, 04.07.2019 01:00 PM

Five things about Scheer’s #LavScam press conference today

1. He looked and sounded Prime Ministerial. Moreover, most Canadians want Trudeau gone; the election is therefore now a referendum on whether Andrew Scheer is up to the job.  Moments like these suggest he is.

2. Justin Trudeau is clearly attempting to libel chill any public discussion of Lavscam.  It won’t work.  With this SLAPP suit, the Liberal leader looks scared.

3. Trudeau has given Scheer an opportunity to re-state, and re-affirm, the criticisms that pretty much everyone has: namely, that Trudeau and his senior staff pushed for a sweetheart deal for a sleazy donor to the Liberal Party. In my opinion, they broke the law. I dare them to sue me, too.

4. Scheer’s press conference also reminds Canadians that Lavscam is about something else that is important: Justin Trudeau brutalized three amazing and accomplished women, two of whom are minorities, simply because they were whistleblowers.  He claimed to be a feminist; he claimed to be ethical; he claimed he would reconcile with indigenous people.  The principled actions of Jody Wilson-Raybould, Jane Philpott and Celina Caesar-Chavannes have shown everyone what Justin Trudeau really is, which is a hypocrite and a fucking liar.

5. Julian Porter should stick to writing coffee table books about art and wine.


  1. Agree with these five points. Time for Trudeau to resign – Bronfman will be swirling in his chair – get me CF on the phone.

  2. Nick M. says:

    I’m assuming there will be some Twitter hashtag like IDareTrudeauToSueMeForStandingUpForCanadaAsWell as a result of this?

    I await whatever the cheesy yet effective viral twitter hashtag comes out of this.

    • Troy Cleveland says:

      What’s wrong with the one you just made? I mean, it eats up characters, but hey…

    • Penelope J says:

      Trudeau standing up for Canadians?? Good one… that’s really funny. No, he made up the 9,000, wait, no 10,000 jobs while he couldn’t meet with the truck convoy represent 100,000 Canadians. You may not appreciate just how SERIOUS it is to interfere in prosecutorial procedures. it’s not just some flippant whim

  3. Lance says:

    And how will discovery work? I can’t wait to find out LOL

  4. David Murrell says:

    Lawyer Julian Porter, who sent the libel letter to Andrew Scheer, donated $1,000 to the Conservative Party, on December 28, 2017, according to Election Canada records, with Andrew Scheer as leader. Before Andrew Scheer was leader, Mr. Porter donated large sums to the Conservatives, and before 2010 he gave large sums to the federal Liberals.

    Julian Porter has a noted expertise in libel law, granted. But why would Trudeau choose a lawyer who donates to the Conservatives? A puzzle that. — David Murrell in Fredericton.

  5. Dan MacIsaac says:

    attack (someone) in a savage and violent way.
    “they brutalize and torture persons in their custody”
    synonyms: attack, abuse, assault, beat, thrash, thump, pummel, pound, batter
    “they were brutalized by their captors

    I’m a gay guy. And I have a job. The two are unrelated.
    If I was treated inappropriately and fired for shady reasons – yes – that’s a serious issue. And I’ll fight it.
    But if I chose to word it as: “As a gay man – I was brutalized by my employer”?
    No – that would be my drama queen card. That would be “playing the gay card”. That would be blowing something out of proportion through use of a fucking thesaurus. That would be unfair to people who are fired for being gay.
    I’m on your side – but the language is flat out redonkulous dude.

  6. Martin says:

    Who is giving him advice? Why would he give Scheer the opportunity to say bring the lawsuit on? What am I missing? Someone on another thread said that sometimes the explanation is just that they are that stupid. Are they THAT stupid?

    edit-keep getting some kind of captcha error-apologies if multiple posts

  7. the real Sean says:

    Scheer is far better positioned to take power than Harper was in the fall of 2005. He’s got a fistful of recent cabinet members ready to go. He doesn’t have the ridiculous baggage Harper had. He couldn’t possibly dream of a more hopeless opponent than PM Zoolander, who insists on overstaying his welcome and overplays a bad hand at every turn. A scandal not going anywhere soon + another scandal in the offing…. My guess is about 200 + Conservative Seats.

  8. Andy Amos says:

    I’m into little kids.

    I’m at Andy.Amos@protonmail.com

  9. Craig McKie says:

    JT. Is there still enough snow in Oddawa to take a walk in ? Might be better than walking the plank in the Fall.

  10. Max says:

    Tsk. Tsk.Tsk. Justin my boy, you done gone done it this time boy. You have 2 stark choices. Back it up and sue or be the bully coward that all Canadians are coming to realize you are. If you choose the former, the truth comes out. And I can’t imagine Mathieu Bouchard, Elder Marques and Katie T. want to testify under oath. We certainly know you don’t. Randy “Out for Justice” Boisannault did his best, but he can’t help you now, nor can your Liberal -dominated Ethics Committee. But open court, under oath – with all Canadians watching. Or be the coward and back down. Either way you lose and Canada wins. BY the way, even the Greens and New Dem0crats and Bloc Quebecois would contribute to Scheers ‘Go Fund Me’ Campaign. Oh, and keep it up…. looks like we may not have to wait til October to be done with you.

  11. peetee says:

    Scheer was asked why he believed Trudeau broke the law even though Wilson-Raybould said no illegalities occurred. His astounding response: “that’s her opinion”!

    • Fred from BC says:

      “His astounding response: “that’s her opinion”!”

      Doesn’t sound very astounding to me. One opinion would be that if nothing illegal happened, it was because JWR didn’t allow it to happen; another would be that the continued pressure to change her mind was itself illegal, even if she didn’t cave to it. That’s for lawyers to decide, right?

      • Vancouverois says:

        Saying it was illegal would certainly have scotched her chances of being welcomed back into the Liberal caucus.

        Besides, could Trudeau have sued *her* for saying it?

        • Fred from BC says:

          Good point. Again, for the lawyers to decide.

          But yeah, she certainly seems to have held back a bit which is a smart play that boosted her credibility. The only thing we need to know now is exactly what Trudeau is (still) preventing her from talking about. It’s got to be good…

      • Cory Arsenault says:

        She was only allowed to talk about her time as AG, therefore her comment doesn’t rule out the possibility that something illegal happened after she was demoted.

  12. Foon Der says:

    It took me some time to figure out Warren Kinsella. When he was a Chretien advisor I hated him but as I listen to him on Adler I have a better appreciation of his place on the political spectrum as fiscal conservative and social liberal. I understand why he is a social liberal but his common sense criticism of Junior Trudeau are spot on (spoiler alert, Trudeau the younger is a hypocrite and f*cking liar)

    • Max says:

      Foon, if I may be permitted to use a hockey analogy, Kinsella is the guy you hate to play against, but you love him if he were on your team and in your dressing room. Think Brad Marchand, a fellow Bluenoser. High praise.

  13. Joseph Taylor says:

    Can you post the documents on the site?

  14. Joe says:

    Mr. Porter says entirely false five times in his letter to Andrew Scheer. … sort of like, I dunno Justin Trudeau saying the initial Globe story was false.

    I hope some enterprising journalist will now list all the:
    a) lies Trudeau and his team have told,
    b) falsehoods Trudeau and his team have said,
    c) ‘different experiences’ Trudeau and his team have stated.

    There is now no doubt that Trudeau, Porter, and Team Trudeau live in a different world from the rest of us. A world of Kim Jung Justin. A place where even time and space are distorted to the will of The Dear Illustrious Leader.

  15. Des says:

    Aren’t these the tactics of Maduro and Putin? Who’s going to be next to take to court? The journos?

  16. David Young says:

    Good analysis
    I think L’il JT has himself in a corner. If he proceeds, the details come out. If he doesn’t, he looks like a bigger idiot

    • Fred from BC says:

      “If he proceeds, the details come out. If he doesn’t, he looks like a bigger idiot”

      That’s my take on it as well. Lose-lose, either way.

      I’d like to say that he should have known better, but this is Prime Minister Zoolander we’re talking about here…

    • Howard Bittner says:

      And the press and talk shows get another few weeks to keep this story relevant and alive! Obviously no one is running the good ship Trudeau (except maybe into a rock)

  17. Max says:

    Surely, Justin couldn’t turn Lametti into his toadie to do his bidding in the Courts could he?

    • Joseph Taylor says:

      This would be a civil proceeding so I don’t think so.

    • Fred from BC says:

      “Surely, Justin couldn’t turn Lametti into his toadie to do his bidding in the Courts could he?”

      As much as I would LOVE to see this happen, I highly doubt it. After all the drama, accusations and fallout associated with this case no one could possibly be stupid enough (or arrogant enough?) to think that the Canadian public wouldn’t go ballistic if they still tried to grant a DPA, right?

      • Chris says:

        The PMO “Brain Trust” has spectacularly and unbelievably raised the bar on stupid political tactics these last few months. My bet is that the DPA is granted in the middle of July.

        What I can’t wait for is the sight of the RCMP raiding The Building Formerly Know as Langevin with warrants looking for VAdm Norman documents.

  18. Jackie Platt says:

    I 100% agree with you. Technical point here: would Trudeau be able to invoke Parliamentary Privilege or Cabinet Confidence and do as not to say anything under oath or refuse to appear? Just curious

  19. Fred from BC says:

    Say it isn’t so, Warren:


    (on salary, or per post?…;)

  20. billg says:

    Well, The Brain resigned so it’s obvious now that Pinkey is making all strategic decisions, Narf.

  21. Dave Fuller says:

    According to Keith’s book, Ron Wood was the father….

  22. Joanne says:

    I don’t want Trudeau to resign. I want him to be defeated in the next election, and for the Liberals to lose in a landslide. They have earned it.

  23. hugh says:

    It has been asserted by several people since this scandal has gone public that Trudeau is playing checkers while everyone else is playing chess.
    I believe that is untrue.

    Justin is playing a masterful game of chess…
    against himself,
    and losing


  24. ferd berple says:

    Maybe I missed something but I don’t see the libel. Scheer sat Trudeau was trying to prevert justice. Scheer did not say that Trudeau was successful. This we know from the recording to be true.

    Trudeau’s lawyer appears to be putting down on paper things that were never said.

  25. Gord Tulk says:

    Warren can you confirm that should JT not cease and desist that Andrew Scheer could sue and that as a result there would be a discovery process.

    • Ronald O'Dowd says:

      Gord…this is nothing more than stupid political theatre, just like when Harper pulled the same stunt in 2008. He looked ridiculous then and the current PM does now.

    • Vancouverois says:

      If Trudeau withdraws his letter it does look like an admission, but it seems to me that in legal terms that would end it. I doubt that Scheer can use that to sue for defamation himself, and HE would look bad if he tried. He’d be effectively reversing the optics -why should he do that, when they’re so favourable to him?

      I think he’d just use it as a talking point in the upcoming election: see, Trudeau is a corrupt bully who’s afraid to follow through on his threat, because he knows what I said about him being a corrupt tool of this large corporation is absolutely true.

  26. duojet says:

    What astounds me is every attempt JT & the PMO have tried to put a lid on the crisis has exploded in their faces & made it worse.

    They don’t seem to be learning.

    (If the PMO had just folded on the DP early on, would they be in worse shape than they are now? …. don’t thinks so!)

  27. Mike Jeffries says:

    If JT “had engaged in dishonest and corrupt conduct that would contravene the Criminal Code,” then would not this be a criminal case? There would have to be evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to convict Mr. Trudeau. Is there such hard evidence? JWR doesn’t think so. Why not??

    • Adam says:

      Because the Liberals baked just enough loopholes into their own laws so that what they were doing was wholly unethical yet still technically legal.

      Just another reminder that “law” and “justice” are not the same thing.

  28. Love the analysis; wondering on 2 fronts; 1) will they follow through on this stupid action; or 2) invoke more wrath from the old #LPCGuard (aka Sheila Copps)

  29. BrahmaBull says:

    Isn’t this (like so many other things about the Trudeau Liberals) straight out of the Ontario Liberal play book? Didn’t Wynne threaten lawsuits against Cons several times? Hudak blinked, but Brown and MacLeod didn’t.

  30. Ronald O'Dowd says:

    Scheer looks even less prime ministerial than Harper did in 2004 — and that’s saying something. But it won’t stop the CPC from getting in.

    Trudeau already knows that. This libel threat is but another symptom of panic and desperation finally dawning on them in this PMO. The only good thing: THOSE people will never, ever, work again for a party leader going forward.

    • Ronald O'Dowd says:

      (Look at all those brave cabinet ministers and MPs quietly nodding their heads in front of their phones.)

  31. Mettaself says:

    “In my opinion, they broke the law. I dare them to sue me, too.“

    Love it. Let me try this too.

    In my opinion, they created and almost deliberately hidden a new law to protect one, and then break very old law to make way for this new law, and about to break more laws to make sure they hold the power to the laws. Demons.

    • Mettaself says:

      Referring to the DPA introduced and embedded within a thick budget and it took a moment to pass, without notice, and the only eligible for the DPA is that “one”. All crows are black.

      • Fred from BC says:

        Yeah….hadn’t they passed a Justice bill just before that? Kinda make you wonder why it wasn’t included there, rather than (buried) in an omnibus bill afterwards, doesn’t it?

  32. Sean says:

    I remember a time in high school when a bully challenged a quiet, studious kid to go toe to toe after school. The quiet kid accepted the invitation. The bully didn’t show. This sounds similar to bully boy Trudeau, who continues to get his clock cleaned.

  33. Matt Rae says:

    I don’t know if we watched the same press conference, but Scheer did not, and has never looked Prime Ministerial. He’s all mousey. He may become Prime Minister but he has never looked or sounded Prime Ministerial.

      • Lynn says:

        Spoken like a true liberal. Only liberals can look like Prime Minister material. Get your head out of the sand. Who is the worst prime minister ever? one guess. It isn’t Harper, Mulroney, Joe Who or even the second worse Trudeau the first. It’s our present Trudeau.

    • Max says:

      Better a mouse than a rat.

    • Elsie Marley says:

      Couldn’t agree more. If Scheer is looking Prime Ministerial to you, it’s time for an eye exam! IMHO Scheer reminds me of an addled middle aged Opie, from a biblical Mayberry, shellacked to a Christian sheen, impervious to the realities of 2019, and earnestly presenting himself as the fundamentalist solution to all that he has determined ails us. 1959 is calling Mr. Scheer! It’s almost 2020, Father decidedly Does Not Know Best.

      Trudeau and the LPC have demonstrated themselves corrupt to the core, and I cannot vote for them any more, but the Greens and the NDP present attractive alternatives to Mr. Scheer. I believe their time has arrived, albeit with a lot of help from the corrupt federal Liberals.

      • Fred from BC says:

        ” presenting himself as the fundamentalist solution ”

        Hilarious. You guys tried that particular scare tactic on Harper, remember? How did that work out for you?

        “It’s almost 2020”

        Yes it is…and Canadians won’t be fooled by anti-Christian bigotry this time, either…

      • Mike Jeffries says:

        “Greens and the NDP present alternatives to Mr. Scheer” ?
        Yeah well Elsie maybe move to BC where that NDP/Green regime is just for you.
        You won’t afford a place to live, if you drive you’ll pay the highest collision insurance in Canada, and of course the highest gas per liter in North America. And BTW if you have no car well no UBER either compliments of the NDP being funded by the Taxi companies. But if you can speak Mandarin well yes Mandarin UBER for you thank-you NDP/Greens. Good Luck Elsie on your move :)!

  34. Greg Vezina says:

    A rich man’s game | #FakeFeminist #cdnpoli

    Canada’s main political leaders refuse to reform a political donations system that disenfranchises lower-income Canadians from making political donations to the party of their choice.

    What’s worse, almost half of the existing, non-refundable federal political tax credits go unclaimed, the majority by groups that traditionally earn less, on average, than adult, white males, including many women, minorities, young people and seniors.

    The major federal parties tout the generous political tax credits on their main contribution web pages or fundraising materials, but they don’t clearly explain they are non-refundable.

    The problem is that, according to federal spending estimates, 47% of people who receive tax receipts for their political donations, either do not claim them or will not qualify for the tax credit.

    In a Mar. 15, 2016 letter, federal Finance Minister Bill Morneau refused a Nov. 22, 2015, request to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to make political tax credits refundable, stating: “Refundable credits are used in only a limited number of cases in the personal income tax system…where there is a clear policy rationale for doing so.”

    Meanwhile, the government is delaying budget implementation of a review aimed at eliminating some tax credits that benefit higher-income Canadians to a much greater degree than others.

    That has prompted concerns from the Chartered Professional Accountants of Canada, who have urged the government to make the details public.

    While Trudeau trumpeted his feminism on International Women’s Day, defending his quota-based politics, he refuses to change this fundamentally unfair discretionary program that clearly and ethically should be applied universally, as it is today only in Ontario.

    Former Ontario Progressive Conservative premier Mike Harris made provincial political tax credits refundable 17 years ago, effective for the 2000 tax year, acknowledging at the time, “the unfair treatment the current system affords lower-income Ontarians — many of whom are women, seniors, disabled, ethnic minorities, farmers and Native Canadians.”

  35. Vancouverois says:

    You’re all wrong – Trudeau is actually an unacknowledged PR genius!


    I mean, what else could it be? It **MUST** be part of an overarching public relations strategy that we’ll all just not smart enough to see yet. Nobody could be this tone-deaf on purpose.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.