Kim Dotcom challenges John Banks in open letter
It's in John Banks' power to shut down these shenanigans by answering basic questions about his case.
It's in John Banks' power to shut down these shenanigans by answering basic questions about his case.
Predictably, Kim Dotcom is continuing to needle John Banks.
In an open letter published last night, Mr Dotcom repeats his demand that Mr Banks explains how he could have delivered a threat from inside Mt Eden jail, where all his calls were monitored.
He also repeats his claim that Mr Banks asked him for a donation and for it to be split into two cheques.
The accused pirate asks why he would have split his donation into two $25,000 cheques unless the mayoral candidate had made that request.
Mr Dotcom is, of course, self-serving and publicity seeking, and many will dismiss his letter.
The issue for Mr Banks is that others are asking the same thing.
“Did he know at the time of filing those statements that he had received those donations from Kim Dotcom? That’s never been adjudicated. Mr Banks declined to answer those questions but I think they are fair questions to put to him still,” Victoria University legal ethics lecturer Gary Forrester asked during an NBR Radio panel debate yesterday.
Mayoral race opponents would pick up on that theme.
Mr Banks never went under oath in court to address that and other questions.
In his open letter, Mr Dotcom calls on Mr Banks to join him in an interview carried out by an independent questioner.
I can’t see that happening.
But, if he wants a clear shot at running for Auckland mayor, Mr Banks has to answer these lingering questions about his case, one way or the other.
And as for Mr Dotcom, we're still waiting for a good explanation as to why the latter-day champion of the left and Mana ever offered to donate money to Mr Banks in the first place. It's hard to see a good reason for their meetings, given the socially conservative Mr Banks' views on issues like surveillance, publicly-funded broadband and copyright. It's easy to think of a bad one, given we're dealing with a politician on a big fund-raising drive on the one hand, and an immigrant entrepreneur who was, at the time, keen to curry favour with Immigration and the Overseas Investment Office.