Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz
Obviously she doesn't know what it is, or who benefits, hence "secret". Clearly there is more to the deal, becuase there is not any certainty.
https://www.albertaprimetimes.com/ca...-issue-6914739
So, how can you have an agreement in principle if some of the big pieces are unknown? You are aiming blame at the wrong party, here.
How do we vote on this without the details? |
If it's between CSEC and the City, it would be inappropriate for Danielle Smith to talk about that part, assuming she even knows those details herself. If people voting in the provincial election want those details, they should be demanding them from the City.
The way Notley talks, it's difficult to take her 100% at her word. She was very defensive any time she was asked anything that questioned her claim. Sorry, coming out saying there is a "secret" side deal, that only you know about, but actually know nothing about, and when asked how you found out, all you can say is officials... it sounds like she doesn't know anything and is trying to throw shade just for the sake of it. And if officials did tell here there is a confidential part, then that isn't a secret. There is a big difference between privacy and secrecy. Notley's sarcastic tone towards reporters really just rubs me the wrong way any time they tried to challenge her. Why so defensive?