mayorlarry acquitted

Of course he was found not guilty… was there ever any doubt?

I’m not a lawyer but it sure seemed to me that the prosecution had a weak case to begin with and did not do enough to compensate for it.

Guilty or not, did mayorlarry do it? Probably. But one thing is for sure, his chances of being re-elected in 2010 is likely next to nil.

(3967)

Be Sociable, Share!

14 Comments to “mayorlarry acquitted”

  1. trashee says:

    If I have to hear mayorlarry say “… and the 141,000 people who voted for me” one more time, I think I’ll throw up all over my nice keyboard!
    Maybe our own councillor will run against him? Peter Hume has been hot and cold, but a damn sight better than the incumbent!
    I’m sure the Squid-dude will have something to say on that since he’s in our ‘hood as well…

  2. XUP says:

    If the voting public had a minimum of intelligence, Larry wouldn’t be mayor in the first place, nor would they keep re-electing the same tired old council just because their names look familiar when they see them on the ballot. Ergo, Jim Watson is going to have to get himself on the front page of the paper gladhanding important people like THE Ottawa hair stylist and a some other really glam people. Because as of right now, Jim Watson is a really forgettable name. People like the familiar.

  3. trashee says:

    Gee XUP. Give a guy credit for trying to attribute at least a minimal level of intelligence to the voting public!
    But maybe I’m being too generous. He likely would get re-elected if he didn’t have a strong opponent. However, Jim Watson will swab the floor with mayorlarry’s shiny pate.
    I have often said that Ottawa – as much as I love it here – is very much a small town with 800,000 people living in it. Mayorlarry is one of the boys and in small towns, minor indiscretions committed by one of the boys are quickly forgotten.

  4. XUP says:

    And by “most people” I don’t mean me, I mean all those people out there who vote but never read newspapers or blogs

  5. XUP says:

    Oh Trashee, how you underestimate the ennui of the voters. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if Larry gets re-elected. Look how the media fawned all over him when he got married. I found that incredibly absurd. Front page news for days and days and days. People remember the glamour of that. Most people don’t know what the hell this whole trial was about and don’t care.

  6. Clicked too early.

    If the law had been in place then as it is now, he almost certainly would have been convicted.

    So, is he innocent of the crimes of which he was accused against people he didn’t pay off in settlements? Absolutely.

    It’s the other one for which I am not convinced of his innocence.

  7. Absolutely. MJ settled and the complainant dropped the claim. There was sufficient evidence that the state legislators actually went afterward and CHANGED THE LAW to allow the state to prosecute for sex crimes even when the complainant changes their mind, if there is evidence to do so.

    In effect, MJ bought his way out of that one.

  8. Ken says:

    I find it interesting, Squid, that you say that he was found not-guilty because he wasn’t guilty – and yet when it comes to Michael Jackson, you maintain that he was indeed guilty and got out of it because of his money.

    You can’t maintain a double standard like that.

    If the courts are the judge as to a person’s innocence or guilt, then you must say also that Jackson was found innocent because he was, in fact, innocent.

  9. Steven says:

    Well, there are a lot of people that are “outsiders” to politics that one wouldn’t like to see at the head of it. If someone from outside elected politics can be an effectual and useful mayor then all well and good; but maybe Larry was and is an outsider because he has no talent or ability to do the job well? These last three years have been a total write-off, between Larry needing six months of on-the-job training (“What does a mayor do?” à la Sarah Palin) his dopey insistence of wearing the mayor’s ceremonial chain of office at every occasion, and of course his ethics case.

    If he was anything other than an opportunist and egotist, he would step down now, realising that his time is over and that he can only be a lame duck at the detriment of the city. But of course he won’t: Look for him to crow victory with thumbs-up and whoop-up, and, of course, ride out his last year laughing.

    “Not guilty” means “not proven,” not “innocent.”

  10. I think it really was an attempted coup (ok, that’s overstating it, but essentially that was the idea). The purpose was to ensure that O’brien was tainted and wouldn’t be re-elected at worst, and to get him off the mayor’s chair to be replaced with someone more like them at best.

    When Larry was elected, it was a slap to the same-old-same-old city council. He was an outsider – fresh from the private sector and likely with little tolerance for the decades-long, sit-on-your-arse-and-do-nothing attitude that the bulk of council has. They couldn’t have the mayor, of all people, pointing out their shortcomings and injecting new ideas that they’d now have to deal with and give reasons for rejecting.

    In short, he could make them look bad. They saw an opportunity, blew something way, way out of proportion, and ran with it to get him out of there. It’s classic politics.

  11. trashee says:

    Bald By Choice. Google it. We have numbers. And glare. Lotsa glare.

  12. trashee says:

    Maybe and maybe not. I dunno.
    But I do know that he was a guy fresh from the private sector who likely didn’t realise that you couldn’t do the ol’ “quid pro quo” thing the same way in public life as you could in the private sector.
    Still don’t like him and he’s an insult to all of us who are BBC… but, he is apparently not a criminal.

  13. Perhaps he was found not guilty because he was not, in fact, guilty?

    Some time ago I said that this all looked like sour grapes from the guy who dropped out of the election and a cranky city council that wanted to overthrow the elected mayor. I think the judge seems to have borne that out.

    The judge did say he walked a line, but didn’t cross it. Well, that’s ok by me. Whether or not the line should be moved is another issue altogether.

Leave a Reply

*