Author Topic: Trudeau accused in SNC-Lavalin scandal  (Read 33007 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6750
Re: Trudeau accused in SNC-Lavalin scandal
« Reply #1905 on: January 14, 2020, 04:24:37 am »
While you go about patting yourself on the back for some feat of cleverness you imagine yourself to have performed, I have to once again point out that you've yet again failed to address the fundamental question of why SNC accepted this plea agreement.

you should try reading! I did respond to your nattering... after giving you enough rope to hang with! Again, SNC-L didn't set the plea-agreement terms... that's the prosecution doing so. Again, I expect SNC-L really liked that gift-horse particularly given the uncertainties of judicial process. The question you keep ignoring... that you keep running from is why did PPSC stay the half-dozen other fraud/corruption charges and settle on the single fraud over $5K charge? You know, considering PPSC stated the principal reason for not offering a DPA as the, "nature and gravity of the alleged corruption in Libya"... so grave, hey member kimmy - so grave!  ;D

Notwithstanding I've never offered comment on whether there was 'ACase', how are you expecting anyone from the general public to know just 'WhatCase' the PPSC had... or didn't have? As I recall, the only thing I've stated is that legal analysts suggested PPSC might have difficulty in proving... WhateverCaseTheyMightHave! And why? As I stated, because of the datedness of the alleged crimes, the foreign element, the death/absence of many of the key players {allegedly} involved, etc..
Gee, you make it sound like it would have been pretty easy of SNC to beat these charges in court! Why did SNC decide to plead guilty instead of just beating the charges in court?

SNC's lawyers are in a better position to evaluate the strength of the prosecution's case than anybody in the general public, or any outside legal analysts you care to cite.  The fact that SNC opted to plead guilty should tell you what you need to know about the prosecution's case.

geezaz, why are you having such comprehension difficulty? I've included my statement... that you quoted and replied to... replied to with this nonsense! I openly state I don't know the strength of theCase... which doesn't stop you from your total speculation. And again, answer the question... don't run away from it again; this question: why did PPSC stay the half-dozen other fraud/corruption charges and settle on the single fraud over $5K charge? You know, considering PPSC stated the principal reason for not offering a DPA as the, "nature and gravity of the alleged corruption in Libya"... so grave, hey member kimmy - so grave!

As I said previously, dropping some charges and/or agreeing to a lesser sentence is a common feature of a plea agreement. I'm not sure why this is so mystifying to you.

you're so full of shyte! For such a high-profile case (thanks St. Jody), PPSC sure backed down - yes? Dropping all but one charge! Giving a wrist-slap fine and an oversight regimen significantly reduced from what typical DPAs in other countries have brought forward. So grave, hey member kimmy - so grave!