CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
 Pittsburgh Penguins
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1794
PostPosted: Thu Feb 28, 2019 6:59 pm
 


Freakinoldguy wrote:
llama66 wrote:
I'm assuming we've loaded Princess Pretty-Socks and his co-conspirators onto a rocket aimed at the sun. Freeland is not someone who I'd be interested in as PM. Maybe we right the injustice made when Princess Pretty-Socks was annointed leader of the Liberals... Make Marc Garneau PM.


After watching Trudeau's latest news conference I'm pretty sure they'll have to drag him kicking and screaming out of his "ancestral" home at 22 Sussex Drive.


But, I do have a theory about what's really happening and why Jody Wilson Raybould hasn't been tossed out of the Liberal party as of yet. I honestly believe this whole scandal is being manipulated behind the scenes by the unseen power part of the Liberal Party who, like most of Canada have become more than a little disturbed at the antics of the self serving monster they put into power. And because of this concern they and JWR made the decision to sacrifice Trudeau on the alter of political scandal so they can find someone new and unsullied by this administrations controversies to run in the next federal election.

Well, Freakin' this is most certainly a different take on the scandal and a very interesting one at that. I guess time will tell whether it is right or not.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 13657
PostPosted: Thu Feb 28, 2019 10:02 pm
 


Coach85 wrote:

At no point did she say that any pressure on the Attorney General was acceptable. I watched the testimony in it's entirety. In fact, she said it was inappropriate for anyone in the government to press, “the attorney general on things he/she cannot take into account,” such as partisan political concerns.



BeaverFever wrote:
3) She also said the repeated position of the PMO is that they disagreed with her interpretation of the law (that it prevents her from overruling her prosecutor) and they asked her to get a second opinion from an external legal advisor. . She said multiple times in her testimony that they told her they were not asking her to break the law just to explore other opinions on the law. (but see #5 below)


Point being, the PMO has no business whatsoever interfering with a legal case. Suggesting a second opinion isn't appropriate. How a bunch of people working in the PMO interpret the law is irrelevant.

BeaverFever wrote:
4)While JWR said repeatedly that there’s nothing wrong with the PMO “lobbying” her office to consider policy consequences from a certain position ( up to a point-see #2), such as concerns over job losses, in multiple meetings the PMO and allegedly JT himself also mentioned the impact those losses could have on election results, which is BAD NEWS FOR LIBERALS, because while pushing policy concerns are fair game, pushing partisan political concerns are definitely inappropriate.


She didn't use the term "lobby".

The term "lobby" is incorrect. It's not acceptable for anyone to "lobby" the Attorney General. It's acceptable to have conversations about issues that affect policy, jobs, economy, etc but it's not appropriate to try to influence(lobby) the decisions of the AG.

BeaverFever wrote:
5) There’s an alleged quote from Butts towards the end of this affair along the lines of “ there’s no possible outcome that isn’t inappropriate” which suggests acknowledgment that this is more than just a difference of opinion between 2 different bureaus and is probably the smoking gun on why Butts had to go.


The actual quote was:

Quote:
There is no solution here that does not involve some interference


The opinion of the PMO is irrelevant with respect to legal cases. It doesn't matter what they think and their influence cannot interfere.


BeaverFever wrote:
So I accept JWR’s version of events and that the contact probably rose to the level of “inappropriate”. But I remind our Trudeau haters that “inappropriate” doesn’t automatically mean that anything “criminal” occurred or that there was any obstruction of justice - JWR doesn’t even allege that. The government is allowed to petition her office and there’s no maximum number of attempts that they’re limited to.


You keep repeating this false statement. There is no acceptable reason for any office to petition, lobby or pressure the Attorney General. None. Full stop.



I think you’re conflating multiple points here, her criticism about persistent efforts to persuade her and her criticism about being presented partisan considerations are 2 different criticisms, and the allegations of “veiled threats” are a third. Only a few of the 20 or so points of contact raised the political considerations or contained alleged “veiled threats” but JWRs view is that the volume and persistence in and of itself is inappropriate “pressure” evn in absence if the other 2 concerns.


She definitely said “I will say that it is appropriate for cabinet or colleagues to draw to the attorney general’s attention what they see as important policy considerations that are relevant to decisions about how a prosecution will proceed.” She then actually lists 3 things that are not appproate (in her view) which I’ve numbered below for reference:

“What is not appropriate is pressing the attorney general on matters that she or he cannot take into account, such as:
1) partisan political considerations
2) continuing to urge the attorney general to take her or his mind four months after the decision has been made or
3) suggesting that a collision with the prime minister on these matters should be avoided.”


And she also said “While in our system of government policy-oriented discussion amongst people at early points in this conversation may be appropriate, the consistent and enduring efforts, even in the face of judicial proceedings on the same matter and in the face of a clear decision of the director of public prosecutions and the attorney general to continue and even intensify such efforts, raises serious red flags in my view.“

And let’s be clear, 1 and 2 above is her view of the law, not necessarily a fact of the law. Let’s explore:

First I don’t believe you’re correct that the AG cannot be petitioned. That’s not been said anywhere and not even by JWR. The government has full authority to have an opinion on a matter and to express that opinion to the AG. What they cannot do is exert undue pressure

#1 seems pretty straightforward but arguably only the AG is restricted from taking partisan concerns into account. This doesn’t necessarily mean that anyone petitioning her can’t have partisan motives. For example a judge must be impartial but the lawyers arguing before the judge are not impartial. Of course in this case the petitioner is also her boss, which makes things somewhat different, which I’ll get back to in minute

#2 is the persistence matter and I think the most subjective of her arguments. In her view, persistence equals pressure but nowhere is that written or and nowhere is “pressure” defined. For example nowhere does it say that after x months of discussion or x number of conversations you can no longer discuss a matter with the AG. As mentioned above the petitioner is the boss which we’ll come back to.

#3 is pretty cut and dry, that’s the veiled threats, I don’t think anyone is going to argue over what that means. There are only a couple of comments that JWR claims are the threats the worst of which seems to be the one from the clerk of the privy council allegedly saying “I think [the PM] is going to find a way to get it done, one way or another. So he’ is in that kind of mood and I wanted you to be aware of it.” I’m inclined to believe that was intended as a veiled threat although not necessarily beyond a reasonable doubt Also even if it is accepted to be a threat there’s no way to tie it back to anyone except the Clerk who said it.

Lastly on the whole PM being her boss thing, JWR said during questioning that the AG and the Justice Minister should be 2 different people and I agree. Currently the JM is a member of cabinet and serves at the pleasure of the PM. The AG is supposed to be independent. This is sn apparent conflict. If these were 2 different people then the AG wouldn’t feel pressure


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1576
PostPosted: Fri Mar 01, 2019 11:49 am
 


BeaverFever wrote:
First I don’t believe you’re correct that the AG cannot be petitioned. That’s not been said anywhere and not even by JWR. The government has full authority to have an opinion on a matter and to express that opinion to the AG. What they cannot do is exert undue pressure


You're mixing words which is diluting your point.

There is a massive difference between bringing something to the attention of the AG and lobbying or petitioning her.

A petition is a request. The government cannot request anything of the AG beyond hearing their opinion. They government cannot lobby the AG either. The government is welcome to have an opinion on legal matters. Period. They cannot petition, pressure or lobby the AG.

Do you feel that it's appropriate for government officials to pressure the AG on matters before the court or that are pending to go to court?

Let's not forget that SNC lobbied the government hard to get the criminal code changed to add DPA. Now add the same government pressuring the AG to use the DPA on the company that spent countless hours over 3 years to get the criminal code changed. It's not right.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23139
PostPosted: Fri Mar 01, 2019 1:08 pm
 


Coach85 wrote:
You're mixing words which is diluting your point.


Yeah, there's a lot of unnecessary bafflegab coming from the liberal side. I think of it as diversion.

When explained clearly the scandal is pretty basic.



Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
 Edmonton Oilers
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2456
PostPosted: Fri Mar 01, 2019 1:37 pm
 


https://www.thebeaverton.com/2019/03/trudeau-announces-canada-to-partner-with-nasa-to-send-jody-wilson-raybould-to-moon/

Alice!!!!!

I am starting to really like The Beaverton.


Offline
Forum Junkie
Forum Junkie
 Montreal Canadiens
Profile
Posts: 510
PostPosted: Fri Mar 01, 2019 1:41 pm
 


PluggyRug wrote:
Mowich wrote:

I truly hope that this will finally wake-up liberal supporters to the fact that their support of this corrupt and possibly criminal government is badly misplaced.


I sincerely doubt that will happen.


I share your doubts. Are they all stupid? What gives with that?


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 8105
PostPosted: Fri Mar 01, 2019 1:42 pm
 


https://www.thebeaverton.com/2019/02/no ... reporters/

LOLZ!


Offline
Forum Junkie
Forum Junkie
 Montreal Canadiens
Profile
Posts: 510
PostPosted: Fri Mar 01, 2019 1:49 pm
 


BRAH wrote:
”Just I'm clear here, @JustinTrudeau was willing to corrupt his morals, and government, to protect #SNCLavalin jobs. But the 100,000+ Albertans who have lost their jobs due to this governments oil and gas policies, don't matter?

Anyone else livid about this?”

________________

:evil:


I think livid is too mild a word for how I feel about all this. Quebec again! The WEST screwed again!


Offline
Forum Junkie
Forum Junkie
 Montreal Canadiens
Profile
Posts: 510
PostPosted: Fri Mar 01, 2019 1:55 pm
 


Freakinoldguy wrote:
llama66 wrote:
I'm assuming we've loaded Princess Pretty-Socks and his co-conspirators onto a rocket aimed at the sun. Freeland is not someone who I'd be interested in as PM. Maybe we right the injustice made when Princess Pretty-Socks was annointed leader of the Liberals... Make Marc Garneau PM.


After watching Trudeau's latest news conference I'm pretty sure they'll have to drag him kicking and screaming out of his "ancestral" home at 22 Sussex Drive.


But, I do have a theory about what's really happening and why Jody Wilson Raybould hasn't been tossed out of the Liberal party as of yet. I honestly believe this whole scandal is being manipulated behind the scenes by the unseen power part of the Liberal Party who, like most of Canada have become more than a little disturbed at the antics of the self serving monster they put into power. And because of this concern they and JWR made the decision to sacrifice Trudeau on the alter of political scandal so they can find someone new and unsullied by this administrations controversies to run in the next federal election.


You've made a very good point! I too remain suspicious of what is happening behind the scene.


Offline
Forum Junkie
Forum Junkie
 Montreal Canadiens
Profile
Posts: 510
PostPosted: Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:28 pm
 


N_Fiddledog wrote:
Coach85 wrote:
You're mixing words which is diluting your point.


Yeah, there's a lot of unnecessary bafflegab coming from the liberal side. I think of it as diversion.

When explained clearly the scandal is pretty basic.






That's who should be leading the CPC and our next Prime Minister! If only.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 8105
PostPosted: Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:39 pm
 


You misgendered Max Bernier.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 10701
PostPosted: Fri Mar 01, 2019 3:33 pm
 




Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 13657
PostPosted: Fri Mar 01, 2019 6:19 pm
 


Coach85 wrote:
BeaverFever wrote:
First I don’t believe you’re correct that the AG cannot be petitioned. That’s not been said anywhere and not even by JWR. The government has full authority to have an opinion on a matter and to express that opinion to the AG. What they cannot do is exert undue pressure


You're mixing words which is diluting your point.

There is a massive difference between bringing something to the attention of the AG and lobbying or petitioning her.

A petition is a request. The government cannot request anything of the AG beyond hearing their opinion. They government cannot lobby the AG either. The government is welcome to have an opinion on legal matters. Period. They cannot petition, pressure or lobby the AG.

Do you feel that it's appropriate for government officials to pressure the AG on matters before the court or that are pending to go to court?


The only thing that’s for certain is that government must not threaten or intimidate the AG. Anything short of that will be determined by opinion as to whether it can reasonably be interpreted as a threat. Nowhere does it say you can’t lobby or petition or attempt to persuade or be persistent. “Pressure” is not defined anywhere. Did the PMO cross the line? We’ll see - but based on what we know so far, such a finding will be based on an opinion of whether the meetings and comments reasonably can be interpreted as an implied threat, rather than a fact of whether an actual threat was made.

Quote:
Let's not forget that SNC lobbied the government hard to get the criminal code changed to add DPA. Now add the same government pressuring the AG to use the DPA on the company that spent countless hours over 3 years to get the criminal code changed. It's not right.


I never said it was “right”. I just said that words like “corruption” and “criminal” are over the top. Even JWR said it wasn’t criminal.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33832
PostPosted: Sat Mar 02, 2019 8:57 am
 


N_Fiddledog wrote:

When explained clearly the scandal is pretty basic.




Another good one here:




Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33832
PostPosted: Sat Mar 02, 2019 9:20 am
 


Mowich wrote:
Freakinoldguy wrote:
I honestly believe this whole scandal is being manipulated behind the scenes by the unseen power part of the Liberal Party who, like most of Canada have become more than a little disturbed at the antics of the self serving monster they put into power. And because of this concern they and JWR made the decision to sacrifice Trudeau on the alter of political scandal so they can find someone new and unsullied by this administrations controversies to run in the next federal election.

Well, Freakin' this is most certainly a different take on the scandal and a very interesting one at that. I guess time will tell whether it is right or not.


The lieberals have no one to put in place of Dopey who will not have been touched
by this typical leftie scandal.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 90 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.