This Tremain cartoon, taken from Homepaddock, sums it all up.
The TVNZ midday news saw political reporter Jessica Mutch try to explain what the Peters/Henry story now was, and you could see the palpable disbelief.
Colin Espiner blogs a line he stole from brother Guyon:
My dear brother Guyon has pinched a few lines off me over the years, so I’m going to nick one of his: The only testimony Brian Henry could have delivered before the privileges committee today that was less credible is if Winston Peters’ lawyer had simply said: “My dog ate it.”
Well the dog ate the phone bill from the mystery motel he claims to have ring Owen Glenn from!
New Zealand First insiders and Peters himself had talked tough over Henry’s recall to the committee this morning, claiming to some journalists that the lawyer would provide evidence this morning that refuted Owen Glenn’s version of events. He did nothing of the sort.
Indeed, everything Henry said and offered this morning in the way of evidence simply corroborated Glenn’s version of events.
You have to wonder what sort of morons talk up in advance evidence that actually proves their Leader lied, and corroborates what Owen Glenn said. Either they didn’t know what Brian Henry was going to say (which means they have blind faith) or they didn’t understand how damning it would be for Peters and Henry.
In my opinion, Henry offered doubt today but it was not reasonable.
Indeed. Reasonable doubt means exactly that – is it reasonable. No reasonable person can really doubt that Peters has lied. And as it so happens the Privileges Committee does not even need to satisfy the criminal standard of “beyond reasonable doubt”. They merely need to satisfy “on the balance of probabilities”.
Will this finally be enough for Clark to sack Peters? I doubt it.
I doubt it also. She needs Peters after the election, so that means minor stuff like lying the public, lying to the media, false declarations, and lying to the Privileges Committee are all forgiveable by Clark.
UPDATE: NZPA quotes the Laboru Party MPs trying to defend Winston:
Labour MPs said the way Mr Glenn and Mr Henry referred to each other by first names in emails showed familiarity.
So these MPs have no shame? no standards at all? They are so desperate to protect Winston (and incidentially declare their largest ever donor to be a liar) that their defence is that first names were used in emails.
This is so pitiful, I won’t even bother pointing out the gaping flaws in their argument. I’ll let readers do that for me.