Mike Duffy and Craig Oliver were falling over each other to come up with reasons to shut down the Commons ethics committee right here, right now.
As far as these two jokers are concerned, it's over. Oliver even came up with the excuse that, if there was anything murky going on, why didn't Schreiber wear a wire?
And, of course, Oliver said the government should boot Schreiber out ASAP because, after all, the Germans are freaking out. Say what?
Best of all, they say there's no way to get to the bottom of the discrepancies between the sworn accounts of Schreiber and Mulroney. Impossible, can't be done. Time to clear Mulroney and move on. No need for a public enquiry now.
And that, my friends, is journalism at its lamest. If these two pillars of parliamentary journalism don't know how to sort out evidentiary discrepancies, it's because they've conveniently forgotten. They're curiously doing their utmost to kill this thing now, just when the evidence is finally going somewhere.
I agree completely... I was faintly nauseated by Duffy's coverage. His main sidekick on this story is a guy who was Mulroney's speech writer for 4 and a half years, which is a pretty good indicator of their level of objectivity.
On the other hand, the media cannot be accused of being unfair to Mulroney. CTV is falling over themselves to give Mulroney more than every opportunity to appear innocent, and he's still failing.
Macdonald is doing yoeman service for Mulroney these days. He did a bit in the National Disgrace calling Schreiber a sociopath who has ruined the lives of Helmut Kohl, Jean Charest and Mulroney. He didn't explain how those three veteran conservatives managed to get down to Schreiber's depth. Duffy isn't even trying to pretend to be objective.
it may be something else
The truth may be out there and nothing is wrong!
No, it couldn't be that.
I like the CBC's less partisan approach. According to Jean Lapierre the CBC gave the Liberal members their talking points last night. Mike Duffy almost had a coronary about a possible libel suit. Mr. Lapierre did not back off...interesting
I like when the Liberal point of view is based solely on ad hominen attacks. It is exposed for it's weakness.
Yes,anon, it could be that "the truth may be out there and nothing is wrong" unless, of course, you let the facts get in the way. Mike Duffy and "coronary" - no, he had a bypass but that's hilarious anyway.
I like the CBC's less partisan approach. -- Wow! That has got to be the most biased comment I have heard in a long time - I too am not impressed with the commentary at CTV (Mike Duffy) but CBC and Don Newman is beyond doubt the worst excuse for journalism I have ever witnessed - Don Newman can not let a single positive comment go by without some snide comment or a obvious attempt to diminish any point that may put Mulroney's side in a positive light. CBC (via the Fifth Estate) is the primary driver behind this entire story and they MUST ensure that Mulroney gets the blame because if he doesn't they are on the hook for the mother of all law suits. Their primary commentator (host of Fifth Estate) stands to loose his career and reputation if people realise there isn't the proof to all the allegations he has been making. CTV or CBC or others are doing a typical low grade, sub-standard job of reporting - typical for Canadian journalism where personal, political views substitute for reporting facts.
Ron, I agree with some of your observations. I've never been particularly impressed with Don Newman. As for the Fifth Estate, this whole dirty mess would probably have been swept under the carpet without their work. Don't forget, if they defame Mulroney in any way he has a remedy before the courts, one that he's not been reluctant to invoke.
Today Mr. Mulroney claimed that he only took cash from Karlheinz Schreiber because that’s how Schreiber wanted to pay him--and that this was a huge mistake. But Mulroney then went on to admit the following:
1) He didn’t deposited the money into any bank account but rather kept the money in cash
2) He didn’t declare the money on his taxes until years later after Schreiber was arrested
3) He didn’t bring the money he received in New York back to Canada thus avoiding declaring it at the border
4) He never sent Schreiber a receipt for the cash or any invoice for services rendered
5) When he finally did pay his taxes, Mulroney didn’t declare a single expense associated with the work he allegedly did for Schreiber (despite that meaning that he would have had to pay tens of thousands of dollars more in taxes)
The decision to deal in cash appears to have been at Mr. Schreiber’s urging, but all of these subsequent actions were taken by Mr. Mulroney of his own accord and all of them had the effect of concealing the money that he received from Schreiber.
Mulroney needs to explain why his own actions--after taking the money from Schreiber--maintained the complete lack of transparency that characterized his decision to accept cash from Schreiber in first place.
Post a Comment