Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
cannuck

Trudeau lying about SNC

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, GostHacked said:

 

When are you two going to come to the realization that this is not a partisan issue? This is neither a Liberal or a Conservative or an NDP problem. This is a Canadian Government problem.

 

It's a legal interpretation problem but yea, when you have the PM threatening to sue the leader of the opposition, it becomes a bit of a partisan issue.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

It's a legal interpretation problem but yea, when you have the PM threatening to sue the leader of the opposition, it becomes a bit of a partisan issue.

Scheer called his bluff.

Share this post


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

It's a legal interpretation problem but yea, when you have the PM threatening to sue the leader of the opposition, it becomes a bit of a partisan issue.

Right, both sides are at each other because of this corrupt entity that is SNC-Lavalin with government legislation that allowed SNC to blackmail the Canadian government.  There is something much bigger here that we are not seeing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Right, both sides are at each other because of this corrupt entity that is SNC-Lavalin with government legislation that allowed SNC to blackmail the Canadian government.  There is something much bigger here that we are not seeing.

We shall see where Lametti takes the case.

Share this post


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

We shall see where Lametti takes the case.

It is quite simple really. Justin's re-election depends upon a positive escape for SNC. Period. Lametti is a lap dog and will do as he is told.

Share this post


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

We shall see where Lametti takes the case.

With due respect to him his hands are tied. He has to wait for the Federal Court of Appeal to make its decision whether it even grants leave of appeal, then allows an appeal after that and if so on what grounds.

Even then the appeal decision may give him little if any ability to overturn his Chief Prosecutor's decision. Please read Article V of the OECD convention then Anex 1 on enforcing Article V plus the commentary on enforcing Article V which is the identical wording prohibiting using national economic interest as a pretext to call that public interest to then use that as a pretext to grant a dpa. The OECD expects all its members which includes Canada not to use national economic interest as a pretext to grant a dpa.

As well when dpa's have been used in bribery cases, none of those dpa's dealt with a repeat offender. Not only that they did not deal with a company that did not initiate the request for dpa. Never has a government's elected officials ever tried to get involved in a dpa to force one on a prosecutor in an ongoing proceeding.

The whole point of a dpa is that its supposed to be initiated byt he accused voluntarily and they agree to many things first which Lavalin has  said it will not do, i.e., pay back all money earned from the projects obtained by bribes, full disclosure of all executives of Lavalin who bribed and full disclosure of the names of the person they bribed, a clear system of auditing controlled by an independent third party to prevent future bribery, dismissal of any executives involved in the bribery scheme, a full apology to the victims who suffered as the result of bribing Ghaddafi and enabling him to be able to do what he did to these victims.

All these preconsiderations and factors can not be ignored by any prosecutor considering the dpa. Trudeau wants his AG to order the Chief Prosecutor to ignore the dpa law preconditions, conditions and prohibition and simply push forward the dpa. If the dpa law wording is ignored, then the Prosecutor will not have followed their mandatory obligation to consider those preconditions and considerations and prohibition and this will not only create an intervention by legal groups and 5 former Attorney Generals but would create disasterous optics for Tudeau.

In the last two days Trudeau provided grants to Loblaws for new fridge units while ignoring small businesses. His Finance Minister retracted a report as to banks and regulatory issues to please the banks. The optics of Trudeau being a lacky of corrupt corporations that bribe and large business is out in the open. Progressive leftist Liberals now have to decide how far they want to go with this charade he represents the middle class.

As for you I note you ignore the dpa law wording and the commentary and Annex 1 of the OECD convention which directly warns against governments intervening with political bias and considerations to prevent prosecuting businesses that bribe foreign governments. Why? What does that have to do with  my faulty analysis when you have not done any at all. Please explain why you ignore the dpa law's preconditions, considerations and prohibition against using a dpa for national economic interests.

Please provide the law or source you think says the AG can over-ride the  Chief Prosecutor and make her redo her decision or  fire her because her decision is not to his liking.

There is law, and there is partisan political agenda. In Canada as much as Trudeau refuses to see the distinction there is.

One last thing Trudeau again showed his contempt for rule of law today and if you think voters do not notice you are mistaken.

A law exists that says if a migrant enters  a safe third country and seeks refugee protection they must apply in that country. They can not move on to Canada. This is to prevent jurisdiction shopping.

Trudeau has condoned and encouraged this law to be violated. He has told illegal immigrants in the US to come to Canada. He told them if they enter legally they will be prevented from applying for refugee status so come illegally and they will be allowed this privilege. He rewards people for breaking the law and entering illegally making a mockery of genuine refugees and immigrants who come properly.

Then he insults the intelligence of Canadians. He announced that if a migrant came from the US, New Zealand, Britain or Australlia BUT NO OTHER SAFE THIRD COUNTRY, and enters illegally they still will be rewarded for breaking the law and given a refugee  hearing unless they already asked for one from those countries.

The law already says if you asked for and were rejected for refugee status in any safe third country not just the above, you can not ask for a second refugee hearing in Canada.

Trudeau lies. He pretends he has modified a loophole. He has not. He's fooling no one allowing the current Immigration Law on third safe countries to be broken. He shows his contempt for that law and uses his office to allow it to be broken.

This is what Trudeau is about, someone who has no respect for law and if it does not suit him, he ignores.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

45 minutes ago, Owly said:

It's a legal interpretation problem but yea, when you have the PM threatening to sue the leader of the opposition, it becomes a bit of a partisan issue.

Not from the view of french speaking canadians, most of them believed that SNC case was "big bad englishpeople" bullying "frenchpeople"

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Realitycheck said:

It is quite simple really. Justin's re-election depends upon a positive escape for SNC. Period. Lametti is a lap dog and will do as he is told.

Not as easy as you think. To start with he will have to be given the right to overturn his Chief Prosecutor by the Federal Court of Appeal first. Even then he'll have to fire her creating yet another issue. As well he will have to explain why he ignored all the preconditions, considerations and prohibition in the dpa law wording plus violated the commentary and guidelines of the OECD asking Canada NOT to consider national economic interest as a pretext to grant a dpa.

There is law and there is partisan agenda. When you ignore the Law as Trudeau does, it looks easy to get around. In reality ignoring the sanctity and independence of the prosecutor in an on-going legal proceeding is harder than it looks.

As well if you think a Judge will allow Lametti or Trudeau to tell them to ignore the fact this is a third time offence, it isn't happening. On a third time offence even if you could push a dpa, iut has to provide an increased sentence. The dpa requires at minimum Lavalin pay back all the money from the projects it procured from its bribes to Ghaddafi plus another amount paid to the victims of Ghaddafi. That is its bare minimum sentence.

From the sounds of it the new heads of Lavalin also wants no part of the dpa or the corrupt officials in Lavalin holding onto the seat of their pants hoping the dpa will protect them from being named and charged individually as criminals as well as Lavalin which the law most certainly does in such cases and has done in two previous convictions against Lavalin.

Believe me this aint over by a long shot. Politicians who interfere with the independence of the legal process might in the short term gain some personal interest but in the long term expose themselves to unintended worse legal consequences.

Any attempt by Trudeau at this point to undo what the Chief Prosecutor did is going to blow up in his face right at election time.

I think Trudeau is headed for a fall on his arrogant above the law buttocks. Then again you never know.

 

 

Share this post


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

Not as easy as you think. To start with he will have to be given the right to overturn his Chief Prosecutor by the Federal Court of Appeal first. Even then he'll have to fire her creating yet another issue. As well he will have to explain why he ignored all the preconditions, considerations and prohibition in the dpa law wording plus violated the commentary and guidelines of the OECD asking Canada NOT to consider national economic interest as a pretext to grant a dpa.

There is law and there is partisan agenda. When you ignore the Law as Trudeau does, it looks easy to get around. In reality ignoring the sanctity and independence of the prosecutor in an on-going legal proceeding is harder than it looks.

As well if you think a Judge will allow Lametti or Trudeau to tell them to ignore the fact this is a third time offence, it isn't happening. On a third time offence even if you could push a dpa, iut has to provide an increased sentence. The dpa requires at minimum Lavalin pay back all the money from the projects it procured from its bribes to Ghaddafi plus another amount paid to the victims of Ghaddafi. That is its bare minimum sentence.

From the sounds of it the new heads of Lavalin also wants no part of the dpa or the corrupt officials in Lavalin holding onto the seat of their pants hoping the dpa will protect them from being named and charged individually as criminals as well as Lavalin which the law most certainly does in such cases and has done in two previous convictions against Lavalin.

Believe me this aint over by a long shot. Politicians who interfere with the independence of the legal process might in the short term gain some personal interest but in the long term expose themselves to unintended worse legal consequences.

Any attempt by Trudeau at this point to undo what the Chief Prosecutor did is going to blow up in his face right at election time.

I think Trudeau is headed for a fall on his arrogant above the law buttocks. Then again you never know.

 

 

Methinks you may be proven wrong.

Share this post


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

 

 

Not from the view of french speaking canadians, most of them believed that SNC case was "big bad englishpeople" bullying "frenchpeople"

Don't be so sure about that. You pander to Quebecers.  They are not as stupid as you think. They know only to well how Lavalin bribed corrupt Montreal municipal and provincial politicians.

There are working class Quebecers who do not like Trudeau and consider him an elitist corporate lacky. Quebec under its French personna is by nature conservative and willing to put up with some corruption but not when it humiliates them in the eyes of others. Quebec has a complex identity. Trudeau will have lost the leftist/socialist and minority vote in Quebec. He's counting on Montreal English ridings and upper class French ridings. I don't think he carries the blue collar ridings. I don;t thing Singh will keep them either for the NDP.

That said just who will vote for Trudeau? He's pissed off BC over the pipleline as well as Alberta. He's lost the aboriginal voter, women's vote, middle class vote over his pandering to Loblaw's , banks, the Aga Kahn, who is his constituency at this point?

 

Share this post


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

Methinks you may be proven wrong.

Mehopes you are wrong but methinks you unfortunately may have a point that anything is possible in politics. IThen again you call yourself Realitycheck. No doubt you think you are being realistic in.. I am hoping Canadians see through this crap and the law prevails..

Edited by Rue
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Exactly and what Rue ignores. 

I haven't ignored anything and I ask again, where does the AG have the power to over rule the AG on his own. Show me please. I have asked. That is what is being ignored. The AG has no inherent power to impose partisan agendas. Everything in the AG's role must be based on law not partisan policy consideration. If he can not provide a legal basis, i.e., a Federal Court appeal decision basis, he has no power to do what you claim he does as  much as you want to ignore the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rue believed DPA's requirements were black and white (may be it is). He completely ignored that no one (JWR, and all JT's minions ...) said giving SNC a DPA was against (breaking)the law, may be not the rightness action but not against the law.

Edited by egghead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rue said:

I haven't ignored anything and I ask again, where does the AG have the power to over rule the AG on his own. Show me please. I have asked. That is what is being ignored. The AG has no inherent power to impose partisan agendas. Everything in the AG's role must be based on law not partisan policy consideration. If he can not provide a legal basis, i.e., a Federal Court appeal decision basis, he has no power to do what you claim he does as  much as you want to ignore the law.

That was that I was going to ask and saw your reply. Here is the problem: AG (assume JWR here) gave SNC the DPA, who would go to court of appeal (supreme court ??) to appeal that? 

Edited by egghead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. So what ?  You don't think a middle-class mom has the ability to form an informed opinion ? Bizarre.

2. So what ?  The hosts don't write their own copy.

3. No they didn't.  WTF.

4. No they didn't.

 

Television is actually 'new media'.  It was never as good as newspapers.  And fake blogs, meme sites and anonymous youtube channels generated as work-for-hire from eastern Europe is THE worst.  You might as well get your news from those old racist Bugs Bunny cartoons.

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, or her dismissive introductions to stories/videos which run contrary to her narrative.

If she is playing a video of Trudeau talking about Duffygate, 3 years into it, it's all amped-up seriousness and "OOohh look at THIS! DUN dun dunnnnnnnn.....

If she's playing a video of Scheer talking about SNC while new info is still coming out it's: [eyeroll] "the latest round of character assassination attempts...."

I'm not even exaggerating in the least. She actually did use the words "character assassination" a few days back while talking about remarks regarding Trudeau by the Conservatives. Do you think that stupid bimbo ever used the words caracter assassination when Trudeau was talking about Harper or even random Canadians? Like the big bad construction workers invading people's towns, or the broad insult against Canadians in general who were somehow still deemed to be guilty of the hijab cutting attack even after it was determined to be a hoax?

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lisa LaFlamme...better have her coffee ready, worm...or there'll be trouble.

Share this post


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

Methinks you may be proven wrong.

No, that will not be the case. This SNC thing has really showed Canadians that there are a few storm clouds just in front of those sunny ways.

Trudeau is no leader.

Large scale corruption with government complicity.

SJW movements that have not made enough progress ( for those that feel marginalized seem to be complaining the most about it) 

Ousting two women MPs without going through the process of a party vote to remove them while claiming he is a Feminist .. which really makes no sense and has no connection or bearing on his shitty treatment of those women. Not gonna meet his quota of more women in the party when he keeps kicking them out.

Subsidies to companies that don't need a handout while one company tried to bribe the public into a few bucks of free food in order to avoid a large scale class action lawsuit on the price fixing of bread going back 10+ years.  BREAD of all things for fuck sakes.

--- Insert here a bunch of other things I am not aware of---

OH but pot is legal now. And Ford is peddling buck o beer. Keep the masses drunk/stoned/entertained and distracted while everything goes to shit and these 'leaders' rape us dry.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/5/2019 at 1:31 PM, cannuck said:

And, once again, the people punching the time clocks can continue to punch the same time clock on the same job, just for an honest employer instead of organized crime.

Owly or Omni, they are one and the same. :D

Share this post


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

 

 

Not from the view of french speaking canadians, most of them believed that SNC case was "big bad englishpeople" bullying "frenchpeople"

Dam Anglophones. It's their fault that we in Quebec want to separate. The dam Anglophones always keep picking on and bullying us all the time. LOL. 

Share this post


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

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, or her dismissive introductions to stories/videos which run contrary to her narrative.

If she is playing a video of Trudeau talking about Duffygate, 3 years into it, it's all amped-up seriousness and "OOohh look at THIS! DUN dun dunnnnnnnn.....

If she's playing a video of Scheer talking about SNC while new info is still coming out it's: [eyeroll] "the latest round of character assassination attempts...."

I'm not even exaggerating in the least. She actually did use the words "character assassination" a few days back while talking about remarks regarding Trudeau by the Conservatives. Do you think that stupid bimbo ever used the words caracter assassination when Trudeau was talking about Harper or even random Canadians? Like the big bad construction workers invading people's towns, or the broad insult against Canadians in general who were somehow still deemed to be guilty of the hijab cutting attack even after it was determined to be a hoax?

 

Teflon Don Trudeau escapes the noose once again and always will especially when he has the likes of Lisa "LaFake on his side. She is such a bloody eye rolling phony. When it comes to anything conservative or what conservatives say or do her eyes do roll around, as if to say, what ass holes these conservatives are. It is such a give away as to where and how she despises conservatives and conservatism.

Of course now that she is on the payroll of the crooked and lying prime mistake of Canada she pretty much has to be nice and say nice things about her hero. She appears to be just another bought off journalist if one can call her a journalist. There is no way that she went to journalism school. If she did she would know that you should not show any biases. You tell the truth and not lie. Maybe her parents paid someone to write her journalist test for her while she went partying? Hey, you never know. LOL.

Share this post


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

Don't be so sure about that. You pander to Quebecers.  They are not as stupid as you think. They know only to well how Lavalin bribed corrupt Montreal municipal and provincial politicians.

There are working class Quebecers who do not like Trudeau and consider him an elitist corporate lacky. Quebec under its French personna is by nature conservative and willing to put up with some corruption but not when it humiliates them in the eyes of others. Quebec has a complex identity. Trudeau will have lost the leftist/socialist and minority vote in Quebec. He's counting on Montreal English ridings and upper class French ridings. I don't think he carries the blue collar ridings. I don;t thing Singh will keep them either for the NDP.

That said just who will vote for Trudeau? He's pissed off BC over the pipleline as well as Alberta. He's lost the aboriginal voter, women's vote, middle class vote over his pandering to Loblaw's , banks, the Aga Kahn, who is his constituency at this point?

 

you are right; JT is fighting a lost battle now, even the time is not on his side. JT and his minions believed they could resolve the SNC case no later than mid-March. Little did they know that JWR had secretly recorded the phone conversation.

Having said that, JT does not lose the war yet. Only AB and SK are unsalvageable. I believe JT will play "lesser of two evils" card very soon. As long as NDP and the Green cannot keep the voters away from the liberal, JT will still win the next election

Share this post


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

Rue believed DPA's requirements were black and white (may be it is). He completely ignored that no one (JWR, and all JT's minions ...) said giving SNC a DPA was against (breaking)the law, may be not the rightness action but not against the law.

I never stated dpa requirements were black and white. Ever. In fact I went to great detail to explain the exact opposite and that is why you can not just automatically impose one without first reading the many preconditions, considerations and prohibition and using them all as references to determine the appropriateness of the dpa.

I also did not ignore anything JT has done and have been very specific and exact in challenging what he has done.

I also in great detail explained that the fact that Trudeau claims what he did was not illegal does not address the ethical issues.

Egghead if you do not want to read what I wrote, don't. If you don't agree with what I said do not. However do not come on this forum and misrepresent what I said or deny what is there for all to read. Thank you.

 

 

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...