Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Well, that settles...not much, actually

It's far from the craziest thing to appear on the National Post's Full Comment page today. But since Jon Kay is happily pointing back to his old posts now that the RCMP has dropped its investigation into the Cadman affair, I'll point back to mine in an inevitably futile effort to stop his gloating.

That there won't be charges laid isn't exactly a shock. It's been obvious from the start that, with an apparent lack of any documentation, this thing wouldn't get very far in court. But it's unclear how this puts the matter to rest.

For that to happen, we'd still need a coherent explanation from Stephen Harper as to what he was talking about when he told Tom Zytaruk that party officials offered to "replace financial considerations [Cadman] might lose due to an election," and that those officials were acting on the theory that resolving concerns about "financial insecurity" might convince the late MP to help bring down the government.

The Prime Minister has been less than eager to offer that explanation, to say the least. The story may not have legs, since it's highly unlikely that any more evidence will emerge to move it forward. Also, we collectively have the attention spans of termites. But if a scandal stops being a scandal simply because it can't be proven in a court of law that something criminal happened, we sure are setting the ethical bar pretty low.

  1. Trillian Rand from Canada writes: Adam suggests: "But if a scandal stops being a scandal simply because it can't be proven in a court of law that something criminal happened, we sure are setting the ethical bar pretty low."

    As much as I agree with the sentiment, most people now clearly separate iniquity from criminal behaviour. And while the moral bar slips ever lower, our outrage toward criminal acts grows, the relationship between the two long ago forgotten or conveniently put aside.

    While many will question the moral difficulties a case such as this raises, any concern will quickly fade. No criminal act can be proven and the moral dilemmas are complicated. Something happened, no one's going to jail, let's move on.

    I know this will make me sound old, but it is truly unfortunate we don't hold each other as accountable for immorality as we do criminal activity. Of course, without an accepted standard, how can we?
  2. Michael Sharp from Victoria, Canada writes:

    How do you spell libel?

    L...
    I...
    B...
    E...
    R...
    A...
    L...

    This is gonna be great.
    I wish I could deliver the summons.

    Knock, knock, knock.
    Dion, opening the door, "Yes, who is it?"

    "Supoena-gram for Stephane, sign here."
  3. Michael Sharp from Victoria, Canada writes:

    When is a scandal not a scandal?

    When it's not a scandal, Adam.

    Gawd.

    This really rots your socks, doesn't it GTA-boy?
    The Liberal Party of Toronto not only has it's foot firmly planted in it's mouth, it just shot same foot.

    I'd love to be at the next Globe team meeting.

    What's the headline of the week?

    "Dion apologizes in House for being a weiner and congratulates the CPC for lowering GHGs when they did nothing."
    It's a mouthful, I admit, but then I don't work for a regional newspaper.

    Or a regional political party for that matter.
  4. spicydoc--That'll do, spicydoc, that'll do... from Canada writes:

    "But if a scandal stops being a scandal simply because it can't be proven in a court of law that something criminal happened, we sure are setting the ethical bar pretty low."

    Interesting.

    The LPC web page accused Harper of being a criminal (bribery is a crime, apparently). The RCMP says no crime has occered. The leftoids say it doesn't matter, Harper still smells bad.

    Let's wait for the next chapter. I think the chances of the LPC being guilty of Libel is a hundred times higher than the chances of Harper being guilty of bribery (actually, infinitely higher now).

    IF the LPC aren't convicted of libel for one reason or another, will Adam make the same 'low bar' comment?

    Doubt it--the LPC will bray about being exonerated of a frivolous 'libel chill' accusation by the nasty CPC.
  5. Michael Sharp from Victoria, Canada writes:

    And really?

    Is there, or is there not, a deafening silence from Liberal supporters right about now?

    A certain feeling of dread?

    The shoe is about to drop.
  6. Danny Williams discovers oil Stevie Harper taxes oil for it's owner ? from Canada writes:
    So liberals have to go to court to get an anwser . So what ? Taxpayers are not paying . Taxpayers get the simple answer that should have been cleared up when harper first was ask for an explaination .

    Michael : A certain feeling of dread ?? The shoe is about to drop. ??

    Michael : Dion apologizes in the House ?? Does the law suit name a person or a party ?
  7. Danny Williams discovers oil Stevie Harper taxes oil for it's owner ? from Canada writes:
    spicydoc--That'll do, spicydoc, that'll do... from Canada writes:

    IF the LPC aren't convicted of libel for one reason or another, will Adam make the same 'low bar' comment?

    Courts are sooooooooooo backed up ? Any ideas when this law suit will see light of day ?
    http://wiselaw.blogspot.com/2008/03/stephen-harper-v-liberal-party-of.html
    Harper filed a 32-page Statement of Claim in Ontario Superior Court of Justice at Ottawa, naming the Liberal Party of Canada and others as Defendants.

    The Prime Minister did not sue Mr. Dion or other Liberals personally.
    Once the Defendants have been personally served with Prime Minister's Statement of Claim, each must file a Statement of Defence within 20 days. A 10 day extension of this deadline may be obtained by any Defendant who delivers a short pleading known as a Notice of Intent to Defend.
  8. Danny Williams discovers oil Stevie Harper taxes oil for it's owner ? from Canada writes:
    http://farnwide.blogspot.com/2008/03/this-will-become-biggest-error-in.html

    "Legal Eagle", Joe Comartin of the NDP sees the same thing:

    "I must admit, it's very surprising, and maybe a good sign in terms of lowering the temperature, that Mr.Dion, Mr. Ignatieff, Mr. Goodale who had been named in the notice, haven't been named in the lawsuit...So, they're not on the hook personally, so maybe that's a sign that the Prime Minister is backing off"
  9. diane marie from calgary, Canada writes: Mr. Harper should back off because for him to claim that his reputation has been sullied whilst he's simultaneously approved of the notaleader campaign, ad nauseum and at considerable expense, would make him look like a complete hypocrite. And then there's that driveway tape, which adequately conveys in Mr. Harper's liberal (no pun intended) use of hums and haws that he was aware that he was on fraught ground. There has never been sufficient legal evidence despite plentiful circumstantial evidence and the one person who, under oath, could provide the final and unequivocal say, has left this mortal coil. Nevertheless, a coil remains wrapped around the CPC's feet.
  10. B C from Canada writes: Did Mr Harper ever answer the question about whether it was his voice on the driveway tape? A yes or no answer will suffice. Thanks.
  11. Dr Riff from Toronto, Canada writes: yeah it's a coil at his feet all right, a coil of stinky doo-doo laid by liberals.
  12. diane marie from calgary, Canada writes: Dr Riff:-- No l/Liberal mentioned "financial considerations" - the Prime Minister did. On tape. I don't believe that there was a Liberal gun pointed at his head at the time, nor one forcing the two unnamed CPC vultures to descend upon Mr. Cadman.
  13. Bobby Dy from Canada writes: It took the CPC about two weeks to concoct the story about an offer to offset campaign expenses. The CPC continue to evade questions on the issue of what the PM said. As pointed out in an editorial some time ago, this is unlikely to go to court. Why? Because Harper would have to subject himself to cross examination in a court of law where he wouldn't be able to obfuscate and engage in rhetoric. Harper has more to lose.

    The LPC already filed their statement of defense. Basically, they point out that they were merely repeating what the Cadmans were publicly stating. Why haven't the CPC sued the Cadmans? They were the ones propagating the allegations. If the Cadmans are dishonest, why haven't the CPC dismissed Dona Cadman as their candidate? Are they suggesting that they support someone they imply has slandered them and has been dishonest about the whole affair? Are they suggesting that Cadman was not the honest man of integrity that he is widely believed to be?

    It's no surprise that charges were not laid. For charges to be laid, someone within the CPC would have had to implicate themselves. This answers nothing. If they have nothing to hide, they will proudly subject themselves to examination at committee but it doesn't look like that will happen any time soon.
  14. Al Suba from Canada writes: Last week the British Ministry of Defense released a few tons of hitherto secret documents relating to investigations into alleged UFO sighting, all of which came up empty. There too, the the lefties used the lack of evidence indicating the existence of UFO's as proof of a cover-up.
  15. Michael Sharp from Victoria, Canada writes:

    "B C from Canada writes: Did Mr Harper ever answer the question about whether it was his voice on the driveway tape? A yes or no answer will suffice. Thanks."

    Does, "whatevvver', work for you?
    Final answer.

    Won't it be great to see Dion on the stand?

    No charges.
    Libel.

    Fracking A.
  16. Catherine Wilkie from Canada writes: Exactly, Mr. Radwanski. The RCMP had little choice but to drop the investigation, as they had done previously with Mr. Mulroney.
    When it boils down to someone telling the truth and being accountable, and they don't, it's hard to proceed.
    But, Harper should address his own voice on tape stating that 'financial considerations' were offered to Mr. Cadman.
    We've all seen folks get away with actions by being abstract about their behaviour. Things have a way of catching up with them, though.
    Who would want to live in Mr. Mulroney's skin?
  17. w sykora from Canada writes: Stop your crowing already, Michael Sharp. Harper is a liar and 2 million seniors that were damaged by his broken promise on income trusts will never forgive and forget.

    Like George W. has done to the once great G.O.P., Harper and his goons are destroying the Conservative brand.

    From someone who once voted Conservative...
  18. R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    Adam suggests: "But if a scandal stops being a scandal simply because it can't be proven in a court of law that something criminal happened, we sure are setting the ethical bar pretty low."

    The bar was set low when the organizers of ADSCAM were left unscathed.....so far......
    .
  19. True North from Canada writes: Harper's government cannot be trusted.
  20. Geiseric the Lame from Canada writes: OJ lost the civil case.

    By Harper's own doing this if far from over.
  21. Bobby Dy from Canada writes: Michael Sharp, Stephane Dion is not listed, nor are any other LPC MPs listed, in the lawsuit. The only politician required to testify in the civil suit will be Mr. Harper. He has much to lose.
  22. Michael Sharp from Victoria, Canada writes:

    Bobby Dy.

    The LPC called Harper a criminal on their website.
    No charges.

    What part of libel are you failing to understand?

    Big doo doo for the LPC.
    Doo doo rex.

    Cadmangate is now on the other foot.

    Elections Canada is in big doo doo, too.

    Yoo hoo, big doo doo for you, Bobby Sue.
  23. Michael Sharp from Victoria, Canada writes:

    Let's put this another way.

    Can there be any doubt that the bulk of time in Liberal caucus meetings is spent discussing the prospects for the next, latest, greatest scandal to impale the CPC with?

    I'll bet they don't do anything else.

    And...
    It's becoming obvious that they have stooped to making scandals up and then being stupid enough to smear libellously.

    Now...

    You don't think the CPC have dirt on the Liberals as well?
    Real dirt, not fake dirt.

    Only, they will be smart enough to bring those out on the campaign trail.

    When it counts.

    Dion doesn't understand hockey.
    Harper does.

    Dion can't play for 60 minutes.
    It's over before the puck is dropped.
  24. Bert Russell Paradox, BC from Canada writes:

    Lieberals are like Bush on an small iceberg heading south, denial denial de....
  25. sol levin from Canada writes: I feel sorry for M. Sharp. He seems lonely.

    "He just said, 'I have something to tell you,' and he told me that he was offered a life insurance policy, that my mom and myself would be taken care of,"

    -Jodi Cadman

    "I hope eventually the RCMP will find out who offered what"

    "Chuck never told me who they were. I'm in the dark as much as anyone else and it would be nice to know who these two people were. They could be just yahoos."

    -Dona Cadman
  26. Shawn Bull from Canada writes: Adam said, "We'd still need a coherent explanation from Stephen Harper as to what he was talking about when he told Tom Zytaruk that party officials offered to "replace financial considerations [Cadman] might lose due to an election." ...which I agree with. There has been a rumour that two members of the Conservative party may have broken the law. The PM needs to answer what he meant and clear the air.

    Diane MArie said "Mr. Harper should back off because for him to claim that his reputation has been sullied whilst he's simultaneously approved of the notaleader campaign, ad nauseum and at considerable expense, would make him look like a complete hypocrite."...no, that is completely seperate situations. A negative campaign, that every party has run both past and present, versus stating publicly that the PM knowingly broke the law is not even in the same solar system.
  27. Geiseric the Lame from Canada writes: Shawn Bull from Canada writes: "...versus stating publicly that the PM knowingly broke the law is not even in the same solar system."

    The liberal web site does NOT say that.
  28. Shawn Bull from Canada writes: Geiseric the Lame from Canada writes: Shawn Bull from Canada writes: "...versus stating publicly that the PM knowingly broke the law is not even in the same solar system."

    The liberal web site does NOT say that.

    ----------------------------------
    I know, the Liberals had to take the liabalous statement down. That's why Harper is suing them for having it there originally.
  29. Geiseric the Lame from Canada writes: Shawn Bull from Canada writes: "I know, the Liberals had to take the liabalous statement down."

    http://www.liberal.ca/story13642e.aspx

    Its a pity you have nothing better to do besides tell lies.
  30. Shawn Bull from Canada writes: Geiseric the Lame from Canada: The link did not work but it did pull me up to a the Liberal site map. I don;t get your point.

    Geiseric, it is very well know that about two months ago the Liberals accussed Harper on their website of him knowing about and allowing a $1 million insurance policy bribe to Cadman. Harper warned them to remove and is now suing the Liberal party for posting this. The Liberals since have withdrawn this from their website.

    Even the most partisan Liberal knows this and doesn't refute that they did this. It was all over the papers. You must have been out of town at the time.
  31. Geiseric the Lame from Canada writes: hmph

    bbs system kills underscores

    http://www.liberal.ca/story13642e.aspx

    point is they haven't dropped the story from the site and now you're just making stuff up.
  32. Geiseric the Lame from Canada writes:
    grr

    I'll try again...

    http://www.liberal.ca/story(underscore)13642(underscore)e.aspx

    or you can paste...

    "Harper Knew of Conservative Bribery" into Google with the quotes and hit "I'm Feeling Lucky". The story isn't dropped, its just been rotated into the waybacks along with everything else. You'll find the article very particular in its wording and not at all presumptuous in its contentions.

    for starters, it doesn't even assume Harper knew it WAS a bribe. (consistent with Dion's first QP: "what was he thinking?")

    It DOES state accurately what Dona has said and still maintains. There's no law against that as long as its "reasonably believable". Personally, I'm not looking forward to reading about Harper's lawyers shredding Dona on the stand.
  33. Michael Sharp from Victoria, Canada writes:

    No charges.

    It's settled.

    But for the LPC alleged libel.

    That's far from settled,
  34. sol levin from Canada writes: I still feel sorry for M. Sharp.

    "if he died I'd get the million dollars,"

    "There was a few other things thrown in there too."

    - Dona Cadman
    Conservative Candidate
  35. David Griffith from Canada writes: Adam: the RCMP has investigated this and found no criminal wrong doing. What part of that don't you get? Or perhaps its because its a Liberal-concocted "scandal" that failed that's eating you?

    These Liberal-generated faux scandals (they want their own Sponsorgate, don't you get it?) are now coming home to roost, showing the Libs for what they are, a political equivalent of a cheap tabloid. Now lets see REAL justic served when the Libs get their sorry a$$es whooped in the libel suit against them. You play with fire...
  36. Michael Sharp from Victoria, Canada writes:

    sol levin from Canada, astutely, reminds us of something.
    sol gives us a quote:
    "There was a few other things thrown in there too."
    - Dona Cadman
    Conservative Candidate

    Rumour has it sol, that a new washer and dryer were promised as well as acomplete make-over of the living room and their Dodge Caravan was going to be "pimped up" into a new ride.

    A quick thought sol-baby.
    Does that say, Dona Cadman, "Conservative" candidate?

    Could you be any thicker?
  37. sol levin from Canada writes: Come on M. Sharp, be nice.

    "He just said 'I have something to tell you,' and he told me that he was offered a life insurance policy, that my mom and myself would be taken care of,"

    "When he told me, actually I have to admit I burst into tears because the position he was put in,"

    - Jodi Cadman
  38. vid ingelevics from Canada writes: The ever-gracious Mr. Sharp said:

    "Can there be any doubt that the bulk of time in Liberal caucus meetings is spent discussing the prospects for the next, latest, greatest scandal to impale the CPC with?"

    One has to laugh. Do you think anyone has to invent new scandals for the Accountability Party? Come on, Mr. Sharp. Live up to your name.
  39. ronin x from vancouver, Canada writes: C'mon you CON supporters - tell me how big a liar Dona Cadman, (widow to the only Reform member that didn't shed his values to become a Bush/Mulroney acolyte) is?

    You are so desperate for this to go away, you even have to insinuate Dona Cadman is a Liberal plant?! (see Sharp, 02:14)

    Tell me how the evil Liberals put words in Steven "I'm gonna sue you" Harper's mouth on the tape? By the way, when I was a kid in my town the biggest weenies were the ones that said "I'll sue you!" as a defence on the playground.

    It'll be fun to see how Steve-o's trial lawyer grills Dona Cadman on the stand... years from now.
  40. Geiseric the Lame from Canada writes: David Griffith from Canada writes: "...the RCMP has investigated this and found no criminal wrong doing..."

    wow

    that sounds so conclusive when its watered down like that. What the RCMP says they found is that...

    "The investigation disclosed no evidence to support a charge under the Criminal Code or under the Parliament of Canada Act." - C/supt. Serge Therriault. Just because a crime can't be prosecuted doesn't mean it didn't happen.
  41. r b from Calgary, Canada writes: At least one of the Cadmans is, or was, a liar regarding his affair.

    This is irrefutable. Two opposing versions have been told, attributed to the same source (Chuck Cadman). So either one of Chuck's versions was a lie, or the family members are lying in attributing to him the contradictory version.

    Rather a simple if-then-else proposition.

    But deductive reasoning and the use of logic is not a Liberal's strong suit, so don't get too absorbed in this issue.
  42. r b from Calgary, Canada writes: At least one of the Cadmans is, or was, a liar regarding his affair.

    This is irrefutable. Two opposing versions have been told, attributed to the same source (Chuck Cadman). So either one of Chuck's versions was a lie, or the family members are lying in attributing to him the contradictory version.

    Rather a simple if-then-else proposition.

    But deductive reasoning and the use of logic is not a Liberal's strong suit, so don't get too absorbed in this issue.
  43. Vancouver-Kingsway Antics-Shy Voter from Canada writes: I await Stephen Harper in court explaining the tape. What did he mean when he talked about the offer to Chuck? What did he mean when he talked about financial considerations? What was Harper after when he said "make the case"? What case, Mr. Harper? Did he know? Did he not know? What do those words mean?

    Good thing Canada still has courts, eh?
  44. Michael Sharp from Victoria, Canada writes:

    Yadda yadda yadda.

    No charges.

    LPC: Harper is a criminal.
    CPC: He is not. Libel.

    Yadda yadda yadda.

    CPC 45.
    LPC 19.

    Watch and see.
  45. Vancouver-Kingsway Antics-Shy Voter from Canada writes: So, rb, Dona Cadman is a liar, and Stephen Harper is endorsing her to run in her dead husband's riding. What does that say about either one of them that can even be lipsticked up to look pretty?
  46. Michael Sharp from Victoria, Canada writes:

    Vancouver-Kingsway Antics-Shy Voter from Canada?

    Why would Harper have to explain the tapes?
    There are no charges.
    There has been no criminal wrongdoing.
    Why does Harper have to explain anything?

    NO CHARGES.
    It is Dion who has some explaining to do.

    Sucks to be Dion.

    Sucks to be a Liberal.

    Sucks to be you.
  47. Vancouver-Kingsway Antics-Shy Voter from Canada writes: The discovery will tell the tale. When Stephen Harper is asked about who was pressing Cadman and if they were Harper Conservatives, Harper answers in the affirmative: "... They were legitimately representing the party..."

    I await the explanation of the tape, as do many, many Canadians.
  48. Vancouver-Kingsway Antics-Shy Voter from Canada writes: "Make the case" Stephen Harper said, on tape. What case? Canadians are asking questions and Canadians demand answers. If it takes Stephen Harper on the stand in a court of law, Canadians will get the answers.
  49. Vancouver-Kingsway Antics-Shy Voter from Canada writes: Tapes? Michael Sharp, are there more tapes? Oh, dear dear dear dear dear dear. Are there more than the Zytaruk interview tape that Harper has to worry about? Did Harper Conservative nominee Dona Cadman have a tape of her own? Is that why she's still a contender in the Harper Conservative party even while the Harper Conservatives are doing their best to make her out to be a lying wingnut?

    Truly, this case needs to see a court of law, with jury, before any Canadian can have any confidence in the current government, or those "legitimately representing the Party" don't you think?

    Tapes? Which other tapes? M. Sharp, can you tell us?
  50. Geiseric the Lame from Canada writes: Michael Sharp from Victoria, Canada writes: "...LPC: Harper is a criminal..."

    they never said that.
  51. Compos Mentis from ...in the Darwinian Wild, Wild West, Canada writes: David Griffith from Canada writes: "Adam: the RCMP has investigated this and found no criminal wrong doing. What part of that don't you get? Or perhaps its because its a Liberal-concocted "scandal" that failed that's eating you? ..." David, do you not remember Mr. Mulroney's trial? When he swore under oath that he had no financial dealings with Herr Schreiber? The RCMP could not prove he had. We only found this out once Mr. Mulroney late filed the $300K (or $225K, depends on which liar you believe) on his income tax which Herr Schreiber pointed out once he decided to "cooperate" with the government (for his own best interests, naturally). The point I'm trying to make is that unless someone from the CPC confesses, the RCMP cannot force anyone to reveal the truth. "These Liberal-generated faux scandals (they want their own Sponsorgate, don't you get it?) are now coming home to roost, showing the Libs for what they are, a political equivalent of a cheap tabloid. Now lets see REAL justic served when the Libs get their sorry a$$es whooped in the libel suit against them. You play with fire... " Now who's assuming guilt here? Just because a lawsuit has been launched, that doesn't mean anyone is actually guilty. Mr. Harper still has to prove his case. The burden of proof rests with Mr. Harper, not the LPC.
  52. Fake Name from Canada writes: Michael Sharp ... Harper would be a lot smarter to take this as vindication and let the story die than to continue pursuing the libel suit. Regardless of what truly happened, it would be tactically stupid to provide the liberals a courtroom drama venue to drag the "financial considerations" tape back into the media limelight and argue that replaced financial considerations are by definition bribes.

    Even assuming harper wins the libel suit, giving the tape further airtime and attention would likely do more harm than the libel winnings would be worth, and could even create an impression that he got away with something on a technicality. Much wiser to let the story die completely.
  53. Fake Name from Canada writes: " Vancouver-Kingsway Antics-Shy Voter from Canada writes: "Make the case" Stephen Harper said, on tape. What case? Canadians are asking questions and Canadians demand answers. If it takes Stephen Harper on the stand in a court of law, Canadians will get the answers."

    Naive. Do you really think ANY politician would bat an eyelid at the prospect of lying in court?
  54. Geiseric the Lame from Canada writes: Compos Mentis from ...in the Darwinian Wild, Wild West, Canada writes: "...The burden of proof rests with Mr. Harper, not the LPC."

    actually, not quite. In a libel case the onus is on the defendant to justify his remarks. In this case considering what's being challenged the tape covers that requirement quite sufficiently. Harper, by his own admission, gave direction to an approach that involved financial considerations.
  55. Kathleen Degelder from Tacomawashington, Canada writes: What is missing from this: Is that this issue is in court right now.
    A civil lawsuit against the LPC. Is this news paper reporting news or an activist Liberal news paper?

Join the Conversation, Leave a Comment

This conversation is semi-moderated What is moderation? | How do I report a comment?

You must be logged-in to submit a comment — login now!

Not registered with globeandmail.com? Register now. It is quick and free.

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to Adam Radwanski

Back to top