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

White_Unifier

Senate Member
Feb 21, 2017
7,300
1
36
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.
 

Mowich

Hall of Fame Member
Dec 25, 2005
16,362
598
113
72
Eagle Creek
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

Hall of Fame Member
Dec 25, 2005
16,362
598
113
72
Eagle Creek
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

Senate Member
Feb 21, 2017
7,300
1
36
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

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 15, 2017
20,408
2
36
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

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 15, 2017
20,408
2
36
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

Senate Member
Feb 21, 2017
7,300
1
36
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

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 15, 2017
20,408
2
36
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

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 15, 2017
20,408
2
36
Also clerk of the privy council - a non partisan - totally disputes her version of events and her interpretation of the law.
 

Hoid

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 15, 2017
20,408
2
36
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

Senate Member
Feb 21, 2017
7,300
1
36
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.
 

Hoof Hearted

House Member
Jul 23, 2016
3,277
17
38
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

Senate Member
Feb 21, 2017
7,300
1
36
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

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
21,278
2,210
113
B.C.
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

House Member
Jul 23, 2016
3,277
17
38
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?
 

Mowich

Hall of Fame Member
Dec 25, 2005
16,362
598
113
72
Eagle Creek
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.