Andrew Coyne’s Mueller Report video, riddled with 10 errors—factual or deliberate—fueled claims of National Post being "fake news," despite his tenure since 1999 under editors like John O’Sullivan and Conrad Black. The paper now recycles left-wing exaggerations, from Arctic methane myths to soft-pedaling Islamic terrorism coverage, while misrepresenting Mueller’s findings (no Trump-Russia collusion) and Barr’s obstruction assessment as dubious. Atkinson warns Brexit delays risk civil disobedience, with pro-exit rallies outside Parliament and EU concessions stalling WTO terms, while Justin Trudeau’s Aboriginal promises—like Grassy Narrows healthcare—face skepticism amid accusations of exploitation by white bureaucrats. Coyne’s credibility crumbles under scrutiny, exposing how media bias thrives even in conservative outlets. [Automatically generated summary]
Hey folks, today's podcast, I'm really glad you're listening to it.
I saw Andrew Coyne, the National Post where I used to work many moons ago, talk about the Mueller Report and Donald Trump.
And I was just interested what my former colleague Andrew Coyne had to say.
It was a video posted on the National Post website, and I watched it and I started counting, and it was like a Geiger counting counter in a uranium mine.
All the errors, I'm not going to say lies because I think Coyne just is clueless.
All the errors he made in a five-minute video, I think I counted 10, and I go through them here, partly because I'm interested in the Mueller story, but mainly because I want to prove to you incontrovertibly that the National Post, alas, is fake news.
Hey, one last thing before I go, can you do me a favor, go to the Rebel.media slash shows, the Rebel.media slash shows.
Can you sign up as a premium subscriber?
I know you don't have to to listen to the podcast.
But number one, it lets you see this as a video, which I think is good, especially if we're talking about a video as we are today.
And number two, it supports us pays the rent, folks.
Can't save the world if you can't pay the rent.
All right, that's the rebel.media slash shows.
It's just eight bucks a month, which is like half a latte, right?
It's like, what's the lattes these days at Starbucks?
Like 15 or 16 bucks.
All right, here's the show.
Tonight, maybe the National Post should just shut down.
I'll show you the most embarrassing thing from them in a long time.
It's March 29th, and this is the Ezra Levant show.
Why should others go to jail when you're a 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.
I love the National Post.
I really do.
You may know that I was on their editorial board for two years back in the early days of that company, 1999 to 2001.
That's almost 20 years ago now.
I know I'm getting old.
It was a great time to be there.
It was before the internet killed newspapers.
So we were happy and hopeful like dinosaurs, unaware that a big comet was heading towards Earth.
And I loved it since it was an explicitly conservative newspaper.
I used to haggle with the other members of the editorial board, trying to fight on every issue to make the paper as right-wing as I could.
I usually won, not necessarily because I was more persuasive, but because our editorial boss was John O'Sullivan, a former assistant to Margaret Thatcher, if you can believe it.
So yeah, we were right-wing.
And of course, Conrad Black himself ran the whole ship.
When I was quarreling with the Red Tories on the editorial board about what our newspaper's official position should be on any given subject, I would sometimes play my Trump card by saying, we already have a globe in mail, as in we don't need another one.
What's the point of just being like the other guys?
Surely the globe will always be a better globe than a second wannabe globe.
So if you're not different, if you're not conservative, what's even the point?
I enjoyed my time at the Post, and I met a lot of other writers there, including Andrew Coyne.
Well, a third of my life has passed since I left there in 2001, half my adult life, I guess.
I ran for parliament the next year in Calgary Southwest until I stepped aside to make way for Stephen Harper, the new leader, so he could enter parliament quickly.
Then I practiced law and I wrote a book about Kyoto.
Then I started a conservative magazine called the Western Standard and I ran that for a few years.
I wrote a few more books, including Ethical Oil.
I joined the Sun News Network when that was launched.
What an adventure that was.
And of course, for the past four years, I've been running The Rebel.
So that's what I've done since then.
And Andrew Coyne, well, you know, he's still at the National Post.
I don't know if that's out of inertia or comfort or whatever, but he's still there.
And he still drones away each week with Chantali Bear and the other liberals on the CBC.
What's that?
I mean, 15, 20 years now?
That's a pretty stale offering.
I mean, there's 35 million Canadians, and after two decades, that's the best you can come up with on any given week for the CBC panel.
Anyways, a lot has changed at the National Post.
Conrad Black still has a column there, but he doesn't own it or run it anymore.
The place has really been stripped down to the bones.
National Post Stripped Down00:03:16
It's smaller.
The newspaper's a lot thinner than it was.
A lot of it is just recycled left-wing wire stories from the U.S.
I mean, here's an embarrassing example.
We are in deep trouble.
Greenhouse gas emissions reached record high in 2018, speeding Earth towards catastrophe.
Really?
Hey, guys, did you know we're speeding towards catastrophe?
Is that really what's happening?
Does anyone believe that?
Does the author of that piece believe that?
Does the editor believe that?
Does the owner of the newspaper, some New Jersey hedge fund that owns the Post now?
I'm sorry, that's just embarrassing.
They've gone full global warming truther.
Forest fires, typhoons, and droughts.
Three years after Paris talks, the world braces for Poland.
Yeah, I don't think so.
New research predicts heat waves in Canada could become more frequent and five times more deadly.
Of course, as I showed you the other day, far more people die from cold than die from heat.
This is just weird junk science.
Here's another one.
Across the Arctic, bubbling lakes are leaking carbon dioxide, methane, and other dangerous greenhouse gases.
Is carbon dioxide really dangerous?
Because I'm exhaling it now and I don't want to put anyone in jeopardy.
Is any naturally occurring gas that comes out of a pond really dangerous?
They've gone so weird on Islamic terrorism too.
They used to be so strong.
Here's a crazy story by Terry Glavin.
Toronto Strong can be strong enough to support the shooters' parents too.
If people cannot find it within themselves to extend the same compassion to the Hussains that is being shown victims' families, they should be ashamed.
Hey guys, you should be ashamed for not loving a terrorist's parents who lied to police.
You should be ashamed for not loving them as much as you love the two beautiful innocent women that he murdered on the Danforth.
Or this one by an Islamist lobbyist himself, Isan Gardi.
Extremists distort all religions, not just Islam.
Muslims have coexisted with people of other faiths quite peacefully all around the world for centuries.
Hey guys.
Did you know every religion has its terrorists?
I mean, not a week goes by when some Christian doesn't hijack a jet plane for Jesus, right?
I'm just going to read some more.
Why an 18-year-old groping allegation against Justin Trudeau is not a Me Too moment.
Really?
Yeah, I mean, I think maybe you just experienced it differently.
Like I said, I do not feel that I acted inappropriately in any way, but I respect the fact that someone else might have experienced that differently.
So he respected her when he sexually groped her.
That's absolute peak male feminism there.
Or look at this one.
I think this is a winner.
Canada needs more leaders like Joe Clark.
With dignity, moral rectitude, and determination, he has worked to make Canada and the world a better place.
Russian Interference Confirmed00:14:49
This is a National Post.
Oh my God.
Look, I guess I'm used to this by now and I'm a little bit sad about Joe Clark because it really used to be my favorite newspaper in the world.
I used to work there.
I loved it.
Now it's just on a steep decline.
I still read Rex Murphy and Conrad Black and a handful of others there, but that's about it.
But then yesterday I came across a video.
The National Post, for some reason, makes videos now.
I don't understand the reason.
And it was about Robert Mueller's report, the special counsel looking into allegations of Russian collusion with Donald Trump to rig the 2016 election.
Now, as you might have heard, unless you've been living in a cave, Mueller found no collusion, just none.
Even the New York Times, look at their headline, and here's the Washington Post.
They led the charge on the accusations for two years.
They had to admit it.
Look at that.
That is a real headline.
You know it pained them to write it.
And you know, it was no whitewash.
I mean, Mueller had 19 lawyers working for him, all Democrats.
He had 40 other staff, including FBI agents, forensic accountants, everything.
They literally interviewed 500 witnesses.
And they found nothing.
Mueller wrote a 300-page report and submitted it to his friend, Bill Barr.
That's Mueller on the right, Bill Barr on the left.
I mentioned their friends because they've known each other a lot longer than Trump has known Barr.
If you're into conspiracy theories, you would probably be worried that Barr and Mueller and the Democrat lawyers were going to team up to undo Trump.
That didn't happen, but if you're just thinking conspiratorially, that's why I mentioned their friends.
As you know, Barr has so far only released a four-page summary of the larger report.
And in his memo, his four-page memo, he explains why at some length.
Let me just quote a little bit.
The relevant regulations contemplate that the special counsel's report will be a confidential report to the Attorney General.
And then he cites a regulation to that effect.
As I have previously stated, however, I am mindful of the public interest in this matter.
For that reason, my goal and intent is to release as much of the special counsel's report as I can, consistent with applicable law regulations and departmental policies.
So he has to take out parts of the memo that are confidential for legal reasons, like on Goring court cases.
For example, you don't want to reveal your case to the public before you go to trial.
Anyone who says they're surprised by this not only doesn't know the rules for special counsels, but hasn't read Barr's summary because he goes into some detail about why he can't just release all 300 pages.
Let me read just a little bit more for you.
Based on my discussions with the special counsel and my initial review, it is apparent that the report contains material that is or could be subject to federal rule of criminal procedure 6E, which imposes restrictions on the use and disclosure of information.
Now, I'm beating a dead horse here, but I'm trying to show you that not only are there strict rules about just dumping a bunch of legally confidential material in the public domain without redacting some pages first, but the bigger point is Barr and Mueller have been working together on this.
He just said so.
He said he was talking to the special counsel.
That's Mueller.
So this isn't some sort of trick that Barr is playing on Mueller.
They are working together.
And by the way, they're old friends.
I guess it's obvious that they've been working together, and you're probably wondering why I'm really emphasizing this.
But it's because of the National Post video I want to show you.
Let me remind you of just one more thing before we get to the National Post video.
Most of this four-page memo is Bill Barr's summary of the 300-page Mueller report, done in cooperation with Mueller and his staff.
But there is one line that's copied word for word from Mueller's report, and it's this one.
The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.
So they were looking for collusion and did not find it.
500 witnesses couldn't find it.
That's really all you need to know.
And that's quoting Mueller himself.
And that's why that was the headline in the New York Times and the Washington Post, right?
I mean, there's just no collusion.
Sorry, it's just didn't happen.
There was one more question about whether or not Trump tried to obstruct Mueller's investigation.
Mueller said he didn't come to any conclusion on that, but handed that over to Barr.
And let me quote that part, and I'm almost done, and then I'll show you the coin video and you'll understand why I'm going through this.
The report's second part addresses a number of actions by the president, most of which have been the subject of public reporting, that the special counsel investigated as potentially raising obstruction of justice concerns.
So that's basically Trump, whenever he would tweet that he hates the inquiry, it's a witch hunt, it's unfair, it's all Democrats, maybe he'd pardon the people who were being investigated, that sort of thing.
We already know all about that.
Basically Trump being Trump and tweeting.
And here's how that was ended by Barr.
After reviewing the special counsel's final report on these issues, consulting with department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel, and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the special counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the president committed an obstruction of justice offense.
So two things.
After talking to lawyers and considering the tweets and Trump's rants, they just don't think there's enough there to prosecute as obstruction.
It's just Trump being Trump.
But did you see that one name that he mentioned?
Rod Rosenstein.
He's the deputy attorney general who hired Mueller in the first place.
So again, this isn't Barr acting on his own or acting for Trump.
It's Barr working with the permanent lawyers of the Justice Department and talking to the absolute guy who started the whole Mueller odyssey himself.
That's why this was done.
That's why this is over.
Sorry, there's no story here.
That's why liberals who are serious journalists, even though they're liberals, that's why they've thrown in the towel on this collusion thing.
It's over.
There's nothing here.
New York Times, Washington Post, everyone, it's over.
Except for our friend, Andrew Coyne and the National Post.
Thank you for listening to me recap all the facts about the end of the Mueller inquiry.
And thanks for letting me touch on a few points, the categorical way in which Mueller himself exonerated Trump on collusion, the reason why we don't have all 300 pages released now, but that we hopefully will have more in time, and the fact that Mueller and Rosenstein and others were involved in this memo, the fact that there just isn't enough to prosecute Trump for obstruction because he wrote some angry tweets.
So now you see those points freshly in your mind.
I showed them to you from Barr's memo.
Now let's review this Andrew Coyne video.
Let's see what the National Post and their star columnist Andrew Coyne said.
I am so embarrassed as a Post alumni.
Take a look.
So the U.S. Attorney General William Barr recently releasing a four-page summary based on special counsel Robert Mueller's report into possible interference by Russia into the 2016 election, basically giving the U.S. president the all-clear.
Or at least the U.S. president says so.
Sort of, yeah.
First of all, it's a four-page summary from a not particularly objective source.
Barr was appointed because he's a fervent Trump loyalist.
And I think we want to absolutely see the full report before we draw any conclusions.
Even on that four-page report, that account of Mueller's account, it doesn't say that there's no evidence he did anything, even on the particular question of collusion.
Okay, how many errors, how much spin did you see there in that, what, 30 seconds?
Barr was appointed because he's a fervent Trump loyalist.
Well, I guess any cabinet secretary is going to be loyal to the president.
But he was approved by the United States Senate after a confirmation hearing, and moderate Democrats voted for him, too.
You heard Coyne imply that we can't trust Barr's summary of the Mueller memo, even though I just showed you Barr wrote his memo after lengthy conversations with Mueller himself, and he explained why, under the special counsel law, he can't reveal more now, but he wants to soon.
But Coyne just told National Post viewers that we can't trust the Barr memo.
I think Coyne's a bit of a truther.
He really is so paranoid he thinks Barr is lying or tricking the world, as if Mueller would remain silent if that were the case.
Coyne just said Mueller doesn't exonerate Trump on collusion.
Did Coyne even read the memo?
The investigation did not establish that the members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.
Again, that's quoting Mueller.
There's no evidence.
There's 500 witnesses, thousands of subpoenas, 40 people hunting for evans for two years, and they didn't find any.
Why did Coyne pretend it's not settled?
Or maybe he just didn't even bother to read the memo.
He just repeated something maybe he saw on Twitter.
Here, watch a little bit more.
It doesn't say that there's no evidence he did anything, even on the particular question of collusion.
It simply says there's not enough evidence, according to Barr, not enough evidence to warrant further proceedings.
That's not the same thing as no evidence, and it's certainly not the same thing as a blanket exoneration that he's never done anything wrong in his life.
Hang on, when Barr said there was not enough to prosecute, he was talking about the obstruction issue.
Trump tweeting about the special counsel, ranting about how it's a witch hunt.
Coyne is pretending that that part, where Barr says there's not enough to prosecute, Coyne is pretending that that was about the collusion.
No, Mueller is categorical.
There was no collusion.
That whole not enough to prosecute thing is bar on obstruction.
Why is Coyne saying otherwise?
Watch some more.
And it's certainly not the same thing as a blanket exoneration that he's never done anything wrong in his life, which is the way this is going to be used, by the way, in the simplicities of politics.
This is now going to be waived anytime anybody accuses Trump of anything.
But I think there's a lot more still to be found, even on that particular question of the collusion, because what we do know, it's not contested, is that Russian operatives came to Donald Trump Jr. and said, we've got dirt on Hillary that came from Russian sources.
Would you like it?
And he said, yeah, I love it, especially if it's as you say.
There are multiple meetings of Trump operatives with Russian operatives, which they then lied about, and some of whom have gone to jail over.
So there's all kinds of contexts.
Whether it all adds up to collusion or such is another question.
No, no, it's not another question.
The question has been answered.
500 witnesses were interviewed, thousands of subpoenas, two years.
There's no evidence.
I mean, it's true, some people were convicted of lying to Mueller.
A couple of guys had frauds in their past unrelated to the Trump campaign.
Let me read one more part of the Mueller report summarized by Barr.
The Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.
So that was specifically spoken to.
It's not an open question.
Why is Coyne misleading his viewers?
The Russians offered help.
Trump and his team did not coordinate, did not take help.
Multiple times, he said no.
That's what Mueller said.
Why is Coyne pretending this is a live question?
I don't know if Coyne is lying or if he himself is clueless, or actually my working theory is that Coyne's just such a Trump hater, he can't bring himself to accept the truth that Trump didn't do anything wrong.
He just has to hold out hope that there was some proof somewhere that this two-year 40-person Democrat-led investigation didn't find.
He's like those Japanese soldiers found in the jungle in the 1950s who were cut off from the main army, who didn't know that World War II ended in 1945.
They just were cut off and they just kept fighting until the 50s.
Coyne literally said there's a lot more still to be found.
He said that.
He's a truther.
He's that Japanese soldier in the jungle in the 1950s.
What's also documented and not in dispute by anybody serious is that the Russians went to great lengths to try and help Trump get elected.
Now, whether they did so in collusion with Trump is another matter, but they seem strangely insistent on that they wanted him to be elected.
And he's paraded all kinds of strange behaviors of deference towards Vladimir Putin and towards Russian foreign policy objectives, for example, trying to harm NATO, trying to break up the European Union and so on.
Now, this is pure truth or territory.
Is Trump trying to harm NATO?
Is he really?
So he's got a funny way of doing it here.
Listen to the head of NATO praise Trump for pressuring the other members of NATO to increase their NATO military spending.
Listen to this.
After years of cutting defense budget, they started to add billions to the defense budgets.
And last year was the biggest increase in defense spending across Europe and Canada in a generation.
Why was that last year?
It's also because of your leadership, because you're clear message.
They won't write that.
No, I have said it before, but the thing is that your message is having an impact.
He had a bit of an accent and the sound was weak, but he said you have pressured the governments to spend more.
And Trump said, why?
And he said, because of your leadership.
It's true, as part of Trump's negotiating style.
Trump says things like, if you NATO allies in Europe don't ramp up your spending, we're going to pull out.
So they ramp up their spending and then they all hug it out.
Anyone who thinks Putin likes Trump pumping up NATO spending is paranoid, crazy, conspiracy theorist?
Trump has put in deeper, harder sanctions on Russia than anything ever done before.
Trump's new ambassador to Germany is campaigning, pressuring that country to cancel a big natural gas pipeline from Russia, actually threatening Germany with sanctions if it does business with Russia.
And Trump says, why should we defend Germany militarily if Germany's going to buy billions of dollars worth of natural gas from Russia, making Putin rich and putting Germany in strategic dependence?
Sorry, getting that pipeline canceled, that's not deferring to Putin.
You know what's deferring to Putin?
This is.
This is Bill Clinton giving a speech to Putin and taking a half million dollar paycheck right at the same time Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State was signing over American uranium interests to Russia.
This is deferring to Putin.
This is Obama promising Russia that he'll be flexible just as soon as he gets through the 2012 re-election.
That was Dmitry Medvedev of Russia who will transmit information to Vladimir.
Yeah, I don't think Coyne actually knows anything about this issue.
I don't think he knows about Hillary Clinton taking hundreds of millions of dollars into her Clinton family foundations through Bill Clinton, which is why the Russians gave the Russians what they wanted politically.
I don't think Coyne actually even read the Barr memo.
I think he is just a Trump derangement syndrome kook.
And the National Post holds him out as some sort of expert here.
Watch a little more.
The other big question, of course, is, was there obstruction of justice in regard to that?
And again, one should be suspicious of Barr when he says, if you can't show the underlying crime, then there can't possibly be obstruction of justice in trying to cover up that.
First of all, that's just absolutely legal nonsense.
No lawyer would agree with that.
Second of all, it's logical nonsense because what it would amount to would be if you were successful in covering up your crime through obstruction of justice, such that we weren't able to establish it, then you also get off on the obstruction of justice charge.
You can't possibly countenance that.
But that's not what Barr said.
I read to you what he said.
That's crazy talk by Coyne.
He's a truther.
Barr said that he consulted with many lawyers.
Coyne isn't a lawyer, by the way, even if he plays one on TV.
Barr consulted with lawyers.
He consulted with Mueller, as I mentioned.
He consulted with Rod Rosenstein, the guy who hired Mueller in the first place.
And I read to you what they said.
They said there's just not enough to prosecute on.
Yeah, he badmouthed the commission on Twitter.
They didn't throw out the obstruction charge because they couldn't prove collusion.
They didn't say that.
Quinn just made that all up.
Why is he making it up?
Here, what's some more?
So the Democrats have called to see this full report.
Do you think eventually we'll see it?
I have to imagine eventually we will.
I think they have powers of subpoena, for example.
It would be remarkable if it didn't.
The Trump administration nevertheless seems strangely reluctant to release this report that supposedly fully exonerates him.
But that will, I think, be both a political and, I suppose, illegal contest, I would expect.
He just made that up.
I didn't read you the whole thing, the whole bar memo, but several paragraphs in the four-page memo point to precise legal statutes that forbid the report from being issued in public without first having key parts redacted.
The very order that created the special counsel in the first place said so.
And there are confidential matters before grand juries must be kept confidential.
Why is, I don't even think he's lying.
I think he just made that up.
I think he actually didn't even read the memo about which the National Post is pretending that he's an expert.
Or more likely, Coyne just gets his news from fellow Trump derangement syndrome sufferers.
I love that line.
Maybe they'll just subpoena it.
Is that how it works?
You just issue a subpoena and you can get confidential matters from another lawyer who has them in confidence from a court.
What a quack, what a con man Andrew Coyne is.
But I don't even think he realizes it.
I think he's just repeating garbage that he heard on MSNBC or the Young Turks or Vox or Media Matters or some crazy place.
Here's some more.
So now the Attorney General has deferred to the Justice Department.
So will they be conducting their own investigation completely, or are they going to be referring to this Mueller report as well?
That's a question I'm not, I don't think I'd be qualified to answer.
I would suppose, I mean, the wheels of justice in America are many and complex, and it's one of the strengths of the system is there are multiple sources of power.
It's harder to just shut things down the way you can, for example, in this country.
So, not just in the obstruction of justice.
There are any number of processes that were kicked off by Mueller.
For example, in the Southern District of New York, the prosecutor's office there, that there are independent processes on different charges that can go ahead, and there are independent sources within the Justice Department.
So, it's not clear to me whether the Attorney General can just shut things down.
And if there are strands still to be pursued, they're an obstruction of justice.
So, you may well see that.
Yeah, the shorter answer to that question would have been no.
They're not conducting a new investigation into obstruction.
I think Coyne just didn't know the answer to the question, so he just talked word salad for a minute, just making things up.
Dude, if you don't know how to answer a question, especially about something technical, just say so and move on to the next question.
Every single part of his answer there was made up.
The Attorney General did not shut things down.
Robert Mueller did.
The interviewer asked Coyne one last question about pardoning the people caught up in the inquiry.
What a great way to end.
Take a look.
Including his, I'm sure, sincere belief at some level that he's innocent of everything.
So it's not inconceivable, but it's, I would say, still at this point unlikely.
I know.
Trump is so crazy to actually think he's innocent of collusion.
Coyne was chuckling over that, except that Mueller just said after two years of hunting, they found no collusion.
So yeah, I think Trump does believe they found no collusion.
Brexit Deadline Approaches00:10:56
My friends, the National Post has fallen far, far, far.
They are an embarrassment every day, and their tired, washed-up columnist who comes across as an expert really knows nothing and just makes it up.
He just makes it up.
That is fake news.
That is a conspiracy theorist.
And I am so sorry to say that a newspaper that was once Canada's finest, in fact, one of the finest in the world, has fallen so far.
Stay with us for more.
The eyes to the right, 286.
The no's to the left, 344. To the right, 286.
The nose to the left, 344.
So the no's have it.
The noes have it.
Unlocked.
Mr. Speaker, I think it should be a matter of profound regret to every member of this House that once again we have been unable to support leaving the European Union in an orderly fashion.
The implications of the House's decision are grave.
The legal default now is that the United Kingdom is due to leave the European Union on the 12th of April in just 14 days time.
Well, they were supposed to leave today, but now Theresa May says they're going to leave in 14 days time.
I'm not sure if I believe a single word she says.
Joining us now, ViceKype is one of our favourite rebel correspondents who herself happens to be a member of the European Parliament.
And I think her very job as an MEP hangs in the balance.
Janice Atkinson joins us now.
Vice Skype.
Janice, great to see you again.
Hi.
Hi, Ezra.
I was supposed to be out of a job in two and a half hours' time, but Parliament has kept me in it.
I think maybe just to the 12th of April.
Then we can leave on World Trade Organisation rules, I hope.
Well, that's the thing.
I mean, it's been about two and a half years.
It's bizarre to me that there's this 11th hour panic and redo.
These things should have been ironed out.
I remain a sceptic.
I think that the Prime Minister Theresa May and the Conservative Party don't actually want to leave.
And now they're just in throw anything at the wall mode.
But look, I'm not right in the thick of it.
What do you think is really going on?
We've got to remain Prime Minister, we're going to remain opposition, and we've got to remain government.
And that's the problem.
The people voted to leave, and the majority voted.
85% of the MPs that were sent to Parliament in a general election just two years ago all stood on a manifesto to leave the European Union.
And that's the problem.
You've got this enormous disconnect between the voters and the people in Parliament who are not representing us.
And I think social media programs like this, that's opened up that chasm because people don't actually believe that they're being listened to.
I was on the streets today.
I was filming for Rebel.
We'll be uploading that film soon.
And just people are just so angry that their representatives in Parliament have not delivered the will of the people.
And Mrs. May never actually wanted us to leave.
She wanted us to leave on her terms, which were deeply flawed.
And we've got a few brave souls in Parliament, a few Brexiteers that are trying to push the real Brexit through.
I worry about our democracy, Ezra.
We have a first-class post-system here.
And we've got some elections coming up in a few weeks' time, just local elections.
And it's going to be none of the above.
They're just going to be voting for Brexit parties or independent parties.
I think they've got one almighty shot coming to them in Westminster.
They don't deliver Brexit.
The new date is now the 12th of April.
The EU has already said, Mr. Barnier, Mr. Task, they have organised an emergency meeting for, I think, the end of next week because they don't want us to leave without a deal.
They pushed it to the deadline.
She's pushed it to the deadline.
We're pushing it to the deadline.
And we're saying we leave on the 12th of April now.
No more shenanigans.
Well, but I mean, it's been March 29th for two and a half years.
And to say, well, just two more weeks is actually an enormous concession because whether it's two weeks or two years, there has been agreement to break that date.
And I fear that that is the biggest crack in the dam.
And now if you can delay it once, you can surely delay it again.
If you can delay it for 14 days, why not delay it for 14 months, 14 years?
And I'm worried that a tremendous rage will pour out.
I can only imagine if in our country or from the United States, a general election with the largest voter turnout in history, as it was for Brexit, were foiled.
People would say, well, the government doesn't believe in the rule of law anymore.
Why should I?
I think you would see, at the very least, civil disobedience and perhaps much worse.
There was talk about that today.
Managed to persuade people that you know they shouldn't be storming palm because at the end of the day they got machine guns out there.
That's how, how much people um are angry, but it was still good natured.
On our marches today there were tens of thousands of people, although the mainstream media are just reporting thousands.
Um, I feared for our democracy because we had people that voted for the first time.
We had young people that voted for the first time.
We also had people that had refused to vote in a generation because they just didn't believe our politicians were delivering.
And we hear them down in Westminster.
We listen to you, we want to hear what your views are.
Well, now they've been told and those people have been really let down.
So I think there will be civil disobedience.
There was a bit today with UM truckers and and others taxi drivers who had stopped the traffic around the periphery of London and in central London itself, and I think you're going to see more direct action and those 2nd of may local elections coming up will be the real test.
But I agree with you, we've got we had the 29th of march.
That's gone nearly.
We've got the 12th of april.
They'll do everything they can to extend that and I think they may even try to go into European elections, and that will be a totalist do, because what they don't want is a load of brexiteers being returned to to um European parliaments, which would we just be infecting and disrupting the whole time.
That's their fear.
They don't want that.
So in lots of ways, they actually want us to go.
They want our money um, but we'll just be there being being disruptors and what does?
What do the two main parties, the socialist Labours and the conservatives, put in their manifesto?
How can you go into even a general election, let alone um a European election, and what do you say?
What do you say on that thing, that's that thing called Europe, which has been festering away for the past 40 years in this country?
Um, they'll be decimated, um.
Do you really think that Brexit will happen on april 12th?
Do you think it's most likely?
And leaving on Wto terms, that sounds like a good thing, I guess.
I mean, if there's no massive payment to the EU from the Brits and if World Trade Organization terms, that's good enough?
Uh, does it sound like that could actually be, even though it's two weeks delayed, which is a moral travesty?
If it actually does happen.
I I am I right to say that would be a good thing, it would be a fantastic thing, because we want to be global Britain, you know, we want to take back control of our borders and our sovereignty and our laws, and that can happen on the 12th of april.
Yeah, there are many great countries ready to go with free trade agreements with us.
You know Australia um America, our Commonwealth friends.
So we've got nothing to fear from WTO rules and actually the EU, under WTO rules, has to treat us as a favoured trading nation.
So nothing will change.
And the government has already published a report saying that we will reduce trade barriers, trade carrots by about 80 87, so we will have cheaper food, cheaper clothes.
What's not to like about that?
And then business have certainty.
At the moment businesses have prepared for Brexit, Calais ready, the port in Dover that is closest to Britain.
Our ports are ready, the airlines are ready, we're all ready to go.
The only people who are not ready to go are the people in Parliament that are stopping it.
So will we leave on the 12th of April?
I doubt it, because I think the EU will be pushed to the edge and they'll come out with some magic rabbits out of the hat.
I don't know what our remaining parliament can do.
So I think we now have to look to Europe unless our MPs suddenly discover what democracy means.
Yeah.
Well, I fear that since they have crossed the red line of moving the date, they can surely do it a second time more easily.
Let me ask you what you were doing today.
I look forward to watching your video on the Rebel.
Tell us a little bit about where you were, what you saw, who you heard.
Tell us what was going on today at the Parliament buildings.
Okay, well, we had an enormous stage.
It was funded by, well, it was sponsored by Tommy Robinson.
UKIP was there.
Gerard Batten, the leader of UKIP, we had veterans there on stage.
Many great patriots all speaking.
There were quite a few MEPs.
I had a big screen up as well.
We listened to some of my European friends.
We had messages of support from MEPs and MPs from various countries, from Greece, to Sweden, to France, and of course the Netherlands, because they want Nexit.
Swedish friends want Swexet.
We played those videos and it's important to show to the people there today that you're not alone, that we have other people supporting us.
And you know, the support that we've got for Rebel is absolutely phenomenal.
Lots of people said, hi, we love Esdra, we love your reports, Janice, we love what you did in Calais.
We just laughed so much at the remainer video that you made last week.
Keep up the good work is the message.
You've got an enormous fan base over here.
Well, that's great.
Well, Janice, we're so proud that you're flying the rebel flag there in the UK.
And I'm very glad you were there.
And I look forward to watching the videos.
Well, thanks for this update, my friend.
I can't say that I'm happy.
I thought today would be the end of it.
Aboriginal Protesters and Jodi Wilson00:03:16
And I am afraid.
I mean, I haven't been following it obviously as closely as you.
You're a proud British citizen, and you're actually a member of the European Parliament.
So this is a very important matter for you.
But from a few thousand kilometers away, I'm actually quite sad.
If it happens on April 12th, this two-week interregnum can be forgotten.
But I am terrified that they will pull some more tricks, that they've bought themselves more time.
Will you keep in touch with us and let us know how it goes?
Yeah, we'll do.
And you'll see the report on Monday.
All right.
I look forward to it.
Thanks very much, Janice.
Hi.
All right.
That's Janice Atkinson, a member of the European Parliament, who joined us from her home in the United Kingdom.
Stay with us.
More ahead on The Rebel.
Hey, welcome back on my monologue yesterday about Justin Trudeau's smug response to Aboriginal protesters.
Bruce writes, the shine is coming off the shiny pony.
Yeah, you know, I was never entranced by his charms.
I never fell for it.
So I don't feel disillusioned.
I just feel finally everyone's waking up from this lengthy slumber.
And I guess, well, better late than ever, right?
I mean, better now, six months or so before the election campaign than six months after the next election campaign.
Jan writes, Trudeau's mocking the First Nations protesters may just be the final straw for Jody Wilson-Raybolt to take action.
Yeah, it's funny you say that because today I see news that Jodi Wilson-Raybold, in fact, recorded a conversation she had with the PMO.
I don't know if it was with the Prime Minister himself, but with someone she recorded it.
Why would you do that?
Why would you record a conversation with a colleague?
Like, that's really weird.
It's because, I would imagine, something terrible was happening, or she was afraid something terrible would happen, or something that she knew would be denied.
So she had to capture proof of it.
I am tantalized.
And by the time this video goes to air, maybe we'll know what the recording was.
But I think Trudeau's clear BS on being an Aboriginal supporter, just like it's clear BS that he's a feminist.
I'm not saying that's motivating Jodi Wilson-Raybold.
I don't think it is, actually.
I think the corruption is motivating her.
But it's certainly exacerbating things, don't you think?
Robert writes, Grassy Narrows is asking for more than we can give.
Yeah, you know, there is something that has been critically called the Indian industry.
It's lawyers and bureaucrats, often white, by the way, like the whole Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and frankly, much of the missing and murdered Aboriginal Women Commission.
It's basically white lawyers in Ottawa billing at $500 an hour in the name of grassroots Indians.
So there's a lot of BS in the Indian Act.
It's like a huge funnel.
You pour in billions at the top, and maybe a few drops make it to grassroots Indians on reserve at the end.
But when you talk about mercury poisoning or Minamata disease, I think it's named after a place in Tokyo where the first mercury poisoning was really detected.
Mercury Poisoning Promise00:01:04
That's not lying.
That's not fooling around.
You're not patting lawyers' budgets then.
Then it's mercury poisoning.
And Trudeau promised a very specific mercury house or something, I think they're calling it, like a very specific health care promise.
It's not a BS thing like a political commission.
And he hasn't done it.
That was the specific ask there.
I'm sympathetic.
I'm sympathetic.
And it's quite pitiful that they had to spend $1,500 to buy a ticket to get a moment of his time.
But frankly, it's probably the most effective $1,500 they've spent.
Well, folks, that's the show for today.
I hope you enjoyed it.
I thank you for indulging me for my lengthy critique of Andrew Coyne on Robert Mueller, but I thought it was not only interesting because the Mueller thing's quite interesting, but just whenever you have dead to rights proof that someone is engaged in fake news, I think it's a very important moment to really document it so you never get bamboozled again.
All right, folks, till next time, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters, you at home.