Mike Duffy faces 31 charges including bribery, fraud, breach of trust

How is accepting 90k bribery?

How is accepting 90k bribery?

Because he's a sitting senator, and it's specifically in the Criminal Code that no one may offer a Senator money for any reason, unless the head of the Party approves it.

I like how accepting 90k is bribery, but somehow giving it isn't bribery.

Mike Duffy faces 31 charges including bribery, fraud, breach of trust
Law & Order
Posted By:
2014-07-18 06:41:53

You'd think Duffy would have a little more sense than to operate this way after all his years covering this sort of thing? What an idiot.

I'm curious as to why the other Senators seem to have been spared any RCMP scrutiny.

How is accepting 90k bribery?

Because he's a sitting senator, and it's specifically in the Criminal Code that no one may offer a Senator money for any reason, unless the head of the Party approves it.

I like how accepting 90k is bribery, but somehow giving it isn't bribery.

Kind of like under the new anti-prostitution law, buying sex is illegal, but selling it isn't.

The police say that Wright had no corrupt intent in giving this "gift" to Duffy, and did not benefit from it. Yet somehow Duffy took it as a bribe to quit talking to the media and not cooperate with the senate inquiry into his expenses. I'm thinking the PMO may have had a hand in the police coming up with that pretzel logic.

I think this court case will turn into a situation where Duffy's lawyer tries to get Harper to say "you can't handle the truth." "I stand on a wall, guarding you from the socialists, what do you do, Greenspon?"

So, does this mean that this will go to criminal court right before the election next year?

Looks like its going to be a very hard slog for the PC's.

Duffy will make a court appearance in September. Knowing the Canadian justice system, it will be dragging on well past the election. For one thing, MP's and Senators can only testify in court 40 days before or after Parliament has stopped sitting. Duffy is sure to call some of them as a witnesses.

Poor Mikey. It's no wonder he tried to defraud the taxpayers, it must be rough for him trying to subsist on a measly $135,000+/yr patronage appointment.

How is accepting 90k bribery?

Because he's a sitting senator, and it's specifically in the Criminal Code that no one may offer a Senator money for any reason, unless the head of the Party approves it.

I like how accepting 90k is bribery, but somehow giving it isn't bribery.
Okay, you're a Senator in serious trouble so I give you 90k to get yourself out of a jam and you're charged with bribery while I am charged with nothing, hmm I set you up.

Because he's a sitting senator, and it's specifically in the Criminal Code that no one may offer a Senator money for any reason, unless the head of the Party approves it.

I like how accepting 90k is bribery, but somehow giving it isn't bribery.
Okay, you're a Senator in serious trouble so I give you 90k to get yourself out of a jam and you're charged with bribery while I am charged with nothing, hmm I set you up.

The thing is, if Harper says he knew about it and approved - it all goes away. If Harper didn't know, then Wright should be charged too. If he did, then he's throwing Duffy under the bus. (that poor bus!)

You mean the Hillary Clinton poor bus?

The Duffster has a treasure trove of bad news for all. He was known for that.
With an election coming up, you can be assured the defence will call the PM to testify- If he refuses, as per when the law pemits him to, he is toast.
If he testifies, more information will come out.
More that what we have seen in the Commons or in the Senate sham trial.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/201 ... an-emerge/

In April, after the RCMP declined to lay charges against Nigel Wright in the matter of the $90,000 payment to Sen. Mike Duffy, the air was thick with instant analysis.

If there were a cover-up in the works, charging Mr. Duffy, who has not been shy about expressing his sense of being ill-used in the affair and has hinted on several occasions that he knows more than he has let on, would seem just about the worst way to go about it. And while Mr. Duffy has only been charged, not convicted — he insists he was an unwilling participant in this “monstrous scheme” — it would seem equally difficult after this to pretend there’s no story here.

And of course there is the question that obsesses the political class: what involvement or knowledge did the prime minister have, particularly with regard to the $90,000? In a sense, it does not matter: that so many people close to him were so ready to act in such an unethical fashion is damning enough in itself. But in a sense it is all that matters: partly because the prime minister has been so vehement in his denials of any foreknowledge, and partly because the set of circumstances required for this to be true seem so implausible.

Among other things, it requires us to believe not only that Mr. Wright and everyone else around the prime minister lied to him for months on end about how Mr. Duffy’s expenses were repaid, but that Mr. Wright lied to the others: that having told him at a meeting in February of 2013 that Mr. Duffy would repay his own expenses, he then told his fellow conspirators the prime minister was “good to go” with an earlier plan for the party to pay them; and that when Mr. Wright later told the prime minister’s former communications director, Andrew MacDougall, that “the PM knows, in broad terms only, that I personally assisted Duffy” he was lying then, too.

What’s the true story? All in good time. I think we can be sure of one thing: if and when Mr. Wright testifies under oath, he will not be lying then.