Isn't the current situation that Mr. Harper has kicked the butt of his bag man, the one he says paid the expenses, not the people who took the money?

Did more than one person have their expenses paid? Is there any doubt that Mr Wright paid the expenses of Mr Duffy? Is there any proof that Mr Harper knew all of this?

Not yet. But he obviously did. Dead meat.

Does it matter whether or not it's right that they are illegal? The law states that they are. Is the fact that crack is illegal not enough to indicate that a man who smokes it, while in public office, and while so drunk* that he has no clear recollection of what he's doing, is not a fit person to hold that office?

* note: while I acknowledge that alcohol is not illegal, many things that are otherwise perfectly legal become prohibited while intoxicated. Does it matter that alcohol is not illegal? I find your questions in this post rather bizarre. You seem to be bringing one hell of a red herring into the debate. What are you trying to get at - what's the point of these questions? Nobody is suggesting that Rob Ford has tried to excuse his actions because the law is wrong.

Yes, but I suppose that's his function, (Designated Goat). Maybe he'll be rewarded somehow later for his loyalty, (try saying it like Don Corleone). How can Wright deflect blame from our Leader? Is there anything he can do? Is there any criminal charge that might be laid against Harper that Wright could scuttle by accepting blame? One of you who lives in Ottawa, go look and see if the lights are on at RCMP Headquarters at night.

Yes, from party funds. AFAIK there's only one case where it's claimed that a party official paid expenses personally, out of the goodness of his heart.

In the sense that money went from the bank account of one to that of the other, no. I think there's all kinds of doubt over the actual source of the funds.

At this point there is only the circumstantial evidence that he's intimately involved in every other matter concerning his party. Proof doesn't much matter though, the whole matter is about image, it stems from an attempt by the party to conceal a fishy looking lack of wrongdoing.

I think that's the most bizarre thing about this whole saga, especially as relates to Mike Duffy. It seems apparent that Duffy's expenses, mostly related to his Ottawa residence, were deemed appropriate by the very Senate committee whose purpose is to check these things. The only reason for those expenses not to have been appropriate would be that he was considered not to be resident in PEI; if that's the case, then he should not have been eligible to be appointed (by Harper) as a Senator for PEI.

Harper is trying to have it both ways, here: I appointed you as a Senator for PEI, because you live there. But you don't live there, so you can't claim expenses for your house in Ottawa. So we'll cook up a story, pay back your legitimately-claimed expenses, and watch the whole thing blow up in our faces.

Presumably now that Duffy, Wallin and Brazeau have been kicked out they have even less to lose. No longer bound by Parliamentary convention, expect the accusations to start flying. Beyond the revolving door of the PMO, I don't imagine that Marjory Lebreton, for one, will come out of this with her reputation intact. Her office seems to have been the primary source of much of the duplicity in the upper house.

Vancouver Mayor also caught smoking

tasty! i love smoked salmon

The tie selection was exemplary.

Yes.

No.

So here's what I've learned from our mayors.

Toronto: walking heart-attack, overweight, smokes crack, angry

Vancouver: skinny, healthy, bikes everywhere, oooooommmmmm

London, UK: messy hair, cycles, sense of humour, straight talking

...wants to be Prime Minister (when he grows up).