Re: OK. Harper's dead meat...
 

And don't forget that over many years The Puffster has gained an intimate knowledge of "where all the bodies are buried" ! I think that this is only just beginning to get interesting. :ohmy:

Re: OK. Harper's dead meat...
 

http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpa...ge=gal&b_pge=1

Quite.

CBC rolled out Norman Specter this morning as well, (former Chief of Staff to Brian Mulroney for you newcomers). He didn't use the phrase "dead meat" but that's what he said anyway.

Re: OK. Harper's dead meat...
 

In the worst case for Harper, isn't it just proven that he allowed taxes revenues to be used to fund promotion of his political party? That's corrupt, sure, but not especially so for a Canadian Prime Minister; Chretien and Mulrooney also had their fingers in the till. I don't see that it would finish him.

Re: OK. Harper's dead meat...
 

Refreshingly candid speech.
Thanks for posting.

Re: OK. Harper's dead meat...
 

Oakvillan, re: criminal charges against Duffy - remember it was overzealous RCMP that wound up getting Mulroney off. It could be they, (Duffy's lawyers) are planning it like that and welcome any investigation if they're prepared for it. Wright was supposed o be the bagman and the whole thing finished until the mounties started fishing around for a cheque. We got our money back and maybe his pension, and that should be enough because they will sue. I put the odds of Wallin suing at better than half already. Meanwhile all the rest of the senate is still working away at spending our money and giving nothing but entertainment in return. What would Caesar do? The Hell's Angels would invite them to a meeting in the country. My wild irrarional guess is the senate is going to be dismantled like scaffolding, beginning with the 4 or 5 that are already going or gone then Harper will (possibly) come out smelling like a rose for doing it. There's just too much focus on them to survive.

Re: OK. Harper's dead meat...
 

You misunderstand me. I'm suggesting that there may be criminal charges leveled against individuals in Harper's inner circle (LeBreton? Wright?) over threats of extortion against Duffy. "Pay up $90k we acknowledge you do not really owe, or be thrown out of the Senate" sounds pretty serious to me. From everything we've heard over the last couple of days, it doesn't appear that the Scapegoat Senators have actually committed any crimes (except possibly Brazeau, of course, but that's a different matter and already sub judice).

I love Duffy's reference to "the boys in short pants down the hall." He and Wallin are both journalists - even if the PMO has managed to successfully lose all their correspondence relating to the matter, they cannot really be surprised that the journo-senators have kept a comprehensive paper trail of the whole thing?

Edited to add: I didn't imagine I'd be leaping to defend Duffy, but it increasingly appears he's genuinely the wronged party in this. A plague on all their Houses.

Re: OK. Harper's dead meat...
 

I think it probably went like "Here Mike, the party will pick up this 90 thou and you can just say you've co-operated and the funds have been repayed and it's all good, after all, the work you've done for us on the campaign trail blah blah blah." What crimes were commited, do you think? Someone had to pay the money and Duffy didn't want to and the Tories owed him. I'd like to read the mind of that Lebreton lady in charge, if they are all for the chop I think she knows, either through intuition or logic.

Re: OK. Harper's dead meat...
 

Not according to Duffy's statement in the Senate yesterday. This is from the transcript:
Give us 90 grand or we'll throw you out of the Senate. That seems to me to be demanding money with menaces.

Re: OK. Harper's dead meat...
 

Surely the money has to be taken in context. It was a paid expenses claim which is then disputed and requested back. Granted the validity of the dispute is questionable, but framing it as extortion seems a bit excessive. It's political maneuvering and goes with the territory I would suggest.

Re: OK. Harper's dead meat...
 

Does everyone believe Mike Duffy? I'm not sure I do. he's an ex-journo and a story teller. Just because he can spin a good yarn doesn;t mean it's a true yarn.

I"m not a big fan of Harper, but I'm skeptical of Duffy.

Re: OK. Harper's dead meat...
 

Storm in a teacup.

Of course, one can say what one wishes to in Parliament due to privilege.

The UK had its expenses scandal some years ago, Alberta had its expenses scandal recently, the Feds are having their scandal now.

Re: OK. Harper's dead meat...
 

I think that's the point. There was an acknowledgement (which has not been denied) that Harper and Wright were satisfied that Duffy had not broken any rules, and was not, strictly speaking, required to pay back the $90k. The "scenario" was cooked up to appease the Conservative base, and to create the appearance of a settlement so that it could all be brushed under the carpet.

If Duffy's account of proceedings is supported by a good paper trail (which he claims it is, and is now in the hands of the RCMP and his lawyers) then I don't think extortion is necessarily putting it too strongly at all. What gives it the extra twist is that Wright provided the cheque, so it's not so much that money was extorted, but there's something fishy around threats, bribery, attempts to corrupt a member of the legislature. None of which makes Harper look any less autocratic and controlling.

Largely because of that autocracy, none of his sitting MPs has been able to build a base of power from which to challenge his leadership - yet. Somebody posted a good commentary on this up-thread. But I wouldn't be surprised if he's manoeuvred out of office by an internal coup rather than an election defeat. Comparisons to Thatcher and her defenestration by a frustrated caucus are hard to avoid... who'd have thought John Major had the power base to unseat a three-term Prime Minister from within?

Re: OK. Harper's dead meat...
 

He said, she said, they said etc etc. Without documentary evidence if it exists then hard to prove or disprove. Even the auditors stated the rules around eligible expenses were not black and white and open to interpretation as to what or could not be claimed. I wonder if they went back and audited every claim by a Senator or even an MP there would be numerous claims flagged for review and further investigation.
I know when I travel the NJC clearly states what Im allowed but when you get to Ministerial level and above the rules are not as clear.
Seems strange that several Senators are under scrutiny and claiming they were told they were following the rules or their interpretation of them and not willingly trying to defraud the taxpayer.

Re: OK. Harper's dead meat...
 

Did he, or did he simply inherit the position once others had unseated her?

Re: OK. Harper's dead meat...
 

There's a quid pro quo for everything and nothing very much suprising in what's being described in the media. The suprise is how it's got out of control and into the public eye.