Guergis Resigns from Cabinet - RCMP Investigation into Alleged Miscond

[Argus]

You're right that the Liberals, in old and multi-partisan political tradition, are trying to dig up slime. That doesn't change the incontestable truth that the Government is indeed slimy.

Even though, of course, there's no evidence to support any such inference.

They're conservative. That's enough for the bile to overflow among the far left.

[Argus]

I'll wait for the next eletion and "write" him a letter in the form of an X next to anyone but him.

I wasn't aware your literary talents extended quite that far.

I'm sure the Tories willb e devestated to learn that you won't vote for them - even though you have never voted for them and never would anyway....

[Argus]

... well... except that the answer to that question would have to be a solid 'Yes', regardless of who's asking it, or in what context.

Yes, of course. No thought required.

[Argus]

it's impossible to avoid the comparison... illegal lobbying, inappropriate use of government resources, characters with a shady past...and drugs,prostitutes not even Schrieber had those...this story has it all...

Except evidence to support your masturbatory fantasies.

[Wild Bill]

... well... except that the answer to that question would have to be a solid 'Yes', regardless of who's asking it, or in what context.

When the two articles are side by side I should think the context would be obvious!

[Born Free]

Except evidence to support your masturbatory fantasies.

Do you have anything to offer this forum other than juvenile pottymouth put downs and fantasy statements about the "left"?

[Born Free]

Even though, of course, there's no evidence to support any such inference.

They're conservative. That's enough for the bile to overflow among the far left.

Your hypocricy is overwhelming at times. Do you not have the ability to segregate one event from the other?

The Liberals already took the heat for their mob-like governing days.

The conservatives took the heat over their hero and ethically challenged Mulroney. His fall from grace (to be polite) was monumental.

Now we have a PM that shows poor judgement and a complete disregard for Parliament. I understand how firm your head is up your ass about Harper but please dont confuse it with an attempt to think things through.

[Sir Bandelot]

Even though, of course, there's no evidence to support any such inference.

They're conservative. That's enough for the bile to overflow among the far left.

You are not conservative, you are merely partisan. I'll tell you why- your stance on "tough on crime" does not extend to people or situations that involve your party.

If this statement is incorrect, tell us your opinion on how Rahim Jaffer got off so easily on some technicalities, that otherwise would be overlooked if he were not a person with political connections.

[M.Dancer]

You are not conservative, you are merely partisan. I'll tell you why- your stance on "tough on crime" does not extend to people or situations that involve your party.

If this statement is incorrect, tell us your opinion on how Rahim Jaffer got off so easily on some technicalities, that otherwise would be overlooked if he were not a person with political connections.

The only way those irregularities would have been overlooked is if they did not want leagl counsel or had really bad legal counsel.

Not letting someone talk to their lawyer? Really?

And the small amount of coke, not found on him but in his jacket also would have been turfed..

[Sir Bandelot]

Not letting someone talk to their lawyer? Really?

And the small amount of coke, not found on him but in his jacket also would have been turfed..

If you read the news story you'd know, they let him call two lawyers, but neither one answered. Then they recommended he talk to a duty counsel that was available. he did that. After talking to the counsel he agreed to the breathalyzer test. This has to be given by law within 2 hours of the arrest. While the test was in progress, that's when his own lawyers called back. the cops told them they were too late.

That last part is debateable. To be fair they could have interrupted the test to let him talk to them on the phone. But cops are not always fair, especially to druggies who have been drinking, going 95 in a 50 zone...

Point is, to say they didn't let him talk to his lawyer is not accurate. he was allowed to call two, and spoke to a third.

Bigger point is, a technicality that he got off on, which otherwise "tough on crime" cpc'ers would be enraged about "THESE LIBERAL LAWS!!!..." But not today, oh my...

Right, Arguss??? Because it brings out the closet Liberal in you, to let him off under these circumstances.

Edited April 14, 2010 by Sir Bandelot

[M.Dancer]

If you read the news story you'd know, they let him call two lawyers, but neither one answered. Then they recommended he talk to a duty counsel that was available. he did that. After talking to the counsel he agreed to the breathalyzer test. This has to be given by law within 2 hours of the arrest. While the test was in progress, that's when his own lawyers called back. the cops told them they were too late.

Which is why they lost. Lawyers are never too late...(except for appearoing in court...) The police have a responsibility to allow the client/counsel dance to happen...they can not stand in the way.

That last part is debateable. To be fair they could have interrupted the test to let him talk to them on the phone. But cops are not always fair, especially to druggies who have been drinking, going 95 in a 50 zone...

Point is, to say they didn't let him talk to his lawyer is not accurate. he was allowed to call two, and spoke to a third.

Bigger point is, a technicality that he got off on, which otherwise "tough on crime" cpc'ers would be enraged about "THESE LIBERAL LAWS!!!..." But not today, oh my...

Right, Arguss??? Because it brings out the closet Liberal in you, to let him off under these circumstances.

He got off because his lawyer is on the ball. No other reason...his lawyer and the cops made a procedural error...no other reason...

[jbg]

I'll wait for the next eletion....

What is an "eletion"? Is that a term where Canadian differs from American English?

[jbg]

First we had Chretien and his mob rule. Then we had the ethically challenged Mulroney. Here we go again...

I guess you're chronologically dyslexic. Even every American knows that the order of modern PM's is King, St. Laurent, Diefenbaker, Pearson, Trudeau, Clark, Trudeau, Turner, Mulroney, Campbell, Chretien, Martin and Harper. I thought for sure a good and intelligent Canadian like you would know who your PM's were and are.

[Born Free]

I guess you're chronologically dyslexic. Even every American knows that the order of modern PM's is King, St. Laurent, Diefenbaker, Pearson, Trudeau, Clark, Trudeau, Turner, Mulroney, Campbell, Chretien, Martin and Harper. I thought for sure a good and intelligent Canadian like you would know who your PM's were and are.

Being childish will get you nowhere...

[Sir Bandelot]

He got off because his lawyer is on the ball. No other reason...his lawyer and the cops made a procedural error...no other reason...

The cops must arrest people every day. They know their procedures damn well by now. They know, it's a "procedural error" to give somebody a cavity search under these circumstances. But I have a hunch, there was nothing special in this case as far as the cops were concerned, just another night on patrol, just another drunk driver with coke in his possession. Yet the tough on crimers have little to say now, despite procedural errors. The silence roared.

[M.Dancer]

The cops must arrest people every day. They know their procedures damn well by now. They know, it's a "procedural error" to give somebody a cavity search under these circumstances. But I have a hunch, there was nothing special in this case as far as the cops were concerned, just another night on patrol, just another drunk driver with coke in his possession. Yet the tough on crimers have little to say now, despite procedural errors. The silence roared.

I am on record in one of these jaffer threads that he should be hung out to dry...

[Sir Bandelot]

One thing that probably helped him greatly is the fact that his case would be very High Profile. There would be a big media spotlight on it. Thus any such procedural errors would come to light. For ordinary Joe-Bobs, they would be told to shut up and sit down. The crown would never say they believe the case has no chance for a conviction, just because some loser didn't get to talk to his favorite lawyer in time, or that the cops felt it was necessary to cavity search Joe-Bob, because he was behaving in a threatening manner. In that case it's called "police discretion".

But he got off on the technicality. Too bad we're not tough on crime, right Arguss?

[Shakeyhands]

I wasn't aware your literary talents extended quite that far.

I'm sure the Tories willb e devestated to learn that you won't vote for them - even though you have never voted for them and never would anyway....

wow.... juvenile much?

[Born Free]

The cops must arrest people every day. They know their procedures damn well by now. They know, it's a "procedural error" to give somebody a cavity search under these circumstances. But I have a hunch, there was nothing special in this case as far as the cops were concerned, just another night on patrol, just another drunk driver with coke in his possession. Yet the tough on crimers have little to say now, despite procedural errors. The silence roared.

I'm with Morris on this one. The cops often screw up an arrest. I believe the OPP made mistakes and any lawyer that knows his stuff will get the serious charges tossed. Happens a lot I bet.

[Sir Bandelot]

I'm with Morris on this one. The cops often screw up an arrest. I believe the OPP made mistakes and any lawyer that knows his stuff will get the serious charges tossed. Happens a lot I bet.

I cannot agree or disagree, I am not a legal expert. But even if this is true, it is entirely beside the point I'm making.

Edited April 14, 2010 by Sir Bandelot

[M.Dancer]

If this statement is incorrect, tell us your opinion on how Rahim Jaffer got off so easily on some technicalities, that otherwise would be overlooked if he were not a person with political connections.

I cannot agree or disagree, I am not a legal expert. But even if this is true, it is entirely beside the point I'm making.

The point you originally tries to make that it was his political connections that got him off. A good lawyer and goofs by police are not tangetial to your point, they refute it.

[Sir Bandelot]

The point you originally tries to make that it was his political connections that got him off. A good lawyer and goofs by police are not tangetial to your point, they refute it.

No that's not really the point I tries to make. But to stay on that topic for one more moment, I feel it's likely the cops do this often, they treat criminals roughly and often get away with it. In this case they did not, probably for a number of reasons.

The point I wanted to make was that the tough on crime gang has no criticism of this, in fact they come to the defense of said perpetrators, citing the technicalities as valid reason to let criminals go. That's Southparkian hypocrisy.

Edited April 14, 2010 by Sir Bandelot

[M.Dancer]

The point I wanted to make was that the tough on crime gang has no criticism of this, in fact they come to the defense of said perpetrators, citing the technicalities as valid reason to let criminals go. That's Southparkian hypocrisy.

You might want to re read the jaffer threads and check your hypothesis...I suspect your conclusion is biased.

[Born Free]

I cannot agree or disagree, I am not a legal expert. But even if this is true, it is entirely beside the point I'm making.

The point you seem to be trying to make is that somehow the Harper gang had something to do with getting Jaffer off on the serious charges. If I have that right, I suggest that you are barking up the wrong tree here.

You should also know that I can write in cliches until the cows come home.

[Sir Bandelot]

The point you seem to be trying to make is that somehow the Harper gang had something to do with getting Jaffer off on the serious charges. If I have that right, I suggest that you are barking up the wrong tree here.

Not the Harper gang, but the Harper supporters on this site.