 |
| Martin Dumont did not say this |
Dumont is the Union Montreal employee who famously doomed Montreal Mayor Tremblay through testimony at the Charbonneau Commission.
He told of how the party had so much illegal cash donations that it couldn't close its safe and that mayor Tremblay simply left the room when someone revealed that the party had two sets of books for its party donations.
Tremblay denied it all but subsequently resigned under public pressure.
Dumont himself had previously been nabbed for theft at a different job for theft and had been caught with a lot of pornography at his work computer at city hall, although both lead to question why Tremblay hired him in the first place and didn't fire him in the second instance.
Dumont has recently been ordered to return to the commission - in spite of his claims of being sick - to explain why so many of his tales didn't add up, for example the clerk he claimed counted the illicit cash donations plausibly denied his account and Dumont was forced to say that he misremembered, which he had to do for the $850,000 claim he also made.
In a pre-testimony interview, Dumont made no mention of Tremblay being in the room when the revelations of two sets of books was mentioned, but he came up with that at his hearing on Oct. 30.
Other doubts have also cropped up about other statements that he made.
So it appears that several of the allegations that led to Mayor Tremblay's resignation are possibly fabricated.
A friend at the UN recently told me of a bunch of recent examples from around the world in which leaders have been caught stealing, assaulting and doing other wicked things and still don't lose their posts.
Whereas, it appears that in Montreal we do the reverse, we get rid of 'em first and ask questions later.
Dumont has been on sick leave for quite some time and it would be interesting to see how he is greeted by his colleagues back at city hall when he returns.
Well, as long as it wasn't a rusty trombone...
ReplyDeleteIt is entirely possible that Gerald Tremblay could make a comeback, assuming the commission finds no legitimate "smoking guns" to erode his integrity.
ReplyDeleteAfter all, didn't Premier Robert Bourrasa return with a vengeance?
Failing that, it will be interesting to see how the fall municipal election shapes up.
The Dumont testimony and about face this week really makes you wonder about how thoroughly the Commission lawyers checked and collaborated his story. Although other witnesses have confirmed other parts of his story, there are parts that make you shake your head.
ReplyDeleteNevertheless, this is in no way a white washing of what Union Montreal did to win the elections.
Jimmy Z
Surely someone up there in the C Commish has to be fairly ticked-off by now!?
ReplyDeleteAlthough it appears to me the new disease is a heaping helping of both Apathy & Tolerance for such stuff. And complete acquiescence by the so-called powers-that-be towards just about anything that the PQ puts forth.Not a dickey bird, as they say. Shake your head? Trip to Scotland, anyone!
The presence of the Mayor was not something added at his testimony but a detail he added at his second preparatory meeting with the investigators.
ReplyDeleteEveryone considers that it should have been a detail he absolutely had to give in his first preliminary meeting. However, I think it is unfair to oppose investigator notes to his testimony.
There is clearly an amount of subjectivity added by the investigators in his notes. His notes, his. notes. These are notes. Taken by an investigator. How come nobody challenges the exactitude of the notes?
For example, the investigator noted that Martin Dumont worked for Vision Montreal to revenge his firing from Union Montreal. This is clearly a lack of understanding of the political world. Did Michael Ryder joined the Bruins through free agency for revenge? No! To have a damn paycheck!
This is why I have issues with the tactic of opposing investigator notes to a testimony. Subjectivity.
About the Mayors presence. Martin Dumont qualified it as "banal". And you know what? It is! At least, it was! We are now in a context far different from the one when Martin Dumont was meeting the investigators in September to prep his testimony. You know what the big difference is? The Mayor is gone.
Of course we consider today the fact that Martin Dumont haven't mentionned his presence in the first meeting quite a big one. But back in septembre, heck, back in 2004, it's casual. The dude sees the mayor every week back then. It's part of his dayjob to tag along known personnas. A dude that sells ferraris everyday is less excited the a random citizen seeing one, let alone driving one.
Plus, Martin Dumont has worked hard to recollect his memory from 8 years ago. He made some mistakes (The Pion story), he should have said that some parts were at his best memory possible.
The Septembre prep was a "work in progress". I'm stunned that we are buying the attacks on his credibility while he was preparing his testimony.
-Martin Brunet
"It is entirely possible that Gerald Tremblay could make a comeback"
ReplyDeleteVery, very unlikely. He's in his 70s now. Sadly our society is full of age-ism.
"After all, didn't Premier Robert Bourrasa return with a vengeance?"
See that age comment. BouBou wasn't in his 70s.
"it will be interesting to see how the fall municipal election shapes up."
It will all depend who runs. We're still waiting for Denis Coderre to make it official.
I believe in a commission inquiry, unlike in a legal court proceeding, you are not required to state everything one knows. It is what is hoped one does, but I do not believe your must. I could be wrong... Perhaps that applies to statements in preparatory interviews and he figured he did not want that info leaked out until he dropped it as a bomb while testifying. Robert
ReplyDeleteCertain I will be attacked!
ReplyDeleteWhen Politico's are in power, and for long after, they can rightly be criticized.
Dumont + Tremblay are therefore not dismissed. There's more dirt on Gerald, for one.
As notable others have mentioned here, we are simply politely waiting until the collectus hits the fan with Pauline.
Uncle Charlie says: We chose to invest in the highway system and promote "individual mobility" over fast mass transit -- then we went and imposed painfully low speed limits on the roads, effectively limiting individual mobility to a mind-numbingly slow pace. A nanny InterState if you will, where left-lane hoggers righteously cruise at 110 at paid gov't employees hide in wait to issue hundreds of millions of dollars in tickets each year.
ReplyDeleteEurope has both: high speed rail AND high speed highways.
Might as well buy a Prius or ride the slow train with all the plebs; our glory days of buildng grandiose infrastructures are behind us.
PS blogger.com: your interface sucks donkey dick on iPad.