Comment peut-on s'attendre à ce que la population canadienne croie qu'un avocat de l'importance de M. Perrin, étant donné toutes les obligations professionnelles et juridiques auxquelles il est tenu, a participé aux négociations de sa propre initiative, a mal informé le premier ministre au sujet de celles-ci et a argumenté avec un premier ministre fictif quant à la troisième modalité de l'entente, à savoir que le Parti conservateur rembourserait les dépenses de Mike Duffy?
“We are good to go”. How can the Canadian public be expected to believe that a lawyer as important as Mr. Perrin, with all the professional and legal obligations he has, would have been involved in the negotiations on his own, would have misrepresented those negotiations to the Prime Minister, would have argued with some fictitious person in the Prime Ministe
r's chair about the stipulation on point number three that they were going to cover off, through the Conservative Party, Mike Duffy's expenses, and would have then turned around and said that he did not know a thing about this and further that he never bothered to tell the Prime Mini
...[+++]ster?