Tories ditch Cadman suit against Liberals

[capricorn]

Waldo, I take it you think those emails in your link to the Takacs blog are genuine? They're not. That blog entry by Takacs was meant as satire as is evident by the comments at the bottom of the blog and the tags entries.

[Argus]

And yet I have only taken out a Liberal membership last month for the first time in many years. Think they paid me all those years?

No, I think you're a zealot, and a volunteer. And not "officially" being a member of the Liberals was considered safer in case the party was ever accused of deliberately sending people onto sites like this to post propaganda for them. You have a completely impersonal, unemotional - almost bureacratic style of writing like no other here.

[waldo]

Waldo, I take it you think those emails in your link to the Takacs blog are genuine? They're not. That blog entry by Takacs was meant as satire as is evident by the comments at the bottom of the blog and the tags entries.

stop it! you're killing me... those emails - that thread - it's 100% genuine. Sandy Crux told me so.

[jdobbin]

No, I think you're a zealot, and a volunteer. And not "officially" being a member of the Liberals was considered safer in case the party was ever accused of deliberately sending people onto sites like this to post propaganda for them. You have a completely impersonal, unemotional - almost bureacratic style of writing like no other here.

I don't recall any zealots who criticize their party nor ones who have not participated as a volunteer in an election for a number of years but then that's just me.

You work as a completely impersonal, unemotional and in a fully bureaucratic job and that probably allows you many hours to write creatively on government time. Unfortunately, most of that time is spent in frothy mouthed anger at a personal level.

[madmax]

No, I think you're a zealot, and a volunteer. And not "officially" being a member of the Liberals was considered safer in case the party was ever accused of deliberately sending people onto sites like this to post propaganda for them. You have a completely impersonal, unemotional - almost bureacratic style of writing like no other here.

Whoa there little doggy.

A bureacratic style of writing like "NO OTHER HERE" ?

You top the list Mr. Public Sector Bureacrat.

[Bryan]

The goal of the Tories was to destroy the Liberals and this has been detailed many times by Harper's own adviser Tom Flanagan in the Globe and Mail.

Tom Flanagan has not been advising the PM for quite some time.

The war against Dion is already won. Ignatieff is a different guy, this is a different war, it will be fought differently.

[normanchateau]

No, I think you're a zealot, and a volunteer. And not "officially" being a member of the Liberals was considered safer in case the party was ever accused of deliberately sending people onto sites like this to post propaganda for them. You have a completely impersonal, unemotional - almost bureacratic style of writing like no other here.

So if jdobbin wanted to extinguish your urge to engage in blatant, personal attacks on him, his writing style should become more personal and emotional?

[normanchateau]

Ignatieff is a different guy, this is a different war, it will be fought differently.

With Ignatieff continuing to keep Harper on a short leash, I suspect it will.

[normanchateau]

It likely means the libs realized they had a good chance of losing the suit so they proposed a deal where they would drop the cadman issue in return for dropping the suit.

If that's true, how do you explain the fact that Harper has been trying to slither out of this lawsuit for months? e.g.,

Sep 16, 2008 07:37 PM

THE CANADIAN PRESS

"OTTAWA–Prime Minister Stephen Harper is employing stalling tactics to avoid a court hearing into the Cadman affair, the lawyer for the Liberal party said today.

Chris Paliare levelled the charge after Harper's lawyer sought to postpone a hearing into an earlier application to postpone a hearing into Harper's request for an injunction to prevent the Liberals from using a controversial tape recording at the heart of bribery allegations in the Cadman affair.

In his 37 years practising law, Paliare said he's never seen a case where the plaintiff requested an adjournment on an adjournment hearing.

"It's sort of adjournment squared," the Liberal lawyer said in an interview.

"I don't know what their motives are, but they don't seem anxious to have this matter dealt with expeditiously," he said.

The tape recording is at the heart of Liberal allegations that Harper knew about a Conservative attempt to bribe Chuck Cadman, the late independent MP, in return for his support during a crucial 2005 confidence vote. On it, Harper can be heard saying that he was aware Tory officials had offered "to replace financial considerations that (Cadman) might lose due to an election."

On Tuesday, one day before the court was to listen to arguments for adjourning the case, Dearden asked for another adjournment. He contended that he needed time to examine an affidavit filed Tuesday by the Liberal party.

Paliare said there is nothing new in the affidavit, which simply reiterates the chronology of the case so far in a bid to bolster the Liberal party's argument against a delay.

Superior Court Justice Charles Hackland is expected to rule Wednesday on Harper's latest request for an adjournment."

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/500412

It's wishful thinking on the part of Harper supporters that allegations of criminal behaviour by Harper will go away. LPC and CPC merely agreed to drop the matter of the lawsuit initiated by Harper, a lawsuit which Harper has been chronically trying to squirm out of. There is nothing to prevent the RCMP or other agencies from investigating Harper's alleged criminal behaviour. Harper dropping his lawsuit against LPC is further evidence that Ignatieff will continue to keep the humiliated Harper on a short leash.

[jdobbin]

Tom Flanagan has not been advising the PM for quite some time.

According to him as reported in the Globe and Mail, he was working the warroom in the last election.

The war against Dion is already won. Ignatieff is a different guy, this is a different war, it will be fought differently.

The fight wasn't just against Dion or Ignatieff. It is the entire Liberal party. The goal is to destroy it at every level. Flanagan has been pleasant enough to admit that it is the goal. Defeat is not enough, it has to be complete and utter destruction. It is why things like lawsuits are used.

Harper wanted to bankrupt the party if he could. The former FBI expert who said that the the critical area of the tape that Harper said was altered was in fact, intact. If the court case proceeded, Harper was going to be expected to answer some pointed question about that portion of the tape.

The Tories were hoping to have the tape tossed and then they would have gone for the jugular. I expect Harper's lawyer told him it was better to drop the case if they couldn't get the entire tape tossed out.

When Harper's lawyer dropped out suddenly, it raised some eyebrows since there was no indication of why. It often happens when there is a disagreement in strategy.

The case was likely dropped because the Tories were not certain they could win. I can think of no other reason because Harper did not get the apology he wanted. In fact, he said an apology was too late and wanted his day in court.

[Bryan]

According to him as reported in the Globe and Mail, he was working the warroom in the last election.

Previous election, not the one we just had. Flanangan went back to U of C full-time, and did some analysis for CTV. Notice that it says FORMER Conservative campaign worker in the credits of his G&M articles, even the ones he wrote during the election.

He also clearly states in this interview just before the election that he is no long working for the CPC.

The fight wasn't just against Dion or Ignatieff. It is the entire Liberal party. The goal is to destroy it at every level. Flanagan has been pleasant enough to admit that it is the goal. Defeat is not enough, it has to be complete and utter destruction. It is why things like lawsuits are used.

Harper wanted to bankrupt the party if he could.

Still is the goal, and it will happen. With a different guy at the helm of the party, different methods are employed.

The former FBI expert who said that the the critical area of the tape that Harper said was altered was in fact, intact.

EVERY expert agreed that the tape was doctored. We had at least 6 guys (including the Liberal's own experts) who said it's a flat out fake, and one guy who said it was edited, but he could not determine that it would have changed the meaning of the conversation. That's one neutral opinion, and the rest united against the Liberal opinion. The Liberals had zero chance of winning that suit. The enemy in that particular battle was already vanquished, it was time to extract something else from the new guy.

Harper got something: Dion destroyed, the coalition broken, and his budget passed. What did Ignatieff get by settling? The third showing in a week that he backs down when pressured?

[Argus]

I don't recall any zealots who criticize their party nor ones who have not participated as a volunteer in an election for a number of years but then that's just me.

And I don't recall any people who just joined the party being in the room when high-powered negotiations are taking place about forming a coallition to unseat the government.

You work as a completely impersonal, unemotional and in a fully bureaucratic job and that probably allows you many hours to write creatively on government time. Unfortunately, most of that time is spent in frothy mouthed anger at a personal level.

Every time someone says something you don't like you come out with this wierd accusation that they must be enraged or something. This is nothing but a matter-of-fact discussion. Nothing more.

[Argus]

Whoa there little doggy.

A bureacratic style of writing like "NO OTHER HERE" ?

You top the list Mr. Public Sector Bureacrat.

Not hardly. My writing is far from impersonal or bureacratic - here, at least.

[Progressive Tory]

I'm not sure you're much of a judge of what makes a good leader. All you seem to care about is whether a guy goes to a good college.

I am not backing Michael Ignatieff just because he has a Harvard PhD.

I am not backing him just because he taught at Ivy League Schools.

I am not backing him just because he's an award winning journalist.

I am not backing him just because he's an award winning author.

I'm backing him because of his life experience and his ability to see Canada's role in the world. He's well travelled but not as a tourist with guide books, but a journalist in war torn countries, looking for the story behind the stories.

He speaks of being on a bus with Soviet Jews heading to Israel, terrified and asking him what they should expect. He was able to answer them and reassure them as a man who had been to Israel. In Croatia he ventured to regions off the beaten path, armed with a UN pass, a flak jacket and cans of gasoline because of the fuel embargo. He couldn't wear the flak jacket because the gasoline had tipped over and spilled onto it. He knew if he was shot at, he would burst into flames. And that's just chapter one, of one book.

He is not looking to become PM as an opportunist. He'd probably make more money doing what he was doing. I think he sees it as a way of putting all of his education, academic training and life experience into a job where they could be best utilized.

He's respected everywhere. It's time Canada gave him a little respect.

[Progressive Tory]

Oh well, Ignatief so far has not given me a good reason to switch my support but still, a capable opposition can only mean that Canada will win even if the Tories lose! A liberal government led by Ignatief would be a disappointment to voters like myself. A liberal government led by DION and his 'Green Shift' would have made me fear for my children's future! And you call my posts "some of the most twisted partisan logic I've seen in months!"

The law suit was against the Liberals. Only Harper could drop it. When we are being sued, we don't have the opportunity to simply say, I don't want to do this anymore, unless there's an admission of guilt. Harper's entire case was the suggestion that the tape had been doctored. His own expert said that it wasn't. With no evidence for a defamation suit, he prudently dropped it.

The Liberals could have counter sued, but for what? There are more pressing matters.

I just wonder about the insurance company who would have been stuck with the million dollar payout. Isn't this insurance fraud?

[capricorn]

I'm backing him because of his life experience and his ability to see Canada's role in the world.

PT, where exactly did Ignatieff lay out his view of Canada's role in the world? I am not aware that he did. And believe me, had he done so his world view of Canada would have been plastered all over the media.

He speaks of being on a bus with Soviet Jews heading to Israel, terrified and asking him what they should expect. He was able to answer them and reassure them as a man who had been to Israel. In Croatia he ventured to regions off the beaten path, armed with a UN pass, a flak jacket and cans of gasoline because of the fuel embargo. He couldn't wear the flak jacket because the gasoline had tipped over and spilled onto it. He knew if he was shot at, he would burst into flames. And that's just chapter one, of one book.

Oh great. Now we will be treated to a blow by blow account of your readings on MI. Knock yourself out.

It's time Canada gave him a little respect.

Who says he's not getting any respect? I respect MI. Yet, he is a contender for the PMs job and it is simply natural that he would come under scrutiny.

[Progressive Tory]

The difference is that the Cadman family said that the Tories DID offer a bribe and the Adscam didn't have any wrong doings by your 3, especially DION!!! lol

Exactly. And what did Harper mean by 'financial considerations?' I guess we'll never know.

[Who's Doing What?]

This thread contains some of the most twisted partisan logic I've seen in months!

Let's assume that Ignatief is not a total idiot. After all, you yourself have declared yourself a supporter. Why on earth would he agree to a deal if Harper was totally in the wrong and the Liberals were totally in the right?

There must have been enough to gain and enough to lose ON BOTH SIDES or they would never have mutually agreed to drop it!

If Harper was the total criminal you imply it's guaranteed that the Liberals would have kept going for the jugular.

You're leading with your heart and your heart clearly is against Harper. That's your right, but you have argued better about other issues.

I suspect that if it wasn't for Dion the entire matter would never have lasted as long as it did. Dion was never smart enough to see if some mud might splash back on him. This ignorance forced traditional political mudslinging to often escalate into lawsuits. Very much an academic, 'professorial' attitude, I might add. Ignatief seems to have spent more time in the 'real world' and is slowly cleaning up some of the messes he's inherited.

To my mind, this shows that Harper no longer gets a free ride in the leadership competition.

Oh well, Ignatief so far has not given me a good reason to switch my support but still, a capable opposition can only mean that Canada will win even if the Tories lose! A liberal government led by Ignatief would be a disappointment to voters like myself. A liberal government led by DION and his 'Green Shift' would have made me fear for my children's future!

Here's the thing WB, The liberals literally can't afford to go through a trial. If the CPC had won it's majority we would be seing the whole thing played out, but with Harper on the brink of losing power he had to concede something for liberal support. Harper also knows that he can't afford to risk the chance of losing. This is the kind of caes that hangs on symantics, and depending on the judge the case could go either way. The biggest thing against him is that Harper admitted he knew some kind of offer was being made to Cadman. By the letter of the law that is wrongdoing. Now whether the Liberals overstepped any laws in posting what they did is another matter all together. That is where the grey area lies.

Bottom line is that it was in neither party's best interest for this case to come to fruition in the courts.

In part it is an admission of guilt on Harper's part, for if he knew 100% he was in the clear he would have simply bankrupted the Liberals with a lengthy court proceding. I am sure he would have done so anyway, except for the fact that he needs the Libs now to make parliament work.

What I can't ignore is the fact that if Harper was 100% in the clear he could have bankrupted the LIbs through court costs, called an election and be the people's ONLY choice. Being able to dominate the media while the Libs can barely afford airtime, thereby guaranteeing his majority. With the good strategy they have shown recently I cannot see them ignoring this, unless there was something very damaging to the party.

[jdobbin]

And I don't recall any people who just joined the party being in the room when high-powered negotiations are taking place about forming a coallition to unseat the government.

Who are you referring to?

Every time someone says something you don't like you come out with this wierd accusation that they must be enraged or something. This is nothing but a matter-of-fact discussion. Nothing more.

I don't say this about everyone.

[jdobbin]

Previous election, not the one we just had. Flanangan went back to U of C full-time, and did some analysis for CTV. Notice that it says FORMER Conservative campaign worker in the credits of his G&M articles, even the ones he wrote during the election.

Notice how this article says he is still working for the Tories as an analyst.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Flexibil...3266/story.html

Conservative analyst Tom Flanagan called it "a sign of weakness in the brutal world of politics." On the contrary: it was a solution that worked. As bridge-builders know, flexibility should never be mistaken for weakness.

He also clearly states in this interview just before the election that he is no long working for the CPC.

He is still a consultant and analyst for the party. He was just on CTV this past week and was described as a Tory analyst.

Still is the goal, and it will happen. With a different guy at the helm of the party, different methods are employed.

Wasted energy. Concentrate on winning rather than destroying and it might get the party further.

EVERY expert agreed that the tape was doctored. We had at least 6 guys (including the Liberal's own experts) who said it's a flat out fake, and one guy who said it was edited, but he could not determine that it would have changed the meaning of the conversation. That's one neutral opinion, and the rest united against the Liberal opinion. The Liberals had zero chance of winning that suit. The enemy in that particular battle was already vanquished, it was time to extract something else from the new guy.

Actually, your own link didn't say it was a flat out fake. There was not one neutral position. It was pretty clear that the section that the Tories were most worried about is unaltered according to the premiere expert on the subject.

Your opinion does not jibe with what some legal experts were saying on CTV this weekend.

Harper got something: Dion destroyed, the coalition broken, and his budget passed. What did Ignatieff get by settling? The third showing in a week that he backs down when pressured?

Yes, Harper is well on his way to a majority. He backed down on the lawsuit because he is going to be victorious.

The polls don't seem to think so.

[Progressive Tory]

Notice how this article says he is still working for the Tories as an analyst.

The polls don't seem to think so.

Exactly. What I can't wrap my head around is that Stephen Harper dropping the lawsuit meant that the Liberals caved, who I suppose would much rather he continue trying to sue them. The tape he was using against them did not help his cause and his own lawyer quit. Yet he's the victor.

Ignatieff has been praised in the polls for getting on with it. Canadians don't need more drama, they need action.

Ignatieff was spot on with budget compromise: poll

"Support for Ignatieff's decision cut across all political parties, with 85 per cent of Liberals, 75 per cent of Bloc supporters, 68 per cent of New Democrats and even 64 per cent of Conservatives saying it was a good idea." Jack Layton needs to look at this carefully, because his own people are in agreement with Iggy.

What Harper needs to look at is: Conservative supporters upset with Tory budget

"Core supporters of Canada's Conservative party are riled up about the budget handed down by Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government and some believe he has strayed from his principles, says a former party strategist.

Tom Flanagan, a professor and former Conservative campaign manager, said Sunday that these supporters are angry that the prime minister authorized a budget that will see his country plunge into an $85 billion deficit over the next five years."

During his election campaign he said that he would never go into a deficit and would never be forced into a deficit.

Edited February 9, 2009 by Progressive Tory

[Argus]

Who are you referring to?

You posted at the time as though you were an insider, in the room with the negotiators.

[jdobbin]

You posted at the time as though you were an insider, in the room with the negotiators.

I posted as a joke which many posters got. I made the same joke the other day about missing a meeting. I haven't been involved at the federal level in quite a few years.

[normanchateau]

And what did Harper mean by 'financial considerations?' I guess we'll never know.

Not necessarily. The lawsuit against the Liberals was dropped but Harper still engaged in alleged criminal behaviour. Even Harper's own experts acknowledged that the tape was not altered. There is nothing to prevent further investigation of Harper's involvement in the Cadman affair. By dropping the lawsuit, Harper hopes the issue will die. In fact, it can be reactivated at any time.

[Wild Bill]

Here's the thing WB, The liberals literally can't afford to go through a trial. If the CPC had won it's majority we would be seing the whole thing played out, but with Harper on the brink of losing power he had to concede something for liberal support. Harper also knows that he can't afford to risk the chance of losing. This is the kind of caes that hangs on symantics, and depending on the judge the case could go either way. The biggest thing against him is that Harper admitted he knew some kind of offer was being made to Cadman. By the letter of the law that is wrongdoing. Now whether the Liberals overstepped any laws in posting what they did is another matter all together. That is where the grey area lies.

Bottom line is that it was in neither party's best interest for this case to come to fruition in the courts.

In part it is an admission of guilt on Harper's part, for if he knew 100% he was in the clear he would have simply bankrupted the Liberals with a lengthy court proceding. I am sure he would have done so anyway, except for the fact that he needs the Libs now to make parliament work.

What I can't ignore is the fact that if Harper was 100% in the clear he could have bankrupted the LIbs through court costs, called an election and be the people's ONLY choice. Being able to dominate the media while the Libs can barely afford airtime, thereby guaranteeing his majority. With the good strategy they have shown recently I cannot see them ignoring this, unless there was something very damaging to the party.

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.