Problem was, Harper’s henchmen thought Chuck Cadman was a prostitute, when in fact the only prostitute was going to be the Canadian democratic system, had Harper’s henchman had their alleged ways with Chuck.
Time to chuck the henchmen and all those who were complicit is this disgraceful conduct, starting with Harper himself and his unequivocal statement of self incrimination:
“The insurance policy for a million dollars, do you know anything about that?" Zytaruk asks.
"I don't know the details. I know that there were discussions," Harper replies on the tape. "This is not for publication?"
"This will be for the book, not for the newspaper," answers Zytaruk, who works for a Surrey newspaper.
Harper goes on to explain on the tape that the offer to Cadman was "only to replace financial considerations he might lose due to an election." He adds that the offer was carried out by people who were "legitimately representing the party."
He also tells Zytaruk that he knew there was little chance Cadman would agree.
"They wanted to do it, but I told them they were wasting their time. I said Chuck had made up his mind," Harper said.
-
Thursday, March 13, 2008
New York has a Governor who pays for sex. Canada has a Prime Minister whose party pays for votes.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
It is a sad day indeed when our own Prime Minister drags us into the muck like this.
As a former life-long Tory , I am embarrassed by the action of Mr Harper & his 2 minions--what could be more humiliating than being found out without a proper alibi in the pocket.
At least the soon-to-be former Governor of New York had the balls to get up & admit his mistake & take full responsibility.
All we can expect from Mr harper is a frontal assault on everyone else--sounds like a tactic only a spoiled child would use.
Time to put him in the "bad corner" for good.
Dr Mike.
Subsequent to washing CON members’ mouths out with soap for all the lies and filth they spew, might I suggest they all then be neutered in order to prevent their procreation.
I suspect a Bill to this effect would have no trouble passing through the House and Senate.
The repugnant rattlesnake should go down in ignominy.
Deceivin’ Stephen:
LIAR, LIAR, PANTS ON FIRE!!!!!
CON…
Bribery, Corruption, Deception, Untruthfulness, Evasiveness, Censorship, Fascism, Unaccountability, Injustice, Disruption, Fiscal Mismanagement, Incompetence:
WE’LL GET THE JOB DONE.
…All the while…in the House Of Commons…sinister little leprechaun Flaherty…searches in ernest…bellowing….
WHERE’S ME LUCKY CHARMS?
WHERE’S ME LUCKY CHARMS?
I HAVE A DREAM...
THAT THE CONS GET CREAMED.
YES WE CAN!
YES WE CAN!
EDITORIAL
TheStar.com
A Scandal Swept Under The Rug?
Mar 14, 2008 04:30 AM
Canadians clearly ought to know whether high-ranking Conservative party operatives tried to bribe independent MP Chuck Cadman in an effort to secure his vote to bring down former prime minister Paul Martin's Liberal government and force an election in May 2005.
Cadman's wife, daughter and son-in-law all say he told them before he died that he was offered a million-dollar "life insurance" deal to rejoin the Tories and support them in toppling the Liberals.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper insists his party did not offer Cadman a bribe, which is a criminal offence, and yesterday went so far as to launch a $2.5 million libel suit against the Liberals, who have been demanding answers in response to the Cadman family allegations.
In the circumstances, one would think Harper would be eager for the truth to come out and lift the cloud of doubt hanging over his party, instead of resorting to libel chill.
Likewise, one would assume that NDP Leader Jack Layton, who has accused the Conservatives of telling "half-truths, half the time," would support the Liberals and Bloc Québécois in their efforts to find out what actually happened in the Cadman affair.
But fearing the Liberals would gain the limelight in a public hearing, the NDP last week joined the Conservatives to prevent the House of Commons ethics committee from probing the allegations.
That led the Liberals to take their case to the justice committee, which deals with Criminal Code issues. But twice this week that committee's chair, Conservative MP Art Hanger, thwarted the Liberals by charging out of the room and bringing the meeting to an abrupt halt.
Moments before his first flight from the room Tuesday, Hanger told committee members he "would be very disappointed if our committee was turned into a partisan witch hunt that went down the road of unsubstantiated scandal for the sake of electoral grandstanding."
But who is playing partisan politics here? A prime minister who sues the Liberals while his point man on the justice committee prevents them from asking fair questions? How can Hanger talk about "unsubstantiated scandal" when so many questions remain to be answered? What, for example, did Harper mean when he told Cadman's biographer about "financial considerations" for the dying MP?
Harper and Hanger should know that their outlandish responses only make it look as if they do, indeed, have something to hide.
Post a Comment