In the wake of the Duffy verdict, Michael Harris writes, we should know what was going on in the minds of the RCMP and the prosecutors. He lists a number of questions. For example:
- Did the Commissioner of the RCMP or his staff have any communications from the PMO regarding the Duffy case, and if so, will he make them public?
- Did the Commissioner of the RCMP or his staff communicate with the Minister of Public Safety or his staff about the Duffy case? If so, did he offer or receive any advice and will he release those communications?
- Will the Commissioner of the RCMP fully describe his role in the Duffy case, including exactly how and by whom investigators were assigned to this case?
- What are the names of the lawyers who worked on the Duffy file?
- Who assigned the prosecutors to this case?
- Did these lawyers meet with RCMP investigators before the 31 criminal charges against Senator Duffy were laid?
- Did lawyers express any disagreement with the decision to lay those charges or were the Mounties an prosecution lawyers always on the same page?
- Did prosecution lawyers offer any advice to the lead RCMP investigator on this case? If so, what was it?
Normally, you'd expect the opposition to raise these questions. But the opposition is what's left of Harper and Co. And they have learned nothing:
Every once in a while, a defeated political party reminds everyone of why it was thrown out, and more importantly, how unfit it remains for office. Rona Ambrose showed once more that she is a not a leader but a dead-end partisan just as uninterested in the truth as her former boss.
In the wake of last week’s court verdict, instead of acknowledging that things had gone horribly wrong in the political persecution of Mike Duffy, Ambrose and almost all of her caucus had nothing to say about the disgraceful conduct of Harper and his PMO. Worse, they had nothing to say for themselves – not even that this kind of political scape-goating and abuse of power was dead wrong and would never happen again under Conservative auspices.
Justice Vaillancourt understood exactly who he was dealing with and that's why his final conclusions were so scathing.