Australian politician ‘sold out’ to foreign regime after being recruited by spies, Asio boss says

Remove this Banner Ad

If I were to guess , I would say Canavan, Morrison , Stuart Robert, Joyce, Jane Hume or Ken Wyatt
Carr or Keating given how many millions they have paid by Chinese government agencies and their desperation to push Xis agenda at all costs. Xenophon sold out his ethics to work for Huawei.

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Spies are recruited based on one or more of:

Money - any MP who was in the s**t?
Ideology - there are some strong ideologues among the ranks but I doubt this one at this level
Coercion - ie blackmail. Would have to be something big, politicians are used to having their dirty laundry made public
Ego - Strong possibility in the political class.
 
Burgess implied that the politician won't be prosecuted because the 2018 foreign interference laws aren't retrospective, implying that this predates the legislation. But maybe the reason no one will be prosecuted is that doing so would name China as the country involved, and Australia doesn't want to jeapordise the 'normalising' relations.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Heard a legal professor on ABC News this morning talking about last night's "revelation". He was of the strong opinion that, based on the minimal details provided by the ASIO Chief, that a crime would still have been committed even before the updated legislation came into effect.

I have to say, this announcement was pretty reckless and seemingly unnecessary by the Chief. From the sounds of it the incident(s) occurred many years ago so...
a) why now?
b) why not name who it was?
c) why wasn't it pursued (or if it was, why wasn't it made public)?

Seems a very un-needed red-herring to me. If it's as serious as he makes out, surely it should be followed up?
 
Carr or Keating given how many millions they have paid by Chinese government agencies and their desperation to push Xis agenda at all costs. Xenophon sold out his ethics to work for Huawei.

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app
We know this new revelation is not about Bob Carr because we all know he sold out years ago, number one Panda Hugger. There's a few suspects on both sides parliament.
 
China is the unbackable favourite, sure - but any other surprise countries we think it could be?
New Zealand. They want Russell Crowe back
 
raf epstein just spoke with nick mckenzie on abc melbourne .... mckenzie suggests smokin joes offerings this morning points to an ex labor pollie
 
Poor form for the ASIO boss to throw this out there without naming. He knows what will happen now as the posts above demonstrate clearly.

And of course Pauline Hanson and her ilk will use Parliamentary Privilege to attack her opponents for political gain.

And right before a key by-election and Tasmanian state election.

I don't believe for a second that a public official of Burgess's stature is recklessly indifferent to the consequences of what he's just done. So what exactly is HIS motive?
 
Poor form for the ASIO boss to throw this out there without naming. He knows what will happen now as the posts above demonstrate clearly.

And of course Pauline Hanson and her ilk will use Parliamentary Privilege to attack her opponents for political gain.

And right before a key by-election and Tasmanian state election.

I don't believe for a second that a public official of Burgess's stature is recklessly indifferent to the consequences of what he's just done. So what exactly is HIS motive?

He knows exactly what he's doing, it's a calculated decision. It's a clear warning for others out there perilously close to the same path.
 
Heard a legal professor on ABC News this morning talking about last night's "revelation". He was of the strong opinion that, based on the minimal details provided by the ASIO Chief, that a crime would still have been committed even before the updated legislation came into effect.

I have to say, this announcement was pretty reckless and seemingly unnecessary by the Chief. From the sounds of it the incident(s) occurred many years ago so...
a) why now?
b) why not name who it was?
c) why wasn't it pursued (or if it was, why wasn't it made public)?

Seems a very un-needed red-herring to me. If it's as serious as he makes out, surely it should be followed up?
Perhaps being pursued therefore not named
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top