Resignationwatch: Oopsie
Written By: EDDIE - Date published: 9:27 pm, May 2nd, 2012
Categories: act, john banks - Tags: lies
http://thestandard.org.nz/
ACT Party President Chris Simmons – who opposed the Brash coup that
lead to John Banks being ACT’s sole MP – ‘accidentally’ dropped Banks
right in it on Radio New Zealand’s Checkpoint. He said “[Banks] made
the suggestion to Dotcom” to split his donation into two $25,000
pieces and implied the purpose was to have a number of identically-
sized donations he could claim were anonymous.
Now, I presume you don’t miss the import of that. Banks has denied any
such arrangement with Dotcom. And if he did tell Dotcom to split the
cheques into two $25,000 amounts then he can hardly claim ignorance of
the identity of the donor when two cheques from Dotcom’s company were
deposited with his campaign on the same day.
Simmons then went on to say that Banks had given him bizarrely
illogical justification for telling Dotcom to split his donation into
two $25,000 lots because Banks was “going to put in $25,000 of his own
money and he figured other people should be putting in the same kind
of numbers”. Mary Wilson immediately pointed out that was illogical
and there are donations that were larger than $25,000. The only
purpose I can come up with for trying to get donors to make
identically sized donations was so Banks could claim ‘yes, I know I
got money form these people, but which $25,000 is which?’
As with Key, Simmons said he hadn’t asked Banks vital questions like
‘did you call Dotcom to thank him?’, why did he want it to look like
other donors were matching him?’ and hadn’t asked Banks in “a direct
manner” if he knew where he had received money from Dotcom.
Here’s the full quotes from Simmons in the crucial segment
Wilson: Have you asked him if he knew the donations were from Dotcom?
Simmons: Not in that direct manner. I’ve asked him about the process
that they used.
Wilson: Why didn’t you ask him directly?
Simmons: Well, he told me that they were an anonymous donation.
Wilson: But he knew they were going to be $50,000; split into two
lots.
Simmons: No. That was one of the suggestions he made to Dotcom.
Wilson: Do you know why he made that suggestion?
Simmons:He has given me an indication as to why he made that
suggestion. And that was that he initially was going ot put in $25,000
of his own money and he figured that other people should be putting in
the same kind of numbers”
Wilson: I’m not quite sure why that makes sense, ’cause there are
other donations that are bigger than $25,000.
That raises another interesting question. Did Banks declare his own
$25,000 donation? See, there are a total of 5 anonymous $25,000
donations on his return [Can anyone find a copy of his return? I think
the Herald or Stuff published it but can't track it down]
Hilariously, a few minutes later (and presumably after a quick, blunt
phone call from Wayne Eagleson) Simmons rang Radio New Zealand to try
to withdraw his admission that Banks did tell Dotcom to split his
donation into two. He claimed he had never discussed the Dotcom
donation with Banks. Right. Read the quotes above again and tell me he
was just mistaken.
RNZ naturally reported Simmons’ attempt to withdraw his comments in
its news bulletins.
Did Simmons just kill Banks’ career on purpose – with the goal of a by-
election bringing in Catherine Isaac who, at this point, is ACT’s one
last hope?
Or is he just completely incompetent to the point where he let all the
cats out of the bag?
Given this is the ACT Party we’re talking about, I think either is a
reasonable explanation.
Written By: EDDIE - Date published: 9:27 pm, May 2nd, 2012
Categories: act, john banks - Tags: lies
http://thestandard.org.nz/
ACT Party President Chris Simmons – who opposed the Brash coup that
lead to John Banks being ACT’s sole MP – ‘accidentally’ dropped Banks
right in it on Radio New Zealand’s Checkpoint. He said “[Banks] made
the suggestion to Dotcom” to split his donation into two $25,000
pieces and implied the purpose was to have a number of identically-
sized donations he could claim were anonymous.
Now, I presume you don’t miss the import of that. Banks has denied any
such arrangement with Dotcom. And if he did tell Dotcom to split the
cheques into two $25,000 amounts then he can hardly claim ignorance of
the identity of the donor when two cheques from Dotcom’s company were
deposited with his campaign on the same day.
Simmons then went on to say that Banks had given him bizarrely
illogical justification for telling Dotcom to split his donation into
two $25,000 lots because Banks was “going to put in $25,000 of his own
money and he figured other people should be putting in the same kind
of numbers”. Mary Wilson immediately pointed out that was illogical
and there are donations that were larger than $25,000. The only
purpose I can come up with for trying to get donors to make
identically sized donations was so Banks could claim ‘yes, I know I
got money form these people, but which $25,000 is which?’
As with Key, Simmons said he hadn’t asked Banks vital questions like
‘did you call Dotcom to thank him?’, why did he want it to look like
other donors were matching him?’ and hadn’t asked Banks in “a direct
manner” if he knew where he had received money from Dotcom.
Here’s the full quotes from Simmons in the crucial segment
Wilson: Have you asked him if he knew the donations were from Dotcom?
Simmons: Not in that direct manner. I’ve asked him about the process
that they used.
Wilson: Why didn’t you ask him directly?
Simmons: Well, he told me that they were an anonymous donation.
Wilson: But he knew they were going to be $50,000; split into two
lots.
Simmons: No. That was one of the suggestions he made to Dotcom.
Wilson: Do you know why he made that suggestion?
Simmons:He has given me an indication as to why he made that
suggestion. And that was that he initially was going ot put in $25,000
of his own money and he figured that other people should be putting in
the same kind of numbers”
Wilson: I’m not quite sure why that makes sense, ’cause there are
other donations that are bigger than $25,000.
That raises another interesting question. Did Banks declare his own
$25,000 donation? See, there are a total of 5 anonymous $25,000
donations on his return [Can anyone find a copy of his return? I think
the Herald or Stuff published it but can't track it down]
Hilariously, a few minutes later (and presumably after a quick, blunt
phone call from Wayne Eagleson) Simmons rang Radio New Zealand to try
to withdraw his admission that Banks did tell Dotcom to split his
donation into two. He claimed he had never discussed the Dotcom
donation with Banks. Right. Read the quotes above again and tell me he
was just mistaken.
RNZ naturally reported Simmons’ attempt to withdraw his comments in
its news bulletins.
Did Simmons just kill Banks’ career on purpose – with the goal of a by-
election bringing in Catherine Isaac who, at this point, is ACT’s one
last hope?
Or is he just completely incompetent to the point where he let all the
cats out of the bag?
Given this is the ACT Party we’re talking about, I think either is a
reasonable explanation.
No comments:
Post a Comment