PMO paid for Duffy's fraud

[Spiderfish]

Clearly illegal:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/22685-pmo-paid-for-duffys-fraud/page-11#entry900536

How have you come to the conclusion that the money was a gift or compensation for a service, cooperation, assistance, exercise of influence?

Would a loan, legally drawn up between Wright and Duffy with terms of repayment defined be considered an illegal transaction? If it is, would a loan taken from a bank be considered an illegal transaction as well? What options would he have available if he wanted to repay this debt but did not have the money to do so?

Edited May 21, 2013 by Spiderfish

[The_Squid]

Harper's own party may be turning against him. Not answering any questions may come back to haunt him.... or may delay the inevitable (Harper's demise) if it turns out that he did indeed have something to do with the "gift" (bribe?) to cover up Duffy's scam.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/05/21/john-ivison-harpers-speech-was-a-chance-to-be-accountable-he-blew-it/

Stephen Harper had a golden opportunity to say sorry to Canadians and his caucus for the Senate expenses scandal; to explain what he knew, when; and, to put forward some concrete proposals to restore the public’s faith in Parliament.

In short, his speech to caucus was a chance to be accountable. He blew it.

------------------------------------------

“Honest backbenchers didn’t start this mess — it started at the centre.

There needs to be an apology to caucus and the public,” said another MP.

“One rule-breaker is bad but three, plus the chief of staff [Nigel Wright] is a systemic problem. The real problem is, we crossed the moral red line a long time ago.”

------------------------------------------

Conservative MPs are, for the first time in my experience, talking about open mutiny. “The question for my caucus colleagues is increasingly: Who is for Harper and who is for the party that will, hopefully, outlast him?”

This story is not going away until the Prime Minister gives us some answers.

[eyeball]

This story is not going away until the Prime Minister gives us some answers.

Maybe it would go away if he gave us some money too.

Would a 25% cut in income taxes do it?

[jacee]

How have you come to the conclusion that the money was a gift or compensation for a service, cooperation, assistance, exercise of influence?

Would a loan, legally drawn up between Wright and Duffy with terms of repayment defined be considered an illegal transaction? If it is, would a loan taken from a bank be considered an illegal transaction as well? What options would he have available if he wanted to repay this debt but did not have the money to do so?

Read it for yourself.

[silver72]

I think if Harper doesn't handle this the best and right way, including bringing in the RCMP, then Canadians should demand an election THIS October and not NEXT October. Did Harper know about this? Well, he knew about the bribe for Cadman for his vote. He even said he told his guys, Cadman probably wouldn't take it. So I can see Harper telling people within the PMO, don't tell me I don't want to know. Wednesday, he suppose answer questions about this from Peru, I guess they need time to get their answer straight.

[jacee]

Maybe it would go away if he gave us some money too.

Would a 25% cut in income taxes do it?

Hmmm ... let me think ... only if he grovels!

And ... tells us where he spent the $3.1b ...

And there's no promises of course, he may still lose the next election.

[Spiderfish]

Read it for yourself.

I did, and the questions I asked were not meant to challenge. If you don't know, just say so..

[Moonlight Graham]

Scandals? If the worst you can tar him with is a senator's expenses discrepancy where the disputed amount was promptly repaid, and those involved quickly resigned, I'd say he's doing damn good compared to those who came before him.

Nothing yet is proven of course, but if Harper was involved in the decision making or even informed of this payoff to Duffy before it happened, it has the potential to destroy him and the CPC in the next election, as well as having him and others face legal action. We all know very little of what Harper or others in the CPC knew or didn't know of this so everything will all depend, of course, on what an investigation of this whole scandal yields.

[Moonlight Graham]

It was illegal, and a coverup and most likely under Harper's direction.

Don't make claims you can't back up.

We have no idea about Harper's role in all this, we don't know if it was illegal. We barely know anything about this story yet.

Edited May 21, 2013 by Moonlight Graham

[Moonlight Graham]

Harper Conservative ethics!!!

Joan Crockatt - MP Calgary Centre:

LOL.

[Moonlight Graham]

It doesn't look good, I agree, but I'm not sure it's been determined it was illegal. As for speculating on any direction or knowlege by Harper, it's a valid question to ask, but jumping to the conclusion that it was most likely under his direction at this point is nothing more than speculation.

100% truth.

[jacee]

Opinion: Harper Tories evoking laughter and anger

Harpers approach to problems is not to meet them head on and to fix them promptly, which is what astute prime ministers do. Rather he denies the problems exist, attacks the opposition or the media, runs ads, or prorogues Parliament, then deflects blame from himself by throwing someone else under the bus. In Harpers Ottawa, the prime minister takes credit for everything good, but responsibility for nothing bad. To my recollection, the words, It was my fault, or I was wrong, have never passed his lips.

Now that Senators Pamela Wallin, Mike Duffy and Patrick Brazeau, plus the Prime Ministers Office chief of staff Nigel Wright, have joined discarded former ministers Bev Oda, Helena Guergis, Peter Penashue and John Duncan, it must be getting crowded under the Harper bus.

No kidding.

Harper

takes no responsibility,

admits no wrong,

hears nothing, sees nothing ...

... has no conscience?

Would you buy a used car from this man?

[g_bambino]

Don't make claims you can't back up.

jacee doesn't have to do that; she's special, didn't you know?

But the payment to Duffy and his acceptance of it was illegal:

Section 17 (1) of the Senate Conflict of Interest code states: “Neither a Senator, nor a family member, shall accept … any gift or other benefit, except compensation authorized by law, that could reasonably be considered to relate to the Senator’s position.”

Section 16 (1) of the Parliament of Canada Act states that “no member of the Senate shall receive or agree to receive any compensation, directly or indirectly, for services rendered … in relation to any bill, proceeding, contract, claim, controversy, charge, accusation, arrest or other matter before the Senate or the House of Commons or a committee of either House.” Moreover, Section 16 (3) makes “every person who gives, offers or promises to any member of the Senate” such compensation liable to imprisonment for up to one year.

Section 121 (1) of the Criminal Code states that anyone who “gives, offers or agrees to give or offer” to an official or “being an official, demands, accepts or offers or agrees to accept” any “loan, reward, advantage or benefit of any kind” in return for “cooperation, assistance, exercise of influence or an act or omission” in connection with “any matter of business relating to the government,” is guilty of an offence punishable by up to five years in jail.

Wright’s resignation not the government’s moral reclamation. It’s the next act in the tragedy

[jacee]

I did, and the questions I asked were not meant to challenge. If you don't know, just say so..

The answers are there.

[Spiderfish]

But the payment to Duffy and his acceptance of it was illegal:

I get what you're saying, but at the risk of sounding repetative, how do we know that this was compensation for services rendered, or a loan, reward, or advantage, or benefit in return for cooperation, assistance exercise of influence or act or ommission? I'm not defending Duffy, I'm just not sure that if it was a legitimate loan with no strings and clearly defined repayment terms, it would be illegal. It seems really strange that someone of Mr. Wright's knowlege and intelligence would knowingly offer an illegal payment to a senator.

[jacee]

Don't make claims you can't back up.

I'm deducing 'illegal' from your post:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/22685-pmo-paid-for-duffys-fraud/page-11#entry900536

We have no idea about Harper's role in all this, we don't know if it was illegal. We barely know anything about this story yet.

I recall that back in Feb-Mar, Harper was happy to declare Duffy cleared because he paid the money back.

You really think Harper didn't engineer that?

liberal-senate-leader-hopes-to-call-harpers-office-in-contempt-of-parliament-force-wright-to-testify

Liberal Senate leader James Cowan is expected to argue that Stephen Harpers office violated the sacrosanct privileges of parliamentarians.

Harpers chief of staff Nigel Wright gave Sen. Mike Duffy $90,000 to pay off improper housing expenses. Wright resigned on Sunday,and Duffy from the Tory caucus on Thursday.

After that payment,Duffy stopped co-operating with an audit into his expenses,and sources say a Senate report into his claims was stripped of some of its most critical language.

Cowan will say that the executive branch interfered in the proceedings of the Senate committee tasked with studying Duffys expense claims.

WHO would interfere with a Senate report without Harper's approval? NOBODY! He's a control freak given to berating people fiercely if they cross him.

Harper skewered Nigel Wright in caucus today, fake outrage at what was done "in my own office!".

I think that's pretty scummy of him.

What more will it take for Wright to step up and tell the truth about who engineered this? Testifying under oath would be good.

From all reports, he is a man of personal integrity who has already sacrificed himself for Harper.

Harper would NEVER do that, never admit wrong, would deny, blame some innocent person, weasel out of it.

In my opinion, of course.

[Moonlight Graham]

In my opinion, of course.

Ah heck, ya it likely was illegal, and Harper likely did at least know about it, given the payment came from the top official in his own office. If proven true, given the (for reason I don't understand) popular Justin Trudeau now head of the Libs, Harper could be done as PM next election. I wonder if such a scandal would be enough to make him resign? Doubtful given his stubbornness, but if legal charges are laid against him...

Edited May 22, 2013 by Moonlight Graham

[silver72]

On the political talk show the former parliament clerk said, that IF there were lawyers involved then that means something legal went down and probably some kind of document and there fore, the lawyers could be in BIG trouble over this money. Today, Baird kept denying there was a document, and now we know why, the lawyers.

[jacee]

I get what you're saying, but at the risk of sounding repetative, how do we know that this was compensation for services rendered, or a loan, reward, or advantage, or benefit in return for cooperation, assistance exercise of influence or act or ommission? I'm not defending Duffy, I'm just not sure that if it was a legitimate loan with no strings and clearly defined repayment terms, it would be illegal. It seems really strange that someone of Mr. Wright's knowlege and intelligence would knowingly offer an illegal payment to a senator.

It was identified as a gift.

Thinking about "benefit" .... who benefitted ... certainly Duffy was supposed to benefit from escaping further scrutiny of expenses.

But the PMO was also trying to benefit by avoiding a scandal that could taint the PM.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/05/21/the-commons-john-baird-tries-to-explain-what-he-understands-to-be-true/#more-386131

Mulcair:

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Ministers chief of staff gave Mike Duffy a $90,000 cheque, he said. In exchange, Duffy paid off illegal expenses, stopped co-operating with auditors and the PMO said in writing that they would go easy on him. In his own words Senator Duffy stayed silent on the orders of the Prime Ministers Office. A secret cash payment from the Prime Ministers chief of staff negotiated by the Prime Ministers own lawyer.

The PMO bought Duffy's silence, tried to evade the audit ... damage control ... to benefit the PM.

[Bryan]

Nothing yet is proven of course, but if Harper was involved in the decision making or even informed of this payoff to Duffy before it happened, it has the potential to destroy him and the CPC in the next election, as well as having him and others face legal action. We all know very little of what Harper or others in the CPC knew or didn't know of this so everything will all depend, of course, on what an investigation of this whole scandal yields.

I'm just not seeing it. Of all the scandalettes the media and opposition have tried to paint Harper with, this one seems to be the most petty of all of them.

[Smallc]

Are you kidding? These things are just piling and piling. He's looking worse than any Liberal that you can name.

[Bryan]

That's crazy talk. This is less than nothing compared to any other leader that's come before.

[Smallc]

That's crazy talk. This is most certainly not in the realm of nothing.

[Moonlight Graham]

I'm just not seeing it. Of all the scandalettes the media and opposition have tried to paint Harper with, this one seems to be the most petty of all of them.

If Harper was involved in what his PMO Chief did, the man could be facing criminal charges under the CCC. That's pretty serious. Your partisan stripes are showing loud and clear.

[The_Squid]

I'm just not seeing it. Of all the scandalettes the media and opposition have tried to paint Harper with, this one seems to be the most petty of all of them.

Bribery and influence pedaling by the PM is ok? LOL

Wow...