Attempting to bribe Cadman, makes Flanagan a constitutional expert?

I understand that Flanagan was on CBC’s Power and the Politics CBC tonight, saying he was “hurt” that the Professors involved in the Prorogation debate, didn't ask his opinion?

Since when is Flanagan considered an expert in Constitutional Law? He isn’t even a lawyer.

Meanwhile Tom Flanagan is the person who allegedly along with (now Senator) Doug Finlay made the last attempt by Harper’s Conservative Party to bribe Chuck Cadman into selling his vote in Parliament for a $1 million life insurance policy, assuming Harper is to be believed. Strangely this is one occasion in which I think Harper actually CAN be believed.

Why is someone who allegedly attempted to bribe an MP, appearing on the CBC on such a regular basis or in the Globe and Mail with such great regularity? What’s with that? Whose standards are we playing to here?

Source:

Toronto Star
July 13, 2008

OTTAWA–A former FBI scientist hired by Stephen Harper's lawyer in the prime minister's $3.5-million lawsuit against the Liberal party has contradicted two other experts who said an audio tape at the centre of the legal action was doctored, court documents reveal.

In the fallout over the original Conservative release of expert evidence, Zytaruk conducted a series of television and other media interviews vigorously denying he had doctored the tape.

On the recording, Harper is heard saying he "understands" two of his top political operatives at the time, Doug Finley and Tom Flanagan, approached Cadman with an offer to replace "financial considerations" he might lose "due to an election."