Leftist Hero Justin Trudeau investigated for obstructing justice

[myata]

15 minutes ago, eyeball said:

and the government were in-camera affairs that weren't open to the public. 

In a pantomime carnival democracy" a better question is: WHAT IS open to the public? (that supposedly, in some another alternative world owns the whole show and pays for it from its pocket) The happy bunch first created a system where they can pretty much run themselves and then began assigning to themselves privileges and prerogatives. This prerogative, that no-no why who said it, who explained? What, Joe? Your part was from here and to here, now will you.. how should I put it politely?

This was supposed to be UK's inspired system no? Well in the UK there's now a law on recalling the MPs by citizens vote. What? Nope, not here! We have a totally different original democratic system!

[Nefarious Banana]

21 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Is it me or is this guy more like Trump every day?

Trudeau is little more than Gerald Butts'/Katie Telford's bobble-head . . . dumb as a stump.  Trump has a huge following, Trudeau has none.

[eyeball]

9 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

So you're suggesting we should pass a law saying all clandestine meetings to plan illegal activities should be open to the public?

I see a few problems enforcing that.

No, I'm suggesting we stop in-camera lobbying so planning illegal activities is more difficult to do. 

Insert a principle from Robert's Rules of Order into the Lobbying Act. A meeting that isn't recorded didn't happen and if the meeting didn't happen no business, decisions, appointment's etc came out of the meeting.

If lobbyists and politicians still meet clandestinely and we see business, decisions, appointment's etc that can't be accounted for coming up we'll have far better reasons to call foul than the stupid shit people use now to call foul on the government.

[herbie]

So the cops say the investigatrion was cloased last january and there is no evidence for any criminal charges.

The corrupt RCMP must be in on it too, eh?

[impartialobserver]

Maybe this is where I differ from all others in the most obvious... I do not view politicians as heroes or saviors. Just because person X wins election X does not mean that they are worthy of that honor. 

[OftenWrong]

6 hours ago, myata said:

Because they can.

Justin is perfect and untouchable. Just don't touch his hair. Never bend his hair. Else like mighty Samson, down he falls.

 

[OftenWrong]

4 hours ago, eyeball said:

That's probably because the meetings between SNC Lavalin's lobbyists and the government were in-camera affairs that weren't open to the public. 

They were ostensibly talking about policy issues with the government - there was certainly nothing in the reason given for the meeting as it was written in the lobbying registry to suggest they really wanted to talk about getting Jodie Wilson-Raybould off their back.

Anyone from the public who feels they have a stake in the policies used to govern us should be allowed a presence when paid registered lobbyists of private corporations meet with the government.

Ahh yes... the good old in-camera lobbying. Your favourite shtick. Perhaps you do have a point there. Finally after so many years.

4 hours ago, eyeball said:

The political corruption that greases the wheels of economic interests is also the gunk that fouls so much of the public's.

Is that like a hair thing?

 

 

[OftenWrong]

On 6/19/2023 at 3:15 PM, CdnFox said:

Is it me or is this guy more like trump every day?

Haha, I've been saying that for a while now.

At least Trump had a job before he became prez.

[eyeball]

10 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Ahh yes... the good old in-camera lobbying. Your favourite shtick. Perhaps you do have a point there. Finally after so many years.

Yup, it's definitely an interest of mine.

So you finally get it.?

These days I'm more curious about why people think its impossible for some 40 million of us to keep only 380 people in line.

?

 

Edited June 20, 2023 by eyeball

[CdnFox]

6 hours ago, eyeball said:

No, I'm suggesting we stop in-camera lobbying so planning illegal activities is more difficult to do. 
 

There's really no way to do that.

Quote

Insert a principle from Robert's Rules of Order into the Lobbying Act. A meeting that isn't recorded didn't happen and if the meeting didn't happen no business, decisions, appointment's etc came out of the meeting.

The purpose of RRO is to ensure that all people get a chance to speak and that meetings are conducted in an orderly fashion and that minutes are available so that there's no dispute later about what the turn out of votes were and what was voted on.

It doesn't really apply to lobbying meetings.  I mean - you could sort of do it but there's never any 'decisions' made per se. So you could only minute the general topics. Further most lobbying is done informally, by email or by phone or over drinks.  So there's no opportunity to say it was a 'meeting' and 'minute' it.  And - if they want to do 'clandestine' things then they would just meet and not tell anyone or leave it off the minutes and just minute the rest of the meeting.

About the best you could reasonably do is to have a requirement that every time a lobbyist approaches an mp that they must record what they've spoken to them about which i think they already do.

Quote

If lobbyists and politicians still meet clandestinely and we see business, decisions, appointment's etc that can't be accounted for coming up we'll have far better reasons to call foul than the stupid shit people use now to call foul on the government.

They can always be accounted for.  "i decided to do this".   Easy enough to say you met to talk about 'baked beans' and then talk about whatever you want - and good luck proving they discussed it.

It's just not practical. The MP has to be able to explain his decision and what we really need is more effective opposition challenging that. Question period is not an effective method of holding the gov'ts feet to the fire.  If it was it wouldn't be called 'question' period it would be called answer period. Frequently the gov't just doesn't.

[myata]

On 6/20/2023 at 2:34 PM, herbie said:

The corrupt RCMP must be in on it too, eh?

That's a bad word we don't like it here. Let's just say just so, as it has always been. Can we even imagine here anything like in Europe or south of the border, with active and past ministers and leaders investigated, and when warranted indited? This is because, unlike anywhere else on the planet for thousands of years, our politicians become virgin clean and honest the moment they first touch The Chair with their rear point, right? No we aren't being naive or what was the word?

Edited June 22, 2023 by myata

[WestCanMan]

On 6/19/2023 at 8:05 PM, BeaverFever said:

That’s literally the opposite of what the article said.    It said he’s NOT being investigated due to lack of evidence of any criminal wrongdoing  

Funny you weren’t worried when Trump ACTUALLY obstructed justice and was protected from investigation by Bill Barr. 

You didn’t read the article did you?  It says no investigation due to no evidence of any crime. 

1) The OP said "investigated". Not "currently under investigation". 

2) It didn't say "no evidence of any crime" it said "insufficient evidence of criminality", which is not "no evidence". 

3) By your standards Trudeau is guilty and everyone knows it, and the RCMP should commit some crimes to get warrants to spy on him and his associates. 

[PIK]

Whatever happened to all the investigations by the OPP into the McGuinty/Wynne Gov scandals? 

[CdnFox]

Just now, PIK said:

Whatever happened to all the investigations by the OPP into the McGuinty/Wynne Gov scandals? 

They pinned it on a staffer

[WestCanMan]

On 6/20/2023 at 11:34 AM, herbie said:

 there is no evidence for any criminal charges.

That's not what they said. 

[WestCanMan]

On 6/20/2023 at 1:39 PM, OftenWrong said:

Ahh yes... the good old in-camera lobbying. Your favourite shtick. Perhaps you do have a point there. Finally after so many years.

Is that like a hair thing?

 

 

Yeah, the in-camera lobbying had nothing to do with the Libs creating a law specifically for SNC Lavalin, and then having the PM force the AG to use it. I'm pretty sure SNC Lavalin was just lobbying the gov't to make sure that they were planting enough trees to fight global warming ?

[CdnFox]

On 6/20/2023 at 8:02 AM, TreeBeard said:

I predict a coalition government next election.   The Conservatives will win the most seats, but the Libs/NDP will join forces to form government.  

It is more likely that it would be a Conservative - quebec 'non coalition coalition' - basically a ways and means agrement that quebec won't vote against the conservatives on matters of confidence and that they can cancel the deal at any time. It would probably be even more relaxed than the ndp liberal one.

Then the bloc will get all kind of goodies and outside of that PP can do what he likes.

The bloc and the CPC are actually not incompatible with regards to policy and ideology for the most part.

At that point, after 18 months or so the CPC would be wise to find a way to force an election. They would likely get a majority. And defying the traditions the bloc would actually likely do as well or better than they did just because of their unique situation. The libs would probably suffer.

 

[eyeball]

On 6/20/2023 at 4:42 PM, CdnFox said:

 I mean - you could sort of do it...

That's right you could. It just takes the will.

I suggest a new political party that commits to and campaigns on a platform of transparency and let the rest argue why secrecy is the better option.

If there are good arguments to be made for maintaining current levels of secrecy where the public's interest is clearly obvious the public should hear them. I haven't heard many or why they make sense (I'm certainly not talking about breaching national security).

[CdnFox]

43 minutes ago, eyeball said:

That's right you could. It just takes the will.

Having the will requires a reason. Like i said - while it would be technically SORT of possible it wouldn't really record anything of use that isn't recorded already.  So and so met with such and such with regards to this and that. Not really much more than that.

Go watch "yes Minister" if you want to learn how to lie with minutes

45 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I suggest a new political party that commits to and campaigns on a platform of transparency and let the rest argue why secrecy is the better option.

Couldn't hurt - it would be a good discussion. But while transparancy is important confidentiality is also extremely important in negotiations.

 

46 minutes ago, eyeball said:

If there are good arguments to be made for maintaining current levels of secrecy where the public's interest is clearly obvious the public should hear them. I haven't heard many or why they make sense (I'm certainly not talking about breaching national security).

Sure. That discussion alone would be an act of transparancy.  People would at least know the reasons and principles for when a gov't should be discreet and they can decide when a gov't oversteps that.

[OftenWrong]

43 minutes ago, eyeball said:

That's right you could. It just takes the will.

I suggest a new political party that commits to and campaigns on a platform of transparency and let the rest argue why secrecy is the better option.

Sorry but didn't Turdeau say exactly that in his campaign? I bring you transparency, and sunny ways? We see how that turns out.

No, campaign platforms mean absolutely nothing and anyone who's been around long enough knows, when government promises something, it usually means they are the complete opposite.

Like Ronald Reagan was purported to say, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help." And THAT, typifies what it means to be a right winger. Less authority for the authoritittys.

My opinion there is no trust in government. They should not be trusted. They need to be disempowered, put into a place where they can do their job and do the least amount of harm while doing it. We need to change the system somehow.

[myata]

The whole political system is in a dead end. That's what happens to systems and species that cannot adapt, deliberately and consciously choose to avoid and resist any meaningful change. First, public services will be in a state of permanent systemic crisis (done?). Next the economy follows. And the destination: Mexico North. There will be no surprises.

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

No, campaign platforms mean absolutely nothing and anyone who's been around long enough knows, when government promises something, it usually means they are the complete opposite.

Actually - history shows that most politicans keep MOST of their promises substantially. Usually in the 70 percent range. Trudeau is worse than most.

But the thing is - if we don't punish them for breaking them then who's really to blame.  Trudeau promised in 2015 that that would be the last FPTP election - he also promised no more than 30 billion total in deficits over 4 years.  He broke those promises HORRIBLY and that was just the start. He was rewarded with two more wins.

If we do that - what can we expect?

[eyeball]

14 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

We need to change the system somehow

I'm all ears.

Except where ears are needed most - in-camera.

Edited June 23, 2023 by eyeball

[whocares]

On 6/19/2023 at 3:29 PM, West said:

These leftist figures accuse others of what they are doing themselves. 

it's sad that people somehow believe one side is good and one is bad.  Two sides one coin 

[whocares]

On 6/20/2023 at 2:51 PM, impartialobserver said:

Maybe this is where I differ from all others in the most obvious... I do not view politicians as heroes or saviors. Just because person X wins election X does not mean that they are worthy of that honor. 

Excellent post