Key chucks his “lawyer” under a bus

Written By: - Date published: 10:04 am, May 2nd, 2016 - 125 comments
Categories: Abuse of power, accountability, john key, scoundrels, tax - Tags: , , , ,

Typical Key – PM denies giving lawyer info on trust changes

The Prime Minister says his lawyer misrepresented him when lobbying the Revenue Minister not to change the rules governing foreign-owned trusts.

Key has form on lying, you’d hope that his “lawyer” does not.

https://twitter.com/DavidSlack/status/726854678764355584

https://twitter.com/DawgBelly/status/726855432988291072

https://twitter.com/grantrobertson1/status/726854884897619968

125 comments on “Key chucks his “lawyer” under a bus ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. mickysavage 1
    2 May 2016 at 10:09 am

    In this case I would definitely trust the lawyer 😀

    Whitney has been in practice for decades. You don’t survive in the profession unless you are very accurate.

    • Magisterium 1.1
      2 May 2016 at 3:06 pm

      I thought The Standard revealed Whitney isn’t a lawyer?

      http://thestandard.org.nz/johns-keys-lawyer-is-not-a-lawyer

      • Hanswurst 1.1.1
        2 May 2016 at 4:09 pm

        Baby steps here:

        1. “You don’t survive for decades” implies a period of time *in the past* during which “you” survived.

        2. “You” in this case refers to a generalised individual, represented by Mr. Whitney.

        3. The “profession” in the hypothetical, survivable instance is that of a lawyer.

        4. The link you provided assumes the fact that Mr. Whitney was, at some point in the past, a lawyer.

        5. The lobbying in question took place in that period of Mr. Whitney’s life during which he was a lawyer.

        6. Therefore your point is bullshit.

        7. No problem, I’m always happy to help out the phenomenally dense.

        • Magisterium 1.1.1.1
          2 May 2016 at 4:54 pm

          mickeysavage wrote in the present perfect tense, using the form “has been in the profession” when he could have said “was” or “had been”. I guess mickeysavage has just misrepresented Mr. Whitney’s professional status.

          • dv 1.1.1.1.1
            2 May 2016 at 5:08 pm

            WOW there is another pin head.

          • Hanswurst 1.1.1.1.2
            2 May 2016 at 5:46 pm

            According to the link you provided,
            “If you provide any legal services without a current practising certificate you must not describe yourself as a lawyer, law practitioner, legal practitioner, barrister, solicitor, attorney-at-law or counsel. To do so is an offence under Section 21 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act”. It is entirely possible for Whitney to be “in the practice” of providing legal services so long as he does not describe himself as a lawyer (or provide services in a reserved area of law). We need better pedants.

          • Chris 1.1.1.1.3
            2 May 2016 at 5:59 pm

            When RWNJs have said all they can…

          • Matthew Whitehead 1.1.1.1.4
            2 May 2016 at 6:42 pm

            Are we getting into grammar, mein damen und herren? Alright, but you should have come prepared.

            That isn’t the present perfect. The present perfect is “I have survived ten years in this business.”

            That was a negated subjunctive with a connecting clause- “you [do not] survive ten years as a lawyer without being careful.” That implies that there were ten years at some point, but importantly, no indication of when. It doesn’t imply they still continue because there’s no “have” auxilliary verb. The sentence you’re acting as if you saw is: “He hasn’t survived ten years as a lawyer without being careful.”

            • Magisterium 1.1.1.1.4.1
              2 May 2016 at 8:04 pm

              Can you read?

            • Hanswurst 1.1.1.1.4.2
              2 May 2016 at 8:53 pm

              I find your efforts praiseworthy, but on the subject of grammar: 1. It’s “meine Damen und Herren”, with an “e” to agree with the plural nouns “Damen” and “Herren”, which, being nouns, are capitalised as written; 2. The verb in the sentence that Magisterium quoted (well, misquoted, but I misquoted mine a bit lazily, too, so I’m not one to complain) was “has been”, which is indeed the present perfect.

              Doesn’t change the fact that Magisterium’s feeble attempt at pedantry misfired on all cylinders, of course, and that any substantive point was so ham-fisted that it is unclear as to whether there actually was one in the first place. What an embarrassment.

    • whateva next? 1.2
      2 May 2016 at 9:15 pm

      …and now how will Whitney respond if he has survived being thrown under a bus?
      “You don’t survive in the profession unless you are very accurate.”
      I hope so.

  2. One Anonymous Bloke 2
    2 May 2016 at 10:11 am

    When he says “I”, we can translate this in various ways: for example, “My office is not aware of the outcome of that meeting”.

    • Draco T Bastard 2.1
      2 May 2016 at 11:28 am

      He was wearing his I am another person Hat at the time?

      • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.1
        2 May 2016 at 11:31 am

        Who cares what the mendacious wretch tells himself?

        • Mosa 2.1.1.1
          2 May 2016 at 2:10 pm

          Where is Winston on this ?
          This is bigger than the Winebox !!!
          Key under pressure say MSM.
          Bullshit!
          Ask Helen Clark about pressure!

  3. framu 3
    2 May 2016 at 10:13 am

    i cant see what the lawyer would have to gain by telling a a lie about what the PM said,

    so – heres the test for any defending this – why would the lawyer lie? – what purpose or use does such an action have?

    • One Anonymous Bloke 3.1
      2 May 2016 at 10:27 am

      Are you serious? We know what they’ll say: “this is all a beat-up by Labour, who did it too”.

      And “technically he isn’t a lawyer so nyah nyah”.

      And “you have KDS, all you do is attack my Daddy”.

      We know it’s the Prime Minister who’s lying, just don’t expect Whitney to confirm that.

  4. dv 4
    2 May 2016 at 10:15 am

    Mind you Key is very sloppy in his speech and what he says.

  5. mickysavage 5
    2 May 2016 at 10:15 am

    I have just had a listen to the audio. Wow.

    A few interesting features about the interview:

    1. Key says the group went to see McClay. McClay actually went to see them. At Whitney’s office.
    2. Key says he was not aware of any changes to the regime at the time. I suspect Cabinet agendas are being scoured as I type this.
    3. He places full reliance on the tax lost if the foreign tax industry closed and nothing on the reputational damage being caused to New Zealand.
    4. Key sounds very tired …

    • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1
      2 May 2016 at 10:21 am

      Early in the interview he says something to the effect of he’s not sure whether McClay knew Whitney was his lawyer. Later on, he admits telling McClay. Espiner sounds borderline contemptuous, and who wouldn’t?

    • NZJester 5.2
      2 May 2016 at 10:48 am

      Can IRD not give a more accurate level of actual taxes it has received from all these trusts?
      Are the trusties really paying taxes on the full money they receive or are they themselves taking advantage of the same system to also keep their money as tax free as possible?
      I wold be surprised if any government was getting more than a cent in tax on every million dollars flowing through these trusts.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 5.2.1
        2 May 2016 at 10:52 am

        Their (the trusts’) NZ tax rate is 0%, so the IRD doesn’t need to know what they “earned”. That’s part of what makes them so useful to criminals.

      • Draco T Bastard 5.2.2
        2 May 2016 at 11:40 am

        The trusts aren’t paying taxes – the lawyers administering them are and they’re probably* using similar vehicles offshore to avoid paying taxes here.

        After all, if you’re in the business of minimising taxes for others then you are going to avail yourself of it.

    • AmaKiwi 5.3
      2 May 2016 at 12:00 pm

      +1

      nice work, Mickey

    • Sacha 5.4
      2 May 2016 at 12:10 pm

      IRD estimates NZ’s foreign trust industry pays only $3m tax on $24m of income. Not much of a loss if it was outlawed.

      • AB 5.4.1
        2 May 2016 at 1:38 pm

        That’s 12.5% – much lower than the top marginal rate of income tax. And these will be very high income lawyers and accountants.
        So how do they do that? Not via an option available to PAYE wage slaves.

        • alwyn 5.4.1.1
          2 May 2016 at 2:42 pm

          Wouldn’t that money be the GST charged on the money that the foreign entities are paying for services received in New Zealand?
          Any lawyer care to comment on whether these services attract GST which has to be collected and paid to the Crown?

          • International Rescue 5.4.1.1.1
            2 May 2016 at 6:10 pm

            It’s complicated, but given http://www.ird.govt.nz/gst/additional-calcs/calc-spec-supplies/calc-zero/calc-zero.html#exportedservices, specifically under “Services supplied to non-residents outside New Zealand at the time the service is supplied”, I’d say the services are exempt. (Not a lawyer BTW).

            • alwyn 5.4.1.1.1.1
              2 May 2016 at 6:24 pm

              Thank you.
              It does go on doesn’t it?
              Like you I am not a lawyer so I think I’ll just toss it into the too hard basket.
              I am not even sure who the services would be supplied to. Would it be a New Zealand resident trustee for example?

              • International Rescue …
                2 May 2016 at 6:42 pm

                It’s all so much speculation. That’s what’s making this all so humorous. Unless someone can provide an example of actual wrongdoing, and so far there hasn’t been any provided, this is going the same way as Helen Clark’s speeding to the rugby. Nowhere.

                • Psycho Milt …
                  2 May 2016 at 8:55 pm

                  Well, I guess it depends on whether you consider offering money-laundering services to be “wrongdoing,” which in turn depends on whether you operate a model of ethics that goes beyond “it wasn’t illegal.” It’s reasonable to assume that most readers of this blog, and I suspect most NZers, wouldn’t hesitate to file “offering money-laundering services” in the category “wrongdoing,” regardless of whether it was legal or not. Many of us also find it anything but humorous.

                  • International Rescue …
                    3 May 2016 at 9:48 am

                    Yet still no actual examples of money laundering.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      3 May 2016 at 10:11 am

                      No examples whatsover.

                      Apart from Onetai farm.

                      There is one example of money laundering: Onetai farm, and Operation Acacia.

                      Our examples are two: Operation Acacia, and Onetai Farm. Otherwise there is absolutely no money laundering in New Zealand.

                      Apart from Operation Flyer.

                      Shall we go on?

                      I note you failed to address whether you think offering money-laundering services is “wrongdoing”. Many cretins retain a moral compass, but not you.

                    • Psycho Milt …
                      3 May 2016 at 10:15 am

                      No shit, Sherlock? We’ve set up a foreign trusts system that’s perfect for money-laundering because officials in neither country know whose money is in the trust, and now we can’t prove that it’s being used for money-laundering because, uh duh-uh, we don’t know whose money is in the trusts. Maybe it would be a good idea just not to set up a foreign trusts system that’s perfect for money-laundering in the first place?

                    • International Rescue …
                      3 May 2016 at 11:19 am

                      “Apart from Onetai farm.”

                      You’re referring to the purchase of a block of NZ land, legitimately and legally by an off shore entity. That’s not money laundering, again you seem incapable of simple comprehension.

                      Money Laundering “Money laundering is the generic term used to describe the process by which criminals disguise the original ownership and control of the proceeds of criminal conduct by making such proceeds appear to have derived from a legitimate source.”

                    • Psycho Milt …
                      3 May 2016 at 11:39 am

                      For example, by making use of a foreign trust system that’s operating within a respected first-world jurisdiction but doesn’t require the criminal’s details to be registered.

                    • International Rescue …
                      3 May 2016 at 11:44 am

                      “For example, by making use of a foreign trust system that’s operating within a respected first-world jurisdiction but doesn’t require the criminal’s details to be registered.”

                      What criminal? I’m asking for some real examples. If this is so rampant, name some.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      3 May 2016 at 12:08 pm

                      You’re referring to the purchase of a block of NZ land, legitimately and legally by an off shore entity. That’s not money laundering

                      Please tell us that you have verified and audited the sources of money used by these “offshore entities” buying up land in NZ.

                      Otherwise, how can you tell that it is not “money laundering”?

                      The answer is – you can’t. You’re just talking out of a hole in your ass.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      3 May 2016 at 12:11 pm

                      What criminal? I’m asking for some real examples. If this is so rampant, name some.

                      I love how naive you are pretending to be.

                      Let’s provide $50M to set up a Government white collar fraud squad which has teeth, and then we can talk.

                    • International Rescue …
                      3 May 2016 at 1:25 pm

                      “Please tell us that you have verified and audited the sources of money used by these “offshore entities” buying up land in NZ.”

                      I don’t have to do anything of the sort, because I’m not making the hysterical allegations. I’m calling bs on this, and I’m asking for actual hard evidence.

                    • International Rescue …
                      3 May 2016 at 1:33 pm

                      “Let’s provide $50M to set up a Government white collar fraud squad which has teeth, and then we can talk.”

                      Claims are being made here of criminal activities. If there is evidence, lets see it. I’m calling BS on the lot until I see evidence.

                    • Psycho Milt …
                      3 May 2016 at 3:18 pm

                      What criminal? I’m asking for some real examples. If this is so rampant, name some.

                      Sigh. To repeat my earlier comment:

                      “We’ve set up a foreign trusts system that’s perfect for money-laundering because officials in neither country know whose money is in the trust, and now we can’t prove that it’s being used for money-laundering because, uh duh-uh, we don’t know whose money is in the trusts.”

                      So, yes, you’re right – indeed I can’t prove that the country’s foreign trust services are being used for money-laundering by criminals, because not being able to prove that is the whole fucking point of the trusts.

                      Given the above, of more relevance is the question of what basis do we have for confidence that these foreign trust services couldn’t be and aren’t being used as money-laundering services for criminals? The answer to that question is that we have no basis for confidence, and that this lack has been noticed by overseas jurisdictions and by the IRD, but deliberately ignored by the government, and in fact the Prime Minister has taken steps to ensure a continued lack of any basis for confidence. If you’re happy with that situation, you’re a charlatan or a fool – there aren’t any third options.

                    • International Rescue …
                      3 May 2016 at 4:19 pm

                      “So, yes, you’re right – indeed I can’t prove that the country’s foreign trust services are being used for money-laundering by criminals, because not being able to prove that is the whole fucking point of the trusts.”

                      No, it isn’t. Trusts can be broken, quite easily actually, and foreign trusts have disclosure conditions. You are swallowing a line that only the truly gullible would fall for.

                  • Psycho Milt …
                    3 May 2016 at 10:41 pm

                    …foreign trusts have disclosure conditions.

                    They do indeed. And I expect there’d be various foreign governments interested to make use of those disclosure conditions if there was any way of knowing that any particular trust warranted investigation. However, the PM and his friends have ensured that no information that would help in that respect is available to NZ officials. Could be that no foreign trusts in NZ are money-laundering operations, could be that every single one of them is – we don’t know, which is actually the point.

            • Craig H 5.4.1.1.1.2
              2 May 2016 at 10:07 pm

              I’m also not a lawyer, but used to work for IRD, and exported services are zero-rated for GST, so they don’t have to charge it to overseas clients, but can claim GST back on their GST returns i.e. they may actually get a refund on GST. All part of the service…

          • Tricledrown 5.4.1.1.2
            2 May 2016 at 9:58 pm

            Financial services don’t pay gst.

            • Craig H 5.4.1.1.2.1
              2 May 2016 at 10:46 pm

              At least some of the tax planning services won’t be exempt. To quote IRD:

              Services relating to initial planning fees, monitoring fees, evaluation fees and replanning fees are subject to GST.

              Services relating to implementation fees, administration fees and switching fees are financial services and exempt from GST.

              Source: http://www.ird.govt.nz/gst/additional-calcs/calc-spec-supplies/calc-exempt/calc-exempt.html

              • Colonial Viper …
                3 May 2016 at 12:13 pm

                None of this guys clients pay GST FFS, except for purchases of Bollinger from the corner bottle store. And even then its probably going to be through their GST registered company or trust.

        • Nessalt 5.4.1.2
          2 May 2016 at 8:22 pm

          seeing it’s a business, they are paying tax on profits of around $8.5m. pretty healthy margins.

    • whateva next? 5.5
      2 May 2016 at 9:17 pm

      “4. Key sounds very tired 
” or drunk?

  6. TC 6
    2 May 2016 at 10:22 am

    Oh my my the rats are starting to eat each other

    • Muttonbird 6.1
      2 May 2016 at 10:45 am

      Key’s next visit to the Antipodes offices will be awkward to say the least.

  7. NZJester 7
    2 May 2016 at 10:39 am

    Just by calling him a Lawyer Key is lying. The guy retired as a registered lawyer and can not legally be called one in NZ any more. This also puts him outside of some of the possible sanctions for any wrongdoing he might do as the guy running one of these trusts.

    • alwyn 7.1
      2 May 2016 at 2:47 pm

      From what Sabine was talking about on this blog previously Key can say anything he likes.
      It is only an offence for someone to call themselves a lawyer if they aren’t but are actually offering legal advice. Thus Whitney could breach the law if he called himself a lawyer and he was giving legal advice but it has nothing to do with what Key can do or say.
      At least I think that was what Sabine was saying.

      • Sabine 7.1.1
        2 May 2016 at 7:22 pm

        I, my dear, said fuck all.

        The law however says:

        ” “If you provide any legal services without a current practising certificate you must not describe yourself as a lawyer, law practitioner, legal practitioner, barrister, solicitor, attorney-at-law or counsel. To do so is an offence under Section 21 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act”. ”

        a link so you can inform yourself

        http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2006/0001/latest/DLM365726.html
        http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2006/0001/latest/DLM365730.html#DLM365730

        can we get better trained National Groupies, these ones seem to have reached their used by date.
        thanks.

        • alwyn 7.1.1.1
          3 May 2016 at 12:04 am

          For God’s sake woman I was quoting what you said because you seemed to know what you were talking about.
          I was crediting you with some knowledge of the matter.
          If you now say “I, my dear, said fuck all” I suppose I must assume that you really don’t know anything about the subject and that the quotations you give come into the category of things you know “fuck all ” about.
          Now in just what way does what I credited you with saying differ from what is really the case?
          ie Can Key say anything he likes without breaking any law?

          • Sabine 7.1.1.1.1
            3 May 2016 at 7:45 am

            then you say something like “Sabine quoted” which i did, but you do not put words in my mouth that i did not say, cause you see, I am not a lawyer, good man, and I actually do remember what i say……….when i say it and such, it’s the difference between me and and the Ladies and Gents of the National Party Stormtroopers. You guys are so busy shoveling shit up a mountain, you can’t remember who said and who quoted – it must be that Key-ism rubbing of on you guys.

            In fact, i repeatedly quoted the expert so that you and your mates understood that calling oneself or someone else a lawyer might actually be breaking the law especially of someone ‘resigned’ officially and is not Member of the Bar anymore.

            And to make sure you actually know where to look for the information i put some links up. Did you read them?

            And Mr. Key may want to consult a lawyer at this stage, one that is actually still allowed to practice law and can legally give advise as a lawyer. I think he needs one. And i also think he should consult a health official, these memory lapses of his are very odd, Reagan comes to mind.

    • Magisterium 7.2
      2 May 2016 at 4:58 pm

      Just because you really want something to be the case does not make it so.

      • Whateva next? 7.2.1
        3 May 2016 at 7:05 am

        Unless you are of the 1%, in which case
        ” to want is to have, and to have is to want more”

    • Hanswurst 7.3
      2 May 2016 at 10:09 pm

      I don’t think there’s a legal issue surrounding Mr. Key’s use of the word “lawyer” to describe Mr. Whitney. It only becomes a legal issue if Mr. Whitney attempts to present himself in those terms. Immediately, Mr. Key’s description of him as “my lawyer” raises substantive, rather than legal questions:

      1. If Mr. Whitney is not a practising lawyer, what services does he provide Mr. Key with that would lead Mr. Key to believe that he is currently Mr. Key’s lawyer?
      2. If he did not transfer to Antipodean for the purposes of working as a lawyer, why were Mr. Key’s funds held there?

      Attendant to those questions is the question of why Mr. Key’s money turned up there (and whether that was the only time he had used the firm for those purposes) if Mr. Whitney had, in fact, owned the company for a time and been associated with it for a couple of decades, rather than having transferred there recently as Mr. Key claimed.

  8. North 8
    2 May 2016 at 10:41 am

    Vintage Fake Man Key behaviour……..blame the underling. Is this prime minister unprecedented in all history with his high office imposing responsibility on anyone but him ? Seems that way. That is wilfully corrupt governance. Anything that goes*, goes.

    *can be got away with. Caricature of an amoral caricature.

  9. whispering kate 9
    2 May 2016 at 10:44 am

    Well he was named the Smiling Assassin for laying off staff en masse without any qualms so this must have been an easy task for him, betraying his supposed trusted confidante. Martyn on the Daily Blog had a great line this morning “the Great White Shark dead eyed ruthlessness ….” explains him perfectly. The man is lining himself up for the perfect fall from grace,

    • ropata 9.1
      2 May 2016 at 6:34 pm

      Key knows the house of cards is getting shaky but he has made some fantastic contacts in the money laundering biz so his golden parachute is pretty sweet.

  10. John 10
    2 May 2016 at 10:46 am

    If this is the case Mr Key has an obligation to report the lawyer to the Law Society.

    • NZJester 10.1
      2 May 2016 at 10:56 am

      That will do nothing as the Law Society can do nothing to him as he retired as a registered lawyer in New Zealand and so is outside of their jurisdiction. They can not even give him a slap over the hand with a wet bus ticket.

      • Lanthanide 10.1.1
        2 May 2016 at 12:47 pm

        Key says his lawyer misrepresented him in the email that was sent back in December 2014.

        They may be able to hold the ex-lawyer to account for something he did while a lawyer.

        The rules don’t work that way for IPENZ chartered engineers (as we saw with Alan Reay), but lawyers are a different professional body and likely have different rules.

  11. NZJester 11
    2 May 2016 at 10:52 am

    Just a reminder that Key was also in his time as a banker, meant to have been instrumental at helping set up Ireland as a Tax haven for his wealthy clients.

    • Jones 11.1
      2 May 2016 at 2:23 pm

      It’s the only thing he knows how to do.

    • alwyn 11.2
      2 May 2016 at 6:28 pm

      Where does that story come from?
      Do you have a link?
      I thought he was involved, in his professional capacity, in Forex dealing.
      He may have got far enough up the tree to have overseen people involved with trusts but I don’t think he would ever have done it himself.
      He would have been far to valuable to his employers in his specialist field.

      • Tricledrown 11.2.1
        2 May 2016 at 10:13 pm

        Alwhinger Key made claims he set up Merrill Lynch Ireland.
        Then claimed to be head of Forex trading.
        Which encompassed all Derivatives and Ponzi loans.
        Merrill Lynch were selling ponzi loans at $38 for every $1 on deposit.
        Which John Key would have known.
        As all of ML dodgy Derivatives and ponzi loans were sold through Forex trading.

        • alwyn 11.2.1.1
          2 May 2016 at 11:51 pm

          Oh dear, what foolishness.
          I suppose that I have to extend the question to you. You claim
          “Merrill Lynch were selling ponzi loans at $38 for every $1 on deposit.
          Which John Key would have known.”
          What is your evidence for the claim about this?
          What has any of this to do with John Key?
          Please reply with dates for his supposed actions.
          And do you even know what a “Ponzi” scheme is?
          And what does Forex dealing and derivatives have to do with tax havens?
          And if you are going to reply to me why don’t you comment on what I said?

    • Tricledrown 11.3
      2 May 2016 at 10:05 pm

      Look how that turned out Ireland went belly up Due in part to Merrill Lynch with their Ponzi scheme $38 lent for every Dollar on deposit.
      False report to the Irish Govt allowing Merrill Lynch to make money out of Ireland’s Financial crash.

  12. Nick 12
    2 May 2016 at 11:28 am

    Classic ShonKey interview…. slithering for all he’s worth

  13. Paul Campbell 13
    2 May 2016 at 11:30 am

    David Slack’s tweet: “Fire service tells PM if they have to come and put out his trousers again this week he’ll have to pay a callout fee.” is particularly funny

  14. Myrtle 14
    2 May 2016 at 11:47 am

    Key’s voice was slurred in response to some questions this morning. It’s either a Crosby Textor coached thing to do when he lies, or he just doesn’t know he does it.

    • ianmac 14.1
      2 May 2016 at 1:17 pm

      Plus a piece of gauze over his phone Myrtle, to blur his diction so that he say you mis-heard him.

    • DoublePlusGood 14.2
      2 May 2016 at 1:32 pm

      Channelling the ghost of Muldoon

      • ianmac 14.2.1
        2 May 2016 at 1:49 pm

        Probably since Key was a great admirer of Muldoon.

        • North 14.2.1.1
          2 May 2016 at 2:35 pm

          Or so he (Key) claims. That’s the Boys’ Own political provenance claimed on his behalf. Rob’s Mob etc. Thumping mum’s kitchen table promising to be PM one day. Never been shown to have been actively engaged in politics however. Must be why no particular memory of his position on The Tour. Which makes the construct political provenance deliberate bullshit. It’s that or it’s the claim that he can’t recall is deliberate bullshit. Who woulda’ thought……?

  15. mary_a 15
    2 May 2016 at 5:17 pm

    If Ken Whitney is being economical with the truth, then that automatically puts him in a position of being far more reliable and honest than his client/friend FJK.

  16. whateva next? 16
    2 May 2016 at 6:11 pm

    “Key has form on lying, you’d hope that his “lawyer” does not.”
    It’s no excuse, either Key is lying and should be impeached, or his lawyer did “misrepresent” him, and should be charged.
    If I either lied, or misrepresented someone with such dire consequences (e.g caused the whole country lose it’s credibility), I would be straight to jail, and do not pass Go.
    Oh to have so little responsibility, and earn that much. except, I doubt I would sleep well at night.

    • Magisterium 16.1
      2 May 2016 at 8:06 pm

      Key is lying and should be impeached

      Why?

      • North 16.1.1
        2 May 2016 at 8:17 pm

        “Why?”. Ha ha ha !. Brill’ Mag’ !

        • Magisterium 16.1.1.1
          3 May 2016 at 2:22 pm

          Maybe this is some use of “impeached” with which I’m not familiar.

      • Drowsy M. Kram 16.1.2
        2 May 2016 at 8:37 pm

        The corrupt class are practiced liars, to others and themselves. Attempts to normalise Prime Ministerial lying are contemptible – is NZ a Banama republic?

      • whateva next? 16.1.3
        2 May 2016 at 9:11 pm

        Not playing, thanks for asking though

  17. Chuck 17
    2 May 2016 at 6:41 pm

    Ok…what you need to do now is somehow bundle up all the above conspiracy theories and bush lawyer advice into a package that the great masses can understand and actually look at and say its not bullshit from a handful of activists and die hard lefties.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 17.1
      2 May 2016 at 9:50 pm

      You mean like it’ll be a silver bullet, and you think silver bullets are what the Left is after because Matthew Hooton says so? Why can’t you think for yourself for a change, instead of making comments that rely on wholly imagined right wing drivel?

      Well, apart from the fact that your entire belief system is drivel.

      • weka 17.1.1
        3 May 2016 at 8:13 am

        I like how they think the likes of the editor of the NZ Herald is a die hard leftie activist.

      • Chuck 17.1.2
        3 May 2016 at 2:02 pm

        Cold hard facts of the day = you are talking nonsense.

        Since you have brought up silver bullets OAB; Ask Mike Williams (former Lab president) on why he shot over to Australia on a “mission to find your silver bullet” is one example that comes to mind straight away.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 17.1.2.1
          3 May 2016 at 2:37 pm

          And that’s what’s happening here? Mike Williams hacked into Mossack Fonseca and forced the PM to personally enable money laundering services, and his story changes every day and one good mate ex-lawyer is officially sloppy, highly ethical and misrepresents his clients.

          Looks more like the death of a thousand cuts to me. Whatever you say though. Thank goodness he didn’t sign any charity paintings! Phew, that was a close one.

  18. North 18
    2 May 2016 at 8:15 pm

    Let’s read David Cunliffe for John Key. Let’s read Mickey Savage for Ken Whitney. Can you imagine the howls of outrage from the likes of Alwyn and Chuck ? Got no morals those two. Mouthy but no morals.

    • Chooky 18.1
      2 May 2016 at 9:18 pm

      +100…”Mouthy but no morals”…and out of ‘Alice in Wonderland’

      • Chuck 18.1.1
        2 May 2016 at 9:36 pm

        And Chooky that’s why you are looking at 4 terms in opposition.

        I do take North comment on board…maybe I could be outraged if it was from a Labour PM…but without any proof (just like in this case) its just conspiracy theories which no one other than the beltway diehards would spend more than 5 mins on.

        • Chooky 18.1.1.1
          2 May 2016 at 9:42 pm

          “just conspiracy theories”….there is enough circumstantial evidence to suggest otherwise

          “looking at 4 terms in opposition”…more Alice down the Rabbit hole

          …you are sounding worried Chuck

          • Chuck 18.1.1.1.1
            2 May 2016 at 9:52 pm

            Lets see then…

            Labour needs to get back into the mid 30’s (over a decent number of polls) before it becomes a realistic contest. And saying… but Winston will save us is not a strategy to rely on.

            • Colonial Viper 18.1.1.1.1.1
              2 May 2016 at 10:16 pm

              I do think Labour needs to be clear over 30% for Winston to have a decent reason to go with them. 32% or 33% should do the trick.

              He will find it very hard supporting a party which got just 26% of the vote.

              • Sabine …
                3 May 2016 at 8:13 am

                Labour does not have to go over 30. Full stop there.

                IF Winston wants to be in government he has two choices

                a. go with National
                b. go with the opposition.

                Winston Peters can pick a or b. There is no other option for him. But his choice has got nothing to do with Labour being at 30% or 28%.

                • Chuck …
                  3 May 2016 at 1:43 pm

                  Yes it does matter for a bunch of reasons…that Labour need to be around the mid 30’s come election 2017 to have a chance.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 18.1.1.2
          2 May 2016 at 9:54 pm

          Yes, who cares that Daddy launders money, you can’t prove a thing!

          Personal responsibility dragged into the light again.

    • alwyn 18.2
      2 May 2016 at 11:39 pm

      Well hullo you stupid little chap.
      Instead of just making up new bullshit about me why don’t you apologise for your previous lies? I’ve challenged you repeatedly to either put up or shut up about the lies you tell about me. When are you going to apologise?
      Come on be a man instead of a snivelling little brat.
      An apology or some justification. Speak up or shut up.
      Just to remind you here is the very simple challenge.
      http://thestandard.org.nz/johns-keys-lawyer-is-not-a-lawyer/#comment-1163386

      • North 18.2.1
        3 May 2016 at 8:13 am

        Let’s go back to basics Alwyn…….where the bullshit started. Please tell us, finally, what your vaunted left wing provenance is, you know, the factor you identify as giving you special knowledge, authority. You never have coughed it up but you’ve dined out on it for a long time. The gratuitousness (lies) of a troll.

        • alwyn 18.2.1.1
          3 May 2016 at 10:11 am

          “your vaunted left wing provenance is”.
          No you stupid little fellow. I have never claimed to have any connection with left wing politics.
          It is YOU who claims that when you say things like “Alwyn’s bullshit claim to have been active in Left politics once upon a time” .
          I have never done that. It is entirely a figment of your warped little mind.

          You are the one claiming this about me. Well here is you chance. If you want to accuse me saying something it is up to you to show where I did it. Naturally you can’t because I have never done it.
          Prove that I have done so or apologise for the crap you have been uttering about me.
          Alternatively you could ask that you should be banned from this site because of your total inability to stop making unsubstantiated claims. I’m sure that such a plea by you, that you are addicted to lying and need to be stopped, might be treated sympathetically by the people who run it.
          Now, why don’t you own up.
          Admit you have been lying about me.

  19. Bobby Bobsta 19
    3 May 2016 at 1:02 pm

    Heck alwyn… reads like one of your own is throwing you under the bus.

  20. North 20
    3 May 2016 at 1:55 pm

    You’re losing it now Alwyn Troll……..your slide directly related to the startling measure by which Fake Man Key lets down and embarrasses all his tragic wee idolators. It’s happening on a weekly basis. I don’t envy you Alwyn Troll.

    • alwyn 20.1
      3 May 2016 at 3:05 pm

      In other words you are very well aware that you are a B**S. There is absolutely nothing that justifies the lies you so routinely spout. Liar, liar, liar.

      I think I should simply describe you in some of Weka’s words.
      “I’m sick of your constant astroturfing/trolling and think from now on I will just name it as such.
      North, liar, shill and troll.”

      Now crawl back under your rock you lying little twit.

  21. North 21
    3 May 2016 at 6:12 pm

    Ahem

    • alwyn 21.1
      3 May 2016 at 7:56 pm

      That sounds almost like someone clearing their throat before apologising.
      Almost but not quite. A lying SOB like you is quite incapable of any honest behaviour. Come on dopey. Put up or shut up.

      • Drowsy M. Kram 21.1.1
        3 May 2016 at 8:15 pm

        “In other words you are very well aware that you are a B**S. There is absolutely nothing that justifies the lies you so routinely spout. Liar, liar, liar.”

        “A lying SOB like you is quite incapable of any honest behaviour.”

        Coincidentally, these comments are an accurate appraisal of our PM, who has normalised lying and dishonest behaviour in pursuit of power and money. Get with the programme.

Links to post