Trudeau Popularity - or not (various polling, etc.)

[dimsum]

For context, the CBC article I listed above also talks about why just releasing the names is a bad idea:

Poilievre and the Conservatives have been calling on Trudeau to release the names of allegedly compromised parliamentarians. They repeated that demand on Wednesday.

But law enforcement and national security agencies have been clear on this point: sharing any classified information is a crime.

"Anyone who reveals classified information is subject to the law equally and obviously, in this case, those names are classified at this time and to reveal them publicly would be a criminal offence," RCMP Deputy Commissioner Mark Flynn told MPs on the public accounts committee in June.

When CBC News later asked Flynn whether the names could be released in the House of Commons, where MPs enjoy certain legal protections, he suggested that could be a legal grey area.

"That's a question that should be asked, due to the complexities of parliamentary privilege, of a legal expert," Flynn said.



Stephanie Carvin, a former CSIS national security analyst, said there are several reasons why national security agencies wouldn't want the names made public — starting with the fact that it could compromise ongoing investigations.

"We don't want foreign governments knowing how we are collecting information. That's why we protect our sources and methods," she said.

Elcock echoed Carvin's point.

"If information is derived from a highly classified intercept, the instant you disclose that you have information, then it alerts the people who were communicating that their communications have been intercepted," he told CBC News.

"So you're actually revealing more than just the name. You're also revealing the sources and methods."

Elcock and Carvin also pointed out that intelligence doesn't always equal evidence that would hold up in a court of law.


"Intelligence can be hearsay. It can be rumours. It can be something someone overheard without context," Carvin said. She cautioned that simply releasing the names without context could trigger a "witch hunt."

"[The named parliamentarians would] not be able to defend themselves," she said. "They may not know the context in which they have been accused. They don't know who their accusers are. And that's really, really problematic under our system."

 

[Halifax Tar]

For context, the CBC article I listed above also talks about why just releasing the names is a bad idea:

That's convenient.

 

[Fabius]

Loading...

www.cbc.ca

Former CSIS directors weigh in, specifically about the “COS can tell Poilievre if he doesn’t have a clearance” issue that we’re talking about here.

The COS could tell PP exactly what the PM just told all Cdns, with the recommendation that he, PP does need to get cleared to see the details.

Except apparently the CPC was never told even in classified briefing, generic information that apparently the PM can just release to everyone.

Matt Gurney’s article is pretty much bang on about how this entire situation has been handled poorly by all.

 

[dimsum]

That's convenient.

But are they wrong?

I don’t care what context it is or who’s “side” this is about - especially when the “sides” should be “Canada” and “people who wish to do harm to Canada” - but I triple-check myself on anything relating to classified stuff.

This is not the type of thing to ask forgiveness later.

 

[Halifax Tar]

But are they wrong?

Everything other than releasing the names for all Canadians to see is wrong.

 

[Fabius]

For context, the CBC article I listed above also talks about why just releasing the names is a bad idea:

Canada’s institutions are very good at finding reasons to not do things. This is not a situation that is a good fit for that, they should also be figuring out how to release the names.

 

[dimsum]

Everything other than releasing the names for all Canadians to see is wrong.

You and @Fabius responded before I sent my edit, so I’ll repost it.

I don’t care what context it is or who’s “side” this is about - especially when the “sides” should be “Canada” and “people who wish to do harm to Canada” - but I triple-check myself on anything relating to classified stuff.

This is not the type of thing to ask forgiveness later.

 

[Halifax Tar]

You and @Fabius responded before I sent my edit, so I’ll repost it.

I don’t care what context it is or who’s “side” this is about - especially when the “sides” should be “Canada” and “people who wish to do harm to Canada” - but I triple-check myself on anything relating to classified stuff.

This is not the type of thing to ask forgiveness later.

My intention isn't partisan either. I want it all out in the sunlight. No matter who it is.

Are we suddenly balking at the validity of the findings ? Do we suddenly not trust the investigation ?

 

[dimsum]

Canada’s institutions are very good at finding reasons to not do things. This is not a situation that is a good fit for that, they should also be figuring out how to release the names.

And you may be correct, but again, how it is done is a huge part of it.

If releasing the names of some burns intelligence contacts or methods, that’s not something we can get back. If we do it, will our allies who share the intelligence continue to do so for other things, since they think that Canada would just release it for political gain?

If releasing the unwitting (as stated in the articles) members’ actions results in their dismissal, etc. then should they be able to respond or even take legal action? If so, how would they do it? “Unwitting” means, at least to me, that they weren’t planning on doing it or that they didn’t even know they’re in on it, so I would think that they should be able to respond. But again, back to the other point, if doing so burns contacts…

I don’t think it’s as simple as “release the names”. There are 2nd and 3rd order effects, not in the political sphere.

My intention isn't partisan either. I want it all out in the sunlight. No matter who it is.

Are we suddenly balking at the validity of the findings ? Do we suddenly not trust the investigation ?

I’m not saying either. I’m saying that we need to be very careful about how we do it because of follow-on effects which may hurt us long-term.

 

[ArmyRick]

If he doesn't want to get it, that's fine, but then just STFU about not having the info.

Its Trudeau who started this whole shit show and brought it up for very OBVIOUS reasons. Even left wing media like CTV are calling out his timing.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I’m not saying either. I’m saying that we need to be very careful about how we do it because of follow-on effects which may hurt us long-term.

That a score of our elected and non officials are operating in opposition to best interest of Canada is a long term effect that trumps all.

The chance to handle this quietly existed and the parties turned their backs. That time has come and gone.

I'm not sure why exposing this of causing such pearl clutching.

Publish the list.

 

[ueo]

Proroguing would be the only proper thing to do if Trudeau were to step down (there is no mechanism in the Liberal Party for his MPs to force out, short of voting with the opposition on a confidence motion and having the Government fall). It allows the Liberals to sort their house out and find a new leader who can then present a fresh agenda.

Who pray tell?

 

[ArmyRick]

if any of you had a CO that refused to get the necessary clearance

CO has to have security clearance not his/her choice. Terrible comparison.

I would want a CO thats make TACTICALLY sound decisions. And Peirre is doing that as we speak.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Its Trudeau who started this whole shit show and brought it up for very OBVIOUS reasons. Even left wing media like CTV are calling out his timing.

Trudeau brought it up again recently, but PP has been refusing to get the clearance and briefing for months.

It was definitely partisan attacks by Trudeau, but this just didn't come up yesterday and regardless, PP should get the required clearance and get a briefing.

Even an asshole political call out can have a point.

 

[ArmyRick]

That a score of our elected and non officials are operating in opposition to best interest of Canada is a long term effect that trumps all.

The chance to handle this quietly existed and the parties turned their backs. That time has come and gone.

I'm not sure why exposing this of causing such pearl clutching.

Publish the list.

Isn't it funny how CSIS said last spring that no sitting MP is a concern right now. Listen to Trudeau's very non-specific wording.

If Pierre did fall for the trap and get the clearance then Trudeau would be calling out Pierre asking him to give up "any names" knowing full well he is muzzled by law. Its a sick political game and the fact that people here refused to see it is mind boggling

 

[ArmyRick]

It was definitely partisan attacks by Trudeau

Thank you Discussion ends there. It really is that simple.

 

[Good2Golf]

For context, the CBC article I listed above also talks about why just releasing the names is a bad idea:

Agreed, and @brihard has noted previously some very real issues with why outright public naming is not the most prudent way forward for the actual good of the country.

That said, classic Trudeau hubris…suddenly sees all after his staff shielded him (can’t help but think it was on his implied ‘not an’ order to do so) from knowing anything, so he pulls a ‘Maverick’ and takes the shot (at PP) because he sees no danger, and finds himself in the “Oh, so you DO know what was going on, but now you refuse to tell us!” side of the play.

He has put himself squarely into reverse gaslighting territory, letting PP now play the “you’re not interested in the best interests of Canadians, only in taking short-sighted partisan shots to make you feel better about yourself…” card.

 

[dimsum]

That a score of our elected and non officials are operating in opposition to best interest of Canada is a long term effect that trumps all.

The chance to handle this quietly existed and the parties turned their backs. That time has come and gone.

I'm not sure why exposing this of causing such pearl clutching.

Because, again from the article:

Elcock and Carvin also pointed out that intelligence doesn't always equal evidence that would hold up in a court of law.

"Intelligence can be hearsay. It can be rumours. It can be something someone overheard without context," Carvin said. She cautioned that simply releasing the names without context could trigger a "witch hunt."

"[The named parliamentarians would] not be able to defend themselves," she said. "They may not know the context in which they have been accused. They don't know who their accusers are. And that's really, really problematic under our system."

As an analogy, imagine that I accuse you of something on a Facebook post.

Technically that is intelligence that you may have did something wrong, but it’s not proof. Should your CoC be publicly naming you to the CAF and the public? I’d hope not. What I’d hope is that the CoC investigates this quietly and then goes through the Admin / Disciplinary measures as appropriate.

Isn't it funny how CSIS said last spring that no sitting MP is a concern right now. Listen to Trudeau's very non-specific wording.

It’s also possible that CSIS said this before Bill C-70 was approved. The first reading was in early May. Had they testified after, the answer may have been different.

Government Bill (House of Commons) C-70 (44-1) - First Reading - Countering Foreign Interference Act - Parliament of Canada

Government Bill (House of Commons) C-70 (44-1) - First Reading - Countering Foreign Interference Act - Parliament of Canada

www.parl.ca

 

[dimsum]

Agreed, and @brihard has noted previously some very real issues with why outright public naming is not the most prudent way forward for the actual good of the country.

That said, classic Trudeau hubris…suddenly sees all after his staff shielded him (can’t help but think it was on his implied ‘not an’ order to do so) from knowing anything, so he pulls a ‘Maverick’ and takes the shot (at PP) because he sees no danger, and finds himself in the “Oh, so you DO know what was going on, but now you refuse to tell us!” side of the play.

He has put himself squarely into reverse gaslighting territory, letting PP now play the “you’re not interested in the best interests of Canadians, only in taking short-sighted partisan shots to make you feel better about yourself…” card.

My takeaway from all of this is that there is political partisan BS, but that there is also a real reason for not Leeroy Jenkins’ing things, despite how good it would look publicly. And that one shouldn’t be mixed with the other.

Edit to add: These are two separate (related in this instance, but really separate) issues and should be looked at party-agnostically.

 

[Good2Golf]

My takeaway from all of this is that there is political partisan BS, but that there is also a real reason for not Leeroy Jenkins’ing things, despite how good it would look publicly. And that one shouldn’t be mixed with the other.

Agree.

I don’t think Poilievre honestly thinks Trudeau will give any names, but we’re well into Kabuki theatre, with a healthy side dish of pretending that wasn’t really an issue worth worrying about.