IsJustAHockeyBagVille
A few days ago we pointed out just one that was then, this is nowish - type inconsistency in Rich Coleman's testimony before the Cullen Commission inquiry on money laundering.
Well...
Well...
It turns out that the Commission itself has also noted inconsistencies.
As a result, they want Mr. Coleman to come back. Here is the lede of a report from the CBC's Rhianna Schmunk:
A formal inquiry into the issue of money laundering in B.C. is calling a former cabinet minister back to the stand to testify for a second time over inconsistencies in his first round of sworn testimony.
Rich Coleman, a six-term former Liberal member of the B.C. Legislature, will have to testify before the Cullen Commission again on May 14, sources confirmed Wednesday...
Gosh.
One can only only wonder if the good Mr. Coleman is still 'looking forward' to appearing before the Commission?
As a result, they want Mr. Coleman to come back. Here is the lede of a report from the CBC's Rhianna Schmunk:
A formal inquiry into the issue of money laundering in B.C. is calling a former cabinet minister back to the stand to testify for a second time over inconsistencies in his first round of sworn testimony.
Rich Coleman, a six-term former Liberal member of the B.C. Legislature, will have to testify before the Cullen Commission again on May 14, sources confirmed Wednesday...
Gosh.
One can only only wonder if the good Mr. Coleman is still 'looking forward' to appearing before the Commission?
_______
Belle Puri's excellent CBC story last week appears to have been the lit match that got the Bonfire of the Inconsistencies blazing.
As she often does, Sandy Garossino gets to the heart of the matter on the Twittmachine.
And while we're on the subject of then vs. nowish - type inconconsistencies, perhaps the Commission could slip in a few questions about selective tree farm license release-type deals in there somewhere...Or some such thing.
.
4 comments:
BC Mary said:
Friday, February 22, 2008
Rich Coleman 'intervened' with RCMP
Mr. Coleman, who is now forests minister, rejected the allegation. “I’m not going to comment on what’s before the courts, but I can tell you at no time during my time as the solicitor-general of this province did I influence any police investigation,” Mr. Coleman told CTV in Victoria.
But in court, Mr. Bolton read parts of a statement Mr. Collins gave police in which he said one of the first people he called when he heard about the legislature search was Mr. Coleman.
“I am politically astute enough to know that this is a really, really, really bad thing,” Mr. Collins said of the search. “So I managed to track down the solicitor-general … [who said] it had something to do with organized crime.” {Snip} ...
A search for all mentions (47) of Rich Coleman is at BC Mary's Legislative Raids
https://bctrialofbasi-virk.blogspot.com/search?q=Rich+Coleman
Thanks Anon--
Always great to read the words and work of our great friend Mary.
If she were with us today I'm pretty sure she would be giving the Keef 'activst blogger' fits!
As for the subject at hand...Perhaps the post should have been titled 'Interventions? We Don't Need Now Stinking Interventions!'
Any BCRail inconsistancies?
Anon-Above--
Here, in my opinion,is the original Railgate inconsistency...
.
Post a Comment