There it is, right on the National Post. "'An Unequivocal Act of Integrity' - Harper's lawyer defends former PM's role in Duffy Affair."
The Ottawa Citizen's Ian MacLeod introduces us to the man who vouchsafes Stephen Harper's integrity, Toronto lawyer Robert Staley.
Apparently Mr. MacLeod didn't follow the Wright-Harper scandal or the Duffy trial very closely, perhaps not at all. It seems he didn't look at the documents that were piled up before Justice Vaillancourt at the trial or the messages (emails, letters, memos, etc) that were written by and to Harper's lawyer. Those documents didn't have Harper's make-believe-lawyer Robert Staley's name on them. They had Harper's actual lawyer Benjamin Perrin's name on them. That's because the lawyer who was involved - the fellow who advised the principals, who negotiated the deal with Duffy's solicitor, who sat in on the meetings, who consulted on strategy, who documented everything, was Benjamin Perrin. It was, likewise, Benjamin Perrin who "punched out" and hightailed it back to Vancouver when the scandal broke out.
But, most importantly, and for obvious reasons omitted from the PostMedia newsfiction, was Benjamin Perrin's take on Harper's integrity revealed in a statement Perrin issued during the last election declaring Harper "morally unfit to govern." I guess he saw things a bit differently than Robert Staley. Of course he would. Perrin was actually there.
For your amusement, here's the text of my email exchange this morning with PostMedia's Ian MacLeod:
Do you just pull this stuff out of your ass? What else have you got up there?
There were many documents before Justice Vaillancourt that were written by or to Harper’s lawyer only that wasn’t “Toronto lawyer Robert Staley.” The name on those documents was some Vancouver guy, oh yeah a law professor, by the name of Benjamin Perrin. You might remember Perrin from the last election when he released a statement denouncing his and, apparently, Mr. Staley’s former client, Stephen Harper, as “morally unfit to lead the country.”
Is this piece your idea of journalism? Is this the standard to which you aspire? I so hope not.
Either that or you are an arsehole.
I pick the latter.
Fair enough, Ian. There are plenty who agree with you.