Vendetta lunch lasted longer than David Sharaz’s first marriage

I have every confidence that you will answer that very eloquently, but it’s one you just need to really think about. I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but if you can enunciate the fact that this place is all about suppression of people’s natural sense of justice.”

– Lisa Wilkinson, putting words into the mouth of Brittany Higgins
This entry was posted in Federal politics, Left-wing extremism, Legal affairs. Bookmark the permalink.

56 Responses to Vendetta lunch lasted longer than David Sharaz’s first marriage

  1. Ed Case says:

    To subpoena the tapes they had to know of the existence of the tapes.
    There were only 4 people present, I’d say Wilkinson is the most likely, which means that she was covertly helping Lehrmann out from the get go.

  2. Christine says:

    If I heard someone described as a “legacy” one, I’d take it that the father died from a war-related illness. And with the father residing in the U.S., I’d assume something else as well.

  3. Ed Case says:

    That makes me wonder about all the Liberal MPs who were born overseas.
    There’s been a load of them over the years, you kinda think, here’s someone who’s born somewhere else, yet they can get preselection and funding in an establishment political Party to win a seat.
    The ALP had a few too, Barnaby Joyce has an interesting background, which he claimed to be totally unaware of.

  4. Boambee John says:

    Grandpa Cletus has the sads. He has discovered that media “stars” are focused on themselves, and use others solely to advance their own careers.

    Maybe Mizzzz Knickerless needed better advice from her favourite Uncle Cletus?

  5. Ed Case says:

    Well, the extreme reluctance of the AFP to charge Lehrmann, which ended when the CPO made the decision, about 10 ranks above a Sergeant, starts to make sense.

  6. Buccaneer says:

    Victoria is leading the push to extend the existing defamation defence of absolute privilege to people who make complaints to police and bodies such as anti-discrimination commissions and professional disciplinary bodies.

    The “complete immunity and defence” would apply “even where the speaker deliberately or maliciously made a false or misleading statement”.“

    Kathy Sherriff, I bet she won’t get to use this…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *