Ongoing Senate scandal

[Bertuzzied]

Hey Rerun....

Duffy, BTW, will be tabling e-mails, cheque stubs and other docs to which has referred in this #Senate speech.

David Akin @davidakin Duffy: “That line about RBC was part of a script written for me and e-mailed me to me by the PMO”

[Rerun]

How many people have been given the choice : resign or be fired?

There really is no difference in the end... one just looks better than the other and your boss is just giving you the opportunity to save face as it definitely looks better to have resigned from a job than be fired from one.


.... which I believe is what Harper did.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

Hey Rerun....

Duffy, BTW, will be tabling e-mails, cheque stubs and other docs to which has referred in this #Senate speech.

David Akin @davidakin Duffy: “That line about RBC was part of a script written for me and e-mailed me to me by the PMO”

I look forward to seeing all this proof of wrongdoing by Harper.

[Flamenspiel]

Originally Posted by Slava

I think Duffy is shady, but there is no honour among thieves! He was appointed by Harper (who seemingly changes his story daily as well). As a watcher though, its fantastic. Everyday there are new allegations and new information. Of course none of that new information is good for the CPC, Harper or Duffy. Its a disaster!

Well, if you really think about it, after initially trying to handle this quietly, Harper is taking on the conservative senators directly, I say credit to him for having the guts to do that. Its essentially an internal squabble which makes for interesting TV, nothing more.

Wait until the auditor general report comes out as that is an audit of the entire senate, including Liberals, that should put a little balance on this. The bottom line is that the senate really has no rules on expenses and their process lacks transparency.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Rerun

How many people have been given the choice : resign or be fired?

There really is no difference in the end... one just looks better than the other and your boss is just giving you the opportunity to save face as it definitely looks better to have resigned from a job than be fired from one.


.... which I believe is what Harper did.

Further confirming there is literally nothing that will ever change your views.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Flamenspiel

Well, if you really think about it, after initially trying to handle this quietly, Harper is taking on the conservative senators directly, the Liberals would never have the guts to do that. Its an internal squabble which makes for interesting TV, nothing more.

Wait untill the auditor general report comes out and names a few more liberals who had expense issues as well. The bottom line is that the senate really has no rules on espenses and their process lacks transparency.

The issue isn't purely the expenses though. Yes, these senators messed around with the expenses. The issue is that Harper and/or his office sure look like they were covering this up.

Just listening to CBC Power and Politics in the background (or whatever this show is), and they're raising some very interesting questions. Why was Wright using his own email address to discuss this with Duffy? Its not such to freedom of information. Why is Arthur Hamilton (CPC Lawyer) writing cheques to deal with any of this?

[Bertuzzied]

Woot! The auditor general will release names on which senators were lying! Getting rid of both Harper and the Senate this term will be awesome for Canada.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/10...pending-probe/

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Further confirming there is literally nothing that will ever change your views.

What is the difference between being asked to resign and being told you are fired?

nada

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

Woot! The auditor general will release names on which senators were lying! Getting rid of both Harper and the Senate this term will be awesome for Canada.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/10...pending-probe/

What's the over-under on the number of senators named? I'm going with maybe around 15, with about six or so really serious ones, and about nine relatively minor or accidental offences. Could be a lot higher.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

Woot! The auditor general will release names on which senators were lying! Getting rid of both Harper and the Senate this term will be awesome for Canada.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/10...pending-probe/

If he names Liberal Senators, will you be just as outraged as you are about Duffy, Wallen, and Brazeau? Probably not.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by Rerun

If he names Liberal Senators, will you be just as outraged as you are about Duffy, Wallen, and Brazeau? Probably not.

Ummm i'm not even outraged with the three. They all deserve jail and fines if found out. and i'm sure there will be Liberals in there. I'm not a blind sheep... hehe

I'm outraged that Rob Fricking Anders is my MP and Harper won't oust him.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Rerun

If he names Liberal Senators, will you be just as outraged as you are about Duffy, Wallen, and Brazeau? Probably not.

To me the outrage goes beyond the expenses issue. Its far more egregious to try to cover up known and determined cheating. Its condoning that activity. That's my issue with the Harper/Wright/Duffy issue here. They knew there was an issue, conspired to cover it up and now we get to watch it all play out in the public eye.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by slava

to me the outrage goes beyond the expenses issue. Its far more egregious to try to cover up known and determined cheating. Its condoning that activity. That's my issue with the Wright/Duffy issue here. They knew there was an issue, conspired to cover it up and now we get to watch it all play out in the public eye.

fyp... Unless you can show proof that Harper was/is involved in any cover up...

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Rerun

fyp... Unless you can show proof that Harper was/is involved in any cover up...

lol, I'm convinced that unless they manage to shut Duffy up you'll get all the proof you want!

What do you make of the cheque for legal fees that was released today? That one isn't from Wright either, so now its just a gift from the CPC directly? How kind and thoughtful.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by octothorp

What's the over-under on the number of senators named? I'm going with maybe around 15, with about six or so really serious ones, and about nine relatively minor or accidental offences. Could be a lot higher.

I'm going to go with 90% of them. They are in the old boys club. Cheat a little here. Cheat a little there. Everyone does it, is what they tell themselves.

But i'm sure there will be a few clean senators. but they will be the minority for sure.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by Slava

lol, I'm convinced that unless they manage to shut Duffy up you'll get all the proof you want!

What do you make of the cheque for legal fees that was released today? That one isn't from Wright either, so now its just a gift from the CPC directly? How kind and thoughtful.

It's time to make some pube bets! But you have to be awfully close minded to think that there will be NO evidence to come out.. hahahaha

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Slava

lol, I'm convinced that unless they manage to shut Duffy up you'll get all the proof you want!

What do you make of the cheque for legal fees that was released today? That one isn't from Wright either, so now its just a gift from the CPC directly? How kind and thoughtful.

According to Duffy....

Mike Duffy told a spellbound upper chamber that the prime minister’s former chief of staff, who paid him $90,000 to cover his housing expenses, had also cut a second cheque to pay his legal bills.
He said the Prime Minister’s Office had directed its lawyer, Arthur Hamilton, to pay Duffy’s legal bills, amounting to $13,560.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/10...0-legal-bills/




But then I'm confused because here Duffy says he never saw a cheque from Nigel Wright...

Speaking of the $90,000 it was reported the Prime Minister's former chief of staff Nigel Wright made to cover his ineligible expenses, Duffy said he "never saw a cheque from Nigel Wright.”

Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/senat...#ixzz2j3O4wkvo


Which is true?

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

It's time to make some pube bets! But you have to be awfully close minded to think that there will be NO evidence to come out.. hahahaha

I guess we shall see whether Harper is involved in any cover up... (that is what you're claiming, right??)

Speaking to the Senate, Duffy tabled a number of emails and documents which he alleged would show that the PMO was behind an elaborate plan to make the controversy over his expenses disappear.

Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/senat...#ixzz2j3Os6Edj


Edit : Open up the link " tabled a number of emails and documents "

This is Duffy's proof of Harper's involvement? LOL . What BS.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by Rerun

I guess we shall see whether Harper is involved in any cover up... (that is what you're claiming, right??)



Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/senat...#ixzz2j3Os6Edj

Of course it is what i'm claiming. Everyone in the PMO office knew but Harper? hahahaha. I get the impression is kind of a control freak so its highly unlikely he didn't know about the payouts. he prob orchestrated them.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

Of course it is what i'm claiming. Everyone in the PMO office knew but Harper? hahahaha. I get the impression is kind of a control freak so its highly unlikely he didn't know about the payouts. he prob orchestrated them.

Harper says he didn't and when he found out about it he asked Wright, PMO Chief of Staff, to resign.... or he fired him... whatever... its the same thing.