There is more than enough evidence on the Harper tape to conclude that Harper sanctioned something that was illegal. However there is not enough evidence to prove that Harper new of the alleged life insurance offer. In fact, Harper said he did not know the details. The Liberals got greedy.
Harper is thus well positioned to win a such a libel suit, should it be allowed to go forward, well all the while being guilty as sin. It should be noted that, should the Conservatives fishing expedition fail, none of the individuals named in the suite are in any danger whatsoever. They did not write the offending article in question and while their quoted words might be libelous if said outside the House the fact remains that they said them in the House.
This new approach is a better tact for the Conservatives than trying to deny the allegations while refusing to attack the integrity of either Donna Cadman, or her late husband. Indeed without outright accusing Donna Cadman of lying, the Conservatives can not very well cite the words of Chuck Cadman as dispositive. After all, if Donna Cadman is telling the truth, either Chuck Cadman lied to CTV or he lied to his wife.
Update, I have looked at the two offending posts again. I changed my mind. I do not think the there is no there for Harper to win a label suit. That said, there is not a enough for the criminal charges to stick.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I'm not sure that the fundamentals of a case in libel have been made out. Have you taken into account the various defences to a defamation claim as they apply to these circumstances?
Well on CBC there was a Lawyer specialized in libel suits and pretty much said the suits were groundless.
Then considering the tape of Stephen Harper admitting there were financial offers, and thus illegal ones, any accusations would have some substance and thus not be libel.
-scott
thescottross.blogspot.com
I'm not happy to hear the CBC opinion. The sooner someone gets Harper to court, civil or criminal, to do some "Answer the question", the better.
The point isn't to get Dion to court.
The point of the lawsuit is:
1) put a financial hurt on the Libs how are already hurting financially
2) hurt their cummunication/IT capabilities though the disclosure process
3) prevent them from bringing this up during an election when they'll be on the campaign trail and not in the house where they have immunity
>>>> 1) put a financial hurt on the Libs how are already hurting financially
Sure. However, if the lawsuit is deemed frivolous it might come back to bite them in the ass. They may have to pay court costs and damages a la David Irving. When I looked at the two posts in question, including the headlines, they hardly differ in kind from various news headlines.
>>> 2) hurt their cummunication/IT capabilities though the disclosure process
I am not sure the hoped for fishing expedition will even be allowed.
"Sure. However, if the lawsuit is deemed frivolous it might come back to bite them in the ass. They may have to pay court costs and damages a la David Irving."
The Conservative can afford it, they literally have more money than they can spend. It will hurt the Libs financially much more than the CPC. Even if the CPC is made to pay the costs a year or so later, that still ties up a million or so in the Liberal budget for that time.
Why do you think they've been doing so many TV attack ads? They can afford to and the Libs don't have the money respond.
Post a Comment