|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Nov 26, 2012 18:08:11 GMT 10
Bolta declares "Gillard won’t repeat in Parliament what she said outside it" Actually, I think she has. But I think we can assume that julie bishop isn't going to say any of those things outside of parliament. It must be quite soul destroying, though. This is their re-election campaign, and they have to keep it up until the poll. And they must know that now they've let the smear-genie out of the bottle, it's not going to be got back in easily. I would be quite surprised if nobody is going through the goings on at CSR to find really good quotes to attribute to bishop. And michael kroger's got a date in the NSW supreme court on (I believe) the 3rd of december, to defend his comments about barbara ramjan. And that's going to be in the next non-sitting week, so lots of political journalists will have some time on their hands. And folks on the internets are starting to abbott's witnesses were at another court hearing, many years ago. With apologies in advance to The Age (where I nicked the picture) Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by jack on Nov 26, 2012 19:28:55 GMT 10
"Actually, I think she has."
Indeed. The problem appears to be that JG isn't giving the answers her opponents want to hear. In the absence of anything remotely like a smoking gun, the desperate strategy seems to be to wear her down into making some kind of gaffe that might be further construed as contradicting answers previously given, giving rise to more and more questions.
True, some of the responses in Parliament from JG and the goverment have been pure theatre. Such as Albanese as Leader of the House refusing Bishop leave to table documents, instead himself tabling news articles unflattering to Bishop's own past legal career. Or JG's line about being blamed for JFK's assassination, Holt's disappearance, etc.
There is a self-serving aspect to all that, but the government is quite correct too about not wanting proceedings in Parliament to descend into an endless negative feedback loop.
In today's Question Time all Opposition questions were from Bishop on the AWU stuff, leaving the government to fill out the rest of QT with Dixers.
That's not being an effective Opposition.
|
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Nov 27, 2012 8:10:37 GMT 10
www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-27/slater-and-gordon-defends-not-reporting/4393720This morning Slater & Gordon released a statement saying: "Slater & Gordon has consistently maintained, and still maintains, that at all times it has acted in accordance with its legal and ethical obligations in relation to all aspects of the AWU matter."
It said it had obtained independent advice confirming that it: "was (and is) not permitted to divulge confidential and privileged information of one client to another client or any other party."
The firm said it "acted for both a union and a union official (personally)" in the "AWU matter."
"In acting for the official, Slater & Gordon obtained information: i). that was confidential to the official; and ii) the disclosure of which to the union would have represented a conflict between the interests of the union and the interests of the official," the statement said.
"Slater & Gordon ceased acting for both clients after it became aware of this conflict situation." That would explain why the PM keeps referring to knowledge of criminality. It does raise the question of how gillard got them into that situation in the first place, but I guess that's where the whole "judgement" thing comes in, and why le partners might have been grouchy about it. It's interesting to see how this story evolves. A week or so ago, it was all about the fax from commbank about insurance, and trying to prove that gillard had some direct involvement in the purchase of a house. That was pretty much shot down (mostly by john faine, partly by gillard herself) and nobody's talking about that any more. The "smoking gun" of the power of attorney's been dusted off a couple of times, but in the absence of actual evidence (which would seem to be lacking, despite the start witness talking to the police for a week), that one's just down to he-said-she-said, and until that changes I suspect we're not going to hear much more about it. So THIS week's smoking guns are (a) the question of this mysterious letter that might or might not have been written to some WA registrar. I don't quite see why that's so crucial - plenty of folks seem to be of the view that the association was legitimate, so even if somebody could prove this letter exists (and they're not doing that), then all it could (potentially) prove is that gillard understood the legislation. But nobody's actually GOT the letter, and it appears as if gillard can't remember writing one. It must be galling for a hard-news reporter to have to fall back on "X refuses to specifically deny". That's when everyone can tell you've got nuttin' - that you're straying into moon hoax territory. (b) why S&G didn't tell the AWU about associations owned by blewitt and wilson. It would seem that S&G just answered that one - they seem to be saying that, in the absence of knowledge of relevant criminal activity, they weren't allowed to. That's what gillard's been saying all along. And it should be pointed out that this association WAS registered in the names of the two alleged perps. Surely this is something that can be searched? I mean ... its creation was published in the paper. The point of a "registrar" is that they keep a "registry". So maybe an entirely reasonable question would be: why didn't anyone just ask? In the excitement about throwing darts at the PM, I see that folks have stopped asking intelligent questions about anything else. Is anyone running a register of smoking guns that went rusty? So ... I wonder what's up next.
|
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Nov 27, 2012 15:44:06 GMT 10
If this was said outside the confines of parliament ... www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/bishop-unleashes-the-bank-robbers-20121127-2a4e3.html''The reason [Ms Gillard] didn't open a file within Slater & Gordon ... was because she and Wilson and Blewitt wanted to hide from the AWU the fact that an unauthorised entity was being set up...'' Ms Bishop said.
Advertisement
''She created the stolen vehicle that the bank robbers took to the bank, to rob the bank.'' Wow. I wonder if the PM is, even now, as they say, "considering her options". I wouldn't have said that. But, then, I'm not "a lawyer with 20 years experience" |
|
|
|
Post by jack on Nov 27, 2012 18:06:39 GMT 10
Er... so, is Bishop equating JG with Ford or Holden? Those companies 'created' lots of vehicles over the years that have been stolen and used in heists.
Anyway, thing is that JG advised clients on the creation of an 'entity', she didn't create it. Whether they followed her advice and what they did with the entity is plainly not in JG's control. No-one blames Ford or Holden for a driver's culpable driving or any other nefarious activity.
Pretty pointless analogy, really.
|
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Nov 27, 2012 19:01:27 GMT 10
I'm just watching the interviews with bishop today.
Wow.
This is how politics is going to be done in this country from now on
I hope they know what they're doing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Nov 28, 2012 8:25:26 GMT 10
I'd like to think this tops all, but there's so much crap flying around that it's hard to be definitive. This: www.theaustralian.com.au/news/investigations/slater-gordon-legal-firm-was-told-of-fund-raid/story-fng5kxvh-1226525301052Starts with DISGRACED union official Bruce Wilson told his lawyers at Slater & Gordon in August 1995 that money from a secret slush fund was siphoned off for the purchase of a $230,000 Melbourne terrace house, federal parliament heard yesterday. Bolt even sexes that up further, with: Evidence suggests Julia Gillard probably knew - and didn’t tell the police - the slush fund she helped set up was rorted to pay for a home for her boyfriend"MY GOD!" I hear you say. What IS this evidence? This is the clincher, this is what all this mess is ABOUT, right? So it's over, right? Gillard's out, and off to the big house, doing porridge, going around the mulberry bush. Stamping license-places under striped sunlight. Wow. What's the evidence? Well ... julie bishop said it, that's what. In parliament, where it doesn't actually have to be based on anything. Will she say it again OUTSIDE parliament? Like hell. Not after having to reverse-cartwheel her unfortunate allegations yesterday. What we actually do have is a statement from S&G saying that they decided to end their representation of AWU and "the bagmen"[0] after they noticed a conflict of interest[1]. So they've made this statement, which says they had private legal information belonging to wilson et al. And what was this information? Well, it can only possibly be one thing ... Ms Bishop told federal parliament the statement meant that "when Mr Wilson disclosed the use of the slush fund to purchase the Fitzroy property, Slater & Gordon ceased acting for both parties (Mr Wilson and the AWU)". How does she know this? Well ... I don't think she actually does. But she sure does WANT it to be true. And it's LIKE it's true, and that's close enough for the oz to report it as if it's evidence (and bolta, but that goes without saying). What will we hear today? Is gillard actually the missing romanov? (that WOULD be a turnabout) Was she the second shooter on the grassy knoll?[2] Or ... could she have even been the girl in the polka dot dress? [0] "Julie and the bagmen" - sounds like a good name for a rock band. [1] It should also be pointed out - and nobody HAS pointed this out - that the company was, we know, at the time, trying to get out of the industrial law business, hence all the industrial lawyers leaving, including gillard. If that's the case, then they were going to drop the AWU sooner or later anyway. [2] Does anyone else here think that oswald's missus was kind of cute? Ok, enough of this. I better go to work. |
|
|
|
Post by angra on Nov 28, 2012 16:40:45 GMT 10
Brandis has just gone beyond the pale.
Senator Brandis said she knew the funds would be used for the "private purposes" of Mr Wilson and fellow union official Ralph Blewitt.
"There is no doubt - no doubt whatsoever - that at the time she was involved in setting up the slush fund, Ms Gillard knew what its purpose was," he told the Senate.
"Indeed, the choice of an incorporated association as the entity to hold the funds for union election purposes was Ms Gillard's brainchild.
"It is already clear, that from (the association's) inception, Ms Julia Gillard's involvement in this matter has been characterised by concealment, deception, professional misconduct, and it would appear several breaches of the criminal law."
Is there no limit on parliamentary privilege to bring him to account for such defamation?
Seems a lot more serious than the convention banning pollies from accusing each other of lying.
|
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Nov 28, 2012 16:45:02 GMT 10
"Brandis has just gone beyond the pale"
And now the australian can report it as "parliament has heard" and andrew bolt can claim that it's "evidence".
|
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Nov 28, 2012 17:05:42 GMT 10
More compelling commetary from the bolta: Bottom line, despite all Gillard’s bravado, insults and jeers.
Four times she refused to say whether she’d written to the WA Corporate Affairs Commission to guarantee her former boyfriend’s slush fund was actually a genuine non-profit association dedicated to workplace reform.
Repeatedly she refused to rule out receiving $5000 from her con man boyfriend, Bruce Wilson, as alleged by Wilson’s then assistant and not disputed by Wilson.
Gillard refusing to deny this in Parliament suggests to me she did not want to deny something that could be proved true. Draw your own conclusions. This reminds me a bit of the time that fox & friends went hyperbolic about obama not being able to recall a particular measure that a reporter claimed was in a health care draft bill. Outrageous! The man didn't even know HIS OWN BILL! Except ... there was no such measure in the proposal - the reason obama couldn't recall it was because it didn't exist. But he assumed that, since somebody was asking about it, maybe there was something in it and he had to admit with huimility that he didn't know. And now it's happening here. Gillard clearly can't recall writing the letter, and has actually said that she can't recall the 5000$. This could mean: (1) she CAN recall, and just wants to run out the clock. Unlikely - given that she's the only person who can speak to what the 5000$ was, she could just make something up. So let's say Wilson owed her some money - case closed. And as for the letter ... there was actually nothing wrong with that association as far as the law went, at least according to numerous lawyers who have commented on it. So it just doesn't make any sense that gillard would bother to try to suppress these two claims, in the long string of wild claims that we don't hear about any more because they were debunked. Just debunk them, and move on. Verdict: Unlikely, seriously. These are just two more in a long series of wild shots in the dark, and they're just not incriminating enough to try to hide. (2) she genuinely just can't recall. Trouble is ... until gillard actually CAN recall, she can't explain them either. There are two possible scenarios here, applied independently: (2a) the things did happen and she really truly just doesn't remember. Clearly she didn't know, when all this was happening, that it would be used as a smear campaign 17 years later, so she didn't know that she had to keep careful notes. (2b) they actually never happened at all. I'm inclined to slightly nudge (2a) on the $5k (since there is actually somebody willing to put their name to it, and point to contemporaneous note-taking referring to it). And I'm inclined to nudge (2b) on the letter-writing, until such time as somebody can raise it above the level of rumor. But whichever of (2a) and (2b) it is ... it really just doesn't matter. So what? Is _this_ really what this all hinges on? I mean ... really? There has been a singular failure to demonstrate evidence of any actual wrongdoing, or even intention to do the wrong thing. Poor judgement, maybe. But there was a heck of a lot of it going around, if one uses just a modicum of common sense. But let's also remember that however enthralling is gillard's "refusal" to deny these things ... far less enthralling has been the media's inability to supply any real evidence that any of it is true to begin with, and they don't seem to be in any danger of changing that. Bolt's willingness to ignore that inconvenient problem speaks volumes, I think. |
|
|
|
Post by angra on Nov 28, 2012 20:18:20 GMT 10
This is rich coming from Akka Dakka.
"Gillard makes Blewitt look credible... The incident goes to Gillard’s tactics though. Make a series of pre-emptive strikes in the hope that the media will concentrate on the smear rather than the substance.
Her press conference was the pre-emptive strike. She did not answer questions fully or she gave evasive responses unbefitting a Prime Minister.
Then she used her press conference performance as a shield against the lethal questions being lobbed at her by a really expert interrogator, the deputy Opposition leader, Julie Bishop. "
Does he live on the same planet as the rest of us?
The pre-emptive strikes were from the coalition.
Julia answered the 'questions' at boring length.
"The smear rather than the substance". Just who is doing this? I have seen no substance, merely endless smear over the issue from Bishop which has drowned-out any intelligible QT this week like a broken record.
Julie Bishop 'an expert interrogator'? She is using the tactic of throwing enough mud ad nauseum and repeating the same innuendo ad infinitum in the hope that some mud might stick and the repetitions will bore everyone into giving up. Presumably she learnt this while representing CSR in the hope that "We don't have to worry because even if the workers die like flies they will never be able to pin anything on CSR".
Nice one Julie.
|
|
|
|
Post by angra on Nov 28, 2012 21:18:05 GMT 10
|
|
|
|
Post by angra on Nov 28, 2012 22:02:58 GMT 10
Just listening to Emerson and Pyne on ABC.
God what dickheads. They are both working against their interests and subject to foot-in-mouth disease, and they both look foolish, and have both been setup by the ABC. (Although Pyne does look amazingly like a cane toad.)
Well it's good entertainment I suppose.
I think we need Judge Judy.
|
|
|
|
Post by angra on Nov 28, 2012 22:08:07 GMT 10
I think Chris could benefit from some Botox around his eyes.
Seriously Chris - don't go into an interview looking like Kermit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Nov 29, 2012 7:56:18 GMT 10
|
|
