Stockwell Day SHOULD Resign

[scribblet]

You seem to be the only one concerned, the case is closed, the documents were allready included in the original investigation.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.ht...75dffd1&k=73864

But in a letter to Day released by his office Thursday, the RCMP said it already had the documents in its possession when the original investigation was conducted in 2001.

[Keepitsimple]

Here's something to add to the tempest in a teapot. In today's printed version of the Star, there is a tiny article on Page 10 that basically says that this whole thing is a non-issue. I had to scan and paste the article because the Star's online version now carries a revised story - one put out by the CBC. It's amazing to see how the first story is bland and the second release is so biased. In any event, isn't it funny how Front Page misleading articles are "retracted" om page 10. I guess that's politics. As for an apology from Mark Holland? I won't be expecting one anytime soon.

First Article:

Ottawa

Day wants Liberals to apologize over seat deal accusations:

Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day says the Liberals should apologize for suggesting he tried to buy the resignation of an MP so he could win a seat in the Commons back in 2000. Day told the Commons yesterday the RCMP wrote him this week confirming the force had reviewed documents left behind by the Conservatives when they vacated Opposition offices last year, and no further investigation is warranted. The papers discussed then MP Jim Hart's offer to step aside for Day when he was Canadian Alliance leader. Liberal MP Mark Holland (Ajax Pickering) refused to apologize for accusations made last month, saying forwarding the documents to the RCMP had been "prudent."

Revised Article:

RCMP won't renew Stockwell Day probe: CBC

April 26, 2007

CANADIAN PRESS

There is a report that the RCMP won't reopen an investigation into Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day's first election to the House of Commons.

CBC's The National is reporting that the RCMP have decided there is no new information contained in documents that the Opposition Liberals discovered in March.

The Liberals said they suggested a former British Columbia MP was paid up to $50,000 to give up his seat to allow Day to run in the 2000 election.

Day had just been elected leader of the Canadian Alliance and was seeking a safe riding to run in a byelection.

He ran in a seat in B.C.'s southern interior that was vacated by the resignation of Jim Hart.

At the time the RCMP briefly looked into the matter but decided against launching a formal investigation.

It's a criminal offence to resign in exchange for money, but Day said last month there was no wrongdoing.

Hart issued a statement last month that said when he first offered to resign his seat to clear the way for Day, there was no talk about whether he would lose out financially and no discussion about compensation.

But the statement also said Day told his first caucus meeting in Ottawa that anyone who resigned early would bear no financial losses.

The Liberals demanded last month that Day step aside until police decided whether to launch an investigation, something the minister refused to do.

Link: http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/207919

[Rue]

Why would someone post something that isn't true, its not true the title of this should be corrected.

The title is to get attention. The true state of affairs is made clear immediately in the post.

Reported

I'm reporting your reporting.

I warned the two of you about my cats. Be careful. Very careful.

Say now I know how to get your attention. Give you an untrue title and then make it clear in the post. O.k. So you and Scott are REPORTERS. Well now I have your attention, no its not true neither of you work for the media. I should know. I control it. I am reporting myself to my cats.

[Rue]

WHITEWASH!

With Day in charge of the investigation, what else could we expect? His staff probably drafted the letter.

This is sooooo dirty I can barely imagine it.

The RCMP gets a fax that pretty much declares someone paid Hart and they can't figure out that a benefit was paid?!?!?

This is ridiculous. No wonder they can't keep track of their own pension money.

Have you reported it to the authorities? You report everything else.

[Figleaf]

But in a letter to Day released by his office Thursday, the RCMP said it already had the documents in its possession when the original investigation was conducted in 2001.

Good God... Look at what you're saying:

A letter Day released, speaking for the RCMP who Day controls, exonerating Day, despite pristinely lucid evidence of a benefit being paid.

Seriously, how can you not choke on the stench?

And P.S. to Rue ... don't disrupt threads for your silly vendettas.

[Michael Bluth]

despite pristinely lucid evidence of a benefit being paid.

Pristinely lucid?

Not only do you have an unhealthy obsession with Stock Day, but you have no idea to actually communicate what you are trying to say.

Maybe if you didn't repeat the same, false, allegation over and over you wouldn't be reduced to using such purile and incomprehensible verbiage.

[Figleaf]

I'll bet whatever M.Bluth said above is totally irrelevant to the issue that Stockwell Day has been 'exonerated' by the police force that he is the minister for.

That's a blatant, shocking conflict of interest piled on top of the already disturbing evidence of seat-buying.

[ScottSA]

Definition of hyperbole:

That's a blatant, shocking conflict of interest piled on top of the already disturbing evidence of seat-buying.

[Michael Bluth]

I'll bet whatever M.Bluth said above is totally irrelevant to the issue that Stockwell Day has been 'exonerated' by the police force that he is the minister for.

Is this the online equivalent of somebody sticking a finger in their ear and saying "na na na I can't hear you"?

It comes across as having the same level of maturity.

[Shakeyhands]

Perhaps someone can help me understand this, it seems quite clear that the RCMP has in their possession (for quite some time mind) a document which states that a seat was relinquished for money. How is it that this is legal and not worthy of a criminal charge as outlined in the Criminal Code of Canada???

[Michael Bluth]

Perhaps someone can help me understand this, it seems quite clear that the RCMP has in their possession (for quite some time mind) a document which states that a seat was relinquished for money. How is it that this is legal and not worthy of a criminal charge as outlined in the Criminal Code of Canada???

I'm not a lawyer or a criminal investigator.

The document doesn't state what you claim it does as clearly as you believe.

Lawyers and criminal investigators decided that it was not worthy of a criminal charge. Without legal training who are we to judge?

Why haven't you questioned why an individual in possession of those documents who admitted to taking them from a box clearly labelled as belonging to an opposing political party is worthy of a criminal charge?

[Figleaf]

Since this thread is of high interest to me, I made and exception and read Bluth's last post.

Perhaps someone can help me understand this, it seems quite clear that the RCMP has in their possession (for quite some time mind) a document which states that a seat was relinquished for money. How is it that this is legal and not worthy of a criminal charge as outlined in the Criminal Code of Canada???

...Lawyers and criminal investigators decided that it was not worthy of a criminal charge. Without legal training who are we to judge?

In my opinion, even a non-expert should be capable of understanding an explanation of why or why not the police decide to lay charges or not. Like Shakeyhands, I would like to hear some explanation of how come a fax that quite specifically states that a resignation was "contingent upon" a benefit has not resulting in a charge under the applicable Criminal Code provisions.

Of course I know the real explanation ... Stock controls the RCMP. But I'd like to hear the official whitewash explanation anyway.

[Michael Bluth]

Since this thread is of high interest to me, I made and exception and read Bluth's last post.

So you were able to stay away from my posts for a whole two or three hours?

You sir are a rock of consistency.

[Figleaf]

Since this thread is of high interest to me, I made and exception and read Bluth's last post.

So you were able to stay away from my posts for a whole two or three hours?

You sir are a rock of consistency.

Only on this thread. And not again.

[Shakeyhands]

Perhaps someone can help me understand this, it seems quite clear that the RCMP has in their possession (for quite some time mind) a document which states that a seat was relinquished for money. How is it that this is legal and not worthy of a criminal charge as outlined in the Criminal Code of Canada???

Why haven't you questioned why an individual in possession of those documents who admitted to taking them from a box clearly labelled as belonging to an opposing political party is worthy of a criminal charge?

I believe that I have said several times that if there is any question of what Holland did was of a criminal nature he should be investigated for it.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough?

having said that..... I'm not a lawyer either (though I MAY play one on TV!!!) but....

The first memo, dated July 15, 2000 (two days before Hart formally stepped down) outlines Hart's expectation the compensation will cover severance, loss of income and loss of pension benefits, due to early retirement. It asks the party to "consider, if this is to be handled by an employment contract that I split the income with my wife, for tax purposes" – a move the Liberals say would have created a "fraudulent" contract for illegal purposes at the expense of the public treasury. Income-splitting for tax purposes was and still is illegal.

The second memo, dated Aug. 22, 2000, updates Hart's concerns that he is losing more money than he first calculated, and reminds the party that Day's then-chief of staff, Rod Love, agreed to compensate him fully. "Please realize that I took this step of resigning in good faith. I could have remained in office until the general election, finished my term and not experienced these losses. My resignation was contingent upon this negotiation," the alleged Hart memo states...

http://www.thestar.com/article/195294

...I'm not sure how this could be any clearer...?

[Figleaf]

Exactly. A "decent respect for the opinions of mankind" implies that the RCMP should tender SOME reasoning how they can say that this blatantly clear statement from Hart is not sufficient to prompt a criminal charge.

[Michael Bluth]

having said that..... I'm not a lawyer either (though I MAY play one on TV!!!) but....

Shakey, that was actually funny. Are you feeling ok?

...I'm not sure how this could be any clearer...?

Clearer to who? Why post the same thing over, and over, and over again?

It's never been a question that Hart received payment from the CA.

However, actual lawyers investigated and found the payments were not worth pressing charges. What is it you know that they don't?

[Shakeyhands]

having said that..... I'm not a lawyer either (though I MAY play one on TV!!!) but....

Shakey, that was actually funny. Are you feeling ok?

...I'm not sure how this could be any clearer...?

Clearer to who? Why post the same thing over, and over, and over again?

It's never been a question that Hart received payment from the CA.

However, actual lawyers investigated and found the payments were not worth pressing charges. What is it you know that they don't?

feeling fine thanks!

wow, so what you are saying is that the laws apply to some but not others.... ok got it.

[Michael Bluth]

feeling fine thanks!

wow, so what you are saying is that the laws apply to some but not others.... ok got it.

Not what I'm saying at all.

The RCMP investigated and found that the payment did not warrant criminal charges. Do you have anything to refute that?

[Shakeyhands]

but that is my point, it is clearly laid out in the CCofC... of this there is no question, its like only being a little bit pregnant?

[Michael Bluth]

but that is my point, it is clearly laid out in the CCofC... of this there is no question, its like only being a little bit pregnant?

You aren't a lawyer, despite playing one on tv, but it is clearly laid out.

Do explain...

[Shakeyhands]

I'm capable of reading and comprehending said words.... really!

Its seems pretty clear to me that what happened was contingent of Hart being paid, hence this quote:

"Please realize that I took this step of resigning in good faith. I could have remained in office until the general election, finished my term and not experienced these losses. My resignation was contingent upon this negotiation,"

http://www.thestar.com/article/195294

if this quote is attributable to Hart, then there is absolutely no question that what happened is contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada, is it?

Under the Criminal Code, it is an offence to resign from elected office for money or a reward, yes or no?

[Figleaf]

Excellent points, Shakeyhands.

What makes this situation even stinkier is the troublesome recent history of the RCMP itself. Given:

-pension fund shenanigans;

-political interference in the last election; and

-the Maher Arar debacle

it becomes very curious that the Minister responsible for the RCMP is able to have such a significant seeming violation of the Criminal Code swept under the rug.

Makes me wonder if there's some kind of quid pro quo.

[Shakeyhands]

Michael?

[Michael Bluth]

Michael?

OK.

I'm capable of reading and comprehending said words.... really!

The law. Legal rulings, legal interpretations are all about the specific and legal defintion of words.

As a layman you see what Hart wrote as an admission of guilt. The RCMP investigated and found that it wasn't. Wasn't even close enough to warrant charges.

They had access to all of the relevant documents. You had access to an out of context quote in a newspaper article.

Which one is more credible?