Tories ditch Cadman suit against Liberals

[normanchateau]

"There's been some confusion the past couple of days over whether, as part of the settlement of Stephen Harper's lawsuit, the Liberals agreed not to make further public comment on the entire Chuck Cadman saga, or just not to comment on the lawsuit itself.

For what it's worth, I'm told it was only the latter.

In other words, if the Liberals are interested in getting to the bottom of what Stephen Harper was talking about on Tom Zytaruk's (apparently undoctored) tape, they should be able to ask all the questions they want."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/WBwbradwanski

[Oleg Bach]

"There's been some confusion the past couple of days over whether, as part of the settlement of Stephen Harper's lawsuit, the Liberals agreed not to make further public comment on the entire Chuck Cadman saga, or just not to comment on the lawsuit itself.

For what it's worth, I'm told it was only the latter.

In other words, if the Liberals are interested in getting to the bottom of what Stephen Harper was talking about on Tom Zytaruk's (apparently undoctored) tape, they should be able to ask all the questions they want."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/WBwbradwanski

So the deal was, ask all the questions you want and we will inform you as long as you do not inform those that are un-privledged and of the general public...information is power - so they are going to share each others dirty laundry - in private...at least they are getting along.

[jdobbin]

Another reason why the lawsuit was probably dropped:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianp...alxu-m_o59dF-Yg

Tom Conway, a prominent Ottawa lawyer who represented a former Tory member who sued Harper, said the looming court fight over access to emails and notes may have been behind Harper's decision to abandon the lawsuit.

"People drop lawsuits for all sorts of reason and sometimes they drop lawsuits because they are being asked to produce information they don't want to produce," said Conway, a member of the board of the Law Society of Upper Canada.

[normanchateau]

Another reason why the lawsuit was probably dropped:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianp...alxu-m_o59dF-Yg

And another reason why Harper will eventually have to respond to allegations of criminal behaviour:

"The NDP is calling on both parties to disclose the terms of their deal."

"Now it just sort of disappears from the radar because of this closed-door agreement?" said Vancouver MP Bill Siksay. "I don't think that's acceptable."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianp...alxu-m_o59dF-Yg

[jdobbin]

"Now it just sort of disappears from the radar because of this closed-door agreement?" said Vancouver MP Bill Siksay. "I don't think that's acceptable."

Don't know if the NDP will follow up beyond this.

James Travers column on the whole thing.

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/584993

It's now almost certain that Canadians will never know what Stephen Harper knew about the extraordinary 2005 Conservative effort to persuade Cadman to cast the deciding vote needed to bring down Paul Martin's minority government. Nor is there much chance of learning if Liberals crossed the line between hyperbole and libel when they accused Harper and Conservatives of trying to bribe the dying Cadman with a $1 million insurance policy.

And for those who keep insisting that the tipping point in the 2006 election was not the RCMP investigation:

As Conservative strategist Tom Flanagan confirms, that campaign's tipping point was former commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli's curious public announcement of a criminal investigation into alleged Liberal leaks of the income trust decision.

[Shakeyhands]

The tape is NOT a continuous recording of one conversation. It's a fake.

Because like any reporter or researcher he started and stopped it between questions? Of course it wasn't continuous.

Edited February 11, 2009 by Shakeyhands

[normanchateau]

Don't know if the NDP will follow up beyond this.

Unfortunately, you're probably right. As Ignatieff rises in the polls, the NDP guns, in a replay of their relentless attacks against Paul Martin, will turn towards him and away from Harper. I expect Ignatieff will hold up better than Martin, in part because there's no rational way to link him to the sponsorship program.

[Who's Doing What?]

The court of public opinion felt Jean Chretien and Paul Martin were up to their ears in adscam, as was most of the senior leadership of the Liberal party, including their Quebec lieutenant, Stephan DIon. In other words, the last three Liberal leaders were corrupt crooks who should have been imprisoned - according to the court of public opinion.

Ahh, the old "B-b-b-but the Liberals....." lmao

Pathetic. Where is the integrity we were promised?

[Who's Doing What?]

Well, you say it is in both party's interests but you argue that only the Tories are really at fault! Isn't that just a wee bit partisan and not objective?

I don't see why Harper would ever be so foolish as to adopt the strategy you mentioned. For Harper to be seen forcing an election at this time would be political suicide, whether the Liberals were rich or were poor. To do it and have it obvious that they had denied the Canadian people a viable alternative would have been so blatantly power grabbing that while they might have won the election today they would have gotten creamed in the next one and perhaps have been cast into the wilderness for generations!

No customer likes to be forced into a rigged game that actually limits his choices. People are not so stupid that they can't eventually figure out what's going on. When they do eventually get a choice they have a tendency to take revenge.

Your scenario just doesn't seem credible to me.

So you don't think that Harper was/is trying to destroy the Liberals? The CPC has already admitted as such.

Bankrupting them through a lengthy Court battle is a good start to that end. The CPC wouldn't call an election until after the Libs had been brought to finacial ruin through the lawsuit, which could have taken a year or more.

The bottom line remains that if Harper believed he could win the case without seriously damaging his carreer and image he would have never dropped the case in a million years. You don't run away from a slamdunk win. TO do so is in essence an admission of wrongdoing on Harper's part.

[Riverwind]

The bottom line remains that if Harper believed he could win the case without seriously damaging his carreer and image he would have never dropped the case in a million years. You don't run away from a slamdunk win. TO do so is in essence an admission of wrongdoing on Harper's part.

The attempts to spin this non-story are getting rediculous.

For starters lawsuit are expensive and can create negative publicity even if there is a strong case.

More importantly, there is no such thing as 100% guarantee in any court case even if you have a strong case. The risk of failure must always be factored in.

Bottom line: we don't know anything about what kind of case they had and the fact that it was dropped TELLS US ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about whether it was strong/weak or whatver.

Trying to read more into it based on the facts available is nothing but a partisan trolling.

[Topaz]

I think a majority of Canadians believed that Harper knew and the Tories DID try to buy a vote and IF Harper DID have a case he wouldn't dropped it UNLESS they did make a deal with Iggy. Harper doesn't seem to be the kind of guy to walk away from a fight unless he knows he can't win. I like to know what the Libs got from Harper. Hopefully, not his word on something!!

[Riverwind]

I think a majority of Canadians believed that Harper knew and the Tories DID try to buy a vote...

yada yada. If you want to engage in silly speculation about what the 'majority of Canadians' believe then I would say the majority of Canadians believe that all parties regularily offer financial and non-financial inducements to other MPs that would violate the letter of the anti-bribery law (a cabinet post for a certain ex-Conservative MP ring any bells?). It is unlikely that anything "offered" to Cadman would have exceeded the generally accepted political inducements. Partisans trying to create a mountain out of molehills are hypocrites at best. Edited February 14, 2009 by Riverwind

[Oleg Bach]

yada yada. If you want to engage in silly speculation about what the 'majority of Canadians' believe then I would say the majority of Canadians believe that all parties regularily offer financial and non-financial inducements to other MPs that would violate the letter of the anti-bribery law (a cabinet post for a certain ex-Conservative MP ring any bells?). It is unlikely that anything "offered" to Cadman would have exceeded the generally accepted political inducements. Partisans trying to create a mountain out of molehills are hypocrites at best.

If the bribe never happened - this would not have happened. There must have been enough substance in the aligations to fuel it this far..then sputter sputter - you do not have nasty law suits in existance that envolve the highest minister in the land - the PM - You just don't do that - how it got into court I will never know --- ghosts of Chretian and Conrad - Parliment has no room for feuds - and even if they did offer a perk to a dying man - so the hell what - If a vote can be bought that means it meant nothing to begin with..that the bribeee - really did not give a damn which way he voted - as if the dying man's wife would have been destitute after his demise ----they are well to do and if there was a "favour" granted - so what...Go after the old German arms dealer and that silly Malroney guy...sorry - I replace the word silly with "buisnessman"..

[Who's Doing What?]

The attempts to spin this non-story are getting rediculous.

For starters lawsuit are expensive and can create negative publicity even if there is a strong case.

More importantly, there is no such thing as 100% guarantee in any court case even if you have a strong case. The risk of failure must always be factored in.

Bottom line: we don't know anything about what kind of case they had and the fact that it was dropped TELLS US ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about whether it was strong/weak or whatver.

Trying to read more into it based on the facts available is nothing but a partisan trolling.

The only ones trying to spin this are the CPC.

1. Harper and the CPC want to bankrupt the Liberals, and this Lawsuit would go along way towards that end. The CPC would have no trouble affording a lengthy court battle.

2. If he were truly innocent would he not want to clear his name? It seemed extremly important a few months ago, so why is it not now?

IF he was totally in the clear(which the tape shows he wasn't, by the letter of the law, as he had knowledge of an offer being made for a vote, which when made to an MP is a criminal act) he would have proceded.

[Riverwind]

The only ones trying to spin this are the CPC.

You are the one making completely unsubstantiated claims. There are many reasons for dropping lawsuits. Some may be related to the strength of the case. Others have nothing to do with that. It is a waste of time to make claims where you presume to "know" what the reasons were because you were not involved in the decision.

[Oleg Bach]

You are the one making completely unsubstantiated claims. There are many reasons for dropping lawsuits. Some may be related to the strength of the case. Others have nothing to do with that. It is a waste of time to make claims where you presume to "know" what the reasons were because you were not involved in the decision.

[Oleg Bach]

The function of high level lawyers is to creatively spin what should be a nagative ruling into a positive one. Seems that this case was so touchy that they could not do the usual thing and convolute the out come and release it to the public as gosspel. So instead of sending out some lie - they were wise and sent out nothing.

[Who's Doing What?]

You are the one making completely unsubstantiated claims. There are many reasons for dropping lawsuits. Some may be related to the strength of the case. Others have nothing to do with that. It is a waste of time to make claims where you presume to "know" what the reasons were because you were not involved in the decision.

What is so unsubstantiated?

He has admitted on tape that he knew of a financial offer to Cadman.

The CPC want to bankrupt the LPC, and a million dollar lawsuit would further that plan.

Harper felt what was said was untrue months ago and now he drops the fight to clear his name, in essense allowing the accusation to remain undefended.

I am sorry, but if you are innocent, why would you not try to clear your name? Especially as the PM of Canada!

He had to have known that things would come out that would be damaging to his carreer.

Here is exactly how I see it.

The Liberals may have libeled Harper's character by saying that it was a $1M life innsurance policy that was offered and that he knew of it.

He is on tape saying he knew of an offer but he did not know what the offer was.

He would not want to admit under oath, aswell as the microscope of a trial, that he knew an offer was being made.

So he very well may be innocent of knowing of a $1M life innsurance policy being offered to Cadman, but he is guilty, self admittedly, of know an offer was being made to secure a vote in the HoC.

To admit such things in court would be a political disaster.

[Oleg Bach]

All prime ministers delegate to their underlings and say "do this and offer this to him or her as a reward - get us favour in return for favour" BRIBE? Nawh - This was and is normal ...what is he to say to those that he needs favour from --- "Give the party this and we will give you nothing?" No promotional perk - no pay raise - no raising in stature? The reason this Cad man affair came to notice because some jerk some where attatched a dollar sign to the favour..then suddenly what was usual politics suddenly became some dark and corrupt gangster palm greese jerky party. Also if you do wish to interpret this perk or favour as a bribe - no bribe can be more honourable than to assist a widow to be of a dieing man - the whole attack was bad sprited..the poor guy is dead for god's sake...They act as if his widow went out and bought a private island and five Porches - and the Hope Diamond --- the whole thing should cease!

[Topaz]

All prime ministers delegate to their underlings and say "do this and offer this to him or her as a reward - get us favour in return for favour" BRIBE? Nawh - This was and is normal ...what is he to say to those that he needs favour from --- "Give the party this and we will give you nothing?" No promotional perk - no pay raise - no raising in stature? The reason this Cad man affair came to notice because some jerk some where attatched a dollar sign to the favour..then suddenly what was usual politics suddenly became some dark and corrupt gangster palm greese jerky party. Also if you do wish to interpret this perk or favour as a bribe - no bribe can be more honourable than to assist a widow to be of a dieing man - the whole attack was bad sprited..the poor guy is dead for god's sake...They act as if his widow went out and bought a private island and five Porches - and the Hope Diamond --- the whole thing should cease!

Cadman, himself, didn't think it was "honourable" because he turned it down and was angry at an offer to buy his vote, they tried to take advantage of a dying man! You know, when all these Tories are no longer in politics, I hope they can find jobs because I wouldn't hire someone I couldn't TRUST!!

[Oleg Bach]

Cadman, himself, didn't think it was "honourable" because he turned it down and was angry at an offer to buy his vote, they tried to take advantage of a dying man! You know, when all these Tories are no longer in politics, I hope they can find jobs because I wouldn't hire someone I couldn't TRUST!!

Playing the devil's advocate brings out the best in some....Myself as a lay person related to the story the same way....privately that is the way I interpret it..eg: The guy is dying and in pain and afraid for himself and his family - lets give him some false hope in the form of cash and take advantage of a walking corpse...yes - it was low.