Argus Posted April 25, 2014 Report Posted April 25, 2014 yes, for those who clearly missed it... or choose to purposely ignore it: "Political parties generally co-operated in providing the data requested, but again here, there were inordinate delays and at times inexplicable resistance to providing the requested information." Despite that, she concludes, the result of the investigation likely wouldn't have been different. Had someone purposely tried to mislead voters, "one would have anticipated seeing a single predominant calling number, a constellation of calling numbers, or a pattern with multiple calls into a single electoral district from the same number. There was no such evidence." Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
On Guard for Thee Posted April 25, 2014 Report Posted April 25, 2014 Not so fast guys. The reason why there are no charges is that NO ONE would talk and they can't be force to and that's why. The Tories never gave a 100% to helping and why would they, they be hurting themselves. This party is the most corrupt party, more than the PC and Liberals ever were!! Correct. If you follow through the report there is a loud lament that not having the power to compel testimony muddys the waters of this report. And of course that's why Harper wants to maintian that in the unfair elections act. Stay tuned until June 2 when Sona goes on trial. Quote
Bryan Posted April 25, 2014 Report Posted April 25, 2014 Stay tuned until June 2 when Sona goes on trial. That should be interesting, considering Sona himself is quite happy now that he knows who is going to be testifying against him. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted April 25, 2014 Report Posted April 25, 2014 That should be interesting, considering Sona himself is quite happy now that he knows who is going to be testifying against him. Who Prescott? Quote
Bryan Posted April 25, 2014 Report Posted April 25, 2014 Who Prescott? Yeah: Sona said Thursday that he has “ironclad, verifiable alibis” that will contradict Prescott’s evidence. “I wouldn’t want to be him once this comes to trial and he’s under oath,” Sona said. “You’d think these guys would have learned after the Aruba story not to make the same mistake twice.” In November, Sona presented travel documents that show he was on vacation in Aruba at the time when a witness testified he was in Ottawa, boasting about his involvement in the trial. http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/04/03/former-campaign-worker-granted-immunity-after-he-gives-evidence-in-pierre-poutine-robocalls-case/ It could just be bravado to keep up a brave face in public, but Sona sure seems pretty excited at the opportunity to face his accusers in court. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted April 25, 2014 Report Posted April 25, 2014 Yeah: http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/04/03/former-campaign-worker-granted-immunity-after-he-gives-evidence-in-pierre-poutine-robocalls-case/ It could just be bravado to keep up a brave face in public, but Sona sure seems pretty excited at the opportunity to face his accusers in court. That witness wasn't Prescott, and only he has immunity. As Harper likes to say "good to go" Quote
Bryan Posted April 25, 2014 Report Posted April 25, 2014 That witness wasn't Prescott, and only he has immunity. As Harper likes to say "good to go" Prescott is the one he's excited to face in court. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted April 25, 2014 Report Posted April 25, 2014 Prescott is the one he's excited to face in court. We'll see how that goes. In the meantime it's good to see Poilievre is backing off. Maybe this is the beginning of the end of that bill. Quote
Smallc Posted April 25, 2014 Report Posted April 25, 2014 No infer I never cared abou this 'scandal'. Quote
Bryan Posted April 25, 2014 Report Posted April 25, 2014 Not so fast guys. The reason why there are no charges is that NO ONE would talk and they can't be force to and that's why. The Tories never gave a 100% to helping and why would they, they be hurting themselves. This party is the most corrupt party, more than the PC and Liberals ever were!! If you're ever accused of a serious crime, and your lawyer does NOT insist that you keep quiet and offer nothing without a warrant, get a different lawyer. Besides, The National Post, The CBC, The Council of Canadians, the Opposition parties, Leadnow.ca, etc, etc, all claimed THEY had evidence. They actually had nothing. They invented this whole fake scandal out of thin air. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted April 25, 2014 Report Posted April 25, 2014 If you're ever accused of a serious crime, and your lawyer does NOT insist that you keep quiet and offer nothing without a warrant, get a different lawyer. Besides, The National Post, The CBC, The Council of Canadians, the Opposition parties, Leadnow.ca, etc, etc, all claimed THEY had evidence. They actually had nothing. They invented this whole fake scandal out of thin air. OK lets redo the whole thing only give the commissioner the power to go to a judge and compel testimony, and let's see how that turns out! Quote
Bryan Posted April 25, 2014 Report Posted April 25, 2014 OK lets redo the whole thing only give the commissioner the power to go to a judge and compel testimony, and let's see how that turns out! Police don't even have those powers. This isn't the Soviet Union, we actually have rights in this country. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted April 25, 2014 Report Posted April 25, 2014 Police don't even have those powers. This isn't the Soviet Union, we actually have rights in this country. Of course the police don't have those powers. The courts do. Quote
Bryan Posted April 25, 2014 Report Posted April 25, 2014 Of course the police don't have those powers. The courts do. Right, and cases get sent to court when there's evidence to support that. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted April 25, 2014 Report Posted April 25, 2014 Right, and cases get sent to court when there's evidence to support that. Correct. And evidence flows from many sources, one of which is testimony. Quote
Bryan Posted April 25, 2014 Report Posted April 25, 2014 (edited) Correct. And evidence flows from many sources, one of which is testimony. And people accused of a crime cannot be compelled to testify, not even in court. You're asking for Elections Canada to have powers that are unconstitutional. Edited April 25, 2014 by Bryan Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted April 25, 2014 Report Posted April 25, 2014 And people accused of a crime cannot be compelled to testify, not even in court. You're asking for Elections Canada to have powers that are unconstitutional. No I am not. But C-23 seeks to gut the constitution. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted April 25, 2014 Report Posted April 25, 2014 No I am not. But C-23 seeks to gut the constitution. And just for kicks, go look up a thing called a subpeona. Quote
Bryan Posted April 25, 2014 Report Posted April 25, 2014 No I am not. But C-23 seeks to gut the constitution. It does nothing of the sort. ID is already required in Ontario and Quebec provincial elections. ID s already required when driving a car. ID is already required when crossing the border. ID is already required to be covered for provincial healthcare. There's nothing unconstitutional about asking someone to show evidence that they are eligible for the thing that they are about to do. And just for kicks, go look up a thing called a subpeona. You can't subpoena someone to testify against themselves. Go look up a thing called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Sections 11 and 13 are particularly engaging. Quote
waldo Posted April 25, 2014 Report Posted April 25, 2014 "likely wouldn't have been different"... oh ya, sure, you betcha! Nothing like "persons of interest" being able to simply choose to not cooperate... choose not provide testimony. Like I said, Elections Canada may as well have provided a simple one-liner: "we found nuthin... cause we weren't allowed to find sumthin!" Quote
waldo Posted April 25, 2014 Report Posted April 25, 2014 since it appears the two threads won't be merged now, I simply choose to provide my earlier/initial post that resurrected the initial thread... now here: Did you read the news this morning. Robocalls probe finds “no reasonable grounds” for charges. uhhh... see Guelph and the upcoming Sona trial. Care to offer your "reasonable grounds" assessment on whether anyone outside Guelph was aware the Conservative Party CIMS database was accessed in this regard... and by who? If you're going to suggest the CIMS db was not compromised in this regard, then where was the data sourced?as for the rest of Canada (and the Elections Canada 'ruling' you speak of), apparently... "insufficient evidence... intent could not be established"! Of course, it begs the question as to the intent behind privately funded calls, purporting to be from Elections Canada, directing people to non-existent polling stations? Care to offer your "reasonable grounds" assessment on that related intent?as announced by Yves Cote, the commissioner of Elections Canada:"Ultimately, investigators have been able to determine that incorrect poll locations were provided to some electors, and that some nuisance calls occurred," the report into the calls said."However, the evidence does not establish that calls were made with the intention of preventing or attempting to prevent an elector from voting, or for the purpose of inducing an elector by some pretence or contrivance to vote or not vote, or to vote or not vote for a particular candidate.""This proof of intent is necessary for the commissioner to consider recommending to the Director of Public Prosecutions that a prosecution under the Act be initiated," the report said. oh wait! Isn't that the same Election's Canada Yves Cote who, just weeks ago in commenting on the Harper Conservative "Unfair Elections Act", called for his position to be able to hold the power to compel witnesses to provide testimony.The chief elections investigator refused to discuss any specific cases, including the ongoing investigation into fraudulent robocalls in the 2011 election, but said unco-operative witnesses have been a real issue in his 20 months on the job."There have indeed been cases -- a number of them -- where in the performance of our investigative powers we have come across people who had information relevant to our investigations who simply refused to talk to us," said Cote. but hey, no worries... Harper Conservative Minister of State for Democratic Reform, Pierre Poilievre is hot on the case... working with Bill C-23 to ensure Elections Canada is gutted and has no/additional power whatsoever! Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted April 25, 2014 Report Posted April 25, 2014 It does nothing of the sort. ID is already required in Ontario and Quebec provincial elections. ID s already required when driving a car. ID is already required when crossing the border. ID is already required to be covered for provincial healthcare. There's nothing unconstitutional about asking someone to show evidence that they are eligible for the thing that they are about to do. You can't subpoena someone to testify against themselves. Go look up a thing called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Sections 11 and 13 are particularly engaging. The constitution says in order to vote you must be a Canadian 18 years or older. Obviously you didn't look up what a subpeona is. Quote
Bryan Posted April 25, 2014 Report Posted April 25, 2014 The constitution says in order to vote you must be a Canadian 18 years or older. Obviously you didn't look up what a subpeona is. A subpoena is an order compelling someone to give testimony. You cannot compel someone to testify against themselves. You can compel someone to prove that they are eligible to vote -- Ontario and Quebec already do this, So do the Liberal and NDP parties. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted April 25, 2014 Report Posted April 25, 2014 A subpoena is an order compelling someone to give testimony. You cannot compel someone to testify against themselves. You can compel someone to prove that they are eligible to vote -- Ontario and Quebec already do this, So do the Liberal and NDP parties. And one way to be allowed to vote is vouching. I was out for a beer earlier today and I could have vouched for at least a half dozen people based on our constitution if I needed to. I'm sure you could do the same in certain circumstances if not the one I discuss. I don't think, and it has yet to be in any way proven, that either of us, nor any other Canadian has done anything beyond that. Quote
Bryan Posted April 25, 2014 Report Posted April 25, 2014 (edited) And one way to be allowed to vote is vouching. I was out for a beer earlier today and I could have vouched for at least a half dozen people based on our constitution if I needed to. I'm sure you could do the same in certain circumstances if not the one I discuss. I don't think, and it has yet to be in any way proven, that either of us, nor any other Canadian has done anything beyond that. Vouching is not allowed in Ontario or Quebec. Nor do the Liberals or the NDP allow it. Nothing unconstitutional about it. Edited April 25, 2014 by Bryan Quote
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.