Leftist Hero Justin Trudeau investigated for obstructing justice

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

I'm not sure what is illegal about that.

You're not sure what would be illegal about pressuring a Justice to do something she's already told you would be illegal for her to do?

Well...  you look into that and get back to me.

[Queenmandy85]

Addendum: It is imprtant to state that Mr. Poilievre is deserving of respect for his service to the country, as do Prime Minister Trudeau, Mr. Singh, M. Blanchet and all of the other people who put themselves forward for the nation.

[CdnFox]

Just now, Queenmandy85 said:

Addendum: It is imprtant to state that Mr. Poilievre is deserving of respect for his service to the country, as do Prime Minister Trudeau, Mr. Singh, M. Blanchet and all of the other people who put themselves forward for the nation.

Two of those four do not serve the country.  They only serve themselves.  (or quebec, i suppose).

 

[Queenmandy85]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Well...  you look into that and get back to me.

I don't have to. The RCMP already did, hence this thread. It was inappropriate but compared to the scandals in Mike Pearson's government, this is nothing. Lucien Revard, the Spencer affair, and the furniture bribes to three separate cabinet ministers. Trudeau made a stupid mistake and he lost his majority as a result. If the CPC had a competent leader in that election, she would had crushed Trudeau.

[Queenmandy85]

11 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Two of those four do not serve the country.  They only serve themselves.  (or quebec, i suppose).

 

(Canada includes Quebec and Alberta)

Every member of Parliament, from the House of Commons and the Other Place, serve this country, in spite of abuse and threats from the people whom they serve. 

Edited July 3, 2023 by Queenmandy85

[CdnFox]

18 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

I don't have to. The RCMP already did, hence this thread.

The RCMP looked into whether or not it's illegal to pressure someone to do something illegal?

I don't think they did. I think their investigation already ASSUMED that was illegal and they were trying to find out if it happened.

Unfortunately parliamentary privileged means nobody has to comment or turn over evidence

But you probably should have looked that up before opening your mouth and looking less educated.

But hey - maybe i'm wrong. You go post where the rcmp decided that pressuring the Justice to do something illegal isn't a crime.

17 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

(Canada includes Quebec and Alberta)

Every member of Parliament, from the House of Commons and the Other Place, serve this country, in spite of abuse and threats from the people whom they serve. 

Nope.  Many do not. They serve their own interests and their quest for power is NOT for the benefit of the country.  Sorry to burst your bubble.

[Queenmandy85]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

But hey - maybe i'm wrong. You go post where the rcmp decided that pressuring the Justice to do something illegal isn't a crime.

It's been a long time since I looked at the criminal code. You probably are right. Do you have a section I could look at? With the former AG's recordings, I wouldn't think there was anything left to investigate. That people in the PMO and others asked a number of times isn't in dispute. If threatening to have her fired is illegal, I would be surprised. I received those kinds of threats on occasion, including from a mountie and a couple of people in management. If you would rather cling to your job over doing your duty, you don't deserve the job. 

However, like me, the threats made against the AG were empty. 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

It's been a long time since I looked at the criminal code. You probably are right.

I usually am. But honestly it should have been pretty obvious. The police don't launch official criminal investigations on a whim. They have to suspect a crime may have been committed. If there's no crime then why investigate.  So it should have been a clue that there's a corresponding criminal code violation which they felt might apply.

As to the code there's a few that could apply depending on what you think he might be guilty of. But before i went there i'd review the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions act.  That is the law that Harper brought in after the sponsorship scandal to prevent EXACTLY this kind of thing from happening.

Liberals used to interfere on behalf of their friends all the time. Harper brougth this in to stop that.  The libs were demanding raybold break the law and find a way around it to help their buddies. So understanding it would go a long way to aiding your other research.

Here - i'll throw you a bone. You can start with this. Next time do  your own homework.

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/d-2.5/page-1.html

 

[Queenmandy85]

10 hours ago, CdnFox said:

The libs were demanding raybold break the law and find a way around

A deferred prosecution is legal. It may be granted at the discretion of the Crown Prosecutor. As to the push by the PMO to facilitate a deferred prosecution, the ethics commissioner dealt with that, as did the voters. If the CPC had their act together, if they had a credible leader, the punishment delivered by the voters would have been decisive. The actions by the PM showed poor judgement, but did not meet the threshold of criminality. The primary political role of any Canadian government is to create and preserve jobs. The "buddies" the government were trying to help were those 6000 emplyees who were at risk through no fault of their own.

That being said, the "scandals" by the government pale to insignificance compared to actual scandals of the past. On balance, the government has performed fairly well, particularly on the NAFTA and Pandemic files. The climate response has been weak, but with an electorate woefully ignorant of what is coming, the government is doing what it can. The education of Canadians has been a disaster over the last 45 years with regard to the greenhouse effect. 

I am confident Mr. Poilievre will win a minority in the next election, but unless he does an about face, his term in office will be brief and unproductive. 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

A deferred prosecution is legal. It may be granted at the discretion of the Crown Prosecutor.

The prosecutor already said no.  What Justin wanted was for Raybold to override the prosecutor without publishing it.

And after she said no it's not legal to proceed based on this and this they kept pressuring her - in the tape she's very clear "I've told you this can't be legally done"  and they STILL keep asking her to do it, suggesting her career is in trouble if she doesn't.

As to the rest, The current scandals are some of the worst we've seen in Canadian history. Period.  This gov't has been an unmitigated disaster.  We have DOUBLED the entire amount of money borrowed in the last 150 years. Every dollar borrowed by a prime minister - trudeau has borrowed more than them all together.  And MOST of it was NOT covid related.  And it's continuing.

Canadians are more divided than ever before. And that's getting worse too. That's what happens when your prime minister focuses on pulling people apart instead of bringing them together.  He literally called a significant hunk of the population misogynists and bigots because they disagreed, and said they were a waste of space and shouldn't be tolerated. And that's just a start.

Affordablility is the worst it's been in many many decades, people's real income is shrinking, our debt to gdp is rocketing up, the world banks are predicting canada will lag behind all the other first nations countries for the next FOURTY YEARS,  We're a laughing stock on the world stage and our trade deals have shrunk not expanded under trudeau. Investment in Canada is down, we barely have a military at all to speak of, inflation is the highest it's been in many decades and far higher than it needed to be, interest rates are driving people out of their homes and making ilfe unaffordable.  We can't run our passport offices or our airports better than a 3rd world country would. And medical services across canada are failing due to the gov't choking off funds.

Oh - and after going DOWN during harper's time, carbon pollution is way up.

By almost any metric Justin is the WORST prime minister in history.

[Queenmandy85]

5 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

And after she said no it's not legal to proceed based on this and this they kept pressuring her - in the tape she's very clear "I've told you this can't be legally done"  and they STILL keep asking her to do it, suggesting her career is in trouble if she doesn't.

Clearly, her career wasn't in trouble. She remained in cabinet.

 

6 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

As to the rest, The current scandals are some of the worst we've seen in Canadian history.

Worse than the Customs scandal, the Spencer affair, the Rivard scandal, the furniture scandals? You have an odd perspective on what constitutes a scandal.

 

9 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

He literally called a significant hunk of the population misogynists and bigots

They were a tiny minority of thugs threatening a coup if they didn't get their way. They included separatists and anti-vaxxers at a time when thousands of people were dying.

 

 

[CdnFox]

11 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Clearly, her career wasn't in trouble. She remained in cabinet.

Ahhhh no.  No, she did not.  She was punted from cabinet and then the party.

Quote

Worse than the Customs scandal, the Spencer affair, the Rivard scandal, the furniture scandals? You have an odd perspective on what constitutes a scandal.

I think you're the one with the odd sense of 'scandal'.  The only one that comes close was the sponsorship scandal. 
Stuff like the customs scandal doesn't even come close.  He's taken money and interference from a foreign gov't to win elelctions knowing it was happening.  He's tried to illegally interfere with the justice system.  He's taken bribes and been caught at it. And that's not the complete list.

Quote

They were a tiny minority of thugs threatening a coup if they didn't get their way. They included separatists and anti-vaxxers at a time when thousands of people were dying.

Well no. None of that is true.

These comments were BEFORE the convoy was ever a thing.  So no excuse there.

And it was painfully clear that the protesters didn't want to take over the country.

And the actual number of deaths FROM covid were dropping to next to nothing. Restrictions were being lifted everywhere else.

You should be a little more careful with what you say. A LOT of your comments are turning out to be very inaccurate, like claiming he said that after the convoy instead of before, etc etc.

Anyone can make a mistake but your'e going to wind up with a reputation for being a very dishonest person if it keeps going like that.

 

[Queenmandy85]

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Stuff like the customs scandal doesn't even come close.

Sorry, but how is the customs scandal not worse? It triggered the events that brought down the government. How is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister offering a bribe to the lawyer representing the US to not oppose bail for Lucien Rivard not far worse? How is the Furniture Scandal where three Cabinet Ministers took bribes from other mafia not a worse scandal? 

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

He's taken bribes and been caught at it.

You will have to elaborate on that. 

 

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

These comments were BEFORE the convoy was ever a thing.

My apologies. To whom were those comments directed and when?   I assumed that was the group those comments were directed at. 

I am not a supporter of the Prime Minister and his response to the SNC Lavilin affair certainly tarnished him in my eyes. But it is important to keep things in perspective. He has performed well on the files I mentioned earlier. With the possible exception of Mr. O'Toole, whom I did support, the CPC seems intent on electing leaders who are not a good fit for the position of Prime Minister.

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

And it was painfully clear that the protesters didn't want to take over the country.

They certainly wanted to overturn the Public Health orders put in place by the Provincial and Federal governments,  and it was on the heels of the Jan.6 catastrophe in the US. As it was, they were allowed to harrass and disrupt the capital for several weeks. Their point was made by the time they were removed.

As a Conservative, I have no party in Parliament. My choices for party are Grit, Socred, NDP or Green. That is not an appetizing prospect. I do have a very good person as an MP. My problem is he belongs to a party that I am struggling to accept, given their leader's performance.

I appreciate your calling out my mistakes. 

Edited July 4, 2023 by Queenmandy85
Spell Check doesn't speak my language.

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Quote

Sorry, but how is the customs scandal not worse? It triggered the events that brought down the government.

the response is not a gauge of the severity of the crime.  The gov't was not brought down over the sponsorship scandal for example, and that was truly horrible. Literally brown evelopes of cash changing hands.

The problem is that in the past voters were willing to bring down bad gov'ts and parties knew when people should resign, Now they just stay in power and the liberal voters forgive them, Liberals are VERY corruption resistant as long as it's "their" party doing it.

Quote

You will have to elaborate on that. 

Really.  You didn't hear of the aga kahn scandal.  You didn't hear that the ethics commissioner found it was a violation and a bribe.  You didn't hear the RCMP found a crime had been committed but didn't pursue it because it was unclear if the prime minister could give himself permission to commit that crime. 

All news to you is it? Completely shocked to hear about any of this? Haven't opened a news paper in 7 years perhaps?

Your game seems to be whenever anyone brings up anything including the very obvious you act surprised and demand that they hand feed you proof which you then blow off.  That's known as 'sealioning'.  I'll let you look it up on your own, dont' bother asking for it.

Its obvious you DO support trudeau, that's a few too many 'accidental' lapses in his favor to be just coincidence. It's a shame - it would be nice to see a few left leaning posters around here who were honest. But it's becoming pretty evident that you're being a dishonest poster.

[Queenmandy85]

You gauge leaders by a left vs. right measure. I gauge them by their administrative ability. I've lived under BC. Socreds and New Democrats, Saskatchewan Progressive Conservatives and New Democrats and now the Sask Party. After all these decades, I have come to the conclusion the Party name and ideology has no bearing on administrative ability or honesty. The worst governments I've lived under were led by W.A.C. Bennett and Glen Clark. The best were Roy Romanow (probably because he was one of the few people who called me "Sir.") 

All of the Federal Governments in my lifetime were competent, but the governments of King, and Pearson were scandalous. I think Mike Pearson's government holds the record for the sheer volume of corruption. Visiting the leader of one of the world's great religions doesn't seem to be on that level. If a Prime Minister visited the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Pope, and stayed in their residence, would that be on the same level as a Prime Minister's Parliamentary Secretary offering the lawyer representing the US government $50,000 to not oppose bail for a mafia hitman? The Prime Minister's trip resulted in a finding of a violation of ethics. 

The complaints of Prime Minister Trudeau's breeches of ethics seem to come from a hatred of the person, not the performance of governance. His contraventions demonstrate poor judgement, but are decidedly penny-anti next to a Customs Minister who is part of a smuggling ring. "He was protectionist by day and a free trader by night."

Gotta go. Y&R is coming on. Cheers