Cadman allegedly Offered Money

[andyinottawa]

andy, you're a barrel of laughs lol lol. Imagine that, an offer to a dying man when they weren't sitting. You hit it on the head, sucking up to bush lol. Why didn't I think of that? You're too funny lol lol. At least you have an opinion lol. Ahhhh....

well i just state the facts

[Alta4ever]

well i just state the facts

What facts, you stated an opinion.

fact [ fakt ] (plural facts)

noun

Definition:

1. something known to be true: something that can be shown to be true, to exist, or to have happened

2. truth or reality of something: the truth or actual existence of something, as opposed to the supposition of something or a belief about something

based on fact

3. piece of information: a piece of information, e.g. a statistic or a statement of the truth

4. law actual course of events: the circumstances of an event or state of affairs, rather than an interpretation of its significance

Matters of fact are issues for a jury, while matters of law are issues for the court.

5. law something based on evidence: something that is based on or concerned with the evidence presented in a legal case

[15th century. < Latin factum "deed" < fact-, past participle of facere "do, make"]

after the fact after something, especially a criminal act, has been done

before the fact before something, especially a criminal act, has been done

in fact used to correct a previous misunderstanding or to reinforce a previous statement

o·pin·ion [ ə pínnyən ] (plural o·pin·ions)

noun

Definition:

1. personal view: the view somebody takes about an issue, especially when it is based solely on personal judgment

In my opinion it's all a waste of time.

2. estimation: a view regarding the worth of somebody or something

They had a pretty low opinion of me.

3. expert view: an expert assessment of something

I told the doctor I wanted a second opinion.

4. body of generally held views: the view or views held by most people or by a large number of people

pundits and other opinion formers

5. law conclusion of fact: a conclusion drawn from observation of the facts

[14th century. Via French< Latin opinion-< opinari "suppose"]

be a matter of opinion to be open to dispute or debate

be of the opinion that to think that something is the case

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dic...ionaryhome.aspx

Edited March 2, 2008 by Alta4ever

[andyinottawa]

What facts, you stated an opinion.

fact [ fakt ] (plural facts)

noun

Definition:

1. something known to be true: something that can be shown to be true, to exist, or to have happened

2. truth or reality of something: the truth or actual existence of something, as opposed to the supposition of something or a belief about something

based on fact

3. piece of information: a piece of information, e.g. a statistic or a statement of the truth

4. law actual course of events: the circumstances of an event or state of affairs, rather than an interpretation of its significance

Matters of fact are issues for a jury, while matters of law are issues for the court.

5. law something based on evidence: something that is based on or concerned with the evidence presented in a legal case

[15th century. < Latin factum "deed" < fact-, past participle of facere "do, make"]

after the fact after something, especially a criminal act, has been done

before the fact before something, especially a criminal act, has been done

in fact used to correct a previous misunderstanding or to reinforce a previous statement

o·pin·ion [ ə pínnyən ] (plural o·pin·ions)

noun

Definition:

1. personal view: the view somebody takes about an issue, especially when it is based solely on personal judgment

In my opinion it's all a waste of time.

2. estimation: a view regarding the worth of somebody or something

They had a pretty low opinion of me.

3. expert view: an expert assessment of something

I told the doctor I wanted a second opinion.

4. body of generally held views: the view or views held by most people or by a large number of people

pundits and other opinion formers

5. law conclusion of fact: a conclusion drawn from observation of the facts

[14th century. Via French< Latin opinion-< opinari "suppose"]

be a matter of opinion to be open to dispute or debate

be of the opinion that to think that something is the case

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dic...ionaryhome.aspx

well now that we know you can use the dictionary online lol lets see what the rcmp say when the actually put harper under investigation for this , he should also be charged under the stupidity law lol

[Alta4ever]

well now that we know you can use the dictionary online lol lets see what the rcmp say when the actually put harper under investigation for this , he should also be charged under the stupidity law lol

If you want to charge Harper then May, Dion and Layton should be put away for life.

[jdobbin]

My memory may be wrong, but wasn't Cadman visited by Paul Martin and Ujjal Dosanjh prior to the vote in an effort to gain his support.

He was. And Cadman said Martin didn't offer him anything. His wife confirms that.

Given the Belinda Stronach tactics and probable bribery, it's more likely they made the offer.. and Mrs Cadman has it wrong...

Then Dona Cadman should not be the candidate if she got something like that so wrong. Why are the Tories keeping her?

[jdobbin]

I suggested that very thing in post #21 on Feb. 28 and that same day in post #23 you agreed with me. But then, perhaps my political leaning may not be as blatant as I think.

I didn't know you were a member of the Conservative party. I thought you just supported them.

[Riverwind]

And Cadman said Martin didn't offer him anything

Cadman is also on record saying that the Conservatives did not offer him anything either. Any information that Cadman's wife has is second hand and cannot be assumed to be accurate or complete (i.e. Cadman may not have told her about a Liberal offer or perhaps he did and she forgot - we can never know). Edited March 2, 2008 by Riverwind

[BubberMiley]

Cadman is also on record saying that the Conservatives did not offer him anything either. Any information that Cadman's wife has is second hand and cannot be assumed to be accurate or complete (i.e. Cadman may not have told her about a Liberal offer or perhaps he did and she forgot - we can never know).

But Harper provided first-hand information on the tape.

[jdobbin]

Cadman is also on record saying that the Conservatives did not offer him anything either. Any information that Cadman's wife has is second hand and cannot be assumed to be accurate or complete (i.e. Cadman may not have told her about a Liberal offer or perhaps he did and she forgot - we can never know).

I love how this is now about a Liberal offer.

You say that Cadman's word is the final say. Well, he said that the Liberals didn't offer him anything.

Now, you are saying that Cadman might have told his wife and daughter about a Liberal offer and they might have forgot.

One thing is clear: Dona Cadman and her daughter says that they were directly told about an offer involving an insurance policy in return for a vote from the Conservatives.

This is a Conservative accusation against a Conservative government. Is the Tory policy going to be that Dona Cadman is confused and retain her as a candidate?

Edited March 2, 2008 by jdobbin

[Keepitsimple]

But Harper provided first-hand information on the tape.

That's the part that's very misleading. The beginning of the tape/transcript is conveniently missing - the first question is:

Zytaruk: "I mean, there was an insurance policy for a million dollars. Do you know anything about that?"

Harper: "I don't know the details. I know that there were discussions, uh, this is not for publication?"

If you can agree that there must have been a couple of prior questions....then it seems to me that Zytaruk probably asked the general question about whether he was aware that Conservative members had gone to Cadman with a list of offers. If that was the case, then Harper's reply that "he didn't know the details" could very reasonably mean that he didn't know the details of any of the things that were on the list.

Why does the transcript not include comments about "the list" that the media talks about? Why not just publish the entire transcript so that everything is put in context? Curiouser and curiouser.

Edited March 2, 2008 by Keepitsimple

[geoffrey]

Tom Flanagan isn't going to say anything, Harper isn't going to say anything. Cadman is dead. The Liberals are seriously wasting their time with this one.

But, brilliant as always Goodale comes to rescue!

"Under the existing parliamentary life insurance plan, if members cease to be MPs they can keep their insurance but the premiums go up and the benefits go down," Mr. Goodale said. "Did the Conservatives offer to make up that difference in exchange for Mr. Cadman's vote? Was that the offer?"

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080301.CADMAN01/TPStory/TPNational/Politics/

Was it not already established that paying compensation in order to recover losses because of an election was ok?

Looks like Goodale saved Harper's ass. I don't think offering to top up insurance contributions in the case that he loses his seat is unethical at all. In fact, it's the responsible thing to do regarding this family. Good for them if they made such an offer, very thoughtful and responsible.

[jdobbin]

Tom Flanagan isn't going to say anything, Harper isn't going to say anything. Cadman is dead. The Liberals are seriously wasting their time with this one.

But, brilliant as always Goodale comes to rescue!

"Under the existing parliamentary life insurance plan, if members cease to be MPs they can keep their insurance but the premiums go up and the benefits go down," Mr. Goodale said. "Did the Conservatives offer to make up that difference in exchange for Mr. Cadman's vote? Was that the offer?"

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080301.CADMAN01/TPStory/TPNational/Politics/

Was it not already established that paying compensation in order to recover losses because of an election was ok?

Where?

Looks like Goodale saved Harper's ass. I don't think offering to top up insurance contributions in the case that he loses his seat is unethical at all. In fact, it's the responsible thing to do regarding this family. Good for them if they made such an offer, very thoughtful and responsible.

The Liberals are not going to bring down the government on this. However, I doubt the Tories are going to get away scot-free when the widow and daughter say there was a million dollar offer. The MP's insurance plan was no where near that high.

The Conservatives have a problem. If Cadman is to believed then Dona Cadman is confused or lying. At best, she is not a good candidate for the Tories because this issue will come up again unless she recants. And if she recants, she still probably won't be an ideal candidate.

The right wing continues to think this is an issue created by the Liberals. It is a Conservative making an accusation against the Conservatives.

[jdobbin]

Why does the transcript not include comments about "the list" that the media talks about? Why not just publish the entire transcript so that everything is put in context? Curiouser and curiouser.

I'm sure the RCMP will see the whole transcript as will the ethics committee if that helps.

[geoffrey]

The Liberals are not going to bring down the government on this. However, I doubt the Tories are going to get away scot-free when the widow and daughter say there was a million dollar offer. The MP's insurance plan was no where near that high.

You can't get a life insurance plan for someone that will be dying in a week or two. That's the bottom line. The offer was never realistic if it wasn't a top up.

The Conservatives have a problem. If Cadman is to believed then Dona Cadman is confused or lying. At best, she is not a good candidate for the Tories because this issue will come up again unless she recants. And if she recants, she still probably won't be an ideal candidate.

Cadman was one of three guys in the room. He's to be believed. He made his case to the nation already. I'll take his word over that of someone not there.

The right wing continues to think this is an issue created by the Liberals. It is a Conservative making an accusation against the Conservatives.

Yup sure. That's true. It's a sexy story for the Liberals though, and that's all they speak of now. Even though fundamentally, it's so highly unlikely, irrational and ridiculous that it will end in some mud on the face of the Liberals riding this one at full speed.

[Topaz]

The Cons are saying only three people were there and one is dead, everyone says he was an honourable man. Now, who has more to lose if this is true? The Conservatives party and especially the two who did the offering and the PMO. What has the Cadman mom and daughter have to gain? ????? You tell me. The Cons can't say it wasn't offered because they weren't there and the only two guys that were there are questionable. Maybe this is a way for the former PC's to get rid of Harper and the Alliance and take over the Conservative once more. Will McKay be the leader?

[jazzer]

Cadman was one of three guys in the room. He's to be believed. He made his case to the nation already. I'll take his word over that of someone not there.

Please re-read post #134. Cadman said there were offers.

[Riverwind]

The Conservatives party and especially the two who did the offering and the PMO. What has the Cadman mom and daughter have to gain?

Royalties from book sales? That said, I don't think they are insincere in their claims - I am not convinced that they had access to the information required to accurately report what was offered. For all we know - Cadman grossly misinterpreted what the conservatives put on the table but later figured out that it was not what he thought it was. That would explain his statements to his family and his later statements to the press.

Despite the claims of partisans, there does not appear to be any evidence that would prove beyond reasonable doubt that an illicit offer was made. Nor is any such evidence likely to appear since it would have to come from the other two people in the room.

[jdobbin]

You can't get a life insurance plan for someone that will be dying in a week or two. That's the bottom line. The offer was never realistic if it wasn't a top up.

Then why does Harper not say he has no idea what the writer was talking about when he mentioned the $1 million dollar offer? He says that offers were made.

Cadman was one of three guys in the room. He's to be believed. He made his case to the nation already. I'll take his word over that of someone not there.

Okay, when Cadman was alive he said there was financial offers. He also said at one time there were no financial offers. Which Cadman version do you want us to believe?

Yup sure. That's true. It's a sexy story for the Liberals though, and that's all they speak of now. Even though fundamentally, it's so highly unlikely, irrational and ridiculous that it will end in some mud on the face of the Liberals riding this one at full speed.

Fire Dona Cadman is it is crazy. Why keep her as a candidate?

CTV reported today that the Tories have a whisper campaign that the tape was doctored but won't go on the record. Harper should hold a news conference and clear up what he said in the taped interview.

At the very least, the RCMP should get sworn statements from the Tories so that it is out in the open.

The right wing saying "nothing to see here" is not very believable. Why are they keeping Dona Cadman if she says that an insurance offer was made? Why didn't Harper deny there was an offer made or say "What are you talking about?" Why does Harper talk about financial offers? What were those financial offers? What is the legal opinion on those financial offers? Were they illegal?

[jdobbin]

Royalties from book sales? That said, I don't think they are insincere in their claims - I am not convinced that they had access to the information required to accurately report what was offered. For all we know - Cadman grossly misinterpreted what the conservatives put on the table but later figured out that it was not what he thought it was. That would explain his statements to his family and his later statements to the press.

Despite the claims of partisans, there does not appear to be any evidence that would prove beyond reasonable doubt that an illicit offer was made. Nor is any such evidence likely to appear since it would have to come from the other two people in the room.

And so no investigation is required according to the right wing?

[Riverwind]

And so no investigation is required according to the right wing?

Investigate all you want. But don't assume that the outcome is a foregone conclusion. We have a problem in our political process because too many partisans (on all sides) seek to use these kinds of investigations for political gain. Hand the evidence over to the RCMP and ask them to determine whether charges are warrented. It should not be more complicated than that.

[jdobbin]

Investigate all you want. But don't assume that the outcome is a foregone conclusion. We have a problem in our political process because too many partisans (on all sides) seek to use these kinds of investigations for political gain. Hand the evidence over to the RCMP and ask them to determine whether charges are warrented. It should not be more complicated than that.

I'd look forward to the RCMP investigation. However, I don't don't that we'll hear about one if there is. They don't usually announce them except during the last election when they said there were investigating Goodale's office.

In the meanwhile, The Tories still have a person running for them who is making a serious accusation.

Edited March 2, 2008 by jdobbin

[eyeball]

Unfortunately, the RCMP can't be trusted to investigate the Conservatives or the Liberals for that matter, they're just too like-minded, they avoid transparency and accountability and covet secrecy above all else too.

Let the court of public opinion speak. Its time for another election.

[guyser]

You can't get a life insurance plan for someone that will be dying in a week or two.

As has been discussed before G, yes you can. Could you or I get it? Nope, but that does not mean it cannot happen.

[capricorn]

I didn't know you were a member of the Conservative party. I thought you just supported them.

Yes, I have a Conservative party membership card valid until December 08. First time in my 40 years of voting that I join a political party.

[jdobbin]

Yes, I have a Conservative party membership card valid until December 08. First time in my 40 years of voting that I join a political party.

Ah. I didn't know. The only thing I remembered was you saying that you had changed your vote, not that you had taken a party membership out.