Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

You’re the guy who actually believed the Sam Cooper story about Han Dong right? Poor Sam Cooper, thought he had Mark Felt as a source and he actually had Gordon Liddy, now Sam is out of a job.

Originally Posted by Firebot

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?

Originally Posted by Firebot

Was Han Dong being investigated by CSIS for foreign influence and foreign interference connections? - Check
Did Han Dong secretly (and wrongly) meet with a foreign diplomat which we only found out because CSIS had him on surveillance? Check
Did Han Dong talk about the Michaels with this diplomat? Check
Did Han Dong talk about delaying the Michaels delay? There are transcripts that are not being released, unverified at this time and cannot be corroborated by the media.

That's why it's called an allegation? That's why I called it an allegation

Originally Posted by Firebot

Again. As I stated very clearly that at this point it's an allegation, one that seems too insane to be true because of how much damage it being true would and meaning an elected Canadian MP committed treason. This is one of the allegations we do not want to be true, because it would mean our government has been compromised and irreparably damaged. You better hope that the allegations are false, as the repercussions are extremely dire if they are true.

Not sure how to read that word. All...eg...ations?

Sam Cooper being fired certainly is a bad look for the allegation being true, but it simply cannot be verified until the classified transcripts are released and viewed by someone with no appearance of conflict of interest, more reason to have a public inquiry.

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by opendoor

I have no interest in sitting through 30 minutes of him talking, but I just went to a random spot in the first 30 minutes, and within a minute or two he was flat out lying, so that doesn't bode well for the rest.

Starting around 28 minutes, he makes a big deal about comparing the money supply during COVID vs. the Global Financial Crisis. To paraphrase him, he's saying that the current government engaged in reckless "money printing", whereas the Conservative government in 2007-2010 did not do that, and instead borrowed "real money," suggesting that money creation back then was much more restrained than during COVID. Essentially he's saying that the Conservatives' restraint was why inflation didn't happen then, whereas the Liberal government's "money printing" is why it's happening now.

But of course that's demonstrably false as the money supply growth during the 3-year periods during and after the crises clearly demonstrate:

Mid-2007 to mid-2010: 34.9% was added to the money supply

March 2020 to March 2023: 30.1% was added to the money supply

So the money supply increased by more under the Conservative government in those years than it did under the Liberals during COVID.

That’s great. I like this.

What else did you debunk?

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

So far you’re not off to a great start in regards to responding to my point about not wanting to address about what good the CPC would do if elected.

I'm in nearly full agreement with their policies relating to the economy which most closely matches my fiscal conservative views. Their policies are not necessarily that different from the liberal fiscal policies outside of very notable exceptions. I see ideological actions such as all cars sold in 2035 must be EV and zero emissions as detrimental to the health of our country and as such side with a much more reasoned approach.

Social side as written in their policy? Not some, and I think the social conservative wing needs to be shot out of a cannon. But I am more concerned about the fiscal health of our country and getting rid of our current government. Liberal corruption and failures does in no way assure that I vote CPC on their own merits, if anything they have gone the wrong way.

I don’t think it’s my responsibility to justify what other people post. I stand by what I wrote about your posting. You’re free to disagree with it.

Yet you feel it's your responsibility to claim or call out I need a wake up call? Ok. I don't see it as my responsibility, I just see it as it is.

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Wager?

Nm

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Firebot

Not sure how to read that word. All...eg...ations?

Sam Cooper being fired certainly is a bad look for the allegation being true, but it simply cannot be verified until the classified transcripts are released and viewed by someone with no appearance of conflict of interest, more reason to have a public inquiry.

Originally Posted by Firebot

Man I really hate to interrupt the good old "CPC is a danger to society and must never be in power" soapbox deflection tactic that always happens whenever a discussion about a Liberal scandal gets some legs.

We have literal planted chinese agents within our government impeding the release of illegally detained Canadian citizens and our PM either enabled it or purposedly allowed it

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?

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.

That is you right, talking about planted Chinese agents and knowing that a MP interfered with the release of the Michaels. Same guy right?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

That is you right, talking about planted Chinese agents and knowing that a MP interfered with the release of the Michaels. Same guy right?

Careful, he might have to sound out some more words to crack the code on this one.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

That is you right, talking about planted Chinese agents and knowing that a MP interfered with the release of the Michaels. Same guy right?

Yes it is, it's right there and available for you, as well as my posts next to them stating of the allegations, as I eloquently quoted for you. Let's be clear, while they are allegations, nothing has been provided to prove they are false allegation, or true. Hence, allegation.

The allegation of the details of what exactly was said about the Michaels is the one part that cannot be validated without a copy of the transcripts, whereas the other parts, including the surveillance on Dong and the meeting with a diplomat, being corroborated. The reason for the contradiction in what was said are also being claimed by Dong to be Mandarin translation errors (that the words immediate and delay sound the same, they sound different enough to my ears but that's the argument). Everything else that has been reported that was not kept confidential by transcript has been corroborated to be true.


Sam Cooper likely has been fired for not validating the source evidence as he does not have access to it, but chose to report on the story and leaving Global open for a lawsuit.

Call for a public inquiry if it's assured, let's get the scoop! Let's exonerate Dong from these allegations that Sam Cooper did once and for all so he can go on with his defamation case.

I'm all for it, are you?

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by Firebot

Sam Cooper likely has been fired for not validating the source evidence as he does not have access to it, but chose to report on the story and leaving Global open for a lawsuit.

I doubt he was fired for not properly validating sources. Stories like that are vetted through many layers of the organization, so there are a lot of people at global who signed off on it before it went to print. It's on Global, not one reporter.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Firebot

Yes it is, it's right there and available for you, as well as my posts next to them stating of the allegations, as I eloquently quoted for you. Let's be clear, while they are allegations, nothing has been provided to prove they are false allegation, or true. Hence, allegation.

The allegation of the details of what exactly was said about the Michaels is the one part that cannot be validated without a copy of the transcripts, whereas the other parts, including the surveillance on Dong and the meeting with a diplomat, being corroborated. The reason for the contradiction in what was said are also being claimed by Dong to be Mandarin translation errors (that the words immediate and delay sound the same, they sound different enough to my ears but that's the argument). Everything else that has been reported that was not kept confidential by transcript has been corroborated to be true.


Sam Cooper likely has been fired for not validating the source evidence as he does not have access to it, but chose to report on the story and leaving Global open for a lawsuit.

Call for a public inquiry if it's assured, let's get the scoop! Let's exonerate Dong from these allegations that Sam Cooper did once and for all so he can go on with his defamation case.

I'm all for it, are you?

Why do you think a public inquiry will get a scoop? From the sounds of it, almost all of the evidence is going to be classified to the point where it won't be available to the public - and since it is sitting in the Johnston report, why doesn't PP just read the report and get to the truth himself?

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by Firebot

Yes it is, it's right there and available for you, as well as my posts next to them stating of the allegations, as I eloquently quoted for you. Let's be clear, while they are allegations, nothing has been provided to prove they are false allegation, or true. Hence, allegation.

The allegation of the details of what exactly was said about the Michaels is the one part that cannot be validated without a copy of the transcripts, whereas the other parts, including the surveillance on Dong and the meeting with a diplomat, being corroborated. The reason for the contradiction in what was said are also being claimed by Dong to be Mandarin translation errors (that the words immediate and delay sound the same, they sound different enough to my ears but that's the argument). Everything else that has been reported that was not kept confidential by transcript has been corroborated to be true.


Sam Cooper likely has been fired for not validating the source evidence as he does not have access to it, but chose to report on the story and leaving Global open for a lawsuit.

Call for a public inquiry if it's assured, let's get the scoop! Let's exonerate Dong from these allegations that Sam Cooper did once and for all so he can go on with his defamation case.

I'm all for it, are you?

I would think someone who is so conscious of the use of the word 'alleged' would be more conscious of the use of the word 'literal'.

Also, none of the other stuff is any evidence of wrongdoing.

Your posts show a pretty strong bias towards presumption of guilt without having any evidence. Why is that?

You're even implying judgment about the words used in a conversation that none of us have heard or seen a transcript of.

Really, posts such as those you have made that veer pretty far towards slander and misinformation based on Global's reporting are great examples of why it was irresponsible of Global to run a story alleging very serious wrongdoing without validating evidence of any wrongdoing.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by belsarius

Why do you think a public inquiry will get a scoop? From the sounds of it, almost all of the evidence is going to be classified to the point where it won't be available to the public - and since it is sitting in the Johnston report, why doesn't PP just read the report and get to the truth himself?

You changed the toast . Public inquiries will redact any highly confidential info that is required to protect confidential sources but will still allow the inquiry to go ahead, as can be seen in many public inquiries resolving national security such as Arar and the Air India Bombing.

https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/206/30...rt1-chapt1.pdf

https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/206/30...AR_English.pdf

The Johnston report is tainted and has credibility issues. Dong himself was never interviewed yet was exonerated with a 'trust the Johnston' on what the report showed, and as has been shown, Johnston seems to have conflicting firm choices and conflicting interests.

Why is Johnston suddenly no longer using Navigator (controversial as a choice in its own) as soon as it was revealed that Dong has been using their services as well?

https://twitter.com/user/status/1666867280284614661

[Doctorfever]

https://torontosun.com/opinion/colum...ck-to-bite-him

Opinion column. Important facts about interest rates and our debt.




“Since taking office, the Trudeau Liberals have increased spending by 55% from $317 billion in 2016 to $490 billion now. The federal deficit went from $29 billion then to $40 billion now and the debt has risen from $648 billion to $1.2 trillion.

And the cost to service the debt, it’s gone from $$25.7 billion in 2016 to $43.9 billion now, and that cost is only going to keep rising.

When Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre called for the Trudeau government to rein in spending this week, to help slow the growth of inflation, Trudeau scoffed. He accused the Conservatives of not backing COVID supports for Canadians – a lie, they voted for them – or of wanting Canadians to go without key programs like dental care, the new national child care program or an expanded tool rebate for skilled trades.

All of this is nonsense, these programs are not the cause of Trudeau’s massive spending increases, which banks and even former Liberal finance minister John Manley have said are contributing to inflation.”

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Firebot

You changed the toast . Public inquiries will redact any highly confidential info that is required to protect confidential sources but will still allow the inquiry to go ahead, as can be seen in many public inquiries resolving national security such as Arar and the Air India Bombing.

https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/206/30...rt1-chapt1.pdf

https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/206/30...AR_English.pdf

The Johnston report is tainted and has credibility issues. Dong himself was never interviewed yet was exonerated with a 'trust the Johnston' on what the report showed, and as has been shown, Johnston seems to have conflicting firm choices and conflicting interests.

Why is Johnston suddenly no longer using Navigator (controversial as a choice in its own) as soon as it was revealed that Dong has been using their services as well?

https://twitter.com/user/status/1666867280284614661

The Toast is back! My man Karl was more of a temporary joke in another thread...

I agree that there will be some more information that can be brought to light with the inquiry, I just doubt the "wow" or "scoop" factor of it. I think any of that is going to be so heavily redacted that the public still won't view any of it, and again we are left trusting those with clearance.

Even with the appareance of a conflict, I still don't have a lot of issues with Johnston's report because it isn't left on it's own, and is to be reviewed by others. So I don't trust any of it to "trust the Johnston"; I trust that it was done correctly but expect it to be reviewed an audited to ensure the conclusions were based on solid evidence and facts.

"all the documents that were provided to me should be provided to NSICOP and NSIRA for them to review comprehensively and identify any different conclusions than mine"

"I also recommend that the leaders of the three opposition parties seek Top Secret security clearances so that they can review the confidential annex and observe NSICOP’s proceedings."

So while I agree he was a poor choice due to the appearance of conflict, to think that someone of his integrity would risk it all for the current government is a big stretch for me. He also openly asked to have his conclusions reviewed by non-partisan committees.

I really can't comment on the requirement of actually talking to Dong because I don't have access to the evidence he is reviewing. It could very well be the case that the interview is unnecessary based on the classified information he is seeing.

What irks me the most is the refusal of the Bloc or the CPC to take the opportunity to review the work. The last I heard is that Singh is reviewing it as long as he has assurances he can still opine on it.

So I have a hard time taking PP or Bouchard seriously because they aren't even taking the time to review the findings to dispute, they are just banging on the conflict drum. If they reviewed and came back saying they disagreed and that the conclusions demonstrated Johnston reviewing in a partisan matter, they yeah something needs to be done. But instead of actually looking at it we just have continued political theatre.

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by belsarius

The last I heard is that Singh is reviewing it as long as he has assurances he can still opine on it.

Where did you hear this?

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

Where did you hear this?

'Appearance of bias' undermines special rapporteur's mission, Singh says

Poilievre has refused to be cleared to see the confidential portion of Johnston's first report, but Singh says he would like to view the documents.

He told Barton that the exact timeline for that was still not clear, adding he was awaiting written guarantees — he said he had received verbal assurances — that he would still be able to opine on the government's response to the issue.

[Yoho]

He quits fake job.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1667282763957825542

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Yoho

He quits fake job.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1667282763957825542

How does one resign from a fake job?

[OldDutch]

Wow this has played out exactly like all other Liberal scandals. Limp and biased oversight until even you pals tell you to stop (NDP). Now to the next step Prorogue parliament, oh their ready for their two months summer vacation anyways? Convenient!

“Thanks David for stalling er serving us. Oh and don’t worry they hated my Dad too at one point, but well get some flattering CBC docs queued up to change the silly publics opinion!” - your pal JT

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by belsarius

'Appearance of bias' undermines special rapporteur's mission, Singh says

Thank you for the response. I guess we should wait to see if Singh gets a written assurance before we continue to call it “theatre”

[chemgear]

You can't fire me for corruption, I quit!

(Thanks for the money though. AND I'll even do some more "work" for the next guy for more.)