Did SFO tip off Key?

Prime Minister Clark aired her suspicions this morning on TV One’s Breakfast programme that the Serious Fraud Office tipped off the National Party last week about its intention to investigate NZ First:

“I find the National Party’s statement and timing interesting because I would say it’s almost certain they got a tip from the Serious Fraud Office that it was about to move.”

It’s a fair point. That exact same thought occurred to me last week. The timing, as with the whole series of revelations about donations to Winston Peters, was just too neatly timed. In the real world you expect a little messiness. But messiness detracts from PR impact (as John McCain is finding to his cost this week).

Clark’s “challenged Key and the SFO “directly to come clean because I think it’s a very serious thing if an agency like the SFO is leaking to the Opposition.”

Advertisements

Tags: , ,

10 Responses to “Did SFO tip off Key?”

  1. Inventory2 Says:

    Just blogged about this too JP – and also Clark’s dissing of Owen Glenn, Labour’s former donor.

    http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2008/09/clark-disses-glenn-on-breakfast.html

    And of course, all Key had to do is issue a denial, which Helen Clark will have no alternative to accept, because as she has said repeatedly “He is an Honourable Member”!! She can’t do otherwise now!!!

  2. Adolf Fiinkensein Says:

    JP, you should know better.

    When the SFO decided to investigate the National Party in 2002, I understand Helen Elizabeth Clark was given advance notice, about which the National Party complained. That was a fact. Here, there is not a fact, just a clumsy smear. If she has evidence of advance notice in this case, she should ‘put up or shut up’ – to use the words of her venal corrupt little friend.

    Desperate stuff by a despicable woman.

  3. Inventory2 Says:

    My comment seems to be in moderation JP – Key has denied that the SFO leaked to National, and called on Clark to apologise – to the SFO.

    I’m sure you’ll agree that Clark must comply – after all, Key is an “Honourable Member”, and it is her policy to accept the assurances of Hon. Members!

  4. macdoctor01 Says:

    This is just scuttlebutt being used as a distraction. The SFO have no motivation to inform Key of their plans. If I recall correctly, the 2002 affair appeared to be a genuine error. The SFO thought they were obliged to inform the office of the PM if they were investigating a political party. They are about as apolitical an organization as you can get.

  5. Inventory2 Says:

    Apologies for the duplication JP! Then again, it’s such a strong point, maybe it deserves to be made twice!!

  6. just visiting Says:

    No evidence? A distraction? See: National conference tapes, rubbish in Helensville, the great Labour plot, which Key has now proved by … er … going silent on the matter. Job done.

  7. Inventory2 Says:

    just visiting – Key doesn’t need to be making accusations against the Labour Party. Helen Clark is doing more than enough damage herself!!

  8. jafapete Says:

    I2: “…Clark’s dissing of Owen Glenn, Labour’s former donor.”

    It’s not smearing Owen Glenn to point out that on a number of occasions he has got things wrong and that it is therefore not credible to rely uncritically on his every word, as John Key has done.

    It could be that Glenn believes that he was asked for a donation by Peters, just as he believed that he was asked for the donation months before the election that gave rise to the challenge which Peters needed the money to fund, and just as he believed that he gave the money to NZ First, when it was Peters’ legal expenses fund, and so on.

  9. Inventory2 Says:

    Could be JP, could be – I notice though you’ve avoided comment on the other stuff!

    But while we’re on the “could it be” tack – when Clark rang Peters in South Africa to ask about the donation, don’t you think his antennae might have buzzed a bit. I mean heck, if I heard that a donation of $100k might have come my way, I’d be moving heaven and earth to to find out if it was my lucky day or not!

  10. jafapete Says:

    Yes I2, Winston Peters may very well be guilty of determinedly and wilfully not checking to see whether Owen Glenn’s donation went into his legal expenses fund. Or worse. I just hope we find out soon.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: