Today, Lawrence Martin of the Globe and Mail asks the question Roboscam: So what are the chances Harper knew?
It's certainly a question worth asking. Without biasing myself by reading Martin's piece I have my own take on answering that question and simply look to Harper's past to answer it, as follows:
Feb. 28, 2008
Harper says there is "absolutely no truth" to allegations that Conservatives tried to buy Cadman's vote, although a recording of an interview he gave in 2005 seems to suggest otherwise.
Harper was interviewed by Zytaruk, the Cadman biographer, after the MP's death. CBC News obtains a copy of an audio recording of the interview.
"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 "This is not for publication?"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.
Mr. Harper is quoted in the book, Like a Rock: The Chuck Cadman Story, as confirming that a visit took place, and that officials were “legitimately” representing the Conservative Party.
Harper goes on to say that the offer to Cadman was "only to replace financial considerations he might lose due to an election."
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.
Above we are witnessing criminal wrong doing being done by officials of the Conservative Party (Tom Flanagan and Doug Finley) who with the prior knowledge of Stephen Harper and in the name of the Conservative Party engaged in the criminal act of attempting to bribe a sitting MP to influence his vote by offering him a $1 million life insurance policy to "keep him whole". This endorsement of this criminal act that was about to occur was more than a mere tacit endorsement (as if that wouldn't be bad enough) but was actually a formal and explicit endorsement as Harper even engaged in ascertaining what their probability of success would be (i.e. "wasting their time"). Given that the accounts of Robocalls were taking place in real time during the last election, rather than after the fact, do you not suppose if you were the leader of the Conservative Party at the time of an election in which widespread reports of misleading robocalls were being leveled at your party that you would not have made some immediate inquiry to establish possible guilt and to root out those responsible?
Harper either (i) turned a blind eye, as he did with the attempted Cadman bribe about to take place as described above, knowing that any such activity would accrue to his benefit, so why dig deeper, or (ii) he inquired and found that indeed Conservatives were engaged in illegal robocall voter fraud and allowed the activity to persist, or (iii) he inquired and was convinced that the Conservatives had no role whatsoever.
Explanation (iii) is possible, albeit highly unlikely, but served to point to the reasons why Canadians need a full public inquiry into these criminal acts, if only to absolve Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party.
Speaking of "chances", at this point in time one (a public inquiry) is as likely as the other (absolution of Stephen Harper's role in such crimes).
Friday, March 9, 2012
Posted by Brent Fullard at 7:54 AM