5:06 Jill Mahoney: What are the implications of Gillani's testimony for Rahim Jaffer?
5:08 : JT: problem for Mr jaffer now because he did have a contract with Gillani -- a contract that MPs are saying would have provided success fees
5:09 : JT: Proulx --Mr Gillani says one thng and it is opposite of Mr Jaffer -- who is lying?
5:10 [Comment From Marlene: ]I agree with Wes - why can't the committee get advice from their legal department on how to ask question so Canadians don't have to sit and listen to partisanship?
5:10 [Comment From VLJ: ]Why did the Tory members feel this was a good forum to score political points by mentioning the sponsorship scandal as a part of the majority of their questions? A scandal that was dealt with years ago has nothing to do with the task at hand.
5:11 [Comment From Tommy Tommy: ]Is there a lobbyist issue here now? Did i hear the contract state payment for lobbying? Or did i mi-hear that?
5:11 : JT -- problem with lawyers, however, is they do charge more than MPs -- higer hourly rate!!
5:12 : JT -- big problem with lobbying, especially since Gillani said he was not aware of the law -- and Jaffer has said he was not lobbying
5:12 [Comment From Bob Bob: ]I agree that based on today's testimony that Mr. Gillani appears to be credible. That is very much in contrast with the picture that has been painted of him in the past. It is very difficult to know who & what to believe.
5:13 [Comment From JR Arthurs : ]again, being unaware of the law is not a credible defense.
5:14 Jill Mahoney: Jane, has Rahim Jaffer officially been called back to the committee to testify again?
5:15 : JT: No, he has not officially been asked back.
5:15 [Comment From hcat: ]can jaffer refuse to attend? can jaffer refuse to attend?
5:17 : JT -- he could but then he would have to face consequences of being summoned and subpoenas.
5:18 : JT: all of the principals have come out to scrum -- view is that Gillani did much better job than Jaffer
5:18 [Comment From George C George C: ]Why was the Sponsorship scandal mentioned?
5:20 : JT: Sponsorship came up as way for the tories to get back at Libs
5:20 [Comment From W B Devitt III: ]The partisanship in the Conservative line of "questioning" was appalling. Trying to divert attention from one of their many current fiascoes...
5:20 [Comment From VLJ: ]Is it possible that Jaffer can be charged with perjury for (allegedly) making false statements the other day?
5:22 : JT: I don't know if he can be charged with perjury -- i think it has to be established who is telling the truth
5:22 [Comment From W B Devitt III: ]Not only perjury, but depending on the validity of Mr Gillani's documents, unregistered lobbying. Wednesday April 28, 2010 5:22 W B Devitt III
5:22 [Comment From hcat: ]he was far better prepared, and more credible - jaffer lied.
5:23 : JT -- i think the committee has an awful lot to sort out as a result of Gillani testimony
5:23 [Comment From VLJ: ]Sorry, perjury for stating that he didn't use his wife's office for his business but then Prentice stating that he had used his wife's office for his business.
5:24 [Comment From JR Arthurs: ]Did Jaffer take an oath before his questioning?
5:25 : JT -- i do not believe Jaffer took oath
5:25 [Comment From JR Arthurs: ]Gillani also had more time to get prepared, and the benfit of Jaffer's statements
5:25 : JT -- he was very well prepared; appeared to be confident and forthright
5:26 : JT -- good point -- Gillani did have the benefit of the Jaffer testimony.
5:25 Jill Mahoney: Jane, are there any other points you'd like to make before we wrap up?
5:27 : JT -- Thanks so much to everyone who participated and for your comments. we certainly haven't got all the answers and I think this story will continue for a few more weeks?
Jill Mahoney: No kidding! Thanks for joining us, everyone. For more coverage of this ongoing story, please check out our politics page.
5:28 [Comment From DanF in Markham: ]Jane Taber, thank YOU!! You are truly an asset of our Canadian democracy.
5:28 [Comment From Guest: ]i am no fan of Steven but i think this is all blowen out of wack by liberals
5:28 [Comment From JR Arthurs: ]For sure, thanks again
5:29 [Comment From W B Devitt III: ]TY you again for taking the timeReport Typo/Error
Follow us on Twitter: