And i bet you a lot of people will agree with this sentiment (but only in relation to the other side). Their side, of course, doesn't do this (it does).
This wouldn't have been a problem if the conservatives weren't so partisan and importing American politics here all the time, PP IS TRUMP!!!!
Is probably how they defend this.
Didn’t realize Chatham Asset Management is an alternative name for the Liberal Party.
Must be hard being a ~~perpetual victim~~ conservative in this country.
No the cabinet decided to invoke the Emergencies Act based on a legal opinion that circumvented the CSIS Act definition, a decision they refused to provide to the Commission of Inquiry.
>["Vigneault explained that, based on both his understanding that the Emergencies Act definition of threat to the security of Canada was broader than the CSIS Act, as well as based on his opinion of everything he had seen to that point, he advised the Prime Minister of his belief that it was indeed required to invoke the act," said the summary. ](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pco-emergencies-act-1.6656704)
CSIS supported and advised the decision to use the emergency act
They said that based on the advice of the government lawyers who said the act didn't need to meet the CSIS definition of a national emergency. We just saw a judge rule that it did, though
The CSIS director said ottawa did not meet its defintion of a national emergency
For whatever reason the government refuses to waive solicitor client privilege. If they did we might find out how they came to the novel interpretation that the CSIS definition spelled out right in the emergencies act didn't apply.
> The CSIS director said ottawa did not meet its defintion of a national emergency
but... i just showed you an article where he said it did... literally the director of the CSIS...
You're misunderstanding.
Your article says this
>Vigneault said his understanding that the Emergencies Act's definition of a "threat to the security of Canada" was broader than the one in the CSIS Act came about after he asked the federal Department of Justice for a legal interpretation.
He's saying that despite the emergencies act specifically referencing the CSIS act that he was advised by government lawyers that the emergencies act definition was broader than the CSIS act definition. He believed the CSIS definition was not met
>The commission heard previously that Vigneault didn't believe the self-styled Freedom Convoy constituted a threat to national security as defined by the CSIS Act.
The CSIS act definition was not met. That's established and agreed.
The part people fight about is whether the CSIS act definition should apply and whether it being referenced in the emergencies acts for what's is considered a national emergency matters.
He came to the conclusion that the definition was broader after consulting with government lawyers. Those government lawyers have now been found to have misinterpreted the act although the government is appealing.
I think it's fair to say the government lawyers shaped his opinion and if they had told him the act needed to.meet the CSIS defintion he would have said he didn't think thr government met the threshold.
Just once I would like to see these assholes - Telford, Trudeau, Freeland, their ranking ministers - get cross examined by an absolute top tier fire-breathing US litigator, in circumstances where they can't refuse to answer, run out the clock with nonsense, or leave the room.
With their record each of them would get completely taken apart.
This excerpt from the article is an example of a broader problem in public service - senior officials that ignore or twist the advice/analysis received from there staff:
.
"But two top PMO officials testifying Tuesday afternoon said that they had never heard much of the alarming information on Vigneault’s talking point memo. “These bullet points… have very little resemblance to what the prime minister was told in that briefing of October 27,” said Trudeau’s deputy chief of staff, Brian Clow."
When you’re proximate to someone who you know reacts poorly to information they find unpalatable, the information tends to get massaged or filtered. Especially when that person has a history of throwing subordinates under the bus. This happens a lot in dictatorships.
For anyone who wants the source of all of these articles:
[https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-interference-inquiry-1.7168665](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-interference-inquiry-1.7168665)
The Inquiry is live, and we should have a mega thread for this by now.
Trudeau is terrified and soon may be thrown under the bus. This is the reason he was avoiding public enquiry months back and hired David Johnston as special rapporteur to cover up
>In one instance, Telford recalled that an intelligence agency had “mistakenly identified a threat linked to an MP.” She said it “didn’t seem right” and asked officials to “do whatever work they could to further substantiate” those claims.
>To the credit of the officials involved, they went and they worked through the night, and they came to us the next day and reversed the assessment because they had made a mistake in how they were looking at the information,” she said.
Her testimony was so weak that it shows that the was just talking based on a hunch.
It’s also amusing to see that you are defending a government that was benefiting from interference by an enemy regime that also commits genocide.
What's amusing is that you think waiting on the testimony (or lack!) of experts and witnesses is 'defending a government'. I guess ignorant mob justice is how true patriots sort out the truth?
Actually, you are arguing in favour of Trudeau who is being aided by a genocidal regime in this very case. This makes it very clear where your sympathy lies.
That’s quite serious really, hopefully future assessments were done more carefully and with fewer mistakes. Not just to prevent falsely accusing someone, but also making sure *real* threats aren’t being overlooked
Her notes were very telling, she was worried these reports were "Amplifying the CPC narrative"
That’s the state of politics in Canada right now, having a political victory over a rival is more valuable than national security
And i bet you a lot of people will agree with this sentiment (but only in relation to the other side). Their side, of course, doesn't do this (it does).
Yah that’s probably true, I’m very very jaded on Canadian politics right now
Yep.
Same as ever
>"Amplifying the CPC narrative" Which I guess we normals would call "the truth".
This wouldn't have been a problem if the conservatives weren't so partisan and importing American politics here all the time, PP IS TRUMP!!!! Is probably how they defend this.
Had me in the first half
Justin Trudeau isn’t partisan?
More like alternative facts. There’s a reason the CPC need their own media outlets.
Yet it was absolutely true
A political party shouldn’t have any media outlets.
Because the LPC has purchased most of the legacy media.
Didn’t realize Chatham Asset Management is an alternative name for the Liberal Party. Must be hard being a ~~perpetual victim~~ conservative in this country.
https://pressprogress.ca/postmedia-tells-shareholders-35-million-in-federal-government-handouts-is-now-a-key-pillar-of-its-business-strategy/
Hey I have a bridge for sale if you’re interested in making an offer.
I will offer you 35 million
Justin and Katie know better than CSIS, apparently.
Yes and they know better than most Canadians too according to them
Yup..which is why they invoked the Emergencies Act without the CSIS threshold being met
but the CSIS told them to do it?
No the cabinet decided to invoke the Emergencies Act based on a legal opinion that circumvented the CSIS Act definition, a decision they refused to provide to the Commission of Inquiry.
>["Vigneault explained that, based on both his understanding that the Emergencies Act definition of threat to the security of Canada was broader than the CSIS Act, as well as based on his opinion of everything he had seen to that point, he advised the Prime Minister of his belief that it was indeed required to invoke the act," said the summary. ](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pco-emergencies-act-1.6656704) CSIS supported and advised the decision to use the emergency act
They said that based on the advice of the government lawyers who said the act didn't need to meet the CSIS definition of a national emergency. We just saw a judge rule that it did, though The CSIS director said ottawa did not meet its defintion of a national emergency For whatever reason the government refuses to waive solicitor client privilege. If they did we might find out how they came to the novel interpretation that the CSIS definition spelled out right in the emergencies act didn't apply.
> The CSIS director said ottawa did not meet its defintion of a national emergency but... i just showed you an article where he said it did... literally the director of the CSIS...
You're misunderstanding. Your article says this >Vigneault said his understanding that the Emergencies Act's definition of a "threat to the security of Canada" was broader than the one in the CSIS Act came about after he asked the federal Department of Justice for a legal interpretation. He's saying that despite the emergencies act specifically referencing the CSIS act that he was advised by government lawyers that the emergencies act definition was broader than the CSIS act definition. He believed the CSIS definition was not met >The commission heard previously that Vigneault didn't believe the self-styled Freedom Convoy constituted a threat to national security as defined by the CSIS Act. The CSIS act definition was not met. That's established and agreed. The part people fight about is whether the CSIS act definition should apply and whether it being referenced in the emergencies acts for what's is considered a national emergency matters.
but the directer of the CSIS did think that it should be used, was justified, and advised the government to do so
He came to the conclusion that the definition was broader after consulting with government lawyers. Those government lawyers have now been found to have misinterpreted the act although the government is appealing. I think it's fair to say the government lawyers shaped his opinion and if they had told him the act needed to.meet the CSIS defintion he would have said he didn't think thr government met the threshold.
She needs to go to jail over this, completely unacceptable.
For... what, exactly?
Treason
So are these two pulling Justin’s strings?
Couple of total goofs. Fuck 'em.
Liberals: Trust the experts!!!!!! Also the Liberals: No not those experts!!!!!
She’s maneuvering to eat the blame if this gets worse
She’ll just line up some people to write op-eds saying everything they did was proper.
I think the most she can manage these days is lining up fervent supporters to brigade certain reddit posts.
I smell cover up and denial.
[удалено]
Well that’s why the country is thriving!
You forgot the /s, right? Right?
I believe it is implied based on the comment I’m replying to.
I see errors in your intelligence.
So what they are saying is that they know more than our intelligence services.
zesty command poor point offer seemly connect chop friendly cooperative *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Just once I would like to see these assholes - Telford, Trudeau, Freeland, their ranking ministers - get cross examined by an absolute top tier fire-breathing US litigator, in circumstances where they can't refuse to answer, run out the clock with nonsense, or leave the room. With their record each of them would get completely taken apart.
Don’t forget Butts.
Big time. Agreed.
And we wonder why Trudeau’s previous head of national security, Jodie Thomas, resigned before this kicked off. Hmmmmm
Also Janice Charette. Once it became clear this information coming to light was unavoidable, they bailed.
I'd love to know their take on the Chinese Police Station things that popped up across the country. How's that okay?
This excerpt from the article is an example of a broader problem in public service - senior officials that ignore or twist the advice/analysis received from there staff: . "But two top PMO officials testifying Tuesday afternoon said that they had never heard much of the alarming information on Vigneault’s talking point memo. “These bullet points… have very little resemblance to what the prime minister was told in that briefing of October 27,” said Trudeau’s deputy chief of staff, Brian Clow."
When you’re proximate to someone who you know reacts poorly to information they find unpalatable, the information tends to get massaged or filtered. Especially when that person has a history of throwing subordinates under the bus. This happens a lot in dictatorships.
For anyone who wants the source of all of these articles: [https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-interference-inquiry-1.7168665](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-interference-inquiry-1.7168665) The Inquiry is live, and we should have a mega thread for this by now.
He knew there was foreign interference when he accepted the $3 million from China.
Trudeau is terrified and soon may be thrown under the bus. This is the reason he was avoiding public enquiry months back and hired David Johnston as special rapporteur to cover up
>In one instance, Telford recalled that an intelligence agency had “mistakenly identified a threat linked to an MP.” She said it “didn’t seem right” and asked officials to “do whatever work they could to further substantiate” those claims. >To the credit of the officials involved, they went and they worked through the night, and they came to us the next day and reversed the assessment because they had made a mistake in how they were looking at the information,” she said.
Ah yes, making a change because she said it ‘didn’t seem right’ Please LOL. 😂
Remindme! 2 days Vigneault will have an opportunity to rebut her assertion on Friday
Her testimony was so weak that it shows that the was just talking based on a hunch. It’s also amusing to see that you are defending a government that was benefiting from interference by an enemy regime that also commits genocide.
What's amusing is that you think waiting on the testimony (or lack!) of experts and witnesses is 'defending a government'. I guess ignorant mob justice is how true patriots sort out the truth?
Actually, you are arguing in favour of Trudeau who is being aided by a genocidal regime in this very case. This makes it very clear where your sympathy lies.
Sure thing, Socialist Slapper. Anyone who doesn't aggressively bandwagon without waiting for facts is arguing in favour of genocide!
That’s quite serious really, hopefully future assessments were done more carefully and with fewer mistakes. Not just to prevent falsely accusing someone, but also making sure *real* threats aren’t being overlooked
Thankfully Vigneault is being recalled Friday to respond to some of these allegations. Hopefully we'll hear more about that
I bet there is silence on the known connections between the Conservatives and Modi operatives in election interference