PMO paid for Duffy's fraud

[On Guard for Thee]

No, you suggested the CPC broke a law by paying the legal expenses of (at the time) one of it's members. What law was broken?

The law that was broken quite obviously was the 90k check to shut Duffy up. And if you want to talk waiting times, then why did Harper appoint Duffy as a senator representing PEI when he knew full well he was living in Ottawa and wait 4 years to react to that. And I also notice that there may be some suspicion that the 90k check MAY have been written on the CPC account. I reckon if that turns out to be true, Harper is, as the old saying goes, "done like dinner"

[Guest Derek L]

The law that was broken quite obviously was the 90k check to shut Duffy up.

What law was broken?

And if you want to talk waiting times, then why did Harper appoint Duffy as a senator representing PEI when he knew full well he was living in Ottawa and wait 4 years to react to that.

You have evidence that the Prime Minister knew the full extent of Duffy's living arrangements?

And I also notice that there may be some suspicion that the 90k check MAY have been written on the CPC account.

Well no, Mr Wright admitted he wrote the cheque........But let's suppose your baseless assertion is true, what of it? No laws would have been broken, and the negative optics would only directly effect party donors.

I reckon if that turns out to be true, Harper is, as the old saying goes, "done like dinner"

You may think that to be so, that's all you.

[On Guard for Thee]

What law was broken?

You have evidence that the Prime Minister knew the full extent of Duffy's living arrangements?

Well no, Mr Wright admitted he wrote the cheque........But let's suppose your baseless assertion is true, what of it? No laws would have been broken, and the negative optics would only directly effect party donors.

You may think that to be so, that's all you.

First of all, paying a politician to secure their silence is definitely illegal. Also, I didn't say Wright didn't write the check, I said it's not clear on who's account it was written. If you contributed to the CPC would you be happy about your money being spent to sweep a scandal under the rug? I know I wouldn't.

[On Guard for Thee]

First of all, paying a politician to secure their silence is definitely illegal. Also, I didn't say Wright didn't write the check, I said it's not clear on who's account it was written. If you contributed to the CPC would you be happy about your money being spent to sweep a scandal under the rug? I know I wouldn't.

And no, I don't have the evidence of the living arrangements, but Mike Duffy does. In the form of an email from Nigel Wright (curiously written on his personal account and therefore not subject to FOI) which certainly seems to indicate that the PMO was aware of and aggreeable to those living arrangements vis a vis his expense claims. Today was quite a day. (oops)

[Guest Derek L]

First of all, paying a politician to secure their silence is definitely illegal.

What about a party giving money to a politician (a member of said party) to repay improper expenses incurred by said politician?

Also, I didn't say Wright didn't write the check, I said it's not clear on who's account it was written.

Wright said he wrote the cheque for 90k from his own account......To date (as far as I know) Senator Duffy has not denied the 90k cheque came from Wright's own account.

If you contributed to the CPC would you be happy about your money being spent to sweep a scandal under the rug? I know I wouldn't.

I do contribute to the CPC and the only ire I have over the entire mater is that we (as in the CPC) paid for Senator Duffy's initial legal expenses as confirmed by the party itself........Of course at the time, Senator Duffy was still a member of our party and the full extent of Duffy's wrongdoings was not known, as such and going forward, I fully expect the party to take care of it's members if justified, up to the point of proven wrongdoing on said party members part......With 20/20, Duffy was not justified.

[Guest Derek L]

And no, I don't have the evidence of the living arrangements, but Mike Duffy does. In the form of an email from Nigel Wright (curiously written on his personal account and therefore not subject to FOI) which certainly seems to indicate that the PMO was aware of and aggreeable to those living arrangements vis a vis his expense claims. Today was quite a day. (oops)

So your claim:

Harper appoint Duffy as a senator representing PEI when he knew full well he was living in Ottawa and wait 4 years to react to that.

Was both frivolous and unfounded by your own admission.

[On Guard for Thee]

So your claim:

Was both frivolous and unfounded by your own admission.

And it's still a crime. I doubt very much you will see a vote in the senate re: Duffy etal (you do recall who appointed these people eh?) because especially after today's bombshells Harper has to know he's lose. This won't get swept up before the Hallowe'en convention for sure. I'd be very nervous if I was Harper. He may find himself being the one thrown under the bus in YYC.

[Guest Derek L]

And it's still a crime. I doubt very much you will see a vote in the senate re: Duffy etal (you do recall who appointed these people eh?) because especially after today's bombshells Harper has to know he's lose. This won't get swept up before the Hallowe'en convention for sure. I'd be very nervous if I was Harper. He may find himself being the one thrown under the bus in YYC.

What is "still a crime"?

You understand what making unfounded claims about a person (in print) is….right?

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forum-weblog-rules

LEGAL ISSUES/ACTION

You remain solely responsible for the content of your messages, and you agree to indemnify and hold harmless Mapleleafweb with respect to any claim based upon transmission of your message(s).

By participating in the forums and weblogs, you grant us the right and licence to use, reproduce and display any submissions to the forum without compensation to you or any one else.

We at Mapleleafweb also reserve the right to reveal your identity (or whatever information we know about you) in the event of a complaint or legal action arising from any message posted by you.

Edited October 29, 2013 by Derek L

[The_Squid]

What is "still a crime"?

You understand what making unfounded claims about a person (in print) is….right?

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forum-weblog-rules

Really? lol

Give it a rest....

Paying a senator to keep him quiet or so he doesn't cooperate with an audit is clearly illegal. To pretend some faux outrage and to accuse someone of libel who suggests this is the case is quite laughable.

[On Guard for Thee]

I think politicians of whatever stripe can survive only so many scandals, and I think Harper may have hit that limit.

[Guest Derek L]

Really? lol

Give it a rest....

Paying a senator to keep him quiet or so he doesn't cooperate with an audit is clearly illegal. To pretend some faux outrage and to accuse someone of libel who suggests this is the case is quite laughable.

The post was in reference to his admitted, unfounded claim here:

Harper appoint Duffy as a senator representing PEI when he knew full well he was living in Ottawa and wait 4 years to react to that.

As to the legality of your above assertion, what law are you claiming was broken?

[On Guard for Thee]

Really? lol

Give it a rest....

Paying a senator to keep him quiet or so he doesn't cooperate with an audit is clearly illegal. To pretend some faux outrage and to accuse someone of libel who suggests this is the case is quite laughable.

Thanks Squid, you took the words out of my mouth. I guess you type faster.

[The_Squid]

As to the legality of your above assertion, what law are you claiming was broken?

Do you really need a criminal code of Canada reference to know that paying a senator to keep his yap shut is illegal?

You think bribing public officials has become legal in Canada lately?

[jacee]

What about a party giving money to a politician (a member of said party) to repay improper expenses incurred by said politician?

And try to shut him up?

Don't forget that key element of the crime.

14 years ... No wonder you and others are scrambling !

I do contribute to the CPC and the only ire I have over the entire mater is that we (as in the CPC) paid for Senator Duffy's initial legal expenses as confirmed by the party itself........Of course at the time, Senator Duffy was still a member of our party and the full extent of Duffy's wrongdoings was not known, as such and going forward, I fully expect the party to take care of it's members if justified, up to the point of proven wrongdoing on said party members part......With 20/20, Duffy was not justified.

Nor was the hush money.

It's a bit concerning that CPC'rs like yourself pretend not to comprehend what corruption is.Does Duffy have it right?

They have no moral compass. They talk a great game about integrity. But in my experience they demonstrate every day they dont understand the meaning of the phrase: The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Edited October 29, 2013 by jacee

[On Guard for Thee]

How about obstruction of justice perhaps.

[cybercoma]

There actually is still no evidence that Harper knew any of this.

except for the PMO's involvement and you know damn well Harper IS the PMO. He's a control freak.

[Guest Derek L]

Do you really need a criminal code of Canada reference to know that paying a senator to keep his yap shut is illegal?

You think bribing public officials has become legal in Canada lately?

What Bribe? The accusation of improper expenses on the part of Senator Duffy was made (I forget the exact date) in December of 2012, he repaid the owed money, from the cheque from Mr Wright, in March of 2013.…….What bribed silence? I mean the affair was reported on in the media long before Mr Wright gave Senator Duffy any money……..I don’t know about you, but paying "hush money" after the fact is hardly effective

[Guest Derek L]

How about obstruction of justice perhaps.

Ahhh......no......Google what it means

[On Guard for Thee]

As was pointed out after all this latest Duffy stuff was revealed to day, either Harper was in the loop, which points to complicity, or he somehow didn't see all these things going on under his nose, which points to his incompetence. Pick your poison.

[jacee]

How about obstruction of justice perhaps.

Plenty of that ... along with bribing a public official.

[Guest Derek L]

Plenty of that ... along with bribing a public official.

Oh.....another one that doesn't know what they're talking about.......This is painful, what you're reaching for is:

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-121-20070531.html

Of course, the only ones being investigated on this charge are Senator Duffy and Nigel Wright, since the 90K cheque was from Mr Wright’s personal account……

Edited October 29, 2013 by Derek L

[waldo]

What Bribe?

uhhh... apparently, the bribe National Post's Andrew Coyne speaks to - here:

Officials within the Prime Minister’s Office — not only Wright, but others — colluded to bribe a sitting Senator, relieving him of any penalty for filing false expense claims in exchange for his silence. Then both he and they lied about it for months. Indeed, they kept lying about it, it appears, even after the scheme was uncovered, a series of falsehoods that ran from “Wright and Duffy are old friends” to, we now learn, “Wright resigned.” (The prime minister, in the day’s other revelation, told a radio interviewer he was “dismissed,” having maintained until the previous day that he resigned.)

The portrait that emerges from these claims and counter-claims — not only involving Duffy, but senators Pamela Wallin and Patrick Brazeau — is revealing. Some of the fiercest disputes seem to turn on deals in which the two sides would arrange to tell a mutually agreed upon lie to the public (Duffy repaid, Wright resigned, Wallin “recused” herself from caucus) only to have one side renege, i.e. tell the truth. This is then presented by the other side, without evident irony, as evidence of their perfidy. There’s just no honour among liars any more.

Indeed, if the story has resonance, it is because it fits with everything we know about this government: the tight, top-down control; the penchant for secret deals (Chuck Cadman, anyone? Alan Riddell, come on down!); the cynicism, the duplicity. There is, shall we say, a pattern.

The involvement of Arthur Hamilton is particularly troubling in this light. Not only does it suggest still wider circles of knowledge about the scheme — Who authorized Hamilton to sign the cheque? On whose account was it drawn? — but it ties the Duffy mess to some other Conservative ethical morasses. Hamilton was last in the news sitting in on Elections Canada’s investigations into the robocalls affair, advising party workers how they should respond to questions.

But more than just a malfunctioning moral compass is at work here. This whole affair is an indictment, not only of a government, but of a system of government. If the reflexive reaction of officials around the prime minister was to lie and cover up, and to go on lying and covering up, possibly it was because they figured they could get away with it — because our systems of accountability have grown so weak that it is unlikely those in power will ever be made to answer for their actions.

Here we are, more than five months after the scandal broke, and we have still to hear more than a few words from most of the principals. Instead, we get a series of different stories from the prime minister, and talking points from his underlings, while the RCMP investigation grinds on, and on and on.

In any self-respecting democracy, all of these people would have been subpoenaed to appear before a public inquiry or parliamentary committee of some kind, and required to testify under oath. But as this is Canada, we are obliged to rely on Mike Duffy’s self-serving Dance of the Seven Veils.

[On Guard for Thee]

I certainly don't need google to tell me what obstruction is. IF a check was cut to Duffy in exchange for his non-cooperation with the Deloite audit which was enacted to determine if illegal expense accounts had been submitted, you have a pretty clear cut case of obstruction.

[On Guard for Thee]

Oh.....another one that doesn't know what they're talking about.......This is painful, what you're reaching for is:

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-121-20070531.html

Of course, the only ones being investigated on this charge are Senator Duffy and Nigel Wright, since the 90K cheque was from Mr Wright’s personal account……

Are you sure you know where that 90k check came from?

[jacee]

Are you sure you know where that 90k check came from?

Good question.

We know the 13k chq came from the Conservative Party.

I wonder who approved that.