Never trust a lawyer
 

Re: Never trust a lawyer
 

He's not a lawyer, is he?

Re: Never trust a lawyer
 

Re: Never trust a lawyer
 

He's making a great case that, if he was a lawyer, you'd want him on your side.

Re: Never trust a lawyer
 

Re: Never trust a lawyer
 

No, President Trump is not an attorney. Don't believe he ever was one.

Re: Never trust a lawyer
 

Hasn't he been convicted of lying to Congress before?

It will be interesting to see if Ms. Wilson-Raybould's evidence will knock this from the top of the news tonight.

Good entertainment though!

Re: Never trust a lawyer
 

I would expect Ms. Wilson-Raybould's evidence to be somewhere below this, the Vietnam summit, Brexit developments and the latest twists in the Nigerian election saga.

Re: Never trust a lawyer
 

On the world stage; of course. But in Canada?

Re: Never trust a lawyer
 

I don't see the local news, I'd be surprised if it was a bigger story than the weather.

Re: Never trust a lawyer
 

Re: Never trust a lawyer
 

I hope he has a lawyer like Cohen.

Re: Never trust a lawyer
 

Re: Never trust a lawyer
 

Huh? What point are you at?

It's not a court, of course, half the people nominally asking questions are just there to try and discredit him.

Re: Never trust a lawyer
 

Re: Never trust a lawyer
 

They are, at least on the live broadcast I'm watching. Are you on Fox Spews?

Re: Never trust a lawyer
 

The Republicans can't ask. They know the accusations to be true so they have to try to shoot the messenger. Democrats throw him some easy balls, The one surprising thing so far, to me, is his defence of Melania.

Re: Never trust a lawyer
 

Re: Never trust a lawyer
 

Oh well, perhaps you should try the English language version.

Re: Never trust a lawyer
 

Re: Never trust a lawyer
 

What did you last discuss with Trump (paraphrase) was a great question.

Re: Never trust a lawyer
 

Oh dear.

Re: Never trust a lawyer
 

Re: Never trust a lawyer
 

Loving JWR's testimony and answering questions. Cant wait to hear the pundits after she has finished. Optics certainly don't look good for the PM, PMO and others especially Liberals. Of course it will be spun another way by them.

Re: Never trust a lawyer
 

Re: Never trust a lawyer
 

I think the Liberal committee members asking her questions are all former bus drivers as they certainly are trying to throw her under one.

Re: Never trust a lawyer
 

They aren't getting away with anything; she came well prepared. Her insistence on keeping the AG's office free from external influence and telling the PM and his staffers it was inappropriate to try makes her bullet-proof on the stand.
​​​​

Re: Never trust a lawyer
 

Well if one of those Liberal members was my member of Parliament they would never get my vote and I would be calling for them to resign. It will be just character assassination of her from now on which totally disgusts me and in particular the questions they asked her. Now perhaps people might understand why there is a certain amount of voter apathy at election time. They campaigned on being a new party and totally transparent and Sunny Ways ahead. After their performance today I see nothing but a massive dark cloud which will take a long time to dissipate until the next scandal be it them or any other party. Rant over.

Re: Never trust a lawyer
 

Trudeau will (imo) lose too many points if he kicks her out of caucus now, so his course should be to explain away the government attempt at interference as presenting prosecutorial deferment as a legal alternative with no attempt to coerce. If he can't pull that off and the public is subjected to a long boring expensive inquiry then the Liberals will pay at the polls. Trudeau keeps saying (instead of answering questions) that his government acts constantly to create and keep jobs for Canadians, so now that it's been reduced to rhetoric all Scheer will do is press for an inquiry and continue calling for Trudeau's resignation. When asked about that, Trudeau just said the election will reflect the wishes of the country.

Re: Never trust a lawyer
 

Why does the AG have any political power in the first place ??

Re: Never trust a lawyer
 

Its a fair question especially as Canada's AG has to wear 2 hats one being the Minister of Justice and the other as the AG. I did like the suggestion of JWR that it should be 2 separate positions and not a dual role for one person. The UK split this dual role to ensure the AG was insulated and independent and if watching her testimony I now understand why they did that.

From Trudeaus mandate letter issued in 2015 to any person holding the position

You have a double role as both Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Canada. As Minister of Justice, you are the legal advisor to Cabinet. In this capacity you are responsible with the administration of justice, including policy in such areas as criminal law, family law, human rights law, public law and private international law, constitutional law and Aboriginal justice.

As the Attorney General of Canada, you are the chief law officer of the Crown, responsible for conducting all litigation for the federal government and for upholding the Constitution, the rule of law, and respect for the independence of the courts.

As Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, your overarching goal will be to ensure our legislation meets the highest standards of equity, fairness and respect for the rule of law. I expect you to ensure that our initiatives respect the Constitution of Canada, court decisions, and are in keeping with our proudest legal traditions. You are expected to ensure that the rights of Canadians are protected, that our work demonstrates the greatest possible commitment to respecting the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that our government seeks to fulfill our policy goals with the least interference with the rights and privacy of Canadians as possible.

So you can see the current AG has 2 functions and from the testimony she was given when approached by the PM, PMO, OPC and other Ministers and their staff which hat was she wearing?

Why should an AG have power well someone has to be seen to be upholding the law and making lawful decisions rather than a leader of a country just deciding they can do anything even if it means any laws are broken.

So many squirrels and red herrings being thrown around at the moment and no wonder the average Canadian hasn't got a clue what's going on with the current mess. I would ask you to consider the following based on the facts we currently know

SNC Lavalin were under investigation for bribery offences in Libya.
Given the current legislation that was passed by the Liberals this year dealing with the DPA's or Remedial Agreements and inserted into an Omnibus Budget Bill does SNC Lavalin qualify for a DPA?
If the answer is NO then any communications on this subject after the decision not to give them one in September when the AG made that decision IMHO should be construed as interference and any attempts to influence the AG to change their mind and consider a DPA when they have no legal grounds to give SNC one would again IMHO be unlawful. In my line of work we call this fettering a decision ie trying to change a decision makers mind and to take a different course of action. In the SNC case it would actually be unlawful.
As its a very murky area and new legislation I did read an article in the National Post Financial Post section yesterday that explains it better than I could and even the PMO's office. Actually its a very good and interesting read which might even convince anyone who reads it that SNC could not be offered a DPA.

https://business.financialpost.com/o..._autoplay=true

Re: Never trust a lawyer
 

I didn't know she had a dual function. Might be time to make it a single function MOJ and do away with AG altogether. Make the PM a dual function with the HOS. Which of course implies jettisoning Her Majesty too. Well, perhaps it can wait a few more years, but "post-Elizabeth" I think Canada should ditch the monarchy.

Re: Never trust a lawyer
 

Ditching the Monarchy is a whole new thread :lol: It has been discussed in generality as found in this article

According to an Ipsos poll conducted exclusively for Global News, half of Canadians believe that Canada should end its ties to the monarchy when the Queen’s reign ends. About 61 per cent of Canadians believe that the Queen and Royal Family should not have any formal role in Canadian society, as “the royals are simply celebrities and nothing more.”

https://globalnews.ca/news/3559289/h...-the-monarchy/

Personally I have no thoughts one way or the other as I won't get to decide unless there was a Referendum and we know how they can turn out :rofl:

I want someone independent who makes a decision on the law not the PM. Haven't those in power abused their position many times in history? How about that chap in the 1930-40s in Germany? Castro, Mugabe, Saddam Hussein, Mussolini etc etc.

Re: Never trust a lawyer
 

I'm with the 61% then. Glad to see it's on its way out.

Re: Never trust a lawyer
 

I guess Parliament will decide as they won't let the public have a referendum me thinks. I tend to think Quebec residents might be voting to get rid of the Monarchy though cant think why?

Re: Never trust a lawyer
 

I'm definitely in the 61%. It would be higher in Quebec, the young, those from countries with no ties to the Commonwealth and lower amongst the more 'experienced' cohort, Buick owners, Legion members, those in Atlantic Canada, those who identify as card carrying PC party members I would imagine.

Every time I buy postage stamps,which isn't too often, I request stamps that don't have the queen's head on them.

Re: Never trust a lawyer
 

Do you decline money too, insist on being paid in personal services?

Re: Never trust a lawyer
 

Not just Parliament though - also the ten Assemblies. s 41(a) of the Constitution says that any amendment to the office of the Crown requires unanimous consent, and that's why it's probably never going to happen. Because as soon as 9 Provinces want something enough to open up the constitution over it, the tenth is going to insist on a price, and that's going to make the others insist on their price, and that's going to derail the whole thing. Unless there's a devastating Royal scandal that makes everyone agree the monarchy must go, no strings attached, they'll be hanging around forever.

Re: Never trust a lawyer
 

This sounds about right. I can't imagine Asian Canadians have much affinity for the monarchy, and there FN, probably not either. Just Buick owners in Moncton. :lol:

Re: Never trust a lawyer
 

As someone who generally can't tell one car from another - except maybe a robin reliant - I had to look up Buick to see what this meant.

I'm still none the wiser. They're just cars like any other just cars. :confused: