Hard News: The Letter
443 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 … 18 Newer→ Last
-
Hmm. 100k Yuan is about the right amount in NZ Dollars..
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
Plead the 5th (eye)...
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.Disturbs me a bit how much time Mr Key seems to spend gossiping and 'hearing things'.
He's not a journalist, how dare he expect to protect his sources!
He is just like us isn't he?the statement
as someone on Morning Report txted yesterday - was it a sworn statement or an affadavit?
if not it's just another piece of paper of unknown provenance, one person's recollections against another's.It's a bit rich for Key to be asking Donghua Liu to now show something that Key himself has been 'spruiking' as the implied 'real deal' for some time, surely he hasn't been 'selling us short' again?
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
He’s not a journalist, how dare he expect to protect his sources!
Quite. It's an odd thing to say.
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
Hmm. 100k Yuan is about the right amount in NZ Dollars..
I've been thinking that all along.
-
Chris Waugh, in reply to
Hmm. 100k Yuan is about the right amount in NZ Dollars..
Also, 10,000 is the point at which translating numbers between Chinese and English gets tricky. As in 100 thousand in English is 10 ten thousands (十万 (shí wàn)) in Chinese; 15 thousand in English is 1 ten thousand 5 thousand （一万五（千）(yī wàn wǔ (qián)) in Chinese. Still, the quality of the English in the quotes attributed to Donghua Liu suggest that either his English is too good for him to be making these mistakes or that there's a good translator/interpreter involved. Also, if he's such a shit hot businessman, why would he go confusing the currencies?
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
Quite. It’s an odd thing to say.
He's been chattin' with Slater.
-
Sacha, in reply to
He may have just said "100, 000" and the NZers assumed he meant NZ dollars. I agree the problem is far more likely to be at our end.
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
the barbarians aren't at the gates, they’re settling in with a drink…
Hemlock one would hope. Yes, the barbarians have come to roost in Christchurch with a vengeance, the flooding is due to the copious amounts of spittle drooling from their ravenous lips as they devour the last remnants of a once wealthy city.
You guys need a Labour Govt. like a orphan needs asylum lest the beast consume your souls... -
Steve Barnes, in reply to
It’s a bit rich for Key to be asking Donghua Liu to now show something that Key himself has been ‘spruiking’
Mark my words…
Key is putting this back in Liu’s lap because he can then absolve himself from being labeled a liar. When the truth is told he will say… “I can’t tell you about that but I can tell you this. I trusted Mr. Liu as I trust many people in business, you have to have trust to do business and you have to have trust to run a country, that is why the people trust us and not Labour”
It will happen.
He has already started..."Both parties have got options available to them if they want to test the veracity of the statements that have been made or refute those. That's a matter for those guys," Mr Key said yesterday.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
Stuff: Prime minister’s lips sealed on Liu leaker
When the PM is asking Liu to fess up, that seems to be saying something. The next thing Cunliffe needs to say is, “Evidence please, otherwise you’re making shit up.”
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
The next thing Cunliffe needs to say is, “Evidence please, otherwise you’re making shit up.”
You know what, he probably needs to outsource that line considering Tim Barnett is now extremely reluctant to go on the record either confirming or denying anything Liu has said. Which, when you get right down to it, is the problem right there. I get pretty much everyone else around here is willing to extend Labour the benefit of the doubt, and write Liu off as a pathological liar. I'm just saying we should have to take "just trust me now, and move along" from anyone.
-
Chris Waugh, in reply to
I get pretty much everyone else around here is willing to extend Labour the benefit of the doubt, and write Liu off as a pathological liar.
No, I'm just finding the evidence of Labour or any Labour MPs up to no good with Donghua Liu that has been presented so far is underwhelming and rather flimsy. It certainly doesn't deserve the fulmination and frothing at the mouth that has been going on in some quarters. Compare that with the very solid evidence against certain National MPs, one of whom has suffered no consequences more severe than being told to stay clear of Twitter, and you can't blame me for suspecting there are some other, hidden motives behind all this.
I’m just saying we should have to take “just trust me now, and move along” from anyone.
I think you may be missing a negative in that sentence. But whatever, I agree. Those trying to prove Labour has been up to no good should at least make some effort to put forward something resembling solid evidence to back up their claims. And ideally all political parties would come as clean as they possibly can about who's been giving them what and how much.
I'm still puzzled as to why nobody has gone after Damian O'Connor, who was, after all, the Labour minister who granted Donghua Liu residency...
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
You know what, he probably needs to outsource that line considering Tim Barnett is now extremely reluctant to go on the record either confirming or denying anything Liu has said. Which, when you get right down to it, is the problem right there.
That's not what he's saying at all. From yesterday afternoon:
Labour Party general secretary Tim Barnett told Radio New Zealand's Morning Report programme on Monday that he had scoured the records and found nothing.
Mr Barnet dismissed a suggestion that a $150,000 anonymous donation made in 2007 via the law firm Palmer Theron might cover the Liu claims.
"What we've done is to check Donghua Liu's lawyer whether he has a link with any of the three law firms through which we receive donations and there's no link that we can see. The allegation is that he paid at an auction $100,000 - you wouldn't pay $100,000 as an anonymous donation through a lawyer."
What the hell else is he supposed to say besides "we can't find anything"? They've now hired an auditor to go over all the records. What more are they supposed to do?
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
And meanwhile ...
Prime Minister John Key is refusing to say how much he knew about Donghua Liu's donations to Labour.
The Auckland property developer says he paid $100,000 for a bottle of wine at a 2007 fundraiser, but Labour says it can't find any record of the donation and has commissioned an audit.
Last week Key made a number of assertions about the millionaire's links to Labour. Though he told reporters he knew about a written statement from Liu "a few weeks ago", he is refusing to say who told him.
Is it really Tim Barnett who's refusing to explain himself?
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
I get pretty much everyone else around here is willing to extend Labour the benefit of the doubt, and write Liu off as a pathological liar.
No, I’m just finding the evidence of Labour or any Labour MPs up to no good with Donghua Liu that has been presented so far is underwhelming and rather flimsy.
Noted in the comments for Danyl's last post: this charity wine auction on June 3, 2007 -- which is the datestamp on the photo that Jared Savage received. But there were no bids of anything like $100,000.
-
Stephen R, in reply to
You know what, he probably needs to outsource that line considering Tim Barnett is now extremely reluctant to go on the record either confirming or denying anything Liu has said
After Cunliffe got spanked so hard for being 100% sure he had never written on behalf of Mr Liu and being wrong, are you surprised? I heard Tim Barnett on the radio being interviewed, and my impression was that he was saying "I'm 99% sure that we didn't get $100,000 donation from Mr Liu" but leaving room for some obscure document that they haven't found yet to come out.
That doesn't seem unreasonable in the circumstances.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
but leaving room for some obscure document that they haven’t found yet to come out.
That doesn’t seem unreasonable in the circumstances.
As you say, given the scorn tipped on Cunliffe, it's hard to see how they could say or do otherwise.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
What the hell else is he supposed to say besides “we can’t find anything”?
To be blunt as a cosh to the back of the head -- you'd expect him to just throw up his hands and say "fair cop" if he did? Congratulations, this is a system of nudge-nudge wink-wink plausibly deniable political money laundering that is working exactly to spec. Fuck it, I've got a limited supply of sympathy and none of it to spare for politicians and political parties reaping what they sowed with eyes wide open.
And I hope this does burn Labour down to the ground, and flashes back to char-grill National in the process. Because we might actually get some genuine transparency and accountability when the political cost of the status quo gets too high to ignore.
-
Just for contrast- here’s the Herald headline from the weekend. No quotation marks, or indications this is a claim, allegation, or slur. (Plus additional assertions about another $15000 and that Cunliffe had to fight to keep his job – based on no discernible evidence.)
And also some random Oravida reporting- where it’s made clear any wrong-doing is alleged, based on a claim or quote from Labour or NZ First.
(FWIW I don’t think it’s bias, apart from the pile-on effect when journos get the smell of political blood. I think it’s sloppy, but also the Herald got played. Of course Tim Murphy will ‘protect their source.’ But a/ they can’t be happy about being so manipulated, and b/ there’s now a genuine story: who obtained the signed letter; and in what capacity were they operating.) -
linger, in reply to
I hope this does burn Labour down to the ground, and flashes back to char-grill National in the process.
Be careful what you wish for. The more likely outcome (comparing and contrasting the media treatments just posted by Rob) is that Labour gets burned, and National carries on doing worse with impunity … ignoring any rise in temperature because that would imply they’d have to openly acknowledge and possibly even do something about global warming.
-
Rob Stowell, in reply to
I hope this does burn Labour down to the ground
You'd want to qualify that, surely, with 'if they took dodgy money and/or didn't declare donations'
Because usually you do seem to feel the facts matter.
Worth remembering all the fuss and stink about the EFA, where Labour tried to clean up electoral finance and make parties more accountable. -
Russell Brown, in reply to
To be blunt as a cosh to the back of the head – you’d expect him to just throw up his hands and say “fair cop” if he did? Congratulations, this is a system of nudge-nudge wink-wink plausibly deniable political money laundering that is working exactly to spec. Fuck it, I’ve got a limited supply of sympathy and none of it to spare for politicians and political parties reaping what they sowed with eyes wide open.
For goodness sake Craig, they've hired an auditor. It's hard to equate that with a cover-up.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
FWIW I don’t think it’s bias, apart from the pile-on effect when journos get the smell of political blood. I think it’s sloppy, but also the Herald got played. Of course Tim Murphy will ‘protect their source.’ But a/ they can’t be happy about being so manipulated, and b/ there’s now a genuine story: who obtained the signed letter; and in what capacity were they operating.
I was interested that Jared Savage tweeted a link to Stuff's story about John Key's refusal to discuss how he knew about the claimed donations. It's not exactly common for reporters to direct people to the opposition.
I agree with your reading of the situation, as things stand. It's worth noting that Savage took up Whaleoil's Len Brown story and pivoted the whole thing to point at the perpetrators.
-
If the Labour leadership were to sue John Key for libel over the $100k bottle allegation, he wouldn't be able to protect his source, not being a journalist.
(And it's a specific allegation, not general political debate like calling someone a bigot, and its against a small, identifiable group of people).
-
Sacha, in reply to
He'd cite some variant of free and frank advice from Ede et al..
Post your response…
This topic is closed.