DtG,

the link between GG and the charity is that he was the founding chairman; we can't say that he is not connected with it.

He acquitted himself well, and gave back better than he got. Many of us, me included, had a satisfying little titter watching his testimony and especially observing the faces of some of the journalists behind him. Good for him!

But as Greg Stephens says, there is definitely a little bit of smoke there; his carefully orchestrated responses to a couple of the more stupid questions appeared to be hiding more than they were giving away. But the related questions were stupid indeed. "Would you be dismayed if your best friend had received kickbacks in using the oil-for-food programme" indeed! What kind of a question is this! Hypothetical, and aiming at little more than to make him appear sympathetic towards wrong-doers...