Jody Wilson-Raybould doth protest too much Rabble Blog

44 posts / 0 new

Thu, 2019-04-04 00:23

Pondering

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/views-expressed/2019/03/jody-wilson-raybould-doth-protest-too-much

Did Wilson-Raybould voice her dissent on grounds of principle when the Liberal government refused to relinquish its $14-billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia, a country responsible for the starvation of countless Yemenite children?

Did she protest when her government spent "$110K in legal fees fighting a First Nations girl over [a] $6K dental procedure"?

Did she contest the government's decision to take the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to Federal Court "over a ruling last month that linked the suicide deaths in a northern Ontario First Nation with Ottawa's inaction on implementing total equity in health-care delivery for Indigenous children"?

Among her greatest lapses as attorney general was her refusal to order a public inquiry into the conduct of officials in the justice department, persons who actively and knowingly abetted the wrongful extradition and psychological persecution of Hassan Diab, the iconic casualty of miscarried justice. When human rights groups petitioned the then attorney general to order a public inquiry into the suspicious actions of officials within the Department of Justice, Wilson-Raybould refused, ordering instead a review that will have surely exonerated the culprits. Declining to field questions in the House about the Diab affair, she closed the case with a perfunctory letter to Alex Neve of Amnesty International, while neglecting to offer a basic courtesy to Diab himself -- an apology in writing. In all this, she failed miserably.

It behooves Canadians to look at politics as theatre -- as a media-staged drama that, over the past few weeks, has swept many off their feet. Canadians ought to consider Wilson-Raybould's testimony as a performance. For when "the lady doth protest too much," there is reason to question the soundness of her truth.

Michelle Weinroth is an author and teacher. She writes extensively on political rhetoric.

Thu, 2019-04-04 00:34

Pondering

I am not saying that Trudeau is innocent. Not at all. He is guilty. That does not make JWR a selfless angel of truth and justice trying to survive in a cruel cruel world.

Thu, 2019-04-04 00:43

Misfit

“Thelma and Louise” on Parliament Hill!

Thu, 2019-04-04 00:48

Pondering

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/wrongly-convicted-glen-assoun-case-delay-jody-wilson-raybould-1.5074732

David Lametti issued an order for a new trial on Feb. 28, just seven weeks after taking over as justice minister. The following day — after a five-minute new trial in which the prosecution presented no evidence — Assoun was a free man....

The Halifax Examiner first reported earlier this month that Wilson-Raybould sat for 18 months on the findings of the Justice Department's criminal conviction review group, which recommended that a new trial be ordered for Assoun.....

JWR"As minister, I took potential wrongful conviction matters incredibly seriously. In order to deal with all such applications more thoroughly, effectively, and impartially, I appointed the Honourable Mr. Justice Morris Fish [a former Supreme Court justice] as special adviser on wrongful convictions in early December 2018. His role was designed to advise me — as minister — on applications under the criminal conviction review process, of which there were many."

...MacDonald said it's not unusual for a justice minister to seek outside advice on cases in which a miscarriage of justice is alleged. Still, he said the criminal conviction review group at Justice is a "highly professional, specialized group" that spent five years meticulously investigating the Assoun case.

Lametti acted swiftly on the group's advice, saying in his order for a new trial that he had determined "upon investigation that there are new matters of significance, as well as relevant and reliable information, that was not disclosed to Mr. Glen Assoun during his criminal proceedings." As a result of that investigation, Lametti said he is "satisfied that there is a reasonable basis to conclude that a miscarriage of justice likely occurred."

...MacDonald questioned Wilson-Raybould's suggestion that she had many potential wrongful conviction cases to deal with.

"I wouldn't think that there would be a great deal of applications being processed or reviewed by the criminal conviction review group," he said.

The group screens out the "vast majority" of applications that are deemed to have little merit. It fully investigates only those that appear to be likely or possible miscarriages of justice — "an ultra rare and exclusive club that very few Canadians, fortunately, have found themselves members in. It's like a rare, albino rhinoceros," he added.

Thu, 2019-04-04 10:01

Martin N.

And where were her principles evident on issues such as Pants on Pets or Repealing the Law of Gravity?

Is it possible she has issues in her past like taking a bus seat from an elderly or challenged peoplekind?

Smearing her is just so hard. Even Katie Telford has to call on the Liberal Troll Brigade for help........Hey! Hmm.

Thu, 2019-04-04 10:29

Pondering

Justin Trudeau is guilty of inappropriate (illegal) political interference with a decision that rightfully belonged solely with the AG of Canada at the time, Jody Wilson Raybould. Through PMO staff he threatened her position as AG if she did not fold and give SNC a DPA by overruling the Independent Public Prosecutor, something extraordinary that had never been done before and was a new law instituted by Harper.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wilson-raybould-trudeau-philpott-snc-lavalin-1.5083792

Over the course of the secret discussions, it emerged that Wilson-Raybould had a list of at least five conditions that could help end the civil war that has been tearing the government apart, multiple Liberal sources say.

The first three conditions involved staff changes at the very summit of the government. The sources said Wilson-Raybould wanted Trudeau to fire his principal secretary, Gerald Butts, along with Clerk of the Privy Council Michael Wernick and PMO senior adviser Mathieu Bouchard.

But Wilson-Raybould's wishes went beyond a limited housecleaning in the PMO. Sources said she also sought assurances that her replacement as attorney general, David Lametti, would not overrule Director of Public Prosecutions Kathleen Roussell and direct her to give SNC-Lavalin a deferred prosecution agreement.

Wilson-Raybould also wanted Justin Trudeau to admit — publicly, or to caucus alone — that his office acted inappropriately in its attempts to convince her to consider granting SNC-Lavalin a DPA.

So JWR thought it would be appropriate for the departing AG to determine the decisions of the new AG imposed through the PM's office?

Isn't that what she was complaining was inappropriate? Seems to me she is saying it is fine for the PM's office to dictate to the AG as long as it is what she wants dictated.

Wasn't she asking the PM to do something illegal? Impose a decision on an AG?

Thu, 2019-04-04 10:35

quizzical

Pondering just stop.

you are not credible anymore.

Thu, 2019-04-04 11:02

Pondering

quizzical, why are you supporting JWR? Is it because she is a wildly successful indigenous woman or is it because you believe she has done things to advance justice for indigenous peoples? (Which she has done, I'm not suggesting she hasn't.) She is also someone who chose to become a candidate for the Liberals. It is valid in my book to choose to work within the system to enact changes that would otherwise not occur.

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2019/04/04/jody-wilson-raybould-indigenous-civil-litigation_a_23706342/

The former principal secretary tabled texts between him and the former attorney general as evidence to the committee as part of its study of the SNC-Lavalin affair and allegations of political interference. Butts told the committee earlier that the directive was "the biggest contentious issue" between him and Wilson-Raybould around mid-December 2018.

Wilson-Raybould texted Butts on Nov. 28 to give him a heads-up that she intended to release a directive for civil litigation involving Indigenous peoples "at a big gathering in BC" the next day — formalizing a major government-wide policy shift to ditch adversarial litigation in favour of reconciliation.

"Even all the DOJ lawyers ([including] conservative ones) are good with it," she wrote, adding that release of the directive "ticks off yet another mandate letter commitment."

At that point, the civil litigation directive had been under the review of ministers for up to eight months. Wilson-Raybould did not unveil it at the B.C. cabinet and First Nations leaders' gathering she attended the next day because it was held back by the PMO for further review.

Two weeks later, she texted Butts: "Honestly not clear as to what result was at Cabinet – hear pm wants changes but I am confident have addressed all concerns. This is a big deal to me as you know. Thx."

One of Wilson-Raybould's last moves as attorney general was the publication of a directive for civil litigation involving Indigenous peoples. It was announced without fanfare on Jan. 11, four days after Wilson-Raybould learned from the prime minister and former principal secretary Gerald Butts that she would be moved out of justice. Wilson-Raybould was sworn in as veterans affairs minister on Jan. 14.

During his testimony, Butts called the directive "the biggest contentious issue" between him and Wilson-Raybould around mid-December 2018.

Outgoing Privy Council clerk Michael Wernick brought up the directive in the opening remarks to his second appearance before the Commons justice committee. He called it a "profound change in Canada's legal landscape" and urged the committee to study it.

"It could be repealed or gutted at the stroke of a pen, and all that work turned to ashes, so I think now that all political parties need to be clear with Canadians on the future of that directive," he said.

Lametti's office told HuffPost that the directive issued by Wilson-Raybould is a "step forward" in basing Crown-Indigenous relationships on the recognition of rights of Indigenous people.

"The principles it outlines have been applied to litigation involving the Government of Canada for nearly two years now, and Minister Lametti is fully committed to continuing this approach," spokeswoman Célia Canon wrote in a statement.

It seems Wernick was very supportive of the directive but it was a contentious issue with Butts? Lametti says it will still go through but will there be changes? What were the PM's concerns?

To me this seems to be a more significant issue than SNC Lavalin. Again the PM is not directly involved in discussions.

Thu, 2019-04-04 12:19

quizzical

trying to change the page.

potatoes to mangos.

people are capable of holding opinions and questions concerns on both.

Thu, 2019-04-04 12:45

#10

bekayne

Another thread?

Thu, 2019-04-04 12:47

(Reply to #10) #11

bekayne

Martin N. wrote:

And where were her principles evident on issues such as Pants on Pets or Repealing the Law of Gravity?

Is it possible she has issues in her past like taking a bus seat from an elderly or challenged peoplekind?

Smearing her is just so hard. Even Katie Telford has to call on the Liberal Troll Brigade for help........Hey! Hmm.

Take it up with the publisher of the article which is...let's see...rabble.ca

Thu, 2019-04-04 13:14

#12

Pogo

Pointing out character flaws of the whistleblower is deflection. 99% of the attention needs to be on the facts of the case. Liberals tried to interefere in the course of justice on behalf of a business they are closely tied to. Is this true, is it illegal, is it unethical? What responsibility does the PM hold for his actions.

I am no fan of JWR, but that doesn't change the evidence.

Thu, 2019-04-04 14:33

(Reply to #12) #13

Misfit

Pogo wrote:

Pointing out character flaws of the whistleblower is deflection. 99% of the attention needs to be on the facts of the case. Liberals tried to interefere in the course of justice on behalf of a business they are closely tied to. Is this true, is it illegal, is it unethical? What responsibility does the PM hold for his actions.

I am no fan of JWR, but that doesn't change the evidence.

Exactly!

i mean have other prime ministers in the past ever asked their AG to break the law and interfere in a criminal case before?

have other AG’s ever felt this level of incessant pressure from the PMO’s office to behave unethically like this before?

North Report posted an article from the National Observer and I have reposted the article twice that reflects on the history of corruption internationally that Trudeau seems to want to brush under the carpet because SNC Lavelin contributes money to the Liberal party. Even the OECD has had to step in and warn the Liberal not to let their criminal case drop.

The DPA is supposed to be used for minor corporate infractions only where the corporation disclosed the wrongdoing themselves, where they took actions to rectify the situation already and in cases where murder was not involved. SNC fails on all accounts. The lead prosecutor deemed that the DPA was inappropriate for a criminal case of this magnitude but since SNC gives money to the Liberal party or for other reasons much worse, the PM wanted this DPA pushed through anyway.

On a technical level JWR could be right that Trudeau did not break any laws by harassing her to tamper in a criminal case. But it is morally and ethically wrong on many levels considering the gravity of the criminality of SNC Lavelin on so many levels and for such a long time and on a global scale.

thus Liberal interference is a slap in the face to all the people around the world who have suffeeed at the hands of the Gadaffis’s and other ruthless dictatorships that SNC Lavelin bribed for lucrative contracts.

It is a though the Liberal party considers campaign contributions for themselves to be more important to them than justice for all the women who have been raped in Libya with SNC Lavelin money to bribe the Gadaffi family.

Thank you JWR for holding your ground and for showing principles and for trying to keep the Liberal government honest.

JWR was harassed and demoted out of her job for being ethical and honest. There were only three Liberal MPs and all female who seemed to understand and care about the depravity of SNC Lavelin’s behaviour in Libya as well as the fraud and bribery that got them banned from other countries around the world.

When we ignore sexual assault, murder, bribery, fraud, corruption as though none of this ever happened or downplay it as though these are trivial issues and normal for doing business and securing contracts then we reduce ourselves to the level of SNC Lavelin.

I am ashamed that we have a government in power that thinks that it is ok to override the decision of the lead prosecutor to have a massive stack of criminal charges against a Canadian corporation dropped because they give legal and illegal campaign donations to their political party.

Women in Libya were raped. Justin Trudeau claims to be a feminist yet obviously shows no conscience when the Canadian company that helped to finance and actively endorse these rapes should not have to face any criminal accountability because the very same company legally and illegally has financed his own political party.

Trudeau made a flippant remark to an indigenous protestor at one of his fundraising dinners thanking her for the political contribution that she had to pay for showing up rather than address the lack of money that his government provided to stop people from dying from mercury poisoning.

When he first became an MP he was absent from the HoC giving paid speeches to charities many of whom could not afford the lavish fees that he charged.

i do not believe that this matter is just a distraction. I think that this is a very serious issue that hammers home the point that the Liberal party is unfit to govern with Justin Trudeau as the prime minister.

He has to go.

Thu, 2019-04-04 14:59

#14

quizzical

thank you misfit for expressing why i am angry so well and for time it took for you to be able to get it down. i couldn't and know it was difficult.

the outrage i have is on so many levels and the minute Liberal excuse makers, the nothing to see here, or the anybody but Scheer people start i start shaking.

how dare they minimize what SNCL has done not just to us but to people around the world. like 'jobs' is more important than 10's of thousands of lives. fk.

Thu, 2019-04-04 15:30

#15

Misfit

I think the so called “jobs” line was just a lame excuse used to justify tampering in a criminal case. They wanted to market to Québéc in the upcoming election that they were fighting for their jobs. It was a political ploy used to justify patronizing a company that has given huge sums of money to the Liberal party. The Liberals want even more money for the election so they will drop all the charges in return for lots of campaign financing.

Thu, 2019-04-04 15:45

#16

kropotkin1951

I too am getting extremely tired of people supporting this corrupt company. They built the Canada Line in Vancouver and brought in TFW's and then underpaid them and discriminated against them. My union the Carpenter's took up the workers fight and won a major victory for the indentured slaves SNC had employed. This article highlights some of the other outstanding cases.

This corporation has given Canada a reputation as being the most corrupt nation doing business on UN sponsored projects. This gang of international thieves bribes the Liberal party and some want to talk about JWR's short comings. It seems that rabble does indeed have a new direction in its viewpoint.

As hills to die on go, Trudeau could have picked a better one than SNC-Lavalin. Although he may think of it as a “signature” Canadian company, that signature has often been corruption.

Abroad, corruption charges in Bangladesh, Cambodia, and a 10-year ban on working on projects financed by the World Bank, the longest debarment period ever agreed to in a World Bank settlement.

Here in Canada, the Libya corruption and bribery charges have already cost the company $88 million. That money was part of the $110 million paid to settle shareholder class action suits arising over allegations of SNC-Lavalin executives misleading investors about the company’s activities in Libya that affected share price.

Judge Claude Leblond is the judge in the matter, the same judge who presided over the corruption case involving SNC-Lavalin and the McGill University Hospital Complex. The preliminary hearing that began Oct. 29, 2018, on the Libya criminal charges ended on April 1. Judge Leblond is expected to decide whether there is enough evidence to go to trial by May 29. The PMO was intruding into the case while it was actually before the courts.

On top of that, there was a recent guilty plea on charges of violations of Canada’s election financing laws involving SNC-Lavalin.

In the latter case, Normand Morin, one of the company’s VPs, pleaded guilty to illegally funneling cash to federal political parties in this country. Morin, who is no longer with the company, had employees make the political “donations.” The company would then reimburse them with phony expenses refunds or bogus bonuses.

As reported by the CBC, during a seven-year period from 2004 to 2011, SNC-Lavalin made illegal political donations of $117,803. The Liberals got all but $8,000 of the money, the balance going to the Conservatives.

Because the case was settled with a plea deal, the evidence was never entered into the public record and the public never found out which leadership candidates, politicians, and riding organizations got the cash.

SNC-Lavalin’s most recent legal problem in Canada arises out of the decision by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, backed by then attorney general Wilson-Raybould, to proceed with a criminal trial against the company because of its activities in Libya.

As reported by the Canadian Press last month, a new proposed class action lawsuit was filed in Ontario Superior Court against the company. The proposed suit claims that SNC-Lavalin failed to disclose in a timely fashion that federal prosecutors had declined to invite the company to negotiate.

The legal action points out that more than a month elapsed from Sept. 4, 2018, the date the company first learned of the prosecutor’s decision not to negotiate a DPA, to Oct. 10, 2018, the date it informed shareholders.

At that time, the share price dropped 14 per cent on the bad legal news. The lawsuit seeks $75 million in damages for investors who acquired SNC-Lavalin stock between Sept. 4 and Oct. 10.

But there is a much graver problem for the Trudeau government than cheerleading for this single, dubious corporate player. Corruption, the exercise of official powers without regard for the public good, exacts a monstrous cost on multiple levels. If the prime minister knows that, he has never mentioned it.

According to data from the World Bank and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the economic costs of paying bribes to “get a business advantage” are enormous. Every year worldwide, over $1 trillion is paid in bribes.

That means that one dollar out of every $30 of Gross Domestic Product in the world is corruptly paid out in bribes. These bribes add up to 25 per cent to the costs of procurement in developing countries — an inflated bill they can ill afford.

https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2019/04/02/Trudeau-Dumb-Expulsions/

Thu, 2019-04-04 19:17

(Reply to #16) #17

JKR

Misfit wrote:

I think the so called “jobs” line was just a lame excuse used to justify tampering in a criminal case. They wanted to market to Québéc in the upcoming election that they were fighting for their jobs. It was a political ploy used to justify patronizing a company that has given huge sums of money to the Liberal party. The Liberals want even more money for the election so they will drop all the charges in return for lots of campaign financing.

Aren’t corporate donations illegal now?

Thu, 2019-04-04 20:23

#18

cco

Yep. They still happen.

Thu, 2019-04-04 20:23

#19

quizzical

https://www.macleans.ca/politics/jody-wilson-raybould-the-liberal-party-is-not-something-i-understand-anymore/

Fri, 2019-04-05 11:42

#20

Paladin1

It sure is terrible when a woman records her 20th conversation with people who insist they’re not pressuring her. Who works for an approachable boss that shouts at women for not appreciating him and all the work he does for them. Who cracks jokes about donations from FN women from mercury poisoned reserves.

And of course we're supposed to believe Wernick never breifed the Prime Minister about his conversation with JWR. The Prime Minister who was determined, and in a pretty firm frame of mind. Who Wernick thought was going to find a way to get it done one way or another. A Prime Minister who was in “that kinda mood.”

Wernick who just saw the PM a few hours ago and all of this was really important to him, who will be around tomorrow.

But Wernick, despite all these things, the Liberals want you to believe, didn't speak to the PM about the conversation. Even though the Pm had access to a telephone. And email. And was present at least 2 days in Ottawa afterwards with Wernick.

Forget about all that, JWR recorded a phone conversation without someones permission. What kind of person is she really?

Did she physically chain herself to GMs production line of armored vehicles to halt that 14 billion dollar deal?

Yes yes sure the PM made some bad decisions, whatever, JWR is the real bad person here.

Fri, 2019-04-05 12:42

#21

Misfit

Paladin,

But you forgot, if Wernick was so pushy then she had an obligation to go to Trudeau and tell him which she didn’t do so it’s all her fault.

Poor little JT!

Heh heh heh...

Fri, 2019-04-05 13:09

#22

Misfit

Paladin1,

Thank you for taking the time to write out post #20. Wernick’s remarks speak for themselves.

Jane Philpott’s interview with Anna Maria Tremonti on CBC’s the Current is here.

Interview

Fri, 2019-04-05 14:06

#23

Pondering

How many times do I need to say I think Trudeau was 100% involved and did know that his staff and Wernick were pressuring JWR and he did change AGs specifically to get an okay on the DPA for SNC?

Sat, 2019-04-06 12:16

#24

Pondering

Trudeau is guilty of using staff to inappropriately pressure JWR into giving SNC a DPA.

Now that we have that out of the way:

https://globalnews.ca/news/5135850/jody-wilson-raybould-anonymous-leaks-future-of-politics/

“Anonymous sources seem to be trampling all over confidences and discussions I may or may not have had with the prime minister,” she said when asked about two media reports earlier this week that she had pressed Prime Minister Justin Trudeauto promise Lametti would not do what she had refused to by overriding the decision of the director of public prosecutions not to give the company a much-lobbied-for deal.

I think that confidentiality rules apply to what was heard or what was said by other people. I think she is free to repeat the conditions she made.

So far what I have heard makes no sense. It seems she wanted Trudeau to apologize to caucus. That would have been a public admission of guilt that he had been personally involved in directing staff to make veiled threats when there was no evidence to support it. (note: Guilty people generally do not offer evidence where there is none.)

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wilson-raybould-snc-lavalin-lametti-1.5085930

Jody Wilson-Raybould says she never tried to meddle in the SNC-Lavalin file after she was shuffled out of the attorney general's job.

...Sources have told CBC News that Wilson-Raybould made at least five demands in order to resolve the bitter SNC-Lavalin dispute, including that three top government officials be fired. Sources also said she wanted a formal apology from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and his assurance that his new attorney general would not overturn her decision not to offer SNC-Lavalin a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA)....

After Wilson-Raybould issued that statement, CBC news re-contacted the sources for this story. One said Wilson-Raybould raised the demand that the DPP's decision on SNC-Lavalin be respected directly with Trudeau during their conversations in Vancouver before she resigned from cabinet.

But, the source said, that condition was not part of the conversations in the recent days leading up to Tuesday's expulsion from caucus, as the demands Wilson-Raybould wanted met evolved and changed throughout the weeks of discussions.

https://globalnews.ca/video/5136298/jody-wilson-raybould-i-didnt-have-an-endgame

Former attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould said in an interview that she had no endgame in the SNC-Lavalin case. She said that she wanted to ensure that she “maintained the clear line between the prosecutor, myself at the AG”.

She may not have had a specific end game in mind but she most certainly evaluated the possible outcomes, the likelihood that her demands would be met, the impact on Trudeau himself and the impact on the party. If reports are to be believed she was not willing to accept apologies from Butts or Wernick. She wanted them fired in order to protect prosecutorial independence. But if they were just acting on Trudeau's behalf, why should they be fired while Trudeau only has to be humiliated with a public apology for what up until now was private?

Sat, 2019-04-06 12:59

#25

quizzical

oh it's back to throwing Butts and Wernick under the bus by implying there was no reason to demand their firing if it all came from Trudeau

Sat, 2019-04-06 15:06

(Reply to #25) #26

Sean in Ottawa

quizzical wrote:

oh it's back to throwing Butts and Wernick under the bus by implying there was no reason to demand their firing if it all came from Trudeau

Not sure I follow the logic here. Butts, in particular, is central to and symptomatic of Trudeau and Trudeau's government. I think we can easily see the point of firing them AND Trudeau.

Sat, 2019-04-06 20:18

(Reply to #26) #27

quizzical

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

quizzical wrote:

oh it's back to throwing Butts and Wernick under the bus by implying there was no reason to demand their firing if it all came from Trudeau

Not sure I follow the logic here. Butts, in particular, is central to and symptomatic of Trudeau and Trudeau's government. I think we can easily see the point of firing them AND Trudeau.

oh i agree they should be under the bus along with Trudeau.

i was mocking pondering switching it up again trying to infer Trudeau knew and did nothing it was all Butts and Wernick.

Sun, 2019-04-07 01:39

#28

Pondering

Not at all quizzical. I have repeatedly stated that Trudeau is personally guilty from the perspective of logic if not proof. No one even in the media has argued that Trudeau didn't know what was going on. It has been reported that Wernick claims he didn't report back to Trudeau. Nobody believes it. It is always reported in a scoffing tone.

I seem to have to open every post with a Trudeau is guilty announcement. Would you please accept that I agree that Trudeau is 100% guilty of pressuring JWR through his staff whose behavior he is responsible for. Are there any specific words you want me to use to confirm his guilt?

I have a problem with the way staff is placed between PM and ministers. I am shocked at the apparent rarity of direct meetings amongst the highest officials of the country. It seems like staff is running things. The buck has to stop at the PM's desk whether or not he was directly involved because he not staff is elected. Does Trudeau just take direction and spend all his time memorizing talking points because it seems like this incredibly important file did not warrant a direct meeting in over four months between the PM and a top tier cabinet minister.

From what JWR and everyone else has said so far this is what I gather happened.

A mechanism was put in place so SNC could have a prosecutorial agreement in which they would admit guilt and pay restitution but would not be prosecuted so could still bid on federal contracts.

The independent prosecutor (who JWR said is a stickler) decided not to offer it to them.

Because of the jobs situation the PMO sees the default choice as the DPA, the prosecutorial choice only if they can't qualify for the DPA.

The prosecutor saw the default to be prosecuting and the DPA as an exceptional tool for deserving companies because the prosecutor is a stickler.

JWR may or may not have made the same decision on SNC as the prosecutor but that wasn't the point to JWR. JWR felt the directive that allows her to override the Prosecutor is only intended to be used if the prosecutor made an error and JWR didn't see one. For that reason use of the directive would automatically be political. The way she referred to it as a Harper era law gave me the impression she doesn't approve of the directive itself. It can't be intended for judicial error because that is taken care of through appeals. It exists specifically so that the government can intervene when there has been no error. As in to save jobs.

JWR denies the framing of her demands and says she wants to respect cabinet confidentiality but it is still the only clue we have and I don't accept that she can't tell us what her demands were.

Now Scheer has announced he acquired documents somehow which he will release tomorrow afternoon because I guess we need to built up some anticipation.

I asked someone today, who watchs the news, what they thought of the SNC thing. She said she wasn't following it. Sounded like a soap opera to her.

We are on this message board obsessing over every report and editorial and watching the polls and speculating on where it will all go. Most people aren't paying attention until it goes somewhere. JWR hasn't even said anything unethical happened, just inappropriate. She hasn't suggested any systemic fixes. She hasn't complained about not being able to reach Trudeau personally to offer her sternest warning yet she claims her motivation was to protect him.

I have to say if her motivation was to protect Trudeau she is doing a piss poor job of it.

I am not accusing JWR of having done anything unethical or inappropriate or wrong in any way shape or form. I am saying she is human and subject to having her own motivations conscious and subconscious. I'm saying she is a highly accomplished ambitious woman who evaluates where she is going. She had all her arguments marshalled before going public. I do not believe there is a lawyer alive who does not play out scenarios before making a major decision. She has been trained to think and to persuade for a living.

It is not unreasonable to question her words and actions or to examine the implications of her claims.

There is actually very little to discuss on the Trudeau side because it is so crystal clear what happened and why. Trudeau through his staff tried to pressure JWR to override the prosecutor and give SNC a DPA to save jobs because Trudeau needs the Quebec votes and/or because SNC is a big corporation with a lot of clout that supports the Liberals. No mystery there.

Sun, 2019-04-07 03:01

#29

Misfit

Pondering, please stop. Your interpretation is offensive. You are in a fantasy world or bubble and no one can reason with you.

1. The head of prosecutions is not a stickler. So don’t use that word or phrase ever again. It is offensive and a slap in the face to our legal system of justice.

2. JWR explained everything to Trudeau and the Liberal cabinet at a cabinet meeting in September. She made everything perfectly clear then. Are you implying that Trudeau is fucking stupid that he needs to be moddle coddled and baby fed numerous times rehashing over the same information over and over and over again? How stupid do you want to reduce our PM to?!? One explanation at the cabinet meeting was enough.

3. No JWR did not say that “nothing unethical happened just inappropriate”. She said that her own assessment is that nothing criminal happened but that the whole ordeal was highly unethical. The criminality and ethical issues are all subject to legal interpretation. Some legal lawyers have spoken out on television and have said that Trudeau may have acted criminally by interfering .So stop trivializing what happened here. This is a very serious issue. This is about political interference in a judicial pricesss.

Two highly capable and intelligent and well respected women have been kicked out of the Liberal party over Trudeau’s own juvenile behaviour so please stop with your trivializing.

i am not a lawyer so I cannot deconstruct your legal fantasy from here on. Except to say that your analysis is garbage.

i have submitted an article three times which discusses the role and parameters of DPAs and why SNC-LAVALIN does not meet the criteria for a DPA. You obviously have not read it.

i posted a link to Jane Philpott’s interview with the Current on CBC radio . She refers to SNC Lavelin as the most egregious criminal prosecution in modern Canadian history. Even the OECD has had to step in and warn the Liberal government not to tamper in this criminal proceeding. Like HOW FUCKING EMBARASSING DOES THIS HAVE TO GET??? Political tampering in a criminal investigation and OECD warnings is normally reserved for dictatorships.

the MSM has moddle coddled the Liberal government. If the NDP were in power and had attempted this the MSM would have treated this scandal very differently.

Justin Trudeau has ruined his reputation. He is now a detriment to the Liberal party. As far as I am concerned he has to go.

Sun, 2019-04-07 12:04

(Reply to #29) #30

Paladin1

Pondering wrote:

Not at all quizzical. I have repeatedly stated that Trudeau is personally guilty from the perspective of logic if not proof. No one even in the media has argued that Trudeau didn't know what was going on. It has been reported that Wernick claims he didn't report back to Trudeau. Nobody believes it. It is always reported in a scoffing tone.

I seem to have to open every post with a Trudeau is guilty announcement. Would you please accept that I agree that Trudeau is 100% guilty of pressuring JWR through his staff whose behavior he is responsible for. Are there any specific words you want me to use to confirm his guilt?

Pondering I can only speak for myself. I think yes you're saying Trudeau is guilty but I don't think you're coming across as sincere believing what he is guilty of is really that wrong or bad of a thing. It doesn't seem like a big deal to you.

Of course you don't support abusive men but reading what you're saying about JWR I'm reminded of conversations I've seen where someone would say something akin to

"yes the husband is guilty of assault and shouldn't have hit her but why did she stay so long wih him in the first place? Why didn't she confront him the first time he hit her?".

It seems like you're willfully ignoring the toxic workplace Trudeau seems to have created and rules over, but I can't figure out why.

The title of your thread about JWR here is that she doth protest too much. Then you start your blog off by pointing out 3 times you felt she didn't protest enough.

Sun, 2019-04-07 12:13

#31

Pogo

This is like a kid is hit by a car and all people want to talk about is the that the kid had a snotty nose. The PM is accused of incredibly serious misconduct, should he resign? Why is the caucus putting up with his breaches of ethics?

Sun, 2019-04-07 12:24

#32

Misfit

Exactly!

Sun, 2019-04-07 16:10

(Reply to #32) #33

Pondering

Stickler is not an offensive word.

Definition of stickler

1: one who insists on exactness or completeness in the observance of somethinga stickler for the rules

Misfit wrote:
JWR explained everything to Trudeau and the Liberal cabinet at a cabinet meeting in September. She made everything perfectly clear then.

She could not have made clear in Sept. 2018 that Trudeau's staff was behaving inappropriately in December 2018.

Misfit wrote:
Some legal lawyers have spoken out on television and have said that Trudeau may have acted criminally by interfering

In which case as Attorney General I think JWR would have been required to report it or be implicated herself not to mention she wasn't speaking to Trudeau she was speaking to staff therefore unless the staff pointed a finger at Trudeau they would be the criminals not Trudeau. Wernick did not say "Trudeau told me to tell you". He said repeatedly that Trudeau wanted the law respected and only wanted to know JWR's reasoning for not using the directive to overrule the prosecutor. Not the prosecutor's reasoning. JWR's reasoning.

Misfit wrote:
Two highly capable and intelligent and well respected women have been kicked out of the Liberal party over Trudeau’s own juvenile behaviour so please stop with your trivializing.

I'm not trivializing it at all. I think it is an important example of the inner workings of government. I think it is trivializing it to make it all about Trudeau personally. He certainly was not juvenile. If those women were not women and not so high profile they would have been kicked out much faster.

Misfit wrote:
i have submitted an article three times which discusses the role and parameters of DPAs and why SNC-LAVALIN does not meet the criteria for a DPA. You obviously have not read it.

SNC may still get their DPA which suggests it is not as cut and dried as you claim.

Misfit wrote:
Even the OECD has had to step in and warn the Liberal government not to tamper in this criminal proceeding. Like HOW FUCKING EMBARASSING DOES THIS HAVE TO GET??? Political tampering in a criminal investigation and OECD warnings is normally reserved for dictatorships.

That isn't true.

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/oecds-statement-on-snc-lavalin-is-only-its-second-ever-about-specific-bribery-allegations

If there is a breach of the rules in this case, the OECD can make recommendations for improvement, but “I really hope there will be no need to do so,” Kos said.

Poland needed to make “urgent legislative reforms” in 2018. Sweden’s laws, too, needed “urgent reform” in 2017, even as Finland’s “high acquittal rate” jeopardized its efforts. Ditto Ireland’s in 2016. Belgium was shamed for its “limited implementation” of the convention that same year. Greece, in 2015, was chastised for neither tackling domestic corruption nor foreign bribery.

Not countries with dictatorships. Don't we usually praise the Nordic countries?

Misfit wrote:
the MSM has moddle coddled the Liberal government. If the NDP were in power and had attempted this the MSM would have treated this scandal very differently.

I don't think they have been molly-coddling the Liberals. I think they have been gleefully exploiting any aspect that they think has clickbait potential. It's the Conservatives that are persistently molly-coddled. Of course the NDP would be slammed the most. The only time the MSM supports the NDP is if they think it will benefit the Conservatives.

Misfit wrote:
Justin Trudeau has ruined his reputation. He is now a detriment to the Liberal party. As far as I am concerned he has to go.

I never pegged you for a liberal voter so I doubt they care what you think (or what I think). The Liberal party has decided to continue backing him. I think he is still their best bet for winning the next election even though he is tarnished. No one comes to mind as an obvious replacement. Scheer is still beatable and there is no indication that Singh is a threat.

I think you and others are trivializing this whole thing by making it all about Trudeau personally as if he were gone none of this would have happened.

I think JWR is getting treated with kid gloves because she is a high profile indigenous woman. Questioning high powered people, devoted Liberals no less, should never be out of the question.

I say JWR would not be willing to sit as a backbencher indefinitely and that is treated as though it is an attack rather than an entirely reasonable observation given her professional history.

I think JWR is an ethical, ambitious, brilliant and highly accomplished person regardless of sex or race. When I think of someone with those qualities the word naive does not come to mind. She became a Crown Prosecutor on the downtown Eastside and she was apparently a compassionate one. She still chose to become a prosecutor not a defence attorney for indigenous peoples. No reason she should have to just because she happens to be an indigenous woman.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jody_Wilson-Raybould

She has had a very illustrious career.

You would have to be stupid to think this woman would be satisfied sitting as a backbencher in the Liberal party. The party that until days ago she was determined to remain within.

You cannot convince me that she didn't consider the ramifications of forcing an apology from Trudeau as though that wouldn't have been a political bombshell.

Political theatre is an aspect of this story. That a highly accomplished indigenous woman is one of the players doesn't change that. Her words, actions and motivations are just as deserving of scrutiny as anyone else's. She is a lawyer. On that count alone her words and actions should be evaluated carefully and in detail not just taken at face value.

She knew and knows that everything Wernick said is hearsay and he was expressing his opinion of where Trudeau was at. She's a lawyer. She issued the sternest warning to her client through staff in a recording. I asked why she didn't warn Trudeau directly, even play the recording for him?

So far one answer was that she might have been too intimidated because he raises his voice. That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Quiz even agrees with me on that. The other reason I think was the suggestion that it is because the evidence was against him so it wouldn't make sense. Except the evidence isn't against him and she knows that because she is a lawyer.

Is there any doubt that staff was being used to avoid direct culpability? Am I being foolish to link this to the Duffy/Harper scandal?

I am not and have not accused JWR of any nefarious doings. There is nothing objectionable in analyzing her end of the conversation in the recording and Wernick's exact words. Trudeau himself was not a participant in that conversation. Wernick did not claim to be delivering Trudeau's words when he emphasized that Trudeau got things done or that he didn't think it was good for them to be at loggerheads. Wernick specifically stated that he did not pass on the stern warning to Trudeau.

It is fair to question why she didn't issue that extremely serious warning directly to her client, Trudeau, as head of government, instead of relying on a verbal message issued through staff. If a message like that isn't delivered directly between Prime Minister and Justice Minister/AG what is?

If the answer is that she was suspicious that it was coming directly from him that is all the more reason to speak to him directly not save a recording of STAFF behaving inappropriately.

In my view JWR did not want to use the directive not because it would be illegal but because she didn't approve of the tool and she didn't want to lose the AG position.

In the recording it sounded to me like she was claiming it would be politically damaging to Trudeau if she used the directive because everyone would assume it was done for political reasons and that is why she didn't want to do it.

Sun, 2019-04-07 17:36

(Reply to #33) #34

Pondering

Paladin1 wrote:
Pondering I can only speak for myself. I think yes you're saying Trudeau is guilty but I don't think you're coming across as sincere believing what he is guilty of is really that wrong or bad of a thing. It doesn't seem like a big deal to you.

I think that it is a norm that corporations hold enormous sway over government and that trade deals are written to serve them not the people in any of the countries concerned. I think the executives who committed crimes should be in prison not sailing around tax havens. I am angry that they got off because their crimes didn't make it to trial fast enough. Who but the Attorney General is responsible for making sure this sort of thing doesn't happen, or doesn't happen again? This was and is an extremely high profile case. Does the OECD not care that the actual criminals walk free leaving a non-sentient organization to take the fall?

Was it a big deal that Harper offered Duffy a hundred thousand dollar bribe, a sitting senator? Oh wait, Harper never got dinged on that because he didn't do it. He had staff do it.

The PMO wanted the DPA they stuck in an omnibus bill to be used to save Lavalin, a huge corporation employing thousands of workers in Quebec and I think Ontario because it would hurt Trudeau politically if they didn't get it. Pass me the smelling salts. Is it wrong, of course, is it the norm, yes.

Are you telling me you don't consider this par for the course behavior for politicians?

Paladin1 wrote:
"yes the husband is guilty of assault and shouldn't have hit her but why did she stay so long wih him in the first place? Why didn't she confront him the first time he hit her?".

That is not at all a fair comparison. JWR is not a battered woman and the relationship is Prime Minister to Attorney General not husband to wife. Your comparison is insulting to professional women. What you seem to be saying is a professional woman cannot be expected to verbally stand up to a man who is her superior. If that is the case then women cannot hold high office if only a man can be expected to speak up in such a situation. JWR must be evaluated as a Liberal Justice Minister and Attorney General not as a woman and she would be the first to say it.

Paladin1 wrote:
It seems like you're willfully ignoring the toxic workplace Trudeau seems to have created and rules over, but I can't figure out why.

Trudeau's workplace is no more toxic than Harper's was. Trying to portray Trudeau as a serial abuser of women is ridiculous which isn't to say he has never been inappropriate. I do not believe that JWR was or is intimidated by Trudeau on any level and she can run rings around him intellectually.

Paladin1 wrote:
The title of your thread about JWR here is that she doth protest too much. Then you start your blog off by pointing out 3 times you felt she didn't protest enough.

The title was the title of the rabble blog post I was quoting from. I didn't write it. I quoted it. It didn't seem right to change the title of a blog post I was quoting from so I just went with it.

Someday Trudeau will no longer be PM. It could be another Conservative PM or a different Liberal PM but sooner or later he will be gone. SNC will be old news.

The next PM, whomever it may be, will still have a bloated PMO full of staff actually running the government and staff acting as a firewall between PM and Cabinet Ministers. There will be another Duffy or SNC scandal and again the PM will not be directly implicated.

It seems not only backbenchers but also cabinet ministers are superflulous and get their marching orders through staff. Trudeau isn't running the show. He doesn't have the educational background for it. I'm sure he makes some decisions, is presented the plan and approves it, but he isn't doing the planning.

We have lots of debates about how democractic our system really is. Although on one level I am utterly unimpressed by the scandal because it looks like business as usually to me, on another level I am struck by the fact that unelected people are the ones actually in power in many situations. I find it very interesting that Wernick has worked through many administrations so is non-partisan.

SNC executives were required by a business partner to take an ethics test as a condition of continued association and they failed the test. Think about that for a minute. They didn't even know to fake their answers. Wernick's attitude has honestly been that he was just doing his job. I am convinced he doesn't see anything wrong in his behavior.

This whole thing is a study in the machinery of power in Canada. It's about much more than just Trudeau. I am a little bemused in that I feel I am being more cynical than everyone else here. It isn't that I think it is okay it's that I am not surprised. It isn't that I don't think Trudeau is guilty, it's that I think he is guilty and that an entrenched system is there to protect anyone in his position.

I think there is a host of issues involved that are being ignored in favor of waving pitchforks at Trudeau which I don't see as particularly effective.

Sun, 2019-04-07 17:58

#35

quizzical

it just never ends with Trudeau now he is threatening libel

oh yeah pondering you're no longer credible on any account

Sun, 2019-04-07 18:02

#36

Misfit

Pondering,

i wrote moddle coddled because you were being picked on in another thread about spelling mistakes and misuse of words. I didn’t appreciate you being picked on and I do not appreciate you trying to educate me about my spelling mistakes either. I have misspelled words before and I will do so in the future. Don’t do that.

no PM had ever tried to politically interfere in a criminal case before. This is a first.

i think that you are infatuated with Trudeau. And I don’t know if you get paid by the Liberal party to be a shill on this board. The election is coming up and you are coming out from your dormancy again.

trudeau abused his position of power and corporate abuse is very serious. JWR was harassed and was fired for being honest. Justin Trudeau orchestrated the harassment and Justin Trudeau fired her because she would not tamper in a criminal case that he wanted thrown out of court.

Pondering Inquiring. You have a history.

Sun, 2019-04-07 18:55

(Reply to #36) #37

Pondering

Misfit wrote:

Pondering,

i wrote moddle coddled because you were being picked on in another thread about spelling mistakes and misuse of words. I didn’t appreciate you being picked on and I do not appreciate you trying to educate me about my spelling mistakes either. I have misspelled words before and I will do so in the future. Don’t do that.

no PM had ever tried to politically interfere in a criminal case before. This is a first.

i think that you are infatuated with Trudeau. And I don’t know if you get paid by the Liberal party to be a shill on this board. The election is coming up and you are coming out from your dormancy again.

trudeau abused his position of power and corporate abuse is very serious. JWR was harassed and was fired for being honest. Justin Trudeau orchestrated the harassment and Justin Trudeau fired her because she would not tamper in a criminal case that he wanted thrown out of court.

I did not even notice that you misspelled molly-coddled I just auto-typed it the way I usually type it.

I am agreeing that Trudeau is guilty and I said that JWR is far more intelligent than he is. I have not flattered him on any count unless you think not being a serial abuser of women is some form of high praise. Normally if someone is infatuated with another they praise them.

I said that Trudeau is going to brazen this out.

verb

1.

endure an embarrassing or difficult situation by behaving with apparent confidence and lack of shame.

I could not care less about Trudeau. I do care about who will be in power come next October. I hope this hurts Trudeau enough to keep him to a minority government with the NDP government holding the balance of power.

It would be even better if I were looking at PM Singh. While it is possible I don't see it happening.

When projecting how Canadians are and will react in future there is no use in self-deception. I honestly did not believe Trump could win in the US or Ford in Ontario but it did happen. I wasn't deceiving myself I just over-estimated the awareness of swing voters or their priorities. Ford didn't even win based on platform he won based on the Liberals being so long in the tooth and the NDP not being trusted. I don't believe Scheer can beat Trudeau, or if he does that he can get a majority. I pray that I am right because it would not be a good thing for Canada.

Political polarization wouldn't be a good thing for Canada either which seems to be an attractive idea for some progressives and NDPers. There is this forever love affair with the notion that the Liberals will die. Ignatieff didn't kill them. Neither will this.

I would be ecstatic if Singh becomes the PM in October. I'm just not pretending it is going to happen.

Saying I would rather have Trudeau than Scheer is not high praise for Trudeau. Saying I would rather have a broken arm than a cracked skull is not praise for broken arms.

Sun, 2019-04-07 21:20

(Reply to #37) #38

bekayne

Misfit wrote:

Some legal lawyers have spoken out on television and have said that Trudeau may have acted criminally by interfering .

Were any of them non-partisan?

Sun, 2019-04-07 21:49

#39

kropotkin1951

Unless one has all the facts any lawyer would say that there was a chance that it was criminal however that would be up to a prosecutor to decide not the H of C.

Sun, 2019-04-07 22:22

#40

Misfit

Here is a newspaper article which discusses the issue here.

Did Justin Trudeau Act Criminally?

Article

from my understanding of this article, Canada has very lax laws compared to England and the United States. It would be hard to nail Trudeau with anything in Canada which does not exonerate him for what he did, but some would argue that a case against him would be hard to prosecute which is a reflection more of how backward our laws are than whether he acted appropriately or not.

this is just one article which merely glances at a very complex legal issue.

Sun, 2019-04-07 22:33

#41

cco

One might think that with what's going on in the US right now, Canadians would know better than to allow the goalposts to be moved like this. The Liberals are already trumpeting "NO CRIME WAS COMMITTED!" like it's the definition of good governance. It's not, especially when the entire issue stems from a version of obstruction of justice they [i]made legal in their last omnibus budget [b]specifically for this corporation[/b][/i]. If they'd snuck in a provision that Trudeau's allowed to shoot any cabinet minister who defies him, the same hacks would be coming forward to say "This gun is a tool provided for in law that'll enable us to save jobs and work on behalf of Canadians!"

Sun, 2019-04-07 23:19

#42

JKR

I may be too cynical but I feel like Canadian politicians and government officials, federally and provincially and of all political stripes, have been pulling strings behind the scenes for huge Canadian corporations since 1867. I think a Scheer Conservative government would do the same and probably a Singh NDP government would too.

Mon, 2019-04-08 00:23

#43

Pogo

I agree but: It is still wrong and they got caught.

Tue, 2019-04-09 01:32

(Reply to #43) #44

Pondering

JKR wrote:

I may be too cynical but I feel like Canadian politicians and government officials, federally and provincially and of all political stripes, have been pulling strings behind the scenes for huge Canadian corporations since 1867. I think a Scheer Conservative government would do the same and probably a Singh NDP government would too.

I think to some extent they would have no choice. One of the most astonishing things I found about the whole SNC thing is how Wernick, a non-partisan civil servant who also worked for Harper, is so entrenched in the machinery and so trusted that he was between the Prime Minister and a top Cabinet Minister.

Corporations will seek to punish any government that really threatens the status quo.