Quote:
Originally posted by Shawnski+May 10 2005, 01:29 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Shawnski @ May 10 2005, 01:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mike F@May 10 2005, 09:36 AM
.... 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.
|
Ahhh, now you have to look at section "L"....
l) the Commissioner be directed to submit, on an urgent basis, one or more reports, interim or final, of his factual findings made pursuant to paragraph (a) in both official languages, to the Governor in Council, and to submit a separate report of his recommendations made pursuant to paragraph (b), in both official languages, to the Governor in Council;
Judge Gomery
cannot judge anything. He cannot make any opinion, regardless of how convinced he is of one persons truthfullness or lack thereof. He cannot say "I think you lied about receiving a cash stuffed envelope." (or conversely, "I think you lied about GIVING a cash stuffed envelope."... etc)
So in any case where a person did NOT admit to receiving a kickback (or having any other involvement) as claimed by any other testimony, regardless if the person was lying about receiving said kickback, Gomery CANNOT report on the event whatsoever.
He is handcuffed big time.
I will stand by my "AIR" statement. His final report will be so watered down due to these limitations that it will in fact be useless. Paul Martin and the Fiberals know this.... they worded Gomery's mandate this way for a reason. [/b][/quote]
Unless this commission is vastly different from any other court hearing, findings about who recieved what are findings of fact (as opposed to findings of law).
If Gomery is convinced that the evidence has established to a reasonale degree of certainty that Paul Martin received a kickback then he can make that finding of fact and include it in his final report. And he would not need an admission by Martin to make that finding, so long as there is other sufficient evidence, such as testimony of others + accounting records, for example.