In the least surprising news coming out of the report from Harper’s Governor General, Han Dong was exonerated. When the actual transcripts were read everything in the Global News story was bull####. Looking forward to the defamation trial.
The power of the Liberal party is something to behold. Apparently they can turn a Governor General appointed by Harper and a Supreme Court Justice (and Deputy Attorney General) appointed by Mulroney into Liberal partisan hacks who'll sewer their own reputations to cover up treason.
Or maybe the most likely explanation is correct. CSIS is poorly run, the government has done a bad job of handling and disseminating intelligence, and sloppy reporters got ahead of themselves and believed everything a couple of sources with axes to grind told them without properly verifying the details.
The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to opendoor For This Useful Post:
In the least surprising news coming out of the report from Harper’s Governor General, Han Dong was exonerated. When the actual transcripts were read everything in the Global News story was bull####. Looking forward to the defamation trial.
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor
The power of the Liberal party is something to behold. Apparently they can turn a Governor General appointed by Harper and a Supreme Court Justice (and Deputy Attorney General) appointed by Mulroney into Liberal partisan hacks who'll sewer their own reputations to cover up treason.
The saddest fallacy that has come out of this whole debacle, is the incessant need to mention that Johnston was once a Harper appointed selection as if it is somehow news, and as if it somehow absolves Trudeau of selecting a close family friend for a report that investigates the PMO. It's taking whataboutism to a new level.
If anything it proves to us that Harper selected non-partisan choices over partisan choices. It does not prove anything else. Johnston was a qualified governor general and a solid choice.
Him being a solid choice for a governor has little relevance to if he was a solid choice as a special rapporteur. Removing politics and conflict, Johnston would have been a solid choice
The question was never that Johnston could not do the job, the question has always been that his report would always be seen as biased, precisely due to his close relationship with the Trudeau family. This is an instance, that he should have recused himself due to perceived conflict of interest and he would have gained upmost respect from all parties.
Unfortunately, the report came back with major holes and flaws and irregularities that are too big to dismiss, which only points to grave incompetence or deliberate political hackery, and Johnston has not shown to be incompetent in the past.
Case and point, not a single time was the Trudeau Foundation mentioned in the report, despite it being the focal point of the beginning of a series of foreign interference link and its whole board quitting en masse.
Another case and point, Johnston chooses to mention O'Toole 9 times and making accusations of his actions, yet not a single mention of O'Toole being interviewed (as the report was already written by the time of the interview).
CTV, National Post, Toronto Star, Globe and Mail, even the CBC have all spoken quite critically of the Johnston report both due to its significant flaws and perceived conflict of interest. Is the media now the Liberal and the left's enemy with the way the left (well notably Liberals) has been critical of media and journalism of late?
Experts say that Johnston's own words, and the words of the prime minister, indicate Johnston was most likely in a conflict of interest — even if there's no way to determine if his report was biased as a result.
"So even if we say that David Johnston was in a conflict of interest, we're not suggesting anything about his integrity or about his capacity to rise above those interests," Andrew Stark, a professor of political science at the University of Toronto, told CBC News.
"We're simply saying there was an encumbrance that existed and perhaps you shouldn't have been the person to do this job."
Duff Conacher, co-founder of Democracy Watch, has asked the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to probe Trudeau's decision to hire Johnston after the two had publicly stated their friendship in the past.
At some point during that media release of his “special rapporteur” report on the merits of holding a public inquiry into foreign interference in recent elections, former governor general David Johnston must’ve realized he’d been had by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
Every major media outlet has criticized the report in some way, likely because it attempted to discredit and undermine fellow journalists and media sources in the report. Johnston is being absolutely roasted on all sides for doing his pal a solid.
But, hey he was appointed by Harper for a job once. Nothing else matters.
Last edited by Firebot; 05-26-2023 at 10:21 PM.
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Firebot For This Useful Post:
The power of the Liberal party is something to behold. Apparently they can turn a Governor General appointed by Harper and a Supreme Court Justice (and Deputy Attorney General) appointed by Mulroney into Liberal partisan hacks who'll sewer their own reputations to cover up treason.
Or maybe the most likely explanation is correct. CSIS is poorly run, the government has done a bad job of handling and disseminating intelligence, and sloppy reporters got ahead of themselves and believed everything a couple of sources with axes to grind told them without properly verifying the details.
See, here is a perfect example of how most people don’t understand ethics.
You have a fairly well informed, science based poster, that has limited understanding that the perception of conflict is conflict.
The fact the two of them are associated with a foundation run by Trudeau is conflict reality or not. It disqualifies them. You need zero intersection between the accused party and the judges.
I have to sit through ethics training every year at work. I roll my eyes we have to take it. I feel I get it. Yet I read this and now I get why they make it mandatory
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to OldDutch For This Useful Post:
Canada’s spy agency has informed former Conservative leader Erin O’Toole that he was targeted by Beijing during his time as party chief and remains a target because of his criticism of the Chinese Communist Party.
A source close to Mr. O’Toole said the Conservative MP was briefed Friday by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and he is still considering how best to reveal details to the public in a manner that balances Canadians’ right to know with national-security concerns about classified information.
The Globe and Mail is not naming the source because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.
Mr. O’Toole is the second MP to learn in recent weeks that they or their family were targeted by the Chinese government.
As The Globe first reported earlier this month, another Conservative MP, Michael Chong, and his family were targeted by the Chinese government after he spearheaded a parliamentary motion in 2021 declaring China’s repression of Uyghurs to constitute genocide. Other Western legislatures later echoed Canada’s condemnation of Beijing’s treatment of Muslim minorities by making similar declarations.
There is no indication so far that Mr. O’Toole’s family was targeted, the source said. For much of his time as opposition leader, Mr. O’Toole’s sister lived in Hong Kong with her husband, who worked as a senior test pilot with Cathay Pacific. The couple were in Hong Kong for roughly a decade.
Mr. O’Toole led the Conservative Party through the 2021 federal election. In previous interviews with Canadian media, he has alleged that the party lost up to nine seats in that election because of Chinese interference.
The Conservative Party’s platform in the 2021 election included several policies that were critical of China, including the promise of a foreign-agents registry that would require individuals and companies acting as agents of foreign powers to register. The Conservatives also pledged to withdraw from the China-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, ban Huawei from Canada’s 5G infrastructure and further investigate the company’s role in providing surveillance capabilities used against the Uyghur people and other persecuted minorities in China.
The Globe reported May 1 that a July, 2021, intelligence assessment by CSIS found China’s intelligence service, the Ministry of State Security (MSS), “has taken specific actions to target Canadian MPs” linked to the parliamentary motion condemning Beijing’s oppression of Uyghurs and other Turkic minorities. The spy agency said an MSS officer sought information on an unnamed Canadian MP’s relatives “who may be located in the PRC [People’s Republic of China], for further potential sanctions.”
A national-security source told The Globe that the MP in question was Mr. Chong, who has relatives in Hong Kong. The source also said Zhao Wei, a diplomat in China’s Toronto consulate, worked on the matter.
That warning was never passed on to Mr. Chong until The Globe reported on it. CSIS director David Vigneault later confirmed to Mr. Chong that he was targeted and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government ultimately expelled Mr. Zhao.
Former governor-general David Johnston this week identified a major intelligence communication breakdown in the government’s failure to alert Mr. Chong back in 2021 of the evidence gathered by CSIS that the Chinese government was targeting him.
In an interim report on foreign interference, Mr. Johnston said he learned that CSIS sent a note to then-minister of public safety Bill Blair, the minister’s chief of staff and his deputy minister in May, 2021, alerting them of intelligence “indicating the PRC intended to target Mr. Chong, another [unidentified] MP and their family in China.”
But, Mr. Johnston said, neither the minister nor his chief of staff received this note and neither have access to the top-secret e-mail network on which the message was sent.
“This is certainly the most prominent, but not the only, example of poor information flow and processing between agencies, the public service and ministers,” Mr. Johnston wrote.
It’s not clear whether Mr. O’Toole is the unidentified MP noted by Mr. Johnston in correspondence from CSIS to Mr. Blair’s office.
Mr. Trudeau said this week he will not call an independent public inquiry into Chinese interference in Canadian politics after Mr. Johnston recommended against one.
Mr. Johnston, who was asked by Mr. Trudeau in March to lead an investigation into foreign meddling in the 2019 and 2021 elections, said in his report tabled Tuesday that such interference is an “increasing threat to our democratic system,” and China is “particularly active.”
He concluded, however, that because intelligence about Beijing’s activities is highly classified, it could never be openly discussed with Canadians in a public inquiry.
The Globe sought comment from CSIS but it did not offer an immediate response.
A spokesperson for the Chinese Embassy denied China was conducting foreign interference in Canada.
“We never interfere in Canada’s internal affairs, including its election process, and have no interests whatsoever in doing so,” Jianwei Li said in an emailed statement.
The embassy spokesperson accused Canadian media and politicians of fabricating “disinformation to smear China” and warned this is damaging Canada-China relations.
The Following User Says Thank You to zamler For This Useful Post:
The report was always going to be in question, not just based on the conflicts of interest.
Not just because the judge that Johnston asked if it was conflict was a fellow member of the Trudeau Foundation, but also the lead council for SNC Lavalin. Not because the lawyer that assisted him was a heavy donor to the Liberal Party.
But because of the mechanics and perceived mechanics of the whole report. The Liberal's basically decided what documents would be given to Johnston.
That Johnston interviewed a central figure in O'Toole after the report was sent out for translation and printing.
Also it appears that it didn't look at things like the funding to the foundation. That it ignore several incidences that had been bought up by the press. That Johnston and Trudeau heavily down played their links to each other after the backlash on the reports.
That Johnston recommend that he continue to work on this in terms of overseeing the hearings that have become highly flawed in terms of fillibustering, voting to shut down in other hearings.
The Liberals needed this report to come out and be bulletproof, beyond reproach and have not a whiff of partisan instance.
They didn't do this, and now Johnston's reputation is in tatters. A new and deadly story around political interference with O'Toole has come out just after the fact.
I do believe that this dirty laundry needs to be aired out in a public inquiry. I also believe that all the tracking documents linked to briefings that went to Ministers needs to be released, these tracking documents are not classified, and will tell us who got briefed and who got documents.
I would love to know what the rank and file Liberal's not named Mendicino, Blair, Joly, Trudeau, Telford and Freeland are thinking right now.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
Unfortunately for Aarongavey it seems that not only is Global News and Globe and Mail not backing out because of Trudeau's ski buddy's report (see how we can play the game, except this statement is actually cause for conflict of interest?) smeared the journalistic work done by both media news organizations, but they are both doubling down and reporting on newly leaked CSIS information that has targeted the leader of a party that could have become our PM. It's become clear that both media sources are united in fighting back against the corruption within our government.
Both Global News and Globe and Mail have now reported on the O'Toole being a target of China, both on a weekend while parliament is in recess, with newfound information that seemingly Johnston failed to find out about, or stumbled upon it and failed to divulge. We know that there was one unnamed MP that was also targeted based on Johnston's report, but was Johnston hiding that O'Toole was that target?
O'Toole certainly did not know he was targeted and only found out on Friday.
So this means that both Global News and Globe and Mail have access to the same source (why may be completely different from all prior leaks as well).
Clearly this is not over, it will not be over just because a few apologists here want to deflect. For those who have been shameless liberal apologists here, how do you defend Johnston's credibility and competence if he failed to report that O'Toole was being targeted as well? This further cements the need for a full public inquiry.
Last edited by Firebot; 05-27-2023 at 07:19 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Firebot For This Useful Post:
Unfortunately for Aarongavey it seems that not only is Global News and Globe and Mail not backing out because of Trudeau's ski buddy's report (see how we can play the game, except this statement is actually cause for conflict of interest?) smeared the journalistic work done by both media news organizations, but they are both doubling down and reporting on newly leaked CSIS information that has targeted the leader of a party that could have become our PM. It's become clear that both media sources are united in fighting back against the corruption within our government.
Both Global News and Globe and Mail have now reported on the O'Toole being a target of China, both on a weekend while parliament is in recess, with newfound information that seemingly Johnston failed to find out about, or stumbled upon it and failed to divulge. We know that there was one unnamed MP that was also targeted based on Johnston's report, but was Johnston hiding that O'Toole was that target?
O'Toole certainly did not know he was targeted and only found out on Friday.
So this means that both Global News and Globe and Mail have access to the same source (why may be completely different from all prior leaks as well).
Clearly this is not over, it will not be over just because a few apologists here want to deflect. For those who have been shameless liberal apologists here, how do you defend Johnston's credibility and competence if he failed to report that O'Toole was being targeted as well? This further cements the need for a full public inquiry.
Isn't this news from O'Toole's camp? Why are you talking like it's another CSIS leak? O'Toole was briefed on Friday and then his camp told the media later that day.
And I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that the report said only one other MP was targeted. From the report:
Quote:
There are indications that PRC officials contemplated action directed at both Chinese-Canadian MPs and their family members in China, and sought to build profiles on others. This includes Mr. Chong in both cases. There is no intelligence indicating that the PRC took steps to threaten his family. There is intelligence indicating they were looking for information.
Unless you're thinking the "both" refers to only 2 MPs? It doesn't; it refers to MPs as well as their families.
And obviously CSIS is going to brief the individuals directly, rather than Johnston rattling off a list of MPs in a report, so I don't find it odd that O'Toole wasn't mentioned by name. Chong's involvement was already revealed by the media, so that's why he was the only one mentioned by name. The real issue is that CSIS (and potentially the current government) didn't inform him 2 years ago, but then that also depends on what "targeted" or "build profiles" mean.
The Following User Says Thank You to opendoor For This Useful Post:
But what exactly is the downside of a public inquiry? We all know that foreign interference in elections is a real thing and a very serious problem, so why not have an open discussion about how it might have happened in the past and how we can try to prevent it?
Don’t get me wrong, I get that Poilievre will try to use any inquiry as a political football, and that will be very annoying. But it doesn’t make a public inquiry a bad idea, does it?
I'm not super informed on this, so am prepared to accept I may have it wrong. Just wondering what I’m missing here.
But what exactly is the downside of a public inquiry? We all know that foreign interference in elections is a real thing and a very serious problem, so why not have an open discussion about how it might have happened in the past and how we can try to prevent it?
Don’t get me wrong, I get that Poilievre will try to use any inquiry as a political football, and that will be very annoying. But it doesn’t make a public inquiry a bad idea, does it?
I'm not super informed on this, so am prepared to accept I may have it wrong. Just wondering what I’m missing here.
Depends on who you're talking about. For the public? None, really (other than the expense I guess).
For the Liberals, it'd probably make them look incompetent, because there are clearly internal issues with how intelligence is getting handled by the government and it's pretty obvious that the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. It's also possible there's legitimate corruption going on, but I think the evidence for that is pretty weak at this point (that doesn't mean it's not happening though). And frankly, I doubt any government (particularly one that has been in power that long) wants their record scrutinized all that heavily.
For CSIS, it could raise issues in public that they'd rather not. For one, it makes them look like amateurs. And anything aired in public is also going to be heard by the countries that are interfering, which may guide their methods (i.e. if everything is exposed publicly, then they'll have a better idea of what is and isn't being detected).
And it's also not even clear where this intelligence is coming from. It's plausible that some of it is from other agencies/partners (CIA, Five Eyes, etc.), and the details of that aren't exactly something anyone wants aired in public. And related to that, when we're talking about heavily classified information, most of it can't even be dealt with transparently; we'd just have to take the word of people with security clearance to view it, so much of the "public" inquiry would have to be done in camera.
And there's also the question of whether it'd actually do anything. I don't think the public inquiry into the Emergencies Act changed anyone's mind. The people who thought it was justified had their opinions reaffirmed and the people who thought it was an overreach kept bringing up Commissioner Rouleau's ties to the Liberal party, and some misinformation about him being Trudeau's uncle even spread online.
None of those are really sufficient reasons to not have a public inquiry, so on the balance it probably makes sense to have one. But at the same time, are we going to have a public inquiry every time a couple of CSIS employees leak some intelligence (some of which is apparently false and/or misleading) to reporters?
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.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to opendoor For This Useful Post:
Isn't this news from O'Toole's camp? Why are you talking like it's another CSIS leak? O'Toole was briefed on Friday and then his camp told the media later that day.
And I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that the report said only one other MP was targeted. From the report:
Unless you're thinking the "both" refers to only 2 MPs? It doesn't; it refers to MPs as well as their families.
I am talking about this which was also reported by Global News. Seriously, you are deliberately showing a particularly naïve and uninspired partisan stance here unlike you.
In addition to the memorandum in question, CSIS sent an issues management note (IMU) to the then Minister of Public Safety, his Chief of Staff, and his Deputy Minister in May 2021, noting that there was intelligence that the PRC intended to target Mr. Chong, another MP, and their family in China (if any). It indicated that CSIS intended to provide Mr. Chong and the other MP with a defensive briefing.
As for the source, this is verbatim what is reported.
Quote:
China targeted former Conservative leader Erin O’Toole during his 2021 election campaign, a source close to the sitting MP alleged to Global News.
O’Toole was briefed Friday by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) on the matter, according to the source, who Global News is not naming as they are not authorized to speak publicly on the matter.
Whether that source is a buddy of O'Toole, a CSIS operative, or a fellow MP is not stated at all. What we do not however is that CSIS briefed O'Toole on Friday, after the David Johnston Report, that he was a target in the past and present.
Regardless of how you want to deflect the news, CSIS (whether officially or through a leak) has briefed O'Toole of being targeted on Friday, a shocking revelation that either Johnston deliberately omitted or missed due to gross incompetence. Whether the argument, it's quite clear that CSIS, regardless of the leak, is working contrary to Liberal government wishes if it divulged such a shocking revelation days after the report and at the start of a weekend.
How can you accept his report for face value when it failed to identify a potential PM candidate as target of foreign interference?
