Conservative judge clears Chretien

[jazzer]

Irony of all ironies. Can't blame those "liberal" judges for this one. link So now what? Will Harper appeal?

Edited June 27, 2008 by jazzer

[Bryan]

Irony of all ironies. Can't blame those "liberal" judges for this one. link So now what? Will Harper appeal?

This should go in the "Broken Justice" thread.

Besides, Chretien was not exactly "cleared" by Teitelbaum in anything remotely resembling the spin the liberal media is putting on this:

http://blog.macleans.ca/2008/06/26/untotal...n/#comment-8792

Edited June 27, 2008 by Bryan

[Argus]

This should go in the "Broken Justice" thread.

Besides, Chretien was not exactly "cleared" by Teitelbaum in anything remotely resembling the spin the liberal media is putting on this:

http://blog.macleans.ca/2008/06/26/untotal...n/#comment-8792

It doesn't really make any difference. As far as the man on the street goes Chretien is a crook, and will be forever held responsible (justly so imo) for overseeing sponsorgate, and for protecting the people involved. Testimony has long shown that Gagliano and those under him would not have been able to do what they did without protection from the PMO. Yet we're supposed to conclude Chretien is blameless?

It is in keeping, however, with his very long history of NEVER accepting blame for anything, and also in keeping with the courts inability to even make the effort to distinguish right from wrong.

Edited June 27, 2008 by Argus

[jazzer]

This should go in the "Broken Justice" thread.

Besides, Chretien was not exactly "cleared" by Teitelbaum in anything remotely resembling the spin the liberal media is putting on this:

http://blog.macleans.ca/2008/06/26/untotal...n/#comment-8792

Gomery was proven biased thus nullifying his report. Until something legally conclusive comes along, Chretien is in the clear.

[Argus]

Gomery was proven biased thus nullifying his report. Until something legally conclusive comes along, Chretien is in the clear.

Gomery was NOT proven anything. All the judge said was that his comments in an interview allowed for the impression of bias. He did not say that Gomery was wrong, and in fact, we all know Gomery soft-soaped Chretien's clear and obvious guilt.

Not that a Liberal would understand the notion of guilt, or care about honesty.

[guyser]

Not that a Liberal would understand the notion of guilt, or care about honesty.

We certainly know your feelings on the justice system . Certainly no bias on your part.

as the pot waves to the kettle

[jazzer]

Gomery was NOT proven anything. All the judge said was that his comments in an interview allowed for the impression of bias. He did not say that Gomery was wrong, and in fact, we all know Gomery soft-soaped Chretien's clear and obvious guilt.

Not that a Liberal would understand the notion of guilt, or care about honesty.

"Reasonable apprehension of bias" is pretty powerful stuff since it renders the entire report null. There was plenty of factual evidence (proof) for Gomery's bias. Read the report.

[charter.rights]

It doesn't really make any difference. As far as the man on the street goes Chretien is a crook, and will be forever held responsible (justly so imo) for overseeing sponsorgate, and for protecting the people involved. Testimony has long shown that Gagliano and those under him would not have been able to do what they did without protection from the PMO. Yet we're supposed to conclude Chretien is blameless?

It is in keeping, however, with his very long history of NEVER accepting blame for anything, and also in keeping with the courts inability to even make the effort to distinguish right from wrong.

It makes a huge difference. The court concluded Chretien is blameless. All you have to do is accept what the court ruled....and stop complaining.

Chretien was(is) pre-occupied with his public image, no doubt. But Gomery was pre-occupied with the media circus he created and supported over slamming Chretien and that makes it impossible for him to produce an unbiased and impartial report. As far as things go that makes the entire report useless to any extent since his bias would appear everywhere.

A higher court always wins. Tough beans isn't it.

[Wild Bill]

Gomery was NOT proven anything. All the judge said was that his comments in an interview allowed for the impression of bias. He did not say that Gomery was wrong, and in fact, we all know Gomery soft-soaped Chretien's clear and obvious guilt.

Not that a Liberal would understand the notion of guilt, or care about honesty.

It comes down to that wonderful modern invention, "plausible deniability"! Chretien obviously took great pains to ensure that. You're quite right that it would have been impossible for the underlings to have got away with so much sans the protection of the chief.

In politics that deniability is all you need. After all, as a people we are not very bright. As a mathematician would put it: "Intelligence is a constant divided by the number of people in a group."

First you have those people who are loyal. They will refuse to believe anything bad about their party, whichever one it is. Especially Liberals. They would forgive and support Charles Manson, as long as he was a Liberal.

Then you have those people that sit on the fence for their vote but don't follow politics that closely anyway. They likely would be blissfully unaware of a scandal and it wouldn't affect their vote.

That leaves those who never would have voted for you anyway and last, a very small group of people who are truly non-partisan when they see evil.

Those non-partisans in Canada are extremely lonely!

So by the numbers you win. In Canadian politics, that's all that counts. A political statesman does what's good for the country. A political leader does what's good for his party.

We haven't had any statesmen in generations. If ever!

Edited June 28, 2008 by Wild Bill

[MontyBurns]

As far as the man on the street goes Chretien is a crook, and will be forever held responsible (justly so imo) for overseeing sponsorgate, and for protecting the people involved. Testimony has long shown that Gagliano and those under him would not have been able to do what they did without protection from the PMO. Yet we're supposed to conclude Chretien is blameless?

We need to put this clown away. :angry:

[g_bambino]

We haven't had any statesmen in generations. If ever!

Not political ones, no.

[Argus]

We certainly know your feelings on the justice system . Certainly no bias on your part.

as the pot waves to the kettle

My feelings towards the legal system - it certainly can't be called a justice system - are indeed well known, and based entirely on my indignation, if not outrage, at the lack of justice.

But again, few Liberals would have any care or concern with a concept like that.

[Argus]

"Reasonable apprehension of bias" is pretty powerful stuff since it renders the entire report null. There was plenty of factual evidence (proof) for Gomery's bias. Read the report.

You sound like a lawyer - i.e., someone completely uninterested in truth, facts or justice.

[Argus]

It makes a huge difference. The court concluded Chretien is blameless.

The court made no such conclusion. I don't know how to explain light to a blind man, or water to someone who clearly has never taken a bath, but the pronouncements of a court are not the word of God, and most of us, those capable of independent thought, don't require a court to make decisions for us when the evidence is pretty much overwhelming. Yes, some people, not Liberals, clearly, are capable of thinking for themselves!

Chretien and his pack of thieves treated the public purse as theirs, to do with as they chose, to reward friends, to pay people off, and to reward themselves in myriad ways.

But again, I wouldn't expect a Liberal to care a whit about corruption or theft, at least, not corruption or theft committed by his own party. I regard the leadership of the Liberal Party as akin to a band of cheap, lying shysters and snake oil salesmen, and most of their supporters as little more than ignorant, brainless sheep.

[Remiel]

But again, I wouldn't expect a Liberal to care a whit about corruption or theft, at least, not corruption or theft committed by his own party. I regard the leadership of the Liberal Party as akin to a band of cheap, lying shysters and snake oil salesmen, and most of their supporters as little more than ignorant, brainless sheep.

Something tells me that if it were about Conservatives, you would not be making such ignorant, brainless generalizations.

All you really want is to replace one Natural Governing Party with another. There is nothing particularly laudable about that.

[bk59]

My feelings towards the legal system - it certainly can't be called a justice system - are indeed well known, and based entirely on my indignation, if not outrage, at the lack of justice.

But again, few Liberals would have any care or concern with a concept like that.

Actually I don't think many people at all have any care or concern with what you think a justice system should look like. Whether they are Liberals or not. Most people are capable of looking at the justice system we have with some objectivity, taking the good and the bad.

You sound like a lawyer - i.e., someone completely uninterested in truth, facts or justice.

Yes, yes. And all accountants are boring and all CEOs are evil and all 7/11 stores are run by immigrants... blah blah blah. Sometimes there just isn't anything worth reading on the internet. I guess I should have learned that from these forums by now.

[MontyBurns]

Actually I don't think many people at all have any care or concern with what you think a justice system should look like.

I know many people who think our "justice" system is a joke. It isn't only one poster on this forum.

Edited June 29, 2008 by MontyBurns

[bk59]

The court made no such conclusion. I don't know how to explain light to a blind man, or water to someone who clearly has never taken a bath, but the pronouncements of a court are not the word of God, and most of us, those capable of independent thought, don't require a court to make decisions for us when the evidence is pretty much overwhelming. Yes, some people, not Liberals, clearly, are capable of thinking for themselves!

Chretien and his pack of thieves treated the public purse as theirs, to do with as they chose, to reward friends, to pay people off, and to reward themselves in myriad ways.

Hmm, Gomery himself said there was no evidence that Chretien was involved in stealing money, simply that he should be blamed because he set up the program. One would think that had he found evidence he would have brought it up. Where exactly is your overwhelming evidence? Thinking for yourself is not the same as being able to think rationally.

But again, I wouldn't expect a Liberal to care a whit about corruption or theft, at least, not corruption or theft committed by his own party. I regard the leadership of the Liberal Party as akin to a band of cheap, lying shysters and snake oil salesmen, and most of their supporters as little more than ignorant, brainless sheep.

Ah, more reasoned debate, without resorting to gross generalizations or hyperbole. The hallmark of any great internet forum post.

[Keepitsimple]

Gomery's report simply concluded that in choosing to run the Sponsorship Program through the PMO instead of through an accountable government department, Chretien and Pelletier should assume at least some responsibility for what happened. It's called accountability. Gomery never accused either politician of being a crook. Gomery's conclusion, formulated with bias or not, is just plain common sense. Can anyone seriously debate that? Finding bias is one thing - but striking down such a reasonable and relatively modest conclusion is another matter.

Edited June 29, 2008 by Keepitsimple

[eyeball]

---

Edited June 29, 2008 by eyeball

[peter_puck]

Gomery was NOT proven anything. All the judge said was that his comments in an interview allowed for the impression of bias. He did not say that Gomery was wrong, and in fact, we all know Gomery soft-soaped Chretien's clear and obvious guilt.

Evidence ?

[bk59]

I know many people who think our "justice" system is a joke. It isn't only one poster on this forum.

Never said it was just one person. But the opposite side of the coin is that I know many people who think our justice system is one of the best in the world. No one is necessarily right or wrong, because let's face it - no system is perfect. But Argus' post was nothing more than drivel. The equivalent of "I think X is bad. Everyone who disagrees with me must be immoral. Everyone from party Y is immoral." You'll have to forgive me if when I got up this morning I felt like calling BS on that post.

Of course, as far as our justice system is concerned, I do have to wonder about the people who simply declare that it is "broken". Many people may not think the system is perfect, but consider the system far from "broken". In fact, our justice system has served as an example to other countries where people have either come to see our system in action, or Canadians have gone to other countries to teach about our system. Perhaps it isn't so bad after all.

[peter_puck]

It doesn't really make any difference. As far as the man on the street goes Chretien is a crook, and will be forever held responsible (justly so imo) for overseeing sponsorgate, and for protecting the people involved.

I think this is part Chretien's point. He will be viewed as being a "crook" despite the fact that there is no real evidence he was. Part of the reason people have this impression is that they A) misunderstand Gomery's report, and paid more attention to Gomery's off the cuff statements rather than the report.

[MontyBurns]

Never said it was just one person. But the opposite side of the coin is that I know many people who think our justice system is one of the best in the world. No one is necessarily right or wrong, because let's face it - no system is perfect. But Argus' post was nothing more than drivel. The equivalent of "I think X is bad. Everyone who disagrees with me must be immoral. Everyone from party Y is immoral." You'll have to forgive me if when I got up this morning I felt like calling BS on that post.

Of course, as far as our justice system is concerned, I do have to wonder about the people who simply declare that it is "broken". Many people may not think the system is perfect, but consider the system far from "broken". In fact, our justice system has served as an example to other countries where people have either come to see our system in action, or Canadians have gone to other countries to teach about our system. Perhaps it isn't so bad after all.

The justice system needs to stop focussing on the criminals rights so much. Also, much more severe punishment(ex. flogging) needs to be meted out to criminals. Then we will have a system the whole world will envy.

[jazzer]

Also, much more severe punishment(ex. flogging) needs to be meted out to criminals. Then we will have a system the whole world will envy.

Why stop there. Let's just burn them at the stake.