Peters has a long history of parsing his words carefully and reading the detail in the law and applying it. Sloppy thinkers, careless with the details and facts, tend to not understand the often subtle points upon which Peters’ arguments rest. Peters' enemies deliberately ignore them. In this case, to them, a donation is a donation is a donation, never mind that Peters made it very clear he was talking about his party and himself. No one asked him about a legal fund for an electoral petition.
Peters can credibly say Owen Glenn did not give NZ First money because he didn’t.
Peters can credibly say Owen Glenn did not give Peters money because he didn’t.
Peters has more trouble when asking people to believe that he did not know about the source of the contribution to the legal fund……but then looking back over Peters’ history, it is possible that he deliberately set things up so that he would not know.
If it was Peters' intention to not know, he probably didn’t. That would be typically Peters.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for deciding to share your thoughts here. In commenting on this blog, you can express any opinion you like, though any opinion expressed should make some attempt to be consistent with verifiable reality. Say what you like, confident that I won't delete any comments that are polite and respectful of me and others who may comment here. Civility aside, SPAM comments will be deleted if only because they are usually far too long and selling rubbish anyway. (Comments on posts older than 30 days are moderated. I'll approve them as soon as I can.)