Charges for what crimes?Then if there is such strong proof, press charges.
Saying we have proof but doing nothing with it, is very unconvincing.
Charges for what crimes?Then if there is such strong proof, press charges.
Saying we have proof but doing nothing with it, is very unconvincing.
Intelligence isn't going to be admissible in court in most cases.Then if there is such strong proof, press charges.
Saying we have proof but doing nothing with it, is very unconvincing.
That is the point I am trying to make.Intelligence isn't going to be admissible in court in most cases.
Then if there is such strong proof, press charges.
Saying we have proof but doing nothing with it, is very unconvincing.
For legal/law enforcement to determine.Charges for what crimes?
Canada asked to waive diplomatic immunity.We've been over this. You can't charge a diplomat. They have immunity. Expulsion is a serious action.
No you don't, actually.That is the point I am trying to make.
Intel and evidence are different things.
When you make serious accusations to another country you need to present evidence.
...and countries like India will not entertain you.countries make accusations without showing the evidence all the time.
And?...and countries like India will not entertain you.
So you are saying that Justin set himself up for failure ?You get what you always get, diplomats being "recalled" or "expelled".
How is this a failure?So you are saying that Justin set himself up for failure ?
Whatever could his motive been?
What is your position here?How is this a failure?
How do you know they haven't determined that the political influence wasn't illegal?For legal/law enforcement to determine.
Whose political influence was illegal?How do you know they haven't determined that the political influence wasn't illegal?
How come PeePee has been in hiding for the last 5 days?
On what basis and evidence do you hold this belief?Whose political influence was illegal?
Pierre has nothing to do with this.
This is my point.
Trudeau's true intentions seems to be to try and sabotage Pierre's campaign by appearing to crack down on foreign interference.
While distracting from his own troubles.
On the basis of no charges being filed despite the repeated statements of the presence of proof.On what basis and evidence do you hold this belief?
You think PeePee is trustworthy?
Trudeau isn't in charge of laying charges, if they are warranted.On the basis of no charges being filed despite the repeated statements of the presence of proof.
And after everything Trudeau has done, I do trust Pierre more.
"Trudeau isn't responsible _(fill in the blanks)____"...there is that line again.Trudeau isn't in charge of laying charges, if they are warranted.
What would that matter?What is your position here?
It seems me that you have already successfully jumped to that conclusionI'm trying to understand your argument that nothing is real unless there is a conviction in court.