Regan and the married Kerik had a well-publicized yearlong affair. Their assignations often took place in a lower Manhattan apartment that had been specifically reserved for the use of workers in the aftermath of 9/11. After Giuliani left the mayor's office on January 1, 2002, Kerik went to work for him as a consultant at Giuliani Partners. Kerik and Regan broke up later in 2002.

Kerik was nominated for Homeland Security Chief in 2004. Salon writes,

In December 2004, according to Regan's complaint, when President Bush tapped Kerik, at Giuliani's recommendation, to head the federal Department of Homeland Security, Regan was pressured to keep quiet, and asked to lie on Kerik's behalf. "[A] senior executive in the News Corp. organization told Regan that he believed she had information about Kerik that, if disclosed, would harm Giuliani's presidential campaign. This executive advised Regan to lie to, and to withhold information from, investigators concerning Kerik. ... [D]efendants knew they would be protecting Giuliani if they could preemptively discredit her."

It seems like Regan is alleging only that she was asked to lie during the background investigation into Bernie Kerik's nomination, not the ensuing criminal investigations.

Regan worked for Fox until December, 2006. By 2005, a wiretap had been installed on Bernie's cell phone and he was being investigated for tax crimes. By September, 2006, he was being investigated by a federal grand jury for bribery and tax crimes.

I'm not seeing anything in her complaint that alleges the Fox officials asked her to lie or withhold documents during those investigations.

Could the Fox execs actions amount to obstruction of justice or tampering with a witness? Under 18 USC Sec. 1505 , Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees:

Whoever, with intent to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance, in whole or in part, with any civil investigative demand duly and properly made under the Antitrust Civil Process Act, willfully withholds, misrepresents, removes from any place, conceals, covers up, destroys, mutilates, alters, or by other means falsifies any documentary material, answers to written interrogatories, or oral testimony, which is the subject of such demand; or attempts to do so or solicits another to do so....Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years.

There's no indication a grand jury is investigating the Fox Executives over Regan's allegations. Did they not find her credible, despite whatever evidence she claims to have? Or are they not done yet?

By December, 2004, Regan's affair with Kerik had been over for two years. It was not a big secret. I have a hard time believing that Ailes or anyone else would tell her not to tell the feds about it when they could so easily find out.

The question becomes: What exactly is she claiming the Fox execs told her to lie about? What documents does she allege she was told to withhold? I hope some of the investigative reporters on this story can shed some light on this.

Update: Newsweek wrote in December, 2004:

NEWSWEEK has learned that just after Kerik was nominated, Regan told one person that she was contacted by one of his associates, according to a person who knows about the conversation. This person says the associate indicated to Regan how Kerik might characterize their relationship when asked about it during a background check. Kerik, this person says, said he would describe it as a "brother-sister" relationship. Regan took that as code for her to mischaracterize what she has told people was a sexual affair. Regan, through a spokeswoman at her publishing company, declined to comment. Kerik's lawyer says Kerik knows of no such telephone call, and would describe his relationship with Regan only as "close personal friends." (Ties That Blinded Newsweek December 27, 2004 U.S. Edition )

Was it really one of Kerik's associates who told her that...?

In the same article,Rudy couldn't even talk straight about Bernie's role in his firm:

In a lengthy and candid interview with NEWSWEEK, Giuliani ....Giuliani said repeatedly that Kerik's role in the firm is very limited, representing "less than 5 percent" of its business. He also said that Kerik's position was largely limited to their joint venture, Giuliani-Kerik. "He's not part of Giuliani Partners," the former mayor said.

But at the firm's Web site, Kerik is described as a "Senior Vice President at Giuliani Partners." Giuliani later explained the discrepancy by saying: "Senior vice president of the group is what Bernie was when we started. I think that remains his title, but that's not the way we primarily relate to him. As you know, he does some work for a few of our clients." He added: "We should probably straighten it out and point out where his ownership interest is and primary work is done."