The verdict: charges dismissed

by kadyomalley on Wednesday, August 5, 2009 9:00am - 42 Comments

Larry O'Brien It’s all been leading up to this, so check back at 10am for full liveblogging coverage as the judge delivers his verdict in Ottawa’s municipal political trial of the century so far.

For more on the trial, check out the Ottawa Citizen and CBC Ottawa, and be sure to follow the obrientrial twitter feed for fellow Hot Room denizen Glen McGregor’s minute-by-minute bulletins.

9:29:10 AM
Greetings, fellow O’Brienistas! ITQ is outside the court house with a hundred or so of her closest media colleagues, waiting for the accused to make his entrance. We don’t know if it will be a *grand* entrance, mind you — he could, I suppose, give the throng of camera crews the slip and sneak in by the back door, but this is, after all, the mayor who brought swagger to our sedate city, so we’re hoping for a pre-verdict Law and Order-style show on the steps. Which, incidentally, we don’t actually have in front of the Ottawa court house — steps, that is. Clearly, an oversight by the architect.

ITQ is torn, in fact, between staying out here, where the action may or may not be for a second or two, depending on how Team O’Brien wants to frame the day, and heading inside to ensure she’s got a spot inside the courtroom, and isn’t relegated to the overflow room. Decisions, decisions.

9:36:21 AM
Well, judging from the line currently snaking down the hallway, past the elevator and about to extend down the stairs, ITQ’s dreams of being able to watch the back of the mayor’s head as the verdict is delivered are almost certainly going to go unfulfilled. At this point, I’ll be *lucky* to get a spot in the overflow room, or even the over-overflow room.

9:40:17 AM

We’re not in our usual courtroom either, I should note — we’re one down, in 37. I’m not sure if it’s that much larger than the usual holding pen. We’ll see.

9:43:34 AM
Wow. This is a *much* fancier courtroom — not only is it easily twice the size, but it’s far more lavishly decorated. There are chandeliers, even!

Meanwhile, the journalistic contingent is already agrumble with growing panic over the somewhat lackadaisical wifi and BlackBerry signals, and there are at least a half dozen courthouse staffers directing the human traffic of reporters, court watchers and O’Brien wellwishers as the room slowly fills up.

9:51:45 AM
Oh, and in case y’all were wondering, it turns out that there *was* reserved seating for the media; we’re now all piled akimbo in the first three rows on the left, right beside the section for the mayor’s friends and family. He’s here too, looking as inscrutable as always, at least from the brief glimpse I caught of his profile as he cheek-kissed an unidentified supporter. It’s so quiet in here, at this precise, and pregnant with anticipatory adrenalin moment that it’s downright eerie.

10:00:13 AM
Okay, now ITQ has joined the grumble, and apologizes in advance for any delay. That said, the judge has taken his chair, and has launched directly into his verdict — no fuss, no muss. First, though, he’d like to remind us that it is the rule of reasonable doubt that must apply when judging credibility of competing — or contradictory — witnesses. He notes that the crown contends that this is *not* a he said/he said case — although the defence disputes this, of course.

10:02:47 AM
Onto the decision, I think — but not without some background. Can’t blame Cunningham for wanting to take his time in delivering his final judgment. He – the judge, that is – recaps the July 12th meeting between O’Brien and Terry Kilrea, which primarily consisted, in his view, of each man telling the other how much support he had within the local Conservative community. He – the judge – accepts that there was some discussion of what was involved in a mayoral campaign — “big swinging dicks,” he notes, using O’Brien’s “rather crude” description. He also points to Kilrea’s confusion over the date of the meeting, which, to him, provides “an early warning” as to the crown’s star witness’s confusion over past events.

10:06:30 AM
There was “some discussion of Kilrea’s finances” at this meeting, Cunningham notes – his campaign debt-in-the-making, most noteably. He – the judge – has no trouble believing that Kilrea likely told O’Brien that he was likely to be “out” as much as $20,000, and he also has no trouble believing that O’Brien might have hinted that if Kilrea were to withdraw, he – O’Brien – would see if “his team” could help him recover. Of course, *that* exchange, he reminds us, forms no part of the charges before the mayor: it all comes down to the discussion over the parole board appointment.

10:19:33 AM
Okay, my apologies to all, once again — the signal pretty much died on the spot as soon as the judge began to read his ruling, and I’ve not been able to update since then. He’s still reading — the judge, that is — and going over the competing versions of events provided by the various witnesses, but it sounds as though he’s leading up to a not guilty on all counts. Then agan, I’ve been wildly offbase in trying to discern this judge’s thinking in the past, but he seems to be finding a lot of the crown’s evidence distinctly wanting, and he also appears to believe the “salient part” of O’Brien’s affidavit on crucial questions, such as the conversation with John Reynolds, and says that he *believes* O’Brien when he — O’Brien — began to regret “going down that path” by suggesting that Kilrea meet with Baird. “It might constitute poor judgment,” he notes, but not, he seems to be suggesting, a crime.

No, that’s not it. We haven’t gotten to the actual *verdict* yet, although we seem to be getting closer, since the judge has now veered back to the July 12th meeting, and specifically, Kilrea’s claim that there was a “Liberal conspiract” arrayed against him after receiving what was actually a fairly innocuous letter from the Attorney General.

“Mr. Kilrea has proved to be a master of manipulating the media,” he observes, “and keeping his name in the news.” This, he suggests, has not done much to enhance his credibility.

10:27:22 AM
Wow, this judge is just going to *town* on Kilrea, although he does suggest that he may be “well-meaning” — but not, he concludes, “a particularly reliable witness.” If I were the crown, I would have a sick feeling in my stomach right about now, unless we’re coming up to the twist – L&O style.

The differing drafts of Kilrea’s affidavit for the Ottawa Citizen seem to have weighed heavily on the judge’s assessment of Kilrea’s command of the facts — or his memory, at least — he keeps going back to critical changes in the wording. He notes that the Crown insists that this is just the usual drafting process, but seems distinctly unconvinced.

The silent consensus amongst the media, by the way, is that the mayor is about to be acquitted.

10:32:58 AM
I can’t tell whether the mayor is smiling or not, but his posture definitely seems more relaxed — or maybe that’s just how it looks from here.

10:33:58 AM
Okay, back to the judge, who now seems to be moving from Kilrea’s testimony to that of the “supporting cast” provided by the crown, starting with Dimitri Pantazopolous — ? Yes, according to Colleague McGregor, that’s the correct spelling, but in any case, you know who I mean: Pollster Dimitri. He – the judge – notes that as per the pollster, it was Kilrea who raised the subject of a possible federal appointment, only to be told that any such “quid pro quo” would be inappropriate. It sounds like, once again, when offered the choice between believing Kilrea, or pretty much anyone else, the judge has decided to go with the other witness. “I have no doubt Kilrea brought up the subject of the national parole board,” he notes.

At the time, he reminds us, Kilrea was engaged in what he thought was an epic battle with the Ontario government, and the aforementioned Liberal conspiracy, and was “still overreacting” to the letter from the Attorney General.

10:39:32 AM
Add John Baird to the list of witnesses that the judge finds believable, which, by ITQ’s count, so far encompasses pretty much every witness *except* Terry Kilrea. Pantazopolous, meanwhile, he found to be a “forthright” witness and an “experienced political operative”, which is why he *also* believes his version of his meeting with Kilrea. He also doesn’t have any problem believing that John Reynolds couldn’t specifically recall having that conversation with O’Brien, what with all the calls and emails he was getting at the time. Oh, and as for Lisa MacLeod – the MPP – it sounds as though the judge believed the defence when they suggested that she may have been affected by her travel back and forth between Ottawa and Queen’s Park, as well as her father’s sickness. It’s not that he seems to think she was deliberately lying, but that she just wasn’t sure what she had heard.

10:46:56 AM
Do all verdicts take this long to deliver? Oh, and the judge “cannot take MacLeod’s testimony” as corroboration of Kilrea’s claim, since “through no fault of her own”, she appeared to have an “imprecise” recollection of events.

10:48:03 AM
Three more witnesses: John Light, Greg Strong and John Bennett, who were – as were all previous witnesses – put forward by the Crown. Light, a former staffer for Pierre Poilievre — the judge can’t quite pronounce it either, by the way — told the court that he was asked to contact Greg Strong, and told him that he ‘couldn’t do anything’ if Terry Kilrea was still in the race, but that Strong told *him* that ‘the party’ was “working on something” — an appointment of some sort, presumably. “I have no doubt that Mr. Light, at the relevant time, was a strong supporter of Mr. Kilrea,” he notes, as evinced by emails from that time between Light and Tierney — but, if I just understood him correctly, that support actually “colours” his – the judge’s, that is – testimony, at least insofar as it can inform him of what was going on.

10:53:26 AM
“Coincidental trilogy” is how Cunningham describes the Light/Strong/Bennett contingent, a phrase of which ITQ approves highly. Oh, and he doesn’t think their respective and collective testimony proved whatever it was that the Crown was hoping that it would.

I just realized that I can see Barry McLoughlin from here. At the moment, he looks like … basically, the opposite of how Robin Sears looked after the worst day during  Mulroney Week at Oliphant.

Finally, there was Deputy Chief O’Sullivan, also called by the Crown, but who, as was the case with virtually every other witness, did more to bolster the case of the defence. That was kind of a trend, wasn’t it?

11:00:46 AM
Okay, I think he – the judge – is heading into his final rhetorical lap; he notes that O’Brien was aware “from very early on” that any “quid pro quo” would be illegal, although he did, indeed, want him to drop out of the race. While he’s not sure if he *believes* O’Brien on what took place during the July 12th meeting, he is “unable to conclude that he *disbelieves* him”, and the same goes for the Tim Horton’s meeting.

11:03:42 AM
Soon — the verdict — but first, a few words on the media. Man, it’s really been that kind of week, hasn’t it? Cunningham notes that the “circumstances” behind the creation of the affidavit are “troubling” — from the emails leaked to Ottawa Citizen reporter Gary Dimmock, most likely by Kilrea, to the leaking of the affidavit itself to a local labour leader and known rabblerouser.

11:05:59 AM
Okay, here we go — now we’re getting to the nub, I think. There is no evidence that O’Brien actually *had* influence with the government, Cunningham notes, which takes care of that charge, and leaves us with the allegation that O’Brien *pretended* to have influence. If that was the case, the judge notes, why would he advise Kilrea to meet with Baird, when he – O’Brien – knew very well that Kilrea knew the man better than he did? While he may have ‘suspicions’ about what was discussed, the crown has failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. “He was walking a fine line,” Cunningham notes.

Both charges, as such, are dismissed — and cue the applause from Team O’Brien. Seriously. I guess that’s traditional in court, huh?

11:12:51 AM
We were told that the mayor – which I guess we can officially call him again, huh? – would scrum after the verdict, so we’re all sort of loitering in the courtroom, waiting for him to head for the door, which he’ll do as soon as he makes it through the impromptu receiving line that has assembled in the aisle.

Ohh, and *now* they’re handing out copies of the verdict. Could’ve used that a half hour ago, guys. (I know, I know; then we wouldn’t stay to hear the *reasoning*.)

11:27:17 AM
Finally, someone — Michael Edelson, to be precise — gives us an update: they — the O’Briens, that is — are just “taking a moment”, and the whole gang will head outside “within the half hour” for a celebratory scrum.
So — I guess I’ll check back with y’all then. Feel free to talk amongst yourselves in the meantime.

11:46:00 AM
Greetings from the front of the courthouse, where the mood is downright festive — not only amongst the O’Brienistas, who are, not surprisingly, giddy with delight, but also the media, simply because we’re outside, and it’s sunny, and we have a scrum to cover. We are, at heart, an easy people to please. Much chattering back and forth about the verdict, and the occasional improumptu interview with various city councillors who have shown up, albeit after the fact, to praise the mayor and not bury him. We’re sort of blocking the entrance, tho, which makes me worry that we may inadvertently be interfering with all the *other* cases going on today.

11:54:35 AM
Okay, I think he’s about to come out. Really, I’m not sure what he’s going to say, other than that he’s happy, he’s relieved and he’s looking forward to getting back to work. As mayor. Which he is again, incidentally, in case we missed that part.

And there’s Barry McLoughlin and Michael Edelson, and an ensuing chorus of “microphone! Microphone” — followed by the mayor, who – once again – gets a round of applause from the non-media contingent outside.

11:57:35 AM
The mayor takes the mic, and describes this as an “emotional rollercoaster” — a difficult two years for him, his wife, his children, the people of Ottawa, etc. etc — but he’s glad that he went through it, since he can now look his “boys” in the eye and tell them their family name has been — okay, missed that. Unbesmirched? Anyway, when there is a “blizzard of attacks” on you as an individual, it’s difficult, but he believes the judge’s ruling provided a “clear insight” into what happened — and he’s ready to get back to work. “We love you, Larry!” Someone yells from the back. “The judge said you walked a ‘fine line’,” one reporter points out. “What fine line did you walk?” No answer, and the mayor starts to drift away, at first slowly, and then with remarkable haste as the question is repeated. “Will you answer our question?” Another reporter bellows after him. Pretty obviously not. And — is that it, or is he heading for the CFRA live booth, which is just off the lawn? No, he’s heading for his car, pursued by the iconic moving scrum. It isn’t enough to get him to reconsider, though — he gets in the back, and drives away.

And that, it seems, is that.

12:05:22 PM
Okay, that’s not quite that — Edelson is scrumming back at the door, and is just reiterating his client’s — and, presumably, his — satisfaction with the ruling. He reminds us that, over and over, the judge found in favour of O’Brien’s testimony — via the affidavit and police interview — over that of Terry Kilrea, and as such, he seems pretty much okay with his decision not to call him to the stand. Well, that’s easy to say now that he’s been acquitted, isn’t it? He also has kind words for his adversary, Brian Hutchinson, who he describes in laudatory terms, which – again, easier to say that now. I wonder if *he’ll* scrum. Actually, I wonder if the crown will appeal. Can they do that?

Yikes — Sorry about that, y’all — I just discovered that my last update, which concluded with the traditional ITQ liveblog signoff, didn’t make it. I hope that nobody has been patiently hitting refresh in hopes of further news from court, because soon afterwards, ITQ fled the scene of the not-a-crime. Hope y’all enjoyed the coverage, and again, I must apologize for the flaky updates; you can’t stop the signal, but you can certainly slow it down to a crawl with sufficiently wifi-hostile building design.

Bookmark and Share
  • http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

    anyone prognosticating this morning?

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

      from McGregor’s twitter feed: "CFRA has set up a tent for O'Brien verdict, but they got thrown off courthouse property and had to move to city turf nearby."

      they must be confident he is going to get off.

    • Scott M.

      Not guilty, but guilty if you know what I mean.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

      i am torn, all the crown had to prove was that he made the offer in a convincing manner, not that he actually was capable of securing the appointment or even tried…that amounts to he said, he said ultimately though LO never took the stand. so while on one hand I would be utterly shocked…. i don't see the threshold of evidence to be very high……hmmmmm….

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

      Not guilty though I totally believe that he did it.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/avr avr

        The important thing, is that Kilrea comes out of this with even less credibility as any kind of candidate than before, and it wasn't clear that was even possible.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

          truth

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/WDM WDM

    Not guilty. I'll be shocked if Mayor Larry is convicted.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

    i am torn, all the crown had to prove was that he made the offer in a convincing manner, not that he actually was capable of securing the appointment or even tried…that amounts to he said, he said ultimately though LO never took the stand. so while on one hand I would be utterly shocked…. i don't see the threshold of evidence to be very high……hmmmmm….

  • Scott M.

    Carolyn Stewart-Olsen has announced retirement!

    • Jenn

      No way! Really? What is going on there?

  • Scott M.

    Waah… it looks like Kady is persona-non-EDGEa.

    Long and short – sounds like Not Guilty. Can follow here: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/obrien-trial/in…

    Scott

  • Brooke

    I'm loving that the judge is calling Kilrea out for the attention seeker that he is.

    • Jenn

      Oh Lordy, who made this guy a judge? I don't mean to imply that he isn't qualified, I just mean–does Kilrea have another Liberal conspiracy on his hands? I don't know the man at all, but he does sound like the angry white man the Conservatives seem to attract. And, he has to come away with something from this trial–and it doesn't look like that something will be his reputation.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/avr avr

        It'd have to be a conspiracy of the whole political spectrum against Kilrea at this point, I think; whether or not there was something approaching criminal in O'Brien's behaviour, Kilrea proved himself pretty obnoxiously to be Not A Team Player by pursuing the matter. Don't look for him to get a lot of sympathy or support for more conspiracy theories from his traditional base.

  • Non

    does anyone know whether the departures of CSO and KT were a result of the wafer issue?

  • http://jamesbowie.blogspot.com James Bowie

    Kady is indespensible as always. This is the fastest, most complete, and accesible legal reporting I have seen. It's a hard job, not performed well by either lawyers or journalists, usually, this is good stuff. Really good.

  • Scott M.

    I wonder if the judge, having decided that he was going to find O'Brien not guilty, has made sure to eviscerate the Crown's case fully so as to minimize the political fallout from the case.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Nich Nich

    So, peddling political appointments for political gain is further green-lighted in Canada.

    Another solid victory for the political class in Canada.

    Perhaps next time they will just stick to envelopes of cash like federal politicians do.

    • Matthew Fletcher

      Actually, that's not the case at all. O'brien's legal team tried to have the charges dismissed based on that very argument and the judge rejected that claim. The judge made the important decision that influence peddling is indeed a crime. He ruled today, that the Crown did not prove that is what O'brien was doing.

  • Wayne

    So that pretty well put this one to bed. Next scandal please …

  • Richard Osborne

    Then, what was he doing?

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/avr avr

      Making insinuations (characterized by Cunningham J. at one point as "feeding Kilrea some BS") that couldn't be interpreted as a realistic offer of quid pro quo per the actual offense.

      • Richard Osborne

        Fair enough, but I am going to have difficulty explaining to my kids why it is o.k. for an adult to behave like that.

        • scf

          This trial is far too complicated to explain to kids or to explain to adults, for that matter. I'm still confused about what actually happened.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/avr avr

          Unless you hope for your children to pass a bar exam in those few jurisdictions where a law degree isn't required to take it, I wouldn't worry about it.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/KadyITQ KadyITQ

        He "walked a fine line", as per the judge.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

        i agree with your interpretation AVR, but I do have a bit of trouble with it as a ruling. by allowing that O'Brien did engage in "feeding Kilrea some BS", he makes clear there was a suggestion. and while i am not surprised that the judge feels it was not a credible move after deconstructing the offer and its context during a multi-week trial wit the aid of a set of skilled lawyers asking good question.

        but….that assessment is easily distinguished from Kilrea's assessment I suspect. First, i doubt Kilrea is as smart as the judge. Second, I doubt he did his due dilligence in carefully analyzing what the judge characterized as BS, and even less likely that he did with the aid of skilled lawyers. Third, we know Kilrea was financially desperate, likely making him less critical in his analysis.

        so while the judge and maybe the rest of us can see through Larry's apparent offer for the BS it was, it might well still have 'influenced' kilrea, no?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Harbles Harbles

    Drabinski and Gottlieb not so lucky. Seven years for Drabinski and six for gottlieb in addition to the 4 years each they got for forgery.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

    So you can basically bribe your political opponents to drop out and then claim you weren't bribing them, just insinuating something or other, or something, or whatever, and a wonderful Canadian court will pat you on the back.

    Our legal system is a national disgrace.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/avr avr

      Of the possible factors one could found an appraisal of "national disgrace" upon, I'd have to rank this pretty low down the list, considering our long history of overt political horse-trading – as noted (but ultimately found irrelevant to the elements of the offense) by the defense team.

    • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/avr avr

      Of the possible factors one could found an appraisal of "national disgrace" upon, I'd have to rank this pretty low down the list, considering our long history of overt political horse-trading – as noted by the defense team (but ultimately found irrelevant to the elements of the offense).

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

        It's the subversion of the democratic process not even by private money but by public money. That's not a national disgrace? That our candidates can be bought and sold? That the buyers and sellers have to be tape-recorded doing so in order to convict them?

        It's patently obvious what went on here, it's just that the standards of proof in Canada are so astronomically high that you either need DNA evidence or a sealed confession to actually get a conviction. Gone are the days when the honest testimony of honest witnesses, together with a little basic logic, banishes reasonable doubt. These days, if there's even a teeny tiny possibility that someone like O'Brien was in fact not bribing an opponent but actually ordering out for pizza and just called the wrong number, he walks. It's an offense against truth.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/avr avr

          I stand by what I said. Of the philosophical faults present in our justice system, I'd rank this somewhere beneath (just off the top of my head) differing standards of justice by race, judges actively hostile to incarceration, the lack of constitutional protection for property, progressively-expansive judicial interpretation of entitlements, etc.

          It's patently obvious what went on here, it's just that the standards of proof in Canada are so astronomically high that you either need DNA evidence or a sealed confession to actually get a conviction.

          I don't recall, Jack – do you happen to feel the same way about evidentiary standards when it comes to, say, extreme violence or terrorism charges?

          Gone are the days when the honest testimony of honest witnesses, together with a little basic logic, banishes reasonable doubt.

          How does it do that, pray tell? Kilrea was an exceptionally unreliable witness, and managed to ham-handedly sabotage the credibility of his own testimony and that of his supporting witnesses with misplaced attention-seeking. That's what reasonable doubt means: that it's not sufficient for the Crown to put up a dozen "honest witnesses" and expect to win on the strength of their honesty, without somehow proving all the elements of the offense – and credibility of oral evidence is very much a factor.

          "Basic logic" might lead you to the clear conclusion that your political opponent is a total bastard and certainly guilty, but that's not quite enough to deprive someone of office. At least, it's not in our justice system – and for all its faults, I think I prefer it to one where your idea of what "banishes reasonable doubt" is enough.

        • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/avr avr

          I stand by what I said. Of the philosophical faults present in our justice system, I'd rank this somewhere beneath (just off the top of my head) differing standards of justice by race, judges actively hostile to incarceration, the lack of constitutional protection for property, progressively-expansive judicial interpretation of entitlements, etc.

          It's patently obvious what went on here, it's just that the standards of proof in Canada are so astronomically high that you either need DNA evidence or a sealed confession to actually get a conviction.

          I don't recall, Jack – do you happen to feel the same way about evidentiary standards when it comes to, say, extreme violence or terrorism charges?

          Gone are the days when the honest testimony of honest witnesses, together with a little basic logic, banishes reasonable doubt.

          How does it do that, pray tell? Kilrea was an exceptionally unreliable witness, and managed to ham-handedly sabotage the credibility of his own testimony and that of his supporting witnesses with misplaced attention-seeking. That's what reasonable doubt means: that it's not sufficient for the Crown to put up a dozen "honest witnesses" and expect to win on the strength of their honesty, without somehow proving all the elements of the offense – and credibility of oral evidence is very much a factor.

          "Basic logic" might lead you to the clear conclusion that your political opponent is a total bastard and certainly guilty, but that's not quite enough to convict. At least, it's not in our justice system – and for all its faults, I think I prefer it to one where your idea of what "banishes reasonable doubt" is enough.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

            do you happen to feel the same way about evidentiary standards when it comes to, say, extreme violence or terrorism charges?

            What evidence? I presume you're talking about Khadr, Arar, Abdelrazik, et al. In Khadr's case the "evidence" was in part extracted by torture and there are various legal questions about his status as a child; in the case of Arar, Abdelrazik, et al., no evidence has been presented.

            My complaint about the incredibly high standards of evidence should resonate with you if you're a law-and-order conservative, since the aforesaid standards are what make it so friggin' difficult to incarcerate criminals in this country (and quadruple the paperwork our officers of the law have to endure, which takes up most of their time).

            The difference is that on the left people decry the way that white-collar criminals get off scot-free (or never get charged), whereas on the right people decry the way that petty thieves and arsonists get off scot-free (or never get charged). But it's the same problem in both cases, and it basically boils down to judges thinking that it's perfectly normal for a trial to last six months. They are judges, after all, and they are used to being obeyed in everything, so if they decide that God wills our trials to last six months we are supposed to humbly thank them for the immaculate truth they have once again uttered. It's rot — judges need to be told where to get off. They are fundamentally public servants like elected and unelected officials are, even if their power is of a different sort, and they need to be told they are not God's gift to Canada.

            I agree with you that Kilrea was a terrible witness etc., but I still think O'Brien would have been convicted if this had been a court martial, not a legal circus.

          • sbt

            I don't even see why O'Brien was charged. After Belinda Stronach waltzed straight into cabinet and saved the Paul Martin government it seemed pretty clear that anything goes when it comes to political back-scratching in this country.

    • Herb

      It's not the legal system that is a national disgrace, it's the political system.

      Anyone seriously doubt that jobs under political control – including Parole Board and Senate – in fact are filled on a "grace and favour" basis, with connections and markers due overriding the smoke screen of other considerations?

      • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Ed_Sweeney Ed_Sweeney

        I think it is off the mark to suggest that the Senate should not be a politicized institution. You may want to question the best manner to achieve that, but it is and should be a politicized institution. Politics are not just shady dealings, the bulk of the work is performed by hard-working honest people, in a political environment. As it should be. Suggesting that the Senate should be more democratically politicized has a lot of merit. Parole Board, on the other hand, I agree should be non-political.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/KadyITQ KadyITQ

    I seriously doubt it. Honestly, I think that we may in danger of reading too much into the close timing between these two announced departures … the summer recess is, after all, not an unusual juncture to choose if you're planning on jumping ship, and I know that people have been predicting that CSO was considering retirement for over a year now. I'm not sure what this means for her Giorno-forged office of Strategic Communication (no S) — presumably, it could be folded into Issues Management, which would seem to be a simpler solution than finding two new comm staffers instead of just one to replace Kory.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/SisyphusThis SisyphusThis

    It only shows that he didn't have influence to sell.

    But if he did, he would have.

    I feel better.

  • Stephen B

    Does anyone besides me think the Citizen's decision to report this as an acquittal on charges of "purported influence peddling" makes them look a little silly? It's an awkward phrase, and of course the charge wasn't "purported" influence peddliing, and the fact of the acquittal is quite clear without this odd apparent attempt to emphasize that the charge wasn't proven.

From Macleans