Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us

Adam Carroll, the member of the Liberal research team who resigned after admitting responsibility for Vikileaks, has been hired by the Liberal party. Vic Toews is unimpressed.

I see @AdamGCarroll is back at #LPC after crocodile tear apology from @bobraeMP.@justinpjtrudeau & #LPC must come clean on who knew what

Feel free to apply the Ryan Sparrow (suspended, reinstated, promoted) and Kasra Nejatian (resigned, rehired) precedents as you see fit.




Browse

Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us

  1. maybe Toews should apologize to his ex wife for being a greasy philanderer.

  2. So your a methodist?

  3. “I’m shocked, SHOCKED to find that gambling is going on here!”

  4. The difference, Toews later explained, is that “CPC supporters are generally dumb enough to believe what we tell them.”

  5. Wow ! You guys are grasping.
    Sending out one fundraiser letter on ministerial letterhead, or sending one signed e-mail in the heat of a campaign does not compare with the continuous slander that Carroll delivered from Liberal Parliamentary offices meant to drag Toews personal life through the mud.

    But, you knew that anyway. Liberal headquarters just instructed you to fight back with something—–anything.

    • Slander or libel implies lies. Carrol didn’t lie. Toews dragged his own personal life through the mud.

      • So, you would be OK with the Conservatives instructing an anonymous staffer to go through the files and court documents of individual Liberal MP`s who may have had marital problems and publishing these truths so that the likes of Justin Trudeau can make immature tweets ?

        • How did you get to “so, you would be OK with…” from Peter correcting your abuse of the word “slander”?

          “Sorry, my mistake” would be a more coherent response.

          • I do not know the details of Toews divorce. Neither do I know the details of Ignatieff`s or Layton`s divorce. And I do not want to know.
            Peter justified Carroll`s actions by saying Carroll`s actions were not slander because ” Carroll didn`t lie “. I then asked if he thought it acceptable to publish the divorce proceedings of Liberal MP`s.
            The lack of coherence may be in your reading capability.

          • I think that if Ignatieff or Layton had impregnated a teenage babysitter that publishing those details would be relevant. Why would you not want to know that a Cabinet minister engaged in such appalling behaviour.

          • “Peter justified…”

            No, Peter corrected your abuse of the word “slander”.


        • So, you would be OK with the Conservatives instructing an anonymous staffer to go through the files and court documents of individual Liberal MP`s who may have had marital problems

          I probably wouldn’t have a problem with that at all myself, so long as the records were a matter of public record. I might even enjoy it if, say, the Liberal MP in question was a disingenuous “family values” spouting hypocrite blowhard who said that people who disagreed with his heavy handed attempts to intrude into the privacy of his fellow Canadians using the force of law meant that said fellow Canadians stood with child pornographers.

          That said, where’s the evidence that anyone in the Liberal Party of Canada told Carroll to do what he did?

          • You and 11% of the eligible voters in the last election may want scuzzes like Carroll ripping through the private troubles of individual Canadians for the benefit of the failing Liberal party, however I am confident that the large percentage of Canadians will continue to place the LPC on the scrap heap of history.

          • Why do you support child abuse?

          • Sorry for taking so long to get back, Andrew. Yes, I would be fine with anyone publishing public ally accessible information. I believe in transparency. Secondly, and more to my original point, understand the meaning of the words you use. You’ll become a better communicator.

          • There’s no evidence Andrew is interested in communicating. He’s interested in disseminating. There’s a difference.

          • No, just want to help you poor folk try to get back to reality.

          • LOL.. gotta love it when they disagree with what you say, and then verify it.

    • “one signed e-mail” slandering the father of a Canadian soldier that died in Afghanistan as a Liberal stooge just because he disagreed with government policy. You left that last bit, which we call context, out.

    • …(cont’d from above post) “See, look at this Andrew guy! Laps up the garbage we spill like a fat little kitten then asks for mopre” Toews proclaimed happily, while reminding supporters the CPC was more important than their country.

      • This Andrew guy thinks you are a fool. You should be thanking me for injecting a little bit of reality in this losing Liberal corner.

        • I think the Vikileaks campaign is fair game. Exposing a cabinet minister’s hypocrisy, and laying low an overbearing blowhard.

          Fabricating lies about the father of a solder who died in the line of duty in order to discredit him is not fair game. Toews signed up for, and gladly participates in the mudslinging. Ordinary citizens should not be silenced by partisan slime factories.

  6. All the parties are guilty of tolerating, if not abetting, slimy behaviour by their apparatchiks when they think they can get away with it. Fingerpointing at the misdemeanors of one’s adversaries is no justification for one’s own malfeasance. They have all reeked on occasion.

  7. Well, if Carroll is back, it is clear that he took the fall for somebody far more important.

    Justin, Justin, Justin…

    • Hey, when you’ve got no argument, Trudeau is always a good option. Kinda tips your hand, though.

    • So who’d Sparrow take the fall for then?

  8. Personally, I agree with Wells on this. Once the guy was fired, they shouldn’t be hiring him back. It’s a poor showing.

    That said, I also don’t think he should have been fired in the first place. Perhaps reprimanded for wasting time on the job, but that’s the extent of it.

    After all, he posted no information that was not publicly available. It was information about a public figure. And the information was relevant to the public discourse of the day, specifically the issue of access to information, and the character of the man proposing that the people who were responsible to him have that access.

Sign in to comment.