The Canadian media have covered just about every aspect of the rise and fall of Mike Duffy, the TV journalist-turned-disgraced-Conservative senator.

With one notable exception. For two years, they’ve waited on pins and needles to hear from Nigel Wright, former chief of staff to Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

In their collective view, this was to be the testimony to end all testimonies at the Duffy trial.

Wright, after all, was the individual who wrote the controversial $90,000 cheque to Duffy to help pay his living expenses.

He would surely tell the nation what the PM knew -- or didn’t -- about this transaction.

That’s why some media have depicted Wright’s testimony at Duffy’s trial this week as a huge event.

They’ve billed it as the potential “smoking gun” moment of the trial, which could become a major election issue and possibly a game changer in the horse race among the Conservatives, NDP and Liberals.

But, barring any unforeseen developments, nothing could be further from the truth.

Wright’s testimony so far adds nothing new to the equation. It only confirms what some of us have said since the beginning.

That is, Canadians already knew what happened regarding Wright, Duffy and the $90,000.

It’s always been clear to me that while Wright made a huge error in judgement in cutting a $90,000 cheque to Duffy out of his own money, the PM didn’t know about this transaction.

Here’s why.

I’ve known Wright for years. We’re not close friends, but he’s an honourable, decent and forthright person.

It really would be in his nature to help Duffy (who I also know) in his time of need.

Wright has the financial means. As a managing director of Gerald Schwartz’s private equity firm, Onex Corporation -- currently working in the London, England branch -- he’s done well for himself.

This is a man we now know paid tens of thousands of dollars out of his own pocket for expenses he could have legitimately been reimbursed for as the prime minister’s chief of staff.

That’s why Wright said, on his first day of testimony, “I thought I was doing a good deed” by helping Duffy to escape his self-inflicted financial mess.

He couldn’t “think of another way to do it,” and decided “I could do it myself and I would do it myself.”

Therein lies the problem. As a longtime backroom operator, Wright should’ve known better than to interfere in the financial plight of a Senator playing fast and loose with his political privileges and taxpayer dollars.

It’s up to the court to decide if Duffy is guilty or innocent of the criminal charges he faces. His argument that Senate expense rules are unclear has merit.

That said, what Duffy did was morally and ethically wrong. There’s no way around this.

I assume Wright felt his cheque would make a potentially bad situation go away, saving Harper, the Tories and Conservative supporters further embarrassment.

It was “a relatively quick decision for me,” said Wright. “I lived to regret it.”

He’s not the only one.

How could a micromanager like Harper not have known about this arrangement when his fingerprints are supposedly on every Tory decision?

It’s simple: there are moments when, believe it or not, the PM can go against his natural inclination and disengage from a potential problem.

I’ve known Harper for years and I’ve seen him do it.

Harper surely knew that a trail of political breadcrumbs like this could follow him forever.

So, when Wright said the PM was “good to go” in that cryptic e-mail, I’ve always believed it meant Harper gave his then chief of staff the go-ahead to deal with Duffy.

As Wright confirmed in his testimony, “good to go means that the points I wanted to raise with the prime minister had been raised and that we could proceed with the plan.”

Based on what I know about Harper, I couldn’t see him approving a plan where Wright would write a personal cheque to Duffy and then Harper would publicly lie about it.

Doing that could bring down any leader in a democracy.

Harper’s aware of the dangers of high office and too intelligent and strategic to let it happen to him.

Could there be unforeseen developments to come in the trial?

Of course and if that happens, I’ll have to re-evaluate what I believe.

But for now, Wright’s testimony will titillate the media, give opposition parties some sound bites and briefly disrupt the Tory campaign.

If Canadian progressives believe there will be long-lasting effects, they’re kidding themselves.