Now that a fake rape coup has removed a Liberal government…

This entry was posted in Fake news, Left-wing hypocrisy. Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to Now that a fake rape coup has removed a Liberal government…

  1. Lee says:

    She would say that.

  2. Cassie of Sydney says:

    Of course she would say this. And just remember, the eternally stupid Liberals and Nationals gave her licence. My God they were inept.

  3. Crusader says:

    The Liberal Government was removed by a “fake rape coup”! Comedy gold. Just as President Treason had no intention of selling those lists of US agents to Putin.

  4. NFA says:

    “It’s Time” for another Dismissal by The Governor General and new elections.

  5. NFA says:

    and crusada nix proves his complete detachment from reality.

  6. twostix says:

    Crusader comes in raving like a lunatic and insane conspiracy theories.

  7. and says:

    Excellent article by Bettina Arndt

    Saint Brittany or scheming charlatan?
    – How dare YOU, Brittany Higgins!

    Covers much inforation that has been passed through this blog. However, there are two unfamiliar (for me) points. Are these correct?

    For example,
    Every day, amazing little gems keep popping up – like the item on the Channel 7 News in May reporting that Brittany Higgins had previously had sex multiple times in her boss’s office. This has since been removed from most media sources, but it was apparently included in text messages the police recovered from Higgins’ phone and referred to her escapades with previous boyfriends on the Minister’s couch.

    And, in the comments section

    What finally convinced me that this was all a political stitch-up and Bruce Lehrmann was the designated patsy, was higgin’s shrill proclamation at the infamous failed feminist putsch on 04 March 2021 in Canberra; “I watched as people hid behind throwaway phrases like “due process” and “presumption of innocence”, while failing to acknowledge how the justice system is notoriously stacked against victims of sexual crimes”.

    Dear Briggins has an utter contempt for presumption of innocence and due process.

  8. Lee says:

    Now we have evidence from a five-hour chat recorded weeks before Higgins first hit the media, strongly suggesting Gallagher was not only involved from the start but “really invested” in using the Higgins matter to attack the government, according to Higgins’ boyfriend, a friend of Gallagher. And she lied about this in Senate Estimates – setting herself up for a charge of misleading parliament.

  9. Ed Case says:

    The Opposition didn’t lay a finger on Labor today.
    Yeah, they had a bit of help from Speaker, but Tanya handled her 2 questions well, and it was probably the best the Government has done in question time since the Election.
    Zali Steggall went alright too.
    O/T: Labor appear to have a helluva lotta Lezzos on the Backbench.
    And apart from Burke, there’s not much brains or talent on their frontbench.

  10. Old Lefty says:

    The ABC excelled itself today. The brief 6pm news bulletin I overheard contained not a word about Gallagher’s truculent evasions and refusal to answer questions in the Senate* but was all about Scott Morrison and the Gaetjens report, followed by a puff piece on Channel 10 taking legal action about the disclosure of the Project recording.

    [* proof of her dishonesty, of course]

  11. Franx says:

    The Liberal Government’s Morrison in particular was complicit in designing the itinerary of the BH caravan. It is difficult to see the former PM as anything other than a journeyman to Labor’s schemes intent on defining victimhood and attributing guilt. At any rate, with the wheels falling off or the camels balking, all is not working out too well for any of the schemers, and there is little pity to be had for any of them.

  12. and says:

    The statement by Krafty Gallagher today was a disgrace. She was simply regurgitating the “Team Brittany” position that she and Labor have been doing for the last two years. The Labor folk, having weaponized the Brittany bandwagon into the Briggins Tank, bulldozed presumption of innocence and due process. They are so devious/daft that they skirt around what “weaponizing” means in this context. Someone made allegations, yet to be substantiated in a court of law or investigation. Elected Parliamentarians can believe what they will personally. However, in discharging their office, on the record, their duty is to not take sides where facts have not yet been established, particularly concerning a criminal matter.

    There’s plenty of evidence that Labor, as a Party, adopted a Team Brittany stance because by so doing theycould attack the Government for “wrongdoing”. Put another way, to attack the Government, Labor immediately adopted a Team Brittany stance. Becoming an advocacy outlet for Team Brittany is to treat Briggins’ allegations not as allegations but as facts. From another blog, someone has posted questions (see link below) in Parliament immediately following the Das Project interview. This questioning by Labor was pro-Briggins and was orchestrated by a number of Labor reps. Two years ago, Lanya Pliserbek stated on the record that Briggins was brave to come forward. The only way Pliserbek could refer to Briggins as “brave” is if Pliserbek was erroneously acknowledging/promoting Briggins allegations as facts. What if Briggins was lying or severely confused in her representations? What would be brave about this? The Labor stance or, more generally, the feminist perspective, is terribly weak… self-serving because it cannot fathom the possibility that women can lie or terribly misrepresent events.

    The Labor Party is still on Team Brittany NOW. The comments by Gallagher, Benny, and Pliserbek over the last few days are pro-Briggins. Gallagher refers to Briggins as “brave, courageous, and an inspiration”. That may be her personal belief but it is certainly not based on facts. Even Elbow keeps referring to the Libs “wrongdoing” towards Briggins as if it is fact: He’s simply parroting Briggins’ allegation over and over again. Dreyfus, too, clearly shows he is Team Brittany, having blocked rebuttal witnesses to Briggins’ allegations and giving her a clear path to a multi-million dollar settlement.

    See comment by “seeker of truth” here

  13. C.L. says:

    The statement by Krafty Gallagher today was a disgrace. She was simply regurgitating the “Team Brittany” position that she and Labor have been doing for the last two years.

    That isn’t going to work. The public has gone off Higgins.

  14. and says:

    Today: Senator Hollie Hughes

    Top job.

    Labor running a ‘disgusting’ protection racket for Katy Gallagher: Senator Hughes Take Note Speech

  15. Lee says:

    Zali Steggall went alright too.

    “Chicken” Steggall?


    Next, you’ll be eulogising Adam Bandt, Ed.

  16. and says:

    Danger Dan Reviews

  17. Rafiki says:

    It was Drumgold, not Dreyfus who refused Fiona Brown’s request to be recalled so that she could rebut Higgins evidence that Reynolds and Brown refused to support her. Higgins gave this evidence after Brown’s evidence in chief because Higgins took a “mental health break” part way through her evidence in chief.
    One is tempted to think this was planned to have the effect of preventing Brown undermining Labor’s attack on the LNP. That is, have Higgins take a break, insert Brown contrary to the regular order of prosecution witnesses, recall Higgins who would allege oppressive behaviour by Reynolds and Brown, and then refuse to recall Brown. It worked a treat, so that, as we have seen, Labor can again run the line that the real question here is the LNP’s failure to support Higgins.
    But temptation must be resisted. The way it transpired was most probably a bit of luck for Labor. Nevertheless, it is a critical point in this saga. Drumgold might suffer from his role however.

  18. Buccaneer says:

    Given Drumgolds performance at the Sofronoff enquiry where he went to water and took one for the pirates, it takes a generous person to think that level of deception was not at play. He should have known the full implications of accusations he leveled at the afp and yet he continued apparently in an effort to influence the verdict.

  19. Old Lefty says:

    Drumgold wilted under Sofronoff’s probing and had to retract his ‘conservative conspiracy and cover-up’ theory. He admitted that he put it in front of the jury without evidence.

    That hasn’t stopped the government and its trolls from continuing to parrot it, of course.

  20. Buccaneer says:

    It’s incredibly tough not to conclude it was only ever there for the narrative.

  21. Ed Case says:

    He admitted that he put it in front of the jury without evidence.
    The AFP were the big losers from the Inquiry, Drumgold left with his integrity enhanced.

  22. Buccaneer says:

    the whole inquiry was to examine Drumgold’s claim of political interference with the AFP, which he retracted pronto. It doesn’t get more embarrassing than that, he didn’t even hang on to it or present any actual evidence.

Leave a Reply

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