32 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

Like it was reported, To stop the Conservatives from looking good. Is it true? If it is, it will be a huge scandal. If not, the reporter's career is over. 

How... how would the Cons look good? This is some sort of bizarre Fox News level conspiracy theory. 

 

The real scandal is the Premier who interfered multiple times into a Crown case and then lied. It's shocking the Smith has not resigned for this. It's criminal and completely undemocratic. An abuse of power seen only in the US before. 

8 hours ago, JCon said:

That is the most ludicrous thing. Why would they want the Michaels held longer? It's stupid. 

It seems Elizabeth May is the only Parliamentarian with the guts to stand up and call a spade a spade. 

11 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

Not if he told the Chinese official not to release the two Michaels. We'll see, I guess. 

We likely won't see because Trudeau refuses to call a public inquiry. The question marks will remain. This could very well be much ado about nothing but the PMs response to all of it has been bizarre.

1 hour ago, GCn20 said:

We likely won't see because Trudeau refuses to call a public inquiry. The question marks will remain. This could very well be much ado about nothing but the PMs response to all of it has been bizarre.

I donno...publicly discussing naational security issues seems like a poor business decision. But at the same time...I would like to know more.

Why should there be an inquiry into conjecture?

What's bizarre is how a spurious report from two media outlets (Globe & Mail, Global News), one seemingly based on hearsay from an anonymous source and self-proclaimed whistleblower (who likely breached her oath and code of conduct as a CSIS employee), is somehow being passed off as relevant and lapped up as factual despite a lack of evidence.

Moreover: https://www.canada.ca/en/democratic-institutions/services/independent-special-rapporteur.html

Edited March 30, 20232 yr by blue_gold_84
link added

53 minutes ago, blue_gold_84 said:

Why should there be an inquiry into conjecture?

What's bizarre is how a spurious report from two media outlets (Globe & Mail, Global News), one seemingly based on hearsay from an anonymous source and self-proclaimed whistleblower (who likely breached her oath and code of conduct as a CSIS employee), is somehow being passed off as relevant and lapped up as factual despite a lack of evidence.

Moreover: https://www.canada.ca/en/democratic-institutions/services/independent-special-rapporteur.html

There was election interference. That is not conjecture. There should be an inquiry because transparency is needed. Just because a CSIS employee breached their oath does not change that FACT.

Just a reminder that it's not election inference to meet with foreign dignitaries. That should be pretty obvious given that all parties meet with foreign officials on a regular basis. Some even dine with Nazis. 

6 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

There was election interference. That is not conjecture. There should be an inquiry because transparency is needed. Just because a CSIS employee breached their oath does not change that FACT.

Present the evidence. Until you do, it's conjecture. Same as with that jackass CSIS employee who went to the media while presenting not an iota of proof.

Transparency is obviously important. But so is evidence of a pretty serious claim.

8 minutes ago, blue_gold_84 said:

Present the evidence. Until you do, it's conjecture. Same as with that jackass CSIS employee who went to the media while presenting not an iota of proof.

Transparency is obviously important. But so is evidence of a pretty serious claim.

Putting things in CAPS doesn't make it fact. Impartial clear evidence does regardless of political stripe one wears. Full stop as some people like to say.

And that same jackass wrote an opinion piece for G&M, ostensibly to justify her reckless and misguided decision: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-whistleblower-china-canada-election-interference/

Quote

So let me be clear: as troubling as the revelations we have seen are, I do not believe that foreign interference dictated the present composition of our federal government. Nor do I believe that any of our elected leaders is a traitor to our country.

No evidence.

1 minute ago, HardCoreBlue said:

Putting things in CAPS doesn't make it fact. Impartial clear evidence does regardless of political stripe one wears. Full stop as some people like to say.

HAN DONG IS A TRAITOR WHO SHOULD BE IN PRISON!

Did I do it right?

1 hour ago, JCon said:

Just a reminder that it's not election inference to meet with foreign dignitaries. That should be pretty obvious given that all parties meet with foreign officials on a regular basis. Some even dine with Nazis. 

I agree. The whole meeting with dignitaries thing is certainly allowed. If he asked the Chinese government to delay their release...that is treason. Let's have an inquiry on the whole thing and find out.

45 minutes ago, blue_gold_84 said:

And that same jackass wrote an opinion piece for G&M, ostensibly to justify her reckless and misguided decision: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-whistleblower-china-canada-election-interference/

No evidence.

HAN DONG IS A TRAITOR WHO SHOULD BE IN PRISON!

Did I do it right?

You don't know if there is no evidence. You cannot state that because the PM refuses to let the public know what evidence or non-evidence there is. Simple as that. It is your OPINION that there is no evidence but that is purely based on good faith.

57 minutes ago, blue_gold_84 said:

Present the evidence. Until you do, it's conjecture. Same as with that jackass CSIS employee who went to the media while presenting not an iota of proof.

Transparency is obviously important. But so is evidence of a pretty serious claim.

There may be evidence. Let's have an inquiry and find out. Very serious allegations are being made in the media, not just the right wing media either, and it's time the public got to see the basis for these allegations in full. If it is baseless great, if not...we need to know. Polls are saying that 70% of Canadians want an inquiry. What is this prime minister trying to hide?

Edited March 30, 20232 yr by GCn20

6 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

I agree. The whole meeting with dignitaries thing is certainly allowed. If he asked the Chinese government to delay their release...that is treason. Let's have an inquiry on the whole thing and find out.

If it were true, he would be facing a criminal trial as we speak.  The opposition has suddenly stopped talking about the issue.  

Just now, Mark H. said:

If it were true, he would be facing a criminal trial as we speak.  The opposition has suddenly stopped talking about the issue.  

I was just reading the Globe and Mail and it says even if Dong did meet and suggest this that it is not criminal. It is just morally reprehensible. However, if it were later proven he had ties to the CCP and was their puppet, that would be treason. Let's have an inquiry and find out.

4 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

I was just reading the Globe and Mail and it says even if Dong did meet and suggest this that it is not criminal. It is just morally reprehensible. However, if it were later proven he had ties to the CCP and was their puppet, that would be treason. Let's have an inquiry and find out.

Yes, their wording is now "even if he did meet."  That just reinforces the impression that they have no proof 

Let's have a wide reaching inquiry into everything. That's the problem. There is no one that is "clean" 

 

Nothing wrong with trying to get foreign influence out of our government, but it's there with every party. 

12 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

Like it was reported, To stop the Conservatives from looking good. Is it true? If it is, it will be a huge scandal. If not, the reporter's career is over. 

If I was the reporter in question, I wouldn't worry too much. Both the standards of reporting and the pay are very low. Slinging hamburger patties might pay better.

The Conservatives need a scandal to win the next election - that's all this is about.

Campaigning on 'Liberal overspending' won't work this time, because Canadian finances are relatively good, compared to others in the G7.

The Carbon tax? Most of that comes back through rebates.  And the world is going green, even if the opposition pretends not to notice.

Bottom Line: Pollievere needs a scandal, and he knows it

 

 

34 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

You don't know if there is no evidence.

It's not my responsibility to negate another's unsubstantiated claim. That's not how burden of proof works.

The fact of the matter is the individual who made the initial claim ran to the media and presented no evidence - none. And then that individual followed up by stating outright that she does "not believe that foreign interference dictated the present composition of our federal government."

Where's the justification for an inquiry? Maybes and ifs don't count.

I'll share this again because you seemed to miss or ignore it the first time: https://www.canada.ca/en/democratic-institutions/services/independent-special-rapporteur.html

1 minute ago, blue_gold_84 said:

It's not my responsibility to negate another's unsubstantiated claim. That's not how burden of proof works.

The fact of the matter is the individual who made the initial claim ran to the media and presented no evidence - none. And then that individual followed up by stating outright that she does "not believe that foreign interference dictated the present composition of our federal government."

Where's the justification for an inquiry? Maybes and ifs don't count.

I'll share this again because you seemed to miss or ignore it the first time: https://www.canada.ca/en/democratic-institutions/services/independent-special-rapporteur.html

You don't know what proof was presented to the media by the whistleblower. The media outlet felt that the burden of proof was enough to protect them from being successfully sued. Let's have an inquiry and find out. It is what the vast majority of Canadians, and MPs want. Trudeau is making it look like he has something to hide.

5 minutes ago, Mark H. said:

The Conservatives need a scandal to win the next election - that's all this is about.

Campaigning on 'Liberal overspending' won't work this time, because Canadian finances are relatively good, compared to others in the G7.

The Carbon tax? Most of that comes back through rebates.  And the world is going green, even if the opposition pretends not to notice.

Bottom Line: Pollievere needs a scandal, and he knows it

 

 

Pollievre has a scandal. Trudeau is playing right into his hands by hiding the facts.

Given the level of evidence required now, I am assuming that what the Cons discussed, when they dined with the the Nazi, was how to overthrow the gov't. It's a pattern because the leader of the party also met with leaders of the KKKonvoy, who's stated goal was to overthrow the gov't an install their own.  He brought them donuts and openly supported them. 

There's a scandal for you and there is real evidence, easily available with photos and their own words. 

 

.

Edited March 30, 20232 yr by Bigblue204

34 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

You don't know what proof was presented to the media by the whistleblower. The media outlet felt that the burden of proof was enough to protect them from being successfully sued. Let's have an inquiry and find out. It is what the vast majority of Canadians, and MPs want. Trudeau is making it look like he has something to hide.

Pollievre has a scandal. Trudeau is playing right into his hands by hiding the facts.

Justin dont need to hide scandals. He's Teflon Trudeau after all

 

Just now, FrostyWinnipeg said:

Justin dont need to hide scandals. He's Teflon Trudeau after all

 

when you're a communist dictator running a socialist country, you do what you want, when you want!! /s 

"Choice of words" 

 

The most vile, reprehensible people.