25

The QP Clip: No answers, no progress on Wright-Duffy affair

The exchange you can’t miss from today’s Question Period


 


 

The QP Clip: No answers, no progress on Wright-Duffy affair

  1. Why does Baird keep harp[er]ing on an incident in which Mulcair refused a bribe? Is ethical conduct such an alien concept for him and his Con colleagues?

    • Um, because he lied about being offered the bribe for over 15 years. Not to mention that if he’s now admitting he lied about turning down a bribe, how many bribes did he accept that he continues to lie about?

      • Did he lie about turning down a bribe? If you have evidence to that effect, why don’t you take it to the police?

          • You don’t know why you’d take it to the police, but you can’t imagine why Mulcair didn’t. Let me suggest something to you: you are anonymous loser -with absolutely nothing to lose – who wouldn’t go to the police. Whereas Mulcair is, and was, a successful public person who didn’t go to the police precisely because he had a lot to lose.

            You would take a warm cup of spit if it were offered to you under the table. You have no more understanding of personal integrity, than a groundhog has an understanding of aeronautics.

          • Oh for christsake you idiot, how am I supposed to tell the police about Mulcair’s involvement in bribery when he lied about it for 15 years?! Of course I don’t have the evidence you moron, because there’s no evidence except Mulcair’s word, which at this point ain’t worth spit.

            You can’t even follow along, get with it man and put down the liquor.

    • I’m starting to think this isn’t just deflection and the Conservatives are sincerely mystified by the behavior of someone who turned down a bribe when everyone else was accepting them.

      • How do you know he’s not just lying about turning it down? If he lied about being offered the bribe, it’s quite likely that he’s lying about accepting it.

        • Right. When you can’t offer a credible explanation for the demonstrably corrupt behaviour within your own political tribe, you engage in rumour mongering. If that’s the best you can offer, perhaps your ilk should stop accusing the MSM of purveying rumours about Harper’s gang of trough snufflers.

          BTW, every time the Cons stand up in the House and bleat about this incident 17 years ago, they’re helpfully reminding the world about a bribe that Mulcair didn’t take.

          • That Muclair claims he didn’t take. But that claim is severely discredited when it’s paired with the fact that he lied about the bribe ever being offered for 15 years. Why would he lie about a bribe that he didn’t accept, for 15 years? It doesn’t add up.

          • And, in the context of the current Senate-PMO fiasco, an utterly irrelevant distraction that isn’t working at all.

            But keep trying.

          • So if I have you correct, your argument could be used thusly,
            “Why is Harper refusing to answer questions fully in the HoC if he has nothing to hide? Who would refuse to answer questions if they haven’t done anything wrong? It doesn’t add up.”
            Would that be Omen logic at work?

          • OK NotRick’s, let’s flesh out your theory that Mulcair took a bribe 17 years ago.
            For 15 years he obviously keeps this to himself. But then two years ago he volunteers the information that he was offered an envelope which he believes may have contained a bribe.
            Can you explain how that “adds up” and fits into your theory?

          • Yes. He admitted to being offered the envelope because the RCMP already knew about it. But he lied about not accepting it.

            It’s not that hard. He’s a lawyer by training, they’re very adept at lying.

          • How did the RCMP know about it if Mulcair kept it to himself for 15 years?

          • How would I know? Do you think I work for the RCMP? You know, Cops have a funny way of finding things out…. it’s sort of what they do. I suspect we haven’t heard the end of this story yet.

          • How would you know? Well, you’ve already claimed that Mulcair only admitted to it because the RCMP already knew, that narrows it down, don’t you think?
            We’re left with the mayor or someone he told, or someone Mulcair told.

            You’ve told us he’s a lawyer who’s adept at lying, so if the information came from the Mayor or an associate why would Mulcair admit to being offered the bribe when it is his word vs the discredited mayor’s or third-hand information for an associate of the mayor?
            If the information came from someone Mulcair told, we’re back to the question of why Mulcair would tell anyone if he took the bribe?

          • That should be, …from an associate of the mayor…

          • why would Mulcair admit to being offered the bribe when it is his word vs the discredited mayor’s or third-hand information for an associate of the mayor?

            1) Because they had evidence.

            2) He thought they had evidence

            3) He knew they couldn’t prove he accepted the bribe – and being a lawyer knew he had an out.

            why Mulcair would tell anyone if he took the bribe?

            1) Because he’s an idiot.
            2) Because he thought he could lie his way out of it
            3) Maybe he didn’t tell anyone, maybe there was a 3rd party in the room
            4) It’s fashionable amongst Quebec Liberals to accept bribes, he thought he was just one of the cool-kids.

            The only real question is: Why did Mulcair lie about the bribe for 15 years?

            I’m sure there are valid reasons for it, I’d just like to hear it from him. But that doesn’t seem to be in the cards. Why would he not explain himself? I can only conclude it’s to protect himself from incrimination.

          • What “evidence” there could be that someone was offered an envelope in an office 17 years ago, aside from the testimony of one or the other party?
            Unfortunately, you conclusion doesn’t “add up.”

            “The only real question is: Why did Mulcair lie about the bribe for 15 years?”

            You have a novel approach to the English language, NotRick. Defining Mulcair’s telling a reporter once in 2010 that he hadn’t been offered a bribe then telling police a few months later he had, as lying for 15 years is, what’s the word….oh yeah…lying.

            But it seems you let the bad-faith mask slip a bit there: “I’m sure there are valid reasons for it, I’d just like to hear it from him.”

          • Ya ok, you’re right. He hid the bribe for 15 years, and only lied about it for 1 year. Ya, no problems there.

        • Ladies and gentlemen, that sound you just heard is the sound of the other shoe dropping. The commentariat has now moved from a plausible story (Mulcair didn’t tattle) to an outright fiction (Mulcair actually took the envelope). Soon they will be saying that Mulcair spent the money from the envelope on beard grooming products.

          • He lied about it for 15 years. Why on earth should we expect that he’s telling the full and honest truth now? You assume everything Harper says is a lie, I will now be doing the same with this bearded crook.

          • Actually, I think Harper is pretty honest. He doesn’t provide answers that would be damaging to his political brand, but that’s not the same as lying. He pleads the 5th rather than lying about things he deems politically damaging. It’s almost refreshing.

            He’s driven by a visceral hatred of all things related to (Pierre) Trudeau, but he’s an honest hater. If not a forthcoming one.

      • Awesome. And probably true.

Sign in to comment.