Tale of the Tape: Timing is everything

by kadyomalley on Monday, October 13, 2008 11:46pm - 25 Comments

Why, look, the Prime Minister has, in the words of the National Post, “[broken] his silence” on the Cadman Affair – and just hours before the advertising blackout kicks in, which means that the Liberal Party – which, of course, Harper has sued for defamation, won’t be able to respond publicly until after the election:

Harper gave an exclusive interview Monday to Global BC in which he again challenged the casette tape on which journalist Tom Zytaruk asked him about an alleged attempt by Conservative officials to buy a vote from dying Independent MP Chuck Cadman with a $1-million life insurance policy.

The prime minister said even Cadman’s widow, Dona Cadman – who’s running this election as a Tory candidate, denies there was an attempt to bribe her late husband.

“She certainly doesn’t believe that and that’s why she’s running as a candidate in this election,” Harper said in the interview.

“She’s told in court proceedings what she knows. Fact of the matter is, as I’ve said before, this is all based on an allegation on a tape that has been edited and is an incomplete conversation.”

Harper launched a $3.5-million defamation lawsuit against the Liberal Party after the party posted articles on its website accusing Harper of knowing that the bribe would be offered, an allegation he denied.

Earlier this week, an Ontario judge ordered another analysis of the tape and Harper asked former FBI agent Bruce Koenig to do the job. Koenig said the portion of the tape dealing with the insurance policy “contains neither physical nor electronic splices, edits or alterations,” according to a report entered in court on Friday. [...]

In the Global BC interview, Harper said some parts were doctored and others were not. However, “a doctored tape is a doctored tape,” he said.

“These various expert reports disagree on some details . . . they all agree that the tape has been significantly doctored and that’s a fact.”

“They all agree”? A statement seemingly at odds with reality – or, at least, the opinion of his own audio expert  – whose report the PM’s lawyers attempted to suppress until after the election – who concluded that the exchange at the heart of the dispute was not, in fact edited:

[F]ormer FBI agent Bruce Koenig, the sound expert Harper hired to prove his allegations, submitted a report dated Friday to Harper’s lawyer, which also had to be sent to the Liberal lawyer Chris Paliare.

In the report, Koenig concluded that the first part of Zytaruk’s interview with Harper, which contains the key portions that the prime minister has contested, was intact.

The second part, beginning roughly one minute and 41 seconds into the tape, was a new recording that was made over the final part of the original recording, he said. But the first crucial minute and 41 seconds had not been altered.

Koenig reported that the tape “contains neither physical nor electronic splices, edits or alterations, except for the over-recording start that erased and replaced the end of the first part of the designated interview.”

The expert hired by the Liberals, however, found differently, according to the Post:

[...]In a strange twist, a CTV News reported Monday that an analysis on the tape by experts tapped by the Liberal Party found the tape had likely been altered, contradicting Koenig’s finding.

Except that’s not quite right, as it turns out. (Really, did anyone think it would be that simple? Has anything about this saga ever been simple?)

From the CTV News story in question (emphasis added):

The latest, Liberal-funded report states “it can be postulated that the original … tape recording was digitized, edited digitally and the electronically placed on the evidence tape associated with this dispute.”

However, the report also states that it would be impossible to determine if such an alteration was even made, and that the journalist who recorded the tape — Tom Zytaruk — likely did not have the tools or knowledge necessary to alter the tape in such a fashion.

“While the process would be relatively simple to carry out in a laboratory such as ours, its realization … would have demanded more sophisticated technical knowledge and equipment than is apparent in the examination of Mr. Zytaruk,” the report says.

The experts also found that the tape “cannot be shown to be complete” because of apparent missing sections and an interruption. Zytaruk has said he stopped his tape recorder and started it again during his interview with Harper.

In other words, it might have been altered – but there is no way to prove it, and Tom Zytaruk “likely” wouldn’t have been able to do so. That’s a far cry from what the PM’s claim that the audio experts have agreed that the tape was “signficantly doctored”.

Oh, and as for Harper’s assertion that Dona Cadman “certainly doesn’t believe” that there was “an attempt to bribe her late husband”, I’d be interested in seeing any public statement to that effect from the Conservative candidate in Surrey North. Back in August, while under cross examination, she seemed to confirm that an offer had taken place, although she was unable to name the party officials involved:

Dona Cadman faced cross-examination as part of the lawsuit on Aug. 12, when she revealed the Conservatives came to her husband’s office with a list of 10 promises.

One of those, she testified, was an assurance to push through her husband’s street racing bill and another was what she said was a $1-million life insurance policy in exchange for his vote to topple the government, she said.

She couldn’t remember all of the items promised to her late husband.

“No,” Dona Cadman said under cross-examination, “because the life insurance policy was the one that bothered him the most.”

Chris Paliare, lawyer for the Liberal party continued, saying, “He was infuriated that somebody thought they could bribe him to get his vote.”

“Right,” replied Cadman.

So, has she changed her position? Is the PM not aware of what she told the court just two months ago? And will Canadians have to wait until Harper vs. Liberal Party of Canada goes before a judge to find out the truth?

Bookmark and Share
  • T. Thwim

    Sadly, this is one of those things that doesn’t mean anything when it’s a conservative who does it.

    Isn’t that right, Kody, Jarrid? After all, just because the party leader is aware of and makes no attempt to stop an attempt at bribing a sitting MP doesn’t matter so long as the conservatives get elected right? Ethics? Bah. Those are for losers, aren’t they?

    To be honest, it makes me sick what these “conservative” supporters are willing to support. The policy preference I can understand — not agree with, but understand — but allowing the party and the party leader to get away with this kind of stuff? It seems conservative supporters have no scruples left. Power uber alles, eh?

  • Ian

    Irrelevant and specious. Another minority government will mean that Canadians have given Harper a clear, strong mandate to completely bury this. And to keep lying to us, because apparently we like it.

  • Sisyphus

    Good ol’ experts. Telling us how much they could say if they had reason to say it.

  • Andrew

    Say hello to Canada’s New Open, Transparent, Accountable and Honest Government.

  • Mike T.

    It’s bald-faced half-truths and outright lies like this that have dragged the party into the mud.

    Just for fun, imagine if the CPC had conducted themselves for the last three years with sterling rectitude and impeccable honesty. If they hadn’t launched insane lawsuits at the Liberals (although not the reporter who supposedly doctored evidence against them), had kept their noses clean on money laundering instead of inviting the in-and-out scandal, and handn’t blamed elections Canada for their own misfortune. If they hadn’t turned 180 degrees on income trusts or hadn’t committed to a position on it. If they hadn’t called their opponents terrorist supporters. If he’d merely concentrated on the five priorities, instead of trying to switch one after he was elected (and making a joke out of the accountability act). Many, many others.

    I am convinced that if he had just asked himself at each turn, ‘what is the honourable, responsible thing to do’, he’d be looking at far more seats tommorow (except the voting wouldn’t be tommorow, because he broke yet another promise by calling an election).

    Instead, as we go into an election tommorow,we’re looking at a prime minister who can no longer say ‘accountability’ with a straight face. Canadians deserve better.

  • Harper Hides from the Facts

    The crucial part of the tape was not altered.
    The so called Doctoring is as a result of stopping and starting the tape as Zytaruk said was done.
    Conclusion Harper knew about and in all probability authorized the bribe.
    No I do not want a criminal to be the PM – is the history that Harper so desperately wants to create about himself the distinction of being the first PM to br arrested for criminal wrong doing well still in office?
    ABC/ABH

  • Two Cents

    First of all, wasn’t this all happening at the same time Belinda was offered and accepted a Cabinet seat.

    And isn’t there a tape that suggests Gurmant Grewal may have been offered “something” by Tim Murphy and Ujjal Dosanjh.

    To the best of my knowledge there has been no suggestion that the above actions were criminal, which is how the Liberals have repeatedly described Harper’s reference to the fact the the Conservatives were ready to help Cadman in running for re-election to offset the potential for losses in his pension in the event of an election. This is not an illegal act and Elections Canda has already said so.

    Can we now declare case closed and move on to more important subjects like health care?

    Just wondering…

  • Kelly

    From the little bits of her testimony that I have read on other blogs, she also mentions one of the men who visited Chuck, was named Jim…and also, that Zytaruk came in and played her the tape immediately after Harper left, the liberal lawyer apparently played the tape for her and asked if that was what she had heard, and she said yes….

  • Jody

    It’s psychopathy. I’m not exaggerating. Most people think serial killers, but psychopaths are found more often in boardrooms, or high office, than in prisons.

    UBC’s Dr. Robert C. Hare developed the classic checklist, now used worldwide. Key emotional and interpersonal characteristics of psychopaths: they are glib and superficial, egocentric and grandiose, lack remorse or guilt, lack empathy, are deceitful and manipulative, and have shallow emotions. No conscience. But they’re very successful, because observers doubt their own perceptions of what is happening.

    Or consult Orwell. (I’d suggest Goebbels, but I’d be slapped with Godwin’s law.

  • seaandthemountains

    Kady asks; “Really, did anyone think it would be that simple?”

    Depends what ‘it’ is Kady.

    If you meant it mean “ghat an analysis on the tape by experts tapped by the Liberal Party found the tape had likely been altered, contradicting Koenig’s finding” then, no I would not have thought it to be that simple.

    Alternatively, if you meant it to mean that the NP would publish a purposefully misleading story in support of their boy SH, then yeah, I would. After watching the MD/SM/SH tag-team on SD the other night, I am not surprised in the least.

  • NG

    It won’t be a judge.
    It will be the judge.
    The judge’s name is Hackland
    and he was appointed in June
    by Rob Nicholson under the
    auspices of Harper.
    Gowlings is the law firm that
    Harper’s lawyer, Dearden, and
    Judge Hackland work and once
    worked, respectively.
    There is definitely a conflict of
    interest here and why prime
    ministers should not be taking
    advantage of the court system
    to settle their disputes.

  • dpat

    “comment by Ian on Tuesday, October 14, 2008 at 12:03 am:”
    Actually Ian, if polling numbers hold up, roughly 1/3 of voters will have given sub-prime minister Harper a weak ok to “bury” the bribery affair. The rest of us want a government with integrity, not a government run by a team of unprincipled, power-at-any-cost ex-Reform Party operatives.

  • Liz

    Tom Flanagan wrote about it for Pete’s sake!

    It is common knowledge that the Harper election team visted Chuck Cadman a few times: Flanagan recounts one meeting, Harper talks about another that he knew about.

    Yes. Timing is everything.

    Bottom line is that Chuck Cadman gave the Harper party and its leader a look that would stop most anything in its tracks. There was a good reason for Chuck Cadman’s look if doom. Basically, Chuck Cadman learned that a Harper Party promise is a fleeting thing.

    What would Chuck Cadman do?

    That’s the question.

    The question Stephen Harper doesn’t want Canadians to ask themselves.

    Sad.

  • http://ADMS.ca cms

    Mike T.:

    Voting isn’t tomorrow. It’s February 14th. Didn’t you hear? :)

    I agree though, good post.

  • Just visiting

    Testing

  • Geiseric the Lame

    “The prime minister said even Cadman’s widow, Dona Cadman – who’s running this election as a Tory candidate, denies there was an attempt to bribe her late husband.”

    yeah. but your spokesman at the time said he was offered a nomination and a loan.

    it doesn’t have to be illegal to be a bribe.

    its over.

  • DR

    But when Dion calls Harper a liar, it’s WRONG.

  • Andrew

    Yes. The ‘doctoring’ doesn’t seem to substantial alter what can be concluded from the tape: that Harper was aware of and condoned the offering of ‘financial considerations’ to Cadman.

  • Geiseric the Lame

    “First of all, wasn’t this all happening at the same time Belinda was offered and accepted a Cabinet seat.”

    yeah

    but for once Martin passed the aptitude test by doing it without a trace.

  • Pingback: Tale of the Tape: A “strange twist”, indeed : Capital Read : Inside the Queensway : Macleans.ca Blog Central

  • Dije

    Two Cents – “To the best of my knowledge there has been no suggestion that the above actions were criminal”

    Well, there is the signed statement Harper entered into court suggesting the crucial part of the tape was not correct. Perjury is a serious crime, as well as attempting to bribe, wouldn’t you agree?

    Regardless of what Liberals did years ago, this Harper fiasco stinks. The Liberals were voted out of office for the way they bent the rules.

    The Conservatives will get reelected for it. While dragging down our parliamentary system.

    Crime pays.

  • Oh Boy

    Flexible realities.

    Harper: “Fact of the matter is, as I’ve said before, this is all based on an allegation on a tape that has been edited and is an incomplete conversation.”

    Actually, it was all about Cadman telling his wife, daughter, campaign manager(?), and Mr. Zytaruk about a million-dollar inducement to jump to the Conservative side in advance of a confidence vote… which Harper later acknowledged on tape, during which he professed no detailed involvement, even dismissively stating he thought it would be a waste of time… But Mr. Harper acknowledged it all the same.

    After 3 or 4 death-bed allegations, Zytaruk asked Harper about the offer on tape and he said what he said. That’s what it’s “all based on,” isn’t it?

  • TinTincognito

    Good thing they called an early election.

  • Alta Vista Dude

    TinTin,
    I don’t think this is relevant to the election timing. I would be utterly amazed if there is a single living voter in Canada who based his/her vote on this issue.

    It is my understanding that the only legal question left to be dealt with is whether the Liberal Party slandered the PM. It is my belief that the Liberals are on shaky ground and the case will likely be settled out of court. But I’d rather the whole thing be filed in File 13 where it belong. It is time to move on.

  • T. Thwim

    Two cents:
    Regardless of when it happened, are you still condoning a party that feels such an action is acceptable?

From Macleans