• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case

Ok I'm a little confused by a lot of what I'm reading online.

For example:

New Democrat MP Niki Ashton said on Twitter she was "disgusted" by Mr Trudeau's "condescension".[of Wilson-Raybould]

Conservative party deputy leader Lisa Raitt told journalists in Ottawa on Wednesday that Ms Wilson-Raybould's "reputation has been dragged through the mud, the Liberal mud."

and the biggest one is:

The Union of BC Indian Chiefs called on the prime minister to "immediately and categorically publicly condemn the racist and sexist innuendo" about Ms Wilson-Raybould.

This comes two days after UBCIC released an open letter decrying the "discriminatory, sexist comments about minister Jody Wilson-Raybould," which they claimed were being spread by government officials and staff. The letter specifically highlighted anonymous government sources who told media that Wilson-Raybould was "a thorn in the side of cabinet," "difficult to get along with," and "known to berate fellow cabinet members at the table."

Maybe I'm just not reading into the whole affair deeply enough, but I haven't seen any comments at all, especially not from the Prime Minister, that are in any way condescending, racist, sexist, or otherwise damaging to her character and reputation.

Furthermore, even if the liberal insiders were decrying her as "difficult to get along with" and "a thorn in the side of cabinet", how can those specific comments be construe as racist, sexist, or anything like that?

So far all I've seen is a load of nothing. The PM has decried the negative comments made, but otherwise hasn't actually made any formal statements regarding the affair, and neither as Wilson-Raybould. Everyone is just keeping quiet, so what is everyone freaking out about?

 
Lumber said:
Maybe I'm just not reading into the whole affair deeply enough, but I haven't seen any comments at all, especially not from the Prime Minister, that are in any way condescending, racist, sexist, or otherwise damaging to her character and reputation.

Furthermore, even if the liberal insiders were decrying her as "difficult to get along with" and "a thorn in the side of cabinet", how can those specific comments be construe as racist, sexist, or anything like that?

I haven't seen anything racist. The stuff about how she was difficult to get along with and the like are what's being construed as sexist. Disagreeableness is actually a predictor of success in the workplace, but often when women are disagreeable they are marked as contrary, bitchy, etc... so it's a bit of a double-standard that's been identified by third-wave feminism, one of the few things third-wave feminism has identified that I actually agree with.
 
Summary:

NP View: Trudeau's SNC-Lavalin coverups are more disturbing than the alleged crimes
- 15 Feb 19
    It's a truism that it's not the crime but the coverup that typically does a government in. Maybe. But if this is a coverup, it is almost criminally incompetent

More than a full week after the SNC-Lavalin scandal erupted all over the Trudeau government, what’s most astonishing is how the federal Liberals haven’t even been able to yet settle on a coherent cover story —  a “narrative,” as the political jargon would call it. The alleged acts are bad enough: pressuring former justice minister and attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould to quietly nudge prosecutors toward giving Quebec-based, Liberal-friendly SNC-Lavalin a break in an ongoing criminal prosecution for corruption charges, and then demoting her into a lesser portfolio when she refused. The manifest incompetence of the government’s response to the growing controversy is somehow more disturbing.

Let’s start with the whisper campaign that immediately began against Wilson-Raybould. A bevy of anonymous Liberal insiders have been spreading the word to any journalist who’ll listen that she was just a pain to work with. It was all about “Jody,” not about the government. She was difficult. Not a team player. The whispers, no doubt co-ordinated by the Prime Minister’s Office in a hamfisted attempt to control a disastrous story, resulted in a remarkable statement of support for Wilson-Raybould from another member of Trudeau’s cabinet this week: Jane Philpott, former minister of health and Indigenous services and now head of the Treasury Board. Her comments weren’t about the substance of the scandal per se; she tweeted a photo of her and Wilson-Raybould smiling, thanked her for having “taught me so much” and said she was “proud of the laws we worked on together” and that she knows “you will continue to serve Canadians.” But they were clearly an expression of support for Wilson-Raybould and, by clearly praising her work and public service, a vigorous rebuke to the stories being planted about Wilson-Raybould’s supposed selfishness.


Once the slagging of Wilson-Raybould had brought enough widespread criticism over their clearly sexist and probably racist tone (attacking a strong, highly accomplished female Aboriginal for being too full of herself — how classy), the prime minister finally condemned them. “There have been many comments published in the media in various reports, about the former attorney general, about Jody Wilson-Raybould, that are absolutely unacceptable,” he said on Friday. “The sexist comments, the racist comments that have been made by anonymous sources are unacceptable and I condemn them in the strongest possible terms. That is not what we need to be engaged in, in public discourse in Canada.”

It was an appropriate response. But how odd that it took a full six days after Liberal insiders had planted the slanderous stories for our supposedly feminist and progressive prime minister to finally say that.

This was far from the only misstep the prime minister had this week. On Monday, under questioning from reporters, Trudeau assured Canadians that the matter was overblown. The fact that Wilson-Raybould continued to serve in cabinet during the controversy, he said, showed that the public was overreacting, and that Wilson-Raybould was comfortable continuing to serve in his government.

Whoops.

She quit hours later, leaving Trudeau to gamely suggest the next day that he was disappointed she hadn’t spoken up if she’d felt uncomfortable. Ah, at least he made sure to keep blaming her and her alone.

Things did not improve for the Liberals as the week went on. The opposition tried to force a meaningful investigation through the Commons justice committee, but were effectively stonewalled by the Liberal majority, who declined to invite the key players to testify — most notably Wilson-Raybould herself and the prime minister’s principal secretary, Gerald Butts, who had privately discussed the SNC-Lavalin case with Wilson-Raybould. The committee may later elect to call either or both of those individuals, but only after closed-door meetings and only if at least one Liberal breaks with the majority to vote with the opposition. Canadians will learn as much about this federal Liberal scandal, in other words, as the federal Liberals choose. Chalk up another win for Canada’s Most Transparent Government Ever.

The disgraces didn’t stop there. Liberal MP Anthony Housefather, chair of the justice committee, gave a series of interviews where he suggested, apparently without having given the notion the slightest thought, that Wilson-Raybould was bounced from justice because she doesn’t speak French. That was a curious message to send the thousands of francophone Canadians who have honourably served in our country’s armed forces — including in our traditionally French-speaking units — by suggesting that Veterans Affairs is a portfolio suitable for dumping ministers whose French doesn’t quite pass muster. Housefather quickly retreated, saying his comments were speculation and he apologized for them. But then the prime minister later suggested that Wilson-Raybould wouldn’t have been moved if Scott Brison hadn’t recently resigned from politics, requiring a cabinet shuffle. While it’s true that Brison’s departure made a shuffle necessary, it was not necessary to specifically shuffle Wilson-Raybould; Finance Minister Bill Morneau and Environment Minister Catherine McKenna somehow managed to hang on to their jobs. (Amusingly, shortly after the prime minister’s comment, Brison’s husband tweeted, “It’s ok, I usually blame my husband for everything too.”)

It’s become a truism in politics that it’s not the crime but the coverup that typically does a government in. Maybe so. But if this is a coverup, it is almost criminally incompetent. The alleged offence is bad enough. The aftermath is embarrassing.

- mod edit to add link -
 
Ok... I don't often believe things are ever as nefarious as people claim them to be, but at least I can see how people can make the claim; that is, I can see the path they are following to connect all the dots, I just disagree with their ultimate conclusion.

In this case, I just can't see the dots.

First off, what was actually said, and by who, about the PM "pressuring former justice minister and attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould to quietly nudge prosecutors toward giving Quebec-based......[sniped]".

How verifiable are these claims? Who actually said it? What are the sources? I've seen jack shit besides this one line over and over again.

Second,

The whispers, no doubt co-ordinated by the Prime Minister’s Office

And just what the bloody hell are people basing that bone headed assumption on? Many of you might consider our PM to be a young, naive and under qualified, but do you actually believe that sunny-ways drama teacher Justin Trudeau would actually allow his office to enact a campaign of slander?

So what the actual f*** is going on. I haven't read one bit of any journalism that actually shows something happened that was actually meaningful.

For all I know, this is how it went down:

PM sees this whole SNC-Lavalin affair being bad for Canada's economy in general, bad for Quebec's economy in particular, and bad for the Liberal party in Quebec from a political perspective.

PM calls in the Attorney General, asks her something along the lines of "hey is there any way we could make this hurt less? any legal way to avoid as much damage as possible"?

Attorney General replies something like "unfortunately no, at this point we have to let things run their course, however painful that may be. Also, I have to advise you that merely asking me this question could be construed as an unethical attempt to use political power to interfere affect the rule of law. I don't believe that is what you actually did, but some could see it that way."

PM replies, "Oh crap, I didn't mean it like that. I'm not a lawyer and I'm really young and naive, so I really just wanted your expert opinion on this matter and to see if there was any other options at all. Thanks for your help, and I'll try and be more careful next time."

Attorney General replies, "No prob, JT" <fist bump>.

Fast forward a few weeks/months, and someone who happened to be standing nearby breaks the law by leaking info about a conversation between the PM and the Attorney General, basically claiming that what was no more than a spit-balling session was an actual attempt by the PM to subvert the rule of law.

Now, can the news outlets stop talking about this all freaking day, at least until they can provide some actual and verifiable claims?
 
Lumber said:
First off, what was actually said, and by who, about the PM "pressuring former justice minister and attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould to quietly nudge prosecutors toward giving Quebec-based......[sniped]".

How verifiable are these claims? Who actually said it? What are the sources? I've seen jack crap besides this one line over and over again.

The Prime Minister himself, after days of denials, has literally just said JWR asked him if he was directing her to take certain action in the SNC-Lavalin case. This is after he snuck a major Criminal Code change into Budget 2018 that very much appears to directly benefit SNC-Lavalin after years of direct lobbying by that company to Liberal MPs and Cabinet members. The fact that the Prime Minister will not waive Solicitor-Client privilege to let JWR clear the air, while he continues to change his story on an almost hourly basis, smacks of a complete cover-up from the PMO.

If there was nothing to the allegations, JWR wouldn't need to resign, would be able to speak freely, and wouldn't needed to have hired a former Supreme Court Justice to advise her on what she legally can say to defend herself.
 
Your scenario lumber does not fit why she was demoted, hasn’t said a word yet about it, why JT hasn’t waived privilege if it was that simple nor why she suddenly resigned as VAC minister.

Also,the various scenarios and changing stories don’t help perception.
 
Add Penny Colennette (writing in the Star) to the list of the Old Guard that is less than impressed with the situation in which Trudeau finds himself.

I don't see much sign of anybody riding to the rescue.
 
Remius said:
Your scenario lumber does not fit why she was demoted, hasn’t said a word yet about it, why JT hasn’t waived privilege if it was that simple nor why she suddenly resigned as VAC minister.

Also,the various scenarios and changing stories don’t help perception.

She wasn't demoted, she was moved to an equally (IMHO) important and respectable cabinet position, and it may have been for any number of reasons. It's all conjecture that it was because she wouldn't play Liberal hard ball.

He hasn't said anything about it, because in my scenario, what he "asked" the AG was incriminating. If he admits to any type of conversation, even one he had in naive ignorance, theyd be all over him. Better just to be quiet.

For the refusal to waive privilege, same as above.

Finally, for her resignation? Well it could very well have been just a giant FU to the prime minister. She's upset that she got moved out of the AG position (regardless of the reason why), and when all of this came to light she said "hey, I bet if I resigned now it would REALLY make him look bad."

Of course, this is all just conjecture. More then likely there is something untoward going on. Im just not convinced that's is nefarious cronnism or corruption, and I certainly still can't see how people are so confidently connecting the dots, when there are very very few dots.
 
Lumber said:
How verifiable are these claims? Who actually said it? What are the sources? I've seen jack crap besides this one line over and over again.

The Globe & Mail reported it, based on unnamed sources.

You can call it "FAKE NEWS," I guess... but the journalist who reported it has a pretty credible history. It's not uncommon for "unnamed" sources to be used in legit journalism, as no one would have any insider information if they couldn't be trusted not to give the actual source of the info up. Note that "unnamed" and "anonymous" are two very, very different things.
 
ballz said:
The Globe & Mail reported it, based on unnamed sources.

You can call it "FAKE NEWS," I guess... but the journalist who reported it has a pretty credible history. It's not uncommon for "unnamed" sources to be used in legit journalism, as no one would have any insider information if they couldn't be trusted not to give the actual source of the info up. Note that "unnamed" and "anonymous" are two very, very different things.

Funny how when the Duffy affair came out, those on the right were asking the same questions Lumber did and essentially dismissing exactly what you wrote ballz and those on the Liberal side were out for blood holding Stephen Harper ultimately responsible.

Hypocrisy is quite the circle...

(not calling you a hypocrite ballz just the situation that reeks of it from both sides)

 
Lumber said:
She wasn't demoted, she was moved to an equally (IMHO) important and respectable cabinet position, and it may have been for any number of reasons. It's all conjecture that it was because she wouldn't play Liberal hard ball.

He hasn't said anything about it, because in my scenario, what he "asked" the AG was incriminating. If he admits to any type of conversation, even one he had in naive ignorance, theyd be all over him. Better just to be quiet.

For the refusal to waive privilege, same as above.

Finally, for her resignation? Well it could very well have been just a giant FU to the prime minister. She's upset that she got moved out of the AG position (regardless of the reason why), and when all of this came to light she said "hey, I bet if I resigned now it would REALLY make him look bad."

Of course, this is all just conjecture. More then likely there is something untoward going on. Im just not convinced that's is nefarious cronnism or corruption, and I certainly still can't see how people are so confidently connecting the dots, when there are very very few dots.

Come on Lumber, that sounds like bad PR lines the Liberals are spouting.  I try to keep my politics as level as I can and I've defended JT's actions in the past but there is way too much smoke here and the liberals are trying to tell everyone there is no fire while the fire trucks are blaring behind them.  They are not looking good in all of this and they are managing this like a goat rodeo.

If it isn't that bad then they dropped the ball on how to handle this.  Someone pointed it out that the cover up is worse than the crime.  They are not doing themselves any favours at all.   
 
>For all I know, this is how it went down:

Ah.  One of those harmless "'I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go" moments.
 
Lumber said:
She wasn't demoted, she was moved to an equally (IMHO) important and respectable cabinet position, and it may have been for any number of reasons.

Oh come on. Equally respectable? Certainly. Equally important? Dude, it's not even in the same league, never mind the same ballpark. We don't have to like that fact, but VAC is a second tier ministry and that's just a political reality. Anything that doesn't give that due recognition and consideration in the math on this is wilful self deception. Past ministers of justice? St. Laurent. PET. Turner. Chretien. Clarke. Campbell. Rock. MacKay. Nicholson. Six of thsoe were PM at some point subsequently. MacKay was a party leader and definitely isn't out of the running yet for potential future PM. Meanwhile you look at the list of Ministers of Veterans Affairs and there just isn't anything close to the same degree of political prominence, clout, or success there. Kim Campbell is the only one I can find who has ever served as MVA and as PM- but she also had Justice and National Defense straddling that brief stint with VAC.

Face facts. Always face facts, even if they're undesirable, inconvenient, or lead to unlikable conclusions about other things we hold dear. Any position not built on a premise of fact is going to be wobbly.
 
Brihard said:
Face facts.

That fact is that VAC only serves a very small percentage of Canadians.

Justice has an overarching effect on ALL Canadians.

As you said, not even in the same league. 

 
Brihard said:
Face facts. Always face facts, even if they're undesirable, inconvenient, or lead to unlikable conclusions about other things we hold dear. Any position not built on a premise of fact is going to be wobbly.
You do  know that this is a Politics thread, right?  :whistle:
 
Breaking news: Gerald Butts has resigned, but denies he did anything wrong.

Hope the bus tires don't leave too many tread marks on him.
 
Old Sweat said:
Breaking news: Gerald Butts has resigned, but denies he did anything wrong.

Hope the bus tires don't leave too many tread marks on him.

He was 'senior political advisor'. So given the recent missteps, either his advice was not trusted, or it was trusted and it was garbage advice. Given that we have here is indicative of an 'oops' versus an 'I told you so", it looks like a spot has been found for him under the bus.

I, for one, look forward to the next three days of political 'butts' jokes, because at heart I am still a juvenile.
 
And the mess gets bigger.  Now the PM will say he accepted his resignation.  How many bets that in a few weeks when this gets worse he'll say he fired him.

Sigh.
 
Lumber said:
She wasn't demoted, she was moved to an equally (IMHO) important and respectable cabinet position, and it may have been for any number of reasons. It's all conjecture that it was because she wouldn't play Liberal hard ball.

In Canada, even the Minister of Sport and Persons with Disabilities had more status than Veterans’ Affairs. 
 
Brihard said:
He was 'senior political advisor'. So given the recent missteps, either his advice was not trusted, or it was trusted and it was garbage advice. Given that we have here is indicative of an 'oops' versus an 'I told you so", it looks like a spot has been found for him under the bus.

I, for one, look forward to the next three days of political 'butts' jokes, because at heart I am still a juvenile.

Besides being JT close friend, he also appears to have been the "PMO" basically running the show. Likely it was a lot of his "smart ideas" that got them into this mess. These people are often to smart for their own good and won't take the clear path, but will try to game the system because they believe they are inherently smarter than us.
 
Back
Top