Quote:
Originally posted by Shawnski+May 9 2005, 07:55 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Shawnski @ May 9 2005, 07:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-MarchHare@May 9 2005, 06:25 PM
I'll tell you what: if the final results of the Gomery Inquiry accuse any currently-elected Liberal MP of criminal wrong-doing, I'll donate $25 to the Conservative Party.# If not, you donate $25 to the Liberals.# Sound fair?
|
Interesting bet, March.
Let's break it down this way.
Case 1) You ARE aware that NO ONE will be "named" as "criminally wrong doing" by this report (since the Gomery Commission CANNOT name anyone.... see quote and link following) whereby you are knowingly setting up an automatic win for yourself and propagating the Liberal myth that the Gomery report will in fact indicate any criminal actions, or
Case 2) You have no idea what the Gomery Inquiry is mandated to report, which is in fact only on the process/recommendations for improvement and not that of identifying any wrong doers in the matter. This point is being hushed by the media big time, and I would not blame you for not understanding it, although I find it irresponsible to take such a position as you have without knowing this truth.
Here is the link to the
Gomery Commissions mandate
Section
k) the Commissioner be directed to perform his duties without expressing any conclusion or recommendation regarding the civil or criminal liability of any person or organization and to ensure that the conduct of the inquiry does not jeopardize any ongoing criminal investigation or criminal proceedings;
The whole "wait for Gomery's report" crowd is waiting for AIR. The Fiberals are banking on the facts that few, if any, understand that Gomery will NOT be saying anything close to "Person X, Y and Z broke the law"
So March, which is it? Case 1 or case 2? Baiting Snakeeye and posturing no better than the Liberals are doing, or are you too unaware of what the report is mandated to report?
Either way, your "bet" offer looks weak to me.[/b][/quote]
And Shawnski you are aware that, even though Gomery can't express any
conclusions on criminal or civil liability, by virtue of section a of the commission mandate the commission may
"report on questions raised, directly or indirectly, by Chapters 3 and 4 of the November 2003 Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the House of Commons with regard to the sponsorship program and advertising activities of the Government of Canada, including... (iv)the receipt and use of any funds or commissions disbursed in connection with the sponsorship program and advertising activities by any person or organization"
Included in Chapter 3 are Transaction Intended to Hide Sources of Funding to Crown Enteties, so the Gomery Commission is completely capable and mandated to say "Persons X, Y & Z received kickbacks from the sponsorship program funding" even if it can't go on to say "and therefore they are guilty of fraud."
Your argument that there is no point in waiting for the conclusion of the Gomery Inquiry is AIR (to use your term); there is nothing wrong with voters wanting to find out whether the current PM or any members of the current gonernment were involved in the scandal before deciding whether or not to vote for them.
The CONservatives are banking on people being so mesmerized by section k that they mistakenly conclude that nothing of relevance to an election will come out of the inquiry.