Conservative officials leave a secret briefing they organized at an Ottawa hotel on April 20, 2008.Conservatives held secret meetings with select reporters Sunday to reveal details about why Elections Canada officers raided their Ottawa headquarters -- and to give their side of the story before court documents are released this week.
Reporters and secret? HAHAHAH, gasp, HAHAHA, hicup, HAHAHA!!!
I'm shocked I tell you, shocked!!! The Conservatives finally talk to the press, and the press slams them for talking to them.
Conservatives insisted Sunday that other parties had acted in a similar way during federal elections and they followed all regulations in election spending.
The party has alleged the raid was a reaction to a civil lawsuit against Elections Canada, and that it was possibly timed to delay Conservative lawyers from questioning Elections Canada officials.
This isn't even a drive by smear, it's an all out biased report by our lovely CTV, and they were one of the select reporters invited to the meeting. So how secret is this secret meeting? As it appears CTV was invited, and all they can report about is the "secret" meeting, maybe they should not be invited next time. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. Who are their sponsors?
38 comments:
The National Press Gallery turns my stomach. The conservatives are portrayed as guilty no matter the circumstances. They are dangerously manipulating the media and obviously will stop at nothing to promote the Liberals. The MSM is not even attempting to pretend they have a hidden agenda. I was hoping there would be someone in the MSM that would be honest with the Canadian public about the set up. The smear job continues and National Press Gallery scares me.
Fay, I agree, they are entitled to their entitlements. The problem they have is that their power is being diluted by blogs.
Their jobs are at risk, that's why they are going full out against the Conservatives, the gravy train is screeching to a halt, and they don't like it.
Too funny ,eh! Create a buzz for the media to divert attention from other news.
So what will get more coverage tomorrow,
the court documents,
Ms Brenda,
the 3 Amigos
or SECRET MEETING HELD WITH PRESS, POOR CBC NOT INVITED!!!
Bets on the media reporting mostly on themselves, CPC is counting on it.
It's funny, but sad, the media reminds me of a cat hanging from a cliff by it's claws, you know that sooner or later, that cat is a goner.
Hunter:
Below is a definition of "secret":
1. done, made, or conducted without the knowledge of others: secret negotiations.
2. kept from the knowledge of any but the initiated or privileged: a secret password.
Kind of like, having a press conference, only inviting some of the media, and trying to keep the rest of the media from knowing anything about it (they even had to move hotels to keep the media away).
Or do you think the MSM has changed the English language because the original meaning of the word secret did not make the CPC look bad.
Yikes Gayle, how to stretch your point of view. Secret is not secret if the media is invited. It just appears that some reporters were not invited.
Too bad those that were invited are making it a "us against them" issue.
Oh Gayle, you are trying too hard. Dictionary definition of secret? Do you think we are idiots? Oh, wait, guess you do.
It was a private meeting , and there was no need to invite the CBC,
because they likely helped write up the warrant,
and knew exactly what was in it.
The penalty for this alleged 'crime of the century' is $1000 for MPs and $25,000 for the party. wow.
They should have banned the CTV reporters too. We all know how much Mayor Miller likes banning stuff. It appears some reporters have their noses out of joint. Poor babies, their feelings are hurt.
So I wonder what happens, should the CPC win it's court case and proves the officials at EC is bias...?
"Do you think we are idiots?"
yes.
What puzzles me is that apparently Canwest (Post, Global) wasn't invited. Very strange.
The Globe is saying the documents confirm the raid has nothing to do with the CPC suit.
Which is in fact, untrue.
They're about the "in and out scheme".
The heart of the suit.
Jo says
"What puzzles me is that apparently Canwest (Post, Global) wasn't invited. Very strange."
They did, but when the found out it was David Aiken they sent, the conservatives said no.
At least that was what liberal blogger kady o'maily wrote.
So the scandel this week is Conservatives talk to the press. ha,ha, I love it.
"Secret is not secret if the media is invited."
It is if the ones who are not invited are also not told, and steps are taken to keep it from them.
"The penalty for this alleged 'crime of the century' is $1000 for MPs and $25,000 for the party. wow."
Oh I LOVE this one. It is OK if the CPC broke the law (which means they will have been found to have been dishonest), so long as the penalty is not too severe.
What a joke.
thanks Gayle
my take:
"The penalty for this alleged 'crime of the century' is" .....
to be LAUGHED out of office
(cause we can't kick you out when we're laughing so hard)
please tell me, oh mighty blogger, where you plan to get your news when the media vanishes from the earth? are you and the other blogging tories going to hire planes, trains and automobiles to scour the planet reporting on world events?
grow up. seriously.
Well oh mighty anon, at least bloggers are up front with their motives, not like the press. I would have some respect for reporters if they came right out and stated they are Liberal shrills.
Reporters and secret? HAHAHAH, gasp, HAHAHA, hicup, HAHAHA!!!
Take your meds, you lunatic.
By the way...lying isn't family friendly.
What is wrong with discussing and debating the issues instead of calling other people lunatics. It would be nice to have debate without the insults.
Anonymous commentators rarely say write anything useful.
Elections Canad officials should be questioned by a parlaimentary committee. When they lose the lawsuit , they should be individually sued for bias. This raid is simply a ploy to delay questioning of the grit friends at elections Canada.
The funniest thing is that they are saying
"this could have changed the outcome of the election"
WHAT??? Yeah I guess the Libs could have made more Guns in our Cities ads; or Scary Harper Videos; or sent out more "Hidden Agenda" pamplets.....it worked so well.
I guess we know what the "scandal of the week" is for this week.
Anon 6:54 Who's lying?? Give me an example.
Funny how all the lefties, except Gayle, seem to be anons.
Does the Conservative Party of Canada use the 'Robert Mugabe Manual of Political Practice'? Sure sounds like it.
The amount of the fines for the alleged offence, doesn't lessen the offence,
it puts into perpective how heavyhanded and over trumped this 'crime of the century' is.
Enjoy the spectacle Libs, I hope this tips Dion into 'election mode'.
And when more charges are laid re: Adscam,
during the election campaign,
I will enjoy the spectacle too.
"The amount of the fines for the alleged offence, doesn't lessen the offence,
it puts into perpective how heavyhanded and over trumped this 'crime of the century' is."
Who is claiming this is the crime of the century. YOU are the only one suggesting that.
The fact parliament chose not to impose a greater penalty for these offences does not lessen their severity.
For example, cruelty to animals has long been categorized as one of the least serious crimes in the criminal code. Do you think that makes someone convicted for that offence better than someone convicted of a large fraud, because the fraud conviction comes with a higher potential sentence?
I see Gayle is convicting the Conservatives of fraud before the case even reaches court. What ever happened to innocent until...? Who is the Liberal mole at Elections Canada?
hunter - I take exception to that. Not once in that post did I suggest the CPC are guilty of anything, and if you ever bothered to read my posts elsewhere, I have consistently urged people on both liblogs and BT blogs they should be giving the CPC the benefit of the doubt and wait until, and if, charges are laid and proven in a court of law.
In fact, I opposed the unsealing of the search warrant because I believed the contents would result in an unfair perception the CPC were guilty of something when they have not yet been charged.
I expect you to retract your statement.
Wow Hunter:
Below is a definition of "secret"
======================
Wow Gayle, is that ever insightful! Kind of media "secret" as the questions that Pablo Rodriguez's media masters at CBC told him to ask during the last Great Liberal Inquisition, eh?
Too bad the Liberals still won't have the spine to make an election happen because of it.
'...unfair perception the CPC were guilty of something when they have not yet been charged...'
Guilty by assumption Gayle, if you weren't implying that the CPC WILL eventually be charged, you would have said
guilty of something when they may not be charged.
But I do think you have been fair, annoying, but fair.
Your posts do take on the assumption of guilt, the way they are written.
Tho I can validate that at Liblogs you were critical of unsealing the warrant.
But keeping it sealed may have worked against the Cons anyways. Iggy and Ralphie could have continued their 'why won't you tell us'...
That is a pretty selective reading of my post wilson, particularly when, in the very same post prior to the excerpt you quote, I say this:
"I have consistently urged people on both liblogs and BT blogs they should be giving the CPC the benefit of the doubt and wait until, and if, charges are laid and proven in a court of law."
I am not implying anything. This statement is absolutely clear, and the statement you quote should be read in light of the fact it followed this one.
Gayle says: "Do you think that makes someone convicted for that offence better than someone convicted of a large fraud, because the fraud conviction comes with a higher potential sentence?"
Also this little gem:
"Oh I LOVE this one. It is OK if the CPC broke the law (which means they will have been found to have been dishonest), so long as the penalty is not too severe."
Someone convicted of a large fraud? Seems to be you accusing someone of a large fraud now doesn't it?
It's OK if the CPC broke the law?
Seeing as this post is about the CPC, not difficult to connect the dots now is it? Or are you going to sue me for having an opinion of what you meant by that statement?
"I except you to retract that statement"
Bite me!!!!!
Don't like my take on your comments, don't post here!
Reading what you wrote today Gayle I would say that you are opperating from a presumption of guilt. Knowing what you have written in the past I know that is not what you believe.
My only concern is that any law be applied evenly. If the Cons did it then guilty. If the Libs did it then guilty. If the NDs or Bloc did it then guilty. Since it appears that they all did it maybe its time to reword the law so as to make it possible to obey it or else go after each party with complete impartiality.
Sorry Hunter, I had no idea you had so much difficulty with reading comprehension.
You are as selective with your cut and pastes as wilson. Perhaps that is why you did not refer to wilson's post to which I was responding.
My comments speak for themselves. Your vain attempt to twist them into something they are not also speaks for itself.
By the way, the CPC are not being investigated for criminal fraud, so I am at a loss as to why you think I was referring to their case rather than giving an example (fraud being subject to a higher penalty in the criminal code than animal cruelty).
''Bite me!!!!!
Don't like my take on your comments, don't post here!''
And that's why I like your blog
Hunter.
Still smiling.........
Dave Rutherford had Peter Van Loan on this morning. A good interview. He clarified a few things. Go have a listen at http://www.am770chqr.com/StationShared/Audiovault.aspx
Go to Monday April 21 then to 10:00 AM. You'll be glad to did. You will see that the central media and the opposition have this thing way over blown. That's what I came away from after listening to Van Loan.
Thanks Wilson, slithery creatures with no spine don't interest me at all.
Frmgrl, excellent link! Thank you so much... now to make a YouTube tape out of a radio broadcast, could be challenging. Glad I'm taking a snow day!
Hunter,
You are incredibly naive if "secret" is where you choose to make your argument. While secret may not be the word i can think of a dozen or so other words to portray Sunday's meeting. The point is not that they held meetings with the press the fact is they look guiltier than hell doing it.
Fortunately they are guilty as hell.
Time for an election i'm tired of lies, control and the attitude that everyone's against the conservatives. Welcome to being the ruling governemnt. Stop crying and quite fueling the fire with scandal after scandal.
Post a Comment