Friday, April 16, 2010

The Most Important Thing You Don't Know About the Guergis/Jaffer Affair

We already know a lot, more than many of us want to know. Guergis and her antics, Jaffer and his run-in with the law, the shady characters he hangs with etc., etc.


We now also know of a private investigator, one Derrick (or "Derek") Snowdy, who claims to have the 'inside' dirt on the once Ottawa power couple.


Here's what you don't know but really need to learn. Who is private eye Snowdy working for and why did that client send him first to the Libs and then, when spurned, send him on to the party he apparently wanted to harm in the first place?


Snowdy has let it out that he went to the Conservatives on his client's instructions. No points at all for surmising that he first went to the Libs on that same client's instructions. Who has it so "in" for Jaffer/Guergis that he's prepared to go to these lengths for retribution.


There's no doubt about it - Snowdy is acting for someone with a very serious axe to grind. But before you can begin to evaluate this you need to know the nature of the axe and who is wielding it and why. Without those details, it's all Jello.


Snowdy's obviously a character. A guy with $12,000 in assets going bankrupt owing $13,000,000? That takes some doing. It doesn't mean he's not telling the truth but it sure as hell deserves caution.


Here's what you need to keep in mind about Mr. Snowdy. Having gone bankrupt last year just $13,000,000 shy of the $12,000 he had to his name there's something extremely unusual about Derek/Derrick Snowdy. You don't get a voluntary informant with that history every day.


But, with that recent misfortune, you can assume Mr. Snowdy isn't making the rounds in Ottawa on his own account. You can also assume Mr. Snowdy has been into this investigation for some time, long before the first whiff of it surfaced. Those contacted who professed to know Snowdy as a private investigator vouchsafe for his abilities. They say he's "top notch" and knows how to operate.


That leads to the conclusion that Mr. Snowdy has spent some considerable time on the payroll of someone interested in monitoring the activities of Mr. Jaffer or one or more of his business associates or all of them. Snowdy isn't telling or revealing all he knows and has or else he's lying right through his teeth.

The most important story may be who stands behind all this, who is picking up Mr. Snowdy's tab? That simple fact may explain more about what's going on here than any other.

UPDATE

Something else that comes to mind, questions for the prime minister. Just what information did he receive from Snowdy and under what circumstances? For example, was anything paid for what Snowdy provided? Was a promise of confidentiality extracted from Snowdy?

How can we be sure there wasn't an element of extortion in their dealings because it plainly is in the public interest to ensure that the Tories dealings with Snowdy were properly conducted. Whatever information Harper got from Snowdy was powerful enough for him to boot Guergis straight out of caucus. That sort of information might, in some circumstances, be very valuable either through its disclosure or its concealment.

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

Why do a character assassination on this guy? The PM said the information he received was "credible information". And that information led not only to the minister resigning but to her being kicked out of caucus. Don't be so quick to discredit this guy!

The Mound of Sound said...

The PM said? With Harper, that's supposed to mean something? If you want to believe Harper's empty assurance be my guest but don't expect others to do likewise.

I'm not slamming Snowdy, I just have legitimate concerns about him and what he's up to. I really want to know just what dealings Harper had with this guy.

sassy said...

Anon @ 7:44

From reading the post, I don't see that MoS is discrediting Snowdy, only that he is saying there may be reason to question, and to look further at who hired and, is instructing Snowdy, something that I myself wonder.

In the meantime this BRIGHT SHINNY THING is distracting from other issues, at least for the average Canadian voter, thanks in no small part to MSM.

LeDaro said...

I understand information came via Snowdy to Demitri Soudas a Harper staffer. This staffer then informed Harper. Sounds fishy to me.

Anonymous said...

Sounds fishy? Sure. But the character assassination is uncalled for. Let's all wait for the facts before we start with the innuendo against individuals!

LeDaro said...

Anon, you amaze me. It is ok for Harper government to character assassinate Helena Guergis and her husband Rahim Jaffer without giving any specific information. However, say nothing about Soudas because that immediately becomes character assassination. Typical Con logic.

The Mound of Sound said...

Anon, you've beaten this "character assassination" nonsense to death. That's not what I did, not at all. So give it a rest. Questioning what Snowdy did, why and for whom is entirely legitimate as is questioning what Harper did in turn.

There are a bunch of people lying here. Harper's office says he gave Guergis the full rundown on why he was booting her. She says that never happened. Harper says he laid it all out before the Ethics Commissioner. Not so, she says. Top that off with backroom discussions/negotiations with a private investigator acting for some undisclosed client and there's every reason for putting all of these players through a degree of scrutiny.

Anon, as a child were you fond of "Simon Says"?

Anonymous said...

Asking questions can still amount to character assassination. Senator McCarthy would smear people's reputations just by asking questions. Your posts definitely leave the impression of character assassination. You may like throwing around things like that against whistle blowers but I'd say give everyone a break until the dust settles on this. This blog has been worse than the MSM on this one. Shame on you. I hope if you ever come forward with serious information no one treats you the way you're treating this guy.

penlan said...

MoS,
You've made some excellent points here in looking beyond all the so-called "what Snowdy said" in asking why & who was behind him.

I find it strange that Snowdy supposedly went to the Libs first with this info & it makes me wonder if Harper/PMO wasn't behind this from the get-go, wanting the Libs to bite & then creating some crisis/drama about the Libs in relation to this. Sounds far-fetched, I know, but with Harper anything is possible. The man's a liar & obsessed with gaining a majority & wrecking the LPC (forever). Something here is not kosher on many fronts.

RuralSandi said...

Anon - you are being rather defensive about a man (Snowdy) that you don't even know - or do you?

When there are unanswered questions, people will question. Otherwise, you never find anything out.

Face it, everyone involved here needs to be questioned as there are too many blank areas.

Your over-defence is curious.

MoS is questioning - that's his right as at taxpayer, citizen, etc.

Anonymous said...

lol, now innuendo is being used against me. You guys are too much.

Ti-Guy said...

The most important story may be who stands behind all this, who is picking up Mr. Snowdy's tab?

Amen to that. The rubes can continue speculating on all the gossip, innuendo and unproved allegations, but I'm more interested in matters of fact as this (and any other story) unfolds.

Jymn Parrett said...

Isn't wonderful when trolls hide behind 'Anonymous'?

LeDaro said...

These Cons are amazing.
Ambassador to Afghanistan is not credible when he talks about torture of Afghan detainees but a shady character like Snowdy is credible according to these Cons.

The Mound of Sound said...

Their hypocrisy is pretty rank but it's ultimately essential in a very self-serving way.

Snowdy may be perfectly credible but that doesn't mean he's advancing somebody's agenda with these disclosures. For all we know Harper was fed a line and took the bait fearing a devastating scandal if he didn't.

The way Harper's accounts don't square with either Guergis' or his Ethics Commissioner is troubling. Somebody's lying and it's either two people or just one. We know this prime minister plays fast and loose with the truth when that suits him.

I want to know that no money changed hands between the PM and Snowdy and, if it did, was it CPC money or the taxpayers'?

Anonymous said...

Snowdy shows up in Ottawa in a Ferrari (borrowed)? That's just a bit too much, no? Publicity hound? 15 minutes? Whatever....

Take a look at the cesspool of associates and friends of Snowdy. Marc Kealey was mentioned as a long time friend, who actually gave Snowdy advice? Google Kealey and see the type of frauds Snowdy hangs with, then ask yourself - is Snowdy credible, or just out for a spash of publicity.

Anonymous said...

I believe every word Snowdy said and this Nazim Gillani guy bilking money off of innocent people and buying cocaine and busty hookers with it, is still in front of the OSC on fraud related charges! We need guy's like Snowdy to sniff out these types of people.