The other component in the bribery allegation relates to the money being exchanged for something. Without the 'comething' it's just someone giving someone else money
Duffy's misuse might have been construed as fraud.
Fraud leads to trial
Duffy found not guilty of charges of fraud, breach of trust
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
The other component in the bribery allegation relates to the money being exchanged for something. Without the 'comething' it's just someone giving someone else money
Duffy's misuse might have been construed as fraud.
Fraud leads to trial
Good grief man.
Have you not read the judgement?
Feb. 13, 2013: Duffy says he met Harper and Wright after a Conservative caucus meeting. Harper tells Duffy he must repay questioned housing expenses. “The prime minister agreed I had not broken the rules but insisted I pay the money back, money I didn’t owe.
Soooo, Duffy's good word about what Harper did or didn't say is fact is it?
Lemme ask ya, had Duffy truly believed this, why did he pay back one thin dime?.. After all, innocent people don't admit to the fraud and then pay back the cash.
Doesn't make sense, does it?
I might also add that Duffy still faces another 15 charges... Odd isn't it? An innocent man that had to answer to 31 charges.
Did Duffy murder someone?
Oh no these methods are way to comfortable more like agitate the ill characters of design.
Wasting good veggies is not a good thing,I would never waste my lemons on a Conservative.
I guess that would be turnips,do you know the price of veggies
Not really, I just buy V8 box's at COSCO :lol:
Maybe we can throw him cans of V8 :lol:
Or have him fall in a tub of V8
Duffy was charged by the Mounties, among other things, with receiving $90,000.00 cheque as a bribe. Curiously, if the RCMP considered that to be receiving a bribe, the signator of same cheque should have been charged with bribery. Clearly, there was no bribe. The Mounties charged the supposed recipient with receiving it as a bribe, though.
If that is how this unfolded, then so be it.
I too don't understand how you have a 'bribe-ee' and no 'briber' so I too do not see the bribery angle.
The situation is a mess and I do hope that Duffy receives positive results (ie not guilty) as the mistake was reversed.
In many regards, I do believe that his (Duffy's) actions in this were somewhat arrogant and that was part of the impetus of this whole mess going through the legal system as far as it has
I didn't make up either "bribee" or "briber" . The RCMP made up "bribee" but no "briber" to go with him. You have to wonder how that is possible? How can you charge someone with receiving a bribe but there is no "briber" to have offered it in the first place?
Criminal charges. On July 17, 2014 Duffy was charged by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police with 31 offences. These included fraud, breach of trust and bribery. He was charged with fraud and breach of trust in relation to $80,000 in expenses that he claimed inappropriately as a senator.
The bribery charge was for receiving a $90,000.00 cheque hence B R I B E C H E Q U E
OF COURSE IT'S NOT A BRIBE!!! THAT IS WHAT THE FECKING MOUNTIES CALLED IT!!!! A BRIBE !!! THEY CHARGED HIM WITH RECEIVING IT AS A BRIBE!!! IT WAS ONE OF THE CHARGES ... BRIBERY!! HE WAS CHARGED WITH BRIBERY
Sheesh!
Political duplicity is not criminal, it's the way the rules are written. Of course they were written by politicians. Hashtag fukkinbul****fromallsides.
Thank you very much, I'll not be here all week.
Thank you very much, I'll not be here all week.
Bribes work two ways, offering one is probably just as if not more serious!
Unfortunately in Canada the Mounties have little say in what goes to trial!
What other 15 charges does he face?
This morning, the RCMP has laid a total of 31 charges against Mr. Duffy relating to the avenues I have outlined.
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/ottawa/ne-no/pr-cp/2014/0717-ms-cp-eng.htm
It's not Duffy's good word that the Judge considered but all the words from those involved.
Duffy never admitted to fraud. He pleaded 'not guilty' and was ruled correct. Duffy did not pay back anything. Wright paid the 90,000.00 back via Duffy. And if you read the case, Duffy wouldn't pay it back because everyone who mattered, told him, in writing, from the start that the expense claims were allowed. Duffy went along with the Wright scheme because he couldn't figure out what the f**k was going on.
Justice Vaillancourt ruled that Senator Duffy did not “corruptly” accept the $90,000 payment but was “coerced” in such a way that his “true will was overcome.” However, under the Criminal Code it is an offence to “directly or indirectly, corruptly” even “offer” any money to a member of Parliament “in respect of anything done or omitted or to be done or omitted by that person in their official capacity” (section 119(1)(b)).
Last summer, reporter Laura Stone (Global News) spent time with the public sector corruption investigation unit of the RCMP, and in her story the RCMP officers involved in the investigation essentially said that they decided for very questionable reasons to charge only Senator Duffy with receiving a bribe and no one from the Harper PMO with giving the bribe.
And if anyone thinks Harper went after Duffy simply to protect his base from a 'supposed' 90 thou scam how do they explain this?
https://openparliament.ca/debates/2013/2/13/stephen-harper-1/
Anyone who watched justice dispensed to Mike Duffy this week — and that is exactly what happened — should be thankful.
Justice Charles Vaillancourt proved that in Canada, the courts are there to protect citizens against the venal machinations of those in high office, and the terrifying power of the police and prosecutors who answer to them.
Vaillancourt fustigated them all, effectively characterizing the charges against Duffy as an abuse of power.
It did not defend the law. It defended the status quo, and genuflected to authority, using police discretion to toss a single newsworthy individual into the nightmare of the criminal system, essentially stealing two years of his life, while ignoring other senators who were doing just about exactly the same thing as Duffy.
And how can you charge a person with accepting a bribe without charging the political enforcer in the Prime Minister's Office who offered it?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/mike-duffy-trial-neil-macdonald-1.3549441
Last edited:
David Scott, a respected Ottawa lawyer who defended another individual many years ago against what amounted to RCMP persecution, says the Duffy decision was a delightful example of real justice:
"I'm frankly proud," he says, "of the way this turned out."
"It is completely unprofessional to have such an active animus at work in an investigation. The RCMP was lusting to do this [charge Duffy] because of the high-profile nature of the case. There was a hue and cry to 'get this creep.'"
And, of course, because Harper had decided Duffy was in the wrong.
RCMP found wanting, if not negligent, in Duffy verdict - Politics - CBC News
"I'm frankly proud," he says, "of the way this turned out."
"It is completely unprofessional to have such an active animus at work in an investigation. The RCMP was lusting to do this [charge Duffy] because of the high-profile nature of the case. There was a hue and cry to 'get this creep.'"
And, of course, because Harper had decided Duffy was in the wrong.
RCMP found wanting, if not negligent, in Duffy verdict - Politics - CBC News