, 02.16.2019 10:11 AM

#LavScam poll: which Trudeau Liberal excuse is the worst?

We do these Highly-Scientific™ Polls for fun, generally.  But you want to know something that is sad – that is maddening and pathetic and repellant, too?

All of the quotes found in the poll below are real.  They are actual statements made by Justin Trudeau or his fart-ctachers.  They said those things.

As I always remind you, gentle reader, that hoary old Watergate-era maxim is as true now as it was then: it’s  never the break-in, it’s always the cover-up.  And the cover-up of #LavScam is in full effect. You only have to have watched that abortion of justice, at this week’s “Justice” Committee, to see it on display, in real time.

But it isn’t working.  The Trudeau Party – because they’re not the Liberal Party, to many of us – have dropped five percentage points in a week.  Another Liberal MP retired yesterday, and another one the day before that.  I am hearing from Grits, all over, and they are disgusted by the racist, sexist, almost-certainly-illegal way in which Trudeau’s party dealt with Jody.  And they plan to donate no time or money to the 2019 election effort – or even vote for another party.

Anyway.  Here’s the poll.  It’s funny and sad.  Funny, because Trudeau has overseen the worst crisis communications effort since Watergate.

Sad, because all of these things were actually said.


  1. Dave Bainard says:

    Warren has seen the light.

  2. Paul Cook says:

    Mr. Dress Up is a complete imbecile. My old chairman used to say “ eat crow while its young” because as time goes on it’s start to taste awful.
    Your idiot PM obviously does not get it and his massive ego has blocked the few brain cells he has from functioning.
    It is hard to believe someone can be so selfserving and stupid.
    Hang on Me. Dress Up as the Titanic is sinking.

    • Terence Quinn says:

      The “idiot” PM is YOUR PM if you are Canadian. Is it self serving when the objective is to save innocent peoples’ jobs. Is it self serving when the principle conspirators have already been charged criminally? Is it self serving when the EDC could be out billions because Harper approved those guarantees back in 2011 and 2012 after the Company had already been charged and acknowledged the illegal stuff. Maybe, just maybe, YOUR PM is much smarter than you.

      • Ronald O'Dowd says:


        You know better than yours truly that economic considerations, such as maintaining jobs, are entirely foreign to DPA eligibility criteria. In other words, a valid DPA cannot be negotiated if solely based on that consideration.

        You raise the issue of individuals having already been criminally charged. Fair point. But does that in any way reflect the corporate accountability that many Canadians expect under such circumstances? I leave it to readers to judge.

        As to commenting on EDC, I will concede the point as analysis of same is way beyond my pay grade.

        In short, the PMO needs to release publicly other DPA eligibility conditions applicable to this proposed agreement.

  3. Jim Keegan says:

    I voted “Scott Brison” but I wish there had been an “All of the above” option.

    • Fred from BC says:

      I picked “indigenous and female”, because those are two old liberal favorites when it comes to bullying people into silence. Seems to be a popular choice (#2 right now?).

  4. Ronald O'Dowd says:

    Can’t cloak by using excuse of sollicitor-client privilege, though technically correct. Release would prompt competiting versions and drawing of conclusions not necessarily in one party’s best interest. It might be an iceberg, with much of it still under water. And then there’s Canadians likely siding with the aggrieved. That’s why this has legs in spades.

  5. Vancouverois says:

    How can I pick just one? They’re all so uniquely terrible in their own wa.

  6. Vancouverois says:

    I find that Andrew Coyne makes some VERY interesting points in his most recent article:


    If he’s correct, then there was never any decision for JWR to make at all – the Director of Public Prosecutions had already made it, based on the requirements set out in the law the Liberals themselves had just enacted.

    Any discussions would have been not of whether the AG should instruct the DPP to use the law; but whether the AG should instruct the DPP to *contravene* the law.

    This just keeps getting dirtier and dirtier.

    • Vancouverois says:

      And here’s a similar story in La Presse:


      It seems that while Trudeau did sneak the DPA provision into an omnibus bill on behalf of his SNC-Lavalin buddies, it used phrasing (presumably based on similar existing provisions in the US and UK) that still leaves SNC-Lavalin ineligible for one.

      Not only is this slimy beyond belief, it’s also *incompetent* beyond belief. They’ve basically scotched their credibility without even achieving their objective.

      • Vancouverois says:

        Or… is this the *real* reason they’re so mad at JWR – she managed to slip in the relevant clauses without their noticing!

      • Terence Quinn says:

        Is justice served when 10,000 employees have to suffer for a few crooked FORMER leaders of the Company who are mostly under criminal charges. I thank this government for being so observant of the real issue in this file. There is no scandal in saving innocent people from things they did not cause to happen.

        • Vancouverois says:

          Garbage. Total garbage. This excuse just doesn’t fly.


          As it turns out, at least some of the ‘former’ leaders seem to be getting away with it anyway; but even if they weren’t, punishing the company as it deserves under the law would hardly be a catastrophe. It would result in some short-term dislocation – like other layoffs do – but in the end it would simply mean that SNC-Lavalin employees would eventually be hired by other, more honest companies. And those more honest companies would be getting the contracts that SNC Lavalin so dishonestly obtained through bribery.

          The claim that companies and PMO staffers should be entitled to ignore ethics laws so long as they claim they’re saving jobs is despicable. It’s a weak and transparent attempt to justify the unjustifiable. If you’re going to go that route, why have any ethics laws at all?

        • doconnor says:

          Criminal charges against companies never made sense to me. Company’s punishment should go though civil courts. They should focus criminal charges against the executive decision makers. That would be far more just and a better deterrent.

        • Fred from BC says:

          That’s your second attempt to divert attention away from this scandal by bringing up a totally unrelated issue from the past, and your second failure. This one isn’t going away no matter how much diversion and obfuscation you throw at it, sorry. Trudeau is now badly damaged, and how he handles this from now on will determine whether that damage is irreparable or not. I suspect that it’s too late, but you can never tell for certain…

  7. the salamander says:

    .. Brison for the win, all the way !

    Ms Marie Henein re Client, Ex Commander Norman
    is all over Ministry of Justice & Treasury Department
    re suppresion of ‘Discovery’ documents to defense
    Some 135 thousand such docs exist ?
    Brison has not even been asked
    to review his computers, docs & emails etc
    re stalled, on hold procurement of naval ship
    via Davie Shipyard in Montreal & possibly
    he favored Irving Shipyard in New Brunswick

    Brison suddenly to spend more time with family
    Even as suddenly, now accepts new job
    with Bank of Montreal..
    Who was Justice Minister & Attorney General ?

  8. You missed one : “I do not feel that I acted inappropriately in any way. But I respect the fact that someone else might have experienced that differently.”

  9. M Doomfield says:

    29 June 2017

    “He’s doing the right things. No scandals of significance – no real scandals, even. The Aga Khan saga? Elbowgate? Cash for access? He’s got luck to spare. He’s hard to hate. Lloyd Dobler of politics: like that immortal character in the 1989 movie Say Anything, Trudeau is the guy in high school who gets invited to every party, breaks up fights and makes sure no one drives home drunk. He isn’t a straight-A student or the valedictorian, but that’s also why you don’t hate him. He’s likable.”

    Sound familiar? The 6,943,276 who supported this regime – you’re in the top 1,000 – are going to pay for this criminal conspiracy. No disavowals can save you.

  10. Robert Collinge says:

    Throughout this tragic circus, the possible reality I fear is that the Trudeau party will be elected to power again..

  11. Terence Quinn says:

    Why is she now saying she will run again under the Trudeau banner?

    • Vancouverois says:

      Her sister Kory has said that JWR run again for MP. I don’t believe she’s said explicitly that she’ll necessarily be running for the Liberals…

    • whyshouldIsellyourwheat says:

      She did not say that exactly. She is daring the Liberal caucus to kick her out, and for Trudeau and Butts to deny her the Liberal nomination, IMHO.

      By not going “quietly” at each step, she forces Trudeau’s and Butt’s hands to act over and over again contrary to what they profess to stand for.

      She is making them did their own graves.

      • Ronald O'Dowd says:



        You are one hell of a strategist. My compliments and admiration.

      • Ronald O'Dowd says:

        But do you agree that it’s also risky for her if she is playing for all the marbles in the long game? Both truth and truly honourable intentions, for the good of the country, HAVE to be on her side, otherwise a possible future leadership bid will be for naught.

        Put in a British context: she has to eventually be seen by caucus and the membership as our Churchill crying out in the political wilderness while her party’s Chamberlain bungles it day in and day out.

      • Vancouverois says:

        So is she waiting for them to say the same thing about her staying in caucus that they said about her staying in Cabinet – that it’s proof everything is okay? Because it seems to me that her staying in the party can be construed in exactly the same way.

        Surely if the Liberal party leadership is corrupt, she should leave the Liberal party?

  12. Joseph says:

    Warren I would be interested in your opinion on how your old boss would have handled SNC lobbying for a DPA.

  13. Derek Pearce says:

    He’s going to lose the election. Fascinating. Burned bright but fast, burned out too quick. PMO thought they could use his being handsome and being not-Harper to last more than 4 years. Assisted dying and legalizing pot were good but other than that it’s been thin gruel. Oh well I’ll get to hate the Conservatives for another 4 years and we’ll see what happens.

  14. David T. says:

    Iqra Khalid before the Justice Committee argued “in camera discussions are very normal”, to “not make political hay out of this”, and that seeking a robust investigation of PMO / SNC-Lavalin “amounts to bullying”. Trudeau, Butts, Khalid, et al. – victims of natives and nativists, you understand. This is the central cleavage: totalitarian Trudeauites versus those that can’t accept mafia tactics and Liberal thuggery. The gloss of sensitive, sunny ways has worn away. Underneath, a strange variant of fascism. We are in the shit. One should have no illusions.

    • Vancouverois says:

      They say that they usually come up with witness lists in camera? Very well. We’ll see what happens on Tuesday, when the committee reconvenes.

      If JWR and Butts are not added to the list, well…

    • gpb says:

      Nathan Cullen came back at little, innocent Iqra is a very robust rebuttal. My esteem for the man has risen, greatly.

  15. Ronald O'Dowd says:

    It’s no longer recoverable. He could fire half of PMO and they would still be done electorally. Once this turned into Twin Peaks, that finished them off politically under his leadership.

    A bit like Derek said, there were so many future progressive possibilities and now all that has been needlessly squandered just because Trudeau couldn’t fire his friends and be quick about it.

  16. Hugh Grant says:

    At this stage, given the stream of lies and half truths, an independent investigation is required, open/transparent, as Trudeau has demonstrated he is unwilling to release the whole truth

    This is no longer the Liberal Party of Chretien or Martin

  17. Hugh Grant says:

    At this stage an independent investigation is required.
    The stream of lies and half truths coming from Trudeau have left us all with justifiable suspicions.

    This is not the Liberal Party of Chretien and Martin

  18. Rob says:

    They were trying to pervert the course of a criminal prosecution for corruption. In this case I would say the break in is as bad or worse than the cover up.

    The Watergate comparison is apt, though….other than this is much, much, much worse than a third rate burglary.

Leave a Reply

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