Tories Sue Again

[jdobbin]

My question to myself today - as I drove down the road was - "What if it is true?"

That Harper actually knew about the financial considerations?

This injunction doesn't say the Tories are disputing what Harper said. It would help if they indicated whether they actually say what they think was changed.

[Keepitsimple]

That Harper actually knew about the financial considerations?

This injunction doesn't say the Tories are disputing what Harper said. It would help if they indicated whether they actually say what they think was changed.

At this time, I don't think anyone can say with certainty exactly what was changed or doctored.....but you can get a better understanding of how much was omitted by reading Stephen Harper's Affadavit which contains his full recollection, under oath, of his interview with the author. You can find the affadavit on Stephen Taylor's website under the entry for June 4th. It's also interesting to read his commentary on the way CBC handled the Grewal issue compared to the Cadman issue. On one, the Liberals were courting Grewal. On the other the Conservatives were courting Cadman. Both had allegations of "doctored" tapes....yet in both cases, the burdon of proof fell on Conservative shoulders.....of course there's no bias at CBC.

Link: http://www.stephentaylor.ca/

Edited June 6, 2008 by Keepitsimple

[Bryan]

Liberals using fake evidence to make accusations against the Conservatives? This is supposed to be news?

[jdobbin]

At this time, I don't think anyone can say with certainty exactly what was changed or doctored.....but you can get a better understanding of how much was omitted by reading Stephen Harper's Affadavit which contains his full recollection, under oath, of his interview with the author. You can find the affadavit on Stephen Taylor's website under the entry for June 4th. It's also interesting to read his commentary on the way CBC handled the Grewal issue compared to the Cadman issue. On one, the Liberals were courting Grewal. On the other the Conservatives were courting Cadman. Both had allegations of "doctored" tapes....yet in both cases, the burdon of proof fell on Conservative shoulders.....of course there's no bias at CBC.

You would think there were no other networks or other news services in Canada. The Globe and Mail and National Post among others that said they believed the tape was edited and Grewal admitted that that there was a lot more to the tape. The Liberals did not go running to the courts. It was Grewal himself who released the tapes to the RCMP. It was the NDP who referred the matter to the Ethics Commissioner and the RCMP.

The Conservatives admitted later that some parts of the tapes had been omitted.

The Liberals did make an offer to Grewal but not for what he was asking for. They offered some future award for crossing the floor. They said to Grewal that he should abstain from a confidence vote as a sign of good faith.

I think the Tories forgot that Grewal approached the Liberals. The Liberals didn't go looking for Grewal. Nor did they make a definitive offer in any of the recordings. And finally, they the Liberals did not go to court, go to the RCMP or make the first claims that the tapes sounded edited. Those claims came from the print press.

In the case of the Cadman tape, the Liberals used the same tape that the media is using. The Tories have not accused the Liberals of altering their recording. They don't accuse anyone of altering the tape. They just say it was altered. The Tories don't even indicate exactly what they think was altered.

Edited June 6, 2008 by jdobbin

[Fortunata]

This is just too hilariously hypocritical. The Cons have no scruples against using people's words out of context and against them. Look at the attack ads they have had made. One more example of do what I say and not as I do.

[Keepitsimple]

You would think there were no other networks or other news services in Canada. The Globe and Mail and National Post among others suggested that they believed the tape was edited and Grewal admitted that that there was a lot more to the tape. The Liberals did not go running to the courts. It was Grewal himself who released the tapes to the RCMP. It was the NDP who referred the matter to the Ethics Commissioner and the RCMP.

The Conservatives admitted later that some parts of the tapes had been omitted.

The Liberals did make an offer to Grewal but not for what he was asking for. They offered some future award for crossing the floor. They said to Grewal that he should abstain from a confidence vote as a sigh of good faith.

I think the Tories forgot that Grewal approached the Liberals. The Liberals didn't go looking for Grewal. Nor did they make a definitive offer in any of the recordings. And finally, they the Liberals did not go to court, go to the RCMP or make the first claims that the tapes sounded edited. Those claims came from the print press.

In the case of the Cadman tape, the Liberals used the same tape that the media is using. The Tories have not accused the Liberals of altering their recording. They don't accuse anyone of altering the tape. They just say it was altered. The Tories don't even indicate exactly what they think was altered.

First of all, to my first point I hope you read Harper's affadavit - it significantly broadens the perspective and context of the whole fiasco. Secondly, you're missing my point (actually Stephen Taylor's point) on Grewal. The CBC actually hired experts who discredited the integrity of the tape. Why did they not do the same with the Cadman tape? Surely you can see the reasoning.....if they found problems with the Grewal tape, it would reflect badly on the Tories and de-fuse what had been shaping up as another Liberal black eye. On the other hand, if the CBC found problems with the Cadman tape, it would reflect badly on the Liberals......so they did nothing other than call it "Tory Allegations". That's not bias - it's gross partisanship.

[jdobbin]

First of all, to my first point I hope you read Harper's affadavit - it significantly broadens the perspective and context of the whole fiasco. Secondly, you're missing my point (actually Stephen Taylor's point) on Grewal. The CBC actually hired experts who discredited the integrity of the tape. Why did they not do the same with the Cadman tape? Surely you can see the reasoning.....if they found problems with the Grewal tape, it would reflect badly on the Tories and de-fuse what had been shaping up as another Liberal black eye. On the other hand, if the CBC found problems with the Cadman tape, it would reflect badly on the Liberals......so they did nothing other than call it "Tory Allegations". That's not bias - it's gross partisanship.

They were not the only ones who had an expert looks at the Grewal tape. This is just another in the ceaseless attacks on the CBC. The Globe among other media had experts look at the tape.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

There is word today that the tapes may have been altered -- that from a forensic audio expert employed by The Globe and Mail. And the expert says it's unlikely the changes were caused by digital copying, as the Conservatives say.

The attack on the CBC is just another right wing attack on the CBC when they know damn well there was other media that analyzed that tape. It is gross partisanship and shows that their agenda is to try and discredit the CBC at every turn. I can't believe that the Tories are trying to say that no one else looked at the Grewal tape. What a bunch of lies.

I read Harper's affidavit and still can't see where he is disputing what he said. He saying the context was changed and the Tories are telling Maclean's in private that they said the Liberal did it. What crap.

[Wild Bill]

Threads like these remind me of how I felt when I married into a family of Liberals. Being first generation Canadians I could understand their choice but when they tried to argue me into agreeing with them they often made me laugh!

This was the era of all the Chretien scandals and there were so many blatant ones that my father-in-law and brother-in-law gave up and conceded that "bad things had happened." They then promptly switched and tried to inundate me with supposed transgressions on behalf of the Reform Party.

These accusations were always an obvious stretch but I was curious about their reasoning. One family dinner I asked my father-in-law how even if his accusations were true why would that be a reason for me to switch to their side? He replied: "Don't you see? They all have dirty laundry!"

"Well," I asked. "That being said, why then should 'tie go to the Liberals'? If they're both tainted choices why should I go with YOUR choice?"

I got some pretty strange arguments from them but of course never anything that made sense. It just reinforces what I've come to sadly believe, that we Canadians will rarely get a choice we can in the main approve. We just get to pick the one who smells the least!

These days, the Tories have got a long way to go to equal the stench around the past decade of Liberals. Montreal restaurant smells can't overcome the reek of tainted MILLIONS of dollars!

Give it another term of government or two and that can change. Not soon enough for Dion, however.

Edited June 6, 2008 by Wild Bill

[Topaz]

That has nothing to do with how shrill the Liberals can get and everything to do with your politics. And it's not funny, it's predictable.

Topaz, the problem with your idea is that the Liberals/media would immediately suspect Harper of some conspiracy. Also predictable.

How can it be a conspiracy IF ITS the truth, the problem Harper seems to have and the Con atr they don't want to tell the truth or can't come up with an intelligent respond, "it's a conspiracy."

[madmax]

These days, the Tories .........stench around the past decade of Liberals.

Give it another term of government or two and that can change.

Why is it OK to let this government drift into Mulroney/Chretian corruption?

[Keepitsimple]

They were not the only ones who had an expert looks at the Grewal tape. This is just another in the ceaseless attacks on the CBC. The Globe among other media had experts look at the tape.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

The attack on the CBC is just another right wing attack on the CBC when they know damn well there was other media that analyzed that tape. It is gross partisanship and shows that their agenda is to try and discredit the CBC at every turn. I can't believe that the Tories are trying to say that no one else looked at the Grewal tape. What a bunch of lies.

I read Harper's affidavit and still can't see where he is disputing what he said. He saying the context was changed and the Tories are telling Maclean's in private that they said the Liberal did it. What crap.

Dobbin - you're looking at everything through a Liberal lens - and that's OK - it's great that you're a loyal Lib. There is no need to dispute Harper's words. He said what he said....but when a tape is altered to put his words out of sequence, the meaning is altered. If you read the Affadavit, surely you can see that. As for the CBC, it's insanity to imply that they have a balanced approach when it comes to Liberal/Conservative politics. I personally am not a diehard Conservative - certainly not in the same veracity as you are a Liberal. Given different leaders and a shift in policies that moved to the center, I may vote LIberal again one day....I doubt you would be so gracious....so to call my post an attack on the CBC and gross partisanship, you are only correct on the "attack" part.

[jdobbin]

Dobbin - you're looking at everything through a Liberal lens - and that's OK - it's great that you're a loyal Lib. There is no need to dispute Harper's words. He said what he said....but when a tape is altered to put his words out of sequence, the meaning is altered. If you read the Affadavit, surely you can see that. As for the CBC, it's insanity to imply that they have a balanced approach when it comes to Liberal/Conservative politics. I personally am not a diehard Conservative - certainly not in the same veracity as you are a Liberal. Given different leaders and a shift in policies that moved to the center, I may vote LIberal again one day....I doubt you would be so gracious....so to call my post an attack on the CBC and gross partisanship, you are only correct on the "attack" part.

Your post specifically mentioned the CBC. Just off the top of my head, I know that the Globe and Mail and Canadian Press hired their own experts on Grewal's recordings. Everyone was trying to assess the veracity of the tapes. The CBC didn't start the bandwagon, they jumped on it. However, diehard Tories are trying to say the CBC was the one that is to blame here. You might not have said it but you did ask why the CBC had two different rules.

The Tories didn't even claim the tape was doctored until this week.

The Tories are claiming the tape is out of sequence but the experts did not go that far at all.

If the PCs still existed, I might be tempted to vote for them. I certainly was not going to vote for them with Mulroney in charge and the way he screwed Manitoba. The problem is that after Mulroney, the PCs were killed.

[Keepitsimple]

Your post specifically mentioned the CBC. Just off the top of my head, I know that the Globe and Mail and Canadian Press hired their own experts on Grewal's recordings. Everyone was trying to assess the veracity of the tapes. The CBC didn't start the bandwagon, they jumped on it. However, diehard Tories are trying to say the CBC was the one that is to blame here. You might not have said it but you did ask why the CBC had two different rules.

The Tories didn't even claim the tape was doctored until this week.

The Tories are claiming the tape is out of sequence but the experts did not go that far at all.

If the PCs still existed, I might be tempted to vote for them. I certainly was not going to vote for them with Mulroney in charge and the way he screwed Manitoba. The problem is that after Mulroney, the PCs were killed.

You're mellower that I gave you credit for....so I apologize. Having said that, the Tories did not claim the tape was doctored "until this week". They've always maintained that there were problems with the integrity of the tape and as I've said many times...if you listen to the tape in an unpartisan fashion, you'd be really hard pressed to believe otherwise. I'm sure it took soime time for the "experts" to review the tape and formalize their findings - but here they are and surprise, surprise - as any rational individual would expect - the tapes have been altered/doctored.

[jdobbin]

You're mellower that I gave you credit for....so I apologize. Having said that, the Tories did not claim the tape was doctored "until this week". They've always maintained that there were problems with the integrity of the tape and as I've said many times...if you listen to the tape in an unpartisan fashion, you'd be really hard pressed to believe otherwise. I'm sure it took soime time for the "experts" to review the tape and formalize their findings - but here they are and surprise, surprise - as any rational individual would expect - the tapes have been altered/doctored.

I've always wanted questions answered about the tape. It has been the Tories who seemed reluctant to answer questions except that financial considerations were talked about. The problem is that Dona Cadman talks about an insurance policy and I haven't heard that Harper disputes that the author asked about it.

Given that the Tories want to go all the way to court with this, you can be sure that Harper will have to go on the stand and so will the author.

[Keepitsimple]

I've always wanted questions answered about the tape. It has been the Tories who seemed reluctant to answer questions except that financial considerations were talked about. The problem is that Dona Cadman talks about an insurance policy and I haven't heard that Harper disputes that the author asked about it.

Given that the Tories want to go all the way to court with this, you can be sure that Harper will have to go on the stand and so will the author.

He doesn't dispute that the author asked about the insurance policy because in fact, the author did ask the question. But the Tories allege that between him asking and Harper saying "I'm not aware of the details", the tape has been altered to remove a segment of the interview between those two points. It was obvious to me when I first heard the tape that something was funny because his "answer" just didn't line up properly against the question. If there's anything we have learned about Harper, it's last he is cautious and precise about what he says.

Edited June 7, 2008 by Keepitsimple

[jdobbin]

He doesn't dispute that the author asked about the insurance policy because in fact, the author did ask the question. But the Tories allege that between him asking and Harper saying "I'm not aware of the details", the tape has been altered to remove a segment of the interview between those two points. It was obvious to me when I first heard the tape that something was funny because his "answer" just didn't line up properly against the question. If there's anything we have learned about Harper, it's last he is cautious and precise about what he says.

He does dispute that the author asked the question.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/National/home

But Dimitri Soudas, a spokesman for the Prime Minister, said in a later e-mail that the edits changed the meaning of Mr. Harper's comments, and that one of them inserted a question to misrepresent his answer.

Mr. Soudas said that change “creates a question that was never asked” about an allegation that his party had offered a $1-million life insurance policy to terminally ill Mr. Cadman, an Independent, and that Mr. Harper replied, “I don't know the details …”

The audio experts don't specifically mention what they think was added or edited. The Tories are saying the question of the insurance company was added. I would have to hear the experts comment on that directly. I have seen no comment on that.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

This entire subject is a sad commentary on the state of politics in Canada. Surely the public will soon realize that the entire notion of a he said she said dispute years ago has little bearing on the state of current affairs in the nation.

This garbage is little more than witch hunting at best. There are real problems that the government should be looking into if they had the brains to do so. I guess that pretty much summarizes the level of intelligence in the ranks of MP's in Ottawa. We are faced with rising costs in energy and food production while at the same time we are watching jobs disappear. The health care system is in shambles and our military is involved in armed conflict. Yet we put great stake in the political pot shots being thrown around by partisan spin doctors.

This nation needs to grow up.

[jdobbin]

This entire subject is a sad commentary on the state of politics in Canada. Surely the public will soon realize that the entire notion of a he said she said dispute years ago has little bearing on the state of current affairs in the nation.

You're right. Hopefully the Tories will step down and let someone else handle those important issues.

[Kingmaker]

Just another attempt for the right wing to personalize in a post? Why do it? Do I go naming you in a post? Is that for the Tory playbook? Why can't Tories simply comment on a post without the attacks on the person? Just another example of the elbows up in the corner of today's Conservative party.

Maybe you should sue him, after all his Ad Hominem suggests that you're actually directly affiliated with the Liberal party and are posting under false pretences (thats what a shill is after all) I mean it wouldn't make your case or prove anything about this particular thread, but it would certainly be consistent with the corrosive atmosphere that the party HE supports is attempting to produce in terms of anybody laying criticism on the conservatives.

I never thought I'd see the day when the governing party thought lawsuits were the best path to dealing with criticism.

[Wild Bill]

I never thought I'd see the day when the governing party thought lawsuits were the best path to dealing with criticism.

Let me see if I understand all this. The Liberals have appeared to have broken the law, by forgetting they were outside the House and mouthing off without the protection of privilege and also there is reason to suspect they doctored a tape in as false evidence against the Tories, to involve them in a scandal and to support an investigation.

Some are arguing that Harper should not sue them for these actions, in order to clear both the Tory and his own name and more simply, so that those who break the law are charged and if found guilty, punished.

Where is it written that the Liberals should be able to do these things, or in the case of the tape, face reasonable suspicion enough to lay a charge, with impunity? Is it because they are somehow special?

If the situations were reversed you can bet your bottom dollar they'd be all over the Tories faster than George Smitherman dodging questions on the C. Difficile file!

Talk about blind partisanship! If that's the way they want the country to be run, we might as well become a dictatorship and give up elections altogether. Or perhaps imitate the old Stalinist system, where all candidates belong to the same party.

Edited June 11, 2008 by Wild Bill

[jdobbin]

Let me see if I understand all this. The Liberals have appeared to have broken the law, by forgetting they were outside the House and mouthing off without the protection of privilege and also there is reason to suspect they doctored a tape in as false evidence against the Tories, to involve them in a scandal and to support an investigation.

It is all the lawsuits the Tories have undertaken. Many of them have been to prevent information being released. Often they have nothing to do with the Liberals. Even some non-partisan observers not connected to either party have commented that it is far less transparent and open that what the Tories promised when they go to court repeatedly on so many fronts.

[Wild Bill]

It is all the lawsuits the Tories have undertaken. Many of them have been to prevent information being released. Often they have nothing to do with the Liberals. Even some non-partisan observers not connected to either party have commented that it is far less transparent and open that what the Tories promised when they go to court repeatedly on so many fronts.

How many is "all"? Two? Three?

So what if there's more? There has to be some reasonable basis before the Crown will accept a charge. Are you saying that if there are a large number of charges against the Liberals they should all be dropped because it's a large number?

Or that any party that transgresses against the law should not be charged because they're a political party?

You're still confusing me here!

[Kingmaker]

How many is "all"? Two? Three?

100% of all lawsuits in history by a governing party against the opposition.

If the situations were reversed you can bet your bottom dollar they'd be all over the Tories faster than George Smitherman dodging questions on the C. Difficile file!

Talk about blind partisanship! If that's the way they want the country to be run, we might as well become a dictatorship and give up elections altogether. Or perhaps imitate the old Stalinist system, where all candidates belong to the same party.

I'm not a liberal party supporter. also you're argument is rather hilarious because you're claiming that if we don't allow the government to silence it's opposition in the courts, we may as well live in a dictatorship. You want to talk about blind Partisanship? It's a person who upon having his party criticized by a relative new comer to the forum, assumes that the poster has a particular party affiliation, because it allows them to disregard what the person is saying. Thanks for giving us such a great example of cognitive dissonance. Anyway, returning to the topic,

1. The conservative party has not won any lawsuit, we haven't established that the Liberal party is in fact guilty of anything.

2. The intent of the lawsuit isn't necessarily to win, it could very well be to cast doubt on the original accusation, it's a very American style tactic, which isn't surprising considering Harpers political affiliation.

[noahbody]

100% of all lawsuits in history by a governing party against the opposition.

June 1999

Chrétien threatens to sue Reform Leader Preston Manning and MP Jason Kenney for alleging he personally benefited from dealings with Claude Gauthier, who bought the land beside the golf course. /quote]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/chretien/shawinigan.html

[Shakeyhands]

How many is "all"? Two? Three?

So what if there's more? There has to be some reasonable basis before the Crown will accept a charge. ..........

You're still confusing me here!

I'm a little confused here too, as fas as I understand anyone can sue anyone, Not sure it has anything to do with the Crown... does it?