The Lusk fixation
April 17th, 2012 at 12:00 pm by David FarrarLabour seem to have an obsession with Simon Lusk. Trevor Mallard has been blogging on him for over a year, and then in a rush of blood to his head (or somewhere) decided he was the secret leaker in the ACC saga. Never mind that the ACC Minister hasn’t spoken to him once in the past year.
As Trevor’s defamation defence will be based on proving his wild theories had a semblence of credibility, he set his assistant defence counsel Chris Hipkins to work. Chippie filed no less than 259 written questions to Ministers on Mr Lusk. Putting aside the cost to the taxpayer of their paranoia, his fishing expedition was very wide. He asked every single portfolio Minister the following:
Has he or his representatives had any written communication with Simon Lusk within the last six months in his Ministerial capacity; if so, on which date or dates and what was the nature of the communication?
Has he or his representatives had any oral discussions with Simon Lusk within the last six months in his Ministerial capacity; if so, on which date or dates and what was the nature of the discussion or discussions?
Has he or his representatives met with Simon Lusk within the last six months in his Ministerial capacity; if so, on which date or dates and what was the nature of the discussion or discussions?
One or two Ministers are yet to reply, but from what I can see 100% of the responses are “No”. So Trevor’s defence strategy is looking pretty shaky.
Plus anyone who knows Simon knows that at this time of year the last thing he worries about is politics. His main activity is being out on a grassy knoll with a high powered rifle looking for venison to go in the freezer.
April 17th, 2012 at 12:11 pm
The stonking big loophole in the twat’s questions is in the qualification “…. in his ministerial capacity; ….”
Vote:I’ll bet Ms Collins, Ms Perata, Ms Bennett, Ms Tolley, et al find that a bunch of laughs
Besides they could all be having a weekly Friday night knees-up with Mr Lusk and as long as no discussion touched on the Minister’s portfolio responsibility, the answers can be legitimately “NO”
April 17th, 2012 at 12:17 pm
Well, it might be a problem for Mallard’s defence strategy, if he had been sued. But he hasn’t.
Vote:April 17th, 2012 at 12:20 pm
Just wondering; did Trevor Mallard ever provide conclusive proof of the existance of the “American bag-man”?
Vote:April 17th, 2012 at 12:22 pm
> from what I can see 100% of the responses are “No”.
That confirms it then. If MPs say something, it must be true and correct.
Vote:April 17th, 2012 at 12:24 pm
> at this time of year the last thing he worries about is politics
But the questions refer to the previous 6 months, not this time of the year. Strange you didn’t pick up on that.
Vote:April 17th, 2012 at 12:30 pm
Judith: “I will see you in court”
[no papers filed]
Judith 4 days later: “I want an apology now and we will forget it”
[no reply from Mallard or Little]
[Judith has a word with her leader John]
Judith: “ok I want an apology by this thursday” – stamps her foot -
…………to be continued.
Vote:April 17th, 2012 at 12:58 pm
RRM – yep, that could be about as bad as Mallard trying to play his side of it out in the media.
But Collins is happy for him to keep exposing himself.
Vote:April 17th, 2012 at 1:14 pm
“One or two Ministers are yet to reply, but from what I can see 100% of the responses are “No”. So Trevor’s defence strategy is looking pretty shaky.”
David exactly is Mallard being asked to defend? Collins has not filed suit yet and given the charade that this has become one wonders whether she will.
Vote:April 17th, 2012 at 1:17 pm
Yes, to RRM, Mark, Nick and other dissemblers. It’s a lot more fun watching the sword of Damacles dangle. Once it falls the spectacle’s over and everyone moves onto the next act in the saga. But what’s the hurry? Aren’t you guys enjoying it as much as the rest of us are? After all, who wouldn’t be? What fun.
Popcorn?
Vote:April 17th, 2012 at 1:26 pm
@ Leaping Jimmy. Yep – loving it. Popcorn at the ready.
Vote:April 17th, 2012 at 1:35 pm
>Chippie filed no less than 259 written questions to Ministers on Mr Lusk.
My understanding is that if Collins chooses to sue the two Labour Party liars then she will pay her own legal costs. But this looks like Labour are using their official opposition privileges to perform legal discovery for their personal defence. That is clearly corrupt.
Vote:April 17th, 2012 at 2:29 pm
Its time to check whether Trevor Mallard thinks that Mr. Lusk is a hottie.
Vote:April 17th, 2012 at 2:48 pm
Leaping Jimmy you are of course presuming that Collins has a case. Frankly it is a pathetic side show from both Mallard and Little and Collins that in the end will cost the tax payer. As I recall and I am sure to be corrected in a howl of protest should I be wrong that Collins is only paying for her on legal costs in respect of Mallard and Little and that the lucky taxpayer picks up the tab on the RNZ suit.
I thought Collins had more to get on with
Vote:April 17th, 2012 at 6:45 pm
Fala
Beat me to it. My immediate response was to wonder if there weren’t a few homoerotic overtones at play here. Classic story line straight out of Criminal Minds.
Edit: or undertones – whatever.
Vote:April 17th, 2012 at 6:53 pm
Fala
…could it be that Lusk has executed the stunning funky lizard move (or whatever it was that you executed so effectively the other night) at the last Xmas party and word of this has reached the gutter dweller’s ears – thereby arousing his curiosity and more?
Vote:April 18th, 2012 at 11:29 pm
Is this going to be important at the next election?
Vote: