Thomas Mulcair

2763 posts / 0 new
Last post
socialdemocrati...

Yawn. Another day, another pissing contest between the Mulcair haters and the Mulcair lovers.

Saw this headline in the Toronto Sun:

ndp leader thomas mulcair aided quebec corruption probe

And that should be it. But whether that makes Mulcair the greatest man ever or the worst NDP leader in history? That's a debate that could only happen on this forum.

Unionist

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Yawn. Another day, another pissing contest between the Mulcair haters and the Mulcair lovers.

Interesting pseudo-cynical fashion of brushing off an important question: Should political representatives remain silent when they witness corruption?

And interesting, too, how political ultra-partisans, somewhat like hockey fans, can only understand the world as being divided into two camps.

 

Brachina

No offense Baccus, but these types of people are dangerous. I dealt with people like this before, I worked briefly a construction company that wascas dirty as any in Quebec, and had my life threaten and that of my father, so yeah its not fucking funny.

These types of people don't give out friendly warnings that they plan on killing you, they just do it if you go to the police.

Unionist

Bacchus - kropotkin - please - please - show some concern for the safety of Tom and his family - and let's move on to another subject. You never know who's reading these threads.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Its a good thing that Tom's job comes with its own guaranteed police protection and that can be around the clock if it is felt that the Leader of Her Majesty's Official Opposition is in danger.

In the meantime since people have started singing how many dead bodies have shown up?  The thing about criminal enterprises is that they can't operate in the light of day. One person telling can be dealt with but when the whole story starts to come out then the crooks just can't whack enough people.

socialdemocrati...

There's plenty of room for nuance. But I find it hilarious that Tom Mulcair could so much as take a shit, and babble would have a debate about whether it's a gift from the gods, or a neoliberal weapon of mass destruction.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

And on the subject of two camps, yep there are. There's the NDP, and everyone else. Its the good guys, versus the bad guys. Sorry, some things are very easy to see as black and white. and it doesn't trouble me one bit.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

You know, you have to wonder, I guess the NDP can't even have a scandal right. When you get a bribe you are supposed to take it. Silly NDP!

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Arthur he was a Liberal MNA when he was offered the bribe.  The original story has nothing to do with the NDP. 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Arthur he was a Liberal MNA when he was offered the bribe.  The original story has nothing to do with the NDP. 

I know that, but the spin already is that he is a corrupt NDP leader. If you don't believe me, go look at the CBC's post on this. That is how it is being spun. Worse yet, he is being knocked even though he NEVER took the bribe. It amazes me that a guy can do the right thing and still do the wrong thing. You pointed out the issue with partisanship; this is partisanship gone mad.

Brachina

You miss ACs point, he's NDP leader now and the Tories and Unionist are trying to make something out of nothing.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Unionist wrote:

As for Mulcair, I wouldn't believe for one instant any charges of corruption. The fact that he didn't go public, or to the cops, with the initial incident is merely a sign of the corrupt state of our political system as a whole.

Unionist please stop casting aspersions against Mulcair it makes you sound like a Conservative hack.

Wink

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Unionist:

I withdraw my remark and apologize; I read your comments wrong. I guess I just got too emotional. This is another reason I try not to post right now.

NorthReport

What was his position when it occured, and why did he not report it.

Was there not enough money in the brown envelope to make it worthwhile. Kidding of course but rest assured his enemies will infer that.

Brian Glennie

There's nothing here thats going to drag Mulcair down. Anything the Liberals feel could be really damaging to him will come out the weekend before the election in 2015.

janfromthebruce

Yes the party of the sponsorship scandal - Adscam - will put on the holier than thou halo - all freshly scrubbed and do that. I note that on MSM message boards they are all going after Duffy and silent on the Liberal senator Mac Hab, new independent senator who also had his expense account audited - owes 100 grand. Another Lib entitled to his entitlements but they are hoping nobody notices that the Senate is the House of pork for both those corporate parties.

Brachina

Brian Glennie wrote:

There's nothing here thats going to drag Mulcair down. Anything the Liberals feel could be really damaging to him will come out the weekend before the election in 2015.

Agreed, they got nothing.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Does anyone know what the hell the Libs and Tories are talking about? They are saying Mulcair lied about taking a bribe and said he had never been offered a bribe. I thought the opposite was true, that Mulcair said he hadn't taken the bribe. Where the hell are they getting this from?

knownothing knownothing's picture

I loved this comment on the CBC website:

17 years ago he could have gone to the police and said the following:

"I think someone was trying to get me to pass along a bribe"

"what makes you think that sir"

"they handed me an envelope"

"ok... so you didnt see the money? didn't count it?"

"nope, I came straight here"

and then the cops that were there that are friends of the family would happily jot down his record of events and pass it along to the man who would order Mr. Mulcair be part of a new Boulevard or sidewalk.

Aristotleded24

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:
There's plenty of room for nuance. But I find it hilarious that Tom Mulcair could so much as take a shit, and babble would have a debate about whether it's a gift from the gods, or a neoliberal weapon of mass destruction.

As someone who doesn't like Mulcair, all I can say to the above is:

LOL!

Brachina

Mulcair took no bribe, but he did say he'd never bribed in the first place, but that wasn't long before he went to the police, so he may not have wanted to tip off the the bad guys before he did.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Brachina:

You wrote:

"Mulcair took no bribem, but he did say he'd nver bribed in the first place, but that wasn't long beore he went to the police, so he may not have wated to tip off the bad guys before he did"

So, then if I have it stratight, the Libs are saying that Mulcair wasn't up front about saying he was bribed when he was asked, and then went to tell whomever he had to he in fact had been? And that is what they think makes them believe they have nailed Mulcair as totatlly unreliable ever? Aside fromt the fact that no one has asked the next question, why he did what he did, are there any lawyers here or police officers on this board who can detail what his ethical obligation would have been?

I simply don't see why they think this is the smoking gun. Anyone want to take a run at this?

nicky

As a lawyer I can tell you  Arthur that even if you know that someone has committed a crime you are under no obligation to report it with one exception - treason. That is called at common law misprision of treason and is covered by s 50(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

While you were in the navy what would your obligation have been if someone had approached you with an envelope full of money that you knew was meant as consideration for unnamed favours in the future. Would you have felt that it was your duty to report it to your superior officer or some other naval authority?

As a lawyer he should have know it was his obligation to report corruption.  He of course should not have gone public with the information because it was not definitive proof and he would have faced another defamation suit similar to the one the PQ MNA filed against him.

The Code of Professional Conduct for British Columbia Lawyers gives an idea of the standard although this bribe was presented to him as a politician not a lawyer it would seem he should have reported it.

Quote:

2.1-5  To oneself

(a)     A lawyer should assist in maintaining the honour and integrity of the legal profession, should expose before the proper tribunals without fear or favour, unprofessional or dishonest conduct by any other lawyer and should accept without hesitation a retainer against any lawyer who is alleged to have wronged the client.

7.4  The lawyer in public office Standard of conduct

7.4-1  A lawyer who holds public office must, in the discharge of official duties, adhere to standards of conduct as high as those required of a lawyer engaged in the practice of law.

http://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/page.cfm?cid=2578&t=BC-Code-Table-of-Contents

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Nicky is right that there is no law demanding that lawyers or anyone else act ethically in their career.  At most in BC he could be disbarred but not charged with a crime.

Unionist

Arthur - Mulcair never took a bribe. He describes how he recoiled, physically, when he realized that Mayor Vaillancourt was offering him "help" via an envelope full of cash in 1994, soon after Mulcair was first elected to the National Assembly.

The question that arise are this:

Offering bribes is a crime. Why did Mulcair say nothing about this for the next 17 years?

In 2010, ex-Bloc MP and PQ Minister of Public Security Serge Menard went public and said that Mayor Vaillancourt had once offered him $10,000. Other politicians reported similar experiences with the Mayor. Why did Mulcair not go public with what had happened?

In 2011, Mulcair related his experience to the police. Did they call him, or did he call them? And why didn't he go public then? There was nothing before the courts - Vaillancourt was only charged for the first time last week - and didn't the public have the right to know of the attempt to corrupt him?

In 2013 - yesterday, in fact - La Presse leaked this whole story. Mulcair's office said, "La Presse's deductions are correct".

So of course, the NDP's enemies are saying: Why did Mulcair keep quiet about this attempted bribery for so many years?

And don't you think, Arthur, that the answers should come from Mulcair? Not from Brachina or anyone else on babble? Don't you think these questions deserve an answer? And once Mulcair answers, honestly and with sincerity, the whole issue will go away?

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

K, that never happened to me. If it had, I would have reported it. So? The real problem with the continued discussion of this is that is simply playing into an obvious attempt be Libs to smear Mulcair. They could care less about ethics. To a man/woman, as a party, the Libs NEVER apologized for Adscam, which was much worse. I don't think the Libs are in any position to offer anything on this. THAT is the issue. He TURNED DOWN the bribe. What is so hard to understand about that?

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Nope, to answer the last part of your question, I don't expect this "to go away". The LPC and their enablbers will see to that.

janfromthebruce

Meanwhile, Conservatives and Liberals attack Muclair for refusing a bribe from a corrupt Liberal politician, when Con Sentator Duffy is caught red handed taking taxpayer's money and claiming illegimate expenses, ditto for the Lib senator too. When the chief of staff of Harper cuts a check to Duffy.

Reminds me of the focus on Dix and his 15 year old crime of writing a late memo, and he forgot to get a ticket for the skytrain. Yeah, this is serious stuff and Mulcair is the big problem.

Don't you think we have the MSM and Libs and Cons to pile on this molehill without the supposed progressive babble persons (always the same ones) going after the NDP leader, and generally the NDP. Interesting that.

 

Unionist

janfromthebruce wrote:

Don't you think we have the MSM and Libs and Cons to pile on this molehill without the supposed progressive babble persons (always the same ones) going after the NDP leader, and generally the NDP. Interesting that.

 

Yeah, jan, I'm paid to make Mulcair look bad - paid a lot. I've reported it to the cops, though.

Anyway, I haven't yet heard one single one of you suggest why Mulcair won't answer these questions. I expect that when he does, though, he'll be doing a whole lot better job than you are. I didn't vote and campaign for him in three consecutive elections because I thought he couldn't think and talk his way out of a paper bag. You would do well to study and emulate his style, in my humble opinion.

 

janfromthebruce

And just so everyone knows, this is not a national story nor in the press like with the Senate scandal.

Brian Glennie

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Nope, to answer the last part of your question, I don't expect this "to go away". The LPC and their enablbers will see to that.

 

Then this will backfire on them, Arthur. I see it as alot of people getting the message that Tom can't be bought.

Unionist

janfromthebruce wrote:

And just so everyone knows, this is not a national story nor in the press like with the Senate scandal.

Oh right, I forgot, it's just me reporting it, right?

[url=http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/05/16/tom-mulcair-spoke-to-police-to-help-w... Mulcair spoke to police ‘to help’ with Quebec corruption probe[/url]

[url=http://o.canada.com/2013/05/16/tories-target-tom-mulcair-for-not-reveali... target Tom Mulcair for not revealing meeting with former Laval mayor Gilles Vaillancourt[/url]

[url=http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/05/16/thomas-mulcair-was-offered-and-r... Mulcair was offered (and refused) envelope full of cash, NDP leader told police[/url]

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Brian Glennie wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Nope, to answer the last part of your question, I don't expect this "to go away". The LPC and their enablbers will see to that.

 

Then this will backfire on them, Arthur. I see it as alot of people getting the message that Tom can't be bought.

And? It doesn't matter what Tom says, the fix is in. This is just more MSM, Trudeau shilling, nonsense.

Unionist

Forget the Liberals. The Conservatives will go to town with this. Here's the latest [my translation]:

[url=http://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/politique-canadienne/201305/16/01-4651... said in 2010 that he had not been approached by Vaillancourt[/url]

Quote:
Thomas Mulcair at first denied publicly having been the victim of attempted corruption on the part of ex-Laval Mayor Gilles Vaillancourt, before confiding what he knew to the police.

In a press conference on November 16, 2010 in Ottawa, a reporter asked Mr. Mulcair, then deputy leader of the NDP, whether he had personally been offered envelopes of cash by Mr. Vaillancourt, or whether he had seen envelopes of money around the mayor.

The Outremont MP's reply was categorical: "No."

Yet as of yesterday, Mulcair's office admitted that even though he didn't see the contents of the envelope, he "knew" it was money.

Peter Van Loan is already going nuts with this one. Mulcair will have to explain.

 

Brian Glennie

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Brian Glennie wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Nope, to answer the last part of your question, I don't expect this "to go away". The LPC and their enablbers will see to that.

 

Then this will backfire on them, Arthur. I see it as alot of people getting the message that Tom can't be bought.

And? It doesn't matter what Tom says, the fix is in. This is just more MSM, Trudeau shilling, nonsense.

 

You're right, but remember part of the narrative this smear job is trying to present is that Quebec elected officials are corrupt and self-serving and Trudeau has his own little problem here with the hefty fees he collected for speaking engagements while he was supposed to be in Parliament. 

I backed another candidate in the leadership race but my confidence in Tom increases all the time.

 

 

 

Unionist

In the rest of that La Presse article, the appearances get worse:

Quote:
At the time (2010), Radio-Canada had revealed that Mayor Vaillancourt had tried to offer an envelope containing $10,000 to ex-PQ Minister Serge Ménard, later a Bloc MP. Even though Mr. Ménard had refused the money, the conservatives wanted his head, because he had kept quiet about this episode for 17 years.

In 2010, Mr. Mulcair wasn't asking for Mr. Ménard to resign, but he did say this: "One thing worries me about all that: it's that this person (Mr. Ménard), who became Minister of Justice and Minister of Public Security, believed that he couldn't do anything with that", Mr. Mulcair explained.

He went on to say that an event had once been related to him in the past and that he had then encouraged the person to go to the police.

"In my career, the only time someone came to me describing a problem that had happened to them, which constituted an infraction, I invited that person to go see the police", he said.

"And when (that person) said they weren't sure they could do that, I told them that I'd go see the police myself. And that's what I did. And that incident had nothing to do with the mayor of Laval - it was a matter involving a person working in the job I occupied at the time."

Lots of ammunition there for the creeps to run with.

Mulcair absolutely needs to explain - doesn't he?

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

The Leader of the NDP is the ONLY leader of a Canadian Political Party who could, after not taking a bribe, still be accussed of being a crook by his opponents. Unbelievable.

Brachina

Unionist wrote:

In the rest of that La Presse article, the appearances get worse:

Quote:
At the time (2010), Radio-Canada had revealed that Mayor Vaillancourt had tried to offer an envelope containing $10,000 to ex-PQ Minister Serge Ménard, later a Bloc MP. Even though Mr. Ménard had refused the money, the conservatives wanted his head, because he had kept quiet about this episode for 17 years.

In 2010, Mr. Mulcair wasn't asking for Mr. Ménard to resign, but he did say this: "One thing worries me about all that: it's that this person (Mr. Ménard), who became Minister of Justice and Minister of Public Security, believed that he couldn't do anything with that", Mr. Mulcair explained.

He went on to say that an event had once been related to him in the past and that he had then encouraged the person to go to the police.

"In my career, the only time someone came to me describing a problem that had happened to them, which constituted an infraction, I invited that person to go see the police", he said.

"And when (that person) said they weren't sure they could do that, I told them that I'd go see the police myself. And that's what I did. And that incident had nothing to do with the mayor of Laval - it was a matter involving a person working in the job I occupied at the time."

Lots of ammunition there for the creeps to run with.

Mulcair absolutely needs to explain - doesn't he?

 

This whole thing is weird, Mulcair had to know this would come out and in fact I think he might be the one who released the info, after all the police wouldn't violate his privacy.

I'll admit I'm curious, I still say he didn't do anything wrong, just odd.

Mulcair has some some up his sleeve here, but I don't know what it is.

Brachina

Unionist wrote:

In the rest of that La Presse article, the appearances get worse:

Quote:
At the time (2010), Radio-Canada had revealed that Mayor Vaillancourt had tried to offer an envelope containing $10,000 to ex-PQ Minister Serge Ménard, later a Bloc MP. Even though Mr. Ménard had refused the money, the conservatives wanted his head, because he had kept quiet about this episode for 17 years.

In 2010, Mr. Mulcair wasn't asking for Mr. Ménard to resign, but he did say this: "One thing worries me about all that: it's that this person (Mr. Ménard), who became Minister of Justice and Minister of Public Security, believed that he couldn't do anything with that", Mr. Mulcair explained.

He went on to say that an event had once been related to him in the past and that he had then encouraged the person to go to the police.

"In my career, the only time someone came to me describing a problem that had happened to them, which constituted an infraction, I invited that person to go see the police", he said.

"And when (that person) said they weren't sure they could do that, I told them that I'd go see the police myself. And that's what I did. And that incident had nothing to do with the mayor of Laval - it was a matter involving a person working in the job I occupied at the time."

Lots of ammunition there for the creeps to run with.

Mulcair absolutely needs to explain - doesn't he?

 

This whole thing is weird, Mulcair had to know this would come out and in fact I think he might be the one who released the info, after all the police wouldn't violate his privacy. I'll admit I'm curious, I still say he didn't do anything wrong, just odd. Mulcair has some some up his sleeve here, but I don't know what it is.

 

 I do have one theory, and its only a theory now, but he baiting the Libs and Tories into going after him, because he knows that his only sin is timileliness, minor, but if probe happens some Liberals Ministers from that time could get nailed 

Think about it, didn't they have to silence that witness because she started talking about federal contracts. Well what parties were in government during that time period federally? Liberals were in office during the mid to late  90s, and then the Tories later on.

 If they start going ofter Mulcair it could end up exposing some real criminals.

wage zombie

Yes, Mulcair needs to explain.  Dodging it is not the way to go here.

Additionally, I can understand that NDP partisans are frustrated because the moneyed interests have a huge advantage in their ability to make the NDP look bad (in contrast to the kid glove treatment that both Harper and Trudeau have gotten).

The thing is those advantages, such as the ownership of the media, are unfortunately what we're going up against.  It's not fair but we can't wish it away.  If Mulcair wants to win in 2015 he needs to be able to explain and negate this.

janfromthebruce

so I go to the National newswatch which is good old MSM press aggregate, and the only headline I get about Mulcair is way below all the con pork. Earlier today there was only this one:

Mulcair’s Toronto agenda

way down below and added later is this one:

Mulcair mired in mud (and it's about oilsands)

The rest is about Duffy, and now Wallin, Ford

But I get the haters

 

 

janfromthebruce

It appears in this article that Mulcair was not an elected official when this happen. Le silence des candidats à Laval

As the Canadian Press noted yesterday and the Globe’s Daniel LeBlanc notes in his story, whether Mr. Mulcair saw what was in the envelope that the mayor of Laval alleged brandished during the 1994 meeting—apparently before Mr. Mulcair was elected, for whatever that is worth—is a matter of some debate. But the Conservatives seem to be trying to chide Mr. Mulcair now in a similar fashion to the way Mr. Mulcair chided Mr. Menard in 2010.

And deflect from their major public relations disaster of ripping off the taxpayer.

Unionist

janfromthebruce wrote:

It appears in this article that Mulcair was not an elected official when this happen. Le silence des candidats à Laval

Ah, well we don't know, because Mulcair hasn't said when the meeting took place. But I guess an attempt to hand an envelope full of cash to the leading candidate is not worth revealing to the cops or the media? Even later, when Mulcair is a cabinet minister, and the cabinet is appointing the briber to high positions? Here's what your article says (my translation):

Quote:
Ironically, Mulcair [2010] had categorically denied that Vaillancourt had offered him money when [Serge] Ménard went public [with Vaillancourt's attempt to bribe Ménard]. "I am a bit worried when I head someone who became Minister of Justice and Solicitor General say that even he didn't think he could do anything with that [...]. It worries me at the level of our institutions," he said.

Two years later [1996], Mulcair still didn't unseal his lips when he was in Cabinet. The liberals had named Gilles Vaillancourt to the board of directors of Hydro-Québec, the biggest contractor in Québec.

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

There is onething  that matters here. Mr. Mulcair was offered a bribe and turned it down. This is the  first time in my life where I ever heard of a guy who tunred down a bribe still called a crook. This is absurd. Absurd, completely, totally, absurd. Not only that, its evil too.

Unionist

Arthur, who the hell said Mulcair was a crook?

When he was a cabinet minister, why didn't he say: "Hey, we shouldn't appoint that mayor to the board of Hydro, because he's a crook"?

In 2010, why did he tell the media: "Vaillancourt never offered me money"?

He needs to answer these questions. Just turning down a bribe is good, but it doesn't make you prime ministerial material if you turn a blind eye to crime.

BoredToTheCore

Perhaps because it is still being investigated, he is limited on what he can comment? 

 

He must have known that political and media adversaries would attempt to discredit him, so one would think he'd have a better strategy to manage the innuendo/smears that would arise either way. Its weird.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Unionist wrote:
Arthur, who the hell said Mulcair was a crook? When he was a cabinet minister, why didn't he say: "Hey, we shouldn't appoint that mayor to the board of Hydro, because he's a crook"? In 2010, why did he tell the media: "Vaillancourt never offered me money"? He needs to answer these questions. Just turning down a bribe is good, but it doesn't make you prime ministerial material if you turn a blind eye to crime.

Unionist, go read the threads at the Huffington Post and the CBC.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Unionist:

"Just turning down a bribe is good, but it doesn't make you prime ministerial material if you turn a blind eye to crime." Oh, I don't know, it seems to work for the Libs most of the time. Why doesn't someone ask Justin about As Scam? Lets get it all out on the table.

Brachina

Unionist do you have some weird idea that Mulcair tells us this stuff?

Email Mulcair and ask.

I have no answers, all I know for fact is Mulcair sad no to a bribe and is cooperating with police for the last two years. Everything else is speculation.

Does this mean Mulcair is not the most qualified federal leader? No he's done alot of good and unlike the other leaders we know he's not corrupt, and I like how he's lead the party.

This is an unfortunate distraction from real issues and I'm happy to leave it to the police to handle.

What exactly are you looking to accomplish and what do you want from us Unionist?

Pages

Topic locked