Fox retracts Seth Rich story

Fox News and especially Sean Hannity have pushed a story about murdered Democrat staffer Seth Rich. Kim Dotcom has been given airtime by Hannity.

Salon: Newt Gingrich and Sean Hannity keep Seth Rich conspiracies alive

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich appeared on “Fox and Friends” on Sunday morning, only to use his platform to further promulgate the previously debunked conspiracy theory that former Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich was assassinated because he was the source that provided Wikileaks with tens of thousands of hacked Democratic Party emails.

“We have this very strange story now of this young man who worked for the Democratic National Committee, who apparently was assassinated at 4 in the morning, having given WikiLeaks something like 53,000 emails and 17,000 attachments,” Gingrich told Fox News. “Nobody’s investigating that, and what does that tell you about what’s going on? Because it turns out, it wasn’t the Russians. It was this young guy who, I suspect, was disgusted by the corruption of the Democratic National Committee. He’s been killed, and apparently nothing serious has been done to investigative his murder. So I’d like to see how [Robert S.] Mueller [III] is going to define what his assignment is.”

Gingrich didn’t just say it could be a possibility that Rich was the Wikileaks source or that the murder may be worth some sort of further investigation, he baselessly asserted that Rich was the source — on national television — and that it effectively negated any alleged Russian involvement.

But Gingrich isn’t even the only notable person peddling this theory, it’s also being peddled by Sean Hannity, and more recently Kim Dotcom, the internet entrepreneur who founded Megaupload.

Hannity who has increasingly gone on Trump-like twitter sprees over the recent months has not been able to contain himself from spreading this theory along with the hashtag #SethRich to his nearly 2.5 million followers.

Dotcom on the other hand, has has recently inserted himself into this situation, and claimed that he has irrefutable evidence that Rich was the Wikileaks source, and will be releasing some sort of statement on Tuesday, though it’s currently not clear what that will consist of.

Hannity has been busy on Twitter.

Fox has now retracted: Statement on coverage of Seth Rich murder investigation

On May 16, a story was posted on the Fox News website on the investigation into the 2016 murder of DNC Staffer Seth Rich. The article was not initially subjected to the high degree of editorial scrutiny we require for all our reporting. Upon appropriate review, the article was found not to meet those standards and has since been removed.

We will continue to investigate this story and will provide updates as warranted.

Dotcom announced this week — seemingly out of nowhere — that he would release the information on his website Tuesday, but the supposed bombshell drop that many were desperately hoping for was quite anticlimactic.

“I KNOW THAT SETH RICH WAS INVOLVED IN THE DNC LEAK,” Dotcom — who is fighting extradition charges to the U.S. from New Zealand — wrote on his site.

I know this because in late 2014 a person contacted me about helping me to start a branch of the Internet Party in the United States. He called himself Panda. I now know that Panda was Seth Rich.

Panda advised me that he was working on voter analytics tools and other technologies that the Internet Party may find helpful.

I communicated with Panda on a number of topics including corruption and the influence of corporate money in politics.

“The Rich family has reached out to me to ask that I be sensitive to their loss in my public comments. That request is entirely reasonable,” he continued. “I have consulted with my lawyers. I accept that my full statement should be provided to the authorities and I am prepared to do that so that there can be a full investigation. My lawyers will speak with the authorities regarding the proper process.”

In reality, the Rich family thanked Fox News for retracting the story, according to CNN reporter Oliver Darcy.

Dotcom’s Seth Rich claim

Kim Dotcom has involved himself in the Seth Rich issuer in the US.

NBR: Dotcom’s Seth Rich claim earns him an invite to appear on Sean Hannity’s show

Kim Dotcom has managed to catch the eye of Fox News’ Sean Hannity — one of Donald Trump’s favourite broadcasters — with his claims over the unsolved murder of Democratic National Committee IT staffer Seth Rich.

Mr Rich was shot in the back near his home in Washington DC last year.

DC police have yet to solve his murder. His family believe it was a robbery gone wrong.

Since his murder, there have been conspiracy theories that Mr Rich was killed because he was the source of DNC emails supplied to Wikileaks, not Russian operatives as FBI investigations have suggested. The narrative is that he was killed in a cover-up.

Last Monday, the rumour mill re-ignited after Rod Wheeler, a Washington private investigator who was hired by the Rich family to look into the death of their son, suggested in an interview with a Fox station in Washington DC that there was “tangible evidence” the slain DNC operative had communicated with WikiLeaks before his death.

However, on Tuesday afternoon, the PI seemed to walk back his story. CNN reported the detective saying he had “no evidence” that Mr. Rich had contacted WikiLeaks and that he had “only learned about the possible existence of such evidence” through a reporter at Fox News.

Then, in a third interview later the same day, Mr Wheeler said he could not say definitively either way if the evidence existed. He had heard about it second hand.

In the middle of it all, The Washington DC Metropolitan Police Department issued a statement saying that “the assertions put forward by Mr. Wheeler [on Monday] are unfounded.”

Enter Kim Dotcom, who this weekend tweeted “If Congress includes #SethRich case into their Russia probe I’ll give written testimony with evidence that Seth Rich was @Wikileaks source” and “I knew Seth Rich. I know he was the @Wikileaks source. I was involved.”

I wonder what Dotcom’s motive is for getting involved in that.

Interesting he has come out saying he was that involved in Rich and Wikileaks.

Hasn’t Dotcom claimed there is a heap of data waiting to be dumped on the New Zealand election campaign?

Dotcom’s email evidence was a forgery – SFO

Kim Dotcom’s extravagant town hall ‘Moment of Truth’ during the 2014 election campaign fell flat in part because an email that Dotcom planned to produce to prove John Key’s collusion with Hollywood fell through when it was claimed to be a forgery.

The Serious Fraud Office has now put out a statement saying that they are satisfied that the email was a forgery.

NZ Herald: SFO: Kim Dotcom’s smoking gun email evidence was a ‘forgery’

The Herald can today report for the first time that the SFO investigated the email, which emerged on the eve of the 2014 election claiming then-Prime Minister John Key was involved in a conspiracy to get Dotcom.

It is also a definite statement rejecting any possibility the email is genuine.

In a statement, the SFO said: “The SFO confirms that it carried out an investigation into this matter. As a result of that investigation, the SFO is satisfied that the email was a forgery.”

Dotcom said today that he still believed the email to be genuine and was surprised the SFO was able to be so definite.

“I believe the email to be real,” he said.

But he backed off revealing it at his ‘Moment of Truth’.

The purported email was from Warner Bros chief executive Kevin Tsujihara to the Motion Picture Association of America’s Asia-Pacific president Michael Ellis.

It was dated the day Key met Tsujihara and was in the midst of Immigration NZ’s consideration of Dotcom’s residency.

dotcomemail8

A Warner Bros senior vice president told the Herald at the time: “Kevin Tsujihara did not write or send the alleged email, and he never had any such conversation with Prime Minister Key. The alleged email is a fabrication.”

A spokeswoman for the MPAA said: “Mike Ellis never received this alleged email or discussed this matter with Kevin Tsujihara.”

Dotcom said today that the email was “easy to discredit” because it did not have “headers” – detailed information which shows the internet protocol address from which it was sent or the relays and servers it passed through.

As a result, he “could not use it at the Moment of Truth” – the event he organised at the Auckland Town Hall the week before the 2014 election. There, whistleblower Edward Snowden, Julian Assange of Wikileaks and journalist Glenn Greenwald made claims of mass surveillance of New Zealanders.

“It was a huge disappointment and distracted from the bigger picture: The Government and its participation in mass surveillance,” Dotcom said.

That was all timed to try and swing the election against the National government. Dotcom was financing and promoting his own Internet Party, which not only failed itself it also dragged down the Mana Party.

The email is back in the spotlight thanks to a new taxpayer-funded documentary into the Dotcom case. Kim Dotcom: Caught In The Web, which premiered at the SXSW film festival in the United States this week, includes the German-born entrepreneur talking about the origins of the email.

In the documentary, he says: “That email, I know it comes from hacker circles. You know about the famous Sony Hack. The same people who were responsible for that hack, were responsible for this hack.”

But it was text only, without the details necessary to prove authenticity.

Investigators familiar with SFO methods told the Herald the definite statement the email was a forgery revealed an deep and forensic-style investigation.

One investigator with SFO experience said the agency would have sought statements or interviews from the named executives and access to the servers. It would have studied the format and style of the email to see if it was consistent with where it was supposed to have come from.

Checking servers of the purported recipient and sender would be essential too. “If you did both parties and neither had it, that would be a strong basis to support the argument it was a forgery.”

He said the inquiry would also have involved each person believed or known to have contact being considered.

The SFO have gone further than saying that the email can’t be authenticated, they have stated that they think it was a forgery.

It’s hard to believe that Dotcom would fabricate a bogus email as he would known it would be denied.

Was Dotcom set up? If so, by whom, and why? Was it done to try to help Dotcom, or to try to trash his credibility?

Dotcom – Trump

refers to CNN (from last September): Is Trump right? Could a 400-pound couch potato have hacked the DNC?

Russia might be behind the hack of the Democratic National Committee, according to US officials and lawmakers — but not Donald Trump.

The Republican presidential nominee came up with many alternative possibilities at the first general election debate on Monday night.

“It could be Russia, but it could also be China. It could also be lots of other people,” he said during the first presidential debate. “It also could be somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds.”

(400 pounds = 181 kilograms)

So a monster bed potato, not a couch potato.

Yesterday:

Dotcom-Trump

I can’t find that on Twitter now, but Dotcom has tweeted since:

Dotcom-Trump-2

Bizarre. How would Dotcom know this?

Why are Dotcom and Wikileaks so keen to help Trump?

I don’t trust US spying but I wouldn’t put much faith in those who think Trump can fix it all. Or are Trump and Assange more interested in getting onside with Trump so he will help them?

 

Dotcom to appeal after High Court judgment

As expected Dotcom will appeal.


Media Statement From Dotcom Legal Team.

This case is no longer the “largest criminal copyright case”, 1 at least as far as New Zealand is concerned. As we have said all along, there is no such offence under our Copyright Act. We were right. However, this afternoon the High Court judgment 2 was issued and, ultimately, although it concluded we are right, 3 the Court concluded that Kim is still eligible for surrender.

To win the major plank 4 of the case but to get that outcome is extremely disappointing. However, we are far from defeated. It is hard to accept the logic that, if the conduct that all accept at its heart relates to assertions of breach of copyright is not an offence under that Act, how it can nonetheless be massaged into a general fraud offence. In fact, that thinking has been rejected outright in the Supreme Court in the United States.

The High Court has accepted that Parliament made a clear and deliberate decision not to criminalise this type of alleged conduct by internet service providers, 5 making them not responsible for the acts of their users. For the Court to then permit the same conduct to be categorised as a type of fraud in our view disrupts Parliament’s clear intent. The High Court decision means that Parliament’s intended protection for internet service providers is now illusory. That will be a concern for internet service providers and impact on everyone’s access to the internet.

The last hurdle to what we say is the correct outcome – no extradition – will now need to be determined by the Court of Appeal. We remain confident that this last point, which would prevent extradition in this complex and unprecedented legal case, will be resolved in Kim’s favour in a manner consistent with Parliament’s intent, international law and, importantly one might think, the United States’ own law.

Whilst many have struggled to get beyond the United States’ hype in this politically charged and misunderstood case, an objective observer will now realise that there is much more to this case than they were previously informed of from the District Court judgment.

Whether Kim has committed an offence under New Zealand copyright law has finally now been answered in his favour; he has not. Whether our law should still permit him to be extradited to the United States under an Act that has no interest in copyright, is the question that remains now to be answered by our Courts. We say no and we are confident that this must be right.

Whether you are a supporter of Kim’s or not, these are important principles of law for us all and the very issues that we need our justice system to grapple with if we want a credible and safe process for extradition to any requesting country, including those with whom we have a close commercial and political relationship.

Ron Mansfield, Barrister

Dotcom Legal Team

1 https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-charges-leaders-megaupload-widespread-online-copyright-infringement

2 Ortmann & Ors v United States of America [2017] NZHC 189.

3 See paragraphs [169]-[192] (in particular [192]).

4 See paragraph [591].

5 See paragraph [183].

(Dotcom and) Ortmann v The United States of America

High Court media release on a judgment on the extradition of Mathias Ortmann, Bram van der Kolk, Kim Dotcom, Finn Batato to the United States.


Result

In a judgment released today the High Court has confirmed that Mathias Ortmann, Bram van der Kolk, Kim Dotcom, Finn Batato (the appellants) are eligible for extradition under section 24 of the Extradition Act 1999.

The United States Government has been seeking the appellants’ extradition to face trial on 13 counts including allegations of conspiracy to commit racketeering; copyright infringement; money laundering and wire fraud since 2012.

The High Court has found that the District Court decision in December 2015 finding that the appellants are eligible for extradition was flawed but that the errors in the judgment were immaterial because there are available pathways for extradition on each count.

The key legal questions

In extradition proceedings the primary role of the Court is to determine whether the requested persons are eligible for surrender in relation to the offences for which surrender is sought. Broadly speaking, this requires the Court to follow a two-step approach.

First, the Court must be satisfied that the alleged conduct constituting the essence of the offence for which surrender is sought correlates to an “extradition offence”. In this case, because there is an extradition treaty, this will depend on whether the conduct correlates to an offence listed in the NZ-US Treaty or deemed to be listed in it by the Extradition Act.

Second, if the Court is satisfied that the offences for which surrender is sought are extradition offences, it must then determine whether the evidence relied on by the requesting State (the US) is sufficient to justify a trial if the offence had been committed in New Zealand. This is what is commonly referred to as a prima facie case – is there sufficient evidence for a properly directed to jury to convict?

Contents of the judgment

The essence of the United States’ case is that the appellants, as officers of Megaupload, were party to a conspiracy to profit from copyright infringement by users of Megaupload’s services.

One of the central issues in the case is whether copyright infringement by digital online communication of copyright protected works to members of the public is a criminal offence in New Zealand under the Copyright Act. The High Court has held that it is not, contrary to the conclusion reached in the District Court. The appellants have therefore succeeded with one of the main planks of their case.

However, the High Court has found that a conspiracy to commit copyright infringement amounts to a conspiracy to defraud and is therefore an extradition offence listed in the USNZ Treaty. Further, other extradition pathways are available for all counts because of their correlation to a number of serious crimes in the Crimes Act. These offences are deemed to be listed in the Treaty by a provision in the Extradition Act, subject to various criteria being met.

The High Court has confirmed the conclusion reached by the District Court that the evidence relied on by the United States for the purposes of extradition does satisfy the prima facie case test against each appellant on each count. The High Court has also confirmed that the District Court was correct to dismiss the appellants’ applications for a permanent stay of the extradition proceedings for alleged abuse of process.

Decision

The District Court judgment finding that the appellants are eligible for surrender to the United States on all counts in the indictment is confirmed.


The full High Court judgment is here: Ortmann v The United States of America

High Court: Dotcom and co-accused eligible for extradition

The High Court has just released a decision saying that Kim Dotcom cannot be extradited for copyright infringement, but there are grounds for extradition on “general criminal law fraud provisions”.

NZ Herald: Kim Dotcom and co-accused eligible for extradition to US, says High Court

In the High Court finding released today, Justice Murray Gilbert upheld a decision by the District Court that there were grounds for the quartet to be extradited,

But the judge has also supported an argument made by Dotcom’s legal team that he and his former Megaupload colleagues cannot be extradited on copyright infringement grounds.

He said that was because “online communication of copyright protected works to the public is not a criminal offence in New Zealand”.

He said it meant the accused could not be extradited to the US on copyright grounds.

Instead, Justice Gilbert said there were “general criminal law fraud provisions” which covered the actions of the accused and they could be extradited on that basis.

He said he agreed with District Court judge Nevin Dawson that there was enough information to make the decision based on accepting a “record of the case” put forward by the US which detailed the evidence it claimed to hold against the Megaupload accused.

Dotcom’s lawyer is claiming a victory.

Dotcom’s lawyer Ron Mansfield claimed victory from the ruling, saying the case was no longer the “largest criminal copyright case”.

“As we have said all along, there is no such offence under our Copyright Act. We were right.”

That may be so, but if Dotcom can be still be extradited that is hardly a victory.

And it probably won’t be the last attempt to prevent extradition. I presume there are appeal steps yet to come.

NZ Herald has an interview with Dotcom on this: Kim Dotcom legal saga: Extradition to US over Megaupload still on cards but he claims court ruling is a ‘major victory’

What about Internet Party 1.0?

Dotcom’s Internet Party, combined with the Mana Party, failed to get close to the 5% threshold in the 2014 election, getting 1.42% of the vote (34,094), and with Hone Harawira failing to hold his Te Tai Tokerau seat so they missed out on getting into Parliament.

After the election Laila Harre resigned as leader – she recently indicated she had joined Labour and wanted to stand in an electorate for them.

Since then the party has maintained an online presence but with no sign of who is running the party and with a very low profile – Dotcom seemed to desert it.

Since the election in the monthly Roy Morgan poll the Internet Party has had no result (less than 0.5%) in every poll except for getting 0.5% in June and October this year.

They still have a website but there appears to be little new, and there is no sign of any people being involved – perhaps it’s become a robot party.

They keep things ticking over on their Facebook page. After Trump won the US election they posted:

Internet Party was feeling optimistic.
9 November ·
If Britain can get Brexit
and America can get TrumpNew Zealand can get the Left into power in 2017

That got 288 likes so there is still interest in the party. In early December:

We are stoked, of course.

But we still need people to write good articles for us, the Internet Party, the Infomation Party, the one which is genuinely about a better future in all aspects … as much as ever. Please put the word out to the good investigative journalists that you know, or who are friends of friends and so on …

Mid December:

KDC is being given a bad rap from radio announcers since Laila Harre joined the Labour Party. Laila is a great person but small parties never served her well. We are delighted to see anyone with her vision and passion achieve a position of influence and we sincerely wish her great success in achieving this.

While The Internet Party has an identity, a life and policies all of its own – KDC started this good work, and the fact that this party even exists with it’s awesome policies is completely down to him.

I am no spokesperson, but all of the positive things that our members can say about the Party or KDC will help. Speak it, write it, show your support, every bit helps.

Thank you 🙂

For political parties to have identities they need people, and there is no sign of who is involved.

They have a Twitter account but it’s not very active, with the last tweet in February. The account is authorised by Fred Look, from Colville on the Coromandel Peninsula.

The Internet Party Constitution & Rules on Elections.Org.NZ states:

10 PARTY LEADER

10.1 The Internet Party will have a Party Leader. The Party Leader is responsible for managing the Internet Party’s Parliamentary affairs, should it be represented in Parliament.

10.2 The Party Leader is an automatic member of the Executive Committee with full voting and speaking rights.

10.3 Should the Internet Party not be represented in Parliament, the Party Leader will be either:

10.3.1 The candidate ranked number 1 on the Party List by the Executive Committee in an election year; or

10.3.2 A Full Member of the Internet Party approved by 75 per cent of the Executive Committee

Harre was ranked number 1 on the party List in election year and has resigned so that provision no longer applies.

I’m not aware of a new Party leader being approved by the Executive.

I thought that the original constitution gave special power to the party founder but can’t see any reference to that now.

The party received 16 donations in 2015 totalling $676.65
internet_party_return_of_donations_and_loans_2015.pdf (PDF 11.29 MB).

That’s in contrast to 2014 donations of $3,500,000 from Kim Dotcom (and no other donations)
Internet_Party_return_of_donations_and_loans_2014.pdf (PDF 10.12 MB)

Both those returns were signed by Fred Look, who seems to be the only person publicly associated with the party now.

I presume that Dotcom’s money and input would be welcomed again but I also presume that would have to go through a democratic process.

Getting credible candidates and especially a credible and high profile leader could be a challenge.

The Auckland revolutionaries seem to have moved on from the Internet Party and are quietly taking over the Labour Party.

Perhaps Labour will do a Memorandum of Understanding with the Internet Party – involving money for influence?

Internet Party 2.0

After the failure of the Internet Party in the 2014 election – and their dragging down of the Mana Party with them – Kim Dotcom acknowledged that his brand was toxic.

So why has he floated the idea of another tilt at political ego?

That vote is meaningless – if Andrew Little asked his Twitter followers if he should stand next year he’d get a few positive votes as well. So would John Key, probably far more than Dotcom and Little combined.

It’s hard to know what sort of game Dotcom is playing here.

He is unlikely to get Mana or any other party wanting him to piggy back off their electorate chances.

He would have to find a high profile person to lead the party, and Laila Harre is unlikely to do it again, she recently said she wanted to stand for Labour.

Perhaps Dotcom thinks he could emulate Donald Trump’s success.

Like millions of people wanting to be the Nek Minit in social media, it seems that many people are trying to emulate Trump’s success. Winston Peters fancies his chances despite being the opposite of Trump in political experience, and even Little has dabbled.

But New Zealand politics is very different to US politics.

I would be very surprised if Internet Party 2.0 could become a serious contender next year – especially if Dotcom was prominent, and it’s hard to see him not being prominent if he tries to reboot his political ambitions.

But this could be just game playing by Dotcom. Is he trying to leverage his influence with another party?

Labour would love the sort of financial support he could provide, but any Dotcom association would be higher risk than the Memorandum of Understanding with Greens, which has so far been unsuccessful.

Just before Christmas Dotcom tweeted:

Perhaps he sees an opportunity from that. Earlier in December:

Perhaps he is just trying to stir things up.

 

Dotcom claims leaked data for election

On Twitter Kim Dotcom has been hinting at disruption and another attempted hit job on next year’s election in New Zealand, and claims there is a mass of emails waiting to be leaked that were the reason for John Key’s resignation, and will be seriously damaging for the National Government.

National looks in a very strong position, especially compared to the alternatives.

Is he claiming to have been responsible for all of those?

Really? That was an overplayed embarrassing fizzer for Dotcom and is likely to have contributed to the poor election result for the Internet Party.

I think he is overrating his influence a bit there.

Yesterday the Spin Bin posted Bombshell Kim Dotcom Exclusive: 2TB of Leaked Govt Data Will Stun New Zealand In 2017 which included:

You have tweeted that an expected release of government information will take down the National Party in the next general election in 2017. What types of material can we expect to see?

Kim Dotcom: Why do you think John Key resigned? This wasn’t about his family. It’s more likely about the next election and 2 terabytes of emails and attachments that were taken from New Zealand government servers. I heard from a reliable source that the Podesta emails seem like cotton candy compared to the amount of disgusting dishonesty the National government will see leaked at the next election.

Why would ‘a reliable source’ tell Dotcom about this (if it is true)?

Key must know. He’s taken the parachute. He can’t stomach the kind of embarrassment that Clinton had to endure with daily releases of dirty emails. And this time even his media cronies couldn’t have saved him. The Internet and alternative media of reputable truth-telling websites are taking over. Leaks are the new political reality. Over time this will be the cure against dishonest politicians. They just can’t survive in this new environment of information.

So hackers and political activists will decide elections, including next year’s New Zealand election?

Despite the drip feeding of emails by WikiLeaks into the US election it was still a close win for trump, and that was probably swung by James Comey’s intervention.

Many people believe that Donald Trump may be of the same ilk as Hillary Clinton. Would a Labour-led coalition government in New Zealand really be a material difference to your case or any significant improvement for the wider public in general?

Current polls suggest that Labour is nowhere near credible as an alternative government. Dotcom/Wikileaks/whoever would have to seriously discredit National and Winston Peters to ensure a Labour+Greens win.

And there would be a good chance of it backfiring, as happened last election where despite Nicky Hager’s book and Dotcom’s ‘Moment of Truth’ the Internet Party flopped and Labour dropped to a record low.

Kim Dotcom: Donald Trump and Brexit are the punishment the elites deserve. Will the Donald drain the swamp? We will have to wait and see. The swamp is exactly what led to the unlawful destruction of my business and the military-style raid and illegal spying against my family.

A Labour government in New Zealand would have no incentive to drag out the monstrosities committed by John Key and his Attorney General Chris Finlayson against my family.

If so what good would it do helping Labour into power? Dotcom just wants to disrupt everything?

The Attorney General is using every tool of power at his disposal to prevent the unavoidable legal victory that is coming my way. He will fail and he might end up in jail himself.

I won’t stop until the truth about the real Mega conspiracy is fully unearthed. And I expect a Labour government will want an independent inquiry into my case which will see the National Party in disarray and embarrassment for years to come.

That’s contradicting his “no incentive” claim – unless he intends giving Labour an incentive via some generous donations?

This will be a brutal and costly experience for New Zealand but it will also be necessary so that something like this can’t happen again.

Something like Dotcom’s legal and extradition problems?

It appears as if he is prepared to ‘disrupt more than ever’, be brutal and inflict a ‘costly experience’ on New Zealand for his own purposes. I’m not sure how voters would view that but I doubt they will play his game for him.

Dotcom lost credibility last election and failed. On election night he admitted his brand was a significant problem with voters. I don’t think that has changed – all that has changed are his tactics.

I don’t know how he will engineer an electoral swing as big as his ego.