Discussion:
Time for statesmanship
(too old to reply)
Tony
2020-02-14 20:10:44 UTC
Permalink
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/119527829/jacinda-arderns-silence-on-winston-peters-is-deafening
and
https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/119530211/neutralising-peters-was-a-smart-move
The previous two Minister's prime would have stood Peters down by now, pending
the SFO enquiry.
It should be done.
Rich80105
2020-02-14 22:17:13 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 14:10:44 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/119527829/jacinda-arderns-silence-on-winston-peters-is-deafening
and
https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/119530211/neutralising-peters-was-a-smart-move
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 . .
.

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 . . .
Tony
2020-02-14 22:22:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 14:10:44 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/119527829/jacinda-arderns-silence-on-winston-peters-is-deafening
and
https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/119530211/neutralising-peters-was-a-smart-move
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 . .
Why?
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 . . .
Clearly you have not read the links, or maybe you could not understand the
words and messages.
Neither of them have indicated that one is more important than another and I
have not written that - where do you get these silly ideas from?
You are living in the past again. Hey, it is 2020 and the government is today's
governmenet nit the last one. Wake up.
John Bowes
2020-02-15 02:12:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 14:10:44 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/119527829/jacinda-arderns-silence-on-winston-peters-is-deafening
and
https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/119530211/neutralising-peters-was-a-smart-move
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 . .
.
Why? Because he doesn't support Labour?
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 . . .
Four individuals have been charged. Not the National party or Bridges!

The Electoral Commission handed the NZFirst and ANFirst Foundation over to the police because of the dodgy manner they were treating donations!

It may come as a surprise to you Rich but these two events you're trying to use as comparisons are different. Much like apples and lemons and your persistent and failing attempts to divert attention from the NZFirst Foundation the donations that were used for political purposes only highlights your stupidity and inability to take an honest look at what is going on. but no surprises there because stupid Marxist Muppets like you NEVER look at the politics of Marxism honestly!
George
2020-02-15 19:22:52 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 18:12:17 -0800 (PST)
Post by John Bowes
Four individuals have been charged. Not the National party or Bridges!
The Electoral Commission handed the NZFirst and ANFirst Foundation
over to the police because of the dodgy manner they were treating
donations!
It may come as a surprise to you Rich but these two events you're
trying to use as comparisons are different. Much like apples and
lemons and your persistent and failing attempts to divert attention
from the NZFirst Foundation the donations that were used for
political purposes only highlights your stupidity and inability to
take an honest look at what is going on. but no surprises there
because stupid Marxist Muppets like you NEVER look at the politics of
Marxism honestly!
Lying for the left.
Not an uncommon happening.
And they know we don't believe them but that is no deterrent..
Gordon
2020-02-15 04:33:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 14:10:44 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/119527829/jacinda-arderns-silence-on-winston-peters-is-deafening
and
https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/119530211/neutralising-peters-was-a-smart-move
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 . .
.
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 . . .
The point here Rich is about NZF and the PM. Not about some other case which
has nothing to do with the matter under consideration.
JohnO
2020-02-15 06:15:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 14:10:44 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/119527829/jacinda-arderns-silence-on-winston-peters-is-deafening
and
https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/119530211/neutralising-peters-was-a-smart-move
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.

Time to flush the bowl...
Crash
2020-02-15 08:28:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by JohnO
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 14:10:44 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/119527829/jacinda-arderns-silence-on-winston-peters-is-deafening
and
https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/119530211/neutralising-peters-was-a-smart-move
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.
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
neither.

Rich has lost the plot and demonstrated a propensity to 'play the man'
instead of addressing the issue with credible and plausible arguments.


--
Crash McBash
Gordon
2020-02-16 05:39:54 UTC
Permalink
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
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/119527829/jacinda-arderns-silence-on-winston-peters-is-deafening
and
https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/119530211/neutralising-peters-was-a-smart-move
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.
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
neither.
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.
Rich80105
2020-02-16 21:26:02 UTC
Permalink
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
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/119527829/jacinda-arderns-silence-on-winston-peters-is-deafening
and
https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/119530211/neutralising-peters-was-a-smart-move
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
some way.

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
individuals.
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
neither.
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.
Tony
2020-02-17 03:24:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
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
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/119527829/jacinda-arderns-silence-on-winston-peters-is-deafening
and
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/119530211/neutralising-peters-was-a-smart-move
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
some way.
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
individuals.
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
neither.
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.
You clearly believe that if you repeat a lie enough times people will begin to
believe it.
The difference between the National and NZ First issues is profound. And that
has been explained to you very clearly.
Rich80105
2020-02-17 03:32:24 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 21:24:35 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
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
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/119527829/jacinda-arderns-silence-on-winston-peters-is-deafening
and
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/119530211/neutralising-peters-was-a-smart-move
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
some way.
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
individuals.
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
neither.
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.
You clearly believe that if you repeat a lie enough times people will begin to
believe it.
The difference between the National and NZ First issues is profound. And that
has been explained to you very clearly.
Two investigations - some people invovled with National have been
charged, nobody has been charged (at least yet!) in relation to NZ
First. No convictions so no problem for either party - "Right", Tony?
Tony
2020-02-17 04:11:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 21:24:35 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
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
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/119527829/jacinda-arderns-silence-on-winston-peters-is-deafening
and
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/119530211/neutralising-peters-was-a-smart-move
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
some way.
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
individuals.
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
neither.
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.
You clearly believe that if you repeat a lie enough times people will begin to
believe it.
The difference between the National and NZ First issues is profound. And that
has been explained to you very clearly.
Two investigations - some people invovled with National have been
charged, nobody has been charged (at least yet!) in relation to NZ
First. No convictions so no problem for either party - Tony?
Spin away as always, you know no other way.
Lies upon lies upon more lies by you.
Crash
2020-02-17 06:54:30 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 22:11:07 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 21:24:35 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
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
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/119527829/jacinda-arderns-silence-on-winston-peters-is-deafening
and
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/119530211/neutralising-peters-was-a-smart-move
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
some way.
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
individuals.
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
neither.
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.
You clearly believe that if you repeat a lie enough times people will begin to
believe it.
The difference between the National and NZ First issues is profound. And that
has been explained to you very clearly.
Two investigations - some people invovled with National have been
charged, nobody has been charged (at least yet!) in relation to NZ
First. No convictions so no problem for either party - Tony?
Spin away as always, you know no other way.
Lies upon lies upon more lies by you.
Yes, Rich cannot see the disparity in the seriousness between the
issues. The 4 people charged by the SFO over National party donations
as a result of a disaffected former National MP who subsequently
needed mental health treatment does not rank equally with a referral
to the Police by the Electoral Commission (subsequently referred to
the SFO) of suspected offences by NZF (the party) and NZF (the
foundation).




--
Crash McBash
John Bowes
2020-02-17 10:46:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 21:24:35 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
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
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/119527829/jacinda-arderns-silence-on-winston-peters-is-deafening
and
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/119530211/neutralising-peters-was-a-smart-move
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
some way.
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
individuals.
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
neither.
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.
You clearly believe that if you repeat a lie enough times people will begin to
believe it.
The difference between the National and NZ First issues is profound. And that
has been explained to you very clearly.
Two investigations - some people invovled with National have been
charged, nobody has been charged (at least yet!) in relation to NZ
First. No convictions so no problem for either party - "Right", Tony?
You ignore the fact that the Electoral commission handed the case to the Police who immediately handed it to the SFO Rich. There is no comparison between the two cases. Plus we've seen what NZFoundation was doing which at best is just dodgy following of the rules and at worst one of the worst cases of electoral fraud we've seen!
Loading...