76

Judge Pierre (III)


 

The NDP’s Joe Comartin raised the matter of the Cadman tape in QP today, focusing his efforts on Pierre Poilievre’s privileged statement of a day ago.

Here’s that exchange.

Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—Tecumseh, NDP): Mr. Speaker, last week Canadians were surprised to learn that the lawsuit involving serious allegations of bribery offers to the late M.P., Chuck Cadman, had been suddenly withdrawn with no answer. According to an expert hired by the Conservatives journalist, Tom Zytaruk, was falsely accused of tampering with the audiotape record of his interview with the Prime Minister. Despite this, the government continues to claim Mr. Zytaruk tampered with the tape. Will the government today either provide evidence that Mr. Zytaruk doctored the tape or apologize to him immediately?

 Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we need not provide that evidence because it was already provided in court. It is proven that the tape was doctored, but happily the issue is resolved now. There has been a settlement and we can say that we are very pleased with that settlement. 

Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—Tecumseh, NDP): It is not over for Mr. Zytaruk. The member just maligned him again, Mr. Speaker. I am going to suggest to the parliamentary secretary that he leave the House after question period and repeat that statement so Mr. Zytaruk can sue him for maligning his reputation. Will he do that or not? 

Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have said before and will say again that the matter is settled.

Mr. Comartin continued in this way after QP. Here’s his altogether entertaining exchange with reporters.

Question: Mr. Comartin, you’re going to be shocked but Pierre Poilievre did not come out of the House to finish the question period, to repeat his comments.  What do you think of that?

Joe Comartin: Actually, I’m a bit surprised because given the bombast that we got from him and James Moore yesterday, I thought one of them might have enough courage to come out and repeat it.  And the reason I say that is because they know that Mr. Zytaruk is not in a financial position to take them on in a civil suit.  But he seemed to back down today.  His second answer to my questions today were very, very mild. 

But, look, what we’re calling on this government to do is just do some basic decency of giving Mr. Zytaruk the right that he certainly deserves to have his reputation cleared.  They’re the one who maligned it by making all sorts of very, very outlandish accusations against him, tainting him.  It’s clear from their own evidence that he did not in any way doctor those tapes, that the speech — the information he got from the Prime Minister was not tampered with at all and that’s their evidence, that’s their experts.

Question: Now he said that it was doctored and it was proven in court.  Is that your understanding?

Joe Comartin: That’s just false.  The part where the Prime Minister is being recorded by Mr. Zytaruk has not been doctored at all.  I’ve looked at the scientific evidence, the analysis of it.  Their experts are very, very clear.  There was some playing over, you know, repeat over on the latter part of the tape but that did not involve the Prime Minister.  So all of the material that involves the Prime Minister is pristine pure. It has not been doctored with.  It has not been tampered.  It has not been edited.  It has not been played over.

Question: Mr. Moore practically got — you know when this was all happening Mr. Moore and others practically got up and thumped their chests and said I dare you to — you know if you say anything about it we’ll sue you guys.  What’s happened?

Joe Comartin: Well, I think the first thing that happened shortly after James Moore did that press conference is somebody got to him and said these — the technical scientific evidence does not support what you just said in that press conference.  I saw the material shortly after that press conference.  It was not in there and the outlandish statements he made at that point were totally unjustified by the evidence.

Question: The author’s an easy target for these guys like you say because he doesn’t have the wherewithal financially to take them on.

Joe Comartin: You know you look at the figures what it costs to take a general lawsuit, you know, we’re talking a hundred, two hundred thousand dollars.  Mr. Zytaruk has no ability to do that.  And quite frankly and I’ve looked at this to see if there’s the resources we could find to get him assistance but unless some lawyers are prepared to do it on a pro bono basis, he’s a victim of this process.

Question: What is Mr. Poilievre doing then?

Joe Comartin: I think what they’re trying to do is to bury this.  We have not got at all an answer of what the Prime Minister was talking about in that tape or in the whole process around trying to make some offers to Mr. Cadman to get his vote and they just want to bury this so — and part of that is to try and keep it as low profile as possible.  If they came out at this point and apologized to Mr. Zytaruk, obviously you’re going to ask them questions about the rest of the issue.

Question: So you commented on what you thought the evidence shows.  Mr. Poilievre said that it was doctored and proven in court.  But there was no judgment in this.  Is it appropriate for an MP to say something like it was proven in court when there was never a judgment?

Joe Comartin: It is not because I have no idea what he’s talking about.  All of the court action that had gone up to this point was preliminary.  There was no finding other than when the Conservative expert that had been ordered by the court to give that information over simply confirmed that there had been absolutely no tampering with the tape as it involved the Prime Minister.

Question: Did he deliberately mislead or lie to the House?

Joe Comartin: Well, given some of the rulings we’ve had from the Speaker in the last week or two, I’m not sure what that amounts to anymore, Richard.  The Speaker’s not prepared to make determinations like that.  So I’d say at this point there’s no way we can test whether in fact he misled the House.  If you’re asking me out on the street, yeah, he clearly misled the House.  And that’s part of what I was trying to get to him today, do the basically decent thing.  You’re maligning his character every time you stand up and say that.  Stop doing it and apologize to him.  Admit that he did not tamper that — in any with that tape.  He is not guilty of anything other than doing his job.

Question: So what recourse is there then?

Joe Comartin: Well, as I said, if he can’t sue the government and people like Poilievre personally because of the — just the cost of it, he doesn’t have a recourse.

Question: So what does it say to Canadians then when you can stand up in the House of Commons and say anything you want?

Joe Comartin: Well, that privilege of course is longstanding because we use it in its proper form to — on times when you’re skirting the line of whether this is libellous, slanderous, etc.  Because of the public interest involved in the issue, we’re allowed to do that.  But in a situation like this, this is an abuse of that privilege.

Question: Right.  And so no one can come down on your head then.

Joe Comartin: If you say anything in that House, absolutely anything in that House, there’s nothing you can do unless you repeat it outside the Chamber.

Question: Thanks, Joe. 

Joe Comartin: Okay.


 

Judge Pierre (III)

  1. Another CONservative coward hiding behind his parliamentary privilege.

    Why do people vote for slim like Poilievre?

    • ZZZzzzzzzzz….

      Seriously, Transcanada is by far the most boring commenter here at Macleans. And I should know because I’m within spitting distance.

      • Hey did you vote?

        Poll is on the right. Looks like your CONservative master strategist has lost his shine!

    • And the dude won by a landslide last time! I ahve no idea. Must be some pathogen in the water. You know, kinda like Walkerton, but it doesn’t kill the host outright, just severely impairs his/her judgment.

  2. What I fail to understand is why the same people who are outraged by the Sponsorship Scandal continuously turn a blind eye to this, In-and-Out, and the host of other not-quite-scandals that the Tories are involved in.

    Meanwhile, I learned a new word today: “kakistocracy”. It means government by a nation’s worst or least-qualified citizens. Funny how things like that come along at such opportune moments sometimes…

    • Love that word, Jenny — maybe we should change the spelling to cacastocracy?

    • Meanwhile, I learned a new word today: “kakistocracy”

      It’s a good word, eh? It describes much of modern culture, including, but not limited to, government.

      I consider online discussions like this, that are often dominated by the most ignorant people, a manifestation of kakistocracy.

      • I consider online discussions like this, that are often dominated by the most ignorant people, a manifestation of kakistocracy.

        Good point. For all the intellectual posturing that goes on in these discussions, there is a staggering amount of ignorance and misinformation.

      • I consider online discussions like this, that are often dominated by the most ignorant people, a manifestation of kakistocracy.

        Ti-Guy delivers the pitch, and…

      • ἔχθρω τὸν ὄχλον βλόγγιόντ’ ὅταν κρατῇ.

        • It’s all Greek to me. Care to translate?

          • : ) “I hate the blogging crowd when it prevails.” Should be “βλογγίοντ’,” though.

          • Thanks.

      • Here’s another word for you that describes a large part of blog comments – any blog, anywhere.
        Mortequinoflagellation From the Latin: mort – pertaining to death; equino – pertaining to horses; and flagellation – beating.

  3. I remember that press conference with James Moore well. It was a defining moment for me. Watching my MP up there spewing that nonsense. Thats the day I lost all respect for him.

    • I know what you mean, Douglass. The scum’s is my neighbouring MP, but apparently the people in his own riding aren’t good enough for him, so he’s put his office in our riding. Him and Baird should just step out and get on with it.

  4. A shame Joe Comartin wasn’t elected Speaker (my choice). He would have held the MPs to a higher standard. Mind you, his dinner parties and wine cellar sojourns with MPs as Speaker would have probably been more sober and less frequent…

    • Joe Comartin was my choice for Speaker as well.

      • No need to say how Cousin It would have voted then.

  5. The Author should wait for the SOB outside the House, and if he doesn’t apologize then take appropriate action, then and there!

    • Tee hee — I’d love to be there to tape the event for him. Poilievre would soil himself.

  6. What if pissed off Canadians decided to fundraise for Mr. Zytaruk to fund a suit against the government for destroying his reputation? If he had the wherewithall, perhaps we’d get answers from that civil suit?

    • Why doesn’t the media start a fund to protect one of their own?

      • Some of Kady’s commenters are already on it.

  7. Aaron, how about putting the hyperlink filter bot on again for the whole site for a while? Until at least the CAITI folks dry up and blow away. If anyone wants to read their “stuff” they can go to their site.

    Thx

    • Poor Dot.

      IT investors figured out the CONs for what they were 2 years ago. Now the rest of Canada is waking up too.

      • Poor Dot indeed.

        Two years and some five months later, we “CAITI folks” haven’t dried up or blown away. Still waiting for Harper’s proof of alleged tax leakage……..the false argument that Harper used to renege on his income trust promise which caused taxpayers to lose $35 billion of their savings.

        What ever made you think we would let the inveterate liar, Stephen Harper, get away with that?

        • Brent, when you reply to yourself, it looks goofy to say the least. You don’t have Turner to cover when you post under different names (“Cousin It”) here.

          • This is pretty funny stuff.

          • Psychiatric help may be required to cure BF of his monomania. This guy seems to hold a grudge longer than Danny Williams.

          • Don Martin: Will someone save me from Brent Fullard?

            From Dot’s link: “Nope. It’s real easy. ”

            When they’re done can that same person save me (and all of journalism) from Don Martin?

          • I’ve met Don Martin (briefly) a few times. In person he’s quite a raconteur. He became jaded during those years spent covering Ralph Klein.

          • I’ve met Don Martin (briefly) a few times. In person he’s quite a raconteur.

            Everyone’s nicer in person. Even Hitler was. And I know; I had a prof who actually met him.

          • Who was your prof, Wernher Von Braun? (kidding)

            Seriously, though, I would have loved to have a prof like that. Most of mine had rather unremarkable personal anecdotes.

          • Dot:

            Re: “Brent, when you reply to yourself, it looks goofy to say the least”

            Check the thread my friend. It is you who are replying to yourself, not I.

            Dare I say goofy?

            As for Don Martin. I take his childish vengeance as a compliment.

            I got on the wrong side of that journalistic wimp, when I pressed him to release Harper’s 200 page manual on how to obstruct Parliament ( that Don had the only copy of that he received from an MP) at the time when Harper was going to the GG seeking to dissolve Parliament (that wasnt even in session) on the pretense that Parliament was dysfunctional (yes because Harper arranged it to be so) .

            So what does the childish and juvenile Don Martin do in response to his unwillingness to release to me and to the public this most timely and relevant document? First he keeps it secret to protect Harper and his gang, and second he uses his column to malign me.

            Once again, dare I say goofy?

          • Once again, dare I say goofy?

            No, just look in the mirror.

          • Yeah, Fullard needs a psychiatrist, there is some obsessive-compulsive disorder along with some Multiple Personality disorder along with who knows what else.

        • Trust treat

          Terence Corcoran, Financial Post

          Needless to say, whatever one’s views of the trust decision, vaporizing Brent Fullard would be a good idea, no matter what the occasion. As the founder of an alleged organization called the Canadian Association of Income Trust Investors, Fullard (a former BMO Nesbitt Burns investment executive) has turned himself into a low-level Voldemort, a purveyor of bad ideas and maliciously partisan messages from out of the dark recesses of his e-mail-fevered brow.

          One source familiar with the Fullardmort operation says CAITI now receives no money from his original deep-pocketed backers and is just spending his own dime and time cranking out ugly political commentary. CAITI is a shell from which Fullard fulminates — The Fullminator. There have been many low points in CAITI’s output, but the lowest may well have been his attempt to portray Prime Minister Stephen Harper as a Canadian Hitler. After news broke of the Conservatives’ plan to appeal to ethnic voters, Fullard sent out notes bearing the headlines “Hitler was a strong leader too” and “Heil mein Harper.”

          http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=969a6430-1311-4e06-bcc3-04f6fadf0786

          • Good of you to cite this piece by Corcoran that was printed in late October 2007, that is completely full of factual errors and slanderous comments, which would have given rise to a libel case against the National Post, had the editor Doug Kelly not agreed to print this piece two days later (which they did):

            After Harper’s income trust betrayal, many questions still remain

            Financial Post
            November 3, 2007
            Brent Fullard

            Stephen Harper broke his election promise to never raid seniors’ nest eggs through taxing income trusts, by doing that very thing on Halloween 2006. One year later the following questions remain:

            Where is the government’s proof of alleged tax leakage? How could the proposed conversions of BCE and Telus into income trusts have had any effect on tax revenue when neither were paying taxes as corporations and were not expected to for several years? What policy advantage is there, now that BCE has been taken private through a highly debt-leveraged buyout, and which has caused a loss of the $793 million more per year BCE would have paid as an income trust?

            How is the stated objective of tax fairness and levellng the playing field achieved when government-sponsored pension plans are allowed to own trusts, free of tax, in their private equity portfolios, while 70% of individual Canadians are not?

            Harper wrote the following in the National Post on Oct. 26, 2005: “Income trusts are popular with seniors because they provide regular payments that are used by many to cover the costs of groceries, heating bills and medicine”. If so, then why did he so abruptly and without notice or consultation reverse his promise, leaving investors with losses of $35 billion and their incomes reduced by 31.5% and in some cases 50%? How is this socially just or fair?

            Meanwhile why are Jack Layton and the NDP supporting this policy when they profess to be against wholesale foreign takeovers of Canadian businesses and supposedly in favour of protecting seniors’ retirement savings? Where is Jack Layton’s and the NDP’s proof of tax leakage?

            Taken as a whole, this is a travesty of democracy – starting with the breaking of a promise, the false premise for breaking the promise, the complete absence of consultation and the litany of adverse policy repercussions as the aftermath of a policy borne out of zero accountability and a complete lack of government transparency. Narrow special interests have successfully manipulated Canada’s New Government for their selfish ends.

            Transparency and accountability are the cornerstones of a democracy. The real danger to Canadians is that the Conservative government is flagrantly undermining our democratic institution known as Parliament, if major tax laws are bring enacted and passed on the basis of their foundations being assumed to be true, when in fact no proof whatsoever has been provided by the government.

            This is an extremely dangerous precedent to have established, since it gives extraordinary powers to the government to pass important legislation by invoking supposedly fact-based arguments that are devoid of fact-based evidence.

            Stephen Harper, together with the Jack Layton and the members of their respective parties, are acting in concert to abrogate Canadian’s democratic institution known as Parliament. As such we are calling for a public inquiry to fully examine the matter of alleged tax leakage, particularly in light of the government’s announced reduction in corporate tax rates by a staggering 32%, from 22% to 15%, in 2012. If the original policy intent on income trusts was to “level the playing field” with corporations, then this changed tax regime for corporations announced by the government this week demands a reexamination of the extent to which these most recent measures will have tilted the playing field in favour of corporations and to the detriment of income trusts.

            Brent Fullard
            President & CEO
            Canadian Association of Income Trust Investors

  8. The ConBots should have warned the Harpies not to make a bigger issue out of this when he sued the Liberals. Karma, after all…

    I’m sure, with the Liberal-Conservative entente, this won’t go anywhere, but the bad “optics” of Cadmangate will persist for a long time.

  9. I am now increasingly convinced that someone from the NDP or Bloc should repeat the exact same charge that Dion made, so we can see how the Tories would respond.

    If the Tories did nothing nasty, the Liberals should not be gagged but should, rather, apologize for the outlandish charge of bribery, and retract it. If theTories did do something nasty, then all the more reason the Liberals abdicated their responsibility as a political party to agree to keep mum on it.

    I don’t know how long this will last in the public opinion sphere, but I hope the NDP has a winner here (a well deserved pox on both CPC and LPC), and they should run with it as long and as far as possible.

    • If the Tories did nothing nasty, the Liberals should not be gagged but should, rather, apologize for the outlandish charge of bribery, and retract it.

      Wow. That’s a special type of reasoning, that’s for sure.

      We should all be reminded that the essence of this issue involves no one but the Conservatives.

    • Are we actually certain the Liberals “agreed” to anything? I mean, as far as I can tell the lawsuit was dropped. Period. There was no “settlement” or “agreement” as far as i know, Harper just decided to stop suing. I’m not certain he did that in exchange for something from the Liberals (nor am I convinced the Liberals would actually GIVE him anything in return, except in that they might be so broke that the thought of continuing to fight this (dubious) lawsuit would be devastating).

      I mean Poilievre keeps referring the the end of the case as “a settlement” and of the case having “been settled”, but he’s the same guy saying that it was “proven in court” that the tape was altered (which is false on a NUMBER of levels) so who knows if it’s been “settled” in a legal “there was a settlement between the two parties” sense as opposed to the more likely “we’ve dropped the suit, which means it’s “settled”, so please stop talking about it already”.

      I’m not at all convinced that there was any sort of legal “settlement” agreement negotiated between the two parties to the suit, I think that’s just what the CPC wants us all to think.

      • Well, at minimum, the Liberals agreed (in some kind of settlement) to keep quiet. I believe the initial news reports were about a settlement, the terms of which would not be made public. Which is inexcusable since it involves two organizations subsidized at insane proportions by taxpayer dollars.

        • What do you think the Liberals know? If the NDP had not blocked the committee investigation, they would have tried to interview Flanagan, Finley, Reynolds, the Conservative aid who might have been at the meeting, the Cadman family,… In other words, they could have questioned people with first hand knowledge. But that was blocked by Pat Martin’s vote. So the Liberals don’t have any more first hand information than has been out in the press. All people can talk about is the same stuff and keep asking questions. The key was investigating this in a parliamentary committee and the Liberals and Bloc tried to do that.

          • All I know for sure is that the Liberals know the terms of the settlement, possibly including, but not necessarily limited to, financial considerations in one direction or the other. And they’re not talking.

          • That’s really a side issue to whether Harper condoned a bribery attempt. It has already come out that the Liberals didn’t pay anything so all that remains is whether the CPC did. That is interesting, but it is not the same as getting information on the bribery attempt. For that, one would need to be able to question people who had first hand knowledge.

      • Even an agreement for both sides to just walk away would still be a ‘settlement’, so the terminology is probably correct as long as the issue is resolved between the two of them.

    • The Liberals had no responsibility of any sort to continue a suit the plaintiff themselves wanted to drop, no matter how bad the conservatives would look by keeping on with it.

      • Mike T, if your comment is responding to mine, please note that I am not saying they had a responsibility to continue the suit. I’m saying they have a responsibility to publicly expose contemptible political conduct, possibly criminal conduct, rather than agree to just go mute on the subject.

        • Even if we make the unproven assumption that the parties agreed the Libs would make not make certain (undisclosed) statements regarding Harper’s behaviour, that’s extraordinary success for a defendant in a defamation action. It would have been ridiculous to continue the suit in face of that being the only requirement to dropping it. If statements are made and not withdrawn, they still stand, and not repeating them is a minor detail only.

          The only party who acted contemptibly here has been the Conservatives.

        • I share your frustration at political parties not doing their part to get to the bottom of this.

          But in the case of the Liberals, remember how the NDP derided them as “like a dog taking to a bone” and never missed an opportunity to criticize the Liberals for simply bringing up the Cadman affair, not to mention, blocking the Liberals and Bloc’s attempt to have the Cadman affair investigated in committees?

          Then on top of this Harper sued them, so they had the legal fees, not to mention the inability to speak about matters which were before the court. The Liberals seem to have paid a high price for trying to look into this and got attacked on both sides for it. I can understand if they are reluctant to wander into that territory again.

          • correction: the NDP compared the Liberals to a dog going after a pork chop, not a bone.

  10. The Conservatives are despicable. Zytaruk wrote an article today. It starts:

    At least Moore’s accuser had the class to apologize
    Tom Zytaruk, Surrey Now
    Published: Friday, February 13, 2009
    I’m loathe to admit it, but Conservative MP James Moore and I do have one thing in common: We have both suffered the public indignity of being wrongfully accused of doing something we did not do.
    In my case, of course, Moore led the Conservative Party charge claiming that I fraudulently “doctored” a taped conversation with Stephen Harper in connection with the so-called Cadman Affair.

  11. Catherine – Obviously the agreement between Liberals and Conservatives does not apply to the House! So the Liberals should pursue this in the House. Who knows, they may have come across some information of interest while defending themselves in the lawsuit. Why not ask in the house for the documents that the Liberals’ lawyer was requesting?

    • Yeah, I was thinking that, too. Surely the settlement can’t bind the behaviour of the Liberal Party in the HoC.

      • The libs have had occasion to ask questons already. The result. Nada. No questions asked. The libs may be under no personal obligation to continue. But more and more this starts to look like they’ve decided to put their interests ahead of the national one. Contemptble!

  12. If Canadian Media (hello Macleans?) had any backbone, they would fund Zytaruk’s reputational defense

    Cadman biographer threatens to sue Conservatives
    Updated Fri. Feb. 13 2009 4:08 PM ET

    The Canadian Press

    OTTAWA — Chuck Cadman’s biographer says he might sue the Conservative government for smearing his reputation.

    But facing a Tory party with deep pockets, Tom Zytaruk says he would first need a lawyer willing to work for free before seeking reputational damages.

    He says he’s fed up with watching the Conservatives spread lies about him – and taking for granted that he can’t afford a legal fight.

    At issue is an interview Zytaruk taped with Stephen Harper several months before Harper became prime minister.

    On that tape Harper was overheard discussing a financial offer made to Cadman, the late B.C. MP, in exchange for his support in a crucial parliamentary vote.

    The Conservatives have repeatedly claimed that the tape was doctored, even after one of their own experts concluded that the relevant portions were not.

    • Looks like Transcanada tag-teamed.

      I’d prefer if some nutty faux organization funded it .

  13. Two audio experts said the tapes were fraudulent. Not only did they make the accusation, they filed sworn affidavits with the Ontario Superior Court saying the tapes were doctored. They are experts, and they said publicly, in court, that the tapes are doctored. If the tapes weren’t doctored Mr. Zatyruk would be suing the two audio experts. He isn’t. That says it all.

    • Actually, those audio experts didn’t say that. They said it was possible or the tape might have been taped over and they would need to see the original.

      And, did you read today’s headline: Cadman biographer threatens to sue Tories for reputation damages

      If the tapes were really fraudulent and doctored to make it look like Harper was in the know on a bribery attempt when he wasn’t, don’t you think Harper would sue the author who has the original tape and says the copy we are listening to is a true and complete copy? Harper isn’t. That says it all.

    • Sorry Marvin, you are either lying or ignoreant of what the audio experts said. In their testimony in court, while under oath, they clear said that the parts of the audio recording that carried Mr. Harper’s conversation were un-altered.

      I suggest to actually research what was said in the courtroom instead of making stuff up or repeating CPC talking points.

      Also, since it is obvious you don’t know anything about legal liability and courtroom testimony, you can not be sued for libel for testimony given in court, it is consider privilege just like in the House. Now if the testimony is found to be knowingly false, well I think there are other courses to redress the issue.

      • This is from Transcanada’s link below. Clearly the newspaper, Now, is taking this seriously:

        By calling Zytaruk a fraud, they called the Now’s credibility into question and attacked journalism on a broad scale.
        And now that Harper’s own experts have said the tape is clean, and now that the Conservatives have dropped their defamation suit against the Liberals, the Tories are telling Canadians to simply forget about it. Well, guess what, Russ and James?
        That’s just not going to happen.
        This newspaper will not stand idly by while the highest level of government accuses our reporter of tampering with his tapes, takes legal action and then after the damage has been done, sheepishly backs away and tells everyone to forget it and move on.

    • Kody?

      • If only. Kody would have said:

        “Two audio experts said the tapes were fraudulent.

        Not only did they make the accusation,

        they filed sworn affidavits with the Ontario Superior Court

        saying the tapes were doctored.

        They are experts, and they said publicly,

        in court,

        that the tapes are doctored.

        If the tapes weren’t doctored Mr. Zatyruk would be suing the two audio experts.

        He isn’t. That says it all.

        Today’s tolerant progressive left.”

        • He’s craftier than you think.

          • I do hope he returns in disguise. It would be great fun to detect him on purely stylistic / ideological grounds. Reminds me of George Orwell when he heard the Germans had a whole corps of literary critics whose task was to deduce the authorship of anonymous pamphlets — Orwell said that would be his dream job, on the anti-Fascist side of course.

          • It would be great fun to detect him on purely stylistic / ideological grounds.

            Good. You can take over for me, who’s been doing that for at least two years.

          • How did you identify him with biff, btw? It’s is apparent when you look for it now, but the initial ID must have been difficult.

          • Not to rain on your parade, but 2 audio experts did say that. One of them concluded “with scientific certainty” that the tape had been altered to misrepresent the event as it occurred.

            What happened to that testimony?

          • How did you identify him with biff, btw?

            He and I went back a long way. He used the “come into the Conservative light,” bit with me here (which made me question his memory; I’m always Ti-Guy). He’d used it before.

            I actually think he’s amusing when he doesn’t take himself seriously, but that is, unfortunately, rare.

    • And talking about spin, compare marvin’s Feb 13, 2009 at 6:11 pm message above to paul’s Feb 13, 2009 at 6:09 pm on the other thread on this. Either the CPC is now sending out 6 sentence talking points on this or Judge Pierre is posting here under two names.

Sign in to comment.