Detention of Meng Wanzhou - CFO of Huawei

799 posts / 0 new
Last post
Unionist

Mr. Magoo wrote:

That's certainly how I'd read that Article, though I'm not the lawyer you're hoping for.  Good catch, BTW -- the media has only referred to a 60 day deadline.

Thanks for the response, Magoo. I still think I must be wrong, but I'd love for someone to walk me through it. 

montgomery

Unionist wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Firing McCallum created a problem that is much worse than the problem of his words which actually was only a political problem here, not a deal in Washington and a benefit in China. Why did Trudeau blink?

Excellent question.

Why did Trudeau apply sanctions against Venezuela long ago? Why is he supporting Trump's coup? Why did Trudeau apply sanctions against Russia?

The only common thread I can find is the Nazi's granddaughter.

 

I would love to offer an explanation first because I've been a part of this conversation. And so:

Trudeau pulled our bombers out of Syria and the shit hit the fan. So he quickly replaced the bombers with some peacekeepers or 'peacemakers', whatever.

And from that he learned a lesson on how to behave himself. Now he has no balls and buckles to US pressure like a cheap tent.

What we obviously need is a Prime Minister who will just say to hell with the US and to hell with your Nato scam, we are Canada and we'll make our own decisions! Period!

And then if our Prime Minister is impeached on his very first day in office, at least he showed he had balls as he walks down the road kicking rocks! 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Wow I would love to see the illusive process for impeaching a Prime Minister. One of the rarest things under a parliamentary democracy.

Unionist I have no background in Extradition law however if Meng's lawyers thought it was a get out of jail free card they would be raising it in court. I suspect that something in the court proceedings has occurred that nullifies that but I was my civil procedure is rusty and was never top notch.

WWWTT

bekayne wrote:

WWWTT wrote:

Montgomery wrote 

More bullshit. Conservatives did the most to open trade with China. Just admit it, you’re a liberal hack!

Scheer has criticized the government for not being tough enough with China

i was referring to the conservatives that were actually in power. Not opposition. 

WWWTT

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Wow I would love to see the illusive process for impeaching a Prime Minister. One of the rarest things under a parliamentary democracy.

Unionist I have no background in Extradition law however if Meng's lawyers thought it was a get out of jail free card they would be raising it in court. I suspect that something in the court proceedings has occurred that nullifies that but I was my civil procedure is rusty and was never top notch.

Im sure you’re right about Ms Meng’s lawyers in finding any loophole (I’ll check out Unionists link after posting this comment)

If the US does have 45 days to file an extradition request, then they would have until the 15 or 14 of January. If 60 then it would have to be done today or the next couple days?

Either way, I still believe that the Canadian corporate media will mislead and misinform to protect Justin and the liberals. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture
Unionist

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Unionist I have no background in Extradition law however if Meng's lawyers thought it was a get out of jail free card they would be raising it in court. I suspect that something in the court proceedings has occurred that nullifies that but I was my civil procedure is rusty and was never top notch.

Thanks, krop. I was hoping you would just look at the wording of the statute and of the treaty (both of which I cited). They seem crystal clear and not admitting of any exceptions or delays. The 60-day limit in the statute simply does not apply. And my long experience in the union movement (though I never studied law) teaches me that even when many lawyers are involved, they can miss something. Of course, Unionist can also miss something lol.

Sean in Ottawa

montgomery wrote:

Quote:
Sean says: 

It was predictable that the Chinese would be upset at the firing and the US had not publicy provided any justification.

probably correct

The only flac Trudeau got was from the media and Conservatives which he oculd ahve weathered since it mostly said he was in a difficult position but did not claim he was at fault.speculation

Do you really think it is unreasonable to expect that the PM speak to his ambassador? Do you really think an ambassador who has been so close to the present government and was a Liberal cabinet minister would disobey if he got a clear order? speculation

Do real think if he disobeyed it would not be a big deal and reflect on the PM?speculation

To me the most likely is that McCallum was doing the best he could without instructions and coordination. speculationMost other possibilities are even worse for the PM and none are good.speculation McCalllum was always to loyal a Liberal to assume that he would not know not to speak against a direction from the PM.speculaton If there was no direction then why the hell not?speculation  AND If Trudeau did direct him and threw him under the bus this is also incompetence becuase McCallum just improved his position in China with apparently doing nothing to damage the situation with the US - so why fire him?speculation

The only thing we know for sure is that Trudeau buckled under pressure and McCallum should get a peace prize of some sort. I don't really think we have anything to debate with each other. I think you must understand that government is only going to lead with conviction when it's politically acceptable to do so. Opposing the wishes of the US is not politically acceptable in the minds of the Canadian people. with a few exceptions. Jagmeet knows that as well as any politician but we would expect that maybe when speaking from an opposition position, he could show some bravery. 

Chretien did but I'm not suggesting that Chretien went out on a limb completely. He weighed the thoughts in the minds of the Canadian people and guessed that he could get away with it. And still today, he was wrong in the Conservative mind. But of course, he got it right.

ha -

Clearly you are confusing questions with speculation. Did you miss the question marks or think they were not for you? Commentators in the media are doing the same thing.

BTW: This site is all about speculation. Tell me why you think my speculations are unreasonable or unworthy.

NDPP

Resignation Reveals Political Interference

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1137218.shtml

"Ottawa is now as sensitive as a frightened bird..."

NorthReport

Looks like Ms Wanzhou is headed to the US slammer for a long time but how is Canada going to get its innocent Canadian citizens out of China’s jails

Unionist

NorthReport wrote:

Looks like Ms Wanzhou is headed to the US slammer for a long time but how is Canada going to get its innocent Canadian citizens out of China’s jails

Innocent? Do you have some inside information? Or do you just mean, innocent until proven guilty? Like Meng Wanzhou?

By the way, her name is Ms Meng, not Ms Wanzhou. Please show more respect than the Canadian lackeys of Washington do.

NorthReport

Do you have reading comprehension?

 

 

Unionist

NorthReport wrote:

Do you have reading comprehension?

Yes.

NorthReport

dp

NorthReport
WWWTT

In Chinese tradition, the family name is placed before the given name. Reverse example  would be Justin Trudeau. In the west, the given name is written first. You wouldn’t address Justin as Mr Justin. Instead Mr Trudeau (i really should be using a feminine and not masculine example, sorry)

https://www.digmandarin.com/8-influential-women-in-chinese-history-to-remember-this-women-day.html

NorthReport

Thanks WWWTT

Let’s just call her Sabrina

NorthReport
NDPP

US Files Criminal Charges in Two Huawei Cases, Seeks Extradition of CFO Meng Wanzhou

https://buff.ly/2Upo13Z

montgomery

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

ha -

 

Clearly you are confusing questions with speculation. Did you miss the question marks or think they were not for you? Commentators in the media are doing the same thing.

BTW: This site is all about speculation. Tell me why you think my speculations are unreasonable or unworthy.

I'm confused Sean, first you tell me I'm confusing questions with speculation, then you right away tell me that I've suggested your speculations are un worthy or unreasonable. 

I didn't say they were Sean, I just called it for what it was. 

Sean, I have a hunch that Trudeau was more onside with our ideal of telling the US to take a fu--ing hike on this thing, but he didn't have his whole party's support and more importantly, he doesn't have the Canadian people's support. We long ago sold our farm to the US tyrannical regime.

So beside the politics, I'm really troubled with the outcome that's unfolding. The US has once again dictated their extremist violent agenda onto Canada and there's nor real backlash by anybody to stop it happening.

I suppose it's the inevitable, in which the BRICS become the force for good that lines up against the West, and Canada has probably just chosen the wrong side.

Anyway, we should be able to agree at least that McCallum was and is a man of principles. I can't say whether or not that was Trudeau's principles too, but I strongly suggest it was? Maybe he can still pull a rabbit out of the hat and save the day?

NDPP

Sorry John McCallum, Extradition Doesn't Neatly Divide the Courts From the Politicians

https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/sorry-john-mccallum-extradition-...

"Experts say extradition is ultimately about political decision-making."

NorthReport

Huawei is being charged, Meng will be extradited to the USA in due course, and will be processed through their judicial system, meanwhile Canada is left dealing with their citizens in China's jails.  Quite a mess.

NorthReport

The Huawei deal that the Trudeau government missed

Tom Parkin: The warning signs about Huawei and the Liberals' starry-eyed approach to China were clear. This extradition mess could have been avoided.

 - dated Jan 24

https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/the-huawei-deal-that-the-trudeau-governm...

NorthReport

 

Maybe China to show some goodwill could release the Canadians languishing in their jails.

China urges U.S. to withdraw extradition request for Meng Wanzhou

 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/china-urges-u-s-to-withdraw-extradition-re...

WWWTT

NorthReport wrote:

Huawei is being charged, Meng will be extradited to the USA in due course, and will be processed through their judicial system, meanwhile Canada is left dealing with their citizens in China's jails.  Quite a mess.

And what about the 800 or so Canadians in US jails?

why don’t u start a thread about that?

NDPP

Huawei et al Indictment - Redacted

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1125021/download

Here's the murrikkkan's bs indictment full of secret 'facts' supposedly known only to the grand jury. A classic stitch-up. 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

And what about the 800 or so Canadians in US jails?

why don’t u start a thread about that?

Because this is a thread on the arrest of Meng, and the Canadians that were arrested in China as retaliation are related to the subject, and the Canadians jailed in the US that you reference aren't.

If you think that's important, maybe you should start the thread and see if anyone has anything to say about it.

Sean in Ottawa

montgomery wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

ha -

 

Clearly you are confusing questions with speculation. Did you miss the question marks or think they were not for you? Commentators in the media are doing the same thing.

BTW: This site is all about speculation. Tell me why you think my speculations are unreasonable or unworthy.

I'm confused Sean, first you tell me I'm confusing questions with speculation, then you right away tell me that I've suggested your speculations are un worthy or unreasonable. 

I didn't say they were Sean, I just called it for what it was. 

Sean, I have a hunch that Trudeau was more onside with our ideal of telling the US to take a fu--ing hike on this thing, but he didn't have his whole party's support and more importantly, he doesn't have the Canadian people's support. We long ago sold our farm to the US tyrannical regime.

So beside the politics, I'm really troubled with the outcome that's unfolding. The US has once again dictated their extremist violent agenda onto Canada and there's nor real backlash by anybody to stop it happening.

I suppose it's the inevitable, in which the BRICS become the force for good that lines up against the West, and Canada has probably just chosen the wrong side.

Anyway, we should be able to agree at least that McCallum was and is a man of principles. I can't say whether or not that was Trudeau's principles too, but I strongly suggest it was? Maybe he can still pull a rabbit out of the hat and save the day?

I agree that you are confused.

First you label my comments as speculation (although you seem to speculate yourself (what is the difference between your hunch and speculaiton)? Can we agree to call this entire site speculation? Is that not what we are here for?

But then when I ask you direct questions you label each of my questions as speculation - yet did not answer any.

Yep, you seem confused: confused about what you read, about a question, about what this site is for, about what you are writing here, about what you are reading and even the meaning of a question mark.

Seems like we are in agreement.

As for McCallum in my view this does not show principle  -- your speculation -- but suggests he was operating without good clear direction from the PM in a file the PM should have been on top of -- my speculation.

Reporters should be asking the PM exactly what instructions he gave his ambassador before McCallum spoke the first time and if they were not clear, why did he fire the ambassador?

Sean in Ottawa

BTW -- I will speculate further that I think Canada has done a poor job of public communication regarding the Meng arrest. I suspect that a better job of it might have made more of a difference than the comments Trudeau has made.

I also think that the government could have made comments along the lines of McCallum's instead of criticizing him:

The President of the US did apparently politicize the case and Meng has a case to make on that. Canada's government will stay out of the legal process and let the courts answer that question.

The most critical thing is Trudeau has never once publicly defended or explained the extradition treaty with the US and the necessity of it. This explanation could have helped matters. China could certainly understand the issue Canada has with the need for such a treaty  in the terms I expressed: Canada has a smaller population and without a treaty would have to deal with the influx of anyone sought by the US courts if we did not have such a treaty. We would also have the problem that people could do crimes in Canada and slip across the border. Without a fortified border (impossible due to length) Canada has no choice but to have such a treaty and to keep politics out of it. Canada's response is the procedures in Canadian courts to question each extradition.

NDPP

China Reacts With Warnings to Canada and US to Drop Charges, Meng Extradition

https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2019/01/29/china-reacts-with-wa...

"Canadian officials in the international assistance group of the Justice Department now have 30 days to review the American request, and to debate whether to issue an 'authority to proceed' to bring it before a Canadian court. On Tuesday, the Chinese government said the US is using 'national power to tarnish and crack down on specific Chinese companies in an attempt to strangle their lawful and legitimate operations..."

 

Bears repeating:

The War on Huawei  - by Prof Jeffrey Sachs

https://t.co/8eci4hQCIC

"The Trump administration's conflict with China has little to do with US external imbalances, closed Chinese markets or even China's alleged theft of intellectual property. It has everything to do with containing China by limiting its access to foreign markets, advanced technologies, global banking services and perhaps even US universities. The US, led by an administration intent on asserting America's dominance over China is pushing the world toward disaster..."

montgomery

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

As for McCallum in my view this does not show principle  -- your speculation -- but suggests he was operating without good clear direction from the PM in a file the PM should have been on top of -- my speculation.

Reporters should be asking the PM exactly what instructions he gave his ambassador before McCallum spoke the first time and if they were not clear, why did he fire the ambassador?

I have little interest in your lengthy harangue but I am interested in what you've said after it, as I've copied above. Suggesting that McCallum was operating without clear direction is a stretch, but nonetheless, it's a theory. But it's very hard to believe that McCallum was acting without clear direction or as a loose cannon. I would suggest it's not likely he would defy Truceau's orders but would have blown the cover by speaking publicly of Trudeau's intentions to oppose US demands. 

Reporters should ask. And as to why he should have fired his ambassador? He got with his pants down, defying US demands and needed to make it appear that McCallum was a loose cannon.

montgomery

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

BTW -- I will speculate further that I think Canada has done a poor job of public communication regarding the Meng arrest. I suspect that a better job of it might have made more of a difference than the comments Trudeau has made.

I also think that the government could have made comments along the lines of McCallum's instead of criticizing him:

The President of the US did apparently politicize the case and Meng has a case to make on that. Canada's government will stay out of the legal process and let the courts answer that question.

The most critical thing is Trudeau has never once publicly defended or explained the extradition treaty with the US and the necessity of it. This explanation could have helped matters. China could certainly understand the issue Canada has with the need for such a treaty  in the terms I expressed: Canada has a smaller population and without a treaty would have to deal with the influx of anyone sought by the US courts if we did not have such a treaty. We would also have the problem that people could do crimes in Canada and slip across the border. Without a fortified border (impossible due to length) Canada has no choice but to have such a treaty and to keep politics out of it. Canada's response is the procedures in Canadian courts to question each extradition.

This is a once in a lifetime event and will set the tone for many years to come. I would suggest that no other Canadian politician could have handled the situation any better than Trudeau has, although that appears to be quite unsatisfactory so far. Even though McCallum's mistake of blowing the cover in public has been a setback.

The final outcome is all that is important and it's going to take some diplomacy to defy the US. It's going to have to have the appearance of being legitimate. Therefore, for Canada to escape the US blackmail, our courts will have to decide in favour of Meng. 

The determining factor will then be the political motivation and direction given to the courts. If we had a Conservative government it would have likey already been decided and she would be locked up in the US and Canada's course with China and Russia would have already been made.

WWWTT

Timebandit wrote:

And what about the 800 or so Canadians in US jails?

why don’t u start a thread about that?

Because this is a thread on the arrest of Meng, and the Canadians that were arrested in China as retaliation are related to the subject, and the Canadians jailed in the US that you reference aren't.

If you think that's important, maybe you should start the thread and see if anyone has anything to say about it.

Not according to the subject to change thread tittle. 

Furthermore, it’s very much a part of this “extradition” thread to bring into perspective the large numbers of Canadians in US jails. 

I was being sarcastic about the hypocrisy in North Reports tone in her comments. 

Furthermore, do you have evidence about the two Canadians being detained in China? As far as I know China has every right to ensure the security of its country. 

Sounds like you’re very comfortable with the perpetual dependency Canada has on the US

montgomery

WWWTT wrote:

 

Sounds like you’re very comfortable with the perpetual dependency Canada has on the US

I think we all have to be vigilant on detecting any support for the US these days. It's far too late for any NDP'er to still be fooled by the US as being credible in anything they do. 

Only Conservatives will continue to be supportive of the US. It's within their interests.

WWWTT

montgomery wrote

Only Conservatives will continue to be supportive of the US. It's within their interests.

Load of bullshit! What’s Justin doing right now?

Just admit it, you’re a liberal hack. 

montgomery

WWWTT wrote:

montgomery wrote

Only Conservatives will continue to be supportive of the US. It's within their interests.

Load of bullshit! What’s Justin doing right now?

Just admit it, you’re a liberal hack. 

No, I'm not a Liberal hack but I'm definitely promoting that which I consider has to be the face of the NDP on relations with the US. If the NDP party has the courage then we will take a stand against the US and it's aggression. And that will be exactly 180 degrees contrary to the Conservative party's agenda. 

You need to  learn how to be inclusive of others who come to this forum to support the NDP. We're not going to build support by accusing others of being Liberals. That's already been tried and it didn't work. 

So step one: Never support the Conservatives. You'll be safe following that rule!

NDPP

WWWTT wrote:

 It's far too late for any NDP'er to still be fooled by the US as being credible in anything they do

NDPP wrote:

Never too late here. Just read their postings...

montgomery

NDPP wrote:

WWWTT wrote:

 It's far too late for any NDP'er to still be fooled by the US as being credible in anything they do

NDPP wrote:

Never too late here. Just read their postings...

We're probably on the same side so let's not fight over the important shit.

NDPP

Canada-China Relations Imperiled as US Indicts Huawei

https://buff.ly/2MCOJ6M

"As the second-largest market for Canadian exports, maintaining normal trade relations with China is an imperative for any government. Despite Team Trudeau's claims, it is nigh impossible to argue that the US actions against Huawei and its CFO are anything but political..."

NDPP

Dear Asian [North] Americans...

https://twitter.com/Liuyongfuz/status/1088609684792246273

"...Very soon we will face an unprecedented unleashing of hate towards us as [North] America ramps up its war on China."

The msm has already begun, the liberals will repeat their usual nostrums of 'just the leadership not the people' as they always do, but make no mistake it will be that same ole 'yellow peril' racism they will call upon and use to advance their war. 

Sean in Ottawa

montgomery wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

BTW -- I will speculate further that I think Canada has done a poor job of public communication regarding the Meng arrest. I suspect that a better job of it might have made more of a difference than the comments Trudeau has made.

I also think that the government could have made comments along the lines of McCallum's instead of criticizing him:

The President of the US did apparently politicize the case and Meng has a case to make on that. Canada's government will stay out of the legal process and let the courts answer that question.

The most critical thing is Trudeau has never once publicly defended or explained the extradition treaty with the US and the necessity of it. This explanation could have helped matters. China could certainly understand the issue Canada has with the need for such a treaty  in the terms I expressed: Canada has a smaller population and without a treaty would have to deal with the influx of anyone sought by the US courts if we did not have such a treaty. We would also have the problem that people could do crimes in Canada and slip across the border. Without a fortified border (impossible due to length) Canada has no choice but to have such a treaty and to keep politics out of it. Canada's response is the procedures in Canadian courts to question each extradition.

This is a once in a lifetime event and will set the tone for many years to come. I would suggest that no other Canadian politician could have handled the situation any better than Trudeau has, although that appears to be quite unsatisfactory so far. Even though McCallum's mistake of blowing the cover in public has been a setback.

The final outcome is all that is important and it's going to take some diplomacy to defy the US. It's going to have to have the appearance of being legitimate. Therefore, for Canada to escape the US blackmail, our courts will have to decide in favour of Meng. 

The determining factor will then be the political motivation and direction given to the courts. If we had a Conservative government it would have likey already been decided and she would be locked up in the US and Canada's course with China and Russia would have already been made.

I have little interest in your lengthy harangue but I am interested in what you've said after it, as I've copied above. Suggesting that McCallum was operating without clear direction is a stretch, but nonetheless, it's a theory. But it's very hard to believe that McCallum was acting without clear direction or as a loose cannon. I would suggest it's not likely he would defy Truceau's orders but would have blown the cover by speaking publicly of Trudeau's intentions to oppose US demands. 

Reporters should ask. And as to why he should have fired his ambassador? He got with his pants down, defying US demands and needed to make it appear that McCallum was a loose cannon.

Dismissing what a person says as speculation, then speculating, then repeating as your own some of their speculation =utter bullshit.

Not interested in anything you say now.

NDPP

In A Broadside Against China, White House Levels Criminal Charges Against Huawei

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/01/29/huaw-j29.html

"...The entire campaign against Huawei is part of an effort to secure the economic dominance of companies controlled by the United States and its European allies, including the US-based Qualcomm, the Finnish Nokia and the Swedish Ericsson. The broad and bipartisan shift against engagement with China was summed up in the remarks last week by financier and leading Democratic donor George Soros, who called Chinese President Xi Jinping 'the most dangerous opponent of those who believe in the concept of open society..."

 

Ottawa Pledges $40 M For Nokia to Conduct 5G Research

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/government-nokia-huawei-5g-1.4991435

"Move comes as Ottawa reviews involvement of Nokia rival Huawei in next-gen networks."

WWWTT

China and HuaWei will not lose. They’ll probably lose the western market share, but only arrogant white peoples feel superior. China is well established in Asia and Africa and will make up for the loses easily 

Eventually, Canada will have to backtrack, keep this in mind, the US economy right now is on an upturn. But as we all know, it will swing down in the next few years. It’ll be then Canadians will pay the price. 

NorthReport

Please cut the nonsense

No one is expression feelings of superiority

China has grabbed 2 Canadians who are now languishing in China’s jails and changed a 15 year sentence against another Canadian to the death penalty and are harassing other Canadians who are traveling either in or through China. This needs to immediately stop.

China is discredited itself in world opinion by these actions and need to release the 2 Canadians sooner rather than later

And many Canadians needs to take their head out of their ass and stop being so naive 

And as far as Ms Weng’s situation, that is before the courts and will be dealt with accordingly

I would also surmise that Huawei’s chances of getting any of Canada’s 5G market is nil

NorthReport

Huawei Sinks Deeper As The World Turns Its Back

Huawei Technologies now faces shocking new charges, in addition to a growing litany of scandals, suggesting the world's second-largest smartphone maker is working with the Chinese military to steal our technology, defraud our institutions and spy on us using our own devices.

The company, its chief financial officer Meng Wanzhou and subsidiaries Skycom Tech and Huawei Device USA now face criminal charges for bank fraud, wire fraud, violating U.S. sanctions against Iran and conspiring to obstruct justice. Huawei has already denied this, but governments worldwide have started to view its expansion as a serious threat.

"It's been a longstanding concern of the U.S. intelligence community," former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said, "that any of the Chinese IT and telecommunications companies like Huawei, like ZTE, for example, have to be considered as extensions of Chinese intelligence service — in fact, Chinese law encourages, if not mandates, that when called upon, these companies will cooperate with the Chinese government."

 

 

The latest charges claim Meng delivered a presentation to a bank executive in 2013, during which she repeatedly lied about Huawei's relationship with Skycom, which tried to sell U.S. technology to Iran despite sanctions. Then in 2017, when Huawei became aware of the U.S. investigation, Huawei Device USA allegedly tried to obstruct justice by attempting to move witnesses who knew about its operations in Iran back to China, where FBI agents couldn't interview them.

On December 1, Canadian officials arrested Meng for extradition to the United States. But Meng is the daughter of Ren Zhengfei, who formerly worked as a technology engineer for the Chinese military before founding Huawei, which makes her Chinese corporate royalty — and Chinese officials made no attempt to mask their outrage.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidvolodzko/2019/01/29/huawei-sinks-deepe...

NDPP

Well, I agree with your last sentence. Will you be promoting your msm 'two-minute-hates' against China as you do against Russia? What does Louise the looney Mensch have to say about this? And didn't you just open a new thread on this - why not fill your boots there?

NorthReport

Facing the possibility of life imprisonment in the US do you think Meng will try and make a run for it?

Huawei exec Meng Wanzhou makes brief appearance in Vancouver court

Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou's defence team has been bolstered with some prominent legal help, a judge in Vancouver was told Tuesday.

 

https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/huawei-exec-to-appear-in-vancou...

NorthReport

John McCallum fell victim to Beijing’s ‘influence campaign,’ say former ambassadors

https://www.thestar.com/vancouver/2019/01/29/john-mccallum-fell-victim-t...

Jorge Guajardo, who served for six years as Mexico’s ambassador to the People’s Republic of China, agrees. The same strategies described by Palmer, he said, were used against him during his time in Beijing.

Guajardo emphasized he doesn’t know McCallum or have any special window into his motivations in this case. But when he first heard McCallum’s comments, Guajardo reports having immediately recognized the earmarks of a campaign of influence by Beijing.

“Having been there, (I thought), ‘I know why he’s saying those things,’” he said. “Because they game you, in a sense.”

Whereas newly posted foreign ambassadors in Western countries are typically put in touch with government officials of all stripes, when a foreign ambassador first arrives in Beijing, they are given zero access, said Guajardo.

Then slowly, over time, ambassadors are told particular, high-ranking Communist Party officials wish to meet with them because they’re “special” and “obviously” have a unique understanding of the nuance and delicacy of the party’s position, he said.

“And they keep playing up this idea that you’re special (by granting the same access) any ambassador would get in any other capital,” Guajardo said in an interview.

The mind-game of cultivating an envoy as a “special friend” to China who believes he has singular access to — and understanding of — the country’s political inner-workings is key to ensuring the diplomat will become an ally in Beijing’s efforts to see its interests taken up abroad, he said. And this relationship becomes especially useful during periods of dispute between China and an ambassador’s home country.

WWWTT

Boring!

Im interested if you have anything to back this claim:

and are harassing other Canadians who are traveling either in or through China.

montgomery

WWWTT wrote:

Boring!

Im interested if you have anything to back this claim:

and are harassing other Canadians who are traveling either in or through China.

I have a hunch that everything is going according to Trudeau's plan on handling this. Except that McCallum became a loose cannon and revealed Canada's true position of favouring China's position.

Obviously, the Conservatives would have crucified Trudeau, with the Canadian people's backing, if he admitted he was siding against the US and with China. Why, Trudeau would have been accused of being a China sympathizer and a killer of the captives overnight! 

The rule I always keep in mind: If a politician opposes the Conservatives, he can't be doing much wrong!

In any case, the ball's in the Canadian courts, court now and the Conservatives don't control their decisions. That bodes well for the proper decision!

The reason why I say all that is because a smart Jagmeet Singh would have done the same thing. Sans the loose cannon maybe? 

Pages