Smallc Posted November 11, 2015 Report Share Posted November 11, 2015 Their argument is that stuff from 15 years ago is no longer relevant wrt the Liberal party. Actually we're talking 20+ years ago when it comes to the Sponsorship Scandal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angrypenguin Posted November 11, 2015 Report Share Posted November 11, 2015 Their argument is that stuff from 15 years ago is no longer relevant wrt the Liberal party. Fool me once. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted December 16, 2015 Report Share Posted December 16, 2015 I have been following the Duffy trial. It is very fortunate for the Conservatives that this trial did not continue through the election campaign. Duffy's accusations of to-day would have ben headlines during the election campaign and would have probably led to a greater Liberal majority. Duffy is sure attempting to shred the previous PMO and is certainly painting the whole Conservative caucus with a very negative and vile brush. Whoever was able to delay Duffy's testifying to a point after the election was over deserves a big hug from the Conservative Party. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted December 16, 2015 Report Share Posted December 16, 2015 I have always figured that Duffy would wear at least a part of this, due to the fact that even though he may have been led down the garden path somewhat by Harper and the PMO, that he had an obligation to be honest about where he actually lived, and bill expenses accordingly. But with the testimony today, I am tending to shift a bit. If it is believed that Harper told him he had not broken any rules, and threatened him that if he didn't go with the PMO plan he would be kicked out of caucus, and possibly from the senate, I think he may have a chance of walking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted December 16, 2015 Report Share Posted December 16, 2015 (edited) I have always figured that Duffy would wear at least a part of this, due to the fact that even though he may have been led down the garden path somewhat by Harper and the PMO, that he had an obligation to be honest about where he actually lived, and bill expenses accordingly. But with the testimony today, I am tending to shift a bit. If it is believed that Harper told him he had not broken any rules, and threatened him that if he didn't go with the PMO plan he would be kicked out of caucus, and possibly from the senate, I think he may have a chance of walking. Of course he'll have a good chance of walking - because the rules were never clear. You've always ignored the fact that Harper's position was simple - it didn't matter if it was technically legal - it wasn't right and it should be paid back. That's what he told Duffy and that's what this should really be all about. Edited December 16, 2015 by Keepitsimple Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted December 16, 2015 Report Share Posted December 16, 2015 Of course he'll have a good chance of walking - because the rules were never clear. You've always ignored the fact that Harper's position was simple - it didn't matter if it was technically legal - it wasn't right and it should be paid back. That's what he told Duffy and that's what this should really be all about. That's not what is emerging from Duffy's testimony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpankyMcFarland Posted December 16, 2015 Report Share Posted December 16, 2015 Duffy quoting Flaherty was a bit much. There's no chance of being contradicted when you do that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.