Re: Contradictions in Butts' testimony may mean Wilson-Raybould testifies againMar 7th, 2019
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?
Communicate? The little potato? Surely you jest. He doesn't have a clue how to properly communicate. Face it, without his talking points and liberal bafflegab - he'd be lost as he has often proven to be when the tough questions are put to him and we are treated to him floundering about for words. Somehow in spite of that deficiency he's managed to get elected and be in power for over 3 years.
There is no best case scenario for the little potato - not that he or any of his slavish followers give a hoot.