02.08.2019 03:03 PM

#LavScam Twitter thread

…one of my first ever!


15 Comments

  1. Matt says:

    It seems the PMO, knowing full well Wilson-Raybould is bound by privilege and can’t say anything, is now trying to claim it was all her idea and Butts told her to go see the clerk of the privy council.

    Butts character assassination of Wilson-Raybould has begun in an effort to save his own ass.

    And yes, Scheer is playing this fairly well so far.

    Singh on the other hand is asking for an ethics investigation. Yeah brilliant plan. A guilty finding in an ethics investigation is a max $500 fine.

    • Fred from BC says:

      Never thought that I’d feel much sympathy for her, but I’m beginning to realize what a tough spot she is now in. She could leverage this for personal/political gain, but by doing so she betrays her Prime Minister and the Liberal party; by *not* doing so, she risks the public turning on her for being seen as part of a coverup. Right now she’s being viewed as an honest politician for trying to do the right thing instead of the (usual) politically expedient thing…but that perception can’t last long, can it?

      Catch 22, for sure.

    • cN47 says:

      I’m just not buying the former Canadian minister of Justice’s claim that truth is protected by lawyer-client privilege. Clients don’t have a right to actively attempt to involve a lawyer in a crime and then expect confidentiality.

      Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney%E2%80%93client_privilege#Disclosure_in_case_of_a_crime,_tort,_or_fraud

      http://www.cba.org/Publications-Resources/Practice-Tools/Ethics-and-Professional-Responsibility-(1)/Solicitor-Client-Privilege/FAQs

      • The Doctor says:

        The law of privilege is incredibly complex, believe me. If you want a proper analysis of this one, talk to a lawyer who actually knows the relevant Canadian law of privilege.

        • cN47 says:

          I doubt the law was ever intended to prevent a lawyer from coming forward if she’s the victim of a crime. I’m not convinced that’s the case here, but it definitely seems like I’m supposed to believe it is.

        • cN47 says:

          Alternatively: “Where the government is clearly acting unlawfully, i.e., refusing advice of clear unconstitutionality or attempting to interfere with the attorney general’s prosecutorial discretion, such a disclosure could arguably be an ethical obligation instead of an ethical violation. That is, the two situations that arguably require an attorney general’s resignation are the situations in which disclosing the reasons for resignation is most defensible. Nonetheless, presumably the attorney general would, as with other exceptions to confidentiality, be required to disclose only as much information as necessary. A corresponding exception could be recognized to solicitor-client privilege. Arguably, a third situation also makes disclosure defensible: where the attorney general feels it necessary, as a lawyer, to disassociate himself from the actions of the prime minister or Cabinet that threaten public confidence in the administration of justice.”

          https://commons.allard.ubc.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1449&context=fac_pubs

  2. Sean says:

    Its hard to believe that Justin ever *directed* anyone …to do anything… ever… on any file.

    • Matt says:

      Don’t get drawn into Trudeau’s weasel words.

      The original story never mentioned anything about Trudeau “directing” anyone to do anything.

      It said the PMO pressured Wilson-Raybould to interfere in a criminal prosecution.

    • barn E. rubble says:

      RE: Sean says:
      “Its hard to believe that Justin ever *directed* anyone …to do anything… ever… on any file.”

      Ignorance is bliss . . . sad really, when you think about it.

  3. Sam White says:

    I’ll check this thread out later over a beer or two.

    In the meantime, if parody is your thing you should check out Laurentian News Service. It’s hilarious along the lines of the DPRK account.

    At least I think it’s parody.

  4. Committee is about the only option available.

    What government would call for an inquiry into its own alleged actions? They could pull an Oliphant, à la Johnston-Terms-Of-Reference but that would likely quickly blow up in their face.

  5. Luke says:

    Preposterous prediction: Wilson-Raybould and other choice Liberals (Philpott!) jump ship and join the Green Party. Then an asteroid hits the Earth and we’re all dead.

  6. Walter says:

    I am not sure why Warren says that Trudeau would not waive solicitor-client privileged.
    Harper waived this in the Duffy investigation, and in the Vice Admiral Norman investigation, and it’s been reported for 3+ years now on how open and honest of a government Trudeau has been running 🙂 .
    Why would we not expect the same from Trudeau?

Leave a Reply

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


*