George Brandis - How long?

[Lebbo73]

The 'truth' came out in the senate investigation. Brandis is a liar.
No right of left in it.

Where is the evidence?

 

[Maggie5]

Where is the evidence?

if you had watched and listened to the Senate investigation you would have your answer.
Which is what I did and not rely on media reports.

 

[madmug]

Where is the evidence?

Oh come on! You are full of comment but clearly didnt listen to the testimony given at the enquiry. It was clear Brandis lied about the use of the SG advice.
Brandis got some advice, but then rewrote the bill (about marriage equality & citizenship, also the attempt to gag the SG from giving advice direct to members except through the AG) to the parliament & said he had discussed that with the SG. He clearly did not discuss the rewritten bill which was different to the information the SG was asked about.
That is a lie. Brandis is misusing the AG advice.
Evidence.

 

[Lebbo73]

Oh come on! You are full of comment but clearly didnt listen to the testimony given at the enquiry. It was clear Brandis lied about the use of the SG advice.
Brandis got some advice, but then rewrote the bill (about marriage equality & citizenship, also the attempt to gag the SG from giving advice direct to members except through the AG) to the parliament & said he had discussed that with the SG. He clearly did not discuss the rewritten bill which was different to the information the SG was asked about.
That is a lie. Brandis is misusing the AG advice.
Evidence.

Did the enquiry state that he lied?

 

[madmug]

Did the enquiry state that he lied?

Its an unparliamentary word. & its not an enquiry on who lied.

However I will state that you are lazy & just making side comment like you do does not pass as discussion.
If you dont care about what was said. Or about the consequences of Brandis actions, then dont engage in the thread.

 

[Lebbo73]

Its an unparliamentary word. & its not an enquiry on who lied.

However I will state that you are lazy & just making side comment like you do does not pass as discussion.
If you dont care about what was said. Or about the consequences of Brandis actions, then dont engage in the thread.

Did the enquiry say he lied? It isn't a ******* hard question.

 

[madmug]

Did the enquiry say he lied? It isn't a ******* hard question.

Brainless.

 

[Maggie5]

Did the enquiry state that he lied?

You mean the CLP loaded enquiry?
They weren't really listening to answers they were more concerned about the various definitions of 'consult' as proffered by Baldy Brandis.
Why do you not fully inform yourself and watch these enquires so that you make up your own mind and not be influenced by your own bias and media reports?

 

[Lebbo73]

You mean the CLP loaded enquiry?
They weren't really listening to answers they were more concerned about the various definitions of 'consult' as proffered by Baldy Brandis.
Why do you not fully inform yourself and watch these enquires so that you make up your own mind and not be influenced by your own bias and media reports?

Some people have better or more important things to do like golf, work and/or family commitments. I asked for proof and nothing was provided. This is an issue that seems to be running down party lines as to who was in the wrong. If you can't provide any evidence then it is obvious that the blame lays with the SG or both of them at the very least.

 

[Maggie5]

Some people have better or more important things to do like golf, work and/or family commitments. I asked for proof and nothing was provided. This is an issue that seems to be running down party lines as to who was in the wrong. If you can't provide any evidence then it is obvious that the blame lays with the SG or both of them at the very least.

Nah, you are game playing. Not sure you want proof if playing golf is more important.
If it really concerned you, you would have watched and heard it for yourself.
Just one example of the witch hunt that showed the bias of the committee. Brandis 45 minutes of nothing as his opening, SG was not even given sufficient time to respond to very lengthy questions that had been previously asked.
SG responses were then twisted to ask further questions that misinterpret what he had already answered.

Here is a hint for you, why don't you have a read of the supplementary questions (over 100) that he was asked to respond to?
That should give you an idea that their purpose wasn't to find the truth but to intimidate the SG and they got their man.

 

[pazza]

The attack dogs on the SG were McDonald, Reynolds and O'Sullivan. The SG was not even given a sufficient enough hearing from those 3 to state his case. All the inquiry members let Brandis speek freely. now if that isn't an illustration of bias and disrespect i don't know what is.

 

[JackOutback]

Some people have better or more important things to do like golf, work and/or family commitments. I asked for proof and nothing was provided. This is an issue that seems to be running down party lines as to who was in the wrong. If you can't provide any evidence then it is obvious that the blame lays with the SG or both of them at the very least.

Please explain the logic behind this nonsense?

Without evidence to the contrary, my team is right?

If there's no evidence, then surely either side could be to blame.

 

[Lebbo73]

Please explain the logic behind this nonsense?

Without evidence to the contrary, my team is right?

If there's no evidence, then surely either side could be to blame.

Since you muppets have no evidence that the AG lied, the SG must be wrong. He resigned because he is a pussy. I don't know why I tried to concede that they both might be in the wrong. The evidence must clearly contradict this as I am still waiting.

 

[JackOutback]

Since you muppets have no evidence that the AG lied, the SG must be wrong. He resigned because he is a pussy. I don't know why I tried to concede that they both might be in the wrong. The evidence must clearly contradict this as I am still waiting.

Since you have no evidence the SG lied, the AG must be wrong? Am I doing this right?

Of course, Brandis wouldn't resign because he has no shame.

 

[Maggie5]

Since you muppets have no evidence that the AG lied, the SG must be wrong. He resigned because he is a pussy. I don't know why I tried to concede that they both might be in the wrong. The evidence must clearly contradict this as I am still waiting.

Okay, can you supply positive proof that Brandis is telling the truth?

 

[Lebbo73]

Okay, can you supply positive proof that Brandis is telling the truth?

No. Although, if you choose to make accusations against someone, you need to be able to prove it.

 

[Gough]

No. Although, if you choose to make accusations against someone, you need to be able to prove it.

Just like Gillard, and the AWU hey? Brandis is a liar who misled Parliament.

 

[Maggie5]

No. Although, if you choose to make accusations against someone, you need to be able to prove it.

But weren't you implying that it was honest George that was the truthful one and the SG was lying?
If not, I am not sure what you were posting about unless of course it was your usual partisan post.

 

[Lebbo73]

Just like Gillard, and the AWU hey? Brandis is a liar who misled Parliament.

Gough, I never thought that Gillard actually did anything wrong. I am sure that I posted that at the time. I am pretty sure that I said that I hope that she would be guilty of criminal behaviour though!

 

[pazza]

Since you muppets have no evidence that the AG lied, the SG must be wrong. He resigned because he is a pussy. I don't know why I tried to concede that they both might be in the wrong. The evidence must clearly contradict this as I am still waiting.

The trouble with Senate Inquiries like this one is that one side of the panel makes one report and the other makes a dissenting report. There is no real fact finding in these matters, such as the interpretation on them by both sides.

There does seem to be an issue in how the hearings were conducted, whereby Brandis was rightfully given respect by all panel members whereas Gleeson was interrupted and haranagued throughout. So there are questions as to the conduct of the actual proceedings themselves.

For all we know either party or both are wrong - that cannot be established under the process that has been undertaken thus far.

 

[JackOutback]

The trouble with Senate Inquiries like this one is that one side of the panel makes one report and the other makes a dissenting report. There is no real fact finding in these matters, such as the interpretation on them by both sides.

There does seem to be an issue in how the hearings were conducted, whereby Brandis was rightfully given respect by all panel members whereas Gleeson was interrupted and haranagued throughout. So there are questions as to the conduct of the actual proceedings themselves.

For all we know either party or both are wrong - that cannot be established under the process that has been undertaken thus far.

The behaviour by Liberal Party members when questioning Gleeson and Triggs was disgraceful and says more about them than it does about Gleeson or Triggs. Just childish behaviour from people who are supposed to hold a position of authority.

 

[FredLeDeux]

The behaviour by Liberal Party members when questioning Gleeson and Triggs was disgraceful and says more about them than it does about Gleeson or Triggs. Just childish behaviour from people who are supposed to hold a position of authority.

There was nothing childish about it.
It was a deliberate, cool, calm and collected attack, orchestrated and led by MacDonald, the coalition's Chief Attack Pig.
The aim was to disrupt the proceedings in order to prevent the messages of Gleeson and Trigg being heard.

 

[pugsville]

Since you muppets have no evidence that the AG lied, the SG must be wrong. He resigned because he is a pussy. I don't know why I tried to concede that they both might be in the wrong. The evidence must clearly contradict this as I am still waiting.

why do anyone need evidence? some times you just need to listen to your gut. It's plain and obvious.

Brandis is obviously lying one this one. Yup there is no direct evidence other than the SG word. However Brandis track record.

 

[Lebbo73]

why do anyone need evidence? some times you just need to listen to your gut. It's plain and obvious.

Brandis is obviously lying one this one. Yup there is no direct evidence other than the SG word. However Brandis track record.

Haha. Just like Chief's gutfeel would of put Gable Tostee in prison.

 

[Maggie5]

There was nothing childish about it.
It was a deliberate, cool, calm and collected attack, orchestrated and led by MacDonald, the coalition's Chief Attack Pig.
The aim was to disrupt the proceedings in order to prevent the messages of Gleeson and Trigg being heard.

It was deliberate but not sure it was cool and calm. Reynolds and the guy on the left (can't recall his name) was petulant and disruptive, McDonald was his usual self so I would call that childish.
Further the follow up 100 questions on notice isn't really mature behaviour.
Loved Gleeson's response to them.