Dotcom – Who applied the political pressure?

Written By: - Date published: 8:46 am, July 16th, 2014 - 219 comments
Categories: john key, national, national/act government, same old national, you couldn't make this shit up - Tags: ,

Over at the NBR Standard lurker and occasional commentator Matthew Hooton has provided a perceptive view into the workings of the Government and the handling of the Dotcom fiasco with a headline “Nats in crisis over Dotcom SIS file“.  The article is behind the paywall.

In it Hooton pours scorn over Minister Jonathan Coleman’s claim that he had nothing to do with the decision and that it was made by Immigration NZ and not by him.  That may be so but as Hooton asks you have to wonder why Coleman had so many briefings about Dotcom if he had no say in the decision.

Hooton mentions the cock up theory vs conspiracy theory and how the phrase “political pressure” may just be referring to a desire to increase the number of successful applicants under the Business Migration Scheme.  But he then rubbishes this idea.  And besides Coleman and MBIE are refusing to accept even this explanation.  They would have us believe that a staggering reversal and the acceptance of someone with a pretty dodgy background had nothing to do with political pressure being applied even though the change of heart was marked by an email saying there was political pressure applied.

The date the phrase was uttered is all important.  The relevant date is Friday October 22, 2010 and the email sent which talked about “political pressure” was sent at 11:21 am.

That day the Hobbit dispute was raging out of control.  There are dating back to that time a series of perceptive posts by IrishBill which gave a real sense of the games that were being played by National and by Warner Brothers.  This post written the day before and the 516 comments attached to it clearly captured the intensity of what was happening.  So on the Friday when the dispute was raging hardest political pressure was applied to let Dotcom stay in New Zealand against advice.  Hooton claims that the conspiracy theory that Dotcom’s scalp was negotiated between Warner Brothers and the Government could be “a bit fanciful”.  But give me a tin foil hat and call me a conspiracy theorist there has to be a better explanation than Coleman’s “nothing to see here”.

All credit to Matthew Hooton for criticising his side.  I admire his inclination to fearlessly speak his mind.

But I am struggling to understand how Jonathan Coleman is the person to blame.  It is hard to imagine how the Minister of Immigration could cause the SIS to change its position and drop its opposition or that the SIS would defer to Immigration’s preference to let someone with a colourful background and who was wanted by the American authorities stay in the country.

So I do not think that Coleman is the mastermind here.  To find out who that person is you will have to look further up the food chain.  Much further.

219 comments on “Dotcom – Who applied the political pressure? ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Lanthanide 1
    16 July 2014 at 8:57 am

    BTW, Dotcom said on RNZ this morning that he’ll be producing proof that John Key knew about him prior to the raid, and that therefore Key lied, on September 15.

    Grant Robertson wants him to release it sooner.

    • karol 1.1
      16 July 2014 at 9:13 am

      His US lawyer said they are playing “a semantic game”. What does that mean?

      • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1.1
        16 July 2014 at 9:17 am

        It means Key has used a form of words that is technically true, but gives the wrong impression.

      • Gosman 1.1.2
        16 July 2014 at 9:17 am

        His lawyer was being a dick. He couldn’t explain why he wouldn’t release sooner. If as expected this is much ado about nothing then it has the potential for blowing up in IMP ‘ S face.

        • freedom 1.1.2.1
          16 July 2014 at 9:34 am

          Gosman, do you really believe the PM knew nothing about Dotcom until the day before the raid on Dotcom’s home?

          • Paul 1.1.2.1.1
            16 July 2014 at 9:36 am

            He won’t answer that one.

          • Gosman 1.1.2.1.2
            16 July 2014 at 10:38 am

            I see no political gain from lying about knowing about Kim Dotcom prior to the raid especially as it would be likely to come out that he did know about it. What was the reason he lied? Please don’t give me the infantile response of ‘Because he is a lying Tory b@stard’ because I responded to 6 of question sensibly and I would expect the same in return.

            • Tracey 1.1.2.1.2.1
              16 July 2014 at 10:51 am

              Because he allowed the sis/gcsb to break the law over dotcom to assist the americans and if he claimed he didnt know kdc, who could disprove it given he could redact for national security any documents claiming otherwise?

              • Gosman …
                16 July 2014 at 11:16 am

                Acknowledging he may have heard of Kim Dotcom prior to the raid doesn’t mean he ordered the raid and associated surveillance. That is a huge leap of logic.

                • RJL …
                  16 July 2014 at 12:49 pm

                  Gosman, as you say there is no sensible reason for Key to lie about knowing Kim Dotcom prior to the raid, in and of itself.

                  Therefore, as Tracey says the reason that Key has lied about knowing Kim Dotcom prior to the raid is that the circumstances in which Key knew about Kim Dotcom somehow implicate him in the GCSB’s illegal activities or similar.

                  At the very least Key is lying because the truth would demonstrate that Key knew the GCSB (or others) were doing something that Key (as minister responsible for the GCSB) should have realised was illegal.

                  • Ross …
                    16 July 2014 at 1:30 pm

                    The reason is quite simple why Key may have lied – he lies so often that he didn’t consider the implications of this potential lie. And after he lied once about this matter, he probably felt that he had to persist with the lie. It might be one of those occasions where he wished he hadn’t lied, but his mouth works faster than his brain. 🙂

                • North …
                  16 July 2014 at 2:56 pm

                  You’re moving the goalposts there a tad Gosman. The first issue is TheGodKey’s categorical denial of knowing KDC’s name even, until a day before the raid. How deep was the donkey comes after that one.

                  You still haven’t said that you REALLY believe that denial…..like in your heart of hearts.

                  You mustn’t take it all on your shoulders Gosman. The GodKey lied to parliament, not you. And right now he’s shitting his pants more malodorously and more than enough for the two of you. You’ll just look like you’ve been gorging the Kool Aid. No big deal.

                  Face your demons Gosman. ‘Fess up ! It’s that essential first step. You know that I know…..

            • freedom 1.1.2.1.2.2
              16 July 2014 at 3:07 pm

              It was a simple yes or no scenario, but you decided to explain your response for whatever reason, so I guess we must interpret that reply as you believing the PM.

        • Bearded Git 1.1.2.2
          16 July 2014 at 10:37 am

          No Gosman KDC knows what he is doing.

          He has as good as said that he has proof that the PM has lied on this. 5 days out from the election IMP’s profile will be sky-high while Key will look a fool.

          • Tinshed 1.1.2.2.1
            16 July 2014 at 7:48 pm

            I’m sorry, this is just silly. Anyone who thinks the election will be decided by some revelation five days out from an election understands nothing about how voters vote. Especially when such information/revelation is already known. I get you wish to see John Key vanquished and dispatched, fair enough – but please don’t tell me KDC has some silver bullet, already loaded in a cocked gun, that will deliver the knock-out blow five days from the election.

      • Lanthanide 1.1.3
        16 July 2014 at 9:21 am

        In the interview with John Campbell, Key said he hadn’t heard of “Kim Dotcom”. He may have heard of “Kim Schmitz”.

        • Colonial Viper 1.1.3.1
          16 July 2014 at 10:59 am

          Ahhhh good point. However, it’s that kind of too-clever obfuscation which will blowback at Key before election day.

        • Tom Jackson 1.1.3.2
          16 July 2014 at 1:29 pm

          That wouldn’t work, since all the documents released yesterday used “Dotcom” and all the other weird names he called himself.

          As if someone wouldn’t note that the guy had changed his name to “Dotcom”.

          It’s like a cop reporting to his boss saying, “We’ve got this John Smith you should watch” and neglecting to tell the boss that Smith has changed his name to “Otto Phalangist Uber-Sex-Machine”.

          • Chooky 1.1.3.2.1
            16 July 2014 at 3:15 pm

            still one is a birth name and the other is a company name…just the sort of hair splitting distinction a politician would do if caught between a rock and a hard place…and hope it would stick legally so he could shimmy out looking like a smart arse

      • freedom 1.1.4
        16 July 2014 at 9:32 am

        In the context of when it was said, I took it as him referring to the way Guyon Espiner was conducting the interview. It was a very poor interview by Espiner.

        • Paul 1.1.4.1
          16 July 2014 at 9:37 am

          Par for the course for Espiner.
          He’s a Nat so he won’t really want this issue to be explored properly.

          • Gosman 1.1.4.1.1
            16 July 2014 at 10:41 am

            He asked him why he won’t release the information now. That is very pertinent and not politically biased at all. In fact Grant Robertson stated he wanted the information released now as well. Can you tell me why the information shouldn’t come out now?

            • Tracey 1.1.4.1.1.1
              16 July 2014 at 10:53 am

              The lawyers first obligation is to his client and their legal strategy, not to grant robertson, and not to you.

              • Gosman …
                16 July 2014 at 11:18 am

                I didn’t ask you about the Lawyers duty to his client. I asked why the information shouldn’t come out now. That is a valid question that should be asked.

                • Tracey …
                  16 July 2014 at 11:24 am

                  And i answered you. Because the lawyer and his client have a strategy for their legal case and satisfying you, mr robertson or anyone else is not high on the list. Why do you only read things until it suits you?

                • Tom Jackson …
                  16 July 2014 at 1:32 pm

                  Because Kim Dotcom hates people like you, who support his extradition, and wants to inconvenience them as much as possible by refraining from hobbling their hero until it will do maximum damage.

                  If Key has lied, he deserves this. How dare he think that people he tries to victimise won’t fight back.

            • freedom 1.1.4.1.1.2
              16 July 2014 at 10:59 am

              You are not that naive Gosman, so stop pretending.

              Giving Key as long as possible to crack under the weight of his own lies is far more damaging to the long term credibility of the National Party as a whole, than any single immediate declaration of withheld evidence is capable of. Any number of soloists on the programme risk ruing the performance.

              There are so many variables as to what part of Key’s score is fabrication, that during the orchestration of this coming Election campaign, its players will struggle to remember what bars they already played, are meant to be playing, and when the hell can they turn the page to a tune they know.

              The opportunity for error on the part of the National chorus is massively intensified with this strategy and you will be well aware of that already. I can only imagine the discordant cacophony, as you and your fellow Nactoids navigate the hastily scribbled conductor notes when there are only days, not weeks till the curtain raises.

              • Tracey …
                16 July 2014 at 11:11 am

                Fucking A +

              • Gosman …
                16 July 2014 at 11:21 am

                Why does he need to create if there is evidence that he has lied available. What his he going to crack up on?

                • freedom …
                  16 July 2014 at 11:38 am

                  Why does who need to create what Gosman?
                  Maybe you just should rewrite that reply so it makes some sense eh!

                • Hanswurst …
                  16 July 2014 at 8:48 pm

                  You seem to be asuming that Key knows exactly what Dotcom has in his hand. If, however, there are a number of different pieces of information that Dotcom could have, then Key and his minions will have to scramble around making sure that they cover their arses for all eventualities. This has three useful effects.

                  1: It diverts resources that they might more profitably use elsewhere if they knew what Dotcom had.
                  2: It means that they are more likely to trip up and reveal something to the public inadvertently, or be shown to be lying.
                  3: If Dotcom and his team observe the statements of the PM and his lackeys carefully, they may be able to perceive hints as to what the PM thinks they have, and thus discover other avenues for seeking evidence and information.

                  This strategy seems particularly sensible given that Dotcom and his counsel probably aren’t sure how much useful information is floating around out there that they don’t have yet, and it would make sense to arm themselves as fully as possible. Of course, this is all viewed through the lens of Dotcom’s personal interest. I would argue that it is also in the public interest, since we are dealing with an area of government where concealment of the truth is easier than in almost any other, since concealment of the countries security methods, and by extension of the adminsitration of the institutions involved, is generally deemed to be in the national interest. In that respect, Dotcom is quite justified in revealing whatever he has far enough aut from the election in order to damage Key’s hopes of re-election, but leave it as late as possible in order to ensure that he has the fullest case possible.

                  • Simon …
                    17 July 2014 at 10:10 am

                    Thanks Hanswurst, I had been wondering about the timing, you’ve given good points I hadn’t considered.

                • North …
                  16 July 2014 at 10:51 pm

                  Now you’re getting unintelligible Grossman. Deal is go away, remove your undies, shower, climb into some new ones, come back, have another go. Rules are three attempts your pride gets swallowed.

          • Ross 1.1.4.1.2
            16 July 2014 at 1:33 pm

            With respect to Espiner, I understand he doesn’t vote. To call him a Nat is therefore wide of the mark.

    • Te Reo Putake 1.2
      16 July 2014 at 9:16 am

      I want them to release the details earlier than that as well. Early voting begins on September the 3rd; I’d like all voters to know if the current PM has been caught lying before they cast their ballot.

      Of course, another alternative is for Key to just fess up now 😉

      • Gosman 1.2.1
        16 July 2014 at 9:21 am

        The fact they don’t want to release it now suggests they have nothing concrete and this is just another unprovable allegation as if they did have a smoking gun it would do as much damage now as a week prior to the election.

        • Lanthanide 1.2.1.1
          16 July 2014 at 9:23 am

          I agree.

          • karol 1.2.1.1.1
            16 July 2014 at 9:25 am

            Yep. I’m anticipating damp squib.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 1.2.1.1.1.1
              16 July 2014 at 9:31 am

              I won’t be surprised either way, and in any case “Dishonest Prime Minister caught lying again!” is hardly Pulitzer material.

            • Matthew Hooton 1.2.1.1.1.2
              16 July 2014 at 9:49 am

              I have a rule for political analysis called “the video never arrives”. That is, if someone says “I’ll soon send you a video that will destroy X’s political career” it will almost certainly never arrive. If it did exist, X’s enemy would release it immediately. Why would you wait. So I agree with the skeptics above.

              Also, I think any New Zealander – a citizen or resident – holds documentary evidence that the prime minister of the day has systematically lied to the New Zealand people over a number of years on an issue where there is no need to lie (i.e., not the old “We will not be devaluing the dollar” which was a necessary lie if you have a fixed currency and intend to devalue in a few days) then they have an obligation to release that information immediately. This adds to my skepticism.

              But we shall see on 15 September I suppose.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                16 July 2014 at 10:12 am

                I think the evidence is likely to show that Key lied and it won’t matter – he’s done it so many times before.

                The timing is about Dotcom wanting votes for IMP.

              • Tracey …
                16 July 2014 at 10:32 am

                “where there was no reason to lie” !

                • Gosman …
                  16 July 2014 at 10:45 am

                  What reason do you think there is to lie about it?

                • Matthew Hooton …
                  16 July 2014 at 10:47 am

                  By which I mean, no public policy reason to lie (like with a devaluation or national security issues (e.g. “We have no spies in country X”

                  • Tracey …
                    16 July 2014 at 10:57 am

                    Thanks.

                    In my experience people lie for a myriad of reasons. Not all logical, not all rational. Some lie from habit and some panic about whether a particular answer will harm them or not, but have no time and default to an answer they think removes the harm, whether true or not. Example bennett over the cabinet club.

                    So trying to find a rational, intelligent or logixal reason for a lie to prove one exists overlooks a whole other group of liars.

                    I have also observed people who lie, and within hours or days they actually havestarted to believe it and even concoct events to back it that didnt exist and twist events that did to support it.

                    • Gosman …
                      16 July 2014 at 11:23 am

                      So as I thought the only reason you can think of why Key would lie us that you think he is a lying Tory B@stard. Excellent circular logic there.

                    • Tracey …
                      16 July 2014 at 11:27 am

                      For some reason your time on the planet has led you to think that unless someone has a reason you accept they havent lied. In any event Key lies, in fact, it is looking more and more like finding something he says that isnt a lie is the hard thing.

                      Labour tied us to the purchase of the bmws = lie
                      Labour tied us to guarantee SCF = lie
                      Rennie came to me a recommended Iain Fletcher = lie

              • BLiP …
                16 July 2014 at 10:41 am

                . . . Also, I think any New Zealander – a citizen or resident – holds documentary evidence that the prime minister of the day has systematically lied to the New Zealand people over a number of years on an issue where there is no need to lie (i.e., not the old “We will not be devaluing the dollar” which was a necessary lie if you have a fixed currency and intend to devalue in a few days) then they have an obligation to release that information immediately . . .

                Eeek! I’d better meet my obligation, then.

                Iain Rennie came to me and recommended Fletcher for the GCSB job

                I told Cabinet that I knew Ian Fletcher

                I forgot that after I scrapped the shortlist for GCSB job I phoned a life-long friend to tell him to apply for the position

                I told Iain Rennie I would contact Fletcher

                I haven’t seen Ian Fletcher in a long time.

                I did not mislead the House (13)

                I have no reason to doubt at this stage that Peter Dunne did not leak the GCSB report

                I called directory service to get Ian Fletcher’s number

                the new legislation narrows the scope of the GCSB

                the GCSB has been prevented from carrying out its functions because of the law governing its functions

                because the opposition is opposed the GCSB law ammendments, parliamentary urgency is required

                the increasing number of cyber intrusions which I can’t detail or discuss prove that the GCSB laws need to be extended to protect prive enterprise

                it was always the intent of the GCSB Act to be able to spy on New Zealanders on behalf of the SIS and police

                National Ltd™ is not explanding the activities of the GCSB with this new law

                cyber terrorists have attempted to gain access to information about weapons of mass destruction held on New Zealand computers

                the law which says the GCSB cannot spy on New Zealanders is not clear

                it totally incorrect that the Government effectively through GCSB will be able to wholesale spy on New Zealanders

                we self identified that there was a problem with the GCSB spying on Kim Dotcom

                the illegal spying on Kim Dotcom was an isolated incident

                The advice I have had in 4 years as a Minister is that in no way ever has there been an indication of unlawful spying

                the Ministerial Warrant signed by Bill English did not cover anything up

                I wasn’t briefed about the raid on Kim Dotcom’s home.

                first I heard I heard about Kim Dotcom was on 19 January 2012

                first I heard about the illegal spying on Kim Dotcom was in 17 September

                I did not mislead the House (14)

                I won’t be discussing Kim Dotcom during my Hollywood visit.

                The Human Rights Commission couldn’t get its submission on the GCSB legislation in on time.

                it would cost too much to for the police and SIS to carry out the spying on New Zealanders that this new legislation will permit

                critics of the GCSB legislation, including the Law Society, the Human Rights Commission, and the Privacy Commission, are all uninformed

                no, I did not mislead the House (15)

                I do not know how Mr Henry is conducting the Enquiry

                no, I did not mislead the House (16)

                the Henry Enquiry had permission to view Ministers’ emails

                no, I did not mislead the House (??)

                we do not spy on journalists

                the passing of phone records to the Henry Enquiry was an error on the part of a contractor

                I wasn’t aware that my own Chief of Staff was instructing Parliamentary Services to hand over information concerning journalist Andrea Vance

                National Ltd™ has never tried to impinge on the role of the media

                I had nothing to do with information on a journalist being handed over to the inquiry into the leaking of the GCSB report

                the terms of the enquiry made it clear to everyone that it was only the phone records of parliamentary staff and ministers that were to be provided

                I have the utmost respect for the media and the role it plays in New Zealand’s democracy

                the Henry Enquiry did not access a journalist’s building-access records

                the Henry Enquiry did not ask for phone and email records

                no, I did not mislead the House (17)

                the Greens are opposed to the GCSB and the SIS even existing

                the GCSB needs to spy on New Zealanders because there are al-Qaeda terrorists in New Zealand

                John Minto is in the Green Party

                the GCSB needs to spy on New Zealanders because of the terrorist threat, even though official reports released over my signature say there is no risk and the SIS has the matter in hand

                the GCSB Bill does not give the GCSB the power to look at the content of communications as part of its cyber-security functions

                no, I did not mislead the House (18)

              • Lanthanide …
                16 July 2014 at 11:42 am

                In this case, KDC’s reason has always been that it is part of his court case and so it wouldn’t be released until then.

                Why he would now change tune and release it on September 15 is not so clear. Maybe his lawyers have decided that they can risk releasing it before the court case anyway? Or maybe they have new additional information that they previously didn’t have? (maybe as a result of these new documents?).

                Obviously the court trial has been pushed back till next year, so it’s possible KDC saying it would be part of the court trial was just a way of having his cake and eating it too – releasing it at the court trial, but also ahead of the election. Now that it won’t be ahead of the election, the justification for waiting till the trial may be weakened.

                • Tracey …
                  16 July 2014 at 11:52 am

                  I understood he was always going to release pre election. Arent there two cases on the go?

              • Ross …
                16 July 2014 at 1:38 pm

                Matthew, you haven’t given this issue sufficient attention.

                Why did Patsy Ramsay lie about not giving her daughter, Jonbenet, pineapple? Sometimes people rush to lie because they think they need to, before realising some time later that a lie wasn’t necessary. But since the lie has been told once, it would make the liar look rather silly to back track.

              • Tom Jackson …
                16 July 2014 at 1:38 pm

                Greenwald and company are being very selective and patient with the release of the Snowden documents, and it’s working for them. The various governments have no idea of what he’s got and so can’t engage in their usual dismissals.

                I would think that KDC is following the same model.

                There’s also the fact that the internet has changed the rules. The half life of a piece of political outrage in the information age tends to be a week or two. Who worries about Oravida now, for example?

            • Daveosaurus 1.2.1.1.1.3
              16 July 2014 at 6:04 pm

              It’s probably something completely and utterly trivial and unmemorable. Say, for example, a form letter sent to Dotcom as a constituent.

        • Tracey 1.2.1.2
          16 July 2014 at 11:33 am

          Evidence? Reads like conjecture. Puckish rogue did this yesterday and now you are copying him. Make statements of conjecture and then demand evidence from anyone you disagree with who posts opinion/conjecture.

          I remembered why I stopped responding to you.

          • McFlock 1.2.1.2.1
            16 July 2014 at 12:17 pm

            yeah – I just can’t figure out what his motivation is for being such a slippery hobbitses.

            I guess that in the absence of any rational motive for his hypocritical manipulations, we must assume that some people are just dissembling fucktards.

        • georgecom 1.2.1.3
          17 July 2014 at 12:18 am

          not necessarily so Gosman. KDC has stated in months he will spill the beans on Key. That is months potentially where Key and Team Ket will have a bit of worry in their minds as to what KDC has on them. They will have to factor that fly in the ointment into their campaign strategy.

          Moreover, it gives the potential for the issue to dog Key for the next months and wrap him up in speculation and create some damage to Brand Key , have people doubting him and wondering what he is hiding. It can help undermine peoples trust in Key. Witness 2005 when Don Brash could not wiggle out from underneath the EB scandal which ended up costing Brash gis chance of being PM. The affect on Key could be along similar lines.

          And of course, it keeps Mana dotcom in the headlines from time to time. Raises a story they can pump some air into periodically if needed.

          I think it has the potential to be a clever strategy, at least until we see the quality of the revelations. That could either be much ado about nowt, or a really big problem for Key 5 days out from the election. Maybe a NZ Herald front page story with key saying I didnt Lie, as per Brash in 05. Will be interesting.

          • Lanthanide 1.2.1.3.1
            17 July 2014 at 8:54 am

            “And of course, it keeps Mana dotcom in the headlines from time to time. Raises a story they can pump some air into periodically if needed.”

            Despite the aphorism, not all publicity is good publicity. Especially in politics.

    • Puckish Rogue 1.3
      16 July 2014 at 12:05 pm

      And if you believe that you’ll believe anything

      • One Anonymous Bloke 1.3.1
        16 July 2014 at 12:08 pm

        The only person staking their credibility on it is you.

        • Puckish Rogue 1.3.1.1
          16 July 2014 at 12:16 pm

          This states how many lies Dot Cons made thus far:

          http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2014/07/dotcoms-changing-story-hes-got-nothing-scamming-media/

          But more importantly from the courts we have this:

          [47] To date, there is no evidence of any nexus between the Prime Minister’s meeting with the CEO of Warner Bros with Mr Dotcom’s residency applications other than the coincidence of the times of events pointed to by him. There is also an alternate explanation that could be advanced. Mr Dotcom had become impatient over what he perceived as delays with his residency application and informed INZ that his application could be withdrawn if it was not granted by 1 November 2010. The residency application was granted on 30 October 2010. It is feasible that INZ granted the residency application of a high net-worth person who was pressuring them for a decision.

          [48] The respondents need to prove some nexus between Mr Dotcom being granted residency and his claim of untoward political pressure being placed upon immigration officials to grant his residency other than hypothesised coincidence. In addition, they would need to show links between the INZ, NZSIS, the Prime Minister, the CEO of Warner Bros and the Applicant [the US government, my brackets] which showed the Applicant’s involvement in the actions of the New Zealand agencies. They would then need to show some illegal action by the Applicant indicating there was an abuse of process that would lead this court to provide some sanction against the Applicant in this case. To date they have not done so. Nor has it been shown that INZ and the NZSIS were acting as agencies for the Applicant at this time.”

          [49] The Respondents’ applications are based upon Mr Dotcom’s theory which is based upon evidence which has a plausible alternative explanation. They lack any “air of reality” as they rely upon a perceived coincidence. These applications are in the nature of a fishing expedition, made in the hope of flushing out evidence which may be useful to the Respondents. Even if it was successful it is highly unlikely that it would be evidence that might assist the Respondents to counter any of the Applicants’ evidence in the ROC. If evidence of improper political involvement was found, it would not impact upon the extradition hearing. It may or may not impact upon other court proceedings, but it is not the role of this court to grant discovery orders that may or may not be relevant to other proceedings.

          So yeah Dot Cons a criminal and a con man and keeps saying he has something but never manages to produce it and always keeps changing the date at which he says he’ll produce it (whatever it is)

          • McFlock 1.3.1.1.1
            16 July 2014 at 12:19 pm

            still more credible than national’s recent coalition partner…

          • framu 1.3.1.1.2
            16 July 2014 at 12:28 pm

            why are you using whaleoil as some sort of litmus test of truth? – i mean it is, but not in the way you think

          • One Anonymous Bloke 1.3.1.1.3
            16 July 2014 at 12:30 pm

            I note that the evidence of political pressure is now in the public domain, and that you voluntarily associate with a person who mocks bereaved families for money. No moral high ground for people who are covered in Cameron Slater.

            KDC may or may not be as you describe him, I don’t care one way or the other. What matters to me is that our government represents New Zealand’s interests rather than playing shabby games.

            Your obscene haste to character assassination is transparent, and ridiculous: get a clue; the question here is illegal activity by the New Zealand government, activity that has already opened them up to civil action.

            • Puckish Rogue 1.3.1.1.3.1
              16 July 2014 at 12:49 pm

              Play the ball not the man

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                16 July 2014 at 12:54 pm

                So why don’t you? Your entire argument is that KDC is a bad man, and what does that say about the New Zealand government’s behaviour in this matter?

                Nothing.

                • Puckish Rogue …
                  16 July 2014 at 4:19 pm

                  My arguement is hes a convicted crim, hes said he’ll do things and never does (internet cable or team NZ anyone?) hes said he has stuff on John Key but it either never appears or isn’t what he says it is and that hes playing NZ for fools

                  But we’ll see Sept 15 when once again what hes says comes to nought

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    16 July 2014 at 4:25 pm

                    What does that say about a breach of NZ immigration law as a result of political pressure, or the fact that this was done in the context of a joint NZSIS/FBI “op”?

              • framu …
                16 July 2014 at 1:00 pm

                yeah but your linking to whaleoil – he never plays the man does he

                bit late for crying foul there buddy

          • Tracey 1.3.1.1.4
            16 July 2014 at 12:35 pm

            can you post your analysis of the Prime Minister’s documented lies and what you think should happen to him as a result.

          • Tracey 1.3.1.1.5
            16 July 2014 at 1:19 pm

            Now read another analysis, relyingon the same paragraphs but being less selective as mr oil, and adding in the release of the recent emails which were not available to the court when it made the statements you quote.

            In fact the refusal to hand over such documents and the reasons given appear, at best, disingenuous

            http://gordoncampbell.scoop.co.nz/2014/07/16/gordon-campbell-on-the-dotcom-emails/

            • Tracey 1.3.1.1.5.1
              16 July 2014 at 1:24 pm

              Selective quoting AND a decision made without recourse to the documents just released

              ” : why weren’t these latest emails from 2010 given to the Dotcom defence team during the disclosure process, well in advance of the original extradition hearing date? They seem extremely relevant to the court actions already decided against Dotcom by the courts. That would include the recent High Court decision by Judge Nevin Dawson, who recently denied an application by the Dotcom team for further documentary evidence for the allegations against him.

              Dotcom had asked for documents held by the Security Intelligence Service (SIS), Immigration New Zealand, Police, Customs, Corrections and the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB). Dawson found there was “no reasonable basis” for granting the application for the documents. Some of Dawson’s comments now make quite ironic reading in the light of the emails just released.

              “It…would involve an extensive amount of time and resources to satisfy,” Dawson reasoned, “with a very low likelihood of it producing evidence relevant to the extradition hearing.” (Well, it might have turned up the INZ/SIS emails, for starters.) In his released judgement, Dawson was sharply critical of the conspiracy theories being advanced by the Dotcom team. Paras 47-49 are worth quoting, given what we now know about the references in the emails to “political pressure” on INZ to approve a residency application that – on its apparent merits – should never have been granted. “

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                16 July 2014 at 1:43 pm

                Is any of that relevant to the Extradition Act 1999? Which section applies?

                • Tracey …
                  16 July 2014 at 2:37 pm

                  I don’t know BUT if there has been an abuse of process, namely withholding information from a defendant or misleading a Court about how hard that evidence would be to locate, could see a natural Justice issue arise. I don’t know if such a thing would jeopardise the extradition, or whether it would cause the matter to be recommenced and done properly by the Crown?

                  Also it is not for the Crown to determine relevance per se. It seems to me the only way a Judge could conclude that finding such documents would take an extensive amount of time and resources to satisfy, is if the Crown has put that in their submissions or in an Affidavit submitted tot he Court. It’s a common excuse to stop people getting OIA information. I receive that one regularly myself with an offer to go to the Ombudsmen if unhappy.

                  I havent seen Dotcoms documents in defence, partly what I was asking Puckish for.

                  There is a defence that as copyright is not mentioned in the extradition treaty between US and NZ, that offence is not covered. he could be arguing that FBI and NZ police/GCSB/SIS were collaborating to illegally tap/surveil dotcom to try to get him on something that was within the treaty? I don’t know.

                  That could be why the reference to consipracy theories, to show bad faith by the Crown through NZ agencies?

                  Then there is the need for the crime to have been committed “in” the US. While it is alleged to have impacted companies “in” the US, that’s not necessarily, legally the same thing. Having a server in the US might not satisfy it either if DotCom himself and co-defendants were never in the US.

                  I know that doesn’t answer your question but is me kind of thinking aloud.

                  http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1999/0055/latest/whole.html#DLM25693

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    16 July 2014 at 3:46 pm

                    Nah, my understanding is it doesn’t really matter how many monumental screw-ups we made, the warrant on racketeering and money-laundering charges was issued in the US and according to the law our courts must surrender him.

                    Are these monumental screw-ups legitimate cause for concern from a Ministerial perspective? I think so. Enough for a Justice Minsiter to refuse the extradition warrant? Doubtful.

                    Maximum embarrassment for NZ: while we’re stuffing around, the US warrant gets thrown out in one of their higher courts.

          • Mark 1.3.1.1.6
            16 July 2014 at 4:30 pm

            You need to read the whole judgement and then the papers released yesterday and find the poor old judge is up a creek without a paddle. I feel sorry for the Judge. Another career destroyed by Dotcom.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 1.3.1.1.6.1
              16 July 2014 at 4:41 pm

              Dotcom, or the Crown’s manifest incompetence and bad faith?

            • Tracey 1.3.1.1.6.2
              16 July 2014 at 5:22 pm

              Funny that gosman didnt come along to correct marks wrong thinking.

              Mark

              If the career of the judge is fucked after the release of the emails it is the executive and crown responsible, not dotcom

      • Tracey 1.3.2
        16 July 2014 at 12:15 pm

        That sounds like a national party billboard. ?. Working for a brighter nz for everyone… If you believe that you will believe anything.

  2. Northshoreguynz 2
    16 July 2014 at 9:03 am

    As far as the food chain goes, the party grandees, (Joyce) see anyone below the pm as expendable. Their reputation at least. I suspect collins could be caught eating babies and not be sacked so close to the election.

  3. Paul 3
    16 July 2014 at 9:10 am

    Kathryn Ryan trying to focus on the story of Dot-com’s immigration.
    Jonathan Coleman not available for the second day running.
    Bill English not available.
    John Key not available.
    Running scared.
    Ryan clearly unimpressed by the government’s refusal to front on the issue.

    Do I sense they have something to hide?

    • Gosman 3.1
      16 July 2014 at 9:15 am

      Except the head of the department responsible was interviewed earlier and categorically stated no direct political interference occurred. Now he could well be lying to shield his Minister but that would mean the Public Service has been compromised politically. That would be a serious issue in itself and require a comprehensive overhaul. Is the opposition going to follow that up?

      • One Anonymous Bloke 3.1.1
        16 July 2014 at 9:20 am

        No, he stated that the Minister of Immigration didn’t interfere. Hard to see how the Minister of Immigration could interfere in the NZSIS decision to change their advice anyway, don’t you think Gossie?

      • mickysavage 3.1.2
        16 July 2014 at 9:24 am

        And this is where it gets murky. It may be that no political pressure was applied to Immigration and they made the decision by the book. The book says that if certain boxes are ticked, e.g. the subject has criminal convictions and the FBI are investigating him then SIS has a veto over the decision. Then the SIS changes its mind and goes from exercising the veto to waiving it.

        Immigration can then put its hand on its heart and say that there was no political interference in its process.

        The problem is that there was political interference but in another department’s process.

        • Tracey 3.1.2.1
          16 July 2014 at 10:37 am

          That is my sense too mickey. When the SIS removed its block, immigration officials processed accoding to its rules. By focusing on NZI Minister the truth is probably being told BUT who in the SIS suddenly changed their mind and why.

          I believe coleman wanted to get a poster boy for the “rich can buy their way in” policy. That is about the depth of this Cabinet.

          But it is following the full briefing of coleman that the block was removed… If not by coleman, who presumably had no such power, then who. Perhaps in the intersts of transparency colemans diary and meetings over that day could be published… And the minister for SIS, and the head of the SIS operations

      • Te Reo Putake 3.1.3
        16 July 2014 at 9:37 am

        A report of what Bickle said on RNZ is here: http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/249811/dotcom-claims-us-pressure

        The email alleging political pressure went from one spook to another according to the Herald:

        “On October 22 that year, one SIS agent wrote to another saying: “INZ [Immigration NZ] has phoned me to advise that the INZ CEO [Nigel Bickle] is questioning why this case is on hold. Apparently there is some ‘political pressure’ to process this case.”

        The agent noted the need for the “CEO” to be briefed on the Dotcom case. The SIS director at the time was Dr Warren Tucker, who reports directly to Prime Minister John Key.”

        The inconsistency in Bickle’s position is that the SIS were even mentioning him and Dr Tucker in the first place. And since when does the immigration service outmuscle the SIS to the point that the spies backed down in just 90 minutes?

        • One Anonymous Bloke 3.1.3.1
          16 July 2014 at 9:57 am

          Read the emails: NZSIS officers discuss various aspects of the case, including an initial decision (Ruling? Order?) that “…we won’t be telling INZ of the Police or FBI’s involvement.” (Page 11)

          In the end they told INZ to discuss KDC with the Police before granting permanent residency.

          • Pascals bookie 3.1.3.1.1
            16 July 2014 at 11:56 am

            Here’s a fuckup theory to replace the conspiracy one:

            The SIS emails repeatedly talk about the upcoming joint OP.eg:

            “…after some initial investigation into DOTCOM, The FBI has been in contact with NZSIS who have asked to do a joint investigation with NZ Police”

            Now the grammar in that is bit fucked, but I assume they mean the FBI want to do a joint OP with the NZPolice. But in any case, the SIS were very aware of this upcoming OP and wanted NZI to be sure about what they were doing.

            Talk to the police, they said. They went and briefed NZI and again said ‘talk to the police about what is going to happen’.

            There are also cautious exchanges about ‘we hope the right decision gets made’, and the ‘upcoming op should be interesting’. It could be that SIS wanted a decision that wouldn’t fuck up the Joint OP. ie, they very much wanted NZI to talk to the police, as they were assuming that the police would tell NZI ‘don’t give him permanent residency’ because the police would know (they assumed) that granting permanent residency would prohibit GCSB assistance.

            but they couldn’t come out and say this because turning down a residency on the grounds we want to spy on him for a foreign power looks dodge as fuck.

            NZI, meanwhile, was keen for their investor plus to be a goer, and didn’t give a fuck about some FBI investigation about copyrigh, so they didn’t rock the boat by asking the police when they feel they didn’t legally have to.

            So residency was granted, but the Joint Op was too far planned to walk away from without embarrassing people. And it all turned to shit from there.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 3.1.3.1.1.1
              16 July 2014 at 1:53 pm

              Yeah, but the ‘op’ wasn’t to spy on him, it was to extradite him. From the FBI’s point of view does him being granted PR make extradition easier?

              More to the point: if the answer to the above question is ‘yes’, what’s wrong with them saying so? They can’t have forseen the consequent incompetence.

              • Tracey …
                16 July 2014 at 2:40 pm
                1. We have an extradition treaty with the USA
                2. That treaty doesn’t specifically list copyright as an extraditable offence

                It is possible the OP was required to try and find an offence that WAS within the Treaty to get him to the US where both criminal and Civil cases could be waged against him? So, yes, they needed him to have PR so he would stay and they needed a cooperative government to assist in the collection of information.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  16 July 2014 at 2:48 pm

                  Money laundering, racketeering, conspiracy…

                  KDC’s US lawyer maintains that these are trumped-up charges, but for extradition purposes that is a matter for the US courts, no?

                  Why we have an extradition treaty with a country where judges are elected and the government wages war on nouns is another matter.

                  • Tracey …
                    16 July 2014 at 3:14 pm

                    My understanding is that No, having grounds for extradition is crucial. If the charges are “trumped up” then they are not real and cannot be within the US/NZ extradition treay ambit. He can only be extradited for a crime covered in the treaty, ergo, they have to prove they have evidence of such a crime to our Court. I dont know what the burden of proof is, prima facie, balance of probs or BRD. I would hope it isnt as low as prima facie.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      16 July 2014 at 3:21 pm

                      Section 45 (5)a: the person to whom the proceedings relate is not entitled to adduce, and the court is not entitled to receive, evidence to contradict an allegation that the person has engaged in conduct that constitutes the offence for which surrender is sought…

                      In other words the validity of the US warrant is a matter for US courts, not NZ. Arguments about racketeering etc. happen there, not here.

                    • McFlock …
                      16 July 2014 at 3:52 pm

                      8 Discretionary restrictions on surrender

                      (1) A discretionary restriction on surrender exists if, because of—

                      (a) the trivial nature of the case; or

                      (b) if the person is accused of an offence, the fact that the accusation against the person was not made in good faith in the interests of justice; or

                      My understanding is that the “money laundering” is the result of regular transactions using the proceeds from the “copyright violation”. I.e. if they were legitimate income then the transactions would be legal. They can’t extradite for copyright violation is my undersatanding, so they trumped up the charge.

                      But this is why lawyers and judges are needed – fucked if I can follow all the nuances. He’s rich, so that’s in his favour. The rest is up to the fates as far as I can tell.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      16 July 2014 at 3:57 pm

                      Can it be successfully argued that the FBI has acted in good faith in the interests of justice, given their track record in this case?

                      If you want to look honest, employing spooks is a bad way to start.

                    • Tracey …
                      16 July 2014 at 4:33 pm

                      it seems to me that section 8 1 b gives dotcom the opportunity to say the warrant is flawed and the process abused so no credence to alleged charge?

      • Anne 3.1.4
        16 July 2014 at 9:52 am

        I heard Nigel Bickle on Checkpoint last night. Apart from his inability to speak the Queen’s English, he talked utter rubbish at times. Mary Wilson gave up and cut him off in the end.

        How these types get into the top Public Service jobs beats me. Years of greasing up to superiors and hobnobbing with their Nat. masters can be the only answer.

        • Eralc 3.1.4.1
          16 July 2014 at 3:36 pm

          I heard that same interview with Mary Wilson. In trying to get my head around this latest development, I found Nigel Bickle very informative – that’s when he could actually get a word in edgeways and when Mary didn’t cut over him.

          • Anne 3.1.4.1.1
            16 July 2014 at 3:52 pm

            Yeah and the reason she kept cutting in was because he was saying pretty much the same thing over and over again in slightly different ways. In other words he was avoiding directly answering the questions. And anyone who keeps answering questions with “So… blah,blah,blah” is worthy of suspicion. It usually means they are talking to a predetermined meme regardless of the questions. Hekia Parata does it all the time.

      • Grantoc 3.1.5
        16 July 2014 at 9:53 am

        The head of immigration is a person with impeccable integrity. I trust his version of events insofar as the immigration angle on this case is concerned over anyone else’s. If he says there was no political interference, I believe that to be true.

        • freedom 3.1.5.1
          16 July 2014 at 9:55 am

          so what do you imagine is the “political pressure” that is clearly mentioned in the released papers?

          • Tinshed 3.1.5.1.1
            16 July 2014 at 8:20 pm

            It staggers me beyond belief that the words of one SIS employee in an email should be taken as gospel truth and the basis for an entire scandal. Even more so when a senior public servant directly involved says exactly the opposite. Seriously just because one SIS officer says something in an email, then John Key is demonstrably culpable? My guess is that if any one of us sat down with said SIS person and discussed their world-view, would we all nod our heads sagely and say, geez, what a insightful, knowledgeable individual. How times have changed! The Left now prefers the words of an SIS officer over a senior public servant. Two words: Bill Sutch.

            [Edit] Minor grammatical changes to make better sense.

            • freedom 3.1.5.1.1.1
              16 July 2014 at 8:31 pm

              So your interpretation is what exactly?

              • Tinshed …
                16 July 2014 at 8:46 pm

                That I prefer to believe the words of a known senior public servant in a live radio interview over that of an anonymous SIS officer in an email to another SIS officer four years ago. Sorry if I wasn’t clearer.

        • Matthew Hooton 3.1.5.2
          16 July 2014 at 9:56 am

          In which case, he must suffer from some illness which means he decided to call the SIS out of the blue and tell them that there was political pressure when there wasn’t.

        • Anne 3.1.5.3
          16 July 2014 at 10:07 am

          If he is a person of impeccable integrity as you allege Grantoc … how come he speaks so very badly and uses the American pronunciation of many words instead of the English pronunciation? People of impeccable integrity usually show it in other ways too.

        • Tracey 3.1.5.4
          16 July 2014 at 10:40 am

          On what basis? John Key says he is an “honest”, and that is complete shite. Some very good people buckle whentold “if you dont like it you dont have to stay”. Good people do bad things.

      • framu 3.1.6
        16 July 2014 at 12:30 pm

        this enitre comment is 100% distraction

        this theroy mean bad things if it is true, but its been denied by someone involved, so its not, but it could be, which would mean an enquiry – will someone whos not here take that up?

    • freedom 3.2
      16 July 2014 at 9:25 am

      an aside:
      the list of ‘not available for comment’ Ministers, which is an all too common occurrence, is contrasted nicely (read hysterically) by Minister Brownlee criticizing Espiner this very morning on not being given a chance to comment yesterday on the Northland roading situation.

  4. philj 4
    16 July 2014 at 9:15 am

    xox
    Whatever happened to transparency, accountability and higher standards? Yes Minister!

  5. Tiger Mountain 5
    16 July 2014 at 9:16 am

    The Torys efforts, Key’s in particular via Warners to toady up to Uncle Sam have seen a torrent (heh) of “unexpected consequences”. Retrospective legislation about who can be snooped on, 5 Eyes secrets exposed e.g. NSA funding streams to 5 eyes partners, Kitteridge Report, ACT MP Banksie convicted and out of parliament, PM’s mate hired for GCSB in a time of corporate/state functions merging, political circuit breaker IMP formed, greater public focus on the usually shy security services, and the PM presumably in Crosby Textor Hawaiian boot camp.

    The net is closing. All roads lead to Mr Key.

    • Gosman 5.1
      16 July 2014 at 9:19 am

      What has Bank’s conviction got to do with anything?

      • Paul 5.1.1
        16 July 2014 at 9:39 am

        The Dotcom link and how Key spent ages covering for Banks.

      • Te Reo Putake 5.1.2
        16 July 2014 at 9:45 am

        Dunno ’bout you, Gossie, but I can see Banksie telling Key that ‘Kim Dotcom’s our kinda guy’ at some point in the saga. A point sometime after KDC wrote the two cheques and before Key Ok’d the residency.

        • Gosman 5.1.2.1
          16 July 2014 at 10:34 am

          Banks was running for mayor at time and would have had little to do with Key I would suggest.

          • Tiger Mountain 5.1.2.1.1
            16 July 2014 at 10:43 am

            No need for such literalism Gossie, many of the actors in the Dotcom story are bit players; but Banksie is definitely not an extra here, regardless it has become a huge show going right to the guts of 5 Eyes, Snowden etc as well as likely affecting the result one way or another of this years NZ general election.

          • Tracey 5.1.2.1.2
            16 July 2014 at 10:44 am

            Then you are more naive than i would ever have imagined.

            This is you isnt it?

            ” . I tend to do this on articles where I perceive a special degree of wrong thinking or boneheadedness has been displayed. As such my main efforts in the past have been focused on places like The Standard or The Daily Blog.

            I decided that rather than take the easy option of sniping at foolish opinions I would attempt to create some of my own and allow others to do the same. My posts here will therefore designed to encourage discussion.

            I would describe my political philosophy as libertarian realism or classically liberal. All actions or policies of Government have unintended consequences in my mind. Left wing policies have more long term negative consequences than right wing ones though hence why I prefer to follow right leaning policies. That stated I am no blind ideologue and will acknowledge the negative consequences of right leaning policies as well. “

            • Gosman 5.1.2.1.2.1
              16 July 2014 at 11:12 am

              What evidence do you have that Banks and Key kept in touch prior to the 2011 election?

              • Tracey …
                16 July 2014 at 11:17 am

                Na uh… You stated “…would have had little to do with Key I would suggest.”

                I suggest that is naive. I need proof but you don’t? I do note you did think he would have some contact with Key just not much. So you and I are actually agreeing that Banks had contact with Key, just might not have been much.

                • Gosman …
                  16 July 2014 at 11:26 am

                  Ummmm… you can’t prove a negative. Are you stupid enough to think that you can?

                  • Tracey …
                    16 July 2014 at 12:01 pm

                    Ummmmmmmmmmm, can you actually read??

                    • You_Fool …
                      16 July 2014 at 1:26 pm

                      The evidence gathered over the years points to “No” as the answer you are looking for….

                  • framu …
                    16 July 2014 at 1:02 pm

                    “you can’t prove a negative. Are you stupid enough to think that you can?”

                    “Banks was running for mayor at time and would have had little to do with Key I would suggest.”

                    aww look – hes come over all stupid

            • karol 5.1.2.1.2.2
              16 July 2014 at 12:08 pm

              And the intended or unintended consequences of the increasing influence of corporate power on and in governments?

          • Te Reo Putake 5.1.2.1.3
            16 July 2014 at 10:48 am

            Bwahahahahaha! The right’s candidate in the first supercity election “would have little to do with Key”. Stop it, Gossie, you’re killing me!!!

          • karol 5.1.2.1.4
            16 July 2014 at 12:24 pm

            Banks was running for mayor at time and would have had little to do with Key I would suggest.

            May 2010 – (Elections were 9 Oct 2010)

      • Clemgeopin 5.1.3
        16 July 2014 at 10:08 am

        It did : Immigration, Residency, The Warner Bro +FBI initiated raid, KDC in jail, Hard floor, Backache, A friend in need turns coward and refuses help with mattress, KDC incensed with such a ‘fair weather friend’ and Reveals the 50,000/2×2 donation, Banks brainfades, Police exonerate Banks, Key does not even read police report, Private prosecution ending in criminal conviction, Now awaiting wet bus ticket or life-long prison……etc…Yeah, there is connection.

        Above all, KDC has directly and indirectly been very good for the country as this episode in our history has shaken and exposed the misdeeds that happen in our laws, constitution, intelligence networks, media, politicians, big business, money and foreign interference, politicians and the so called ‘leaders’.

        • Tiger Mountain 5.1.3.1
          16 July 2014 at 10:38 am

          +1 Clemgeopin

          • Anne 5.1.3.1.1
            16 July 2014 at 11:11 am

            Me too.

            Why did the SIS remove its block and who applied the political pressure?

            Lets cut to the chase here. NZ’s prime minister, John Key issued the instruction to the SIS to remove its block. He would have done so verbally to then Director, Warren Tucker during one of their regular meetings. He may have called the Director to an extraordinary meeting in order to pass on the instruction. There will be no written evidence of course, but it amounted to blatant political interference for John Key’s personal gain.

            As we know, this happened after extensive collaboration by the PM with Warner Bros. and through them, the FBI. There may even be a link between the choice of the making of the Hobbit movies in NZ with Key’s “agreement” to assist them in their quest for the KDC extradition. In other words a lot of highly questionable back scratching was going on behind closed doors.

            I well remember the TV interview when Key denied he had known of Dotcom’s existence until the day before the raid and then quickly dropping into the conversation that… maybe he had heard of him by another name and didn’t know they were the same person. It was said in that vague, dismissive way he has when he’s lying like a trooper. Kim Schmidt and Kim Dotcom. He knew damm well they were one and the same person!

            • Tracey 5.1.3.1.1.1
              16 July 2014 at 11:19 am

              Doesnt one email specifically refer to speaking to someone not emailing? In otherwords avoiding a paper trail?

              • Anne …
                16 July 2014 at 11:29 am

                Yes, I think so and my immediate thought … yeah that would be Warren Tucker. Can’t blame Tucker. He has to do what he’s told. This is all reminiscent of Muldoon who also used the SIS for personal and political gain.

                Edit: Key is on record as saying Muldoon is the politician he most admired.

                • Tracey …
                  16 July 2014 at 11:35 am

                  I agree. I was just pointing out to pseudo intellectuals like gosman, that ensuring there is no evidence of you lie or of the truth OR believing there is no evidence of your lie doesnt mean you havent lied. It remains a possibility.

                • the Pink Postman …
                  16 July 2014 at 2:34 pm

                  And Muldoon’s favourite was Thatcher , which only proves what a greedy lousy lot these Toties are . As my old granny used to say way back in the 1930’s there is only one good Tory .RIP.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                16 July 2014 at 11:35 am

                “I have left a voicemail message telling you what I intend to do.”

                Tuesday 19th Oct 2010, sender and recipient redacted.

            • srylands 5.1.3.1.1.2
              16 July 2014 at 11:32 am

              To quote Bert Copper, “Who cares?” You think this is going to influence the election outcome? I do believe that John Key had not heard of KDC until shortly before the raid. Why would he?

              What you should be concerned about is the guy is here. The SIS should have been listened to. He is a bad guy. Ironically he seems to have many cheer leaders here.

              We now have the perversion of a foreign convicted criminal who was desperate for residency in New Zealand, now attacking the government for letting him in. Why aren’t you pointing out the mind blowing hypocrisy?

              To cap it off, this criminal has used his wealth, generated by file sharing of copyrighted works and pornography to influence a group of far-left activists in New Zealand to cheer him on, subverting the judicial system, and feeding rich prick lawyers to get him to avoid extradition, and remain in New Zealand (you know the place you are now arguing he should never have been let into.)

              So to continue, the criminal with a history of racism, and exploitation of his workers is now joined at the hip with a Maori extremist separatist, and a far left feminist in order to continue to undermine our political system and our judicial system. (This feminist presumably is not too thrilled with KDC’s pornography driven wealth but is willing to turn a blind eye.)

              And amidst all this, you are dancing on the head of some pin saying that this whole mess is the PM’s fault? Well good luck with that.

              • framu …
                16 July 2014 at 12:55 pm

                why do you feel the need to misrepresent people?

                and could you please answer the two question from yesterday?

              • Tracey …
                16 July 2014 at 12:57 pm

                You outline another great reason to vote this government out for, as you are saying, they set aside his badness cos he was rich. When you put that together with all the proven lies of the Prime Minister you paint a compelling picture for why peole, like your wife, have and should vote Green Party this September.

                You have ACT, with its history of fraudsters including Awatere, Garrett and Banks, Labour’s Field, Nationals list of ministers who have no comprehension of “highest ethical standards”, there really is only one place to put your vote.

                So come on people, follow the call of Slylands, and vote Green.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                16 July 2014 at 1:06 pm

                S Rylands has the same problem as Puckish Rogue; every single thing he says about KDC can be true and that says absolutely nothing about the New Zealand government’s behaviour in this matter.

                Not only do we discover that the GCSB had been illegally monitoring this man, we find the NZSIS openly discussing withholding information from the people charged with the decision to grant him residency.

                Who was the person with sufficient level of authority over KDC’s file in the department to reverse the ‘on hold’ status of the PR application? On what basis did they make that decision? With whom if anyone did they consult beforehand (including any prior contingency plans)?

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  16 July 2014 at 1:11 pm

                  All of this, mind, with the specific intention to mount a full-scale “op” on his residence, and that of his family and employees who were thereby placed deliberately in harm’s way.

                  • Tracey …
                    16 July 2014 at 2:41 pm

                    YES, and that many want to avoid discussing that part of it all is fascinating.

              • North …
                16 July 2014 at 10:44 pm

                Oh what piss-arse equivocation is this SSLands ?

                “I do believe that John Key…….until SHORTLY before the raid”

                Which is NOT to express belief in TheGodKey’s unequivocal assertion. The day before the raid, dingbat.

                You might as well not have bothered with the 49 lines of whistling in the dark which followed your “belief”. Fucked your self in the first paragraph mate.

                The real question, given what is now in the public domain, is “Why, months before the raid, would he not ?”

            • Eralc 5.1.3.1.1.3
              16 July 2014 at 3:32 pm

              Wow! A movie in the making. I’ll watch it if I can download it.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                16 July 2014 at 4:46 pm

                Rowan Atkinson plays a bored, insincere lightweight who goes to the Beehive and adopts a serious of farcical bignote postures.

  6. nadis 6
    16 July 2014 at 11:04 am

    A couple of points:

    • the political pressure appears to have been mentioned by Nigel Bickel – head of Immigration NZ
    • the SIS suggested there was sufficient info about dotcom to decline the application
    • from the email chain it looks like SIS had a hold on the application because of concerns about the criminal history. Then after a meeting with head of SIS that hold is withdrawn because those concerns are outside the domain of SIS.
    • SIS advises INZ to contact police before making a decision.
    • INZ did not contact police

    Looking at this chain of facts, any potential skulduggery lies within INZ. Given the head of immigration is emphatic about no interference where are we left? He is either telling the truth or lying. Surely OIA’s will resolve that?

    • Tracey 6.1
      16 July 2014 at 11:20 am

      Why do you think a joint op between fbi and nz was mentioned?

      • nadis 6.1.1
        16 July 2014 at 1:13 pm

        It was only mentioned in the context that the FBI might be doing an operation with NZ Police and INZ should check with Police before making a decision. Doesn’t seem remarkable.

      • Weepus beard 6.1.2
        16 July 2014 at 1:34 pm

        That’s the weird bit for me.

        The SIS (and surely the Prime Minister by extension seeing as it’s his department and all), the police, and INZ all knew of the joint FBI/police operation (the dawn raid) in 2010. Coleman/INZ then thought “no big deal”, and let him in anyway.

        No, doesn’t seem remarkable at all. Lol.

        • Tracey 6.1.2.1
          16 July 2014 at 2:46 pm

          The raid was in 2012.

          These emails suggest the precursor to that raid began in 2010.

          It is arguable that giving him PR with full knowledge of an impending FBI/SIS/Police?GCSB operation to put him under surveillance in 2010 was to allow the collection of information that would make any crime fall within the US/NZ extradition treaty (copyright is not explicitly listed).

          Also, it appears an attempt to be distanced, by Coleman, may have been made, by not signing off the PR

          “Previously released OIA material shows Dr Coleman was extensively briefed on Dotcom, his history and his residency application in detail before it was granted. Large sections of the briefings to Dr Coleman were redacted, with officials saying the information needed to be kept secret to protect relations with another country and avoid prejudice to criminal investigations or trial rights.

          But when the residency was granted, Dr Coleman’s signature was absent – approval for Dotcom entering was delegated by “special direction” to two Immigration NZ officials.” herald

    • freedom 7.1
      16 July 2014 at 2:11 pm

      It’s lovingly referred to as Blip’s List and comes from these very pages Fred. Blip updates it when he can. Sure good to see people sharing it

  8. Appleboy 8
    16 July 2014 at 1:47 pm

    Dot Com has offered a 5 million dollar reward for evidence showing what the NZ Govt was up to. Let me see. Edward Snowden and Glen Greenwald have 100’s of thousands of documents yet to release. Someone working for SIS/Govt also might be keen to take up that offer. I expect we will see much more than just that Key knew Kim Dot Com but an insight into what he and the US Govt negotiated. Timing 5 days out from the election will rock enough of a chunk of support to defeat National. I am very happy at the thought of what will happen.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 8.1
      16 July 2014 at 2:06 pm

      Doubt it. It might boost the IMP vote a bit. Dotcom is such a polarising character it might even boost the National vote too.

      • Sable 8.1.1
        16 July 2014 at 2:27 pm

        Wishful thinking Anon B. Just look at Banks….

        • One Anonymous Bloke 8.1.1.1
          16 July 2014 at 2:34 pm

          Just thinking about the way contradictory facts strengthen false beliefs.

      • Anne 8.1.2
        16 July 2014 at 3:07 pm

        I think he’s leaving it too late to have much impact. It takes the average Jo and Mary Bloggs about three weeks to:

        a) get to pick up on political stories and
        b) get to digest their implications.

        He should give them at least two weeks – preferably longer.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 8.1.2.1
          16 July 2014 at 3:11 pm

          We’ll see, I suppose.

        • Bearded Git 8.1.2.2
          16 July 2014 at 3:30 pm

          Agreed Anne.

          I suggested on The Standard a couple of months ago that KDC might release the Key lies on about 6th September to give this a couple of weeks of traction.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 8.1.2.2.1
            16 July 2014 at 3:50 pm

            The report into illegal GCSB spying comes out tomorrow. The issue has wheels, never mind legs.

    • Puckish Rogue 8.2
      16 July 2014 at 2:58 pm

      But but but Dot Con has soooo much information on John Key (apaarantly) so why does he need to offer a reward?

      Oh thats right because hes a con man and a fraud and doesn’t have anything on John Key

      • One Anonymous Bloke 8.2.1
        16 July 2014 at 3:07 pm

        If you took off your ideological blinkers you’d be able to make quite a useful argument out of this, but in your haste to play the man, you forgot to engage your brain.

        Dotcom is being explicit about what information he has and does not have: he has information that Key lied (whoopdee-doo) but not that he conspired. Hence the reward: Dotcom is speculating about Key’s involvement. He is not alone in this: I see Tv3 and The National Party Herald are too.

        In other words his case for collusion is flimsy, like your feeble ad hominem rage.

        Please try and lift your game; my charity has limits.

        • Puckish Rogue 8.2.1.1
          16 July 2014 at 4:12 pm

          Unfortunately the capitalist running pig-dogs (is that right?) I work for frown on personal internet use during the day so i can’t spend as much time as I’d like on my posts but essentially Dot Con has nothing and anyone who thinks (hopes) he does will be sorely disappointed

          • One Anonymous Bloke 8.2.1.1.1
            16 July 2014 at 4:18 pm

            So, now we’ve established (ad nauseam) that you think he’s a bad man, what does that say about the government’s deliberate breach of New Zealand immigration law as a result of political pressure?

          • McFlock 8.2.1.1.2
            16 July 2014 at 4:20 pm

            how did you think the Banks trial would go, again?

            • McFlock 8.2.1.1.2.1
              16 July 2014 at 4:33 pm

              Ah, here we are:

              He’ll be found not guilty because hes not guilty and there’ll be a huge serve against KDC and the left will end up with egg on their faces (again)

              I think I’ll take your predictions with a grain of salt…

      • Tracey 8.2.2
        16 July 2014 at 3:35 pm

        Maybe cos Key lying over 100 times since 2008 doesnt convince muppets like you so he will try for 200, to see if the acolytes wake up

  9. Sable 9
    16 July 2014 at 2:26 pm

    This is the kind of politics we could well do without but its bread and butter for the two main political parties. And yet people still trot out and vote for them. Personally I don’t get it…

    • Clemgeopin 9.1
      16 July 2014 at 4:10 pm

      @Sable : This particular case/episode is more than just party politicking. It is about the integrity, honesty, misdeeds, injustice, broken laws, illegality, foreign interference, lies, misleading of parliament etc.

  10. infused 10
    16 July 2014 at 2:47 pm

    yes… just like all his other evidence.

    yawn.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 10.1
      16 July 2014 at 2:56 pm

      I agree – there is so much evidence that John Key is dishonest already – Blip has a list – why should any more make the slightest difference to his #team?

  11. Jrobin 11
    16 July 2014 at 2:49 pm

    In the Herald article Fisher notes that the OIAs were only successful, after several attempts, when Dotcom had waived the privacy conditions. Does this imply that Fisher and Dotcom worked together to get these released? No negative inferences drawn, just interesting.
    These emails just might be related to the evidence that Dotcom was going to reveal? It would explain why the Herald (previously savagely biased) are publishing them now; classic Key&co technique, announce it first and control the realase to undermine opponents. Just a thought. Or is Fisher actually a real journalist. There must be a few surviving as endangered creatures within the harsh climes of corporate media.

    On first reading the emails, with implied connection to Key as head of SIS, along with the stated upcoming raid by FBI, do certainly back up DCs explanation of events.
    It’s only when you read them again with a sceptical eye that there is no absolute proof. The concrete evidence may be in the redacted sections. This could be why DC is putting off revealing his socalled damning evidence. He may be seeking a way to get to the redacted sections to release these.

    By the bye it’s getting really tiresome hearing from numerous sorces, usually linked to the US of A, that their prospective and actual victims are “bad people”. So what.? Bad …..a subjective judgement! Even bad people shouldn’t provide an excuse for illegal and or corrupt behaviour; whether it be using drones to kill supposed terrorists, or the FBI SiS to raid private houses, or bombing innocent children in Gaza.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 11.1
      16 July 2014 at 3:01 pm

      Bad person = ‘subhuman for legal purposes, not covered by human rights reserved for good little party members persons’.

      • Anne 11.1.1
        16 July 2014 at 3:18 pm

        The whole “bad person” thing is rather pathetic. I’m surprised at its use by someone in the SIS. It implies a rigid black and white view on what is good and what is bad. How nice it would be if everything was so simple. What some people regard as bad is often something others regard as good.

        I’m reminded of the rough and tumble games we played as kids. There was always a goodie and a baddie involved and we took it in turns to play both. Not much difference in the grown-up world is it.

  12. Eralc 12
    16 July 2014 at 3:29 pm

    Grant is rather too close to this. What is Labour’s cosy arrangement with KDC – whether indirectly, or directly? Is Labour prepared to say? Donor?

    • Bearded Git 12.1
      16 July 2014 at 3:33 pm

      Eralc-how do you arrive at the conclusion that Labour and KDC are close? Nothing I have seen suggests this.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 12.2
      16 July 2014 at 4:05 pm

      Yes, once the full extent and nature of the political pressure applied and at whose behest we’ll be able to get a much clearer picture of this breach of New Zealand immigration law, and what charges will be laid as a result.

      Carry on.

    • Clemgeopin 12.3
      16 July 2014 at 4:19 pm

      Do you understand the purpose, responsibility and duty of the opposition party in a democracy?

  13. Plan B 13
    16 July 2014 at 6:02 pm

    My thought is that we are not here to defend Dotcom but rather to defend democracy and the rule of law.

    If in that cause Dotcom benefits so be it.

  14. Mike the Savage One 14
    16 July 2014 at 8:16 pm

    Hooton is a spin master for Key and Nats, so when even he sees risks, we are onto something. His theories are of course distractions. I think we may soon see the toppling of a popular PM, whose web of lies and manipulations are unfolding and falling to pieces.

    Roll on Election 2014, and roll on Dotcom’s big revelation on 15 August, although I am no fan of his. This country needs a solid shake up, as too many are held hostage, are betrayed, sold out and conned 24/7, it is a misery that has to end.

    Just watching Campbell Live again tonight, made so so furious and angry about what is going on. And TV One reported that 3 major Chinese banks are entering the market, to “compete” with other foreign banks dominating the finance sector here, one has Jenny Shipley on the board (former PM of NZ, and one major traitor to this nation), and we will see yet more houses and apartments sold to wealthy migrant and non migrant investors, ripping the guts out of this place.

    People, wake up, wake up, start rattling, shaking and creating a real stink, because it is almost too bloody late to save the land you live on.

  15. Chooky 15
    17 July 2014 at 9:42 am

    ‘Why the polls, policy & smears now don’t matter until after 7pm September 15th 2014’

    By Martyn Bradbury / July 17, 2014 /

    There are so many twists and turns to come until the 15th, that I can not imagine that the entire Nation’s attention won’t be on the Town Hall at 7pm.

    Couple of polls out today, Roy Morgan and the stuff.co.nz/Ipsos Polls – and they don’t matter.
    John Key could announce tax cuts from a live press conference in Hawaii, and it wouldn’t matter.
    David Cunliffe could be mocked on ZB by Mike Hosking for 10 hours straight. And it wouldn’t matter.

    All that matters now is 7pm Monday 15th at the Auckland Town Hall.

    The beauty of what Kim, Internet MANA and those fighting the mass surveillance state have generated here for the price of just hiring out the Town Hall is the entire nations attention and total dominance of the election campaign.

    Journalists like Duncan Garner, Vernon Small and Guyon Espiner have been highly critical that Kim doesn’t reveal the evidence linking Key to a conspiracy to collude with the US to entrap him right now so that they can decide if the evidence stacks up. This point ignores that throughout this case the Government have broken law, acted outside the rules and have been manipulating this process with ‘political pressure’ from the very beginning and Kim has every right to counter that by releasing the information when it’s going to be most damaging to Key.

    5 days out from the 2014 election is the time that would be most damaging to Key.
    There are so many twists and turns to come until the 15th, that I can not imagine that the entire Nation’s attention won’t be on the Town Hall at 7pm.

    Laila Harre’s comments that Kim wouldn’t be allowed in have been seized upon as a giant awkward moment between the two. I think that’s a terrible misreading of why she said that.
    The meeting will be live streamed on The Daily Blog.

  16. travellerev 16
    17 July 2014 at 11:07 am

    Once upon a time all a king had to say was Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense which roughly translates as: Shame on him who thinks evil of it and everybody pointing out the guy was trying to screw another king or nobleman would shut up for fear of losing their head if they didn’t.

    The king was Edward III who founded the order of the Garter which funnily enough sports the above as its motto and funnily enough included more than 30 knights who went on to help him nick the French throne. No conspiracy there though because the official explanation was that the king when a lady in waiting lost her garter he picked it up, tied it around his own leg and told the crowd gathered, “Shame upon those of you who think something bad about her losing her garter in public you dirty conspiracy theorists you!”

    It seems John Key and his minions took the lesson to hart. All you dirty Conspiracy theorists you, Shut the fuck up!

  17. Chooky 17
    17 July 2014 at 11:23 am

    ‘Did Key collude with America to trap Kim Dotcom in NZ?’

    By Martyn Bradbury / July 16, 2014

    Has this entire case been an entrapment involving Key colluding with the United States?

    In light of the latest evidence that shows the SIS dropped their issues with Kim Dotcom coming into the country 90 minutes after acknowledging ‘political pressure’, the spin from Government mouthpieces is very clear, this is an immigration issue and as such needs no further explanation or examination.
    How convenient. The timeline Chris Trotter and David Fisher have generated however states something very different…

    In the months leading up to November 2010, when Dotcom was finally granted permanent residence status, the SIS had consistently advised against it. According to the SIS’s vetting team, the German IT entrepreneur’s past crimes and misdemeanours made him an unsuitable candidate for permanent residence in New Zealand. Then, quite suddenly and without explanation, everything changed. The SIS reversed its position, informing Immigration NZ that they no longer had any objections to Dotcom being admitted to the country.

    Officially, Dotcom was granted permanent residence under the “Investor Plus” scheme whereby high-net-worth individuals willing to invest more than $10 million in New Zealand’s domestic economy were fast-tracked through the system. In the light of subsequent events, however, the sudden removal of all SIS objections to Dotcom’s entry may have been inspired by considerations that had nothing to do with his investment plans.

    Dotcom’s spectacular arrest by the New Zealand Police took place at his Coatesville mansion on 10 January 2012 – just five days after the FBI filed copyright-violation, money laundering and racketeering charges against him in a Virginia court. It is, however, very clear that the operation to secure his apprehension and extradition to the United States had been planned for many months. Equally clear is the more-or-less continuous role the spy agencies of both the United States and New Zealand played in monitoring and gathering evidence against Dotcom, his partners, and their Megaupload business.

    Dotcom’s revelations to the public meeting on 25 July 2013 point very clearly to the possibility that the FBI may have advised the New Zealand authorities, including the SIS, that they would be doing the US Government a very big favour if they allowed Dotcom into the country. New Zealand, as part of the now notorious “Five Eyes” intelligence-sharing agreement, was the perfect holding-cell for Dotcom while the months of evidence-gathering (i.e. covert surveillance) required to secure his extradition was organised and executed.

    Why would the FBI ask such a favour of a supposedly sovereign state? What reason did they have to suppose that the government of New Zealand would be prepared to connive in an American-driven exercise designed to eliminate an enterprise that was fast becoming a significant threat to the profitability of US media corporations?

    Most probably because, in the weeks immediately preceding Dotcom’s permanent residence being granted, the FBI, along with the Hollywood moguls on whose behalf Dotcom was being hunted, had witnessed the New Zealand Government ride to the rescue of Warner Bros.’ production of The Hobbit. In the space of a day the New Zealand Parliament passed legislation which made the unionisation of New Zealand’s film industry a near impossibility. A government that was willing to strip away the employment rights of its own citizens to keep Hollywood happy was unlikely to lose too much sleep over the fate of a German IT entrepreneur who had somehow incurred its wrath. Indeed, it’s entirely possible that Hollywood may have pointed the FBI in John Key’s direction!
    If such a request was received, then all the evidence subsequently extracted from the individuals and institutions involved in Dotcom’s surveillance, arrest and extradition suggests that it was granted. Certainly, the ease with which the FBI enlisted the “fraternal” assistance of the NZ Police and the GCSB indicates strongly that ever since the signing of the UKUSA Agreement in 1946 any and every request for assistance from the national security apparatus of the United States has been granted. Why else would Key respond to the New Zealand courts’ determination that the GCSB acted outside the law with legislation making its hitherto illegal activities legal?

    …has this entire case been an entrapment involving Key colluding with the United States? Copyright protection has been elevated into a national security issue in America as the United States seeks to expand their jurisdiction into cyber space and push soft power via American culture, Kim Dotcom’s case is a poignant example of that new push. The political pressure to allow Kim into the country, the sudden need to legalise mass surveillance, the high level meetings with American Intelligence Agencies, the total amnesia Key seems to have to a target that everyone else in his Government was gunning for, the personal appointment by Key of Key’s childhood friend to head the GCSB, the illegal spying etc etc. The list of rotten lies and manipulations goes on and on and on.

    The question now is what happens if evidence linking Key to such collusion comes out before the election?

Links to post