The Shotgun Blog
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
Grewal Transcripts Online
Posted by Kate McMillan on May 31, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Grewal Transcripts Online:
Read the tapes. Not sure the scandal of a lifetime is there. It sounds like what Belinda's conversations would have been like except GG has the ethics commissioner breathing down his back and the Liberals didn't want to touch him.
It sounds as though GG was offered to cross the floor, but he probably didn't get the deal he wanted so he went to the press.
I can't see that the Senate positions were ever really offered in more of a "we'll see" attitude.
I don't think this guy belongs in the conservative party and he is likely going to find a new home outside politics.
Funny he never taped the conversation with the PM or maybe it didn't happen.
Politics is a dirty game.
Posted by: Gamblog | 2005-05-31 2:09:15 PM
Politics may be a dirty game, but what happened here is unethical and may be illegal. We do have a right to demand better from our politicians, and if we do not, then we guarantee ourselves more corruption.
If we simply dismiss activities like this then we derserve the government we get.
Scratch that -- I get the government all the apathetic Canadians deserve.
Posted by: MustControlFistOfDeath | 2005-05-31 2:53:04 PM
Murphy and Dosanjh are playing it closing to the edge, no doubt 9especially Ujjal...), but in the end they are prety clear that there is no way they're going to make a specific deal in return for Grewal's vote. The only promise made here is sometime in the future, if the vote happens a certain way, if you cross the floor, if you prove to be an asset to the party there wil be a role for you...but a senate seat for your wife in exchange for your vote? Ain't gonna happen.
Ugly sausage making, yes, smoking gun, not so much...
Posted by: A Hermit | 2005-05-31 3:37:08 PM
A Hermit you just dont get it. If GG phoned these guys looking for a senate appt or anything else the only response from those two should be, ABSOLUTELY NOT WE DO NOT DEAL IN BRIBERY OR CORRUPTION. THAT WILL BE ALL. But they didnt, they promised something in the future if you vote with us now. That is bribery, and its criminal. And for you not to see anything wrong with this tape doesnt speak volumes about you either.
Posted by: MikeP | 2005-05-31 3:52:16 PM
I didn't say I didn't see anything wrong with it (the "sausage making" remark might have been a clue for ya...); I just don't see anything that's going to stick in a legal sense. Murphy's pretty careful to avoid making any actual promises beyond a vague "we'll look after you" kind of platitude.
Posted by: A Hermit | 2005-05-31 3:55:19 PM
: MustControlFistOfDeath :
is hereby nominated for Commentor Nickname of the Year.
Posted by: Kate | 2005-05-31 4:00:58 PM
It is STILL a BRIBE. CONSIDERATION IN THE FUTURE IS A BRIBE. PERIOD.
Posted by: MikeP | 2005-05-31 4:03:40 PM
AS regards Mike P's last message. A good example might be, if advertising contracts were shovelled to a certain firm in exchange for a kickback of money or similar benefits at a later point. The kickback does not occur prior to or even at the same time as the first action. A bribe is a bribe even if it takes a few weeks to get paid. I mean, would anyone dispute this if the circumstances were a judge taking $25,000 to throw out a criminal charge? Does it matter if they were paid off before or after the fact? Judging from the guilty pleas entered today, I would hazard a guess that the answer is "No".
Posted by: Shawn | 2005-05-31 4:29:54 PM
The Liberals and the MSM are scrambling to disparage and belittle the tapes.
They are commenting that 'not all the conversations' were taped. So what? That doesn't mean that we should ignore the conversations that WERE taped.
They are commenting the Grewal 'came to them'. First - prove it. Second - why would Grewal tape his betrayal of his party and the parliamentary system? After all, if/when the tapes became known, that would finish his career. Third - why didn't the Liberals act ethically and tell him to 'bugger off'?
Martin says that 'no offer was made'. That's like Clinton's 'no sex with that woman'. Indeed, yes, no actual offer was made, but a potential reward was certainly offered, and offered several times.
What is important is that this wasn't an idle chat; the whole issue was set up within a Propositional Frame.
A Propositional Frame has two parts. There's the antecedent...and the consequent.
So, Murphy was setting up a Proposition.
IF you, Grewal, do X ....THEN...some rewarding things might happen in the future.
Notice that the two parts are linked. IF-Then. There is no way anyone can separate this Proposition.
The antecedent? What do you have to do to move into the consequences? Murphy repeatedly tells him. Abstain from tomorrow's vote. Abstain, abstain...so the Liberal gov't won't fall.
The consequences of this act? They are not spelled out in specifics (that's why Martin can say 'NO OFFER was made'...they are spelled out in generalities. Senate, rewards, ...but above all, what must not be forgotten, is that Murphy and Grewal are talking within a Propositional Frame...that operates in an IF you do this, THEN, there'll be a beneficial result to you.
Now- there's no need to spell out the consequences. No need whatsoever. The fact that the antecedent of abstention will have consequences...is unethical.
And..Martin knew that some proposition was being offered; he was 'ready to talk'. Talk about what? What business would a PM, on the verge of a no-confidence vote, having already rejected one no-confidence vote...what business would a PM have talking with a member of the opposition in a propositional manner?
How dare a representative of the PM tell an MP to abstain. Remember, that MP is supposed to represent his constituents, the electorate. Not to represent the will of Paul Martin.
Posted by: ET | 2005-05-31 4:59:15 PM
Cheryl has switched · 6 hours ago
Here’s Cheryl’s story. I know Cheryl, this is a big step for her. She’s always supported fiscal restraint but had a huge problem with Harper’s image. What was Cheryl’s tipping point? Spending more tax money to spin the results of the Gomery inquiry.
Ug. I just can’t vote Liberal. It [the war room] is just wrong. Wrong. Wrong Wrong. Besides, I’m not sure we need the Feds playing at paymaster any more.
A liberal can support Stephen Harper.
Add your personal testimony to the above website.
Switch and fight.
A liberal can switch and fight.
Posted by: maz2 | 2005-05-31 5:03:14 PM
Further to the future considerations part of this deal. In hockey when you trade a player for future considerations, its a trade. In Politics when you trade a vote for future considerations its a bribe.
Posted by: MikeP | 2005-05-31 5:06:50 PM
ET asked: "How dare a representative of the PM tell an MP to abstain."
Replace the word tell with: order; order an MP to abstain.
Then read it as follows: How dare a representative of the PM order an MP to abstain.
Order an MP! The next step is tyranny.
When did we last hear of the New Order?
Tyranny, thy name is Death.
Posted by: maz2 | 2005-05-31 5:14:47 PM
Posted by: Dylan Sherlock | 2005-05-31 6:29:48 PM
A Hermit -- whether you are correct or not about the allegations sticking in a legal sense is somewhat beside the point (though I do think all involved should be strung up by their neckties). The important issue is why should we, as Canadians, tolerate this egregious level of behaviour from our elected representatives? A senior cabinet minister and the chief of staff to the Prime Minister effectively offered up a Senate seat, cabinet post, and/or ambassadorship to an opposition MP in exchange for their vote in the House. THIS IS NOT GOOD GOVERNMENT. There is no other way to say it: THIS IS NOT GOOD GOVERNMENT. This is not, "Support us on our issue and we'll support you on yours." This is, "Support us and we'll reward you, personally," aka BRIBERY.
Andrew Coyne put it best: there is no bottom; there are no rules. This government sinks even lower by the day, it would seem. If we continue to tolerate such outrageous practices in our elected officials, and do not hold them accountable for them, we simply do not deserve to call ourselves a democracy.
Posted by: Ian in NS | 2005-05-31 7:21:43 PM
"They are commenting that 'not all the conversations' were taped. So what?"
Yeah. They always let bank robbers off the hook when the bank is unable to produce security cam pictures of every visit he made to the bank when he was casing the joint, right? Because being caught sticking a gun in the teller's face and running away with it doesn't mean anything. If he hasn't spent the money then it's not like you can prove that he intends to never return it.
Actually, there is no similarity at all. No stickup artist could ever steal that much dough in a lifetime of knocking over banks.
Which gives me a thought - if we really want to get a handle on crime, what we need is Liberal Registry.
Posted by: Justzumgai | 2005-05-31 8:54:37 PM
It's a waste of time arguing with certain Kool-Aid drinkers here.
Posted by: Brian O'Neill | 2005-05-31 9:15:59 PM
A "Liberal Registry" - brilliant!
Someone should start a real campaign,see if the MSM picks up on it. Send open letters via newspapers to your MP demanding that all Libs be registered.
Anyone who reads those transcripts and listens to the tapes (though my Punjabi is somewhere between rusty and non-exitent) and doesn't hear rank and unashamed government corruption is clearly not playing with a full deck, or has been brainwashed, or is just as corrupt as Paul Martin, or is a cynical bastard.
Watched Peter Mansbridge on this -- apparently the focus of the story is on Grewal's motives. And Keith Boag just kinds of fluffs the whole thing off as Business-As-Usual in Ottawa, and he said-he said, and, "well, who knows what to think?"
The lead item was all about Deep Throat.
What contempt the assholes at CBC must have for their viewers. Do they expect Paul Martin to lean over and state clearly for a microphone,
"Listen, if you abstain in this vote then I will reward you in a way that is completely illegal. Do you understand Mr. Grewal? Let me be clear: I am offering you a bribe."
Even then the CBC coverage would be all about, "How did a shady Conservative MP manage to trick the Prime Minister into commiting what might be considered a criminal act?"
I'm amazed at how CBC can become even more and more contemptible.
Again (I mean right now on The National) it's all about Deep Throat (that's 3 decades ago!), while completely ignoring or cavalierly dimissing Canadian corruption that's going on right under their noses.
Our brave and intrepid MSM!
Posted by: Brian O'Neill | 2005-05-31 9:33:07 PM
I'm definitely going to watch CTV's nightly news show to see how it's covered.
It SHOULD be more hard-hitting than CBC.
* CTV Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife: "The transcripts indicate that the calls were from the Liberals, were made by Minister Dosanjh, another Liberal in B.C. and Mr. Murphy..."
* Fife says the released transcripts indicate the prime minister knew about the negotiations. "Although they say that the prime minister, if he meets with Mr. Grewal, couldn't make a firm offer to him," Fife said. "Because he didn't want to be put in a position where would he have to lie to the public if Mr. Grewal voted with the government and then the prime minister was asked immediately 'What did you offer him?'"
Posted by: Brian O'Neill | 2005-05-31 9:36:54 PM
If Harper was smart he'd kick Grewal out of the party for seeking a bribe, then demand to know why Martin doesn't do the same to Dosanjh (who looks a lot worse than Murphy in those transcripts).
Posted by: A Hermit | 2005-06-01 8:26:09 AM
AHermit, that's such a brilliant idea. A real gem. Who said Grewal was seeking a bribe? The Liberals, those truthmongerers. Based on everything that has occurred in recent history, please enlighten all of us on why we should believe anything coming out of the mouths of these deceivers?!? We all know Murphy looks bad and you admit Dosanjh looks worse, so why, in all of creation, should we suddenly take at face value anything they say in regards to this issue? Seriously, you suggest Harper should punish the man who brought this level of corrupt behaviour to the public's light, because those corrupted said so. Magnificent!
Posted by: Ham | 2005-06-01 9:46:00 AM
I don't understand what the MSM has to do with this. The tapes are there for all to see. I read them and came away with what the evil liberal MSM is saying before they got to brainwash me. Sure it was laborious to read all the tapes, but there is no flaming stick of dynamite. GG brought up the senate posts and it is there for all to see.
If Grewal asks for something the liberals aren't giving bribes and future possible considerations aren’t bribes either. I think it is safe to assume that if a member is loyal and works hard he/she is liable to see benefits.
GG is bribing the liberals with his vote and crossing the floor as much the liberals are offering him anything for it.
In theory the liberals should have immediately said no, but I think when an MP comes to a party looking to cross the floor a discussion is certainly going to take place. Its disgusting, but I don’t imagine the Alliance…I mean CPC wouldn’t consider taking a few Liberal MPs.
I don’t see any of these morons getting elected after this nonsense and if anything votes are going to flow to the NDP, who once again are looking like the only clean party to vote for.
Posted by: Gamblog | 2005-06-01 12:38:54 PM
Yes, the NDP, the first to sell their souls to the devil, are a "clean" party and one we should hold up as a shining example of a political party. First Marks, then Stronach, then Grewal - Marks wasn't able to provide evidence to the bribe, Stronach took the bribe and Grewal proved the bribe. To take a page from JC: "A bribe is a bribe is a bribe." Why do people insist on claiming victim status for the perpetrator of a crime?
Posted by: Ham | 2005-06-01 1:32:33 PM
I'm not sure whom the devil the NDP have sold their soul to. Have you ever met an NDP candidate? They are the nicest people in politics; they just don't have any fiscal responsibility. I don't think that equates them to devil status. The deal with the devil statements Harper was making didn't hold much water with Canadians. Calling NDP devils was juxtaposed with Harper allying with the Bloc and now the whole situation seems quite humorous.
Posted by: Gamblog | 2005-06-01 2:00:20 PM
I'll speak slowly. The Liberal government is being implicated in the sponsorship scandal.
There are numerous websites and articles that can get you up to speed on that - please research. They'll play the part of the devil for the purposes of the figure of speech in which you are splitting hairs.
Because of this 'corruption,' the Liberal minority government is on the brink of collapse. Okay, then, the Liberal government bought the NDP for $4.6B taxpayer dollars. The NDP allowed themselved to be bought for $4.6B and some camera time, ergo: sold their soul.
So we've established that the nice people in the NDP are not, in fact, the devil like you said and I never said in the first place. They just like the devil's money and fame.
Moving on to your comments: Thanks for speaking on behalf of Canadians everywhere about what does or doesn't hold water. Last time I checked I was Canadian and I hadn't assigned my opinion over to someone else. And please describe how the coincidental desire to punt a corrupt government is the same as a bald-assed pay-off. And don't go all Belinda on me about how somehow the CPC is breaking up Canada by voting with the Bloc against the Liberals when we all know who perpetrated the sponsorship scandal and where - at least, you will once you've done your assigned research.
Posted by: Ham | 2005-06-01 2:21:54 PM
Bill Blaikie : "Bush spends every waking minute trying to think of ways to kill Iraqi babies."
Some fool: "The NDP are the nicest people in politics."
Posted by: Brian O'Neill | 2005-06-01 2:25:12 PM
Jack Layton: "Paul Martin killed my friend."
Some fool: "The NDP are the nicest people in politics."
Posted by: Brian O'Neill | 2005-06-01 2:26:06 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.