Any Shocking News?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dythbringer

I don't think anything illegal happened;

---

Here's the crux of the issue. One that many Liberal supporters seem to gloss over on.

JWR was Minister of Justice, AND the Attorney General.

If it were the PM trying to influence the Minister of Defence about policy that he wanted to see...then no, nothing illegal at all.

It is the PMOs office attempting to coerce and manipulate the latter title (AG) regarding a criminal matter before the courts which is so egregious.

And under the strict guidelines where a DPA can be applied, SNCs case did not merit it. It failed to meet the criteria set out.

Best summary yet.

Gotta love fellow gunny Michelle Rempel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4Vx6kmfutc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bluebulldog

Here's the crux of the issue. One that many Liberal supporters seem to gloss over on.

JWR was Minister of Justice, AND the Attorney General.

If it were the PM trying to influence the Minister of Defence about policy that he wanted to see...then no, nothing illegal at all.

It is the PMOs office attempting to coerce and manipulate the latter title (AG) regarding a criminal matter before the courts which is so egregious.

And under the strict guidelines where a DPA can be applied, SNCs case did not merit it. It failed to meet the criteria set out.

---

Yea. I have thought a bit more on JWR's testimony and the more I think about it, the more I am coming to the conclusion that the PMO's attempt to get a DPA for SNC was an attempt on the AG in order to secure SNC's future in Quebec so they could look like the prize winning pig when the election came around. This matter needs to be investigated by the RCMP in order to see if any criminal wrongdoing was done by anyone eg PM & his staff, cabinet ministers and their staff and SNC as a company (if SNC lobbied as hard as they did and possibly pushed the PMO or ministers to push the AG for a DPA, could that not constitute obstruction of justice).

I think if the PM had inquired about the DPA, the AG ruled and the matter dropped, then this is a dead story. The denial of sustained pressure to politically interfere in a criminal case and the demotion from Minister of Justice/AG because the government did not get what they wanted is what people don't understand is the wrongdoing here.

This situation really boxes the new AG into a corner. Any decision which he makes could be construed as partisan. Any decision he makes will need an extra layer or two of transparency in order to have the public trust the office again.

Go over her testimony:

"During Jody Wilson-Raybould’s bombshell testimony on political interference in the SNC-Lavalin case, the former Justice Minister implied that the prime minister’s chief of staff, Katie Telford, said that she would have positive “op eds” written about Wilson-Raybould if she would make the right decision.

In her statements before the Justice Committee, Wilson-Raybould claimed that there was a persistent effort from the Prime Minister’s Office and others to intervene in her decision to criminally prosecute SNC-Lavalin.

The former Attorney General quoted a conversation between her chief of staff and Katie Telford, the prime minister’s own chief of staff as evidence for the claim.

According to the transcript, Telford said that “if Jody is nervous, we would of course line up all kinds of people to write op eds saying that what she’s doing is proper.”

“We don’t want to debate legalities anymore. We aren’t lawyers, but there has to be some solution here,” allegedly said Katie Telford.

Remember when the Liberals gave $600,000,000 in a "Media Aid Package"?......wonder what it bought?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bluebulldog

Go over her testimony:

"During Jody Wilson-Raybould’s bombshell testimony on political interference in the SNC-Lavalin case, the former Justice Minister implied that the prime minister’s chief of staff, Katie Telford, said that she would have positive “op eds” written about Wilson-Raybould if she would make the right decision.

In her statements before the Justice Committee, Wilson-Raybould claimed that there was a persistent effort from the Prime Minister’s Office and others to intervene in her decision to criminally prosecute SNC-Lavalin.

The former Attorney General quoted a conversation between her chief of staff and Katie Telford, the prime minister’s own chief of staff as evidence for the claim.

According to the transcript, Telford said that “if Jody is nervous, we would of course line up all kinds of people to write op eds saying that what she’s doing is proper.”

“We don’t want to debate legalities anymore. We aren’t lawyers, but there has to be some solution here,” allegedly said Katie Telford.

Remember when the Liberals gave $600,000,000 in a "Media Aid Package"?......wonder what it bought?

---

I have a few times. The more I go over it, the worse things are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dythbringer

This situation really boxes the new AG into a corner. Any decision which he makes could be construed as partisan. Any decision he makes will need an extra layer or two of transparency in order to have the public trust the office again.

---

If you read between the lines of JWR's statements, it seems clear that the new AG already decided to go the DPA route. She basically said that she decided to stay in cabinet even after her demotion because she took the PM at his word. She then said that she would resign immediately if she saw a DPA because she would have lost confidence in cabinet. You'll notice that she then resigned suddenly. Anyway, I suppose this is speculation, but all of the pieces fit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dythbringer

So Trudeau has said he completely disagrees with Wilson-Raybould's characterization of the events. Same thing he did with the groping story. Now we as an electorate have two people saying two different things. One is a former AG, who has risked her political future (Trudeau has stated he is reviewing her continuance as a Liberal) by testifying in front of the justice committee (I am not sure if she was sworn in under oath for her testimony or not), who has said she and her office was pressured by cabinet members and their office and another who completely disagrees with her assessment of the events but hasn't had the opportunity to review her entire testimony, who has been found guilty of a breach of ethics already during his government majority.

I don't think anything illegal happened; however, only because of Wilson-Raybould deciding not to meddle in the case; not because the PMO/cabinet is innocent. Something which has gotten lost in this entire thing is SNC has vigorously defended their innocence; however, if the DPA was given to them as an option, wouldn't that mean that SNC would have to acknowledge their guilt in regards to the charge. A part of the purpose of a remediation agreement is to hold the organization accountable for the wrongdoing (https://www.canada.ca/en/department-...ate-crime.html). So per the justice department's explanation of the DPA's purpose is the fact a wrong has to happen.

---

The way I see it, WR has nothing to lose now by telling the truth. Trudope does, he has a lot to lose. So it's easy for me to pick sides.

I can't wait to see the PC election campaign ads. I just hope they focus a bit on what they're going to do, rather than on Trudope being a disaster ... because we all know that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bluebulldog

Best summary yet.

Gotta love fellow gunny Michelle Rempel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4Vx6kmfutc

---

Oh ya, that woman just lays it out like it can be understood.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rf2

If you read between the lines of JWR's statements, it seems clear that the new AG already decided to go the DPA route. She basically said that she decided to stay in cabinet even after her demotion because she took the PM at his word. She then said that she would resign immediately if she saw a DPA because she would have lost confidence in cabinet. You'll notice that she then resigned suddenly. Anyway, I suppose this is speculation, but all of the pieces fit.

---

I think she resigned more because Trudeau said he had full confidence in her, suggested she would have resigned from cabinet on principle if she had felt anyone had tried to improperly pressure her and said her presence in cabinet should speak for itself. If I remember correctly, he said this rather late in the day. She resigned the next day. However, you could be correct. She stated she can't speak about the cabinet meetings after she accepted Veterans Affairs so we really don't know. In fact it could be both, she learned about the DPA, Trudeau made his comments and that forced her hand.

The Libs are on damage control. Several have claimed her testimony is "her" truth, despite backing it up with evidence. One MP out in BC had to apologize to her in the House of Commons because while being interviewed by a BC paper said he thought her father was pulling her strings, her testimoney was just sour grapes and that she wasn't a team player (https://www.abbynews.com/news/wilson...-area-mp-says/).

Now Butts has asked to testify before the justice committee despite Liberal members blocking him from doing so. From the way they have handled this in the past couple of weeks, they sure want the dumpster fire to keep burning. However, since they didn't handle this thing correctly from the start, why should they start now? Lol. I would like the PM to appear before the committee just so he actually has to answer the questions rather than deflect like he does in question period but I think his team will not want that to happen because he doesn't do well off script.

Is the emergency cabinet meeting televised tonight?