Saturday, June 7, 2008

It’s time Tom Zytaruk sued Stephen Harper, James Moore and the CON Party of Canada for DEFAMATION. Contributions anyone?


It's time to turn the tables on Stephen Harper who is so fond of exploiting the courts to his advantage. His actions and ststements have slandered the good character of Tom Zytaruk.


THE CHUCK CADMAN AFFAIR
Tories trying to bully an honest reporter over a 'split-second' tape glitch
GARY MASON
gmason@globeandmail.com

The man at the centre of the Chuck Cadman affair is looking a little knackered. It's just past 8:30 p.m., and Tom Zytaruk, the reporter whose book on the now deceased independent MP detonated bribery allegations involving the Conservative Party, has just returned from the carnival.

"Me and my seven-year-old twin boys," he says, widening his eyes in that so-you-know-what-I've-just-been-through look.

Before that it was the circus.

That one the Conservatives created this week when they suggested that Mr. Zytaruk's taped interview with Prime Minister Stephen Harper about the bribing controversy was doctored. This, the opinion of two forensic audio specialists hired by the party to analyze the recording.


"It's been insane," Mr. Zytaruk says over coffee. "The phone hasn't stopped ringing. It's exhausting. But you know what? I'm okay with it because I'm completely at peace with my role. I know I didn't doctor any tape. So in a sense all this stuff that [Conservative MP] James Moore is saying is meaningless. I know what happened."

In an empty restaurant, Mr. Zytaruk, 42, looks like someone who's just got off a 20-hour flight from the Orient. If he's sleeping well, as he says he is, it's not apparent. A thick mop of silver hair is in need of a comb. Fleshy cheeks are pallid. His eyes say: Anyone have toothpicks?

Yet something happens when he smiles. He momentarily brightens and loses years. He becomes so boyish looking, in fact, you imagine how he might have appeared in his Grade 3 class photo.

And, if you're like me, you think: Sorry, but this guy did not doctor any tape to sell a book or make the Prime Minister of this country look bad.

Not a chance.

Of course, that is all gut instinct on my part. But after sitting down and talking with Mr. Zytaruk for 90 minutes there is not a fibre in my body that says he was splicing and dicing tapes for financial gain. No way.

He took me through the 10 minutes or so that he had with Mr. Harper at Mr. Cadman's house the day he asked the Conservative Leader about an allegation that two representatives from the party had offered the dying MP a million-dollar insurance policy in exchange for his crucial, government-defeating vote in the House of Commons.

"If you don't mind," says Mr. Zytaruk, grabbing my tape recorder, "I held it up to him just like this."

I've listened to the tape recording myself and there is a hitch in it near the end. That, said Mr. Zytaruk, is when he stopped the tape because he thought Mr. Harper had finished talking. But when he suddenly turned and continued, Mr. Zytaruk pressed record again.

"It was almost like he had this afterthought, like he was trying to clarify something," the award-winning reporter recalls. "We're talking a split second here."

As someone who uses a tape recorder frequently, I have done the same thing Mr. Zytaruk did that day a thousand times. Stopped my recorder prematurely and turned it back on. I've taped telephone conversations during which there are beeps and seconds of dead air as a result of someone trying to call through on my line or the one of the person to whom I'm talking.

You could probably get a so-called audio expert to say some of my recordings were doctored, too. You can get experts to say almost anything. It happens in courtrooms around the world every day.

There's something a little outrageous about a federal party trying to bully and intimidate and discredit an honest and decent reporter who hasn't had a black mark on his résumé in 17 years at the twice-weekly community newspaper at which he's been employed.

The allegations against Mr. Zytaruk, indirect as they may be, have hurt those around him. His mother, especially. While he tries to remain stoic and unconcerned about the publicity, he wonders whether he's being naive. In this business, there is nothing more important than your integrity and credibility. You trade on it every day. He wonders if the Conservatives are trying to destroy his to save theirs.

"I guess I just have faith in people that they will see that this is just all bullshit," he said. "Honestly, what bothers me more is that Chuck's story is so inspirational and I think all this stuff is just smudging it out.

"The only reason I did this book was so people could read about what an amazing person he was. No one asks me about that now. It's just all about this other stuff. I feel bad for Chuck. He deserved better."

14 comments:

Dr Mike said...

You got to love these Conservatives!!

Their "it`s all about me" mindset makes a mockery of a fine journalist like Mr Zytaruk who is after all an award winning author.

His mission in all of this was to present the story of an incredible man , Chuck Cadman.

Instead , the Tories have turned it into a fight to prevent an incriminating piece of audio tape from being used in an election campaign.

Ridiculous.

Time to sue.

Dr Mike Popovich

MAW said...

Or the author could release the full original tape of the conversation he had with the prime minister so the public can decide who doctored a copy of part of the original tape recording the author keeps in a safe at home.

Johnathon said...

If you looked at the ACTUAL timeline of the recording, you would see that there are SEVERAL parts that were doctored.

Basically, the tape has 3 segments.

If it was not doctored, the segments would have went in order.

But after the manipulation, it went from segment 1, to segment 3, then to segment 2.

That's what the professionals have proven.

I can't understand this, but if the leftwing nutbars don't think the tape was doctored, why haven't them employed their own "expert" to review the tape.

I think its because they already know the answer.

Dr Mike said...

maw & Johnathon

I personally do not care if the tape was doctored---that is neither here or there.
What we need is for Mr Harper to explain exactly what he meant by his comments that were heard on the tape.

There has been nothing issued from the PMO to indicate that the original meaning of the PMs statement was affected even if doctoring had occurred.

This is like blacking out 18 pages of trust tax leakage proof---if the people involved would just explain it , then maybe we would all understand.

Go figure.

Of course , maybe it is just me & I am as stupid as the Conservative party thinks.

Dr Mike Popovich--former life-long Conservative.

Anonymous said...

The CONs claims of "doctored" could mean anything. The bigger and more relevant claim would be that the meaning and intent of Harper' own words were altered to convey a false meaning.

I suspect these three segmenst that are claimed to exist, simply amount to points in the interview where the reporter thought Harper had ended his comments and so the reporter turned off the recorder as anyone would do. In fact the so called thord segment was where Harper came back and sough to clarify his comments as am afterthought.

Brent Fullard

Luke said...

Pg 5 Tape expert Mr Gough believes the tape was made with 3 recordings. He is not positive, not much of an expert. Does Owen conclude the tape was made with 3 recordings?

Fm Stephen Taylor website: Record of motion.
Pg 26,27 Fm Raymond Novak “ In the end, Mr. Harper did agree that Doug Finley and Tom Flanagan could meet Mr. Cadman…I contacted Doug Finlay to inform him that Mr. Harper agreed that he and Mr. Flanagan could meet Mr. Cadman. This meeting occurred on May 19, 2005.” (Harper is giving his permission for the meeting?)

Pg 22
Fm the book:
“According to Dona, two Conservative Party representatives came to Chuck’s office on Tuesday afternoon- two days before the big vote-and tried to entice her husband back into the fold.
They wanted him to vote against the government, “she said. The Tories actually walked in with a list of offers written down on a piece of paper.
Included in their proposal was a million –dollar life insurance policy-
No small carrot for a man with advance cancer.
“That was on him, so that if he died I’d get the million dollars,” Dona said. “There was a few other things thrown in there too, but it was the million dollar policy that just pissed him right off.”
Chuck responded by bouncing them out of his office. They took the list with them when they were ushered out the door.

(I wonder if the RCMP questioned Dan Wallace, Chuck Cadman’s assistance about the mood of Chuck Cadman after the meeting and did Chuck Cadman say anything to Dan Wallace. Did Dan Wallace see any papers, list?)

Pg 12
It would be interesting to know exactly when Mr. Harper’s assistant Ray Novak explained to Mr. Harper about the financial problems an Independent MP would have to run in an election. Was it before the meeting or after the meeting?

I can’t find any affidavits from Tom Flanagan and Doug Finley about their meeting with Chuck Cadman, the list of offers or what instruction Mr. Harper gave them for the meeting.

Johnathon said...

You people must be deranged.

YOU CANNOT GET A LIFE INSURANCE POLICY WHEN YOUR DYING OF CANCER.

Are you leftist loons so stupid to not understand that?

If you're not, then how can you think Harper would offer something that cannot be offered.

Grow up, pilons.

Anonymous said...

Jonathon are YOU that stupid - the insurance companies could be given the insurance funds from another sources - as in CPC funding them for this. Duh....

I've heard that the author probably can't afford to sue - raise funds for him anyone?

Joseph said...

At least my brain isn't fucking mush like yours is apparently.

First off, if someone fronts the money, you can get insurance for any amount you want.

Secondly, then Harpers explanation about covering financial considerations in case of an election (such as potentially losing MP life insurance) doesn't make a lot of sense unless the conservatives planned to cover the costs. So I'm assuming you've sent an email to Harper this morning explaining he's a stupid loon as well.

Dr Mike said...

Johnathan & Joseph

An easy solution is for Mr Harper to explain himself for all to see.

Maybe he could do a Bill Clinton & appear in front of the people on live tv & declare that "I did not have sex ...." , oops , wrong one , declare that Cadman was a liar & "we made no offer of any money or other incentives for Chuck to sway his vote".

Maybe Mr Harper could explain the income trust tax while he is at it---how RRSPs are tax "exempt" not tax "deferred".

Mr Harper , you have a lot of "splainin to do".

Dr Mike Popovich--former life-long Conservative.

Joseph said...

Dr Mike, I agree with the easy solution you've offered . . . one apparently Harper isn't willing to do.

Hope you realize my comment was a response to Jonathan's 3rd grade argument . . . it was disconcerting seeing you group us together in your response ; ).

Have a good one.

Dr Mike said...

Joseph

My error for sure.

I was having a red tory leftist moment.

Dr Mike.

Transcanada said...

The Conservatives are desperately trying to throw enough mud and hope some of it sticks.

Good luck with that. The downside is voters will see the mudslinging for what it is and not believe anything the CONs say in the future.

The Conservatives were a proud party at one time and to see them reduced to these desperate tactics to protect a bad leader makes me sad.

This is what Harper has reduced the Conservative brand to?

The sooner we rid Canada of Harper the better. The Conservative will be better served by a rational leader rather than micro manager Steve.

Anonymous said...

Docktered Smocktered!
The back-room bastards in the CON party must be from the old Alliance gang. These shitheads would give the NAZI's a run for their money. All I can say is that the Liberals have to learn to fight fire with fire before we can sweep out these lizards from office.

Paul Sirois