This is where it gets tricky

So the Liberals did what Liberals do, and have adjourned the Justice Committee until next week, budget day -- so they can ponder 'next steps' and bury their vote behind budget coverage.

This is where Sheer needs to remain calm and not get all accusy and irrational.

He should not be making demands or acting indignant.... he should simply say that the Liberals are behaving in a manner to which we've become accustomed over time. This new ilk brings with it the old ways. Anyway, we trust that one way or another, the truth will out as it always does.

Poise, calm and confidence.

That's what this requires from the opposition. Too often the Conservatives come off hysterical at every turn.

This obfuscating, lying, manipulating, on the part of the Liberals is business as usual. It happens all the time. Any over-the-top rhetoric just adds to the illusion that this is an anomaly for them. It isn't. This is how they work. It's how they've always worked.

New generation, that's all.

canadianna

 

PMJT is no ordinary guy

Although we keep getting news on the repercussions of the SNC-Lavalin affair, I honestly don't see it affecting the PM's chance at re-election.

He seems to have weathered the storm, mostly by just doing what he always does, which is saying a bunch of nothing.

There have been suggestions that without Gerald Butts in the PMO, that going forward with be hard for PMJT, but Butts didn't die. He resigned. As this scandal slowly recedes from the public interest, you don't think Gerry will be back there, advising his friend, even if in a non-official role? Who's to say he won't be re-hired. He did nothing wrong. He's spoken 'his truth'. A couple of weeks from now, they could slide him back in and who's going to challenge it?

The biggest concern to me as we move toward October's election, is that much as Trudeau doesn't deserve to be PM, I don't think Sheer does either. Lisa Riatt? Her I could get behind. Sheer does have a good team, but as the face of the party, he's just really bland and uninspiring. His attacks on Trudeau seem desperate rather than poised and reasoned -- even if they are well deserved.

The cult of personality got Trudeau elected. It wasn't his progressive agenda. People don't really believe the promises politicians make anyway. It was that 'star quality', and while it's lost a lot of its luster, I think people already knew he was stupid and didn't care. The question is, will it matter to them how poorly he's treated the people surrounding him, because that, more than the scandals and missteps, is where he's fallen the most. He had put himself on such a pedestal, and he's toppled off soundly.

Just seeing the bits and pieces of his public personality -- the time he elbowed the NDP MP in the chest in the House of Commons because he felt compelled to drag a Conservative MP to his place, his name-calling, his reported temper in private ... there are a lot of personal behaviours that smack of the spoiled little rich boy not ever wanting to be challenged, and not being able to deal with not having his own way. Some of them bubble to the surface and he seems unable to control them.

I think the only way the Conservatives win the next election is to exploit that, but wild demands of resignation, exaggerated outrage and petitions won't do that. Trudeau's temper comes not when he's full out besieged or insulted or attacked -- but rather when he's resentful, spurned or impeded in any way.

Here's hoping the opposition has learned a little bit about his psychology, rather than applying tactics that might cause regular people to feel shame or blame or contrition.

canadianna

Just another one who got it wrong

Liberal MP Celina Caesar-Chavannes says when she met with PMJT to discuss leaving politics, she was "met with hostility", but we all know she got it wrong:

Matt Pascuzzo, a spokesman for the Prime Minister’s Office, said, “The Prime Minister has deep respect for Celina Caesar-Chavannes. There’s no question the conversations in February were emotional, but there was absolutely no hostility. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, he is committed to fostering an environment where ministers, caucus, and staff feel comfortable approaching him when they have concerns or disagreements – that happened here.”

So there it is again -- another silly woman who just experienced things differently.

You know, I sort of villified Julia Lalonde, the consultant who gave them that mantra about people "experiencing things differently". It isn't that it can't be true. It is true often -- but what bothered me is that the Trudeau government has used it as a shield, rather than gaining insight from it.

Having read a little more about Ms Lalonde, I realize that when she told that to the fellas, her expectation was that they would understand that men and women DO experience things differently -- that yelling, or even elevated voices, insistance on one's own way, even if done politely, persistent communication about something that is uncomfortable -- those things might be typical male behaviour, and to the man, be innocuous, business-as-usual handling of affairs -- but to the woman, (or evern to other men) it might feel like harassment or intimidation.

I used to think Ms Lalonde was handing them an excuse -- now I realize -- she was saying: check your behaviour, guys! She was telling them -- in all of your interactions, DON'T DO THOSE THINGS. I don't think she meant to say it was okay for them to behave in a manner that might to some be uncomfortable, and the women simply took it wrong -- I think she meant for the men she was teaching to grasp that they needed to  learn to moderate their behaviour, not because women are fragile, but because we come from a different perspective - one where men in particular often try to force, bully, pressure, intimidate.

She was saying -- be careful -- you don't want your words and actions to be misinterpreted.

Instead, the men of the Trudeau governement have grabbed onto those words "we experienced things differently" and used them to skewer the women in their lives -- they've simply decided what they've said and done was A-OK, the woman just had the wrong point of view -- no need to self examine, no need to ever better oneself, one's reactions, one's conversation or persuation skills, when a man can simply say the other person (obviously) feels differently about the interaction, and BOOM, done.

The scary part is, that Trudeau used this line in a physical accusation -- what sort of message does that send?

I've no doubt Ms Caesar-Chavannes experienced those encounters differently from Mr. Trudeau. He still hasn't learned that it's incumbent on him to behave in such a manner that it CANNOT be misinterpreted.

But he has so little self-awareness, he really thinks it's everyone else's fault.

canadianna

This government is vile

You have to read Brad Wall's column in the National Post.

This government is vile.

I remember non-conservatives weeping and wailing about how Stephen Harper was divisive, going to change our country and destroy our institutions, but Stephen Harper's Canada felt little different from Paul Martin's or Jean Chretien's or Brian Mulroney's (which often made me angry). In terms of our basic understanding of who we were and how things worked, the change seemed uneventful. It wasn't perfect. I had my disappointments in the Conservative reign, but Canada was Canada.

Much as I didn't like the Liberals of back then-- I thought they were smug and arrogant and entitled -- they were also sane rational people with a realistic view of the world and our country. I might have disagreed with their politics and policies -- often found fault with them in fact, but I didn't feel their way of governing was going to careen the country out of control to a point where the damage might be irreparable.

Not so this government --- This government has all of the arrogance and entitlement, with none of the smarts. It is so divisive, so uncontrolled, unmeasured, so sure of itself without actually knowing anything at all. It's basing our future on unproven ideologies and the whims of the day.

They support one region over another, time and time again. With its rigid ideological stances, there is no room for concessions, conciliation, cooperation -- it's all -- my way or the highway and that's in all areas - environment, justice -- you name it. They all hinge on that wildly extremist view of climate change, race and gender.

Sad thing is ... they told us all this before they were voted in.

canadianna

 

Erosion of Trust

So that's the new talking point.

Yesterday, Gerry Butts parroted PMJT's oft said - two people can experience the same event differently, which means: she's a liar, but I'm not saying that.

This tactic is useful when the 'truth' is up for debate - an unrecorded conversation for example. It gives you leave to imply someone is a liar. And the cool thing about implying things, rather than saying things, is that you get to act hurt when the other person gives detailed accusations -- you can be shocked, feel betrayed, seem confused -- because you were experiencing all of the interactions differently, and you aren't actually saying anything mean about them, but look how they are attacking you! There are no facts. Family squabble that this silly bitch brought out into the light. Just don't get it. Poor us.

But isn't it funny that Trudeau had to wait until after he knew what Butts said before he could comment. And isn't it remarkable how identical their stories are?

This morning PMJT parroted Butts' line from yesterday about 'eroding trust'. Both men took responsibility for not having realized earlier that 'trust was eroded' but both implied that it only happened when/because Jody Wilson-Raybould was bumped from AG. Which means: We did nothing wrong. She just took it wrong. But only after we had to do what we had to do for purely noble reasons and remove her from the role of AG.

So she's a vindictive liar, but they never said that.

And they'll take all the blame.

Heroes both.

You wonder why there aren't more women in politics?

canadianna

 

If they are good, then she is not

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:

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…

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.

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 need to say the word

So, to sum it up: her won't call her a big fat liar, but everything she said was wrong, and she didn't bother to make any of it up until she lost her prized appointment as AG.

She was also arrogant, because she refused to take advice from eminent jurists on a matter of 'public policy' regarding a new law, because she felt she'd done her due diligence, which, according to Mr. Butts, who told us many times he's not a lawyer -- either she didn't have time to make an informed decision, or the decision could be made (according to him) at any time up until the verdict (which doesn't make sense to me, but... I too am not a lawyer).

She was also selfish, because she wouldn't take the role of Minister of Indigenous Services after being bumped from AG. (Gerald acknowledges that she's spent her life fighting the Indian Act, the last thing she'd ever want to do is be the minister in charge of it -- something that 'didn't occur to him' before her refusal of the post.) They just needed the best person for the job, for such an important portfolio -- so when she refused, they accommodated, gave her Veterans Affairs, and they put in the incomparable Seamus O'Regan to that vital position.

It's so good of him not to cast aspersions.

As we all know because the Liberals have all summoned the exact same line many, many, many times, just as Gerald did today -- two people can experience the same event differently. I wouldn't go anywhere with any of them without a tape recorder.

For someone who was not going to 'call names' he did everything but. If he is telling the truth, if he is credible at all -- she isn't. Which means she is a liar. Which means she concocted this story after the fact, or decided that what was just business as usual for the Liberals was actually political interference after they turfed her from her role as AG... but at least he didn't call names.

No doubt when Trudeau sachets back into the PMO in October, Gerry will be high in his team, and next time, they'll do a better job of picking the right women and of keeping them in their place.

I've never heard such double-talk so eloquently spoken. He's a master. You gotta give the man that.

But here's a conspiracy theory -- my previous post proves that Wilson-Raybould was not free to speak about anything that happened AFTER her removal from AG.

So --- you demote a Minister who isn't playing ball, but you don't want it to look like that, so what do you do? You give them a token role in a ministry you've played up but failed at. Given her race, everyone would think you were doing the right thing for Indigenous people, but when she refuses it based on principle - as you might have guessed she would given her history -- now you have evidence of sour grapes, not a team player, and, you also have the ability to gag her on the terms of the role until after your side has had the chance to announce that shocking revelation to the country.

PMJT isn't that smart, but listening to Gerald today, he is.

He wonders why she didn't come forward in September, October, November, December -- I'll tell you why -- if she'd blown the whistle any of the times when she felt pressured, it would have been -- look you still have your job... and now that she doesn't, it's getting called sour grapes.

What a smarmy, calculating, manipulate bunch of liars.

And sadly, I'm pretty sure a lot of people will just lap it right up.

But Seamus O'Regan? When you wanted the best person for the job? Apparently that bit was bullshit for sure.

canadianna

 

The Waiver

Gerard Butt's was able to comment on Jody Wilson-Raybould's reaction to the cabinet shuffle, because his waiver gave him leave to.

When it was suggested by the NDP member that Wilson-Raybould had been prevented from commenting because her waiver did not extend to things after her term as AG, Butts said No, she has the same waiver terms as I do, making her eligible to speak to anything up until January 14

Here is her waiver:

Date: 2019-02-25

---

Her Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, for the purposes of the hearings before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and the examination by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner:

 

(a) authorizes the Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould, the former Attorney General, and any persons who directly participated in discussions with her relating to the exercise of her authority under the Director of Public Prosecutions Act respecting the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin, to disclose to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner any confidences of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada contained in any information or communications that were directly discussed with her respecting the exercise of that authority while she held that office; and

 

(b) for the purposes of disclosure to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner by the former Attorney General, and any persons who directly participated in discussions with her, waives, to the extent they apply, solicitor-client privilege and any other relevant duty of confidentiality to the Government of Canada in regards to any information or communications in relation to the exercise of the authority of the Attorney General under the Director of Public Prosecutions Act that were directly discussed with the former Attorney General respecting the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin while she held that office.

 So, he's wrong.

canadianna

Still deflecting

Apparently Justin Trudeau plans to "make a display of contrition over how officials in his office conducted themselves" and to "show some ownership over the actions of his staff and officials" in their handling of the SNC-Lavalin file, and their attempted handling of former AG, Jody Wilson-Raybould.

Nice.

Except -- have we forgotten that one of the very first meetings where partisan-motivated political interference took place, was one in which Justin Trudeau was not only there, but he actually brought up his own position as an "MP from Quebec" - where a provincial election was to be held within weeks.

So here we are again, Justin Trudeau is unable to accept blame, responsibility or even ADMIT his own wrong-doing, but somehow, gonna do the right thing and blast those other guys who were bad.

This government is a joke.  This Prime Minister is a joke.

He's an eight year old, caught in the act and still pointing fingers elsewhere, saying "Not me! him!"

I don't think any of the players mentioned by Wilson-Raybould have clean hands. This was not off the PM's radar. It was not something rogue underlings had taken on without his knowledge or approval. It doesn't matter whether it was Butt's idea or Katie Telford's, or if one of them orchestrated the pressure on Wilson-Raybould. Trudeau was an active player... not a bystander. He's as culpable as anyone on this.

When Wilson-Raybould suggested to Butts that she'd been demoted because of  "a decision that (she) wouldn't take" Butts asked if she was questioning the integrity of the prime minster.

We ALL should be.

canadianna

Not sure that's what she said . . .

CBC's headline is a little misleading, I think:

Jody Wilson-Raybould, the MP at the centre of the SNC-Lavalin affair, says she'll be running under the Liberal banner in October's general election.

"I have been confirmed as the LPC [Liberal Party of Canada] candidate for Vancouver Granville for the federal election 2019," Wilson-Raybould told CBC News in an email.

She would not comment further, and said she isn't conducting interviews right now. 

Previously, she had said her intention was to remain in caucus and continue to serve as the representative for Vancouver Granville. She told the Vancouver Sun earlier that she had been confirmed as the Liberal candidate in that riding last year.

 It looks to me rather than confirming that she'll be running as a Liberal in October's election, she's been ask about her status, and she says -- I have been confirmed as the LPC candidate for Vancouver Granville. That's hardly the same as saying "...she'll be running".

A paragraph down says:

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has said he is still considering whether Wilson-Raybould can remain in the Liberal caucus after her explosive testimony Wednesday in front of the Commons justice committee, where she confirmed she had faced continuous pressure over four months from high-ranking government officials to interfere in the legal proceedings against Montreal engineering giant SNC-Lavalin. 

So, Wilson-Raybould has heard something that has not been announced by the PMO? I doubt it.

This is the CBC misinterpreting a statement, likely issued as a response to the question -- will you be running for the Liberals in October - the reply that she was confirmed as the candidate in no way assumes that she's running -- it simply outlines her current status.

Not sure if the CBC is trying to mislead, or if they've just misunderstood the subtlety of her message.

It's hard for me to believe that after everything that has happened, Wilson-Raybould could, at this point simply say, bygones be bygones, and yeah - no questions, no changes, no concerns -- I'm part of this team.

She has been confirmed. She has not confirmed she is running.

canadianna

Silly woman

Just yesterday I reminded y'all of the quote by Dear Leader that said different people experience things differently ... blah, blah, blah. Well, Irwin Cotler must have that same PR coach Justin used last year:

Cotler said it's possible officials with the Prime Minister's Office, Privy Council Office and minister of finance didn't intend to exert inappropriate direction on Wilson-Raybould, but over time if felt like concentrated and sustained pressure.

During her testimony, Wilson-Raybould referred to it as "a barrage of people hounding me and my staff."

"I know this may sound somewhat, perhaps, speaking paradoxically when I say that both sides may be telling the truth, but that was my feeling that she was really telling it as she saw it, as she experienced it," said Cotler.

 Really?

Honest, we only came to her dozens of times, reminded her of the stakes, suggested routes and avenues she should take, offered her a legal-eagle whose opinion would buffer her from any fallout once she did the wrong thing by INTERFERING. We talked about elections, the future -- but we didn't mean it to sway her, and definitely not to intimidate her -- it was all just FYI time, and time and time, and time again -- even after she'd made her position clear time, and time and time again. It's all in her head -- we don't know where her mind was. Silly woman. We would never have demoted her over this --- ooops.

And then we have Jat Sidhu (who has now apologized) who said:

Sidhu told The Abbotsford News the discussions about the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin were "normal" and that Wilson-Raybould was not a "team player."

"The way she's acting, I think she couldn't handle the stress. I think there's somebody else behind —maybe her father — pulling the strings," he said.

Seems to me Team Trudeau doesn't think much of its women.

Surprising!

canadianna

Pattern of behaviour unbecoming a Prime Minister

Whether it's physical interference (groping) or political interference (pressuring the AG to act in a manner that goes against both her conscience and her job description) women in Justin Trudeau's life always seem to get it wrong.

Harken back to last summer when our beloved PM was answering questions about allegations that he'd man-handled a young reporter many years ago... here's what he said:

'I am confident that I did not act inappropriately,' Trudeau says of groping allegation

"Part of this awakening we're having as a society, a long awaited realization, is that it's not just one side of the story that matters," he said. "That the same interactions can be experienced very differently from one person to the next.

(…)

Trudeau said he can only be responsible for his side of the interaction.

"A man experiences an interaction as benign or not inappropriate and a woman, particularly in a professional context, can experience it differently," he said. "And we have to expect that and reflect on that."

Fast-forward to yesterday after the testimony of fellow Liberal, former AG, Jody Wilson-Raybould regarding what she felt was sustained pressure by the PM, the PMO and various ministers of the Crown, to intervene in the handling of the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin: 

Trudeau, reacting to Wilson-Raybould’s allegations,maintained that he and his staff did not act inappropriately.

“I strongly maintain, as I have from the beginning, that I and my staff always acted appropriately and professionally. I therefore completely disagree with the former attorney general’s characterization of events,” Trudeau told reporters in Montreal on Wednesday evening, after Wilson-Raybould spent hours testifying in Ottawa.

The Prime Minister has proved himself incapable of good judgment on many levels. This is just another example of him expecting to get what he wants from a woman and reacting badly when it doesn't work out his way.

Jody Wilson-Raybould is a brave person. She has spoken "her truth" as Minister Freeland put it. Hopefully the country will realize that *the* truth is sometimes not a matter of perception. It's just the truth.

canadianna

Twisted

Gerald Butts tweets:  Great news in BC yesterday. Congrats to everyone in governments past & present who worked for years on it. 

We can make big things happen in , especially when we put partisanship aside, and don’t let big energy projects become a political

So you can already see how it's going to go. Yesterday PMJT spoke at a Liberal fundraiser and prophesied that the upcoming election would be the nastiest Canada has ever seen. Of course, the Liberals won't be nasty. It will be those nasty Conservatives who are nasty. Remember how nasty they are? That's who will be nasty because of course they're racist and sexist and Donald Trump so nasty. But Liberals would never stoop to being nasty like they are. Never. Never in one breath would Liberals say they are taking the high road, and in the next, hope you don't notice they're on the low one. Never.

Butt's tweet applauding past governments shows a true and genuine desire to put principle and people above politics -- or else it foreshadows the smug, condescending tone they're going to take when the opposition parties do what they are paid to do- challenge, criticize, expose and OPPOSE.

We should be used to it by now -- the sweet as treacle smiles and platitudes, simultaneous with the barbs and insults. This sleight of tongue has been raised to an art-form and perfected by this latest incarnation of Liberals and sadly, the Conservative planners always fall into the trap. The groundwork is set, and all CPC has to do is avoid making snide comments and angry tweets -- you can oppose and challenge without being combative, but in our Twitterworld, everyone wants to get the dig in that will be re-tweeted and held up for posterity as *owning the libs* and in doing so, they might score points for said libs because they're being nasty.

Trudeau's record should stand on its own as a reason never to vote for him again, but despite provincial wins and federal failures, the electorate is volatile and I don't see Trudeau's mistakes sticking, particularly if Butts and crew play this game of slamming with a smile. They know the CPC well enough to know they'll *fight* back-- and then they can stand calmly, point and say *see?*

CPC strategists should be fine-tuning their message. Delivery is going to count.

canadianna

When the truth doesn't matter

It is reasonable to view the world from the *what would I do* perspective. We tend to project our own morality and sensibilities onto others. It's why people are so quick to say: *why would she lie about ...* *why would anyone choose ...* *an innocent person wouldn't...* *only a guilty man would...*

Why would Christine Blasey Ford lie? As I said previously, to be the heroine of a cause that means a lot to her, to her demographic, to her political allies, to her gender and her generation. She is in a win-win situation. She is either believed, and she is a victim to the people who matter to her and she thwarts the confirmation of a man who might change their world. Or, she is disbelieved, and she is a victim to the people who matter to her, the people who loathe the sort of people who might question her motives, her memory, her timing. She might come out of this a little bruised by the awkward attention, but because in these instances we can never know, she won't carry this as a blemish to the people who share her worldview -- and that's all that's important to most of us really.

She might well be telling the truth and I don't pretend to know. I just think it's silly for people to suggest that women never lie, or that the only possible reason for a lie would be attention-seeking or mental illness. People lie for all sorts of reasons, and I suspect that to many on the left, (and perhaps many on the right) abortion rights are right up there as a top priority, politically. People do strange things when they are advancing or protecting their cause.

As for Kavanagh, he has every reason to lie. He's followed the life plan for that sort of person he is -- got an education, worked hard, lived decently, and in one fell swoop all of that can be destroyed by something awful he did when he was seventeen? Who wouldn't be inclined to lie about something that no one can ever prove? Or, maybe he doesn't even remember. Not because he was blackout drunk, but because as the perpetrator of an assault, which, to a seventeen-year old in 1982 likely seemed innocuous and unimportant, it's something he would never have to, or bother to, think about again. Real sexual predators plan and recall details, but young men who are aggressive and clumsy are unlikely to feel the significance of their actions to the woman they've assaulted.

It's been suggested Kavanagh lashed out on the stand because he was angry having been caught or called out, but his demeanour, as unseemly as it might have been, is not indicative of guilt. If you've ever been unjustly accused of something terrible, something you know in your heart you didn't do, you'll know how indignant he must feel if his conscience is clear. Is it crazy that he would cry, or yell or would throw out the Clinton name and suggest a conspiracy? Because it would feel like that to someone raw from a vile and false accusation.

Some are saying that his reaction is so contrary to the comportment of a Justice, that he should be excluded from the bench as a result. Much as the testimony was not becoming of a supreme court justice, Kavanagh was on the stand as a man, not a judge. His emotive display doesn't suggest someone who would be unhinged when rendering a decision on a case before him. This was a person going through an intensely troubling ordeal. Guilty or not, the stress of being accused and then dragged through this after all these years must be tremendous. Who wouldn't come off a little intense and histrionic in those circumstances?

Anyone who could look at either of these two people, the things they've said and how they've carried themselves and draw a conclusion to a certainty, is a mind-reader. To my mind, there is just no way to know -- but whether it's true or not, I don't believe an unproven, uncorroborated incident from a person's youth should be the deciding factor in his fate, thirty-five years on. I can understand the injustice someone might feel if the person who hurt them is elevated to a position of honour and authority, but that's irrelevant here (although there are certainly times it shouldn't be). Ask Juanita Broaddrick.

In the end, I believe Kavanagh's only option is to withdraw. His family doesn't deserve to be put through this, and there is no salvaging his reputation now. No matter what the FBI finds, there will never be anything definitive and there will always be a cloud over him. Every judgement will be suspect, every decision over-scrutinized -- he is tainted. It makes no sense for him to continue in this climate, under these circumstances. There are times, even if you believe the other side is wrong, the gracious and decent thing to do is concede and step away. This is one of those times in life, the truth doesn't matter.

And then, what Donald Trump should do, is find the most rabidly pro-life, male judge in existence, and dare the Democrats to do this again.

canadianna   

Seventeen

When I was eighteen, Canada passed the Young Offenders Act. Soon after, a Scarborough boy, about fifteen years old, murdered his parents and younger sister, then took some school friends into his home to see the bodies. Under the new act, the most he would serve is three years and his record would be eternally sealed.

I didn't and I don't agree with that. There isn't some magical switch that flips on when you're eighteen and suddenly you know right from wrong. We are who we are and that boy at fifteen was a cold blooded murderer, no less culpable than someone three years older or someone twice his age.

What I do understand is the intent behind the law. If I was to be judged by choices I made, things I thought, people I hurt at seventeen due to selfishness or ignorance, I would be harshly condemned I'm sure -- as would many people. A seventeen year old will not have the capacity to reason the consequences of his actions (for himself or for whomever else might be involved) as fully as an adult will -- that's why we don't lower the voting age, or allow them to legally smoke or drink or gamble -- we realize that the teenage minds are not fully formed, and the teenage years are volatile even for those in the best of families and that lack of experience, eagerness to grow up, peer pressure, family drama, normal angst  -- all might lead to regretful actions resulting from poor judgement.

I won't comment directly on the veracity of the Kavanagh situation -- we can never know the truth.  It's all just conjecture. But if it's true, he was seventeen in 1982. The behaviour described by his accuser is unconscionable in this day and age. Back then, not so much. I could bring forward several young men who've become wonderful, fabulous older men, who would likely cringe at some of the things they did at seventeen -- and at least as many women. You might say that the incident as described is not singular in its effects -- it included actions upon another -- and I would agree, but I would also say that at seventeen, in the 80s, most young men were pretty sure that most young women were as sexually ready as they were -- the previous generation had opened the door and many from my age group just walked through, often without checking first. Was it right? No. It was as wrong as it is today -- but one can understand why someone at seventeen in 1982, might not have grasped that yet, and might still evolve into a normal, decent human being.

The odd thing is that if Brett Kavanagh had been reported and charged with a crime for what allegedly happened at that party in 1982, and had he been convicted, he was a minor and any criminal record would likely have been sealed or expunged and this would not have been an issue for him some thirty-five years later - which is why laws like the YOA exist -- to protect the adult from the mistakes of the youth.

Also, to those who would say the allegations (and any new ones regarding Kavanagh) must be true because who would put themselves through this for a lie -- I'm just going to say that those on the rabid left would do just about anything to block a judge they fear might overturn Roe v Wade.

Regardless, true or not, much as we can judge the boy and say, if it happened, he was wrong and should have been called out/punished -- condemning a person for sins committed a lifetime ago is not something any of us should be applauding, unless of course, you've lived a blemish-free life.

canadianna