The SNC-Lavalin Scandal - Jody Wilson-Raybould Refuses to leave Office

[JM_]

8 minutes ago, VanGnome said:

"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.

uh huh. You think thats how Harpers gov't worked? grow up. 

[VanGnome]

Just now, Jimmy McGill said:

uh huh. You think thats how Harpers gov't worked? grow up. 

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".

[JM_]

1 minute ago, VanGnome said:

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".

we're talking about the need for messaging. Every senior cabinet member knows how important that is. Trudeau wasn't looking for the legal definitions, he wanted the reason for the DPA decision so he could explain it publicly, which he would have to do. Any good minister would provide him with that, but for some reason she refused. Its very odd. Unless of course the reason is her discretion only and there is a legal option for a DPA which is justifiable too. 

 

Ministers serve the PM, not the other way around. 

[VanGnome]

2 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

we're talking about the need for messaging. Every senior cabinet member knows how important that is. Trudeau wasn't looking for the legal definitions, he wanted the reason for the DPA decision so he could explain it publicly, which he would have to do. Any good minister would provide him with that, but for some reason she refused. Its very odd. Unless of course the reason is her discretion only and there is a legal option for a DPA which is justifiable too. 

 

Ministers serve the PM, not the other way around. 

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.

[JM_]

1 hour ago, VanGnome said:

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.

the did. Her answer was simply that she made her decision. Thats not how ministers are supposed to communicate with the PM.

 

What line? all AGs/MoJs have had to wear two hats since confederation. This is the only time its been a problem. 

[VanGnome]

1 hour ago, Jimmy McGill said:

the did. Her answer was simply that she made her decision. Thats not how ministers are supposed to communicate with the PM.

 

What line? all AGs/MoJs have had to wear two hats since confederation. This is the only time its been a problem. 

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.

Edited April 2, 2019 by VanGnome

[BPA]

So what was the reason why the DPP and JWR decide NOT to go the DPA route?

 

I think a prosecutor would always want to press charges regardless if it's a better outcome going the DPA route.   It's how they make a name for themselves.   It's sounds more juicy / headlines than SNC cut a deal.  But that's just my opinion. 

[JM_]

46 minutes ago, VanGnome said:

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.

the bolded part is where you lose me. Again I'll refer to Wernick's discussion on the tape. He's begins by simply asking for more of an explanation, and then they talk about consulting with Beverley Mclaughlin for a 2nd opinion, which JWR herself agrees with doing. 

 

Yes JWR is uncomfortable with the discussion, but thats not evidence of anything but her discomfort. 

 

And no JWR hasn't actually been consistent either, she's carefully timed how the media got details, she clearly has an agenda too part of which is cya. 

 

Trudeau was/is fully within the law asking for an explanation, and also in replacing her. Thats the job. 

 

Please show me specifically what law Trudeau broke. 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 2, 2019 by Jimmy McGill

[VanGnome]

34 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

the bolded part is where you lose me. Again I'll refer to Wernick's discussion on the tape. He's begins by simply asking for more of an explanation, and then they talk about consulting with Beverley Mclaughlin for a 2nd opinion, which JWR herself agrees with doing. 

 

Yes JWR is uncomfortable with the discussion, but thats not evidence of anything but her discomfort. 

 

And no JWR hasn't actually been consistent either, she's carefully timed how the media got details, she clearly has an agenda too part of which is cya. 

 

Trudeau was/is fully within the law asking for an explanation, and also in replacing her. Thats the job. 

 

Please show me specifically what law Trudeau broke. 

 

 

 

 

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

Edited April 2, 2019 by VanGnome

[kingofsurrey]

Secretly recording phone calls.........

 

Time for this JWR to get the boot.  Very dishonourable thing to do. 

[VanGnome]

8 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said:

Secretly recording phone calls.........

 

Time for this JWR to get the boot.  Very dishonourable thing to do. 

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.

[Dazzle]

5 hours ago, VanGnome said:

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 shouldn't.

 

What she did was flat out unethical. As a lawyer, she should have known this before spilling the beans to the media. She lost her nerve in the political arena. And that is on JT for picking her.

[Tortorella's Rant]

.

Edited April 2, 2019 by Tortorella's Rant

[BPA]

So if no laws were broken by JT, then is this all just political grandstanding? 

[JM_]

11 hours ago, VanGnome said:

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.

well, I can't believe it needs to be said but apparently it does, actually breaking the law matters. 

 

Oh OK so now you are mad at future Justin. That seems reasonable. 

 

11 hours ago, VanGnome said:

 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.

6,500 jobs lost and moving the head office to this US isn't partisan.

 

Here's where we get into you making stuff up again. Nowhere is "discomfort" part of anyones job description.  

11 hours ago, VanGnome said:

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. 

time to put on some big boy pants. Go back and listen to the taped call. JWR didn't want to have to explain a DPA decision going into the Gazette. To help her with a potential explanation the PMO was offering op-eds to deal with any media blow back. Grow up, political messaging is as old as Moses.

 

No this is about JWR not wanting to provide the DPA, we don't know why yet. 

 

 

[aliboy]

12 hours ago, VanGnome said:

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

And how does asking, and hopefully at some point attaining, a second opinion from a former supreme court justice compromise anything or threaten prosecutorial independence?  It's been my observation, and experience, that it's never difficult to get an expert to disagree with another expert, lawyers disagree all the time, even judges can overrule one another. So dealing with something which is brand new, like the PDA, there is no need to stop at one or two opinions and I would see the opinion of a former supreme being preferable to that of JWR, and in fact, if that opinion had supported her, none of this would likely have happened. The PM didn't have the right to interfere in legal matters directly, but he did have the right to ask for an opinion from a former supreme. 

[aliboy]

6 hours ago, Dazzle said:

You shouldn't.

 

What she did was flat out unethical. As a lawyer, she should have known this before spilling the beans to the media. She lost her nerve in the political arena. And that is on JT for picking her.

I agree that she should never have been appointed to the office. It was such a great story that the PM couldn't resist and here we are.

[JM_]

16 hours ago, VanGnome said:

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

I don't think you understand the word, tbh. You've already decided that JT did something wrong. You see everything through that lens and nothing else. 

 

There's reasonable, and normal, actions and activities in what happened. JWR and Philpott didn't mind "political pressure" when they wanted their assisted dying law passed, in that case putting the squeeze on fellow MPs was OK. You seem to think "pressure" is something unusual, or doesn't happen with almost everything a government does. 

[JM_]

1 hour ago, BPA said:

So if no laws were broken by JT, then is this all just political grandstanding? 

maybe. 

 

JWR certainly has an agenda to hurt Trudeau, but then you listen to her saying she wants to stay in the Liberal party and there seems to be some sort of disconnect there as well. Maybe she's just really got blinders on, who knows?

 

All this faux outrage over the mechanics of how a PMO works is pretty funny. Same thing Happened with Nigel Wright, but in that case Harper didn't allow anyone to speak about anything in cabinet confidence.

 

If Trudeau had been like Harper we never would have heard from JWR or have anything to debate. 

[JM_]

23 minutes ago, aliboy said:

I agree that she should never have been appointed to the office. It was such a great story that the PM couldn't resist and here we are.

to be fair she did do a very good job up to this point, imo. Some pretty important laws were developed under her watch.

 

For some reason we haven't heard fully yet, she was dead set against the DPA option. She didn't like the idea of a 2nd opinion on it so I think theres some ego at play there but it would be good to hear the full explanation, not just "its my call."