Posts by Sacha
-
As said already on one of the innumerable threads about this, Campbell Live's story from five months ago is a useful pointer about which agencies and people might need to be formally interveiwed - especially the Police. Narrowing the scope to GCSB is a political decision.
-
Legal Beagle: Kim Dotcom: We need an Inquiry!, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
Given it has been admitted - and I believe accepted by Dr Norman - that the Prime Minister knew nothing about the use of GCSB resources at the time
Your faith is touching, but the sea of lies surrounding this so far means I doubt that matter is accepted as proven fact. An inquiry might examine that.
-
Legal Beagle: Kim Dotcom vs. The Teapot Tapes, in reply to Andrew Geddis,
Thanks, Andrew.
-
Legal Beagle: Kim Dotcom vs. The Teapot Tapes, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
His breaching the citizenship requirements of being an MP was only a problem because the govt needed his vote. Similar to the contortions we've seen over not holding Banks accountable recently. That's all I was getting at.
-
Hard News: Media3: Standards Showdown, in reply to Rob Stowell,
So it was timely to hear NZEI present the other story on Morning Report today. (7 mins streaming)
Interesting. Naturally Parata 'disagrees' with the international evidence while refusing to be interviewed.
Ta for including the audio length too - figure it helps people decide whether they can commit to listening right now, especially with mobile devices or constrained bandwidth.
-
Legal Beagle: Kim Dotcom vs. The Teapot Tapes, in reply to Joe Wylie,
a bit of quick retrospective legislation
..lest anyone think expediency over principle is the province of only one side of the House.
-
Do any state sector laws position the agency's head as being liable? I'd expect the boss to be sued, not the janitor.
-
Legal Beagle: Kim Dotcom: Questions and Answers, in reply to DexterX,
Key’s challenge is, “Prove it”.
I was thinking of tweeting something similar over the weekend. Why are we granting this clown the benefit of doubt?
A genuinely independent inquiry with broad scope by the Ombudsman or similarly trustworthy agency who can keep genuinely sensitive information secret seems warranted at the very least.
-
The Press delivers a pretty firm editorial which is unimpressed with the Inspector General but concludes:
The narrow focus was forced on Neazor because of the terms of reference drawn up by the Prime Minister. They had the advantage, from John Key's perspective, of producing a quick report and denying scrutiny of the wider issues, but the result will be continuing revelations. Dotcom promises that, and so do his effective lawyers.
Another residual matter will dog the Government - Key's failure to take responsibility for his department's fundamental mistakes. They add to the perception of a politician not focused on the hard grind at his Beehive desk and too preoccupied with overseas travel, glad-handing and the smooching photo opportunity.
-
Hard News: Media3: Standards Showdown, in reply to Ross Mason,
And then Hartevelt had to gall to then tell Keith that "we have analysed our data and there was a weak association but it was an association".
Wasn't it the Herald's Jonathan Milne who said that, as Steve noted above?