New thread from Banks v Cadwalladr. Banks’ QC is questioning the Observer journalist about this section of her witness statement. Did she join Banks’ call for a judge led inquiry 
“I don’t see where you’re going with this, Mr McCormick” says Cadwalladr. “You don’t need to. You need to answer my questions” he retorts.
This is the day the Electoral Commission opened its investigation into the sources of Mr Banks’ wealth and he said he only had one ‘boozy lunch’ with the Russian Embassy (changing from two in her interview with him)
“At this point your relationship with Mr Banks was civil and cordial,” Cadwalladr agrees. She explained she recorded the call without telling him. She says it’s normal as an ‘aide memoire’.
“This is one of those normal journalistic practices” says Cadwalladr. “If you’d told me this in the first place we could have saved five minutes” comments McCormick
Banks said he had not seen the Russian Ambassador since “our lunch”. It was a “jovial telephone call” on the day the Electoral Commission opened its investigation into foreign interference, and Banks said he had one sole lunch
“The whole point about it is that the whole investigation was about the source of Mr Banks’ wealth,” Cadwalladr says. The point of about the famous lunch was peripheral.
“My sole contact with the Russian Government was one boozy lunch” Banks told the Electoral Commission. McCormick says it must have referred to the last of two lunches.
“I feel you’re deliberately trying to confuse me, Mr McCormick. I’m trying to help answer the question”. The judge allows the court to take till 3.20 pm
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
