David v David

October 21st, 2012 at 10:00 am by David Farrar

blogs:

 David#1:  Great news, David! I have irrefutable evidence that John Key’s been lying to the nation over what he knew about Kim Dotcom!

David#2: That is indeed great news, David. Tell me more.

David#1:  He’s gone and spoken to staff about the guy, that’s what. Apparently he cracked a joke in front of them. And he was filmed!

David#2: I don’t see the problem.

David#1:  Don’t you see? It happened in February, at a time when Key supposedly didn’t even know the GCSB were monitoring Dotcom. If it turns out that Key was joking about Dotcom to GCSB staff then it will prove Key knew about the monitoring.

David#2:  Yes, that’s pretty powerful stuff, David.

David#1:  Thank you, David. I finally think we’ve got the bastard this time.

David#2:  I can’t wait to see Key’s face when you show the film.

David#1:  I know. It’ll be gold. There’s just a minor problem, though.

David#2:  Oh?

David#1:  Look… it’s just a minor detail, and I expect we’ll have it sorted out quickly. It’s about the tape.

David#2:  The tape of John Key joking about Kim Dotcom?

David#1:  The very same. You see, I don’t actually have a copy of it.

David#2:  I see. I presume one of your staff has it.

David#1:  Ah… no.

David#2:  Right. Your informant then, whoever that is. It’s not Fran’s bloke, is it?

David#1:  I can’t divulge my sources, David.

And the fictional conversation continues:

David#2:  So, basically, you have no tape, and your informant won’t come forward to verify your claim.

David#1:  When you put it that way it sounds like a stupid thing to do. But here’s the genius of the plan: when we demand the release of the tape and they can’t produce it, everyone will see the cynical cover-up.

David#2:  You know, David, I find this whole thing extraordinary. You are going to demand the release of a tape you aren’t certain even exists in order to prove something that you have no evidence of. I can hardly believe I am hearing this from the leader of my party. And do you know why? Because IT’S A GENIUS PLAN! Do it, man!

David#1:  This will destroy John Key.

David#2:  It will certainly be very destructive.

David#1:  And it might even precipitate a change of leadership.

David#2:  I’m certainly hoping so.

Heh, heh. One has to give Scott full credit – he mocks all parties well.

Tags: , , , , , ,

5 Responses to “David v David”

  1. TheContrarian (1,086 comments) says:

    Someone really needs to explain how the burden of proof works to the Labour front bench. It’s god damned embarrassing. They wheeled out a blurry eyed and obviously bewildered Grant Robertson onto Firstline last week and the sum total of his commentary was:
    “John Key has not adequately disproved the existence of the tape we haven’t proven to exist”

    Really? I mean, really? It is so outwardly stupid I am surprised he could keep a straight face. It is political (and intellectual) suicide to sign your name up to something as idiotic as this and both the leader and the deputy keep hammering it.

    John Key needn’t even respond with anything further than saying “evidence please”. Denying it adds credence to what is a blatant logical fallacy. In fact Key is fucking stupid to have even responded.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    John2 were you briefed on Kim dot com?
    John1 I can’t remember
    John 1 did you sign off off on gcsb serveillance?
    John 2 I don’t remember
    John 2 did you vote for 18 or 20?
    John 1 I don’t remember
    John 1 did we promise tax cuts?
    John 2 not to my knowledge
    John 2 did you give a speech at,the 2008 national convention promising equal treatment for all New Zealanders?
    John 1 my memory is hazy about that
    John 2 sorry what’s your name again?
    John 1 err let me think
    John 1 are we the national labour or Maori party?
    John 2 I dunno.

    Apologies for cross posting I forgot what thread I was on :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Keeping Stock (10,342 comments) says:

    @ The Contrarian, but that’s the beauty of the Shearer Burden of Proof; you don’t have to prove anything! You merely demand that your opponent produce evidence that what you allege is untrue, and because no such evidence exists, you can repeat the smear to your heart’s content.

    So hands up those who have heard the rumour that David Shearer has an unhealthy interest in sheep. Go on Mr Shearer; prove that you don’t :P

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. tvb (4,430 comments) says:

    Shearer was put up to this saga. But he should have realised the risks. This saga is right outside Shearer’s comfort zone. Shearer is too inexperienced for political black arts. But others in his caucus are very experienced.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. RF (1,404 comments) says:

    Very funny but it just confirms that shearer is the fall guy. A temporary leader waiting for the axe to fall.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote