Harper suing the Liberals

[jdobbin]

And if they contradicted what Donna Cadman said, you would call them liars, but you would not be able to prove it would you? Really the world would never know if what they said was true or not.

Actually, I would ask why they still have Dona Cadman as a candidate.

[Alta4ever]

Actually, I would ask why they still have Dona Cadman as a candidate.

I doubt you or I would get an answer.

[jdobbin]

I doubt you or I would get an answer.

Doesn't mean that I will ever stop asking the question. It has worked for the Tories.

[Alta4ever]

I would love to keep going in circles with you but I'm tired, and I have a full day ahead of me tomorrow, thanks for the debate. Good Night.

[JaysFan]

This whole thing doesn't add up.

Dona Cadman now running for the party she says bribed her late Husband....doesn't add up. If someone came up to me and offered me money, a bribe let's say, I wouldn't want to be affiliated with that person or organization.

Unless she too now has also been bribed to keep her mouth shut..

It's almost obvious that someone within the Conservative heirarchy got to her after this all came out and told her to stifle it...

What's one more bribe when you've already bribed others...

[myata]

OK, let's bring the facts we know together:

- accusations against conservatives offering financial incentives for Cadman's vote were made by his widow, and published in a book; there's also that tape;

- offering financial incentives for a vote is a criminal offence in this country;

- Harper refused (and continues to refuse) to answer the questions clearly and uneqiuvocally in the House;

- instead he launches a legal suit (the first one of the kind, according to CBC).

Why did he start the suit? To find the truth of the matter? Get to the bottom of it (how eager they were to point out the failings of the Liberals, found let me remind by the commission called in by Liberals themselves)? Or maybe, to silence those same questions?

And what does it add up to? Openness? Transparency? Or maybe, respect for democracy?

Or maybe loudmouth arrogant pushing of their ideological agenda by any and all means, while not giving the least of damns about how it comes about? The longer this bunch is in power the clearer they're making who they're and what they're about (and after), and the funniest thing is, with little, if any, help from the "official opposition".

[scribblet]

I would love to keep going in circles with you but I'm tired, and I have a full day ahead of me tomorrow, thanks for the debate. Good Night.

That's the problem, it is going round in circles, because nobody other than Chuck Cadman really knows what he said or meant. Not only that, he was on meds, plus it's quite possible the ladies misunderstood. The mud is sticking because like some people on here, they want to believe, so will never accept any other possibility, even though the CPC has repeatedly said, that Cadman "could become the Conservative party candidate in Surrey North in the next election under the then-current rules of the party and what campaign support the party could provide for his re-election." Nothing illegal as I'm sure the two CPC people will testify to in court.

Mr. Harper is very sure of himself or he wouldn't have initiated the law suite, but as I said, MUD sticks

[jdobbin]

Mr. Harper is very sure of himself or he wouldn't have initiated the law suite, but as I said, MUD sticks

Harper was sure of himself in the Cutler affairs too and had to quietly settle after being embarrassed by the judge after it was determined that money was promised to a candidate to step aside.

[scribblet]

Blessed are they that go round in circles for they shall be called Wheels -

[jdobbin]

Blessed are they that go round in circles for they shall be called Wheels -

And win the next election.

[myata]

Mr. Harper is very sure of himself or he wouldn't have initiated the law suite, but as I said, MUD sticks

If he's so sure, why won't he come clean and explain the situation, as it happened, in the House? Why hiding behind a lawsuit? Wouldn't it be the same clean, transparent yada yada megatalk they can't stop loading us with? What's the problem? Theory vs practice? Talk vs walk? Misbehaving subordinates who didn't know what they're doing?

[gc1765]

In your own words, this would be a post in a liberal government?

A post, not a cabinet post.

[gc1765]

I do not see Steven Harper's name in that statement, do you?

I don't see his name in my post either, do you?

[jazzer]

Have you been following any of this?

PMSH never made an offer, it is alleged that two members of the conservative party did.

Does any of this ring a bell?

The tape suggests Harper was not only aware of a financial offer to Cadman, but that he gave it the go-ahead, while urging party emissaries not to "press" Cadman too hard. link

I suggest you quit skirting around the issue and hold Mr. accountability, Mr. transparancy responsible. He's the only one playing games here.

[jazzer]

Mr. Harper is very sure of himself or he wouldn't have initiated the law suite, but as I said, MUD sticks

And changed his mind very quickly to drop Dion, Goodale and Ignatieff. Doesn't seem to confident of a case to me.

Edited March 14, 2008 by jazzer

[guyser]

. An insurance policy, hmmm I have held both Life and P&C insurance licenses, never came across a company that would insure a terminal cancer patient. That doesn't exist.

That is a bit of a misnomer ,as you know no one "could" come across a policy like that. Certainly does not mean it could not be done, and done easily, as you well know.

[M.Dancer]

That is a bit of a misnomer ,as you know no one "could" come across a policy like that. Certainly does not mean it could not be done, and done easily, as you well know.

easily is a relative term.....especially if it was a term policy.

[capricorn]

And changed his mind very quickly to drop Dion, Goodale and Ignatieff. Doesn't seem to confident of a case to me.

In the Statement of Claim the list of defendants are:

Liberal Party of Canada

Federal Liberal Agency of Canada

and unnamed sources referred to as

Jane Doe

John Doe.

These three Liberals are not out of the woods as one or more may be found to be one of those unnamed sources as a result of evidence presented in court.

Here is a link to Harper's Statement of Claim. See for yourself how confident he is.

http://www3.thestar.com/static/PDF/080314_harper_vs_lpc.pdf

[capricorn]

And in addition JDobbin, I was reading that by not naming any Liberals directly, Liberals cannot use House of Commons funds to pay their costs. Another blow to Liberal Party coffers.

It's already been announced that the Conservative Party will pay Harper's costs.

[jdobbin]

and unnamed sources referred to as

Jane Doe

John Doe.

These three Liberals are not out of the woods as one or more may be found to be one of those unnamed sources as a result of evidence presented in court.

I feel extremely confident that Harper believes that this lawsuit will prevent him from having to answer questions about financial offers to a candidate just like the last lawsuit he was involved in.

[jdobbin]

And in addition JDobbin, I was reading that by not naming any Liberals directly, Liberals cannot use House of Commons funds to pay their costs. Another blow to Liberal Party coffers.

It's already been announced that the Conservative Party will pay Harper's costs.

That fine. There are no limits on donating to a legal fund unlike party fundraising.

[eyeball]

The burden of proof is on the accuser, the whole innocent until proven guilty thing.

I'd say the ball is now in Harper's court if that's the case. He's claiming the tape recording of him admitting that an offer was made to Cadman was altered. Extrordinary claims require extrordinary proof, he should put up or shut.

[Keepitsimple]

I'd say the ball is now in Harper's court if that's the case. He's claiming the tape recording of him admitting that an offer was made to Cadman was altered. Extrordinary claims require extrordinary proof, he should put up or shut.

Just as importantly as being altered - it's incomplete.....and anybody who takes the time to listen to it or read the transcript can clearly see that it's incomplete......there is a lot missing from the very beginning that would give context to what Harper is saying. The tape just jumps right in to a conversation that has clearly been underway fror some time. The "tape" that has been released by the publisher is a digital extract of an original analogue tape. Why will the publisher not release the original analogue tape and put an end to the speculation? I'll leave that to your imagination.

Edited March 14, 2008 by Keepitsimple

[jdobbin]

Just as importantly as being altered - it's incomplete.....and anybody who takes the time to listen to it or read the transcript can clearly see that it's incomplete......there is a lot missing from the very beginning that would give context to what Harper is saying. The tape just jumps right in to a conversation that has clearly been underway fror some time. The "tape" that has been released by the publisher is a digital extract of an original analogue tape. Why will the publisher not release the original analogue tape and put an end to the speculation? I'll leave that to your imagination.

Maybe Harper is suing the wrong person.

[eyeball]

Just as importantly as being altered - it's incomplete.....and anybody who takes the time to listen to it or read the transcript can clearly see that it's incomplete......there is a lot missing from the very beginning that would give context to what Harper is saying. The tape just jumps right in to a conversation that has clearly been underway fror some time. The "tape" that has been released by the publisher is a digital extract of an original analogue tape. Why will the publisher not release the original analogue tape and put an end to the speculation? I'll leave that to your imagination.

He hasn't been served with a subpoena, yet. It'll be interesting to see who does so first.