This week or next, we will learn how far - or not far - is Mr. Harper's reach. It's one thing to have a Rona Ambrose, a Jim Flaherty, a PVL, and others, obey your every command without question, but it's quite another to have the same impact on a predecessor and mentor of convenience.

Somewhat out of character for him, Mr. Harper will be required to employ an altogether different kind of instrument for the task at hand with, to date, no sign of any such device in the proverbial toolkit.

The notion Liberals will take to higher ground and retreat is fantasy. There is too much potential for political payback for Adscam, and for the embarrassment Liberals suffered by having to pay Mr. Mulroney's legal costs ($2.1 Million) albeit out of tax-payer money.

More to the point, Mr. Dion has been desperate for something, anything, to emerge as the impetus for a channel-change, and "Mulroney-gate" will be perceived by his strategist entourage - the same people who told him abstinence was a good idea - as "just what they needed" or just enough of what they need to manufacture ... what they need.

As others have already commented, it's easy to imagine there isn't a lot to this story that can stick to, or hurt, Mr. Harper.  But political ghosts of the haunting variety exist, no matter how indirectly. For example, recall the Lucien Bouchard cringe factor whenever "la belle-mère" Jacques Parizeau felt the urge to have a public brain-fart, or Trudeau on Chrétien, or Joe Clark on, umm, okay strike that last example.

The hot-potato is not, as some may think, entirely in Mr. Harper's hands. But make no mistake, Mr. Harper owns a significant stake in the outcome. All Mr. Harper can do, is hope, or use gentle suasion - that would be the missing instrument in the toolkit - that Mr. Mulroney appreciates the issue not just for what it is, but rather for what it has the potential of becoming; the very seeds for Mr. Dion's much anticipated "element of time."

It does not matter what "it" is. It only matters what poll-shaping spin-doctors can do with "it."  Insofar as those kinds of tactics are concerned, this story has legs. 

There is also the more practical side to this saga which has yet to catch on. We're not talking about $2.1 Million out of Liberal party coffers that was arguably and needlessly frittered away if one judges the outcome based on the last court ruling. Indeed, we're talking about tax-payers money.

Most tax-payers concede, at least ideologically, that a person wrongly accused deserves retribution. Especially so in the case of a former Prime Minister, and without question, if partisan politics motivated initial charges. But if new or withheld evidence casts any doubt, let alone the magnitude of doubt now seemingly at play, then the court of public opinion will weave its way on to the most logical and closest standing object without stopping to think about era or any other reason for disassociation.

Mr. Harper will not, read as he can't, launch any sort of investigation either in response to growing opposition pressure, or even on his own. In the best case scenario, wrongdoing would be uncovered and Mr. Harper might experience the Martin/Gomery effect. Remember Mr. Martin also claimed to "have no knowledge."

In the worst case scenario, for Mr. Harper, Mr. Mulroney earns another $2.1 Million.

There is only one way Mr. Harper gets off clean and that scenario does not consist of Mr. Mulroney continuing to insist he did 'not have financial relations with that man.'  For stories like this there seems to be, with greater-and-greater regularity, the surfacing of a stained blue dress or video surveillance of a man sneaking boxes out the back of a building.

As much as the former Prime Minister may think remembering, eventually, to pay taxes is good enough, or the embarrassment of doing anything more would be too humiliating, Mr. Mulroney need look no further than Bill Clinton, arguably the most popular past President. Why? Two words: I'm sorry.   

Politicians today continue to amaze me at their inability, or unwillingness, to choose correctly between doors, even knowing what awaits on either side. Mr. Harper has proven himself in unparalleled company in his ability to get people to do what he wants by telling them to do it, or else.

This will be new, virgin territory, for Mr. Harper; having to ask, and maybe even say p-p-please.     

First, Garth is right, again:

"I have no idea if Mr. Mulroney took money, if he earned it, or when it happened. And I don’t care. If this is the way Liberal strategists think Stephen Harper should be damaged, then we need new strategists. Mr. Harper has enough real shortcomings of his own to do him in. Besides, nobody asked me to go to Ottawa and spend time chewing up old politicians. It may be great fun, especially in the libel-free atmosphere of QP, but it accomplishes nothing for the citizens of the country. Screwing Brian Mulroney will not stop climate change, bring back lost manufacturing jobs, lower mortgage rates, give families income-splitting or create child care spaces. This is not what Parliament’s for. But it’s why there is TV."

In keeping with the advice I normally like to give, I should probably not make things worse by contributing to the "TV" aspect of this story, but, I am nevertheless teetering to watch the strategists in action on this one.