[Goober911]

This court case is gonna be a fun time to watch squirmin.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mike-du ... -1.2710244

On the face of it, it seems at odds with basic logic.

How did a payment seemingly deemed perfectly legal while in the hands of the giver — in this case, the Prime Minister's former chief of staff, Nigel Wright, who lost his job over the controversy — turn into an alleged bribe the instant it found its way to the recipient, Senator Mike Duffy?

A definitive answer to that question will likely have to wait until the case against Duffy goes to court. We may get a better idea of the extenuating circumstances that led to charges against Duffy but not against the man who gave him the $90,000 to cover expenses that were under review and later deemed inappropriate when documents associated with the case are released.

In April, the RCMP effectively cleared Wright of criminal wrongdoing related to what they described at the time as "the gifting of $90,000" to Duffy.

"Upon completion of the investigation," the force said in a statement, "we have concluded that the evidence gathered does not support criminal charges against Mr. Wright."

That suggests the Mounties may have been persuaded that Wright's actions failed to meet the threshold for intent needed to lay charges related to "bribery of judicial officers," which requires that an offer be made "corruptly," a term that, somewhat unhelpfully, isn't explicitly defined in law.

The use of the word "gifting" in the earlier release, when read with hindsight, would seem to hint at such a determination.

A gift, after all, is freely given, with no strings — or, to use the parlance of Section 119(1) of the Criminal Code, no requirement that something that has or is to be "done or omitted by that person in their official capacity."

That still doesn't entirely explain how accepting such a gift could be done corruptly, but at least it provides a possible basis for the markedly differing interpretations of the motivation behind those on either side of that fateful transaction.

Indeed, retired parliamentary law clerk Rob Walsh told CBC News last fall that it was unlikely Wright would face charges over the payment.

Mike Duffy's $90K cheque no crime, says former House law clerk

"What benefit did Duffy give to Wright in exchange for the $90,000? That Duffy make no further media comments? This is not a benefit to Wright," he pointed out via email.

"The funds were given to Duffy to bring the Duffy expenses controversy to an end, like settling a lawsuit. This is not fraud, nor is it breach of trust."

"I don't see any of this supporting criminal charges," Walsh concluded.

"It's just self-serving politics."

In any case, from the perspective of the prime minister and his party, that version of events, while not ideal, is several orders of political magnitude better than the alternative — namely, having one or more senior staffers, past or present, join Duffy on the docket.

But it could also put Harper — and, potentially, other sitting parliamentarians, particularly on the Senate side, as well as current and former staffers — on the long list of potential witnesses who could be called upon when the case goes to trial. Sources say Wright has been advised to be ready to make himself available.

It's clear from Duffy's lawyer's preemptive response to the charges that the one-time star of the Conservative fundraising circuit believes the best defence is a good offence, and is training his sights on both the prime minister and his inner circle.

[Goober911]

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/07/21 ... documents/

Sen. Mike Duffy allegedly charged the Senate for personal travel to funerals, and disbursed money to three people for illegitimate expenses under the guise of a consulting contract.

The allegations are contained in newly released court documents. The documents were made public Monday, several days after the RCMP announced that it was charging the suspended senator with 31 criminal counts.

The charges stem from Duffy’s expense claims, consulting contracts handed out over four years, and bribery allegations related to a $90,000 payment from Nigel Wright, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s former chief of staff.

[Thanos]

The label "fucking prick" seems somewhat appropriate for use when it comes to descriptions for Duffy.

[Zipperfish]

jj2424 jj2424:

and Mac Harb who is most likely the biggest crook of them all walks away Scot free with a BIG FAT pension to boot. Big fuckin surprise.

ahhh, muffin.

[raydan]

Aren't all pricks "fucking pricks"?

[raydan]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

jj2424 jj2424:

and Mac Harb who is most likely the biggest crook of them all walks away Scot free with a BIG FAT pension to boot. Big fuckin surprise.

ahhh, muffin.

The other side did it first, they did it more often, they did it better... greatest argument in the world.

[DrCaleb]

Goober911 Goober911:

How did a payment seemingly deemed perfectly legal while in the hands of the giver — in this case, the Prime Minister's former chief of staff, Nigel Wright, who lost his job over the controversy — turn into an alleged bribe the instant it found its way to the recipient, Senator Mike Duffy?

Because you can't bribe yourself, so it takes 2 to commit bribery. But proving it is difficult, so letting Wright slide in return for his testimony against Duffy seems the logical route.

[andyt]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Goober911 Goober911:

How did a payment seemingly deemed perfectly legal while in the hands of the giver — in this case, the Prime Minister's former chief of staff, Nigel Wright, who lost his job over the controversy — turn into an alleged bribe the instant it found its way to the recipient, Senator Mike Duffy?

Because you can't bribe yourself, so it takes 2 to commit bribery. But proving it is difficult, so letting Wright slide in return for his testimony against Duffy seems the logical route.

I've never understood how our justice system can countenance that. I thought justice was supposed to be about fairness, but instead we condemn one equally guilty party as criminal scum, let the other slide. To me this was highlighted by the Robert Pickton verdict, where the jury wouldn't convict him of first degree because they believed others were involved, but they didn't want to let him off either. This sort of thing should not be allowed.

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Goober911 Goober911:

How did a payment seemingly deemed perfectly legal while in the hands of the giver — in this case, the Prime Minister's former chief of staff, Nigel Wright, who lost his job over the controversy — turn into an alleged bribe the instant it found its way to the recipient, Senator Mike Duffy?

Because you can't bribe yourself, so it takes 2 to commit bribery. But proving it is difficult, so letting Wright slide in return for his testimony against Duffy seems the logical route.

I've never understood how our justice system can countenance that. I thought justice was supposed to be about fairness, but instead we condemn one equally guilty party as criminal scum, let the other slide. To me this was highlighted by the Robert Pickton verdict, where the jury wouldn't convict him of first degree because they believed others were involved, but they didn't want to let him off either. This sort of thing should not be allowed.

If everyone walks, is it justice? If they don't get Wright to testify against Duffy, everyone walks and justice is not served. At least this way, someone who is going to go down anyhow, will pay for the crime.

[andyt]

let him plead to a lesser charge, fine, I can live with that. But to say that one is guilty one is not is too much for me. At the very least Duffy should be able to bring this up in his defense - the crown doesn't seem to think Wright is guilty, so why me? I smacks of favoritism - who you know, who's protecting you.

[BRAH]

One could buy I didn't know I was doing anything wrong excuse from a fresh faced Senator but Duffy has been around long enough to know how the game was played and he got caught, sucks to be him.

[Goober911]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Goober911 Goober911:

How did a payment seemingly deemed perfectly legal while in the hands of the giver — in this case, the Prime Minister's former chief of staff, Nigel Wright, who lost his job over the controversy — turn into an alleged bribe the instant it found its way to the recipient, Senator Mike Duffy?

Because you can't bribe yourself, so it takes 2 to commit bribery. But proving it is difficult, so letting Wright slide in return for his testimony against Duffy seems the logical route.

In Wrights case would he receive a tangible benefit.
He also had a habit of paying all his expenses.