[Tory_canuck]

http://bucketsofgrewal.blogspot.com/200 ... heque.html[hr]

Check this out.It turns out to be another Liberal smear campaign gone wrong for the Libs.

[DerbyX]

Quote:

A blog?
I think I'll wait for a slightly more credible source, thanks.

Like what? Stone tablets?

[DerbyX]

One led to the other right?

[canucker]

How much credence would you put in a Blog? Blog are basically rumours.

[ridenrain]

The smear isn't sticking because they don't have proof. Maybe the Liberals should have taped their phone calls.
I'd be laughing my ass off if he got re-elected.

[ridenrain]

The smear isn't sticking because they don't have proof. Maybe the Liberals should have taped their phone calls.
I'd be laughing my ass off if he got re-elected.

[buckets]

If you follow the link to my site above, you'll hardly find any exoneration. This particular cheque is as yet unexplained, either by Grewal or by his accusers. It might be a smear; but if so, it needn't be Liberal--it could be disaffected Conservatives (some of whom are very angry at Grewal's handling of the affair); it could be the local Indian community; or it could be the Liberals (but why? if he survives to run in the next election he'll cost the Tories six seats). Or it could be a Grewal counter-op (fake a cheque, prove it to be false--a manufactured Rather-gate). I don't think on the present information that either side can claim any firm victory in cheque-gate.

I would reject the suggestion that my blog is only rumour, or that blogs generally must be that way. Some are, some aren't. In fact, if you check, I think that you'll find there is not much rumour there. I try to signal all developments to the story, separate the facts from the spin, and give my own analysis. (See here, for a description of the site and its purpose in the MSM).

If you want to check it out for yourself, I'd suggest that you start at the Welcome page.

[Patrick_Ross]

canucker wrote:

How much credence would you put in a Blog? Blog are basically rumours.

Actually, there are a number of good, well-researched blogs (the Rude Pundit, for example). The problem with most weblogs is that they are unreviewed and have never been edited by a second or third party, and so are more or less basically opinion pieces.

Buckets wrote:

If you follow the link to my site above, you'll hardly find any exoneration. This particular cheque is as yet unexplained, either by Grewal or by his accusers. It might be a smear; but if so, it needn't be Liberal--it could be disaffected Conservatives (some of whom are very angry at Grewal's handling of the affair); it could be the local Indian community; or it could be the Liberals (but why? if he survives to run in the next election he'll cost the Tories six seats). Or it could be a Grewal counter-op (fake a cheque, prove it to be false--a manufactured Rather-gate). I don't think on the present information that either side can claim any firm victory in cheque-gate.

Actually, Grewal was exhonerated, as it was determined that the cheques that were unreported were not required to be reported at the time they were written.
Grewal's explaination about the entire matter was that he could not have properly reported them regardless, as he does not maintain his campaign funding under his own name exclusively -- rather under a fund managed by the Conservative Party. The cheques were written to him by name -- allegedly because Liberal Party members didn't want the public to find out they were donating to his campaign.
This very much IS a smear campaign -- it's a distraction technique being used by the Liberal party to turn attention away from the Grewal tapes and AdScam.
Apparently, some people are REALLY stupid, because it apparently worked.

[buckets]

Patrick_Ross wrote:

canucker wrote:

How much credence would you put in a Blog? Blog are basically rumours.

Actually, there are a number of good, well-researched blogs (the Rude Pundit, for example). The problem with most weblogs is that they are unreviewed and have never been edited by a second or third party, and so are more or less basically opinion pieces.

Buckets wrote:

If you follow the link to my site above, you'll hardly find any exoneration. This particular cheque is as yet unexplained, either by Grewal or by his accusers. It might be a smear; but if so, it needn't be Liberal--it could be disaffected Conservatives (some of whom are very angry at Grewal's handling of the affair); it could be the local Indian community; or it could be the Liberals (but why? if he survives to run in the next election he'll cost the Tories six seats). Or it could be a Grewal counter-op (fake a cheque, prove it to be false--a manufactured Rather-gate). I don't think on the present information that either side can claim any firm victory in cheque-gate.

[color=blue]Actually, Grewal was exhonerated, as it was determined that the cheques that were unreported were not required to be reported at the time they were written.
Grewal's explaination about the entire matter was that he could not have properly reported them regardless, as he does not maintain his campaign funding under his own name exclusively -- rather under a fund managed by the Conservative Party. The cheques were written to him by name -- allegedly because Liberal Party members didn't want the public to find out they were donating to his campaign.

No, that explanation doesn't work for this particular cheque, which was written in March 2004 (after the new electoral laws came into effect). No explanation has been offered for this cheque, which the Conservatives say they don't understand.

[Patrick_Ross]

Which cheque is that, specifically?

[buckets]

Patrick_Ross wrote:

Which cheque is that, specifically?

The 'plumbing cheque'. Follow the link at the top of the thread to see a scan.

[Patrick_Ross]

So, these allegations of fraud are now resting on one poorly-scanned cheque?

Regardless, this brings us back to the issue of who, specifically, the cheques were written out to. The cheque appears to be directed to Pay to the Order of "G. Grewal" (at least I think that is a G), not his riding association, which would in fact make it a personal cheque.

Has anyone determined the purpose of this particular cheque? Was it also a campaign donation, or is it something else?

[buckets]

Patrick_Ross wrote:

So, these allegations of fraud are now resting on one poorly-scanned cheque?

Our scan is poor; presumably the RCMP will be looking at the original. Strictly speaking, we don't know what the allegations really are, only that the RCMP are investigating. That goes for the other cheques as well. (And one of them clearly was not handled correctly--even the Conservatives admit that.)

Quote:

Regardless, this brings us back to the issue of who, specifically, the cheques were written out to. The cheque appears to be directed to Pay to the Order of "G. Grewal" (at least I think that is a G), not his riding association, which would in fact make it a personal cheque.

It's pretty clearly 'Gurmant S. Grewal'; the problem with this cheque is that it was written and deposited on the same day, and it is a day we know Grewal was in Ottawa.

[color=blue]Has anyone determined the purpose of this particular cheque? Was it also a campaign donation, or is it something else?[/quote] It is certainly possible that there is an innocent explanation. But so far none has been offered for this cheque.

Too much about this affair is still unknown either to call for Grewal's head (as some Conservative bloggers have been doing) or to cry the all clear.

[ridenrain]

(the proceeding was written with some alcohol and a big bucket of sarcasm.)

This is beginning to stink to the high heavens.

The last issue of the Surrey Now (our local free community newspaper) had an article about how the Federal liberals re-discovered Surrey British Columbia and arrogantly fixed a red pin into the very heart of Chuck Cadman('s old riding). I still refuse to believe that those arrogant bastards could accept that anything of value could exist West of Ontario, except for some magical well of cash they call "Alberta".

Would they think that they could win the devotion and steadfast enthusiasm of Surrey-North's voters? Did Paul Martin and his evil minions believe that their dirty money could sway the voters of Surrey North?

I am thinking that the crap fusillade against Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Conservative) and Nina Grewal, (Fleetwood-Port Kells) is a co-ordinate political assault to establish a foothold my beloved Surrey. As a staunch supporter of Cadman, I was offended that his YEARS of complaining against the Liberals could be ignored in a couple weeks of public lies.
Read it here before it's gone.

Related by his foul stench, I see Larry Campbel has received his payment and become a Liberal Senator. Who would have guessed? Perhaps his steadfast support of legal drugs has proven favorable to the Federal Liberals?

[Patrick_Ross]

buckets wrote:

Patrick_Ross wrote:

So, these allegations of fraud are now resting on one poorly-scanned cheque?

Our scan is poor; presumably the RCMP will be looking at the original. Strictly speaking, we don't know what the allegations really are, only that the RCMP are investigating. That goes for the other cheques as well. (And one of them clearly was not handled correctly--even the Conservatives admit that.)

If the allegations are unclear, then I would question whether or not there should be an investigation.
As for an incorrectly handled cheque... well, sometimes mistakes do happen. Unless there are any details you're aware of that would suggest it was more than a "mistake".

Buckets wrote:

It's pretty clearly 'Gurmant S. Grewal'; the problem with this cheque is that it was written and deposited on the same day, and it is a day we know Grewal was in Ottawa.

It's a pretty big question mark.

Buckets wrote:

Too much about this affair is still unknown either to call for Grewal's head (as some Conservative bloggers have been doing) or to cry the all clear.

It pretty much looks this way. Thanks for the info.