Twisting in the wind

24 comments on “Twisting in the wind ”

• Comments are now closed

1. ianmac 1

   1 May 2012 at 10:33 am

   Probably just guessed the numbers. Should be able to win Lotto every time.
2. Pete George 2

   1 May 2012 at 10:47 am

   Duncan Garner says this would show up on Banks’ bank records as “anonymous”.

   Only if that was the stipulated reference to be put on the transaction. The deposits would show up on the bank statement with any reference, code or particulars that were keyed when it was deposited. If nothing was keyed those fields on the statement would be blank.

   So how did Kim Dotcom get TeamBanksie’s account number?

   Could be several ways of that happening. Banks could have given Dotcom his bank account number in case he wanted to deposit something – that wouldn’t mean Banks was aware of any subsequent deposit being from Dotcom, he could have given the number to many potential donors.

   It could have been widely published, sent by bulk email, it could even have been on a website.

   How Dotcom’s employee/s got the bank account number is irrelevant.
   • framu 2.1

     1 May 2012 at 12:55 pm

     “How Dotcom’s employee/s got the bank account number is irrelevant.”

     not really – if the answer to that was “banksie gave it to me while i was writing him a check” – it suddenly becomes very relevant.

     and all of what your saying is ignoring the fudging on issues such as “cant remember going on a helicopter ride” “i dont know dotcom that well” “ive met him once” and so on and so on.
   • North 2.2

     1 May 2012 at 7:20 pm

     The nonsense that comes out of the mouths of some people who desparately want or need something to be so !

     That’s how I characterise your bold assertion Pete George that it’s irrelevant how Sir Botox’s campaign fund account number became known so as to receive the Dotcom cheques.

     Never heard of circumstancial evidence Pete ? The individual strands of evidence which are conclusive of not much in themselves but when put together with other individual strands of evidence entwine into a rope. A rope strong enough to hold up a particular scenario………indeed to prove the particular scenario beyond reasonable doubt.

     Like it or not Pete that’s the way the law of evidence works. In a fact-finding forum Sir Botox’s denials/claims aren’t in themselves worth a thing. It’s how those denials/claims stack up against the totality of the evidence that matters.

     You are very callow in your stubborn, woolly, uninformed, “yes but….yes but….” thinking Pete. Please remember the adage along the lines that opening the mouth can prove the fool behind it.

     On another angle – Sir Botox now claiming that he refused to tell his “truth” when given the opportunity to do so because legal advice said he shouldn’t. He may well have taken legal advice, advice which told him that leaving unchallenged Dotcom’s evidence of the “thank you” call could not continue without damage to his public and legal position. Bang; “I never conveyed a thank you.” Bang Bang; “It’s the lawyers’ fault.”

     How much are we meant to indulge him for God’s Sake? Sir Botox betrays a paucity of bottle (that’s right – gutlessness) in his failure to abide his and the Right’s unceasingly vaunted and sneering mantra;

     “Take responsibility, own your shit !”

     The man is a preaching, character flawed weakling. The entire business is karmic in the extreme. Particularly given that of all the cruelly mouthing idiots who demonise the lower end of society like fury, Sir Botox was always one of the worst.

     Remember all those South Auckland brown boys who according to him sit around all day smoking dope and watching porn, getting off their worthless arses only to go out burgling at night.
3. Tiger Mountain 3

   1 May 2012 at 10:58 am

   Spoken imho like a true tory apologist would Pete.

   Banksie’s public meltdowns and unwillingness to give direct answers to media enquiries indicate that the questions that Mike Smith asks are highly relevant.
   • Pete George 3.1

     1 May 2012 at 11:16 am

     I don’t think they’re relevant at all.

     If Banks had asked Dotcom to consider giving him a donation, giving him his bank account number just in case, and if Dotcom had arranged for an anonymous deposit to be made with no further discussion with Banks about it, there would be no problem.

     If Banks had known about the donation/s and declared them on his return there wouldn’t be a problem.

     Bank’s bizarre media performances over the last few days are a valid issue, and so is the question (possibly unprovable) of whether Banks thanked Dotcom for a donation – I wouldn’t want a Minister that “forgets” like that (I wonder if Banks forgets what party he’s supposed to be in) – but the post question has no relevance to that.
     • Colonial Viper 3.1.1

       1 May 2012 at 5:32 pm

       If Banks had known about the donation/s and declared them on his return there wouldn’t be a problem.

       And in true political style, Bank’s handling of the aftermath is what is going to sink him.
     • North 3.1.2

       1 May 2012 at 8:11 pm

       Pete George, please give up this business of “I think….I think…..”.

       If this matter ends up with Sir Botox Banks being charged with a criminal offence it will not be a question of what you in your patent ignorance of the processes of the law “think” or would like or desperately need to “think”.

       It will be a matter of how much the totality of the prosecution evidence is brought down, rendered unreliable, or disbelieved, as a result of Sir Botox’s shrill, flat denial of wrongdoing.

       “I did not break the law” is generally insufficient. A mere not guilty plea is not evidence.

       So at the end of the day what you “think” Pete is as relevant to the whole matter as that tragic performance on Radio Live when Sir Botox went off into some mad rave about Dotcom’s marital status, crowning it all with the gratuitous denial that he and Dotcom are/were homosexuals together.

       However, I may be wrong. If it ends up in court I’m going to contact the prosecutor and tell him to be very, very careful of Mr George, the expert “I think” witness for the defence.
       • Pete George 3.1.2.1

         1 May 2012 at 8:25 pm

         North, you must have come here by accident. This isn’t a court of law, it’s a blog where people tend to give their opinions, and say what they think, or try to provoke others to think and to comment. But don’t take that as gospel, it’s just what I think.
         • North 3.1.2.1.1

           1 May 2012 at 8:48 pm

           Cool, but the debate is now actually touching on the prospect of a criminal prosecution, that is to say, a proceeding in a “court of law”.

           When the likes of you Pete George prefer your patent ignorance as a guide to the height of that prospect, and your patent ignorance as a guide to likely outcome, in a “court of law”, what is to be said ?

           “Oh never mind, Pete’s talking shit again. It’s what he “thinks”. That’s not what “is” but never mind……we’ll just dumb ourselves down and let him mislead himself and everyone else.”
           • Pete George 3.1.2.1.1.1

             1 May 2012 at 9:16 pm

             Except that Bank’s probable political demise is most likely to come vias the court of public opinion rather than a court of law.

             Opinions and perceptions can matter a lot.
             • McFlock …

               1 May 2012 at 9:38 pm

               Actually, if Banks ends up not finishing out his term because of this, I’d put the odds of 50/50 of him actually going so far as to end up him not not quitting but just losing it because of a guilty verdict.
               • Colonial Viper …

                 1 May 2012 at 9:39 pm

                 Yep. He fervently believes in his own innocence.
             • North …

               1 May 2012 at 9:41 pm

               Certainly Pete, but you needn’t “obfuscate” around your ignorance of salient aspects of the current debate by attempting to limit the breadth of the current debate. With crap about people arriving by accident.

               Oh hang on…….maybe on that fated fund-raising trip in the chopper Sir B arrived at Dotcom Mansion purely by accident ???? He was actually heading for Kauricliffs ???? And the birthday party…….that was Dame Edna’s wasn’t it ????

               Not that what I “think” is evidence or anything. It’s just that apologism is usually preceded by an offence.
4. bad12 4

   1 May 2012 at 11:31 am

   I am more than happy to see John(the convicted)Banks get His just deserts, be sacked as a Minister, thrown out of the Parliament, and, end up sitting contemplating His actions in a cold jail cell,

   But,

   The ‘story’ has undergone a ‘morphing’ since Campbell Live first aired this sordid smelly tale, on the Friday Campbell Live definitely said that Banks discussed Dotcom donating to His Mayoral election campaign and at that time discussed how He wanted the donation split into 2 seperate sums of 25 grand,

   At that point so the Campbell Live program said, Dotcom caused 2 checks to be written and these were handed to Banks,

   The story now tho has shifted to one of Dotcom having ‘banked’ the 2 checks into Banks’s Mayoral election campaign account,

   I wonder which of these stories are true and if the second is just Banks like a rat down a drain hole, taking the only obvious get out of jail route by claiming that it was Dotcom who banked the checks and not Banks himself,

   Of course the actual bank that the check was deposited at will have video footage of who actually banked the check…
   • ianmac 4.1

     1 May 2012 at 1:03 pm

     Jesus reportedly said, “Simon. Come and walk with me on the water.” What was lost in the translation was that it should have been “Simon. Come and walk with me by the water.”
     The point is that in reporting the writing the cheques and depositing them is delicately different from handing them over if you know what I mean. The cheques were actually deposited at a Bank in Queenstown. Lost in the translation?
     • McFlock 4.1.1

       1 May 2012 at 1:40 pm

       Has Banks never been to Queenstown? It’s not like he’d remember 🙂
            
       Although the issue rests on what the statements said and whether Banksie thanked dotcom for the donation (witnesses, recordings, etc).
       • Pete George 4.1.1.1

         1 May 2012 at 1:49 pm

         It’s a bit odd that Banks can’t remember anything except for definitely not thanking Dotcom for a donation.
         • felix 4.1.1.1.1

           1 May 2012 at 5:43 pm

           Ah well, you get that sometimes. Our PM can’t remember what he thought about the Springbok tour, which is quite odd. Or how many Tranzrail shares he owned, but then suddenly he did remember very clearly, but only after he was caught out not remembering which was a bit odd too.
   • felix 4.2

     1 May 2012 at 5:29 pm

     “Dotcom caused 2 checks to be written and these were handed to Banks,

     The story now tho has shifted to one of Dotcom having ‘banked’ the 2 checks into Banks’s Mayoral election campaign account,”

     I may be wrong but I don’t think Dotcom actually said the cheques were handed to Banks as such. I thought it was along the lines of he instructed his employee, in Banks’ presence, to write a cheque.

     My speculation is that Banks might’ve said ‘Woah, don’t hand that to me, I can’t know about it. Just pop it in this account instead, 2 lots please.’

     Or something. Just idle speculation, of course.
5. Jenny 5

   1 May 2012 at 6:00 pm

   The Dotcom donor drama, as hilarious as it is, has obscured the previous issue of the the Sky City donation scandal.

   Both candidates were given equal amounts in identical circumstances from the same donor.

   One candidate declared it the other didn’t.

   This is a clear case of knowingly receiving a donation and declaring it as anonymous.

   If any investigation could wind up in a conviction, this is it.

   Both Len Brown and Sky City should be subpoenaed, as witnesses by the police.

   Brown should be asked how he knew this donation was from Sky City.

   And Sky City should be asked what difference, if any was there between the two donations.

   If exactly the same procedure was used for both donations such as to make Len Brown aware of their source, It is just not credible that John Banks also did not know.
   • Policy Parrot 5.1

     1 May 2012 at 8:37 pm

     This issue highlights for me a salient issue within our democracy.
     1. That only registered voters be allowed to donate to political parties
     (political journos are how the mainstream public get their election info, and will likely be scurrious enough to uncover who D. Green is in the various parties return).
     2. That all donations be made public (that is donations).
     3. That we should move towards public funding of political parties based on previous vote count (to the moaners – this already happens to some degree with parliamentary funding, broadcast allowances all calculated on a model that could be employed for this broader purpose)

     There remains sufficient ways to generate income around those rules, such campaign auctions, for small donors to remain anonymous.
6. dan1 6

   1 May 2012 at 9:30 pm

   Nothing surprises me anymore. When the deputy Prime Minister can claim he lives in Dipton and does not, for the purposes of the law; when many can hide incomes behind the family trust rort and rip off NZ to all sorts of scams; when people can travel overseas and claim it as a business expense; when people can charge their fancy lunches at fancy restaurants as business expenses.
   There is no fairness in the system.
   Kiwidotcom is wonderful. He has exposed the sham.
7. bad12 7

   2 May 2012 at 7:42 pm

   This has all become a hilarious comedy in slow motion, the previous owners of the ACT party,(a pretty much clapped out heap), must all be falling about the place laughing with delight,

   Here’s John(the convicted)Banks the National Party’s plant into the ACT Party which Nationals former leader Don(Dr Dullard)Brash took over in a hostile takeover busily deconstructing the current National Government right befor our very eyes,

   Banks has in fact made a far bigger dent in the present Government’s popularity then all the opposition in the previous 3 years has managed to do,

   First with the negative fallout from the Epsom chimps tea party and now with the donations scandals Banks has basically kneecapped His mate Slippery as the Prime Minister and ensured 2 years of lame-duck National Government dis-colored in the eyes of the electorate by the shoddy antics of Banks and Slippery’s refusal to boot Him from the Cabinet,

   Its what they call poetic justice and the longer we all can drag out the punishing slow motion revelations and drama the more damage to the Slippery lead National Government there will be…

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS