[PluggyRug]

She was/is obviously confused about the the two guy's who offered the so called bribe. They were probably Liberal party representatives who made the offer, so he would side with the Liberal party.

[Benoit]

ridenrain ridenrain:

Benoit Benoit:

ridenrain ridenrain:

Evidence based on the recollection of a man on cancer medication, of a private conversation. No proof other than some book based on this recollection and even that is being changed and recounted.

I would not want to see you in charge of the search for more evidences.

These sad rumors and recolections of deathbed confessions may be good enough for divorce court or the argument of children in the back seat of a car but they are not going to make it to court. I'd kind of wish they would just so we can see martin and the CBC slapped with not reporting a crime.

We don't have to prove a political embezzlement to stop having confidence in a political party.

[kenmore]

you cant trust tories..... I bet more shit will come out ....

[2Cdo]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Lets see if we can clear this up.

Tom writes a book and in it he details allegations about Harper and his party trying to bribe Chuck Cadman to vote against the Liberals.

Chucks wife Donna is the main source and she backs up her account of what her husband allegedly told her. No reason for her to lie.

con response: That lying, backstabbing whore. red herring attack on Liberals.

Their daughter confirms the story about what he rfather allegedly said, reiterating it and providing reasons why he didn't press his claim in parliment.

con response: That lying dirty bitch. Red herring attack on Liberals.
Additional con response: Where is the evidence?

Audio tape surfaces showing Harper was fully aware of the meeting and gave his blessing to promise Chuck "Financial considerations".

Con response: Either "faked" or "so what, it was only for other reasons". Red herring attack on Liberals.

A radio interview surfaces in which Cadman talks about the bribe attempt.

Con response: That lying bastard. Red herring attack on Liberals.

An asshole writes a column in which all questions and blame is heaped on the Cadmans.

con response: See, its all a conspiracy. whew. Red herring attack on Liberals.

Donna Cadman after a week of standing by her statement suddenly releases a statement in which she question Harper about the bribe attempt and believed his response.

con response: That wonderful woman is telling the truth and Harper is vindicated. red herring attack on Liberals blaming them for everything.

What a pathetic political hack I am.

The entire country knows an allegation about your allegedly corrupt party now and the only people who don't accept the allegations are corrupt bastards who vote only Liberal and would elect a fencepost if it was painted red.

That pretty much sums up the entire affair.

Your corrupt party allegedly tried to bribe a dying man in order to force an election.

You know it is bullshit. We know it is bullshit. Canada knows it is bullshit.

There you go Derby, tidied up your post for you. Stick to the medical lab, you don't have the smarts to be a legal expert.

[ryan29]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Lets see if we can clear this up.

Tom writes a book and in it he details facts about Harper and his party trying to bribe Chuck Cadman to vote against the Liberals.

Chucks wife Donna is the main source and she backs up her account of what her husband told her. No reason for her to lie.

con response: That lying, backstabbing whore. red herring attack on Liberals.

Their daughter confirms the story about what he rfather said, reiterating it and providing reasons why he didn't press his claim in parliment.

con response: That lying dirty bitch. Red herring attack on Liberals.
Additional con response: Where is the evidence?

Audio tape surfaces showing Harper was fully aware of the meeting and gave his blessing to promise Chuck "Financial considerations".

Con response: Either "faked" or "so what, it was only for other reasons". Red herring attack on Liberals.

A radio interview surfaces in which Cadman talks about the bribe attempt.

Con response: That lying bastard. Red herring attack on Liberals.

An asshole writes a column in which all questions and blame is heaped on the Cadmans.

con response: See, its all a conspiracy. whew. Red herring attack on Liberals.

Donna Cadman after a week of standing by her statement suddenly releases a statement in which she question Harper about the bribe attempt and believed his response.

con response: That wonderful woman is telling the truth and Harper is vindicated. red herring attack on Liberals blaming them for everything.

What a pathetic bunch of political hacks you are.

The entire country knows the truth about your corrupt party now and the only people who don't accept the truth are corrupt bastards who vote only conservative and would elect a fencepost if it was painted blue.

That pretty much sums up the entire affair.

Your corrupt party tried to bribe a dying man in order to force an election.

You know it. We know it. Canada knows it.

ok , but your version of the story is forgeting a few points , like the lack of any hard evidence to prove that any insurance policy ever existed or that these 2 men tried to find one.
without evidence how can they prove a crime was committed ?

i'd like to know how they plan on proving a crime was commited without any hard evidence , chuck is on video as well saying nothing illegal was offered . maybe if chuck was on video saying he was offered an insuarnce policy the know bizare story might sound believeable but as of now it does not .

[Benoit]

ryan29 ryan29:

ok , but your version of the story is forgeting a few points , like the lack of any hard evidence to prove that any insurance policy ever existed or that these 2 men tried to find one.
without evidence how can they prove a crime was committed ?

i'd like to know how they plan on proving a crime was commited without any hard evidence , chuck is on video as well saying nothing illegal was offered . maybe if chuck was on video saying he was offered an insuarnce policy the know bizare story might sound believeable but as of now it does not .

The Conservatives version is to the effect that Mr. Cadman was offered help to wage an election campaign. It is not credible since the party had already chosen another Conservative candidate for his riding. It is this kind of inconsistencies that make disappear reasonable doubts about a criminal intent.

[ridenrain]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Lets see if we can clear this up.
...
con response: That lying, backstabbing whore. red herring attack on Liberals.
...
con response: That lying dirty bitch. Red herring attack on Liberals.

Prove that. The only person who's been swearing up a storm is you.

You'd like that but I've been follwing this as close as you and I saw no one calling her bad names or saying she was anything more than confused or misdirected. If I'm right and the liberals wrote this book as an attack, the only person who was lying was the Liberals.

By the way.. PMPM promised to follow up on Chucks anti-street racing crusade.

Did anything get done?

No. Not by the Liberals.

[ryan29]

Benoit Benoit:

ryan29 ryan29:

ok , but your version of the story is forgeting a few points , like the lack of any hard evidence to prove that any insurance policy ever existed or that these 2 men tried to find one.
without evidence how can they prove a crime was committed ?

i'd like to know how they plan on proving a crime was commited without any hard evidence , chuck is on video as well saying nothing illegal was offered . maybe if chuck was on video saying he was offered an insuarnce policy the know bizare story might sound believeable but as of now it does not .

The Conservatives version is to the effect that Mr. Cadman was offered help to wage an election campaign. It is not credible since the party had already chosen another Conservative candidate for his riding. It is this kind of inconsistencies that make disappear reasonable doubts about a criminal intent.

but i don't think cadman had made it clear if he was going to leave politics or run again . you have to remember that at time of vote he appeared healthy and no one really know his health wouldn't last much longer .
so since he never made clear plans public to my knowledge before the vote , its hard to say what he might of done or been considering doing at that time.

[ridenrain]

It's perfectly acceptable for a party to ask an underperforming candidate to make room for a better one, and that's exacly the case with Cadman. It's also perfectly legal if money or "special considerations" pass hands to get that candidate.

A man who could vote himself out of a job would appreciate knowing that he'd get another, and a campaign for an independant is a very expensive proposition, expecially when medical bills and health concerns are the first priority.

All legal and all moral.

[Wally_Sconce]

Who says that offering an insurance policy to a dying man is a monetary bribe?

We all know that insurance policy would be worthless.

Because it's worthless, I say the offer was a colorful way of explaining that they couldn't offer him any money. The value of that piece of paper supports my theory.

[Benoit]

ridenrain ridenrain:

It's perfectly acceptable for a party to ask an underperforming candidate to make room for a better one, and that's exacly the case with Cadman. It's also perfectly legal if money or "special considerations" pass hands to get that candidate.

A man who could vote himself out of a job would appreciate knowing that he'd get another, and a campaign for an independant is a very expensive proposition, expecially when medical bills and health concerns are the first priority.

All legal and all moral.

No jury will buy that a democratically-elected and terminally-ill man turning his back to his party would have received such back-up from the people he lets down.

[Wally_Sconce]

This kind of situation is a lot like a custody battle where everyone it pointing and waiving their finger at each other.

A lot of stuff can be said and twisted outside of a court room, especially when we are relying on liberal media for the facts.

When it's all said and done, the only parts that matter are the parts that are admisable in court.

[ridenrain]

Benoit Benoit:

ridenrain ridenrain:

It's perfectly acceptable for a party to ask an underperforming candidate to make room for a better one, and that's exacly the case with Cadman. It's also perfectly legal if money or "special considerations" pass hands to get that candidate.

A man who could vote himself out of a job would appreciate knowing that he'd get another, and a campaign for an independant is a very expensive proposition, expecially when medical bills and health concerns are the first priority.

All legal and all moral.

No jury will buy that a democratically-elected and terminally-ill man turning his back to his party would have received such back-up from the people he lets down.

I'm not sure I get you're point.

Chucks appeal was his image of "the average man", a sort of a "MR Smith goes to Ottawa".
This is what allowed him to win so easy when he had to run as an independent. A party behind him would just give him more funding and much more strength.
I'm quite sure that the people of the riding would have elected him again.

[Wally_Sconce]

anyone that interprets a worthless piece of paper as a bribe is a bit mentally challenged. Cadman included.

[DerbyX]

You know what cdo.

You just aren't worth it.