Hard News: The Letter
443 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 … 18 Newer→ Last
-
Chris Waugh, in reply to
I also note Foss is trying to sling dirt What’s he trying to do there? Keep up the anti Labour momentum?
Shoot himself in the foot, it would seem:
Mr Foss said he recalled Ms Lorck volunteering on election day in 2011.
"Every election we have lots of people helping us, of which she would have been one.
"That's why it's always surprised me that she put her hand up for Labour, knowing she'd helped us in the past."
My emphasis. I thought campaigning was illegal on election day.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Most parties do things on that day like coordinate transport to get voters to the polls.
-
Chris Waugh, in reply to
I know, and I'm being a little bit silly, and that's probably what was meant. But the context seemed to allow the interpretation that she'd been helping National, not just helping get people out to vote.
-
Foss, like all those on the right in this sorry saga, seems to be"making shit up”. Lets face it, we have seen plenty of denial on Nationals part over the last few months so they know how much time and energy it takes to handle the damage done. The difference here is that Labour appear to have done absolutely nothing untoward, apart from not recalling a form letter from 11 years back, whereas National have been embarrassed by facts that they blatantly deny.
I am begining to believe that this is pure mudslinging with little or no foundation but the damage comes from having to deny in an honest manner, rather than the dismissivness that we get from National. Its the same old ” Repeat a lie often enough…..” bulshit l hsve come to expect from these slime mongers. -
Kumara Republic, in reply to
Distract from some actual news
Australia: "Don't you worry about that!"
NZ: "NZers don't care about beltway issues." -
BenWilson, in reply to
Gotta love Key, he does this automagically:
"From time to time I always try to make sure I am fully briefed on intelligence matters."
ETA: It took Murray Mexted years to perfect comments like that.
-
Sacha, in reply to
I found that story confusingly plausible, yes. Unlike this other stuff.
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
Thing is Chris, really ,a photo with JK ,whoopty.What is this? Gossip mag? It's not news . It's gossip and why does that start on the front page taken from Hawkes Bay Today. Is the "Slow Drip" trying to prove that NZers just dont give a flying toss As Key is telling the World? Yes we have no journo? Although Slater thinks he's one ." Slow Drip" is producing/ borrowing trash for the sake of something to print.
-
Chris Waugh, in reply to
I completely agree, Sofie. I just think it's pretty funny that, in the midst of all these molehills being made out to be Himalayan-sized mountains, we have in yet another non-story Foss apparently incriminating himself.
Back to taking things seriously: We have one minister rightly forced to resign for dealings involving Donghua Liu that might not be quite corrupt but were certainly beyond the pale. We have another minister still in office even though there is plenty of evidence of an actual conflict of interest serious enough she should've been fired, and more to suggest an investigation for corruption would not be a waste of police resources. Then we have government bullying of journalists like Bradley Ambrose and that freelancer who wrote about NZDF activities in Afghanistan whose name I can't remember right now, the Kim Dotcom saga, and now what looks like rather desperate attempts to stick some mud to Labour, both at the local level in Hawkes Bay, and at the national level with The Cunliffe Letter and The Barker Boat Cruise and whatever else. And the evidence for all this is so flimsy that the Herald felt the need to suggest that perhaps the date of the fundraiser Donghua Liu claimed to have spent $100,000 at could be interpreted the American way. I strongly suspect the Slow Drip is all about distracting people from the real issues. If the media were actually holding the government to account instead of chasing these non-stories, what would the polls be saying?
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
that freelancer who wrote about NZDF activities in Afghanistan whose name I can’t remember right now
Jon Stephenson
-
Chris Waugh, in reply to
Thanks.
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
If the media were actually holding the government to account instead of chasing these non-stories, what would the polls be saying?
I would suspect National would be staring defeat in the face, if nothing else the Herald and some other media outlets are sailing close to the wind when it comes to destroying Democracy. Oh the irony, they were claiming Labour were doing just that with the EFA. This just gets weirder and weirder...
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
Jon Stephenson
Plus Jon had to go out and defend himself when many should of had his back (other than RB who did). We have got Rob Salmond over at Polity in the "Slow Drip" with an actual look at Labours KiwiSaver Policy
Oh how refreshing! -
Russell Brown, in reply to
Plus Jon had to go out and defend himself when many should of had his back (other than RB who did).
I was quite appalled by the response of some journalists to the position in which Jon was put.
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
I was quite appalled by the response of some journalists to the position in which Jon was put.
And I was equally impressed that he stood his ground. The man has integrity.I wonder ,if you are surrounded by the horror and pointlessness of war, do you see that the bigger picture is about integrity when reporting. Because otherwise, what is the point?
-
You can't make this shit up but John Key can...
Tuesday May 20, 2014Mr Key says that there's no reason to bring up the issue of drone strikes with the President..
"On balance of benefit, are they more often right than they're wrong? I think the answer is 'yes'," he said following a meeting with US President Barack Obama.
Flippity floppity makin' shit up as you go along but hey, its only murder
-
BenWilson, in reply to
On balance of benefit, are they more often right than they’re wrong?
Amazing to think that could even be the rationale. Getting purely numerical one should at least ask "are the consequences of a false positive more severe than a false negative"? One is killing innocent people with high certainty. The other is that someone you want to be killed gets away for now. Even the most brutal human life number cruncher should at least get that the two aren't the same, and that getting it right more often than getting it wrong is way, way less than good enough.
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
getting it right more often than getting it wrong is way, way less than good enough.
Otherwise bang goes the rational behind banning capital punishment. If we are to accept that our Prime Minister thinks this way and that he is BFF with the USofA and some sates consider the death penalty justifiable, can we expect a return to barbarism under a future John Key led government?.
-
On balance of benefit, are they more often right than they’re wrong?
Ah, so that's the moral calculus that determines whether ministers stay in Cabinet.
-
Liu told the Weekend Herald last week that he had given “equally to Governments of both colours”.
National declared a $22,000 donation in 2012, but when asked about donations other than that from the Chinese property developer, party president Mr Goodfellow said he didn’t want to discuss individual donations.
“I think it’s more appropriate that you ask him what he meant by that statement, whether he gives to both parties or somehow meant a dollar amount. We disclose where it’s required and that’s exactly what we’ve done. Our practice is disclose according to the rules."
Meanwhile, Labour is commissioning an audit. If it doesn’t find the $100k donation and Barker’s dinner was what it seems, this story is looking pretty dodgy.
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
Cone the barbarian...
can we expect a return to barbarism under a future John Key led government?
Waddya mean 'expect a return'
- been to Chchch lately?
Culture will only occur in state sanctioned precincts, the state has thrown out elected officials and processes, people have been robbed of half the value of their land in a shell game with insurers, and more - the barbarians aren't at the gates, they're settling in with a drink... -
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
We disclose where it’s required and that’s exactly what we’ve done.
Our practice is disclose according to the rules.Unless it's a 'disclosure' about another party...
-
And Toby Manhire thought he might have found the mystery bottle of wine, but it appears not.
It's worth noting that according to Jared Savage, the uncropped version of the photo of Liu's wife, Barker and a big bottle of wine bears a date stamp of 3/6/2007.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Unless it’s a ‘disclosure’ about another party…
Stuff: Prime minister's lips sealed on Liu leaker
Prime Minister John Key is refusing to say how much he knew about Donghua Liu's donations to Labour ...
Key said: "I was told that there was [donations to Labour]. I'm not going to talk about my sources."
However, he said he had not seen the statement and did not know if anyone in his office had. "I've heard about it.
"I can't tell you the particular people I talk to, but what I can say is that there is plenty of discussion out there about the fact. And it didn't come as any surprise to me that Donghua Liu had been both a donor to National and Labour."
Key said he did not know if his MPs were in touch with Chinese-born Liu. "I'm certainly not."
Key opened Liu's $70 million hotel development in 2011. Liu also met Immigration Minister Michael Woodhouse to discuss policy.
Asked if the statement could have been written by a National Party figure, Key said: "You'll have to go and ask Donghua Liu who it was written by. I don't know the man other than opening his building that time. I wouldn't agree with that statement."
-
Sacha, in reply to
this story is looking pretty dodgy
Danyl reckons he has worked it out.
My guess is that the different sources are all talking about the same donation with inaccuracies in each story: that Liu paid $15,000 for a bottle of wine signed by Helen Clark – which is the bottle of wine we see Rick Barker handing over in the Herald photo – that the ‘party source’ – let’s call him [redacted] – misremembered slightly and said it was a book, and that Liu misremembered the amount and claimed it was $100,000.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.