PMO paid for Duffy's fraud

[Guest Derek L]

Derek, you're really stretching it.

Stretching what? By all means if I’ve stated something factually incorrect or was remiss in mentioning something in relation to the Senators position or claim(s), by all means, steer me in the right direction.

[On Guard for Thee]

Doesn't mater if people are "buying it", there's a presumption of innocence within our society for a very valid reason…………That brings me back to my question:

If the Senator has damning evidence (outside of hearsay) against those that he claims, why has he not made it public, and why has the Senator refused to communicate his grievances against said parties without doing so through his attorney or in a political setting that grants him Parliamentary Privilege?

Why? because he is taking on the PM of Canada. You don't do that without a lawyer, if you're smart.

[waldo]

It’s not dangerous if you have qualified privilege………like I said several posts ago to you, since you don’t understand what qualified privilege means, this is why you’d think such actions would be “dangerous”.

you made the point of 'qualified privilege' in regards to Duffy's lawyer speaking to 'the national media concerning alleged emails'. Does your internet law degree allow you to suggest that 'qualified privilege' for a lawyer covers inaccuracy/malice?

Chew on this, outside of today’s statement from within the Senate, or communications the Senator has made through his attorney, why has the Senator not spoken to the press in detail over this scandal that has dogged him for months?

well, duh... apparently, Duffy has been the proverbial team player... up till now. Now, facing Senate expulsion, apparently, Duffy's team player gloves have come off!

[Guest Derek L]

Why? because he is taking on the PM of Canada. You don't do that without a lawyer, if you're smart.

If Senator Duffy’s intentions are as noble & virtuous as you claim, almost worthy of a minstrel strumming a song for our folk hero the Senator I should think, then why has he not gone public prior? Or actually provided any evidence that would counter the Prime Ministers responses?

[On Guard for Thee]

What looks so bad for Harper in this instance is not so much that he said he would never appoint an unelected senator, and then goes about lining the red chamber and then a number of his hand picked people get caught with their fingers in the cookie jar, or other nefarious places, it's because it really appears that he tried to cover the Duffy thin up, and may well end up being hauled into court to explain. That's really bad PR.

[On Guard for Thee]

If Senator Duffy’s intentions are as noble & virtuous as you claim, almost worthy of a minstrel strumming a song for our folk hero the Senator I should think, then why has he not gone public prior? Or actually provided any evidence that would counter the Prime Ministers responses?

Perhaps I haven't been clear here, I am no fan of Duffy's. I soubt there is as much as a shred of nobility anywhere in this process as it stands. As was said here previously they will likely take each other down and so be it. But Duffy is entitled his day in court, and it probably wouldn't have come to that if Harper didn't try to sweep all this under the rug, and Duffy under the bus.

[Guest Derek L]

What looks so bad for Harper in this instance is not so much that he said he would never appoint an unelected senator, and then goes about lining the red chamber and then a number of his hand picked people get caught with their fingers in the cookie jar, or other nefarious places, it's because it really appears that he tried to cover the Duffy thin up, and may well end up being hauled into court to explain. That's really bad PR.

Hauled into court on what grounds? Hearsay evidence in inadmissible……..and barring Duffy revels his claimed squirreled away evidence, there’s been nothing valid levelled against the Prime Minister, especially when Nigel Wright admitted his culpability in the mater, then did the morally correct thing by resigning his position.

[Guest Derek L]

Perhaps I haven't been clear here, I am no fan of Duffy's. I soubt there is as much as a shred of nobility anywhere in this process as it stands. As was said here previously they will likely take each other down and so be it. But Duffy is entitled his day in court, and it probably wouldn't have come to that if Harper didn't try to sweep all this under the rug, and Duffy under the bus.

You have evidence of malfeasance on the part of the Prime Minister? What a revelation…..Since Senator Duffy is reluctant to make his alleged emails known, by all means, please share.

[waldo]

Hauled into court on what grounds?

if Duffy faces criminal charges, is it your testimony, sir, that the Right Hon. Stephen Harper, on a point of absolute privilege, would, if called, refuse to engage in the legal proceedings against Duffy?

[eyeball]

Want of foresight, unwillingness to act when action would be simple and effective, lack of clear thinking, confusion of counsel until the emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong these are the features which constitute the endless repetition of history.

The endless repetition of politics too.

Chew on this, outside of today’s statement from within the Senate, or communications the Senator has made through his attorney, why has the Senator not spoken to the press in detail over this scandal that has dogged him for months?

Foresight. He had to leave Harper enough time to tie the other end of the rope around his neck.

well, duh... apparently, Duffy has been the proverbial team player... up till now. Now, facing Senate expulsion, apparently, Duffy's team player gloves have come off!

Yep, every now and then piranhas do take a chunk out of each other.

[On Guard for Thee]

You have evidence of malfeasance on the part of the Prime Minister? What a revelation…..Since Senator Duffy is reluctant to make his alleged emails known, by all means, please share.

Perhaps you aren't aware of the 45 minute or so discussion/press conference that Duffy's lawyer did on the TV recently. Granted that's not a court of law, but it's a start. And also consider that there is an RCMP investigation going on concurrently, and that affidavits released by the RCMP state that other people in the PMO were aware of "the payoff". So, let's just wait for these things to play out in due course and make their way to the courts.

[eyeball]

I wonder if Duffy has an audio visual recording of the meeting he had with Harper and Wright in his lawyer's binder. He was a reporter after all.

[Guest Derek L]

Perhaps you aren't aware of the 45 minute or so discussion/press conference that Duffy's lawyer did on the TV recently. Granted that's not a court of law, but it's a start. And also consider that there is an RCMP investigation going on concurrently, and that affidavits released by the RCMP state that other people in the PMO were aware of "the payoff". So, let's just wait for these things to play out in due course and make their way to the courts.

So? You stated:

But Duffy is entitled his day in court, and it probably wouldn't have come to that if Harper didn't try to sweep all this under the rug, and Duffy under the bus.

So, what evidence to you have, or know of, that indicates the Prime Minister was “sweeping stuff under the rug”?

[Guest Derek L]

Foresight. He had to leave Harper enough time to tie the other end of the rope around his neck.

It appears more of hindsight on the Senators part.......why not go public after the Prime Minister's first response?

Edited October 23, 2013 by Derek L

[eyeball]

I think it's like waldo said, he was content to swim with the other piranhas...but, things change...shit happens.

[On Guard for Thee]

So? You stated:

So, what evidence to you have, or know of, that indicates the Prime Minister was “sweeping stuff under the rug”?

So why do you think Harper all of a sudden is trying to throw Duffy and the others out of the senate? He claimed previously he had reviewed Pamella's expenses and all was in order. And it's not me that has the evidence, I'm not the lawyer;.Remember that old saying about not seeing the forest for trees? But as I've already stated, let's let that evidence be shown.

[Guest Derek L]

So why do you think Harper all of a sudden is trying to throw Duffy and the others out of the senate? He claimed previously he had reviewed Pamella's expenses and all was in order. And it's not me that has the evidence, I'm not the lawyer;.Remember that old saying about not seeing the forest for trees? But as I've already stated, let's let that evidence be shown.

So your charge of Prime Minister Harper “sweeping stuff under rugs” was unfounded…….So I’ll revert back to my question as to why the Senator does not make his evidence public? Also, why has the Senator waited until recently to “go public“, and when doing so, through the guarded confines of his attorney’s statement and the Parliamentary Privilege afforded to him (for not much longer) in the Senate’s Red Chamber?

[GostHacked]

So Duffy is now calling this all a conspiracy? We have the dogs eating each other now? Fantastic!!

[On Guard for Thee]

So your charge of Prime Minister Harper “sweeping stuff under rugs” was unfounded…….So I’ll revert back to my question as to why the Senator does not make his evidence public? Also, why has the Senator waited until recently to “go public“, and when doing so, through the guarded confines of his attorney’s statement and the Parliamentary Privilege afforded to him (for not much longer) in the Senate’s Red Chamber?

Well it's certainly not my charge and we'll see if it goes unfounded 5 minutes of looking at QP today would tell you something. And as I have already pointed out, he has made at least some of his evidence public, and again, I suspect he would have waited until hell froze over if Harper hadn't tried to have him expelled to try and get the scandal to go away. Which is kind of like sweeping it under the rug. And once again, we'll see what's in that binder in due time I expect.

[Guest Derek L]

Well it's certainly not my charge and we'll see if it goes unfounded 5 minutes of looking at QP today would tell you something. And as I have already pointed out, he has made at least some of his evidence public, and again, I suspect he would have waited until hell froze over if Harper hadn't tried to have him expelled to try and get the scandal to go away. Which is kind of like sweeping it under the rug. And once again, we'll see what's in that binder in due time I expect.

So again you level unfounded charges, but unlike Members of Parliament during Question Period, that have Parliamentary Privilege enshrined, you have no legal basis to do so………alrighty then.....

[bud]

then did the morally correct thing by resigning his position.

it's good that his morals overcame his immoral behaviour, just in time when the scandal came out in the open.

the PMO PR office called. they want to hire you.

[waldo]

... if Harper hadn't tried to have him expelled to try and get the scandal to go away.

So again you level unfounded charges, but unlike Members of Parliament during Question Period, that have Parliamentary Privilege enshrined, you have no legal basis to do so………alrighty then.....

given your reply to the, as bold-highlighted quote, "... if Harper hadn't tried to have him expelled to try and get the scandal to go away", in your determination, just who/what is driving the expulsion of Duffy/Wallin/Brazeau from the Senate?

[bleeding heart]

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'.

.

Boy, that's a sweet deal.

Letter of the law, but avoiding the principle of the law as it's universally understood. The powerful sure know how to protect themselves.

[bleeding heart]

Hauled into court on what grounds? Hearsay evidence in inadmissible……..and barring Duffy revels his claimed squirreled away evidence, there’s been nothing valid levelled against the Prime Minister, especially when Nigel Wright admitted his culpability in the mater, then did the morally correct thing by resigning his position.

Please. You understand full well how these things work.

"Resign" is euphemism for "forced to resign."

[Topaz]

MAYBE, and its a big maybe Harper didn't know about Wright paying off the money owed to Duffy but in the court of public opinion, which started all this, most people don't believe it. Just like Ontario McGuinty, Harper tried to keep this support base and get rid of Duffy and it went out of control and the more they tried to cover it up the worse it got. IF its true that the senate board approved all the expenses as Duffy and the other senate says, then they were being bullied by the senate and the PMO., only to keep the party support base happy. Now, if and when a senate committee does hear this case and everyone swears to tell the truth, what will the PM and Wright say???