Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Trudeau lying about SNC


Recommended Posts

Perhaps Trudeau and many members of cabinet suggested fines and clear codes of conduct as opposed to court cases lasting several years because there are realities of present Global business structures.My visits to India, Pakistan,Vietnam Cambodia etc suggest no contract will be secured to provide a service if there,is not some form of incentive to someone.If a Canadian company wishes not to bid on contracts without favours good luck.Of course the enormity of SNC bribes and policies demands action but dragging Execs into court is somewhat hypocritical given bidding patterns.Of course all Canadian companies could just stay home and we can continue to be a resourced based economy,selling our products at prices over which we have no control.A huge moral dilemma for us but there are some critical factors which should be considered.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Real women don't need to hide behind some 'feminist' banner, taxme.  Real women tend to stand on their own and value the contributions of men.  Real women can think for themselves - unlike so-called '

I don't care how big they are. And no this is not just a few bad apples. The corruption is part of SNC-Lavalins culture through and through. 20+ years of corruption and blackmailing the Canadian gover

Maybe you guys saw different shows?  Maybe the hosts don't write their copy, but they don't read like robots either. Watch Lisa LaFake do her eyerolls or her insinuating tones when she's talking,

Posted Images

One takeaway from yesterday's events and Katie Telford's statement about planting favourable op - eds..   is     How many planted OpEds would it take to clean up this mess and how many Op-eds are there that are planted and bought for by the PMO...      that is a big question. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised some people don't seem to understand that Katie Telford  can order up favourable Op eds when she needs to which certainly points to the PMO knowing that they have a number of journos bought and paid for, ready to write favourable op eds on demand. 

According to the transcript, Telford said that “if Jody is nervous, we would of course line up all kinds of people to write op eds saying that what she’s doing is proper.”      which journos are bought and paid for by the PMO who will prop up corruption on demand?

 

 

 

Edited by scribblet
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, scribblet said:

I'm surprised some people don't seem to understand that Katie Telford  can order up favourable Op eds when she needs to which certainly points to the PMO knowing that they have a number of journos bought and paid for, ready to write favourable op eds on demand. 

 

You still don't know the difference between objective journalism and writing an op/ed?

Edited by BubberMiley
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

But the point is that there is a way of penalizing SNC without putting them out of business.  Wilson-Raybould didn’t choose that option and won’t explain why. Sounds like an ideological position.  The PM can shuffle an MP out of a portfolio if he/she doesn’t like the work.   Trudeau has two main reasons: protecting thousands of jobs and finding JWR difficult to work with.  

No. It was the director of public prosecution who weighed the evidence and decided that they did not qualify because of previous criminal behaviour. She was being asked to overrule the director of public prosecutions. And to do so out of pure, selfish, venal political interests which could not be used as justification because the law specifically excludes them. So she would have had to make up some mealy-mouthed excuse which everyone would have seen through immediately. That might well have gotten the director of public prosecutions to resign in protest, but that would all be on HER.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

You still don't know the difference between objective journalism and writing an op/ed?

I think few people understand that opinion pieces can be written at the direction of the government. Certainly no one who writes them ever even hints that they're doing so at the behest of the politicians they're writing about.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't resist the delicious irony of this situation.

Trudeau has flaunted his inclusiveness and his feminism for years. These are the absolute core of the public image he has cultivated. But what he did here is evidently made the mistake of appointing a girl to do a man's job.

A silly, silly naive native girl who actually took her instructions about upholding the law literally, who actually believed in the party's mantra of integrity and open, honest government. Instead of a good, solid man who understood that was all crap and that deals are worked out in the back room. I can imagine Trudeau staring at her as she explained why she wouldn't cooperate, a look of astonishment on his face as if he's thinking "Don't tell me you actually believe that! Don't you understand when I said all that it was for public consumption!? Don't you get that I didn't mean these things were to be taken seriously!?"

She just didn't understand that the old boys network functioned by paying lip service to things like openness and honesty and respect for rules, but in the back room, well, deals are made to ensure none of that harms them or their friends. And so Trudeau replaced her with a good, solid, reliable white man! :lol:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

You still don't know the difference between objective journalism and writing an op/ed?

And you still don't seem to know that this points to serious breeches of ethics on the part of journalists who would write favorable OP Ed's on demand. 

This also begs the question of whether or not the PMO can order up unfavorable op Ed's on the opposition.   

Edited by scribblet
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Argus said:

No. It was the director of public prosecution who weighed the evidence and decided that they did not qualify because of previous criminal behaviour. She was being asked to overrule the director of public prosecutions. And to do so out of pure, selfish, venal political interests which could not be used as justification because the law specifically excludes them. So she would have had to make up some mealy-mouthed excuse which everyone would have seen through immediately. That might well have gotten the director of public prosecutions to resign in protest, but that would all be on HER.

I hear you but DPA’s are a new measure for Canada’s courts.  There’s a legitimate reason for the AG to reopen the DPP’s case:  thousands of people’s livelihoods.  People can take a puritanical position that SNC shouldn’t have the option of fines over a 10 year suspension, but that would make Canada an outlier compared to Britain, the US, France and Australia.  Damn right Trudeau is the minister of Papineau.  It’s his right and privilege to take a stand in the public interest.  The rest is noise and grandstanding holier than thou bullshit.  Wilson-Raybould has given no explanation of why she opposes a DPA.   It’s all about how she felt pressured.  She herself said no laws were broken. Get over it.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, scribblet said:

And you still don't seem to know that this points to serious breeches of ethics on the part of journalists who would write favorable OP Ed's on demand. 

Op-eds aren't typically written by journalists. They're written by columnists and editorial boards. These are often very partisan loyalists from all parties. This is the way it's always been.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I hear you but DPA’s are a new measure for Canada’s courts.  There’s a legitimate reason for the AG to reopen the DPP’s case:

Your post, which I responded to, cited her lack of experience. Now you want her to overrule the decision of the DPP, who certainly examined the DPA and determined SNC Lavalin did not qualify.

2 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

thousands of people’s livelihoods.

Not actually true.

2 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

 Damn right Trudeau is the minister of Papineau.  It’s his right and privilege to take a stand in the public interest.

So you're saying that Trudeau, like Trump, is perfectly right to expect those who enforce the law to change their decisions based on what is good for him politically?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

Op-eds aren't typically written by journalists. They're written by columnists and editorial boards. These are often very partisan loyalists from all parties. This is the way it's always been.

It is understood that columnists can be partisan. It is NOT understood that they take directions from the PMO. And I think if anyone was identified as doing so they'd never get another column printed in a major newspaper - aside from the Toronto Star anyway.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Argus said:

Your post, which I responded to, cited her lack of experience. Now you want her to overrule the decision of the DPP, who certainly examined the DPA and determined SNC Lavalin did not qualify.

Not actually true.

So you're saying that Trudeau, like Trump, is perfectly right to expect those who enforce the law to change their decisions based on what is good for him politically?

No, I expect an MP to stand up for his or her constituents, the SNC workers of Papineau.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I hear you but DPA’s are a new measure for Canada’s courts.  There’s a legitimate reason for the AG to reopen the DPP’s case:  thousands of people’s livelihoods.  People can take a puritanical position that SNC shouldn’t have the option of fines over a 10 year suspension, but that would make Canada an outlier compared to Britain, the US, France and Australia.  Damn right Trudeau is the minister of Papineau.  It’s his right and privilege to take a stand in the public interest.  The rest is noise and grandstanding holier than thou bullshit.  Wilson-Raybould has given no explanation of why she opposes a DPA.   It’s all about how she felt pressured.  She herself said no laws were broken. Get over it.  

So, you don't think there was anything illegal or unethical in trying to save his own position, if so, why the lies and cover ups which are worse than the actual breech of ethics if not the law.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Zeitgeist said:

No, I expect an MP to stand up for his or her constituents, the SNC workers of Papineau.  

I expect the government to enforce the law without regard to how that impacts their political fortunes.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Argus said:

I expect the government to enforce the law without regard to how that impacts their political fortunes.

There was a choice in how the law was applied that Wilson-Raybould decided not to make merely to assert her independence.  Otherwise why can’t she explain her reason for not applying a DPA?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

There was a choice in how the law was applied that Wilson-Raybould decided not to make merely to assert her independence.  Otherwise why can’t she explain her reason for not applying a DPA?

No. You're wrong again. Once again I point out the decision was made by the prosecutor and the director of public prosecution. What the PMO wanted her to do was overrule them based on political expedience. As today's Globe editorial says:

It is hard to exaggerate the seriousness of this. Her allegations go to the foundations of the Canadian justice system’s independence, and they rise to the highest levels of the government. They are all the more powerful because this accusation against the Trudeau government is being made by one of its most senior members.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Argus said:

No. You're wrong again. Once again I point out the decision was made by the prosecutor and the director of public prosecution. What the PMO wanted her to do was overrule them based on political expedience. As today's Globe editorial says:

It is hard to exaggerate the seriousness of this. Her allegations go to the foundations of the Canadian justice system’s independence, and they rise to the highest levels of the government. They are all the more powerful because this accusation against the Trudeau government is being made by one of its most senior members.

 

No. Every elected MP who becomes Justice Minister brings particular views to the portfolio then tries to disguise this in rule of law rhetoric.  Trudeau’s process was inappropriate but not illegal.  His purpose was to consequence a company for wrongdoing without sacrificing thousands of workers who did nothing wrong. Whether that helps him politically is beside the point of the outcome: protecting thousands of workers, which Trudeau was in part elected to do.  Wilson-Raybould was building a case so she could usurp the PM and implement her very political agenda, which, if you read her commentary over the years, is concerning.  Trudeau has himself to blame for bringing her into Cabinet and falling into her trap.  He trusted her.  

Please don’t forget, the Globe is as Conservative as the Star is Liberal. 

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, egghead said:

 

You are missing the big pict. MP cannot pressure AG or DPP becasue of workers' liveliood. 

Pressure to consider options isn’t illegal.  It’s inappropriate.  The decision was hers to make, so when she made a bad one, Trudeau shuffled her to another Ministry.  He can do that.  I hope it isn’t too late to apply a DPA.  

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Zeitgeist said:

Pressure to consider options isn’t illegal.  It’s inappropriate.  The decision was hers to make, so when she made a bad one, Trudeau shuffled her to another Ministry.  He can do that.  

 

Then why did he try so hard to conceal it ?    Why didn't Trudeau proudly announce and describe what he and Butts had done to "save Canadian jobs" ?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, betsy said:

Exactly where did I say that SNC  created jobs?

Will you read again.....and try to understand what you read:

 

 

Your obvious lack of understanding, is quite enough to say,  your opinion is.......unreasonable.

 

 

 

In your own words :  "bring" jobs, and in second instance "create" and...etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




×
×
  • Create New...