Canpol: Election Imminent?

[notyoueither]

Is this part of the tape being disputed?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/election2005/grewal_transcripts.html

But obviously we get to the point where two votes don't vote with government then the budget passes. Two votes from the Conservative side will make a difference, a significant difference. One does not, two do. I think, as you will see the PM will say we are not offering and making no offers. And I think that is the narrative we have to stick to it. Or make the PM a liar. I don't say that's what we are doing. I think it is important that we are honest about it.

But there also think that those people who take risk, are ought to be rewarded for the risk they take. You look through the process of making a difficult decision, thinking about implications personally what that means is as we get out from under this gold fish bowl right now and to the common temperature over the summer, that then I think our flexibility to do things in that common period of time goes up considerably. And you know that it can help people out in transition.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Taping a conversation is not in the least bit illegal, and you are assuming they are falsified tapes. When did the Tories get a machine capable of putting Murphy's and Dosanjh's voices on tape?

I never said they were fabricated. I said they were falsified. Spliced together, in other words.

[notyoueither]

Did Murphy say what he did, or did he not?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Taping a conversation is not in the least bit illegal

Wasn't sure about that. Just checked it out. It is illegal (at least in the US) to tape a conversation to which you are not a party without the knowledge of at least one participant, so grewal gets off on that one.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Did Murphy say what he did, or did he not?

Did he? I don't know if he said all those phrases in that order. It's pretty easy to digitally string together disjoint phrases nowadays, and audio experts have said that there is evidence of tampering.

And if he did, what type of "reward" was he talking about? Political appointment or appointment to non-political post.

One is fine. The other is not.

[notyoueither]

Why would you look up US law?

[KrazyHorse]

Because that's what shows up on google.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Did he? I don't know if he said all those phrases in that order.

And if he did, what type of "reward" was he talking about? Political appointment or appointment to non-political post.

One is fine. The other is not.

Neither is fine. Both are corruption of an MP.

Is that sequence of the tapes at issue?

[KrazyHorse]

A bit more refining shows that Canadian law is similar to US law on this point.

One-party consent is required, as previously stated, so grewal did not violate the law on that point.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Because that's what shows up on google.

Try adding 'Canada' to the search?

Or find a site that has the Criminal Code of Canada on it?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
A bit more refining shows that Canadian law is similar to US law on this point.

One-party consent is required, as previously stated, so grewal did not violate the law on that point.

No ****.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Neither is fine. Both are corruption of an MP.

Bull****. Offering a Cabinet or sub-cabinet post is a political appointment wholly within the discretion of the PMO. Appointments to those positions are and always have been used as political incentives for loyalty to the government.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


No ****.

Calm the **** down, tiger.

I stated originally that I was unsure on this point, did I not?

And as soon as called I myself did a ****ing search on it and found the appropriate references, then corrected myself.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Bull****. Offering a Cabinet or sub-cabinet post is a political appointment wholly within the discretion of the PMO. Appointments to those positions are and always have been used as political incentives for loyalty to the government.

Bull****.

Giving posts to a member of ones own party is of course OK.

However, subverting the opposition with an inducement is a crime. read the Criminal Code. It does not say 'except offering an MP a place in cabinet'.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse




Calm the **** down, tiger.

One could turn that around, kitty.