Guergis speaks out...

[Machjo]

She has no rights to know what information has been handed over to the RCMP, it's an ongoing investigation. Silence is SOP.

Once it's turned over to the police, I agree. Prior to that though, he he could have done more than just give her a phone call.

Removing her from Cabinet was reasonable enough...

OK, maybe removing her from Caucus was too, I'd need to think more about that. Maybe what he did wasn't that bad, but still he could have dome more, by the sound of what was presented in the video, to provide her with at least a little more information so she at least knows where she stands.

 

[Colpy]

She was turfed by a government that ran on transparency and accountability.

A government that promised to stand by her.

This Conservative government declared an all out war on women years ago and forgot to tell the Canadian people.

She called the RCMP more than once to find out what the charges are, they never called back.

Out of cabinet and out of the party.

Her own riding kicked her out and she still doesn't know what she has done.

Well respected woman Conservative MP publicly rebuked for giving money to a group that is hated by the base supporters.

Conservatives who secretly feel that women belong in the kitchen.

Women is a dirty word as far as the Conservatives are concerned but they make good window dressing in the House of Commons.

If only the Conservatives would give their women MPs more power to be equals and positively contribute to the Conservative cause, the government would be ahead of the game and more productive.

The chains must come off and the Conservatives must support women's rights.

When the Conservatives fall and they are voted out of office I hope the former women MPs follow in their political aspirations and get beyond this tragic event and become the politicians they were destined to be.

What, she can't be corrupt because she is a woman?

Or her corruption is okay because she is a woman??

Oh, I know, the much superior Liberals would have gotten her an ambassadorship in some Scandinavian country.......or when it was proven she had her fingers in the till shrugged at "what's a few million bucks?", or set the RCMP to harassing the whistle blower that called her out.....we're quite aware of how the Liberals deal with corruption......they duck, cover, and hand around a few cash filled envelopes to some mobsters.....

Spare me the pontification.

 

[CDNBear]

Once it's turned over to the police, I agree. Prior to that though, he he could have done more than just give her a phone call.

Removing her from Cabinet was reasonable enough...

OK, maybe removing her from Caucus was too, I'd need to think more about that. Maybe what he did wasn't that bad, but still he could have dome more, by the sound of what was presented in the video, to provide her with at least a little more information so she at least knows where she stands.

You'll have to excuse me if I don't believe her at this point. The PM doesn't have the option of making excuses, or explaining why publicly, in rebuttal to her claims, if their is an ongoing criminal investigation. That would be an invasion of her rights.

 

[Machjo]

If there are accusations of using ones office as a tool for lobbying, one must be removed from that post, as far as possible in my books.

Sometime, arbitrary action must be taken to preserve the integrity of the office.

As I think more on it, you do have a point. I guess the main issue is not so much what he did, but how he did it. Or maybe Guergis is exaggerating. But assuming what she says is accurate, he could have been gentler in the way he presented the information to her, doing it face to face if possible, though that might not have been possible at the time. If not, then the documents he'd supposedly turned over to the police, he could have provided her with a copy of those at least. The point is, she still has every right to know where she stands, guilty or not.

 

[CDNBear]

As I think more on it, you do have a point. I guess the main issue is not so much what he did, but how he did it. Or maybe Guergis is exaggerating.

I'd say she is likely exaggerating.

But assuming what she says is accurate, he could have been gentler in the way he presented the information to her, doing it face to face if possible, though that might not have been possible at the time.

Since she wasn't in the country at the time and Harper was likely trying to head off a political scandal, I would think expediency would dictate he took the correct course of action.

If not, then the documents he'd supposedly turned over to the police, he could have provided her with a copy of those at least.

Absolutely not in the cards. There is no prerequisite to inform someone of the evidence against them, in an ongoing investigation. That happens at the discovery hearing, if it goes that far.

The point is, she still has every right to know where she stands, guilty or not.

I'd bet my last buck she knows exactly what she's being investigated for. The problem is, the Party Lawyer and the PMO are bound to silence. How convenient for Mrs. Guergis.

 

[Machjo]

You'll have to excuse me if I don't believe her at this point. The PM doesn't have the option of making excuses, or explaining why publicly, in rebuttal to her claims, if their is an ongoing criminal investigation. That would be an invasion of her rights.

That's fair enough too. If that's the case though, then he could have removed her from Cabinet and let her decide whether she wants to explain the reason for it. My guess is she would not have. For all we'd have known, she'd have left Cabinet for personal reasons, and let good enough alone.

When he'd publicly stated there were criminal charges against her, but not be able to give her the detailed information to defend herself adequately, he'd certainly embarrassed her and hurt her reputation before he guilt or innocence should have been ascertained. He'd essentially just thrown her out to the wolves with no defense. That was disrespectful and out of line. If he could open the books wide, then fine. But if he must sensor some information, then out of respect for Guergis, he should have censored it all and not just part-way, embarrassing her and then not giving her a chance to defend herself. You'd think a good leader would have some tact and wisdom, and some sense of compassion.
Of course if there are criminal charges against her, he did the right thing to turn it over to the police. But if it's an ongoing investigation and even she has no right ot the details, then how much less we should know about it.

 

[Machjo]

I'd say she is likely exaggerating.

Since she wasn't in the country at the time and Harper was likely trying to head off a political scandal, I would think expediency would dictate he took the correct course of action.

Absolutely not in the cards. There is no prerequisite to inform someone of the evidence against them, in an ongoing investigation. That happens at the discovery hearing, if it goes that far.

I'd bet my last buck she knows exactly what she's being investigated for. The problem is, the Party Lawyer and the PMO are bound to silence. How convenient for Mrs. Guergis.

All very valid points. Again though,by making the allegations public, the PM forced her into a fighting stance. Had he just removed her from Cabinet and let her decide whether to reveal the reasons for it, he would not have done so and she'd likely just kept silent. Harper just created a scandal for himself that he could easily have avoided by just keeping his mouth shut. Of course this is not the first time Harper has suffered from foot in mouth.

 

[Machjo]

You'll have to excuse me if I don't believe her at this point.

I don't believe her either, but will always give the benefit of the doubt. Again, had Harper just kept his mouth shut, this incident would never have occurred.

But hey, Harper is not my MP, and from what I know of him, he certainly would not have gotten my vote if he were in my riding.

 

[Machjo]

What, she can't be corrupt because she is a woman?

Or her corruption is okay because she is a woman??

Oh, I know, the much superior Liberals would have gotten her an ambassadorship in some Scandinavian country.......or when it was proven she had her fingers in the till shrugged at "what's a few million bucks?", or set the RCMP to harassing the whistle blower that called her out.....we're quite aware of how the Liberals deal with corruption......they duck, cover, and hand around a few cash filled envelopes to some mobsters.....

Spare me the pontification.

You actually pay attention to Liberalman?

 

[CDNBear]

That's fair enough too. If that's the case though, then he could have removed her from Cabinet and let her decide whether she wants to explain the reason for it. My guess is she would not have. For all we'd have known, she'd have left Cabinet for personal reasons, and let good enough alone.

Then that isn and of itself, would be political fodder for the opposition.

Again, we come back to "Damned if he does, damned if he don't"

When he'd publicly stated there were criminal charges against her, but not be able to give her the detailed information to defend herself adequately, he'd certainly embarrassed her and hurt her reputation before he guilt or innocence should have been ascertained.

There are no charges yet.

He'd essentially just thrown her out to the wolves with no defense.

What wolves? She's be removed from the caucus, as she should be. While an investigation into very serious accusations takes place.

That was disrespectful and out of line.

Again, we come back to "Damned if he does, damned if he don't"

If he could open the books wide, then fine. But if he must sensor some information, then out of respect for Guergis, he should have censored it all and not just part-way, embarrassing her and then not giving her a chance to defend herself.

She's done a fine job so far. Besides that, there is expectation of defence, before charges are laid.

You'd think a good leader would have some tact and wisdom, and some sense of compassion.

Again, we come back to "Damned if he does, damned if he don't"

Of course if there are criminal charges against her, he did the right thing to turn it over to the police. But if it's an ongoing investigation and even she has no right ot the details, then how much less we should know about it.

I think we know what we should. There are accisations of influence peddling, money laundering and serious ethical improprieties. Steps were taken to protect the integrity of the Party, the office and the system.

Seems logical to me.

Now, if in the end it's proven to be false, the PMO will have some splainin' ta do.

 

[Colpy]

You actually pay attention to Liberalman?

:lol: Not usually, I am simply exceptionally stunned this morning.......troll sensitive.:lol:

 

[Machjo]

Then that isn and of itself, would be political fodder for the opposition.

Then the opposition would have looked like opportunistic rabid wolves. Sure their party faithful would bite, but non-partisan voters would likely have seen this as a positive, as a sign of compassion on the part of the PM, and that would likely have won him if not votes, then at least a better image among non-partisan voters i his riding.

Again, we come back to "Damned if he does, damned if he don't"

That applies only to the party faithful. They'll pounce on anything to defend their party or attack another, and that applies to all parties. The ones that really matter though are the non-partisan ones, since their votes are the conditional ones.

 

[Machjo]

There are no charges yet.

Sorry, lazy wording on my part. All the more reason he should have removed her from Cabinet and let her explain if she so chooses the reason she'd been removed. And if she wants to just say personal reasons, that would have been her prerogative.

 

[Machjo]

What wolves? She's be removed from the caucus, as she should be. While an investigation into very serious accusations takes place.

By wolves, I'm referring to the media and the party-faithful among the population who'll pounce on any scandal to gain brownie points for their party.

 

[CDNBear]

Then the opposition would have looked like opportunistic rabid wolves.

And that's stopped them in the past? :-|

Sure their party faithful would bite, but non-partisan voters would likely have seen this as a positive, as a sign of compassion on the part of the PM, and that would likely have won him if not votes, then at least a better image among non-partisan voters i his riding.

Funny, I look at it like he jumped on a bad thing and took immediate steps to quash it. It's satisfied me, it even raised him up a bar or two on my respect-o-meter.

Sorry, lazy wording on my part. All the more reason he should have removed her from Cabinet and let her explain if she so chooses the reason she'd been removed. And if she wants to just say personal reasons, that would have been her prerogative.

And a lie. This way, the PMO looks like it's tough on corruption.

 

[CDNBear]

By wolves, I'm referring to the media and the party-faithful among the population who'll pounce on any scandal to gain brownie points for their party.

I knew what you meant. I was being flippant. All one has to do is look at the imagination thrown into this thread by supposed Liberal diehards. For a prime example of what you meant.

 

[Machjo]

She's done a fine job so far. Besides that, there is expectation of defence, before charges are laid.

Whether she's done a fine job, I don't know. I haven't followed her work in particular detail. However, though we may expect her to defend herself in court in due time, she has every right to defend herself from the public mobs in the meantime. Even she has no access to the details against her, so how can she reasonably be expected to defend herself?

The PM threw her out to the sharks to save his own hide, and intelligent voters in his riding will see right through such a gutless action.

I think we know what we should. There are accisations of influence peddling, money laundering and serious ethical improprieties.

I don't think that's any of our business until it goes though the courts. Of course it would have become public knowledge by then, but at least by then she'd also have a chance to defend herself in court. Right now, she's a defenseless sitting duck.

Steps were taken to protect the integrity of the Party, the office and the system.

As for removing her from Cabinet, that was to defend the integrity of the office system, and that was valid. As for removing her from the Party Caucus, that was to defend the integrity of the Party, and that's the Party's business I suppose.

But as for revealing to the public that serious criminal accusations had been made against her knowing full well that she was in no position to fight a fair fight, that was not to defend the integrity of anything, but only to defend the PM's political hide. Again, this might work for party hacks, but thinking voters in his riding will likely see through that charade.

Now, if in the end it's proven to be false, the PMO will have some splainin' ta do.

that will make it look even worse for him. Yet even if she's found guilty, thinking voters will still turn away from Harper since the principle woudl stil remain the same that she'd not had a chance to defend herself until long after the allegations were made public. So even if she's found guilty, that will still damage the party at least among thinking voters. If she's found not guilty, however, then he might even lose votes among party hacks, and that will be the end of him.

 

[Machjo]

And that's stopped them in the past? :-|

No, because it solidifies the party base. but it only loses votes among thinking voters.

Funny, I look at it like he jumped on a bad thing and took immediate steps to quash it. It's satisfied me, it even raised him up a bar or two on my respect-o-meter.

I saw it differently. It looks to me like he's prepared to flush principle to save his own political hide.

And a lie. This way, the PMO looks like it's tough on corruption.

What lie? It may show him to be tough on corruption, but also weak in his belief in due process and respect for the right of a person to privacy and the ability to defend himself.

 

[VanIsle]

That's beside the point. She could have committed murder, but she still has a right to know the accusations against her, and it's the justice system and not the PM who should decide her fate here.

I think the accusations are really against her husband and I think she well knows what they are. She stated that she is a christian woman and people should stand by their family even when they make mistakes. Since she seemed to be pointing out that someone in her family made a mistake one has to assume she is aware of the charges or of the likelihood of them. Harper obviously knew about the finding of drugs on her husband which she apparently cannot explain and he cannot have a member of his cabinet working with that kind of scandal/wrong doing associated with them. She was too well versed. She was prepared for the question of "have you ever used drugs" to the point that she pointed out that once when she was 14 yrs., a friend asked her to use drugs and she said no. I think she lied her way through the whole interview. She even said at the end in a rather quiet voice that maybe she should learn to quit talking (or words to that effect).

 

[Machjo]

I knew what you meant. I was being flippant. All one has to do is look at the imagination thrown into this thread by supposed Liberal diehards. For a prime example of what you meant.

Are you referring to him whom whose name we must not mention?

I see Colpy bit.:lol: