Senior Liberal strategists are brushing off Harper's lawsuit, saying they are confident that they can utilize the principle tool in which to defend against a libel claim: the defence of truth.
Asked how they plan to prove the truth of allegations which stem from the word of a dead man, a senior adviser to Dion quipped back:
"you obviously haven't been keeping up with the times, ever hear of the movie 'Poltergeist'?"
Liberal insiders are confident that they can employ a spiritual medium to contact Cadman in the afterlife (citing the eerie sounding short women from the popular '80's horror movie as evidence that such contact is possible), though they admit there may be some difficulty actually serving him with a subpoena.
The Toronto Star has contacted several experts who say that, while serving the dead with a subpoena may be difficult, it is legally possible.
Said one legal expert hired by the Star:
"One thing is certain, this latest Liberal salvo must be making Harper very nervous. No one wants to be in the unenviable position of having to impeach the credibility of a dead man on the witness stand."
just read the pdf of the libel letter (he's arguably Canada's best libel lawyer and Warren K, says he can't recall him ever losing),
looks pretty bad. accusing a sitting pm of participating in criminal conduct with zero evidence doesn't sound too smart to me.
Dion's knee jerk response that this is "libel chill" sounds like he's trying to say that its his right to accuse others of participating in criminal conduct without ramifications, or put another way, the law shouldn't apply to him.
Dion et al are looking more foolish by the minute.
She said he knew nothing about insurance. That does not negate his own statement that he was aware of some financial considerations being offered.
My guess (as posted at Jeff's) - Harper thought the combination of her letter and his lawsuit would shut the liberals up.
And whether or not this lawyer has lost a case before is highly irrelevant. We will see what happens if the cons actually pursue the lawsuit. If they do it will not be heard for a year or so.
By the time it all resolves the liberals will be in government and they can pay off the cons - a la Stockwell Day. :)
Regardless of the success or even the plausibility of this lawsuit, any public allegations against Harper that are not met with a libel suit can now be assumed to be de facto true.
18 comments:
DEVELOPING:
Senior Liberal strategists are brushing off Harper's lawsuit, saying they are confident that they can utilize the principle tool in which to defend against a libel claim: the defence of truth.
Asked how they plan to prove the truth of allegations which stem from the word of a dead man, a senior adviser to Dion quipped back:
"you obviously haven't been keeping up with the times, ever hear of the movie 'Poltergeist'?"
Liberal insiders are confident that they can employ a spiritual medium to contact Cadman in the afterlife (citing the eerie sounding short women from the popular '80's horror movie as evidence that such contact is possible), though they admit there may be some difficulty actually serving him with a subpoena.
The Toronto Star has contacted several experts who say that, while serving the dead with a subpoena may be difficult, it is legally possible.
Said one legal expert hired by the Star:
"One thing is certain, this latest Liberal salvo must be making Harper very nervous. No one wants to be in the unenviable position of having to impeach the credibility of a dead man on the witness stand."
I smell a lawsuit . . .
I think this scandal is done like dinner now.....
Grumpy,
it's not done like dinner, it's become a full four course meal, complete with dessert.
It's just that now the main course is Dion's cooked goose.
So, the evidence that she brings to bear proving that Harper didn't know anything about it is "she could see he was telling the truth in his eyes"?
Isn't that what Bush said about Putin?
She may speak with authority on Cadman, but let's be honest: she has no knowledge whatsoever if Harper was telling the truth or not.
just read the pdf of the libel letter (he's arguably Canada's best libel lawyer and Warren K, says he can't recall him ever losing),
looks pretty bad. accusing a sitting pm of participating in criminal conduct with zero evidence doesn't sound too smart to me.
Dion's knee jerk response that this is "libel chill" sounds like he's trying to say that its his right to accuse others of participating in criminal conduct without ramifications, or put another way, the law shouldn't apply to him.
Dion et al are looking more foolish by the minute.
She may speak with authority on Cadman, but let's be honest: she has no knowledge whatsoever if Harper was telling the truth or not.
Weren't the Conservatives calling her a liar yesterday?
Pretty soon you'll be removing this from "Tory Scandal" and putting it under the burgeoning heading of "Dion screw-up".
"Burgeoning heading."...God, I hate it when they try too hard.
She said he knew nothing about insurance. That does not negate his own statement that he was aware of some financial considerations being offered.
My guess (as posted at Jeff's) - Harper thought the combination of her letter and his lawsuit would shut the liberals up.
And whether or not this lawyer has lost a case before is highly irrelevant. We will see what happens if the cons actually pursue the lawsuit. If they do it will not be heard for a year or so.
By the time it all resolves the liberals will be in government and they can pay off the cons - a la Stockwell Day. :)
Regardless of the success or even the plausibility of this lawsuit, any public allegations against Harper that are not met with a libel suit can now be assumed to be de facto true.
"So, the evidence that she brings to bear proving that Harper didn't know anything about it is "she could see he was telling the truth in his eyes"?"
Well if they appeared different to the way they appeared on every other occasion then it would mean he was telling the truth.
Harper's eyes are dead. They never say anything.
Isn't it time to put a picture up of a blue dinosaur eating a little extinct creature again?
Isn't it time to put a picture up of a blue dinosaur eating a little extinct creature again?
What extinct creature...neanderthal man? What's Conservative evolutionary science got to do with this?
You need to stop eating out of the honey pot, Honey Pot.
Hegemony
Looks like Dion's shooting blanks again.
In discussing how the polls were wrong in predicting the Alberta election, Liberal operative Warren Kinsella admits on his blog today :
"To get specific, here in Ottawa, I think it means Harper is ahead by more than a lot of hacks and flaks realize."
In other words, it appears we're entering an era of Conservative hegemony.
Post a Comment