Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor
Ultimately, I think it comes down to how much weight people give anonymous intelligence leaks. Personally, I give them almost none, because I'm naturally suspicious of intelligence agencies themselves, never mind random people who have whatever motives for leaking info. Obviously if they were leaking the actual documents, that's another matter. But 2nd and 3rd hand information, some of which doesn't even begin to make sense (I still haven't seen a satisfactory explanation for why the Liberals would want to delay Kovrig and Spavor's release)? That doesn't sound particularly credible to me. And despite any appearances of impropriety, I still give a former Governor General's analysis of these intelligence documents significantly more weight than anonymous leakers and some journalists who apparently haven't even seen the intelligence themselves.
|
Which part of the leak are you contesting?
Let's say for hypothetical sake, that Han Dong did not actually request for the Michaels.
What does this change? Chong was targeted, that we know. We now know that O'Toole was targeted. we also know that Han Dong was under intense suspicious, so much so that he had a call name "scarecrow". Outside of the bus loads of Chinese students and the Michael question, everything else from the leaks that could be easily validated has been admitted to.
The meeting between Han Dong and the Chinese diplomat did occur, Han Dong was under surveillance by CSIS. The only details put in question are the very same details that are not publicly available, and are not being made available unless CSIS divulges it, or a public inquiry occurs. So until that occurs, it can be denied and you just have to trust Johnston.
This is akin to asking the wolf what happened to the sheep it was guarding, and taking the wolf's word because he was guarding the sheep after all.
Remove the Han Dong related technicalities that cannot be verified without the transcripts and public inquiry, and you are still left with a web of foreign interference that has targeted our democratic system which requires a public inquiry.
A Chinese diplomat was expulsed from our country for their action, something that would not just be done on a whim, it was initially deemed not a concern by Trudeau and apparently that has already been forgotten.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/csi...port-1.6831920
Quote:
The prime minister said Wednesday that the information about Chong was never shared outside of CSIS.
"We asked what happened to that information, was it ever briefed up out of CSIS? It was not. CSIS made the determination that it wasn't something that needed be raised to a higher level because it wasn't a significant enough concern," Trudeau said.
But Chong shared new information during question period on Thursday suggesting that is not true.
|
The only reason we learned of Chong and O'Toole being targets, of which we know 100% that the PMO was briefed on in regards to Chong, is due to the leaks, and subsequent revelations.
The public inquiry must happen