Apr 16, 2014 at 12:29:05
“Good for him.
He's a strong 'able bodied' young man.
Why wouldn't he help?
I'd like to think most of the people I know would have stopped and give the guy a hand.
But its still a damn cool thing to do.
Good on you Mr Trudeau.”
Apr 16, 2014 at 09:36:45
“The opposition has to learn how to tone down the rhetoric.
Cause when they go off.... they entrench themselves intractably in a set position.
They don't leave themselves or the gov.ca room to maneuver.
And what's left is a vote up or down and then they have no input.
They got a year and a half to work on it.”
Apr 16, 2014 at 09:18:49
“Its a smart move for MuCair.
Show's a guy who understands the process and how its necessary to reach out across party lines.
There is advantage for the conservatives to engage with Mr MuCair.
To sway him to their point of view.
As long as there is dialogue there is a chance for both sides to get what they want.
I think Canadians expect the process to work like this.
Mr MuCair is consistent and measured in his interpretation and application of the process....but
I think he needs to tone down the rhetoric.
Just my opinion.”
artbbcramer on Apr 16, 2014 at 10:23:14
“Well, that's a reasobale comment Warren. I don't see the "rhetoric" party; I think he's doing his job as Opposition Leader (the first one we have seen actually act like one in Canada in my lifetime). Still good comment and thanks for the reply.”
Apr 16, 2014 at 08:55:35
“Try as I may, I cannot come to terms with progressive logic.
Trudeau obviously wronged this woman.
Yet his supporters attack her.
In his leadership bid he promised open nominations.
Everybody believed him.
Ms Innes obviously did.
So she entered into the nomination process in her home riding.
Accepting there would be a contest between her and Ms Freeland or whomever else wanted a kick at the can.
"May the best man/gal win" kinda stuff.
Trudeau would have none of that.
Preferring a clear field and no contest for his star candidate.
The conservative operative Dimitri Soudas tried the same tact as Trudeau.
He got fired and sent packing.
And the progressive logic interprets that as a failure.
Both parties promised open nominations.
And the progressives stand to defend their leader's failure, and attack the victim of his manipulations.”
Apr 16, 2014 at 08:17:30
“If they thought he was guilty, they would have preferred charges.
A case with too high a profile for any plea deals or deferring of charges for testimony.
Wright has been in the clear the whole time.
He may well be called to give testimony regarding Duffy.
And that's all part of the process.
The gov.ca's response has been muted and appropriate IMO.
Nobody wants any gloating from any side over this ugly little affair.”
Apr 16, 2014 at 08:02:39
“Trudeau is getting sued and he's not in charge of anything.
Do you really think if he was in charge there wouldn't be a army of lawyers representing special interests groups dropping suits hand over fist in objection to their rulings or legislation.?
Wynne is suing Hudak, Innes is suing Trudeau and everybody sues the gov.ca when they get a chance to.
Like that guy who sued the feds over their choice for SCOC.
Cost us half a million bucks.
What did we get?
What did he get?
He got the best value for his advertising dollar ever..
And Steve has to go through the whole process of picking another candidate which costs money because they hire a panel of legal experts to recommend a candidate.
And we pay again.
Way of the world these days aint it?
That's all going to change when Justin takes the wheel?
Every single piece of legislation goes before the court these days.
People cheer when the government takes a loss.
The government has to respond appropriately.
And we pay again.
Nigel Wright paid us out of his own pocket.
If people can't make that distinction, we don't want them on our side.”
Cementhead234576454 on Apr 16, 2014 at 08:19:32
“That is the longest spiel of nothing you've ever wrote. Congrats. Our side? A government is supposed to be on the side of all, not our side or their side. You're happy with that? Are you on meds? There are so many things in your post that are outright false, or misunderstood so badly, I don't think anyone could explain it to you and have you understand it.”
Apr 16, 2014 at 07:29:15
“The RCMP were not able to establish any connection between Wright-Duffy-the cheque and Mr Harper.
It amazes me that people can't accept the fact that Mr Wright admitted his mistake, took responsibility for that mistake (at great risk to his professional career) cooperated with police "fully and completely" and has been cleared of any criminal wrong doing.
Isn't this what we expect from our public servants?
In the best case scenario?
"People that own up to their mistakes and accept responsibility"”
cbos on Apr 16, 2014 at 08:03:44
“They, the RCMP, found no evidence to bring criminal charges against Wright. It was not about the connection to Harper which may well exist.
It does reflect poorly on Harper's character when he first stood up for Wright then changed his story to cover himself when it looked bad for Nigel Wright.”
Cementhead234576454 on Apr 16, 2014 at 07:32:03
“The Globe and Mail writes that the RCMP will call Nigel Wright as a witness. Now the decision not to charge him makes more sense. Wright will be much more valuable to the RCMP as a witness because he knows where all the bodies are buried in the PMO. This is probably why the PM's comment was so muted and why there is no gloating and cheering in the PMO. This story is not over yet and justice may yet be served.....you were saying”
Apr 16, 2014 at 07:08:08
“The RCMP investigated the guy for months
Mr Wright cooperated fully in the investigation.
The PMO cooperated fully in the investigation.
I think even Duffy cooperated.
While his actions were ill advised the RCMP found no criminality.
So its over.
Live with it.
Deal with it.
Get over it.
And it didn't take public inquiry/circus to find that out.
Let the professionals do their job and save us all the BS.
Mr Wright has never filed an expense claim.
Since he started his work as chief of staff, he's paid all his own travel, hotels and other expenses out of his own pocket.
While he was under investigation he spent his time in Ottawa where he could be easily available for questioning from the lead RCMP investigator.
He spent his time volunteering in a local shelter and soup kitchen.
His biggest mistake was trying to make Canadian taxpayers whole after Duffy's spending had been exposed.
Or I should say the manner in which he thought he could make them whole expeditiously.
It was an obvious mistake.
A lapse in judgment.
Not worth destroying a person over IMO.
So can we just put this story to bed or what.”
Cementhead234576454 on Apr 16, 2014 at 07:34:03
“Now that you have your pom poms out have you ever actually sat back and thought, Has there ever been a party in Canada, with so many lawsuits and criminal investigations? I've been around long enough to see before the PET days, and I have never seen this. Is this something to be proud of or what. You do realize, guilty or not, just the perception of it means lost votes. Will Cons cheer that too?”
Apr 15, 2014 at 17:59:26
I'd like to see a little more detailed explanation from the RCMP as to why they didn't elect to press charges.
Not because they missed something.
But because they didn't.
A good day certainly for Mr Wright.”
stciappelletto on Apr 15, 2014 at 20:38:24
“In the absence of evidence of quid pro quo or other actual corruption it was a lost cause to begin with. The whole idea was misconceived, I don't see how they could prove anything on a balance of probabilities let alone beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Will Webster on Apr 15, 2014 at 19:54:05
“Oh Warren, where do you get they didn't miss anything? Read the story. They simply don't have evidence against Wright. It doesn't mean they don't have evidence against others, including your beloved PM.”
Douglas Sinclair on Apr 15, 2014 at 19:44:33
“Isn't there something about a hard drive....and a request for forensic analysis...oh, wait...that was handed over by a different PMO last week I think...oh and who's this Mary Dawson again and what's this about parliament having an "ethics" officer?
If N.Wright wanted to do the wright thing for Canadian Taxpayers why didn't he wright his cheque to the Receiver General?