Canada vs Duffy vs PMO

[Smallc]

Bayne says he needs 3 to 6 weeks more for this case to be properly heard. Do the math. Worst thing Harper could have imagined.

Yes, there's a good chance some of his voters may in fact be bored to death.

[On Guard for Thee]

Yes, there's a good chance some of his voters may in fact be bored to death.

A lot of his voters could be changing their vote as the corruption becomes more apparent

[overthere]

Bayne says he needs 3 to 6 weeks more for this case to be properly heard. Do the math. Worst thing Harper could have imagined.

The revelations have been devastating so far.

(devastating for anybody wishing to remain conscious)

[On Guard for Thee]

The revelations have been devastating so far.

(devastating for anybody wishing to remain conscious)

And we havent heard from Nigel yet.

[overthere]

wake me up when something beyond petty criminality happens.

[PIK]

Keep dreaming boys. This is going know where. And people don't care.

[Keepitsimple]

So far, it looks like this trial is going nowhere. The judge seems to be getting frustrated with the lack of evidence offered by the Crown. Have a look at this exchange when the Crown offers nothing but "opinions"::

Bayne objected, as he has repeatedly, to allowing Proulx’s views as evidence, saying she is not a legal expert. Bayne said it is solely up to the judge to determine what the rules allow.

“Let’s say a senator has someone cut their lawn or mow their lawn,” said assistant Crown attorney Jason Neubauer. “Just because there is nothing there that says you can’t bill the Senate for private landscaping, does that mean they can? Of course not.”

“That’s the whole point — whether there were any rules at all,” the judge replied tersely. “I hope you have something more substantial than what appears on the platter right now.”

When Neubauer expressed concern whether Vaillancourt had already made up his mind about the non-existence of travel rules even before he’d heard the evidence, the judge lost patience.

“At this point in the trial I’m just beginning to see the broad brushstrokes . . . I’ve got a long way to go before the determination of facts but I would like to start hearing some evidence,” he said.

Link: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/04/24/exasperated-mike-duffy-trial-judge-asks-for-evidence.html

[WWWTT]

Deleted!

Edited April 30, 2015 by WWWTT

[overthere]

Ok the here's another perspective of who's actually on trial

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2015/04/26/harper-feigns-ignorance-as-crowns-case-against-duffy-in-shambles/

WWWTT

I hope you don't take this all too hard:

Duffy is on trial.

I know that hurts, and the guy you linked too is hacking furiously at the same windmills as you, but that is the way it is.

[PIK]

Harris hates Stephen harper and harris was ripped in a interview about the book. Anything harris says is to be taken with a grain of salt. He has done good work before when it came to jails and other stuff, but he lost a lot of followers with his hatred of harper.

[WWWTT]

Deleted!

Edited April 30, 2015 by WWWTT

[Keepitsimple]

Not at all.

Just like I said another perspective.

But remember this, if Duffy is found not guilty of all charges, he's still an MP!

WWWTT

Mike Duffy is a Senator - not an MP. I guess your knowledge of the proceedings is so vast that the odd small detail gets missed.

[guyser]

But remember this, if Duffy is found not guilty of all charges, he's still an MP!

WWWTT

Be so kind and tell us when he ever was an MP ?

[WWWTT]

Mike Duffy is a Senator - not an MP. I guess your knowledge of the proceedings is so vast that the odd small detail gets missed.

No sorry bro, senate is still a part of parliament therefore he is still an member of parliament or MP for short. The senate is also called the upper house of parliament.

It is only traditional that members of parliament residing in the upper house are referred to as senators, and members in the lower house as MP's. But member's in the upper house are still MP's.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Be so kind and tell us when he ever was an MP ?

Still is unless he is convicted. See above.

WWWTT

[guyser]

No sorry bro, senate is still a part of parliament therefore he is still an member of parliament or MP for short. The senate is also called the upper house of parliament.

It is only traditional that members of parliament residing in the upper house are referred to as senators, and members in the lower house as MP's. But member's in the upper house are still MP's.

WWWTT

There is this thing called Parliament, not to mention Google, and you are categorically wrong to say Duffy is was an MP.

An MP is a designation , only members of the lower house are referred to as Members of Parliament .

I doubt you will want to be corrected, nobody can prevent ignorance, but they and you could learn.

Edited April 28, 2015 by Guyser2

[guyser]

Still is unless he is convicted. See above.

WWWTT

So he never was , and cannot be called an MP.

Ok thanks. Dont forget now.

[overthere]

I think he meant Majorly Pudgy.

[WWWTT]

There is this thing called Parliament, not to mention Google, and you are categorically wrong to say Duffy is was an MP.

Nope, sorry but YOU are wrong! Senator is the usual common name for MP's from the red chamber, not the categorically defined term.

The term senator is a distinction that is used for MP's sitting in the senate or the upper house.

Senators or MP's of the upper house have been cabinet ministers and even an PM for a short term in the past!

Harper himself even appointed one as an minister!

Doesn't take much to get you all fired up hey buddy!

WWWTT

[guyser]

Nope, sorry

Everyone but you knew that, but sorry is a good start.

Considering the reams of info available, perhaps you could show us where your assertions are correct?

There is a Govt of Canada website that explains all this.

Thanks.

Oh...and it has to be from Canada.

Something like this perhaps...

A member of parliament (MP) is the representative of the voters to a parliament.

and then you find this...

Only members of the lower house are referred to as Members of Parliament (French: député), while members of the upper house are called Senators

But hey, you always have some wacky dumb ideas , perhaps you were confused once again and mistook the fact that MP does not mean Parliament of Canada. The Parliament of Canada consists of the Crown, the upper house, the Senate of Canada, and the lower house, the Canadian House of Commons

Now scurry away and get more educated. Or not, you have the choice to know or remain ignorant.

So far youre parading only one side.

Edited April 28, 2015 by Guyser2

[The_Squid]

Those who sit in the Senate are Senators.

Those who sit in the House of Commons are Members of Parliament.

Easily found in Wikipedia or the Gov't of Canada's own site:

The House of Commons is a democratically elected body, whose members are known as Members of Parliament (MPs).

Senators are never referred to as MPs.

If they are ever referred to as a MP, provide a cite for that.

[cybercoma]

No sorry bro, senate is still a part of parliament therefore he is still an member of parliament or MP for short. The senate is also called the upper house of parliament.

It is only traditional that members of parliament residing in the upper house are referred to as senators, and members in the lower house as MP's. But member's in the upper house are still MP's.

WWWTT

Uh, no. MP is the proper title for someone who represents a constituency in the House of Commons.

[On Guard for Thee]

Looks like some of the fallout is already landing on the PMO. It came out recently in the trial that Duffy did in fact suggest he should be appointed as a senator from Ontario, as he did seem to know the rules and where his principal residence was.. However Harper refused and insisted he be appointed as being from PEI, so at that Duffy signed a declaration to that effect. I expect Wright will be questioned as to his knowledge of that, and then we can get down to the good stuff on the bribery portion.

[overthere]

I truly hope your heart won't be broken soon.

[overthere]

One likely and outcome from this trial, and almost certainly reinforced by the Auditor General Senate audit coming soon- there will be more widespread support for abolition.

Making that happen will require provincial agreement that will be nearly impossible, but at a minimum there will be an administrative reckoning.