RCMP raids Tory party headquarters

[jdobbin]

It doesn't come from the taxpayer. What does come from the taxpayer is the claiming of those amounts as election expenses and quite frankly, I see nothing wrong with that. When all is said and done, all the Conservatives have done is max out their National and Local budget maximums. Makes perfect sense to me.

If the expenses has been claimed as legitimate local spending, we would not be seeing an issue here. The Tories want that taxpayer rebate though by claiming that money that went into local campaigns and back out again was used for local spending. Several of the Tory candidates, however, cannot recall seeing an ad with their name attached and Retail Council can't recall the invoices used and even suggests that some were altered.

It all adds up to suspicion that the Tories cheated in the election according to the poll the Toronto Star releases on Saturday.

[Argus]

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

So you've decided that since the "executives" didn't recognize or said they didn't recognize the invoice the Tories forged it?

[Argus]

If the expenses has been claimed as legitimate local spending, we would not be seeing an issue here. The Tories want that taxpayer rebate though by claiming that money that went into local campaigns and back out again was used for local spending. Several of the Tory candidates, however, cannot recall seeing an ad with their name attached and Retail Council can't recall the invoices used and even suggests that some were altered.

It all adds up to suspicion that the Tories cheated in the election according to the poll the Toronto Star releases on Saturday.

Oh a poll in the red star, well, of course, that's important evidence.

Tell me, will we ever find out the names of those lawyers who provided free legal service to your party during elections in exchange for being named judges?

That's not cheating, of course. Right?

That's simple bribery, and no Liberal will ever admit there's anything wrong with that!

[BubberMiley]

That's simple bribery, and no Liberal will ever admit there's anything wrong with that!

I find it hilarious how the Tories reflexively make accusations against Liberals when they're feeling the heat.

I guess if you see the world in black and white, Liberal and Conservative, such attempts at argument make sense. To the less-than-partisan among us, it's like the kid in trouble trying to bring down the rest of his classmates with him.

[punked]

No way the world has some NDP and Greens too.

[jdobbin]

Oh a poll in the red star, well, of course, that's important evidence.

Would it help if it is in the National Post? I believe Don Martin said a poll there will show something similar to what the Toronto Star is reporting.

Tell me, will we ever find out the names of those lawyers who provided free legal service to your party during elections in exchange for being named judges?

That's not cheating, of course. Right?

That's simple bribery, and no Liberal will ever admit there's anything wrong with that!

How many lawyers offer free legal advice to the Tories now for an appointment as judge? Will a Tory admit that?

[jdobbin]

So you've decided that since the "executives" didn't recognize or said they didn't recognize the invoice the Tories forged it?

You've decided they've not? Absolute confidence in that? No need to even investigate it?

[Argus]

I find it hilarious how the Tories reflexively make accusations against Liberals when they're feeling the heat.

I guess if you see the world in black and white, Liberal and Conservative, such attempts at argument make sense. To the less-than-partisan among us, it's like the kid in trouble trying to bring down the rest of his classmates with him.

Are you actually daring to suggest you are non-partisan?

If a tory was on fire would you even spit on him? I get the impression you'd laugh and jump up and down clapping your hands, and maybe get some marshmallows to roast.

I have voted NDP, Liberal, Reform, Alliance, PC and now Conservative. I'm betting your votes are considerably more ideologically focussed.

If the Liberals ever find a leader who isn't a spineless whining, lying sleaze, and if they throw out the grasping, greedy, totally self centred vermin who currently make up most of their senior leadership (and all their senior MPs) I could certainly be persuaded to vote Liberal again.

But as long as the Liberals continue to demonstrate that the best interests of Canada aren't even on their list of priorities (only things which personally affect their wealth and power are on that list) I'm afraid I'm going to have to stick with the Tories.

[BubberMiley]

Are you actually daring to suggest you are non-partisan?

If a tory was on fire would you even spit on him? I get the impression you'd laugh and jump up and down clapping your hands, and maybe get some marshmallows to roast.

I think your impressions are derived from your belief that everyone is as bitter and partisan as you. I don't particularly care for any of the political parties these days, but I wouldn't make smores off any of them.

[Argus]

You've decided they've not? Absolute confidence in that? No need to even investigate it?

I don't have absolute confidence in any politician or party - unlike yourself.

The point is you and he have been stating it as if it were a fact, as if it had been established that there were false invoices, and that the Tories falsified them.

Then again, neither of you places much importance on honesty.

[jdobbin]

I don't have absolute confidence in any politician or party - unlike yourself.

Ah, there's that personal touch that we have come to expect of you.

The point is you and he have been stating it as if it were a fact, as if it had been established that there were false invoices, and that the Tories falsified them.

Did I say that? I said altered invoices justified an investigation. That, and candidates and agents refusing to cooperate with the Commissioner, led to the raid. The promise of being transparent seems hard to reconcile when it appears people refused to answer questions. And the questions that were answered led to even more questions such as that on the invoices.

Then again, neither of you places much importance on honesty.

And you have never really placed much importance on being civil.

Edited April 26, 2008 by jdobbin

[sharkman]

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.

Hey there Dobbin, I LOL when I saw you deny saying that Tories altered invoices. Here's one such example where you said that, you really should try to keep your story straight.

You are slipping. Usually, when you play the personal attack card, you refrain from hypocritical attacks at least in the same post.

Edited April 26, 2008 by sharkman

[jdobbin]

More Conservative candidates upset at being pulled into the in and our financing.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...PStory/National

Ms. Singleton turned the matter over to Gordon Barnes, who was Mr. Goudie's official agent. The affidavits were sent to Elections Canada after the individuals realized they were part of the probe.

During the last week of the campaign, Ms. Singleton wrote, she asked Mr. Barnes about the transfer and he told her that the money had come in and gone back out like it was supposed to. Ms. Singleton wrote that, to her knowledge, none of the television ads contained Mr. Goudie's name.

"I feel awful that we were used in this fashion," she said in the affidavit. "If I was the victim of one of those e-mail scams, I wouldn't feel more duped than I do now for having been innocently caught up in this matter."

As for Mr. Barnes, he said in an affidavit that he had no reason to suspect the propriety of the instructions from the party. On Jan. 16, $2,097.20 was transferred into the campaign account. On Jan. 17, $2,118.20 was transferred back to the Conservative Party of Canada - the difference between the amounts being a $21 bank fee.

It looks like some Tory campaign managers and agents are fairly upset at all this.

The Conservative party response is that it is sour grapes. Nice.

Edited April 27, 2008 by jdobbin

[BubberMiley]

The Conservative party response in that it is sour grapes. Nice.

Isn't "sour grapes" the standard line from the playbook whenever they encounter criticism? I've heard it in response to Stronach, Turner, Cadman, Brison, as well as all those people who were pissed off about Emerson.

[jdobbin]

Isn't "sour grapes" the standard line from the playbook whenever they encounter criticism? I've heard it in response to Stronach, Turner, Cadman, Brison, as well as all those people who were pissed off about Emerson.

I guess Mulroney would have called Harper leaving "sour grapes."

[Argus]

Ah, there's that personal touch that we have come to expect of you.

It's called being human. If you weren't writing from a script and actually cared more about what you're discussing you might too.

Did I say that?

Yes, explicitly.

I said altered invoices justified an investigation.

You said the tories altered invoices. It has not even been established that invoices were altered.

That, and candidates and agents refusing to cooperate with the Commissioner, led to the raid

.

There's no evidence of that, either.

And you have never really placed much importance on being civil.

Depends on who I'm responding to.

[jdobbin]

It's called being human. If you weren't writing from a script and actually cared more about what you're discussing you might too.

Seems like unbridled anger which you seem to unleash on a regular basis through your personal attacks. You don't like what you hear and you attack the person. It is a common trait with you and probably not one you would do in person since you'd likely be labelled a boor, a bully or worse.

Yes, explicitly.

I never mentioned anything about being falsified which is what you said. That is up to Elections Canada or a court to decide.

You said the tories altered invoices. It has not even been established that invoices were altered.

Retail Council has said that the documents are altered from what they sent to Tory party headquarters. It is one of the things that Elections Canada is trying to get information on and the Tories were not cooperating. It is one of the reasons for the raid.

Someone in the Tory party altered the documents and Retail Council confirmed it. I have no idea if the invoices were falsified but it certainly warranted a raid if information was not forthcoming.

You can't even bring yourself to admit that there was grounds to investigate.

There's no evidence of that, either.

The warrant listed the candidates who hadn't cooperated with the investigation. It is the the very links in this thread.

For months, questions were asked in Parliament and by Tory candidates themselves about what it was all about.

http://winnipegsun.com/News/Columnists/Wes...399361-sun.html

One failed Conservative candidate in Quebec, a lawyer, was quoted this week saying he refused a request from a senior party organizer to participate in the "in and out" scheme during the 2006 campaign.

"He phoned me up and said, 'I just want to let you know that the party is going to deposit $30,000 in your campaign account in the next day or two and then withdraw it immediately. We just wanted to let you know that so you don't fuss about it. It's just and in and out.'

"I said to him, 'Well, what's that about?'

"He said, 'Don't you worry about it. It's just going to happen and it has nothing to do with you.'"

The parliamentary committee has been asking for explanations for months.

A Commons committee that tried to probe the "in and out" affair was thwarted by the Conservatives for months with antics befitting a kindergarten.

The affidavit by Elections Canada said the warrant was needed because they were not getting cooperation and had supplied papers that left many questions unanswered.

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/416597

The Conservatives insist they have done nothing wrong and say they were taken aback at the raid last week because they have complied with all requests to turn over documents.

But in the affidavit, Lamothe alleges the federal Conservatives embarked on a deliberate strategy to thwart election financing laws – and the party's spending limits – and to claim $700,000 in rebates for advertising expenses to which local candidates were not entitled.

Lamothe sought hard-copy and electronic copies of correspondence, emails, invoices, accounting records and other documents that would outline discussions between Conservative officials and its media production and buying agencies Retail Media, Yield or Yield Integrated, Republic Publicité + Design Inc.

Depends on who I'm responding to.

Can't recall you responding to anyone without personalizing it. I can't imagine you do it in person without getting your ass kicked a couples of times a week.

Edited April 27, 2008 by jdobbin

[sharkman]

You can't recall Argus responding to anyone without personalizing it? Yeah, well you also couldn't recall yourself saying that the Tories altered invoices, which I showed you did.

Also, if you are going to keep playing the whining personal attack card, you will only look like a hypocrite since you do it yourself with increased regularity.

[jdobbin]

I've been told by another poster that someone who I usually have on ignore doesn't know the difference between "falsified" and "altered."

I never said anything about falsified. I did say that Tories altered invoices because that is exactly what the Tory firm Retail Council said in a sworn statement. The investigation occurred in part because of the lack of explanation for these changes.

I suggest some people read what the difference between falsified and altered is.

As far as personal attacks go, it is not a personal attack to point out the lack of civility or hostility.

Edited April 27, 2008 by jdobbin

[sharkman]

Yeah, interesting how you split hairs now when you earlier were making all kinds of broad based accusations earlier in this thread. At the same time, you can not bring yourself to objectively analyze why the Liberals got a judge in Toronto to sign a warrant for a search in a different jurisdiction, Ottowa. These lapses on your part coupled with biased reviewing of poll results you don't like make you an unreliable source of information. Nice to know I made your 'ignore' list though.

[BubberMiley]

At the same time, you can not bring yourself to objectively analyze why the Liberals got a judge in Toronto to sign a warrant for a search in a different jurisdiction, Ottowa. These lapses on your part coupled with biased reviewing of poll results you don't like make you an unreliable source of information. Nice to know I made your 'ignore' list though.

At least the information you don't like to hear.

But how could one objectively analyze why someone got a warrant without, say, interviewing the person who got the warrant?

And Ottawa looks ridiculous with two O's. I don't think it'll catch on.

[jdobbin]

At least the information you don't like to hear.

But how could one objectively analyze why someone got a warrant without, say, interviewing the person who got the warrant?

And Ottawa looks ridiculous with two O's. I don't think it'll catch on.

I think we've gone over this with this poster previously. The claim was that not all polls were posted. Not true. I posted all of them. The claims were that I didn't mention statistical ties when they occurred. That wasn't true either as the links clearly showed I did. Think I got an apology for that claim. Claims were made that it was only my opinion that less 40% was needed to win an election. I think I was able to show that all pollsters believe 40% is too little. It is possible to win with an 11% lead which I wrote about last year after posting Flanagan's analysis of the electoral split. The problem with the 11% leads that pollsters have had in the last years is that is contradicted by polls done in the same timeframe. I point to the spread between Strategic Counsel and Decima polls often released the same day.

On those occasions with contradictory numbers, I have usually said there is no indication of a majority.

Also, the Liberals didn't go to Toronto to get a judge to sign anything. It was Elections Canada. And the only ones I have heard express a concern about it are right wing posters on the Internet. Perhaps official Conservatives know that the judge involved has donated to both Liberals and Tories in the past and has a good reputation. Besmirching people appears to be a right wing thing.

Some posters don't like what they hear and personally attack or make outrageous claims.

[punked]

Besmirching people appears to be a right wing thing.

Some posters don't like what they hear and personally attack or make outrageous claims.

BURN!

[sharkman]

I think we've gone over this with this poster previously. The claim was that not all polls were posted. Not true. I posted all of them. The claims were that I didn't mention statistical ties when they occurred. That wasn't true either as the links clearly showed I did. Think I got an apology for that claim. Claims were made that it was only my opinion that less 40% was needed to win an election. I think I was able to show that all pollsters believe 40% is too little. It is possible to win with an 11% lead which I wrote about last year after posting Flanagan's analysis of the electoral split. The problem with the 11% leads that pollsters have had in the last years is that is contradicted by polls done in the same timeframe. I point to the spread between Strategic Counsel and Decima polls often released the same day.

On those occasions with contradictory numbers, I have usually said there is no indication of a majority.

Also, the Liberals didn't go to Toronto to get a judge to sign anything. It was Elections Canada. And the only ones I have heard express a concern about it are right wing posters on the Internet. Perhaps official Conservatives know that the judge involved has donated to both Liberals and Tories in the past and has a good reputation. Besmirching people appears to be a right wing thing.

Some posters don't like what they hear and personally attack or make outrageous claims.

Whoops, I did mis-type. I was referring to the EC judge shopping, the Liberals obviously had nothing to do with it. Judges are not stupid, giving money to both parties will appear better than one party only. But you don't analyze a judge by the money they donate (unless it's large amounts), you look at their work, their decisions. Since his work is not available, I have not questioned his reputation. However, there was no good reason to travel to Toronto to get a warrant signed when there were plenty of judges in Ottowa. It gives the appearance that the EC couldn't get a judge there to sign it. It does not pass the smell test. And Dobbin can not find this even slightly irregular.

For the record, the one example I showed about a week or two ago was Dobbin immediately jumping on a poll that showed an 11 point Tory lead(from March). He said it still didn't give the Tories a majority. Then He linked to an opposing poll that gave the Liberals higher numbers and expressed a preference for that one. Meanwhile, every poll favorable to the Liberals gets no analysis save for how good it looks for the Liberals.

Look, it's fine to have a bias. Everyone has one. But Dobbin is mistaken to think he doesn't have one when he crunches polling numbers, and presents his results as fact.

Edited April 28, 2008 by sharkman

[Argus]

Seems like unbridled anger which you seem to unleash on a regular basis through your personal attacks.

Mmm, no you are mistaking my contempt for you and the corruption and dishonesty which are the bedrock of your party for anger.

Tell me, has there been a single Liberal MP over the past ten years who wasn't a venal, self-serving weasel?

Well, perhaps that's being unfair. No doubt a few backbenchers had some ideals their first terms. But has there been a single Liberal MP of any note who could in any sense of the word be described as "honest"? I can't remember one.

You don't like what you hear and you attack the person. It is a common trait with you and probably not one you would do in person since you'd likely be labelled a boor, a bully or worse.

Oh I assure you I don't hide my political beliefs in person. I enjoy very good relationships with a number of foolish people who are erstwhile Liberal supporters. They mock conservatives regularly - but then, they can only sigh and shake their heads about the Liberal party, its corruption and its pathetic excuse for leadership. Not a one of them can think of a single Liberal MP of note they'd like to see as leader - except that they'd like to see almost anyone else except Stephan Dion as leader.

But you see, I don't mind them mocking conservatives. It's just politics, after all. You're different. I get the strong impression, from the avalanche of postings you've made over the past year, of someone on a campaign, a campaign of sleaze and innuendo, of a dedicated effort to smear the Tories with every variety and brand of accusation and twisted interpretation of news he can find. You say you are not a member of the party any more. If that's the case I would suspect it's so you can claim to not be with the party because it wouldn't look good if the media found out party workers had been instructed to make such a dedicated effort on sites like this smearing the Tories. I don't believe you are posting here as an individual at all. I think you're working for the Liberal Party. You post too often, and your postings are, for the most part, far too - bloodless - for want of a better term.

I never mentioned anything about being falsified which is what you said.

You twist like a weasel. You said they had altered the documents. Another poster picked up on that and said they had forged documents. This is how you operate.

Retail Council has said that the documents are altered from what they sent to Tory party headquarters

.

In fact, one person "speculated" that an invoice didn't look like the kind they used. It's not like it was an official statement by their president.

Someone in the Tory party altered the documents and Retail Council confirmed it.

Another open smear with little basis in fact.

The parliamentary committee has been asking for explanations for months.

Oh please. It's not like parliamentary committees have ANY interest in truth. They were digging for muck, that's all.

Can't recall you responding to anyone without personalizing it.

Your memory is pretty threadbare, much like your former leader, who couldn't recall so many things in his testimony before the Gomery Commision.

I can't imagine you do it in person without getting your ass kicked a couples of times a week.

No one in real life would ever act like you. If they did, no one would ever talk to them anyway, so the problem wouldn't arise.