Knowing what I do about the running of the legal / justice system (more correctly the 'IL-legal / IN-justice' system)). I don't have any confidence in reports supposedly revealing who supposedly said or did whatever. One thing of which I am 100% certain is that the RAbbott pulled whatever strings he considered necessary to remove Pauline Hanson & One Nation from the scene. Furthermore, he has undoubtedly done something comparable to discredit the red-headed witch, however in this case she provided a lot of the ammunition herself. Remember that both the RAbbott & the red-headed witch have legal backgrounds, consequently they would have relevant contacts and knowledge of what strings to pull. Whatever, the REAL story is undoubtedly much different to the various ones being spread around. Twisting words out of all recognition & 'adjusting' male bovine droppings to look like gospel truth are lawyers tools of trade, even more so when said lawyers are also politicians. If as it appears, karma has decided its time to re-visit the RAbbott, then so be it, I for one certainly won't be shedding a tear in sympathy for the clown.

Lexi,

My wife and i have a slush fund to fund unexpected expenses, my company has a slush fund for contingencies, and I doubt there is a single organisation that does not have one or more slush funds. The issue is what the slush fund was intended for.

The slush fund that Juliar set up as "Australian Workers Union, Workplace Reform Association", she did in the full knowledge that it was false, though to what extent she knew of the fraud it perpetrated is unknown, as is the amount that she financially benefited.

Abbott's fund was drastically different in that its purpose was legitimate, and the donors were fully aware of its purpose.

Lexi would also have appeared to have lied, by repeating the lie contained in the polemic blog to which she referred. (which has not been repeated by any reputable news organisation and was posted under the name admin presumably to avoid libel.)

Especially since both statements

"I spoke with one of Australia’s leading electoral lawyers who assured me that the trust would not be covered by disclosure provisions.’"

And

"‘I didn’t take legal advice on disclosure till after I got the AEC’s letter. I sought legal advice and got oral advice from a senior lawyer.'"

Are correct and don't conflict each other.

Shadow Minister "Abbott's fund was drastically different in that its purpose was legitimate, and the donors were fully aware of its purpose."

Really?
You don't know that for sure Shadow Minister.
Remember, you are talking about Lawyers and Politicians here.
Lying is part of their job description.

Is there a note of panic creeping into the posts defending the holy Abbott now?
I can't wait to see the outcome of the court case...

'Australians for Honest Politics.....oh yeah!'

Well Poirot, I suspect the way you vote we have little hope.

Why thank you, runner.

Australians for Honest Politics......

Abbott: - "I had promised that he [Sharples] wouldn't be out of pocket, but there's a difference between telling someone he won't be out of pocket and telling someone that you're going to have to pay him money."

I recommend folks here read this transcript of Abbott's interview with Kerry O'Brien on the matter.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2003/s933489.htm

Abbott is spectacular in his ability to ignore the bald-faced imputations of his actions.

Apparently the rhetoric Abbott unloaded in this interview is representative of the man who set up the trust Australians for Honest Politics.

....which apparently, was not supposed to be satirical.

Hard to believe, but there you go.

Have a good long read,runner.

There's your hero doing what he does best.

I really think it likely both Gillard and Abbott will be successful in getting any court proceedings put off untill after the election.

It would also appear that the Thomson and Slipper matters are heading the same way. It is now only 4 months to go.