• Value Subtracted@startrek.websiteOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 months ago

    When questioned by Conservative Party lawyer Nando De Luca, Trudeau also said the names of Liberal parliamentarians and individuals from other parties are on the list of parliamentarians at risk of being compromised by foreign interference.

    Wow, what a cudgel.

    • voluble
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      It’s an unusual axe to choose to grind during testimony. Take it from two former CSIS directors:

      Richard Fadden and Ward Elcock — two former CSIS directors — told CBC News’ Power & Politics on Wednesday that Trudeau probably shouldn’t have taken such a partisan turn in his testimony.

      “He lapsed into really extreme partisanship when he made this accusation and he made it in terms that could not help but enrage the Conservative leader. So that was his objective. I think it worked,” Fadden told host David Cochrane.

      “Did it advance the cause of national security? Did it advance the interest of the inquiry and the commissioners’ work? I’m not so sure.”

      Source: CBC - "Why won’t Trudeau release classified names — and why won’t Poilievre get a security clearance?

      • Value Subtracted@startrek.websiteOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        “Did it advance the cause of national security? Did it advance the interest of the inquiry and the commissioners’ work? I’m not so sure.”

        If it leads to Polievre getting his fucking security clearance, I would argue it does.

        There would be no “partisan turn” to take if he would meet this basic expectation.

        • voluble
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          I agree. Poilievre’s choice to not be cleared, like many of his other choices and positions, is asinine and idiotic.

          The Liberal talking point of, “if only Poilievre would get the clearance, we could get to work on fixing this” is also asinine.

          It’s worth remembering that the CSIS-briefed, PM-known issue of election interference predates Poilievre by 5 years, and a span of 2 federal elections, one of which the Liberals enjoyed a majority government. The Liberals are being insincere when they throw their hands up and say there’s nothing they can do because Poilievre won’t do something he’s made clear he won’t do. Trudeau and the Liberals have been happy to sit on their hands on this issue, for years, and it has left parliament vulnerable to foreign influence. That’s uniquely Trudeau and the Liberals’ fault, and they ought to be taken to task for that. It’s a huge deal.

          • Value Subtracted@startrek.websiteOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            2 months ago

            The Liberals are being insincere when they throw their hands up and say there’s nothing they can do because Poilievre won’t do something he’s made clear he won’t do.

            I don’t think they’ve said this?

            • voluble
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              Hours of logjammed question periods of Poilievre saying “release the names” and Liberals saying “get the clearance”. Liberals are framing the issue around Poilievre’s obstinance, in the house, and now in testimony to the Foreign Interference Commission. It’s not honest.

                • voluble
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 months ago

                  Two elections have passed since the PM was briefed on election interference, and he knew about the issue for years before Poilievre was leader of the CPC. The fact that they’re talking about Poilievre at all seems to me to be an abdication of responsibility.

                  • Value Subtracted@startrek.websiteOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    2 months ago

                    I guess I’m not sure what you think he should have done differently?

                    Like, this whole situation is a mess, and there’s a mix of possible “foreign influence” in play, ranging from “unsuccessful attempts” to “this person is an active foreign agent,” and it’s all based on classified CSIS intelligence. And these people are still elected officials, so it’s there more that even could be done beyond perhaps booting them out of caucus?

                    Surely we can agree that the situation isn’t as straightforward as we’d like it to be.