Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Uhm, maybe we shouldn't allow that? What is the point in being able to audit government for accountability if they just hide it?

Honest question, how do you stop it? Its not right, but they are all going to do it.

[Svartsengi]

Originally Posted by RedHot25

Honest question, how do you stop it? Its not right, but they are all going to do it.

Vote for the least corrupt party in May. When candidates come to your door tell them this truth. They will ignore you at there own risk.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by RedHot25

Honest question, how do you stop it? Its not right, but they are all going to do it.

I know you would never catch everything, but if a situation like this comes up where an investigation is called, you could reasonably catch them. And then you have significant punishments, like if you are MLA you lose your job, forfeit your pension and a by-election is called. Staffer? Fired. If the teeth are sharp enough, people just won't do it.

There should be no situation that we setup laws to control information, and these "honourable" MLA's just walk around the fence because we didn't build the fence around the entire yard.

[Swift]

Originally Posted by Yoho

https://twitter.com/user/status/1617645762573373442

I don't know about the actual article posted online, but the reporters were open about the fact that they hadn't actually seen any emails. I heard the news report on the 6pm news on the radio on Friday while driving home from work and they specifically mentioned that fact, but that they had trusted sources who verified that the emails existed.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I know you would never catch everything, but if a situation like this comes up where an investigation is called, you could reasonably catch them. And then you have significant punishments, like if you are MLA you lose your job, forfeit your pension and a by-election is called. Staffer? Fired. If the teeth are sharp enough, people just won't do it.

There should be no situation that we setup laws to control information, and these "honourable" MLA's just walk around the fence because we didn't build the fence around the entire yard.

Well, there is no pension, so they’re not losing that. But as far as the “how do you stop it”, a bunch of banks in the US had to pay significant fines recently for this exact reason. Employees were using WhatsApp or Signal for business purposes (which is against regulations). Obviously, where there’s a will there’s a way. But would this government implement something?

(That’s rhetorical)

[Yoho]

Originally Posted by Swift

I don't know about the actual article posted online, but the reporters were open about the fact that they hadn't actually seen any emails. I heard the news report on the 6pm news on the radio on Friday while driving home from work and they specifically mentioned that fact, but that they had trusted sources who verified that the emails existed.

Pretty powerful allegations to leave to “I know a guy who knows a guy”

Garbage reporting that damaged reputation. I hope Smith sues.

[Looch City]

Damaged her “reputation” hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[Fuzz]

Do MLA's not get pensions?

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Yoho

Pretty powerful allegations to leave to “I know a guy who knows a guy”

Garbage reporting that damaged reputation. I hope Smith sues.

Me too. More rigorous questioning/discovery process. Questioning under oath probably won’t help that much. Liars lie.

[TorqueDog]

Even if Yoho is, Smith isn't dumb enough to sue. That'll just introduce a whole lot of sunlight to places Smith doesn't want it.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

I'm just dying thinking of them doing an outlook search and saying, yep all good! My outlook search is legit totally useless. More useless than bing.



This is my biggest Q. It seemed in the initial reports that the leak was coming from inside the Premier's team.

So....you're saying that the phone call was coming from inside the house??

[GGG]

For groups complaining about bad faith journalism like that garbage Yoho posted and the Baired opinion piece they sure like to engage in bad faith journalism.

No one has been exonerated.

The other thing in this is no one discusses what the level of certainty there needs to be to report this.

I’d argue (provided the source is staffers in the premiers office or in the crown) that even if these statements prove to be false it is in the public interest to report them if the reporters met their internal requirements.

I do agree that the article originally was unclear on the nature of the sourcing but if essentially if this story is multiple staffers lied to the cbc about emails to the crown then that is news.

I think the only way the CBC would be in the wrong would be if this is fabricated or the sources are external to the crown and internally. If these sources exist and are lying Smith should be concerned and wanting to find the truth.

I’m interested to here Jesse Browns opinion on this one.

Original article from the way back machine. This link is from the 20th.
https://web.archive.org/web/20230120...utts-1.6719743

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Do MLA's not get pensions?

Not in Alberta. (see FAQ's in the link). They were phased out beginning in 1989 and gone by 1993.


https://www.assembly.ab.ca/members/r...a-remuneration

[Yoho]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1617685421991002113

Maybe media mandatory retraining in order.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Yoho

https://twitter.com/user/status/1617685421991002113

Maybe media mandatory retraining in order.

What do you happened?

[powderjunkie]

I don't think there has been any suggestion of impropriety on the side of the crown prosecutors?

That statement is somewhat bizarre and raises more questions for me...maybe some of our esteemed lawyers can chime in, but it seems like an oddly definitive judgment based on an investigation that has so many fundamental question marks...

OTOH maybe that's just how the crown is used to operating? ie. they make decisions based on a somewhat narrow view of the evidence presented by law enforcement? I'm not sure that's the most fair assessment/summary, but I'm just trying to get into their heads a bit...maybe the lawyer-speak just feels odd compared to more typical PR language, but it also feels like doth protest too much.


Making such a definitive statement at this point just seems odd, and if anything contrary to the notion of independence.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I don't think there has been any suggestion of impropriety on the side of the crown prosecutors?

If they received or engaged in inappropriate communication via private email and didn’t report or at least come forward to admit now that would be improper. This whole ‘there were emails’ thing implies impropriety even if they didn’t initiate it and even if no one is directly accusing them.

Given that prosecutors are expected to have a higher standard than politicians it’s looking like this story is dead.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Lubicon

Not in Alberta. (see FAQ's in the link). They were phased out beginning in 1989 and gone by 1993.


https://www.assembly.ab.ca/members/r...a-remuneration

And after that, they had transition allowances (which were egregious!) and those were out with Alison Redford. It’s a whole other topic, but personally I think a part of her issue was that she went against the old boys club and they didn’t like that.

Anyway, they get some RRSPs now, but it’s nothing enormous.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Yoho

Garbage reporting that damaged reputation. I hope Smith sues.

If Smith sues everyone that says something that damages her reputation she would be file papers against herself endlessly.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

If Smith sues everyone that says something that damages her reputation she would be file papers against herself endlessly.

Too bad we don't have anti-SLAPP legislation in Alberta.