Clarifying that Regan-Giuliani Riff

Responding to this post, Regan's lawyer, Bert Fields, writes: "You have, in substance, accused Judith of extortion, a very serious crime of which she is very clearly innocent.... The fact that I said that News Corp.'s prior offer was unacceptable does not mean that, for more money, Judith would agree to conceal criminal information."

There was some imprecise reasoning and wording in that last post, so let me clarify: It was not my intention to accuse anyone of extortion. My point was merely that if Regan really thinks what she knows could affect the presidential election, she would do a public service by coming forward with it sooner rather than later, regardless of the status of her dispute with News Corp.

I don't have any inside knowledge of what kind of deal Regan and News Corp. have discussed or are discussing; it was merely my inference that News Corp. would seek her silence about anything touching on the lawsuit or her employment there. When I said that any settlement would "presumably" require Regan to keep her silence, I was considering only statements she might make about News Corp. and its alleged ties to Rudy Giuliani. Clearly, she would not and legally could not agree to conceal information relevant to a criminal investigation. And if she says it was always her intention to expose everything she knows about Giuliani and Bernie Kerik, I see no reason to doubt that.