Before it’s done, Mike Duffy’s day in court could resemble an extended Rick Mercer skit. In the end, the former happy Buddha of the news biz could wind up convicted of … being a senator. (Unless, of course, the Royal Conservative Mounted Police learn that Duffy converted to Islam just before he took all that money.)
So far, nothing has been established in court to suggest that Duffy’s lawyer, Donald Bayne, is far wrong when he describes his client’s behaviour in office as “normative” given the Senate rules in place at the time.
But who knows? Maybe the Harper regime is planning another statutory parlour trick that will rewrite history in the interests of fitting Duffy for a shroud. A little more gun-registry legerdemain.
Retroactive absolution — the possibilities are endless. Dean Del Mastro might be found retroactively not guilty of election fraud. It’s probably too late for Arthur Porter, the watchdog/fraudster Stephen Harper put in charge of oversight for CSIS. But maybe Bruce Carson will get to put on his dancing shoes again. Gadzooks — as Tony Clement says, it’s not a “biggie” to rewrite history. Orwell was just full of hyperbole, right Gazebo Man? It’s all angels dancing on the head of a pin, all metaphysics, or metadata, or pizza …
Judging from the Crown’s dismal case against Duffy to this point — from little dogs that weren’t purchased to sinister applications of powder and blush — prosecutors had better pray that the PM’s former chief of staff, Nigel Wright, finally helps them hit paydirt instead of just plain dirt when he finally takes the stand.
The formidable Bayne knows that Wright will either bury Duffy with new information, or trip the wire that blows the prosecution’s case to smithereens.
The collateral damage of the latter turn of events would eclipse the fate of the man who is on trial. Wright’s testimony could shatter Harper’s already shaky credibility in three ways:
If Wright confirms that the PM knew more about the Duffy deal than he told Parliament, nobody will be able to put Humpty Dumpty together again. Nobody likes a liar — especially one who claims to be running the country in the interests of family values. (The Mafia used to say the same thing.)
If Wright should state under oath that he resigned his post, the PM will have to explain why he publicly insisted that he had been fired. Spot the liar.
Finally, there’s the sticky matter of the money. The PM says he didn’t know a thing about the $90,000 gift paid to Duffy by Wright. He says Wright deceived him and everybody else. But the “good to go from the PM” email written by Wright after their February 22, 2013 meeting refers to the earlier cash-for-remorse-and-no-audit deal — when the amount Duffy owed was smaller, and CPC bagman Senator Irving Gerstein was going to pony up the party funds. So what exactly did the PM know about that deal that won his approval? Let me guess: In the absence of sodium pentathol, the answer will be ‘diddly-squat’.
Bayne’s battle plan has already been laid out. Wright was the “ringleader” of “cohorts and underlings” in the PMO who forced the suspended senator to repay $90,000 in disputed expenses. It’s a credible and well-documented argument. Worse, Wright himself knew Duffy might well be legally entitled to that money. And so, apparently, did the PM — because Wright allegedly told him, according to his RCMP statement.
So what was the real purpose of all that free moolah? It was a political vanity payment to spare the PM blowback from his base over a set of Senate rules that allowed a guy to charge his meals and housing to the public. That’s why he ordered it, approved it and … doesn’t want to talk about it. This PM doesn’t care how many turns someone else takes on the spit, as long as the heat never reaches him.
It is doubtful that Nigel Wright will endorse Bayne’s argument that the demonizing of Duffy was a “fraud, a fiction and a lie.” But will he cover for the prime minister?
People who know Wright say he will not. For one thing, he’s a lawyer who understands the oath and, at the best of times, uses language like a man defusing a bomb. This is the worst of times, so Nigel will be checking his zipper twice before leaving the loo. For another, he’s a businessman who could be ruined by taking one for the team, because the truth might seep out elsewhere.
One iconic Conservative player (who once described the PM as a “lying weasel”) told me Harper might be able to survive Duffy’s acquittal — but not being caught telling a big lie. In that player’s opinion, Harper is in for a rude awakening. Under oath, with the right questions, and with a judge who will allow some latitude in Bayne’s questioning, the truth will come out. It’s one thing to be thrown under the bus. It’s quite another to crawl under it yourself — with your hand on the Bible.
Viewed through a wider lens, the Duffy trial and the Senate expenses scandal amount to a hull-on-iceberg moment for the moribund institution where hacks and hangers-on go to graze.
The Senate leadership of the day allowed the PMO to invade the integrity of the Upper Chamber to satisfy the political needs of the prime minister. At the behest of Nigel Wright, Senator Irving Gerstein was asked to “work through senior contacts at Deloitte” to gain information from an independent forensic audit commissioned by another parliamentary body.
Then the Senate leadership of the day assumed the position, allowing the PMO to make changes to a Senate report dealing with Duffy that put the matter to bed according to the PMO scenario — expenses paid, no need to audit, no decision on primary residence, nothing to see here, case closed. Then up popped Bob Fife.
Now, in a state of decorous pandemonium, the Senate is disgracing itself yet again — trying to use parliamentary privilege to keep information vital to Duffy’s defence secret. The Senate leadership is stepping on old men, women and children in a mad rush for the lifeboats. They are devising an escape for the forty or so other Duffys and Wallins and Brazeaus who will soon be thrashing around in the wider net cast by Auditor General Michael Ferguson and his $21 million audit.
But at least they’ll have recourse. There is the possible salvation of chequebook remorse. There is the possible salvation of a dispensation from retired Supreme Court judge Ian Binnie.
Now all that’s left to be answered is this: Where was the zeal for due process, a hearing, and even the possibility of an appeal, when senators Duffy, Brazeau and Wallin were frog-jumped out of the Senate and caucus into national ignominy?
Or were the top bananas in the Senate leadership back then just following orders from the usual suspect — the guy not famous for his devotion to fair play?
Original Article
Source: ipolitics.ca/
Author: Michael Harris
No comments:
Post a Comment