Spectator

Gaffe of the Week: Tory hacks caught on tape!

Posted on April 28, 2008 by Douglas Bell


This morning’s on-line version of The Hill Times offers a thorough and thoughtful summary of what, for lack of a better handle, I’ll call the Sparrow’s Folly. I am referring, of course, to the ill-fated effort of the PMO’s media machine to spin the RCMP’s investigation into alleged election finance malfeasance. In events that sound remarkably like the embarrassing jokes told by your Uncle Lester after several too many at Christmas, three Torys—a flack (party spokesman Ryan Sparrow), a hack (Tory campaign director Doug Finley) and a lawyer (Paul Lepsoe)—held a secret briefing in an Ottawa hotel for selected journalists (this after changing the location to put other ink-stained hounds off the scent). They were found out, confronted by the excluded journos and forced to flee down a fire escape. I’m not making that up. Promise.

Quoted in the Hill Times piece, Macleans.ca blogger Kady O’Malley sums it up best:

“To try to describe this in a manner that makes it sound organized and coherent does a grave disservice to reality, because you really did get the feeling they were making it up as they went along,” said Ms. O’Malley. “It was literally like, ‘Oh God, that reporter just walked in the door, we don’t want him in here, let’s change the rules.’ I did not get the sense there was a lot of thought going on here.”

T’was. Ever. Thus.

For me, the question left in the air is why, broadly speaking, the press (particularly management and ownership) put up with a government bent on propagating an adversarial approach to the fourth estate. There’s something timorous and deferential—even sycophantic—in CP bureau chief Rob Russo’s milquetoast reassurances:

“I don’t blame the Conservatives. They can privately brief anyone they want.... Are people going to grow longer fangs because they were shut out of the briefing? No, not at all.”

Mr. Russo said that because the government is less forthcoming with information than past governments, it just means journalists have to readjust their approach to reporting. “Go to documents, go to human contacts in Cabinet, caucus, in the government. I don’t think it’s such a bad thing.”

Ben Bradley he ain’t. This is the Government of Canada he’s talking about, not some Swiss bank. The press has a right, if not an obligation, to hold the government’s standard of accountability up to the light. In the States this sort of thing would bring a Sulzberger, a Graham or even a Murdoch in front of the microphones to defend the First Amendment. In Canada, the elements of the working press slink back to a corner and mutter that “we’ll all just have to try harder.” And not an owner in sight.

• Ethics chickens come home to roost [Chronicle Herald]
• ‘Shelf-life is over’ on Tory media strategy, says press gallery's president Brennan [Hill Times]
• Tory spokesman would ‘take a bullet’ for Harper [Globe and Mail]
• Indignation grows over police tactics [Globe and Mail]

Comments

Neither the author nor Toronto Life necessarily agree with the comments posted below. Editors will not correct spelling or grammar. Toronto Life reserves the right to edit or delete comments entirely. Read our full policy

You must register to post comments. Please register here.

GravityLevity2 April 28, 2008 at 4:18 p.m.

as I understand it, the Tories were trying to get a head start by leaking and spinning what was going to be generally released the next day. The Liberals never leaked and spun?
True, the Tories were comically inept in this particular situation; but the real story is not that but WHAT they were trying to spin.

Lit_200 April 28, 2008 at 4:39 p.m.

What a bungle! How friggin inept can you get?

One comment I agree with 100 per cent regarding the video of the Tory types slinking away:

"When I see [footage of party officials going down the fire escape], I think of Conrad Black, where there were black and white images of him putting boxes into a van. Not knowing anything about the story, not knowing anything about the circumstances, you see a visual like that and it's very powerful."

I have made this point before but it's worth pointing out again. In Black's case, the defense's back story - that Black was removing personal effects (not documents)made sense and was, in fact, more plausible than the prosecution's contention that he was trying to obstruct the course of justice. Not so in the case of the fleeing politicos in Ottawa.

Family_Guy April 28, 2008 at 8:39 p.m.

Lit:

You have indeed made the case before, that Black was simply removing personal effects.

As I have made the case that as the boxes were not sealed before their removal, no-one but Mr. Black knows what was in them or why he took such a huge risk to do so.

Why he didn't call in the monitors and say "hey, I've got some personal stuff here I need to take home". "Wanna check it out?"

Instead, when Joan Maida was thwarted in her attempt to remove those unsealed boxes, he chose to squirrel them down the back stairs himself. Not knowing that upgraded security cameras had gone operational only hours before.

As to the canard that the USDJ had already photocopied all the contents, how do you know that? My guess, stated here before, was that what he snuck out in those boxes, was the evidence that could have made the racketeering charges (the most serious of all) stick. And as no-one but CB knows what was in those boxes, or what went up the flue of his Bridle Path chimney on that long weekend, he seems to have gotten away with the removal of that evidence. Maybe his handwritten notes of who was supposed to get what slice of the non-compete's.

Maybe some correspondence as to whether the Asper's had asked for him personally to be named in the non-competes re: the Southam properties?

We know that sometime after Izzy's death a document was produced that purportedly supported CB's position that it was the Asper's who asked that the NC's include Black personally, and that was the key element in the USDJ dropping the Southam NC's from the original charges.

Family_Guy April 28, 2008 at 8:58 p.m.

GL2: Sorry, but your assertion "the Liberals never leaked and spun?" outs you as a Harper stalwart.

Never mind the Liberals. As per their mandate, Elections Canada doesn't care that party label is attached to alleged abuses. This is about specific acts by a party that also happens to be ruling in a minority parliament.

Harper may well have a grudge against Elections Canada, who were called upon to rule as to the legality of the Reform/Alliance morph to "Conservatives". Which was challenged by the PC's (who were obviously pissed by Peter MacKay's blatant betrayal of his written words to David Orchard) but this, to misquote Dick Cheney, isn't about "known unknowns", or "unkown knowns".

This is about spinners fleeing down a fire escape when the jig (having a private briefing for selected journalists/publishers) was up. And it looks awful.

leaf April 29, 2008 at 12:04 a.m.

an unfathomable crime has been revealed to the world yesterday.

this is how the resident creep reacted to it in an email he sent me today:

Monday, April 28, 2008 10:41 AM
From: "David Wheelright" <foliant@cyberdude.com>View contact details
To: leaf.deblogger@yahoo.com

LOL

Bad daddy! http://www.thestar.com/News/World/articl...

--
Want an e-mail address like mine?
Get a free e-mail account today at www.mail.com!

leaf April 29, 2008 at 12:22 a.m.

sorry for repost from other thread. for some reason, it wasn't showing.
wouldn't want anybody missing fickton's take on current affairs....

GravityLevity2 April 29, 2008 at 1:42 a.m.

FamilyGuy'GL2: Sorry, but your assertion "the Liberals never leaked and spun?" outs you as a Harper stalwart.'

. . .but, but. . Lit thinks I'm a pinko.

I repeat: the real scandal is WHAT the Tories were trying to spin, not that they were spinning and leaking, or how well or badly they did it. Harper, I daresay, would rather Canadians focus on Conservatives' inept spinning style than on possible election and tax crimes by the Conservative Party of Canada.

Lit_200 April 29, 2008 at 8:32 a.m.

Family guy - "As I have made the case that as the boxes were not sealed before their removal, no-one but Mr. Black knows what was in them or why he took such a huge risk to do so."

Wrong. In fact, Black himself did not know exactly what was in the boxes. His secretary did, and she testified that it was Black's "personal effects."

Family Guy: "Why he didn't call in the monitors and say "hey, I've got some personal stuff here I need to take home". "Wanna check it out?"

What monitors? Who was he to call? He had not received notification of the SEC order and he did not believe that the Canadian court order covered his personal gear. Like any Joe, he has a right to the possession of purely personal items like momentos, wills, artifacts, pictures, home ownership papers, insurance papers etc.

family guy - "Instead, when Joan Maida was thwarted in her attempt to remove those unsealed boxes, he chose to squirrel them down the back stairs himself. Not knowing that upgraded security cameras had gone operational only hours before."

Black did not "squirrel them down the back stairs" They were already piled up by the door where Maida told him they were. There was nothing secretive about his actions. How do you know Black didn't know the cameras were operational? Where is your proof of THAT?

family guy: "As to the canard that the USDJ had already photocopied all the contents, how do you know that? My guess, stated here before, was that what he snuck out in those boxes, was the evidence that could have made the racketeering charges (the most serious of all) stick. And as no-one but CB knows what was in those boxes, or what went up the flue of his Bridle Path chimney on that long weekend, he seems to have gotten away with the removal of that evidence. Maybe his handwritten notes of who was supposed to get what slice of the non-compete's."

Do you, or does anyone, have proof of any of that? Any of it at all? It is all SUPPOSITION AND GUESSWORK. Not a scintilla of proof. Nothing. And if there is no proof of your suspicions, and there is at least "a reasonable doubt" that Black definitely and without question intended to obstruct justice, then he should have been acquitted on the charge of obstruction.

--------

As far as "spinning" and "leaking" goes, no party is better than any other. When you get elected, you instantly become another person who thinks that secrecy in public affairs and leaking information for the good of the party is legitimate. And if you are appointed to the cabinet, you become another person yet again where selective leaking is not only legitimate but necessary. I have seen this time and time again.

--------

GL2 - Boy are you mixed up! I have never thought of you as "a pinko" (quaintly outdated expression)and certainly I have never said so in this blog. More supposition and guesswork!

Gerard April 29, 2008 at 9:37 a.m.

Lit-200:

Boringly, you go around in circles.

In the U.S. offering interference of any sort to the work of law enforcement officials, regulators, police, or prosecutors, and where ‘often, no actual investigation or substantiated suspicion of a specific incident need exist to support a charge of obstruction of justice’, constitutes obstruction of justice. In countries other than the US, there is a law called perversion of the course of justice which includes fabrication or disposal of evidence ...

Obstruction charges can also be laid if a person alters, removes, or destroys physical evidence, even if they were under no compulsion at any time to produce such evidence.

Black's secretary testified that she told Black the boxes could not be removed seems conveniently to escape you. From Bloomberg: 'under cross-examination, Maida said she couldn't remember if she then called Black or if he called her. She described his tone upon hearing the boxes could not be removed as ``irritated.'' Black later arrived with his chauffeur and took the cartons away.'

Now, c'mon Lit, Black knew about the Ontario court order. He knew he was under investigation by the SEC. He "did not know what was in the boxes" so presumably he could not know whether his secretary had faithfully packed incriminating memos for his review or ‘whatever’, or if these contents were merely baby pictures of his kids and/or reprints of his portrait done by Warhol which personally (and I am sure this is shared by many) I would not hang upside down in my basement.

BUT Black did remove these boxes after hours when no one was around - like a common sneak thief, and down the back stairs instead of during working hours and openly carting them to the front elevators and out the front door. Walks, like a duck, quacks like a duck…

Get serious Lit, you are as duplicitous as Black himself who in giving up his citizenship in order to acquire the title Lord Black of North of Muchute called Canada "an impediment to his progress in another more amenable jurisdiction." and who said "Canada was turning into a Third World dump run by raving socialists" but later facing jail terms and in order to get his Citizenship back, claimed he never turned his back on Canada and always wanted to get his citizenship back.

Silver and forked tongues, the both of you. Are you related?

Fintan April 29, 2008 at 10:06 a.m.

I wasn't going to join this thread, because I know nothing about Canadian Tories. Other than, if they are Tories in the UK sense of the word, then ipse facto they must be dickheads.

I just love stories about people being overheard, overseen, caught when they thought the microphone was off, the camera wasn't operational, the butler was on his night off, etc. etc.

In Chicago in the eighties, the late Princess Margaret, probably in her cups as usual, commented to the Mayoress at a banquet in her honour, that all the Irish were pigs. The Mayoress was called Byrne. And the mike was on. Oops!

Likewise in the eighties, there was the famous incident of the Finnair DC-10 flight from Kennedy to Helsinki. It took off, the pilot spoke to the passengers in three languages, then silence ... until, he and the co-pilot were heard discussing their actions as they switched to autopilot.

Realising that the intercom had been left on, a flight attendant headed for the cockpit. But too late to prevent the captain being heard saying (in Finnish): "Good, she'll fly herself now. Seven more hours and I'm looking forward to the two nicest things in the world. A cold Danish beer and a warm Finnish c**t."

Unfortunately, the non-Finnish passengers never really understood why some of their fellow-passengers were slumped in their seats in paroxysms of laughter.

But I digress, then and as with His Lardship and the suddenly operational camera, it was karma. She can be a tricky bitch sometimes I even suspect she has a sense of humour.

What I really just wanted to say was how I admire Gerard's skill and patience in totally demolishing Lit's stupid arguments. Lit has presented the same argument so many dozens of times that you'd think she'd be getting near at least a semblance of plausibility by now.

ROFL

leaf April 29, 2008 at 11:06 a.m.

from the guy who loves "stories about people being overheard, overseen, caught when they thought the microphone was off, the camera wasn't operational, the butler was on his night off, etc. etc." ........
....... here are today's emails added to the previous ones posted in the 'robber Baron' thread:

- i'll spare you ther porn links -

David Wheelright
Titter-titter-titter
10:54 AM 3KB


David Wheelright
duh! tell THIS daddy LOL
10:41 AM 3KB


David Wheelright
vital u know this
10:33 AM 11KB


David Wheelright
leaf [this comment has been removed]
10:30 AM 3KB


David Wheelright
mit wem? LOL
7:18 AM 4KB


David Wheelright
elle leche le cul de sa copine
6:46 AM 3KB


David Wheelright
Tiens, un militant d'extrême gauche
6:45 AM 3KB

David Wheelright
get help nutbar LOL
6:29 AM 3KB


David Wheelright
ur credibility is zero, luv 2 daddy
5:36 AM 3KB

~~~~~~~~~~~

Close your eyes, people. Look away. Bashing/defending Conrad is a far worthier cause.

Lit_200 April 29, 2008 at 11:30 a.m.

Fintan, who probably IS Gerard, praises Gerard.

You are so full of it. Criminal intent is absolutely required to convict on a charge of obstruction. Otherwise you live in a police state.

You both harp on the same crap and refuse to face facts. You don't want justice to be done, you want to whip your favourite neocon.

The charge of obstruction was and is preposterous.

Sorry to be so boring and correct.

What a pair of clowns.

Lit_200 April 29, 2008 at 11:32 a.m.

I should have said "what a clown with a pair of heads."

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/st...

leaf April 29, 2008 at 11:37 a.m.

fickton IS gerard

leaf April 29, 2008 at 11:38 a.m.

fickton IS david wheelright

leaf April 29, 2008 at 11:38 a.m.

fickton IS bubba

leaf April 29, 2008 at 11:39 a.m.

you know who is casey/sandy/donna etc?

hint: it is NOT fickton

Gerard April 29, 2008 at 11:58 a.m.

Lit 200:

Fintan is not Gerard and Gerard is not Fintan.

Tough T's as you might say, oh Boring One.

The conviction of obstruction of justice and of St. Eve's ruling assumes a criminal intent from the physical acts of the defendant.

Despite all Black's fork tongued protestations to the contrary and Sergeant Schultz-like "I knew nuzinks!", and all his other inconsistent, contradictory blathering, certain facts remain: Black knew he was under investigation by the SEC. He was told not to remove the boxes as well by a Canadian court - and his secretary told him that the boxes could not be removed the very day a peeved Black came over to remove them himself - so despite this foreknowledge, Black removed the boxes anyway and in a very surreptitious manner.

= assumption of a criminal intent from the physical acts of the defendant.

The conviction will be upheld.

leaf April 29, 2008 at 12:02 p.m.

fickton/gerard: the only person who believes you on this blog is blondie.
no surprise there.

Gerard April 29, 2008 at 12:05 p.m.

PS.

Justice is being done.

Gerard April 29, 2008 at 12:14 p.m.

Leaf:

You are a hopeless head case, an abused manic/depressive with a bi-polar disorder bordering on complete schizophrenia. You are on medication which you forget to take.

Here your posts take up bandwidth and are a waste of time.

You have never posted anything meaningful with regard to the Black case, pro or con - pardon the buried pun.

Despite the fact that you are not worth addressing personally as you are a waste of time and as boring as your confederate Lit_200 in your endless inanities, once more and

For the record: I am no-one else but Gerard.

For your own good, spend more time talking with your therapist.

Don't forget the meds.

GravityLevity2 April 29, 2008 at 12:24 p.m.

Lit"I have never thought of you as "a pinko" (quaintly outdated expression)and certainly I have never said so in this blog. More supposition and guesswork!"
No, Lit, just a little lightly tinted hyperbole.

Or have you in this blog and the previous one, intended terms containing political designations such as "left" or "socialist" to be largely positive?

(by the way, you are right about one thing in your passage that I quote: I do think of you as being in some ways "quaintly outdated".)

Fintan April 29, 2008 at 1:02 p.m.

Gerard, I know it's quite a coincidence, but I know someone called Gerard very well. He used to live in Finland and Norway. He is a brilliant writer and a real wit, as are you.

But he has never written on this blog. Right now, he has a completely different axe to grind in another country and concerning something much more important from his point of view - the future of the EU - than the travails of someone who is ultimately a pretty venal little crook for all the airs and graces he and his absurdly ridiculous hag wife affected.

Keep up the good work.

Lit_200 April 29, 2008 at 1:02 p.m.

Hell, I'm old enough to be quaintly and unquaintly outdated twice. So are Hemingway and Fitzgerald.

It's very bad but better than being staledated, like comments from most of the ABB.

Since you asked, yes, left or right taken too far leads to repression.

It's such a laugh that you think I am a non-questioning supporter of Conrad Black. I despise his take on Iraq, I think he has a penetrating view of global finance, I think many of this thoughts on the Middle East are abysmal, I think his raid of the pension fund at Dominion was irresponsible company greed etc etc. I also happen to think he got shafted by a trophy hunting prosecution and a largely sub-par jury in Chicago and that when he was judged not guilty on the the racketeering charge, the prosecution's theory of criminal intent went straight out the window.

And I am so very sorry that Gerard and Fintan, the two bobbling heads in their clown suit, Goofy shoes, flashing red noses and rigidly fixed ideas, find this so boring.

All I have to say is carry on being bored.

Gerard April 29, 2008 at 1:57 p.m.

Lit_200:

Ahh, we are now comparing ourselves, even in such an oblique or quasi Freudian slip fashion as being 'outdated', to Hemingway and Fitzgerald, are we?

Lit_200, please don't let your Ego become as inflated as Conrad Black's. Tsk, tsk, such conceit - but for once, at least not boring.

Please consider substituting personal greed for your comment >>his raid of the pension fund at Dominion was irresponsible company greed<< because you know full well that Conrad Black and his side kick Amiel were extremely greedy people, and somewhere as he dismantled Dominion, Black was going to get his dirty , grubby paws on some of that pension money personally.

His Disgrace, Lord Black of North of Mudchute was not shafted by trophy hunting prosecutors nor a 'sub-par jury'. The Jury was above par and extremely diligent - if they had been less so, they would have convicted him on everything.

Black got shafted by his own greed and hubris.

One day when you are even more outdated, but perhaps less boring than you are now, you will understand that.

Fintan April 29, 2008 at 2:04 p.m.

Well said, Gerard, having read the above demolition job of the hapless Lit, I'm even more flattered that someone thinks you are just me writing under another handle. Naturally, anyone with even half a brain would see that it is a silly claim. But then, look at the rest of Lit's reasoning and you have to come to the inevitable conclusion that no one can make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

Your quote: "Black got shafted by his own greed and hubris." is almost exactly right, but don't forget that Morticia's greed and hubris played no small part, either.

leaf April 29, 2008 at 2:25 p.m.

[This comment has been removed.]

leaf April 29, 2008 at 6:04 p.m.

until further notice, ficktzl's phone is out of service.

HAHAHAHAHAHA

Post a comment

Username:
Password: (Forgotten your password?)

Comment: