Topaz Posted April 10, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 10, 2015 Do you think that Harper testify? Mike Harris thinks so and I bet most of Canadians do too. Here's Harris view on it then do you agree or disagree? http://www.ipolitics.ca/2015/04/09/why-stephen-harper-should-be-in-court-under-oath/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted April 10, 2015 Report Share Posted April 10, 2015 Do you think that Harper testify? Mike Harris thinks so and I bet most of Canadians do too. Here's Harris view on it then do you agree or disagree? http://www.ipolitics.ca/2015/04/09/why-stephen-harper-should-be-in-court-under-oath/ I think Harper won't testify and will get a pass legally. Not so sure about the court of public opinion, though. It must be difficult for Duffy-lovers watching Harper throw Duffy under the bus. And there are a lot of Duffy-lovers: That's why he was so valuable to the Party ... he could raise a lot of money for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted April 10, 2015 Report Share Posted April 10, 2015 Do you think that Harper testify? Mike Harris thinks so and I bet most of Canadians do too. Here's Harris view on it then do you agree or disagree? http://www.ipolitics.ca/2015/04/09/why-stephen-harper-should-be-in-court-under-oath/ No, Harper won't testify. He can't be compelled to testify, and to do so would link him far too closely to the events surrounding the $90,000 repayment. Wright is going to stick to the script that the PM was told none of the particulars, and we will be forever left to wonder what it is exactly Wright did tell Harper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted April 10, 2015 Report Share Posted April 10, 2015 Harper has already said that he knows nothing of what went on as to details of the cae and therefore no need for him to testify. Of course I have some waterfront property for sale to anyone who buys that story. He already has the legal pass in the form of parliamentary privilege. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted April 10, 2015 Report Share Posted April 10, 2015 To bad. Where is 'bad' exactly, somewheres in southern Alabama? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted April 10, 2015 Report Share Posted April 10, 2015 I think Harper won't testify and will get a pass legally. If it comes to pass that harper can't be compelled to testify, then this is so so wrong. He is a public servant, and the goings on were all of a political nature. Harper's bosses, some 35 and something million people should be able to know all. Who does he think he is, Kim kardashian? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted April 10, 2015 Report Share Posted April 10, 2015 He is someone that has been cleared by the RCMP and had no knowledge of what happened. And if you understood how politics works you would understand that. Protect the boss at all times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted April 10, 2015 Report Share Posted April 10, 2015 If it comes to pass that harper can't be compelled to testify, then this is so so wrong. He is a public servant, and the goings on were all of a political nature. Harper's bosses, some 35 and something million people should be able to know all. Who does he think he is, Kim kardashian? One of the parliamentary privileges is that sitting MPs and Senators cannot be compelled to testify in court. Right or wrong, that is the Constitution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted April 10, 2015 Report Share Posted April 10, 2015 What I am waiting for is Wrights testimony. He is a smart lawyer apparently, but he will be under oath and, will be questioned by smart lawyers. I am interested to see if he actually does try and spin that Harper knew nothing of what was going on under his nose, and how he will do that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted April 10, 2015 Report Share Posted April 10, 2015 One of the parliamentary privileges is that sitting MPs and Senators cannot be compelled to testify in court. Right or wrong, that is the Constitution. I'm aware of its existence, TB. I made a case for why it is so wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted April 10, 2015 Report Share Posted April 10, 2015 I'm aware of its existence, TB. I made a case for why it is so wrong. Actually, I think it is quite right. The Parliamentary privileges were developed to protect MPs, and one can only imagine that if MPs were compelled to appear in court that they would be the most litigated people in the land. Without immunity from subpoena, the equally important privilege of absolute freedom of speech within Parliament would be seriously undermined. Besides, we all know what Harper would say. He would say "Didn't know anything about it." Wright would back him up, and about all you would get for the trouble was absolute zip. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted April 10, 2015 Report Share Posted April 10, 2015 Actually, I think it is quite right. The Parliamentary privileges were developed to protect MPs, and one can only imagine that if MPs were compelled to appear in court that they would be the most litigated people in the land. Without immunity from subpoena, the equally important privilege of absolute freedom of speech within Parliament would be seriously undermined. Besides, we all know what Harper would say. He would say "Didn't know anything about it." Wright would back him up, and about all you would get for the trouble was absolute zip. Its not absolute freedom of speech in the house, you can be expelled but its true you cant be sued or charged for things said there. And yes we all know what Harper would say but I wonder if Wright will in fact back that idea. After all Harper threw him under the bus when it became politically expedient to do so, and so kept chagig his story about Wrights departure. It could be pay back time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted April 10, 2015 Report Share Posted April 10, 2015 Its not absolute freedom of speech in the house, you can be expelled but its true you cant be sued or charged for things said there. And yes we all know what Harper would say but I wonder if Wright will in fact back that idea. After all Harper threw him under the bus when it became politically expedient to do so, and so kept chagig his story about Wrights departure. It could be pay back time. I'm not attempting to defend Harper. I imagine he knew more than he is telling, though at the end of the day it is a chief of staff's job to throw himself under a bus should the leader's political fortunes hang in the balance. That is part of the job description. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted April 10, 2015 Report Share Posted April 10, 2015 I'm not attempting to defend Harper. I imagine he knew more than he is telling, though at the end of the day it is a chief of staff's job to throw himself under a bus should the leader's political fortunes hang in the balance. That is part of the job description. That could well be but in this case it doesnt exactly seem to have worked quite that way. Harper went from saying he accepted Wrights resignation with great disappointment, or words to that affect, to, he acted improperly so we fired him, with a couple of intermediate steps along the way, which showed Harper clearly being unclear as to what actually occurred as the lid began to blow off the story. Wright has bee eerily quiet but I suspect his background told him this issue, and likely he, would end up in court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted April 10, 2015 Report Share Posted April 10, 2015 I think Harper will be served with a subpoena, will invoke parliamentary privilege and will not testify. Duffy's lawyer is painting a picture that Duffy is only doing what he was told to do. Not sure if the Nuremburg defense is going to work here. But for the strategy to work, to put the focus on Harper, the defence has to keep Harper in the forefront. To subpoena Harper to give him a chance to refute that picture has to be part of the plan. For Harper to refuse to testify would solidify the defence that Harper was behind all of this and play right into the defensive argument - after all, why won't he testify if he is not involved? This trial is proving to be far more interesting than I anticipated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted April 10, 2015 Report Share Posted April 10, 2015 I think Harper will be served with a subpoena, will invoke parliamentary privilege and will not testify. Duffy's lawyer is painting a picture that Duffy is only doing what he was told to do. Not sure if the Nuremburg defense is going to work here. But for the strategy to work, to put the focus on Harper, the defence has to keep Harper in the forefront. To subpoena Harper to give him a chance to refute that picture has to be part of the plan. For Harper to refuse to testify would solidify the defence that Harper was behind all of this and play right into the defensive argument - after all, why won't he testify if he is not involved? This trial is proving to be far more interesting than I anticipated. If they were going to subpoena Harper they would have already done so. His excuse of course is he says he has no knowledge that would be useful in court. So far it seems the defense has mostly been keeping the focus on the lack of clarity in the senate rules. As I say, I think it will get interesting when Wright gets on the stand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted April 10, 2015 Report Share Posted April 10, 2015 I think Harper will be served with a subpoena, will invoke parliamentary privilege and will not testify. Duffy's lawyer is painting a picture that Duffy is only doing what he was told to do. Not sure if the Nuremburg defense is going to work here. But for the strategy to work, to put the focus on Harper, the defence has to keep Harper in the forefront. To subpoena Harper to give him a chance to refute that picture has to be part of the plan. For Harper to refuse to testify would solidify the defence that Harper was behind all of this and play right into the defensive argument - after all, why won't he testify if he is not involved? This trial is proving to be far more interesting than I anticipated. If this was the strategy from the outset, then why wasn't the Prime Minister on the witness list? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted April 10, 2015 Report Share Posted April 10, 2015 If they were going to subpoena Harper they would have already done so. His excuse of course is he says he has no knowledge that would be useful in court. So far it seems the defense has mostly been keeping the focus on the lack of clarity in the senate rules. As I say, I think it will get interesting when Wright gets on the stand. At the moment the trial appears to be about the residency and expense issues. We'll see where it heads when the bribery counts come into sharper focus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted April 10, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 10, 2015 If I were Duffy's lawyer, I would call him to testify, knowing for well, he's going to say no, but, the court of public opinion would look at Harper as having something to hide and that he lied in Parliament again. I, also, wonder if Harper would testify if HE started to get thrown under the bus from the others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted April 10, 2015 Report Share Posted April 10, 2015 If I were Duffy's lawyer, I would call him to testify, knowing for well, he's going to say no, but, the court of public opinion would look at Harper as having something to hide and that he lied in Parliament again. I, also, wonder if Harper would testify if HE started to get thrown under the bus from the others. I cannot imagine a scenario in which the Prime Minister would waive his immunity. Nothing good could come of it from his perspective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted April 10, 2015 Report Share Posted April 10, 2015 The PM has immunity granted to him by the Constition. The very thing he has shit on is protecting him. Funny how that works huh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted April 10, 2015 Report Share Posted April 10, 2015 Actually, I think it is quite right. The Parliamentary privileges were developed to protect MPs, and one can only imagine that if MPs were compelled to appear in court that they would be the most litigated people in the land. Without immunity from subpoena, the equally important privilege of absolute freedom of speech within Parliament would be seriously undermined.. Just out of curiosity and perhaps this is a question for a different thread, were Parliamentary privileges developed with the possibility that a constituencies MP's freedom to speak could be undermined from within the party and PMO? Should they be? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted April 10, 2015 Report Share Posted April 10, 2015 Just out of curiosity and perhaps this is a question for a different thread, were Parliamentary privileges developed with the possibility that a constituencies MP's freedom to speak could be undermined from within the party and PMO? Should they be?It appears it is from the late 1600's . The idea was that the Crown and others could not stymie Parliament with BS suits and issues. At least thats what i recall from a looooong time ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted April 10, 2015 Report Share Posted April 10, 2015 Just out of curiosity and perhaps this is a question for a different thread, were Parliamentary privileges developed with the possibility that a constituencies MP's freedom to speak could be undermined from within the party and PMO? Should they be? I recko one obvious reason is that if you allowed the same laws to be in force inside the house as they are outside, you would have an endless litany of defamation suits from every time a member rose to question the integrity of another member. You would have a very muted QP for sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted April 10, 2015 Report Share Posted April 10, 2015 The PM has been cleared and wright will back that up. Sorry boys , Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.