KEY POINTS:
Departing yesterday's meeting of Parliament's privileges committee, Peter Williams, QC, was unwilling to add anything further to what he had already told the hearing.
"If I did, I would probably be jailed for contempt," Winston Peters' legal counsel said.
That sounded less like a joke and more like an invitation. Being jailed by Parliament for contempt would be something Peters and his counsel would love to happen.
This is not the Middle Ages and that is not going to happen. But nothing else would do more to assist Peters' efforts to portray himself as the victim of some conspiracy which is somehow responsible for the mess which has engulfed him and his party.
As Peters would have it, he is the victim of unwarranted allegations surrounding the Owen Glenn donation to NZ First, the victim of Glenn's faulty memory, the victim of a conspiracy of shadowy figures who are behind the politicians out to destroy him, and, lastly, the potential victim of the "kangaroo court" which is the privileges committee.
However, Peters' real battle is more with what Helen Clark calls "the court of public opinion".
In that court, the evidence against him continues to mount in alarming proportions as his earlier denials are increasingly found to be wanting.
Still, Peters knows there is an audience which will always believe him - an audience willing to see him as the victim of unfair harassment by the media and political opponents.
That Peters is still being pursued after being punished with the forced forfeiture of his ministerial portfolios may actually work in his favour in terms of building this sympathy vote.
So it was a smart piece of public relations by Peters to have Williams front yesterday's resumption of the privileges committee inquiry. Williams is recognised by the public for his longstanding reputation as an outspoken and fearless advocate for the underdog.
Peters was making his second appearance as a witness before the committee, which must rule on whether he should have declared the Owen Glenn donation of $100,000 as a gift in the MPs' register of pecuniary interests. He said little, leaving Williams to lead the attack.
Williams faced the not inconsiderable handicap that counsel appearing for witnesses are limited by Parliament's rules to only raising matters of procedure.
So when he began by reading a lengthy statement which amounted to a legal argument in Peters' defence and carried heavy echoes of Peters the victim, the committee's chairman, National's Simon Power, interrupted him to remind him of the rules.
When Power had finished, Williams resumed reading his statement. Power interrupted again. Williams continued reading his statement. Power interrupted. Williams continued. Power warned him. Power warned him again. Power gave a final warning. And then another final warning.
With the clock ticking, an exasperated Power suggested Williams table his statement so progress could be made.
The compromise was a minor victory for Peters. It got what he wanted - Williams' full submission in front of the committee. In doing so, Williams strained the committee's patience to the limit - and then strained it a bit more by delivering a lecture to its members about fairness and impartiality, "lest prejudice may enslave reason".
By this stage, enslaving Williams at Her Majesty's pleasure might have started to look less prejudicial and increasingly desirable. Reason prevailed, however, and the committee collectively bit its tongue.
