On Wed, 02 Nov 2016 22:52:11 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

Quite a few articles today - generally condemning of the bumbling fool >>>that has wasted $11.5 million of taxpayer money

Starting with a question in parliament:
https://youtu.be/dneb8NxWjmE
The phrase "orchestrated litany of lies" comes to mind . . .

Various commentators give quick analysis >>>http://pundit.co.nz/content/the-shame-of-the-saudi-sheep-deal-or-democracy-gone-to-the-dogs
http://pundit.co.nz/content/my-hot-takes-on-the-auditor-generals-sheep-to-sand-report

and news media >>>http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11740591 >>>http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/news/politics/saudi-sheep-mccully-acted-immorally-misled-the-public-labour/

and in case some miss one of the lefty commentators on RNZ, here is a >>>transcript:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CwSDxE6UoAA5soN.jpg

And the reaction of our prime mincer who promised better behaviour?
Well clearly we are not just in a post-truth age, but post-ethics as
well - lying and misleading and wasting money on an unsuccesful bribe
is all OK with Key . . .

The Auditor General did not find evidence of corruption or bribery. Ipso >>Facto
it was absolutely not a bribe.

The Auditor General found that McCully did not benefit personally from
the arrangements, and that he had not therefore accepted a bribe - in
legal terms apparently the artificial contractual arranagements and
the different authorities for that paperwork prevented the payment
being legally called a bribe, but in commn parlance such a payment is
called a bribe . . .

It may not have been a good process but it was not a bribe unles you have >>better evidence than the Auditor General/

McCuilly did not accept a bribe, and that has never been claimed -

but
the Auditor General has confirmed that he did not accept a bribe and
is therefore deemed not to be corrupt. He has not been accused of
committing murder either - I guess we can celebrate that he has not
been found to be a murderer . . .

Also see >>http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/317164/greens-call-for-mccully-to-resign-over-saudi-deal
but see >>https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/agreement-protect-ross-sea-reached. >>What exactly do the greens want?
Tony

I do apologise; I don't know how that url got mixed in - I had not
read it myself before your query. I thought I had posted a reference
to that well known lefty, Matthew Hooten on Radio New Zealand - it is >referred to here: >http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11741557
but can I am sure be found on the RNZ website as well

Now I hear John Key saying that McCully acted professionally, that he
has been proved to have told the truth and that Labour should
apologise. That is as close to a Trumpism as we have had in New

Perhaps he has not yet read the report as it does conclude that there
is absolutely no evidence that the Labour government exposed New
Zealand to a $30 million law suit by the businessman.

If John Key cannot see anything wrong in what McCully did then we are >certainly a long way from "higher standards" . . .