Tuesday, September 9, 2008

Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?

So, all those right-wing bloggers out there who've been eagerly awaiting Owen Glenn's visit so he could bring down Helen Clark, sink the govt, demonstrate Labour Party corruption, etc, etc, froth froth gibber - I guess you guys must be feeling pretty let down right about now, huh?

64 comments:

chicken little said...

The press interviews in Auckland tomorrow may make it a bit more interesting for you Milt.

Whaleoil said...

huh! Did you read the same evidence i did?

He has single-handedly stuffed the whole bloody lot of them.

Barnsley Bill said...

PM, are you being ironic?

Psycho Milt said...

No, I'm not. Glenn seems to have shafted Peters pretty thoroughly, and good riddance. He's said nothing to indicate any corrupt activities by Labour, though. Fairfacts' mound of speculation and non-sequiturs notwithstanding, there's just nothing there.

Josh said...

So Owen Glenn is Sid Vicious? Would that make Helen Clark Nancy Spungen? There's an image.

Psycho Milt said...

I realised it wasn't a very good title, Josh. The original phrase came at the end of "No Fun," but so far this whole Peters circus is proving to be lots of fun.

Frankly, I don't believe Sid Vicious would have fucked Helen Clark at any age, and she wouldn't ever be so out of control as to become a junkie. Hmm - yes, on reflection it's a crap title.

Budgieboy said...

Jesus Milt, when you run this kind of crap you really do become one of them… and all that that entails.

Williams is too stupid to come in out of the rain and could not, WOULD NOT have advanced this without Clark. Clark knew, she not only knew but she approved the payment (and without that approval nothing would have ever been paid)

PLEASE don’t tell me you have any doubts about that???

For 9 years we have been told what a tight ship she runs and how nothing happens without her or H2s ok … or is that not really the case when it suits you guys?

mawm said...

He's said nothing to indicate any corrupt activities by Labour

Ummmnnnnn....Mike Williams new about the donation to Winston - fact. Williams took several days to clear it with his party - fact. Williams has been around Glenn again with the begging bowl (you know about the 'Glenn' clause in the EFA?) and had 4 phone calls in one day from helen while he was on Glenn's yacht - fact. Certainly seeems like helen knew about the donation all along. So that makes her a liar.

However it is too much to expect that helen and her band of fools would suddely find some integrity somewhere. Cullen is trying to paint their biggest donor (after the unwitting NZ taxpayer) as feeble-minded and mallard is trying his best to smear the Nats whilst behaving like a cheap receiver of stolen goods down a dark alley.

So who is left to support poor old labour? Either gullable idiots or people 'on the take' who are getting generous allowances for being lazy and lacking in personal drive. Which are you PM?

mawm said...

Oh! - I forgot, helen has lied to Parliament. Proud of her PM?

Psycho Milt said...

Williams is too stupid to come in out of the rain

That's how he got to be so rich, right?

You know, it doesn't matter how often you repeat your view that Helen Clark was responsible for all this, it doesn't make it any more likely to be true. Unfortunately, a firmly-held belief is not equivalent to evidence, and my post is about the fact that Glenn has provided no evidence to back your view.

Mike Williams new about the donation to Winston - fact. Williams took several days to clear it with his party - fact. Williams has been around Glenn again with the begging bowl (you know about the 'Glenn' clause in the EFA?) and had 4 phone calls in one day from helen while he was on Glenn's yacht - fact.

I'm still at a loss as to what crime this is meant to be evidence of. Anybody?

Which are you PM?

Someone who has never voted for a Labour Party led by Helen Clark. What's your point?

Barnsley Bill said...

the link to the glenn interview is now up at my place.

Budgieboy said...

Is our Mikey Rich then?

Spose you would have to be to jet set around the world consorting with billionaires.

But then again, Mikeys got his snout firmly planted in the Public trough hasn't he?

And all those Directorships he has have been totally made on merit…NOT.

But back to the issue at hand.

Our Prime Minister has behaved very very badly on this and if her supporters will only accept that fact with High Definition Video of her caught in the act, then more fool them.

For all your baiting and beliefs (that I obviously disagree with) I don't believe that you for one are that stupid Milt.

Anonymous said...

I think PM purposefully says stupid things so he gets a reaction - bit like philuseless at kiwiblog!

JC said...

PM,

If you are saying that there's no hard evidence against Williams and Clark that would place them in the action back in August 05, I'd agree.

But what Glenn has opened up is another fruitful line of investigation into Labour's actions at that time. The allegations are that Williams, Clark and the caucas were involved back then and for the sake of reputation there needs to be a response.

But get this, Glenn is still holding back. Provided his mouth doesn't run away with him (or didn't in the Campbell interview), you should have noted that Glenn didn't produce any emails from Williams back to Glenn.

If Clark/Williams deny the Aug 05 allegations I suspect we will see some more emails from Williams saying to support Winnie but that it has to be cleared by colleagues/caucus/Clark.. whatever.

My guess is the PC will be reminded of it's limited brief and can't go fishing, that Clark and Williams will bluster without attacking Glenn and prefer to leave a bad impression with the public and hope to make up ground with a late election.

I also wouldn't be surprised if Glenn and Williams have a bit of a pact going that doesn't include Clark. Those two will see future business opportunities between them that may, or may not include Labour sans Helen.

I smell resignation(s).

JC

Psycho Milt said...

Is our Mikey Rich then?

Gaak - brain fritzed out there for a bit. I read "Williams" and thought "Glenn," which is not bad going as they're hardly homonyms. Apologies for the bizarre error.

Which doesn't get us much further. You guys have an enormous hole to fill in: Glenn says he was approached by one of Labour's coalition partners for a donation, he checked with Labour if they had any problems with that and they didn't, so he gave them some dosh. From there, you've leapt across a yawning logical chasm to posit some conspiracy in which Helen Clark has Mike Williams arrange the whole thing (the whole entirely legal thing, we should note - ie, even if your conspiracy theory should by some miracle turn out to be correct, a conspiracy to commit entirely legal acts is really not much of a discovery).

The term "non sequitur" is really just not robust enough to describe this level of logical disfunction. I'm still waiting for someone to fill that gaping hole in the conspiracy theory with something other than their own fervent belief - anyone got anything?

Psycho Milt said...

JC: allegations of not having objected to somebody donating money to a political party are not exactly the stuff that great corruption scandals are made of...

Frank said...

Jesus you are obviously inhabiting the same fucked up planet of the losers that Clark is on. What a twat. The PM misled Parliament. What part of that don't you understand, knuckle dragger?

Barnsley Bill said...

PM, I have a great deal of sympathy for your position. However we have a situation where a foreigner is being tapped for donations to sweeten the path for his favourite party.
This is being carried out during a climate of extreme vilification against a group that tried to spend it's own money to influence the outcome of what was probably the most corrupt election we have ever had. The benefactor of all this easy money then spent two years ramming through a piece of legislation so odious that almost the entire country railed against it... They did however leave a wormhole to allow the foreigner to donate again.
He has declined though, so fuck em... They shot themselves in the foot.

Budgieboy said...

Goodness me Milt,

Acknowledgement of a simple mistake?

Honesty?

Humility?

An Apology???

God damn it man I knew you weren’t a real leftie!!!

Cos if you were brother, you just threw away the playbook and will be on limited rations for the next month.

Simo said...

The TV3 interview with Johnnie Campbell is hilarious, OG just drops Liarbour & Winston First right in it, I now know why Peter "Suckhole" Williams is representing Winston, because it will eventually become a criminal investigation.

Anonymous said...

He's said nothing to indicate any corrupt activities by Labour,

Bzzt! Wrong!

he confirmed that Labour bought the 2005 election with is money

He payed for Labour's illegal billboards, advertising & furnished the cast for their corrupt overspending.

He payed for Winston to stay loyal to Helen.

He offered the same deal to the Maori Party.

He offered the same deal to the Greens who got a smaller version of it.

Chances are Dunny also got some.


the only parties he didn't mark out as clearly corrupt are National and ACT --- and the Maori Party assuming they really, really, truly, truly, didn't take any of his money --- no loans, no smaller donations to legal fees or offices... nothing what soever... (yeah right)


which Helen Clark has Mike Williams arrange the whole thing (the whole entirely legal thing,

It's not about whether it was legal or not.

The point is simple:
Labour bought the 2005 election with Glenn's money. And today he told the country how they did it.



arguably not illegal.

morally corrupt.

Spam said...

(the whole entirely legal thing, we should note - ie, even if your conspiracy theory should by some miracle turn out to be correct, a conspiracy to commit entirely legal acts is really not much of a discovery).

Well, unless its the Exclusive Bretheren conspiring to do it, of course.

Anonymous said...

Milt, what is constantly forgotten over this, and I wish a decent journalist would ask this question, (I have been trying to get Rodney to ask it in Parliement to no avail) is this.

Helen Clark is self-proclaimed as Labour's "Chief Political Strategist" She said that herself.

How can the Chief Political Strategist not know of this Chief Political Strategy?

Gooner

Psycho Milt said...

I don't recall anyone ever suggesting the Exclusive Brethren had done anything illegal in running a covert campaign on behalf of National.

Labour bought the 2005 election with Glenn's money.

Obviously I'm going to have to re-state this a lot, but here it is again: your firm belief that this is the case matters not a rat's ass to anyone but you.

I'm still waiting for someone to cross that logical chasm with something approaching actual evidence of corruption.

Psycho Milt said...

Gooner, I'm still waiting for anyone to tell me how not objecting to someone donating money to a political party is corrupt. Williams knew, Clark knew, for all I know their hairdressers knew too - the point is, knew what? That Glenn made a donation to NZ First? As he was absolutely entitled to do if he felt like it? What crime exactly are we uncovering here?

dad4justice said...

Psycho Melt, if you have any sense of dignity you will distance yourself from Miss Clark, because she is a lying criminal totally unfit to be Prime Minister!

Barnsley Bill said...

This is far and away the most successfull dog whistle post seen here for months.. 27 comments so far..
Well done PM.
FFM should drop in to clean the rover immediately.

Anonymous said...

Milt, let me put the question back at you: if Clark is so squeaky clean, why didn't she just come out and say "yeah I knew all about this and I authorised it".


Gooner

Psycho Milt said...

The ways of politicians are obscure to me, Gooner. If I was her and was asked about that in the House, I'd have given a response more along the lines of "None of ya fucken business, Tory" - which would have been entirely accurate, if none too polite. Why politicians dig these holes for themselves is beyond me - for instance, why did Brash try to pretend he'd had nothing to do with the Exclusive Brethren? A straight answer up front, or a "None of ya fucken business" would have served him a lot better in the long run, as it would have Clark in this instance.

FAIRFACTS MEDIA said...

Evening everyone.
PM's doing his bit to boost us in the Tumeke! ratings.
More comments means more points.
More points helps us get higher up the rankings.
Glenn has laid the ground well for new avenues of enquiry as well as destroying what little credibility Winston had.
He has also fingered Williams and the involvement of Liarbour big time.
Well, I can't wait to hear the Owen Glenn press conference tomorrow.
I only wish there were a few bloggers present to ask some pertinent questions, just to make sure we get the dirt on Uncle Helen.
God, maybe Whale Oil should do one of his videoblog podcasts like he did with Rodney Hide a while back.
I am sure Owen Glenn might have an hour to spare.

Gooner said...

Milt, yep. The golden rule about shutting down an issue is to actually shut it down. No comment. STFU. Wasn't obeyed here and here's the result.

Spam said...

I don't recall anyone ever suggesting the Exclusive Brethren had done anything illegal in running a covert campaign on behalf of National.

Exactly. So why did it get so much coverage?

And by the same logic, why shouldn't this?

Anonymous said...


I'm still waiting for someone to cross that logical chasm with something approaching actual evidence of corruption.


Still don't get it do you.

It's a matter of public record Glenn:

* paid Labour over $600,000 before the last election
* paid NZF over $100,000 on the instructions of Labour and on the condition they supported Labour for 3 years.

someone (mostly likely Glenn, he hasn't been asked but surely will be)
* offered the Maori Party $250,000 on the condition they supported Labour for three years
* may well have made similar offers to the Greens and Peter Dunne


It is a matter of public record that Labour bought themselves a coalition with Owen Glenn's money after the 2005 election.

again: this may not be illegal.

but it is deeply morally bankrupt.


And Kiwis do not want such a morally bankrupt bunch of parties in government, in parliament, or even contesting elections!

Anonymous said...

Sorry PM, I'm guilty as charged with the offence of "Thought Crimes"

There is no evidence of our great leader ever queering the pitch.
I offer no excuses and throw myself on the leniency of the all knowing and wise state.

I shall dress warmly, pack my tin mug and best shovel and report for duty in the gulag.

All power to our many titted empresses and their ball-breaking cohorts!

investigate said...

Actually Milt, arguably it IS illegal.

The Crimes Act specifies that offering or asking for money to/by an MP on condition they do something or omit to do something is a crime punishable by up to seven years' jail, as I point out in the current issue of TGIF Edition.

It is arguable that if Glenn made the donation to Peters to ensure that NZ First supported Labour, that a good prosecutor could argue this was a political bribe within the definition of the Crimes Act.

It is also arguable that if Mike Williams encouraged Glenn to pay Peters as a means of keeping Winston onside, this is caught by the same section of the Act.

The offer to the Maori Party was seen by everyone as a bribe. The payment to NZ First is little different.

Psycho Milt said...

[Glenn] paid NZF over $100,000 on the instructions of Labour and on the condition they supported Labour for 3 years.

You are the one who still doesn't get it, anonymous fascist. The fact that you fervently believe the above and similar statements to be true, does not make them true. What you have evidence is for is the first, entirely innocuous bit: Glenn paid NZF $100,000. The rest has been filled in by your paranoid fantasy on the basis of no evidence. You, as a voter, are entirely free to leap to these evidence-free conclusions and place your vote accordingly, but don't try and tell me I have to leap to the same conclusion.

Psycho Milt said...

It is arguable that if Glenn made the donation to Peters to ensure that NZ First supported Labour, that a good prosecutor could argue this was a political bribe within the definition of the Crimes Act.

It is also arguable that if Mike Williams encouraged Glenn to pay Peters as a means of keeping Winston onside, this is caught by the same section of the Act.


Well, sure. Just like it's also arguable that if Glenn and Williams conspired to rob a bank together it would be covered by the Crimes Act - but to make such an argument you'd need some evidence that they'd actually conspired to rob a bank. In the absence of such evidence, arguing that they conspired to rob a bank together would just make you look rather silly. Do you see where I'm going with this?

Psycho Milt said...

Spam: the EB running a covert campaign on behalf of National was news because convincing evidence was provided that Brash had arranged it with them and then lied about it.

Uncover some evidence that Clark arranged this donation to Winston in order to bribe him to go into coalition with Labour, and yes you've got a news story, yes Clark would have to resign, and so on. But as I've written throughout this thread (to general incomprehension I must say), in the absence of such evidence, what you have is not a news story but a personal belief.

FAIRFACTS MEDIA said...

I've only just got round to viewing Campbell Live.
Recommedned viewing for everyone.
Regardless of the technical legalities, neither Winston and Labour come out out of it well.
I'm nore sure about the Hive saying Labour will slump to such an extendt the Greens become the opposition, but it surely should cost Liarbour much support.
And it is still ealry days yet.
So when it suits them, Uncle Helen and co will throw their biggest supporter to the lions.

Murray said...

How wet is that Egyptian river you're sitting in Milt?

Heine said...

I can't believe it, but nothing surprises me these days with this lot.

Helen Clark sat back while all the allegations were flying about and said nothing despite knowing everything. This isn't illegal but it is pure evidence that she is not to be trusted with the truth. She has been proven to have been in the plot to "buy" coalition partners from day one - but again it isn't illegal but it's very very dodgy.

How can anybody trust her?

KG said...

Interesting--commenters seem to be divided by those who bang on about the legalities involved and those who talk about the ethical considerations.
Not a lot of leftards seem overly concerned about principles and ethics.

Anonymous said...

Milt,emails from Glenn implicate Mike Williams.It is hard to believe that the president of the Labour Party did not inform the PM.

Ed Snack said...

PM has, as he sometimes does, a good point, there is rather too much wild speculation and indeed invention on what Owen Glenn's evidence does. However, I also think PM you are ignoring what is opened up. Unless Winston can bring some extraordinary rabbit out the hat, he is exposed as a serial fabricator and has lied to everyone over many months, Brian Henry is also probably deep in the crap for lying to the select committee.

Labour have been cruelly exposed as deeply complicit. The weight of the evidence suggests (and so far no more than that, but it's a lot of weight) that Clark and Williams were aware of the money going to Winston since 2005, and in Clark's case she has definitely mislead parliament on this. She has been evasive, misleading, and has shown a distinct lack of ethics and honesty, but that's simply confirmation of what we should already know.

Williams has been shown for absolute arse that he always has been, a prick with the ethical standards of a leech and a credibility problem of serious proportions to put it mildly. I'd go further and say that as he has relased a statement saying he has "no recollection" of discussing Peters' money with Glenn, then that's damn near definite confirmation that he did; he is quite simply a man who can no longer be trusted to tell the truth.

Cullen and Fairbrother come across as small minded nasty muppets, would YOU shaft your benefactor so blantantly and so dirtily in public ?

But the end result is what matters. I predict Clark will hang on until November 8th, there is no mechanism (or none that don't require politicians with ethics or spine) that can force the issues. Clark may well not even bother to fire Winston, and my guess is she won't. The privileges committee will censure him, but a strongly written if totally dishonest "minority" report will enable Clark and Winston to soldier on. I think she has nailed her colours to the mast and there's no turning her.

This campaign will be the dirtiest any of us will ever wish to witness, with the traffic very heavily weighted in one direction. Expect Labour's "mole"inside National to be working overtime.

Psycho Milt said...

Not a lot of leftards seem overly concerned about principles and ethics.

Bullshit. It seems likely to me that Clark and Williams have lied to protect their coalition partner, and their treatment of Glenn has been disgraceful. I certainly wouldn't vote for their party now (wouldn't have anyway, but you get the idea). Now, if you want to see people unconcerned with principles and ethics, cast your mind back to how right-wingers received the news of Brash's arrangements with the Exclusive Brethren.

My post wasn't about principles and ethics, however. It was about the blathering on right-wing blogs recently re Glenn was coming to sink the Labour govt, expose corrupt practices they'd been engaging in etc. That blathering reflected foolish fantasy rather than realistic assessment, and I've been enjoying pointing it out.

Anonymous said...

Oh Dear PM, Oh dear...

your firm belief that this is the case matters not a rat's ass to anyone but you.

unfortunately for you, on Radio National (oh, the irony!) talking to Kathryn Ryan this morning, Owen Glenn said:

without my donations, Labour would not have been in government

Glenn also made clear he talked to Winston to be sure Winston would support Labour for three years.

So yes, Labour bought the last election (and the coalition government) with Owen Glenn's money

go and listen to the podcast if you don't believe me!

FAIRFACTS MEDIA said...

Owen Glenn gave a decent press conference too

but adding it all together, we have one helluva story

Anonymous said...

The press conference was good - but Kathryn Ryan was better.


after all, she got Glenn to admit that

* Labour bought the 2005 election with his money
* The PM was "dishonest" and "cowardly"
* The PM should resign


The press conference was mostly about Winston. The Radio NZ interview was about Labour

Anonymous said...

"coming to sink the Labour govt, expose corrupt practices they'd been engaging in etc. That blathering reflected foolish fantasy rather than realistic assessment"

Next he'll be saying there was no NO sign, either.

Sus said...

Labour corrupt? Hell, no!

They just want to shut down the SFO asap. Funny, that.

Psycho Milt said...

unfortunately for you, on Radio National (oh, the irony!) talking to Kathryn Ryan this morning, Owen Glenn said:

without my donations, Labour would not have been in government


Well, quite. Without its donors, no govt in living memory would have been in govt. Up til now, no-one's suggested that means those govts "bought" the elections they won. That's because it would be foolish to do so.

Glenn also made clear he talked to Winston to be sure Winston would support Labour for three years.

So Glenn, a Labour supporter, made sure Winnie was also going to be supporting Labour before giving him a donation? It's evidence Glenn isn't stupid, yes. The rest is, as usual, your evidence-free assertion.

Anonymous said...

The rest is, as usual, your evidence-free assertion.

did you even listen to the Radio NZ interview.



This proves New Zealand's democracy is for sale!

Dr Nick Smith. Parliament, Now.

Sus said...

Glenn alone doesn't have to "demonstrate Labour corruption".

They've been doing that pretty well themselves for some time.

Can only imagine the frantic meetings/goings-on in Wgtn right now, cooking up this and that. "Do this for me and I'll support that", etc. Political business as usual, then.

But it *is* a long time since Win held up that sign, Anon - especially for something that can be supposedly sorted 'in a few minutes'! :)

I don't care who donates what to which party. It's not my business. But the hypocrisy on that score from Clark *and* Peters is too much.

Guess the million dollar question when it comes to who's telling fibs is:

Who has the most to lose?

Mark said...

Does that mean when Glenn was talking about Minister of Transport it was offered by Mike Williams to get him to pay money for the Labour 2008 election campaign, i.e. if you cough up X $ then you will be put high on the list and placed into Cabinet.

FAIRFACTS MEDIA said...

Indeed Mark, I'm surprised Liarbour hasn't started auctioning off the places on its list.

But how remarkable that a guy who helps Liarbour buy the election can be treated so shabbily like this.

Uncle helen and Uncle Mike have used and abused Own Glenn.

Their behavious speaks violumes about their ethics.

Psycho Milt said...

Yeah, handing out list places as quid pro quo, that would be pretty low, huh? So, you're thinking about this kind of thing, right?

In his capacity as Asian Anti-Crime Group Media and Legal advisor, Tan organises a meeting between the AAG and the ACT party in order to broker a deal in which AAG organisers, including Tan, are provided with electorate and list candidacies in exchange for the AAG mobilising Chinese votes for ACT. Rodney Hide is in attendance

Yep - this kind of behaviour speaks volumes about their ethics...

Psycho Milt said...

I'll give you one thing, though, Fairfacts - I'm bloody sure Key and English remain loyal servants of their anonymous donors, and can be relied on never to bite the hand that feeds them. Er - this is meant to be, like, a positive feature in your books, is it?

FAIRFACTS MEDIA said...

Fair comment PM
Well it looks like Winston has cooked his own goose tonight.
He was unconvincing and apprantly Uncle Helen was not impressed.
The pressure will be on her and Liarbour to deflect attention from themselves.

WAKE UP said...

"froth froth gibber" - Milt, I like your style, and your nerve. And I mean that. I think you'd be okay to have in the trenches beside me.

But I can't say that about the government you support.

Sus said...

"Tan organises a meeting between the AAG and the ACT party in order to broker a deal in which AAG organisers, including Tan, are provided with electorate and list candidacies in exchange for the AAG mobilising Chinese votes for ACT."

So what?
Isn't that plain old electioneering?
How different is that to *decades* of union delegate involvement & influence with left-wing parties?

Psycho Milt said...

My point exactly, sus - all this blather about "Liarbour" corruption is just frothing at the mouth about plain, ordinary old electioneering of the same kind that National and ACT do. A big ol' fuss about nothing. I'm glad at least one right-winger agrees.

Sus said...

Right? They're only marginally less stupid than the left! Not this little black duck .. a plague on both houses, etc. ;)

You ignore the one glaring difference between the two examples, though. Money. To my knowledge, Tan hasn't paid ACT a dina, least of all several hundred thousand, for his list possie!

I don't give a bugger to whom Glenn gives his money. It's his. If he's silly enough to support *liars & cheats, that's on his conscience.

The nasty smell for me is that for all previous Labour/NZF finger-pointing & mouth-frothing re political donations from Big Bad Business in particular, they've been not only caught with their fingers in that till, they've lied through their collective teeth about it.

Odious bastards.

*$1 million to which Clark generously helped herself while saying she didn't .. until a certain lawsuit made her change the law and right the wrong she'd previously denied *was* a wrong! Remember that? I sure do.

Psycho Milt said...

Has someone paid Labour several hundred grand for a high list position, sus? It's only a glaring difference if someone did.

Sus said...

That would be correct. But my point was that the analogy itself was incorrect.

Fact: There was talk that Glenn might get something in return for his large donation, the donation that *was* made. The talk apparently came to nothing.

Fact: Tan got a good spot on the ACT list presumably in return for his access to the Asian community (as if they think & breathe as one ... more bloody collectivism, grrr!).

IMO, the guts of this whole shabby saga is as I noted in para's 3 & 4 of my last rant.

Cheers.