Short diary, I hope no one else has posted this yet. CNN has posted a story providing more detail about News Corp.'s anti-competitive practices. Floorgraphics is the basis for the U.S. investigation of News Corp.'s subsidiary News America Marketing Group. As you probably already know, this case involves computer hacking and anticompetitive behavior.
CNN has obtained the video deposition of Floorgraphics founder George Rebh. He details a meeting that he and co-founder Richard Rebh had with News America CEO Paul Carlucci and President Dominick Porco. It turned out that Carlucci thought the point of the meeting was for George and Richard Rebh to sell their company to News America, below is part of the deposition after Carlucci found out that was not the point of the meeting:
Rebh said Carlucci's response was that "I have always liked floor advertising, so from this point on, consider us your competitor. And he said again, words to the effect, and you should know that I work for a man who wants it all and doesn't understand anyone telling him he can't have it all. And know this, if you ever get into any of our business, I/we will destroy you."
After a few seconds, Rebh said, according to his deposition, "So let me see if I understand this. You can get into our business and compete with us, but if we were to get into yours, you will destroy us. And he said, that's right. ... At that point, the meeting came to a rather abrupt and quick end, where I think everyone realized what had been said and the gauntlet that had been put down."
There is more good stuff in the article and I don’t want to quote too much. For instance, it delves into the information accessed from the computer hacking.
We can all rest assured that Gov. Chris Christie was on the case and reviewed all the pertinent evidence in this case:
Michael Drewniak, a spokesman for New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who was then U.S. attorney, said in a statement to CNN, "The U.S. Attorney's Office receives (and received then) thousands of referrals each year from parties seeking criminal investigations. Any decision to prosecute or not prosecute is based strictly on the strength of evidence or lack thereof, and allegations with critical weaknesses simply do not go further. Prosecutors are ethically obliged not to bring cases that have defenses that are judged insurmountable."
Does this mean his excuse for not investigating is that he was overworked and there wasn’t sufficient evidence?