When the going gets tough, the tough hide behind a lawyer apparently. I guess our thin skinned PM isn't able to stand up to the scrutiny that our democracy guarantees. I presume having seen how pathetic their defense was to the accusations made, the Con's have decided instead to silence their accusers, not all of them though. Just those who have the responsibility to hold this government and it's Leader to account.
I obviously am not equipped to speak to the legal aspect of this move but Kady O'Malley suggests that they are suing not for what Dion, Ignatieff and Goodale said, but rather what was written on the Lib website. They suggest that what is on the website misrepresents what was said in the House, under parliamentary privilege.
I have no idea how the Liberals will respond but I hope they don't back down. Nik Nanos has made it clear that this affair could be very damaging for the Con's.
That may well be but, shutting down the ability of the opposition to hold this government and Stephen Harper to account would be very damaging for the country.
Update - Dona Cadman say's Harper didn't know about the bribe. That in my view doesn't justify discontinuing the investigation.
Update 2 - Don Newman just reported that neither Dion nor the Party is going to back down or apologise. Good!
20 comments:
I honestly hope the Libs don't apologize. Oh, they most certainly libeled the PM, no doubt there. It will just be so much more satisfying to watch them be destroyed in court and have to write a big cheque with money they don't have.
They should have waited for more facts, but knee jerk reactionism that is so popular with the left got the best of them and they jumped the shark.
Now they will pay the price.
Is it too late to charge the cons with libel over what they said and continue to say about adscam and the fact they claim liberals owe money but no proof?
This move by Harper is quite childish, had the libs done the same the cons would still be up to their eyes in litigation.
*
"jay asks... Is it too late to charge the cons with libel over what they said and continue to say about adscam"
sorry, jay... the defense in that case is... that it's the truth.
ask the guys who got sent to jail.
*
I hope the Liberals don't back down. They have Harper on tape.
So he told Dona Cadman something that convinced her. She and her family obviously knew Chuck Cadman a lot better than Harper and there was no reason for her husband to lie to his family, whereas there is plenty of reason for Harper to lie.
neo conservative said..."ask the guys who got sent to jail."
You mean those conservatives they found guilty?
Just saw an interview with a well respected libel lawyer. Didn't sound very definitive, "might be", "could be", as it relates to the website, prefaced with an understanding of the political arena. He completely dismissed the actions against Dion, Iggy and Goodale as a non-starter, some question on the website.
"write a big cheque with money they don't have."
Jim, if they follow through, I can assure you money will pour in to cover the costs, don't you worry yourself about that. I might even take a second job ;)
Well, Steve, lets hope that the Libs can do a better job raising money from their supporters to pay their legal bills than they have just trying to maintain the party.
And good luck with that second job. I already donate the maximum to the CPC each year on one job...but hey, I can afford it because I am a neo-con capitalist pig...and proud of it! :)
Speaking of knee jerk reactions Jim, did you read your comment?
No kidding Jay. They continue to call the Liberals corrupt, not to mention all the lies on their website.
No politicians went to jail, no one from the Liberal party went to jail.
I seem to recall there was someone associated with the Con's though.
You guy's have stretched this thing out so far, you have no idea what the truth really is.
Believe me, the country is done with Adscam.
clh, her new statement means nothing vis a vis the charges being leveled.
She's loyal to Harper, full stop and big surprise I might add.
Interesting Steve.
Sure I read my post, what part do you think is knee jerk?
"Believe me, the country is done with Adscam."
Do you really think so? I believe it can live on forever as long as there are people like me that make sure this country NEVER forgets that the Liberals STOLE millions and millions of taxpayer dollars.
How much do they still owe us anyway? Oh yeah, ALL OF IT!!!
This feigned moral indignation from the left is bordering on lunacy, but hey, do as you will. Its not like you ever waited for facts or listened to reason before, so why start now.
See ya in court. Get those chequebooks ready, you'll need 'em.
Jim, I clear that this is your dream, but you're wrong.
No one in the Liberal Party stole anything.
Believe what you like, but the country has moved on. Unlike Con's, most people in this country look to the future and at the moment, it's not looking too bright.
Not just because of the Cadman affair, though that certainly highlights how disgusting your leader is, but the economy and Flaherty attacking Ontario is not faring too well if you recall. Changing the channel to Adscam will not help you in Ontario and while I'm sure you still think it has legs in Quebec, so does no action on the environment, censoring film makers in Canada and a host of other contemporary social issues.
First, let's make something perfectly clear. I don't have a leader.
Politically I am a libertarian by definition. I cannot support the Liberal party for several reasons. Mainly because the Liberals stopped being liberal quite some time ago. Lately they are more about curtailing my freedoms and intruding on the way I live my life. I do not want a cradle to grave government...in fact, I am repulsed by the very notion. I am also repulsed by the arrogance of the Liberal party and their self percieved entitlement to power.
I support the Conservative at this juncture because of a few simple policies. The Cons believe in smaller, less intrusive federal government. I am behind this 100%. I believe the provinces should be responsible for more and the fed for less. I am a fiscal conservative and think we should pay down our debt, not fund useless, feel good, bureaucratic nightmare like the gun registry.
Yet on the other hand I am a social liberal. Do I belive marijuana should be legal, or at least decriminalized? Yes. Do I believe prostitution should be legalized, taxed and controlled? Yes.
Sadly, there is no single party solution for me, so I have to go with the one that fits best. and it ain't the Liberals. And if I was to have a leader, I am afraid I could not get behind Dion.
Fair enough Jim. I just gained more respect for you, though if you're a fiscal conservative, they've been far more spendy than the Lib's and have increased government.
On social issues, you and I agree though I alwas question the prostitution thing with Libertarians. The control aspect intrigues me. That to me, suggests more government. We're on the same page though.
I'll refrain from suggesting you have a leader from now on.
KNB, I apprieciate that last comment.
I do agree that the first two Con budgets were not overly fiscally conservative in my opinion, but as a small business owner, they did deliver tax cuts to me, and they paid against the national debt. So on that score I gave them 6 out of 10.
As for the prostitution issue, it is a given that it will never go away, so I propose controlling it at a municipal level, licencing sex trade workers...a condition of licencing would be regular medical exams and employment in an approved location. Street prostitution would still be illegal. In return for compliance, sex trade workers would be entitled to the same benefits as regular Canadian workers such as EI and CPP. They could even form unions. An ambitious plan, I know, but something needs to be done. I live in Surrey BC and I see the worst of the worst every day.
Anyway, sorry for the hijack.
I suspect there is a Libertarian streak in me, though it's safe to say I am a Liberal.
In your last comment, you may be surprised that I agree, though we'd have different thoughts about the street.
No prob with the hi-jack, but can we get back on topic please? Here and further posts?
Hmmm, let me get this straight. What Chuck Cadman told a reporter is the honest to God truth, no doubt. But what Harper told a reporter is somehow not?
He said there was an offer, re. financial considerations. He said 'make the case'. He said he knew of it before it was presented, and that the people presenting it, still unnamed by himself, were acting on behalf of the CONservative party.
That's on tape? And you CON trolls are arguing what?
Post a Comment