PMO paid for Duffy's fraud

[August1991]

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.

Bryan, your post entirely misses the point. Harper won election on accountability. To get into office, one must make deals. But this deal is simply beyond the pale. Moreover, Harper runs away to Peru when the sh*t hits the fan.

The optics are absolutely, astoundingly atrocious.

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.

We know enough that Harper either approved the "hush-money/bribe" to Duffy, or he was foolishly naive. In any case, Harper has dodged all of these questions which renders him guilty among many erstwhile Conservative supporters.

-----

I suspect that Harper thinks that since the election is two years away, he can live through this scandal since voters have, apparently, the memory of a gnat. Well, I think Harper is wrong.

This scandal - and in particular his reaction to it - will come back to haunt him. Haunt him? Harper will soon be a subject of derision. His claims of "accountability" are laughable. Just today, already, it was sad and pathetic to watch the Conservative cabinet/caucus sit dumbfounded behind Baird as he repeated the same, silly nonsense over and over again in Question Period.

Harper is losing his base, and apparently he doesn't seem to understand this.

IMHO, with this scandal and Harper's current treatment of it, a large part of the Conservative caucus has zero chance of re-election in 2015. And at some point, many Conservaive MPs are going to realize this obvious fact.

Edited May 22, 2013 by August1991

[Wilber]

What I don't get is what would make Duffy worth all this trouble.

[August1991]

It seems really strange that someone of Mr. Wright's knowlege and intelligence would knowingly offer an illegal payment to a senator.

I think that it's quite obvious what happened.

Stephen Harper "bought" Mike Duffy because he needed someone like Duffy to raise money/support the Conservative cause. Duffy, an experienced insider, knows enough about Ottawa that he was willing to sell himself.

When the $90,000 became an issue, Duffy balked at paying it and insisted that Harper/the government/someone else pick up the tab. Duffy knows enough that if you are invited to an expensive restaurant, you shouldn't pay anything.

So, Harper and Wright cooked up a crazy scheme whereby Wright would pay the $90,000. Lawyers may have set it up as a zero-interest loan/mortgage that Duffy would never have to repay. I suspect that Harper told Wright that he would be reimbursed through a severance package or somesuch.

In Harper's mind, he was solving a problem, doing a deal. That's what politicians do.

Well, this was one deal too many.

[August1991]

What I don't get is what would make Duffy worth all this trouble.

My thinking too.

Duffy is like Belinda Stronach. Or Tony Clement. These were unnecessary deals that ultimately cost Harper more. IOW, Harper is apparently a bad deal maker.

When you're involved in messy litigation, you want a smart guy on your side. You hire a smart lawyer to make a good deal for you. I'm astonished at how badly Harper has apparently made deals.

-----

With that said, Harper has done some good deals. He united the Conservative Party but then, Peter Mackay seems the author of that deal.

Edited May 22, 2013 by August1991

[Moonlight Graham]

Bryan, your post entirely misses the point. Harper won election on accountability.

To add to this, the Cons and Harper won the election in 2006 because the country was disgusted by the corruption of the Liberal sponsorship scandal and the growing, long-time arrogance of Chretien and the Liberal gov. Looks like the tables may be turning, and history could be repeating.

[Bryan]

Bribery and influence pedaling by the PM is ok? LOL

Wow...

There's no evidence that this is anything of the sort.

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.

IF, if, if.....

While I admit that I am a partisan conservative, that doesn't mean I have sworn allegiance to this party with the word conservative in its name, nor does it mean that I'm unable to find fault in this government. I have expressed issues that I disagree with the CPC many times on this forum.

In fact, I disagree with the Prime Minister right now for taking such a stern approach to the issue, and reading his caucus the riot act over it.

Bryan, your post entirely misses the point. Harper won election on accountability. To get into office, one must make deals. But this deal is simply beyond the pale. Moreover, Harper runs away to Peru when the sh*t hits the fan.

The optics are absolutely, astoundingly atrocious.

And he has run the most accountable government we've had in my lifetime by a huge margin. It's precisely because of his open accountability that people are able to see all this info, warts and all. They're the ones who brought us the federal accountability act, they're the ones who created the PBO. These things are a pain in the ass, and they knew that going in, but they went forward with them anyway because it's the right thing to do.

Going to Peru shows leadership. Statesmanship. He's going about the business of continuously strengthening our economy, instead of getting involved in this childish bullshit media stunt.

[The_Squid]

And he has run the most accountable government we've had in my lifetime by a huge margin. It's precisely because of his open accountability that people are able to see all this info, warts and all.

So the Conservatives released Duffy's emails? And they were honest about who paid the $90k?

They were caught!! Canadians didn't come accross Duffy stealing and the PMO covering it up through Harper's honesty! To suggest we found out because of the honesty of this government is simply assinine.

[Topaz]

On Tuesday, Harper said he was angry but he didn't sound all that angry but he did point his finger! So If Harper was to apologize to Canadians what would he say? Maybe something like this? I'm sorry, so sorry that I was such as fool, I didn't know politicians could be so cruel. Duffy told me, mistakes, are part of being a Tory, but that don't right the wrong that's been done. I'm sorry, so sorry, please accept my apology, but I ...I.... didn't know, I was too busy to see, another Tory scammed the taxpayer again.....I'm Sorry!!!! Harper will sing this to the tune of Brenda Lee's "I'M Sorry" Just a little fun.

[eyeball]

There's no evidence that this is anything of the sort.

Besides being useful for gathering evidence for prosecuting others,

collect evidence that can also protect the wearer from spurious allegations.

It pisses me off too when someone I've voted for and invested my hopes in dashes them by doing something unethical and sneaky - the corruption of the leaders we stand by are a reflection on us, our party's and ideologies. The corrosive acrimony it causes can poison discourse and fuel a divisiveness amongst the electorate that lasts decades.

As you've said, we don't know enough - nobody does - to properly indict or defend and now we sit back and wait and watch and point and holler at the spectacle of a year(s) long investigation into one stupid little scrap of paper, over questions about who said what, when, where and why that could have been cleared up by simply playing back a record.

Sousveillance is everyone's friend, unless you've got something to hide or gain by secrecy.

[Moonlight Graham]

During Tuesday's question period, the Harper government is on official record saying this:

Throughout question period, Baird recited the same answer:

“The government is being very clear that the prime minister was not aware of this payment [the 90k between Wright and Duffy] until media reports surfaced last week.”

http://www.canada.com/Stephen+Harper+accused+evasion+Senate+expense+scandal/8413162/story.html#ixzz2U2Ja39Tg

[g_bambino]

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?

One doesn't have to. The Senate Conflict of Interest Code makes no mention of any of what you raise above. It states, again: "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." The money given to Duffy clearly related to his position as a Senator.

For the clauses in the Criminal Code and the Parliament of Canada Act: yes, we'd have to be made privy to the conditions of the payment, if any extisted at all.

[Wilber]

I suspect that Harper thinks that since the election is two years away, he can live through this scandal since voters have, apparently, the memory of a gnat. Well, I think Harper is wrong.

Not so sure. I think it will depend a lot on the quality of the opposition. I don't think this stinks any more than the BC Rail deal and look what happened in BC last week.

[Guest Kenneth]

It's my opinion that Harper knew about the payoff and possibly was behind it was well. Harper just keeps getting hit with scandal after scandal. I can't see him getting back in after 2015.

This will be long forgotten by then. Although Im not sure that Harper really wants to be PM for much longer anyway - Im sure he wants to be with his family and start earning much more in the real world.

[Moonbox]

I suspect that Harper thinks that since the election is two years away, he can live through this scandal since voters have, apparently, the memory of a gnat. Well, I think Harper is wrong.

They do have the memory of gnats and under the right circumstances will forgive almost anything. You know this and everyone knows this. Will people forget this? Perhaps or perhaps not. It's hard to say. It's more a matter of whether or not something more interesting comes along. You only need to look at Dalton McGuinty's record of incompetence to see how quickly people forget. John Tory's self-destruction in the (2007?) Ontario election showed just how easily things are forgiven if there aren't better options. That said, if momentum continues on this course, and the scandals continue to pile up, eventually Harper will be crushed under the weight of them.

Harper is losing his base, and apparently he doesn't seem to understand this.

Harper's base (Alberta and hard-righters) aren't going to go flocking to Trudeau.

[TimG]

You only need to look at Dalton McGuinty's record of incompetence to see how quickly people forget.

How about the BC Liberals and the HST and BC Rail? I think voters are sufficiently cynical that the 'devil you know' is a powerful factor in voting. There is fertile ground for Trudeau but be has to go after the the right of center vote. If he abandons the right of center in order to compete with the NDP it is quite likely that conservative voters will hold their noses and put the conservatives back in office just like they did in BC. Edited May 22, 2013 by TimG

[Spiderfish]

One doesn't have to. The Senate Conflict of Interest Code makes no mention of any of what you raise above. It states, again: "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." The money given to Duffy clearly related to his position as a Senator.

For the clauses in the Criminal Code and the Parliament of Canada Act: yes, we'd have to be made privy to the conditions of the payment, if any extisted at all.

Again, if it was deemed a gift or benefit, it's illegal, no question. If it's a loan, it would not be considered a gift or benefit, as there would be terms of repayment. It doesn't matter anyhow, it's a technicality that would not help either of their situation in any way. I'm just trying to figure out the logic Wright may have had in making the decision he did.

Edited May 22, 2013 by Spiderfish

[The_Squid]

I'm just trying to figure out the logic Wright may have had in making the decision he did.

They thought they could get away with it....

[TimG]

I'm just trying to figure out the logic Wright may have had in making the decision he did.

The explanation that he thought he was helping a friend avoid embarrassment is legitimate even if we can't know if it is true. It is quite possible that he thought (incorrectly) paying back the funds was sufficient restitution for Duffy's dishonesty. The real issue in this story is why Duffy and these other reprobates cannot be fired. I know if I was caught falsifying expense claims for an employer I would be fired with cause AND be expected to pay back all funds. Edited May 22, 2013 by TimG

[Hudson Jones]

Not so sure. I think it will depend a lot on the quality of the opposition. I don't think this stinks any more than the BC Rail deal and look what happened in BC last week.

It's usually old white people who vote for the Cons. Many old people have a terrible memory and they are especially moved by propaganda made to play with their heart strings.

[Hudson Jones]

I'm just trying to figure out the logic Wright may have had in making the decision he did.

It's to pay him back for all the campaigning he has done for the Cons. They owe him a lot and they thought they could get away with it.

[Argus]

Harper's base (Alberta and hard-righters) aren't going to go flocking to Trudeau.

Harper's base is quite a bit broader than that. I have a strong belief in order, in fiscal prudence, in sound management, which would, I suggest, make me part of that base. But while I could see myself voting for Ignatieff, were he running next time around, I don't see myself voting for Trudeau.

[TimG]

It's usually old white people who vote for the Cons. Many old people have a terrible memory and they are especially moved by propaganda made to play with their heart strings.

It could also be said that the only people who vote for the NDP are clueless young people who are ignorant of economics because they have never had any responsibilities.

When it comes to these types of issues the only people who care are partisans that seek to use it for political advantage. For proof look no further than the left's reaction to Muclairs claim that he was offered a bribe 17 years ago but said nothing. If NDP supporters applied the same standards to Muclair that they apply to Harper they would claim Muclair is either lying about not taking the bribe or he is complicit for not reporting it at the time.

Edited May 22, 2013 by TimG

[Hudson Jones]

It could also be said that the only people who vote for the NDP are clueless young people who are ignorant of economics because they have never had any responsibilities.

When it comes to these types of issues the only people who care are partisans that seek to use it for political advantage. For proof look no further than the left's reaction to Muclairs claim that he was offered a bribe 17 years ago but said nothing. If NDP supporters applied the same standards to Muclair that they apply to Harper they would claim Muclair is either lying about not taking the bribe or he is complicit for not reporting it at the time.

I'm not an NDP supporter, but the many NDP supporters I have come across are mostly minorities and educated white people.

The clueless people are those who complain about social programs while the party they blindly support practice socialism for corporations (huge tax breaks and payouts).

Trying to draw a parallel between Mulcair's incident to the ugly situation unfolding in front of us is stupid.

[TimG]

I'm not an NDP supporter, but the many NDP supporters I have come across are mostly minorities and educated white people.

That also describes most of the conservative supporters that I have met. But go ahead - villify people you disagree with. I am sure it makes you feel better about yourself.

Trying to draw a parallel between Mulcair's incident to the ugly situation unfolding in front of us is stupid.

You have just proven my point. You are a blind partisan who takes people at their word if they agree with your politics but presume lies and conspiracy if you disagree with them. Given such hypocrisy it is not clear why your opinion on the Duffy incident matters.

[roy baty]

It's usually old white people who vote for the Cons. Many old people have a terrible memory and they are especially moved by propaganda made to play with their heart strings.

This is priceless Jones..... Old white people. lol! Enough w/the Ageism already.. I am however impressed that you haven't blamed the Jews or Israel for the dreaded Conservative Party of Canada yet.