5:15 p.m. - Rodriguez denies the allegation on MDL.
Stephen Taylor's on it!
More at Crux-of-the-Matter.
PTBC - Alleged CBC/Liberal Party collusion claimed by former Liberal MP. Joel has part of the press release.
Le Politico - Mike Duffy confirms it: CBC wrote questions for Liberal MPs on ethics committee.
L. Ian MacDonald - As low as they come.
* * * *
(Morning post)
Brian Mulroney is testifying now in front of the Commons Committee and how his life has been impacted by spurious allegations.
This will be quite the day for media and bloggers.
CTV is providing the testimony live.
Paul Szabo is not off to a good start in trying to pretend to be non-partisan. He cuts Mulroney off continually. A Conservative MP asks that Mulroney be granted the same courtesy as Schreiber.
Star - Cash payment 'Not illegal'.
Post - Mulroney denies wrongdoing before ethics committee.
Post live-blogging here! - Brian Mulroney - Live on the Hill.
From the Post:
"He's sitting over there in his mansion in Rockcliffe chuckling ... he got his get out of jail card. He got what he wanted ... I think he seriously misled every member of this house with this false affidavit."
We've all been played for fools.
Macleans also Live-blogging.
Globe - Schreiber will 'say anything, sign anything, do anything' – Mulroney.
CTV - Mulroney explains cash payments from Schreiber.
Update: AA - Did CBC write some of the Liberal questions to BM today?
SDA readers heard it too!
* * * *
Friday Update: Steve Janke - The CBC and yellow journalism. (With very interesting comments)
SDA - Mulroney Testimony: CBC on the hotseat.
Stephen Taylor - Stephen updates post with press release from Doug Finley writing to CBC Ombudsman.
7 p.m. Breaking! CBC reviewing claim reporter fed questions to Liberal MP.
SDA - Mulroney Testimony: CBC on the hotseat.
Stephen Taylor - Stephen updates post with press release from Doug Finley writing to CBC Ombudsman.
7 p.m. Breaking! CBC reviewing claim reporter fed questions to Liberal MP.
98 comments:
Mulroney is making them look like complete fools.
I smell another lawsuit. I think I can see why Mulroney wanted an inquiry.
Pat Martin just made a comment outside the Committee Room, and L. Ian MacDonald said he should be careful because he doesn't enjoy immunity there. Can't remember the exact comment but it was on CTV. Another lawsuit in the making.
Does anyone know the background on Stevie Cameron, whom Mulroney mentioned?
Mulroney is making them look like complete fools.
Is he now.
Brian Mulroney is a complete and utter liar and these proceedings are just going to cement that in the hearts and minds of the many, many Canadians made that judgement many, many years ago. His reputation is rightfully in tatters and his legacy forever tainted. Good on him.
Omar, do you find Schreiber more credible?
Based on Schreiber's demeanor, presentation and delivery, yes.
I mean seriously, do you watch these proceedings and find Mulroney even remotely credible? I sure don't. He can't tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth so he needs to lie and unfortunately for him, he is a terrible liar.
*
the best description of this thing, bar none, that i have heard thus far...
"barnum, bailey & schreiber"
*
Briam Mulroney is exposing schreiber as an utter liar. The committe members haven't laid a glove on him. I love when he call schrieber;s affidavit the get out of jail affidavit.
Omar. Schreiber has contradicted himself under oath a number of times. That is perjury. Believing schreiber pretty well makes you lose all credibility.
They are both lying SOB"s trying to save their butts. The sad part is we taxpayers are paying the tab.
That I lose credibility in your eyes is of little concern to me, Eappen. Apparently you did not see the Harris/Decima poll last night that showed Schreiber as more credible than the former PM among those Canadians asked. Don't expect those numbers to drastically change in Mulroney's favour following today's forked-tongued testimony.
I watched exactly 10 minutes of the dog and pony show this morning.
Mulroney read the transcripts of the three separate occasions where Schreiber gave sworn testimony.
Szabo looked like he was going to swallow his tongue as he took his mic off to talk to someone at the side and then suggested going for a break.
I was surprised that Mulroney did not punctuate his presentation by stating that the Liberals had access to ALL of this information because it was ALL a matter of public record. But perhaps for the sake of optics he chose to hold back.
In any case this whole thing is playing out exactly as I predicted.
The LIberals are making asses of themselves and allowing everyone else to help out in the effort.
A transparent effort to change the channel and focus public attention from their incompetent fool of a leader and possibly score some political hits on the conservatives as they exercise their muck raking and mud slinging skills.
Next step .... the dirt starts to come out about Chretien and company.
Hey Omar .... I HATE Mulroney!
He is IMO a slimeball.
Just to illustrate THE major difference between conservative voters and LIberal supporters.... when WE get stuck with one of those Like Mulroney,that would be Chretien etc.on your side of things, WE get rid of them! Got that? It was not LIberals who toasted Mulroney's political career it was Conservatives who were sick and tired of his antics.
You should learn a lesson from that!
The fact that those LIberals currently enjoying the taxpayer funded politicking and grandstanding are being made fools of by him makes them and their efforts only that much more laughable.
A total bunch of clowns!
But liberal voters in Ontario and elsewhere will keep voting for the LIberals ... no matter what.
I think it is credible that Shreiber is in fact Shreiber.
That is the only credibility he needs. He must be credibly identified, for example by the Swiss bank so that his permission to release documents is accepted.
Stevie Cameron wrote the book On The Take.
"All my personal problems," Shreiber wrote Mulroney on January 29, 2007, "began with Stevie Cameron's book, 'On the Take,' and Allan Rock's political witch-hunt with the RCMP against you."
I am at work, so I can't watch and have to content myself with reading the second hand accounts, complete with editorializing.
Next step .... the dirt starts to come out about Chretien and company.
And I have no problems with that whatsoever. If there is one thing I can't stand about any politician, whether they be former or current, it is their long standing belief that they are above the law.
"Brian Mulroney is a complete and utter liar and these proceedings are just going to cement that in the hearts and minds of the many, many Canadians made that judgement many, many years ago. His reputation is rightfully in tatters and his legacy forever tainted. Good on him."
Goodness Omar, you must have watched the proceedings with your rose colored glasses on, as you sure did "see" things differently than I - and alot of the media - but then....partisanship IS the name of the game here....sigh
Jean Lapierre just said on CTV to Mike Duffy that last night the CBC sent the Liberal Committee members all the questions that they asked today! LaPierre said he knew all the questions ahead of time (through his source).
Mike said that could be a libelous statement so it should be couched with the word 'allegedly'.
L. Ian MacDonald said that Pat Martin's line of questioning showed 'no class' and statements he made outside the room were almost libelous.
By contrast, he thought Joe Comartin did very well. His questions were tough, but fair.
Goodness AG, the only Canadians that will likely even come close to believing Brian Mulroney are those wearing your "rose colored[sic] glasses". I don't know about you, but Brian Mulroney has been lying to me since I was 21 years old and as OMMAG pointed out, the old bastard is a slimeball of the highest order.
Lord Omar - fill your boots. The liar in the crowd isn't Mulroney. It's the guy drinking a beer in Rockliffe.
The opposition wanted it they got it.
Mulroney is nothing but a class act.
No inquiry or further waste of time and my money!!!!
Stevie Cameron wrote the book On The Take.
L.S. Thanks. Mulroney mentioned her name.
Personally, I don't think Mulroney lied today. Perhaps he hedged a bit and talked around the truth, but I don't think he lied. Not with his family sitting there watching.
He may be guilty of stupidity, hubris and tax evasion, but I think that is the extent of it.
I've said this before and I'm going to say it again: If you fondly remember the Mulroney years, you weren't there.
A class act? LOL.
Calling people liars on a blog would be about the same as calling them liars anywhere else, would it not. Someone, sometime is going to be accused of libel on here.
I thought it was only on Turner's blog that people talked like this, and his comments are sickening.
I don't believe Mulroney has any tax issues. He accepted a retainer, and did use some of the funds to pay expenses during the period of the retainer, the retainer, since there was no formal Statement of Work, the retainer, or at least the net of it after expenses does not become taxable until the contract is deemed fulfilled or terminated. Normally, upon completion of the contract he should then issue an invoice. He elected to terminate the agreement when Schreiber was arrested. Whether his assessment that what was left was reasonable remuneration for his efforts to that point in time are up to the civil court.
As for the GST comments, there is no GST applicable on services provided to a foreign agency.
"That I lose credibility in your eyes is of little concern to me, Eappen. Apparently you did not see the Harris/Decima poll last night that showed Schreiber as more credible than the former PM among those Canadians asked. Don't expect those numbers to drastically change in Mulroney's favour following today's forked-tongued testimony."
And the polls say what about how Canadians think of Dion as a leader?
Tuesday Screiber testified Mulroney did nothing wrong or illegal, and testified 24 hours later he did. Perhaps Schreiber was paying attention to what average Canadians were saying, that if there was nothing illegal, send him to Germany.
Biggest moron today was Pablo Rodriguez, asking questions about the decision to open up the cell-phone market. And that relates to 1993-1994 how?
paulsstuff
Bottom-line.....Stephen Harper's clean. Likewise his gov't.
Go dig up something else LoMo(sorry I don't call anyone Lord), because seriously the Liberals truly have nothing else.
Show's over....so's all indications of an inquiry, unless the terms of reference include combing all former prime minsters, the Globe and Mail, the CBC too.
Rodriguezs' questions re Chong & Spectrum are interesting,especially if as Lapierre stated that they came from the CBC.It appears that now the Liberals are now not even trying to hide the appearance of a witch hunt against Harper.
Calling people liars on a blog would be about the same as calling them liars anywhere else, would it not.
Good point, Ruth. I may have to clean things up here.
Best if everyone follows Pat Martin's example - eg. I'm not calling you a liar, but I don't believe a word you just said.
Greyburr, yeah. I think they want to push this Spectrum thing a bit further. If what Lapierre said is true, then this is shocking about the CBC. I mean, we know that they're a Liberal mouthpiece, but I had no idea to what extent they are so closely connected.
It just seems that we are a society of "put downers". When we see people that are intelligent, and dressed well like the Mulroneys, we call they arrogant. Why do we have to pull people down to our level instead of us rising to theirs.
Lots of questions why Brian kept the money in a US safety deposit box. I know many people, especially snow birds, who have US funds in US banks, SDBs, etc. One reason is to have access to US funds when in the US, and not subject to the exchange rates. Now they want to know what else was in that box. Funny, no one is asking liberals if they got paid off to bring this mess fwd to help KS stay in Canada. And that liberal, being sued by Brian, asking questions. To me that is very unethical. Was he trying to get evidence to clear his name in the libel suit.
What is with Pat Martin and a Manitoba election. Does he ever smile.
Those conflicting affidavits make KS a liar in one of them. Did you miss that part Omar.
Stevie Cameron has been discredited as a journalist due to her activities as a police informant. Ms. Cameron's visceral hatred of Brian Mulroney is so great that she even confirmed her confidential informer status when questioned by an official in the Department of Justice, but Specified She Would Be Willing To Be Exposed If It Was In The Course Of A Criminal Prosecution Of Brian Mulroney. She wanted to be a confidential informant to protect her reputation amongst her peers and not damage future employment prospects. She has been exposed publicly, thanks to Eddie Greenspan and William Kaplan (among others) but continues to this day to Lie about her involvement in the police investigation.
It is interesting to note that until very recently, Stevie Cameron's Wikipedia entry referred to her as a Discredited Canadian Journalist. Her book, On The Take, contains no substantiated information to justify the title.
Who do I belive? An arms dealer under criminal indictment in Germany trying to avoid extradition? A journalist who betrayed the trust of her colleagues and passed on documents she was given in confidence by those people to the RCMP in her capacity as a registered and numbered police informant? A former Prime Minister of Canada who achieved a great many things, both domestically and internationally? You decide.
Someone on the Charles Adler show just mentioned about Lapierre's comment regarding the CBC.
Yes sir - I have to agree with whoever said that this means Harper's home free.
Because he is and now we can move on to that election the Liberals keep threatening.
Bring it on.....and sooner rather than later...because there aint nothing in Santa's sack for the Liberals this Christmas.
Sorry Omar......Dion's just not up to the job.
Of course the Liberals have to turn to the CBC for their questions...because they sure can't think of anything dumb on their own....wait for it....YES THEY CAN.
I agree with anon. above Harper's no dummy, let's turn the inquiry on to the CBC and the Liberals involvement.
Oh and by the way, taxpayers want their money back that the Liberal stole.
I have absolutely no idea why anyone would be defending Mulroney in this matter or any other.
He did what he did and there is nothing more to it. Mulroney should be relegated to the footnotes of Canadian Political History... permanently.
If not for this pack of jackals from the LPC .... and the Media ... we would not be seeing or hearing anything from the old sock and KHS would be where he belongs... back in Germany in a jail cell.
As for CBC's involvement... who exactly is surprised?
The only surprise here is the gaff by LaPierre and that CTV let it get through the filters..... now if we had a little spat between CTV and CBC with some revelations about their involvement with LIberals......!
"It is interesting to note that until very recently, Stevie Cameron's Wikipedia entry referred to her as a Discredited Canadian Journalist."
Interesting ... I wonder if that change was one of the several thousand that originated from CBC computers!
Now why is anyone surprised that yet another LIberal effort is being justified by and founded on nothing but fabrication, deception and the "word" of a few notorious schemers and b*llsh*t artists??
*
"Lord Omar said… Apparently you did not see the Harris/Decima poll last night..."
well, your lordship... not sure how things work in whatever kingdom your royal highness is from... but here in canada, we usually need a little more than a newspaper poll to convict somebody of a crime.
there's a little thing called evidence... oh never mind... you probably wouldn't understand anyway.
*
*
see, here's the thing...
i'd be the last person in the world to defend anyone taking bags of cash from a greasy little turd like schreiber... but doesn't brian mulroney deserve at least the same sort of judicial process as willie pickton?
enough backdoor smears, folks... charge him with whatever crimes you think you can prove... and let him have his day in court.
*
*
It was an opinion poll, neo clown. It stated more Canadians find KHZ more believable than former PM BM. Hardly surprising to anyone over the age of 40. Who was talking about using this Harris/Decima poll as evidence to convict anyone?
*
"What is with Pat Martin and a Manitoba election. Does he ever smile."
Pat Martin has been making way over the top comments regarding the three installments of cash accepted by Mr. Mulroney, suggesting the latter had been taking "brown paper bags full of money in secret hotel rooms."
Mr. Martin needs the book thrown at him!
Which book, you ask?
A dictionary and a thesaurus to show him the difference between "private" and "secret."
And then he should be told he's become one with the hand-held puppets he used as props to present his anti-asbestos rant on a different occasion.
It has been argued that raising MPs' salaries would attract a better quality of candidate to Parliament.
Is that the kind of quality we get for $147,000+ salary/per year?
Martin has asked for the $2.1 million settlement granted to Mulroney be given back.
Perhaps Martin should be the one refunding part of the salary he's been receiving - $1000 for every time he utters the words "secret" and "grease money" among others.
P.S. I emailed my concerns about his excessive rhetoric. Like his other NDP colleagues who claim to know what Canadians are thinking, he did not even acknowledge the email.
*
"king omar splutters... It stated more Canadians..."
well... it is indeed fortunate you have your poll to do your thinking for you, huh?
so much easier than looking at actual evidence and thinking for yourself.
and wow, silly me... thinking due process might just figure somewhere into the equation here.
*
Duffy just stated a Liberal strategist has admitted the CBC wrote the questions. What a pathetic display of what is supposed to be our taxpayer non-partisan National News.
Lets see all the Liberal's explain this. Pablo Rodriguez denied it on Duffy until Duffy revealed the party had admitted it. Too bad Pablo, caught lying on television. Maybe you should stick to Kyoto bills moron.
paulsstuff
Paul, yes, Duffy just reconfirmed the story, but it sounds as if the Liberal strategist was saying that the CBC was only giving Rodriquez suggestions; not necessarily framing the whole question.
Yet it does make you wonder how that is their business anyway?
"anon says... Duffy just stated a Liberal strategist has admitted the CBC wrote the questions"
not sure what the big deal here is.
the cbc... a government funded subsidiary of the liberal party of canada... has been providing logistical support for the ottawa engagement of barnum, bailey & schreiber... and we're what... shocked, appalled... what?
*
It would appear I may be clairvoyant:
"Biggest moron today was Pablo Rodriguez, asking questions about the decision to open up the cell-phone market. And that relates to 1993-1994 how?"
paulsstuff
Duffy reported it was the CBC that wanted the questions asked about the recent decision opening up the cell-phone market. And that had to do with Mulroney-Schreiber how? And Szabo insisiting it was related. Funny, I never heard Szabo apologize to Mulroney about any questions or his treatment.
Schreiber had the problem with his belt but it appears that its the Liberals who have been caught with thier pants down in regards to the CBC.
paulsstuff
Schreiber had the problem with his belt but it appears that its the Liberals who have been caught with thier pants down in regards to the CBC.
O.K. That's it. You have to start your own blog! ;)
When talking to Duffy, Joe Comartin smirked and said that all reporters relay questions they want asked - he said even CTV reporters have done it.
Much ado about nothing - again.
Pat Martin is a loose cannon and since when is he judge and jury? He's there to ask questions, not make judgement.
Del Mastro - is an idiot - he's a brown noser big time trying to win Harper brownie points - he's the MP in the next county to mine and believe me he's an idiot.
*
"anon says... all reporters relay questions they want asked"
remind me again... which branch of the government does the cbc belong to?
and what exactly are we gonna call that process... "wag the slug"?
*
Joanne, quite early on in this thread you asked about Stevie Cameron.
If you're interested, she's got her own blog here:
http://steviecameronblog.blogspot.com/
but the last entry is dated Nov. 26.
I am not sure why so many of you are upset about all of this. If it were not for Mulroney, this report would be getting more coverage:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071213/polling_probe_071213/20071213?hub=Politics
As for Mulroney, interesting how he noted Schreiber is a liar - except where Schreiber supports Mulroney.
I watched and at no time did former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney indicate that Schreiber was truthfull
he pointed out the discrepancies in statements that Schreiber made and stated that the committee would have to decide what was true
Florence
The mere smell of corruption and arrogance forced me (and a lot of other conservatives) to not vote PC in '93, and I never voted for the party again, until it's merger with Reform.
The same happened after a couple of terms of the Liberals. I think one lead to the other; one party gets away with it, and the next carries on the same practices.
The PC's learned their lesson, the Libs not yet. Winning 100 seats after what was admitted occurring in the name of the party? Not a single political master held responsible? Truly a disgrace.
Maybe BM should have brought some golf balls with him.
Mulroney,that would be Chretien etc.on your side of things, WE get rid of them! Got that? It was not LIberals who toasted Mulroney's political career it was Conservatives who were sick and tired of his antics.
Bingo! This is a point I've tried to make several times. I'm sick of seeing conservatives blindly supporting BM, like the Libs blindly support JC, even to this day.
This is not a partisan matter. When you are a politician and, a) accept 100's of thousands of dollars in cash from lobbyists, or b) lobby banks to give money to your friends, something is wrong.
Well since there's been so much said about this so far... I tried to watch CBC and CTV evening reports.
DID not see any mention about the court transcripts brought and quoted by Mulroney. The fact of which proves the entire committee hearing a farce.
Evidently the media are not the least bit interested in actual facts since they focussed entirely on the committee members posturing and little snaps of Mulroney looking like he wanted to squirm.
All after the fact analysis so far has been pointed at Mulroney... I guess those big cuts he made at CBC really stung the leftards in the media.
Or did I miss something?
The Verdict was interesting tonight. All the radio personalities seemed in agreement that the Committee should be done now. No smoking gun.
Possibly an issue for Revenue Canada to follow up with re: Mulroney but that's it. They criticized Rodriguez for his questions which were way off-topic.
Jean Lapierre was on again, and didn't say anything about CBC this time but suggested that this show is over; time to move on.
"Possibly an issue for Revenue Canada to follow up with re: Mulroney but that's it."
I'm no tax expert, but I'm pretty sure I heard Mr. Mulroney say:
1. Of the $225,000 received, $45,000 was spent on expenses, which would have been tax deductible.
2. Tax was paid on the full amount - $225,000 (not just on the remaining $180,000).
3. Tax payment was deferred to the time when he decided his consulting for Schreiber would be terminated, given his arrest in 1999.
4. Tax payment could be deferred until full delivery of the consulting services Mulroney had been hired to do.
5. Some commenters have made much of the fact Mulroney held part of the money in a safety deposit box in New York.
But it has been noted that Mulroney is a member of the board of many corporations, including US ones, so that money could have been used in the US, not brought across illegally as some commenters have suggested (either here or elsewhere).
What is the purpose of this Szabo loser anyways? Was he there to make the liberals look less credible then they already are?
(real conservative)
Talk about witchhunts - Harper's been hiding the report with respect to the polling practises of the Liberals - and guess what - Harper's polling practises are the bad ones. That's why Harper held the report back for 2 months.
Now, we're just waiting for Wajid Khan's Middle East report - oh yes, I forgot there won't be one because it was reported that this report showed that Harper has caused loss of respect and credibility in the Middle East.
Something no one has mentioned or perhaps thought of. We know CBC was aiding the Liberal MP's in questions being put to Mulroney.
Perhaps Stephen Taylor or someone else can dig into wether the CBC put together the questions posted to Schreiber, and also possibly his answers.
If an inquiry goes forward, CBC and its upper management might be put in a very awkward position. Defending the Fifth-Estate episode, which they have ran numerous times, and explaining why they never put vital information on that broadcast, such as the letter Mulroney produced yesterday where Schreiber told the CBC there was no bank account meant for Mulroney overseas.
And why did the CBC not come to the NDP or Conservatives with questions they would like put forward?
paulsstuff
Paul, all good questions.
I have one too - Why haven't we seen this story elsewhere other than blogs and Mike Duffy? The story has been confirmed by Liberals!
"Why haven't we seen this story elsewhere other than blogs and Mike Duffy? The story has been confirmed by Liberals!"
Maybe because it is not a story?
Just because a lot of BT's are willing to take a scrap of information and extrapolate it into wild conspiracy theories does not mean others are willing to do so.
Despite what you say, not even Duffy was pushing this one by the end of his show. His media pundits (not from the CBC of course) completey dismissed the notion the CBC and the liberals are working together. The final (unconfirmed) version of this story was that the CBC did call and suggest a line of questioning but that the liberals had already discussed those questions.
What I would like to know is why no one here even acknowledges the report that concluded there was nothing untoward about liberal government polling practices, but that the CONSERVATIVE polling practices were excessive and an inappropriate use of tax dollars. Many of you were salivating in anticipation of this report, convinced it would be the nail in the liberal coffin.
That some of you actually think this CBC thing is a major story, but the fact our conservative government has been wasting million of dollars on partisan polls, and a further 600 thousand dollars on a liberal witch hunt is not worth mentioning, says a lot about your inability to accept reality.
*
"gayle whinges... been wasting million of dollars"
like your buddy karlheinz's fiberal sponsored, multi-million dollar get out of jail free card fiasco?
steffi's gonna end up wearin' this one too.
*
NC - I knew someone was going to dismiss my post with a "the liberals are worse" comment.
Way to avoid the subject.
We all know that had the report come back blasting the liberals no one here would even be discussing the CBC right now.
Gayle ... Why don't we think the polling report is a major issue?
It's about facts Gayle.... as far as the polling issue goes there are none yet. Facts ... like the fact that Liberal politicians are carrying water for the news agencies. A fact you seem unable to connect with a little issue called ethics.
Yes FACTS ...those pesky things that always seem to have a way of ruining your lib/lefty fantasies and delusions and while we wait for some of those to become known you will likely continue to go on your merry way prattling about whatever pops into your head.... as is the way of the lib/lefty folk.
It's about facts Gayle.... as far as the polling issue goes there are none yet.
Okey dokey.
Facts ... like the fact that Liberal politicians are carrying water for the news agencies.
Too many metaphors in one sentence. Politicians listening to input from anyone, as opposed to wearing the Harper blinkers as required on one side of the House?
A fact you seem unable to connect with a little issue called ethics.
Vintage pgp!
Yes FACTS ...those pesky things that always seem to have a way of ruining your lib/lefty fantasies and delusions and while we wait for some of those to become known you will likely continue to go on your merry way prattling about whatever pops into your head.... as is the way of the lib/lefty folk.
What a dissembling moron! Still stuck in the "liberal" as insult mode?
Hahahahahaha!
Will KS be charged with perjury re his get out of jail affidavit, or other sworn lies in other documents. That could be a way to get him back in jail, and hopefully his pants wont fall down.
Gabby re #4 in your post. You are right, money is declared when it is earned or deemed to be earned, not necessarily when it is received.
Unfortunately too many businesses spend the money as received, and are broke when they have to declare it and pay taxes.
Those doubting this should talk to developers, home builders, lawyers and accountants who receive retainers.
Considering KS is suing to get the money back, apparently Brian never earned it so never had to declare it as earned income. Maybe he declared it as a gift, or investment. The tax laws have lots of legal loopholes.
Has the US ever had/or still have/ a 1000.00 bill.
Tax time is around the corner, look at your return to see how one pays tax to the US on our cdn return. If paid in the US, you get a tax credit on your cdn return.
ommag - talk about twisted logic. I have seen you write some doozies before, but this one really takes the cake.
The thing about facts is that they exist whether or not you want to accept them. At the same time, they do not exist simply because you really really want to believe something.
Just because you say things loudly, or emphatically, or speak in absolutes, does not mean you are saying things that are true.
For example, I have yet to see any "facts" on CBC gate. To date there has been innuendo and wild speculation on your part, as well as on the part of others on this blog. The person who broke this story backed off. Whether it is true or not, the actual FACTS surrounding the allegations do not amount to "Liberal politicians are carrying water for the news agencies", so please try not making things up to support your point.
As for "polling-gate", the FACT is that the report referred to was commissioned by Harper, and it has not been denied by him (you see, FACTS like the number of polls commissioned and the amount of tax dollars spent funding them are pretty east to establish).
*
"gayle says... Way to avoid the subject."
gayle... please enumerate all the useful developments that you have thus far gleaned from "barnum, bailey & schreiber"?
unless, of course, you're gonna avoid the subject.
myself... i'll wait for the public enquiry.
*
Gayle, seeing as you and some others are interested in the polling. Here's a little more info.
In 1993-94, for example, the federal government spent $4 million on 90 opinion polls. By 2004-05, there were 621 polls at a cost of $29 million.
So the article you quote says the Liberal's "averaged" $18 million a year on polling. If Harper spends $19 million this year, his average drops to $25 million. When finding an average you look for outliers, and don't include them in the equation. Imagine that $4 million and how its lowered the average.
Fraser found some problems with opinion polling from 1999 to 2003 and said the finance department, under Paul Martin, had commissioned some polls for which only verbal reports were delivered. Those contracts were conducted by Earnscliffe Strategy Group, and top Liberal strategist David Herle, a Martin confidant. Herle, who now runs the Gandalf Group polling company, declined comment yesterday. Calls to Earnscliffe were not returned.
*
"anaon says... said the finance department, under Paul Martin, had commissioned some polls for which only verbal reports were delivered"
yeah... gotta love those verbal report jobs, huh gayle? geez... that didn't come out of my taxes, did it?
tony soprano would be green with envy.
*
"The person who broke this story backed off"
Really Gayle, you have "facts" to "Prove" this.....
Please tell....
Perhaps Gayle, the reason this is getting so much play is because the very fact that a publicly funded agency - a brodcasting agency at that, is attempting to "direct" a story through Liberal MP's is much, much bigger than any "polling" story - much as you "wish" it were not true.
Typical Liberal though - poo-pooing the do-do your party once again finds itself in.
"The person who broke this story backed off"
Really Gayle, you have "facts" to "Prove" this.....
I was wondering that too.
There are a couple of updates at the end of this post. The CPC has lodged an official complaint with the CBC Ombudsman.
Good work Joanne....
BTW - I really do enjoy putting a burr under your liberal trolls saddles.
LS - Moron? What a small small person you are!
Let's put a little better perspective on this. Everyone knows most media have either right or left leanings.
Toronto Star- Pro Liberal
Toronto Sun- Pro Conservative
I won't spend my money on the Star, because they lean Left. Especially after supporting the Liberal's even through the worst revelations from Adscam.
I choose to spend my money when I do buy a paper on the Sun. I'm more in sync with the papers slant, and I know when I read it that it does tend to favor the right of the political spectrum.
Now let's move onto the CBC. I have no discretion wether my tax dollars are spent on this. In fact the whole idea of the CBC is so Canada keeps its identity and has balanced and factful news coverage on both Canadian and world events. If this news media outlet feels the need to promote the Liberal's or somehow torque the news so the headlines read the way they want it, than cut taxpayer funding and make it on your own.
I can tell you one thing and I will encourage others to do the same. Come next election, if CBC starts up with the "Reality Check" segemnt nightly bashing Harper, everyone should send in e-mails to the ombudsman and whoever else can help. Wanna do reality check, then do it for the platforms of ALL parties. By the way, the anon comment at 5:02 was me, forgot to sign my name.
And let's see, Joanne posts about the CBC story on her blog, and Gayle leaves this comment:
I am not sure why so many of you are upset about all of this. If it were not for Mulroney, this report would be getting more coverage:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071213/polling_probe_071213/20071213?hub=Politics
As for Mulroney, interesting how he noted Schreiber is a liar - except where Schreiber supports Mulroney."
And then later this:
"Way to avoid the subject."
Riiiiight.
Gayle, I guess it went right over your head Mulroney quoted letters from Scrieber supporting him to show Schreiber has no credibility, as Liberal's quote letters from Schreiber stating the exact opposite. He can't suck and blow at the same time, which is basically what his letters and affidavits do.
"For example, I have yet to see any "facts" on CBC gate. To date there has been innuendo and wild speculation on your part, as well as on the part of others on this blog. The person who broke this story backed off. Whether it is true or not, the actual FACTS surrounding the allegations do not amount to "Liberal politicians are carrying water for the news agencies", so please try not making things up to support your point."
Actually Gayle, Lappierre reiterated what he said again today. So yes, please provide the story saying Lapierre had backed off of this comment.
Well, it appears the CBC is in fact agreeing with what happened, not backing off as Gayle mentioned.
"OTTAWA - The CBC has begun an internal investigation and possible disciplinary process after one of its parliamentary reporters suggested questions to a Liberal MP on the Commons ethics committee.
The probe follows a formal complaint by the Conservative party.
The complaint centres on claims that Liberal Pablo Rodriguez directed questions from the CBC to Brian Mulroney during a highly anticipated Commons committee hearing on Thursday.
CBC News says the reporter, who it did not name, "may have been in pursuit of a journalistically legitimate story."
But the broadcaster says it was an "inappropriate way of going about it and as such inconsistent with our journalistic policies and practices."
Thanks, Paul. Yeah, I just saw that too. Wow. Right on their own website!
LS - Moron? What a small small person you are!
My apologies. I meant to call you a maroon.
"Wow. Right on their own website!"
Which would never be there if they were the liberal lapdogs you all claim they are.
As for my claim about "backing off", I was referring to the fact Duffy at first reported the CBC wrote the questions, and then revised that to suggested a line of questions. I was referring to my first comment on this topic:
"Despite what you say, not even Duffy was pushing this one by the end of his show. His media pundits (not from the CBC of course) completey dismissed the notion the CBC and the liberals are working together. The final (unconfirmed) version of this story was that the CBC did call and suggest a line of questioning but that the liberals had already discussed those questions."
What Scott Reid said was that the media email the parties all the time with these kinds of suggestions.
As for the complaint about the CBC being publicly funded v. privately funded media - I was not aware that media ethics allowed for private media to demonstrate an undeclared bias. I believe they are all bound by the same ethical considerations.
Of course, unlike those of you who see any criticism of their party of choice as evidence of bias, I believe the fact the CBC is critical of the conservatives at times does not make them biased. They are also critical of the liberals (not that most of you will accept that, but that is true).
I maintain the only reason the conservatives are making such a big deal about this is in order to avoid the real news, like their collossal failure in Bali, or "poll-gate".
They have been unable to change the channel back to "Dion is not a leader" so they have to resort to making a mountain out of a molehill.
"As for the complaint about the CBC being publicly funded v. privately funded media - I was not aware that media ethics allowed for private media to demonstrate an undeclared bias. I believe they are all bound by the same ethical considerations..
Uh, hello. Toronto Star and Toronto Sun are two examples. The Aspers maybe? Private companies can do what they want, a publically FUNDED company should be held to a higher standard I would think. The national news media funded by the taxpayer trying to mold the news to damage a party is just so wrong.
"What Scott Reid said was that the media email the parties all the time with these kinds of suggestions"
Yep. And Jean Lapperiere said in his 16 years as a Liberal MP he was never asked by any journalist or media source to ask a question.
"I knew all about those questions. They were written by the CBC and provided to the Liberal Members of Parliament and the questions that Pablo Rodriguez asked were written by the CBC and I can't believe that but last night, influential Member of Parliament came to me and told me those are the questions that the CBC wants us to ask tomorrow." (Mr. Lapierre, CTV Newsnet, December 13, 2007)
On the TV program Mike Duffy Live, Mike Duffy stated the following.
"Liberal researcher Jay Ephard approach him and say, no, Jean, it's not true. The CBC didn't write those questions that were asked by the Liberals. We wrote them. Yes, the CBC phoned us up and suggested questions we should ask but we actually typed them out ourselves."(Mike Duffy, Mike Duffy Live, December 13, 2007)
Gee, how much wiggle room did they give themselves there? We typed them out ourselves? Not we thought of them themselves, they typed them themselves. I can just see Pablo Rodriguez with a pen in one hand,and and a CBC journalist on the phone in the other hand.
I can just see Pablo Rodriguez with a pen in one hand,and and a CBC journalist on the phone in the other hand.
Exactly. It has very bad optics, to say the least.
*
"gayle says... Which would never be there if they were the liberal lapdogs you all claim they are."
oh, gayle... what kind of an argument is that?
the ceeb gets caught with it's pants around it's ankles... the only alternative is to come clean... and find a scapegoat real quick.
*
Gayle - your blind faith in the Liberal party is admirable but really, for you to suggest that somehow this is a ploy to direct attention away from "poll-gate" or Bali is ludicrous...
You put forth several so called "facts" that you allege prove that this is "nothing" yet it really seems to me that it is the Liberals trying to distance themselves from the deep do-do they once again find themselves in.
The phrase - methinks they doth protest too much seems quite apropro here.
Thanks to the blogesphere, it seems like the MSM have no choice but to begin covering this issue, much to the chagrin of the Liberal party, and supporters like yourself.
This is not something the Conservatives made up, it was brought out by a former liberal cabinet minister and confirmed by a liberal researcher. If they had not brought it out, it would not be an issue because the Conservatives would not have known about it.
So, as to your saying this is an effort to divert attention, well seems like you have been going out of your way to try to divert attention away from yet another liberal scandal.
I can just see Pablo Rodriguez with a pen in one hand,and and a CBC journalist on the phone in the other hand.
I'm sure you can. You do have a real talent for making things up.
I don't really see the problem in journalists making suggestions to MPs. I suspect that for CPC MPs it could cause them to be thrown out of caucus, since only the PMO can make suggestions to CPC MPs.
That may be the problem here. The PMO does not make suggestions to the CPC MPs, they give orders and expect them to be obeyed.
Perhaps, upon seeing the real world, where suggestions are just that, suggestions, you would project your CPC MP rules on all MPs and assume they are in fact being ordered about by journalists, as the above "phone in one hand and pen in the other" image so vividly demonstrates.
By the way, the "irrelevant" question Rodriguez asked about the cellphone market might have to do with this. Lobbying on behalf of a business that could benefit from opening the cellphone market to another national carrier. Mulroney was being paid by Shrieber for lobbying. Questioning him about other lobbying could establish that Mulroney is in fact a real lobbyist, entitled to his $225000 even if he did not get the job done.
After all, it would be in the interest of the ethics committee to not only clear a former Prime Minister, but establish fact to prevent him from losing a civil lawsuit over supposed non-performance.
And Craig Oliver toldl Duffy that this was bunk, so, you know...
"Yep. And Jean Lapperiere said in his 16 years as a Liberal MP he was never asked by any journalist or media source to ask a question."
And this guy, who hates Dion and has done as much as he can to undermine his party, should be trusted because he supports the position you want, right?
The liberals are not the only ones who say this, or perhaps you missed this:
"When talking to Duffy, Joe Comartin smirked and said that all reporters relay questions they want asked - he said even CTV reporters have done it."
But hey - pick and choose what you want to support you - and keep on ignoring poll-gate.
"The national news media funded by the taxpayer trying to mold the news to damage a party is just so wrong."
Except that is not what they were doing. They were following a story. Are you suggesting that the national media should not follow a story that might make the government look bad?
"Yep. And Jean Lapperiere said in his 16 years as a Liberal MP he was never asked by any journalist or media source to ask a question."
And this guy, who hates Dion and has done as much as he can to undermine his party, should be trusted because he supports the position you want, right?"
Ya, and Screiber has nothing against Mulroney?
You know, its real funny that Liberals had a different view about media involvment in placing questions during the Ontario election:
"Meanwhile, the Liberals questioned the journalistic ethics of CHCH-TV for placing a microphone on Quattrociocchi before he confronted the premier. Party spokesperson Ben Chin accused the TV station of "staging the news" and also promoting it on the noon news before the premier's afternoon visit. "
Thats prtty funny LS. We went from looking at Mulroneys actions in 1993-1994 to 2007 to try and provide a link. Lets now take a look at Paul Martin, as he spends most of his time in China setting up his own personal business interest, including some with Maurice Strong. You know, the guy wanted for questioning in the oil-for-food scandal.
"Except that is not what they were doing. They were following a story. Are you suggesting that the national media should not follow a story that might make the government look bad?"
Oh Gayle - puleeze - a reporter folowing a story is not what happened here - the reporter, or the head of the CBC, or Peter Mansbridge is alledged to have written the questions in order to make the story.... Sort of a tail wagging the dog sort of thing.
And your assertion that if Craig Oliver says it, it must be true is laughable,given the pinched look he always has on his face when he has to acknowledge something "good" about the Tories. And you can be sure the NDP are playing partisan politics here given how their member- eagle-eyes Irene got her commuppence last week.
Face it Gayle, this vendetta to smear the Tories is true and coming to light - no matter how many naysayers you find on the leftside of the spectrum.
paul and AG - you are so funny.
My point was that there are different reports about this story. The only one who claims the CBC wrote the questions was Lapierre, and the only proof of that is Lapierre. The liberal staffer who "confirmed" it said a line of questioning was suggested. This same line of questioning had already been pursued by Rodriguez in the HofC, long before any alleged phone call.
So we should believe Lapierre, and disbelieve anyone else. In particular we should disbelieve Craig Oliver because he has a pinched face. (Oliver's point was that Rodriguez does not need anyone to write his questions for him, and I suspect his unspoken point was that this happens all the time, CTV included, so it is not worth pursuing this story).
Why the need to compare Schreiber to Lapierre is beyond me, but it does assist my point, because Schreiber does indeed have a vendetta against Mulroney, and therefore he has credibility problems. Thanks for conceding that Paul.
Finally, if you really do not think it is legitimate to investige whether or not Mulroney illegally lobbied the government on the wireless issue, you are beyond help. If you believe the nationally owned media should never investigate possible wrongdoing by the government, you belong in the USSR, circa 1980.
*
"gyrating, bobbing and weaving gayle spits out... Finally, if you really do not think it is legitimate..."
oh gayle, if you really do not think it is legitimate to investigate whether or the federally funded national broadcaster is propping up the official opposition party, you are beyond help.
btw... best wishes for a quick recovery... i'm guessing you had to have sprained something... with all the contortions you've been pulling on this thread.
*
"My point was that there are different reports about this story. The only one who claims the CBC wrote the questions was Lapierre, and the only proof of that is Lapierre."
Where to start Gayle. How about here, the actual proof from the CBC press release:
"The probe follows a formal complaint by the Conservative party.
The complaint centres on claims that Liberal Pablo Rodriguez directed questions from the CBC to Brian Mulroney during a highly anticipated Commons committee hearing on Thursday.
CBC News says the reporter, who it did not name, "may have been in pursuit of a journalistically legitimate story."
But the broadcaster says it was an "inappropriate way of going about it and as such inconsistent with our journalistic policies and practices."
Focus on the last paragraph Gayle, that says it all.
Lets address this one next:
"What I would like to know is why no one here even acknowledges the report that concluded there was nothing untoward about liberal government polling practices, but that the CONSERVATIVE polling practices were excessive and an inappropriate use of tax dollars. Many of you were salivating in anticipation of this report, convinced it would be the nail in the liberal coffin."
We have this:
"In 1993-94, for example, the federal government spent $4 million on 90 opinion polls. By 2004-05, there were 621 polls at a cost of $29 million."
Pretty close to what the Conservatives spent last year. Only Conservatives never spent money on this type of polling, which is what the probe was supposed to look into:
"Fraser found some problems with opinion polling from 1999 to 2003 and said the finance department, under Paul Martin, had commissioned some polls for which only verbal reports were delivered. Those contracts were conducted by Earnscliffe Strategy Group, and top Liberal strategist David Herle, a Martin confidant."
Now relate that to Mulroney's testimony. It sure is funny the Liberals don't believe Mulroney gave Shreiber a one hour report verbally on what he had done, saying when you spend money like that there should be paper work to validate what you received.
Next:
"Why the need to compare Schreiber to Lapierre is beyond me, but it does assist my point, because Schreiber does indeed have a vendetta against Mulroney, and therefore he has credibility problems. Thanks for conceding that Paul."
You are very welcome Gayle. And thanks for pointing out the credibilty issues of people like Al Gore, the Sierra Club, Danny Williams, Garth Turner, and yes, Paul Szabo and Pablo Rodriguez. Of course Lappierre was an MP for 16 years, and is now a well respected radio personality in Quebec, whereas Schreiber is?
It's beyond the pale how anyone can try and tie in the recent decision on wireless phones to what Mulroney did 14 years ago, but hey, go ahead, knock your socks off. Liberals were in power from 1993 until 2006. So I guess Mulroney lobbied the PC, party, the Reform and Canadian Alliance party during that time? What companies did Chretien join immediately after leaving office? What companies in China is Paul Martin lobbying right now?
So your turn Gayle, please address this hypocisy from the Liberals:
"Meanwhile, the Liberals questioned the journalistic ethics of CHCH-TV for placing a microphone on Quattrociocchi before he confronted the premier. Party spokesperson Ben Chin accused the TV station of "staging the news" and also promoting it on the noon news before the premier's afternoon visit. "
"It's beyond the pale how anyone can try and tie in the recent decision on wireless phones to what Mulroney did 14 years ago, but hey, go ahead, knock your socks off."
Perhaps you can find the post where I said the two issues were tied.
In fact, I believe they were not tied, and the questions should not have been asked in the committee. That has nothing to do with the allegations made by Lapierre though.
By the way, "allegations" being investigated by the CBC, does not mean that they have been proven. I believe the article supports what I am saying - which is that the evidence is that a journalist to suggested a line of questioning in order to further research into a story, and the CBC feels this practice is unacceptable. There is nothing in there about the CBC writing the questions. I am not sure how that means the CBC are admitting they are attacking the government and supporting the liberals, but from your tendancy to spin, bring in irrelevant information about events that occured long ago in order to somehow prove something else, I guess in your twisted mind something has been proven. To be honest your leaps of logic lost me a while ago.
As for your attempts to spin the Paille report...all I can say is that you and yours were salivating in April believing this report, by an independant third party, was going to decimate the liberals. Obviously it backfired, which is clearly why Harper is trying to hide it.
"oh gayle, if you really do not think it is legitimate to investigate whether or the federally funded national broadcaster is propping up the official opposition party, you are beyond help."
I do not believe I have ever said otherwise. Clearly if the CBC were engaged in unethical behaviour it should be stopped.
Where I differ from you, however, is that I require actual EVIDENCE of this. I am not prepared to accept one allegation made by a competitor of the CBC with an axe to grind against the liberals as evidence that the CBC are unjustly attacking the government and inappropriately controlling the liberal party. Try as you might, you cannot ignore Comartin's and Craig Oliver's comments. You cannot ignore the fact Rodriguez had been asking these questions in the HofC long before the CBC reported is alleged to have suggested them. You cannot ignore what hurts your little paranoid delusions of a mass media conspiracy against Mr. Harper - though I suspect you will try.
It is perfectly appropriate for the CBC to pursue the wireless story, and I find it disturbing that some of you are actually suggesting they should not investigate legitimate stories that may show the conservatives in a bad light. I know that if they uncover unethical behaviour by the conservatives it will upset you, but such is life.
"It is perfectly appropriate for the CBC to pursue the wireless story, and I find it disturbing that some of you are actually suggesting they should not investigate legitimate stories that may show the conservatives in a bad light. I know that if they uncover unethical behaviour by the conservatives it will upset you, but such is life."
Gayle - please point out where anyone said the CBC or any broadcaster should not follow a legitimate story, however this was an attempt to try to connect Brian Mulroney to Stephan Harper after numerous other attempts had failed. The fact that this iine of questioning was brought up in this committee relating to airbus when it had absolutely nothing to do with it is the problem, as is has now become apparent that this whole thing was a "fishing" expidition to try to smear the current government by tying them to BM.
Call it what you will Gayle, the fact remains this "gotcha" politics has become vicious and the CBC - a corportion paid for by you and I - seems to be the worst offenders.
It is not the seeking the story or the contents of the story, Gayle - it is the underhanded, sleazy way they attempted to change the mandate of these proceedings.
So don't try to intimate that somehow this is "conservatives not wanting to be investigated" - it is so much more than that - it has to do with ethical reporting and broadcasting, but as is typical of the Liberals - as you say - this type of thing goes on all the time.
that is the differnce Gayle - you think this is OK - I (and many other ethical conservatives) do not.
"In fact, I believe they were not tied, and the questions should not have been asked in the committee. That has nothing to do with the allegations made by Lapierre though."
Hellloooooooooooooo, Gayle. Go back and read the posts, read the links, and read what the CBC said. The question the CBC wanted asked, AT THE COMMITTEE, was the one asked by Rodriguez concerning the wireless. Just for you Gayle, one last time:
"The complaint centres on claims that Liberal Pablo Rodriguez directed questions from the CBC to Brian Mulroney during a highly anticipated Commons committee hearing on Thursday.
CBC News says the reporter, who it did not name, "may have been in pursuit of a journalistically legitimate story."
But the broadcaster says it was an "inappropriate way of going about it and as such inconsistent with our journalistic policies and practices."
"It is perfectly appropriate for the CBC to pursue the wireless story, and I find it disturbing that some of you are actually suggesting they should not investigate legitimate stories that may show the conservatives in a bad light. I know that if they uncover unethical behaviour by the conservatives it will upset you, but such is life."
You are 100% correct Gayle. It is perfectly appropriate for the CBC to pursue the wireless decision. What is not correct is bringing it up at the ethics committee, which you yourself alluded to. And getting the question asked when the CBC was running non-stop footage of the committee no less.
The next question that needs to be answered is did the CBC and the Liberals collude on the questions put to Schreiber and his answers.
sigh...
The issue is whether the CBC gave the liberals questions.
It is separate from whether those questions should have been asked in the committee.
Regarding the first issue, my entire point here is that some of you have taken this to mean the liberals and the CBC are in cahoots in trying to undermine the government. There is no reason to suggest that other than your paranoid fantasies.
"Call it what you will Gayle, the fact remains this "gotcha" politics has become vicious and the CBC - a corportion paid for by you and I - seems to be the worst offenders."
This is not a fact - it is your opinion, and I do not share it.
While I would love to spend the day running around in circles with you, we are now all simply repeating ourselves, and I have a Christmas dinner to attend, so I bid you a good day.
Post a Comment