• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


VanGnome last won the day on August 16 2018

VanGnome had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,634 Gaming the system

About VanGnome

  • Rank
    Canucks Regular
  • Birthday 07/24/1982

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

6,958 profile views
  1. I think TO fans have said he's largely overrated, and his production is on a steep downward trajectory, was on pace for 17 points last year, got 14 points this year in a full season. Hard no on this one, I'd rather over pay for Karlsson.
  2. Lol it's astounding the amount of Liberal apologizing in this thread. No laws were broken by JT or the PMO BECAUSE JWR refused to break and do what was being asked. JWR did not want to change her mind because she had NO reason to do so, other than the partisan pleas and demands from her superiors, there was NO legal reason for JWR to issue a directive to force the DPP to issue a DPA. There was never at any time the threat of jobs being lost, so toss that right out the window. Now everyone is on this "JWR bad because she recorded this phone call". Canada is a single consent country, meaning anyone can legally record any conversation they want without any legal repercussions. As a law professional was it technically unethical? Yes, but not illegal. JWR did this at the tail end of a months long coordinated effort to pressure her to change her mind on FORCING a DPA through, not to simply agree to do so. The cabinet shuffle had not yet happened, or were the concerns about her standing in caucus. So I'm to believe that JWR was clairvoyant to the point of accurately predicting the future? She did what was reasonable given the circumstances she found herself in. Edit: One Party consent is limited to direct parties of a conversation, if JWR was just an observer on the call she couldnt record, likewise it is illegal to intercept private communications as a 3rd party. JWR was well within her right as the single party consent to record the call.
  3. Right, because that's the issue at hand She admitted to it being inappropriate, she also admitted to having done so because she did not have an aide with her and wanted to ensure that she had a 100% correct account of the call, as she had "reason to suspect it was going to be an inappropriate call". Remember that this call came at the tail end of a sustained and coordinated attempt to pressure her into making the decision that was favorable for the party, not the decision that was appropriate to the law. Imagine the types of calls and discussions she must have had prior to push her to an unprecedented step of covertly recording a phone call? I don't necessarily agree with the tactic, I believe she should have announced to Wernick that the call was being recorded in the absence of her aide, and he could have either consented to the condition or asked to reschedule the call to a later date that was more convenient. She's not innocent in this either, and she's hardly my favorite person in the world due to some of her other stances and policy views, but on this I can stand behind her.
  4. You keep going on about "what laws Justin broke". I've since changed my stance on that. Justin WOULD have broken laws if his brow beating had resulted in JWR changing her mind on grounds not related to the submission of new evidence, but instead of the weak/lame partisan talking points. Why are you having such a hard time recognizing that a job such as Minister of Justice and Attorney General requires a highly principled individual capable of adequately compartmentalizing what is and is not appropriate in relation to one role or the other? If they're talking around the cabinet table amongst themselves as ministers and PM they can yell and swear and cuss and threaten all they want. That's parliamentary privilege. The minister of Justice cannot issue a directive to the DPP. Only the AG can issue a directive, but the issuance of that directive cannot be at the behest of partisan reasons, it must be a legal decision based on the merits of new evidence making a clear and strong case warranting the issuance of said directive. Others much more versed than I am have said that as an Attorney General, if the decision is uncomfortable because they do not believe it would hold up to the scrutiny of legal jurisprudence then they simply do not make that call. This is where the context comes in from previous discussions, particularly the one with Katie Telford and JWR's chief of staff where she said and I paraphrase "If you're uncomfortable or nervous, we of course can line up all kinds of people to publish op eds". This tells me that JWR, the only lawyer of the bunch did not feel like the issuance of a directive ordering the DPP to enter into DPA negotiations would pass the litmus test. That's all the explanation that JT should have needed, but of course he wasn't actually interested in JWR's opinion or decision unless it was the decision or opinion that he wanted on this particular case. This is all about the misconduct of JT pushing BEYOND the reasonable bounds of ordinary cabinet level discussions, and deploying his staffers in the PMO to do the heavy lifting, immediately politicizing an office that is supposed to be NON-partisan. They acted very much in a partisan manner on behalf of the wishes of JT. So basically in 4 short years (less to be precise) Justin Trudeau has managed to corrupt the Federal government, high levels of the bureaucracy and take several swings at the fundamental concepts such as the rule of law and judicial and prosecutorial independence, and for what? To protect a historically corrupt organization, to protect his own interests (he's an invested member of the shareholders, as is Finance Minister Bill Morneau), to protect his own political interests (ie citing re-election, that he's an MP for Quebec-Papineau) and when caught, throws everyone he can under the bus to keep the stink from resting on himself. JWR - Re-signed, may be kicked out of caucus for blowing the whistle Gerry Butts - Re-signed, despite claims of no wrongdoing Jane Philpott - Re-signed, citing lack of confidence in the PM and government for the handling of this issue Michael Wernick - Early "retirement" citing lack of ability to be seen as non-partisan Celina Caesar-Chavannes - quit caucus. Although not related to SNC, it's definitely another marker in a disturbing trend
  5. The line was cabinet/parliamentary debate vs forcing an attorney general to change her mind and do something unprecedented in the 10 years since Harper created the DPP. As a minister she said that the DPA was not guaranteed to be applicable in any case, as once the law was passed it would need to be examined very closely with the relevant facts applicable on a case by case basis. This determination is solely at the discretion of the DPP on whether to grant a DPA or not, that was the whole point of the arms length independence from any partisan manipulation or pressure. DPP said (paraphrasing) "We've reviewed all of the facts, the DPA is not applicable in this case. We proceed to criminal trial." AG receives the Section 13 where this is published, performed her own review of the issues as a legal professional (and top prosecutor might I add) and came to the same conclusion. From this point forward she could not take into account any of the ministerial partisan reasoning when determining whether to change her mind or not. At that point only the role of the AG could determine if a directive should be issued to change the decision of the DPP, so basically the only thing that could make her change her mind was the submission of new evidence to support changing the DPP decision via directive. No such evidence was entered for submission, so there was no reason to change her mind. If these "discussions" had forced JWR to cave and give into the demands, bravo you've just undermined prosecutorial independence and eliminated the underpinnings of the rule of law. Either the PMO and JT did not have faith in the institution that is the DPP or they simply didn't care about it's opinion (because it was implemented by Harper dont'cha'know), the bottom line is the DPP did it's job, the AG did their job and the outcome was undesirable to the party because it was an election year. The concept of potential job loss was a cooked up talking point created by the Liberals to give weight to their logic and justification for applying the pressure they did. Even the CEO of the company said at no time did they warn that jobs were going to be lost, or that SNC Lavalin would leave Canada. What he did say, is that he believed that they satisfied all of the requirements for a DPA (according to themselves) and admit no wrongdoing (because those responsible were no longer with the company). I paraphrased most of that because I'm too busy at the moment to dig up the actual articles/interviews. That's all window dressing as far as I'm concerned. The real issue is the flippant manner in which JT trots out the "rule of law" card, yet behind closed doors shows an absolute disdain and disregard for it's fundamental importance. It shows a severe lack of credibility and frankly maturity in how this whole ordeal has been handled. From "it's patently false" to "there was no pressure" to "there was no inappropriate pressure" to "sometimes people of different genders can experience things differently" to whatever his latest talking points are. Meanwhile, throughout this entire issue, the only person being consistent and having corroborating evidence to support their claims has been JWR.
  6. Then why didn't he ask for the reasoning? Seems like he did, but did not like the answer and tried to find ways to get the answer he wanted... that's a very different dynamic than a leader seeking out the substance of a decision just so that could be competently conveyed to the relevant parties. You don't "clarify the need for messaging" by having pretty much everyone except himself getting their hands dirty to change the OUTCOME of the decision that was made. That is where the conduct crossed the line. If they had "rigorous debate" as to WHY JWR made the decision she did to support the DPP and it merely took so many meetings for her point to get across to them that would be one thing. However what this phone call clearly illustrated was a chain of command that had not accepted the reality of things, and were still determined to get the outcome they DESIRED. That's why this whole debacle blew up in the first place. Any competent and reasonable individual regardless of vocational training can understand and appreciate the need to clarify context and be on the same page. This wasn't that.
  7. No, there were individuals with Law training in the inner ranks so the nature of their discussions were far different from these. Any debate would have been on the nuance and interpretation of law, not badgering a lawyer to change their mind because of the determination of morons that think "there has to be a solution". JT did not have the pedigree to be PM despite his name, had no relevant experience and that manifested in questionable blanket decisions guiding his original cabinet selections and general policy stances, etc. Again, I'm not pro CPC, I think that party has devolved too far to the left to legitimately call themselves "Conservative".
  8. But hey, what do I know. If you're ignorant enough I suppose anything is defensible, including ignorance of the law (which the law does not account for when it comes to liability of action). &^@# with the bull, you'll get the horns.
  9. "Everything" would be to ask the AG what their determination is and then accept it. No one in the PMO nor the PM himself are lawyers, so their best play would have been to shut their mouths and listen to the actual lawyer. LOL.
  10. You really are on Team Trudeau, wow! Apparently context means nothing
  11. So pointing out obvious facts is now considered spin? Lol, I have no association with the auto sector. I work in the software industry, and my employer is not based in Canada. So regardless if Canada's economy hits the $&!#ter I'll still have a job earning six figures.
  12. I've long since gotten off the horse of criminality, as it's clear nothing like that occurred. I've since circled the wagons and returned to the primary point of order which was the gross misconduct of the PMO and JT himself, and the lack of respect they have for the public by playing shell game coverup tactics.
  13. Where was the same fervor in the adamant protection of jobs in the Auto and Energy sectors? Oh, perhaps it's because those industries were not deemed as important as a single engineering firm in the heart of the Quebec homeland to warrant such stringent measures be employed. As the Federal Government of Canada, it's mandate is to protect the jobs of ALL Canadians, not the jobs that are convenient to re-election bids and obvious favoritism as it pertains to crony capitalism. I'm not naive and I have no illusions (or delusions) that the CPC wouldn't have done the same thing -- they just wouldn't have been dumb enough to do it the way JT et al did.
  14. Well, clearly you know more, and more importantly have more clairvoyantly interpreted the law than either the DPP OR the former AG. Or perhaps you just live in the same deluded reality as the rest of the "non lawyers" who think there should be a "solution" that just has to be found. Problem solved! Jimmy's on the case.