02-28-2019, 03:25 PM
(02-27-2019, 11:10 PM)Rainrider22 Wrote:(02-27-2019, 10:55 PM)tomh009 Wrote: I just did a quick read and it's pretty much what I expected: asking her to find a solution other than prosecution, but stopping short of telling her what to do.
Personally, for a corporation, I think that a negotiated settlement with specified remedies might be the best solution anyway (you can't put a corporation in jail anyway) but that's really a separate question from what's the focus of this enquiry.
I dont think you can say they didnt tell her what to do... and when she didnt do as they say, they relieved her of her duties.. no one will buy that they didnt cross the line This woman is golden, I wouldnt want to be Justin et al .
I think that the party will claim that a) she was not relieved of her duties, she was shuffled as a result of a resignation that was not foreseen; and b) she must herself not at the time seen anything wrong with what she is now characterizing as "political interference" since she didn't resign. I wonder what the average voter will think.
The fact that she is still in caucus while making these kinds of accusations against her leader seems like bizarre behaviour to me on both her part and the party's.