Author Topic: Trudeau accused in SNC-Lavalin scandal  (Read 27352 times)

0 Members and 82 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline JMT

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3462
  • Location: Waterhen, Manitoba
Re: Trudeau accused in SNC-Lavalin scandal
« Reply #375 on: February 28, 2019, 06:53:13 pm »
Seems like a widespread consensus that it's considered such.

But it isn't really one - a department with a huge workforce and a $4B per year budget is hardly a menial task.

Offline Queefer Sutherland

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8105
Re: Trudeau accused in SNC-Lavalin scandal
« Reply #376 on: February 28, 2019, 06:53:19 pm »
But she didn't get demoted.  There are no junior ministers in the Trudeau government.

There's a pretty clear hierarchy within a caucus and within a cabinet.  Put Morneau as the Minister of Sport and see how he likes it.  Prime Ministers have long used their power to appoint and remove MPs to/from different cabinet posts, committees, and schedule speaking time in the House of Commons etc. to reward or punish MPs based on their obedience.  Parliament is one big ass-kissing party.
I queef, therefore I am.

Offline JMT

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3462
  • Location: Waterhen, Manitoba
Re: Trudeau accused in SNC-Lavalin scandal
« Reply #377 on: February 28, 2019, 06:54:03 pm »
There's a pretty clear hierarchy within a caucus and within a cabinet.  Put Morneau as the Minister of Sport and see how he likes it.  Prime Ministers have long used their power to appoint and remove MPs to/from different cabinet posts, committees, and schedule speaking time in the House of Commons etc. to reward or punish MPs based on their obedience.  Parliament is one big ass-kissing party.

Sure but Trudeau made a pretty big show of making all Ministers equal within his government.

Offline Queefer Sutherland

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8105
Re: Trudeau accused in SNC-Lavalin scandal
« Reply #378 on: February 28, 2019, 06:57:58 pm »
Canadian politics have been too boring for a while, finally we can stand ground with the Americans.

Maybe Trudeau had some Trump envy and wanted in on the action  :D
I queef, therefore I am.

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Trudeau accused in SNC-Lavalin scandal
« Reply #379 on: February 28, 2019, 07:00:12 pm »
I don't agree - I use dumb very occasionally.  It isn't meant as an insult.
You probably use it on posts that a neutral observer could agree are dumb. The 'dumb' trio leaves it on well argued and thoughtful posts that certainly don't deserve that label. They use it to insult and dismiss. It is the equivalent to f*** you.

BTW: we live in a world where intentions don't matter. perceptions do. so if people perceive something to be a deliberate insult then it is a deliberate insult. Now if you want to revisit the standards brought to us by progressives then we can but that is a separate discussion.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2019, 07:21:15 pm by TimG »
Agree Agree x 1 Dumb Dumb x 2 View List

Offline Queefer Sutherland

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8105
Re: Trudeau accused in SNC-Lavalin scandal
« Reply #380 on: February 28, 2019, 07:17:05 pm »
From JWR's opening statement:

Quote
It is well-established that when the AG exercises prosecutorial discretion, she or he does so individually and independently. These are not cabinet decisions.

I will say that it is appropriate for Cabinet colleagues to draw to the AG’s attention what they see as important public policy considerations that are relevant to decisions about how a prosecution will proceed. What is not appropriate is pressing on the AG matters that she or he cannot take into account, such as partisan political considerations; continuing to urge the AG to change her or his mind for months after the decision has been made; or suggesting that a collision with the Prime Minister on these matters should be avoided.
I queef, therefore I am.

Offline Rue

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 835
  • The beast feeds on fear - I feast on the beast.
  • Location: inside a matrix
Re: Trudeau accused in SNC-Lavalin scandal
« Reply #381 on: February 28, 2019, 07:32:54 pm »
Considering whether to prosecute or not based on how many jobs are at stake is exactly what the DPA is all about. Sorry if you didn't understand that. Inappropriate "Arm twisting" on that issue is what is being questioned now. No precedent so far as it is a new legislation.

Clearly you do not understand what a dpa is, what plea bargaining is, when they are both used, and what limits they have because if you did you would know dpa's don't use employment issues as a criteria to determine a sentence.

To start with a dpa can not add to, supercede, replace s.718 [/b]of the Criminal Code which states:

Purpose

718. The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives:
(a) to denounce unlawful conduct;
(b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;
(c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary;
(d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;
(e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and
(f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and to the community.

and

Other sentencing principles
718.2 A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles:
(a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,
(i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor,
(ii) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused the offender’s spouse or common-law partner,
(ii.1) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a person under the age of eighteen years,
(iii) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a position of trust or authority in relation to the victim,
(iv) evidence that the offence was committed for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization, or
(v) evidence that the offence was a terrorism offence
shall be deemed to be aggravating circumstances;

Any dpa must conform to and complement not contradict or ignore the above principles of sentencing.

Using your reasoning that a dpa can take into consideration something unrelated to the crime such as potential negative voter fall out or unemployment makes no common sense. First of all no one can say for sure if a criminal sentence would by itself trigger negative voter fall out or unemployment. Its too indirect a result to be a consideration.

Next if we created lesser sentences for criminals because their sentence may indirectly impact negatively on their employees when would this stop? If you do it for Lavalin you must do it for all criminals who are employers. So who next. Oh wait, organized criminals hire employees who do not themselves commit crimes, do we give them lesser sentences?

Of course not.

What we let a rapist off because if he doesn't return to his company it goes under and his employees lose their jobs?

Nonsense.

There is a reason the elements of consideration of criminal sentencing are directly related to the elements of the crime (the crime's impact on human behaviour to do the same crime).

Criminal law is supposed to serve as a warning to others NOT to do the same behaviour. It can't condone the behaviour because of a concept that employment concerns or voter concerns over-ride principles of criminal concern. That would undermine the entire purpose of criminal law and create the belief that employing people entitles you to a lesser sentence for a crime.

A deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) is in fact non-prosecution agreement. In such agreements prosecutors agrees to grant amnesty, i.e., NOT PURSUE a trial or prosecution in exchange for an agreement that the accused agree to fulfill certain requirements, i.e., pay a fine, suspend operations until new procedures are put in place to guarantee the same behaviour can not happen again and an agreement of a moratorium or time period of not getting certain business and to fully cooperate with the completion of any criminal investigation. If that is all done charges are dismissed.

Unlike a plea bargain the Judge is never involved because the prosecution is never commenced.

In a plea bargain the prosecution is commenced which necessarily means any agreed upon pleading must go before the Judge for final approval. Its the Judge who decides if the plea is acceptable.

DPA's are much rarer than plea bargains.

Let's be clear, the PM created a dpa and passed it into law hiding it in an omnibus bill. This PM said he would never use omnibus bills because they prevent proper debate in Parliament.

Yet this PM did just that and he passed through the dpa with zero discussion because if the criteria in the dpa would have been disclosed, it would have been exposed as contrary to s.718 of the Criminal Code and therefore not appropriate as it would undermine the criminal sentencing process.

That's why Trudeau snuck it by and he was wrong to do so.

A prosecutor not Justin Trudeau decides what if any plea or sentence is appropriate by considering the elements of the offence only. The elements of the offence do not include whether the criminal employs people who might lose jobs if the criminal goes to jail.

to be continued.





You have me mistaken with an eagle. I only come to eat your carcass.

Offline Rue

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 835
  • The beast feeds on fear - I feast on the beast.
  • Location: inside a matrix
Re: Trudeau accused in SNC-Lavalin scandal
« Reply #382 on: February 28, 2019, 07:39:20 pm »
As of this evening the Opposition Leader asked the RCMP to commence a criminal investigation as to whether Trudeau  et al violated s.139(l) of the Criminal Code.

Obstructing justice

139. (1) Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice in a judicial proceeding,
(a) by indemnifying or agreeing to indemnify a surety, in any way and either in whole or in part, or
(b) where he is a surety, by accepting or agreeing to accept a fee or any form of indemnity whether in whole or in part from or in respect of a person who is released or is to be released from custody,
is guilty of
(c) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or
(d) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Idem
(2) Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner other than a manner described in subsection (1) to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.
Idem
(3) Without restricting the generality of subsection (2), every one shall be deemed wilfully to attempt to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice who in a judicial proceeding, existing or proposed,
(a) dissuades or attempts to dissuade a person by threats, bribes or other corrupt means from giving evidence;
(b) influences or attempts to influence by threats, bribes or other corrupt means a person in his conduct as a juror; or
(c) accepts or obtains, agrees to accept or attempts to obtain a bribe or other corrupt consideration to abstain from giving evidence, or to do or to refrain from doing anything as a juror.

I myself do not think there is sufficient evidence to prove a wilful attempt to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice. There certainly was an intent to pressure the AG but to prove it was criminal in intent is another story. Proving mens rea or criminal intent would mean proving Trudeau ordered the AG to implement the dpa. He never ordered it. So I think in that sense he falls short of having committed a crime.

However he certainly has made it clear he believes getting re-elected in Quebec  with the help of corporate criminals is more important to him than protecting Canadians from those corporate criminals. That is the point Trudeau has so blatantly missed.
You have me mistaken with an eagle. I only come to eat your carcass.

Offline Rue

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 835
  • The beast feeds on fear - I feast on the beast.
  • Location: inside a matrix
Re: Trudeau accused in SNC-Lavalin scandal
« Reply #383 on: February 28, 2019, 07:56:18 pm »
Everyone take a step back and ask yourself what is political corruption.

That is the issue at hand. Something can be politically corrupt but legal. If Omni or any Liberal or Trudeau want to defend what they did as being legal it doesn't mean it was not politically corrupt and we as Canadians have the right to clearly identify what is political corruption and say NO its not an acceptable social value we want in our politicians who hold office.

We all know that corruption constitutes a type of conflict of interest and in the Lavalin case, a conflict  between Trudeau's concern of political fall out and not getting re-elected if Lavalin was properly sentenced with the public interest, namely the need to punish and prevent Lavalin from doing what it did again.

Trudeau, his office, and the Privy Council enunciated the political interests of Trudeau to get re-elected in Quebec as being more important in priority (paramount) when considering the sentence to the principles of Criminal sentencing clearly outlined under s.718 of the Criminal Code.

So I ask while it may not obstruct justice does it trigger an offence under s.121(d) of the Code? I would argue it does.

121(1) Every one commits an offence who

(a) directly or indirectly

(i) gives, offers or agrees to give or offer to an official or to any member of his family, or to any one for the benefit of an official, or

(ii) being an official, demands, accepts or offers or agrees to accept from any person for himself or another person, a loan, reward, advantage or benefit of any kind as consideration for cooperation, assistance, exercise of influence or an act or omission in connection with

(iii) the transaction of business with or any matter of business relating to the government, or

(iv) a claim against Her Majesty or any benefit that Her Majesty is authorized or is entitled to
bestow, whether or not, in fact, the official is able to cooperate, render assistance, exercise influence or do or omit to do what is proposed, as the case may be;

(b) having dealings of any kind with the government, directly or indirectly pays a commission or reward to or confers an advantage or benefit of any kind on an employee or official of the government with which the dealings take place, or to any member of the employee’s or official’s family, or to anyone for the benefit of the employee or official, with respect to those dealings, unless the person has the consent in writing of the head of the branch of government with which the dealings take place;

(c) being an official or employee of the government, directly or indirectly demands, accepts or offers or agrees to accept from a person who has dealings with the government a commission, reward, advantage or benefit of any kind for themselves or another person, unless they have the consent in writing of the head of the branch of government that employs them or of which they are an official;

(d) having or pretending to have influence with the government or with a minister of the government or an official, directly or indirectly demands, accepts or offers or agrees to accept, for themselves or another person, a reward, advantage or benefit of any kind as consideration for cooperation, assistance, exercise of influence or an act or omission in connection with
(i) anything mentioned in subparagraph (a)(iii) or (iv), or
(ii) the appointment of any person, including themselves, to an office; (e) directly or indirectly gives or offers, or agrees to give or offer, to a minister of the government or an official, or to anyone for the benefit of a minister or an official, a reward, advantage or benefit of any kind as consideration for cooperation, assistance, exercise of influence, or an act or omission, by that minister or official, in connection with                                           
(i) anything mentioned in subparagraph (a)(iii) or (iv), or (ii) the appointment of any person, including themselves, to an office; or
(f) having made a tender to obtain a contract with the government,
(i) directly or indirectly gives or offers, or agrees to give or offer, to another person who has made a tender, to a member of that person’s family or to another person for the benefit of that person, a reward, advantage or benefit of any kind as consideration for the withdrawal of the tender of that person, or
(ii) directly or indirectly demands, accepts or offers or agrees to accept from another person who has made a tender a reward, advantage or benefit of any kind for themselves or another person as consideration for the withdrawal of their own tender.





You have me mistaken with an eagle. I only come to eat your carcass.

Offline Rue

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 835
  • The beast feeds on fear - I feast on the beast.
  • Location: inside a matrix
Re: Trudeau accused in SNC-Lavalin scandal
« Reply #384 on: February 28, 2019, 08:19:14 pm »
I have with great effort tried to explain to Omni that legally you just can't expect a dpa to ignore s.718 of the Criminal Code and that whole Trudeau probably did not obstruct justice he certainly has exposed himself and all his minions to s.121 of the code not to mention the fact that he now advocates that his own need to get re-elected is a legitimate criminal sentence consideration which is absurd.

All that said let's look at the pattern of Trudeau holding himself above the law:

1-he went on a vacation paid by the Aga Kahn who was lobbying the government for funding at the same time and said openly he did nothing wrong;

2-has created a legal standard where people who violate immigration law are afforded legal treatment people who obey immigration law are not afforded undermining the very principles of safe third country and entering Canada legally;

3-he paid Kadr 10 million dollars in a back-room deal rather than go to court and argue he was not entitled to any compensation which was his legal obligation to do on behalf of all Canadians-in so doing he put his personal subjective opinion as to Kadr as being paramount to the needs of protecting the public from returning terrorists;

4-has lectured China in regards to Hua Wei that he does not get involved in  criminal legal processes that are on-going because of the principles of the rule of law in Canada and yet at the very same time was doing just that with the Lavalin case;

5-lectured this country on feminism and sexual harassment saying if a woman says she feels harassed we must believe her and yet when his AG told him that he ignored her and in fact continued to harass her and created a cluster attack on her using the Privy Council head, his Finance Minister, Mr. Butt Boy, and other minions in a deliberate and coordinated exercise of coercion and when that did not work demoted her and replaced her with an AG who has now willingly implemented the dpa knowing this dpa ignores and therefore contradicts the considerations of s.718 of the Criminal Code;

6-told Canadians omnibus bills were dishonest and he would never use one, and used one to sneak by a dpa he specifically drafted to give Lavalin special treatment;

7- encouraged and supported Lavalin to lobby and influence peddle the outcome of a criminal sentence;

8-has fired his only indigenous Minister, her crime-not doing what he said.

Enough is enough. The true Trudeau is out and no I do not want a PM who thinks so little of Canadians he finds criminals who get him re-elected more important than law abiding Canadians. Enough.

One last note-Trudeau is a moron. He knew his AG was a principled woman when he hired her. He knew when he hired her she could not as an indigenous truth seeker violate certain codes of behaviour. I said when she was first hired she was very competent and the best person he had hired. I then said I was disappointed in her when she looked the other way over Kadr. I think Kadr pushed her into taking a stand on this one. That is what I think-that and the way Trudeau has lied to the indigenous peoples.

Trudeau is a moron for this reason. BEFORE Lavalin started he could have shuffled her. In this manner her shuffle would not have been related to Lavalin. He could have sent her over to the Foreign Ministry and Freelander over to the Trade Ministry when he shuffled his decks earlier. He waited. He deliberately waited seeing if he could coerce her first before firing her. Why? What idiot can not read an honest person in politics? How stupid can you get?

He has a very serious problem now. Trudeau has surrounded himself with effeminate women hating men like him. That is clear as crystal. For a man who poses as a feminist its clear as can be he resents and can not deal with strong women.

I said he was brought up with a weak fragile mother. He was taught to believe he was her saviour and therefore the saviour of all women.  He sees his role as the adored son who can do no wrong with women and protects them. He is effeminate as it tones down any exterior elements of behaviour he thinks would scare a woman but underneath his tip toe tap dance effeminate mannerisms is an angry boy who never matured and resents having to be a protector of women. Its not an accident he surrounds himself with passive aggressive feminine men like Seemus O'Reagan and his Finance Minister and his former Treasury Board Minister who quit and ran away from an on-going legal case that would taint him. Look carefully at Trudeau. What you have is a passive aggressive women hating racist. He patronizes ethnics with this superiority patronizing routine that talks down to them and treats them like dummies he protects, thus the India visit, the condescending monkey boy behaviour in India, his lectures to China, Saudi Arabia, Putin. He just does not get it.

He does not get he is not a saviour. His performance last night was that of a true narcissist someone totally out of touch with the public. He can't possibly imagine himself being wrong let alone being perceived as wrong about anything. Mama never told him no. Neither did his Papa. Now he's self destructed.
You have me mistaken with an eagle. I only come to eat your carcass.
Old Old x 1 View List

Offline JMT

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3462
  • Location: Waterhen, Manitoba
Re: Trudeau accused in SNC-Lavalin scandal
« Reply #385 on: February 28, 2019, 08:27:27 pm »
From JWR's opening statement:

Except that she's totally wrong, as at current, AG is a cabinet level post in Canada.

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Trudeau accused in SNC-Lavalin scandal
« Reply #386 on: February 28, 2019, 08:28:09 pm »
Yet another lengthy screed to explain basically nada. If you think a dpa has nothing to do with employment, why did the issue of ~9000 Canadian jobs from SNC-L become front and center?

Offline Queefer Sutherland

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8105
Re: Trudeau accused in SNC-Lavalin scandal
« Reply #387 on: February 28, 2019, 09:03:02 pm »
- JWR was repeatedly directly and pointedly asked why she never resigned over her concerns, why she never raised her concerns with the Ethics Commissionaire - she never once answered to this repeated questioning.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/key-moments-jody-wilson-raybould-snc-lavalin-scandal-1.5036629

Quote
Asked why she didn't resign from her position as attorney general and justice minister during the time she said improper pressure was being applied, Wilson-Raybould said:

"I was, in my opinion, doing my job as the attorney general. I was protecting a fundamental constitutional principle of prosecutorial independence and the independence of our judiciary. That's my job. That was my job, rather, as the attorney general.

"And as long as I was the attorney general I was going to ensure that the independence of the director of public prosecutions in the exercise of their discretion was not interfered with."
I queef, therefore I am.

Offline Queefer Sutherland

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8105
Re: Trudeau accused in SNC-Lavalin scandal
« Reply #388 on: February 28, 2019, 09:17:48 pm »
Except that she's totally wrong, as at current, AG is a cabinet level post in Canada.

"The Attorney General has to fulfil his or her criminal prosecution duties independently of any political or government pressure. These duties require fairness of the presentation of cases and does not necessarily result in a conviction. This is a basic criminal law precept which is not well-understood at times or perceived as just."

http://www.canadafaq.ca/what+is+the+attorney+general+of+canada/
For whatever that link is worth.
I queef, therefore I am.

Offline JMT

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3462
  • Location: Waterhen, Manitoba
Re: Trudeau accused in SNC-Lavalin scandal
« Reply #389 on: February 28, 2019, 09:19:20 pm »
"The Attorney General has to fulfil his or her criminal prosecution duties independently of any political or government pressure. These duties require fairness of the presentation of cases and does not necessarily result in a conviction. This is a basic criminal law precept which is not well-understood at times or perceived as just."


Right - the onus is on the AG not to bow to pressure.