BREAKING NEWS: CTV and The Globe and Mail Had Documents in Advance of Hearing

I know you are all expecting a bombshell and it, along with its menacing siblings, is well on the way. And, yes, I said I would post sporadically until Monday, but after listening to Jim Beatty’s drivel on NW this morning (coupled with Michael CAMPBELL’s horrific bias) and then having to endure Mark Hume in with the always terrific Jon McComb in the afternoon, I feel compelled to provide this whole trollop’s boudoir with some significant disinfectant.

You are all, of course, well aware of the hearing that took place earlier this week when the Crown in the ‘Basi-Virk’ matter appeared in court to argue against the defence keeping disclosure materials. There was also a media application that was scheduled to be heard for the same day.

But did you know that the same Crown prosecutors might have provided evidence to CTV and the Globe and Mail that not only DID NOT exonerate Christy Clark or Gary Collins of any wrongdoing, but further, furnished the Globe’s Mark Hume and CTV’s Jim Beatty with information IN ADVANCE of the hearing, that was possibly the best evidence the prosecutors had against Basi and/or Virk?

Were you being misled? Did the prosecution lead these two journalists? What did Beatty or Hume know and when did they know it? What about CTV and the Globe and Mail?

Is there ANY journalistic integrity, at all attached to ANYONE who would say one thing while knowing quite the other?

Read on.

On December 8th I was tipped by a friend that Mark Hume was “writing or preparing a story on Christy Clark” and that the Globe’s lawyers had made an application to seek “some material” entered as evidence in the case.

So I emailed Hume.

I suggested that he specifically ask his lawyers to request any and all information with respect to the Bruce Clark bank account search warrants, to start (I will show you next week, why I did this). Hume, whom I’ve never met or communicated with, originally shot back a dismissive smart-ass reply from upon high, about if I was sure or just guessing. Instead of saying ‘thanks’ and moving on–knowing full well I was on top of the Basi memos with more documents to come, he then suggested that his lawyers might have a tough time “amending” their application. Not having had enough time to have consulted his lawyers, this was his immediate response. So I let it go, thinking that media lawyers for CTV Globemedia were seeking ALL the evidence available, not just selective cheery-picked documents from the Crown, and that Hume and the Globe and Mail were interested in getting to the bottom of what the evidence at trial really tells you.

I was wrong.

In mid-December the lawyers for the Globe and CTV appeared in court and were told to go away WITH the Crown and sort out what it was they would “mutually agree to” that both CTV Globemedia properties could release and when.

Of VERY interesting note here is that lawyers for Basi and Virk DID NOT and have never objected to any of this information going public. Both Michael Bolton and Kevin McCullough are on record as having never objected to efforts by the media in obtaining such materials–EVER. In fact, only Basi and Virk’s lawyers have demanded that ALL the evidence be available to YOU, the public–a move which the Crown has objected to several times.

As a result of the application effort by their lawyers, Beatty and Hume MUST have known what they had received: An extremely narrow sliver of mostly pre-wiretap requests and wire tap transcripts, provided by the RCMP, that paint as nasty a picture of the then accused as possible.

But listening to Beatty’s shameful drivel this morning with Mike Campbell, you’d think that this information they received actually “exonerated Christy Clark and Gary Collins” and in the afternoon on McComb’s show Hume littered the airwaves, with “I’d love to see it all come out.”

Really gentlemen? Then why have you BOTH participated in what can only be described as a hit job, maybe once removed. Neither Beatty or Hume have a law degree and if they did, both should be set ablaze.

Here’s the rub:

1) The information Beatty and Hume received DOES NOT exonerate Clark, Collins or anyone else, but in fact makes clear that the RCMP had targeted Basi and Virk. This is standard procedure when the police prepare ITOs (Information to Obtain) documents, which can be seemingly endless and more often than not LOADED with very strong language that paints as black a picture as necessary for a Judge to grant a search warrant. They do not provide PROOF of innocence any more than they do of guilt. Incredibly, that’s what kind of loose information Hume and Beatty are going on when they and their network claim that politicians were “cleared” (and they both specified Clark…)

Stunning.

THERE WAS NO DOCUMENT that “cleared” anyone, just RCMP positioning that the only two culprits were Basi and Virk and a pile of wiretap transcripts with salacious conversations about sex and cocaine (as if that doesn’t happen every day in downtown Vancouver, spare me…)

2) How on earth can CTV and the Globe actually scream headlines that any politician was “cleared?” None of the pertinent evidence was tested in court–not one line. Particularly related to Collins and Clark, not one stitch of rebuttal evidence provided by the defence was proffered in court (or reviewed by Hume and Beatty!), only referred to in pre-trial hearings (see below). So their “story” is at best, incomplete. In fact, what Hume and Beatty’s network based these inaccurate headlines on, was ITO documents that MUST include everything the RCMP has surmised so that the warrants cannot be tossed at trial. So the verbiage used to “clear” Clark and Collins or other Ministers doesn’t exist. No one was exonerated because none of that specific evidence received a hearing at trial. Not to belabor the point, both Beatty and Hume MUST know this and if they don’t, how on God’s green orb did their editors or producers allow for such incomplete information (my charity is on display, once again) to go to press and air, when it was abundantly clear that they were permitted a very small fraction of what was collected and never challenged.

Essentially, they examined the patient’s plump, healthy pinky and determined that the brain tumor couldn’t possibly be cancerous…astounding.

Though worse yet, Beatty and Hume foolishly confronted counsel for the defence as soon as they appeared in chambers yesterday morning, claiming, incredibly, that they had read all the documents they were released and “Clark is innocent, so is Collins…” UNBELIVABLE!!! So they did indeed have ALL the documents they needed, even BEFORE the hearing started. When one of defence counsel asked them why they didn’t get any other evidence, they replied that they weren’t interested. Further proof is that Hume had the story up on the Globe’s website before court adjourned!!! And they didn’t lift a finger to dispel any notion that these documents “cleared” anyone, since that appears to be what they wanted to show you all along.

Hume in fact told McComb this afternoon that “the evidence as a whole is overwhelming.” But in the same breath admitted that he was only provided a small sliver of mostly what the RCMP collected. Excuse my French, but what kind of bullshit is that? It’s either one of the other. In the interim, the public is left with the errant impression that Clark and Collins have been the subjects of smear jobs, the poor dears (I will specifically show you how this is PURE fiction, next week).

All Hume and Beatty served to accomplish is provide Clark with an opportunity to use new speaking points that avoid answering for her actions while Deputy Premier. And all while running for Premier!

And the mainstream press wonder why subscriptions are dropping and stations like CTV continue to flounder and bleed revenues?

Shameful, doesn’t even begin to cover this sordid mess.

Why did no one else in the media not ask how 8,000 pages could be “thoroughly reviewed” IN A MATTER OF HOURS, as Beatty bellowed???

Let me tell you, I’ve worked with CTV and now with Global.

Global could cut this story in about two days, and would have provided every angle possible of coverage (that’s why they are THE BEST, without question). CTV would still be wrapping Christmas presents before anything was settled, and that’s if they’d gotten the material on Remembrance Day–notwithstanding having a few absolutely outstanding people like St. John Alexander, Jina You and Lisa Rossington.

More to the point: What have both Beatty and Hume been doing since their epic, monumental story telling? Telling us how they poured over the documents but never let on how long they’d had them…of course, when you received them so far in advance!! But they sold that angle of the story too! With straight faces!

Acting at its worst? Deceitful? You be the judge.

3) The Crown must answer this: Were they leading Beatty and Hume?  Why did they agree to release only the FOUR binders with the most potentially damaging circumstantial evidence against Basi and Virk? Why not the rest? Or other documents? Janet Winteringham sat for an interview with CTV and repeated the same line “there was no evidence against any politician.”

But this is utterly dishonest. Maybe there wasn’t any evidence that would lead to a charge, but no evidence at all? Horse feathers!

In June of 2009, Virk’s lawyer, Kevin McCullough spent several days reading into open court a series of emails between Christy Clark sycophant and blogosphere baffoon Brian Kieran (his post today was absolutely as shameful as it is biased…can’t imagine why…) who was then a partner with admitted briber of public officials Erik Bornmann. These emails showed a clear path to Clark’s door as being a likely Cabinet leak. The information Pilothouse was receiving was “too good” in quality. Besides, Collins was asked by the RCMP if he was the leak and said ‘No’. He was then asked if Basi was the leak and said ‘No’ again. Same with Judith Reid. The information was too issue specific, too detailed. But to the emails…the sequence went like this: In 2003, Kieran sends Bornmann an email requesting he get inside Cabinet information on the direction of the BC Rail sale. Bornmann replies that he will inquire, NOTES HE IS MEETING WITH CLARK, and then sends back an email soon thereafter with the information Kieran requsted. My friends, this was said in open court, with two columns written about it. One by 24 Hours’, Bill Tieleman and the other by the Vancouver Sun’s Neal Hall. The whole city was abuzz and Clark cowered rather than answer–in fact she sent her lawyer to court instead….

There might not have been SUFFICIENT evidence for Clark to be charged with anything, granted, but is leaking Cabinet information a breach of trust matter that she should answer? Why would the RCMP not at least interview her about it? They didn’t, but did you read about that in Hume’s piece? Or Beatty’s? Of course not. Did either of Hume or Beatty ask for the emails McCullough read off that were AUTHENTIC government emails received through disclosure from the Crown? Not  a chance.

Bear with me, here is Hall’s excellent piece (he’s one of the VERY few reasons I read the dimming Sun, the key passage I’ve emphasized near the bottom of the column):

By NEAL HALL

Vancouver Sun – June 25, 2009

VANCOUVER – The office of Premier Gordon Campbell controlled the controversial sale of BC Rail with an “iron hand,” a lawyer alleged Thursday at the political corruption trial involving former government aides.

Kevin McCullough, the lawyer for Bob Virk, one of two senior former political aides accused fraud, breach of trust and accepting benefits in exchange for confidential information about the bidding for BC Rail, read out a series of e-mails leading up to the sale of the railway.

The lawyer pointed out that the premier’s office sent an e-mail to Kevin Mahoney, a vice-president of BC Rail, suggesting who should be invited to the northern transportation conference in November 2002

“This is the set-up breaking the election promise,” McCullough said, referring to the fact that the premier had won the election on a campaign promise not to sell BC Rail.

“The premier’s office was engaged in substantial control of the BC Rail deal and the BC Rail agenda,” the lawyer told Justice Elizabeth Bennett.

The lawyer was trying to show that the defence has some e-mails from BC Rail showing the involvement of the premier’s office but is seeking further disclosure of e-mails from the premier, his chief of staff at the time, Martyn Brown, and other cabinet ministers.

The defence first has to convince the judge of the likely relevance of the e-mails before the judge will make a disclosure order.

But earlier this week, government lawyer George Copley revealed the e-mails being sought may have already disappeared.

Copley presented two affidavits to the court, including one from Rosemarie Hayes, manager of the government’s e-mail system, who said e-mails cannot be retrieved after 13 months.

The defence applied in June 2007 to get Campbell’s e-mails, as well as those of cabinet ministers related to the privatization sale of BC Rail, which was sold to CN Rail for $1 billion in 2003.

The missing e-mails pertain to 15 or 20 people who are on the Crown witness list.

On Thursday, Copley provided some further clarification, saying if the e-mails weren’t printed off and put in files, they do not become part of the operational records of government.

Transitory material, which he described as “routine records of no value,” are discarded or purged from the computer system, he said.

Copley said questionnaires have been sent to nine people who have searched the files and, once their answers are returned, “we will file nine separate affidavits” to try to answer some of the questions posed by the defence lawyers.

“There may be no explanation,” the lawyer said. “No filing system is perfect.”

Defence lawyers were shocked to learn that e-mails that could be crucial to the defence case may have been allowed to disappear.

Michael Bolton, the lawyer for Dave Basi, told the judge Thursday that administrative and operational records of government ministers, deputy ministers and assistant deputy ministers are supposed to be retained for 10 years.

He said the unprecedented police search of the legislature on Dec. 28, 2003, should have alerted the government and its staff to retain the records from that period.

At the time of the police raid, Dave Basi was a senior aide to then finance minister Gary Collins and Virk was a senior aide to then transportation minister Judith Reid.

Aneal Basi, who worked in government communications, is accused of money laundering.

The case has been adjourned until next Tuesday.

Earlier in the day, McCullough said the RCMP investigation found that government lobbyists were getting inside cabinet information about the pending BC Rail sale in 2003 but police never fully investigated the source of the leak.

“The Crown’s theory in this case was that [Bob] Virk and [Dave] Basi were disclosing confidential documents for benefits,” the lawyer told the judge.

“There were other sources of information,” he said, reading out a series of emails involving Erik Bornmann, Brian Kieran and Jamie Elmhirst, who were partners in Pilothouse, a lobbying firm that in 2003 was representing OmniTrax, a Denver-based company that was bidding on BC Rail.

The e-mails quoted what was being discussed in cabinet meetings.

When Kieran was interviewed by the RCMP, he said Virk was the source of the insider cabinet information because transportation minister would “debrief” Virk after cabinet meetings, McCullough said.

And when police interviewed Bornmann, he said Basi was probably the source, the lawyer pointed out.

McCullough told Justice Elizabeth Bennett that police bluntly asked Bornmann if he had a source in cabinet and he replied no. But Bornmann mentioned that he had conversations with then deputy premier Christy Clark because Bornmann was a friend of Clark’s husband, Mark Marissen, he added.

At the time, Bornmann and Marissen were deeply involved in the federal Liberal party – Marissen was B.C. campaign chair for Paul Martin’s successful bid for the federal leadership and served as B.C. campaign co-chair for the 2004 and 2006 federal elections.

Clark quit provincial politics in 2004 and now hosts a radio show on CKNW.

McCullough said when RCMP interviewed the transportation minister, Reid, and the finance minister, Collins, in 2004, both adamantly denied they discussed confidential cabinet information with Basi and Virk.

“The RCMP goes to Collins, who denies telling information to Basi and Virk,” the lawyer said.

“They never go back to Bornmann,” McCullough said, adding the Mounties tailored their investigation to target Basi and Virk.

Now, here is Tieleman’s piece from earlier that month (the only journalist in B.C. to cover this matter with as much integrity, notwithstanding his political stripe, he could have been significantly slanted–and wasn’t. Emphasis added in key parts):

The below ran on my birthday on June 5th., 2009:

By BILL TIELEMAN, 24 COLUMNIST

The defence in the B.C. Legislature raid case alleged Thursday that former B.C. Liberal Deputy Premier Christy Clark may have leaked B.C. Rail information to a lobbyist acting for one of the bidders in the $1 billion sale.

Michael Bolton, acting for David Basi – one of two former provincial ministerial aides facing corruption charges – alleged in B.C. Supreme Court that Clark may have been a cabinet source for Erik Bornmann, a lobbyist for OmniTRAX who is now the key Crown witness in the case.

“Pilothouse internal briefing notes appear to reveal sources in cabinet,” Bolton told Justice Elizabeth Bennett, referring to Bornmann’s lobbying firm. “Bornmann clearly had certain cabinet sources.”

“For example, Christy Clark may have been the source within cabinet – certainly Mr. Bornmann was in contact with Ms. Clark,” Bolton said.

Clark declined comment on the unproven allegations.

Earlier, Associate Chief Justice Patrick Dohm turned down Special Prosecutor Bill Berardino’s request to replace Bennett immediately as trial judge because of her appointment to the B.C. Court of Appeal.

But Dohm appeared to indicate Bennett will be removed soon.

“I know who the trial judge is going to be but I’m not announcing that today,” Dohm said. “You have no concern about who I’ve chosen – they are completely conversant with all Criminal Code matters.”

So…tell me how good are Beatty and Hume looking now? They want it “all out”??? No problem. Happy to oblige fellas…oh, but I forgot, Jim thinks “bloggers have a much different  standard…” while Mike Campbell laughed at that and complained how Christy Clark “has had a totally unfair ride…” in being made to answer for her role in the BC Rail scandal. Just disgusting radio, totally beneath contempt considering who his brother is and who Campbell’s entire backroom network of public trough whores is supporting–Clark.

But, I must state, Beatty’s right: This blogger, at least, won’t sell his journalistic integrity to be a shill, willful or not, for the narrative the RCMP and Crown need out there to deflect the real story of what happened in the sale of BC Rail and kill any chance of a public inquiry–which now needs to be had more than ever before.

I will not go on any further on this issue until Monday except to say that ANYONE who heard Christy Clark’s churlish, foolhardy celebrations about being “cleared” the last day or so (most recently with NW’s Sean Leslie) must stop and give pause….

Clark claims her record in government is “spotless.”

But by mid-next week Clark will look like an anemic leopard, gasping for air, defanged and declawed…..

We’ve had ten years of an unprincipled Premier, who will not hesitate to lie at will to cover his tracks. We can’t afford another.

Because leopards don’t change their spots.

Nor apparently do lazy journalists.

Be Sociable, Share!

•