"Mr. Speaker, the only offer was the one I mentioned yesterday, and on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and last week. We wanted Chuck to run for the Conservative Party.
" Mr. Cadman was offered any help he needed to be re-elected as a Conservative."
"Mr. Speaker, the specific offer given to Chuck Cadman, the specific offer of May 19 had three components: first, to rejoin the Conservative caucus; second, we would help him secure the Conservative Party nomination; and third, we would support him in his re-election in whatever financial help he might need getting re-elected as a Conservative candidate. Those are the three elements he received.
"the only offer made to Chuck Cadman was our desire to have him run for us in the campaign, and for him to be the Conservative candidate in that election. That is the central fact of this."
The central fact, according to Moore, the offer was a return to caucus and help during a election. Moore has also argued that only three people were in the room, when the offer was made, we should take their word for it. Tom Flanagan was in the room, a central figure. When you read Flanagan's book, you see that the idea of a re-election is patently ridiculous:
May 19 (the infamous meeting):
Chuck was gracious when he received us in his Parliamentary office, but he was visibly tired, and I could see that he wasn’t up to negotiating a return to caucus.”
Nevermind, not up to fighting for re-election, Cadman, according to Flanagan, wasn't even up to discussing a return to caucus.
Flanagan, had a very real sense of Cadman's health:
“Doug Finley wanted to make one last attempt to persuade Cadman to rejoin the Conservative caucus, but Chuck was very sick with skin cancer—he would be dead in two months—and wasn’t answering his phone.”
"Dead in two-months", and yet we are to believe the same man who thought this, was so detached from reality, that an offer for re-election would be feasible. These are Flanagan's words, Flanagan realized Cadman had weeks to live. The only way to reconcile what the main principle thought, and what Moore is spewing in Parliament, is too lose all of your intellectual capacities. It makes no sense, none whatsoever, in fact it such a cynical defence, it insults Cadman's real situation.
The sad part about this is that we'll probably never get any solid answers.
I was in parliament last week and it seemed as though you needed to be signed in and checked out to go anywhere in any block, in addition to what seemed like security cameras at every second turn. Security was fairly tight. Would it not be possible to review any sort of security log or video from May 17th to see who, if anyone, was entering Cadman's office?
Let's hope the RCMP thought of that kris, good idea.
Whatcha smokin'? I want some.
The Queen's cowboys are so thoroughly corrupted by their association with the Harperites that they may not look into any of this, let alone tell us mere citizens anything about it.
Effectively the RCMP has become a police arm of the CPC. We have nothing to expect from them.
May 17 -- was Cadman in British Columbia or in Ottawa? I know he flew to Ottawa for the vote and assumed it was as short a trip as possible, given his health.
Dana is right. The RCMP weren't so great before. Didn't they fail to inform the government they knew of Mulroney's cash when the libel case was being settled? Just recently, Harper appointed a non-police Conservative to head the RCMP, further tying the RCMP to the government. One reason (among several) why it is so irritating to hear the NDP say to just leave this to the RCMP.
And, that is why I find the NDP position so frustrating, they put their faith in an entity they themselves question (according to their own MP Pat Martin).
If you read it in context "Dead in two months" is a comment after the fact, and not what he knew or was thinking at the time.
Well, it sort of jives with what Cadman's daughter said, you know the part about him being bed ridden the day after this vote.
Nice try though.
Whooee! Somebody's gonna take the blame an' that somebody's gonna be Doug Finley, sez I.
Curious fact: Mrs. Doug Finley (Diane Finley, MP, Min. of Immigration and Citizenship) used to sit just behind Harpoon and she got a whole lotta face time on CPAC. She's the gal with the dark glasses. Anyways, she's been moved so she's off camera when the PM's up on his hindlegs.
Didn't the "bedridden after the vote" question turn out to be because he was receiving chemotherapy, which had happened several times before? Or was that refuted?
His daughter said he was so sick, when he returned from Parliament he was bed ridden. The man died six weeks later, why are you quibbling about nothingness? My goodness.
Again, they hammer hammer hammer at May 19 when it is clear from earlier comments Dona Cadman had made that there had to be an earlier meeting.
We know that because she had indicated in early reports that she didn't know how her husband was going to vote at the time he told her about what he considered an insurance bribe.
If the offer he found so offensive had come up on May 19, she would have known how he voted when he told her about the incident BECAUSE THE VOTE WOULD HAVE ALREADY HAPPENED!
Why do they keep getting away with focusing all this attention on some meeting on May 19? My guess is they clearly they have notes on that meeting, or a memo or something that they are just going to release at some point saying, "See, here's what we said at the meeting on May 19," along with deposition testimonies on what transpired and the like.
But the issue is not what happened on May 19 just because the conservatives have framed that as the "only" time an inappropriate offer could have been made. They seem to assume by proposing it didn't happen on that date, it never happened. It's not so much circular logic as it is applying logic after dropping a multitude of other possibilities from the table.
Perhaps the offer was on May 17. Perhaps it was May 15. It didn't have to be May 19. In fact, if Ms Cadman is to be believed, the offer could NOT have been made on May 19 because, otherwise, she would have had no mystery about how he intended to vote.
Further to your point, Flanagan said:
“Doug Finley wanted to make one last attempt to persuade Cadman to rejoin the Conservative caucus..."
When will the Conservatives tell us about the previous "attempts", I mean Flanagan says this wasn't the first meeting or approach?
"Would it not be possible to review any sort of security log or video from May 17th to see who, if anyone, was entering Cadman's office?"
They do not keep tape forever. It is probably gone by now.
I think Joseph's point is valid. Mrs Cadman was pretty firm on the date of the meeting, and that Chuck came back from that meeting pretty miffed. Was it in Surrey or in Ottawa? These are points that could help clarify things.
I think the questions should now be aimed at mini-min Lunn and his involvement. Although I think one dark character in all this, 'I am not a lobbiest' John Reynolds likely has his fingerprints equally on something like this.
I seem to recall some shady stuff that was unearthed about him in the 1980s. He truly is scuzz.
Does it make any sense that Harper wanted Cadman back - when he was ousted because Harper and his gang decided he wasn't a good enough campaigner - so Cadman went independant? And, Harper has advised the nominee for the CPC at the time of this?
Post a Comment