IsAnybody'sSpideySense
TinglingVille
Poetic poli-blogger guy Kirby Evans, after continuing to wonder why only Mr. Duffy was charged, brings up an interesting point:
...There is, in other words, more than one conspiracy here. There are the ones that took place in the PMO, one to pay off Duffy's expenses and hide where the money came from, and the other to interfere with the audit. But the other, more ominous conspiracy, and the one few people are really talking about (and no one in the MSM) is the RCMP conspiracy to insulate the Prime Minister and the PMO from the full extent of the original wrong-doing. Harper's lawyer, Benjamin Perrin gave a sworn statement concerning the extent of those who knew of Wright's payment to Duffy. He had no conceivable motivation to lie about it, he just told what he knew. He then confessed to being shocked that the RCMP had ignored that information and publicly reiterated the PM's line that only Wright and Duffy knew of this conspiracy to pay off the money and then mislead the public into thinking Duffy had paid his own expenses. If the RCMP was, in fact, still an independent expression of the law, at the very least Wright would have been charged with bribery. But, more importantly, a raft of conspiracy charges would also have been laid...
Not that we here in Lotusland have any experience with bribees being tried while the briber(s) go scott-free or anything.
Right?
.
2024 Federal Budget
1 hour ago
2 comments:
This is the new RCMP as led by Poulson which reports to Harper. It is not the RCMP of some time ago, the one which wasn't so politically controlled.
Always thought it was a tad strange that Duffy got arrested and not Wright, but then Wright "co operated" which the RCMP needed to deal with Duffy. My opinion, politicians were mortally pissed with Duffy so he went for the chop as a lesson to all others. Wright got to go to England, just like el gordo. perhaps there is a theme here.
The current RCMP reminds me of a gang of thugs, not what they once were.
To be sure, there's no such thing as mandatory minimum sentences for breaches of public trust, but it seems they got it upside down anyway: shouldn't the higher standard we must expect from public servants be in and of itself reason to apply the law, whatever it is, more strictly? A habit of assigning so-called "Special Prosecutors" follows from the idea that the accused public servant should not be unduly exposed to the special level of punishment, the harshness of which warrants double assurance the innocent gets fairly judged; yet it rather appears to have gotten itself turned around too: some misinterpretation of the defendant's "specialness" seems instead to allow for immunity from even the lesser punishment, let alone the full weight of the law that the gravity of public trust warrants.
That's a form of live rot, and rot spreads. Obviously laws try to achieve the ideal of preventing rot from getting started in the first place, but laws are for honest people; to not prosecute on the presumption the law works in every instance would be crazy. We've already seen perceived conflicts of interests among public servants excused because they're "only" perceived; it would be no surprise that such rot, left unattended, might spread to the police upon who we depend to uphold public trust. We have to ask then why police don't pursue what looks like breaches of public trust. It hardly matters what reasons they give: trust is whole, you either have it, or you don't.
Post a Comment