Mandatory COVID-19 vaccines in Canada? Justin Trudeau’s push—backed by Teresa Tam and Bill Gates—risks forcing "Made in China" military-developed jabs on kids, despite COVID’s 9,000 deaths (one child with pre-existing conditions). Tam’s Outbreak flip-flops and Nova Scotia testing ties raise safety doubts, while Trudeau’s $37M syringe stockpile and We Charity reimbursements ($400K+) violate ethics laws. Legal expert Manny Montenegrino calls his testimony "absurd," citing repeated breaches of the Conflict of Interest Act, including obstruction charges tied to Aga Khan and Kilberg investigations. If media like CBC ignores this, Canada’s vaccine mandate could mirror authoritarian tactics—jail for refusals, tracking bracelets—while exposing Trudeau’s unchecked power and public trust erosion. [Automatically generated summary]
Hey, what do you think about those 37 million syringes?
That's one for every Canadian.
How do you feel about taking a Made in China vaccine?
How do you feel about giving it to kids who simply don't get the coronavirus?
I think that's going to be the big push.
Justin Trudeau is the perfect globalist.
I think it's the UN plus Teresa Tam plus Bill Gates plus the pharmaceutical companies plus the People's Liberation of China.
They want you to get jabbed.
Yeah, not without informed consent.
That's my view.
Is that too anti-vax served me?
Is that too radical?
Let me make my case.
That's the subject of today's podcast.
Pardon me.
Oh my God, I got the corona.
Before I go, let me invite you to become a subscriber to Rebel News Plus.
It's eight bucks a month.
That's less than Netflix.
Just go to RebelNews.com and click subscribe.
That's, you know, if you, it's eight bucks a month, but it's only 80 bucks a year if you buy in advance.
You get the video version of the podcast.
I have this clip from a national film board movie called Outbreak.
There's two clips I show.
I really want you to see it.
You'll get the gist of it by listening, but I really wish you could see it.
You can see it on Rebel News Plus because that's the video version.
Okay, here's today's podcast.
Tonight, virus vaccines are going to be made mandatory, aren't they?
It's August 3rd, and this is the Answer Levant Show.
Why should others go to jail when you're the biggest carbon consumer I know?
There's 8,500 customers here, and you won't give them an answer.
The only thing I have to say to the government about why I publish them is because it's my bloody right to do so.
Did you watch our coverage of the Independent Press Gallery's conservative leadership debate the other night?
Leslien Lewis said she had an earache, so she pulled out at the last minute.
And then Peter McKay used that as an excuse to drop out, too.
So it turned into a calmer affair, not a debate, but two fireside chats in a row hosted by our friend Andrew Lawton.
Tell you the truth, I thought that fireside chat format was excellent because Andrew Lawton did such a good job of it.
It was actually a great night.
And because it was the first independent press gallery event, it was not a government press gallery event, we were allowed to join.
And so all of our reporters were there and they all had questions for the candidates.
It was a great evening.
Let me show you one question and answer.
It's by our newest reporter, Drea Humphrey.
She flew in from BC.
And unfortunately, the clock ran out, so Drea didn't get a chance to pose a follow-up question.
But listen to this one.
Hi, thanks so much for being here tonight.
I'm Drea Humphrey with Rebel News.
And my question for you today is, if vaccines do end up becoming mandated by Justin Trudeau or health authorities, what do you think will happen and should happen to those who refuse to take the vaccine?
Well, I think, you know, people should never be forced to do anything in a modern democratic society.
What I think we haven't had in Canada is a proper and responsible debate on a whole range of things, including masks.
In fact, you know, Derek was attacked for questioning the chief public health officer.
I was critical of the Trudeau government for not talking and debating about masks.
The vaccine issue will be even more important, where people will have to see the evidence, see the clinical studies, and be able to make a decision.
With rights and responsibilities, that gives free choice, which I defend and support.
But it may, as people make that choice, there may be responsibilities that flow from it that limit their ability in some circumstances.
If we're in a second wave or major social distancing decisions come back, we will have to weigh how many people have been immunized to see if we have a herd immunity approach.
I try and study the science, but I think in a democratic society like us, like ours, there is not a forcing of anything on anyone.
Good question.
And a vague answer.
Of course, Aaron O'Toole is not going to say he's for forcible vaccines.
Imagine police literally holding someone down and jabbing a needle into them with some serum made in China.
Because, you know, about 90% of our meds are made in China these days.
And bizarrely, Trudeau just signed a contract with Cansino, Cansino.
I don't know how to say it.
It's a Chinese company affiliated with the People's Liberation Army.
So we've contracted with the Chinese Army to pay them to do research on a vaccine.
And believe it or not, part of Canada's deal is that we're going to have Canadians in Nova Scotia be the human guinea pigs to test this vaccine.
Yeah, what could go wrong with that?
We're literally paying the Chinese military to make vaccines, and we're going to test it on Canadians.
Did you know that Trudeau has already bought 37 million syringes, which just happens to work out to exactly one syringe per person in Canada, even for babies?
So yeah, what do you think is coming?
A Made in China vaccine that will be given to 37 million of us.
So Aaron O'Toole said he believed in consent, but he didn't explain what consequences there would be for people who did not consent to the vaccine.
He didn't say what he thought Trudeau would do, and he didn't say what he himself would do if he were in charge.
And it's not an idle question.
Here's Teresa Tam, Canada's public health doctor, who has blundered through the pandemic, flip-flopping on every issue from masks to borders, blaming everyone as racist if they were even worried at first.
And throughout it all, obeying her masters at the World Health Organization, where she has worked throughout this whole crisis, unbelievable conflict of interest.
But here she is a few years back in a national film board movie talking about a hypothetical pandemic and what she thinks would happen.
Listen to this.
I think the public has to know this is one of the worst case scenarios in terms of an infectious disease outbreak in that their cooperation is sought.
If there are people who are non-compliant, there are definitely laws and public health powers that can quarantine people in mandatory settings.
It's potential you could track people, put bracelets on their arms, have police and other setups to ensure quarantine is undertaken.
It is better to be pre-emptive and precautionary and take the heat of people thinking you might be overreactionary, get ahead of the curve, and then think about whether you've overreacted later.
But it's such a serious situation that I think decisive early action is the key.
So jail for people who don't take vaccines, trackable bracelets, police and handcuff stuff.
So like Aaron O'Toole says, you're not forced to take a vaccine.
You're just thrown in jail if you don't.
Your choice, mate, jail or vaccine.
I actually watched that whole National Film Board movie.
It's called Outbreak.
I have to say, I liked the movie.
It was very interesting to me because it had a creative idea, juxtapose a historian's telling of the great epidemic in Montreal 135 years ago was smallpox with what would happen if an outbreak of smallpox were to happen today.
So the history part was just plain interesting.
I didn't know about that smallpox epidemic of 1885.
And the today part was interesting as a thought experience, which is what it was when the movie was made.
But it was twice as interesting given that we're living through it actually now.
And what happened in real life was in many ways worse than the scenario in the National Film Board movie because it's never ending.
In the movie, it ended, but here's our own Drea Humphrey making a very interesting point.
But if the measure of wearing a mask when you're healthy is simply because of a what-if in the future, in particular the upcoming flu season, doesn't that mean we would always be wearing a mask for what if?
It makes you wonder since none of these bylaws have an end date on them.
That's a good point, isn't it?
The mask bylaws we have now, they're not necessary.
The pandemic's over, statistically speaking.
They're not even being justified as being necessary.
They're preventative now, but they have no end date.
There is no end.
It's a permanent panic.
Or at least long enough to tide us over until some hasty vaccine from the People's Liberation Army is ready to be stuck in your arm.
Yeah, you go first, Justin.
Let's see you poke that made-in China needle into your own dear children's arm first before I do.
Actually, I don't want to see that because I bear no malice towards Trudeau's children.
I don't want them to be guinea pigs either.
And luckily, children don't get the coronavirus.
I mean, they can carry the virus, but they don't usually get sick from it.
And in a country of 37 million people, with about 10 million people who are either babies or kids or teenagers, about 10 million, a grand total of one child has died from the virus, and they had a terminal illness to begin with.
One out of 10 million.
So the odds of dying as a child from the coronavirus is one in 10 million, if at all.
You have a greater chance of dying from lightning, greater chance of dying from a bear attack or some extremely unlikely event.
One in 10 million.
In fact, I wouldn't even say that it's that high because that one kid was already dying from something else, I'm sorry to say.
Do you think that a virus vaccine hastily concocted by China's People's Liberation Army and jabbed into 10 million arms of Canadian kids, do you think that will have fewer than a one in 10 million chance of causing a side effect?
Yeah.
You use a vaccine to protect yourself from risk.
That's the whole point.
But there is no risk to children.
None.
One in 10 million, if you want to be precise.
But why would you inject something cooked up by the Chinese government's army into your arm if there's no risk for you?
Why would you do it to anyone, let alone a kid?
Not even 9,000 deaths of any age in Canada from the virus.
That's the same as the average annual deaths from the flu and pneumonia.
Despite Teresa Tam predicting up to 350,000 deaths, she's not good at predictions, but you heard her.
Vaccination Riots Explained00:04:15
She likes to overreact.
She likes to use a sledgehammer on other people, not herself.
Here's the historian from that documentary, Michael Bliss, in an article writing about how the smallpox vaccine was tried on Montrealers back in 1885 during the epidemic.
Let me read from the Globe Mail.
In 1885, public health officials in Montreal, then Canada's largest city, tried to stop a small outbreak of smallpox by offering extensive public vaccination.
There was a tradition of suspicion about vaccination in Quebec, a tendency to take smallpox for granted as one of the many diseases sent by God to punish sinners.
When the first vaccines used in Montreal turned out to be contaminated, causing cases of erysipelis, fear of the vaccine became greater than fear of smallpox.
Hey guys, totally safe.
Trust us.
So yeah, mandatory vaccines.
Look at this from that same movie, Outbreak, by the National Film Board.
Though all the powerful voices, including the Catholic Church, are calling for compulsory vaccination.
Many in the streets are prepared to resist.
September 28th.
Angry crowds assemble in front of the health office on St. Catherine Street.
Speeches are made.
The crowd applauds and jeers at the authorities.
Someone casts the first stone.
One of the health office windows shatters, and the others.
After half an hour, a cry goes up, Hallotel de Ville, to City Hall.
The crowd, a thousand strong, heads off down St. Catherine Street, stoning all front windows, then masses in front of City Hall, shouting, down with compulsory vaccination.
All the police in the building are issued rifles with bayonets.
The chief of police arrives at last, orders the rifles put away, and organizes sallies of club-wielding policemen who gradually drive off the angry crowd.
By one in the morning, the rioters have fled, and the city is quiet again.
Now, in the end, about 3,000 people died from smallpox in that 1885 epidemic in Montreal.
But remember, that's out of a total population back then of around 200,000 people.
So that is a huge death toll.
If you extrapolate that to the size of Canada today, it would be like half a million Canadians dying out of 37 million.
So it would be a huge tragedy.
It would be worse even than Teresa Tam's worst predictions.
But in fact, fewer than 9,000 Canadians have died from the coronavirus.
Same as the average flu season.
There were riots back then in Montreal against mandatory vaccinations.
And as the contaminated vaccine story shows, the riots were not baseless.
Don't jab me with your needle.
But at least back then, the authorities had an excuse.
The smallpox plague was truly devastating.
Imagine half a million dead Canadians today.
That's what proportionally happened to Montreal in 1895.
But Canada in 2020, 9,000.
And outside of Ontario and Quebec, really, outsides of seniors' homes and foreign migrant farm laborer bunkhouses, there hasn't even been a pandemic.
I'm sorry.
You cannot call 194 deceased people in all of British Columbia.
5 million people.
I'm sorry, you can't call that a pandemic.
Average age of the deceased, 85 years old.
The youngest person in BC who died, 47.
It is not a pandemic in BC.
They don't need masks, so they certainly don't need vaccines.
They certainly don't need ones cooked up in a hurry by the Chinese army.
Prime Minister's Defense00:15:27
You know what they need?
They need a solution to opioid drugs, which have killed 600 people so far this year.
So yeah, masks.
What's that all about?
It's about conditioning you, getting you used to being afraid, getting you used to obeying.
And when will the masks end, Estrella asks.
Well, that's easy.
They'll end only when you take a vaccine made in China.
Or if Teresa Tam gets her way, no problem.
You don't have to take the vaccine.
Just go to jail.
Stay with us for more.
Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Prime Minister.
What is the total dollar value of all of the expenses reimbursed, fees paid to, and any other consideration provided by the We group to you, your mother, your spouse, your brother, and any other member of your family?
Just the total, please.
Minister.
Sorry, mute.
I don't have that exact figure.
Reimbursing expenses is something done by an organization, for example.
So I don't have those totals.
Well, that is a clip from a spicy exchange between Pierre Polyev, the Conservative MP.
Frankly, I wish Pierre was running for Conservative leader right now, and Justin Trudeau, who is mired in yet another ethical scandal, rewarding his friends who reward his family.
Oh, it's cozy in there, isn't it?
Well, Trudeau appeared by video conference to a parliamentary committee for about 90 minutes.
I think he managed to avoid disastrous torpedoing simply because I think the Canadian media is used to his sly, oleaginous answers.
He just sort of slips away.
He manages to put himself as a third person observing things with you.
Oh, yes, I was disappointed.
Oh, yes, we have so much we can learn.
And there were some liberal MPs chiming in to his defense.
It was quite infuriating.
But you know what?
I think people know we've got a crook as a prime minister joining me now to talk about the we charitable scandals, as well as Trudeau's appearance via video conference in these committee proceedings.
And if it's getting through to severely normal Canadians on the street, is our favorite lawyer, commentator, pundit friend, Manny Montenegrino, CEO of Think Sharp, who joins us now via Ottawa via Skype.
Manny, great to see you again.
Thanks for being back on the show.
No problem.
Just love helping out and love being part of your broadcast.
Manny, what I like is that you sort of step back, look at things in context and bring in other threads, other ideas.
And you've had a couple of days now to ruminate on Trudeau's hearing.
What is your takeaway?
Well, Ezra, you said it bothers you, it infuriates you, and it should every Canadian.
And the media completely forgets the past.
And that's where I start.
Every case, you got to get all the facts.
So I went back to the mandate letters.
And as your viewers know, the Prime Minister of Canada writes a mandate letter for every minister.
This is what you're going to do.
And that's their task for the period of the term of parliament.
And each minister gets a mandate letter.
Now, the media in 2015 applauded Trudeau for making these mandate letters public.
They were always private.
They were between the Prime Minister and the minister, but he made them public.
What an openness.
And the media applauded it.
But they don't go back to them to see what were the duties.
Well, I did.
And each mandate letter, Ezra, specifically refers to the Conflict of Interest Act.
The Finance Minister's mandate letter says you must read it, read every part, adhere to every part of the act, and you must conduct yourself accordingly.
And then it goes farther.
And the mandate letter says, now, look, we just don't want you to observe the law.
That's the minimum standard.
I want you, says the Prime Minister to the finance minister, to have the highest ethical standards.
So read the act and have the highest ethical standards.
And this is found in every mandate letter.
So that tells you a few things.
Number one, the prime minister at least understood the act, the importance of the act, and made it part of his dictate to every minister.
So he must know about that.
So we start there.
Now, let's go to the previous investigations, and there have been three.
This will be Trudeau the third investigation.
Let's take us to Trudeau I.
That was the Aga Khan.
Now, some people don't know.
There were actually two cases rolled up into one because there were two separate trips that he took from the Aga Khan.
And what I take out of that, now these are 74-page legal decisions that everyone puts no weight to.
Well, you know, a judge wrote a decision, and we don't really care because it doesn't politically serve Trudeau, but it's a very damning report.
And here's how damning it was.
I mean, there were two vacations, probably in the order of $400,000 of free trips.
But what came out of that was an interesting finding by the judge that Trudeau lied or Trudeau was not credible when he said the Aga Khan was his friend.
Now, Ezra, let's bring that forward to today.
Now, the commissioner said, Prime Minister, you are not telling me the truth.
I will not accept your evidence because you haven't seen the Aga Khan for 30-some years.
How could you claim to be your friend?
Now, he forgets that.
The media forgets that.
I don't.
And here it's now, fast forward to the Kilbergs.
Here he has his mom at least on 20, 30 occasions speaking with them.
His brother, his wife, just recently, a few months ago, his wife flew back and got very hefty expenses paid for her.
And Trudeau, I see many times he's hugging and he's at weak inventions.
Now, if I use Trudeau's own standard, and that is, is he a friend in the order of Aga Khan?
The answer is absolutely yes.
I mean, so here he calls the Aga Khan a friend, and he calls the Kilbergs, oh, I don't know, they're kind of associates.
There is a thousand points more connection with the Kilbergs than there was Aga Khan.
But in his own evidence, he said the Aga Khan was a friend.
Well, if the Aga Khan was a friend, Kilbergs are bosom BBFs, if you want to put it, or whatever you want to call it.
So then you go to the investigation, the second Trudeau.
There's another lengthy legal decision.
Now, there we learned a couple of things.
He did obstruct justice.
He did found in breach again under the Conflict Act, but also that he obstructed the investigator.
He obstructed the commissioner who was looking into it by not having everyone at the PMO speak.
So we now have a broader picture.
And the broad picture is you have to come to the conclusion that this person has no credibility.
This person has been found.
I don't know if there's any court in the world or any adjudicator that found a sitting leader, a prime minister or a president, whoever, as a person who cannot be credible.
So now you take all that information and you bring it to today.
And I find, you know, Ezra, I watched, I think about the first 10, 15 minutes.
And, you know, probably under Doctor's Order, I can't really listen to Justin Trudeau.
I know, he's got that tone of voice, and he just looks at you, and it's like you're in the high school drama teacher again.
Well, that, plus, more importantly to me, he insults my intelligence and he insults every Canadian intelligence.
And let me parse out one thing.
Like it is, and no one has mentioned this, and it's just, it's absurd, but he thinks he can get away with it.
And here, he starts and he says, I first heard of this on May 8th, and I pushed it back, and I said to the bureaucrats, look at this carefully, because I am associated with these people.
I want you to do greater due diligence.
That's how good I am, right?
He's posing as the hero of the story.
Right.
As if he wasn't intimately involved with it.
No, but he actually said, I said to send it back.
Now, not one media looked at Section 21 of the Conflict of Interest Act.
It basically says it prohibits any public officer, certainly the Prime Minister, from any debate, discussion, or decision.
So when it came up on May 8th, Trudeau should have said, oh, I can't even send it back.
I can't even listen about this.
So the fool, I apologize.
But the accused or the recividist actually admitted to a second breach of Section 21.
He breached Section 21 when he should have just clapped his hands and said, what's this?
The Kilbergs?
We, I'm out.
I don't even want to hear anything.
I'm out of the room.
Guys, you take care of it.
Not that I'm sending it back because I'm noble, because once you seize yourself of this file, you have breached the law.
That's what recruits means.
And then it comes back to him again after the due diligence, and God knows what due diligence.
The issue of recusal has nothing to do with the poor bureaucrats.
I mean, they can't do anything about it.
All they can do is look at the file and send it back forward.
So then Trudeau gets it again the second time.
And this time, he doesn't debate it, doesn't discuss it.
He actually makes addition decision and approves it with cabinet.
So it's a second violation.
Now, you know, I've counted that the Conflict of Interest Act has many sections.
To date, and I use this as a joke, and I was on the golf course today, and I said to a friend, what does Justin Trudeau and Tiger Woods have in common?
And I said, no, no, no, don't go there.
Something different.
And I said, they both have 15 majors.
Tiger Woods has won 15 majors.
Trudeau has 15 major breaches of the Conflict of Interest Act.
And I've already caught two or three on this one here alone.
So how does he stand there proudly and say, oh, look, I saw this on May 8th.
And I direct, he basically said he directed that whole file, which is specifically prohibited under Section 21.
And then a month or two weeks later, he votes on it.
So he's got two ethical violations on one act.
You know, could I read a tweet from Andrew Coyne, who was talking about the May 8th date?
And let me just read this because I think he's on point.
He says, so we, the charity, was talking to various cabinet ministers in early April.
PMO officials were talking to we a handful of times after that.
The program was offered to them on April 22nd.
We began work on it on May 5th, but no one breathed a word of it to either the Prime Minister or his Chief of Staff until May 8th.
I mean, and that whole fact was not mentioned by anyone until Trudeau's testimony.
They are counting on media either being gullible or lazy or not connecting the dots or just too in the tank.
I mean, Andrew Coyne summed up a fact pattern that is simply not believable.
That all of this activity was done before anyone mentioned it to the chief of staff.
Forget the prime minister.
The chief of staff didn't know this, really.
You just went ahead with a half-billion-dollar program.
Chief of staff didn't know.
Yeah, no.
There's no question that what he's saying is not truthful.
There's no question that an adjudicator already found him not to be a truthful person.
So, and now, I mean, if you think of what he's saying, he's actually saying in his defense of being noble, I breached Section 21 on May 8th because I wanted it further reviewed.
Like, that is just absurd.
This is like, like, it goes beyond any legal grasp.
If there was a judge on this, and he will be, the commissioner will find another 80-page report saying that he's done this wrong.
But they missed that point.
And then he goes on to, and it really, Ezra, I'm lost.
He goes on to his explanation that he's got a, you know, the media, the CBC, and, you know, I love watching CBC because I just, they work so hard to protect.
No, you know, I mean, I protected my clients vigorously.
Yeah.
And they do a better job protecting Trudeau than I ever have.
And I thought I was one of them.
They earned their money.
They earned their money, manny.
But they say he's got a blind spot.
Now, let's again go back to the totality of it.
This is a guy who explained, and the people accepted the explanation for his racist and admitted racist acts of multiple black faces because of his white privilege.
And everyone seemed to accept that.
And I, okay, fine, I don't.
That's, in fact, what racism is: white privilege.
He should be gone.
But now he's using the same explanation, the same rationale for his continual 13 breaches of the Conflict of Interest Act.
And we're talking about gifts.
We're talking about $400,000 vacations.
We're talking about mom getting two, three, four hundred thousand.
My brother, Sophie's, you know, I mean, listen, I'd like to go to London and somebody pick up my pad for a $2,000 hotel.
I mean, well, those are expenses.
Well, no, it's living large.
I mean, that's the same thing.
I mean, it's London has some of the most expensive hotels in the world, or you can stay on the cheap to say she didn't take a fee, but lived like a princess, literally in the royal suite, that's tantamount to being paid.
Living Large Oaths00:04:47
And then some, it was a gorgeous vacation.
Yeah, sure.
It's funny to say he's got a blind spot.
That implies he wasn't looking, wasn't choosing, wasn't attentive.
He knew exactly what was going on.
And as you point out, this is his third time where he's been caught in it.
It's not, oh, well, guys, sorry, I just accidentally approved this half billion dollar grant, or is it a billion?
I mean, you know, when he said he didn't know what hotel his wife was staying at in London, she's on a big trip with the kids, with his mom.
I'm sorry, I don't believe it.
I don't believe that.
You have to work for the CBC to believe that kind of thing.
And you have to believe that he has a blind spot.
This is a person.
There's another CBC point that he actually went to committee.
Now, Ezra, you know, I practiced law 34 years and I've learned a few things about a few certain types of people.
The type of people that go under oath to be cross-examined when they are, I'll say, a recivitist.
This is his 13th charge, his second large decision.
And to sit there and say, I want to speak, and then openly lie and say that I sent it back.
Well, that's an admission that you broke the law again.
People that do that, and I've had very rare cases, but the clients that take the stand are those that have kind of a narcissist personality, a psychopathic personality.
They believe that no matter how insane what they say, people will accept it because they are above everybody.
And so I don't take great pleasure that he took the, it went under oath.
I mean, I, you know, you could go through that.
And certainly, if this was in America, the FBI, there'd probably be a few charges of breach under the oath and perjury.
But if you go through his whole testimony, they're just bold-faced lies.
So, you know, I don't know why he would stand up and admit that he failed to recuse twice.
But there he did it.
I think there's the narcissism of thinking people will believe him no matter what he says, but there's also the mental reservation, the moral reservation that if he did anything wrong, he's so noble, just he makes it right so that he doesn't have to feel guilty about anything because he's actually more morally, he burns more brightly than any law.
So if any law, if he breaks any law, that law ought not to have been applied to him in the first place.
I think when you live your entire life as a young prince, your dad's money, your dad's name, doors open for you, someone always cleans up the mess.
That's not a good person to put into a position that demands accountability like a PM.
Last question to you, Manny.
Do you think he'll survive this one as easily as he survived the first two?
Is there any reason to think that this will be any different from the last two ethics breaches?
And there'll be some harumphing in the press gallery, and three months from now, no one will even remember.
Well, gladly, there is a cumulative effect.
I don't think he should have survived the first.
The whole concept of being above the law, that is why these laws are there.
They're there.
That law was specifically there to make sure the public office holders don't go see themselves above the law with their power.
So, and clearly, Justin Trudeau, we're talking, you know, there will be 15 to 17 different findings and violations of various sections on facts that lead to four different types of circumstances.
So, four different cases, three different reviews, 17 different findings of guilt.
I mean, this is beyond, this isn't just one mistake.
This is the powder to life.
And again, you go back to the blackface.
I mean, I've never heard of anyone doing one blackface, but to do it when he was asked how many times, I can't remember.
This is a person that goes past beyond any reasonable person's review of normality and conduct.
And he is, I mean, to sit there and say, I didn't recuse myself because I failed to recuse myself to send it to the bureaucrats because I didn't recuse myself, it's absurd.
Something That Touches Your Eye00:00:31
And I shake my head.
I can't see why everybody doesn't see it.
It's very simple.
Something that touches your family, you get up, you leave the room.
Everyone gets it.
Everyone gets it.
Yeah.
Well, it's no surprise to rebel viewers that this is how Trudeau is.
We've been calling it since the beginning.
Hopefully other Canadians will see it.
Manny, what a pleasure, as always, to learn so much from you.