The Dim-Post

August 17, 2014

The Rodney Hide allegations

Filed under: Politics — danylmc @ 7:51 am

Rodney Hide has a column in the New Zealand Herald today dismissing the allegation that he was blackmailed into standing down as leader of the ACT Party. He writes:

Hager never rang to ask: “Hey, I have just come across the damnedest stuff and just have to ask, were you ever blackmailed?”

To which I would reply: “No, definitely not. I would never give in to blackmail. I would go straight to the police. It’s a crime. I have no doubt the police and the courts would take a dim view of any attempt to blackmail a political leader and Government minister. It never happened.”

Let’s timeline his resignation alongside the allegations made in Dirty Politics.

Hide poured scorn on Brash’s claim of being offered the co-leader’s job. He said he had offered to pay Brash’s membership if his friend joined the Act Party.

“He wanted to be leader. I said the way you become the leader or co-leader is to join the party and work your way up.”

He said Brash was too old for the job. “We’re looking forward to the next generation of leaders and Don has had his shot with National. It’s hard to see him contesting the 2014 campaign.”

  • Sunday, 24th April 2011: Simon Lusk (allegedly) contacts Cameron Slater advising him that ‘we can fuck up Rodney. Jordan is talking to a girl that Rodney has been sending dodgy texts to.’ Lusk suggests to Slater that they tell Hide they will release the texts if Hide does not resign by Friday.

Mr Hide has said Dr Brash’s bid is a takeover attempt by a member of a different party.

Confident of keeping his leadership, he said if Dr Brash wanted to become leader, he would have to follow the process and first become a member of the party.

Rodney needs to be careful with any dodgy plays because the tipline is running so hot that it is practically on fire. This includes some information about his destruction of Heather Roy’s career that would not play out kindly for Rodney. He should remember carefully how he used me in that play.

In a continuation of the “Roy play”, Rodney is also contemplating a personal attack on Don based on his ethics. This would be a great play for Don because it would mean personal life was absolutely fair game, and I just absolutely love politicians dirty laundry being aired in public, just ask Stuart Nash and the new Mangrove Iain Lees-Galloway. Not a classical scholar, Rodney probably is unaware of William Congreve, but here are a couple of excellent quotes:

“O fie, miss, you must not kiss and tell.”

And the better known

“Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned, Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned,”

Followed by:

Meanwhile my predictions of Rodney’s bunker pals running “Don Brash is an old man” lines has come to pass with Rodney Hide staffer Chris Diack commenting freely on Kiwiblog. Word via the tipline is that they wil keep up that line for a couple of days and then change to smears involving Don Brash’s personal life. It surprises me that Rodney Hide of all people wants to go down that path but if he plays those cards then he will reap what he sows.

But current leader Rodney Hide says he is not resigning and that he is proud of what he has done for the party.

He said he had heard rumours about his resignation but said they were not true.

When asked about Don Brash taking over the party’s leadership he said: “I believe Don Brash hasn’t even joined the Act Party yet.”

Dr Brash’s bid seemed to take a blow yesterday when deputy leader John Boscawen said through a spokesman that he backed Mr Hide as leader and would vote for him in a leadership challenge.

  • Thursday 28th April: Hide resigns

    Rodney Hide has stepped down as leader of the ACT Party, paving the way for challenger Don Brash after days of mounting pressure and speculation.

    Dr Brash will lead the party from outside Parliament, so its current MPs will keep their spots, including Mr Hide’s ministerial posts.

    Mr Hide announced his resignation at a press conference in the Auckland suburb Newmarket this afternoon, in the heart of the Epsom electorate he has represented since 2005.

In his Herald column today Hide writes:

I tracked down Jordan Williams. He had no texts. He says the claims are “utterly, utterly false … outrageous. … disgusting”. I believe him. I emailed Don Brash. No, Simon Lusk never worked for him. I believe him.

According to Dirty Politics, page 70:

Lusk wrote to Slater via Facebook: Don [Brash] has told [New Zealand Herald reporter] Derek Cheng I was not paid by him and I was not paid by ACT as far as he knew and wasn’t going to comment any further on who was involved in his coup.’  Slater wrote back, ‘Lol, bwahahaha.’

If I was Slater, Lusk or Williams, I think this is the stuff I’d be losing sleep over. I am not a lawyer, but I looked through the crimes act and asked a real lawyer about this, and if the police can establish that these messages really were sent by Lusk and Slater they are admissible as evidence whether or not they were obtained illegally, and might be used, along with Slater’s blog posts, to charge them with conspiracy to commit blackmail, irrespective of whether Hide feels that he was actually blackmailed. Maximum sentence seven years.

 

 

62 Comments »

  1. Fortunately for them, it’s the New Zealand Police we talking about here.

    Comment by Rhinocrates — August 17, 2014 @ 8:05 am

  2. Again, the key word being ‘Allegedly’, and that was Hager’s choice.

    Comment by Lee Clark — August 17, 2014 @ 8:10 am

  3. @Rhinocrates : The main players here are Auckland based, and the police in Auckland have a little more moral backbone than in Wellington.
    E.g., in Auckland, the Chow brothers up-sticks and out of town rather than having their dirty laundry aired, compare that to Wellington where the local constabulary helps out the Chows in court over petty industry matters.
    The Wellington sex industry was abuzz with rumours about who screwed who over that one.

    Comment by Anonymous Coward — August 17, 2014 @ 8:31 am

  4. This is grasping at straws.
    I thought you were better than low rent conspiracy theories.

    Comment by Jim Peters — August 17, 2014 @ 9:05 am

  5. For several reasons, Hide has absolutely no incentive to do anything other than deny everything. He simply changed his mind…

    The word of Jordan Williams has little value.

    Comment by Judge Holden — August 17, 2014 @ 9:13 am

  6. And Brash too? Lol. bwahahhaha.

    Comment by newbilong — August 17, 2014 @ 9:15 am

  7. I have pretty good personal knowledge of the Brash “coup” which I will never reveal. But I will say it is complete rubbish and totally wrong by about 2,000% that it involved blackmail. Whether that odious creep Jordan Williams conspired to blackmail Hide is a different issue, and one that might attract attention as Danyl says, but in all reality it’s just low rent political shenanigans and not worthy of police investigation IMHO.

    On Jordan Williams, how can a decent man like Stephen Franks continue to employ him? That’s what I can’t figure out.

    I never thought I would agree with Judge Holden, but there we go.

    Comment by Nick K — August 17, 2014 @ 10:07 am

  8. Hide might not have realised he was being blackmailed, or may just be lying. But if Williams and Slater attempted to blackmail a Minister of the Crown to end their career, that is something the cops need to look at, no two ways about it.

    Comment by Keir Leslie — August 17, 2014 @ 10:24 am

  9. I have pretty good personal knowledge of the Brash “coup” which I will never reveal. But I will say it is complete rubbish and totally wrong by about 2,000% that it involved blackmail.

    The question isn’t so much “did Hide actually step down because he was frightened into it by threats of stuff being released?” It’s, “did these people conspire to bring about this result?” Because you can plot to do something and be criminally liable for doing so without actually bringing the plan to full fruition.

    Comment by Andrew Geddis — August 17, 2014 @ 10:26 am

  10. Yes, I accept that Andrew.

    Comment by Nick K — August 17, 2014 @ 10:28 am

  11. “On Jordan Williams, how can a decent man like Stephen Franks continue to employ him? That’s what I can’t figure out.”
    Considering the high class bullshit Franks ( or is it Williams ?) writes these days, like this:

    “Of course evading illegality with a technical device does not diminish the disgrace that has rightly come to Labour for its hypocrisy in hounding Maurice Williamson, and before that Judith Collins, and even more so John Banks. Their condemnation of John Banks is particularly disgusting in the light of the Liu revelations, because John’s refusal to intervene for Kim Dotcom showed that he was not corrupted by the undisclosed donation.”

    Really ? Hounding Banks? Quelle Horreur. Franks/Williams seems to overlook that Banks did intervene with Williamson , after he was defeated as Mayor, regarding Dotcoms attempt to buy the Coatesville property. Favour recieved and done.

    Comment by ghostwhowalksnz — August 17, 2014 @ 10:32 am

  12. Also is it just me or does it look a lot like Willaims attempted to arrange a crime while acting as a lawyer? I.e he was acting in some kind of professional capacity as an aide to Brash during the coup attempt (or at least that’s how he referred to it himself, I think) and that was the period in which he appears to have been involved in a conspiracy to blackmail Rodney Hide. Aren’t there some kind of ethical obligations on lawyers not to engage in freelance criminality on behalf on unknowing clients?

    Comment by Keir Leslie — August 17, 2014 @ 10:34 am

  13. Keir Leslie: “But if Williams and Slater attempted to blackmail a Minister of the Crown to end their career”

    Not to mention depriving the people of Epsom of a competent and highly valued candidate whom they’d chosen to represent them in a free and fair election, and may well have wanted to continue doing so.

    But yeah, this stuff is screwed up on so many levels. Some behind closed doors and potentially illegal and some completely in the open.

    Comment by izogi — August 17, 2014 @ 10:37 am

  14. One of the most interesting comments to come out of this, in my view, was from Jordan Williams in a Dom Post article from August 14.

    About the alleged Hide/blackmail coup, he said: “To suggest that a lawyer would use rumour for blackmail is absolutely outrageous. The comments that are there that Simon [Lusk]’s told Cam[eron Slater], well that’s his problem but it is frankly a well over-egged version of the truth,” Williams said.

    The key word in that sentence being “truth”. Interesting admission.

    Comment by Peter Plumley-Walker — August 17, 2014 @ 11:25 am

  15. …might be used, along with Slater’s blog posts, to charge them with conspiracy to commit blackmail, irrespective of whether Hide feels that he was actually blackmailed.

    Yes, exactly. Hide says he wasn’t blackmailed into stepping down. Given the contents of these messages, that really comes under the heading of “So the fuck what?” The messages and blog posts look like conspiracy to commit blackmail regardless of whether the ‘victim’ knew about it.

    Comment by Psycho Milt — August 17, 2014 @ 11:42 am

  16. They are not printing comments for Rodney but mine was, “Really Rodney. To admit to the allegation would be to self destruct. So denial your refuge..”

    Comment by Ianmac — August 17, 2014 @ 11:52 am

  17. @ Nick K – Afternoons The Panel panelist Steven Franks on morning report http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player/20145759
    Decent man calling Nicky Hager an odious little creep? 120 secs in. Sound like an angry slanderer to me, piling in with his pal/ employee Jordan Williams who can easily be described as odious, definitly creepy and not sure how tall he is.

    Comment by CnrJoe — August 17, 2014 @ 11:54 am

  18. Why would Hide want to admit to being blackmailed in this situation? Firstly, he’s part of the wider right-wing network that has an uncanny knack of maintaining a level of loyalty amongst its members even when it involves one of them being hung out to dry, probably having something to do with the one thing they all have in common which is greed. But specifically in Hide’s case admitting being blackmailed means putting his hand up to having sent inappropriate texts to the woman Williams was talking to. Of course Hide wouldn’t admit to that.

    Comment by Chris — August 17, 2014 @ 12:38 pm

  19. CnrJoe – And to think Franks and Williams have regular spots on RNZ’s The Panel. Farrar, too. Unbelievable.

    Comment by Chris — August 17, 2014 @ 12:40 pm

  20. The bottom line is Hide wasn’t blackmailed. Once again Hager has been too quick to take at face value the fairly obvious mouthing off of unreliable people.

    No conspiracy of Collins and Slayer to move a prisoner – which had quickly spread as fact in the blogosphere. Just yet again Slater making self-important claims.

    And now Labour, after 3 years, releases emails from National outlining how a staffer accessed unsecured internet material.

    Its not really looking like much other than big talk from a few little people.

    Comment by NeilM — August 17, 2014 @ 12:42 pm

  21. @15. Steven Franks said he would have been told by Jordan Williams if he was involved. Really? Really??? Jordan Williams would volunteer that he was involved in dirty tricks???
    And interesting that Franks believes that character expose are a good thing. I wonder if he distinguishes between factual exposures and the nasty Slater destructive type of smears? Be interesting to go back to Steven and ask him given that the interview was on Friday and that Steven was away on holiday.

    Comment by Ianmac — August 17, 2014 @ 12:48 pm

  22. @Ianmac – Steven Franks is a pompous and vindictive prick. ACT People like him, Prebble and Michael Bassett are the people who sowed the field that Slater grew in.

    Comment by Sanctuary — August 17, 2014 @ 12:55 pm

  23. If this is true, you have to feel for Rodney, poor bastard. Getting blackmailed and then having the same dirt come out in this manner and having to defend your blackmailers for your own sake.

    Comment by Swan — August 17, 2014 @ 1:05 pm

  24. A must read here! Rob Gilchrist who Nicky exposed in 2008 as a police spy has written this astounding piece about Nicky on the Standard. Put a lump in my throat.
    http://thestandard.org.nz/rob-gilchrist-on-nicky-hager/

    Comment by Ianmac — August 17, 2014 @ 1:16 pm

  25. NeilM can you distinguish between what is actually in the book by Hager (the factuality of which is of interest) and misrepresentation, including from you, which aren’t relevant.

    Comment by Andrew R — August 17, 2014 @ 1:18 pm

  26. @18. No conspiracy of Collins and Slayer to move a prisoner
    Sorry, it’s a fast moving story but I missed the evidence on this one. I read Collins’ tweet that ministers can’t move prisoners and see that she has denied doing it. But that doesn’t mean she couldn’t “persuade” the appropriate officials to do it for her, especially since she has admitted passing on to Slater the name of the public servant she thought had fingered Bill English over his $700 rent subsidy. Also, you appear to be at odds with the PM on this one as he has said he would have to look at those claims. I guess it will be easy enough to fact-check though and no doubt someone will get on to it – but will the Nats want this story to fester on for days and days? I doubt it. I suspect our Judith is a goner.

    Comment by McNulty — August 17, 2014 @ 1:47 pm

  27. NeilM can you distinguish between what is actually in the book by Hager

    Be gentle with the wee chap. He can hardly be expected to read anything but a backlit monitor when he’s been desperately whistling in the dark ever since Hager’s book came out.

    Comment by Joe W — August 17, 2014 @ 2:06 pm

  28. This would be the same NZ police that Clark allowed to be prosecuted for driving her integrity challenged ass to a rugby game? Yeah, I’d get use to the idea of a National third term.

    So bitter, so bitter. How you like them apples now?

    Comment by OECD rank 22 kiwi — August 17, 2014 @ 2:12 pm

  29. AndrewR

    The prisoner thing was claimed to be in the book by our host and was taken as fact on a great many comment threads.

    At the time I wondered where the evidence was. It does turn out to have not been in the book.

    That it wasn’t didn’t stop a lot if people thinking it was and blaming Collins for a persons suicide.

    That to me is where the sort of discourse Hager promotes gets us and have long thought it does a disservice to the left.

    I thought that with Corngate and I think that now.

    Comment by NeilM — August 17, 2014 @ 5:08 pm

  30. @OECD,

    Oh yes … that old chesnut. Remember the IPCA report on it?

    The potential criminal liability of the Prime Minister, the hon Jim Sutton, a constable who was a passenger and Mr Lewis were thoroughly examined. Both Crown Solicitors concluded there was no evidence upon which to base a prosecution against the Prime Minister or any of the others referred to.
    From this history it is clear that the decision to prosecute and the formulation of the appropriate charges [against the drivers] were based on a careful and well researched exercise that had the added benefit of objective and independent scrutiny.

    All Helen Clark’s fault, but. Because … just because.

    @NeilM,

    That to me is where the sort of discourse Hager promotes gets us and have long thought it does a disservice to the left.

    Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!! “The sort of discourse Hager promotes” is the problem!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Gold standard, absolute prize for the most barefaced diversion on any thread relating to this topic. Absolute, total class. Never quit.

    Comment by Flashing Light — August 17, 2014 @ 5:34 pm

  31. NeilM
    I suggest you read the book before you comment on it. You will find the story about the prisoner being moved in the notes at the end.

    Comment by Karen — August 17, 2014 @ 6:49 pm

  32. Neil M , come back, where are you? 9th floor ? Or 7th?

    Comment by CnrJoe — August 17, 2014 @ 7:09 pm

  33. This whole episode has been incredibly fucking disheartening. The kind of thing detailed in Hager’s book goes on on all sides, and everybody close to politics or the media knows it, but the parties who are meant to be the good guys have chosen to lie and pretend they’re fucking snow white – merely because Hager has written a very, very one-sided book, and there’s not enough time before the election for someone else to have an expose on Labour and the Greens’ media tactics published. That’s taking dishonesty to a whole new level. As a former Greens voter, I’m incredibly disappointed.

    Comment by Milla — August 17, 2014 @ 8:00 pm

  34. That’s the strangest take on the whole thing I’ve yet come across, Milla. You’re upset because the Greens haven’t been exposed as dishonest smear-merchants, while the Nats have? Yeah, I’m sure that’s really horrible and disheartening for “a former Green voter”/Nat groupie.

    Comment by Judge Holden — August 17, 2014 @ 8:20 pm

  35. Oh please Milla.

    If everyone ‘close to politics or the media knows it’, then there is plenty of time for anyone in the gallery to write as many exposes as they please. the examples of this stuff from the left that have surfaced so far are nothing more than what we’ve seen from the right before Hager’s book was published. I’ve yet to see anyone link to a single post on the Standard, for example, as being something that might be similar to what WO gets up to.

    Instead we just get generalised complaints of “Oh that place is just as bad”. Well, whaleoil has been busy as a buzzy thing this year linking to euro neofascists talking about the threat to western civilisation caused by Muslim immigration, for starters. I don’t see anything like that on the Standard.

    But come on, seeing you are so well connected that you ‘know’ stuff, and are so bloody outraged, it would seem you have a duty to tell us.

    Tell us about the Greens’ media tactics that compare to what is detailed in Hager’s book. As a probable Green voter, I’m genuinely needing to know.

    Comment by Pascal's bookie — August 17, 2014 @ 8:30 pm

  36. @33. Sorry to hear about your disappointment, Milla, and your status as a “former Greens voter.” Does it have anything at all to do with the fact that One News tonight had both Labour and the Nats taking a hit in the polls and the Greens swinging upwards?

    Comment by McNulty — August 17, 2014 @ 8:39 pm

  37. People who have read the book believed Collins transfered a prisoner at the behest of Slater leading to that persons death.

    So people who have read the book haven’t necessarily been giving reliable accounts of what is on the book.

    Comment by NeilM — August 17, 2014 @ 9:01 pm

  38. Well, laugh if you like, but if you seriously think that the Greens & Labour don’t have people dedicated to digging up dirt on their opponents, and don’t feed stories to the media, then you’re either naive or biased. That’s what politics is. It’s like MAD. Seeking to profit from accusing your enemies of doing something that you know full well you do as well, on the other hand, seems even more dishonest, especially coming from the party I kind of expected to be more interested in doing the right thing.

    Comment by Milla — August 17, 2014 @ 9:01 pm

  39. “if you seriously think that the Greens & Labour don’t have people dedicated to digging up dirt on their opponents, and don’t feed stories to the media, then you’re either naive or biased.”

    Any evidence? Names? Examples? Where do they publish? Do they smear innocent public servants and academics for political gain and cash? Are they hitting up prostitutes for dirt? Come on, you’re making the allegations, if you don’t have facts you’re not exactly interested in doing the right thing yourself.

    Comment by Judge Holden — August 17, 2014 @ 9:07 pm

  40. To be fair, Judge, you don’t have any evidence either, beyond Nicky Hager’s word for it.

    Comment by Milla — August 17, 2014 @ 9:11 pm

  41. Names?

    Mallard. The Standard.

    Maybe not quite as pathological as Slater but i think enough to deny the moral high ground.

    Comment by NeilM — August 17, 2014 @ 9:12 pm

  42. Mallard has very few friends on the Standard Neil. but if you have some examples in mind, I’m all ears,

    Comment by Pascal's bookie — August 17, 2014 @ 9:15 pm

  43. “Mallard. The Standard.”

    That’s it? Really? How disappointing.

    “you don’t have any evidence either”

    Other than all the evidence so far documented, you are correct.

    Comment by Judge Holden — August 17, 2014 @ 9:16 pm

  44. “That’s what politics is. It’s like MAD.”

    If politics in this country is in a state where individuals and parties are significantly disadvantaged by not resorting to sociopathic strategies to gain and stay in power against those already wanting to use them (basically what Cam and his friends are being used for by National), then I think it’s a great reason to reconsider the contraints and oversight we put on politicians and political parties, instead of just bleating that “they do it too”.

    Comment by izogi — August 17, 2014 @ 9:16 pm

  45. “To be fair, Judge, you don’t have any evidence either, beyond [ a bunch of emails from the horses’ mouths and dozens of blogposts threatening retribution on all and sundry, including today when he threatens to apeshit on Gilmore, again]”

    fixed

    Comment by Pascal's bookie — August 17, 2014 @ 9:22 pm

  46. you don’t have any evidence either, beyond Nicky Hager’s word for it.
    I thought we had all agreed that the book is comprised of emails between Cameron Slater and various other unpleasant people, some of whom are National Party employees. Surely that qualifies as evidence.
    Stuff news this evening leads with a story that Jason Ede still has his parliamentary swipe card and used it as recently as last week. John Key “can’t explain” why. Stuff have tried to drop the story but it doesn’t seem to want to die.
    Don’t you think that the longer these denials drag the whole thing out, the worse it will be for Mr Key and his mates?

    Comment by McNulty — August 17, 2014 @ 9:22 pm

  47. @izogi: Indeed, but I think all the parties who Hager *didn’t* implicate subsequently acting all innocent and trying to turn it in their own favour is a bit objectionable.

    Comment by Milla — August 17, 2014 @ 9:24 pm

  48. Yes Mallard and the Standard are disappointing,

    Mallard did get promoted recently and his role had long been that of a bully who does that dirty at arms length from the leader.

    Comment by NeilM — August 17, 2014 @ 9:24 pm

  49. As far as I was aware, Hager doesn’t actually have the emails – he “gave them back”. Have I missed something?

    Comment by Milla — August 17, 2014 @ 9:25 pm

  50. “Hager doesn’t actually have the emails – he “gave them back””

    Are you questioning their authenticity? Not even Slater is doing that.

    There are plenty of bullies in politics, Neil. What Slater/Ede/Collins/Williams are goes way beyond that.

    Comment by Judge Holden — August 17, 2014 @ 9:29 pm

  51. Hang on. Do you guys

    a) actually believe that Labour/Greens don’t indulge in leaking/muck-raking/etc
    b) think that they do it, but they don’t leak to people *quite* as bad as Cameron Slater, therefore it’s OK

    Comment by Milla — August 17, 2014 @ 9:30 pm

  52. Not necessarily. My point was more that you asked me for “evidence”, but “evidence” is a bit lacking on all sides, really.

    Comment by Milla — August 17, 2014 @ 9:35 pm

  53. I’m sorry Milla but you sound just like Tom Hunter, Swan and various other identities who also come up as “deleted” when I click on their names. Do you know these guys at all? Perhaps you all work together at that Astroturf place?

    Comment by McNulty — August 17, 2014 @ 9:37 pm

  54. Just asking you for some evidence and examples to back up your allegations of large scale organised smear campaigns from the Greens using vicious online proxies. Then we can all judge whether such activity is on a par with that of the PM’s Office, the Minister of Justice, and Slater and his friends. Otherwise, you’re, you know, just deflecting. Thanks!

    Comment by Judge Holden — August 17, 2014 @ 9:37 pm

  55. ““evidence” is a bit lacking on all sides, really.”

    Well Hager has produced a bookload of it. You certainly haven’t produced any, so you’re half right.

    Comment by Judge Holden — August 17, 2014 @ 9:39 pm

  56. Not to my knowledge, McNulty, though with a name like ‘Swan’ who knows. I think I come up as “deleted” because I don’t have a website.

    Well technically he’s produced a bookload of allegations, Judge, but yeah they’re probably not made up. Doesn’t quite make them “evidence” though.

    Comment by Milla — August 17, 2014 @ 9:52 pm

  57. …but yeah they’re probably not made up. Doesn’t quite make them “evidence” though.

    Seriously? I mean, did you actually read that before you hit “Post Comment”?

    Comment by Psycho Milt — August 17, 2014 @ 9:59 pm

  58. Yes I did Psycho Milt. It’s accurate.

    I know I’m arguing semantics, but the Judge guy is pissing me off, so.

    Comment by Milla — August 17, 2014 @ 10:08 pm

  59. Well go on then Milla. Argue the semantics. In what sense are emails and messages not “evidence”?

    Comment by Pascal's bookie — August 18, 2014 @ 5:25 am

  60. In his Herald column today Hide writes:

    I tracked down Jordan Williams. He had no texts.

    Well that’s easy given the tense (the texts are now deleted), and the specific reference to texts (they weren’t texts, but were emails or facebook chats). It would be a bit more convincing if the denial was “There were never any messages of any sort”.

    Comment by Brent — August 18, 2014 @ 9:38 am

  61. @Pascal’s bookie: What’s printed in Dirty Politics are allegations. What’s been uploaded to Mega this afternoon, that is evidence. It’s quite a simple distinction.

    Comment by Milla — August 18, 2014 @ 10:29 pm

  62. not quite milla – the emails printed in the book are evidence – the conclusions (or dot joining) in the book are allegations. – And your still not putting any evidence forward for your argument. Something youve been asked to do numerous times now

    Comment by framu — August 19, 2014 @ 3:33 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: