To What Extent Does Wilson-Raybould's Recording Change Trudeau's SNC-Lavalin Problem?

123 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport
alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Thanks for backing my assertion that Wilson-Raybould is a Conservative operative low life that had no business being Justice Minister in the first place.

I'm sure she'll find a welcoming home within the CPC

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Pondering wrote:

If I am to believe the media the DPA was created specifically to apply to SNC. The DPA is designed for companies in which the executive has been criminally charged and replaced and there are jobs at stake. SNC meets that criteria. 

If the DPA was designed for SNC it seems odd that they don't meet the criteria to receive it. 

If JWR has a reason other than not wanting her name in the Gazette over this I would like to know what it is. For that matter I would like to know what the prosecutor's reasoning was. Not in general. Specifically. This type of judgement isn't confidential is it?

I normally don't interact with Pondering, but in this case, she has asked this same question a number of times, and no one has stepped up to answer it, so I will give it a try. First, full disclosure. I graduated from Osgoode Hall Law School in 1970 and spent 7 years practicing law in Hamilton after I was called to the bar. This means that I have gone through the indoctrination that lawyers get about the noble calling they are joining, and I am also aware of the less lovely aspects of legal practice in the real world.

The issue here is prosecutorial discretion. Someone has to decide which potential offenders are actually charged, and which are given a pass. In our system, at least theoretically, such decisions are supposed to be based solely on legal principles, which may include benefits to society, but not benefits to one political party or faction. These decisions are specifically forbidden to be political. We seriously don't want our politicians deciding which of their enemies should be subject to charges by the state.

In this case, the Director of Public Prosecutions and her staff considered all the legal aspects of the case, and gave their professional opinion that a DPA was not appropriate. This opinion was provided to the A.G. who considered it, found the reasoning cogent, and agreed to it. Then the trouble started. Trudeau and his minions were unable to accept this result, for purely political reasons. And because none of them give a damn for the principle involved, they harassed JWR, her aides, and even the professional prosecutors, for months after the decision was made.

It was after all this history that the December phone conversation we all listened to took place. As JWR cautioned repeatedly, the conversation itself was very questionable ethically. Pondering seems to think that when JWR referred to the problems with publicly reversing the decision of the DPP, she was concerned about her own, personal reputation, but that isn't what I see at all. In my view, she was cautioning the government that it would be seen as interfering in the judicial process in such a case.

Her personal jeopardy was very small, since it would have been easy for her to pass the buck upwards if problems arose after she did as she was told. However, she seems to have had some actual ethical qualms about perverting the course of justice for political reasons.

quizzical

well they're a very tight circle. what with Katie Telford being besties with Jessica Mulroney,  who also dresses Sophie.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
If the DPA was designed for SNC it seems odd that they don't meet the criteria to receive it.

To whatever degree it was purpose-built for SNC-Lavalin, I doubt it was done so with a whole lot of transparency.  So I'm guessing there were criteria that they pretty much had to include, in order to not make it clear what they were doing.  You can't make the fix too obvious.

Again, I'm just guessing, but perhaps it was assumed at the time that there would be no problem getting the AG or the Prosecutor to choose it, at which point nobody would really care, but instead they ended up with an AG who reads the fine print.

NorthReport

Michael

Thanks

I agree with you that JWR on the secret tape seemed concerned not so much with her own, but with protecting the government’s reputation and I believe she mentioned it more than once to Wernick

 

NorthReport

Wow, let's put Plant down in the genius category for figuring this out!

Ex-B.C. attorney general says Jody Wilson-Raybould’s secret recording a sign of ‘something seriously fractured inside the heart’ of Trudeau government

Mar 31 2019 — 

British Columbia’s former attorney general Geoff Plant says Friday’s release of a secretly recorded phone call to former federal attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould has embroiled the legal community in ethical debates — but has further exposed a “deep fracture at the heart” of the Liberal government. The Dec. 19 phone conversation between then-Attorney General Jody […]

https://www.thestar.com/vancouver/2019/03/30/ex-bc-attorney-general-says-wilson-raybould-tape-sign-of-something-seriously-fractured-inside-the-heart-of-trudeau-government.html

Paladin1

Pondering wrote:

Why didn't JWR go to Trudeau and say I feel threatened, I'm not going to lose my job over this am I?  Was it not her responsibility to report to Trudeau if she felt the clerk was behaving in a questionable manner?

It seems like you're trying to discredit or throw mud on JWR to, I'm not sure, defend Trudeau in a round about way?

Why didn't JWR go to Trudeau and say I feel threatened? It appears he doesn't like being told no for an answer. He doesn't appear to like anyone questioning him or not obeying him either. The last thing Trudeau appears to be is approachable. The conversation JWR had with Wernick should show you quite clearly what kind of person Trudeau is to deal with.

Trudeau is the paragon of a toxic boss.

NorthReport

So here it comes. 

Cabinet ministers lining up to attack JWR. I imagine we will see 3 days of this now as a prelude to Wednesday's Liberal Caucus vote.

Thank goodness JWR recorded her phone conversation with Wernick. Obviously she should have taped her conversations with Chin as well.

Morneau’s office disputes Wilson-Raybould’s account of staff comments

https://ipolitics.ca/2019/03/31/morneaus-office-disputes-wilson-rayboulds-account-of-staff-comments/

NorthReport

Now that things are really heating up for the Liberals I wonder if Caesar-Chavannes has more to say about this. 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-mp-caesar-chavannes-caucus-1.5064544

NorthReport

I know who the author is but he does raise a significant point

The true cost of SNC-Lavalin: 53 lost days

 

Randy Bell from Ottawa stands outside the Wellington building where the Justice committee was scheduled to meet in Ottawa on March 19. “Today, the Liberals find themselves 204 days out from voting day and yet no closer to any resolution on SNC. And to make matters worse, their last, best opportunity to ‘change the channel’ is now behind them,” writes Jaime Watt.

Randy Bell from Ottawa stands outside the Wellington building where the Justice committee was scheduled to meet in Ottawa on March 19. “Today, the Liberals find themselves 204 days out from voting day and yet no closer to any resolution on SNC. And to make matters worse, their last, best opportunity to ‘change the channel’ is now behind them,” writes Jaime Watt.  (ADRIAN WYLD / THE CANADIAN PRESS)

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2019/03/31/the-true-cost-of-snc-lavalin-53-lost-days.html

Pondering

Michael Moriarity wrote:
 I normally don't interact with Pondering, but in this case, she has asked this same question a number of times, and no one has stepped up to answer it, so I will give it a try.  

Well I will make an exception for you too because I prefer not to respond when people make smug comments.

Michael Moriarity wrote:
 

In this case, the Director of Public Prosecutions and her staff considered all the legal aspects of the case, and gave their professional opinion that a DPA was not appropriate. This opinion was provided to the A.G. who considered it, found the reasoning cogent, and agreed to it. Then the trouble started. Trudeau and his minions were unable to accept this result, for purely political reasons. And because none of them give a damn for the principle involved, they harassed JWR, her aides, and even the professional prosecutors, for months after the decision was made. 

I 100% agreed that happened. I am particularly concerned at the ability of PMs to insulate themselves through having staff to give them plausible deniability. We know Harper knew about the Duffy payoff and we know Trudeau knew JWR was being pressured if not the exact words. Knowing it means nothing. 

Michael Moriarity wrote:
 ​The issue here is prosecutorial discretion. Someone has to decide which potential offenders are actually charged, and which are given a pass. In our system, at least theoretically, such decisions are supposed to be based solely on legal principles, which may include benefits to society, but not benefits to one political party or faction. These decisions are specifically forbidden to be political. We seriously don't want our politicians deciding which of their enemies should be subject to charges by the state.  

Harper created some sort of directive that allows the AG to overrule the Prosecutor. I can't imagine a prosecutor that high up making an error in law.  Should that be abolished?

Benefits to society are involved here. 9,000 jobs matter. Of course saving jobs also has political implications and of course politicians will be aware of them but there is definitely a social reason. It seems to me this is exactly the type of situation the ability to override the Prosecutor was created for. 

Some others have commented that because Trudeau is her boss she couldn't go to him on this. That it is the same as a boss employee situation. Do you agree with that portrayal?

He could remove her as a minister, he could even kick her out of caucus, but he couldn't fire her because she is an elected representative of the people. 

I do believe Trudeau was generally aware but it is within reason that Wernick was trying to impress him by getting the job done so said more than he should have. Whether or not we believe Trudeau knew is immaterial because there is no proof. In any case JWR keeps insisting nothing illegal happened. 

Recording that conversation was highly unusual and it appears could be against the rules of the bar. If it is does that mean she could be disbarred for doing such a thing? Even if not she had to know that it was a very serious thing to do. 

Who, if not the AG, is responsible for reporting to the PM if they feel staff is behaving inapproriately especially doing it in his name? 

Werick telling her how determined Trudeau was and that he would get it done one way or another could be interpreted as a veiled threat. Saying she was "protecting" Trudeau politically can also be interpreted as a veiled threat. That if he dared remove her as AG that she would accuse him of inappropriate interference and damage him politically. 

You could say they both carried through on the veiled threats. 

 

Pondering

Paladin1 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Why didn't JWR go to Trudeau and say I feel threatened, I'm not going to lose my job over this am I?  Was it not her responsibility to report to Trudeau if she felt the clerk was behaving in a questionable manner?

It seems like you're trying to discredit or throw mud on JWR to, I'm not sure, defend Trudeau in a round about way?

Trudeau is the paragon of a toxic boss.

I 100% believe that Trudeau is implicated and that there will be no proof found because that is how the office of the PMO is designed now. It wasn't always the case. This is just like Harper/Duffy. 

I started out cheering JWR on and Philpott too in large part because they are women so I felt a sense of pride that they are "representing" so to speak. That JWR is also indigenous made her achievement all the more significant. Over time I have become less impressed because I don't think we would have heard a peep from JWR had she not been removed as AG even though it would not have made the pressure any the less inappropriate. 

She insists nothing illegal happened therefore the only outcome to this is damaging Trudeau politically, not impacting the system. Not addressing the issue of staff firewalls. Not even guaranteeing SNC doesn't get a DPA. 

I don't want to be naive and assume that JWR's motives are pure just because she is an indigenous woman. Would we be offering "but he's the boss" as an excuse if she were a man? 

This echos my feelings on the accusations against the two Liberal MPs and the NDP MPs publicizing that they didn't want the mens careers damaged or their wives to know. That's fine for women in private life and to an extent in public life too, but on the other hand we vote for representatives to be lawmakers and their not wanting the men to suffer any fall out or for wives to know does not give me confidence in their ability as lawmakers. 

Likewise the positions of Justice Minister and Attorney General carry with them great responsibility. The positions require someone with the courage to speak directly to the Prime Minister if his staff is being inappropriate to the point that she felt it necessary to record the conversation. She should have handed that recording directly to Trudeau if she felt the conversation was inappropriate. 

If she didn't speak to him for fear of being removed as AG she put her own personal advancement ahead of the interests of Canadians. 

quizzical

oh good grief pondering you noted that she noted the veiled threat by Wernick and just her still saying "no" repeatedly shows she wasnt afraid in the least.

how dare you ascribe lack of courage and fear to her actions!

your smearing goes too far and is inappropriate. 

 

Pondering

quizzical wrote:

oh good grief pondering you noted that she noted the veiled threat by Wernick and just her still saying "no" repeatedly shows she wasnt afraid in the least.

how dare you ascribe lack of courage and fear to her actions!

your smearing goes too far and is inappropriate. 

I said IF. I don't know her motivations. It is being suggested here that her reason for not going directly to Trudeau is that he is her boss therefore has power over her position. That is the suggestion I was addressing. 

In the recording she says that Trudeau could call her directly. The reverse is true as well. If she felt Trudeau's staff was being inappropriate she was Justice Minister and Attorney General. Not only was it within her power to tell Trudeau it can be argued it was her responsibility to share her concerns directly rather than relying on staff to relay her concerns. 

JWR: Does he understand the gravity of what this potentially could mean? – This is not about saving jobs – this is about interfering with one of our fundamental institutions – this is like breaching a constitutional principle of prosecutorial independence.

C: Well I don’t think he sees it as that…

JWR: No one is explaining that to him, Michael. Like this is…we can stand up in the House of Commons on Norman on – totally appropriately on Norman – on extradition and we can talk about the rule of law­ um… The cases are not dissimilar – the principle or the integrity of how we act and respond to the tools we have available and what we should and shouldn’t do -again…l just…l don’t know…

It seems to me that if there was any question of something not being told to Trudeau it was JWR's responsibility as Justice Minister and as Attorney General to warn him personally that his staff was crossing the line. If not her than who? The staff that was crossing the line? 

This is not a smear. It is a valid question. 

quizzical
swallow swallow's picture

It seems to me this is exactly the type of situation the ability to override the Prosecutor was created for. 

Saving jobs is specifically excluded. So, no.

Unionist

swallow wrote:

It seems to me this is exactly the type of situation the ability to override the Prosecutor was created for. 

Saving jobs is specifically excluded. So, no.

That's what I thought as well - because of the specific exclusion of "national economic interest" as a consideration, from the wording of the DPA legislation.

But I was wrong. Two reasons for saying so:

1. JWR has never once said, "The law prevents me (or the public prosecutor) from considering job loss." Never. I wondered why for a long time, and finally concluded that the insertion of the word "national" was for a reason. If saving jobs were excluded, then JWR would say so, and the "debate" is over. In fact, JWR has never (yet) explained why the DPA was rejected by the prosecutor. If I'm wrong and she has said this, I'll need a reference.

2. This article: 

The origin of the phrase 'national economic interest' had nothing to with protecting jobs

Quote:

A basic rule of interpretation is that every word a legislator uses is to be given a meaning. The phrase “national economic interest” was imported from Article 5 of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention of 1997. That article says: “Investigation and prosecution of the bribery of a foreign public official shall be subject to the applicable rules and principles of each Party. They shall not be influenced by considerations of national economic interest, the potential effect upon relations with another State or the identity of the natural or legal persons involved.”

I was Secretary General of the OECD at the time, and I actively participated in the signing of the convention in December 1997. I can tell you that in this meaning, the phrase was intended to prevent exporters in OECD countries from avoiding prosecution under the convention by arguing that exports were in the national economic interest — and that bribery was therefore required to protect their export markets. That is what the word “national” was put in there to mean. I do not recall jobs ever being discussed as relating to the national economic interest as defined in the convention, nor were DPAs ever considered in the convention.

[...]

DPAs are available for prosecutors to use, and they are frequently used in the United States. It is, of course, entirely possible that the Public Prosecution Service of Canada had good reasons to not offer one to SNC-Lavalin. It is entirely possible those reasons have nothing to do with the interpretation of the words “national economic interest” as something to do with protecting jobs. But the reasons that prosecutors declined to offer a deal to SNC-Lavalin — and the reason the former attorney general chose not to overrule that decision — have not been revealed. Let’s hope, after so much uproar and scandal, that it was not simply because of a mistaken interpretation of the words “national economic interest.”

For these two reasons, I changed my original opinion (which was the same as the one you're expressing). If saving jobs was the reason for the (obvious) pressure being put on JWR - and Trudeau himself has said so - someone somewhere would have stood up and said, "that's contrary to the law". But even JWR has not said that - and I trust her legal opinion.

Paladin1

Pondering wrote:

 

If she felt that Wernick was issuing a veiled threat in Trudeau's name did she not have a responsibility to report that to Trudeau as a member of cabinet, Minister of Justice and as AG? 

 

Probably because she's smart enough to realize where the threat is coming from and who's just the messenger.

 

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
She should have handed that recording directly to Trudeau if she felt the conversation was inappropriate.

Sure.  The only copy.  Then he could listen to it and analyze the situation and issue a public st... oh, what?   It just somehow got ACCIDENTALLY ERASED!  Ah, fudge.  Darn the luck!

LOL.  You're still acting like she had any reason to trust Trudeau, or assume that her complaints would be handled fairly.  Again, you can't just "go to the boss" if the boss is the source of the problem.

Trudeau is, of course, perfectly free to address her concerns NOW.  Now that we all know what they are, and what actually happened.  If he's such an honest boss, he'll get to the bottom of this, won't he Pondering?  He'll make this right!

Pondering

No not the only copy of course. Assuming messaging is coming from the Prime Minister isn't good enough. We all know Trudeau was aware of the pressuring but he has plausible deniability on the specifics because JWR did not confront him with his staff's inappropriate behavior. 

There was no risk to her in confronting Trudeau directly on the behavior of his staff. She isn't/wasn't staff. She is an elected representative of the people who was appointed Attorney General which carries responsibilities not subject to the direction of the Prime Minister. He had the power to remove her as Attorney General. That is not a reason for her not to tell him his staff was addressing her inappropriately. She could have said "Wernick told me you will get this done one way or another, is that true?"

He did make it right. Butts and Wernick have resigned. Wernick has stated that he did not brief the PM and I believe him because the PM is not briefed on the details on purpose.

This is why Trudeau can brazen it out. No one can prove he said or did anything inappropriate or was aware of his staff doing it. He isn't directly involved. 

She said in the phone call well nobody is telling him. She was the AG, a top tier cabinet minister. It was her responsibility not the responsibility of staff to tell Trudeau directly whatever it is she thought he needed to know. 

If the AG is unable to reach the PM directly because staff is kept between ministers and the PM that is a bigger problem than SNC. 

What would we think of a non-indigious man in this situation? I was all gaga woman power but I don't want to support her because she is indigious or a woman. I have to caution myself and remember she is still a dedicated Liberal.   

If she had confronted him directly and he didn't respond appropriately we would have the smoking gun of his involvement. Can it be that it just didn't occur to her to talk to the PM about her concerns? Is that plausible in a woman of her stature particularly in the field of law? Assuming it did occur to her why did she reject it? (I don't know)

As Minister of Justice and Attorney General if she believed important, critical even, information was not making it through to the PM personally it was her responsibility to make sure he heard the message directly from her not staff. In writing if need be. 

No matter that we all, myself included, consider Trudeau in this up to his neck, there is no proof. JWR insists nothing illegal happened. Trudeau was well within his rights to shift cabinet portfolios and reasons are never given. JWR didn't complain until she was moved to Veteran's Affairs. 

Let's play what if. What would have happened had JWR confronted Trudeau with what his staff was saying to her?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Pondering wrote:

If she had confronted him directly and he didn't respond appropriately we would have the smoking gun of his involvement. Can it be that it just didn't occur to her to talk to the PM about her concerns? Is that plausible in a woman of her stature particularly in the field of law? Assuming it did occur to her why did she reject it? (I don't know)

This is a misogynist argument that should not be made on babble. The answer to your question is Trudeau is a nasty aggressive male who doesn't take no for an answer. How many women have to say it before you will stop attacking them instead of supporting your PET's son. You used the same type of attack to try and quiet peoples conjecture about his ass grabbing days in the Kootenays.

She allegedly told the PM that political life had seriously harmed her family life, and in response, according to Ms. Chavannes, the Prime Minister grew hostile and yelled at her. Specifically, he allegedly claimed that the MP did not appreciate him, especially when he had provided her with so much.  

“He was yelling. He was yelling that I didn’t appreciate him, that he’d given me so much,” Caesar-Chavannes said.

https://www.thepostmillennial.com/liberal-mp-says-trudeau-was-hostile-an...

NorthReport

Thanks krop

Contrary to his PR facade, Justin's behaviour with women obviously has been inappropriate for quite a long time now. 

Misfit Misfit's picture

Here is an article discussing DPAs 

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2019/03/08/analysis/hidden-key-snc-lavalin-scandal

(T)he more serious the offence, the less likely a DPA is in the interest of justice'—U.K. courts

Notwithstanding that Canada's DPA legislation is recent (even suspiciously rushed), its terms and origin are well established in the international setting.

The United Kingdom, which has authorized DPAs since 2013, with very comparable legislation to Canada's, demonstrate that these agreements are rare, and only exercised in exceptional circumstances.

In SFO v Standard Bank plc, a leading U.K. judicial decision on DPA eligibility, the court held that:

“The first consideration must be the seriousness of the conduct for the more serious the offence... the less likely it is that a DPA will be in the interest of justice.”

Bribery of the Gaddafis clearly qualifies as among the most serious case Canada has encountered.

Notably, in the OECD guidelines, and both the U.K. and Canadian legislation one of several enumerated purposes is to reduce consequences for innocent third parties such as employees.

In SFO v Rolls Royce, the court flatly discounted the national economic interest, and treated employment concerns as peripheral (para 57):

"The final consideration... is the impact of prosecution on employees and others innocent of any misconduct or what might otherwise be described as the consequences of a conviction. I have no difficulty in accepting... that a criminal conviction against Rolls-Royce would have a very substantial impact on the company...and Rolls-Royce employees... None of these factors is determinative of my decision in relation to this DPA; indeed, the national economic interest is irrelevant...

As I have made clear... a company that commits serious crimes must expect to be prosecuted and if convicted dealt with severely and, absent sufficient countervailing factors, cannot expect to have an application for approval of a DPA accepted." (emphasis added)

In the U.K., job losses on their own are not sufficent to justify a DPA.

There, the great majority of foreign bribery cases proceeded to trial, with only three DPAs being entered into since 2013.

The single most common factor? Self-reporting to authorities when the company discovered wrongdoing. SNC did not self-report, but was discovered by Swiss authorities.

Section 715.3 of the Criminal Code of Canada then sets out several pre-conditions and mandatory considerations that the Canadian prosecutor is required by law to consider.

The first pre-condition to consideration of a DPA in the Canadian legislation is that the prosecutor must form the opinion that “the offence did not cause and was not likely to have caused serious bodily harm or death.”

A prosecutor could hardly ignore the Gaddafi reign of terror over the Libyan people, and the company's role in supporting that, particularly by continuing involvement with Saadi Gaddafi after the murder of his coach. Prosecutors are entitled to consider more background on this subject than can be publicly disclosed.

The Criminal Code then sets out a number of circumstances that the prosecutor MUST consider, which are similar to the U.K. framework:

These include whether the accused organization self-reported to authorities (it did not); the nature and gravity of the offence (extremely serious); the involvement of senior officers (high); whether the organization has entered into a previous remediation agreement for similar conduct (multiple); whether the organization or its officers committed other offences (many).

Of special note is that the reported conduct continued over an extended period, almost a decade, with an extremely high dollar value.

On the positive side for SNC-Lavalin, it fired the people directly involved, had a complete turnover of senior management, and have instituted better internal checks and balances. So there's that.

In sum, SNC fails on all the primary tests a prosecutor would take into account, and passes only the most marginal or peripheral ones. Barring evidentiary issues that we have no way to assess, there is more than ample reason to support the determination of the DPP, and no substantial cause to overturn it.

As to the evidentiary strength of the case, we'll have to wait and see.

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

If she had confronted him directly and he didn't respond appropriately we would have the smoking gun of his involvement. Can it be that it just didn't occur to her to talk to the PM about her concerns? Is that plausible in a woman of her stature particularly in the field of law? Assuming it did occur to her why did she reject it? (I don't know)

This is a misogynist argument that should not be made on babble. The answer to your question is Trudeau is a nasty aggressive male who doesn't take no for an answer. How many women have to say it before you will stop attacking them instead of supporting your PET's son. You used the same type of attack to try and quiet peoples conjecture about his ass grabbing days in the Kootenays.

BS and it is an insult to JWR to suggest she would be intimidated by Trudeau being verbally aggressive. Your inference that it has anything to do with PET is mysogynistic. I am no fan of Trudeau or his father. I do not believe for a second that JWR has at any time in her life been intimidated by Trudeau or anyone in his office. 

Your article makes me suspicious of Caesar-Chavannes jumping in on a political hatchet job.

She allegedly told the PM that political life had seriously harmed her family life, and in response, according to Ms. Chavannes, the Prime Minister grew hostile and yelled at her. Specifically, he allegedly claimed that the MP did not appreciate him, especially when he had provided her with so much.  

“He was yelling. He was yelling that I didn’t appreciate him, that he’d given me so much,” Caesar-Chavannes said...

So Trudeau was annoyed that the party was losing a rep they had invested in promoting and probably did raise his voice but "yelling" which was turned into "screaming" in the article? I think not. Were they somewhere sound-proofed? Were there witnesses? If they were alone how did that come about? 

A full week later, Caesar-Chavannes attempted to approach the PM again, and once more was met with “anger and hostility” before Mr. Trudeau allegedly stormed out of the room after staring her down, according to the Globe and Mail article.  

As far as I know it is completely normal for backbenchers to not get to speak to the PM. Caesar-Chavannes had already stated she wouldn't run again so why would he waste his time on her? They didn't even speak and she is saying he was angry and hostile. Why would he bother staring her down? That makes no sense. He has no need or reason to intimidate her. 

I do not appreciate the portrayal of female politicians being intimidated by a raised voice. It makes them look weak. It makes a mockery of situations in which women have no power and are intimidated by men who do have power over them. 

Female Liberal politicians are still Liberal politicians. They don't deserve a free ride simply because they are women therefore must be pure. Particularly when we are discussing someone as powerful as JWR. She was destined for high places from birth. It doesn't make her automatically guilty of anything, just like male Liberal politicians shouldn't be assumed to be guilty of anything. Neither does she deserve a halo. In my view she outright lied although like her, I have no proof.

She made it seem like the reason she has a recording is that a note-taker didn't happen to be present because it was after hours. Bullshit. If that were the case she would have informed Wernick that he was being recorded as in her own words it was highly unusual and bordering breaking lawyer's regulations. Afterwards she would have taken notes not kept the recording. She took the recording and kept it because she wanted ammunition if Trudeau tried to move her out of the AG position. 

She was not trying to protect Trudeau politically as she claimed in the recording. She was trying to make sure she could damage him politically and making a veiled threat of her own. 

That does not mean that Trudeau was not behaving inappropriately, perhaps illegally, although JWR claims not. 

There is a rabble article that questions the MSM version of this mess so I will quote it in the next post. 

Paladin1

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

If she had confronted him directly and he didn't respond appropriately we would have the smoking gun of his involvement. Can it be that it just didn't occur to her to talk to the PM about her concerns? Is that plausible in a woman of her stature particularly in the field of law? Assuming it did occur to her why did she reject it? (I don't know)

This is a misogynist argument that should not be made on babble. The answer to your question is Trudeau is a nasty aggressive male who doesn't take no for an answer. How many women have to say it before you will stop attacking them instead of supporting your PET's son. You used the same type of attack to try and quiet peoples conjecture about his ass grabbing days in the Kootenays.

She allegedly told the PM that political life had seriously harmed her family life, and in response, according to Ms. Chavannes, the Prime Minister grew hostile and yelled at her. Specifically, he allegedly claimed that the MP did not appreciate him, especially when he had provided her with so much.  

“He was yelling. He was yelling that I didn’t appreciate him, that he’d given me so much,” Caesar-Chavannes said.

https://www.thepostmillennial.com/liberal-mp-says-trudeau-was-hostile-an...

Would you send your daughter to talk to a boss who behaves like this? And suggest she's in the wrong for recording a conversation with someone whom her boss sends to convince her to "make the right choice"? After months and months of badgering from all directions? I feel like you wouldn't.

The Liberals will do anything to deflect attention away from this scandal. Going after JWR for recording a conversation in a clearly toxic workplace is pretty weak.

Pondering I really think you should read kropotkin1951's post carefully. I think he's really hitting the nail on the head.

I apologize for getting a personal (if you consider it that) but I think you're a really smart and open minded woman. I find it really strange that, in light of the clear evidence of Trudeaus true character,  you continue to suggest JWR should have just went and talked to him.

 

Quote:

She allegedly told the PM that political life had seriously harmed her family life, and in response, according to Ms. Chavannes, the Prime Minister grew hostile and yelled at her. Specifically, he allegedly claimed that the MP did not appreciate him, especially when he had provided her with so much.  

“He was yelling. He was yelling that I didn’t appreciate him, that he’d given me so much,” Caesar-Chavannes said.

Pondering

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/views-expressed/2019/03/jody-wilson-raybould-doth-protest-too-much#at_pco=smlrebv-1.0&at_si=5ca37972bd63ac33&at_ab=per-2&at_pos=4&at_tot=5

Michelle Weinroth is an author and teacher. She writes extensively on political rhetoric.

 

Do Wilson-Raybould's recent words in the House match her deeds? What has been her track record as minister of justice? When, since 2015, has she demonstrated political principle and acted heroically on behalf of Indigenous peoples, marginalized groups, and less fortunate Canadians?

Did Wilson-Raybould voice her dissent on grounds of principle when the Liberal government refused to relinquish its $14-billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia, a country responsible for the starvation of countless Yemenite children?

Did she protest when her government spent "$110K in legal fees fighting a First Nations girl over [a] $6K dental procedure"?

Did she contest the government's decision to take the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to Federal Court "over a ruling last month that linked the suicide deaths in a northern Ontario First Nation with Ottawa's inaction on implementing total equity in health-care delivery for Indigenous children"?

Among her greatest lapses as attorney general was her refusal to order a public inquiry into the conduct of officials in the justice department, persons who actively and knowingly abetted the wrongful extradition and psychological persecution of Hassan Diab, the iconic casualty of miscarried justice. When human rights groups petitioned the then attorney general to order a public inquiry into the suspicious actions of officials within the Department of Justice, Wilson-Raybould refused, ordering instead a review that will have surely exonerated the culprits. Declining to field questions in the House about the Diab affair, she closed the case with a perfunctory letter to Alex Neve of Amnesty International, while neglecting to offer a basic courtesy to Diab himself -- an apology in writing. In all this, she failed miserably.

It behooves Canadians to look at politics as theatre -- as a media-staged drama that, over the past few weeks, has swept many off their feet. Canadians ought to consider Wilson-Raybould's testimony as a performance. For when "the lady doth protest too much," there is reason to question the soundness of her truth.

I regularly fall for MSM narratives when they seem to be supporting my perspective on events or issues. It's probably human nature to apply scepticism to that which we don't like but not to what we do. 

My first reaction was Wow, so principled, this is what we need in politics. People who don't belong to the old boys network, people willing to speak truth to power, push back. Women rock. Getting them into politics will change things. 

I keep forgetting it is about class. JWR belongs to the political class and she is looking after her own interests. She will not remain a Liberal and her next position will be very high most likely representing indigenous peoples against the government. 

 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

JWR..Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. I hope your political career is over. BUT maybe you can find a home with the CPC.. Not a huge stretch since you handed them a huge gift.

Pondering

If we are going to put a halo on her head it is worth looking at her other decisions to see just how dedicated she is to justice. 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/wrongly-convicted-glen-assoun-case-delay-jody-wilson-raybould-1.5074732

Glen Assoun's lawyer says the wrongfully convicted Halifax man suffered "every single day" as he waited to be exonerated for a murder he didn't commit — a wait that was prolonged for months as his case sat on former justice minister Jody Wilson-Raybould's desk.

David Lametti issued an order for a new trial on Feb. 28, just seven weeks after taking over as justice minister. The following day — after a five-minute new trial in which the prosecution presented no evidence — Assoun was a free man....

The Halifax Examiner first reported earlier this month that Wilson-Raybould sat for 18 months on the findings of the Justice Department's criminal conviction review group, which recommended that a new trial be ordered for Assoun....

Wilson-Raybould herself did not confirm or deny a lengthy delay in dealing with Assoun's case, but suggested it was just one of many potential wrongful conviction cases that landed on her desk....

"As minister, I took potential wrongful conviction matters incredibly seriously. In order to deal with all such applications more thoroughly, effectively, and impartially, I appointed the Honourable Mr. Justice Morris Fish [a former Supreme Court justice] as special adviser on wrongful convictions in early December 2018. His role was designed to advise me — as minister — on applications under the criminal conviction review process, of which there were many."...

MacDonald said it's not unusual for a justice minister to seek outside advice on cases in which a miscarriage of justice is alleged. Still, he said the criminal conviction review group at Justice is a "highly professional, specialized group" that spent five years meticulously investigating the Assoun case.

Lametti acted swiftly on the group's advice, saying in his order for a new trial that he had determined "upon investigation that there are new matters of significance, as well as relevant and reliable information, that was not disclosed to Mr. Glen Assoun during his criminal proceedings." As a result of that investigation, Lametti said he is "satisfied that there is a reasonable basis to conclude that a miscarriage of justice likely occurred."...

MacDonald questioned Wilson-Raybould's suggestion that she had many potential wrongful conviction cases to deal with.

"I wouldn't think that there would be a great deal of applications being processed or reviewed by the criminal conviction review group," he said.

The group screens out the "vast majority" of applications that are deemed to have lit