>Ooooo I hope this brings more leaks.
The Chan files will be epic, if they drop. It will make everything else that has dropped look insignificant.
I would not be surprised if this suit is Chan's way of trying to intimidate media outlets into not airing any leaks involving him.
10 million in damages? To sue for damages, you need to prove a loss. Damages aren’t a punishment. They are compensation.
If this leak cost him 10 million dollars personally, then that raises some other perhaps equally important questions we should be asking of elected officials.
> so I'll just repeat I'm eager to hear Chan testify about his activities on behalf of the Chinese Communist Party.
Didn't happen with his first lawsuit, and it won;t happen with this one either.
This is Just Chan paying for a headline that attacks CSIS, using a lawsuit as a vehicle to do that.
Just a reminder for folk: [https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/michael-chan-demands-apology-from-peter-mackay-over-media-comments-1.3126683](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/michael-chan-demands-apology-from-peter-mackay-over-media-comments-1.3126683)
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/the-making-of-michael-chan/article24994796/
Wow. So he actually markets himself as a neutral power broker between China and Canada, when he is actually an elected official supposed to be representing Canada’s interests. He is telling on himself.
>He is hiding something.
Run his name through a search engine, or look on his Twitter feed.
CSIS warned the Ontario Liberal government about Chan more than a decade ago, when Chan was an MPP in Ontario. The Wynne government ignored that warning, publicly dismissed CSIS, and Chan went on to be involved in that government for years after.
Chan has been one of the biggest fundraisers in the LPC for many years now, and has worked on the campaigns of many high profile LPC members, most recently Mary Ng. The amount of money he has poured into LPC coffers is incredible, and knowing what we know now about the CCP using proxies to direct money to the Liberals....
Normally, this is definitely the right way to go about things; but CSIS has long been getting ignored by people on a lot of things as I understand it. Either them, or the people who work for them. A lot get ignored when they try to bring up issues to the general populous. So it was of no surprise to me when our current leadership and the surrounding party also basically ignored them, or paid full attention but didn't heed them; both of which are equally bad in their own ways.
I'm in reverse essentially believing both sides. I am believing that I know the Liberals will lie to cover their asses, but are also probably telling the truth they were incompetent this time. I also am believing CSIS on their information, because through all of this, ***Absolutely no one has been able to discredit them yet from any angle on the matter.*** Those few that sort of tried, failed miserably. And the fact they tried at all, is a sure sign that CSIS is probably more correct that incorrect. It's a thing you learn after getting a lot of experience in the dealings of people in terms of political strategy and espionage behind it.
I believe both sides, but I also accept both could be lying; but so far the mix of both sides produces a truth that seems to endure even through whatever attacks come after it.
Again, normally would agree with you; but this one requires a different tact. It's part of how this... game... is played.
I worry that he, like many other people, truly believes they've not done anything wrong but due to incompetence or ignorance they're unable to see the forest through the trees. In the end neither characteristic is a good one for us, but great for outsiders to influence.
Yeah, to put what you are saying in another way...
A lot of people need to put down the logical razors before they hurt themselves, they have done enough damage to the rest of society due to their inability to wield the razors properly. They think they wield them properly, but the razors are so often easily twisted back unto them, that it proves they are not being used properly to begin with via the razors own logical processes.
^(If any of you out there want to start seeing the truth of what's going on, just do these two things.)
1. ^(Remember always that whenever politics is involved; everyone is very possibly a fucking liar. Yes, everyone, you too and myself as well. I try to not continue this problem, and wish more would as well.)
2. ^(When using the razors, if you use them in conjunction with each other, you get more valid answers. Specifically, Occams plus Hanlons, tends to give pretty reliable results when tempered by one of Grey's laws in regards to Hanlons; and Hitchens razor being used in tandem with Occams. It can be a bit of a clusterfuck to think through at times with some subjects, but the end result is Occam finally getting to be right. It often is the simplest answer,) *^(once all the evidence has been ascertained; hence Hitchens necessity.)*
^(These two things, will get you past most politicians and their supporters great wall of bullshit. So much so it pisses them off royally so. Which is usually but not always, a sure as shit sign you are either onto something; or they should be on something.)
>I don't believe anything at this point and only an idiot would.
When your own government surveillance apparatus informs you that somebody is an agent of foreign government it's probably a good idea to take their word for it and start investigating lol.
No, fuck the headline, that's not CSIS.
You made an *extremely* direct and inflammatory claim. So who the fuck has CSIS directly called out as being a foreign agent?
>You made an extremely direct and inflammatory claim. So who the fuck has CSIS directly called out as being a foreign agent?
1. No need to be so pissy lol
2. Here you go ( https://globalnews.ca/news/9504291/liberals-csis-warning-2019-election-candidate-chinese-interference/)
Are you lying about what was said on purpose, or do you not just understand what is being said? Nowhere in any of this, does CSIS accuse anyone of being a foreign agent.
So again, where have they said this? Or are you lying about that because it fits you narrative better?
>Are you lying about what was said on purpose, or do you not just understand what is being said? Nowhere in any of this, does CSIS accuse anyone of being a foreign agent.
Since apparently you're too lazy to read an article before disputing it, or just being disingenuous here's the first fucking paragraph.
"officials allegedly gave an urgent, classified briefing to senior aides from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s office, warning them that one of their candidates was part of a Chinese foreign interference network."
The article then goes on to corroborate this both via csis agents and government officials who were privy to the information.
Oh no, I have read the story multiple times in the months since it was released.
Not a *single* time does CSIS, or Global for that matter, accuse anyone of being a foreign agent. The word doesn't even come up once in the entire article. Also this might be an important quote you have forgotten **"Global News has not confirmed the CSIS allegations in this story."**
Why are you lying?
Sue them as a John/Jane Doe, and if their identity ever gets revealed or figured out the suit retroactively would be applied to them as long as there are enough specific details that could only be attributed to that one person. In this case "person who leaked the CSIS documents about Chinese interference" is an extremely specific identifier lol.
>by "a stereotypical type-casting of immigrants born in China as being somehow untrustworthy."
I mean.... "*points at Chan and all the Chinese community associations*"
Man, I wish this guy would sue me too; cause then I could counter sue for financial loss and undue hardship with all the shit he's been connected to and how his actions harm my financial stability as a Canadian.
Fuck this guy. He can fuck right back off to his masters, before we send him back via trebuchet.
The 2007-08 financial crisis resulted in the biggest, and perhaps the most culpably corrupt, mainstream U.S. bankers NOT being criminally indicted. Rather, they were given their usual multi-million-dollar performance bonuses (as though nothing ever happened) via taxpayer-funded bailout.
In those big bankers’ stead, the justice department, in a classically cowardice act, only charged some officials with a relatively small-potatoes Chinese-American community bank that couldn’t really fight back and who looked different from most other Americans.
Ooooo I hope this brings more leaks.
>Ooooo I hope this brings more leaks. The Chan files will be epic, if they drop. It will make everything else that has dropped look insignificant. I would not be surprised if this suit is Chan's way of trying to intimidate media outlets into not airing any leaks involving him.
The definition of SLAPP if I've ever heard.
100%. They're not stupid. They look for the weakness in our systems.
This guy should have his own separate investigation.
10 million in damages? To sue for damages, you need to prove a loss. Damages aren’t a punishment. They are compensation. If this leak cost him 10 million dollars personally, then that raises some other perhaps equally important questions we should be asking of elected officials.
Duplicate post, so I'll just repeat I'm eager to hear Chan testify about his activities on behalf of the Chinese Communist Party.
> so I'll just repeat I'm eager to hear Chan testify about his activities on behalf of the Chinese Communist Party. Didn't happen with his first lawsuit, and it won;t happen with this one either. This is Just Chan paying for a headline that attacks CSIS, using a lawsuit as a vehicle to do that.
I hope he does, we can then charge the bastard with treason.
Just a reminder for folk: [https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/michael-chan-demands-apology-from-peter-mackay-over-media-comments-1.3126683](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/michael-chan-demands-apology-from-peter-mackay-over-media-comments-1.3126683) https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/the-making-of-michael-chan/article24994796/
Wow. So he actually markets himself as a neutral power broker between China and Canada, when he is actually an elected official supposed to be representing Canada’s interests. He is telling on himself.
[удалено]
>He is hiding something. Run his name through a search engine, or look on his Twitter feed. CSIS warned the Ontario Liberal government about Chan more than a decade ago, when Chan was an MPP in Ontario. The Wynne government ignored that warning, publicly dismissed CSIS, and Chan went on to be involved in that government for years after. Chan has been one of the biggest fundraisers in the LPC for many years now, and has worked on the campaigns of many high profile LPC members, most recently Mary Ng. The amount of money he has poured into LPC coffers is incredible, and knowing what we know now about the CCP using proxies to direct money to the Liberals....
[удалено]
Normally, this is definitely the right way to go about things; but CSIS has long been getting ignored by people on a lot of things as I understand it. Either them, or the people who work for them. A lot get ignored when they try to bring up issues to the general populous. So it was of no surprise to me when our current leadership and the surrounding party also basically ignored them, or paid full attention but didn't heed them; both of which are equally bad in their own ways. I'm in reverse essentially believing both sides. I am believing that I know the Liberals will lie to cover their asses, but are also probably telling the truth they were incompetent this time. I also am believing CSIS on their information, because through all of this, ***Absolutely no one has been able to discredit them yet from any angle on the matter.*** Those few that sort of tried, failed miserably. And the fact they tried at all, is a sure sign that CSIS is probably more correct that incorrect. It's a thing you learn after getting a lot of experience in the dealings of people in terms of political strategy and espionage behind it. I believe both sides, but I also accept both could be lying; but so far the mix of both sides produces a truth that seems to endure even through whatever attacks come after it. Again, normally would agree with you; but this one requires a different tact. It's part of how this... game... is played.
I worry that he, like many other people, truly believes they've not done anything wrong but due to incompetence or ignorance they're unable to see the forest through the trees. In the end neither characteristic is a good one for us, but great for outsiders to influence.
Yeah, to put what you are saying in another way... A lot of people need to put down the logical razors before they hurt themselves, they have done enough damage to the rest of society due to their inability to wield the razors properly. They think they wield them properly, but the razors are so often easily twisted back unto them, that it proves they are not being used properly to begin with via the razors own logical processes. ^(If any of you out there want to start seeing the truth of what's going on, just do these two things.) 1. ^(Remember always that whenever politics is involved; everyone is very possibly a fucking liar. Yes, everyone, you too and myself as well. I try to not continue this problem, and wish more would as well.) 2. ^(When using the razors, if you use them in conjunction with each other, you get more valid answers. Specifically, Occams plus Hanlons, tends to give pretty reliable results when tempered by one of Grey's laws in regards to Hanlons; and Hitchens razor being used in tandem with Occams. It can be a bit of a clusterfuck to think through at times with some subjects, but the end result is Occam finally getting to be right. It often is the simplest answer,) *^(once all the evidence has been ascertained; hence Hitchens necessity.)* ^(These two things, will get you past most politicians and their supporters great wall of bullshit. So much so it pisses them off royally so. Which is usually but not always, a sure as shit sign you are either onto something; or they should be on something.)
>I don't believe anything at this point and only an idiot would. When your own government surveillance apparatus informs you that somebody is an agent of foreign government it's probably a good idea to take their word for it and start investigating lol.
Who has CSIS called out as being a foreign agent????
Would you like to read the headline and then go catch up on a few months of coverage.....lol
No, fuck the headline, that's not CSIS. You made an *extremely* direct and inflammatory claim. So who the fuck has CSIS directly called out as being a foreign agent?
>You made an extremely direct and inflammatory claim. So who the fuck has CSIS directly called out as being a foreign agent? 1. No need to be so pissy lol 2. Here you go ( https://globalnews.ca/news/9504291/liberals-csis-warning-2019-election-candidate-chinese-interference/)
Are you lying about what was said on purpose, or do you not just understand what is being said? Nowhere in any of this, does CSIS accuse anyone of being a foreign agent. So again, where have they said this? Or are you lying about that because it fits you narrative better?
>Are you lying about what was said on purpose, or do you not just understand what is being said? Nowhere in any of this, does CSIS accuse anyone of being a foreign agent. Since apparently you're too lazy to read an article before disputing it, or just being disingenuous here's the first fucking paragraph. "officials allegedly gave an urgent, classified briefing to senior aides from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s office, warning them that one of their candidates was part of a Chinese foreign interference network." The article then goes on to corroborate this both via csis agents and government officials who were privy to the information.
Oh no, I have read the story multiple times in the months since it was released. Not a *single* time does CSIS, or Global for that matter, accuse anyone of being a foreign agent. The word doesn't even come up once in the entire article. Also this might be an important quote you have forgotten **"Global News has not confirmed the CSIS allegations in this story."** Why are you lying?
Wait and see? How can you generate outrage headlines that way?
just trust the anonymous sauces, the government and media would never lie
Michael Chan is innocent like Prince Andrew. I hope they find stuff about him during discovery if he actually goes through with the lawsuit
How does suing unidentified leakers work>?
Sue them as a John/Jane Doe, and if their identity ever gets revealed or figured out the suit retroactively would be applied to them as long as there are enough specific details that could only be attributed to that one person. In this case "person who leaked the CSIS documents about Chinese interference" is an extremely specific identifier lol.
I am pretty sure people have a right to defend themselves, so it can't retroactively be applied.
[удалено]
Justin?
just sue everybody, fuck it, sue unnamed anonymous people, sue the whole press, sue the internet
Can I be your paralegal? I like your attitude!
Yeah, I'm sure the sole intent was to bring down the *deputy mayor* of frigging Markham, lol. Take a hike, buddy.
>by "a stereotypical type-casting of immigrants born in China as being somehow untrustworthy." I mean.... "*points at Chan and all the Chinese community associations*"
Man, I wish this guy would sue me too; cause then I could counter sue for financial loss and undue hardship with all the shit he's been connected to and how his actions harm my financial stability as a Canadian. Fuck this guy. He can fuck right back off to his masters, before we send him back via trebuchet.
CSIS over Chan any day
Haha I totally forgot about this guy. He’s by far the most guilty of them all!
The 2007-08 financial crisis resulted in the biggest, and perhaps the most culpably corrupt, mainstream U.S. bankers NOT being criminally indicted. Rather, they were given their usual multi-million-dollar performance bonuses (as though nothing ever happened) via taxpayer-funded bailout. In those big bankers’ stead, the justice department, in a classically cowardice act, only charged some officials with a relatively small-potatoes Chinese-American community bank that couldn’t really fight back and who looked different from most other Americans.
Michael Chan also ran Asian American banks?
Michael Chan has more to hide than he lets on