Yay, another dipshit who thinks there's much a president can do about the economy one way or another.
So says you, the Obama apologist.
Yay, another dipshit who thinks there's much a president can do about the economy one way or another.
Yeah, he still doesn't believe that Obama is a Kenyan.So says you, the Obama apologist.
What would be the worst is a lie-barrel coalition with either or both of those parties, because of what the Lieberrals will do to get them "on side" into a coalition in the first place. The conservatives may not be so lucky to get them to team up.
didn't harper bring in this ethics things after he was found in contempt of parliament?
didn't he bring it in so that he wouldn't have to worry about being found in contempt of parliament again?
isn't the ethics things just a symbolic thing that has no consequence?
yep
The load of politicians and the cliff are still not in the picture, besides the next topic in JT's list of sins is mentioning the Government Hospitals that picked up where the Residential Schools were afraid to go. Anytime you are ready . . .
We can cover that in a bit. My question is why did the Cons miss SNC entirely between 2006-2015 when the Swiss informed the RCMP about the bribery charges that were laid in 2011 and they were blacklisted in 2013? Show me some footage when the Conservatives brought that up before they lost power in 2015.The Liberal Party was in power from 1993-2006. They where voted out in 2006, & in
2006 the office of the director of public prosecutions was established by an act of
parliament. I read earlier that it was due to the Sponsorship Scandal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sponsorship_scandal
It's not any political party's decision whom to charge or not charge. That falls upon Law Enforcement & not politicians. It's not a matter or missing or not missing anything....it's a matter of jurisdiction and who has the authority to do what. It's not upon any politician or political party to decide who is guilty or who isn't either as that is the decision of a judge and not a politician. Does that cover things?We can cover that in a bit. My question is why did the Cons miss SNC entirely between 2006-2015 when the Swiss informed the RCMP about the bribery charges that were laid in 2011 and they were blacklisted in 2013? Show me some footage when the Conservatives brought that up before they lost power in 2015.
My point is they didn't do anything but ignore it because it would have hurt then in the election that was held in 2015.
How much did SNC give the Cons before they lost to the Libs in 2015 and was the bill that was slid through started when the Cons were in power.
What if SNC was bribing the Cons to bury the story until the bill was law, is it a crime then or do they get to use some legal loop-hole to hide their crimes?
Trudeau broke ethics rules by trying to exert influence in SNC-Lavalin scandal:
Trudeau broke ethics rules by trying to exert influence in SNC-Lavalin scandal:
(From: http://globalnews.ca/news/5764034/j...icle&utm_medium=MostPopular&utm_campaign=2014)
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says he “can’t apologize” for what the federal ethics commissioner has now ruled was improper political influence in the SNC-Lavalin scandal. (????)
That’s because he maintains he was trying to protect Canadian jobs, despite the commissioner finding Trudeau and his staff broke the rules repeatedly over the course of several months in which they pressured former attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould to help the Quebec firm avoid a criminal trial.
“I can’t apologize for standing up for Canadian jobs,” he said when asked about the report on Wednesday.
Trudeau also said while he accepts the report put out by Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion, which found Trudeau broke the Conflict of Interest Act, he disagreed with the conclusion Dion drew that Trudeau should not have been putting forward any considerations he wanted Wilson-Raybould to evaluate. (Perhaps the Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion understood the grope...I mean situation....differently)
Trudeau said he believed he had the responsibility to raise the potential for job losses at the company if it was forced to go through a criminal prosecution.
That would mean no investigation let alone a verdict that is a blackmark, he suffered both so which part is making him 'special'.Real Asshole...…………………….special rules for him!
That would mean no investigation let alone a verdict that is a blackmark, he suffered both so which part is making him 'special'.
What is the full punishment available to that magnitude of a crime against that Canadian Taxpayer? Would Harper's speech in Cancun about letting big business be the advisers the Government of Canada listens to be a crime of treason if they are getting a discount at the same time.
Was she still the Minister of Justice at the time. It still boils down to an experienced AG would have already asked others about the new law without being prompted by 'her Boss' and what they think it means and what it doesn't mean rather than going solo and acting like she alone was going to decide if the case had merit or not.Should the Atty. General be a political position? I don't think so!
In theory, in practice how long is the list of people who have faced the charge of treason compared to how many that should have? There is a reason why a Judge gets a free lawyer and a Plaintiff can't hire a Lawyer at any price when your complaint is filed with that Government entity that is supposed to be free from any influences, internal or external. They collect wages from the Government, they remain employed because they serve the BAR rather than the people of Canada.Historically when you are in a position of trust and you break the law, you go to jail.
Was she still the Minister of Justice at the time. It still boils down to an experienced AG would have already asked others about the new law without being prompted by 'her Boss' and what they think it means and what it doesn't mean rather than going solo and acting like she alone was going to decide if the case had merit or not.
Suing the WHO on the behalf of certain Indians would have been a case with better traction so her advisers are stupid or she was set up to fail. If that case is impossible then so is getting SNC into an open court trial.
Bribery is a white collar crime. The CEO was already doing time in a different country so he is 'untouchable' so how can a minion be held liable, . . . for starters. Who would you have put in the Defense table?She was definitely Atty. Gen. at the time Trudeau was hassling her to back off on recommending charges or put Lavalin into a special category. He had absolutely no business interfering with her. The fcuker is toast.