CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 15242
PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2019 5:53 pm
 


I agree she gave a great presentation and I found her credible.

What this will really turn on is what constitutes inappropriate pressure. Let’s break down what she said:

1) She said repeatedly it’s NOT inappropriate for the PMO to contact her and about this file and request her office consider their position or concerns about job loss or other policy points

2) however what she viewed as inappropriate was their persistence once she had provided her final position JWR stated that in total there were 10 calls and 10 in-person meetings on the topic of SNC. While she stated generally it’s acceptable for them to contact her a few times to try and persuade her, after a certain point she believes no means no and they should have stopped.

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)

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.

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.

And then of course she accepted the appointment to Veterans Affairs albeit briefly but that may have just been to buy time while she considered her options.

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. Voicing their election result concerns is probably going to sting them and rightfully so. But I think the other piece of this puzzle lies with how they’re interacting with the replacement and how that replacement is handling this file.


Last edited by BeaverFever on Wed Feb 27, 2019 6:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 24841
PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2019 6:07 pm
 


Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:
The problem for the Liberals is that she's also implicated in the Admiral Norman lynching

$1:
Norman's lawyers alleged political interference at a pretrial hearing Monday and said the PCO should not be talking with the Crown about how to handle the trial. They linked it to the politically-charged controversy over SNC Lavalin. Wilson Raybould has refused to comment on the claims in the Globe and Mail article, citing solicitor-client privilege.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mark-n ... -1.5016422
An allegation by the defense lawyers is suddenly a valid occurrence of interference? Especially with the accusation of it floating around Lavalin? Are we back to not caring about evidence?

$1:
and Gerald Stanley controversy.
What controversy? He was acquitted. If you mean the Peremptory jury stuff being changed, I don't think that ever happened. And I don't see that as a controversy, I may not agree with it, but they are the government and they are within their right to change parts of the criminal code if they believe they should be changed. That's kind of the point of being elected. If anything, considering she obviously didn't agree with the verdict judging by her tweet, and that nothing was changed, it shows a LACK of interfering.

$1:
But, remember this is the same woman who went along with Trudeau for everything else and if she really had any moral scruples about the conduct of the PM's office she should have pulled the pin and resigned two controversies ago.
What controversies? Stanley isn't a controversy, and the other one has come up after the SNC Lavalin shit. Which is way too convenient of timing. Plus, if she wasn't allowing interference into her decisions, why would you want her to resign? So that a sycophant can be put in her place and do as requested? I'd rather she stay in her place and tell Trudeau to piss off.

Edit, a word.


Last edited by Tricks on Wed Feb 27, 2019 6:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 24841
PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2019 6:10 pm
 


@Beave

Veiled threats start to skirt the line into criminal. Even if she won't say so, the argument can certainly be made. Infact if it were to be pursued I could see it going before the Supreme court and them ruling against trudeau. This is the criminal code definition of obstruction:

$1:
Obstructing justice
139. (1) Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice in a judicial proceeding,

(a) by indemnifying or agreeing to indemnify a surety, in any way and either in whole or in part, or
(b) where he is a surety, by accepting or agreeing to accept a fee or any form of indemnity whether in whole or in part from or in respect of a person who is released or is to be released from custody,
is guilty of

(c) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or
(d) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Idem
(2) Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner other than a manner described in subsection (1) to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.

Idem
(3) Without restricting the generality of subsection (2), every one shall be deemed wilfully to attempt to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice who in a judicial proceeding, existing or proposed,

(a) dissuades or attempts to dissuade a person by threats, bribes or other corrupt means from giving evidence;
(b) influences or attempts to influence by threats, bribes or other corrupt means a person in his conduct as a juror; or
(c) accepts or obtains, agrees to accept or attempts to obtain a bribe or other corrupt consideration to abstain from giving evidence, or to do or to refrain from doing anything as a juror.


Basically if they commit an act that creates a risk that an injustice will occur, that the act would actively result in an obstruction.

Meaning the act of pressuring JWR to change her mind for political reasons creates the risk that an injustice would occur. That's how I interpret it, but it's obviously ultimately up to a judge.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 9445
PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2019 7:30 pm
 


A Liberal scandal! [popcorn]


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
Profile
Posts: 1150
PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2019 7:39 pm
 


Aside from the possibilities of criminality, this has been so spectacularly mishandled by the Liberals that I'll be amazed if, assuming they win the election this fall, they get a majority government. A minority, at best.

Macleans magazine provides a full transcript of JWR's testimony here. It makes for really interesting reading (I prefer to read transcripts rather than listen to oral testimony, podcasts or what have you) and what stands out particularly is JWR pointing out that she repeatedly insisted that she was trying to warn Trudeau and his cronies against what they were doing, and protect Trudeau from any potential problems.

Honestly, JWR should just make it official and legally change her name to Kassandra.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 24841
PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2019 7:45 pm
 


Trudeau's response was awful.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 15242
PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2019 8:05 pm
 


Tricks Tricks:
@Beave

Veiled threats start to skirt the line into criminal. Even if she won't say so, the argument can certainly be made. Infact if it were to be pursued I could see it going before the Supreme court and them ruling against trudeau. This is the criminal code definition of obstruction:

$1:
Obstructing justice
139. (1) Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice in a judicial proceeding,

(a) by indemnifying or agreeing to indemnify a surety, in any way and either in whole or in part, or
(b) where he is a surety, by accepting or agreeing to accept a fee or any form of indemnity whether in whole or in part from or in respect of a person who is released or is to be released from custody,
is guilty of

(c) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or
(d) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Idem
(2) Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner other than a manner described in subsection (1) to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.

Idem
(3) Without restricting the generality of subsection (2), every one shall be deemed wilfully to attempt to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice who in a judicial proceeding, existing or proposed,

(a) dissuades or attempts to dissuade a person by threats, bribes or other corrupt means from giving evidence;
(b) influences or attempts to influence by threats, bribes or other corrupt means a person in his conduct as a juror; or
(c) accepts or obtains, agrees to accept or attempts to obtain a bribe or other corrupt consideration to abstain from giving evidence, or to do or to refrain from doing anything as a juror.


Basically if they commit an act that creates a risk that an injustice will occur, that the act would actively result in an obstruction.

Meaning the act of pressuring JWR to change her mind for political reasons creates the risk that an injustice would occur. That's how I interpret it, but it's obviously ultimately up to a judge.



Sure but what’s an “injustice”.? A deferred prosecution agreement doesn’t seem like an injustice. If they were trying to get the prosecutor to drop the case maybe that would br sn injustice but a DPA is a valid option at the prosecutors discretion.

There may be something to the veiled threats but it feels like it’s missing a little meat.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 24841
PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2019 8:17 pm
 


BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Sure but what’s an “injustice”.? A deferred prosecution agreement doesn’t seem like an injustice. If they were trying to get the prosecutor to drop the case maybe that would br sn injustice but a DPA is a valid option at the prosecutors discretion.

There may be something to the veiled threats but it feels like it’s missing a little meat.

I would say an "injustice" would be influencing the prosecutions decision on how to proceed. They weren't wanting to pursue a deferred prosecution agreement, hence bolding at the prosecutor's discretion. By pressuring that into happening, especially for political reasons, they've crossed a huge line. The question is does the attempt alone make it enough, or does it have to be successful. The way the law is worded it sounds like only the attempt is needed.


Last edited by Tricks on Wed Feb 27, 2019 9:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 15242
PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2019 8:33 pm
 


Yeah perhaps. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1562
PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2019 9:28 pm
 


BeaverFever BeaverFever:
While she stated generally it’s acceptable for them to contact her a few times to try and persuade her, after a certain point she believes no means no and they should have stopped.


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 BeaverFever:
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 BeaverFever:
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 BeaverFever:
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:

$1:
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 BeaverFever:
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.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 24841
PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2019 9:45 pm
 


The way I understood it from when I watched it, it's fine if they were to say "Hey, maybe consider this as well" and then drops it, there isn't really a line crossed. But that's not what happened here.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14747
PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2019 11:05 pm
 


Tricks Tricks:
Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:
The problem for the Liberals is that she's also implicated in the Admiral Norman lynching

$1:
Norman's lawyers alleged political interference at a pretrial hearing Monday and said the PCO should not be talking with the Crown about how to handle the trial. They linked it to the politically-charged controversy over SNC Lavalin. Wilson Raybould has refused to comment on the claims in the Globe and Mail article, citing solicitor-client privilege.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mark-n ... -1.5016422
An allegation by the defense lawyers is suddenly a valid occurrence of interference? Especially with the accusation of it floating around Lavalin? Are we back to not caring about evidence?

$1:
and Gerald Stanley controversy.
What controversy? He was acquitted. If you mean the Peremptory jury stuff being changed, I don't think that ever happened. And I don't see that as a controversy, I may not agree with it, but they are the government and they are within their right to change parts of the criminal code if they believe they should be changed. That's kind of the point of being elected. If anything, considering she obviously didn't agree with the verdict judging by her tweet, and that nothing was changed, it shows a LACK of interfering.

$1:
But, remember this is the same woman who went along with Trudeau for everything else and if she really had any moral scruples about the conduct of the PM's office she should have pulled the pin and resigned two controversies ago.
What controversies? Stanley isn't a controversy, and the other one has come up after the SNC Lavalin shit. Which is way too convenient of timing. Plus, if she wasn't allowing interference into her decisions, why would you want her to resign? So that a sycophant can be put in her place and do as requested? I'd rather she stay in her place and tell Trudeau to piss off.

Edit, a word.


I'd rather she stay to since she seems quite willing to hang Trudeau out to dry for his digressions. But the fact remains that she's been accused of being involved in every Liberal controversy during the past year and a half/ So you can say nothing untoward happened in the Norman case but, as we've seen from the SNC-Lavalin affair. With this gov't where there's smoke there's usually fire.

But, since you were discussing your preference for JWR becoming Prime Minister if and when the Liberal Party comes to their senses and dumps Captain Fantastic, the point I was making was that her innocence or guilt is irrelevant because she's been tainted by association. And since in politics optics are everything the Liberal party would be better served to find someone who hasn't been accused of being in the room for every foul deed this administration committed.

BTW you're absolutely right that an accusation isn't proof of guilt and I'm sure you'll point that fact out whenever any unproven accusations are raised about other politicians on this forum. [B-o]


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14139
PostPosted: Thu Feb 28, 2019 1:44 am
 


$1:
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,
From a legal perspective it may not have been wrong, but let's consider some facts here. Fact A) Trudeau was one of the biggest bitchers and moaners about omnibus bills during the Harper years. Fact B) This new law for corporations was for those who SELF-REPORTED, although it was slipped through in a, surprise surprise, omnibus bill. And I'll bet dollars to donuts one of the main reasons it was slipped in was for the benefit of SNC-Lavalin. You know, considering knowledge of their corrupt business dealings aren't exactly top secret. Or how the Quebec Pension Fund owns 20% of SNC.

So from a moral and ethical standpoint what Trudeau did was immoral and unethical just by way of sliding this new deal through in an omnibus bill and then trying to force the issue with SNC-Lavalin even though they did NOT self-report.

But in the end, it doesn't really matter. If he's guilty nothing will happen to him outside of losing the election. Oh, and maybe another big ol' $500 fine for breach of ethics.

The govt no matter who it is, has made sure they've taken care of themselves if serious shit goes down. A potential violation of the Criminal Code of Canada is being investigated by the Ethics Minister. What a fucking joke. What the hell kind of country is this where the govt basically investigates itself? Why the hell are these pea-brains being given any different treatment under the law than anyone else.

Remember when Trudeau took that vacation to the Aga Khan's island? If a junior civil servant is given a gift from a "client" they're assisting, they're fired for conflict of interest. Oh, but if you're a senior level snivel servant, you get a $500 fine. Whoop-de-shit.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 9445
PostPosted: Thu Feb 28, 2019 6:04 am
 


”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:


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 24841
PostPosted: Thu Feb 28, 2019 6:32 am
 


Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:
I'd rather she stay to since she seems quite willing to hang Trudeau out to dry for his digressions. But the fact remains that she's been accused of being involved in every Liberal controversy during the past year and a half/ So you can say nothing untoward happened in the Norman case but, as we've seen from the SNC-Lavalin affair. With this gov't where there's smoke there's usually fire.
She was the AG, she's guilty by association. Doesn't mean she was directly involved with everything stupid Trudeau did. And again, this is a defense attorney making a claim based on news from another case. It's a hail-mary to save their client. I'd doubt it's valid.
$1:
But, since you were discussing your preference for JWR becoming Prime Minister if and when the Liberal Party comes to their senses and dumps Captain Fantastic,
I didn't say I prefer her to become prime minister. I said that it seems like the only way the Liberals can save face is by dump Trudeau and making her leader. It would give the optics of routing out corruption and elevating the person who's helped expose it, and fought it.

$1:
the point I was making was that her innocence or guilt is irrelevant because she's been tainted by association. And since in politics optics are everything the Liberal party would be better served to find someone who hasn't been accused of being in the room for every foul deed this administration committed.
The optics of JWR are that she's a crusader against corruption right now. If you come out and expose corruption, you typically aren't going to be associated with that corruption any more.


Last edited by Tricks on Thu Feb 28, 2019 8:14 am, edited 1 time in total.

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 5 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.