i agree this is already a fork in the road. john mccain sent a letter saying prepare for the spring, not arab spring but the abas spring. it's summer, our winter possibly what does that mean? masses of hungry and upset russians, hundreds of the lessons of millions of people at the square is the russian equivalent of the muslim brotherhood. the muslim brotherhood. what we saw yesterday at this point in time coming and i don't know what is going to happen tomorrow etc., and i have been wrong. what we saw as one of the russian politicians talked to today said the whole thing was full of people chanting.

it is not very big with seven to 10,000 people. who were these people? people who were close in moscow. this was the elite, the intelligence to get. i was looking just a second ago. a polish name what some kind of glamour correspondents was arrested. the leaders of the political party, let's name them again, the solidarity of the anti-corruption leader and of blogger. the question is what happens beyond that. people really accept, they are

not getting trains and buses to go to the regime. they are really upset. therefore the choice in front of the united russia and putin is are we cracking down or liberalizing and if you remember your soviet sort of trajectory of the soviet rule in the 19th century, it is a fluctuation between liberalization and crack down interrupted by the revolution. so we are facing the real winter revolution. i'm not so sure yet. they are doing well, economically they are upset. one of them was at the center outside of moscow. people were really -- people

really felt offended so, this is something may be like 1904 or 05 revolution or the february revolution or not and the opposition both in 04 and 05 and opposition was much broader and much better organized, much better represented. today we don't have that. so, the choice, the rulers of russia are going to make will define where russia is going from here. but what's important i agree with all the speakers here that this is not the fate. my block at the national interest today was the end of the question. this is not going to be wondered

this minimal violence, rather minimalist took the persian either you have to go to the real e elections and it isn't just elections you have to crack down. so i would say 60 come 70, 30, 40 there's going to be as they see in russia tightening of the screws. where does that leave the united states? we saw an anti-american vitriol coming as not just mr. putin but also from somebody like dmitri just before the elections threatening to interrupt the supply line to afghanistan in russia and eurasia if we don't do xy and z on missile defense. we've heard of the sect's russian by putin against the

people who monitor the elections or work on democracy issues calling them judases. so the anti-american anti-western vitriol was on the rise, and unlike the soviet times i don't think that as many people take it seriously. there's still a lot of anti-americanism that we here at the heritage foundation published papers examining the evidence of anti-americanism in the russian media etc.. but on this particular issue on the election fraud this is not working and the final word is a word of caution. when you look at the results, when you look at the increase of the vote that went to the communists, let's say these independent studies suggest they had gotten as much as 25% they

didn't see that as 10% this is the institute of social studies. 14%. so you have 40 -- communists, ldp are nationalists, and 40% and probably a big chunk of united russia. 40% of people who voted who have nothing to do with what we consider liberal values for liberal russia. that is a bad sign. and if the existing machine falls apart and disappear as tomorrow, i do have a running argument with moscow remembering the example nada for the release

17th of november 17th who is there to pick up the power if the power is lying in the street. if you look at cairo, who is there to pick up the power, the political power in cairo tunis or tripoli if it is lying on the street and the answer is people who are willing to use force who are not -- who don't care by the space niceties and here i totally agree with david it will be of to the russian people they missed an opportunity of to just push and press and get the constitution between 04 and of 1917 to turn it into a real constitutional monarchies were real democracy. that experiment failed the price was 30 million lives and putting the grandfather. in 91 they say iran is a partial

experiment because this regime is not as hard and assess the soviet regime this is now moving into a scenario in which there's a real struggle for power it would be a to the russian people this would be a space model for god forbid note to the chaos. let's open up for discussion. we are a little bit over time we need audience participation. in the back, please. >> wait for the microphone. introduce yourself. we needed for the record also. >> i have one comment and one question. the common results of the

special operation i don't think we need to mention to the so-called official results of the election because the then and we know a little bit about how real the the russian people because there were a lot of observers who collected quite interestingly information in those stations middle level of sophistication was very low or none at all and based on this area of several hundred we can say that united russia which has between 24 and 25% seems most of the stations are located in moscow and st. petersburg is not completely representative with the full country and the most more sophisticated mathematical analysis has been performed in

the institute of the economic analysis based on the results show that the united russia received as most 34 or 35% of the vote. so i think those are relevant to the picture and probably we can use the results only with others as a more appropriate [inaudible] my question of the islanders did differently to what you have explained it seems to me they've said not about the behavior of the thousands of millions of people, but the behavior of the regime and the behavior of the regime between liberalization and the increasing pressure in

becoming more authoritarian, so just based on your information, could you provide us with any evidence of the first, any symptoms come any signals, any signs, any evidence of liberalization or with any other thing, just any evidence you can find that would support these particular options? >> they could remain rename the division. >> we can pass it to you. >> is part of the suggestion do we have anything else the wood support this particular possible

portion of the evolution of the political russia? >> it will be very short answer, no, no evidence at all. choosing the second half the show did in the last two days so we will take thousands of people in the streets of moscow to change it. i don't think for a minute you're going to do it themselves. >> next question. >> just to continue. i don't think we need to spend or waste any time discussing the first option and i think what is really important just to discuss the second option and what is going to happen since we know this option has been taken to -- >> i think that vladimir offered one option, and that is to task the will fall accountability act that looks at the human rights violations and specifically

violations of space procedures and elections because if we are going to go to something post there is a widespread sense in the congress that we need tools to address these outstanding issues that are staring at us today in moscow in the media and in the streets. there are several more questions. >> the gentleman all the way in the back with the glasses. please introduce yourself. >> hello. i have a comment for this lantos swett. regarding the comment on economic sanctions i just wanted to note that my humble opinion economic sanctions are less judged on their efficacy than they are on their political convenience for a simple president carter did everything to get rid of economic sanctions

against cuba, but at the same time imposed economic sanctions against chile, rhodesia and south africa. regarding the south african cases just wanted to know that in certain circles nelson mandela is regarded as a model statesman. it's important to remember that he and his african national conference were financed by the soviet union by fidel castro and by ghadafi and nelson mandela considered them both tyrants to be his friends and comrades in arms. >> thank you. >> i think you are right that economic sanctions are a the end of the day a political statement. sometimes the work in terms of squeezing the economic situation and it's hard at other times they are not terribly effective, but they are a way for a government to make a political statement about their view of the nature of the regime, and i do think that if s vladimir has

said and the gentleman in the back of indicated the odds are that the response of putin and those around him in the kremlin would be towards greater repression dennett frankly raises the stakes for the united states to figure out what our policy is with russia going forward. we have had to be set policy. we've had a range of things that we wanted to sort of move forward on with russia. but when the underlying political reality, when the underlying structure as a relates to democracy and elections and human rights and law and corruption becomes so blatantly and difficult to what we stand for we have to revisit and rethink of the policy. they are not to run automatic. we live in a dynamic world and so i think that this will be a challenge. it's one that i think frankly with a presidential election

looming this administration isn't going to be eager to move front and center because there are other areas where they would rather focus their attention and i think it is the test of those of us concerned about russia not to let this slip off the agenda but i agree with your basic point that sanctions are political as much as economic tool. islamic very quick clarification nobody's talking about economic sanctions. it's quite the opposite. the opposition is abolished jackson because it is unfair to punish the country for the actions of the few on the elected in the regime leaders who deserve power. its other countries fault. so the idea is to replace the personal sanctions against violators, not against the country. >> the gentleman in the yellow tie. >> the counsel to the u.s. russia foundation for economic

development and the rule of law. he may not have heard of it. it was found it from the brief flow of the sale of the investment for the private equity firm established in part with the u.s. government a few years ago. in light of yesterday's's development and today's request would you look at the website, usrf.ru look at what we are doing on those three panelists we are having another board meeting in a couple of weeks. look at our website. think about what we can be doing. we have a substantial endowment we sold our companies in russia and a profit. we have the endowment and we hope to take more of the seals from the investment to have more of an endowment. we've been focusing on issues in the rules caulfield we were hopeful in getting the judicial systems to start putting cases

on the wheels rather than having somebody assign them arbitrarily to his buddy on the bench. one of our law firms in moscow for many years was firestone and those folks we've worked with them closely but take a look at our website, see what we've been doing. let us know what you think we could be doing if you can get things to be a real key and i can communicate and i will take them to the board after lictors when we meet in a couple of weeks and maybe he will come up with new ideas we can put into action. >> thank you. appreciate it. okay. i will take three last questions because your overtime and i will take them all free at once and then if you can keep track of the question we are going to answer them all. the gentleman in the red tie.

some of the luxury result in the national body may gain at the expense so long that indicate that the people actually want even more government interference in the economy and on the nationalism within russia was ready to offer? >> if you can keep the questions -- too sharp. okay. thank you. my name is david. vladimir, i'm wondering if you can give more details about the event that took place yesterday and today. the cameraman was arrested while he was filming. do you remember how many people were arrested in moscow? thank you.

>> we've time for one more question. no more questions? that's good. okay, to questions. what do the russian voters really want and the second one coming people are arrested. >> the short answer is no. it doesn't mean they don't want more interference. as david already indicated, the only choices they saw on the ballot for those approved by the regime they were not allowed on the ballot including for instance we don't know if the party of the popular freedom party which stands for the freedom for democracy for integration of europe we don't know how many because it wasn't there either the boycott this movement began it was referenced here it was called anything but united russia so they were calling on people to go and choose any. the people were saying flip a

coin or something. it wasn't a conscious choice. it wasn't all for the communists. it was against vladimir putin the only way people could make because there was no -- there were no genuine opposition voices. there's also basically blatant --. >> what was mentioned about not -- the actual results from the places that had independent observers so moscow had a 20%, one and five vote two for the democracy party on the ballot. pretty significant result, and very quickly to david's question, the figures we know his address yesterday, 200 arrests today, that's 500. there were 10,000. so out of the 10,000, there were

300 arrests. pipe hundred people were arrested before they could get there and so arrested as he was getting out of his car to go to the square he didn't make it to the protest. he was taken before. ceramica was a good play. >> he does it to keep order as the division. so that's -- these are the figures and also taking everybody their rusting journalists don't care if you show them the press credentials this is nothing but parliamentary candidates we spent three hours just released sort of he spent three hours of the police station he's still a registered parliamentary candidate. the official results will be tabulated on saturday. on told the official results are announced to all of these people if the parliamentary candidates cannot be touched by the law and are being arrested and thrown into jail so chaos and disregard for any kind of -- anything in

the approaching law. >> you covered pretty much the waterfront. anything to add? >> i agree with everything vladimir said. everybody that putin votes in many ways, and in fact, if you read some of those again man and boreman in the street report they were saying that i never thought i would cast a vote for the communists but i had no other option so why did it to register my opposition. we have to think about what does relate to this land and gave it has written and i would encourage of liberty to read it and i'm in the midst of it myself, and it's a dark book in many ways. not an important one and that is that russia has never confronted and come to terms with the magnitude of the poor that was inflicted during the height of

the darkest days of communism under stalin and david can explain it so much better than i can, but that process of confronting the tragedy and the evil in their history is very essentials to being able to build a future vibrant society and democracy that is grounded in this notion of the fundamental nature of individual rights and that that has not happened in russia yet, so in that sense there are not only challenges going forward but there were major challenges looking back that remained the great, great challenge of not papering over what happened in the past because it is very hard when you fail to confront those sorts of dark demons from the past to build something strong for the future. >> russia was called during the soviet times unpredictable past,

but more specifically for these elections, not just the fundamentals. my kids went to school and the studied from the early each by the constitution and the founding fathers this was inculcated very early on. russia doesn't have that. they learn many other important things. they learn about how napoleon and world war ii but the rules law is not what is implicated in the schools but in the elections we would not even know what their real results are. if we had the real results because people didn't have adequate access to television and television in russia is still the number-one media of the political communication, and i think that what we are seeing now is this vote is also the rise of the social networks.

i am a skeptic on social networks. i always say social networks are -- it is a technical thing. it is content control. you have in the russian blogosphere nationalism the fascists and what not, but the bottom line is it wasn't by past the younger people, people went for more educated larger cities had access to social networks and they ran around television and when you see now is a reaction. people are saying -- people of the government are saying we need censorship on the net. you see it again and again. this chaos, this anarchy should not be allowed. i was there in october in moscow state university came and we were on the same panel and spoke on the same subject of the social networks and he just hammered it.

you have people you need to mobilize people to be censors on social network you have to have powers to take them off the internet very antiliberal message coming from moscow and the roll their eyes and say this is old-style russian propaganda. we are not taking it seriously. but this is what the reaction today is. there was something that didn't control and they don't like it. >> i will just conclude our discussion. >> i wanted to observations. one is the vote for the communists, the liberal democratic party which is named. these are often protest votes and they don't necessarily mean that people are pro communists or fascists.

right now it is a protest against the massive corruption that people see around them with limited ability to express themselves. but there is a real danger given the traditions of russia but if the situation starts to unravel forces may emerge for extremely dangerous to the world and russia itself and that is why i think when the discussion comes to what should the west to we often make a mistake if we think exclusively in policy terms. i think it is of course i support the act and of course such measures are important and they can play a role, with the most important influence the west can wield on the situation in russia is moral influence, and it's for that reason that i think -- and the clear enunciation of the values, something that is difficult for

us oftentimes because we are confused about the ultimate all use ourselves including the value of the individual in this situation like the ones that existed in russia where everyone was held that on transforming the economy from communists to capitalists. and under these circumstances it's very, very destructive and self-destructive to have a policy like reset in which we confuse ourselves and confuse the russians about what the real issues are. if we establish a commission on the civil society between my friend who is a propagandist whose work is to show that there is really no role for the civil society. so, just and lasting the communist period it is important to use such moral authority as

the west does have to make it very clear that it is the society based on wall that should set the conditions for the society that is flawless and not the society that is flawless that should define the free of the reference for the society that nonetheless is based on law. if we keep that in mind i think that we can have in addition to the necessary but limited measures that we can take like the act we can have a positive influence on the future evolution of russia. >> thank you very much. you are a terrific audience and we -- it was well worth. thank you very much. [applause] ..

>> there's a means test to prevent them from getting some federal benefits as well as

sunsetting the surtax on millionaires after ten years, all of which they say are concessions 20 help get a deal, but in reality, this bill probably won't pass the senate. >> last week, more than half the republican conference voted down an alternative proposal by a senate republican leader mitch mcconnell, will there be an alternative this week? >> caller: republicans are considering that, and there was a set back for the leadership. they are trying to figure out if they can get their members behind the bill. it sounds like senator mcconnell on tuesday afternoon said he was waiting for the house bill to come over. it sounds like republicans in the senate decide the to set their sights on what the house is doing and may not advancing an alternative proposal. they make the point privately that the proposal offered last week was to provide cover for some republicans who didn't want to vote against the democratic bill last week.

it's unclear if they will do that again, and that gave senator scott brown from massachusetts a chance to say i don't support the democratic bill, but i support this alternative we put forward. >> how much support will the proposals get, the senate democratic's proposal and the house republicans'? >> caller: senator susan collins voted with democrats. i'd expect her to do that again. they may get more republicans to vote for it. they lost three democrats last time. they will probably lose one or two of those at least still, so probably still won't have 60 votes in the senate. the house proposal which looks like will be rolled out wednesday or later this week officially would, in addition to including payroll extends unemployment benefits taking care of the dock fix, and that bill, they are having a lot of trouble sounds like lining up their members behind that. sounds arguably neither house may have the support in their

chamber to actually pass their bill. house republicans i think would argue they may ultimately have that. really, you know, we have to look ahead to the negotiation that is not happening now, but will happen presumably between house republican leadership and senate democratic leadership as the way that this will ultimately get resolved. >> dan friedman, staff writer at national journal daily. thank you. >> caller: thank you.

>> a former editor of the now defunk paper news of the world

testified recently at an inquiry into phone hacking and british media culture. paul mcmullen says newspaper executives ignored e-mail and phone tapping at the to tabloid. now the first hour of the testimony. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> can you tell the inquiry your full name please? >> paul mcmullan. >> and your address?

not your home address. >> [inaudible] >> sorry? >> the castle inn dover. >> thank you. i understand that you are a professionally trained journalist? >> yes. >> and that you initially gained experience working for the regional press? >> yes. >> and then you moved and have further experience in london working for the fleet street news agency? >> yeah, i started with thompson regional newspapers that has now folded, and i was a journalism student with michael, and i'm quite pleased to say i finished top of my class, and he came bottom end and he's now minister of education. [laughter] >> well, thank you for that. you then obtained a position as a shifter working for the fund

today in 2002; is that right. >> yeah. >> and then you obtained the staff job working for the sunday sports? >> i was news editor there for three months. it was, you know, a bit of post graduate silliness, but it was fun. >> and then you worked for an agency? >> yeah. it was in france. >> before working for the news of the world for a period of seven years? >> yes. >> including at working for part of that time at a deputy featured editor? >> yes. >> you then moved to the sunday express for a period of around two years 1234 >> yeah. >> and led the investigations there. >> i was, yeah. >> and you also worked for the national inquirer, i understand? >> the last three years of my career, if you like, before they had a buyout and couldn't afford a european correspondent anymore. >> is it right you're now in

semiretirement as a journalist working partly as a journalist and partly at the republican? >> yeah, i bought an old inn with seven bedroom, and the fire services closed off the top floor. >> [inaudible] >> it's important in saying we need a fire escape, the build's committee saying you can't have a fire escape, so, again, came up against government annoyance, and so that's why i'm working two jobs at the moment. >> thank you for that. i think we can concentrate on your experience as journalist. can i start by asking you some general questions about the pressures of the job at a journalist. you've mentioned in some of the interviews you've given by line count. >> yes. >> can you explain what the by line count process is? >> yeah. i mean, you can do it now, but before the days of count word

search, you had to get more than 12 stories 5 year in -- a year in a newspaper, and that doesn't sound like many, but a weekly newspaper, and my longest investigation on a prison governor sneaking women in to have his way with them, and and that took months doing that, and sometimes 12 stories becomes a bit of a burden which is why, you know, i kept all of my stories out just if it came to the crunch. now i've actually done 15 or 35 this year. >> i see. could i ask you to speak up a little, please? >> okay. >> and so the consequence of not getting sufficient by lines was what? >> well, you got fired. >> and was the threat of the sack something that leans over journalist generally? >> yeah, i mean, you can get a front page from sunday, but by next tuesday, you've got to have

three fresh ideas, and that's not for a few months, but week after week after week, it becomes a real pressure to build up a list of contacts for, you know, police officers to pis to basically anyone to give you a story, and you lean on those fixes to help you keep your job. i mean, -- >> is there a sense of competition, then, with your fellow journalists? >> massively. i mean, probably goodman, fouler, you know, phone hacking because he was getting on a bit. he was royal editor. had a really high salary, and plenty of people who were 25 years old and would have taken his job, and he worked harder and always snapping his heels to stay one step ahead of them. he, you know, got sucked into phone hacking. >> and is there also a competition with competing titles?

>> very much so. the whole problem with working for a weekly newspaper is you get a story on wednesday, you got three days to sit on it, just hoping no one else is going to, you know, steal it from you. i was locked in a hotel room in a foreign country with somebody, for example, princess diana's instructor, and spent two weeks with him in amsterdam of all places, his choice, so nobody else could get to him, and so, yes, constantly hiding in vans from other journalists. i remember buying up a couple of won a marriage, a blind date marriage, and we flew them to the bahamas. it was a lovely story, and we spent two weeks there, but we spent the entire two weeks hiding there for the pop rat cy, and we speaked them out of hotels at two in the morning,

and having car chases, and it was good fun, and i mean, it's been a really enjoyable way to spend my career. >> flights to the bahamas accepted. any pressure on your experience of the resources available to you to research stories 1234 >> probably not, no. the brief was i don't care what it costs, i just want the defining stories of the week. our budgets were massive. i mean, when i took over the deputy features editor, i had a budget of 3.1 million pounds a year, biggest budget of any newspaper department in the country, so yeah, no, i had a lot of money to spend, wasted on pis to be honest, but giving the money to people who could tell us a good tale, about, you know, a corrupt politician or a sports

star, but i never felt restraints. that was the good thing having a big pot of money to work there. >> on the question of editors, you mentioned at the start of that last stance, was it a question of the editors setting the cultural tone in the newsrooms you worked in, or did the new editor come into an established culture? >> well i think being there, i think i felt like it was a british institution just because you bought it, and i think that was a bit -- >> i'm having difficulty. i'd be grateful for you to speak up just perhaps a bit louder. >> okay. >> thank you. >> my first editor, piers morgan very much set the trend. he was, i want that story at all costs pretty much. i don't care what you have to do

to get that story. i mean, he wanted to be number one. he was driven to sell over 5 million copies a week, which is a lot. you know, guardian sells 230,000. it's nothing in comparison. at one point you could say half the population of the country were not reading what we had written, and so i think in a sense we were -- in terms of power of the penn because we had the biggest relationship. what i wrote was read by half the population. >> i'll stop you there. you said a little bit about the editor, and his influence on the culture of the newsroom. can i ask you now about proprietors? was it your experience the proprior -- proprietors influencing the

content of that published? >> a couple examples point to the exact opposite. for example, in hugh grant was in l.a., and she was a black prostitute and i was part of the team -- [inaudible] we put her on the front page, and i remember rupert saying why putting that on the front page? doesn't that bring the tone down a little? don't you read your own newspaper? i only met him once and came into the news room, and just a little guy with a tweed jacket. he got stuck between two doors, so i let him out. i said i can't believe this guy is in charge of the biggest media empire of the world and

can't get into the newsroom. >> the intervention mentioned with the brown story, was it usual to have an intervention, or was that an intervention? >> well, to his editor, rebecca brooks or piers morgan, apart from having looked over my shoulder once, you know, just to see what i was up to for no particular reason, no, he would never go to someone as lowly as me. >> moving on to the topic of serious journalism, and i understand you have, for example, covered the golf war. -- gulf war? >> yeah. >> kosovo? >> bosnia, yeah. >> sangat ?rks >> yeah. i pretty well gave up because i was in journalism five years ago

and got hit in the head by a lump of concrete by those intent on killing me, but i smuggled myself across the channel in every way imaginable. >> on the question of what happened to convicted files, you wrote a controversial piece, didn't you, as part of the news of the world naming and shaming campaign? >> yeah. that was rebecca brook's one good idea and initially given to a girlfriend to research, and she couldn't find any so went to the library, and listening to the radio, had recently done a program on the boy scouts and their day-to-days, and a little bit said, you know, we'd like to follow-up, and can we have a look at the workings of the data base, and just went down there basically went through the files

of pedophiles who raped and abused children and served the sentence and were now out and the whole point was that, you know, i might live in my house with my children playing in the back garden and for the first time ever pete the pervert lives next door serving ten years because he raped a child as young as like yours so possibly be the one good thing that -- many good things, but that was the most visible. >> a number of things i want to ask you about that story. the first is you referred to blogging some of the information necessary for that story. when you do that, did you give consideration as to whether or not it would be in the public interest? >> yes. always thinking of the public interest. circulation defines what is the public interest. i see no distinction between what the public is interested in and the public interest clever

enough to make a decision whether or not they want to put their hand in their pocket and bring out a pound and buy it. i don't see it's the job of anybody else to force the public to be able to choose that you must read this. you can't read that. so, yes, and no -- >> that's not quite the point, is it? it's not that anybody's forcing the public then to choose -- >> i'm sorry. >> it's rather whether it is appropriate to do things which otherwise might be considered unethical in some wider goal or maybe you don't think there is an ethical -- >> no, i think they are clever enough to decide on the ethics of its own paper and not someone making the decision of what should be published, and the reason why news of the world sold 5 million copies because there were 5 million thinking people and that's what they wanted to read. that's what drove the people.

we were the mirror to society, and the daily mirror, in fact, 23 you want to dirty the moisture roar with putting lawyers in charge of what people can see, you're going down the wrong route. >> the targets of your story, neither here nor there, is that it? that's a serious question. >> yeah, no, if the public found the target of the stories distasteful, they would not have bought it. the inverse was true. >> a test to what is of interest to the public? >> what is of interest to the public is what they put their hand in their pocket and buy. >> consequences of the of the campaign is it's necessary to have public disorder, wasn't there? >> yes. >> and did you think that the coverage at light of being such to rip up a certain amount of

hysteria? >> yeah, no i -- i felt slightly proud that i create the something that made a riot and got a pediatrician beaten up or whether it was the case to the aspect of what our readers latched on to, but in another way, the republic was outly outraged that for the last 20 years you could have a child rapist living next to a family of four and them never knowing and sometimes letting them babysit, and the abuse would carry on. >> can you -- i'm sorry, i just want to check whether i'm reading this correctly. i felt slightly proud that i'd written something that created a riot and got a pediatrician beaten up. >> oh, yes. i suppose i'm being frivolous, but in the sense have you judged what you do in your career, you like to have an impact, and that

was one story that certainly had an impact. i mean, you, yourself, would not like to spend your career in the back room and having created or achieved anything, and that was the achievement with not having a pediatrician having beaten up clearly, but that was writing a story on such an impact that there were riots because the public was so furious about the way the law was, and it needed to be changed. >> i understand that. i read it back because i didn't think you met what i just -- meant what i just read was the point. >> it was a bit of a joke. >> well, that may not be how it's reported. >> well, i wouldn't. >> perhaps to pick up a little bit more about what you felt, and did you feel that you had a certain power as a journalist who could write a story which would provoke a reaction from a very large audience? >> yeah, i used to love sitting

on the train watching people read things that i had written. isn't that one of the reasons why we do it? i liked the idea that this paper was not just the biggest paper in britain, but in the english speaking world. clearly, we were doing something right, and given that, yes, there was a certain influence that one did that. >> did it matter what the subject matter was? >> no, because that was decided by the reader. we simply mirrored back what they wanted to read. i mean, the whole, you know, the whole point of chasing circulation and nothing else to be the best paper you can be to be the number one circulation is you have to appeal to what the reader wants to read. they are the judge and jury of what is in the paper. if they don't like it, they don't like the fact that you've written a story about charlotte church's father having three in the bed on cocaine, then they

stop buying the product, and the reality was it was bought in millions. this is what the people of britain want. i was simply serving their, what they wanted to read. >> to that extent, you'd have to say the end justifies the means? >> yes, i think so. i think in order to drsh i mean, one of the things we did at news of the world was every interview we ever did, and, in fact, it was not made up because every article i've ever written is recorded and the legal department sometimes wants a transscript of it if we were going to get sued about it. all i've ever tried to do is to write truthful articles, and to use any means necessary to try to get to the truth, and there's so many barriers in the way that

sometimes you enter a gray area that i think you should sometimes be applauded for entering because it's a very dangerous area. my life has been at risk many times and been in war zones, and i used to get death threats at least once a month for 15 years of my career. i never used my own name, never had a house in my own name. my wife received death threats on her home phone. we had security guards living outside my house for a time, moved out, lived in a hotel, you know, it's not an easy life. my surveillance was satellite, you know, huge sacrifices. for the first time in my life i stepped out in the public into a pub, and before that no one had ever known what i did for a living or indeed where i lived.

i sacrificed a lot to write truthful articles, you know, for the biggest circulation english language paper in the world, and i was quite happy and proud to do it which is why i think phone hacking is perfectly acceptable tool given the sacrifices that we make it all we're trying to do is get to the truth. for example, we went to cover the iraq wars, the embedded correspondents, and we spent five weeks in the desert at their station living with the pilots and the ground crew, and all of them were convinced that they were -- there were weapons of mass destruction, and the pilot said they were risking their lives because they've been told by, you know, tony blair and john

prescott and the cabinet there were weapons of mass destruction, and i spent half the time in a chemical suit and they fired 17 missiles towards that base, and all of us were under great risk of being killed, and, indeed, as the war went on, some of these lads that i got to know came back in body bags, and so i think when i, you know, spoke to john prescott and, you know, have no problem at all saying, you know, if i'd -- i didn't actually hack the phone, but if i had to to prove he was not an honorable man because he stood up in front of 200 people in church saying to his wife that i will love you, this is my pledge, and yet he sneaks around the corner and has sex with his secretary. i want to know the man who is partly responsible for sending out these men to their deaths is

an honorable man. i would hack his phone, go through his bins because that's a more important truth than this nonsense of sending journalists to jail which is not good for the country. if you look at the countries sending journalists to jail, china with 34 and the turks have about 20 or 30, and we laugh at those countries saying oh, we're so much better than them, but i'm here because you served me with a section 21 notice that i could be jailed if i didn't show up, seven of my colleagues are under arrest, and all we ever tried is to write the truth. >> i'm not threatening to send you to jail for seeking the truth, but requiring you to come and tell me if i didn't want to hear from you, i wouldn't have done that. i am giving you a platform to say what you are saying. isn't that what it's about? >> well, i suppose it is, but

not all of your witnesses have been issued with a section 21 notice, but having said that, i'm happy to be here. so given that, thank you. >> could i just ask the views you just expressed were commonly held in the news of the world newsroom? >> yes. i think most of us would have done what it was required to get a story. it's hard to get a story. you just don't go up to a priest and say, hello, good sermon. are you a priest because you're not abusing ch o, ir boys. >> i'll come back to another example in a while, but perhaps i could explore the methods that are used by the tabloid press, and certainly in your experience

a step at a time. first of all, can we deal with the interception of conversations? is it your evidence that before 2000, the use of scanners to intercept conversations and obtain stories was widespread amongst journalists 1234 >> yes, it was. >> and that practice has diminished as a result, fist of all, of the switch from analog to digital? >> yeah. >> and secondly because of the ban on scanners? >> no. just the other day there was an example, but its use is really -- the police have taken radios out of the scanning range, but fundamentally what people failed to realize is the mobile phone, all it is is a radio transmate mitter. you transmit your words and

anyone can have a radio with a larger bandwidth, and listen. that's all it is. tony blair didn't have one of these because it just is so easy for anyone to listen in. >> i've been asked to put the next question to you. i understand that when you were growing up, you believed your fellow's telephone was asked and asked to suggest to you there's an irony between that fact and the willingness of journalists to intercept conversations. do you see an irony there? >> well, my father was a journalist, and he used to receive phone calls from campaigns, and he was looking after the fact that there could

be a way to kick start the war, and, you know, my parents at the time saying their phones were hacked. what joy it was that you know in the snows you could spend 50 qid on a spanner and hack conversations, and my understanding of it was it was not illegal, and do we really want to be in a world where the only people who can do the hacking are mi-5 and mi-6? for a brief period for 20 years we actually lived in a free society where we can hack back, and if you start jailing journalists for that, then this is going to be a country that is laughed at by iran and by china and by turkey. >> can i move now to the question of voice mail interception? in your experience, how common was voice mail interception by

journalists at news of the world? >> with the rank-and-file journalists, not uncommon. the journalists swap numbers with each other, you know, you might swap, i think i swapped sigh -- sylvester stallone's mother -- >> stopping you there. my questions are not to be asking about what you personally did unless you want to tell it. you don't have to tell us what you did. >> point being, which actually is ironic given what you just said, that you're absolutely not obliged to incriminate yourself in any way whatsoever, and you ought to know that. how you choose to answer questions is up to you, but i'll give you the warning.

>> it makes nonsense of my assertion that we were acting in the public good, and if i now turn around and say, well, i'm not going to tell you about it. the point of the inquiry is you treat me as a witness rather than the police asking me, and treat me as a potential criminal. to prove politicians are dishon -- dishonorable men and may have dishonorable motives is more important than jailing me for saying i hacked david beckham's phone for example if i were going to say that. >> you were saying that the interception of voice mail by reporters was by the rank-and filer, the phrase yao used, was not uncommon. were intercepted voice mail messages used as leads for the further investigation of stories? >> yeah. i mean, i will say, i mean, what

happened is mobile phone was invented in the 90s, and, you know, the time when industry caught -- >> and tell the phone that you are the owner, and then in the old days put in four 0's because that was the default code. a great many people from, you know, wives thinking their husbanding were staying out late for example, and friends had an episode where one of them hacked into the phone of another one of

them just to see if they were having an affair, and it was all very jolly, and what a joke that was. i'd say at least maybe 20 of the friends., and say your daughter is staying out late, and you want to know where they are and you hit "9" and you want to listen to their messages, but journalists are going to do that to for people who give them stories. the problem came sometimes when they did hit nine and rang them up and they answered the thing. i can say in all honesty once i rang up david beckham expecting the phone to ring because he'd never answer the phone to me, and he did, and he said, how did you get my number? nine, oh, too late, so i didn't hack the phone in that instance because he answered really

quickly, and then the other issue, call waiting, and so again 2 in the morning, you know, much better at these things than a journalist. >> interesting answer, but it digressed a little bit from my question. can i take it then that these intercepted messages were used as leads to investigate stories? >> yeah. >> and you said that it was not uncommon for the rank-and-file to be listening to other people's voice mail. can i ask you now about extent of knowledge in voice mail interception? at this stage, i'm not asking you to name names, but i'm asking you to give as an impression. was voice mail hacking within the news of the world, would you

describe it as widespread or go further and say endemic? >> well, it depends what period you're talking about. if you talk about the period i think it was legal to do it, pre-2001, although this is a gray area here. >> asking about the period in which you were working for the news of the world. >> actually, it was something that might have been done as a last resort because funny enough if you ring someone up and then do whatever you might do to get the engage tone, and yeah self-incrimination. it's a shame you said that because i spoke about it, and, yeah, i'm saying it was illegal to listen to someone's messages before 2001. >> i'm asking you how widespread was news of the world with

knowledge that people were intercepting voice mails. >> oh, well, i was told that it was done by my colleagues before i realized my colleagues had not -- >> let me put it a little more blueprintly. did your -- bluntly. did your editors know that voice mails were being intercepted? >> yes. >> can i move now to the question of the sunday express? >> i can go a bit further on that in that we did all of these things for our editors, for rebecca brooks and andy, and, i mean, you only have to read andy corson's column in bizarre, and it was just belittling one pop star a is leaving messages on pob star b's phone at two in the morning. meet me for a drink.

blatant and obvious. i don't think anyone realized they were committing a crime at the start, and my assertion's always been that andy corson brought that practice wholesale with him when appointed deputy editor, a person i couldn't believe, you know, he should have been made a junior reporter, not the editor, and they should have had the strength of their conviction to say, you know, yes, sometimes you have to enter into a gray area or indeed a black illegal area for the good of our readers, for the public good, and you sometimes are, you know, we're asked our reporters to do these things, but they turned around and said, oh, i didn't know they were doing that. oh, heavens, and then they said, oh, yeah, it was a few others. they should have been heros of journalism, but they are not.

brooks and corson have scorned journalism for trying to drop me and all my colleagues in it. look at what i said. i never said anything bad of anyone who worked with me or any one of my colleagues. if they were with me saying how bad the people throw us to the wall and run off scott free like they did for a year. it was only because i was jumping up and downgoing, you know, the police investigation is a fake, and the phones, and tell the rest to me. eventually, you know, they did a proper investigation, and then the notebook was unearthed, and i had scouts of two senior police officers, you know, happily, you know, on my tele. >> your answer is comprehensive if i may say so about news of the world. let me ask you now about sunday express. while you were working for

sunday express, to your knowledge, were any members of the staff at sunday express hacking voice mails? >> actually, i think the answer to that is no. there wasn't the money available for that investigation that there was at news of the world. you sat outside someone's house for three months cost tens of thousands of pounds, and you might not get a lead from it. >> to your knowledge, were any members of staff hacking into voice mails at national inquirer? >> nope, i never did then, but this is post-2006, so, no. >> and now i'd like to move to the question of the conversation that you had with mr. hugh grant at actual public house at which he tape recorded. and perhaps on the screen, please, the document, the

reference which ends 3 # and then 41. cite evidence about this document earlier in the inquiry. on the page displayed in the screen, on the left hand column about half of the way down, you are asked some questions about the daily mail. >> oh, yeah. [no audio]

>> are you familiar with that? >> yeah, i remember that. i think that is a bit of a misunderstanding. i was just trying to say that, you know, the two biggest paying papers in britain always had the best story, and therefore the highest circulation. the news of the world and the mail. i just didn't say that i wouldn't know if the mail hacked anything or whoever worked at the mail. old stories too. in fact, hugh grant breaking down in his ferrari on sunday, and, yeah, i'd like to at least defend the mail in that regard in that i think i also have proof that story about the issues -- >> i'll come to that in just a very short moment, but having made clear opposition on the

daily mail, could i ask you first, think you wanted to headache clear the opposition as to whether or not you had ever hacked hugh grant's phone. >> yeah, i don't recall. i don't remember having his nur, and i don't recall being in a situation where it would have been useful. >> moving now to the question of the tinglan story, and mr. grant gave evidence to the up -- inquiry, and you've been in contact to say that you know something about this source of the story about -- >> well, i just wanted to do mr. grant a favor because he's a nice bloke, and he said he or she is to hand over the tapes to yourself and also to the police in which i have sufficiently incriminated myself if i

suggested add lunch for me to go to prison possibly, and so thanks very much here, but i think you also overruled him by ordering him to give him the section 21 as well, and he could go to prison if he didn't give them to you; is that right? >> that's not my -- it's your job to answer the question. >> all right. >> perhaps i can steer you back to the land story. >> no, no. i remember it well. >> you have provided us with a letter -- >> yeah. >> the technician should have it, a redacted copy of the letter. at which my solicitor has to be passed up to the technician now to be displayed on the screen a redacted form. >> yeah. sir, i just wanted to say, hugh, thanks for that, thanks for not wanting to send me to prison. you did your avenged number as you said, and i wanted to say in

return the source of the -- you referred to it as ting ting, and maybe that's the nickname, that was -- it didn't come from a phone hack. it came from one of your friends, and they wrote me a letter at the irn in dover saying well, you committed it bit of a there, but, basically, you know, you'd gotten her pregnant, and maybe i'd like to stick a surveillance van outside and get a good set of pictures. that was on april the 12th, 2w0 weeks before the -- two weeks before the news of the world broke the story and something which i immediately sold to the mail on sunday, although there was a technical mixup. >> do you know who you sent this letter to? >> i don't. it was done ano , ma'am mousily, done so swiftly after hugh grant published his tapes that it was -- it was kind of hi

lair yaws in a -- hilarious in a way, but it's great, how often does a story about a star drop into your lap and the next minute he's got a girl pregnant, oh, well. >> and so the bottom line is based on what you know about the source of the story so far as you're aware, it wasn't the result of any phone hacking? >> no. it was just one of those nights going up to mischief really. >> can i move now to some evidence which the inquiry is expecting to hear from mr. campbell and his account. he says poor mcmullan, one of the few former journalists to have mentioned the section of the legal activity to describe hacking as the tip of the iceberg. have you done that? >> oh, i think i was just -- i'm

not -- in context of the extreme length we went to to get a story -- going back to the priest? >> well, i'm asking you whether you've told mr. camp bell -- >> no, indeed, yeah. it was something that you wouldn't start an investigation because the last thing you want to do is tip someone off that, you know, there is someone pretending to be who you wouldn't ordinary think because they had a weird phone call, and so that's why the news of the world went wrong in the sense of that becoming the first port of call instead of the last ditch one. i put that down to the inexperience of andy corson who didn't have a sure editorial hand. first thing an editor asks when brought a story is how do you know and where did you get it? i got it from a phone hack. want a listen?

so if you can actually play that tape that says, you know, meet me at midnight. we'll have -- or in the case of one of these stories, tackling you into the ground and have my way with you. you can hear that from the horse's mouth himself. you know that you're not going to get sued. remember elton john took the lines, and if you don't absolutely know you're not going to get sued for 5 story that you run, and so i would put mr. corson's inexperience at the requiring that degree of proof and not just letting the story run because we had the experience to know that actually you probably wouldn't get sued for that, so instead of it became common place and it was not too badly done. >> i see. so he goes on to say when making a short film for the bbc one show on phone hacking, i

interviewedded mr. mcmullan, and some of the remarks were not broadcast on the advice of bbc liars and included his observations that phone hacking was widespread across the street and not confined to the news of the world. did you say that? >> yeah probably. it's on video. >> seemly editors and executives at news of the world were aware that this and other illegal practices were taking place, and on occasion listening to some of the messages. did you say that? >> yes. >> also in a statement that you believed that phone hacking was widespread across fleet street true? >> yes. i thought the news of the world was one of the really bad defenders. the others were much worse. >> and similarly, was your comment that senior editors and executives of the news of the world on occasion listened to

the messages, is that true? >> when i broke the story, and if i was not in the office or away on story either in a foreign country or in north hampton or something, i would occasionally play a tape of the words that would allow us to run that story without fearing being sued over the fun, and then the editor would go, okay, we've got it. we've got it. we can go with that. >> mr. campbell goes on to say in other meetings i've had with him, he said the use of private detectives was widespread across newspapers and in addition to hacking journalists on occasion sat outside the homes in vans fitted with technology capable of listening into conversations taking place inside. based on the assumption of part-time now using mobiles at home instead of land lines. did you say that? >> well, we all know that. we all know -- we read the

squinty tapes, and when prince charles rang up the darling, we'll know that that was -- i think actually not just the mobiles because if you use a land line without a wire, that's acting as a radio transmitter as well, so i think the squinty tape came from a bt phone, but on a cordless one. >> so when you gave that answer, were you referring only to matters a very long time ago, or were you meaning to refer to matters in this millennium? >> i absolutely know that it still goes on because we were chatting over lunch and i said i'm come out in public clearly and can't be an investigative journalist anymore, but someone came into the bar offering me a digital scanner to buy, and i felt a bit like ewen mcgregor

and there was personal phone numbers of all police officers on a particular force, where five years ago, that's a great source of information, what a great story, but now i can't do that, so, yes, the criminal underworld still uses that. do journalists still use digital scanners? i don't know. i think you can buy them in america and you can have done to make them work in the u.k., but i haven't got one. we used a digital scanner, technology beyond me, and i'm sure that as soon as you invent a new better technology, someone over in taiwan will be inventing a way to listen in, an app or, you know, my days have gone in the last 20 years, not the next

20 years. >> can i ask you now about e-mail hacking? >> yes. >> was news of the world responsible for hacking into anybody's e-mail account? >> i don't know. i don't remember that. i certainly nothing i have been ail to do to do a story. >> i understand that you have been made aware of a technology which allows information from smart phones, in particular from iphones to the tape; is that right? >> yeah. that's always going to be the case. hugh grant kept going on, can they read my text? the reality is now there's an app that it can be transmitted 20 someone else's phone. >> do you know whether or not journalists are using that technology? >> i don't know. i'm out of the loop and don't do

investigations anymore, but, yeah, to be honest, you might be able to legislate against staff reporters, but you can't legislate against all the italians, mexicans, all around the world, actually don't give a hoot about what you're saying here. they are not watching it. they don't care. they just want to make money and get pictures of someone being profitable and then send it back to mexico. it doesn't matter at all what you say or what matters you pass here because it won't stop it. >> moving from that form of hacking to a completely doirchlt information -- different information gathering technique -- >> before you do. entitled to a break so that's our five minutes. [inaudible conversations]

>> due to technical difficulty, the first few minutes of the next segment is not available. we pick up with mr. mcmullan going undercover for a tabloid story. >> did you inpersonate others 20 run stings? >> i was either a drug user, dealer, or a millionaire from cambridge. hopefully i don't look too much like one, duh -- >> and can i ask you now about the question of photographs and obtaining photographs? was it ever considered an acceptable practice to steal a photograph of somebody to print and at the news of the world? >> yes. looking for it now.

that, by the way, is my surveillance van after i potioned as a drug dealer. lucky i was not in it when it was torched. anyway, it was a difficult job and a dangerous job. oh, yeah, here we go. i think that's what we are talking about. >> you may not wish to hold that one up. >> that's the president's wife in france. >> it's a limit early for -- little early for that. [laughter] >> it's a family paper. it's news of the world. >> perhaps you can tell us a little bit about how the news of the world got hold of that photograph? >> yeah, it came from really obscure paris fashion photographer who published a really small no circulation magazine just for the fashion world and found it and said, wow, that's pretty good, and

copied it with a camera, and both of those, going back awhile, and piers morgan got it from them, and said i got this, topless, and so the wife, and but you never get it in a million years because the french are a bit precious about that thing, and we said, just nick them, and we did that and didn't pay for them. the other one held up was john major's mistress. >> and you described your personal role in matters. could you tell us how the news of the world obtained a photograph of john mayor's alleged misstress? >> yeah, i was sent to france and lived there and worked for an agency there for awhile and tried to track down the woman who took john major's virginity

awhile ago, found her, but couldn't get a picture of her with her new boyfriend. the idea was she traded in the british prime minister for this french weekly, and i think the cleaning was in the house, and so a bugged my way in and picked it off the mantle piece and copied it. brooks said, no, put it back, and piers said, no, who cares. put it in the paper, which is what we did. ..

so, you know, the normal things, kim may be for a spread and two or three for paid leave. we didn't pay her but because we didn't pay lagat 750 bonus for rubbing off the source of the story but we had a story already. that's why max kept useful for the story even though she takes a low cut. >> in the exchange for money.

>> there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. i used to see if we didn't just have 15 speechwriters' we would have 1 million neither at the news desk news of the world all the time just salles victoria beckham what can say i need ten grand. that's not good. [inaudible] every few minutes. it is the british public that would supply us a vast majority of stories for money. it's what they wanted to read and that they gave to us to find the way to get in the paper. >> the next subject i would like to deal with this payment and i want to be clear to you i'm not asking you to tell me about anything that you personally might have done. are you aware of the news of the

world police officers for the information? >> it wasn't a crime, it was investigations commesso i don't think much of the british police force think there are none among them, and i would prefer to stick my surveillance van outside the home of the policemen and get some dirt on him as a member of the establishment to be ridiculed and not down but didn't to bed with the police where as the crime goes, and a couple of times i have been sent on stories that the crime guys have gotten from policemen. you have to have a long time for him to risk his career by giving a story that is going to make it to grant for the page lead, ten

maybe for a spread. that's the risk. some stories are worth a lot. for example the whereabouts. maybe one phone call saying as indeed we got from the bodyguard but yes landing at helsinki airport this afternoon that was the defining story about as you know the helsinki link. but yes, dangling a carrot was a very good way of getting the best stories which the british public lacked. >> that answer but security

guards could i rewind for a moment to pull police. do you have any feeling based on your experience to the extent to which police officers are prepared to accept money in return for information? >> not as much as they did in the 80's but i think would be very difficult to offered location for pretty much anything but certainly hasn't the 70's was notorious corrupt but to then i got stamped on and got progressively harder to get information from the police unless it was a amana offical way but they got the stories, the ones they might be referring to came from a policeman who was paid. i wrote that story but it was the crime by that facilitated the payment.

>> can i ask you now in your experience as a journalist being paid by an newspaper - you have worked for for medically confidential the information. >> benign chollet and two years prior to that there was a girl like can't remember and 92 she was killed for the special medical record. there is a difference between you and answering the phone to the receptionist or doctors who have seen a positive test of a big star. what do you do? you can't put your fingers in your years. there is a difference in someone to go into that office and flow through the records may be. did we do that?

i do know there was a special medical record. i wasn't told -- generally rebecca's door was open all the time. >> i won't press you but perhaps i could ask this ethical question. however the information comes to you if it is confidential medical the information, if the story is published it is an ethical difference. >> again my feeling is that under the journalists i'm there to catch people out who lie to us and rule over any means i have no problem at all if the target was worth it looking at

someone's medical record and i can't remember if i have or if i haven't, but it does justify the means. mckenzie said if you don't get the story you get pulitzer prizes were you get sent to prison, so i don't know where i'm going with that question. >> are you aware of the newspapers you have worked for that are paying for information from credit card companies? >> actually yeah. i'm fairly sure the start they were able to attract people's credit histories or where they've been with credit cards. they have a recollection to fall back particularly, but again, i see nothing wrong with knowing for example if the government of the bank of england has the debt

because that might be relevant to the job and something worth publicizing. >> that is twice you've given the same sort of example to rule over us is one. now the government of the bank of england. >> what do you distinguish? because a moment ago you were talking about the celebrity. >> yes. this is the whole point about circulation and the public getting with the public wants. they want that because the circulation stays high. it is with the public wants to read and i think the public is clever enough to be the judge and jury of what goes on in the newspapers and they don't need an external judge and jury to describe what shouldn't be published because if they have any distaste for it it would stop buying it. >> what about the person who's the victim? >> the ordinary people who buy

the product set themselves up for being the victim also. there is no difference between an ordinary man or woman, celebrity, or someone who rules over us because it sells the product. it is clear this is the british public want to read. there is a taste and a market for it. >> the same question and related to the telephone companies, are you aware of any of the newspapers that they were fort for paying for information for example british telecom for the mobile phone company? >> that was kind of the trick. the people employed or more into bagging to try to trick people love their codes.

that's why they made so much money because for some reason he was really good at that. >> moving into the question of the privacy investigators. health extensive in your experience was the use of the private investigation news of the world? >> it was too expensive. i spent five years and then things were made suddenly confronted with the budget that was before me, and i really couldn't believe it. somebody paid 4,000 pounds. that's a lot of it but we did have to future writers and the answer was actually most of the time we didn't. it was amazing reporters would make the number of phone calls because they didn't want to sit outside the house the got an

agency to do it for them. the turnaround the numbers and they got a picture without actually doing any work. in reality of what really needed was someone to drive up there in a car to follow whoever it was we suspected of the wrongdoing rather than waste all of this money on the unnecessary detail. i would never want to bring anybody until i get the van outside the house it was just going to tip them off. whereas you got a much greater chance of getting a kiss on the doorstep you were looking for. so i tried to rein in. but not only that i wanted to know exactly what they were doing so demanding that bags you are paying to do this. so how do you do it? didn't want to answer because it was in their interest, not exactly to tell me how to, you know, obtain a pin number for

the mobile phone because that is where they were making their money. when finally i said i'm paying you for the tape send it in. funny when i listen to some of the tapes they were awful. they were worse than anything i could have done. i felt who are these people? you look more closely into from the private investigator is. you see a professional footballer in one case it was a hell's angel and steve at least had a pedigree and was quite respectable in the sense. excuse me. >> so i stopped using the hell's angel and felt this is going to get them into trouble and a lot of trouble with did get us into. >> what sort of trouble did you get? >> it was being taped by rios as

an unnecessary things and a waste of money. no good could come of it, and there were other parts of the newspaper pressing the accelerator and they were going there with anticarson. >> can you give an indication of the number of the different private investigators you were aware were being used? >> i remember one of my colleagues today shot in the investigative firm in britain. i spent an afternoon at a private investigative conference just saying sometimes some of your clients are going to have stories who might want to get revenge by also selling it to the news of the world and make

another 10,000 pounds to actively recruit private investigators and most private investigations will have one good story on the books maybe once a year or once every two years, but then there was quite a good way to go. >> [inaudible] >> we use the investigator who was legitimate and married to a police officer and knew exactly where the boundaries were and never stepped over them. >> and didn't commit any illegal act. can you give the inquiry an indication of the range of things required by the investigators? >> one of the hardest things working to the deadline he need to get an interview to know where that person is to have a knock on the door and it's quite

hard in the old days and the worst case news agency we used to go to the records office to get a marriage certificate, name of first husband and the maiden name and then to the mother in about ten minutes it's just amazing. they cannot triangulate where the most likely address is. that's good and that's legal. that's using computer technology you can borrow off the shelf. it's quite expensive and it's quite hard to operate effectively the good and legitimate private investigators can address in a matter of minutes because the deadline is going and somebody has to follow. >> you give an impression that it was the reason for the efficiency. would that be right to try to

find the method of obtaining information that was perhaps removed from journalists that word in my will to some extent? >> you are going to have to be more specific. if the news of the world commissioned a private investigator to do something it could be blamed on the investigator and not on the journalist. >> i can see that being one step away from that. yeah. i can't cross that an equally i think there was a -- that was a mistake that some of my colleagues have made and that is why there is a paper trail that links them directly to say as an investigator of some experience i didn't need to go down that route.

i could get a little more comfortable using my own bags but i was the only one who knew about it. i didn't have to pay anyone. there was no paper trail leading to anything i'd done. these investigators of the news, i think unless i was sitting here i would laugh at the police when they would say we are going to arrest you tomorrow what have you got you haven't got anything because i know what i did and i know how much it paid to do things. i wouldn't have paid someone to do something illegal then going to build the act. so why don't think you are going to get people like myself for others like that at all because they were double deutsch and the legal act any way. some people did have that the velocity let's put it one step

away. >> turning to a new topic, that is pursuing celebrities. you have any experience at pursuing celebrities? >> yes. >> and was a tabloid tactic? >> at news of the world we had about 12 that we could switch and a small round because you could park outside and the sankar is there on thursday and is quite handy, and yes i absolutely loved it. it was such a good fun. how many jobs can you actually have? was great. >> and afterwards? >> [inaudible]

>> can you speak up, please? >> there was a change to read the news of the world photographers had to wear a suit and were quite clear in distancing ourselves from the pot for -- proper -- paparazzi to the estimate was any consideration given to [inaudible] as a celebrity? >> quite rightfully the celebrities with excellently love it. i give an example of brad pitt. he has got a big motor bag. he would come out and he stayed as the number one star and isn't one to complain about.

sienna miller should be [inaudible] occasionally he would come out and go let's go and they would just have a laugh. so he had a very positive attitude towards that aspect of the job which was a whole other firm. >> was any thought given to the ethics of whether there was the proper thing to do? >> i think it was just something they said. >> do you have any experience or journalists searching through people's luggage to find information?

>> whether or not this was legal -- >> there's no need to tell us about your own involvement what were interested in at this stage and not for practice went on >> i think most journalists, me included with the content incredibly interesting. it gives you such a great startling point much better actually and hacking the phone. is it illegal to go through someone? >> what i'm saying is there is no need -- what i would like to know is whether there is information to the rest of your knowledge?

>> that surveillance joost? >> i was trying to make a -- get a cocaine smuggling ring and i got to know them quite well and the city among them and in the old days you didn't have the tiny little cameras sometimes he would have a battery pack strapped to the fact and the two guys who were nice to be at the drop of a hat. it was a very dangerous job and i had someone backing me about site in that particular and i was getting close to the end of the table and i'd been there about 45 minutes in 1945 just waiting for the quick and i had to get out of their.

it was like a test, and i remember they brought a lot of cocaine in it there was about two and a half left >> it was in the extreme panic about to click off and was being tested that is the kind of pressure you're under when you were doing investigations. it's not easy. you can't say to you smuggle a lot of cocaine? you can't, you have to be more clever than that. >> to understand the need for a clever activity that remains in relation to celebrity.

>> yes. obviously it was. >> without the same threat? >> after my closest meredith experience of the us sunseekers i thought i'm not getting paid enough to do this. the most dispiriting thing was a token perhaps of the squadron leader i was really enjoying it and i used to pull copies and i remember writing the front page of the times once and long pieces for the sunday telegraph and i thought this is great i hope i can stay a long time for the news editor saying the war isn't doing very well.

they are on a satellite phone from can i come back to london and do some soul be the commercial business? so i suppose i threw myself out to enlighten the british public who have now turned against journalists somewhat. >> when engaging in the covert celebrities was there any sort of consideration as to whether or not it was an ethically proper thing to do? >> absolutely. it's nonsense. hugh grant prances but for the camera and then complains about it. steve says i'm a serious actor and a writer and i want to talk about my privacy. sienna miller, what does she do? [inaudible] you're interfering with my privacy. and another one.

a series of calls for the enquirer on robert patton pattenson. i can't believe this sienna miller go away. there's a joke actually i'm writing a book the title is i've never heard it sienna miller until she starts going on about her privacy and exactly the same with hugh grant. he hadn't made a film for two years. the pictures i took of him could hardly sell. fiber his publicist and would say your career will do battle with a sudden ten times the number of photographers outside his house than there were before so the huge amount of cynicism for both hugh grant they've done rather well with their careers

by their privacy. >> you don't need to do that. all you have to do is people lose interest in you very, very quickly. it doesn't take long but if you jump back onto the stage it happens all the time. it happens with katie price going to hear dressers and she knew i missed her because she was too good at pretending not to like the just because i saw her going to the hairdressers. she came out of the hair dressers and she gave me the finger through the hair dresser's door and she knew exactly what she was doing.

she came out and gave me the bird, and another example -- >> i'm going to stop you there and ask you this so that we can understand. are you telling us in your view there should be no such thing as privacy? >> in 21 years of invading people's privacy i've never come across anyone who's been doing any good -- people who i think need privacy are people who do bad things. privacy is this these bad people need to do bad things in. privacy is particularly bad and if you keep that in mind, privacy fundamentally no one else needs it. privacy is evil. it brings out the worst qualities in people. they've got hypocrisy.

allows them to do bad things, and once the british public wises up to the true perils of one spinoff ferc sample if there is a privacy law your secrets are going to be much more available than they were before, so i think an example of somebody who is in a free and open society who for example gives a lecture and wants to pour a child. in britain you can do that privately but if that person goes on there is power to the person that has the secret where if you live in a society as you can have an abortion but you must do it openly. you cannot have any privacy in the same way as legalizing

heroin will get rid of the drug dealers privacy will have really bad consequences not just for democracy but in a whole host of ways. >> can attest that against the article you root against jennifer l. yet? jennifer l. yet was the daughter and you wrote a story about her in 1995, didn't you? and the theme of the story was that she was begging and working part time as a prostitute. >> there are a couple of stories that i regret to read more so after she was caught stealing

and then i interviewed her again and she kills herself and jennifer went on to overdose after an article that absolutely humiliated her and it was unnecessary and i regret it because i got to know her fairly well and quite liked the position. her father just died of aids and she was on a methadone script which i knew about for the heroine needles and also there were notes with of the same number in her been. so i knew exactly where she was sad and the fact that she was digging out side of the station came to the claimant reporter from the police officer who was surprised who he had told to

move on because in fact they had been in the trading places and had been a millionaire and indeed his daughter lived in a really nice flat in camden but she didn't have any money to get the ten lb bag or whatever it is she needed. i went too far on that story. she was crying out for help not to me as a news of the world reporter, and i said quit digging and gave me 50 and came back to my place and the tape recorders running, photographer hiding in the bush. it gets worse but i don't need to go into the details of it because it is not something children should be listening to.

we then took her back to the flat and took a load of pictures of her topless and then i think she was in the grips of addiction and she said she described me as her boyfriend so i had befriended her. i did want to help her but i was driven primarily to write the best story i could. it was here is the golden girl on the carpet as her dad goes to pick up a golden globe and she was really pretty and here she is with digging at the change station offering sex in return

for money and also a police officer had come across her and should have helped her as well, and then when i learned a few years later that she had killed herself that was one regret but not many. >> does that experience make you think that in fact there ought to be some form of protection for privacy? >> no because the news of the world didn't decline after that putting off on buying at. the judge about the leadership came with that. >> i don't think you can argue that you are not allowed to read

this. people should have freedom of speech and people should be able to choose their own judgment about whether or not they want to buy something no matter how distasteful it is and crack is distasteful to me. [inaudible] the public carried on. >> i asked you earlier i understand there was an occasion where you gave prior notice of the story to jefferson king, and when you give that prior notice in that case what was your objective? >> he was a gladiator and have problems with drugs he was a

role model needed to be fired and said of the sting to captured and we had a mold of what tell us exactly what they were up to and so we knew so i run him up and said you are in the trouble because you have been caught by by teeing cocaine. tell me all about it and i will tell you do it like this and he wasn't very bright and said [inaudible] yes, i've done a lot of cocaine. he went i've got a lot of cocaine. thanks very much. so he hasn't really worked

since. >> do you consider that ethical? >> i like to think they are responsible for a lot of misery around the world. esen yes. >> legal oversight. how much was there when you were working for the press? >> what you read in the book is on tape. you would not be allowed to get -- not to do an interview that wasn't recorded. if there was any doubt or problem with it if the editor was a bit concerned he would have you sit down and transcribe it turned out and then tom would want to listen to the transcript. >> did you get the impression that the judgments the were

being made prior to the publication were aimed at insuring compliance with the law or were they based on the judgment of how much profit would be made from publishing the story with possible financial consequences of the collection? -- legal action? >> boustany sure we didn't get sued. any possible story could go in the paper and was tom crone's job to make sure that any attempt to sue us here's the for u-haul thumb here's the tape. least once a month someone would try to attempt to sue every story i've written because it was a way of making a lot of

money and the but deny it, they would deny everything said. and you would turn around and say join the conscript and they would back away. in seven years i said i.t. fi diane upright and about 300 stories and news of the world. they were on tape. >> and the question of the expenses. can you tell us a little bit, again, without any personal examples of the culture in the tabloid newspapers that you work for in relation to expenses crux first of all, the news of the world. how would you describe the attitude of the consensus in news of the world? >> in some regards we were not well paid. the salary was only 60,000 year

and as a way to bump up the salary we were given a certain amount of leeway of 15 or 20 a year. is that legal? it's not. that was just the way for example one guy was living the side down and they would say listen you've got to start making up so your expenses match the rest of this so it was almost a direction from above. we were not fooling anyone. >> without telling us what you personally did, was it a case of people putting in excessive expense claims that did not

match the actual expenditure? >> it can be slightly creative but also that is one we they would get rid of you as well. for example, i remember i was trying to get back from kosovo but the only way out was fleeing the last plane and they were charging so much money for that flight and just for one time in my life put his hand in his pocket and gave a five-star hotel in greece and first-class flight because he knew in that particular the reporter had gone out with us we had gone to that checkpoint and the then shot in the head by albanians and we had met with them and the machine guns but missed and so we want

to get out now and yeah, you are allowed only way if there is give-and-take. that is great for the two or three grand of expenses. thank you. >> can i ask you now a question about the relationship between the news of the world and are you aware whether any sticks and carrots were provided by the newspaper to turn a blind eye to anything? >> welcome and would have to say that the way it developed from the time that margaret thatcher wanted to develop and he said

well you back me and he did. the next time tony blair flew to sydney when it was his turn to ask will you back me and he did and he won the election, then comes cameron's turn and he does the same but for the previous 21 years, you've got the political parties and the prime minister says we have a lot so we are going to turn a blind eye to what really devotee might be going on. if that's the way your viewing news of the world into an equally this is the way we will view it, too and so that's why we get to the point where david cameron wants to become prime minister and he ends up so for

the 21 years you have the culture of the illegality of the phone hacking of expenses if you like and it's going on under brooks, so what we have is the future prime minister cozying up and, you know, being molded by the criminals in chief, the association, cameron's election based on criminality and that is why i was excited when i first met davis that's why i'm gwen to stick my surveillance outside of flecha brooks house because fundamentally it was a great story and james and can run all kind of planning and scheming how they were going to try to make him an the next prime minister and for the back of trucks and discipline to jail for the things she did which helped cameron become the prime minister this is my watergate. i'm going to bring down the government and the way to bring down the news of the world was a

shock of the turnaround but i'm responsible for the reopening of the investigation which has led to the notebooks being gone through and ended up with the realization that the phone had been hacked and here we are today. >> you've explained what you think is the relationship between the various politicians and murdoch. is that something you have direct on the job or not? >> i spent a while going around all the parts we used to meet each other around side their houses. you don't need to regulate the press. we will regulate ourselves. not only over here with the surveillance van outside and

also somewhere in there the daily mail living of the learnings because the number of them who advertise in the publications. when i confronted him it was i hadn't noticed a good bit of journalism so if the story anybody that is a celebrity be it press or you're own boss if there is a good enough story and that is the job of the journalists to keep the journal of the day and write about what happens and about those that have power over us. >> here's what you said in your answer about the police and how they might have behaved with the news of the world is that a matter of speculation or is that something that you have direct knowledge of?

>> wally have the direct knowledge in the sense that they made three requests to come in to give evidence in the caution which means i would have been arrested before giving evidence and i refuse and they read me a letter saying i must come in to give evidence and in return i just said no, i'm not coming into the you know where i am but drive down interest me if you want to. instead note new evidence, case closed. i kept jumping up and down about that and that's why it was reopened in the that is why we are here today follow because clearly there had been a cover-up because journalists are involved with senior police officers and have become quite

an intimate relationship between politicians, the police and the journalists, too cozy maybe. on a lot more comfortable with that side of things and deeply suspicious of the police officers and i prefer to come at that question from the ankle than to say. >> let me ask you now about acc to read to you have an opinion in your experience about how effective the acc has been as a regulator of the press? >> people have stepped back a bit. the days when it was so much fun

to have gone. they don't want to be taken off in the proprietor may say you have to many against you we need a new editor because public opinion will go against us which fundamentally is the product has to sell but the moment it isn't selling well. my new agency was the best because they were not the commission to keep their journalists in work anymore. you don't need to tap down because the press is without restrictions to its changing industry and i think in ten years' time newspapers will be quite a different.

>> you've spoken out since the story broke. can i ask you this, have you been by news international or any other not to speak out? >> some of my former colleagues have given me a day in the lives and a few of them passed by me because fundamentally the low men, the reporters were skirred but our bosses so for that reason alone -- >> they were not risks. >> they would record them and throw it back in their face. steve nicu said at one point in your evidence that others were worse i think.

are you in the position to give an informed view about whether or not they work with evidence based cox. about ten years ago i did a shift on the sunday mirror and the news editor. it's a guangya knows and is he going to leave it behind? i'm not going to say anything about any other newspapers

because i'm pretty unplayable residues so i better not carry on the on that route. >> is their anything you'd like to say to assist in the recommendations for the future of the press? >> yes. this came about due to the phone hacking i don't think anyone disputes two celebrities being panned by the same companies paid me, 20 of century fox and the international. but, i have a two-year old son who went missing for about 20 minutes and i felt emotion i imagined when her child went

missing and it is one of the most powerful emotions you can feel sprinting up and on the street and went to the park thinking the guard opened, and now it's clear that he appears to have furnished the information to allow the hacking of the phone and it's very difficult for me to say actually because i know how corrupt the police can be, and the hacking of her phone was not a bad thing for journalists, a well-meaning journalist trying to help find the girl. we did a world famous interview. for the people there saying the

police are corrupt and more likely to commit them solve one so they reached me and said help waukee the enthusiastic trigger for journalists on their side looking and heroin weighing it must be for colleagues to hide away information when it's not such a bad thing. there's a number of articles i wrote. i will show you one. not the first journalist to put a link to the real way. cool ending story to read our intentions were good and honorable. we were doing our best to find the little girl and the police

were utterly incompetent and should be ashamed the man who killed her were able to carry on and now there's a number of others without children and i felt the same emotion losing a child that i imagine and you must put that aside and say actually the press and the free press and the press that stays in the grey area is a good thing for the country and the democracy and that's all. >> thank you. thank you for your evidence. >> damn friedman at the national journal. lawmakers on both side of the capitol are debating whether and how to continue the payroll tax cut that expires on december 31st. bader some of the details on the latest proposal by the senate

democrats? >> the senate democrats' proposal is focused on, as you mentioned, extending a payroll tax for employees. they have dropped a tax break on the employer side in the latest proposal, but they continue to have a reduced payroll tax great, not the current 4.2 but the 3.1% rate so they cut it further. the unchanged the way they pay for the bill. they continue to have a surtax on incomes of more than a million dollars a year but they are cutting that roughly in half the say and they are adding a means test also for millionaires people wonder million dollars a year to get some benefits. as well as sun setting. the surtax on millionaires after ten years are concessions that should get a deal but in reality this bill will probably not be double to pass the senate. >> more than half of the republican conference though to build in the alternative

proposal by leader mitch mcconnell. >> will there be revised this week? >> republicans seem to be considering that. there was a setback for the senate republican leadership of. they are trying to secure out of the to get their members behind the bill the sounds like mcconnell on tuesday of firms said he was waiting for the house bill to come over so it sounds like republicans in the senate have decided to set their what the house is doing and may not be advancing an alternative proposal. they would make the point privately the proposal mcconnell offered last week was to provide cover for some republicans. we didn't want to vote against the democratic bill last week and it is unclear if they will do that again. they did give people like senator scott brown from massachusetts or senator heller from much of the chance to say i don't support the democratic bill but i support this alternative that we've put forward. >> how much of the proposals but, senate democratic sen also to learn from the house republicans?

>> the senate democrats' proposal susan collins already voted with democrats and we would expect her to do that again. they might get a few more republicans to vote for it. they've lost three democrats last time and will lose one or to more of those. the senate and the house proposal which looks like will be rolled out on wednesday or later this week officially in addition to including payroll it would extend unemployment benefits and take care of the medicare reimbursement formula. ..

to make us realize what happened to the financial system 2007 / 2008 was truly happening to the european union it kn nassetta of a malfunction.

the. >> did morning. i am pleased to call the hearing on invested of oversight of the courts to order we have an extremely distinguished panel of witnesses today we want to look back senator specter to this committee re he has spent many, many hours i will introduce the panel after the members make their opening statements.

today be bill be discussing the proceedings of united states supreme court and better been grassley bill that moby televising the proceedings that have been hearing some proposals in the past of televising all levels of the federal court and although i have supported those i do recognize as a former prosecutor that there are more complicated factors when you deal with trials of the lower courts and there should be discretion in the matter. by a focus today is on the supreme court and i'd like to begin with a quote brown the decision upholding the rights of access under the first amendment justice brennan observed paul mack availability of the trial transcript is no substitute for a public presence at the trial itself and is any experience appellate judge can attest it could be a perfect record of events

that transpired but i could not agree more. more of the was talking about presence in a courtroom the argument is just as persuasive with his respect to allow cameras in the courtroom. although the supreme court is open to all americans in theory but the reality public access is significant restricted. only a few hundred seats available some of which are reserved for specific individuals of visitors are often a may get three minutes of observation time before they have to give up their seat. friends of mine who have attended when spouses or colleagues are arguing before the court said it is an amazing experience. it on to less than it did just expanded to other people. report may over 99 percent of americans do not live in washington d.c.. that is their opportunity to

visit the court not only by the cheers of the room and geography and it should not be a once-in-a-lifetime experience to see the court inaction. the impact of the court's ruling has immediate consequences for real people and four bru-ha-ha 3-1/2 to look past brown at the board of education. in recent years the supreme court has made some strides to increasing transparency. chief justice roberts enacted a new policy making audio making or zero of -- oral arguments available but not on the same day. before coming to the senate senate, and as my time as county attorney, i say the transcripts and audio recordings are not the same as watching george's question lawyers live to see the expression of the participants.

that is why i find a compelling need for televised coverage of your arguments. the public has the right to see how the court functions and have a reaches its rulings and the same our group for televising speeches from a press conference by the president or a hearing like this one. members of the public, and especially those who did not have the time or means to travel to washington d.c. could watch the analysis of the great issues of the day or whatever comes before the court. of course, even if you live across the street is not a reasonable proposition to attend on a regular basis. so in reality public access is very limited and i believe greater access is an important tool to understand the system of law and to understand the judge's

integrity and impartiality in dealing with both sides. a voice vote was a shame the overwhelming majority of americans could only see the justices during their confirmation hearing a recognize there are the two the mat and ideas about televised court proceedings are making them available and in reality those mechanisms are becoming more indistinguishable and intertwined. we thought it was important to have witnesses years to take the opposite side why we're very glad to have such a distinguished panel of people with different viewpoints. but i think the more difficult concerns to address our up the trial court level to the presence of witnesses, jurors in criminal defendants. those issues are not present in the united states supreme court perk are three will hear, the supreme court in iowa has successfully adopted cameras in macquarie room as have other state

courts. through those experiences a pilot program running in 14 cords we have had a chance to examine the question that opponents of cameras have raised such as potential issue of due process and in some cases their concerns have not materialized and other cases they could address the concern. it is important to know the senate legislation championed buy senator durbin and senator grassley and others to provide if they believe any party due process rights would be violated, the case would not be held. which is important but i believe the court. i am confident the justices of our supreme court

achievable to insure the dignity and decorum of a courtroom and the presence of cameras will not interfere with of fair and orderly administration of justice, but rather make it stronger and with fact we will turn to ranking member sessions for his opening remarks. >> thank you. you is do such a good job to allow an open and fair discussion of afford to the day. good to see senator specter back. he is changing. rioting his fourth book cover practicing law, is still active in the great issues of our time. and that is most of mired with my time in the senate. this is what i am thinking. i don't claim to have an all correct.

the power of the court, its role, legitimacy and moral authority rises on the fact it is removed from the hustle and bustle of everyday life, the passion and ideology, politics, a place where justice is done under the constitution on the united states. and to discover the legal issue in the case and to decide that based on objectives of the long-established rules of interpretation and adjudication in. it is a complicated process. mozer in the not a form for policy debate and that is why the judges make clear their objectivity. the then have the object if to edge the only thing that is important, that

decision, it speaks for itself and for those who rendered it and their personality. and about its decision to see that process inaction i am not sure how you see its judgment being formed. never mind to to have the objectivity floor to be received more as a policy or political entity the accords morrow 30 has perhaps by the been reduced. i know congress can constitutionally direct to

those cameras sonat. croatia did take it their view. >> they don't tell us how to win hours here. the rear hoof insurgents so i am pretty pleased with a great court system in

america and i think we should be cautious about making significant changes. thank you. this this is important to my colleagues and bonuses, i 1/2 to 10 or or the age 45 to over 10 years ago senator schumer -- schumer in by were granting federal judges the authority to allow cameras proposes that time the bill has been brought before the committee many times in a chevron has spent scrutinized and improved upon and reported out of committee in a broad bipartisan support. today's hearing crocuses on the companion issue of the supreme court should submit cameras. just yesterday's senator durbin introduced the act

that would could. >> like the sunshine and brought before the committee, it was flavored. >> my a senator i have told them i am glad to see him back inaction. my interest of expanding access was 11 years ago when the supreme court decided to hear arguments of the florida recount k72 -- to a 2000 election in. we urge the supreme court to open in the argument to live broadcast in response it then took the unprecedented step of releasing an audio recording. and it was the side of progress to do is the

opportunity with sell you get to ended this the supreme. >> of the nature of the government and the fundamental principles upon which it was bill to require even more. abraham lincoln said our government is of the people and by the people and for the people and the constitution has checks and balances may give the government accountable to the people part of the best way to ensure them is with transparency end. >> we had a pulled reduced last year but they are too

old. what to be a better source of the workings of the supreme court ban the supreme court itself? the supreme court stated what transpires americorps room is public property. if it is public property then it belongs to the whole public not just the 200 people who can fit inside. with today's technology no reason why it arguments could not be broadcast to be unobtrusive and a respect of manner reserving the dignity of the supreme court's work to grant access to millions of americans wishing to no more. in my state, iowa, over 30 years and has permitted the broadcast of the trout the appellate courts and i am pleased to about our supreme court chief justice mr. cady today and has come to share

with this committee presiding over the court a strong proponent of transparency and continues to pioneer the way to give the public greater access. three things to be included in the record first is a letter i wrote to chief justice roberts asking for the health care law case to be televised per car would like to put that in the record. the second in third is the editorial opinions one written by the second largest newspaper and i was the cedar rapids gazette and the editorial stating his support of the legislation and the other of the washington quote -- "washington post"

both believe they would like to of the proceedings broadcast and it is often america's heartland and reestablished would increase of fat breens. >> i know senator durbin will join us and have a few words to say. we ask that you stand to take the oath do you affirm the testimony you're about to give before the committee is a truce, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god? syncing very much. i will make do -- go through with your remarks for five minutes and senator specter is here with us and has served in the chamber 30 years so long as serving senator in his face of

history as chairman hugh was a tireless advocate for televised supreme court proceedings. he did not have to come back at this point* he has a lot of things going on as editor sessions pointed out but we are honored you would join us today to make your first official return to the senate. thank you for being here senator. also to hear from mr. goldstein event. >> it has argued 24 times so of harvard and stanford it is the popular of the block for the shrew rumor and things like that first we have two justice mr. cady he served as assistant county attorney and a district

court judge and from the court of appeals before he was appointed in 1998 to the supreme court. next is of the third circuit court of appeals previously serving as chief justice and assets of court judge prior to this appointment the judge scirica served in pennsylvania. >> ms. mahoney founded an appellate practice where she works to day in from. >> thank you for joining us and we will begin our testimony with senator specter. >> with the information age

a lot of them permission comes from television. in 1980 the case and to know of the heublein. the supreme court said bert bride decided we would do and bus forces to call upon

the end the court decides use few if and every subject two between. not only does it to affect the daily lives of all americans, it has a tremendous impact of the separation of power pro in to have backend angers no. >> ball with positions of the cases have not disappointed. the authority of congress under the commerce clause was unchallenged for over 60 years then morris cut back and chief justice rehnquist said in horror that the

legislation was unconstitutional because of the congressional messes. i have often wondered what is the nominee is has this leave the room. >> bay archer's sworn into the supreme court. >> they are very eight ideologically gifted at the moment and i think the public needs to understand the case of would is coming up for supreme court review and that is a case the 62% and the rest should produce

half of that -- televise that they could all they stay for three moods but misuse. i have a favorable opinion of matured assume but some how that many others get off with the 180-degree reversal from when they get to the core. the issues that are coming up in the affordable care act really ought to be subject to a really close public scrutiny.

i believe the legitimacy of the court itself is at stake for the people to understand what the court does. there is no good reasons not to televise the supreme court and the esthetic and but he can to do so. >> but why it is a crusade derive proceeding senators sessions has a right when he says they consider their domain? it is not part of it is the publix domain and ought to

be accessible to the public. thank you. >> thank you senator specter. >> fact is never a problem. my perspective is somebody who does argue redo a before the court and reverberates hey with those who sit through mid being to the court i how do to include time. >> host: but just to follow up with the health care case we could only imagine if the sentral decision or televise the least 50 million people would watch that.

it is so important the decision to pass up legislation to disembody the serious questions of the statute's constitutionality, but only if 200 people can be in the room. that is how we get a lot of our information. we make a difference to their television there. robo just make three points televising proceedings would be bad, not a good for the supreme court and that requires the justices to do it. >> i think that is good for the eighth supreme court and. >> the zorro