“It’s not a question of illegal funds; it’s a question of the definition of spending”, quips our Mr. Harper. Does the leader of this country say that it is OK to spend ill gotten money so long as you spend it legally? The issue of where the funds come from is so trivial that Mr. Harper reduces it to a question of definitions. Frankly, I don't understand this logic. Does this mean that
it does not matter whether the funds received are from an illegal source, so
long as they are spent legally? I always thought that the name for that sort of
thing was money laundering. Have the laws changed so much that money laundering
is no longer a crime? Maybe the laws of the land have also become a question of
definition. |
Hot News >