Volpe Says He took No Part In Wooing MP

[Guest eureka]

The one thing that is being passed over in this is the fact that Grewal recorded the conversations at all It is just about the ultimate in sleaze and brings into question Grewal's fitness for any office.

There has long been a code of behaviour that I doubt has ever been breached in this way until this.

[takeanumber]

True True -- it might be legal: it doesn't make it right.

Doesn't sit right.

[RightWinger]

In this post I can see the difference between Fiberals & NDP. NDP are asking for the RCMP to investigate & the Fiberals are saying how low & dishonest Grewal is for taping them.

If Paul Martin was caught with a smoking gun, a dead hooker in front of him, a bag of coke in his pocket, in an hourly rate hotel, Fiberals would say, why did that damn hooker lure him there and kill herself! Charge her family for entrapment!! He was framed!!! Why are you Liberals so quick to lay blame on someone else, even if it is obvious they are to blame?

It truly baffles me.

NDP have enough integrity to ask for the proper authorities to investigate and wait to make judgement. Kudos to the NDP. (I can't believe I am complimenting them!)

[Argus]

The one thing that is being passed over in this is the fact that Grewal recorded the conversations at all It is just about the ultimate in sleaze and brings into question Grewal's fitness for any office.

There has long been a code of behaviour that I doubt has ever been breached in this way until this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The thing you guys seem to keep forgetting in your zeal to condemn the taping is that what Grewal did was not illegal. However if he was offered any renumeration for switching his vote or abstaining that is a crime. How can you worry about the morality of taping the conversation and not the morality of bribing MPs to swtich their votes?

[August1991]

However if he was offered any renumeration for switching his vote or abstaining that is a crime.

Grewal was not offered anything, at least explicitly.

But then looking at this more broadly, does anyone believe that Stronach was offered nothing?

And in panavision, what did Layton get for his 19 votes?

This is politics. Politicians do deals. Our job as voters is to judge the deals the politicians do. It's rather late in the game to be offended to learn that the Liberal Party makes patronage appointments as payment for services rendered.

[Riverwind]

The thing you guys seem to keep forgetting in your zaal to condemn the taping is that what Grewal did was not illegal. However if he was offered any renumeration for switching his vote or abstaining that is a crime. How can you worry about the morality of taping the conversation and not the morality of bribing MPs to swtich their votes?

I think the most likely explaination for Grewal and his tapes is that he was really looking for either an appointment or some way out of the ethics investigation he was under. He likely recorded the conversations so he could use them for blackmail at a later date. He later invented the story about the sting because he could not get the firm commitment.

In the transcripts, Dosanj does sound way too eager to hand Grewal positions but Murphy sounds like he is stringing him along to get that absention. It is quite possible that Murphy had no intentions of giving someone like Grewal anything like what he asked for. Murphy knew that once Grewal abstained he would be kicked out of the conservative caucus and would be in no position to ask for big favours after the vote - especially if the Liberals won the election in Labrador. I agree it is pretty underhanded but Grewal was the one who set the tone for the discussion by insisting on that senate seat over and over again.

The Liberals are now claiming that stuff was deleted from the tapes. It will be tough for the conservatives to prove that this is not the case - mostly likely because they did delete stuff that made Grewal look even worse. If the Liberals can prove that the Conseratives deleted material then it will show that Conservatives are more than willing to toss their ethics out the door in their pursuit for power.

[Argus]

The thing you guys seem to keep forgetting in your zaal to condemn the taping is that what Grewal did was not illegal. However if he was offered any renumeration for switching his vote or abstaining that is a crime. How can you worry about the morality of taping the conversation and not the morality of bribing MPs to swtich their votes?

I think the most likely explaination for Grewal and his tapes is that he was really looking for either an appointment or some way out of the ethics investigation he was under. He likely recorded the conversations so he could use them for blackmail at a later date. He later invented the story about the sting because he could not get the firm commitment.

That sounds, to say the least, unlikely. I believe what happened was that Grewal was approached and someone made an explicit offer(The Senate, I think it was). This was the first time he claimed he had been approached. Then, as many disbelieved him, he went back with his tape recorder and tried to get them to say it again. This time he was speaking with higher level people who were a little more circumspect - possibly because he'd already made a fuss over the first approach. Still, it is fairly clear he would be rewarded for switching his vote.

And yet, what do we here on this forum by lefties snivelling and whining about Grewal daring to tape the conversation. Not a peep of complaint about the almost certain bribery effort, just bitching and moaning about Grewal. It shows where their minds are at.

[Riverwind]

That sounds, to say the least, unlikely. I believe what happened was that Grewal was approached and someone made an explicit offer(The Senate, I think it was).

Inky Mark was the MP who claimed he was offered a senate seat - not Grewal. It would be really stupid for the Liberals to have approached either Mark or Grewal unless the CPC MPs had indicated that they were interested in advance. It is more l ikely that Mark's claims gave Grewal the idea that he could get something for himself by approaching the Liberals.

And yet, what do we here on this forum by lefties snivelling and whining about Grewal daring to tape the conversation. Not a peep of complaint about the almost certain bribery effort, just bitching and moaning about Grewal. It shows where their minds are at.

Equally surprising is the fact that conservatives supporters seem to automatically assume that a MP with a history of ethically shady activities must be telling the complete truth. It is my belief is that the Conservatives would act exactly the same way if they were in power and faced with the same pressures. Look at how MacKay betrayed his agreement with Orchard my merging with the Alliance. Sure, MacKay can justify what he did but it definitely casts a pall on someone who likes to claim moral superiority to the Liberals.

[takeanumber]

If the tapes revealed bribery -- that would be a very big problem indeed.

The tapes don't reveal that.

If anything, they show Grewal looking for a bribe.

If this comes down to a case of he said he said...I won't believe Grewal. I don't believe anything a Con says.

That said, I don't know if I believe Dosanj et al either.

It doesn't help that all the tapes are in Punjabi, and knowing how the CPC leadership operates, I think the tapes were doctored.

[Argus]

Equally surprising is the fact that conservatives supporters seem to automatically assume that a MP with a history of ethically shady activities must be telling the complete truth.

Please detail this history of ethically shady activities.

[Argus]

It doesn't help that all the tapes are in Punjabi,

They're not.

and knowing how the CPC leadership operates, I think

Please detail how the CPC leadership operates. Compare and constrast to the way the NDP and Liberal leadership operates.

Or do you actually know anything at all about how ANY political party's leadership operates?

I'm guessing ... no.

[Riverwind]

Equally surprising is the fact that conservatives supporters seem to automatically assume that a MP with a history of ethically shady activities must be telling the complete truth.

Please detail this history of ethically shady activities.

Asking constituants to post bonds in order to get visitors visas. He is currently under investigation for that by the ethics commisioner. The Vancouver Sun published a list of controversies that Grewal has been involved in the past - it seems like Grewal has a history of claiming he was offered posts by political rivals.

[kimmy]

I could believe that Grewal initiated contact. I could believe the reverse, too. I think most likely a "matchmaker" of some sort was involved, just as Mr and Mrs Peterson were in the Stronach defection.

CTV Ottawa bureau chief Fife said weeks ago that Liberal insiders were talking about using senate appointments and ambassadorships to get some Conservative MPs out of the House of Commons to solidify the Liberals' position. Eureka's take was that they would do it, they just wouldn't be this clumsy about it. And, as the tape shows, they weren't clumsy. No specifics discussed, no hard commitments made. At one point one of the Liberals says as much, telling Grewal that they can't give him any specific promise because they have to maintain deniability, all while essentially assuring him that good things would happen for him if he followed through.

Did Tim Murphy really phone to PMPM to discuss the situation, or did Murphy just tell that to Grewal to keep the wheels greased? We can only guess.

Did Murphy and Dosage really intend to give Grewal some reward if he followed through, or were they just trying to string him along long enough to win the crucial votes that week? We can only guess at that, too.

Did Grewal intend from the start for this to be a "sting" operation, or was he initially hoping to be on the receiving end of some grift? We'll just have to guess at that too.

I think that the Liberals insistance that "no offer was made" is dependent on a pretty literalistic use of the word 'offer', just as Bill Clinton's insistance that he "did not have sex with that woman" as dependent on a pretty literalistic definition of the word 'sex'. They might not have made a specific offer, but pretty clearly Grewal was assured that good things would come to him if he cooperated, and he was 'offered' the chance to meet with PMPM in person to discuss that further. (would Paul Martin take such a meeting? I suspect he would. He might find that he and Grewal "have a great deal in common", to coin a phrase.)

My opinion is that of Murphy, Dosage, and Grewal, I wouldn't leave my purse unattended with any of them.

-k

[bigdude]

I agree about NOT leaving your purse unattended around those three.

It is spelt Dosanjh by-the-way.

[kimmy]

Dosanjh

who?

-k

[Riverwind]

My opinion is that of Murphy, Dosage, and Grewal, I wouldn't leave my purse unattended with any of them.

I also agree with your assement but I don't think I would worry about leaving my wallet unattended around them since I have noticed a disturbing number of people who are honest when it comes to people but dishonest when it comes to institutions.

[Argus]

Equally surprising is the fact that conservatives supporters seem to automatically assume that a MP with a history of ethically shady activities must be telling the complete truth.

Please detail this history of ethically shady activities.

Asking constituants to post bonds in order to get visitors visas. He is currently under investigation for that by the ethics commisioner. The Vancouver Sun published a list of controversies that Grewal has been involved in the past - it seems like Grewal has a history of claiming he was offered posts by political rivals.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not sure it ws even Grewal who was asking for the bonds. However even if it was that can hardly be termed unethical. It wasn't like he was asking people to give him anything.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Kimmy, overall an excellent analysis, except this:

I think that the Liberals insistance that "no offer was made" is dependent on a pretty literalistic use of the word 'offer', just as Bill Clinton's insistance that he "did not have sex with that woman" as dependent on a pretty literalistic definition of the word 'sex'.

I think it's clear that this situai falls much shorter of consommation than Clinton's. It is clear that everyone is telling Grewal there's no deal. They appear unwilling to talk about the senate really at all. As for cabinet, they don't seems serious about that either, but even if they were, cabinet is an entirely political position chosen completely at the government's discretion.

Regarding the immigration allegationsn the help available was hardly substantive. Asking Volpe to swallow some rhetoric or trying to get an interim report released don't mean anything. There is no suggestion of influencing anyone's findings or halting any investigations at all.

Finally, there is the suggestion of an 'understanding' but not a 'deal'. But it's clear Murphy wouldn't commit to anything specific, so its is possible that they meant an uderstanding to consist of perfectly legitimate parliamentary or party opportunities available to a newly high-profile dynamic MP couple.

Grewal and the Tories overplayed their hand very badly. The Liberals were badly battered with Gomery stuff. Using sleazy tactics to add such a small measure more to the Liberals image problems was a poor move.

[Argus]

Grewal and the Tories overplayed their hand very badly.  The Liberals were badly  battered with Gomery stuff.  Using sleazy tactics to add such a small measure more to the Liberals image problems was a poor move.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Let's face it. Without a videotape showing Martin handing the money to Grewal people like you wouldn't believe anything was amiss anyway. Even then you'd probably believe whatever excuse Martin gave you. But for ordinary people, this is more confirmation of the sleaze of the Liberal government, and a confirmation of how dear Belinda was paid off for switching sides.

[bigdude]

Grewal and the Tories overplayed their hand very badly.  The Liberals were badly  battered with Gomery stuff.  Using sleazy tactics to add such a small measure more to the Liberals image problems was a poor move.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Let's face it. Without a videotape showing Martin handing the money to Grewal people like you wouldn't believe anything was amiss anyway. Even then you'd probably believe whatever excuse Martin gave you. But for ordinary people, this is more confirmation of the sleaze of the Liberal government, and a confirmation of how dear Belinda was paid off for switching sides.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually it shows the sleaze of both right wing parties, the Liberals and the Conservatives, and I agree that the Liberals were on the ropes with Gomery and this attempt to get MPs to switch parties by offering inducements to them, has given the Liberals a bit of breathing room. Where do we go from here as I think this whole Grewal situation is going to be a tempest in a teapot?

[The Terrible Sweal]

Let's face it. Without a videotape showing Martin handing the money to Grewal people like you wouldn't believe anything was amiss anyway.

Let's face it, you would say that about any analysis that doesn't condemn the Liberals for everything from hangnails to the Fall of Lucifer. And naturally, you made no attempt to actually address the points made.

But for ordinary people, this is more confirmation of the sleaze of the Liberal government, ...

Let's see what the polls say then.

[takeanumber]

Please detail how the CPC leadership operates. Compare and constrast to the way the NDP and Liberal leadership operates.

Or do you actually know anything at all about how ANY political party's leadership operates?

I'm guessing ... no.

I've dealt with the CPC leadership personally.

I have friends in one portion of the NDP leadership. They don't like when I muse about joining the Greens.

I've met members of the Liberal leadership more than twice. They don't like it when I bitch about their sluggishness on SSM.

I really don't like any political party, but I prefer the lesser of three evils.

The CPC leadership lacks empathy, isn't really interested in helping anybody but themselves, and are generally angry at everything.

The NDP leadership is always mad, but they really believe that what they're fighting for is just, and they feel as though they're fighting for the little guy.

The Liberal leadership feels as though they're the only party that can hold the country together.

So yes, I know how the leadership operates. I'm privy to many details.

Happy?

Maybe more Alberta EI transfers would satisfy you? Probably not.

[Argus]

Please detail how the CPC leadership operates. Compare and constrast to the way the NDP and Liberal leadership operates.

Or do you actually know anything at all about how ANY political party's leadership operates?

I'm guessing ... no.

I've dealt with the CPC leadership personally.

When? Last Halloween when you trick or treated at their houses?

Wouldn't they give you any good candies?