CTV's Robert Fife and his Source/Sources

[August1991]

There are two specific questions in this remarkable scandal that bother me.

One, who told Robert Fife that Nigel Wright paid/wrote a cheque for Mike Duffy's debt? (Until the CTV report, apparently, even our PM didn't know that his Chief of Staff paid for this debt. Harper referred to "media reports".) Well, who informed Robert Fife of this payment? Apparently, Fife learned of this payment several weeks after the cheque was written. From whom?

Second, Fife has claimed that various lawyers were involved in this agreement, and payment. Harper's lawyer, Benjamin Perrin, has stated that he was not party to any deal. Is Perrin telling the whole truth?

-----

I reckon that Fife's source/sources must be in the PMO, the Conservative caucus, or possibly the PCO. And this leads to three further questions:

1. Why is this source leaking this information to Fife?

2. What will Harper do about this leak? (I think that we have part of an answer; Harper is apparently "hunkering down" and turning to loyal people.)

3. What will the caucus do?

[The_Squid]

Why is this another thread about the same topic? You have a habit of doing that.... This is the 2nd by you on this topic when there is already a robust discussion in the original thread.

[August1991]

It's not another topic. This thread is about Fife's source, and why the person(s) leaked, and what this means for the federal Conservative Party.

Squid, Stephen Harper stated that he first learned in a media report that his Chief of Staff paid Duffy's debt.

Well, what was the source of this "media report"? Logically, Fife got this information from someone.

Who?

Edited May 24, 2013 by August1991

[Bryan]

Fife doesn't have the best track record when it comes to his "confidential inside sources". There have been several stories in recent years where he supposedly broke a story, only to have to correct it shortly after when the real facts came out. He either like to make stuff up, or he needs new sources.

[Newfoundlander]

Seeing Mike Duffey was telling people how he got the money he probably told Fife.

[scribblet]

Now there's a thought.. Really though, if it came from someone inside the PMO then the PM needs to investigate then fire their ass..

[Moonlight Graham]

Does anybody have a link or quote as to how this story initially broke? I'm also unaware (maybe I missed it somewhere when reading articles). Who broke it? How did they find out about the cheque?

[waldo]

Now there's a thought.. Really though, if it came from someone inside the PMO then the PM needs to investigate then fire their ass..

what? You're in favour of hiding PMO influence peddling... hush/keep quiet ... 'gift giving' money from the Canadian public?

[scribblet]

Does anybody have a link or quote as to how this story initially broke? I'm also unaware (maybe I missed it somewhere when reading articles). Who broke it? How did they find out about the cheque?

I don't know, but whoever they are they gave Robert Fife’s bad information. There is no letter according to the lawyer Perrin but you know what’ll happen now. The consensus media will gloss over that or ignore it. How much else is wrong !

Text from Perrin’s statement

Last night’s CTV story in relation to me, which is based on unattributed sources, is false.

I was not consulted on, and did not participate in, Nigel Wright’s decision to write a personal cheque to reimburse Senator Duffy’s expenses.

I have never communicated with the Prime Minister on this matter.

ETA:

“Anonymous sources” - unknown beings and useful tools for the media when they are out to slag someone in particular. Maybe the real ‘scandal’ is with those journos who don’t wait for the facts but go ahead with smears coming from these “Anonymous sources”.

Edited May 24, 2013 by scribblet

[BubberMiley]

It's a sign of pure partisanship when you get angry about being told the truth.

[Bryan]

It's a sign of pure partisanship when you get angry about being told the truth.

I don't think that's what's going on at all. (some) people are getting angry at journos who claim absolute fact when they don't know what the truth is, and can't be bothered to actually confirm the important parts of the narrative they're trying to paint.

[The_Squid]

It's a sign of pure partisanship when you get angry about being told the truth.

Well said.

Someone actually had a conscience and wanted to let Canadians know of corruption in the PMO itself... Didn't Harper pass whistleblower legislation? Whoever did this should be protected....

[AlienB]

There are two specific questions in this remarkable scandal that bother me.

One, who told Robert Fife that Nigel Wright paid/wrote a cheque for Mike Duffy's debt? (Until the CTV report, apparently, even our PM didn't know that his Chief of Staff paid for this debt. Harper referred to "media reports".) Well, who informed Robert Fife of this payment? Apparently, Fife learned of this payment several weeks after the cheque was written. From whom?

Second, Fife has claimed that various lawyers were involved in this agreement, and payment. Harper's lawyer, Benjamin Perrin, has stated that he was not party to any deal. Is Perrin telling the whole truth?

-----

I reckon that Fife's source/sources must be in the PMO, the Conservative caucus, or possibly the PCO. And this leads to three further questions:

1. Why is this source leaking this information to Fife?

2. What will Harper do about this leak? (I think that we have part of an answer; Harper is apparently "hunkering down" and turning to loyal people.)

3. What will the caucus do?

Apparently Duffy told the press that the check was written after the audit continued. It seems Duffy expected the forensic audit to stop as soon as the money was paid back, it wasn't so Duffy came out and said where the money came from.

[scribblet]

It's a sign of pure partisanship when you get angry about being told the truth.

I'm not 'angry' at being told the 'truth'. We don't know how much is truth or how much the media is holding back, much is suggestion and innuendo. If I had an employee who (likely) has to sign a contract or some confidentiality agreement I would expect them to keep it. Running to the media without giving a name is pretty low, as is the media using unsupported, undocumented information.

We know that some of Robert Fife's reporting isn't true because the lawyer has said there's no letter. How much else is wrong ? IMO the whole thing is blown out of proportion as usual, so a little perspective here.

Changing a draft... isn't that what drafts are, a beginning document to which people can edit and make changes. It's the final document that is signed off on that counts.

A little perspective here. Duffy and Wallin padding expense accounts is unethical, but as far political scandals go it's pretty ho hum. It was pretty stupid of Wright to give money to Duffy but he's gone, so move on. Nothing more to see here, but that's not how it works for the all opposition.

Get Stephen Harper! Duffy ‘affair’ has exposed a pandemic of Harper Derangement Syndrome

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/05/24/peter-foster-get-stephen-harper-duffy-affair-has-exposed-a-pandemic-of-harper-derangement-syndrome/

The notion that this was ever an affair that might have justified Stephen Harper’s removal from power is about as unhinged as the CBC’s claim that “accountability changes at the border”

Harpergate, the rickety contraption hastily assembled by a team of the media’s worst handymen, has come off its hinges. Not even Mike Holmes, it seems, could “make it right,” which is to say make it wrong, attempting to build what appears at worst the mishandling of an expenses scandal into an existential crisis for the Conservative government.

This is not to say that there may not be further surprises, but it is difficult to imagine how bad they could get, unless it emerges that Mr. Harper’s former chief of staff, Nigel Wright, actually paid Senator Mike Duffy $90,000 for pictures of the PM partying with Rob Ford.

What this “affair” has exposed more than anything is a pandemic of Harper Derangement Syndrome, combining lack of proportion with an almost psychopathic desire on the part of the media to “get” a Prime Minister who won’t pander to their self-importance.

Edited May 24, 2013 by scribblet

[BubberMiley]

Another sign of pure partisans getting caught with their pants down and trying to distract attention from that fact is the use of the tired old "derangement syndrome" ad hominem.

[August1991]

We know that some of Robert Fife's reporting isn't true because the lawyer has said there's no letter. How much else is wrong ? IMO the whole thing is blown out of proportion as usual, so a little perspective here.

But we know that Fife was correct in saying that Wright wrote a personal cheque to pay Duffy's debt since Wright has admitted this.

This is not blown out of proportion.

----

Scribblet, think for a second: An employee in the PMO writes a personal cheque, on his own bank account, to solve a political problem.

Edited May 26, 2013 by August1991

[TimG]

Scribblet, think for a second: An employee in the PMO writes a personal cheque, on his own bank account, to solve a political problem.

I really depends on how big the check was from the perspective of the employee. My understanding is Wright is quite wealthy and 90K checks are not a big deal. What it also means is he was working at the PMO because he believes in Harper - not because he needed the money. So what we have is a rich man who believes in Harper who thought that if Duffy paid back the money that the problem would go away. What he forgot is the media in this country would jump on such a move and blow it out of proportion.

For me the real issue is: why can't Duffy be fired?

i.e. if Duffy could be fired after he paid back the money then no would care where he got the funds.

This obsession about the PMO/Wright is distracting from the real issue.

Edited May 26, 2013 by TimG

[Bryan]

But we know that Fife was correct in saying that Wright wrote a personal cheque to pay Duffy's debt since Wright has admitted this.

We don't even know that for sure. There are links in the Duffy thread that say it's being held in trust by his lawyer as collateral on the RBC loan that he paid the debt off with.

[August1991]

I really depends on how big the check was from the perspective of the employee. My understanding is Wright is quite wealthy and 90K checks are not a big deal. What it also means is he was working at the PMO because he believes in Harper - not because he needed the money. So what we have is a rich man who believes in Harper who thought that if Duffy paid back the money that the problem would go away.

IOW, if you're a politician, hire rich men and get them to solve your "problems". This is graft by any other name.

This obsession about the PMO/Wright is distracting from the real issue.

It's central to the issue. It opens the door to influence-peddling.

A naive politician is expedient in seeking power. How far does one bend the rules?

[August1991]

We don't even know that for sure. There are links in the Duffy thread that say it's being held in trust by his lawyer as collateral on the RBC loan that he paid the debt off with.

As you say, if the cheque is held in trust, it's held by a lawyer. Do you think Wright would give a personal cheque to Duffy's lawyer - in trust - without counsel?

----

IMHO, more people than Duffy and Wright were involved/aware of this "deal". It is simply amazing that these otherwise smart people believed that this crazy scheme would work.

Sheer hubris, and OCD behaviour. That's my explanation.

[August1991]

For me the real issue is: why can't Duffy be fired?

i.e. if Duffy could be fired after he paid back the money then no would care where he got the funds.

Duffy fired? Would that solve the problem?

Duffy is just another supplicant. Like Maher Arar, Duffy wants money. Could Harper "fire" Arar?

To make Arar stop talking, Harper gave him $10 million of taxpayer money. To solve the Duffy problem, Harper had to appeal to the bank account of his Chief of Staff.

For Harper (and most politicians), it's all about solving problems to maintain/obtain power.

-----

Duffy? Arar? How about softwood lumber? Have you noticed that we never hear about softwood lumber now? Why? Well, Harper paid off the softwood lumber lobby - as he did Arar and Duffy - by giving them a lucrative deal.

That's politics.

And in the case of Harper, that's all there is. It's just expediency, all political calculation. Nothing truly accomplished.

Edited May 26, 2013 by August1991

[TimG]

Duffy fired? Would that solve the problem?

The only problem is a senator was caught lying on his expense claims and he is probably not alone. It has nothing to do with Arar. It is about personnel management. You also have absolutely no evidence that Harper was involved in either decision. You, like everyone else, are reading things that are not there because you wish to rationalize your anti-Harper positions.

[August1991]

The only problem is a senator was caught lying on his expense claims and he is probably not alone. It has nothing to do with Arar. It is about personnel management. You also have absolutely no evidence that Harper was involved in either decision. You, like everyone else, are reading things that are not there because you wish to rationalize your anti-Harper positions.

Sorry, Tim.

Duffy wanted to eat at the trough, like Arar. And Harper, to gain power/solve problems, let both into the feeding pen.

I'm not anti-Harper, and I'm not reading anything into this.

----

At this point, my simple question to Justin Trudeau would be: are the deals required to obtain/maintain power worth it? Is expediency worth it?

I have always liked Milton Friedman's comment on this: It is wrong to hope for honest politicians. It is better to design systems/incentives so that dishonest politicians act in an honest manner.

Edited May 26, 2013 by August1991

[Smallc]

I really depends on how big the check was from the perspective of the employee. My understanding is Wright is quite wealthy and 90K checks are not a big deal.

The problem is that it was a big deal to Mike Duffy. If Mike Duffy was quite wealthy, it would be a different story.

[August1991]

The problem is that it was a big deal to Mike Duffy. If Mike Duffy was quite wealthy, it would be a different story.

I disagree. Competitive, Duffy naturally wanted the cheque, other people's money.

Rather, I would look at why Harper approved the cheque.

Did Harper understand, at the time, that he was selling his soul for $90,000? After so many deals and compromises, was he so confused that at the time, he viewed the $90,000 as just another cheque to sign?

====

To me, Stephen Harper will become fodder for a future English-Canadian playwright. This saga is comparable to a script by Oscar Wilde or Feydeau.