Duffy trial continues

[Smallc]

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.

[angrypenguin]

Their argument is that stuff from 15 years ago is no longer relevant wrt the Liberal party.

Fool me once.

[Big Guy]

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.

[On Guard for Thee]

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.

[Keepitsimple]

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

[On Guard for Thee]

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.

[SpankyMcFarland]

Duffy quoting Flaherty was a bit much. There's no chance of being contradicted when you do that.