Thread by @TrevorsIdeas

From my sifting through the morass of confirmation biased speculation, is that multiple conversations were had between JWR and members of cabinet and the PMO wrt SNC, DPAs, etc. #cdnpoli

Based on what was alleged in the Globe, someone (either JWR herself or someone connected) believes that these conversations were too pushy.

This also is corroborated by the PM's statement yesterday regarding confirming that JT told JWR that the decision was hers alone.

Also it was suggested that someone at the PMO told JWR to speak to the PCO about her concerns. This would make sense as that is a source of info for legal / sensitive issues.

We also heard allegations that JWR was absent from meetings and had difficult dealings with other cabinet members. Some call this slander but this too fits with the narrative of being pressured.

I have read several legal opinions on the role of the AG/Justice Minister and the DPP and it leaves several questions about what the proper conduct should have been for both the PMO and, yes, JWR too (I don't believe she's earned a free pass just cause she is silent).

The problem is I think it boils down to these conversations. And that's a gray area subject to interpretation. One person's conversation is another person's undue pressure. Vigorous debate is what democracy is built on, ideally.

JT told JWR that despite any debate the decision is hers alone. Is that sufficient to alleviate the pressure? Yes I think so.

But then we have this cabinet shuffle. If she was shuffled because of her decision then we have a problem of undue pressure again. But was she?

I personally have not been particularly pleased with the Justice Dept's efforts on several items of legislation under JWR. I've heard rumblings of discontent elsewhere too. So there are certainly alternate reasons for her shuffling.

Does this speak to a fundamental flaw of our design of integrating the AG/Justice Minister in the cabinet? Being a member of cabinet necessarily requires one to be involved in debates (no doubt heated ones). If those debates constitute pressure then we have a flaw by design...

So in the end does it all come down to partisan interpretation? Speculation?

I believe the problem does indeed lie in the aforementioned fundamental flaw that allows for debate but not pressure. That line itself is too fuzzy not to trip over.

The same conversations between a different staff, different AG, different PMO would be interpreted completely differently. We could try to use this situation to fix this.

However unfortunately most likely scandal, allegation, and outrage will rule the day.