capricorn Posted November 23, 2007 Report Share Posted November 23, 2007 Drea, that's jbg's dry humour showing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noahbody Posted November 23, 2007 Report Share Posted November 23, 2007 It always comes back to the Liberals doesn't it? No matter what this current gov't does, the Liberals were always worse.... That one wears thin after a while. I simply wonder why all the CPC'rs would vote against it, I mean its not like they are able to vote without direct direction from the PMO. I didn't say the Liberals were worse. When in power, they didn't think the issue deserved action. I doubt Dion was aware of this before he made a stink as it only makes him look more of a fool. As far as Schreiber goes, I don't care if he nails Mulroney or not. Give him one chance to do so. If he wants an extended stay for information though, put him on the next plane out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted November 23, 2007 Report Share Posted November 23, 2007 (edited) I wonder why the CPC members of the Ethics Committee woudl vote against getting to the bottom of this... Despite a public inquiry, I would think this one might be interesting. It gets worse. The Justice minister might not let Shreiber out from detention to testify before the committee according to CBC News tonight. Edited November 23, 2007 by jdobbin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted November 23, 2007 Report Share Posted November 23, 2007 It gets worse. The Justice minister might not let Shreiber out from detention to testify before the committee according to CBC News tonight. I thought the ethics committee had the power to subpoena. Who would be in contempt of court if Schreiber is not allowed to appear. The Justice Minister? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted November 23, 2007 Report Share Posted November 23, 2007 (edited) I thought the ethics committee had the power to subpoena. Who would be in contempt of court if Schreiber is not allowed to appear. The Justice Minister? They do have the power to subpoena. However, today in Parliament, Nicholson wouldn't confirm that he would let Shreiber appear. I have no idea if he has the legal authority not to comply. Edited November 23, 2007 by jdobbin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
no queenslave Posted November 23, 2007 Report Share Posted November 23, 2007 (edited) Well this is quite interesting....But most especially this part.... I wonder why the CPC members of the Ethics Committee woudl vote against getting to the bottom of this... Despite a public inquiry, I would think this one might be interesting. http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/278991 muddy waters are usually not deep. deep waters are not usually muddy. Edited November 23, 2007 by no queenslave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted November 23, 2007 Report Share Posted November 23, 2007 They do have the power to subpoena. However, today in Parliament, Nicholson wouldn't confirm that he would let Shreiber appear. I have no idea if he has the legal authority not to comply. Schrieber has already stated he will not say "one damn word" unless he's promised that he won't be sent back to Germany to face the criminal charges the Germans have been trying to get him on for eight years. Dion, of course, would be more than willing to go along with this. Eight years this guy has been weaseling his way through the courts trying every possible tactic to keep himself away from a trial. Now as he's run out of options and is about to be booted out he's changed his story again to try and interest the mindless and brainless into keeping him in Canada. Needless to say the Opposition is baying like the animals they are, panting at the leash in hopes Schrieber will say something they can somehow construe as damaging towards Harper - not Mulroney. None of them actually care about Mulroney and none of them actually care if Schrieber is telling the truth or just making more stuff up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted November 23, 2007 Report Share Posted November 23, 2007 Schrieber has already stated he will not say "one damn word" unless he's promised that he won't be sent back to Germany to face the criminal charges the Germans have been trying to get him on for eight years. Dion, of course, would be more than willing to go along with this.Eight years this guy has been weaseling his way through the courts trying every possible tactic to keep himself away from a trial. Now as he's run out of options and is about to be booted out he's changed his story again to try and interest the mindless and brainless into keeping him in Canada. Needless to say the Opposition is baying like the animals they are, panting at the leash in hopes Schrieber will say something they can somehow construe as damaging towards Harper - not Mulroney. None of them actually care about Mulroney and none of them actually care if Schrieber is telling the truth or just making more stuff up. And Tories are saying that Mulroney is as honest as the day even though the majority of Canadians are wondering how it is that Mulroney had a relationship with Shreiber that paid him $300,000 when he said that he barely knew the man. Most Tories seem not in the least curious if $2 million was paid out prematurely and whether it should be recovered. I'm sure the right wing will look to try and deport him next Saturday and then cancel any investigation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fortunata Posted November 23, 2007 Report Share Posted November 23, 2007 Mulroney lied when he said he had no dealings with Schreiber. Schreiber lied when he said he had no dealings with Mulroney. They both lied to protect one another. So now we should get rid of Schreiber so he can't say how and why he lied and we should give the benefit of the doubt to Mulroney who cost taxpayers millions? I don't think so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted November 24, 2007 Report Share Posted November 24, 2007 Drea, that's jbg's dry humour showing. A typo. I can't give myself that much credit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted November 24, 2007 Report Share Posted November 24, 2007 A typo. I can't give myself that much credit. Well you could have fooled me. I rather like humour. It's good for what ails you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
margrace Posted November 24, 2007 Report Share Posted November 24, 2007 It always fascinates me why Canadians love someone who screws them financially. They seem to worship anyone who can get away with stealing their money. I often wonder what happens to the old rule Thou Shalt not steal. One example someone who lost their snowmobile and got the insurance for it when everyone knew it was just in storage. Of course we don't pay the increase in insurance for this do we? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted November 24, 2007 Report Share Posted November 24, 2007 And Tories are saying that Mulroney is as honest as the day even though the majority of Canadians are wondering how it is that Mulroney had a relationship with Shreiber that paid him $300,000 when he said that he barely knew the man. Most Tories seem not in the least curious if $2 million was paid out prematurely and whether it should be recovered.I'm sure the right wing will look to try and deport him next Saturday and then cancel any investigation. I think that Mulroney is distant history now. Nothing he does affects me or Canada. Now if you want to launch an investigation into how much Dion and the other present day senior Liberals knew about the Sponsorship Scandal I'd be happy. Oh, yes, I know, I know. There's no "evidence" that could be found. Hardly surprising as such things aren't put on paper. But no one is going to convince me that Chretien's senior Quebec lieutenant didn't know all about Sponsorship. Dion is, in addition to being an incompetent weasel, a crook. And he's still in politics and wants to be prime minister. Oddly, none of you Liberals seem the least bit concerned about that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted November 24, 2007 Report Share Posted November 24, 2007 Mulroney lied when he said he had no dealings with Schreiber.Schreiber lied when he said he had no dealings with Mulroney. They both lied to protect one another. So now we should get rid of Schreiber so he can't say how and why he lied and we should give the benefit of the doubt to Mulroney who cost taxpayers millions? I don't think so. Chretien lied when he said he had no dealings with that hotel guy. Chretien lied about the government money which was given to that hotel guy. Chretien, in fact, lied almost every time he opened his mouth. And you'd vote for him in a second. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trex Posted November 24, 2007 Report Share Posted November 24, 2007 (edited) Eight years this guy has been weaseling his way through the courts trying every possible tactic to keep himself away from a trial. Now as he's run out of options and is about to be booted out he's changed his story again to try and interest the mindless and brainless into keeping him in Canada. Needless to say the Opposition is baying like the animals they are, panting at the leash in hopes Schrieber will say something they can somehow construe as damaging towards Harper - not Mulroney. None of them actually care about Mulroney and none of them actually care if Schrieber is telling the truth or just making more stuff up. I'm sure they do care, or else they will be the ones who are harmed by this fiasco. But there seems very little doubt here that Mulroney lied under oath. It's not just what Schreiber is saying, its the fact that it has come out recently that Mulroney did, indeed, receive money from Schreiber and failed to claim it until many years later. Why? I say it could be because he knew the story may yet come out, and if it could be proven that he accepted the money without paying his taxes, thats criminality right there. By paying he closed the door on that one, but opens the door to self-perjury. The lessor of two evils, one that he might be able to duck out of in a court. If this is true then Mulroney is a despicable crook, as I and many other Canadians felt him to be and he should go down in history in complete and utter disgrace. And if Harper knew... then its bye bye Stevie. I hear that they are testing out the old cannons on the hill lately, they want to get two of them working once again... Edited November 24, 2007 by trex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted November 24, 2007 Report Share Posted November 24, 2007 I'm sure they do care, or else they will be the ones who are harmed by this fiasco. But there seems very little doubt here that Mulroney lied under oath. It's not just what Schreiber is saying, its the fact that it has come out recently that Mulroney did, indeed, receive money from Schreiber and failed to claim it until many years later. Why?I say it could be because he knew the story may yet come out, and if it could be proven that he accepted the money without paying his taxes, thats criminality right there. By paying he closed the door on that one, but opens the door to self-perjury. The lessor of two evils, one that he might be able to duck out of in a court. If this is true then Mulroney is a despicable crook, as I and many other Canadians felt him to be and he should go down in history in complete and utter disgrace. And if Harper knew... then its bye bye Stevie. I hear that they are testing out the old cannons on the hill lately, they want to get two of them working once again... Love the title "WAS Brian Mulroney a crook?" - there is never a was and then a not was - the title should ask - is he a crook? Frankly to go back in time looking for justice in a justice system that probably failed the first time around but now has suddenly found new heart and purpose..willing to travel back in time an fix what was maybe a finding of innocence based in corruption and favour making? What this Malroney thing is similar to is the Conrad Black retro - bution back in time - this trend could hopfully be a re-formation of a judicary that has faded to the point that it does not exist. Sure would be nice to see re-form from one end to the other - from small claims court - to family court - to the crimminal court - to the civil litigative court - to the court of appeal and finally to the Superme Court of Canada that practices trickery and avoidance and adores dismissing improtant matters of national interest - sending they in the the recycling downward bin of some stupid Human Rights Commision not capable of awarding a cent to the damaged - the whole thing is broken - this could be the sign of the belated and needed repair and re-confidencing of the system that all have lost respect for including most honoured lawyers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fortunata Posted November 24, 2007 Report Share Posted November 24, 2007 Chretien lied when he said he had no dealings with that hotel guy. Chretien lied about the government money which was given to that hotel guy. Chretien, in fact, lied almost every time he opened his mouth.And you'd vote for him in a second. Never voted for Chretien. Next .................... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted November 24, 2007 Report Share Posted November 24, 2007 Dion is, in addition to being an incompetent weasel, a crook. And he's still in politics and wants to be prime minister. Oddly, none of you Liberals seem the least bit concerned about that. Probably because an inquiry led by a judge basically cleared Dion and others. However, the slathering, slobbering, slithering right wing continues to makes libelous and slanderous statements based on their gut feelings. They generally make these claims from the safety of the Commons but some lesser lights in the Tory party make the claims using anonymous profiles in political forums. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted November 25, 2007 Report Share Posted November 25, 2007 Never voted for Chretien. Next ....................I'm sure you voted for the LPOC candidate in your riding, which I doubt was the riding encompassing Shawinigan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted November 25, 2007 Report Share Posted November 25, 2007 Probably because an inquiry led by a judge basically cleared Dion and others. However, the slathering, slobbering, slithering right wing continues to makes libelous and slanderous statements based on their gut feelings. They generally make these claims from the safety of the Commons but some lesser lights in the Tory party make the claims using anonymous profiles in political forums.Isn't the Speaker a Liberal? He can't control that kind of activity in Commons if that wild? Or are these unspported statements of yours? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted November 25, 2007 Report Share Posted November 25, 2007 Isn't the Speaker a Liberal? He can't control that kind of activity in Commons if that wild? Or are these unspported statements of yours? Seeing as you are an American, you probably don't know about privilege. As long as you don't use unparliamentary language, you can make any claim you want and are above the law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted November 25, 2007 Report Share Posted November 25, 2007 Seeing as you are an American, you probably don't know about privilege. As long as you don't use unparliamentary language, you can make any claim you want and are above the law.The US has a variant on it. The term "unparliamentary language" doesn't embrace personal attacks? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted November 25, 2007 Report Share Posted November 25, 2007 The US has a variant on it. The term "unparliamentary language" doesn't embrace personal attacks? No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted November 25, 2007 Report Share Posted November 25, 2007 Probably because an inquiry led by a judge basically cleared Dion and others. What the inquiry found was that there was no evidence Dion and Chretien knew about it. No evidence in a legal sense. I don't question that. I never thought they would find evidence unless someone high up confessed and implicated the rest. That's the only way you get mafia dons and it was the only way they were going to pin anything on Chretien and Dion. And like mafia dons - people everyone KNOWS are mafia dons, who will smile at the camera and say "I never been convicted of nothin! I'm just a small businessman", well, the Liberals are the same, pointing to the lack of evidence and pretending that shows innocence. It does not. But most Canadians, looking at what happened, think it's quite clear that Chretien and his lieutenants knew, that this thing could not have gone on otherwise. Even the inquiry showed that the PMO protected the people involved and prevented action being taken to stop it. I certainly believe it. And I believe this sniveling on the part of Liberals is almost gag-worthy given their own lack of honesty and integrity. As for their slavish devotees, like yourself, you could not possibly care less about corruption in government so long as the corruption is being perpetrated by your own party. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted November 25, 2007 Report Share Posted November 25, 2007 Seeing as you are an American, you probably don't know about privilege. As long as you don't use unparliamentary language, you can make any claim you want and are above the law. Which, of course, is what the Liberals are taking advantage of in slandering people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.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.