Monday, September 15, 2014

Where Are The Real Crooks Hiding And Who Are They?



Not Bernstein, Woodward, and Katherine Graham, The Post owner, they sought the facts and they brought a President to book.


Following weeks of reef fish frenzied feasting on everything on the fringes of what this campaign is about, is there a glimmer that there is massive truth being ignored by the MSM around who exactly David, 'the padres son', is, and it may not be  all beer and skittles,  not quite all cut and polish as in diamonds, possibly much more about a "paste replica".

His elevation over The Shearer who maintained a Labour vote around where it needed to be to threaten National, all things being equal in the low  30s,  is but a distant memory.

Under the oh so supposedly democratic leadership vote system adopted by the NZLP that handed massive advantage to the trade union wing for transparent but very pragmatic reasons, David Cunliffe prevailed in the face of publicly acknowledged  low support from his Caucus colleagues, the ABC wing.
He managed this, while  employing a  significant secret donor scheme, working under the radar using a Trust scheme, unlawful in national politics, created by one Greg Presland who has inhabited "The Standard" as Micky Savage for years.

Among the speculation as to the ID of the two donors who wished their money returned and no revealing of their identity there has been  much murk in the waters while the reef fish went out after Judith Collins and in turn, John Key.
Forget all about Herr Schmitz, Girly Hager and his saga, Glen Greenwald,  Lawyer Amsterdam, and applaud the socialist left's abandonment of the principle that money should not be able to buy an election in NZ.

Herr Schmitz is looking increasingly dodgy, he has achieved little with his reputed $4 million spend on IMP, his supposed $5 million offer for information, and goodness knows what he has spent on Hagar, Whaledump, Assange, Greenwald, Amsterdam, the myriad of sycophants such as Campbell TV3, Fisher , Rudman and Co at the Herald, Smalley at Newstalk ZB and Dann at TVOne,
It seems so far to be smoke and mirrors with the solid rump of NZ voters concentrating on the issues.
trade, lower unemployment, improved welfare delivery and culture, improved health care, confidence  and the freakin economy, the biggest waste of dosh since CC's efforts three years ago and for similar reward.

Recent days has seen instances of rumor around Cunliffe's version of marital fidelity,  ongoing questions around the ID of the secret donors, and today at Slaters blog from a guest poster at 0900hrs, a compelling dissertation on potential conflict of interest for Mr c's missus Karen Price and her Law practice in the Climate change arena, along side   Hubby's policy moves in the ETS/carbon trading zone.
Recall the astounding chest beating and general conniptions around Key's blind Trust possibly trading in Tranzrail shares nearly six years ago, today's  post at whaleoil makes that pale into the insignificance it always was.

If you have any desire to learn more, it is at Slaters blog as  I seriously doubt you will see it anywhere else along with any idle chatter about a certain constitutional lawyer of Asian extraction or another "lady" said to occupy a high  place on Craig's list of suspects.

People have confused what we have witnessed during the increasingly shrill screeching from Herr Schmitz and his confetti flinging bunch with the very different saga exposed by Bernstein and   Woodward over 40 years ago in the run-up to the 1972 US presidential elections.

Bernstein and Woodward with the backing of the Washington Post exposed corrupt activity conducted on behalf of possibly the most crooked US President ever, while this current bunch of amateurs are attempting to corrupt our fragile systems of government and electoral law.
Oh the irony of such claims.

Guess what, front and center over 40 years later another of German extraction is trying to manipulate history,  then there were Erlichman and Haldeman, how did that end again?

5 comments:

Psycho Milt said...

Recent days has seen instances of rumor around Cunliffe's version of marital fidelity, ongoing questions around the ID of the secret donors, and today at Slaters blog from a guest poster...

I get that this kind of attack-blog sleaze-peddling is OK at Whaleoil, but do you really have to bring it here?

Anonymous said...

Psycho...do you deny the strong rumours have foundation ??

gravedodger said...

Milt, I respect your views and if it was confined to Slater's Blog I would agree to your suggestion to leave it out.
I have no concept of from who or where you get info from but from my contacts I understand there are many in the media and others around the beehive both incumbent and presumptive who know 'stuff' but are observing the rather suspect convention that discussing tomcat activities are somehow off limits.
There is very substantial rumor activity around these matters and I firmly believe that possible infidelity around Marriage commitments signals a definite lack of moral authority.
When it was Brash and Foreman it was different?
Brown and his relations with an employee of the ACC??
NZ Is neither France or Italy, clearly you Milt, see it different.

One of the three monkeys I aint

That said the reluctance of the MSM to actively pursue the secret donation rorts and the clear vulnerability of Cunliffe's policy aims and the coinciding of Ms Price's Law firm activities around conflict of interest, should be off limits why?

If Judith Collins having social relations while on a ministerial trip to China allegedly in support of her Husbands commercial activity were so attractive to conspiracy theories then the revelations around Ms Price's Legal work in the fields of Carbon trading and Mr c's policy pronouncements needs investigation at the very least.
How often was it claimed by Collins' opponents it was very smelly yet it seems Ms Price is beyond reproach.
Of course if there is any basis for the rumors and there is a distinct chance there are marriage issues involved then maybe the CoI tenets are diminished but certainly not extinguished.

Sorry I do not buy that.

Psycho Milt said...

Anonymous: are other people's marriages any of your business?

...observing the rather suspect convention that discussing tomcat activities are somehow off limits.

It's actually the excellent and well-founded convention that sordid rumours about people's sex lives are for people like Mr Slater, not actual journalists.

I firmly believe that possible infidelity around Marriage commitments signals a definite lack of moral authority.

For my part, I firmly believe that sleazy rumour-mongering isn't a good way of enhancing the moral environment of politics.

When it was Brash and Foreman it was different?

The moment that Cunliffe claims John Key is "indifferent to the institution of marriage," he brings his own marriage into the game. Brash was that stupid, Cunliffe isn't.

Howie said...

In response to the claims in Dirty Politics, Gravedodger resorts, in an incoherent fashion, to dirty politics in the form of vile smear, rumour-mongering and innuendo involving the family of the leader of the opposition. Anonymous wankers climb aboard. Further evidence of the moral and intellectual superiority of the right.