by frog
I cannot believe that I am typing this, but I have the feeling that Winston Peters, via his lawyer’s testimony to the Privileges Committee today, has just wriggled off the hook. Even Rodney Hide was squirming in his seat as Mr Henry detailed a plausible version of events where Owen Glenn rings Peters, who rings Henry, who emails Glenn with bank account details, but nothing unseemly happened.
The whole thing stinks of rotten scampi, but nevertheless, the burden of proof lies with the accuser in such cases. As I write the committee is still in committee, so I am not making any insider’s announcement here. I just think that Peters’ tale is about to become the classic tale of the big one that got away.
What remains to be seen is whether or not the electorate sides with the black and white condemnation of Mr Key or the innocent until proven guilty style of Helen Clark come November 8th. It will also be interesting to see how harshly Peters is judged at the polls.
Whatever happens, I have no doubt that the size of the fish that got away will grow with every telling of the story, from now until November!
Published in Justice & Democracy | Parliament | Society & Culture by frog on Tue, September 16th, 2008
Tags: fish, Helen Clark, privileges committee, winston peters
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Frog
If you believe that you will believe anything, are the Greens that tied up with Labour that you are going to believe the word of Peters and Peters lawyer over the word (and overwhelming evidence) of Owen Glenn?
It seems that principle is the first thing the Greens will toss out the window when you are within sight of the baubles of office.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It’s like the Clinton sex thing.
There is little point being technically correct in terms of semantics when everybody just see the obvious.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Frog – you are off this planet. Plausible? Only in another dimension.
Henry admitted both him and Peters lied (sorry were confused) with their earlier testimony.
His claim to have phoned Glenn from a motel can be checked in a few minutes by Telecom.
If this was proof beyond reasonable doubt, you would easily have it. Glenn phoned Peters, within seconds Peters phoned Henry and again within seconds Henry supplied the bank account for the donation. You could send someone away for 25 years for murder with proof that strong.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BB – Give me a break! Did you even read my post? I think the whole thing stinks, and I said so. What I also said was that I think he’ll get away with it. Don’t put words or judgements in my mouth, particularly when it is clear i said the opposite in my post!
DPF – While I heartily agree that it stinks very obviously, it is a Privileges Committee, not a court of law, and as I said, I think he’ll get away with it. Nowhere have I stated that I think Peters is guilty or innocent of anything. It’s just my prediction of what I think will come of it all, having sat through about 2/3 of all the public hearings. In order to get Telecom involved, you would need a warrant and you would need to know which hotel Henry was at. Henry very conveniently claims to have forgotten where he was staying!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Come on Frog, if you insist big bro actually read posts and not put words in your mouth, he wouldn’t have much to say
.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Frog – In Privileges it is on balance of probabilities not beyond reasonable doubt.
You do not need a warrant for Telecom, just a letter from the Privileges Committee. And Henry has to keep financial records for seven years so I am sure he will have a record of the motel he stayed at.
Even if he does not, Telecom probably have the ability to do a reverse lookup on Owen Glenn’s number and list all calls made to it from NZ within those 10 days.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I guess dpf the question is whether or not the privileges committee wants to ?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’m with Frog on this, I think Slippery will get off the hook at least with the PC.Let’s hope the SFO nails him.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
big bro Says:
September 16th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
> If you believe that you will believe anything, are the Greens that tied up with Labour that you are going to believe the word of Peters and Peters lawyer over the word (and overwhelming evidence) of Owen Glenn?
Believe it? no.
Accept that it might be right and that therefore he hasn’t been proven guilty? Unfortunately, it may turn out that way.
Just like what happened with the Clint Rickards case.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
DPF – the point that privileges only has to balance probabilities was my point exactly. The probability that a group of MPs, who may themselves have to sit before sucha committee themselves one day, will convict one of their own when the evidence is conflicting, is very low.
I never said I liked it, just calling it as I see it playing out. Others will try and spin it as some sort of left/right issue.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
DPF – I do, however, believe that there will be an interesting split on the committee, that will be more about politics than ideology.
I am ready and willing to be proved wrong, as no other blogs agree with me. I still feel, however, that this fish will get away…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The question is, will “the fish that got away” get smellier and smellier to his fans over the next eight weeks or will these people forget ?
You have to hand it to Winston Peters, he is a remarkable survivor, with a very thick skin !
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Doesn’t Peters’ lawyer remind you of one of those Dead End Kids from early Warner films, changing his story as the facts emerge?
“Yeah. I remember now. Yeah. That’s right. Sure. It was Shorty. Yeah, Shorty done it. I saw him. I remember now.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
who gives a rats arse,
politicians lie.
So what.
Most people have no idea what this is all about.
I expect that Winston will punt hard with the elderly,
giving clear ideas how he will preserve their interests
and return with 5% plus.
Which is why Helen is playing it steady and John Key made a very big mistake to write him off.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
peterquixote, I believe that that your expectations are right!
The more I watch “Political Animals” in action, the more I realize that it can be very difficult to get rid of someone with a thick skin who does not want to go.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
peterquixote Says:
September 16th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
> who gives a rats arse,
> politicians lie.
> So what.
Politicians need to be trained. If we take it for granted that politicians will lie, there’s no incentive for them not to. But if we are clear about expecting them to be honest, and rejecting them if they are not, we should get better behaviour from them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Gordon Campbell writes well on this subject at
http://election08.scoop.co.nz/brian-henry%e2%80%99s-last-stand-at-the-privileges-committee/#comment-7282
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)