ConCalls: Finally, #RoboCon Challenge in Federal Court

The Council of Canadians was fending off deflecting notions by the Conservatives’ lawyer Arthur Hamilton in Federal Court, that they stand to gain money from defending democratic rights of Canadian citizens to have a fair election.

You can look at the live-tweets of Postmedia and Ottawa Citizen reporters Maher and McGregor.

Meanwhile, in the House:

55 responses to “ConCalls: Finally, #RoboCon Challenge in Federal Court

  1. That scum-bag lawyer the harpercons has is really scraping the bottom of the pot with these frivolous challenges. Let’s hope the courts find the Conservatives liable for the COC’s costs.

  2. Canada is rotten to the core with corruption. There is no point in going to court over, Harper’s robo-call election cheat.

    Canada is in a dictatorship. Dictators control absolutely everything. The media as their propaganda machines, is first on their list to control. Courts, judges, police, Political Ministers, Election Ministry’s and everything they can get their hands on. Canada is no different than, Communist China, the Honduras, the Congo or any corrupt third world country.

    All dictators have the same typo personalities. Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini, lied, deceived, thieved, were corrupt, used dirty tactics, dirty politics and they all cheated to win. Sound familiar? It should. Harper has no morals nor ethics what-so-ever. Neither did those other dictators. Decent people have a hard time, going down to Harper’s level.

    Just please people, do not count on winning this court case. We all know the low levels, Harper has stooped to. Harper is a total snake in the grass. He uses every dirty tactic in the book. Harper is pure evil.

    • Strongly disagree. We get the resistance via the courts onto the official record. We make it as widely known as we can, so that even if they try to “memory hole” it here down the road, the rest of the world will still know the truth if we lose.

      And if we win, we have a chance of making it stick. Before 2015.

  3. I think that Arthur Hamilton is in a very awkward position. Harper has claimed a willingness to determine the facts and has repeatedly stated that his party is co-operating with the Elections Canada investigation. Hamilton has questioned many of the individuals who may have a connection to the allegedly fraudulent telephone calls. In many cases he did so before the EC investigators had questioned them and, in at least one case, he was able to interview an individual who has declined the EC request.

    Furthermore, it was learned recently that Hamilton was personally involved in the party’s response (or lack of it) to EC inquiries concerning questionable telephone calls that were made during the days immediately prior to the election.

    Has Mr. Hamilton been interviewed by the EC investigators?

    If an attorney-client privilege would preclude such an interview, then perhaps Harper, or someone else in the party with the authority to do so, could be persuaded to demonstrate the party’s desire to get to the bottom of the matter by releasing Mr. Hamilton from such obligation.

    In any case, I think it’s improper that Arthur Hamilton should be handling the party’s effort in the dispute with the Council of Canadians.

    • Not the first conflict of interest for Cassels Brock. Two years ago they represented both auto dealerships and the federal government when the feds were asking GM to slash its auto dealerships before bailout. Slashed dealerships were pissed when they discovered CB was representing both and not mentioning to dealers they could have fought GM.

  4. All of those involved in the suit ‘voted’ despite having received a robocall.
    So where is the evidence of vote suppression?
    How was the election ‘stolen’ when these people still voted for their choice of candidate?

    There is no evidence the robocalls influenced voters, but Graves says there is a ‘pattern’ shown by some polls and these patterns prove…something.

    And do you folks really think that election results should be thrown out because of the hearsay of poll results?

    • That’s not a very smart series of questions.

      If polls and robocalls are as ineffective as you claim them to be, why do parties like the Conservatives PAY for them to influence the outcome of elections?

      • That’s the whole point Wilson, no one lost their opportunity to vote. There hasn’t been a single person identified, DESPITE the voluminous media stories of those who ‘ripped up their voters cards in anger’.

        [ADMIN note: Redjefff lies, and is a waste of time to respond to him in detail.

        What the Greenlibdipps want you to believe is that internet petitions from partisan advocacy groups and polls of ‘repressed’ memories now pass as evidence.

        Sorta’ like patent infringement being decided by the Pepsi Taste Challenge!!!

        It’s bad enough that they want private elections (a coalition prerequisite), but now want to toss away fundamental protections in our legal system, simply because it’s convenient for them.

        As they used to say before pronouncing to the gulag… ‘why would the authorities accuse an innocent man?’.

        It may not be a smart series of questions you pose Wilson… it is a series they are unable to answer none the less.

      • FINALLY A NAME!!!!!!!! A single solitary name!!!! From the story dated YESTERDAY (Dec 12th) Saskie finally has a shred of evidence to back his YEAR long claim of someone who was disenfranchised… or at least claimed to be. I’ve been asking for a name for months (all my “lies” an’ all) and got only Lori Bruce. Lori Bruce… hmmmm… how would someone describe something that was an intentional, totally fabricated figment of imagination, but not use the word ‘lie’ or a synonym? Anyone know?

        Oh, one more thing… isn’t the author of the article one S. Maher? Is he the same S. Maher who recently (Nov 23rd) wrote a false article accusing the Conservatives of improper election financing that was retracted the next day (Nov 24th)?

      • It should also be noted that Daniel Speik, the man claiming to be disenfranchised also said in an interview “I didn’t go vote because of that (robocall), because I’m so busy,” he said in an interview on Wednesday. “I’m new here from three years, and I don’t know really where they changed the place, so I didn’t go to vote.”

        -too busy?
        -new to town? (after 3 years?)

        Which is it? Which lie is true?

      • Postmedia, as I did too, corrected our errors. To be fair to Maher, he didn’t err, but the people he interviewed all did when questioned. Did he ask the Cons for their comment before publishing? Who knows? I know I don’t trust the Cons, but I trust him.

        People know they can trust me, but they also know they can’t trust you, because you were just caught making a mistake (not a single voter mislead Bullcrap), and instead of meekly admitting your obvious error, you try and turn it around into being someone’s fault, but not yours.

      • Ummm no. It was Steverino who ran with a totally UNCONFIRMED story. He didn’t do what would be expected of a BASIC urinalism student. He did err. He contrived a story. That’s the bottom line. You have oft mentioned the ‘right wing bias’ of the media yet here you excuse out of convenience. Certainly not principle.

        People err all of the time… that’s why it’s crucial to get the facts. Something Maher found not important enough to do.

        As for your trust level, well, up until yesterday you had not a shred of proof to substantiate your claim of a disenfranchised voter that would in ANY way invalidate the federal election results thus making the government illigitimate. Instead you argue your strawman of “not a single voter mislead”. Lori Bruce an’ all. But what’s a “turnaround” between best buds!

        Serenity bro!

        PS… I just can’t wait for the explosion of anger over this proposed foreign takeover of prime Quebec agricultural land. Wondering, at $6.000,000 would they be one of the filthy 1%ers who are raping mother nature and her land?

      • Was there any reason to censor established facts that don’t support your one sided undemocratic agenda?

        Are you so fearfull of the truth that you feel your only option is to eliminate it? Rewrite it?

        Or did you simply find it impossible to contradict and thus a danger?

    • The Supreme Court decision leaves it open to judges to toss election results even where the citizens don’t have direct ability to gather people who were disenfranchised, to testify.

      “In Federal Court hearings Wednesday, Steven Shrybman said the case of Conservative MP Ted Optiz, whose 2011 election was challenged by a Liberal incumbent, specified two conditions in which future challenges could be upheld.

      In October, the top court overturned a lower court decision setting aside Opitz’s election.

      But in its ruling, Shyrbman noted, the court said an election can be voided if “the number of impugned votes is sufficient to cast doubt on the true winner of the election or the irregularities are such as to call into question the integrity of the electoral process.” Shrybman urged Judge Richard Mosley to apply the same standard to his clients’ applications, which claim the results in six other ridings were affected by the misleading live or pre-recorded calls intended to suppress non-Conservative votes with misleading phone calls.

      Shrybman’s reading of the second part of the key sentence — the “or “ — is intended to deal with a glaring problem his clients face: they cannot produce a list of voters in their ridings who say they didn’t vote.

      The Opitz ruling means that the test for turning over a vote doesn’t depend on showing that the number of votes affected was greater than the margin of victory for the winning candidate, Shrybman said.

      “It isn’t simply a numbers game any longer.”

      The judge didn’t seem to agree with the literal interpretation of the word “or”, and thinks it is more to do with the overall notion of having citizens play a numbers game with gathering disengaged people who may feel to busy to even vote, to come testify. That’s not a very democratic approach.

      • What the judge actualy said about having neither evidence nor witnesses was “I’m not sure I’m entitled to surmise on that basis (expressing doubt about overturning a result based on the, all be it really really really sincere, belief that fraud or irregularities kept voters away from the ballot box)”

        Seeing as how almost 15% of the original complaintants were forced to withdraw because they lacked the legal standing to initiate the lawsuit in the first place and seeing as how the Clowncil of Canadians, an admittedly “left-leaning advocacy group”, didn’t even bother to do the due diligence before proceeding all the way to the Supreme Court, you now have the audacity to say ‘TRUST US’ in your interpretation of survey results to overturn a democratically elected government??????????? Take YOUR word for it???????? Just dispense with the fundamental cornerstone of Canadian law of cross examination????????

        Are you a nut-job?

        Considering your slavish devotion to the OWS-99%, to the 60% didn’t vote Conservative and to the 97% of climate scientists memes it’s, to put it bluntly, frankly embarrassing watching you decry being forced into “having citizens play a numbers game”. Paybacks a bitch.

        Due to your advocacy for private elections and criminalizing opponents I can understand how the requirement of witnesses and evidence in court cases would be ‘un-democratic’!

  5. I was once involved in a case (grievance) where the employer’s investigator later turned up as the employer’s “Hamilton-style” lawyer when the investigation report itself was one of the main causes of the case. It did not turn out too well for the lawyer’s case to be so personally involved. We won. However, using stall tactics, delays and dirty tricks that had to be fended off required many additional expensive days of hearings. So in the end, the lawyer still made a lot of money – essentially defending himself. Not a bad racket.

  6. Why is Harper blocking the robo-call investigation? I don’t get it? The election was tampered with, no matter who was involved. I will never trust another election again. I no longer believe the last Federal election was democratic nor fair either now. Harper looks far too suspicious, by trying to quash the robo-call investigation. Is Canada a corrupt third world country or what? Are there are no morals, democracy, nor ethics left in this Nation anymore?

    • @Julie – It’s quite simple. Cons claim there was no fraud or voter suppression. But if there was, it was the Liberals and NDP. But if it wasn’t the Libs and NDP, it wasn’t them. But if it was them, it’s too late to complain. But if it’s not too late to complain, a witness looked at Twitter in a courtroom hallway. Case dismissed.

      • Exactly GS, the goal posts are always moving, and you only need to look back through my comment sections to see how the Conbots leap from one bogus excuse to the next. The video evidence of slime like Del Mastro doing the same is all over the place for people to see too.

        Then Wilson comes along and lays out some half-truths, and outright misrepresentations to frame this as a victimless crime, and the evidence being discussed in court as ineffective. Well, if robocalls and polls aren’t effective, why are they used at all? Clearly Conservatives using robocalls think they are effective, they paid $1100 to Prescott to do a robocall campaign in Guelph for one thing. How’s that for *evidence*?

      • Agreed John. The very act of spending more than $5,000 in advertising (and robocalls are advertising) requires an audited financial statement. Spending just $500 requires registration as a Third Party if it’s not under a political party’s auspices. Therefore, not only is it minimally “attempted election fraud”, it’s also illegal campaigning. If I recall, the Guelph robocalls never showed up in the candidate’s financial statement.

    • It is blatantly unethical behaviour by those defending the current crop of MPs as if they have some divine right to rule even when evidence of a massive scam to swing the results was uncovered. The success of the scam (or its supposed failure) is not the issue. If it were murder, attempted murder is still a damn-serious crime, and so too would attempted election fraud.

      If Harper really thought it was the NDP or Liberals behind it as the Cons once claimed, they’d be aggressively assisting the CoC to uncover the truth. They instead provide the lawyer (involved in responding to EC’s earliest accusations!) to block the hearing of evidence in court.

  7. “Slavish devotion” to the truth – whatever that truth turns out to be – is now to be seen as a mental health flaw? Or evidence of criminal intent?


    • Redjefff has different priorities from the average, law abiding, election fraud hating Canadian, so excuse him if his comments seem to have a slavish devotion to the Conservatives.

      • Saskie give By a break, he was being facetious… “nut-job” appears nowhere in The American Journal of Psychiatric Medicine: Diagnostic Edition. He just made up the ‘mental health’ issue. He thinks you’re quite sane! He also knows that slavish devotion refers to arbitrary numbers concocted to bestow illegitimate legitimacy!

        I agree with the current Conservative party. As righteously as I’ve supported other parties in the past.

        That in mind I ask any sane person whether that or uniform adherence is more “slavish”!!??!! ;)

      • Redjeff, .. who sent out the illegal calls wherein voters were falsely told that their polling stations had moved?

        I already know you won’t answer. When a question is so simple that there’s no opening for you to twist, your bravado vanishes and you sulk in cowardly silence.

        I just enjoy doing that to you, you stupid fuck.

      • Normally I’d object to such profanity on my blog, but when used against someone like Redjefff who defends election fraud for the apparent enjoyment of it, the words seem apt.

      • Thwap, I will explain to you for (hopefully) the last time. I never answer you because, quite simply, you have a foul mouth. Perhaps the most basic rule of discussion is you refrain from swearing. You can’t. As such you will learn nothing from me and I nothing from you.

        And Saskie, you’ve never objected “to such profanity on my blog” in the past. Be it directed toward myself or, as happened some months back, to a left leaning female who happened to comment… just not in lock step.

        Jus’ one more itsy, bitsy, teeny, weeny little thing… I’ve not once defended election fraud. I’ve simply pointed out, rather blatantly, inconsistencies in your logic and knowledge. Inconsistencies that cause unintended cosequences… defending democracy with private elections an’ all.

      • Lies, lies, and more lies redjeff. I’ve asked you numerous times, without profanity, very basic questions about the robocall scandal.

        You have NEVER answered.

        I have asked you about the Fraser’s Institute’s charitable work. You could not answer.

        Your cowardly response is to always hide in the shadows somewhere until you find another chance to go “Bwa-ha-ha!” at a deliberate misreading of somebody’s words.

        You ARE defending election fraud. You believe a cover-up equals innocence because it’s in your partisan interests to do so. If the Liberals and the NDP behaved as abominably as the Conservatives do, our electoral process would be a sickening farce and you’d be hypocritically screaming blue-murder.

        This 2011 election was unprecedented in the lies and the sleaze. That’s how your crew operates. You’re contemptible scum. You might be too self-deluded to realize that so I’m telling your here.

      • See Thwap? You can’t post a single comment without name calling and profanity.

        Saskie… ya gotta’ be cringin’!!!!!!! :) :) :)

  8. “I agree with the current Conservative party. ”
    Then you agree with voter fraud and are a defender of hypocrisy. They do. It’s your party’s position that once 30 days has elapsed, there can be no questioning of election results (at least not the ones that they win).

    They don’t show any concerns about the tens of thousands of fraudulent calls that were made attempting to re-direct voters away from their polling stations. Records have been destroyed and they are aloof. But for the Cons, it’s all a legal game now. They have viciously attacked the people who did put in complaints, essentially arguing that if you express your democratic right and support a party other than the Cons, you don’t have a right to put in complaints in the first place.

    It was OK for Stephen Harper to be funded by the NCC to challenge the Third Party spending limits in 2000 (Harper wanted them eliminated to allow for US-style SuperPACs – he lost). But they turn around and argue “champerty” when the CofC funds the legal defense for theses voters.

    Hopefully, this judge will make mince-meat of most of these arguments.

    • G. If I support the QDP (see note 1) am I not, by your logic, supporting illegal election financing? The QDP accepted millions (?) in corporate union funding which they were forced to return. Are you a supporter of illegal financing? If I support the Bloc I want Canada dissolved… do you support the disolution of our nation? If I vote Lieberal do I support slush fund spending to politically connected cronies?

      Doesn’t leave a lot of options now does it.

      As for the 30 days ( whatever the law states is the law, equitable as judged to all parties. If the law needs changing so be it, but, retroactive persecution is a perogative only of the state.

      When you talk of “tens of thousands of fraudulent calls”, I’ve read (on this very site) of numbers from 700 to (literally) millions of calls. On top of that you say “Records have been destroyed” and thus I must question the accuracy and validity of your stated, if vague, numbers.

      Speaking of the “right to put in complaints”, it is the judiciary that decides. Each side argues the merits of the case and it is not legal for the government to dictate the outcome. Again it’s a fundamental principle of our legal system. You may not like the outcome of a judgement (50% of the parties usually don’t) but it doesn’t excuse you from abiding by its decision.

      Lastly, if I’m correct, ‘champerty’ is legal is it not? Isn’t it basically a variation of a law firm charging a percentage of the spoils in exchange for backing the plaintiff financially? As I see it the spoils aren’t necessarily money.

      Back to the original logic… which hypocrisy do you support?

      • Note 1: Saskie has mentioned that a great many New Democratic Party faithfull would be confused over this. The QDP is actually a symbolic irony of the New Democratic Party’s name and acknowledgement of their dominance in Quebec. Or Quebec’s domination of the party. Same thing. It stands for the QUEBEC Democratic Party!!! See? Quebec! But it really doesn’t, it really means NDP.

        I hope this explains what otherwise must be a bewildering confusion to you.

      • Let’s see. You’re talking apples and oranges.
        1) The NDP issue was not concerning “millions”. Once the indiscretion was identified, the NDP repaid the money. They didn’t lie about it. They didn’t try to change the channel. They didn’t accuse others. They repaid the money. Case closed.
        2) The Libs lost their majority in 2004 and then lost power in 2006, largely due to with sponsorship. And before that, they called a public inquiry. What have the Harper Cons done? Deny. Lie. Change the channel. Despite your bleating, you Cons don’t ever seem to accept responsibility.
        3) Your definition of “champerty” is wrong. Champerty is no longer illegal. Lot of lawyers work on “contingency”. If they win, they get paid. If they lose, they don’t. It’s generally not associated with political causes but Hamilton thought if he through enough dirt, something might stick. He also raised the argument to delay the proceedings. He should have been charged with contempt of court.

      • It is telling that in the Rob Ford conflict of interest case, Con supporters argue that the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act is “archaic”. In the next breath they scream about “champerty”.

      • Good lad Thwap. And it didn’t hurt a bit! Here’s your reward for such exemplary behaviour.

        “how did anyone find out about this (illegal NDP election financing)”? Easy, it was in all the papers after the Conservative Party raised a complaint to Elections Canada and Elections Canada adjudicated the decision.

        Let me give you some, for what the Supreme Court would be, evidence…

        “For the second time in a year, the New Democratic Party has run afoul of political financing laws. Elections Canada has ordered the NDP to pay back money it collected from unions who sponsored events at the party’s national convention last year. The party, which has criticized the Conservative government for a lack of transparency, offered no details on how much it paid back or to whom.”

        Showing a premeditated and on-going routine methodology of circumventing Elections Canada rules “This was eight unions and seven other organizations who at three separate conventions, over five years…” dubya dubya dubya

        And who called them on it? Elections Canada? The QDP themselves? “The Conservative Party of Canada had lodged a formal complaint with Elections Canada following the convention, underlining that union and corporate donations are banned in Canada.” and what the QDP do? “The NDP had argued that sponsorships are above board… (but) in a June 1 response to the Conservative Party, deputy chief electoral officer Francois Bernier said Elections Canada considered those sponsorships donations.” dubya dubya dubya

        I’ve provided links but I encourage you to search for yourself. You’re welcome! :)

      • Stay focused RedJeff. Did you read my link? Did you miss:

        “Four days later he also wrote to the NDP, enclosing a copy of his letter to the Conservatives, and thanking the party ‘for the full cooperation it has given to Elections Canada in order to resolve the issue promptly and effectively’.”

        Did you get that?

        Thanks for answering my very simple question as to how these union donations were discovered. It was all out in the open and (if you’d troubled yourself to honestly read my link) all done after having asked Elections Canada for its opinion and obtaining third-party advice. That’s how your Conservative Party hypocrites found out about it.

        There was nothing secret about it.

        And, as GS stated above, the NDP didn’t lie about it and fight it out in the courts wasting taxpayers’ money and then, after they lost, continue to argue that they’d done nothing wrong.

        The NDP “scandal” didn’t involve moving funds in and out of different accounts and then claiming reimbursements FROM TAXPAYERS for money that one account didn’t even spend.

        By the way, RedJeff, do you know the order of the months in the year?

        That’s another simple question. Feel free to answer it. Or not.

      • Thwap… from a direct quote… “how did anyone find out about this (illegal NDP election financing)”? Perhaps my focus is alittle askew but that seems a direct question. Here is the direct answer… “Easy, it was in all the papers after the Conservative Party raised a complaint to Elections Canada and Elections Canada adjudicated the decision.” with accompanied citations.

        It seems that, by my fuzzy focus, you’ve answered “thanking the party ‘for the full cooperation” or something to that effect. What that means or has to do with the Conservative complaint is beyond me.

        Are you telling me that, in your mind, there is no difference between discovering the commission of a crime and giving up your legal entitlement of defense? That by giving up your defense you are exonerated of the crime?

        Are you actively promoting an Uncle Joe show-trial?

      • I give up with RJ. Pointless. If this were my blog (and it’s not), I would just ban him because he’s so obviously got his own Con agenda. We can debate people like this on the Sun and Nat’l Post boards 7/24. I’ve got no problem having discussions with honest Conservatives

      • It really is pointless trying to have an honest debate with RedJefff, because he is not honest. He’s about to get tossed again soon if he doesn’t cool it with the acronym he knows he isn’t allowed to use here.

      • Poor, poor RedJeff. We have to go right back to square one with you. You’ve obviously missed everything. The union advertising purchases were no secret. That’s how the hypocrite Hamilton found out about them. That’s the answer to the simple question.

        This makes the NDP non-scandal different from the in-and-out genuine scandal which has already been described for you. If you’d bother to read the link I so helpfully provided you with, you’d see that.

        All your blathering about how the Conservative Party were fearless sleuths uncovering a vast left-wing conspiracy is just that; blathering.

        Anyway, let’s move on. Which comes earlier in the year? June or August?

      • G this is to answer your 9:36 points… Apples an’ oranges an’ all!…

        1) You are arguing that forfeiture of the right to legal defense in some way exonerates the crime. The question is ‘has a crime been committed’? The law is clear in it’s separation of legality and morality. We may not like it but that is the law, it is blind.
        2) Apples an’ oranges an’ stuff… Adscam? The question, yet again, is are the parties entitled to a legal defense? You are insinuating ‘no’.

        Here I have the most problem. In order to reach agreement we must understand what each other are saying… number 3…

        3) “Your definition of “champerty” is wrong.” you have said. Please explain ANY difference in our points of view…

        3) G: “Champerty is no longer illegal”
        …RJ: “Lastly, if I’m correct, ‘champerty’ is legal is it not?”
        Same thing?
        ..G: “If they win, they get paid. If they lose, they don’t.”
        RJ: “a law firm charging a percentage of the spoils in exchange for backing the plaintiff financially”
        Same thing?
        ..G: “It’s generally not associated with political causes”
        RJ: “As I see it the spoils aren’t necessarily money.”

        I understand the rhetoric and such but when we say the same things yet disagree for disagreements sake we achieve nothing.

        PS… regarding Rob Ford, municipal politics are party free. How individual citizens excersize their democratic rights (whether I like it or not) is none of my business.

      • PSS… I almost forgot G!!! Congrats!!! I have been writing ‘millions (?)’ for weeks. The actual amount of NDP illegal election financing is really $344,000. Not millions. I intentionally put millions ALONG with the question mark to see if anyone would correct me on the facts or if they were more interested in arguing for the sake of arguing. Hat’s off, you’ve been the only concerned with hard facts!

      • It says that no one takes your claims very seriously, without a grain of salt. Also, I don’t recall if it was you, but I pointed out to someone recently, oh wait, it wasn’t you it was Stephen Taylor, that the NDP’s $300K union donation problem they fixed doesn’t really compare to the $300M ruined federal election thanks to slavish Conservative supporters using election fraud techniques.

      • No commentary…

        “He’s about to get tossed again soon if he doesn’t cool it with the acronym (QDP) he knows he isn’t allowed to use here.” John Klein (above 3:32)

        -Thwap “That scum-bag lawyer the HARPERCONS has…” dubya dubya dubya (PS it’s have, not has)
        -John Klein “the Cons…” dubya dubya dubya
        -John Klein “the Conbots leap…” dubya dubya dubya
        -Thwap “…you stupid fuck…” dubya dubya dubya
        -Thwap “You’re contemptible scum” dubya dubya dubya
        -RedJefff “If I vote Lieberal…” dubya dubya dubya

        Comment. All of the above, not a peep. What type of authority would you expect if the reins of power were within his grasp?

        That is an honest question.

      • Redjeff,

        Stop with the hypocritical self-righteousness. You know you’re not an honest debater.

        Can you, at long last, admit that your attempt to equate the NDP’s violation of party funding laws was all done quite out in the open? That it was out in the open because the NDP, after asking Elections Canada and a third party for advice, believed they had a right to raise that money? And that when Elections Canada ruled against them, they paid what they owed and that was the end of it?

        Can you admit to understanding the simple facts placed before your eyes?

        Or are you going to continue in your dishonesty and sleaze?

      • Saskie, you are soooo desperate to tell of my ‘lies’ that you make up strawmen just to bash them down!!!!! I was givin’ you guys a free pass and ya still didn’t come thru’!!!

        Seeing as how the NDPQ (better?) used the $344,000 during the last, and previous, election(s) thereby ruining a federal election. Why is the $300 million not attributed to them? Other than, of course, you believe your wants are more important than all others and thus take presidence?

      • I’ll have to check, but I thought the NDP money in dispute was from the LEADERSHIP fundraising, and was thus after the ’11 election. The Conservatives on the other hand have been riding with dirty money in the bank for years since 2006 (In & Out).

        If you use another Q out of place again, you’re gone. Mind your Ps and Qs.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s