New Zealand First leader Mr Peters appeared before the committee tonight after Mr Glenn yesterday produced phone and e-mail records to back his assertion that Mr Peters personally requested a $100,000 donation towards his legal costs in December 2005.
At stake are Mr Peters' ministerial roles, with Prime Minister Helen Clark considering his fate overnight.
If she finds his testimony wanting she could sack him as early as tomorrow.
Foreign Affairs Minister Mr Peters has consistently denied knowing anything about the donation and said he only became aware of it in July this year when his lawyer, Brian Henry, told him about it.
Central to Mr Glenn's testimony was a phone record showing he called Mr Peters at 1.26pm (NZT) on December 14, 2005. He said the pair discussed the donation during the call.
The call was followed minutes later by an email from Mr Peters' lawyer Brian Henry providing his bank details and referring to the "discussion with my client at 1.30 NZT''.
Mr Peters tonight denied money had been discussed during the call, but struggled to provide a complete explanation.
He accepted that the phone call had taken place, but he said he had no recollection of Mr Glenn asking for Mr Henry's details and him passing that request on to Mr Henry.
However he conceded it could have happened.
"I don't have a memory of that, but if you look at it that is the only logical conclusion one can come to - that he asked for the details and that's why it was mentioned in the email.''
MPs on the committee from across the political spectrum repeatedly questioned Mr Peters on the subject.
After the hearing Mr Peters' main critic, ACT leader Rodney Hide, told NZPA he thought Mr Peters' testimony was "bullshit on stilts''.
He believed Miss Clark would have no choice but to sack Mr Peters to insulate Labour from the scandal's fallout.
In front of the committee Mr Peters did not back down on any of his previous denials - including the press conference in February when he held up a `NO' sign.
Mr Peters told the committee, again, that there had been no donation to his New Zealand First Party or to him personally.
"The answer than was no, and the answer is still no,'' he said.
In relation to the six-minute December 14 phone call he said he could remember some of the things that were discussed.
They included Mr Glenn saying he was interested in a roving ambassadorship with a trade focus, a Monaco-based consular position and a diplomatic passport so he could move through airports faster.
He said they probably also talked about horse racing.
Mr Peters attacked the veracity of an affidavit from horse trainer Paul Moroney, who said he heard Mr Peters thanking Mr Glenn for the money at the 2006 Karaka yearling sales.
Mr Peters said he believed Mr Moroney's evidence had been coached.
He could not recollect everything about the lunch where the two talked, but he did not believe he had thanked Mr Glenn for the donation as he had no knowledge of it.
To thank him he would also have had to yell across the large table and he did not find that version of events was credible.
Mr Peters attacked Mr Glenn's recollection of events and his evidence, both of which he said were patchy.
He said Mr Glenn's story had changed in some respects in the last month, suggesting he too had been coached by his lawyer Geoff Harley, who had acted against Mr Peters in the winebox case.
Mr Peters said Mr Harley's involvement was an example of a conspiracy against him by his political enemies.
"This is an attempt to undo the people's will, bring down a government, then govern alone. My enemies and an elite media have surely proven that.''
Mr Peters said several other aspects of Mr Glenn's testimony were incomplete or incorrect.
He said it was Mr Henry who initially contacted Mr Glenn in early December about a donation.
He also said Mr Glenn claimed Mr Peters had called and left a message for him on December 5, but he said his office had checked what phone records they had and there was no record of any call.
The committee will meet again next Tuesday to hear further evidence from Mr Henry.
The committee is trying to establish whether Mr Peters breached Parliament's rules by failing to declare the $100,000 donation which could be considered as a gift or the payment of a personal debt.
