1  2  3  Next

Trudeau's committing political suicide....

https://www.citynews1130.com/2019/04/07 ... in-affair/

   

Couple of things here...In open court he would have too come clean or commit perjury, also if Trudeau goes ahead, the court stenographer will need add two more keys the "uum" and "errr" keys.

If he does not follow through with the lawsuit it would be admitting Sheer was correct.

   

This will also keep Canadians talking about SNC-Lavalin. Something the Liberals wanted to stop.

   

You mean the Tories don't want to stop.




Cuz they got nuthin' else....

   

Anyone remember in 2008 when PM Harper actually sued the Liberal Party for $3.5M for saying he knew about his party’s alleged attempt in 2005 to bribe an Independent MP to vote non-confidence against the then Liberal minority government?

Harper’s lawsuit was later withdrawn

Memory lane:

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.793399

File this under “it’s only ok when conservatives do it”

   

Um, then he didn't actually sue them now did he.



Um dingus? There are phone records and e-mails CLEARLY pointing to attempted political interference and other undo pressure on the AG. We have concrete PROOF of it.
Yep, Groper's such a great leader he got sandbagged by his own party members. Remember, it was a LIBERAL caucus member/cabinet minister who blew the whistle on this one.

And now Groper wants to sue Scheer for telling a vicious pack of facts.

   

Mmmm, no. Scheer is implying a criminal act without proof. That is 'libel'.

One thing this whole SNC thing has shown us - no crimes were committed during the whole affair.

   

Right. And what has Groper done of any worth in the last 3 1/2 years? What the fuck has he done that's worth re-electing him? I mean if you like having a ton of smoke blown up your ass then I guess Groper is your man.

Enjoying that promised balanced budget by 2019 yet? Yes, we're going to save the world from "global warming". Too bad our kids and grand-kids will be too heavily indebted to actually enjoy it.

Or how about that election reform? One would think that living on the West Coast you'd be kind'a sick and tired of your vote counting for nothing more than who gets to be the Official Opposition.


And seriously, what the fuck kind of absolute fucking retard spends $4.5 billion on an as yet un-built pipeline and then signs onto a tanker moratorium on the West Coast. And yet you stupidly believe that SNC -Lavalin is all about jobs.

   

Okay, fair enough. But it has shown us (as has the rest of the last 3 1/2 years) that this is truly one of THE most unethical govts this country has ever seen.

But wait, isn't attempting to influence a judge a crime? Then why is it NOT a crime when you try to pressure the AG into changing a ruling she already made and then firing her when she won't? Are you suggesting that the govt shouldn't be held to the same laws the rest of us are expected to abide by?

Even basic conflicts of interest are treated differently between the senior and junior civil service. Get caught in a CoI as a junior employee and it's grounds for dismissal. But, if you're the PM and get caught in multiple CoI's along with your FinMin it's a $500 fine per incident and then back to work with you, thank you very much.

It's people like you that let govts get away with thinking they're some kind of ruling class where the laws don't apply equally to them.

Someone asked elsewhere (or maybe it was here) what the "defining" characteristic of democracy is. There's only one answer; Govt accountability. Without that accountability it doesn't matter how many nods you give to the democratic process, that process essentially becomes meaningless. And let's face it, in Canada if you don't live in Ontario or Quebec, that process is even more meaningless.

   

I beg to differ. I think the 'Report a Muslim' hotline was one of the most unethical things a government has tried. Not saying this is a good government, just they had the bar set pretty high for them.



The AG is not a judge, they are a politician and politics still applies. Telling an AG what to do, that is a different story.



You should know me well enough by now, that the only proper answer to that fallacy is



See above. You read things into my posts that I didn't write, then get pissed off at your own assumptions. My posting history is exactly contrary to your assertions. Do try to keep things straight.

   

Is Scheer "implying?" I thought he was outright stating it. And there is proof. PA NO9 is correct in his assertion of Scheer's claims as "a vicious pack of facts."

Prove what you're saying Doc or stop "implying a criminal act without proof." I assume when you accuse Scheer of "Libel" you are referring to criminal libel.

Here's Trudeau's lawyer clarifying his claim:

“The prime minister supports wide-ranging and vigorous political debate on matters of public policy,” Porter wrote on behalf of Trudeau.However, your statement, in its entirety, is beyond the pale of fair debate and is libellous of my client personally and in the way of his occupation as prime minister.”

And here's an exclamation of Scheer's response:

In particular, Porter highlights a statement issued by Scheer on March 29 in response to the release of more documents, and the audio recording of a telephone call, by former attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould.

Porter is trying to say that Scheer’s claim that Trudeau politically interfered in the criminal prosecution, that there was corruption in the way this case was handled, among other statements, amounts to libel.

“I stand by every criticism I have made of Justin Trudeau, including those made in the letter,” Scheer said.

He bloody well should stand by every criticism of Trudeau.

The PM pressured the former attorney general to interfere in a criminal prosecution, he sent his top staff and aides to do the same.

As we can all hear, during the phone call between Wilson-Raybould and Clerk of the Privy Council Michael Wernick, he actually called for her to take over the case from the independent Director of Public Prosecution.

This ridiculous lawsuit even claims that Scheer’s statement that Trudeau told Canadians things he knew to be false is libelous.

Trudeau has claimed time and again that Wilson-Raybould never raised concerns about interference in the SNC case. We know she raised these issues with Wernick in that phone call, in a meeting with Gerry Butts and to Trudeau’s face back in September, something he finally admitted in the House of Commons this past week.

As Scheer noted, Trudeau has changed his story multiple times, maybe that is why he is having trouble keeping it all straight.

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnis ... nc-lavalin

   

I hope it does get to court. then we will see.

   

Doubtful. Lawsuits like this are usually to get people to stop shouting falsehoods that have gotten out of hand. If Scheer doesn't stop shouting 'corruption! corruption! corruption!' then I bet the lawsuit goes ahead and Scheer has to prove this crime of 'corruption' in court.

That will be fun!

   

Well, it will go ahead then and Pluggy will get his wish.

Because one more time...

“I stand by every criticism I have made of Justin Trudeau, including those made in the letter,” Scheer said.

And Doc will get to see if his allegations that Scheer's allegations are false are correct. I wouldn't be putting money on it though, if I were you, Doc.

Personally I doubt Trudeau will ever actually take it to court because he knows he'd lose.

   

Also...just curious but what exactly does Doc mean by "crimes of corruption."

He's pouting and won't talk to me so I can't ask him but does anybody else know more specifically what he means?

Scheer has been pretty specific in his allegations and they all seem supportable. Does Doc know about something else he's calling "crimes of corruption" or is it just more puffed up, misrepresentation, masquerading as fact from atop the soapbox?

   

1  2  3  Next