Canada vs Duffy vs PMO

[cybercoma]

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.

"Harper doesn't do income tax audits, you piece of s***! You're a f***ing liar!"

[cybercoma]

Yeah, I don't get it. Harper obviously knew. Who cares?

Well, they were bribing a senator, interfering with an independent audit, and trying to obstruct the RCMP's investigation.

Who cares? You should. If nothing else it speaks to a culture in the PMO that starts at the top.

Edited August 23, 2015 by cybercoma

[WestCoastRunner]

"Harper doesn't do income tax audits, you piece of s***! You're a f***ing liar!"

Hehe

[Keepitsimple]

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.

The big disconnect is what Harper knew when it was $30,000 - and whether he knew it went to $90,000 before Wright cut the cheque. Perrin's comments were when it was $30,000 and that's what Harper's "good to go" comment was based on. In fact, Harper has admitted he knew Duffy owed $30,000 and told Duffy - and Wright - that he didn't care if it was technically legal - it was wrong to claim expenses that were not incurred.....and to pay them back! |No evidence has been presented that Harper knew about a cheque for $90,000. That might be why the defense does not want to call Ray Novak.

[waldo]

The big disconnect is what Harper knew when it was $30,000 - and whether he knew it went to $90,000 before Wright cut the cheque. Perrin's comments were when it was $30,000 and that's what Harper's "good to go" comment was based on. In fact, Harper has admitted he knew Duffy owed $30,000 and told Duffy - and Wright - that he didn't care if it was technically legal - it was wrong to claim expenses that were not incurred.....and to pay them back! |No evidence has been presented that Harper knew about a cheque for $90,000. That might be why the defense does not want to call Ray Novak.

you continue to attempt to distract over the amount... $30K versus $90K. It's incredulous that you think that so long as Harper only knew about the intent when it was $30K, that "he's good to go"!

can you, can anyone advise under what authority a Canadian Prime Minister is acting in micro-managing the internal workings of the Senate? Why is Stephen Harper providing his own constitutional interpretation on residency rules? Why is Stephen Harper involved in determining the legitimacy of senate expenses? Why is Stephen Harper involved in determining the pay-back process for his determination of illegitimate Senate expenses (a point you acknowledge... just so long as the amount is only $30K)? Etc., etc., etc..

you now are repeating your statement about "the defense not wanting to call Novak"... you don't know this - there's nothing to prevent the defense from calling Novak at any point. The calling of witnesses, and the timing around those calls, is a part of trial strategy. In recent days we've seen perhaps the smoking gun of the trial... the pointed email from Wright sent only to Novak and Perrin... that coupled with the Perrin testimony that "Novak knew"! It's incredulous Harper Conservatives would trot out the line to suggest that, "Novak never read the email". The point is, the email is most suggestive that Novak "knew it all"... he doesn't suddenly get sent an email that speaks to an outcome decision, without having been privy to the events/discussion leading up to that decision. The broader implication that Novak, stated to be one of Harper's closest and longest and most intimate advisers, wouldn't be keeping Harper advised of events/proceedings... is just another flat out attempt at (further) Harper Conservative public manipulation! A prevailing assessment is that Novak was the pipeline to Harper and Novak is the means for "plausible denial".

perhaps the most "own goal" moment of the whole proceedings is to hear Harper Conservative spokesperson, Kory Teneycke, state, "it’s unfathomable that Ray Novak, Harper’s then principal secretary and longtime confidante, would know about Wright’s payment to Duffy and not tell the prime minister." Of course, at the time he said it, Teneycke was playing off the statements of Harper claiming "he didn't know"... and by implication since "Novak didn't know"... Harper couldn't have known... cause according to Teneycke, "it's unfathomable that Novak would know and not tell Harper"!

[cybercoma]

It's incredulous Harper Conservatives would trot out the line to suggest that, "Novak never read the email".

What? You mean the party's legal counsel sends an email and you can't imagine that in the middle of an RCMP investigation that Novak would ignore their lawyer?

[Keepitsimple]

you continue to attempt to distract over the amount... $30K versus $90K. It's incredulous that you think that so long as Harper only knew about the intent when it was $30K, that "he's good to go"!

Fairly straight forward - because the $30K was almost all to do with residency issues - which at the time - and still - were murky at best.....but Harper knew that Duffy had not incurred the expenses that he was claiming and wanted him to pay them back. The $90K on the other hand - was filled with improprieties if not outright fraud. So yes, there's a big, big difference between the $30K and the $90K......although I don't expect you to acknowledge that. I'll look forward to Novak's testimony - which will undoubtedly come - right?

[PIK]

Well if trudeaus quebec supported government gets in we can go back to real scandals, where the taxpayer is the loser. Like in ONT. If harper loses , he will have the last laugh.

[Topaz]

Today, Woodcock is taking the stand and there had been reports that he didn't like some of the stuff going on either, like Perrin. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mike-duffy-trial-chris-woodcock-testimony-1.3201436

[waldo]

Today, Woodcock is taking the stand

oh my! Harper Conservative PMO Director of Issue Management, Chris Woodcock... "one-ups" Harper's chief of staff, Ray Novak'!!! Novak claims not to have read "the email"... Woodcock claims he read the email from Wright... just not the incriminating part!

[socialist]

With the stock market situation, not many really care about this ridiculous trial anymore, except for a few hyper-partisans that reside on this forum.

[ReeferMadness]

With the stock market situation, not many really care about this ridiculous trial anymore, except for a few hyper-partisans that reside on this forum.

Translation: I'm tired of the Conservatives being taken to task for their poor judgement and corrupt behavior.

I guess you'd rather they be taken to task for policies that make our economy more dependent on a single volatile commodity?

[Topaz]

It sounds like most of the PMO including the PM are getting paid huge salaries and NOT do their jobs and were in the private business sector can u do that and not get warned or fired??

[socialist]

It sounds like most of the PMO including the PM are getting paid huge salaries and NOT do their jobs and were in the private business sector can u do that and not get warned or fired??

This doesn't make any sense.

[On Guard for Thee]

With the stock market situation, not many really care about this ridiculous trial anymore, except for a few hyper-partisans that reside on this forum.

So are you saying this is yet another Harper diversion/deflection tactic? How did he pull that off I wonder?

[socialist]

So are you saying this is yet another Harper diversion/deflection tactic? How did he pull that off I wonder?

Your tin foil hat is pulled down a little too low.

[On Guard for Thee]

Your tin foil hat is pulled down a little too low.

Don't think so. Everybody will be tuned into Duffy tomorrow as usual. We only have 4 more days during the current sitting so everyone will want to follow what/who is next.

[Argus]

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?

MPs already have constituency offices paid for by their budgets, as well as their offices in Ottawa. The workers in these offices are there to aid the MP in taking care of his constituents. It is forbidden to use these people or these premises for partisan purposes. What the NDP were doing was taking money away from the budgets which were supposed to go for their non-partisan work on behalf of constituents and using it to pay for partisan workers in 'satellite offices'. It is, by any measure, against the rules.

[Charles Anthony]

Guys,

Stay on topic. What is wrong with you??

The last 3dozen posts have been taken down from this thread because they were CLEARLY off-topic thread-drift all stirred up by a half dozen of you. I left 1 up so that you can all see how that works.

From this point onward, any of you who perpetuate the thread drift run the risk of having your posting privileges suspended.

Ch. A.

[Topaz]

This doesn't make any sense.

It does make sense if part of your job is to READ e-mail sent to u by your BOSS!!

[Keepitsimple]

It does make sense if part of your job is to READ e-mail sent to u by your BOSS!!

Think about it.....you don't read an email from your BOSS thinking that he's going to stick a time bomb in it! Bosses don't do that. Wright already testified that he didn't think the fact that he paid it personally was a big deal so obviously, he didn't make it out to be a big deal. So it got brushed over, skimmed, skipped - whatever.

[waldo]

Think about it.....you don't read an email from your BOSS thinking that he's going to stick a time bomb in it! Bosses don't do that. Wright already testified that he didn't think the fact that he paid it personally was a big deal so obviously, he didn't make it out to be a big deal. So it got brushed over, skimmed, skipped - whatever.

ah c'mon... not one, but two of Harper's inner-circle (Novak and Woodcock) claim not to read emails from their boss, Nigel Wright! Here Simple, try the following email on for size and position it within your lame excuses! What sense does it make for Wright to send such an email to Harper's (now) Chief of Staff, Novak... or to Harper's (former) Special Adviser and Legal Counsel, Perrin... if neither of the guys had any understanding or background on who "her" is (it's Duffy's lawyer), what the "approach" was... or why the hey Wright was sending a cheque?

Simple, your excuses don't pass the smell/credibility tests!

[Mighty AC]

Even bigger than the case of whether or not paying off some expenses for a senator was a mistake, is that the Prime Minister lied about the entire affair. Yet again, the man who originally got his title by promising to be open, transparent and accountable has been caught lying to the public and parliament.

Why was it again, that parliament fell last time? Oh yeah, the PM withheld information and lied to parliament. What happened during the followup election? Oh yeah, the CPC not only broke spending laws but also engaged in a voter suppression campaign that hit 200+ ridings.

Hey cons, why not get rid of the embarrassment leading your party and groom the next one who can rebuild a credible, honourable right of centre option?

[waldo]

in a true moment of waldo bipartisanship, I'd like to offer a 'hand across the aisle' to advocates/supporters of Harper Conservatives... and of Harper in particular! The daily news-conference routine was grueling on Harper, but he held fast and never seemed to shift from the same script, day after day. The following video is a snapshot of Harper speaking within the hallowed confines of the House of Commons... from some time back... showing the consistency in Harper right from the onset. I think we should all recognize that consistent consistency!

[waldo]

in what has become the crux of it all... Harper chose to apply his personal interpretation on residency... and chose the "owning $4000 worth of property as the single benchmark for being a resident in any province! That's right, Harper personally intervened and applied this nonsense interpretation to justify the naming of Duffy as a legitimate Senator from PEI. Everything from that point forward is tied to this blundering move by Harper... and it is ostensibly the reason for the series of cover-ups and ultimately with the manipulation of the audit. All of this to give cover to Harper's interpretation... cause, apparently, he's also a constitutional lawyer! Who knew!

per the Constitution Act, 1867:

then we have actual evidence introduced in court that confirms the hatched plot to "tailor" residency rules for Duffy... that confirms Harper's direct intervention in qualifying his personal interpretation of the constitutionally defined Senate requirements, vis-a-vis residency: Harper's lawyer disagreed with him that owning land gave senator residency

The February 2013 documents show Harper’s closest advisers were consumed with trying to squelch questions about whether Duffy, Wallin and other Harper appointees were eligible to sit in the Senate.

On Feb. 18, 2013, PMO lawyer Benjamin Perrin and Harper’s manager of parliamentary affairs, Patrick Rogers, prepared a memo for the prime minister on a secret plan to change the Senate’s rules surrounding residency.

“Your office is working with Senate leadership to bring an end to concerns regarding the constitutional residency of some of our Senators,” they wrote. “This constitutional residency issue is separate but connected to the expenses issues surrounding Senators Duffy and Wallin.”

They said the PMO had devised a plan for Duffy to return money he’d claimed for his home in Kanata, but the plan was “contingent on his ability to remain a Senator from PEI.”

The memo said it is “fundamental to us” that Duffy, Wallin and others “be deemed residents of the provinces they were appointed in terms of the Constitution.

“Any proposed solution from the Senate leadership that has involved any of our Senators being put in jeopardy of having their constitutional residency questioned has been ruled out,” the memo adds.

Perrin and Rogers said the Senate would define “residency,” and the definition that best protected Conservative senators was whether senators had a “personal connection” to the province.

Two options were drawn up for Harper for having that definition adopted. The first was to have the Senate’s rules committee spend weeks studying the matter and then have the Senate vote on it.

The second was to simply introduce a motion in the Senate declaring all current senators residents of their province of appointment “due to their current demonstrable representation to their appointed provinces.”

“We believe that this motion could be debated and (closure) used as necessary to generate a vote within the Senate chamber, without a word of the debate ever being televised,” the memo reads.

A short time later, Perrin wrote Harper’s team, saying the prime minister’s approach failed to note that there are two distinct criteria in the Constitution that senators must satisfy to represent a specific province. He said there is a “basic interpretative principle” that satisfying one requirement doesn’t satisfy the other.

Harper’s chief of staff, Nigel Wright, concluded: “We will not take any steps in the Senate to address residency…unless anyone challenges the qualifications of any of our Senators, in which case we will defend (and defeat any motion regarding) any Senator who owns property in the correct province and division.”

Similar documents tabled during Duffy’s trial Wednesday showed Harper’s staff tried to rewrite a Senate audit report to head off questions about whether Duffy and other senators were constitutionally qualified to hold their seats. Most of the changes were not included in the final report.

Wright also told staff that if questions were raised about any Conservative senators’ residency eligibility, “we would point to their property ownership and deep, continuing ties.”