Mal Brough subpoenaed in Slipper case

http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/2558572-3x2-340x227.jpg

Former Howard government minister Mal Brough has been subpoenaed by the Federal Court in connection with the Peter Slipper case.

Lawyers for the Commonwealth today told the court that former staffer James Ashby, who is suing Mr Slipper for sexual harassment, colluded with another staffer, Karen Doane, to undermine Mr Slipper's reputation and advance his political opponents, including Mr Brough.

The lawyers have told the court they have phone records to support their argument of a calculated political campaign against Mr Slipper.

They allege Mr Ashby gave information to Mr Brough and to News Limited journalist Steve Lewis.

The court has issued subpoenas to both Mr Brough and Mr Lewis for information they have allegedly been given by Mr Ashby.

Lawyers for Mr Slipper and the Commonwealth have tried to have Mr Ashby's sexual harassment claim struck out, describing it as an abuse of the legal process.

But Mr Ashby’s lawyer Michael Lee argues that they have been too vague about what they mean by that.

He described their case as a "moving feast" and likened it to "wrestling with a rice pudding".

Mr Brough has been outside politics since losing his seat in the 2007 election.

There has been speculation that he could run for Mr Slipper's Queensland seat at the next federal election.

Mr Slipper defected from the Liberal National Party late last year in a deal which made him Speaker.

He currently holds the Sunshine Coast seat of Fisher as an independent.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-15/mal-brough-subpoenaed-in-slipper-case/4072794

falah wrote on Jun 15^th, 2012 at 11:53am:

Mal Brough subpoenaed in Slipper case The lawyers have told the court they have phone records to support their argument of a calculated political campaign against Mr Slipper. They allege Mr Ashby gave information to Mr Brough and to News Limited journalist Steve Lewis. The court has issued subpoenas to both Mr Brough and Mr Lewis for information they have allegedly been given by Mr Ashby.

Alittle bit hypocritical when it's been revealed that Gillard's using tax payer money to fund her own dirty tricks campaign against ALL MPs yet you are crying like a stuck pig based on Slipper?

Lets assume that there is a political campaign against Slipper and information was passed to Brough and others - does that somehow lessen the claims of sexual harassment?

Does the fact that Ashby disclosed information to Brough somehow makes sexual harassment legal and acceptable?

Maqqa - why so quick to defend ?

Maqqa so quick to point out the left's stupidity

Maqqa wrote on Jun 15^th, 2012 at 11:59am:

falah wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 11:53am: Mal Brough subpoenaed in Slipper case The lawyers have told the court they have phone records to support their argument of a calculated political campaign against Mr Slipper. They allege Mr Ashby gave information to Mr Brough and to News Limited journalist Steve Lewis. The court has issued subpoenas to both Mr Brough and Mr Lewis for information they have allegedly been given by Mr Ashby. Alittle bit hypocritical when it's been revealed that Gillard's using tax payer money to fund her own dirty tricks campaign against ALL MPs yet you are crying like a stuck pig based on Slipper? Lets assume that there is a political campaign against Slipper and information was passed to Brough and others - does that somehow lessen the claims of sexual harassment? Does the fact that Ashby disclosed information to Brough somehow makes sexual harassment legal and acceptable?

And the LNP didn't try and make Hay out of the uncovering of the "dirt unit"?

It raises questions about the validity of the sexual harassment claims because it appears the political benefit of the whole issue was the primary concern, rather than concern over someone being sexually harassed.

At the end of the day we all know Ashby was put into Slipper's office as a plant to entrap him, my reading of the case if that Slipper has a much better case for sexual harassment than Ashby does.

PoliticalReality wrote on Jun 15^th, 2012 at 12:08pm:

It raises questions about the validity of the sexual harassment claims because it appears the political benefit of the who issue was the primary concern, rather than concern over being sexually harassed.

I was not aware the credibility of a claim is assessed based on the "political benefit" test