Trudeau is getting press in Oz.

[Anonymous]

Justin Trudeau has gone from denying any pressure on Judy Wilson-Raybould and calling her a liar to admitting he may have intervened, but no wrongdoing..



Next will be regret until finally an admission of bad judgment and remorse.

Well y'know Fashionista I didn't think Conservative Mike Duffy was ever guilty even at the height of the allegations being thrown at him. I'm not a Conservative and yet I think he was hard done by. So I accord Trudeau the same treatment.



Our news media in Canada tend to make Mountains from molehills by framing our public figures as the 2nd coming of Hitler. They blow things out of proportion and label people as guilty before giving them a chance to prove their innocence.



On a side note, the news media also blew that Dalhousie Facebook fiasco out of proportion too. C'mon- a bunch of dental students posting stupid frat house chit on the equivalent of a school blackboard? Even the alleged victims, female dental students at Dalhousie said the attention paid to that incident was ridiculous and that they didn't feel harmed



So I dont trust the news media in Canada because they aren't responsible messengers if our national news.

Apples and oranges comparisons and a deliberate attempt to derail a thread.

[Bricktop]

Justin Trudeau has gone from denying any pressure on Judy Wilson-Raybould and calling her a liar to admitting he may have intervened, but no wrongdoing..



Next will be regret until finally an admission of bad judgment and remorse.

Well y'know Fashionista I didn't think Conservative Mike Duffy was ever guilty even at the height of the allegations being thrown at him. I'm not a Conservative and yet I think he was hard done by. So I accord Trudeau the same treatment.



Our news media in Canada tend to make Mountains from molehills by framing our public figures as the 2nd coming of Hitler. They blow things out of proportion and label people as guilty before giving them a chance to prove their innocence.



On a side note, the news media also blew that Dalhousie Facebook fiasco out of proportion too. C'mon- a bunch of dental students posting stupid frat house chit on the equivalent of a school blackboard? Even the alleged victims, female dental students at Dalhousie said the attention paid to that incident was ridiculous and that they didn't feel harmed



So I dont trust the news media in Canada because they aren't responsible messengers if our national news.

Joe, pay attention to me.



There are two types of news.



One type reports factual incidents. That is to say they will inform the public about bushfires, celebrity weddings, sordid affairs and the price of eggs.  These are facts. True, they sometimes sensationalise and embellish the facts, but at their core these have a factual base (unless published in a gossip magazine which are never factual, nor do they need to be given their intended audience).



Then there is op ed or opinion editorials or articles. These are matters of the writer's opinion, and are frequently lacking in fact, reason and logic for no other reason than journalists who write such columns are unqualified to opine on the subject matter, yet they do so because they think they are important enough to actually influence events. CNN, MSNBC, Fox News and the BBC are examples of organisations that editorialise yet portray their stories as fact.



The resignation of two cabinet ministers from Trudeau's government is factual. No matter who reports it, it can be relied upon asa the truth.



The resignation of TWO cabinet ministers as a mortal blow to ANY sitting Prime Minister. That, too, is a fact. It means that you have lost the support and confidence of two people whom you appointed to their positions and so expect total loyalty. Their resignations are saying to the Prime Minister "we cannot be loyal to someone who has betrayed trust".



As this effectively ends their political careers, one can safely assume that the basis for the resignations is that they possess information or evidence of significant wrongdoing by their PM. If THEY cannot trust and be loyal to the PM, how the hell can the electorate be confident that he (or she in the case of Theresa May) is acting lawfully and in accordance with the duties, responsibilities and oath of office?



The Canadian government is fractured, and good people are turning away from their leader. There's smoke, Joe. LOTS of smoke.



I think you have a fire burning in Ottawa, Joe.

[JOE]

Justin Trudeau has gone from denying any pressure on Judy Wilson-Raybould and calling her a liar to admitting he may have intervened, but no wrongdoing..



Next will be regret until finally an admission of bad judgment and remorse.

Well y'know Fashionista I didn't think Conservative Mike Duffy was ever guilty even at the height of the allegations being thrown at him. I'm not a Conservative and yet I think he was hard done by. So I accord Trudeau the same treatment.



Our news media in Canada tend to make Mountains from molehills by framing our public figures as the 2nd coming of Hitler. They blow things out of proportion and label people as guilty before giving them a chance to prove their innocence.



On a side note, the news media also blew that Dalhousie Facebook fiasco out of proportion too. C'mon- a bunch of dental students posting stupid frat house chit on the equivalent of a school blackboard? Even the alleged victims, female dental students at Dalhousie said the attention paid to that incident was ridiculous and that they didn't feel harmed



So I dont trust the news media in Canada because they aren't responsible messengers if our national news.

Apples and oranges comparisons and a deliberate attempt to derail a thread.

I'm just saying I don't want to pass judgement on Trudeau until all the facts have been presented.



But I did indicate earlier that I thought Wilson Raybould was a poor choice for Justice Minister & that Yrudesu's determination to appoint as many wonen as possible 'because its 2015' demonstrated poor judgement and is coming back to haunt him.

[Bricktop]

Joe, who is to present those facts, and to whom?

[JOE]

Joe, who is to present those facts, and to whom?

Here's a some comments by a former Liberal Cabinet Minister, a woman, who criticizes the wsy Wilson Rayboud conducted herself & handled the situation:

[Anonymous]

This is getting some US coverage too.

Justin Trudeau has gone from denying any pressure on Judy Wilson-Raybould and calling her a liar to admitting he may have intervened, but no wrongdoing..



Next will be regret until finally an admission of bad judgment and remorse.

It looks to me like this is obstruction of justice which is against the law in Canada..  However, The national post discusses this and says what Trudeau did is unethical but probably not illegal.



https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/lavscam-jody-wilson-raybould-jane-philpott">https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/la ... e-philpott">https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/lavscam-jody-wilson-raybould-jane-philpott



I bet if Trump had done this the dems would try to impeach him over it.

I read that the hearings being held are a joke..



Because the Liberals have a majority they control it..



Jody Wilson-Raybould will not be allowed to respond to Gerald Butts and Jane Philpott will not speak at all..



It will wrap up, without getting to the bottom of it and no RCMP investigation.

They are not under oath. It's just for show. Proof positive the Trudeau regime is a dictatorship that is afraid of the will of the people and the independence of the judiciary.

[Anonymous]

We are owed more answers about this interference in a criminal case. But, the Liberals will make sure we never get to the bottom of it.



We are owed more answers on Lavscam



The testimony on wednesday morning of Gerald butts — Prime Minister Justin trudeau's friend for 30 years — concerning Lavscam didn't give us any answers. All it did, was offer up his version of the story.



Jody wilson-raybould had previously given detailed testimony citing some 30 interactions with the Prime Minister's office staff over snc-lavalin, many involving what seems to be political interference.



yet butts attempted to refute all of that, in the vaguest of terms, with little reference to specific dates and quotes. he wants Canadians to believe his side of the story, that there was nothing questionable that went on and that he and Prime Minister Justin trudeau don't conduct themselves that way.



he's going to have to do a whole lot better than his wednesday performance though. Canadians shouldn't buy it, at least not without more evidence.



especially not his assertions like: "i am fully aware that two people can experience the same events differently." This is not about differences of interpretation. This is about the facts and whether or not obstruction of justice occurred.



butts even tried to get philosophical at times: "i like to look forward in life. we're all human. we all make mistakes all the time. Part of improving your professional life and personal relationships is to examine your mistakes... i firmly believe that nothing inappropriate occurred here."



it's not what he believed though, that counts. it's what he really said. Jody wilson-raybould gave credible testimony that butts did indeed say things that crossed the line. Like the text message she cited from her Chief of staff who claimed butts said "there is no solution here that doesn't involve some interference."



That is damning evidence. Maybe it's not the full story. Maybe butts is right. but "maybes" just aren't good enough for something this serious.



This can't just be left up to the Justice Committee, which will only write a report that will collect dust on the shelf.



Canadians are owed answers as to whether or not this country's political leadership placed political pressure on the justice system.



A public inquiry and, perhaps, the courts are a more appropriate venue to get to the bottom of this issue. The stakes are too high right now.

[Bricktop]

Do you guys have Royal Commissions?

[Anonymous]

Do you guys have Royal Commissions?

Yes, we do.

[Bricktop]

Then the opposition should be screaming for the government to implement a Royal Commission.

[Anonymous]

Then the opposition should be screaming for the government to implement a Royal Commission.

We have had a shitload of royal commissions in my lifetime, but I don't know if this is grounds for one or not. It is definitely grounds for an RCMP investigation.

[Anonymous]

Back on topic.

https://scontent.fyxd1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/53517986_2403011493044696_99121063438319616_n.jpg?_nc_cat=103&_nc_ht=scontent.fyxd1-1.fna&oh=56c2dbe020bcb380467e53e51737769d&oe=5D10FEFD">

[Anonymous]

This is not over



By Anthony Furey of Sun News Media



Throughout it all, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has had an air of confidence to his handling of Lavscam. Now, he seems to think he has put the worst behind him.



Not so fast.



First, he dismissed the original report as "false." Then, there was his appearance after Jody Wilson-raybould's testimony where he was strangely cockier than usual.



And then there was Thursday morning, where Trudeau issued his non-apology. The night before, sources had leaked to the media that the PM was planning a statement of "contrition."



Some contrition. Trudeau chalked it all up to an "erosion of trust," placing the blame for this squarely at the feet of JWR.



"She did not come to me. And I wish she had ... Dialogue is crucial on a file as important as justice," he said.



There's a little problem with all of this though. Not only did Clerk of the Privy Council Michael Wernick acknowledge that JWR had come to them concerning the issue in September but Trudeau did as well, explaining how they were hoping she'd be "open to considering other aspects of the public interest."



As I wrote previously, this is all about credibility and right now Wilson-raybould still has it more than Trudeau, Wernick and Gerald Butts.



It almost seemed as if Trudeau was having some sort of out-of-body experience where he thought he was talking about another person enduring this scandal.



"As we look back upon the past few weeks, there are many lessons for us to learn," he said.



Us? "We" have nothing to do with it. This is all on you. Own it.



Yet, he did not. And when a reporter wisely cut to the chase and asked: "Prime minister, are you apologizing today?" he answered: "I continue to say no inappropriate pressure."



The big problem with that mess of a press conference wasn't just how Trudeau failed to say the right things but the whole attitude he brought to it. He was behaving like he was putting a lid on the saga, that this was him having the final say.



That's not how it works, though. This isn't over. Trudeau is just one party out of several in a scandal that has legal implications.



It is not enough to step forward and simply muddy the narrative and then conclude you've turned a page.



This is a legal question about potential obstruction of justice as much as it is a question about Trudeau's political survival. The person who should have the final say is a judge or jury or, at the very least, a retired senior judge heading up a public inquiry.



If public prosecutors were able to summon 31 charges against Mike Duffy, you'd think they've at least got a handful to issue for this troubling affair. So where do we go now? Trudeau has repeatedly said we should welcome the ethics commissioner and justice committee to do their job. But of course he'd say that. The former will simply issue him a fine of a few hundred dollars and all the committee will do is write a report with a dozen or so non-binding recommendations.



Meanwhile, on Thursday Liberal MP Celina Caesar-chavannes made a social media post to Trudeau that's got everyone wondering.



"I did come to you recently. Twice. Remember your reactions?" she posted.



Then the Public Prosecution Service of Canada posted this throwdown on social media: "Our prosecutors must be objective, independent and dispassionate, as well as free from improper influence — including political influence."



Trudeau may claim this is over. But that's not his claim to make. Expect the political and legal fallout to continue.

[Anonymous]

Trudeau must #Letjodyspeak



Today we join the growing list of Canadians using the twitter handle #Letjodyspeak to demand former attorneygeneral Jody Wilson-raybould be recalled to testify at the Commons justice committee hearings into the Snc-lavalin scandal.



The Liberal majority on the committee Wednesday rejected an opposition motion for Wilson-raybould to be recalled, after some of the testimony by Gerald Butts, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's former principal secretary, diametrically opposed her version of events.



Instead, the Liberals approved a motion to consider what additional witnesses they will call at a closed-door meeting March 19, federal budget day.



The Liberals also defeated an opposition motion asking Trudeau to consider fully waiving the confidentiality gag he has only partially removed from Wilson-raybould.



It still prohibits her from discussing anything after he removed her as attorney general in his Jan. 14 cabinet shuffle, including her time as veterans' Affairs minister. It also bars her from speaking about her reasons for resigning from cabinet on Feb. 12. Wilson-raybould is willing to reappear. "I would of course make myself available to the committee if requested to give additional testimony, to answer any further questions and to provide further clarity that may be required," she said in a written statement.



"As I indicated at the time, my statement to the committee (on



Feb. 27) was not a complete account but only a detailed summary."



The entire process has already been unfair to Wilson-raybould.



She was originally forced to sit in silence for three weeks while Liberals from the PM on down, some anonymously, made statements aimed at discrediting her, while Trudeau gagged her from responding.



This after the Globe and Mail reported Feb. 7 that she had been improperly lobbied by the Prime Minister's Office to drop the criminal prosecution of Snclavalin on foreign bribery charges.



The PMO urged her to substitute a Deferred Prosecution Agreement, so the company could continue bidding on federal contracts, which they would be banned from seeking for 10 years if convicted on the criminal charges.



The committee has already called Privy Council Clerk Michael Wernick twice, before and after Wilson-raybould's testimony, the second time because his initial testimony disagreed with hers on key points.



Wilson-raybould deserves the same opportunity.

[Anonymous]

Our feminist pm says JWR and Jane Philpott are liars.