Smallc Posted August 17, 2015 Report Share Posted August 17, 2015 There is in the court of public prosecution. You're into mob justice now, then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted August 17, 2015 Report Share Posted August 17, 2015 I think if they had just been upfront about it, no one would have cared.You mean if they'd been perfectly clear? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted August 17, 2015 Report Share Posted August 17, 2015 You're into mob justice now, then?No, political justice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted August 17, 2015 Report Share Posted August 17, 2015 You mean if they'd been perfectly clear? hey now! That's Harper's line! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted August 17, 2015 Author Report Share Posted August 17, 2015 IF in the election, Harper loses, HE can then be called to testify at the Duffy trial because he can't hide any longer under a PM rule or he can go hide in the closet! So all those undecided voters that wants Harper to tell the truth under oath, vote ABC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
socialist Posted August 18, 2015 Report Share Posted August 18, 2015 IF in the election, Harper loses, HE can then be called to testify at the Duffy trial because he can't hide any longer under a PM rule or he can go hide in the closet! So all those undecided voters that wants Harper to tell the truth under oath, vote ABC. Do you think Wright is telling the truth when he speaks under oath? Yes or no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
socialist Posted August 18, 2015 Report Share Posted August 18, 2015 (edited) Duffy was charged with taking a bribe. Whether there is enough evidence to convict is different than if it is true that he was actually was bribed. And a lack of charges against the PMO was due to the fact that they didn't think there would be a likelihood of conviction, not because he didn't actually do it. Where did the money come from for Duffy to be bribed? Did it fall out of the sky, or was it the money Wright was giving him? No, sorry... messing with an independent audit to get your partisan hack off the hook is worse. Bribery by the PMO is worse... The PMO knowing about the fraudulent activities by their Senator and covering it up is worse. Mac Harb should go to jail, no doubt... but to try and excuse the PMO's behaviour is so transparently partisan hackery. Could you provide a link to your allegations because you are clearly pulling things out of thin air: Harper never fired Wright. You can never show me any direct quote by Harper saying that he fired Wright. Harper had the full confidence in Wright BEFORE Harper became aware of the details. Wright did resign and Harper accepted such resignation, thereby having dismissed Wright. You have no proof whatsoever that Harper changed his story. You simply concoct some strange time line out of context and then simply believe Harper changed his story. Show us some proof of your allegations or stop misleading people. Edited August 18, 2015 by socialist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
socialist Posted August 18, 2015 Report Share Posted August 18, 2015 hey now! That's Harper's line! PM Harper has never changed his story. Give us one example of how Harper has changed his story, according to you. You can't because you have nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
socialist Posted August 18, 2015 Report Share Posted August 18, 2015 No, political justice. There is absolutely no proof Harper lied about the Duffy affair. But other politicians HAVE lied. Here let me refresh your selective memory. How could you tell when Chretien was lying? I mean, he lied by saying he would scrap the GST. How many of Chretien's advisers at the time were in on that lie? And how many more years did Chretien govern and how many more times was Chretien elected after he lied to the Canadian voters??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted August 18, 2015 Author Report Share Posted August 18, 2015 Do you think Wright is telling the truth when he speaks under oath? Yes or No Well that's kinda iffy....Wright said in Parl.Committee hearing that he wouldn't anything to hurt his rep. that he's worked so hard to get...yet here he is on the stand changing or adding more to what happened with the 90,000 and the cover-up, and each day Harper is throwing him under the bus, blaming him and Duffy for this, so now, with Wright being a lawyer, and knowing the law, I think he's thinking, me I'm not, going to jail for the PMO, isn't worth lying. I think most Canadians want Harper on the stand under oath and IF he lies, he won't get away with it later, someone will come forward with the truth of what happen and if and why Harper did or didn't know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
socialist Posted August 18, 2015 Report Share Posted August 18, 2015 Well that's kinda iffy....Wright said in Parl.Committee hearing that he wouldn't anything to hurt his rep. that he's worked so hard to get...yet here he is on the stand changing or adding more to what happened with the 90,000 and the cover-up, and each day Harper is throwing him under the bus, blaming him and Duffy for this, so now, with Wright being a lawyer, and knowing the law, I think he's thinking, me I'm not, going to jail for the PMO, isn't worth lying. I think most Canadians want Harper on the stand under oath and IF he lies, he won't get away with it later, someone will come forward with the truth of what happen and if and why Harper did or didn't know. But Chretien lied about the GST and got elected and re-elected. That was a proven lie. Right now with the current situation it is a left wing hope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
socialist Posted August 18, 2015 Report Share Posted August 18, 2015 Well that's kinda iffy....Wright said in Parl.Committee hearing that he wouldn't anything to hurt his rep. that he's worked so hard to get...yet here he is on the stand changing or adding more to what happened with the 90,000 and the cover-up, and each day Harper is throwing him under the bus, blaming him and Duffy for this, so now, with Wright being a lawyer, and knowing the law, I think he's thinking, me I'm not, going to jail for the PMO, isn't worth lying. I think most Canadians want Harper on the stand under oath and IF he lies, he won't get away with it later, someone will come forward with the truth of what happen and if and why Harper did or didn't know. I think the trial is beginning to make it clear that indeed it was Wright who had nothing to gain from his payment to Duffy, other than having tried to sort out an issue, which was his job. Remember, not anyone was clear then or is clear now on what expenses Duffy could legally claim. But one thing IS clear, at least to PM Harper (and to me) that regardless of vague and outdated rules, expenses claimed but NOT incurred is wrong! Wright mentioned that again, in his defense, of not wanting to go along with Duffy in trying to say that his home in PEI WAS his primary residence. It was Wright who completely understood and still understands, as PM Harper does, that such excuse would not do the trick of justifiably claiming expenses which Duffy did NOT incur. Period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
socialist Posted August 18, 2015 Report Share Posted August 18, 2015 FINALLY! A fair piece by the Canadian media. http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/colby-cosh-if-theres-a-scandal-in-the-duffy-affair-why-cant-i-spot-it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
socialist Posted August 18, 2015 Report Share Posted August 18, 2015 It is not a crime for an individual (Nigel Wright) to use his own money to assist someone to pay a bill, which may yet turn out to be an illegitimate bill. Wright is only guilty of unprecedented generosity, which the ravenous hyenas can not fathom. If someone gives me money to pay a bill, and I pay it, I am going to say "I have paid my bill." Here is what Duffy stated, in writing. February 22, 2013 Dear Chairman, Recently questions have been raised about my eligibility for the secondaryhousing allowance. I filled out the Senate forms in good faith and believed I was in compliance with the rules. After reviewing all aspects of this matter, it turns out I may have been mistaken. To ensure that there can be no doubt regarding this matter it is my intent to repay the housing allowance that I have collected to date. At this time, I ask the Steering Committee to provide me forthwith with theamount that must be repaid in order to settle this matter in full. Chairman, I believe that the Senate rules and forms on housing allowances are ambiguous. I want to emphasize that it was always my intent to fully comply with the rules. Sincerely, Senator Mike Duffy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted August 18, 2015 Report Share Posted August 18, 2015 In the case of Harb, it actually cost the taxpayers something. That makes it far worse. Worse than the PMO interfering with the Senate and trying to mess with an independent audit of Senators? Errr. ok then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
socialist Posted August 18, 2015 Report Share Posted August 18, 2015 Worse than the PMO interfering with the Senate and trying to mess with an independent audit of Senators? Errr. ok then. Garbage. It is increasingly clear that the case against Wright and the PMO is being drummed up by unscrupulous people on the left who will stop at nothing to bring down Harper. This is politics -- and we have seen it all before. I expect it will backfire on the left before election day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted August 18, 2015 Report Share Posted August 18, 2015 There's no accusation or charge to that effect. Wow. Really? Taking a strictly pedantic view here, eh? Duffy is being charged with taking a bribe, but there's no "charge" on anyone giving a bribe. So I guess it never happened then. smdh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
socialist Posted August 18, 2015 Report Share Posted August 18, 2015 Wow. Really? Taking a strictly pedantic view here, eh? Duffy is being charged with taking a bribe, but there's no "charge" on anyone giving a bribe. So I guess it never happened then. smdh. It's clear that calling this a bribe is a distortion -- but let us see what they court decides. It does not look like a bribe to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted August 18, 2015 Report Share Posted August 18, 2015 It's clear that calling this a bribe is a distortion That's the charge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted August 18, 2015 Report Share Posted August 18, 2015 I guess offering is OK taking it and wanting conditions is not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
socialist Posted August 18, 2015 Report Share Posted August 18, 2015 That's the charge. If you took the time to read the 400 pages of emails you would see that dozens of pages are filler pages, the same email appears about 10 times in different threads and on average there were a few one-paragraph emails (if that) per day per person involved. This was probably one of a hundred items on the PMO's agenda, for all of a couple weeks. I do not believe this is a matter of bribery, however, I am willing to wait for the Judge's verdict on this. It does seem incomprehensible that a guilty on the bribery charge can be rendered as the alleged briber (Mr. Wright) has not been charged. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
socialist Posted August 18, 2015 Report Share Posted August 18, 2015 I guess offering is OK taking it and wanting conditions is not. Let's analyze this. The difference seems to be the CPC scandal is quietly repaying embarrassing expenses (not proven illegal all though they should be, hence the embarrassment, right?). VS the LPC stealing millions from Canadians to directly fund the party. Yes, I see how those things are exactly the same. How could we miss it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
socialist Posted August 18, 2015 Report Share Posted August 18, 2015 Here is an article listing senators accused of improper spending: http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/exclusive-breakdown-of-sums-that-30-senators-are-alleged-to-owe-1.2411218 It is clear that Liberal Senators are the big spenders. TOP FOUR Rod Zimmer: $176,014 (appointed by Paul Martin) Marie Charette-Poulin: $131,434 (appointed by Jean Chretien) Rose-Marie Losier-Cool: $110,000 (appointed by Chretien) Sandra Lovelace Nicholas: $75,207 (appointed by Martin) It would have been nice for the Liberal party to step up, as the Conservative party has, to ensure this money is repaid to the taxpayers as soon as possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 18, 2015 Report Share Posted August 18, 2015 Wow. Really? Taking a strictly pedantic view here, eh? Duffy is being charged with taking a bribe, but there's no "charge" on anyone giving a bribe. So I guess it never happened then. smdh. We've been through this before. Duffy is accused of extorting the PMO, and that's why he's charged with taking a bribe. The PMO, under the Crowns case, is seen as a victim, as are the Canadian people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icebound Posted August 18, 2015 Report Share Posted August 18, 2015 Here is an article listing senators accused of improper spending: http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/exclusive-breakdown-of-sums-that-30-senators-are-alleged-to-owe-1.2411218 It is clear that Liberal Senators are the big spenders. TOP FOUR Rod Zimmer: $176,014 (appointed by Paul Martin) Marie Charette-Poulin: $131,434 (appointed by Jean Chretien) Rose-Marie Losier-Cool: $110,000 (appointed by Chretien) Sandra Lovelace Nicholas: $75,207 (appointed by Martin) It would have been nice for the Liberal party to step up, as the Conservative party has, to ensure this money is repaid to the taxpayers as soon as possible. ... except that the Conservative Senators have not "stepped up" any more than have the Liberal senators in so far as "paying back". Many of both parties have already paid back, many have started to pay back, some (of both parties) have been sent to the RCMP. The only real difference between the parties that I can see, is that there is no evidence to suggest that somebody is COVERING UP just how that money is being paid back..... except in this one interesting case.(so far). 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.