Michael Sona speaks


The departed Conservative assistant releases a statement to CTV.

I had no involvement in the fraudulent phone calls, which also targeted our supporters as can be attested to by our local campaign team and phone records. On Thursday, I offered my resignation to my employer. The role of a staffer is to assist their employer in their responsibilities, and that was impossible to accomplish with the media continually repeating these rumours. It is for that reason and that reason alone that I resigned from my position.


Michael Sona speaks

  1. Pretty loyal for a scapegoat.

    • Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat

    • Stockholm Syndrome.

  2. It was his resignation that has gotten him attention.  I’m not sure his name would even have come up if he hadn’t. 

    • His name came up in the whispers of “senior conservative sources”

      • And MacKay said the person responsibile was gone, or words to that effect.  I wonder of he needs some sort of witness protection program?

        • Yeah, seriously. If there is someone playing Segretti behind all this Sona should get on a train (and stay away from buses and ravines).

    • It was actuallly Marty Burke that brought his name into it…

      • Really – when?

  3. That’s not what at least one Conservative MP has said. Someoby is still lying.

    • Ya think?

  4. Good.  So it was someone higher up.  It looks like the guy they threw under the bug got back up.  Well, Conservatives, who was it?

  5. he just blew his hireback, too.

  6. Good for him for saying they were fraudulent phone calls and not honest misunderstandings, and for wishing that the guilty party would be apprehended.  It shows a greater degree of ethics than some of the people responsible for the party, who were willing to point the finger at him even though it was clear that he could not have done this, at least not alone.

    • You are mixing up two different things. 
      1. Robocalls in Guelph made via Racknine
      2. Incorrect voting info from the phone banks of the CPC (and probably the efforts of other parties)

      The Tories have essentially acknowledged # 1. The case that #2 was part of some grand conspiracy, in contrast, is very very weak.

      • What about the Thunder Bay operators who said they were giving out what seemed like bogus voting locations?

      • I was only referring to #1.  

        #2, as you say, has weaker evidence of wrongdoing, but it requires you to believe there were large number of instance of 3 simultaneous independent errors: that they misidentified voter affiliation for outsourced phone bank GOTV, that they set up the Elections Canada database incorrectly, linking voters to wrong or nonexistent polling stations, and that they misrepresented on whose behalf they we calling, somehow thinking it didn’t matter, while their supervisors ignored it.  Ignored it while their employees reported complaints and were calling the authorities.  Possible, but it seems unlikely.  Let’s wait for the investigation.

    • Except that he tarnished his statement by repeating Dean del Maestro’s dubious claim that Con supporters were targeted, too.  Step 5 – claim victimhood.

      • Why do you thing that Del Masetro’s claim is dubious? is it because he is Conservative?  If Micheal Sona says that the Conservatives were targeted in Guelph, then I believe him.  Too bad it it doesn’t fit into your bias

        • So you think that Michael Sona is telling the truth and Peter McKay is lying?

        • No, it’s because he’s del Mastro.  His track record doesn’t lead one to assume honesty.

  7. So. If we believe him, then MacKay was talking about somebody else who is no longer with the party.

    Of course, given the fines and penalties for what was done, not to mention Mr. Sonas history when it comes to respecting the voter, I can’t say I’m willing to afford Sona much benefit of the doubt.

    • Meanwhile Dean Del Maestro claims they did nothing wrong at all… 

  8. This is going to become the opposite of “I am Spartacus!”

    “I am not Pierre Poutine!”

  9. wiki ~ Not proven is a verdict available to a court in Scotland. Under Scots law, a criminal trial may end in one of three verdicts: one of conviction (“guilty”) and two of acquittal (“not proven” and “not guilty”).

    The result is the modern perception that the “not proven” verdict is an acquittal used when the judge or jury does not have enough evidence to convict but is not sufficiently convinced of the defendant’s innocence to bring in a “not guilty” verdict. 

    Essentially, the judge or jury is unconvinced that the suspect is innocent, but has insufficient evidence to the contrary. In popular parlance, this verdict is sometimes jokingly referred to as “not guilty and don’t do it again”

    • I’m not sure if I agree with the “not proven” option. If there’s insufficient evidence to prove one’s guilt, then he’s not guilty, despite any “gut feelings” or weak circumstantial evidence. (Although I love the joke at the end, “not guilty, and don’t do it again”). I would hope that such a verdict is seldom used.

      • I agree – in court of law, a jury should decide guilty/not-guilty.

        However, I have always thought ‘not proven’ was more reflective of how messy life is and how rarely we can be 100% certain about anything. 

        Also, I believe elections canada tolerates a certain amount of shenanigans and that’s what is happening here – elections canada has investigated already but decided to not lay charges because it fell within what they allow. 

        If our msm wasn’t dominated by Liberals, there would be suspicions about how only Cons are being accused of anything and everyone else is vestal virgin, apparently.

    • The distinction is only valuable where somebody ONLY looks at the verdict and doesn’t examine the accompanying reasons a judge is almost always required to give.  If there was really really no way the accused did it, the judge would make it pretty clear in the text of his judgment.  

  10. liar

Sign in to comment.