Pathetic

September 10th, 2008 at 11:01 pm by David Farrar

I didn’t attend tonight’s hearing as I correctly predicted Peters would bluster, and even at the very end refuse to tell the truth. The universal reaction from those who did attend (and thanks for all the texts and e-mails) who briefed me was that Peters was pathetic, and produced no relevant evidence at all apart from a fanciful story.

Having looked at the video, and read his tabled statements I have to say that a very dim five year old could have managed a better defence.

Essentially Winston argues that yes Owen called him on the 14th of December but they never ever talked about money. And oh yes he probably did phone to say send your contact details to Owen, isn’t sure if he did but if he did that is because Owen asked for them, and he had no idea at all what it was about, and Brian somehow decided to send his bank account details instead.

Clark may wait for the to formally report, but her language indicates she may move tomorrow.

Stuff reports:

“I believe now that Mr Henry had called him on December 5 to solicit the funds and I believe Mr Glenn is aware of this which is why no evidence has been produced.

Yet no record of such a call has been tabled by Mr Henry. They have had several weeks to furnish any proof of Brian Henry having ever phoned . They have produced none.

Responding to questions from Napier Labour list MP Russell Fairbrother Mr Peters said he had no knowledge of Mr Glenn having donated money to NZ First until July 18, 2008.

“I thought at the time why would Mr Glenn be giving money to me? Mr Glenn is a Labour man. Why would he be giving money to NZ First?” Mr Peters asked.

Now recall that after he met with Owen Glenn in Sydney, his parliamentary staffer, Roger McClay, wrote to or e-mailed Owen Glenn asking for a donation to NZ First. So this mock surprise, is of course mock.

The NZ Herald reports:

Mr Peters again denied any prior knowledge of a $100,000 donation to NZ First or to himself from Monaco-based billionaire Owen Glenn.

And he maintained the allegations were a conspiracy against him.

Owen Glenn’s lawyer yesterday represented Fay Richwhite 15 years or so ago at the Winebox hearings. So obviously it is all a conspiracy sting operation masterminded by the lawyer and Sir Michael Fay.

“This is an attempt to undo the people’s will, bring down a government and govern alone,” said Mr Peters.

Hmmn, so National arranged three years ago for the donation to Winston, hoping he would be stupid enough to lie about it, so they could use it to undermine the Government. My God, how cunning.

Mr Peters said Mr Glenn also made mention he had a horse running in the Melbourne Cup and may have asked for lawyer Mr Henry’s contact details.

So Peters says he asked for Brian Henry’s contact details, he then immediately told Brian of this request, and Brian e-mailed Owen Glenn, and instead of sending his contact details, he accidentally sent his bank account details!

Anyway for those who want a laugh, here are the three documents tabled by Peters.

  1. winston-peters-statement
  2. brian-henry-letter
  3. memo-to-peters-re-2006-meeting-with-glenn
Tags: , , , ,

64 Responses to “Pathetic”

  1. Vinick (214 comments) says:

    There’s an excellent interview with Rodney Hide on Scoop following the Privileges Committee hearing

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0809/S00133.htm

    “bullshit on stilts” lol. Hide has been thoroughly impressive throughout this affair – makes me realise why he is required in Parliament. While the Nats sit around looking for sh*t to throw at Labour (and doing a generally disappointing job of even that), ACT are there putting in the hard yards to get some justice and honesty. As I say – impressive.

    As an aside, you have to wonder how long it will be before Ron Mark makes a push for the leadership against Peters. Would make sense – not that it would change the election result much.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. burt (8,232 comments) says:

    OK, so the ETS is passed ? Winston is toast – we are heading for the polls folks. Buckle in and enjoy the ride.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. NoCash (257 comments) says:

    How can this piece of shit sleep at night… ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Michaels (1,318 comments) says:

    How does the McDonald’s add go again?????
    Come on folks, one of you can do it….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. damocles (83 comments) says:

    It is hard to reconcile the cautious report delivered on TV1’s late news by Guyon Espiner (‘perhaps the most difficult outcome for the Prime Minister … she has to decide which man is telling the truth”) with the utter nonsense (a) spouted by Winston; and (b) delivered in the ‘evidence’ tabled by the former Foreign Minister.

    Has Guyon even looked at any of the paperwork? A random series of ramblings dictated by Winston (from the bottom of a whiskey barrel, one must conclude); an email from Brian Henry claiming (without a shred of proof, because of ‘client privilege’) that he has two clients in this matter, and this one is not Winston; and a bizarre memo from Marco Marinkovich verifying that he was present at a meeting in December 2006 between WP and OG, at which nothing untoward happened. No sh*t, Sherlock — could that be because the meeting was a year later than the events about which OG waxed so eloquent?

    Guyon, let’s put this in plain English for you: if Dear Leader has any trouble deciding whether or not to sack Winston, it won’t be because she doesn’t know who to believe. Try not to spin any more, OK?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Patrick Starr (3,674 comments) says:

    To use a favourite Winston phrase, “not a shred of evidence” was supplied by Winston.
    An affidavit by Vela Bros? -“NO”
    The phone records by Henry? – “NO”.

    Just more Bluster, Babble and Bullshit

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Buggerlugs (1,592 comments) says:

    I sent OG an email apologising for the fuckups that run this country last night. Now I see this (after studiously avoiding it) – all I can say is similar to a poster on WhaelOil: if peters wants decent people to decide, empanel a jury now and try the cynt.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Michaels (1,318 comments) says:

    You’re all useless….. ….. it’s….
    I’m lovin it!!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. carlyp (25 comments) says:

    I watched his opening statement on the extended Campbell Live (they promised so much but delivered so little, they should have kicked out the Simpsons and continued with the hearing) and quite frankly I couldn’t follow what he was saying, it rambled so badly. It was clearly evident though that he looked a broken man… body language was telling us what his words weren’t.

    …. edited to add that at least TV3 did decide to show SOME of Peters’ statement, they get a thumbs up compared to Close Up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Rich Prick (1,679 comments) says:

    I thought Winston was going to “choke us with facts” well all I’m choking on right about now is bullshit and bluster.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. damocles (83 comments) says:

    carlyp, re your comments about Campbell Live “they promised so much but delivered so little”:

    I, on the other hand, am full of praise for TV3 and Campbell Live:

    1. They extended Campbell Live in the first place;
    2. They lined up Bill Ralston to give immediate and unequivocal comment on the Peters performance (in this case, well-deserved instant condemnation);
    3. They went to 8pm but were willing to go to 8.30pm if necessary;
    4. They made the fast (and IMHO wise) decision to cut the coverage short and end at 8pm, because Winston’s ramblings were just so painful, meaningless and likely to lose viewers;
    5. At the end they didn’t just leave us wondering but pointed us to the streamed coverage on 3News.co.nz (where, sadly but not unexpectedly, the sudden bandwidth increase must have fried the server);
    6. They gave a reasonably fair analysis on Nightline.

    Meanwhile TV1 gave us Fair Go and the appalling analysis in the late news by Political Apologist Guyon Espiner.

    Well done, 3 News.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. dime (9,849 comments) says:

    will she flick him friday? not as many people watch the news etc?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    What I can’t work out is what happened to the document that Peter Williams claimed would clear Winston Peters in five minutes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. carlyp (25 comments) says:

    Damocles, I guess you’re right. We were just a bit disappointed that they cut out when they did… bluster and nonsense regardless ;) We were all thinking that the more he spoke, the easier it might be to figure out what he was trying to say! And yes it was good that they had Bill Ralston available.

    TV3/Campbell Live has definitely been leading the coverage, the Owen Glenn interview last night was fantastic (and what an interview it was!) and especially so when compared to seeing Mark Sainsbury stalking OGG through the airport with the camera continually cutting to Sainsbury like he himself was some sort of celebrity. It was painful.

    Fortunately we’ve got MySky so we can tape both and fast forward through the waffle.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. adc (590 comments) says:

    Maybe Winston just wanted some reddies to put on OG’s horse in the Melbourne Cup? He does have after all a professional interest (and some influence) in the GGs.

    I liked especially Duncan Garner’s quote… that Peters is…

    “dead meat”

    awesome. Even if he was wearing a bright red tie.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. davidp (3,580 comments) says:

    Damocles>It is hard to reconcile the cautious report delivered on TV1’s late news by Guyon Espiner (’perhaps the most difficult outcome for the Prime Minister … she has to decide which man is telling the truth”)

    That aspect continues to amaze me. The media think that Clark has a tough decision ahead of her… whether to sack Peters or not. Whereas it is obvious to the everyone outside the media that Williams and Clark are involved up to their eyeballs in the corruption, the lies, the smears against their biggest donor, and their passing an act that would clamp down on political donations and free speech but would specifically allow their own biggest donor to keep donating.

    Clark must resign. In an ideal world she’d up on charges. I can’t see how the media don’t recognise what is obvious to the rest of us and don’t ask her the hard questions. I have a hunch that they believe the PM’s own “competent” mantra that they keep repeating.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. noskire (839 comments) says:

    Thumbs up to TV3 for their extended coverage. I was disappointed that it was cut short (but all kudos to them for making the effort to broadcast this in the first place. When they resumed normal screening, I couldn’t access their web stream, so obviously a huge amount of interest in this story). WP was indeed making it painful viewing. When is this fucking charade going to end? Only when he is no longer an MP I guess…
    National is likely to govern after November, but not because of what they have to offer. It’s because of this corrupt bullshit apparatus that holds the reign at the moment.
    The polls are close at the moment – but I pick National will win by a landslide. However Key is not likely to survive the first term as premier.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Michaels (1,318 comments) says:

    Davidp, give cudos where due, …. Audrey. End of subject.
    However, there is no tough choice here, he will be gone……..
    “by lunch time”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Nomestradamus (3,244 comments) says:

    A fascinating exchange in parliamentary question time yesterday.

    First, Helen Clark describes Owen Glenn’s testimony as “disturbing evidence given to the Privileges Committee”:

    JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statement in July regarding the Rt Hon Winston Peters: “I’ve made it clear all the way through this round of allegations that I accept an honourable member’s word as his bond unless I have reason to doubt it.”, and does she consider, in the light of Owen Glenn’s statement to the Privileges Committee yesterday, that she now has a reason to doubt the word of Mr Peters?

    Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): Yes, I stand by the statement, and I am aware of disturbing evidence given to the Privileges Committee last night, to which there is a right of reply.

    Second, even though some of the “disturbing evidence” raised questions about Mike Williams’ credibility, Helen Clark continues to have full confidence in the <sarcasm> hardworking and ever-conscientious president </sarcasm> of the Labour Party:

    John Key: Is the Prime Minister aware of the statement made by Mr Glenn yesterday, in regard to a meeting they had in February 2008, in which he said “I also told her of my conversation with the Labour Party president, Mr Williams, before I agreed to make that donation back in 2005. It was my understanding Mr Williams would have to clear this with his colleagues.”; and does she accept Mr Glenn’s account of this conversation?

    Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Mr Williams does not accept that version of Mr Glenn’s account. Frankly, I do not have reason to distrust my president’s word.

    Third, thanks to Rodney Hide, we learn that taking an oath at the Privileges Committee exposes a witness to perjury proceedings under the Crimes Act:

    Rodney Hide: Does the Prime Minister agree with my advice to Winston Peters—that is, to take an oath tonight, expose himself to perjury proceedings under the *Crimes Act 1961, and tell the truth?

    Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: My understanding of the requirement of those appearing before the Privileges Committee is that they are acting, in effect, as though they were on oath in a court.

    Rodney Hide: I seek the leave of the House to table legal advice that actually taking an oath at the Privileges Committee does expose a witness to perjury proceedings under the Crimes Act—
    Leave granted.

    Frankly, political euthanasia is looking like the best option for Winston First (not just Winston-deep-in-the-Pooh, but also his clique of Tweddledum Tweedledumb and Tweddledees who continue to ask patsy questions in the House).

    As for Labour, the focus seems to have shifted to damage control. The problem for Labour, of course, is that Mike Williams was on Owen Glenn’s boat – not months ago but only a few weeks ago. Remember, as DPF so memorably put it, the story is Williams was visiting donors in London and decided to pop on over to see Glenn!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Tim Ellis (251 comments) says:

    What I found most interesting was the position taken by Green and Labour members of the Committee. A big contrast from yesterday, when Cullen and Fairbrother took a purposefully combative approach against Glenn. They didn’t give Peters an easy ride this evening, and didn’t fill their time with patsy questions. Instead they asked about issues that go directly to the heart of the conflicting evidence.

    That, along with Helen Clark’s statement today that she found Owen Glenn’s evidence last night as “disturbing”, suggests to me that Labour have pulled back from their suicidal tactics of protecting Winston Peters. Peters also appears to have pulled back from his previous main theme, that the Privileges Committee is a “kangaroo court”.

    As I understand it, the Committee will meet early tomorrow morning, while the House sits at the same time. I suspect they will deliver a near-unanimous verdict: that Glenn’s evidence is robust and compelling, while Peters recollection of events is flawed. They should rule that Peters should have known about the donation to Brian Henry, and that the donation should have been declared as a pecuniary interest. I would expect that decision to be reported by lunchtime.

    Labour clearly need a swift resolution to this effect, to give Helen Clark the excuse to sack Peters while allowing due process to follow course. The last thing Labour want is for the Privileges Committee hearing to drag on, because that will remove Helen Clark’s ability to sack Peters. The next likely witnesses to be called, if the Committee does continue, are Helen Clark and Mike Williams. That would be a train-wreck for Labour.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. noskire (839 comments) says:

    Nice analysis Tim.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. OECD rank 22 kiwi (2,746 comments) says:

    It’s time to go……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Winston.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Well, I reckon the media are using the Winston side show to deflect attention from Klark. This is much bigger than what Labour media cronyists sycophants like Espiner Ralston and Sainsbury et al make it out to be. It wouldn’t take much of a detective to come to the conclusion that Winston was paid off with the $100,000 in order to ensure the Klark gang remained in power.

    This is high ranking political corruption of the type one would expect to go unpunished in some banana republic, but NZ is supposedly a civilized western democracy with high standards of governmental law and order. There has to be some serious charges coming out of this, and not just as far as Winston is concerned. The media needs to stop covering for Klark and get on to the real story here. This is major political corruption and conspiracy to pervert the NZ electoral system. Not just Winston, but Klark, Williams and Glen should all be in the same damn jail cell.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Craig Ranapia (1,915 comments) says:

    “This is an attempt to undo the people’s will, bring down a government and govern alone,” said Mr Peters.

    Do you think the Committee could find a child to explain to Mr Peters how governments actually get elected on this planet? Much as I’d like it to be otherwise, the government is not changing this side of a general election. And it is up to at least 50% of those electors who cast a party vote to decide whether any party gets to “govern alone”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Dazzaman (1,138 comments) says:

    Gripping stuff, Redbaiters right, the real story hinges around Clark. The MSM, aside from an extra brave, though unlikely, foray by TV3 will NOT go for Clarks jugular except if Winnie cracks big-time, rounds on Clark/Labour/Williams and dumps em all in the shit. Oh, glorious day, let it be!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. DJP6-25 (1,375 comments) says:

    If this was the USA, a Special Prosecutor would have been appointed by now.

    I remember Richard Prebble saying that one of ACTs objectives was to destroy NZ First. Looks like they have almost acheived it. Well done Rodney.

    Imagine how those of us on the ‘right’ would feel now if Winston Peters had decided to go with National in 2005. there would be a mix of schadenfreude and cringing; not unadulterated schadenfreude.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. helmet (807 comments) says:

    Labour are such a pack or cynical self-serving arseholes. Now and only now that the ETS is passed do they pretend to get tough on Winston. They’re so transparent it’s sickening.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. OECD rank 22 kiwi (2,746 comments) says:

    You’re correct helmet. Hels has known integrity issues. Not long now until she gets the sack.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. OECD rank 22 kiwi (2,746 comments) says:

    With the number houses Hels owns courtesy of the taxpayer it won’t be long now before she compares herself to John McCain.

    Hels has shown herself up for the CORRUPT individual she is in this whole Winston affair.

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

    dpf..

    have you got the tumbril oiled and ready..?

    and got ya knitting..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. NeillR (351 comments) says:

    What I can’t work out is what happened to the document that Peter Williams claimed would clear Winston Peters in five minutes.

    They’re still waiting for the ink to dry.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. expat (4,050 comments) says:

    cant wait for the polls after this clusterfuck and public humiliation of all of labours ‘great’ and ‘good’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. dad4justice (8,137 comments) says:

    Trust, respect, honesty and integrity are a delusion for Ministers of the Crown. No doubt the serpent controller will come out of this smelling of roses and looking like a white dove.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Craig Ranapia (1,915 comments) says:

    And would anyone care to speculate on what Herald cartoonist Rod Emmerson, and the editor who cleared it to run, were on when this effort was cooked up:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/500814/story.cfm?c_id=500814&objectid=10531571

    I know “humour” is almost as subjective as “good taste”, but I don’t really want to know the kind of person who’d find that funny.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Chicken Little (741 comments) says:

    No one seems to have commented on Bill Ralston revealing that the third trustee of the Spencer trust is none other than Peter Williams QC.

    You’d have to think that as soon as Winston is cut loose most of the minor players around NZ1st and Spencer trust will start running for cover and spilling the goods to cover their own collective arses.

    It ain’t over yet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Put it away (2,878 comments) says:

    If Peters thinks a lawyer is guilty by association of whatever his previous clients did, then what’s he doing with Peter Williams ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. expat (4,050 comments) says:

    Craig, i can kindof see the joke if i close one eye and look sideways – the impending apocolypse for labour blah de blah but the allusion is best described as fucked up and very provincial..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Put it away (2,878 comments) says:

    Craig – I laughed out loud but have the distinct feeling I’m going to hell for it

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Glutaemus Maximus (2,207 comments) says:

    So Winston thinks he is so special that he should have a different court to adjudge his misdemeanors.

    Perhaps he should cast his mind back to when he first entered the house. Would have been told the rules of the game then.

    After 3 decades of abject naughtiness, he is now unhappy about being brought to book.

    Winston, if the kitchen is too hot, then get out of the fucking kitchen. You tired old drunk.

    Oh. I see you realise that you will likely rot in prison. Good job.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. JR (1 comment) says:

    In terms of the Priviledges Committee, why does it actually matter whether Winston knew the money came from Owen Glenn? He knew it came from _someone_. As Winston said in his own evidence, his lawyer was not working for free. Winston knew that he hadn’t paid the laywer himself. He also knew that the laywer wasn’t chasing him for unpaid bills. Therefore, obviously, Winston knew that someone else had paid his laywer. He knew that, and failed to declare it. Why isn’t that fact alone enough for the Commitee to find against him?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. expat (4,050 comments) says:

    philu said “dpf..

    have you got the tumbril oiled and ready..?

    and got ya knitting..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)”

    very witty, very life of brian. i like it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Mike S (229 comments) says:

    Did you notice how his hands were trembling as he talked? I don’t say this to gloat, but to point out how tense and scared he was.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Thomas the Unbeliever (141 comments) says:

    The most compelling evidence from Glenn relates to the events of 14 December:
    – the message on OG’s cellphone from Peters (which may have been a day or so earlier)
    – the email to OG from his PA advising of the message
    – the return phone call to Peters cellphone (made by PA until Peters answered then over 6 minutes with OG)
    – the email from Henry referring to the call to “my client” and giving his a/c details
    – the payment to that account (a few days later?)

    Peters, as a lawyer, must refute this. The easiest way would be to releae his cellphone records to show he bever called Glenn – and did’t immediately call Henry after the call from Glenn. Failure to produce the most basic corroborating evidence – which should be easily available – is the “smoking gun”. Peters is relying on bluster and side issues – but has failed to address (by supporting evidence and logical argument) the events of 14 December.

    Peters has offered no evidence for this date except:
    – bluster
    – confusion and forgetfulness over whether he actually gave Henry’s details to OG

    I am confused why focus has not narrowed onto this one point. Everyone – PC, media included, are to some extent giving some credibility to Peter’s bluster.

    Brent Edwards and Guyon Espiner – both of whom I ususually have time for – have submitted apalling analysis in the last few days.

    Unless Henry and Peters can produce satisfactory evident around these key evidential points – then their version is not supported and not believable.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Thomas the Unbeliever (141 comments) says:

    whoops! last post typed one-handed and sent by mistake – apologies for appalling typos!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. democracymum (648 comments) says:

    Helen caught lying in the house….

    Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Mr Williams does not accept that version of Mr Glenn’s account. Frankly, I do not have reason to distrust my president’s word.

    February this year Mike Williams was caught out lying over the $100,000 loan from Owen Glenn.
    At the time, when he was caught out by the media and offered to resign

    Helen told Mike Williams to “not be silly” it was an honest mistake.

    Where have I heard that line before?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Rakaia George (313 comments) says:

    Then there was Murky Mike on Sainsbury last night: “I’ve known Helen since I was 19 years old and I can say that she’s straight as…she wouldn’t lie.”

    F-s sake, I’m still trying to stitch my sides back together. (Whichever definition you use…)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Patrick Starr (3,674 comments) says:

    I think Campbell’s TV3 interview with Owen Glenn showed Sainsbury to be the wet bus ticket amateur he really is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. goodgod (1,348 comments) says:

    Winston is about to go into meltdown. Cullen is dimwitted enough to recommend he be sacked. Helen will sack him, she will then call an election. Then the depth to which Labour was invovled it the Glenn donations will hit the media. Labour will lose the election, NZ First will disappear under 5%, National will continue to support the crippling of NZ that Labour handed them in S59 amendment and the ETS. After one term of keeping the toilet seat warm for them, Labour will return at the next election.

    Now if you want to change this scenario to one where National are forced to act in a way that moves NZ forward to economic prosperity, give both your votes to ACT.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Ross Miller (1,700 comments) says:

    I too want to extend my congrats to TV3 for their extended coverage and analysis. Compare that with TV1 and you have a compelling reason for selling off State TV.

    And the aside by BW that Peter Williams was the third trustee for the Spenser Trust was fascinating. Surely Williams has a duty to disclose that to the Privileges Committee.

    And just to lighten up philu’s day I see that McCain has extended his lead over Obama to 45/42 in the latest poll which also reported the lift that Palin has given the Republican ticket ….”A solid majority of voters (54 percent) say they have a favorable opinion of Palin, while 27 percent assign unfavorable ratings. This gives the 44-year-old GOP vice presidential nominee the best ratio of favorable to unfavorable responses (2.0:1) of any of the four candidates tested in the survey. Moreover, Palin seems to deliver a greater impact to the top of her ticket than Biden does to the top of his. Palin moves 41 percent to a greater likelihood of voting for McCain; while Biden moves 35 percent to a greater likelihood of voting for Obama.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Ross Miller (1,700 comments) says:

    goodgod …. your 8.16 refers. So is this confirmation that ACT is actively campaigning for the return of Labour by mounting a two ticks campaign thereby increasing the chance of Labour retaining electorate seats and the additional resources that go with them?

    The good people of Epsom will be impressed NOT.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. getstaffed (9,186 comments) says:

    I agree with the comments above vis-à-vis Helen being protected by the MSM. She is eyebrow deep in all of this and yet seems to be given free pass after free pass by all but a very few jornos.

    I expect that any sacking now will be gushingly reported and bold, decisive, a well balance decision based on the facts and the kind of action we should expect from a leader of her calibre.

    What flannel.

    With the ETS passed (and the fuse set for our ideology driven, slow economic train wreck) we can be sure that any sacking is just another ethically bankrupt move by the most (cleverly) corrupt politician that NZ has ever endured.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. KevOB (267 comments) says:

    Was Peters drunk last night or taken some other substance? The man was pathetic and incomprehensible; not even back-bencher grade.
    I believe that he is not necessarily crook but suffering early alzheimers or alcohol related memory loss and impairment. I have seen this elsewhere and it explains the delusions, anger outbursts and other irrational behaviour. His reality is different from our reality.

    It’s likely Clark is aware of this and has been protecting him. Don’t expect her to sack him; expect her to call for the House to rise next Wednesday and the Priviledges Committee will lapse. If it does report, it will be to show the case not proven to a criminal standard and Clark will ‘want time to consider it’.

    Next question: will Peters actually be a candidate next election? As he now is, he would be hopeless on the hustings.

    Is all this charade a distraction from the real Labour plot to intercept National electoral plans and policy. Only a crook would think so; but aren’t we dealing with such?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Hagues (703 comments) says:

    democracymum
    “Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Mr Williams does not accept that version of Mr Glenn’s account. Frankly, I do not have reason to distrust my president’s word.

    February this year Mike Williams was caught out lying over the $100,000 loan from Owen Glenn.
    At the time, when he was caught out by the media and offered to resign”

    And lets not forget that he was caught repeatedly lying about never saying “thats a damn good idea” to the suggestion that Labour rip off the taxpayer for election advertising.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. llew (1,533 comments) says:

    How can this piece of shit sleep at night… ?

    I don’t think he does.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. goodgod (1,348 comments) says:

    Ross, we can agree to disagree right now and avoid either one of us becoming the next philu on this blog.

    ACT need to be in parliament. Two ticks, where possible, will get them there. National have proven they’re no better than Labour, indeed, they’re a little more dense. From the outset there was only an improved education and justice policy that differentiated John Key’s National from Labour. The smacking amendment was to be repealed, C.I.R’s were legitimate democratic acts and John Key stated that any party dissmissing the voice of the people would be dealt with in the polls. It’s still on his website now. Now that is dim. An ETS wasn’t on the radar yet.

    So you tell me:

    The next (National policy) educated generation are going to do what with their sklls? Hang around in a country crippled by the ETS? Doing what? Discovering new ways to weave flax? Nope, they’ll take off over seas. It contradicts the latest National billboard doesn’t it? And those that were sold a vision of being able to change their circumstances through effort – how will they stand up under the huge increases in prices? So now the “vision” has been undermined too. For chrissake, all National had to do was delay the bill. Were they all half cut and dozy?

    And how did an adament, “we’ll repeal S59, and support parents to make their own decisions”, now turn into – “we won’t change it, regardless of a referendum outcome, unless I see good reason”? Sounds familiar doesn’t it?

    John is doing a great job of going against everything he said he will do. I no longer believe he’ll repeal the EFA. Why should he? He’s already stated he’s going to ignore the voice of the people over S59 and he’s encouraged us to judge him for it. Fine, I’ll judge him.

    When National start following up on their words, they’ll prove to me they will be around for longer than one term. But going on the events of the past year, it will be nothing more than stagnation in the current economic climate. It will be clear for all to see how National is Labour lite – all the policy Labour has enacted, with none of the momentum. ACT will provide the vitality sorely lacking in this version of the National Party.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. getstaffed (9,186 comments) says:

    The Labour Creed appears that it’s fine to lie.

    The error is to be caught.

    If caught, then lie some more. Blame someone else and smear their character. Use weasel works like ‘I don’t recall’ to give oneself wiggle room in future.

    Continue to lie but, for God sake, make sure the heat of your lies is not felt by your superiors. Subordinates yes, but superiors… definitely no.

    If the heat continues to be piled on use influence over the MSM (the loyal ones that have been trained and ‘looked after’) to create a diversion.

    And we wonder why there’s a breakdown in personal integrity across NZ. It is – in part at least – because this moral bankruptcy is being modelled by the supposedly highest office in the land.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. llew (1,533 comments) says:

    Mr Williams QC must feel like a bit of an arse.

    he might be the only one who doesn’t feel he is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. slightlyrighty (2,471 comments) says:

    I’ve just heard that Clark is keeping Peters on for now. I have had great (although grudging) respect for her political judgement, so why this political suicide all of a sudden?

    Does she still seriously believe him?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. MikeE (555 comments) says:

    Ross Miller …. your 8.24 refers. So is this confirmation that National is actively campaigning for the return of Labour by mounting a two ticks campaign thereby increasing the chance of Labour retaining electorate seats and the additional resources that go with them?

    The good people of Epsom will be impressed NOT.

    See how easy it is Ross? National actually have to win electorate seats by gaining more votes than Labour – simple. Votes belong to voters, not to the National Party. Oh, and before you portray my example above as perverse, do you think an all-out two-tick campaign for National in Epsom would increase, or reduce their chances of being Government in two months time?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. getstaffed (9,186 comments) says:

    Does she still seriously believe him?

    Perhaps she believes he’ll make good his threat to detonate that LAX political vest she’s wearing

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. big bruv (13,718 comments) says:

    Klarks decision to keep Peters on is a political gift for John Key, now we have to hope that he does not fuck up this opportunity like he has with every other.

    Like many others here, I really have to wonder just what hold Peters has over Klark, she would not put up with this type of behaviour from any of her ministers and she no longer needs his support in the house, whatever Peters has on her it must be dynamite.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Alice (17 comments) says:

    My prediction is that Clark will never ever sack Peters – she will leave it for the Privileges Commitee, SFO, Police or anyone else looking into Winston Peters to do the sacking for her. This is because Peters has a huge pile of dirt on her and has made it very clear that if she takes him down, he’ll take her down with him.

    However, once he is eventually sacked by the parties invesitgating him, he will go for the juggular and make public all of the stuff Clark has been up to behind the scenes – especially over the last term in Government. Clark’s response to all of Winston Peters accusations against her will be to just state that he is ‘confused’ and ‘a drunk’ and is just angry over his sacking.

    The irony in all of this is that when Winston Peters does go public with the dirt he has on Clark – he really will be telling the truth then (for the first time in his life) and yet no one will believe him because Clarks smear campaign against him will be in full throttle by then and it will be too late.

    Clark is more than up to her neck in this one. She is centre stage. Her moral compass went out the door years ago (if she ever even had one). My bet is that her involvement in the Owen Glenn scandel is only the tip of the ice berg and we won’t know all of the other shoddy dealings she’s been up to until there is a change in government and all the people she has double crossed over the years feel brave enough to come forward.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Chuck Bird (4,847 comments) says:

    Rodney said he was surprised Winston was not sacked. I certainly wasn’t as I stated yesterday on another thread. Rodney needs to step up the pressure on Peters and Clark as Key won’t. He has Parliamentary privilege he should use it.

    He should ask Peters about what he knows about Davis leaving the US on a diplomatic passport.

    This should be pursued. No one can say for certain if the rumour about political cover up of suspected criminal offending is true but the public have a right to know if this has occurred.

    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.