Canada vs Duffy vs PMO

Keepitsimple · August 22, 2015

Benjamin Perrin had a very telling comment - buried of course at the end of The Star's story. This pertains to the "good to go" comment and puts things in a different context than sensational headlines would infer. So why isn't the headline:

Nothing illegal or improper in 5 point plan: Perrin

Still, Perrin said Friday that at the time these discussions were unfolding, there was no thought that Duffy had committed a crime or even violated Senate rules.

“There was no whiff at this point of any possibility of criminality,” Perrin said.

And he said there was nothing illegal or improper in the five-point plan and said he would have spoken up if there was.

Link: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/08/21/ex-pmo-lawyer-continues-testimony-at-duffy-trial-today.html

Edited August 22, 2015 by Keepitsimple

Topaz · August 22, 2015

The problem for Harper is that from the very beginning, Canadians may have a very dim view of Harper on the tape, of Harper talking about the bribe of Cadman and allowing his guys to even try it, was wrong, even if Harper wasn't charged, we've heard his voice telling his guys he didn't think Cadman would take the bribe. Then there is the charges against this party for fraud in elections, the robo calls, MP's and taxpayers money, the secretive governing, the shutting out of the media, The former Speaker charging the Tories lying to Parliament, the list go on and on. Why would anyone re-election these people??? The court of public opinion doesn't believe Harper and that will probably show in the election. Is he willing to swear under oath in a court of law, that he didn't know......not if it not true and someone could come forward and say differently.

On Guard for Thee · August 22, 2015

Benjamin Perrin had a very telling comment - buried of course at the end of The Star's story. This pertains to the "good to go" comment and puts things in a different context than sensational headlines would infer. So why isn't the headline:

Nothing illegal or improper in 5 point plan: Perrin

Link: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/08/21/ex-pmo-lawyer-continues-testimony-at-duffy-trial-today.html

Duh, being a lawyer and all, what would you expect him to say? No I knew it was illegal but I carried on anyway. If nothing as illegal why are we into this lengthy trial I wonder?

Smallc · August 22, 2015

Duh, being a lawyer and all, what would you expect him to say? No I knew it was illegal but I carried on anyway. If nothing as illegal why are we into this lengthy trial I wonder?

Uhh, no one is the PMO is on trial, though you'd swear form this thread that they were.

On Guard for Thee · August 22, 2015

Uhh, no one is the PMO is on trial, though you'd swear form this thread that they were.

No one from the PMO is on trial........yet. Based on recent testimony, Nigel Wright must be a little worried.

Topaz · August 22, 2015

On CTV news, i heard a law professor say that Duffy was talking to both, Wright and Novak and either of those two guys knew of it. So, perhaps Novak did know what was going on and I can't see Novak not telling Harper about the situation in the PMO.

socialist · August 23, 2015

On CTV news, i heard a law professor say that Duffy was talking to both, Wright and Novak and either of those two guys knew of it. So, perhaps Novak did know what was going on and I can't see Novak not telling Harper about the situation in the PMO.

Well, the law professor, I assume, knows all.

However, the outdated senate rules are an issue. Duffy knew that the PMO , Wright and the senators at large were not completely certain about the senate rules.

But what Harper (and most Canadians) WERE and ARE certain about is that Duffy claimed expenses not actually incurred.

Just because the rules could possibly be interpreted that Duffy COULD claim the expenses (declaring his Kanata home as his secondary residence) but that does not mean he SHOULD have claimed expenses NOT actually incurred.

Duffy was (and is) well aware of the fact that the PMO and Wright and the involved senators were not clear on the rules exactly, but they all did know that Duffy claimed un-incurred expenses (eating at his home in Kanata was an expense claim!!). And so Duffy played the game. He promised he would pay back the expenses himself, then he changed his mind again , and again, fully knowing that the PMO etc could not really pin him down on exact rules!!

Duffy used the vague rules to first claim the unincurred expenses, and then Duffy uses the vague senate rules to get money out of someone, either the party or Wright. Duffy demanded things because he knew that the unincurred expenses NOT paid back would also be a PR problem for the Government. That is it. period.

On Guard for Thee · August 23, 2015

Well, the law professor, I assume, knows all.

However, the outdated senate rules are an issue. Duffy knew that the PMO , Wright and the senators at large were not completely certain about the senate rules.

But what Harper (and most Canadians) WERE and ARE certain about is that Duffy claimed expenses not actually incurred.

Just because the rules could possibly be interpreted that Duffy COULD claim the expenses (declaring his Kanata home as his secondary residence) but that does not mean he SHOULD have claimed expenses NOT actually incurred.

Duffy was (and is) well aware of the fact that the PMO and Wright and the involved senators were not clear on the rules exactly, but they all did know that Duffy claimed un-incurred expenses (eating at his home in Kanata was an expense claim!!). And so Duffy played the game. He promised he would pay back the expenses himself, then he changed his mind again , and again, fully knowing that the PMO etc could not really pin him down on exact rules!!

Duffy used the vague rules to first claim the unincurred expenses, and then Duffy uses the vague senate rules to get money out of someone, either the party or Wright. Duffy demanded things because he knew that the unincurred expenses NOT paid back would also be a PR problem for the Government. That is it. period.

You seem to be kind of mixed up as to the difference between fraud, which is what you seem to be lumping everything under, and bribery, which is what is the significant part of the charges, and where the PMO seems to be more and more implicated as the testimony from these involved progresses. I won't be surprised if further charges end up being laid.

socialist · August 23, 2015

You seem to be kind of mixed up as to the difference between fraud, which is what you seem to be lumping everything under, and bribery, which is what is the significant part of the charges, and where the PMO seems to be more and more implicated as the testimony from these involved progresses. I won't be surprised if further charges end up being laid.

Speculation on my part: what if Perrin BELIEVED he knew what the 'good to go' comment referred to only because he wanted to believe that Wright had acted on Harper's behalf only because Perrin had said that the Wright payment was not illegal, thinking Harper would have approved.

Now, Harper said he did not know and would not have approved, what then to think of Perrin's 'permission' that the Wright payment was legit?

Just saying. It seemed weird that Perrin remembered so vividly that part he wanted to tell, that part when he believed the PM was aware and that Wright was supposedly fully acting on Harper's behalf?

socialist · August 23, 2015

Uhh, no one is the PMO is on trial, though you'd swear form this thread that they were.

What makes people think only Perrin was honest?

Perrin made some strange statements, saying on the one hand today that his role in the Duffy deal were very minimum, but at the other hand claiming that he knew exactly what the 'good to go' comment referred to and that Wright was speaking on Harper's behalf in regards to Wright's payment, but that was not true, and secondly, Perrin was never present when Wright spoke to Harper.

Also, today the RCMP statement revealed that Perrin had said to the RCMP that he did not know when Novak had entered the room.

So, I think if you put doubt in Wright's statement (if that is what you are implying) then I would urge you to have a look at Perrin's testimony and what was really said.

On Guard for Thee · August 23, 2015

Speculation on my part: what if Perrin BELIEVED he knew what the 'good to go' comment referred to only because he wanted to believe that Wright had acted on Harper's behalf only because Perrin had said that the Wright payment was not illegal, thinking Harper would have approved.

Now, Harper said he did not know and would not have approved, what then to think of Perrin's 'permission' that the Wright payment was legit?

Just saying. It seemed weird that Perrin remembered so vividly that part he wanted to tell, that part when he believed the PM was aware and that Wright was supposedly fully acting on Harper's behalf?

Because Perrin has testified that he believed the "good to go" referred to the 5 point plan, which includes the payment.

On Guard for Thee · August 23, 2015

What makes people think only Perrin was honest?

Perrin made some strange statements, saying on the one hand today that his role in the Duffy deal were very minimum, but at the other hand claiming that he knew exactly what the 'good to go' comment referred to and that Wright was speaking on Harper's behalf in regards to Wright's payment, but that was not true, and secondly, Perrin was never present when Wright spoke to Harper.

Also, today the RCMP statement revealed that Perrin had said to the RCMP that he did not know when Novak had entered the room.

So, I think if you put doubt in Wright's statement (if that is what you are implying) then I would urge you to have a look at Perrin's testimony and what was really said.

Perrin testified Novak was in the room when Wright announced he was coming to the party with 90k for Duffy. But don't confuse the issue by conflating the political with the legal. So far Harper is OK from a legal sense, just a lot of damage politically. Unless they happen to subpoena Novak and we find out perhaps Harper did know what was about to transpire through his office.

poochy · August 23, 2015

Well one things is for sure, the conservatives were terribly stupid when they went this route instead allowing this to go public and dumping duffy on the curb, it's only $90,000, of course the media would have been all over it for a couple weeks, but at least they aren't the NDP, just look at how they have been hounded non stop about the millions they owe, but it's a totally different scale of scandal, so it's no wonder.

Smallc · August 23, 2015

Well one things is for sure, the conservatives were terribly stupid when they went this route instead allowing this to go public and dumping duffy on the curb, it's only $90,000

Yeah, I don't get it. Harper obviously knew. Who cares? They should have come out with it, and that would have been the end of it.

waldo · August 23, 2015

Yeah, I don't get it. Harper obviously knew. Who cares? They should have come out with it, and that would have been the end of it.

if you're truly sincere with this post... that you actually believe, as you state, "Harper obviously knew", how could you continue to support a leader and a party that has taken a position to lie so blatantly and so repeatedly to Canadians on so many related levels within the DuffyAffair?

Smallc · August 23, 2015

if you're truly sincere with this post... that you actually believe, as you state, "Harper obviously knew", how could you continue to support a leader and a party that

I don't know, I managed to support Chretien and Martin. Probably because I can identify with all 3 parties. I understand why Harper lied in this case, but it was the wrong decision at the time and now he's stuck with that lie. It's too bad really, because this could have been in the past.

August1991 · August 23, 2015

Is Harper looking for sympathy?

....

.....but Harper is the author of his own misfortunes. He and his henchmen in the PMO had multiple opportunities not to let this happen:

1. He could have refrained from getting involved in how the senate sets residency rules. He didn't. In fact, he set his own rule for what constitutes residency.

2. He could have stayed away from the senate audit altogether and let Duffy deal with the auditors. He didn't. Instead he interfered with the audit.

3. He could have come clean and admitted that Duffy believed his residency status was OK because he (Harper) told him it was OK. He didn't. Instead he tried to stuff Duffy under the bus.

4. He could have come clean and admitted his mistake as soon as he knew Nigel wrote the cheque. Instead, he supported Wright until the knowledge of the cheque went public.

WTF?

Everyone knows that someone in the PMO paid 90,000 $ to a Senator. But only 90,000 $ First "WTF"?

His own money? Second "WTF".

This is the best/worst the WASP MSM has against Harper?

======

In the critical ridings in 2015, southwestern Ontario (with many smart immigrants), this supposed scandal makes no sense. Move them to Harper's column...

They know that Trudeau Jnr is clean and they believe that Harper is not on the take. But Mulcair?

Edited August 23, 2015 by August1991

Keepitsimple · August 23, 2015

Yeah, I don't get it. Harper obviously knew. Who cares? They should have come out with it, and that would have been the end of it.

I'm not sold at all that he knew that Wright was writing a personal cheque for $90K. I agree that Harper knew everything - right up to the five point plan - but that was all predicated on $30,000 to be paid by the party (good to go) - and as Perrin said, there was nothing illegal or improper at that time. As I've seen it, when Wright found out it was $90,000, everything else was already in motion - except for the money - so he just said the hell with it - and wrote the cheque without telling the PM ahead of time.

Edited August 23, 2015 by Keepitsimple

Topaz · August 23, 2015

I'm not sold at all that he knew that Wright was writing a personal cheque for $90K. I agree that Harper knew everything - right up to the five point plan - but that was all predicated on $30,000 to be paid by the party (good to go) - and as Perrin said, there was nothing illegal or improper at that time. As I've seen it, when Wright found out it was $90,000, everything else was already in motion - except for the money - so he just said the hell with it - and wrote the cheque without telling the PM ahead of time.

I agree with u but what about Novak, he supposely knew what was going on in the PMO, that's his job.and IF the 90,000 wasn't illegal then why did the RCMP charge Duffy? Was it illegal to change Duffy's expenses that the Senators did? \many questions still out there.

waldo · August 23, 2015

I'm not sold at all that he knew that Wright was writing a personal cheque for $90K. I agree that Harper knew everything - right up to the five point plan - but that was all predicated on $30,000 to be paid by the party (good to go) - and as Perrin said, there was nothing illegal or improper at that time. As I've seen it, when Wright found out it was $90,000, everything else was already in motion - except for the money - so he just said the hell with it - and wrote the cheque without telling the PM ahead of time.

perfect! Simple... that would have been $30K as subsidized by the Canadian taxpayer. So, apparently, you're quite ok with that! :lol: It's still freakin' amazing to read those still fixated on the amount (like member August1991 a few posts back)... clearly unable to realize it's not about the amount!

poochy · August 23, 2015

if you're truly sincere with this post... that you actually believe, as you state, "Harper obviously knew", how could you continue to support a leader and a party that has taken a position to lie so blatantly and so repeatedly to Canadians on so many related levels within the DuffyAffair?

At the end of the day, it's still $90,000 of repaid money. I dont really support any of them, im deciding which one I can tolerate the best, millions owed by the NDP, $90,000 paid back.

waldo · August 23, 2015

At the end of the day, it's still $90,000 of repaid money. I dont really support any of them, im deciding which one I can tolerate the best, millions owed by the NDP, $90,000 paid back.

no - that IBOE ruling is being appealed - why do you deny a fundamental tenet in Canadian law? If some party doesn't believe they've breached an internal rule... and an appeal process is available to that party, what right do you stand by to disallow that appeal process?

by the by, care to comment on why you believe satellite offices outside of Ottawa... closer to constituents... is a wrong/bad thing to undertake. There was nothing secretive about the offices; their openings typically received significant local media coverage in the respective areas? Why would you be against satellite offices?

WIP · August 23, 2015

Your post seemed to say otherwise with regard ro Donahue. And you dont need to rely on the MSM to see the blatant shift in Harpers story about Wrights departure from the PMO, you just have to replay QP and there you have it right from the horses... let me be very clear. mouth.

Seems more complicated than I want to be bothered with right now.....I'll just watch Harper's daily press conferences and see if his nose keeps growing longer!

On Guard for Thee · August 23, 2015

Seems more complicated than I want to be bothered with right now.....I'll just watch Harper's daily press conferences and see if his nose keeps growing longer!

I watched one at the end of last week where he answered a question regarding Novak's awareness of the scam, vis a vis Perrin's testimony, and you could tell he was a hairs breadth from losing it, and he has at least another week to try and dance around that type of questioning.

cybercoma · August 23, 2015

Benjamin Perrin had a very telling comment - buried of course at the end of The Star's story. This pertains to the "good to go" comment and puts things in a different context than sensational headlines would infer. So why isn't the headline:

Nothing illegal or improper in 5 point plan: Perrin

Link: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/08/21/ex-pmo-lawyer-continues-testimony-at-duffy-trial-today.html

Indeed it is telling that he's saying he thought Duffy did nothing wrong, whilst the PM goes around the country saying he always knew Duffy was in the wrong. Y'know, even though he appointed him for PEI and approved Wright's repayment idea to try to make it go away.

Edited August 23, 2015 by cybercoma