RCMP raids Tory party headquarters

[punked]

Sounds to me that elections Canada is altering its stance on what it will allow from the conservatives but not for any other party.

Nope did you read the Conservative documents? It is clear what the Conservatives are saying isn't true. They say the NDP ad Liberals putting money into places where legal limits haven't been reached is the same as putting money in, then taking it back out in order to spend it in another place where limits were reached. Does that sound like the samething? No it is however as the Conservatives say sorta kinda like the samething. That is why the Conservatives are the only coming under the gun

[Alta4ever]

Citation for that? Many Tories reported their concerns when the audits were taken according to many of the links in this thread.

What citation, if the paperwork doesn't pass the 3rd party auditor, it doesn't go to elections canada until it is fixed.

There is no citation needed because this is what is required by elections canada.

[Alta4ever]

Nope did you read the Conservative documents? It is clear what the Conservatives are saying isn't true. They say the NDP ad Liberals putting money into places where legal limits haven't been reached is the same as putting money in, then taking it back out in order to spend it in another place where limits were reached. Does that sound like the samething? No it is however as the Conservatives say sorta kinda like the samething. That is why the Conservatives are the only coming under the gun

It is the same, money distributed from the national party to camaigns to buy media for the candidate.

[punked]

It is the same, money distributed from the national party to camaigns to buy media for the candidate.

That is not what the Conservatives did they pulled the money out of the campaigns account after putting it into their account to spend where limits were already reached or to spend it nationally where the cap was reached too. That is the difference, it is different. They did it to break the law while the other parties did it to help campaigns who could did not reach limits. You see a limit is a place where you are suppose to stop spending so spending over it is against the law.

[jdobbin]

What citation, if the paperwork doesn't pass the 3rd party auditor, it doesn't go to elections canada until it is fixed.

There is no citation needed because this is what is required by elections canada.

And Elections Canada has stepped in where the audits have found documents that look like they have been altered. Even Tories voiced their concern over that.

Edited April 23, 2008 by jdobbin

[Alta4ever]

And Elections Canada has stepped in where the audits have found documents that look like they have been altered. Even Tories voiced their concern over that.

No Elections Canada officials refused to send refunds to those Edas in question based on their intpritation, then the Conservative party sued for those funds, then Elections Canada steped in on its own to seize documents pertaining to the suit against them.

The Independant auditors did not bring elections canada into it, it was soley elections canada employees.

Edited April 24, 2008 by Alta4ever

[punked]

No Elections Canada officials refused to send refunds to those Edas in question based on their intpritation, then the Conservative party sued for those funds, then Elections Canada steped in on its own to seize documents pertaining to the suit against them.

The Independant auditors did not bring elections canada into it, it was soley their own employees.

You forgot the part where elections Canada went and got a search warrant with evidance that Conservatives broke the law.

[Alta4ever]

You forgot the part where elections Canada went and got a search warrant with evidance that Conservatives broke the law.

I think you have that backwards, they got a serach warrant to go on a witch hunt.

All they did was convince a judge to give them a warrant on alligations. If they had the evidence they wouldn't have needed the search warrant.

[punked]

I think you have that backwards, they got a serach warrant to go on a witch hunt.

All they did was convince a judge to give them a warrant on alligations. If they had the evidence they wouldn't have needed the search warrant.

No you see you can not get a warrant with out evidence I think the lawyer in you died a little there.

[Alta4ever]

No you see you can not get a warrant with out evidence I think the lawyer in you died a little there.

If you have the evidence why do you need the warrant?

[punked]

If you have the evidence why do you need the warrant?

Because having some evidence and not completely understanding a case is usually not the way to win it or prove guilt.

Here let me explain this to you, say someone kills someone you don't know who that person is but you find my fingerprints at the victims house you would usually get a search warrant for my house cause you might you know find the murder weapon or bloody cloths there.

The point you are making is there is no point in searching my house becuase you got the fingerprint this is silly.

[Alta4ever]

Because having some evidence and not completely understanding a case is usually not the way to win it or prove guilt.

Here let me explain this to you, say someone kills someone you don't know who that person is but you find my fingerprints at the victims house you would usually get a search warrant for my house cause you might you know find the murder weapon or bloody cloths there.

The point you are making is there is no point in searching my house becuase you got the fingerprint this is silly.

So if they already have the financial returns, all the receipts are there, what are they looking for.

BTW this isn't murder.

[punked]

So if they already have the financial returns, all the receipts are there, what are they looking for.

BTW this isn't murder.

Yah the RCMP can search your house if you are embezzling money too, or if you stole something, or if you are growing pot, see a pattern all these things are illegal. They however can not search it if they have no reason to believe you have done something wrong.

[August1991]

IMV, scriblett got the key idea:

Harper had a good response, I don't have the whole quote but he said something to the effect that:

If at the end of the day we are found offside of prior interpretations of the rules we will adjust our practices accordingly and expect all other parties to play by the same rules.

This is what Harper said:

"Elections Canada thinks that some of our local expenditures should be considered as national expenses and we do not agree with that, and that's why we went to court with this issue and in the interim we will respect the law and the interpretations of the law."

Montreal Gazette

This is what I meant by saying that Harper is taking the high road and distancing himself with grace. It's the smart thing to do.

The Conservative have broken no law. There is a disagreement about the meaning of the law. The matter has gone to court where it will be decided. If the judgment is against the Conservatives, then the party will conform to the law as the court interprets it.

[PS. Harper said that in New Orleans standing beside Bush and Calderon. There's nothing more humbling for a politician than to answer a tough, domestic political question in a joint press conference. There is no better proof to the world that Canada is a true, civilized democracy. I'm sure Bush had a good giggle.]

----

The Liberals, the Toronto media and Ottawa bureaucrats - each for their own reasons - have made this into a big stink when in fact it's nothing at all. Stephen Harper, as usual, is keeping his head when others are losing theirs. Well, some people don't like the Cosnervatives and they don't like Stephen Harper's hair. Even Stephen Harper knows that he's not going to get every vote of every Canadian.

Harper has no desire to hold an election campaign with a major theme of running against anyone. (He'd win if he ran against the Toronto media and/or Ottawa bureaucracy. Despite their own self-importance, neither is at all popular in the parts of Canada where the Tories win votes and will win their majority.) Nevertheless, Harper has spoken over the media's heads to the voters that count.

Now, he can get on with setting up a campaign that will emphasize good policies.

Citation for that? Many Tories reported their concerns when the audits were taken according to many of the links in this thread.

Many Tories?

I heard one defeated, disgruntled candidate who was angry about not receiving money from the central office.

Edited April 24, 2008 by August1991

[Alta4ever]

Yah the RCMP can search your house if you are embezzling money too, or if you stole something, or if you are growing pot, see a pattern all these things are illegal. They however can not search it if they have no reason to believe you have done something wrong.

What more were they searching for they have the returns they are filed eith them, all the information to decide who is on side or not is found in those returns. The warrant was nothing but a witch hunt.

[jdobbin]

Many Tories?

I heard one defeated, disgruntled candidate who was angry about not receiving money from the central office.

Here is one Tory:

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news...95-06ae35f28075

David Marler, a Knowlton lawyer who ran for the Conservatives in the Eastern Townships riding of Brome-Missisquoi, says he was told by party officials in January that they did not want him as a candidate, despite the fact he had been informally campaigning for months.

While they refused to give any reason for their decision, Marler says it could have been because the party was still upset over his refusal to allow money to be transferred in and out of his campaign account in 2006.

Here is another:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labr...ney-tories.html

Cynthia Downey — who has already broken with the federal Tories after an unsuccessful bid in the southern Newfoundland riding of Random-Burin-St. George's — said she was told nothing about why the national party suddenly sent her campaign money leading up to the January 2006 election.

Downey, a last-minute candidate in that election, said she assumed that the money was meant to boost her uphill campaign against Liberal incumbent Bill Matthews.

Here are some riding execs who thought they shouldn't participate:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/prince-edward-isl...-elections.html

A lengthy affidavit made public Monday mentions three P.E.I. ridings: Malpeque, Cardigan and Egmont. It also includes an e-mail exchange between the federal party's executive director during the last election, Mike Donison, and Dennis King, who represented P.E.I. on the party's national council.

King writes that Malpeque and Cardigan want to drop out of a plan to buy advertising. Donison replies, "They cannot do that … Read them the riot act."

King later reports Malpeque is ready to participate, and suggests Egmont as a replacement for Cardigan.

This is what Retail Media thought:

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/416912

The executives "didn't recognize" the invoice, similar to that filed by about 15 Conservative candidates among 67 from the 2006 election seeking more than $825,000 in taxpayer-funded rebates.

Marilyn Dixon, chief operating officer, suggested the invoice "must have been altered or created by someone" because they didn't look like the ones her firm submitted to the Conservative Party of Canada.

It wasn't Liberal complaints that saw the investigation focus on the Tories. It was Tories out in the ridings that thought something didn't quite figure.

[jdobbin]

The Liberals, the Toronto media and Ottawa bureaucrats - each for their own reasons - have made this into a big stink when in fact it's nothing at all. Stephen Harper, as usual, is keeping his head when others are losing theirs. Well, some people don't like the Cosnervatives and they don't like Stephen Harper's hair. Even Stephen Harper knows that he's not going to get every vote of every Canadian.

Harper has no desire to hold an election campaign with a major theme of running against anyone. (He'd win if he ran against the Toronto media and/or Ottawa bureaucracy. Despite their own self-importance, neither is at all popular in the parts of Canada where the Tories win votes and will win their majority.) Nevertheless, Harper has spoken over the media's heads to the voters that count.

I think he might win a minority but he is cutting pretty close with the votes that he appears to be losing in Ontario where he needs to do much better. Decima's poll a few days ago showed the Tories had fallen below the Liberals.

I know you don't believe the polls and are sure that the Tories are going to win a majority but where are those seats coming from? Are you predicting that big a win in Quebec?

[Argus]

Perhaps you can ask Mulroney's appointee Kingsley. Or maybe you can ask Harper's appointee Mayrand. The Liberals haven't appointed a chief electoral officer in nearly 20 years.

Was it not pointed out earlier that the EC commisioner is not appointed by the government but by parliament? Now if you have a majority that can mean the same thing, but clearly that is not the case with Harper.

[Argus]

You're right.. I misunderstood.

And continue to do so. It overspent its federal national campaign spending limits due to the interpretation EC has placed on the rules. However, that money would have been spent in the local ridings anyway, because those ridings still had cap room. That is how the whole scheme worked - transferring allowable cap limits still remaining from local ridings to the national.

So the money would simply have been spent locally.

[Shakeyhands]

If you have the evidence why do you need the warrant?

Ahh... because thats how the law works?

[Argus]

The question is why did the Tories think if they put the money in a local account then pulled it out to spend it federally it would be counted as local spending?

I'm not a lawyer and I haven't gone over the rules. However, the point is that if they had not spent it on the federal campaign they would have legally spent it on the local campaigns. They still would have spent it, and they would be getting the same money back from taxpayers.

[Shakeyhands]

And continue to do so. It overspent its federal national campaign spending limits due to the interpretation EC has placed on the rules. However, that money would have been spent in the local ridings anyway, because those ridings still had cap room. That is how the whole scheme worked - transferring allowable cap limits still remaining from local ridings to the national.

So the money would simply have been spent locally.

Correct, not transfered back to be spent Nationally...

[Argus]

Perhaps if the Tories hadn't altered invoices, they might have had their expenses approved. Instead, their own people expressed suspicion about money that went in and out.

You see, this is how a Liberal's mind works. It doesn't matter how obvious it is that the senior ranks of his party conspired to defraud and steal money, there's no PROOF, there's no written, signed letters from Chretien to Dion as his Quebec wing, that list how much money he wants stolen this quarter, so it never happened.

But because one nobody Liberal MP speculates that an invoice looks different than the company's usual invoices Jdobbin starts routinely stating, as fact, that the Tories altered invoices.

It's that kind of mindset that allows him to unhesitantly support the most corrupt government in a century while whining endlessly about the most minor allegations and insinuations against its opponent.

[Argus]

Yah the RCMP can search your house if you are embezzling money too, or if you stole something, or if you are growing pot, see a pattern all these things are illegal. They however can not search it if they have no reason to believe you have done something wrong.

The RCMP repeatedly raided Francois Beaudoin's home and even his cottage at the behest of Jean Chretien, who was angry about Beaudoin spilling the beans on Chretien's theft of bank money to pay off his crooked business partner. The RCMP tried to persuade the Quebec Crown to lay charges despite a total abscence of evidence.

[Argus]

It wasn't Liberal complaints that saw the investigation focus on the Tories. It was Tories out in the ridings that thought something didn't quite figure.

Complete lie, of course, but that wouldn't mean anything to a Liberal.

A number of Tories expressed concern about the legality of the scheme - because unlike Liberals the Tories generally try to follow the law. The party consulted its lawyers, and the lawyers told them it was legal, so they went ahead with it. Nothing wrong with that.

Tell me, did Stephan Dion consult the Liberal Party's lawyers before he okayed all that Adscam money being stolen and spent on Liberal campaigns?

Oh, of course, he was completely ignorant! Just because he was Jean Chretien's Quebec lieutenant doesn't mean he'd know anything!

God knows he knows nothing about anything now.