The plot thickens further in the Guergis/Jaffer affair Part III

109 posts / 0 new
Last post
Tommy_Paine

 

 

I'm begining to get a picture of Jaffer as one of those liars who are so very good at it because they convince themselves what they are saying is true.  

 

After yesterday's meeting, where fellow Conservatives supposedly "through him under the bus", I have to wonder if at some point he might just decide that if he's going down, he'll decide to take as many Conservatives with him as he can in the process.  

IF Jaffer really has been abandoned by the Conservatives, I think they've made the mistake of giving the little fink nothing to lose.

On the other hand, maybe the Conservatives ARE protecting Jaffer, in that this whole business could nix the RCMP investigation against him.   

 

I don't think the Conservatives would protect him out of fealty, but out of self preservation.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Please don't compare the Cons to weasels - weasels are delightful little critturs, and they have feelings, too. Cool

Augustus

Tommy_Paine wrote:

After yesterday's meeting, where fellow Conservatives supposedly "through him under the bus", I have to wonder if at some point he might just decide that if he's going down, he'll decide to take as many Conservatives with him as he can in the process.  

It's "throw" not "through".  Smile

In any event, I don't think he is going to try and take anyone down with him.  This is not a Hollywood movie.

Frmrsldr

Augustus wrote:

... I don't think he is going to try and take anyone down with him.  This is not a Hollywood movie.

I dunno. He seems to have a larger than life, swashbuckling view of himself. Tell HIM this is not Hollywood.

ottawaobserver

Augustus, if you understood what he meant anyway, there's nothing to be gained by pointing out the obvious but trivial error.  I can see you're going to become the Conservative version of Debater.

The tragicomic thing for me about Jaffer's performance yesterday was that the guy had clearly never had any skills of his own before he got elected in 1997, got along based on being an Alberta conservative of colour, and once out on his own kept believing his own talking points and just did not realize his own limitations.  Honestly, he's not smart enough to have run such a company (and what about that former Department of Justice lawyer/former Conservative candidate Glémaud!  what a dum-dum).

They had their asses handed to them in that committee, and have lost any remaining credibility or benefit of the doubt.  Given that they lied through the whole thing, I doubt now that anything that came out is going to hamper any police investigation at all.

As to the cocaine, it's also possible that someone put it into Jaffer's pocket in order to compromise him.  But that would still speak to a certain lack of judgement about who one was associating with and for what.

Based on everything we know now, Guergis was the smarter of the two in that couple.  Which is not saying much.

-=+=-

Race card played.

According to the [url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/was-race-a-... and Mail[/url]:

Quote:

Rahim Jaffer's business partner is blaming the rough ride he received at the hands of MPs on prejudice. 

[...]

In a letter made public a day later, he said: 

"It was our understanding as per the invitation that we received from your office that the members’ questions would be regarding the scope of the study, and not a barrage of personal attacks based on unproven allegations and innuendo. After the grilling from the Committee, I was approached by several respectable citizens from various visible minority groups who expressed their feeling that racism seemed to be the underlying logic for such harsh treatment of two young new Canadians that have not been found guilty of any crimes."

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

I can see that.  This is SOP but Jaffer is taking the fall.

-=+=-

Tommy_Paine wrote:

 After yesterday's meeting, where fellow Conservatives supposedly "through him under the bus", I have to wonder if at some point he might just decide that if he's going down, he'll decide to take as many Conservatives with him as he can in the process.

IF Jaffer really has been abandoned by the Conservatives, I think they've made the mistake of giving the little fink nothing to lose.

Is Jaffer smart enough though to really do some damage in that way?

For example, I doubt he could write a tell-all book (for the fat publishing contract) that people would actually want to buy.

His wife on the other hand.  (Cue Lady Macbeth comparisons in 3...2...1).

Augustus

-=+=- wrote:

Race card played.

According to the [url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/was-race-a-... and Mail[/url]:

Quote:

Rahim Jaffer's business partner is blaming the rough ride he received at the hands of MPs on prejudice. 

[...]

In a letter made public a day later, he said: 

"It was our understanding as per the invitation that we received from your office that the members’ questions would be regarding the scope of the study, and not a barrage of personal attacks based on unproven allegations and innuendo. After the grilling from the Committee, I was approached by several respectable citizens from various visible minority groups who expressed their feeling that racism seemed to be the underlying logic for such harsh treatment of two young new Canadians that have not been found guilty of any crimes."

I find it interesting that they are calling themselves new Canadians.  They are racial minorities, yes, but they are not really new to Canada - they have both lived in Canada for many years - Rahim has been here since he was a child.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Hah, spin 101. 

-=+=-

Augustus wrote:

-=+=- wrote:

Race card played.

According to the [url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/was-race-a-... and Mail[/url]:

Quote:

Rahim Jaffer's business partner is blaming the rough ride he received at the hands of MPs on prejudice. 

[...]

In a letter made public a day later, he said: 

"It was our understanding as per the invitation that we received from your office that the members’ questions would be regarding the scope of the study, and not a barrage of personal attacks based on unproven allegations and innuendo. After the grilling from the Committee, I was approached by several respectable citizens from various visible minority groups who expressed their feeling that racism seemed to be the underlying logic for such harsh treatment of two young new Canadians that have not been found guilty of any crimes."

I find it interesting that they are calling themselves new Canadians.  They are racial minorities, yes, but they are not really new to Canada - they have both lived in Canada for many years - Rahim has been here since he was a child.

Yes, I think new Canadian is generally understood to be someone in their first years of citizenship.

This is just more spin:  "Hey, we're hard working immigrants!"

No you're not.  You're corrupt Tories -- a category that's actually older than the country itself.

 

 

 

Scott Piatkowski Scott Piatkowski's picture

I hear that Jaffer's latest business scheme is marketing a new line of sauces: Memories of Mulroney.

Caissa

Memories of maggie will be the UK line.

Caissa

The waste management firm at the centre of allegations against Rahim Jaffer says it never hired the former Conservative MP to lobby the federal government for access to a green infrastructure fund.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/04/23/jaffer-wright-tech-allegations.html#ixzz0lwRPqOsg

Sean in Ottawa

Hope someone makes the movie.

 

Augustus

-=+=- wrote:

Tommy_Paine wrote:

 After yesterday's meeting, where fellow Conservatives supposedly "through him under the bus", I have to wonder if at some point he might just decide that if he's going down, he'll decide to take as many Conservatives with him as he can in the process.

IF Jaffer really has been abandoned by the Conservatives, I think they've made the mistake of giving the little fink nothing to lose.

Is Jaffer smart enough though to really do some damage in that way?

For example, I doubt he could write a tell-all book (for the fat publishing contract) that people would actually want to buy.

His wife on the other hand.  (Cue Lady Macbeth comparisons in 3...2...1).

I don't think either of them know anything that can harm the Conservative party.  Guergis was never a major player in cabinet, and Jaffer was never in cabinet at all.

As one columnist says:

 

Jaffer – who never served in cabinet – is hardly in a position to have as many tales to tell about his former government as Chrétien’s former Quebec lieutenant. And Guergis, as opposed to Gagliano, was never really in the Conservative party loop.

 

 

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/799412--hebert-jaffer-grillin...

Tommy_Paine

It's "throw" not "through".

 

Yeah.  It's odd, but over the years I've started to type "where" instead of "were", for example.   I think these homonym mix ups depend on which one I've typed last, like my brain just grabs the freshest version of the sound?

 

Anyway.  

 

I note Prentice got up in the House of Ill Repute yesterday, and said his secretary had a meating width Jaffer last year. 

Makes me think that Jaffer has already cent intimations that he might be contemplating dewing just watt I thought he might, and the exposed Tories are defanging him by being first with the news.

 

 

 

 

Frmrsldr

Helena Guergis met with Tory supporters and spoke with them over recent events, in her riding I believe.

However, both she and those who attended are tight lipped about what she said.

This suggests to me that she is still loyal to the Conservative Party.

I have no idea why.

Harper & co. has shown her no loyalty. They could very well have destroyed her political career.

Why should she still have any loyalty to them?

Pogo Pogo's picture

From the sounds of things maintaining the family control on the local party is important.  I imagine that if she cannot rehabilitate her image, she will fall on her sword in a manner that protects the rest of her family as much as possible.

Augustus

Helena appears to have the support of the riding association for the moment:

 

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/04/24/toronto-guergis-new-lowell-r...

NorthReport

Let's get real here. She will never again be a Conservative candidate.

Augustus

NorthReport wrote:

Let's get real here. She will never again be a Conservative candidate.

Probably not, but it's Stephen Harper who will make the final decision.

NorthReport

I'm sure he already has, quite a while ago.

Augustus

I think he has too.  I think he decided the day he booted her from the Conservative caucus.

But an official announcement has not yet been made and Stephen Harper has not informed the riding association in Simcoe-Grey of his final decision.

Caissa

Conservatives in Helena Guergis's riding are accusing their own party brass of heavy-handed tactics in trying to parachute a star candidate in to replace the former cabinet minister.

The would-be candidate is well-known Conservative activist Kellie Leitch, an orthopedic surgeon at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto and director of the Health Sector MBA program at the University of Western Ontario's Richard Ivey School of Business.

In a lengthy letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, obtained by The Canadian Press, the Conservative electoral district association in Simcoe-Grey complains of repeated interference, obstruction and gag orders by Conservative headquarters.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2010/05/03/guergis-party-tactics.html?ref=rss&loomia_si=t0:a16:g4:r3:c0:b0#ixzz0mzNK2Z35

Caissa

MP Helena Guergis, a former junior cabinet minister, has been dropped as the Conservative nominee in her Ontario riding of Simcoe-Grey.

Guergis was informed of the decision Wednesday afternoon.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/05/06/guergis-out-of-party.html#ixzz0n9Y8ACwg

Caissa

Former federal cabinet minister Helena Guergis says she will appeal the Conservative Party's decision to drop her as a future nominee in her Ontario riding of Simcoe-Grey.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/05/06/guergis-out-of-party.html#ixzz0nAOOXQj9

Unionist

I'm surprised, Caissa, that you found her appealing.

 

Caissa

I find the story as it is unfolding to be "appealing."

Augustus

Why does Guergis seem surprised to find out that she is a liability to the party?  She was involved in unacceptable behaviour for months and never showed any remorse or took any responsibility.

It's been known for weeks that it was unlikely she would be allowed to run again, so she shouldn't be surprised.

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

Augustus wrote:
Why does Guergis seem surprised to find out that she is a liability to the party?

A sense of entitlement. It's a common ailment among government members.

Sean in Ottawa

And we are surpised that Guergis has poor judgement because...?

NDPP

Shory Allegations 'Personal'

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/05/06/shory-allegations-bmo-house-re...

"Baird then read a portion of text from Liberal MP Derek Lee's profile on the website of Sun and Partners which lists him as one of the firm's counsel. The site describes his 'valuable contributions' to its clients including acting for foreign and offshore organizations in obtaining operating licences, securing regulatory and governmental approvals for mergers and acquisitions, reviewing policies and conduct of Canada's spy service, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

The firm's website says Lee contributes by 'lobbying government on policy issues as well as facilitating inter-governmental relationships."

More MPs for rent and for sale! Paid for with your tax dollars

Polunatic2

I hope Guergis decides to run as an independent if her "appeal" to the Con Gods fails. That would probably cost them the seat in Simcoe-Grey. 

Augustus

Here is Helena's letter to the Conservative Party:

 

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/05/helena-guergiss-letter...

Unionist

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/05/10/helena-guergis-exclusive-mansb... Guergis breaks silence on scandal; exclusive interview with Peter Mansbridge[/url]

I watched it. I'm in tears. Poor woman. She's innocent. Of everything.

Mind you, Mr. Mansbridge never asked her how she managed to oversee women's affairs in a cabinet full of misogynistic anti-human monsters like Harper and herself (she's a "Christian", by the way, so she says).

But never mind that. Think of her hurt feelings when the Prime Minister cut her off from the trough, without an explanation, without a hug, without an obscene payoff - nada.

I'm shuddering. Viva Guergis! My hero.

 

Frmrsldr

She referred to Harper as a 'friend'. Harper doesn't have 'friends' - just 'associates'. If you become a liability, then you are dumped like yesterday's garbage.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I watched the interview as well, and I'm more curious now than ever of what the PM has on her.

Michelle

A Facebook friend of mine writes,

Quote:

Guergis claims she hasn't been allowed to see the evidence against her or know of the specific allegations.  She believes she has been treated "undemocratically" and deprived of "due process".  Too bad Mansbridge didn't ask Guergis how she voted on Bill C-3, the 2008 bill that extended Canada's practice of secret trials and indefinite detention.

No kidding!

Augustus

Guergis showed a lack of objectivity, and perhaps even honesty, in tonight's interview.

She refused to acknowledge that Rahim Jaffer has been lobbying - something that people of all political stripes have made pretty clear he was doing.  She also refused to acknowledge that he had conducted business out of her office, despite the fact that people in the Conservative party have said that he did.

She also doesn't seem to understand that when you act badly and are involved in multiple scandals as she has been, that a political party has the right to throw you out.

j.m.

http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/ID=1490552547

From 3:55 onwards she drowns on the 'naive' question, then reaches really deep and puts on show. My patner called it from the beginning: she was playing the innocent, sweet white girl (xian and all). I didn't know she would do it so piss poor.

Cueball Cueball's picture

I tried to watch it but I just couldn't handle her squeaking.

Vansterdam Kid

While I don't believe she's little miss innocent, I think this was an effective little dig by Guergis. Her Political Career, despite her protestations to the contrary, is dead. That said, giving this interview in the way she did, when she did, drags this story out. Had she wanted to defend her innocence, it would've been more believable to do it a while ago, but I suppose she was holding out hope of securing the Conservative nomination. That said it was effective in so far as it was a shot back against the PMO's bow, and they aren't really used of that due to the general fealty that their members, even the crazy ones, have shown the Dear Leader. There are a lot of questions as to the propriety of the Prime Minster, the Private Investigator, and the Government in general due to the way they handled this issue. And despite her kind of silly emotional appeals, there are some fair questions raised as to what exactly it is that prompted them to take so long to remove her from cabinet and then once they did, essentially make her a non-person.

KenS

Geurgis: "If people in your family make mistakes you don't turn your back on them," Guergis said, pausing to fight back tears. "You stick with them and you work through it and I am committed to my marriage."

If she thinks Steven Harper is like that, she probably is little miss innocent.

Sean in Ottawa

The difference between the Calgary MP and Guergis may in fact be that while he is being sued for wrongdoing from before he was an MP (although this will sill look bad on the government if he is found liable), she is being held to account for her behavior while an MP.

Guergis says she does not know what she has done but rather than come across as sympathetic, this comes across as pathetic. After all, she knowingly allowed her husband to use her office and resources to lobby the government illegally. Is this alone not worth tossing her out?

Who knows what else there is but the fact that she has trouble understanding how serious that is a news story in itself. This is of course in the context where her party claims it is the Liberals with a culture of entitlement.

Unionist

I think [url=http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/05/11/five-and-a-half-things-about-the-guer... Feschuk of Maclean's[/url] got it pretty well right.

 

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
And then this: According to Guergis, Jaffer has "no idea" how the cocaine ended up in his pocket on the night he was arrested. Permit me to help you with that one, Helena: He put it there. Did I just blow your mind?

Oh Snap!

 

Guergis got greedy and tried to lie about everything. She really needed to cop to at least something, or everything becomes unbelievable. But the coke denial is definitely my favourite part. Would she and her former party be willing to dismiss charges against any other Canadian who's caught with narcotics but shockingly just has no idea how they could have got there?

Unionist

I hate to crib from myself, but here's my initial take after reflecting on Feschuk, which I posted on B&R:

I thought one of her main goals in the interview was to throw Rahim under the bus - or rather, prepare to throw him.

Every single word she said about him breathed loving credulity - a loyal partner. "I love him. I believe him. I stand by my man." So when the allegations against him are later proved, she can say: "Omigod! The betrayal! and I believed him!"

Examples:

Cocaine in his pocket? Rahim has "no idea how it got there". She believes him.

Is Rahim lying to her? "I have no reason to believe my husband would lie to me, my husband would not want to hurt me or harm me in any way.” So when the truth is later revealed, she can be both virtuous and grievously wounded at the same time.

Did he use her office and resources to lobby for his business? (I wish I had direct quotes here.) "No - never - of course not - why would he? He had his own office!!! Mind you, I never really did figure out what kind of business he's in... something about green technologies..." Hydroponics, mebbe?

And on and on and on.

With a defender like Helena, who needs the Crown and the RCMP?

I knew it was only a matter of time. I just never could have predicted she would knife him publicly this way.

Frmrsldr

It was an odd relationship anyway. She is a self professed "Christian". And he is what, a recently converted Christian, an atheist, agnostic, non practicing, Muslim?

If he is/was anything other than a Protestant Christian, then Helena is/was rather progressive and accepting compared to her Conservative Party right wing socon fundamentalist Christian type colleagues.

Perhaps this is another reason why Harper 'dislikes' Rahim.

 

 

Unionist

I think Harper dislikes Rahim because:

1. He lost.

2. He got caught.

... two unforgiveable sins in the Con-gregation.

Pages

Topic locked