|
|
Post by Cranky on May 20, 2013 12:02:05 GMT -5
Not sure about this......but it might be okay because you're a private citizen. Wright is not. He still is. He's not a politician, he's a hired GM. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 20, 2013 12:07:03 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. Absolutely everything. 1.....If he can't write a cheque for that amount, especially in a very short time, he may want to borrow from a friend. Why would he be held to a different standard when most people would do the same? 2....A gift over $500 has to be declared, but I have yet to see a knowledgeable independent source say that borrowing has to be declared. Like I said, absolutely everything. |
|
|
|
Post by Disp on May 20, 2013 12:13:05 GMT -5
What a bunch of Saperlipopetteheads! These people should be the best and the brightest. Set an example and all that.
I've often wondered if it's all a ploy, set the bar so low that all Canadians just shrug their shoulders and brush it off. Our expectations should be higher than that.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 20, 2013 12:36:41 GMT -5
2....A gift over $500 has to be declared, but I have yet to see a knowledgeable independent source say that borrowing has to be declared. ah, but lending has to be declared, and that is where Wright got into trouble -- even if it was a personal loan. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on May 20, 2013 12:37:32 GMT -5
Not sure about this......but it might be okay because you're a private citizen. Wright is not. He still is. He's not a politician, he's a hired GM. Wright was Harper's chief of staff....a direct line to the PM. And Duffy is a Senator that Harper appointed. And if Harper doesn't know what one of his right-hand men are doing....do you really believe that? Like I said, I don't care what colours they fly. Checks and balances are in place for every party, not just the ones to which we don't ascribe. Protection of a free society in which its taxpayers are properly represented/governed. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 20, 2013 13:02:16 GMT -5
2....A gift over $500 has to be declared, but I have yet to see a knowledgeable independent source say that borrowing has to be declared. ah, but lending has to be declared, and that is where Wright got into trouble -- even if it was a personal loan. Do you have a specific link to "lending" by private citizens to Senators? Because that would explain why Wright had to resign. Which begs the question, did Wright do the wrong thing for the right reasons? Is it Duffy asking for a loan, not declaring it and getting Wright into trouble? Regardless, it's obvious that only angels and unicorns can work for Harper. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 20, 2013 13:05:40 GMT -5
He still is. He's not a politician, he's a hired GM. Wright was Harper's chief of staff....a direct line to the PM. And Duffy is a Senator that Harper appointed. And if Harper doesn't know what one of his right-hand men are doing....do you really believe that? On a private loan? Between friends? One is working for Harper, the other is an appointed senator, neither of them are his wives. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 20, 2013 13:11:40 GMT -5
What a bunch of Saperlipopetteheads! These people should be the best and the brightest. Set an example and all that. I've often wondered if it's all a ploy, set the bar so low that all Canadians just shrug their shoulders and brush it off. Our expectations should be higher than that. Where is the teeth gnashing when elected members for the NDP are partying thousands of miles away and get elected in Parliament? How about foreign environmental interests pour millions into shaping our politics? How about McGuinty blowing a quarter of a billion of taxpayers money to get two Liberals elected? Compared to that, this is a tsitsi fly. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on May 20, 2013 13:53:17 GMT -5
Wright was Harper's chief of staff....a direct line to the PM. And Duffy is a Senator that Harper appointed. And if Harper doesn't know what one of his right-hand men are doing....do you really believe that? On a private loan? Between friends? One is working for Harper, the other is an appointed senator, neither of them are his wives. Wright and Duffy are not friends. They might NOW say they are, but before this they weren't .... And that's where optics come in. Why did Wright give someone he did not know $90,000? Was it to steer a committee in another direction? Why do we know? Duffy had his lawyers fight to have him exempt from the forensic audit. This information was strangely missing from the audit report that was tabled Wright gives Duffy $90,000 and multiple sources are now saying that there was a back room deal to get Duffy removed from further audit scrutiny. I'm not sure how involved the senators are in this process, but was Duffy asked to do something in return for bailing him out from further scrutiny? Its a valid question, and needs to be looked into, and has nothing to do with angels and unicorns. Comments like that have nothing to do with the debate. Anyway, here is a CTV report .... www.ctvnews.ca/politics/damning-findings-removed-from-sen-mike-duffy-s-audit-report-documents-1.1286005 |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on May 20, 2013 14:38:29 GMT -5
As 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". I'm wondering why Wright resigned if he did nothing wrong. Moreover, why did Wallin and Duffy (try to) distance themselves from the Tories by left the Caucus if they did nothing wrong? Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 20, 2013 19:44:55 GMT -5
Wrong this or that....but....
Does ANYONE have a link where it says that lending money o a senator is illegal or has to be declared? I real link.....and to something from a partisan site?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 20, 2013 19:54:11 GMT -5
Wright and Duffy are not friends. They might NOW say they are, but before this they weren't .... And that's where optics come in. Why did Wright give someone he did not know $90,000? How do you know they weren't friends? Do you know them personally? Duffy had his lawyers fight to have him exempt from the forensic audit. This information was strangely missing from the audit report that was tabled Was it to avoid further ensnarement or to hide something. You have absolutely no proof either way. Wright gives Duffy $90,000 and multiple sources are now saying that there was a back room deal to get Duffy removed from further audit scrutiny. Multiple sources are saying.....not including the entire NDP caucus? I love the multiple sources.......but who are they and what is their angle....or interest? Who are this multiple sources and do they have any REAL information or is it rinse and repeat often enough to spin speculation in "truth"? I'm not sure how involved the senators are in this process, but was Duffy asked to do something in return for bailing him out from further scrutiny? You don't know and can only speculate. Or assume the worse. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 21, 2013 2:51:39 GMT -5
And after searching, I found the rules. Section 17 (1) of the Senate Conflict of Interest code states: “Neither a Senator, nor a family member, shall accept … any gift or other benefit, except compensation authorized by law, that could reasonably be considered to relate to the Senator’s position.”
Section 16 (1) of the Parliament of Canada Act states that “no member of the Senate shall receive or agree to receive any compensation, directly or indirectly, for services rendered … in relation to any bill, proceeding, contract, claim, controversy, charge, accusation, arrest or other matter before the Senate or the House of Commons or a committee of either House. Moreover, Section 16 (3) makes “every person who gives, offers or promises to any member of the Senate” such compensation liable to imprisonment for up to one year.
Section 121 (1) of the Criminal Code states that anyone who “gives, offers or agrees to give or offer” to an official or “being an official, demands, accepts or offers or agrees to accept” any “loan, reward, advantage or benefit of any kind” in return for “cooperation, assistance, exercise of influence or an act or omission” in connection with “any matter of business relating to the government,” is guilty of an offence punishable by up to five years in jail.Where exactly is a PERSONAL loan from one friend to another covered? There were no services rendered, there was no services expected in return, there was no compensation in relation to the Senators position (influence) or to the business relating to the government (law/bill making/discussion). That is the gray area but after Duffy paid the government, it wasn't government business, it was a private lending affair and again, there was no expectation of any quid pro quo to the senators position. The entire section is to criminalize selling/purchasing of influence. Wright is a multi-degreed lawyer and there is no chance in hell that he did not read this. So to him, as a lawyer and to me, as someone who plays a lawyer in my mind, there is no specific term were a personal loan without any expectation of anything more then a payment back is illegal. In fact, there is a third lawyer involved and it appears that Duffy was suppose to disclose the agreement regardless of it's legal status. And what did we have from the wonderful media? None of them asked any legal questions, they simply went for the loudest noise and hysteria. Now for even more fun... Justin Trudeau accepts $5,000 to $20,000 as a "guest speaker" to many groups whose business he may then need to discuss as an elected member of parliament AND liberal leader. He breaks all the above rules....and WHERE is the media hysteria? Oh wait...I forgot, there is no media bias.......  |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on May 21, 2013 10:54:25 GMT -5
And after searching, I found the rules. Section 17 (1) of the Senate Conflict of Interest code states: “Neither a Senator, nor a family member, shall accept … any gift or other benefit, except compensation authorized by law, that could reasonably be considered to relate to the Senator’s position.”
Section 16 (1) of the Parliament of Canada Act states that “no member of the Senate shall receive or agree to receive any compensation, directly or indirectly, for services rendered … in relation to any bill, proceeding, contract, claim, controversy, charge, accusation, arrest or other matter before the Senate or the House of Commons or a committee of either House. Moreover, Section 16 (3) makes “every person who gives, offers or promises to any member of the Senate” such compensation liable to imprisonment for up to one year.
Section 121 (1) of the Criminal Code states that anyone who “gives, offers or agrees to give or offer” to an official or “being an official, demands, accepts or offers or agrees to accept” any “loan, reward, advantage or benefit of any kind” in return for “cooperation, assistance, exercise of influence or an act or omission” in connection with “any matter of business relating to the government,” is guilty of an offence punishable by up to five years in jail.Where exactly is a PERSONAL loan from one friend to another covered? There were no services rendered, there was no services expected in return, there was no compensation in relation to the Senators position (influence) or to the business relating to the government (law/bill making/discussion). That is the gray area but after Duffy paid the government, it wasn't government business, it was a private lending affair and again, there was no expectation of any quid pro quo to the senators position. The entire section is to criminalize selling/purchasing of influence. Wright is a multi-degreed lawyer and there is no chance in hell that he did not read this. So to him, as a lawyer and to me, as someone who plays a lawyer in my mind, there is no specific term were a personal loan without any expectation of anything more then a payment back is illegal. In fact, there is a third lawyer involved and it appears that Duffy was suppose to disclose the agreement regardless of it's legal status. And what did we have from the wonderful media? None of them asked any legal questions, they simply went for the loudest noise and hysteria. Now for even more fun... Justin Trudeau accepts $5,000 to $20,000 as a "guest speaker" to many groups whose business he may then need to discuss as an elected member of parliament AND liberal leader. He breaks all the above rules....and WHERE is the media hysteria? Oh wait...I forgot, there is no media bias....... That's just it ... we do not know if there was any expectation on the part of Duffy. Are you seriously implying that paying back the government is not "government business"? Cause when I read it I get " Section 121 (1) of the Criminal Code states that anyone who “gives, offers or agrees to give or offer” to an official or “being an official, demands, accepts or offers or agrees to accept” any “loan, reward, advantage or benefit of any kind” in return for “cooperation, assistance, exercise of influence or an act or omission” in connection with “any matter of business relating to the government,” is guilty of an offence punishable by up to five years in jail.So since we do not know if any thing was expected of Duffy ... sure, let them look into it and see if there was. It's not like Duffy was the most honourable of senators now, was it? |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on May 21, 2013 11:07:20 GMT -5
How do you know they weren't friends? Do you know them personally? Just read the story ... oh wait, any media is a left wing, rag, fearful of baby eating and looking for unicorns if it questions a conservative? The PMO then confirmed that Wright, a former Bay Street executive, wrote a personal cheque to Duffy as a gift to an old friend, although sources say the two men are not close.If this is all on the up and up, and in no way could be muddled in the ethics of senators ... then why did Duffy lie? Why did he say he paid it off and Wright had no role in it?? Then later he admits that it was Wright?
The night before, the senator claimed in an email to CTV News that Wright played no role and that he’d taken out a loan to repay the money. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on May 21, 2013 12:20:36 GMT -5
Just watched a bit of Harper's address on this subject and he seemed to be miffed with everything in this process. If he honestly didn't know what was going down, then I'd suggest that keep current in the affairs of his next chief of staff. If the two aren't on the same page you run the risk of stuff like this happening.
The same can be said for the military as well. Not having the general and his COS on the same page is a recipe for disaster.
If Harper is honest then we're going to see some Senate reform.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 21, 2013 12:26:34 GMT -5
He could start by cleaning up the language of the ethics rule.
By simply changing it to "ALL monies exchanging hand must be declared to XXXX", that will erase any and all ambiguity. Then he can make it illegal/unethical to take ANY monies by ANY means from anyone. Currently, Justin Trudeau is driving a train through it by claiming his highly paid speaking engagement to particular parties are arms length. A claim that Nixon would be proud off.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 21, 2013 12:36:00 GMT -5
How do you know they weren't friends? Do you know them personally? Just read the story ... oh wait, any media is a left wing, rag, fearful of baby eating and looking for unicorns if it questions a conservative? The PMO then confirmed that Wright, a former Bay Street executive, wrote a personal cheque to Duffy as a gift to an old friend, although sources say the two men are not close.Again and again, "sources say" is not any proof other then what you (or they) think you can make it by repeating it a million times. Did you choke the last poor little unicorn to sell it's horn? That's what my sources say..... If this is all on the up and up, and in no way could be muddled in the ethics of senators ... then why did Duffy lie? Why did he say he paid it off and Wright had no role in it?? Then later he admits that it was Wright?
The night before, the senator claimed in an email to CTV News that Wright played no role and that he’d taken out a loan to repay the money.The night before when? At one point Duffy was trying to get a bank loan and not getting help from Wright. So now we get intentional muddling of the timing of events to "prove" guilt. And you rinse and repeat it. Last night, I heard the word "secret" applied by CTV to describe a private agreement 30 times . The secret agreement of the secret...secret...secret.....did we mention secret? So now, private agreements are "secrets". Do YOU have any agreements? Are they secrets? Nope, the media never spins or sensationalizes a story. Nope. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on May 21, 2013 12:40:15 GMT -5
He could start by cleaning up the language of the ethics rule. By simply changing it to "ALL monies exchanging hand must be declared to XXXX", that will erase any and all ambiguity. Then he can make it illegal/unethical to take ANY monies by ANY means from anyone. Currently, Justin Trudeau is driving a train through it by claiming his highly paid speaking engagement to particular parties are arms length. A claim that Nixon would be proud off. Well, the ball is rolling with the Tories. Harper wants to make sure he's got this cleaned up properly and completely. The NDP has been asking for an RCMP enquiry, but I suspect the Mounties would only get involved if they suspected any laws had been broken. We'll have to see what comes out of all this. I think the major problems I have are: a. A clear communications problem between the PM and is COS, and b. There seems to be a "cash-by-asking-for-it" flow between Senators and taxpayer coffers. I'd like to see each of these rectified. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 21, 2013 12:45:59 GMT -5
He could start by cleaning up the language of the ethics rule. By simply changing it to "ALL monies exchanging hand must be declared to XXXX", that will erase any and all ambiguity. Then he can make it illegal/unethical to take ANY monies by ANY means from anyone. Currently, Justin Trudeau is driving a train through it by claiming his highly paid speaking engagement to particular parties are arms length. A claim that Nixon would be proud off. Well, the ball is rolling with the Tories. Harper wants to make sure he's got this cleaned up properly and completely. The NDP has been asking for an RCMP enquiry, but I suspect the Mounties would only get involved if they suspected any laws had been broken. We'll have to see what comes out of all this. I think the major problems I have are: a. A clear communications problem between the PM and is COS, and b. There seems to be a "cash-by-asking-for-it" flow between Senators and taxpayer coffers. I'd like to see each of these rectified. Cheers. The NDP is asking....because it thinks it can deflect from the recent gutting in BC. Liberals are strangely silent because the Conservatives will make Trudeau "speaking engagements" the real issue. Anywho...anything that cleans up the public pig $$$$tein is good. Harper will clean it up and come out of this smelling like roses...because he can. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on May 21, 2013 19:18:04 GMT -5
Wrong this or that....but.... Does ANYONE have a link where it says that lending money o a senator is illegal or has to be declared? I real link.....and to something from a partisan site? I suspect the rules might be (re)defined clarified for us in the near future. It's a dominating news story and the media is not leaving it alone. I listened to the PM earlier today. Though he didn't say it, I believe resolution to this conflict to be his primary focus. He, too, has some questions to answer. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on May 21, 2013 19:23:11 GMT -5
He still is. He's not a politician, he's a hired GM. Wright was Harper's chief of staff....a direct line to the PM. And Duffy is a Senator that Harper appointed. And if Harper doesn't know what one of his right-hand men are doing....do you really believe that? Right on ... for sure ... a disaster if the two aren't on the same page. So, did Harper know about it? I was watching him today, CH, and he looked like he'd been blindsided. If he was then I have reservations about the communication between he and his COS. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by blny on May 21, 2013 19:49:46 GMT -5
Duffy instantly becomes the biggest, pardon the pun, hyporcite in Canadian political history. As a Maritimer, he was routinely a part of the ATV news landscape. He pulled few punches in his reports from Ottawa. Now he's the headline. Now he's the one ducking.
I sincerely hope the RCMP is considering an investigation. The odor coming off this is sticking to a few people. I have a hard time believing the PM wasn't aware of what was going on. The PM would be intimately aware of everything going on in his office. I want someone to find out how far this goes, and if it truly goes as far as I think it does it should impeach the Prime Minister.
I hope these events lead to significant Senate reform. You can surely bet it will be something the other parties will have in their platform. Perhaps it's even time to consider something as extreme as abolishing it altogether. Clearly, the only prerequisite is to have an over inflated sense of self.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on May 21, 2013 21:09:50 GMT -5
Watching CBC roast the PM. The portion of the PM's address I saw had the PM engaged. However, CBC showed that he also failed to answer any questions reference the Senate scandal. In fact, he outright ignored the press.
Harper has also departed for Peru to conduct trade talks. Thought he might stick around to see this crisis through.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 21, 2013 21:34:45 GMT -5
I hope these events lead to significant Senate reform. that will fit into Harper's plans nicely . . . he's been trying for it for how many years now? always stymied. that will be interesting . . . at least when the Liberals speak up, as they have been dragging the discussion. oy, the constitutional wrangling on the horizon. not that I disagree with the sentiment, but boy o boy will it be messy: Charlottetown and Meech Lake rolled into one and tripled. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 21, 2013 21:36:33 GMT -5
Harper has also departed for Peru to conduct trade talks. Thought he might stick around to see this crisis through. priorities, Dis. in a month this crisis will be forgotten [mostly] as another takes its place [either political, financial, or environmental]. money and trade, however, keep us in business. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on May 21, 2013 21:56:04 GMT -5
Harper has also departed for Peru to conduct trade talks. Thought he might stick around to see this crisis through. priorities, Dis. in a month this crisis will be forgotten [mostly] as another takes its place [either political, financial, or environmental]. money and trade, however, keep us in business. Did you see that, though, Franko? Harper just sat there looking at the media as they peppered him with questions. Peter Mansbridge suggested that this easily the worst scandal for the Harper Tories. That said, I find the PM's silence to be part of what you're suggesting. Next month and a lot of voters will have moved on. But, I hope the media continues to press for answers. Something tells me that they won't be moving on. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 22, 2013 0:29:15 GMT -5
Even if Harper knew, and this is nothing but pure speculation, impeach him on what? Bad hair? Bad smile? Nose hairs? We're exactly is the criminality? They didn't impeach Chretien that directly tied him to the quarter billion Quebec scam, but Harper will be impeached based on someone making a loan to someone else? Who really haven't broken any laws to begin with? Really? Just because the Dippers want to scream "RCMP" to get maximum mileage, no actual criminal laws have been broken. Unless of course we want the RCMP to investigate bad politics. Harper will come back, introduce clearer rules for the senate, fire or "voluntarily resign" anyone connected and CTV will need to find another "scandal" story. Perhaps CTV can meet with drug dealers and purchase a video of Harper singing in the shower. That should sink him for sure.  |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 22, 2013 0:32:21 GMT -5
As 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". I'm wondering why Wright resigned if he did nothing wrong. Moreover, why did Wallin and Duffy (try to) distance themselves from the Tories by left the Caucus if they did nothing wrong? Cheers. Criminally wrong and politically wrong are two different things. Duffy/Wright embarrassed Harper and he's not known to let things fester. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 22, 2013 0:36:23 GMT -5
Wrong this or that....but.... Does ANYONE have a link where it says that lending money o a senator is illegal or has to be declared? I real link.....and to something from a partisan site? I suspect the rules might be (re)defined clarified for us in the near future. It's a dominating news story and the media is not leaving it alone. I listened to the PM earlier today. Though he didn't say it, I believe resolution to this conflict to be his primary focus. He, too, has some questions to answer. Cheers. Of course the lefty media will not let it alone. Yesterday I heard "secret deal" on CTV about 30 times in a 5 minute segment. Notice not a single peep about Justin the Favorite Son taking speaking money from people who he later has to discuss in parliament. |
|
