are some who want Key and National out of Government and don't care how, the end justifies any means. But Dotcom is not trusted by others. And there are some
Hi Pete. How about you drop the cute routine and just speak for yourself?
That would be covered by the "self confessed" surely?
Tim Murphy @tmurphyNZH
Donghua Liu - seems like some premature claims of the story 'unravelling' have been going on....
Unless the Herald has suddenly found evidence for a 100k bottle of wine and 150k in donations, then that story remains unraveled. And even if they have found rock solid evidence for that, they didn't have it when they ran it. So attacking their critics is still lame.
"Back on this planet"
I withdraw my obviously demented point then.
simplest answer- Ede.
Well Woodhouse's office did mention it to the PM's office without any Ministers being in the loop, we're told.
The 'no dirty tricks who us?' theory doesn't explain how frequent WO flunkies were all up on the story before it broke though.
On the 'DPF singing a different tune these days' aspect, this was his response to people who said that Brash was blowing a dogwhistle about immigration:
Now read the above again. This is what Judith Tizard claims is “attacking migrants”. How on hell can we have a serious debate about immigration if people like Judith Tizard claim that the above is “attacking migrants”. This is of course Labour arrogance at its very worst – disagree with us and you are a bigot and a racist.
And as for sanely debating immigration (something NZ First has sadly made even more difficult to do) well anyone who thinks we don’t need to talk about the role of values in immigration is living on a different planet to Europe.
Apparently something was happening in Europe.
And on Europe, this from the other day:
It is disturbing to see neo-Nazis getting elected in France, Germany, Austria, Greece etc.
Foment foment foment.
Which also raises question about his competence
I've seen this called 'Reagan's dilemma' before, in reference to Iran/Contra and the President's lack of any knowledge regarding what was swirling around him.
but evidence proving otherwise hasn't been produced
Evidence for people's states of mind is remarkably hard to find though. All you have to go on is circumstances and likelihoods. How plausible is it that person Y wouldn't be aware of Z given A,B,C...X.
And again, this isn't a court where proof beyond reasonable doubt applies. This is about whether or not it's resonable to think the PM has lied about intelligence matters for which he is repsonsible for. It's up to him to convince he should be trusted.
The theories are that he did lie, (this is appraently a conspiracy theory on par with trutherism, according to the PM and his backers), or that he told the truth and he didn't know anything about DotCom even though there was an awful lot of stuff happening all around him for months on end.
How on earth does he get away with this stuff?
But there is a weird standard of proof that in all this stuff.
Everyone has to make their own call obviously, but for me it comes down to this. We need intelligence services, and they will operate in secret to a large degree.
I'm ok with that as long as I trust the PM with it. But that trust is where it is, that's where the standard of proof lies.
I don't care if a journalist 'reaches' to make a point, I don't care if a theory doesn't have all the facts; I don't demand 'beyond reasonable doubt' that the PM lied in order to lose that trust. Once things go bad, it's his job to demonstrate to me that he deserves my trust.