Shearer, Key, credibility

Written By: - Date published: 9:46 am, October 13th, 2012 - 157 comments
Categories: accountability, david shearer, john key, slippery - Tags: ,

The strange case of what was or was not said on February 29th by Key to GCSB staff regarding Kim Dotcom. In the Shearer Key face-off I know who I think the public will believe – surprise surprise it’s David Shearer.

John Key has two major problems to overcome in his attacks on Shearer. First is Key’s long history of dishonesty. The first scandal of his political career was The Hollow Men “smoking gun” email, which Key claims he never read. Key has continued this tactic of prophylactic ignorance to this very day, now driven to the extremes of only maintaining “confidence” in certain Ministers by refusing to read a police report. Key has lied about his TranzRail shares, raising GST, the S&P credit downgrade, and much much more (a bunch of links here).

When he can get away with it Key’s preferred tactic is to “forget” information. Again, that goes all the way back to his “inability to remember” where he stood on the 1981 Tour. Just the start of a long list of Key brain fades. Sometimes he gets caught out – Key has already had to admit giving “misinformation” over Dotcom.

Key’s second problem is that when confronted with the allegation that he talked about Dotcom in February he used the same, shifty, evasive tactics that he uses every other time he’s confronted with an unpalatable truth.

Mr Key told TV3 he had no memory about whether he mentioned Dotcom when speaking to GCSB staff. “I don’t recall it, no. Who knows, but I don’t recall it,” he said.

“I don’t remember cracking a joke, but if I’ve cracked one it’s because I crack jokes all the time about topical events …

Video of Key’s first reaction here – “I don’t recall it”. Just like every other evasion Key has ever offered. What he didn’t say was – “That’s not possible, such a video couldn’t exist, because I has no knowledge of Kim Dotcom at that time”. Why the shifty tactics instead, do you think?

In contrast we have David Shearer. Whatever you think of his emerging political skills, I’ve never heard anyone question his honesty. Here the fact that Shearer is “new to politics” works in his favour – he has no baggage of dishonesty (whereas the PM would require three healthy porters for his). Shearer is the honest, unpolished, new kid on the block. We have no reason not to believe him, and he (with the polls swinging in favour of the left) has no reason to make up nonsense.

Shearer did not move on this story when first contacted by a GCSB insider. He waited until there was a second approach and confirmation. That’s sensible and responsible. But having this information from independent sources, what should Shearer have done with it. Nothing? No, it is the opposition’s role to hold the government to account. If Key is lying to the country (as I think any rational observer knows he is), and if there are independent sources confirming it, then put that information to the public and let them decide. Which is what Shearer did.

Shearer has called for Key to have the GCSB release the video – if it still exists, after the relevant hard drives were taken. Key has called on Shearer to release the video – which he can’t, because Labour has never had a copy. So I guess it comes down to who the public believes. For the reasons outlined above, I’m guessing it will be Shearer.

157 comments on “Shearer, Key, credibility ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Colonial Viper 1
    13 October 2012 at 10:00 am

    This weekend the media speculation should have been completely focussed on Key. Now we have a weekend where Shearer’s credibility is on the line too, taking some pressure of Key. This is not the way it needed to be.

    I hope Labour has the big stick with which to follow through this weekend and hammer Key.

    • chris73 1.1
      13 October 2012 at 10:08 am

      Serious question time, do you think they have a big stick or do you think they have nothing?

      I think they might have been able to find something but they rushed it so in the end they have nothing.

      • RedLogix 1.1.1
        13 October 2012 at 10:36 am

        What Shearer apparently does has is two individuals approach him to say that the story Key is presenting to the public about that GCSB meeting is not the truth.

        Yet IF Shearer was to produce the ‘big stick’ you are demanding, you would immediately use it to beat Shearer with … not Key.

        Oh well so much for serious…

        • chris73 1.1.1.1
          13 October 2012 at 10:42 am

          Why change the subject? Its about whether Shearer has proof or hes just making shit up.

          • Te Reo Putake 1.1.1.1.1
            13 October 2012 at 10:59 am

            No, it’s not, Chris. Shearer has never made any claim that requires proof from him. He’s raised the possibility, but never outright claimed Key made a joke about Dotcom at the meeting. Key fell into the trap of giving subsatnce to the claim, then went into Bart Simpson mode.
             
            “I didn’t do it, nobody saw me do it, there’s no way you can prove anything!”

            • Bill 1.1.1.1.1.1
              13 October 2012 at 3:06 pm

              If Shearer had said “there are sources within GCSB saying….”, then that would be one thing. But what he has actually said is that “our sources within GCSB say…” In other words he claimed ownership of what was apparently being said. And if he has nothing very concrete to produce, then that was a very fucking stupid thing to do.

              And whether ‘you’ like it or not, if he can’t produce anything solid, people are going to immediately remember Mike Williams’s fruitless digging around for dirt on JK…the non-existent H-bomb stuff.

              And that is going to compound any potentially negative fallout for Labour, on Labour as a whole…not just Shearer.

              And if this all down to some prick (or cabal of pricks) within Labour ‘playing’ Shearer to get him out of the way in order to promote their chosen ascendent to the leadership (and I wouldn’t be surprised if that was the case), then somebody needs to let a big fucking bomb off under the lot of them. Likewise if it all comes down to basic incompetence.

              • fatty …
                13 October 2012 at 5:08 pm

                “If Shearer had said “there are sources within GCSB saying….”, then that would be one thing. But what he has actually said is that “our sources within GCSB say…” In other words he claimed ownership of what was apparently being said. And if he has nothing very concrete to produce, then that was a very fucking stupid thing to do.”

                …That’s a strange analysis. I took the word ‘our’ to mean the sources which contacted Shearer, and nothing more than that. I never saw it as ownership of the claim, just ownership of a relationship to a source. I doubt many see it the way you do.

                “people are going to immediately remember Mike Williams’s fruitless digging around for dirt on JK…the non-existent H-bomb stuff.”

                Maybe whaleoil will…I don’t even know what the H-bomb is, or anything about Mike Williams’ digging for dirt. I doubt the average voter does either.

                “And if this all down to some prick (or cabal of pricks) within Labour ‘playing’ Shearer to get him out of the way in order to promote their chosen ascendent to the leadership (and I wouldn’t be surprised if that was the case), then somebody needs to let a big fucking bomb off under the lot of them.”

                I’d congratulate them and ask them why this wasn’t done a year ago. As far as I can see Labour is in a win win situation.

    • mickysavage 1.2
      13 October 2012 at 10:44 am

      Aye CV.

      In terms of conventional politics Shearer appears to have broken a couple of basic rules, he does not have the evidence apart from eye witness testimony and it appears that through his statement the sources may have had their identity exposed.  I do not know this for sure but the speculation as to their identity has not been denied.

      But Key’s lame ham fisted and possum caught in the headlights performance when questioned by Patrick Gower really makes you think that he did talk about Dotcom that fateful day.

      It is a high risk activity though and could backfire on Shearer and I am not sure if there was anything to gain because Key’s reputation was already getting hammered.  We know he was told about Dotcom by the GCSB six months before the date he said he did, all that Shearer may have achieved is to contribute the further element that Key talked about as well as was told about Dotcom.

      But it has left a mark on Key.  He has been Mr Teflon for a long time and nothing seemed to stick.  It looks like the teflon has now worn off.

      To my mind the better strategy would be to let Dotcom continue to feed snippets of news into the media and create merry mischief.  Dotcom has shown himself to be more adept at this than any NZ politician I know. 

      • chris73 1.2.1
        13 October 2012 at 10:46 am

        To my mind the better strategy would be to let Dotcom continue to feed snippets of news into the media and create merry mischief. Dotcom has shown himself to be more adept at this than any NZ politician I know.

        Agreed (and keep mallard out of it)

  2. chris73 2
    13 October 2012 at 10:04 am

    I disagree. Keys asked for proof, Shearer has none so people will believe Key. Especially as Shearer has a reputation for being a bit dim politically.

    Nice job trying to rally support though.

    • RedLogix 2.1
      13 October 2012 at 10:17 am

      So if Shearer DID have proof … as per the ‘tea-pot tape’saga… you would be blithering on about ‘stolen’ information and illegal surveillance. No?

      • Colonial Viper 2.1.1
        13 October 2012 at 10:20 am

        Yeah that would be the logical next step in the C.T. public relations plan.

      • chris73 2.1.2
        13 October 2012 at 10:24 am

        Its a moot point because he doesn’t have any proof.

        • RedLogix 2.1.2.1
          13 October 2012 at 10:31 am

          Sorry but you are the one demanding that Shearer produces proof … examining the logical consequence of what you would claim IF he did so is hardly irrelevant.

          • chris73 2.1.2.1.1
            13 October 2012 at 10:37 am

            Trying to divert attention away from the fact Shearer has been potentially caught lying and slandering (and by his own doing) is a good ploy but one the majority of the public will see through

            Unless, of course, he can produce evidence but one thing at a time

            • RedLogix 2.1.2.1.1.1
              13 October 2012 at 10:40 am

              So IF Shearer or someone else does produce a recording of that GCSB meeting… you will happily accept that as legitimate evidence?

            • mickysavage 2.1.2.1.1.2
              13 October 2012 at 10:45 am

              If Shearer has no proof why didn’t Key rubbish the idea from the start? His initial response suggested that he believed he had talked about Dotcom.

              • chris73 …
                13 October 2012 at 10:48 am

                All Shearer has to do is produce some evidence. If Shearer said you blow goats wouldn’t you want him to have some proof? (well maybe not proof but I’m sure you get my point)

                • mickysavage …
                  13 October 2012 at 10:59 am

                  Um my (quite gentle) criticism is that it was a risky manoeuvre and the potential gains were not great.  But it does appear to be successful.

                  It is a sign of Key’s ungainly slide from grace that he has handled this so poorly and it is a measure of deepening scepticism in Key that the focus is on him and not on Shearer.

                  I am in two minds about it.  I do not think that it is a simple “Shearer has no proof therefore it did not happen” situation.  It does however further damage Key in his most vulnerable area, his credibility. 

                  • Jim Nald …
                    13 October 2012 at 11:24 am

                    Indeed.

                    Right in the public eye, the Dotcom story has exposed the high-flying ‘smile and wave’ antics and revealed that to be the liar’s gutter theatrical.

                • tc …
                  13 October 2012 at 1:34 pm

                  How’s matthew these days….how far do you have to go for an answer ?

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  13 October 2012 at 4:01 pm

                  Two eyewitnesses is usually considered proof.

                  • TheContrarian …
                    13 October 2012 at 4:08 pm

                    Not even close to proof.

                    Two as of yet unnamed sources claiming to have seen something which they cannot substantiate is not even close to proof.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      13 October 2012 at 5:54 pm

                      Two eyewitnesses is substantiation. It’s how the courts have been operation for centuries.

                    • TheContrarian …
                      13 October 2012 at 6:08 pm

                      “Two eyewitnesses is substantiation.”

                      Sure, if these two people were identifiable, had corroborating stories and were of good standing. But what we have currently is a single person saying two other, unnamed, persons said they saw something of which no other objective or concrete substantiation can testify to. This is in no way a proof. It is unsubstantiated assertion.

                      And until such a time as someone provides names, dates and objective evidence it remains hearsay and certainly does not constitute proof of anything.

                      This is pretty basic.

                    • felix …
                      13 October 2012 at 6:35 pm

                      Draco, as of this moment no eye-witnesses, jehovah’s witnesses, or any other witnesses have been presented. It’s hearsay.

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      13 October 2012 at 6:54 pm

                      ‘hearsay’

                      yep, and that’s fine for now.

                      I’d love for all this to be coming out in court, with all those standards applying. Or in a royal commission, or even in a special hearing led by a former gov general or some such.

                      But that’s not where we are.

                      The PM has decided that his little ad hoc solutions are all that’s needed. Those are political solutions to a criminal problem. That kind of sux, frankly, but it means that for now, political standards are all that apply.

                      And politics isn’t a dirty word. It just means people living together when it comes down do it. And that comes down to trust.

                      And so, all we have to do at this point, is look at the players, look at what we know for sure, and work out for ourselves whether or not w ethink people are telling the truth.

                      And the last thing you want to do is listen to people who are saying, “that guy has to this for you tio believehim, and that guy has to do do nothing, and those people are above question, and here are the rules’. Fuck that.

                      We are talking about our spies. they get a lot of leeway. If we don’t sort it out when they fuck up, they will take liberties in the future.

                    • felix …
                      13 October 2012 at 7:04 pm

                      The trouble with pushing the witnesses thing is that it plays into Key’s hands and turns it into a question about Shearer.

                      Better to focus on Key’s shifty reactions and (still!!) changing answers.

                      Of course if Labour can produce eye-witness or recorded evidence then the trick is to hold back and get Key make a categorical denial before releasing it. Hope that’s what they’re up to.

    • Luva 2.2
      13 October 2012 at 10:23 am

      I have to agree with Chris.

      You don’t make an allegation like this unless you can prove it. Or you leak it to the media without your name printed all over it.

      Key isn’t denying there is a tape. He is simply saying prove it. It is not Key’s tape to release so noone can accuse him of hiding the truth on this occasion. In fact he has called for it to be released if in fact there is one.

      Meanwhile Shearer is running around calling wolf with nothing and noone to back him up.

      He had credibility 48 hours ago…unless a tape shows up very soon his credibility is going to dissapear.

      • Colonial Viper 2.2.1
        13 October 2012 at 10:48 am

        Key isn’t denying there is a tape. He is simply saying prove it. It is not Key’s tape to release so noone can accuse him of hiding the truth on this occasion.

        Key learnt this trick from Bart Simpson.

      • mickysavage 2.2.2
        13 October 2012 at 7:17 pm

        Let us get all of this into perspective. We are not deciding whether or not to send Key to jail. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required.

        We are merely trying to assess if he is fit to be our leader. The onus should be on him to demonstrate that this is so.

        And his performance is poor. He is unable to deny if he told a lie or not.

        This should cause all of us to be worried about him. I wonder why some of us think the onus should be on Shearer?

        • Bill 2.2.2.1
          13 October 2012 at 8:19 pm

          We are merely trying to assess if he is fit to be our leader

          But…but…nobody is fit to be my leader. No-one! And, neither yours…or so I would hope. Why would any such person exist micky? And where does such a strange notion come from; that there be them’s that that are endowed to lead and there’s them’s that’s somehow naturally diminished and fit only to be them thar followers? Whatever happened to basic human dignity?

          That’s my ‘mere assessment’ for what it’s worth.

          Or do you ‘merely’ mean to judge whether he’s fit (or otherwise) to reside over a framework that ensures our disempowerment?

          • mickysavage 2.2.2.1.1
            13 October 2012 at 8:27 pm

            Hi Bill 

            By assessing if he “is fit to be our leader” I meant that we would pay him some money to make day to day decisions on our behalf but he would listen to us if any of the decisions were contentious and he would make decisions that most of us would be comfortable with.

            It is not a case of being superior, it is a case of having delegated authority from us to make a call on issues so that our interests are protected. 

    • starlight 2.3
      13 October 2012 at 10:23 am

      It would be easy to beat key on trust, he has proved over and over again that the truth
      is economical,because of that for the 3rd time he has to stand up in parliament and
      correct statements he made to parliament.
      There were many ears in the meeting that heard key’s speech,it only takes one of
      them to come forward,wait they might have, not publicly though,but there is a
      drip feed of information one of them being, ‘key thanked the staff for the good
      job done in the dotcom affair’
      So why would shearer and labour play all their cards at once?
      Key wouldn’t if it was him,he is a gambler after all.

  3. irascible 3
    13 October 2012 at 10:07 am

    As I said in another thread:
    “In this key world of double-speak, mis-speaking and memory lapses stated as “I’m not in a position to say that” the mere allegation that there is or was a recording made of KeY wise-cracking his way through an off the cuff speech to the assembled spies is enough to further undermine his credibility. Shearer doesn’t have to produce the alleged recording it is up to KeY to produce a correct time line and credible evidence of what he has said, written or read on the Dotcom saga to demonstrate to the NZ public that he is genuine, he is not lying, has never lied and has dealt with the agences, the people and the NZ public in an honest manner. However, I’m not banking on KeY being able or willing to do so as that is nt how a money speculator opoerates and old habits ie hard.”
    The saga is an own goal for KeY.
    The speculation about KeY’s involvement in the DotCom spying activities will coninue to swirl and stick to him and his immediate side-kick, Banks. All Shearer has to do is to keep up the chorus of “Show us the evidence, John, that demonstrates that you are an honest broker.” As there is no evidence available that KeY is an honest broker the hammering can and will continue despite the blusterings of Fran O’Shillavan, Wood-louse (Slater) and others employed by the Nact spin machine.

  4. Richard Christie 4
    13 October 2012 at 10:28 am

    Any whistleblowing source within GCSB who has any clue at all should have, or would have, made a copy of the video. Of course hard drives etc would be seized.

    Waiting developments.

  5. ed 5
    13 October 2012 at 10:49 am

    Its not up to Shearer to provide anything, he could well be making that shit up.

    The crux of the matter is Key not denying he said it because he hadnt heard of Dotcom.

    Key went to his standard fall back position…why? because he didnt know if there was a tape. now he has had a chance to check he can easily attempt to regain the highground.

    • chris73 5.1
      13 October 2012 at 11:02 am

      Its not up to Shearer to provide anything, he could well be making that shit up.

      So if Key said he had information from agents that Shearer was part of a pedophile ring but its part of an on going operation so the evidence can’t be presented just yet you’d be ok with that?

  6. PlanetOrphan 6
    13 October 2012 at 10:56 am

    The real problem is culpability, there is no Law that John Key can be prosecuted under.

    That’s always been the problem in NZ, That tape wont hit the public arena, not ever.

    It would contravene the contract that all those spies signed when they joined, and “commmand” meetings most definitely means “Information” which they can not release.

    The only way this can be moved forward is for there to be a “Closed Door” hearing about said inconsistencies of John Key and what he was ordering those people to do.

    Because of who he is, the “Suppresion Order” has been given and those people are Honour bound too follow those suppression orders.

    Sorry people, Until we have a “Real” job description to hold John Key to account we will never get any answers to this.

    • TighyRighty 6.1
      14 October 2012 at 3:14 pm

      How about this? There actually is no tape? You are starting to sound like the birthers.

      • Kotahi Tāne Huna 6.1.1
        14 October 2012 at 3:25 pm

        Well, if there had and it had been deleted, you would be right; that there is no tape now is not evidence that there never was a tape, but here’s the thing see:

        John Key claims never to have heard of Kim.com before, and now claims he may have heard of him enough to have mentioned him in a monologue, because he does a lot of monologuing.

        So even if there isn’t a tape, the non-existent tape has done its job of exposing the Prime Minister as either a liar or negligent, and the law has been broken.

        Back to the House of Pain!

  7. freedom 7
    13 October 2012 at 10:59 am

    from the Herald
    ” He also gave more detail of Mr Key’s comments. “He mentioned the good work they had done with the Kim Dotcom case. There were a large number of people at that meeting who heard John Key speak.” ”

    this paragraph more than any other suggests either Mr Shearer has personally been played a recording of the meeting or the journalist has grossly misquoted what Mr Shearer has said

    If he was played a recording there is no doubt that a copy of the recording or a recording of Mr Shearer viewing/hearing the recording was taken at the time ( and if not why not ?)

    Bottom line though is plausable deniability and Mr Key has zilch credit in that account

    • Bill 7.1
      13 October 2012 at 3:13 pm

      this paragraph more than any other suggests either Mr Shearer has personally been played a recording of…

      Or, just as strongly that he’s operating on second hand info. X claims that Y has told him …[insert allegation]. And X tells Shearer and Shearer takes X at their word, doesn’t seek confirmation/proof and thereafter twists in the breeze.

      • Draco T Bastard 7.1.1
        13 October 2012 at 4:11 pm

        The post said:

        Shearer did not move on this story when first contacted by a GCSB insider. He waited until there was a second approach and confirmation.

        So apparently Shearer did wait until he independent confirmation.

        • Bill 7.1.1.1
          13 October 2012 at 6:24 pm

          There’s a problem though insofar as nothing Shearer has said (besides the apparent assumption in the post]) that he has been the one approached or spoken to directly by or whatever.

          So, if I tell you something I’d been told and then tell you I’ve been told the same thing by another person, is that confirmation? Not in my book. You’re still totally reliant on the information that I’m giving you.

  8. BM 8
    13 October 2012 at 11:00 am

    Shearer produces tape = shearer wins.
    Otherwise Key wins.
    My money is on Key from now on, every time the Dot com story is raised, Key will just say “Show us the Tape”

    • starlight 8.1
      13 October 2012 at 11:24 am

      Key can con some people some of the time,but he can’t con all of the people,all of the time.
      Truth does prevail, in the end.

    • PlanetOrphan 8.2
      13 October 2012 at 11:28 am

      Key’s trying to play the “Non Disclosure” clause too the hilt at the moment.

      Badly I might add.

    • bbfloyd 8.3
      13 October 2012 at 11:54 am

      You can’t be serious Bm…. “show us the tape”!!1 That would qualify as the next best thing to an admission of guilt you can get…..

      You know, people really aren’t that stupid not to recognize the actions of a guilty man playing the age old game of you can’t catch me, so it didn’t happen….

      How often have you seen children try that? How often have you seen, and heard heads of major criminal organisations say that? And that’s just the beginning of the list…..

      Do you honestly think that old game will still work?, even with the full co-operation/support from the murdoch fourth estate?

      You insult the intelligence of all but the most incurable tory when you make these obviously partisan statements…..

      I’ll make it easy for you to understand…Johhny sparkles has been lying about many issues for so long now, the realirty of our governance has become just one big lie…..

      The prime mincer has brought shame, and derision down on the one post that we needed to have utmost respect, and trust in… He will forever be tainted, and has tainted our reputation around the world for years to come…..By his own actions, knowingly, and with aforethought…

      He has, to put this at a level you may understand, become the mayor joe quimby of New Zealand…

      • BM 8.3.1
        13 October 2012 at 12:30 pm

        Ramblings of a doddery old git

        Facts are, the general public have become rather negative and tired of the whole Dot com affair and would prefer it if the news moved onto some thing new.
        Not a good time for Shearer to be caught out talking shit.

        • Pascal's bookie 8.3.1.1
          13 October 2012 at 12:38 pm

          You have polling to support that I assume. A link would be good.

        • muzza 8.3.1.2
          13 October 2012 at 12:44 pm

          Facts are, the general public have become rather negative and tired of the whole Dot com affair and would prefer it if the news moved onto some thing new.

          Facts are, people who support NACT are vain, and see their hero Key as a pin up to self fellate over, and the fact this is still rumbling, and set to do so, is starting to cause self doubt in the fan boys/girls, not to mention friction rash!
          New news will the next bout of NACT dishonesty/corruption, but this aint going away anytime soon!

          FIFY

          PS – Does it feel really good to know youre contributing to to the downfall of this counrtry? Ill say that to either side of the so called, left – right scam!

    • Dan1 8.4
      13 October 2012 at 1:49 pm

      BM, sorry chum. That is nonsense. Key’s response was “Show us the tape!”‘, rather than “That is impossible. I din’t say it. I didn’t know about Dotcom until months later.” He is hiding his guilt behind a technology issue rather than the logic of his rapidly unravelling lies.
      Shearer has conceded from the beginning that he may not be able to access the tape.

    • Draco T Bastard 8.5
      13 October 2012 at 4:14 pm

      Don’t need tape when witnesses are available.

      • TheContrarian 8.5.1
        13 October 2012 at 4:16 pm

        Yes you do. I can get two witnesses together to say David Shearer was blowing Grant Robinson in a carpark They taped it even, but I can’t provide the tape nor can I name the sources.

        Proof?

        • felix 8.5.1.1
          13 October 2012 at 5:12 pm

          Perhaps you could also get Shearer to say “I don’t know if I did that, can’t recall. If I did, it’s just because I blow a lot of guys and Grant was in the news quite a bit at the time.”

        • Draco T Bastard 8.5.1.2
          13 October 2012 at 5:56 pm

          No you don’t. Three people at a scene, one person says x happened and the other two say y happened. Which do you believe?

        • McFlock 8.5.1.3
          13 October 2012 at 6:05 pm

          lol
               
          Have fun rewriting the entire criminal justice system. Witnesses, while imperfect, can still provide evidence to beyond reasonable* doubt.
             
          *”reasonable”, not “desperately trying to pretend Key’s shit don’t stink” 

          • TheContrarian 8.5.1.3.1
            13 October 2012 at 6:12 pm

            “Witnesses, while imperfect, can still provide evidence to beyond reasonable* doubt.”

            Not when said witnesses have not identified themselves, not been subject to cross reference, have not personally delivered testimony nor do we have any reference to judge their existence.

            Until we have concrete proof all you have is a SINGLE person saying these two sources exist. So we don’t have any eye witness testimony, we have ONE person saying there is two witnesses.

            • felix 8.5.1.3.1.1
              13 October 2012 at 6:23 pm

              Yep I agree with all of that. It’s somewhat moot in my opinion as it’s not a court case but you’re right, no witnesses have even been produced yet.

              Also there’s the wee problem of Key’s response. Can you spot the difference between these two statements?

              1. ‘No, that’s not possibly true because as I’ve already said I was not aware of the existence of Kim Dotcom at that time.’

              2. ‘I don’t remember but it’s possible, I say all sorts of things.’

            • Pascal's bookie 8.5.1.3.1.2
              13 October 2012 at 6:32 pm

              Not quite.

              We’ve also got the PMs reaction to finding out that there are reported witnesses.

    • mike e 8.6
      13 October 2012 at 4:58 pm

      Tape of Key eating dead rat on TV.
      Keys body language gave it away !

  9. freedom 9
    13 October 2012 at 11:03 am

    from the Herald
    ” He also gave more detail of Mr Key’s comments. “He mentioned the good work they had done with the Kim Dotcom case. There were a large number of people at that meeting who heard John Key speak.” ”

    this paragraph more than any other suggests either Mr Shearer has personally been played a recording of the meeting or the journalist has grossly misquoted what Mr Shearer has said

    If he was played a recording there is no doubt that a copy of the recording or a recording of Mr Shearer viewing/hearing the recording was taken at the time ( and if not why not ?)

    Bottom line though is plausible deniability and Mr Key has zilch credit in that account

  10. freedom 10
    13 October 2012 at 11:05 am

    from the Herald
    ” He also gave more detail of Mr Key’s comments. “He mentioned the good work they had done with the Kim Dotcom case. There were a large number of people at that meeting who heard John Key speak.” ”

    this paragraph suggests either Mr Shearer has personally been played a recording of the meeting or the journalist has grossly misquoted what Mr Shearer has said

    If he was played a recording there is no doubt that a copy of the recording or a recording of Mr Shearer viewing/hearing the recording was taken at the time ( and if not why not ?)

    Bottom line though is plausible deniability and Mr Key has zilch credit in that account

    • Draco T Bastard 10.1
      13 October 2012 at 4:23 pm

      Hint: When you get a server 500 error, the comment you were posting, more often than not, actually posted. Go back to the front page and then go to the post you were commenting upon and check to see if it’s not there before posting it again.

  11. Nick K 11
    13 October 2012 at 11:11 am

    This post in a few words: Key is a dishonest wanker and Shearer is a wonderful honest beautiful guy.

    Sycophants.

    • PlanetOrphan 11.1
      13 October 2012 at 11:27 am

      So what’s a comment meant too say Nick?

      I’m not personally looking for any advantage or kickbacks from Labour or anyone else.

      What’s your excuse?

    • mickysavage 11.2
      13 October 2012 at 11:34 am

      Nope

      It is a sign that Key is on the slide.

      I dare you look at my comments here and point out one which could be sycophantic of Shearer.

      Rob’s original post described Shearer as “the honest, unpolished, new kid on the block” which I think is a fair description.

      What you see is what you get with Shearer.  Increasingly what we now see is what we got with Key. 

    • Draco T Bastard 11.3
      13 October 2012 at 4:25 pm

      Which just proves that you’re the sycophant. You’re the one trying to distract from the lying arsehole who happens to be our PM.

      • TheContrarian 11.3.1
        13 October 2012 at 4:27 pm

        Disagreeing with the proposition =/= supporting the alternative

        • Draco T Bastard 11.3.1.1
          13 October 2012 at 5:57 pm

          I’ve taken into account other things that Nick K has said and, IMO, he was trying for a distraction.

          • McFlock 11.3.1.1.1
            13 October 2012 at 6:14 pm

            Besides, nobody said Nick K believes that Key is not a dishonest wanker, nor that Shearer is not a wonderful honest beautiful guy.
                 
            As far as I can see, in that comment Nick K just reckons it’s sycophancy to point it out. 

  12. chris73 12
    13 October 2012 at 11:12 am

    Um could two of the above be deleted please? [done – r0b]

    • Te Reo Putake 12.1
      13 October 2012 at 11:17 am

      Delete the lot, Chris. They make no sense, because they do not equate to what Shearer has said. Key has unintentionally confirmed the possibility that he cracked jokes about Dotcom in Feb. More fool, him. That’s his problem, not Shearers. Your kiddy fiddling allegation says more about you than the next PM.

      • chris73 12.1.1
        13 October 2012 at 11:37 am

        My point is a rather simple one, Shearer has alleged something quite serious. If what Shearer says is true then Key lied, agents illegally recorded it, there are leaks and moles in our security service etc etc

        So if Shearer can make up things that isn’t true and doesn’t need to provide proof then Key should be able to do the same thing maybe say three days out from an election…

        Or maybe Shearer should back up what hes saying

        • felix 12.1.1.1
          13 October 2012 at 11:42 am

          Whatever chris. If Key was as smart as you he could’ve denied it and then Shearer would be on the ropes where you want him.

          But Key didn’t deny it. He could have done but he didn’t, and that’s where we are now.

          • chris73 12.1.1.1.1
            13 October 2012 at 11:54 am

            Where we are now is Shearer said something and Key asked him to prove it. Balls in Shearers court now.

            • felix 12.1.1.1.1.1
              13 October 2012 at 11:59 am

              What does he have to prove? He said Key might have done something and Key agreed that it might be true.

              Seems like they’re pretty much in agreement.

            • Kotahi Tāne Huna 12.1.1.1.1.2
              13 October 2012 at 12:02 pm

              lol – in your mind – newsflash – this illegal behaviour and Key’s lies about it are not going away.

              • Kotahi Tāne Huna …
                13 October 2012 at 12:11 pm

                Supposed to be in reply to Chris73 @ 11:54 – pretty sure I used the reply function – Windows 7 Chrome.

                and this was supposed to reply to my comment at 12:02 – something’s busted!

            • bbfloyd 12.1.1.1.1.3
              13 October 2012 at 12:13 pm

              Sigh…. Qwisssy qwissy qwissy….. Being deliberately obtuse doesn’t qualify as an argument once we have dispensed with the primary school stuff….. Sparkles did a hell of a lot more than just a bland “prove it”…. he actually, in his own words, gave substance to the claim….

              it’s real…. It’s happened…. No amount of playing the “Lionel hutz” defense will cover for the facts as they stand… Johnny sparkles is a disgrace to New zealand, and will be lucky not to be forced to resign before his term is up….

              This is reality… get over it…

            • North 12.1.1.1.1.4
              13 October 2012 at 12:37 pm

              Chris73 you are whistling in the dark, talking to yourself, and desperately engaging wishful thinking.

              Fact is growing numbers of the broad populace, people who don’t normally take much interest in politics, are seeing Key as a bullshitter, a dicey fulla, and, as he gets rattled, a bit of a prick really. Not someone of whom reflexively they might say – “Oh he’s not too bad….”.

              This is a change. On a greater or lesser scale the change takes an exponential course. John Key’s vaunted “exceptionalism” is dead.

              From your heart of hearts Chris73, tell me you have complete confidence that John Key’s not been telling porkies here. I won’t ask whether you have complete confidence in John Banks, on the same score.

              Apropos that, the broad populace hasn’t missed that Key and Banks are joined at the hip. They positively cling to one another. The integrity question arising there is your problem Chris73, not Shearer’s. Enough of your shrieky fortune-telling. Just leave that to Shouty Hooten. He fails well enough for the both of you.

              • chris73 …
                13 October 2012 at 1:05 pm

                Reply to North

                I think you suffer from the misconception that people believe in politicians, we don’t. We know they lie, twist words, make up new phrases. We know and we don’t care as long as they manage to give themselves enough doubt (beyond reasonable doubt even) so we can maybe accept what they say.

                For example helen clark and the sunday drive through the mainland. We know she had an idea of how fast the car was going were going but by blaming someone else there was enough doubt.

                Same thing with Key hes given himself enough doubt but Shearer was unequivocal in what he was saying.

                And now we need to see proof.

                And thats the difference.

                (but in answer to your question yeah Key probably knew something)

                • felix …
                  13 October 2012 at 1:14 pm

                  “And now we need to see proof”

                  Of what? Key agrees with Shearer that he may well have talked about Dotcom.

                  What’s to prove?

                • RedLogix …
                  13 October 2012 at 1:24 pm

                  We know and we don’t care as long as they manage to give themselves enough doubt (beyond reasonable doubt even) so we can maybe accept what they say.

                  Putting the best possible interpretation on events is pretty much business as usual for anyone in public life and is tolerated within limits. Just so long as there remains a reasonable core of truth within. Even then you won’t get away with non-stop spin either.

                  Covering up a seriously illegal act by being ‘economical with the truth’ or flat-out lying is by contrast totally not acceptable. Not in anyone’s ethical code.

                  There is a difference chris.

                • Pascal's bookie …
                  13 October 2012 at 1:35 pm

                  So your hyperventilating concern about “moles” etc in the GCSB?

                  That’s something that worries you, but the PM lying about his knowledge of GCSB illegal activity doesn’t concern you.

                  Rightio then.

                • irascible …
                  13 October 2012 at 3:59 pm

                  On a degree scale of seriousness KeY’s behaviour, poor judgement and incompetence make any of the sad condemnations of Helen by people like Chris73 look like what they are- the actions of desperate hucksters trying to distract from the failure of the snakeoil peddled by KeY, Banks, English, Heatley, Bennett, Parrota and others in the cabinet.
                  KeY must produce the evidence that demonstrates that he was totally ignorant of Dotcom and the activities of the spies if he is to retain any semblance of credibility. Until he does he remains a liability to the country and govt.

                • North …
                  13 October 2012 at 6:56 pm

                  Chris73 your concession that Key “probably” knew something says it all.

                  That’s what the whole thing is about……..does Key know more than he’s letting on ? And it seeming he does why is this man until now permitted exceptionalism wanly insisting he’s telling the truth (as to his extraordinary forgetfulness as well), then turning it on others ? Looks like a snotty, entitled, bullshitting boy who believes he should never be called to account.

                  That’s cheap. And that’s what more and more of the public are seeing.

                  Again, John Key’s exceptionalism having withered and died the problem is his and yours (as his apologist), not Shearer’s.

                  Let’s just wait for the next Roy Morgan.

        • Pascal's bookie 12.1.1.2
          13 October 2012 at 12:11 pm

          Chris your point is simplistic, rather than simple.

          It’s pretty clear that the right is rallying around to defend Key, but the facts remain.

          Key claims to have not even known the name Kim DotCom untill the day before the raid.

          This is in spite of the high level involvement of much of his cabinet in the build up to that raid, and the contacts through his electorate office. It is in spite of teh fact that DotCom was given favorable treatment right up until Key made his visist to the White house. Upon his return, the climate towrds DotCom changed, and the raid started to be set in paly.

          At some point, we still don’t know when, the GCSB (who Key is responsible for) started snooping on DotCom, we still don’t know the extent of that.

          Key claimed he was unaware of the GCSBs involvement until it was revealed a few days before it was exposed in court. Then it turned out there was a briefing containing DotCom material showed to Key. Key claims it was so inconsequential that he didn’t notice it.

          Then someone from inside the GCSB claimed to Shearer that Key made mention of DotCom in his speech at the GCSB. At this point, Key’s story about his knowledge changes once again. He says that because DotCom was in the news so much he might have made a joke about it, he can’t remember.

          Why would Key make a joke about DotCom at the GCSB, if he didn’t know that DotCom was relevant to the GCSB?

          His claim is that he didn’t pay any attention to the DotCom slide he was shown, but maight have mentioned it in a speech because DotCom was topical, but then he forgot all about it.

          That’s plausible if he is a complete idiot who makes references in speeches to things that have nothing to do with the people he is speaking to, and that it was just really bad luck that the reference he made was to someone he had just been shown a slide of, and that the GCSB had been illegally spying on, on his watch.

          that’s his story.

          The other story is that Key and the GCSB bigwigs are trying to stonewall this investigation at a low enough level that the people who take the rap don’t infect the reputation of the GCSB too badly. ie, that they get away with it.

          And you think whistle blowing on that is the serious issue?

          Also, bear in mind that the whale oil post people are feeding off claims to know the name of the lower level GCSB officer who is getting the finger pointed at. How does that knowledge get to whale? And why?

          • Red Rosa 12.1.1.2.1
            13 October 2012 at 1:23 pm

            Right onto it, Pascal’s Bookie above..

            There is some deep water here. For Key to plead ignorance on DotCom is laughable. What explains his story? Can only be the US agencies pulling his strings.

            The TV3 summary was devastating. Most NZ MP’s make a genuine attempt to deal with local issues. The locals upset with DotCom and his mates roaring around in flash cars would have expected the PM to at least have a quick word with the local cops. Sounds like, when Dotcom was forking out for Banks, no response. But when the US put the real pressure on, The Raid.

            Some pointed questions around an earlier timeline than Feb 12 would seem to be in order.

        • Draco T Bastard 12.1.1.3
          13 October 2012 at 4:28 pm

          …agents illegally recorded it, there are leaks and moles in our security service etc etc

          I have no problem with that when it’s justified and proving that our PM is lying would be reasonable justification.

          • Hanswurst 12.1.1.3.1
            13 October 2012 at 9:11 pm

            Although I’m definitely disposed to agree with you, I’m not sure whether that quite stacks up. I agree that leaking in that case would be 100% justified. However, if the recording did happen to be illegal (and we don’t know – assuming it exists – whether it is), how could anybody possibly have known at the time that Key would be lying about his involvement several months later? There’s no way that could be the justification for making the recording in the first place.

    • mickysavage 12.2
      13 October 2012 at 11:51 am

      Eek the comments will not nestle now …

      • r0b 12.2.1
        13 October 2012 at 11:59 am

        test

        OK – that’s odd – will email Lprent.

        • lprent 12.2.1.1
          13 October 2012 at 2:37 pm

          Fixed. Doesn’t like comments deleted that are parents of other comments. It makes you feel like you’re on kiwiblog.

          It is something that I have to get around to fixing in the delete comments routines. But it is hard to find a useful filter or hook.

          Navicat fixes it – I just zap the parent id on the offending comment.

  13. ianmac 13
    13 October 2012 at 11:35 am

    Remember that there was a heap of people in the cafeteria. They all heard My Key’s witty references: He also gave more detail of Mr Key’s comments. “He mentioned the good work they had done with the Kim Dotcom case. There were a large number of people at that meeting who heard John Key speak.” ”
    It is not just whether there is the tape or not. Andrew Geddis, on Pundit, explains why to speak out about Key’s words in a cafeteria is unlikely to be a criminal offence.

    I think Key wants people who hear him speak cleverly and wittily, and so spread his Jesus-like good words. He hopes they go home and tell and blog and Facebook about his masterful grasp of essentials and his funny one-liners. Mr Key knows that there are all those people who know what he said. Uneasily he sleeps.

    • deuto 13.1
      13 October 2012 at 12:04 pm

      Here is the link to Andrew Geddis’ Pundit post which is worth a read – thanks Ianmac for pointing it out.

      http://pundit.co.nz/content/is-it-illegal-to-talk-about-coffee-at-the-gcsb

      Basically, Geddis believes that staff talking about what Key said in the cafeteria is unlikely to be a breach of the GCSB Act any more than anyone discussing with others what was said in their work cafeteria etc.

      I wondered whether Key would try the “private conversation” line as per the teapot tapes – and think but cannot confirm that he did mention ‘private’ in one of his interviews re the GCSB cafeteria meeting with staff, but don’t have time or inclination to try to find it. Think he would be very stupid to try that one again.

    • Hanswurst 13.2
      13 October 2012 at 9:19 pm

      The trouble is that I have yet to hear Key say anything either witty or funny. He’s like your embarrassingly unfunny uncle, constantly talking as though he were a comedian but not blessed with the sort of wit that enables one to make jokes.

  14. felix 14
    13 October 2012 at 11:38 am

    Lolwut chris? Let me follow your tortured attempt at an analogy to its logical end, where Shearer says

    I don’t remember any pedoing. It’s possible that I get up to some, but I just don’t recall. I do a lot of things.

    What then?

  15. captain hook 15
    13 October 2012 at 11:42 am

    kweewee has no credibility left.
    he does not realise that government is not like business where you hide all your mistakes on the balance sheet.
    in a DEMOCRACY the governments actions have to at least seem to be transparent but it is becoming clearer by the day that the National party and its agents have been using the apparatus of the state for their own private ends and now the truth is out.
    sow the wind reap the whirlwind.

  16. higherstandard 16
    13 October 2012 at 11:42 am

    I have good reason to believe that Key and Shearer fellate wombats.

    • PlanetOrphan 16.1
      13 October 2012 at 11:50 am

      U should update your handle to “GutterStandard”

    • mickysavage 16.2
      13 October 2012 at 11:53 am

      And if Key was asked “do you fellate wombats” and he stammered and went “um, ah, I can’t recall” wouldn’t you think that he just possibly might have?

      EDIT: I see that Felix bet me to it with this point. I defer to his superior intellect!

    • Blue 16.3
      13 October 2012 at 11:55 am

      The difference is that Key wouldn’t outright deny fellating wombats, and would say it’s possible he may have seen a wombat or two, but he doesn’t remember exactly what happened.

  17. Blue 17
    13 October 2012 at 11:51 am

    Shearer bungled this massively, but’s that not unexpected from Labour at this point. You would think they would have learned something from the H-Fee debacle, but apparently not.

    You never, never, never drop a political bombshell unless you know it’s going to go off. If you say there’s a tape, you better have the tape in your possession, have watched it, and be ready to release it.

    Labour is trying really hard to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory again. Key was massively stuffing up so Labour went and threw him a lifeline.

    My guess is that the comments were made, but if a tape ever existed it is long gone. Key can stick to his usual muddle of memory holes and ‘show me the…..’ catchphrases, looking dodgier than ever because he won’t deny it, and Shearer will continue to look like newbie idiot who’s tripping over his own feet in a job he’s not up to.

    It’s lose-lose for both of them.

    • PlanetOrphan 17.1
      13 October 2012 at 12:02 pm

      I disagree, I haven’t actualy seen any footage etc but ….

      1. Shearer is trying to highlight Keys incompetence.
      2. Shearer is on the later board created too oversee the GCSB .
      (i.e. He is operating under non-disclosure as well)
      3. If the Tape is a 3rd party recording, Key is screwed.
      4. If it was recorded by anyone involved with the GCSB then it’s “Behind closed doors” forever.

      David Shearer is trying too do his Job plain and simple, considering the constraints he is under I think he’s doing an exemplary job.

      John Key is trying too catch out David Shearer on the Non-Disclosure aspects.

    • mickysavage 17.2
      13 October 2012 at 12:28 pm

      It is politics not a court room.  There is never any right or wrong response to something except what works.

      The only measure is what the public think.  And it seems that they are not as enamoured with Key baby as they used to be.

      EDIT: What Stephen said below.

  18. captain hook 18
    13 October 2012 at 11:58 am

    did kweewee or did he not laugh at the tapes when skim.dotcom was busted.
    that is the question so stop trying to dodge it.

  19. Stephen 19
    13 October 2012 at 12:03 pm

    This isn’t a court of law, with a presumption of innocence and a need for evidence of facts. This is a court of opinion. And anyone who knows anything about human nature knows that in a dialogue like this:

    A: You told a lie about X
    B: I don’t remember, and anyway, prove it

    … B has not come off better.

  20. gobsmacked 20
    13 October 2012 at 12:22 pm

    We can (and probably will!) spend the whole weekend going “Key-Shearer-Key-Shearer”.

    Fact is, the Prime Minister will make a very rare apology to Parliament on Tuesday. Big win for the opposition. A few seconds later, he will be answering questions, and grabbing the lifeline he’s been thrown. Why was he thrown it?

    It has to be because Labour have something more. It just has to be.

    If they don’t, it isn’t a disaster (the public aren’t transfixed by every word Key and Shearer say), but it is another example of ham-fisted Labour just getting in the way. There’s a broad and effective opposition to this government, in Parliament and out. It ranges from Christchurch to classrooms, from Maori to manufacturing. And the opposition is winning. The opposition … not the Labour leadership.

    Key’s a liar. We know that. He’s a one-trick pony, the trick is old, the public are turning, and Key (or his replacement) will lose the election. Only one thing can save them – the “Tony Abbott / Mitt Romney” syndrome. The incumbent is unpopular but hangs on, because the opponent is shit.

    Labour just need to decide if they want to win. Could they let us know when they’ve decided?

    Cheers.

  21. QoT 21
    13 October 2012 at 12:25 pm

    Whatever you think of [Shearer’s] emerging political skills, I’ve never heard anyone question his honesty

    All I’m saying is it’s really difficult to question the honesty of someone who’s unable to utter concrete, definitive statements about anything.

    He’s done well on this issue, sure, but I’ve seen far too many news articles recently where you’ve got Russel Norman saying “2 + 2 = X” and John Key saying “No, 2 + 2 = Y” and Shearer, when prompted for comment (because being proactive is for saps, I guess) waffling about “Well Labour agrees that 2 + 2 = something, but we’d have to look more closely at that and obviously hold the Government to account about it.”

  22. Dv 22
    13 October 2012 at 12:46 pm

    There appears to be agreement that Key spoke to the staff and thanked them for help with Dotcom

    from the Herald via Freedom

    ” He also gave more detail of Mr Key’s comments. “He mentioned the good work they had done with the Kim Dotcom case. There were a large number of people at that meeting who heard John Key speak.”

    So what is the issue.
    Key spoke of dotcom on the 29th feb. That would mean he knew of Dotcom on the 29th feb.

    The tape or not is not relevant there are eye witness account of his comment.
    (The jokes are not really very relevant.)

    • gobsmacked 22.1
      13 October 2012 at 12:58 pm

      Which is why Shearer didn’t need to talk about the “tape”.

      He could have done a dozen other things …. “Can the Prime Minister confirm that hard disks have been erased? On whose instructions? What were they looking for? Why were they only erased last week? What converations has he had with Ms Ketteridge or Mr Flectcher?” etc, etc.

      Ask questions. Create doubt. Draw Key into the trap. It’s really not hard, Key’s blabbermouth will do the job for him.

      If Shearer doesn’t know Politics 101 he should get another job.

      • RedLogix 22.1.1
        13 October 2012 at 1:13 pm

        Ask questions. Create doubt. Draw Key into the trap.

        True, but a lot of that has already been done.

        The probable truth is that Key came back from Hollywood last year with instructions to shut KD down … and then illegally directed various state agencies (either openly or very hint hint) to do so.

        The resulting shit sandwich is now being shoved back down the throats of various civil servants in a bid to save Key’s arse. Of course they are gagging it back up. The big problem is how to do this without exposing themselves to even more jeopardy than they are already in, while at the same time negotiating the best price they can get for their continued complicity.

        Then there is the point that Mr Shearer could well turn out to be their new boss any-time within the next few years … which complicates matters.

  23. Fortran 23
    13 October 2012 at 1:23 pm

    Hearld today has revealed name of GCSB repeater, being the partner of Fran Mold, Shearer’s Chief Press officer.
    He could be in s..t street, having signed the Official Secrets Act, albeit that he is no longer employed by GCSB – that being irrelevant.
    Will the political Triumvirate at yesterday’s conference Shearer, Norman and Peters, the next Government leaders, get rid of GCSB and SIS, or do they have information on each or some of them ?

  24. granted 24
    13 October 2012 at 1:32 pm

    There will be plenty of things that are said by MP’s who think that will never be repeated. Key is playing semantics in that he believes there is no real solid proof that anything he has said can be proven completely. So he can continue with his current position.

    Shearer has taken a bit of a punt (in my opinion) as for him to produce solid proof puts a dagger through the GSCB in terms of leaks etc.

    Is Shearer getting any support within his own party on this issue??

    National must be wishing DotCom never came to NZ…

  25. tc 25
    13 October 2012 at 1:43 pm

    KD the gift that keeps giving, who was it that said hell hath no bigger fury than an Xxxx scorned…what interesting times.

  26. newsense 26
    13 October 2012 at 3:23 pm

    Sorry if I have missed all the discussion, but:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10840188

    Fran doesn’t like it. Misdirection perhaps?

    Seems like a good play from Shearer to me. Keeps it in the news, keeps the heat on, makes it harder for there to be a white wash.

    Fran O’Sullivan suggesting Shearer should have more control over Key’s department of the GCSB than Shearer should. Key is in the position to find and confirm or deny the existence of the video, though as we have seen not his memory.

    love this part. Maybe the weak malleable right winking chap isn’t going to be such a bumbling push over after all?

    ‘David Shearer has scored a glorious own goal – the caucus knives will be sharpening.’

    perhaps she should talk to Dunc Garner- I thought all senior labour figures did was go to badly lit rooms where no-one could see them and say DC is a twat and no one wants to sit with him at lunch time? At least she admits to interviewing her type writer by the use of the modal here.

    ‘Senior Labour figures must be rolling their eyes at the way their leader’s crusade has blown up in his face.

    More experienced hands like Phil Goff – who so comprehensively fitted up Foreign Minister Murray McCully by quoting directly from Cabinet papers to expose a restructuring fiasco at Mfat – will be looking askance. So too that master of the political dark arts Trevor Mallard.’

    and is this mischief from Audrey or a sign of the tide turning. I think the Greens have been impressive.
    :

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10840190

    isn’t Peters likely to go with Key like he did on the prehistoric NZF-Nats coalition government? It will be interesting. Is Metira Turei no longer co-leader?

  27. captain hook 27
    13 October 2012 at 4:00 pm

    yeah and they gonna “rebrand” the GCSB, Ngati Peruse and make them all apply for their old jobs back!

  28. Penny Bright 28
    13 October 2012 at 4:41 pm

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10840247

    “The GCSB investigation has yet to establish whether a leak occurred. GCSB director Ian Fletcher said last night he was looking beyond his own staff to conduct the inquiry.

    “To ensure we can carry on with our business as usual as much as possible we will be bringing in appropriate external expertise to help conduct the inquiry.”

    If it establishes a leak, the GCSB’s legislation carries a penalty of up to two years in prison.

    ………………”

    Why is there now going to be an inquiry to establish whether or not a ‘leak’ occurred at GCSB – if the information ‘leaked’ to Labour Leader David Shearer – was not true?

    If there wasn’t any video evidence of NZ Prime Minister John Key mentioning Kim Dotcom, at the GCSB ‘briefing’ on 29 February 2012 – then why are they now looking for a mole that ‘leaked’ information about a video that doesn’t exist?

    ‘Seriously, if the tape doesn’t exist, then why waste money looking for a mole that gave out allegedly false information to Labour?

    Surely – the tape MUST exist because they are looking for the mole that revealed its existence to Labour?’

    (Thanks for the ‘heads up’ on this point Henk! )

    Haven’t the GCSB got more important things to do?

    Such as – ensuring that GCSB staff at the most senior levels and the Minister responsible for the GCSB (Prime Minister John Key), now know the lawful limitations of their statutory duties, and how to check the residential status of persons residing in New Zealand?

    What is the penalty for those GCSB staff at the most senior levels and the Minister responsible for the GCSB (Prime Minister John Key) for NOT knowing the lawful limitations of their statutory duties, and how to check the residential status of persons residing in New Zealand?

    errr…. how INTELLIGENT are those in charge of, and responsible for New Zealand’s ‘Intelligence Services’?

    WHERE IS THE ACCOUNTABILITY?

    Kind regards,

    Penny Bright
    ‘Anti-corruption campaigner’

    http://www.dodgyjohnhasgone.com/

  29. Penny Bright 29
    13 October 2012 at 4:46 pm

    Interesting that even former National Party members on Kiwiblog aren’t hugely impressed with shonky John Key?

    “Not as bad as she was, but Key is hardly a paragon of virtue based on all he’s done in office and more importantly, what he hasn’t done. Pretending he is is disingenuous at best, outright lying at worst.”

    MY COMMENT:

    Well – I actually think that shonky John Key is FAR worse.

    Remember John Key’s ‘TRANZRAIL eyes’ – when questioned about Tranzrail?

    Tranzrail http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeJSFVWKnsE

    Remember John Key’s ‘TRANZRAIL eyes’ – when questioned about Lord Ashcroft’s visit?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GwcCNdTYyQ

    What about John Key’s ‘TRANZRAIL eyes’ when questioned about talking to GCSB staff in their cafeteria?

    http://www.3news.co.nz/Secret-GCSB-recording-catches-Key-out—Labour/tabid/370/articleID/272405/Default.aspx

    Can NZ Prime Minister John Key be trusted?

    Nope.

    Not in my considered opinion as an ‘anti-corruption’ campaigner – who took a private prosecution against John Key over Tranzrail before the 2008 General Election – after a formal written complain to the Police and SFO resulted in no action being taken.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFTYZVQo-A8

    Kind regards,

    Penny Bright

    ‘Anti-corruption campaigner’

    http://www.dodgyjohnhasgone.com

  30. Penny Bright 30
    13 October 2012 at 5:06 pm

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2012/10/stupid-7.html#comment-1034078

    “You don’t make accusations of this nature based on rumour.”

    errr…… rather more significant was the unlawful surveillance and raid on a NZ resident – don’t you think?

    Where is the accountability, and what are going to be the consequences for staff at the highest levels of the GCSB and the Minister responsible for the GCSB – Prime Minister John Key – for not ensuring that those entrusted with the security of New Zealand knew, and operated lawfully within the boundaries of their statutory duties?

    Is the ‘Rule of Law’ going to apply to them?

    Is NZ Prime Minister John Key, going to face charges of ‘Contempt of the House’ – for allegedly misleading the House over his knowledge of the Kim Dotcom matter?

    If not – why not?

    Are a number of MPs from a range of political parties going to raise the matter of alleged ‘Contempt of the House’ with the Speaker of the House – or will Prime Minister John Key be allowed to get away with an apology for amnesia, of the dodgy John Banks variety?

    Do you really think the voting public is going to wear this?

    Penny Bright
    ‘Anti-corruption campaigner’

    http://www.dodgyjohnhasgone.com

  31. Chris 31
    13 October 2012 at 5:29 pm

    I am so thankful that conkey is finally being seen in his true colours.I never trusted him from day one.And the day he looked down the camera lens after P Henry asked him if he would ever lie to NZ and he replied”I will never lie to NZ”( smirk and suck of air between teeth) is the day that I thought that he will be a habitual liar. Perhaps if he believes what he is saying, then he considers that to be the truth, then he would not see it as a lie.My favourite thing to do when he is being interviewed is to turn the volume right down.His face tells it all. The number of times his eyes slide sideways or he shuts them completely are the times you know he is fudging, or lying outright! NZ deserves better than him and his Punch and Judy sidekicks.The only true thing he has ever said is that “everything is a matter of perception” because that is exactly how he conned the whole country.He created a totally false persona and sold it as the true conkey and people fell for it.So the country did not actually vote for the real conkey but the false persona he portrayed himself to be.So now the manufactured conkey has been exposed and we are left with the joke. Lucky us
    .I like the way the opposition has not fallen into the trap of trying to better key on keys terms, the way a lot of people would like but have kept their dignity and acted like adults, adults who are actually there for the good of NZ.

  32. OneTrack 32
    13 October 2012 at 5:30 pm

    Thanks Mr Shearer. It was nice knowing you. Time for the next challenger to have a go.

  33. ianmac 33
    13 October 2012 at 5:40 pm

    Penny @ 29.Why is there now going to be an inquiry to establish whether or not a ‘leak’ occurred at GCSB – if the information ‘leaked’ to Labour Leader David Shearer – was not true?
    Good point there Penny!
    If it establishes a leak, the GCSB’s legislation carries a penalty of up to two years in prison.
    Probably not so according to Andrew Geddis on Pundit. The Law is to protect secret official information. A PM giving an “election” pep talk in a cafeteria is not such information. Even less so than a cup of tea in a cafe with Banks.
    http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/is-it-illegal-to-talk-about-coffee-at-the-gcsb#comment-34176

  34. Anne 34
    13 October 2012 at 8:37 pm

    I know it has been played countless times, but watch the first 30sec or so of the original video where John Key claims the first he heard of Kim Dotcom was the day before the raid. The intake of breath immediately before the claim, the sense that he had… rehearsed in his mind what he was going to say when the inevitable question came. It was all so friendly and pat that you just know it was a pre-arranged response and he was lying through his teeth.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/video.cfm?c_id=1&gal_objectid=10781209&gallery_id=123534

    • felix 34.1
      13 October 2012 at 9:52 pm

      Yep. And the addition of “unusual as it is” seals it. It’s an admission from Key that if he had heard the name, he would definitely remember hearing it.

      Which means if he had heard it before he said he had, then he’s definitely been lying every time he’s said otherwise.

      He might have been able to pull off a confusion/mistaken identity defense later, but those four words effectively shut down that possibility.

      • marty mars 34.1.1
        13 October 2012 at 10:56 pm

        Yes indeed that ‘unusual as it is, I might add’ stuff is gold. Toss of the head, roll of the eyes, lie with a smile.

        “never heard of the guy or met him until the briefing let’s say from the solicitor general” –
        (my bold) (0.43)

        Another ‘tell’ why say, “let’s say”?

        You are going down key and I’m enjoying every faltering step and muddied knee as your beloved public image sinks like a rock.

    • Richard Christie 34.2
      14 October 2012 at 12:30 am

      Watch at 0.20.
      Freeze frame and note his forehead muscles.

  35. Sanders Of The River 35
    14 October 2012 at 8:16 am

    So the essence of Key vs Shearer is this:

    Key ” If you can prove I said it, I said it.
    If you can’t prove I said it, I didn’t
    say it.”

    It seems Alice In Wonderland is right up there with Animal Farm.

    ” I can’t go back to yesterday because I was a different
    person then.”

    But who better than James Thurber for the last word.

    ” You can fool too many of the people too much of the time. “

  36. redfred 36
    14 October 2012 at 12:00 pm

    This complicates the existing police investigation. This implicates Key is involved in the illegal spying.

    More to come, we all know it, Key is going to get slowly roasted over this…..

    What else has Winston got?

    The screws are going on someone is going to pop, and end up on TV playing the Deep Throat role.

    Key is a goner and gone before Christmas, this is to big now to control.

  37. redfred 37
    14 October 2012 at 4:06 pm

    Admittedly I am being optimistic on timeline, but watch the polls.

    I spent the weekend with a through and through National supporter and once John Key supporter.
    He is disgusted with Key and the National party, this mud isn’t coming off.

    If the recording comes out Nationals support will plummet, the knives will come out and he is gone

    • ianmac 37.1
      14 October 2012 at 4:30 pm

      You know how Mr Banks stayed on but now is treated with disdain at least? If Mr Key stays on maybe is image is tarnished and might be a daily reminder of a fallen angel.
      Unless Mr Matthew Hooten picks him up, gives him golden advice and places him back on his pedestal?

  38. Treetop 38
    15 October 2012 at 4:02 pm

    It is obvious to me that the GCSB are protecting Key. Key is being protected because the GCSB are probably a porn for the FBI. There is nothing that Shearer can do until he becomes the head of GCSB to prove that the GCSB have a copy of comments Key made regarding Dotcom on 29 February 2012, but then as head of the GCSB Shearer would not be able to pubicly discuss classified information (contents of a tape).

    What is of concern to me is that the GCSB would destroy a tape because the PM told them to.

    As long as Key maintains that he did not hear of Dotcom until 19 January 2012 he is lying and were Key to come clean and say that he was lying about his involvement with Dotcom the public would condemn him.

  39. Enough is Enough 39
    19 October 2012 at 2:58 pm

    “Shearer has called for Key to have the GCSB release the video – if it still exists, after the relevant hard drives were taken. Key has called on Shearer to release the video – which he can’t, because Labour has never had a copy. So I guess it comes down to who the public believes. For the reasons outlined above, I’m guessing it will be Shearer.”

    It is fair to say that after a week of this now, you were very wrong r0b. Shearer gave Key a lifeline by making this stupid unsubstantiated allegation. Ohter than you every commentator in the country has pulled him up on it. His credibility has now gone and he will be remined of this fuck up until the caucus rolls him.

    Shearer has to go. Before the reshuffle preferably