Drop Duffy - Not So Fast.

Veteran Canadian journalist, Geoffrey Stevens, argues that it's time to shut down the trials (and tribulations) of senator Michael Dennis Duffy.

As Stevens sees it there are two trials underway - one for public consumption, the other for the now redundant betterment of Shifty Steve Harper. A criminal trial and a political trial. Of the two, he contends, the criminal trial has already collapsed and the defence hasn't even gotten its chance at bat yet.

"To put it charitably, the Crown's case has been less than overwhelming. It has done more to help the defence than the prosecution. We have learned that Harper appointed Duffy in late 2008 as a senator from Prince Edward Island knowing full well that he had been resident in Ontario for years. We learned that the Senate expense rules were flexible enough that no one blew the whistle when Duffy declared his cottage in P.E.I. to be his principal residence and claimed accommodation expenses for his home in suburban Ottawa.

"We learned that the Conservatives valued "Old Duff" for his status as a media celebrity and his efforts as a cheerleader and fundraiser at party events; he regarded that as part of his job as a Tory senator, and some of his travel costs were charged to the upper house. Although Duffy certainly pushed the envelope, he was not the only senator whose expense claims, while accepted by the Senate, did not pass muster with the auditors.

"Of the 31 charges Duffy faces, the key one is bribery — the $90,000 personal cheque Nigel Wright wrote to enable Duffy to repay expenses that auditors had determined he should not have claimed. Yet the central question remains: how can Duffy be convicted of accepting a bribe when no one is charged with offering the bribe?

"From the outset, the Duffy trial has been two prosecutions in one — a political trial inside a criminal trial, or vice versa. The criminal prosecution is weak. The chances of a conviction appear remote. Under other circumstances, charges would never have been laid. Under other circumstances, they would have been withdrawn by now.

"The "other circumstances" were the political considerations. Bent on pursuing his "tough-on-crime," Stephen Harper could not afford to allow presumed fraud to go unprosecuted when it appeared just down the hallway in the Senate chamber. Mike Duffy being the most egregious offender identified by the auditors, he became the target in a show trial that, as it transpired, would reveal more about the PMO's frantic efforts (hundreds upon hundreds of emails) to cover up its involvement than it would about the ethical sins of senators."

"To put it charitably" Justin Trudeau cannot halt the prosecution as Stevens urges. This matter is before the courts. It is, in a nation of laws, now beyond the control of any premier. It must run its course.  As the political persecution aspect becomes more obvious, Duffy's very capable counsel can - and will - deal with that.

If, however, there is substance to Stevens' claim that this is, at its core, a political prosecution - effectively a state persecution - that is something that Parliament needs to expose and see that the miscreants behind it are held to account. It's hard to imagine there could be a political trial without an equally political investigation, one in which the supposed recipient of a bribe stands trial exposed to imprisonment while the person who furnished the bribe is declared blameless. That raises the spectre of a state police force corrupted. On that score we need some straight answers to some tough questions from Stephen Harper and his handpicked RCMP commissioner, Bob Paulson.

In fact it might be Paulson and Harper who deserve to have their day in court.

Update:  I discussed this with Geoff Stevens via email this morning. While he agrees that some sort of enquiry might be warranted, he's of the view that "Parliament won't go there."