Just correcting ,it was not yesterday, it was 2011 he contradicted all his claims yesterday.
Presumably, his memory was better then, as it had only just happened.
Two flags for me here:
1) How is anyone outside of the Prime Minister’s office gaining access to classified information to then leak it to Slater. If confirmed this surely raises new questions about the running of the SIS.
2) The PMs office is directly encouraging him to withdraw the request still implies more involvement in this particular release then they are currently prepared to admit and only confirms Hager’s assessment that the Prime Minister’s office works closely with Slater.
Two excellent points.
I haven’t seen anything yet that would make me trust a single word that Slater says or writes.
When you wrestle with pigs, Lucy, you only get muddy. ;-)
As with some recent past Listener editorials, it’s possibly either Pam Stirling, Jane Clifton or Bill Ralston. Joanne Black fits, but she bolted some time ago.
Not Pamela. She doesn’t write them, but will have a a view on its conclusion.
My money would be on Clifton. Not enough hyperbole for Ralston.
you can, conceivably, have an email discussion
Yeah, nah. Tucker's letter and the Ombudsman's say there is no documentation, which would include emails. Tucker's toast on this.
Yes but when Tucker refers to speaking to the ‘Prime Minister’ you have to understand that that is just the arcane lingo the SIS use. Speaking to the ‘Prime Minister’ can simply mean a chair is being addressed. Or a hat. Or an HB pencil.
LOL - you don't know how right you are.
Tucker has clarified that he briefed the Prime Minister “through his office”, not the PM himself.
Given my own (admittedly sparse) dealings with our security agencies, they don't talk to the Office, only to the Minister. If there's nothing in writing, then it was a verbal briefing and they don't do those over the phone in case of interception. It's basic spycraft and they take it dead seriously.
Ergo , Tucker, or his deputy, briefed John Key personally face to face, and he's now lying which is a very silly thing to do when his old fiefdom is being independently investigated.
Yep, but my point was that (to my surprise) that cat unfortunately was already out of the bag. As they say.
That doesn't excuse you being a party to it.
I was trying not to personally identify anyone to preserve their privacy, Stephen. Use you bloody scone, won't you?
Yep, bingo. Maybe someone will redact all over it and re-publish.
Your wish is my command ;-)