Thursday, June 26, 2008

Judging the Judge

The verdict on Monsieur Gomery, my friends, is not pretty. As Wells correctly points out, this is the final blow in completely discrediting the Gomery circus.

That's not to say this proves that Adscam was no big deal (it was). Or that the inquiry should never have been called (it shouldn't have). But it does mean that Gomery's conclusions are pretty much worthless. Well, maybe not "worthless", but "westmount cheap" at the very least.

I would hope that judge Oliphant is taking notes...



  • this major pee-fest isn't over. where is former PMPM? as long as these guys are alive the Liberal party is dead.

    By Blogger Unknown, at 7:05 p.m.  

  • is there anyone in Canada, Chretien and Kinsella excepted, who believes Cruton wasn't in the loop on Adscam ??

    Doesn't matter what some judge thinks, it is what Canadians think

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:21 p.m.  

  • “Or that the inquiry should never have been called (it shouldn't have).”

    That's not the way I see it. The inquiry (bias as it was) assured me that nothing more could be done. That's why I became a party member in 2006.

    By Blogger JimTan, at 2:57 a.m.  

  • "is there anyone in Canada, Chretien and Kinsella excepted, who believes Cruton wasn't in the loop on Adscam ??"

    Well, Gomery for one. And the RCMP. And pretty much anyone who has actually looked at the case.

    By Blogger calgarygrit, at 9:06 a.m.  

  • "Well, Gomery for one. And the RCMP. And pretty much anyone who has actually looked at the case."

    That's not exactly true. All that means is they can't PROVE he did it. Does anyone really believe O.J. didn't whack Nicole and Ron? And so we can't prove Chretien did anything wrong in Adscam, or Shawinigate, or the APEC incident, or the Somalia inquiry. We can't prove a damn thing, but that doesn't make them "innocent", just "not guilty". There's a pretty big difference.

    By Blogger The Rat, at 2:05 p.m.  

  • Is there anyone who does not think that Harper did not try to payoff Cadman??

    What a dumb argument by the Rat. Just because we cannot prove that Harper did it does not mean that he is innocent, just potentially not guilty.....

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:07 p.m.  

  • "Is there anyone who does not think that Harper did not try to payoff Cadman??"

    Comfy fur, anyone? Are you seriously trying to say that your guys are squeaky clean? Personally, I believe they're all dirty to some extent, and Chretien dirtier than most. Believe vs prove.

    I would bet the majority of Canadians believe Chretien was a crook, that Martin was a power hungry mediocrity, that Mulroney was rotten, and that Harper tried to buy off Cadman. They're probably right. The difference is that Reform-types are disgusted by it all (see my blog for da proof), while most Libs are more than happy to accept a little corruption with their entitlements.

    By Blogger The Rat, at 6:19 p.m.  

  • Thank you, rat, for putting in the word 'entitlement'. Indeed, Reformers are entitled to believe that a $1.29 receipt for a pack of gum for which a reimbursement was never sought or given is a valid proof that someone has misappropriated $800,000. You are entitled to believe that the earth is flat. After all, “We live in a free country where people have as much right to express outrageous and ridiculous opinions as moderate ones,” (Binnie in the SCC decision made public yesterday).

    I wish I were like you, a Reform-type, God-like, superior beings, confident that what I believe in is good enough.

    I just wish I never find myself accused unfairly of a crime, in a court house where you are a member of the jury. Maybe you believe that French Canadians are all crooks!

    By Blogger Loraine Lamontagne, at 8:39 a.m.  

  • Actually, rat, Liberals are the only people in Canada who are truly dismayed and disgusted by corruption. For da proof, see what I just wrote!

    Seriously, I have trouble wading through the Blogging Tories aggregator but I've done it enough times to notice that there are rarely any BTs who are critical of their party's ethical behaviour. I doubt you could find 5 BTs who were outraged by the Cadman bribery allegations, the in-and-out scheme, the Grewal tapes or any other real or perceived wrongdoing by the Conservative Party.

    The attitude of Conservative MPs and ministers is revealing as well. The Conservatives have stonewalled committees that try to investigate the in-and-out scheme. They have refused to cooperate with the ethics commissioner and Elections Canada officials in their investigations. Their usual response to any criticism is to launch personal attacks and smears against those who dare question them. This behaviour hasn't provoked much consternation from Conservative supporters as far as I know.

    I'll concede one thing, though: the Conservatives stand head and shoulders above their opponents when it comes to shameless hypocrisy.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:07 a.m.  

  • Gomery did a very poor job and never should have been in charge of the inquiry. Making his bias official doesn't make his conclusions worthless in the eyes of the public. The majority of Canadians firmly made up their minds a long time ago.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:27 a.m.  

  • Odd that the inquiry, like most any inquiry, wasn't about guilt or innocence.

    But if this new Judge finds that Chretien wasn't responsible for the file, then just who was the Minister responsible?

    By Blogger Paul, at 12:05 p.m.  

  • An inquiry is not a court of law, Paul.

    Judge Teitelbaum did not find that Chrétien wasn't responsible for the file. Chrétien himself declared under oath that he was responsible for everything that has happened on his watch.

    However, in his report, phase I, Gomery blamed Chrétien and Pelletier for omissions that led to the defective manner in which the Sponsorship Program and initiatives were implemented. That is what Chrétien and Pelleter have been seeking to redress.

    Keep in mind that Gomery himself has admitted that he was wrong to give interviews to the press and to comment as he did while the commission was only halfway through hearing witnesses. In doing so, Gomery set the tone for The Best Show In Town, turning a serious inquiry into a pointless political show. If you want clear examples of Gomery's biais against Chrétien, read the different testimonies of Alex Himelfarb.

    By Blogger Loraine Lamontagne, at 12:59 p.m.  

  • "Actually, rat, Liberals are the only people in Canada who are truly dismayed and disgusted by corruption. For da proof, see what I just wrote!"

    That's a crock. Utter and complete. If you want to talk politicians and bloggers, be my guest, but they're not the guys who voted out Mulroney. There is a lot of unease in old-Reform-land about the present government and what Harper is doing. If it's not reflected in the Blogging Tories one need only look to the term "Tories" and see why.

    As for you, Lorraine, it had nothing to do with a pack of gum and everything to do with "I am entitled to my entitlements". He absolutely is entitled to them but it just seems to me that too many Liberals are more concerned with the "entitlements" of office as opposed to the, you know, "responsibilities". (see that comment in the Taft post). I know "responsibility" is a dirty word to the centre and left, especially when coupled with other words like "personal", but the point is that people should do public service not for the pay, most certainly not for the entitlements, but because it is the right thing to do. And oh how terribly naive I am to believe that.

    By Blogger The Rat, at 3:07 p.m.  

  • As I have argued previously, Conservative scandals have generally involved doing anything to win/take power (process scandals like in and out), whereas Liberal scandals have been breaches of the public trust. Conservative bloggers are not hypocritical - they care more about certain kinds of scandals than the Liberals.

    As to Gomery, I find the irony kind of interesting, considering Kinsella's crusade to empower kangaroo courts of one kind, alongside his denunciation of those of another.

    When you create a court to publicly rule on something in a politically charged time, you push arbitrators towards making political stands. I'd take no more Gomery's any day, if it came with no more human rights tribunals (why the hell can't that stuff be dealt with by regular courts).

    By Blogger french wedding cat, at 7:21 a.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home