Monday, April 27, 2015
Michael Harris on the Case Against Duffy and the Case Against Harper
If you've been following the trial of Mike Duffy, you know that the prosecution is having trouble making its case that he broke the rules, because it seems the Senate didn't have any.
And that the judge is getting impatient.
But as Michael Harris points out while the case against Duffy is in shambles.
Three weeks into the trial, Judge Charles Vaillancourt spoke for a lot of Canadians when he stung the Crown with a comment about the administrative swampland of Senate expenses and the unfocussed case against Duffy. So far, the Crown’s evidence, (and there is a long way to go) about the rules applying to what senators are, and are not allowed to do, is as clear as mud.
The case against Stephen Harper couldn't be stronger.
And his refusal to accept responsibity for bending the rules to appoint Ol' Duff couldn't be more absurd.
One hundred gallons of Kool Aid chugalugged in a minute are required to believe Harper’s absurd attempt to say, for the hundredth time, that the prime minister of Canada is responsible for absolutely nothing when things go south politically.
Not responsible for putting a felon in his office as an advisor (Bruce Carson); not responsible for putting an accused felon in charge of Canada’s deepest security secrets (Arthur Porter); not responsible for keeping a parliamentary secretary gainfully employed who may now be on his way to prison (Dean del Mastro.)
Visions of Nixon: If your prime minister does it, it’s not a crime.
And since there wouldn't have been a scandal if Great Nixonian Leader hadn't appointed Duffy, he needs to be forced to explain himself, in the witness box, under oath.
The Crown has already gainsaid the PM on the issue of Duffy’s constitutional eligibility for the Senate. The Crown has said that he probably wasn’t eligible for the appointment. Unless the Privy Council and the GG’s office are full of sycophantic dolts, they would have told the PM the same thing. So why was the appointment made? We need Harper’s evidence under oath in court — the one place where political marketers don’t have the last word. Well placed sources tell me that the PM knew well about the hazards of appointing Duffy from PEI, but said the critics “would get over it.”
Because I'll like to see how much makeup Harper would feel he needed to try to explain that one...
Or this one...
And with the trial threatening to continue forever, Harper must be sweating like a pig, at the thought that he could be called to testify in the middle of an election campaign.
After, or just before Nigel Wright tries to explain the "good to go"
And around the same time that Duffy gets to tell his version of events.
Or tell all those dirty stories about really goes on behind the curtain in the PMO...
Because Harper would never be able to recover from that fatal combination so close to an election.
So the scandal he created with his appalling judgement and his failure to follow the rules.
Will almost certainly come back to haunt or bite him.
And with a little bit of luck it will help us destroy him...
Please click here to recommend this post at Progressive Bloggers