Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 98
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted (edited)

Given that what Wright did has been judged to not be a crime of any sort, on what legal pretext would you have the RCMP question Harper on whether or not he knew about it?

Edited by Argus

"A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley

Posted

Which court decided that exactly?

Given that what Wright did has been judged to not be a crime of any sort, on what legal pretext would you have the RCMP question Harper on whether or not he knew about it?

Posted

it's just not fair that some have taken to calling them the Royal Conservative Mounted Police!

Honestly, I'm glad I don't have to make the decision as to whether to question a PM during an election campaign. But after reading the testimony reports, it sure sounds like Duffy was the patsy that wouldn't quite fit under the bus when he was thrown. It's hard to think of Duffy as a victim but it sounds like the problem originated with him taking the PM's word that he qualified as a resident of PEI.

Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists.

- Noam Chomsky

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.

- Upton Sinclair

Posted

Honestly, I'm glad I don't have to make the decision as to whether to question a PM during an election campaign. But after reading the testimony reports, it sure sounds like Duffy was the patsy that wouldn't quite fit under the bus when he was thrown. It's hard to think of Duffy as a victim but it sounds like the problem originated with him taking the PM's word that he qualified as a resident of PEI.

I'd say you hit the nail squarely. Testimony has shown that Duffy himself, Harper's lawyer Perrin, and who knows who else, balked at the idea that Duffy qualified as a senator from PEI under the constitutional rules, even as outdated as they have become. Harper insisted it was OK, and the rest, to tweak an old saying, is now becoming history.

Posted (edited)

Yeah, it's starting to look like it wasn't a bribe or extortion on either side, even if the PM was lying.

Clearly not a bribe of any sort, regardless of who knew what.

Edited by Bryan
Posted

I'd say you hit the nail squarely. Testimony has shown that Duffy himself, Harper's lawyer Perrin, and who knows who else, balked at the idea that Duffy qualified as a senator from PEI under the constitutional rules, even as outdated as they have become. Harper insisted it was OK,

Perrin testified that Harper, against Perrin's advice, insisted that the only criterion for the the senate residency was that someone own $4,000 worth of property. So the origin of this mess rests at Harper's feet. Perrin told Harper there was no legal basis for this but hey, this is Harper. He doesn't need to listen to anyone.

Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists.

- Noam Chomsky

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.

- Upton Sinclair

Posted

Yeah, it's starting to look like it wasn't a bribe or extortion on either side, even if the PM was lying.

Shall we wait for the judge to weigh in or just end the trial now?

Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists.

- Noam Chomsky

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.

- Upton Sinclair

Posted (edited)

I guess you have a certain point there, it seems to be becoming less of a bribe and more just a full blown, forced cover up.

It sounds like both to me. The PMO paid a sitting senator $90,000 to take a specific actions. The actions were negotiated on both sides.

Sounds a lot like a bribe. The only question is why isn't Wright also being charged with bribery? The logical answer is that they needed one side to testify against the other and they thought they had a better chance at getting Duffy.

Edited by ReeferMadness

Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists.

- Noam Chomsky

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.

- Upton Sinclair

Posted

It sounds like both to me. The PMO paid a sitting senator $90,000 to take a specific actions. The actions were negotiated on both sides.

Sounds a lot like a bribe. The only question is why isn't Wright also being charged with bribery? The logical answer is that they needed one side to testify against the other and they thought they had a better chance at getting Duffy.

Yeah I guess the reason I find myself hemming and hawing a bit over the bribery thing is, in light of current testimony, it almost seems that Duffy had no real say in the matter. Wright was sending a check to cover the expenses and that was that. Which is to say in fact that the wrong person(s) is/are on trial here.

Posted

Yeah I guess the reason I find myself hemming and hawing a bit over the bribery thing is, in light of current testimony, it almost seems that Duffy had no real say in the matter. Wright was sending a check to cover the expenses and that was that. Which is to say in fact that the wrong person(s) is/are on trial here.

Duffy was attaching conditions to accepting the payoff, such as PMO making the audit go away.

In a certain light, I can have a certain degree of sympathy for Duffy. It seems like he was prepared to fight for his view, which was that he was entitled to claim expenses for living in Ottawa. He abandoned his fight on the condition that the PMO pay him off and make sure that his name didn't get dragged through the mud. I guess he didn't think that the PMO would double-cross him.

What's funniest about all of this, though, is all the Harper apologists around here saying "nothing to see here, folks". If this was a Liberal or NDP administration, they would be saying very different things.

I guess attitudes and values flow from the top down. And so does the hypocrisy.

Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists.

- Noam Chomsky

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.

- Upton Sinclair

Posted

Duffy was attaching conditions to accepting the payoff, such as PMO making the audit go away.

In a certain light, I can have a certain degree of sympathy for Duffy. It seems like he was prepared to fight for his view, which was that he was entitled to claim expenses for living in Ottawa. He abandoned his fight on the condition that the PMO pay him off and make sure that his name didn't get dragged through the mud. I guess he didn't think that the PMO would double-cross him.

What's funniest about all of this, though, is all the Harper apologists around here saying "nothing to see here, folks". If this was a Liberal or NDP administration, they would be saying very different things.

I guess attitudes and values flow from the top down. And so does the hypocrisy.

It has certainly done much to complete the scuttling of Harper's stated commitment to clean up Ottawa and run a transparent administration.

Posted

What's funniest about all of this, though, is all the Harper apologists around here saying "nothing to see here, folks". If this was a Liberal or NDP administration, they would be saying very different things.

I guess attitudes and values flow from the top down. And so does the hypocrisy.

It appears so far that Harper has been telling the truth all along as evidenced by Chris Woodcock's testimony - taken under oath of course. Let's hear from Ray Novak to see if he can add anything. So if this is the case - what values would Harper have displayed? Just one - fairness - because regardless of murky expense rules, Duffy's claims were improper - and to pay them back!

Back to Basics

Posted (edited)

I remember in 2006 when the then head of the RCMP decided to "investigate" Liberal Ralph Goodall on some issue. That publication of that decision caused a 5 point shift in support from Liberals to Conservatives in the last two weeks before the election and won that election for Harper. Ralph was eventually found innocent of any charges or actions after the election but the damage had been done.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2008/04/01/rcmp_likely_swayed_federal_election_report_says.html

Can anyone imagine the reaction if the RCMP announced on Oct 1 that they would be "investigating" Harper for bribery or some other crime?

I do not think that we will see RCMP involvement in anything during an election campaign.

Edited by Big Guy

Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.

Posted

Yeah it seems like that - and a rather unnecessary one.

The problem is now the erosion of trust. If they were caught on something like this, then what about when the stakes were higher? What hasn't been caught?

Posted

There's enough guilty to go around among the kids in the PMO, Duffy, Harper, the Tories senators involved in the changes to Duffy's expenses. All these guys that are saying they didn't know, its not good enough, if you didn't know you weren't doing your job, including Harper, who is the PM, who should know what is going on his his own office and if he didn't know, then he needs to be fired, for not doing his job, just like the rest of them, especially those senators that had to have broken laws within Parliament. IF, WE, don't expect higher standards within governments, then we will get governments that are corrupt to certain degree! Get a reality check people.

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,907
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    derek848
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Benz earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Videospirit earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Barquentine earned a badge
      Posting Machine
    • stindles earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • stindles earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...