Stephen Harper's greasy premiership relies on the notion that what goes on within his private, personal agency, the PMO, is not his responsibility. This from Prime Minister Accountability & Transparency (tm).
"IT"
- happened just down the hall from the prime minister's own office
- entailed at least four top aides, people with whom he would meet several times each day
- was transacted by his chief of staff and his personal legal advisor
- transpired over the course of days, weeks, months even
- extended to at least four senior Tory senators
- involved a scandal known to the prime minister, one in which he met with the principal, Duffy
- resulted in some solution, the fact of which he was informed by his CoS
- apparently led to the resignation and departure of his personal legal advisor weeks later
- was regularly in the newspapers and TV news before the scandal itself actually broke
Sorry but if the prime minister didn't know it's because he chose not to know in circumstances as deliberate as they were inexcusable. His top aides knew he didn't want to know. Stephen Harper cannot plead in his defence that he didn't know when that was a pre-ordained result. He cannot shirk direct and full responsibility for allowing his prime minister's office and its staff, accountable solely to himself, to become a taxpayer-funded, in-house criminal enterprise.
When this many people were involved - all his major aides in the PMO and four top Tory senators - they were his agents. This is a clear case of agency. The prime minister doesn't get the benefit of the doubt on this, not after the Bruce Carson scandal. He knew about the Duffy issue, he knew it was a serious problem to his administration, and if he didn't know how Nigel Wright acted to solve it, that's only because he chose not to ask.
Bruce Carson taught us that Harper could not be trusted with something so easily corrupted as a prime minister's office. Now he's shown what we get for ignoring that.
Sunday, November 24, 2013
While You're Waiting for the Game
Killing time before the Grey Cup isn't always easy. Here's something to occupy a bit of it. The Guardian has a neat quiz, The Geography Game, where you race against the clock first to identify countries in specific regions on a map and then to order them according to per capita GDP.
Warning: you may think you're up to date on this stuff but the quiz is very challenging.
Warning: you may think you're up to date on this stuff but the quiz is very challenging.
Don't Blame Them. Blame Yourself Too.
The Guardian has published two articles that blame climate change, or most of it, on a few corporate fat cats. One claims just 90-companies cause two-thirds of global warming emissions. The second item is a companion piece with a graphic showing which fossil fuel companies are the most blameworthy.
How do we blame fossil fuel companies for most of our emissions? Sure they're responsible for the consequences of extraction, production and transportation of their product to end-users but once we get our winter supply of home heating oil for our cavernous, empty McMansion or fill up the SUV to make our massive workday commute from the ex-urbs or wing our way to the beaches of Hawaii, surely that's on us, isn't it?
Are the fossil fuel companies solely to blame when we continue to elect governments that lavish on them grants, subsidies and deferrals that make Big Oil, Big Coal and Big Gas even wealthier than just enormously wealthy? Hint - if we stopped voting for these petro-pols, be they Liberal, Conservative or New Democrat; they would stop doing it.
The fact is, if we stop doing all sorts of things, others stop too. If we stop buying unnecessary junk manufactured on the other side of the world under exploitative and unregulated conditions, they'll stop making that stuff. If we buy the stuff we do need, just that stuff and none of the crap, we'll have more people in our communities making ever better stuff that does meet our needs. We can have stuff that lasts, we can have food that's not laced with antibiotics, hormones and preservatives. We can become aware of the distinction between stuff we really need and all the stuff we've become conditioned to think we want.
We can reject the malfunction in the operating system of modern governance, the slavish addiction to never-ending growth. It's not feasible in a finite world. You know that, I know that, we all know that so why are we building a society on that?
Just as there's healthy cholesterol and unhealthy cholesterol, there's also healthy growth that doesn't entail increasing production and consumption. We can direct much of that energy and capital we put into making ever more things into making fewer things that are better, more helpful, less harmful and that will actually increase our enjoyment of life. If happiness is the key, why don't we do things that can actually bring us happiness? That sounds awfully radical, doesn't it?
Changing our ways is not easy. We need to find new ways of social organization that will facilitate a tide change in governance necessary to usher in a new economic vision that serves people instead of preying on them. The thing is, we can't begin to get there while we choose to blame others for what we've brought on largely by ourselves.
How do we blame fossil fuel companies for most of our emissions? Sure they're responsible for the consequences of extraction, production and transportation of their product to end-users but once we get our winter supply of home heating oil for our cavernous, empty McMansion or fill up the SUV to make our massive workday commute from the ex-urbs or wing our way to the beaches of Hawaii, surely that's on us, isn't it?
Are the fossil fuel companies solely to blame when we continue to elect governments that lavish on them grants, subsidies and deferrals that make Big Oil, Big Coal and Big Gas even wealthier than just enormously wealthy? Hint - if we stopped voting for these petro-pols, be they Liberal, Conservative or New Democrat; they would stop doing it.
The fact is, if we stop doing all sorts of things, others stop too. If we stop buying unnecessary junk manufactured on the other side of the world under exploitative and unregulated conditions, they'll stop making that stuff. If we buy the stuff we do need, just that stuff and none of the crap, we'll have more people in our communities making ever better stuff that does meet our needs. We can have stuff that lasts, we can have food that's not laced with antibiotics, hormones and preservatives. We can become aware of the distinction between stuff we really need and all the stuff we've become conditioned to think we want.
We can reject the malfunction in the operating system of modern governance, the slavish addiction to never-ending growth. It's not feasible in a finite world. You know that, I know that, we all know that so why are we building a society on that?
Just as there's healthy cholesterol and unhealthy cholesterol, there's also healthy growth that doesn't entail increasing production and consumption. We can direct much of that energy and capital we put into making ever more things into making fewer things that are better, more helpful, less harmful and that will actually increase our enjoyment of life. If happiness is the key, why don't we do things that can actually bring us happiness? That sounds awfully radical, doesn't it?
Changing our ways is not easy. We need to find new ways of social organization that will facilitate a tide change in governance necessary to usher in a new economic vision that serves people instead of preying on them. The thing is, we can't begin to get there while we choose to blame others for what we've brought on largely by ourselves.
America Inks Nuke Deal with Iran. Israel & House of Saud Outraged.
They've been itching to bomb Tehran, just looking for any plausible excuse. Israel has even been set to go it alone, with Saudi backing of course. Now they're both fuming that Washington may have deflated their preferred pretext - Iran's nuclear bomb project.
The Geneva agreement between Iran and the United States, China, Russia, Britain, Germany, France and the E.U. is really a package of confidence building steps to pave the way for a comprehensive deal to keep nuclear weapons out of Iran.
Both Israel and Saudi Arabia have benefitted from America's decades-old Cold War with Iran. It has worked out extremely well for both in everything from military aid to a superpower willing to look the other way at persecution and human rights abuses. The notion of America possibly normalizing relations with Iran is almost too much to bear.
Israel, looking uncomfortably isolated, has made its position clear, with Binyamin Netanyahu condemning the agreement as a "historic mistake". But the reality is that Israel's ability to attack Iranian nuclear facilities – without overt or covert US help – now looks like a hollow threat, for political reasons as well as the limited capabilities of even its formidable air force. It will also fear renewed pressure to come clean about its own nuclear arsenal – still a regional monopoly.
Elsewhere, the discomfort is most obvious in Saudi Arabia and the smaller Gulf states, which have long seen Iran as a greater threat and strategic rival than Israel. Pejorative talk of a "Zionist-Wahhabi" alliance reflects that. King Abdullah, as revealed by WikiLeaks, famously urged Barack Obama to "cut off the head of the [Iranian] snake". Instead, the US president has done a deal with it. The silence in Riyadh on Sunday morning was thunderously eloquent.
Canada wasted no time following Israel's lead with ForMin Baird proclaiming our country to be "deeply skeptical" of the deal. Windows were shuttered, blinds were drawn and lights were doused across Washington at the pronouncement.
The Geneva agreement between Iran and the United States, China, Russia, Britain, Germany, France and the E.U. is really a package of confidence building steps to pave the way for a comprehensive deal to keep nuclear weapons out of Iran.
Both Israel and Saudi Arabia have benefitted from America's decades-old Cold War with Iran. It has worked out extremely well for both in everything from military aid to a superpower willing to look the other way at persecution and human rights abuses. The notion of America possibly normalizing relations with Iran is almost too much to bear.
Israel, looking uncomfortably isolated, has made its position clear, with Binyamin Netanyahu condemning the agreement as a "historic mistake". But the reality is that Israel's ability to attack Iranian nuclear facilities – without overt or covert US help – now looks like a hollow threat, for political reasons as well as the limited capabilities of even its formidable air force. It will also fear renewed pressure to come clean about its own nuclear arsenal – still a regional monopoly.
Elsewhere, the discomfort is most obvious in Saudi Arabia and the smaller Gulf states, which have long seen Iran as a greater threat and strategic rival than Israel. Pejorative talk of a "Zionist-Wahhabi" alliance reflects that. King Abdullah, as revealed by WikiLeaks, famously urged Barack Obama to "cut off the head of the [Iranian] snake". Instead, the US president has done a deal with it. The silence in Riyadh on Sunday morning was thunderously eloquent.
Canada wasted no time following Israel's lead with ForMin Baird proclaiming our country to be "deeply skeptical" of the deal. Windows were shuttered, blinds were drawn and lights were doused across Washington at the pronouncement.
Saturday, November 23, 2013
Is the Tory Caucus Getting Restless, Fearful? - Ivison
NatPo scribe John Ivison detects widespread unrest in the ranks of Harper's Conservative caucus.
He claims Tory MPs will be looking to the results of Monday's by-elections as the bones and entrails of their boss's future. If the Liberals succeed in Brandon that will be taken as a sign that Harper has become an electoral liability.
They're sticking with Harper on his claims that he knew nothing of the Duffy-Wright business but if evidence comes out indicating the prime minister has misled his caucus, a number of MPs would be demanding his resignation.
Overall, writes Ivison, there's a malaise spreading through caucus stemming from a perception that Harper has forgotten he came to power on a promise of accountability and transparency.
Also the people Ivison has been speaking with say "the place would go crazy" if Nigel Wright is charged with bribery, fraud and breach of trust.
He claims Tory MPs will be looking to the results of Monday's by-elections as the bones and entrails of their boss's future. If the Liberals succeed in Brandon that will be taken as a sign that Harper has become an electoral liability.
They're sticking with Harper on his claims that he knew nothing of the Duffy-Wright business but if evidence comes out indicating the prime minister has misled his caucus, a number of MPs would be demanding his resignation.
Overall, writes Ivison, there's a malaise spreading through caucus stemming from a perception that Harper has forgotten he came to power on a promise of accountability and transparency.
Also the people Ivison has been speaking with say "the place would go crazy" if Nigel Wright is charged with bribery, fraud and breach of trust.
Guess Who Came Out in Defence of Rob Ford? Bill Maher.
From last night's season finale. Bill Maher sticks up for Rob Ford.
Do You See What I See?
Here's a random photo taken at the Halifax Security Forum now underway. It's a photo of NSA Director, general Keith Alexander.
Who is that woman sitting in front of him? Is it, could it be?
Who is that woman sitting in front of him? Is it, could it be?
"For Whatever Reason" - Nigel Wright Surfaces to Bite Duffy
The Wright-Duffy-Harper narrative took an abrupt change of course in the major newspapers last evening.
In the National Post and The Globe & Mail, the story shifted to that of a well-intentioned chief of staff who was conned by the wily Cavendish Cottager. Andrew Coyne went on to recite a curious tale depicting Wright as the victim of a Duffy "bait & switch" ploy.
The bribe, it claims, was demanded by Duffy. So too were the inducements, the side deals about quashing the audit, validating Duffy's residency status, and so on.
Coyne then goes on to write, "For whatever reason, the government's resistance began to crumble." During this period of capitulation the Tories believed they were going to have to come up with $32K. Only after they were hooked did Duffy reveal the real price tag was $90K, the "bait & switch" ploy.
Wright felt responsible for having been tricked and therefore chose to cough up the $90K.
Bad Duffy, Bad Duffy.
The Globe account largely mirrors Coyne's story. It's the Duffy got the better of Wright mantra. Ol' Duff pulled a fast one on Nigel Wright.
Duffy and Wright's versions have one thing in common - there was a shakedown. Duffy has claimed to have had his arm twisted to take the PMO/Wright deal. Wright contends, and it may be borne out by documents and correspondence, that Duffy cajoled him into the deal.
"For whatever reason." Exactly. What's missing from this narrative is the reason for the under-the-table-cash deal in the first place, the $32K ($44K) deal. The RCMP report mentions that Duffy has told them he has documents containing explosive revelations but nothing along those lines has so far been handed over.
This seems as good a time as any for senator Duffy to unburden himself of what he knows.
In the National Post and The Globe & Mail, the story shifted to that of a well-intentioned chief of staff who was conned by the wily Cavendish Cottager. Andrew Coyne went on to recite a curious tale depicting Wright as the victim of a Duffy "bait & switch" ploy.
The bribe, it claims, was demanded by Duffy. So too were the inducements, the side deals about quashing the audit, validating Duffy's residency status, and so on.
Coyne then goes on to write, "For whatever reason, the government's resistance began to crumble." During this period of capitulation the Tories believed they were going to have to come up with $32K. Only after they were hooked did Duffy reveal the real price tag was $90K, the "bait & switch" ploy.
Wright felt responsible for having been tricked and therefore chose to cough up the $90K.
Bad Duffy, Bad Duffy.
The Globe account largely mirrors Coyne's story. It's the Duffy got the better of Wright mantra. Ol' Duff pulled a fast one on Nigel Wright.
Duffy and Wright's versions have one thing in common - there was a shakedown. Duffy has claimed to have had his arm twisted to take the PMO/Wright deal. Wright contends, and it may be borne out by documents and correspondence, that Duffy cajoled him into the deal.
"For whatever reason." Exactly. What's missing from this narrative is the reason for the under-the-table-cash deal in the first place, the $32K ($44K) deal. The RCMP report mentions that Duffy has told them he has documents containing explosive revelations but nothing along those lines has so far been handed over.
This seems as good a time as any for senator Duffy to unburden himself of what he knows.
Friday, November 22, 2013
"Minutiae" Don't Matter.
When a mob boss orders a hit, he may not know or even care whether the victim gets a knife in the back, a bullet in the brain or a bomb beneath a car seat. He's just as guilty of murder one way or the other. If he orders a guy shot and the hitman chooses to use a knife instead, it doesn't matter. Can you imagine defence counsel standing up and saying, "But, your honour, if my client had known this guy was going to use a knife instead of a gun, he would have stopped it right there on the spot."?
Nigel Wright says Harper never knew about his decision to give Duffy $90K. Harper did know about and did approve of funneling money to Duffy to clear his Senate tab. Harper, ergo, did approve and direct the giving of money to Duffy in connection with his office. That's the offence of bribery and corruption. It's also pretty clear that Harper likewise approved the "stipulations" under which the money was to be given. These could only have been that Duffy play along with the cover story, stop talking to the Deloitte auditors and that top Tory Senators be told to make the Duffy audit problems go away. That too is squarely on Harper.
If the amount changed and the source of funds changed, it doesn't matter. That's the difference between a knife and a bullet and a car bomb. It doesn't matter. Minutiae don't matter.
What is demonstrably clear from Wright's e-mails is that he would not have acted without the knowledge and approval of his prime minister. He wasn't going to do anything behind Harper's back. He wasn't going to deceive him. To the contrary he was going to clear the illegal payment with Stephen Harper and obtain his approval before acting.
Constable Greg Horton may be right that there's not sufficient evidence that Harper knew the "minutiae" of the bribe but that doesn't matter. The prime minister not only knew of the plan to bribe the senator and corrupt the Senate, he approved it.
When the charges come down, the first one named should be Stephen Joseph Harper.
Climate Scientists Getting Ready to Rumble?
One thing the climate change denialist industry depends on is being able to act with impunity. They've been emboldened to say just about anything because they're almost never held accountable by those they attack, obstruct and even defame.
Things might be about to change.
Scientific American reports that climate scientists have decided to employ a little legal muscle.
The American Geophysical Union, representing more than 62,000 Earth, atmospheric and space scientists worldwide, has teamed with the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund to make lawyers available for confidential sessions with scientists at its annual meeting next month.
Legal counseling is not a typical agenda item for a science confab, but it's become an important one in today's political climate, scientists say.
The role of science in society is evolving, said AGU's executive director Chris McEntee. As society faces more conflict over natural disasters, natural resource use and climate change, scientists increasingly find themselves in the spotlight, forced to communicate findings in ways they haven't in the past.
One-on-one litigation counseling, McEntee said, is "part of a broader suite of services to help our scientists communicate and interact with the broader world outside of science."
It's an issue few researchers contemplate as they prepare for a career in science, said Scott Mandia, professor of physical sciences at Suffolk County Community College in New York and founder of the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund.
"When you get your degrees in science, you have no understanding of how the legal system works," he said. Such naivety is often exploited to slow down the scientific process, he added, especially in controversial areas like climate research.
Penn State climatologist Michael Mann has been at the receiving end of multiple legal challenges as the creator, more than a decade ago, of the now-famous "hockey stick" graph merging contemporary and prehistoric temperature records.
There's no question to him of the value or need for legal knowledge.
"Many scientists in my field now find themselves at the receiving end of attacks by groups who abuse open records laws to saddle scientists with vexatious and intimidating demands for personal emails and other materials," he said in an email. "It is critical that they be informed about their legal rights and available recourse."
Things might be about to change.
Scientific American reports that climate scientists have decided to employ a little legal muscle.
The American Geophysical Union, representing more than 62,000 Earth, atmospheric and space scientists worldwide, has teamed with the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund to make lawyers available for confidential sessions with scientists at its annual meeting next month.
Legal counseling is not a typical agenda item for a science confab, but it's become an important one in today's political climate, scientists say.
The role of science in society is evolving, said AGU's executive director Chris McEntee. As society faces more conflict over natural disasters, natural resource use and climate change, scientists increasingly find themselves in the spotlight, forced to communicate findings in ways they haven't in the past.
One-on-one litigation counseling, McEntee said, is "part of a broader suite of services to help our scientists communicate and interact with the broader world outside of science."
It's an issue few researchers contemplate as they prepare for a career in science, said Scott Mandia, professor of physical sciences at Suffolk County Community College in New York and founder of the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund.
"When you get your degrees in science, you have no understanding of how the legal system works," he said. Such naivety is often exploited to slow down the scientific process, he added, especially in controversial areas like climate research.
Penn State climatologist Michael Mann has been at the receiving end of multiple legal challenges as the creator, more than a decade ago, of the now-famous "hockey stick" graph merging contemporary and prehistoric temperature records.
There's no question to him of the value or need for legal knowledge.
"Many scientists in my field now find themselves at the receiving end of attacks by groups who abuse open records laws to saddle scientists with vexatious and intimidating demands for personal emails and other materials," he said in an email. "It is critical that they be informed about their legal rights and available recourse."
The Three Stooges of the Tory Senate
Top Tory senators LeBreton, Tkachuk, and Stewart-Olsen have all had an initial grilling by the RCMP and let's just say they didn't score straight A's. In fact, they came away looking pretty roughed up.
In his court filing, RCMP Corporal Greg Horton criticized some Conservative senators for their hazy memory and, in case of Carolyn Stewart Olsen, answers that are “not consistent with the facts.” Ms. Stewart Olsen declined comment on Thursday, but two other senators fought back.
Marjory LeBreton, the government Senate leader at the time the Duffy saga was unfolding, rejected police allegations that she provided evidence contrary to what e-mails show.
“When I met with the RCMP, I answered all questions willingly, honestly and to the best of my ability,” Ms. LeBreton told The Globe in a statement. “… I cannot answer for e-mails I was unaware of or e-mails where the claim to communicate certain information to me was not followed through on.”
Police also detailed an interview with David Tkachuk, a Conservative senator who chaired the subcommittee overseeing the audit of Mr. Duffy’s expenses. He called the police document, which said he couldn’t recall several details, “a work of fiction.”
“This [court filing] is what I call a political document by the police to get further information. So they’re going to gussy it up a little bit. It’s a work of fiction. There’s no proof to any of the allegations they make,” Mr. Tkachuk said. RCMP are seeking his e-mails, which he says he’ll provide.
Mr. Tkachuk reiterated he knew nothing about Mr. Wright’s cheque, and that the Prime Minister’s Office, of course, had a role in dealing with such a major issue.
If they haven't already, the three of them should all lawyer up at this point. There's no concealing it any more, they're looking at the real prospect of prosecution. They may compound that with obstruction charges if they've lied to the investigating officer, Greg Horton.
Marjory LeBreton is not known for her smarts. She's actually considered something of a 5-watt bulb. She became Senate leader through seniority and obedience. Marjory has always done as she's told. Word has it she's unable to come to grips with the reality that there's a record of much of what she did. There's even a rumoured recording of what she imprudently said in a heated phone conversation. Her excuses are so lame but that's probably the best she can come up with.
Marj has outlived her usefulness to the prime minister. Like Nigel Wright, she resigned her prestigious post - or was she fired?
Tkachuk, well he's a veteran of the Grant Devine government in Saskatchewan, arguably the most corrupt provincial government in Canadian history. He was Devine's principal secretary and was likely on a first name basis with the half of the Devine caucus that wound up in the Greybar Hotel.
Smart move, Dave. Accuse the investigator of playing politics. Dismiss his report as a "work of fiction." That's going to go down real well, Dave.
Former chair or deputy-chair of a slew of Senate and Conservative party committees, Dave too has now resigned.
Stewart Olsen shot from hospital nurse to Harper press aide to a senior Tory senator in a virtual heartbeat. Sounds like she's been bullshitting the constable just as she's been bullshitting everyone else ever since the scandal broke. Bad idea, Carolyn.
One of those three is probably getting pretty close to rolling on the other two and I'll bet they all know it. Harper knows it too.
In his court filing, RCMP Corporal Greg Horton criticized some Conservative senators for their hazy memory and, in case of Carolyn Stewart Olsen, answers that are “not consistent with the facts.” Ms. Stewart Olsen declined comment on Thursday, but two other senators fought back.
Marjory LeBreton, the government Senate leader at the time the Duffy saga was unfolding, rejected police allegations that she provided evidence contrary to what e-mails show.
“When I met with the RCMP, I answered all questions willingly, honestly and to the best of my ability,” Ms. LeBreton told The Globe in a statement. “… I cannot answer for e-mails I was unaware of or e-mails where the claim to communicate certain information to me was not followed through on.”
Police also detailed an interview with David Tkachuk, a Conservative senator who chaired the subcommittee overseeing the audit of Mr. Duffy’s expenses. He called the police document, which said he couldn’t recall several details, “a work of fiction.”
“This [court filing] is what I call a political document by the police to get further information. So they’re going to gussy it up a little bit. It’s a work of fiction. There’s no proof to any of the allegations they make,” Mr. Tkachuk said. RCMP are seeking his e-mails, which he says he’ll provide.
Mr. Tkachuk reiterated he knew nothing about Mr. Wright’s cheque, and that the Prime Minister’s Office, of course, had a role in dealing with such a major issue.
If they haven't already, the three of them should all lawyer up at this point. There's no concealing it any more, they're looking at the real prospect of prosecution. They may compound that with obstruction charges if they've lied to the investigating officer, Greg Horton.
Marjory LeBreton is not known for her smarts. She's actually considered something of a 5-watt bulb. She became Senate leader through seniority and obedience. Marjory has always done as she's told. Word has it she's unable to come to grips with the reality that there's a record of much of what she did. There's even a rumoured recording of what she imprudently said in a heated phone conversation. Her excuses are so lame but that's probably the best she can come up with.
Marj has outlived her usefulness to the prime minister. Like Nigel Wright, she resigned her prestigious post - or was she fired?
Smart move, Dave. Accuse the investigator of playing politics. Dismiss his report as a "work of fiction." That's going to go down real well, Dave.
Former chair or deputy-chair of a slew of Senate and Conservative party committees, Dave too has now resigned.
Stewart Olsen shot from hospital nurse to Harper press aide to a senior Tory senator in a virtual heartbeat. Sounds like she's been bullshitting the constable just as she's been bullshitting everyone else ever since the scandal broke. Bad idea, Carolyn.
One of those three is probably getting pretty close to rolling on the other two and I'll bet they all know it. Harper knows it too.
Word Association. If I Say "Harper", You Say ....
If I had to come up with just one word to describe Stephen Harper's style of governance it would be "Sicilian." In fact, when you view his words and deeds in the context of a Mafia Don instead of a prime minister they make far more sense.
Like any top Mafioso, Stephen Harper's base instinct is to manipulate, corrupt. He corrupts people, he corrupts process and always to his immediate advantage.
He shrewdly corrupted the armed forces and the public service when he severed their connection to the Canadian people. He installed a cadre of political commissars to filter communications between these government agencies and the public. They decided what questions would be allowed from the public, what would be refused outright. They then crafted the responses to ensure they comported with government policy. This effectively transformed the government services, military and civilian, into partisan personal agencies of the prime minister. It was a coup and pretty much everyone settled down and went along with it.
Harper is a deceiver. As his BFF Tom Flanagan and others have pointed out, he achieves his ends by incrementalism. Instead of introducing policies he knows won't be tolerated by the public, he advances his goals a small bit at a time, knowing the public won't notice or be able to keep track. That is a corrupt practice.
Harper is a concealer. Despite his promises of accountability and transparency, Harper has governed behind bolted doors. More governance is done inside the PMO, safe from prying eyes, than in either the Commons or Senate.
Harper, like any powerful Don, is a ruthless authoritarian. To Harper, everyone is expendable and serves only to fulfill his directives. Those who fail are jettisoned, dispatched, thrown under a bus without hesitation or the slightest remorse. There's a powerful sociopathy in that.
Harper is supremely arrogant. As so many close to the man have said, Harper genuinely believes himself to be the smartest man in the room. That is probably his greatest weakness for it is the foundation of hubris. It is what is most likely to bring him down. Once you believe that everything you conceive is a stroke of brilliance, it's easy to become sloppy.
The Wright-Duffy-Harper scheme is rife with sloppiness and expedience. It carries the stench of hubris. It was madness to concoct a scheme that relied upon at least 13-individuals to carry out and yet expect it to remain concealed. That is madness laced with arrogance.
Cruel people tend to meet cruel ends. As they ascend to power they accumulate enemies and float atop a sea of sullen resentment. Mafia Dons rarely die peacefully in their sleep. When they come to be seen as vulnerable, a threat to the organization, they're usually taken out by their own.
Like any top Mafioso, Stephen Harper's base instinct is to manipulate, corrupt. He corrupts people, he corrupts process and always to his immediate advantage.
He shrewdly corrupted the armed forces and the public service when he severed their connection to the Canadian people. He installed a cadre of political commissars to filter communications between these government agencies and the public. They decided what questions would be allowed from the public, what would be refused outright. They then crafted the responses to ensure they comported with government policy. This effectively transformed the government services, military and civilian, into partisan personal agencies of the prime minister. It was a coup and pretty much everyone settled down and went along with it.
Harper is a deceiver. As his BFF Tom Flanagan and others have pointed out, he achieves his ends by incrementalism. Instead of introducing policies he knows won't be tolerated by the public, he advances his goals a small bit at a time, knowing the public won't notice or be able to keep track. That is a corrupt practice.
Harper is a concealer. Despite his promises of accountability and transparency, Harper has governed behind bolted doors. More governance is done inside the PMO, safe from prying eyes, than in either the Commons or Senate.
Harper, like any powerful Don, is a ruthless authoritarian. To Harper, everyone is expendable and serves only to fulfill his directives. Those who fail are jettisoned, dispatched, thrown under a bus without hesitation or the slightest remorse. There's a powerful sociopathy in that.
Harper is supremely arrogant. As so many close to the man have said, Harper genuinely believes himself to be the smartest man in the room. That is probably his greatest weakness for it is the foundation of hubris. It is what is most likely to bring him down. Once you believe that everything you conceive is a stroke of brilliance, it's easy to become sloppy.
The Wright-Duffy-Harper scheme is rife with sloppiness and expedience. It carries the stench of hubris. It was madness to concoct a scheme that relied upon at least 13-individuals to carry out and yet expect it to remain concealed. That is madness laced with arrogance.
Cruel people tend to meet cruel ends. As they ascend to power they accumulate enemies and float atop a sea of sullen resentment. Mafia Dons rarely die peacefully in their sleep. When they come to be seen as vulnerable, a threat to the organization, they're usually taken out by their own.
Fraud, Breach of Trust, Bribery and Corruption. An Act of Supreme Desperation. It All Points To One Person.
Trying to make sense of the Wright-Duffy-Harper scandal is not easy. That's because so many aspects of it make no sense. We're all trying very hard to draw conclusions when there may be a lot of facts we still haven't heard.
With the exception of Mike Duffy, the stories seem to be falling apart.
Harper’s accounts have been convoluted, inconsistent and contradictory. First, Wright acted alone, went
rogue so to speak. No one else in the PMO knew anything about it. Then, after Wright’s statement to the RCMP, it was four PMO
staffers in on it. Still Harper says he knew nothing until May 15th.
Wright’s e-mails indicate that he did speak to Harper but Wright ties those to the aborted proposal that the CPC pay $32K, not the subsequent deal to cover $90K plus $13K in Payne’s legal fees. That sounds like a distinction without a difference. (Either way, Wright contends that Harper was aware that Duffy would be receiving a gift of money in connection with his office - bribery and corruption)
Harper's claim to have known nothing might be remotely plausible if it wasn’t for Perrin. He was legal counsel to the prime minister. His fiduciary duty was plain. Yet he facilitated this deal, wrote the letter of undertakings to Payne, and yet never breathed a word of this potentially explosive deal to the prime minister? That defies all reason. Then, a month after the money is exchanged, Perrin hightails it back to Vancouver. That has the appearance of Perrin bolting from Ottawa. Perhaps that had been in the works long in advance and had nothing to do with Wright-Duffy-Harper. It just looks bad in the circumstances.
Perrin has said he had nothing to do with the bribe which is a telling statement if Perrin negotiated the deal that saw the funds transmitted to Duffy's lawyer. That is what Wright maintains and constable Horton agrees.
As the investigator, Horton, laid it out, the money was a bribe. It’s prohibited under the Parliament of Canada Act. Wright must have known that. Perrin obviously had to have known that. These two guys aren’t rubes from the back woods. They knew that there were way too many people in on this. Duffy, Payne, Wright, Perrin, van Hemmen, Woodcock, LeBreton, LeBreton’s aides (Montgomery?), Stewart-Olsen, Tkachuk, Gerstein, Arthur Hamilton, Ray Novak and probably the odd support staff. That’s a baker's dozen for starters.
How could Wright and Perrin have believed this wouldn’t leak out? You would have to be brain dead to realize that many people were in on it and then assume it would remain secret for more than a month or two. They even asked how many people Duffy intended to tell. How could two astute types like Wright and Perrin not have failed to realize the explosive ramifications of this? Impossible. All of this strongly suggests this was not entirely of their own doing. This is an act of supreme hubris and that points to just one person, doesn’t it? Were they all pressured into this? This is beginning to look like the handiwork of the Smartest Man in the Room(tm).
Why did they do this for/to Mike Duffy? Was his prowess at fund raising and electioneering remotely worth the risks this scheme entailed? Harper did try to intercede on behalf of Wallin when he said both she and Mike Duffy met the residency requirements and again when he said he had reviewed Wallin’s expenses and found nothing out of the ordinary. Beyond that she never received any “special handling.” Later she got worked over by Ray Novak and forced to leave caucus.
Contrast that to what they did for Duffy. It wasn’t just the money. As constable Horton points out, the top aides in the PMO, in conjunction with three top Tory senators, set out to corrupt the Senate itself. They threatened to use the residency issue as a club to oust Duffy if he didn’t play ball. They tried to interfere with Deloittes and, when that failed, they laundered the audit report themselves. That is pretty clear corruption by the PMO and by the Tory Senate leadership including Stewart-Olsen who is directly tied to Stephen Harper.
Did they really go to these lengths to protect the Golden Goose or was there more to it? Do they perceive Duffy not only as an asset but also as a potential threat? Does MD perhaps have the goods on them as some in the media have suggested? Does he know where the bodies are buried?
The prime minister has become very erratic. He’s been repeatedly forced to change his story, especially about Wright and others who were in on this. He seems to be making a lot of human sacrifices to cover his trail. In some aspects this resembles the prime minister’s handling of the Bruce Carson scandal. For the first time in his career, he’s stuck in a scandal he can’t shake, one that won’t fade away. If he hasn’t already, the prime minister would seem to be at grave risk of becoming ineffective, a liability to his party. I can’t imagine he has any shortage of enemies and rivals within his own party ranks.
So many loose threads. So many questions unasked. I still have the
feeling there’s an awful lot we don’t know and may never know. Has Perrin
talked to the RCMP? Better yet, has he “lawyered up”?
This is definitely the most sordid scandal in Canada's political history. We can't even guess how much more is to come.
Benjamin Perrin is the key.
Benjamin Perrin is the key.
A Victim of State Spycraft Speaks Out.
It's a safe bet that some of us are being spied upon by our government. The prime minister's Northern Gateway secret police service is drawing up lists of opponents of the Enbridge pipeline iniative. Yet, until you actually know you're being spied upon, investigated, targeted, it's all sort of hypothetical. You don't dwell on it.
That's not the case for Emma Gilchrist. She knows that the organization she until recently worked for, the Dogwood Initiative, has been branded an eco-threat by our government, is being actively spied upon and, worse, the intelligence gathered is being distributed to Canadian energy producers. She has written a remarkable essay that was published in Thursday's Victoria Times Colonist.
Tuesday started out sunny for me, but hail fell out of the sky in the afternoon. It was a Victoria day like any other until I found out the Canadian government has been vigorously spying on Canadian organizations that work for environmental protections and democratic rights.
I read the news in the online Vancouver Observer. There, front and centre, was the name of the organization I worked for until recently: Victoria-based Dogwood Initiative.
My colleagues and I had been wary of being spied on for the past couple years, but having it confirmed still took the wind out of me.
...one of the events detailed in emails from Richard Garber, the National Energy Board’s “group leader of security,” was at a workshop at a Kelowna church run by one of my colleagues. About 30 people, mostly retirees, attended to learn about storytelling, theories of change and creative sign-making. (Sounds threatening, right?)
In the emails, obtained under the Access to Information Act, Garber marshals security and intelligence operations between government operations and private interests and notes that his security team has consulted with Canada’s spy agency, CSIS.
To add insult to injury, another set of documents shows CSIS and the RCMP have been inviting oil executives to secret classified briefings at CSIS headquarters in Ottawa, in what the U.K.’s Guardian describes as “unprecedented surveillance and intelligence sharing with companies.”
These meetings covered “threats” to energy infrastructure and “challenges to energy projects from environmental groups.” Guess who is prominently displayed as a sponsor on the agenda for May’s meeting? Enbridge.
It’s unclear how much information is being provided to corporations such as Enbridge and state-owned Sinopec, the [Chinese] oil company that has a $10-million stake in Enbridge’s Northern Gateway pipeline and tanker proposal.
What kind of country spies on environmental organizations in the name of the oil industry? It seems more Nigerian than Canadian. I felt one part indignant, one part sad for my country.
I’m not what you might think of as a typical “environmentalist”— I grew up in northern Alberta playing hockey and going to bush parties. Before my stint in the non-profit world, I worked at the Calgary Sun and Calgary Herald.
I believe oil and gas deposits, including the oilsands, are a great asset — if developed in the public interest. A big “if,” but Canadians own these resources and the No. 1 priority when developing them should be that Canadians benefit.
For speaking out against increasing oil exports off B.C.’s coast, hundreds of people like me have been called radicals and painted as enemies of the state, as somehow un-Canadian. That last bit bothers me the most.
I love my country. And in my eyes, there isn’t anything much more patriotic than fighting for the interests of Canadian citizens.
I’ve argued that after 25 years of oilsands development, Albertans should have something to show for it — not be facing budget crises and closing hospital beds. Canadians should develop resources at a responsible pace that doesn’t cause rampant inflation and unduly harm the environment, and should prioritize national energy security, instead of allowing half our country to depend on foreign oil.
I don’t expect everyone to agree with me, but it’s a stretch to portray any of those statements as unpatriotic or radical.
It saddens me that Canada has been reduced to spying on its own citizens when they speak out against certain corporate interests, and then shares that intelligence with those corporations.
Wherever you stand on natural-resource development, I’d hope we could all agree Canada should be a country where we can debate the most important issues of our time — without fear of being attacked or spied on by our own government.
The New Democrats and the Liberals need to stand up for Emma Gilchrist all the thousands like her. They need to promise that, if elected, they will end government spying on Canadians absent clear evidence of criminal activity or intent. Our government has no business spying on law abiding citizens because they might dissent and it has no business parcelling out the information they gather to the corporate sector. This is an act of raw fascism and nothing else. That's a disease that will only worsen unless we commit to stomping it out.
Thursday, November 21, 2013
Has Anybody Seen Nigel's Cheque?
Just asking. Mike Duffy says he never saw a cheque from Nigel Wright. He's got a copy of the cheque his lawyer got from the Conservative Party but nothing, he claims, from Nigel Wright.
You have to give the Cavendish Cottager his due. Time and again what he's said turns out to be true. Time and again what Stephen Harper has said turns out to be evasive, misleading or flat out untrue.
Money certainly went to Duffy's lawyer for him to clear his Senate tab. The story is that Nigel Wright wrote a cheque on his account. That might be true but did he write it to Duffy or someone else? Who cashed it?
You have to give the Cavendish Cottager his due. Time and again what he's said turns out to be true. Time and again what Stephen Harper has said turns out to be evasive, misleading or flat out untrue.
Money certainly went to Duffy's lawyer for him to clear his Senate tab. The story is that Nigel Wright wrote a cheque on his account. That might be true but did he write it to Duffy or someone else? Who cashed it?
State Terrorism and the House of Saud
Are the Saudi royals hatching a terrorist enterprise?
The Saudis have been playing hardball in the Middle East/Persian Gulf region. A few months ago, prince Bandar bin Sultan tried to broker a deal with Vlad Putin to get Russia to withdraw its support for Syria's Assad regime in exchange for major Middle East oil concessions and prince Bandar's promise that he would see to it there would be no Islamist terrorist attacks interfering with the Russian Olympic games. It was a pretty thinly veiled threat.
Bandar, often called "Bandar Bush" for his close relationship with the Bush family, has become Saudi intelligence chief intent on taking down Iran before it can develop nuclear weapons. He's livid that Obama hasn't sent in the troops to topple Assad. Now he's taken command of the "Muhammad Army", an extraterritorial Saudi force to conduct terrorist attacks inside Syria.
Asia Times correspondent, Pepe Escobar, reports that Saudi agents were behind the terrorist bombing of the Iranian embassy in Lebanon.
...don't expect the "West" to condemn this as terror. Look at the headlines; it's all normalized as "blasts" - as if children were playing with firecrackers.
Whether carried out by a hazy al-Qaeda-linked brigade or by Saudi spy chief Bandar bin Sultan's (aka Bandar Bush's) goons, the Beirut terror attack is essentially configured as a major, Saudi-enabled provocation. The larger Saudi agenda in Syria implies getting both Hezbollah and Iran to be pinned down inside Lebanon as well. If that happens, Israel also wins. Once again, here's another graphic illustration of the Likudnik House of Saud in action.
Nuance also applies. Bandar Bush's strategy, coordinated with jihadis, was to virtually beg for Hezbollah to fight inside Syria. When Hezbollah obliged, with only a few hundred fighters, the jihadis scurried away from the battlefield to implement plan B: blowing up innocent women and children in the streets of Lebanon.
On Syria, the main pillar of Bandar Bush's strategy is to turn the previously "Free" Syrian Army into a "national army" of 30,000 or so fully weaponized hardcore fighters - mostly supplied by the "Army of Islam", which is nothing but a cipher for the al-Qaedesque Jabhat al-Nusra. King Playstation of Jordan, also known as Abdullah, collaborates as the provider of training camps near the Syrian border. Whatever happens, one thing is certain; expect Bandar Bush's goons to be carrying out more suicide bombings on both Lebanon and Syria.
It's a fascinating article that outlines the collaboration currently in play between the Saudis and Israel aimed at Iran and bringing the United States into the fray. All the options are on the table, including a campaign of outright terrorism.
America talks tough about state-sponsored terrorism and it has spent more than a decade fighting Sunni Islamist extremists including, of course, al Qaeda. The 9/11 terrorists were mainly Saudis and it's well known that various Saudi royals have been extremely generous in supporting Wahhabist extremism.
America's hegemony in the Muslim world is waning. Will the Saudis speed up the demise of American influence?
The Saudis have been playing hardball in the Middle East/Persian Gulf region. A few months ago, prince Bandar bin Sultan tried to broker a deal with Vlad Putin to get Russia to withdraw its support for Syria's Assad regime in exchange for major Middle East oil concessions and prince Bandar's promise that he would see to it there would be no Islamist terrorist attacks interfering with the Russian Olympic games. It was a pretty thinly veiled threat.
Bandar, often called "Bandar Bush" for his close relationship with the Bush family, has become Saudi intelligence chief intent on taking down Iran before it can develop nuclear weapons. He's livid that Obama hasn't sent in the troops to topple Assad. Now he's taken command of the "Muhammad Army", an extraterritorial Saudi force to conduct terrorist attacks inside Syria.
Asia Times correspondent, Pepe Escobar, reports that Saudi agents were behind the terrorist bombing of the Iranian embassy in Lebanon.
...don't expect the "West" to condemn this as terror. Look at the headlines; it's all normalized as "blasts" - as if children were playing with firecrackers.
Whether carried out by a hazy al-Qaeda-linked brigade or by Saudi spy chief Bandar bin Sultan's (aka Bandar Bush's) goons, the Beirut terror attack is essentially configured as a major, Saudi-enabled provocation. The larger Saudi agenda in Syria implies getting both Hezbollah and Iran to be pinned down inside Lebanon as well. If that happens, Israel also wins. Once again, here's another graphic illustration of the Likudnik House of Saud in action.
Nuance also applies. Bandar Bush's strategy, coordinated with jihadis, was to virtually beg for Hezbollah to fight inside Syria. When Hezbollah obliged, with only a few hundred fighters, the jihadis scurried away from the battlefield to implement plan B: blowing up innocent women and children in the streets of Lebanon.
On Syria, the main pillar of Bandar Bush's strategy is to turn the previously "Free" Syrian Army into a "national army" of 30,000 or so fully weaponized hardcore fighters - mostly supplied by the "Army of Islam", which is nothing but a cipher for the al-Qaedesque Jabhat al-Nusra. King Playstation of Jordan, also known as Abdullah, collaborates as the provider of training camps near the Syrian border. Whatever happens, one thing is certain; expect Bandar Bush's goons to be carrying out more suicide bombings on both Lebanon and Syria.
It's a fascinating article that outlines the collaboration currently in play between the Saudis and Israel aimed at Iran and bringing the United States into the fray. All the options are on the table, including a campaign of outright terrorism.
America talks tough about state-sponsored terrorism and it has spent more than a decade fighting Sunni Islamist extremists including, of course, al Qaeda. The 9/11 terrorists were mainly Saudis and it's well known that various Saudi royals have been extremely generous in supporting Wahhabist extremism.
America's hegemony in the Muslim world is waning. Will the Saudis speed up the demise of American influence?
What's Missing?
I've checked online papers from Britain, the U.S., Australia, Germany, even Japan and there's nothing to be found anywhere today about Rob Ford. Is it finally over?
The Neighbours Are Beginning to Ask Questions
The United States, Mexico and Canada have an organization called the Central Environmental Commission or CEC.
The CEC is calling for an investigation of the Canadian government's refusal to protect our polar bears. The U.S. designated its polar bears an endangered species in 2008.
Canadian officials may not have given enough importance to research predicting the loss of two-thirds of the world's polar bears by 2050 due to meting of Arctic sea ice, the [CEC] secretariat suggested. The 2007 study by US Geological Survey researchers said a number of polar bear populations inside Canada would disappear entirely, or be severely decimated.
The CEC is calling for an investigation of the Canadian government's refusal to protect our polar bears. The U.S. designated its polar bears an endangered species in 2008.
Canadian officials may not have given enough importance to research predicting the loss of two-thirds of the world's polar bears by 2050 due to meting of Arctic sea ice, the [CEC] secretariat suggested. The 2007 study by US Geological Survey researchers said a number of polar bear populations inside Canada would disappear entirely, or be severely decimated.
Is Your Television Spying on You?
If you own a smart TV by LG, your set may be telling the manufacturer a lot about your viewing habits. The company logs what you watch and when. If you access files through a USB device, the TV can transmit data on the files. From this data the company can easily determine your gender, your age and probably a lot more than you can imagine including your political preferences.
It's unclear whether other smart TVs do the same thing. My Sony obviously communicates with the manufacturer as it receives automatic firmware updates. It's not uncommon today for cell phones, tablets, computers and TVs to be networked wirelessly.
I wonder if a smart TV could some day be able to surreptitiously access a hard drive?
It's unclear whether other smart TVs do the same thing. My Sony obviously communicates with the manufacturer as it receives automatic firmware updates. It's not uncommon today for cell phones, tablets, computers and TVs to be networked wirelessly.
I wonder if a smart TV could some day be able to surreptitiously access a hard drive?
If Henry II Was Guilty, So Too is Stephen Harper.
Anyone can have a rogue employee and sometimes there isn't much that can be done about it before damage is caused. The employer can honestly claim not to have known and, therefore, that he is not to blame.
But when your entire management team gets up to no good, it's a fair assumption that they're acting as agents of the employer especially if they're making "problems" go away.
As far as the vague historical record goes, Henry II never specifically ordered his knights to slaughter Thomas Becket. That didn't stop anybody from blaming the king for Becket's assassination. He had a problem. He wanted it to go away. His nobles did their king's bidding.
Stephen Harper's knights - Wright, Woodcock, van Hemmen, Perrin - likewise sought to solve his problem with senator Mike Duffy. Four top aides. Is it remotely plausible that all four of them entered into a scheme behind Stephen Harper's back without an understanding that they were doing his bidding? One of the four was the prime minister's personal legal counsel - a law professor no less, an expert in constitutional and criminal law.
Stephen Harper says he didn't know. He claims it was all done without his approval and if he'd only gotten wind of it he would have stopped everything immediately. The naivete defence hasn't really been available to Harper since the Bruce Carson/PMO scandal.
It's the prime minister's office and that's why it's called the PMO. What is done there is done on behalf of the prime minister and those in the shop are accountable to the prime minister alone. The prime minister, likewise, has a responsibility for what they do and if his aids want to transform the PMO into a criminal enterprise, that's on the prime minister. They're his hand picked team. He's responsible for what they do. "Don't ask/don't tell" isn't a Get Out of Jail Free card for the prime minister.
Stephen Harper knew his chief of staff was dealing with the Duffy problem. If he didn't know how that was being done that's because he chose not to know. He deliberately chose to be left in the dark. Perrin, the personal lawyer to the prime minister, was in on it. Perrin almost certainly had to know what they were doing was illegal - as the RCMP put it, fraud, bribery and breach of trust - and yet he did not mention this to his client, Stephen Harper? Utter nonsense.
Why did Perrin leave Ottawa a month before the scandal erupted in public? What did he tell Harper? There is much to be asked of Benjamin Perrin. He has an enormous amount of explaining to do. Imagine when Perrin refuses to answer, invoking solicitor-client privilege. As counsel to the prime minister, Perrin is in an extraordinary bind concerning his role in the Duffy affair. Harper, in claiming that his staff kept him in the dark, may have already waived solicitor-client privilege over anything Perrin had to do with this, including what Perrin did and did not tell Harper and why.
As the client, the privilege is Harper's to assert or waive. The opposition should ask the prime minister to waive privilege over the Duffy-Wright affair. If Harper is going to hide behind it, make him do it in public.
Harper needs to explain why, when Wright resigned, he didn't fire Woodcock and van Hemmen on the spot. They were certainly privy to the events. They didn't do the right thing and warn Harper. Why not? What about the current chief of staff, Ray Novak? He now stands implicated in what the RCMP describes as the PMO's corruption of the Senate. He's still on the payroll. Why?
Duffy, Wallin and Brazeau have been booted out of the Senate but LeBreton, Tkachuk and Stewart-Olsen remain. Why? The RCMP investigation points to the three of them effectively implementing the PMO's scheme to corrupt the Senate. Surely whatever Duffy, Wallin or Brazeau did is peanuts compared to what the others did. DW&B raided the petty cash. The others allegedly corrupted the Senate itself. Who is protecting them, and why? What about Deloittes' audit? Who twisted the arm of the auditors to launder their report? Why is that person still on the payroll?
There are so many unasked questions in need of answers and no indication that they'll ever be asked. The opposition could do themselves and Canada a favour by co-operating on this, to methodically ask all the important questions and then show the Canadian people all the questions the government won't answer. Use that to make the case for a public enquiry.
Don't waste your limited opportunity to keep asking the same questions, beating a dead horse. Start focusing on the details, all the players. They're all on Harper's team whether in the PMO, the Commons or the Senate. He's had three of them "bumped off" but is apparently closing ranks to protect the others, presumably lest their tongues be loosened by self-preservation.
One other thing they might want to consider. Has anyone from the opposition asked Mike Duffy for copies of his documents? Just sayin.
But when your entire management team gets up to no good, it's a fair assumption that they're acting as agents of the employer especially if they're making "problems" go away.
As far as the vague historical record goes, Henry II never specifically ordered his knights to slaughter Thomas Becket. That didn't stop anybody from blaming the king for Becket's assassination. He had a problem. He wanted it to go away. His nobles did their king's bidding.
Stephen Harper's knights - Wright, Woodcock, van Hemmen, Perrin - likewise sought to solve his problem with senator Mike Duffy. Four top aides. Is it remotely plausible that all four of them entered into a scheme behind Stephen Harper's back without an understanding that they were doing his bidding? One of the four was the prime minister's personal legal counsel - a law professor no less, an expert in constitutional and criminal law.
Stephen Harper says he didn't know. He claims it was all done without his approval and if he'd only gotten wind of it he would have stopped everything immediately. The naivete defence hasn't really been available to Harper since the Bruce Carson/PMO scandal.
It's the prime minister's office and that's why it's called the PMO. What is done there is done on behalf of the prime minister and those in the shop are accountable to the prime minister alone. The prime minister, likewise, has a responsibility for what they do and if his aids want to transform the PMO into a criminal enterprise, that's on the prime minister. They're his hand picked team. He's responsible for what they do. "Don't ask/don't tell" isn't a Get Out of Jail Free card for the prime minister.
Stephen Harper knew his chief of staff was dealing with the Duffy problem. If he didn't know how that was being done that's because he chose not to know. He deliberately chose to be left in the dark. Perrin, the personal lawyer to the prime minister, was in on it. Perrin almost certainly had to know what they were doing was illegal - as the RCMP put it, fraud, bribery and breach of trust - and yet he did not mention this to his client, Stephen Harper? Utter nonsense.
Why did Perrin leave Ottawa a month before the scandal erupted in public? What did he tell Harper? There is much to be asked of Benjamin Perrin. He has an enormous amount of explaining to do. Imagine when Perrin refuses to answer, invoking solicitor-client privilege. As counsel to the prime minister, Perrin is in an extraordinary bind concerning his role in the Duffy affair. Harper, in claiming that his staff kept him in the dark, may have already waived solicitor-client privilege over anything Perrin had to do with this, including what Perrin did and did not tell Harper and why.
As the client, the privilege is Harper's to assert or waive. The opposition should ask the prime minister to waive privilege over the Duffy-Wright affair. If Harper is going to hide behind it, make him do it in public.
Harper needs to explain why, when Wright resigned, he didn't fire Woodcock and van Hemmen on the spot. They were certainly privy to the events. They didn't do the right thing and warn Harper. Why not? What about the current chief of staff, Ray Novak? He now stands implicated in what the RCMP describes as the PMO's corruption of the Senate. He's still on the payroll. Why?
Duffy, Wallin and Brazeau have been booted out of the Senate but LeBreton, Tkachuk and Stewart-Olsen remain. Why? The RCMP investigation points to the three of them effectively implementing the PMO's scheme to corrupt the Senate. Surely whatever Duffy, Wallin or Brazeau did is peanuts compared to what the others did. DW&B raided the petty cash. The others allegedly corrupted the Senate itself. Who is protecting them, and why? What about Deloittes' audit? Who twisted the arm of the auditors to launder their report? Why is that person still on the payroll?
There are so many unasked questions in need of answers and no indication that they'll ever be asked. The opposition could do themselves and Canada a favour by co-operating on this, to methodically ask all the important questions and then show the Canadian people all the questions the government won't answer. Use that to make the case for a public enquiry.
Don't waste your limited opportunity to keep asking the same questions, beating a dead horse. Start focusing on the details, all the players. They're all on Harper's team whether in the PMO, the Commons or the Senate. He's had three of them "bumped off" but is apparently closing ranks to protect the others, presumably lest their tongues be loosened by self-preservation.
One other thing they might want to consider. Has anyone from the opposition asked Mike Duffy for copies of his documents? Just sayin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)