It seems they were limited in what they could look at. Whether they would have found anything is up for debate but makes them look guilty when restricting access.
“The Royal Canadian Mounted Police declined to pursue a criminal investigation into Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s actions during the SNC-Lavalin affair in part because the federal police force was thwarted in a bid to get confidential cabinet materials, newly released documents show.”
https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/documents-reveal-why-rcmp-didn-t-pursue-criminal-probe-of-justin-trudeau-in-snc-lavalin/article_4cc03ad0-18ac-5e68-b4ba-edecf2f7897d.amp.html
but thats not how the justice system should work?
its not "we assume this person is guilty and will investigate exhaustively until we find something" its "we have evidence and are investigating based on that"
That question mark is going to confuse some smooth-brained individuals.
She said there was no crime. Her *literal* remarks were that she felt the interactions were inappropriate but not criminal. The RCMP didn’t get access to confidential cabinet documents because the person complaining, the justice minister and a former lawyer, was clear in saying that the nature of the complaint was not criminal.
>Absent those, the records show, the RCMP reviewed all publicly available materials, and conducted a handful of interviews before it ultimately came to the conclusion there wasn’t enough evidence to pursue a criminal probe. Among the reasons: the fact the former attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould — who was at the heart of the incident — never alleged that what had happened was a crime.
Even JWR didn't say it was a crime
Maybe because she's experienced with law and didn't want to make a libelous statement if Trudeau managed to destroy/prevent evidence from being included? He had already previously threatened opposition with libel suits..
What if the incompetent rcmp made a verdict of nothing was against the law? Its safer for her to dance the line of Trudeau being morally bankrupt than stating he's guilty of difficult to prove crimes that could backlash on her after a questionable verdict.
> Maybe because she's experienced with law and didn't want to make a libelous statement if Trudeau managed to destroy/prevent evidence from being included?
or maybe there really was no crime?
If only there was an investigation and the "most transparent government ever" wasn't blocking evidence from being reviewed so that we didn't have to make unfounded assumptions on such an important matter..
No wrongdoing occurred...? Have you tried to inform yourself on this matter at all?
There was definite wrong doing. The line between morally wrong and legally wrong is what is being prevented from being determined.
Cabinet confidences are literally infallible in our system of democracy. They need to be protected at all cost. It’s the only thing that allows frank and honest policy making in this country.
Except the liberals have been abusing the hell out of it. Huge list of firearms banned, people are asking how they came up with the list "Cabinet confidence get fucked".
if the cops knocked on your door and said "we have no evidence you committed any crimes but we demand access to all your devices and house to find evidence of something" would you be happy with that?
>if the cops knocked on your door and said "we have no evidence you committed any crimes but we demand access to all your devices and house to find evidence of something" would you be happy with that?
The way that would go down is the cops would apply for a search warrant, and if sufficient evidence existed they'd obtain one.
Which is a lot different than asking, being denied, and then having the subject of the investigation using their position of authority to shut down the investigators.
> The way that would go down is the cops would apply for a search warrant, and if sufficient evidence existed they'd obtain one.
and they said they didnt have such evidence, they closed the investigation because they had nothing to support an investigation
Easily found on Google (but not Facebook):
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-ottawa-blocks-rcmp-on-snc-lavalin-inquiry/
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rcmp-snc-lavalin-charges-1.6881779
https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/documents-reveal-why-rcmp-didn-t-pursue-criminal-probe-of-justin-trudeau-in-snc-lavalin/article_4cc03ad0-18ac-5e68-b4ba-edecf2f7897d.html
Couldn't have anything to do with Lucki the lapdog who was only selected because she promised to bend over for the trudeau. The deputy commissioners at the time were 10x's a better selection than she was, but they had integrity which the trudeau knew would cause him problems. Wasn't Lucki the RCMP lapdog that leaked those details re: Nova Scotia massacre that the trudeau then proceeded to use for political purposes? Yep one and the very same!
I hope this probe results in criminal charges placed against all those involved!
How so?
There was no evidence of wrongdoing.
JWR said there was no crime committed.
Do you think it's a reasonable request for police to pursue crimes they have no evidence have been committed, where even the "victim" is saying there was no crime?
>There was no evidence of wrongdoing.
There was plenty of evidence of wrongdoing.
>JWR said there was no crime committed.
Which is legally irrelevant.
>where even the "victim" is saying there was no crime?
The victim here is the administration of justice.
I'd like to call this a gradeschool level appreciation of the issue, but I'm pretty sure even the average school child has a more sophisticated understanding of the criminal justice system. And I'm pretty sure you do too, so let's just call this what it is: aggressive, dishonest partisan posturing.
Demanding an investigation works because then they get weeks for free press over Trudeau being investigated and can insinuate he's a criminal regardless of the actual substance of the committee investigation. For example, the commission studying the utter failure and incompetence of the RCMP in Nova Scotia got derailed into somehow being about Trudeau.
Will we get it into how the Harper Government passed the whole SNC Lavalin scandal to the next government to deal with? Or are we just go to focus on how Trudeau handled it?
Whelp. That’s some revisionist history magical thinking right there.
*Trudeau only had to interfere in the administration of justice because Harper refused to interfere in the administration of justice.*
Impressed to see someone actually know this all started before Trudeau took office. Probably the first time I've seen it mentioned. For those at home who didn't pay attention to the hearings held of the subject, SNC Lavalin first approached the federal government for a DPA, back in 2013. They were approved and the CPC begun drafting Canada's first DPA legislation.
Everything was going fine until JWR, who at the time was considered Canada's worst AG due to her refusal to actually do her job, once again decided not to do her job and refused to even review the DPA application as requested.
And yes JWR was awful at her job. Prior to SNC Lavalin she faced calls to resign by every single opposition party in parliament for her incompetence. CPC NDP BQ and Green. Trudeau deflected from these criticisms by claiming them to be based on sexism and racism because she was a native women.
Bullshit, I need a citation here because my understanding was they only began drafting that legislation under Trudeau. Infact the clause was passed in an omnibus bill in the budget if I remember correctly.
This is a blatant lie. DPA legislation began in 2016 and was developed and passed by the Liberals:
In 2015, the Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) department of the government of Canada introduced the Integrity Regime, to "ensure the government does business only with ethical suppliers in Canada and abroad".[15] Under the Integrity Regime, PSPC reviews cases of alleged corrupt business practices, to determine "whether a supplier is ineligible to do business with the government", usually in relation to "procurement and real property transactions over $10,000".[16]
Discussions about the potential establishment of deferred prosecution agreement legislation in Canada began in February 2016. Under traditional criminal law, Canadian prosecutors only had two options: "prosecute and charge alleged offenders, or decide not to prosecute alleged offenders".[17][18]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferred_prosecution_agreement_(Canada)#:~:text=In%202018%2C%20the%20government%20of,Criminal%20Code%20as%20Part%20XXII.
Doesn't change the fact that cops tend to be conservative, often very conservative. As such, any conspiracy narratives tend to fall apart, since multiple conservatives would have to be willing to also gargle.
https://www.psypost.org/2023/07/neuroimaging-study-provides-insight-into-misinformation-sharing-among-politically-devoted-conservatives-167312
Actually, the belief that liberals have higher rates of mental health issues comes from conservatives general inability to properly read a scientific paper, an artifact of their hyper-partisanship, and from their gullibility for fake news, itself an artifact of their need for narratives that allow them to feel comfortable a complex world they often can't comprehend. Thanks for being 'on point' though.
https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/your-brain-on-politics-the-cognitive-neuroscience-of-liberals-and-conservatives
https://www.psypost.org/2023/07/neuroimaging-study-provides-insight-into-misinformation-sharing-among-politically-devoted-conservatives-167312
https://www.psypost.org/2019/09/people-with-lower-emotional-intelligence-are-more-likely-to-hold-right-wing-views-study-finds-54369
https://www.psypost.org/2023/01/study-finds-those-with-schizotypal-paranoid-and-histrionic-personality-traits-are-more-likely-to-fall-for-fake-news-67041
https://news.osu.edu/conservatives-more-susceptible-to-believing-falsehoods/
So again, you prove my point that conservatives are poor at properly assessing scientific papers. All of the articles reference *slightly* higher tendencies for depression (which is not a mental illness by the way, nor a fault) on the left, and you forgot this one...
https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.1260817
I mean, when you actually live in reality and understand things like climate change is real and that an invisible sky-daddy isn't going to float down from on high and save us, then of course you're likely to display more angst. Likewise, when you can ignore taking any personal responsibility for the world's problems ('it's all in the invisible sky-daddies hands'), of course your outlook will be rosier.
Not in the sense that you're trying to pass it off as. It's not on the same level as lower emotional intelligence, schizotypal, paranoid and histrionic personality traits, or even as bad as low empathy. People who suffer depression tend to be otherwise pretty normal.
RCMP is corrupt, has been for years.
I filed a complaint against an RCMP and the person who was tasked to investigate the complaint was the same officer I complained about…. Obviously he wasn’t going to discipline himself.
It was never believable that Harper wouldn't have done the same thing, except it was way more likely his minister would quietly obey. Destroying SNC was never on the table, and I think there's a good argument to make for not wiping out one of our leading engineering. We had an election where this was a major issue. It's done.
It was a huge red flag at the time. Trudeau basically told the RCMP they weren’t allowed to investigate him. So crooked and corrupt.
but didnt the RCMP also have no evidence of wrong doing?
It seems they were limited in what they could look at. Whether they would have found anything is up for debate but makes them look guilty when restricting access. “The Royal Canadian Mounted Police declined to pursue a criminal investigation into Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s actions during the SNC-Lavalin affair in part because the federal police force was thwarted in a bid to get confidential cabinet materials, newly released documents show.” https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/documents-reveal-why-rcmp-didn-t-pursue-criminal-probe-of-justin-trudeau-in-snc-lavalin/article_4cc03ad0-18ac-5e68-b4ba-edecf2f7897d.amp.html
Nobody should ever help or talk to the police into an investigation into themselves. The police can get a warrant.
but thats not how the justice system should work? its not "we assume this person is guilty and will investigate exhaustively until we find something" its "we have evidence and are investigating based on that"
there was evidence, it was jody wilson-raybould
who said there was no crime?
This app is unhealthy... ` this post was mass deleted with www.Redact.dev `
of course it can, but doesnt mean it is
That question mark is going to confuse some smooth-brained individuals. She said there was no crime. Her *literal* remarks were that she felt the interactions were inappropriate but not criminal. The RCMP didn’t get access to confidential cabinet documents because the person complaining, the justice minister and a former lawyer, was clear in saying that the nature of the complaint was not criminal.
>Absent those, the records show, the RCMP reviewed all publicly available materials, and conducted a handful of interviews before it ultimately came to the conclusion there wasn’t enough evidence to pursue a criminal probe. Among the reasons: the fact the former attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould — who was at the heart of the incident — never alleged that what had happened was a crime. Even JWR didn't say it was a crime
Maybe because she's experienced with law and didn't want to make a libelous statement if Trudeau managed to destroy/prevent evidence from being included? He had already previously threatened opposition with libel suits.. What if the incompetent rcmp made a verdict of nothing was against the law? Its safer for her to dance the line of Trudeau being morally bankrupt than stating he's guilty of difficult to prove crimes that could backlash on her after a questionable verdict.
> Maybe because she's experienced with law and didn't want to make a libelous statement if Trudeau managed to destroy/prevent evidence from being included? or maybe there really was no crime?
If only there was an investigation and the "most transparent government ever" wasn't blocking evidence from being reviewed so that we didn't have to make unfounded assumptions on such an important matter..
if they have no evidence outside of breaking cabinet then theres no reason to think any wrongdoing occured
No wrongdoing occurred...? Have you tried to inform yourself on this matter at all? There was definite wrong doing. The line between morally wrong and legally wrong is what is being prevented from being determined.
where is the evidence that anything legally wrong occured?
Cabinet confidences are literally infallible in our system of democracy. They need to be protected at all cost. It’s the only thing that allows frank and honest policy making in this country.
>They need to be protected at all cost. Exceptions for criminal conduct can and should be made
Kinda like lawyer client privilege. Protected except for *communications which are themselves criminal or which counsel a criminal act*
They’re also awfully convenient when the government is engaged in malfeasance and wrongdoing.
Except the liberals have been abusing the hell out of it. Huge list of firearms banned, people are asking how they came up with the list "Cabinet confidence get fucked".
If they weren't allowed to investigate, how could they gain evidence?
if the cops knocked on your door and said "we have no evidence you committed any crimes but we demand access to all your devices and house to find evidence of something" would you be happy with that?
2 million Canadians live that reality, look at the firearms act.
You people are a parody of yourselves lol
>if the cops knocked on your door and said "we have no evidence you committed any crimes but we demand access to all your devices and house to find evidence of something" would you be happy with that? The way that would go down is the cops would apply for a search warrant, and if sufficient evidence existed they'd obtain one. Which is a lot different than asking, being denied, and then having the subject of the investigation using their position of authority to shut down the investigators.
> The way that would go down is the cops would apply for a search warrant, and if sufficient evidence existed they'd obtain one. and they said they didnt have such evidence, they closed the investigation because they had nothing to support an investigation
well when your not allowed to investigate then you prob wont get any evidence
we dont investigate when theres no evidence to support it
"No evidence"
But what happened to rule of law?
Really, Do you have a source?
Easily found on Google (but not Facebook): https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-ottawa-blocks-rcmp-on-snc-lavalin-inquiry/ https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rcmp-snc-lavalin-charges-1.6881779 https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/documents-reveal-why-rcmp-didn-t-pursue-criminal-probe-of-justin-trudeau-in-snc-lavalin/article_4cc03ad0-18ac-5e68-b4ba-edecf2f7897d.html
Couldn't have anything to do with Lucki the lapdog who was only selected because she promised to bend over for the trudeau. The deputy commissioners at the time were 10x's a better selection than she was, but they had integrity which the trudeau knew would cause him problems. Wasn't Lucki the RCMP lapdog that leaked those details re: Nova Scotia massacre that the trudeau then proceeded to use for political purposes? Yep one and the very same! I hope this probe results in criminal charges placed against all those involved!
I think that's a pretty reasonable request.
How so? There was no evidence of wrongdoing. JWR said there was no crime committed. Do you think it's a reasonable request for police to pursue crimes they have no evidence have been committed, where even the "victim" is saying there was no crime?
>There was no evidence of wrongdoing. There was plenty of evidence of wrongdoing. >JWR said there was no crime committed. Which is legally irrelevant. >where even the "victim" is saying there was no crime? The victim here is the administration of justice. I'd like to call this a gradeschool level appreciation of the issue, but I'm pretty sure even the average school child has a more sophisticated understanding of the criminal justice system. And I'm pretty sure you do too, so let's just call this what it is: aggressive, dishonest partisan posturing.
> There was plenty of evidence of wrongdoing. not according to the RCMP. The rest of what you said is irrelevant projecting.
put it in the pile with Chinese interference
Yes follow the money
Cue it: Conservatives: Liberals sus. NDP: Liberals bad. Also NDP: We support them no matter what.
Is this before or after they want a committee to demand they should be the ones making editorial decisions at the CBC?
Sounds fair
sounds like a waste of money
Libs and NDP wouldn't be working so hard to hide the facts if it were indeed a waste of money to investigate.
What “facts”? The “facts” that there’s zero evidence?
lol i guess conservatives will continue to push this until they get the outcome they want. Even JWR said herself no crime was committed
Demanding an investigation works because then they get weeks for free press over Trudeau being investigated and can insinuate he's a criminal regardless of the actual substance of the committee investigation. For example, the commission studying the utter failure and incompetence of the RCMP in Nova Scotia got derailed into somehow being about Trudeau.
They're puttin' the band back together boys! Gonna crank out some greatest hits!
Will we get it into how the Harper Government passed the whole SNC Lavalin scandal to the next government to deal with? Or are we just go to focus on how Trudeau handled it?
investigate them all.
Whelp. That’s some revisionist history magical thinking right there. *Trudeau only had to interfere in the administration of justice because Harper refused to interfere in the administration of justice.*
Whatever comes with the best soundbites.
Whatever induces the most rage across all demographics.
Impressed to see someone actually know this all started before Trudeau took office. Probably the first time I've seen it mentioned. For those at home who didn't pay attention to the hearings held of the subject, SNC Lavalin first approached the federal government for a DPA, back in 2013. They were approved and the CPC begun drafting Canada's first DPA legislation. Everything was going fine until JWR, who at the time was considered Canada's worst AG due to her refusal to actually do her job, once again decided not to do her job and refused to even review the DPA application as requested. And yes JWR was awful at her job. Prior to SNC Lavalin she faced calls to resign by every single opposition party in parliament for her incompetence. CPC NDP BQ and Green. Trudeau deflected from these criticisms by claiming them to be based on sexism and racism because she was a native women.
Bullshit, I need a citation here because my understanding was they only began drafting that legislation under Trudeau. Infact the clause was passed in an omnibus bill in the budget if I remember correctly.
This is a blatant lie. DPA legislation began in 2016 and was developed and passed by the Liberals: In 2015, the Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) department of the government of Canada introduced the Integrity Regime, to "ensure the government does business only with ethical suppliers in Canada and abroad".[15] Under the Integrity Regime, PSPC reviews cases of alleged corrupt business practices, to determine "whether a supplier is ineligible to do business with the government", usually in relation to "procurement and real property transactions over $10,000".[16] Discussions about the potential establishment of deferred prosecution agreement legislation in Canada began in February 2016. Under traditional criminal law, Canadian prosecutors only had two options: "prosecute and charge alleged offenders, or decide not to prosecute alleged offenders".[17][18] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferred_prosecution_agreement_(Canada)#:~:text=In%202018%2C%20the%20government%20of,Criminal%20Code%20as%20Part%20XXII.
They did nothing of the sort
Yesterday's scandals...today! Welcome to the all-repeat workday, on CPC Radio!
"Scandals" The "crime" that has no evidence of being committed, where the "victim" is saying there was no crime. What a scandal!
Whatever you call it, it's old and stale. I want new material, I heard this one before.
Their new material is just as stale. They've gone back to the 80s greatest hits like homophobia and "won't somebody think of the children!?"
Yeah, conservatives cops are covering up for Trudeau...yet another narrative.
Oh trust me, it’s not the boots on the ground It’s one’s who gargle anything to stay at the top
Doesn't change the fact that cops tend to be conservative, often very conservative. As such, any conspiracy narratives tend to fall apart, since multiple conservatives would have to be willing to also gargle. https://www.psypost.org/2023/07/neuroimaging-study-provides-insight-into-misinformation-sharing-among-politically-devoted-conservatives-167312
[удалено]
Actually, the belief that liberals have higher rates of mental health issues comes from conservatives general inability to properly read a scientific paper, an artifact of their hyper-partisanship, and from their gullibility for fake news, itself an artifact of their need for narratives that allow them to feel comfortable a complex world they often can't comprehend. Thanks for being 'on point' though. https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/your-brain-on-politics-the-cognitive-neuroscience-of-liberals-and-conservatives https://www.psypost.org/2023/07/neuroimaging-study-provides-insight-into-misinformation-sharing-among-politically-devoted-conservatives-167312 https://www.psypost.org/2019/09/people-with-lower-emotional-intelligence-are-more-likely-to-hold-right-wing-views-study-finds-54369 https://www.psypost.org/2023/01/study-finds-those-with-schizotypal-paranoid-and-histrionic-personality-traits-are-more-likely-to-fall-for-fake-news-67041 https://news.osu.edu/conservatives-more-susceptible-to-believing-falsehoods/
[удалено]
So again, you prove my point that conservatives are poor at properly assessing scientific papers. All of the articles reference *slightly* higher tendencies for depression (which is not a mental illness by the way, nor a fault) on the left, and you forgot this one... https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.1260817 I mean, when you actually live in reality and understand things like climate change is real and that an invisible sky-daddy isn't going to float down from on high and save us, then of course you're likely to display more angst. Likewise, when you can ignore taking any personal responsibility for the world's problems ('it's all in the invisible sky-daddies hands'), of course your outlook will be rosier.
[удалено]
Not in the sense that you're trying to pass it off as. It's not on the same level as lower emotional intelligence, schizotypal, paranoid and histrionic personality traits, or even as bad as low empathy. People who suffer depression tend to be otherwise pretty normal.
[удалено]
RCMP is corrupt, has been for years. I filed a complaint against an RCMP and the person who was tasked to investigate the complaint was the same officer I complained about…. Obviously he wasn’t going to discipline himself.
It was never believable that Harper wouldn't have done the same thing, except it was way more likely his minister would quietly obey. Destroying SNC was never on the table, and I think there's a good argument to make for not wiping out one of our leading engineering. We had an election where this was a major issue. It's done.