Buckdog

I think Bayne has laid the foundation through his cross-examination of Wright and Perrin to argue that Harper was more than "just another witness" but an active, even controlling participant in the transaction for which Duffy stands charged with accepting a bribe. Likewise the assurances and representations of the then prime minister as to the legitimacy of Duffy's appointment and his expenses go to whether Duffy had the criminal intent, the "guilty mind" necessary for conviction. Bayne might then get LeBreton, Tkachuk and Stewart-Olsen on the stand to explore why they approved Duffy's expenses and later laundered the Senate audit report and on whose orders they acted. This could support an argument that this whole business isn't a criminal proceeding but a political prosecution intended to use Duffy as a scapegoat to take the heat off the then prime minister.

Depending on the outcome of the trial and the judge's rulings, Duffy may have a variety of civil claims against some of his former colleagues. He'll need the money because Bayne ain't cheap. If this goes Duffy's way he'll also have the prospect of an interesting book deal to pad his retirement.

Watch for the Crown to begin trying to shut this down. If Bayne resists the big question will be "why?"

"Words don't mean much to stephen." Neither do actions.

And Ipolitics doesn't seem to know the
difference between flaunt and flout.

More's the pity. So many people nowadays
don't know one word from the other and
most don't spell correctly either.