KEY POINTS:
Winston Peters' explanation for the Owen Glenn donations affair is exquisite: it means everyone is right.
Owen Glenn is right in believing he had given to New Zealand First when he paid the whopping $100,000 towards the leader's law suit.
Peters is right in believing Glenn hadn't because
he apparently paid the money anonymously through Peters' lawyer, Brian Henry.
Peters was right when he told the Prime Minister on Monday he knew nothing.
Peters was right last night when he told the Prime Minister he now knew something.
And of course the Herald was correct when it ran Glenn's emails a week ago revealing the billionaire thought he had donated to the party.
It is the perfect explanation.
I love the Press headline on the Peters admission last night: "No No No No No No Yes."
Peters has not acknowledged that the Herald was right. Only a reasonable person would do that.
Here at the party convention at Alexander Park he has held perhaps the most graceless press conference he has ever held, and that takes some beating.
And No, to the dozens of inquiries: Peters has not apologised for the personal abuse levelled at me last Monday when he employed the bazooka strategy - fire so many missiles at somebody else that people forget what you are supposed to have done. Though I did receive one from a very decent member of the caucus.
Today Peters continued to say that the Herald editor and I should resign and suggested that he was the victim in all of this.
Peters cut short today's press conference and would not answer all questions people had for him. A top aide of his kicked a television camera tripod which injured TV3's Sia Aston when it fell on her leg.
I wonder why he was able to find the answer to the Glenn donation question in July when in February after apparently exhaustive questions were asked about the $100,000 Dail Jones thought he had seen in the party's accounts, no answers were turned up.
There will be more questions next week as to whether Peters has breached the Cabinet Manual or the registers of MPs pecuniary interest in not disclosing the gift. His defence will be that he didn't know.
Helen Clark will have to end her silence and say what her own people knew about all this and when.
There are already questions being asked as to whether massive donations to Peters' personal law suit, anonymous or not, is appropriate for a Member of Parliament - especially for a person who has railed against hidden donors in the past.
In the end the effect of a Glenn donation to Peters' lawyers is the same as a private gift to him that gives him more money in his pocket. Money that Peters does not have to spend on lawyers can be spent on whatever he wants.
Peters is foolish at times like this not to answer all questions. When he walks away from questions, abusing media as he does, it looks as though he still has something he does not want us to know.
