Pollster Graves apologizes for eavesdropping via Twitter on robocall court proceedings


During cross-examination while on the witness stand at the robocall trial, EKOS pollster Frank Graves had been told to leave the courtroom while the judge  spoke with the Conservative Party lawyer but while waiting outside, was caught reading and even responding to reporters’ tweets who were still inside.

This is a pretty serious offence obviously and puts Graves’ character in question but I would like to know if the Press Gallery members who were tweeting will also apologize?

Tell me they didn’t know full well Graves would be reading their tweets.


11 Responses to “Pollster Graves apologizes for eavesdropping via Twitter on robocall court proceedings”

  1. burton Says:

    This is complete and utter ******** in my humble opinion – this is akin to putting a drinking glass up to the wall and your ear to eavesdrop.
    And the repercussions for this? Probably nothing.

  2. dmorris Says:

    “,,,,puts Graves’ character in question …” Graves “character” was never in question, he has none. The man is a shameless Liberal -liberal shill who has no credibility whatsoever.

    The Press members who were tweeting the proceedings should have been told clearly the Court was now off limits for such,until the Judge rescinded that order. Then, if they defied the Court, could have been charged with contempt.

    But, I wonder if the Judge DID make that order,he should have.

  3. burton Says:

    Oops…sorry about that.

  4. wilson Says:

    Graves should also be apologizing for the push button poll he did for the plaintiffs.

    The poll offers enticement that respondents name will go in a $500 draw,
    does not indicate who the poll is being conducted for,
    does not offer a ‘don’t know/ can’t recall’ option,
    does not ask if respondent is qualified to vote (age/ citizen),
    Graves did not call back respondents to varify their information,
    and Graves admittedly diddled with the numbers too.
    (reporters did not put all this info in one article, you have to read them all to get this list)

    How could this poll be considered evidence?????

  5. Liz J Says:

    Graves has long ago blown his cover, who can take anything he puts out seriously?

  6. Liz J Says:

    In the above photo I’m compelled to say Graves looks like what I deem him to be, a veritable twit.
    He’s so much a media darling too, has all the qualifications needed to feed any and all of their anti-Harper, anti-Conservative agendas and he’s acting like he’s seriously neutral.
    File under “how stupid do they think we are?”

  7. Brian Mouland Says:

    This ass clown is the best the Lefties can offer.LOL!

  8. Chris W Says:

    Lets see… out of all this robocall non-issue… wasn’t it a LIBERAL who was found guilty and fined?

  9. miles.lunn@hotmail.com Says:

    Graves certainly was the most off in his final polls last election and no doubt has a political bias. But here is something to consider. He runs a business and most polling companies actually lose money on election polling. They only poll since if they are accurate like Nanos, they win more clients in marketing which is where the money is made. So as much as he may despise the Conservatives, if he develops a record for being wrong, his company will go out of business eventually. Now maybe he is near retirement and doesn’t care, but if he cares about the future of his company I suspect he would be fairly cautious in terms of using accurate methods. The main problem here is while the polls suggest there was voter suppression no one voter has actually come forward and claimed the robocalls caused them not to vote. Neither do we yet know who is behind them. Anyways it will be interesting to see the judge’s decision. Whatever way it goes, expect the appeal to go onto the Supreme Court.

  10. miles.lunn@hotmail.com Says:

    I should note Graves polling showed even with voter suppression the Tories would have still won Vancouver Island North, thus it is the only other five at issue and all of them except Nipissing-Timiskaming were within the margin of error thus if the judge plays the cautious role they would only throw out Nipissing-Timiskaming while if he takes a more bold role he would let Vancouver Island North stand and throw out the other five. Since by-elections would follow, it is not totally inconceivable the Tories couldn’t win them. In Yukon and Nipissing-Timiskaming they were close more due to the popularity of the local Liberal candidate not any widespread Liberal support. In fact Tim Hudak got over 50% in Nippissing which has similar boundaries to Nipissing-Timiskaming last provincial election. Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar has gone Conservative five elections in a row and in every case the vote was very polarized and extremely close with the Tories just narrowly edging out the NDP. Same with Vancouver Island North although the NDP did narrowly win it in 2006 but John Duncan stated the fact it was held in the winter when many of the seniors were down south might have hurt him as that group usually helps put him over the top. Unlike other ridings, this one has been rather consistent in how it votes. Winnipeg South Centre and Elmwood-Transcona would probably be lost, but those ridings rarely elect Tories to begin with. If I am not mistaken I don’t believe any Conservative since Diefenbaker has won either of those so the Tory wins there were more flukes if anything.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: