Hard News: #JohnDotBanks and all
281 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 … 12 Newer→ Last
-
Sacha, in reply to
Surely the candidate is responsible for everything that occurs during his campaign?
I believe Mr Geddis addressed that recently. Or maybe it was Mr Edgeler? Apparently the wording in the act does not link the candidate and their campaign team as much as the equivalent central electoral legislatation does.
An interpretation seems quite possible that the candidate need be the only person who must know or not know for the purposes of establishing anonymity, regardless of what their campaign team did.
Of course most of the public are not lawyers, and if it smells like a duck..
-
Mike Graham, in reply to
and who gave Dotcom the bank account number details to deposit the cheques into said account?
or did the cheques get to Team Banksie and were deposited by a minion while skiing
Aaron Bhatnagar?
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Aaron Bhatnagar?
I am surprised his name hasn't come up more often, given his past escapades.
-
merc,
Do you pay tax on a political donation? Is it coded to IRD as a political donation? Do you have to keep a paper trail of how a political donation is spent?
Is there some forensic accounting needing to be done here? Do the politicians who receive donations have guidelines as to how it must be spent? -
Sacha, in reply to
and is such a donation a 'gift' for tax purposes?
-
3410,
Stuff: Banks, Williamson picked to stand down.
Online predictions market iPredict has ACT leader John Banks and National MP Maurice Williamson both being stood down as ministers by May 15...
Personally, I think the iPredicters are totally wrong about Williamson (had him to go at over 97 cents last night!), but an interesting headline, nonetheless.
-
3410,
ACT president Chris Simmons confirms that Banks told him that he (Banks) asked Dotcom to split the $50k donation.
-
Sacha, in reply to
source?
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
-
3410,
source?
Sorry. Thought it would be everywhere in a few minutes.
John Banks denies asking Kim Dotcom to split a $50K donation so it could remain anonymous.
I'm not sure he did though, did he?
-
Sacha, in reply to
excellent. ta.
-
DexterX, in reply to
Apparently the wording in the act does not link the candidate and their campaign team as much as the equivalent central electoral legislatation does.
That is just how daft the law is - to actually consider that there is viable degree of seperation. It does not serve the public interest.
-
nzlemming, in reply to
That link now says:
The ACT Party's president says he was mistaken to confirm John Banks suggested to internet millionaire Kim Dotcom to split a $50,000 donation into two lots of $25,000.
-
Hebe, in reply to
John Banks denies asking Kim Dotcom to split a $50K donation so it could remain anonymous.
I'm not sure he did though, did he?I thought that is exactly what I saw and heard on Campbell last week. Or was it a dramatic recreation? Nit-picking, I know, but isn't Kim Dotcom a bit more than a millionaire - surely at least a multimillionaire or even a billionaire.
-
Hebe, in reply to
Screenshots are a wonderful thing for democracy.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
So the ACT party prez says yea. Then he says nah. Then yea, nah...
-
3410,
Audio of the backdown story is up.
It contains some of the original interview:
Mary Wilson (Checkpoint): [... In that interview I asked Mr. Simmons if he had asked Mr. Banks if he had received donations from Mr. Dotcom, and he had this to say:]
Chris Simmons (ACT President): “Not in that direct manner. I’ve asked him, ah, about the process that they used...”
MW: “Why didn’t you ask him directly?”
CS: “Well, he’s told me that that was an anonymous donation...”
MW: “But he knew that they were going to be $25,000 – split into two lots – or $50,000 split into two lots.”
CS: “No; that was one of the suggestions he made to, ah, Dotcom...”
MW: “Do you know why he made that suggestion?”
CS: “He has given me an indication as [to] why he made that suggestion, and that was that he initially, ah, was going to put in 25,000 of his own money, and he figured that other people should be putting in the same sort of, ah, numbers. That’s what he’s looking for.
RNZ's political editor Brent Edwards says
... Mr. Simmons rang me within minutes, really, of that interview airing on Radio New Zealand, and said he was completely mistaken; that he has never discussed with Mr. Banks specifically the matter of whether Mr. Dotcom gave him money or not or how it might have been split up. He said he was trying to refer more generally to how, under the Electoral Act, the local body candidates can approach people and ask for money, but that he hasn't actually specifically discussed Mr. Dotcom's donation with Mr. Banks in that way...
-
3410,
Not sure if RNZ has posted the complete interview audio...
(I couldn't find it).It's here though:
http://thestandard.org.nz/resignationwatch-oopsie/. -
All this would not have been an issue had Banks said Dotty gave me $50K and the Satan gave me $15K.
Do you think he could stay in the same room his Dad did in Mt Eden? -
You really can't make this shit up. And I see McCully's had to backtrack on MFAT reform as well.
-
Making shit up - Fake Banksy.
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
Excellent Joe { :)
-
Mikaere Curtis, in reply to
And this.
-
Joe Wylie, in reply to
And this.
You certainly got the right JB pic there.
Was there ever a more queasiness-inducing smile in NZ politics? -
Kumara Republic, in reply to
And this.
Exactly what I hand in mind! T-shirt print, anyone?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.