RCMP Investigating Trudeau
- Thread starter petros
- Start date
RCMP reportedly investigating Liberals' SNC-Lavalin affair over obstruction of justice.
Nearly four years after Canada’s prime minister broke federal ethics laws by pressuring a former justice minister to intervene in the prosecution of a Montreal-based engineering firm, the RCMP have reportedly opened an investigation into allegations of prosecutorial obstruction in connection with the SNC-Lavalin affair.
A May 25 response to an access to information request filed by Democracy Watch co-founder Duff Conacher was partially denied by the Mounties, as the requested records concerned a matter “currently under investigation,” inviting him to resubmit his request once court proceedings had concluded.
“As it did in February 2021 in a letter to the RCMP, Democracy Watch again requests records with regard into all decisions made concerning the examination and any subsequent investigations that have been undertaken, and all decisions concerning prosecuting anyone involved in the situation of the allegation that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, former finance minister Bill Morneau, some members of their staff, and former Clerk of the Privy Council Michael Wernick obstructed justice by pressing then-attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould to stop the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin,” read Conacher’s original access-to-information request to the RCMP.
nationalpost.com
Nearly four years after Canada’s prime minister broke federal ethics laws by pressuring a former justice minister to intervene in the prosecution of a Montreal-based engineering firm, the RCMP have reportedly opened an investigation into allegations of prosecutorial obstruction in connection with the SNC-Lavalin affair.
A May 25 response to an access to information request filed by Democracy Watch co-founder Duff Conacher was partially denied by the Mounties, as the requested records concerned a matter “currently under investigation,” inviting him to resubmit his request once court proceedings had concluded.
“As it did in February 2021 in a letter to the RCMP, Democracy Watch again requests records with regard into all decisions made concerning the examination and any subsequent investigations that have been undertaken, and all decisions concerning prosecuting anyone involved in the situation of the allegation that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, former finance minister Bill Morneau, some members of their staff, and former Clerk of the Privy Council Michael Wernick obstructed justice by pressing then-attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould to stop the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin,” read Conacher’s original access-to-information request to the RCMP.
RCMP confirms it dropped investigation of Liberals' SNC-Lavalin affair over lack of evidence
Nearly four years ago Trudeau broke federal ethics laws by pressuring a former justice minister to intervene in the prosecution of a Montreal-based engineering firm.
Serious question: If the RCMP finds the goods on True Dope, can he be prosecuted whilst PM? If so, can he be forced from office? I mean as a matter of law, not "pressure" to resign.
For comparison, there's nothing in the Constitution that says a president cannot be prosecuted, but removal from office can only be by impeachment.
For comparison, there's nothing in the Constitution that says a president cannot be prosecuted, but removal from office can only be by impeachment.
Honestly….no idea. He is in a ‘minority’ Gov’t situation though, so a vote of nonconfidence would be easy depending on Jagmeet I guess. Good Question though!!
If he was in a “Majority” situation…& his own party didn’t boot him out (they are the Liberals after all), I really don’t know??
I’m assuming there’s probably some kind of provision in place via the Governor-General….That he would’ve appointed….but that’s just guess work on my part and I really don’t know this answer.
Interesting. Especially the part about the GG. For obvious reasons, I don't tend to think in those terms. I may research it. I'll let y'all know.
Well, this should give y'all a woody. . .
I wouldn't get too excited yet, though. No source is cited, and the article's from an institute in Nigeria. Still, I thought the parenthetical'd put a rare smile on y'all's faces.
they'll say anything to hook you into their million dollar inheritance scheme
A while back BC Premier than was convicted of impaired driving, kept his job and even got re-elected.
Here’s something Canada specific
The special privileges of Members never were intended to set them above the law; rather, the intention was to give them certain exemptions from the law in order that they might properly execute the responsibilities of their position. Members of Parliament are subject to the criminal law except in respect of words spoken or acts done in the context of a parliamentary proceeding. However, it would be difficult to envisage a criminal act which would fit into or be a part of a parliamentary proceeding. [279] Therefore, it goes without saying that if Members are charged with infractions of the criminal law, they must abide by the due process of law. To do otherwise would show contempt for the Canadian system of justice. [280]
Contempt for the Canadian system of Justice? Like in the whole SNC Lavalin situation? Nahhh…
In determining whether there is a prima facie breach of privilege, the Speaker must differentiate between actions which directly affect Members in the performance of their duties, and actions which affect Members but do not directly relate to the performance of their functions. For example, if a Member is summoned to court for a traffic violation or if the income tax return of a Member is under investigation, one might say at first glance that the Member may be hampered in the performance of his or her duties — for the Member may have to defend himself or herself in court instead of attending to House or committee duties. However, in these cases, the action brought against a Member is not initiated as a result of his or her responsibilities as an elected representative, but rather as a result of actions taken by the Member as a private individual. In these situations, the protection afforded by parliamentary privilege does not and should not apply. [281]
Freedom from arrest has been confined to civil cases and does not entitle a Member to evade criminal law. This is in accordance with the principle laid down by the British House of Commons in a conference with the House of Lords in 1641 where it was stated: “Privilege of Parliament is granted in regard of the service of the Commonwealth and is not to be used to the danger of the Commonwealth.” [282]
Any incident of a criminal nature in which a Member has been charged is not a matter where immunity from arrest will protect that Member. [283] Matters of a criminal nature would include treason, felonies, all indictable offences, forcible entries, kidnapping, printing and publishing seditious libel, and criminal contempt of court (though not civil contempt). [284] Members cannot claim freedom from arrest or imprisonment on a criminal charge. A Member of the House of Commons is in exactly the same position as any other citizen if he or she is suspected of, charged with, or found guilty of a crime, provided that it is unrelated to proceedings in Parliament. [285]
In Canada, the 1965 case of Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe) would suggest that a Member could be arrested within the precinct of Parliament with the permission of the House and that the grounds surrounding the Parliament buildings do not constitute a part of the precinct of Parliament. [286]
The House of Commons cannot be used to give a Member sanctuary from the application of the law. Even the floor of the Chamber of the House is not a sanctuary and the application of the law, particularly in criminal matters, is foremost. [287] It is not the precinct of Parliament but the function that the precinct serves which is sacred. [288] The only special procedure relating to the arrest or the imprisonment of a Member of Parliament is that if he or she is detained for any significant time (for example, if remanded in custody), the police or court concerned must notify the Speaker. Similarly, if a Member is sent to prison after a conviction, the House is informed. [289] Thus, should the police arrest a Member outside the House on some criminal matter, the House of Commons is not entitled to intervene. In Canada, the administration of justice is a provincial responsibility. The Crown Attorney for the particular judicial district where the offence occurred would therefore prosecute any breach of the Criminal Code. [290] In its 1967 report, the British House of Commons Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege noted that it could see no reason why, unless the circumstances are exceptional, a Member should be able to claim immunity from the normal process of the courts. [291]
Gilles Grégoire - Wikipedia
I wonder if True Dope knows this? If so, he probably ain't sleeping so good.
Thanks for the info.
Thanks for the info.
…& this from four years ago as the Shenanigans where happening. It feels like just yesterday (with the Bernardo shocked & awed statements that where dis/mis/cis-information):
…& this from three years ago on this exact situation regarding an RCMP Investigation into the SNC Lavatory situation:
…& this from last year:
….& then this for current clarity on the situation earlier today:
Maybe we can build a li'l tiny prison up on the part of the U.S. that sticks up into Canada out there on the ON/MT border and True Dope and Jabba the Trump can be cellmates.
Tiny prison won't work. They would need a huge prison for all the corupt politicians from both countries.
Did I say "for all the corupt [sic] politicians from both countries?"
Why, no. No, I did not. You can tell because I wouldn't misspell "corrupt."