"Senator Oz"? Could be, as McCormick concedes

The Republicans have just been through one of those epic internecine battles for which they are famous, to see who would get to wrap himself in the GOP banner in this fall's Senate race in Pennsylvania. When the polls closed, David McCormick, a former hedge fund CEO and military veteran, trailed Turkish-American (or American-Turkish) TV personality Mehmet Cengiz Öz, known professionally as Dr Oz, by fewer than 1000 votes out of more than 1.3 million cast.

Both candidate wannabes deployed attorneys across the Keystone State to scrutinize the ballot-counting process as remaining mail-in ballots, provisional ballots, and ballots outstanding for any other reason were addressed in various counties. Pennsylvania is notorious for voting "irregularities", including delayed counts, although it must be said that such shenanigans more often occur in contests between Republicans and Democrats, rather than primaries.

Earlier this week, Mr McCormick filed a petition for a hand recount of disputed ballots, and it looked as if we might have to wait weeks or months to see who would get to take on Democrat Lt. Gov. John Fetterman in the general election. But last night... surprise, surprise... Mr McCormick announced that he had called Dr Oz to congratulate him on the race, and planned to support the celebrity doctor in the forthcoming battle.

"We've spent the last 17 days making sure that every Republican vote was counted in a way that would result in the will of the Pennsylvania voters being fulfilled," said Mr McCormick, "but it's now clear to me with the recount largely complete that we have a nominee." He added, "today I called Mehmet Oz to congratulate him on his victory, and I told him what I always said to you, that I will do my part to try to unite Republicans and Pennsylvanians behind his candidacy, behind his nomination for the Senate."

Further reading: "How Trump Paved Dr. Oz's Path", by Russell Berman in (surprise) The Atlantic3/6/22. Subhead: "The TV doctor's primary victory in Pennsylvania owes far more to the former president than a well-timed endorsement."

Walt names the Republican Senators who voted against Pres. Trump

Following his acquittal yesterday, President Trump released, through the Office of the Former President, the following statement: 

I want to first thank my team of dedicated lawyers and others for their tireless work upholding justice and defending truth. My deepest thanks as well to all of the United States Senators and Members of Congress who stood proudly for the Constitution we all revere and for the sacred legal principles at the heart of our country.

Seven establishment Republican Senators -- RINOs -- sided with their Democrat counterparts to convict President Trump. They are: 

•  Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) 
•  Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) 
•  Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) 
•  Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) 
•  Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) 
•  Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) 
•  Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)

Does that constitute incitement? Walt simply reminds Republican residents of the seven states concerned of how their senators betrayed them. Next time you get a chance to vote, do the right thing!

NOT GUILTY!

The great circus show trial, a colossal waste of time and money, the conclusion of which was known even before it got under way, has now concluded. Citizen Donald John Trump, 45th President of the United States of America, has been acquitted. 

But that's not all, folks! The campaign to restore former President Trump to the White House... and sanity to America... begins now!!!

Impeachment trial: the VIDEO the MSM don't want you to see

There's four hours of my life I won't get back! Yesterday I watched the first afternoon of the Senate trial of former President Trump -- "former" being the key word here because, as Mr Trump's lawyers pointed out, he is out of office now, and the Constitution does not allow for the impeachment of a private citizen.

I thought they made a pretty good argument on that point, but in spite of the trial being (on an objective reading of the text of the United States Constitution) contrary to the founding document of the republic, six Republic Senators (including the inevitable Mitt Romney) voted to go ahead with it. Final tally: ayes 56 - nays 44. 

That was pretty much what I expected, but what I found interesting were the videos presented to the solons by the House managers and Mr Trump's lawyers. Impeachment manager Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), who previously objected to results from Donald Trump's 2016 victory, showed a dramatic and selectively edited video that spliced together President Trump's statements with images of the mostly peaceful protesters (TM) who "attacked" the Capitol on January 6th. 

I'm sure you've seen that video 1000 times since it was all over the boob tube, from the live feed through every damn "newscast" on every damn station until... well, for all I know it's still being shown this morning. Did you notice, though, that the video edited out (for example) President Trump's appeal to his supporters to "peacefully make their voices heard." The video was the veriest hatchet job, carefully constructed by master manipulators to lay everything at Mr Trump's feet. 

Of course the lickspittle lamestream media swallowed it -- hook, line and sinker -- and expect Americans to do the same. How could viewers do otherwise otherwise, since they saw only the anti-Trump video. But the Senators (whose minds were already made up) saw another one, a montage put together by former Mr Trump's team, which makes clear in just two minutes that this whole show trial is the culmination of the campaign to unseat President Trump which began even before he was sworn in. You be the judge!  

 

The impeachment show trial, the executive orders issued by Sleep Joe to countermand those issued by President Trump, the drive to silence not just Mr Trump but his 74 million supporters (see cartoon above)... these things have nothing to do with reconciliation, and everything to do with retribution. What you have seen over the last three weeks is only the beginning! 

Telling the truth about mass migration is "hateful conduct", sez Twitter

Let's start with a report on CBC News of a speech made recently by Emmanuel Macron, the tiny perfect leftist President of France, about the problem of Islamic terrorism in his country.

The chief surrender-monkey blames it all on the failure of the French people to welcome and accommodate the millions of Muslims who have flooded into his country to take advantage of the French spirit of Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité. 

M Macron gave his speech during the first major terrorism trial in Paris after the attacks against the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo and a Jewish grocery store in January 2015, the co-ordinated killings in cafés and the Bataclan theatre in November 2015, and finally the truck assault in Nice on Bastille Day of 2016. 

The combined death toll from these Islamic terrorist attacks (I'm saying it again lest we forget) was more than 230. Most of the attackers were French-born, but all saw themselves as Islamist jihadis. What will France do with them? Send them to the shitholes of the Middle East and North Africa from which they came? Errr, no. Too late for that.

The Muslims are there now, there to stay. What to do with the 1000s of Islamic extremists now entitled to remain in Europe forever is a real problem for France -- but not just France. "Mass migration absolutely destroyed Europe. Italy, France, Sweden and Germany took in tons of migrants who never assimilated. Rapes, murders, and other heinous crimes abound."

That's not Walt speaking, although I agree. Those are the words of Lauren Witzke, the Republican candidate contesting one of the Senate seats in Delaware. Ms Witzke went on to say "I will end ALL immigration into the US for ten years." For this sin against political correctness, Twitter locked her account! Messages like that, the social media giant says, are "hateful conduct". Well, at least they didn't call it "hate crime". Not yet, anyway.

Twitter went on to warn warning the Senate candidate that repeated violations would result in the termination of her access to the platform. In a comment to Breitbart News, Ms Witzke promised swift action on the issue of tech censorship if elected to the Senate. Said the Senate hopeful, "This is yet another example of Twitter, which is partially owned by a Saudi Arabian prince, interfering in American elections."

Sez Walt, good on yer, Lauren! If I lived in Delaware, you'd have my vote!

Note from Ed.: Am I the only one to notice a strong resemblance between Lauren Witzke and People's Party of Canada star Laura-Lynn Tyler Thompson? How come the lefties can't get good-looking women like this to run for them? Am I being sexist to point this out?

Still-President Trump found NOT GUILTY

President Donald John Trump has been acquitted of both charges in his Senate impeachment trial.

On the first article, the charge of abuse of power, the vote was 52 to 48.

On the second article, the charge of obstruction of Congress, the vote was 53 to 47.

Donald John Trump is still President of the United States of America.

That's all ye know and all ye need to know. Walt's lifetime pct .992.

Impeachment of Still-President Trump moves to final phase

Today will see the opening of the final act of the impeachment charade [trial, shurely! Ed.] Over the previous ten days of "action", the senators who comprise the jury in this proceeding were asked to examine 28,000 documents, and nearly 200 pieces of video evidence from 13 (thirteen) witnesses, with all the video clips carefully selected by the Democrat House managers to present their side of the story. Senators asked 176 questions and received some 200 answers from the Dems and counsel for Still-President Trump.

After all that, they concluded by a vote of 51 to 49 that no more evidence was needed. Very misfortunate for the Dumbocrats, since, in the words of Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) they "have the right to ask for more documents and witnesses, but there is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and that does not meet the U.S. Constitution's high bar for an impeachable offense."

The answer to the donkeys' (plural possessive intentional) question, above, is therefore NO.

What happens today and tomorrow is that the House managers and counsel for the President get to make closing statements, which will be a rehash of the dozens of hours of argument heard over the last two weeks. Then individual senators can make statements. Expect Senate Minority Leader (((Chuck Schumer))) to repeat, probably word for word, what he told the meeja immediately following Friday's vote. Expect no-one to say "Hey, I changed my mind."

The final vote will be held on Wednesday. Expect acquittal. Lifetime pct .991.

Impeachment: The Fat Lady is warming up in the wings

The impeachment trial of Still-President Trump is all but over. That's according to third-most senior Republican Senator John Barrasso, who told Thomson-Reuters it was possible the trial could end on Friday without witnesses being called, as urged by the Democrats.

"The momentum is clearly in the direction of moving to final judgment on Friday," he said. "That vote will be Friday. We still have a couple of members who said they want to listen to the answers to questions, but that's where the momentum is."

Yesterday, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), who's in charge of the persecution of the President, tried to convince the Senate that it had to subpoena more witnesses and documents because... wait for it... it could not "rely on what was investigated in the House."

Cazart! Did he really mean to admit that the House investigation was insufficient, even as fellow House impeachment manager Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) claimed that the impeachment case had already been "proven beyond any doubt at all. See "Senate refuses Dem motions to delay hearing their 'unassailable case'", WWW 21/1/20.

Mr Schiff claimed that it would be unprecedented to hold a Senate trial without witnesses. He had previously denied all Republican requests for new witnesses in the House Intelligence Committee, which he chairs, but this is different, see, because this is the Senate and, errr, we haven't had a chance to bring forward all the important new evidence which we suddenly manufactured... errr, discovered.

In the marathon question-and-answer sessions which are expected to wrap up today, the Democrats repeatedly stressed the need to call former National Security Adviser John Bolton. But Republicans noted that Mr Schiff did not want to have the so-called "whistleblower" (Eric Ciaramella?) testify, and had hidden a key transcript that could reveal details about how the complaint against the president had been launched.

When asked why the Senate should call more witnesses and documents if the House Intelligence Committee would not release the testimony of the Intelligence Community Inspector General, Mr Schiff dodged the query, saying that whatever deficiencies the House may or may not have brought to the Senate were not "sufficient to relieve the Senate of the obligation to have a trial." Mr Schiff reported channelled Vince offer, exclaiming "But wait! There's more!"

During a break in the Q&A, Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) was asked if the Dumbocrats' fight for witnesses was lost. "I don't know that for sure one way or the other," he said, but called the tone and questions of senators "not encouraging." The Schiff show continues. Stay tuned...

Senate refuses Dem motions to delay hearing their "unassailable case"

And so it begins. (Thought I'd get the cliché out of the way early.) The impeachment trial of Still-President Trump got under way in the Senate this afternoon, with Democrat House Managers, led by the inevitable Adam Schiff, accusing Senate Republicans of rigging the trial with proposed rules that would prevent witnesses from testifying and bar evidence gathered by investigators. They were arguing against Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's motion proposing rules that would execute a quick trial, without new testimony or evidence.

What's wrong with that, I hear you ask. Well, say the Dumbocrats, we're not ready! We don't have all the evidence yet! (I'll pause while you let that sink in...)

Be it remembered that when Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Representative Schiff urged the House of Representatives to approve their Articles of Impeachment, they crowed that they had "overwhelming evidence" of President Trump's "crimes and misdemeanours" which "imperilled national security", yada yada yada. The House duly passed the resolution.

There followed a rather lengthy pause -- 33 days! -- while Ms Pelosi pondered the wisdom of sending the Articles to the Senate. Doing so, our legal expert tells us, is the equivalent of filing a "certificate of evidence", which is what you do (in some jurisdictions) to tell a court that, all preliminary matters having been completed, you are ready (aye, ready!) to proceed to trial.

Speaking to the meeja earlier today, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff said once again that the evidence that President Trump abused the power of his office and obstructed Congress is already "overwhelming". But, he said, the Senate should allow House Democrats to introduce still more evidence. Like what? Well, they're not really sure, so they want to issue subpoenas to White House staffers (Hello, Mick Mulvaney!), State Department officials, and just about everyone except the Bidens, on the off chance that someone might say something new that would buttress their "unassailable case" for impeachment.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has now introduced a number (I lost count of how many) of amendments to Senator McConnell's motion, all of which have been defeated on motion to table by votes of 53 to 47, strictly on party lines with nobody on either side of the aisle breaking ranks.

According to Fox News, Dana Perino, host of "The Daily Briefing" and co-host of "The Five", said Senator Schumer "risks losing the public's -- and the Senate's -- attention if he continues to offer these amendments." She speaks right, friends. Walt is not staying tuned.

Further reading: "Time was elections decided things. Apparently Trump's foes think they know better", by Rex Murphy, in the National Post, 21/1/19.

Footnote: Has anyone noticed that Jay Sekulow, one of the lawyers representing President Trump personally (seen here debunking the Dumbocrats' hoax of the day) bears an uncanny resemblance to the late Harold Ramis, of Ghostbusters and SCTV fame?

UPDATED: Impeachment: Democrats afraid to take the next step?

Those readers (especially foreigners) who think that anything major happened in Washington yesterday are advised to review "How the impeachment process is supposed to work", WWW 24/9/19. What you witnessed yesterday [Walt was watching "Judge Judy". Ed.] was merely the end of Act I of the pantomime. Donald J. Trump is still President of the Excited States of America, and likely to remain until 3 November 2020... and likely for another four years after that!

That the House of Representatives voted to impeach the President is hardly news. What is interesting is Speaker Nancy Pelosi's statement at a presser this morning that before raising the curtain on Act II -- the trial in the Senate -- she will wait to see what procedures will be adopted for the trial. Ms Pelosi (D-CA) said this was because she fears that the Republican-controlled Senate may be incapable of holding a "fair trial".

That's a loaded term that she and her Dumbocrat colleagues in both housess have been throwing around a lot lately. On Wednesday evening she was noncommittal about whether she would ever transmit the articles of impeachment to the Senate. After last night's vote, she told the meeja, "We'll make that decision as a group, as we always have, as we go along. So far we haven't seen anything that looks fair to us."

A "fair trial"??? What a steaming load of horseshit. The real reason for Ms Pelosi's reluctance to get on with the next act of this farce was stated by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who denounced the impeachment vote and blasted the Speaker for being "too afraid" to send "their shoddy work product to the Senate."

Speaking on the floor of the Senate, Mr McConnell said, "The framers built the Senate to provide stability, to keep partisan passions from boiling over. Moments like this are why the United States Senate exists." Mr  McConnell is meeting today with his counterpart, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), to establish the parameters for the trial in the upper chamber.

Nancy Pelosi, Congressman Adam Schiff (D-CA), and Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) have now all floated the idea of freezing the House vote where it is, rather than sending the impeachment articles to the Senate, where President Trump would undoubtedly go down in history as being vindicated.

This morning, President Trump took aim at Ms Pelosi for not sending the impeachment articles to the Senate right away. He tweeted, "The Senate shall set the time and place of the trial. If the Do Nothing Democrats decide, in their great wisdom, not to show up, they would lose by Default!"

UPDATE ADDED at 1710 (scraped from Breitbart News): During a press conference on Thursday, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) stated that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is "admitting defeat" by not sending articles of impeachment over to the Senate.

McCarthy said, "Now, we have the own speaker of the House who is so embarrassed that she admits the failure of this impeachment that she will not even send it to the Senate.… She's admitting defeat by not sending it, by refusing to send the impeachment over, she knows this outcome is not good. She knows the facts are not there. There's no basis for it."

How the impeachment process is supposed to work

Ed. here. We no sooner posted "After years sitting on the pot, Pelosi finally...", in which Walt intimated that his understanding of the impeachment process was less than perfect, when Agent 3 passed along a guide to how the process works, by Alexandra Mae Jones, on the CTV News website. We trust Ms Jones and CTV will not mind our reposting the main part of her concise and lucid explanation.

What is impeachment?

Impeachment is the process to remove an official, and is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. It can happen at the state or federal level. In the case of impeaching a sitting president, the House of Representatives can call for impeachment to begin if they believe that the president is guilty of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors,” according to the Constitution.

There is no specific definition of a “high crime” included in the Constitution, but the concept is essentially aimed at preventing corruption by high-level officials. Although impeachment involves a trial, it’s not a criminal process, merely one to remove an official from office. Criminal charges being brought against an individual is a separate matter.

How does it happen?

An individual member of the House could simply introduce an impeachment resolution like any other bill, which would then be reviewed by a committee, likely the House Judiciary Committee. Or the House Judiciary Committee can first hold their own investigation and bring articles of impeachment against the president, and present that evidence to the House. (“Articles of impeachment” simply refers to the charges against a president).

The next step would be for the evidence to be presented before the House for a vote. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler has declared previously that his committee has already been conducting impeachment hearings, but the panel has been unable to get many key witnesses and documents from the Trump administration.

Ultimately, the full House votes on whether or not to impeach. A majority vote is needed for the impeachment to pass. If the House passes a vote to impeach, it doesn’t mean the president gets removed immediately. The case then moves to the Senate, where a trial is held.

The House appoints members to act as prosecutors in the Senate. The president would have defense lawyers to defend him. The chief justice of the Supreme Court would preside over the Senate trial. It comes down to a final Senate vote. At least two thirds of the Senate needs to vote to impeach in order for the motion to pass.

If impeachment is successful, the president would be immediately removed from office, and the vice president would take over until an election.

How often has impeachment been successful?

No sitting president has been removed from office due to impeachment so far, although impeachment proceedings have been brought against three different presidents.

Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1998 both were ultimately acquitted and allowed to complete their presidential terms. Richard Nixon resigned in 1974 when impeachment proceedings were brought against him for his role in the Watergate scandal, preventing the House from impeaching him.

Peruvian woman wants to meet Father Duffy

As Canadian readers of WWW know, "Independent" -- read "ex-Conservative" -- Senator Michael Dennis Duffy is not the undisputed king of the Canuck pork barrel. He is the pork barrel! He is currently suspended from his extra-wide seat in the Upper Chamber of Parliament, and under investigation (so they say) by Sergeant Preston of the Yukon [RCMP, surely! Ed.]

See "Moron* Mike Duffy", "'Bring me the head of Senator Duffy!'", and "Emotional and over-refreshed, Senator Puffy denies having his snout too deep in the trough", all posted here last year.

The circumferentially-challenged senator has been maintaining a low profile [Really?! Ed.] while the investigation drags on, but finds himself in the glare of the headlights this week after Canada's Maclean's magazine published an interview with Karen Duffy, a Peruvian woman who claims to be the Puffster's bastard daughter by a convicted drug smuggler.

Yvette Benites says she met Duffy's sister Moira in the early `80s at Kingston's old Prison for Women (P4W) while doing time after being conned into carrying a prohibited substance into Canada. Moira introduced Yvette to her brother, who was then a reporter and gossip-monger for the CBC, while Yvette was on parole at a half-way house, pending deportation.

The Maclean's story says the alleged affair lasted for a few months, ending when Ms Benites found herself, errr, up the duff, at which point Mr. Duffy's interest in her, errr, rehabilitation suddenly ceased.

Now Karen Duffy, allegedly the fruit of the illicit affair, wants the father she never met to at least acknowledge her existence. The 32-year-old said she is not seeking money from Senator Duffy, who is well known to be so impecunious that his "friend" Nigel Wright had to repay the Senate for the money Duffy scammed on his expense account.

Ms Duffy says all she wants is "to have a relationship" with her father. "I want to meet him," she said. "I want him to know me, and share the things that are important to me."

She told Maclean's that she and her mother tried to reach out to the journalist-turned-senator over the past few decades, with no response. So, she has brought a paternity suit in a Peruvian court. Although any order of a Peruvian court would likely be unenforceable in Canada (according to Agent 3), it would seem that the Puffster's options are either to (a) admit paternity or (b) submit to a DNA test to disprove the allegation. The rumour on Parliament Hill is that Nigel Wright has volunteered to take the test for Duffy, for friendship's sake.

Note from Ed. to Agent 9: "Father Duffy"...the other Father Duffy! Geddit?!

CBC's "The House" reviews the Wrights and wrongs of l'affaire Duffy

Note from Ed.: This item is of interest only to Canadian political junkies. This does not include Ted Cruz, who is surely a political junkie and a Canadian (as of this writing) but we didn't mean it that way. If you're not fascinated by Canadian politics -- that's what we meant -- wait until tomorrow and we'll have something else.

This week's edition of CBC Radio's fine political programme, The House, was devoted entirely to the ongoing scandal over repayment by Nigel Wright -- formerly Chief of Staff to Canuck Prime Minister Steve "Stephen" Harper -- of expenses fraudulently claimed by the Honourable [sic] Mike "Mike" Duffy, the once and future senator from Prince Edward Island... or possibly Kanata, which is where Mr. Puffy lives.

The radio programme is well worth listening to in its entirety (about 52 minutes). It focuses on court documents filed by the Mounties in the course of their investigation into the scandal. You'll hear excerpts from a number of damning e-mails, read by actors portraying Mr. Right ["Wright", surely! Ed.] and others, as well as the Puffster's mendacious and self-serving speeches in the Senate.

Radio-Canada Ottawa bureau chief Emmanuelle Latraverse and CBC senior political correspondent Terry Milewski -- Walt likes Milewski a lot -- join host Evan Solomon for the journey and give their analysis of what it all means.

Before you listen, if this is all kind of new to you -- or if your eyes glazed over back in May or June -- you might take a look at Walt's previous posts on the subject:
"VIDEO: Rex hexes Canadian pols"
"Canucks too polite for their own good?"
"Print your own Duffybuck!"
"Emotional and over-refreshed, Senator Puffy denies having his snout too deep in the trough"
"Wright was wrong! Wright is gone! But WHY?!"
"'Bring me the head of Senator Duffy!'"
"Moron* Mike Puffy"
[That's enough Duff stuff. Ed.]

VIDEO: Rex hexes Canadian pols

Walt hesitates to use the word "icon", said word being much overworked these days, but a Canadian icon is what Rex Murphy is. He hosts Cross-Country Checkup, a coast-to-coast-to-coast [speaking of hackneyed phrases. Ed.] speak-your-mouth programme on CBC Radio on Sundays, and appears most Thursdays on CBC-TV's The National following the "At Issue" panel. From pop culture to politics, Rex Murphy brings a unique and always controversial perspective to the news.

Mr. Murphy has the gift o' the gab. That comes of having Irish ancestry, by way of Newfoundland, Canada's funniest province. He also has a tremendous vocabulary, which was on exhibit last night as Rex poured scorn on Toronto Mayor Rob Ford and Mike "Michael" Duffy and the other Conservative senators embroiled in the ongoing expenses scandal. He did so with such eloquence and wit that Walt is sure even non-Canadian readers will enjoy this large serving of vitriol.

Emotional and over-refreshed, Senator Puffy denies having his snout too deep in the trough

The dishonourable senator Mike Duffy has been mentioned several times on WWW in the last couple of weeks, notably in "Moron* Mike Puffy". But the Puffster's questionable expense accounts have been the subject of derision and revulsion on Canada's Parliament Hill even before the ink was dry on Steve Harper's order awarding the swine a large place at the trough.

Back in 2010, Member of Parliament Peter Stoffer (NDP - Down East) made a fuss about the gynormous sums being charged to the Canadian taxpayer by Duffy and other senators. Just for fun, the CBC's Evan Solomon decided to bring the two of them together on his TV show. Ed. has located a video in which Duffy, perceptibly under the influence of a preprandial snort or two, shows his disdain for those who dare challenge his entitlement to his entitlements.



As of this evening, Senator Puffy is still sitting in his extra-wide seat in Canada's Senate. That august body is dithering about whether or not to have a public inquiry into the housing allowance which Duff claimed improperly and possibly illegally. The dishonourable senator says he would welcome a public airing of his dirty laundry, at which time he will tell "the whole story". Whether Prime Minister Harpoon will cave in to this implied threat remains to be seen.

When pigs fly: Duffy en route to Ottawa -- stay tuned!

Today is a holiday in much of Canada. Québec is excluded because this is Victoria Day, commemorating the birthday of the late queen. Vicky was actually born on May 24th, and she died 111 years ago, but so what. That the day is still celebrated (outside of Québec) tells you all you need to know about the Great Not-so-white North.

Tomorrow Canada's Parliament resumes sitting. Both houses -- the House of Commons and the Senate. The latter august body now has four "independent" members, one former Liberal and three former Conservatives. One of those is the "honourable" Mike Duffy, erstwhile senator from Prince Edward Island... or Kanata... whatever.

When last we heard -- see "'Bring me the head of Senator Duffy!'" -- the Puffster was holed up in his sty on PEI. Not talking, is what he was doing [for a change. Ed.]. But Walt's agent on Spud Island reports that the belly that walks like a man [or two men. Ed.] was seen in Charlottetown boarding a plane destined for the world's second-coldest capital.

What does the sight of a pig about to fly portend? Could it be that His Smugness, who crawled half-way under the bus last week, will push the rest of his fat self beneath the wheels and tender his resignation not just from the Conservative caucus but from the Red Chamber itself? Stay tuned, and remember who told you. Lifetime pct .980.

Further reading: "The integrity issue is reaching critical mass", by Lawrence Martin (author of Harperland) in the Globe and Mail.
Riddle submitted by Agent 3: What do Mike Duffy and Anne of Green Gables have in common? Answer: They're both fictional residents of Prince Edward Island!

Wright was wrong! Wright is gone! But WHY?!

The Canadian Senate shitstorm increases in fury! Only yesterday -- in "Bring me the head of Senator Duffy" -- Walt gloated (yes!) over the resignation of Senator Mike Duffy from the Conservative caucus. While I wrote, Tory Senator Pam Wallin announced that she would join him under the bus.

What, Walt wondered, would it take to get the Puffster or the fragrant Ms Wallin -- or Senator Harb (ex-Liberal) or Senator Brazeau (the third ex-Conservative) -- to resign not just from their party's caucus but from the Senate itself?

Of even greater interest was (and still is) the question of why the Tories went to such great lengths to protect only the dishonourable Senator from Kanata. For what reason would Nigel Wright, Prime Minister Harper's Chief of Staff, pay over $90,000, allegedly out of his own pocket, to cover the expenses for which Puffy improperly billed the Canadian taxpayer? Was it party esprit de corps, or an outpouring of the milk of human kindness?

A further question arose as to the future of the incredibly generous Mr. Wright. A spokesthingy for Mr. Harpoon said the PM had "complete confidence" in his Chief of Staff. Was that the kiss of death?

Perhaps so, as sometime between yesterday's post and today's, Mr. Wright bailed. Admitted he was not Wright but Wrong. Tendered his resignation, which the PM quickly (and "regretfully") accepted.

Walt would love to have a man-to-man talk with Nigel Wright, but he seems to be in seclusion. The Puffster is hiding in his sty in PEI, much to the surprise of neighbours who couldn't recall ever having seen him there before.

If I could, I would like to find out what it is that Duffy knows -- and may yet tell -- about Harper, about Wright, and perhaps about others. For instance... Wright has been described as a long-time friend of Duffy's, hence his eagerness to give his old buddy 90 large. And of course Wright is a close friend of the Prime Minister's too. Does Mr. Wright have any other friends? What about John "Nancy" Baird, Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs? Is there some connection there? Just asking...

"Bring me the head of Senator Duffy!"

It's been barely 48 hours since Walt assaulted your olfactory sense with the story of how the Honourable Mike Duffy, the Senator from Kanata [not PEI? Ed.] had his huge ass covered by Nigel Wright, Chief of Staff to Steve "Stephen" Harper, the Prime Minister of Canada. There's more to the story...

Senator Puffy was being audited by Deloitte (at the request of the Senate) over housing expenses he claimed and received for maintaining a residence in Kanata -- a suburb of the world's second-coldest capital -- because his principal residence was supposedly in Prince Edward Island. The amount in question was in excess of C$90,000 ($88,000 in real money.)

Trouble is, Duffy had occupied the house in Kanata for years and years, whereas the sty in PEI went largely unoccupied according to neighbours -- more of a summer cottage, if that. That spelled trouble for the Puffster because the Canadian Constitution requires senators to live in the province they represent. Calls were loud for the "honourable" senator to resign from his position and/or at least pay back the money, and after weeks of stonewalling, Duffy said in February that he would do the latter but not the former.

As reported two days ago, the 90 large was indeed repaid, not by the porcine parliamentarian but by the Chief of Staff in the Prime Minister's Office. Why?! One's first guess would have to be to make the whole stinky affair go away. If that's what he was thinking, Wright was Wrong!

Embarrassing questions were asked the moment CTV broke the story. Why, Canadians wondered, was Senator Puffy given special treatment? (Two other senators -- Liberal Mac Harb and Conservative Patrick Brazeau -- also faced demands to repay ill-gotten housing allowances.) What did Duffy have on the Conservatives that they would spend so much political capital -- not to mention cash -- to protect him? Maybe he has proof of John Baird's sexual preferences? Maybe he has pictures of Harper and the Duck? 

While Canucks were mulling the possibilities, there was a further revelation! The Tories refused to provide details of exactly what improperly-claimed expenses were being repaid. Turns out that, apart from the housing allowance, Duffy had billed the Senate per diem fees for work allegedly done while he was in Florida. Images of a beached whale spring to mind!

Ditto for a number of days during the federal election campaign of 2011 during which Mr. Puffy charged the Senate for attending to his senatorial duties while at the same time stumping for his beloved Conservative Party in constituencies far removed from Ottawa. [Not in PEI, though! Ed.] As the Tories themselves had paid Duffy for those days, it would seem that the "honourable" senator was, errr, double-dipping.

All this caused considerable soiling of shorts in the corridors of power, especially the Langevin Block. [That's where the Prime Minister's Office is. Ed.] Pundits and publicans were unanimous in calling for the heads of both Duffy and Wright. But did either of them resign? Errr, no. Duffy resigned, not from the Senate but from the Conservative caucus. He will now sit in his extra-wide seat as an "independent". Wright has been neither seen nor heard, but a fart-catcher for Steve Harper says the PM still has "complete confidence" in his chief of staff. Stay tuned.

Double-dip footnote: Duffy's was not the only snout deep in the trough. Late last night, another Conservative senator decided to join the Puffster under the bus. [On the "independent" benches, surely! Ed.] Pamela Wallin -- coincidentally another former "non-partisan" broadcaster who formerly worked for CTV -- is also under investigation for improperly claiming "other travel" expenses in the neighbourhood of $321,000.

She and Duffy both say they will rejoin the Tories once these little misunderstandings are "resolved". Wallin's calls to Nigel Wright have not been returned.

Moron* Mike Puffy

Speaking of pigs in parliament, Canada's Least Honourable Senator Mike Duffy was caught yesterday with his snout even deeper in the trough than was previously known... outside of the Prime Minister's Office, that is. Looks like the Puffster -- "Is that your face or are you standing beside a balloon?" -- is headed for the high jump as a result of his blatant and hypocritical disregard for the rules of the Senate and possibly the Criminal Code of Canada

The smelly story so far
As a reward for his biased, below-the-belt "reporting" of the political scene -- plus a natural propensity for arse-kissing -- "Duff" was rewarded by his good friend Steve "Stephen" Harper with appointment to the Senate of Canada as a senator from Prince Edward Island.

The Canadian constitution requires a senator to maintain his principal residence in the province which he purports to represent. Sadly for Duffy, although he was born in PEI and resembles a PEI potato -- a huge PEI potato -- he has lived for decades in Kanata, a suburb of the world's second-coldest capital. He has a large house there, with a large ($360,000) mortgage.

Nevertheless, the "honourable" senator from PEI signed a declaration that his principal residence is (what turned out to be) a summer cottage in Cavendish PEI. That would make him eligible for a housing allowance to defray the costs of maintaining the aforementioned residence in Kanata.

When this came to light in the course of enquiries into expenses claimed by Duffy and three other senators (one Liberal, two Tories), the ace reporter claimed he'd had trouble understanding the declaration he'd signed. Perhaps he failed to comprehend the implications of the word "principal", since its homonym -- "principle" -- is clearly not in his vocabulary.

Anyway, it was all a big "innocent" mistake, and a couple of weeks after the "error" was revealed, Duffy trotted out the old contrition act. Without actually using the word "sorry", he said on national TV that the whole thing had become a "distraction" from his onerous duties as senator, and he and his wife (nice touch) had decided they would repay the $90,000 or so in housing expenses which he had "mistakenly" claimed and received.

Fast forward to March, when the Senate committee looking into the matter was about to present its report. By the way, someone asked, did Senator Duffy ever give back his ill-gotten money? Oh yes, said Marjorie LeBreton (government leader in the Senate) and Steve Harper, he did the right thing -- the honourable thing -- and all the money has been repaid.

What no-one said -- not Duffy, not Harper nor his many minions -- was that it wasn't the arch-troughster who actually ponied up the funds with which to reimburse the Canadian taxpayer. The cheque was actually cut by... wait for it... one Nigel Wright.

Nigel Wright? Who he? Ed. 
Nigel Wright is a wealthy Bay Street capitalist who, as a reward for [Get on with it! Ed.] has for a couple of years been the Chief of Staff in the office of... wait for it... Prime Minister Steve "Stephen" Harper!

Wright is also an old and dear friend of Senator Puffy. When he somehow learned that Duffy, in spite of his $132,000 Senate salary and generous expense allowance, was impecunious, Wright generously offered to give the skint senator the $90,000 needed to cover his enormous fundament. That's "give", not "lend".

Looks like Wright was wrong to help out his fat old friend in this way. First of all, it's just not done to make a large payment in cash (or cheque) to a sitting legislator for no reason at all. And even if the gift itself is not illegal, the recipient would -- under the Senate's conflict of interest code -- be required to report the gift within 30 days of receiving it. In this case the deadline would have been sometime before April 25th. Need I add that no such report was ever made.

Why did Wright do it? Did the Prime Minister know? The deal, according to Duffy himself, was made in the course of "negotiations" between Duffy's lawyer and "the Prime Minister's Office". Duffy would pay back the housing allowance and the government would "go easy" on him and (presumably) not make him resign his Senate seat even though he is clearly not eligible to represent Prince Edward Island.

The way Walt sees it, the only way Prime Minister Harper could not have known about the deal to save Duffy's fat face (and that of the PM who appointed him) would be if Harper wilfully closes his eyes to the business of his own office. We know that Harper is an avid piano player... just like the piano player in the brothel who says "I don't know what goes on upstairs".

The federal Ethics Commissioner will investigate as soon as her bucket of whitewash can be refilled.

Further reading: "The only right thing left for Mike Duffy to do now is resign" by one of Walt's favourite commentators, Andrew Coyne, in today's National Post.

* The headline originally read "More on Mike Puffy" but it's funnier now. Ed.

Puffy senator lifts snout out of trough... slightly

Yesterday afternoon, Conservative Senator Mike Duffy, the porky prevaricator Canadians love to loathe -- see yesterday's post -- admitted that he might have made a mistake on those darn ambiguous residence forms, and would be giving back over $40,0000 in expenses he got by claiming to have his principal residence in (on?) Prince Edward Island.

Ah yes, those forms. Once a year senators are asked to declare whether their principal residence is (a) within 100 kilometres of Parliament Hill or (b) not within 100 kilometres of Parliament Hill. You have to tick one or the other box. How hard could it be? Well, the Supreme Trougher chose (b).

If the Senate were a game show [You mean it's not? Ed.] the Puffster wouldn't be going on to Round Two. The correct answer is (a), as the tubby Tory now admits. So that's why he's giving back the allowance he received. As New Democrat ethics critic Charlie Angus puts it, “He had to get caught. He had to get hounded. He came up with excuse after excuse and then finally pays the money back.”

Sadly for "Duff", as he likes to call himself, that's not the end of it. The Canadian Constitution requires that to be a senator representing Province X, you have to be a resident of Province X. As Walt pointed out last time, Duffy has not only a principal residence in Ontario, but an Ontario health card. And he does not claim to be a resident of PEI on his tax returns.

But, the senator sez, he has two cars with PEI licence plates. And he has a PEI driver's licence too! Presumably that's not the one which was suspended some years ago following a conviction for DUI. Is that enough to keep the Puffster from having to give up his extra-wide Senate seat?

Former Liberal leader Stéphane Dion, for one, is not convinced. In his usual impeccable English, M. Dion said, “I have no comment as to whether he’s qualified but if he is not a resident of PEI, more than to have a cottage to go to once and awhile, then he is not qualified.... It will be for the Senate to look at that. I will respect the proper process.”

Canadian taxpayers and lovers of irony await.

Further reading: "Memories of Mike Duffy: lawsuits and ‘smear’ campaigns" -- the fond recollections of Michael Bate, former editor of the now-defunct Canadian satirical magazine, Frank.