Contradictions in Butts' testimony may mean Wilson-Raybould testifies again


White_Unifier
#1
Contradictions in Butts' testimony may mean Wilson-Raybould testifies again: former diplomat

Now that it's become a she-said-he-said, unless one side can present stronger proof of the truth of their claims, it could become a draw with no real way to know the truth.

For some reason, I still lean more towards believing Wilson-Raybould, but that could just be my prejudices based on how I interpret body language, tone of voice, etc., so I'll keep an open mind on this one.

But what happens if it does become a draw with neither side able to prove their claims? At that stage, the most sensible solution would be to move past it and move on to ensure that such a situation doesn't happen again. We could do that by seprating the positions of Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
 
petros
+1
#2
Right now nobody is under oath.
 
Mowich
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by White_Unifier View Post

For some reason, I still lean more towards believing Wilson-Raybould, but that could just be my prejudices based on how I interpret body language, tone of voice, etc., so I'll keep an open mind on this one.


If it's body language and tone of voice you are going by then I do have to say that Geppetto conducted himself in the same manner as did Wilson-Raybould. He was calm, deliberate, to the point and answered every question without trying to obfuscate. The twit of the Privy Council on the other hand is just plain out of his gourd.



I've come to the conclusion that we may never know the real truth behind all the allegations.
 
Mowich
+2
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Right now nobody is under oath.

Nobody will be put under oath unless or until a real investigation is called into the matter - not a Justice Committee stacked with libby sycophants. The libby lap dog on Power Play today almost made me toss my cookies. Thank the Universe that Lisa Raitt was there to call her on just about every single idiotic point.
 
White_Unifier
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by Mowich View Post

If it's body language and tone of voice you are going by then I do have to say that Geppetto conducted himself in the same manner as did Wilson-Raybould. He was calm, deliberate, to the point and answered every question without trying to obfuscate. The twit of the Privy Council on the other hand is just plain out of his gourd.
I've come to the conclusion that we may never know the real truth behind all the allegations.

Raybould did seem to present stronger evidence overall; but again, I'll reserve judgment.
 
Hoid
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by White_Unifier View Post

Contradictions in Butts' testimony may mean Wilson-Raybould testifies again: former diplomat

Now that it's become a she-said-he-said, unless one side can present stronger proof of the truth of their claims, it could become a draw with no real way to know the truth.

For some reason, I still lean more towards believing Wilson-Raybould, but that could just be my prejudices based on how I interpret body language, tone of voice, etc., so I'll keep an open mind on this one.

But what happens if it does become a draw with neither side able to prove their claims? At that stage, the most sensible solution would be to move past it and move on to ensure that such a situation doesn't happen again. We could do that by seprating the positions of Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

It would make little difference.

The government still has power which it can apply as it see's fit, as is only logical.
 
Hoid
+1
#7
Mrs Raybould declines the Indian Affairs post because she cannot carry out carry out the role of overseeing the Indian Act which has so harmed her people - and yet she can work the Justice Ministry which covers all the laws under which her people suffered and the Indian Act itself was created.

SO I would call bullshit on that.

She simply did not want to leave the job that was her's or anyone else's at the discretion of the prime minister
 
White_Unifier
+1
#8
She said, he said. I figure that if we can't definitely know the truth on the matter, then let's at least ensure some good comes out of it and split the functions of the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General.
 
Hoid
#9
Well, we can look at the numbers.

She says she was under constant pressure.

She had 20 contacts over the course of the several months.

2 of the 20 of them were with Betts

Both were initiated by her.
 
Hoid
#10
Also clerk of the privy council - a non partisan - totally disputes her version of events and her interpretation of the law.
 
White_Unifier
#11
So if it's just a misunderstanding, how do we reduce the risk of it happening again?
 
Hoid
#12
It is always going to happen.

It is what is supposed to happen.

What good is a parliament if they cannot exert influence to benefit the country?
 
White_Unifier
#13
Even to the point of interfering in a criminal investigation? Even if this is all just a misunderstanding, it still reveals, if nothing else, that we might want to separate those roles.
 
Hoid
#14
There was no interference in any criminal investigation.
 
Hoof Hearted
+2
#15
Butts was so smarmy, congratulating a questioner on his retirement...calling others by their first names...I think his fawning approach was designed to disarm the panel, but it just made him come across as oily to my eyes and ears.

Raybould appeared more credible and less calculating. I think she actually believes she was pressured, but was she really? Or was this just par-for-the-course conversations between the powers that be that go on all of the time.
 
White_Unifier
+1
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoof Hearted View Post

Butts was so smarmy, congratulating a questioner on his retirement...calling others by their first names...I think his fawning approach was designed to disarm the panel, but it just made him come across as oily to my eyes and ears.
Raybould appeared more credible and less calculating. I think she actually believes she was pressured, but was she really? Or was this just par-for-the-course conversations between the powers that be that go on all of the time.

I believe Wilson-Raybould's version, but I'll give Butts the benefit of the doubt here. Regardless, even if he's telling the truth, how do we reduce the probability of something like this happening again? Splitting the roles seems the logical solution.
 
pgs
+2
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoof Hearted View Post

Butts was so smarmy, congratulating a questioner on his retirement...calling others by their first names...I think his fawning approach was designed to disarm the panel, but it just made him come across as oily to my eyes and ears.

Raybould appeared more credible and less calculating. I think she actually believes she was pressured, but was she really? Or was this just par-for-the-course conversations between the powers that be that go on all of the time.

The question remains should SNC Lavalin get off the hook ?
 
Hoof Hearted
#18
Is SNC Lavalin's fate either a slap on the wrist, or a 10 year banishment from doing business? Is there no compromise solution between these two extremes?
 
White_Unifier
+1
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoof Hearted View Post

Is SNC Lavalin's fate either a slap on the wrist, or a 10 year banishment from doing business? Is there no compromise solution between these two extremes?

I think the law says up to ten year, not necessarily ten years.
 
Mowich
+1
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by White_Unifier View Post

Raybould did seem to present stronger evidence overall; but again, I'll reserve judgment.


From what Ive been reading, I gather that Geppetto at the very least stopped the bleeding in cabinet. I really doubt we will see more resignations. His testimony, IMO was at least as credible as Wilson-Raybould's if you put all the surrounding issues aside. Neither side of this has come completely clean with Canadians and frankly I doubt they ever will.
 
Mowich
+3
#21  Top Rated Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoof Hearted View Post

Is SNC Lavalin's fate either a slap on the wrist, or a 10 year banishment from doing business? Is there no compromise solution between these two extremes?


I do believe that is exactly what our brand spankin' new AG is trying his level best to do.
 
Mowich
+1
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by White_Unifier View Post

Contradictions in Butts' testimony may mean Wilson-Raybould testifies again: former diplomat

Now that it's become a she-said-he-said, unless one side can present stronger proof of the truth of their claims, it could become a draw with no real way to know the truth.

For some reason, I still lean more towards believing Wilson-Raybould, but that could just be my prejudices based on how I interpret body language, tone of voice, etc., so I'll keep an open mind on this one.

But what happens if it does become a draw with neither side able to prove their claims? At that stage, the most sensible solution would be to move past it and move on to ensure that such a situation doesn't happen again. We could do that by seprating the positions of Minister of Justice and Attorney General.


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.
 
White_Unifier
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by Mowich View Post

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?
 
Curious Cdn
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

Also clerk of the privy council - a non partisan - totally disputes her version of events and her interpretation of the law.

He should have no public opinion on the matter and he should be sacked for voicing it.
 
Twin_Moose
+1
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

He should have no public opinion on the matter and he should be sacked for voicing it.

I agree his "I can't recall", "I don't remember" or "I'm not a lawyer" comments were awfully convenient when it came to direct questions, then his memory was remarkable when it suited him or when he was backed into a corner. I think his biggest bias was toward SNC-Lavalin not to a political party IMO
 
taxslave
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

Also clerk of the privy council - a non partisan - totally disputes her version of events and her interpretation of the law.

What makes you think he is nonpartisan?
 
petros
+1
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

Mrs Raybould declines the Indian Affairs post because she cannot carry out carry out the role of overseeing the Indian Act which has so harmed her people - and yet she can work the Justice Ministry which covers all the laws under which her people suffered and the Indian Act itself was created.
SO I would call bullshit on that.
She simply did not want to leave the job that was her's or anyone else's at the discretion of the prime minister

Nice to see you agree Wernick was full of shit about her reasons
 
taxslave
#28
On the news this AM truOWE was busy throwing Butts under the bus. Claiming no one had talked to him with any concerns. His handlers have also had over a month to make up a story to fit the party line.
 
Hoid
#29
How do you throw someone who resigned due to a scandal under the bus?
 
Curious Cdn
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

How do you throw someone who resigned due to a scandal under the bus?

... especially when the Sunny Ways bus has square wheels ...