Stephen Harper's former lawyer comments on the Duffy case

OpEd by Robert Staley:

Commencing in mid-2013, I represented former prime minister Stephen Harper in connection with the RCMP’s investigation of Senator Duffy.  ... Now that Justice Vaillancourt has released his trial decision, it is possible to comment publicly on aspects of the case.

... Justice Vaillancourt ultimately concluded that the Crown had not proven its criminal case against Mr. Duffy to the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard. But that conclusion should not be read as a contest between Mr. Duffy and my client, in which Mr. Duffy prevailed. My client did not, and could not, ask that Mr. Duffy be charged criminally. Nor did my client assert that Mr. Duffy engaged in criminal wrongdoing. His assertion was, and is, that the behaviour exhibited by Mr. Duffy was unacceptable. It was and is my client’s view that public office demands a higher standard than conduct that falls short of criminality.

An open letter to Robert Fife and all the other media jackals at the "Duffy" trial

John Pepall: Mike Duffy's trial by media:

Sub judice. It’s the idea that when a matter is before the courts we should follow the allegations, the evidence and the arguments but leave the courts to decide what to make of it all.

... sub judice is not just some quaint leftover from the days when lawyers were supposed to know some Latin. It has a point: that matters that are to be decided by the courts should be left to them to decide; that they should not be subject to popular pressure telling them what to do.

... The media, when it is not just partisan, which much of it is, is flopping between unctuousness and the cultivation of populist [resentment] against anyone comfortable on the taxpayer’s dime.

...  It’s juicy gossip. And like all gossip, it is fuelled by malice and ignorance. ...

 And while the column is about Duffy's trial, the most recent phase has really been the trial-by-media of Stephen Harper.  Pepall's column would make a good open letter directed to the likes of Robert Fife (CTV) and Andrew Coyne (Post Media) [explicitly excluding Christy Blatchford]. 

Andrew Coyne - a nasty, partisan Media Party naif

Coyne's most recent contribution to Media Party yellow journalism opens with:

I am beginning to think we have done Stephen Harper a disservice. No, I’m sure we have. In fact, I think we — and by we I mean the media, me included — have been grossly unfair to him, and never more so than in the matter of Mike Duffy’s expenses. 

You will be familiar with the picture we have created of him: suspicious, paranoid, controlling, a leader who trusts no one, leaves nothing to others, insists on taking a hand in even the smallest matter. Well, you’d be suspicious, paranoid and controlling, too, if everyone around you was lying to you all the time.

And that's just for openers!  What follows is quite, let's say, uncharitable.

Coyne's opening sarcasm is actually a fairly accurate statement of the Media Party's characterization of Stephen Harper throughout his entire time in office.

Of course, he is suggesting, sarcastically, that the media (him included) have not created such a picture - that those who think so are just being "paranoid".  But that "picture" is a meme the media started and has continuously reinforced from square one.  And it is one that Harper's other opponents have adopted as routine talking points.

Coyne's entire column is just one more reinforcement of that smear.  "Harper, the paranoid micromanager not only knew every detail of his chief of staff's  handling of the Duffy affair but was directing the whole thing."  That's what beggars belief!

The simplest and most believable scenario is that Stephen Harper the CEO of the Government of Canada, like any other successful CEO of a large enterprise, would have entrusted a relatively minor internal problem, like the handling of the Duffy affair, to his chief of staff - just like he said he did.  Furthermore, any other CEO, not being subject to a partisan, hostile media would not have fired his COS but instead given him a raise along with a commendation.

Coyne needs to stop being so naively, blindly and nastily partisan and start paying attention to Christie Blatchford.  Better yet, the Post should give him back to the CBC, full time.

Day 395 of the endless Mike Duffy trial

Christie Blatchford: "At the Mike Duffy trial, it’s hard to tell who is really the accused"

First, watch Christie's video ... 

... this freaking trial, where a passerby, sitting in, would assume that Wright, the witness, is the alleged perpetrator, or perhaps the PM, and where ... every thundered question ... echoes across the land and into the campaign buses where it is parsed to shreds as though the question was the evidence, not the answer. ...

 Father Raymond de Souza: "The Duffy scandal is not worth the attention, or the cost" 

... a very strange scandal that leaves everyone looking bad, but Canada looking relatively good. 

... The criminal law is a blunt instrument, and this criminal trial, drenched in political showmanship, is a blunt instrument put to ill use.

... The problem Senate expenses does not justify the tens of millions of taxpayer dollars, hundreds of hours of court time and the huge quantity of public attention given to it ...

The Mike Duffy affair - "What scandal?"

Colby Cosh: "If there’s a scandal in the Duffy affair, why can’t I spot it?"

"... If I ask what is actually scandalous about this, I am guaranteed to receive several different answers. The Conservatives are charged with having considered paying Duffy’s expenses out of party funds, which, I am told, are “public” in nature because they are supported by a tax subsidy. The Conservatives did, of course, contemplate using party funds … but didn’t. And those funds, though subsidized, exist precisely to be applied ad libitum for partisan convenience. ..."  [And, since when is it a crime to "consider" doing something?]

"... When media scalp-hunters say the Conservatives were trying to “avoid” or “tamper with” the Deloitte audit of Duffy, for instance, I find myself saying, “Well … yes: they wanted to make the audit unnecessary, to hold Duffy to the strictest view of his financial obligations.” Is that an illegitimate reaction to an audit?" ...

Media bias in coverage of Mike Duffy versus coverage of Liberals

Brian Lilley compares the "wall to wall" coverage of Senator Mike Duffy's trial versus the relatively scant coverage of Liberal and convicted child porn offender, Benjamin Levin:



And, at Crux of the Matter, Sandy compares Mike Duffy's treatment with that of Liberal Senators Jim Munson and Mac Harb. The Duffy/Munson comaprison is interesting because of the similarity of the two individuals:

Both Senators Jim Munson and Mike Duffy were born in Atlantic Canada and are 68 years of age. Both were also former journalists, including being foreign correspondents at crucial events in history.

Parliamentary ethics committee gong show

On Mike Duffy Live today, lawyer William Kaplan, author of a book on the Mulroney/Schreiber affair, had this to say about Schreiber’s questioning and testimony before the ethics committee hearings:

I don’t think there was any damage in testimony today to anyone. The only thing that was damaged was the reputation of the House of Commons and the special committee on ethics. They behaved badly as predicted. It was a gong show as predicted. They were undisciplined. They were uninformed. They didn’t put a good face of government out to the people of Canada.

Kaplan described how American legislative committee hearings are run and, comparatively, the Canadian version comes off as an amateur show.

Duffy criticized committee chairman Paul Szabo for coaching Schreiber on how to avoid answering questions.

Video here.