Nigel Wright: 'I ... remain confident that my actions were lawful' - Macleans.ca
 

Nigel Wright: ‘I … remain confident that my actions were lawful’

A new court filing offers a new account of what happened


 

As CP reports, new documents from the RCMP allege Nigel Wright, the Prime Minister’s former chief of staff, broke the law when he paid Mike Duffy $90,000 to repay Mr. Duffy’s expenses.

Nigel Wright’s lawyer passes along the following statement from Mr. Wright.

“My intention was always to secure repayment of funds owed to taxpayers.  I acted within the scope of my duties and remain confident that my actions were lawful.  I have no further comment at this time.”


 

Nigel Wright: ‘I … remain confident that my actions were lawful’

  1. Well, he just called Harp a liar.

    • How?

      • What has Harp accused Wright of?

        • Harper has accused Wright of having made the wrong judgement call when Wright decided to pay Duffy’s expenses back.

    • how so?

    • On CBC (the house), David Tkachuk talked about the original draft of the Senate Finance committee that went to the PMO for comment. (odd that)

      The original draft stated categorically that Duffy was a resident of Ottawa not PEI. Presumably that original draft was deemed problematic for the PMO, so according to Tkachuk an agreement was negotiated with Duffy that he would be assisted in paying back the money and the report would be modified. According to both Tkachuk and Duffy, Duffy did not originally want to pay back the money and was only convinced in order to avoid the statement of residence issue.

      Tkachuk was shockingly open and naive about this. He clearly viewed his job as “making the PM happy”. He seemed to think this was just the regular type of horsetrading associated with politics. Maybe it was. However, the interpretation that a sitting Senator was coerced into doing something he didn’t want by the PMO&Senate leadership and that money was exchanged in order to make that happen certainly also fits in with other interpretations.

      • Con principles and morality are fluid….telling a whopper for Jesus is the standard they go by….so interpretations vary.

        • You are deciding that it is Nigel Wright that is “telling a whopper” when it could be the two parliamentarians who are being less than honest here. Unless you were actually there OR have ESP, I don’t think you really know the truth.

          • This is the problem in discussing anything with you…..you never understand what is being said.

            I clearly stated Nigel Wright just called Harper a liar.

          • Emily, you never every said what Harper lied about. You made some obtuse statement about what Harper accused Wright of. Harper said he fired Wright and that Wright was deceitful. As I said before, Harper could have told Wright that yes, his resignation would be accepted because if he didn’t he would be fired (a constructive dismissal in which they give one few choices but to resign is still a firing). Wright admitted he didn’t tell Harper about the money he paid for Duffy’s expenses so where is the lying?

          • You’re related to Francien arncha……

          • No, can’t say that I am but then YOU have a lot more in common with her than I do. 10K + comments….WOW! V. Francien and 13K +….CRAZY. Me….I can’t even get to 3K after 4 years.

          • OCD and thick as well…..don’t give out any medication.

          • I am not making up false allegations. You are.

            Please explain to us how it makes it clear, according to you, that the latest statements by Wright or the RCMP prove that Harper lied?

            Please explain or stop your false allegations.

          • Sigh….the Con party – they’re everything you hated about high school

          • Either Harper knew or he has no clue of what his own taxpayer paid staff were up to. Who is responsible for the Prime Minister’s Office?

          • You did indeed state that Nigel Wright just called Harper a liar, approximately 3 hours ago from time of my posting.
            You have yet to prove, elaborate or substantiate your claim that Wright called Harper a liar.
            But let the record show you did indeed state it, and did so clearly.

          • I’ll make it really simple for the slow among you.

            Harp said Wright had done something illegal and wrong and fired him.

            Wright says he didn’t.

          • What’s your point? How then has Harper lied?

          • Harper never said that what Wright did was illegal.

          • Harp specified he ‘dismissed’ him…and that the RCMP was investigating him.

          • Either Harper is slow or he knew the gist of what was going on in his own office.

          • Well you’d think so, especially since he has a reputation for micromanaging!

          • Yes, but about what? Your statement was also clearly lacking any content (for which you choose to give HI grief???).

      • Pure speculation on your part. You are in no position to assume to know with any certainty whatsoever what other people must have been thinking.

        Pure speculation on your part.

  2. I wonder, will Rob Ford throw Harper under a bus know ?

    • ????

      • Who knows? Doesn’t make much sense really. Maybe the implication is that because the vaunted ‘Ford Nation’ machine was instrumental in getting CPC members elected in some of the T.O. suburbs (as it reportedly was), this week’s events (Spec. Kenney) will cause said machine to down tools in ‘service of the cause’.

        If that’s what is meant, it’s probably correct. Though it’s uncertain at best what value the FN brand has for anyone after the recent clownshow.