— Feature, Musings —03.06.2019 12:17 PM
#LavScam: my morning in tweets
I was on the mighty Newstalk 1010 all morning. Just finished. My quick take, in 240 characters or less:
HE ROLLS HIS EYES. The Liberal chair of the committee has just launched a million #CPC and #NDP attack ads. #LAVscam #CDNpoli https://t.co/pu1Ty7dUS4
— Warren Kinsella (@kinsellawarren) March 6, 2019
All you need to know: they are refusing to let @Puglaas speak to Butts’ claims. The coverup continues. pic.twitter.com/4CcM7pgbmh
— Warren Kinsella (@kinsellawarren) March 6, 2019
Trudeau: not a lawyer. Butts: not a lawyer. Telford: not a lawyer. Wernick: not a lawyer. But these non-lawyers figures they knew the law better than @Puglaas, her Deputy Minister, and her Chief of Staff. WHO ARE ALL LAWYERS. #LavScam #cdnpoli
— Warren Kinsella (@kinsellawarren) March 6, 2019
He’s surprised that @Puglaas wouldn’t want to be ghettoized in a department overseeing the Indian Act – when the #LPC itself has called for the Indian Act to be repealed? #LavScam #cdnpoli
— Warren Kinsella (@kinsellawarren) March 6, 2019
He says he hasn’t spoken to anyone in PMO. Then he says someone in PMO “went through my calendar.” A minute later. #LavScam #CDNpoli
— Warren Kinsella (@kinsellawarren) March 6, 2019
Why can Butts talk about the post-shuffle period – but @Puglaas is gagged from doing so? @lraitt @nathancullen @MurrayRankin #LavScam #Cdnpoli
— Warren Kinsella (@kinsellawarren) March 6, 2019
HOW DOES HE HAVE TEXTS/EMAILS FEOM MINISTERS AFTER HAVING HIS DEVICES AND LAPTOP SEIZED? #LavScam #cdnpoli
— Warren Kinsella (@kinsellawarren) March 6, 2019
Reference six! “9,000 jobs” again! #Cdnpoli #LavScam
— Warren Kinsella (@kinsellawarren) March 6, 2019
“Obligation to inform the Prime Minister.” She did, repeatedly. Including with his staff, many times, between September and December 2018. #cdnpoli #LavScam
— Warren Kinsella (@kinsellawarren) March 6, 2019
No means no. In real life, and in government too. Or should. #LavScam #cdnpoli
— Warren Kinsella (@kinsellawarren) March 6, 2019
the Mafia and the Hells Angels create lots of jobs, so they are entitled to differed prosecution.
True, this. Supposedly the Hells Angels own a large construction company in the Fraser Valley that was created for the sole purpose of laundering money. They employ a lot of people.
I wonder if they should get a DPA if ever charged, because jobs.
I don’t know if I want to know the answer to this one.
Breaking news: lawyers are consistently holding back productive public policy beyond the scope of this car accident. Lawyers are the ones saying “Yeah, but no! Too risky to fix reserve tap water! Leave it to us professionals to collect a commission in lieu of actual solutions, my boss is 64 and isn’t interested in x or y.” In short, Lawyers are the reason politicians are so disappointing. And it’s the millennials who dodged the curse of legal accountancy that will put a quota on the number of lawyers in public office. In the name of diversity. Diversity based on the content of our character which insistently correlates well with ethnic and gender diversity.
With the exception of Housefather, he’s cool.
Mic-drop
So, they not lawyers wanted the opinion of a “jurist” to settle the matter because this was “new law”. Who was going to select this “jurist”. Was he/she going to be non-partisan? How does one determine that?
I think JWR was correct this was a matter of rule of law not partisan decision making. Unless, they were planning to take this to the Supreme Court to decide? Likely not!
Wasn’t JWR herself the one who drafted the DPA law in the first place – or at least had her department draft it?
I mean, she *was* the Minister of Justice, right?
I would expect her to be absolutely aware of every aspect of it. Who could possibly give her more advice on a law that was drafted under her own watch?
Prosecutorial independence is NOT new law. JWR was agnostic on remediation agreements. She was not agnostic on the government of the day directing an independent prosecutor to take a particular action or to take the case away from an independent prosecutor.
She did not think it was appropriate to the AG to make a directive is a particular criminal case. It really had nothing to do with the wisdom of remediation agreements.
Please tell me someone asked him why he chose not to testify under oath.
I couldn’t get past all the Samuel Johnson BS in his opening statement:
Save the the Climate.
Check.
Save the (Quebec) jobs.
Check.
I am a patriot!
Such a predictable playbook. Michael Cohen employed it too.
As a side note, I very much liked Elizabeth May’s question about *how* they “knew” that SNC-Lavalin would be in trouble if prosecuted, when the company’s own reports indicate otherwise.
Sort of blows the “but jobs!” line of argument out of the water.
And in a follow-up question to Wernick, she gets him to state that the only body to do an actual analysis of the economic impact was – the Ministry of Justice!
And yet they insisted that JWR needed more information from *them* in order to make a decision.
And now in the post-committee scrum, she’s really emphasizing that point – when SNC-Lavalin leaned on the Trudeau Liberals, they jumped, without bothering to verify their dire claims independently.
And now she’s sweetly pointing out that logically, they should just have promoted Joyce Murray to the Treasury Board position without moving JWR or Jane Philpott – *if* they weren’t actually trying to bump JWR out so Lametti could grant a DPA as ordered, that is. Which of course she doesn’t think was the real reason.
I can’t tell whether she’s sincere about that last bit. But that’s part of the charm. ^_^
Words fail me. They’re done.
In a nutshell: “she’s lying, I’m telling the truth. She was never demoted for not doing what she was told to do even though it looked like it, and, after she stewed about it (like women will do) she made up story’s about 11 people who pressed and bullied her”.
He called JWR a liar all the while saying they were friends and he has respect for her, god help his enemy’s.
If everybody needs a two-second-long shot that can be repeatedly endlessly which proves how the Liberal-dominated Justice Committee hearing the SNC-Lavalin is nothing but a “Kangaroo Court”, watch Committee Chair Anthony Housefather’s eyes roll after Mike Barrett requests that Jody Wilson-Reybould make a return appearance before the Committee “in the interest of justice”.
This is supposed to be the lead up to a statement of contrition? Doubling down on she lied or experienced it differently and good jobs?
Somebody put this govt out of its misery already.
So now Liberal supporters on Twitter are making a big deal out of Drouin’s testimony that JWR asked her to sit on an impact report rather than send it on to the PCO.
If it’s true – and it seems JWR won’t be allowed to address it, at least not in the committee – is that significant?
Here come the reinforcements:
Bob Hepburn, Toronto Star: [I’m not linking to fake news – Warren]
heh, heh, good one
Justin Trudeau, Gerald Butts& Michael Wernick; Canada is being led by a triumvirate of gaslighting, narcissistic sociopaths. Boy, do we all need to escape from the abusive relationship before we all are driven crazy…
The press is putting out friendly articles, cabinet members are out on defense and now Trudeau will address it all tomorrow. if JWR doesn’t get her last bit of rebuttal in here right away (especially about the shuffle and events around it), the libs will sweep this all under the rug.
She cant be disbarred anymore, so why not break cabinet confidentiality. Butts did.
not1st,
JWR is not going to risk her right to readmission at The Law Society of British Columbia.
https://blog.338canada.com/
The polls are stalling out and reversing. This wont play until October. Something else needs to drop.
Perhaps if the Liberals go ahead and try to give SNC-Lavalin that DPA… as there have already been several signals they intend to do.
The problem with Butts hearing is that he has already been established as an operator…
Shockingly, from a persuasion stand point, his testimony was not very memorable, nor compelling. What images do we have? Scruffy looking guy, it was about what he didn’t get; a formal letter from JWR, that this all happened after the demotion. He talked about what didn’t happen, the characterizations have fallen flat.