The Porn Dude
Toronto Escorts

Another bombshell story around the Wilson-Raybould affair

Conil

Well-known member
Apr 12, 2013
3,410
547
113
If Trudeau has nothing to hide let her speak

There’s yet another stunning bombshell story from Robert Fife and Steven Chase of the Globe & Mail.

According to their reporting, a source with knowledge of the Liberal cabinet meeting which Jody Wilson-Raybould attended revealed that she said there was ‘improper’ pressure put upon her in relation to the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin. Wilson-Raybould was able to speak about the issue in Cabinet because of ‘cabinet confidentiality.’

Here’s a key excerpt of the bombshell story:

“According to a source with knowledge of the cabinet discussions, Ms. Wilson-Raybould said the director of the prosecution service rejected a negotiated settlement with SNC-Lavalin based on how the law applies to the company’s case. The Liberal government had changed the Criminal Code to allow for deferred prosecutions in which a company admits wrongdoing and pays a fine, but avoids a trial. Under Canada’s new deferred-prosecution agreement law, prosecutors are not allowed to consider national economic interests when deciding whether to settle with a company.

Mr. Trudeau has acknowledged he raised concerns about the economic impact that a conviction could have on SNC-Lavalin when he met privately with the then-justice minister and attorney-general on Sept. 17, two weeks after the director of public prosecutions decided to move toward a trial.

The fact that prosecutors had already informed the Quebec company of its decision before the meeting between Mr. Trudeau and Ms. Wilson-Raybould meant the only remaining question was whether the attorney-general would override federal prosecutors and publicly instruct them to cut a deal.”

SNC-Lavalin also reportedly threatened to move to the UK.
Gerald Butts also spoke to Jody Wilson-Raybould about a deferred prosecution for SNC-Lavalin on December 5. That meeting took place at the Chateau Laurier hotel, according to the reporting.

A key issue appears to be that the Trudeau government kept bringing the issue up again and again and again, even after the independent prosecutor had decided not to give SNC-Lavalin the deferred prosecution deal:

“Once prosecutors decided in early September to move to trial, Ms. Wilson-Raybould told cabinet she felt it was wrong for anyone – including the Prime Minister, members of his staff and other government officials – to raise the issue with her, the source said. Another source added that Ms. Wilson-Raybould would not budge from her position at the cabinet meeting.”

This totally contradicts Trudeau’s talking points.

He’s said there was no ‘pressure’ on Jody Wilson-Raybould. Yet, if a decision was already made, and the only question left was whether Jody Wilson-Raybould would overturn that decision, then any time the PM or the PMO staff spoke to her about it was obviously about pressuring her.
This is why Trudeau isn’t waiving privilege and isn’t letting Jody Wilson-Raybould speak. The truth will look very bad for him, and he’s doing whatever it takes to stop Canadians from learning what really happened.

Day after day, the corruption of the Trudeau government gets even worse.
 

nottyboi

Well-known member
May 14, 2008
22,447
1,325
113
"prosecutors are not allowed to consider national economic interests when deciding whether to settle with a company", then what is the criteria? and also the AG is not a prosecutor.

I don't see what the corruption is and I see JWR is still leaking like a seive if this is true.
 

Conil

Well-known member
Apr 12, 2013
3,410
547
113
"prosecutors are not allowed to consider national economic interests when deciding whether to settle with a company", then what is the criteria? and also the AG is not a prosecutor.

I don't see what the corruption is and I see JWR is still leaking like a seive if this is true.

I guess you're one of the guys that doesn't want Wilson-Raybould to be free to talk and tell us what happened.
 

nottyboi

Well-known member
May 14, 2008
22,447
1,325
113
I guess you're one of the guys that doesn't want Wilson-Raybould to be free to talk and tell us what happened.
No I think its a pointless discussion as I think SNC should get a deferred agreement. Its a no brainer to me. JWR is a toxic character and has no future in the liberal party.
 

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
27,340
5,560
113
"prosecutors are not allowed to consider national economic interests when deciding whether to settle with a company", then what is the criteria? and also the AG is not a prosecutor.

I don't see what the corruption is and I see JWR is still leaking like a seive if this is true.
In Canada we have to be squeaky clean in comparison to the USA. But the manner in which the right wingers have rushed to defend all allegations of Criminality, Corruption, Collusion and with numerous cabinet and campaign members either being indicted and or jailed in the USA, this is indeed blown out of proportion in comparison. Well Trudeau is guilty unless proven innocent according to the threads / posts in this respect.

All I can say is that if it implicates him then he has a lot to answer and should step down before the next elections. But we have to wait and see, as Wilson-Raybould would have left the party by now if she had a beef to settle with the PM. Sooner or later she will reveal all, but the only one the finger seems to point at is Gerald Butts. Otherwise, why would he also resign?
 

wilbur

Active member
Jan 19, 2004
2,079
0
36
If Wilson-Raybould knew she was removed from her Attorney General/Minister of justice position because of her 'inflexibility', then she should have resigned outright and not accepted the Veterans Affairs portfolio.

In any case, she had the reputation of being opinionated and stubborn, so would suggest that she was demoted because she wasn't a team player. Regardless of the 'independence' of the Attorney Genreral, it's still a politician who occupies the post, and a fellow cabinet member. You don't piss off the PM in any cabinet and get away with it.

The loss of 9000 Canadian high paying jobs as a result of a prosecution, especially in Quebec, is political disaster for the Liberal Party in the next elections. A government does not normally go out of its way to shoot itself in the foot.

Butt got fired for mismanaging the fallout. The stuff coming out of Trudeau's mouth (probably coached by Butts) was pathetic.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
"prosecutors are not allowed to consider national economic interests when deciding whether to settle with a company", then what is the criteria? and also the AG is not a prosecutor.

I don't see what the corruption is and I see JWR is still leaking like a seive if this is true.
While prosecutors are forbidden to consider such things, the A-G is not, nor does the A-G prosecute when acting as the government's lawyer.

But you have raised the still unanswered question in all this: If SNC was willing to admit guilt, reform itself and pay a stiff penalty, what more useful purpose did the prosecutors see in refusing that plea deal and proceeding with the court case?

Or did SNC simply bungle these 'negotiations' — as they had bungled the Libyan bribery they were caught at — and were now pleading with the PM for yet another chance after their last plea-bargain was evaluated as too poor and unconvincing?

Kinda like GM being convinced it was too big to fail. There would never be a Day of Reckoning. Government would bail it out, so it didn't need to change, and make product people wanted to buy.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,760
17,578
113
While prosecutors are forbidden to consider such things, the A-G is not, nor does the A-G prosecute when acting as the government's lawyer.

But you have raised the still unanswered question in all this: If SNC was willing to admit guilt, reform itself and pay a stiff penalty, what more useful purpose did the prosecutors see in refusing that plea deal and proceeding with the court case?

Or did SNC simply bungle these 'negotiations' — as they had bungled the Libyan bribery they were caught at — and were now pleading with the PM for yet another chance after their last plea-bargain was evaluated as too poor and unconvincing?

Kinda like GM being convinced it was too big to fail. There would never be a Day of Reckoning. Government would bail it out, so it didn't need to change, and make product people wanted to buy.
Absolutely, this isn't about 'corruption', its just whether there was a push to allow SNC to keep getting government jobs after working in Libya.
If it was Doug Ford these guys would all be backing it, saying that the jobs should trump politics.
 

nottyboi

Well-known member
May 14, 2008
22,447
1,325
113
While prosecutors are forbidden to consider such things, the A-G is not, nor does the A-G prosecute when acting as the government's lawyer.

But you have raised the still unanswered question in all this: If SNC was willing to admit guilt, reform itself and pay a stiff penalty, what more useful purpose did the prosecutors see in refusing that plea deal and proceeding with the court case?

Or did SNC simply bungle these 'negotiations' — as they had bungled the Libyan bribery they were caught at — and were now pleading with the PM for yet another chance after their last plea-bargain was evaluated as too poor and unconvincing?

Kinda like GM being convinced it was too big to fail. There would never be a Day of Reckoning. Government would bail it out, so it didn't need to change, and make product people wanted to buy.
They probably did not bungle the Libyan bribary. My guess it is US intellegence that tipped of Canada post Libyan collapse. The US is not our friends, they will help us destory our own economy quite happily and force us to us US companies. They blew up Nortel and now want to ban us from using Huawei....
 

niniveh

Well-known member
Jun 8, 2009
1,108
199
63
Feb 22 (Reuters) - Canadian engineering firm SNC-Lavalin wrote down C$1.2 billion ($910 million) in oil and gas assets, and said on Friday near-term prospects for the business were worsening in the face of rising trade challenges in Saudi Arabia.

The write-down resulted in a C$1.6 billion fourth-quarter loss for SNC, which has engineering contracts in Saudi Arabia but is caught in the crosshairs of a strained relationship between Ottawa and Riyadh.

Relations between the two countries have been tense as Saudi Arabia froze new trade with Ottawa in August after Canada demanded the immediate release of jailed rights activists.

SNC, which had already cut its 2018 profit outlook twice in the face of trade tensions, lowered its quarterly dividend by 18.7 Canadian cents per share to 10 Canadian cents, as it seeks to save C$131 million in cash annually.

It also reported a C$346 million loss related to a Latin American mining project, which analysts believe is Chilean state-run miner Codelco's Chuquicamata copper mine.

SNC projected lower annual revenue from its metals and mining business, as it stops bidding on lump-sum projects going forward.

"We expect potential future recoveries to come back as a positive contribution," Chief Executive Officer Neil Bruce said in a statement.

The Montreal-headquartered company is also at the center of a political crisis that has enveloped Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, leading to the recent resignation of one of his key aides and a minister.

The crisis follows allegations that Trudeau's officials pressured a former minister to allow SNC to escape with a fine and avoid a trial over charges of bribing Libyan officials.

The company said fourth-quarter revenue at its engineering and construction business slumped to C$2.49 billion from C$2.87 billion a year earlier.

For the three months ended Dec. 31, SNC's net loss attributable to shareholders was C$1.6 billion. It had reported a profit of C$52.4 million a year earlier.

Excluding one-time items, the company reported a loss of C$1.62 per share. Analysts on average had expected C$1.19 per share, according to IBES data from Refinitiv.
 

nottyboi

Well-known member
May 14, 2008
22,447
1,325
113
Yeah and if Trudeau was really owned by SNC would he piss off the Saudis that has cost them big time?
 

nottyboi

Well-known member
May 14, 2008
22,447
1,325
113
If Trudeau was really corrupt and a shark, he would have asked for JWRs resignation as VA minister due to breaking cabinet confidentiality. The original leak could ONLY come from her. Either she leaked it to someone who leaked it to the globe, or she leaked it to the Globe directly. In either case it could ONLY come from her, and as such she has betrayed cabinet confidentiality which is 100% grounds for dismissal from Cabinet and probably enough to force her out of the party. If she was a white guy, she'd be long gone for these shennaigans, lets be honest with ourselves here. As mostly white males, we know we'd be toast and crucified in the press just as fellow white guy Trudeau is.
 

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
27,340
5,560
113
If Trudeau was really corrupt and a shark, he would have asked for JWRs resignation as VA minister due to breaking cabinet confidentiality. The original leak could ONLY come from her. Either she leaked it to someone who leaked it to the globe, or she leaked it to the Globe directly. In either case it could ONLY come from her, and as such she has betrayed cabinet confidentiality which is 100% grounds for dismissal from Cabinet and probably enough to force her out of the party. If she was a white guy, she'd be long gone for these shennaigans, lets be honest with ourselves here. As mostly white males, we know we'd be toast and crucified in the press just as fellow white guy Trudeau is.
She probably lied to Trudeau as well and threw him under the bus in the first place. I think that she connived with Gerald Butts, or was not happy about his directions with regards to SNC-Lavalin, otherwise why would he resign as well?
 

nottyboi

Well-known member
May 14, 2008
22,447
1,325
113
Justin Trudeau made a mistake in appointing a principled woman to the role of AG.

He obviously needed a morally ambiguous crony to help his political and economic masters in getting a sweet deal



and by the way, that armageddon doom these lobysts are trying to sell us happening to Canada if we don't yield to their demands are pure BS:

https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada...ould-not-be-the-calamity-its-defenders-claim/
Work won't disappear, a bunch will go to US companies as there are many jobs that SNC can do that no other Canadian company can take on. Question is, why destroy SNC if a reasonable compromise can be reached. ?
 

Zaibetter

Banned
Mar 27, 2016
4,284
1
0
Work won't disappear, a bunch will go to US companies as there are many jobs that SNC can do that no other Canadian company can take on.
You have your head so deep up the Gropers ass, you can't make a balanced statement about Trudeau. I'm glad to see other leftist that have at least taken a wait and see approach on this affair rather than blindly blessing everything Trudeau says or does.
 

kstanb

Well-known member
Apr 25, 2008
1,283
90
48
Question is, why destroy SNC if a reasonable compromise can be reached. ?
It is not certain that this will destroy SNC, but to answer why no deal?

because the Director of Public Prosecutions, Kathleen Roussel, decided this Remediation Agreements won't apply to the case. She is a lawyer and a professional prosecutor, I am not.

The Public Prosecution Service of Canada is independent, our entire judiciary system is, and should remain, independent, free from political or partisan considerations. It is not the politicians, it is not the lobbyists, it is not the billionaires who should decide when the law applies to them and when they get a deal. The alternative is crony capitalism, to end like Russia or Libya


"the director of federal prosecutions turned down SNC-Lavalin’s request to negotiate a deferred prosecution agreement, saying SNC-Lavalin had not met the legal criteria to allow such a deal.
The mediation provisions don’t allow negotiation of any deferred prosecution agreement if the criminal act has been in association with a “criminal organization,” which perhaps might include the Gadaffi-Ben Aissa relationship. And it can only go forward if negotiation is in the “public interest and appropriate in the circumstances.” And on that point, several factors must be considered. And not many seem to tilt in SNC-Lavalin’s direction. SNC-Lavalin didn’t alert investigators to the wrong-doing—that’s one factor. Another—the offences were at a very high level of the company. One more—it committed other offences. Still more—there is no indication the company has returned $130 million to Libyans, or taken steps to make Canadians whole."


https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/wha...n-snc-lavalin-a-company-in-need-of-a-bailout/
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,159
2,151
113
"prosecutors are not allowed to consider national economic interests when deciding whether to settle with a company", then what is the criteria? and also the AG is not a prosecutor.

I don't see what the corruption is and I see JWR is still leaking like a seive if this is true.
The fact that "prosecutors are not allowed to consider national economic interests when deciding whether to settle with a company" means she COULD NOT reverse the previous decision and yet Justin & Gerald pressured her to do exactly what she explicitly can not do.

the corruption is Justin & Gerald pressured her to circumvent the law for the benefit of a corporate friend
They can not use national economic interests to justify their actions

and you direct character assassination at one one principled player in this story ????

absolutely shameful that you blindly try to make excuses for Justin and Geralds attempts to break the law and attack JWR characters
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,159
2,151
113
No I think its a pointless discussion as I think SNC should get a deferred agreement. Its a no brainer to me. JWR is a toxic character and has no future in the liberal party.
No brainer is correct.
I bet you Justin / Gerald did not read the fine print of the law they just passed and missed the section that said "prosecutors are not allowed to consider national economic interests when deciding whether to settle with a company".

They thought they had solved the problem for their friend when they passed that law and tried to implement stage 2 of their corrupt plan, using national economic interests as a justification
What they did not anticipate is that JWR did read the fine print. As a lawyer and the Minister of Justice it is her responsibility to ensure that she understood the law clearly and how it must be applied.
She did her job. Think about that before you attack her again.

Did these two clowns get tripped up by their own law they passed specifically for SNC a few months before??

I am curious, do you know if any Federal Canadian politician has been charged for corruption in our countries history?
Have any non-elected political advisors been charged?
Can they be charged for stupidity?
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts