Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,689
- Points
- 1,040
>A lot of people don't want Scheer as leader.
I know. That is how some will choose their vote: not as "for" Trudeau, but as "against" Scheer. Others will be "for" Trudeau, or "for" LPC. Each person's reason is his own.
But I could wish the people with pulpits would stop all the fucking hypothetical fear-mongering and hypocritical finger pointing.
What has Scheer done that is illegal or unethical?
The story so far: the LPC is beholden to SNC for donations; some of those donations were illegal and had to be returned. SNC lobbied hard for a legislative provision to ease their oncoming plight; the LPC passed it (including following advice to bury it omnibus-fashion). When the prosecutor declined to use the provision, internal pressure was applied to the AG. We heard that the (unelected) staff in the PMO didn't care much about the Harper-era law that constrained them, and that they believed they could pave public opinion with some tame op-eds. And in the end, the guy who so often manages to apologize to one group or another in place of the people who did the dirty coughs up a variation of his template for things in which he did the dirty: "I respect your view, but I disagree with it".
Some people call what happened obstruction of justice (I am not sure if it fully fits the legal definition). Suppose it is. Should a leader be removed for it, or not?
I know. That is how some will choose their vote: not as "for" Trudeau, but as "against" Scheer. Others will be "for" Trudeau, or "for" LPC. Each person's reason is his own.
But I could wish the people with pulpits would stop all the fucking hypothetical fear-mongering and hypocritical finger pointing.
What has Scheer done that is illegal or unethical?
The story so far: the LPC is beholden to SNC for donations; some of those donations were illegal and had to be returned. SNC lobbied hard for a legislative provision to ease their oncoming plight; the LPC passed it (including following advice to bury it omnibus-fashion). When the prosecutor declined to use the provision, internal pressure was applied to the AG. We heard that the (unelected) staff in the PMO didn't care much about the Harper-era law that constrained them, and that they believed they could pave public opinion with some tame op-eds. And in the end, the guy who so often manages to apologize to one group or another in place of the people who did the dirty coughs up a variation of his template for things in which he did the dirty: "I respect your view, but I disagree with it".
Some people call what happened obstruction of justice (I am not sure if it fully fits the legal definition). Suppose it is. Should a leader be removed for it, or not?