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

[AlienB]

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.

1. The media is in Parliament, there is a press gallery. For Duffy not to communicate with a media would seriously jepordize his ability to serve the public interest because the media is a mechanism. Also binding Duffy's will where his duties of office may require him to take an act with money is bribery. Frankly speaking with the press is part of a Parliamentarians job to address the public. While it is not essential, there very well may be instances where it is in the public interest.

Example in the firt instance

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

• ...controversy...

• ...accusation...

• ...or other matter before the Senate or the House of Commons or a committee of either House; or

His expenses WERE before committee and the senate... the money received was in relation to that, and it was a direct payment in relation to that.

For duffy that is a fine of between $1000 and $4000 while for Wright that is an indictable offence and up to 1 year in prison and a $500 to $2000 fine.

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

.. if relating to official duties.

You may have a point on the official duties aspect.. but is serving the public interest or the queen's interest an official duty, and if so is being bound not to act in the public trust and good faith infringing the senators ability to do their official capacities as a senator? If there is a controversy if Duffy contrary to his normal actions would have spoken to the media, is getting the money thereby serving a a breach of duty as a senator in serving the public interst? I would say that if Duffy would have spoken to the media to insure transparency and serve the public interest then yes, it was a bribe. If it was not in the public interest then it was not. However, the fact the media records parliament, it effectively would silence Duffy to speak on the matter. So yes it would obstruct parliament.

now what are senators charging the senate as part of their official expenses in relation to the senate? Do any of them have costs for media communications?

121. (1) Every one commits an offence who

• (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

121 seems fairly clear.

It was money to influence his actions in the matter. I would not see the same issue with a no string gift, but string attached it is binding his free will. It is just obviously hush money, and it was done in a way to not be directly visible to parlaiment because it wasn't a direct payment it was paid to a trust then duffy wrote a seperate personal cheque.

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;

Now where it gets really intersting is with Perrin, Woodcock, Brunno and the Stephen Harper with Conspiracy to 121, 119 ccc, and s.16 pa. as well as the PM giving a patronage posting to bribe bruno into the consipary.

The fact the Conservative Party itself was considering paying the tab is obvious that the upper echelon of hte party was disussing the matter, so I am very suprised the PM had no insight into the developments over Duffy's bailout. It would have him completely outside the loop on the biggest political controversy at the time, which really calls into question the whole Harper puppet master mythos that surrounds the PM and his office being a controlling dominating influence on the hill and in the party.

465 - Conspiracy

465. (1) Except where otherwise expressly provided by law, the following provisions apply in respect of conspiracy:

c) every one who conspires with any one to commit an indictable offence not provided for in paragraph a or b is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to the same punishment as that to which an accused who is guilty of that offence would, on conviction, be liable; and

I think Perrin was very aware of this now, him sayng he wasn't in the loop on the payment but Wright saying he was is very odd, why is this one misrepresented? I think Perrin realized he could face being disbarred if he is hit with an indictable offence. At the same time why would Wright have it out for Perrin?

Is Perrin telling the truth and if so why isn't he sueing CTV for slander?

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/pm-s-former-legal-adviser-arranged-deal-for-wright-to-give-duffy-90k-1.1289718

It seems the PMO has done lots of suits to opposition members you would think they would be well prepared to sue the newspaper for printing a false and defamatory article?

Yet another anomaly is that people claimed there was no letter of agreement but the same article ssays "e letter of agreement, saying it is now in the hands of Ethics Commissioner"

Currious, very currious this seems like a blarring mis statement, how could Perrin draft a letter he had no knowledge of?

Doppelgangers are the only answer, that and forgery.. but WHO?

Where is Sherlock and Scotland Yard when crimes of this magnitude and extravagance occur? True this is nothing compared to Rob Ford Smoke Crack ordeal and dead bodies and long term jailtime for the survivors but it is an enigma none the less.

Do parliamentarians ever speak to the media in an official capacity?

Now law and corruption are like horse and carriage.

I would not expect the moon to outshine the sun.

At worst this is probably just road kill and only god knows what really happened.

I got to say if championing causes such as Munsons $30k to give speeches is covered for official costs, then how is talking to press in Ottawa not seen as an official capacity if it relates to a controversy in Parliament? I think they really need to nail down what their official capacity is and why certain activities like travelling to give speeches is paid by the senate. And no I think that the senates place is to serve the public interest, however there seems to be a big grey area here. Was speaking to the press or responding to questions in committee or in a house of parliament something that was an official capacity? Is infringing those activities by paying someone not to do those things a bribe? Further is obstructing parliamentary inquiry contempt of parliament, and is obstructing the RCMP by political staff or members of parliament illegal? Is covering up those things also illegal? This is a DuffyGate but no no I think Canada is too corrupt to really care about politicos being beyond the law.

There are no bodies of family members no rape victims or torture and mutilation so its not worth the publics time, but why the hell is everyone elses suppose to be bound to those laws if the ones making them arn't?

Edited July 8, 2013 by AlienB

[Topaz]

If die hard Conservatives, still vote for this party then they are as bad as the party,with no moral values. I wonder if Wright knew by giving out the money, he was breaking the law and could go to jail and then on second thought, he must have known because he told Duffy to keep quite and then there the 2-3 Tory senators that would have known. I wonder if any of these guys know anything about the robocalls????

[hitops]

If die hard Conservatives, still vote for this party then they are as bad as the party,with no moral values. I wonder if Wright knew by giving out the money, he was breaking the law and could go to jail and then on second thought, he must have known because he told Duffy to keep quite and then there the 2-3 Tory senators that would have known. I wonder if any of these guys know anything about the robocalls????

Not really. The Liberals were way more corrupt last time. I would never vote for the NDP since I want to continue living in a functional first-world nation with attachments to reality, so it's either Liberal or Conservative for me. As such I just look at the issue objectively. Does it really affect me in any way? No not really. Do I want Wright or Duffy to go to jail on principle if the law calls for it? Yes. Is it irritating that money, partly donated by supporters, was considered for use to cover Duffy? Oh ya. Do errant senators have anything to do with the federal government policies that affect me and my family? No.

At the end of the day, I want to know which party will leave my Canada the least worse off than when they found it. And senators claiming the wrong expenses, who have almost nothing to do with running the country, likewise have basically nothing to do with that. I also would not cease to vote for Justin Trudeau even if every Liberal senator were arrested to for running a crack ring, if I thought Justin was the guy for the job. If he got arrested for drunken brawling, but promised to cut off the piggy trough of my money going to native reserves for non-existent results, he would get my vote. If the policies are better, who cares that somebody is drinking $16 orange juice?

[Scotty]

If die hard Conservatives, still vote for this party then they are as bad as the party,with no moral values. I

That presumes the Liberals and NDP have superior moral values, and would thus be the proper choice for people who cared about such things.

I believe that is a rather shockingly naive presumption.

[Scotty]

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?

Honestly? I really don't care. Like I said, it's just not very important to me.