Canada vs Duffy vs PMO

cybercoma · April 8, 2015

If Duffy is guilty, Harper's screwed. Canadians will see that a Senator accepted a bribe from the PMO and took the fall for it, while the Conservative brass responsible for giving the bribe walked free. A guilty verdict is the last thing Harper wants to see because that implicates his inner circle for offering the bribe and getting away with it. Canadians will get justice another way by punishing the Conservatives at the polls in the fall.

Topaz · April 8, 2015

I hope you are right about the voters, it will be Quebec and especially GTA that make that decision. and if it doesn't happen then one has to ask what's wrong with these voters. its the second time for the Tory party connected to a bribe and I would hope that Duffy's lawyer would call Harper to the stand because he would refuse, so he wouldn't be forced to tell the truth. I think most Canadians don't believe he didn't know what was going on in the PMO and we know he had talks with the top senators and his lawyer, who knew what was going on. Power, like always, corrupts people in politics.

jacee · April 8, 2015

If Duffy is guilty, Harper's screwed. Canadians will see that a Senator accepted a bribe from the PMO and took the fall for it, while the Conservative brass responsible for giving the bribe walked free. A guilty verdict is the last thing Harper wants to see because that implicates his inner circle for offering the bribe and getting away with it. Canadians will get justice another way by punishing the Conservatives at the polls in the fall.

I don't understand why no one is being accused of offering the bribe ... but I suspect a scam to keep Harper 'clean'.

It was the Party that offered the initial payment, when they thought it was $20k but they refused to pay $90k so Wright paid Duffy ... with Harper's approval apparently.

.

Smallc · April 8, 2015

It's the job of the chief of staff to clean up messes for the PM so that he remains unscathed.

eyeball · April 8, 2015

It's the job of the chief of staff to clean up messes for the PM so that he remains unscathed.

Dutifully spoken like a true sycophant.

On Guard for Thee · April 8, 2015

I still wonder if the reason Wright hasnt been charged is so he can be forced to testify. His story has to be one that has Harpers knees knocking the loudest.

Wilber · April 8, 2015

It's the job of the chief of staff to clean up messes for the PM so that he remains unscathed.

Unscathed from what? I'm having difficulty trying to understand what's in it for a government to try and cover up for people like Duffy and their excesses at public expense.

guyser · April 8, 2015

Unscathed from what? I'm having difficulty trying to understand what's in it for a government to try and cover up for people like Duffy and their excesses at public expense.

Well, Duffy was put there by the Conservatives, was well known as a bit of a bag man for them. Was always ready to get out in front of stories on their behalf , was known to like more than A drink.

So put it all together and add in charges that he was scamming and it makes the appointment rather dubious and certainly not fetted very well.

Kind of like how the minute RoFo got into real trouble, all the PC;s and HArper too had 'other things ' to tend to.

Wilber · April 8, 2015

Well, Duffy was put there by the Conservatives, was well known as a bit of a bag man for them. Was always ready to get out in front of stories on their behalf , was known to like more than A drink.

So put it all together and add in charges that he was scamming and it makes the appointment rather dubious and certainly not fetted very well.

Kind of like how the minute RoFo got into real trouble, all the PC;s and HArper too had 'other things ' to tend to.

Senators scamming the system is not new or limited to appointees from just one party. I still don't see what the up side would be to trying to cover for him.

Smallc · April 8, 2015

Unscathed from what? I'm having difficulty trying to understand what's in it for a government to try and cover up for people like Duffy and their excesses at public expense.

.

He was just trying to make it go away.

Wilber · April 8, 2015

.

He was just trying to make it go away.

Stupid then.

Je suis Omar · April 8, 2015

You're going to dig up Sir John A. & Chuckles Tupper to try them? Good luck.

No, just to throw them under a bus.

overthere · April 8, 2015

I still wonder if the reason Wright hasnt been charged is so he can be forced to testify.

We need a Duffy Truthers website to weave partisan fantasies into something that can stand up on late night talk radio.

Let's kick it off with some solid material : I once heard Duffy speaking Hebrew in the old World Trade Center lobby. Two days later.....

overthere · April 8, 2015

The Ontario media has been desperately looking for a replacement for the Rob Ford circus and they did not have to wait long or go very far.

Je suis Omar · April 8, 2015

The Ontario media has been desperately looking for a replacement for the Rob Ford circus and they did not have to wait long or go very far.

Conservatives operate under the BigTop with multiple circuses going on at any one time.

ToadBrother · April 8, 2015

I still wonder if the reason Wright hasnt been charged is so he can be forced to testify. His story has to be one that has Harpers knees knocking the loudest.

Dipping my toes back in these forums after a very long absence.

At any rate, as I understand it, a very large part of a criminal charge is intent, particularly when dealing with serious criminal charges. In the case of Nigel Wright, my understanding is that the Crown did not feel that they could demonstrate that his intention was to bribe Duffy. The Crown's argument on the corruption charges surrounding the $90,000 cheque is that Wright and the PMO were essentially the victims of a shakedown by Duffy.

Further to that, it's my opinion that while the Crown probably does think Wright bears a considerable amount of responsibility. The Crown may even believe Wright's actions made him a co-conspirator with Duffy. However, as so often happens in criminal trials, you have to choose the greater and lesser devils, with the lesser devils being charged with lesser crimes or even effectively granted immunity in exchange for their testimony. Without Wright's testimony, convicting Duffy on the charges surrounding the $90,000, which by far is the most serious charge, becomes difficult, if not impossible.

So, to summarize, the Crown does not feel they have a strong enough case against Wright (they lack rock-solid evidence of intent on Wright's part), and they need Wright to testify against Duffy.

Big Guy · April 9, 2015

The Duffy diaries have been presented as evidence and the media is having a ball. Looks like Peter McKay was a Harper target using "Dimitri the Hammer" to put Peter in his place. It will be interesting to hear a response from "Dimitri the Liberal" on these revelations. The PMO inner circle and the leadership of the Senate may have difficulty sleeping tonight.

On Guard for Thee · April 9, 2015

Dipping my toes back in these forums after a very long absence.

At any rate, as I understand it, a very large part of a criminal charge is intent, particularly when dealing with serious criminal charges. In the case of Nigel Wright, my understanding is that the Crown did not feel that they could demonstrate that his intention was to bribe Duffy. The Crown's argument on the corruption charges surrounding the $90,000 cheque is that Wright and the PMO were essentially the victims of a shakedown by Duffy.

Further to that, it's my opinion that while the Crown probably does think Wright bears a considerable amount of responsibility. The Crown may even believe Wright's actions made him a co-conspirator with Duffy. However, as so often happens in criminal trials, you have to choose the greater and lesser devils, with the lesser devils being charged with lesser crimes or even effectively granted immunity in exchange for their testimony. Without Wright's testimony, convicting Duffy on the charges surrounding the $90,000, which by far is the most serious charge, becomes difficult, if not impossible.

So, to summarize, the Crown does not feel they have a strong enough case against Wright (they lack rock-solid evidence of intent on Wright's part), and they need Wright to testify against Duffy.

I have said the same thing only more succinctly. They didnt charge Wright so they could put him on the stand.

PIK · April 9, 2015

The ONT media must love this. Now they can ignore the dealings of the LIBERAL Government again. It is funny to hear all the liberals screaming for something about harper, but there is nothing and this will not do a thing to the conservatives, unless there is something totally evil we don't know about. It will have to be big like past liberal scandals to have any effect.

Edited April 9, 2015 by PIK

overthere · April 9, 2015

Conservatives operate under the BigTop with multiple circuses going on at any one time.

Do you think the Duffster can make the media dance like trained monkeys, as Ford did every day?

overthere · April 9, 2015

The Crown's argument on the corruption charges surrounding the $90,000 cheque is that Wright and the PMO were essentially the victims of a shakedown by Duffy.

Oh-oh, there are going to be a lot of angry people here if the court accepts that Harper et al were victims here, not criminals.

PIK · April 9, 2015

To bad.

jacee · April 9, 2015

Oh-oh, there are going to be a lot of angry people here if the court accepts that Harper et al were victims here, not criminals.

So ... Refresh my memory ... What was Duffy extorting the PMO for?

$90k for ... What?

His silence about what?

.

Big Guy · April 10, 2015

Poor Duffy - He and his team is trying to establish a legal defence by taking incremental steps hoping to shift public opinion and looking as if it was working and then - BOOM!!!! Patrick Brazeau shows up taking notes in anticipation of his own trial.

I wonder if Pamelin Wallin will also be visiting some of the proceedings?

The circus is in town !!!!!!!

jacee · April 10, 2015

/christie-blatchford-less-than-a-day-after-his-senate-appointment-mike-duffy-was-at-the-public-teat

He went on: I checked all of the authorities on the Senate and residency is not defined.

My interpretation of this is that there has been a longstanding convention that so long as a Senator owns property in his or her province of appointment then they are allowed to sit as a Senator from that province, even if they live in Ottawa 99% of the time.

...

The press release announcing Mike Duffys appointment to the Senate went out on Dec. 22, 2008.

Before the appointment even took effect on Jan. 2 of the new year, well before he was sworn in, Duffy seamlessly had made the switch to the public teat.

It took less than 24 hours.

And when he submitted what appears from the documents introduced here at his criminal trial to have been his first claim for expenses, there it was, oh yes his very first claim for a per diem of $81.55, made while he was in the National Capital Region in his own house in an Ottawa suburb, was for Dec. 23, the day after the press release.

...

In other words, latching on as Mike Duffy did is not yet a mandatory requirement to be in the Senate, though it may be a convention: How heartening.

Did anyone 'order' Duffy to claim expenses for living in Ottawa where he had lived for years? I doubt it, but it does appear to be common practice.

I don't think this court case is going anywhere because Duffy just followed the conventional Senate practices, but I do think Senate expenses and duties will be tightened up.

.

Edited April 10, 2015 by jacee