Article content continued

That not only the rules but the culture of the Senate tolerated the sort of abuse of public trust in which Duffy engaged, that indeed other senators were guilty of much the same, is not accidental. It is in part a matter of self-selection, in a body whose chief qualification for appointment has hitherto been a willingness to accept one. But whatever sense of entitlement may have been there initially is surely reinforced by the experience of having been appointed for life, without being accountable to anyone. Of which the most certain proof was the statement from the Senate, after the verdict was announced, welcoming Duffy back to his seat, at full pay. For indeed the only actual job requirement of a senator, besides showing up, is that he not be a criminal.

Duffy has been acquitted: that much is fact. It is probable that he should have been acquitted. Possibly he should never even have been charged. That does not oblige us to accept every line of the judge’s reasoning, however, particularly in the matter of the $90,000 cheque from Nigel Wright. The notion that Duffy was some unwilling victim of a plot to force him to accept being “made whole” for his expenses is not only contrary to common sense — the only price he faced for not taking the money was that he would not get the money — but to the evidentiary record. It was an explicit and repeated demand of his lawyer.

We apologize, but this video has failed to load.

tap here to see other videos from our team. Try refreshing your browser, or

Indeed, in all of his dealings with the cunning masterminds in the prime minister’s office whose machinations the judge decries at some length, Duffy would appear to have been in much more the position of dictating terms than the contrary. Everything that went on — the payment of the $90,000, the public pretense that Duffy had paid back the money out of his own funds, the rewriting of the Senate committee report, the attempted tampering with an independent audit — was directed towards making him look good, even if it was their own hides they were trying to save. Duffy may have sincerely believed he did nothing wrong, and that may have made him unwilling to admit he had. But there is nothing in the record to indicate that he was averse to taking the cheque.