One has to wonder what Nigel Wright really thinks of Stephen Harper. After all, in the prime minister's estimation, Wright has gone from the soul of virtue to the source of political putrefaction. Michael Harris writes:
Think about Harper’s “narratives”. First, it was full support for Wright and no resignation; that morphed into accepting his resignation with regret; next it was Wright did not resign but was sacked; and finally it was righteous indignation and a sense of betrayal that drove the PM to fire his rogue chief-of-staff.
Through all of the Harper's changing narratives, Wright has remained silent. But, unlike Harper, he has co-operated with the RCMP:
The difference between Harper’s idea of cooperation and Wright’s? Harper denied he had documents until he was formally and specifically asked for them. Wright contacted the RCMP and volunteered his information. So who is really cooperating?
And what exactly does it mean when the PM first said that “no one” in his office knew that Wright had given $90,000 to Duffy, and then changed that to “not many” knew? Did he mean not many of the cleaning staff?
Perhaps Wright is doing more than considering his career options. Perhaps he has learned what so many others who have worked for Stephen Harper have learned: Loyalty leads to dismissal. Perhaps, Harris writes, Wright is doing some genuine soul searching:
I hope he forgives me for saying it, but this is no longer politics; that quaint thing Anglicans call the soul is in play. If this matter comes to court, with Wright either as an accused or a witness, he will be sworn in and asked under oath what really happened.
Perhaps he has not only learned the price of loyalty. Perhaps he has also learned the price of integrity.
10 comments:
If Wright really is the wonderful fellow that leadership aspirants like McKay and Kenney claim him to be, perhaps he will do the right thing, Owen. But of course, the 'right thing' in the murky world of political machinations is, I suspect, a somewhat fungible concept.
I keep hearing that Wright is a man of principle, Lorne. But, for quite a while now, I've seen no evidence to support that claim.
How can anyone with, self respect, decency, honor, ethics and morals, support such as Harper? Anyone with principals, would never work for the likes of Harper.
Good grief!! Mulcair made a total monkey out of Harper. Tripped Harper up on his lies.
I guess it's all about if, Wright will be the sacrificial lamb?
Or perhaps Wright will refuse to be a sacrificial lamb. Anon.
What I have heard is that Nigel Wright has made it clear that he will not perjure himself to save SHarper. Wright knows what was in his e-mails to Duffy and he knows that he can't be in the path of those shells if/when Duffy fires them at the prime minister.
There are far too many documents in too many hands, far too many players in this with varying degrees of potential liability, too many people willing to talk to save themselves for Wright to have any realistic prospect of covering for Harper even if he wanted to at this point.
I think Harper turned on Wright as his former CoS's usefulness dwindled and Wright came to be seen as a threat. That's when Harper set out to discredit Wright.
By the way, Harris is right. There are some tapes although I don't think Harper is on them.
You have to wonder, Mound, if Chantal Hebert had it right when she suggested that Wright -- not Duffy -- could bring Harper down.
I'm sure that given the time and opportunity, Conservative Party lawyers will be able to assist in an investigation to locate the right witnesses.
Oh to be a fly on the wall or had the ability to look into those RCMP computers to see what Wright has been saying. Most likely he is simply telling the the truth. He may not want to go to jail if any of this goes sideways. He didn't get to where he is by being dump.
Anyone who worked that closely with Harper can't be all that nice or good. Remember what harper has done to the veterans, the first nations,defunding women's organizations, his willingness to sell Canada out to China and europe.
Wright is a lawyer, e.a.f., so I suspect he understands that situation he is in.
And, like Duffy, I suspect he's not willing to take a bullet for the boss.
They seem to have followed that strategy in the Michael Sona case, John.
However, that evidence might qualify as hearsay. The emails could be much more substantial.
Post a Comment