Cadman allegedly Offered Money

[andyinottawa]

Please explain to me how offering someone a cabinet position with salary, perks and prestige in return for a vote is not a bribe under the definition of the criminal code.

Harper incriminated himself in the alleged bribery attempt of the late Chuck Cadman when he said in a taped interview in 2005 that Conservative envoys offered the terminally-ill MP "financial considerations" in exchange for his vote

[margrace]

And of course there is a woman to vilify, Harper seems to be good at this.

[Riverwind]

Harper incriminated himself in the alleged bribery attempt of the late Chuck Cadman when he said in a taped interview in 2005 that Conservative envoys offered the terminally-ill MP "financial considerations" in exchange for his vote

You did not answer the question:

Please explain to me how offering someone a cabinet position with salary, perks and prestige in return for a vote is not a bribe under the definition of the criminal code.

When you answer that question you will have to conclude that:

1) Paul Martin bribed Belinda Stronach.

2) Any offer to Cadman could have been within the bounds of normal political horse trading.

[jdobbin]

Please explain to me how offering someone a cabinet position with salary, perks and prestige in return for a vote is not a bribe under the definition of the criminal code.

It probably could be if you could prove that the decision was bought solely by money rather than having someone simply leaving for political reasons and accepting a job as a result. You think Harper himself broke the law the day he was sworn into office?

In the case of Cadman, it would appear his vote alone was something that had to be won over. So far the Liberals look like they asked for his vote but didn't offer anything for it. In the case of the Tories, Harper is heard discussing how he knew some in his party were going to ask about Cadman's monetary needs. In the words of his widow and daughter, he was offered a life insurance policy that was contingent on that vote.

I don't think the court would have any problem distinguishing bribery in this case if that is what the facts were.

Edited March 1, 2008 by jdobbin

[andyinottawa]

You did not answer the question:

Please explain to me how offering someone a cabinet position with salary, perks and prestige in return for a vote is not a bribe under the definition of the criminal code.

When you answer that question you will have to conclude that:

1) Paul Martin bribed Belinda Stronach.

2) Any offer to Cadman could have been within the bounds of normal political horse trading.

you can't be serious lol omg now that is scarry lol have you even looked at the criminal code ? it figures a tory would say that

[jdobbin]

you can't be serious lol omg now that is scarry lol have you even looked at the criminal code?

It looks like the Tories are trying to say this is all a hazy thing and that it all falls under political horse trading. I think I'd like to hear what the court thinks about that is regards to Cadman. I'm sure they could figure out what the difference is.

[Regulus de Leo]

And of course there is a woman to vilify, Harper seems to be good at this.

Maybe he picked up vilifying women from Bill Clinton?

[Riverwind]

I don't think the court would have any problem distinguishing bribery in this case if that is what the facts were.

Key point bolded.

I have no problem agreeing that the information available suggests that some tory operatives may have offered something that constitutes a bribe. However, the information available also leaves open the possibility that the offer was nothing more than a promise of tory support in the subsequent election campaign which may have had the side effect of ensuring that Cadman's MP benefits would continue. The fact that his widow later choose to run for the the party that offered such a reprehensible bribe suggests that she may be exaggerating the significance of the offer - or maybe she simply did not understand the offer.

On the other hand, I think it is ridiculous to claim that Stronach did not either ask for a bribe (cabinet position) or was offered a bribe before she crossed the floor.

You also must remember that Harper's own testimony clearly indicates that he was not involved in any offer and therefore was not a party to any bribing that may or may not have took place. So it is rediculous to claim that Harper is guilty of a criminal act.

Edited March 1, 2008 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

On the other hand, I think it is ridiculous to claim that Stronach did not either ask for a bribe (cabinet position) or was offered a bribe before she crossed the floor.

Ditto on Emerson.

Guess Martin and Harper can share a cell.

[Riverwind]

you can't be serious lol omg now that is scarry lol have you even looked at the criminal code ? it figures a tory would say that

3 years ago made many posts defending Paul Martin against claims that he was corrupt because of the sponsership scandal and received many similar comments from tories who assumed I was arguing from a partisen perspective.

I don't think anyone shoud rush to judgement in these kinds of cases - especially when there is no evidence - just hearsay and innuendo.

Edited March 1, 2008 by Riverwind

[Riverwind]

Ditto on Emerson.

Guess Martin and Harper can share a cell.

Only if you take the niave view that politicians should be jailed when then engage in political horse trading which invariably includes a financial aspect.

[BubberMiley]

Only if you take the niave view that politicians should be jailed when then engage in political horse trading which invariably includes a financial aspect.

There's a difference between offering someone a cabinet position for joining your team and offering someone cash for a particular vote. At least there is in the eyes of the law.

[andyinottawa]

Only if you take the niave view that politicians should be jailed when then engage in political horse trading which invariably includes a financial aspect.

Did you listen to the tape ??? you guys are too funny its not horse trading he offered a bribe to secure a vote !! and Harper new it , just watch what happens

[jdobbin]

Only if you take the niave view that politicians should be jailed when then engage in political horse trading which invariably includes a financial aspect.

Ah, now we get back into this right wing position that this is all too hazy to call it bribery. It is all political horse trading.

Let's see what the RCMP have to say and whether the courts will run with it afterwards. I'd love to see Tory officials call a hard to get life insurance policy contingent on a vote no different that offering Emerson a job in cabinet.

[andyinottawa]

Ah, now we get back into this right wing position that this is all too hazy to call it bribery. It is all political horse trading.

Let's see what the RCMP have to say and whether the courts will run with it afterwards. I'd love to see Tory officials call a hard to get life insurance policy contingent on a vote no different that offering Emerson a job in cabinet.

you still don't get it lol its not about the insurance policy its about offering that is illegal thats what the criminal code says and harper is taped saying that offers were made.

I predict the rcmp will investigate next week , Harper has to step aside , the gov. falls and the Libs are back

[Wilber]

There's a difference between offering someone a cabinet position for joining your team and offering someone cash for a particular vote. At least there is in the eyes of the law.

Only because it is more difficult to prove. The intent and the morality is the same.

[jdobbin]

you still don't get it lol its not about the insurance policy its about offering that is illegal thats what the criminal code says and harper is taped saying that offers were made.

I predict the rcmp will investigate next week , Harper has to step aside , the gov. falls and the Libs are back

The law moves pretty slowly. However, you are correct that if this has a major impact on the polls that the Opposition might take the government down on it.

[BubberMiley]

Only because it is more difficult to prove. The intent and the morality is the same.

The intent and the morality may be the same, but one is illegal and one isn't. It wasn't illegal for Harper to tell Emerson "Become a Conservative and be in my Cabinet." It's illegal for him to say "Vote this way in a particular vote and win a million dollars."

[andyinottawa]

The intent and the morality may be the same, but one is illegal and one isn't. It wasn't illegal for Harper to tell Emerson "Become a Conservative and be in my Cabinet." It's illegal for him to say "Vote this way in a particular vote and win a million dollars."

you are exactly right !

[Riverwind]

There's a difference between offering someone a cabinet position for joining your team and offering someone cash for a particular vote. At least there is in the eyes of the law.

We know that any assistance offered to Cadman was based on the assumption that he would 'join the team'. It is impossible to prove that the assistance was in return for his vote.

This entire discussion reminds me of the Grewal, Tim Murphy and a 'comfy couch'.

[andyinottawa]

We know that any assistance offered to Cadman was based on the assumption that he would 'join the team'. It is impossible to prove that the assistance was in return for his vote.

This entire discussion reminds me of the Grewal, Tim Murphy and a 'comfy couch'.

did Harper not admit on the tape it was for his vote lol listen to it carefully , read along if you have to

[Wild Bill]

We know that any assistance offered to Cadman was based on the assumption that he would 'join the team'. It is impossible to prove that the assistance was in return for his vote.

This entire discussion reminds me of the Grewal, Tim Murphy and a 'comfy couch'.

You're wasting your time, RW! A dyed in the wool Liberal would excuse Charlie Manson if he belonged to their party!

I still remember when Chretien was mired in the HRDC billion dollar scandal, Shawinigate and a few others. Someone picked up on the fact that one of Preston Manning's dry cleaning bills had been paid by his party when it should have been considered personal.

Every CBC and Liberal talking head in the media seemed to feel that the act was equivalent!

The Liberals are obviously hoping this will give them a chance in the soon-to-be-called election. Maybe so. Doesn't seem likely that most Canadians will care enough to switch to a leader like Dion but stranger things have happened. Might get a seat or two.

I'll bet 3 beer that if the Cadman story is true the guys who made the offer came from the old PC party! If so, Harper and his crew deserve whatever they get.

[capricorn]

Why would Dona Cadman have even considered running for the Conservatives given her husband's supposed outrage at the actions of the Conservatives?

"Chuck returned to the apartment in a near rage.

"He was pretty pissed off at them," Dona recalled. "He came home, and he was mad. He just said that he was insulted and that he was ashamed to have been a part of the Conservative Party."

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/st...2d-7ace7b68d823

So, by her own words and actions, it looks like she did not and does not share Chuck Cadman's outrage at the Conservatives. Had she shared her husband's opinions, surely she would not have sought the Conservative nomination. What is her motive for joining the Conservative Party, a Party denounced by her husband?

I find this aspect of the story very bizarre. Also puzzling is that neither Ms. Cadman or the Conservatives want to part company, at this time anyway.

[Topaz]

Why would Dona Cadman have even considered running for the Conservatives given her husband's supposed outrage at the actions of the Conservatives?

"Chuck returned to the apartment in a near rage.

"He was pretty pissed off at them," Dona recalled. "He came home, and he was mad. He just said that he was insulted and that he was ashamed to have been a part of the Conservative Party."

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/st...2d-7ace7b68d823

So, by her own words and actions, it looks like she did not and does not share Chuck Cadman's outrage at the Conservatives. Had she shared her husband's opinions, surely she would not have sought the Conservative nomination. What is her motive for joining the Conservative Party, a Party denounced by her husband?

I find this aspect of the story very bizarre. Also puzzling is that neither Ms. Cadman or the Conservatives want to part company, at this time anyway.

Yes I agree with you, there's seem to part that missing. I think either this is a setup against the Libs OR Cadman does have the goods on Harper and can use it anytime, guess you call it blackmail. Why would Harper call her the day the story broke about what the press release was going to be?

[Riverwind]

Yes I agree with you, there's seem to part that missing. I think either this is a setup against the Libs OR Cadman does have the goods on Harper and can use it anytime, guess you call it blackmail. Why would Harper call her the day the story broke about what the press release was going to be?

A more likely explanation is she is hopelessly naive politically and had no idea that her claims will result in her being kicked out of the conservative party. I suspect she is running for the conservatives because that is where her ideological home is which means she will likely have issues running for the libs or the ndp.

We will have to see how this plays out in the court of public opinion. I know the partisans are going to scream but will the public care? I doubt the average person makes any distinction between the Cadman allegations and the Grewal allegations.

Edited March 1, 2008 by Riverwind