Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

Well, Freakin' this is most certainly a different take on the scandal and a very interesting one at that. I guess time will tell whether it is right or not.

   

I think you’re conflating multiple points here, her criticism about persistent efforts to persuade her and her criticism about being presented partisan considerations are 2 different criticisms, and the allegations of “veiled threats” are a third. Only a few of the 20 or so points of contact raised the political considerations or contained alleged “veiled threats” but JWRs view is that the volume and persistence in and of itself is inappropriate “pressure” evn in absence if the other 2 concerns.


She definitely said “I will say that it is appropriate for cabinet or colleagues to draw to the attorney general’s attention what they see as important policy considerations that are relevant to decisions about how a prosecution will proceed.” She then actually lists 3 things that are not appproate (in her view) which I’ve numbered below for reference:

“What is not appropriate is pressing the attorney general on matters that she or he cannot take into account, such as:
1) partisan political considerations
2) continuing to urge the attorney general to take her or his mind four months after the decision has been made or
3) suggesting that a collision with the prime minister on these matters should be avoided.”


And she also said “While in our system of government policy-oriented discussion amongst people at early points in this conversation may be appropriate, the consistent and enduring efforts, even in the face of judicial proceedings on the same matter and in the face of a clear decision of the director of public prosecutions and the attorney general to continue and even intensify such efforts, raises serious red flags in my view.“

And let’s be clear, 1 and 2 above is her view of the law, not necessarily a fact of the law. Let’s explore:

First I don’t believe you’re correct that the AG cannot be petitioned. That’s not been said anywhere and not even by JWR. The government has full authority to have an opinion on a matter and to express that opinion to the AG. What they cannot do is exert undue pressure

#1 seems pretty straightforward but arguably only the AG is restricted from taking partisan concerns into account. This doesn’t necessarily mean that anyone petitioning her can’t have partisan motives. For example a judge must be impartial but the lawyers arguing before the judge are not impartial. Of course in this case the petitioner is also her boss, which makes things somewhat different, which I’ll get back to in minute

#2 is the persistence matter and I think the most subjective of her arguments. In her view, persistence equals pressure but nowhere is that written or and nowhere is “pressure” defined. For example nowhere does it say that after x months of discussion or x number of conversations you can no longer discuss a matter with the AG. As mentioned above the petitioner is the boss which we’ll come back to.

#3 is pretty cut and dry, that’s the veiled threats, I don’t think anyone is going to argue over what that means. There are only a couple of comments that JWR claims are the threats the worst of which seems to be the one from the clerk of the privy council allegedly saying “I think [the PM] is going to find a way to get it done, one way or another. So he’ is in that kind of mood and I wanted you to be aware of it.” I’m inclined to believe that was intended as a veiled threat although not necessarily beyond a reasonable doubt Also even if it is accepted to be a threat there’s no way to tie it back to anyone except the Clerk who said it.

Lastly on the whole PM being her boss thing, JWR said during questioning that the AG and the Justice Minister should be 2 different people and I agree. Currently the JM is a member of cabinet and serves at the pleasure of the PM. The AG is supposed to be independent. This is sn apparent conflict. If these were 2 different people then the AG wouldn’t feel pressure

   

You're mixing words which is diluting your point.

There is a massive difference between bringing something to the attention of the AG and lobbying or petitioning her.

A petition is a request. The government cannot request anything of the AG beyond hearing their opinion. They government cannot lobby the AG either. The government is welcome to have an opinion on legal matters. Period. They cannot petition, pressure or lobby the AG.

Do you feel that it's appropriate for government officials to pressure the AG on matters before the court or that are pending to go to court?

Let's not forget that SNC lobbied the government hard to get the criminal code changed to add DPA. Now add the same government pressuring the AG to use the DPA on the company that spent countless hours over 3 years to get the criminal code changed. It's not right.

   

Yeah, there's a lot of unnecessary bafflegab coming from the liberal side. I think of it as diversion.

When explained clearly the scandal is pretty basic.

   

https://www.thebeaverton.com/2019/03/trudeau-announces-canada-to-partner-with-nasa-to-send-jody-wilson-raybould-to-moon/

Alice!!!!!

I am starting to really like The Beaverton.

   

I share your doubts. Are they all stupid? What gives with that?

   

https://www.thebeaverton.com/2019/02/no ... reporters/

LOLZ!

   

I think livid is too mild a word for how I feel about all this. Quebec again! The WEST screwed again!

   

You've made a very good point! I too remain suspicious of what is happening behind the scene.

   

That's who should be leading the CPC and our next Prime Minister! If only.

   

You misgendered Max Bernier.

   

   

The only thing that’s for certain is that government must not threaten or intimidate the AG. Anything short of that will be determined by opinion as to whether it can reasonably be interpreted as a threat. Nowhere does it say you can’t lobby or petition or attempt to persuade or be persistent. “Pressure” is not defined anywhere. Did the PMO cross the line? We’ll see - but based on what we know so far, such a finding will be based on an opinion of whether the meetings and comments reasonably can be interpreted as an implied threat, rather than a fact of whether an actual threat was made.



I never said it was “right”. I just said that words like “corruption” and “criminal” are over the top. Even JWR said it wasn’t criminal.

   

Another good one here:

   

The lieberals have no one to put in place of Dopey who will not have been touched
by this typical leftie scandal.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next