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
Forum Elite 
