Duffy trial/Crown's list

Argus · April 22, 2016

Vaillancourt said the lengths that Wright and his "crew" went through to cover up Duffy's circumstances, to craft a communications strategy and to put an end to the media saga was unprecedented.

As compared to what? Did the judge have insight into the internal workings of the Chretien government? Nope. Any other federal government? Nope. Any government at all? Nope.

GostHacked · April 22, 2016

How old are you that you'd think any of this was the slightest bit different from what happened with the Martin, Chretien, Mulroney, Clark and Trudeau governments? How naive are you that you'd think the same sorts of things aren't happening today with the new Trudeau government.

There is not really any difference. But we still see partisan arguments regardless of ALL of them being guilty of scamming the taxpayers.

Argus · April 22, 2016

There is not really any difference. But we still see partisan arguments regardless of ALL of them being guilty of scamming the taxpayers.

I've been watching politics since Trudeau senior's time, and have never seen a politician I could get the least bit excited over. I have never seen a government at any level whose integrity or honesty or even shrewdness I would admire. I've never seen one that didn't try to manipulate all information and media to make themselves look good, and wouldn't avail itself of all the levers of government regardless of cost to the taxpayer to do so. Nothing revealed about how the PMO tried to make this story go away was ever even mildly surprising to me.

waldo · April 22, 2016

How old are you that you'd think any of this was the slightest bit different from what happened with the Martin, Chretien, Mulroney, Clark and Trudeau governments? How naive are you that you'd think the same sorts of things aren't happening today with the new Trudeau government.

your standard routine to deflect any critical assessment/negative implication of and towards Harper/Harper's PMO...

.

The_Squid · April 22, 2016

You didn't answer the question.

And you have trouble reading.

Me: "the judge called the PMO devious" with the quote: "Could Hollywood match their deviousness"?

I should have answered your question by saying the judge didn't call Harper devious, but then again... I never said he did!!

overthere · April 22, 2016

There is not really any difference. But we still see partisan arguments regardless of ALL of them being guilty of scamming the taxpayers.

Scammed the taxpayers? The amounts in DuffyGate were tiny, and of course he was acquitted on every count.

This did not involve stealing $200 million and giving it to friend, like guess who? Theft is not partisan.

Argus · April 22, 2016

your standard routine to deflect any critical assessment/negative implication of and towards Harper/Harper's PMO...

.

No, Waldo, my standard refrain when the Left starts pulling out its hair and shrieking about stuff they shrug off when their own parties do it.

Peter F · April 22, 2016

As compared to what? Did the judge have insight into the internal workings of the Chretien government? Nope. Any other federal government? Nope. Any government at all? Nope.

As compared to the case at hand:

from the judgement:

QUOTE

PEERING THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS

[1029] The email traffic that has been produced at this trial causes me to pause and ask myself, “Did I actually have the opportunity to see the inner workings of the PMO?”

[1030] Was Nigel Wright actually ordering senior members of the Senate around as if they were mere pawns on a chessboard?

[1031] Were those same senior members of the Senate meekly acquiescing to Mr. Wright’s orders?

[1032] Were those same senior members of the Senate robotically marching forth to recite their provided scripted lines?

[1033] Did Nigel Wright really direct a Senator to approach a senior member of an accounting firm that was conducting an independent audit of the Senate with the intention to either get a peek at the report or part of the report prior to its release to the appropriate Senate authorities or to influence that report in anyway?

[1034] Does the reading of these emails give the impression that Senator Duffy was going to do as he was told or face the consequences?

[1035] The answers to the aforementioned questions are: YES; YES; YES; YES; YES; and YES!!!!!

[1036] The political, covert, relentless, unfolding of events is mindboggling and shocking.

[1037] The precision and planning of the exercise would make any military commander proud.

[1038] However, in the context of a democratic society, the plotting as revealed in the emails can only be described as unacceptable. Putting aside the legalities with respect to some of the maneuvers undertaken and the intensity of the operations, a simple question comes to mind. Why is the PMO engaged in all of this activity when they believed that Senator Duffy’s living expense claims might very well have been appropriate?

ENDQUOTE

and later, in regards to charge 31 "Breach of Trust by a Public Officer"

QUOTE

[1239] Mr. Neubauer stated that Senator Duffy’s actions were driven by deceit, manipulations and carried out in a clandestine manner representing a serious and marked standard expected of a person in Senator Duffy’s position of trust.

I find that if one were to substitute the PMO, Nigel Wright and others for Senator Duffy in the aforementioned sentence that you would have a more accurate statement.

ENDQUOTE

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2809019-April-21-Duffy-ruling.html

But you are right, The judgement does not condemn PM Harper. Only his office and all the flunkies busting thier butts to make the scandal go away in order to please PM Harper.

He, after all, is an innocent babe wandering the dark forest of politics!

Argus · April 23, 2016

As compared to the case at hand:

You cannot say that something is unprecedented compared to itself. In order to say the actions of the PMO were unprecedented you need to have intimate knowledge of the behaviour of previous PMOs.

For example, what kind of emails were going back and forth in the Chretien PMO when it was discovered that the head of the Business Development Bank of Canada - who Chretien had pressured to make a large loan to a business associate with a criminal record, was going to foreclose on the loan due to non-payment? What emails went back and forth between Chretien and his chief hatchetman Jean Carle, who flew to Quebec, fired the head of the BDBC, then went to the RCMP and tried to have him arrested for being in possession of bank 'records'. What kind of emails passed between them when the story got out, and when the judge in his wrongful dismissal case expressed shock at the wholly unprincipled and venomous attacks the government had made on the man?

Edited April 23, 2016 by Argus

Peter F · April 23, 2016

Allright. Precedented then.

GostHacked · April 23, 2016

Scammed the taxpayers? The amounts in DuffyGate were tiny, and of course he was acquitted on every count.

This did not involve stealing $200 million and giving it to friend, like guess who? Theft is not partisan.

Who paid for the trials????????????? The trials I would guess cost a lot more than 90Gs for 4 years of investigation/trials only to let him off on all charges.

Theft is not partisan, but you would be best trying to tell that to the real partisans around here.

jacee · April 23, 2016

Nothing revealed about how the PMO tried to make this story go away was ever even mildly surprising to me.

No perhaps not.

But it was nice to see the ugliness revealed. That's how things improve: Somebody gets caught.

I do not subscribe to your view that because somebody else got away with illegal or unethical behaviour, everybody should.

Not all thieves get caught either. Does that mean stealing is no longer reprehensible?

.

Edited April 23, 2016 by jacee

Argus · April 23, 2016

No perhaps not.

But it was nice to see the ugliness revealed. That's how things improve: Somebody gets caught.

I do not subscribe to your view that because somebody else got away with illegal or unethical behaviour, everybody should.

Not all thieves get caught either. Does that mean stealing is no longer reprehensible?

This conversation is not about Duffy and his thieving ways but the media and political manipulation of the PMO.

Do keep up.

jacee · April 24, 2016

This conversation is not about Duffy and his thieving ways but the media and political manipulation of the PMO.

Do keep up.

Oh I'm quite aware that only the 'fall guy' got caught, but the PMO is exposed nonetheless.

.

Edited April 24, 2016 by jacee

Big Guy · April 24, 2016

The shining of the spotlight on the Harper PMO should be a lesson for the future. When you allow a management system where the criminal code becomes the parameter of ethical conduct then there will be consequences. Only time will tell how dire those consequences will be.

Argus · April 24, 2016

Oh I'm quite aware that only the 'fall guy' got caught, but the PMO is exposed nonetheless.

.

Exposed for what? For trying to pay off Duffy's account so things would quiet down? Big deal.

WestCanMan · April 24, 2016

This was only ever a story because the CBC, Trudeau and Mulcair wanted it to be a story. The CBC got their $650M payoff as soon as Trudeau was elected.

Keep in mind this was over NINETY THOUSAND DOLLARS. Just one session of parliament being wasted on this topic cost more than $90,000. This was like spending $5M on a divorce attorney to fight over a coffee table.

Trudeau's nannies will cost the taxpayers several times more than $90K over the next few years and he said that families like his and PM Harper's family don't need help from the gov't to look after their kids.

Why is this story astronomically bigger than the sponsorship scandal was? Paul Martin was much closer to the PMO as finance minister than Duffy was as a senator. The money was deliberately and directly misspent by the gov't in that case, it's not just some bogus travel claims.

Is Trudeau's bungling of $30,000,000,000 this year not a bigger story than the missing $90K? If every senator misspent $90K we would need 333,000 of them to waste money like Trudeau.

Edited April 24, 2016 by WestCanMan

jacee · April 24, 2016

Exposed for what? For trying to pay off Duffy's account so things would quiet down? Big deal.

Exposed ... for scheming and lying to the public and treating the Senate like personal servants to the CPC.

Harper paid a price. :-)

.

Argus · April 25, 2016

Exposed ... for scheming and lying to the public and treating the Senate like personal servants to the CPC.

LOL. Yeah, first time in history THAT ever happened!

The senate has been nothing but a place to stuff loyal party hacks since confederation. The only thing new is that your visceral hate of the Conservative party leads you to believe what they did is somehow far more outrageous than the same behaviour done by other parties in the past.

Edited April 25, 2016 by Argus

overthere · April 25, 2016

Going to be interesting to see what noble explanation Justin comes up with for stacking the Senate with 'non partisan Liberals' in the next few months.

He has to, to pass the legislation his re election depends upon.

PIK · April 27, 2016

That judge had to be a harper hater . That was disgusting what that judge did.

waldo · April 27, 2016

That judge had to be a harper hater . That was disgusting what that judge did.

what specific statements within the ruling do you equate to "Harper hating"?

.

PIK · April 27, 2016

Blaming the PMO for everything where all they did was try and get some money back. And also when duffy daughter had a child in BC he set up a 1 hr lunch with a couple guys and that there paid for his trip to hang out with his daughter. The money he was making at the time and the cheap bastard could not pay for it himself? Sorry but that is outright fraud. But saying duffy was a victim, tells me this judge had a agenda.

waldo · April 27, 2016

Blaming the PMO for everything where all they did was try and get some money back. And also when duffy daughter had a child in BC he set up a 1 hr lunch with a couple guys and that there paid for his trip to hang out with his daughter. The money he was making at the time and the cheap bastard could not pay for it himself? Sorry but that is outright fraud. But saying duffy was a victim, tells me this judge had a agenda.

more... continued... Harper revisionism! Quite obviously the depth/detail within the ruling rises above your preference for the 'Rebel like' snippet/soundbite type journalism.

.

Smallc · April 27, 2016

Blaming the PMO for everything where all they did was try and get some money back. And also when duffy daughter had a child in BC he set up a 1 hr lunch with a couple guys and that there paid for his trip to hang out with his daughter. The money he was making at the time and the cheap bastard could not pay for it himself? Sorry but that is outright fraud. But saying duffy was a victim, tells me this judge had a agenda.

Were you there to hear all of the evidence? The judge was.