I've noticed Harper is now accusing Martin of knowing where the money went in the sponsorship scandal and of refusing to tell, even though Martin has been exonerated by Justice Gomery.What is that supposed to mean?
Did Gomery investigate whether Martin KNEW WHERE THE MONEY WENT?
How would he do that -- by hiring a mind reader?
What Gomery did find:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/groupaction/gomeryreport_highlights.htmlPaul Martin, finance minister at the time, is exonerated "from any blame for carelessness or misconduct."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/groupaction/martin_testimony.htmlHis testimony was about what he did and knew about the sponsorship funding while he was Finance Minister. How many years ago was that?
I admit to being no expert on Gomery; the whole thing bored me. Maybe you are. Maybe you can point me to some finding by Gomery that Paul Martin doesn't know anything about anything.
If not, why are you trying to make someone believe that Gomery made a finding about what Paul Martin knows?
For the love of mike, does somebody here actually NOT believe that the Liberal Party received benefits paid for out of the money corruptly paid to firms involved in the sponsorship funding? What on earth does such a person think the whole thing was about? Making a bunch of guys in Quebec rich out of the goodness of somebody's heart?
And if Paul Martin does NOT know anything about it, well, add that to how he didn't know anything about it when he was Finance Minister, and I'd say that I don't want anyone for PM who is either that stupid or that determined to see and hear no evil.
Lordy.
Harper just keeps repeating it and repeating it and who knows how many people believe him?Gosh ... where have we seen that kind of tactic being used recently ... oh yeah, it had something to do with Jack Layton having to justify saying something he'd never said ...
Just what one expects from nasty right-wing demagogues, though, isn't it?