Gillard's AWU/Wilson past about to haunt her?

[Arrow25]

Gillard could murder someone in cold blood and be caught with the weapon in hand and make a video tape confession and posters here would still defend her.

They would then excuse her conduct by saying oh but Tony Abbott once said "s**t"

 

[Admiral Byng]

Gillard could murder someone in cold blood and be caught with the weapon in hand and make a video tape confession and posters here would still defend her.

They would then excuse her conduct by saying oh but Tony Abbott once said "s**t"

Likewise, there are some on here that if Gillard said "s**t" would carry on like she'd just mudered someone and then took to Youtube to brag about it.

 

[Footy Smarts]

Gillard could murder someone in cold blood and be caught with the weapon in hand and make a video tape confession and posters here would still defend her.

Wow it's like you actually think there is evidence of some form of wrongdoing by her. Yet again and again members of the opposition fail to put it.

I'll give you this though Arrow, you would've done a better job than Bishop just did in her press conference. Massive train wreck. At least you could get to the point and cover the issue. Bishop spent question after question unable to actually say what the whole point of her prosecution is.

 

[Arrow25]

Wow it's like you actually think there is evidence of some form of wrongdoing by her. Yet again and again members of the opposition fail to put it.

I'll give you this though Arrow, you would've done a better job than Bishop just did in her press conference. Massive train wreck. At least you could get to the point and cover the issue. Bishop spent question after question unable to actually say what the whole point of her prosecution is.

Bob Kernohan, former AWU president, has just come out and said on the record that he was told by Bill Shorten that Wilson used AWU funds to pay for Gillard's renovations.

The plot thickens....

 

[Nankervis brothers]

This is gold. Here is Bishop being asked questions after her presser today. See below:


http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...ember-27-2012-20121127-2a4ax.html?reload=true

What are your specific allegations, Ms Bishop is asked?

What are you suggesting the Prime Minister's motive is?
It was to keep the association hidden from her firm.
Are you saying Ms Gillard is complicit in a fraud?
The Prime Minister is yet to answer questions about her role. The AWU lost hundreds of thousands of dollars.
This morning you said the Prime Minister profited from the fraud?
No I didn't. No, I did not.
You said she, Wilson and Blewitt?
Wilson and Blewitt are the beneficiaries from the slush fund. I'm not saying she benefited.
Are you saying she's a knowing party to a fraud?
She was a knowing party to breaches of the law in Western Australia.
How can you say the association was secret when it was advertised?
It was a secret to the AWU. The purpose set out in that advertisement was false.
There are calls for your resignation? Meeting Mr Blewitt, was that a good idea?
Ralph Blewitt has met lots of people, I don't think Mr Albanese has called for their resignation. Ms Bishop says she was contacted by former radio host Mike Smith. It was a chance meeting. It doesn't compare to Ms Gillard's four year friendship with Mr Blewitt. I had a ten minute conversation with him at most. He'd met with the police. I wanted to know if there were further documents.
Are you making accusations based on hearsay and rumour?
I'm asking questions. The Prime Minister is entitled to answer them.
Will you ask a bunch of questions on this tomorrow?
I don't announce Opposition decisions before they are made.
You have accused the Prime Minister of being party to a fraud. Yesterday and today.
No, I haven't. Those who stood to benefit were Wilson and Blewitt.

Ms Bishop is saved by the bells, ringing for a division.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...ember-27-2012-20121127-2a4ax.html?reload=true




So, in other words, not only do we still have no proof of Gillard's supposed wrongdoing in the issue, but we also have a substantial back-peddling on the claims made earlier in the day by Bishop. Unless someone, anyone, can actually offer potential proof of these allegations, or even formulate a specific and official allegation, I fail to see how any of this hub-bub is beyond hearsay, innuendo and smear.

All we have is a tortured analogy of 'bank robbers and car drivers' and theatrical stares by Bishop across the dispatch box. And that is pretty much it at the moment from any real legal perspective. The Coalition and the nut jobs need to provide proof. *, going by the above transcript, they need to even be able to stick with a specific allegation for longer than one parliamentary sitting.

Unless something concrete emerges in the coming days, this is heading toward a loss for the Coalition.

 

[Nankervis brothers]

Gillard could murder someone in cold blood and be caught with the weapon in hand and make a video tape confession and posters here would still defend her.

They would then excuse her conduct by saying oh but Tony Abbott once said "s**t"

The above is kinda insane.

 

[Footy Smarts]

Bob Kernohan, former AWU president, has just come out and said on the record that he was told by Bill Shorten that Wilson used AWU funds to pay for Gillard's renovations.

The plot thickens....

No the claim is that he was told by Bill Smith not Bill Shorten. The conversation allegedly happened in the presence of Bill Shorten also.

Right now this is a 2 out of 10 bad by Gillard. There's simply no evidence whatsoever of Gillard doing anything illegal. It's clear she made an error of judgement, one she admits. Everybody makes mistakes and to crucify her based on an error of judgement 20 years ago is ludicrous.

If it's found that she unknowingly had renovations paid for then I'd say that's a 4 out of 10. I'd expect her to pay the money back to the AWU or other organisations from where the money came from immediately. There's no evidence of this. In fact Bishop was clear to point out that she wasn't making this claim in her press conference.

If it's found that she knowingly benefited from fraudulent funds or knowingly aided the defrauding of a union or other company then that's shocking and she should go immediately. Of course there's no evidence of this and not even an assertion of this.

There's so many more important things to be talking about right now and Bishop's awful attempt to make her case means that the only ones to lose out of this are likely to be those going the hardest at Gillard, the coalition (particularly Bishop) and Rudd's supporters.

Here's the delightful press conference in case you missed it:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-27/bishop-still-has-questions-for-pm/4395232

The last few minutes are the best parts with the press gallery openly correcting Bishop's misstatements and even backing up Gillard. A couple of months ago you wouldn't have read about that sort of thing.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

Bishop looked very uncomfortable once the full force and fury of the media blowback hit her. Have to wonder how this mob could run a government when they crumble do quickly under pressure. Whether you love, hate, or are indifferent to, Julia Gillard its hard to deny her poise under pressure. Can anyone imagine Abbott taking a presser like the PM has done twice now? He would have cracked the shots and walked out after five minutes.

 

[pjcrows]

Mainstream news was not fond to Bishop this evening.

I wonder how long it will take for it to click that Abbott threw her under a bus today.

 

[Dry Rot]

No the claim is that he was told by Bill Smith not Bill Shorten. The conversation allegedly happened in the presence of Bill Shorten also.

Right now this is a 2 out of 10 bad by Gillard. There's simply no evidence whatsoever of Gillard doing anything illegal. It's clear she made an error of judgement, one she admits. Everybody makes mistakes and to crucify her based on an error of judgement 20 years ago is ludicrous.

If it's found that she unknowingly had renovations paid for then I'd say that's a 4 out of 10. I'd expect her to pay the money back to the AWU or other organisations from where the money came from immediately. There's no evidence of this. In fact Bishop was clear to point out that she wasn't making this claim in her press conference.
.

Here's what Bob reckons today

http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/201...-knew-it-about-gillards-home-renovations.html

 

[Footy Smarts]

Here's what Bob reckons today

http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/201...-knew-it-about-gillards-home-renovations.html

Fair enough. This is all hearsay though. There's no actual evidence and it's clearly doing the coalition more damage than Gillard right now. The question is does the coalition stick with it for the last 2 days and flog the deadest of dead horses or do they change tack and admit their failure. Either way unless they find some real evidence soon it's not going to help them.

 

[Nankervis brothers]

Bishop looked very uncomfortable once the full force and fury of the media blowback hit her. Have to wonder how this mob could run a government when they crumble do quickly under pressure. Whether you love, hate, or are indifferent to, Julia Gillard its hard to deny her poise under pressure. Can anyone imagine Abbott taking a presser like the PM has done twice now? He would have cracked the shots and walked out after five minutes.

Good point.

Haters are going to hate, but regardless of that she will be remembered as one tough so and so. Holding on to a minority government is hard any time, and in a period of minority government scandals will be pushed to the fore as they hold the potential for power to quickly move the other way. She has seen off so many challenges and scandals now, so many 'tests' as the media put it, yet keeps coming out on top - even from 'tests' within the Party (Rudd). At some point she might even get some credit for it, though that is unlikely in our current media environment.

To address your post, there is no way I could imagine Abbott getting through one single hour-long grilling on a conflict, let alone two. He has had such an easy ride to this point, and probably will all the way through to PM. Yet he is little more than a good agitator. In a truly critical environment, as PM, he will flounder badly.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

Bishop was comedy gold today....she had to be, surely she couldn't be serious with that "performance"? Extraordinary!!

 

[Nankervis brothers]

Here's what Bob reckons today

http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/201...-knew-it-about-gillards-home-renovations.html

Well that is nice that he has now decided this is his stance. But so what? There is still no proof of any wrongdoing, still no 'smoking gun' that we were promised this week, still no real evidence. There is nothing here beyond opinion, innuendo, rumour. I knew a bloke once who knew a bloke who changed his mind about Lindy Chamberlain after reading some articles and talking to a bloke who once worked in the Northern territory. FFS. Show us something concrete or * off.

 

[Pessimistic]

There doesn't need to be a point or evidence. Its a smear campaign, probably meant for NSW voter consumption

 

[Nankervis brothers]

Mainstream news was not fond to Bishop this evening.

I wonder how long it will take for it to click that Abbott threw her under a bus today.

Interesting isn't it. He couldn't go on the attack over this AWU 'scandal' as his stocks are so low, and he can't afford to head another negative campaign. So Bishop got the guernsey. And yes, as things currently stand, she has been thrown to the wolves. I wonder whether he will be tarnished should the AWU push amount to nothing, or whether Bishop alone will cope the brunt. The mere fact they are hiding him behind Bishop could hurt him too. I noticed a snippet in todays parliament where Albo was trying to use a visual prop that was disallowed. It was an image of the Lib's strategist talking to Bishop with a "Gillard/AWU" file under her arm. In the end, he said (not verbatim): " well i don't need the prop, we get the filth from their (the LNP's) mouths.....but not his mouth (points at Abbott).....COWARD!". That is potentially damning; the ALP want to make sure Abbott is connected to the smear. It could hurt Abbott further. Though perhaps Bishop will take the brunt in the publics eyes - that is clearly the Coalitions hope should the smear backfire, and part of why they are hiding Abbott.

 

[cancat]

She has absolutely no idea at all that Bruce is funding all this from the Boss's shakedowns

What leads you to think this? If there is one thing Gillard is not it's naive. She was not a schoolgirl when all this happened, she was a partner in a law firm and about to become a Labor MP.

She She agonises about informing AWU about the assoc, but after all Bruce was technically her client and there's legal privilege. So she doesn't do it, and of all the greivous errors of judgement she made during that period, she can say that's one she particularly regrets today

The alternative explanation is that she made a judgment call that none of this would see the light of day. Her legal career was about to end but had aspirations of a political career and took a chance that her role in the affair would not be an issue.

 

[Nankervis brothers]

There doesn't need to be a point or evidence. Its a smear campaign, probably meant for NSW voter consumption

Exactly right. The Coalition do not think they will find a smoking gun or proof of any guilt, but the idea is to make 's**t stick'. It is a smear campaign, as you rightly put it. Yet it is vaguely possible it could bite them on the arse, as voters (even disgruntled voters in Western Sydney) start to feel duped about the smear. Unlikely, but still possible.

 

[Dry Rot]

Wilson was very credible on 7.30 tonight.

 

[Nankervis brothers]

Wilson was very credible on 7.30 tonight.

Yeah, as cridible as Blewitt the other night

Am i doing it right trolly?

 

[Upton Sinclair]

Wilson was very credible on 7.30 tonight.

Relative to Blewitt last night I'd wholeheartedly agree. His open, forthcoming answers were in stark contrast to Blewitt's evasive and 'coached by a lawyer to within an inch of his life' script. Wilson might be dodgy but at least he was frank.

 

[noddy]

Wilson was very credible on 7.30 tonight.

He was not good just the same as Blewitt, seeing as you are a regular on Smiths web page what is this story that Lathom has just told concerning the Fed & State police investigating Smith for something he posted on his web page in regards to Afghanistan, the Taliban, assassination & our PM Julia Gillard? should add that Smith has now removed his piece of rubbish.

 

[GuruJane]

What leads you to think this? If there is one thing Gillard is not it's naive. She was not a schoolgirl when all this happened, she was a partner in a law firm and about to become a Labor MP.




The alternative explanation is that she made a judgment call that none of this would see the light of day. Her legal career was about to end but had aspirations of a political career and took a chance that her role in the affair would not be an issue.

It's two things - firstly, its what I surmised had happened after I read the S & G transcript and also had a hot fling myself with an adventurer when JG's age and secondly it was how I reckon Campbell/Blair would have managed it.

Anyway, after watching Wilson tonight I'd have to revise my scenario. For good looking charismatic read half brained dodgy sleaze. Oh Jules, good taste.

 

[Dry Rot]

Relative to Blewitt last night I'd wholeheartedly agree. His open, forthcoming answers were in stark contrast to Blewitt's evasive and 'coached by a lawyer to within an inch of his life' script. Wilson might be dodgy but at least he was frank.

Pity they sent sent the work experince girl to interview him. Pity she didn't do research or was quitted enough to ask some obvious questions.

Open? He looked as dodgy as hell.

 

[Gough]

Pity they sent sent the work experince girl to interview him. Pity she didn't do research or was quitted enough to ask some obvious questions.

Open? He looked as dodgy as hell.

This has been a bad day for you hasn't it DR?