David Raymond Amos @DavidRayAmos
Replying to @DavidRayAmos @Kathryn98967631 and 47 others
Methinks the light just dawned on CBC's marblehead about the Jane and Jody Tag Team and a possible palace coup N'esy Pas?
https://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.com/2019/03/at-this-point-philpottwilson-raybould.html
#nbpoli #cdnpoli
https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/trudeau-philpott-wilson-raybould-end-game-1.5070419
At this point, the Philpott/Wilson-Raybould end game is obvious — destroy Trudeau: Neil Macdonald
4135 Comments
Commenting is now closed for this story.
Cecil Row
Content Disabled
If we heard the truth,we wouldn’t need to read uninformed opinion articles such as this
David R. Amos
Content Disabled
Reply to @Reply to @Cecil Row: Methinks the light just dawned on CBC's marblehead about the Jane and Jody Tag team and a possible palace coup N'esy Pas?
Roger Armbruste
As is often the case, the headline is misleading. It states that "the Philpott/Wilson-Raybould end is obvious--destroy Trudeau." Yet when you read the article, the end game is not so obvious at all. And there is no substantive evidence given to suggest that the end game is to destroy Trudeau. It turns out to be pure, unadulterated speculation that this could be their motivation. To judge motives without evidence is wrong.
David R. Amos
Reply to @Roger Armbruster: "To judge motives without evidence is wrong."
Methinks the Judges and the Crown Counsels working under Jody Wilson-Raybould' direction against me in Federal Court since 2015 should have known that N'esy Pas?
Kate Ferguson
Reply to @David R. Amos:
JWR's own prosecutors delivered to her - a split opinion on SNCL. Take it from there my friends.
Elias Eliot
Perhaps Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott came to the understanding, as many Canadians have, that Trudeau is a phoney.
David R. Amos
Reply to @Elias Eliot: "Perhaps Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott came to the understanding, as many Canadians have, that Trudeau is a phoney"
Methinks many Canadians knew out of the gate that they are all phoney That is why so many folks don't bother to vote N'esy Pas?
Mario Doucet
CBC has got his totally backwards, Trudeau has destroyed himself, he didn't need any help. What has transpired is owned by Trudeau and no one else. Nice try.
David R. Amos
Reply to @Mario Doucet: "What has transpired is owned by Trudeau and no one else."
Methinks most folks with common sense should wholeheartedly agree merely because that is part of Trudeau The Younger's job of being the Liberal Leader and our Prime Minister N'esy Pas?
Luke Armstrong
The PM is his own nemesis, who are we kidding?
David R. Amos
Reply to @Luke Armstrong: I concur
James McDonell
He's already destroyed himself with hypocrisy and ethics violations.
David R. Amos
Reply to @James McDonell: YUP
Kate Ferguson
Reply to @Chealsea O'Conner: The CPC (under Harper) partnered us, We the People, with KPMG, naming them Advisors to the CRA, at the very same time that the CRA was in a court battle with KPMG, who were seeking to shield the files of multimillionaires from the CRA - who had stashed money offshore.
It never fails to amaze me that the CPC believe Canadians have no memory whatsoever.
David R. Amos
Reply to @Kate Ferguson: "It never fails to amaze me that the CPC believe Canadians have no memory whatsoever. "
Me Too Methinks you may enjoy Googling the following N'esy Pas?
David Amos KPMG CRA
Kate Ferguson
Reply to @David R. Amos: Thanks, very very interesting. The Conservative Party of Canada invited the wolves into the hen house.
David R. Amos
Reply to @Kate Ferguson: Nope with regards to my lawsuits Jean Chretien and Brian Mulroney did
Please Enjoy
https://www.scribd.com/doc/2718120/integrity-yea-right
Kate Ferguson
Reply to @David R. Amos: Nope, in the end, they all did, going back to your complaint, coming back to present day.
Roch Quesnel
Not sure there will be much of a party to lead once the dust settles
David R. Amos
Reply to @Roch Quesnel: "Not sure there will be much of a party to lead once the dust settles"
Methinks that Iggy's many failings would have taught the liberals a few hard lessons but apparently not N'esy Pas?
Maxim Verite
Neil Macdonald has it backwards. By this point, Trudeau's end game is to destroy Wilson-Raybould and Philpott for having the gall to stand up against him.
David R. Amos
Reply to @Maxim Verite: Methinks that was Trudeau's end game all along but the tag team of Jane and Jody obviously outsmarted him and his buddies Mr Butts and Mr Wernick which was obviously not too hard to do N'esy Pas?
Al Kap
I am not a fan of Trudeau. But it sounds more and more like JWR was just upset about a lot of things and seems to be an all or nothing at all kind of person, and not a team player. She was not getting her way so she decided to take one faux pas and blow it up. Liberals are feeling sabotaged and are tired of letting her call the shots. I could be wrong but that is what is seems like to me.
David R. Amos
Reply to @Al Kap: "I could be wrong but that is what is seems like to me"
Methinks you are not far of base because the former Attorney General and everybody have failed to mention my lawsuit (Federal court File no T-1557-15) which was obviously filed when Harper was the Prime Minster and she and her cohorts have argued it ever since N'esy Pas?
Richard Ade
Both women have demonstrated that they are more fit than Trudeau to be PM. We are being led by a really incompetent individual in this country.
David R. Amos
Reply to @Richard Ade: "We are being led by a really incompetent individual in this country."
Oh So True
Elias Eliot
Trudeau is doing a wonderful job at destroying himself, I don't think he requires any help from Philpott/Wilson-Raybould.
David R. Amos
Reply to @Elias Eliot: I wholeheartedly Agree Trust that I am thoroughly enjoying watching Humpty Dumpty
At this point, the Philpott/Wilson-Raybould end game is obvious — destroy Trudeau: Neil Macdonald
Ex-ministers seen as defenders of democracy rather than politicians — despite a most politician-like attack
Perhaps Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane
Philpott are acting entirely on principle, laying their bodies across
the tracks to protect our democracy and rule of law. Perhaps.
That's their story, anyway. And it's a good one, too, no denying that. A politician cannot buy the kind of hagiography Philpott has enjoyed since she quit Justin Trudeau's cabinet in solidarity with Wilson-Raybould, who is herself now portrayed as single-handedly protecting the justice system's integrity from attacks by crude ward heelers in the PMO. A fellow political columnist suggested last week that Philpott should resign as a Liberal because she is so immensely competent, so strong, and so principled that her fellow party members simply aren't worthy of being in caucus with her.
Mmm-hmm.
In any case, Philpott and Wilson-Raybould are politicians who are being treated as though they aren't politicians, which is every politician's lustiest dream.
Certainly, the two of them have co-ordinated a most politician-like attack on their party leader. I've been in this dodge 43 years now, and I have never seen such exquisite destruction and perfectly timed execution.
Prime
Minister Justin Trudeau, right, continues to be dogged by questions
about his decision to move Wilson-Raybould from the Justice file to
Veterans Affairs, and her subsequent resignation from cabinet. (Canadian Press)
And
deflection. I assume there is an end game here, and I assume we will
see it sooner or later, and I have my own notions about what it is,
having once watched Brian Mulroney publicly pretend loyalty to Joe
Clark while his operatives worked to bring down Clark's shaky Tory
leadership, at one point distributing ABC (Anybody But Clark) buttons,
which were to be worn inside the jacket lapel, invisible, but available
to be flashed to those in the know. In 1983, Mulroney became leader.
Or having watched, from the media perch above the Commons, Liberal MPs working as operatives for the then-unelected Jean Chrétien in the late '80s, moving from desk to desk, working other members of caucus, as John Turner, the leader they were betraying, sat in his chair a few rows ahead, seemingly oblivious to what was going on just behind him. Chrétien became party leader in 1990.
Or even, that same year, having watched an angry Lucien Bouchard, convinced Quebec had once again been humiliated by the perfidious Anglos, storm out of Brian Mulroney's government, sputtering that a leader's word must be "as straight as the sword of the king,'' as he walked away.
Of those three players, Bouchard was the closest to doing any of it on principle, but even he had an end game. He established and led the Bloc Québécois, creating another political pole in Ottawa, then became premier of Quebec.
Philpott,
though, explicitly denies any leadership ambition, or even any ambition
to bring down her leader, and so does Wilson-Raybould, and for some
reason, most of the parliamentary press gallery seems to be taking them
at their word.
Instead of treating the Philpott/Wilson-Raybould moves as a power play, which is pretty clearly what they are, reporters have been swept along in the blast waves the duo created with their resignations and declarations. And please, let's stipulate that they are indeed a duo, not two ingenues who never imagined their principled actions would cause this sort of uproar.
Just last week, Philpott reluctantly and with a heavy heart granted Maclean's an exclusive interview, in which she said there is a lot more still to come in this scandal, despite the Trudeau PMO's attempts to suppress it. She couldn't, of course, say what is coming, because cabinet privilege prevents her from talking about a Jan. 6 discussion with the prime minister, just that the discussion was far more significant than previously reported, and that there is a lot more to the story.
Also, she just wants to make her party better, which is sort of what people who want to get rid of the leader always say.
If the Maclean's interview was intended as a bellows for an already superheated story, it worked. For weeks, reporters in Ottawa have been diving into the weeds, competing for the most incremental scrap.
On Friday, the main headline on the National Newswatch political aggregator was a CBC interview in which a former Commons law clerk declared that the parliamentary privilege Philpott enjoys as an MP frees her to say whatever she likes about her Jan. 6 chat with Trudeau, as long as she says it in the Commons or while sitting on a Commons committee.
Wilson-Raybould
testifies before the Commons justice committee about the SNC-Lavalin
affair on Feb. 27. Wilson-Raybould says she has more information to
share. (Lars Hagberg/AFP/Getty Images)
Other
journalists have observed that the order-in-council Trudeau created to
allow Wilson-Raybould and other cabinet confidants to talk about her
time as attorney general would apply to Philpott's Jan. 6 discussion,
because Wilson-Raybould was still attorney general at that time.
And Trudeau himself seems to have clearly said Philpott and Wilson-Raybould are free to add whatever they wish to the public record concerning Wilson-Raybould's time as attorney general and her cabinet demotion in January. He's spoken about it publicly, and Gerald Butts, Trudeau's former principal secretary, testified in detail about it before the Commons justice committee.
Both ex-ministers, though, say they nonetheless remain constrained by honour and principle. They are not free to reveal misbehaviour by Trudeau and his aides, only to say it exists and tease future revelations. Wilson-Raybould followed up Philpott's interview by declaring she has more facts and evidence for the committee, and will be providing some of it in writing.
So, let's strop up Occam's razor and apply its austere logic to all this.
Might it simply be that Philpott and Wilson-Raybould are being coy because they want to inflict maximum damage on Trudeau from within his own caucus, which they know is the most effective place to do it? Might they intend to push for a leadership review after this fall's election, or, even better, before it?
Trudeau
has haplessly insisted that Philpott's and Wilson-Raybould's torpedoes
are just proof that the Liberals tolerate a diversity of views in their
ranks.
Right. Sorry, but that sounds a lot like the line John Turner peddled when his own MPs were busy knifing him in the back: open party, grassroots discussion, lots of room for dissent, blah, blah, blah.
An old acquaintance who worked in Liberal backrooms a generation ago says he doesn't believe Philpott or Wilson-Raybould are ambitious. This whole thing, he thinks, is a "cascade of dominoes" resulting from principled acts, the purity of which gives the story such sting. There may be no end game, he said, simultaneously conceding that if there isn't, it's a first.
I found Sheila Copps's old-school advice to Trudeau more realistic: They're dangerous. Get rid of them.
At the very least, Wilson-Raybould and Philpott are now objective allies of the Opposition, and any sensible leader would treat them as such. Jean Chrétien absolutely would. Andrew Scheer too, I'd bet.
This column is part of CBC's Opinion section. For more information about this section, please read our FAQ.
That's their story, anyway. And it's a good one, too, no denying that. A politician cannot buy the kind of hagiography Philpott has enjoyed since she quit Justin Trudeau's cabinet in solidarity with Wilson-Raybould, who is herself now portrayed as single-handedly protecting the justice system's integrity from attacks by crude ward heelers in the PMO. A fellow political columnist suggested last week that Philpott should resign as a Liberal because she is so immensely competent, so strong, and so principled that her fellow party members simply aren't worthy of being in caucus with her.
Mmm-hmm.
In any case, Philpott and Wilson-Raybould are politicians who are being treated as though they aren't politicians, which is every politician's lustiest dream.
Certainly, the two of them have co-ordinated a most politician-like attack on their party leader. I've been in this dodge 43 years now, and I have never seen such exquisite destruction and perfectly timed execution.
Or having watched, from the media perch above the Commons, Liberal MPs working as operatives for the then-unelected Jean Chrétien in the late '80s, moving from desk to desk, working other members of caucus, as John Turner, the leader they were betraying, sat in his chair a few rows ahead, seemingly oblivious to what was going on just behind him. Chrétien became party leader in 1990.
Or even, that same year, having watched an angry Lucien Bouchard, convinced Quebec had once again been humiliated by the perfidious Anglos, storm out of Brian Mulroney's government, sputtering that a leader's word must be "as straight as the sword of the king,'' as he walked away.
Of those three players, Bouchard was the closest to doing any of it on principle, but even he had an end game. He established and led the Bloc Québécois, creating another political pole in Ottawa, then became premier of Quebec.
Instead of treating the Philpott/Wilson-Raybould moves as a power play, which is pretty clearly what they are, reporters have been swept along in the blast waves the duo created with their resignations and declarations. And please, let's stipulate that they are indeed a duo, not two ingenues who never imagined their principled actions would cause this sort of uproar.
Just last week, Philpott reluctantly and with a heavy heart granted Maclean's an exclusive interview, in which she said there is a lot more still to come in this scandal, despite the Trudeau PMO's attempts to suppress it. She couldn't, of course, say what is coming, because cabinet privilege prevents her from talking about a Jan. 6 discussion with the prime minister, just that the discussion was far more significant than previously reported, and that there is a lot more to the story.
Also, she just wants to make her party better, which is sort of what people who want to get rid of the leader always say.
If the Maclean's interview was intended as a bellows for an already superheated story, it worked. For weeks, reporters in Ottawa have been diving into the weeds, competing for the most incremental scrap.
On Friday, the main headline on the National Newswatch political aggregator was a CBC interview in which a former Commons law clerk declared that the parliamentary privilege Philpott enjoys as an MP frees her to say whatever she likes about her Jan. 6 chat with Trudeau, as long as she says it in the Commons or while sitting on a Commons committee.
And Trudeau himself seems to have clearly said Philpott and Wilson-Raybould are free to add whatever they wish to the public record concerning Wilson-Raybould's time as attorney general and her cabinet demotion in January. He's spoken about it publicly, and Gerald Butts, Trudeau's former principal secretary, testified in detail about it before the Commons justice committee.
Both ex-ministers, though, say they nonetheless remain constrained by honour and principle. They are not free to reveal misbehaviour by Trudeau and his aides, only to say it exists and tease future revelations. Wilson-Raybould followed up Philpott's interview by declaring she has more facts and evidence for the committee, and will be providing some of it in writing.
The simplest explanation is best
So, let's strop up Occam's razor and apply its austere logic to all this.
Might it simply be that Philpott and Wilson-Raybould are being coy because they want to inflict maximum damage on Trudeau from within his own caucus, which they know is the most effective place to do it? Might they intend to push for a leadership review after this fall's election, or, even better, before it?
Right. Sorry, but that sounds a lot like the line John Turner peddled when his own MPs were busy knifing him in the back: open party, grassroots discussion, lots of room for dissent, blah, blah, blah.
Realistic advice
An old acquaintance who worked in Liberal backrooms a generation ago says he doesn't believe Philpott or Wilson-Raybould are ambitious. This whole thing, he thinks, is a "cascade of dominoes" resulting from principled acts, the purity of which gives the story such sting. There may be no end game, he said, simultaneously conceding that if there isn't, it's a first.
I found Sheila Copps's old-school advice to Trudeau more realistic: They're dangerous. Get rid of them.
At the very least, Wilson-Raybould and Philpott are now objective allies of the Opposition, and any sensible leader would treat them as such. Jean Chrétien absolutely would. Andrew Scheer too, I'd bet.
This column is part of CBC's Opinion section. For more information about this section, please read our FAQ.
About the Author
CBC's Journalistic Standards and Practices
No comments:
Post a Comment