James Murdoch phone-hacking inquiry as-it-happened
Read all the twists and turns of today's question session with James Murdoch with politics.co.uk's live blog.
By Ian Dunt Follow @IanDunt
09:52 – Morning all. It's another of those enjoyable days where you get to watch powerful men brought down. If even half of the anonymous sources from within News Corp are to be believed, James Murdoch is fighting for his career today. Without a storming performance in the culture, media and sport committee room, his father could start agreeing with those who recommend a move. And what, you might ask, are the fearless inquisitors of the CMS committee doing right now, just an hour before kick off? Well Louise Mensche is launching a campaign against a BBC comedian and Tom Watson just wrote: "Late, late night playing Portal 2. Early, early morning drafting questions and listening to The Clash on full blast."
10:24 – So here's the story. After James Murdoch last gave evidence, an interesting thing happened. Crone and Myler, previously loyal News International (NI) employees, turned on their boss. That's the thing with relinquishing a 'one lone reporter' defence. Once the cracks in that wall appear, people start to feel that they're going to become the scapegoat and then they'll turn on you. In this case, there were strong signs Crone and Myler were going to take the fall. It could be documented that they knew the practise was widespread, so if James didn't know, it was because of them. But the two men say they explained precisely how widespread it was in a meeting deciding the settlement for Gordon Taylor. In that meeting, the infamous 'for Neville' email was discussed. By mentioning a senior reporter's name, the email proved that other employees were engaging in phone-hacking. This was a world away from what James had told the CMS committee. "Did you see or were you made aware of the full Neville email, the transcript of the hacked voicemail messages?" Watson asked had asked him. "No, I was not aware of that at the time," James replied. Hours later, Crone and Myler released this statement: "Just by way of clarification relating to Tuesday's CMS select committee hearing, we would like to point out that James Murdoch's recollection of what he was told when agreeing to settle the Gordon Taylor litigation was mistaken. In fact, we did inform him of the 'for Neville' email which had been produced to us by Gordon Taylor's lawyers." 10:17 – I'll be writing the live blog all morning, while my colleague Alex Stevenson is in the room. After the session is done we'll bring you all the analysis, sketch and comment you can shake a stick at.
10:19 – To drum up on things a little, here's our damage report from after the first phase of the phone-hacking scandal, looking at the main players and how they were affected. Here's the live blog of the last phone-hacking interrogation – of Colin Myler, former editor of News of the World and Tom Crone, former legal manager at the newspaper group. Remember those names, they're going to come in important in a minute. If you need to remind yourself of the original scandal, here's our five minute primer. Finally, here's our news story from this morning.
10:32 – There is a simple, watertight defence to this scenario: "I don't remember." Murdoch said this so many times during the initial questioning it was a wonder he knows how to tie up his shoelaces. No-one can prove that he does remember a 15-minute meeting which took place years ago. The other evidence ranged against him is also more a question of strong insinuation rather than demonstrable fact. Clive Goodman, the former royal reporter who was first jailed for phone-hacking, wrote in March 2007 that the practise "was widely discussed at the daily editorial conference", for instance. Michael Silverleaf legal opinion of 2007 found that "a culture of illegal information access" was taking place at News of the World.
10:37 – You can add to that some really rather odd behaviour, not least the company's persistent habit of paying out massive severance payments (in Rebekah Brooks' case something like £1.7 million) to former employees who are being interviewed by police and have run the company's reputation into the mud. Or the fact that journalists are now being arrested at the Sun. Or the reports of private investigators being hired to spy on the lawyers of alleged phone-hacking victims.
10:40 – But if you're expecting to see a 'Few Good Men'-style admission of guilt you'll likely be disappointed. MPs will be much more concerned with making Murdoch look incompetent. After all, with this level of lawbreaking, with thousands of victims, how could a chief executive be so profoundly in the dark? That's the trouble with high-stake denials. You escape culpability, but embrace naivety. That's a professionally devastating consequence. With News Corp making its call on James Murdoch this morning, he'll be walking the toughest tightrope of his life, trying desperately to avoid responsibility without appearing competant. Kick off is in 15 minutes. Get some popcorn.
10:48 – In case you want to keep track with who is who, I've dug the committee membership list out the parliament website.
Thérèse Coffey (Conservative)
Damian Collins (Conservative)
Phillip Davies(Conservative)
Paul Farrelly (Labour)
Cathy Jamieson (Labour)
Alan Keen (Labour Co-operative)
Louise Mensch (Conservative)
Adrian Sanders (Liberal Democrat)
Jim Sheridan (Labour)
Tom Watson (Labour)
Steve Rotheram (Labour)
The decent questioning comes from Watson, Mensche, Davies (sometimes) and Farrelly, in my opinion. Coffey is the worst.
10:58 – James Murdoch has just sat down. He smiled at committee members and mouthed "morning". Whittingdale, chair, starts. He reminds Murdoch of their previous conversation about the Taylor settlement.
11:01 – So did he know the 'for Neville' email? Murdoch says that 2008 meeting was for increasing the settlement offer. He is speaking like an android. He says he remembers the short meeting well. He received "sufficient information" for the settlement. "I was given no more than that. Evidence was described to me that indicated the company would lose the case if it litigated," he says. He insists the email was not mentioned to him.
11:03 – The email was important for two reasons, he says. Because it was a transcript of voicemail interceptions done on behalf of News of the World, evidence that would have lost the company the case. The second important fact was that it named Neville and therefore proved the one lone reporter defence was not accurate. He says that was not explained to him. The email was not shown to him. Whittingdale says he does therefore admit he was made aware that there was evidence the transcript existed but not of its "dual importance" – about what it showed about the one lone reporter aspect. The leading counsel's opinion was not shown or described to him.
11:05 – Whittingdale continues asking questions. Watson is frantically scribbling on a paper pad. Murdoch is not deviating at all from his original story. Jim Sheridan takes over and asks about the Goodman case. When Hinton moved, Murdoch took responsibility of NI. Hinton didn't discuss any matter around Goodman, or his arrest. It all "predated" his presence in the company. He wasn't briefed. Did he ask? No, Murdoch replies. "It was some time before I had joined." Sheridan says it was a significant amount of money which could have had a serious effect on the company in future consequences. Murdoch says he relied on assertions that the police had closed their case. It was a done story, basically. "It was in the past. Accountability had been delivered."
11:09 – Sheridan is barking up a wrong tree, asking why he didn't ask his dad more "as any son would do". Odd line of attack. He asks if James is as humbled as his dad said he was last time. "The whole company is humbled. What I'm trying to do is learn from the events. Trying to understand why the company didn't come to grips with what happened. I think we're all humbled by it. We're trying to improve the business, improve the structure and leadership, to make sure these things don't happen again because it's something I am very sorry about."
11:12 – Murdoch is asked if he would agree he was guilty of "wilful blindness". He says there was tendency to react to criticism or allegations as "hostile or motivated commercially or politically". They should have reflected more, he admits. "At no point did the company suffer from wilful blindness on my part," he insists. Was evidence kept from him? Big question. The Taylor case information in 2008 was incomplete, he says. He's really doing Myler and Crone in here.
11:14 – Murdoch twists the knife into Myler, saying that if he knew of wider spread criminality "he should have told me". When the Guardian first reported about thousands of mobiles were being targeted NI responded with a hostile threat, Murdoch is told. Why? These questions, by the way, are almost word for word the recommended questions from the Guardian, published this morning. Murdoch fudges and messes. "If I had know then what I know today the company would have acted differently," he says. Who should have reported it to him? Murdoch says that where there was sufficient suspicion, "this was the job of the new editor". He adds: "On the contrary I was not shown those things in 2008 and in 2009 I received the same assurances this committee received and that's a matter of regret." Which is worse, knowing what was going on or not knowing when you should have known? he is asked. Murdoch starts droning on about the relative size of the News of the World paper next to the News Corp business. Absurdly, MPs allow him to do it.
11:19 – "None of Murdoch's nine legal eagles have changed their expressions once since session began," our correspondent writes. Whittingdale attacks Murdoch, saying NI tried to smear the committee when it accused the company of "collective amnesia". Murdoch says he regrets that. "I look back the reaction to the committee report and that was one turning point the company should have taken. The company at the highest levels should have had a good look at the evidence that was given to you." Watson is up. Here we go.
11:21 – He asks if Murdoch has been arrested. He says no (it would have restricted questioning). Murdoch admits reading the recent legal submissions from the legal firm and Crone etc. Does he accept Crone prepared a memorandum on the Taylor case? Murdoch says yes, but it was narrow. "So that's a yes?" Yes, but in less detail, Murdoch says.
11:22 – Does he accept this memorandum was evidence of widespread of criminality and was "fatal to your case". Murdoch says he did use those words but at no point did the memorandum mention Neville Thurlbeck and other crucial details. Watson: "So that's a yes?" Murdoch: "I don't think it is, you're trying to put words in my mouth." Watson: "Did you meet Myler on May 27th to discuss the Taylor case?" Murdoch says there's a note of a conversation with Myler but neither of them remember it. He won't confirm or deny it took place. But he accepted the note of the conversation, where he said he wanted an external QC to review the situation before proceeding. Sorry for the typos by the way, I'm trying to keep up.
11:25 – Silverleaf's evidence said there was "overwhelming evidence" the practise was widespread, Watson says. Devastating. Murdoch says he doesn't have that in front of him. The opinion was not shown to him or discussed with him. He has since seen it. Watson asks if he accepts that after the receipt of the opinion he met with Myler and Crone to discuss it. Murdoch insists the only substantive meeting is that 15 minute one in 2008 that led to the Taylor settlement. This is his clear line. It's absurd, but he's sticking with it. Crone said he believes Murdoch has evidence of the widespread nature of phone-hacking, Watson argues, from 2008 onwards. "I don't accept that at all, Mr Watson," Murdoch says. There was that one meeting. Neither Myler nor he remember the other conversation and he never saw the SIlverleaf evidence. "I've testified consistently to this committee."
11:29 – Isn't it inconceivable you didn't discuss any of these documents during this period given they were the documents forcing you to settle the claim – a claim you were previously defending, Watson asks. Murdoch writes off all the evidence. "Did you mislead this committee?" Watson asks. "No." Watson: "If you didn't, who did?" Murdoch says the committee received evidence by people without full knowledge of the facts. "It was economical. My own evidence has been consistent. Where I have not had direct knowledge of the past I've tried to seek answers." Watson: "Was it Mr Crone?" Murdoch: "Who did what?" Watson: "Who misled this committee?" Murdoch: "I thought it was inconsistent and not right." Watson: "You think Crone misled us?" Murdoch: "It follows that I do." Murdoch goes on to damage Myler as well. It's masterful stuff from Watson.
11:33 – Watson quotes Murdoch expressing sympathy with the committee earlier. Surely Myler and Crone will have to attack Murdoch after this – they have no choice. "The correct position is the facts emerged in 2008 and this committee was misled." Murdoch: "None of those things were discussed with me and I was not aware of those things." He looks increasingly shaky, as if the steely exterior is starting to slip a little.
11:35 – Watson won't let Murdoch start talking, he keeps stopping him. He quotes a note saying Murdoch had advised to "cut out the cancer". What was the cancer? Murdoch says it was pursuing those found suspected of wrongdoing. "That speaks volumes and it's perhaps why I was given a narrower set of facts than I would have liked." That's new. Murdoch is the great defender of ethics and THAT'S why Crone and Myler never told him everything.
11:38 – You are "seriously suggesting" you had no knowledge of the 'for Neville' email? Watson asks. Murdoch says it was mentioned but not explained or shown to him, specifically the fact it revealed phone-hacking was widespread. He repeats his line, that it was evidence fatal to the case (therefore the settlement) but that he didn't know it showed Neville was involved. Watson doesn't mask his disrespect, but Murdoch keeps calling him 'sir' – that's media training. On June 10th he met Myler and Crone but he himself had not received Silverleaf's opinion. There was no mention of a culture of illegal information at that meeting. Even though the information went to the hart of the matter, it was never mentioned, Watson says, dripping with disdain. He barely looks up. Could anyone possibly believe Murdoch's position? "Mr Silverleaf's opinion was discussed with me in the context of damages," Murdoch says. When he can't hear, Murdoch very politely says: "I'm sorry can you repeat that, Mr Watson?" Marvellous.
11:42 – Why did Myler and Crone question your evidence? Murdoch won't comment. "Mr Murdoch, it's clear you're not going to answer my detailed questions," Watson says suddenly. "I wasn't going to do this but I will say I met Thurlbeck. It was in confidence." Watson announces that he will break that agreement and read out what he learnt in the public interest. Gasps in the room. The drama!
11:45 – Whittingdale is clearly uncomfortable as Watson reads out a transcript of a Thurlbeck and Crone conversation. The conversation seems to confirm very clearly that Murdoch had seen the email. It's very hard to make out the conversation, but I can't see how it changes everything, as it simply adds to the voices of those saying they showed it to Murdoch. It's not solid evidence. It's very tense in there though. "I'm answering your questions as clearly as I can," Murdoch says. "You're familiar with the word mafia," Watson says. Long pause. "Yes, Mr Watson," Murdoch says. He speaks of a culture of secrecy using threats. Is this an accurate description of NI in the UK? Watson asks. Murdoch says it's "offensive and not true". Watson lists the allegations. This is as good as parliamentary drama gets. Murdoch repeats his previous admissions ("should have done better" etc).
11:51 – "You must be the first mafia boss in history that didn't know he was running a criminal enterprise," Watson says. Ohhhh! "Mr Watson, please – I think that's inappropriate" Murdoch says before appealing to the chair. Whittingdale looks disapprovingly at Watson and asks if he is done. Watson nods. The questions move on. Extraordinary scenes.
11:54 – My colleague reports: "Other MPs on the committee groaned out loud when Tom Watson called Murdoch a mafia boss." There are very mixed reactions online. Most fellow journalists seem to think Watson went too far, but punters seem impressed.
11:57 – Damian Collins is now asking the questions. He's pretty weak, but it's unfair, coming after Watson. The Sun is making the not-entirely-sensible decision to outright attack Watson on Twitter, RTing a line that says: "Watson fails to land a blow on Murdoch, so resorts to insults…and makes himself look ridiculous." That's not the general consensus on Twitter, where Watson is being credited with the evidence but getting mixed results for that final line.
12:00 – The absurdity of Murdoch's position is still being discussed. After all, what kind of boss agrees to paying out half a million quid without asking wh?. Collins asked if they paid out to prevent "other things" being raked up. Murdoch: "It did seem pointless to take it to court seeing as it would be high profile and the company would almost certainly lose the case". Collins getting stronger: Is this how it's usually settled in your business – people come, ask you for the money and instead of asking why you just sign off on it? Murdoch fudges. It's impossible to look at Silverleaf's documents and ignore why the decision is coming, the MP says. "You didn't ask any more about it?" Murdoch says he was given "strong advice". Collins does real damage: "It may not be the mafia but it's not Management Today." That's the kind of quote that could really trouble News Corp execs, more than Watson's drama.
12:05 – We're on Phillip Davies, who sometimes has his moments,. Why didn't you ask to see leading counsel's opinion? "You seem to be more vague this time around," he tells Murdoch.
12:09 – Why did Murdoch authorise that particular level? He said he was offered a range of between half to a full million so he took it. Davies says it was Murdoch who was authorised up to £500,000. I swear I just saw one of the legal eagles wince. "Murdoch says Crone and Myler had tried to settle the case before, some of those levels "appear to be above their authority". Crone "took it upon himself" to increase offers – none of that happened at his authorisation. "We've looked quite hard at this. There's no record of any of that." Fascinating. Murdoch is really doing him in.
12:13 – Lots of mirth on Twitter about Murdoch's reliance on the word 'substantive', which he uses to define that one meeting he admits having with Myler and Crone. "Am an experienced lawyer and writer, and I really have no clue what Murdoch means by the words "substantive" or "substantial"," David Allen Green writes. The Guardian's Kath Viner says: "I didn't have a substantive dinner last night. But I might have had a dinner, I don't recall." Davies is still on it. "I can't believe a corporation that's been so successful can be so cavalier with money," he says. "The bit I have a problem with is you characterise you defence for this approach that its the NOTW and it's a tiny part of the business." Davies says he worked for Asda, owned by Wall Mart. He says Asda was a small part of Wall Mart, but if someone said a legal case was going to cost half a million to the CEO of Wall Mart, they would have had a look at it. "I find it incredible, absolutely incredible, that you didn't want to have a look at that. How can that be a course of action a self-respecting CEO would take?"
12:19 – If he was happy to take Crone's advice for £500,000, why was there a £10,000 limit on what he could authorise? Excellent point. Strong, logical series of attacks from Davies.
12:21 – Confidentiality was not discussed "as a cost item". Odd phrase. Do you now run things differently? Davies asks. "Can you not see this really is pretty lax for someone in your position?" Murdoch says this has been the focus for the business. Murdoch gibbers on for a very long time about 'governance risks' etc. You get the picture. Farrelly takes over. This should be strong.
12:24 – In other breaking news, Muslims Against Crusades are to be banned from midnight tonight, Theresa May has just announced. That means no poppy burning on Sunday, with all the counter-demonstrations it would have entailed.
12:26 – Back to the hearing. Myler and Crone were "very much" driving the agenda concerning the Taylor case. He doesn't miss a beat attacking them. Beside Farrelly, Watson is checking his phone. Wonder what he makes of the reaction to his closing comment. I think, and it's hard to be sure, but I think that by 'substantive' Murdoch means' meeting I can remember'. On the subject of memory, he seems unable to recall whether he was executive chairman. Did you know why Gordon Taylor was? Farrelly asks. He was told. "The one thing that showed us and any ten year that the NOTW line didn't stand up was that Taylor was not a member of the royal household," Farrelly says. Good point. This was about nailing royal reporter Goodman. Why would Taylor, a football man, be targeted if it was limited to one reporter? "The details of the specific voicemail intervention was not top of mind for me," Murdoch says. Why wasn't he curious Glenn Mulcaire hacked this man's phone if he wasn't a royal? Murdoch again says it was not top of mind.
12:36 – "Do you think your dad would have asked more questions than you asked?" Murdoch avoids that. "Are you always as uncurious with the business you run in News Corp?" Murdoch fudges. Farrelly calls him "remarkably incurious". The Met commissioner has confirmed Scot land Yard has contacted 600 phone hacking victims out of 5,700 suspected victims. NI have given them 300 million emails apparently. This.thing.will.take.decades.
12:40 – By 2009, "you are possibly the only person in London who still thinks there's only 'one rogue reporter'," Farrelly suggests. Murdoch says the execs responsible were very clear thorough investigations had been done.
12:43 – Strong point from Farrelly, who says that while NI had been insisting there had been a thorough investigation they "didn't even uncover their own legal opinion". He highlights a 2008 email from Crone, saying Thurlbeck remembered Taylor emails. These statements are at odds with each other. "How do you feel that reflects on Crone's reliability as a witness?" Farrelly says. Murdoch: "With respect, that is a question for the committee." No-one believes Murdoch, but my word Crone is coming out of this badly, however you look at it. Farrelly reads a Crone statement saying that for the first time Murdoch was made aware of the extent of phone hacking and therefore authorised the Taylor payment. We're starting to go round in circles here. "People can suppose I ought to have understood," Murdoch admits.
12:48 – "It's a question for this committee to judge the evidence given to it," Murdoch says. Our correspondent comments: "That will come back to haunt Murdoch." Murdoch is asked if he thinks he has "handled this competently". Murdoch: "I have spent quite some bit of time reflecting on my own decisions. I think with respect to the settlement I think I behaved reasonable given the information that I had. The company took too long to get to grips with these issues."
12:52 – Farrelly asks if he would describe his record on these matters as one which could be described as competent. Murdoch's answer is predictable. Mensch is on. She apologises that she will leave as soon as her question is done to pick up her kids.
12:54 – To your knowledge how many NI newspapers have been hacking phones or emails? Mensch asks. He won't pre-judge the investigation. She suggests there would be no problem saying the newspaper, just not the journalists. He says he has no knowledge of any other newspapers being involved. What does he know of alleged phone-hacking victims on American soil? He has no knowledge of the veracity of the allegations. She asks about 9/11 victims, who are alleged to have been hacked. He says that's being investigated. "You're coming up empty" Mensch says. Hard to tell if she's being flattering or playing a game. She cites Crone's dodgy evidence to the committee.
12:58 – Mensch says Crone instructed NI solicitors to look into the personal relationship between Lewis and Charlotte Harris, who represented victims of phone-hacking? Murdoch says Crone did engage private investigators to look at plaintiff's lawyers. "It is appalling, I would never condone it." Major admission there. He says he discovered it recently. "Mr Crone did not do that with any authorisation from me." Crone being hung out to dry here.
13:00 – Are you aware private investigators looked into Tom Watson? Murdoch says yes. "I apologise unreservedly for that. It's not something I would condone."
13:01 – Tom Watson looked desperate to interject after Murdoch's apology to him but Mensch quickly blocked him. For those matters the police allow you to release, will you guarantee to this committee you will publicise every aspect of this matter and allow it to be know before the Guardian and other publicise it? Nice try Louise. He fudges. She suggests his answer shows NI knew about Crone's discrepancies. So why didn't he write that to the committee? Murdoch says he only learned of it in the last days or weeks. "I don't know exactly when others in the company became aware of it," he adds. "I try to be as complete as I can." Mensch wishes him luck in pursuing his ethical review. Watson is back. Thank God. That was dire from Mesch.
13:07 – A man called Jonathan Rees (I may not be spelling that right) targeted a friend of Prince William, Watson says. He wants NI to look into it. Murdoch says he is not aware of any other PIs targeting Prince William. Watson starts mentioning names. Murdoch says he should write to him. Watson says "I'd like to ask you now." He keeps mentioning names. Murdoch tries to take it away on a long speech, saying the use of PI's has been too widespread. "No private investigator can be hired under our new rules without the editor going to the chief executive for approval," Murdoch pledges. "Under the circumstances Mr Murdoch I'd like to say that is a great relief to me," Watson says. He mentions a Serious Organised Crime operation called Millipede. Whittingdale gets nervous. "I won't go there, don't worry," Watson says. He gets Murdoch to ask his lawyers behind him. They say they're not aware.
13:12 – Whittingdale says Watson is straying into police investigation. Watson says he's been contacted to be told his name appears on electronic devices. He's making it clear he was also the victim of email hacking. He reads from a dictat which said members of the committee should be investigated. He reads a passage saying Rebekah Brooks hated Watson and wanted to smear him as mad. She lobbied Blair to attack him. Did she discuss the inquiry with Tony Blair? Murdoch has no idea. And with that Watson ends.
13:14 – I think we're close to wrapping up. I hope so anyway. I'm knackered and hungry. Murdoch is asked if he failed to show "the agency or will" to deal with bad practise. We're back to running around in circles. As someone just tweeted, what kind of school lets the kids out right now? It's quarter past one. Well, regardless, Mensch is gone. Her questioning was the weakest of the lot. Out of nowhere, Murdoch is dressed down for Hillsborough. He says: "I'd like to add my full apology for the wrong coverage of that affair. I'd like to add that voice to successive editors of the Sun. It was wrong to do so. It was 22 years ago and I was far away and much younger and had no involvement but I've since looked at it. I'm aware of the concerns and hurt it caused and I'm very sorry for it."
13:19 – This all comes from Liverpool MP Steve Rotherham, by the way. His vendetta is not complete. He asks if Murdoch will close the Sun, as he did the NOTW, if it's shown hacking took place there. Murdoch doesn't actually rule it out. Thérèse Coffey is up. Someone get me a blanket and some warm milk.
13:21 – Who did finally bring all the hacking material to his attention in late 2010? Jesus that's poor. He says there were many civil actions, as he has said many times before.
13:24 – Well, that's done. Farrelly gets the final question. "This whole inquiry is about this committee being misled." He gets out a piece of paper. It's the NOTW editorial from just after their 2009 report. He reads out how it abuses him and Watson. The next settlement was about Max Clifford. Was he involved in the rumoured million pound settlement in any way? Murdoch says no. Brooks didn't seek his authorisation or views? No. Did he know who Max Clifford was? Did you ask 'he's not a member of the royal family either?'" Murdoch says there had been a previous problem and it was "desirable to enter into an agreement like that for the future". Farrelly suggests his father would have cared about the money, but James didn't. "It wasn't at that point a new piece of wrongdoing," Murdoch insists.
13:32 – Murdoch is, by and large, in the same state he was in when he came in. It's been two and half hours. Impressive. I'm just typing and I look a right state. Murdoch says he'll look into the Clifford case. Murdoch tries to avoid "legal speculation", prompting his lawyers to nod in agreement. Farrelly says he's effectively supporting the man who hacked Milly Dowler's phone due to paying Mulcaire's legal expenses. I'm sure Farrelly has asked at least six 'final questions'.
13:37 – And now he asks another final question. But this time it really is. The committee brings matters to a close. Phew. That was epic. We'll have news, sketch and analysis up this afternoon. See you soon.
