ToadBrother Posted April 18, 2015 Report Share Posted April 18, 2015 What could get interesting, and scary for Harper, is that with the slowdown in the proceedings, and the presiding judge already stating that he is willing to extend the length of the trial due to its import, the trial could possibly run to wear the really nasty stuff, (i.e. the bribery portion and Wrights testimony) could occur as the election campaign is getting into full swing. It does pose a problem for the Tories if this extends closer to the election date. It was one of the reasons I know many of the Tories in my area were hoping for an election in February-March, in part to avoid the potential for worse economic news, and in part to avoid the Duffy trial blowing a hole in Tory support. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted April 18, 2015 Report Share Posted April 18, 2015 It does pose a problem for the Tories if this extends closer to the election date. It was one of the reasons I know many of the Tories in my area were hoping for an election in February-March, in part to avoid the potential for worse economic news, and in part to avoid the Duffy trial blowing a hole in Tory support. I was kind of expecting an earlier election as well, although then Harper would have been breaking his own word and law. And now he has to deal with the word atrocious being applied to the economy for the first Q. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted April 18, 2015 Report Share Posted April 18, 2015 No, it's a badly needed exposure of a group of people who know how to work a system but have no ethics. Duffy spent years working the hill and learning how to game the system. When he got the opportunity, he made the most of it. Regardless of the legal outcome, this is healthy. I agree in terms of the Senate overall. In relation to Harper, not so much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted April 19, 2015 Report Share Posted April 19, 2015 I agree in terms of the Senate overall. In relation to Harper, not so much. I'll wait to see what the rest of the trial brings. Right now, all the talk regarding the PMO is just that, talk. All we know for sure is that Wright paid Duffy's bill. However, enough has come out about Duffy's expense claims to make it very clear he has no ethics when it comes to spending the money of others, whether it meets the letter of the law or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted April 19, 2015 Report Share Posted April 19, 2015 What has also come out, although it was pretty obvious priorly anyway, that Harper had Duffy there for one purpose, raising funds, and he didnt mind Duffy billing the taxpayer while doing work for his party. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted April 19, 2015 Report Share Posted April 19, 2015 It's more a witch hunt than real corruption. Yeah. Those court convictions. Just a witch hunt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted April 19, 2015 Report Share Posted April 19, 2015 What has also come out, although it was pretty obvious priorly anyway, that Harper had Duffy there for one purpose, raising funds, Nothing has made that an inescapable conclusion. In fact, nothing really even points that way, unless you happened to be looking for that particular thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted April 19, 2015 Report Share Posted April 19, 2015 Nothing has made that an inescapable conclusion. In fact, nothing really even points that way, unless you happened to be looking for that particular thing. Everything points that way. Duffy was seldom in the red chamber, too busy on the road fund raising for his mentor. Walli pretty much the same. Brazeau, well, hate to say it, but clearly an attempt to garner votes from the FN community. And of course that has gone horribly wrong. Harpers judgement perhaps... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted April 19, 2015 Report Share Posted April 19, 2015 Everything points that way. The things that followed don't say what you want them to. That's the way thing went. There's no evidence that was the intention, and even if it were, it's a huge stretch to turn that into Harper being corrupt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted April 19, 2015 Report Share Posted April 19, 2015 The things that followed don't say what you want them to. That's the way thing went. There's no evidence that was the intention, and even if it were, it's a huge stretch to turn that into Harper being corrupt. Not a stretch of any size, the check came out of his office written by his chief. You think he didnt know... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted April 19, 2015 Report Share Posted April 19, 2015 Not a stretch of any size, the check came out of his office written by his chief. You think he didnt know... I would be surprised if he did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted April 19, 2015 Report Share Posted April 19, 2015 I would be surprised if he did. Given his reputation as a control freak, most of us would be surprised if he didnt. Well I guess we will just have to wait and see what ...good to go ...actually meant, when Nigel takes the stand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted April 19, 2015 Report Share Posted April 19, 2015 Given his reputation as a control freak, most of us would be surprised if he didnt. Well I guess we will just have to wait and see what ...good to go ...actually meant, when Nigel takes the stand. It was his job to shield Harper from liability in these kinds of things. If he thought it was wrong, he would never have told Harper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted April 19, 2015 Report Share Posted April 19, 2015 It was his job to shield Harper from liability in these kinds of things. If he thought it was wrong, he would never have told Harper. I am sure Wright, being the experienced lawyer he is, knew damn well it was wrong. I suspect they just didnt expect the lid to blow off the pot like it did in this case and hoped, as was the purpose of the check, that it would all just fade away. Well it looks like they got a surprise. Wright and possibly even testifying in the midst of the campaign must be a serious nightmare for Harper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted April 19, 2015 Report Share Posted April 19, 2015 I am sure Wright, being the experienced lawyer he is, knew damn well it was wrong. I suspect they just didnt expect the lid to blow off the pot like it did in this case and hoped, as was the purpose of the check, that it would all just fade away. Well it looks like they got a surprise. Wright and possibly even testifying in the midst of the campaign must be a serious nightmare for Harper. LOL. We can clearly see that's what you are breathlessly hoping for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted April 19, 2015 Report Share Posted April 19, 2015 I am sure Wright, being the experienced lawyer he is, knew damn well it was wrong. Then Harper didn't know. It would be Wrights job to just make it go away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted April 19, 2015 Report Share Posted April 19, 2015 I would be surprised if he did. Then you're incredibly naive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted April 20, 2015 Report Share Posted April 20, 2015 If harper knew ,his people did not do their jog right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted April 20, 2015 Report Share Posted April 20, 2015 Is that in some way supposed to excuse him... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted April 20, 2015 Report Share Posted April 20, 2015 Is that in some way supposed to excuse him... If Harper wasn't privy to the details, then to some extent yes. It is one of the unwritten duties of any political chief of staff to take a bullet for the person they work for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted April 20, 2015 Report Share Posted April 20, 2015 If Harper wasn't privy to the details, then to some extent yes. It is one of the unwritten duties of any political chief of staff to take a bullet for the person they work for. The point I was responding to was if in fact he DID know what was going on, the fact a colleague let it slip is no excuse. We are talking illegal activity here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted April 20, 2015 Report Share Posted April 20, 2015 The point I was responding to was if in fact he DID know what was going on, the fact a colleague let it slip is no excuse. We are talking illegal activity here. With no apparent negative motive on the part of Wright or apparent knowledge on the part of Harper. If this trial keeps on as it is (no one cares because there's nothing to care about) and the budget is as rumoured with more tax cuts and security and defence spending this election campaign is going to be bad for the opposition. Hate Harper all you want, but you have more money than in decades after tax. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted April 20, 2015 Report Share Posted April 20, 2015 With no apparent negative motive on the part of Wright or apparent knowledge on the part of Harper. If this trial keeps on as it is (no one cares because there's nothing to care about) and the budget is as rumoured with more tax cuts and security and defence spending this election campaign is going to be bad for the opposition. Hate Harper all you want, but you have more money than in decades after tax. You have certainly jumped the gun on the potential outcome of the trial. We still have lots of people to hear from, including Wright and perhaps Duffy himself. As to the budget, we shall see, I have no kids so I will just be paying for income splitting and not benefitting from it, like most of us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted April 20, 2015 Report Share Posted April 20, 2015 You have certainly jumped the gun on the potential outcome of the trial. We still have lots of people to hear from, including Wright and perhaps Duffy himself. As to the budget, we shall see, I have no kids so I will just be paying for income splitting and not benefitting from it, like most of us. Everyone will benefit by the sound of it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted April 20, 2015 Report Share Posted April 20, 2015 Everyone will benefit by the sound of it So far all we know much about is income splitting, and the experts seem to agree it is a big fail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.