Anyone else find that the cross-examination didn't really go anywhere? The lawyer for the group before OPS's deal is I guess "everything's redacted so there's no transparency". And pulled up a 5 page redacted document that he seemed to imply was the policing plan (doing work with this on in the background so I'm missing bits and pieces…
Anyone else find that the cross-examination didn't really go anywhere? The lawyer for the group before OPS's deal is I guess "everything's redacted so there's no transparency". And pulled up a 5 page redacted document that he seemed to imply was the policing plan (doing work with this on in the background so I'm missing bits and pieces). And used his time to basically just ask questions that were always going to be objected to, just to have it in the record that he asked them. Not sure that the inquiry really cares, but ok.
Then the OPS lawyer pulled up a completed different document which was apparently the most recent plan, so what was the previous lawyer looking at? And while that document had a lot of pages, it looked more like an outline for a report with like 8 sections per page to be filled in later. I missed if they actually scrolled to around pages 13 or 14 or if they said that each of the sections referenced an appendix or other document or something. My initial reaction was the similar to Trudeau's. The table of contents itself gives the impression that nothing was adequately planned out. Weird as well to bring in meeting minutes from a day prior where it was agreed that there wasn't a suitable plan developed. Was sort of confused about what they were trying to accomplish there.
I think there's real value in needling at how the government over-classifies information. The Trudeau government is *notorious* for this. Was a cross examination with the prime minister the best place to bring that up? Probably not.
Worth remembering about some of these lawyers is that they're not entirely interested in getting to a resolution about the Emergencies Act or the occupation itself. OPS's counsel and Chief Sloly's lawyer, for example, are really out there to defend their clients' reputations. Did the OPS lawyer succeed? Not really, no.
Yeah, makes sense. After watching the OPS lawyer I was thinking that it didn't really seem like it made her client look like they had their act together.
Anyone else find that the cross-examination didn't really go anywhere? The lawyer for the group before OPS's deal is I guess "everything's redacted so there's no transparency". And pulled up a 5 page redacted document that he seemed to imply was the policing plan (doing work with this on in the background so I'm missing bits and pieces). And used his time to basically just ask questions that were always going to be objected to, just to have it in the record that he asked them. Not sure that the inquiry really cares, but ok.
Then the OPS lawyer pulled up a completed different document which was apparently the most recent plan, so what was the previous lawyer looking at? And while that document had a lot of pages, it looked more like an outline for a report with like 8 sections per page to be filled in later. I missed if they actually scrolled to around pages 13 or 14 or if they said that each of the sections referenced an appendix or other document or something. My initial reaction was the similar to Trudeau's. The table of contents itself gives the impression that nothing was adequately planned out. Weird as well to bring in meeting minutes from a day prior where it was agreed that there wasn't a suitable plan developed. Was sort of confused about what they were trying to accomplish there.
I think there's real value in needling at how the government over-classifies information. The Trudeau government is *notorious* for this. Was a cross examination with the prime minister the best place to bring that up? Probably not.
Worth remembering about some of these lawyers is that they're not entirely interested in getting to a resolution about the Emergencies Act or the occupation itself. OPS's counsel and Chief Sloly's lawyer, for example, are really out there to defend their clients' reputations. Did the OPS lawyer succeed? Not really, no.
Yeah, makes sense. After watching the OPS lawyer I was thinking that it didn't really seem like it made her client look like they had their act together.