Thread by @TrevorsIdeas

The biggest thing I don't understand about this SNC affair is why so many key pieces of evidence go unexplored and key questions go unasked by those who write story after story proclaiming all sorts of dastardly deeds took place.

JWR says she sent the section 13 notice to the PMO and that the section 13 notice would've had details about the reasoning for denying a DPA.

Is this normal? Is there a paper trail? Could this notice, from Sept, contain reasons for a DPA denial decision that was made in Oct?

Why did the DPP re-open the decision on the DPA based on new submissions and re-evaluate its decision in Oct but JWR's decision in Sept was final? Why was it acceptable to provide the DPP new details but providing details to JWR was inappropriate in her mind?

Why did JWR tell cabinet that the DPA tools were for the prosecutor alone to use? There seem to be multiple clear roles in the law the AG has the option to take. Does she not like the law as it is written? Is that why she didn't present it to the senate?

What about the discrepancy over the report the PCO requested and Drouin says JWR blocked? JWR says she doesn't remembering issuing such an order. Why not allow the report? Just to avoid questions? The PCO/PMO surely is allowed legal advice no? Not worth a question?

Why was JWR so adamant in her first meeting with the PM that she had already made up her mind and had no plan to change it? This was before any contact JWR herself flagged had occurred. So why so aggressive right from the get go?

Did JWR do any investigation of the issue on her own or did she defer her decision to that of the DPP completely? Did her dept do a review itself? Did she contact anyone about it for advice / input / reports?

Is it improper for the PM to request the AG conduct a review of a decision using her prerogative? Did she actually do one? Did she report it in a fulsome way? Why did she refuse to seek outside opinion if that was the PM's request if only to try to settle the issue?

What is JWR's interpretation of the law in terms of national economic interest? What did JWR say the tools available to her are legal but it would look like political interference? That's not a legal reason for deciding.

Why, if JWR felt the AG had no proper role in using these tools did she not argue against it before authoring the legislation and including it? If she was fundamentally opposed to the legislation as written then why did she continue to stay in cabinet when it was passed?

When in cabinet it has been argued by many you have to defend any and all decisions of cabinet. A cabinet minister responsible for legislation they don't like can't just pass it and then refuse to use it. You can't just sit on the fence.

I could ramble on but people are likely sick of this thread by now 😃

The point of this thread is just to state that there are many questions that I think are enlightening. This may seem like an attack on JWR. It's not intended as that. It's to exemplify that up to this point JWR has faced almost no critical questioning on her version.