#LavScam latest: PMO disgusts me

They’re prepared to dirty the judicial appointment process – and hurt a couple dealing with cancer – to continue to smear Jody Wilson-Raybould.

They are a disgrace.



#LavScam latest: did PMO have direct contact with prosecutors in the SNC-Lavalin trial?

That’s what the Globe and Mail is suggesting in another shocker this morning. I have wondered the same thing.

Huge reporting by Fife and Team. And, if true, this moves things closer to obstruction of justice. Big time.

The Prime Minister’s Office will neither confirm nor deny the assertion by former attorney-general Jody Wilson-Raybould that senior advisers to Justin Trudeau had inside knowledge of discussions within the independent Public Prosecution Service about the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin.

Ms. Wilson-Raybould has alleged that the Prime Minister’s Office [PMO] told her chief of staff about an apparent internal dispute between director of public prosecutions Kathleen Roussel and one of the federal prosecutors handling the SNC-Lavalin bribery and fraud prosecution.

In testimony before the Commons justice committee last month, Ms. Wilson-Raybould described a Sept. 16, 2018, conversation between her then-chief of staff, Jessica Prince, and the Prime Minister’s Quebec adviser, Mathieu Bouchard, and senior adviser Elder Marques about negotiating an out-of-court settlement with SNC-Lavalin.

Ms. Wilson-Raybould says she plans to provide follow-up written testimony this week to the committee to show there was high-level political interference in the SNC-Lavalin matter.


Susan Delacourt gets it wrong. Again. Will she admit her error?

Several of you let me know that the Toronto Star’s Susan Delacourt was on CBC Radio yesterday.  On a panel, she said that Lisa and I “are working with Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott.”  She also said Lisa – a card-carrying Liberal – is “actually not very Liberal.” Those are quotes.

They’re also lies. And if Delacourt possessed the journalistic skills to actually make a phone call or thumb out an email, we would have told her that.  In fact, we would have shared the exchange I had with the CBC’s Rosie Barton just this week.  Here it is.

Hello,

Hope you are doing well.

I’m sure you have been asked this question before, but I’m asking too.

Are you advising in any formal or informal or volunteer or friendly way either Jane Philpott or Jody Wilson-Raybould?

This phrase in the Wells interview struck me as something you might have said: ” And a very wise person said two things to me that helped me over that. This is someone who has been around politics for a long time. They said that politicians in general, and perhaps Liberals in particular, make mistakes when they assume that the best interests of Canadians and their own future political success are synonymous.” 

Anyway, insight welcome. Happy to chat if you would prefer.

Thanks
Rosemary


Rosemary Barton
Co-Host The National
Parliamentary bureau

See that? That’s what a real reporter does: you know, ascertain the facts before spouting off.

Here’s how I responded.

Thanks for the note, and thanks for having the forthrightness to ask. (Many have just assumed.)

Me, my wife, my firm, my staff: we do not represent or assist or counsel or help Jody Wilson-Raybould or Tim Raybould or Jane Philpott or any other player in this drama. In any way, shape or form whatsoever.

From indigenous legal work I did years ago, I met Tim. I have never met Jody.

Lisa, copied, can speak for herself. Lisa is a simply amazing advocate and lobbyist. She has met Jody because she lobbied her in respect of some of the First Nations we represent. I think Lisa would tell you they are friendly but not friends.

Speaking only for myself, I have been passionate and outspoken about this issue because, first and foremost, I am a lawyer and I believe laws have been broken. I was similarly outspoken when I felt laws were broken with past governments, of all stripes (even Chretien’s: the RCMP told me, at the conclusion of their sponsorship investigations, that nobody had provided them with as much documentation as me).

I have also supported these women because I believe they are telling the truth. I believe they are decent and honest and brave.

I apologize for the length of my answer, but I am happy you asked for one. I encourage you to speak to Lisa, Jody, Tim and Jane if you need additional confirmation.

Sincerely,

Warren

Now, Susan Delacourt  and I have never been close. Most of us Chretien folks regarded her Team Martin’s official stenographer, and we didn’t have much to do with her.  We didn’t like how she did business, and this latest bullshit is yet more evidence of that.

This week, however, she published on social media a photo of Lisa and her friend Jane Daly – with their coats on, standing, and right out in the open – talking to a table of other women at the Chateau Laurier’s restaurant on budget day.  Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott were at the table.

Delacourt insists she didn’t take the photo, which she declared “interesting.”  It unleashed an avalanche of online Jane and Jody haters, who called it evidence of an anti-Trudeau conspiracy (seriously). I am told that the Star and the Chateau Laurier were very unhappy that Delacourt was publishing Spy-vs.-Spy photos taken by persons unknown. (I’ve been told it was taken by a Trudeau campaign team member, but he’s denied it to me.)

Anyway.  We plan to pursue Delacourt’s factual error on CBC radio with their Ombudsman and others.  The only question, however, is whether Susan Delacourt will be a reporter, just this once, and admit she made a factual error.

Will she do that? I’m not holding my breath.


JWR is playing chess, and she always wins

The other side play checkers – and always lose.  Because she’s smarter than they are.

Oh, and to mix my metaphors, and like I always say: the truth is like water. It finds a way out.

From CBC:

Jody Wilson-Raybould says she will provide a written statement and copies of text messages and emails to the Commons justice committee that shut down its probe into the SNC-Lavalin affair.

This week, the Liberal members, which have a majority on the committee, voted to close down the inquiry without recalling the former attorney general to testify a second time in order to respond to other witnesses.

In a letter to the committee chair, Liberal MP Anthony Housefather, Wilson-Raybould, former justice minister and attorney general, said she would respond to a request to provide copies of texts and emails she referenced in her Feb. 27 testimony at the committee.

“Related to these requests, I also have relevant facts and evidence in my possession that further clarify statements I made and elucidate the accuracy and nature of statements by witnesses in testimony that came after my committee appearance,” she wrote.

“As such, in response to these requests, and consistent with the standard practice of the committee of receiving written submissions, I will be providing a written submission to the committee in relation to matters within the confines of the waiver of cabinet confidence and solicitor-client privilege.”