"Jobs for the boys" or "favours for mates" is the 'hook' Turnbull went fishing with - but it could be pointed out a certain Howard/Manildra ethanol rort (something like $500,000 if my recall is correct - High-octane spark, Ethanol uproar engulfs Howard), but whatever the sum, that was both *real* money and *real* chicanery; here what's under discussion is a) some broken-down old ute and b) some unspecified, theoretically *possible* assistance. Oh yes, I do know that "It's the thought that counts."
I thought it was pretty crook, watching Turnbull admit that he had *nothing* in his hands, no email; no text, basically SFA. Q: What then, had he based his calls for a Rudd resignation on? Then to go Oh, so disingenuous and say "Fake email? We composed no fake email!!?" - now that's what you call a red herring, as is belatedly trying to switch the attack (back) to Swan.
It might be what you call a conundrum, Turnbull obviously had *something*, whatever it is he won't say (but we know that he's had it for some time, just as obviously did Abetz); when challenged "Put up or shut up" he flat-out failed to produce, then went to bluster. Meanwhile, a 'real' fake email turns up, possibly clearing the 'nightingale' who sang to the Senate, dragging in some so-far anonymous new actor, a '42-year-old Calwell man.'
Fakes are lies; lies are deployed to deceive. 'Sent from Treasury' presumably implicates the Calwell culprit; the nightingale showed apparent genuine discomfort. Perhaps the song-bird is (partly) off the hook, but heading for a nervous breakdown (sorry if so.)
It looks like a psyop designed to damage Rudd; the exit of Costello could work to rule out "smirk and mirrors," but we have to put some faith in what we see - and what we saw last night on 7.30 was Turnbull in full-on attempted and cowardly squirm-out mode - but with his foot fixed firmly to the non-evidence, false-email floor. Turnbull's "no basis" mea culpa looks pretty terminal - a) he claims he hadn't sighted it, meaning b) it couldn't *possibly* have been checked let alone verified and then the ultimate nail c) it was an eff'n forgery anyway. Also what of the 'helpers' Abbott, Abetz, Bishop, Hockey & Minchin? Are they desperately trying to bail out a sinking boat, or are they going down with the ship? Both?
PS Still no transcript. Ooops! 7.30 are totally screwed up; the Turnbull transcript contains the Rudd segment, and the Rudd segment itself is empty - where is the Turnbull segment, why the switch? Bad, Aunty!
Now we can see my objection to O'Brien, Uhlmann et al. at the AusBC: they are grabbing at the side-show (Swan), now that Turnbull has totally stuffed up on the main event. Note that the Uhlmann citation is *NOT* of the AusBC 19:00 news bulletin; I do not know if that 'episode' is documented anywhere and if so how, but lateline is a v.much toned-down version of what Uhlmann tried to 'push' earlier that day, namely that Swan was the target all along (as if to imply 'main' target.) If that amounts to the AusBC trying help Turnbull wriggle away I leave as a question for 'individual contemplation.'
Posted by IDHolm at 03:59