The police must investigate the alleged Liu donations because…

Written By: - Date published: 5:05 pm, June 22nd, 2014 - 24 comments
Categories: david cunliffe, election 2014, humour, labour, Satire - Tags: ,

Reposted from Imperator Fish where Scott Yorke makes some excellent arguments in favour of a full police investigation.

  • No-one has complained to the police. The cops can’t sit around forever waiting for someone to complain.
  • There doesn’t seem to be much evidence of donations from Mr Liu to Labour, other than a written statement from the man. That statement lacks detail. More may come out shortly, but at present there really isn’t anything to go on. Which is odd, because Mr Liu is meant to be a successful businessman. Didn’t he think to ask for a receipt? Or maybe he got a receipt and someone in Labour stole it. Call the police!
  • Even if a donation was made, there appears to be no evidence that a crime was committed. All the more reason for the police to ransack Labour Party HQ looking for evidence.
  • If it turns out that Mr Liu did donate to Labour, the failure by the party to disclose those donations may not have been unlawful. Our electoral laws have changed since the time the donations were allegedly made. But someone in Labour may have done something wrong during the donation process. Perhaps the person who went to collect the donation was driving an unregistered car. Or, worse, maybe they weren’t paying their taxes. Perhaps the IRD need to step in too.
  • Any police prosecution may well be time-barred, but that’s only because of Labour Party trickery in hiding the money. The police should investigate anyway. They may not be able to prosecute, but they may still be able to find Labour “morally” guilty.
  • There hasn’t been a good crackdown on the left for years now. The police could do with the training.

 

24 comments on “The police must investigate the alleged Liu donations because… ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. One Anonymous Bloke 1
    22 June 2014 at 6:11 pm

    Oh fuck me, I’m all tired out after the last Left Wing Giving Oxygen To National Party Smears Dance and there’s another middle eight bridge to get through?

  2. Anne 2
    22 June 2014 at 6:20 pm

    I wish it was satire…

  3. Rodel 3
    22 June 2014 at 10:10 pm

    Who gives a toss whether Liu donated anything to anybody, except those looking for a bit of fabricated fiction?
    There must be more important issues to discuss.

    • Bob 3.1
      23 June 2014 at 9:20 am

      Well people seemed to give a toss when Mr Liu donated to National, some fabricated fiction about ‘cash for access’, strange how no-one seemed to be saying ‘it is all completely above board, no-one has broken any laws’ when National was recieving the donations.
      This obviously isn’t a case of morals or there would be outrage about Labour’s practises, it is obviously pure political point scoring which has backfired and now damage control is in full swing.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 3.1.1
        23 June 2014 at 9:26 am

        Hey, liar, why do you tell lies? Are you so ignorant you’re unaware that it’s the “access” part of “cash for access” that’s the problem, or are you just a cheap shot hero who scuttles back under a rock when I call you out?

        Which is it? Liar or cretin?

        • Bob 3.1.1.1
          23 June 2014 at 12:56 pm

          Like letters asking for the progress on residency applications? Phone calls to ask about progress on Police cases are severely frowned upon in the cabnet manual as they could be seen as influencing the outcome, shouldn’t the same theory be used on immigration?
          Don’t say David Cunliffe was helping a constituent either because Mr Liu was neither from his electorate or a voting citizen, the two things required to be a constituent, so why was he helping him?

          • McFlock 3.1.1.1.1
            23 June 2014 at 1:13 pm

            Hey bob,

            Phone calls asking cops to carefully consider the outcome of their investigation because of the wealth of a person of interest is interference.
            Letters asking for a likely timeframe on a decision is not.

            Doing the first after receiving party donations from that person looks corrupt.
            Doing the latter years before any alleged donation is simply helping someone in your electorate.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 3.1.1.1.2
            23 June 2014 at 1:30 pm

            “Theory” – who gives a John Key solemn promise for your witless notions? Cunliffe didn’t breach the cabinet manual, cretin, because he wasn’t a minister, and because even if he had been what he did was ask for a timetable.

            Your pretence of moral equivalence between that and Maurice Williamson interfering in a police investigation is just yet another illustration of your gutter ethics.

            Your take-home lesson for today: if you’re going to comment on the Cabinet Manual, learn what it is first.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 3.1.2
        23 June 2014 at 9:39 am

        Labour “practices” – accepting political donations under the law.

        National “practices” – massive conflict of interest cover-up, interfering in a police investigation, cash for access

        I can see why a slimy little liar would pretend moral equivalence between the two, the explanation is more than covered by Paul Piff’s findings.

        Go on, pay some more lip service to personal responsibility, Bob.

        • Bob 3.1.2.1
          23 June 2014 at 1:02 pm

          As above, there is no proof of any more access than what Labour provides to its own donors, except it seems Labour didn’t feel the need to keep records of their donors.
          Labour “practices” – Helping out ‘Constituents’ that by definition aren’t constiuents, not keeping record of any donations when they don’t have to, use of secret trusts to bypass donation laws and let’s not forget https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRBadxNFbWc&feature=player_embedded

          • One Anonymous Bloke 3.1.2.1.1
            23 June 2014 at 1:20 pm

            Oh, yes, I see your moral illiteracy and false equivalence quite clearly, Bob, and your pathetic drivel “argument” that in 2007, Labour should have obeyed laws that didn’t come into force until 2008.

            It illustrates your low character and/or IQ perfectly.

            • McFlock 3.1.2.1.1.1
              23 June 2014 at 2:12 pm

              At least bob’s consistent – apparently, Cunliffe signed the letter years before labour allegedly received the donation.

              Whereas the nats just do it the old fashioned way, getting the money first and then helping out their donors.

              ACT, of course, promise assistance while receiving the “anonymous” (whoopsie banksie) donation, then provide no assistance once the cheque clears.

        • framu 3.1.2.2
          23 June 2014 at 3:11 pm

          wasnt cash for access about cabinet club?

          if not wholly at least a fair bit of it was about CC – so its a bit of a diversion to attempt to use it as a defining factor when comparing cunliffe and williamson

          also bobs missing the bit where williamson had to resign because he blatantly broke cabinet rules.
          You do notice how theres no such avenue against cunliffe bob? nah, didnt think you had

      • You_Fool 3.1.3
        23 June 2014 at 11:22 am

        As far as I remember, it was national supporters who were saying how there was nothing wrong when Liu gave to National… but they are now the ones saying it is wrong when Mr Liu claims to have given to Labour, and it appears that the press go into full blown expose now it is Labour in the firing line. The only reason that Labour has done anything wrong is that they did exactly the same as the present day National government, but they did it years ago and they did it better (it Liu is to be believed) It also didn’t help them win the next election.

        They say this makes Cunliffe “tricky” but then that means that Key is equally as tricky, but sucks at getting donations compared to Clarke (and by extension Cunliffe) so really Cunliffe is better than Key. I guess I know where my party vote is going this year!

        • Bob 3.1.3.1
          23 June 2014 at 1:11 pm

          Correct, there was nothing wrong with what National did (except Maurice Williamson), there is nothing wrong with what David Cunliffe did, apart from lieing to the media, getting caught out and then after being caught out sticking to the line that it wasn’t a lie.
          The issue is, you can’t say what National did is wrong and then say Labour is squeaky clean!
          The hypocracy and the double standards when Labour tried playing dirty politics, they got caught doing the same things and now they are saying there is nothing wrong with it when they do it, this is the issue.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 3.1.3.1.1
            23 June 2014 at 1:24 pm

            Hypocrisy, you embody it, now learn to spell it.

            • McFlock 3.1.3.1.1.1
              23 June 2014 at 2:14 pm

              Bob’s simply referring to the fact that we are ruled by National Party hypocrites: an “hypocracy”

          • freedom 3.1.3.1.2
            23 June 2014 at 2:04 pm

            Bob, you do understand that a lie is a statement made when the speaker is aware that what they are saying is incorrect according to the knowledge in their possession?

            Cunliffe did not lie, and as soon as information that conflicted with his statement was presented to him, he competently accounted for it with ease. Just because the media refuse to report the situation honestly is not the fault of Mr Cunliffe.

            A lie, is “I will not raise G.S.T.” when it is now acknowledged that our Prime Minister John Key was well aware that they had every intention of introducing a higher G.S.T. rate.
            http://thestandard.org.nz/still-an-honest-man/#comment-820318

          • framu 3.1.3.1.3
            23 June 2014 at 3:14 pm

            so then there must be some evidence ready at hand to turn the PMs gossip mill into something that can be tested via records and information then –

            come on bob – show us the money! – put up some evidence or shut up!

            Or admit its a political attack using rumor and not much else – pretty pathetic for the mighty national party to attempt tactics that even the womans weekly would avoid

      • Rodel 3.1.4
        23 June 2014 at 7:04 pm

        No they didn’t. They..oh yawn why bother?

  4. fender 4
    23 June 2014 at 9:41 am

    Yeah and I want them to investigate where the precursor went that Lui said would arrive by courier…

  5. grumpy 5
    23 June 2014 at 1:17 pm

    If Liu indeed gave someone “bags of cash” and they are unaccounted for, I would expect Labour to have already called in the police.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1
      23 June 2014 at 1:32 pm

      I expect you can show the police the evidence yourself, can’t you, shit-for-brains?