One of the biggest ones is why did the Liberals hang onto this so-called 'million-dollar bribe' story for at least a year? Paul Martin who wrote the forward, (allegedly) had the manuscript in his hands since Feb. 2007. If this was such an egregious offense, why didn't he immediately contact the RCMP?
Did the (alleged) leak come from Paul Martin who may have (allegedly) passed on the information to Liberal insiders? Or did it (allegedly) come from some friends of the author? (And who exactly were these friends? Anyone in MSM? Anyone in the LPC?)
...White said Zytaruk sent versions of the manuscript to a few friends, as well as Paul Martin...
Stephen Maher suggests various scenarios as to what may have happened:
...The Liberals were entering laughingstock territory, so what a welcome surprise it must have been for them that night to tune in to The National to watch Peter Mansbridge report that Mr. Harper was being accused of trying to bribe Chuck Cadman into voting against Paul Martin’s 2005 budget.
Suddenly, the whole focus of the media pack in Ottawa shifted away from the drab non-drama of the budget and onto the sensational (though unproven) allegation that the Tories sent a couple of heavies to offer a dying man a million-dollar life insurance policy for his vote.
The Globe and Mail had the same story the next day.
It turns out, of course, that this was not a surprise to the Liberals, since it looks like they helped leak the story.
The Chuck Cadman story is contained in the book Like a Rock, a forthcoming biography of Mr. Cadman. Former prime minister Martin, who wrote the foreword to the book, has had a copy of it for a year.
The Liberals seem to have passed the book on to the Globe. The rumour mill says CBC had been sitting on the story, perhaps because of an embargo agreed upon with the publisher. When the Globe moved to scoop them, they had to run with it.
Or not. Who knows? When you accept a leaked document, you have to promise not to tell where you got it!
By getting the Cadman story out when they were getting stomped in the media, the Liberals managed to change the channel to a program much more agreeable to them.
It is even possible that Michael Ignatieff’s people leaked this story to put pressure on Mr. Dion to vote down the budget after all, bringing about the election he is said to want. Or not. Who knows? It’s a leak. You never really know what’s going on with leaks...
If this is true, I think the LPC needs to explain why they sat on this so long. Is this about ethics or crass political opportunism?
* * * *
Update: CBL - Reid: Cadman assistant confirms only one meeting on May 19.
Via Albert Ardvark - Zytaruk worng, There was only 1 meeting. From March 2 statement by Dan Wallace:
4 PM Update: The National Post editorial board has a podcast discussing the Cadman affair.
They discuss Don Martin's editorial - Time for an answer, Mr. Harper.
Dr. Roy - Grits can't afford to be sued.
Via Albert Ardvark - Zytaruk worng, There was only 1 meeting. From March 2 statement by Dan Wallace:
“The May meeting date included in a soon to be released book about Chuck Cadman is inaccurate. Unfortunately, because of that error, some media are now reporting that there were two meetings, one on May 17 and another on May 19, 2005, between party officials - Doug Finley and Tom Flanagan - and Chuck Cadman. For the record, there was only the one meeting between my former employer, Chuck Cadman, with Doug Finley and Tom Flanagan and it took place in his private office on May 19th. As I have stated publicly last week, I was outside that room and not privy to the details.”
4 PM Update: The National Post editorial board has a podcast discussing the Cadman affair.
They discuss Don Martin's editorial - Time for an answer, Mr. Harper.
Dr. Roy - Grits can't afford to be sued.
38 comments:
So right you are, Joanne.
Interesting how the MSM are all over the Tories for supposed criminal activity but are letting the Liberals off scott free for actual criminal activity of not reporting a potential crime.
Few of them are asking questions like.
Why did Paul Martin not report this?
Why now? Timing is everything in politics and authorship.
Why is the authors SELLING his tape and why won't he release the whole thing?
Who has copies of the tape?
Why did the author not go to the authorities years ago?
Just some questions that perhaps Don Martin might ask in his next column where he can demand of the Liberals and the Book Author to "Answer the Damned Question"!!
I would expect nothing less from a truly impartial MSM>
Good questions Alberta girl.
I just asked Don Martin if he knew what the Liberals offered Mr. Cadman.
There were supposedly two meetings (May 17th and May 19th) but the Conservatives know of only the one on May 19th when Flanagan and Finley met with Cadman. That would be the one held on the day of the vote.
Another meeting allegedly took place two days earlier, according to Dona Cadman, and that seems to be the one where the million dollar offer was made.
She doesn't know who the representatives were but they said they were from the Conservative Party.
Let me throw out a possible scenario:
Suppose these unidentified men were operatives posing as Conservatives hoping that the bribe would be accepted.
If Cadman accepts and votes against the government a transcript of the meeting mysteriously appears at the Globe and Mail or CBC.
If he declines and votes with the government then the whole exercise is quietly forgotten.
I'm just saying....
Who were these representatives who attended the May 17th meeting??
NeilD
Neild...we have many reasons to believe your scenario. It wouldn't surprise me at all.
WRT all the questions you are asking Joanne, I may sound flippant but, hey, when you're a political junkie and follow the Libs this long, all I can say is those questions are rhetorical. That's the Lib MO.
bluetech
There was only one meeting, clarified and confirmed in a statement released by Mr.Cadman's
assistant this morning..
"Let me throw out a possible scenario:
Suppose these unidentified men were operatives posing as Conservatives hoping that the bribe would be accepted."
Hey, I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought of that possibility ...
"Suppose these unidentified men were operatives posing as Conservatives hoping that the bribe would be accepted."
Like Joanne's earlier post title - curiouser and curiouser....
The more that comes out here, the more confusing this whole thing gets.
Suppose these unidentified men were operatives posing as Conservatives hoping that the bribe would be accepted.
What an interesting theory, Neil!
The Liberals must think the Conservatives have sooooo much money if they would throw a million dollars towards anybody for a single vote that frankly wasn't all that important in the grand scheme.
If the Titanic is sinking fast you don't hire a saboteur to plant a bomb on it and you certainly don't spend a million dollars for it.
Martin had a minority government and everyone knew it wasn't going to last long. Would the Conservatives do something so stupid and illegal and stupidly illegal to gain a few months?
I hope the NDP do introduce a motion of non-confidence on Friday. Maybe the Liberals will find a few people to 'influence' to vote to keep the government from falling ;)Maybe a Shadow Cabinet Post.
For the record, the above anonymous was me but I couldn't remember how to post with my blogname. Hopefully this works...
I also have thought liberals posed as conservatives to make a bribe. No one knows all the workers for any candidate or party.
I don't think anyone has asked for prove they were from the conservatives.
As an example, within the last couple of days 3 pictures were posted with no names.
They were then taken to the guy on the street and asked, who are they.
Taft, Mason and McCain. More people thought they recognized McCain, but were cluless on the other two.
The average person, when someone supposedly important, comes to their home they take pictures. Were any pictures taken, A, of Harper and Mrs Cadman or the two so called bribers. If not, why not. If not true conservatives they would not want their photo taken.
Sounds like beer and popcorn to me.
And repeatedly in todays QP, the question was asked by the Libs and Bloc, 'who were the 2Conservatives that visited Cadman on May 17th, not May 19'!!
answer: repeated each time,
'the only visit to Cadman was on May 19, by Finley and Flanagan, we wanted Chuck to rejoin the party and offered to pay the expenses, which is legal'.
Keeping all the good stuff for 'discovery' are we?
"Neild...we have many reasons to believe your scenario."
Except for teh complete lack of factual foundation.
Has it occured to any of you that your need to create outlandish theories actually lends weight to the allegations? It means there is not enough information coming from Harper that satisfactorily addresses these allegations.
Wilson, I saw that too. Obviously the Liberals are ignoring the statement by Dan Wallace.
Funny how quickly they jettison certain sources when statements don't support the Liberal agenda.
can we believe that anyone thought Cadman would live long enough to make it to the next election being in a late stage of terminal cancer . and if it were not two Conservatives people who could it have been and what sort of result would they hope to gain .seems unlikely it was lib's wanting to bring down the house and cause an election but then again this is Canadian politics .Katou
can we believe that anyone thought Cadman would live long enough to make it to the next election being in a late stage of terminal cancer .
I believe it was Jodi Cadman herself that said that no one knew how close he was to the end, there in May of 2005.
Gayle, do you even read your stuff before you post, 'no factual foundation', hahahahaha. Or do you just have no sense of irony.
greg - I simply know the difference between a theory that comes out of thin air, and allegations that are based on statements made, and caught, on tape.
molarmauler!! Where have you been hiding?!!
Welcome back!
gayle:"It means there is not enough information coming from Harper that satisfactorily addresses these allegations."
It means there is not enough info coming from the Libs that satifactorily support the allegations.
Isn't blogging fun!!
"The Liberals must think the Conservatives have sooooo much money if they would throw a million dollars towards anybody for a single vote that frankly wasn't all that important in the grand scheme."
See here is the niggling little thing about this that doesn't make any sense.
Back in 2005 - Stephen Harper was still considered SCARY - even if the government was brought down, there was NO GUARANTEE that he would win the election, in fact, I do not beleive he would have.
So - Why would a party spend 1 million dollars for a "chance" at forming government.
If it sounds like an idiotic gamble, it most probably was.
This whole thing just stinks to high heaven.
How come no one has interviewed Paul Martin as to his part in this whole affair and why he didn't report this when he first got the book.
Or why didn't the author go to the authorities.
How come the author is SELLING his tapes.
The Libs are spinning this thing as if they KNOW exactly what happened.
But....Stephen Harper has been caught answering questions from a book author as to "financial considerations" which he has stated are costs. It isn't like he was caught actually bribing someone - like Dosanj or Murphy were - and we all know how much time they spent in jail.....
Would the Conservatives do something so stupid and illegal and stupidly illegal to gain a few months?
Molar! I join Anon in welcoming you back!
Excellent points. And as it turned out, the few months of waiting likely made the difference between the Conservative Party winning and not.
Chuck Cadman did Harper a huge favour by voting the way he did.
Isn't it curious that exactly a week after this story broke.... it has all but disappeared from the MSM??
Wonder why?
LIberals + CBC = Confabulation
Time to change the channel now that actual facts are out in the public.
Well the way I see it, the Conservatives are batting 1000. By not paying 1 million bucks, they still end up forming a government. Adding a cherry on top is that they will be ahead by at least another million when it gets to the courts.
When did Mrs Cadman make her alleged accusation re an insurance policy. When did she become a conservative candidate.
Isn't it a fact that saying a conservative candidate has made a charge wrong.
Considering the tape was made during a call by then leader of the opposition, isn't saying the PM said, also wrong.
Funny watching the cbc talking heads hedge their words, from bribe to financial considerations.
The ethics chair has said as none of the parties involved with this are sitting members or past members, they can't have an inquiry.
Bet PMSH knew this.
Hey thanks for the welcome back. Although I never really left as I've been lurking and reading everyone's blogs daily.
Just decloaked as this Cadman thing has my temper up.
Hey, why is not this poll being published? http://www.robbinssceresearch.com/polls/poll_473.htmlef
Just decloaked as this Cadman thing has my temper up.
No more lurking, Molar! Active participation only. ;)
BTW, did anyone happen to see Naveep Bains on CTV newsnet just now?
OMG, the sky is falling because our relationship with the US is in jeopardy!
I thought the Liberals hated the US!
That Martin Article was damned hard to read through.
I think the question should be put to Mr. Martin .... When will you Don ... actually do some research and write a factual article without a mindless anti conservative bias?
To think he actually gets PAID to produce crap like that!
When will you Don ... actually do some research and write a factual article without a mindless anti conservative bias?
Yeah, Martin's certainly never been the Conservatives' best friend.
However, it would be good to have this all cleared up once and for all in some manner. Perhaps after the RCMP has made their decision, then we'll get a bit more detail one way or the other. I think the public needs to hear from Flanagan and Findley in some manner other than a press release. JMHO.
I'm deeply disappointed that the primary issue of this whole affair is being lost in partisan mudslinging, rhetoric and conspiracy-mongering on both sides. Don Martin has it bang-on (in what has been, so far, the most lucid commentary offered on the whole boondoggle): if there's nothing to hide, Mr. Harper should just come clean and tell what he knows, and clarify the comments he made to Mr. Zytaruk. Had he done that immediately, the scandal might've been minimized. Right now, it's hard to trust him when he's so obviously ducking the issue.
We tossed out the Liberals and elected the Conservatives because we were tired of the Grits' backroom shenanigans, deceit and criminal activities. Mr. Harper promised accountability, transparency and integrity, yet so far he is delivering anything but these qualities vis a vis this affair.
As for Paul Martin's knowledge of the quote, he already denied it a few days ago and claimed he read an earlier version of the manuscript; did everybody miss that?
http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=a6631e85-799a-4d9e-86fe-792d3b123f2a
Regardless, as someone who has worked in the publishing industry for over a decade, I didn't smell "Liberal leak" when I first heard the story, I smelled "PR stunt by the publisher to boost book sales." I myself once successfully generated a national social controversy as a PR agent representing an author who wanted to see the issues he raised debated throughout the media (and we got roasted by Rex Murphy himself!) Whether the info was leaked because of partisan bias or not, the blame here most likely lies with the publisher, so going on a Liberal witch-hunt over this is likely to muddy the issue, and end up making Conservative supporters look like conspiracy loons. And, again, as a publishing industry insider, I can tell you that Mr. Martin, regardless of the version of the manuscript he received, likely did not even read it, or only skimmed it. It is pretty common for forward writers (and pretty much the standard practice for book jacket blurb writers) to not even have the time or inclination to properly review the books they are asked to endorse. But for Mr. Martin to admit something like that would be embarrassing.
At the heart of this I have never questioned the sincerity of the Cadmans, and I, like Mrs. Cadman, would prefer to give Mr. Harper the benefit of the doubt, and have him come out on top, lest we fall to another decade-long Liberal dictatorship.
But unless Mr. Harper himself clears this up, openly, in public, without resorting to libel actions, cover-ups and other politicking, this could sink him. I'd urge Conservative supporters to maintain some semblance of levity around this and not become the screaming banshees the Liberals are. Blind partisan loyalty precedes breaks from rationality.
And, unfortunately, if Mr. Harper had anything to do with the alleged bribe, it is best for Canada, and for the Conservative Party, to cut him loose and look for new leadership. I don't want a Prime Minister I cannot trust. (Again!)
- red tori
Red tori? As in Red Tory?
Anyway, this part of your comment is questionable:
As for Paul Martin's knowledge of the quote, he already denied it a few days ago and claimed he read an earlier version of the manuscript; did everybody miss that?
I don't see what that has to do with anything. The following is a quote from the article you cited, which was in the body of this post, BTW, so no I didn't miss it:
...Tom Zytaruk, a journalist in Surrey, said he provided a copy to the former Liberal Prime Minister for review following its completion in February of 2007.
But Zytaruk said he couldn't say whether Martin was the source of a leaked excerpt which quotes Cadman's widow, Dona Cadman, saying that Conservative Party officials offered her dying husband a million-dollar life insurance policy in exchange for his vote to bring down the Liberal government in May of 2005?
So if the author isn't sure if Martin was the source of the leak, then that doesn't automatically eliminate Paul Martin as a suspect.
Not that it really matters. The whole thing is an absurd tragedy.
My point is, dragging Paul Martin or other Liberals into this debate just fuels the quacks. The Liberals don't need to be hit with libel suits or half-baked conspiracy theories: if Mr. Harper did nothing wrong, and this is proven sooner rather than later, it is the Liberals who will wind up looking like idiots. Conservatives should be calling on Mr. Harper to clear this up, not blindly defending him without knowing the facts, and certainly not resorting to the same kind of childishness that normally characterizes the Liberals. Right now, Mr. Harper is handling this poorly, which is giving the edge to the Liberals here. We know that due to AdScam the Liberals have little integrity, but Canadians will not be tolerant of the Conservatives if they follow a similar path of denials, cover-ups, etc. Let's just settle this and move on before it sinks the government.
And, yes, "red tori" is an obvious play on the term "Red Tory," as my nickname is tori, and I happen to be an old-line Progressive Conservative (big fan of Kim Campbell and Joe Clark). I figured I might as well show my hand in commenting here for the first time.
- red tori
I'm deeply disappointed that the primary issue of this whole affair is being lost in partisan mudslinging, rhetoric and conspiracy-mongering on both sides. Don Martin has it bang-on (in what has been, so far, the most lucid commentary offered on the whole boondoggle): if there's nothing to hide, Mr. Harper should just come clean and tell what he knows, and clarify the comments he made to Mr. Zytaruk. Had he done that immediately, the scandal might've been minimized. Right now, it's hard to trust him when he's so obviously ducking the issue.
We tossed out the Liberals and elected the Conservatives because we were tired of the Grits' backroom shenanigans, deceit and criminal activities. Mr. Harper promised accountability, transparency and integrity, yet so far he is delivering anything but these qualities vis a vis this affair.
As for Paul Martin's knowledge of the quote, he already denied it a few days ago and claimed he read an earlier version of the manuscript; did everybody miss that?
http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=a6631e85-799a-4d9e-86fe-792d3b123f2a
Regardless, as someone who has worked in the publishing industry for over a decade, I didn't smell "Liberal leak" when I first heard the story, I smelled "PR stunt by the publisher to boost book sales." I myself once successfully generated a national social controversy as a PR agent representing an author who wanted to see the issues he raised debated throughout the media (and we got roasted by Rex Murphy himself!) Whether the info was leaked because of partisan bias or not, the blame here most likely lies with the publisher, so going on a Liberal witch-hunt over this is likely to muddy the issue, and end up making Conservative supporters look like conspiracy loons. And, again, as a publishing industry insider, I can tell you that Mr. Martin, regardless of the version of the manuscript he received, likely did not even read it, or only skimmed it. It is pretty common for forward writers (and pretty much the standard practice for book jacket blurb writers) to not even have the time or inclination to properly review the books they are asked to endorse. But for Mr. Martin to admit something like that would be embarrassing.
At the heart of this I have never questioned the sincerity of the Cadmans, and I, like Mrs. Cadman, would prefer to give Mr. Harper the benefit of the doubt, and have him come out on top, lest we fall to another decade-long Liberal dictatorship.
But unless Mr. Harper himself clears this up, openly, in public, without resorting to libel actions, cover-ups and other politicking, this could sink him. I'd urge Conservative supporters to maintain some semblance of levity around this and not become the screaming banshees the Liberals are. Blind partisan loyalty precedes breaks from rationality.
And, unfortunately, if Mr. Harper had anything to do with the alleged bribe, it is best for Canada, and for the Conservative Party, to cut him loose and look for new leadership. I don't want a Prime Minister I cannot trust. (Again!)
- red tori
"Mr. Harper should just come clean and tell what he knows"
See, the problem with that statement is that no matter what the PM says, he will not be believed by some people, perhaps Don Martin and you too, red tori.
Unless the PM says exactly what some people want to hear - what they have determined to be the absolute truth - they will continue to accuse him of not being accountable, transparent and honest, using the old Watergate question "what did he know and when did he know it."
'red tori', you picked an unfortunate nickname, but welcome to the discussion.
"if Mr. Harper did nothing wrong, and this is proven sooner rather than later, it is the Liberals who will wind up looking like idiots."
That may have been true last week, but not now. As some have pointed out, Harper is in this position because he refuses to explain the tape. If he suddenly comes up with a plausible explaination, it is going to be hard to believe him, so in that respect Gabby is correct, but the fault for that lies with Harper nad not with the liberals.
Even if Harper comes up with some great independent proof that justifies his explaination, I do not see how the liberals can be faulted for their aggressive stance.
glen p robbins
robbinssceresearch.com
we don't publish our research in retail news markets. We are a news-information dealer-wholesaler.
We believe in our numbers-and those who arrive at our site-may come to the same conclusion(s) or not.
That's the beauty of a so-called free society isn't it?
Glen P. Robbins
Interesting site, Glenn.
Post a Comment