Guergis speaks out...

[Machjo]

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

You're forgiven.:lol:

 

[CDNBear]

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?

I was referring to her defending herself in the court of public opinion.

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.

So you say.

I don't think that's any of our business until it goes though the courts.

I completely disagree. We know what we should at this point.

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.

So she'd have us all believe.

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.

You're making assumptions here.

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.

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

 

[Machjo]

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).

the point is though, that has Harper removed her from Cabinet without mentioning the reason, leaving it up to her discretion to reveal those reasons is she wished, that interview would never have occurred. In fact, it would likely have made it in the news for only one day, the day she's removed from Cabinet. Later, the opposition might ask, and the PM could simply say that it's up to her if she wishes to reveal the reasons. They'd ask her and she'd keep her lips shut. Then government would go on as usual, and we'd not hear of it again until she shows up in court.

When that happens, the opposition might pounce of the government to ask it what it knew, and Harper would only need to say that it's a criminal matter and that it's up to the courts to deal with, and not Parliament, that the legislative and judicial branches of government must remain separate. that would shut them up rather quickly.

In short, he just handled it really badly.

 

[Machjo]

I was referring to her defending herself in the court of public opinion.

Had the Pm kept his mouth shut about the charges, she would not have even had to worry about that.

 

[Machjo]

Then let me put myself in her shoes. If criminal allegations were made against me, removing me from Cabinet and the party caucus would be reasonable. Turning the information over to the police would be reasonable. Making a public announcement of criminal allegations would have gone too far. How could I defend myself against public opinion when even I myself am not privy to all the information against me and the court case hasn't even started yet thus preventing me from defending myself in any way?

If you put yourselves in her shoes, what would you expect to have been done? Removing me from Cabinet and Caucus, and turning the info over to police, fair enough. Making the allegations public before any court date is set?Way out of line.

 

[Machjo]

By the way, I'm not defending any party or MP here per se, but rather just the basic principle.

 

[VanIsle]

the point is though, that has Harper removed her from Cabinet without mentioning the reason, leaving it up to her discretion to reveal those reasons is she wished, that interview would never have occurred. In fact, it would likely have made it in the news for only one day, the day she's removed from Cabinet. Later, the opposition might ask, and the PM could simply say that it's up to her if she wishes to reveal the reasons. They'd ask her and she'd keep her lips shut. Then government would go on as usual, and we'd not hear of it again until she shows up in court.

When that happens, the opposition might pounce of the government to ask it what it knew, and Harper would only need to say that it's a criminal matter and that it's up to the courts to deal with, and not Parliament, that the legislative and judicial branches of government must remain separate. that would shut them up rather quickly.

In short, he just handled it really badly.

You do make some valid points. However, I cannot believe Harper would have had her removed unless he had a good idea that serious charges were pending, perhaps even against her. She was very evasive in the interview. She said she forgot that she had been out to dinner with some person that seemed to be of questionable character and later stated she is a stay at home person who is not very social. A stay at home person would likely remember an evening out for dinner with one particular person. Just another place where she came off as a not so truthful person.

 

[CDNBear]

If you put yourselves in her shoes, what would you expect to have been done?

Exactly what happened.

It happens every day.

A person is arrested, the evidence is not made public. The arrest hits the news if it's news worthy.

Oft causing the end of life as the alleged criminal knows it. Especially when sex crimes are involved.

You're making a lot of assumptions Machjo.

 

[CDNBear]

You do make some valid points. However, I cannot believe Harper would have had her removed unless he had a good idea that serious charges were pending, perhaps even against her. She was very evasive in the interview. She said she forgot that she had been out to dinner with some person that seemed to be of questionable character and later stated she is a stay at home person who is not very social. A stay at home person would likely remember an evening out for dinner with one particular person. Just another place where she came off as a not so truthful person.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[VanIsle]

By the way, I'm not defending any party or MP here per se, but rather just the basic principle.

Again, I agree with you. I don't think it's about defending any particular political party. She chose to go to the public with this exclusive interview. She did not choose to be interviewed in a situation where any reporter could ask her any question. Means that to a point, she got to control the questions coming her way.

 

[TenPenny]

If you put yourselves in her shoes, what would you expect to have been done?

If I put myself in her shoes, I'd probably still be in the hospital in Charlottetown, recovering from being thrown across the room in a fit of rage.

 

[Machjo]

Exactly what happened.

It happens every day.

A person is arrested, the evidence is not made public. The arrest hits the news if it's news worthy.

Oft causing the end of life as the alleged criminal knows it. Especially when sex crimes are involved.

You're making a lot of assumptions Machjo.

We're not talking about an arrest here. We're talking about a PM announcing criminal accusations. Had he said nothing, no arrest would have yet been made and we'd know nothing of it thus far. Of course we'd learn of it once an arrest is made. By then though, the chances of her being guilty are heightened and she'd soon have a chance to defend herself in court. Right now none of this as yet occurred.

As for her honesty in the interview, yes, I'm suspicious of her answers. That's none of our business though and we should not have even known about the allegations until now. These are not allegations that just mysteriously slipped into the media. harper himself put them there.

 

[CDNBear]

We're not talking about an arrest here. We're talking about a PM announcing criminal accusations. Had he said nothing, no arrest would have yet been made and we'd know nothing of it thus far. Of course we'd learn of it once an arrest is made. By then though, the chances of her being guilty are heightened and she'd soon have a chance to defend herself in court. Right now none of this as yet occurred.

OK, remove arrest, ever seen what happens when a teacher is accused of molestation?

Life...over.

The taint never goes away.

As for her honesty in the interview, yes, I'm suspicious of her answers. That's none of our business though and we should not have even known about the allegations until now. These are not allegations that just mysteriously slipped into the media. harper himself put them there.

Why not? She's a public servant and a public figure, full stop.

 

[Machjo]

Again, I agree with you. I don't think it's about defending any particular political party. She chose to go to the public with this exclusive interview. She did not choose to be interviewed in a situation where any reporter could ask her any question. Means that to a point, she got to control the questions coming her way.

I'm referring to before the interview. Had Harper never revealed publicly the reasons for her removal from Cabinet and the Party Caucus, this interview would likely never have even occurred, or if so, on a totally different subject.

Essentially he put her into a situation in which since she has no opportunity to defend herself in court, she now feels a need to try to defend herself the only way she can, and that's in the court of public opinion, when in fact this is a personal and not political matter that really is none of our business until she's found guilty.

 

[petros]

How the **** do you NOT get pissed off at Jazz and it's retarded employees?

 

[Machjo]

OK, remove arrest, ever seen what happens when a teacher is accused of molestation?

Life...over.

The taint never goes away.

I fully agree. While it may be reasonable to remove the teacher from his position with pay until proven guilty perhaps with an obligation to pay the school back should he be found guilty, it's not up to the school to reveal to the public the reasons for having removed the teacher from his position. As far as I'm concerned, no school ha a moral right to do that. Now if the police feel a need to make it public, not to embarrass the teacher but to gather information, that may be fair enough. If ever he should be found not guilty, he should be reinstated and the police should release a clear and unambiguous statement of his having been found innocent.

The same could apply here. If the police should feel a need to make the Guergis case public for very legitimate reasons, that is for the police, not the PM, to decide.[/QUOTE]

 

[CDNBear]

How the **** do you NOT get pissed off at Jazz and it's retarded employees?

I actually have to agree with you here.

How about those annoying WestJet adds?

 

[Machjo]

Why not? She's a public servant and a public figure, full stop.

So do I have a right to know what colour of undies she wears?

This is a personal matter until formal criminal charges are laid.

 

[CDNBear]

I fully agree. While it may be reasonable to remove the teacher from his position with pay until proven guilty perhaps with an obligation to pay the school back should he be found guilty, it's not up to the school to reveal to the public the reasons for having removed the teacher from his position.

They don't have to. It just happens.

As far as I'm concerned, no school ha a moral right to do that.

That's just your opinion.

Now if the police feel a need to make it public, not to embarrass the teacher but to gather information, that may be fair enough. If ever he should be found not guilty, he should be reinstated and the police should release a clear and unambiguous statement of his having been found innocent.

Sometimes that happens, it's always buried on page 48 of the paper though...;-)

The same could apply here. If the police should feel a need to make the Guergis case public for very legitimate reasons, that is for the police, not the PM, to decide.

So you say. I disagree. She's a public figure, a public servant and we have a right to know why an elected official is being bounced.

And that should never be left up to the politician in question.

 

[VanIsle]

I'm referring to before the interview. Had Harper never revealed publicly the reasons for her removal from Cabinet and the Party Caucus, this interview would likely never have even occurred, or if so, on a totally different subject.

Essentially he put her into a situation in which since she has no opportunity to defend herself in court, she now feels a need to try to defend herself the only way she can, and that's in the court of public opinion, when in fact this is a personal and not political matter that really is none of our business until she's found guilty.

I don't know - is she really feeling the need to defend herself or is she trying to deflect blame. I believe they said at the end of the interview (or somewhere in it) that the police are undecided as to whether or not they will lay charges. Knowing this, it's easy for her to go public and make Harper look like the bad guy because she knows her job is gone. Even, if under pressure, she is re-instated, it will never go well for her. It's a little like a person who is relieved of charges but it never actually states they are innocent - it simply states the charges are un-proven and the guilty party walks. That could be the case here. We may never know the truth in this particular case.