Still beating the horse
I think it's worth taking a look so far at the inquiry and Warren Kinsella.
First, way back in October, Warren sent an e-mail to myself and several other bloggers from his blogroll "in confidence". The links point to an article that mentions the selection of Bernard Roy from Ogilvy Renault as lead counsel and to a biography of a partner of Ogilvy Renault - Sally Gomery.
I asked whether she is John's daughter to which Warren replied:
At this point, while I felt that Warren's actions were very wrong, I did not make these e-mails public. Shortly after this, there were several incidents where Warren Kinsella threatened to sue three bloggers, for amounts rumoured to be more than $100,000, if they did not delete posts from their blogs. The bloggers complied. On his own blog, Warren wrote a post that, in my opinion, totally misrepresented the content of the bloggers posts and was damaging to their reputations. It was at that time that I decided to make the previous e-mails public.
Warren hasn't e-mailed me since then but has left many comments on this blog. In his comments he has neither confirmed or denied that his e-mails were an attempt to imply that Ogilvy Renault was chosen as counsel mainly/partially/solely due to Justice Gomery's daughter position at the firm.
Since October, and especially since Christmas, Kinsella and the Chretienites have focused on two things with respect to Justice Gomery - his comments to reporters in December and the cost of the inquiry.
It is my belief that if those two issues weren't available, then other tactics would have been used to discredit Gomery and the inquiry - just like what Kinsella attempted in October.
It's no wonder why they are working so hard to influence public opinion through the media - the testimony up to now has been very damaging and they knew it would be --> and that is important to note; only the truly naïve would believe that any of what has come out so far is a surprise to Kinsella and the Chretienites - their previous actions must be viewed from that perspective.
After Lafleur and Gosselin's testimony it seems apparent that some type of connection between sponsorship contracts and Liberal party were understood and followed through. This is part of the scandal and only two things can make it even worse for Chretien and his Liberals - some type of smoking gun showing the connection between contracts and donations (something that can't be so easily and consistently paraded as simply an artifact of the Liberals being the only federalist party in Quebec) or if the rumours that came out last year of Ad execs paying for stuff for Liberals politicians and their families are true.
What the Chretienites have accomplished so far is to successfully slow roll the media's reporting and concurrent investigations on the inquiry. Most coverage in the English papers and even more so on the radio and TV have been on the ridiculous over-billing on numerous contracts and little mention is made of the political aspect of the Admen and their companies. The media has decided that barring a smoking gun - I suppose an actual contract saying something like "I'll give you $x in sponsorship contracts if you donate $y to the Liberal Party" - they will only report on it superficially and wait for the final report by Gomery to provide conclusions.
Of course, this is exactly what the Chretienites want. They have been fairly successful at convincing their friends in the media to tell every story that could damage Gomery's public image. From getting their spin on Gomery's comments told to being successful at presenting misleading cost figures of the inquiry (by including all periphery costs) - the media has been willing partners.
So, come next fall when Gomery's report is presented, you can be sure that most MSM reports will include every accusation that Kinsella and the Chretienites have made.
The danger for us in the public is that Gomery's report will then have very little impact on the actions of politicians in the future. Admen may be punished for their overbilling but for politicians it will have proven only that if there is no paper record of illegal activities then there is always a way out - always another explanation - as a politician there is always someone out to get you and as long as you have friends in the media willing to play along, that story will get told.
This is why I will continue to harp on this - there is another story not being told here and it needs to be told. Only slight slips like Kinsella's e-mails last fall shine light on the true motives behind their actions.
First, way back in October, Warren sent an e-mail to myself and several other bloggers from his blogroll "in confidence". The links point to an article that mentions the selection of Bernard Roy from Ogilvy Renault as lead counsel and to a biography of a partner of Ogilvy Renault - Sally Gomery.
I asked whether she is John's daughter to which Warren replied:
She is indeed.I mailed back saying that I didn't think it was relevant and that I wouldn't be writing anything about it.
Wonder how Ogilvy's got that sole-source, multi-million dollar assignment as commission counsel?
What a coincidence.
At this point, while I felt that Warren's actions were very wrong, I did not make these e-mails public. Shortly after this, there were several incidents where Warren Kinsella threatened to sue three bloggers, for amounts rumoured to be more than $100,000, if they did not delete posts from their blogs. The bloggers complied. On his own blog, Warren wrote a post that, in my opinion, totally misrepresented the content of the bloggers posts and was damaging to their reputations. It was at that time that I decided to make the previous e-mails public.
Warren hasn't e-mailed me since then but has left many comments on this blog. In his comments he has neither confirmed or denied that his e-mails were an attempt to imply that Ogilvy Renault was chosen as counsel mainly/partially/solely due to Justice Gomery's daughter position at the firm.
Since October, and especially since Christmas, Kinsella and the Chretienites have focused on two things with respect to Justice Gomery - his comments to reporters in December and the cost of the inquiry.
It is my belief that if those two issues weren't available, then other tactics would have been used to discredit Gomery and the inquiry - just like what Kinsella attempted in October.
It's no wonder why they are working so hard to influence public opinion through the media - the testimony up to now has been very damaging and they knew it would be --> and that is important to note; only the truly naïve would believe that any of what has come out so far is a surprise to Kinsella and the Chretienites - their previous actions must be viewed from that perspective.
After Lafleur and Gosselin's testimony it seems apparent that some type of connection between sponsorship contracts and Liberal party were understood and followed through. This is part of the scandal and only two things can make it even worse for Chretien and his Liberals - some type of smoking gun showing the connection between contracts and donations (something that can't be so easily and consistently paraded as simply an artifact of the Liberals being the only federalist party in Quebec) or if the rumours that came out last year of Ad execs paying for stuff for Liberals politicians and their families are true.
What the Chretienites have accomplished so far is to successfully slow roll the media's reporting and concurrent investigations on the inquiry. Most coverage in the English papers and even more so on the radio and TV have been on the ridiculous over-billing on numerous contracts and little mention is made of the political aspect of the Admen and their companies. The media has decided that barring a smoking gun - I suppose an actual contract saying something like "I'll give you $x in sponsorship contracts if you donate $y to the Liberal Party" - they will only report on it superficially and wait for the final report by Gomery to provide conclusions.
Of course, this is exactly what the Chretienites want. They have been fairly successful at convincing their friends in the media to tell every story that could damage Gomery's public image. From getting their spin on Gomery's comments told to being successful at presenting misleading cost figures of the inquiry (by including all periphery costs) - the media has been willing partners.
So, come next fall when Gomery's report is presented, you can be sure that most MSM reports will include every accusation that Kinsella and the Chretienites have made.
The danger for us in the public is that Gomery's report will then have very little impact on the actions of politicians in the future. Admen may be punished for their overbilling but for politicians it will have proven only that if there is no paper record of illegal activities then there is always a way out - always another explanation - as a politician there is always someone out to get you and as long as you have friends in the media willing to play along, that story will get told.
This is why I will continue to harp on this - there is another story not being told here and it needs to be told. Only slight slips like Kinsella's e-mails last fall shine light on the true motives behind their actions.
