6

Tonight in Guergis


 

Mr. Gillani appears before the government operations committee and, while denying the involvement of hookers and cocaine in all of this, produces a document that seems to indicate he and Mr. Jaffer had entered into some kind of a contract. Meanwhile, the Canadian Press, Canwest, StarCTV and CBC review e-mails Mr. Jaffer sent to individuals in various government departments—e-mails that came from Ms. Guergis’ parliamentary accounts, appear to contradict some of Mr. Jaffer’s testimony and detail how Mr. Jaffer’s entreaties were received. CBC has posted the whole raft of documents online.


 

Tonight in Guergis

  1. A good day for Helena, and a bad day for Rahim.

  2. Boy, you're really persistent, aren't you? Would you like a job in p.r.? ISI?

    e-mails provided by HER gov't colleagues reveal the e-mail SHE provided to "Raffer" hsve been used extensively to illegally lobby, and in all likelihood, will now be passed onot authorities for a follow-up investigation.

    Two examples:

    From: Guergis, Helena – Assistant 2 (GuergH8@parl.gov.ca)
    Sent: Friday, September 4, 2009 15:58
    To: Godbout, Catherine : Min.of State – Min d'Etat
    Subject: Just left you a VMail

    From: HELENA GUERGIS [rahim.jaffer@rogers.com]
    To: Doug Maley
    Sent: Thu Jun 4 10:05:01 2009
    Subject: Re: As per our discussion yesterday

    There's no excuse for the second one – that is his email address that was advertised on the now defunct RahimJaffer.com

    In addition, e-mails from her Parliamentary account to her seatmates' depts in the bobbing head gallery behind Harper – Diane Ablonczy and Rona Ambrose. And not ONE it appears made any efforts to raise concerns of its propriety. Can search warrants be far off? Thanks Helena!

    Watching these revelations is like going through the Helena Guergis e-mail portal, which I'm perhaps looks something like this to her:

    [youtube OIUWGQMOVJ4http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIUWGQMOVJ4 youtube]

  3. What do you mean by "persistent"? I was referring to the #bustyhookers/cocaine/photo rumour.

  4. When this story first broke, someone put up a link to the Escort site (the one that the Committee had agreed beforehand that they would not ask Gillani about) that had shown some young naked females of "enhanced proportions" – one of whom used the same name as in the original TorStar article. Gilanni testified that his then gf and a couple of her friends attended the meeting in question later on.

    As per the drugs and cell phone pics – what else could he say? That, of course, doesn't make the original allegations true – it was obvious from the start this was a he said/he said that wouldn't amount to anything. She has hardly been exonerated.

  5. Yes, it is important to have an election now, that a possible and unverified scandal is in the air. As best I can tell Rahim Jaffer probably did illegally lobby the government. However, to the credit of the latter, he does not appear to have been successful at getting any government money. In many ways it suggests to me that Harper's post-adscam rules may be difficult to enforce in practice – of course a former MP is going to be in contact with his former colleagues.

    To call that Harper's adscam is pretty weak tea. I would need to see projects approved and taxpayer money spent on something that wouldn't otherwise be approved if I was going to make a big deal about this. Jaffergate is headline news because of its mention of busty hookers, and because Bourque happened to be slagging Guergis for about a month beforehand on an unrelated matter (her PEI meltdown). If you want to nail Harper, this isn't your ticket unless taxpayer money was actually spent on crappy projects.

    Misappropriation of stimulus funds (there is an auditor-general report on the way), and perhaps torture allegations at least refer to activities where actual people were perhaps negatively impacted (although the numbers would suggest that the stimulus was quite successful, and there may well be good structural reasons that money was not allocated equitably).

Sign in to comment.