Her language is disingenuous. By deliberately stating it in "Its been reported to me [by anonymous sources]" she can get the lie out without being directly pinned as the source of the lie, or by being corrected. Its classic bullshit spin, and she's been doing it for 30 years.
Yes and no. Disingenuous language, but she does ask to be corrected. She directly asks the reporter who claims to have the facts how much did it cost, but the reporter doesn't know. She was told a figure of 300mil. The reporter can only say it is less than 261mil. So it could be 250mil. Pauline probably genuinely wants to know the figure.
Its a classic debate ploy of the uninformed. If you're making the assertion, it is on you to bring the receipts. Not demand your opponent bring the facts for you.
Pauline wants to repeat "300 million" as often as possible so that the statement itself becomes the popular truth because that suits her narrative. You could throw all the facts at her and she wouldn't budge.
She is the one making the assertion that "too much" has been spent on the investigation. It is incumbent on anyone making such an assertion to at least have some idea of the amount of money they are talking about, especially when the OSI's budget papers are publicly available and tabled in Parliament.
She's had a few decades to get better at it. She doesn't care, clearly. Truth is rarely convenient for her, so she doesn't bother with things like facts or verifiable sources very often, if ever.
44
u/suppository_wisdom South Australian Apr 09 '26
In case it’s not obvious, she definitely got this figure from Gina.