Another 30 questions from the Gallery about Doone at the PM's press conference today, sparked by Rodney "Putting-the-Bust-in-Ombudsman" Hide.
Clark took a new tack, saying that, "really, who gives a toss about what Doone's exact words were - either way, he stopped a cop from carrying out his duties, which is more than enough rope to hang a police commissioner on. By his nuts. So there. Piss off."
I didn't call to confirm that quote, but I'm sure I wouldn't be wrong.
Actually, I agree with her. First, the details are irrelevant. She says she was confirming "the thrust of the story", and that she pointed out explicitly that the quote was contested evidence; they say that she said he said "that won't be necessary" - but are the two really substantively different? Ultimately, she gave confirmation knowing that it would allow a story to be published that would force Doone's hand. Whether this constitutes "causation" is best left to the metaphysicists, but the quote itself was immaterial - with or without that quote, she confirmed the story. So jebus, can we get over it already?
And bollocks the Sunday Star Times wouldn't have ran the rest of the story if they didn't have Helen confirming the quote. This is the SUNDAY STAR TIMES we're talking about. And Oskar Alley. They had Helen Clark confirming the crux of it - they'd have ran with it. The quote was just gravy, which they're now holding up as the magic bullet that Clark gave them. That's bullshit, and bullshit that their own egos would have scoffed at if not for the defamation suit.
But let's put aside all the relevance issue for a second, and focus on what Hide is *really* getting at: That Helen is a filthy liar. That depends on what she meant, what she said, and what was said before and after. And how are they trying to establish this? Not with transcripts or tapes, because they (presumably) don't exist, but with the records of testimonies of recollections of interpretations of off-the-record hint-hint-nudge-nudgery five years ago.
At heart, I think Hide's take of events is based on a very flawed assumption - that people actually assume, or expect, politicians to tell the truth for any significant portion of the time. Sure, Clark probably did use dirty sophisty and lawyery definitions, twisting words and spinning events in her favour. But, um... does he really expect anyone to get outraged by that?
If anyone is outraged that politicians are stretching the truth - you haven't been paying attention.
--
I was rather looking forward to what Campbell had to say about the thing - after 3 News conveniently forgot to mention Helen's vigorous and repeated insistence that she followed-up "you wouldn't be wrong" with "but the evidence is disputed". It was kinda important. And if I hadn't gotten back to the office so late today, I would have asked a defamation lawyer about this, too. But where the hell did the interview run off to? LAWS101?
He asked the question in his introduction, "should we really care"? Hell, that's what I want to know. But it went from "what is defamation" to SST to defences against defamation to speed dating. Grrrr.
I've fucking had it with TV3 and their royal family, sensationalist, lifestyle bullshit - that's right, TV3, I'm leaving and I'm taking my phat twentysomething demographic and vast disposal bling (an extremely large handful of high-denomination coins) with me. I'll be watching taped Simpsons from now on. And skipping the ads. Take that, CanWest!
What was really excruciating about the whole experience was watching Helen at the press conference pretend to laugh every time she repeated the "you wouldn't be wrong" statement.
"And I said... g... ga... h... h-a, you wouldn't be wrong." (Repeat.)
So can we please stop it now, before we make Helen try to laugh/hoik up dead frogs again?
[Really, the only reason I wrote this blog was because I couldn't stand the idea of that headline going to waste.]