Re-righting history

One of the most annoying things about the Peters saga is the way that Peters’ right-wing persecutors keep changing the facts to suit themselves. Take Farrar’s latest Peters-related thread (according to toad at g-blog about the 35th in a week!). He says:

“Apart from the motivation issue (Glenn has no motivation to lie, while Peters/Henry have plenty) of who is telling the truth, there is also the timing issue. Glenn has not just suddenly stated that Peters solicited the money. He told the PM this back in February. Peters denied it, and denied a donation, and the donation was later established to be correct… The fact of the donation has been established. “

Firstly, Peters’ initial denial was in response to claims that NZ First had received a donation of $100,000 from Glenn. It hadn’t. That is the fact that has been established. Farrar is wrong.

For example, here’s Audrey Young’s summary of 20 February:

“TVNZ has just reported that Winston Peters is furious with his party president and new MP Dail Jones over the comments he made this morning about finding a large anonymous donation in December and that he was “completely wrong. Peters also denied to TVNZ that the party had ever received a donation from Owen Glenn, which is accepted.”

Well, Peters was right. Dail Jones was wrong. Glenn donated the money to Peters’ legal fees fund. Glenn’s entitled to consider that he donated the money to NZ First, and I’m entitled to think that, as Glenn is not precisely correct about this and other details — does anyone really think that Clark offerred Glenn the post of Minister of Transport? — he could be mistaken about who asked for the money. Motivation is not necessarily a factor, despite what Farrar would have you believe.

And if motivation is a factor, it is simply not true endlessly to parrot, as Farrar does, John Key’s line that Glenn has no motivation to lie and Peters does. There’s this, for example:

Has the snub come back to bite?

Has the snub come back to bite?

I’m with toad, who writes:

“Now, I’m not suggesting the allegations against Peters are not serious. They are. But they are being investigated by both the Serious Fraud Office and Parliament’s Privileges Committee, and all will come out in due course.

“In a week when we saw Labour announce its Emissions Trading Scheme will go ahead and National announce it would be supporting tolls on roads, I would have thought both the MSM and bloggers might have been giving these issues some more attention.”


Tags: ,

5 Responses to “Re-righting history”

  1. barnsleybill Says:

    Pete, why are you continually defending the weasel words and linguistic gymnastics of peter’s?
    Try it this way: Peter’s is propping up a National led govt.. Then ask yourself if you would be so vocal in your defense of this crook?

    When did morality and honesty become so unimportant to you?

  2. jafapete Says:

    Actually, BB, I think that I would be quite uncomfortable about the way the witch-hunt had been conducted had it been a left-wing witch-hunt, and I’m not just saying that… I have criticised the likes of Mallard on more than one occasion because of the tactics they use.

    Weasel words and linguistic gymnastics? I’d say, arcane legal devices of the sort that the right-wing parties also use, but more competently.

    Nor has my supposed defence of Peters been “continual”. What I have been saying is that there are two stories. In one story Peters is guilty of rank hypocrisy at least, and in the other there is a clearly orchestrated and apparently well-funded campaign to eliminate Peters, and I think that the voters deserve to know the full stories before they vote and not afterwards. So that they can make a more informed vote.

    Reading Farrar’s innumerable attempts to pillory Peters would not help in that regard.

  3. barnsleybill Says:

    Okay, Pete.
    Let’s try a different angle.
    Did Audrey lie and fabricate emails? If your answer is no we are left with only two possible scenarios.
    1. Peter’s is a liar and has been caught. Or
    2. Peter’s is an incompetent fool who is incapable of basic recollection of recent events which is a sign of early onset Alzheimer’s.

    The smoke and mirrors around clark’s knowledge and activities around the Glenn payoff are another matter entirely and not something you are going to be able to debate dispassionately or objectively given your lifetime of immersion with the party workers party. So we should probably save time and not bother discussing it.

    But is Audrey a liar and forger?

  4. jafapete Says:

    BB, No Young did not lie or fabricate emails. She simply took an email that was factually incorrect (“Steve – are you saying I should deny giving a donation to NZ First?? When I did?”), and accepted that as true.

    Neither of your scenarios apply, since Peters did not lie when he said that Glenn did not give NZ First a donation. Glenn didn’t.

    One hopes that Young will not be so quick to accept Glenn’s account of things in the future, having been led astray by this email.

  5. barnsleybill Says:

    Linguistic gymnastics apply..
    So Audrey is naive and confused, Glenn is confused and Peter’s weasel words are gospel.
    Why would Glenn see a distinction between NZ First and Peter’s?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: