Was Brian Mulroney a Crook?

[jdobbin]

Which, of course, is what the Liberals are taking advantage of in slandering people.

And which the Tories do now to say that that Liberals support the Taliban.

[jdobbin]

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.

And yet that is good enough for present day Tories who praise Mulroney to the heavens.

[Argus]

And yet that is good enough for present day Tories who praise Mulroney to the heavens.

Bullshit. Who has praised Mulroney? I couldn't stand the man and I was glad when he left. Mind you, given a choice between him and Chretien I would have eagerly embraced him. He was the more honest and more competent leader.

[jdobbin]

Bullshit. Who has praised Mulroney? I couldn't stand the man and I was glad when he left. Mind you, given a choice between him and Chretien I would have eagerly embraced him. He was the more honest and more competent leader.

Harper praised Mulroney. Did so in many speeches in the last year.

[jbg]

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.

I think we learned what Canadians believed on January 23, 2006. Even though they voted the CPC in as a minority, the fact is that much of the NDP and BQ vote was a vote against the Liberals. At least that's what the Liberals said of the PCPC back in 1993.

[jbg]

And yet that is good enough for present day Tories who praise Mulroney to the heavens.

No, they've relied upon his advice as someone who understands Canadians, and in particular Quebeckers, well. This does not necessary connote acmiration. For example, even in "Silence of the Lambs" Jody Foster asks Hannibal Lechter for his psychiatric opinions on certain issues. Edited November 25, 2007 by jbg

[jdobbin]

No, they've relied upon his advice as someone who understands Canadians, and in particular Quebeckers, well. This does not necessary connote acmiration. For example, even in "Silence of the Lambs" Jody Foster asks Hannibal Lechter for his psychiatric opinions on certain issues.

That just made me laugh out loud.

The Tories have being trying to rehabilitate Mulroney over the last couple of years. Harper has said explicitly said that he admired Murloney and not just as a mental exercise.

[Fortunata]

I'm sure you voted for the LPOC candidate in your riding, which I doubt was the riding encompassing Shawinigan.

I'm not surprised that in your narrow little mind you are sure. You're wrong but when did that ever stop you?

[jbg]

I'm not surprised that in your narrow little mind you are sure. You're wrong but when did that ever stop you?

I never said I'm infallible.

[Wild Bill]

And which the Tories do now to say that that Liberals support the Taliban.

So if you can successfully tar your opponents with the same brush then that's reason enough to support the original sinners?

This tactic of yours is quite common and has always confused the hell outta me! It just seems not just illogical but juvenile.

Hey Mom! I know I was wrong to steal from your purse but my brother also did it so spank him but forget about it with me!

Maybe the trick works better for you than it ever did for me.

[jdobbin]

So if you can successfully tar your opponents with the same brush then that's reason enough to support the original sinners?

This tactic of yours is quite common and has always confused the hell outta me! It just seems not just illogical but juvenile.

I was saying the tactic happens from both parties under the guise of privilege. I never commented on whether it was wrong or right...just that is there and has always been there.

[Shakeyhands]

Is Nicholson out right lying here? Where are the CPC so desperate to not have this looked in to properly?

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/280254

The move comes after Justice Minister Rob Nicholson rejected a request from the chair of the committee to order Schreiber to show up.

Nicholson said he doesn’t have the authority to order Schreiber to appear — only Parliament does.

Committee chair Paul Szabo insisted that Nicholson does have the authority – and warned that he could be found in contempt of Parliament.

However, to ensure Schreiber is available to testify Thursday, the committee approved a motion calling on the Speaker to intervene.

[Michael Bluth]

Is Nicholson out right lying here? Where are the CPC so desperate to not have this looked in to properly?

Schreiber will appear. Link

The Speaker issued a warrant, which is his perogative.

The CPC has fully and completely cooperated with the Speaker.

Guess the only real desperation here is on the part of the anti-Harperistas because their attempts at making a mountain out of this molehill are proving ever more futile.

[Shakeyhands]

Schreiber will appear. Link

The Speaker issued a warrant, which is his perogative.

The CPC has fully and completely cooperated with the Speaker.

Guess the only real desperation here is on the part of the anti-Harperistas because their attempts at making a mountain out of this molehill are proving ever more futile.

Interesting that the Speaker had to do something that hasn't needed to be done since 1913... Bluth, although your spin attempt is admirable... Why won't the CPC cooperate?

[Michael Bluth]

Interesting that the Speaker had to do something that hasn't needed to be done since 1913... Bluth, although your spin attempt is admirable... Why won't the CPC cooperate?

Have the Conservatives opposed the Speaker's warrant in any way?

Nope ..... so they are cooperating.

See how that works Shakey?

[Fortunata]

The Minister has the authorization to get Schreiber to the committee hearings. Yet he fails to do so, actually saying that he doesn't (come on!) so his party won't be seen as bringing someone to the table that might point fingers at Mulroney. Then they can throw up their hands and say .. we weren't part of that. See how that works MB?

[Michael Bluth]

The Minister has the authorization to get Schreiber to the committee hearings. Yet he fails to do so, actually saying that he doesn't (come on!) so his party won't be seen as bringing someone to the table that might point fingers at Mulroney. Then they can throw up their hands and say .. we weren't part of that. See how that works MB?

I personally don't have enough knowledge of parliamentary law to know what authority Minister Nicholson has or doesn't have in this case. Do you?

Yes, I do see how you have tried to interpret the situation without any proof for the motivations you ascribe to Minister Nicholson or the CPC.

No, I don't agree with those interpretations you have made. Perhaps I need a tinfoil hat.

[jdobbin]

Interesting that the Speaker had to do something that hasn't needed to be done since 1913.

Parliament's lawyer said Nicholson had the authority but the Tories are opposed to having Shreiber appear and voted against it. Since they are a minority, the Speaker had to go with the majority rule and issue the warrant.

On Saturday though, Shreiber is probably on a plane to Germany. The Tories are already saying there is nothing they can do about it.

We'll see if Parliament orders another warrant for Shreiber to appear before an inquiry to stop extradition.

[Shakeyhands]

there must be something here. I can't imagine the Gov't accepting the bad optics of being as difficult as they can be unless there was something to it.

Have the Conservatives opposed the Speaker's warrant in any way?

Michael, despite your protestations the CPC has done absolutely everything to make this as difficult as they can. And besides that, I do not think they have any recourse but to cooperate with the Speakers Warrant, otherwise they would be in contempt, no??

Edited November 28, 2007 by Shakeyhands

[Michael Bluth]

Michael, despite your protestations the CPC has done absolutely everything to make this as difficult as they can.

If they really wanted to make this as difficult as possible why not oppose the Speaker's warrant?

[Shakeyhands]

If they really wanted to make this as difficult as possible why not oppose the Speaker's warrant?

I edited to ask that same question, I do not think that they can. But leading up to the warrant being issued they did in fact make it difficult. I just don't understand the tactic there.

[Fortunata]

I personally don't have enough knowledge of parliamentary law to know what authority Minister Nicholson has or doesn't have in this case. Do you?

I guess I must have, or I really pay attention.

Yes, I do see how you have tried to interpret the situation without any proof for the motivations you ascribe to Minister Nicholson or the CPC.

Since we have to guess at the Steve's ventriloquists (thanks Wild Bill, I love that), that is a definite motivation.

No, I don't agree with those interpretations you have made. Perhaps I need a tinfoil hat.

I didn't expect you to agree with me. Perhaps you need to take off those Conservative coloured sunglasses you wear.

[Michael Bluth]

I guess I must have, or I really pay attention.

Pay attention to what? Those government-subsidized rose coloured glasses you are wearing?

None of you in this little feeding frenzy have provided any evidence or support that the Conservatives had the power to order Schreiber to appear or had no recourse to oppose the Speaker's warrant.

You've all proven my point repeatedly.

[Shakeyhands]

None of you in this little feeding frenzy have provided any evidence or support that the Conservatives had the power to order Schreiber to appear or had no recourse to oppose the Speaker's warrant.

You've all proven my point repeatedly.

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson declined in the Commons question period to say if the government would co-operate with efforts to bring Schreiber to Parliament.

http://www.thestar.com/article/279214

Over the objections of Conservative MPs, the ethics committee decided to immediately summon the lobbyist and arms dealer from a Toronto jail.

http://www.thestar.com/article/278991

“It ought to be straight-forward,” Rob Walsh, the impartial Commons legal counsel told MPs on the ethics committee today.

“It’s within the power of the justice minister. It’s his call. It’s his judgment.”

Seven different legal experts were consulted by Paul Szabo, the Liberal chairman of the committee. The consensus, he said, was that Schreiber is being detained under the power of the federal justice minister and there’s nothing in law to stop Nicholson from varying the extradition order.

http://www.thestar.com/article/280306

No one has claimed that there was no recourse to oppose the Speakers Warrant, I simply asked if that was possible. Twist twist twist.

[Michael Bluth]

No one has claimed that there was no recourse to oppose the Speakers Warrant, I simply asked if that was possible. Twist twist twist.

Nobody but you. Wow, changed course in 4 1/2 hours. Good work Shakey! twist twist twist indeed.

And besides that, I do not think they have any recourse but to cooperate with the Speakers Warrant, otherwise they would be in contempt, no??