Trudeau 'welcomes' ethics probe of alleged PMO interference in SNC-Lavalin case
- Thread starter Danbones
- Start date
New York Times weighing in
How Justin Trudeau Was Ensnared by Scandal: A Corruption Case and ‘Veiled Threats’
SNC-Lavalin: Did Justin Trudeau break the law?
Different points of view by Lawyers
SNC head stressed urgency to cabinet in 2017
Interesting read that lead us to here
How Justin Trudeau Was Ensnared by Scandal: A Corruption Case and ‘Veiled Threats’
SNC-Lavalin: Did Justin Trudeau break the law?
Different points of view by Lawyers
SNC head stressed urgency to cabinet in 2017
Interesting read that lead us to here
I see the weasel is reading verbatim from his prepared notes . Even his face resembles a weasel . I think he is trying to emulate his bosses tears .
I found it interesting that the bulk of Gerald Butts' testimony focused on the time frame after January 7th, a time frame in which JWR was not allowed to talk about (and still isn't allowed to discuss) due to attorney/client privilege. Too bad we are allowed to hear only one side of that part of the story.
I think there is little choice, they will have to call JWR back to tell "her truth" for that time frame....if Trudeau will let her.
I think there is little choice, they will have to call JWR back to tell "her truth" for that time frame....if Trudeau will let her.
Butts is coming off as smarmy to me.
Not sure if that is his normal disposition, or if the pressure is getting to him.
Not sure if that is his normal disposition, or if the pressure is getting to him.
Geppetto: "Nothing to see here folks. It was all just a misunderstanding.........on the part of JWR."
POOR VIBC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You have COME LATE to the party!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
My various ALLEGED crimes and offenses against
the LIE-beral party have been discussed in considerable detail!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We have already been through YOUR CRAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Only a LIE-beral would assume he has the right to CENSOR remarks he does not like!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And the way things are going.....................if you want to censor all views hostile to LIE-berals then you will have to shut down most of the country!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BUT WAIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
YOU LIE-BERALS ALREADY TRIED THAT with your Islamophobia CRAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And CBC news media WAS SUCCESSFUL in censoring Cdn news presentations during the 2015 election - by using a deliberately DISTORTED and LIE-beral friendly interpretation of "fair use policy" that CBC LIE-berals CLAIMED gave them the obligation NOT to present views hostile to LIE-berals!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But I dont think that ploy will work in 2019!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Here are the details - including comments by a Cdn law professor that make LIE-berals such as Bondo out to be FAKE NEWS PEDDLERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Here is an older article illustrating civil service union Hog greed and just how much support they are prepared to give to LIE-berals in exchange for gravy. With some comments of my own in brackets):
Hubert Lacroix, the president of the CBC, recently placed the future of the Canada’s national public broadcaster on the electoral map with comments aimed at sparking a renewed debate on future funding models. Lacroix disputed claims that low ratings are to blame for the CBC’s financial struggles, instead pointing to the need to consider alternative fee schemes, including new levies on Internet providers or supplementary charges on television purchases.
(So greedy CBC Hogs want to pick the pockets of other businesses in order to salvage their own suddenly shaky place on the LIE-beral gravy train! Why should internet providers be made to pay because their viewers and users have chosen to TURN OFF CBC tv and radio? And considering how widely and rapidly the CBC article mocking the LIE-beral MyDemocracy website as “a box of doughnuts” circulated- it is entirely CLEAR that Cdns will listen to CBC IF it ever finds anything else relevant to say! And that is the trouble- CBC is so busy spouting LIE-beral propaganda that it as NOTHING REAL to say!)
While disagreement over CBC funding is as old as the broadcaster itself, the more uncomfortable discussion for the CBC is its coverage of the 2015 election campaign — particularly its approach to national debates and political party advertising — which raises troubling questions about its relevance in the current media environment.
(Meaning the 2015 federal election that brought Our idiot Boy Justin to power- which featured regular media efforts to smear Conservatives and aid Our idiot Boy and his moronic minons!)
Most would agree that the CBC features an excellent group of reporters and boasts insightful analysts for its panel discussions. However, rather than working to make itself an invaluable resource for the election, the CBC has been unnecessarily restrictive in its broadcasting choices and in the use of its content.
The problem is obvious- CBC DOES NOT WANT informed voters- it wants LIE-beral voters! It jumped on the MyDemocracy website as a one off chance to temporarily show its faux impartiality- about a subject that other media was so scornful of that CBC felt compelled to jump on the band wagon in an effort to cover its own ass!)
The most puzzling decision has been its refusal to broadcast debates hosted by other organizations. The CBC may be disappointed with the debate approach adopted by the political parties in this campaign, but that does not change the sense that if the national public broadcaster does not air programs in the national public interest, it calls into question the very need for a public broadcaster. Indeed, the CBC seems to have cut its nose off to spite its face by doing its best to prove its critics right.
(CBC is being typically Hoggish in refusing to accept debate programing that it did not produce and does not approve of because it does not contain LIE-beral bias! LIE-berals consider suitable debate to be a series of easy questions lobbed gently at them so they can knock it out of the park! Real debate with actually facts is something LIE-berals increasingly SHUN! CBC recognizes- as all Hogs do- that LIE-beral victory- meaning MORE GRAVY- is also a win for CBC- thus CBC DOES NOT WANT any critical examination of LIE-beral policy- for fear of discovering the ROT at its heart!)
The CBC’s odd coverage choices are not limited to the missing debates. Its use of video clips from the debates has also been unnecessarily restrictive. For example, before analyzing the recent Munk debates on the “At Issue” panel, host Peter Mansbridge warned viewers that “we are limited with the excerpts with the amount we are allowed to show.” A similar warning preceded the discussion at other debates.
Yet the reality is that there was no need to be restrictive in the use of video clips. Canadian copyright law permits the use of copyrighted works without permission as part of the fair dealing clause. News reporting is one of the enumerated purposes and even expanded clips would easily qualify under a fair dealing analysis.
(So CBC lied about its policy of deliberately limiting public debate!)
(HEY THERE JAMES BONDO- I DO HOPE YOU HAVE READ AND UNDERSTOOD about using news clips and such AS THIS DOES MAKE YOU LOOK A FOOL!!!!! And it works for print media as well so long as the real author is given full credit as I always DO! And there is a further issue I am careful with- and that is NOT to put words into the mouth of another writer- it is for this reason that I always make it known that my comments are in brackets when I add words to an article!)
All news organizations are free to use as much of the video from debates as necessary to highlight key moments and positions of each leader. To suggest that the law creates significant limits on the ability to show debate clips is inaccurate.
In fact, the CBC’s misreading of the law is not limited to the use of clips within its news broadcasts.
Just prior to the election call, it asked YouTube and Facebook to remove a Conservative campaign advertisement that used clips from a CBC interview with Liberal leader Justin Trudeau. To support its takedown claim, the CBC argued that “no one – no individual candidate or political party, and no government, corporation or NGO – may re-use our creative and copyrighted property without our permission. This includes our brands, our talent and our content.”
That too is wrong.
(OH? MORE CBC/LIE-beral censorship and deliberate mis-representation of law and facts? And it relates to CBC being wrong about its crap on a paying site! Copyright law covering political comment on a FREE/NON profit site like this is even LOOSER! You have made yourself look foolish as usual!)
The law features important limitations on the rights of all copyright holders and all media organizations regularly rely on them in their reporting. The limits of copyright extend to campaign commercials and there is little that the CBC- or anyone else- can do about it.
With its rejection of the national debates, its limited use of debate clips and its attempts to limit re-use of its broadcast content, Canada’s national public broadcaster has marginalized itself during the election campaign at the very time that it could be demonstrating its relevance to the national political coverage.
(Worse- CBC has been caught deliberately trying to stack voter choice! Just as Our idiot Boy is trying to take over and paralyze our parliament with his idiot electoral reform!)
Michael Geist holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law.
(Geist has done us a favour by illustrating the ugly bias that CBC is trying to hide!)
