Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
cannuck

Trudeau lying about SNC

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Scheer is such a lightweight. Trudeau going to smash him despite this scandal, just watch him.

I suspect the waters will calm over the summer. Who knows what may pop up in the fall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

So, with one hand Trudeau is signing massive cheques (and piling onto our federal debt) to give aid to foreign countries to make himself look good, and with the other he's signing bills into law that protect SNC Lavalin so that they can get deferred prosecution and continue to stick it to foreign countries.

I wonder if SNC Lavalin is winning bids for mega-projects in foreign countries that are being funded with money that our country gave to them.

If Canada is giving away money just so that SNC Lavalin can get juicy overseas contracts then I have no doubt that those guys will find ways to grease Trudeau's palm, even if it's some kind of "deferred" payment plan. IE, SNC gets hundreds of millions of dollars worth of juicy contracts now and then when Trudeau is retired SNC will start paying him off with no ethics commissioner in sight.

 

 

Yup.

Think the Conservatives are any different?

We need a real change. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jacee said:

Yup.

Think the Conservatives are any different?

We need a real change. :)

Don't see any "real change" alternatives that have a chance to win. I wouldn't hold your breath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Owly said:

Sorry I was busy with other stuff, but anyway here ya go. You can go to section 15 if you need further edification.

Duties and functions

(3) The Director, under and on behalf of the Attorney General,

  • (a) initiates and conducts prosecutions on behalf of the Crown, except where the Attorney General has assumed conduct of a prosecution under section 15;

 

First of all, we all know that AG has the right to sign off on a DPA with or without a DPA from the prosecutor. That is the main reason that JT and his minions want  her to do. However, AG has the right not to sign off as well if AG sees it is not fit his/her own beliefs , and it will be political influence if PMO pressues her to do it  (I am 100% sure you don't understand this concept). JWR chooses not do it,  and there's nothing wrong with that :rolleyes:

Share this post


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

First of all, we all know that AG has the right to sign off on a DPA with or without a DPA from the prosecutor. That is the main reason that JT and his minions want  her to do. However, AG has the right not to sign off as well if AG sees it is not fit his/her own beliefs , and it will be political influence if PMO pressues her to do it  (I am 100% sure you don't understand this concept). JWR chooses not do it,  and there's nothing wrong with that :rolleyes:

Ahhh, yes your correct, you do seem to understand the AG has the final say on a dpa. Maybe you should speak to rue and clue him in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Scheer is such a lightweight. Trudeau going to smash him despite this scandal, just watch him.

Scheer is weak, but it is not his fault. It is the election process. JT has quebec in the palm of his hand, and he only needs Ont to won. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, egghead said:

Scheer is weak, but it is not his fault. It is the election process. JT has quebec in the palm of his hand, and he only needs Ont to won. 

Both Trudeau and Trump will be re-elected, both are a pretty sure thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, egghead said:

First of all, we all know that AG has the right to sign off on a DPA with or without a DPA from the prosecutor. That is the main reason that JT and his minions want  her to do.

I have asked people to  provide the law where the AG has the right to sign off on a dpa without the prosecutor's consent. That is not what the law says. Sorry but there are just too many of you who come on this forum, do not bother to find out what the roles of the AG and Chief Prosecutor are and what the dpa law actually says which does NOT allow it.

In regards to your comment  "That is the main reason JT and h is minions want her to do.(sic)"

No the reason why JT wants to do it is shut down a trial.

The dpa law makes it clear when considering eligibility for a dpa, the prosecutor can NOT consider  national economic interest as a public interest. The prohibition was placed there to void conflict with a treaty we signed internationally  where we pledged if a Canadian bribed a foreign government we would not allow them preferential treatment and prosecute them to the full extent of the law.

Do it is important we get out of fantasy land and this false script that the Prime Minister has the right to intervene in a criminal proceeding on behalf of the accused. He does not. That is an outrageous violation of the rule of law and its never been done by an elected member of Parliament in any British law country until now and the dpa law does not allow it.

Next no one until now elected to office has ever shown such a blatant disregard for the concept of conflict of interest and suggested his own political self interests in protecting his constituents is a justification to break the rule of law, let alone to say that political  self interest supercedes the interest of all Canadians to assure  that a criminal in the elected member's riding who he elected member intervenes on behalf of  is given lenient treatment simply because they employ people in the intervening politician's riding and that politician is the  Prime Minister.

Next nowhere does the dpa law or any criminal law justify the use of dpa's or any restorative justice initiative or plea bargaining on a repeat offender precisely because the sentence must escalate which each successive conviction and only a Judge can determine the successive increase in sentence.

Next nowhere in criminal law is there any case decision let alone legal concept that says the need to make profit from a crime to employ people from the crime, is more important than the impact of that crime on its victims which is what all of you buying the liberal script of job loss advance. You are all arguing the need of Canadians to make money off of a crime,is more important that the harm the bribes caused people by empowering  Ghaddafi and prolonging  his tenure to torture and abuse and violate human rights, international war conventions and engage in crimes against humanity,.

Why do you liberals do not have the integrity to come on this forum and argue why the need for people in Trudeau's riding to make profit from their Ghaddafi  blood money is more important than what happened to the victims of Ghaddafi.

Why?

Also why do you think anyone let alone Trudeau or the AG can iignore the dpa law preconditions, considerations and prohibition? Explain why those words don't apply. Please just once. Has anyone seen Owly respond when he was asked. He can't. He either won't read the dpa law or is deliberately ignoring it. Go on someone please explain the wording that allows the AG to overturn his Director of Prosecutions let alone allows anyone to ignore that the dpa law says because the entire preconditions, conditions and prohibition in the dpa law would have to be determined NOT TO apply to be able to apply a dpa law for Lavalib

Next go read what Guylan Prison is. Just once go read what Lavalin built for $275 million thanks to a bribe it gave Ghaddafi- then explain to me as a good progressive leftist Liberal how building a concentration camp for Ghaddafi is something you think is acceptable for Canadians to make money off of.

Also while you are at it explain why we should blatantly violate the international law we signed with the OECD and read that treaty. We signed on to that treaty  agreeing to use our government to assure no Canadian would bribe foreign government officials. Now we have a PM deliberately trying to break that treaty saying his constituents need to make money off of bribing terrorist war criminals is more important than the victims of those corrupted officials we pay. So explain why we now violate that treaty and how that violation is in the best interests of Canada. One of you Liberals just once step up to the plate and finish an argument.

Do any of you liberals have the integrity to look at what Lavalin has made its money off of and how and who it has bribed? Where is your credibility?  Where is your proof even one job would have been lost if you buy into that phony bullshit script. There is no public interest Trudeau stepped up to protect-there is only his self interest. That self interest is the need to stop evidence coming out in a full trial and you need to ask why.

Your PM went on a vacation paid by someone who he awarded government funding to and for two years he denied he had a ethical conflictand eventually when the Ethics Commissioner told him he did his response was a sarcastic one line terse statement he was sorry but no he did not stand up in Paliamet and apologiz.He condoned Bill Moreneau's insider trading of his family shares before a change in law devalued those shares. He condoned his Defence Minister lying abouthis military record. He out and out lied to Canada and China saying under no circumstance did the rule of law allow him to inytervene in the Hua Wei matter while he was inyterfering directly in the criminal matter with Lavalin. He lied and said JWR had not made up her mind on the dpa issue when we now know in fact it was  her Chief Prosecuor who did.  In fact  the PM via a supposedly neutral civil servant to tell JWR after they were both advised they were not allowed to discuss ongoing criminal cases with the AG, that with our without JWR's help Trudeau was going to make sure he got a dpa for Lavalin.

This was about using the dpa as a devise to shut down the Lavalin  trial. A dpa was never intended to be used by a politician directly or indirectly. Its predicated on a voluntary approach by the accused to the prosecutor never via a politician lobbying on behalf of the accused let alone passing a law to impose retroactively in the prosecutor to force them to consider using one, a power she already had.

Dpa's are not new. We've called them out of court plea bargains in the past. The fact Trudeau felt he needed to pass a law makes no legal sense but it does lend to the appearance he was trying to pressure the  AG to use one.

Trudeau's contempt for the law and using it for political self interests  does not end. Now he engages in nonsense theatre and threatens to sue Sheer. For what? For disagreeing with him?  Do any of us  need to explain that any of us who engages in political debate can express subjective opinions and not be sued? Does that really need to be explained? Do I need to explain it is a fundamental right of you and I to be able to openly disagree with out leaders and challenge them?

Do I need to explain under defamation laws, the Plaintiff must prove damages. What damages?  Did Trudeau have an anxiety attack?  He gets free medical care over and above OHIP unlike you and I. So what are his damages?

 

 

Edited by Rue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Owly said:

Ahhh, yes your correct, you do seem to understand the AG has the final say on a dpa. Maybe you should speak to rue and clue him in.

Hey its simple instead of hiding from me provide the law that says the AG has the power to overturn the Chief Prosecutor's say on the dpa. I am wairing.

You still haven't explained why the dpa law wordings can all be ignored and an international treaty be violated so that the dpa can be allowed.

Owly simply stating a subjective opinion doesn' t cut it. Put up or shut up. Provide the wording. It does not exist. Also read the Federal Court ruling and explain  why its wrong because I upheld what I am telling you.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jane Philpott has just blackened Trudeau's eye...again: https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/philpott-says-trudeaus-caucus-expulsions-violated-law. Intellectually Trudeau is no match for either Philpott or Jody. This he proved today with this little ditty:  https://globalnews.ca/video/5145683/trudeau-defends-libel-lawsuit-threat-against-scheer. This, from the "man?" who has spent weeks lying about SNC. Oh, the irony burns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rue said:

Hey its simple instead of hiding from me provide the law that says the AG has the power to overturn the Chief Prosecutor's say on the dpa. I am wairing.

You still haven't explained why the dpa law wordings can all be ignored and an international treaty be violated so that the dpa can be allowed.

Owly simply stating a subjective opinion doesn' t cut it. Put up or shut up. Provide the wording. It does not exist. Also read the Federal Court ruling and explain  why its wrong because I upheld what I am telling you.

 

 

I suggest you look up the DPP act and read a bit. All will be revealed in the fullness of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rue said:

I have asked people to  provide the law where the AG has the right to sign off on a dpa without the prosecutor's consent. That is not what the law says. Sorry but there are just too many of you who come on this forum, do not bother to find out what the roles of the AG and Chief Prosecutor are and what the dpa law actually says which does NOT allow it.

.......

 

I am not saying DPA is a new law, and I understand what are you coming from. Me too, I don't think DPA is a correct option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, egghead said:

I am not saying DPA is a new law, and I understand what are you coming from. Me too, I don't think DPA is a correct option.

What rue seems to be having trouble with is understanding the the AG has power over the DPP with regard to a dpa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy crap the house sessions today are insane.

The opposition is calling on Trudeau to actually go through with the lawsuit which will only expose him more. Watch Trudeau do another 180 on this.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

Holy crap the house sessions today are insane.

The opposition is calling on Trudeau to actually go through with the lawsuit which will only expose him more. Watch Trudeau do another 180 on this.

Yah, you know he is way out of his depth when bested by Scheer is is a bright as a two watt bulb in a brown out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

Holy crap the house sessions today are insane.

When Trudeau stopped giving (non)answers to questions, he started scribbling furiously in a binder. Guess he was bored and wanted to be elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Owly said:

It will come down to, as it always has, a "he said, she said" situation. Scheer and Co. of course want to keep it in the headlines as long as possible. Especially as he wants to move away from his Faith Goldy friendship.

The question is WHY has the liberals set up a committee to examine the entire incident "if the PM can pressure The AG and nothing was done that was wrong....Why are we entering month 3 on this topic....Because the AG can not be pressured into anything in regards to applying the law.. That is not in common law as in the justice sys, that is in the rules and policies of parliament....

And in this case it is not he said she said, thats been pretty clear, with what the PM has let slip, the senior civil servant recorded telephone conversation , or just following the dots of this entire goat rodeo, and poor liberal attempt at covering it up.... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Owly said:

What rue seems to be having trouble with is understanding the the AG has power over the DPP with regard to a dpa.

Providing that the case meets all the requirements for a DPA.....

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Providing that the case meets all the requirements for a DPA.....

And if it doesn't meet those requirements the AG still has the power to intervene.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

The question is WHY has the liberals set up a committee to examine the entire incident "if the PM can pressure The AG and nothing was done that was wrong....Why are we entering month 3 on this topic....Because the AG can not be pressured into anything in regards to applying the law.. That is not in common law as in the justice sys, that is in the rules and policies of parliament....

And in this case it is not he said she said, thats been pretty clear, with what the PM has let slip, the senior civil servant recorded telephone conversation , or just following the dots of this entire goat rodeo, and poor liberal attempt at covering it up.... 

This is the very reason why the AG and Justice Minister jobs need to be not given to one person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Owly said:

And if it doesn't meet those requirements the AG still has the power to intervene.

 

Why would the AG want to intervene if the requirements are not met, A better question would be why have requirements if the AG could over rule,......you do realize that this has already been seen by a Judge who has made a recommendation on this matter as in SNC case, and the AG agreed and refused to change her mind....the key for her decision was SNC case did not meet all the requirement for a DPA....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Owly said:

This is the very reason why the AG and Justice Minister jobs need to be not given to one person.

OK I agree 100 % , but thats not what this issue is all about , it was that she was being pressured directly by PMO, and his staff, which is not allowed.....for many reasons, can't be having the PM changing existing law when it suits him.....without going through the proper procedures which were  set up as a safety net...  

Share this post


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

 

Why would the AG want to intervene if the requirements are not met, A better question would be why have requirements if the AG could over rule,......you do realize that this has already been seen by a Judge who has made a recommendation on this matter as in SNC case, and the AG agreed and refused to change her mind....the key for her decision was SNC case did not meet all the requirement for a DPA....

You're getting into the weeds now. My point was simply to clarify the powers the AG has. You can argue your opinions of the case at your leisure.

Share this post


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

OK I agree 100 % , but thats not what this issue is all about , it was that she was being pressured directly by PMO, and his staff, which is not allowed.....for many reasons, can't be having the PM changing existing law when it suits him.....without going through the proper procedures which were  set up as a safety net...  

Was the PMO pressuring the AG or the MOJ?

Share this post


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.


×
×
  • Create New...