Comments on Little Fish in a Giant pond: Could Stephen Harper go to prison?

Luc, as usual you make some pretty solid points. I...

2008-04-06T17:20:00.000-07:00

Luc, as usual you make some pretty solid points. I do not doubt that offering Cadman membership in the Conserative party was probably the first offer Harper would have made. I mean, let's just assume for one second that we were both in agreement that a criminal offer was made. If you were Harper, wouldn't you want to at least make sure that there was a legitimate way of getting what you want before taking a risk like this? I for one do not doubt that an offer for party membership was made, but I don't think it would qualify uner any of the categories under s. 119.

I suppose it's possible that the Crown Attorney might argue that membership in the Conservative Party could be considered "valuable consideration" because of it's particular value to Cadman. If what jgriffin316 says is true, it would have meant a one million dollar payout for Cadman. This could be interpreted as valuable consideration, especially if it was mentioned during the negotiations. But even then it's stretching things.

No, I think that when Harper talks about financial considerations for electoral expenses, this is the incriminating part. At this point, I don't think he was referring to any kind of offer to bring him back into the Conservative fold simply because Harper said that they were to "replace financial considerations he might lose due to an election", it is the word "replace" that has the most value here. He was talking about re-imbursing the man's electoral expenses or giving him money to run his campaign. If the PM had been talking about bringing him back into the Conservative fold he would more likely have used the word "cover", or soething like that.

Your second point doesn't hold much water at all, good sir. It is perfectly possible to attempt to bribe someone without pressing them. If you press someone, you are "pressuring" them. So of course you can simply make an offer to bribe someone, and so long as you are not persistently insisting, and getting in their face about it, it is perfectly possible to offer to bribe them without pressing them.

As for the interesting points you bring up regarding what kind of promises are acceptable, frankly it's hard to know where to draw the line. I'm willing to stick my hand into the fire and say that I don't think it's illegal to offer someone membership in a party in order to secure their vote (though there MAY be an exception in the circumstances described above). Now in Stonach's case, there was a cabinet position involved, which I would think qualifies as either "office" or "employment" as mentioned in s. 119. But in that case, you would actually have to prove that it was to secure the MPs vote. Then again, the courts may interpret it differently.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I feel like I'm pretty safe as far as libel is concerned. And besides, like you say, I don't think it would be worth the time and effort it would take to track me down and sue me. If by some miracle he won the suit, he is more than welcome to everything I own... but he has to get behind OSAP!

We can at least agree on one thing. I love the blogosphere for the simple reason that it allows people to discuss ideas, the way we have been. And yes, you are quite right, no party has cornered the wingnut market!

Brian I don't think you quite understood the argum...

2008-04-06T15:28:00.000-07:00

Brian I don't think you quite understood the argument I was putting forward.

The extract of the tape that is available to the public does not specifically point to a financial offer being made, or any offer of any kind for that matter.

1. Haper says that his operatives had a "theory" that it was "financial insecurity".
Not that I want to sound like Bill Clinton, but define what "it" is. The tape doesn't make that clear, and that would be necessary in court. We can speculate all we want, and say that common sense would lead us to suppose that "it" is Cadman voting against the Liberals, but the tape doesn't make it clear. For all we know, Cadman's qualms about financial insecurity could have resulted from the possibility that he would no longer have a job should the government fall, and therefore lose his MP's salary while at the same time being very sick.

If I had been in Cadman's position, I would have been concerned about losing my position as an MP as well knowing I only had a few months to live. Voting against the government would have put him in an unpleasant financial situation for a short while until he could start collecting his retirement, a period of time in which he would most likely no longer have been of this Earth.

2. Harper clearly says "Don't press him" and "make that case but don't press it." I think we could agree that attempting to bribe him would be considered "pressing" Cadman.

"Making the case" for Cadman to vote against the Liberals however, doesn't have to include any form of deal. You should take a look at the column Ezra Levant wrote on this affair where he speaks of the time when Harper tried to convince him to vacate his seat so he could enter Parliament after being elected leader of the Canadian Alliance. Ezra ended up giving up his seat without anything in return. Harper had refused to offer him anything when he could have easily given him a job or paid for his campaign expenses.

As I've said before, I strongly believe that the Conservatives simply tried to convince Cadman to join the ranks of the party once again. There is nothing illegal with that. Yes, had Cadman joined the CPC, it would have led to him voting against the government de facto. However the offer would not have been to "purchase" his vote in some way, but to bring him back into the fold. If the party offers its MP's a life-insurance policy, that just happens to be an incentive for Cadman to join, which is likely what he was talking about to his wife and his daughter. It still remains perfectly legal.

Or are you going to suggest that it was illegal for Harper to bring Emmerson into the party after the 2006 election; or for Matin to bring Stronach into the Liberal party; or Brison, or Keith Martin, or any other number of MP's who have switched allegiances in the past?

P.-S. I don't think Harper will track you down and sue you for libel, but I do think that your case is pretty shaky and closer to slander than it is to anything solid enough for charges to be laid.

That being said, while we have differing views, I much appreciate being able to discuss them in a civil manner in spite of some wingnuts, which I must say, are present in all political parties.

Yeah Mound, this was pretty much the reaction I wa...

2008-03-30T21:10:00.000-07:00

Yeah Mound, this was pretty much the reaction I was expecting, and (in all honesty) trying to provoke. Except for that one really mean guy who accused me of going to Osgoode Hall. That one just plain hurt my feelings!

(For those of you who don't know me, I go to Ottawa U)

The sad thing is that a couple of people from the right had some really good points to make, but the "wingnuts" kind of get in the way, though I do my best to ignore anyone who hasn't got anything intelligent to add to the debate.

Oddly enough, some of the more intelligent comments came from annonymous contributors, but then it also makes sense that an intelligent Conservative would not want to use his or her real name while defending Stephen Harper.

"Well Fish, you sure led with your jaw on this one...

2008-03-30T17:26:00.000-07:00

"Well Fish, you sure led with your jaw on this one. You put forward an interesting legal issue which was bound soon enough to bring out the tory wingnuts. They don't like the sleazy face of their boss so they plunge into Gomery and scurrilous claims against Martin and Chretien to change the topic. That's about all you could expect."

I would gladly put Stephen Harpers morality up against the Adscam Libranos Jean Mere- Cretien or CSL-Power Corp Martin, anytime.

Your "they are just as bad as us" meme is left wanting

Power Corp won't let the liberals force an electio...

2008-03-30T17:18:00.000-07:00

Power Corp won't let the liberals force an election just yet, they want to get their own guy farther up the ladder first.

Well Fish, you sure led with your jaw on this one....

2008-03-30T16:48:00.000-07:00

Well Fish, you sure led with your jaw on this one. You put forward an interesting legal issue which was bound soon enough to bring out the tory wingnuts. They don't like the sleazy face of their boss so they plunge into Gomery and scurrilous claims against Martin and Chretien to change the topic. That's about all you could expect.

"Dion is a damn good leader if you ask me. Just as...

2008-03-30T16:40:00.000-07:00

"Dion is a damn good leader if you ask me. Just ask Stephen Harper. Why else would the PM be so anxious to force an early election? He knows that Dion would be a serious threat if he had enough time to organize.

Should I also remind you that Harper did not even acknowledge that global warming existed until Dion made it a major issue in his leadership bid. So yeah, not only is Dion a leader, but Harper is probably his most devoted follower/convert. And the last time I checked, Bob Rae is not the leader of the Liberal Party. He's a smart enough guy, but there's no geting around the fact that he was at the helm in Ontario when things went wrong. In all fairness to him, he came in just as a rough recession hit, but that doesn't resonate much with voters. I think he'll make a fine cabinet minister, but once Dion retires (after several majority governments), I hope and expect Mr Ignatieff will be taking over."

Now that qualifies as the quote of the month.

BAAAAAAAAAH

Tied for LAST place (with the NDP) in Quebec.....BAAAAAAH

Dion stamps his feet " But , but I AM your leader"

"It's rare that the population wants an election, but we can feel it when the fruit is ripe. And at that time - it's not up to me to tell you when; it's part of the strategy that we keep close to our chest - there will be an election."" - Stephane Dion

ROTFLMAO

Yes please keep that twit as your "leader" eventually they will have to stop abstaining from votes and vote no confidence. The CPC has been patiently waiting to be defeated in parliament by your bunch of bafoons. We have given them so many opportunities, but they just keep running scared.

You know bub, if that's all you got, ie, idiotic m...

2008-03-30T16:00:00.000-07:00

You know bub, if that's all you got, ie, idiotic musings about sending Harper to jail, then it would appear we will be under his wise governance for many years to come.
I'll sleep better knowing that.
Dion/Borat will finally get dumped by the Libranos. Then after a leadership race they will be too broke to run an election unless the Member From Power Corp, Boob Rae, can swing a loan from Power Corp.
I wonder how they'll hide that?
Maybe Joe Volpe can come up with a believable story for them.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

"but once Dion retires (after several majority gov...

2008-03-30T14:38:00.000-07:00

"but once Dion retires (after several majority governments), I hope and expect Mr Ignatieff will be taking over."

I can't get over the absurdity of your comments.
Several majority governments would take you 12 or 15 year out. Ignatieff would be what -75 years old?

Horny Toad

"I can assure you, Chuck Cadman's death was probab...

2008-03-30T14:17:00.000-07:00

"I can assure you, Chuck Cadman's death was probably anything but "convenient" to Dona Cadman."

So, HOW can you assure us?

Horny Toad

If sufficient evidence exists to prove that ANY PM...

2008-03-30T13:52:00.000-07:00

If sufficient evidence exists to prove that ANY PM, former or current, has been involved in criminal activity, then yes criminal charges should be brought against them. Corruption is not something that should be tolerated, no matter which party is in power, though it is especially vile when it comes from someone who came to power with a "Mr Clean" image (i.e. Eliot Spitzer). Please do not think that I am so blind as to believe any one party has a monopoly on either corruption or virtue. We are talking about individuals here, and in my opinion, there is sufficient evidence for a criminal conviction. You don't have to agree with me, and I rather enjoy hearing opinions from people who disagree!

In the example you mentioned, it would still be the word of a few people against that of the accused. There is reasonable doubt written all over it. Now if either Martin or Chrétien was caught on tape admitting that they knew about the kickbacks and did nothing to stop it, then yes, that would be different. Are you aware of any such tape?

Dion is a damn good leader if you ask me. Just ask Stephen Harper. Why else would the PM be so anxious to force an early election? He knows that Dion would be a serious threat if he had enough time to organize.

Should I also remind you that Harper did not even acknowledge that global warming existed until Dion made it a major issue in his leadership bid. So yeah, not only is Dion a leader, but Harper is probably his most devoted follower/convert. And the last time I checked, Bob Rae is not the leader of the Liberal Party. He's a smart enough guy, but there's no geting around the fact that he was at the helm in Ontario when things went wrong. In all fairness to him, he came in just as a rough recession hit, but that doesn't resonate much with voters. I think he'll make a fine cabinet minister, but once Dion retires (after several majority governments), I hope and expect Mr Ignatieff will be taking over.

As I've stated before, it doesn't matter whether the offer took the form of an insurance policy or not. So no, it doesn't really hurt my argument at all.

And by the way, what lawsuit? I wrote about a possible criminal case, that may or may not happen. Harper is the one suing the Liberals, a groundless lawsuit that will surely backfire on him if it ever makes it to court and he has to answer questions under oath about his role in this scandal.

Finally, the Grewal affair was a terrible humiliation... for the Conservatives! Remember, the tapes revealed that it was Grewal himself who was asking for patronage positions for himself and his wife. Nice try though.

I'm not sure why this hasn't been mentioned yet bu...

2008-03-30T13:48:00.000-07:00

I'm not sure why this hasn't been mentioned yet but if Chuck Cadman returned to the fold he would have been automatically covered under the Conservatives group life insurance policy, which happens to be worth one million dollars.

"As foul smelling as the Stronach deal was, Paul M...

2008-03-30T13:05:00.000-07:00

"As foul smelling as the Stronach deal was, Paul Martin was not caught on tape saying that he gave Stronach the job in order to secure her vote. Stronach has always claimed that she left the Conservatives because she had grown dilliusioned with the party. The story is not terribly believeable, but there is nowhere near enough evidence for a criminal conviction."

Two days before a confidence vote
CPC MP Belinda Stronach- a nobody

Day before confidence vote
LPC MP Belinda Stronach- cabinet minister

Reality- not innuendo, not hearsay, to quote old Jean "da proof is da proof when it haz been proven"

Oh yes, the tape recording was when your criminal party tried to buy Gurmant and Nina Grewal for some "big fuzzy carpet" by buddy Ujal.

I'd be happy to list ALL of the criminal charges against the Liberal party over the past several years, but I imagine your comment posting is limited to a couple of thousand words.

By the way have you found an insurance company willing to under write a policy for a million dollars for a man who is on his death bed with cancer yet..... might actually add some credibilty to your "lawsuit".
No? surprise, surprise

Much has been made of the claim that the CPC offer...

2008-03-30T13:01:00.000-07:00

Much has been made of the claim that the CPC offered Cadman a $1M life insurance policy. A man certified by his doctors to have at most a couple of months to live!

I asked my insurance agent whether he could find a company who would issue a dying man a million dollar insurance policy. He assured me it was possible.

I asked what the insurance premiums (payments) would be. He replied it would take "A one-time payment of one million dollars" to get such an insurance policy drawn up.

This help your argument any?

Are you another fine product of Osgood Hall? You ...

2008-03-30T11:48:00.000-07:00

Are you another fine product of Osgood Hall? You seem to confuse 'Liberal mud-slinging' with 'practicing law'. I hope your family never has to rely on your LEGAL skills for their sustenance, but, since you by your own admission are connected to Gliberal Party, 'legal' probably has very little to do with your activities.

It's lawyers like you that have brought the justic...

2008-03-30T10:55:00.000-07:00

It's lawyers like you that have brought the justice system into disrepute.

"A scandal in which not a single Liberal MP was fo...

2008-03-30T10:01:00.000-07:00

"A scandal in which not a single Liberal MP was found to have received a dollar. Not a single member of the liberal party was charged. A bureaucrat that was appointed by Brian Mulroney was went to jail and a former PC riding association president went to jail. So don't take that high and mighty tone with me Anonymous."

Well, let's take your legal argument one step further. Guite, Brault, Lefleur, Wiseman, and others gave testimony at Gomery that Martin and Chretien were aware of the kickbacks scheme. Are you willing to have these former PM's jailed because of the sworn legal testimony of those living witnesses?

"Oh, and one more thing, one of the reasons that the federal liberals are having so much difficulty right now, is because they have begun paying back the money Gomery says was received through the sponsorship scandal."

Now that's funny. The Liberal's suposedly, according to them, paid back roughly $1million last year. The missing $40 million, which Gomery stated as being untraceable in his final report, will never be repaid by the Liberal Party.

The real reason your party is in it's current state is the fact you elected a boob for a leader, and just got a bigger potential boob for a leader in Bob Rae. Once the people of Ontario are reminded daily in an election campaign Rae was going to declare bankruptcy for Ontario due to his disastorous leadership as premier, it will be lights out.

And hey, you guys have the costing done yet for Dion's promises?

Oh, and one more thing, one of the reasons that th...

2008-03-30T09:29:00.000-07:00

Oh, and one more thing, one of the reasons that the federal liberals are having so much difficulty right now, is because they have begun paying back the money Gomery says was received through the sponsorship scandal.

A scandal in which not a single Liberal MP was found to have received a dollar. Not a single member of the liberal party was charged. A bureaucrat that was appointed by Brian Mulroney was went to jail and a former PC riding association president went to jail. So don't take that high and mighty tone with me Anonymous.

Phantom, hearsay is evidence. As I explained in my...

2008-03-30T09:20:00.000-07:00

Phantom, hearsay is evidence. As I explained in my post, this kind of evidence is generally excluded from a trial, but there are many exceptions.

I can assure you, Chuck Cadman's death was probably anything but "convenient" to Dona Cadman.

As foul smelling as the Stronach deal was, Paul Martin was not caught on tape saying that he gave Stronach the job in order to secure her vote. Stronach has always claimed that she left the Conservatives because she had grown dilliusioned with the party. The story is not terribly believeable, but there is nowhere near enough evidence for a criminal conviction.

Furthermore, what allegations? I haven't alleged anything. Harper was caught on tape, this is a fact. Cadman's family members are claiming that he told them of an offer for a million dollar life insurance policy, this is a fact.The only question is dispute here, is whether or not the offer was of a criminal nature. I merely offered an opinion based on the evidence available to me.

Interesting how CLAIMS of influence peddling, with...

2008-03-30T08:54:00.000-07:00

Interesting how CLAIMS of influence peddling, with no proof of a criminal act holds more water with liberals and Liberals, than the outright PURCHASE of Belinda Stronach with a Cabinet post for her vote. Maybe the question should be "Could Paul Martin go to prison?"
But keep digging and make false allegations, it does show who liberals and Liberals really are.

By the way when is your party going to start paying back the 40 million they stole from the taxpayers?

Fish, since when is hearsay considered evidence? ...

2008-03-30T08:47:00.000-07:00

Fish, since when is hearsay considered evidence? Cadman's wife says her conveniently dead husband told her something about an impossible insurance policy.

This is a court case? God I hope not. More like something one would expect from the CHRC.

Say, maybe you should get a job with them! You'd fit right in.

Hello I just entered before I have to leave to the...

2008-03-29T23:11:00.000-07:00

Hello I just entered before I have to leave to the airport, it's been very nice to meet you, if you want here is the site I told you about where I type some stuff and make good money (I work from home): here it is

Thanks for all of the great comments everybody!Mou...

2008-03-29T21:27:00.000-07:00

Thanks for all of the great comments everybody!

Mound, I probably could have expressed myself a little better, but I was suggesting that depending on when cadman is alleged to have made the statements to his family members it is possible that he may have been heavily medicated. The defence would likely request to have access to Cadman's medical records, which would allow them to tell exactly how much medication he was on at the time that he is alleged to have made the statements. If the records revealed a high enough dose (naturally they would need an expert witness to confirm this), they could use this information, to attempt to convince the judge that there is a possibility that he may have been suffering from hallucinations, and therefore his testimony does not meet the standard for reliability and must be excluded.

Obviously the Crown could try to counter with its own expert witness, and in the end it all comes down to what a judge believes.

As for section 21, you make an excellent point. I should have included the fact that when he was caught on tape, the PM talked about the conversations he had with the party members who made the offer before it was made. He stated as follows: "No, no, they were legitimately representing the party. I said don't press him. I mean, you have this theory that it's, you know, financial insecurity and, you know, just, you know, if that's what you're saying, make that case but don't press it. I don't think, my view was, my view had been for two or three weeks preceding it, was that Chuck was not going to force an election. I just, we had all kinds of our guys were calling him, and trying to persuade him, I mean, but I just had concluded that's where he stood and respected that." I think that proves pretty solidly that he had knowledge that an offer was going to be made.

Whether it was an insurance policy or not, is not really important. In fact, I think just the offer to replace financial consideration for an election is pretty incriminating.

Luc, thanks for your concern, but I'm feeling pretty safe from libel here. Besides, even if I had crossed the lines, the PM would have a Hell of a time collecting anything from me. He is however, welcome to my OSAP debt!

Thanks for the free advice Anonymous! You're right. You might have noticed that I did ocaisionally write about potential arguments the defence might have used to counter the Crown's arguments, but it would have been a good idea to have anticipated a full blown defence as well. I was actually half-heartedly hoping that there might be a blogging tory out there with a legal background who might provide that service...

Wilson, thanks for your comments as well. I don't think that the precise date really matters at this time, so long as it was before the vote actually happened. So long as it is not in doubt (and as I described above in my comments to MOS, Harper himself has admitted that he authorized the offer before the vote)it will not be excluded. BUt you're right about one thing, if it does turn out that the tape has been altered then it is game over.

ps. If the Cons can prove the tape has been alter...

2008-03-29T10:20:00.000-07:00

ps. If the Cons can prove the tape has been altered in ANY way. case closed.

A few things:-Chuck Cadman thought he was in remis...

2008-03-29T10:06:00.000-07:00

A few things:

-Chuck Cadman thought he was in remission. (read that somewhere, in the leaked bio I think)

-Jodi said her Dad was VERY sick when he told her of a $1m life insurance policy.
Chuck gave no names, no witnesses to the offer, but a date 2 days before the vote (which has since been changed in the bio to 'sometime').
Did Chuck even know who the 'visitors' were?
If he didn't (couldn't) name them, what evidence is there (did Chuck have) that the 'visitors' were Conservative reps?.

-Cons insist that the 'offer' they made was on the day of the vote (and have proof of that visit) and know nothing about the alleged offer 2 days earlier.
Is there reason to not believe them?

-Why did Jodi and Dona not quiz Chuck further, get names and details of the alleged offer?
Were Jodi and Dona ever asked if they questioned Chuck on the details?
The first question asked by anyone hearing a story that enrages, is, WHO DID THAT!
Were they a bit sceptical, but did not want to press a very sick man (he had just had a treatment)?

-Dona has publicly stated she believed Chuck's story,
but also stated she believes PMSH did not know anything about an alleged $1m life insurance policy.
If one is the truth, both statements are truths.

-EVERYONE alive, to tell their side of the story, says there was no $1m life insurance offer,
or,
PMSH had no knowledge of a $1m life insurance policy,
or,
they just simply don't know anymore than they have already stated.

-The bio is meant for reader enjoyment, it is not a school text book.
Since the date of the alleged offer has been changed since the 'leaked' version, to 'sometime before...',
is it still evidence, or will it be thrown out?

-The alleged offer has no definite date, no names, no paper trail, and no witnesses, only hearsay and a taped interview, where PMSH truthfully admits to attempts to get Chuck back into the Conservative party.
Just a tape that the Liberals 'desire' to be interpreted as a $1m illegal offer.

My Dad called such things, 'trying to make honey out of horse s***'.