Prime Minister Wilson-Raybould

[AngusThermopyle]

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

Of course I’m not saying any of those things.  Back to the issue at hand, DPA’s: You seem to be under the impression that “a company guilty of similar previous offences” isn’t eligible for a DPA.  Not true.    Read the legislation.  Past bad behaviour is one of many factors under consideration in setting the terms of a DPA.  I may not agree with the PMO’s approach or even its motives, but I do agree that failing to apply a DPA to SNC is wrong, both legally and in terms of the public interest.  I’m not mystified by the power of anyone’s office.  Many of us are quite capable of understanding legislation and its potential interpretations.  Trudeau may have ulterior political reasons for removing JWR as AG, but the public interest is a good reason for doing so. 

https://www.osler.com/en/blogs/risk/september-2018/deferred-prosecution-agreements-dpas-come-into-force-in-canada

• whether the organization — or any of its representatives — is alleged to have committed any other offences
• That's straight from the link you provided. That aside, it's the AG's call and given this companies very long history of illegal doings she made the right call. As for the jobs aspect, that's just BS. Any affected employee's will find employment with other firms that will step in. If jobs are such an all important factor why do we hear crickets from Trudeau about the 120,000 plus jobs that have been lost out west because of his policies? As JWR said in her testimony Trudeau emphasized the election and the fact that he's the member for Papineau. That is what this is all about, anything else is just a smoke screen. In fact, if you look at the timeline in it's entirety you can see that the Liberals snuck in their DPA law specifically to benefit SNC in the lead up to the election. I have to ask, have you even listened to JWR's complete testimony? I have, about four times now.

[Zeitgeist]

3 hours ago, AngusThermopyle said:

• whether the organization — or any of its representatives — is alleged to have committed any other offences
• That's straight from the link you provided. That aside, it's the AG's call and given this companies very long history of illegal doings she made the right call. As for the jobs aspect, that's just BS. Any affected employee's will find employment with other firms that will step in. If jobs are such an all important factor why do we hear crickets from Trudeau about the 120,000 plus jobs that have been lost out west because of his policies? As JWR said in her testimony Trudeau emphasized the election and the fact that he's the member for Papineau. That is what this is all about, anything else is just a smoke screen. In fact, if you look at the timeline in it's entirety you can see that the Liberals snuck in their DPA law specifically to benefit SNC in the lead up to the election. I have to ask, have you even listened to JWR's complete testimony? I have, about four times now.

I listened to it very carefully.  My take away is that she had been building a case for some time and that she was using her 30 minute preamble as a platform.  JWR doesn’t seem like a team player.  She’s more concerned about her legal supremacy and defending a position that, after consultations, would probably prove to be counter to the public interest.  She wouldn’t change it because, how dare anyone pressure her?  I work closely with people in hierarchical structures and have learned to read power plays.  Trudeau and his team might have been a bit too persistent, but I understand and agree with the PM’s decision to move JWR to another portfolio.  She still would have remained in Cabinet had she not resigned from Veterans Affairs.  None of us know exactly what happened or what information came forward in consultations.  We’re all speculating.  

Edited March 4, 2019 by Zeitgeist

[cannuck]

3 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I listened to it very carefully.  My take away is that she had been building a case for some time and that she was using her 30 minute preamble as a platform.  JWL doesn’t seem like a team player.  She’s more concerned about her legal supremacy and defending a position that, after consultations, might prove to be counter to the public interest.  She wouldn’t change it because, how dare anyone pressure her?  I work closely with people in hierarchical structures and have learned to read power plays.  Trudeau and his team might have been a bit too persistent, but I understand and agree with the PM’s moves. 

Anything to do with administering criminal law is not about being a "team player", it is about applying the law.  SNC in any country without the LPC and PQ would have been locked up and had the key thrown away decades ago.   She did exactly what she was entitled and responsible to do: examine the evidence and proceed accordingly...i.e. NOT to interfere with the decision that the prosecutor had arrived at after doing the same.

[Zeitgeist]

2 minutes ago, cannuck said:

Anything to do with administering criminal law is not about being a "team player", it is about applying the law.  SNC in any country without the LPC and PQ would have been locked up and had the key thrown away decades ago.   She did exactly what she was entitled and responsible to do: examine the evidence and proceed accordingly...i.e. NOT to interfere with the decision that the prosecutor had arrived at after doing the same.

I disagree.  Judgements are messy.  It’s about interpretation.  Also this case was unique and DPA’s are new in Canada. 

[cannuck]

Just now, Zeitgeist said:

I disagree.  Judgements are messy.  It’s about interpretation.  Also this case was unique and DPA’s are new in Canada. 

I can only assume that you get a paycheque from SNC or they are your client.   NOBODY else in this country wants an incompetent, organized criminal company working here, doing business from here, drinking from the public trough and bribing officials here and most of all taking work away from competent,  ethical and legally compliant companies that bid honestly for the work.  Nobody except you, the LPC and SNC, that is.

[Zeitgeist]

19 minutes ago, cannuck said:

I can only assume that you get a paycheque from SNC or they are your client.   NOBODY else in this country wants an incompetent, organized criminal company working here, doing business from here, drinking from the public trough and bribing officials here and most of all taking work away from competent,  ethical and legally compliant companies that bid honestly for the work.  Nobody except you, the LPC and SNC, that is.

The culprits were fired.  Don’t punish innocent workers and their families.  I guess JWR has a pretty comfortable life as a judge.  Have some compassion.  

[cannuck]

No, only SOME of the culprits from the Ghadaffi affair were fired (and others were let go who were fall guys that had NOTHING to do with it).  The criminal activities at SNC go right to the core of corporate officers and the Board of Directors.  AND: I am not "assuming" anything, I could easily name names and cite instances. 

The whole thing needs to go.

[mowich]

On 2/28/2019 at 12:07 PM, bush_cheney2004 said:

This is very entertaining from across the border...so fun to see that smug bastard Justin Trudeau get his turn in the barrel.   Can't say I'm surprised after all of his previous missteps, but this one has longer legs.   I wonder what those poor chaps rotting in Chinese detention think about the "rule of law" now ?

The funny part is that the CBC wanted to cover the Michael Cohen hearings "LIVE !" from another country, but the JWR hearings back home demanded full attention instead !

 

CTV covered a good portion of the Cohen hearings, bush-cheney.   So we got treated to two leader's being thrown under the bus on the same day.  Great day for political junkies.

[mowich]

On 3/1/2019 at 8:20 PM, Zeitgeist said:

That stereotypical picture of Wilson-Raybould isn’t right.  She’s worthy of respect, though the cartoon shows her kicking JT’s ass, so on balance, cool. 

Wilson-Raybould left herself wide open to this type of characterization referring to her ethnicity as a guide to her decisions.  The only real problem is that she is not a Plains Indian and should more appropriately be dressed as a member of her own clan. 

[bush_cheney2004]

16 minutes ago, mowich said:

CTV covered a good portion of the Cohen hearings, bush-cheney.   So we got treated to two leader's being thrown under the bus on the same day.  Great day for political junkies.

 

The CBC provided Cohen hearings coverage, it just wasn't "LIVE !".

I would venture a guess that no American broadcast or cable news network covered the JWR hearings "LIVE !".

I found the emergency hearing in Parliament much more entertaining, especially MP Michael Cooper's stupendous ranting.

[Virginia]

perhaps Wilson-Raybould might represent the People's Party as a provincial candidate first?

[Army Guy]

On 3/3/2019 at 8:47 PM, Zeitgeist said:

The culprits were fired.  Don’t punish innocent workers and their families.  I guess JWR has a pretty comfortable life as a judge.  Have some compassion.  

WTF does this mean we can only care about Quebec's jobs and people, 100,000 jobs have been lost in the oil patch, those are real numbers.....how many jobs were tanked when Quebec said no to energy east, how much SNC corruption has been proven right here in Canada ....Even the liberals can't say for certain how many jobs would or could be lost.....as for them moving their HQ out of the country , never happen, thats already been proven false.... 

[Zeitgeist]

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

WTF does this mean we can only care about Quebec's jobs and people, 100,000 jobs have been lost in the oil patch, those are real numbers.....how many jobs were tanked when Quebec said no to energy east, how much SNC corruption has been proven right here in Canada ....Even the liberals can't say for certain how many jobs would or could be lost.....as for them moving their HQ out of the country , never happen, thats already been proven false.... 

I want to see those jobs in the oil patch, which is the main reason the feds bought Trans Mountain.  I hope Quebec comes around to Energy East.  I also hope the new Attorney General orders a DPA for SNC.  Trudeau and co may be working overtime to support jobs in Quebec, but we have more to fear from the likes of JWR, who weakened the government and would like to transfer a huge amount of the federal budget to the settling of land claims. She is more interested in her political ambitions than supporting the government.  Many on here are carping on about Trudeau wanting circumvent the rule of law.  Don’t believe the hype.  You have more to worry about from the likes of JWR than Trudeau, and I’m no Trudeau fan.  I will likely be voting Conservative, unless they too start courting mutinous candidates.  

[mowich]

22 hours ago, Virginia said:

perhaps Wilson-Raybould might represent the People's Party as a provincial candidate first?

I'm sure Maxime would welcome her with open arms..............oops................as I recall someone already did that.  Okay - a firm handshake. 

[Army Guy]

18 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

I want to see those jobs in the oil patch, which is the main reason the feds bought Trans Mountain.  I hope Quebec comes around to Energy East.  I also hope the new Attorney General orders a DPA for SNC.  Trudeau and co may be working overtime to support jobs in Quebec, but we have more to fear from the likes of JWR, who weakened the government and would like to transfer a huge amount of the federal budget to the settling of land claims. She is more interested in her political ambitions than supporting the government.  Many on here are carping on about Trudeau wanting circumvent the rule of law.  Don’t believe the hype.  You have more to worry about from the likes of JWR than Trudeau, and I’m no Trudeau fan.  I will likely be voting Conservative, unless they too start courting mutinous candidates.  

Yes they did purchase a pipeline, but tell me without laughing "did the liberals act fast enough" on several fronts, one pushing the construction through via using already established legislation, two ensuring that all the conditions were adhered to by the letter, not just engaging with native talking heads, and not all those that needed to be consulted, like hereditary chiefs, the cleaner down at timmies, and a paw print from lassy...this is not the liberals first rodeo....they should have had it right.....

Quebec is not blocking the pipeline because they are concerned about the environment, it is because there is nothing in it for them....

Your claim of holding on for better land claims sounds a lot like horse shit, she refused the position because she could not defend the current Indian act as a whole...she would have had an inside seat if she had accepted to make changes nobody else could.....as for settling land claims, when totaled their are valued at more than a trillion dollars, we as a nation can not afford that amount, we will never see all these land claims settled. 

Her political ambitions are not looking good here right now, nor when she stepped down, she can never hope to lead the liberals, if she sits as an independent she gets nothing, maybe if she crosses the floor...that is perhaps her only move right now....and if she does cross I doubt she will get a high profile job....

Trudeau did what he did because it was in his best interest, and his plan fell to the floor in pieces, it actually became a run comical affair watching them every day spew lie after lie....sorry I don't want him leading anything except maybe another drama dept....

[Rue]

18 hours ago, mowich said:

I'm sure Maxime would welcome her with open arms..............oops................as I recall someone already did that.  Okay - a firm handshake. 

? Hello anyone home? Maxime is a Quebecer. He has been silent on Lavalin precisely because he won't say anything not in the best interests of getting himself elected in Quebec. Is that hard for you to understand? Hello any one home? Maxime? You know he couldn't keep his pecker in his pants and was sleeping with a motor cycle gang gal who was passing on his info to her gang? That sound like someone a former Crown Prosecutor would work with? Hello are you home? Planet earth calling.

[Rue]

On 3/12/2019 at 11:08 PM, Zeitgeist said:

 I also hope the new Attorney General orders a DPA for SNC.  

How about you read Bill C-74 and the conditions that first must be met for a dpa and the exclusions from using a dpa. You clearly have not. Had you done so you will see the new law does not allow SNC a dpa because of the charges coming under a particular act and the  fact its a third time around offence. The rest either you bother to research or be quiet. Until you read the actual law you think exists and its exclusions to the use of dpa's you will keep uttering such things and I am not here to baby sit you on what  that the law says, but this is the problem with  partisan Liberals. You do not even understand the laws your idiot leader passed and why they don't even apply to what you want. Huh ? Ugh huh? Read the damn law.

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/page-179.html

 

Edited March 14, 2019 by Rue

[Rue]

Liberals can be painful to listen to.

Let's spoon feed some shall we:

 

• 715.32 (1) The prosecutor may enter into negotiations for a remediation agreement with an organization alleged to have committed an offence if the following conditions are met:

  • (a) the prosecutor is of the opinion that there is a reasonable prospect of conviction with respect to the offence;

  • (b) the prosecutor is of the opinion that the act or omission that forms the basis of the offence did not cause and was not likely to have caused serious bodily harm or death, or injury to national defence or national security, and was not committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal organization or terrorist group;

  • (c) the prosecutor is of the opinion that negotiating the agreement is in the public interest and appropriate in the circumstances; and

  • (d) the Attorney General has consented to the negotiation of the agreement.

Do ask these Liberal patoots how regards to (b) whether bribing Gaddafi caused a threat to Canadian national security as he admitted to training and funding terrorists who attacked and killed  innocent civilians all over the world and ordered his military to commit war crimes in numerous countries.

Do ask the Liberals how zero proof of job losses, a mere speculation of possible job losses is by itself a public interest and not a private interest even if it could be said to be an interest because it only applies to a narrow group of individuals not the public at large.

Wait that may be a strain.

We still need these Liberal geniuses to then scroll down to sub section (2) of the above  below and understand Lavalin already refused to agree to  acknowledge  (a), (b), (c) and (d)-they refuse to disclose the names of officials they bribed and list the names of the people who issued the bribes which means we need to have a trial to bring in a former Lavalin employee who has agreed to provide the names-this is why Trudeau has tried to stop the trial, names might link bribes directly to sitting Liberals mps. As well under (b) Lavalin won't aclnowledge that by bribing Gaddafi and Gaddafi government supporters this enabled the regime to stay in power and torture and kill its own citizens as well as fund terrorist attacks and illegal military invasions by its army. Lavalin built a huge prison complete with torture chambers for Gaddafi. Interesting how these progressive Liberal patoots won't acknowledge that. No Lavalin has never issued any disciplinary actions. Also look at (g) and someone tell these Liberal patoots Lavalin has already been convicted twice in Canada of issuing bribes to get projects.

• Factors to consider

  (2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(c), the prosecutor must consider the following factors:

  • (a) the circumstances in which the act or omission that forms the basis of the offence was brought to the attention of investigative authorities;

  • (b) the nature and gravity of the act or omission and its impact on any victim;

  • (c) the degree of involvement of senior officers of the organization in the act or omission;

  • (d) whether the organization has taken disciplinary action, including termination of employment, against any person who was involved in the act or omission;

  • (e) whether the organization has made reparations or taken other measures to remedy the harm caused by the act or omission and to prevent the commission of similar acts or omissions;

  • (f) whether the organization has identified or expressed a willingness to identify any person involved in wrongdoing related to the act or omission;

  • (g) whether the organization — or any of its representatives — was convicted of an offence or sanctioned by a regulatory body, or whether it entered into a previous remediation agreement or other settlement, in Canada or elsewhere, for similar acts or omissions;

  • (h) whether the organization — or any of its representatives — is alleged to have committed any other offences, including those not listed in the schedule to this Part; and

  • (i) any other factor that the prosecutor considers relevant.                                                                                                          

  • Oh but wait, we still need these Liberal geniuses to scroll down to sub-section (3) and explain to them that Lavalin was indeed charged under s.3 and 4 of the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act:

• " Marginal note:Factors not to consider:

• (3) Despite paragraph (2)(i), if the organization is alleged to have committed an offence under section 3 or 4 of the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, the prosecutor must not consider the national economic interest, the potential effect on relations with a state other than Canada or the identity of the organization or individual involved."

 

 

[mowich]

2 hours ago, Rue said:

? Hello anyone home? Maxime is a Quebecer. He has been silent on Lavalin precisely because he won't say anything not in the best interests of getting himself elected in Quebec. Is that hard for you to understand? Hello any one home? Maxime? You know he couldn't keep his pecker in his pants and was sleeping with a motor cycle gang gal who was passing on his info to her gang? That sound like someone a former Crown Prosecutor would work with? Hello are you home? Planet earth calling.

Whoa.  Sorry Rue...............I forgot to add the '/s'.  Frankly, I don't any party who would want to work with the former Crown Prosecutor now - way too much baggage.

[Zeitgeist]

2 hours ago, Rue said:

How about you read Bill C-74 and the conditions that first must be met for a dpa and the exclusions from using a dpa. You clearly have not. Had you done so you will see the new law does not allow SNC a dpa because of the charges coming under a particular act and the  fact its a third time around offence. The rest either you bother to research or be quiet. Until you read the actual law you think exists and its exclusions to the use of dpa's you will keep uttering such things and I am not here to baby sit you on what  that the law says, but this is the problem with  partisan Liberals. You do not even understand the laws your idiot leader passed and why they don't even apply to what you want. Huh ? Ugh huh? Read the damn law.

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/page-179.html

 

I don’t see anything that prevents a DPA.  It all depends on interpretation of the criteria.  Entirely up to the prosecutor and, if necessary, the AG, despite what the lynch mob wants. 

[Army Guy]

5 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

I don’t see anything that prevents a DPA.  It all depends on interpretation of the criteria.  Entirely up to the prosecutor and, if necessary, the AG, despite what the lynch mob wants. 

If by now you still don't see a huge misjudgment here by the liberals then you deserve what ever our corrupt liberal government hands to you...I on the other hand will be down  at the voting station not only to vote for any party except liberals but also to choke the shit out of liberals like you, until you come to your senses.........And if your OK with all the lying , cheating, misleading , corrupt liberals..... you share different morals and values than the rest of Canadians.

[Rue]

6 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

I don’t see anything that prevents a DPA.  It all depends on interpretation of the criteria.  Entirely up to the prosecutor and, if necessary, the AG, despite what the lynch mob wants. 

You don't see.. or you do not want to see...

Here are the words that prevent a dpa  with Lavalin to consider possible unemployment as a grounds for being given a dpa:

715.32 (3) Despite paragraph (2)(i), if the organization is alleged to have committed an offence under section 3 or 4 of the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, the prosecutor must not consider the national economic interest, the potential effect on relations with a state other than Canada or the identity of the organization or individual involved."

Lavalin was indeed charged under s.3 and 4 of the above Act.

I also explained and please go find it out for yourself, Lavalin has on record refused to agree to pay back all profit from projects associated with the bribes to Gaddafi which refuses a condition which must be met before a dpa could be considered as an option.

I also explained the bribes were used to built a very large prison that was used to murder and torture innocent people and because which under 2(b) ui a factor that can not be ignored by the Crown.

As well I explained and its not subject to debate, its fact, dpa's were never assumed to be used on repeat offenders which Lavalin is let alone to protect a company that propped a government which  built a jail used to torture and maiming of innocent civilians.

Tell me how do you Liberals rationalize paying a terrorist Kadr for being placed in Guantanamo Bay but applaud and condone giving a company that built a prison for Gaddafi with far worse conditions and you don't think Lavalin should compensate the prisoners placed in that prison?

Do any of you stop and think before you just selectively tune out what doesn't suit you? 

Did you know under the lobbying laws of Canada Lavalin was prohibited  lobbying on behalf of itself with Trudeau in regards to the criminal proceedings because they knew it placed Trudeau in a conflict of interest and that is a direct prohibition under the lobbying laws? Does that matter to you?

By the way yhe issue is not whether a dpa should be used, it is  whether it was appropriate in this case and please remember Crowns always had the option to use them before the law was passed.

The law was only passed because Lavalin was trying to dictate specific terms of the dpa not get a dpa and they failed to get national economic interests to apply as a criteria in their case. That is why you see the words national interest written in the dpa law and this is why people are pissed off at Trudeau. He knows national interest is not a criteria but has led people like you astray acting as if it is.

His real concern is a full trial. With a full trial witnesses will testify which government officials were involved in bribes and that could expose current Liberal MP's sitting in the house. You need to turn the blinders off.

Never in the history of Canada has a company or individual asked the Prime Minister to intervene in their on-going criminal case to tell the prosecutor to stop the trial and give them a favourable sentence which Lavalin and Trudeau have done. Never.

Trudeau has panicked because Lavalin bribery will leak back to people in his current government. 

The cover up and prevention of the trial has failed. Whether Trudeau's corrupt MP's are exposed before or after the next election is now the question because Trudeau failed to stop the trial.

If you can not see any familiarities in what Trudeau has done and what Trump has done good on you.

If you really think the unproven speculation that some people in Quebec might lose jobs justifies what Trudeau has done, that is unfortunate. If that is the low standard you set of your PM and elected officials you  may want that but I sure as hell do not.

 

 

Edited March 14, 2019 by Rue

[Rue]

6 hours ago, mowich said:

Whoa.  Sorry Rue...............I forgot to add the '/s'.  Frankly, I don't any party who would want to work with the former Crown Prosecutor now - way too much baggage.

People would fight to line up to work in a law firm with JWR. I know you don't understand why. If you find what Trudeau did ethical and acceptable I would suggest you take a smell test before you assume too many people will want to work with you. Lol.

 

[Zeitgeist]

I didn’t vote Liberal and I likely won’t in the next election.  If Trudeau has the balls to boot JWR out of caucus and he survives the lynch mobs and retains the leadership, I may consider voting Liberal.  I have no respect for mutiny without a damn good reason.  JWR was building a case and wanted to recreate Watergate.  She may actually pull it off.  I’m not fooled for a second.  I wouldn’t want her on my team, but feel free to recruit her and turn her into a folk hero.  It’s complete bullshit. 

[cannuck]

Yeah, who would want a lawyer, judge and Minister of Justice who would uphold the law?