Tuesday, August 12, 2008

Nothing To Hide, Then Why Hide?

If, as you claim, your actions are perfectly legal, much ado about nothing, then you don't conspire to derail a process, which according to your arguments, will actually vindicate your point of view. Conservatives should relish the opportunity to have their party agents explain how they did nothing illegal, expose the lynch mob for what they are, partisan opportunists. So far, the only witnesses to show up to the Committee, consist of people who have had a falling out with the Conservative Party, in one way or another, not ONE "scheduled" appearance by any person still aligned with the party.

Four more no shows today, a pattern which is irrefutable, apart from "take leave of our senses" hyper-partisans. Why hide, if you have nothing to hide?:
The Conservative Party is being accused of obstructing a Commons committee investigating elections financing after three potential witnesses said they were told by the party not to show up.

The Tories categorically denied the allegation after four more summoned party agents failed to appear this morning, raising further concerns by ethics committee chair Paul Szabo that there is a pattern.

“It appears to be consistent with the (previous) indication that proposed witnesses had given us” that the party had told them not to co-operate, Szabao told reporters after adjourning the morning’s session.

NDP MP Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre) said there is an onus on the ethics committee to investigate reports that some witnesses are being urged not to testify, even though they have received summons to appear.

“It is an obstruction of justice to advise somebody to not to not attend a parliamentary committee when they are summoned, just as it would be wrong for a lawyer to advise their client to ignore some court date,” Martin said.

Conservative MP Gary Goodyear (Cambridge) absolutely denied that anyone from the party has instructed witnesses not to show.

"That is absolutely false,” Goodyear said.

False? More like blatantly obvious.

The Conservatives must have concluded that things would go very badly for their party agents, deciding to take the hit of obstruction, over the spectacle of illegalities. Neither option works, although it seems the Conservatives are just drawing more attention to a mid-summer Committee, than would otherwise be there under normal circumstances.

I'm not sure I understand the wisdom of having every news outlet plastering this juicy angle onto their sites, not sure how that helps the Conservatives claims of unfair treatment, we did nothing wrong. As a matter of fact, between today and yesterday's developments, it seems the Conservatives are fueling the perception that something is amiss with their past practices, doing more damage than any witness could possibly do. Pulling stunts, obstruction, added to the already uncomfortable dynamic of attacking democratic institutions, and the Conservatives are clearly losing the battle of perceptions. Contrast this behavior with Harper's boastful "confidence in our legal position" bravado, and it suggests reason for suspicion. If you are "solid", then you don't need to hide, obstruct and confuse, you just throw out the facts and let reasonable minds see your credible position. Conservatives are dreaming, if they think their case is bolstered with these tactics, if anything they are only reinforcing an unflattering perception with the public. What we are seeing is within the realm of the guilty, it shows no relationship to the unjustly accused.

11 comments:

JimmE said...

Perhaps they are TEST Marketing the scandal to see if the scandal plays a part in the by-elections ; )

knb said...

Goodyear couldn't spell truth, let alone tell it.

Yesterday he claimed that Dion's donations to his leadership race were illegal.

This move is beyond ridiculous.

It's getting a lot of print but I'm not hearing it on the radio or seeing anything on TV yet.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps the committee's not allowing any of the 81 Conservative witnesses to testify earlier sent the message that appearance is not mandatory?

Steve V said...

anon

Oh, you poor things, weren't allowed to distract and confuse. What a shame.

Anonymous said...

Distract and confuse? You sir have me confused with a Liberal.

Steve V said...

anon

No, I can smell whiny Cons a mile away now, it's all you do. Soother?

Anonymous said...

FALSE
There has been testimony by at least 5 witnesses affiliated with the Conservative party this week. Did you even hear what they had to say? Elections Canada is clearly applying a different standard to the Conservative party and its getting harder to hide.

an insider said...

Hiding or showing deserved contempt for what is obviously a partisan move?

This committee is a joke and anyone who's paying attention, knows it. Which is why the conservatives are so open with their contempt. The base loves it, the undecided middle shrugs it off as more games on the hill,

and the staunch liberals stamp their feet in faux outrage.

The conservatives are playing this according to a well defined game plan. One that appears to be working as desired.

an insider said...

An oh, at the heart of the game plan is near certain knowledge - based on some of the best legal advice money can buy - that their real case with Elections Canada in the courts (the one with rules of evidence and principles of law, not pure partisan gamesmanship) is very solid.

This is emboldening the cons as they know that their legal success will make the partisan committee even more illegitimate, and hence worthy of contempt.

Steve V said...

an insider

You sound more like a koolaid drinker. Whatever. Thanks for the nothing analysis.

Steve V said...

"There has been testimony by at least 5 witnesses affiliated with the Conservative party this week. Did you even hear what they had to say? "

Yes I did, did you? Did you hear the guy who said the Cons were frauds on honesty? How about the guy who is now running for the Greens, so disillusioned that the party put his reputation at stake with their schemes, I believe he stated point blank he thought the transfers "were not legitimate". What about the former candidate who said she was dropped because she refused to participate? What about the former candidate who said "something was dreadfully wrong here"?

The more you people comment, the more I come to realize that the Con base is made of mostly mental midgets.