, 02.20.2019 06:27 AM

BOOM: #LavScam shocker – Trudeau personally implicated in bid to pressure prosecutors

If Butts had to resign because of what was said in his meeting with Jody Wilson-Raybould – does Trudeau have to resign now, too?

That’s what the Opposition will be demanding to know today. QP is going to be historic.

From the Globe:

Federal prosecutors had already rejected a settlement with SNC-Lavalin Group Inc. nearly two weeks before Prime Minister Justin Trudeau spoke with then-attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould about the matter last fall.

Court documents obtained by The Globe and Mail show that Kathleen Roussel, director of public prosecutions, had informed SNC-Lavalin on Sept. 4 that she intended to proceed with a prosecution on bribery and fraud charges against the Montreal-based engineering giant stemming from its business dealings in Libya.

Mr. Trudeau has repeatedly said he told Ms. Wilson-Raybould in a Sept. 17 conversation that the decision on the SNC-Lavalin prosecution was hers alone to make, but that concerns were raised about the economic impact of a conviction.

Until now, publicly available information had indicated that the Prime Minister spoke to Ms. Wilson-Raybould before prosecutors made their decision, announced by SNC on Oct. 10. In fact, they spoke two weeks after the Sept. 4 decision, when the only remaining question was whether Ms. Wilson-Raybould would publicly instruct prosecutors to instead cut a deal.

29 Comments

  1. the salamander says:

    .. ‘the only remaining question was whether Ms Wilson-Reybould would publicly instruct prosecuters to instead cut a deal’

    Seems such an odd inclusion or conclusion.. or just more ‘term salad’ ? Is that a formal or legal stage or option under Criminal Law. ‘cut a deal’ ? Is there flexibility or negotiation build into Criminal Law, perhaps via the new amendment Ms Wilson-Reybould introduced – which was then passed into law ? My understanding is she was the author or engineer of the amendment, so she could hardly be unaware of the scope.. & surely the PM, Privy Council & PMO would have been highly intergral to such a legal initiative & examined & aided the evolution of such a specific amendment. Also, was the 10 year bidding exclusion ‘written in stone’ or was there wiggle room in case of a guilty finding? Or was this one of those things that wanders through appeal processes before years down the road, perhaps under a different Government, a different political Party.. you know.. like the same Party but wearing different sweaters.. would have to ‘cut a deal’ on it per Supreme Court..

    • barn E. rubble says:

      RE: the salamander says:
      “. . .My understanding is she was the author or engineer of the amendment, so she could hardly be unaware of the scope. . .”

      Perhaps our host can confirm that the DPA law, as it stands, could not be used in the SNC-Lavalin case?

      • Warren says:

        It can. But the economic argument can’t be used. And that’s what PMO was doing.

        • Mervyn Norton says:

          While “economic impacts” defined most broadly as a “national economic interest” are not to be considered, there is recognition that one public interest purpose is “to reduce the negative consequences of the wrongdoing for persons — employees, customers, pensioners and others — who did not engage in the wrongdoing….” These are more specific economic impacts.

  2. Groovy says:

    Have we ever been this close to the top dog with something this serious?

    The Duffy thing was dramatic and all but small potatoes compared to criminal obstruction.

  3. Chad says:

    Salamander! You seem to get this perfectly! Justin Trudeau has thrown the integrity of our entire legal system under the bus! Are we better than the Chinese or not? I guess now we’re not sure!!

    • Mike Jeffries says:

      “better than the “Chinese”?
      “The Liberal leader was asked which nation he admired most. He responded: “There’s a level of admiration I actually have for China. Their basic dictatorship is actually allowing them to turn their economy around on a dime.”
      Yes, was that the method behind his madness to aid the economy the way the Chinese do it???

  4. MAtt says:

    So, Trudeau himself is now personally implicated in the (alleged) attempted obstruction of justice, no?

  5. Ronald O'Dowd says:

    It got a lot worse for them what with the alleged DPA legal opinion request on PMO letterhead and now THIS.

    It feels like attending an impending crucifixion. Utter panic and complete disarray ahead.

  6. Steve Forbes says:

    I fear the whole crew is gonna skate on this Warren. Especially since my understanding is that the Mounties can only be called in to investigate at the behest of the government. Public opinion and political damage will no doubt occur, but is you sense that that will be the extent of this? As always, look forward to your thoughts. Thanks.

  7. Will Purcell says:

    For the most part, I just lurk here, but I have to say that in my 50 years of being in and on the fringes of politics, I’ve not seen anything like this.

    I’m befuddled. Bamboozled, even.

    I have questions.

    It now seems that the media is turning “against” Jody Wilson-Raybould, suggesting that she made a deal to maintain silence in exchange for the departure of Butts.

    Warren Kinsella, among others, suggests that is not in her nature.

    Frankly, if Warren is wrong and a deal has been made, doesn’t that end badly for all concerned? Doesn’t the PM, the PMO and the Liberal insiders wear even more of the cover-up scandal, save for the part now smeared across JWR?

    And, if Warren is right? Doesn’t this look to take the PM, the PMO and the Liberal insiders farther into the abyss?

    I have one question for you pundits and war roomers, expecially those who recall the Watergate scandal and cover-up. (Breaking into a campaign office — big freaking deal.) The question is, have you ever seen anything like this, where the story changes daily, and usually from bad to worse?

    Cheers,

    Will

  8. Sam White says:

    I believe what we’re seeing now from the LPC is the “getting our story(s) straight” or if you will, “circling the wagons”

    I think a good many of them, facing the prospect of possibly not being on the government side of the house by the end of this year, have decided to do what’s necessary to avoid this. At any cost. Hence Mr Butts departure, even though, he “did nothing wrong”.

    Unfortunately, and I hope it isn’t true, I think this includes JWR.

  9. Sonnie says:

    I agree Montréalaise!

  10. Jay says:

    They have kissed and made up. They have 7 months plus 1 day to convince you it was nothing.

  11. David Smith says:

    So we have a law drafted by JWR that by its terms couldn’t apply to SNC and the PMO, JT and GB all asked her get involved to pressure prosecutors to change their mind? So essentially the prosecutors had to change a public indictment to fit DPA law despite the facts of the case? Stranger by the minute.

  12. the salamander says:

    .. watching, hearing & reading how MainMedia makes asses of themselves is fascinating.. but when I realize or catch that some of the messaging is actually attempting to lecture me on what to think & why I should ‘see it their way’, well that causes me to lead my war pony from the barn.. and look to its bridle. Being non-partisan is so advantageous kf I want to go guerrilla and get on the warpath

    Everyone knows the famous story of Stanfield fumbling the football & subsequent election.. very few know the real facts. When Peter McKay – old sack of hammers himself lurches into our living room to say something to the effect that.. ‘never in Canadian history has an unelected person wielded such political power’ .. we burst out laughing at his pompous ignorance.. We presume he never met Ray Novak.. but the panel host nodded wisely.. Holy Hell !

    Presumably the world of Our Parliament will someday soon, again spin on its axis & Andrew Scheer (you know.. the multimillionaire guy we pay for he and his middle class brood’s housing, food, cooking, laundry, transportation, security, all services & expenses.. plus his salary and pension.. ues that sour dour glass half empty guy..) will cease sucking up all the faux outrage and oxygen in the room. Jagmeet Singh (wealthy champion retail Party membership salesman) will be schooled by schoolchildren. Justin Trudeau will put the genie or Pandora back in the jar.. or simply employ Cabinet Confidence to make all kinda ‘go away’ (Harper perfected that countermeasure to transparency) .. and he’ll simply resume business as usual with Gerald Butts ‘working from home until the Norman criminal trial and election are over simultaneously’ while CTV waits & lurks to breathlessly report on what beer cans he or his wife puts out in recycling.. Maybe Party whips can be made extinct and the Phoenix non payment system can be replaced by old school chequebooks.. Gawd willing and the creek don’t flood.. Trudeau will complete the Harper initiatives to extirpate endangered species & threaten all the others.. Scheer will be far worse than either.. as if that was even possible.. and maybe tow trucks can haul the yellow vested truckers back to Alberta and bill Premier in Waiting Jason Kenney !

    Thanks to Warren.. for hosting what is probably the most informed & up to date roundtable.. especially re the criminal law aspects, the actual DPA legislation and the various scope the involved players must adhere to .. His other subsequent post to this one – from a ‘real prosecuter’ is a good example..

    We know Hope is not a good strategy.. but it may be all we have these days ..

  13. Gord Tulk says:

    President Trump is quoted as referring to habitually corrupt – habitually failing – countries in Africa and elsewhere as “$hitholes”.

    And that Justin Trudeau was “weak” and an “asshole”.

    If SNC can treat Canada no differently than Libya – escaping criminal punishment- by presumably similar means – how can anyone here or around the world disagree with the President’s descriptors “$hithole” “weak” and “a$$hole”?

    That Canadians largely are mildly agitated with all of this only provides further proof.

  14. Joseph says:

    I guess I will throw this bit out there.
    Its a total guess and made not on objective evidence, but rather on gut feeling about what I’m seeing unfold.
    So I will dispense with the word salad and spit it out.

    It appears that this has all the appearance of a caucus revolt.

  15. There’s no way in hell that JWR will do anything to risk her reputation. Nor will she put herself in legal jeopardy. That’s my sense of it.

  16. Karl-Milton Marx-Friedman says:

    Look, the fact is that SNC Lavalin has endured Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder from the uncertainty of doing business with tyrannical regimes….the sentencing is key here.

    If convicted, SNC Lavalin should get a reasonable sentence. Is what I am writing here PRESSURING YOU into thinking independently? I would expect proportionality to be a principle of our legal system. Assigning blame to an ENTIRE ORGANIZATION for particular top sales people (C-suite folks) is just inexact and un-justice. Similar to attributing all men with #MeToo perpetrators.

    After-all, Qadafi Jr completed a PhD thesis at a UK university and the dean of that school swiftly resigned because, oh, the Libyan regime was collapsing (and the extra-judicial killings reflected badly on the school). My point is that the university in question was largely uneffected.

    SNC Lavalin should be monitored closely (for its mental health) with triple oversight rather than have its assets liquidated or acquired by a foreign firm…

    • Gord Tulk says:

      So if a major oil company deliberately caused a massive oil spill should it be held fully accountable for the damage it caused or should it only pay a small fraction of it?

      How about a car manufacturer who knowingly put faulty airbags in cars or put the gas tank in a dangerous place?

      Or a gas and electricity company plays all kinds of leveraging games and schemes that illegally boost power costs and share prices should that company be allowed to get away with it?

      If SNC Lavalin management causes the company to get smaller and people lose their jobs with the company so be it.

      Think of the thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in revenues this corruption by SNC and the government have cost this country. We look like and arguably are a banana republic. Many people – including the LPC – should suffer the full consequences of their actions.

  17. Joseph says:

    A tip o the hat to Mr Kinsella for providing a forum where this issue can be freely discussed.

    What this whole scandal has exposed is the tawdry business of legislators twisting the law to favor one industry in one region and then doing the same to obstruct another in the other end of the country. The determining feature is seat count in the region effected and which party’s MP’s sit in those seats.
    Regardless of who said what and when, this picking winners and losers for partisan advantage rankles the electorate. While it may not cause a wholesale abandonment of support for the party in power, it can be honestly said that this is divisive and pits one region against another, its polarizing, and can be described as un-Canadian.
    The real detriment is that while the government is obsessed over this dumpster fire of their own creation, the other important stuff like the aluminum and steel tariffs, inter-provincial relations, immigration, dispute with Saudi Arabia, dispute with China, get neglected.
    This will not end well.

  18. Shawn Cruise says:

    Is it true thar you have been an advisor to Ms. Raybold in the last 2 years. Can you please confirm this?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*