Clara Janover, a Harvard grad fired by Deloitte after a viral TikTok threat to stab "all lives matter" supporters, calls the move cowardly and racist, despite her own advocacy crowdfunding. Meanwhile, Manny Montenegrino argues Trudeau’s corruption—like the $900M SNC-Lavalin scandal—weakened Canada’s stance on detained Canadians Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig, suggesting a Meng Wanzhou swap could expose systemic failures. Janover’s prioritization of online fame over professionalism and Trudeau’s ethical lapses highlight how viral outrage and political hypocrisy reshape accountability, leaving justice hostage to spectacle and self-interest. [Automatically generated summary]
Today I talk about young Clara Janover, a Harvard grad who went on TikTok to say she wanted to stab people who said the phrase all lives matter instead of black lives matter.
Oddly enough, she was fired by the company that said they'd hire her later this year.
What do you think of that?
I'll give you my thoughts on cancel culture karma.
But before I do, let me invite you to become a subscriber to our Rebel News Plus.
That's our premium subscription.
It's eight bucks a month, not that bad.
It's less than Netflix.
And you get the video version of the podcast.
In this case, I really wish you could see Clara Janover.
She is the luckiest gal in the world.
I mean, young, pretty, healthy, on her way, woman, Harvard grad.
The world is hers.
And she throws it away for a TikTok.
I want to show you that TikTok, but I also think she's having the time of her life.
That's today's show.
You can get all that Rebel News Plus business by just going to RebelNews.com.
It's $8 a month.
Sign up if you please.
It'll help keep us strong.
You also get access to Sheila Gunread's show and David Menzies' show.
Okay, here's today's podcast.
Tonight, a Harvard grad threatens to stab anyone who disagrees with her.
And she's shocked when she loses her job.
Cancel culture karma.
It's July 2nd, 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 is government publisher is because it's my bloody right to do so.
Here's a lovely young lady named Clara Janover.
You've heard the phrase the 1%, right?
The luckiest, richest, most privileged 1% of society.
Well, she's the 1% of the 1%.
She's young, she's healthy, she's pretty, and a Harvard grad.
Harvard.
Being a Harvard grad isn't just a ticket for life, for financial success.
It's moral success.
It's class.
You're the elite now.
The United States doesn't have an aristocracy the same way the UK does, but you get a Harvard degree and you're as close to royalty as they come in America.
I would normally not point out this fact, but it's relevant to today's discussion.
She's obviously not white, and I don't think she's black.
So on the first point, not being white has obviously not held her back in the land of opportunity.
She is a Harvard grad.
But not being black is also interesting.
I wonder if she got into Harvard as part of their affirmative action program for visible minorities.
Basically, taking a slot that was traditionally meant for black people.
We'll never actually know because Harvard is very cryptic about who it lets in and for what reason.
Many Ivy League schools actually discriminate against Chinese Americans.
Black Lives Matter Threats00:09:31
I'll say the politically incorrect thing here.
They're too smart and they study too hard.
So a sheer meritocracy would see a disproportion of Chinese kids in these schools, just like at Canada's University of British Columbia, where Asian kids are actually a majority.
These are hard subjects to talk about.
I get it.
Certainly hard to talk about honestly.
But I'll just say this.
Clara Janover has a lot of privilege regardless of her race or how it helped or hurt her to get into Harvard.
So this 0.01%er who just graduated from Harvard this spring was hired by Deloitte, the global multinational firm.
Everything's ahead of her.
What a wonderful time of her life.
She took to TikTok, the social media app, to post a rant about Black Lives Matter.
Clara is sick of people saying all lives matter, you see.
She gets really, really mad about it.
You could say she gets furious about it, even a bit stabby.
Here, listen.
The next person who has the sheer nerve, the sheer entitled caucasity to say all lives matter, I'm going to stab you.
I'm going to stab you.
And while you're struggling and bleeding out, I'm going to show you my paper cut and say, my cut matters too.
Yikes.
Now, Clara says that was metaphorical, as in, I think the point she was trying to make was that anyone else who says their lives matter, well, sure they do, but it's not as urgent or critical as saying Black Lives Matter.
And I've seen that argument before that Black Lives Matter must be said because Black lives are the lives that are in trouble.
There's some truth to that, and there's some logical flaws in that too.
My real beef with Black Lives Matter is that it's not just three words.
It's a corporation, really a lobby group that has very specific goals and agendas.
It's like they've trademarked those three words, Black Lives Matter.
It sounds like plain English, but when you say them, it's taken as an endorsement of the whole political agenda of that organization, defunding police and increasingly anti-Semitism.
Look at this tweet by Black Lives Matter UK.
It's pretty hardcore and it's got nothing to do with black people.
Palestinians are not black people.
And then there's this, in case you're in any doubt.
Israel, we know you, you murder children too.
So yeah, I think people do believe that Black Lives Matter, but they want to say that all lives matter because most people believe that all lives matter and they don't want to be tricked or co-opted into a whole movement that is questionable and they don't want to be manipulated.
By the way, I think Black Lives Matter very much.
If you're a student of history, you know that there is indeed some systemic racism against black people.
Have you ever heard of Margaret Sanger?
She's the founder of Planned Parenthood.
One of her most passionate projects was specifically aborting black babies.
It was an obsession of hers.
She insisted on setting up abortion clinics in black neighborhoods in promoting abortion to black moms.
She just plain old wanted fewer black kids.
You can see that too in global programs for population control today.
They're always focused on black countries.
So I'm actually happy to talk about that all day instead of defunding police, which actually, if you were to defund police, that would disproportionately hurt, you guessed it, black communities in low-income neighborhoods.
Anyways, so this Harvard grad talked about stabbing people.
It's not generally a good look.
And so Deloitte, when her video went viral, Deloitte let her know that she was not actually really welcome there anymore.
I'm guessing people who work there would be worried about, you know, being stabbed or something.
So here's what she said when she got that bad news.
I know this is what Trump supporters wanted because standing up for Black Lives Matter put me in a place online to be seen by millions of people.
The job that I had worked really hard to get and meant a lot to me just called me and fired me because of everything.
I don't know if everyone's seen, but it's been circulating a lot.
My Black Lives Matter TikToks were picked up by conservatives and spread and shared.
And people were demanding that I be fired, which I just got.
I'm a job that I worked really hard for.
Even though they claim to stand against systematic bias, racism, and unequal treatment.
So do the thousands of Trump supporters sending me messages, death threats and violent messages.
I'm still not going to stop talking about and defending Black Lives Matter.
You can't take away my spirit and my devotion towards human rights.
Yeah, what's wrong with those racist Deloitte people?
Who wouldn't want an extremely emotional young woman talking about stabbing people?
They're obviously anti-black.
Now, Janover herself, I don't think she's black, but Deloitte must be anti-black for not hiring her after her stabby rant.
But she was loving her moment in the sun.
I think Andy Warhol was the one who said everyone will be famous for 15 minutes.
In the age of TikTok videos, it's more like 15 seconds, but Clara got her moment and she sure was going to milk it.
Take a look.
Trump supporters just took my job away from me.
I've gotten death threats, rape threats, violent threats.
It was okay.
But now it doesn't make my future.
My future is entirely compromised because Trump supporters have decided to come for my life.
God, this sucks.
You guys suck.
I'm too strong for you.
I'm too strong for any of you.
All Lives Matter raises Trump supporters.
It sucks, but it doesn't suck as much as systemic racism.
And I'm not going to stop using my platform to advocate for it.
And I'm sorry, Deloitte, that you can't see that.
That you were cowardice enough to fight somebody who's going to make an indelible change in the world and is going to have an impact.
Yeah, those mean conservatives who are spreading her video around.
How dare they?
She's the one who gets to spread her video around.
And death threats against her?
Well, I'm sorry if that actually did happen in any real or serious way.
It's odd, though, coming from someone who just threatened to stab people and watch them bleed out.
But still, now don't worry for this young lass.
I think she's going to be just fine.
I think she'll probably be hired by Black Lives Matter.
Maybe she'll even claim that she is black, like Rachel Dolezal and Sean King do.
A couple of white kids pretending to be black activists for the street cred.
Clara certainly is using a ghetto slang.
I don't get it.
I have to tell you, Clara Janover may be a Harvard grad, and she may have secured a position with Deloitte that she's now lost.
But I think she actually wants to be internet famous.
That's her real ambition in life.
Look at this.
This is her TikTok page.
I think right now she's actually having the best moment of her life.
Look at all her videos, dozens.
Like a teenage girl trying to get attention of some boy.
Except she's a Harvard woman in her 20s, and she demands to be taken seriously.
You know, that all looks bad on her, but it looks pretty bad on Harvard, too, if this is the quality of their graduate in 2020.
But don't worry, she'll be just fine.
There are a number of Clara Janover crowdfunding pages out there already.
Here's one.
Thousands of dollars pouring in.
I'm not exactly sure what the money is for other than for her being famous.
She's just monetizing her 15 seconds of fame.
You know, I fought against canceled culture for years.
We've been the target of canceled culture over here.
Here's a young woman with everything going for her and she threatened to stab people who disagreed with her so her job is canceled.
I'd call that karma.
And I'd say it's a bit tough to muster any support for her.
Would you actually want to work in a cubicle next to this stabby young lady?
The thing is, I bet this is the first time in her life that anyone has ever said no to her.
No one at her university surely did, not professors, not other students.
It's all permissive.
It's all harmonic.
No disagreements allow.
That's called triggering.
But she believes, I guess, in stabbing people who are disagreeable.
The first time she was ever said no to, and she is shocked, or at least shocked for the cameras.
And look at the mess she's in, all lovingly recorded for the cameras.
Oh, she's done so many videos even since.
Yeah, come to think of it, Clara Janover is exactly what an Ivy League University education is in 2020.
Facts vs. Obstruction00:16:07
Hey, parents, save your three, 400 grand and send your kids to community college instead.
Stay with us for more.
Well, Justin Trudeau and ethics and secret deals are back in the news again.
I don't know if you've been following it, but nearly a billion dollars in a private, sole-sourced, no-competition deal have been agreed to by Trudeau to his favorite PR group called We Day.
That's run by the Kielberger brothers.
It's basically huge liberal-style rallies in stadiums where Trudeau or his wife or other liberal celebrities are introduced to young high school kids.
It's basically conditioning them to support liberals.
Trouble is, Trudeau has sent them close to a billion dollars to manage a volunteer program.
Whoever heard of volunteers being paid?
There's so many iffy and sketchy things here, including the fact that We Day just happens to have paid for Sophie Trudeau and the kids and the mother-in-law to have an all-expense paid trip to London.
Isn't that cozy?
It reminds me, and we should remember that Trudeau is a serial convict under the Conflict of Interest Act, as ruled by a quasi-judge, the federal ethics and conflict of interest commissioner.
And that brings us to our story today.
You know, we have a number of fan favorite guests, and you'll immediately know who I'm talking about when I start to describe him.
He's a very senior hand who likes to take the wide view.
And when you take the wide view, you see not just the politics, but also the economics, the law, the foreign affairs, the diplomacy.
And it helps to have that wide view sometimes, especially after we go so deep on some particular detail down the rabbit hole.
And it won't surprise you that our guest today is a former managing partner of a national law firm, former lawyer to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and he's now the boss of Think Sharp.
I'm talking about our friend, Manny Montenegrino, who joins us now via Skype from Ottawa.
Manny, great to see you again.
And you've compiled another one of your master's theses on politics and Trudeau.
Why don't you just have at it and we're going to sit back and learn and listen?
Sure.
Thank you, Ezra.
Nice being with you.
What I'd like to talk about today, thank you for the opportunity, is the two Michaels, Michael Sporver and Michael Corvic, who are now, I think, 560 days in a Chinese lockup.
And there's been a lot of media with respect to that and how do we deal with it and our independence of law.
And you know that I have been, at least on your show, every opportunity I get is to talk about the two Michaels and how they've been ignored.
And recently, you've seen that there's a lot of media about the government having the ability to, under the Extradition Act, we've got a brilliant decision by Brian Greenspan that the Justice Minister can intervene, and Trudeau's holding out that he will not intervene because of the independence of the judiciary.
So it's a tough issue.
And, you know, clearly the human part of me wants these two Michaels back.
The legal aspect of it, clearly, we should not monkey around with our independence of the judiciary.
That's what keeps Canada by far one of the greatest countries in the world.
So how do you square these?
And I've gone through the last little while and last three years of how do we make a decision from this information.
And so we start back.
I mean, Ezra, first of all, I'm no fan of the communist China.
They have been doing as much illegality around the world as they can, when and if they can.
And we're seeing what's happening in Hong Kong.
Six million people have lost their rights, their human rights, and 300,000 of them are Canadians, and the world is pretty silent about it.
So when I look at that, how do you square?
How do I square the fact that these two young, these two Michaels, these two Canadians, should be back in Canada and observe the rule of law that is so important to Canada and there should never be any interference by political interference.
Well, you know, in this case here, you look at the totality of it and it's quite simple.
There has to be an admission by the prime minister that his conduct must compel these two young men back home and must, in this specific fact situation, must have the Minister of Justice deal with the issue of interfering.
And here's what I mean.
Brian Greenspan made a wonderful argument that in law, there is the legal ability for the Minister of Justice to get involved.
But there has to be a compelling reason why.
And the compelling reason why in this case points directly to the Prime Minister.
He has conducted himself in such a way many times, and you referred to it in your open monologue, his breaches of ethics, his breaches of obstruction of law, that gives the right to use that clause in the Extradition Act.
And you might recall, Ezra, for September, it goes back to September 2018, five months, 10, 11 people at the PMO obstructing and putting pressure on the Attorney General on criminal matters that dealt with SC Lavaland.
That led to his best friend, his parliamentary secretary resigning, but the clerk of the Privy Council resigning, the firing of the Attorney General, and all that.
That played out publicly.
China saw that.
And what offends me the most is that there is no discussion in the media that a huge precedent was created by this particular prime minister that can't no longer hide behind we cannot interfere with legal matters before the courts.
He interfered time and time again.
And so for those reasons, I think, well, and China watched the unraveling of our justice system with the firing of the Attorney General, the quitting of the MP, and all that happened underneath.
And as well as you put it, you know, the ethics commissioner, Mario Dion, does a very detailed review and finds that there's a second conflict of interest in an obstruction of justice, the prime minister personally trying to help a criminal matter.
Am I understanding you right?
You're saying, and I want to make sure I get this.
Yeah.
You are saying, are you, that Canada should do what Brian Greenspan and the 19 senior ex-judges and lawyers and professors and diplomats are saying.
Are you advocating that Trudeau have the justice minister set Meng Wanzhou, the Chinese CFO and executive, free in return for the two Michaels?
Are you supporting that proposal?
No, okay, I am.
I'm getting to the same conclusion, but they are not brave enough or honest enough to get to the conclusion on how I got to the conclusion.
So they're coming, you know, it offends me to see that a bulk of our ex-liberal cabinet ministers and even the ex-prime minister is now on retainer with China.
It bothers me that China gave $200,000 to the Trudeau Foundation.
It bothers me that China is so infiltrated within our government that it uses its funds and ability to shape the policies of Canada.
I am coming to the same conclusion as they are, but I'm coming to it honestly.
I'm coming to it with great difficulty, but with using the law and the facts of this particular case.
And here's what I mean, Ezra.
There's no instance, almost never should the government be involved in the involving itself in a matter before the courts.
But in this rare and exceptional case where you have the Prime Minister of Canada found guilty by the Ethics Commissioner of conflict of interest in the guise of an obstruction of justice,
when you have the Prime Minister taking money or his family trust or his family fund taking money from the Chinese, when these facts are there and the Chinese communist government is watching and the Chinese government is watching and saying, we see what you have done.
We see that you've been found guilty.
This is the way we do business here.
This is the way you do business here.
So why not?
And my point is, if I were arguing for the Michaels, I wouldn't be arguing that, I mean, the law is there, but where is the opportunity?
Where are the facts to find itself within the law?
And the opportunity in facts is that the Prime Minister of Canada personally, personally, was found to be in conflict of interest with the SNC Lava, removed the Attorney General.
That's never happened in Canada's history.
He was not investigated by the RCMP.
And there's a, you know, we see what's happening with the commissioner today.
We know now why.
But there is enough legal jurisprudence by the decision, as you put it, by the commissioner, Mario Dion, where he finds an obstruction.
So when I look at should the law be applied, should the exemption be applied under the Extradiction Act, the answer is always no.
So I would be always saying never, never get yourself involved.
But in this particular case, because of the facts, where the prime minister personally obstructed justice, where the prime minister was found to be in conflict of interest for obstruction justice, where the prime minister acted so recklessly that the clerk of the Privy Council had to resign, where the principal secretary had to resign, where the attorney general was removed from her post, where another, the minister of,
at that time, the minister of health, quit and resigned, Jane Philippot, because of the obstruction.
When all these facts are there and the world knows it, and China knows it, China is saying, hey, we took these kids because we thought you'd understand.
You're the same as we are.
So for their case, I would argue the facts that are so egregious and offensive and should be offensive to every Canadian that believes in the rule of law, the facts in this case here should permit these two Michaels to come home.
Manny, I agree with you in one way, which is that China senses Trudeau is weak and corrupt, so they thought this gambit would work.
They would never do this against Donald Trump.
So I accept your thesis that Trudeau's history of corruption, his history of interfering with the justice system, may have given China courage to do this kidnapping.
I accept that.
But the second part, Manny, I don't think I've ever disagreed with you in the two decades we've known each other.
But I have to disagree with you here in such a friendly and respectful way.
Sure.
Because just because China thought our whole system was corrupt, because Trudeau tried to corrupt it once, doesn't mean we should make that true and make it.
No, and I agree.
And I agree.
And let me throw two more things at you.
And I'd like you to answer these points.
Sure.
I'll be brief, and I want to hear from you because I want to give you a chance to respond to two key points.
One is, I think it is morally inappropriate to interfere with our justice system.
It'll have a domino effect.
Other politicians will do it at other levels of the government.
We'll change the public civic duty in this country if we be so brazen about it.
I'm worried it'll ruin our reputation for rule of law morally.
And number two, we'll send a message to every would-be kidnapper thug around the world that all you have to do is kidnap someone.
We'll break our own laws for it.
So it's not just the moral reasons we don't want to corrupt our system.
It's, you know, as Rudyard Kipling said, once you pay the Dane Geld, you'll never get rid of the Dane talking about paying ransom to Vikings.
Well, they'll keep coming back.
So what do you, so I hear what you're saying as strictly as a thought exercise, but in real life, to actually say, hey, release the prisoner, even though a court just ruled she should stand trial, is not only damaging to the rule of law, but it sends a signal to the world.
You can push us around.
What do you make of those two objections, Manny?
Those are, I agree, Ezra, 100% of what you said.
And in the normal course, I would agree.
I'm talking about the specific facts of this case here.
The specific facts, we've never had a prime minister ever, and we will never have a prime minister ever found in conflict of interest, obstruction of justice.
But we did, and we have.
And he continues to do it, as you, you know, with his conflicts.
He's now, I think 13 charges were found on this section on two different, very lengthy legal opinions by the ethics or the ethics commissioner.
And he continues.
But where you have that, and Ezra, here's where I, Ezra, I struggled as much as you did with this.
But in this case here, I liken it to the fact where you have a bad cop or a bad investigator that comes in and breaks one's charter rights and the charter rights.
And let's say they go in without a warrant and they find guns and they find all the incriminating evidence, but they break the charter rights of that individual.
That individual gets to walk.
He gets to get a stay where you act.
So what's more important to me is where you have here, in this case here, and if there's such a concept, the Prime Minister of Canada breaching the charter rights of these two individuals by acting so negligently and forcefully, creating obstruction of justice to allow rogue regimes like China to act upon it, there's where the exemption falls.
I mean, it's the facts in this case that drive me to that conclusion.
I would be, Ezra, I'm exactly like you.
Forever and a day, we protect our justice system.
Concerned About Justice00:07:57
But when the prime minister abuses the justice system and two young men are in jail because of his conduct and his acts, those men stand above because of the egregious acts of the prime minister.
So, you know, that's where I come from.
If the prime minister's egregious acts had touched the Hmong One Zoe case, I could understand it because that would be like your analogy.
If a cop breaks a rule during an arrest, the perp walks free even if they really shouldn't.
But Trudeau's shenanigans didn't have anything to do with Mm One Zoe.
They're just taking an opportunity.
China took an opportunistic attack.
I don't know, Manny, I'm unpersuaded.
And I just, and actually, I have to tell you, I mean, I criticize Trudeau so full-time.
It's like a full-time job for me.
My last three books in a row, Trumping Trudeau, the Libranos, and now China virus, they're all criticizing Trudeau.
I'm second to none on that.
But I will give the lad credit for one thing.
When he was presented with this 19 signatures, including a former Supreme Court judge saying, do the prisoner swap, he actually, to my shock, rejected.
And I thought, you know what?
That's the first thing I can think of in five years that not only is he right, but he did with a little bit of courage.
And I, I don't know, I just feel like I see you want them back and you're trying to, like a good lawyer, come up with some thread to do it.
But just from a principled reason, and I tell you, you do that.
Not only does China crow, we handle Canada, we boss Canada around, we won the staring contest with Canada, but they're going to take another hostage the next day and see what they can get from that.
And maybe Iran will take a hostage.
Maybe Russia will take a hostage.
And before you know it, everyone knows you can, under Justin Trudeau, you can take a hostage and get what you want.
Ezra, that's so true.
And that's the risk that you put yourself when you have what I'll call an errant prime minister at the helm.
I mean, we are at risk to everything.
If you honestly believe, and Ezra, you're way too smart for this.
If you honestly believe that Justin Trudeau has now found a spine and a dose of honesty to reject what was presented to him to stand for justice, you know that's not true.
You know this all is staged.
This is all staged to make Justin Trudeau undo the damage that he did for the few years with the Attorney General.
This is all staged.
It has nothing to do with those two young men.
This is to do to build the re-reputation of Trudeau, pretend that he is a defender of justice.
And he's not.
Because you cannot be a defender of justice.
Even to this day, Ezra, I mean, come on.
You're better than this.
Even to this day, the guy's giving out billion dollars to the We Foundation after he's gone through the whole affair and found in his first conflict of interest when he went to the Agakons Island, the very same problem.
He gave $15, $40 million, should have recused himself.
He shouldn't have been there.
Now we have direct evidence that he did call.
There was a call and this billion dollars given.
So he is not concerned about justice, ethics, or duty.
He's now going to be reported again for this issue.
And I'm sure the We Foundation, the commissioner, will find that he breached his duties again.
He is not concerned about justice.
This is a reputation building by his, what I'll call the liberal gang, the liberal elite, to make him look strong on justice.
I don't buy it a bit, Ezra.
I'm still thinking of those two young men that were put in this position because directly related to the Prime Minister's Act.
And for that reason, the Prime Minister, here's what should happen, Ezra.
In my view, what should happen, our media should at least, and I say media excludes Rebel and you guys because you're doing a job that is incredible, but the rest of the 99% paid media, what they should be doing is be honest.
These two young men are in trouble because the Prime Minister acted recklessly with the, and there should be a call for him to say, I screwed up.
I acted recklessly.
There is a decision by the Ethics Commissioner that says I obstructed justice because of my conduct.
These two men are there and I have to get them back.
That's what has to happen.
It's through his direct actions that these two young men are found and now charged.
I'm sure China is just beside themselves saying, hey, why isn't this guy doing it?
Look at his record.
He's still doing it with the We Foundation.
This is the same guy.
So this is not a man that's concerned about justice.
If he was concerned about justice, there wouldn't be 15 guilty pleas under the 15 different sections of the Conflict of Interest Act.
He wouldn't have members of cabinet that were also found guilty in conflict of interest.
This is not a man of justice.
This is not a man of concern of justice.
You know, with respect on another issue, we are in a pandemic.
And the pandemic, we slammed the curve, I would say, around April.
So when was the last time anyone talked about, when did this minister, this prime minister, talk about the Charter of Rights of Individuals?
It wasn't even mentioned.
Yeah, well, he's all holed up and I call it self-hiding.
It's not even self-quarantine.
He's just hiding from the world, living like a recluse.
It's very strange.
Well, Manny, listen, I appreciate you making the case.
I myself have to tell you, I am not convinced, but it was an excellent exercise.
You would make an outstanding law school professor because you certainly make students think.
I'm going to invite our viewers to weigh in with their thought on your approach.
I'm a skeptic.
You heard my reasons why.
Send me a note to Ezra at rebelnews.com and I'll read some of the replies on tomorrow's show.
In the meantime, Manny, always an education, always a thought-provoking conversation.
And we love you.
And we can hardly wait to talk to you again soon.
Thank you, Ezra.
Take it.
All right, there you have it.
Manny Montenegrino, the CEO of Think Sharp.
Join us via Skype from Ottawa.
Stay with us for more.
Hey, welcome back.
Well, I didn't expect that from Manny Montenegrino.
I think he was trying to make the intellectual case that Justin Trudeau should confess that he's a corrupter of our legal system and let Meng Wenzo go on that basis.
I think that's what he was getting at.
I'm not quite sure.
I was surprised that he wanted to let Meng Wenzo go.
I think his point is Trudeau's just so corrupt, he should come clean about it.
Well, I agree with that part of it, but I don't see the linkage to letting an actual accused criminal like Meng Wenzo go.
What do you think about Clara Janover?
I tell you, every young person wants to be internet famous.
I don't know, I'm not such a young person, and I suppose I value internet fame, but not fame for itself.
I have a message.
I have a story to tell.
We have news to report.
We have commentary and activism.
If I look at TikTok before I deleted it from my phone, there's countless people who just want to be famous just for a moment.
I think Clara Janover much prefers her TikTok fame than an actual hard work job at Deloitte.
Well, let me know what you think on all these subjects.
Go to heather at RebelNews.com.
Especially about Manny's idea.
Do you think he was just speaking as a thought exercise, an imagination exercise?
Let me know.
Until tomorrow, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters, see you at home.