A month or so ago I reported on independent journalist Brian Michel LaRue’s claim that Guelph Conservative activist Andrew Prescott, whose blog can be found here, was actually “Pierre Poutine.” I also noted that Prescott denied being Poutine. I said that Prescott might of course be lying, but on the other hand, that LaRue might be a crank. Someone with pretensions to being taken seriously as a journalist, yet uses profanity in their domain name, must of course be taken with a grain of salt.
At this point I’m beginning to side more and more with the notion that Prescott is telling the truth and that LaRue is a crank. I may, of course, be wildly off base on both points. But let me explain why. Especially because LaRue got quite, well, cranky a couple weeks ago over the fact that I had labelled him a crank, as you can see on his blog, Unfuckwithable.
On the one hand, Prescott has issued denial after denial that he is Pierre Poutine. He may of course be lying, and there are still unanswered questions about unreported payments to robocall service providers, again allegedly by Prescott. But so far the only thing pointing to Prescott are some vague press reports. The tar and feathers shouldn’t be brought out until we actually can be sure of the person we’re targeting, and so far, at least with Prescott, we’re not. Supposedly an Elections Canada report is due soon. The tar and feathers will still be available then, if needed.
In the meantime, LaRue has issued a serious of increasingly grandiose claims. He claimed to be putting together a master list of affected ridings; after days of teasers, it turned out to be pretty much the same as mine, only without sourcing. He claims to have access to a wide variety of confidential sources, including members of the Poutine circle and, in recent days, a variety of top secret diplomatic and intelligence correspondence obtained from God-knows-where. He claims this supports his belief that Senator Doug Finley was among the ringleaders of the Poutine scam and that certain Conservative ministers — Julian Fantino, I imagine — really do have dubious bank accounts stashed in the Cayman Islands.
Now, every single thing LaRue is claiming could well be true. But we’re well past put-up-or-shut-up time on this. LaRue complains that he hasn’t received appropriate respect in the professional media and that he deserves compensation for the time and resources he has invested in his work. Well, tough. That’s a blogger’s life. Plus, given that he hasn’t yet actually come forward with anything concrete to support his claims, he can hardly expect the rest of us to be willing to spend money (which in any case I don’t have anyways, being a poor humble blogger myself) essentially on spec.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and that’s why I would gently suggest to my readers — most of whom have reached conclusions of one kind or another on this — that they not be too harsh in condemning one man on circumstantial evidence in press reports, or too eager in accepting another man on what so far are pretty shaky grounds.
If Larue has all the documents he claims to, he should be arranging to release them. Perhaps whatever remnant is left of Wikileaks would be of assistance to him. Until then, I’m not going to rush in blindly with an endorsement.Tweet