Will Stephen Harper resign over the Senate scandal?

[cybercoma]

Hey, didnt you hear? The PMO did all of it without Chretien knowing a thing

That's their job. To protect the PM from these things and to do all the dirty work. The entire AdScam was the PMO's doing without Chretien's knowledge.

[g_bambino]

It's pretty interesting to see Duffy, Wallin, and Brazeau realize that.

Any punishment they suffer will be brought upon them either by their fellow senators or by a judge in a court of law. We'll have to see how Conservative senators vote on any motion against Wallin, Duffy, and Brazeau. They have no reason to vote as Harper wants them to (and we've seen before senators he recommended for appointment voting contrary to his wishes); he holds no way to force their vote; about all he has is bribery, which, of course, is illegal.

[ed.: c/e]

Edited October 31, 2013 by g_bambino

[Topaz]

Do we have in Canada, like the USA, that a President can pardon so many people in prison, if not, I wonder if Harper would bring that into law for Wright's sake in the future???

[Smallc]

We do't have, in Canada, a president.

[jacee]

Possibly. But, why would the sycophants be sycophants? What do they stand to gain from being the prime minister's toadies? All senators certainly have nothing to lose from saying 'no' to the prime minister.

Apparently they do.

Ask Duffy.

[jacee]

The "timeline" was previously posted by Topaz....here are some excerpts that make it pretty clear that Wright has already said publicly - and to the RCMP that Harper did not know about Nigel Wright paying for Duffy's expenses. As I said - it's doubtful he'll be changing his story. It makes far more sense that they are both telling the truth - than both are lying.

"Wright asked for two conditions from Duffy:

i. Pay back the money right away

ii. Stop talking to the media about it"

That's damning for Wright,

extorting silence?

bribery for silence?

We don't know what Nigel Wright has said to the RCMP since he went silent.

Since Harper kicked him to the curb.

.

[August1991]

I have to say I never really cared much about this so-called 'scandal'. It's small-time fudging of expense accounts by grubby little people. It reflects badly on Harper in my eyes only that it continues a habit we've seen of him appointing incompetents and weasels. Whoever oversees and recommends such appointments ought to be drawn and quartered.

,,,,

So really, all this is about is a political party trying to make some bad news go away. Big deal.

I largely agree with you Argus except that the bad news has not gone away.

Time will tell if Harper can make this bad news go away. So far, Harper has failed. This explains my comparison to Nixon. Nixon also failed to make bad news go away.

[Aside: I was wondering recently how King, Trudeau or Macdonald would have dealt with such a scandal. King is Harper's model. What would King have done? And then I realized that Harper has too little self-control in times of crisis, and Harper does not know how to bridge Canada's linguistic divide. Stephen Harper is no Mackenzie King.]

They didn't, as one apt comparison, spend 1.2 BILLION dollars of public money to make bad publicity about gas plants go away as the Ontario Liberals did last election.

And btw, I bet most of those yelling about this will happily support the Ontario Liberals next election.

I agree. But as citizens in a democracy, how else can we judge our politicians?

Many marriages have fallen apart because of trifles such as a 50 cent phone call, or a location record in a cell phone bill.

-----

So far, recent polls (http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/one-point-separates-liberals-tories-and-ndp-poll-1.1521349) show that Harper and the federal Conservatives still have 30% of the vote. Harper has kept his base, and I suspect that he will keep his caucus in line with this basic fact.

But two questions remain: 1. Where else can "the base" go? 2. Could someone else do better than Harper?

Edited November 1, 2013 by August1991

[August1991]

So, short of a revolt within the Conservative caucus, the two situations are nothing alike. If the caucus maintains its support of the prime minister in the Commons and Harper remains innocent of any crime, what would compel him to resign?

The fact is that a US President without Congressional support is like a PM without caucus support. (Hence, why bother to have a monarch?) Edited November 1, 2013 by August1991

[On Guard for Thee]

It's good to have a monarch because they can protect the constiution. And with a PM who has already been found in contempt of parliament, we may need that protection.

[August1991]

It's good to have a monarch because they can protect the constiution. And with a PM who has already been found in contempt of parliament, we may need that protection.

Monarch? Have you traveled through time from the 17th century?

An independent caucus or congress offers some control over a potential dictator. But the best protection against a despot is a federal state. In Canada and the US (and modern Germany), the governments in provinces/states/lander are sovereign in their jurisdiction.

[On Guard for Thee]

In Canada, as we speak, the British sovereign is the head of state. I have travelled through time, from birth untill today, Where have you been?

[On Guard for Thee]

Monarch? Have you traveled through time from the 17th century?

An independent caucus or congress offers some control over a potential dictator. But the best protection against a despot is a federal state. In Canada and the US (and modern Germany), the governments in provinces/states/lander are sovereign in their jurisdiction.

In Canada, as we speak, the British sovereign is the head of state. I have travelled through time, from birth untill today, Where have you been?

[Smallc]

Monarch? Have you traveled through time from the 17th century?

You can't change reality just because you don't like it.

[cybercoma]

In Canada, as we speak, the British sovereign is the head of state.

No she isn't. The Queen of Canada is our head of state.

[jacee]

It's good to have a monarch because they can protect the constiution. And with a PM who has already been found in contempt of parliament, we may need that protection.

The monarch is irrelevant. She'll do nothing in an internal matter.

[Bryan]

No she isn't. The Queen of Canada is our head of state.

You act as if those are two different people.

[Argus]

"Wright asked for two conditions from Duffy:

i. Pay back the money right away

ii. Stop talking to the media about it"

That's damning for Wright,

extorting silence?

bribery for silence?

We don't know what Nigel Wright has said to the RCMP since he went silent.

Since Harper kicked him to the curb.

.

You can't bribe a politician for silence. That is, that sort of thing is not a crime. If you offer him money to influence him over government policy of some sort, that's one thing, just telling him here, "take the money and shut up", is not bribery.

[cybercoma]

You act as if those are two different people.

No. I'm acting as though they're two different titles. The "British Sovereign" (note: title, not name of person) has no authority over Canada.

[jacee]

You can't bribe a politician for silence. That is, that sort of thing is not a crime. If you offer him money to influence him over government policy of some sort, that's one thing, just telling him here, "take the money and shut up", is not bribery.

Wrong Argus, but nice attempt to deflect:

http://legalrorke.tripod.com/CCC/119.htm

... anything done or omitted or to be done or omitted by him in his official capacity.

Wright, by his own admission, paid Duffy's expenses back on condition that Duffy stop talking to the media.

You may recall that Duffy was squawking that the Senate and PMO had agreed to his housing expenses, then changed their mind and demanded repayment that Duffy didn't feel he owed.

Would you accept money, as a public official, to keep silent?

You'd better think carefully about your answer to that.

Edited November 1, 2013 by jacee

[g_bambino]

In Canada, as we speak, the British sovereign is the head of state.

Bzzzt. Wrong.

You act as if those are two different people.

Same person, two different offices.

[g_bambino]

Apparently they do.

Ask Duffy.

As I explained to cybercoma, Duffy's fate as a senator lies not with Harper but with his fellow senators. For Harper to get what he wants, he needs the luck of finding just enough sycophantic senators who'll do his bidding for... well, it's uncertain what for, since they'll lose nothing if they don't.

[ed.: punct.]

Edited November 1, 2013 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

The fact is that a US President without Congressional support is like a PM without caucus support.

So.... You agree with me?

[W]hy bother to have a monarch?

There are a few reasons why we have a monarch in our system of governance. Our system is obviously not the same as that of the US. Hence, the question, in this context, a red herring.

[g_bambino]

The monarch is irrelevant. She'll do nothing in an internal matter.

That's incorrect. Her involvement depends on what the internal matter is.

[jacee]

As I explained to cybercoma, Duffy's fate as a senator lies not with Harper but with his fellow senators. For Harper to get what he wants, he needs the luck of finding just enough sycophantic senators who'll do his bidding for... well, it's uncertain what for, since they'll lose nothing if they don't.

[ed.: punct.]

Harper may kick them out of the Conservative caucus, out of the party, as he did Duffy, Wallin and Brazeau.

It's clear that Harper is controlling and vindictive, and they'd be concerned about what he might do to them.

He's just thrown Nigel Wright under the bus, a man still well regarded by many.

[g_bambino]

Harper may kick them out of the Conservative caucus, out of the party, as he did Duffy, Wallin and Brazeau.

Well, sure, he could. But, so what? What's the impact of that on a senator?