Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
jdobbin

Cadman allegedly Offered Money

Recommended Posts

The Star.Com

Mar 03, 2008 01:44 PM

March 3, 2008

Personal Statement by Dona Cadman

I'm a little bit surprised at the level of reaction to the disclosures in Tom Zytaruk's book and I guess that's probably because it was put to rest in my mind, when I discussed the matter with Stephen Harper, 2 ½ years ago. At that time, I recall specifically asking him if he was aware of a million dollar insurance policy offer, that upset Chuck so much.

He looked me straight in the eyes and told me he had no knowledge of an insurance policy offer. 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.

From that point forward.... I didn't regard it as a "Party" initiative, but rather; the overzealous indiscretion of a couple of individuals.... whose identity, Chuck never revealed to me.

It all comes back to my conversation with the Prime Minister.... 2 ½ years ago. I want to be perfectly clear in that regard. Chuck liked, respected and trusted Stephen Harper. I like, respect and trust Stephen Harper. If I didn't believe in my heart, that he was telling me the truth.... I wouldn't be running as the Conservative Candidate for Surrey North.

Dona Cadman

Please read above, they asked him to rejoin the party, she is not saying they tried to buy his vote! The rest is just heresay, not enough to find anybody guilty of anything, if it were the jails would be full of politicians and forum posters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please read above, they asked him to rejoin the party, she is not saying they tried to buy his vote! The rest is just heresay, not enough to find anybody guilty of anything, if it were the jails would be full of politicians and forum posters.

I think we should let the RCMP to determine this. As you have shown in your quote, the overzealous people who made the offer might have broken the law and Harper might be in a position to say who had contact with Cadman.

The audio tape seems to indicate that Harper had heard about the $1 million policy. Perhaps he can give some background. He really hasn't explained the audio tape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Whoa, Belinda! Put the coffee on!" - sung (I think!) by Ian Thomas. Or was it Ray Materek. Anyhow, it was certainly Belinda Stronach!

In life as well as politics the Golden Rule is: "Do unto others as they have done unto you!"

If there is some proof that Belinda was offered a financial incentive or the like than please, lets hear about it....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If there is some proof that Belinda was offered a financial incentive or the like than please, lets hear about it....

It would be a waist of time to offer a billionaire money, but a position money can't buy? Another matter altogether. After all the law does say "any money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment". Offering a cabinet post certainly fits that description but proving it was offered is another matter. Equally sleazy in my opinion but acceptable sleaze in our parliamentary system. The only lesson here is don't get caught.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Star.Com

Mar 03, 2008 01:44 PM

March 3, 2008

Personal Statement by Dona Cadman

I'm a little bit surprised at the level of reaction to the disclosures in Tom Zytaruk's book and I guess that's probably because it was put to rest in my mind, when I discussed the matter with Stephen Harper, 2 ½ years ago. At that time, I recall specifically asking him if he was aware of a million dollar insurance policy offer, that upset Chuck so much.

He looked me straight in the eyes and told me he had no knowledge of an insurance policy offer. 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.

From that point forward.... I didn't regard it as a "Party" initiative, but rather; the overzealous indiscretion of a couple of individuals.... whose identity, Chuck never revealed to me.

It all comes back to my conversation with the Prime Minister.... 2 ½ years ago. I want to be perfectly clear in that regard. Chuck liked, respected and trusted Stephen Harper. I like, respect and trust Stephen Harper. If I didn't believe in my heart, that he was telling me the truth.... I wouldn't be running as the Conservative Candidate for Surrey North.

Dona Cadman

Please read above, they asked him to rejoin the party, she is not saying they tried to buy his vote! The rest is just heresay, not enough to find anybody guilty of anything, if it were the jails would be full of politicians and forum posters.

SO.. the question is did she look in her hubby eyes and see he was telling the truth about the offer of a life insurance policy or was he lying? Since most of Canadians don't know this lady very well, what is her education, what does she do for a living does anyone know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SO.. the question is did she look in her hubby eyes and see he was telling the truth about the offer of a life insurance policy or was he lying? Since most of Canadians don't know this lady very well, what is her education, what does she do for a living does anyone know?
You only question her credibility if she says things that you don't find convenient.

This story was puzzling from the beginning because if she believed that a bribe was offered she would have never run fro the party in the first place. Her statement clears up that puzzle. Her allegation is against unknown individuals within the CPC and was never intended to imply that it came from Harper. Unfortunately, she does not know who those individuals were and Chuck Cadman can't tell us. This means there is no way to prosecute the individuals who may have stepped over the line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dona Cadman's message should clear it up now, this is a mountain out of a molehill to further the Liberal agenda , it diverts attention from their sorry a..es. There is exactly the same evidence here for the alleged bribery of Belinda Stronach, so get over it, there's nothing here to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I noticed that the most offending comments have now been removed from the Liberal Website - they originally appeared under "Harper must come clean about allegations of Conservative Bribery, Liberals Say". The offending section contained statements like:

"He knew it was immoral. He knew it was unethical. He knew it was illegal. It was a violation of Section 119 of the Criminal Code"

Is it really any wonder that Harper sued the Liberals? You simply cannot let attacks like these go unanswered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You only question her credibility if she says things that you don't find convenient.

This story was puzzling from the beginning because if she believed that a bribe was offered she would have never run fro the party in the first place. Her statement clears up that puzzle. Her allegation is against unknown individuals within the CPC and was never intended to imply that it came from Harper. Unfortunately, she does not know who those individuals were and Chuck Cadman can't tell us. This means there is no way to prosecute the individuals who may have stepped over the line.

Yes there is, the opposition can start with asking James Moore himself if he ever talked to Cadman about an offer and go down the line of BC MPs. I think Harper would do anything to be in the PMO. He has plans with the US government of the NAU and look just what he has done to put that forward. When you say things and then start slowing adding to it, people will start to doubt you and just like Harper needed Cadman's vote his going to need Dona's, she will benefit if Harper does. I'm questioning her credibility because she's starting to change the story. You can spin it anyway you want be all you have to do is look at the faces of the Cons, they looked like scared kids wondering how do we get out this one? BTW, Diane Findley has be gone since this broke, is she afraid to answer questions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Liberals caved AGAIN? :lol:

What a bunch of losers.

No the losers were the Conservatives under mulroney when only two mp's were voted back in. I wonder who were the two?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm questioning her credibility because she's starting to change the story.
She did not change her story - she only responded to the rediculous spin that Liberals were trying to put on the story. The fact that she agreed to run for the Conservatives in the first place demonstrates that her clarification is what she believed all along. Your hypocrisy is breath taking.
Yes there is, the opposition can start with asking James Moore himself if he ever talked to Cadman about an offer and go down the line of BC MPs
And they all say that they talked to him, discussed arrangements for election financing but nothing more. What next? Edited by Riverwind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
She did not change her story - she only responded to the rediculous spin that Liberals were trying to put on the story. The fact that she agreed to run for the Conservatives in the first place demonstrates that her clarification is what she believed all along. Your hypocrisy is breath taking.

There are still a lot of questions that the PMO has not answered as are detailed in this CP press story.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...04?hub=Politics

Repeated appeals to the Prime Minister's Office since the Chuck Cadman affair surfaced last week have failed to yield direct answers to the following queries:

1. Did anyone from the Conservative party, or connected to the Tories, offer Cadman a million-dollar life-insurance policy?

2. If Tom Flanagan and Doug Finley offered Cadman a repayable loan, what was the amount and what were the terms of repayment?

3. What did Stephen Harper mean when he said in a 2005 interview that "an offer'' that included "financial considerations'' was made to Cadman?

4. Why didn't Harper say last week that he told Dona Cadman more than two years ago that he didn't know about the alleged life-insurance offer?

5. Why did the Prime Minister's Office and the Conservatives first deny an offer had been made, only to later say a repayable loan was offered?

6. What motivation would Dona Cadman, a Tory candidate in her husband's former riding, have to fabricate a story about the life-insurance offer?

Edited by jdobbin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You forgot:

7. When did Harper stop killing puppy dogs?

I guess this is a typical right wing response. As today's poll shows, it is not gaining the Tories any traction. As weak as Dion is, the Tories shoot themselves in the foot all the time by dismissing any need to be open and transparent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nonsense, this is the Liberals trying to get some traction and only getting themselves in doo doo, the author says one thing, but the Liberals are adding to this as they they go along. They have now made libelous statements so the onus is on them to prove them. So far, there is nada - zip.

Don't forget how Chretien operated, he would answer only once, maybe, and then would never utter another word about whatever crisis was facing him. The CPC should remember that.

http://www.straight.com/article-134664/chu...taffer-says-the

re-was-only-one-meeting-before-vote

Chuck Cadman's former staffer says there was only one meeting before vote

By Charlie Smith

A former employee of deceased MP Chuck Cadman, Dan Wallace, has issued a statement saying there was only one meeting with two top Conservative Party of Canada officials before Cadman voted on the 2005 budget.

Wallace stated that the May 17 date mentioned in an upcoming Cadman biography is wrong, and that the only meeting occurred on May 19 between Cadman and two close associates of the prime minister: Tom Flanagan and Doug Finley.

This is also worth the read,

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=350927

Tuesday, March 04, 2008

Not their style

'Harper's dispute with me was even more important than winning Cadman's vote three years later. But as I found out, offering bribes just isn't how the Harper Tories operate'

Ezra Levant, National Post Published: Tuesday, March 04, 2008

-snip-

Last week, former party chief of staff Tom Flanagan and campaign manager Doug Finley identified themselves as the two men in question, but they categorically denied the book's claim, and disputed other basic facts in the

book, including the date of the meeting.

-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nonsense, this is the Liberals trying to get some traction and only getting themselves in doo doo, the author says one thing, but the Liberals are adding to this as they they go along. They have now made libelous statements so the onus is on them to prove them. So far, there is nada - zip.

The Liberals aren't gaining traction. The Tories are just losing support because they are not open or transparent as they promised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wallace stated that the May 17 date mentioned in an upcoming Cadman biography is wrong, and that the only meeting occurred on May 19 between Cadman and two close associates of the prime minister: Tom Flanagan and Doug Finley.

The publisher has amended the date in the book.

The crucial date of May 17, 2005 - the date on which Conservatives allegedly offered dying MP Chuck Cadman a $1-million insurance policy in exchange for his vote - has been removed from the final version of a book that has sparked a political storm on Parliament Hill.

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/s...44f&k=92026

Will there be other amendments before the book is released? :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Liberals aren't gaining traction.

Yes, using a dead man for political gain may provide a short lived advantage. I wouldn't be so quick to salivate over recent polls. I just hope the libel suit goes ahead and the result is know before the next election. Then we can talk about traction and which party has it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Liberals aren't gaining traction. The Tories are just losing support because they are not open or transparent as they promised.

This is classic mud slinging politics, there is no depth that the Liberals will leave unplumbed, they can't imagine a judge convicting them since they've appointed most of them. They know they've got nothing but the more mud thrown the chance just a little will stick. They devastated the Mulroney Cons using the same tactic, yet all the ammo they used against him amounted to nothing, they kept the GST, they kept NAFTA and they used Michael Wilson's budget virtually word for word, all the stuff they used against the Cons. Joe Clarke same tactic, remember no tax on fuel, it only took a month for Trudeau to adopt Joe's plan, it's a proven strategy.

On the other hand I do agree the Cons have disappointed on the transparency issue, my hypothesis is that Harper himself does not trust politicians and wishes to keep tight control, so on the one hand its been a very clean government, on the other we only get sanitized information. As far as partisanship goes I can image that he is looking over his shoulder a lot since the majority of the federal beauracray would find him distasteful as most of the higher ups would also be Liberal bent since they got there jobs under the Libs and they tend to be pro big governement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is classic mud slinging politics, there is no depth that the Liberals will leave unplumbed, they can't imagine a judge convicting them since they've appointed most of them. They know they've got nothing but the more mud thrown the chance just a little will stick. They devastated the Mulroney Cons using the same tactic, yet all the ammo they used against him amounted to nothing, they kept the GST, they kept NAFTA and they used Michael Wilson's budget virtually word for word, all the stuff they used against the Cons. Joe Clarke same tactic, remember no tax on fuel, it only took a month for Trudeau to adopt Joe's plan, it's a proven strategy.

It isn't the Liberals who made the claim in the first place. I wish the right wing would remember that.

Nor has Dona Cadman withdrawn her accusation that money was offered.

On the other hand I do agree the Cons have disappointed on the transparency issue, my hypothesis is that Harper himself does not trust politicians and wishes to keep tight control, so on the one hand its been a very clean government, on the other we only get sanitized information. As far as partisanship goes I can image that he is looking over his shoulder a lot since the majority of the federal beauracray would find him distasteful as most of the higher ups would also be Liberal bent since they got there jobs under the Libs and they tend to be pro big governement.

The pro-big government has been the Tories who have blown past all their promises to control spending.

In any event, it isn't an accuse for the Tories to be less transparent about what they are doing and why they are doing things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
most of the higher ups would also be Liberal bent since they got there jobs under the Libs and they tend to be pro big governement.

Slim, you must be familiar with the terms "empire building" and "protecting your turf". That's what the mandarins have learned over the years from the Liberals. How does one undo this? IMO it's almost impossible. This could only be counteracted with 15-20 years of Conservative government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, using a dead man for political gain may provide a short lived advantage. I wouldn't be so quick to salivate over recent polls. I just hope the libel suit goes ahead and the result is know before the next election. Then we can talk about traction and which party has it.

You know, I keep hearing from the Tories, "Well, just wait to the next set of polls..."

That's getting to be close to three years now.

As as far as taking advantage of things, once again: It wasn't the Liberals who made the accusation about money being offered.

Dona Cadman's press release still stands by what she said. She didn't say that no offer was made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The pro-big government has been the Tories who have blown past all their promises to control spending.

Wrong. You'll find the answer to big government then and now in three words...Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Your PET.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...