She did the seargent shultz defence. “I Knew Nothing!”
I mean it’s almost like they give our these scholarships on the basis of potential to have a political career rather than any academic merit…
No, it was who your favourite genius was, which determined whether you were a yob or a wanker
If ICAC is like a Royal Commission, IBAC and Ombudsman here then there is no access to their evidence until it comes out in questioning. This is not a court of law where the prosecution has to discuss evidence. Gladys probably thought she was above the Law; she is toast.
1 Like
She can expect a multi million dollar banking industry job any day now
1 Like
Not from jail
1 Like
Doubt she goes to prison but she should.
Plenty of cushy jobs she will walk into
1 Like
She isn’t going to jail.
The Feds were quite interested in getting her to run for fed. I doubt that happens now though.
Wait until the next bit of evidence comes out. She is complicit in fraud.
Not even the benefit if doubt from the Fox, she’s absolutely cooked. Do you think she can become bosom buddies with Obeid?
I feel like not enough fuss is being made about the private phone thing.
They literally discussed using encrypted messaging so ICAC couldn’t tap their discussions. How is this not, at the very least, suspicious enough to warrant her notifying ICAC.
She has to be cooked. Has to
3 Likes
Pirior to the hearing of the charges against her, it was on the public record that she would have access to all of the evidence to be submitted.
- mind you she did not know prior to the hearings about the Qs to be put to her and others at the hearings
- but she did have advance information of the oral evidence by Daryl, Cruikshank, Baird, Barilaro and officials before she was put on the stand.
- so some time to adjust her tactics
On what charge though?
I get that she’s farking dodgy, but there’s no offence there.
It’s not high enough to be a fraud you’d think.
That probably just leaves us with common law misconduct in public office but that’s a notoriously difficult charge to prove. And I doubt their DPP would approve that charge against a former Premier on public interest grounds unless the conduct was absolutely egregious.
I suspect she gets made to look very dodgy in the findings of this inquiry and that’s probably it
I’m pretty sure it’s a criminal offence to not notify ICAC of suspected corrupt conduct.
I don’t know how you reconcile talking about bypassing potential wiretaps and an ICAC investigation in the same conversation.
Maybe there’s no conviction, bit surely she never works in politics again.
You’re right, there may be an ICAC specific offence I’m not aware of, that’s a possibility. But the offence would have to be very serious and the evidence overwhelming to justify a charge in the public interest you’d think.
Someone making a decision to prosecute could easily argue that she’s already been held accountable through these hearings and so there’s no interest in going again (I would disagree, but that’s the way these things often go).
I also just look at the history of corruption watchdog inquires and royal commissions throughout the country. There is lots of terrible conduct exposed but how many people ever end up copping a criminal charge out of it? Not too many.
I agree she’s done in politics, but she will simply move into industry where her underhandedness will unfortunately be seen as an asset
2 Likes
By Law they are obliged to notify icac of suspected corruption, I think they proved more than enought she had reason to report him. She still maintained she had no reason to report her knowledge even after he had a 52 minute call with him 5 days before his first appearemce before icac. To just claim she didnt joind the dots, one of those being he told her about a 1.5 million dollar commission he recived a few years earlier, isnt beleivable. Even after the 13th july when he appeared at icac, she tried to conceal the extent of her relationshio with him to her chief of staff.
It is hard to see how she escapes this in any way
Seems that my information is wrong as their is no more evidence. Maybe when this is given to the DPP, they will assess the charges on Maguire and others.
On this ICAC stuff. Surely “it’s a regular political activity to win seats…” with public funds, bypassing all forms of governance is actually the illegal bit?
It’s blatant corruption that would be at home with some two bit dictator, but is so normalised that Gladys doesn’t even seem to bat an eyelid in admitting it. I mean i understand that the Fed government have done the same with no repercussions, but surely this is actually illegal. There is a reason that the system has checks and balances…
2 Likes