Ongoing Senate scandal

[Zulu29]

Harper admitted that Wright sought permission or consultation with others over the Duffy repayment which is contrary to his previous statement in the HoC saying how Wright acted alone.

The payoff is a side issue now quite frankly. The bigger issue is that Harper et al have consistently changed their story, found a new excuse or threw a new person under the bus. I find it very interesting how Harper maintains "Wright has taken sole responsibility for writing the cheque". All that shows is a very narrow piece of the pie, clever wording however it tells us nothing. What compensation has Wright received? What permission or consultation did Wright seek? What consultation or permission was given? Who gave it?

These questions need to be answered. If Harper has such an iron grip on his party how could he have allowed this to happen or not even had a whiff of it in the first place? At worst Harper is liar and involved in a conspiracy to cover up criminal activity. At best, he's a lame duck leader asleep at the switch and has allowed this disaster to unfold.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Rerun

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2...ike_duffy.html

Thursday, October 24, 2013


I will continue to believe Stephen Harper's statements until irrefutable proof is presented that they are false.

Great, what do you think of my questions and such above your post? I'm not sure how someone can defend Harper and not at least have some answers to those issues?

[Bertuzzied]

In moving to shield Novak, Wright’s successor as chief of staff, Harper admitted for the first time that Wright “did seek permission or consultation with others” over the Duffy repayment — an admission that the circle of people who knew of the plan to repay Duffy’s expenses was much broader than previously acknowledged.

There you go. From your post. hehe He lied before. he said he had absolutely no knowledge of the $90k repayment from Wright. He said Wright did it on his own.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

Harper admitted that Wright sought permission

Show me proof where he sought permission? Permission from who? He sure as hell didn't ask permission from his boss, Stephen Harper. He may have sought advice from others... but permission? The only person who could give him permission was SH.... and SH states he knew nothing of the plan for Wright to give Duffy the money.

Originally Posted by Zulu29

or consultation with others over the Duffy repayment which is contrary to his previous statement in the HoC saying how Wright acted alone.

You're twisting the facts.

Originally Posted by Zulu29

The payoff is a side issue now quite frankly. The bigger issue is that Harper et al have consistently changed their story, found a new excuse or threw a new person under the bus. I find it very interesting how Harper maintains "Wright has taken sole responsibility for writing the cheque".

Harper has not changed his story. All he's done is clarify the details....

and of course it was Wright's sole responsibility to write the cheque. He wrote the cheque. He may have asked the advice of others (not SH however) but it was his decision to write the cheque.

Originally Posted by Zulu29

All that shows is a very narrow piece of the pie, clever wording however it tells us nothing. What compensation has Wright received?

Red herring. No where has it ever been stated by anyone that Wright received compensation

Originally Posted by Zulu29

What permission or consultation did Wright seek? What consultation or permission was given? Who gave it?

Another red herring. See above for your answer.

Originally Posted by Zulu29

These questions need to be answered.

No they don't. They're stupid questions. Its like asking an innocent person... "When did you start beating your wife?"

Originally Posted by Zulu29

If Harper has such an iron grip on his party how could he have allowed this to happen or not even had a whiff of it in the first place?

Now you're complaining that Harper doesn't have enough control over everyone in the Conservative Party? That's a laugh and a half. Most people complain that he exerts TOO MUCH control. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Originally Posted by Zulu29

At worst Harper is liar and involved in a conspiracy to cover up criminal activity.

You're the liar, not Harper. You don't have a shred of proof to back up those libelous statements.

Originally Posted by Zulu29

At best, he's a lame duck leader asleep at the switch and has allowed this disaster to unfold.

I guess in order to make you happy he should insist that all Conservative Senators submit their expense reports to him for approval? ... like he doesn't have enough to do as Prime Minister. What a joke.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

There you go. From your post. hehe He lied before. he said he had absolutely no knowledge of the $90k repayment from Wright. He said Wright did it on his own.

You are cherry picking statements and deleting others to make the case for the fallacy that you state. Harper did not know about Wrights cheque until the story hit the news.

The whole quote is:

In moving to shield Novak, Wright’s successor as chief of staff, Harper admitted for the first time that Wright “did seek permission or consultation with others” over the Duffy repayment — an admission that the circle of people who knew of the plan to repay Duffy’s expenses was much broader than previously acknowledged.

Harper denied it was as broad as 13 people, reported by CTV, and noted Wright has not said Novak was among them, nor was he: “One of those people was not me because I obviously would never have approved such a scheme.”

[Ark2]

One thing that has changed about Harper's story is that he originally said that Wright acted alone. It has now come out that Wright spoke with some other advisors in the PMO about cutting Duffy a cheque. Harper is now saying that what he meant was that Wright is solely responsible for the cheque. Still fishy, but not quite as damning as some here are asserting. Some of the people in this thread seem to have drawn their conclusions from headlines rather than the actual story itself.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Rerun

I guess in order to make you happy he should insist that all Conservative Senators submit their expense reports to him for approval? ... like he doesn't have enough to do as Prime Minister. What a joke.

Oh wait...

"I have looked at the numbers. Her travel costs are comparable to any parliamentarian travelling from that particular area of the country over the period of time," Harper said. "Last year Senator Wallin spent almost half of her time in the province she represents in the Senate. The costs are to travel to and from that province, as any similar parliamentarian would do."

Of course he denied reviewing her expenses no more than two weeks later. Just be real Rerun, even if there is actual, irrefutable proof that comes out you will find a way to discredit it. You're doing your job very well here, you're a CPC cheerleader and even when the score is 59-0 you're still cheerleading away. I somewhat admire your dedication.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Ark2

One thing that has changed about Harper's story is that he originally said that Wright acted alone. It has now come out that Wright spoke with some other advisors in the PMO about cutting Duffy a cheque. Harper is now saying that what he meant was that Wright is solely responsible for the cheque. Still fishy, but not quite as damning as some here are asserting. Some of the people in this thread seem to have drawn their conclusions from headlines rather than the actual story itself.

You know what is pretty much irrefutable though? The PM appointed all of these people in the last few years and his judgement is terrible. Between Wright, whomever told Wright this was a good idea, and the 3 disgraced senators you have to wonder if there is a good decision made.

Did Harper lie? I'll say its debatable and until more/all the evidence comes out we don't know for sure. Did Harper cover this up? I say if not personally, then at the very least the attempt was made through his office and staff. But these people he chose for important roles are obviously poor choices and I don't think that is a questionable comment.

I don't know about you, but a PM who makes terrible decisions and appointments is a PM who ought to be voted out. Obviously that's just my opinion, but I doubt I'm alone.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by Slava

You know what is pretty much irrefutable though? The PM appointed all of these people in the last few years and his judgement is terrible. Between Wright, whomever told Wright this was a good idea, and the 3 disgraced senators you have to wonder if there is a good decision made.

Did Harper lie? I'll say its debatable and until more/all the evidence comes out we don't know for sure. Did Harper cover this up? I say if not personally, then at the very least the attempt was made through his office and staff. But these people he chose for important roles are obviously poor choices and I don't think that is a questionable comment.

I don't know about you, but a PM who makes terrible decisions and appointments is a PM who ought to be voted out. Obviously that's just my opinion, but I doubt I'm alone.

Rob Anders

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Slava

You know what is pretty much irrefutable though? The PM appointed all of these people in the last few years and his judgement is terrible. Between Wright, whomever told Wright this was a good idea, and the 3 disgraced senators you have to wonder if there is a good decision made.

Did Harper lie? I'll say its debatable and until more/all the evidence comes out we don't know for sure. Did Harper cover this up? I say if not personally, then at the very least the attempt was made through his office and staff. But these people he chose for important roles are obviously poor choices and I don't think that is a questionable comment.

I don't know about you, but a PM who makes terrible decisions and appointments is a PM who ought to be voted out. Obviously that's just my opinion, but I doubt I'm alone.

I don't know what the true story is with Wright and what actually motivated him to do what he did, so I can't speak to that. With the Senators on the other hand, I think it speaks more towards the culture of the Senate than anything else. An environment that has virtually no accountability is going to bread this kind of behaviour. I suspect that Duffy, Wallin, and Brazeau are hardly the only Senate members currently guilty of cheating the system. That being said, I did feel that Duffy was an odd appointment when it was announced in 2008.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Show me proof where he sought permission? Permission from who? He sure as hell didn't ask permission from his boss, Stephen Harper. He may have sought advice from others... but permission? The only person who could give him permission was SH.... and SH states he knew nothing of the plan for Wright to give Duffy the money.
it's in your post that he sought permission

You're twisting the facts.

Harper has not changed his story. All he's done is clarify the details....

and of course it was Wright's sole responsibility to write the cheque. He wrote the cheque. He may have asked the advice of others (not SH however) but it was his decision to write the cheque.
you call it clarifying, I call it not being forthright with information. It has to be pried out of him

Red herring. No where has it ever been stated by anyone that Wright received compensation
Another red herring. See above for your answer.
No they don't. They're stupid questions. Its like asking an innocent person... "When did you start beating your wife?"
Harper himself said in the HoC Wright got a severance

Now you're complaining that Harper doesn't have enough control over everyone in the Conservative Party? That's a laugh and a half. Most people complain that he exerts TOO MUCH control. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
so if he has an iron grip he should have been on top of this right? If not he's not a very competent leader
You're the liar, not Harper. You don't have a shred of proof to back up those libelous statements.
I'm just repeating what has been stated in the media numerous times before.
I guess in order to make you happy he should insist that all Conservative Senators submit their expense reports to him for approval? ... like he doesn't have enough to do as Prime Minister. What a joke.

again this is not about the cheque, this is about his actions or lack thereof leading up to and after the said incident.

[Zulu29]

In moving to shield Novak, Wright’s successor as chief of staff, Harper admitted for the first time that Wright “did seek permission or consultation with others” over the Duffy repayment — an admission that the circle of people who knew of the plan to repay Duffy’s expenses was much broader than previously acknowledged.

From your post Rerun. I want to know what permission or consultation Wright sought, from whom and what was given. I don't see how you can think those are "red herrings".

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Ark2

I don't know what the true story is with Wright and what actually motivated him to do what he did, so I can't speak to that. With the Senators on the other hand, I think it speaks more towards the culture of the Senate than anything else. An environment that has virtually no accountability is going to bread this kind of behaviour. I suspect that Duffy, Wallin, and Brazeau are hardly the only Senate members currently guilty of cheating the system. That being said, I did feel that Duffy was an odd appointment when it was announced in 2008.

The fact that the PM has appointed people who think that the cheque being cut to attempt to avoid scrutiny in the first place speaks loud and clear. Its telling that no one seemed to think it was a bad idea, and the fact that it was to cover up a potential political scandal just compounds that.

Its amusing that the the other 101 members of the senate don't seem to have these issues though and that 3/4 in hot water are Harper cronies. To me its hard to say that is a cultural issue in the senate. Its the small minority.

I am fascinated by this whole thing though. If the senate votes to suspend these three, what do they strike back with? At that point they have nothing to lose. If Duffy then produces the emails he claims to have, its a nightmare for Harper. If the senate doesn't suspend them, Harper has a caucus issue where CPC senators didn't comply with his wishes. Very interesting times indeed. A CPC MP in Edmonton (Peter Goldring) was urging senators not to suspend these three today, so who knows what is going on behind the scenes.

[Flamenspiel]

Nothing really new here, its politics as usual. If you read between the lines its obvious that Harper is guilty of nothing more then having contempt for the senators, even the conservative ones.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

again this is not about the cheque, this is about his actions or lack thereof leading up to and after the said incident.

Just because someone asks permission to something doesn't mean that if they get the go ahead its ok to do it. For all I or you know, he asked the janitor, his fellow PMO co-workers, and his wife.

The only permission that counts is the one you get from your boss. Harper says he never gave it because how could he give it when he never knew that Wright wanted to do this.... end of story.

... actually I guess the wife's permission would count for something too since the money came out of their bank account.

[Rerun]

I have a question...

Why are the Liberal Senators so against the suspension of the three Senators (none of which are Liberals by the way)?

I've heard that some say its because its against their constitutional rights to be suspended without pay. I call BS because people get suspended all the time from their jobs without pay, when there appears to be serious wrong doing.

What is really the Liberals secret agenda?

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Flamenspiel

Nothing really new here, its politics as usual. If you read between the lines its obvious that Harper is guilty of nothing more then having contempt for the senators, even the conservative ones.

So he has the same opinion as 90% of the general public then...

[19Yzerman19]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Truth: Defense lawyers stretch, twist, or ignore the truth all the time in order to best represent their client.

This is such a load of crap.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

This is such a load of crap.

Right... tell that to Marcia Clark, Christopher Darden, Gill Garcetti, Hank Goldberg, William Hodgman, Lisa Kahn, and Cheri Lewis.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Rerun

I have a question...

Why are the Liberal Senators so against the suspension of the three Senators (none of which are Liberals by the way)?

I've heard that some say its because its against their constitutional rights to be suspended without pay. I call BS because people get suspended all the time from their jobs without pay, when there appears to be serious wrong doing.

What is really the Liberals secret agenda?

Because sitting legislators ought to stand firm when someone tries to extort them.

Originally Posted by Rerun

Right... tell that to Marcia Clark, Christopher Darden, Gill Garcetti, Hank Goldberg, William Hodgman, Lisa Kahn, and Cheri Lewis.

OJ was innocent!!