It’s a good thing we have the Ethics Committee on the case, now that Harper has so narrowly defined the Public Inquiry into the Mulroneygate affair, such that it immunizes him from being exposed for possible involvement as the target of undue influence by the likes of Lyin’ Brian and the commercial interests Mulroney now represents.
That way the Ethics Committee can deal with the real issues of concern to today’s voters, namely:
The queer intersection of Mulroney's Directorships with major policies of the Harper government
Friday, January 11, 2008
Thank god for the House Ethics Committee
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
So much for a full public inquiry--another fine promise not kept.
Certainly this comes as no surprise to Canadians--sure is not the first promise not kept by this government & certainly won`t be the last.
An inquiry is normally done to air all of the facts that the public wishes to hear concerning a certain issue --limiting the inquiry`s terms of reference just serves to subvert democracy & serve no one well.
This whole exercise becomes a total waste of time since any involvement of the PMO will be left unchallenged.
Thank you Mr Harper for continuing to display contempt for the rest of Parliament & the Canadian people it represents.
I have grown to expect no less from the man I helped to sent to Ottawa.
Dr mike.
I agree. “Thank God for the House Ethics Committee.”
For someone who has been a Dean of a Law School, Johnston's recommendations seem weak.
He seems to have pre-judged some evidence. Has he assumed that Mulroney did not receive an Airbus kickback, because Schreiber and Mulroney agree that the $300,000 (or $225,000) was a retainer for future work?
But it's illegal to bribe an elected official. If Schreiber was bribing Mulroney, he is not going to tell us.
Mulroney's behaviour was consistent with the belief that he had been paid for services rendered. He did nothing to earn $225,000 (or $300,000). Perhaps, in his own mind, his justification was “It’s my fair share of those done deals.”
There was illegal behaviour on the part of the Germany companies, who paid $28 million of grease-money on four Canadian deals. Mulroney’s $300,000 (or $225,000) came from the remains of the grease-money.
In 1995, Mulroney got wind of the Airbus investigation, and he put a pack of attack lawyers on the case. Who tipped Mulroney? Was there a mole in Justice that breached his or her duty, and thereby obstructed justice?
Did Mulroney obstruct justice in attacking the Government with a defamation claim? He had full knowledge of the $225,000 (or $300,000), but he sued for defamation like a whore suing for loss of virginity. (No whore like an old whore, eh?)
In 1996, Mulroney gave false or misleading testimony under oath. Is that not criminal behavior?
In 1997, Mulroney, a lawyer, unjustly accepted $2.1 million; but he would not have received the money, if he had been truthful when giving his testimony under oath.
In 2004, Kaplan made published the Secret Trial. The Government had access to the testimony of the trial. In 2004-05, the Martin Government did not start an action to recover the $2.1 million. Why not? What was the reasoning of the Department of Justice? Was Justice trying to hide it’s willful incompetence on the Mulroney file? If so, did such constitute obstruction of justice?
Ditto for 2006-07, the Harper Government did not start an action to recover the $2.1 million. Why not?
Gosh, I expected more from a Dean of a Law School. But what do I know? I’m mere citizen.
I thought that public inquiries were supposed to be "independent". So why is the time line of the public inquiry DEPENDENT on the conclusion of the Ethics Committee Hearings?
This just creates a dynamic that Harper will expoit to his advantage in his customary divisive manner. You want the full powers of an inquiry....them terminate the Ethics Committee...at which you will forego the broader mandate of the Ethics Committee and substitute them with the narrow focus of the Public Inquiry.
Harper has only given us the Half Monty....that's all he's ever good for...half measures of a person who is devoid of ethics, as per his infamous income trust betrayal.
Canadians can't afford Harper.
I smell a wide ranging cover-up.
Post a Comment