More Conservative Corruption

[Riverwind]

One of the more tiresome cliches among a certain segment of society is this "Innocent until proven guilty" drivel. This is a foundation of LAW, but some have chosen to use it as an every day throwaway line in reference to every question of moral or legal malfeasance of anyone - particularly anyone they support.

The court system uses terms like 'innocent until proven guilty' and 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt' because too many people are quick to jump to conclusions based on little or no evidence, and, as a result, innocent people are sent to jail or have their reputations ruined.

You can make an argument that the 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' is too stringent for people in the political area. However, when it come to the question of if Martin was an activate participant in the sponsorship scandal, there is no evidence that would meet even the 'balance of probabilities' test.

That is ludicrous. It's a suggestion that no one is able to judge anyone based on what they know and have heard and their own native wisdom and common sense. It's a statement that no one is capable of forming rational judgements except judges - most of whom are corrupt suckups who got their jobs for who they knew anyway.

This is a perfect example of how closed minded you are: you have decided in advance that Martin must be guilty and if Gomery exonerates him your explanation is the the 'judge must be corrupt'.

But I have not. Either Paul Martin knew far more about what was going on or he's a complete blithering imbecile who shouldn't be trusted to bus tables in the parliamentary dining room.

There is a huge difference between hearing rumors and not being certain they were true and actively participating and abetting the fraud. Martin probably heard rumors but conservatives are alleging he actively participated in the fraud. There is no logical or factual evidence to support such a conclusion.

So open that even if Paul Martin tearfully confesses on live TV your "open mind" will still suggest it's too early to judge him

I am not the one accusing judges of being corrupt and saying you can't believe them if they say Martin is innocent. I made the crack about conservatives making up evidence because of the doctored Grewal tapes and the fact that they are already trying undermine Gomery's report by claiming that his report will be a whitewash because his 'mandate' does not allow his to name names (as if that makes any difference - if he thinks someone is guilty it will be obvious in the report even if he does not say it outright).

[Riverwind]

Grewal donor who wants tax receipt acknowledges ties to Dosanjh[/url]

The Vancouver businessman who is demanding a tax receipt for money he gave Conservative MP Gurmant Grewal two years ago says he is a member at large of Liberal Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh's riding association.

Which is exactly my point. Don't judge people in public life until all the facts are looked at by people without a political agenda. If this turns out to be a smear campaign orchastrated by Dosanjh then my opinion of Dosanjh will drop even further (if that is possible).

However, there are clearly facts that need to be examined in this case - it does have the appereance of inpropriety. If Grewal did nothing wrong then move on.

[Argus]

But I have not. Either Paul Martin knew far more about what was going on or he's a complete blithering imbecile who shouldn't be trusted to bus tables in the parliamentary dining room.

There is a huge difference between hearing rumors and not being certain they were true and actively participating and abetting the fraud. Martin probably heard rumors but conservatives are alleging he actively participated in the fraud. There is no logical or factual evidence to support such a conclusion.

He heard "rumours" the government, his government, his party, was heavily involved in massive corruption in Quebec, his province. And what exactly? We're not talking about a junior aid to a minor MP here. We're talking about the most powerful man in the party next to Chretien. We're talking about the Finance Minsiter, the deputy prime minister. We're talking about a guy with a massive organization, especially in Quebec. Don't you think it might have been incumbant upon him to at least lean over to Jean Chretien at one of their numerous committee or cabinet meetings and say "Uhm, Jean, what's this I hear about us stealing hundreds of millions of dollars?"

It begars the imagination that Martin would never have probed such "rumours" especially given how widespread they were even outside the party. It defies logic he would not have almost immediately been able to determine the veracity of such "rumours". Clearly he decided he could live with such theft - and that's giving him the benefit of the doubt that he wasn't personally involved. And we have heard enough tails of him and his own pet advertising/promotion agency to wonder about that.

[Riverwind]

We're talking about the Finance Minsiter, the deputy prime minister. We're talking about a guy with a massive organization, especially in Quebec. Don't you think it might have been incumbant upon him to at least lean over to Jean Chretien at one of their numerous committee or cabinet meetings and say "Uhm, Jean, what's this I hear about us stealing hundreds of millions of dollars?"

We are talking about a period of time when Martin and Chertien were battling over control of the Liberal party. From what I have heard the two did not communicate directly at all: so the opportunities for such casual inquiries did not exist. Even if Martin launched his own investigation without the approval of the Chretian camp it is unlikely that any of Chretian's people would have told him anything about what was going on. If you want to disagree look at how these people stonewalled in front of the Gomery inquiry - why would they have been anymore forthcoming with someone who was the 'enemy'?

It defies logic he would not have almost immediately been able to determine the veracity of such "rumours". Clearly he decided he could live with such theft - and that's giving him the benefit of the doubt that he wasn't personally involved.

First, Rumors circulate all of the time in Ottawa. The only thing unusual about the sponsorship rumors is the fact that they turned out to be true. It is easy to point fingers after the fact.

Second, the opposition and media have blown the sponsorship scandal out of proportion, a 100 million out of the federal budget wasted over a number of years is equivalent to a few lattes/year for the average family. An ethical person could be very concerned about the problem but not see the urgency in dealing with it. Remember: most of the money was lost overpaying for services delivered - something that is, sadly, very common place in the gov't. A reasonable person hearing rumors about cash in envelopes would likely dismiss them as exagerations.

Third, many people criticizes Martin for pushing so hard to replace Chretien. It is possible that Martin's disgust over the rumors regarding the sponsorship scandal was one of things motivating him. I believe that once he heard the rumors he may have quietly looked into it and then decided that he wanted to know nothing more until he took over as leader - his thinking would be that he could clean it up then.

In short, they are many logical and reasonable reasons why an ethical person who was not in charge of the government and was not part of Chretien's 'inner circle' would not have acted decisively and publicly on this issue at the time. That is why it is not enough for you to say 'he must have been ok with it' or 'if he did not know he is an idiot'. Gomery's report may not answer all of the questions but it will provide a more balanced analysis than any of the partisan rhetoric (from both sides) than we have heard to date.

[Canuck E Stan]

"If you want to disagree look at how these people stonewalled in front of the Gomery inquiry - why would they have been anymore forthcoming with someone who was the 'enemy'?"

Stonwalled in front of the Gomery inquiry? Are you serious? I seem to remember "St.Martin" leading his caucus meeting to a rousing cheer for Chertien after Chertien went before the inquiry. Martin is no better than Chertien.

"I believe that once he heard the rumors he may have quietly looked into it and then decided that he wanted to know nothing more until he took over as leader - his thinking would be that he could clean it up then."

The truth is ,his thinking was not to say a damn word and only when it hit the fan, and the fact that he has a minority government ,did he deal with it. Martin's plan was to sweep it under the rug. He called an election before the inquiry got anywhere hoping to shut it down once he got a majority.With a majority he would have five years to have Canadians forget all about it.

[Argus]

We're talking about the Finance Minsiter, the deputy prime minister. We're talking about a guy with a massive organization, especially in Quebec. Don't you think it might have been incumbant upon him to at least lean over to Jean Chretien at one of their numerous committee or cabinet meetings and say "Uhm, Jean, what's this I hear about us stealing hundreds of millions of dollars?"

We are talking about a period of time when Martin and Chertien were battling over control of the Liberal party.

Balls!

This happened for years while he was happily basking in the approval of everyone as Finance minister. This isn't something that just came around during his final years before resigning. And if he was in the process of trying to rebel against Chretien and gain more adherents what better ammunition to use to show that Chretien was past his due date!

It defies logic he would not have almost immediately been able to determine the veracity of such "rumours". Clearly he decided he could live with such theft - and that's giving him the benefit of the doubt that he wasn't personally involved.

First, Rumors circulate all of the time in Ottawa. The only thing unusual about the sponsorship rumors is the fact that they turned out to be true. It is easy to point fingers after the fact.

We're not talking about distant rumours here, and we're not talking about an ordinary man on the street. We're talking about the second most powerful man in the government with enormous resources and masses of very loyal party members. We're also talking about, though I suppose it's a quaint notion these days, the responsibility required of a minister of the Crown to ensure his party and his government are not corrupt. You are too quick to excuse him from any responsibility in that.

Second, the opposition and media have blown the sponsorship scandal out of proportion, a 100 million out of the federal budget wasted over a number of years is equivalent to a few lattes/year for the average family. An ethical person could be very concerned about the problem but not see the urgency in dealing with it.

What's a few hundred million stolen here and there, right? Especially compared to the billions the Liberals were stealing form every other program and department.

Your standards are far too low. Your demand for absolute proof of wrongdoing only helps ensure we will continue to have corrupt government.

There was a time when cabinet ministers were expected to take responsibility for their actions and lack of actions, when a certain standard of integrity and accountability was required. Sadly, that seems to be no longer the case, and people who forgive and ignore corruption and lies are more responsible for that than the politicians themselves.

[Riverwind]

This happened for years while he was happily basking in the approval of everyone as Finance minister. This isn't something that just came around during his final years before resigning. And if he was in the process of trying to rebel against Chretien and gain more adherents what better ammunition to use to show that Chretien was past his due date!

The 'rumors' did not surface until around 2000 even if the program was operating since 1996. By that time the leadership battle was in full swing. I suspect Martin did use the rumors as a way to sway supporters - but it is not something he would say publicly - that kind of public infighting does not happen in party politics while the party is in government.

I suppose it's a quaint notion these days, the responsibility required of a minister of the Crown to ensure his party and his government are not corrupt. You are too quick to excuse him from any responsibility in that.

Would you expect the minister of immigration to take responsibility for the mad cow problem? how about expecting the minister of defence to take the fall for mismanaged fisheries? Ministerial responsibility applies only to the department that was responsible for spending the money and possiblly the Prime Minister. The department that handled the sponsorship moneys was public works which was headed by Gagliano until 2002. It is not the responsibility of the Minister of Finance to over see how the money is spent.

Your standards are far too low. Your demand for absolute proof of wrongdoing only helps ensure we will continue to have corrupt government.

Unlike you, I believe in only punishing the guilty. The Gomery evidence shows that Gagliano was probably the person most responsible for the mess and Chretien was a close second. Martin was clearly a bystander in terms of his official capacity and all your attempts to paint him as more involved presume that he had a duty to overstep his authority as Minister of Finance because he heard some 'rumors'.

There was a time when cabinet ministers were expected to take responsibility for their actions and lack of actions, when a certain standard of integrity and accountability was required. Sadly, that seems to be no longer the case, and people who forgive and ignore corruption and lies are more responsible for that than the politicians themselves.

I certainly do not accept government corruption and I expect the _guilty_ to be punished. If Gagliano or Chretien were still around I would definitely would not be defending the Liberals today.

The question comes down to how credible is Martin's claim that he was 'out-of-loop' on the sponsorship file. If he was out of the loop then he can be trusted to clean it up and fix the government auditing mechanisms that failed to detect the fraud sooner. If he wasn't then we need someone else. I think Martin is credible because it does not make sense that such an ambitious, politically astute person would risk everything to participate in a scheme that was so blatently illegal and unethical.

To answer the obvious question: why not get rid of Martin just to be on the safe side? Because I intensly dislike so many of the policies and positions put forward by Harper and company that I would rather take my chances with Martin than risk a Harper government.

[Canuck E Stan]

With the Liberals talking more and more like the NDP ,then why not vote for Jack Layton and company? I think your using Harper as an excuse.You wouldn't vote for anyone but the Liberals because you are a true blood Liberal and right or wrong on any issue or any scandal you'll always stick to your team. You pass a lot of wind about why the Liberals do what they do, but the fact is You would never consider anyone else.

[mirror]

What do people think are going to be the results of the Gomery commission? I think it is going to something similiar to Shapiro's report on Sgro. It will be so fuzzy that every competing interest is going to say they won. The Conservatives would do well to focus on other stuff as well like their own platform. Liberals are very tricky. If the wind is shifting right they will propose tax cuts. If the winds are shifting left, they will propose a national child care system, whatever it takes to stay in office. The problem for the Liberals right now as it appears that there are 3 strong alternatives to them, the Cons, the New Democrats, and the Bloc, so they don't have much room to manoevre like they have had in the past.

[I Miss Trudeau]

And if he was in the process of trying to rebel against Chretien and gain more adherents what better ammunition to use to show that Chretien was past his due date!

That would make him a "political suicide bomber," if you will.

Your standards are far too low. Your demand for absolute proof of wrongdoing only helps ensure we will continue to have corrupt government.

Reasonable doubt would be sufficient. No need for absolute proof. Sparhawk has pointed out that there is a whole lot of reasonable doubt with regards to Martin and Adscam.

There was a time when cabinet ministers were expected to take responsibility for their actions and lack of actions, when a certain standard of integrity and accountability was required.

There was a time when credulity was considered to be an undesirable trait. Unfortunatly, that seems to be a thing of the past now.

[Argus]

What do people think are going to be the results of the Gomery commission?

I think Gomery will express his shock and outrage and condemn the actions of those who broke the law and misspent public funds. But he won't name names. Paul Martin will sternly and nobly call on the RCMP to investigate, using all the evidence that Gomery has developed. He will then call up the suckup leather-fetishist who currently makes his home in the Commisioner's office and Zackardeli will assure him he will put his "best" men on the job, men who are "reliable" and will do exactly what they're told. A year or two later a few small-fry will be charged with minor offences, and that will be that.

There is no way the RCMP are going to charge anyone high up in the Liberal Party. The RCMP _belongs_ to the Liberal Party. If they accidentally stumble across any damning evidence they'll be sure to overlook it.

[hiti]

Actually the RCMP have already been called and with their investigation 4 people have been charged and the government has sued them for $41 million. In fact one of those charged has pleaded guilty and will be returning the funds that he misappropiated.

It was Chretien who called the RCMP to investigate. It was Paul Martin who cancelled the sponsorship program, fired a bunch of takers, hired Gomery to hold the hearing and sued to get the money back.

Also anyone who listened to the Gomery hearing knows that almost eveything that was said by one was denied by someone else. Like the brown envelopes of money that Jean Brault said he paid and yet the people he said he paid deny receiving the money. And Brault still had his court appearance this fall where he is charged with fraud. His testamony loses credibility.

As for the Grewal tapes, there is no credibility in supporting him as Harper is doing. In fact, one of the bloggers said that Grewal threatened Harper by telling him that he has tapes of the caucus meetings. Anyone who wants to know what was on the 5 copies of tapes that were spliced and diced, put up on Grewal's web site, changed and changed, then given to the RCMP and more tapes given to the RCMP can check out these sites.

http://bucketsofgrewal.blogspot.com/

http://www.scubaq.ca/politics/grewal/grewal.html

As for the cheques, that's another issue of credibility that Grewal lacks. His name is on the cheque and the copy he has circulated on the internet has two different teller stamps on it. A different teller stamped the front and another teller stamped the back. How unusual is that. But you can read all about the tapes and the cheques on the link I posted.