Winston’s story

September 17th, 2008 at 10:07 am by David Farrar

Poor old Helen. Just like Chris Trotter, she can’t work out what happened. She needs more time.

As a public service to Helen, and all readers, I am summarising Winston’s position below. Winston keeps insisting that he never had any idea at all of the $100,000 donation until 18 July 2008 when told him. So below are all the elements you have to believe, for Winston to be telling the truth.

  1. is lying when she says Peters called Glenn on 5 December 2005.
  2. Laura Ede is also incompetent as she sent Owen Glenn an e-mail asking him to phone Peters back, when Peters never called.
  3. Brian Henry did call Owen Glenn in late November 2005, and Owen Glenn is lying when he says he never spoke to him.
  4. Brian Henry can not prove this call because he was staying in a motel at the time, and he can not remember which one it was.
  5. Brian Henry as a barrister, does not keep receipts of his expenses, as that would tell him which motel he made this disputed call from, and the bill would have details of the calls made.
  6. Owen Glenn is wrong when he says he spoke to Peters after that alleged 5 December call, and they discussed the electoral petition.
  7. Owen Glenn is a liar when he says there is no way he would have ever donated $100,000 to Winston’s legal fees, without the request having come from Winston.
  8. Owen Glenn did call Peters on 14 December 2005, but they never discussed a donation. Owen Glenn is lying when he says beyond doubt they did, and the fact they even discussed it in enough detail that he upped the donation from $70,000 to $100,000.
  9. By pure coincidence Peters called Brian Henry one minute after that phone call, but they never discussed money or the donation.
  10. Also by pure coincidence Brian Henry e-mailed Owen Glenn 40 seconds later his bank account details, as he had his memory jogged about the earlier conversation with Glenn (the one Glenn and Ede deny and Henry can not providence any evidence of).
  11. It is normal when asking for a donation to just send bank account details.
  12. The reference to “Further to the call between you and my client at 1.30 pm” did refer to Winston, after claiming it did not, but no donation was discussed with Winston. Brian Henry mentioned the call by accident, and in reality it had nothing to do with the donation.
  13. Even though Henry now says the reference to “my client” must be Peters, there is still a mystery second client who originally put Henry onto Glenn, and this mystery client will not reveal their identitiy even though doing so would exonerate both Peters and Henry. Their need to remain secret is so powerful that it outweighs the fact he or she could clear Peters and Henry from potential disgrace.
  14. (brother of Labour MP Sue Moroney) is lying when he did an affidavit witnessing Peters thanking Glenn after Glenn asked if he got the money. Glenn is also lying when he recounted the thank you at Karaka.
  15. Owen Glenn donated $500,000 to Labour, $100,000 to Winston’s legal bills and lent Labour another $100,000, but then turned on them because they did not make him Consul to Monaco and because his lawyer once testified on behalf of Fay Richwhite, his lawyer coached him to perjure himself at the .
  16. Glenn never ever mentioned to Winston Peters in all their other meetings and conversations that he had donated, as Glenn is of course known as the soul of discretion.
  17. 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.
  18. Winston Peters never thought to check with Brian Henry if he had received money from Owen Glenn and that this is what he could be referring to.
  19. Even after the Prime Minister rang him and told him that Owen Glenn said he had donated money, Peters still didn’t think to check with Henry.
  20. Peters also had no curiousity about why Glenn would tell the Prime Minister he had donated money, and never thought to ask Owen Glenn (whose number he had). Despite being genuinely in the dark about the donation, he never thought to check with Glenn.
  21. 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.
  22. Brian Henry was aware the Winston Peters was considering appointing Owen Glenn as Consul to Monaco, and did not think the fact Glenn had donated $100,000 to Peters’ legal expenses was something that should be disclosed.
  23. 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.
  24. Winston Peters genuinely believed the e-mail was fake, even though the Prime Minister had told him of her personal conversation with Owen Glenn where Glenn stated he had donated to Winston.
  25. Winston Peters was not denying the e-mail’s accuracy because he knew the donation was to his legal fees, and not NZ First itself. He still at this point in time had absolutely no knowledge of any assistance from Glenn in any form.
  26. Winston Peters never thought of doing 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?
  27. Winston Peters never wondered why Steve Fisher was so desperate to make sure Owen Glenn did not contradict what Peters said?
  28. 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 referring to the $100,000 donation for the Tauranga electoral petition in Peters’ name.
  29. 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, which is why they waited until 18 July 2008 to announce the existence of the donation.
  30. Winston Peters at no stage ever knew of the donation until 18 July 2008.

This is an update on a earlier list I did on19 July.

And as I pointed out them, to beleive Winston’s story you have to believe not some of the above, but pretty much all of the above.

This is basically the story that the Prime Minister finds so compelling she can not make her mind up whether or not it is true or not.

UPDATE: As the Prime Minister is still striggling with this very difficult decision, she may like to also read John Armstrong’s column.

Just as the Moon is made of cheese and fairies live at the bottom of the garden, Winston Peters’ lawyer, Brian Henry, wants to believe that the now notorious phone call from Owen Glenn to Peters never discussed a donation from the business tycoon to pay the legal bills of Henry’s client.

I think this indicates a degree of scepticism. John is obviously finding it difficult to believe the story above.

However, the rest of us don’t live on Planet Winston where black is white, white is what you want it to be and the story changes as fast as the shop-until-you-drop former Philippines first lady Imelda Marcos changed her shoes.

It’s a funny thing. When you tell the truth there is normally no need to then change your story.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

63 Responses to “Winston’s story”

  1. Ross Miller (1,624 comments) says:

    David … are you going to ask that this be tabled at the next meeting of the Privileges Committee?

    Something to help unfocused minds become focused.

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

    and the verdict will be delivered by the voters..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

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

    Amazing isn’t it, that over all these years, until the internet exposed him for what he really was, Trotter has postured as an independent and objective commentator. How our media has been rendered so worthless by leftist infiltrators is nowadays so starkly obvious.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Dock (43 comments) says:

    Great Post.

    The above sequence of events and the fact that Helen Clarke will not sack Peters only reinforces that she won’t.
    Why you ask???

    Every Political pundit is asking that question.

    Obvious answer.

    He knows where her secrets are buried and man oh man would that put the cat amongst the pigeons for her legacy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Ross Miller (1,624 comments) says:

    philu … that is perhaps the most intelligent comment out of your 3180 posts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Put it away (2,888 comments) says:

    Damn it David, you put “Laura Ede” as the first word, how are we supposed to follow the argument after that ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. PhilBest (5,112 comments) says:

    Dock, it looks more and more to all of us, like that is the only possible explanation. Apparently Bill English hit quite hard in a speech in Parliament yesterday to that effect; “does Winston know where the bodies are buried?…….is Helen afraid of Winston going feral?……”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    Excellent list.

    Don’t think Trotter would say that he is objective though!

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

    And Helen expects the public to “trust” her !!!

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

    What part of “trust” does she think we don’t understand!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Bevan (3,965 comments) says:

    Amazing isn’t it, that over all these years,

    What I find bloody amazing is when philu stands up to defend Winston! A greenie standing to defend Winston! Surely this is a sign that the appocalypse is approaching!

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

    The Reader’s Digest version:

    Everyone except Winston and his lawyer is a senile, drunken liar in the pocket of special interests. Please disregard all previous versions of this statement.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. wreck1080 (3,533 comments) says:

    As I stated earlier. Winston could be photographed stabbing babies to death and helen would keep him on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. burt (7,096 comments) says:

    Even when the Lawyers refuse to back Winston’s fabrication the PM believes it…..

    Expediency before principle is a bad look when campaigning on trusts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. burt (7,096 comments) says:

    As I stated earlier. Winston could be photographed stabbing babies to death and helen would keep him on.

    Winston would only stab the babies of rich prick big business backers so it would be OK. Doooh.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. boomtownprat (281 comments) says:

    I see, when Winston said people will “choke” on the evidence that would clear him he meant……..with incredulous laughter!

    The man is a sad, tired old drunk and a joke himself

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

    Once again, the blogosphere, and Kiwiblog in particular, with the usual detailed analysis that is so conspicuous by its absence elsewhere, and by the simple manner of CALLING A SPADE A SPADE, shames the weak timid and compliant mainstream media. This should be headlines on the front page of every newspaper in the country. Klark and Peters should be facing charges. No way should they ever be standing for re-election. That they are is utterly outrageous.

    SO LISTEN UP MAINSTREAM MEDIA DUMMIES- WHERE’S THE DAMN OUTRAGE??????????

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

    Hear Hear

    Well said Redbaiter – it is simply incredulous !!!

    Every mainstream media organisation should be running front item news slots on how absolutely Hypocritical it is for Helen to be campaigning on “Trust” when she will not act on the most untrustworthy member that has been in her cabinet for the last nine years !!

    In fact I think the word “Trust” should now be substituted with “Tryst”

    I would trust Benson-Pope ahead of Winston now

    What part of “trust” does she think we don’t understand!

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

    Great post. re #11: “It is normal when asking for a donation to just send bank account details”. should it read “It is normal when not asking for a donation to just send bank account details” ?

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

    Yes where is the outrage

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

    In fact I think the word “Trust” should now be substituted with “Tryst”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. redbaiter_baiter (108 comments) says:

    Thanks DPF, a much more succinct summary than that in today’s NZH.

    I guess for educated left admitting that Winston is lying is admitting that Helen lying. That means admitting that their student-days dreams are finally dead.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. gd (2,286 comments) says:

    Yep That LAX and the diplomatic passport incident just wont go away I bettcha Luigi just has to hum the Joanie Mitchell song to Helen and any thoughts of firing him quickly leave her mind.

    If we had an MSM worthy of the name they would have put her out of her misery long time ago But no. Like the corrupt little lap dogs they all are they turn a blind eye .They are a pathetic shower and a collective disgrace to the name of journalisim

    [DPF: Hear that swopping sound of demerits getting close]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. redbaiter_baiter (108 comments) says:

    I think you are all being a trifle churlish with the MSM. If it wasn’t for Phil Kitchens, Audrey Young et al the blogo-sphere would have nothing to publish. Very few bloggers have the resources and/or skills to do their own research/digging.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. PaulL (5,776 comments) says:

    gd: that story has no legs. It is either entirely untrue, or those who know about it have determined that it isn’t good news. I suspect you don’t really know much about it other than to suggest there is something to know. It isn’t helpful to keep bringing it up, and I think DPF has awarded demerits before to those who continue to rumour monger about it.

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

    well said ratty-batty, let’s also not forget that one lying prick was calling for Audrey’s head on a plate, with the PM’s blessing/complicity not so long ago…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. slightlyrighty (2,449 comments) says:

    Clark is now posturing to keep Winston in the fold until after the SFO investigation according to TV3. I used to respect her political instincts, but it is difficult to see how she can effectively campaign on trust with this issue hanging round her neck like a millstone.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. casual watcher (289 comments) says:

    Helen is playing the perfect hand at the moment – you couldn’t ask for more and Winston will take her all the way the bottom of the pond where she belongs. If Key can keep chipping away and keep Ryall, English and Williamson quiet then maybe we have a chance.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. dave (985 comments) says:

    This is about politics not about who said what at the privileges committee.

    d`you know what I think may happen - the Privileges Committee may make a decision that is not as clear as the SFO’s decision – and the PM still wont sack Peters because Cullen will tell her the two decisions are not in sync.

    That’s why Helen Clark wants to let the process continue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. redbaiter_baiter (108 comments) says:

    “Klark and Peters should be facing charges” assume you mean Clark with a “C” ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. RRM (8,997 comments) says:

    “Where is the outrage[?]”

    Screaming political hatred is a blog thing. Step outside into the real world, and you’ll find it a strangely mellow place…

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

    RRM – There SHOULD be outrage when our political leaders (of any colour, shape, ideology…) lie, cheat, steal and corrupt our political process. it’s called demanding integrity. is that too much to ask?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. PhilBest (5,112 comments) says:

    And the last National-led coalition government (with Winnie, yes), had to commit what scandals, and how many of them, to be railroaded out of town and consigned to the political wilderness, by the MSM?

    And some socialist trolls try and claim the MSM isn’t biased? BAH.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. RRM (8,997 comments) says:

    redbaiter_baiter: When the charges are read out in Justice Redbaiter’s imaginary court, the prisoner will of course be referred to by her Redbaiter-name, which begins with a K.

    I imagine proceedings will be short in Justice Redbaiter’s court, because after all, all lefties are corrupt traitors, and everyone knows this. it won’t be a trial by jury, because as we all know, others “just don’t get it” and are “indoctrinated” by our socialist education system…

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

    Winston Peters and Brian Henry, the new Brothers Grimm.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. gd (2,286 comments) says:

    PaulL IMHO if the boot had have been on the other foot or the other party the MSM would have been all over it like a rash They proved they are one eyed by not investigating and disclosing.

    For 9 years some of us have had to endure a scantimonious hypocritical farce of Emperors Clothes proportions because the MSM wont speak up and speak out and expose unethical and immoral actions.

    Again IMHO those who stay silent when they see bad things happening around them are just as guilty

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Right of way is Way of Right (1,125 comments) says:

    It would seem like the only hope for Clark, Peters and co to remain in government would be to perhaps pass legislation that would make the whole electoral process complicated to the point of being unworkable.

    That way, after the election, they can run along to court, put injunctions on the result, and remain in place until all the numerous legal challenges allowed under a badly worded and rushed piece of draconian legislation are worked through.

    But they wouldn’t do a thing like that now, would they?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. PaulL (5,776 comments) says:

    Hmm. What is the punishment for being a traitor? Used to be summary execution didn’t it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. RmW (4 comments) says:

    This list is gold!.. I discussed this the other day with my lawyer and he agreed (after 30+ years in court law) that the level of evidence (rather the lack of) and changing version of events by Peters/Henry would result in a guilty verdict in any court case. The preposterous nature of Peters’ defence – basically arguing and side-tracking questions – would not be tolerated by any judge.

    But somehow the judge in this ‘court’ – effectively Helen Clark – isn’t even present at the hearings and somehow must rely on summaries from her own people present. Her dilly-dallying is nothing short of despicable and nothing close to the ‘waiting for the due process’ she claims.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. redbaiter_baiter (108 comments) says:

    The poll in the sidebar tells the real story.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Barnsley Bill (931 comments) says:

    DPF………
    Is that all you’ve got?
    She must be absolutely terrified that peters will drag her down with him. What other possible reason could there be?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Danny-boy (102 comments) says:

    I completely understand Clark’s position. Bosses often give specialised workers a lot of leeway to retain their knowledge in the company. Peters is just too valuable a Minister for her to lose. He’s what business types call a “mission critical resource”. He possesses some very specialised knowledge pertaining to foreign affairs, diplomatic passports, airports, and the like. I’d imagine, she’d really hate to lose control of that knowledge by sacking him. You know, to have that “mission critical” knowledge out in the marketplace … eh?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. burt (7,096 comments) says:

    DPF

    This business about LAX… Is there a public register of diplomatic passports, temporary passports etc? Seems like the longer this goes on the more the story grows. Would be good to know the truth – even if we couldn’t handle the truth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Barnsley Bill (931 comments) says:

    I suspect it is an urban myth, and if so is a particularly cruel one.
    The country has enough facts to base the electoral decision on without dragging a story about someones spouse into it.

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

    This would be the spouse who regularly gets a LOT of research money from goverment committees Bill? The spouse who writes letters to the editor without his spouse knowing anything about?

    I don’t think the spouses involvement is entirely a mtter of other people actually.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Barnsley Bill (931 comments) says:

    research money and letters to the editor are one thing murray, rumours about being caught in flagrante delecto in airport toilets are quite another issue and are particularly cruel if there is no basis to them.

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

    it is murray you are talking to..

    ..he spews bile without caring about truth..

    ..he attacks peoples’ children..

    ..and i have watched him do this for three years..

    ..normal standards of truth etc..don’t apply to murray..

    ..he is a troll..

    ..and even trolls sometimes try to make some sense..

    ..but not murray..

    ..slander/abuse is all he is capable of..

    ..phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. redbaiter_baiter (108 comments) says:

    “..he is a troll..”, how do you define “troll” philu ? Murray’s comments don’t strike me as “trolling”, but perhaps you have a stricter definition ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. KiwiChickenLittle (32 comments) says:

    I have just got off the phone from Peter Jackson. He has confirmed a new movie called Winnie in the Pooh…

    Starring Winnie as Winnie, Brian Henry as Eeyore, the dumb ass, and Helen Clark as Piglet.

    Funding will be sourced via donation (you didnt hear that from me)

    As Helen will be working at the UN, her part will be played by Ricky Gervais (as they look very similar)

    (Feel free to add movie ideas :) )

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

    john key:..’how i brought down merrill lynch.”

    bill english:…”how i brought down don brash.”

    simon power:..”how i wish we had gone to war”..(a military fantasy..starring simon power…)

    rodney hide..”my brilliant political career..!”..(or..how i lost some weight..and got a yellow jacket..and got eaten by roger douglas..)

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. redbaiter_baiter (108 comments) says:

    “john key:..’how i brought down merrill lynch.”

    bill english:…”how i brought down don brash.”

    simon power:..”how i wish we had gone to war”..(a military fantasy..starring simon power…)

    rodney hide..”my brilliant political career..!”..(or..how i lost some weight..and got a yellow jacket..and got eaten by roger douglas..)

    phil(whoar.co.nz)”

    Very Spike Milliganesque: “Hitler & my part in his downfall”.

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

    “he came from the crypt..”..(a political-horror flick..starring roger douglas..)

    “the return of the curse of the pompadour”..(another political-horror flick..starring peter dunne..)

    “..you cannot kill me..!..i will not die..!..”……(the story of the years of premature obituaries/funerals…they had him in his coffin..were about to screw down the lid..when he lurched back to life..cursing..and sending nattys running..covering their eyes..and screaming in fear..)..
    ..starring winston peters..and his victim..john key..

    “how i brought down nandor tanczos”..starring russell norman..

    “panty-slut boy”..(a political/horror/porn flick)..(r21)..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. redbaiter_baiter (108 comments) says:

    philu: come on , tell me which art gallery you are performing in ?

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

    “should i hang that rotting/stinking albatross..around my kneck..?”..a political comedy..starring rodney hide..and roger douglas..(as the albatross)

    “white-anted..!..my brief political career..”..starring john key..

    “white-anting..!..how i will bring down john key”..starring bill english..

    “motormouth”..a wacky comedy..starring..that guy who wants road tolls..

    “the biggest liars in the room.”..a political history of the national party…

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Dr Robotnik (533 comments) says:

    Band of Brothers

    A new mini series documenting the war against the truth. Starring Winston Peters, Helen Clark, Michael Cullen, Brian Henry and a bunch of other corrupt self serving thieves.

    D-Day is approaching.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. davidp (3,329 comments) says:

    >#4 Brian Henry can not prove this call because he was staying in a motel at the time, and he can not remember which one it was.

    But he knows the motel only keeps phone records back to 2006.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. GerryandthePM (328 comments) says:

    slightlyrighty (887) Vote: 1 0 Says:

    September 17th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
    Clark is now posturing to keep Winston in the fold until after the SFO investigation according to TV3. I used to respect her political instincts, but it is difficult to see how she can effectively campaign on trust with this issue hanging round her neck like a millstone.

    Clark is not campaigning to those who follow this saga.

    She is campagning to those hundreds of thousands who neither know nor care.

    If she is to survive she must brazen it out, and she will.

    Clark is telling them to trust her. What you and I think is irrelevant.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. slightlyrighty (2,449 comments) says:

    Brazening it out will not necessarily ensure her survival. The questions are coming thick and fast, particularly in the Blogoshpere, with regards as to why Winston has not been sacked. There are those in the MSM who are wondering why, and as Winston has found to his detriment, the truth will come out.

    Will it come out during the election campaign? Who knows. But the un-asked questions is enough for many people to have doubts in the person who is campaigning on trust don’t you think?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. redbaiter_baiter (108 comments) says:

    “Brazening it out will not necessarily ensure her survival. ” Gerry has it nailed: most voters don’t particularly care about WP etc. All that matters is their back-pocket.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Barnsley Bill (931 comments) says:

    We have reached a point where the PM is more scared of what peters might reveal than she is of losing the election.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Alan Wilkinson (1,798 comments) says:

    The Herald has a new story that the SFO is going to report to the Privileges Committee and Peters is going nuts about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Alan Wilkinson (1,798 comments) says:

    Here is the link:
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10532724

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. NeillR (345 comments) says:

    31. Or you believe in aliens.

    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.