This not about politics it is totally about integrityAs I say, at least one or more of the three aren't being truthful.
Id suggest all three are by some degree
If anything, Hipkins seems to be getting away with the least amount of scrutiny so far despite the appointments and Coster informing him
Having watched the Q&A interview today I was very impressed with Coster
He did not shy away from any of the questions and gave plausible explanations for his actions
He clearly did not want to answer the question re ministers having knowledge of the JV affair and it was only after a significant pause as he gave careful thought did he answer.
He was believable and was open that he did not have formal proof of having advised Hopkins, Mitchell and the IPCA.
As I see it only one of the three are lying
If he did update them then Hipkins response (I have no recollection) could be true and Mitchell is lying
If he didnβt update them then it is he who is lying.
Why I think it is Mitchell who is lying is:
- Why would Coster update him in Nov 24 when he was leaving Police that month
- Why is Mitchell saying he knew nothing about it despite the victim sending emails to his local electorate office
- Why did he call the whole thing a coverup on TV on the day when the report came out but when the public service commissioner stated in accepting Costerβs resignation there was no coverup Mitchell then says he never said there was - this demonstrates that he is being dishonest
While Costerβs reputation maybe damaged in the eyes of some itβs not in my eyes.
I can understand him accepting what JV told him just as I would if a person who I had worked with and had no reason to distrust told me