what are you trying to insinuate?

U mbaghad gejjin jghajjtu bil-Whistleblower Act.

U Il-Guy irid ifittex lil xi hadd talli semma il-kaz tal-kuntrabandu tal-Ghadira. L-iskuza kienet li kellu kondotta nadifa.

Bhallikieku kien hawn xi pulizija li kien ser iressaq zewg ministri Laburisti.

X’zibel ta’ nies.

Sure, that’s why there is so much emphasis including repeating Mangion’s address and referring to her as the probable leak.

Nahseb biex jibghatilha Valentine card u bukkett fjuri.

Jaqq x’nies.

Let’s have Leo answer some questions. Now that Labour wants out on corruption.

What for, and what about? M’ghandniex x’irridu cucati izjed minn ghand dik!

(1) He sees this blatant corruption os the highest kind as an “inconvenience”.

(2) The reason the communicates with people orally has nothing to do with time constraints – otherwise he wouldn’t refer to the one time he issued written “chits” as a mistake.

(3) He felt he had to “investigate” when the chit was mis-adressed.

(4) Why would there be the need to pass on the letter to The Democrat, and why all the fuss, if everything was done above board?

(5) The assurance that he would only be communicating orally so as not to leave a paper trail.

(6) And as you so rightly and frighteningly put it, why the need to summon Mrs Mangion.

And this man is going to be a minister again? Jesus f**king wept.

Any comment forthcoming from Yana yet?