Wednesday, June 15, 2005

From his mouth to Gomery's ear

Justice Gomery should exonerate Prime Minister Paul Martin from any wrongdoing in the sponsorship scandal. "The evidence is that there were no improper actions and he didn't know what was going on," lawyer Doug Mitchell told reporters after making final submissions. The Justice Department's written submission urges Gomery to conclude Martin had no role in the scandal.

Full story here.

Meanwhile Gomery is going to court to clear the air over potential litigation by Jean Chretien should he not like the Justice's findings.

A letter from the government lawyers to Chretien's attorney acknowledges his right to refile a petition claiming Gomery is biased. The government initially denied any such letter, and later when caught, suggested that the letter was simply stating fact. Initially when they were questioned in the House, the government said the letter also included a strong caution that they would be vigourously challenging any future legal proceedings by Chretien. This too, turned out to be a lie.

Justice lawyer Sylvain Lussier's presentation to the commission will be made public this Friday. Although he wouldn't comment, insiders say the government lawyers are asking for a clear finding that Mr. Martin was and is clueless.

canadianna

6 comments:

Candace said...

PMPM to Duceppe:..."Now, I would like to quote the letter: “—one of the arguments we had put forward with respect to your client's—Mr. Chrétien's—request for a judicial review is the fact that we consider it premature and inadmissible until after the commission's report is released”."

PMPM to Layton: "Mr. Speaker, the reason for the letter is very clear when you read it. It is because we fiercely opposed anything that might delay Judge Gomery's report. We want that report out."

These are contradictory statements. Furthermore, PMPM refused to table the document until it could be translated (what a crock)

They also contradict his statements last week.

Candace said...

QP has no sense of haha. What a friggin joke this has become. How is it, though, that the federal lawyers are arguing for Martin's 'clear name'? Or is that the Liberals lawyer?

Dying to see the report.

Canadianna said...

From the Hansard--June 13, 2005Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it should not surprise anyone in this room that lawyers representing clients before a judicial inquiry sometimes communicate with each other. In fact, that is what lawyers do: they talk. Sometimes they exchange letters. Sometimes they state the obvious. In this case they stated the obvious fact that Mr. Chrétien had the right as an individual to pursue a course of action, but that government would not support that course of action.

From Hansard, June 14, 2005
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister said that in the letter, which two weeks ago did not exist according to the government, it stated, “We opposed ferociously anything that could delay the Gomery report”. I have the letter here and I have read it several times. I cannot find a single word of opposition to Jean Chrétien's effort to put a cloud over the head of Judge Gomery.

Perhaps the Prime Minister could stand up with his copy of the letter and cite where it says that the government ferociously opposes the effort to put a cloud over Judge Gomery. Where is it? Will he cite from the letter?

Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again, conspiracy is in the mouth of the speaker. There is no sense here of any conspiracy. We can stretch it all we want. There is no pact. There is no secret accord. There is only support for the Gomery commission. If we have to, we will continue to repeat it. That is the situation.
****
Cotler's non-answer indicates that Kenney was telling the truth -- that nothing in the letter indicated support of Gomery or opposition to Chretien's re-launching his litigation.

There is the lie QP -- plus what Candace added -- all the double speak and obfuscation.

There was more of the same today, but the Hansard isn't up yet.

The letter was tabled today. Let's see how vigourously it defends Gomery.

Candace -- I really couldn't tell from the report I linked to. We should know Friday though.
Thanks for the quotes.
Cheers.

Walsh Writes said...

More wishful thinking on the part of the deluded LPC.

W.L. Mackenzie Redux said...

Gomery will have to take the risk of destroying his career to make the superhuman leap of patriotism to avoid being set in the roll of exonerating bench puppet that has been scripted for him.

There is ample testimony in Gomery's hearings and in the public accounts hearings to investigate Martin's connections to the Adscam players as well as Chretien's.

The reason no party member wants a deeper investigation ( Adscam is the tip of the iceberg) is because we will find even deeper mob connections to the government and corporate patronage network in Quebec.

The Liberal party is knee deep in mob patronage as much as they are in corporate patronage....so was Mulroney's regime...the mob has been a silent patronage partner in Quebec politics for the better side of 75 years. Now they have expanded into the federal level ( Gagliano et al) through their Liberal party patrons.

will Gomery blow the whistle and say a police investigation is warranted or bury the hearing files as "closed"? I guess it depends whether Gomery's loyalty is to his country or his paycheck.

Canadianna said...

First - no one is suggesting that Chretien shouldn't be allowed to exercise his rights -- but the government has stated in writing that although he has withdrawn his litigation, he has a right to re-launch --although it is 'just' stating the obvious, it is a tacit endorsement future litigation -- which is why Gomery himself is angry with the letter.

The government should not be endorsing a claim of bias against the judge. Period. It puts the whole inquiry under question.

The statement you initially challenged wasn't about even about that though.

You challenged my statement that the Liberals said in the House that the letter included a statement to the effect that they would continue to oppose any future litigation by Chretien. I never said that Martin said it --I said 'the Liberals'. They all read from the same script so what difference does it make -- but you suggest that because it wasn't Martin I've somehow failed to prove my statement. You are wrong.

I supplied the statement by Scott Brison on June 13 where he indeed said: "In this case they stated the obvious fact that Mr. Chrétien had the right as an individual to pursue a course of action, but that government would not support that course of action.'

I then supplied a quote from the Opposition the following day in which they say:
I have the letter here and I have read it several times. I cannot find a single word of opposition. Perhaps the Prime Minister could stand up with his copy of the letter and cite where it says that the government ferociously opposes the effort to put a cloud over Judge Gomery. Where is it? Will he cite from the letter?.

You said Really? Here's the transcipt. Show me the lie.

I've already done that. You chose the statement you wanted to challenge. I gave you quotes from Hansards -- and you are still suggesting that I'm wrong.

You later said: 'I'm sick of this government and it's spin, but please don't tell me that the only alternative is being spun in the opposite direction. And that's all this is.

Because you are unwilling to see the Liberals in a negative light --even when I am taking direct quotes from them to prove what I have said is fact, and not simply my interpretation of the facts -- shows you are being deliberately obtuse to support an predisposition which you seem to feel you don't have.

The statement by Brison is the lie. The statement by Kenney and the subsequent non-answer is the proof of the lie. The fact that Kenney addressed his question to the Prime Minister is irrelevant. The question was asked of, and answered by, a Liberal. That Liberal lied. What difference does it make which Liberal lied -- particularly when I never mentioned any Liberal by name in my in that statement in my original post.

If you want statements that show Martin's story evolutions on this and other matters, I suggest http://bluemapleleaf.blogspot.com He might not have this one up, but he has Martin's ever altering story on the Grewal tapes.

How is it 'odd' that the letter wasn't mentioned today? Gomery is now seeking a judgement. Perhaps all sides have agreed it would be imprudent to comment any further, while it is coming before the courts.

In any case -- you challenged me --not Candace. Candace simply pointed out contradictory statements by the PM. Your opinion is they don't qualify as proof of a lie. Candace and I believe they do. No matter. I accepted your challenge and I showed you the Liberals lied on this.

Even if you keep commenting on this, it won't change that Brison said something was in the letter that wasn't. You might not like it -- but I stated a fact -- not an opinion -- therefore not spin.

Continue to believe what you want -- but don't suggest that I'm spinning anything. It is both erroneous and insulting because it implies that I am a liar.
I'm not an agent of the Conservative Party. When I have beef with them, I write about it in my blog. Check out my archives. I write more in favour of them than against, but I don't give them unquestioned endorsement.
I don't mind being challenged on valid points -- but once I've proved my point, you should be gracious enough to admit it or move on.