Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Rebekah Brooks Questioned at Parliament Committee Hearing; Obama Speaks of Progress with the 'Gang of Six'; Rebekah Brooks Testifies
Aired July 19, 2011 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(CONTINUING COVERAGE)
REBEKAH BROOKS, FORMER CEO, NEWS INTERNATIONAL: I can only comment what I know and I don't know that.
TOM WATSON, BRITISH CULTURE, MEDIA & SPORT COMMITTEE: What is your belief?
BROOKS: I don't -- I just -- I don't know.
WATSON: You don't know what he did?
BROOKS: I don't -- I don't know what he did for the "News of the World." I'm sorry. I don't know what he did.
WATSON: Do you not think people would just find it incredible that as chief executive of the company, you don't know?
BROOKS: Well, it may be incredible, but again, it is also the truth. I heard about Jonathan Reese's rehiring by the "News of the World" by an investigation conducted by Panorama.
WATSON: Do you ever have any contact -- did you ever have any contact directly or through others with Steve Whitmore?
BROOKS: Yes.
WATSON: What did you do with him?
BROOKS: Steve Whitmore was one of the private detectives and, as I said, who was -- he informed I think the major part of operation motorman, and at least as far as he said, and --
WATSON: I know what Steve Whitmore did, I would like to know what you did with him.
BROOKS: What, sorry?
WATSON: I would like to know what you did with him.
BROOKS: Well, I'm in the main, I -- my investigative -- my use of private investigators, while I was editor of "News of the World", was purely legitimate and in pursuit in the main, as you know, for the addresses and whereabouts of convicted pedophiles (INAUDIBLE). And that was my majority use, if not almost exclusively use of private investigators myself. So, I expect that the "News of the World" also used private investigators for other stories.
WATSON: Are you aware that Steve Whitmore conducted to actually directed to look up some of the (INAUDIBLE)?
BROOKS: I wasn't aware of that until two weeks ago.
WATSON: You are now?
BROOKS: Yes, I am.
WATSON: And why did you order a mobile conversion from Steve Whitmore?
BROOKS: I -- as I said, it was 11 years ago. I have answered this question many times and -- but just to repeat, a mobile conversion, which is finding an address from a mobile phone, that is what a mobile conversion is, and can be got through legitimate means. In fact, the story that you're referring to, the mobile phone, it was a business number and the address was widely known.
WATSON: So, you can remember what the story was, then?
BROOKS: I just said to you, I --
WATSON: What was the story you were working on?
BROOKS: I read it because I read it in "New York Times."
WATSON: Was that a pedophile you were after then?
BROOKS: Well, I think it would be unfair to the person concerned, because he has been named by "The Guardian" and the "New York Times." what I'm saying is that when I used -- the very few occasions in which I used a private detective was (INAUDIBLE).
WATSON: Can you name other private detectives you worked with?
BROOKS: No.
WATSON: You can't remember them?
BROOKS: No.
WATSON: Are you aware that the paper used other detectives, though?
BROOKS: What, sorry?
WATSON: Did the paper use other private detectives? Other than Steve Whitmore, Jonathan Rees and Glenn Mulcaire?
BROOKS: He was -- he was the one I was -- I was aware of at the time. And as I said, the first time I heard about Glenn Mulcaire was when he was arrested in 2006. WATSON: Is it your belief that the paper used other private investigators, that you just can't remember today?
BROOKS: No. I remember -- it isn't that I can't remember. It's - I -- you have the same information as I have, which is from the Operation Motorman.
WATSON: Thank you (INAUDIBLE). One last question. Do you have any regrets?
BROOKS: Well, of course I have regrets. The idea that Milly Dowler's phone was accessed by someone being paid by the "News of the World" or even worse, authorized by someone at the "News of the World" is abhorrent to me as it is to everyone in this room, and it is ultimate regret, the speed at which we found out and tried to find out, the bottom of this investigation has been too slow. I think James and Rupert both accepted that earlier. And we are endeavoring, or they are endeavoring now, I've left the company, to continue to investigate, but of course, there are regrets.
WATSON: Thank you.
JOHN WHITTINGDALE, CHAIRMAN, BRITISH CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT COMMITTEE: Louise Mensch?
LOUIS MENSCH, BRITISH CULTURE, MEDIA & SPORT COMMITTEE: I would like to draw you out with a question I put to Mr. James Murdoch at the end of our last session, which is on the wider culture of hacking and private detectives within Fleet Street and to what extent the "News of the World" felt justified in its -- in its (INAUDIBLE) those practices, because everybody is doing it, if you like.
I put to him that Piers Morgan, now a celebrity anchor on CNN, said openly in his book, clearly which was published before this whole controversy broke, that he had hacked phones, he said that he won scoop of the year for a story about (INAUDIBLE), he actually gave a tutorial on how one accesses voicemail by punching in a skeptical (ph) code and clearly from the account that he gives, he did it routinely as editor of "The Daily Mirror" and it was something that happened at "The Daily Mirror." He was also of course an ex-employee of "News International."
We had talked about Operation Motorman, and the difference - amounts of use that was made with Steve Whitmore by various members of Fleet Streets. And I went through the information commissioners' report and I added up for transactions in the "Daily Mail's" associated newspapers group, there were 1,387 transactions with Mr. Whitmore over -- used by 98 journalists in total across titles and supplements in that group.
Is it not -- is it not obviously the case then, that flagging, hacking, the use -- the use of private investigators for licit and illicit purposes was an absolute culture of Fleet Street and that the "News of the World" participated in it for illegal activities, maybe with a sense of entitlement, the same entitlement Mr. Morgan is using in his book, because everybody else is doing it. Is that not the case?
BROOK: I think it -- I think it, look, we have -- we have had a lot over the last 11 -- well, 10 years, and -- but particularly I think this committee held an inquiry to Operation Motorman, which was incredibly extensive. Every single editor of Fleet Street I think was called to this committee and as far as I was concerned, the failings of all newspapers and not understanding the extent of the use of private investigators across Fleet Street was held to account then, and there were many changes because of Operation Motorman to the data protection act, and although I accept Mr. Farrelly's knowledge of the observer, it's going to be far better than mine, but they, in fact, wrote a very good editorial on this, I think about three months ago, sort of addressing -- again, readdressing that climate then and how different it is now.
MENSCH: In the committee in 2003 concluded there was widespread evidence of despicable practices across the media, including flagging (INAUDIBLE) payments to the police. I appreciate the legal sensitivities involved in this question but I will put it to you anyway. In your evidences committee in 2003, you were asked if you paid the police and you clearly said we have paid the police in the past. And if I may suggest to you that the manner in which you said that, you said it almost as though we have paid the police in the past, the implication being as do all tabloid newspapers. I'm not asking you to make specific allegations. In your general knowledge, were payments to the police widespread across Fleet Street or were they confined to news international titles?
BROOKS: If you remember, the evidence as I gave in 2003, that it was -- actually I was going on to explain my comment and as you -- as you know, Mr. Bryant was asking me to explain my comment and the actual session ended in 2003, straight after my comment about payment to police, was in fact clarified. I think the last interview was the chairman at news international, the 2007 inquiry clarified it again and I clarified it recently to the home affairs committee at the end of March, I think.
Now, I can say that it -- I have never paid a policeman myself. I have never sanctioned or knowingly sanctioned a payment to a police officer. I was referring, if you saw at the time of the home affairs select committee recently and that you have various crime editors from Fleet Street discussing that in the past, payments have been made to police officers. I was -- I was - I was referring to that wide-held belief, not widespread practice. And in fact, it's in my experience of dealing with the police, the information they give to newspapers comes free of charge.
Mr. Dacre, in the evidence to the parliamentary committee yesterday, stated that to his knowledge, "The Daily Mail" has never published a story based on hacking or blacking. This from a group that Operation Motorman identified there's 1,387 transactions across its titles. Do you think it is credible that all those 1300 plus transactions were licitly obtained or is there this wider culture of hacking of which your paper was a part?
BROOK: I didn't see Mr. Dacre's evidence. I think that you have seen all the media groups in this -- in this country, that news international has been the one to openly welcome the prime minister's public inquiry into, I think, which would be all Fleet Street practices, I -- we haven't got -- we haven't got the prime minister's yet. The fact is I was hearing deficient comments on other newspaper groups and like I said at the beginning, things went badly over at the "News of the World" and we are doing our best, now, to sort it out.
I accept with not the speed that this committee would have wished and the stakes have been made, but we are trying to put them right. I think on Operation Motorman it's important that there was a select inquiry into it, select committee inquiry. And it is properly right that the code of conduct of journalists and the ethics of journalism are in constant review, because if they're not, it is, you know, the freedoms that this press enjoys which are -- I believe in very strongly, if there is not constant review of conduct and ethics, then they are at risk.
MENSCH: Now, there's one final question. Your correspondence with the committee did place great -- did place great emphasis when you were refusing to attend in previous letters, on you being willing to attend as part of a panel of newspapers editors, all of whom have been identified with Operation Motorman. In other words, you appeared to put emphasis that whatever happened at the "News of the World" it was part of this wider culture.
I would just pose it to you if you seem to know or imply these practices were going on elsewhere, how could you not be aware that they were going on endemically at the "News of the World"? And do you not regret that you did not yourself undertake some kind of route in branch (ph) investigation into the "News of the World" rather than waiting for these things to drip out over the fullness of time?
BROOKS: I think just going back to 2002, 2003, with all the changes to the data protection act, the fact is there wasn't root and branch change as a result of the select committee inquiries and the result of the information officers' report into what price (ph) privacy.
There was a fundamental change there across most newspapers and particularly, like I said, I was then editor of "The Sun" and I can say absolutely that "The Sun" is a very clean ship, a great newsroom, and in particular, the Operation Motorman referred to the "News of the World" and "The Sun" was a part of it.
MENSCH: Thank you.
WHITTINGDALE: Jim Sheridan.
JIM SHERIDAN, BRITISH CULTURE, MEDIA & SPORT COMMITTEE: Miss Brooks, Rupert Murdoch in his evidence session said quite clearly that the responsibility for the closure of "News of the World" lay fairly and squarely with senior management of that paper, which I assume that includes you. Is that the case?
BROOKS: I think -- I think - I think I may have missed that part of the evidence, but I think Mr. Murdoch said it exactly how it was, that we - it was a collective decision. We all talked together and Mr. Murdoch was abroad at the time at a conference. We all talked together --
SHERIDAN: Is that Mr. Murdoch senior?
BROOKS: Sorry, yes, Mr. Murdoch - Rupert Murdoch. Yes.
SHERIDAN: You wanted to say something else then?
BROOKS: No. Sorry.
SHERIDAN: Well, I'll just go off from that, when you were advising your staff that the paper was closing, during the private session, I thought you said something like, there was more to come. Would you - would you like to expand on what you meant by that?
BROOKS: Yes, it's just, when I went down to the newsroom, to explain the decision, clearly and quite rightly, the journalists on the "News of the World" who are very honorable journalists who have been putting out a newspaper under the scrutiny for a long time and the great exclusives and great pride in their newspaper, were very sad and baffled by management's decision to close the paper. What I was saying to them is that right now, you may - you may not be able to, right in this moment, understand why we've done it but as the months and I think I said in a year's time, I think you will come to realization that we actually did the right thing.
Once you have broken the trust with the readers, there's not much going back and unfortunately, the "News of the World" used to lead the headlines for the right reasons, for its -- the cricket - the cricket scandal recently, but for the last few months and probably actually for the last few years, it has been leading the headlines for the wrong reasons. And once that trust was broken, we felt that that was the right decision.
Of course, it wasn't the right decision for the hundreds of journalists who worked there, who have done nothing wrong, were in no way responsible, many of whom were at the "News of the World," many spent years at the "News of the World" and are not culpable for anything and we have endeavored to find a job for every single one of them.
SHERIDAN: I accept that that just wasn't generous (ph), was it? There was secretaries, engineers, you know, drivers, all of them (INAUDIBLE) -- all of them, are they all expected the same job?
BROOKS: Everybody. Everybody.
SHERIDAN: Everyone. And --
BROOKS: Not just in News International, but across News Corporation.
SHERIDAN: So what do you anticipate will happen in a year that you don't know now? BROOKS: Well, we're not -- as I've said, part of the problem with this story is the lack of visibility of the documentation seized from Glenn Mulcaire's house in 2006. We have no visibility on it. You have no visibility on it. Only the police have visibility on it. And they are conducting their new inquiry and I'm sure that will -- they will go through the thousands and thousands of documents that they say are there, and I think we will, in a year's time, maybe even longer, we will actually get to a final position on what exactly happened.
SHERIDAN: Can I ask you just a couple of questions. You're aware of Tommy Sheridan, the former AMSP (ph), who's now --
BROOKS: Yes, I am.
SHERIDAN: I'm going to -- a question to you that unfortunately James Murdoch couldn't answer. And as it popped (ph) up during the course of last year's Sheridan trial, gave evidence under oath on two occasions that e-mails relating to that (ph) case showing contact between "News of the World" and (INAUDIBLE), private detectives, surveillance phone hacking could not be retrieved as they were lost in some black hole in Mumbai. That's not the case (INAUDIBLE) phone, I'm told. Do you know anything about that?
BROOKS: No, I think actually what happened, he was referring to an issue that we had had with our suppliers. And I think you -- I'm correct in thinking the information commissioner has actually put out a clarification to that and explained that there was -- there was no issue and that he -- they were entirely comfortable with News International's response to that.
SHERIDAN: So do you know who gave him that advice that the e- mails were lost?
BROOKS: I don't know.
SHERIDAN: Also, his defense team has still not retrieved these retrieved e-mail. Do you have any idea why?
BROOKS: What? Sorry?
SHERIDAN: These e-mails that have since been retrieved, Tommy Sheridan's defense team still haven't received them. Do you have any reason (ph) why?
BROOKS: I did -- I think, actually, the clarification from the information commissioner was in fact that what had happened was the editor of the Scottish "News of the World" had made a comment during the trial which had been interpreted as you are saying now, that actually when he had looked into it and asked News International for an explanation, it was actually a problem with the -- with our suppliers in India and there was no such retrieval.
SHERIDAN: Have you had any contact with Andy Coulson during the Sheridan case? BROOKS: During the Sheridan case. I think Andy Coulson was in Downing Street during the Sheridan case. So I would have had some contact.
SHERIDAN: So you had no direct contact, no e-mails, letters or --
BROOKS: I said I would have had contact.
SHERIDAN: Yes, but no e-mails, just a conversation?
BROOKS: It would have been mainly to do with work, but by e-mail or by telephone.
SHERIDAN: Just a couple of final questions. Why were you paying Andy Coulson's legal fees and Glenn Mulcaire's legal fees during the Sheridan case when they were only (INAUDIBLE) as witnesses?
BROOKS: So as I understand it, I know James Murdoch addressed this. The -- when Andy Coulson left "The News of the World," he had an agreement that all matters relating to this, his legal fees, were paid. And I think the same for Clive Goodman. On Glenn Mulcaire, I think it was when he -- his legal fees would be paid when, in fact, he was a co-defendant in the civil cases.
SHERIDAN: OK. And just finally, are you aware of any payment to police officers in (INAUDIBLE)?
BROOKS: No.
SHERIDAN: Denver (ph) (INAUDIBLE)?
BROOKS: No.
SHERIDAN: OK. Next gentlemen.
WHITTINGDALE: Damian Collins.
DAMIAN COLLINS, BRITISH CULTURE, MEDIA & SPORT COMMITTEE: Thank you, chairman.
I would like to ask some questions about the Milly Dowler case in particular. Just for the record, Miss Brooks, you were editor of "The News of the World" during the period of Milly Dowler's abduction and (INAUDIBLE) murder.
BROOKS: Correct.
COLLINS: Just could you -- I've got some specific questions I'd like to ask you about this, but could you just paint a picture for us about how a newspaper like "The News of the World" goes about reporting on such a big story. What the level of the editor, deputy editor, the senior reporters would be in putting together and overseeing a story like that?
BROOKS: Well, I think any big story, but for the purpose of process, most stories start out with the reporter and that reporter may be being asked by the news editor to go and investigate a story or they may have brought information about a story from their own contacts to the news editor. It is at that stage in a newspaper where the reporter and news editor discuss the veracity of the information, go out and check the allegations and come back with a more considered view.
You can imagine that every newspaper gets a lot of information to the news desk and only a percentage, a very small percentage, makes it actually to publication. So there are many layers from reporter to assistant news editor to news editor.
Finally, the story will go to the back bench, which will be the people that will oversee the subbing of that story and the sub will often talk to the reporter directly with questions and amendments to the copy. The lawyers are involved at this stage throughout the process.
And then, finally, the final decision on publication will be made by the editor, where it is and how prominent it was.
In the, obviously, Milly Dowler's disappearance was a terrible news story and it would have been covered by all newspapers and for a very long time. I mean the trial only finished last month.
COLLINS: But for something like this, would it be normal to expect that it would have been the editor, the most senior member of the editorial staff on duty that day, the lawyers who would sign off on anything that would be written about it because of the incredible sensitivity of the material?
BROOKS: Well, that is probably true, yes, that on any story, but particularly, as you say, on such a sensitive story, the lawyers would be heavily involved and talking to the reporters and to the news editors or the news editors or the executives on the news desk as to where the information came from or what the veracity of that information.
COLLINS: How involved were you personally in the Milly Dowler case as editor of "The News of the World"?
BROOKS: Well this, as I say, this story ran for a very, very long time. And so I will have been involved in the story over the many years. I mean even when I was editor of "The Sun," you know, the Milly Dowler investigation and the pursuit of justice for Milly Dowler was -- has been in the news for many, many years. Nine years.
COLLINS: But facing (ph) your time at "The News of the World" was also particularly pertinent to our hearing today. Would you say that was the Milly Dowler case was a story that you were more heavily involved with than other stories that took place during your editorship simply because of the magnitude of the events and people's sort of real shock and horror of what had happened?
BROOKS: Not particularly more or less involved. The one thing I would say that we had had a series, under my editorship, a series of terrible and tragic news stories starting with Sarah Payne (ph), Milly Dowler's disappearance, and subsequent murder, and then, of course, the Serum (ph) cases. And as you know, part of the -- my main focus of my editorship of "The News of the World" was in convincing parliament that there needed to be radical changes to the 1997 Sex Offenders Act, which became known as Sarah's Law, which was very similar to laws imposed in America under Megan's Law.
So I suppose that if I had a particular extra involvement in any of those stories, it would have been on the basis that I was trying to push and campaign for readers' rights versus on the issues -- on the ten pieces of legislation that we got through on Sarah's Law and just campaigning for those to be put forward.
COLLINS: When you gave evidence to the committee in 2003, you referenced the Milly Dowler case as an example of how you thought the press had worked particularly well with the police and the family (INAUDIBLE) officers and it was a view that was supported by Andy Coulson, who gave evidence with you on that day. I appreciate this is quite a long time ago. Is that something you stand by now? And, you know, did you have the -- you spoke about it when you gave evidence. Did you have a particular knowledge of the details of the case?
BROOKS: When I spoke about it in 2003, I was unaware of what I know now. However, in 2003, as far as I was concerned, which may sound in light of what we believe the allegations are now, it may sound quite frankly ridiculous, but at the time I believed that both on the Milly Dowler case and in the Serum (ph) cases, that the press had exercised huge caution and tried to respect the privacy of the families.
For example, I remember in Soham (ph) that, you know, one member of press association was sent to go to the village and meet -- and I was referring to that Fleet Street had actually come together and used the press complaints commission code and adhered to it to respect the privacy of the families. Clearly, these allegations that came out two weeks ago, if true, are appalling and obviously contradict that statement I made.
COLLINS: And, what, as you say, I mean, in the context of what we now know, it does appear ridiculous, to use your words. When were you first aware that Milly Dowler's phone had been hacked?
BROOKS: I think it was two -- last Monday. No, maybe the Monday before.
COLLINS: That was the first knowledge you had of it at all?
BROOKS: I heard of it when it -- when the story broke -- it first broke in the media, I think, on Monday evening.
COLLINS: No -- nothing (INAUDIBLE) there was "News of the World" to suggest that Milly Dowler's phone had been hacked, that may have been carried out or authorized by employees of "News of the World"?
BROOKS: Of course not. No. COLLINS: And when were you aware that people of "The News of the World" may have -- why did -- gave this information to the police, information about what was on Milly Dowler's phone, to support their investigation?
BROOKS: At the moment, and, again, I want to be slightly -- I'm going to have to be slightly careful, but I want to be as open as possible. We saw the story at the same time you all saw the story. My instant reaction, like everybody else, was one of -- was one of, you know, shock and disgust. And that a family who had suffered so much already had had -- that these allegations were clearly added immeasurably to their suffering.
The first thing I did was write to Mr. and Mrs. Dowler with a full apology to say that we would get to the bottom of the allegations and if anyone either representing "The News of the World" or authorized by the professional journalists at "The News of the World," which I still find staggering to believe, but if we find out that is true, and I have every confidence that News International and the police will get to the bottom of that, and they should, as a priority.
COLLINS: I appreciate your statement there. But what I asked was about when you knew -- when you were aware that information that was passed to the surrey (ph) police that resulted from hacking of Milly Dowler's phone. I know you said you were aware of that until it was reported recently in the newspapers.
BROOKS: Yes.
COLLINS: Do you -- if it is the case that employees for "The News of the World" were personally (INAUDIBLE) -- the hacking of Milly Dowler's phone, essentially deleting some e-mails from it, knew that and withheld that information from you, then decided of their own volition to pass that information on to the police, and that is what you're asking us to believe, am I right in saying that?
BROOKS: So can (ph) you explain abut passing it on to the police?
COLLINS: Yes. If information that was received -- information held by employees of "The News of the World" relating to information -- relating to the hacking of Milly Dowler's phone, was passed to the police to support their investigation, you say the first you knew about that was on -- when you read that, when it was reported in the newspapers.
BROOKS: Yes.
COLLINS: But what I'm saying is, it must be the case therefore that someone without your knowledge, who was an employee of yours at "The News of the World," decided, without consulting the editor or maybe perhaps (ph) they did consult, to pass that on to the police. Is that (INAUDIBLE) is that the case? Is that the chain of events as they must have existed?
BROOKS: But I think -- I think -- I understand the question. I think it's important to say that obviously the Milly Dowler news story went on for many years and I had been editor of both "The News of the World" and "The Sun" while that investigation was ongoing.
What you asked me and I thought you were referring to was, when did I first hear an allegation that Milly Dowler's phone or voicemails had been intercepted by either someone working for "The News of the World" or authorized by someone at "The News of the World." And the first time I'd ever heard that was two weeks ago.
COLLINS: Right. But with regard to information he (ph) passed to the police about hacking of the phone --
BROOKS: But I wrote surrey (ph) police immediately. The first -- my first protocol was to send Milly Dowler's family an unreserved apology on behalf of the News International and to assure them that we would get to the bottom of it.
Representatives then met with Milly Dowler's family lawyer almost immediately to try and get some more information to see if there was anything we could do, look for or assist in this case.
And the third thing I did was write to surrey (ph) police to say that, obviously, in the last nine years, if they had come across any information that supported these allegations, could they please either give it to the metropolitan police's inquiry or share it with the management and standards committee at News International. I had a response from surrey (ph) police at the end of last week, which is that because it was part of a criminal investigation, they couldn't help me.
COLLINS: One of the points I want to get to is that it would seem, I think, to us incredible that, potentially, allegedly, someone employed at the "News of the World" would take the decision themselves to pass information on to the police relating to what they held was -- however obtained was the result of a newspaper investigation they were part of and they didn't consult the editor, didn't consult any members of staff. That seems incredible.
BROOKS: But your allegation is that -- if your allegation is that someone on the "News of the World" knew that they had themselves authorized someone to access the voicemails of Milly Dowler, and that they then told the police that they had accessed Milly Dowler's phone and they passed on that information. Is that the allegation?
COLLINS: What we're saying is, is there chain of events which links the hacking of the phone allegedly by someone at the "News of the World" or authorized by the "News of the World" to the passing to police of information regarding what was on Milly Dowler's phone and also --
(END COVERAGE)
KAYE: There as you've been listening to Rebekah Brooks, let's listen to the president at the White House.
(BEGIN COVERAGE)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I was in contact with all the leadership over the course of the weekend, and continued to urge both Democrats and Republicans to come together around a -- an approach that not only lifts the debt ceiling, but also solves the underlying challenges that we face when it comes to debt and deficits.
Some progress was made in some of the discussions, some narrowing of the issues. Speaker Boehner and the Republican House caucus felt it necessary to put forward the plan that they're going to be voting on today. I think everyone's estimation is is that that is not an approach that could pass both chambers, it's not an approach that I would sign, and it's not balanced. But I understand the need for them to test that proposition.
The problem we have now is we're in the 11th hour, and we don't have a lot more time left.
The good news is that today a group of senators, the gang of six, Democrats and Republicans -- I guess now the gang of seven because one additional Republican senator added on -- put forward a proposal that is broadly consistent with the approach that I've urged.
What it says is we've got to be serious about reducing discretionary spending, both in domestic spending and defense. We've got to be serious about tackling health care spending and entitlements in a serious way, and we've got to have some additional revenue so that we have an approach in which there is shared sacrifice, and everybody is giving up something.
And so for us to see Democratic senators acknowledge that we've got to deal with our long-term debt problems that arise out of our various entitlement programs and for Republican senators to acknowledge that revenues will have to be part of a balanced package that makes sure that nobody is disproportionately hurt from us making progress on the debt and deficits, I think is a very significant step.
And, as I said, the framework that they put forward is broadly consistent with what we've been working on here in the White House and with the presentations that I've made to the leadership when they've come over here.
So here's where we stand.
We have a Democratic president, an administration that is prepared to sign a tough package that includes both spending cuts, modifications to Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare that would strengthen those systems and allow them to move forward, and would include a revenue component.
We now have a bipartisan group of senators who agree with that balanced approach, and we've got the American people who agree with that balanced approach.
My hope, and what I will be urging Speaker Boehner, Nancy Pelosi, as well as Leader Reid and Mitch McConnell, is that they tomorrow are prepared to start talking turkey and actually getting down to the hard business of crafting a plan that can move this forward in time for the August 2nd deadline that we've set forward.
Just a couple other points I will make.
Some of you may ask, "What does that mean for the plan that Senator McConnell and Senator Reid had been working on?" Our attitude is that that continues to be a necessary approach to put forward. In the event that we don't get an agreement, at minimum we've got to raise the debt ceiling. So that's the bare minimum that has to be achieved, but we continue to believe that we can achieve more.
And so I want to congratulate the gang of six for coming up with a plan that I think is -- is balanced. We just received it, so we haven't reviewed all the details of it. It would not match perfectly with some of the approaches that we've taken, but I think that we're on the same playing field. And my hope is that we can start gathering everybody over the next couple of days to choose a clear direction and to get this issue resolved.
So far at least, the markets have shown confidence that leadership here in Washington are not going to send the economy over a cliff. But if we continue to go through a lot of political posturing, if both sides continue to be dug in, if we don't have a basic spirit of cooperation that allows us to rise above immediate election-year politics and actually solve problems, then I think markets here, the American people and the international community are going to start reacting adversely fairly quickly.
So I think it's very important for these -- in these next couple of days to understand we don't have any more time to engage in symbolic gestures, we don't have any more time to posture. It's time to get down to the business of actually solving this problem. And I think we now are seeing the potential for a bipartisan consensus around what that would take.
It will be hard. It will be tough. There's still going to be a lot of difficult negotiations that have to take place in order for us to actually get something done. And as I said, we have to have that failsafe that Senator McConnell and Senator Reid are working on. But the hope is is that everybody seizes this opportunity.
All right? OK, guys --
(CROSSTALK)
OBAMA: I'm -- I am -- I'm going to let Jay answer questions today. I think I've been pretty good to you guys.
(LAUGHTER)
But after the votes today in the House, I'll call up Speaker Boehner and the other leadership and we'll arrange for times where we bring folks back here and hopefully we'll be able to report on some additional progress over the next few days.
All right? Thank you very much, guys.
QUESTION: When will you (inaudible) gang of six plan? Would that be in the next day?
OBAMA: Well, as I said, I think what you're going to be seeing is an evaluation of that plan versus the things that we've been looking at. I think what you're going to see is some significant overlap.
But obviously just because we might agree in principle with a range of issues with six senators or seven senators, that doesn't get us out of the House of Representatives, that doesn't get us out of the Senate. There's going to have to be a broader agreement on the part of all the leadership that we're going to get this done in a serious way and we've got a tight deadline to do it.
All right? Thanks, guys.
(END COVERAGE)
KAYE: And there you have it. You've been watching President Obama speaking there at the White House briefing room with some good news, that the gang of six, the group of bipartisan senators has come up with this plan of cuts and revenues.
I'm Randi Kaye. Glad you're with us. Along with me is Wolf Blitzer.
Wolf, I want to ask you what you think of the president's announcement there. It sounds like maybe they're getting close to some type of agreement.
WOLF BLITZER, HOST, "THE SITUATION ROOM WITH WOLF BLITZER": If it were just the president, if it were just the Senate, they would have an agreement, I have no doubt about it. But it's not just the Senate, not just the president, it's also the House of Representatives.
And while this so-called gang of six, three Democratic senators, three Republican senators, they can come up with a framework that includes cuts in entitlements like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, it also does include what they call revenue enhancers or tax increases, if you will. And there are so many Republicans in the house of Representatives where the Republicans have a lopsided majority.
It's by no means clear that even if John Boehner, and I suspect maybe he personally is ready to go along with it. But even if he were ready to go along with it, there would be so many of his Republican colleagues who would vote against it, and there probably would be some Democrats who would vote against it because they don't want to see any cuts in Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid.
So there's an enormous struggle ahead if this so-called framework that the gang of six, Randi, has put forward. That's why the president is still clearly supporting what he calls this fail-safe proposal, this last ditch proposal by Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader in the Senate and Harry Reid, the Democratic leader, the majority leader. That if all else fails, and there's a good chance all else still will fail given what the House Republicans want and some House Democrats, for that matter, as well, that they will need to get that McConnell-Reid fail-safe proposal passed to raise the debt limit in order to make sure the United States does not default.
And I will add one thing. It's by no means 100 percent even sure that that McConnell-Reid last-ditch formula would have enough votes in the House of Representatives. It'll be close to get to that 218 number. So this is an important step forward. It does underscore, once again, the Democrats and Republicans, at least in the Senate can get together and make some tough decisions just as they did in the Erskine -- the Bowles and that Simpson-Cowles commission that came out with their presidential commission that came out late last year. But there's still an enormous amount of work that needs to be done.
And one additional note, Randi. They're going to have this vote in the House of Representatives later today to cut spending, cap spending and have a federal balanced budget amendment. It's pass the House. It's not pass the Senate. The president's not even going to have to veto it if it doesn't pass the Senate. And so the president is saying, once they get through what the president calls this symbolic gesture, then they can resume those negotiations for a much more sweeping plan with the speaker and the other leaders.
So it's still a work in progress. That's the bottom line.
KAYE: Yes. I think everybody in Washington, though, are certainly anxious to move forward.
Wolf Blitzer, glad to have you with us. Thank you very much.
And once again, we are continuing to watch the debt ceiling as it unfolds in Washington. We're also keeping a close eye on the hearings related to News Corp. We're going to rejoin the testimony given by Rebekah Brooks, the former editor of "News of the World" right after this quick break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
RANDI KAYE, CNN ANCHOR: We want to take you back now to parliament in London and rejoin the testimony of former "News of the World" editor Rebekah Brooks.
(BEGIN COVERAGE)
BROOKS: -- over to the police on June the 20th.
PAUL FARRELLY, BRITISH CULTURE, MEDIA & SPORTS COMMITTEE: Right. OK. Now, this (INAUDIBLE) didn't just involve "News of the World" people because it was overseen by News International people, people who reported to you as chief executive, in particular John Chapman.
Can you remember what conversations you had with John Chapman after this evidence came to light, because we've heard from Rupert Murdoch that John Chapman -- two years ago John Chapman sat on that file for years.
BROOKS: The original inquiry in 2007 I believe was instructed --
FARRELLY: Yes, we know the background. I'm just asking about when the evidence came to light through your committee, did you have any -- and John Chapman is a News International legal director who reports to you, can you remember what conversations you had?
BROOKS: Yes, I can. Obviously we discussed it. As soon as it came to light, I think it was in the end of April that I was told about it, that Mr. Chapman was asked for his knowledge of it, where the file had been, why it hadn't come to light before. And the Managements and Standards Committee --
FARRELLY: What was his response to you?
BROOKS: His response at the time was that he was asked to do an investigation into the illegal interception of voice mails, that he felt that -- he felt that the Harbottle and Lewis recommendation, which was the letter that you have got --
FARRELLY: Very misleading matter.
BROOKS: He felt as our legal advisor that the letter from Harbottle and Lewis was --
FARRELLY: Got you off the hook?
BROOKS: No, was an accurate review of the file, that is, something as clearly you heard today, neither James Murdoch nor I thought it was on closer examination.
FARRELLY: Did he just do that off his own bat?
BROOKS: Do what, sorry?
FARRELLY: Did he just clearly get Harbottle and Lewis to issue a misleading letter or letter that may not have been misleading to them at the time, but actually to sit on evidence that gave a lie to what we were told, did he just do that of his own bat?
BROOKS: I think they are a very respected law firm. I'm not sure that it's fair of you to accuse them of --
FARRELLY: I'm not. I'm asking about John Chapman, who reported to you.
BROOKS: You said -- you asked if John Chapman --
FARRELLY: Did he take the decision not to disclose anything any further?
BROOKS: But -- you asked if John Chapman had asked --
FARRELLY: No, I know -- I asked you what he said to you. BROOKS: Yes, but you also said did John Chapman ask Harbottle and Lewis to write a misleading letter and my response to that question was that I think that, firstly, that Harbottle and Lewis are a very respected legal firm and I'm sure that they would -- that that wouldn't `be the case, and John Chapman had been a very respected lawyer at News International for many years and I'm sure would absolutely not have done that.
However, in light of what we know now, when I and the Management and Standards Committee at News International saw that file, we felt that from our perspective, it put a new light on information that we had had in the past and we handed it over to the police.
FARRELLY: I didn't ask that question but it would have been a very good question to ask, so thank you.
Now, why did John Chapman leave the employ of News International?
BROOKS: As you heard in the previous session, that John Chapman wanted to leave and we felt that under the circumstances that that was the right course of action.
FARRELLY: Because John Chapman's come out very strongly as the fall guy for this session. And he acted alone, did he?
BROOKS: I think at the time, that John Chapman, who is a corporate lawyer, and Daniel Cloak, who is -- who was head of HR, I think that they would say if called to this committee that in their experience and their knowledge, when they looked at the file, they felt that the Harbottle and Lewis letter was correct.
FARRELLY: OK. I've got just a couple of final questions.
One thing that struck many people was the silence across Fleet Street apart from a few newspapers, "The Guardian" of course, independent (INAUDIBLE) and then "The New York times" in the coverage of this affair.
Can you remember calling any editors after "The Guardian" story in July 2005 to discuss how they might cover or not cover the story in order to downplay the coverage?
BROOKS: In 2005?
FARRELLY: In 2009, after "The Guardian" broke the story, do you remember calling around editors like Paul Dacre to --
BROOKS: No, but --
FARRELLY: -- to someway encourage them not to give the story any play?
BROOKS: I don't remember calling him about it but he and I would talk about industry matters on occasion. But you know, I only knew what I read on "The Guardian."
FARRELLY: The final question.
Do you recall a conversation with Boris Johnson during which he asked you what you want out of this, and your response was for Alan Rusbridger to go down on his knees and beg your forgiveness? Do you recall that conversation?
BROOKS: Absolutely not.
FARRELLY: Thank you.
(INAUDIBLE)
THERESE COFFEY, BRITISH CULTURE, MEDIA & SPORTS COMMITTEE: Thank you.
Sorry, I had assumed my colleague, Mr. Watson, might ask you about this earlier, but, in the -- in his intervention in the house on sixth July, you referred to the fact that part of "News of the World" -- he suggested that they wrote that there was -- left a message on her voice mail after the 13-year-old vanished at 4:00 p.m. on March 21st. On March 27th, six days after Milly went missing in Wharton on Thames, sorry, the employment agency appears to have phoned her mobile.
Given the importance of the Milly Dowler story and the serious of that, which has sure to be alluded to, was there not the question -- did you ask the question about how you managed to get that information?
BROOKS: Well, as I've said, you know, the most important thing, I think, in the Milly Dowler -- in the case of Milly Dowler is that we get to the truth of these allegations as quickly as possible. And I think that those who were culpable of that, if that turns out to be true, should face not just a program, but also the justice through the legal system.
So I'm very mindful that I have to be careful of what I say because of what I know on the ongoing investigations.
The fact is, and I can only keep saying this, the suggestion that Milly Dowler's voice mails was intercepted by someone working for the " News of the World" or someone on the "News of the World" was unknown to me. It's abhorrent to me and that's all I can tell you.
COFFEY: I accept that and I will press a little bit further, MS. Brooks, just trying to understand the fact that there is a specific reference in the stories. I'm just surprised that, if you like, perhaps more questions weren't asked at the time, and I fully accept that you find it abominable.
BROOKS: Just accept that perhaps nine years ago when the story was run, I'm told now that the story you're referring to was a single column on page nine of the newspaper of that edition. I am sure questions were asked about where that story, that information came from. They would have been asked of the reporter or they would have been asked of the news editor. The night editor would have checked them. The lawyer would have checked them and there would have been a process around every story, whether it's a single column or the front page. So there would have been some sort of process around where that information came from.
And I can tell you now that it would not have been the case that someone said, oh, yes, that came from an illegal voice mail interception. It seems now that it's inconceivable people didn't know this was the case, but at the time it wasn't -- it wasn't a practice that was condoned or sanctioned at the "News of the World" under my leadership.
And that's all I can tell you.
COFFEY: OK. Mr. Watson also went on to say, talking about -- he suggests that you were present at a meeting with Scotland Yard when police officers provided you with evidence that your newspaper was interfering with justice.
He particularly mentions the name of another senior executive, Alex Marunchak, and at the meeting which you (INAUDIBLE) from metropolitan police, that "News of the World" staff were guilty of interference and party to using unlawful (INAUDIBLE) to credit -- discredit a police officer and his wife. Can you tell us more about that meeting?
BROOKS: Well, I can tell you something about it but it's -- I was asked to recall a meeting that I had at Scotland Yard in 2002. I had recollection -- I was asked recently, I think by Channel 4, about the story you're referring to. My information -- sorry, my recollection of that meeting was entirely different. My recollection of the meeting was on a completely different subject so I'm only going on what I was told by Channel 4.
They say it's a meeting in November that I had -- that was what was put to me. I checked my diary as much as possible and there was no meeting in November. However, there was a subsequent meeting and in very early January, so it may be that it was that meeting. That was not my recollection of the meeting.
On the other hand I, because of the Sarah's Law campaign, I did have some pretty regular meetings at Scotland Yard mainly with the Peterbar (ph) unit there.
COFFEY: Thank you.
In terms of Rupert Murdoch said he relied on his lieutenants, people he trusted, referred Les Hinton (ph) as someone as whom he would trust his life. Who would you trust who worked for you?
BROOKS: I think a whole -- the newsroom of newspaper is based on trust. And if you think about the, and I'm sure Mr. Farrelly would agree with this, if you think about the way a story gets published, of course it's on trust. And so, you rely on the people that work for you to behave in a proper manner, and you rely on clarity of information that you are given at the time. So that is why I can be so absolute with the committee today about the interception of Milly Dowler's voice mail from my own personal view. Again, not commenting on what other people knew at the time.
So when you say who do I trust, the whole newsroom and the whole basis of the newsroom is based on trust. For example, at "The Sun" if Trevor Kavanagh, who is my political editor when I was editor of "The Sun" came to me with a story, I knew it to be true. I didn't need to ask which MP or which cabinet minister had leaked him the story, I just knew it to be true because of the standing that he has and his experience as a journalist.
Again, you could say that's based on trust, but that's -- that is how it works.
COFFEY: Mr. Mulcaire seems to have implicated himself There are public statements about the Milly Dowler situation.
BROOKS: Yes.
COFFEY: Who else, from what you now know that you didn't know before, do you believe people are likely to be convicted of crimes?
BROOKS: Well, again, I think that would be --
COFFEY: Pardon, I've just been told can't answer that.
BROOKS: I think that would be slightly -- I don't -- none of us here should be judge and jury. I don't think I should answer that.
COFFEY: (INAUDIBLE) thank you.
Who else knows what you now know who either still works at News International or has left its employ in the last month? So it seems there's been a team that's put together, who could you say has done that?
BROOKS: So the process of the criminal investigation started when we handed over documentation that we had found. All that documentation has been shared with the Managements and Standards Committee of News International, James and Rupert Murdoch reported to reporting directly to the board of News Corporation and the independent on News International for that particular reason.
Obviously, all the legal team working on this know it and also the police are aware of everything that we're aware.
COFFEY: And just to clarify, would that group of people include anyone who has previously given evidence to our committee, people like Colin Marlow or Les Hinton?
BROOKS: Actually, probably not, no because the Managements and Standards Committee was concerned with -- was about the current management, so it was chief executive and my current executives would know about it.
COFFEY: Final question from me would be do you have any regrets about any of the headlines? You've been in the spotlight yourself. You've been subject to quite a lot of media spotlight. Does this make you regret any one at all?
BROOKS: I think that -- I don't think you find any editor in Fleet Street that didn't feel that some headlines they have published they've made some mistakes, and I'm no different to that, there have been mistakes.
On the other hand, I'm, despite, as you say, being in the spotlight recently and having read lots of criticism that's justified and lots of criticism that was totally spurious, that I would defend the right of the free press for my entire career . I think it's vital to us.
And yes, it hasn't been particularly unpleasant. It was one of the main reasons that I wanted to leave because I felt that I was detracting from the amazing journalists and media executives and all the people who work in News International. I felt I was distracting from their incredibly good work.
But, you know, we have a robust and diverse press in this country covering all spectrums and all opinions and I think the freedom of that press should be forever more. I hope parliament continues to do it.
COFFEE: Thank you.
WHITTINGDALE: Mr. Davis?
How many times would you speak to Rupert Murdoch when you were chief executive of News International?
BROOKS: I would speak to Mr. Murdoch and James Murdoch much more regularly since I've become chief executive than I did when I was editor.
DAVIES: Once a day? Twice a day?
BROOKS: Well, James Murdoch and I have offices next to each other, although his travel schedule because of his wide responsibilities. And I would talk to Rupert Murdoch quite regularly.
DAVIES: Once a day, twice? Can you give me any kind of?
BROOKS: On average, every other day, but pretty regularly.
