Post by Gordon Post by Crash Post by JohnO Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 14:10:44 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
The previous two Minister's prime would have stood Peters down by now, pending
the SFO enquiry.
It should be done.
If so, then Simon Bridges should have been stood down by National . .
Simon Bridges is not spending public money, making laws and pretending to be deputy PM you stupid little turd.
Post by Rich80105
If you think that does not apply when there have been 4 charges over
National's treatment of donations, compared with an investigation for
NZ First, plesae explain why one is more imortant to you than the
other . . .
And it has been widely reported none of the 4 are National Party. you stupid little turd.
No it has not. It has been reported that The National Party has not
been charged, and that Simon Bridges has not been charged. We do not
know the link between the National Party and the 4 that have been
charged, but it is a reasonalbe presumption that they are linked in
The National Party itself _cannot_ be charged - it is not a legal
entity that can be charged as a separate entity. Those that can be
charged are typically party officials, for signing a return that is
false. The NZ First Party has experienced resignations from officials
who were not prepared to sign off on certain returns required under
the law - you may think that is a reasonable sign that all is not
well, but then what any of us think does ot guarantee that a charge
will be laid. The National Party clearly has many more members than
just 4 people, but for all we know they may have had an accountant or
audotor sign material that offended against some law under which, as
signatories, they could be chargesd. Or the charges may relate to
other activity - all we do know is that the investigation into
National Party donations resulted in 4 individuals being charged.
I do not believe that what Simon Bridges said in the recorded
conversation with Jamie Lee Ross was sufficient to charge him with any
offence under the law; but what was damning is that it is clear that
he knew a lot about the way in which a large donation could be split,
and what was expected from the party in return for that donation. He
apparetnly has enough lawyer training to have been careful abourt what
he said even in what he thought was a private conversation. Similarly
Winston Peters has claimed publicly that he knows how the NZ First
fuondation works and that there was nothing illegal about what those
arrangements. If there has been some offence against the law, there is
unlikely to be evidence that he was involved in any illegal activity,
but his reputation would suffer, as that of the National Party and its
leader suffered through the 4 charges that have been laid.
We know that the SFO is now investigating donations to NZ First, but
as yet there have been no charges, and we cannot guarantee that there
will be, or that there will not be charges against one or more
Post by Gordon
Post by Crash Post by JohnO
Time to flush the bowl...
JohnO usually I would consider your comments a bit over the top and
just a tad inflammatory. However given Rich's current line that the
NZ First/Foundation allegations are analogous to the SFO prosecution
of 4 individuals in respect of National party donations, and his
extremely insulting comments about me personally, I think you are
Rich has lost the plot and demonstrated a propensity to 'play the man'
instead of addressing the issue with credible and plausible arguments.
Welcome aboard Crash. Panel beater is 2nd on the Left.