Ongoing Senate scandal

[DFO]

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?

Conservative Sen. Hugh Segal, however, said he would vote against the suspension of Wallin. He said it was up to the Senate to stand for democracy and due process.
In one unexpected take on the issue, Sen. George Baker, a senior Liberal, told reporters that passing the motions would be, in effect, a court sentence because the Senate is a quasi-judicial body. He argued passing the suspensions would thus foil ongoing police investigations of the three senators. He said it would also mean Harper and his office couldn’t be called to testify in the event of a trial.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/10...upper-chamber/

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Toronto Star

Harper stood in the Commons repeatedly Wednesday, took most questions directed to him, and flatly denied Duffy's explosive allegation that he’d helped orchestrate a “monstrous” political scheme to repay Duffy’s expenses and whitewash an audit once they became political dynamite.

Neither Duffy nor his lawyer had produced direct proof of that. But Harper denied the damning allegation anyway.

Er, Duffy's allegations (to the extent that Duffy observed the PM directly) are direct proof.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Rerun

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

There is no such thing as irrefutable proof.

[Zulu29]

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?

The explanation that I heard was that the senate is a judicial body and their review committee handing out discipline is equal to a court issuing a sentence. That's why the Charter breaches, right to trial etc etc arguments have been raised.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Rerun

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

Clark and Darden are infamous as prosecutors, not defense attorneys. And if their lying was any good it sure didn't help convict the Juice.

[HockeyIlliterate]

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?

I'm not Canadian, and I don't profess to understand the Canadian system of government, but I read the following (paraphrased from where I read it), which makes some sense if you have a cynical view of things:

Essentially, if the three Senators are suspended, the suspended Senators might force a court challenge as to the legality of the suspension. Harper would be in favor of such a court challenge, because that would then put the matter in the courts, and likely give Harper the ability to say "I'd love to discuss the matter, but I can't since it is under court review," thereby avoiding any further questions (or at least responses from him and his people) on the matter. The Liberals, on the other hand, probably don't want the matter to go away, so they figure by not suspending the Senators, there would never be a court challenge, and thus they can keep the heat on Harper.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Rerun

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.

Here's an exercise: try to think of a list of differences between an ordinary employment contract and an appointment to the Senate of Canada.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Slava

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



OJ was innocent!!

Extortion?

From the Mirriam-Webster dictionary

ex·tor·tion
noun : the crime of getting money from someone by the use of force or threats


Full Definition of EXTORTION

1 : the act or practice of extorting especially money or other property; especially : the offense committed by an official engaging in such practice

2 : something extorted; especially : a gross overcharge

What exactly are they being extorted for? Certainly not money... or is it extortion to demand they pay back the money they stole from the Canadian taxpayer?

Harper is demanding what would happen if they worked for any company in Canada and were accused of the same thievery. Suspension without pay.

Only in the Senate can you steal, not show up for work, and get paid big $$$ for almost doing nothing.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Clark and Darden are infamous as prosecutors, not defense attorneys. And if their lying was any good it sure didn't help convict the Juice.

You missed the point. The point was that OJ is a perfect example of how defense lawyers stretch, twist, or ignore the truth all the time in order to best represent their client.

[Rerun]

Looks like some very learned people disagree with Baker...

Whether or not the Senate votes to suspend embattled senators Mike Duffy, Patrick Brazeau and Pamela Wallin will have no impact on any potential criminal proceedings, legal experts say.

That view goes contrary to what Liberal Sen. George Baker told reporters and the Senate itself this week.

“If these motions are passed, it will foreclose the police in any subsequent criminal proceeding,” Baker warned. “It’s a brilliant move legally by the prime minister’s office because they would not then be called as witnesses in any criminal proceeding.”
Baker made his argument on the principle of “double jeopardy”: a legal defence that means a person cannot be tried twice on the same charges. Baker said that because the Senate is a judicial body, any ruling coming from the red chamber would prevent similar charges from being laid by a criminal court.

“Regardless of what happens in the Senate, it has no bearing on whether or not a criminal offence could be prosecuted against these people,” said Toronto lawyer Jonathan Dawe, who specializes in criminal and constitutional law.

“Just because something is a judicial proceeding doesn’t mean that it serves as a trigger for double jeopardy. “

Dawe said the Senate is indeed a judicial body, but it cannot try people for criminal offences; only the courts can do that. And since the Senate can’t hand down a criminal conviction, there’s no double jeopardy case if a charge is then laid by a criminal court.
“It’s a technical area of law and I can see why someone might make a mistake, but my understanding is that the senator’s concerns are not well-founded,” Dawe said.

It’s a point echoed by now-retired House of Commons law clerk Rob Walsh.

http://www.canada.com/news/Reality+c...197/story.html

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Rerun

You missed the point. The point was that OJ is a perfect example of how defense lawyers stretch, twist, or ignore the truth all the time in order to best represent their client.

And how did they do that with OJ? Pretty sure the prosectors made him try on the glove and put racist ass Mark Furman on the stand. The defense just need Johnny to spit out some cool ass catchphrase involving the fitting of a glove and acquital and that was that. The defense basically let the prosecution dig their own grave on that one, as what happened with Zimmerman and Casey Anthony. More often than not its prosecturorial incompetence and not slick defense lawyers that lead to likely guilty people getting off. We may be about to see it again with Aaron Hernandez whenever that gets going.

If you don't like the justice system as is you could always try Saudi Arabia. I hear their system is very fair (if you're a man).

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

And how did they do that with OJ? Pretty sure the prosectors made him try on the glove and put racist ass Mark Furman on the stand. The defense just need Johnny to spit out some cool ass catchphrase involving the fitting of a glove and acquital and that was that. The defense basically let the prosecution dig their own grave on that one, as what happened with Zimmerman and Casey Anthony. More often than not its prosecturorial incompetence and not slick defense lawyers that lead to likely guilty people getting off. We may be about to see it again with Aaron Hernandez whenever that gets going.

If you don't like the justice system as is you could always try Saudi Arabia. I hear their system is very fair (if you're a man).

So OJ was innocent and his lawyers believed him to be an innocent man? Right...

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Er, Duffy's allegations (to the extent that Duffy observed the PM directly) are direct proof.

No they aren't. They are allegations. Anybody can make an allegation. Doesn't mean its proof.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Rerun

No they aren't. They are allegations. Anybody can make an allegation. Doesn't mean its proof.

Well, it is direct evidence. The word "proof" refers to something entirely subjective (proof is just evidence that persuades the beholder that a certain fact or assertion is true) isn't really useful in this discussion.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Well, it is direct evidence. The word "proof" refers to something entirely subjective (proof is just evidence that persuades the beholder that a certain fact or assertion is true) isn't really useful in this discussion.

I think it is useful but I also think you're ....

[Bertuzzied]

When everything plays out, Rerun is going to sell us each a RAV 4 for $500 cash!

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Rerun

No they aren't. They are allegations. Anybody can make an allegation. Doesn't mean its proof.

Haha good lord, what do you want? Summary justice? That would be better than the system we have? Defense lawyers exist in our justice system to protect the interests of those who are being prosecuted. If you'd prefer they be eliminated, again, Saudi Arabia awaits.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Rerun

I think it is useful but I also think you're ....

Well, I think that it is an important distinction.

To illustrate:

Mike Duffy's allegations are direct evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the Prime Minister. However, in order to know whether it is credible evidence (i.e., whether it is proof of anything), it should be tested. Hundreds of years of the history of law in common law states suggests that the best way to test evidence is due process (i.e., in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice rather than before some sort of Senate kangaroo court.)

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Well, I think that it is an important distinction.

To illustrate:

Mike Duffy's allegations are direct evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the Prime Minister. However, in order to know whether it is credible evidence (i.e., whether it is proof of anything), it should be tested. Hundreds of years of the history of law in common law states suggests that the best way to test evidence is due process (i.e., in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice rather than before some sort of Senate kangaroo court.)

So you are looking for a trial in a court of law?

so... who would be on trial? Mike Duffy or Stephen Harper? And for what?

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

When everything plays out, Rerun is going to sell us each a RAV 4 for $500 cash!

ZING!!! oh you got me good with that one. Such a wit...




Edit: meant to say twit.