Slater implications on Peters Super leak

Cameron Slater continues to make vague accusations and implications about who leaked information about Winston Peters’ superannuation overpayments, claiming to know who leaked but also saying he is unable to say who it was. Given his changing claims in reaction to news it sounds most likely to be bluster and bull.

But yesterday Slater went further with another implication, this time of his source of information.

He posted So, if it wasn’t IRD then who was the leaker

If not IRD then who?

I’ll bet MSD has the same result. That then leaves Anne Tolley, Paula Bennett, Wayne Eagleson and several staffers on the hook. If it wasn’t the civil servants then it has to be one of that lot.

That sounds like spraying around accusations without having any idea who leaked.

It isn’t that anonymous…everyone knows who did it.

If ‘everyone’ includes Slater, if he knows who did it, why is he spreading the mud around so much?

They might be able to hide behind the OIA but they won’t be able to hide behind court discovery. National are just being cute. They leaked it and that will come out. If it wasn’t IRD or MSD then it can only be ministers or ministerial staff.

Back to vague again.

As is happening more often at Whale Oil, Slater was challenged on this in comments.

WhaleOilIRDLeak

So Slater has made vague insinuations against a number of people, claims ‘everyone knows’ who did it, and then says “you don’t know what I know’.

That all sounds very lame.

Not so lame is the implication by Slater that a source of information for him on the leak is Winston Peters’ lawyer, who also represented Slater in his defamation case against Colin Craig.

Slater has often claimed to be hard up, has often asked on Whale Oil for donations to help him pay for legal expenses, has often said how expensive defamation cases are…but that’s another story.

Slater has also been pimping for Peters and for NZ First for months, and has been throwing mud at the National and Bill English and various National Ministers and MPs…but that’s largely another story too.

What is of particular interest here is that Slater has implied that Peters’ lawyer may be providing Slater “what I know” about the Super leak.

Stuff on August 28: Winston Peters has investigators working on who leaked info about his pension overpayment

NZ First leader Winston Peters says he won’t stand by and let someone get away with “blatant dirty politics” after information about his superannuation overpayment was leaked.

“Someone decided they would break the law and leak it in a political way and some of those tweets and other comments point to knowledge out there that it was malicious and politically dirty,” Peters told media following a candidates meeting in Northland on Monday night.

Peters said he had investigators working on uncovering the leak and would let the public know who it was – “I’ve got my deep suspicions”.

Peters had also implied that a number of culprits were responsible for the leak, starting with IRD according to RNZ but that has now been ruled out.

There is no indication here that Peters’ lawyer is involved in the investigation. I think it would be extraordinary that he would give details to Slater at all, and especially knowing how loose with his fingers Slater is on Whale Oil.

Would Peters himself pass on information to Slater? I think that’s doubtful too.

Peters has a history of spraying around accusations, claiming to know who is responsible for things, claiming to have facts, but often failing to front up with any evidence.

In that regard Slater is very much the same. I don’t think his implication to fact ratio is very high. He is high on dirt and innuendo, and low on credibility.

I doubt that any lawyer will appreciate being name dropped by Slater trying to sound credible.

I think it’s most likely that Slater is guessing, he has no real idea who leaked, but he is trying to sound like he’s in the know to defend his accusations to readers who challenge him on “making accusations here based on nothing substantive”.

If the leaker is revealed then both Peters and Slater will probably claim to have been right – given the number of accusation’s they make the chances are one of their targets could be close to the mark.

 

12 Comments

  1. duperez

     /  September 14, 2017

    I could tell you what I know about Slater too. To anticipate a response and save me having to respond to that I should say right now, you’d do well to know who my lawyer is.🙃

  2. Corky

     /  September 14, 2017

    Rile the Whaler at your own peril, Pete. Make sure your affairs are in order. lol.

  3. George

     /  September 14, 2017

    Cams trying to look relevant.
    Whoever did the ‘leak’ did us all a favour and shut winnie up

  4. artcroft

     /  September 14, 2017

    Aah yes Mr Slater. Wasn’t he in possession of the facts about [deleted, could be a legal issue]? Facts Cameron promised were so terrible that we were going to see the end of John Key and National back in 2014?

    Now [deleted] trial has been and gone without a ripple, in fact I think he manages a resort in Northland now.

    Slater’s full of s**t.

    • Corky

       /  September 14, 2017

      You and the Whaler may need to settle your differences at high noon, Lurchy. Your colts against the Whalers vicious harpoon. You would want to be on your best form otherwise you may end up stuck to the second story wall of Doc Morgan’s surgery.

      • Gezza

         /  September 14, 2017

        (Lurchy??)

        Come off those supplements bro! They’re laced with something really strong that’s doing your head in!

  5. Tipene

     /  September 14, 2017

    Oh no, Mr Slater trying to sound tough again.

    No, I wouldn’t imagine Brian Henry will appreciate being ‘flipped up” as a Captain America shield for Slater’s ego.

    Brian is quite capable of defending himself – expect editing over at the “dark side”.

  1. Slater implications on Peters Super leak — Your NZ – NZ Conservative Coalition