Updated: Kiss and tell: Dotcom to release detail of donations

John Banks political corruption

Why was Dotcom banking on John?

Up Date:

For a man that had, only 24 hours earlier, been unable to remember anything to do with Dotcoms donations, John Banks emphatic, denial of having called Dotcom to thank him is nothing short of amazing, has he had some sort of epiphany, a sudden self serving case of total recall or what:

15:25 nz time: Dotcom cheque details revealed

15:42 nz time: Banks denies Dotcom phone call

We think its time for prison for John Banks, what a fucking liar!

Original post begins:

It would seem that at least two of the questions we raised in our post “Kim Dotcom’s secret donation to John Banks!” may have been answered. The New Zealand Herald website is, this morning, reporting that Dotcom intends to release his bank records thus evidencing the payments to John Banks.

In the same article the Herald is also claiming that their reporter found comments attributed to the disgraced ex-ACT party MP David Garrett on the Kiwiblog site:

Disgraced ex ACT Party MP David Garrett

Meanwhile, former Act MP David Garrett has claimed Dotcom went public with the matter after Mr Banks spurned his plea for help while he was being held in Mt Eden Prison.

Commenting on the Kiwiblog site on Saturday, Mr Garrett said he had it “on good authority that the Dotcom donation(s) have emerged because Banks didn’t want to know the fat man in his hour of need in Mt Eden.

“Apparently Dotcom was being badly treated in some way and asked who the MP for the Mt Eden Prison area was … but said MP was most ungracious to his beneficent donor, and didn’t want a bar of him … didn’t even know him … Said beneficent donor took great umbrage at this … as you would … and decided to tell all.”

At the time Dotcom was being held in Auckland’s Mt Eden Central Remand Prison after he and three of his staff were arrested on January 20 raid by the New Zealand police following a request by the US Department of Justice. Four weeks later Dotcom was bailed to his McMansion north west of Auckland city.

If Garrett’s online comments are to be believed its becoming obvious that Dotcom sought to purchase influence within political circles. We here at Lauda Finem would like to suggest that Dotcom come clean on who else he has sought to purchase influence from.

Donations by businessmen are fairly common place, but $50’000, that’s a very large amount of cash for one man to be throwing at a politician for no good reason, John Banks and his political aspirations are far from what could be termed a philanthropic cause.

So we’ll say it again; we would like to see answers to these questions:

What did Dotcom expect in return for the payment of $50k to an extremely well connected politician?

Who else did Dotcom dole out cash donations to (and for that matter how much), with allegedly no strings attached? Why $50k and not $5k, is it not the thought that counts?

What motivated Dotcom to come out now? If Dotcom did not want influence from the payment, why make the matter public now? Did Dotcom think that the payment was going to come out in any event, and is not Dotcom, who currently stands accused of being involved in a conspiracy to evade the law, and thus pervert, defeat, obstruct, and prevent the course of justice?

If Dotcom has paid other amounts to other politicians in the same manner is it not plausible that Dotcom stood to hold a considerable amount of influence over those affected politicians, given that a criminal conviction, and the end of their respective careers, could result?

On what was the money given to Banks actually spent? After Banks did not secure the Mayoralty was there in fact any cash left in the coffers, and if so where did it go? Was it transferred to the Act Party’s accounts? If so was this transfer illegal, or if legal, was it ethical?

Surely Dotcom cannot allege that he did not know the reasoning behind the John Banks requested split payments, to secure anonymity, and how did anyone but Dotcom get any measurable benefit? i.e the money was given to Banks in any event, and could have been made public with no issue for Mr Banks. Unless of course John Banks knew that he would soon be meddling  in Government business and its decisions on behalf of Dotcom?

But if it was made public and Mr Banks had acted then to favour Dotcom’s interests in anyway, Banks credibility would have been gravely affected.  Whereas, given that the donation was anonymous such favoritism would have undoubtedly flown under the radar.

Perhaps that’s why Mr Banks decided to throw “the fat man in his hour of need” to the wolves, the risk was to great and besides who would now believe anything Dotcom, given the criminal allegations he was facing, had to say about the donations?

The law of inference speaks volumes in such matters.   Has Dotcom played a card that Banks cant admit to; what was really said in any event as he would be fucking himself, and thus Dotcom walks free from a far more sinister involvement in a plan involving a payment of $50K for influence.

Categorised in: , , ,

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: