Senator Reynolds

[Kwality]

The same "News" Organisation is going to lose Billions because internally they admit they know they're lying, but they're going to continue to tell people what they want to hear, even if it's not true.

And the Chairman - Murdoch, offers to do anything at all to get the GOP elected.

It's all in writing and sworn testimony.

ANYTHING you read in the Murdoch papers has to be read in that vein. Selective editing and management means this article should be considered a press release, not journalism.

I'll judge Reynolds on what she did and said at the time, rather than what her PR team has come up with a year later. So I don't need to read the article to comment on Linda Reynolds' behaviour or character, though I have read snippets of this weekends puffery.

Reynolds is claiming she's the victim because the things she said and did were acts of incompetence/negligence. Her reputation is in tatters because she's an awful person, not because people spoke publicly about what an awful person she is. This is the part some people, conservatives in particular seem to miss.

It's like Dutton's Mrs saying he's not a bad person, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. They're more concerned about the public appearance of their behaviour than the actual substance of their behaviour. Even Perrottet was trying to paper over a revenge-pr0n blackmailing by somebody senior in his own Govt. No doubt in 6 months, Murdoch will run another sob-story for him too. Hell, they're even promoting Latham at the moment.

Reynolds is as entitled to make her case as any other accused person.
There has been plenty here on both sides of the aisle for Sofronoff KC to get his teeth into.

Reynolds must rue only firing Lehrmann for the security breach.

 

[Kwality]

You know the thing about brains, is that there are people who will read all three of these tweets and still think that the payout was more than $3m and that Higgins is just after money, because it suits their narrative. Brains will filter out the information which doesn't suit their narrative and the only thing they'd take from this is that it confirms Higgins is a money-hungry liar. When all evidence points to the contrary.

The reason Soffronoff has been appointed is that there is real doubt over what has happened here.

 

[Maggie5]

Needing a Senate Committee to expose the MDs ignorance of the issue, i.e drumming up race hatred. No wonder the ABC in the NT are upset at Ultimo's 'know better' editing.

No doubt you were appalled by Kamahl being described as an 'honorary white'.
Same dance, different step.

Have no idea what you are prattling on about and what it has to do with Reynolds.

 

[Saint]

The reason Soffronoff has been appointed is that there is real doubt over what has happened here.

What are you talking about? You're introducing the narrative that there's doubt over what Higgins believed happened to her? The inquiry is to find out what happened between police and prosecutors. But what you're hearing is that maybe there's doubt over Higgins' story, because that suits your narrative.

The inquiry is because the Prosecutor was pressured by police not to pursue a retrial and there's the possibility that there was an orchestrated campaign to pressure Higgins and to pressure for no re-trial.

Former Queensland solicitor-general to head up inquiry into trial of Bruce Lehrmann

The board of inquiry — the ACT equivalent to a royal commission — will look into the conduct of police and prosecutors during the trial and whether the ACT needs to introduce measures to deal with juror misconduct.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Kwality]

Have no idea what you are prattling on about and what it has to do with Reynolds.

The ABC, your commentary:

ABC self monitoring, acknowledging and fixing.

 

[kalex6251]

What are you talking about? You're introducing the narrative that there's doubt over what Higgins believed happened to her? The inquiry is to find out what happened between police and prosecutors. But what you're hearing is that maybe there's doubt over Higgins' story, because that suits your narrative.

The inquiry is because the Prosecutor was pressured by police not to pursue a retrial and there's the possibility that there was an orchestrated campaign to pressure Higgins and to pressure for no re-trial.

Former Queensland solicitor-general to head up inquiry into trial of Bruce Lehrmann

The board of inquiry — the ACT equivalent to a royal commission — will look into the conduct of police and prosecutors during the trial and whether the ACT needs to introduce measures to deal with juror misconduct.

www.abc.net.au

interestingly (and offensively) bolt has been writing about the financial settlement between the c'wealth and higgins .... raising concerns on why the c'welth would settle for such a large amount in the absence of a conviction .... thats got bolts diaper of reactionary outrage bursting at the seams

not surprisingly, bolt never showed any interest in the failure of the preacher man, his COS or the head of PMO to conclude the many investigations that were initiated on who knew what and when .... or the preacher mans willingness to ignore questions on the matter in parliament .......... that didnt concern bolt ...... nah ..... that was all kosher according to that low life $cum

 

[Saint]

interestingly (and offensively) bolt has been writing about the financial settlement between the c'wealth and higgins .... raising concerns on why the c'welth would settle for such a large amount in the absence of a conviction .... thats got bolts diaper of reactionary outrage bursting at the seams

not surprisingly, bolt never showed any interest in the failure of the preacher man, his COS or the head of PMO to conclude the many investigations that were initiated on who knew what and when .... or the preacher mans willingness to ignore questions on the matter in parliament .......... that didnt concern bolt ...... nah ..... that was all kosher according to that low life $cum

I imagine Bolt is like Tucker Carlson. Looks at what his readers want to hear and then says it.

His readers are all old men who think Higgins deserved what happened for being a hussey, so every story is written in that vein. Doesn't matter what the evidence says, that's what they want to hear, so that's what Bolt's going to write. Bosses' orders.

 

[Kwality]

What are you talking about? You're introducing the narrative that there's doubt over what Higgins believed happened to her? The inquiry is to find out what happened between police and prosecutors. But what you're hearing is that maybe there's doubt over Higgins' story, because that suits your narrative.

The inquiry is because the Prosecutor was pressured by police not to pursue a retrial and there's the possibility that there was an orchestrated campaign to pressure Higgins and to pressure for no re-trial.

Former Queensland solicitor-general to head up inquiry into trial of Bruce Lehrmann

The board of inquiry — the ACT equivalent to a royal commission — will look into the conduct of police and prosecutors during the trial and whether the ACT needs to introduce measures to deal with juror misconduct.

www.abc.net.au

Reynolds is revisiting her treatment over what happened in the Parliamentary Offices & that involves the AFP.

Higgins version of what happened in offices post 'the incident' differs from Ms Brown & Ms Reynolds & that record as covered by the AFP.

 

[Saint]

Reynolds is revisiting her treatment over what happened in the Parliamentary Offices & that involves the AFP.

Higgins version of what happened in offices post 'the incident' differs from Ms Brown & Ms Reynolds & that record as covered by the AFP.

Here's a question for you. Do you think Ms Brown and Ms Reynolds are giving their most honest account of what happened, or do you think they're giving an account which paints themselves in the best light?

A meeting happens in which the CoS and Minister ask a young staffer who's just been assaulted if she wants to press charges. I think they all agree that happened.

There are 1,000 ways that conversation could have gone. Higgins said she believes she wasn't supported. Reynolds and Brown believe they were supportive.

Were they supportive enough, given their roles? I would say, due to the outcome, that no, they weren't. Regardless of what either party believes happened in meeting/s around that time, the outcome hasn't gone well for anybody involved. I would say that the two senior people involved should share more responsibility for that than the junior staffer/victim.

 

[Gough]

Here's a question for you. Do you think Ms Brown and Ms Reynolds are giving their most honest account of what happened, or do you think they're giving an account which paints themselves in the best light?

A meeting happens in which the CoS and Minister ask a young staffer who's just been assaulted if she wants to press charges. I think they all agree that happened.

There are 1,000 ways that conversation could have gone. Higgins said she believes she wasn't supported. Reynolds and Brown believe they were supportive.

Were they supportive enough, given their roles? I would say, due to the outcome, that no, they weren't. Regardless of what either party believes happened in meeting/s around that time, the outcome hasn't gone well for anybody involved. I would say that the two senior people involved should share more responsibility for that than the junior staffer/victim.

Reynolds revisiting this looks to yet be another sign that senior Libs still aren't reading the post election room.

 

[Maggie5]

Higgins version of what happened in offices post 'the incident' differs from Ms Brown & Ms Reynolds & that record as covered by the AFP.

Maybe Reynolds is lying? Secret email not really a secret? Check out yesterdays 'Insider' episode a couple of other discrepancies.

Two years after news.com.au first reported the advice obtained from the Department of Finance in relation to Brittany Higgins’ rape allegation, the correspondence is also referenced in today’s article.

According to former Defence Minister Linda Reynolds, the “secret” email bolsters her argument that Brittany Higgins was offered support and care at all times.

The email was first reported by news.com.au on February 15, 2021 and in more detail on February 17, 2021.

The date of the leaked email is crucial: Friday, 29 March 2019 at 6.05pm.

During the trial, Ms Brown confirmed she was aware by Friday that Ms Higgins had told her in a meeting “I remember him on top of me.”

Ms Brown also told the Supreme Court that she informed Senator Reynolds what Ms Higgins had said before their April 1 meeting with Ms Higgins in her ministerial suite.

Ms Reynolds has denied this under oath and in parliament.

She said she only recalled being aware of a security incident. She said that Brittany Higgins never used the word “rape” but that she nevertheless urged her to go to police.

Two years ago, she offered the following apology on the matter.

“I am deeply sorry that she felt that way because my chief of staff and I at the time genuinely wanted to provide the support that she wanted,’’ Senator Reynolds said.

 

[Kwality]

Maybe Reynolds is lying? Secret email not really a secret? Check out yesterdays 'Insider' episode a couple of other discrepancies.

Two years after news.com.au first reported the advice obtained from the Department of Finance in relation to Brittany Higgins’ rape allegation, the correspondence is also referenced in today’s article.

According to former Defence Minister Linda Reynolds, the “secret” email bolsters her argument that Brittany Higgins was offered support and care at all times.

The email was first reported by news.com.au on February 15, 2021 and in more detail on February 17, 2021.

The date of the leaked email is crucial: Friday, 29 March 2019 at 6.05pm.

During the trial, Ms Brown confirmed she was aware by Friday that Ms Higgins had told her in a meeting “I remember him on top of me.”

Ms Brown also told the Supreme Court that she informed Senator Reynolds what Ms Higgins had said before their April 1 meeting with Ms Higgins in her ministerial suite.

Ms Reynolds has denied this under oath and in parliament.

She said she only recalled being aware of a security incident. She said that Brittany Higgins never used the word “rape” but that she nevertheless urged her to go to police.

Two years ago, she offered the following apology on the matter.

“I am deeply sorry that she felt that way because my chief of staff and I at the time genuinely wanted to provide the support that she wanted,’’ Senator Reynolds said.

I'm not saying any one version is the truth. Thats why understanding there is more than one version out there, & that doesnt mean one version is the truth/another porkies.

 

[Saint]

Maybe Reynolds is lying? Secret email not really a secret? Check out yesterdays 'Insider' episode a couple of other discrepancies.

Two years after news.com.au first reported the advice obtained from the Department of Finance in relation to Brittany Higgins’ rape allegation, the correspondence is also referenced in today’s article.

According to former Defence Minister Linda Reynolds, the “secret” email bolsters her argument that Brittany Higgins was offered support and care at all times.

The email was first reported by news.com.au on February 15, 2021 and in more detail on February 17, 2021.

The date of the leaked email is crucial: Friday, 29 March 2019 at 6.05pm.

During the trial, Ms Brown confirmed she was aware by Friday that Ms Higgins had told her in a meeting “I remember him on top of me.”

Ms Brown also told the Supreme Court that she informed Senator Reynolds what Ms Higgins had said before their April 1 meeting with Ms Higgins in her ministerial suite.

Ms Reynolds has denied this under oath and in parliament.

She said she only recalled being aware of a security incident. She said that Brittany Higgins never used the word “rape” but that she nevertheless urged her to go to police.

Two years ago, she offered the following apology on the matter.

“I am deeply sorry that she felt that way because my chief of staff and I at the time genuinely wanted to provide the support that she wanted,’’ Senator Reynolds said.

It certainly looks like she's been telling porkies about what she knew and when. She knew about a security incident, but didn't know any of the details, didn't even ask? Sounds like all the LNP ministers at the Robodebt Royal Commission.

I've never seen a Cabinet so completely unaware and seemingly uninterested in what goes on in their office or in their portfolios. What exactly were these Ministers doing all day in Canberra? They never asked questions of anyone about anything, nothing seemed to pique their interest at all.

 

[kalex6251]

^^^

still convinced the cleaning order will unlock a lot of doors around who knew what, when, and what they did following .... there is potentially 6/7 current and former mps on the hook here ..... not least being the current leader of the opposition (higgins herself expressed concerns lurch would be informed not long after the incident occurred)

perhaps albo is keeping the options for a RC on this tragic affair in his top drawer for down the track

 

[Not Important]

 

[Aristotle Pickett the3rd]

Disgusting piece of journalism from the Australian about a disgusting politician.

 

[Aristotle Pickett the3rd]

How can it be a political hit job when it's coming from within your own party and own office? Laughable.

 

[Maggie5]

I'm not saying any one version is the truth. Thats why understanding there is more than one version out there, & that doesnt mean one version is the truth/another porkies.

But what I posted is verifiable (court records/Hansard), so she either lied or has an inconvenient/poor memory.

 

[Kwality]

But what I posted is verifiable (court records/Hansard), so she either lied or has an inconvenient/poor memory.

She was cross examined.

 

[Maggie5]

She was cross examined.

Exactly so my point remains.

You are either trying to defend the indefensible or you didn't understand/believe the author of the article.

 

[The Punter]

Another awful development in an awful story than has taken just about every bad turn it could possibly take.

 

[QuietB]

ALL current media are flawed.

That statement is true, but flawed is not the same as completely and totally biased.

 

[Kwality]

That statement is true, but flawed is not the same as completely and totally biased.

You could review the ABCs recent 'attempts' to drum up racial trouble in the NT.

 

[Kwality]

Exactly so my point remains.

You are either trying to defend the indefensible or you didn't understand/believe the author of the article.

Your conclusion is self serving. Try again.

 

[QuietB]

You could review the ABCs recent 'attempts' to drum up racial trouble in the NT.

So are you claiming ABC management directed the narrative of that story or was it just flawed journalism?