Comments on: No RCMP charges http://www.bluelikeyou.com/2008/05/16/no-rcmp-charges/ Conservative musings - formerly Joanne's Journey Mon, 13 Oct 2008 01:44:36 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Gayle http://www.bluelikeyou.com/2008/05/16/no-rcmp-charges/#comment-25594 Gayle Mon, 19 May 2008 15:35:31 +0000 http://www.bluelikeyou.com/?p=1390#comment-25594 Well Mary - isn't that just part of the issue? What exactly can a party offer an MP for a vote. Obviously Stronach and Emmerson are in the exact same position as both received a cabinet seat when they crossed the floor. Cadman is slightly different, but I would argue the entire issue needs to be before the committee. Well Mary - isn’t that just part of the issue? What exactly can a party offer an MP for a vote. Obviously Stronach and Emmerson are in the exact same position as both received a cabinet seat when they crossed the floor.

Cadman is slightly different, but I would argue the entire issue needs to be before the committee.

]]> By: MaryT http://www.bluelikeyou.com/2008/05/16/no-rcmp-charges/#comment-25589 MaryT Mon, 19 May 2008 15:02:59 +0000 http://www.bluelikeyou.com/?p=1390#comment-25589 Sorry Gayle you are wrong, I would never advocate for any committee hearing on anything as I have no confidence in the liberals on those committees. But, speaking of liberals bribing an MP, wouldn't you say Paul Martin bribed BS with a cabinet seat, or was it the other way around. With my liberal mindset in full gear, what really went on in that secret meeting late at night, in a hotel room, with Paul and BS. She does have a reputation for switching partners, even causing a divorce. Sorry Gayle you are wrong, I would never advocate for any committee hearing on anything as I have no confidence in the liberals on those committees.
But, speaking of liberals bribing an MP, wouldn’t you say Paul Martin bribed BS with a cabinet seat, or was it the other way around. With my liberal mindset in full gear, what really went on in that secret meeting late at night, in a hotel room, with Paul and BS.
She does have a reputation for switching partners, even causing a divorce.

]]> By: Gayle http://www.bluelikeyou.com/2008/05/16/no-rcmp-charges/#comment-25587 Gayle Mon, 19 May 2008 14:51:19 +0000 http://www.bluelikeyou.com/?p=1390#comment-25587 Mary - I believe you are referring to Hejhog's excellent post on this topic, as I have not said anything about insufficient evidence on this thread. The actual wording in the letter is "no evidence to support a charge". That does not mean "no evidence at all"; indeed, we all know there is SOME evidence because of what Dona Cadman, her daughter and her son in law have said. That is evidence. Harper's own words on the tape is also "some evidence". Certainly there is insufficient evidence to support a charge. That is likely because most of this evidence is hearsay and likely inadmissible. Even if it were admissible it would be contradicted by Cadman's own public statements. The biggest problem with an RCMP investigation is that the RCMP cannot force people like Doug Findley to talk. If this were before the ethics committee Findley could be subpoenaed and forced to testify under oath. I agree with hejhog's statement: "But,if we’re going to hold MPs to a higher standard in their private lives, as has been advocated in some other post, then surely a higher standard applies to this situation given the ambiguity (to be generous) of the evidence that does exist. It would be dishonest to argue that the RCMP has vindicated the PM/conservatives. It ought not be necessary to prove impropriety beyond a reasonable doubt to hold elected officials accountable." I suspect Mary that should the tables be turned and the liberals stand accused of bribing Cadman, based on hearsay statements from his family, you would be advocating for an inquiry or committee investigation. This is a very serious issue that goes to the core of the ethical standards we expect from our elected officials. If there is even a hint they are buying votes, that needs to be investigated. Mary - I believe you are referring to Hejhog’s excellent post on this topic, as I have not said anything about insufficient evidence on this thread.

The actual wording in the letter is “no evidence to support a charge”. That does not mean “no evidence at all”; indeed, we all know there is SOME evidence because of what Dona Cadman, her daughter and her son in law have said. That is evidence. Harper’s own words on the tape is also “some evidence”.

Certainly there is insufficient evidence to support a charge. That is likely because most of this evidence is hearsay and likely inadmissible. Even if it were admissible it would be contradicted by Cadman’s own public statements.

The biggest problem with an RCMP investigation is that the RCMP cannot force people like Doug Findley to talk. If this were before the ethics committee Findley could be subpoenaed and forced to testify under oath.

I agree with hejhog’s statement:

“But,if we’re going to hold MPs to a higher standard in their private lives, as has been advocated in some other post, then surely a higher standard applies to this situation given the ambiguity (to be generous) of the evidence that does exist.
It would be dishonest to argue that the RCMP has vindicated the PM/conservatives.
It ought not be necessary to prove impropriety beyond a reasonable doubt to hold elected officials accountable.”

I suspect Mary that should the tables be turned and the liberals stand accused of bribing Cadman, based on hearsay statements from his family, you would be advocating for an inquiry or committee investigation. This is a very serious issue that goes to the core of the ethical standards we expect from our elected officials. If there is even a hint they are buying votes, that needs to be investigated.

]]>