OK. Harper's dead meat...
Oct 23rd 2013 | 9:01 am
#76
Realist
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 24,667
From: UK
Re: OK. Harper's dead meat...
What I am accusing Harper of doing is neither here nor there. What Duffy and Wallin have come as close as they dare to accusing Harper of doing is lying about his lack of knowledge of, or involvement in, the threats to have them thrown out of the Senate unless they bow to his will, and in Duffy's case of lying about his lack of involvement in or knowledge of the "scenario" of the $90k cheque written by Wright. If there is convincing evidence that Harper was a party to those negotiations - which he has categorically and frequently denied on the floor of the House - then that is a very serious matter indeed.
Threats to remove the whip are one thing: threats to have a Senator hounded out of office altogether, threatening their livelihood, is quite another. And if he has abused Parliament by repeatedly telling untruths on the floor of the Chamber, he cannot continue to sit as an MP, let alone as PM.
Threats to remove the whip are one thing: threats to have a Senator hounded out of office altogether, threatening their livelihood, is quite another. And if he has abused Parliament by repeatedly telling untruths on the floor of the Chamber, he cannot continue to sit as an MP, let alone as PM.
Oct 23rd 2013 | 9:17 am
#77
Thread Starter
Born again atheist
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 30,259
From: Europe (to be specified).
Re: OK. Harper's dead meat...
What I am accusing Harper of doing is neither here nor there. What Duffy and Wallin have come as close as they dare to accusing Harper of doing is lying about his lack of knowledge of, or involvement in, the threats to have them thrown out of the Senate unless they bow to his will, and in Duffy's case of lying about his lack of involvement in or knowledge of the "scenario" of the $90k cheque written by Wright. If there is convincing evidence that Harper was a party to those negotiations - which he has categorically and frequently denied on the floor of the House - then that is a very serious matter indeed.
Threats to remove the whip are one thing: threats to have a Senator hounded out of office altogether, threatening their livelihood, is quite another. And if he has abused Parliament by repeatedly telling untruths on the floor of the Chamber, he cannot continue to sit as an MP, let alone as PM.
Threats to remove the whip are one thing: threats to have a Senator hounded out of office altogether, threatening their livelihood, is quite another. And if he has abused Parliament by repeatedly telling untruths on the floor of the Chamber, he cannot continue to sit as an MP, let alone as PM.
This afternoon he said something very different.
It also seems possible (probable? we'll see later tonight) that enough conservative Senators will support the amendment to the motion to strip the three targets of their status, thereby ensuring that (a) the issue won't go way and (b) Harper's losing control of an important part of the Conservative party.
Oct 23rd 2013 | 9:49 am
#78
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 13,402
From: South of Calgary
Re: OK. Harper's dead meat...
What I am accusing Harper of doing is neither here nor there. What Duffy and Wallin have come as close as they dare to accusing Harper of doing is lying about his lack of knowledge of, or involvement in, the threats to have them thrown out of the Senate unless they bow to his will, and in Duffy's case of lying about his lack of involvement in or knowledge of the "scenario" of the $90k cheque written by Wright. If there is convincing evidence that Harper was a party to those negotiations - which he has categorically and frequently denied on the floor of the House - then that is a very serious matter indeed.
I agree that if Harper did have personal involvement in the cheque saga, and has lied about that to the House, he should be removed as an MP.
I agree with that
Oct 23rd 2013 | 10:03 am
#79
Thread Starter
Born again atheist
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 30,259
From: Europe (to be specified).
Re: OK. Harper's dead meat...
This may partially explain the hostility from Senator LeBreton et al.
Oct 23rd 2013 | 10:16 am
#80
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 13,402
From: South of Calgary
Re: OK. Harper's dead meat...
Traditionally, a Senator remains so until s/he's 75. Wallin is an exception (likely not the only one) who agreed to an eight year term. She was appointed (by Harper) in 2009 and pledged to step down in 2017 or whenever Saskatchewan holds it's first election to the Senate.
This may partially explain the hostility from Senator LeBreton et al.
This may partially explain the hostility from Senator LeBreton et al.
Oct 23rd 2013 | 10:23 am
#81
Thread Starter
Born again atheist
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 30,259
From: Europe (to be specified).
Re: OK. Harper's dead meat...
There was a Liberal Senator who was kicked out this way because he lived in Mexico and never attended Senate for several years. No problem with that.
There's never been any sort of precedent for kicking 3 Senators out in a single vote for unproven "gross negligence", the details of which three (very different) charges have not been presented in evidence in the Senate Chamber itself.
Oct 23rd 2013 | 10:26 am
#82
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 13,402
From: South of Calgary
Re: OK. Harper's dead meat...
Yes. The Senate itself can suspend/dismiss a member after due process which means bringing evidence for debate in the House and allowing the target to defend themselves with legal representation at the bar.
There was a Liberal Senator who was kicked out this way because he lived in Mexico and never attended Senate for several years. No problem with that.
There's never been any sort of precedent for kicking 3 Senators out in a single vote for unproven "gross negligence", the details of which three (very different) charges have not been presented in evidence in the Senate Chamber itself.
There was a Liberal Senator who was kicked out this way because he lived in Mexico and never attended Senate for several years. No problem with that.
There's never been any sort of precedent for kicking 3 Senators out in a single vote for unproven "gross negligence", the details of which three (very different) charges have not been presented in evidence in the Senate Chamber itself.
Have 3 been kicked out by an entity other than the Senate? Or has the Senate done so without due process? As you may notice, I have not been following this.
Oct 23rd 2013 | 10:49 am
#83
Thread Starter
Born again atheist
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 30,259
From: Europe (to be specified).
Re: OK. Harper's dead meat...
As I said, no. There is no precedent.
Edited to helpfully add: Harper's screwed both ways. Either the amendment passes, in which case he's lost control, or the Senate motion passes, in which case one of more of the victims will take it to court. Then Wright, perhaps Harper himself, will either have to admit the truth or commit perjury. Lose-lose. Dead meat.
Last edited by Novocastrian; Oct 23rd 2013 at 11:07 am.
Oct 23rd 2013 | 11:53 am
#84
Stand-up Philosopher
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,344
From: Regina Saskatchewan
Oct 23rd 2013 | 11:55 am
#85
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 13,402
From: South of Calgary
Re: OK. Harper's dead meat...
I wasn't referring to precedent, I was talking about recently. You post made it sound as if 3 have already been kicked out. Having just watched the news, it appears that this is not the case.
I see you are convinced of Harper's culpability, I see from his performance today that he has upped the ante somewhat. If what he said is incorrect, he is dead meat. The question is: would he be that stupid?
He must be confident that what he has said is correct. I will be interested to see if those facing disciplinary matters will take it to Court. They would have to be very confident that they are able to prove their position. It reminds me of Lance Armstrong's position. Time will tell but, in the big scheme of things, I suspect it will prove to be a minor distraction
Edited to helpfully add: Harper's screwed both ways. Either the amendment passes, in which case he's lost control, or the Senate motion passes, in which case one of more of the victims will take it to court. Then Wright, perhaps Harper himself, will either have to admit the truth or commit perjury. Lose-lose. Dead meat.
He must be confident that what he has said is correct. I will be interested to see if those facing disciplinary matters will take it to Court. They would have to be very confident that they are able to prove their position. It reminds me of Lance Armstrong's position. Time will tell but, in the big scheme of things, I suspect it will prove to be a minor distraction
Oct 23rd 2013 | 12:01 pm
#86
Stand-up Philosopher
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,344
From: Regina Saskatchewan
Re: OK. Harper's dead meat...
For history to repeat itself the RCMP will have to get busy and throw the mess into the courts. I just have a feeling.
Last edited by caretaker; Oct 23rd 2013 at 12:03 pm. Reason: i get these feelings
Oct 23rd 2013 | 12:57 pm
#87
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,124
Re: OK. Harper's dead meat...
just listened to pam
interesting stuff
and the comments she makes about deloitte, if accurate, are mind boggling (as any bean-counter with half a brain will conclude)
Interestingly, I've had several independent auditors tell me they were shocked that Deloitte would agree to audit my expenses under rules that were not in place when those expenses were incurred.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/10...n_4151560.html
interesting stuff
and the comments she makes about deloitte, if accurate, are mind boggling (as any bean-counter with half a brain will conclude)
Interestingly, I've had several independent auditors tell me they were shocked that Deloitte would agree to audit my expenses under rules that were not in place when those expenses were incurred.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/10...n_4151560.html
Last edited by montreal mike; Oct 23rd 2013 at 1:00 pm.
Oct 23rd 2013 | 1:44 pm
#88
Thread Starter
Born again atheist
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 30,259
From: Europe (to be specified).
Re: OK. Harper's dead meat...
I see you are convinced of Harper's culpability, I see from his performance today that he has upped the ante somewhat. If what he said is incorrect, he is dead meat. The question is: would he be that stupid?
He must be confident that what he has said is correct. I will be interested to see if those facing disciplinary matters will take it to Court. They would have to be very confident that they are able to prove their position. It reminds me of Lance Armstrong's position. Time will tell but, in the big scheme of things, I suspect it will prove to be a minor distraction
Oct 23rd 2013 | 1:50 pm
#89
Thread Starter
Born again atheist
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 30,259
From: Europe (to be specified).
Re: OK. Harper's dead meat...
As a no doubt prestigious man of the courts, could you clarify the distinction between precedent and what has happened before (recently or otherwise)?
Thanks.
Last edited by Novocastrian; Oct 23rd 2013 at 1:52 pm.
Oct 23rd 2013 | 3:59 pm
#90
Binned by Muderators
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 11,708
From: White Rock BC
Re: OK. Harper's dead meat...
...
and the comments she makes about deloitte, if accurate, are mind boggling (as any bean-counter with half a brain will conclude)
Interestingly, I've had several independent auditors tell me they were shocked that Deloitte would agree to audit my expenses under rules that were not in place when those expenses were incurred.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/10...n_4151560.html
and the comments she makes about deloitte, if accurate, are mind boggling (as any bean-counter with half a brain will conclude)
Interestingly, I've had several independent auditors tell me they were shocked that Deloitte would agree to audit my expenses under rules that were not in place when those expenses were incurred.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/10...n_4151560.html
