Some guy [named, the author] says that some woman [named, the widow] says that some guys [unnamed] offered Chuck Cadman a million dollars? You're joking right? This doesn't even pass a rudimentary smell test: you can't get, as far as I know, insurance policies for people about to die; you know, otherwise, insurance companies would be out of business in a hurry. What's the remaining facts? An accusation by a person who probably hates the CPC? A visit by CPC officials to someone whose vote was in play before a big vote - very suspicious.

I am thiniking (guessing really) that it is entirely plausible that a "gift" of 1 mil in the form of a form of severance pay or something worded as such could have been offered and although iffy in the "is that right" department, perfectly legal under certain circumstances. I am thinking the term "insurance policy" might have been used to sway the dying Mr. Cadman into thinking about the well being of his family after he was gone, then again, who am I, a mere minor poli-hack who in Mr. Cadman's situation would have taken the moolah.

<i>...Some guy [named, the author] says that some woman [named, the widow] says that some guys [unnamed] offered Chuck Cadman a million dollars? You're joking right?...</i>

You took Fact Belittling 101, right? This is classic obfuscation that would make a Rovian blush. The story is "widow says". When you have a retraction from here you may have a point, David. Until then you are the thin edge of the Cadman demonization program.

"In his explosive new book, the [author] says that the Widow Janes told him that McLeod offered Janes in 2004 $500,000 to worship Satan". Refute!

I am Fact Belittling indeed, since the there's so little facts here to hold on to. If the widow Cadman just made this story up, would we see the story presented any differently? Do we have something from Cadman himself substantiating this claim? You know -- "today the CPC attempted to bribe me with a $1,000,000 payout to my estate. I was so offended I threw them out of the house, and so said you X and you Y [insert real names here] never darken my doorstep ago or I'll set the dogs on you. And I told that Harper: don't expect my vote, I'm telling everyone what you and your pack of thief liars did here today". No we do not. Do we have a credible bribe? As per my previous message, no we do not.

On the other hand one does not see Herr Harper et al speaking aloud the words libel or slander.

OK, that is fine. You think it is more likely that a widow lies without any prospect of gain and great risk to the reputation of her sainted departed husband. That makes sense. Especially as the departed PM was a old school Reformer with absolutely no skin (if he were alive) in the present game. That makes a lot of sense. But, as I say, I will believe the widow when she says she was misquoted...and also when she doesn't as her husband was a person of universally accepted integrity and she is reporting what she was told by that person of universally accepted integrity.

Your call for "evidence" despite the fact that there is testimony (ie evidence) sounds like a creationist's take on the "theories of science."

Without evidence it's "he said" vs. "she said he said" or perhaps even vs. "she said he said they said". I'm sure to a certain type of person, one would think that these types of allegations would _increase_ the reputation of her departed husband (of whom you'll note I haven't said a bad word), not diminish it.

Has anyone denied there was an offer of life insurance? I understand there was a statement to the effect that the offer was to help with election expenses. A life insurance policy would do that.

CBC:

<blockquote>
<p>
Harper said Thursday there is "absolutely no truth" in the allegations. The day of the vote, he added, Cadman himself said in a national television interview that there had been no offer to win his support.

<p>
"I wish everyone would accept his word," Harper said.

<p>
The prime minister also praised Cadman, a former Reform and then Canadian Alliance MP, as a "fine man" and said Dion should apologize for questioning the late MP's credibility.

<p>
"I knew Chuck Cadman very well," Harper said. "The leader of the Opposition would have us believe that Chuck Cadman was offered a bribe, then went on national television and denied it ever happened. This is completely false, completely irresponsible and the leader of the Opposition should offer an apology."
</blockquote>

<p>
Hey, what's that Cadman denying with Cadman said?

How does Harper know that? He can't know that. If you are accepting Harper's heresay then you should be accepting better the quality heresay.

Ah, but theoretically there's a Mike Duffy interview with him saying this. When we dig this up, we'll know won't we?

I just listened to Barbara Bud on As It Happens pretty much take apart "author" Tom Zytaruk. Up to this point I was leaning toward Alan's side of the argument, but after listening to this interview, I'm tending toward David's side.

When Zytaruk was asked if he could name any person or any source who could corroborate his story, he named Dona Cadman. When Bud pointed out that Mrs. Cadman was the *source* of his story Zytaruk was stuck dumb.
He was unable to name either of the Conservative representatives who met with Cadman, even though they were identified in the news today.
When Bud pointed out that offering an incentive that could be construed as a bribe for a vote in the House of Commons is a criminal offense and that therefore Zytaruk's allegations where rather serious, his response was literally "...yeah I guess."
Zytaruk seemed far more interested in promoting his book than discussing the substantive issue. He actually ignored one of Bud's questions and instead asked her if she had an excerpt of the book that she could read on the air.

I don't doubt that Mrs. Cadman believes what she is saying, but I think something has been confused or misinterpreted between her, her late husband and Zytaruk, because this guy struck me as a rather unintelligent hack.

I seem to recall Cadman answering a reporter's question about whether the Liberals had offered him any kind of reward for his vote with the words, "A couple of Dire Straits tickets would be nice." Obviously Cadman didn't talk about the Conservative bribe because he didn't want to waste the last two months of his life fending off Tory attack dogs.

<i>...I don't doubt that Mrs. Cadman believes what she is saying, but I think something has been confused or misinterpreted between her, her late husband and Zytaruk, because this guy struck me as a rather unintelligent hack...</i><p>Good point but I care nothing for the hack and I recommend none get sidetracked by him. Has anyone interviewed Mrs. Cadman to confirm her story?

She has reiterated the tale directly to CTV:<blockquote class="smalltext">in an interview with CTV News this afternoon, Cadman's widow Dona confirmed that Tory officials had met with her husband to woo his vote. "Two gentlemen had visited him, offered him a million dollar life insurance policy and a few other things," she said. Asked whether she considered it a bribe, she responded, "Yes, in a way."</blockquote>Transcript. Note this as well:<blockquote class="smalltext">JD: Can I also ask you, you're running for the Tories now. Does this put you in an awkward situation in terms of the party and this allegation.<br>DC: A little. Yes.</blockquote>Yes, she really has a lot invested in this scandal.

Steve Janke dug up two CTV articles (here and here) relating to Cadman's decisionmaking process during the confidence vote, and in the second one, Cadman indicates that no offers were made from either side.

I think you will be waiting an awfully long time for the demonisation of Mr. Cadman.

Because, again, there is no chance he would not tell everything he knew to CTV at the time of national crisis. The conservative faith in main stream media is suddenly so strong...except, of course, the reiteration by the widow.

I just find it highly implausible that a man who prided himself on his integrity would express private outrage when confronted with bribery, but refrain from bringing it to public light. Especially when it surfaces at a pivotal point where Canadians might potentially be selecting the next Prime Minister--and one of the candidates was the Briber-in-Chief.

I have personally resigned a post after witnessing conduct unbecoming by senior brass, and then made it known to up through the chain of command and to regulatory/law enforcement agencies. I would expect Cadman would have done the same. When it comes from the Leader of the Opposition, you can't go much higher than that, so the law and/or the voting public would seem to be a logical choice.

Then add to it the implausibility of wife of said man, having witnessed private rage at said bribery, agreeing to run for office under the party and banner of the Briber-in-Chief. Unless one is doing it as an elaborate plot to become a sleeper agent, and then blow the whistle when you have some seriously ass-whooping evidence, it kind of defies logic. I certain did not go back to the firm whose brass were operating unethically and illegally.

I don't know what kind of mental gymnastics you have pulled off to make it seem rational and reasonable but normal people, when confronted with attempted subversion and bribery of a family member, do not decide to front for the crime bosses three years later.

<i>I just find it highly implausible that a man who prided himself on his integrity would express private outrage when confronted with bribery, but refrain from bringing it to public light...</i><p>With greatest respect, this is the very heart of good political public service, the art of the possible. I, too, have spoken up and uncovered unseemly doings in my profession to something of my own personal short term risk when I reported two (<i>two!</i>) separate senior lawyers to the law society. That shared ethical standard is one of the things I trust we approve in each ofher but I do think there is difference here. Political tensions are different than professional ones even when they both servce the public good. I think your lack of comfort with the state of the widow's conundrum rests not with me but with her own testimony. This may seem an impossible ethical situation but it is one she (not the bad journalist or the Liberals or me or anyone else) has triggered. On that point, these are my thoughts of this morning.

I should add that no part of me likes the idea of political horse-trading, which I am sure goes on all the time. And Harper's hilarious little "This isn't for publication, right?" aside looks ludicriously bad.

But I know how I felt when I witnessed the senior brass crossing the line, and if I were to do anything, it would be to kick them in the nads. I would still kick them in the nads today. And possibly their wives and kids as well. And their pets, especially if they are monkeys. But I absolutely would not try to further their ambitions.

So maybe this was the deal: Chuck and his now widow may have set this out as the way to proceed between themselves so that the particular political needs of the nation on that day were not upset but the nads get a kicking at a future date just to set the record straight. I actually find the idea of Chuck's hand from the grave quite attractive given that he was likely the last true Reform party voice in our Parliament.

I note that whilst in the car today on the way to a meeting in TO I heard that Cadman's daughter was quoted as saying that her father reiterated the same tale of a monetary offer as well. I don't see how either she or her mother, who is as we know running for CPC, could at all benefit by repeating these tales were they lies. Upon further reflection, how can this benefit them if they are stating the truth either.

Methinks what the decriers of the tale do not wish to broach directly is the possibility that they think or at least would like to imply that it is perhaps Mr. Cadman that told a fib to his spouse and daughter.

<i>Steve Janke dug up two CTV articles (here and here) relating to Cadman's decisionmaking process during the confidence vote, and in the second one, Cadman indicates that no offers were made from either side.</i>

Did you read either of the articles? The first is dated May 17th, with a time of 06:34 ET, or about 3:30 in the morning on the west coast. The meeting mentioned by Dona Cadman and discussed in the book occurred two days before the budget vote (May 19th). Unless the meeting occurred in the middle of the night (doubtful), this first article was published before the alleged offer was even made.

On the other hand, the second article mentions only Cadman's meeting Martin for coffee earlier that week:

<i>Independent MP Chuck Cadman says his support doesn't hinge on any demands. He admits having coffee with Martin on Monday, but they only discussed their positions, not deals.

"No offers made, nothing put on the table," he told CTV. "I didn't demand anything."</i>

From the context of the article, it is clear that he is talking about his meeting with Martin, rather than a pair of Tory officials (and it has been admitted that Finley and Flanagan made a campaign/nomination offer to Cadman, likely after the initial meeting).

While we may never know the exact truth, this stinks to high heaven, particularly since Harper is caught on tape suggesting that playing up the "financial security" angle would be reasonable in parlaying with Cadman.

CTV News</a<:

<blockquote>
After examining the allegations against Conservative Party officials, the RCMP say that no charges will be laid in the Chuck Cadman affair.
The Mounties said they found no evidence to support the allegations of bribery laid out in a biography of Cadman, who died in 2005.
</blockquote>

Ain'tcha proud? Only took a three month investigation.