“She’s very self serving … I am expendable. I wouldn’t want them in the trenches next to me. It’s not the money, its the way you are treated, then you turn the dogs on me … toothless dogs.”
The last straw would have been Mallard and Cullen casting doubts on his mental fitness.
He said Mr Williams visited him on his luxury yacht off the French coast in mid-year.
Mr Williams asked him for a job as an “administrator”, he said.
Mr Williams told him that he was a good administrator and he was “articulate”.
Mr Glenn turned him down.
But Mike is earning almost $200,000 a year from his board appointments. Why would he need a job?
And who paid for his trip to Europe to target donors? Did taxpayer money fund it through one of his boards?
“Mr Williams is wrestling with the truth,” he has told a press conference.
It is harsh to call someone a liar, but Mike Williams has a track record. He told nine lies on Agenda about what he said at the Labour Party Conference. If you are willing to lie about what you said in front of 500 people, why wouldnt you lie about what was said at a private lunch?
In another story, Williams says:
Mr Williams said he did not discuss the donation with Prime Minister Helen Clark.
“There is never any discussion between me and Helen Clark about any political donations except those that are public.”
Now I could accept this is true for donations to your own party. The two big parties do try and shelter the leaders from this. But it would be quite another matter concerning a donation to an allied party. You see the question being asked isn’t one of money as much as one of relationships. What Glenn wanted to know is does helping Winston help Labour. Now that is very much a question for the political wing, and the Leader. And Glenn has testified that Williams and Clark speak several times a day.
How credible is it that Williams would not have mentioned to Clark in 2005, that Glenn was interested in donating to Winston?
Last night he disputed Mr Glenn’s version of events. “Mr Glenn asked me [in December 2005] whether I thought Mr Peters had any chance of winning the Tauranga petition and I said that I thought he did.
“I have no recollection of being asked or offering any comment on whether or not Mr Glenn should provide financial assistance to Mr Peters, and I certainly did not discuss that possibility with anyone else.”
Well the meal with Williams took place immediately before Glenn phoned Peters to say okay. Regardless of what Williams claims (and he is a proven liar) Glenn obviously placed huge significance on checking with Williams, and was crystal clear that he only donated because Williams said it would be helpful.
The Herald has a collection of quotes from Glenn:
“I don’t think people with forgetful memories should be Minister of Foreign Affairs.”
To be fair to Winston, I don’t think his memory is in any way flawed.
“I think people in elected positions and privileged positions need to act ethically and be trusted and I doubt he can be.”
Except with Helen, still hanging on waiting for the innocent explanation. Never mind she has known the truth for six months and could have had the facts established back in February with a phone call.
On Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen
“He’s a bully. I don’t have a warm and fuzzy feeling about him. He’s not the sort of guy I’d want to spend a weekend with on an island but he’s just following orders.”
What can one say.
And then the main Herald story:
Mr Glenn said by February this year the Prime Minister was fully aware of his donation to Winston Peters.
When asked if Helen Clark knew what the money was used for Mr Glenn said “she already knew that, Mike Williams would have told her”.
Asked what he thought of the Prime Minister, he described her as “very self-serving”, while Mike Williams, he said, “wrestles with the truth” .
And it is a myth that the PM had no choice but to accept Winston’s word. Says who? She could have asked Glenn to substantiate his claim he donated to Peters. He could have done so within hours. The fact is she chose deliberately not to inquire further, because she knew what the answer would be.
Basically Clark’s position is that she does not mind having a Minister who she is almost certain has lied to her, she just doesn’t want to have it proven he lied to her. So she just sat on it and said and did nothing.
Mr Glenn said he decided to fight back after a New Zealand First MP called him a liar in Parliament.
He said prior to being attacked, he would have “slid away quietly”
This morning he told Radio New Zealand that Labour might not have been in government without his $500,000 donation to it; “and here they are attacking me, and frankly attacking my credibility and my integrity.”
Mr Glenn said the Prime Minister had behaved out of self interest and wanted to keep Mr Peters on-side to get legislation through “and I was expendable”.
They have done more than attack his integrity and credibility. They attacked his mental sanity through backroom whispers to journalists.
And finally we have Monaco:
Earlier today, Owen Glenn told Radio New Zealand he was vetted for the position of honorary consul to Monaco and that Winston Peters supported his bid.
Mr Glenn said he had met New Zealand’s ambassador to France Sarah Dennis in Paris at her invitation where she had told him she was vetting him for the position.
“I said OK what’s your decision, she said `you seem to be alright”‘, Mr Glenn said.
In February Mr Peters rang him the day he was leaving for a trip to South Africa, Mr Glenn said. Mr Glenn was in Raglan at the time and says he has a witness to the call.
“He (Mr Peters) said; `I’m still supporting this, I want to push it through, I need a letter from you confirming that you are going to live in Monaco…”
And this is where Clark and Peters have both made huge errors of judgement. Helen Clark knew that Owen Glenn had donated to Winston Peters – he had told her. Winston was pushing for his appointment within Government. MFAT staff were vetting Glenn. And Clark did not disclose the donation to anyone – to MFAT. to the Cabinet Secretary, to the Electoral Commission, to her own colleagues who sign off on appointments, to the Registrar of the Register of Pecuniaryinary Interests. That was a huge conflict of interest. Clark as PM is meant to uphold the integrity of Government, and instead she stayed silent and set a new low.