Ongoing Senate scandal

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Rerun

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?

It doesn't have to be "a court of law". Any tribunal that runs its proceedings in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice would be appropriate.

No one necessarily has to be "on trial". It could resemble an inquiry or inquest. (Although, it looks like the Senate wants to take serious action against the three impugned senators, so the onus would of course fall on the senate to prove wrongdoing of some kind [i.e., you could think of it as the senators being "on trial".])

Of course, if enough prima facie credible evidence emerges (either from such a tribunal or elsewhere) that the prime minister deliberately mislead parliament, that could be enough to initiate separate proceedings for contempt of parliament (or whatever; I'm not familiar with parliamentary law.)

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Rerun

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

I don't think you understand the role of a defence lawyer in the criminal justice system.

[Dion]

This will turn into "Harpergate" when all is said and done.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Rerun

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

Harper is as crooked as a dogs hind leg.

This whole incident is going to blow up in his face and badly tarnish his image. He was hoping this would all go away but the three senators refused to be bullied out of the senate. Besides Harper has no one left to throw under the bus except himself.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Extortion?

From the Mirriam-Webster dictionary




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.

The extortion is obvious. Do as we say or you're going to lose your seat in the senate. You might suggest that is OK, but extortion is extortion.

Its interesting that these threats were alleged to have come from other senators as well...clearly they must get authority from someone else though?

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Slava

The extortion is obvious. Do as we say or you're going to lose your seat in the senate. You might suggest that is OK, but extortion is extortion.

So every MP in Parliament is extorted then? "Do as we say or you are out of the party" is how government in our parliamentary system works. Bit of a reach to be calling that extortion imo.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

This is such a load of crap.

Huh? It's about the most true and obvious statement a person can make.

[RedHot25]

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?

Must be all Liberals.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/sena...ters-1.2223600

Senate debate over suspensions reveals Tory dissenters

The motions to suspend Senators Mike Duffy, Patrick Brazeau and Pamela Wallin are "at the very least premature," Conservative Senator Don Plett said Thursday, making it clear he will not support them.
...

Plett, the former president of the Conservative Party, and a powerful voice in the party, said suspending the three and stripping them of income would set a precedent that would allow the Senate to suspend any senator who is "an irritant."
....

Plett's position echoes that of fellow Conservative Hugh Segal, although Segal's attempt to have the motions dismissed because of lack of due process and fairness was disallowed by the Senate speaker.

Segal, his voice rising, accused the Senate of "committing professional capital punishment on our colleagues," adding, while he believes the Senate has the power to discipline senators, it has to take action that is "mean, arbitrary and cruel."
....

Another Conservative voice protesting the motions is Alberta MP Peter Goldring. In the foyer of the House of Commons, Goldring told reporters he is considering appealing to the Governor General on the grounds he considers the motions unconstitutional.

Goldring said he is also lobbying Conservative senators to reject the motions to suspend the three senators. "I talked to some principal ones this morning and I'll be going back to my office to do more on it," he said.
...

One Conservative senator, Don Meredith, has said he supports a Liberal motion to have the matter sent to committee for further study.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Ark2

So every MP in Parliament is extorted then? "Do as we say or you are out of the party" is how government in our parliamentary system works. Bit of a reach to be calling that extortion imo.

I think your missed the point. Duffy claims he was threatened with losing his seat in the senate, not just having to leave the party. Thats a big difference.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Slava

I think your missed the point. Duffy claims he was threatened with losing his seat in the senate, not just having to leave the party. Thats a big difference.

He was threatened, to take money to pay back public debt. In such an oddthing to force someone to do. Its why I dont have any issue with the money being given or even forced to be taken on this case. Heck they should have loaned him the money publicly.

I dont get why this started, why would anyone try to cover up a senator mis-using his expense account. That is not even a scandle anymore. We all know they all abuse their priveledges.

The problem for me here is the coverup, and if the emails showing that Harper had knowledge of the situation surface he needs to go. But who actually emails there illegal plans. If I am bribing a guy why would I give thatguy permenant documentation that I am bribing him.

This whoe thing would have been a non issue if they just came out and said the CPC repayed the money our senator stole from canadians and we have made arrangements for him to pay it back. Instead it gets covered uo and becomes a real integrity issue.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by troutman

I don't think you understand the role of a defence lawyer in the criminal justice system.

Oh I think I do.

Defense Lawyers and Truth: Just Where Do They Meet?

August 07, 1994|Susan Estrich | Susan Estrich, a contributing editor to Opinion, is a law professor at USC. She served as campaign manager for Michael S. Dukakis in 1988

Look around the courtroom in a criminal trial and almost everyone is bound by one oath or another to tell the truth: the witnesses, of course; the jury and the judge, bound to find the truth; the prosecutor, whose lying can lead to reversal in the appeals court and at the polls; even members of the press, who can be sued for libel. The one person not pledged to tell the truth, seek the truth, let alone be bound by it, is the defense attorney.

For me, the only question that matters in the O.J. Simpson case is whether he did it. Everything turns on that. For Robert L. Shapiro and Johnnie L. Cochran Jr., Simpson's lawyers, nothing turns on it. Their job is to get Simpson off, innocent or guilty. If he's innocent, that means advocating the truth. If he's guilty, it means attacking it.

Criminal defense lawyers are not supposed to put witnesses on the stand who they know will commit perjury; of course, many criminal defense lawyers claim they're incapable of ever really knowing anything. They can't hide the murder weapon in their desk drawers, though they're not obligated to pick it up. Other than that, they're pretty free to obstruct the search for truth in any way they can, within the rules of evidence.

Witnesses are fair game--even if they're telling the truth. So is every piece of evidence, and every scientific test, even if it was accurately performed. You can impeach the person who found the evidence, question whether it was securely maintained, debate the accuracy of the test, undermine the reliability of the lab--even if you know, all the time, that the witness is telling the truth about where he found the evidence, it is your client's hat and the test turned up the right answer. You have an absolute right to libel anyone in the courtroom; Det. Mark Fuhrman's suit against the Simpson legal team is premised on what they said outside of court, in the public "trial."

Of course, in most criminal cases, these are just theoretical possibilities. Most defendants are lucky if their lawyer has time to investigate possible true defenses, much less mount false ones. Most defendants can't afford their own investigators and scientists and forensic experts and criminalists. Most defendants can't afford a million-dollar defense. There's a real question if they even get an adequate one.

Simpson's life and liberty are on the line. He has a right to spend whatever he has on his defense. The question is: What can it buy him? Simpson is presumed innocent. He may indeed be innocent. I hope he is. But some of those who can afford a million-dollar defense are guilty in fact. Should it matter? Does a million dollars, under the current rules, with a smart lawyer and a well-selected jury, buy you a reasonable doubt?

The explanation academics offer for the "different mission" of criminal lawyers that allows them such latitude with the truth is the adversary system of justice. The way we find truth, and protect the innocent, in an adversary system of justice is by putting the government to its proof, by arguing each point, each fact.

Certainly, no one questions the right of an attorney to attack the credibility of witnesses who are lying, or attack the validity of tests he believes are inaccurate. No one doubts his right to argue to the jury that lies are lies, or that facts are true. No one, in short, is seeking to limit the advocacy of an attorney attacking a prosecution case that is untrue and defending an innocent man.

http://articles.latimes.com/1994-08-...efense-lawyers

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Uh, no. That article only underlines the fact that you have no idea what the role of a defense lawyer is.

[Senator Clay Davis]

This is one of those quit while you're behind type situations Rerun. We know you hate defense lawyers, even if you aren't quite aware of their purpose.

[Rerun]

nm

[Rerun]

nvm... I don't want to get into a debate about lawyers as it has nothing to do with the topic.

My whole point on the lawyer thing was just because Duffy's lawyer states that he's innocent and he has the e-mails to prove it, doesn't make it true.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Rerun

nvm... I don't want to get into a debate about lawyers as it has nothing to do with the topic.

My whole point on the lawyer thing was just because Duffy's lawyer states that he's innocent and he has the e-mails to prove it, doesn't make it true.

And just because Stephen Harper denies involvement doesn't mean he's not involved. If he was involved would you really expect him to say "Ok, you got me"? Seeing as that would be the death of his career and a blow likely to relegate the CPC to around 40 seats (at best) next election, I really doubt he'll admit anything until there is undeniable proof.

[MarchHare]

I'm not sure if Harper was personally involved in any cover-up or not, and I'm awaiting further information before judging one way or another.

That said, what happened to personal accountability? Nigel Wright was specially selected and hired by Harper. Duffy, Wallin, and Brazeau were all appointed to the senate by Harper. Apparently with this prime minister, the buck stops with Wright rather than accepting accountability like a true leader should.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Rerun

nvm... I don't want to get into a debate about lawyers as it has nothing to do with the topic.

My whole point on the lawyer thing was just because Duffy's lawyer states that he's innocent and he has the e-mails to prove it, doesn't make it true.

Indeed. Which is exactly why there needs to be an actual process to try to determine the truth.

[Flash Walken]

If only a federal political party would run on a platform of Senate Reform, maybe all of this could be avoided.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

If only a federal political party would run on a platform of Senate Reform, maybe all of this could be avoided.

After the failures of Meech Lake and Charlottetown, nobody wants to touch the constitution.