can find, detain, imprisoned the terrorists a very threat to them as well. >> one other countries take these people into custody, do we get access in custody? >> many times, whenever there is a terrorist that is captured, the first thing we do is ask for that access, in pakistan or yemen or saudi arabia. usually the countries and services will work with us. there are some concerns in these countries have if there are concerns about what the individual might do to us but i think it is important for us to be able to have that access so we're able to determine what this individual is saying, how they are saying it, not under arrest. i think, the relationships have developed to a point where we're given that type of access according to their rule of law. >> let's go back to the post-bin laden threat. dhs issued its and 9/11 warning. there was the states department worldwide warning to americans traveling overseas. this morning the department of defense raised its current level to grovel. as americans watching this, we know there was some reference to a 9/11 anniversary attack. what does this mean? are you concerned about an anniversary attack? do you see increased fretting -- france? -- threats? >> there were a number of security measures put in place in. now, we have seen things like in the bin laden compound. we know there have been times when they tried to take advantage of the attention paid to these anniversaries. activities are time to take place when they are ready as opposed to forcing it to take place in a day. we need to make sure we're doing everything possible to prepare and safeguard this country. so out of an abundance of caution, we have instituted a number things this week or the fbi and homeland's security, defense, the promised date, issues of alerts advisories'. we want to make sure people are aware. terrorist groups might try to take advantage of the large gatherings of people as a way to demonstrate they can penetrate our defenses. the president has insisted we do everything possible before an anticipated anniversary so that we are in the best position to catch something before it comes to fruition. right now, if we did and have something credible that would require and advisory large, we would put that out. i think we have come a long way in assuring that information as to the american public. there are these bulletin put out about threats to general aviation highlighting the fact that a al qaeda keeps coming back to aircraft as a target. this is something we need to maintain vigilance for. >> like you, i had the privilege of working with mohammad in saudi arabia and other intelligence chiefs. in the wake of the arab springs, where many of the government's that existed at the time i was there have fallen, and there are concerns of those -- this is an opportunity terrorist groups might take advantage. can you talk about the counter- terrorism relationships? should we be concerned they are not as strong? how you view the changes taking place? >> it was clear that al qaeda was not at the vanguard of any of these movements. in some respects exposed to the bankruptcy of the ideology is not having the resonance it had hoped to have. the impact on the ct relationships have been significant from the point is that we have had to work with new people and organizations. there is a concern in places like libya where there is not the same control. there lot of things out there that could be accessed and acquired by terrorist organizations. but the professional relationships that exist between the cia, fbi, others, with their counterparts, those are things that in door. although there are changes in personnel, i first noted this in the early 1990's when a number of countries sided with iraq when they invaded kuwait. those relationships were able to withstand those political challenges. the ct relationships have strength in some minds that it becomes the sine que non relationships. so there are some challenges, we need to be able to continue to work with the egyptian services. tunisia has a mixed record. even before the people. there were things they were doing that we run happy with. we need to keep pressing. yemen is a country that i am familiar with. i have been out there numerous times. i can say today that a counter -- counter-terrorism cooperation with yemen is better than it has been. that is a result of a number of factors. the terrorist factor is difficult there. they have insurgency-like features. we're sharing information. the yemenis have done a good job of finding and arresting and carrying out attacks against al qaeda-types. thisthough they're in domestic turmoil, that counter- terrorism relationship is strong. that is important for the united states. we want to do these things in a bilateral way. that requires cooperation, that they adhere to their legal system and international standards request twice you have mentioned caches of unsecured weapons. were we doing to make sure those are not taken and used against us and others. >> we have made a number of clear points to the tnc and those who we're working with in libya about things that we are concerned about. obviously securing any type of materials for weapons that could be used by terrorist groups, weapons of mass destruction or whatever else kind. there are a lot of parts to that country that are uncovered. a lot of concerns treated the libyan government is going to .ave a challenge ahead of it trying to overcome the tribes and families. there will be rivalries that will come to the fore. this is where the united states does respond well. we have people, we're working closely with the tse. -- tnc. we want to be able to go back to the embassy and work closely with them. once again have the type of relationship that we want to have with countries across the region. when you look at al qaeda, a lot of the senior cockeyed members are libyans. -- al qaeda members are libyans. >> i always -- i apologize in advance. you mention having met with the 9/11 commissioners about their report card. journalists will always ask you about the bad ones, not mention the other, the 30 of them you have completed. have completed. talk

Related Keywords

Tunisia ,New York ,United States ,Iraq ,Egypt ,Morocco ,Saudi Arabia ,Libya ,Yemen ,Washington ,District Of Columbia ,France ,Kuwait ,Pakistan ,United Kingdom ,Americans ,Moroccans ,America ,Egyptians ,Libyan ,Yemeni ,Scotland ,Libyans ,Pakistani ,American ,Egyptian ,Robert Callaway ,Vincent Copeland ,Dave Cook ,Gordon Taylor ,John Brennan ,Marion Fontana ,John Chapman ,Peter Clark ,Clive Goodman ,Philip Cameron Smith ,Tom Watson ,Judy Woodruff ,Jonathan Reese ,Al Qaeda ,Lawrence Wright ,George W Bush ,Minnie Dowd ,Dick Cheney ,Trojan ,Frances Townsend ,Thomas Cain ,Candy Colson ,Tom Crone ,James Murdoch ,James Murdock ,Peter Kraft ,