Written By: - Date published: 11:58 am, September 23rd, 2008 - 47 comments
Categories: corruption, john key, Media, youtube -
Tags: tranzrail, tvnz
For those who missed it, here’s the video from last night’s One News investigation into John Key’s TranzRail dealings.
The first clip details Key’s abuse of his positition as an MP for personal financial gain, and the second clip has him lying about his shareholding, then quickly correcting himself when he realises he’s been busted.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
Cheers Lynn
I saw recently that Firefox has 25% of the general market which is amazing considering how ingrained IE is into Windows.
As to the Nat Radio comments, the point was made that the blogs are contributing to more sophisticated political debate and the Standard undoubtedly contributes to that.
I disagree with most of what is stated but in general there is vigorous debate here that is normally encouraged and supported so big ups to you and the team.
Hi Iprent,
Do their IP’s end with gov.nz?
By the way I share that opinion with Daveski even though I disagree with most of what he says. Big kudo’s to you and the other Standardistas.
I do about 50% of my time in windows. So I use firefox (everything) or safari (mac/pc) or the google chrome (pc). The latter two are elegant and the last (apart from lack of flash) is awesome.
Firefox goes across all platforms. So that is the default.
The only time I open IE these days is after I’ve finished coding to the standards and open IE to fix its quirks where it deviates from standards (almost everywhere).
Sources say that IE8 is going to be standards compliant.. I might start opening it more often – when I get the linux version
parliament.govt.nz
Traveller, I think it’s more likely that Fran Mold was mistaken. She thinks you can “own” a trust, so its quite likely that when she saw his name on the share register as trustee of the trust she didn’t realise it wasn’t him in his personal capacity.
LOL travellerev
Captcha – honest way (for a righty of course!)
I-prent thanks,
I have seen those in my stats too.
No Jeeves, I don’t think so. She said that the labour researcher had found them and specifically makes the difference between the trust and the personal ones.
Fran Mold struck me as a smart cookie and bringing these facts out are generally dissected by not just one journalist. It is likely that the labour party has had lawyers look at it to make sure that they could not get into a situation that could badly backfire and it is likely the same happened at the NZTV headquarters. This is not some rookie journalist stumbling on a bit of juicy news this was well prepared. The only one not prepared was John Key.
This not your average little bit of news here this is the exposure of a major Political figure. Perhaps the next prime minister.
Added to that when confronted with the questions John Key did not say “I never bought shares”, he blurted out “yes, there were more shares”. and not, “jeez I don’t know, I’d have to ask my broker who handles the Trust shares.”
No Jeeves, I don’t think so. This was professional journalism done by a smart lady and properly backed by team work at TVNZ.
Cheers Daveski,
I like making people laugh even if they are righties.
Traveller: Your argument is essentially: UBS (Key’s broking firm) would publicly commit fraud for a single client (albeit a wealthy cleint) and this is more likely than anyone else being mistaken?
I admit it is POSSIBLE they forged those documents or crested them after the fact, but that seems less likely than someone making a mistake (even someone who has a lawyer). If you honestly think otherwise, then I really don’t know what else to say.
The other possibility (in my view the likely one) is that there was an innacurate entry on the share register. Given the records shown by Key’s broker, and taking Labour’s research at face value, it seems likely that the other two trustees were erroneously missed off the register.
No Jeeves,
I don’t know if his broker would commit fraud for him.
What I do know is that John Key was lying about secret shares in his possession in a situation which was clearly a conflict of interest.
What I do know is that John Key an National have been less than forth coming with that transparency JK was blabbing on about.
What I do know is that John Key and the NZH have seriously misrepresented John Key’s career timeline to avoid vicinity with the emerging derivatives scandals and his involvement with Andrew Krieger when he was making 300 million dollar of the almost collapse of the NZ economy in 1987 and what I do know is that the investment banking world and Merrill Lynch in particular in the last twenty years have been riddled with scandals, fraud and now the final financial collapse.
So what I do know in short that John Key was a serious shark in a shark eat shark world and familiar with the nasty fraudulent Wall street investment banking culture. The fact that he can say I will truthfully answer every question while lying about his shares gives me reason to think that perhaps he will do what it takes to get out from under this including asking a little favour of his broker who after all manages oh $50 million for him.
What I do know is that brokers and bankers have been dishonest and fraudulent before are in fact at the moment.
With his usual MO John Key have made a stink about the wrong news in the news coverage and would not respond to the questions with, “I don’t know I’d have to ask my trust manager,” and only came up with these pieces of paper and put them on his website.”
He knew he was f*&ked and he couldn’t think of a lie fast enough so he blurted out the truth. And the truth is that he knew about the shares and he knew how many and under whose name.
Captcha: on owning. Whoa
Oh I see, so your claim can only be supported by conspiracy theories. Thought so.
Jeeves,
The one time I don’t put any links in to archives in order not to go to purgatory and I get this so OK here we go again.
Here is the “unauthorised” biography.
This is part 1 of my response to it.
Notice that every conjecture I make is based on the website of the NZFR
and the online archive of the New York times. These sources prove that John Key could not have worked with Andrew Krieger after the attack of ’87. Andrew Krieger left the Bankers trust in February 1988 just after he made 300 million of NZ’s currency and was paid a paltry 3 million for this. He did a short stint with George Soros and from March until June and left trading altogether until 1990 after he left there.
The Bankers Trust did not register it’s holdings until late July 1988 and did not open for business until late August 1988 so John Key missed being able to work with Andrew Krieger by about a couple of months.
Not theory, fact supported by Newspaper articles from an archive that chronicled events on Wall street were Andrew Krieger was a legend after the spectacular attack, not one but several.
Again what’s with you guys and the conspiracy theory shit is it is a supported and proven fact.
He could not have worked with Andrew Krieger when he said he did because the man no longer traded in currencies. fact.
So if this was simple to check by the three journalists who wrote the puff piece (I did it sitting on my bed with my laptop and a wireless internet connection) than either they didn’t do their job or they were naive, thought that John was the chizel wrote the piece to put John Key out there as a nice dude whom we can all trust and should vote for or they wilfully lied and put together a story that they hoped we would swallow (in which case that would be conspiring)
What they didn’t do was check John’s time line and hold him accountable for the fact that the only time he was working with Andrew Krieger when he was in fact attacking the NZ$ almost to the point of economic collapse and John Key was his account manager who helped him. Facts Jeeves facts, you may not like them but this is not a theory these are facts. And since they are facts what we have here seems to become a pattern.
He helped someone make a bundle and in the mean time it made him a whole lot richer too and he did so with total disregard to the NZ people and the possible outcome for the country he wants to lead to greatness. What’s more he did not find anything wrong with it in this interview and a couple of months later 20 years after the events took place he still has no compunction to lie about it three months after that interview in the NZHerald when he senses that his involvement would not be looked kindly upon.
Now he has had to come clean about lying about his secret shares while he was trying to enrich himself again via the power vested in him by his constituents to represent their interests and not his own. Again facts Jeeves, you may not like them but there is nothing theoretical about it.