Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[CaptainCrunch]

I would expect that the two Michaels are getting lots of phone calls from Lawyers right now.

We heard from other sources in the CSIS stories that they came forward to whistle blow because they briefed the government and nothing was done, it was ignored.

So the questions that are asked of Telford now have to cover this bombshell and it can't wait until after the budget or two weeks down the road.

This really should be a RCMP investigation, there two many political aspects to a public inquiry and it cannot be in a Liberal Controlled committee anymore.

[Yoho]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Can the mods make a poll asking people which of the 2 they think is more concerning, that an MP did this or that the 2 national security sources who would have clearly known about this for some time for some reason kept quiet about it until now when it’s literally their jobs to address these sorts of things expeditiously?

I would be very interested to see the results.

Did you watch the part when the ex Vancouver Mayor was telling his accounts of being interviewed by CSIS and them relaying to him that they “have sent things up the chain” with no results and it’s fallen on deaf ears?

How do we know it wasn’t passed on by CSIS?


Why would we even focus on that instead of the infraction by the MP unless you were trying to throw in kitchen sink arguments?

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy14

I suspect they have provided documents to the news agencies to whom they have disclosed the information on the condition it never be released for fear the content of the documents would expose them.

As an example, if I'm one of three people on an email chain... I'm not going to release that publicly... pretty easy to tell who probably leaked.

The only document I noticed that the journalist actually said had been reviewed is the Privy Council Office memo. I would have expected them to say they had been provided with a bunch of evidence to substantiate the leaks if that were the case, at least acknowledging that they have seen and reviewed documentation even if not revealing it, especially given the seriousness of the allegations.

Also, I guess I would kind of expect that CSIS would have a pretty good shot at figuring out who did it anyways, given what CSIS is.

I mean, I would think it's a huge risk to take. I'm not knowledgeable about whistleblower protection laws, but I would assume it would require some evidence of wrongdoing on the part of their management to be able to seek protection, and that seems like it would be a tough thing to establish unless there's something majorly wrong going on there.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by AFireInside

You can't see why that would be a question? If these allegations are out there, why wouldn't the leader of the opposition want an inquiry? Instead he just rants about how he wants an inquiry on twitter. It would be a slam dunk for Pierre to get this information out there.

The first question that popped in your head was: "Hey this Liberal MP that is compromised reportedly impeded the release of illegally detained Canadian citizens, let's see what Pierre the opposition leader did?" Care to share your reasoning and thought process?

And what are you taking about? The CPC unanimously voted yay with himself abstaining after Trudeau's concession . The motion got defeated as Trudeau already agreed to have Katie Telford testify and conceded not to make the motion a vote of confidence, allowing the NDP to vote against the motion.

Read the motion for yourself and voting

https://www.ourcommons.ca/members/en/votes/44/1/267

You can litterally see him in the commons that same day demanding a public inquiry

https://twitter.com/user/status/1638275179104161809

If you are going to question abstain votes from the opposition leader who's party voted unanimous, maybe you should focus that line of questioning to why the Liberal cabinet abstained on the Uyghur genocide vote, especially now in light of knowing that a Liberal MP interfered with the release of the two Michaels.

[Yoho]

Guaranteed if there was a public inquiry the CSIS sources will come out of the wood work and spill the beans.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Firebot

You (and others) don't need to explain why you won't vote CPC. No one is forcing you to vote CPC, heck I plan on voting NDP in the provincial election as the UPC is insufferable.

I sincerely wish the CPC could be an option, what is your issue with that?

O'Toole, Poilievre, Sheer, Harper, pick your leader isn't the reason why you would not vote CPC. They as a party are ideologically just not compatible which is perfectly fine, and they are clearly going the wrong path of going center right now. The CPC has done nothing to get your vote.

Actually the constant misleading of Canadians on matters that I happen to consider very important by those individuals plays a major role in why I won’t vote for them. Being dishonest isn’t exactly what I’m looking for in a representative. Sure it doesn’t help that a lot of their policies are garbage, but in most cases if I have little faith in the character of a candidate there policies become secondary.

But question the use the word 'criminal' of allegations, and why every single time a scandal arises, the discussion eventually always goes back to 'well that's bad, but let me tell you why I morally cannot vote CPC"

I don’t see what your issue is with calling out someone making a patently false statement. If you see me do it, by all means call me out on it. That poster knows I’m right which is why they never defended their statement. IMO we need more people in this world calling out bull#### when they see it, not less. You’re free to disagree with that if you’d like.

It's blatant whataboutism meant to abstain from actively criticizing 'your side' when frankly it should be about Canada.

I don’t have a “side”. Free agent over here

You know why I don’t have a side? Because I give a damn about the direction this country is and has been going in for some time and I don’t think that the solution is to pick a team when as a voter I can be trying to get every party to pull their heads out of their asses instead of just my “team”.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Yoho

Did you watch the part when the ex Vancouver Mayor was telling his accounts of being interviewed by CSIS and them relaying to him that they “have sent things up the chain” with no results and it’s fallen on deaf ears?

How do we know it wasn’t passed on by CSIS?


Why would we even focus on that instead of the infraction by the MP unless you were trying to throw in kitchen sink arguments?

Because, like I said, it’s CSIS’s job to deal with these kinds of things. If they’re not doing so it’s a pretty big problem. One would think that someone who keeps sharing tweets about national security concerns would agree with that but here we are.

[Yoho]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Because, like I said, it’s CSIS’s job to deal with these kinds of things. If they’re not doing so it’s a pretty big problem. One would think that someone who keeps sharing tweets about national security concerns would agree with that but here we are.

They have/had bosses who they have to listen to, who decides these fates, that are (much like the RCMP) influenced by politicians.

Imagine if a Prime minister and his chief of staff knew about it and did nothing.

The timing of this release is interesting, the next day after the Liberals commit to Telford testifying.

So here we are.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Can the mods make a poll asking people which of the 2 they think is more concerning, that an MP did this or that the 2 national security sources who would have clearly known about this for some time for some reason kept quiet about it until now when it’s literally their jobs to address these sorts of things expeditiously?

I would be very interested to see the results.

It does raise interesting questions.

If this information is factually correct why wouldn’t the government or CSIS act? There are only a few possibilities

1) the conversations didn’t rise to the level of criminality.
2) Csis is compromised
3) the government is compromised
4) the government is covering up their negligence in allowing him to become an MP
5) the government is covering up something adjacent to this but unrelated to China
6) they were allowing him to have these conversations to monitor China

The other question is what changed that this guy is leaking now? Did something stop happening within CSIS? I suspect (assuming the leaker is working for good) that they no longer feel there will be an internal resolution. This would mean things have been happening behind closed doors but have reached the point where no further action is being taken.

I hope PP and Jagmeet have gone behind close doors with whatever security clearance they have as part of this to ensure that they aren’t blowing a spying operation.

But if I have to be from the above it’s 5) but I think 6 is the next most likely

[Yoho]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1638660464388210688

The temperature in the room is getting hot for the Liberals.

These are such serious allegations Id be shocked if there isn’t audio tape.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Can the mods make a poll asking people which of the 2 they think is more concerning, that an MP did this or that the 2 national security sources who would have clearly known about this for some time for some reason kept quiet about it until now when it’s literally their jobs to address these sorts of things expeditiously?

I would be very interested to see the results.

Remember this?

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/trud...ties-1.6291406

"Dong is an outstanding member of our team and suggestions that he is somehow not loyal to Canada should not be entertained," Trudeau told a news conference in Mississauga.

"Suggestions we've seen in the media, that CSIS would somehow say, 'No, this person can't run or that person can't run,' is not just false, it's actually damaging to people's confidence in our democratic and political institutions."

https://torontosun.com/opinion/colum...ections-racist

In a free democracy, it is not up to unelected security officials to dictate to political parties who can or cannot run,” Trudeau said when asked directly about the claims.

Trudeau was briefed on multiple occasions and ignored warnings, that's why the whistleblower came forward (as well as the two new ones). The cat's out of the bag.

As of right now we don't know of briefings about this new allegation yet, so to insinuate that CSIS didn't do it's job is quite a bit premature and presumptuous? CSIS cannot remove an elected official or dictate who can run on their own, as Trudeau eloquently told us a few weeks ago. CSIS would not detain or arrest Han Dong just because he had a secret meeting with a foreign diplomat as an MP.

You can bet they will wait for Trudeau to deny the new story first, and later provide info that they did brief the PMO's office. There's a reason why we are getting this piecemeal this whole time and why Trudeau was so adamant on Telford not testifying.

[Yoho]

/\

/\
Check mate.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by Yoho

https://twitter.com/user/status/1638660464388210688

https://www.ourcommons.ca/members/en...267?view=party

NDP
Yea: 0
Nay: 25
Paired: 0

Mr. Jagmeet Singh
(Burnaby South) British Columbia Nay

Singh and the NDP are scum'ish opportunistic lapdogs who say one thing and do the other to hold whatever illusion of power they have and chose to protect the Liberals over doing the right thing, no matter the consequences to this country.

[AFireInside]

Originally Posted by Firebot

The first question that popped in your head was: "Hey this Liberal MP that is compromised reportedly impeded the release of illegally detained Canadian citizens, let's see what Pierre the opposition leader did?" Care to share your reasoning and thought process?

And what are you taking about? The CPC unanimously voted yay with himself abstaining after Trudeau's concession . The motion got defeated as Trudeau already agreed to have Katie Telford testify and conceded not to make the motion a vote of confidence, allowing the NDP to vote against the motion.

Read the motion for yourself and voting

https://www.ourcommons.ca/members/en/votes/44/1/267

You can litterally see him in the commons that same day demanding a public inquiry

https://twitter.com/user/status/1638275179104161809

If you are going to question abstain votes from the opposition leader who's party voted unanimous, maybe you should focus that line of questioning to why the Liberal cabinet abstained on the Uyghur genocide vote, especially now in light of knowing that a Liberal MP interfered with the release of the two Michaels.

Then I guess he shouldn't have abstained from the vote if that's how he really felt, because it's a bad look, especially with that same global article implicating conservative MPs as well. Who said I was ok with the Liberal party abstaining on that vote? I feel exactly the same way about that, it's a bad look for the Liberal party isn't it, especially now. See, it's not all or none as much as you want it to be, I can disagree with what both parties and their leaders do.



The first thing that popped into my head when I saw the headline was that's terrible, there needs to be charges. After reading the story, it seems messy, and we need more information, that applies to Dong's story, and any MP's from any other party. Then I thought it was odd that this came out today after Pierre abstained yesterday, and that it's a bad look. It's also a bad look for the NDP, and the Liberals, all that can be true.



I know that a Liberal MP spoke with China’s consul general. That's all I know. It doesn't make sense for him to ask to delay their release, but it's certainly possible, and if accurate he needs to be charged, and a public inquiry should be done. Dong should also be removed from caucus until this is figured out, and charged if he committed crimes.

[Firebot]

I can't speak for Poilievre obviously on why he abstained, but he likely did so solely on principle that Trudeau conceded on the main request.

You can ask him and send an email if you wish

[monkeyman]

Trudeau getting screwed by a Dong.
Come on, I can’t be the only one thinking it.

[Yoho]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1638701379459108865

“ Senior U.S. administration officials confirmed Wednesday in a briefing given on the condition they not be named that Biden plans to have what is known as a “pull-aside” conversation with Poilievre.”

[JohnnyB]

When is the last time something like that happened?

[Burning Beard]

Remember the outrage over Mike Duffy?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Firebot

Remember this?

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/trud...ties-1.6291406



https://torontosun.com/opinion/colum...ections-racist



Trudeau was briefed on multiple occasions and ignored warnings, that's why the whistleblower came forward (as well as the two new ones). The cat's out of the bag.

As of right now we don't know of briefings about this new allegation yet, so to insinuate that CSIS didn't do it's job is quite a bit premature and presumptuous? CSIS cannot remove an elected official or dictate who can run on their own, as Trudeau eloquently told us a few weeks ago. CSIS would not detain or arrest Han Dong just because he had a secret meeting with a foreign diplomat as an MP.

You can bet they will wait for Trudeau to deny the new story first, and later provide info that they did brief the PMO's office. There's a reason why we are getting this piecemeal this whole time and why Trudeau was so adamant on Telford not testifying.

I’m not going to pretend that I know all of the laws regarding what CSIS can or can’t do but I imagine that our top national security agency would have more options available to them for dealing with someone, whether they are an MP or just an average everyday Canadian, who is known to them to be actively aiding a foreign nation in wrongfully detaining Canadian citizens than to just leak the information long after the fact when it happens to relate to a political hot topic.

You’re welcome to explain why you feel that that isn’t the case but can I ask that you try to do so without being so hypocritical or jumping to conclusions that you ought to know(because I don’t think you’re an idiot) that you can’t prove?

Originally Posted by Yoho

/\

/\
Check mate.

A post full of assumptions and theories that accuses me of being presumptuous while not even responding to the post being quoted is checkmate? I’m not sure I follow what you’re saying here Yoho, am I supposed to be Eminem in the gif?