Canada vs Duffy vs PMO

The_Squid · April 12, 2015

No matter how this goes, it still looks good on this government: they were the ones who forced the senators to make their spending claims public, they are the ones who made people pay their over-billing back, they are the ones who are trying to fix this systemic problem.

This is delusional...

The PMO ordered the payment to cover this up... Harper appointed this clown...

Bryan · April 12, 2015

This is delusional...

The PMO ordered the payment to cover this up... Harper appointed this clown...

No. He ordered that the senators expenses be made public, and that inappropriate expenses be repaid, even if they were technically legal. He made a stand that puts him on much higher ethical ground than any previous PM.

jacee · April 12, 2015

I guess it's helpful for you to try to convince yourself.

.

overthere · April 12, 2015

I'm betting that-despite the relentless yearning of many here- the judge won't allow Wright or Harper or anybody but Duffy be tried and sentenced.

Of course, that means that the judge has been bought and paid for by the Tories. The only question is if Wright was the bagman for that transaction too.

PIK · April 13, 2015

That pic with harper , how desperate are they getting. This is going know where ,but duffy going to jail.

cybercoma · April 13, 2015

No. He ordered that the senators expenses be made public, and that inappropriate expenses be repaid, even if they were technically legal. He made a stand that puts him on much higher ethical ground than any previous PM.

Just out of curiosity, how are legal expenses inappropriate?

cybercoma · April 13, 2015

That pic with harper , how desperate are they getting. This is going know where ,but duffy going to jail.

How do you feel about Harper's judgment, given so many of his appointees are scum?

Keepitsimple · April 13, 2015

Just out of curiosity, how are legal expenses inappropriate?

Don't you see? That's the whole problem with Senate expenses. The "rules" are/were too loose and left to the Senators' discretion. If there is no rule against something, then it could be interpreted as legal - but that doesn't make it appropriate. If you are allowed to expense a hotel - does that mean you can always stay at the Ritz? If you're allowed to expense transportation - does that mean you should always use a limousine? Should you always fly first class - even for a short-haul? In most corporate settings, there are very strict rules about what you can expense - anything else has to be pre-approved.

When there are no rules, you've got to try real hard to commit "fraud" - and remember - many of Duffy's expenses were incurred before some of the rules were tightened up, although apparently not by much.

So as Harper said - he might not have technically broken the "rules" - but he said the claims were at a minimum, inappropriate - and Mike - PAY THEM BACK!

Edited April 13, 2015 by Keepitsimple

PIK · April 13, 2015

I like how duffy is playing dumb, worked the hill for 35 yrs ,but yet knows nothing on how things work.

guyser · April 13, 2015

I like how duffy is playing dumb, worked the hill for 35 yrs ,but yet knows nothing on how things work.

I know...weird huh?

Who does he think he is kidding. Why it reminds me of a guy who has an iron fisted rep about his own office, its called the PMO and how he knows everything that goes on.....except when it is expediant to not remember or know.

Of course it doesnt matter the person in there, they are all like that , but yea....funny how some dont know huh?

cybercoma · April 13, 2015

Don't you see? That's the whole problem with Senate expenses. The "rules" are/were too loose and left to the Senators' discretion. If there is no rule against something, then it could be interpreted as legal - but that doesn't make it appropriate. If you are allowed to expense a hotel - does that mean you can always stay at the Ritz? If you're allowed to expense transportation - does that mean you should always use a limousine? Should you always fly first class - even for a short-haul? In most corporate settings, there are very strict rules about what you can expense - anything else has to be pre-approved.

When there are no rules, you've got to try real hard to commit "fraud" - and remember - many of Duffy's expenses were incurred before some of the rules were tightened up, although apparently not by much.

So as Harper said - he might not have technically broken the "rules" - but he said the claims were at a minimum, inappropriate - and Mike - PAY THEM BACK!

If there's no rule or guidelines, then you're merely engaging in subjective mudslinging. If it's not against rules, then it's not against the rules.

Also, for the record, Harper didn't tell anyone anything. Harper has no control over senators. If Harper did indeed tell a Senator to do something, then he was acting completely outside his power as Prime Minister. It was the senate that asked him to repay his expenses. It's the senate itself that oversees its own internal workings, not the Prime Minister.

In other words, you're claiming the Prime Minister acted outside his powers in trying to influence a Senator to act in a particular way, regardless of whether it was right or wrong.

Edited April 13, 2015 by cybercoma

PIK · April 14, 2015

Most senate app are especially with the rules being so vague. To bad chretien did not fix it with his 13 yrs in power. It will be fixed now. The PM is cleared of wrong doings by the RCMP. Keep on dreaming boys. Just wait if trudeau somehow wins the election, back to the old corrupt Quebec politics again.

Keepitsimple · April 14, 2015

Also, for the record, Harper didn't tell anyone anything. Harper has no control over senators. If Harper did indeed tell a Senator to do something, then he was acting completely outside his power as Prime Minister. It was the senate that asked him to repay his expenses. It's the senate itself that oversees its own internal workings, not the Prime Minister.

In other words, you're claiming the Prime Minister acted outside his powers in trying to influence a Senator to act in a particular way, regardless of whether it was right or wrong.

No I'm not. Following a caucus meeting, Duffy approached the Prime Minister and raised his expenses. The Prime Minister made it clear that any inappropriate expenses should be repaid. Period - end of story.

Keepitsimple · April 14, 2015

This trial is getting silly. One of the "sensational" expenditures was a $65,000 payment to his "friend" Donahue. Well - now it turns out that it wasn't one huge payment but several - totalling $65,000 - made over the course of 4 years. That's just a bit more than $15,000 a year.....and Donahue didn't keep most of the money - it went to other people for "services". It amounts to peanuts out of an annual office budget of $150,000. Those services are rightly being scrutinized but the intial sensationalism about Duffy fraudulently funnelling funds to a friend? Well, the air is rapidly coming out of that balloon.

ToadBrother · April 14, 2015

This trial is getting silly. One of the "sensational" expenditures was a $65,000 payment to his "friend" Donahue. Well - now it turns out that it wasn't one huge payment but several - totalling $65,000 - made over the course of 4 years. That's just a bit more than $15,000 a year.....and Donahue didn't keep most of the money - it went to other people for "services". It amounts to peanuts out of an annual office budget of $150,000. Those services are rightly being scrutinized but the intial sensationalism about Duffy fraudulently funnelling funds to a friend? Well, the air is rapidly coming out of that balloon.

So wrongdoing should only end up in the courts if the monetary threshold is above a certain amount? If a Parliamentarian keeps their expense fraud below some sort of subjective limit, they're free to do what they please?

Does that also apply to receiving bribes?

Keepitsimple · April 14, 2015

So wrongdoing should only end up in the courts if the monetary threshold is above a certain amount? If a Parliamentarian keeps their expense fraud below some sort of subjective limit, they're free to do what they please?

The short answer is yes....but how many insignificants make a significant? If as an MP or Senator you inappropriately claim $100 - should it end up in court? No, it shouldn't. How about $1000? Again, probably not - there are ways of dealing with those one-off cases. It's where you get repeated patterns of intentional deception that things should end up in court. That's what the Duffy expense "scandal" is all about - did he intentionally engage in a pattern of deception for personal gain. The $90K payment is a connected - but separate issue. We'll be finding out as the trial progresses but as I mentioned, the air is already coming out of this over-hyped balloon.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Keepitsimple

Bryan · April 14, 2015

This whole trial seems like an endless stream of:

"Did he get permission to bill this expense?"

"Yes."

Is there anything in the senate rules that say those expenses are not covered?"

"No."

ToadBrother · April 15, 2015

This whole trial seems like an endless stream of:

"Did he get permission to bill this expense?"

"Yes."

Is there anything in the senate rules that say those expenses are not covered?"

"No."

Isn't it a little early to declare Duffy victorious? After all, despite the shaky guidelines, the Crown's fundamental position is that Duffy, even before he was sworn in, showed intent to abuse the system.

But hey, I get it, he's a Harper appointee, and thus apparently righteous among men, glorious and incapable of wrongdoing.

Edited April 15, 2015 by ToadBrother

Bryan · April 15, 2015

Isn't it a little early to declare Duffy victorious?

For sure. I'm just commenting on the trial so far.

But hey, I get it, he's a Harper appointee, and thus apparently righteous among men, glorious and incapable of wrongdoing.

Absolutely not. He's a dirtbag, clearly did seek to get everything he could from his appointment.

On Guard for Thee · April 15, 2015

For sure. I'm just commenting on the trial so far.

Absolutely not. He's a dirtbag, clearly did seek to get everything he could from his appointment.

Hes not a Harper appointee...better check that. While youre at it check Wallin and Brazeau.

Bryan · April 15, 2015

Hes not a Harper appointee...better check that. While youre at it check Wallin and Brazeau.

What are you on, and where can we get some?

On Guard for Thee · April 15, 2015

What are you on, and where can we get some?

If you think Duffy is not a Harper appointee, what are you on...

Bryan · April 15, 2015

If you think Duffy is not a Harper appointee, what are you on...

I don't think that. As usual, you need to bone up on your reading comprehension. Daily thing for you it seems.

On Guard for Thee · April 15, 2015

Isn't it a little early to declare Duffy victorious? After all, despite the shaky guidelines, the Crown's fundamental position is that Duffy, even before he was sworn in, showed intent to abuse the system.

But hey, I get it, he's a Harper appointee, and thus apparently righteous among men, glorious and incapable of wrongdoing.

At the outset I would have agreed with many of the pundits that said no way he is going to walk away from 31 charges and he may well not, but Bayne has been doing such a good job of wakamo on the crowns case I beginning to wonder. Of course there is a ways to go yet.