Gerry Butts refused to comment on incidents/conversations for which he was not present, and frankly, that was most of them. He suggested that none of the players, even those who worked directly for him, ever relayed information about those conversations to him. He maintained he was unaware of them, and completely unaware of the fact that the former AG had made, what she considered, a final decision.
What's interesting is how he managed to kick and stroke Jody Wilson Raybould in the same breath, talking about their long-time relationship including family visits, taking ownership of the breakdown in trust, displaying sadness at the loss of her friendship and her (my words) betrayal.
While he would not comment as to specific conversations, he did say that those various players, Justin Trudeau, Bill Morneau, Ben Chin, Michael Wernick, Elder Marques, Mathieu Bouchard et al -- are all people with characters above reproach. He could see none of them behaving in the manners of which they were accused.
Which means only one thing. If they are all very good people, who would never do anything wrong -- Jody Wilson-Raybould is not a good person. She had to have been lying, maliciously impugning the reputations of several good people in order to -- well -- to get back at the Prime Minster for having removed her as AG. After all, none of this came out until after the cabinet shuffle, and if there had been anything wrong, why wouldn't she have come forward sooner.
As it stands, Butts does not believe that 20 contacts over four months is a lot, let alone 'sustained pressure' despite being over the same issue, when the answer has already been provided in detail, and when everyone involved had been told, enough.
Butts also wonders why Jody Wilson-Raybould would have solicited a meeting with him if she didn't want to talk about SNC (a meeting he says texts prove was asked for by her, but which she suggested was a mutually sought out meeting) why would she reach out to him if she wasn't interested in talking about SNC?
I believe in her testimony she said why -- she wanted him to call off the dogs. She didn't want to discuss SNC the issue -- she wanted to discuss the way the PMO, Finance and PCO were trying to handle her and that she wanted them to back off.
From her meeting notes:
In his testimony, Gerry Butts said, if only she'd come to him, he would have made things right -- so that means she did NOT come to him, because he did not recall that conversation that way, and he did not set things right.
But also he knows none of those people could have done the things she said, because they're good people who have served their country honourably... so to boil it all down all of this is just some bitchy scheme by a scorned woman to take down some powerful men because they took away her dream job.
None of this is He said/She said. It is either one way or the other. Either she told him about the pressure, or she didn't. No one 'misremembers' or 'misinterprets' to that degree.
But he didn't call her a liar. What a swell guy.
canadianna
What's interesting is how he managed to kick and stroke Jody Wilson Raybould in the same breath, talking about their long-time relationship including family visits, taking ownership of the breakdown in trust, displaying sadness at the loss of her friendship and her (my words) betrayal.
While he would not comment as to specific conversations, he did say that those various players, Justin Trudeau, Bill Morneau, Ben Chin, Michael Wernick, Elder Marques, Mathieu Bouchard et al -- are all people with characters above reproach. He could see none of them behaving in the manners of which they were accused.
Which means only one thing. If they are all very good people, who would never do anything wrong -- Jody Wilson-Raybould is not a good person. She had to have been lying, maliciously impugning the reputations of several good people in order to -- well -- to get back at the Prime Minster for having removed her as AG. After all, none of this came out until after the cabinet shuffle, and if there had been anything wrong, why wouldn't she have come forward sooner.
As it stands, Butts does not believe that 20 contacts over four months is a lot, let alone 'sustained pressure' despite being over the same issue, when the answer has already been provided in detail, and when everyone involved had been told, enough.
Butts also wonders why Jody Wilson-Raybould would have solicited a meeting with him if she didn't want to talk about SNC (a meeting he says texts prove was asked for by her, but which she suggested was a mutually sought out meeting) why would she reach out to him if she wasn't interested in talking about SNC?
I believe in her testimony she said why -- she wanted him to call off the dogs. She didn't want to discuss SNC the issue -- she wanted to discuss the way the PMO, Finance and PCO were trying to handle her and that she wanted them to back off.
From her meeting notes:
Why didn't she tell anyone? Why did she never bring this up until the cabinet shuffle. Why didn't she go public. She says she did tell someone. Gerry Butts.On December 5/2018, I met with Gerry Butts. We had both sought out the meeting.I wanted to speak about a number of things – including bringing up SNC and the barrage of people hounding me and my staff.
Towards the end of the meeting I raised how I needed everyone to stop talking to me about SNC as I had made up my mind and the engagements were inappropriate.Gerry then took over the conversation and said how we need a solution on the SNC stuff – he said I needed to find a solution. I said no and referenced the PI and JR.
I said further that I gave the Clerk the only appropriate solution that could have happened and that was the letter idea but that was not taken up…Gerry talked to me about how the statute was set up by Harper that that he does not like the law…(Director of Public Prosecutions Act) – I said something like that is the law we have…
In his testimony, Gerry Butts said, if only she'd come to him, he would have made things right -- so that means she did NOT come to him, because he did not recall that conversation that way, and he did not set things right.
But also he knows none of those people could have done the things she said, because they're good people who have served their country honourably... so to boil it all down all of this is just some bitchy scheme by a scorned woman to take down some powerful men because they took away her dream job.
None of this is He said/She said. It is either one way or the other. Either she told him about the pressure, or she didn't. No one 'misremembers' or 'misinterprets' to that degree.
But he didn't call her a liar. What a swell guy.
canadianna
No comments:
Post a Comment