VanGnome

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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".

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.

"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.

You really are on Team Trudeau, wow! Apparently context means nothing

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.

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.

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.

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.

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/page-179.html However the law around DPA doesn't include the operations of the DPP and AG, those are contained in additional statutes. I found them before, they are earlier in this thread somewhere.

Loss of jobs becomes a national economic interest when there is even a possibility of 9,000+ individuals would have to apply for and receive EI benefits. If jobs were indeed lost, it would fall back onto taxpayers to support these individuals until they can get back on their feet/find new work. In fact, there was no serious threat of job losses at all, real or perceived. Gerald Butts testified to not having done any due diligence into the reality of that outcome, and had no evidence to support the number. Therefore in the absence of verifiable evidence, no other conditions for the DPA could be met. There was also no voluntary disclosure of wrongdoing by the company. The full reasoning of the DPP's decision is contained within the Section 13 document that is only available to the Ministry of Justice, and I presume the PMO as well. It's not public knowledge, though I'm sure we could get a redacted document through a freedom of information request, but who has the time or desire to spend money to receive that document?

The DPP has the SOLE discretion on the issuance of a DPA or to proceed with criminal prosecution. That is the precise reason why the Department of Public Prosecution was created by Harper, to remove partisan decision making from the judicial process and ensure independence. What the AG CAN do, is issue a directive to force the DPP to make a specific decision or to take over the prosecution and proceed as the AG sees is the best path forward according to the law. The AG can only act in such manner if they believe the DPP has interpreted the law and the facts in the case incorrectly, but because JWR agreed with the DPPs decision and re-affirmed that agreement many times, there was no legal reason to overrule the DPP. The very act of pushing for a DPA on the grounds of economic reasons is an interpretation of the law, an incorrect one might I add. The law expressly prevents any amount of economic impact as grounds to legitimize a DPA. That was the ENTIRE narrative from the government as to their leaning on JWR to have her change her mind and issue a directive. If the law was correctly interpreted by the government, none of this debacle would have occurred, and that is a fact.

BPA, sure... if she felt that the DPP has made the incorrect decision and that the case actually warranted going down the DPA route. The ability for the AG to make these decisions is not provided for so it can be done flippantly. Any decision and action must be done in accordance to the law, and based on the merits of the evidence provided on a case by case basis. If JWR simply felt the DPP was not making the decision in the best interest of the party interest, and decided to take over the prosecution and grant a DPA for reasons that the law expressly forbids... then that would be a breach of judicial ethics and actual obstruction of justice. The law is not something that can be "interpreted" to suit the needs and goals of a sitting government. It is the very fabric of order that keeps our society glued together, JWR did the RIGHT thing despite having been badgered to no end to compromise her own integrity as a lawyer, and at the time as the countries TOP legal prosecutor.

The decision was never JWR's to begin with. The decision to use a DPA rested SOLELY with the Department of Public Prosecutor, a completely separate office from the Attorney General. The DPP reviewed all of the facts of the case and determined that SNC was not eligible to receive a DPA based on those facts. The only decision JWR had was whether to issue a specific directive overriding the DPP's decision, or to personally take over the case for prosecution -- neither of which have EVER been done in the 10 years since Harper put into law the framework to create the office of the DPP, so it would have been precedent setting. If you're unfamiliar with the weight of legal precedent, it's very significant. Essentially when something has been done for the first time, it is subsequently referred to in future cases as a justification of taking a particular action, even if the strength of the merits of that action is not as strong as those set forth in the precedent setting case. JWR could have ONLY taken those actions if she felt that the DPP had made an incorrect assessment, and since she reviewed the facts and the case, and in the absence of any new evidence that would support the use of a DPA and came to the same conclusion, the tools at her disposal were effectively moot. This is where this whole thing should have ended, but it did not. People in the PMO and the PM himself disliked that decision, and set forth with the intention of browbeating JWR into changing her mind, despite having no other justification other than partisan political motivations (election year, Quebec being an important lynch pin to securing a majority government) and economic interests (supposed job loss) NEITHER of which are acceptable for being considered as reasons to grant a DPA. JT, the PMO et al had no new evidence that would support why SNC should receive the DPA, thus the independent decision of the DPP and the affirmation of the AG should have stood as the final answer. It did in the end, but not for lack of try. The ONLY reason this whole affair has not entered into clear criminality is because JWR expressly prevented that from occurring. It was she, and she alone that protected the sanctity of the judicial process and the integrity of the judicial system here in Canada. The PM and members within the PMO acted highly improperly, and instead of owning up to this misconduct, the Liberals spin this to say that the "system works", SNC is going to trial, etc etc. Except when you look at the optics of this, that JWR was fired as AG (no need to do this as part of the cabinet shuffle) shortly after this phone call took place, and David Lametti was placed into the role of Minister of Justice and Attorney General who's riding just so happens to be one in the same as where SNC's headquarters are located. An individual who mind you was lobbied as part of the extreme push to make their case for a DPA. With all of the testimony that's unfolded, this phone call recording and all other evidence, it is absolutely clear that the intent for the DPA was purely political, and thus if SNC DOES get a DPA from the new AG, it opens up potential criminality since as a byproduct of issuing a DPA specific sections of the law would have to be broken. SNC would not qualify according to the law as it's written. What I can see happening, is the prosecution case being delayed until after the election. It's entirely plausible that the Conservatives will win a majority and with their consistent refusal to agree that a DPA is not eligible in this specific case, could in fact grant a DPA to SNC. Especially if they win a majority and rewrite some provisions of the law and slide it into a budget bill just as the Liberals did, they can reword the law such that the DPA would then be legal despite all of the context surrounding it. Don't be surprised if SNC gets its DPA in the end, crony capitalism pretty much has a stranglehold on Ottawa and has been like this since the early 80s. The CPC are just using this as an opportunity to put the nail in the coffin of the Liberals because they want their kick at the can again. Personally I'm not voting CPC, people need to be informed and vote their conscience.

There's nothing new in this recording aside maybe from the illustration of the NUMBER of attempts Wernick made to alter JWR's decision on the matter. What it does bring to the table is the clear nature of the narrative that Wernick was driving. It seemed absolutely unclear to him the fundamental nature of the ask that was coming ostensibly from the PM. Regardless of a specific directive from the PM, it was clear that what was required was either interference in the independence of the office of the DPP at worst, or at best a significant undermining of JWR in her role as both Minister of Justice and Attorney General. It seems as though JT made some backroom nudge nudge wink wink promises to SNC-Lavalin (despite the public denouncement of any such reasoning for a DPA, mostly in an effort to establish a counter narrative in the event that a DPA is ultimately entered into) that now cannot be kept. And because it was a prominent firm in Quebec, there's real weight to the whisper campaign that could and probably will be levied against JT "can't get it done, too inexperienced, unfit to lead" etc. The reason this issue was so damn important is because it was in his interest for it to go the way he wanted, which if that is indeed the case JT is far beyond compromised that he cannot in good conscience remain as leader of the Liberal party, or PM of the country. Regardless of the optics of a covert recording, one thing is clear -- this recording came at the tail end of what was a significant campaign to change her mind, and even though it was done not in good faith (by giving an opportunity to Wernick to reschedule the call if he felt uncomfortable being recorded), given the context surrounding it, it was also in part for her protection. This really is not good for the entire LPC, and I'm pretty certain we will see a reversal of the 2015 election with the CPC gaining a pretty solid majority. I'm not entirely thrilled with that prospect either because imo the CPC is just as tainted when it comes to pomp, circumstance and the desire and willingness to employ hidden agendas. Our entire political system needs extensive overhauling, and firstly we need more proportional representation and getting rid of the first past the post electoral system.

Here's the other problem I have with celebrities, specifically actors getting in trouble with the law and then using public venues to make their cases... how do we know if we are seeing the genuine individual or the actor portraying a role? I suspect the very reason this backroom deal was brokered was specifically so this could be kept in the "court of public opinion" where things like facts and the law don't matter -- only perception and belief. These antics would not stand up to the rigors of a criminal trial, so they had to avoid one at all costs.

What pisses me off about cases like these is, all these people are doing is posturing for public perception. You have Smollett and his lawyer doubling down and "weighing their options" and continuing the narrative that he was "a victim of a crime". He sure was, he was a victim of his own stupidity that caused him to commit a crime against himself. You're going to have the MSM now white washing this whole thing, and over time the narrative that is going to perpetuate is "visible minority victim of attack". I'm hoping that the FBI are able to actually root out just what the hell is going on and expose the level of corruption that lies among the rank and file of political offices everywhere. What I find is incredibly stark at this moment was that goofball Don Lemon spouting off how Smollett lost in "the court of public perception". Now he too is going to double down on his initial assertion and employ the textbook leftist tactic of deflection, and talk about everything except for the core issue. Nothing but tap dancing and yet more posturing for public perception. It's sickening.

There's a difference between individuals changing their mind, and the perpetuation and growth of a particular brand of behavior. People on both the left and right changed their minds, just as you have some nutbag righties who maintained all along that he was guilty, you also have I'm sure some nutbag lefties who continue to perpetuate the belief that Smollett did no wrong, he's simply a byproduct of this horrible anti LGBT culture. It's difficult to conflate the two and still be able to compartmentalize a rational argument. The left IS increasingly becoming more and more radical, like Sabre was saying, the "alt-right" has just been baking in the oven a lot longer. However the curve of radicalization has been much steeper with the left, which has typically been synonymous with cultured, reasonable and sensible individuals with more progressive views than their moderate right wing peers. The issue is not so much the lefties and the righties, these learned behaviors are fundamentally human. This behavior exists in all of us, and for the most part just needs to be stoked into a raging inferno which the mainstream media has perfected -- the art of button pushing and narrative driving. The issue has been the accumulation and resurgence of failed ideologies -- marxism, postmodernism, feminism (predominantly 3rd and 4th wave). They've sort of all conflated into one "thing" and we see aspects of all being implemented in society through various social policies and directives as well now in the "personalities" and "brands" who are well connected and trumpet those horns. This is all occurring in a time of unprecedented connectedness in the world due to social media and the torrent pace of technological improvement. This sudden abundance of cheap and accessible technology has served to ultimately distract people from the state of society and allow them to seclude themselves within their personal bubbles of preoccupation, while at the same time rising costs of living are forcing people into working longer hours and more jobs in conjunction with advancements of modern medicine living longer and thus perpetuating the live-work-die lifecycle over much larger periods of time. This all culminates in reduced ability or time to focus on the state of the world beyond cursory viewing of the news on mainstream sources which allows those who are born now into the aristocracy of politics to play out their delusional ideologies and fantasies of how they want to see the world shaped, and thus the cycle repeats itself. Society is being placated and made to be docile. Whenever things like this happens, there's all kinds of outrage which lasts for a short period of time then it's back to regularly scheduled programming. Each time something like this happens, society gets more and more normalized to it so that each time it happens again in the future it has to be more outlandish and extreme to raise the short adrenaline spike of outrage. It will get to the point where we as a society will get more and more normalized to things like the attacks all around the world being perpetrated by people of all walks of life and ideology; meanwhile the divide between the common folk and the political aristocracy grows larger by the year to the point when people wake up it will be far too late. All through history we see the attempts at new world orders through one mechanism or another, we are seeing it occur much more subtlety before our eyes, yet we're so consumed and preoccupied that we don't see it for the most part, and those who do are derided as conspiracy theorists and dismissed. Just look at the history and development of the UN as a prime example. Damn, I went and got all ranty.

I think it's ironic about how people on both sides complain about identity politics, when the very nature of our current political system (anywhere in the world, it's all the same, short of iron fisted dictatorships, and yet even there the lines are beginning to blur) is intrinsically based on identity. Left, right, straight queer, trans, etc etc. There's always an identity that can be drilled down to in order to draw a line in the sand and perpetuate the us vs them mentality. We're little more than sophisticated cavemen (sorry, cave-kind) that are capable (some more than others) of more than 2 syllable grunts and can use iPhones. We've become lazy, indulgent and dissonant as a society and it will be our undoing. Kinda sad, but history continually repeats itself. Civilizations rise only to be burned to the ground. Just please let the Canucks win a Stanley Cup in my lifetime before it happens. That's all I ask for, well that and me and my family don't perish in some crazy post apocalyptic breakdown of society. Would be nice if my daughter was able to live out her natural born life in some semblance of sanity.