Do you think Trudeau presses the charges himself?"Trudeau isn't responsible _(fill in the blanks)____"...there is that line again.
You think he's a cop?
Trudeau harming relations between India and Canada?
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
You think he's a cop?
It is, actually.
I can't follow it from the thread other than "Trudeau sucks".
So let's keep it tight.
What is your position on the RCMP statement?
No, that is not his job and it would be political interference if he tried.
That is technically wrong.
CSIS does the investigations, reports and lays charges where warranted.
No.
You are arguing he should break the law.
You are arguing that Trudeau should break the secrets act to name names or interfere with the justice system to make them arrest opponents.
CBC covered it better than I would.
To add, There is nothing specifically stating that Poilievre needs to be the one receiving briefing.
CPC Lawyer explained anyone within the CPC with clearance can be briefed on this and have been briefed on other classified issue before. Trudeau is just twisting the truth.
It's just a trap to muzzle Poilievre.
Then consider me wildly stupid and explain it like I'm 5.
What is he responsible for?
Sure, someone else in the cons can be briefed.
They just can't then tell PeePee what's in the report, since he is compromised and can't get clearance.
Where did he go?
You're mixing it up.
Trudeau said India was involved in Nijjar's killing.
He said India was using criminal gangs in Canada to do their dirty work.
Admitted no evidence for these, just intel.
If he is going to accuse a country, he has to present evidence.
Otherwise they wont entertain him.
The other issue is with conservatives being under India's thumb.
Can't Trudeau, like DesRicardo said, release the names to someone within the CPC with security clearance as a threat reduction measure if he was so concerned?
His avoidance in all 3 cases means that he most likely wants to sabotage Pierre's campaign and distract from his issues.
OK, so your issue is that you can't accuse a country without presenting evidence.
What kind of evidence is sufficient for you?
Is it, as I inferred, evidence available to a court of law, married to criminal charges?
Or is there some lesser standard you would accept?
