Nigel Wright canned!

[JLM]

Looks like Harper canned Mr. Wright for paying Mike Duffy's debt. Who actually cares? The main thing is the debt was repaid, it's really nobody's business who paid it as long as it isn't taxpayers. The crime is the original theft for which Duffy should be canned regardless. Now I'm beginning to wonder if Harper shouldn't hit the road. While his honesty is definitely in doubt, his incompetence isn't.

 

[petros]

It's called Ethics JLM

 

[JLM]

It's called Ethics JLM

Ethics hasn't been part of it since the days of old John A. -why bring that into it now?

 

[Christianna]

It's time we can Mr Harper!

 

[petros]

It's time people perogied Parliament?

 

[JLM]

It's time people perogied Parliament?

Parliament is overloaded with Perogies! -

 

[Sal]

If someone wants to give their personal money to the Bluff Duff, whose business is it? It's personal...I don't think the guy should have lost his job for trying to help someone out.

 

[Goober]

If someone wants to give their personal money to the Bluff Duff, whose business is it? It's personal...I don't think the guy should have lost his job for trying to help someone out.

In this particular case it is against the Law, Criminal Code.

 

[Sal]

In this particular case it is against the Law, Criminal Code.

why goob, if it is his personal money why is that illegal?

 

[Goober]

why goob, if it is his personal money why is that illegal?

If it was given with the expectation of receiving a favor it is a Criminal Code Offense.

Mike Duffy's $90K cheque no crime, says former House law clerk - Politics - CBC News

RCMP Cpl. Greg Horton states in a court document that a Senate report, meant to be critical of Duffy, was altered in Duffy's favour by the Senate's committee on internal economy to find no fault with his behaviour.

Horton concluded, "I believe there was an agreement between Duffy and Wright involving repayment of the $90,000 and a Senate report that would not be critical of him, constituting an offence of frauds upon the government."

"But what benefit did Duffy give to Wright in exchange for the $90,000?" asks Walsh, who retired in February after 14 years as parliamentary counsel, in an email to CBC News.

 

[Sal]

If it was given with the expectation of receiving a favor it is a Criminal Code Offense.

Mike Duffy's $90K cheque no crime, says former House law clerk - Politics - CBC News

RCMP Cpl. Greg Horton states in a court document that a Senate report, meant to be critical of Duffy, was altered in Duffy's favour by the Senate's committee on internal economy to find no fault with his behaviour.

Horton concluded, "I believe there was an agreement between Duffy and Wright involving repayment of the $90,000 and a Senate report that would not be critical of him, constituting an offence of frauds upon the government."

"But what benefit did Duffy give to Wright in exchange for the $90,000?" asks Walsh, who retired in February after 14 years as parliamentary counsel, in an email to CBC News.

thanks for the clarification ♦

 

[JLM]

If someone wants to give their personal money to the Bluff Duff, whose business is it? It's personal...I don't think the guy should have lost his job for trying to help someone out.

I know, Sal, but that is just too sensible for Ottawaites! -

In this particular case it is against the Law, Criminal Code.

That makes absolutely no sense, first time I've heard of a guy paying a debt and having to prove the source of the money. How does anyone know Nigel didn't already owe him and money and was just repaying the debt. That is RETARDED!!!!!!!!!!!-

 

[Goober]

I know, Sal, but that is just too sensible for Ottawaites! -

Criminal Code - You are fine with them going to jail for fraudulent claims, but paying off a Senator - if that is the case- should be overlooked.
When should it not be overlooked???

That makes absolutely no sense, first time I've heard of a guy paying a debt and having to prove the source of the money. How does anyone know Nigel didn't already owe him and money and was just repaying the debt. That is RETARDED!!!!!!!!!!!-

Brian Mulroney- What is your opinion on the money he received from Dear Karl?

Mike Duffy drops another bombshell: there were 2 cheques - Politics - CBC News
Duffy told the Senate he has a cheque, negotiated by Nigel Wright, in the amount of $13,500 to pay for his legal fees, on top of the $90,000 from Wright to be used to repay his expenses. Duffy said he has the emails and the cheque stub to prove it, adding the $13,500 was paid by the Conservative Party's top lawyer, Arthur Hamilton.

 

[Machjo]

I know, Sal, but that is just too sensible for Ottawaites! -

Hey! Hey! Hey! I'm an Ottawan! Or do you mean that an Ottawaite is a special kind of Ottawan?

 

[Goober]

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...hope-duffy-is-done-and-that-there-is-no-more/

“Have you heard enough? But wait there’s more.”

Mike Duffy sounded like a Veg O-Matic infomercial salesman as he chopped the credibility of the denizens of the Prime Minister’s Office into tiny pieces.

The embattled senator stood in the Senate chamber in a last gasp effort to persuade his fellow members of the Red Chamber not to suspend him without pay.

Mr. Duffy dribbled out the revelations. First, the Conservative party lawyer, Arthur Hamilton, signed a cheque for $13,560 to pay his legal fees, in an attempt to kill the story, he said.

Mr. Duffy said he presumes the money came from Conservative coffers, which will surely enrage the party faithful when they gather in Calgary for the Tory convention

This was the joyful liberation of a man with nothing to lose. “Are we independent senators or PMO puppets?” he said, clearly so giddy with his new-found freedom to speak he was oblivious to the wretched impression of his own conduct he was portraying. If staffers in the PMO scripted the lie that the $90,000 cheque had come from a Royal Bank line of credit, Mr. Duffy remains the self-confessed liar.

But, while there was documentation to prove the Tories covered his legal fees, there was no paper trail to prove the Prime Minister is lying when he says he did not know about the payment by his chief of staff.

Yet that need not matter. The damage being done daily to the Conservative brand as the party of law, order and good government must be mortifying to the party base, already busy pumping up their thundersticks in preparation for the Calgary convention.

How is the Prime Minister to explain that his office was staffed by a parcel of rogues? He used to say of former prime minister Paul Martin that he either knew about the sponsorship scandal, and it was unconscionable, or he didn’t know, and it was incompetence. As more details emerge about how pervasive this scheme was inside the PMO, the more applicable one of those descriptors becomes.

Mr. Harper had better hope that Mr. Duffy is done and that there is no more.

 

[JLM]

Criminal Code - You are fine with them going to jail for fraudulent claims, but paying off a Senator - if that is the case- should be overlooked.
When should it not be overlooked???



Brian Mulroney- What is your opinion on the money he received from Dear Karl?

Mike Duffy drops another bombshell: there were 2 cheques - Politics - CBC News
Duffy told the Senate he has a cheque, negotiated by Nigel Wright, in the amount of $13,500 to pay for his legal fees, on top of the $90,000 from Wright to be used to repay his expenses. Duffy said he has the emails and the cheque stub to prove it, adding the $13,500 was paid by the Conservative Party's top lawyer, Arthur Hamilton.

I may be a little naïve about the "goings on" at the Senators level, but I didn't construe putting up the money (presumably a loan) as paying him off. I would have thought if anyone would be paying any off it would be the guy who is already in "hot water".

Brian Mulroney- What is your opinion on the money he received from Dear Karl?

.

Murky??

 

[gerryh]

John Ivison: Harper had better hope Duffy is done and that there is no more | National Post

This part says it all

"How is the Prime Minister to explain that his office was staffed by a parcel of rogues? He used to say of former prime minister Paul Martin that he either knew about the sponsorship scandal, and it was unconscionable, or he didn’t know, and it was incompetence. As more details emerge about how pervasive this scheme was inside the PMO, the more applicable one of those descriptors becomes."

Time to say goodnight Gracie.

 

[JLM]

This part says it all

"How is the Prime Minister to explain that his office was staffed by a parcel of rogues? He used to say of former prime minister Paul Martin that he either knew about the sponsorship scandal, and it was unconscionable, or he didn’t know, and it was incompetence. As more details emerge about how pervasive this scheme was inside the PMO, the more applicable one of those descriptors becomes."

Yep, ya can't suck and blow at the same time! -

 

[tay]

The question we must ask is how long will Nigel Wright stay quiet???????




In the House of Commons on Tuesday, the prime minister depicted Wright as a deceptive political operator.


Harper openly contended that when his top aide cut Mike Duffy a personal cheque to covertly reimburse a Senate housing allowance on the senator’s behalf he actively engaged in a deception that duped his boss along with all Canadians.

To listen to Harper, Wright abused his trust.


As an aside, if the sight of a prime minister who says he is very angry about a dubious scheme cooked up without his knowledge by backroom operators feels like déjà vu, it is because Harper has now replicated former prime minister Paul Martin’s initial response to the sponsorship scandal.


A major difference is that Martin was not in charge when the sponsorship program went off the rails and he had not hired those who ran it.


The Duffy affair has unfolded on Harper’s watch and under his nose.

No amount of prime ministerial finger-pointing can manage to clear up some stubborn grey zones in the evolving Conservative narrative.


It remains unexplained for instance why Wright felt he had to go to the lengths that he did on Duffy’s behalf.


It has now been acknowledged by the prime minister that other Conservative associates had a part in what Harper now calls a deception. If Wright was going rogue, if the route he chose to put the Senate controversy to rest was taking the PMO far out of the ethical boundaries set by the prime minister, why did no one feel compelled to give Harper a heads-up?


Only Wright can provide more clarity to these issues. He may have plausible reasons not to break his silence but at this juncture one can only guess what they could be.


It may be that he truly is the evil mastermind behind this uncommon scheme and that until this week Harper had been covering up for him out of compassion and loyalty to a former staffer.


If that is the case the prime minister has nothing to fear from his former chief of staff. Wright should actually be grateful that Harper held off for so long before throwing his body to the sharks who are circling his office this week.


Or, in the alternative, it may be that Wright is allowing Harper to methodically destroy his reputation because he is ultimately more committed to seeing the prime minister survive this fiasco than to salvaging his own good name.


Under this scenario Harper can only thank his lucky stars to have chanced upon such a benevolent individual to act as his chief of staff. For it is now in Wright’s power — if he has a case to make for himself to clear his name — to destroy the prime minister.


Harper’s credibility has already taken a beating over the past two weeks. For the first time since he has become Conservative leader, a poll — done by Ipsos for CTV — had his party in third place in voting intentions.


It may be in Nigel Wright’s power to destroy Stephen Harper: Hébert | Toronto Star

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

While everyone is thinking that this is a chink in Stephen Harper's political armor I can't get over the fact that Mike Duffy is not only a lying cheating a-hole, but a self indignant backstabber as well. I remember when he used to be on CTV and I really liked him and so did most of the politicians from every stripe. He was funny, jovial, smart and he got along well while asking questions without outrage or drama.

Now? Wow! He ripped us off, got caught and thinks he should keep his job. If I got caught stealing at my job there would be no recourse for me. And to have him throw out the health card. Wow! I remember when I was medically released from the army after 12 years of service and after enduring three leg operations. I got my half pension, that I paid into, and nothing else. I guess you have to be morbidly obese a politician and a thief to get proper consideration for medical benefits. Oh, and a backstabbing scumbag too.