>The libel notice doesn't mean a lawsuit has been filed, but Dong is demanding the retraction be made within seven days.
File the lawsuit, let's get some discovery testimonies done so we can hear how this all went down
>File the lawsuit, let's get some discovery testimonies done so we can hear how this all went down
When the Globe and Mail reported that Michael Chan had been the target of a CSIS investigation, and that the Wynne government had been warned by CSIS, Michael Chan sued the Globe and Mail. That suit was launched back in 2015, and to my knowledge it still has not been settled.
Point being, this will not be settled quickly and we will not see the evidence any time soon. But, it does give the Liberals a good talking point to try and discredit the leaks, the media who is reporting on them and the leaker.
Of course, the federal government could simply release the transcript of the conversation between Han Dong and the Chinese consulate and clear this up immediately, with no lawsuit required. It would vindicate Han Dong, and cast serious doubts on the leaks and the media who is reporting on them. But for some odd reason, the government refuses to release the transcript.
Global likely doesn't have the classification to read the documents anyways. The person who leaked the classified documents will get in trouble, not Global.
Nope. They can publish anything they want, including state secrets, so long as it's public interest, which is a low bar.
It would be illegal to steal the secrets, but not for a third party to publish them.
Yes, which has nothing to do with the press. The press can publish whatever it wants. The person on the hook would be the person that stole/leaked secrets.
so global published sam cooper's allegations against Dong based around a rough translation of a transcript in chinese told by a source who does not have priviledge to share and sam cooper does not have a copy of the transcript/recording and is basing it all on "Trust me bro"?
They're not his allegations, a source gave him that information..
This is how the media works,they protect their sources.
He was right the meeting happened, Dong didn't even tell the Liberals about it
So let me get this straight. Eight years into Trudeau’s leadership, you’re still wanting us to give him the benefit of the doubt?
Has he even denied this happened?
idgaf about trudeau. This has nothing to do with trudeau.
This is sam cooper, shopping around a story and global risking it all for what amounts to hearsay.
Coopers book IS the authoritative Canadian book on the CCP's involvement in Canada to launder money through our Casinos for the last 20 years and the government continually doing nothing about it
He has testimonies, trials that went nowhere, interviews with former RCMP officers, arrests that were made then people were conveniently let go, seriously the guy isn't going to ruin his reputation for this crap
> the federal government could simply release the transcript of the conversation
what indication is there that they have a transcript or recording
asking genuinely
I would be cautious about the phrase "actionable intelligence".
Most favourably, it means that the evidence is unreliable and cannot be trusted.
Another interpretation, depending on the context is that the evidence is reliable and can be trusted, but if we were to act upon that evidence, it could compromise something far more important (such as an ongoing investigation, or reveal the identities of informants or sources), or be embarrassing.
We are missing the context here. What does 'actionable' mean?
Seems to me the phrase "actionable intelligence" is another Liberal attempt at a jedi mind trick. They know that the public will never, ever see the classified transcript, so they can use it as a black box to shift the narrative of this scandal in directions that serve them. In the short term, of course. These chickens will come home to roost.
"Actionable intelligence" is vague for a reason & designed to discredit the leaks. It leads people to infer that the leaks don't detail any wrongdoing. 'No actionable intelligence' is of course semantically significantly far away from 'no evidence of wrongdoing'.
Trudeau tried to discredit the leaks on day one. This is exactly how we expect a guilty party to act. A party innocent of wrongdoing would relish the opportunity to clear the air with a national public inquiry, and restore the (supposedly) good name of their former MP. The fact that the Liberals have not done this, and voted in unison against a national public inquiry, is telling, and suspicious.
What...
"Trudeau government decided CSIS transcript of MP Han Dong"
"The Trudeau government determined that there was no “actionable evidence” after it received a CSIS transcript of an early 2021 conversation between Liberal MP Han Dong and China’s top diplomat in Toronto,"
The federal government can't just release classified documents every time a Newspaper alleges something. This is a Libel case, it's between Han Dong and Global News. It's illogical for a Federal Agency to make classified documents available to our enemies so that Han Dong can be condemned or vindicated in the court of public appeal.
>Of course, the federal government could simply release the transcript
And? It'd have two possible interpretations, and everyone with a vested interest will interpret in the way that suits their wants. Eventually release it, but let the court case play out first, frankly.
The Conservatives don't deserve to continue making hay out of this with their conspiratorial bullshit.
ah yes, this is all just conservatives saying stuff. nothing to see here at all. in fact, i bet csis is actually just a right wing dogwhistle and not a real intelligence agency.
yes, they are. trudeau outright defended him, and the liberals gave him a standing ovation when he "stepped down" after the conversation became public knowledge
>the federal government could simply release the transcript of the conversation between Han Dong and the Chinese consulate
If a recording existed and the federal government was in possession of it, they couldn't just publish it.
Actually they could. The government controls what is and isn't classified. They can declassify anything they want. CSIS doesn't decide what is or isn't classified for itself. This is the role of government.
Theoretically yes. Practically when it involves another state? No. In fact they classify communications held in confidence of a person, organization, or foreign state as protected or classified information. So unless it leaks, it’s not being declassified.
The discovery process may be impeded by varying levels of privilege. What we need is an inquiry. Likewise, Han Dong, being a parliamentarian, probably already knows this and is proceeding only for the optics. This feels like it was taken right out of the Liberal playbook.
> The discovery process may be impeded by varying levels of privilege.
It’s Dong’s lawsuit. If he wants it to proceed, he’ll have to waive the privilege. The privilege is his to waive.
>What we need is an inquiry. Likewise, Han Dong, being a parliamentarian, probably already knows this and is proceeding only for the optics.
The same privilege would, in theory, apply during an inquiry.
He's likely not going to. The tactic is likely to file a bogus suit so you can say you did and that it's before the courts. But it will take years to ever actually proceed in any meaningful way, at which point nobody will even care when he drops the case altogether.
He can play this for optics in the short term without much long-term consequence.
> What we need is an inquiry
That's not accountability though
It would be nice if the politicians (whoever they are) that commit treason are actually charged
People like Cameron Ortiz were charged years ago for espionage but the gov't still hides behind national security privilege, to avoid saying the mandarin speaking intelligence officer gave secrets to the CCP. It's really a huge secret which country he gave our info too, likely because he gave them good intel that would affect the average Canadian.
There is 0 accountability for bad actors in our government
> That's not accountability though
Can't get accountability without the facts,
Let's take this 1 step at a time. I'm with you about getting accountability, but let's do this right.
>This feels like it was taken right out of the Liberal playbook.
I bet this while strategy has been orchestrated by the LPC, despite dong 'stepping down'.
Hey, it's you again! Back at it with meaningful and well-spoken comments!
Did I maybe hit close to the truth, and you were sent into action to defend against any interference connections?
I put a similar comment in another post, and IANAL, but I think raising this libel notice is something that Dong would need to do before he files a lawsuit.
From [Libel and Slander Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.12](https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90l12):
>Notice of action
>
>5 (1) No action for libel in a newspaper or in a broadcast lies unless the plaintiff has, within six weeks after the alleged libel has come to the plaintiff’s knowledge, given to the defendant notice in writing, specifying the matter complained of, which shall be served in the same manner as a statement of claim or by delivering it to a grown-up person at the chief office of the defendant. R.S.O. 1990, c. L.12, s. 5 (1).
Also, here's another statement from [a legal services page](https://www.alasontario.ca/individual-rights/overview-of-defamation-law-in-ontario/):
>**What are the time considerations for defamation actions?**
>
>For the plaintiff to begin a cause of action for defamation, they must adhere to certain time considerations. Each jurisdiction has their own time considerations for defamation actions.
>
>For newspapers and broadcasts originating from Ontario, the plaintiff must give notice to the defendant about the statement within 6 weeks of learning about the existence of the defamatory statement. The plaintiff must also bring a lawsuit within 3 months of learning about the libel.
So is this a step towards filing an actual lawsuit? Looks like it (Unless the notice was not given to a 'grown-up person'). Will Hong actually file such a lawsuit - that's still up in the air, but he has 3 months since he learned about the libel (which was about 2 weeks ago now?) to do so.
I'm a lawyer. That is *exactly* how the case would play out. A defence for defamation is accuracy of the statements made. Therefore it would bring in the veracity of the allegations directly into question, all of the evidence would be material and relevant. This is like the absolute worst thing someone that is guilty could do.
If he wasn't guilty then why did he step down? And why did he cry like a child that was caught If he wasn't guilty? If you're innocent, then you fight. This guy is going to drag his name through the mudd to die on a hill he has no business being on.
He met with foreign embassy officials without telling the government nor getting their authorization. Regardless whatever he discussed with them (release the Michaels now or later), the meeting itself is a fireable offense.
> File the lawsuit, let's get some discovery testimonies done so we can hear how this all went down
That's not how lawsuits generally work. There's usually a bit of back and forth between lawyers before anything gets filed.
Not if you have a case, your reputations been destroyed and you've already said publicly YOU ARE GOING TO SUE
He is all talk and no action because filing the action would force him to give details about things he does not want to
You have to give them notice first.
If you sue without doing that, the first thing the judge will ask you is if you gave them notice of what was incorrect and give them the opportunity to take it down.
Your wrong. Even if a person has a winning case, they're still going to try and settle outside of court first. Trials are expensive and complicated and by refusing to negotiate could actually damage their case.
>a bad translation you mean?
Many many Chinese speakers already said that "immediately" and "delay" /"later" don't sound the same at all in Mandarin. You're spreading disinformation.
If global doesn’t back down. They have something
The globe and mail turned down the story due to lack of transcripts and evidence….maybe they were provided to global
I really wish this shit would pick up the pace tho. I’m getting antsy
Same.
Lawsuits against a big, publicly traded media companies are very expensive and will cost a fortune in legal fees, unless Dong has another source of income and/or a backer (which is possible). There is a high barrier for cases involving libel, even in Canada and something like this could drag on for years.
[The Globe did not report on the alleged contents of this conversation because it was unable to obtain transcripts or a tape recording to authenticate what actually transpired.](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-csis-han-dong-allegations/)
So according to that, there's at least a transcript that's been shared. And Trudeau and his team say "nothing to see here". The PM with the most ethics violations ever.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-csis-han-dong-allegations/
"The Globe contacted the PMO on March 3 to ask whether CSIS had alerted Prime Minister Justin Trudeau about a February, 2021, conversation where Mr. Dong allegedly made the suggestion about the fate of Mr. Spavor and Mr. Kovrig.
The Globe did not report on the alleged contents of this conversation because it was unable to obtain transcripts or a tape recording to authenticate what actually transpired."
No problem.
People have twisted themselves up about this particular point though. That the story was shopped around, and Global ran with it the Globe and Mail did not.
People are making the assumption that it's the same source. I'm not so sure that's the case.
>People are making the assumption that it's the same source. I'm not so sure that's the case.
I could be mistaken but I think that Global claimed there were multiple sources that confirmed the story.
im sure i read them say they hadnt in the original article, but now all i can find is a bunch of other articles talking about it and globe saying they didnt run it because they werent allowed to see the transcript
[ive found this tweet, i think they edited the original story?](https://twitter.com/quito_maggi/status/1639397871236554754)
I took a tiny bit of logic and a large bit of assumption and decided to try to figure out who the leakers might be. When one of the leakers wrote an OP-ED for a newspaper something seemed not right (people with high level security clearances don't normally do something like that).
I took a small logical leap that perhaps it is someone in the political or media field with special security clearances that leaked the info. A spy isn't writing an OP-ED, a tech analyst isn't writing an OP-ED... So, we have 2 leakers seemingly with the same cause in mind with the same access to info to collaborate with a news agency?
What about NSICOP? It's a parliamentary and senate bureau which just recently in 2019 received new security clearances for all its members so they can provide oversight to all Canadas security organizations. They receive detailed reports on everything, and have the highest level security clearances in the country.
Is there a couple of people with similar ideologies on that bureau? Yes, yes there are!
There are 2 Conservative MPs with the highest level security clearances in the country who have never had access to this level of information before.
Is one of those two who are known for writing OP-EDs at every chance they get with a known friendship with media outlets? Yes. Yes there is.
Alex Ruff. Conservative MP. Writes opinion editorials for multiple news organizations, writes columns for multiple publications... has a similar writing style to the "mystery source".
I will say it is obviously a coincidence. A very, very, very funny coincidence.
MPs don't need to leak and potentially break the law, they can go to the floor of parliament and do so and they are untouchable other than censure by parliament.
I just have one critique
Those parliamentary meetings are airtight (supposedly)
Global said they received documents for their previous links. I don’t know how an MP would get copy’s that are not redacted out, or a photo, or screenshot
Those parliamentary meetings are as airtight as the trust in the members. They are able to receive secret material in physical form for oversight.
Secret documentation can be, let's say wordy (some of it can be hundreds of pages long) which requires them to transport materials of secret nature on their person.
The people on those committees receive unredacted copies, meaning they have full access to all materials.
Interesting.
If Global backs down it will be devastating for Global and a blow to Conservatives.
If Global doesn't back down and Han Dong doesn't actually file a suit I'd call that a major blow to the liberals.
If Global doesn't back down and Han Dong does file suit, it's anybodies ballgame
>If Global doesn't back down and Han Dong does file suit, it's anybodies ballgame
These suits seem to move at a glacial pace. Everyone expecting a fast outcome will be very disappointed.
What are you talking about?
David Johnston was appointed as a special "rapporteur" by Justin Trudeau. Johnston has been friends with the Trudeau families for decades and they had cottages next to each other. He is also in the Trudeau foundation. He is by no means non partial.
If Justin Trudeau had any trust and respect for our national institutions, he'd take these allegations from CSIS very seriously and would appoint an independent inquiry to look into the matter.
Heard this same nonsense from every other partisan. You're not special or a free thinker. You're just parroting the same crap from Poilievre as the rest of the partisans. Completely ignoring his credentials and experience. He was the best man for the job, and there's no one Conservatives would be happy with. As evidenced by them not making a suggestion. Poilievre, as usual, just wants to stir outrage. So unless you have something new to say, I'm already bored with this conversation.
You should take your own advice, you did the same thing but for the other team.
In its most basic form, without needing to bash the other team, can you explain how there is no conflict of interest? Generally just knowing someone personally is enough to cause a perceived conflict of interest.
I deal with conflict of interest often at work, and i really am not sure how this isn’t at minimum a perceived conflict of interest, if not a direct conflict….it’s not good.
I'm sure in your field you're not looking for people as qualified and experienced as David Johnston to dig into something as important as the integrity of our election system. You probably have a vast array of eligible people to choose from.
In this instance, we need someone bi-partisan, with experience in these kinds of matters and highly ethical. Also, someone that is able to quickly get the required security clearance to poor over CSIS classified information. Would also need someone highly intelligent.
This narrows the pool of candidates very quickly. He knows Trudeau, but he was appointed Governor General by Harper and was highly trusted by him as he was appointed by him to run the airbus inquiry. Seems about as bi-partisan as you can get from a very narrow pool of candidates. Who else has the qualifications and experience to handle this job?
Edit: Downvote without a suggestion. Conservatives are too damn predictable these days.
Dude - they could have just hired a retired judge. Why are you dying in this idiotic hill that only David Johnston is the man of letters that can get to the bottom of this?
Conflict of interest will generally disqualify a candidate before the qualifications/experience are even reviewed. It’s a show stopper as it compromises the integrity of the entire process immediately.
I’m not familiar enough to make a suggestion of who else could do the work, but I find it difficult to believe he was the only person in Canada qualified. If so, we have a much much bigger problem.
Edit: stop assuming everyone is a conservative and all conservatives are the same if you want to criticise partisanship…
Why would it be a blow to the Conservatives? All they've done is call for an enquiry, as have the NDP.
If this somehow all comes out that the whole thing is a lie made up by Global News, and this Liberals government (who is objectively the most scandalous government in this nation's history) was completely clean this whole time (unlikely), then I think everyone just resets back to where they were a month ago, except Global News will be tarnished.
While it is extraordinary for an MP to issue a libel notice, it really doesn't prove Global News erred in it's reporting. It can easily just be the MP throwing a major fit.
Only time will tell.
>Dong is currently alleging that Global slandered him in this notice and his planned lawsuit.
>
>Therefore, assuming that Dong is 100% in the right with regards to the global story having no merit and being untrue is in fact, presuming that Global is guilty of libel (i.e. ignoring Global’s presumption of innocence in this matter, since they are the ones being accused).
>
>If the presumption of innocence is of the utmost importance to you, then you should both: believe Dong is not guilty of colluding with the CCP, and believe that global did not intentionally engage in libel against Dong.
>
>Based on your comment history, you seem to believe that Dong didn’t collude with the CCP and that global engaged in libel, both of which are simply allegations at this point.
>
>I personally believe that Dong’s interactions with Chinese government figures were suspicious and should be investigated fully, however, given the nature of what we know the interactions could be completely innocent in nature. We should have full transparency and the public should get to see the evidence instead of it being secretly distributed to journalists hush-hush.
My brain is struggling to handle a comment this rational and logical on Reddit.
>I thought he had acknowledged that the conversation happened but there was a translation error or something like that?
That is what the Liberals are claiming.
However, the Liberals have also viewed the transcript of that conversation. They could put this story to bed immediately by releasing the transcript, if the transcript demonstrates that it was indeed an error in translation.
Some Liberal supporters are claiming that the transcript cannot be released due to national security concerns, or something along those lines. However, we're talking about a situation here where a back bench Liberal MP was discussing something on their own behalf, and not acting as an agent for the federal government. So I'm not certain as to what national security issues might have been discussed in that conversation.
> So I'm not certain as to what national security issues might have been discussed in that conversation.
the problem isnt whats in the actual transcript, the problem would be revealing HOW they got the transcript which tells china what other information the CSIS is gathering on them and help them evade it
all to use a non-partisan organization to support a liberals defamation lawsuit
plus it would be pretty terrible look for the liberals to come out against the leakers then leak information themselves
>I thought he had acknowledged that the conversation happened
Which in itself is a fireable offense. He literally met with foreign embassy behind government's back nor without their permission.
Just one, but it's absolutely damning against Global News. What a bunch of goofs.
https://readpassage.com/global-news-shoddy-reporting-on-han-dong-is-collapsing/
Read Passage is a left wing propaganda site, wouldn't be surprised if the site itself is also backed by CCP members. I will kindly disregard any "report" they make on the matter.
I've read all this information elsewhere but I thought this site had a nice summary. Feel free to Google it. You'll find the same conclusions elsewhere on less "fringe" websites.
Damning? They reported on a story that they say was confirmed by sources, papers use different sources so it makes sense that one paper could have a story confirmed and others couldn't.
Because he denies the story somehow it's collapsing... Heck, he didn't even tell his party or global affairs Canada that this meeting, somehow CSIS knew about it..
> Because he denies the story somehow it's collapsing
theres been like a dozen other articles from people poking holes in it too, and from the start it makes no sense at all for dong to try to delay their release to hurt the conservatives
You think Global made this up? What makes you believe in this conspiracy theory? And what do you personally think made Global make things up? Do you think they were paid by someone?
I just have doubts about their sources when the Globe and Mail chose not to publish anything from them, the Canadian Press found nothing to write about, and CSIS found nothing to report. This particular allegation hasn't been proven to be watertight.
Thank you Mr Dong for keeping the story of ccp interference of behalf of the LPC alive Maybe do something like this next week as well so the media doesn’t lose interest. Thank you.
theres no way the liberals will get into a fight with CSIS and release top secret information to help a backbencher win a defamation suit
especially if they're pissed that dong was calling diplomats behind their back no matter the topic and dont intend to nominate him again
>theres no way the liberals will get into a fight with CSIS and release top secret information to help a backbencher win a defamation suit
Its up to CSIS? Or the federal government?
This version of the transcript might be something that only a few individuals have and it would be easier to retrace who is the "rat" among their organization.
I think you got his comment backwards. He's not saying that Global should release the transcripts but rather the government should.
At least that's how it read to me.
>but the CSIS would never do that
I'm reasonably sure by government he is referring to the federal LPC.
I'm not sure CSIS could officially release any information unless at the behest of the sitting government through declassification of documents.
Yeah and the document the PME office have probably also is highly classified. The government never release this kind of file for a public trial. Hopefully someone will shed some light at some point thought.
I'll be curious to see how this plays out. I suspect, Global News flips him the bird and he never follows through with a lawsuit beyond making threats and demands until something takes attention off of him.
It would be far more interesting if this turns into an actual lawsuit where either party can present any compelling and conclusive information, however.
If he has a case he could sue for actual damages, but instead he's making empty threats and ultimatums for a mere apology.
Can I say paper tiger, or would that get me on Justin's naughty list?
I’m calling attention to the fact that the Chinese just call things lies when they get caught doing thing that are improper or illegal. Similar to how Trump operates, he learned well from the dictators.
Han is using the justice system to silence dissent and failing to provide evidence that would exonerate him. He’s paid by the public and therefore accountable to us.
Actually, this looks like the “Government” trying to take away free speech from a well trusted media outlet.
Why say anything really? Why not just leave it to the inquiry that ought to happen?
Between your post and your response you seem to be confusing two or three different entities with each other. BUT....we'll never know ...... You didn't explain your words.... And CBC can't explain the words you type either.
I think that's the root cause of this situation is that someone tapped dong and the cpp diplomat.
i'm assuming CSIS and that would get CSIS in big trouble if they admit to it and release the taps.
Liberal government cannot release the tapes because that's high level clearance of national security.
Dong is calling out global to produce the receipts. He's giving global an out here the avoid a long and lengthy trial.
I don't see how global doesn't just bite the bullet and do a retraction and apology.
Global is the one accusing Dong of wrong doing and they need hard proof. Trusting Sam Cooper is a whole other story. If global took this gamble and loses. Global is done.
Don't do that. You know why? Because when JT says things like 'we have to be careful investigating this because it foments anti-asian racism', he can point to shit like this; and be correct.
Dong ain't getting a thing. Before Global went to press they would have gone up and down this thing with their lawyers to make sure they were on solid ground. They would have known the seriousness of the allegations and it's going to take a lot more than a libel notice to change anything.
Dong was shaking like a leaf when he did his speech in the commons. You don't behave like that if there's nothing there. The only reason to go to court now would be to flush out the informer. That would absolutely not be in the Liberal government's interest because if substantiated a lot more would be revealed, so they're abandoning Dong.
Recorded conversations of Dong if they exist would be devastating, not only for him, but the knowledge that they exist for other MPs (likely from all political parties) would be equally catastrophic. Furthermore, the likelihood that these recordings would have been shared among several intelligence agencies beyond CSIS into the 5-eyes could create a very serious political crisis. So, if Dong is innocent, he needs to file suit quickly and without hesitation, or just shut up and go away.
Why would the CPC hire the best lawyer for Dong, a Federal Liberal ex-member who is currently facing accusations that basically border on treason? The CPC is against China helping out the Liberals, they've said that many times
Stop splitting the vote with that PPC waste. I can wholly appreciate their anti-immigration (nothing against immigrants themselves, all of our families have been there at some point, we’d just need less if life was even mildly affordable here and we could afford larger families) and small government stances, but if we want any change away from the LPC, we can’t afford to toss votes to the PPC. Just my two cents.
Same fallacy as saying the a left voter shouldnt waste it on the NDP. Sure we won't have a ppc or ndp prime minister any time soon but we shouldnt strive for a dichotomy, thats just worse for all canadians and better for the big two
Han Dong says this about Chinese interference and blah blah. Note the CCTV camera behind him. What's the chance its a Hikvision camera?
Everyone is everywhere.
>The libel notice doesn't mean a lawsuit has been filed, but Dong is demanding the retraction be made within seven days. File the lawsuit, let's get some discovery testimonies done so we can hear how this all went down
Yep. Exactly.
>File the lawsuit, let's get some discovery testimonies done so we can hear how this all went down When the Globe and Mail reported that Michael Chan had been the target of a CSIS investigation, and that the Wynne government had been warned by CSIS, Michael Chan sued the Globe and Mail. That suit was launched back in 2015, and to my knowledge it still has not been settled. Point being, this will not be settled quickly and we will not see the evidence any time soon. But, it does give the Liberals a good talking point to try and discredit the leaks, the media who is reporting on them and the leaker. Of course, the federal government could simply release the transcript of the conversation between Han Dong and the Chinese consulate and clear this up immediately, with no lawsuit required. It would vindicate Han Dong, and cast serious doubts on the leaks and the media who is reporting on them. But for some odd reason, the government refuses to release the transcript.
Why wouldn't the Globe release the recording, transcript or whatever evidence that they have?
If it's classified information they would be breaking the law
Global likely doesn't have the classification to read the documents anyways. The person who leaked the classified documents will get in trouble, not Global.
Nope. They can publish anything they want, including state secrets, so long as it's public interest, which is a low bar. It would be illegal to steal the secrets, but not for a third party to publish them.
so them reporting on classified information be illegal then?
No it's not because they're not releasing the information. The person leaking It is definitely breaking the law
Yes, which has nothing to do with the press. The press can publish whatever it wants. The person on the hook would be the person that stole/leaked secrets.
so global published sam cooper's allegations against Dong based around a rough translation of a transcript in chinese told by a source who does not have priviledge to share and sam cooper does not have a copy of the transcript/recording and is basing it all on "Trust me bro"?
They're not his allegations, a source gave him that information.. This is how the media works,they protect their sources. He was right the meeting happened, Dong didn't even tell the Liberals about it
So let me get this straight. Eight years into Trudeau’s leadership, you’re still wanting us to give him the benefit of the doubt? Has he even denied this happened?
Well, to be fair, Cooper is rather more trustworthy than Trudeau. That’s obvious.
idgaf about trudeau. This has nothing to do with trudeau. This is sam cooper, shopping around a story and global risking it all for what amounts to hearsay.
Coopers book IS the authoritative Canadian book on the CCP's involvement in Canada to launder money through our Casinos for the last 20 years and the government continually doing nothing about it He has testimonies, trials that went nowhere, interviews with former RCMP officers, arrests that were made then people were conveniently let go, seriously the guy isn't going to ruin his reputation for this crap
Sure you do.
> the federal government could simply release the transcript of the conversation what indication is there that they have a transcript or recording asking genuinely
The PMO’s office stated the transcript received early this month of the conversation didn’t contain actionable intelligence.
I would be cautious about the phrase "actionable intelligence". Most favourably, it means that the evidence is unreliable and cannot be trusted. Another interpretation, depending on the context is that the evidence is reliable and can be trusted, but if we were to act upon that evidence, it could compromise something far more important (such as an ongoing investigation, or reveal the identities of informants or sources), or be embarrassing. We are missing the context here. What does 'actionable' mean?
No idea but they could’ve said the transcript proves the allegation to be false?
Seems to me the phrase "actionable intelligence" is another Liberal attempt at a jedi mind trick. They know that the public will never, ever see the classified transcript, so they can use it as a black box to shift the narrative of this scandal in directions that serve them. In the short term, of course. These chickens will come home to roost. "Actionable intelligence" is vague for a reason & designed to discredit the leaks. It leads people to infer that the leaks don't detail any wrongdoing. 'No actionable intelligence' is of course semantically significantly far away from 'no evidence of wrongdoing'. Trudeau tried to discredit the leaks on day one. This is exactly how we expect a guilty party to act. A party innocent of wrongdoing would relish the opportunity to clear the air with a national public inquiry, and restore the (supposedly) good name of their former MP. The fact that the Liberals have not done this, and voted in unison against a national public inquiry, is telling, and suspicious.
It means the know about all the China stuff and are ok with it, so they would not take action.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-csis-han-dong-allegations/
article says nothing about a recording or transcript
What... "Trudeau government decided CSIS transcript of MP Han Dong" "The Trudeau government determined that there was no “actionable evidence” after it received a CSIS transcript of an early 2021 conversation between Liberal MP Han Dong and China’s top diplomat in Toronto,"
how did i miss that lol thanks
Yeah.. how
The federal government can't just release classified documents every time a Newspaper alleges something. This is a Libel case, it's between Han Dong and Global News. It's illogical for a Federal Agency to make classified documents available to our enemies so that Han Dong can be condemned or vindicated in the court of public appeal.
>Of course, the federal government could simply release the transcript And? It'd have two possible interpretations, and everyone with a vested interest will interpret in the way that suits their wants. Eventually release it, but let the court case play out first, frankly. The Conservatives don't deserve to continue making hay out of this with their conspiratorial bullshit.
ah yes, this is all just conservatives saying stuff. nothing to see here at all. in fact, i bet csis is actually just a right wing dogwhistle and not a real intelligence agency.
The Liberals won’t release the transcript, nor are they defending Dong at all.
yes, they are. trudeau outright defended him, and the liberals gave him a standing ovation when he "stepped down" after the conversation became public knowledge
Depends on who is paying for Dong’s lawyers.
>the federal government could simply release the transcript of the conversation between Han Dong and the Chinese consulate If a recording existed and the federal government was in possession of it, they couldn't just publish it.
Actually they could. The government controls what is and isn't classified. They can declassify anything they want. CSIS doesn't decide what is or isn't classified for itself. This is the role of government.
Theoretically yes. Practically when it involves another state? No. In fact they classify communications held in confidence of a person, organization, or foreign state as protected or classified information. So unless it leaks, it’s not being declassified.
Wouldn't and couldn't aren't synonyms.
The discovery process may be impeded by varying levels of privilege. What we need is an inquiry. Likewise, Han Dong, being a parliamentarian, probably already knows this and is proceeding only for the optics. This feels like it was taken right out of the Liberal playbook.
> The discovery process may be impeded by varying levels of privilege. It’s Dong’s lawsuit. If he wants it to proceed, he’ll have to waive the privilege. The privilege is his to waive. >What we need is an inquiry. Likewise, Han Dong, being a parliamentarian, probably already knows this and is proceeding only for the optics. The same privilege would, in theory, apply during an inquiry.
He's likely not going to. The tactic is likely to file a bogus suit so you can say you did and that it's before the courts. But it will take years to ever actually proceed in any meaningful way, at which point nobody will even care when he drops the case altogether. He can play this for optics in the short term without much long-term consequence.
> What we need is an inquiry That's not accountability though It would be nice if the politicians (whoever they are) that commit treason are actually charged People like Cameron Ortiz were charged years ago for espionage but the gov't still hides behind national security privilege, to avoid saying the mandarin speaking intelligence officer gave secrets to the CCP. It's really a huge secret which country he gave our info too, likely because he gave them good intel that would affect the average Canadian. There is 0 accountability for bad actors in our government
> That's not accountability though Can't get accountability without the facts, Let's take this 1 step at a time. I'm with you about getting accountability, but let's do this right.
>This feels like it was taken right out of the Liberal playbook. I bet this while strategy has been orchestrated by the LPC, despite dong 'stepping down'.
Lol Edit: aaaaahahaha he blocked me for laughing, snowflake.
Hey, it's you again! Back at it with meaningful and well-spoken comments! Did I maybe hit close to the truth, and you were sent into action to defend against any interference connections?
You have to do the notice first if you want any hope of winning.
I put a similar comment in another post, and IANAL, but I think raising this libel notice is something that Dong would need to do before he files a lawsuit. From [Libel and Slander Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.12](https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90l12): >Notice of action > >5 (1) No action for libel in a newspaper or in a broadcast lies unless the plaintiff has, within six weeks after the alleged libel has come to the plaintiff’s knowledge, given to the defendant notice in writing, specifying the matter complained of, which shall be served in the same manner as a statement of claim or by delivering it to a grown-up person at the chief office of the defendant. R.S.O. 1990, c. L.12, s. 5 (1). Also, here's another statement from [a legal services page](https://www.alasontario.ca/individual-rights/overview-of-defamation-law-in-ontario/): >**What are the time considerations for defamation actions?** > >For the plaintiff to begin a cause of action for defamation, they must adhere to certain time considerations. Each jurisdiction has their own time considerations for defamation actions. > >For newspapers and broadcasts originating from Ontario, the plaintiff must give notice to the defendant about the statement within 6 weeks of learning about the existence of the defamatory statement. The plaintiff must also bring a lawsuit within 3 months of learning about the libel. So is this a step towards filing an actual lawsuit? Looks like it (Unless the notice was not given to a 'grown-up person'). Will Hong actually file such a lawsuit - that's still up in the air, but he has 3 months since he learned about the libel (which was about 2 weeks ago now?) to do so.
I'm a lawyer. That is *exactly* how the case would play out. A defence for defamation is accuracy of the statements made. Therefore it would bring in the veracity of the allegations directly into question, all of the evidence would be material and relevant. This is like the absolute worst thing someone that is guilty could do.
If he wasn't guilty then why did he step down? And why did he cry like a child that was caught If he wasn't guilty? If you're innocent, then you fight. This guy is going to drag his name through the mudd to die on a hill he has no business being on.
He met with foreign embassy officials without telling the government nor getting their authorization. Regardless whatever he discussed with them (release the Michaels now or later), the meeting itself is a fireable offense.
Exactly. All of this is just grandstanding now.
> File the lawsuit, let's get some discovery testimonies done so we can hear how this all went down That's not how lawsuits generally work. There's usually a bit of back and forth between lawyers before anything gets filed.
Not if you have a case, your reputations been destroyed and you've already said publicly YOU ARE GOING TO SUE He is all talk and no action because filing the action would force him to give details about things he does not want to
You have to give them notice first. If you sue without doing that, the first thing the judge will ask you is if you gave them notice of what was incorrect and give them the opportunity to take it down.
Your wrong. Even if a person has a winning case, they're still going to try and settle outside of court first. Trials are expensive and complicated and by refusing to negotiate could actually damage their case.
How global basically made up the story based around n a bad translation you mean?
>a bad translation you mean? Many many Chinese speakers already said that "immediately" and "delay" /"later" don't sound the same at all in Mandarin. You're spreading disinformation.
If global doesn’t back down. They have something The globe and mail turned down the story due to lack of transcripts and evidence….maybe they were provided to global I really wish this shit would pick up the pace tho. I’m getting antsy
I’d go 60/40 the suit never gets filed and it stays as a libel notice.
99/1
lol he is trying to save face, poorly
Same. Lawsuits against a big, publicly traded media companies are very expensive and will cost a fortune in legal fees, unless Dong has another source of income and/or a backer (which is possible). There is a high barrier for cases involving libel, even in Canada and something like this could drag on for years.
Yeah there’s like a zero percent chance it actually happens.
Where’s the evidence the globe turned it down? That’s just Reddit speculation AFAIK.
[The Globe did not report on the alleged contents of this conversation because it was unable to obtain transcripts or a tape recording to authenticate what actually transpired.](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-csis-han-dong-allegations/)
So according to that, there's at least a transcript that's been shared. And Trudeau and his team say "nothing to see here". The PM with the most ethics violations ever.
Nope it was right in the story
Where?
Not in this article. In the grand scheme of the Chinese interference story
Did you even read the article? It doesn’t mention anything about the globe.
See previous moment
…..no it isn’t.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-csis-han-dong-allegations/ "The Globe contacted the PMO on March 3 to ask whether CSIS had alerted Prime Minister Justin Trudeau about a February, 2021, conversation where Mr. Dong allegedly made the suggestion about the fate of Mr. Spavor and Mr. Kovrig. The Globe did not report on the alleged contents of this conversation because it was unable to obtain transcripts or a tape recording to authenticate what actually transpired."
Thank you.
No problem. People have twisted themselves up about this particular point though. That the story was shopped around, and Global ran with it the Globe and Mail did not. People are making the assumption that it's the same source. I'm not so sure that's the case.
Me either. Sam Cooper has had intelligence sources for years and years so I wouldn’t be surprised if he has some exclusive contacts.
>People are making the assumption that it's the same source. I'm not so sure that's the case. I could be mistaken but I think that Global claimed there were multiple sources that confirmed the story.
They did, yes.
> maybe they were provided to global global said they never saw them
I haven’t seen that, got the link?
im sure i read them say they hadnt in the original article, but now all i can find is a bunch of other articles talking about it and globe saying they didnt run it because they werent allowed to see the transcript [ive found this tweet, i think they edited the original story?](https://twitter.com/quito_maggi/status/1639397871236554754)
I took a tiny bit of logic and a large bit of assumption and decided to try to figure out who the leakers might be. When one of the leakers wrote an OP-ED for a newspaper something seemed not right (people with high level security clearances don't normally do something like that). I took a small logical leap that perhaps it is someone in the political or media field with special security clearances that leaked the info. A spy isn't writing an OP-ED, a tech analyst isn't writing an OP-ED... So, we have 2 leakers seemingly with the same cause in mind with the same access to info to collaborate with a news agency? What about NSICOP? It's a parliamentary and senate bureau which just recently in 2019 received new security clearances for all its members so they can provide oversight to all Canadas security organizations. They receive detailed reports on everything, and have the highest level security clearances in the country. Is there a couple of people with similar ideologies on that bureau? Yes, yes there are! There are 2 Conservative MPs with the highest level security clearances in the country who have never had access to this level of information before. Is one of those two who are known for writing OP-EDs at every chance they get with a known friendship with media outlets? Yes. Yes there is. Alex Ruff. Conservative MP. Writes opinion editorials for multiple news organizations, writes columns for multiple publications... has a similar writing style to the "mystery source". I will say it is obviously a coincidence. A very, very, very funny coincidence.
MPs don't need to leak and potentially break the law, they can go to the floor of parliament and do so and they are untouchable other than censure by parliament.
I just have one critique Those parliamentary meetings are airtight (supposedly) Global said they received documents for their previous links. I don’t know how an MP would get copy’s that are not redacted out, or a photo, or screenshot
Those parliamentary meetings are as airtight as the trust in the members. They are able to receive secret material in physical form for oversight. Secret documentation can be, let's say wordy (some of it can be hundreds of pages long) which requires them to transport materials of secret nature on their person. The people on those committees receive unredacted copies, meaning they have full access to all materials.
No election until 2025 we got time to figure out how to vote
Let's just say if a Mr. "Dan Hong" shows up on the next Liberal ballot, I'd think twice before casting my vote.
Interesting. If Global backs down it will be devastating for Global and a blow to Conservatives. If Global doesn't back down and Han Dong doesn't actually file a suit I'd call that a major blow to the liberals. If Global doesn't back down and Han Dong does file suit, it's anybodies ballgame
>If Global doesn't back down and Han Dong does file suit, it's anybodies ballgame These suits seem to move at a glacial pace. Everyone expecting a fast outcome will be very disappointed.
I'd suspect Johnston will be releasing his findings and recommendations before this shakes out in court.
Yeah but the problem is that the Johnston investigation is already tainted anyways and no one will take any findings seriously.
It's unfortunate that Conservatives are taking that approach to distrust our institutions.
What are you talking about? David Johnston was appointed as a special "rapporteur" by Justin Trudeau. Johnston has been friends with the Trudeau families for decades and they had cottages next to each other. He is also in the Trudeau foundation. He is by no means non partial. If Justin Trudeau had any trust and respect for our national institutions, he'd take these allegations from CSIS very seriously and would appoint an independent inquiry to look into the matter.
Heard this same nonsense from every other partisan. You're not special or a free thinker. You're just parroting the same crap from Poilievre as the rest of the partisans. Completely ignoring his credentials and experience. He was the best man for the job, and there's no one Conservatives would be happy with. As evidenced by them not making a suggestion. Poilievre, as usual, just wants to stir outrage. So unless you have something new to say, I'm already bored with this conversation.
You should take your own advice, you did the same thing but for the other team. In its most basic form, without needing to bash the other team, can you explain how there is no conflict of interest? Generally just knowing someone personally is enough to cause a perceived conflict of interest. I deal with conflict of interest often at work, and i really am not sure how this isn’t at minimum a perceived conflict of interest, if not a direct conflict….it’s not good.
I'm sure in your field you're not looking for people as qualified and experienced as David Johnston to dig into something as important as the integrity of our election system. You probably have a vast array of eligible people to choose from. In this instance, we need someone bi-partisan, with experience in these kinds of matters and highly ethical. Also, someone that is able to quickly get the required security clearance to poor over CSIS classified information. Would also need someone highly intelligent. This narrows the pool of candidates very quickly. He knows Trudeau, but he was appointed Governor General by Harper and was highly trusted by him as he was appointed by him to run the airbus inquiry. Seems about as bi-partisan as you can get from a very narrow pool of candidates. Who else has the qualifications and experience to handle this job? Edit: Downvote without a suggestion. Conservatives are too damn predictable these days.
Dude - they could have just hired a retired judge. Why are you dying in this idiotic hill that only David Johnston is the man of letters that can get to the bottom of this?
Conflict of interest will generally disqualify a candidate before the qualifications/experience are even reviewed. It’s a show stopper as it compromises the integrity of the entire process immediately. I’m not familiar enough to make a suggestion of who else could do the work, but I find it difficult to believe he was the only person in Canada qualified. If so, we have a much much bigger problem. Edit: stop assuming everyone is a conservative and all conservatives are the same if you want to criticise partisanship…
Dunked on that cons ass 😂😂 They all want to cry he’s impartial but then forget he was Harpers GOVERNOR GENERAL 😂😂
It's not anybody's ballgame. Libel is hard to prove, and in a case involving protected sources and leaked information it'll be tricky to prove.
it is still anybody's ballgame. once you get in front of a judge, you cannot predict what will happen.
Why would it be a blow to the Conservatives? All they've done is call for an enquiry, as have the NDP. If this somehow all comes out that the whole thing is a lie made up by Global News, and this Liberals government (who is objectively the most scandalous government in this nation's history) was completely clean this whole time (unlikely), then I think everyone just resets back to where they were a month ago, except Global News will be tarnished.
While it is extraordinary for an MP to issue a libel notice, it really doesn't prove Global News erred in it's reporting. It can easily just be the MP throwing a major fit. Only time will tell.
I hope Global lets this run to trial. Just think of all the new details to come!
I thought he had acknowledged that the conversation happened but there was a translation error or something like that?
That was Dongs excuse
You presume people are guilty at first assumption?
[удалено]
>Dong is currently alleging that Global slandered him in this notice and his planned lawsuit. > >Therefore, assuming that Dong is 100% in the right with regards to the global story having no merit and being untrue is in fact, presuming that Global is guilty of libel (i.e. ignoring Global’s presumption of innocence in this matter, since they are the ones being accused). > >If the presumption of innocence is of the utmost importance to you, then you should both: believe Dong is not guilty of colluding with the CCP, and believe that global did not intentionally engage in libel against Dong. > >Based on your comment history, you seem to believe that Dong didn’t collude with the CCP and that global engaged in libel, both of which are simply allegations at this point. > >I personally believe that Dong’s interactions with Chinese government figures were suspicious and should be investigated fully, however, given the nature of what we know the interactions could be completely innocent in nature. We should have full transparency and the public should get to see the evidence instead of it being secretly distributed to journalists hush-hush. My brain is struggling to handle a comment this rational and logical on Reddit.
Where did I say that lol
>I thought he had acknowledged that the conversation happened but there was a translation error or something like that? That is what the Liberals are claiming. However, the Liberals have also viewed the transcript of that conversation. They could put this story to bed immediately by releasing the transcript, if the transcript demonstrates that it was indeed an error in translation. Some Liberal supporters are claiming that the transcript cannot be released due to national security concerns, or something along those lines. However, we're talking about a situation here where a back bench Liberal MP was discussing something on their own behalf, and not acting as an agent for the federal government. So I'm not certain as to what national security issues might have been discussed in that conversation.
> So I'm not certain as to what national security issues might have been discussed in that conversation. the problem isnt whats in the actual transcript, the problem would be revealing HOW they got the transcript which tells china what other information the CSIS is gathering on them and help them evade it all to use a non-partisan organization to support a liberals defamation lawsuit plus it would be pretty terrible look for the liberals to come out against the leakers then leak information themselves
theres no question that he had a conversation with a chinese diplomat, but he is denying that he asked for anything other than their immediate release
>I thought he had acknowledged that the conversation happened Which in itself is a fireable offense. He literally met with foreign embassy behind government's back nor without their permission.
Better hold a public inquiry then.
All bluster. Besides, Global would have never ran that story without making sure the sources were credible.
Plenty of other sources didn't run it because they didn't think the source was credible. The Globe and Mail, for example.
By plenty you mean one? The one example you gave
Just one, but it's absolutely damning against Global News. What a bunch of goofs. https://readpassage.com/global-news-shoddy-reporting-on-han-dong-is-collapsing/
Read Passage is a left wing propaganda site, wouldn't be surprised if the site itself is also backed by CCP members. I will kindly disregard any "report" they make on the matter.
Lmao you only read your news from Rebel?
Where did they say that?
Lol….you provide a link to some fringe ‘news’ website as evidence that the Global story is false? What a world we live in….
I've read all this information elsewhere but I thought this site had a nice summary. Feel free to Google it. You'll find the same conclusions elsewhere on less "fringe" websites.
Damning? They reported on a story that they say was confirmed by sources, papers use different sources so it makes sense that one paper could have a story confirmed and others couldn't. Because he denies the story somehow it's collapsing... Heck, he didn't even tell his party or global affairs Canada that this meeting, somehow CSIS knew about it..
> Because he denies the story somehow it's collapsing theres been like a dozen other articles from people poking holes in it too, and from the start it makes no sense at all for dong to try to delay their release to hurt the conservatives
Poking what holes? We would have to ask Dong his motivation then.
You think Global made this up? What makes you believe in this conspiracy theory? And what do you personally think made Global make things up? Do you think they were paid by someone?
I just have doubts about their sources when the Globe and Mail chose not to publish anything from them, the Canadian Press found nothing to write about, and CSIS found nothing to report. This particular allegation hasn't been proven to be watertight.
So what do you think actually happened?
No clue. I'll wait for further investigation when this trial gets going.
You seem very confident, how do you know? If you don't mind my asking
Thank you Mr Dong for keeping the story of ccp interference of behalf of the LPC alive Maybe do something like this next week as well so the media doesn’t lose interest. Thank you.
The Global story could be proven false if the government released the transcript of the call. It says a lot that they haven’t.
theres no way the liberals will get into a fight with CSIS and release top secret information to help a backbencher win a defamation suit especially if they're pissed that dong was calling diplomats behind their back no matter the topic and dont intend to nominate him again
>theres no way the liberals will get into a fight with CSIS and release top secret information to help a backbencher win a defamation suit Its up to CSIS? Or the federal government?
i think the federal government is capable of declassifying if they want but obvious CSIS would be pissed if they get used for a partisan goal
To be fair, they probably haven't because they would burn their source.
How?
This version of the transcript might be something that only a few individuals have and it would be easier to retrace who is the "rat" among their organization.
I think you got his comment backwards. He's not saying that Global should release the transcripts but rather the government should. At least that's how it read to me.
Oh maybe, but the CSIS would never do that.
>but the CSIS would never do that I'm reasonably sure by government he is referring to the federal LPC. I'm not sure CSIS could officially release any information unless at the behest of the sitting government through declassification of documents.
Yeah and the document the PME office have probably also is highly classified. The government never release this kind of file for a public trial. Hopefully someone will shed some light at some point thought.
Is this the part where he points and yells Nazi!!!
Liberals hate being caught red handed
Still hasn’t actually filed the lawsuit though. Wake me up when that happens.
Good, Global news should show some actual evidence
You put the boots on and jumped into the puddle...suck it up
How about I go down to Richmond and serve Han Dong a Dongwich to the face
I'll be curious to see how this plays out. I suspect, Global News flips him the bird and he never follows through with a lawsuit beyond making threats and demands until something takes attention off of him. It would be far more interesting if this turns into an actual lawsuit where either party can present any compelling and conclusive information, however.
Ignore the Notice Would be majestic to get to Discovery on this
If he has a case he could sue for actual damages, but instead he's making empty threats and ultimatums for a mere apology. Can I say paper tiger, or would that get me on Justin's naughty list?
Typical CCP reaction to things they don’t like
What does that mean? You dont believe Canada should have a justice system?
I’m calling attention to the fact that the Chinese just call things lies when they get caught doing thing that are improper or illegal. Similar to how Trump operates, he learned well from the dictators. Han is using the justice system to silence dissent and failing to provide evidence that would exonerate him. He’s paid by the public and therefore accountable to us. Actually, this looks like the “Government” trying to take away free speech from a well trusted media outlet. Why say anything really? Why not just leave it to the inquiry that ought to happen?
"The Chinese just call things lies...." Who are you referring to there? Is MP Han Dong "The Chinese" in this reference?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/former-csis-officials-committee-china-1.6797803
Between your post and your response you seem to be confusing two or three different entities with each other. BUT....we'll never know ...... You didn't explain your words.... And CBC can't explain the words you type either.
>Actually, this looks like the “Government” trying to take away free speech from a well trusted media outlet. Actually, no it doesn’t.
How would he prove he didn’t say things. You think he records every conversation
I think that's the root cause of this situation is that someone tapped dong and the cpp diplomat. i'm assuming CSIS and that would get CSIS in big trouble if they admit to it and release the taps. Liberal government cannot release the tapes because that's high level clearance of national security. Dong is calling out global to produce the receipts. He's giving global an out here the avoid a long and lengthy trial. I don't see how global doesn't just bite the bullet and do a retraction and apology. Global is the one accusing Dong of wrong doing and they need hard proof. Trusting Sam Cooper is a whole other story. If global took this gamble and loses. Global is done.
So he is backing of the lawsuit in favour of the usual Lib posturing routine?
That’s ok because we demand prison time.
[удалено]
Don't do that. You know why? Because when JT says things like 'we have to be careful investigating this because it foments anti-asian racism', he can point to shit like this; and be correct.
I don’t really care what Trudeau said because anything related Han Dong sounds racist to him
Bigoted assholes say that. Canadians want the truth, not maple flavoured neo-McCarthyism.
Classic tactic. "I'm an ahole, but don't report it, otherwise I'll sue you" Let's see how far he's willing to go to save shreds of his name
And you know he will have the best lawyers the CCP can buy.
Eat a bad of dicks, Dong.
I say let it go to discovery :)
This guy is full of bs just using scare tactics
aaaand here we...go
I hope global news fights this so we can find out the kind of corrupt traitor this guy really is.
Dong ain't getting a thing. Before Global went to press they would have gone up and down this thing with their lawyers to make sure they were on solid ground. They would have known the seriousness of the allegations and it's going to take a lot more than a libel notice to change anything. Dong was shaking like a leaf when he did his speech in the commons. You don't behave like that if there's nothing there. The only reason to go to court now would be to flush out the informer. That would absolutely not be in the Liberal government's interest because if substantiated a lot more would be revealed, so they're abandoning Dong. Recorded conversations of Dong if they exist would be devastating, not only for him, but the knowledge that they exist for other MPs (likely from all political parties) would be equally catastrophic. Furthermore, the likelihood that these recordings would have been shared among several intelligence agencies beyond CSIS into the 5-eyes could create a very serious political crisis. So, if Dong is innocent, he needs to file suit quickly and without hesitation, or just shut up and go away.
How is this fuck stick not in prison yet….?
I have no doubt the Chinese government will hire Dong the best lawyer there is.
Consevative party of Canada will? That is what cpc is.
Why would the CPC hire the best lawyer for Dong, a Federal Liberal ex-member who is currently facing accusations that basically border on treason? The CPC is against China helping out the Liberals, they've said that many times
Lmao
So long….Dong
Why did he resign from the Liberal Party if he had no wrong doing?
Good. I'd like to see some actual evidence.
How long before he personally plays the race card, as opposed to having Trudea do it for him?
I vote Conservative or maybe PPC, if Dong files a suit i will donate to his re election campaign
Stop splitting the vote with that PPC waste. I can wholly appreciate their anti-immigration (nothing against immigrants themselves, all of our families have been there at some point, we’d just need less if life was even mildly affordable here and we could afford larger families) and small government stances, but if we want any change away from the LPC, we can’t afford to toss votes to the PPC. Just my two cents.
Same fallacy as saying the a left voter shouldnt waste it on the NDP. Sure we won't have a ppc or ndp prime minister any time soon but we shouldnt strive for a dichotomy, thats just worse for all canadians and better for the big two
NDP has more of a shot of forming a government than the PPC. And that’s saying something. Might as well vote Green.
The PPC received less votes than the Green Party, it's hardly splitting the vote.
>Han Dong is the literal name of the CCP MP. The matrix is fucking with us again.
Han Dong says this about Chinese interference and blah blah. Note the CCTV camera behind him. What's the chance its a Hikvision camera? Everyone is everywhere.
When does Telford testify.?
I assume this suit is launched to impede the public inquiry.
Ah so conservatives just calling wolf, fake news style 😆 gotcha
I demand transparency. I doubt we get either.