[Newsbot]

Title: Mike Duffy cleared of all 31 charges of fraud, breach of trust
Category: Political
Posted By: ShepherdsDog
Date: 2016-04-21 13:53:57
Canadian

[uwish]

While I never personally believe he did anything wrong, this and the judges comments just to to show that our 'rules and standard operating procedures' in the upper house are a complete and utter shit show. Every one of those fucks is just suckling the tit that is the taxpayer. And while not criminally responsible, it goes to show you just how corrupt the upper chamber is overall.

[Lemmy]

Forcillo, Ghomeshi, Duffy. The shit trifecta. "A Shitfecta, Randy."

[Freakinoldguy]

This is what happens when you have an unelected organization with less rules and regulations than the Girl Scouts. Like I said when this first happened. People don't get appointed to the Senate and then immediately start scamming the taxpayer. They were told how to do it by someone with authority and then they took full advantage of it.


I wonder when he'll sue to recoup his or should I say Nigel Wrights money. BTW for those who wanted the PM impeached, shot, drawn and quartered because of this debacle allow me to remind you that lending money to an innocent man isn't illegal, yet.

[andyt]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

ROTFL


This is what happens when you have an unelected organization with less rules and regulations than the Girl Scouts. Like I said when this first happened. People don't get appointed to the Senate and then immediately start scamming the taxpayer. They were told how to do it by someone with authority and then they took full advantage of it.


I wonder when he'll sue to recoup his or should I say Nigel Wrights money. BTW for those who wanted the PM impeached, shot, drawn and quartered because of this debacle allow me to remind you that lending money to an innocent man isn't illegal, yet.

Well, just so you don't get all dewey eyed about Stevo:

$1:

Justice Charles Vaillancourt said the Prime Minister's Office under Harper treated Senators as "pawns" and described Duffy as just another "piece on the chess board."

"The political, covert, relentless unfolding of events is mind-boggling and shocking," he said. "The precision and planning of the exercise would make any military commander proud. But in the context of a democratic society, the plotting that's revealed in the emails can only be described as unacceptable."

Vaillancourt portrayed Duffy as an unwilling partner in a scheme to accept a $90,000 cheque from Harper's former chief of staff Nigel Wright to cover questionable expenses, even though they were likely legitimate,

"Could Hollywood match their creativity?" he asked.

Interesting that you deem politicians doing anything as long as it's not actually illegal as OK with you. Or at least the Conservative ones, I guess.

[andyt]

$1:

The judge delivered a stinging rebuke of the Crown’s case, especially when it came to Wright’s payment of $90,000 to Duffy so he would repay the Senate. Vaillancourt said the former top PMO aide to Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper and his other staffers used a “steady stream of threats and pressure” on Duffy, cajoling him to “do the right thing.”
“It is interesting that no one ever suggested doing ‘the legal thing,’ ” said the judge in his 308-page ruling.
The judge said reading the PMO email traffic was like “peering through the looking glass” of the inner workings of the PMO.
“Was Nigel Wright actually ordering senior members of the Senate around as if they were mere pawns on a chessboard? Were those same senior members of the Senate meekly acquiescing to Mr. Wright’s orders? Were those same senior members of the Senate robotically marching forth to recite their provided scripted lines? Did Nigel Wright really direct a Senator to approach a senior member of an accounting firm that was conducting an independent audit of the Senate with the intention to either get a peek at the report or part of the report prior to its release to the appropriate Senate authorities or to influence that report in anyway?”
“Does the reading of these emails give the impression that Senator Duffy was going to do as he was told or face the consequences? The answers . . . are YES; YES; YES; YES; YES; and YES!!!!!”
“The political, covert, relentless, unfolding of events is mindboggling and shocking. The precision and planning of the exercise would make any military commander proud.”
The judge concluded the PMO designed a scenario to have Duffy repay, even if it meant Wright handed over a cheque. It “was not for the benefit of Senate Duffy, but rather, it was for the benefit of the government and the PMO.
“This was damage control at its finest.”
Moreover, the judge suggested the Crown fingered the wrong person for criticism, in stating “that Mr. Duffy’s actions were driven by deceit, manipulation, and carried out in a clandestine manner representing a serious and marked departure from the standard expected of a person in Sen. Duffy’s position of trust.
“I find that if one were to substitute the PMO, Nigel Wright and the others for Sen. Duffy in the aforementioned sentence, that you would have a more accurate statement.”

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016 ... rdict.html

[andyt]

$1:

2. "The prime minister's explicit advice was believed and relied upon reasonably by Mr. Duffy. This was not some minor bureaucratic official speaking but the prime minister of Canada."

Vaillancourt ruled that Duffy went to the very top for advice and reassurances that he could, in fact, represent P.E.I. in the Senate. Duffy testified that he had told Harper he was concerned about representing the province, as it would cause controversy among local Conservative bigwigs who were intent on taking the seat for themselves.

Duffy also reminded the prime minister that he hadn't lived in the province for decades, but had a seasonal cottage in Cavendish. Harper told him that he should ignore chattering party officials, and that he should claim his cottage as his primary residence. That move would, in turn, satisfy his constitutional requirements to sit as the P.E.I. senator.


6. 'The political, covert, relentless, unfolding of events is mind-boggling and shocking. The precision and planning of the exercise would make any military commander proud. However, in the context of a democratic society, the plotting as revealed in the emails can only be described as unacceptable.'

Vaillancourt said the lengths that Wright and his "crew" went through to cover up Duffy's circumstances, to craft a communications strategy and to put an end to the media saga was unprecedented.

Their communications plan — which included outright fabrications — was "unacceptable," in a democracy, the judge wrote.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mike-du ... -1.3547416

[Thanos]

I thought we were only supposed to cover up crimes and not non-crimes. Makes me long for the halcyon days when the worst that would happen would be Liberal senators living in their villas in Puerto Vallarta year-round and claiming a full year's pay for showing up once per year at the senate's opening day before jetting back to the poolside. Burn it. Burn it all.

[herbie]

I'm not surprised at all. FFS if you get nailed with a fine for speeding what the hell does it matter if your Mom or your wife paid it for you? That's bullshit.
As for the rest, sure he was exposed taking advantage of all the loose rules. But criminal charges were like trying to claim tax avoidance is the same as tax evasion. The loopholes are there to be taken advantage of, and only silly people don't use advantages given to them.

[Freakinoldguy]

andyt andyt:

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

ROTFL


This is what happens when you have an unelected organization with less rules and regulations than the Girl Scouts. Like I said when this first happened. People don't get appointed to the Senate and then immediately start scamming the taxpayer. They were told how to do it by someone with authority and then they took full advantage of it.


I wonder when he'll sue to recoup his or should I say Nigel Wrights money. BTW for those who wanted the PM impeached, shot, drawn and quartered because of this debacle allow me to remind you that lending money to an innocent man isn't illegal, yet.

Well, just so you don't get all dewey eyed about Stevo:

$1:

Justice Charles Vaillancourt said the Prime Minister's Office under Harper treated Senators as "pawns" and described Duffy as just another "piece on the chess board."

"The political, covert, relentless unfolding of events is mind-boggling and shocking," he said. "The precision and planning of the exercise would make any military commander proud. But in the context of a democratic society, the plotting that's revealed in the emails can only be described as unacceptable."

Vaillancourt portrayed Duffy as an unwilling partner in a scheme to accept a $90,000 cheque from Harper's former chief of staff Nigel Wright to cover questionable expenses, even though they were likely legitimate,

"Could Hollywood match their creativity?" he asked.

Interesting that you deem politicians doing anything as long as it's not actually illegal as OK with you. Or at least the Conservative ones, I guess.

So, the judge described the man who begged two previous PM's to let him become a Senator and bilked the taxpayers out of a large chunk of change as a pawn, while reviling the former PM.

With that in mind I'd take Vaillancourts verdict and "opinion" about the PMO's Office under Harper's involvement with a grain of salt because it smacks of political infighting rather than a real honest judgement. Although, I will agree that Duffy was likely an unwilling partner in the repayment of the monies he was alleged to have stolen because, given the ambiguity of rules and regulations in the Senate you could have committed murder and it wouldn't have been illegal which, is why he always felt he was innocent and oddly enough as it turned out he was.

Was Harper complicit in redacting the original report on Duffy's miscarriages of justice and paying off money he apparently never misappropriated? The answer is "maybe" but, because the term "sources say" is not evidence and is nothing more than inuendo the PM is still considered innocent despite the fact that you and Mr. Vaillancourt opine that he did something morally reprehensible. Although in your case, after years of venomous anti Harper rants I'd expect nothing less than you jumping on someone's opinion before passing judgement with no hard evidence proving guilt.

So to put it in a nutshell. The PM is still innocent, Mike Duffy is "completely" innocent, the Senate is still corrupt, the taxpayers are out over 90K and you're still tilting at windmills. Sound about right to you?

[DrCaleb]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

BTW for those who wanted the PM impeached, shot, drawn and quartered because of this debacle allow me to remind you that lending money to an innocent man isn't illegal, yet. [moon]

It's actually in the criminal code:

$1:

121 (1) Every one commits an offence who

(a) directly or indirectly

(i) gives, offers or agrees to give or offer to an official or to any member of his family, or to any one for the benefit of an official, or

(ii) being an official, demands, accepts or offers or agrees to accept from any person for himself or another person,

a loan, reward, advantage or benefit of any kind as consideration for cooperation, assistance, exercise of influence or an act or omission in connection with

(iii) the transaction of business with or any matter of business relating to the government, or

(iv) a claim against Her Majesty or any benefit that Her Majesty is authorized or is entitled to bestow,

whether or not, in fact, the official is able to cooperate, render assistance, exercise influence or do or omit to do what is proposed, as the case may be;

$1:

(b) having dealings of any kind with the government, directly or indirectly pays a commission or reward to or confers an advantage or benefit of any kind on an employee or official of the government with which the dealings take place, or to any member of the employee’s or official’s family, or to anyone for the benefit of the employee or official, with respect to those dealings, unless the person has the consent in writing of the head of the branch of government with which the dealings take place;

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts ... .html#h-52

It was illegal for Nigel to offer $90k, without the consent of the PM. Since Duffy testified that he, Nigel Wright and the PM had a conversation about repayment, and Mr. Wright offered in front of the PM, I suspect that was the basis of dismissing the Bribery charge.

[BRAH]

Maybe it's time to abolish the Senate.

[andyt]

Can't. But we abolished Harper and his slime fest PMO, so that's something.

[2Cdo]

andyt andyt:

Can't. But we abolished Harper and his slime fest PMO, so that's something.

[andyt]

2Cdo 2Cdo:

andyt andyt:

Can't. But we abolished Harper and his slime fest PMO, so that's something.