He knows nothing ...

Over to Cathie's with you. She picked up on the thought I was having this morning. The late John Banner's character, Hauptfeldwebel Hans Georg Schultz, became synonymous with seeing nothing and knowing nothing in the TV sitcom Hogan's Heroes.

As Cathie points out:

We're supposed to believe that not only did Harper know nothing about Wright's $90,000 cheque to Duffy, he also knew nothing about the previous plan to get the Conservative Party to pay Duffy's expenses and he knew nothing about the phone call to the auditors to try to stop the Duffy audit.

Do come back so you can hit this link to Buckdog, who directs us to today's PMO load of garbage.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper had no idea his staff had asked the Conservative Party to pay Sen. Mike Duffy’s ineligible expenses, his spokesperson said Sunday.

 Right. He saw nothing. He heard nothing. He knew ... nothing.

Another connection, and this is relevant for any number of reasons. The Cadman affair. You can get more of that one over at Creekside, and do pay close attention to the names.

In short, Harper has a history of being in the centre of bribery attempts and ... knowing nothing.

What was doctored Stevie?

Doesn't sound like that tape was. In fact, given your testimony, it sounds like your little lawsuit may come back to bite you squarely on the ass. (emphasis mine)

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has testified that he personally authorized an offer made to late MP Chuck Cadman in 2005 for help defeating the Liberal government.

In sworn testimony filed Wednesday in Ontario Superior Court, Harper said it happened after he heard Cadman was willing to side with the Tories but couldn't because of financial distress and fear of losing an election.

It was Harper's first detailed account of his role in the so-called Cadman affair and, during four hours of testimony, he offered two different versions of when he first learned about Cadman's financial troubles.

Harper said he approved the overture to Cadman on May 18, 2005, the day before a crucial confidence vote, after receiving a message from his top political organizer and campaign manager, Doug Finley.

Harper testified during a cross-examination in his $3.5-million libel suit against the Liberal party that he gave permission for Finley to speak to Cadman, a former Conservative, even though he was sure Cadman was going to support the Liberals in the confidence vote.

This is Harper's only lengthy explanation of his actions in the Cadman affair – allegations that Conservative representatives offered Cadman a $1-million insurance policy to help defeat the Liberals.

Harper testified that he personally met Cadman on April 1 that year in an attempt to coax him back to the Conservative fold, after having authorized a similar approach by former Tory MP John Reynolds as early as the previous fall.

Under cross-examination by the Liberal party lawyer, Harper initially said Finley informed him about Cadman's worries over finances and life insurance the following September.

So which is it, Stevie?

As Chrystal says, this may lead to yet another lawsuit.

Cadman... the name rings a bell.

Why has the Chuck Cadman bribery issue suddenly fallen off the radar?

It's not dead yet. Harper and his merry band of sycophants still haven't answered the questions put to them.

I don't care if the news media is tired of it. Sometimes you have to do a boring repetitive job to achieve the end.

Get on with it.

A wide variety of "No comments".

by Alison

from the scandal we wish everyone would quit calling "Cadscam" :

On Wednesday Harper's office released a statement : "The then-leader of the Opposition [Harper] looked into the matter with party officials and could find no confirmation."

You will recall that former Con MP John Reynolds, who was also Harper's campaign manager, facilitated the meeting at which Finlay and Flanagan are alleged to have offered the $1M bribe to the late Chuck Cadman.

Asked about the incident, former Conservative MP John Reynolds told Canwest News Service he did not wish to comment.
"I'm not involved in politics anymore,"said Mr. Reynolds. "I have no comment at all."

Later Reynolds remarked to CBC : "the story seems fishy." and "Sounds to me like some kind of fiction story."

OK then, anyone else?

"Ryan Sparrow, a Conservative party spokesman, refused to comment on the allegations."

"Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said he's never heard anything about any buyout. "I've never even spoken with Chuck Cadman," he said."

"Jay Hill, now the Conservative government whip and Opposition whip at the time of the vote in question, told NaPo he had never heard of the events," which he also characterized later as a case of "unfortunate miscommunication" and "a so-called make-believe fairy-tale scandal."

Con MP and Treasury Board chairman Vic Toews : "He [Cadman] cared about legislation not money. We've heard this story for years. It's bullshit."

Defence Minister Peter MacKay was deputy Con leader at the time of the alleged offer : "I don't know anything about how this has come about. Certainly it was something that I was not involved with,'' said MacKay, "I think it's sad, quite frankly, that this seems to have come up. It's very unfortunate.''

Ok, so it didn't happen but if it did, it isn't true. Got it.

Dona Cadman speaks of speaking with Harper

Dona Cadman issued a statement today which even further twists the Cadman controversy:

Dona Cadman said Monday she believed Stephen Harper when he told her he didn't know about a million-dollar life insurance policy she alleges the Conservatives offered her late husband, Independent MP Chuck Cadman.

"I recall specifically asking him if he was aware of a million-dollar insurance policy offer that upset Chuck so much," she said in a news release issued Monday.

"He looked me straight in the eyes and told me he had no knowledge of an insurance policy offer," she said, recalling a conversation from more than two years ago. "I knew he was telling me the truth; I could see it in his eyes. He said, yes, he'd had some discussions with two individuals about asking Chuck to rejoin the party, but he'd told them they were wasting their time trying to convince Chuck."

Let's see now... this whole thing bubbled to the surface last Wednesday afternoon. Thursday: nothing. Friday: nothing. Through the weekend: nothing. Monday: Harper serves notice of a libel suit on Dion.

Interestingly though, Dona Cadman felt strongly enough about the "offer" made by two Conservative party operators that she felt she had to confront Harper.

And I probably don't have to explain, given the lengthy gap between Dona Cadman's original statement and now, what this looks like.

No. I didn't think so.

Update: Via Scott, CTV Ottawa bureau chief, Robert Fife, sees the same gap I do and then makes this point:

Robert Fife, CTV's Ottawa bureau chief, told Newsnet that Harper never volunteered information about that exchange when the story broke last week.

Harper claims libel

Isn't this amazing!

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has filed a libel lawsuit against Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion and the Liberal Party of Canada over the Chuck Cadman affair.

The Liberals have asked for a criminal investigation amid allegations that the Conservatives, under then Opposition Leader Harper, offered a financial incentive to Cadman, an Independent MP before his death in 2005, to sway his vote in a crucial Commons showdown that year.

Cadman's widow, Dona, now a Conservative candidate running in Surrey North in B.C., says the incentive was a $1-million life-insurance policy, and she considered it a bribe.

Cadman sided with the Liberals in the vote, and kept then Prime Minister Paul Martin in office for a few more months.

None of the allegations, which are contained in a soon-to-be-released book, has been proven.

So, to get this straight, Harper and his party of smear have just engaged out-of-date laws as a means of shutting down the debate. The politics got too hot for Harper so his only defense is to make himself the victim. (Notice of libel from Harper's lawyers. PDF)

What you can expect now is that when questioned about the Cadman affair, Harper's only answer will be that the case is "before the courts" and he can't comment on it.

Strange how the Conservatives forget the use of Parliamentary Privilege when they can't use it. Say Alan Riddell as many times as you can without puking.

To quote Ken Chapman back in May of 2007, this is the Conservatives employing tactics "somewhere between Monty Python and the Sopranos".

Update: Pretty Shaved Ape weighs in. Bruce is fed up. Nottawa exposes a disturbing Harper habit. Steve V sees a cornered animal. Scott points out the weakness in Harper's claim. Zorpheous invokes Batman. Robert sees a Conservative pattern.

Now they're pulling straws from the manure pile

Coincidence?

This is looking like a new and unbelievably low talking point being flung around by the Conservatives as they try to defend themselves in the Cadman bribery scandal.

Dona Cadman's campaign manager, Bill Zemianski, had this to say in reference to Chuck Cadman's state of mind just before he died and during the attempt to allegedly buy his vote: (Video)

Mr. Cadman was under a lot of medication. He was dying and very often very irrational. But there often was a lot of stress.

Via Kady we learn that at about the same time CTV's Mike Duffy was interviewing Jodi Cadman and this happened: (Video)

DUFFY: "You don't think there's any possibility that your dad, with pain medication and whatever, somehow might have been a little fuzzy-minded at the time he told you the story?"

JODI CADMAN: "I think that's a valid question, um, I have to say no because he told my mother the same thing. We were not all in the same room, these happened on different occasions. He even spoke to my husband about it afterwards. I wasn't in the room at all, so there's three different occasions, three different people, the same story told."

The idea was quickly debunked by Simon Fraser University political science professor , Paddy Smith, as being terribly late in the game and not congruous with Chuck Cadman's apparent state of mind in the days leading up to the confidence vote.

That same talking point is starting to appear in the comments section of "Canada's Best Blogger". (No. I'm not linking to it.)

By the way, when you go to the link to Kady, read the bottom of that post.

The score? We're not sure yet.

Dear Josh,

Good question.

So for all you Canadians who've been entertained over the years by our scandalous politics, please give us the low-down. What's the score?

Basically, there isn't one yet. Your post covers most of what is important to the issue and your analysis of "an admission wrapped in a denial" is pretty much what we see at the moment.

I agree. We owe you for years of scandal which has amused, entertained, terrified and shocked. Truly, it's been a spectator sport for us, although the occasional puck comes off the ice and hits one of us in the mouth. Those of us without a beer mug to our lips to break the impact end up loosing a tooth or two.

I'll start by saying that it has been an interesting week here. Sandra Buckler, our prime minister's communications director... ok, spin doctor, is probably overwhelmed at this point. I'll get back to that in a moment, but suffice to say that in the normal course of a week she's only ever had to deal with one bubbling issue at a time. This week three little nasties are swirling around the drain and she seems to have misplaced her plunger. JJ has put together an excellent summary which should frame that point.

For a close look at the Cadman scandal, Kady O'Malley has a good take on it. Start here and then go here, here and here. To wrap where we are at the time of writing is in Kady's post here.

As you can see, there is evidence piling up, including audio tapes of interviews with Stephen Harper, when he was leader of the opposition in Parliament, which implicate Harper in a bribery scheme to buy Chuck Cadman's vote when he sat as an independent member of parliament and was the one deciding vote that could cause the Liberal government of the day to either survive or fail. The rush to get his vote was predicated on one very ugly fact: Chuck Cadman was terminally ill and had only weeks to live.

The Conservative Party talking point, issued by Sandra Buckler, is to question the tape. You might refer to that as pure desperation. Nobody believes that line of thought, including the Conservatives themselves. This is where you see how Buckler has become overwhelmed and caught on the toilet with her knickers around her knees. She has ducked all direct questions regarding the incident and has tried to impeach the messenger. When asked about the "life insurance policy" and Harper's involvement and knowledge she produces... nothing. Yes, there are strawmen flying apart all over the place and Sandra is grasping at the bits of them that fly by.

There is some depth, Josh, which you would not know about. The fact that Chuck Cadman was near death weighed heavily on him and it was a part of his motivation for keeping the Liberal government alive. If he voted to bring the government down, Parliament would be prorogued and an election writ drawn up. That means that his status as an MP ends and, given the nature of his health, there was very little likelihood that he would have survived long enough to resume a seat in parliament. As long as he was a sitting MP, he remained entitled to a death benefit equal to approximately two years salary. That would be measured in hundreds of thousands of dollars; not the $1 million allegedly offered. Cadman made it clear in a couple of interviews that his personal financial situation was his primary motivation for not bringing down the Liberal government. I hate to speculate on the mindset of a man now dead, (and, I might add, a scrupulously honest man), but it seems that he felt the world, and the Conservatives, could wait for him to die. It wasn't going to be a long wait.

But in order for a minority government to fall, Parliament must vote "no confidence" in the government. That means either a direct motion from the floor or a bill which carries the weight of confidence with it.

That was what Harper had before him and there was no guarantee that another one would come along any time soon. So, it's worth reading The Gazetteer's input on this. Powerlust.

There is a twist. In fact, it's a big twist.

Dona Cadman, Chuck's widow, is the candidate for the Conservative Party in Surrey North. But Dona Cadman has been clear that everything being said about the attempt to bribe Chuck Cadman is true. That puts her at odds with the denials now coming from the Prime Minister's Office. Given the fact that she is actually a Conservative Party member and candidate, but is willing to verify the allegations of bribery is the power behind the scandal.

So the Conservatives have a problem. If they deny the allegations completely they're calling one of their own a liar. To most Canadians, Dona Cadman is the beacon of truth in this issue.

I know what you're thinking. Why don't the Conservatives write off Dona Cadman, and her family, and just ratchet up the denials? That is, after all, what Karl Rove would do.

Simply put, there's too much evidence to support Dona Cadman's story to make her out as anything but truthful. That's why Buckler started to question the taped interview. She can't call the Cadman family liars if there is corroboration in the form of tapes and... heh, the interviews by two prominent journalists with Chuck Cadman prior to his death.

Nevertheless, some of Harper's supporters have started to demand that the Cadmans be "placed under a microscope". That is quickly dispatched as being completely unnecessary. Dona Cadman did not make the initial allegation. That was done in a book by Tom Zytaruk. Dona simply agreed that what Zytaruk wrote was correct.

I could add that this scandal may appear mild by American standards set by the current Republican party. That's actually another point.

The Conservative Party of Canada is a rather different beast than Canadians have had in the past. They have patterned themselves after the US GOP and, something new, they started importing Republican political strategists to advise them.

Harper even had brought in Republican advisers, such as political consultant Frank Luntz, to give pointers on how the Conservative Party could become as dominant in Canada as the GOP was in the United States.

Yes. I know. A chill just went down your spine at the sight of that name. He's just one of them. The parade of Republicans through Conservative strategy sessions has been fairly constant.

Thus, where Canadians have always focused on substance in politics, these guys brought in the politics of fear and sleaze. That's not to say that the other side didn't engage in the same thing. It was the level of it which struck many of us. To be honest Josh, it was the kind of discourse of which we were aware but from which we thought we were immune. It was the kind of stuff we thought only happened in that place inside the "Beltway".

Harper rose to power in government on something of a backlash. No matter what anyone says, his plurality and minority government came as a result of a Liberal financial scandal that occurred in the government of Jean Chretien. His party was elected on a punishment vote. Notwithstanding, he only received 36% of the popular vote. Most of those who voted (and the turn out was abysmally low) cast their ballots for something else.

What Harper offered was clean, transparent and accountable government. He was good at displaying disgust at the antics of the Liberals who had clearly engaged in corrupt schemes of their own. What makes this whole bribery scandal so disturbing, even to some of his supporters, is that at the same time he was tearing apart the Liberals for their behaviour, he appears to have sanctioned the same kind of behaviour by operators in his own party. In short, he was and is a hypocrite.

To sum up, Josh, the RCMP are now investigating complaints and the Parliamentary Ethics Committee has been requested by all three opposition parties to probe the Cadman bribery scandal.

Harper's Conservatives have yet to answer direct questions regarding financial offers made to Chuck Cadman. They have not explained how a terminally ill man could be covered with a $1 million "life insurance policy". Most of us believe that is an analogous term the Conservatives used. No licensed underwriter would issue such a policy. It's like calling your Rottweiler "Homeowner's Insurance".

And that's where we are, Josh. Glad we could offer a diversion from things in your neck of woods, but remember, if Jon Stewart was commenting on this he would give us all a look and then say, "You call that a scandal?!!"

Yup.

I have this handful of nails...

And I'm not sure what to do with them.

1. A long nail with a big head. A duffy spike;

2. A short nail that's going to require a good aim;

3. A crooked nail that's going to need some straightening;

4. A finishing nail that matches the colour of the wood;

5. An extra nail which can help support the load.

Get me two pieces of wood.

CTV interview with Dona Cadman and Tom Zytaruk

The audio of the interview with Dona Cadman today is right here. Steve V has the transcript. It's well worth reading.

Ms. Cadman verifies the story contained in Zytaruk's book which says that her late husband, independent MP Chuck Cadman was offered a $1 million life insurance policy for his vote to bring down the minority Liberal government in 2005.

Steve's post also brings up an interview between CTV's Mike Duffy and author Tom Zytaruk. The CTV video is here (includes the Cadman interview). Duffy reveals a private conversation he had with Chuck Cadman where Cadman expressed that he would not bring down the Liberals because he wanted to make sure that his parliamentary life insurance payout occurred while he was still a sitting MP. Knowing that he was going to die, the insurance was clearly on his mind.

That little bit of information connects some new dots. Steve V in his own comments picked up on it immediately.

Duffy was trying to tone down the story, offering up a conversation he had with Cadman, wherein he said he didn't want to vote against the budget, for fear he would lose his seat in an election and the insurance he had as an MP because of it. Duffy said Cadman was concerned that he would die and his wife would suffer. What nobody has picked up, Duffy actually connects some dots here. If Cadman was concerned about his insurance as an MP, then it what better way to allay his fears in voting with the Cons, than to offer him assurance on that score. Insurance was on Cadman's mind, according to Duffy, which puts the offer into complete context.

Cadman's survivor benefit, unless I have this mistaken, would have been approximately 2 years annual salary as a member of parliament. That would make a $1 million offer more - much more.

This thing is starting to breathe on its own.

They have turd-blossom. We have the turd.

Stephen Harper, and everything that stands with him represent the worst politics has to offer. Via Blast Furnace Canada and Far and Wide we learn that a dying Chuck Cadman was offered a $1 million life insurance policy to secure his vote in parliament to bring down the Liberal government of Paul Martin in 2005.

The widow of former B.C. MP Chuck Cadman says two Conservative Party officials offered her husband a million-dollar life insurance policy in exchange for his vote to bring down the Liberal government in May of 2005.

The offer, which was summarily rejected by the dying man, is outlined in a biography of Mr. Cadman by Vancouver journalist Tom Zytaruk that is to be released on March 14. A copy of the manuscript, including an introduction by former Liberal prime minister Paul Martin, has been obtained by The Globe and Mail.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is quoted in the book, Like a Rock: The Chuck Cadman Story, as confirming that a visit took place, and that officials were "legitimately" representing the Conservative Party. But he says any offer to Mr. Cadman was only to defray any losses he might suffer due to an election.

Yeah. That would be Harper's compassionate conservatism shining through like a beacon. Enter yet another lying sack of shit.

Sandra Buckler, a spokeswoman for Mr. Harper, said Wednesday that her boss never directed any party official to make any kind of financial arrangement with Mr. Cadman.

Buckler was a lobbyist at the time. She wasn't there. This is starting to look a lot like Scott McClellan defending Karl Rove over the Valerie Plame outing.

The men arrived at Mr. Cadman's Ottawa office two days before the vote on the Liberal budget. It was apparent at that time that the House of Commons was evenly split on the money bill and the nod of the then-Independent MP would decide whether Mr. Martin's Liberal government would survive. "The Tories actually walked in with a list of offers written down on a piece of paper. Included in their proposal was a $1-million life insurance policy — no small carrot for a man with advanced cancer," the book states.

Dona Cadman, who is now running for the Conservatives in the Vancouver-area riding of Surrey North, was not in the office at the time. But she says her husband was furious when he returned to their apartment. "Chuck was really insulted," she said in a telephone interview with The Globe Wednesday. "He was quite mad about it, thinking they could bribe him with that."

Mr. Cadman died less than two months after the vote.

Ms. Cadman, who has read and approved the manuscript for the book, said she has "no idea" where the money for the life insurance was supposed to come from. "They had the form there. Chuck just had to sign."

And what did Harper know?

Everything.

"They were legitimately representing the party," Mr. Harper confirmed. "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 say make the case,' but I said 'Don't press it.'."

Mr. Zytaruk said he saved the tapes of all of his interviews.

Don't press it. Try to buy the vote of a dying man... but don't press it.

Unfit to be a dogcatcher. Calling him a swine is an insult to the porcine community.

Update: More from Jeff.