|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on May 18, 2013 18:46:13 GMT -5
First, Senator Mike Duffy (never really got used to that) coming by $90,000 of taxpayer money. Secondly, Senator Pamela Wallin accumulated $321,000 in travel expenses since September 2010. Was listening to Craig Oliver (CTV) and he suggested that both of these incidents blindsided the PM. He also suggested that it might be a good time to abolish the Senate. Harper might do this to save any further scandal to his government, and just ride his decision into the next election. This was just speculation by Oliver. I used to respect Mike Duffy. This guy's parliamentary scrums were the standard for Canadian political reporting. Mike Duffy, and Pamela Wallin.Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on May 18, 2013 19:13:26 GMT -5
Do you trust Craig Oliver? When you see what Mike Duffy is, after being a 'trusted' reporter for so many years, can you trust any journalist?
The one thing in this whole mess that I have huge question marks over is, "What the hell does Mike Duffy know that is worth $90K to the PM?".
Seriously, I could see the PM paying out $5 to $10K to make a problem go away, but $90K? That's a lot of shekels. Mike Duffy?
See what I mean? None of it makes sense. Sure, it's Harper's chief of staff actually writing the cheque, but he's merely the messenger with the means. It will end up back in his pocket at some point down the road.
What is worth $90K Cdn dollars? If this was the US, you'd multiply that by 10 because there's that much more at stake. I just don't get it. Why not let Duffy twist in the wind? It's his theft of the money, not Harper's or his COS. Why bail him out? The only possible answer is not repayment for years of loyalty, it's because Duffy knows something and is suggesting it might leak out, if his problems don't go away.
If anyone has a more plausible theory, I'd love to hear it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on May 18, 2013 20:11:42 GMT -5
Good post, seventeen.
Wallin has already paid back an amount from the $321,000, but that bearly puts a dent in it. There's speculation that she will owe a lot more once the figures come out.
Really rough ride for Harper's Senate appointments. Patrck Brazeau is refusing to pay back $48 K until he received clear answers from the Senate committee. Duffy also mentioned that the rules for borrowing were confusing.
I'm thinking we're going to see an audit to the Senate. Once that happens we might see Harper decide what he's going to do.
I know what you're saying about Mike Duffy. It's like crossing the floor ... I've seen Oliver on the political scene forever. I guess if they can get to Duffy ...
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on May 19, 2013 8:21:22 GMT -5
Craig Oliver is a staunch conservative; you can see he is uncomfortable reporting this. Notice Oliver almost always wears a blue tie.
Two reporters with a sense of entitlement on the government teet .... Hmmm? You'd think they'd know better, or we're they so used to reporting on Adscam they figured "when in Ottawa Rome"?
The Senate serves absolutely no purpose in our democracy ... Get rid of it, and the patronage that goes along with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on May 19, 2013 8:24:29 GMT -5
Harper's chief of staff, Nigel Wright, has now resigned because of 'matters involving Senator Duffy'. Cheers. Link |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on May 19, 2013 9:48:38 GMT -5
On the surface, it appears to be Duffy claiming housing expenses for a residence he was not using. Double-dipping in the cookie jar.
Then Wright, on the surface, wrote Duffy a personal cheque which I presume he expected Duffy would pay back. Just trying to help out.
What doesn't add up to me is Duffy accepting Wright's personal cheque. Take out a loan, Duffy. You're good for the money over time. Line of credit. Then again, a bank might look twice before extending funds for such a thing. Okay, then sell the other house and pay the money back out of that. Take some personal responsibility here.
Why would Duffy resign over this? Why would Wright have to resign if it's nothing more than him being a nice guy? Why would Harper accept his resignation?
Is something deeper going on?
And it's always "Harper knew nothing about this...."
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 19, 2013 11:35:54 GMT -5
optics, CH, optics . . . but it may be too late. Duffy needed to step out of the caucus because of alleged improprieties. and the fact that he wasn't up front from the beginning. Wright is collateral damage . . . plus again, optics: "the PMO" lent a senator money, will the senator be influenced when it comes to voting time? as to Harper not knowing, hard to believe that such a micro-manager wouldn't.  |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 19, 2013 11:38:20 GMT -5
Why is someone writing a personal check to someone else all of a suddenly a sign of child eating?
I once borrowed 25K from my cousin because I had money closed up for a year and if I broke it, I would lose all the interest. Was that a Greek conspiracy and money laundering?
What is coming out of this mess is that there is a mess as far as the rules are concerned. Either these senators are outright criminals and fraudsters or STUPID or they are taking advantage of a loose system that seems to tighten up as politics or media scrutiny intervene.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on May 19, 2013 14:50:52 GMT -5
And it's always "Harper knew nothing about this...." as to Harper not knowing, hard to believe that such a micro-manager wouldn't. Even if Harper didn't know, it still doesn't absolve him of accountability. Interesting that both Duffy and Wallin cut ties with the Tories, but remained senators. I guess $130,000/year is motivation enough. Good coin. Harper had no problem with these moves, and he certainly had no problem accepting Write's resignation. Talk about damage control. Abolishing the Senate might be the only option left if they're only scratching the surface. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on May 19, 2013 14:53:55 GMT -5
Why is someone writing a personal check to someone else all of a suddenly a sign of child eating? I once borrowed 25K from my cousin because I had money closed up for a year and if I broke it, I would lose all the interest. Was that a Greek conspiracy and money laundering? What is coming out of this mess is that there is a mess as far as the rules are concerned. Either these senators are outright criminals and fraudsters or STUPID or they are taking advantage of a loose system that seems to tighten up as politics or media scrutiny intervene. It is illegal for Senators to take personal loans from politicians or political parties. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on May 19, 2013 15:01:01 GMT -5
On the surface, it appears to be Duffy claiming housing expenses for a residence he was not using. Double-dipping in the cookie jar. Then Wright, on the surface, wrote Duffy a personal cheque which I presume he expected Duffy would pay back. Just trying to help out. What doesn't add up to me is Duffy accepting Wright's personal cheque. Take out a loan, Duffy. You're good for the money over time. Line of credit. Then again, a bank might look twice before extending funds for such a thing. Okay, then sell the other house and pay the money back out of that. Take some personal responsibility here. Why would Duffy resign over this? Why would Wright have to resign if it's nothing more than him being a nice guy? Why would Harper accept his resignation? Is something deeper going on? And it's always "Harper knew nothing about this...." Under our Constitution there are only five ways a Senator can lose his seat in the Senate 1) Failing to Attend the Senate for two consecutive parliamentary sessions 2) being found guilty of treason, or Another indictable offense 3) declaring bankruptcy 4) Renouncing their citizenship 5) cease to meet the qualifications of the Senate If they can't afford to pay back the money, ... taking a loan could bring number three into play. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 19, 2013 15:38:37 GMT -5
Abolishing the Senate might be the only option left if they're only scratching the surface. funny, he's been wanting to do something with the Senate since the beginning. he has the people of Canada on his side [wow, he has united the country! now to get the rest of parliament and Quebec politicians with him. to abolish will take a constitutional amendment. is there something else he can do? he's said he wants to limit terms . . . can't see that there'll ever be a "Triple E" senate though. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 19, 2013 15:39:36 GMT -5
It is illegal for Senators to take personal loans from politicians or political parties. Wright is neither. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on May 19, 2013 15:50:07 GMT -5
Under our Constitution there are only five ways a Senator can lose his seat in the Senate 1) Failing to Attend the Senate for two consecutive parliamentary sessions Ever hear of Andrew Thompson? I had to look him up because I remember this Senator had a very poor attendance record. According to this article Thompson only attended 14 meetings in seven years until a reporter discovered that he was living in Mexico. That was back in the 90's, but there are still accountability issues with the Senate today. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on May 19, 2013 17:34:03 GMT -5
It is illegal for Senators to take personal loans from politicians or political parties. Wright is neither. Wright is in the PMO, ... A political position by default. Nevertheless, ALL gifts above $500 have to be reported within 30 days under law. $90,000 is a lot more than $500. I just caught this on the news today It's troubling that Duffy denied receiving the gift, at first ... So obviously he wasn't going to report it. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 19, 2013 17:51:01 GMT -5
in/with the PMO -- not a politician, and it was a personal loan not a loan from the party. that's the quibble. I agree with you, though . . . iffy at best.
and they are saying it was not a gift but a loan and therefore Duffy did not have to report it. however, Wright had to declare the loan but didn't.
yet after all this I still expect Harper's approval rating to be about 35%.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on May 19, 2013 19:08:35 GMT -5
in/with the PMO -- not a politician, They're probably public servant positions. One of the better PS ones, I'd think. They knew what the score was. As I mentioned earlier, Duffy is using the excuse that the rules for borrowing money from the Senate are confusing. One senator would be akin to unlocking the door. Several senators, including ones appointed by the PM, himself is akin to leaving the door wide open. I'm surprised we haven't heard from the opposition yet. They should be jumping all over this. Even if Harper gets constitutional approval to disolve the Senate, it will be a major campaign issue. I'm wondering if Harper will survive this when all is said and done. He can't afford any more scandals after this one. (this one might be enough) If that happens the Tories might go into the next election with a new leader. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on May 19, 2013 20:27:28 GMT -5
I'm surprised we haven't heard from the opposition yet. They should be jumping all over this. Even if Harper gets constitutional approval to disolve the Senate, it will be a major campaign issue. They'll wait til the long weekend's over most likely. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 19, 2013 20:53:46 GMT -5
the Liberals will tread very carefully, CH -- they have their own members being looked at.
and I think Harper stays around . . . he's not going to back down from a fight or slink off with his tail between his legs. besides, there are two more years until the election; this will be long past when the writ is dropped [another scandal to take it's place].
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on May 19, 2013 21:07:13 GMT -5
I don't think Harper's in any trouble over this at all, franko. I don't see anything he did wrong...and I expect him to kick some caucus butt.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on May 19, 2013 22:02:10 GMT -5
Rex Murphy weighs in.
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on May 19, 2013 22:19:52 GMT -5
I guess I haven't read much about it....just the surface info.
I didn't know that Harper appointed Duffy....and that Duffy is staying in the Senate.
Wright looks like the innocent "I was just trying to help" who ended up taking the biggest fall...as the paper trail (apparently) ends with him.
Another interesting case....that might just fall flat anyway.
Rex Murphy speaks one familiar truth, regardless of the party in power in any era when such things are swept under the rug.
People, taxpayers are looking at this and simply weeping with anger and despair. One world for them, and one world for the rest.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 20, 2013 2:01:42 GMT -5
I don't see where the end of thew world starts. At this point, it's not clear if it was a gift or a loan, I read this in that bastion of right support, the CBC.
If Duffy didn't have enough money to pay it off and got a loan, it's not against the rules. An undeclared gift of that amount is. How many of you have the cash on hand to write a $90,000 check?
Well, I do. So if Duffy was my friend and I lend it to him, does it mean anything because I'm mostly on the right side of politics? Give me an actual rules link where it's against the Senate rules.
I don't see how it should affect Harper. He's running the country, not Duffy's life. Needless to say, if he did involve himself in it, it would be "control freak", if he doesn't, "he's lost control". Of course, those who hate him can not help themselves at screaming that it's some kind of scandal, despite the Pravda Star and the NDP trying to make Mt Everest out of an ant hill, but sorry, this isn't. It's business as usual in the Senate. So is the partisan politics and certain media for the hysterical chicken wing flapping claims of a "scandal".
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 20, 2013 2:07:11 GMT -5
the Liberals will tread very carefully, CH -- they have their own members being looked at. and I think Harper stays around . . . he's not going to back down from a fight or slink off with his tail between his legs. besides, there are two more years until the election; this will be long past when the writ is dropped [another scandal to take it's place]. Stays around? For what? A big release of partisan hot air? If this is a "scandal", are they putting obama on the electric chair for his "scandals"? And this needs a microscope to see in comparison to obama's REAL "scandals". |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 20, 2013 2:13:48 GMT -5
Harper's chief of staff, Nigel Wright, has now resigned because of 'matters involving Senator Duffy'. Cheers. LinkAs usual, Harper gets rid of people who don't walk a squiky clean path. I don't see anything wrong with what Wright did unless there is actual intent of breaking the rules. If it was a personal loan and it's acceptable by current rules, then this is just a political cleanup. Mehhhh.... tomorrow it will be "Evil Control Freak Harper Fires Daddy and Puppy Lover". |
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 20, 2013 7:41:53 GMT -5
Well, I do. So if Duffy was my friend and I lend it to him, does it mean anything because I'm mostly on the right side of politics? Give me an actual rules link where it's against the Senate rules. a gift is against the rules . . . so it's a loan. an undeclared gift is against the rules . . . that's the problem. and, of course, bad optics. it looks like the PMO is bailing a senator out and may have undue influence on the senator in the days ahead. and as you know, politics is all about optics . . . not how things are but how they look. whether it's hysterical chicken wing flapping or not. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 20, 2013 7:45:57 GMT -5
and I think Harper stays around . . . he's not going to back down from a fight or slink off with his tail between his legs. besides, there are two more years until the election; this will be long past when the writ is dropped [another scandal to take it's place]. Stays around? For what? A big release of partisan hot air? If this is a "scandal", are they putting obama on the electric chair for his "scandals"? And this needs a microscope to see in comparison to obama's REAL "scandals". guess I shoulda quoted Dis, who said I'm wondering if Harper will survive this when all is said and done. He can't afford any more scandals after this one. (this one might be enough) If that happens the Tories might go into the next election with a new leader. ya, context is everything. could have also mentioned that one reason there are no Conservative knives out trying to stab Harper in the back is that there really isn't anyone to take his place . . . another reason that Harper will run in the next election and that le petite Trudeau will probably win the election to follow. |
|
|
|
Post by jkr on May 20, 2013 10:55:48 GMT -5
Well, I do. So if Duffy was my friend and I lend it to him, does it mean anything because I'm mostly on the right side of politics? Give me an actual rules link where it's against the Senate rules. a gift is against the rules . . . so it's a loan. an undeclared gift is against the rules . . . that's the problem. and, of course, bad optics. it looks like the PMO is bailing a senator out and may have undue influence on the senator in the days ahead. and as you know, politics is all about optics . . . not how things are but how they look. whether it's hysterical chicken wing flapping or not. Wasn't Duffy able to opt out of the audit because he paid off what he owed? I'm sure I heard this during the reports & it's motivation to accept the money. Here's the link to the At Issue panel discussion several days ago. www.cbc.ca/thenational/indepthanalysis/atissue/story/2013/05/16/thenational-atissue-051613.html |
|
|
|
Post by jkr on May 20, 2013 10:58:24 GMT -5
I don't see where the end of thew world starts. At this point, it's not clear if it was a gift or a loan, I read this in that bastion of right support, the CBC. If Duffy didn't have enough money to pay it off and got a loan, it's not against the rules. An undeclared gift of that amount is. How many of you have the cash on hand to write a $90,000 check? Not sure what this has to do with the discussion. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on May 20, 2013 11:57:01 GMT -5
How many of you have the cash on hand to write a $90,000 check? Well, I do. So if Duffy was my friend and I lend it to him, does it mean anything because I'm mostly on the right side of politics? Give me an actual rules link where it's against the Senate rules. Not sure about this......but it might be okay because you're a private citizen. Wright is not. And Duffy would still have to disclose where the money came from, I think. Those who know more about it, please chime in. To that end, I wonder why Duffy didn't go to other friends. I'm sure he'd have many rich ones. Politicians of all stripes do their very best to cover their sordid tracks. And when found out, they should all pay the price. For us voters/taxpayers, like with sports' teams, it stings more and we get defensive when it's someone on our team who gets caught. To me, they're just people in positions of power...and many of them are out-and-out opportunists. Some abuse their power...and all parties have those types. Same as it ever was. |
|
