Quote: Originally Posted by Mowich
It could very well be that the liberals will jump on this idea of splitting off the two ministries as yet another diversion tactic - albeit one that I agree with. If they make enough noise about it they may just be able to drown out all the voices of dissent.
I don't see how the PM can come out of this unscathed. Let's look at the best-case scenario for the PM.
Wilson-Raybould provided very precise testimony along with copious notes, far more than Butts did. In the absence of other evidence, that makes her story more credible than his. That said, even she made many claims for which she had no supporting evidence; so it's still his word against hers for the most part, and so he could be telling the truth too.
With that, we could believe in the best-case scenario that this is all one big misunderstanding; but this still presents the PM with a major problem: how did this misunderstanding happen? Wilson-Raybould is a trained lawyer and laywers are like grammar teachers: they're tought to dot their 'i's and cross their 't''s and to always use the most precise word to express your meaning. This makes it improbable (though not impossible) that Wilson-Raybould hadn't expressed herself clearly to the PM or that she'd misunderstood his communications with her.
If this is all a misunderstanding and Wilson-Raybould most probably correctly understood the PM's communications to her, then we must conclude that more probably the PM expressed himself incorrectly in such a way to as lead Wilson-Raybould to conclude that he was applying pressure on her to bend to his will on the SNC-lavalin affair. This thus raises questions about his ability to communicate clearly.
In this best-case scenario, how can we have confidence in a Prime Minister who doesn't know how to communicate clearly? How can a person who doesn't know how to communicate clearly lead a country without potentially causing seriious misunderstandings? As far as I can tell, this is the best-case scenario for the PM, and it doesn't look good in the least. He's either a crook or an innocent fool. Which is it?