Since I’m somewhat tardy on posting my own , in frequent at this time , artistic endeavors , I’ve added others to contribute to the content …
I’ll choose the one’s that have both ‘ artistic merit ‘ and also a good ‘ wit ‘ to their inspiration … The inaugural pic is a political cartoon from Mike Harris .. I believe I’ve posted one or two of his before , so I’ll keep an eye out for more in the future …
‘ The whine list ‘ is a nice touch !
After all the distractions and red herrings , after all the character assassination and speculation about motives , after all the attempts to blur distinctions that are crystal clear or to twist words to mean their opposite , after all the desperate attempts to keep her from testifying , after all the lies , Jody Wilson-Raybould has brought things crashing back to reality.
Her brief to the Commons justice committee — the committee that had refused to allow her right of reply , after her earlier testimony had been challenged by government witnesses — is a stinging rebuke, not only to her critics within the government , but to the many partisans and media commentators who have allowed themselves to lose sight of the central issue in the SNC-Lavalin affair : the attempts , involving officials from the prime minister on down , to interfere in a criminal prosecution for political reasons , in violation of the independence of both the attorney general and the director of public prosecutions.
The headlines will be about the former attorney general’s recording of a telephone conversation last Dec. 19 between her and the then clerk of the Privy Council , Michael Wernick. The tape backs up in minute detail her previous accusations that the clerk — like the prime minister , like his former principal secretary , Gerald Butts , his chief of staff , Katie Telford , and a half a dozen other senior government officials — improperly pressured her to reverse her decision not to intervene with prosecutors in the case.
In particular , it makes hash of his denials that he made “ veiled threats ” that she would be removed from her job if she did not instruct the director of public prosecutions to drop charges of corruption and fraud against the company in favour of a so-called “ remediation agreement ”.
The language is not even all that veiled :
“ I think he is gonna find a way to get it done one way or another … he is in that kinda mood and I wanted you to be aware of that … he is in a pretty firm frame of mind about this so … I am a bit worried … It is not a good idea for the Prime Minister and his Attorney General to be at loggerheads.”
Neither can he claim to have been unaware she felt pressured to decide things the prime minister’s way , and that this amounted to “ political interference ”.
She makes clear at multiple points in the conversation :
That it and previous conversations with the prime minister and “ many other people ” were “ entirely inappropriate ” , that she was “ uncomfortable having this conversation ”, that she was “ issuing the strongest warning I can possibly issue ” against interfering with decisions by the DPP , that “ we are treading on dangerous ground ” that “ there is no way that anybody would interpret this other than interference ”…
Her brief also provides new details of a meeting the previous day between her chief of staff , Jessica Prince , and Butts and Telford , though alas without the benefit of tape recordings : j
Just Prince’s contemporaneous account , relayed to her , first via text message , later by phone. Not only are there the lines quoted previously ( Butts : “ Jess , there is no solution here that doesn’t involve some interference ” ; Telford : “ We don’t want to debate legalities any more.” ) , but further evidence of Butts’s dismissive attitude towards the independence of the DPP.
Prince reports :
“ They clearly do not care about the ( Public Prosecution Service of Canada ) Gerry kept talking about how it was created by Harper. I was like ‘ sure but it is what we have and we have to respect the statute ’ No scruples ”…
“ My COS asked what if the opinion comes saying ‘ She can review it , but she shouldn’t’ or simply , ‘ She can’t review it ’ end of story ? Mr. Butts stated ‘ It wouldn’t say that ’ ”…
But all of this is mere detail. What is at stake in this affair remains , as Wilson-Raybould reminds the committee, nothing less than “ the core principle of prosecutorial independence — a principle that at times appears to have been obscured by layers of commentary , hyperbole , and spin ” It is not , she says “ about how things are ‘ experienced ’… Caucus dynamics , political ambitions , poll numbers , ‘ erosion of trust ’ or the role of social media.”
Worse yet are the facile rationalizations for interfering the prime minister’s officials have offered — among them , that “ prosecutorial decisions are never final ” ( that’s true , as a prerogative of prosecutors , NOT as a pretext for endless importuning of them by political staff ) or that the attorney general is entitled to seek advice ( to seek it , NOT to have it IMPOSED upon her ), or that there were “ new facts or evidence ” that somehow justified their actions ( there was none , Wilson-Raybould says ).
There is no “ middle ground ” on prosecutorial independence , no room for argument on the right of the attorney general to make decisions on criminal prosecutions , free of pressure from other government officials … It is settled constitutional law , absolute and inviolable. It doesn’t matter what good reasons the prime minister might think he has.
I note here , at this point , this article left out the fact that the Minister of Finance , Bill Morneau , chimed in with some pressure as well , stating ramifications for a ( then ) upcoming KBec provincial election … I also note , Bill’s apparent ‘ net worth ‘ is 50 million … As opposed to Jody’ relatively paltry 100k – 1 million … They’re not sure and looking into that … Because she’s never been considered rich !!! …
Nor is the AG obliged to keep him ( Junior or anyone else on his staff , PMO or other Cabinet Ministers ) apprised of her decisions in such matters (though she did). It’s quite literally none of his business.
I am going to investigate what a 38 year tenure in the government bureaucracy nets ya in the old ‘ Golden Handshake ‘ department … The tape of this phone conversation should negate any chance of cashin’ in on that right off the bat !!! …
THEN !!! … Decide if you’re gonna put Mikey in the the same cell block as Gerry and Junior !!! …
Finance Minister Vic Fedeli insists it is ” premature ” to say Queen’s Park will be on the hook for $100 million in financial penalties if the government expands beer and wine sales to convenience stores.
In his first comments since the Star revealed the potential price tag of breaking a 10-year accord with the Beer Store , Fedeli said Friday that negotiations are only just beginning.
” We are going to be putting beer and wine in corner stores. For anyone to suggest a price tag is awfully premature ” he told Moore in the Morning on Newstalk 1010.
When pressed by guest host Dave Trafford about cost of breaching the master framework agreement the province signed in 2015 , Fedeli bristled.
” I’m not suggesting that there is a liability. Any number that anyone has put out there is premature. We’re going to negotiate in good faith — certainly not through the media ” the treasurer said.
” The issue is Quebec has 8,000 retail stores selling beverage alcohol. In Ontario , we have the lowest density , we have less than 3,000 in place that do that. It’s a campaign commitment. People asked for it.”
Under the deal the province inked with the Beer Store — the 450-outlet retailer mostly owned by the parent companies of Labatt, Molson, and Sleeman — $100 million was invested on capital improvements.
As part of the agreement that money had to be invested in the first four years of the pact meaning the brewers have already made the investment.
” The Beer Store , Labatt , Molson , and Sleeman would all have contract and tort claims against the government , as well as ministers and other government officials involved in breaching the master framework agreement ” said a source, speaking on condition of anonymity in order to discuss internal deliberations.
I’m all for this … However , one must give credit to the Brewers and the Beer Store ( previously the Brewers Retail , for us old farts ! ) … For a mASSIVE recycling operation … These grocery and convenience stores should be obligated to function with that recycling portion of the market … If I have 16 -20 empty cans I purchased at Forinos or Walmart , they have MY money for the deposit , they should be responsible for the recyle and refund of that deposit …
I would imagine , as this sort of ‘ opening up ‘ of the distribution of wine an beer … And who’s kiddin’ who ! … Liquor will eventually join the fray … It’s inevitable !!! … These outlets will have to expand their operation and staff to accommodate it … And I’m sure the grocery and convenience stores , by virtue of outnumbering the Beer Stores by , easily 10 to one , would reduce greatly the traffic thru those brewery owned assets …
I long ago figured … Why not , as you have McDonalds in Walmarts and such … Why not employ the workers at The Beers Store to basically have a outlet at the big stores and you can cash out there , or cash out with the rest of your groceries … The corner stores won’t be selling 24s , take up too much space …
The IPO represents a watershed moment for ride hailing , an industry hatched from the rise of smartphones. Now that both Lyft and Uber have made it easy to summon a ride on a mobile app, more people are already starting to wonder if owning their own cars will make sense in the future.
Lyft has been gaining ground on Uber in the past two years , which enabled it to double its revenue last year to US$2.2 billion — the kind of growth that tends to wow investors.
The company’s U.S. market share has expanded from 22 per cent in 2016 to 39 per cent last year as Uber slogged through revelations about rampant internal sexual harassment claims , allegations that it stole self-driving technology and other mortifying issues , prompting a consumer backlash.
Meanwhile , Lyft parlayed a warm and fuzzy image that it used to cultivate by adorning drivers’ cars with a fluffy pink moustache to position its brand as the more socially responsible of the two ride-hailing rivals.
Despite Lyft’s recent inroad , there is still no guarantee the company will become profitable — a risk flagged in its own regulatory filings leading up to the IPO. Developing autonomous vehicles is key to reducing driver costs , and Lyft is behind competitors such as Google spin-off Waymo , which has begun testing a ride-hailing service using its robotic minivans in the Phoenix area.
Cutting costs by reducing pay to drivers also could prove difficult , a challenge underscored by protests staged earlier this week over wages that drivers complain already are too low.
Lyft’s co-founders Logan Green and John Zimmer have structured the shares so that together they will hold 49 per cent of the voting power , enough to substantially influence major decisions.
Lyft has focused on its mission of getting people to give up their personal cars in favour of ride-hailing , shared bikes and scooters, and has remained in North America. By contrast , Uber has expanded overseas and recently bought Careem , a major rival in the Middle East , while experimenting with food delivery , boats and freight operations.
It’s become increasingly common for unprofitable tech companies to go public , and the percentage of money-losing tech companies that entered the market in 2018 rivals 2000 , when the dot-com bubble burst , according to data from Jay Ritter , finance professor at the University of Florida. Some , like Amazon , which took several years to turn a profit after its IPO turned into great bets for early investors.
So let’s get this straight … One can piss around for several years gettin’ in the hole for millions … OR EVEN BILLIONS … Go ‘ Public ‘ … And now you have big bucks ?!!! …
Source: Lyft shares are going crazy in market debut | Financial Post
Haven’t heard from Rex in a while …
Of course the whole buzzing hive of the dementedly anti-Trump press not only received those charges, and gave them air and headline, but because the allegations gave fresh oxygen to their calumnies against Trump, they — the stalwart guardians of the First Amendment, the press — upgraded Avenatti in a flash to Truth-teller, warrior-priest against the dark lord of the Trump Tower.
Kavanaugh’s spotless reputation — to hell with that. The mortification of his wife and children — who cares? The truth? Hey, we might bring down Trump, what’s truth if it impedes the takedown?
The “bloated Dunciad” of the mass media (I owe the phrase to my comrade columnist Conrad Black, a lighthouse in a tempest) bestowed on Avenatti the prestige of their attention. In numberless interviews they tried to pawn off this conniving wretch as a realistic presidential candidate for 2020. Avenatti ran a presidential exploratory campaign! “Oh, Judgment, thou art fled to brutish beasts, and men have lost their reason.”
Well, despite the swells and heavy waves from Justin Trudeau’s ever-expanding SNC-Lavalin woes, the news floated north last week that Avenatti had been arrested, in two separate cases, for allegedly trying to extort more than $25 million from Nike Inc., embezzling money from a client and defrauding a bank.
Even his more infamous client, the carnal exhibitionist with the cartoon name, Stormy Daniels, was heard keening a lament of crusader Avenatti’s lies, libels and license.
CNN, which some grey hairs may remember as a news network, gave this craven mountebank 65 full appearances to peddle his slanders and burnish his “credentials” — when even a single appearance would have been a journalistic depravity beyond the repair of contrition and penance.
I float all this as preface and prelude, merely to indicate by one specific egregious illustration the far vaster dereliction of huge swathes of the fourth estate over the past two to three years. In their relentlessly ill-headed, turbulently biased, and in some cases straightforward malevolent coverage of Donald Trump in the so-called Russian collusion case, they abandoned principle, journalistic ethics, and in some cases, rationality.
Donald Trump did not collude, conspire or co-ordinate with the Russians in the 2016 presidential election. Full stop. Nor did his campaign or anyone associated with him or the campaign. Full stop.
The country’s top bureaucrat warned Jody Wilson-Raybould that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was ” quite determined ” to prevent SNC-Lavalin’s criminal trial from leading to job losses — and wanted to know why the then-justice minister hadn’t used a new legal tool to allow the company to avoid a criminal trial.
A recording made by Wilson-Raybould of a 17-minute Dec. 19 call between herself and Privy Council Clerk Michael Wernick was released today, along with 43 pages of emails, texts and a written statement from Wilson-Raybould herself which were tabled to the Commons justice committee.
Wernick — who was not aware he was being recorded — told the minister there was ” rising anxiety ” over the fate of a major employer.
” He’s quite determined, quite firm ” Wernick said of the prime minister’s position on getting a deferred prosecution agreement ( DPA ) for the Quebec-based engineering company. ” But he wants to know why the DPA route , which Parliament provided for , isn’t being used. And I think he’s going to find a way to get it done , one way or another.”
In her written statement , Wilson-Raybould explains why she recorded the call.
She said she normally has a staff member present to take careful notes , but on this occasion she was alone in her Vancouver condo.
“I was anxious to ensure that I had an exact record of what was discussed as I had reason to believe that it was likely to be an an inappropriate conversation ” she wrote.
” So while I typed out notes during the phone call , I took the extraordinary and otherwise inappropriate step of making an audio recording of the conversation without so advising the Clerk. This is something that I have never done before this phone call and have not done since.”
When Wernick testified before the committee for a second time on March 6 , he said he did not have ” independent recollection ” of what he said during a Dec. 19 conversation with Wilson-Raybould.
” I did not record the conversation. I did not wear a wire. I did not take notes and that is not my recollection of how the conversation flowed ” he testified.
HA !!! … Well Jody had the foresight to do so !!! …
Also , isn’t that ‘ intermittent , cherry-picking ‘ memory quite handy when you’re obstructing justice ! …
Wernick resigned as Privy Council clerk , the country’s top civil servant, on Mar. 18, saying there was ” no path ” for him to have a ” relationship of mutual trust and respect ” with opposition party leaders.
Opposition party leaders ?!!! … SHIT !!! … He’s obviously not trusted by a few of the members of the current administration !!! …
During the recorded call released today , Wilson-Raybould repeatedly stated that she thought the conversation with Wernick was inappropriate and that she wanted to protect the prime minister and the integrity of the government. In his testimony before the justice committee , Wernick said that Wilson-Raybould could have raised her concerns about inappropriate pressure , but did not …
In the phone cal Wernick expresses “ He’s in a pretty firm frame of mind about this so I’m a bit worried.”
“A bit worried about what?” Wilson-Raybould asks.
“It’s not a good idea for the PM and his attorney general to be at loggerheads,” Wernick responds, adding that Trudeau “doesn’t have the power to do what he wants, all the tools are in your hands.”
Listen to the conversation for yourself … Micheal Wernick has lied repeatedly … Although he’s stated that he will ‘ retire ‘ on April 19 , he should fired NOW , and face charges for perjury and obstruction ( both easily ‘ convictable ‘ ) , upon which which he kisses his ‘ gold-plated pension ‘ goodbye …
In an interview with CBC Radio’s The House to air Saturday , Conservative deputy leader Lisa Raitt said Wernick sounded uncomfortable , likely because he was doing something inappropriate in delivering the prime minister’s message.
” He didn’t give her comfort. He didn’t say , ‘ That’s okay Jody.’ He landed it with ‘ Well I guess we’ve got nothing else to talk about ‘ ” she told host Chris Hall.
” So he is complicit in it. He threatened her job and he threatened her position. There’s no question about it. And he did it on the behest of the prime minister. He may have sounded uncomfortable doing it, but he still did it.”
I was wondering myself about this next bit … there seems to be a bit too much ‘ duality ‘ in roles goin’ on here …
As attorney-general , Wilson-Raybould was acting as the government’s lawyer and was bound by solicitor-client privilege. In Canada , it is not illegal for a person to record a conversation with another person without their knowledge — but it would be unusual for a solicitor to knowingly record conversations with a client without informing them first.
Well , I’d say , in this ‘ unusual case … Where your ‘ supposed ‘ client ( defendant ) is the entity that you are prosecuting , and also actively pressuring you illegally to alter your approach … Wilson-Raybould would be more than justified in her actions of recording the conversation … Obviously with that knowledge , Wernick would have backed off and the conversation would have been much shorter …
themorb.wordpress.com 