>>5453521 LB

Baker,

>>5452850 >>5452855 LB

^^^^^^^^

Posted last bread. Reposted here for moar eyes on.

Back about 15 years ago yuge scandals in Canada. Liberal Party violated principles of rule of law. Thrown out of office. Conservatives elected in wake of Liberal scandal and promised reforms. Delivered. Encoded, tightly, principles of rules of law in new laws governing the line between public interest and partisan interests via Attorney General and overall government interaction with law enforcement. Very popular reform. Applied since but could not be applied retroactively against previous corrupt Liberal government. Fast forward to today. Another Liberal government doing much the same by the old playbook. Chaffed against the new laws. Outright pressurized against Attorney General to put the rule of law aside. PM Office. All his political henchmen and fixers. Including supposedly non-partisan career bureaucrat at the upper level. One way or the other, political interference in law enforcement was deemed necessary by the Liberal Party. It is a repeat of the past, of course. This time the principles have been encoded in black letter, and recently legislated, law.

Attorney General supports those principles and the law. She was appointed by PM Trudeau. But he tried to over-ride her professional experience, the principles, and the law. She stood up and said no, despite the rising pressure against her. Apparently PM Trudeau thought she was a tortoise on a fence post and would cave to stay there. She did not. He basically demoted her and then got rid of her, politically, and yet she remains a member of the Liberal Party caucus. Will PM throw her out of caucus -- after she has accused him and his people of obstruction of justice and moar?

At the previous link, posted last bread, a detailed analysis of her testimony is provided. By a commentator who usually would oppose her politically. Because? The principles that are the foundation of the rule of law. Not politics.

Also at previous post in last bread is an article that describes the dozen or so of people that the Attorney General named in her testimony. These people might be in court under criminal charges, if the rule of law applies. To get to that, the electorate will need to replace the Liberal Party and form a new government that is independent of the corruption at play today. That is virtually impossible given the party structure of politics in Canadian federal system.

But. This time there are laws that can be applied to the current mob of Libranos. Big test for Canada.

Godspeed.

>>5453728

Attorney General said that PM Trudeau's political fixer promised to line-up Op-eds to say that she was doing the right thing – that is to put the rule of law aside for the sake of the partisan interests of the Liberal government.

Line-up op-eds.

Sound familiar?

>>5453858

TY Anon.

In Canada there is no party registration like in Unite States. The AG is a member of the Liberal Party riding in her local area. From there she won the local nomination, ran, got elected.

As an elected Member of Parliament, she is a member of the Liberal Party caucus. So she was elected by a plurality in a riding of about 100,000 voters and remains a Member of Parliament (MP) in her own right. The PM pledged to appoint a Cabinet comprised of 50-50 men-women. He also had a quota for non-whites. The Attorney General is an aboriginal and a feminist so she qualified by PM Trudeau's group identity politics. (And, almost beside the point, she is an experienced prosecutor, kek.) But she surpised because she was under-estimated.

Now, she definitely very lefty but she also loves the rule of law. Others in the Cabinet caved when pressurized. She did not.

So PM Trudeau finds himself in a tussle with someone he appointed, feminist, aboriginal, qualified lawyer and prosecutor, who happens to stand in broad daylight with no defense except for her love of the rule of law. He picked the wrong fight. He did so because he had gotten away with it when pressurizing much moar seasoned politicians in his Cabinet. He has used that playbook over and over again.

So he has a bonafide LIberal Party MP in his Liberal Party caucus – whom he has purged of dissenters or even mildly independent thinkers. Can he uproot her? Yes. He can kick her out of the caucus of elected Liberal MPs, and he can ban her from party functions even, and he could, later, stand in the way of her re-nomination, if she chose to run in coming election. But he can not remove her from Parliament. He can not stop her from calling herself a Liberal MP. And so forth.

I think she will fight on as a Liberal. Because in all other matters of political interest she is a lefty Liberal and that party is her home. Trouble is she holds the PM to a higher standard the Liberal Party holds its most senior and powerful members. So the conflict is built-in.

Cheers, Anon.