Press Gallery member exposed at trial taking money from Mike Duffy


Just when you think the Media Party’s secrets couldn’t get any dirtier, this comes to light:

The court record shows that, in 2010, Bourrie was issued a $500 cheque by one of Duffy’s contractors for what appeared to be “Web site analysis.”

Mark Bourrie is a rabid anti-Harper fanatic who recently appeared as a media panelist at the NDP front-group, Broadbent Institute alongside fellow Harper-Derangement Syndrome sufferer Michael Harris:



Do you think Bourrie told the Broadbent people he had taken money previously from Duffy?

The Parliamentary Press Gallery has confirmed that Bourrie was a member during this time:

Gallery staff confirmed Wednesday that Bourrie was a Gallery member in 2010 at the time he took Duffy’s money and remains a member as of Wednesday, listed on the Gallery’s Web site as a freelancer. (see here)

How long has the Press Gallery known about this and how many members are or have been paid under the table by politicians or political parties?

The Media Party’s glee over using the Duffy trial to take down Harper has now had the tables turned on them – hilarious if it wasn’t so disgusting.




Media given Duffy trial documents that were supposed to be redacted but still legible

Mike Duffy

I’m just a dumb guy who knows nothing about how the courts work but found it extremely bizarre that I was seeing evidence put forward by the Crown against Mike Duffy appearing in the media even though it seemingly didn’t have anything to do with the criminal trial at hand.

Case in point was this story about an entry in Duffy’s daily calendar about how Minister Peter MacKay apparently blamed ex-Harper aide and now Liberal-turncoat Dimitri Soudas for leaking something damaging about him to the press:

According to entries in Duffy’s personal calendar, MacKay told him he believed that Dimitri Soudas, former director of communications to Harper, leaked the unflattering story about the chopper ride to the media. The conversation between MacKay and Duffy happened during or after a national Conservative caucus meeting on May 9, 2012, according to the Duffy calendar entry.

But then we find out the media weren’t supposed to have this information:

The entries, some of which were blacked out by a marker but still legible, also indicate that senators were outraged by how the PMO and MacKay handled the story. (see here)

Tell me how it was possible for the court to have given political gossip to the media so badly ‘redacted’ that it was still readable?

Is this a common problem of the courts because I’ve never heard of it happening before or was someone with an anti-Conservative agenda in charge of the evidence?

This is pretty damn serious.


%d bloggers like this: