KEY POINTS:
It has become a lot clearer now as to why the Labour spin machine has been in overdrive for months over Owen Glenn's character - and it has been awful.
They were worried about what he would say about them, not just Winston Peters.
And he has said it - that he consulted Mike Williams before ringing Peters on December 14 to agree to give him $100,000 for the Tauranga electoral petition.
And more importantly that he told Helen Clark back in February that he had given Peters $100,000 for Peters' legal fees. He reiterated that point at a press conference this morning at the Hilton Hotel in Auckland.
Williams' reputation has already suffered badly from the Labour Party conference episode - he denied having endorsed the distribution of Government literature when a tape recording proved he had actually said it was "a damned good idea".
I don't think he has recovered from that so I don't think the Glenn claims yesterday and today will do him any more damage. And people don't think of Williams when they go into the voting booth.
But the Clark detail is very important. Clark has admitted that Glenn told her in February he had given a donation to Peters. But she denies him saying it was for the purpose of paying Peters' legal fees - otherwise she would have asked Peters about it, she says.
Really? It will never be proven but I'm not convinced.
If Clark determined that it was not in her interest to pursue the matter when she was presented with the so-called "conflicting evidence" between Peters' No and Glenn's Yes, why would one more piece of information have changed that?
The only time she has pursued it is when it has become a topic of public interest in February and July and then she has just accepted Peters' word.
Labour has been saying for ages it would be terrific if Owen Glenn appeared in person before the privileges committee because people could assess for themselves his credibility - or lack of it; how easily confused he gets.
Having heard him at privileges, seen him on Campbell Live, heard him being interview by Kathryn Ryan on Nine to Noon and heard parts of the press conference at the Hilton today, it is hard to fault his credibility.
Michael Cullen tripped him up over one of the paragraphs of his testimony - the matter of whether he had called Winston or Winston had called him in early December.
But Glenn has been cogent, coherent, sane, sharp, in command of his senses and memory and very colourful.
I think, however, there is a flaw in the process in that the privileges committee had so little time to prepare for their examination of Glenn's testimony. Glenn read it and the committee asked questions. They had not seen it in advance.
Dail Jones was under enormous pressure to find cracks in Glenn's testimony for the sake of his boss' and his own survival and it showed.
I think the committee should have received the written statement a few hours in advance.
It is hard to imagine how Peters and Brian Henry can counter the damning phone records and email testimony.
If Glenn is telling the truth, then how can Peters and Henry account for the "third person" - the alleged client they told the privileges committee existed.
And how they account for the press statement issued on July 18 a few hours after Peters' mother died saying Henry had just told him about the Glenn donation.
I feel sickened at the thought of it.
