Andrew Prescott’s immunity deal is a strange development. The loyal party worker and born-again Christian had for two years categorically denied any knowledge of or involvement in the robocall affair. But why do innocent people need immunity deals? One of the people Prescott professed his innocence to was Michael Sona.
“I looked Andrew dead in the eyes outside church. He was in his car in the parking lot. I asked him if he knew anything. He said, ‘I don’t know anything.’ That’s why I defended him when I went on the CBC. I took him at his word.”
Sources say that just before the Calgary floods cancelled the CPC convention, Prescott had made the same claim to a friend — that he was innocent of any involvement in the robocalls. At the time of that conversation, Prescott was angry because the party would not give him credentials as a blogger as they had at previous conventions.
Andrew Prescott’s information fingers the already charged Michael Sona, and the exiled Ken Morgan who is living in Kuwait. Prosecutors will have to decide if he is telling them the truth, or if he was telling me the truth when he told me in an email conversation he’d asked me to share on my blog last year:
Feel free to think whatever you may… however, know that pretty much every point you touched on in your e-mail is wildly incorrect. Specifically, your assumption that I know anything about whatever happened on a local OR national scale.
You are wrong. Period.
That’s an odd person to give immunity to.
.@ChristianConsrv You told the whole country for 2 years you knew absolutely NOTHING about #robocon. Don't you think people are sad w you?!— Pierre Poutinievre (@PrrePoutinievre) April 04, 2014
I’m very disappointed with the proposed Fair Elections Act. I agree with experts like the CEO who says Canadians will be disenfranchised if your plans to change ID requirements go ahead. Having assisted with past elections, I think your bill is awful, and will have mostly the opposite effect claimed by its Orwellian title. Your party’s refusal to include Green Party and independent voices at committee betray your efforts to create an unfair Elections Act, lacking broad consultations with most voting Canadians.
My MP’s office already responded; Mr. Poilievre hasn’t yet.
Dear Mr. Klein,
Thank you for providing me with a copy of your email addressed to Pierre Poilievre. I appreciate knowing of your action in this regard.
The Conservatives are trying to ram C-23 through the House with limited debate and limited committee study. They have used time allocation to kill debate at Second Reading, and are now trying to block the committee from hearing from Canadians about a bill that will affect their ability to vote freely and fairly. C-23 is nothing more than a smokescreen to gut Elections Canada, and prevent the Commissioner of Elections from investigating any further breaches of the Elections Act by the Conservatives.
The right to vote freely and fairly is fundamental to the integrity of Canada’s electoral system. I agree, this bill must be defeated.
If the CPC was cooperating with the investigation, why did it take nearly three months for Hamilton to arrange an interview with Guelph campaign worker Andrew Prescott for lead investigator Al Mathews, and why did national campaign director Jenni Byrne advise Prescott not to talk to Mathews before she talked to a lawyer?
SATIRE: “Commissioner Yevs Cote told Postmedia’s Stephen McMaher, “It’s been really difficult for investigators to obtain evidence when the trail led to the United States, as we have no power there.””
REALITY: “[Pierre Poutine] created an email address for himself — email@example.com When EC investigators tried to get account information for that address, Google claimed that it was an American company that operated under American law and did not have to comply with the court order.” Continue reading →
It’s time for a federal election. They want to change fundamental Canadian rights, and oppose laws in our Constitution that they didn’t get a mandate for in their crooked 2011 stable victory.
A not-so-radical proposal: If the government wants to make major changes to the Supreme Court, the Senate, and how people are elected to the Commons, why not let the people decide?
“Normally, electoral reform is done with wide, multipartisan consent, simply because our democratic rights are so basic. (They are often why wars are fought, for instance.) But there’s been no wide consultation — much less consent — for what the Conservatives are planning.
Political-science professors, domestic and international , have joined the protest.”
It’s been time for an election since 2012 when we learned the governing party benefited from election fraud in 247 ridings.
I really have to disagree with Dr. Barnhart, who had the power to sign, or refuse to sign laws of Saskatchewan into effect while Lieutenant Governor, that he is a powerful person. Now his influence may be lessened, even to the point where Global TV won’t keep a promise to him, but he did get invited to to a prestigious lecture for the UofR too, didn’t he?
There’s a time to be modest, and a time to be real.
I’ve been to a lot of University of Regina lectures over the years. None by a right wing radio commentator, until tonight, and it didn’t turn out how I expected. I know there are people who reeeally don’t like John Gormley and his radio show. I used to listen to it frequently while I worked in a job that had me in a car most of the day, traveling the province’s east side. I’ve not really tuned in too much the past 6 years, while I work meters from where his talk was given Tuesday night. It’s not easy to get wrapped up in a talk radio show while at a front-desk job. I wouldn’t want to start talking to myself, at the radio, for the whole Library to hear.
Idle No More showed up and disrupted his lecture. After Campus Security showed up, the three noisy protesters relented and were escorted off campus (I was told later by an employee at the University). Others who supported the protest stayed behind to ask difficult questions of Gormley. He dodged the last one completely, refusing to opine why we need and should accept polluted rivers in our prosperous province.
I got a few interviews from opposing perspectives, after his talk. They’re at the end of the video (visible after YouTube processes it). Continue reading →