Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Cookester15

Bye bye Trudeau

Recommended Posts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, jehurey said:

LOL, you can't even explain the scandal in your own words.

 

That web link is so long........it must be a big deal!

He tried to pressure the attorney general to not criminally charge a massive Canadian construction company for bribing Libyan officials to win project bids. 

 

 

The prime minister, directly and through his senior officials, used various means to exert influence over Ms. Wilson‑Raybould,” said Dion.

“The authority of the prime minister and his office was used to circumvent, undermine and ultimately attempt to discredit the decision of the director of public prosecutions as well as the authority of Ms. Wilson‑Raybould as the Crown’s chief law officer.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Cookester15 said:

He tried to pressure the attorney general to not criminally charge a massive Canadian construction company for bribing Libyan officials to win project bids. 

 

 

No,they determined that he tried to pressure the attorney general to SETTLE a case against said corporation. They were already under investigation and already under some form of government prosecution by that point.

 

Wow, you even lied to try and make it seem worse.

 

1 minute ago, Cookester15 said:

But hey at least he's a feminist with nice hair. 

And now we know the real reason why you even made this thread to begin with. Of course I already knew almost instantly.

 

This is what passes for scandal in Canada?:drake:

Edited by jehurey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, jehurey said:

No,they determined that he tried to pressure the attorney general to SETTLE a case against said corporation. They were already under investigation and already under some form of government prosecution by that point.

 

Wow, you even lied to try and make it seem worse.

 

And now we know the real reason why you even made this thread to begin with. Of course I already knew almost instantly.

 

This is what passes for scandal in Canada?:drake:

Wow you're really splitting hairs here bud. 

 

He's interferering with the courts for the benefit of a 3rd party. Yes it's a big deal, especially because he changed his story 7 times. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jehurey said:

LOL, there's a reason why you aren't elaborating more on what happened.

 

Probably because if you did........everybody here would just shrug.

when you were born your mother and everyone just shrugged it off... and it has been your life ever since

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, jehurey said:

No,they determined that he tried to pressure the attorney general to SETTLE a case against said corporation. They were already under investigation and already under some form of government prosecution by that point.

The settling of the case would be for SNC-Lavelin to pay a fine rather than go on trial for criminal charges.

 

42 minutes ago, jehurey said:

This is what passes for scandal in Canada?:drake:

Pressuring the attorney general to not pursue criminal charges against a company for winning contracts through bribes because it would hurt jobs isn't a particularly scandalous headline in the US, sure, but she was demoted from her position as a result and has had her name dragged through the mud over the last couple months by Trudeau's camp. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While we have problems here in this country, they're sort of ridiculous in nature and compared to other countries.  1) They are in most instances, very Canadian by their nature and 2) While the outcome may determine improper actions, not a lot changes because of it. Hell, the previous government used to shut down our government just so they couldn't lose a vote of no confidence to trigger an election.

 

 

 

We had a Senate expenses scandal here in 2012. About whether or not appointed Senators had improperly - or even fraudulently; spent taxpayers money. So we they did a massive investigation going back a decade, line-by-line through their expense reports the senators had filed. 

 

The issue itself made headlines, since taxpayers obviously don't want appointed people (usually done so for their service, or as a political favour for their votes while in Parliament) who are already typically already wealthy to be spending our money on frivolous shit. 

 

Well in order to accomplish this massive undertaking, of investing hundreds of Senators (some who had since retired, or were deceased) within a timeframe of around 6 months, they had to hire a private firm as the government doesn't employ enough accountants to perform this specific task. 

 

So they went to a private firm, Deloitte; but even they didn't have enough staff for this, so they started bringing people out of retirement just to help with the paperwork.

 

 

 

You know what they found? 1.24 Million of improper spending over the course of a decade or so some that was pretty bad (Patrick Brazeau for example).... You know how much we spent investigating this scandal? 24 Million.... :| :D 

 

 

 

Look, I'm not particularly fond of Trudeau, but the alternative is Andrew Scheer, and well, LMAO fuck that guy. They (Conservative party) need a better representative, and the NDP need someone who can capture national attention (RIP Jack Layton :( ) before I can even consider voting for either party.

Edited by Teh_Diplomat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Trudeau is trying to protect a corporation because of some provable quid pro quo arrangement, then that's a problem.

 

If Trudeau is making the argument of "well, we already know that the end result of all of this is going to be some sort of settlement, so let's just get it over with instead of wasting time and money" then that's not exactly an issue of ethics because something sinister or corrupt is going on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, jehurey said:

If Trudeau is trying to protect a corporation because of some provable quid pro quo arrangement, then that's a problem.

 

If Trudeau is making the argument of "well, we already know that the end result of all of this is going to be some sort of settlement, so let's just get it over with instead of wasting time and money" then that's not exactly an issue of ethics because something sinister or corrupt is going on.

The issue is he tried to get the AG to do his bidding. That position is supposed to be completely independent and not to be influenced whatsoever. Especially for the sake of a multinational multi billion dollar company. 

 

HIs main concern was if SNC Lavalin was criminally prosecuted they wont be able to bid on federal contracts for 10 years which means they would have to lay off 7000 people, mostly in Quebec which is a battleground province for the liberal and conservative parties. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cookester15 said:

The issue is he tried to get the AG to do his bidding. That position is supposed to be completely independent and not to be influenced whatsoever. Especially for the sake of a multinational multi billion dollar company. 

 

HIs main concern was if SNC Lavalin was criminally prosecuted they wont be able to bid on federal contracts for 10 years which means they would have to lay off 7000 people, mostly in Quebec which is a battleground province for the liberal and conservative parties. 

So, you are seeing that his motivations are rooted in something that isn't inherently corrupt.

 

Trudeau is probably thinking, if this AG tries to throw the book at them, I'm gonna get the blame for 7,000 job loses. Let's still punish the company, but in a way in which the average person isn't going to suffer any consequences from it.

 

"To do his bidding" make it seem like there's some grand conspiracy behind all of this. I know you're trying to make this look like an episode of Game of Thrones, but I think most people will view this in a PRACTICAL context. You can clearly see Trudeau's logic in this. Maybe he should issue an apology and Canadian parliament can issue some sort of public resolution to "censure" him for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jehurey said:

So, you are seeing that his motivations are rooted in something that isn't inherently corrupt.

 

Trudeau is probably thinking, if this AG tries to throw the book at them, I'm gonna get the blame for 7,000 job loses. Let's still punish the company, but in a way in which the average person isn't going to suffer any consequences from it.

 

"To do his bidding" make it seem like there's some grand conspiracy behind all of this. I know you're trying to make this look like an episode of Game of Thrones, but I think most people will view this in a PRACTICAL context. You can clearly see Trudeau's logic in this. Maybe he should issue an apology and Canadian parliament can issue some sort of public resolution to "censure" him for it.

His motivations are "get re elected"  

 

If they were jobs in Alberta or Saskatchewan he wouldn't give 2 fucks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×