It had to be a pretty devastating blow to Dion and friends yesterday. I mean, at seven o'clock in the morning, a court bailiff shows up at your door to serve you with a notice of libel from the prime minister.
Then, a few hours later, the very woman who is the entire basis for your tireless crusade to associate the prime minister with the criminal act of bribery—your most recent glimmer of hope to drive the country into an election, and reap the political reward—totally blindsides you with a press release saying she believes Stephen Harper's side of the story.
Could anything get worse for Canada's ultimate, lame duck, opposition leader?
Now, I'm not exactly a legal expert. But it seems to me that the Liberals crossed the line when they posted what they did on their liberal.ca website. Stating as a fact: that Harper was aware of criminal activity within his own party, is not exactly a smart thing to do when you're relying purely on hearsay.
I am a little confused however, with an aspect of the Harper lawsuits. They name Stépahen Dion, Michael Ignatieff, and Ralph Goodale separately from the Liberal Party of Canada, in the complaint.
The complaints specifically outline statements published on the website, which in some cases, are attributed to the men in question. But it is not immediately clear if the specific quotes attributed to these men are quotations of statements that were said under the protection of parliamentary privilege. If this is the case, the suits against Dion, Ignatieff and Goodale could go nowhere.
As I pointed out though, the case against the party itself, seems very sound. Looking at the banners in question, the Liberal Party seems to have crossed a line. It will cost them.
Going directly after Stephen Harper was probably a fatal maneuver for the Liberals. They would have been best to go after the Conservative Party, in general. But they couldn't resist the urge to go directly for the biggest fish, and like with every other scandal they've attempted to pin to the Conservatives, the fishing line snapped before it was half-way reeled in.
In the end, the Liberal Party and Stéphane Dion will likely be forced to apologize to the Conservatives, if all they can come up with is hypothetical implications from the Harper tape, with sprinkles of hearsay on top.
I suggest Dion give Jason Cherniak a call. He has a bit of experience in these matters.
Minor correction:
"Stating as a fact: that Harper was aware of criminal activity within his own party, is not exactly a smart thing to do when you're relying purely on heresy."
I think that last word you want would be hearsay. Heresy is a deviation from doctrine so uncredible as to be declared a punishable offence.
Mike:
"an aspect of the Harper lawsuits"
I don't believe there are any extant lawsuits, as no statement of claim has been filed.
I think Gowlings probably understands parliamentary privilege, so it's likely that the statements were made outside of parliament, or the argument is that the individuals have repeated their comments outside the House via their own political organization. An interesting argument.
And then we get liberal Don Martin screaming at the PM to "Answer the damned question"?
So Don - I don't remember this kind of demand when the Liberals bribed Grewal on tape or when Paul Martin blatently paraded Belinda after he bribed her with a cabinet post.
HYPOCRASY from our press once again.
Maybe Dion, Goodale and Iggy made statements in their constituency, over the weekend, caught on tape, that are worthy of libel???
It's criminal to be part of a bribe, but knowing of it (hearsay) is not a criminal offense.
Libs have to prove that PMSH initiated/gave direction on a bribe for the case to go anywhere.
Hmmm...I'm going to have to add a few more names to the winners of my (daily? weekly?) "Liberal Hunting Dog of Excellence Award" given to the Liberal who tries the hardest, and fails the most spectacularly, in "getting" a Tory...
None of you care about the "financial considerations" that Harper spoke of in admitting knowledge of the Conservative party approach to Cadman prior to the vote?
None of you care about the "financial considerations" that Harper spoke of in admitting knowledge of the Conservative party approach to Cadman prior to the vote?
I think Harper explained that in the tape: "the financial considerations were only to replace" what he might have lost "in the even of an election."
ie. if the real reason he was going to vote for the government was out of financial fear (Mike Duffy has suggested as much) the Conservatives would try taking care of him, if he wanted to rejoin the party.
If anything, the Conservatives were offering less than the parliamentary benefits were offering him. So if anything, the "financial considerations" tied to rejoining the CPC, were modest. But saying to someone "if you want to come back to the CPC, we'll see what we can do to compensate you for any lost financial considerations, in the result of an election" is not exactly a bribe, anymore than saying to someone "if you want to come work for us, we'll pay for your moving expenses".
Harper clearly knew nothing about a $1 million life insurance policy, and it's clear that such an offer was ridiculous and never could have been fulfilled.
"Harper clearly knew nothing about a $1 million life insurance policy, and it's clear that such an offer was ridiculous and never could have been fulfilled."
Such an offer is not ridiculous, but it likely could not have been fulfilled. It is not ridiculous because it appears that it was made. It is not ridiculous for individuals trying to bribe an MP to also be trying pull a fast one over on the MP. It reads as a classic attempt to play to a dying man's fears. Dressing up valueless offers as being of value in order to trick people into making one-sided deals is sadly common enough is the world of deal-making.
As to what Harper knew, we seem so far stuck to his word, though his lack of a clear explanation as to what is meant by the phrase "financial considerations" is not helping him. Brock's claim that Harper's words are not ambiguous is not true. As Harper said, on tape, unedited (despite false claims by the CPC that the tape was):
"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."
and
"the offer to Chuck was that it was only to replace financial considerations he might lose due to an election"
And the current working theory is that the election could have lost Chuck Cadman's family a large hunk of insurance cash had he lost and died.
*
the timing here is auspicious... it may just be steffi's "lucky day".
*
There are some things I don't understand yet.
(1) The remarks made on liberal.ca seem to be quotes from the legislature. Is that so? Why would they not be protected? Are these the sole basis for the threat to sue.
(2) As OC asks, if a related party quotes protected comments outside of the legislature are they no longer protected? That seems unlikely but possible or maybe it's new ground.
(3) At what point is an inducement and inducement. A related questions is why would protection from costs associated with an election not be an inducement? I don't think it's similar to moving expenses in part because it is perfectly legal to offer financial inducements to employees and not to politicians.
(4) It's clear that Harper knew party representatives were going to approach Cadman. What did he approve as the scope of their conversation? Was that strictly legal, or a mistake, or something else? Did the representatives stay within their approved scope?
Re Don Martin's demand: And if PMSH did answer the question would you believe him? Answering Don Martin's question rates right up there with answering the question "Have you stopped beating your wife yet".
"Re Don Martin's demand: And if PMSH did answer the question would you believe him"
EXACTLY!!!
He has answered, it is just not the answers the opposition or the MSM want. Which means we will have to endure more of this until the next pseudo-scandal catches the Libs fancy.
I see this whole argument as pure fluff....right up until dion makes his 'apology' in the HOC.
there is no legal proof of anything. keep throwing 'poo' as long as they want, there is nothing but implied wrong-doing. Any DECENT liberal lawyer can see that this a non-issue and should council his clients to back away.
give it a week, or less....the apology will be forthcoming.
I forgot to mention, Dion is only hoping that this non-scandal will only last long enough to make a 'dent' in the minds of Canadians who don't really pay attention. He is hoping his apology will go un-noticed by the MSN...which it will.....