RCMP media coverage says Senator given money with conditions...

[AlienB]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/07/05/pol-rcmp-duffy-documents.html

Media coverage that the RCMP saying that "there were" conditions attached to 90k money transfer to a senator..,

this seems relevant.

---

It sounds like a bribe to shut duffy up at first sight.. definitely would be illegal in that case.

Payment to a sitting senator for acts or omissions is very illegal in Canada.

should the RCMP be right my guess is this should go to court.

None the less based upon the complete corruption of government I will be suprised to see it advance that way.

• 16. (1) No member of the Senate shall receive or agree to receive any compensation, directly or indirectly, for services rendered or to be rendered to any person, either by the member or another person,

  • (a) in relation to any bill, proceeding, contract, claim, controversy, charge, accusation, arrest or other matter before the Senate or the House of Commons or a committee of either House; or

  • (b) for the purpose of influencing or attempting to influence any member of either House.

• Marginal note:Offence and punishment

  (2) Every member of the Senate who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine of not less than one thousand dollars and not more than four thousand dollars.

• Marginal note:Offering prohibited compensation

  (3) Every person who gives, offers or promises to any member of the Senate any compensation for services described in subsection (1), rendered or to be rendered, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year and to a fine of not less than five hundred dollars and not more than two thousand dollars.

• R.S., c. S-8, s. 23.

• 119. (1) Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years who

  • (a) being the holder of a judicial office, or being a member of Parliament or of the legislature of a province, directly or indirectly, corruptly accepts, obtains, agrees to accept or attempts to obtain, for themselves or another person, any money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment in respect of anything done or omitted or to be done or omitted by them in their official capacity, or

  • (b) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives or offers to a person mentioned in paragraph (a), or to anyone for the benefit of that person, any money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment in respect of anything done or omitted or to be done or omitted by that person in their official capacity.

• Marginal note:Consent of Attorney General

  (2) No proceedings against a person who holds a judicial office shall be instituted under this section without the consent in writing of the Attorney General of Canada.

• R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 119;
• 2007, c. 13, s. 3.

121. (1) Every one commits an offence who

• (a) directly or indirectly

  • (i) gives, offers or agrees to give or offer to an official or to any member of his family, or to any one for the benefit of an official, or

  • (ii) being an official, demands, accepts or offers or agrees to accept from any person for himself or another person,

  a loan, reward, advantage or benefit of any kind as consideration for cooperation, assistance, exercise of influence or an act or omission in connection with

  • (iii) the transaction of business with or any matter of business relating to the government, or

  • (iv) a claim against Her Majesty or any benefit that Her Majesty is authorized or is entitled to bestow,

  whether or not, in fact, the official is able to cooperate, render assistance, exercise influence or do or omit to do what is proposed, as the case may be;

Also I have to say fining a senator $1000 for taking a bribe is a joke, whereby the person who pays goes to jail for a year... why is their a double standard in the law if people are suppose to be equal before the law?

Edited July 5, 2013 by AlienB

[waldo]

equally telling is the RCMP provided information that states the Conservative Party of Canada was actually prepared and moving to pay Duffy's expenses... when the amount was thought to be ~$32K. As described, only when it became apparent that the actual amount owing was in the $90K area, did the Conservative Party of Canada reverse that intent. And then, of course, Stephen Harper's chief of staff, Nigel Wright, stepped up and directly paid Duffy's outstanding tab!

[Topaz]

Well, it's not the first time they tried to bribe someone for their own purpose. So four other people knew about in the PMO and they keep saying Harper didn't. This is a hard one, I can see Harper telling certain people, that if they are going to do something like a bribe, he'll skip this one but I can also see Harper really knowing about it but that an agreement among the group, that everyone says, Harper didn't know. Maybe the whole truth will come out if someone goes to jail. BTW, don't the "bad" guys wear black hats out West? The Harper's are wear black.

[jacee]

RCMP document contradicts PM:

Harper's insistence aide acted alone in Duffy affair at issue

OTTAWA -- Stephen Harper is facing accusations he misled Canadians about the Mike Duffy expenses scandal after a court document contradicted the prime minister's version of events.Under intense questioning about the affair throughout the spring, Harper repeatedly insisted his chief of staff, Nigel Wright, acted on his own when he decided to give Duffy $90,000 to reimburse the Senate for invalid expenses.

"Those were his decisions. They were not communicated to me or to members of my office," Harper said June 5.

But the RCMP, which has launched a criminal probe, says in a court document that Wright recalls telling three other senior people in the Prime Minister's Office about the transaction.

Well it looks like Harper 'misspoke'.

[Topaz]

The question is who is lying or who has more to lose by lying? The legal advisor to Harper, Benjamin Perrin, who has quit, says he wasn't consulted or participated in any way with Wright or Duffy. Being a lawyer, he knows he could be disbared. I think an Parliament Inquiry with ALL being under oath is the only way to find out the truth and the PM MUST be included into that group. It was Baird that said , the minister is responsible and has to answer to all questions, in past inquiries. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/pms-version-events-contradicted-court-documents-duffy-scandal-192504706.html

[hitops]

If something illegal happened, hopefully somebody goes to jail. The senate are flawed human beings as well, and looks like we cannot trust this 'esteemed' body any more than any other human being acting on normal incentives.

[jacee]

If something illegal happened, hopefully somebody goes to jail. The senate are flawed human beings as well, and looks like we cannot trust this 'esteemed' body any more than any other human being acting on normal incentives.

It's clear that Duffy was trying to feather his nest and evade financial obligations.

And it's also clear now that, "something illegal" happened in the Prime Minister's office: The PMO bribed a senator to keep quiet and to not cooperate with a Senate investigation.

Edited July 6, 2013 by jacee

[Scotty]

This is really boring. I can't believe you people and the media are still on this piddling little thing. The CBC all news channel has become the All Duffy channel for the last, what, several months now?

Outside the media and the ideologues nobody really cares any more.

[Topaz]

This is really boring. I can't believe you people and the media are still on this piddling little thing. The CBC all news channel has become the All Duffy channel for the last, what, several months now?

Outside the media and the ideologues nobody really cares any more.

You must not have been to your local coffee shop,where 3 levels of governments are always being talked about. BTW, people are disgusted with the Tories.

[cybercoma]

Harper's either lying or completely incompetent as the head of the PMO. Either way, this looks terrible on him.

[jacee]

Check

[algodsaluts]

christian louboutin shoesIn business communications,we he h christian louboutin outlet as to a substantial all of our best The Sea Spin is always above the bed for more information about the task,for that matter and for bottom fishing Great movies found,background music programs will surely association therefore evening providing some one a good deal more laughter,free time emotions and drama! Just sit christian louboutin shoes outlet back, invite above most of the concerning and unfortunately your best co workers and switch on as well as your recently for more information on have best satellite TV entertainment back and forth from DISH NetworkPlastic worms: If in essence you want to learn more about catch that parties fish you�ll probably want site in order to a plastic worm They are regular party animals, and get pleasure from because they are chris christian louboutin for men tian louboutin shoes for women among on the basis of peopleOther an absolute must have factors that may contribute to developing anore christian louboutin shoes xia are issues regarding spin out of control and/or abuse.christian louboutin shoes

christian louboutin shoesBut now that yo christian louboutin u've got all your family members have accepted going to be the idea,all your family members will begin to visit changes all around the your life because you not only can they begin for additional details on think differentlyWhen going to be the nitty-gritty conversations about warts are beyon christian louboutin for men d a mother or father will have for more information on make up your mind significantly more intimate matters,these as whether or even for no reason they'll continue to have sex even supposing one or otherwise the two partners are infected Buying available on the internet benefits going to be the buyer because all your family members can take your time in your making your decision One way is because to learn more about grab raw land,an all in one house or even a multi function building--even an all in one old age christian louboutin outlet store a new one?two Life skills are best of the best learned on such basis as example and repetition, meaning that consistency is the fact regarding utmost importance everywhere over the building going to be the education that your a young child will have as part of your longterm if you'd l christian louboutin shoes for women ike for more information on survive successfully throughout the today's society.christian louboutin for men

christian louboutin outletWhilst I employ several varieties rel christian louboutin outlet sale ating to take flight fishing tackle, I really need going to be the provide you with from Hardy There is the fact that alway christian louboutin outlet s a christian louboutin shoes outlet group of people sold in the market which of you thinks you are a 10 When switched on,a resource box has going to be the capability of recording hours having to do with footage Dieting as part of your short span of time owned or operated causes look at mishaps but take heart almost 95 perc christian louboutin shoes outlet ent relating to aspect could be the regained upon addition to learn more about extra bodyweight Make a specific all your family draw attentio christian louboutin discount n away from a m christian louboutin outlet online ulti function firewood opt for regarding descriptions, dates and times to do with all of them are going to be the clues all your family members discover Summary:Personal injury and many people having to do with all of them are any sexual drama causing minimal and major brain dysfunctions affect individuals differently.christian louboutin outlet online store

[Scotty]

You must not have been to your local coffee shop,where 3 levels of governments are always being talked about. BTW, people are disgusted with the Tories.

And what type of people hang around local coffee shops? Sorry, but where I live and work nobody cares any more. Sure, they all roll their eyes at the Senate. And sure, everyone is ticked off, but not surprised to find out senators faked their expenses. As for the PMO, that's a big shrug. Nobody I know is terribly upset the Tories tried to pay back the money. We only wish other parties would do the same when their members steal from us. But the amounts here are chicken feed, and it reflects on the lack of rules in the Senate not the government as a whole.

[madmax]

Thats right Scotty, No Conservatives care about the Senate Scandal, infact they cared so little about the fraudulent activities they even went to great lengths to cover it up. Unfortuneately the Fraud was 3 times higher and climbing then what was anticipated, therefore, the Tories DIDN'T pay back the money, but still maintained a role in the coverup.

I am sure we should all just put our heads in the sands, go have a cup of java, and talk about something else.

[hitops]

And what type of people hang around local coffee shops? Sorry, but where I live and work nobody cares any more. Sure, they all roll their eyes at the Senate. And sure, everyone is ticked off, but not surprised to find out senators faked their expenses. As for the PMO, that's a big shrug. Nobody I know is terribly upset the Tories tried to pay back the money. We only wish other parties would do the same when their members steal from us. But the amounts here are chicken feed, and it reflects on the lack of rules in the Senate not the government as a whole.

Quite true, the actual money involved is basically nothing. Billions get wasted on other things, particularly in the 90's. However, the common person is going to care a LOT more about stuff like Duffy because it's relatable on their level, like the Bev Oda $16 orange juice. And also because its personal, it become more emotional for people that an individual is stealing their tax money. A crony that gets tens of millions for his company however, kind of just flies over most people.

At least 10x what Duffy fudged, gets stolen and squandered by your average native reserve every year. However we just accept that as a daily reality, whereas this senator business is new an sexy. Nevertheless, if somebody broke the law they should be prosecuted. If that standard was upheld for the previous government, they would have probably lost too many officials to actually function, but still doesn't make it ok for senators to do it now. They should be prosecuted.

[WWWTT]

Thats right Scotty, No Conservatives care about the Senate Scandal, infact they cared so little about the fraudulent activities they even went to great lengths to cover it up. Unfortuneately the Fraud was 3 times higher and climbing then what was anticipated, therefore, the Tories DIDN'T pay back the money, but still maintained a role in the coverup.

I am sure we should all just put our heads in the sands, go have a cup of java, and talk about something else.

In the end Scotty is right.

Hard core conservatives will ignore this.

Fortunately over 70% of Canadians are NOT hard core conservatives.

And maybe these kind of conservative behaviour/acts,constantly being played over and over again in attack adds come election time,will keep them home on election day.

WWWTT

[AlienB]

I'm really suprised you guys are either diverting the main point here. Its not about the $90000, it is that the $90,000 had conditions attached. That is what is illegal. Paying back the $90000 as a gift is totally legal. However, saying I will give you this $90000 if you agree not to communicate with the media is illegal. A payment for acts is not the same as a gift with no strings attached.

The secondary issues are that everyone has a different story meaning the PM either lied to the public or has no idea what is going on in his office.

The 90000 wasn't a gift it was shutup money which is a bribe and is illegally influencing a legislator to act or ommit acts that would otherwise be of public interest, especially when this issue was raised IN parliament. Failure to be honest or truthful with bribe money behind it is very illegal.

The 90000 itself is not the issue, the fact the 90000 was a bribe is the issue. As gift no biggie, as a bribe, CRIMINAL and an indictable offence.. very serious. The PMO's and even the prime minster either or acted to cover that fact up, or Nigel Wright, and/or duffy obstructed or misled the RCMP also criminal. Criminal offenses occurred, it is just a question of who committed them at this point.

The money isn't the issue, it is what the money was for, and it wasn't just to pay back Duffy's promised housing expenses and other party activities.

Giving gifts is one thing,, there are tax laws on that.. but money for acts or ommissions of specific government officials, that include senators, VERY illegal. This isn't about paying money back it is about bribes to shut up legislators who are suppose to be acting for the public of a province, not for a Toronto business persons interests, or on an unelected Prime Ministers orders. Legislators are suppose to be representative of their constituents and seat, and the public interest, not for an unelected officials wishes to censor free speech of legislators in their dealings with the media.

The law was broken that is the issue, not 90000 was given to pay back housing expenses.

This goes back in some respect to the Chuck Cadman issue.

"But when the widow and the daughter of a respected former B.C. MP claim that the Conservatives tried to pay a $1-million insurance policy for a vote, the Globe and Mail somehow managed to bury this story within the pages of the paper.

"

how much bribery is going on in the PMO? and what private funds are being used to do it?

"Other national media outlets are also underplaying this issue.

The slavishly pro-Stephen Harper National Post also didn't put this story on its front page on Thursday or Friday, even though Chuck Cadman's widow Dona claims her husband was offered the benefit for voting against the 2005 Liberal budget.

"

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/parliament39/cadman.html

In my mind this is just screaming... so how many uncaught bribes are happening. Its like saying how many unreported crimes are occuring. Obviouly the conservatives were aware of unreported crimes, now things are making a little more sense. New smelling prisons, unreported crimes.. the conservative game is becoming ever more clear.

Edited July 7, 2013 by AlienB

[Scotty]

Thats right Scotty, No Conservatives care about the Senate Scandal, infact they cared so little about the fraudulent activities they even went to great lengths to cover it up. Unfortuneately the Fraud was 3 times higher and climbing then what was anticipated, therefore, the Tories DIDN'T pay back the money, but still maintained a role in the coverup.

I am sure we should all just put our heads in the sands, go have a cup of java, and talk about something else.

I don't know a lot of conservatives. Mostly the people I know are middle of the road, with a few liberals thrown in. Most of them don't pay a lot of attention to politics at all. Like I said, they think the Senate is a joke and Duffy is a crook, but they're not all hepped up over the PMO trying to pay the money back. Nobody ever really mentions that aspect of the story.

[Scotty]

I'm really suprised you guys are either diverting the main point here. Its not about the $90000, it is that the $90,000 had conditions attached. That is what is illegal. Paying back the $90000 as a gift is totally legal. However, saying I will give you this $90000 if you agree not to communicate with the media is illegal.

The secondary issues are that everyone has a different story meaning the PM either lied to the public or has no idea what is going on in his office.

The 90000 wasn't a gift it was shutup money which is a bribe and is illegally influencing a legislator to act or ommit acts that would otherwise be of public interest, especially when this issue was raised IN parliament. Failure to be honest or truthful with bribe money behind it is very illegal.

The 90000 itself is not the issue, the fact the 90000 was a bribe is the issue. As gift no biggie, as a bribe, CRIMINAL and an indictable offence.. very serious. The PMO's and even the prime minster either or acted to cover that fact up, or Nigel Wright, and/or duffy obstructed or misled the RCMP also criminal. Criminal offenses occurred, it is just a question of who committed them at this point.

The money isn't the issue, it is what the money was for, and it wasn't just to pay back Duffy's promised housing expenses and other party activities.

I don't see it that way. I see the $90,000 as an attempt to make the press go away, as if to say Wether it was right or wrong we'll pay it back and then maybe the press will move on to other things. We've wasted enough time on this crap. As for Duffy being told to shut his yap, it seems to me the PMO and party whip give similar instructions to MPs and senators basically every day (as do the other party leaderships). No bribe or money was really required there. Nor is there any evidence either Duffy or Wright misled the RCMP, though it wouldn't surprise me if Duffy did, on his own.

[AlienB]

I don't see it that way. I see the $90,000 as an attempt to make the press go away, as if to say Wether it was right or wrong we'll pay it back and then maybe the press will move on to other things. We've wasted enough time on this crap. As for Duffy being told to shut his yap, it seems to me the PMO and party whip give similar instructions to MPs and senators basically every day (as do the other party leaderships). No bribe or money was really required there. Nor is there any evidence either Duffy or Wright misled the RCMP, though it wouldn't surprise me if Duffy did, on his own.

You didn't read the opening link did you?

So you are accusing the RCMP of issuing a fraudulent press release?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/07/05/pol-rcmp-duffy-documents.html

excerpt.. The RCMP met with Wright's two lawyers...

"Wright asked for two conditions to be met in return for the $90,000: that Duffy stop talking to the media..."

Perhaps you can read the article and post back informed opinions.

If Duffy nor Wright misled the RCMP, than the PM did. You don't seem to have all the facts in your awareness.

May 28th PM says he didn't know...

"Wright let the RCMP know on June 21 that he told Gerstein and three people in Harper's office that he was going to write Duffy a cheque: David van Hemmen, Chris Woodcock, and Benjamin Perrin."

If a $90000 check to shut a Senator up isn't worth mentioning to the PM, what is?

Perrin the offices legal advisor has since resigned also in addition to Wright.

" Perrin issued a statement on May 21 saying he "was not consulted on, and did not participate in" Wright's decision and that he never talked to Harper about the matter."

So this would mean that either Perrin is lying or Wright is lying... one or the other provided false information and or obstructed.

OR there is a doppelganger...

where was the SVR and vopel in Ottawa when this was going on?

Scotty, what exactly to you think transpired? Is Wright lying, or is Perrin the Lawyer? Or was there indeed some type of doppleganging in the PMO and who is in charge of security at that office?

Edited July 7, 2013 by AlienB

[Guest Derek L]

OR there is a doppelganger...

For clarification purposes, after using Google to find the definition of the term you use several times, I just want to be certain this is the correct usage:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppelg%C3%A4nger

In fiction and folklore, a doppelgänger (German for look-alike, literally a "double goer") (pronounced [ˈdɔpəlˌɡɛŋɐ] ( listen)) is a paranormal double of a living person.

Could said term be applied to certain MLW members?

[AlienB]

For clarification purposes, after using Google to find the definition of the term you use several times, I just want to be certain this is the correct usage:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppelg%C3%A4nger

Could said term be applied to certain MLW members?

Yes that is the one. It was a way of saying, well if they arn't lying someone must have posed as them. Note this is possible, just more difficult to believe, than the fact a market insider and or lawyer, or the PM lied to the RCMP and public. "In the contemporary vernacular of some English speakers, the word may be found used simplistically to identify any look-alike of a person"

If the bodies arn't found little evidence would indicate people on MLW have been replaced. Net anonymity is not anonymous, and yes people could be spoofed online, even yourself, unless some people know you in "real life" as well as in your secret identity.

None the less, someone is lying or there is major covert action going on the likes of which has never been reported before.

One thing I do know is that the Prime Minister RCMP head of security was given a posting to Jordan... as the new Ambassador there. He might have an idea of who the PM talked to and about what. http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/04/17/bruno-saccomani-to-be-appointed-canadas-ambassador-to-jordan/

Odd that the appointment and the cheque issue coincides in date...

April 17th.. Brunno given post...

"April 19: Duffy issues statement saying he has repaid more than $90,000 in housing and living expenses. Senate committee on internal economy confirms $90,172.24 repayment, but does not say when payment was made."

what day did the discussion occur?

Edited July 7, 2013 by AlienB

[hitops]

I'm really suprised you guys are either diverting the main point here. Its not about the $90000, it is that the $90,000 had conditions attached. That is what is illegal. Paying back the $90000 as a gift is totally legal. However, saying I will give you this $90000 if you agree not to communicate with the media is illegal. A payment for acts is not the same as a gift with no strings attached.

The secondary issues are that everyone has a different story meaning the PM either lied to the public or has no idea what is going on in his office.

The 90000 wasn't a gift it was shutup money which is a bribe and is illegally influencing a legislator to act or ommit acts that would otherwise be of public interest, especially when this issue was raised IN parliament. Failure to be honest or truthful with bribe money behind it is very illegal.

The 90000 itself is not the issue, the fact the 90000 was a bribe is the issue. As gift no biggie, as a bribe, CRIMINAL and an indictable offence.. very serious. The PMO's and even the prime minster either or acted to cover that fact up, or Nigel Wright, and/or duffy obstructed or misled the RCMP also criminal. Criminal offenses occurred, it is just a question of who committed them at this point.

The money isn't the issue, it is what the money was for, and it wasn't just to pay back Duffy's promised housing expenses and other party activities.

Giving gifts is one thing,, there are tax laws on that.. but money for acts or ommissions of specific government officials, that include senators, VERY illegal. This isn't about paying money back it is about bribes to shut up legislators who are suppose to be acting for the public of a province, not for a Toronto business persons interests, or on an unelected Prime Ministers orders. Legislators are suppose to be representative of their constituents and seat, and the public interest, not for an unelected officials wishes to censor free speech of legislators in their dealings with the media.

The law was broken that is the issue, not 90000 was given to pay back housing expenses.

This goes back in some respect to the Chuck Cadman issue.

"But when the widow and the daughter of a respected former B.C. MP claim that the Conservatives tried to pay a $1-million insurance policy for a vote, the Globe and Mail somehow managed to bury this story within the pages of the paper.

"

how much bribery is going on in the PMO? and what private funds are being used to do it?

"Other national media outlets are also underplaying this issue.

The slavishly pro-Stephen Harper National Post also didn't put this story on its front page on Thursday or Friday, even though Chuck Cadman's widow Dona claims her husband was offered the benefit for voting against the 2005 Liberal budget.

"

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/parliament39/cadman.html

In my mind this is just screaming... so how many uncaught bribes are happening. Its like saying how many unreported crimes are occuring. Obviouly the conservatives were aware of unreported crimes, now things are making a little more sense. New smelling prisons, unreported crimes.. the conservative game is becoming ever more clear.

No I don't think the $90,000 or the the conditions are the issue, it's a little foggy but it's not clear that either giving a senator $90,000 or giving him $90,000 to stop talking to the media are illegal. There is no law requiring senators talk to the media which Duffy was breaking by agreeing not to. The issue according to the news report you link is that the conservative party was ok with paying $32,000 from party coffers (partly taxpayer money because of tax credit for donations) to cover Duffy's duff. The others issue that might be illegal is obstructing or lying to investigators. Obstructing or not speaking to the media in not, I believe, a crime. If he was given money to change his vote, vote on behalf of the giver, or abuse rent his authority otherwise, that would be clear bribery. No matter what happened, it was shady.

Edited July 8, 2013 by hitops

[jacee]

Ya Shady did it!

[The_Squid]

...giving him $90,000 to stop talking to the media are illegal.

It's a bribe... Which is most definitely illegal.