Canada vs Duffy vs PMO

[socialist]

Yeah, that's it. You can't pin me down to a party. So now I'm a puppet of the CBC?

hahahahahaha. that's really pathetic.

Well, all you do is repeat the CBC's talking points on fake scandals.

I have no interest in trying to "pin" you down to a party. Running with the faux scandals of the CBC says much about you, and that;'s quite pathetic. HAHAHAHA

[Vancouver King]

7 out of 10 won't vote for JT or Tom, either. But then I'm sure FPTP will be fine.

i

Let me update that number. Today's Abacus poll says it's 76%, which could mean some Harper voters have joined the chorus for change.

[socialist]

Let me update that number. Today's Abacus poll says it's 76%, which could mean some Harper voters have joined the chorus for change.

I really don't pay close attention to polls. I wonder if Adrian Dix still does?

[socialist]

Let me update that number. Today's Abacus poll says it's 76%, which could mean some Harper voters have joined the chorus for change.

1. Duffy wavered back and forth at all times (as the court proceedings make clear enough).Duffy still thought he was entitled to his expenses which he had NOT incurred. Wright wanted to save face for Duffy as much as Wright wanted to safe face for the government. One of Duffy's plights was that he did not have the money. And Wright is a very rich man who did not want his name associated with that payment. That is why Wright paid the tax payer back via Duffy.

2.You are looking at things in hindsight. Once the decision was made to pay for Duffy (first by the party, which is done by all parties under some circumstances!, and then ultimately by Wright himself) the train was set in motion. Once a train is set in motion, and standing in front of a yet to be unknown future, the process unfolded as it did. YOU are looking back over what has happened, knowing in advance what would come next. Wright did not have that advantage and neither did anyone else.

3.Wright never interpreted it that way (that Parliament was mislead). Wright's opinion (and yes, he has the right to his opinion) was that since the rules of the senate were outdated and vague, no one knew then or knows now how much of Duffy's actions were actually illegitimate. But Wright agreed with Harper that expenses not incurred should not be claimed. But because of the vague senate rules, Wright thought that if the expenses were paid back for Duffy, then Duffy's expenses were paid back to the tax payer and according to Wright, it was not a bad misrepresentation. I agree. Because the rules were and are vague, if the party or Wright paid back the expenses, it did not make much difference.

Now I have some questions for you VK.

Why does Peter Mansbridge (and other members of the media) say that Harper said he fired Wright, if there is no such direct quote from Harper to be found?

Why did the CBC on June 6 and 7, 2013, feel the need to air a fabricated report on there being a 'secret' CPC party 'fund' in the PMO, if that was immediately objected to by the CPC party and the party had requested such false report to be retracted. ?

Why have the members of the media, including the CBC and Peter Mansbridge, never, ever asked Justin Trudeau how much the Liberal party has paid for Mac Harb's legal advice when HE was being audited as a Liberal senator? Why are members of the media so selective in their fact finding???

I have answered your questions. I wonder if you will answer mine.

[Argus]

I'm more than a little confused about what's going on at Duffy's trial. Now, admittedly, I haven't followed it closely, since I don't consider it really matters. But it seems to me that if I had a full day to question some guy, I'd basically be able to cover everything in his life from kindergarten on, as well as everything he dreamed about, his secret fantasies, what kind of underwear he preferred, and what his favorite hair products were. I'm pretty sure I could get all that in a whole day of questioning with time left over.

Wright has been questioned for five days now, and I'm not seeing how 98% of the questioning is related to whether Duffy took a bribe or not. Why did he pay Duffy? Sure. What did he expect Duffy to do? Sure. What did he and Duffy discuss? Fine. What I don't understand is the badgering on who else might have known, who else was consulted, what was the media spin put on the story, didn't Wright think telling the public this or that was misleading them? What interpretation should be put on Wright's words in an email to the PM?

I'm confused about how any of that makes any difference whatsoever as to why Duffy took the money and what he intended to do for it. And so I'm confused about why the court is allowing it and isn't telling Duffy's lawyer to move on. Lawyers make an awful lot of money for courtroom time, and the one Duffy has is at the top of the pay rate, but for a guy who didn't have the money to repay the $90,000 he owed it seems odd he doesn't mind spending thousands of dollars a day on a lawyer to dwell on stuff that isn't going to help his case any.

At the same time I'm finding it really obnoxiously irritating that this trial is taking so long, given the cost to the public. The judge has already said it's going to take longer than the 41 days allotted. Even 41 days of court time is completely ludicrous. If you want to know what's wrong with our justice system, and why everything costs so much, this is a perfect example. Overpaid lawyers spending weeks droning on about every conceivable aspect of a case while we, the public, foot much of the bill.

[cybercoma]

Because context matters. Something you repeatedly refuse to acknowledge about the legal process. The defence has spent the last 5 days showing that there was a scheme cooked up by the PMO that Duffy resisted. They've gone through every single email. Something I think you would appreciate if you were on trial trying to fight for your innocence.

[socialist]

Andrew Coyne is spending a lot of time weighing i on the Duffy trial.

What a bunch of chutzpah Mr.Coyne is bringing us!

As if Andrew Coyne not knows that sometimes events get out of hand.

If Andrew Coyne would have been in the PMO office, as a subordinate of Wright, would Coyne have gone public?

I doubt it. Coyne, who has sat on the CBC panel for years now, has never, ever objected to the fabricated story aired on CBC on June 6 and 7, 2013, in which Greg Weston claimed that the CPC had a 'secret fund' in the PMO.

There never ever was such a secret fund, ever, and the CPC party executive asked the CBC to retract that completely baseless report. But no, the CBC piled it on even more, directly trying to influence an ongoing breaking story about the Duffy/Wright affair.

Mr.Coyne knows full well that ALL political parties have a party fund out of which particular expenses are reimbursed to caucus members (and yes, Duffy was then still a member of the CPC caucus!), and Coyne also knows full well that such party funds existing are NOT secret.

And yet, Coyne never bothered to mention the fact that the CBC was willfully misleading Canadians. Coyne never once stood up in an ethical manner to say to his boss panelist, Peter Mansbridge: "Hey, Peter, I think you are using tax dollars to mislead Canadians."

Why does Coyne accuse people working in the PMO of not standing up to Wright and not telling Harper of what was really going on, if Coyne himself never had the courage or the ethics in hand to tell Peter Mansbridge and the CBC about fabricated reporting? What was Coyne thinking when the Greg Weston's story broke? What was Coyne really thinking? Mr.Coyne, when will you, or other members of the media, ask how much the Liberal party has paid for Mac Harb's legal advice when that Liberal senator was being audited?

Why only ask the Conservative party how much they had paid for Duffy's legal expenses in regards to the audit?

Coyne gets paid by the CBC for sitting on the At Issue panel.

In fact, now that the Duffy trial is in full swing, Mr.Coyne is reaping financial benefits to boot! He now appears on CBC almost three times a week instead of the usual one time per week.

So keeping the Duffy trial front and center at the CBC means that Andrew Coyne gets about $1,000 a week more paid for by the tax payer than he did when the Duffy trial was not in vogue.

It's a fact. A cold hard fact.

[Topaz]

i'm pretty sure that this Tory party has taken more items to the Supreme Court and lost all but maybe one and has cost the taxpayers big bucks. They can never comment on a certain items in the news because...its in court!

[Argus]

i'm pretty sure that this Tory party has taken more items to the Supreme Court and lost all but maybe one and has cost the taxpayers big bucks. They can never comment on a certain items in the news because...its in court!

Of course, that could be that Left wing groups are extremely litigious and challenge everything and anything they can under the law. I don't recall a similar effort under past governments.

[ReeferMadness]

Okay, it was a fine system until Harper got elected. That better?

No, it was a fine system until the 20th century came along.

[ReeferMadness]

Let me update that number. Today's Abacus poll says it's 76%, which could mean some Harper voters have joined the chorus for change.

Not the ones around here. They will genuflect before the one true Harper until the bitter end.

[ReeferMadness]

3.Wright never interpreted it that way (that Parliament was mislead). Wright's opinion (and yes, he has the right to his opinion) was that since the rules of the senate were outdated and vague, no one knew then or knows now how much of Duffy's actions were actually illegitimate. But Wright agreed with Harper that expenses not incurred should not be claimed. But because of the vague senate rules, Wright thought that if the expenses were paid back for Duffy, then Duffy's expenses were paid back to the tax payer and according to Wright, it was not a bad misrepresentation. I agree. Because the rules were and are vague, if the party or Wright paid back the expenses, it did not make much difference.

This is such B.S.

If Wright though the senate rules were vague, there are a variety of things he could have done. If he were REALLY so concerned about tax dollars as the rest of the right wing horde seems to be, he would have counseled Duffy to not claim the expenses, as it was a questionable situation. Or he might have counseled him to claim the expenses but be prepared to pay them back of questioned.

What he shouldn't have done was attempt to manipulate the audit report. And he certainly shouldn't have secretly paid off a sitting senator. And when he attempted to bury Duffy's expenses and hide them from the public, it makes people think that he did something wrong. And he probably did. Because, unlike the rest of the PMO, Wright isn't just some yokel who fell off the turnip truck. He's a well connected business man and a lawyer. And yet, we're also supposed to believe that he was just trying to do the right thing.

Well, you're the only one around who seems to think that.

And one last thing. Why exactly, was the PMO doing interfering in a senate audit? The senate is an independent body and the PMO has no business being involved AT ALL.

[Vancouver King]

Not the ones around here. They will genuflect before the one true Harper until the bitter end.

Take heart, the same poll says many Conservatives are not "certain or likely to vote on Oct 19th."

This campaign is, apparently, so depressing so early, Tories will be staying home in droves.

Edited August 20, 2015 by Vancouver King

[socialist]

Take heart, the same poll says many Conservatives are not "certain or likely to vote on Oct 19th."

This campaign is, apparently, so depressing so early, Tories will be staying home in droves.

I guess we'll say. August 19th and you know exactly what will happen Oct.19. Is your crystal ball union made.

Edited August 20, 2015 by socialist

[socialist]

ONE action can only be explained in ONE way, and that is the UN-ethical action of
claiming expenses which are NOT incurred, regardless of outdated and vague senate rules.

The fact that Duffy had claimed expenses NOT incurred is obvious.It has been obvious to many as far back as this so-called scandal came into being. PM Harper has always said that claiming expenses NOT incurred is wrong! Therefore he felt that regardless of vague and outdated rules, those false expenses had to be repaid by Duffy. Period.

Harper instructed Wright, as his CoS, to deal with the issue,which Wright tried to do. Duffy still believed he could claim those unincurred expenses, and wavered back and forth. Wright and members of the PMO and the senate tried to rectify all of this with those vague and outdated senate rules hanging forever in the back ground (or, to be more exact: outdated and vague senate rules hanging around their necks!).

The only answer then and now which could be given with any clarity was the answer that expenses claimed but not incurred are not ethically warranted.

Had PM Harper NOT insisted that Duffy pay back his expenses NOT incurred, then the press and Canadians would have been upset with Harper for not having taken the right course of action.

So voters have a decision to make. Not anyone in life can have it both ways. Not the PM and not Duffy and not the lawyer defending Duffy and certainly not the media, who more often than not pretendsTHEY can have it both ways.

If voters believe expenses not incurred should not be claimed, then Harper comes out winning. But if most Canadians suddenly believe that expenses NOT incurred SHOULD have been claimed, well, then Mulcair and the NDP and their Parliamentary money used for partisan regional offices will become PM, ethics be damned!!

[ReeferMadness]

Take heart, the same poll says many Conservatives are not "certain or likely to vote on Oct 19th."

Thanks, man. There is hope yet.

[August1991]

I briefly looked through this thread, and its latest posts. IMHO, Colby Cosh had the best interpretation of this so-called scandal. Try to explain it to a foreigner. (Believe me, I tried.)

Profumo? Defense minister sleeps with woman in contact with Soviet embassy guy.

Watergate? President orders break-in of opposing party then uses FBI to divert attention.

Sponsorship scandal? PM contracts milllions to favoured companies who then kickback a percentage to PMs party.

Kurt Waldheim? UN Secretary-General resigns because of Nazi connections.

Mike Duffy? PM names fat popular journalist to senate to raise money for PM's party - fat journalist refuses to pay $90,000 to government, PMO staffer pays the money instead out of his own money, PM claims not to know.....

=====

To foreigners, this Canadian political scandal has no sex, no corporate money, no mighty struggle for power, no secrets divulged. It doesn't even make sense - unless you're Canadian, English-Canadian to be specific.

Apparently, someone in the PMO used their own money (not taxpayer money) to bribe a senator who's a member of the same party as the PMO.

Try explaining that to a White House insider.

Edited August 20, 2015 by August1991

[bush_cheney2004]

...To foreigners, this Canadian political scandal has no sex, no money, no mighty struggle for power.

Yes, but that's what makes it quintessential Canadian. Five yawns....

[Keepitsimple]

To foreigners, this Canadian political scandal has no sex, no corporate money, no mighty struggle for power, no secrets divulged. It doesn't even make sense - unless you're Canadian, English-Canadian to be specific.

If the media uses their same doggedness on Mac Harb as they have on Duffy, I think they'd find some very juicy morsels. Harb's residence that he used as his primary residence to claim expenses? Well, he only owned half a percent of the mortgage. The other 99.5% was held by the female Ambassador from Brunei. Apparently, the house was almost entirely vacant. Just sayin......

[cybercoma]

Take heart, the same poll says many Conservatives are not "certain or likely to vote on Oct 19th."

This campaign is, apparently, so depressing so early, Tories will be staying home in droves.

Rhetoric aside, this is a very good point. Even conservatives on this forum have voiced their wishes that Harper had stepped down sooner.

[Vancouver King]

Rhetoric aside, this is a very good point. Even conservatives on this forum have voiced their wishes that Harper had stepped down sooner.

This Duffy business is having a subtle but important influence on the campaign by debasing the Conservative brand. Few in the general public have the time to explore the complexities of this situation, what they come away with is a sense of self-inflicted scandal and leadership found lacking by allowing such a situation to develop.

Edited August 20, 2015 by Vancouver King

[Smallc]

This Duffy business is having a subtle but important influence on the campaign by debasing the Conservative brand. Few in the general public have the time to explore the complexities

Too bad the trial ends this week, eh?

[PIK]

Rhetoric aside, this is a very good point. Even conservatives on this forum have voiced their wishes that Harper had stepped down sooner.

The ones that thought Harper could not win.

[Vancouver King]

Too bad the trial ends this week, eh?

The damage will be done by then. Can $30 million worth of attack ads turn this around? I doubt it.

[PIK]

This Duffy business is having a subtle but important influence on the campaign by debasing the Conservative brand. Few in the general public have the time to explore the complexities of this situation, what they come away with is a sense of self-inflicted scandal and leadership found lacking by allowing such a situation to develop.

Dream on.