Three days ago Keith Rowley had my jaw on the floor. Three days later, it’s still there. But for entirely different reasons.
By now you’ve heard about “EmailGate”, or as I like to call it: “Keep Calm and Change Yuh PassWord!”
Opposition Leader Keith Rowley lead another No Confidence Motion against Kamla and her Motley Crew, this time levelling allegations that were nothing short of criminal against the Prime Minister, the AG, the Minister of Labour, Works, The Kitchen, The Kitchen Sink Toute Bagai and everyone’s favourite lapdog and baggage carrier, Gallery Griffith.
According to 30+ email exchanges read out by Rowley in Parliament on Monday, the PM and AG were well aware of the implications of S34, and were so pissed off at the diligence of reporter Denyse Renne, and DPP Roger Gaspard that they were conspiring to tap the phones of the DPP’s office, offer him a position on the judiciary as a bribe, and were considering doing harm to Ms Renne.
At the centre of this latest political shitstorm seemed to be the AG. Or rather, his email accounts. One appeared to be email@example.com while the other was a TSTT address.
Much ado was made about whether or not a person can have an email address shorter than 6 symbols in Parliament. Had any of the MPs on either side of the house deigned to use their Ipads to conduct a Google search (see what I did there?) they would have gotten the answer in quick time and spared me sighing heavily at the monstrous stupidity of the proceedings.
But you see, the last three days showed me in blatant terms how little we know about technology in this country. And, further, how little we know about using it to build a case.
Dr Rowley took a massive gamble accusing the government of conspiring against the office of the DPP and conspiring to harm a citizen of the country with just a pile of transcripts. To have pulled it off successfully what was required were digital files or actual screen shots of the e-mails so that the members of the doubting public would have irrefutable proof, create a significant hue and cry and catapult the powers into action.
In Rowley being the accuser, he had to realise that the burden of proof fell on him, and like the proverbial victim in a rape case, it was he who was on trial and not the perpetrator of the act of violation… Unless of course, he playing coy and allowing the PP to hang themselves with their exuberance. But, again, even that is risky, unless he holding all the trump in his hands.
Editor’s Note: Read Rhoda Bharath’s full article including the conclusion here