- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Report Inappropriate Content
10-09-2014 09:47 PM - edited 10-09-2014 09:48 PM
Isn't that what we just spent $37million for?
Yes, to find out absolutely nothing new (in Julia's case at least)
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Report Inappropriate Content
on 10-09-2014 10:21 PM
http://wixxyleaks.com/trash-attempts-to-trash-julia-gillards-reputation-fail-in-every-aspect/
Trash – Attempts to trash Julia Gillards reputation fail in every aspect
The other aim of Counsel Assisting in my opinion was to extract the “I don’t recall” answer from Gillard as many times as possible to make her testimony seem less reliable.
This was done by asking ridiculously minute details of conversations that may or may not have taken place two decades ago, or mundane details of what sections of an act were used to form part of legal advice, and where the witnessing of documents took place and who was in attendance at the time. Questions that given the passage of time involved would be almost impossible to give exact answers on. Gillard eventually gave this response that resulted in cheers and laughs in the media room.
“My evidence is that I was a busy solicitor across the years in which I practised as a lawyer. I would have witnessed thousands of documents. I do not have specific recall of, you know, each and every document I witnessed and the circumstances, you know, which room, which desk, what I was wearing, I don’t have that kind of recall, but I witnessed documents appropriately.”
This led to this question from Stoljar which resulted in an answer from Gillard causing a roar of laughter from those in the media room
Stoljar: What about your practice in respect of dating a particular document? Did you have any practice in that regard?
Gillard: You put the right date on a document
However it was the blunt tone of Gillards response that put Stoljar in his place and highlighted the disrespect and desperation in the line of questioning.
In the end Gillard finished the day having faced all of the allegations against her and shooting them all down in flames.
There will always be those out there that believe Elvis Presley is still alive and that Bigfoot exists, just as I’m sure there will be those out there that believe Julia Gillard is guilty of something.
However just as the public would not like to see vast amounts of taxpayer funds spent hunting mythical creatures and dead celebrities, the vast majority of the public are dismayed to see so much money wasted on a baseless attack from a bunch of sexist commentators and politicians on our first female Prime Minister.
It is about time this travesty ended.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Report Inappropriate Content
on 10-09-2014 10:22 PM
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
you've set a record for smilie LOL's am3 CONGRATULATIONS!
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Report Inappropriate Content
on 10-09-2014 10:40 PM
Icy do you ever post anything the isn't C & P?
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Report Inappropriate Content
on 10-09-2014 10:49 PM
@bushies.girl wrote:Icy do you ever post anything the isn't C & P?
I think it is OK to post C&Ps as long as the poster follows up on her posts and can formulate an intelligent argument throughout the thread based on that C&P. And to be fair, icy does this.
She rarely posts and runs unlike others on here.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Report Inappropriate Content
on 10-09-2014 10:51 PM
Guess we have differing opinions Martini 🙂
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Report Inappropriate Content
on 10-09-2014 11:09 PM
@icyfroth wrote:You're intelligent, politically savvy and a successful lawyer. You knew Wilson personally and professionally. Why did it take you so long to decide he couldn't be trusted?
Answered
In your exit interview with Melbourne law firm Slater & Gordon in 1995, you said: "I can't categorically rule out that something at my house didn't get paid for by the association or something at my house didn't get paid for by the union or whatever." Why not?
Answered
Why did you never open an office file for your work related to the AWU slush fund?
Answered
Were you forced to leave Slater & Gordon?
Answered
Do you believe union corruption is a problem in Australia
Stupid question. But why is she responsible for union corruption.

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Report Inappropriate Content
10-09-2014 11:23 PM - edited 10-09-2014 11:25 PM
3:36 pm - Julia Gillard is allowed to leave the witness chair and is "excused" from further attendance at the royal commission.
(She's done.)
As a successful lawyer in the 1990s, Julia Gillard made some questionable judgments (i.e. not keeping official files, associating with people who had dubious plans for a Workplace Reform Association), but this - in and of itself - isn't enough to damn her.
No smoking guns or plot changing slip ups here.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Report Inappropriate Content
on 11-09-2014 09:17 AM
@bushies.girl wrote:Icy do you ever post anything the isn't C & P?
Yes quite often, if you bother to look at the board.
Do you NEVER post any C&P? Really? What about in the music thread?
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Report Inappropriate Content
on 11-09-2014 09:17 AM
@i-need-a-martini wrote:
@bushies.girl wrote:Icy do you ever post anything the isn't C & P?
I think it is OK to post C&Ps as long as the poster follows up on her posts and can formulate an intelligent argument throughout the thread based on that C&P. And to be fair, icy does this.
She rarely posts and runs unlike others on here.
Thank you Martini.