As previously noted, where do you get these life insurance policies anyway? Should Patrick Swayze be taking one out? Also note that Cadman had an excellent life insurance program by sitting in the house; calling an election would have endangered that [*]. Perhaps someone's gotten confused about the details.

[*] so I have heard but I'm to lazy to go look up right now

Just so you can be relieved of this issue of yours:<ul><li>People who do wrong things are not necessarily smart or even correct in relation to the wrong things they do. That is part of what makes them wrong.</li><li>You seem to be taking this weird middle ground implying this never happened because of the difficulty getting a policy. For you to be right four Cadman family members must be liars while they have no benefit from the lie.</li><li>Insurance policies can be crafted for meet whatever risk. What if it was a very short term coverage or payment for extension for an existing policy which could not be cancelled? Without ruling out all the variabiles in insurance contracting, again, I am a bit unclear on your rolling out the policy as some sort of GOTCHA in this.</li></ul>I don't expect you to be settled by this but you are looking a little SDA if you don't mind me saying so and that is a level of incapacity that I have never associated with you.<p>Also note that the Tory story requires Cadman being offered a seat that had already been filled. As unlikely as what you suggest unsatisfyingly is the GOTCHA.

I'm not claiming any sorts of GOTCHAs; all I hear are a bunch of stories that don't particularly add up one way or the other. Stuff with people and memories and time are difficult at best; I thought they covered that at law school.

But the Glorious Leader is proving that there is no reason not to ignore X when Y will do nicely so maybe you are just displaying your natural plumage.

You will note my consistent pointing out of the reasonableness of the Cadman tale except for the Tory interpretations. That is based on evidence assessment as one learns from and after law school. That is why the immediate and death bed recollections are pointed out as being so good.

Beyond this thread, have I made more than 3 or 4 comments about Cadman? Ah well, here we go:

Here are the possible interpretations of the story, as I see it

A) members of the CPC attempted to bribe Cadman; Harper knew about it
B) members of the CPC attempt to bribe Cadman; Harper did not know about it
C) a meeting but no bribe, the Cadman family are liars
D) a meeting no bribe, the Canman family got their story wrong

Stephane Dion and that fat washed-up crypto-fascist ex-Montreal Canadian guy [*] are in the (A) camp. You are in the (A) or (B) camp. No one I know of is claiming (C), which I guess leaves with me (D). I'm a member of (D) because I can't make the math of the bribe work out in my head, and (C) doesn't make sense.

[*] is this natural plumage displaying>

I think there are a number of other possibilities given the likelihood ignorance of the law could be at play. I believe the 2005 Harper interview as it makes the rest make sense. He knew that there was some financial aspect, now characterized as a repayable loan to a riding association (but no evidence that the riding association knew anything about their generosity) but that he thought the two going were wasting their time. He likely did not know the details and even if he did no one is going to roll over and expose him so there is no evidence to the contrary. I think he likely did not say bribe them and they may not have even been thinking bribe but it was a time of pressure and people do dumb things or even seemingly honourable things which they do not realize are dumb. Flanagan is presumably too smart and ethical a guy to do the first so I figure if he did anything he did the latter. Where is his statement anyway?<p>D is the least likely of your scenarios as there is independent corroboration about the story from two events of high quality oral evidence. There is no Cadman collusion or any possible reason for it. You are asking us to prefer the story of people who are interested who tell self serving and partial explanations (CPC representatives) over the story of family members with no interest or contradictory evidence who describe two events that bolster each other in a common sense way.

Ah, but Cadman very publicly said there was no bribe after the alleged bribe taking was made, so that has to count for more than something. And as you say, it was a time of pressure, especially for the Cadman family -- slight misinterpretations could play critical roles in how events are recounted.

That is from the improved story and really does not relate to the key moments. She is reporting in that case her own impressions of another event, a meeting with Harper. It has nothing to do with reporting Chuck statements. The insurance story is the strongest part because it is reported twice at two different moments in two different contexts to two or three different people. You are being deflected from the way of the truth by the side show.

Actually, I was thinking of this Mike Duffy thing

Why do you expect Cadman would say things in public that were clearly private things a gentleman would not say except to his wife and, with regret, to a child on his death bed? Do you? Does anyone? You can't seriously think that the level of conversation to Mike Duffy on the TV is the same as within the family for a person of political skill and discretion. Why would you even entertain such a faulty understanding?

As far as insurance goes, as far as I remember, TERM life insurance can be purchased for cash up front with no medical required. Usually, as I remember it, certain stipulations must apply such as you must live X number of years/months etc before a death can result in a payment. A modification of the terms just means premiums go up and up.

So, if one can find someone to underwrite a policy stating that if person Y lives longer than say, one month, then if they die anytime in the next say Z months, they get a $1000000 payout. Premium: Pretty damn close to $1000000 probably. No money goes to insured person directly, no money goes to beneficiaries directly, looks fair on paper.

Just playing Fox Mulder is all (insert the doo dee doo doo music here)

So hearsay evidence now outweighs eyewittness evidence?

What eyewitness?

Now even the National Post, apologist for all things dexter, is saying this is not good enough.

Chuck Cadman. Isn't he on record as saying that there were no financial incentives offered?

Try to keep up or you'll be considered a spammer. You are ignoring this comment above. Only an idiot could conceive of a world where a politician says the same thing to a reporter as he says in the privacy of his home.

By way of further incredulity, we are expected to believe now that Cadman was planning to run again...despite him not pulling the trigger on the election in which he would have run. And how do they know? Who told them? Why is that report of a Cadman statement better?<p>Back to the PMO huddle. Back for the next hopefully better spin.