PMO paid for Duffy's fraud

[Mighty AC]

So....let me make sure I understand....you're saying you believe that Duffy is actually innocent of any wrong doing?

It seems that Duffy just felt he was entitled to his entitlements, born of ill defined rules, and the PMO agreed...until the optics were a problem and they threw the big guy under the bus. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/10/21/mike-duffy-harper-nigel-wright-housing_n_4137056.html Now Harper is tying to pin all of this on Nigel Wright. Easy Stevie Boy, if you stab too many former insiders in the back they will start to work together...and they were once privy to the secrets.

[TimG]

It seems that Duffy just felt he was entitled to his entitlements, born of ill defined rules, and the PMO agreed...until the optics were a problem and they threw the big guy under the bus.

What I find amazing is the number of people who do not understand how people working for large organizations act - private or public. In these organizations the only thing that matters to the people working there are the rules - if one is following the rules then one is always justified no matter how absurd the rules (union shops are notorious for this).

This sounds like the exact same scenario - except unlike a large corporation - the government is under the media spotlight and there is no shortage of people who willing to get angry at perceived abuses (despite the fact of that 99% of them would act exactly the same way if put in the same situation).

I don't know how credible Duffy's claims are about being told that it was ok but if it was true he was only following the rules and is no different than a union hack getting a 200K payout on retirement because of banked sick days.

Edited October 22, 2013 by TimG

[Mighty AC]

I don't know how credible Duffy's claims are about being told that it was ok but if it was true he was only following the rules and is no different than a union hack getting a 200K payout on retirement because of banked sick days.

Agreed. Duffy isn't the problem (at least on the issue housing expenses) and shouldn't be the story. Ill defined rules are the problem and the story should be the deceitful PM and his office sacrificing friends and playing politics.

I have also read that Duffy paid an associate a sizable sum of money for no discernible work. If true, he may not be blameless in this.

Edited October 22, 2013 by Mighty AC

[TimG]

the story should be the deceitful PM and his office sacrificing friends and playing politics.

Sorry I don't see why. Duffy may have been following the rules as he understood them but once the media lynch mob started there was no other option open. The only people arguing that Harper had other options are people who want Harper gone and the reason they are taking that position is because it would help them achieve that objective. These same people would be defending their favorite politician if the tables were turned so hypocritical outrage does impress me. Edited October 22, 2013 by TimG

[Mighty AC]

Sorry I don't see why. Duffy may have been following the rules as he understood them but once the media lynch mob started there was no other option open.

You really think the only option for the PMO was a cover up? Why not blame the ill defined rules, vow to fix them and then blurt out that Trudeau is 'not a leader'?

Or do you mean the PMO had no choice but to throw Wright under the bus after they approved the greedy fat man's possibly legal but ethically questionable expenses, then tried to secretly pay them?

[TimG]

Why not blame the ill defined rules, vow to fix them and then blurt out that Trudeau is 'not a leader'?

That argument ended once the audit committee ruled that Duffy did not follow the rules. The nuances that we are talking about now cannot be conveyed in the media.

Or do you mean the PMO had no choice but to throw Wright under the bus after they approved the greedy fat man's possibly legal but ethically questionable expenses, then tried to secretly pay them?

Again - if one believed that Duffy was being unfairly lynched then helping him out is simply something that a friend who could afford it would do. Nuance like this cannot be explained in the press and this forces politicians to choose simple and dramatic actions - like throwing Wright under the bus.

As I said, most of the people expecting Harper to defend Wright's actions are people who want Harper gone so their advice is pretty self serving.

Edited October 22, 2013 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

What is self serving is when you stand up in the house and lie to parliament, and thus the Canadian people.

I had to wonder what Norman Spector, Mulroney's former chief of staff meant when he said today that "what we saw today could be the end of Harper's Prime Ministership". Is that just because of how ugly this all is heading for the next election, or is Harper perhaps headed for yet another contempt of parliament finding that will hasten that election? There is a formal request for a ruling by the speaker on a point of order with regard to Harper misleading the house when he said he didn't know anything about the 90K cheque.

As someone else here previously said, the next few days and weeks will be pretty interesting. I doubt the EU proposed deal will rise above this fray anytime soo.

[ReeferMadness]

It seems that Duffy just felt he was entitled to his entitlements, born of ill defined rules, and the PMO agreed...until the optics were a problem and they threw the big guy under the bus. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/10/21/mike-duffy-harper-nigel-wright-housing_n_4137056.html Now Harper is tying to pin all of this on Nigel Wright. Easy Stevie Boy, if you stab too many former insiders in the back they will start to work together...and they were once privy to the secrets.

So the real question is..... could Duffy really fit under a bus?

[ReeferMadness]

That argument ended once the audit committee ruled that Duffy did not follow the rules. The nuances that we are talking about now cannot be conveyed in the media.

Again - if one believed that Duffy was being unfairly lynched then helping him out is simply something that a friend who could afford it would do. Nuance like this cannot be explained in the press and this forces politicians to choose simple and dramatic actions - like throwing Wright under the bus.

As I said, most of the people expecting Harper to defend Wright's actions are people who want Harper gone so their advice is pretty self serving.

I don't hear anyone defending Duffy but Duffy's lawyer. Duffy being in the wrong sure doesn't mean that Harper is in the right.

[On Guard for Thee]

So the real question is..... could Duffy really fit under a bus?

It would be a fairly tight fit for sure. So I had to laugh today then when someone Twittered to CBC that "It seems Duffy has tipped over the bus that Harper tried to throw him under" Good old Canadian humour.

[mentalfloss]

Duffy's lawyer accusing Harper of direct involvement in the scandal.

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/pmo-senate-gave-duffy-green-light-to-expense-pei-property-says-lawyer/article14960773/?service=mobile#!/

Edited October 22, 2013 by mentalfloss

[bleeding heart]

What I find amazing is the number of people who do not understand how people working for large organizations act - private or public. In these organizations the only thing that matters to the people working there are the rules - if one is following the rules then one is always justified no matter how absurd the rules (union shops are notorious for this).

This sounds like the exact same scenario - except unlike a large corporation - the government is under the media spotlight and there is no shortage of people who willing to get angry at perceived abuses (despite the fact of that 99% of them would act exactly the same way if put in the same situation).

I don't know how credible Duffy's claims are about being told that it was ok but if it was true he was only following the rules and is no different than a union hack getting a 200K payout on retirement because of banked sick days.

Except Harper has explicitly and openly denied the claims made by Duffy's lawyer.

And I'm not saying Harper's lying, either. Hopefully we shall know the truth.

But at least one of these men (and maybe both) plainly do not agree with your take on it.

Edited October 22, 2013 by bleeding heart

[PIK]

It is the job of the PMO guys to keep the PM out of the loop on these matters, it normal. Funny how this has grown. The media party is doing everything possible to get the boy wonder into power. But harpers job is jobs and that is what the people care about. I doubt this actually hurts him, now the media will make is sound like it is but I doubt it. In 2 years this will be gone and harper will have it fixed by then. So if angry tom wants to waste his time on this ,go for it.

[eyeball]

It is the job of the PMO guys to keep the PM out of the loop on these matters, it normal.

I think this must rank as one of the most sycophantic things ever penned in the defence of a suspected liar - never mind one with a rather famous reputation for being an unrepentant control freak.

[waldo]

the boy wonder

angry tom

MLW rule violation. I trust no one will report your (continued) transgressions.

[waldo]

I think this must rank as one of the most sycophantic things ever penned in the defence of a suspected liar - never mind one with a rather famous reputation for being an unrepentant control freak.

x2

[GostHacked]

Duffy was the only one to pay it back, that makes his transgression far less of an issue, not more. Who helped him pay it back is totally irrelevant, what matters is he did the right thing, and the others are refusing to even acknowledge that they even did anything wrong!

How about not cooking the expense book to begin with? With Duffy (or other) paying the money back does not negate the fact that this took place to begin with. These are not mistakes, these are deliberate. Anyone filling out expense reports knows that everything is itemized and documented. I would assume that the expense reports are also looked over and audited before accepted. Well that is how it happens in the private corporate world. So any blatant 'mistakes' would have been caught early on. Checks and balances. Then there is the possibility that the department overlooking expenses are part of the problem. Having a friend there would help slip somethings through.

And it would not be all in one shot. Claim a little here, a little there, and by the end of the year, a nice chunk of cash.

[bleeding heart]

I think this must rank as one of the most sycophantic things ever penned in the defence of a suspected liar - never mind one with a rather famous reputation for being an unrepentant control freak.

Oh, I don't know, eyeball....it seems about par for the course.

Soon, we'll no doubt see the evil Nigel Wright excoriated by the Harper admirers...a man whose public esteem is directly commensurate with the PM's words about him.

[PIK]

MLW rule violation. I trust no one will report your (continued) transgressions.

I have been called worse on this board, and so has harper, snitch.

[bleeding heart]

I have been called worse on this board, and so has harper, snitch.

PIK, I don't want to see you get banned. And that's where this could well be headed. Now, if you really don't care...then of course it's up to you anyway.

[TimG]

Now, if you really don't care...then of course it's up to you anyway.

It is not a question of not caring. It is a question of caring enough to want put up with the policy preferences of the other parties. For people that want Harper gone anyways then it makes perfect sense to blow this issue out of proportion. Edited October 22, 2013 by TimG

[bleeding heart]

It is not a question of not caring. It is a question of caring enough to want put up with the policy preferences of the other parties. For people that want Harper gone anyways then it makes perfect sense to blow this issue out of proportion.

Sorry, Tim, I don't quite get your response here.

I was speaking to PIK about the possibility of his being banned...but said that if he doesn't mind being banned, then there's no problem.

[TimG]

Sorry, Tim, I don't quite get your response here.

Sorry, I thought you were talking about the op.

[Jimmy Wilson]

Duffy just threw 20 sticks of dynamite on the Senate scandal as it relates to the PMO and Mr. Harper himself...

[jacee]

I'd say Harper is scrambling now.

Just the three of us: Mike Duffy tells Senate that Stephen Harper told him to repay expenses

In one unexpected take on the issue, Sen. George Baker, a senior Liberal, told reporters that passing the motions would be, in effect, a court sentence because the Senate is a quasi-judicial body. He argued that passing the suspensions would thus foil ongoing police investigations of the three senators. He said it would also mean Harper and his office couldnt be called to testify in the event of a trial.

You cant be convicted twice double jeopardy, Baker said. Legally speaking, brilliant move by the lawyers (at PMO) to get them off the hook.

So ... it plays to the base, and gets Harper off testifying, critical since it now appears he may have misled us about 'no involvement'.

.

Edited October 23, 2013 by jacee