Mike Duffy trial begins Tuesday in Ottawa

214 posts / 0 new
Last post
Unionist

kropotkin1951 wrote:

The Crown charged the wrong people. It was clear that the only people guilty were in the PMO's office

Exactly.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Andrew Coyne was excellent tonight on the National's At Issue panel. Chantal Hebert was wishy washy at best.

NorthReport

Try and get a glass of fresh orange juice at a downtown London Hotel for less than $20
- it can't be done! Much todo about nothing!

infracaninophile infracaninophile's picture

Michael Moriarity wrote:

As I posted in the other, abandoned thread, what strikes me as interesting about this decision, at least according to the CBC account, is that Duffy was not only acquitted of the charges against him, the judgement also vindicated his behaviour as honest.

 

I didn't see the CBC account, but did scan the judge's 300+ page opinion (will read closely in the near future) and did not take away that impression at all. What was emphasized, in numerous sections, was that Duffy's behaviour was lawful.  Honest is more of a value judgement; the usual legal term if I understand correctly, is "in good faith."  The judge found that the PMO did not act in good faith and deliberately deceived, manipulated and coerced Duffy into going along with its action plan.  The judge did say some of Duffy's decisions were examples of poor judgement or bad business practice but he saw no evidence of intent to act unlawfully or evidence that Duffy had actually done so. The PMO on the other hand....

Unionist

infracaninophile wrote:
Honest is more of a value judgement; the usual legal term if I understand correctly, is "in good faith." 

Surprisingly, the judge did make several positive findings of honesty, or "honest belief", on Duffy's part, confirming Michael Moriarity's post. Have a look, for example, at paras 706, 857, 867, 886, 1231.

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

This makes the Conservatives look like the total heels that they are.

Debater

Misfit wrote:
Andrew Coyne was excellent tonight on the National's At Issue panel. Chantal Hebert was wishy washy at best.

Coyne made a good point that it's bizarre that no one has done any jail time for paying off a sitting legislator $90, 000 in secret to protect the government from an embarrassing scandal.

And Hébert also made a valid point that while there were no *legal* consequences, the reputations of the main players in the scandal were damaged by the fallout.  Stephen Harper's government was damaged by it, and it was one of several factors which lead to his defeat last October.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Andrew Coyne was blunt when he inferred that Duffy was acquitted not because he didn't break any laws but rather that there were no laws in place for him to break. Chantal Hebert used the word ethical or lack thereof to describe the situation but Coyne was much better at summing up the situation overall.

Unionist

Debater wrote:

Coyne made a good point that it's bizarre that no one has done any jail time for paying off a sitting legislator $90, 000 in secret to protect the government from an embarrassing scandal.

Not a very timely or brilliant revelation. We've been making that point here for years about Nigel Wright and his Con Party bosses.

Quote:
And Hébert also made a valid point that while there were no *legal* consequences, the reputations of the main players in the scandal were damaged by the fallout.  Stephen Harper's government was damaged by it, and it was one of several factors which lead to his defeat last October.

I don't believe that either. How many dozen votes shifted away from Harper because of anything to do with the Senate? I'd like to see some semi-scientific survey of that. My instinct tells me it was a non-issue during the election campaign (look back and see if you don't believe me).

Misfit wrote:
Andrew Coyne was blunt when he inferred that Duffy was acquitted not because he didn't break any laws but rather that there were no laws in place for him to break.

Did he actually say that? What a bizarre comment. Equivalent to a childish outburst: "There oughta be a law!!!" There are of course laws in place - criminal code provisions against bribery, fraud, etc., under which he was charged. The problem is - Duffy didn't break those laws. Others, who likely did, weren't charged.

So did Coyne happen to mention which laws he would like to see in place that go beyond the current ones?

I didn't think so.

 

Misfit Misfit's picture

Unionist, pardon me? Take up your issues with Andrew Coyne if you have a problem. And no, he did not elaborate on which laws. You are acting childish by perpetuating an issue from one thread and bringing it into this one. If you have an issue with me, please bring it up with me in private.

Unionist

Misfit wrote:
Unionist, pardon me? Take up your issues with Andrew Coyne if you have a problem. And no, he did not elaborate on which laws. You are acting childish by perpetuating an issue from one thread and bringing it into this one. If you have an issue with me, please bring it up with me in private.

Read my comment. I was critiquing Andrew Coyne's view - as reported by you. I said nothing about you, whatsoever.

I'll look up Coyne's opinions if I can find them and critique them directly, so you don't have to feel as if I was shooting the messenger. I feel like apologizing to you, but I'm not sure what for.

 

Unionist

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mike-duffy-court-no-appeal-1.3597437]Crown won't appeal Mike Duffy acquittal, spokesman says[/url]

 

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

And thus is closed a particularly dismal chapter in Canadian history...

Pages