The evidence provided by the Ottawa Citizen's investigation into the Vikileaks account is ridiculous, as well. Here's what they're saying:
Aside from being used to administer the Vikileaks30 Twitter feed, the address has been frequently used to update Wikipedia articles often giving them what appears to be a pro-NDP bias, actions that have attracted the attention of numerous Internet observers in recent months.Not only is this circumstantial, it doesn't actually prove that the NDP are behind it. If anyone over at the Citizen understood IPs as well, there's a possibility that the account does not actually originate from a House of Commons address! It's very easy to mask your IP and make it look like its coming from somewhere else. Very, very easy.
Not only that, their methodology for catching the person behind Vikileaks - sending them a URL that only they had access to, and monitoring who logged on - is possibly the worst way to do that. Think of how easy it is for that URL to be contaminated? All it takes is for one person at the Citizen to catch wind. Or for a bot to find it. There's any number of people and things in cyberspace that could mess it up.
How as well can they be sure that the person actually behind Vikileaks isn't simply using that e-mail address ascribed to the account, while not actually being its owner? Surely everyone has seen those emails from people you haven't talked to in months talking about an awesome new credit card they have from NigerianPrince.com. Come on, people.
Plus, how much of an idiot does this person behind Vikileaks need to click an unknown URL sent to them randomly and likely very suspiciously. You'd have to be a pretty big neophyte, and one wonders how someone who has access to Toews' divorce files and the apparent interesting the IP bill could end up being that person.
The Ottawa Citizen is making accusations way before they have any solid evidence, not to mention using faulty investigative methods. I'll gladly be corrected if they show exactly how they did this and the information they gathered. That is the only way I, or anyone else, should believe them.
And John Baird? If you are proven wrong, then you should apologize. Ipso facto. There is no way around that. Making accusations based on faulty evidence is not what ministers of the crown should be doing in the first place, but if you're proven wrong, and refuse to correct yourself, I hope the mighty collective fist of Canadian voters comes down on you hard.
Just as hard as they would on the NDP member/supporter if the accusations turn out to be true.