Two guilty approaches after Dirty Politics

Written By: - Date published: 7:21 am, November 28th, 2014 - 43 comments
Categories: Abuse of power, accountability, blogs, David Farrar, john key, Politics - Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

There appear to be two approaches to being a star of dirty politics and not wanting to answer questions about it. Both were displayed on Campbell Live last night in “Where are the Dirty Politics stars now”

  • Jason Ede cowers behind privacy and curtains.
  • Cameron Slater blusters, bullshits, and accuses.

The latter clip had my 76 year old father so much in fits of laughter last night, that he had to ring me afterwards to share his vast mirth.

Fortunately for NZ, and unlike most of his fellow stars of Dirty Politics, Cameron Slater is a complete sucker for getting his name mentioned in Parliament. So he fronts up to enquiries, adds to his already impressive legal bills, and advised by his lawyers, he mostly tells the truth.

Of course taxpayers have to pay for it. Andrea Vance on “Taxpayers to foot WhaleOil’s legal bills over ‘dirty politics’ probes“.

Taxpayers will be billed up to $10,000 for blogger Cameron Slater’s legal fees for two inquiries into dirty politics.

Slater’s links to the Beehive were at the heart of investigations by retired High Court judge Lester Chisholm and intelligence watchdog Cheryl Gwyn, which were published this week.

He was a witness to both probes, carried out under the 2013 Inquiries Act. This entitles his lawyers’ fees, travel costs and expenses to be met by the taxpayer.

A source said Slater’s legal costs for the Chisholm investigation – which examined a campaign to smear Serious Fraud Office boss Adam Feeley – were between $7500 and $10,000. The budget for the inquiry was $663,000, but the full costs – including Chisholm’s pay packet are yet to be finalised, a spokesman for the Department Internal Affairs said.

But it is probably worth spending tens of thousands of dollars on the lawyers feeding off of Cameron Slater.

We hear less of his braggadocio and more truth when actual lawyers advice the bullshit artist. The Chisholm report and the IGIS probe were both massively constrained by John Key’s very carefully limited terms of reference. However we received a lot of confirmation of the details in Dirty Politics. To the point that the conservative voices arguing that it never happened seem to have finally given up running that line.

I don’t expect that we will hear much from the “Taxpayers Union” about the cost to taxpayers of having to have these enquiries or paying Cameron Slaters legal bills. At least two of the participants in the ‘taxpayers’ union, Jordan Williams and David Farrar, have had quite a lot to do with dirty politics themselves. In reality the right wing lobby group appears to have been specifically set up as a mechanism to further corrupt the way politics operates in NZ.

But I expect that over the next few years and continued enquiries, we will hear more on how the arsehole of blogging and politics, Cameron Slater, has been helping damage our political system since his confidente and texting partner John Key took power. Like a moth to the flame, Cameron Slater will continue to flutter forth to damage his ‘friends’.

It is worth paying a portion of his immense legal load to continue to have a light shone on some of the crap that he has been involved with.

 

 

I’d point out that in the seven and a bit years that this site has been running, we have never had to consult a lawyer except socially over drinks, nor pay for one. Blogging doesn’t have to be about the kind of legal mire that Cameron Slater appears to wallow in.

43 comments on “Two guilty approaches after Dirty Politics ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. sabine 1
    28 November 2014 at 7:48 am

    someone help me here

    where does this slater guy come from? What is his back ground? Who is financing him?

    really is the man a mossad plant? or cia? or something? how come that a nasty piece of work such as dear leader is apparently shitting himself when it comes to that guy.

    Where does he come from? Did he just show up 7 years ago and started blogging?

    What gives?

    • Pascals bookie 1.1
      28 November 2014 at 8:03 am

      Is that you, Dr Tucker? 😉

      • miravox 1.1.1
        28 November 2014 at 8:13 am

        😀

      • Jenny Kirk 1.1.2
        28 November 2014 at 8:33 am

        Love your response, PB. I can’t do those little laughing icons – otherwise I’d post a couple here too.

        • greywarshark 1.1.2.1
          28 November 2014 at 5:15 pm

          @ Jenny Kirk
          Here’s a bunch for icons that add that extra!
          😀 😛 💡
          grin razz idea (pick your preference and then put a colon in front and back)
          😯 😉 😎 🙁
          shock wink cool sad
          Moving mouth – 😆 lol

    • Tracey 1.2
      28 November 2014 at 9:04 am

      His father, john slater, is the former national party president and the man “creditted” with getting Key into politics. A small thing the media like to leave out.

      • Sabine 1.2.1
        28 November 2014 at 7:30 pm

        Thank you.

        so yes, he would probably know where many of the bodies are buried.

        I understand now.

    • Treetop 1.3
      29 November 2014 at 4:06 pm

      Slater is some sort of new breed of mole who knows that the PM has been bull shitting to the country. As for Slater thinking that any connection to Labour has made death threats, this is a serious matter, serious because were anything to happen to him, the Labour connection would get the blame.

      Due to what Slater knows about the PM, he needs to consider who else and why he could be harmed. I personally think that Slater would love to gloat, I would not be at all surprised were the PM to say that Slater was unstable.

  2. Paul 2
    28 November 2014 at 7:57 am

    Slater is the son of former National Party President John Slater.

  3. Te Reo Putake 3
    28 November 2014 at 8:17 am

    “I’d point out that in the seven and a bit years that this site has been running, we have never had to consult a lawyer except socially over drinks, nor pay for one.”

    Good point, LP. Either Key at al are dead wrong when they claim ‘the Standard does it too’ or the Standard team are the slickest political manipulators since Machiavelli turned up his toes. The reality is that TS is a well run, but strictly amateur outlet for political opinion. Opinion, not sleaze. I can’t recall ever seeing an obviously planted story here and while there is the occasional bit of insider gossip, that’s mostly from the commenters, not the authors.

    And the oft repeated line that there are two guys in Labour’s HQ writing fulltime here is such obvious crap, that it’s hardly worth the time it takes to dismiss. Regular readers know the identity of most of the regular authors such as MS, Bunji and yourself. And Standard authors cover a variety of political stances and are quite often deeply critical of Labour. If the Standard really is an outlet for LP propaganda, it’s doing a terrible job of it.

    • lprent 3.1
      28 November 2014 at 11:55 am

      Either Key at al are dead wrong when they claim ‘the Standard does it too’ or the Standard team are the slickest political manipulators since Machiavelli turned up his toes.

      😈

      This is all strictly amateur hour. Unlike Cameron Slater (or David Farrar) we actually work for a living instead of having sinecures from National’s friends.

      I can’t recall ever seeing an obviously planted story here…

      There were a couple back in 2008 which the authors of the time jumped on with some heavy boots. The H-fee was the main one and a slash at Mike Moore were the only ones.

      Needless to say, when you run across a right leaning journo who was around in 2008, like Guyon Espiner, that H-Fee one appears to be the only post that they formed a judgement of the site from. When I did the interview with him, I was intrigued to realise that he has formed all of his impressions of this site from 5-6 years ago when it was a fraction of its current size and had completely different authors.

  4. Tiger Mountain 4
    28 November 2014 at 8:19 am

    Timely post reminding those of us that “do care” about trifles such as lying Prime Ministers, that people can indeed still be judged by the company they keep.

  5. Ovid 5
    28 November 2014 at 8:41 am

    I noticed on Morning Report today that Bryce Edwards thinks Slater has some dirt on the Prime Minister. It’s the only explanation why Key hasn’t thrown him under the bus.

    • karol 5.1
      28 November 2014 at 8:48 am

      Also, Brent Edwards on today’s Morning Report said that it’s not credible that Key would have forgotten text exchanges with Slater because he gets a lot of texts, including a lot from journalists.

      Edwards said that at the beginning of Key’s time as PM/leader he had texted Key. Key didn’t respond so he hasn’t bothered texting him since.

      • Tracey 5.1.1
        28 November 2014 at 9:06 am

        Funny how days after things are said here, they are accorded credibility when someone else says them.

        Of course the PM would ignore many texts, that is what makes Kathryn Ryans observation that he was just being polite so absurd as to be suspect

        • weka 5.1.1.1
          28 November 2014 at 9:19 am

          “Funny how days after things are said here, they are accorded credibility when someone else says them.”

          I was just thinking that. Pretty sure people were talking here last week about what does Slater have on Key (isn’t there something in the blogosphere about Slater recording phone calls?). Glad the MSM finally got around to asking the question.

          Kathryn Ryan at best has major reading comprehension problems. Even if you didn’t know anything else that was going on, the Key side of the txts aren’t Key just being polite. But if you put them in context, Key being polite would have been “thanks Cam”. Best guess on why Key actually replied instead of just being polite is that he has to keep Slater sweet so he doesn’t dish the dirt. Second best guess is that they still consider Slater to be useful. Third is they’ve lost the plot and Key is panicking.

          • ianmac 5.1.1.1.1
            28 November 2014 at 9:47 am

            If Slater has a folder containing all the communications with Key and/or his staff, Key would be destroyed in seconds should those items be released.
            It would help explain why Key persists with his denials and his lies. Too much to lose.

            • mac1 5.1.1.1.1.1
              28 November 2014 at 9:58 am

              I was thinking the same thing, ianmac. It would explain the apology to Slater from an apology-averse John Key.

              • s y d …
                28 November 2014 at 1:59 pm

                John Key probably opened his top drawer to find only a note from C. Slater saying he was holding on the folder for a while…or maybe a txt

                CS: borrowed ur folder frm t/drwr
                PM: k thx bi

          • felix 5.1.1.1.2
            28 November 2014 at 9:59 am

            All three.

            • Tracey 5.1.1.1.2.1
              28 November 2014 at 2:06 pm

              Yup. We know they have been texting for years. Thats alot of stuff that key might have destroyed but not slater…

              Collins a happy chappy in the corridors I bet

          • Anne 5.1.1.1.3
            28 November 2014 at 2:52 pm

            was just thinking that. Pretty sure people were talking here last week about what does Slater have on Key (isn’t there something in the blogosphere about Slater recording phone calls?). Glad the MSM finally got around to asking the question.

            Some of us have been talkiing about it for much longer than that. Pretty much since the hacking of the Labour Party HQ computer system 3 years ago by Slater and mates. Why were they allowed to get away with it? Why have the police been consistently turning a blind eye to everything? The evidence was out there from the start yet no investigations were ever conducted – or if they were… they were blatant white-washes.

            • Treetop 5.1.1.1.3.1
              29 November 2014 at 5:17 pm

              I looked up some old content written on TC “It’s who you know “4th August 2011 comment 28. I posted a link that the new SIS boss could not find any proof of Tucker having briefed Goff.

              To answer your questions. Hager’s book hit a few nerves and the PM thinks that all he has to do is, to have a half arse inquiry and expect the public to forget what goes on on the ninth floor of the Beehive.

              Anne Key has taken the title off Muldoon when it comes to dirty politics.

          • Treetop 5.1.1.1.4
            29 November 2014 at 4:55 pm

            I want to know when Key first knew of any contents of the IGIS report and did the GCSB give Key a copy during the report being embargoed?

            If Key knew was he entitled to know as he was no longer the minister of the SIS?

            It is known that Slater was able to read the IGIS report, but did not take a copy away with him.

            When did Slater first get a copy of the IGIS report?

            It is known that Slater texts Key about Goff mentioning the report the evening before the embargo was lifted and Key responds.

            I reckon that Slater would have contacted Key after reading the report if Key had not read the report during the embargo.

            Gwyn is another Sir Alfred North (conducted the 1976 inquiry on Moyle). North never interviewed any member of 10 policing, apart from the cop involved and he perjured himself. Every member of 10 policing knew about the June 17 1975 incident as the team were all at the end of shift debriefing.

            Gwyn’s report is a white wash due to the terms of reference and key people not being interviewed, I do not need to read it.

        • tc 5.1.1.2
          28 November 2014 at 9:23 am

          Certain media folk are showing they are card carrying members of team CT Shonkey, should make a clean out so much easier when the time comes.

    • NZJester 5.2
      29 November 2014 at 4:31 am

      Some dirt?
      Need I remind you that Slater has all the original digital copies of the e-mails that the book Dirty Politics was based on and those are just the tip of the iceberg.
      He most likely has enough dirt to fill in Lake Taupo.

  6. ankerawshark 6
    28 November 2014 at 9:14 am

    tracey @ 5.1.1. 100+

  7. logie97 7
    28 November 2014 at 1:04 pm

    … Slater will be receiving a lot of “off the record” comfort and advice from prominent law firms as well.

    One regular on “the Panel with Jim Mora” announced recently that his legal practice channels articles through Slater’s blogs when he wants to move things along for his clients.

    Slater has friends in high places outside parliament.

  8. Chrys Berryman 8
    28 November 2014 at 4:38 pm

    Cameron Slater is to John Key what Rasputin was to the Tsarina,seems like a good idea at the time.but jeez when things turn nasty……watch out

    • Weepus beard 8.1
      28 November 2014 at 6:22 pm

      Yes, good comparison.

      I also think Slater’s journey mimics Macbeth in a lot of ways. His wife is undoubtedly Lady Macbeth, and the three witches are played by Collins, Tolley, and Bennett.

  9. aerobubble 9
    28 November 2014 at 5:48 pm

    Why was Tucker talking to Ede? Can all individuals empowered to handle security information delegate their duties to national party officials? They obviously did not tell us when we became a one party state. Which is lucky cause I dont think there is a manual for it.

    • aerobubble 9.1
      28 November 2014 at 5:54 pm

      Will Labour be putting up the name of somee from the party? I mean they probally already have since we were never told Ede was. All this bypaing of scrutiny of parliament, do we really need them, can we sack the Speaker, he is obvious useless in help the opposition keep govt from taking over. I believe in the past when the pro-king speaker would get in the way, not do there job, the King would off with their head, is someone threatening the Speaker? Should e be replaced? Party politics, parties are parli’amentary animals,so when was he going to be told about Ede?

  10. North 10
    28 November 2014 at 11:58 pm

    La Grande Dame of the National Party Michelle Boag on Goon Henry’s show TV3 tonight, with that sceney old trouper Willie Jackson – TV3 25th party I guess.

    Man did Boagy put the boot into Slater ! Were she not such a ‘lady’ the tongue would’ve readily run to “Fuck’n’ scum !”

    And when even Henry put it out that Key lied she fidgeted, moaned semi-audibly, ‘sort-of’ took on the demeanour of “no, no ,no”, ekshully demurred a little bit, then failed her usual Maggie Smith act, haughty, pearl-clutching – “The Prime Minister did not…….!”

    ‘Cos it sticks out like dogs’ balls and they know it. The Prime Asset aye ? Must be tough dealing with your main man when you’re really not sure what crazy shit he’s gonna come out with next. And the worry – “John……you’d let me know wouldn’t you, if Cameron might have, well, you know……?”

    Poor old National Party aye ?

    • the Pink Postman 10.1
      29 November 2014 at 3:08 pm

      Nothing poor about the slimey bastards North ,They have money to burn and are supported by the most greedy ,selfish well educated dick heads ever,
      Just like the aristocracy in the UK. they are rich but as thick as. Also just like this lot here they honestly believe they are born to rule. Its our misfortune to have a PM
      who firmly believes that he was not only born to rule but is gods gift to Aotearoa.

Links to post