Why are you telling me this story?
You asked me about Dion, Duffy said.
Did you think it was fair to rebroadcast the interview Dion did with Murphy?
Absolutely it was already on the public record. And by the way the decision was made by the president of CTV news. But I agreed.
You wouldn't rebroadcast it now, would you?
Yes I would, Duffy says.
But that's not what the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council said is it, Holmes said.
Duffy said 'it wasn't a dirty trick.'
Holmes says they found that you, Duffy behaved unfairly. You'd do it again after hearing that?
Yes I would.
There, that should kill off any latent sympathy you might be holding for the Cavendish Cottager.
Mound, that was unethical and brutal attack on Mr. Dion. It cost Dion 2008 elections. This moron Duffy has no shame. He may have only high school education but he is expert in dirty tricks.
Duffy chose to lay down with the hounds and now he's complaining about the fleas, LD.
I expect the Crown is using the Dion business to demonstrate the lengths Duffy was willing to go to convince Harper to reward him with a Senate seat.
Sympathy of Duffy? I find it difficult to imagine a state of mind someone would have to be in to have sympathy for this clown. He knew exactly what sort of criminals he was involving himself with, the only thing that is shocking is that he was shocked that it all came undone and the very thing that he was doing to others came back to be done to him. Don't evil people have any sense of anticipation?
Apparently not, Kirby. Throughout this scandal and criminal proceeding we've seen that this political caste operates on different standards than is expected of the rest of us. This comes through in their sense of entitlement, impunity. There's no homespun for this crowd.
I'm not a lawyer, but I fail to see how Duffy's unethical smear of Dion relates to the current case. Duffy smeared Dion so that Harper would appoint him to the Senate so he could commit fraud and accept a bribe? Is that the Crown's theory? That's a tad convoluted. I think the Crown will need more evidence to make that one plausible. Or is the Crown simply trying to colour the judge's perception of the defendant?
I too have trouble fixing the Crown's objective, Anon. I expect it'll surface when counsel make their closing arguments.
From the news accounts I've read I haven't seen any "gotcha" moments in the cross-examination. This makes me wonder if the Crown isn't planning to call some rebuttal witnesses once the defence closes its case.
Post a Comment