Discussion:
Spectacular 'own goal' by Jamie-Lee Ross
(too old to reply)
Crash
2020-02-19 07:36:50 UTC
Permalink
So JLR goes to the Police accusing Simon Bridges of hiding major
donations to the National party. Now we have charges laid by the SFO
in relation to that evidence - and JLR, not Simon Bridges, is being
charged.

Well I never.


--
Crash McBash
Crash
2020-02-19 07:37:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crash
So JLR goes to the Police accusing Simon Bridges of hiding major
donations to the National party. Now we have charges laid by the SFO
in relation to that evidence - and JLR, not Simon Bridges, is being
charged.
Well I never.
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2020/02/19/1041741/jami-lee-ross-one-of-4-charged-by-sfo


--
Crash McBash
Rich80105
2020-02-19 08:18:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crash
Post by Crash
So JLR goes to the Police accusing Simon Bridges of hiding major
donations to the National party. Now we have charges laid by the SFO
in relation to that evidence - and JLR, not Simon Bridges, is being
charged.
Well I never.
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2020/02/19/1041741/jami-lee-ross-one-of-4-charged-by-sfo
Ross has been implying that he did what he was asked to do, but the
recording makes it clear that he did understand some aspects of the
law - and that "I just did as I was ordered" is not an adequate
defence for a criminal act.

Now however he will be seeking to provide proof that others were
complicit in the decision, and that it has been frequently done, with
others being the bag-man. Perhaps a whislte-blower should ensure that
they are not effectively confessing personal culpability . . .

It will be an interesting trial - what are the chances that National
offeres evidence that gains an acquittal and accepts Ross back into
the fold . . .?
JohnO
2020-02-19 18:21:05 UTC
Permalink
Lol. The chances of that are zero.

JLR's smoking gun was a damp squib.
Tony
2020-02-19 19:25:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by JohnO
Lol. The chances of that are zero.
JLR's smoking gun was a damp squib.
Exactly, there is no suggestion from anybody that he was operating under
orders, That is fanciful.
George
2020-02-19 21:09:12 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 13:25:23 -0600
Post by Tony
Post by JohnO
Lol. The chances of that are zero.
JLR's smoking gun was a damp squib.
Exactly, there is no suggestion from anybody that he was operating
under orders, That is fanciful.
He thought his CPL would allow him to (F)ly high
John Bowes
2020-02-20 02:40:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by JohnO
Lol. The chances of that are zero.
JLR's smoking gun was a damp squib.
Exactly, there is no suggestion from anybody that he was operating under
orders, That is fanciful.
Even if he was ácting under orders'it hasn't been a defence sine 1945 :)
Rich80105
2020-02-20 03:35:23 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 18:40:31 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Tony
Post by JohnO
Lol. The chances of that are zero.
JLR's smoking gun was a damp squib.
Exactly, there is no suggestion from anybody that he was operating under
orders, That is fanciful.
Even if he was ácting under orders'it hasn't been a defence sine 1945 :)
Thanks for sharing your practical knowledge.
Evidence that he was asked to get the donor to change arrangments to
split the donation may have been enough to have charged another
person; but it appears such evidence does not exist; indeed most
people would be surprised if he had been either asked or ordered.
There may of course be other matters where Ross can assist the SFO, or
indeed others may be able to help, perhaps particularly in relation to
the other donation. . . .
Tony
2020-02-20 03:50:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 18:40:31 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Tony
Post by JohnO
Lol. The chances of that are zero.
JLR's smoking gun was a damp squib.
Exactly, there is no suggestion from anybody that he was operating under
orders, That is fanciful.
Even if he was ácting under orders'it hasn't been a defence sine 1945 :)
Thanks for sharing your practical knowledge.
Evidence that he was asked to get the donor to change arrangments to
split the donation may have been enough to have charged another
person; but it appears such evidence does not exist; indeed most
people would be surprised if he had been either asked or ordered.
There may of course be other matters where Ross can assist the SFO, or
indeed others may be able to help, perhaps particularly in relation to
the other donation. . . .
Indeed, so any suggestion that Bridges or any other member of the National
party are involved is either a lie or a wild guess. Thought so!
Rich80105
2020-02-20 04:17:47 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 21:50:22 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 18:40:31 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Tony
Post by JohnO
Lol. The chances of that are zero.
JLR's smoking gun was a damp squib.
Exactly, there is no suggestion from anybody that he was operating under
orders, That is fanciful.
Even if he was ácting under orders'it hasn't been a defence sine 1945 :)
Thanks for sharing your practical knowledge.
Evidence that he was asked to get the donor to change arrangments to
split the donation may have been enough to have charged another
person; but it appears such evidence does not exist; indeed most
people would be surprised if he had been either asked or ordered.
There may of course be other matters where Ross can assist the SFO, or
indeed others may be able to help, perhaps particularly in relation to
the other donation. . . .
Indeed, so any suggestion that Bridges or any other member of the National
party are involved is either a lie or a wild guess. Thought so!
Lack of sufficient evidence to convict does not mean there is no
evidence at all.
I am sure voters will make up their own mind, Tony :
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/107914931/jamilee-ross-and-simon-bridges-phone-call-transcript
Tony
2020-02-20 04:50:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 21:50:22 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 18:40:31 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
On Thursday, February 20, 2020 at 8:25:29 AM UTC+13,
Post by Tony
Post by JohnO
Lol. The chances of that are zero.
JLR's smoking gun was a damp squib.
Exactly, there is no suggestion from anybody that he was operating under
orders, That is fanciful.
Even if he was ácting under orders'it hasn't been a defence sine 1945 :)
Thanks for sharing your practical knowledge.
Evidence that he was asked to get the donor to change arrangments to
split the donation may have been enough to have charged another
person; but it appears such evidence does not exist; indeed most
people would be surprised if he had been either asked or ordered.
There may of course be other matters where Ross can assist the SFO, or
indeed others may be able to help, perhaps particularly in relation to
the other donation. . . .
Indeed, so any suggestion that Bridges or any other member of the National
party are involved is either a lie or a wild guess. Thought so!
Lack of sufficient evidence to convict does not mean there is no
evidence at all.
Typical denial of natural justice.
Evidence is a requirement of guilt, not of innocence.
Post by Rich80105
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/107914931/jamilee-ross-and-simon-bridges-phone-call-transcript
Nothing in that is evidence of Bridge's wrongdoing - otherwise the SFO would be
interested.
Crash
2020-02-20 05:07:51 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 22:50:29 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 21:50:22 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 18:40:31 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
On Thursday, February 20, 2020 at 8:25:29 AM UTC+13,
Post by Tony
Post by JohnO
Lol. The chances of that are zero.
JLR's smoking gun was a damp squib.
Exactly, there is no suggestion from anybody that he was operating under
orders, That is fanciful.
Even if he was ácting under orders'it hasn't been a defence sine 1945 :)
Thanks for sharing your practical knowledge.
Evidence that he was asked to get the donor to change arrangments to
split the donation may have been enough to have charged another
person; but it appears such evidence does not exist; indeed most
people would be surprised if he had been either asked or ordered.
There may of course be other matters where Ross can assist the SFO, or
indeed others may be able to help, perhaps particularly in relation to
the other donation. . . .
Indeed, so any suggestion that Bridges or any other member of the National
party are involved is either a lie or a wild guess. Thought so!
Lack of sufficient evidence to convict does not mean there is no
evidence at all.
Typical denial of natural justice.
Evidence is a requirement of guilt, not of innocence.
Post by Rich80105
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/107914931/jamilee-ross-and-simon-bridges-phone-call-transcript
Nothing in that is evidence of Bridge's wrongdoing - otherwise the SFO would be
interested.
Correct - in fact there is the possibility, with JLR knowing the
conversation was being recorded, that JLR deliberately steered the
conversation in a particular direction.


--
Crash McBash
Rich80105
2020-02-20 09:27:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crash
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 22:50:29 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 21:50:22 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 18:40:31 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
On Thursday, February 20, 2020 at 8:25:29 AM UTC+13,
Post by Tony
Post by JohnO
Lol. The chances of that are zero.
JLR's smoking gun was a damp squib.
Exactly, there is no suggestion from anybody that he was operating under
orders, That is fanciful.
Even if he was ácting under orders'it hasn't been a defence sine 1945 :)
Thanks for sharing your practical knowledge.
Evidence that he was asked to get the donor to change arrangments to
split the donation may have been enough to have charged another
person; but it appears such evidence does not exist; indeed most
people would be surprised if he had been either asked or ordered.
There may of course be other matters where Ross can assist the SFO, or
indeed others may be able to help, perhaps particularly in relation to
the other donation. . . .
Indeed, so any suggestion that Bridges or any other member of the National
party are involved is either a lie or a wild guess. Thought so!
Lack of sufficient evidence to convict does not mean there is no
evidence at all.
Typical denial of natural justice.
Evidence is a requirement of guilt, not of innocence.
Post by Rich80105
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/107914931/jamilee-ross-and-simon-bridges-phone-call-transcript
Nothing in that is evidence of Bridge's wrongdoing - otherwise the SFO would be
interested.
Correct - in fact there is the possibility, with JLR knowing the
conversation was being recorded, that JLR deliberately steered the
conversation in a particular direction.
His actions and some statements do seem to indicate that he thought
the recording was conclusive in relation to the guilt of Bridges -
hence the Subject of the thread!

What is perhaps remareable is that if true, the $100,000 donation was
actually banked to an electorate account before being reversed - it
seems strange that this did not ring alarm bells with accounting staff
for National - it is hardly the sort of transaction that can be
dismissed as insignificant. Audit before returns were filed should
surely have picked this up . . .
George
2020-02-20 19:23:35 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 18:07:51 +1300
Post by Crash
Correct - in fact there is the possibility, with JLR knowing the
conversation was being recorded, that JLR deliberately steered the
conversation in a particular direction.
And was to stupid to realise that Bridges didn't give him the answer
his (JLR) insanity though he deserved
Rich80105
2020-02-20 09:22:57 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 22:50:29 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 21:50:22 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 18:40:31 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
On Thursday, February 20, 2020 at 8:25:29 AM UTC+13,
Post by Tony
Post by JohnO
Lol. The chances of that are zero.
JLR's smoking gun was a damp squib.
Exactly, there is no suggestion from anybody that he was operating under
orders, That is fanciful.
Even if he was ácting under orders'it hasn't been a defence sine 1945 :)
Thanks for sharing your practical knowledge.
Evidence that he was asked to get the donor to change arrangments to
split the donation may have been enough to have charged another
person; but it appears such evidence does not exist; indeed most
people would be surprised if he had been either asked or ordered.
There may of course be other matters where Ross can assist the SFO, or
indeed others may be able to help, perhaps particularly in relation to
the other donation. . . .
Indeed, so any suggestion that Bridges or any other member of the National
party are involved is either a lie or a wild guess. Thought so!
Lack of sufficient evidence to convict does not mean there is no
evidence at all.
Typical denial of natural justice.
Evidence is a requirement of guilt, not of innocence.
The court system only determines, on the basis of evidence, whether a
person charged is Guilty, or Not Guilty. Innocence is something else
again. Still, if it is worth applying the requirement of evidence of
guilt to the Party Leader and his Chief Whip, perhaps that benefit of
doubt should also be applied to others such as Winston Peters - but
then that is another subject and I wouldn't want to divert you from
the Subject of this Thread which is "Spectacular 'own goal' by
Jamie-Lee Ross"
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/107914931/jamilee-ross-and-simon-bridges-phone-call-transcript
Nothing in that is evidence of Bridge's wrongdoing - otherwise the SFO would be
interested.
Certainly nothing that would support a conviction in court, Tony - but
in terms of public opinion? Does Bridges come across as a
responsible, reliable, honest and upright man of strong moral
pronciples, concerned for the interests of New Zealanders, moderate in
language, respectful of members of his team?
Or does he come across as a bit of a flake, slightly racist, and a
sleeze regarding judgements on members of his own team, conscious and
accepting that a large donation carried with it an expectation of
favours to the donor in terms of candidacy, an opportunist prepared to
flout principles for short term gain; and even then seeing a priority
for money as enabling paid attack ads on social media. Would you trust
either of them based on that phone call?
Tony
2020-02-20 19:36:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crash
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 22:50:29 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 21:50:22 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 18:40:31 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
On Thursday, February 20, 2020 at 8:25:29 AM UTC+13,
Post by Tony
Post by JohnO
Lol. The chances of that are zero.
JLR's smoking gun was a damp squib.
Exactly, there is no suggestion from anybody that he was operating under
orders, That is fanciful.
Even if he was ácting under orders'it hasn't been a defence sine 1945 :)
Thanks for sharing your practical knowledge.
Evidence that he was asked to get the donor to change arrangments to
split the donation may have been enough to have charged another
person; but it appears such evidence does not exist; indeed most
people would be surprised if he had been either asked or ordered.
There may of course be other matters where Ross can assist the SFO, or
indeed others may be able to help, perhaps particularly in relation to
the other donation. . . .
Indeed, so any suggestion that Bridges or any other member of the National
party are involved is either a lie or a wild guess. Thought so!
Lack of sufficient evidence to convict does not mean there is no
evidence at all.
Typical denial of natural justice.
Evidence is a requirement of guilt, not of innocence.
The court system only determines, on the basis of evidence, whether a
person charged is Guilty, or Not Guilty. Innocence is something else
again. Still, if it is worth applying the requirement of evidence of
guilt to the Party Leader and his Chief Whip, perhaps that benefit of
doubt should also be applied to others such as Winston Peters - but
then that is another subject and I wouldn't want to divert you from
the Subject of this Thread which is "Spectacular 'own goal' by
Jamie-Lee Ross"
Once more you assume there is evidence that nobody has mentioned. Pathetic.
Post by Crash
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/107914931/jamilee-ross-and-simon-bridges-phone-call-transcript
Nothing in that is evidence of Bridge's wrongdoing - otherwise the SFO would be
interested.
Certainly nothing that would support a conviction in court, Tony - but
in terms of public opinion? Does Bridges come across as a
responsible, reliable, honest and upright man of strong moral
pronciples, concerned for the interests of New Zealanders, moderate in
language, respectful of members of his team?
Or does he come across as a bit of a flake, slightly racist, and a
sleeze regarding judgements on members of his own team, conscious and
accepting that a large donation carried with it an expectation of
favours to the donor in terms of candidacy, an opportunist prepared to
flout principles for short term gain; and even then seeing a priority
for money as enabling paid attack ads on social media. Would you trust
either of them based on that phone call?
The phone call did not indicate any wrong doing by Bridges, You are making shit
up.
Rich80105
2020-02-20 22:16:20 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 13:36:20 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 22:50:29 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 21:50:22 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 18:40:31 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
On Thursday, February 20, 2020 at 8:25:29 AM UTC+13,
Post by Tony
Post by JohnO
Lol. The chances of that are zero.
JLR's smoking gun was a damp squib.
Exactly, there is no suggestion from anybody that he was operating under
orders, That is fanciful.
Even if he was ácting under orders'it hasn't been a defence sine 1945 :)
Thanks for sharing your practical knowledge.
Evidence that he was asked to get the donor to change arrangments to
split the donation may have been enough to have charged another
person; but it appears such evidence does not exist; indeed most
people would be surprised if he had been either asked or ordered.
There may of course be other matters where Ross can assist the SFO, or
indeed others may be able to help, perhaps particularly in relation to
the other donation. . . .
Indeed, so any suggestion that Bridges or any other member of the National
party are involved is either a lie or a wild guess. Thought so!
Lack of sufficient evidence to convict does not mean there is no
evidence at all.
Typical denial of natural justice.
Evidence is a requirement of guilt, not of innocence.
The court system only determines, on the basis of evidence, whether a
person charged is Guilty, or Not Guilty. Innocence is something else
again. Still, if it is worth applying the requirement of evidence of
guilt to the Party Leader and his Chief Whip, perhaps that benefit of
doubt should also be applied to others such as Winston Peters - but
then that is another subject and I wouldn't want to divert you from
the Subject of this Thread which is "Spectacular 'own goal' by
Jamie-Lee Ross"
Once more you assume there is evidence that nobody has mentioned. Pathetic.
Post by Crash
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/107914931/jamilee-ross-and-simon-bridges-phone-call-transcript
Nothing in that is evidence of Bridge's wrongdoing - otherwise the SFO would be
interested.
Certainly nothing that would support a conviction in court, Tony - but
in terms of public opinion? Does Bridges come across as a
responsible, reliable, honest and upright man of strong moral
pronciples, concerned for the interests of New Zealanders, moderate in
language, respectful of members of his team?
Or does he come across as a bit of a flake, slightly racist, and a
sleeze regarding judgements on members of his own team, conscious and
accepting that a large donation carried with it an expectation of
favours to the donor in terms of candidacy, an opportunist prepared to
flout principles for short term gain; and even then seeing a priority
for money as enabling paid attack ads on social media. Would you trust
either of them based on that phone call?
The phone call did not indicate any wrong doing by Bridges, You are making shit
up.
Once again you see "wrong doing" only as something that may result in
a succesful prosecution. I suspect National are trained to see
anything as OK, provided it does not get you convicted. In a sesne,
you are reacting in the same way as the faily of the Flaxmere boy -
anything goes provided there is no evidence to convict. So yes Simon
was careful enough to avoid conviction for a criminal offence - we
have covered that amply earlier inthe thread - it is after all why we
are talking about an "oen goal" by Ross!., But voters do not see "not
getting convicted" as enough to inspire confidence that there was no
knowledge of teh donation being split, or of whether the individual
appears trustworthy. Would you buy a used car from that man?
Tony
2020-02-20 22:30:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 13:36:20 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 22:50:29 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 21:50:22 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 18:40:31 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
On Thursday, February 20, 2020 at 8:25:29 AM UTC+13,
Post by Tony
Post by JohnO
Lol. The chances of that are zero.
JLR's smoking gun was a damp squib.
Exactly, there is no suggestion from anybody that he was operating under
orders, That is fanciful.
Even if he was ácting under orders'it hasn't been a defence sine 1945 :)
Thanks for sharing your practical knowledge.
Evidence that he was asked to get the donor to change arrangments to
split the donation may have been enough to have charged another
person; but it appears such evidence does not exist; indeed most
people would be surprised if he had been either asked or ordered.
There may of course be other matters where Ross can assist the SFO, or
indeed others may be able to help, perhaps particularly in relation to
the other donation. . . .
Indeed, so any suggestion that Bridges or any other member of the National
party are involved is either a lie or a wild guess. Thought so!
Lack of sufficient evidence to convict does not mean there is no
evidence at all.
Typical denial of natural justice.
Evidence is a requirement of guilt, not of innocence.
The court system only determines, on the basis of evidence, whether a
person charged is Guilty, or Not Guilty. Innocence is something else
again. Still, if it is worth applying the requirement of evidence of
guilt to the Party Leader and his Chief Whip, perhaps that benefit of
doubt should also be applied to others such as Winston Peters - but
then that is another subject and I wouldn't want to divert you from
the Subject of this Thread which is "Spectacular 'own goal' by
Jamie-Lee Ross"
Once more you assume there is evidence that nobody has mentioned. Pathetic.
Post by Crash
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/107914931/jamilee-ross-and-simon-bridges-phone-call-transcript
Nothing in that is evidence of Bridge's wrongdoing - otherwise the SFO
would
be
interested.
Certainly nothing that would support a conviction in court, Tony - but
in terms of public opinion? Does Bridges come across as a
responsible, reliable, honest and upright man of strong moral
pronciples, concerned for the interests of New Zealanders, moderate in
language, respectful of members of his team?
Or does he come across as a bit of a flake, slightly racist, and a
sleeze regarding judgements on members of his own team, conscious and
accepting that a large donation carried with it an expectation of
favours to the donor in terms of candidacy, an opportunist prepared to
flout principles for short term gain; and even then seeing a priority
for money as enabling paid attack ads on social media. Would you trust
either of them based on that phone call?
The phone call did not indicate any wrong doing by Bridges, You are making shit
up.
Once again you see "wrong doing" only as something that may result in
a succesful prosecution.
No, that is a lie - I have never thought that way.
Post by Rich80105
I suspect National are trained to see
anything as OK, provided it does not get you convicted.
No idea - that is not me.
Post by Rich80105
In a sesne,
you are reacting in the same way as the faily of the Flaxmere boy -
anything goes provided there is no evidence to convict. So yes Simon
was careful enough to avoid conviction for a criminal offence - we
have covered that amply earlier inthe thread - it is after all why we
are talking about an "oen goal" by Ross!., But voters do not see "not
getting convicted" as enough to inspire confidence that there was no
knowledge of teh donation being split, or of whether the individual
appears trustworthy. Would you buy a used car from that man?
Worthless rhetoric. There was no evidence in the call, obviously, otherwise the
SFO would be following up.
Indeed with no evidence there is no reason to believe there was any wrongdoing
(except in a politically motivated mind perhaps).
That is all.
Rich80105
2020-02-22 01:31:32 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 16:30:00 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 13:36:20 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 22:50:29 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 21:50:22 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 18:40:31 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
On Thursday, February 20, 2020 at 8:25:29 AM UTC+13,
Post by Tony
Post by JohnO
Lol. The chances of that are zero.
JLR's smoking gun was a damp squib.
Exactly, there is no suggestion from anybody that he was operating under
orders, That is fanciful.
Even if he was ácting under orders'it hasn't been a defence sine 1945 :)
Thanks for sharing your practical knowledge.
Evidence that he was asked to get the donor to change arrangments to
split the donation may have been enough to have charged another
person; but it appears such evidence does not exist; indeed most
people would be surprised if he had been either asked or ordered.
There may of course be other matters where Ross can assist the SFO, or
indeed others may be able to help, perhaps particularly in relation to
the other donation. . . .
Indeed, so any suggestion that Bridges or any other member of the National
party are involved is either a lie or a wild guess. Thought so!
Lack of sufficient evidence to convict does not mean there is no
evidence at all.
Typical denial of natural justice.
Evidence is a requirement of guilt, not of innocence.
The court system only determines, on the basis of evidence, whether a
person charged is Guilty, or Not Guilty. Innocence is something else
again. Still, if it is worth applying the requirement of evidence of
guilt to the Party Leader and his Chief Whip, perhaps that benefit of
doubt should also be applied to others such as Winston Peters - but
then that is another subject and I wouldn't want to divert you from
the Subject of this Thread which is "Spectacular 'own goal' by
Jamie-Lee Ross"
Once more you assume there is evidence that nobody has mentioned. Pathetic.
Post by Crash
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/107914931/jamilee-ross-and-simon-bridges-phone-call-transcript
Nothing in that is evidence of Bridge's wrongdoing - otherwise the SFO
would
be
interested.
Certainly nothing that would support a conviction in court, Tony - but
in terms of public opinion? Does Bridges come across as a
responsible, reliable, honest and upright man of strong moral
pronciples, concerned for the interests of New Zealanders, moderate in
language, respectful of members of his team?
Or does he come across as a bit of a flake, slightly racist, and a
sleeze regarding judgements on members of his own team, conscious and
accepting that a large donation carried with it an expectation of
favours to the donor in terms of candidacy, an opportunist prepared to
flout principles for short term gain; and even then seeing a priority
for money as enabling paid attack ads on social media. Would you trust
either of them based on that phone call?
The phone call did not indicate any wrong doing by Bridges, You are making shit
up.
Once again you see "wrong doing" only as something that may result in
a succesful prosecution.
No, that is a lie - I have never thought that way.
Post by Rich80105
I suspect National are trained to see
anything as OK, provided it does not get you convicted.
No idea - that is not me.
Post by Rich80105
In a sense,
you are reacting in the same way as the faily of the Flaxmere boy -
anything goes provided there is no evidence to convict. So yes Simon
was careful enough to avoid conviction for a criminal offence - we
have covered that amply earlier inthe thread - it is after all why we
are talking about an "oen goal" by Ross!., But voters do not see "not
getting convicted" as enough to inspire confidence that there was no
knowledge of the donation being split, or of whether the individual
appears trustworthy. Would you buy a used car from that man?
Worthless rhetoric. There was no evidence in the call, obviously, otherwise the
SFO would be following up.
Again anything goes for you provided the SFO can't find something to
investigate (and presumably the police as well). Selling a position
on teh list is just a commercial transaction to you then Tony? Was it
worth it do you think? How many Indians do you think a Chinese
candidate is worth? Do you think you would rate as good a performance
rating as Maureen Pugh? Do you still think there was no evidence of
interest to voters in the call?
Post by Tony
Indeed with no evidence there is no reason to believe there was any wrongdoing
(except in a politically motivated mind perhaps).
That is all.
Tony
2020-02-22 02:37:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 16:30:00 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 13:36:20 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 22:50:29 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 21:50:22 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 18:40:31 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
On Thursday, February 20, 2020 at 8:25:29 AM UTC+13,
Post by Tony
Post by JohnO
Lol. The chances of that are zero.
JLR's smoking gun was a damp squib.
Exactly, there is no suggestion from anybody that he was operating under
orders, That is fanciful.
Even if he was ácting under orders'it hasn't been a defence sine 1945 :)
Thanks for sharing your practical knowledge.
Evidence that he was asked to get the donor to change arrangments to
split the donation may have been enough to have charged another
person; but it appears such evidence does not exist; indeed most
people would be surprised if he had been either asked or ordered.
There may of course be other matters where Ross can assist the SFO, or
indeed others may be able to help, perhaps particularly in relation to
the other donation. . . .
Indeed, so any suggestion that Bridges or any other member of the National
party are involved is either a lie or a wild guess. Thought so!
Lack of sufficient evidence to convict does not mean there is no
evidence at all.
Typical denial of natural justice.
Evidence is a requirement of guilt, not of innocence.
The court system only determines, on the basis of evidence, whether a
person charged is Guilty, or Not Guilty. Innocence is something else
again. Still, if it is worth applying the requirement of evidence of
guilt to the Party Leader and his Chief Whip, perhaps that benefit of
doubt should also be applied to others such as Winston Peters - but
then that is another subject and I wouldn't want to divert you from
the Subject of this Thread which is "Spectacular 'own goal' by
Jamie-Lee Ross"
Once more you assume there is evidence that nobody has mentioned. Pathetic.
Post by Crash
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/107914931/jamilee-ross-and-simon-bridges-phone-call-transcript
Nothing in that is evidence of Bridge's wrongdoing - otherwise the SFO
would
be
interested.
Certainly nothing that would support a conviction in court, Tony - but
in terms of public opinion? Does Bridges come across as a
responsible, reliable, honest and upright man of strong moral
pronciples, concerned for the interests of New Zealanders, moderate in
language, respectful of members of his team?
Or does he come across as a bit of a flake, slightly racist, and a
sleeze regarding judgements on members of his own team, conscious and
accepting that a large donation carried with it an expectation of
favours to the donor in terms of candidacy, an opportunist prepared to
flout principles for short term gain; and even then seeing a priority
for money as enabling paid attack ads on social media. Would you trust
either of them based on that phone call?
The phone call did not indicate any wrong doing by Bridges, You are making shit
up.
Once again you see "wrong doing" only as something that may result in
a succesful prosecution.
No, that is a lie - I have never thought that way.
Post by Rich80105
I suspect National are trained to see
anything as OK, provided it does not get you convicted.
No idea - that is not me.
Post by Rich80105
In a sense,
you are reacting in the same way as the faily of the Flaxmere boy -
anything goes provided there is no evidence to convict. So yes Simon
was careful enough to avoid conviction for a criminal offence - we
have covered that amply earlier inthe thread - it is after all why we
are talking about an "oen goal" by Ross!., But voters do not see "not
getting convicted" as enough to inspire confidence that there was no
knowledge of the donation being split, or of whether the individual
appears trustworthy. Would you buy a used car from that man?
Worthless rhetoric. There was no evidence in the call, obviously, otherwise the
SFO would be following up.
Again anything goes for you provided the SFO can't find something to
investigate (and presumably the police as well).
Your words not mine.
< Selling a position
Post by Rich80105
on teh list is just a commercial transaction to you then Tony?
Nonsense, that is your behaviour not mine.
Post by Rich80105
Was it
worth it do you think? How many Indians do you think a Chinese
candidate is worth? Do you think you would rate as good a performance
rating as Maureen Pugh? Do you still think there was no evidence of
interest to voters in the call?
Please reword that in English.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Indeed with no evidence there is no reason to believe there was any wrongdoing
(except in a politically motivated mind perhaps).
That is all.
John Bowes
2020-02-22 04:56:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 16:30:00 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 13:36:20 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 22:50:29 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 21:50:22 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 18:40:31 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
On Thursday, February 20, 2020 at 8:25:29 AM UTC+13,
Post by Tony
Post by JohnO
Lol. The chances of that are zero.
JLR's smoking gun was a damp squib.
Exactly, there is no suggestion from anybody that he was operating
under
orders, That is fanciful.
Even if he was ácting under orders'it hasn't been a defence sine 1945
:)
Thanks for sharing your practical knowledge.
Evidence that he was asked to get the donor to change arrangments to
split the donation may have been enough to have charged another
person; but it appears such evidence does not exist; indeed most
people would be surprised if he had been either asked or ordered.
There may of course be other matters where Ross can assist the SFO, or
indeed others may be able to help, perhaps particularly in relation to
the other donation. . . .
Indeed, so any suggestion that Bridges or any other member of the National
party are involved is either a lie or a wild guess. Thought so!
Lack of sufficient evidence to convict does not mean there is no
evidence at all.
Typical denial of natural justice.
Evidence is a requirement of guilt, not of innocence.
The court system only determines, on the basis of evidence, whether a
person charged is Guilty, or Not Guilty. Innocence is something else
again. Still, if it is worth applying the requirement of evidence of
guilt to the Party Leader and his Chief Whip, perhaps that benefit of
doubt should also be applied to others such as Winston Peters - but
then that is another subject and I wouldn't want to divert you from
the Subject of this Thread which is "Spectacular 'own goal' by
Jamie-Lee Ross"
Once more you assume there is evidence that nobody has mentioned. Pathetic.
Post by Crash
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/107914931/jamilee-ross-and-simon-bridges-phone-call-transcript
Nothing in that is evidence of Bridge's wrongdoing - otherwise the SFO
would
be
interested.
Certainly nothing that would support a conviction in court, Tony - but
in terms of public opinion? Does Bridges come across as a
responsible, reliable, honest and upright man of strong moral
pronciples, concerned for the interests of New Zealanders, moderate in
language, respectful of members of his team?
Or does he come across as a bit of a flake, slightly racist, and a
sleeze regarding judgements on members of his own team, conscious and
accepting that a large donation carried with it an expectation of
favours to the donor in terms of candidacy, an opportunist prepared to
flout principles for short term gain; and even then seeing a priority
for money as enabling paid attack ads on social media. Would you trust
either of them based on that phone call?
The phone call did not indicate any wrong doing by Bridges, You are making shit
up.
Once again you see "wrong doing" only as something that may result in
a succesful prosecution.
No, that is a lie - I have never thought that way.
Post by Rich80105
I suspect National are trained to see
anything as OK, provided it does not get you convicted.
No idea - that is not me.
Post by Rich80105
In a sense,
you are reacting in the same way as the faily of the Flaxmere boy -
anything goes provided there is no evidence to convict. So yes Simon
was careful enough to avoid conviction for a criminal offence - we
have covered that amply earlier inthe thread - it is after all why we
are talking about an "oen goal" by Ross!., But voters do not see "not
getting convicted" as enough to inspire confidence that there was no
knowledge of the donation being split, or of whether the individual
appears trustworthy. Would you buy a used car from that man?
Worthless rhetoric. There was no evidence in the call, obviously, otherwise the
SFO would be following up.
Again anything goes for you provided the SFO can't find something to
investigate (and presumably the police as well).
Your words not mine.
< Selling a position
Post by Rich80105
on teh list is just a commercial transaction to you then Tony?
Nonsense, that is your behaviour not mine.
Post by Rich80105
Was it
worth it do you think? How many Indians do you think a Chinese
candidate is worth? Do you think you would rate as good a performance
rating as Maureen Pugh? Do you still think there was no evidence of
interest to voters in the call?
Please reword that in English.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Indeed with no evidence there is no reason to believe there was any wrongdoing
(except in a politically motivated mind perhaps).
That is all.
Richies comments show an interesting side to him. They always leave me wondering if the loon is seeing his own well developed bias and attitude reflected in others even when the evidence is only visible in what passes for his tiny mind....
Rich80105
2020-02-22 19:20:45 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 20:37:17 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 16:30:00 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 13:36:20 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 22:50:29 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 21:50:22 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 18:40:31 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
On Thursday, February 20, 2020 at 8:25:29 AM UTC+13,
Post by Tony
Post by JohnO
Lol. The chances of that are zero.
JLR's smoking gun was a damp squib.
Exactly, there is no suggestion from anybody that he was operating
under
orders, That is fanciful.
Even if he was ácting under orders'it hasn't been a defence sine 1945 :)
Thanks for sharing your practical knowledge.
Evidence that he was asked to get the donor to change arrangments to
split the donation may have been enough to have charged another
person; but it appears such evidence does not exist; indeed most
people would be surprised if he had been either asked or ordered.
There may of course be other matters where Ross can assist the SFO, or
indeed others may be able to help, perhaps particularly in relation to
the other donation. . . .
Indeed, so any suggestion that Bridges or any other member of the National
party are involved is either a lie or a wild guess. Thought so!
Lack of sufficient evidence to convict does not mean there is no
evidence at all.
Typical denial of natural justice.
Evidence is a requirement of guilt, not of innocence.
The court system only determines, on the basis of evidence, whether a
person charged is Guilty, or Not Guilty. Innocence is something else
again. Still, if it is worth applying the requirement of evidence of
guilt to the Party Leader and his Chief Whip, perhaps that benefit of
doubt should also be applied to others such as Winston Peters - but
then that is another subject and I wouldn't want to divert you from
the Subject of this Thread which is "Spectacular 'own goal' by
Jamie-Lee Ross"
Once more you assume there is evidence that nobody has mentioned. Pathetic.
Post by Crash
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/107914931/jamilee-ross-and-simon-bridges-phone-call-transcript
Nothing in that is evidence of Bridge's wrongdoing - otherwise the SFO
would
be
interested.
Certainly nothing that would support a conviction in court, Tony - but
in terms of public opinion? Does Bridges come across as a
responsible, reliable, honest and upright man of strong moral
pronciples, concerned for the interests of New Zealanders, moderate in
language, respectful of members of his team?
Or does he come across as a bit of a flake, slightly racist, and a
sleeze regarding judgements on members of his own team, conscious and
accepting that a large donation carried with it an expectation of
favours to the donor in terms of candidacy, an opportunist prepared to
flout principles for short term gain; and even then seeing a priority
for money as enabling paid attack ads on social media. Would you trust
either of them based on that phone call?
The phone call did not indicate any wrong doing by Bridges, You are making shit
up.
Once again you see "wrong doing" only as something that may result in
a succesful prosecution.
No, that is a lie - I have never thought that way.
Post by Rich80105
I suspect National are trained to see
anything as OK, provided it does not get you convicted.
No idea - that is not me.
Post by Rich80105
In a sense,
you are reacting in the same way as the faily of the Flaxmere boy -
anything goes provided there is no evidence to convict. So yes Simon
was careful enough to avoid conviction for a criminal offence - we
have covered that amply earlier inthe thread - it is after all why we
are talking about an "oen goal" by Ross!., But voters do not see "not
getting convicted" as enough to inspire confidence that there was no
knowledge of the donation being split, or of whether the individual
appears trustworthy. Would you buy a used car from that man?
Worthless rhetoric. There was no evidence in the call, obviously, otherwise the
SFO would be following up.
Again anything goes for you provided the SFO can't find something to
investigate (and presumably the police as well).
Your words not mine.
< Selling a position
Post by Rich80105
on teh list is just a commercial transaction to you then Tony?
Nonsense, that is your behaviour not mine.
Post by Rich80105
Was it
worth it do you think? How many Indians do you think a Chinese
candidate is worth? Do you think you would rate as good a performance
rating as Maureen Pugh? Do you still think there was no evidence of
interest to voters in the call?
Please reword that in English.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Indeed with no evidence there is no reason to believe there was any wrongdoing
(except in a politically motivated mind perhaps).
That is all.
You are absolutely Right, Tony. National have nothing to be afraid of:

https://thestandard.org.nz/national-has-nothing-to-be-afraid-of/

I apologise for not seeing that earlier.
Tony
2020-02-22 19:33:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 20:37:17 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 16:30:00 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 13:36:20 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 22:50:29 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 21:50:22 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 18:40:31 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
On Thursday, February 20, 2020 at 8:25:29 AM UTC+13,
Post by Tony
Post by JohnO
Lol. The chances of that are zero.
JLR's smoking gun was a damp squib.
Exactly, there is no suggestion from anybody that he was operating
under
orders, That is fanciful.
Even if he was ácting under orders'it hasn't been a defence sine
1945
:)
Thanks for sharing your practical knowledge.
Evidence that he was asked to get the donor to change arrangments to
split the donation may have been enough to have charged another
person; but it appears such evidence does not exist; indeed most
people would be surprised if he had been either asked or ordered.
There may of course be other matters where Ross can assist the SFO, or
indeed others may be able to help, perhaps particularly in relation to
the other donation. . . .
Indeed, so any suggestion that Bridges or any other member of the National
party are involved is either a lie or a wild guess. Thought so!
Lack of sufficient evidence to convict does not mean there is no
evidence at all.
Typical denial of natural justice.
Evidence is a requirement of guilt, not of innocence.
The court system only determines, on the basis of evidence, whether a
person charged is Guilty, or Not Guilty. Innocence is something else
again. Still, if it is worth applying the requirement of evidence of
guilt to the Party Leader and his Chief Whip, perhaps that benefit of
doubt should also be applied to others such as Winston Peters - but
then that is another subject and I wouldn't want to divert you from
the Subject of this Thread which is "Spectacular 'own goal' by
Jamie-Lee Ross"
Once more you assume there is evidence that nobody has mentioned. Pathetic.
Post by Crash
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/107914931/jamilee-ross-and-simon-bridges-phone-call-transcript
Nothing in that is evidence of Bridge's wrongdoing - otherwise the SFO
would
be
interested.
Certainly nothing that would support a conviction in court, Tony - but
in terms of public opinion? Does Bridges come across as a
responsible, reliable, honest and upright man of strong moral
pronciples, concerned for the interests of New Zealanders, moderate in
language, respectful of members of his team?
Or does he come across as a bit of a flake, slightly racist, and a
sleeze regarding judgements on members of his own team, conscious and
accepting that a large donation carried with it an expectation of
favours to the donor in terms of candidacy, an opportunist prepared to
flout principles for short term gain; and even then seeing a priority
for money as enabling paid attack ads on social media. Would you trust
either of them based on that phone call?
The phone call did not indicate any wrong doing by Bridges, You are
making
shit
up.
Once again you see "wrong doing" only as something that may result in
a succesful prosecution.
No, that is a lie - I have never thought that way.
Post by Rich80105
I suspect National are trained to see
anything as OK, provided it does not get you convicted.
No idea - that is not me.
Post by Rich80105
In a sense,
you are reacting in the same way as the faily of the Flaxmere boy -
anything goes provided there is no evidence to convict. So yes Simon
was careful enough to avoid conviction for a criminal offence - we
have covered that amply earlier inthe thread - it is after all why we
are talking about an "oen goal" by Ross!., But voters do not see "not
getting convicted" as enough to inspire confidence that there was no
knowledge of the donation being split, or of whether the individual
appears trustworthy. Would you buy a used car from that man?
Worthless rhetoric. There was no evidence in the call, obviously, otherwise the
SFO would be following up.
Again anything goes for you provided the SFO can't find something to
investigate (and presumably the police as well).
Your words not mine.
< Selling a position
Post by Rich80105
on teh list is just a commercial transaction to you then Tony?
Nonsense, that is your behaviour not mine.
Post by Rich80105
Was it
worth it do you think? How many Indians do you think a Chinese
candidate is worth? Do you think you would rate as good a performance
rating as Maureen Pugh? Do you still think there was no evidence of
interest to voters in the call?
Please reword that in English.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Indeed with no evidence there is no reason to believe there was any wrongdoing
(except in a politically motivated mind perhaps).
That is all.
https://thestandard.org.nz/national-has-nothing-to-be-afraid-of/
I apologise for not seeing that earlier.
Sending a dead link is a bit silly isn't it?
But even without reaching the wise words of an extreme left wing piece of
rubbish the headline is correct.
Note the corrected English.
Rich80105
2020-02-23 00:04:19 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 22 Feb 2020 13:33:19 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 20:37:17 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 16:30:00 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 13:36:20 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 22:50:29 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 21:50:22 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 18:40:31 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
On Thursday, February 20, 2020 at 8:25:29 AM UTC+13,
Post by Tony
Post by JohnO
Lol. The chances of that are zero.
JLR's smoking gun was a damp squib.
Exactly, there is no suggestion from anybody that he was operating
under
orders, That is fanciful.
Even if he was ácting under orders'it hasn't been a defence sine
1945
:)
Thanks for sharing your practical knowledge.
Evidence that he was asked to get the donor to change arrangments to
split the donation may have been enough to have charged another
person; but it appears such evidence does not exist; indeed most
people would be surprised if he had been either asked or ordered.
There may of course be other matters where Ross can assist the SFO, or
indeed others may be able to help, perhaps particularly in relation to
the other donation. . . .
Indeed, so any suggestion that Bridges or any other member of the
National
party are involved is either a lie or a wild guess. Thought so!
Lack of sufficient evidence to convict does not mean there is no
evidence at all.
Typical denial of natural justice.
Evidence is a requirement of guilt, not of innocence.
The court system only determines, on the basis of evidence, whether a
person charged is Guilty, or Not Guilty. Innocence is something else
again. Still, if it is worth applying the requirement of evidence of
guilt to the Party Leader and his Chief Whip, perhaps that benefit of
doubt should also be applied to others such as Winston Peters - but
then that is another subject and I wouldn't want to divert you from
the Subject of this Thread which is "Spectacular 'own goal' by
Jamie-Lee Ross"
Once more you assume there is evidence that nobody has mentioned. Pathetic.
Post by Crash
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/107914931/jamilee-ross-and-simon-bridges-phone-call-transcript
Nothing in that is evidence of Bridge's wrongdoing - otherwise the SFO
would
be
interested.
Certainly nothing that would support a conviction in court, Tony - but
in terms of public opinion? Does Bridges come across as a
responsible, reliable, honest and upright man of strong moral
pronciples, concerned for the interests of New Zealanders, moderate in
language, respectful of members of his team?
Or does he come across as a bit of a flake, slightly racist, and a
sleeze regarding judgements on members of his own team, conscious and
accepting that a large donation carried with it an expectation of
favours to the donor in terms of candidacy, an opportunist prepared to
flout principles for short term gain; and even then seeing a priority
for money as enabling paid attack ads on social media. Would you trust
either of them based on that phone call?
The phone call did not indicate any wrong doing by Bridges, You are
making
shit
up.
Once again you see "wrong doing" only as something that may result in
a succesful prosecution.
No, that is a lie - I have never thought that way.
Post by Rich80105
I suspect National are trained to see
anything as OK, provided it does not get you convicted.
No idea - that is not me.
Post by Rich80105
In a sense,
you are reacting in the same way as the faily of the Flaxmere boy -
anything goes provided there is no evidence to convict. So yes Simon
was careful enough to avoid conviction for a criminal offence - we
have covered that amply earlier inthe thread - it is after all why we
are talking about an "oen goal" by Ross!., But voters do not see "not
getting convicted" as enough to inspire confidence that there was no
knowledge of the donation being split, or of whether the individual
appears trustworthy. Would you buy a used car from that man?
Worthless rhetoric. There was no evidence in the call, obviously, otherwise the
SFO would be following up.
Again anything goes for you provided the SFO can't find something to
investigate (and presumably the police as well).
Your words not mine.
< Selling a position
Post by Rich80105
on teh list is just a commercial transaction to you then Tony?
Nonsense, that is your behaviour not mine.
Post by Rich80105
Was it
worth it do you think? How many Indians do you think a Chinese
candidate is worth? Do you think you would rate as good a performance
rating as Maureen Pugh? Do you still think there was no evidence of
interest to voters in the call?
Please reword that in English.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Indeed with no evidence there is no reason to believe there was any wrongdoing
(except in a politically motivated mind perhaps).
That is all.
https://thestandard.org.nz/national-has-nothing-to-be-afraid-of/
I apologise for not seeing that earlier.
Sending a dead link is a bit silly isn't it?
But even without reaching the wise words of an extreme left wing piece of
rubbish the headline is correct.
Note the corrected English.
You are always Right, Tony, but not often right. Changing another's
post is typical of the righteous authoritarian Right. But perhaps you
are the dead link . . .
John Bowes
2020-02-23 02:15:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 22 Feb 2020 13:33:19 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 20:37:17 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 16:30:00 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 13:36:20 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 22:50:29 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 21:50:22 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 18:40:31 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
On Thursday, February 20, 2020 at 8:25:29 AM UTC+13,
Post by Tony
Post by JohnO
Lol. The chances of that are zero.
JLR's smoking gun was a damp squib.
Exactly, there is no suggestion from anybody that he was
operating
under
orders, That is fanciful.
Even if he was ácting under orders'it hasn't been a defence sine
1945
:)
Thanks for sharing your practical knowledge.
Evidence that he was asked to get the donor to change arrangments to
split the donation may have been enough to have charged another
person; but it appears such evidence does not exist; indeed most
people would be surprised if he had been either asked or ordered.
There may of course be other matters where Ross can assist the SFO,
or
indeed others may be able to help, perhaps particularly in relation
to
the other donation. . . .
Indeed, so any suggestion that Bridges or any other member of the
National
party are involved is either a lie or a wild guess. Thought so!
Lack of sufficient evidence to convict does not mean there is no
evidence at all.
Typical denial of natural justice.
Evidence is a requirement of guilt, not of innocence.
The court system only determines, on the basis of evidence, whether a
person charged is Guilty, or Not Guilty. Innocence is something else
again. Still, if it is worth applying the requirement of evidence of
guilt to the Party Leader and his Chief Whip, perhaps that benefit of
doubt should also be applied to others such as Winston Peters - but
then that is another subject and I wouldn't want to divert you from
the Subject of this Thread which is "Spectacular 'own goal' by
Jamie-Lee Ross"
Once more you assume there is evidence that nobody has mentioned. Pathetic.
Post by Crash
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/107914931/jamilee-ross-and-simon-bridges-phone-call-transcript
Nothing in that is evidence of Bridge's wrongdoing - otherwise the SFO
would
be
interested.
Certainly nothing that would support a conviction in court, Tony - but
in terms of public opinion? Does Bridges come across as a
responsible, reliable, honest and upright man of strong moral
pronciples, concerned for the interests of New Zealanders, moderate in
language, respectful of members of his team?
Or does he come across as a bit of a flake, slightly racist, and a
sleeze regarding judgements on members of his own team, conscious and
accepting that a large donation carried with it an expectation of
favours to the donor in terms of candidacy, an opportunist prepared to
flout principles for short term gain; and even then seeing a priority
for money as enabling paid attack ads on social media. Would you trust
either of them based on that phone call?
The phone call did not indicate any wrong doing by Bridges, You are
making
shit
up.
Once again you see "wrong doing" only as something that may result in
a succesful prosecution.
No, that is a lie - I have never thought that way.
Post by Rich80105
I suspect National are trained to see
anything as OK, provided it does not get you convicted.
No idea - that is not me.
Post by Rich80105
In a sense,
you are reacting in the same way as the faily of the Flaxmere boy -
anything goes provided there is no evidence to convict. So yes Simon
was careful enough to avoid conviction for a criminal offence - we
have covered that amply earlier inthe thread - it is after all why we
are talking about an "oen goal" by Ross!., But voters do not see "not
getting convicted" as enough to inspire confidence that there was no
knowledge of the donation being split, or of whether the individual
appears trustworthy. Would you buy a used car from that man?
Worthless rhetoric. There was no evidence in the call, obviously, otherwise the
SFO would be following up.
Again anything goes for you provided the SFO can't find something to
investigate (and presumably the police as well).
Your words not mine.
< Selling a position
Post by Rich80105
on teh list is just a commercial transaction to you then Tony?
Nonsense, that is your behaviour not mine.
Post by Rich80105
Was it
worth it do you think? How many Indians do you think a Chinese
candidate is worth? Do you think you would rate as good a performance
rating as Maureen Pugh? Do you still think there was no evidence of
interest to voters in the call?
Please reword that in English.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Indeed with no evidence there is no reason to believe there was any wrongdoing
(except in a politically motivated mind perhaps).
That is all.
https://thestandard.org.nz/national-has-nothing-to-be-afraid-of/
I apologise for not seeing that earlier.
Sending a dead link is a bit silly isn't it?
But even without reaching the wise words of an extreme left wing piece of
rubbish the headline is correct.
Note the corrected English.
You are always Right, Tony, but not often right. Changing another's
post is typical of the righteous authoritarian Right. But perhaps you
are the dead link . . .
So where did Tony change your post Rich? You need to stop listening to the voices along with taking anything mickey savage says with about a ton of salt because the marxist Muppet is as biased as you and almost as stupid :)
Tony
2020-02-23 08:19:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 22 Feb 2020 13:33:19 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 20:37:17 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 16:30:00 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 13:36:20 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 22:50:29 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 21:50:22 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 18:40:31 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
On Thursday, February 20, 2020 at 8:25:29 AM UTC+13,
Post by Tony
Post by JohnO
Lol. The chances of that are zero.
JLR's smoking gun was a damp squib.
Exactly, there is no suggestion from anybody that he was
operating
under
orders, That is fanciful.
Even if he was ácting under orders'it hasn't been a defence sine
1945
:)
Thanks for sharing your practical knowledge.
Evidence that he was asked to get the donor to change arrangments to
split the donation may have been enough to have charged another
person; but it appears such evidence does not exist; indeed most
people would be surprised if he had been either asked or ordered.
There may of course be other matters where Ross can assist the
SFO,
or
indeed others may be able to help, perhaps particularly in
relation
to
the other donation. . . .
Indeed, so any suggestion that Bridges or any other member of the
National
party are involved is either a lie or a wild guess. Thought so!
Lack of sufficient evidence to convict does not mean there is no
evidence at all.
Typical denial of natural justice.
Evidence is a requirement of guilt, not of innocence.
The court system only determines, on the basis of evidence, whether a
person charged is Guilty, or Not Guilty. Innocence is something else
again. Still, if it is worth applying the requirement of evidence of
guilt to the Party Leader and his Chief Whip, perhaps that benefit of
doubt should also be applied to others such as Winston Peters - but
then that is another subject and I wouldn't want to divert you from
the Subject of this Thread which is "Spectacular 'own goal' by
Jamie-Lee Ross"
Once more you assume there is evidence that nobody has mentioned. Pathetic.
Post by Crash
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/107914931/jamilee-ross-and-simon-bridges-phone-call-transcript
Nothing in that is evidence of Bridge's wrongdoing - otherwise the SFO
would
be
interested.
Certainly nothing that would support a conviction in court, Tony - but
in terms of public opinion? Does Bridges come across as a
responsible, reliable, honest and upright man of strong moral
pronciples, concerned for the interests of New Zealanders, moderate in
language, respectful of members of his team?
Or does he come across as a bit of a flake, slightly racist, and a
sleeze regarding judgements on members of his own team, conscious and
accepting that a large donation carried with it an expectation of
favours to the donor in terms of candidacy, an opportunist prepared to
flout principles for short term gain; and even then seeing a priority
for money as enabling paid attack ads on social media. Would you trust
either of them based on that phone call?
The phone call did not indicate any wrong doing by Bridges, You are
making
shit
up.
Once again you see "wrong doing" only as something that may result in
a succesful prosecution.
No, that is a lie - I have never thought that way.
Post by Rich80105
I suspect National are trained to see
anything as OK, provided it does not get you convicted.
No idea - that is not me.
Post by Rich80105
In a sense,
you are reacting in the same way as the faily of the Flaxmere boy -
anything goes provided there is no evidence to convict. So yes Simon
was careful enough to avoid conviction for a criminal offence - we
have covered that amply earlier inthe thread - it is after all why we
are talking about an "oen goal" by Ross!., But voters do not see "not
getting convicted" as enough to inspire confidence that there was no
knowledge of the donation being split, or of whether the individual
appears trustworthy. Would you buy a used car from that man?
Worthless rhetoric. There was no evidence in the call, obviously,
otherwise
the
SFO would be following up.
Again anything goes for you provided the SFO can't find something to
investigate (and presumably the police as well).
Your words not mine.
< Selling a position
Post by Rich80105
on teh list is just a commercial transaction to you then Tony?
Nonsense, that is your behaviour not mine.
Post by Rich80105
Was it
worth it do you think? How many Indians do you think a Chinese
candidate is worth? Do you think you would rate as good a performance
rating as Maureen Pugh? Do you still think there was no evidence of
interest to voters in the call?
Please reword that in English.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Indeed with no evidence there is no reason to believe there was any wrongdoing
(except in a politically motivated mind perhaps).
That is all.
https://thestandard.org.nz/national-has-nothing-to-be-afraid-of/
I apologise for not seeing that earlier.
Sending a dead link is a bit silly isn't it?
But even without reaching the wise words of an extreme left wing piece of
rubbish the headline is correct.
Note the corrected English.
You are always right, Tony, but not often right. Changing another's
post is typical of the righteous authoritarian Right. But perhaps you
are the dead link.
The authoritarians are left wing like you, and I note you cannot provide a
working link. Presumably the article was rubbish.
I am centre right but that does not mean I vote National or Act or God forbid
NZ First. Work it out Richard.
And furthermore you are once more the first to become abusive. Shame on you.
Rich80105
2020-02-23 09:53:49 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 23 Feb 2020 02:19:00 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 22 Feb 2020 13:33:19 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 20:37:17 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 16:30:00 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 13:36:20 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 22:50:29 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 21:50:22 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 18:40:31 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
On Thursday, February 20, 2020 at 8:25:29 AM UTC+13,
Post by Tony
Post by JohnO
Lol. The chances of that are zero.
JLR's smoking gun was a damp squib.
Exactly, there is no suggestion from anybody that he was
operating
under
orders, That is fanciful.
Even if he was ácting under orders'it hasn't been a defence sine
1945
:)
Thanks for sharing your practical knowledge.
Evidence that he was asked to get the donor to change arrangments
to
split the donation may have been enough to have charged another
person; but it appears such evidence does not exist; indeed most
people would be surprised if he had been either asked or ordered.
There may of course be other matters where Ross can assist the
SFO,
or
indeed others may be able to help, perhaps particularly in
relation
to
the other donation. . . .
Indeed, so any suggestion that Bridges or any other member of the
National
party are involved is either a lie or a wild guess. Thought so!
Lack of sufficient evidence to convict does not mean there is no
evidence at all.
Typical denial of natural justice.
Evidence is a requirement of guilt, not of innocence.
The court system only determines, on the basis of evidence, whether a
person charged is Guilty, or Not Guilty. Innocence is something else
again. Still, if it is worth applying the requirement of evidence of
guilt to the Party Leader and his Chief Whip, perhaps that benefit of
doubt should also be applied to others such as Winston Peters - but
then that is another subject and I wouldn't want to divert you from
the Subject of this Thread which is "Spectacular 'own goal' by
Jamie-Lee Ross"
Once more you assume there is evidence that nobody has mentioned. Pathetic.
Post by Crash
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/107914931/jamilee-ross-and-simon-bridges-phone-call-transcript
Nothing in that is evidence of Bridge's wrongdoing - otherwise the SFO
would
be
interested.
Certainly nothing that would support a conviction in court, Tony - but
in terms of public opinion? Does Bridges come across as a
responsible, reliable, honest and upright man of strong moral
pronciples, concerned for the interests of New Zealanders, moderate in
language, respectful of members of his team?
Or does he come across as a bit of a flake, slightly racist, and a
sleeze regarding judgements on members of his own team, conscious and
accepting that a large donation carried with it an expectation of
favours to the donor in terms of candidacy, an opportunist prepared to
flout principles for short term gain; and even then seeing a priority
for money as enabling paid attack ads on social media. Would you trust
either of them based on that phone call?
The phone call did not indicate any wrong doing by Bridges, You are
making
shit
up.
Once again you see "wrong doing" only as something that may result in
a succesful prosecution.
No, that is a lie - I have never thought that way.
Post by Rich80105
I suspect National are trained to see
anything as OK, provided it does not get you convicted.
No idea - that is not me.
Post by Rich80105
In a sense,
you are reacting in the same way as the faily of the Flaxmere boy -
anything goes provided there is no evidence to convict. So yes Simon
was careful enough to avoid conviction for a criminal offence - we
have covered that amply earlier inthe thread - it is after all why we
are talking about an "oen goal" by Ross!., But voters do not see "not
getting convicted" as enough to inspire confidence that there was no
knowledge of the donation being split, or of whether the individual
appears trustworthy. Would you buy a used car from that man?
Worthless rhetoric. There was no evidence in the call, obviously,
otherwise
the
SFO would be following up.
Again anything goes for you provided the SFO can't find something to
investigate (and presumably the police as well).
Your words not mine.
< Selling a position
Post by Rich80105
on teh list is just a commercial transaction to you then Tony?
Nonsense, that is your behaviour not mine.
Post by Rich80105
Was it
worth it do you think? How many Indians do you think a Chinese
candidate is worth? Do you think you would rate as good a performance
rating as Maureen Pugh? Do you still think there was no evidence of
interest to voters in the call?
Please reword that in English.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Indeed with no evidence there is no reason to believe there was any wrongdoing
(except in a politically motivated mind perhaps).
That is all.
https://thestandard.org.nz/national-has-nothing-to-be-afraid-of/
I apologise for not seeing that earlier.
Sending a dead link is a bit silly isn't it?
But even without reaching the wise words of an extreme left wing piece of
rubbish the headline is correct.
Note the corrected English.
You are always right, Tony, but not often right. Changing another's
post is typical of the righteous authoritarian Right. But perhaps you
are the dead link.
The authoritarians are left wing like you, and I note you cannot provide a
working link. Presumably the article was rubbish.
I am centre right but that does not mean I vote National or Act or God forbid
NZ First. Work it out Richard.
And furthermore you are once more the first to become abusive. Shame on you.
The link I posted continues to work. Who is Richard? Prebble was ACT -
is that who you voted for?
Tony
2020-02-23 19:06:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 23 Feb 2020 02:19:00 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 22 Feb 2020 13:33:19 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 20:37:17 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 16:30:00 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 13:36:20 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Crash
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 22:50:29 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 21:50:22 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 18:40:31 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
On Thursday, February 20, 2020 at 8:25:29 AM UTC+13,
Post by Tony
Post by JohnO
Lol. The chances of that are zero.
JLR's smoking gun was a damp squib.
Exactly, there is no suggestion from anybody that he was
operating
under
orders, That is fanciful.
Even if he was ácting under orders'it hasn't been a defence
sine
1945
:)
Thanks for sharing your practical knowledge.
Evidence that he was asked to get the donor to change arrangments
to
split the donation may have been enough to have charged another
person; but it appears such evidence does not exist; indeed most
people would be surprised if he had been either asked or ordered.
There may of course be other matters where Ross can assist the
SFO,
or
indeed others may be able to help, perhaps particularly in
relation
to
the other donation. . . .
Indeed, so any suggestion that Bridges or any other member of the
National
party are involved is either a lie or a wild guess. Thought so!
Lack of sufficient evidence to convict does not mean there is no
evidence at all.
Typical denial of natural justice.
Evidence is a requirement of guilt, not of innocence.
The court system only determines, on the basis of evidence, whether a
person charged is Guilty, or Not Guilty. Innocence is something else
again. Still, if it is worth applying the requirement of evidence of
guilt to the Party Leader and his Chief Whip, perhaps that benefit of
doubt should also be applied to others such as Winston Peters - but
then that is another subject and I wouldn't want to divert you from
the Subject of this Thread which is "Spectacular 'own goal' by
Jamie-Lee Ross"
Once more you assume there is evidence that nobody has mentioned. Pathetic.
Post by Crash
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/107914931/jamilee-ross-and-simon-bridges-phone-call-transcript
Nothing in that is evidence of Bridge's wrongdoing - otherwise the SFO
would
be
interested.
Certainly nothing that would support a conviction in court, Tony - but
in terms of public opinion? Does Bridges come across as a
responsible, reliable, honest and upright man of strong moral
pronciples, concerned for the interests of New Zealanders, moderate in
language, respectful of members of his team?
Or does he come across as a bit of a flake, slightly racist, and a
sleeze regarding judgements on members of his own team, conscious and
accepting that a large donation carried with it an expectation of
favours to the donor in terms of candidacy, an opportunist prepared to
flout principles for short term gain; and even then seeing a priority
for money as enabling paid attack ads on social media. Would you trust
either of them based on that phone call?
The phone call did not indicate any wrong doing by Bridges, You are
making
shit
up.
Once again you see "wrong doing" only as something that may result in
a succesful prosecution.
No, that is a lie - I have never thought that way.
Post by Rich80105
I suspect National are trained to see
anything as OK, provided it does not get you convicted.
No idea - that is not me.
Post by Rich80105
In a sense,
you are reacting in the same way as the faily of the Flaxmere boy -
anything goes provided there is no evidence to convict. So yes Simon
was careful enough to avoid conviction for a criminal offence - we
have covered that amply earlier inthe thread - it is after all why we
are talking about an "oen goal" by Ross!., But voters do not see "not
getting convicted" as enough to inspire confidence that there was no
knowledge of the donation being split, or of whether the individual
appears trustworthy. Would you buy a used car from that man?
Worthless rhetoric. There was no evidence in the call, obviously,
otherwise
the
SFO would be following up.
Again anything goes for you provided the SFO can't find something to
investigate (and presumably the police as well).
Your words not mine.
< Selling a position
Post by Rich80105
on teh list is just a commercial transaction to you then Tony?
Nonsense, that is your behaviour not mine.
Post by Rich80105
Was it
worth it do you think? How many Indians do you think a Chinese
candidate is worth? Do you think you would rate as good a performance
rating as Maureen Pugh? Do you still think there was no evidence of
interest to voters in the call?
Please reword that in English.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Indeed with no evidence there is no reason to believe there was any wrongdoing
(except in a politically motivated mind perhaps).
That is all.
https://thestandard.org.nz/national-has-nothing-to-be-afraid-of/
I apologise for not seeing that earlier.
Sending a dead link is a bit silly isn't it?
But even without reaching the wise words of an extreme left wing piece of
rubbish the headline is correct.
Note the corrected English.
You are always right, Tony, but not often right. Changing another's
post is typical of the righteous authoritarian Right. But perhaps you
are the dead link.
The authoritarians are left wing like you, and I note you cannot provide a
working link. Presumably the article was rubbish.
I am centre right but that does not mean I vote National or Act or God forbid
NZ First. Work it out Richard.
And furthermore you are once more the first to become abusive. Shame on you.
The link I posted continues to work. Who is Richard? Prebble was ACT -
is that who you voted for?
Wrong, it works now that it has been fixed. But is definitely nonsense.
I have never voted Act.

John Bowes
2020-02-20 20:53:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 18:40:31 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Tony
Post by JohnO
Lol. The chances of that are zero.
JLR's smoking gun was a damp squib.
Exactly, there is no suggestion from anybody that he was operating under
orders, That is fanciful.
Even if he was ácting under orders'it hasn't been a defence sine 1945 :)
Thanks for sharing your practical knowledge.
Evidence that he was asked to get the donor to change arrangments to
split the donation may have been enough to have charged another
person; but it appears such evidence does not exist; indeed most
people would be surprised if he had been either asked or ordered.
There may of course be other matters where Ross can assist the SFO, or
indeed others may be able to help, perhaps particularly in relation to
the other donation. . . .
Can you please repeat that waffle in language others can understand Rich/ that is even more obscure than your usual bullshit :)
Rich80105
2020-02-19 20:17:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by JohnO
Lol. The chances of that are zero.
JLR's smoking gun was a damp squib.
As was explained, he believes he is constrained not to tell all he
knows before the trial. Will "protect the leader at all costs" go out
the window?
Crash
2020-02-19 20:53:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by JohnO
Lol. The chances of that are zero.
JLR's smoking gun was a damp squib.
As was explained, he believes he is constrained not to tell all he
knows before the trial. Will "protect the leader at all costs" go out
the window?
All of those involved in the donations are presumably being charged in
respect of the SFO investigation started by the complaint laid by JLR.
Significantly there is no-one from National being charged, JLR himself
being ex-National.

JLR plays no role in any decision on who is culpable. The SFO
investigation and charges were made based on the evidence they could
gather (one of their core competencies).

What will be interesting is what evidence arises from the donors
defending themselves during the trial.


--
Crash McBash
JohnO
2020-02-19 20:56:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by JohnO
Lol. The chances of that are zero.
JLR's smoking gun was a damp squib.
As was explained, he believes he is constrained not to tell all he
knows before the trial. Will "protect the leader at all costs" go out
the window?
All of those involved in the donations are presumably being charged in
respect of the SFO investigation started by the complaint laid by JLR.
Significantly there is no-one from National being charged, JLR himself
being ex-National.
JLR plays no role in any decision on who is culpable. The SFO
investigation and charges were made based on the evidence they could
gather (one of their core competencies).
What will be interesting is what evidence arises from the donors
defending themselves during the trial.
Exactly. My money is on them testifying that JLR instructed them to dice up the amounts to be under $15k. As has been seen in JLR's damp squib phone recording, he has no evidence that SB had anything to do with it.

JLR's only hope is to play his mental health get out of jail card.
Post by Crash
--
Crash McBash
Rich80105
2020-02-19 22:26:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by JohnO
Lol. The chances of that are zero.
JLR's smoking gun was a damp squib.
As was explained, he believes he is constrained not to tell all he
knows before the trial. Will "protect the leader at all costs" go out
the window?
All of those involved in the donations are presumably being charged in
respect of the SFO investigation started by the complaint laid by JLR.
Good wording Crash; "involved in" can mean anything the reader wants
to interpret it as meaning.
Post by Crash
Significantly there is no-one from National being charged, JLR himself
being ex-National.
Although at the time of the alleged offence he was Chief Whip for the
National Party. Plausible deniability is of course important to some
enterprises - National are noted for being very polished at
fund-raising; presumably they are also helpful in advising donors of
the implications for disclosure of making donations above a certain
size.
Post by Crash
JLR plays no role in any decision on who is culpable.
Agreed, although any evidence he has to offer could influence any
further prosecutions.
Post by Crash
The SFO
investigation and charges were made based on the evidence they could
gather (one of their core competencies).
Now that Ross has been charged, there is nothing to prevent him from
disclosing now (if he has not already), any other information that he
held. Whether that information is even admissable or of any use to the
SFO is another matter. They have made charges in relation to two
donations; we may find out at trial where the information came from to
identify that alleged offence. It is possible that they looked at
donations received around the same time that added to over $15,000 but
came from a number of different parties; for all we know they are
going though all party donation lists looking for such links.
Post by Crash
What will be interesting is what evidence arises from the donors
defending themselves during the trial.
It will indeed. Donations over the $15,000 level are relatively less
common for National than at least one other party; so it was
surprising that it appears to have been a surprise to Bridges to learn
that the $100,000 donation he had so amicably discussed with Ross did
not in fact eventuate - perhaps Ross and Goldsmith forgot to tell him.
Crash
2020-02-20 01:19:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by JohnO
Lol. The chances of that are zero.
JLR's smoking gun was a damp squib.
As was explained, he believes he is constrained not to tell all he
knows before the trial. Will "protect the leader at all costs" go out
the window?
All of those involved in the donations are presumably being charged in
respect of the SFO investigation started by the complaint laid by JLR.
Good wording Crash; "involved in" can mean anything the reader wants
to interpret it as meaning.
Post by Crash
Significantly there is no-one from National being charged, JLR himself
being ex-National.
Although at the time of the alleged offence he was Chief Whip for the
National Party. Plausible deniability is of course important to some
enterprises - National are noted for being very polished at
fund-raising; presumably they are also helpful in advising donors of
the implications for disclosure of making donations above a certain
size.
What is there to deny that the SFO would miss and fail to prefer
charges? Let me answer that - none at all. JLR has in the past tried
to implicate National party leadership in donations. The fact that he
is being charged and no-one else clearly indicates what the SFO have
found out in their investigations.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
JLR plays no role in any decision on who is culpable.
Agreed, although any evidence he has to offer could influence any
further prosecutions.
Post by Crash
The SFO
investigation and charges were made based on the evidence they could
gather (one of their core competencies).
Now that Ross has been charged, there is nothing to prevent him from
disclosing now (if he has not already), any other information that he
held. Whether that information is even admissable or of any use to the
SFO is another matter. They have made charges in relation to two
donations; we may find out at trial where the information came from to
identify that alleged offence. It is possible that they looked at
donations received around the same time that added to over $15,000 but
came from a number of different parties; for all we know they are
going though all party donation lists looking for such links.
Post by Crash
What will be interesting is what evidence arises from the donors
defending themselves during the trial.
It will indeed. Donations over the $15,000 level are relatively less
common for National than at least one other party; so it was
surprising that it appears to have been a surprise to Bridges to learn
that the $100,000 donation he had so amicably discussed with Ross did
not in fact eventuate - perhaps Ross and Goldsmith forgot to tell him.
Then how come the SFO have only charged JLR and the donors? One good
reason would be that your speculation (on this and other issues
relative to National) is simply untrue.


--
Crash McBash
Rich80105
2020-02-20 03:28:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by JohnO
Lol. The chances of that are zero.
JLR's smoking gun was a damp squib.
As was explained, he believes he is constrained not to tell all he
knows before the trial. Will "protect the leader at all costs" go out
the window?
All of those involved in the donations are presumably being charged in
respect of the SFO investigation started by the complaint laid by JLR.
Good wording Crash; "involved in" can mean anything the reader wants
to interpret it as meaning.
Post by Crash
Significantly there is no-one from National being charged, JLR himself
being ex-National.
Although at the time of the alleged offence he was Chief Whip for the
National Party. Plausible deniability is of course important to some
enterprises - National are noted for being very polished at
fund-raising; presumably they are also helpful in advising donors of
the implications for disclosure of making donations above a certain
size.
What is there to deny that the SFO would miss and fail to prefer
charges? Let me answer that - none at all. JLR has in the past tried
to implicate National party leadership in donations. The fact that he
is being charged and no-one else clearly indicates what the SFO have
found out in their investigations.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
JLR plays no role in any decision on who is culpable.
Agreed, although any evidence he has to offer could influence any
further prosecutions.
Post by Crash
The SFO
investigation and charges were made based on the evidence they could
gather (one of their core competencies).
Now that Ross has been charged, there is nothing to prevent him from
disclosing now (if he has not already), any other information that he
held. Whether that information is even admissable or of any use to the
SFO is another matter. They have made charges in relation to two
donations; we may find out at trial where the information came from to
identify that alleged offence. It is possible that they looked at
donations received around the same time that added to over $15,000 but
came from a number of different parties; for all we know they are
going though all party donation lists looking for such links.
Post by Crash
What will be interesting is what evidence arises from the donors
defending themselves during the trial.
It will indeed. Donations over the $15,000 level are relatively less
common for National than at least one other party; so it was
surprising that it appears to have been a surprise to Bridges to learn
that the $100,000 donation he had so amicably discussed with Ross did
not in fact eventuate - perhaps Ross and Goldsmith forgot to tell him.
Then how come the SFO have only charged JLR and the donors?
Presumably because they have evidence against JLR and the donors, but
do not have evidence against anyone else. Can you think of any other
reason?
Post by Crash
One good
reason would be that your speculation (on this and other issues
relative to National) is simply untrue.
I think we can safely assume that the SFO were not aware of my
surprise that Bridges was surprised to hear about the donations. In
the case of the 2018 donation there is evidence that he was aware that
$100,000 had been paid into an electorate account, but there is no
evidence that he was ever told anything else about what happened to
that or any other donations. All I have said is that I was surprised
at Bridges being surprised, I would have expected donations of that
size to have been advised (as this one was) so that the donor can be
thanked, but clearly when it turned into multiple smaller donations
such acknowledgement to a single donor would not have been
appropriate. My surprise does not represent anywhere near the standard
of "proof" that would be acceptable to a court; but that does not mean
that we know what actually happened; I am certainly not claiming such
knowledge. Plausible deniablity has a value.
Loading...