CAN YOU BELIEVE JULIA ?
The AWU scandal associating Julia Gillard with the establishment of an
incorporated body as the front for a "Slush Fund" raises many issues.
Julia appears to be quite clever in not precisely answering questions put to
her.
She plays the "victim because I am a woman " card to deflect deeper
scrutiny, when in fact she has probably been given more lee-way because she
is a woman. I do not think she has been pursued with the same veracity as
Craig Thompson and Peter Slipper.
In a court of law she would be forced to answer put without deflection.
Specific questions such as those pertaining to :
- Did she draft, suggest or dictate any part of the application for
incorporating the bodies ?
- Did she read any part of a draft of or the document that was lodged ?
- Did she know where the money was coming from and how much ?
- How much money did she expect to be spent on re-elections ?
- How did she expect the money to be spent (eg advertising, wining and
dining,other inducements) ?
- If she believes she is being defamed, why isn't she suing the defamers
? I believe Bob Hawke would have !
- Is there information that would have to be revealed in court that
presently is only subject to voluntary release?
There must be serious doubt as to the credibility of "answers"
given so far.
- To claim to be young and naive at the time of her indiscretion, is
very hard to believe. You don't get to be a partner in a major legal
firm unless you are older and experienced !
As an observer it is hard to believe you can become Prime Minister by
being naive. Her actions (eg in dispensing with K Rudd) indicate to the
writer that she is far from naive and caring.
If the voting public is naive enough to swallow the spin put on this
whole affair, then we deserve the Government we have got !