A lot of people would think that the journalist was only doing her job - no?
And re Tice - given the journalist has said:
“Richard had nothing to do with the cables. He has never seen them, never handled them and was not involved in acquiring them."
“Tempting though it is to put two and two together to make 55, there is no link between him and the ambassador story.”
Are you and others, not in danger of jumping to conclusions?
No. A journalist (using the word loosely) who sat on emails linking Arron Banks to Russian officials and businessmen. Ghost-writer for Arron Banks. As she says, "My work speaks for itself".
“Richard had nothing to do with the cables. He has never seen them, never handled them and was not involved in acquiring them." So - what did he know, and when did he know it?
Oakeshott is reportedly suing the Guardian for John Crace's Parliamentary sketch about last Monday's debate. The original print text had that she only gets a scoop if Farage or Banks "leave it under her pillow" - and she apparently retweeted this alleged defamation about herself.
The Crace online article has been amended, to "if he or Arron Banks leave it conveniently to one side for her". (Some websites - and I'm not sure if this is true, you'd have to read the original print version rather than the one in the retweet - say the original line was that she only "gets a scoop if Nigel or Arron Banks slips it to her.”)
Conclusion? Who benefits? The leaker has leaked them to someone "close to" the chairman of the Brexit Party, and he then goes public suggesting the new ambassador should be a pro-Brexit businessman (like him or Farage?).
For the record, Crace's sketch cites SNP MP Stephen Gethins as a source for his quip, but neither that nor half the other stuff seems to have been said in the chamber, including the "Thousand-year Brexit" attributed to Bill Cash. Let's just say that Crace likes "reading between the lines".
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-gives-mps-chance-to-enjoy-a-bit-of-deploring