Zytaruk: "I mean, there was an insurance policy for a million dollars. Do you know anything about that?"
Harper: "I don't know the details. I know that there were discussions, uh, this is not for publication?"
Zytaruk: "This (inaudible) for the book. Not for the newspaper. This is for the book."
Harper: "Um, I don't know the details. I can tell you that I had told the individuals, I mean, they wanted to do it. But I told them they were wasting their time. I said Chuck had made up his mind, he was going to vote with the Liberals and I knew why and I respected the decision. But they were just, they were convinced there was, there were financial issues. There may or may not have been, but I said that's not, you know, I mean, I, that's not going to change."
Zytaruk: "You said (inaudible) beforehand and stuff? It wasn't even a party guy, or maybe some friends, if it was people actually in the party?"
Harper: "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."
Where is the grey area here? Zytaruk asks Harper a DIRECT question about the insurance policy. Harper answers that question with a DIRECT response. Harper doesn't say "what are you talking about?", or "I never heard about that", no, Harper says he doesn't know the details. Harper doesn't admit knowledge of the details, but he clearly admits knowledge of an insurance policy offer. Harper admits that there were discussions about an insurance policy.
If someone approaches you, and asks you a question, about an issue that you have no knowledge, how do your react? Do you just accept the accusation or do you question the premise of the question? Harper's only concern, whether or not his response is on the record, which tells us he was immediately concerned about the nature of the question, and yet he accepts the content of the question. You are either completely devoid of common sense, or a rabid, drooling partisan to not see the obvious here- Harper distanced himself from the detail within the proposal, but he clearly accepted the detail in the question. Here is a normal reaction:
Zytaruk: "I mean, there was an insurance policy for a million dollars. Do you know anything about that?"
Harper 1: "An insurance policy, I know of no such thing"
Harper 2: "Where did you get that information, as far as I know that is completely false"
Harper 3: "That is ridiculous, I have no knowledge whatsoever of any insurance offer"
Harper: "I don't know the details. I know that there were discussions, uh, this is not for publication?"
I'm willing to bet the RCMP finds the last response quite curious.
You can listen to the actual tape at the Toronto Star web site. You get to hear it in Harper's own voice. What with that, Dona Cadman's account and how their daughter Jodi's own account of her Dad telling her exactly the same thing - on his deathbed - it's time this greasy slimeball and his party were sent back to their gutter.
ReplyDeleteIt seems his response still leaves him room for cover, however small it may be.
ReplyDelete"I don't know the details (of what was discussed, whether there was an insurance policy or not)"
Acknowledges there were discussions, but no idea what was offered, so doesn't know whether or not insurance was offered.
It's weak, for sure, for exactly the reasons you said, he doesn't EXPLICITLY deny the insurance, but it seems like the only possible angle for them to take.
kris
ReplyDeleteThat is fair in one sense, but then Harper offers:
"Um, I don't know the details. I can tell you that I had told the individuals, I mean, they wanted to do it. But I told them they were wasting their time."
The individuals wanted to "it"? All Zytaruk mentioned was insurance, no other "carrots", what is "it" then, could it be anything else?
Watching Goodale and others in QP today, all government rebuttals, most prominently from James Moore, involve the CTV interview. The Liberal responses involve (as usual) restating the question in different terms and do not take into account the answer given by the government side.
ReplyDeleteAre the Liberals not lending credence to the Conservative excuse by not questioning it? Why hasn't any front line Liberal stood up and said, plain and simple;
"Speaker, the government cannot seem to understand that people often say things to their wives and children that they wouldn't say on national television. Has it not occurred to them that Mr. Cadman had the decency to NOT expose their offer to the public, perhaps out of a willingness to give his former party the benefit the doubt, or to forgo another political scandal at an already politically heated time?"
This alone would chip away at seemingly the only defense the Tories have been willing to use up until now. Why hasn't it happened?
It's pretty hard to get any answers in QP. I suspect the Ethics Committee will force real answers, hopefully they learned some things with Mulroney.
ReplyDelete"All Zytaruk mentioned was insurance, no other "carrots", what is "it" then, could it be anything else?"
ReplyDeleteVery true. It gets weaker the more I think about it. After the "national interveiw" defense wears outs though(if it ever does), this may be the only thing they've got left. Which doesn't bode well for the Conservatives at all.
Just saw Fife on Newsnet, telling me about new Tory claims that the audio tape has been tampered with. Interesting, in that the fact that they're claiming the tape may have been tampered is an acknowledgement it's contents are damning.
ReplyDeletekris
ReplyDeleteWow, I hadn't seen that. I agree, if the claim is tampering, then you are explicitly admitting, that in present form, there is damning information.
Anyone notice how inarticulate the PM is when unscripted?
ReplyDelete