• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case

This was posted 5 hours ago, just before Butts resigned.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/are-these-the-answers-of-a-prime-minister-whos-done-nothing-wrong/ar-BBTLdcp?li=AAggNb9&ocid=iehp

Are these the ‘answers’ of a Prime Minister who’s done nothing wrong? - 18 Feb 19

Editor’s note: The opinions in this article are the author’s, as published by our content partner, and do not necessarily represent the views of MSN or Microsoft. Andrew MacDougall is a London-based columnist, commentator and consultant at Trafalgar Strategy. He was formerly director of communications to Stephen Harper.

When ace reporter Bob Fife rings you at 9:30 in the morning to get a comment for an exclusive in the next day’s paper it’s time to cancel your plans. Believe me, I know from experience. It means something big— something painful—is in the offing. And while I’m not privy to the PMO discussion following Fife’s Feb. 6 call, I can say the carefully-crafted response which appeared in the Globe and Mail’s exclusive the next morning did nothing to kill the story. Au contraire, it has produced a series of shifting explanations over subsequent days for something Trudeau’s office insists never even happened.

So, why hasn’t the PMO managed to kill the story? Given the building is stacked with political ninjas the temptation is to say they haven’t succeeded for a good reason: what Fife, Steven Chase, and Sean Fine have reported is true. How can I make that claim? How about we put ourselves in the Trudeau PMO’s shoes to review all the ways the office has been giving credence to the SNC-Lavalin story. Hint: it’s not what they say, it’s what they’re not saying.

On Feb. 6, the allegation is made that your office “pressed” Jody Wilson-Raybould to “abandon” the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin. This being the same SNC-Lavalin which, as you’ll know, has littered the public lobbying registry with notices of meetings with your senior staff to discuss having the law changed in such a way that could benefit it in dealing with its current legal woes.

You’ll also know that your government subsequently buried a legal remedy into the most recent budget bill to do SNC (and others, in theory) a solid. And you’ll know that SNC barged straight back into your office after the independent Director of the Public Prosecution Service subsequently ruled out using that new legal remedy to SNC’s potential advantage (again, see: registry, lobbying).

What’s more, as a sharp PMO-type, you’ll know that Wilson-Raybould chose to append a very unusual letter to her surprise departure from the Department of Justice during the recent cabinet shuffle, a letter that went out of its way to state that it is a “pillar of our democracy that our system of justice be free from even the perception of political influence and uphold the highest levels of public confidence”. Forget the letter’s long lauding of her record on justice policy. Why would the outgoing attorney general even think to mention the bit about the “perception of political influence”?

Anyway, knowing all of that unhelpful context, and knowing that it’s a very serious accusation being levelled by Fife et al.—indeed, one that, if proven, could be criminal—you would have every interest in being as definitive as possible in your response. If nothing fitting the Globe’s description or characterization happened between PMO and Wilson-Raybould you would get on the phone with Fife tout de suite and put as many facts as you could into a background chat with him to counter his narrative and, if he isn’t ultimately convinced, then go on the record to shout your clear denial from the rooftops. Something like: “The accusation is categorically false. At no point did the Prime Minister of his office in any way, shape, or form direct or pressure the attorney general on the question of SNC-Lavalin.”

But you didn’t do that.

There is absolutely no sign of serious background engagement by you or your office in the original Globe story. Nor do there appear to be any invitations extended to talk to “Jody” to set things straight, which you would have gladly offered to do to clear up something that didn’t happen. No, instead, you give the public a brief piece of legalese: “The Prime Minister’s Office did not direct the attorney general to draw any conclusions on this matter.” The statement sounds definitive (“did not direct”) but isn’t, as it evades the actual allegation (“pressed”), which is still problematic. Your answer leaves the impression that something did happen between the two parties.

Fine. Even the best political office can fluff the initial response. Sometimes it’s left to the Prime Minister to kill a story stone dead. And as luck would have it, Trudeau was in front of the press on the day the story broke. But Trudeau didn’t kill the story stone dead. He didn’t even try.

“The allegations reported in the story are false,” Trudeau told reporters, delivering what appeared to be a well-drilled line. “At no time did I or my office direct the current or previous attorney general to make any particular decision in this matter.” Trudeau’s line sure sounds better, given the use of the word “false”, but it’s not actually an improvement, given that what Trudeau describes as “false” isn’t what was alleged in the first place. It’s misdirection, i.e. a big red flag to every reporter able to draw breath.

And, right on cue, every reporter listening to Trudeau followed up with the obvious question as to whether his office “pressed” or “pressured” Wilson-Raybould. And instead of being clear and ruling out pressure of any kind, Trudeau reverted to his narrow script: “At no time did we [i.e. himself and the PMO] direct the attorney-general, current or previous”.

This, friends, is the “tell”. Trudeau was invited to bat down the allegation—in the flesh, for all to see—and he preferred to stick with his mischaracterization of the allegation. And he did that because he knew that someone credible was out there, someone with inside knowledge, and they were telling a different story (or else the Globe wouldn’t have run the story).

In other words, characterizing the interaction between Trudeau and Wilson-Raybould in a way that wasn’t truthful, i.e. saying there was no pressure, would have been met with a counterpunch from the mystery counterparty (and, by now, everyone in the PMO will be thinking it’s Wilson-Raybould). Trudeau had to duck and hope that his misdirection would be good enough. It wasn’t, as the front page of every newspaper and lead item on every broadcast will have confirmed to the PMO.

At this point, the PMO is choked. The press isn’t buying what they have to sell, because what they have to sell doesn’t address the issue. For her part, Wilson-Raybould isn’t commenting at all, which isn’t helpful if nothing happened because one word of denial from her kills the story. That she is remaining silent speaks volumes, and the press knows it. If you’re the PMO, this is the point in a scandal when you root around the sofa cushions in the hopes of finding a fact you haven’t yet deployed to your favour. It’s when you look for a piece of news that you can put out to change the channel.

And when all you find is lint and spare change and nothing better to watch, you begin to contemplate switching to the dark arts. However, before you go there, you decide to trot out the big guns—the vaunted “senior government officials” (Ottawa code for “PMO”)—in an attempt to fill in as much detail as you can about the interactions between PMO and Justice without contradicting your public line that no direction was given.

This leads to the Feb. 8 exclusive in the Globe and Mail, which confirmed that discussions were held with Wilson-Raybould about the government’s options with respect to SNC-Lavalin. The senior government officials go as far as to say there was “vigorous debate” about SNC-Lavalin, but this wasn’t to be misconstrued as “pressure” or direction. A “robust discussion” is not “pressure” they pleaded. Given Wilson-Raybould’s continuing silence, it’s not a stretch to say this is the PMO relating its side of events in the hope that one woman’s “pressure” can be portrayed as another man’s “robust discussion but no direction now can we please move on”.

But this intervention doesn’t kill the story either, because now it’s clear there was a tetchy debate about SNC Lavalin, something that could easily be felt as pressure by the party on the other end of the conversation. Pressure that could, under the law, be illegal, depending on its exact shape and form. In other words, the story is now a five-alarm fire going into the weekend, when the Sunday political chat shows are going to be picking it apart in Zapruder-like detail. Remember those dark arts you were thinking about deploying? Well, it’s time for the dirty deed to get done.

On Feb. 9 Canada wakes up to a story in the Canadian Press relaying through unnamed “insiders” how Wilson-Raybould was shuffled from Justice to Veterans because she had become a “thorn in the side of the cabinet”, “difficult to get along with”, and had “always sort of been in it for herself”, i.e. “everything” was very “Jody-centric”. As far as character assassinations go it was fairly comprehensive, albeit about a month late, given that none of it was whispered on or off-the-record at the time of Wilson-Raybould’s move out of the Justice portfolio.

The ways these muggings usually go—and I had to orchestrate a few in my day—is you ring up an amenable reporter and tell them that if you talk to so-and-so they’ll say such-and-such and hot damn, you’ll have one hell of a story. The one stipulation you make is that no comment from your office must appear in the story, so as not to leave any fingerprints. Well non-deniable ones, anyway.

But the anonymous hit job on Wilson-Raybould goes sideways and stirs the pot up even more. As literally every non-PMO dwelling observer with no dog in the hunt could have anticipated and pointed out, it’s not very on-brand for a feminist, Indigenous relationship-healing prime minister to set his attack dogs on the literal poster child for his values movement. To make matters worse, the Ethics Commissioner has now decided to get involved and opposition MPs on the Justice Committee are wanting to have a look into everything too.

Again, a government confident it had done nothing wrong would welcome MPs getting to the bottom of things because—with the whole Huawei extradition weighing on it already—political interference and the applicability of the rule of law in Canada is suddenly a very relevant topic. A PMO with nothing to hide on such an important question wouldn’t hide.

But the Liberals on the Justice Committee don’t pledge to get to the bottom of it. They don’t support a motion inviting the very people who would know what happened here—i.e. the main players in the PMO, the ones now whispering to newspapers—to come to committee. Instead, they invite Wilson-Raybould’s replacement at Justice, David Lametti, i.e. the guy who’s just been on the Sunday chat shows saying that his boss Trudeau says nothing happened so everything must be tickety-boo. You get three guesses at who asked for that outcome, and the first two don’t count. But again—no one out there is buying it. Not the press, and not even all Liberal MPs. New Brunswick Liberal MP Wayne Long is calling for a full investigation, adding yet another voice to the story. Another voice you can’t manage.

By this point in the tire fire, there is little a PMO can do but lean into the silence of their adversary and hope they never speak. Their silence even tempts you to take liberties with their side of the conversation in the hopes of throttling the story. And so Trudeau flips his previous explanation on its head, saying that if Wilson-Raybould felt improper pressure was being applied she should have complained to him about it, and that he was “disappointed” in her for not calling it to his attention. The fact that she didn’t, he says, suggests nothing at all happened. And while reversing the onus is a legal concept, observers could be forgiven for thinking the Prime Minister’s latest explanation isn’t genuine, what with his refusal to waive Wilson-Raybould’s privilege on the matter. Again, if nothing bad has happened, why not let her speak? To ask the question is to answer it.

But let’s take Trudeau at his word, as some legal commentators and Liberal proxies did. Why didn’t she resign? Other than trying to be a team player, that is? But what, exactly, was Wilson-Raybould supposed to do about it? If the PMO was up in her grill about SNC-Lavalin getting a break was she seriously supposed to assume it was doing it without Trudeau’s knowledge, to say nothing of his direction? The very same Trudeau who hasn’t changed his palace guard? Ever? The same Trudeau who says loudly that Gerry Butts and Katie Telford are he and he are they?

The incompatibility of the multiple explanations adds up, such is the myopia of an office in scandal. Of course, Wilson-Raybould’s silence in the face of this possible criminality didn’t prompt Trudeau to sack her, critics note, poking a giant hole in the new story. No, Trudeau only slotted her into Veterans Affairs, where she still enjoyed his full confidence, he says, despite the mess this whole situation has created. It’s the kind of exquisite bullshit only clever bullshitters up to their necks in bullshit can’t see. Indeed, this is the point in the scandal where the PMO loses sight of all of the incompatible twists and turns in the saga and their impact on the wider world. They just need a line—some line, any line—to get them through the day.

The resulting loss of touch with the mood and reading of the outside world includes their own team in Parliament. A caucus that feels neglected at the best of times is now watching you strafe a former colleague both on and off-the-record. They don’t care that you’re trying to keep one step ahead of the flame, only that you’ve disposed of one of them to further your immediate needs. Spoiler: it doesn’t make them happy.

Especially when Wilson-Raybould—no doubt seething at her portrayal, as hinted at by her father in media interviews—resigns and then lawyers up, with a former Supreme Court Justice, on the way out. Her resignation statement doesn’t mention Trudeau. Despite your efforts working caucus to keep everything on lockdown, social media starts to light up with posts from colleagues supporting their ousted friend.

Now facing an existential crisis, every favour gets called in by PMO. Every bit of leverage on caucus gets used. Ministers and MPs are briefed to keep schtum and let the centre muddle through. Don’t worry what everybody is saying, they’ll say, the only thing that will keep this story going is infighting. So shut up and stick together. Except, that is, for the few loyal soldiers who get tooled up for duty on the cable news shows.

The only thing left for Justin Trudeau to do now is hope that everyone sticks together. He knows Wilson-Raybould will one day speak, he just hopes that day isn’t coming anytime soon. If Wilson-Raybould comes out and confirms the side of the story the PMO has been trying so hard to obscure it will damage the Trudeau government in dire ways.

It will make that Feb. 6 phone call from Bob Fife feel like a picnic.
 
Fishbone Jones said:
They are burying themselves deeper daily. They'll be looking for something big and controversial, that doesn't do a lot of damage to their base, to knock this off the table.

Release of the new gun laws would likely do it.

Probably not:

https://ipolitics.ca/2019/02/20/committee-presses-pause-on-senate-study-of-gun-bill-amid-snc-lavalin-affair/

Senate committee presses pause on gun bill study amid SNC-Lavalin affair

By Tim Naumetz. Published on Feb 20, 2019 8:09am

Fallout from the SNC-Lavalin affair and the resignation of Vancouver Granville Liberal MP Jody Wilson-Raybould as veterans affairs minister on Feb. 12 has thrown a wrench into government plans for quick passage of its contentious new firearm legislation through the Senate.

The Senate National Security and Defence Committee is pausing witness hearings on the bill after only one meeting. The marathon session ending just before midnight Monday drew out perhaps the most dramatic testimony over gun violence since the legislation began its journey through Parliament nearly a year ago.

<snip>

The Senate National Security and Defence committee decided its subcommittee on veterans affairs should look into the rapid succession of veterans affairs ministers over the past several years.

The change in committee plans spurred by the SNC-Lavalin affair could mean Bill C-71 will not make it through the committee until April, given that Parliament sits for only one week in March. The changes also raise questions about whether the bill will be passed before Parliament adjourns for the summer in June. The federal election scheduled for Oct. 21.

 
The importance of capitalization:

Gerald Butts's resignation letter


I have resigned as Principal Secretary to The Right Honourable Justin Trudeau, PC, MP, Prime Minister of Canada. He has accepted my resignation.

Recently, anonymous sources have alleged that I pressured the former Attorney General, The Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould, to assist SNC-Lavalin with being considered for a deferred prosecution agreement. I categorically deny the accusation that I or anyone else in his office pressured Ms. Wilson-Raybould. We honoured the unique role of the Attorney General. At all times, I and those around me acted with integrity and a singular focus on the best interests of all Canadians.

The Prime Minister of Canada’s Office is much larger and more important than any of its staff. I have served it to the best of my abilities, and I have at all times given the Prime Minister free and unfettered advice. I have served the public interest, not the interests of any individual or any narrow private interest of any kind, at any time. Life is full of uncertainties, but I am absolutely certain of that.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-full-text-of-gerald-buttss-resignation-statement/

The inference that I take from the letter is that Gerald Butts's loyalty is to the PMO - the Prime Minister's Office - and not to the office of the Prime Minister.

Here was me thinking that the person elected to the office of Prime Minister hired people in the Prime Minister's Office to do his or her bidding.
 
https://globalnews.ca/news/4973581/trudeau-government-leaks-support-snc-lavalin-wilson-raybould-poll/

February 19, 2019 5:00 am

Trudeau government leaks support in wake of SNC-Lavalin, Wilson-Raybould matter: Ipsos poll

By David Akin

The Trudeau government is leaking political support in the wake of the resignation of its former justice minister, making its chances of re-election this fall far less certain than they seemed to be at year’s end, according to a new poll provided exclusively to Global News.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s personal approval ratings are down; a declining number of Canadians think his government deserves re-election; and Andrew Scheer’s Conservatives narrowly lead the Liberals on the ballot box question.

“This is the worst couple of weeks the PM has had since the India trip,” said Darrell Bricker, CEO of polling firm Ipsos. “The biggest problem is that it hits at what gives the Liberal Party its appeal: the prime minister.

<snip>

Support for the Trudeau Liberals is now at 34 per cent of decided and leaning voters, down four percentage points from a poll Ipsos did in December. In the 2015 election, the Trudeau Liberals won their commanding majority with 39 per cent of the vote.

Scheer’s Conservatives appear to have benefited from this slide. That party is now at 36 per cent support, up three points since the end of 2018.

<snip>

“The big trouble spot is now Ontario, where the Tories have a six point lead over the Liberals,” said Bricker. “The way the vote breaks in Ontario suggests that the Tories are doing well in the 905, where the Liberals won their majority in 2015.”

<snip>

And just 38 per cent of those surveyed believe the Trudeau Liberals deserve re-election, while 62 per cent agreed that it was time to give another party a chance at governing.

https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2019/02/20/trudeau-takes-personal-hit-amid-snc-lavalin-controversy-leger-poll-for-cp/#.XG3rnMR7laT

Trudeau takes personal hit amid SNC-Lavalin controversy: Leger poll for CP

By Kristy Kirkup, The Canadian Press - Feb 20 2019

A new poll conducted by Leger for The Canadian Press shows that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is taking a personal hit in the SNC-Lavalin controversy.

Overall, 41 per cent of respondents believed the prime minister had done something wrong involving the Montreal engineering giant and former justice minister Jody Wilson-Raybould; 12 per cent believed he hadn't, and 41 per cent said they weren't sure.

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/case-against-former-snc-exec-stephane-roy-thrown-out-by-quebec-judge-1.1216637

Case against former SNC exec Stephane Roy thrown out by Quebec judge

Feb 19, 2019 The Canadian Press

MONTREAL - A judge has thrown out fraud and bribery charges against a former SNC-Lavalin executive after concluding delays in his trial had become unreasonable.

Quebec court Judge Patricia Compagnone stayed proceedings against Stephane Roy Tuesday. She said the delays created by the prosecution "are an example of the culture of complacency that was deplored by the Supreme Court" in its 2016 Jordan decision.

Roy was facing charges of fraud over $5,000 and bribing a foreign public official in connection with the company's dealings with the regime of the late Libyan dictator, Moammar Gadhafi.

He was charged in 2014, and his trial was scheduled to begin at the end of May. In a hearing last week, his defence invoked the Jordan decision, which set time limits on criminal proceedings.

His case stemmed from the same RCMP Project Assistance investigation that led to charges against SNC-Lavalin. Those charges are fuelling controversy in Ottawa following a report that the Prime Minister's Office pressured former attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould to help the engineering firm avoid prosecution.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wilson-raybould-snc-lavalin-trudeau-1.5025885

Wilson-Raybould tells Commons she wants to 'speak my truth' on SNC-Lavalin

Kathleen Harris · CBC News · Posted: Feb 20, 2019 11:55 AM ET

Jody Wilson-Raybould told the Commons today she wants to tell her side of the SNC-Lavalin scandal now consuming official Ottawa, but she can't "waive" solicitor-client privilege on her own.

The former justice minister and attorney general rose to explain why she was abstaining from a vote on an NDP motion to hold a public inquiry into alleged political interference in the criminal prosecution of the Quebec-based global engineering firm. Wilson-Raybould said she would refrain from voting because she was personally involved in the matter.

"I understand fully that Canadians want to know the truth and want transparency," she said. "Privilege and confidentiality are not mine to waive, and I hope that I have the opportunity to speak my truth."

<snip>

The NDP motion, which was defeated by the Liberal majority in a 134-160 vote, also called on the government to waive client-solicitor privilege in the SNC-Lavalin affair.

Two Liberal MPs, Nathaniel Erskine-Smith and Wayne Long, broke ranks and voted with the opposition.

<snip>

Earlier today, Trudeau suggested a public inquiry isn't necessary to get to the bottom of the SNC-Lavalin affair.

<snip>

Liberal caucus chair Francis Scarpaleggia said he has "a lot of faith" in the justice committee process and doesn't think a public inquiry is necessary.

"Personally, I don't see a need for one," he said.

https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2019/02/19/why-now-butts-departure-fuels-speculation.html

Why now? Gerald Butts’ departure fuels speculation

By Nicholas KeungImmigration Reporter Tues., Feb. 19, 2019

Gerald Butts’ departure from the Prime Ministers Office has raised questions about what Justin Trudeau’s right-hand man is up to and more specifically what the Liberal government hopes to accomplish with his resignation even as he has denied any wrongdoing in the SNC-Lavalin scandal.

“What we have seen doesn’t go any way toward explaining what actually happened. There’s no indicator that he’s done anything wrong, yet he’s still going. It’s just a mystery to me,” said London-based political commentator Andrew MacDougall, who served as the director of communications for former prime minister Stephen Harper.

<snip>

“There are obviously conversations between the PMO, Butts and Wilson-Raybould. I read his resignation as what she’s prepared to say is obviously incompatible with what they’d been saying. The fallout will be such that the PMO would be called into question, so Gerry is taking himself out now so he can deal with that without it being pinned to the PMO,” MacDougall said.

“The PM changed his story every day, added different elements to it and kept it going, so the sequence of that adding up makes them not make sense anymore. His resignation comes out of the blue from that point of view. That makes me wonder what his office got,” said MacDougall.

“It just feels like Jody is prepared to say something that doesn’t line up to what they’ve been saying. She’s been quite coy in hinting and thanking her dad for speaking up for her, liking tweets. Clearly she has something to say. The PMO got wind of that. It’s my speculation that it terrified them at the PMO.”

<snip>

“It is a first step of a two-step process. You can say our ex-staffer is going to co-operate and we are going to get to the bottom now. I don’t think they did it with the idea that it’s fine now Butts has resigned and the bloodhounds, the press will stop barking. Obviously not,” he said.

“They want to make it into a ‘he says, she says,’ where there’s no proof, and people are going to make their own judgment.”

<snip>

“The blood is in the water in Ottawa right now,” said MacDougall.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/kelly-mcparland-if-no-one-did-anything-wrong-why-two-resignations-and-a-pmo-in-crisis-mode

Kelly McParland: If no one did anything wrong, why two resignations and a PMO in crisis mode?

Many believe Trudeau would never have entered politics if not for Butts, and might not have succeeded in winning Canada’s highest office without his support

February 18, 2019 9:55 PM EST

Which raises the most intriguing aspect of Butts’s departure. He is, it has been widely reported, one of the prime minister’s closest friends. They’ve been pals since university days at McGill. A lot of people believe Trudeau would never have entered politics if not for Butts, and might not have succeeded in winning Canada’s highest office without his support and advice.

And yet he’s quitting, not over some egregiously misappropriate decision or action, but over something he, Trudeau and the Liberal party insist never happened. Butts not only dismissed the suggestion he acted inappropriately, but maintained the opposite.

<snip>

All of which raises a very curious question. If Butts did absolutely nothing wrong; if neither he, the prime minister nor anyone else acted improperly in any manner; if this whole thing is, in essence, a figment of the imagination of Jody Wilson-Raybould, why is Butts stepping down and leaving the prime minister flailing for a solution to the worst crisis he’s faced since becoming prime minister?

Wilson-Raybould, remember, hasn’t said a word about the expanding disaster. When demoted from one of cabinet’s top posts, she kept her mouth closed about the reason, though she was clearly unhappy. There was no indication she planned to quit the new, lesser post as veterans affairs minister until Trudeau more or less forced her hand, suggesting that her continued presence in cabinet indicated she was OK with the way things were working out.

<snip>

Given the absence of anything resembling a smoking gun, it would seem sensible, therefore, to wait and hear what she has to say before breaking up the partnership that largely put the Liberals in power. The question of why Butts isn’t doing that, and why Trudeau agreed with his decision, remains dangling over the whole odd affair even as Butts packs his bags.

It usually takes governments several mandates to stumble into the sort of trouble the Liberals are in. Usually it comes from age, exhaustion and the accumulation of political baggage. Jean Chretien won three majorities before the sponsorship scandal caught up to him, and he had retired before voters eventually removed his successor from office. Stephen Harper was prime minister for nine years before voters decided a change was in order. Trudeau has been in power for just three-quarters of a mandate, and the Lavalin controversy is just the latest in a string of serious missteps. A determined optimist might note that Lavalin has at least diverted attention from the furor over the detention of Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou, but it’s difficult to see much comfort arising from that fact.

<snip>

It’s a daunting tally of challenges the Liberals face as they gear up for the election that’s just eight months away. And Trudeau must now confront it without the man rightly or wrongly considered his Svengali. All over something the prime minister and his friend insist never happened.
 
Chris Pook said:
The inference that I take from the letter is that Gerald Butts's loyalty is to the PMO - the Prime Minister's Office - and not to the office of the Prime Minister.

Here was me thinking that the person elected to the office of Prime Minister hired people in the Prime Minister's Office to do his or her bidding.

I think you will find that Gerald Butts' loyalty is to Trudeau. Trudeau has called him "a best friend" and they have been friends since college. He is rare in that is loyalty is to JT the person rather than JT the PM or leader of the Liberal Party. While, I think this whole business is just more shady Liberal crap, I can't fault Butts for falling on his sword to help a friend. I would do it but I would do it if I was JT as well. I've never been PM but I have taken the heat for my subordinates f*@k ups enough times, you know like a leader is supposed to.
 
The latest, if you have a subscription to the Globe online ...
Wilson-Raybould told cabinet SNC-Lavalin pressure was improper

Former attorney-general voiced concerns in Tuesday meeting about officials pressing her to order a settlement; speaking in the House of Commons, she hoped to have solicitor-client privilege waived so she could ‘speak my truth’ ...
:pop:
 
Furniture said:
It may cost them seats in Ontario as well, where they just tossed a provincial government that was seen as corrupt and wasteful. The CPC have already showed us that it's possible to get a majority without strong support in Quebec so long as you hold the West and Ontario.

It appears that I may have accidentally stumbled into some insight into the mood of Ontario voters.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-polls-snclavalin-1.5026798

Analysis
First post-SNC-Lavalin polls look bad for Trudeau Liberals

Conservatives gaining, Liberals sliding in first polls published since SNC-Lavalin affair erupted
Éric Grenier · CBC News · Posted: Feb 21, 2019 4:00 AM ET | Last Updated: 6 hours ago

<snip>

Liberals hurting in Quebec, but mostly Ontario

While the impact of the affair has sapped the Liberals in every part of the country, there is a difference between what the polls are saying in the two largest provinces that inevitably will decide the next federal election.

Across the three surveys, the Conservatives made gains in both Ontario and Quebec while the Liberals lost support. (The NDP also is down consistently in Quebec and the Bloc Québécois up, but that was a pre-existing trend that probably has little to do with the SNC-Lavalin affair.)

The swing was more pronounced in Ontario than it was in Quebec, where concerns about the impact of the affair on SNC-Lavalin's future have been more prevalent. The Conservatives gained between three and six points in Ontario in the three surveys, averaging a gain of just under five points. The Liberals lost between three and seven points, for an average loss of just over five points.

Both Ipsos and Léger recorded slides for the Liberals in Ontario sizeable enough to be statistically significant.
 
Interesting and highly prophetic study: http://www.ontariocourts.ca/coa/en/ps/publications/attorney_general_prosecution_function.htm
<snip>
"The most important of these constitutional conventions is that although the Attorney General is a cabinet minister, he or she acts independently of the cabinet in the exercise of the prosecution function. This convention is now so firmly entrenched in the Canadian political system that any deviation would likely lead to the resignation of the Attorney General or would, at the very least, spark a constitutional crisis. [19] The resignation of the Attorney General would expose any attempted interference by the premier or the cabinet both to the public and especially to the press, and would further entrench the convention of institutional independence. As Edwards said:

It must be emphasised that to recognise the inevitability of dismissal or resignation in these circumstances in no sense represents a weakening of the Attorney General’s constitutional position. What it entails is the removal of the issue from the confidential environment of Cabinet deliberations and its exposure to the full glare of public attention.[20]

It could be argued that the very fact that it would take a resignation to uncover possible interference with the independence of the Attorney General reinforces Edwards’ contention that all depends on the strength of character and personal integrity of the Attorney General — a person of lesser worth would simply cave in to the cabinet directive or the demands of the premier, and the matter would never see the light of day.
<snip>

Edit: think about the Norman case here. Was the AG also misled by the PMO, PMO legal staff??

 
And this from Canada's top civil servant/bureaucrat (source), speaking to the HoC justice committee today ...
:pop:
 

Attachments

  • Dz8orQUXcAoxhcO.jpg
    Dz8orQUXcAoxhcO.jpg
    42 KB · Views: 201
Let’s see what she does now. I’m especially interested to know why Trudeau claims privilege, then cabinet confidence.  On CTV, Mr. Mulcair states that Clerk PCO was sent in “on a mission.”  If that mission was to pop smoke, he sent up a flare instead.

And how does this guy get off so easy with trying to change the subject to “assassination” and “someone’s going to get shot”.  The man is a bureaucratic version of an ND.
 
Top civil servant slams SNC-Lavalin media report as erroneous, 'defamatory'

Privy Council Office clerk Michael Wernick delivers blunt testimony at justice committee

Kathleen Harris CBC News Posted: Feb 21, 2019 10:28 AM ET

Canada's top civil servant has refuted a bombshell media report that alleged political interference in the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin, claiming it included "errors" and "unfounded speculation" and was "defamatory."

Clerk of the Privy Council Michael Wernick was referring to a Feb. 7 Globe and Mail report that touched off a political scandal and triggered the resignation of cabinet minister Jody Wilson-Raybould and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's principal secretary, Gerry Butts.

"I'm here to say to you that the Globe and Mail article contains errors, unfounded speculation and, in some cases, is simply defamatory," he said.

(Of course, continuing prevention of Jody Raybould-Wilson's ability to tell her side is the best means of proving the accuracy of the Clerk's testimony - Loachman)

<snip>

In a Dec. 19, 2018 call with Wilson-Raybould, Wernick said he provided information on the SNC-Lavalin file based partly on reports in the business press warning the company could close or move if the prosecution went ahead. That could have major implications for employees, suppliers and pensioners, said Wernick, adding that he told Wilson-Raybould that the prime minister and "a lot of her colleagues" were anxious about what they were hearing and reading.

"I can tell you with complete assurance that my view of those conversations is that they were within the boundaries of what's lawful and appropriate. I was informing the minister of context. She may have another view of the conversation, but that's something the ethics commissioner could sort out," he said.

Wernick repeatedly insisted there was no inappropriate pressure placed on Wilson-Raybould at any time. He also said that if she had felt she was being put under pressure at any point, she could have filed a complaint with the ethics commissioner or reported any perceived wrongdoing to the prime minister.

In his opening remarks to the committee, Wernick said he's worried about the state of politics in Canada right now, citing the threat of foreign interference in the coming election and the use of words like 'treason' and 'traitor' in political discourse.

"Those are the words that lead to assassination," he said. "I'm worried that somebody's going to get shot this year during the political campaign."

("Fearmongering" is an oft-heard accusation that Liberals like to apply to those who disagree with some of their ideas, policies, and actions - Loachman)

<snip>

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-jody-wilson-raybould-tells-cabinet-why-she-would-not-intervene-in-snc/

Hidden behind a paywall, but excerpts have been posted by Spencer Fernando at https://www.spencerfernando.com/2019/02/21/breaking-fife-chase-report-wilson-raybould-told-liberal-cabinet-she-felt-it-was-wrong-for-anyone-including-the-prime-minister-to-bring-up-snc-lavalin-with-her/ :

According to a source with knowledge of the cabinet discussions, Ms. Wilson-Raybould said the director of the prosecution service rejected a negotiated settlement with SNC-Lavalin based on how the law applies to the company’s case. The Liberal government had changed the Criminal Code to allow for deferred prosecutions in which a company admits wrongdoing and pays a fine, but avoids a trial. Under Canada’s new deferred-prosecution agreement law, prosecutors are not allowed to consider national economic interests when deciding whether to settle with a company.

Mr. Trudeau has acknowledged he raised concerns about the economic impact that a conviction could have on SNC-Lavalin when he met privately with the then-justice minister and attorney-general on Sept. 17, two weeks after the director of public prosecutions decided to move toward a trial.

The fact that prosecutors had already informed the Quebec company of its decision before the meeting between Mr. Trudeau and Ms. Wilson-Raybould meant the only remaining question was whether the attorney-general would override federal prosecutors and publicly instruct them to cut a deal.

Once prosecutors decided in early September to move to trial, Ms. Wilson-Raybould told cabinet she felt it was wrong for anyone – including the Prime Minister, members of his staff and other government officials – to raise the issue with her, the source said. Another source added that Ms. Wilson-Raybould would not budge from her position at the cabinet meeting.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/lametti-justice-committee-snc-lavalin-1.5027617

SNC-Lavalin lawyers rushed to prosecutors before MPs knew of proposed law change

Andy Blatchford The Canadian Press Posted: Feb 20, 2019 8:17 PM ET

Representatives for SNC-Lavalin hustled to connect with federal prosecutors after the Liberal government quietly introduced a proposal last year to allow corporations to strike settlement deals and avoid criminal prosecution, court documents show.

The company's lawyers acted so quickly to position their client for a so-called remediation agreement that they contacted prosecutors weeks before lawmakers, even Liberals, were even aware the Trudeau government had tucked the legislation into its 582-page omnibus budget bill.

The Montreal-based engineering and construction firm is at the centre of a controversy that has enveloped the Prime Minister's Office. Since last week, the government has seen the high-profile resignations of one cabinet member — former justice minister and attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould, who became the minister of veterans affairs in January — and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's principal secretary, Gerald Butts.

SNC-Lavalin worked hard to avoid criminal proceedings by proposing a remediation agreement, but in September the prosecutor's office declined to invite the company to negotiate. A guilty verdict on bribery and corruption charges has been characterized as an existential threat for SNC-Lavalin and its employees because the company would be barred from bidding on government contracts in Canada for 10 years. Much of its work is in designing, building and operating public infrastructure.

The company lobbied federal officials, including in the Prime Minister's Office, to put remediation agreements into the law in the first place. The tools, known as deferred prosecution agreements in other jurisdictions, had already been enacted in the United States and the United Kingdom.

<snip>

Court documents filed last month by the firm's lawyers say they contacted the Public Prosecution Service of Canada "in or about the month of April 2018, shortly after the Government of Canada introduced the proposed legislative changes to implement a remediation agreement regime."

This would have been weeks before many lawmakers - including at least one Liberal - tasked with studying the amendment were even aware of its existence.

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/lilley-trudeau-and-the-ides-of-february

LILLEY: Trudeau and the Ides of February
Brian Lilley Published: February 21, 2019

<snip>

Trudeau has gone from saying he did not “direct” former attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould to give a sweetheart deal to SNC-Lavalin to saying he spoke to her and stood up for good jobs across Canada.

Now reports indicate that Wilson-Raybould told her former cabinet colleagues in a closed-door meeting this week that it had been improper for the PM or his staff to continuously raise the issue with her after a decision to take SNC-Lavalin to trial had already been made.

And yet they did.

The Director of Public Prosecutions informed the company on September 4, 2018 that they would not get the special deal that would allow them to avoid trial.

On September 5, Wilson-Raybould met with Trudeau’s now former right-hand man Gerry Butts in the bar at the Chateau Laurier. The reason for the meeting was to discuss SNC-Lavalin.

The PM told his entire caucus that when they hear from Gerry Butts they are hearing from him.

But that meeting wouldn’t be pressure would it?

Trudeau himself met with Wilson-Raybould on the issue on September 17.

The PM doesn’t deny the meeting took place or that the issue was raised. When asked about it he defends his actions saying he was standing up for jobs.

“We will always stand up for good jobs right across this country every step of the way while making sure we respect the independence of the judicial system,” Trudeau said in the House on Wednesday.

I can imagine that the conversation included that strong suggestion that if the company went to trial and was found guilty that thousands of people would lose their jobs.

But that wouldn’t be pressure, would it?

If that was coming from my boss I would take it that way and it seems that Wilson-Raybould did as well.

Trudeau though says nothing inappropriate happened.

Maybe, as Trudeau has said in other instances, she just experienced these interactions differently.

The meetings with Butts and Trudeau were just two possible examples.

What was said by cabinet colleague Bill Morneau, who met with SNC-Lavalin’s CEO to hear all about the economic downside of the company facing prosecution.

What about the senior advisors in the PMO like Mathieu Bouchard and Elder Marques who were on this file and lobbied extensively by the company.

Did they speak with Wilson-Raybould?

If so, what did they say?

There is so much we still don’t know because the PM won’t let Wilson-Raybould “speak her truth” as she put in the House on Wednesday.

Instead, the PM wants us to take him at his word because he is an honourable man.

Isn’t that how they described the men that killed Julius Caesar?

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/jody-wilson-rayboulds-short-commons-speech-gets-standing-applause-from-opposition-parties

Jody Wilson-Raybould's short Commons speech gets standing applause from opposition parties

Throughout the scandal, Wilson-Raybould's relationship with the cabinet and Liberal caucus has been shrouded in mystery

After a lengthy caucus meeting on Wednesday morning that featured the participation of Wilson-Raybould, Liberal MPs emerged to give glowing reviews of their party’s unity and said they were largely happy with what they’d heard in the room.

But just a few hours later, Wilson-Raybould surprised the House of Commons with a statement following a vote on an NDP motion. The motion, defeated by the Liberals, called for a public inquiry into the allegation Wilson-Raybould had been politically pressured while attorney general to intervene in a corruption prosecution against SNC-Lavalin. It also called on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to waive solicitor-client privilege over the conversations he and his office had with Wilson-Raybould on the matter.

“I would ask that the record show that I abstain from voting on that matter,” Wilson-Raybould said after the vote was tallied, saying she felt she shouldn’t vote on a matter that involved her personally.

“I have said that I am seeking counsel on this matter of what I can and cannot say,” she went on. “I understand fully that Canadians want to know the truth and want transparency. Privilege and confidentiality are not mine to waive, and I hope that I have the opportunity to speak my truth.”

The short speech prompted standing applause from the opposition parties across the aisle - and silence from her Liberal colleagues.

<snip>

The caucus meeting ran about 45 minutes longer than usual, and Liberal MPs eventually trickled out into a gathering of cameras and reporters. Some deliberately lingered to answer shouted questions from reporters, and each insisted, in their own way, that there is no caucus split in the Liberal Party.

“Everything is fine,” said Liberal MP John McKay.

“I thought it was excellent,” said MP Andrew Leslie when asked how the meeting went.

MP Maryann Mihychuk told the media that “Jody is great” and “we’re all a team of individuals.”

MP Marc Miller said the caucus response to Wilson-Raybould was “very respectful.”

Most Liberals offered no comment, owing to the confidentiality of the caucus meeting.

<snip>

Two Liberal MPs, Nate Erskine-Smith and Wayne Long, broke ranks with their party and voted with the Conservatives and NDP in favour of the motion.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wilson-raybould-lawyer-law-society-1.5027143

Can Wilson-Raybould claim solicitor-client privilege over SNC-Lavalin? The jury's out

Failure to renew law society membership could call solicitor-client privilege into question

Elizabeth Thompson CBC News Posted: Feb 21, 2019 4:00 AM ET

Former justice minister Jody Wilson-Raybould was not formally a lawyer in the eyes of the legal profession at the time the decision was made to continue with the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin on charges of fraud and corruption, CBC News has learned.

For some, that calls into question her decision to cite solicitor-client privilege in refusing to comment on the specifics of the growing controversy over the Quebec-based engineering firm's criminal case.

While Wilson-Raybould completed law school and practised for several years as a lawyer, the Law Society of British Columbia says Wilson-Raybould didn't renew her membership in the law society in January 2016.

"It means she cannot practice law in B.C," said David Jordan, spokesman for the law society. "She could not call herself a lawyer in B.C and would not have any of the benefits of the solicitor-client privilege in B.C. "

But one expert says even a non-lawyer can be bound by solicitor-client privilege if they're serving as an attorney-general — with the government itself as a client.

Andrew Flavelle Martin, assistant professor at the Peter Allard School of Law at the University of British Columbia, said a non-lawyer attorney general is the one person who can provide legal advice without being a member of a law society.

While most people named attorney general at the federal or provincial level have been practicing lawyers, it's not a requirement and there have been non-lawyer AGs in the past.

"So she's right to say that solicitor-client privilege prevents her from talking because she was providing legal advice, even though at the time she wasn't licensed," Martin said.

And since Wilson-Raybould is not a member of a law society, she couldn't be disciplined for breaching solicitor-client privilege, he added.

<snip>

Gavin MacKenzie, author of Lawyers and Ethics: Professional Responsibility and Discipline, said the question of solicitor-client privilege in Wilson-Raybould's case hinges on what role she was playing at the time.

Advising the government on a legal question — such as whether a proposed measure is constitutional — would be covered by solicitor-client privilege, said MacKenzie. That wouldn't be the case, he said, with decisions that have to be made by attorneys general themselves, such as whether to continue a prosecution.

"Generally speaking, conversations with others in government about those decisions aren't subject to solicitor-client privilege, whether she is a member of the law society or not. Those are functions of the attorney general that are separate."

Kent Roach, a law professor at the University of Toronto, said the advice an attorney general offers the government is usually the result of the work of many lawyers.

"Even if you assume that the attorney general was not herself acting as a lawyer, I think in most cases there's going to be senior officials in the room whose advice the attorney general is relying upon," he said. "And so it would seem to me that in those situations you probably would still have attorney-client privilege.

"It has not, to my knowledge, been authoritatively resolved."
 
So let me sum it up if I can:

1. The Director of Public Prosecutions decided against offering a remediation agreement to SNC and therefore were proceeding to prosecution;

2. SNC started lobbying the Liberals heavily that the world would end if they didn't get a deal;

3. The Liberals, lobbied by SNC, pass a new provision in the CCC that prosecutors can offer to defer prosecution but in deciding whether or not to do so the "national economic interest" is not to be considered;

4. The PM, Butts, Wernick and all their buddies hit on the AG and tell her the world will end if the prosecution proceeds;

5. The AG tells everyone in cabinet last Sep after the decision was made that she felt it would be wrong for anyone to talk to her about the issue to get her to overturn the prosecutors decision;

6.  Notwithstanding that, Wernick (and undoubtedly others) continued to jabber at her that if the prosecution went head the world would end;

7. According to Wernick, all of that is properly acceptable and just a minor disagreement which the ethics commissioner can sort out and oh, by the way, all this kind of negativity is what leads to politicians being assassinated.

What kind of morons does Wernick think Canadians are?

Personally I'm one of those people who thinks that not only should justice be done but should be seen to be done. Seems to me the only people involved who understood that concept were the prosecutors and the AG who were prepared to prosecute a very serious breach of law by a rapacious company. I applaud them for doing the right thing under what is clearly pressure from the Liberal caucus and, surprisingly, the Clerk of the Privy Council.

:cheers:
 
FJAG said:
So let me sum it up if I can:

1. The Director of Public Prosecutions decided against offering a remediation agreement to SNC and therefore were proceeding to prosecution;

2. SNC started lobbying the Liberals heavily that the world would end if they didn't get a deal;

3. The Liberals, lobbied by SNC, pass a new provision in the CCC that prosecutors can offer to defer prosecution but in deciding whether or not to do so the "national economic interest" is not to be considered;

4. The PM, Butts, Wernick and all their buddies hit on the AG and tell her the world will end if the prosecution proceeds;

5. The AG tells everyone in cabinet last Sep after the decision was made that she felt it would be wrong for anyone to talk to her about the issue to get her to overturn the prosecutors decision;

6.  Notwithstanding that, Wernick (and undoubtedly others) continued to jabber at her that if the prosecution went head the world would end;

7. According to Wernick, all of that is properly acceptable and just a minor disagreement which the ethics commissioner can sort out and oh, by the way, all this kind of negativity is what leads to politicians being assassinated.

What kind of morons does Wernick think Canadians are?

Personally I'm one of those people who thinks that not only should justice be done but should be seen to be done. Seems to me the only people involved who understood that concept were the prosecutors and the AG who were prepared to prosecute a very serious breach of law by a rapacious company. I applaud them for doing the right thing under what is clearly pressure from the Liberal caucus and, surprisingly, the Clerk of the Privy Council.

:cheers:

Nice summary, paints a fairly unflattering at best picture of the goings on in government.

The only thing I disagree with is the highlighted part, the federal public service was under attack by the CPC when they were in power. It seems quite natural that a very senior public servant would take sides with the party that doesn't represent a threat to the public service. Not to say it's appropriate, but it really isn't surprising to me.
 
Yes, nice summary FJAG.

However, just a few points:

First of all, SNC couldn't get or discuss remediation with the DPP before the law was amended, so your point one should come somewhere between three and four. The point one should read: SNC Lavalin charged with bribery in Khaddafi affair.

As for Mr. Wernick, what I found most amazing is his claim of not liking the current state of governance. I agree with him but probably in the opposite direction. He is probably talking about politicians trying to tell him how to do his job and wants it to stop. I on the other hand think the lack of governance is the abdication of Parliament of its duty to keep the government in check,i.e. elected officials (ministers) and the civil service, so they don't go overboard with stupid pet projects using MY money.
 
Oldgateboatdriver said:
I on the other hand think the lack of governance is the abdication of Parliament of its duty to keep the government in check,i.e. elected officials (ministers) and the civil service, so they don't go overboard with stupid pet projects using MY money.

It sounds like that was what was starting to happen - a caucus revolt.

One can't help think that if this was Australia, there would have been a Prime Ministerial handover or two by now.
 
FJAG said:
4. The PM, Butts, Wernick and all their buddies hit on the AG and tell her the world will end if the prosecution proceeds;
...
6.  Notwithstanding that, Wernick (and undoubtedly others) continued to jabber at her that if the prosecution went head the world would end;

It is more than just a conversation between the PM, Butts, the Clerk and AG...let's call it what it is...an implied order...I learned the effects of these kind of orders that seem innocuous at first when I was XO Sea Training.  I remember sitting in the wardroom and just mentioning to the supply officer that the other ship that we were on had Coke Zero...but their ship did not.  I also mentioned that it was too bad they hadn't arranged to have some sent over during our upcoming RAS (in about 1 hr). So now advance 3hrs, after the RAS, and low and behold there is Coke Zero in the Wardroom...to which I was very grateful...however the Sea Training supply Officer was pissed!  He pulled me aside and told me that he had spent the last 2 weeks getting the supply department to think ahead and put through the proper request/paper work prior to transferring any material between ships, and that my demand..although not official, with my position of authority, the ship's SYO felt that he needed to break some rules and get it done no matter what, so he simply bypassed all the official lines and called directly over to the other ship's SYO to get it done.  Since that point I have been very careful with what I say around junior members so that they don't think that I want them to break the rules to make something happen just because I wish it were so.  So I can very much see how the AG may have felt pressure from this implied order from the PM and crowd.
 
Oldgateboatdriver
First of all, SNC couldn't get or discuss remediation with the DPP before the law was amended

SNC lobbied the Liberals repeatedly to bring in the law in the first place, and so they did hidden in a omnibus Finance Bill.

The point one should read: SNC Lavalin charged with bribery in Khaddafi affair.

SNC was charged with bribery and fraud wrt Libya."Police allege that between 2001 and 2011 SNC-Lavalin paid nearly $47.7 million to public officials in Libya to influence government decisions. It also charged the company, its construction division and its SNC-Lavalin International subsidiary of defrauding various Libyan organizations of about $129.8 million".

SNC and its executives have had multiple charges filed wrt to several projects. Possibly another pending. Where did this money go? "defrauding various Libyan organizations of about $129.8 million". Did it pass from money received from fraud to money paid out as bribes?

Meanwhile, projects closing, companies leaving in AB, no pipeline as the Liberals try to stack, the Titanic deck chairs, on the corrupt SNC.
 
Just a few quick rejoinders to the above.

Oldgateboatdriver. I could have worded it better but I looked at the following:

Court documents filed last month by the firm's lawyers say they contacted the Public Prosecution Service of Canada "in or about the month of April 2018, shortly after the Government of Canada introduced the proposed legislative changes to implement a remediation agreement regime.

Furniture: You're right. It isn't all that surprising.

Half Full: Bingo. That's it exactly and let me tell you that what happened with the AG was nothing as benign.

Rifleman62: Here's another article on SNC's wrongdoings Court documents filed last month by the firm's lawyers say they contacted the Public Prosecution Service of Canada "in or about the month of April 2018, shortly after the Government of Canada introduced the proposed legislative changes to implement a remediation agreement regime." It includes $100,000 overcontributed to the Liberals in seven years. Boy that's cheap.

In retrospect there should have been a point 6A to my post: 6A AG is fired.

:cheers:

 
It is becoming very clear that the PMO does not know how to manage a crisis.

This story here at CTV about Katie Telford being sued by a former ambassador:

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/top-trudeau-adviser-telford-targeted-in-ex-israel-envoy-s-lawsuit-1.4307153

I suspect the PMO is going to have many similar issues (no matter how outlandish or unsubstantiated they may seem) now with all of this coming to light.
 
"Those are the words that lead to assassination," he said. "I'm worried that somebody's going to get shot this year during the political campaign."

Nice bit of fear mongering and anti-firearms plug there.
 
Back
Top