Wednesday, May 12, 2010

Magnum PI on Serial Fraudsters

I have had the opportunity to watch some of Magnum PI's testimony, and I confess that I'm just a little bit confused. He is describing Jaffer's business partner as a "serial fraudster" who has no credibility and frequently engages in scams to sucker money from unsuspecting prospects. If Magnum was aware that this individual had no credibility, then why would he go to the Conservative Party with serious allegations? Oh that's right, he went to the Liberals first and they weren't interested, then he went to the Tories.

If someone who lies for a living is making ridiculous accusations, and Magnum knows he is a "serial fraudster", then why the need to go public with it? Perhaps he as a self described loyal tory was concerned that the husband of a cabinet minister was being duped by a con artist, but then why go to the Liberal Party first, especially if there was little to no truth to Gallani's accusations? There would seem to be a number of curious contradictions in this entire story, and it is becoming quite convoluted to follow. This is now turning into a bitter he said--he said between Magnum and Gallani, which is ironic considering that it was Gallani's accusations that Magnum decided credible enough to take public.

The one new thing that we did learn today was that the President of the Liberal Party was not only well aware of Gallani schemes, but may have been involved in some way, shape, or form. Do we need a full public inquiry?

14 comments:

  1. Just another sad example of our media and opposition chasing their tails.

    That $ 500 million annual expense tab to run parliament, senate is a no fly zone!

    Priorities sheeesh!

    If you want to manufacture/find some sizzle: happy-ending massages, cappucinno machines at start at the big expense accounts.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Shelley Glover rocks on CTV. She suggests Iggy do the right thing and ask Alfred Apps to step down as Liberal Party President until an investigation by the RCMP is done to prove his innocence. Sounds sensible to me. That is what the Prime Minister did with Helena Geurgis.

    ReplyDelete
  3. LOL, Gillani calls into Solomon at Power and Politics,
    not to defend his own 'good' name, no no no, he doesn't care about that,
    he called to come to Apps defence....LOL

    It was a call in, so was it even Gillani?
    Gillani sure must be a good friend of Apps and the LPC to run to his phone to tell us all what a good guy Apps is.
    Did he ever defend Jaffer or Helena like that?

    I'm thinkin' that didn't really help Apps
    'I hardly know the guy' response...oh this is getting good

    ReplyDelete
  4. The opposition is now steering the conversation to did the PM fire Guergis over possibly non credible allegations. I know that myself and some other Blogging Tories began asking for her resignation weeks before Snowdy first contacted the Liberal Party with allegations of Gillani's allegations.

    The PM might have used this as an excuse, but the drive for her to step down from cabinet began long before Magnum P.I ever revealed himself on television. And it is bullshit for the Liberals to suggest she shouldn't have been fired after demanding it for several weeks themselves. They want to have their cake and eat it to....

    ReplyDelete
  5. And, Snowdy said he had an email showing where Apps referred a client to Gillani....I think he tabled the email.

    'Apps drove the get-away car' the optics are priceless.

    Bob Fife said he knew about this 2 weeks ago....
    can you just imagine our media hearing this allegation of a CPC big wig and NOT going public with it?

    O my gawd, Ted Betts and Wherry are going to have to go into overdrive on this one...lol

    ReplyDelete
  6. Just once I would like to see a witness who is making allegations of whatever to present proof. Anyone can say there are off shore bank accounts, but no evidence of same. A list of so called shareholders but no proof, date of purchase, price, or a copy of the share. I personally think this PI had a dream and went to the libs then the conservative, with a lot of lies and innuendos and had no idea of where it would lead. The PM had to act on the evidence, in case it was true. Now, he should really send the left bonkers and invite Helena back to caucus. LOL
    Driving a getaway car brings up pictures of Bonnie and Clyde. Oh, and who lent the PI that red ferrari.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I listened to the phone call. The defense of Apps was way over the top, and was as creepy as it was amusing.

    ReplyDelete
  8. ''The opposition is now steering the conversation to did the PM fire Guergis over possibly non credible allegations.''

    Well that's because THEY ruined her career and are looking for an out, possibly lawsuits eh, Pat Martin? Ya all looking alittle foolish now...

    So this committee and buckets of ink are 'just wondering if Harper was a meanie'?
    LOL yah, Harper has zero tolerance for this kinda stuff...we didn't need an investigation, anyone on the street can tell you that .

    And the PM does not have to answer to anyone on why he boots a Cab Min nor why as party leader he booted Helena out of caucus.

    ReplyDelete
  9. David Akin and the MSM to condemn Rahim and Geurgis for possible business connections with Gilliani. David Akin and the MSM quick to defend Alfred Apps on possible business connections with Gulliani. David Akins has a big following of Liberals on his twiiter thanking him for changing the channel by calling Guy Giorno a liar on CBC power and politics.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Fay, I watched that David Akin bit. I found his spin eerily similar to what Ignatieff said the day before on this matter. He repeated some of the exact same language.

    Honestly I don't read Akin's work, so I am not much familiar with his bias.

    ReplyDelete
  11. It would have been much better had Kory Teneycke been on that panel instead of Chopsticks. Why do they seem to have Chopsticks on every episode? Does he show up for free?

    ReplyDelete
  12. No, public inquirys are expensive and rarely yield results, especially in cases like this that have little public interest except entertainment and insight into the nefarious world of venture capital. I would expect that Security Commissions are taking notes. Let the right bodies do their work.

    The other thing that we learned today that was not spoken about is that the RCMP has been given info from Magnum PI. I wish the RCMP would provide even a vague clarifying statement, as to whether they are or are not researching ANY allegations (they probably are researching Belize etc., which would be the most "serious allegation"). They can get proofs, if any, so this should be off the parliamentary agenda.

    The Gallani call was most interesting; he wanted to defend Apps despite the advice of his lawyer. Did someone offer to help if he would do this?

    Neither Gillani nor Snowdy are entirely credible, nor incredible, as they both have serious, personal vested interests in the outcome of their legal connections and the whole circus.

    The other lesson is that, once again, we know for sure that Parliamentary Committees should "stick to knitting". Almost all of the MPs look incompetent, partisan and ridiculous and are really bad at investigating allegations in a public forum that could prevent actions down the road, given "parliamentary privilege". The imposed time-limits make the process disjointed. Wrong place and process.

    Clearly, the PM made a good decision to accept? her resignation as, unfair or not, Minister Guergis could not have have possibly continued to do her job with any credibility in that portfolio, given all of this stuff in the newspapers. In future, I do not see a problem with bringing her back into caucus, if all of this is just a big smear by some people in legal disputes; but right now, she has to be in time-out, and it will be a while until the dust settles. Frankly, though, her CBC interview sealed her fate. You do not blame the PM for your problems and survive.

    ReplyDelete
  13. who hired snowdy and what was he investigating?

    ReplyDelete
  14. i would like to know what the hard evience is for anything these guys are talking about and does that mean anyone has done anything morally wrong or in fact anything legally acyionable.

    ReplyDelete