John Ward of Canadian Press (via Ottawa Citizen) writes that former Liberal PM Jean (“a truth is a truth”) Chretien and his special friend, blogger Warren Kinsella, have nothing to say about this Liberal/Chretien/Martin corruption scandal.
Former PM keeps mum as scandal widens
Even vocal Chretien supporter, Warren Kinsella, keeps quiet as he admits the situation is ‘way, way worse’ than he expected, writes John Ward.
Amid the headlines, the hours of TV coverage and the shouts of political outrage over the riveting testimony at the sponsorship inquiry, one voice is noticeably missing.Jean Chretien is keeping mum.
Despite testimony that has touched on his cherished elder brother, Gabriel, and a niece, the former prime minister has offered no comment. Phone calls to his lawyer and to former aides, who have acted as his spokesman, went unreturned Friday. An e-mail to his office went unanswered.
Even Warren Kinsella, a Liberal always ready to ride to Mr. Chretien’s defence, has been muted.
“Apart from the fact that it is way, way worse than I expected—and apart from the fact that a referendum with a Yes result is a growing possibility—I don’t know what to say,” he wrote on his website Friday.
“So, unlike everyone else, I won’t say anything.”
…to which the world responded with a humongous shrug, not really caring what they have to say about it.
I liked this line in the story, which is really rather humorous:
Allan Tupper, a political scientist from the University of British Columbia, noted Mr. Chretien has not been tied to the wrongdoing.
I studied political science in university too—and professors who are so liberal they don’t even realize how liberal they are anymore is one of the reasons I’m a conservative today, but the point is that in university I learned about “reading”.
In today’s National Post, for example, they reported on testimony such as this (but even professors could have read this on their own), at the Chretien/Martin Liberal Party corruption scandal inquiry:
MONTREAL – A Groupaction employee of sponsorship whistle-blower Jean Brault yesterday told Judge John Gomery that his boss kicked in $30,000 to Jean Chretien’s 1993 election campaign in his efforts to secure federal government contracts.
Even as Canada woke up to coast-to-coast headlines of Mr. Brault’s previously secret testimony, Alain Renaud added to the Liberal party’s embarrassment over the Brault revelations by alleging the money was specifically earmarked for Mr. Chretien’s campaign and not the Liberal party.
Details of money directed into the party by Groupaction were revealed when Judge Gomery lifted a publication ban on Mr. Brault’s testimony. But during his six days of evidence, he had made no mention of the funds specifically earmarked for Mr. Chretien’s campaign.
Yesterday however, Mr. Renaud told the inquiry’s chief counsel Bernard Roy that the money was for Mr. Chretien’s campaign rather than the Liberal party’s general war chest.
“Were these cheques for the campaign of the Liberal party or Mr. Chretien’s campaign?” Mr. Roy asked the witness.
Mr. Renaud replied: “Mr. Chretien’s campaign.”
The buck stops where? Perhaps the good professor could employ some political science and answer that for us in plain language so us dumbfolk can understand.
PTBC was founded by Mr. Johannesen in 2000.
Contact Mr. Johannesen about this article using this form. Please refer to article's title.
FOLLOW @JoelJohannesen ON X!
- Say something. - Friday October 25, 2024 at 6:03 pm
- Keep going, or veer right - Monday August 26, 2024 at 4:30 pm
- Hey Joel, what is “progressive?” - Friday August 2, 2024 at 11:32 am
