As I updated in my last post, Dona Cadman has now added more to her previous statement. 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."
Fair enough, she's entitled to believe him if she so chooses. But I do wonder why she didn't mention during her phone interview? That seems really odd to me given the frenzy that was already underway. And really, when you think back to the interview, there was ample opportunity to interject this point.
Consider this:
Journalist - You're running for the Tories now. Does this put you in an awkward situation in terms of the Party and this allegation?
Dona - A little, yes.
Journalist - Have you spoken with the Prime Minister?
Dona - Yes I talked to his office today.
Journalist - And what was said if you don't mind me asking?
Dona - Ah, just that they were going to bring out a press release.
Hmm. I don't recall a press release on that day, or even shortly after, but I could be wrong.
When she is asked if it makes it awkward for her to run for the Tories and she says yes, why wouldn't she have taken that opportunity to say, she had spoken with the PM and believed him, so no, she didn't feel awkward?
She goes on to say that it still makes her angry, but not as much as before and that she considers it to be a bribe.
Something is not adding up here. In her statement today, she says that she is surprised at the level of reaction to the disclosures in the book. Again, why didn't she say that during the interview and try to quell the ruckus by making her statement about her meeting with Harper?
I'll leave it to others to determine what all of that might mean, but in the meantime, her statement does absolutely nothing to change the fact that alleged offers were made. All it tells me is that she is loyal to Harper.
23 comments:
Her statement means that she believes Harper did not know anything about the insurance. We know from his own words that he knew about a financial offer, so I suggest whether he knew if that offer came through an insurance policy is pretty irrelevant.
I would also suggest that in her initial interview she had been told by the PMO to say nothing until they told her it was OK. I am pretty sure the release of her statement and the lawsuit was coordinated in an effort to stop this story.
Mushroom, was it you who suggested that Flanagan wasn't capable of this stuff? You felt it was more likely to Reynolds and his ilk.
I stand by what I said, that is if it was the mundane stuff of making up for an insurance policy, I think he is capable of that.
However, the more I think about this, I see that Reynolds is not talking and no one is speaking to Lunn, who was also someone who apparently set up a meeting. Lunn may be a diminutive, unassuming character, but considering what he did to Keene, I'd say he's ready to get down and dirty under the guise of regular guy charm.
Just thinking out loud.
Gayle, the author's question to Harper was about the insurance offer. Harper responded with I don't know the details, (paraphrased) and the interview continued.
I can't disagree with your second point. In fact, if you listen to her diction in the interview and compare that to the statement, there is something incongruous there.
I suppose there is nothing new about a Party assisting a candidate in writing a statement, but in this case? I don't claim that happened, but you're right, the timing stinks.
I think Dona Cadman has now been told to say something that she may well believe is true. Of course, it doesn't make that much sense. Whatever the two Conservatives (presumably Reynolds and Flanagan) were offering would be absolutely meaningless if they weren't certain the had the backing of the party leader. But, there are lots of ways to handle that. You discuss a range of possibilities with the leader to get an idea of what is possible but the leader doesn't know the exact details of what you will end up offering as it has to go with the flow and respond to the signals you get from the bribee.
I'm still curious about the whole book being posted on the web. Who did that and will they be caught? Perhaps Harper thought his best strategy was threaten a lawsuit with bullying language (biggest mistake of Dion's career), get Dona Cadman out with a statement exonerating Harper, get the book out now and hope the Liberals back down so that it all blows over in a week.
I'm just curious why this defense of Harper isn't in the book. Dona signed off on the book, and yet it leaves Harper hanging in the wind, why no clarification, why no talk of this conversation? I find that very strange, and I think it speaks to a motivation now. I'm not disputing her point of view, although "I could see it in his eyes" is subjective, really irrelevant to any evidence. Her statement today reads like a clear attempt to pluck Harper out of this mess. The book implicates Harper, and Dona allows that with clarification. Strange dynamic.
This whole line of thought is a non-starter.
Dona Cadman is a Conservative. She ran as a Conservative because her ideas are Conservative. Even with them offering her husband a bribe she still believes those Conservative principles are best to be achieved through the Conservative Party.
Dona Cadman never changed her story.
She allowed the biography to be published because she wanted the truth of her husbands character presented. As for Steve questioning why she didn't defend Harper in her book, the thing is Harper was never attacked in the book in the first place, so why would she?
The book doesn't include the tape of Harper saying he knew of a financial offer, it didn't include what we know now.
This whole thought that Dona has now some twisted hidden motivation is groundless.
-scott
thescottross
"He did it"!
I can see the T-Shirt sales ahead.
What I find most puzzling is that several Liberals knew about this a year ago and decided it was a non-issue until now. Why was that? The only reason I can think of is that Liberals are so power hungry they will do anything to get their hand on the public trough again. And this was the opportunity they were looking for.
care to name names, anonymous?
(sorry I couldn't resist . . . it just seemed like a cute response).
Stephen Harper apparently knew about it 3 years ago . . . I can't wait to hear about his exhaustive search for the truth, under oath.
clh, I'd shift she's been told to say something with 'sign' something.
It makes me uncomfortable, but there it is.
Dona Cadman is no longer useful to the LPC, so out come the questions about her motives.
Tho Libs never questioned her motives when it 'appeared' she would be useful.
She was telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, then.
But now, Libs aren't so sure...
People see only what they want to see.
1. Libs ignored that Dona was still a CPC candidate.
Libs assumed Dona would be a supporting charactor in defaming PMSH.
Lib's assumed the CPC would turn their backs on Dona when the book came out.
2. It was pointed out right from Dona's first interview, that Chuck's bio was speaking about 2 unidentified persons that met with Chuck 2 days BEFORE the Finley/Flannigan meeting, the only meeting that PMSH knew about.
Libs ignored the point and continued their attack as if the 2 separate meetings were one in the same.
3. Libs interpreted every word PMSH said on the tape into proof of a bribe.
Totally discounting the two above missed cues, while trying to defame the man who led the charge for all of Chuck's causes.
Exactly Steve. You know, I think this is delicate stuff, but to pussy foot around it is wrong.
There has to be a way to address this in context and with honesty, without offending anyone.
That btw would be called truth for those who cannot seem to remember.
Dion and Iggy both said they heard about this, for the first time, on Thursday.
scott
Those quotes of Harper from the audio are in the book, verbatum. Let's not forget, the book contains several passages, wherein the Cadman's praise Martin for not offering anything, talk of respect. Why was the same courtesy not afforded Harper, in the book, particularly when this question was raised in it, and Dona apparently believed Harper was an upstanding citizen, with no involvement. I find that omission strange, especially when they praise the other side.
anon, or scott ross, you certainly have your story down, but you have no proof, none, that what the Con's are accussed of didn't happen.
And please, do not be so moronic to suggest that Cadman himself said.
knb says:
'I'd shift she's been told to say something with 'sign' something.'
And you just proved my point. You wrote this as I was writing 'how Dona Cadman is not longer useful to the LPC, in defaming PMSH'.
But you are not the first liblogger to toss Dona out like the losing lottery ticket.
Anonymous, that statement is right out of Harper's party talking point in question period today. The tape was out a year ago?
"But you are not the first liblogger to toss Dona out like the losing lottery ticket."
Oh goodness, you hyprocritical troll of the highest order. What have you been saying for days, on every liberal blog imaginable. You're a shrink's wet dream, you're someone's thesis.
No one is questioning rather Martin signed some sort of agreement that is not uncommon and the usual practise - confidentiality or disclosure not the reveal the contents of the book before the author is to release it. Or, for that matter, that Martin didn't read the whole thing.
So, it is quite possible that the other party members didn't know.
Whatever Ms. Cadman said (I thought she was going to run for the NDP at one point) there are other witnesses.
Interesting - Reynolds name keeps coming up in these matters - the Ottawa/mayor thing. Hmmm.....
"Or, for that matter, that Martin didn't read the whole thing."
Not only is this likely, it is also possible that he did not write the forward himself.
Thatmay be why he has not spoken out on this yet.
The other angle - Harper can't let Mrs. Cadman go now - it would look really bad so he's caught in a dilemma.
Possibly, the CPC approached her about this statement to get it off the table and for her to get it out of the way.
If Harper removed Mrs. Cadman as the nominee at this point it would look really bad - he has no choice but to keep her and apparently her chances of winning that riding are slim as she is running against NDP's Ms Priddy.
This issue could also be making things bad for the NDP because they constantly attack the Liberals and pretty much stay on side with the Conservatives. It ruins their strategy to make the Liberals look like the bad kids on the block. C'mon, you know Pat Martin absolutely wets his pants usually over stuff like this and he's being rather mild - suspicious or what?
wilson, I'm not suggesting that she doesn't agree with the statement, I'm sure she does. I'm just not convinced that she wrote it.
As for Lib's making this claim:
"I knew he was telling me the truth; I could see it in his eyes," she says. If that line wasn't written by a PMO or Conservative party staffer, I'll eat my laptop. But it still doesn't overlook the fact that a tape of the future prime minister shows he knew that two of his closest advisors were negotiating a monetary deal with Mr. Cadman. An explanation is desperately required.
I think this guy would be surprised to learn that he's a Lib.
sandi, Martin has been droning on and on stating that the Lib's have had this info for a year.
gayle, when I read the forward the other day, it was unclear as to whether or not he'd read it. It really spoke in generalities.
Post a Comment