This result demonstrates that the prosecutors and the company could have come to an equitable result without the blatantly unethical political interference from Trudeau and Butts and their little helpers in the PMO.
as you said, baseless speculation pulled out of YOUR AZZ!
No. If I had written that before the plea agreement was reached, it would have been baseless speculation. But since I wrote it after the plea agreement was reached, it's merely remarking upon an observable fact:
* AG Lametti says that the government was not involved in reaching the plea agreement between SNC and the public prosecution.
* An agreement has been reached that all parties consider equitable.
THEREFORE: government involvement was not required to reach an equitable deal.
The Prime Minister himself said that if he'd known things would work out this well, he'd have acted much differently.
as the ever astute waldo surmised, the prosecution did not want to take this to trial... the fact they dropped (stayed) the majority of charges (including Corruption) is a testimony to just how weak their case MUST HAVE BEEN! Of course it was the ALLEGED corruption that was believed to be behind the PPSC decision not to offer a DPA. And now... that alleged corruption charge was stayed! Wassup with that, hey member kimmy!
Hey, if the prosecution's case was so weak, why did SNC make a plea bargain at all? Why shell out $280 million if the prosecution had no case? Why did SNC-Lavalin go to such lengths to get a DPA if the prosecution had no case? Is SNC-Lavalin's legal counsel so incompetent that they caused their employer to waste $280 million on a case they would have won in court? I can only imagine how deeply SNC-Lavalin regrets that they didn't hire you as their legal advisor, rather than whichever incompetent goofs they hired to get this plea agreement done.
Of course, as the ever-astute waldo presumes to know the Director of Prosecution's job better than she does, presumes to know the Ethics Commissioner's job better than he does, it should be no surprise that the ever-astute waldo also believes he knows SNC-Lavalin's lawyer's job better than they do.
in your fantasy world, your stated, "disgusting criminal corporation" wording, is probably the most telling words you've used here. Protip: your kimmy's cubicle world job doesn't lend itself to recognize/appreciate just what an international corporation of the likes of SNC-Lavalin is about... the many, many divisions that makeup the company, the thousands of world-wide employees bringing leading products/solutions/services forward. In this particular hyped example with Libya, there were a handful of rogue execs (bad men, very bad men) who can't be excused for their crimes... but shouldn't be used as a representation of the company proper. If you'd like a replay, the waldo can quote prior posts that showed the significant internal measures the company took towards changing its processes to ensure, for example, more complete transparency between divisions and executive levels.
As we've observed a revolving door of executives go from the corner offices of SNC Lavalin to the courtrooms, it becomes clear that this wasn't "a few rogue executives", it was a rogue culture. Testimony in these trials revealed a corporation that was willing to turn a blind eye to these "rogue executives" and their doings.
c'mon member kimmy - admit the plea agreement reached results in like... no less... than what an offered DPA would have secured? St. Jody's truth can't help you here!
The kimmo reminds the waldo that the degree of punishment that SNC deserved was never the real scandal here, rather the PMO's unethical efforts to interfere in public prosecution to get a politically advantageous result. Trying to justify the PMO's actions in terms of the eventual plea deal SNC accepted is just more of your galloping-goalposts shenanigans, and not many here are dumb enough to fall for that stuff.
the waldo can replay those failures for you... if you'd like. She never had the qualifications for the job in the first place - many legal experts have stated as much. She was simply a gender assignment; one that also happened to include indigenous attachment. This is nothing new! The waldo has stated many times this was not an appropriate selection. Those glaring failures are a testimony to just that - and as I said, watching JWR implode over the office-space fiasco was gold, real gold! Perhaps member kimmy would like to put some spin around this, hey?
I can't imagine why you think a squabble over seating arrangements vindicates the PMO's unethical behavior either.
-k