Today, the Dominion Post reported:
It's completely unbelievable that John Banks' lawyer would advise him to lie to the media. Being that a lawyer must not attempt to obstruct, prevent, pervert, or defeat the course of justice, Banks' lawyer is in breach of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2008 (PDF), if he/she did in fact give such advice.
Banks is simply trying to pass the buck again. Of course he knew who the SkyCity and Kim Dotcom donations were from and they clearly purchased Banks' advocation, which in at least one case went against his previous convictions.
Lets hope it's a conviction of another kind that ends his political career.
Yesterday came his extraordinary admission that, on the advice of his lawyer, he did not tell the full truth – he wasn't "up-front" – about his relationship with German multimillionaire Kim Dotcom, who has now produced records to show he put two cheques worth $25,000 each into Team Banksey's campaign fund, allegedly at Mr Banks' request.
Mr Key has insisted that he would sack Mr Banks if it turned out the MP had not told him the truth – but apparently that test applies only to questions the prime minister and his office put to Mr Banks directly, not the answers he gave to the media and the public.
And, as it turns out, Mr Key's office has never actually asked Mr Banks the questions that might put the prime minister in the awkward position of knowing whether the former Auckland mayor broke the spirit, if not the letter, of the law over anonymous donations to his mayoral campaign fund in 2010 – questions such as do you know what "anonymous" means, did you tell Dotcom to divide a $50,000 donation into two cheques, what did Dotcom want from you in return, and why was it so important for you to have these donations treated anonymously, even when the donors clearly weren't fussed?
It's completely unbelievable that John Banks' lawyer would advise him to lie to the media. Being that a lawyer must not attempt to obstruct, prevent, pervert, or defeat the course of justice, Banks' lawyer is in breach of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2008 (PDF), if he/she did in fact give such advice.
Banks is simply trying to pass the buck again. Of course he knew who the SkyCity and Kim Dotcom donations were from and they clearly purchased Banks' advocation, which in at least one case went against his previous convictions.
Lets hope it's a conviction of another kind that ends his political career.
