What you have to believe in to believe Peters did not know

July 19th, 2008 at 9:34 am by David Farrar

and Winston Peters have said that until yesterday Winston Peters did not know donated $100,000 to pay Winston’s legal bills. Now this is impossible to disprove unless someone leaks some more e-mails.

But we can look at how credible this is, so people can make a judgement. For politics is about credibility.

Now if one is to believe that Peters did not know of the donation from Glenn until Friday, you have to believe all of the following. Note – not just one of the following- but all of it:

  1. Owen Glenn found out about the “Legal Expenses Fund” from someone other than Winston Peters.
  2. Glenn found this out despite almost no one who actually lives in New Zealand knowing about it.
  3. Glenn chose on his own whim to donate to the Legal Expenses Fund rather than NZ First.
  4. Glenn never ever mentioned to Winston Peters he had donated or intended to donate to his legal expenses fund. Glenn is of course known as the soul of discretion.
  5. Glenn managed to get contact details for Brian Henry from someone who is not Winston Peters.
  6. The fund which has been running since 1991 has raised a total of $200,000 of which the $100,000 donation constitutes half in one swoop, and he never asked nor suspected who the donor was.
  7. When the media reported Owen Glenn in February 2008 as having donated to another party, Brian Henry never clicked that he was referring to the $100,000 Glenn gave Henry for Peters’ legal fees.
  8. Winston Peters never thought to check if the large $100,000 donation his lawyer had received could be the donation being referred to by Owen Glenn in February.
  9. Brian Henry let Winston go into a press conference and deny that NZ First had received any money at all from Owen Glenn – not even a dollar, and did not feel he had an ethical, moral or professional duty to tell him of the personal donation to Peters’ legal expenses
  10. That Brian Henry was aware the Winston Peters was considering appointing Owen Glenn as Consul to , and did not think the fact Glenn had donated $100,000 to Peters’ legal expenses was something that should be disclosed.
  11. After the NZ Herald on 12 July printed the e-mail from Owen Glenn, Brian Henry still said nothing to Peters despite it being glaringly obvious what he was referring to.
  12. There was some legitimate reason Winston Peters did not do the obvious when the e-mail was printed and contact Owen Glenn to ask him if the e-mail was real, and what the hell he was on about?
  13. That Winston Peters never wondered why Steve Fisher was so desperate to make sure Owen Glenn did not contradict what Peters said?
  14. Even after Brian Henry saw Winston denying everything, claiming the e-mail is fabricated and calling Audrey Young a liar, he still didn’t think he needed to urgently inform Winston that the e-mail was correct (from Glenn’s perspective)
  15. That during all this time, Winston Peters never wondered if the mystery $100,000 donation for his legal fees could be from Owen Glenn, and that it all came as a total surprise.
  16. It took Brian Henry seven days to manage to talk to his close personal friend and long standing client, to let him know that he had information which verified the e-mail in the Herald.

Now if you do believe all of the above, I’d like to take you to San Francisco where I have some real estate to sell you.

Tags: , , , ,

88 Responses to “What you have to believe in to believe Peters did not know”

  1. damocles (83 comments) says:

    And let us admire the hypocrisy of our oh-so-transparent Foreign Minister, setting up a system which (if we are to believe him and Mr Henry) ensures that Winston can never ever know exactly who donates to his cause. Plausible deniability, n’est-ce pas?

    Turns out the ‘NO’ sign was slightly shortened and misspelled — should have read ‘Don’t KNOW’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    I think the true significance of this is that we live in a political environment in which, Peters clearly thought his bullshit excuse for corruption, released on teh day hismum died, would be enough to keep his snout in the trough at least until the election. And that Helen Clark was ok with it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Inventory2 (9,791 comments) says:

    I heard Henry on the news at 9am. He apparently had an “aha” moment when he read the Herald on Saturday, but he didn’t ring Winston with a heads-up because “Winston was in Fiji”.

    Wrong answer!! Winston didn’t leave for Fiji until Monday sometime. Henry had 48 hours to brief his long-time client/mate. If I was Winston, I’d be looking for a new lawyer! Or does Henry not have Peters’s cellphone number…..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Michaels (1,317 comments) says:

    DPF you forgot the one small issue that must now become the bigger issue of the closer to 100k deposit confirmed by Dail Jones into NZF’s bank account.
    Even a 10 year old would know how much money was deposited into a bank account he/she was in charge of.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. 3-coil (1,184 comments) says:

    17. Winston has Alzheimer’s disease.
    18. Brian Henry has Alzheimer’s disease.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    Look really closely at the ‘NO’ sign,
    at the bottom there is some fine print that looks like it could say “ones told me”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    Actually that is unjust – we are not in a position to know yet what her opinion is. However I note that the VDS line to this has been that to interfere with teh internal workings of another party is ‘undemocratic’ – so essentially the position will be ‘It’s nothing to do with me and I am outraged that you should expect me to even offer an opinion, because it would be ‘undemocratic’ of me.’
    Because that is interesting; by the Standard’s logic – it means that when Helen Clark put forward the EFB ‘To stop people like John Key and the Exclusive Brethren from rorting the elctoral process.’ it turns out she was proposing an undemocrtic Act.
    Syllogistically this means that Helen Clark is ‘undemocratic’, and they have admitted it.
    But I suspend judgement.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    Wouldn’t it be interesting 9and instructive) to trawl through some of Helen’s pronouncements and the faux-outrage of some of our left-wing blogsters to compare their opinions about how we scrutinise the National Party finances and how Winston Peter’s is nobody else’s business.

    Funny because they all proposed the EFA for the very purpose of creating a ‘transparent’ system. So now, it appears they are unabel to see even when it is transparently obvious that corruption is going on under their noses – because it keeps them in power.

    How sick is that??

    If any of them are to have a shred of credibility next time they pontidficate about ‘National’s big-business backers’ they should uniquivocably call for Winston to open the books and face the charges. And resign, like they wanted (but did not) expect Brash to..
    But they will not, and why?
    Because, as the proverb says, it turns out there is no honour amongst thieves.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. PaulP (126 comments) says:

    I see in today’s Dom Post in Replies to Corespondents (pg B4), for letters to the editor not published, a reply that reads:

    “Winston Peters, NZ First leader – defamatory and “facts” wrong”

    I wonder what other lies and deception he wanted to say. Perhaps if it was defamatory they should have published and let someone sue his ass to make some use of his legal fighting fund!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. jafapete (766 comments) says:

    Sorry DPF, but you don’t need to believe all that stuff.

    It’s pretty obvious that Peters and his lawyer had arranged things so that donations were secret, including from Peters.

    Peters would not have known for certain that Glenn donated a large sum of money to his lawyer, even if he himself directed Glenn to his lawyer. And it is quite possible that the President or Secretary or Treasurer of NZ First would have known where to point people who wanted to cointribute to Peters’s expenses.

    Will this wash? It shouldn’t, for the following reasons:

    * Given the amounts involved, Peters must have strongly suspected the source, even though he had not had this confirmed. Yet he still choose the blanket denial.
    * Peters could have verified whether he had received a donation from Glenn (via his lawyer) that was then transferred to the party’s accounts, but he deliberately choose not to despite the likelihood that this was the case.
    * The routing of a donation through a third party (in this case Peters’s trust fund) should not obscure the source, otherwise it undermines the law. Thus, the original size and source of the donation should have been declared.
    * Peters said that the large sum that his then party president referred to was a number of small donations that had been bundled together. There were undoubtedly some small donations included in the amount transferred to the party’s account, but he appears not to have checked that they were all originally small donations with his lawyer, (unless he was misled by his lawyer).

    But, don’t bank on Peters going any time in the very near future. There’s just enough wriggle room there for Peters to continue arguing that he didn’t deliberately mislead anyone, and that he didn’t in fact mislead anyone, as the donation wasn’t made to NZ First in the first instance.

    I personally hope that the NZ electorate drives an electoral stake through Peters’s heart at the next election, whenever that is. But I’m not going to let this cloud my thinking about this, as you appear to have.

    Edit: Patrick Starr — brilliant!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    I love the way that certain people (often from the left, jafa) claim a lack of understanding for the conclusions reached by those they do not have an agenda which they should agree with, but cannot in conscience disagree with. In this case, DPF is prone to ‘clouded thinking’? Which is a diplomatic way of saying he does not understand the issues as clearly as some other might.
    This then allows the person who has the agenda (ie stay in power) to then turn the issues around, based on the premise that their understanding gives them clearer insight into the actual facts.
    To read between the lines here jafa -
    ‘I know WInston is corrupt, and has probably been caught out, but the nature of his corruption has been premediated to such an extent that he can be allowed to get away with it until the next election, when (Lord let it be so!) the electorate will vote him out with a thunderous ‘NO!” to this immoral activity. Labour can continue to be propped up by this corrupt politician, who has cleverly manipulated things so that he can get away with it (nd everyone knows it – and ‘democracy’ will be safe fora few more precious months.’

    It is you who have clouded thoughts Jafapete, your thoughts are clouded by the desire for Labour to stay in power until the election – regardless. To this end you hae twisted the situation so that it will sit with our conscience, and accused DPF of having ‘clouded’ judgement, when an objective reading would suggest otherwise. But nice try all the same.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Zarchoff (100 comments) says:

    I can see the Tui Billboard now…..

    “I’ve only just discovered Owen Glenn gave me $100,000!” Yeah Right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. ben (2,386 comments) says:

    Spot on, David.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    After Winnie puts all his spin on this the headline will read:

    “Glenn breaks Peters back”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    Because it is all about the political will to do the right thing is it not?
    If Labour are goneburger they have no reason to support Winston during the next election – so they have nothing to lose by renting their garments and hoping he will be voted out. But everything to lose by mustering the political will to demand his resignation before the election.
    Which is why they won’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Gerard Barry (27 comments) says:

    Peters conduct is appalling. He has been caught out and Helen should accept his lame/implausible/laughable excuse with prejudice and sack him.

    The MMP system of governance was not intended as some form of sheltered workshop for politicians nor as an excuse for misleading the public and/or for lame duck leadership. Peters’ conduct is giving New Zealand a bad name and we should not have to wait for an election to decide how accountable he should be.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    ” ….we should not have to wait for an election to decide how accountable he should be.”
    But the sad fact is, we will be made to.

    Was Don Brash the last of a dying breed? Because they fell on that poor fucker with a will.

    But are curiously silent now….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. ross (1,454 comments) says:

    > It’s pretty obvious that Peters and his lawyer had arranged things so that donations were secret, including from Peters.

    Yeah, so obvious that Dail Jones knew about a 100k donation but Winston First didn’t. Sorry, Jafa, you’re going to have to do a lot better than that. I’d settle for Winston’s resignation. He did, after all, call for Audrey Young’s resignation. An honourable MP would do the honourable thing and resign. And Winston is an honourable MP, is he not?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. budgieboy (99 comments) says:

    “And Winston is an honourable MP, is he not?” … Hey!!!… a pig just flew over my house!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Inventory2 (9,791 comments) says:

    Repeat after me – It is a mere coincidence that Owen Glenn received his ONZOM after a donation of $500,000 to the Labour Party, and is under consideration for an Honorary Consulship after a donation of $100,000 to Winston Peters. It is a mere coincidence…..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Manolo (12,637 comments) says:

    Putting aside his personal loss, nobody can ever believe that the timing of Glenn’s loan disclosure and his mother’s passing are purely coincidental.

    Winston ‘the poodletician’ Peters has sunk to the lowest possible level. This corrupt and despicable man should be sacked immediately.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Inventory2 (9,791 comments) says:

    budgieboy – all MP’s are “Honourable Members” until proved otherwise. Make your own call whether Winston Peters is the former or the latter.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. tim barclay (886 comments) says:

    And one final thing the timing of Winston finding about the large donation to the legal defence fund has nothing whatsoever to do with the timing of his mother’s death. It was purely coincidental. I can see the Tui ad – “I just found out about Owen Glenn’s donation the day after my mother died – Yeah right.” This is tasteless I know but anyone who thinks Peters is not capable of this sort of political calculation is a baby.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. polemic (316 comments) says:

    The Bauble King has now become Bullshit King

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    I heard Winnie got a standing ovation for his speech at the opening of NZ first’s talkfest, I can’t really get my head around this, what is wrong with these people?. Such blind adoration, are these the sort of people who would follow their leader in mass suicide should he fail to regain office, unfucking believable.

    Apparently it’s all the media’s fault now as they failed to ask the right question. They asked Winnie if NZ first had received any money from Glenn, what they should have asked had Winnie recieved any money from Glenn. These bastards are just to clever for their own good, I really hope they have out smarted themselves this time.

    David, you should work for the SFO.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. polemic (316 comments) says:

    DPF

    With due respect to your blogg and not wanting to tell you what to do -How about starting another thread with the best Tui captions that commenters can suggest and we could all vote with Karma Polls ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    tim..had peters held off ‘telling’..cos’ of his mothers’ death/funeral..

    ..and had left the issue to just ‘swirl’ untill then..

    ..you’d be accusing him of..’using his mothers’ death’..as a’delaying tactic’/w.h.y…’

    eh..?

    and you lot can rail all you like..

    ..the fact of the matter is that peters will ‘get away’ with this..

    luigi has successfully pirouetted on you all…again..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Shunda barunda (2,964 comments) says:

    This sort of crap has got to stop, as a young man trying to raise a family it dosen’t fill you with alot of confidence for the future when you see the level of rot in our govt.
    The blatant hypocricy of Helen Clark and labour is astounding, apparantly Owen Glenn makes at least some of his money bringing tobbaco to NZ!!!!
    If we don’t shed this bloated beurocracy soon , it is only going to provide more of a hiding place for this sort of dodgy crap.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. radvad (620 comments) says:

    Who asked Glen for the money? Clark, Williams, Dail Jones, Peters or any combination of them?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. tim barclay (886 comments) says:

    I do not think so Phil U. I know this situation very well. When you are in a tight spot and you use a close bereavement as an excuse. I condemn it, having been there myself, I recognise the signs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Inventory2 (9,791 comments) says:

    Phil – if Peters had had the decency to say to the media – “Look, my mother has died. Please allow me time with my family, and I will comment next week”, there would not have been a problem. But he didn’t. He went rushing off to the media, too late for the 6pm news, with a story which stretches credibility.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    wot..?..owen glenns’ a tobacco-pusher..!

    ..wow..!..here’a a ‘new thread’ for you all..

    is the fact that owen glenn is a tobacco-pusher anything to do with the fact this poisonous muck is still on display in dairies..etc..

    and not got under prescription..like any other addictive drug..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    and inventory..

    “..too late for the 6pm news..”

    and..um..!..the reason for that conspiratorial twist by peters..?..inventory..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. polemic (316 comments) says:

    philu (2325) +0 Says:

    July 19th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
    ..the fact of the matter is that peters will ‘get away’ with this..

    luigi has successfully pirouetted on you all…again..

    To you philu I say and I quote Winstons favorite term of endearment for a Journo..

    “Listen here sunshine, his pirouetting has finally spun him too far, the public are only so gullible.. roll on elections”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    polemiic..haven’t you seen the poll results yet..?

    peters/nz first will still be standing after the election..

    so you can just ‘dream on’..eh..?

    i’ve said it before..i’ll say it again..

    peters is for whom m.m.p. has brought the greatest ‘blessings’..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. spector (180 comments) says:

    I see The Standard has once again managed to not make any comment on what is the biggest story of the week. It must be so demeaning being Labours bitch. They can’t even make their own comments until they get the go ahead from the ninth floor. It’s ironic that the posters at the Standard go on so much about freedom when all they can do is what they are told by their masters.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    No spector – it wouldn’t be ‘democratic’ for them to tell a party how it should act.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. polemic (316 comments) says:

    Philu- Yes I’ve seen the latest poll result and sorry for you “Sunshine ” but Peters and your equally untrustworthy H1/H2 crew will soon be “all over-Rover”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. barry (1,317 comments) says:

    I Believe him

    I also believe global warming, and that CO2 is totally responsible for the warming. I also believe that Helen Clark did not know what she was signing when she signed that painting, I also believe that she didnt notice that the car she was in was being driven at a dangerous speed across the canterbury plains, and all that sort of stuff.

    However Id still rather Have Winny than not have him. He adds some life to our politcs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    You see they are actually bearing the torch of freedom on our behalves with this principled stand.

    no barry he is sucking the life out of it as is Helen

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Inventory2 (9,791 comments) says:

    phil – I thought that such an astute student of the body politic as yourself would have realised that to get something on the six o’clock news, you have to tell the media before 6 o’clock. Not to mention the fact that it is easy to bury a story for the weekend by releasing it to the media after 6pm on a Friday night. But I guess I overestimated you!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    philu might be interested in buying some San Franciscan real estate though, Inventory…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Murray (8,835 comments) says:

    Well the good news for Peters is there are people still stupid enough to swallow this crock and still vote for a corrupt liar of galactic proportions.

    The bad news is they’re voting for Helen.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    Looks a little fishy, but no more fishy than Brash’s and Key’s claims that they never “read any emails from the exclusive Brethren:

    To recap this is the email detailed in our report on Friday Sludge Report #172: How Hollow The Hollow Men?:

    The salient parts of this email/letter.
    1. It is from Ron Hickmott – who coordinated the Exclusive Brethren campaign. He signs it off “We need a meeting at your earliest convenience…. [I] am essentially working our/your election campaign full time.”

    2. It is addressed to Don Brash and John Key

    3. It is dated 24 May 2005 (Don Brash has repeatedly claimed both before and since the election – including in the past few days – that he knew nothing of the pamphlets till August 2005. Earlier this week he even told TV3 reporter Duncan Garner in a standup with the Press Gallery, “I don’t think I have ever had an email from the Exclusive Brethren.”)

    4. It leads off with the “smoking gun paragraph”:

    “Good afternoon Don and John,
    Doug Watt and myself enjoyed your presentation this morning at the Millennium Hotel. However as backers of the recent “Wake Up NZ” campaign ($350,000) and as responsible for a very extensive election campaign ($1,000,000) with the sole goal of “Getting Party Votes for National” a meeting following on from our one last week with Steven Joyce is important

    So far this morning many media appear somewhat reluctant to accept Don Brash’s statement that he was not aware of this email.

    The key allegation, if there is one, is contained in the so-called “smoking gun” email which Dr Brash and John Key have side-stepped with the claim they did not read.

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0611/S00430.htm

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. aardvark (417 comments) says:

    Come on you guys… ragging on poor old Winston like that!

    Surely you know that, as an “honourable” member of parliament and a with the impeccable ethics and morals of anyone who qualifies to practice law, Winston will be resigning first thing on Monday Morning.

    Only a real arsehole who was prepared to show nothing but contempt for the principles our elected representatives promise to uphold and preserve would dare to do anything else but resign in the face of this disclosure.

    So what are you all trying to say? :-D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    come off it..!..inventory..

    ..we aren’t talking some obscure report from some quango..somewhere..

    i just think you are getting a tad hysterical..

    ..conspiracy-fever..?

    and polemic..do the math..!..it’s called m.m.p…

    getting blinded by your own polemic..are you..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    roger is in the room. time to quit kiwiblog for the day.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. polemic (316 comments) says:

    Yes Philu ,
    I can do the math and in fact curiapoll does the math better than you probably can and what does that average give you….(which is far more authoritative than one off gasps)

    Nat 53.6% , Lab 30.9% and Winnies Last Party 3.5%

    Cough cough ahem ahem, thats MMP alright !!!

    especially now that there is already another Morgan Poll out this morn showing Nat 52% and Lab 31% !!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Rex Widerstrom (5,129 comments) says:

    IIRC, Michael Laws claimed not to have known who signed documents as “Antoinette Beck”, that she did not in fact exist, that therefore her links to an Australian University were fake, etc etc.

    Yet Winston insisted on his resignation because he was involved with something murky which had led to lies being told, and lies, Winston said at the time, were something he would never countenance.

    So if Laws was a goose, Winston, that makes you a gander, does it not?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. polemic (316 comments) says:

    Things are getting desperate -Philu has urgently paged Nome to help

    and what happens Nome puts up some old junk from 2005….

    when we’re dealing with current issues of open misrepresentation by Ministers of the Crown

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. getstaffed (9,188 comments) says:

    DPF – nome seems to have had tribal immunity from demerits for a-a-ages. the post above is blatant trolling. waddya say sir?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    pssstt..!..polemic..

    go read the poll thread..

    the gap between national and labour has slipped to 16 points..

    isn’t that ‘the story’..esp for you lot..

    and..peters has outsmarted you all..again..

    get over it..!

    now..about that drop to 16 points..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    and we haven’t named it yet..!

    owengate..”?..petersgate..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Craig Ranapia (1,912 comments) says:

    OMG… could Owen Glenn cut Winston another cheque so he could go out and buy some more coherent and attractive cheerleaders? Philu and Nome really aren’t working their cheers and pom-poms of misdirection up to Winston’s exacting standard.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. budgieboy (99 comments) says:

    Yawn… Nome Nut and shrillU are here once again dragging tread off topic and failing to address the issue at hand.

    Backing the Minister of Pinstripes in this disgraceful behaviour once again confirms our every worst opinion of you Rodge.

    Lee C is right, time to wander off and leave the halfwits to rant and froth about allsorts of perceived wrongs by National past and present.

    We get it, National = Evil! Labour and Minions = Good (regardless of evidence and circumstance)

    Now can you just for once speak to the issue on the thread or F off please!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    i’m not ‘backing peters’..

    i’m just pointing out the political realities to you self-deluding numbnuts..

    carry on..!

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Inventory2 (9,791 comments) says:

    No phil, we’re not talking about “some obscure quango” – we’re talking about a Minister of the Crown; not just any Minister, but a Minister whose party is allowing the government to govern. Peters knew that his “disclosure” about the Glenn donation would get widespread media attention, so he deliberately timed the release of it to a time where he believed it would largely escape media scrutiny.

    In doing so however, he overlooked the fact that he had cast aspersions over the integrity of a newspaper editor and a senior Press Gallery journalist. The Herald ran the story immediately on their website, and the blogosphere was onto it by 8.30pm last night

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    you just don’t ‘get it’..do you inventory..?

    do you know someone who could explain it to you..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. getstaffed (9,188 comments) says:

    … political realities …

    what… like corrupt governments, propped up with corrupt, lying and manifestly self-serving polititians? those sort of ‘realities’? think most of NZ is pretty sick of those.

    one reality i’m look forward to though, is watching countless tit-sucking, useless, never-had-a-real-job, largely unemployable Labour MP’s queueing for a benefit. hey come to think of it phil, you could invite them all over – show ‘em the ropes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Manolo (12,637 comments) says:

    “i’m just pointing out the political realities to you self-deluding numbnuts.”

    Yes, the same political reality and the same politicians that support your debased lifestyle.

    Whoar, admit it, you’re for Winston Peters and all he represents: corruption, laziness, unmitigated mediocrity, life without aspirations, the baubles of office (which in your case translate into your fornightly traipse to WINZ). The list is endless.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. reid (15,593 comments) says:

    As a guy called Mueller once said, morals and ethics are great norms, but they’re hardly effective means.

    Not that it’s any excuse for what Peters’ has done.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    You’re right Phil – this is starting to get all a little “conspiracy theory”. How about a wee example to show them all how silly they’re sounding?

    Here goes:

    What you have to believe in order to believe that the US government had no idea of the 9/11 before it happened:

    1) They US Government ignored as incredible, warnings from the Israeli Intelligence service, in the month prior to 9/11 that “large scale terrorist attacks” by Osama Bin Laden were imminent.

    2) The 9/11 commission were unaware of the fact that theywere wrongin asserting several times in the official report that: “The threat of terrorists hijacking commercial airliners within the United States — and using them as guided missiles — was not recognized by the North American Aerospace Defence Command before 9/11.” In fact, during the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, NORAD had carried out exercises in which attacks on the World Trade Centre buildings (identical to 9/11) were simulated.

    3) It was mere coincidence that the US government had already decided that it would take take military action against Afganistan in the months prior to 9/11. i.e.

    The BBC reported (September 18 2001) that Niaz Niak, a former Pakistan foreign secretary, was told by senior American officials at a meeting in Berlin in mid-July 2001 that “military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October”. Until July 2001 the US government saw the Taliban regime as a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of hydrocarbon pipelines from the oil and gas fields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean. But, confronted with the Taliban’s refusal to accept US conditions, the US representatives told them “either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs” (Inter Press Service, November 15 2001).

    4) The US Government ignored as incredible, information received by the FBI in April 2001, from a reliable Iranian intelligence asset, that Osama Bin Laden was planning attacks on 4-5 cities with planes, and that some of the plotters were already in the country and the attacks would happen in a few months.

    5) The US Government ignored as incredible, warnings for France’s General Directorate of External Security had warned the U.S. of a possible terrorist plot that involved al-Qaeda hijacking planes and crashing them into buildings some eight months before 9/11.

    6)The US Government just several weeks before 9/11, ignored as incredible,advanced warnings from the former Taleban foreign minister, Wakil Ahmad Muttawakil, that Osama bin Laden was due to launch a huge attack on American soil.

    7) Author Salman Rushdie is wrong for believing that the US Government had no prior knowledge of the attacks. His reasoning being that On September 3, the Federal Aviation Authority made an emergency ruling to prevent Mr Rushdie from taking internal flights in Canada and the US . The FAA confirmed that it had stepped up security measures concerning Mr Rushdie but refused to give a reason.

    So in sum, did the US government have prior knowledge of 9/11? Well it seems likely, but you can’t prove it, and nor can you prove that Winnie is lying to us on this occasion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Southern Raider (1,376 comments) says:

    Speaking of denile. I see the PM is commenting on that latest poll saying that the increase in support for Labour reflects what they truely believe is happening on the ground.

    I thought she didn’t believe in poll results or comment on them?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    You’re right Phil – this is starting to get all a little “conspiracy theory”. How about a wee example to show them all how silly they’re sounding?

    Here goes:

    What you have to believe in order to believe that the US government had no idea of the 9/11 before it happened:

    1) They US Government ignored as incredible, warnings from the Israeli Intelligence service, in the month prior to 9/11 that “large scale terrorist attacks” by Osama Bin Laden were imminent.

    2) The 9/11 commission were unaware of the fact that theywere wrongin asserting several times in the official report that: “The threat of terrorists hijacking commercial airliners within the United States — and using them as guided missiles — was not recognized by the North American Aerospace Defence Command before 9/11.” In fact, during the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, NORAD had carried out exercises in which attacks on the World Trade Centre buildings (identical to 9/11) were simulated.

    3) It was mere coincidence that several months prior to 9/11 the US government had already decided that, in October 2001, it would be taking military action against Afganistan.

    The BBC reported (September 18 2001) that Niaz Niak, a former Pakistan foreign secretary, was told by senior American officials at a meeting in Berlin in mid-July 2001 that “military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October”. Until July 2001 the US government saw the Taliban regime as a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of hydrocarbon pipelines from the oil and gas fields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean. But, confronted with the Taliban’s refusal to accept US conditions, the US representatives told them “either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs” (Inter Press Service, November 15 2001).

    4) The US Government ignored as incredible, information received by the FBI in April 2001, from a reliable Iranian intelligence asset, that Osama Bin Laden was planning attacks on 4-5 cities with planes, and that some of the plotters were already in the country and the attacks would happen in a few months.

    5) The US Government ignored as incredible, warnings from France’s General Directorate of External Security of a possible terrorist plot that involved al-Qaeda hijacking planes and crashing them into buildings, some eight months before 9/11.

    6)The US Government just several weeks before 9/11, ignored as incredible, advanced warnings from the former Taleban foreign minister, Wakil Ahmad Muttawakil, that Osama bin Laden was due to launch a huge attack on American soil.

    7) Author Salman Rushdie is wrong for believing that the US Government had no prior knowledge of the attacks. His reasoning being …. On September 3, the Federal Aviation Authority made an emergency ruling to prevent Mr Rushdie from taking internal flights in Canada and the. The FAA confirmed that it had stepped up security measures concerning Mr Rushdie but refused to give a reason.

    So in sum, did the US government have prior knowledge of 9/11? Well it seems quite possible. Certainly Condeliza Rice’s claim that the US Government had absolutely no idea that planes could be use by terrorists as weapons is ridiculous, and as former CIA director George Tenet pointed out “the system was blinking red”. But you can’t prove it, and nor can you prove that Winnie is lying to us on this occasion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. expat (4,048 comments) says:

    nice twist nome,

    try to associate smears against winnie and by association gummint with 9/11 conspiracy nuts (that you seem far too familiar with).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Nomestradamus (2,772 comments) says:

    Phillip John/Roger Nome:

    That is now two off-topic trolling efforts from you on this thread.

    First you claim “Looks a little fishy” – and then go on to troll about the Exclusive Brethren. Now you claim it’s a “conspiracy theory” – and troll about 9/11.

    You hijack yet another Kiwiblog thread. I hope DPF slaps you with plenty of demerits.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    Roger, who do you believe is the biggest liar?;

    1. Mike Williams
    2. Winston Peters
    3. Lianne Dalziel
    4. David Benson-Pope

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. getstaffed (9,188 comments) says:

    Patrick, a good many politicians lie. We’ve sadly become accustomed to it, or even to expect it. But the current crop are now conditioning us to accept corruption as the norm. And the MSM band plays on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    POC- They aren’t off-topic. I’m simply illustrating why you can’t take DPF’s argument as proof. Not the sharpest tool in the shed are you?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Nomestradamus (2,772 comments) says:

    Philip John/Roger Nome

    Oh you make it so easy for me. DPF’s original post says:

    Brian Henry and Winston Peters have said that until yesterday Winston Peters did not know Owen Glenn donated $100,000 to pay Winston’s legal bills. Now this is impossible to disprove unless someone leaks some more e-mails.

    Not the sharpest tool in the shed are you?

    Which of DPF’s 16 points do you find doubtful?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    POC- I wasn’t saying that DPF took it as proof. I was warning the many right wing frothers who read this site, against taking his post as proof (a few already seem to have done this).

    Not the sharpest tool in the shed are you?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    Getstaffed, Only getting Nome back on topic. I’ve noticed if you hit him hard for thread jacking he whinges about it for ages. If however you just ask him a ‘simple’ question (pay attention to him) he moves back on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Nomestradamus (2,772 comments) says:

    Phillip John/Roger Nome:

    Unsurprisingly, you still can’t see the irrelevance of the Exclusive Brethren and 9/11 in a thread about Peters and Glenn. Your position on the Exclusive Brethren, in particular, is well-known. And yet you quickly take a different position on Peters because, well, it suits you. New Zealand First good – National bad.

    An on-topic argument in rebuttal might actually address DPF’s post. So I ask again: which of DPF’s 16 points do you find doubtful?

    DPF:

    Have you read Audrey Young’s latest blog post:

    Here at the party convention at Alexander Park he has held perhaps the most graceless press conference he has ever held, and that takes some beating.

    And No, to the dozens of inquiries: Peters has not apologised for the personal abuse levelled at me last Monday when he employed the bazooka strategy – fire so many missiles at somebody else that people forget what you are supposed to have done. Though I did receive one from a very decent member of the caucus.

    Today Peters continued to say that the Herald editor and I should resign and suggested that he was the victim in all of this.

    Peters cut short today’s press conference and would not answer all questions people had for him. A top aide of his kicked a television camera tripod which injured TV3′s Sia Aston when it fell on her leg.

    Peters is foolish at times like this not to answer all questions. When he walks away from questions, abusing media as he does, it looks as though he still has something he does not want us to know.

    Peters doesn’t come away from this smelling of roses. Whatever the position is regarding the Glenn saga, the fact is he’s pissed off the press gallery just weeks out from an election, when he needs them on side – and that’s just bad politics.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    you really don’t get it..do you nosty..?

    can’t see the forest for the torts..eh..?

    ..’all your useless knowledge’..and all that..

    ..peters having a battle with the press plays right into his underdog stance..

    and for him..that’s ‘just good politics’..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    “Your position on the Exclusive Brethren, in particular, is well-known. And yet you quickly take a different position on Peters because, well, it suits you.”

    Actually I think that the obviously coordinated Key’-Brash explanation was about as credible as Winston’s.

    Did you buy their explanation of “Brethren Gate”? i.e. – “I didn’t open the emails”, (Copyright – Crosby-Textor).

    IMO both Winnie and Brash-Key were in the very least evasive and “economical with the truth”. To be honest, I don’t trust one party over the other.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Nomestradamus (2,772 comments) says:

    Phil:

    Ignoring your personal attacks (which is hilarious coming from you):

    ..peters having a battle with the press plays right into his underdog stance..

    Yes, Peters has played David the underdog well in the past, when he went after Golliath the corporate crooks. But things are different here: the media spotlight is firmly on him, and he’s playing Winston the Bully.

    Phillip John/Roger Nome:

    IMO both Winnie and Brash-Key were in the very least evasive and “economical with the truth”. To be honest, I don’t trust one party over the other.

    Arguably, Peters is in a far worse predicament, given his approach to transparency issues in the past.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. getstaffed (9,188 comments) says:

    So lemme get this right nome…

    You are a die-hard leftie, and the person (winnie) who is propping up the current socialist government, is shown to be corrupt. But that’s ok because the ends (ie Labour retaining power) justify the means.

    Which makes you, and everyone else who thinks like you ethically and morally bankrupt. Should the NZ public should be happy with 3 more years of this? (hint: the polls say they’re not happy with this at all)

    Oh, and all your foaming about Brash this, Key that is complete flannel… and you know it. The government you support (and that quite probably supports you) has the moral fibre of a jellyfish. Out they go. Chop chop.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    oh getstrafed – Said like a true believer. I only hope nobody goes and tarnishes your child-like and wide-eyed view of the National Party (you seem to be immune to facts), you sweet child…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. big bruv (12,380 comments) says:

    Oh come on now chaps, can we really expect Winnie to know everything that goes on?, for goodness sake, he is our foreign minister, it is entirely plausible to suggest that Winston had no idea what monies were in the NZ first account and indeed who have deposited said monies.
    Even today his close personal friend Brian Henry offered this by way of an explanation for Winston’s apparent ignorance of the Owen Glen donation

    ……..”the traditional allocation of executive responsibilities has always been so determined as to liberate the ministerial incumbent from the administrative minutiae by devolving the managerial functions to those whose experience and qualifications have better formed them for the performance of such humble offices, thereby releasing their political overlords for the more onerous duties and profound deliberations which are the inevitable concomitant of their exalted position.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. GPT1 (2,043 comments) says:

    Ok Roger Nome let’s play your game of moral relativism. Brash has gone. When will Winston go and when will your beloved Labour leader call for his resignation?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. big bruv (12,380 comments) says:

    GPT

    No no no!..the same rules do not apply to the socialists, remember, ANYTHING they do can be justified so long as they retain power.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. getstaffed (9,188 comments) says:

    nome, not a true believer at all. more of a true disbeliever after watching that last decade of NZ politics.

    your socialist mob have overseen the dismantling of NZ democracy by a thousand cuts. our economy is pretty screwed. is there a sign on Clark’s desk that says “The Buck Stops Here”? I think not.

    anyhow, i’m sick of it. and for the record I’d vote for someone with moral fibre first, and economic/ideological alignment second.

    back on topic, do you believe that winnie has acted corruptly? If not, why not? If so, should he resign or be sacked by Clark? If not, why not?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    I think Roger you miss a very serious point, I don’t know how getsaffed feels about National but I strongly suspect this person cares more about the bullshit that a party like Limbo the Melons and NZ last think they can get away with. You can talk or type as much shit as you like, if you believe you own the moral high ground on an issue like this then you sir are navie at best or a downright lying bullshitting sack of shit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Inventory2 (9,791 comments) says:

    GPT1 – here’s my guess. Helen Clark will call for Winston’s resignation on the same day that she stands down as Leader of the Parliamentary Labour Party. My prediction is that the day in question will also be the coldest day on record in Hades!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. calendar girl (1,108 comments) says:

    I would value Graeme Edgeler’s view on the following. If Glenn’s 2006 donation of $100k was not made to NZ First, but is ultimately deemed to be a donation to Peters himself (in that it relieves him of personal legal debt(s) in conjunction with his electoral petition), what would be the legal and / or parliamentary status of that donation at the relevant time, i.e. pre-EFA?
    - Would Peters have been required to declare the donation, either as a parliamentary candidate or as a Minister of the Crown? If so, in what form and by what date would such declaration be required?
    - In the event of Peters now being held to be in breach of relevant legal and / or parliamentary declaration requirements, what would be the potential sanction(s) in each instance?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Paul Marsden (935 comments) says:

    From what I have read, his mother RIP ( a pakeha), and his siblings, command ar more respect in Maoridom than he does.

    Pretty obvious, really…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Pita (356 comments) says:

    Peters would (still) argue for transparency in politics and that his party’s purpose is to “keep them honest”…the truth is in the irony of his transparent dishonesty.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Labour makes me BLUE (1 comment) says:

    Isn’t it obvious that poor Winston had the sign around the wrong way all along – after all the words that followed after the large print was upside down. It should have been portrayed as ‘ON’ (at the moment is my memory and honesty virtues – will close down automatically as soon as I am no longer in front of the camera)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.