Choosing his words carefully at a press conference in Sydney, Mr Turnbull said he did not have a copy of the email and it had not been composed by anybody in the Opposition. Opposition sources refused to provide evidence to support Mr Turnbull's assertion that Mr Rudd and Mr Swan had misled Parliament. Mr Turnbull did not respond to The Sun-Herald's emailed questions about whether he had "proof positive" that Mr Rudd's office had emailed Treasury lobbying on Mr Grant's behalf.

I think Oz noticed this too.

I had the same idea as you – maybe Thomas was just informing Gretch that by hitting “reply to all” he was sending a fax to Swan.

But if that’s the case, then Thomas would have been sending stuff to Swan’s fax already for his number to be in the reply field.

Also, I don’t think it’s a case of just printing off emails. Abetz was going on about some number that was apparently Swan’s home fax, but someone had blurred out some digits.

I can report, however, that my faith in adults being able to get things done without the threat of being dobbed to either of our higher ups was not well received. What I found was that if an email I sent had a cc” in the header, the replies from the other side became much more cautious and qualified, which was anathema to a quick and sensible solution of the core problem.

I guess it’s different in the Public Service.

jaundiced view
Yes, where did it originate? The Libs have ‘known’ the ’sender’ and ‘recipient’ of the ‘email’ for weeks, if not months. It generated questions in QT from Turnbull week before last (I think), mention by Hockey of Grech in an interview with Oakes weeks ago (per ruawake), and Turnbull’s ‘advice’ at the ball to Charlton on Wednesday. So where did that text Abetz read out come from? It can’t be from an outsider, because they wouldn’t have had been able to make it seem authentic. So, if the author was not in the LNP itself, it was a public servant with Lib sympathies. Can’t see any other possibility. Where else?

I hadn’t excluded Liberal sympathisers with youthful high spirits. If that is the case, they may well be learning a lesson.

If it was a public servant, then there may be a legal case to answer.

The issue, as I see it, is a non-issue. The absolute worst case or the Goverment is that one (or two) of their members acted as a parliamentary representative should.

The best case for the opposition is what? The “event” is a non-issue. Even if the Prime Minister had deliberately mislead the House (which I find inconceivable), what was his gain?

While I may lie away at night, dreaming of a tray-top to haul around my meagre possessions, I doubt that *any* current MHR would.

‘Tis fanciful stuff.

To get back to your question, I don’t know the answer, but the best place to look is human frailty. It helps explain all the nonsense that stains perfectly good paper each day.

As for for the beer-related philosophy: one is never too old to learn!

THE weight of evidence that has emerged to date in the "Ute-gate" crisis that has consumed the Rudd Government can lead to only one conclusion - Treasurer Wayne Swan has either misled the parliament or come very close to it.

It can lead to how many conclusions? Sounds like two to me. As Ritchie Benaud used to say, ‘Marvelous!’
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25665800-662,00.html