Mike Duffy trial begins Tuesday in Ottawa

Harper must be thanking his lucky stars for this irrelevant Duffy sideshow. No "scandal" has ever stuck to Harper, and this penny-ante expense stuff - even if it could be connected with Harper (which after two years, it hasn't) - pales by comparison with the horror stories that he has previously survived.

Let's hope the opposition parties are savvy enough to stop yapping about Duffy and the Senate, and concentrate their fire on the real issues facing the people.

Nothing about Duffy on The National tonight.

Why does this thread exist? If you go thrrugh the thread postings, it appears that the majoirty of posts have been made by one person. I don't relish the idea Mr. Duffy might go to jail. However, it is more then appropriate to remind people about Adscam here as well. The point, the two main, truly OLD LINE parties have an extensive history of corrution, aarrogance, and privilege. I don't see how this thread in any way contributes to construttive discussion of the current Canadian political environment. I have some first hand experience of how hurtful this is; my departed dad was kept from getting a job by a Manitoba Premier and his Minister for well over a year before that Premier's party's senior insiders told the Premier to back off. I think this is unseemly. I wish this thread would be closed. Its existence in my opinon, serves no useful prupose other then to allow for gloating and the rubbing of the faces of others "in it".

M58, I agree, but that is not how this thread is being used, in my opinion. Personally, I've had my fill with the glee some people seem to be taking in watching this man's life be destroyed. He deserves, but I say enough is enough. I still say this thread should be closed.

Sorry Arthur but these privileged people in politics and their rich friends have been gloating at us for centuries.

They used to enslave us. Now they have most of us in financial misery and wage slavery.

I'll have as much sympathy for them as they have had for me.

Arthur has a point. Can someone direct me to the Mac Harb thread?

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Arthur has a point. Can someone direct me to the Mac Harb thread?

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/senator-mac-harb-subject-rcmp-...

I think the $65,000 contract for things Duffy wasn't supposed to get public financing for might be made to stick.

The problem is that the Crown has to define that there ARE senate rules to be broken in the first place.

And having been around Ottawa all of his broadcasting career, you would think Duffy would have a glimmer of a sense of what should not be done. If he was diligent about keeping his Diary, why wouldn't he be diligent about making sure he was not running foul of senate rules?

Something doesn't seem right.

montrealer58 wrote:

I think the $65,000 contract for things Duffy wasn't supposed to get public financing for might be made to stick.

The problem is that the Crown has to define that there ARE senate rules to be broken in the first place.

And having been around Ottawa all of his broadcasting career, you would think Duffy would have a glimmer of a sense of what should not be done. If he was diligent about keeping his Diary, why wouldn't he be diligent about making sure he was not running foul of senate rules?

Something doesn't seem right.

He was diligent about it. That's why the judge is getting impatient with the Crown. If there are rules stating he can't use his other funds for things refused through another channel the Crown hasn't pointed them out.

The thing that is "not right" is that the rules for Senators don't seem to have changed since 1867. It seems it is up to the Senators  to decide for themselves whether or not an expense is justified.

What surprised me is that partisan activities are an official role of Senators.

The Parliamentary law clerk who drafted the “foundational” standing rules that govern the Senate’s regime for spending and expense claims conceded Wednesday there are virtually no restrictions to prevent Senators from claiming expenses for partisan activities, and also admitted the Senate , while including partisan work as part of every Senator’s job, has no guideline, policy or rule that defines partisan activity.

http://www.hilltimes.com/news/news/2015/04/09/almost-no-rules-to-prevent...

It seems to me that interferes with the Senator's role as sober second thought and regional representation.

Nothing to see here folks - there are no Senator rules. Perfect place for Liberals and Conservatives who want to be pigs at the trough.

Nigel Wright begins testifying tomorrow (2015/08/12).  Could be interesting to see if the PMO becomes implicated.

The Duffy affair - and the Senate affair - exhausted their scandal value ages ago. No one cares. And Harper survives all scandals.

If Mulcair keeps pushing his "abolish the Senate" mantra, voters will wisely wonder what his priorities in life are.

ETA: Umm, sorry to quote myself yet again, but just from this thread:

Unionist, on April 11, 2015, wrote:

The NDP really captured the popular imagination by calling for Senate abolition. And abolishing ATM fees. And lowering credit card interest rates. And of course floor-crossing legislation. Don't discourage them while they're ahead. Victory is nigh!!

Unionist, on April 22, wrote:

Harper must be thanking his lucky stars for this irrelevant Duffy sideshow. No "scandal" has ever stuck to Harper, and this penny-ante expense stuff - even if it could be connected with Harper (which after two years, it hasn't) - pales by comparison with the horror stories that he has previously survived.

Let's hope the opposition parties are savvy enough to stop yapping about Duffy and the Senate, and concentrate their fire on the real issues facing the people.

i agree with Unionist on this.

there's way more serious shit that Duffy's trial is deflecting from. it's 3 card monty.

quizzical wrote:

i agree with Unionist on this.

there's way more serious shit that Duffy's trial is deflecting from. it's 3 card monty.

I disagree. The Duffy trial is becoming more and more Nixonian in nature as emails show it was the PMO that forced Duffy to take the money, even with Duffy raising objections on the day that he received it that he did not want to do this. Harper has kept on all the other PMO boys despite email evidence now that virtually all of them, including current Chief of Staff, Ray Novak, were involved deeply. 

When the Cons claim that Novak did not read 120 emails sent to him by his then boss Wright because they were cced documents and they turn out to be directly addressed to Novak by Wright, all credibility disappears. Every response the Cons give is now being torn to shreds. 

With Duffy's lawyer, Donald Bayne, wanting to drag this out as long as possible because it works in favour of reducing Duffy's legal (certainly not ethical) culpability, this will stretch well into next week and may even create a media feeding frenzy. If it doesn't you can bet all the Opposition parties have tons of ammunition to fire at Harper in the upcoming debates.

It has reached the point the Cons can't even keep their lies straight because there are so many of them. 

With the Cons' economic credibility increasingly in tatters also, the lack of credibility with regards to Duffy further reinforces the question why should we believe this guy on any issue.

Quote:

Top members of Stephen Harper's campaign team, including the most senior staffer in the Prime Minister's Office, were among those told in 2013 that Sen. Mike Duffy didn't pay back his own contested expenses.

But the circle of key advisers kept their lips sealed, even as cabinet ministers told the House of Commons that Duffy had "shown leadership," or that chief of staff Nigel Wright "was the only one involved."

Ray Novak, Harper's current chief of staff, had been told in a direct email that his predecessor, Wright, was preparing to repay $90,000 in Duffy's Senate claims. Among all of Harper's aides, Novak is the longest serving and closest to him personally.

A day earlier, he had participated in part of a conference call involving Duffy's lawyer Janice Payne, the prime minister's lawyer Benjamin Perrin and Wright.

"I think her approach works," Wright wrote only to Novak and Perrin on March 23, 2013. "I will send my cheque on Monday."

The email was filed as evidence in court Thursday during Wright's second day of testimony at Duffy's trial. The former Conservative senator has pleaded not guilty to 31 counts of breach of trust, fraud and bribery.

Novak's name appears as the recipient, the sender or a person copied on more than 100 emails about Duffy exchanged in February-April 2013.

Novak, who is travelling with Harper, refused to speak to reporters. Campaign spokesman Kory Teneycke said Novak never read the mail from Wright, and wasn't aware he was paying Duffy's bill until it emerged in the media.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/nigel-wright-testify-again-today-mike-duffy-tr...

Quote:

During an interview with the RCMP about the senator's expenses, Wright himself said the PMO had discussed a plan that was "basically forcing" Duffy to repay them. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mike-duffy-trial-nigel-wright-forced-sen...

Quote:

7 key quotes in the Mike Duffy-Nigel Wright emailsCrown files one set of emails, defence another: What did we learn?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mike-duffy-trial-emails-wright-novak-pmo...

Quote:

Mike Duffy then and now: 3 Conservative contradictions

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mike-duffy-then-and-now-3-conservative-c...

Reading the email trail provided at the Duffy trial was interesting.  I was particularly struck by the amount of control of Senate proceedings implied by Prime Minister Office staff in a set of emails from February, 2013.  For example, Mr. Wright writes to Patrick Rogers and Benjamin Perrin, “I think we should lay out the approach in a brief memo to the PM.  It would outline the approach we intend to take at Senate committee to settle residency questions, and would append Ben’s guidelines as akin to what the committee would adopt.”  Later, Patrick Rogers responds, “Because the actions of committees are dictated by the Senate, I think we can slam it through despite a Liberal chair in a way that you would approve of.  We’ll draw something up.”  Nigel appears to view his control of the Senate substantial, “Patrick, we are going to need to manage the briefing of the Conservative Senators (including, hopefully Chair) of the Committee.  If the Rules and Procedures committee doesn’t have the right membership, then the Senate by motion should constitute a special committee that will have the right Senators on board.  We cannot rely on the Senate Leader’s office to get this right.”  He even feels free to make suggestions as to what Conservative senators should do on the their committees and that he has control over a committee because of majority Conservative membership, “I wonder if you and Patrick could work to suggest an approach to Chris Montgomery. My earlier suggestion was that the Senate Rules committee (dominated by us) make a residency determination for any Senator who asks for one to be made.”   Nigel even thought he could provide guarantees to Senator Duffy about having his file withdrawn from the Deloitte Review when he says in an email to other politicial aides,  “The Internal Economy Committee will confirm that Senator Duffy has been withdrawn from the Deloitte review [… that understanding is a commitment I will receive from Sens. LeBreton, Tkachuk and Stewart-Olsen]…”