cadman

9:30:45 AM
Hi everyone! I’m back! Not only am I back, but just a few short hours after tumbling out of a Westjet plane, I’m sitting outside an otherwise entirely unextraordinary courtroom, waiting for the first open hearing in the Cadman trial to get underway. This morning, lawyers for the Prime Minister will attempt to persuade the judge to toss out that affidavit filed by the Liberal Party last month — you remember, the one with all those ugly words like “authoritarian” — arguing that the aforementioned PM is acting like a great big bully by trying to gag the party from using the Cadman tape as a defence in the upcoming libel suit, which looks like it might end up in front of a judge right in the middle of the election campaign.

Don’t worry, I’ll be back on duty later tonight, and you can bet that I’ll have plenty to say about the most recent developments in the Cadman case:

ALSO NEW AND FRESH AND WORTH CLICKING: Read Dona Cadman’s supplementary affidavit here.

… Well, sort of. He’s asking questions, not making statements. Full text – and commentary – after the jump:

UPDATE: Courtesy of Une femme verte: The Cadman scrum/QP highlights reel

And the Globe and Mail has it on the record from PMO deputy communications director, Dimitri Soudas:

A quick recap, in case you’ve forgotten: Dona Cadman told Zytaruk that she found out about the offer on May 17th, 2005, but Doug Finley and Tom Flanagan – the two men who claimed to have met with Cadman to discuss his possible return to caucus were adamant that the meeting actually took place two days later, on May 19th. The publishers eventually took the extraordinary step of removing the date completely from the final text of the book.

(I’ve finally managed to relocate my binder from this morning’s press conference, so expect a burst of mini-posts as I go through the three hundred or so pages filed as part of the Conservatives’ request for an injunction against using the tape.)

… to his employer, Surrey Now. The editing is a little slapdash – understandable, since they obviously wanted to get this up as soon as possible – but it does answer the question of whether it was the original recording that was sent to the forensic experts (no) and whether he stands by his claim that the entire conversation is on that tape (yes).

Rescued from the liveblog, and added here for the attention- and/or blogreadingtime-challenged:

Seriously? Has Who Wants To Chair The Justice Committee gone into reruns already? Did I miss the season finale?

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights
Meeting No. 26
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.
Room 214, Wellington Building
(613-996-7139)

Orders of the Day

Pursuant to Standing Order 106(4), meeting requested by four (4) members of the Committee to discuss their request to proceed to the vote on the appeal of the ruling of the Chair concerning the motion moved by the member from Beauséjour on March 11, 2008

Hey, remember when we had a Justice committee? You know, one that would hold regular meetings, albeit regular meetings that would regularly come to an abrupt halt within minutes as the chair stormed out of the room, muttering darkly about the tyranny of the majority?