a man of integrity[1] (Fake email (mis!)used by Turnbull)

 .. would never lie[2] ...

   .. nor dissemble[3] even,

     .. he'd just stick to the truth


Dramatis personae (in 'reported' action order):

1. Godwin Grech, public servant at the Treasury.

2. Andrew Charlton, of the Prime Minister's office.

3. Steve Lewis, the Australian (News Ltd - Murdoch).

4. Malcolm Turnbull, the (current) leader of the opposition.

5. Eric Abetz, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate as the 'star' upper chamber inquisitor.

6. Joe Hockey, previously financial services minister, now languishing in opposition. He dragged himself gratuitously in; just how amazingly clever was that?

Plot: Fake email used by Turnbull to demand the resignation of the Prime Minister of Australia.

Note(s): Grech comes 1st, as the source (but not so-far identified publicly as author) of the email which attempted to implicate the PMO's Charlton; that email then being 'leaked' (did it fall or was it pushed?) into Lewis' hands. Then (out of a clear blue sky, or so it seemed) Turnbull attacked Charlton and quickly thereafter Abetz unmercifully grilled Grech, completing a perfect 'circle' of discredit. Somewhere along the way, Hockey 'stuck his bib in,' disclosing a relationship with Grech going back to before 2001, brought up to date latest by Hockey leaving a message on Grech's phone on Friday 19Jun'09 (or was it on Saturday the 20th? - Hockey said both, but one presumes just the one message; even one may seem too many.)


Date/time line:

a) For weeks, the Lib opposition 'led' by Turnbull had been attacking the federal Treasurer over OzCar, alleging 'special dealings for a PM's mate.' Information presented shows yes, some Treasury traffic involving a certain Mr Grant, in fact more than many but less than a few others; and nothing really much special at all. (To pretend that 'mates' can't get a foot in the door faster than outright nobodies would be laughing in the face of political reality, then recall Turnbull pumps $10m into rainmaking gamble; funding for a 'mate' in Turnbull's fundraising group, for a non-proven rain-making machine, approved just days before the 2007 election. (My tip: read the article! See Malcolm duck and weave!)) All, of course, just 'normal' representative work?

Nothing to see here; move on. Well, some did 'move on,' but in a markedly different manner:

Turnbull in the hot seat
Broadcast: 22/06/2009
  «MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well, there were references made in the media, Kerry. There were references made in the media and there were references - questions asked in the Senate before - there were questions asked in Senate estimates if you go back, I think, to 4 June. But you see, the issue is not ...» 

Note(s): This provides a convenient 'starting point,' namely 4 June, and tries to pin it at least partly on 'the media.' Thanks at the latest to AusBC/mediawatch, we can now see who in the media (Lewis), and what he had in his hot little hand, namely an 'email' naming PMO's Charlton as sender, to Treasury/OzCar's Grech dated 19Feb'09.

Note(s): This padlocks Grech & Charlton to Lewis via the email.

b) Definitely "b" for "bombshell:"

Turnbull 'threatened' PM's staffer
By Online parliamentary correspondent Emma Rodgers
Posted June 19, 2009 11:04:00
  «"At the mid-winter ball the other night Mr Turnbull approached a Government staff member and threatened that staff member in relation to the OzCar matter," he said.» 

Note(s): This directly links Turnbull to Grech, Charlton & the email, a few days before Abetz' intimidation of Grech. It doesn't implicate Lewis directly - just 'circumstantially.'

c) How prescient, "c" for "career:"

  «Mr Turnbull: Andrew, integrity is the most important thing in a man's career. That is why I encourage you, no matter what the circumstances, no matter what the pressure, not to lie.» 
[AusBC/Turnbull 'threatened' staffer, ibid.]

d) Very definitely "d" for "drama:"

Journalists and Their Sources
[transmitted 29Jun'09]
  «Senator Eric Abetz: A person has, a journalist in fact, has suggested to me... that there may have been a communication from the Prime Minister's office...
[flow interrupted by interjections]
Godwin Grech: My recollection may well be totally false or faulty... but my recollection is that there was a short email from the PMO to me which very simply alerted me to the case of John Grant, but I don't have the email.
Senator Doug Cameron: How many times did you speak to Steven Lewis yesterday?

Godwin Grech: Yesterday?

Senator Doug Cameron: Yes.

Godwin Grech: At least four occasions.

Senator Doug Cameron: You spoke to Steven Lewis on four occasions.

Godwin Grech: mm... »
[AusBC/mediawatch, ibid.]

Note(s): Grech must be on pretty thin ice here, one presumes there's only so much 'small-talk' a public servant can have with a 'dig up the dirt' Murdoch reporter. Note also that Abetz implicated 'a journalist;' this may have enticed/led/forced Lewis to publish the alleged email now known to be a forgery/fake the next day.

e) Perhaps we can posit "e" for "exit:"

Turnbull's links to Grech questioned
Broadcast: 25/06/2009
  «KERRY O'BRIEN: Did you or any other Liberal MP or staffer have contact with Mr Grech between when he gave Senate evidence on 4 June and when he gave that evidence last Friday, June 19?

MALCOLM TURNBULL: Kerry, I am not going to talk about Mr Grech. I understand your interest in it, ...

MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: The ABC has today confirmed that Mr Turnbull, at least, did meet with Mr Grech between the first Committee Hearing on June the 4th and the sensational proceedings of last Friday.»

My comment: This is the crux; the failure to be definitive here simply screams out "Something to hide!" Turnbull - did, or did not - have a 'chat' with Grech, and there'd only be the one (main) topic. Then, as in 'be sure your sins will find you out,' along comes Brissenden with 'the goods:' "confirmed ... did meet".

f) For "firestorm:"

A 'pathetic' party would replace Turnbull
Posted June 29, 2009 18:43:00
  «Mr Abbott argues the Government's smear campaign against Mr Turnbull is the reason for the Liberal Leader's poor polling.
"I don't think any leader in my memory has experienced the firestorm of smear which the Labor Party directed against Malcolm Turnbull last week," he said.»

My comment: IF there was any firestorm THEN it was Lib generated, if there was any smearing of any Lib, it was by their own grubby little fingers.

My tips: IF sparks sown, THEN expect to reap firestorm. If you don't wish to get burned, don't play with matches. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Last word (for now):

Questions raised over Turnbull-Grech meeting
Broadcast: 25/06/2009
  «SUSAN MCDONALD: The ABC has confirmed Malcolm Turnbull had a meeting with the Treasury Official Godwin Grech, sometime after his first Senate testimony ...
SUSAN MCDONALD: It's been reported Senator Abetz was at the meeting with the Treasury official who police suspect forged an email ...»

 ... the meeting singular, where it all happened ...

My comment: How does it go? "A nod's as good as a wink?"


PS What about the possible case of a rogue public servant? The author of the faked email is clearly such a rogue: ("A 42-year-old Calwell man has been interviewed by the AFP in relation to this matter and it will be alleged that the interview is consistent with preliminary forensic advice") - but to my Q: Who can be held 'responsible?'

Turnbull 'touched' on this: "... if an email has been concocted in the Treasury? Will Mr Rudd resign if an email is concocted in my office. This is absurd. If an email has been concocted or fabricated, it's been concocted in the Treasury. Mr Rudd has been making the allegation recklessly and without basis that somehow or other the Opposition had a hand in it."

My comment: What is truly absurd, is Turnbull's attempted total red herring: "Rudd alleges ... that somehow or other the Opposition had a hand in it". What Turnbull and the rest of the opposition are undoubtedly right up to their bottom lips in, is the enormous hole (full of bullshit!) - that they themselves dug/created - out of whole cloth, as the saying goes.

But#1: «Mr Rudd said Mr Turnbull's fingerprints were "all over this fake email and he knows it"» - which would quite literally be true, if Grech had shown it (which could only have been a paper copy) to Turnbull (and Abetz?)

But#2: «During the weekend Mr Turnbull said he did not have the email and had not seen it ...» Here a Q: IF he hadn't seen it THEN what was the basis for his allegations? More particularly - perhaps most importantly, why did Turnbull accost Charlton?

But#3: It was Mr Turnbull himself who set out on his 'fabulous adventure,' armed with this fake/forgery as his 'weapon.' My Q: Exactly who bears all the blame?

Then: «Mr Turnbull says the Opposition raised the disputed email during a Senate inquiry on Friday because it had been published in a newspaper.

But Mr Rudd says the purported contents of the email were not published until Saturday and Mr Turnbull cannot get his story straight.»


After the Grech 'sworn testimony' - which may have been pre-arranged, but was certainly made to look for all the world like coerced(!!?) - after that testimony, Turnbull went wild - and called for our PM's head. Note the implication: Turnbull preferred a public servant's word to our PM's. But (2nd last for now): the APF *did* find the fake, as 'deleted' (i.e. still stored, just marked as deleted) from Grech's home system. The fake presumably contains all the headers, showing exactly the user, the day/time and the machine & connected server from which it originated, that whole corner is sewn up. But (it's the last for now and a massive BUT): What if the APF had *not* found the fake? What if the 'fake' never even existed, except in the (sick!) imaginings of Grech, Lewis, Turnbull&Co?

Suggestion: Continuous & public deployment of properly functioning lie-detectors, everywhere. (Listening, Aunty?)

Lies are only deployed to deceive.



[1] integrity n. 1 moral excellence; honesty. 2 wholeness; soundness. [Latin: related to *integer] [POD]

[2] lie2 —n. 1 intentionally false statement (tell a lie). 2 something that deceives. —v. (lies, lied, lying) 1 tell a lie or lies. 2 (of a thing) be deceptive.  give the lie to show the falsity of (a supposition etc.). [Old English] [ibid.]

[3] dissemble v. (-ling) 1 be hypocritical or insincere. 2 disguise or conceal (a feeling, intention, etc.). [Latin simulo *simulate] [ibid.]


  1. G'day!

    M.Turnbull's visit to the Middle East shows what a dog he is. When in political trouble, rub yourself up against the military, show how patriotic you are, how much you identify with the common man, how brave you are visiting a war zone.

    You can be sure that Malcolm never put himself in a risky situation over there. His only risk was meeting with Godwin before the Senate hearing!


  2. Congratulations on a most comprehensive summary of the events as they played out. Is this not in essence an attempted (bloodless) coup attempt on the elected leader of a democratic state? 1975 anyone?

  3. It wasn't just 'im, it was 'er too!

    G'day David G,

    Bishop defends secret Afghan trip
    Posted July 2, 2009 09:10:00
      «It meant Ms Bishop and Mr Turnbull's absence was unexplained while questions were still being asked about the OzCar affair.
    "They are doing a magnificent job in our name, under our flag, in very tough conditions," Mr Turnbull said.»

    Since Turnbull, Bishop & Co not just seem to turn a blind eye to it - preferring, as David says, to drape themselves in khaki (note the US-standard baseball-caps) whilst wrapping themselves in our flag, AND since the AusBC doesn't seem to mind (massive understatement!) passing on Liberals' lies (amongst others), it's up to we truth-seeking bloggers to point out that the "magnificent job" that 'our boys' are actually doing is invading a foreign country - a Nuremberg-class war crime.

    G'day Anonymous,

    A possible "Yes" to a coup attempt. Note that without the red-handed Grech's 'deleted,' decidedly fake email, things may have become *VERY* sticky...

    "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." But in this case, the AFP turned up heroes (for a change.)

    But certainly "Yes" to the (filthy!) involvement of Murdoch&Co; it's time we started gaoling newspaper reporters - and proprietors - who publish lies.