Monday, March 7, 2011

An Apology to Stephen Harper from the Liberal Party of Canada's President

This guy is a lawyer. A lawyer in a very large firm. A large respected firm.

For him to use the words "Fraudsters" and "Con Artists" in his opening salvo on Power in Politics today is an embarrassment (yet again) to the Liberal Party of Canada. To my knowledge, not a single Conservative has been charged with "Fraud" in the "in and out scandal".

I expect the Conservatives will be taking action soon to have Mr. Apps withdraw his comments.


Mark Francis said...

Fraud may be safe in this context as an opinion. I only has to be a substantial truth. Deliberately routing money to avoid legal restrictions and then using the money spent as a qualifying expense to claim public rebates totalling something like $800,000 certain looks fraud-like to me.

James Curran said...

Not sure that would be a good defense in a slander suit there Mark.

Anonymous said...

But it'll sure sound great as basis for an attack-ad sound bite running on HNIC. Besides, Canadians know that in their political parties, where there's smoke, some politician's ass is gonna burn.

CanadianSense said...

I am curious the Conservatives claim all parties did transfer money from National to regional buys until Elections Canada changed the rules after the 2006 elections.

Are the spokes persons for the political parties suggesting the pattern of 'transfer of funds' similar to the in and out can't be proven through a visit at the EC website or an audit?

Why did EC change the rules after 2006?
Did the CPC agree to the new rules and did not repeat the in and out transfers from National and regional buys in 2008?

It appears EC and public prosecutor is only going after the 2006 in and out movement of funds.

Can't they find anything similar since they changed/tightened up the rules?

Anonymous said...

The EC are on a vendetta against one (1) party. So far the Conservatives have won in court once, the EC once.
When the EC investigates itself alarm bells start to go off.
Why did they change the rules? Why did they try to omit some wording in the old rules under testimony? They got caught fudging. The scandal here is a Civil Servant with too much power and a grudge. This whole thing takes way too much explaining to sell to the voters.
Cheers Bubba

Jymn said...

Too bad the Liberals can't sue the Conservative party for its deceptive ads questioning Ignatieff's patriotism.

Anonymous said...

thank you James Curran
civility is required on these opinion programs
the language used is reckless