What the fuck? THe Cadman tape was doctored?

[HEyHEY]

Zatryuk is a fuckhead, if this is true.

[daleo]

1. Doubtful if it was doctored in any real sense

I think this is just an attempt to get the court to block the tape's use, on some nebulous grounds that it was "doctored". At most, it sounds like the journalist may have turned the tape off while there was no actual interview happening. It sounds like a "prove a negative" situation (i.e. they are setting up an assumption that the missing minutes, if there are any, would exonerate Harper).

I think this is just a ploy to remove the tape from a possible election campaign.

It's like Nixon claiming the missing 18 minutes would have proved that he was innocent.

[HEyHEY]

2. I bet they fuck themselves more

If an indpendent anylist listens to it and finds it wasn't doctored, they're REALLY fucked.

[tuvor]

3. If you were Harper, wouldn't you have been adamant for the past four months...

...that the recording, as broadcast, did not match your recollection of the conversation? If one's good name were being unfairly doubted, who wouldn't be doing exactly that?

As it stands, I don't believe Harper has made any such comment, even today. And he's still getting other people to speak for him.

[HEyHEY]

4. Zaryruck should flat out say "What's missing, douchebag?"

[CHIMO]

5. Tories ask court to stop Liberals from using Harper tape

Zytaruk, the author of a book on Cadman, said there may be an explanation for any inconsistency on the recording. He said he met Harper and managed to ask one question on tape, which Harper answered before turning to leave.

"Then he turned around as if he had a second thought he wanted to add or something, and of course I made sure I got that. Now, I can't remember if I turned the tape off. I probably turned it off and then flicked it back on, but we're talking like milliseconds, right, in the time it would take for a guy to turn, just to turn on his heel to face you, right?"

In the affidavit, Harper denies returning to Zytaruk to add a comment, calling that explanation "categorically false."

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/06/04/cadman-tape.html

But there is no suit against Zytaruk.

So who are these experts?

The Conservatives’ independent tape expert was a Republican donor and organizer
http://bcinto.blogspot.com/2008/06/conservatives-independent-tape-expert.html

Hqarper and the Conservatives are ....s.

[tuvor]

6. I was curious about the background of the "experts".

Thanks for finding that.

[daleo]

7. Here is another angle

It seems to me that the Conservative Party, especially Harper and Moore, are goading Zatryuk to launch a libel suit against them - after all, they have as much as called him a fraud artist and defamer of character.

What's the advantage of that for the Conservatives? It allows them to respond "it's before the courts, so we can't comment on that" to any and all Cadman related inquiries that come up, especially during an election. This tactic would seem much more effective to me, it the Conservatives are defending a lawsuit rather than prosecuting one, at least from the point of view of seeming authentic to voters.

I wouldn't be surprised if they continue to goad this fellow until he has no choice but to launch a libel suit.

[HeresyLives]

8. Well Zytaruk has 'categorically' denied it.

Directly answering the question if he had made any changes to the tape, Zytaruk said flatly: "I would have to have rocks in my head to do something like that. Certainly, all of Canada would agree."

"I specifically wanted to ask Mr. Harper about this insurance policy ... what I put in my book is all the 'ands,' 'ums,' and 'ors' because I wanted it to be spot-on accurate," he added.

However, the Tories claim they have proof that a recording of Harper discussing such "financial considerations" offered to Cadman was altered.

"We're not alleging that any individual has doctored this tape," MP James Moore told Mike Duffy Live.

"What we're saying is that (according to) two experts the tape has been doctored. We don't know who did it, but we know that it has been done."

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080604/harper_cadman_080604/20080604?hub=TopStories

[daleo]

9. I think they are just sewing confusion for now

I can't see how they can sue the Liberals for libel (who are just repeating something published in a book), but not sue the author or publisher of that same book. It would be interesting to hear what a lawyer makes of this.