CTV’s anonymous "#TrudeauMustGo" bot claim follows Trudeau’s meeting with CTV’s president, raising suspicions of media-government collusion. Gerald Butts, his disgraced chief of staff, re-entered politics via CBC despite $90K expense scandals and judicial obstruction in the Norman case—yet no RCMP action. Private prosecutions exist but are costly, like the 33-count Duffy case, while Elections Canada’s $50K payout to liberal influencers highlights partisan drift. ThinkSharp’s Manny Montenegrino warns of state overreach, comparing it to Stasi tactics, as legal precedents risk silencing dissent, with plans to document Tommy Robinson’s treatment in Belmarsh. The episode reveals systemic failures shielding corruption while weaponizing investigations against critics. [Automatically generated summary]
Hey Rebels, today's podcast is about this weird CTV story taking on a Twitter trend.
I mean, that's several degrees of meta, isn't it?
But isn't that funny that this CTV story discrediting a grassroots Trudeau must-go hashtag came one day after Trudeau met the owner of CTV.
It's not a coincidence.
Listen to my podcast, you'll see why.
Before I get to that, can you please consider getting a premium subscription to the Rebel?
Go to the rebel.media slash shows.
And you can sign up.
It's $8 a month, $80 for the whole year.
And you even get a discount that's deeper if you type in podcast as your coupon code.
You get the video version of this show.
That's the main thing.
And you also get David Manzi's show and Sheila Gunread's show.
And you get the satisfaction of knowing that you help cover our costs.
So that's at the rebel.media slash shows.
All right, here's the podcast.
Tonight, Justin Trudeau has a personal meeting with CTV's president, and CTV returns the favor.
It's July 22nd, 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 about why I publish it is because it's my bloody right to do so.
In some ways, CTV is worse than the CBC because the CBC is basically a government department, so they're sort of set for life.
They've come to terms with being government journalists at the state broadcaster.
They've made the grand bargain.
Give up any semblance of independence or self-respect, become glorified press secretaries for Trudeau, like this cringeworthy story all about Trudeau's socks.
I'm not even kidding.
And in return, you get to be overpaid and essentially have a job for life in an industry that's laying off real journalists.
I mean, the CBC didn't even fire Gian Gameshi.
Even after they had heard all the allegations against him, it wasn't until Gameshi panicked and wrote a huge confession of his sexual assaults on Facebook that they let him go.
So if you're willing to be a Trudeau shill, you're basically unfireable at the CBC.
Here's a clip of Gameshi and Trudeau on the CBC just to show you how intimate the whole thing is.
Because you're very handsome.
Thank you, Justin. Kiss him.
I think because...
Yeah, that's creepy.
I mean, it's not the creepiest that that CBC show gets.
That show, Toulamond en par, literally threw a party with a disco ball and dance music and champagne for a terrorist war criminal from al-Qaeda named Omar Qatar.
Omar Khadr.
They gave a murderer a standing ovation.
So that's the CBC.
But look, they're in.
They're fully committed to the government.
They're a state broadcaster, just like Qatar's Al Jazeera or Vladimir Putin's Russia Today.
But CTV, that's a trickier proposition.
See, nominally, they're a private sector company, but they depend completely on the permission of Canada's various federal government regulators for their survival, mainly the CRTC.
That's the broadcast regulator.
But remember that CTV is owned by Bell, the cable and cell phone giant.
Those are much bigger businesses than the dying television part of their work.
And really nothing other than an airline or a bank or a cigarette company is more regulated than those.
With one flick of his tail, Justin Trudeau and his partisan fixers could destroy CTV's Bell Media by issuing an order or a ruling devastating their cell phone or cable businesses.
And just as capriciously, in one move, Trudeau could add literally billions to their bottom line.
And he is, by the way, and they are, by the way, the Canadian cell phone and data bills in this country are as much as double or triple the price of cell phone bills in other countries.
Did you know that?
If you own a cell phone company in Canada and a TV station, and Trudeau's regulator let you gouge Canadian cell phone users to charge them literally triple what other countries' cell phone companies can get away with, and then Trudeau came to visit you on the eve of an election campaign, would you do exactly literally what he told you to do?
Why, yes, you would, because you like making billions of dollars a year more than you care about journalistic ethics.
I mean, you've got shareholders to appease in a way that CTV is more susceptible because unlike the CBC that has formally married Trudeau for life and is bound up with him as fellow government employees, CTV knows it could all be taken away from them in a moment.
And sometimes it just comes down, well, to a bribe.
Look at this in the last budget.
$1.7 billion, a handout from Trudeau to the phone companies, because I guess Bell is still too poor, so they need money from you to build the internet.
I guess they wouldn't be able to do so without Trudeau's advice and help and guidance and cash.
So a $1.7 billion gift.
Bell Media wrung $23 billion out of Canadians last year directly, but Trudeau gave them a $1.7 billion top-up.
And on the eve of the election, well, look at this, a tweet from Trudeau.
Trudeau stopped by to remind Bell Media who their boss is.
Today I met with Bell CEO George Cope about the work we're doing to connect more rural communities to broadband and lower wireless costs for Canadians.
Thanks for the meeting, George.
Well, to be honest, if Trudeau met with me and gave me a slice of $1.7 billion, there's no telling what I would do.
But here's what CTV did.
They went straight to work as Trudeau's personal war room defending his honor against the peasants, otherwise known as Bell customers who might dare to think for themselves.
Seriously, Trudeau met with CTV's boss on July 17th.
I don't know if you saw that on the tweet.
And look at this.
July 18th, this story.
Fake Twitter accounts.
Push hashtag Trudeau MustGo, says report.
Now, before I read the story, look at the byline there.
Do you know what a byline is?
That's who wrote the story, the journalist.
Most people, to be honest, don't look at bylines when they read news stories unless they're reading a personal commentary by a well-known pundit, let's say Christy Bladford or something.
But bylines are a form of recognition and pride that ordinary journalists get.
Their name on a front-page story.
You're proud of the work you do.
So who wrote this story?
CTV News staff.
Oh, that's funny.
Most of the time, CTV News staff love to have their personal name in lights.
It's a perk of being a journalist.
Why wouldn't they want their name on this piece of journalism?
Frankly, by news staff, what does that mean?
Are they actually real journalists at CTV, or was this written by someone else?
I don't know.
Maybe by George at Bell Media.
I mean, when Justin Trudeau is on a first-name basis with George, the owner of CTV, maybe George had someone in Bell Media, some intern, write up something and just give it to CTV.
Who knows?
Maybe the Liberal War Room sent over some talking points to George and George told CTV just to publish it verbatim.
We don't know.
I'm curious, though, if it were written by a CTV journalist, why don't they say who wrote it as they normally do?
Okay, back to the propaganda.
A handful of Twitter bots, that's short for robots, created earlier this week, tweeted hundreds of times a day to help make the hashtag Trudeau MustGo, a national trending topic in Canada, deepening concerns about how online discourse can be manipulated ahead of the federal election.
Do you see what's going on here?
It's like that story I showed you the other day of Elections Canada spending millions of dollars trying to track down who used this attractive picture of Jagmeet Singh to have some clickbait traffic to a website called Attorney Cocktail.
I mean, the whole thing was a joke.
It was probably only seen by a few dozen people in the whole world and it was gone in a puff.
But Elections Canada had a multi-million dollar, multi-jurisdictional investigation of it.
Why?
Well, of course why?
To create a pretext to regulate the internet.
By the way, CTV is completely fine with the regulated internet.
The more regulation, the better for them, actually.
Keep out those evil foreigners.
No, Not foreigners like the Russians or this website that says Jagmeet Singh lives a rich lifestyle because in fact Jagmeet Singh does live a rich lifestyle and he boasts about it.
I'm talking about the evil foreigners.
I don't mean the Russians.
I mean companies that would give Canadians cheaper cell phone and internet service.
Yeah, the more regulated, the better for Bell Media.
I mean the CBC will do fine no matter what, right?
They're full-on welfare cases, but CTV needs regulation to keep out their competitors, to fatten up prices, and of course, to get their slice of $1.7 billion in handout money to build the internet.
But back to the CTV story.
They picked up a propaganda piece by the National Observer, which is not only funded by the Tiz Foundation, it's actually run by Linda Solomon Wood, the sister of Joel Solomon, the man who ran the Tiz Foundation.
So the National Observer is pure propaganda, bought and paid for, not with cell phone money, but with left-wing activist money.
Anyways, back to the CTV story.
I just wanted to tell you what the National Observer was.
Here's a CTV story.
The discovery, first reported Thursday by the National Observer, was made after analysis of 31,600 tweets containing the hashtag on Tuesday and Wednesday raised serious suspicions.
The National Observer found several telltale signs of inauthentic activity in the tweets.
Many accounts tweeted more than 100 times a day and indicated that the posts were likely automated.
The news organization also found that more than two dozen of the accounts were created in the past two days and immediately began flooding Twitter with Trudeau Must Go tweets.
Some of those accounts have since been suspended.
Look, there are hundreds of millions of accounts on Twitter, 2 billion people on Facebook.
Some are real, some are fake.
Most fake accounts have only a few followers.
No one follows fake accounts, especially if they're just a couple of days old.
I don't even know what the point is, really.
If you only have a couple of followers and your followers are fake too, literally no one is reading your fake tweets.
I have about 180,000 followers on Twitter, and according to the website Twitter Audit, 92% of them are real.
By contrast, only 67% of Justin Trudeau's followers are real.
And oh my God, the CBC news, just 66% of their people are real.
CTB's news is slightly better at 74%, which is still pretty weak.
So these guys are talking about fake news when they're fake.
But what's my point?
Why am I following this minutia?
Because the whole point is this story, first concocted by the Tides Foundation front group, then promoted by Trudeau's friend George.
The whole point is to do two things.
First of all, it's to activate the Liberal Party's auxiliary war rooms across the media.
They've got the $600 million newspaper bailout.
They've got the $1.5 billion CBC annual bailout.
They've got the $1.7 billion internet company bailout.
Okay, so now earn it, you guys.
Be Liberal Party shills again for the next 90 days.
Get the shiny pony across the finish line, however you have to do it.
We've got to get our guy to win.
So obviously, it's pro-liberal propaganda.
Expect a lot more of that in the next 90 days.
But this tactic of demonizing internet opponents, or in this case, making up opponents where there are none, engaging in conspiracy theories to discredit opposing views, CTV even found a foreign expert to tell them what they wanted to hear.
Dave Salisbury, a cybersecurity expert with the University of Dayton, said some of the accounts do appear a bit bottish.
I mean, it is possible that someone could knock out 20 tweets an hour for 12 hours a day.
Yeah, but I would hope you had something better to do with your time, he told the CTV News channel on Thursday.
I'd like CTV, which says nothing better to do with their time than write about it.
Okay, so that's the best they got, eh?
Well, when $1.7 billion of free money is at stake, they'll do what it takes.
Except, of course, Canadians do believe that Trudeau should go.
That's his whole thing here.
It's not a conspiracy.
It's not foreigners.
It's not fake robots.
Canadians want Trudeau to go.
Poll after poll shows that Trudeau is not just disliked, but he's despised.
Look at this.
Check this out.
This very interesting Angus Reed poll shows that phenomenon.
Once you've fallen out of love with Trudeau and you see him as a fake, a phony of fraud, you can't unsee that anymore.
You hate him.
Look at that.
Almost three times as many people hate Trudeau as moderately disapprove of him.
So yeah, that Twitter trend, Trudeau must go, it ain't fake.
What's fake is trying to write off that grassroots opposition as phony.
That's fake.
This CTV story is fake.
Here's a real guy, a conservative activist from Ontario.
He's a medical doctor, David Jacobs, who got the whole thing trending.
And here's what he wrote in response to the CTV story.
He said, fake news is harmful, but falsely discrediting your opposition is equally egregious, more so when it is done by a reputable news source.
Trudeau and Gould, that's Karina Gould, seem more intent on controlling the narrative and less concerned about the truth.
That should concern everyone, not a bot.
I like that not a bot, that stands for robot.
And here, here's another one, definitely not a bot.
Don't downplay how many Canadians believe Trudeau must go.
And that, of course, was a conservative senator, Denise Batters.
Say, I've got a question for CTV.
Do you think by discrediting and slandering Canadians who oppose Trudeau, do you think that will make your company, Bell Media, more or less despised than it already is?
Do you think it'll make you more or less trusted as a news source?
I think they know the answer, but they just looked at that pile of money from Trudeau and they say what they say to cell phone customers literally every day.
Gerald Butts And The PMO Scandal00:15:42
Screw them.
Stay with us for more.
Well, Gerald Butts is Justin Trudeau's longest standing friend.
Here's a picture of them at McGill both wearing their sandals together.
They've been buddies forever.
And so when Justin Trudeau needed a guru, a Rasputin figure, to shape his political career, obviously Gerald Butts was the guy.
It was a good pairing.
Justin Trudeau had the famous last name, the good looks, and the charisma.
Gerald Butts, none of those things, but he had the brains.
They were a winning team.
And then it started to fall apart.
Jody Wilson Raybold claimed that the Prime Minister's office, and Gerald Butts in particular, had tried to interfere with the prosecution of corruption with a Quebec-based engineering firm called SNC Lavalan.
And shortly thereafter, it came out that similar interference, also traced back to Gerald Butts, was behind the malicious prosecution of Vice Admiral Mark Norman, who was later acquitted.
The charges were dropped against him, again orchestrated by the PMO.
Gerald Butts was up to his eyeballs in all this, and he resigned.
But now he's back, leaking the story to the CBC, which had a very gentle welcome back for him.
What should we make about Trudeau's best friend, who was implicated in two incredibly important corruption scandals, being welcomed back to run Trudeau's re-election campaign, joining us?
Now, to talk about all those things is our friend Manny Montenegrino, the CEO of ThinkSharp.
Manny, great to see you again.
Great to see you, Ezra.
What a topic today.
What a topic.
You know, every politician has their most trusted and loyal friend, and that's fine.
And we can disagree with Gerald Butts on ideology and politics.
That's to be expected.
He's a liberal, and you and I are conservatives.
But what about the corruption?
What about the fact that Jody Wilson-Raybold fingered him as the mastermind behind the attempt to get SNC Lavalan off the hook and the incredible revelations of the Mark Norman scandal?
How is he allowed back in the face of all that?
Well, it starts well before that, Ezra.
It started on his first day of the job.
On his first day of the job, he submitted expense accounts, upwards up to 200,000, he and the chief of staff, for moving from Toronto to Ottawa.
That was reported, and he was found to have at least breached some reasonable expense, and he was required to pay back that expense.
So at his very first day of a job, he did something improper, illegal, and paid it back.
Now, we haven't seen evidence of that, but that is in and of itself what the media spent nine months on the Senator Duffy matter.
And he actually was acting improperly.
Senator Duffy was acting properly, according to a judge.
So here you have just on one act alone.
Then you add the ad to that, Ezra, the SNC Lavalin affair.
You have 10 months, four months, 10 people for the PMO orchestrated and architect by Gerald Butts, a continued pressure and a continued obstruction of justice.
Yeah, and then as you know, there's all the other obstruction of justice, and that is with Admiral Norman.
So there's two obstruction of justice and a false expense, but that's not it.
Go ahead, Ezra.
You know, I'm so glad you brought up that moving expense.
I mean, to move down Highway 401 from Toronto to Ottawa and to charge six figures for that is shocking.
And of course, then the obstruction to that, trying to stop that information from being released through access to information, demonizing those, and then only finally admitting it was wrong and allegedly paying it back.
You're right.
We have no proof he paid it back.
The reason that's important is because the entire party, the entire government, the entire civil service looks to the top for an example.
When Stephen Harper was prime minister, Nigel Wright, his chief of staff, didn't even take a paycheck.
He never expensed anything.
He was independently wealthy.
He just said, I'm not going to take any money.
That was the example.
Stephen Harper was such a penny pincher, he didn't bill anything extravagantly.
And they actually fired Bav Oba Oda for a cabinet for a $16 orange juice.
That was the culture.
Here you've got Trudeau, two personal nannies on the payroll, luxury jets with thousands of dollars in food and wine, flying all his friends to India, including in India.
Is it any wonder that the entire government says, well, look, if the boss is getting away with it, why can't I?
Yeah, but there's more on the Gerald Butts.
We talked about his moving expense, which was improper, in the order of magnitude of Senator Duffy, which was proven to be proper expenses by a senator.
This was not proper because it was paid back.
We talked about the obstruction of justice, but Gerald Butts had something more to do that should be offensive to Canadians.
And that is he corrupted the Privy Council.
He actually brought the Privy Council so close to the PMO that Michael Wernick had to resign.
That didn't happen under any other government where the chief of the Privy Council had to resign because he was biased and acted in favor, if you will, for the Liberals.
Now, Gerald Butts had a hand at that.
And as you said, now you mentioned Nigel Wright.
That's a great, now I know Nigel Wright, and as you say, he was just a wonderful man.
What he did in order to get rid of the Senator Duffy matter, he actually paid $90,000 of his own money back to the taxpayers.
That prompted an RCMP investigation.
He was investigated.
There were, of course, no charges laid.
I mean, you don't get charged for giving money back to the taxpayer, but he was fully investigated by the RCNP for giving money back.
We have Mr. Butts who took money, who had to pay it back, who obstructed justice once or twice, who actually corrupted the Privy Council so as to quit and no RCNP investigation.
Now, Ezra, it even gets worse than this.
And you talked about it at the beginning of this segment, and that is about nepotism.
And, you know, we know what the media has done, and they've done a wonderful job on scouring through the Doug Fords and his chief of staff in a few little nepotism hires, some son of some person at some rugby club.
Oh, let's get that person.
And they're out, and they've been fired.
Here's a situation where you have the prime minister not only doing nepotism in your face, hiring his best friend, but after his best friend has proven to take money that didn't belong to him from the taxpayer, after his best friend has been proven to obstruct justice, after his best friend has been proven to politicize the public servant, the clerk of the Privy Council has to resign.
He resigns, he gets paid a severance pay, and then he hires back his best friend.
I mean, this is nepotism in your face.
This is, you know, I can't think of a worse charge where you have a person that has done, wronged the taxpayer, wronged the justice system, wronged the bureaucracy, quits, takes a big severance package, and then gets hired back.
It just astounds me.
Yeah, I mean, listen, you're a very accomplished lawyer.
You ran, you were the managing partner in a senior law firm for a long time.
Your understanding of employment law, if someone quits, generally they don't get severance for quitting, but I understand he may have received severance.
And if someone then comes back, does he have to pay back that severance?
What's the rules on that kind of stuff?
Well, I mean, first of all, we don't know because the media is not investigating it.
I mean, did he pay back the expense allowance?
When it comes to quitting, of course, you don't get severance.
And if you do get hired back, you know, there's a whole principle of mitigating damages.
I mean, of course, you have to put that money to the taxpayer.
But this is a government that doesn't care about the taxpayer.
This is a government that pays $100,000 for a moving expense from Toronto to Ottawa.
We don't know what he got paid.
It amazes me that during the Duffy trial, we actually got a copy of the check, $90,000 check payable to the taxpayers for the Duffy.
But we don't know what was paid back on this.
We don't know what the severance is.
We don't know anything.
And, Ezra, I tell you, this can only happen.
I mean, it is absurd that this nepotism in your face, hiring a person who was responsible for a lot of bad things in Canada, hiring them back can only happen because the media lets it happen.
And it's as simple as that.
And I'll recall your viewers to the time that Nigel Wright, and he used to jog at four or five in the morning, a complete athlete, and the media interrupted him and got him on a four o'clock jog to ask him questions.
We were not going to get so the media did was way over the top with Nigel Wright because he gave money back to the taxpayers.
You will not see the media going to a four o'clock jog.
They will not see the media even ask the questions or get copies of the checks paid back.
I remember that pre-dawn jog.
I mean, just what it says about the stamina and discipline of Nigel Wright getting up that early to go jogging is incredible.
But the length the journalists went to ask him questions, complete in curiosity about Joe Buds.
So I got to tell you, the money side here is concerning, but to me, it's the least of the problems.
The biggest problem is here's a guy who was credibly accused by the Attorney General of corruption.
The Mark Norman case, let me quote from the judge who threw out the case.
This is Judge Heather Perkins McVeigh.
By all appearances, this is a more direct influencing in the prosecution.
The Attorney General has entirely bypassed the Prime Minister's office via its right arm.
The PCO is dealing directly with the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, and the Prosecution Service is allowing this to happen.
So much for the independence of the PPSC.
That's a damning statement about the independence of the press, of the prosecution.
That is actually of greater concern to me than the fact that he's filling his pockets with goodies from the taxpayers' pantry.
Yeah, I raise that because filling his pockets was enough for the media to hound Duffy for years, to hound the Prime Minister Harper for years, and to have him removed.
And, you know, and Prime Minister Duffy lost a year of his salary.
A lot happened just for that moving expense.
Here we have moving expense.
We have improper, I think, improper severance pay.
But we also have, as you put it, you have the Attorney General of Canada saying that Butts' testimony was not truthful.
He did obstruct justice.
You have a judge, a sitting judge, and not a political person, Judge Heather McVeigh sitting there saying in open court that there was obstruction of justice in the Norman case by the PMO, and the PMO is run by Gerald Butts.
I mean, you can't get any worse factual situation to say that this person should be nowhere near government, nowhere near political party.
He should be nowhere near, but he's invited back.
There's a little story in the CBC.
And what infuriated me in that story was when the CBC referred to like getting the gang together, the baggand message.
Right, they were so excited.
It was almost like the Beatles return.
You know, isn't this great?
Gee, you know, it's great.
They're back.
And how can you do that?
How can you write a story like that?
Well, that's the same CBC that did a story on Justin Trudeau's socks.
So I'm not sure they're surprising.
When Butts resigned, you don't resign if you did nothing wrong.
So he resigned when things were going tough.
But look, Mark Norman is gagged.
The trial was dropped, so all the bad news is not going to come out.
He was given a huge payment.
It wouldn't surprise me if it was in the order of $10 million with a non-disclosure agreement, so he can't talk.
So that problem is solved with more taxpayer money.
You've got Jodi Wilson-Raybold, who has not yet been released from her confidentiality and other privilege requirements.
So it's using government money.
Trudeau and Butts have shut up all the people who would finger them.
Michael Wernick is gone, so now Butts is back.
I think he thinks he could get away with this because, as you've pointed out, the media so far has been very gentle.
I think they're just going to brazen it out.
Many, they're used to a docile media, now add in $600 million in media bailout money.
I think Butts is going to get away with this.
Oh, he would definitely get away with it.
And think of if you were Jane Philipott, or if you were Jodie Wilson-Raybold, and you read this news, and you see you gave up your minister job, you gave up everything because you wanted an ethical government, and you pointed at Gerald Butts as being the architect of this unethical act.
And you sit there and you do everything.
These two strong women did what they had to do.
They resigned from cabinet.
They were booted out of the Liberal Party.
And now they're out there hustling away as independents trying to say, we have to help and change Canada.
And they look and see at this and see the media complicit in the silence.
I will say the silence and the cheerleading of having Butz back.
It is a slam to women who are in politics.
It is a slam to powerful women.
And it is a great win for the Boys Club, the elite Laurentian Boys Club that seems to always win its day.
And it's headed by Justin Trudeau.
Yeah.
You know, I remember you and I were talking the other day.
Citizens vs. Corruption00:08:16
All those attorneys general, former attorneys general of various parties provincially, federally, wrote to the government requesting, wrote to the RCMP, I believe it was, requesting an investigation.
There is so much evidence here, including Jody Wilson-Raybold herself, who was right in the thick of it.
Right.
I'm worried that our police are becoming political.
And I'm worried about that not only because I want justice, but also because I want our police to remain above partisan politics.
I don't want them to be brought into disrepute.
I don't want police choosing our elections.
I don't want police meddling.
But it's not meddling when there's so much prima facie evidence of wrongdoing.
In the Mark Norman case in the SNC Lavaland case, what we heard from Jody Wilson-Raybold's own testimony, I do not want police putting their thumb on the scale in an election.
But that's not what's going on here.
They've been silent for six months.
What can we do about that, Manny?
Well, exactly.
I mean, they should have acted quickly.
We have not even received a press release.
Not even one word saying we received and we will investigate.
Not even, not that I have seen.
I mean, you have five attorney generals.
You don't forget the ex-Attorney General, Michael O'Brien from Ontario, who also demanded.
A Liberal, a strong Liberal, who also demanded an investigation, who also, in his opinion, concluded it was obstruction of justice.
So you have at least six attorney generals.
You have the leader of the opposition.
You have millions of Canadians on Twitter and otherwise saying, please investigate.
You have the attorney.
And then before all that happened, the Attorney General was fearful that she would lose her job, and she did lose her job.
So there's so much evidence.
But so when you ask about, I'm worried about the corruption of our law enforcement, our RSNP, well, I too very much worry, Ezra, but I don't like what I have seen.
I have seen the private prosecutor being corrupted by this government.
I have seen our military.
And if there are, and this episode, our talk can't talk about what happened with Admiral Norman and the higher up and what happened there.
It appears to be a politicization of our military as well.
We have seen without any doubt the politicization of our Privy Council, our independent bureaucracy, because Michael Wernick quit because he said that he is seen to be biased.
So when I see our prosecutors, our military, and our bureaucracy all under the cloud and doubt of some form of corruption by this government, I mean, is it, is it, and I'll also add, I forget when this government attacked the Supreme Court justice from Manitoba, you had an attack on the judiciary.
So let me add it all up here.
You have an attack on the independent prosecutor.
You have an attack on the judiciary.
You have an attack on the clerk of the Privy Council, Michael Wernick, and then you have an attack on our military in its independence and its function.
That's for, is there a possibility that the RCP is also under that cloud?
I would do everything possible if I were the RCMP to make sure not one Canadian thinks that they are an arm of the Liberal government.
And I can tell you, Twitter is a bad, bad place in a bad world where people post a lot of nasty things.
But there are a lot of comments, and I certainly don't like seeing them about making a connection to that concern by Canadians that the RCNP are in the pocket of the Trudeau government because of his latest appointment.
Can I ask you one last question?
You mentioned the public prosecution service of Canada.
That's what the judge in the Mark Norman case said was corrupted.
It's a bit of a legal question here.
Help me out.
I know that there's a way for a private citizen to go to court and say, Your Honor, the prosecutors won't take this case, but I want to sue.
I want to make a private prosecution.
As in, we don't have to wait for the Attorney General.
We don't have to wait for the RCMP.
We don't have to wait for David LeMani to sue his own government.
Someone can go to court, hire a lawyer themselves, prepare the case themselves, and say, I'd like to sue under the law as a private prosecution to get things going.
Is that too much of that?
It's an unusual process because normally the prosecutors do the right thing, and normally people don't have that kind of money or interest.
Is there a possibility that a group of citizens could raise some funds to file a private prosecution for corruption?
Is that even a thing, Manny?
Yeah, absolutely it is.
And it's obviously permitted under our legislation.
I do believe that happened twice, if I'm not mistaken.
Mayor Ford was subject to that by a rich person in Toronto, I forget his name, but either in the Furrier business or somebody that brought on the claim of Ford using stationery illegally.
That was put forward by a private citizen.
So it does, and it can happen.
And it's very expensive.
It's very difficult because you're talking about an individual that has to front up the money.
These things will cost millions of dollars to prosecute.
And it'd be very hard when you can't have the power that the police have in order to investigate.
But I mean, it's pretty sad that you have a state where you're even asking that question.
Can the citizens take the prosecutor challenge in their own hands because our police force has not.
And it's very sad that that question is being asked, particularly when we had only a few years ago the RCMP, you know, basically charging into the prime minister's office and investigating the prime minister and investigating the chief of staff for giving $90,000 to the government.
If only that were the worst scandal the liberals.
Imagine the glory days where giving money to the government was the worst scandal of the whole.
But the test there is, yeah, the test is how did the RCMP even create a case?
And as you know, the judge in the Duffy case saying, what is this case doing here?
These are no rules on expense.
But the RCNP found a way to charge Senator Duffy 33 times, found a way to pressure the chief of staff on almost charging him for giving money back to the taxpayer.
If the RCNP was that noble, was that righteous, was that perfect in its application of the law, what the hell are they doing in this case here?
Why are they not using the same standard they used a few years ago to what is clearly, clearly a very egregious series of events that led to the resignment or to the firing of the Attorney General?
That's never happened.
I think Richard Nixon may have got rid of his Attorney General or wanted to, but it's never happened in Canada.
And we don't even have a one-line text or a one-line note from the RCNP saying that we have taken this matter under advisement or we are looking at it.
Yeah, very frustrating.
Well, Manny, thank you as always for your expert guidance and your wisdom, both legal and political.
It's always great to talk to you.
Great.
Thank you, Ezra.
Thanks, my friend.
There you have it, Manny Montanegrino, former legal counsel to Stephen Harper, the Prime Minister and the CEO of Think Sharp.
Stay with us.
Want to See Tommy in Prison?00:02:39
more handling.
Hey, welcome back.
I'm a monologue from Friday.
Liza writes.
Regarding the Elections Commissioner, I think Elections Canada needs to be investigated.
It is feeling less and less nonpartisan by the minute.
Yeah, when they paid $50,000 to those influencers and we found out those influencers were all liberals, that's crazy.
And the fact they paid the money and aren't asking for it back, that's crazy.
I think they're out of control.
On my interview with John Carpe about the trans woman suing salons for not waxing his male genitals, Paul writes, These human rights commissions are horrible scams.
They don't defend human rights.
They destroy human lives.
The Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms is doing much needed work.
Donation made.
Yeah, those are good guys.
I tell you, if it weren't for John Carpe, a lot more of those women would be driven out of business.
And he really, I think he was the reason why the publication ban was taken.
It's outrageous that this Jonathan Yaniv got to smear these women in secrecy.
On Tommy Robinson, Bell writes, our free speech is being eroded.
And I fear the onset of Stasi-style tactics by the state.
It's so obvious that Tommy is being made an example of and he's very brave.
It amazes me that even if a person doesn't particularly like Tommy or his views, they cannot see that what has happened is an absolute mockery and is not aware that such a charade could happen to anyone.
Well, that's the thing.
Don't you know?
The whole basis of our law is precedent.
Another way of saying that is what comes around goes around.
So if you hate Tommy so much that you change the rules to throw someone in prison for those reasons, well, now you've set the precedent.
Don't you know it'll come around and bite you?
By the way, I will have a show tomorrow, but I will also be scooching over to the UK as fast as I can, doing a night flight, because I've got a visit with Tommy in Belmarsh prison.
And the reason I'm doing that is I want to know how he's being treated and I want to see with my own eyes.
I want to ask him questions directly.
I want to see how he's doing.
And I want to take as much time to find out what's going on as possible.
And I want to report that.
And I want to have the prison warden know that I'm going to report that.
So if you want to see that, I'll probably have some of it on my show on Wednesday.
You can go to prisonreports.com.
That's plural, prisonreports.com, because I expect I'll be going back perhaps several times before he's out.