Ezra Levant’s Ezra Levant Show exposes Justin Trudeau’s Minister of Democratic Institutions, Karina Gould, proposing a government panel to censor election-related social media—mirroring France’s suppression of Macron’s 2017 leaks. Conservative MPs like Peter Kent and Stephanie Smith challenged her on foreign-funded groups (e.g., Lead Now, backed by Tides Canada and Rockefeller) and unregistered meetings with Facebook’s Kevin Chan, a former Liberal staffer. Jody Wilson-Raybould’s testimony revealed Trudeau’s office pressured her to reverse SNC-Lavalin’s DPA denial via 10 meetings, threats, and plans to replace her with David LeMetti, a company-aligned lawyer. Legal experts argue this violates Section 139.1 of Canada’s Criminal Code, exposing systemic corruption where Trudeau’s team allegedly undermines justice while demanding media accountability—raising questions about democratic integrity and selective enforcement. [Automatically generated summary]
You're listening to the audio-only podcast of the Ezra Levant Show.
You know, I do this show every single day on the telly, but you need to be a premium subscriber to see it with your eyes.
Now, the good news is that's just $8 a month.
Or if you buy a year in advance, it's just $80.
That's two months free.
And if you go to the rebel.media slash shows and type in the coupon code podcast, you get even more money off of it.
It's almost like we're paying you to watch it.
And I really think you'd get a kick out of it.
I do a daily show.
My friend Sheila Gunn Reed does a show.
David Menzies does a show.
And by the way, that money pays our bills and it's how we stay strong.
We're now in our fifth year of speaking truth to power.
Today I talk about, I punished myself, I watched hours of video from a parliamentary committee where Karina Gould, Justin Trudeau's minister in charge of election meddling, outlined how she wants to meddle in the election with a panel that'll weigh in on things that it doesn't think are true.
But the crazy part is the Conservative response.
You've got to watch this, or if you're listening, you've got to listen to it.
Without further to-do, here's the show.
You're listening to a Rebel Media Podcast.
Tonight, the Liberals plan to regulate social media, and the Conservatives think they're not going hard enough?
It's February 28th, and this is the Ezra Levant Show.
Kevin Chan's Fake News Claims00:16:06
Why should others go to jail when you're the biggest carbon consumer I know?
There's 8,500 customers here, and you won't give them an answer.
The only thing I have to say to the government is because it's my bloody right to do so.
Coming up after my opening monologue, I talk in depth with Manny Montenegrino about Jody Wilson-Raybould's bombshell testimony yesterday, burying Justin Trudeau and his entire inner circle.
Please make sure you stick around and watch that entire detailed interview with Manny.
But first, I want to tell you about something that happened two days ago.
Tommy Robinson's Facebook page was deleted.
It was just deleted.
He had 1 million followers.
It was either the most popular or the third most popular Facebook page in the UK, depending on how you measure.
He was in a league with their prime minister, Theresa May, and their opposition leader, Jeremy Corbyn.
And Facebook just deleted it.
That's more interference in the UK democracy than anything else I've seen or heard of in years.
And it was all done in complete secrecy.
Behind the scenes, did Theresa May herself demand it?
Did a Muslim activist demand it?
Here's one Muslim activist who actually works with the BBC who claims he was the one who got the dirty deed done.
Who knows?
And that's the point.
Talk about a lack of transparency.
Was it a foreign government?
The government of Pakistan.
They hate Tommy.
Was it a rival political movement?
No one knows.
And the government rather likes it that way because that mystery, that darkness, well, that's where censors would prefer to operate rather than in the sunlight, rather than in the public.
If you were Justin Trudeau, would you rather say, try to prosecute the rebel in a real court or even a kangaroo court like the Human Rights Commission?
Or would you rather maybe just have your chum, close friend, trusted friend at Facebook just turn us off?
And when I say trusted friend, I mean a trusted friend.
Facebook's head of policy for Canada is this guy.
His name is Kevin Chan.
He used to work for the Liberal Party of Canada in the leader's office.
Oh, and would you look at that?
He happens to also sit on the Liberal Party's in-house think tank called Canada 2020.
It's so chummy.
So yeah, when Trudeau publicly threatened Facebook last year, that they better start censoring his enemies in the run-up to this year's election, he really didn't need to threaten them because they're already on his team.
But he threatened them anyways.
That's what the Libranos do.
So how do you do it?
With private threats.
But the liberals are emboldened these days.
They want to actually start passing laws and hiring police and sending money and power to censor and silence.
Their $595 million bailout of the few remaining private sector media in the country will probably help silence any squawking.
Look at this.
Look at this.
Gould says she doesn't have full confidence Facebook will meet Ottawa's expectations to implement electoral safeguard.
And look at this.
I don't have the assurances that give me the full confidence that they will be completely seized with this, which is why I continue to have conversations with them, Democratic Institutions Minister Karina Gould told the Ethics Committee.
That is Trudeau's point person in cabinet in charge of censorship in the run-up to the election.
She is saying it's not enough what Facebook is doing.
They want to do more.
But we don't know what her conversations with Facebook are.
She says she's in conversations, but they're not on the record.
Kevin Chan refuses to answer questions, and Gould refuses to answer questions.
What is she talking to Facebook about?
Does she want to do in Canada what they just did to Tommy in the UK?
There's not a lot of curiosity about it from the media, though.
Say, do you think they'd be asking a few questions if it were Stephen Harper who is meeting in secret with Facebook talking about their censorship in the 2019 election campaign?
As in asking them to censor?
Here's the Globe and Mail on the same story.
Liberals may have to require social media companies to act on hate speech, Minister of Democratic Institutions says.
Let me read just one line.
Minister of Democratic Institutions, Karina Gould, says that the governing liberals may have to require social media giants to act when they fail to remove hate speech from their platforms.
Like when they took down Tommy Robinson's page.
No charges, no crime, no trial, no ruling, no appeal.
Just do it.
Is that what the Liberals want to do in Canada?
And the Globe reported this neutral, I see not even neutrally.
I think they liked it.
They want Kevin Chan and Mark Zuckerberg to just take down hate speech.
Whatever that means, I think it actually means speech that liberals themselves hate.
But take it in without any fuss.
No due process, no freedom of speech, no trial, no hearing.
Just do it, okay?
Now, these stories were written from when Karina Gould appeared before a parliamentary committee on the subject.
So I sat down and I watched some of that committee on video, online.
And I'd like to show you a few clips of it.
These first two are questions, and they refer to a government panel that Karina Gould and the Liberals want to set up, a panel with government experts appointed by Trudeau who will oversee conversations, social media, reporting in the election campaign.
As in, the government will look over who's saying what in our election campaign.
And if there's something that they think might change the course of election, well, they'll weigh in to stop it.
Well, what do they mean by that?
Do they mean someone trying to hack voting machines?
In that case, if someone was trying to change the course of elections by hacking voting machines, obviously we would want to stop it, but we don't have those electric voting machines in Canada like they do in the U.S.
We use paper ballots.
So what do they mean by someone changing the course of an election?
What's an example of when Trudeau's committee, Carinas Gould's committee, would weigh in to stop an election from going the wrong way?
What's an example of that?
Well, a Liberal MP named Anita Vandenbeld asked Gould that question.
Take a look.
We looked at allied countries and like-minded countries around the world to see what mechanisms they had and have in place.
And what stuck out for me was the French example of the Conseil d'État that weighed in when there was the leak from the Macron campaign to basically say this is a threat against our democracy and they advised the media not to report on it.
That's a step further than what this is anticipating.
We tried to come up with something that would fit within the Canadian context.
The Conseil d'État in France has been around for a very long time.
I know what Macron leaks was.
Did you hear her say that?
That was internal campaign documents from Emmanuel Macron's election campaign to be the president of France.
Now, those leaks were published, released to the world online about a week before the French election.
They were deeply embarrassing to Macron.
They showed his scheming, his corruption, his ideological extremism, his personal scandals.
I don't know if the emails were leaked or hacked or someone just chose a really weak password or someone inside the campaign wanted to blow a whistle.
I don't know.
And so there may have been a crime involved with the hacking.
Could be.
But the materials that were released were real.
They were legitimate.
They were news.
They weren't state secrets.
They were made public and they were definitely in the public interest.
But it was embarrassing to Emmanuel Macron.
And so the French government, you heard her say it there, advised the French media to publish none of it a week before the election, and they all complied.
Now, I think it was a stitch-up.
Maybe they just didn't want Maureen Le Pen to be the president, so they wouldn't have published it anyways.
The French media complied.
But that's an example.
That was the first example she gave about how her panel would weigh in.
So it wasn't a lie.
It wasn't fake news.
It was real news that was embarrassing to the left-wing candidate.
That was the example she chose.
Here she emphasized it again.
Can you give the kind of examples of the kinds of things that would trigger this mechanism?
So I'm cautious in doing that because I think everything is very context-dependent, and I wouldn't want to prejudge the outcome of the panel and their decision.
However, I think it's safe to assume that some of the major incidents that we've seen around the world, for example, the Macron leaks or what the U.S. was grappling with at the time, would be things of sufficient value to inform Canadians.
But again, it will be very context-dependent, and it will be within the context of the Canadian election, which is different.
Twice she mentioned Macron leaks.
What would the analogy be here in Canada?
It would be if Gerald Butts had his emails leaked and we finally learned all the truth about why Jody Wilson Raybold was fired by Trudeau and the meddling with that vice admiral in Halifax.
Some huge bombshells would surely come out.
Remember, Trudeau and his people originally said that story was fake.
They said it was fake news.
They're still sort of saying that, but after yesterday, I don't think they'll get away with it.
They trotted out that crackpot clerk of the Privy Council the other day to say it was all gossip and lies and defamation, except for the inconvenient fact that Wilson Raybold herself quit cabinet over it and lawyered up.
But other than that, people, it's fake news.
Please ignore it.
Do you see my point?
Of course, Trudeau and Gould and Vandenbeld and the partisan clerk want to silence leaks and whistleblowing and scoops that are embarrassing to Trudeau.
And that's actually the analogy, the example Gould specifically used twice, hiding incredibly important facts from the people during an election campaign.
The Macron leaks were not fake.
They were really his scheming.
And the government ordered the media not to embarrass a candidate.
That is the example used twice by Karina Gould.
Peter Kent, a Conservative MP, asked whether or not Gould cared about foreign meddling in Canada, especially through front groups like Lead Now that take foreign money, said Kent.
That's a real problem, not a fake problem like Russian hacking of paper ballots.
Watch how that exchange went.
Aid now is funded by foreign charitable funds channeled through organizations like Tides Canada.
So I'm not sure that there's evidence of that, but that would be something that… We would refer you to testimony in this committee of Ms. Vivian Krauss.
So again, we have the Commissioner of Canada elections that would be responsible for investigating that.
That's not something that has come up, and I would caution against those allegations.
But I do think that it is important to note that in C-76 that was seen at the Procedure and House Affairs Committee, and I see Ms. Koozi here, who played a substantial role in that we were able to have significant all-party consensus with regards to banning foreign funding with regards to third parties in our elections.
Now, we know what Vivian Krauss reported about foreign funding of radical environmental groups.
We know that's a fact because Vivian Kraus proved it all with IRS documents, big U.S. left-wing charities like the Tides Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.
They have to disclose who they give their money to to the IRS.
It's public.
It's not a secret.
But Karina Gould wouldn't even acknowledge that.
She wouldn't even acknowledge that it's happening because, you see, that foreign meddling helped Trudeau.
All right, up next in this committee meeting was Charlie Angus, the new Democrat.
I think he's a left-wing kook, to be honest.
But I'll give him this, he's not easily dazzled or bought off by Facebook or other tech companies.
And he knows how the Liberals work.
Watch this.
Who at Facebook did you meet with?
At Facebook, I met with Kevin Chan here, and then I would have to get you the names of the five other individuals because I don't remember off the same time.
Kevin Chan.
Who was not registered as a lobbyist?
Individually.
We met with numerous people in the government's office.
He was a former member working for the Liberals.
So, Kevin Chan was your voice?
As I said, there were...
I've got to say, you know, we spent...
Mr. Angus, would you let me speak?
Just sorry, you know, I'm...
I have my question because I'm trying to get away from that.
I'm asking my questions here if it was Kevin Chan.
I've been over a year studying this.
We spent over a year studying this, and we could not get a straight answer out of Facebook.
So if Kevin Chan was your source, I just want that on the record.
But Mr. Angus, I said there were five other individuals who we met with who came from Washington and Silicon Valley.
So would you give us their names?
Happily, I just don't have them right now.
Thank you.
Gould didn't know their names.
She didn't know the names of anyone else from Facebook because none of them mattered.
She only knows their key man at Facebook.
Kevin Chan, former Liberal Party staffer, current Liberal Party think tanker, head of policy for Facebook Canada.
You don't need to know anyone else.
They're just the staff.
Hey, did you see any of that exchange in the mainstream media?
No, you did not.
And good for Charlie Angus for raising the insane conduct of that Privy Council clerk, Michael Wernick, who just happens to be one of the people who will sit on this new government interference panel to monitor mean things said in the election campaign and then react if there's a macron leaks.
Take a look.
Yes, I understand it.
So I guess my concern is I share Mr. Wernick's concern.
I share Mr. Wernick's concern about the rising tide of political extremism.
But I was very surprised that he suggested political assassination in the midst of a parliamentary hearing on whether the government had done wrong.
Do you not realize that that would breach the rules for the Privy Council, that they're not to wade into matters of conjecture and controversy?
Yet he started out a question to the panel about whether or not the government was involved in interfering with the rule of law, and he related it not just to political assassination, but he says, I worry that the reputations of honorable people who serve their country being besmirched and dragged through the market square.
I worry about the trolling from the vomitorium of social media entering the open media area.
Most of all, I worry about people losing faith.
So is that the position of the government, or is that his opinion?
You would have to ask him that question.
That was his personal view, is my answer.
Okay.
Well, we learned yesterday from Jody Wilson-Raybold that Michael Wernick was one of the enforcers of Trudeau's shakedown, Trudeau's attempt to get the charges dropped against SNC Lablan.
But Wernick's outbursts on its own show that he's going to be a meddler on this panel of people who are enforcing social media politeness.
Liberal Government's Truth Enforcers00:06:28
Of course he's going to be a meddler.
That's the purpose of this anti-meddling agency is to meddle when necessary.
Telling journalists not to report something, that's the meddling.
Listen to how crazy Wernick is.
Imagine putting, I can't even believe he hasn't been fired yet after yesterday's comments by Jody Wilson-Raybold.
But imagine putting this guy on a secret panel charged with ensuring elections don't engage in fake news or something.
Remember this?
The Globe Mail article contains errors, unfounded speculation, and in some cases is simply defamatory.
In my observation and my experience, they have always, always conducted themselves to the highest standards of integrity.
You may not like their politics or their policies or their tweets, but they have always been guided by trying to do the right thing.
Indicated that it was entirely her call to make that she was the decider.
And that is a message that the Prime Minister conveyed to the minister on every situation that I'm aware of.
I worry about the rising tide of incitements to violence when people use terms like treason and traitor in open discourse.
Those are the words that lead to assassination.
I'm worried that somebody's going to be shot in this country this year during the political campaign.
What a kook.
He's not nonpartisan.
Oh, the Liberals have never done anything wrong.
Days later, we learn that he was in the center of it.
But let me tell you how deep this crazy thinking goes in the Liberals.
I want to show you a questionnaire committee from the Liberal MP, Raj Saini.
He doesn't just want to silence foreign meddlers.
That's their excuse, that foreigners are doing all these unsavory things in Canada.
Raj Saini doesn't just want to silence newspaper publishers or campaign publishers or even the media.
He doesn't want to just do broad strokes.
He's not a forest guy.
He's not a forest for the trees guy.
He's an individual leaf guy.
Raj Stane literally wants the government to censor individual comments online on Facebook, on comment boards made by individual Canadians like you.
If you like something, maybe.
If you dislike something, maybe.
If you use the wrong emoticon, this guy wants you censored.
Listen to this control freak.
However, there's one point I wanted to ask you on, if there's something that your department or some of the officials here could comment on, is that sometimes in whether it be Reddit or Facebook, there's a comment section.
And sometimes there can be infiltration by foreign actors or by other people who want to disrupt the election mechanism that we have here, where they can insert misinformation or disinformation within the comments section as is.
Is there some protocol that we are looking at to prevent that from happening?
Now, Gould didn't run with that question, but that's not the point.
My point is, that is the thinking in the Liberal government.
They want total state control over the internet, right down to what your grandma comments on a news story.
Here, this guy thinks that the government should tell us what's true and what's not true.
As you know, the election campaign is coming up.
There may be things that are said in social media about certain candidates, true or untrue.
What's the mechanism to resolve something that is untrue?
So in C-76, there was a tightening based on the recommendations from the former CEO of Elections Canada to tighten the language surrounding false statements made against candidates.
The idea was that the previous clause in the Elections Act was too vague, that it was so unenforceable.
So we tightened it up so that it would be based on statements that you could prove or disprove.
So for example, if someone accused candidate X of having a criminal record, that's something that you could prove or disprove.
And the mechanism, like all with regards to our elections legislation, is a complaint filed to the Commissioner of Canada elections, for which they would then respond.
And the resources to the Commissioner have been increased.
And I think another very important element of this is that the Commissioner has been both moved back into Elections Canada, but also empowered to initiate and lay charges as well as compel testimony.
And so their powers have been strengthened so that they can be more effective in applying our legislation.
So if you say something false that the government thinks is false, you will have charges laid against you and your testimony will be compelled.
Is that how we resolve what's true or false in an election?
It's funny that false statement part of the law.
I looked it up.
Here, let me read it to you.
This is from their bill C-76.
Publishing false statement to affect election results.
No person or entity shall, with the intention of affecting the results of an election, make or publish during the election period a false statement about the citizenship, place of birth, education, professional qualifications, or membership in a group or association of a candidate, a prospective candidate, the leader of a political party, or a public figure associated with a political party.
Really?
Really?
So we're going to have the government now checking every single thing people say.
And if it's wrong, the answer isn't to rebut it, it's to prosecute them.
And this Liberal government's going to be trustworthy to do that fairly.
It's now against the law to say something false and defamatory, but then you can go to a real court.
But what they're doing here is setting up a liberal handpick election court with the power to compel testimony that's going to hear special political crimes if you say something false about someone's education or qualifications or where they're from.
And the government itself is going to enforce this?
Some elections agency will, not a proper court?
Okay, I'll bite.
Maryam Monsev, the crooked cabinet minister who admitted she lied on her refugee application in Canada.
She lied and said she's from Afghanistan when she's not.
Lies and Elections00:03:17
Remember her?
So you were born in Afghanistan, correct?
I believe I was.
I believe I was.
No, you little liar.
You were born in Iran.
So does she have to go to jail for lying about herself?
Or how about Christy Duncan, who lied about her qualifications?
She lied and said she was a Nobel Prize winner.
Gee, I wonder if that's hard to check.
Does she have to go to jail now because she lied about her professional qualifications?
I don't think they should, by the way.
I don't think we should criminalize campaign banter.
I think it's up to voters to decide what's true or not.
And who on earth gets to judge what is a fair comment or an unfair one?
Isn't that our job as voters?
But the whole thing is built on a lie.
The liberals have actually convinced themselves that Donald Trump won the election in 2016 because of Russian hacking.
You heard Karina Gould earlier say, Macron leaks and the business in 2016 in America.
Really?
Well, two years and $20 million worth of investigations by Robert Mueller and all his prosecutors haven't found any Russian collusion.
But listen to this.
Karina Gould is implying that the 2000 election, 2016 election was unfair and rigged and a disaster and has to be stopped up here.
And so we announced $7 million for our digital citizenship initiative that will provide funding to civil society organizations in the realms of digital media and civic literacy.
And I think that this is an extraordinarily important initiative.
I think over the past couple of years, particularly with the 2016 U.S. elections, it was a bit of a wake-up call to Western democracies in the sense that we were taking our democracy a little bit for granted.
And I think it's important to ensure that we continue to talk about democracy and democratic values in our own countries.
Otherwise, we could stand the chance of losing it.
What the hell is she saying?
But was 2016 the destruction of democracy in America, or was it a wonderful expression of democracy, where the candidate who outspent the other two to one, the corrupt Hillary Clinton, lost despite all the establishment?
That was a wonderful expression of democracy, but at the very least, we know there was no Russian corruption.
So says Mueller's investigation.
She, I don't know if she actually believes that America lost its democracy.
And if we don't stop that sort of thing from happening here, we could lose our democracy too.
I don't know if she believes that.
She seems like a smart lady.
Maybe she's just whipped herself up and only talks to other Trump haters and there's a lot of them in the Liberal Party.
Or maybe she knows it's a croc, but just is using that as an excuse to regulate you and me.
It was so awful.
But then Stephanie QC, the Conservative MP from Calgary, finally spoke.
I knew her about 25 years ago.
We actually went to college together.
So what did she have to say in committee?
How did she start things off?
Was she like Charlie Angus?
Did someone finally take Karina Gould on and take the Liberals to task?
Compliment and Critique00:05:31
Either for their censorship or their coziness with Facebook?
Yeah, no, it was sort of the opposite.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
And Minister, always lovely to see you.
I love that necklace, by the way.
That's just beautiful.
Also, I want to say that I really enjoyed your speech yesterday at the AI.
And you know what?
It was very informal.
And I really, I think you should go with that format more when you come even to committees, because you do it so well.
So I just wanted to compliment you on that.
Okay, now please tell me that was just some friendly banter as a warm-up before the official opposition did some official opposing.
Yeah, no.
So I'm asking you, please, if you are ready in regards to the social media platform, willing to make the hard decisions, to take the hard actions, and not six months from now, but now, please.
That's your question.
Charlie Angus was talking about collusion between Facebook and the Liberals.
We heard all sorts of plans for censorship, all sorts of schemes, even censoring comments.
We heard the statement that, you know, if there's some real news that could alter the course of the election, the government should weigh in.
We heard that twice about Macron leaks.
And the question from the Conservatives is to go harder and faster?
Is that the approach of the Conservatives?
The Liberals want to control the Internet.
They want a government censorship agency and a government meddling agency with that kook Michael Wernick on it.
They're working hand in glove with liberal executives at Facebook.
And all the Conservatives have to say is, will you go harder and faster and just do it already?
And might I say you're looking wonderful today?
That is crazy, my friends.
That is danger.
They're coming for you.
They're coming for me.
They're coming for anyone who makes comments on Facebook they don't like.
You heard Rad Sainey.
They literally want to arrest people and charge them for crimes for criticizing Trudeau too much, like this kook, a liberal MP named Nathaniel Erskine Smith.
Take a look.
They said Trudeau is a traitor to our country and deserves to be hung for his treasonous crimes.
And that's posted on Facebook.
That's left on Facebook.
Facebook doesn't take it down.
So should we expect social media companies to act or should we require them to act?
So I should clarify that my expectations have to fall within the electoral context at this point as I'm Minister of Democratic Institutions.
However, that being said, I think that we are moving in a direction where we need to require social media companies to act.
That is outside the scope of my specific mandate right now.
But I think that when we have very clear evidence that they are contravening laws here in Canada, that they should be acting responsibly in that manner.
That's the liberal line.
That's the liberal plan.
Michael Wernick, that extremist clerk, is saying it.
Karina Gould is saying it.
Rad Saini is saying it.
This latest guy, Nathaniel, is saying it.
They think the convoy that went to Ottawa asking for pipelines to be built, they think these people are the criminals.
Because some anonymous person on Facebook purportedly called Trudeau a traitor, the law needs to act.
Now, calling Trudeau a traitor might be rude, but it's not a crime to be rude to politicians.
The CBC liberals called Stephen Harpy a Nazi.
They called him Stasi Steve and Herr Hitler.
Remember this?
So, help save poor Stasi Steve this season.
God knows Herr Harper doesn't have enough sense to save himself.
Herr Harper, that's delicious.
So that's fine.
That's fine discourse.
That's the government of Canada's Mary Walsh.
That's fine discourse.
By the way, here's a massive petition a couple years back, arrest and charge Stephen Harper for treason.
This was promoted in the mainstream media, calling for the RCMP to actually arrest Harper for treason, more than 10,000 signatures on it.
See, that was fine way, way back four years ago, when the target of that hate was Stephen Harper.
But today, Facebook needs to be regulated to tone it down because Trudeau is the prime minister, and we need a government agency telling us what to believe and what not to believe.
And the best the Conservatives have in reply is to compliment the chief censor on how fashionable she looks and to tell her to censor harder and faster.
Oh, they will.
Oh, they will.
stay with us for more.
For a period of approximately four months between September and December of 2018, I experienced a consistent and sustained effort by many people within the government to seek to politically interfere in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in my role as the Attorney General of Canada in an inappropriate effort to secure a deferred prosecution agreement with SNC-Lavalin.
Sworn Testimony Confirmed00:14:48
It was important for Jodie Wilson-Raybel to speak openly at the Justice Committee today, and I'm glad she had the chance to do so.
I strongly maintain, as I have from the beginning, that I and my staff always acted appropriately and professionally.
I therefore completely disagree with the former Attorney General's characterization of events.
Well, there you have it, as we showed you in great length yesterday, over an hour's worth of commentary.
Jodie Wilson-Raybel meticulously laid out a very complicated campaign to get her to drop the criminal charges against SNC Lavalin.
Ten different phone calls, 10 different meetings, emails, text messages, threats, bullying, including from the prime minister himself.
And you saw he simply waved it off yesterday at a partisan event.
He didn't refute any of the details.
He just said, no, no, I'm going to brazen it out.
Well, will he get away with it?
One person I've been following very carefully on Twitter to help me analyze the situation is our friend Manny Montenegrino.
He is the boss of consultancy, a think tank, a one-man think tank in Ottawa.
But for our purposes, he's also the former lawyer to Stephen Harper and a former national manager of a major law firm.
Manny joins us now via Skype.
Manny, I can hardly wait to hear your take on things.
Jump right in.
What do you make of yesterday's events?
Well, there is so much, Ezra, and I can stand here and say, as a lawyer, I am deeply, deeply offended.
As a Canadian, I am deeply, deeply offended.
I bring to you, Ezra, from a legal perspective of what happened.
And when problems like this emerge, the very first thing I do is look at the criminal code, look at the act.
Section 131, 139.1 says, everyone who willfully attempts in any manner to obstruct, pervert, or defeat the course of a judicial proceeding is subject to a criminal penalty.
Now, those words are pretty simple.
It says, in any manner who willfully attempts.
You listened to the ex-Attorney General.
Her timeline was, it was persistent and it continued.
It went for four months unabated, 10 meetings, 11 emails, 11 people involved.
The prime minister got 11 people involved to try to defeat the course of a judicial proceeding.
It was willful.
It was in any manner.
Normally, the legislation thinks about one or two meetings.
This is far past meets the test of 139.1.
Ezra, there is even, it's even worse than that.
I noted from the testimony of the Attorney General, as she then was, she made a point that alarmed me and it hasn't been picked up.
And that is the SNC Lavalin received a lawyer from the directors of prosecution, received a letter saying we will not proceed with a DPA.
That was in October.
What SNC Lavalin did immediately, which they have the right to do, is go on a motion to a judge to say that the Attorney General is wrong.
And they're entitled to do that.
They could go to a court and say we're entitled to the DPA.
Now think of this, Ezra.
We now have the Attorney General who said in September, we are not moving with a DPA.
The Attorney General on September 17th tells the Prime Minister we are not moving with a DPA.
Legal counsel for SNC Lavalin take a motion to the court.
There's an active motion before a judge and they continue the persistent lobbying and trying to manipulate and thwart the course of justice while there is a case before the courts.
Right.
I mean, that is unprecedented.
Let me jump in just for our viewers.
As we described yesterday, DPA is deferred prosecution agreement.
Manny, I know you're a lawyer and that's second nature to you.
That's basically a fancy way of saying a plea bargain where this large engineering firm, SNC Lavaland, could avoid the messiness and embarrassment of a trial and just basically pay money and say, yeah, we did it.
Don't take it to court.
So, but you make such an important point, Manny, is that this wasn't just saying, hey, prosecutors don't prosecute us anymore.
The decision was made to prosecute.
The decision was made not to give him a plea bargain.
They properly appealed that to a judge.
Right.
Still, Trudeau and Butts and team, they still tried to roll Jody Wilson-Raybold, even though it was before a judge now.
That is enormously important that everyone skipped over.
There is an active case before a court, and they are still trying to manipulate and thwart justice.
Now, Ezra, as well, you have to look.
I was so impressed with the testimony of the ex-attorney general.
She stood there for four hours.
Her testimony was extremely credible.
And why do I say that?
It was sworn to us testimony.
She was detailed.
She was metipulous.
She took comprehensive notes throughout the whole four months.
She repeated the notes.
She had details in time.
Hers was not a political speech.
And in law, when you have a witness that is giving evidence against their own interests, we have a liberal cabinet minister that is destroying her career and future.
There can't be a higher point of credibility of a witness.
Every word that woman has said, every word that she had said is extremely credible.
There were no political machinations, unlike the clerk.
So when you look at the testimony, she is maybe destroying her political career in order to get to the truth.
That is credible.
And that has to be given extreme great weight.
You know, that's such a good point.
And Trudeau, who later said, oh, no, it's not true.
No specificity, no specific refutations.
In fact, he later said, oh, I didn't watch it.
But whatever it was, it wasn't true.
Let me say one thing.
And Manny, you would have more experience at this than me.
The Attorney General, I mean, law is all about paperwork.
There's a paper trail for everything.
Everything's filed in triplicate, quadruplicate, copies here and there, files, notes.
The civil service is very bureaucratic.
I mean, you can call it red tape if you like, but nothing moves without paperwork.
So if Jodie Wilson-Raybold claims these phone calls happened, claims these meetings happened, there is undoubtedly minutes and memos and meetings and schedules and calendars.
So I don't think it's even possible that she could be fibbing about if a meeting happened.
And there were so many other people involved in these meetings, her deputy minister, her chief of staff, various advisors.
I think it's absolutely credible that these things happen.
Go ahead.
I wouldn't spend a second trying to challenge the testimony of Jody, our ex-attorney general.
I wouldn't spend a second.
But here's the other side of that coin, Manny.
You know, and you and I have talked about this briefly.
There's another case going on in Atlantic Canada right now, a Vice Admiral of the Navy who's been prosecuted by the Liberal Scott Price and resigned over it.
And it came out that the PMO, Justin Trudeau's office, had all these meetings about that case, and they kept no notes.
Well, the only group I've ever heard of that has serious substantive meanings that don't keep notes is organized crime.
They don't write things down because they don't want to compare the gang that doesn't keep notes to this meticulous straight arrow who's keeping a lot of notes.
I know who I believe.
Well, yeah, and you know what?
You don't have to go far.
When you're putting the test of the credibility of the ex-attorney general, who basically has given up her standing, her cabinet post, perhaps be kicked out of the caucus.
We haven't seen that yet.
Everything to uphold the law versus the prime minister who has been found by an independent judiciary, the ethics commissioner, five times to be in breach of ethics.
And also she found him not to be credible in his testimony that the trip to the Aga Khan's private luxury island was because he was an old friend that he hasn't seen for 30 years.
The ethics commissioner, a justice equivalent to a county, a judge, said, I don't find you credible.
She struck down that evidence.
So I don't need to be political about this.
I have a person that has been found by a quasi-court to be not credible.
And I have the Attorney General, ex-Attorney General, giving everything up in order to speak the truth.
I am well past that.
So when I test credibility, it's not a political and it's not a partisan thing that I'm doing here.
I've got my lawyer hat on.
There's no question any judge in the world would take the credibility of the Attorney General who is acting against her own personal interest, whereas the Prime Minister is trying to keep his job.
There's no question as to who's more credible in this whole saga.
Now, let me, you know, I am so offended, and I'm glad to see Jody Wilson-Rayboat's father come to her defense.
For some reason or another, I feel a kinship to him because I have a wonderful, strong daughter, as he does.
But he's coming to her defense, and for the prime minister to sit there after hearing the testimony and saying that, well, it was always her decision.
You know, let me give you an analogy, Ezra.
This is like a guy who spent four months with 11 people to knock over a bank, and he's in the bank, and he finds this really strong, principled bank manager that holds him at bay and kicks him out.
And then he comes out of there, the bank robber, to the police and says, well, wait a minute, it was always her decision to give me the money.
She has not given me the money, so therefore everything's okay.
That's not how the law works.
It's an attempt to obstruct justice.
It isn't trying to, the reason why he wasn't successful is because of Jodie Wilson-Rayboat.
The reason why he didn't succeed in taking the money from the bank is because the bank manager was principled and stopped it.
Right.
You know, let's put up on the screen one more time Section 139 one of the criminal code because you pointed out to me, look at the language there.
Everyone who willfully attempts in any manner, so you just have to attempt.
You don't have to be successful.
And it can be in any manner.
It doesn't have to be an undue manner or a heavy manner.
Everyone who willfully attempts in any manner.
And let me put up section 139.2 just for one second here because 139.2, this is the next paragraph.
I'm just going to read this out, Manny.
Obstructing justice.
Everyone who willfully attempts in any manner other than a manner described in subsection one to obstruct, pervert, or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offense and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.
So this is heavy duty.
I have a question for you.
You've been talking about the ethics, Commissioner Manny, but that the worst that'll happen, I mean, Trudeau was convicted four times, five times by the ethics of the Senate.
Slap on the wrist.
But this is a criminal code.
Will the cops get involved, Manny?
I think they have to get involved.
And let me tell you, again, I go to the testimony of our ex-attorney general.
She said she has a text from Gerald Butts written confirmation where he says there is no solution that doesn't include interference with the Attorney General.
They understood that she stood her ground and there's no solution to what the Prime Minister wanted other than interference.
That is an admission of Section 139.1 breach.
I mean, you can't get any more clearer.
So I say, when you ask me, Ezra, I compare it to what happened to Senator Duffy.
Senator Duffy, there was no sworn testimony.
There was nothing except accusations of his expensing improperly.
$90,000, expensing a senator that has the ability to expense out of his own expense account $90,000.
It was paid back, but there was still enough talk that the RCMP felt that they had to investigate.
There were no sworn testimony.
have a sworn testimony from the highest lawmaker of Canada that's there protecting our judiciary.
We have a sworn testimony, four hours of evidence saying there was a four-month sustained persistent attempt to breach the natural flow of justice, to breach a judicial proceeding.
That wasn't there for Duffy.
And so when you ask me, should the RCMP get involved, I cannot see how they cannot get involved, given what they did with Duffy.
New Attorney's Dilemma00:05:32
Here's what has to happen, Ezra.
Number one, there has to be a full and wholesome investigation by the RCMP.
Number two, there has to be charges laid because I can just simply myself point to, as I did with the text and the evidence given by the Attorney General, there are charges laid.
And of course, and let me be very clear, everyone enjoys the due process, the presumption of innocence, and the only people that can decide as to whether there is a criminal code breach is not the Attorney General.
It's not Manny.
It's not you.
It's not any media.
It's no one.
It is a court.
It is a judge where there's a wholesome proceeding.
And if that happens, then that is where there's either guilt or not guilty.
So it has to happen, in my opinion.
Well, yesterday, Jody Wilson-Raybold said something that was that line about Gerald Butts saying there's going to be interference one way or another.
That's a smoking gun.
But she also said that once they had run out of patience with her, because she had blocked this for four months, that they said to her chief of staff or deputy minister, I can't remember which, they said, we're going to have a new attorney general, and the first thing he's going to do is deal with SNC Lavalin.
So they gave away the game.
And again, remember, this is corroborated by the other people she says, the chiefs of staff, the deputy ministers.
So that new attorney general is a Montreal old boy named David LeMetti, who is from McGill, just like Trudeau and Gerald Butts.
He's part of the liberal scene in that city.
He was actually lobbied directly by SNC Lavillan, according to the Office of the Lobbyist Commissioner.
And he said on TV a couple weeks ago that he felt no need to investigate because he took the prime minister at his word.
And he actually said he was still considering giving the plea bargain, the DPA deferred prosecution agreement to SNC Lavalan.
How can David Lehmetti, the new Attorney General, either stay on that position or even stay in the job given what we saw yesterday?
Ezra, I don't even want to mention that man's name.
As a lawyer for 32 years, he has offended every position and every tenant of the law.
He is not worthy of it.
He is the exact opposite.
How proud I felt of our ex-Attorney General reaching the highest form of ethics and duty to Canada.
He is the polar opposite.
And I don't even want to give him a second of time.
It is embarrassing that someone who is in charge of upholding Canada's laws says, I won't even investigate.
I won't even, I just accept the Prime Minister's word and moves along and is happy and gleeful that he's got the cabinet post.
He took the cabinet post of a very ethical, you know, Indigenous woman.
This old boy from Montreal took the cabinet post because he was prepared to sacrifice Canada's judicial system.
Ezra, there's another point that, as you can see, I'm charged up.
And it's because it's a lot, because it affects everything that I've done for 32 years.
It's this attack on my profession.
It's attack on law.
It's an attack on Canada.
This country is great because we have a great judicial system.
Simple.
Now, this is where it really gets emotional for me.
As you know, Ezra, on December 12th, two Canadians were kidnapped and put in jail in China because there's a retaliation for the Huawei CEO being put in custody in Canada.
These two Canadians and one other Canadian got his sentence changed to a 10-year to death.
We are going to lose a Canadian.
He's going to die.
And two other Canadians are there and 13 others were also withdrawal.
But this happened on December 12th.
Ezra, the timeline is very important.
On December 12th, Canadians were caught and the Prime Minister, I don't know how despicable a person can do by sitting this watching Canadians, the Prime Minister's there to protect Canadians, to sit there and go on TV and say, we can't do anything because we are a rule of law country.
While he has been spending four months to try to help another company, not Huawei, SNC.
I mean, I don't care which company you talk about, but he's trying four months.
And on December 19th, seven days after, the full force pressure with the clerk of the Privy Council under the Prime Minister's thumb, trying to force the Attorney General to break a rule of law while Canadians are sitting in jail and he lets him perish.
There can be no greater offense to me, a person who believes in natural justice, a person who believes in Canadians, a person who believes that the Prime Minister has to protect every Canadian, to sit there letting people rot in jail for our rule of law while he breaks the rule of law for SNC Lavalin.
Christia's Dilemma00:14:42
Yeah, that's a very powerful contrast.
I want to ask you about something I've seen on Twitter.
I mean, we all watched, I was riveted.
And like you, I was emotionally touched by the fact that someone would take such an ethical stance.
I can't imagine standing up to the prime minister and 10 of his henchmen and looking him in the eye and saying, I will not move.
I don't know where she got that courage, obviously from her dad, who was a fighter in his own day, too.
And her name.
Her name is Anita.
Yeah, her indigenous name.
And she says, I come from a matriarch of people that speak to truth.
Ezra, if you go back in my tweets, I called it from the beginning.
A lot of people are saying, oh, no, it's a setup.
I saw this.
I don't know the ex-attorney general, but what I saw was in a completely principled individual, from a strong family, and I saw that this would happen.
Yeah, I've never seen anything like it in my whole life in Canada.
Now, I was recording my show last night, so I didn't see it live, but I saw on Twitter that she was asked, why did you stay in cabinet at all, given what happened?
And I haven't watched the video clip myself to verify, but I read that someone reported that her answer was, because I wanted to stay in cabinet to make sure he didn't sneak this deal through even after I left.
Yes.
That's an incredible statement.
So she actually stayed around to see that through to justice, if that report I read is accurate.
That's amazing.
That's exactly what she said.
And that is why she is incredibly credible.
And it is offensive to me.
I mean, I sit there and cringe when I saw the Justice Committee lawyers, and I tweeted about it, the Liberal, sorry, not the lawyers, the Justice Committee MPs question, the Liberals questioning her and her integrity.
And I was saying, how foolish.
You have a witness that is totally credible, and you're asking, well, why didn't you come forward sooner?
Why did?
It was embarrassing.
They should be ashamed of themselves.
But these are these, you know, for lack of a better word these are punks trying to try outsmart a very smart lawyer.
And, uh and I laughed at it I would have let the liberals keep asking questions still till till, till may, because they were doing themselves more harm.
And it is uh, it is uh.
You know to kind of look at everything uh, and and and.
There's so much about this case that people have to look at.
We have seen that clearly, the prime minister and 11 others are prepared to corrupt the rule of law.
I mean, that is without question.
But there's something else that we need to talk about Ezra, and that also came out by with with with uh, the testimony, the chief of staff, uh Telford.
She said to the attorney general, I know it's not your opinion, but if you change your mind, we can get a lot of friendly I don't know if she used the word friendly, but a lot of op-eds in a lot of journals to support your new illegal decision right now.
Now Ezra, I I believe, I believe in the media.
I think a great country needs an independent, free thinking media.
You see me tweeting all the time when I see biased media.
I think, as much as I think that the law is the most important uh thing that a great country can have, and basically a free uh unencumbered uh judicial system.
I believe that the second, if not close to first, is a free media.
We have an admission by the attorney general of Canada, or then Was that the prime minister has available to him media at his beckoning call to set the narrative of what may be an illegal act, and that to me.
So Ezra, I look at the corruption, the possible corruption of the justice system.
I look at the admitted corruption of the free media, our independent media, and then the third one which really uh also bothers me, is the corruption of our, of our bureaucracy, our independent bureaucracy.
The testimony of of Michael Wernick compared to the testimony of of the ex-attorney general, I mean he was more biased than than David Lametti in his in his in his Trumping THE Liberal Brand and helping Justin Trudeau.
So, what this whole case, when I look at it, and I carefully looked at it hours and hours and hours, is we have evidence of corruption of our judicial system.
We have evidence of corruption of our independent media, and we have evidence of corruption of our independent bureaucracy.
And this is not, these are not, these are provable facts from the words of the Attorney General.
When you have the three most important things being corrupted by a government, we are no longer Canada.
We are Venezuela, Cuba.
I don't care what analogy you want to use.
But when you are corrupting the independence of our judiciary, when you are corrupting the independence of our media, and I don't want to get into that $600 million, I'm trying to stay straight with the facts and the evidence that the Attorney General gave.
And when you have a clerk trying to incite and emote Canadians and gave a political speech, and you saw the ex-Attorney General, it wasn't politics, and she's a politician.
It was pure fact.
That's what we should have heard from Michael Werner.
Wow.
We're talking with Manny Montenegrino, former managing partner of a national law firm and the CEO of Think Sharp.
Manny, you've been very generous with your time and very thoughtful analysis.
I have two final questions for you.
I've seen on Twitter this morning Christia Freeland, the foreign minister, saying that she believes Jody Wilson-Raybold.
And I'm sure she does.
And I see Selena Cesar Chavannis, another Toronto area MP who was parliamentary secretary to Trudeau.
Now she's parliamentary secretary for some other thing.
So these are a frontbench cabinet minister, Christia Freeland, and a parliamentary secretary, which is a pretty good gig.
It's like a junior cabinet minister.
They're both saying they believe her, but neither of them has stepped down from cabinet, and they're just giving this virtue-signaling tweet.
What should a liberal do if a liberal watched what we watched and felt how we felt?
And as Freeland and Cesar Chavannis say they feel, what's the right thing for them to do?
I don't think it's sustainable to say, I believe these charges of corruption against Trudeau, but I'm willing to remain in Trudeau's cabinet.
What should these women do?
What should any women or men in caucus or cabinet do?
Well, clearly, I mean, what should happen, and Andrew Scher of the Conservative Party got it right.
He said that the prime minister has to step down.
You have serious allegations of criminal conduct by 11 people in your close top circle.
There's nothing else you can do but step down.
And if he steps down, they can stay in place and do their job and be great liberals and move towards their common goal.
But if he does not step down, you're right.
They are put in a position.
Now, what I think is happening, Ezra, I mean, which is just absurd.
There's so much evidence of culpability.
You have Gerald Butts who left, resigned.
You cannot say your best friend, prime minister, you've known since university, your closest friend resigns, and you say there's nothing there.
Now, you know, that can't be true.
So you have, and by the way, it was Gerald Butts who recruited the ex-attorney general.
They are friends prior.
He recruited her.
So Jody was recruited by Gerald Butts.
So when you have Jodi, so that's why he's resigned.
He knows that he's in deep trouble.
So when you ask me that question, it's an interesting, you have a liberal MP who stood under oath and said, I don't trust the cabinet, I don't trust the prime minister, or pretty much laid out a criminal case against the prime minister, and she still remains a liberal.
And the prime minister was asked, are you going to get rid of her?
Well, let me think about that.
Well, you know why he can't get rid of her?
Because the moment he gets rid of the most ethical liberal in that party, and I'm sure she's got great support, is when they will all step down.
So that's why they're not stepping down because there's faint hope that the prime minister might do something right.
And, you know, I loved Jody's testimony when she said, why did, you know, just the foolish questions by the liberal people on the Justice Committee, I mean, completely ignorant people who are trying to cross-examine a very brilliant lawyer.
But when she and she replied to one of them, and I forget which it was, but one of those, and she said, I waited and waited, and I took the prime minister after the December 19th.
Why did you do something?
Why didn't you stand up?
Because I took the prime minister's word.
She felt that the prime minister finally got the message until she got kicked out of her position.
These fools on the Justice Committee, these liberal fools, don't understand the gravity and don't understand the force that they are against.
And Judy Wilson Raybold is, I tell you, I have seen hundreds and hundreds of lawyers and I've been with great lawyers.
And let me tell you, I have never been more impressed with her testimony and more impressed with her protection of Canadian law.
And what I love about it, Ezra, and boy, you learn a lot in life.
And even at my age, you learn a lot.
But when the female Aboriginal lawyer, Indigenous lawyer, says that a lot of Canada's problems with the Indigenous people were related to not observing the rule of law by, we'll say, the then corrupt government.
This is the person that's speaking truth to justice.
Yeah, isn't that true?
I got one last question for you, man.
Because I mentioned earlier, you're not just a keen analyst and observer.
You're not just someone who has a lot of experience with lawyers running a large firm.
But you yourself were an advisor, the lawyer, to a prime minister, Stephen Harper.
Right.
So I want to give you a tough question.
Put aside your own moral and political thoughts on things and pretend for a moment that you were the private lawyer to Justin Trudeau.
So your duty is to your client, Trudeau.
What legal advice would you give Justin Trudeau having seen what you've seen?
Well, I mean, right now I think the ex-Attorney General Jody did give her great advice.
I thought she was brilliant advising the prime minister that be careful you are treading this is September you're treading on very very dangerous ground.
He does not listen to good advice.
I mean it's clearly I mean I could go through so but if I were advising him And if I were advising the 11 people named, I would get a big horn, one of those big horns, going to and just and let out that big fog horn to get them out of their arrogant, self-loving world that they think they're in with all the power because the law is a different world.
I can't believe how many times, and I've been in meetings, Ezra, as you know, the problem with the PMO as it stands now, there isn't a lawyer in there.
I don't think there is.
I mean, I looked, I tried to find out.
I know Jerry Butch isn't a lawyer.
I know the prime minister isn't a lawyer.
I know Kay Telford's not a lawyer.
There are no lawyers in there.
A lawyer would have said in that room would have said, guys, wake up.
We're into serious stuff.
So there isn't a lawyer in that room.
So the advice I give to everyone there now, get yourself a very good criminal lawyer.
As for the prime minister, I mean, you know, I would love to see him resign.
I mean, sometimes, you know, the Attorney General put Canada ahead of her political career, ahead of her job.
You would expect that the Prime Minister do the same.
And he is the last person that would put Canada ahead of anything that he seeks or desires.
And we've seen too many examples of that.
Wow.
Well, another masterclass in law, politics, and patriotism by our friend Manny Montenegrino.
What a great pleasure.
Thank you so much, not only for all the time, but for your wisdom.
It's clear you have studied this very carefully.
In fact, I'm going to follow up on my own time some of the leads you've mentioned here today, Manny.
Just great to have you with us today.
Thank you.
No problem, Ezra.
There you have it.
Manny Montenegrino, the CEO of Think Sharp and former lawyer to Stephen Harper.
Stay with us.
More ahead on The Rebel.
Hey, welcome back to my show yesterday about Jody Wilson-Raybould's testimony and the SNC-Lavalin scandal.
Liza writes, there's no way that Canadians can trust anyone in Justin's cabinet now.
How can this government perform its job for Canada after this?
I wonder just how deep this corruption goes.
They are all tainted now.
Believing Jody00:02:48
You know, it's funny.
I see, for example, Christia Freeland and Selena Cesar Chavanas saying, we believe you, sister, solidarity, feminists forever.
They say they believe Jody Wilson-Raybold, and I think it's wise to believe her.
I think she's very credible, as Manny Montenegrino explained.
So why are you still in cabinet?
So you totally stand with Jody Wilson-Raybold, but actually you're standing in cabinet because you love your limo and driver and boosted salary and all the travel.
Yeah, Christia Freeland will never quit on principle because she doesn't have principles.
She prefers to jet-set around and swan around, and she loves that look that Justin Trudeau gives her when they lock eyes.
He's got this weird thing he does with all of his female cabinet ministers.
He's not just a close talker.
He literally touches foreheads with them and he embraces them in a weird way that surely drives his wife Sophie crazy.
Linda writes, she wouldn't go along with their wink, wink, nod, nod crap.
I want to jump up and down and cheer.
Last truth is a chance.
Yeah, I gotta say, I mean, I don't even want to say anymore that I disagree with some of Jody Wilson-Rabel's politics and ideology, because that is so irrelevant.
I mean, she could be a communist for all I care about the present matter, which is the rule of law.
She's not a communist.
The rule of law.
The no one's above it or below it.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
You can't sneak your way out of it.
You can't lobby your way out of it.
If you commit a crime, you're going to be prosecuted.
Oh, I love the fact that she stood for that.
And yes, I find it also delicious, the irony that she's an Aboriginal woman who understands the essence of Queen Elizabeth's laws and our legal tradition going back to Magna Carta and even earlier.
Yes, I love that delicious irony.
I love the fact that Justin Trudeau thought that she was just a token, a double token, a woman and a minority.
Oh, surely she'll understand I'm the source of all her power.
No, no, no.
Isn't it perfect that she was the only one with principle?
And I say again, do you really think this is the only time the Trudeau and Buds and crew have done this?
Or is it more likely this is the only time there was one honest person who stood up to them?
Billy writes, the Libranos attempted to interfere in the judicial process while admitting the reason was for re-election of the provincial and federal liberals.
That's called election rigging.
Yeah, exactly.
Today I did my show on foreign meddling.
Foreigners didn't meddle in our court system now, did they?
That was Justin Trudeau.
On Rebel Reporters Being Assaulted, Rich writes, three rebel reporters were assaulted by common street thugs and not a word of it was heard from the mainstream media.
Whispering Tommy, Whisper00:02:01
However, a CBC reporter was jokingly licked on the ear by some performer at a comedy club and all hell breaks loose in the hallowed halls of the anointed ones.
Yeah, you know, I saw that.
It was really gross, by the way.
And I should point out that that weird ear licker is a CBC talent.
He actually had a role on the show Little Mosque on the Prairies.
He played the dumb redneck.
I'm just a dumb redneck.
They had the dumb redneck on there to show how modern, progressive, and thoughtful the Little Mosque on the Prairies was.
So he played Joe Peterson.
I'm the dumb redneck.
So it was a CBC talent that licked the ear of a CBC journalist.
It was super gross.
On Facebook censorship of Tommy Robinson, Nikki writes, I am blocked from posting these.
I asked them to review.
They reviewed it, saying I had broken their standards, then closed the case, yet others have got it on, and it's not deleted.
So I guess they know I support Tommy.
Here's the pictures.
And Nikki sends along.
So you can see here, just, oh, Tommy, Tommy.
And they're saying literally, this is against their terms of service.
Show another one.
We've reviewed your photo and it doesn't follow our community standards.
Case closed.
You're temporarily blocked from posting.
The block will last three days.
You won't be able to post on Facebook until it's finished.
If you post something again, you'll be blocked for seven days, and then again, even longer, just for saying, Tommy, Tommy, Tommy Robinson.
Just saying those words is like Voldemort.
You can't even, you have to whisper.
Oh, I like this guy, Tommy Robinson.
That's Facebook in the UK today.
And that's what Karina Gould and Rad Saini and the rest of the liberals won in Canada, today.
And all the Conservative MP can say is, why don't you just do it and look fabulous?