I think the UPA will now go after the BJP with hammer and tongs as they got exonerated by Parliament committee setup to investigate bribery during the votes for cash scam. They let off the SP leaders and will now go after the BJP. By the time the elections will be over.
Link:
http://www.dailypioneer.com/143863/âPower-...the-truthâ.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>âPower play has choked the truthâ</b>
Pioneer News Service | New Delhi
<b>Opp livid over clean chit to Amar, Reoti Raman, Ahmed Patel</b>
<b>Samajwadi Party leader Amar Singh and Congress veteran Ahmed Patel have been absolved of the charges of bribing three Bharatiya Janata Party MPs to save the UPA Government during the July 22 trust vote.</b> The decision has drawn sharp criticism from the Opposition, which has claimed that the truth had become a victim of power play.
Submitting its conclusions, <b>a parliamentary panel which probed the matter under the chairpersonship of Congress MP V Kishore Chandra Deo, found âno caseâ against Ahmed Patel.</b> It noted that his alleged complicity in the episode was based on âpresumptions and surmisesâ. The panel laid its report in the Lok Sabha on Monday.
<b>The committee also found âno conclusive proofâ against Amar Singh even as it maintained that âthere was nothing to show that money was offered for voting in favour of the motion of confidence or for abstaining from votingâ.</b>
A disappointed Ashok Argal - one of the three BJP MPs who were allegedly bribed - said, âThe truth did not come to the fore.â Two members of the panel dissociated themselves from the committeeâs decision to give the clean chit to Patel and Singh and gave a dissenting note. <b>The committee, however, recommended that a probe by an âappropriate investigating agencyâ be carried out into the roles of Sanjeev Saxena, an aide of Amar Singh; Suhail Hindustani, a self-proclaimed BJP worker; and Sudheendra Kulkarni, an aide of BJP leader LK Advani.</b>
Speaker Somnath Chatterjee had constituted a seven-member committee after three BJP MPs -- Ashok Argal, Mahavir Bhagora and Faggan Singh Kulaste â shocked the House by bringing in a huge bag and displaying bundles of currency stashed inside it.
They alleged that Singh and Patel had offered them bribes, amounting to Rs 3 crore each, for abstaining from voting in support of the Government during the trust vote. The two had denied the charge in the media.
<b>In its 466-page report tabled in the Lok Sabha on Monday, the committee said, âAs there is no case against Patel and no clinching evidence against Amar Singh, there is no occasion for the committee or the House to make a request to the Rajya S</b>abha requiring them to appear before the inquiry committee for evidence.â
In his dissenting note, BJPâs VK Malhotra said, âIf investigation by any specialised investigating agency against Sanjeev Saxena, as is recommended in the report, establishes that he came with the money on behalf of Amar Singh, it would contradict the exoneration of Amar Singhâ¦.â
CPI(M)âs Mohammad Salim said it would be improper to limit the scope for further investigation and exclude some important names from the ambit of investigating by an appropriate agency. âThe committee should not pass any judgement on this matter and must recommend that the entire matter be probed,â he said. He also wanted that the committee should recommend to the Speaker that the cases of Singh and Patel be referred to the Rajya Sabha chairman so that âappropriate measuresâ to deal with their cases could be initiated.
<b>The committee noted that Kulkarni had, on his own admission, masterminded the whistle-blowing operation and held that âas facts reveal, he facilitated in the giving of bribes to the membersâ.</b>
âThe justification put forth by him (Kulkarni) for conceptualising the operation has been found to be unconvincing,â the committee stated, adding that Hindustani, a âvolunteerâ in the operation, âdoes not appear to be above boardâ.
The committee was also of the view that the role and involvement of Sanjeev Saxena, who was the bribe-giver âwittingly or unwittinglyâ, needed to be further investigated. âSince the committee does not have the wherewithal of an investigating agency, it would be in the fitness of things if the matter is inquired into by an investigating agency,â the report said.
<b>On the role of another Samajwadi Party MP, Reoti Raman Singh, who Argal had claimed had come to the latterâs house after midnight, the committee gave him also a clean chit.</b>
Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances, the panel said that even if Reoti Raman Singhâs admission that âthe requisite numbers were made upâ were to be true, these alone cannot be taken as conclusive evidence of his having offered money to the three BJP MPs.
Noting that the case owed its genesis to a whistle-blowing operation conducted in association with a TV channel, the committee appreciated all endeavours -- whether called sting operations or whistle-blowing operations -- which attempt to pave the way for cleansing the political system. However, it recommended to the Centre that steps should be initiated for laying norms and guidelines for sting operations .
Cash-for-vote scam
Amar Singh (SP general secretary): Neither from the tapes furnished by CNN IBN nor from any material on record has it been possible to come to a conclusive finding linking Amar Singh with the delivery of the money through Sanjeev Saxena. There is no conclusive proof
Ahmed Patel (Political Secretary to Sonia Gandhi): There is no iota of evidence either in the tapes or in any of the depositions made by the witnesses...which may conclusively prove his involvement
Reoti Raman Singh (SP MP): Even if it were on the request of Argal, Singh's proposal to take him and two other BJP members to facilitate their joining the SP could be perceived as an attempt to induce some members to defect...; the timing of his meeting Argal at his residence does have the potential to raise doubts over the purpose of the visit
Sanjeev Saxena (An aide of Amar Singh): His role and evidence have been most collusive. The committee finds the evidence against Sanjeev Saxena both baffling as well as intriguing, to say the least. His role and involvement need to be further investigated
Suhail Hindustani (A self-proclaimed BJP activist): Doubts do persist with regard to his role, if any, in arranging for money in question. The matter needs to be probed by investigating agencies
<b>Sudheendra Kulkarni </b>(An aide of LK Advani): On his own admission, he masterminded the impugned whistle-blowing operation. He also admitted to being an active votary of the proposal that the money be placed on the table of the House. The justification put forth by him for conceptualising the operation has been found to be unconvincing. As facts reveal, Kulkarni facilitated in the giving of bribe to the members.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So the committee acquits teh SP party folks and recommends investigating the BJP . What more does the UPA need to go after them!
Link:
http://www.dailypioneer.com/143863/âPower-...the-truthâ.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>âPower play has choked the truthâ</b>
Pioneer News Service | New Delhi
<b>Opp livid over clean chit to Amar, Reoti Raman, Ahmed Patel</b>
<b>Samajwadi Party leader Amar Singh and Congress veteran Ahmed Patel have been absolved of the charges of bribing three Bharatiya Janata Party MPs to save the UPA Government during the July 22 trust vote.</b> The decision has drawn sharp criticism from the Opposition, which has claimed that the truth had become a victim of power play.
Submitting its conclusions, <b>a parliamentary panel which probed the matter under the chairpersonship of Congress MP V Kishore Chandra Deo, found âno caseâ against Ahmed Patel.</b> It noted that his alleged complicity in the episode was based on âpresumptions and surmisesâ. The panel laid its report in the Lok Sabha on Monday.
<b>The committee also found âno conclusive proofâ against Amar Singh even as it maintained that âthere was nothing to show that money was offered for voting in favour of the motion of confidence or for abstaining from votingâ.</b>
A disappointed Ashok Argal - one of the three BJP MPs who were allegedly bribed - said, âThe truth did not come to the fore.â Two members of the panel dissociated themselves from the committeeâs decision to give the clean chit to Patel and Singh and gave a dissenting note. <b>The committee, however, recommended that a probe by an âappropriate investigating agencyâ be carried out into the roles of Sanjeev Saxena, an aide of Amar Singh; Suhail Hindustani, a self-proclaimed BJP worker; and Sudheendra Kulkarni, an aide of BJP leader LK Advani.</b>
Speaker Somnath Chatterjee had constituted a seven-member committee after three BJP MPs -- Ashok Argal, Mahavir Bhagora and Faggan Singh Kulaste â shocked the House by bringing in a huge bag and displaying bundles of currency stashed inside it.
They alleged that Singh and Patel had offered them bribes, amounting to Rs 3 crore each, for abstaining from voting in support of the Government during the trust vote. The two had denied the charge in the media.
<b>In its 466-page report tabled in the Lok Sabha on Monday, the committee said, âAs there is no case against Patel and no clinching evidence against Amar Singh, there is no occasion for the committee or the House to make a request to the Rajya S</b>abha requiring them to appear before the inquiry committee for evidence.â
In his dissenting note, BJPâs VK Malhotra said, âIf investigation by any specialised investigating agency against Sanjeev Saxena, as is recommended in the report, establishes that he came with the money on behalf of Amar Singh, it would contradict the exoneration of Amar Singhâ¦.â
CPI(M)âs Mohammad Salim said it would be improper to limit the scope for further investigation and exclude some important names from the ambit of investigating by an appropriate agency. âThe committee should not pass any judgement on this matter and must recommend that the entire matter be probed,â he said. He also wanted that the committee should recommend to the Speaker that the cases of Singh and Patel be referred to the Rajya Sabha chairman so that âappropriate measuresâ to deal with their cases could be initiated.
<b>The committee noted that Kulkarni had, on his own admission, masterminded the whistle-blowing operation and held that âas facts reveal, he facilitated in the giving of bribes to the membersâ.</b>
âThe justification put forth by him (Kulkarni) for conceptualising the operation has been found to be unconvincing,â the committee stated, adding that Hindustani, a âvolunteerâ in the operation, âdoes not appear to be above boardâ.
The committee was also of the view that the role and involvement of Sanjeev Saxena, who was the bribe-giver âwittingly or unwittinglyâ, needed to be further investigated. âSince the committee does not have the wherewithal of an investigating agency, it would be in the fitness of things if the matter is inquired into by an investigating agency,â the report said.
<b>On the role of another Samajwadi Party MP, Reoti Raman Singh, who Argal had claimed had come to the latterâs house after midnight, the committee gave him also a clean chit.</b>
Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances, the panel said that even if Reoti Raman Singhâs admission that âthe requisite numbers were made upâ were to be true, these alone cannot be taken as conclusive evidence of his having offered money to the three BJP MPs.
Noting that the case owed its genesis to a whistle-blowing operation conducted in association with a TV channel, the committee appreciated all endeavours -- whether called sting operations or whistle-blowing operations -- which attempt to pave the way for cleansing the political system. However, it recommended to the Centre that steps should be initiated for laying norms and guidelines for sting operations .
Cash-for-vote scam
Amar Singh (SP general secretary): Neither from the tapes furnished by CNN IBN nor from any material on record has it been possible to come to a conclusive finding linking Amar Singh with the delivery of the money through Sanjeev Saxena. There is no conclusive proof
Ahmed Patel (Political Secretary to Sonia Gandhi): There is no iota of evidence either in the tapes or in any of the depositions made by the witnesses...which may conclusively prove his involvement
Reoti Raman Singh (SP MP): Even if it were on the request of Argal, Singh's proposal to take him and two other BJP members to facilitate their joining the SP could be perceived as an attempt to induce some members to defect...; the timing of his meeting Argal at his residence does have the potential to raise doubts over the purpose of the visit
Sanjeev Saxena (An aide of Amar Singh): His role and evidence have been most collusive. The committee finds the evidence against Sanjeev Saxena both baffling as well as intriguing, to say the least. His role and involvement need to be further investigated
Suhail Hindustani (A self-proclaimed BJP activist): Doubts do persist with regard to his role, if any, in arranging for money in question. The matter needs to be probed by investigating agencies
<b>Sudheendra Kulkarni </b>(An aide of LK Advani): On his own admission, he masterminded the impugned whistle-blowing operation. He also admitted to being an active votary of the proposal that the money be placed on the table of the House. The justification put forth by him for conceptualising the operation has been found to be unconvincing. As facts reveal, Kulkarni facilitated in the giving of bribe to the members.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So the committee acquits teh SP party folks and recommends investigating the BJP . What more does the UPA need to go after them!