Ezra Levant exposes Stephen Gilbeau, Justin Trudeau’s environment minister, in a 2002 home invasion where he and Greenpeace activists terrorized Colleen Klein at her Calgary bungalow, claiming it was a "solar panel gift" while violating privacy laws. Levant argues Gilbeau’s appointment ignored RCMP warnings and that Trudeau’s government prioritizes political profit—like excessive jet travel—over climate action. Meanwhile, a federal court challenge questions the Emergencies Act’s legality, with lawyer Eva Chipiak criticizing the Crown’s reliance on news articles over direct evidence. Levant also addresses listener concerns: unpunished protest assaults and four men jailed without charges, noting Rebel News’ limited legal reach while praising James O’Keefe’s investigative work. The episode reveals systemic failures in accountability and justice under Trudeau’s leadership. [Automatically generated summary]
Today I tell you a second crime committed by Stephen Gilbeau, the environment minister, and I'm quite embarrassed to say this.
I did not know about this second crime until today.
I was today years old when I learned that Stephen Gilbeau participated in a kind of home invasion, terrifying a woman in the house.
I didn't know this, even though I lived not far away from the house in that city where Gilbeau committed this horrific offense.
I'll tell you what I know, and then you'll know it.
Hey, by the way, I'd like you to subscribe to Rebel News Plus.
What is that?
That's the video version of this podcast.
I'd love you to see the images.
I want you to see the picture of this home invasion.
We have a photo of it.
And I want to let you know that the $8 a month that it costs for the video version of this podcast, we really rely on that to pay the bills around here because you know we're demonetized by YouTube.
We get no money from the government.
We would never take it.
So we really do rely on you.
It's $8 a month.
That might not sound like a lot to you, but it really adds up for us.
Please consider going to RebelNewsPlus.com and clicking subscribe.
Thanks a million.
Okay, here's today's show.
Tonight, that time Trudeau's environment minister did a home invasion terrorizing a woman home alone.
It's April 3rd and this is the Ezra Levant Show.
Shame on you, you censorious thug.
I often mention that Stephen Gilboa, Trudeau's environment minister, is a convicted criminal.
And I describe the events for one of his most famous crimes.
He went into the CN Tower in Toronto.
Actually, he climbed up it.
He trespassed.
He dangled himself from the CM Tower.
He put many people in danger, and he did so for money, to make money for his company, Greenpeace, a multinational corporation that makes hundreds of millions of dollars a year by breaking the law for profit.
I'm not sure why they get away with it, but other criminal gangs like Hell's Angels don't.
Here's a story I often refer to when I mention this.
This is the version from the Globe and Mail.
I'll read it.
CN Tower climbers ordered to pay costs.
Now, the story is from 2002.
Two Greenpeace activists who scaled the CN Tower last summer and unfurled a massive banner in a stunt that drew international media coverage pleaded guilty yesterday to public mischief.
Britain, Christopher Holden, 24, and Montrealer Stephen Gilbo, 32, received conditional discharges and agreed to pay $3,000 to the tower's corporate owner as compensation for the security and staff costs it incurred.
Although a prosecutor told an Ontario court judge the two men were remorseful, both expressed jubilation outside court about having drawn public attention to global climate change and the need to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
This was the climax of my efforts so far, said Mr. Holden, who has worked as an industrial climber in England and who has used his skills to hoist a 15-meter square banner proclaiming Canada and Bush climate killers 350 meters in the air.
Mr. Gilbeau told reporters that the climb helped raise public awareness about climate change and he believes it influenced Prime Minister Jean-Cretan's decision to commit Canada to ratifying the Kyoto Accord on Global Warming.
The Canadian National Tower Corporation suffered $50,000 in losses from the stunt, Crown Prosecutor Calvin Berry told the court.
That estimate included $35,000 lost when it cut ticket prices in half for six hours on July 16th because one side of the observation deck was sealed off by security to allow police and firefighters to monitor the safety of the protesters.
Mr. Gilbo was placed on one year's probation and ordered to perform 100 hours of community service in Montreal, where he works for Greenpeace, and pay $1,000 of the $3,000 restitution.
Mr. Holden will pay $2,000, was ordered to report once to a probation officer before returning to Egypt where he now lives.
So Gilbo is 52 years old now.
You can see in the story that he committed this crime when he was 32.
My point is, he wasn't a child.
He wasn't a teenager.
He wasn't a college kid.
He was a professional fundraiser for the multinational corporation called Greenpeace.
He inflicted $50,000 damage on the CN Tower business.
They've got nothing to do with climate change or global warming.
He doesn't care.
And what a laugh that he only had to pay $1,000 to them and spent no time in jail and was laughing outside the court, even though the foolish prosecutor said, oh, he's very remorseful.
What's interesting is that normally Greenpeace uses cannon fodder.
By that, I mean college kids, dumb pawns on the chessboard.
But Gilbo was a boss.
He was 32 and he was an executive with Greenpeace.
It's very unusual that he would commit a crime, but why wouldn't he?
He got off with a slap on the wrist.
I tell that story a lot, and I show the picture of him in his orange garb because it looks like a prison outfit.
He wore that for his climb, but he really is a criminal in spirit.
But here's a story for you, and I'm embarrassed to say I did not know about this, and shame on me, because I follow these subjects.
I'm from Calgary originally.
I knew the late Premier Ralph Klein.
In fact, I was a poll captain for him when I was very young, knocking on doors and whatnot.
I wouldn't say I was a close friend of his or anything, but I was a friendly acquaintance.
And I had met Mrs. Klein, and I knew where their house was.
It wasn't far away from where I lived, and it was just a sleepy bungalow.
And, you know, especially back then, Alberta was a safe place.
I think there was a security guard who accompanied Premier Klein around, but it was very easy-peasy.
But look at this story, and my embarrassment is that I didn't know about this story until today, actually.
This story was published in 2021 when Gilbo was made environment minister.
Now, it wasn't just about his CN tower crime.
Let me read to you a story by Don Braid in the Calgary Herald a couple years ago when Gilbea was appointed by Trudeau to be the environment minister.
I'm going to read a chunk of the story, okay?
On April 11th, 2002, Greenpeace pranksters climbed onto the roof of then-Premier Ralph Klein's bungalow in Lakeview.
From inside, Klein's wife, Colleen, saw vans arrive and people in orange uniforms take a ladder to the house.
I was terrified, she told an interviewer years later.
She thought it was some kind of home invasion.
Well, it was.
Greenpeace campaigner Gilbo said, we're offering Mr. and Mrs. Klein a gift of solar panels, a gift of the future.
That's what the energy of the future should be about.
It will be about solar and wind energy.
Ralph Klein emitted some furious wind power of his own.
Colleen was shook up, he said.
It was an invasion of privacy.
Nobody's home ought to be public property.
Environmental activists thought it was hilarious.
Here's a picture, a close-up. of the home invasion.
Imagine you're a woman at home by yourself.
There's no security at your house.
Your husband's the premier.
He's up at the legislature.
You're home alone.
Your husband is out of town.
And a group of thugs show up, start coming onto your property, climbing onto your house, and you don't know what's going on.
That is a private house.
Stephen Gilbo is a lawless clown.
He is a serial criminal.
He is abusive.
He abused Colleen Klein.
He terrified her.
Justin Trudeau knew this.
He knows this.
And yet he chose Stephen Gilbeau over what must have been an objection by the RCMP.
See, cabinet ministers know national secrets, high security secrets, foreign intelligence secrets, policing secrets.
And you have a serial criminal in your cabinet.
There's no way the RCMP gave that a rubber stamp.
Trudeau doesn't care because Trudeau himself is a serial lawbreaker.
How many times has he broken the Conflict of Interest Act?
Stephen Gilbo is a sociopath.
He claims to be, I'm just here to offer him a gift.
That's not a gift.
That is a fundraising stunt.
Stephen Gilbo broke the law to make millions of dollars for a multinational corporation.
Hell's Angels is a multinational corporation that breaks the law for money too, but they're not treated with kid gloves.
You would never have a Hell's Angels criminal appointed to cabinet, but Stephen Gilbeau was appointed to cabinet.
He's a psychopath, really, in a way, Stephen Gilbeau.
Imagine terrifying a woman who has nothing to do with anything, terrorizing her and going onto her property so you can take some pictures and publish them and get rich.
That's a psychopath who doesn't think about others, but only himself.
You know, Jordan Peterson, the great psychologist, talks about the appeal of psychopaths.
He often talks about it in terms of young women, naive young women, having trouble differentiating between confident, strong guys and absolute sociopathic liars.
They exude the same confidence, and sometimes young women cannot distinguish.
It's an interesting observation he makes.
Peterson talks about the trickery, how men can trick themselves to win the hearts of women, or if not the hearts, at least their bodies for one night.
Male feminists, narcissists, sociopaths, psychopaths.
I think that that is Justin Trudeau and Stephen Gilbo and the other charlatans who surround them.
I think a lot of people, when they first encounter Justin Trudeau, like his suave.
They like that he's, well, if not handsome, the least ugly politician.
It's not a tough competition to be the least ugly.
They like that his name is the same as his father's.
They like that he has all the smooth buzzwords.
And I think they're tricked like naive young girls are to a narcissistic predator.
If you look at the demographics of who supports Trudeau, it's disproportionately women and very often young women, the same women who psychologically cannot detect the difference between a narcissistic psychopath predator and a strong, confident, ambitious young man.
Justin Trudeau has a liar's eyes, and so does Stephen Gilbo.
Look at the eyes of him in that picture in the CN Tower arrest.
These two men will literally do or say anything to profit in the moment.
Both of them completely remorseless.
You heard the story in the Globe and Mail.
They were laughing outside the court, even as they tricked the prosecutor.
Oh, they're remorseful.
It's harder to trick a prosecutor than to trick a teenage girl, although I guess maybe not in that case.
Do you really think, for example, that they meant to deliver solar panels to Ralph Klein's house or that that was just a fundraising stunt?
This is a test of your own naivete.
Do you really think that Stephen Gilbo and Justin Trudeau plan to transition off of fossil fuels?
Do you really think so?
Trudeau, who has flown more on government jets than any other prime minister in history.
Do you really think that they want to transition off oil and gas or just for you to transition off it?
Will they transition off of meat, off of cars?
They will not.
They'll transition off of oil jobs.
Of course they'll do that.
But not their own jobs.
Don't trust them.
Never trust them.
Stay with us, Moran.
The Emergencies Act was a diabolical bonfire of Canadian civil liberties, utterly unjustified.
I tell you, I'm watching the mass protests in the streets of France.
Literally millions of people, by the way, they are truly rioting, burning things.
There's massive strikes, garbage piling up everywhere.
The infrastructure of the country is grinding to a halt.
And yet, they have not put the country in martial law.
I see Israel, where hundreds of thousands of people are having a kind of peaceful color revolution against Benjamin Netanyahu, and they have not put the country under martial law.
Only Canada, or more to the point, Justin Trudeau invoked the Emergencies Act, something not even done during 9-11, because there were some people honking their horns at him, and that was causing him great embarrassment.
Well, Justin Trudeau hand-picked the judge to review him.
That's a neat trick.
And surprise, surprise, the judge who oversaw the public inquiry said, well, maybe he coulda, shoulda, if you hold it just the right way and in the right light, maybe it was justified.
It was a disgraceful lack of independence by a judge, but that was a hand-picked judge that Trudeau himself chose, reviewing a mandate that Trudeau himself wrote.
How about a regular judge?
Lawyers Argue Court Case00:11:50
And instead of that judge being given a limited mandate, what if someone went to court, to the federal court, in fact, and said there was a legal error here, and we want a judicial review?
We want the court to find that it was illegal, not a touchy-feely commission.
Well, what I've just described is happening today.
And our friend Eva Chipiak, a lawyer who has worked with the Trucker Convoy, has been watching the trial all day.
She joins us now via Skype.
Eva, great to see you again.
Thanks for making the time.
First of all, correct any errors I have made.
This is in federal court in Ottawa, and it is citizens who are applying for, would you call it a judicial review?
They're challenging the Emergencies Act on its own basis.
Tell me exactly, set the scene for us.
Who are these people and what are they arguing?
Yeah, so you've got that right.
And it looks like there's four cases that have been combined.
Two are on behalf of actual citizens in Canada, and two are on civil liberties associations.
So two of those civil liberties associations were involved in the public order emergencies and commission.
And then you have regular Canadians that have applied to ask the court to determine whether or not the Emergencies Act was justified.
Got it.
Now, I was reading your live tweeting of the hearing, and it sounds like the government's lawyers are trying to head this off at the past.
They're trying to make it so that this matter doesn't even proceed to trial.
I understand they're arguing two things.
First of all, that it's moot, which is a lawyer's way of saying it's over.
There's no reason the court should consider it because it's done.
Well, it would have been a pretty fast judge who would have been able to meet in the nine days or so that martial law was afoot.
I don't know if that mootness argument will win.
And then the second, and I'm just going by your live tweets here, which I recommend that people check out for this real-time coverage, which is that, which is standing, which is if you go to court, you've got to have some connection to the matters at issue.
You can't just be a busybody.
And it sounds like the government is arguing that the people who are seeking a legal review of this are just busybodies that the court shouldn't give any time to.
Does that sum up what was happening today?
The government was basically saying, hey, judge, this is all over.
This is old news.
And these people don't have a right to be here.
Let's just all go home and have a beer.
Is that what the government was saying?
Yeah, to some extent, exactly that.
And, you know, I'm not involved in this legal challenge.
I'm just observing.
And it was really hard to watch the Crown, the federal lawyers arguing that, especially on mootness.
And it was good to see the judge challenge the lawyer there, especially like you said.
The Crown kind of suggested that this should have been brought forward earlier and while the Emergencies Act was invoked.
And the judge was like, really?
You think they should have brought it within the nine days?
Tell me what kind of evidence they would have had in the nine days.
And you're like, come on, Crown.
You have to be reasonable to a certain extent.
You can't expect regular Canadians to get all this in order in order to bring a sophisticated challenge to court.
And then if you don't bring a sophisticated challenge, then you're being booted on that.
So you can't have it both ways.
And that seems to be what the Crown continues to argue in these cases.
And it's really disheartening to see.
Canadians should have their day in court.
And why is the Crown so opposed to Canadians having their day in court?
It's disturbing to see.
Yeah.
Now, tell me about the lawyers arguing the case.
You mentioned that you're not a lawyer in the case.
You're observing it like the rest of us are.
Can you tell us who the lawyers are?
Can you tell us a little bit more about the plaintiffs?
I ask because sometimes it makes a real difference if the lawyers are experienced, if they're making all the right arguments.
You could have weak lawyers that fumble it.
I mean, it doesn't all turn on the lawyers, but the lawyers, the clients, the facts, the arguments, these things obviously matter.
And then in a minute, I'll ask you to tell us what you can about the judge.
So start off, who are the plaintiffs and who are their lawyers?
Yes, so really good question.
And I actually wish I had more on that.
But I do know who the applicants are.
So it seems to be one nurse that has been very active, started an organization in Ontario.
And I don't have the name of the organization down packed, but it was like United Nurses of Canada, something like that.
Org, I didn't mean to put you on the spot.
I was just curious if there was anyone famous like a civil liberties advocate.
Although you and I could probably count on one hand, the number of civil liberties lawyers in this country.
Unfortunately, most of them went on a holiday for the last year.
And how about on the government side?
How many lawyers are there on the government side?
Well, probably a whole team full, but I think you could see five or so on the screen.
And I'm assuming there's at least double or triple behind the scenes helping.
That's how it generally is.
So a huge team on that end.
And there are some, like I said, some of the civil liberties associations that were involved in the public order emergencies inquiry, like just before today's break, Eva Krajewska from the Canadian Constitutional Liberties Foundation was up and giving her arguments and doing a great job.
Like, you know, some of these people have been on this for a year, including her, when she was actively involved in the public order emergencies inquiry.
So you have some good lawyers, definitely.
Some really interesting arguments were made today.
And on the side of the Crown, it was, like I said earlier, a bit disappointing to see that those were the arguments the Crown was making.
And to be perfectly honest, I don't think they were incredibly strong.
And I don't think the advocacy was that incredible on the Crown side.
What can you tell me about the judge?
I understand the judge's name is Judge Mosley.
You mentioned that the judge was pushing back on the mootness question, basically mocking or challenging the prosecution.
He says, well, Your Honor, they should have brought it when the martial law was afoot.
Is there anything else you can tell us?
I mean, judges are pretty good at keeping a poker face.
And just because they're asking a question doesn't mean they necessarily have that point of view.
They like to poke and prod and get some responses, sometimes just out of sheer curiosity, I think.
Did the judge show any interest in an issue or an argument?
Or was there anything you can read from how the judge conducted themselves?
Yeah, well, I was really positive and hopeful at the start.
Again, probably because the Crown was being challenged quite a bit.
And then we got into the arguments of the various applicants.
And the one thing of particular concern that the judge said, and I do want to make note of, is that he said that he was challenging an applicant talking about the reasonableness of the invocation.
And he said, well, you on coercion, that was it.
So the argument was made by the Crown that, you know, people in Ottawa were basically coerced to join and be part or get involved or let go of the protest because he said they occupied the streets and didn't allow them to leave.
And what's particularly concerning from what I heard is the judge said you saw the news articles that the Crown submitted as evidence.
That's concerning.
I know you would understand because that's not evidence news articles.
If the whole federal government couldn't find a couple people in Ottawa to give actual evidence that they were blockaded in their house, that's very telling in my opinion.
If they're relying on news articles to suggest that people couldn't leave their house and the judge seems to have.
You know, it's terrifying to me the amount of news media equals the facts.
I mean, I watched the public order inquiry and they were just, you know, politician after politician or even police claimed certain things happened.
And when they were pressed for a source, they said, oh, I didn't actually witness it.
just read about it.
It showed the power of gossip and rumors.
And it was said more than once that the number one source of misinformation and disinformation was the federal government itself.
Hey, let me ask you this question.
I know you were not in the physical courtroom itself, but do you get this sense that this hearing is being covered by other media?
I know you can't really see that, but did you notice even online were other reporters from other agencies tweeting about it, for example?
I suppose we'll see in the papers tomorrow in the TV tonight.
Do you think they're watching this or have they sort of written this off as too boring?
Because they already have their answer from the commission a month ago.
Yeah, my guess has to be no because my fee just went crazy and I'm not even that incredibly popular on it, but it's been really well received and people are sharing it.
I got to the point that I can't even post any more tweets, which is a bit frustrating.
So I had the whole afternoon that hasn't even been made public.
But it looks to me that nobody else is really reporting on this.
And I am concerned that it is what you suggested, that people are relying on the Public Order Emergency Commission results.
And there was a lot of vagueness about what exactly is evidence.
So in that case, you know, fine, put up a news article, but that's not what evidence is in a court case.
And I was very hopeful that in federal court, that would not be sufficient to be evidence.
So I really hope that at least we get a real judge listening to real evidence and coming up with a real decision about whether or not the Emergencies Act was invoked.
And we'll see, like you said, tomorrow if anyone else is talking about it.
Yeah.
Well, you know, I allowed my hopes to get too high with Justice Rollo and his commission.
And, you know, the old saying, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
You probably know that saying.
And it means you can be forgiven once for being naive and gullible, but if it happens a second time, you should have known better.
And I'm not going to get my hopes too high, Ava, because they were high.
I falsely hoped that the Commission of Inquiry would say what was so painfully evident to me, but no, he found a way to exonerate Trudeau.
Well, listen, thank you for your coverage.
I want to encourage people to follow you on Twitter.
Ava's Twitter account will have the link on the page, but it is forever Ava79, F-O-R-E-V-A-E-V-A79.
And I really appreciate you live swinging.
And I see you got a lot of interactions, which tells me that people are very curious about this.
Thanks very much.
Keep up the great work.
Nice to see you again.
Likewise.
Thanks for having me.
Right on.
There you have it.
Ava Chipiak covering the federal court challenge, the review of the Emergencies Act in court.
Stay with us.
your letters to me next.
Hey, welcome back.
Your letters to me.
Wayne says, Hi, Ezra.
Surrounding Silence, Punchesspoken00:05:10
The last two or three years have seen an exodus of the conscientious cops, such that the remainder are not much more than glorified security for Antifa and Black Lives Matter goons.
When cops stand with folded arms while real social crime goes unpunished, perhaps they should be defunded.
Better to deal with only thugs than a cabal of thugs and cops.
You know what?
We just put up a petition, Fire Officer Bachman.
It's a crazy case involving a man named Billboard Chris.
That's obviously not his name his mama gave him, but that's how he's known online.
And he goes and he stands quietly and peacefully at transgender protests with simple signs.
You can see an image of it.
And he is always physically attacked.
Always.
But what makes me think of that in your letters case is that there was this Vancouver cop, Frederick Rika Bachmann, who was standing there watching the assault, laughing at it, and saying, well, here, I'll let you watch the video yourself.
Take a look.
Why do you think that they're getting that kind of representation?
I mean, it clearly was aggressive, violent assault.
You suck.
You suck.
Fuck you.
Fuck you.
You're not wanted.
Fuck you.
You're a fucking idiot.
You're a fucking idiot.
I don't know what to say.
I guess these police officers are mostly indoctrinated as well.
Everyone here.
They're afraid of the mob.
Fuck you! Fuck you! Fuck you! Fuck you!
Hey! Get this fucking ass!
You should have told us!
Listen, I love the police.
My brother's a police officer.
I respect law and order.
I respect our charter rights and freedoms.
And I'm not trying to be a jerk to you earlier today.
I don't think a lot of you understand what I'm actually representing and the seriousness of this situation.
But it is what it is, I guess.
I just, this is Canada, and people shouldn't be allowed to assault people without consequence, you know?
But the thing is, right?
When we get into people's faces and they get into our faces, it doesn't really matter who does the first push.
It's considered a consensual fight.
And maybe that's something you should.
I didn't, no, no, that's, I didn't get into people's faces.
I was here for very close to people.
You weren't here.
You weren't even here.
I came over to your car.
Yes, that first time.
After.
But the second time.
The second time what?
When you were pushed on the ground.
Are you kidding me?
I'd been walking away from them.
Yeah, and they surrounded me.
To do an interview with him.
They came close.
I walked away again to do the interview with him.
What I'm saying is at this point, maybe.
They surrounded me.
Oh my gosh.
This is unbelievable.
I walked away from them three times.
They were surrounding me.
You all were doing nothing.
A man yelled in my ear from inches away.
And I tried to get out of this situation where they're surrounding me while you guys do nothing.
And I immediately get punched in the face.
And you're blaming me?
And whoever punched you should be charged.
Are you kidding me right now?
This is.
No, this is totally surreal.
I cannot believe what I'm hearing.
It's all your fault.
Amazing.
Amazing.
Yeah, I'll just go.
Totally amazing.
Do you even know what?
Like, why are you behaving like this?
Do you think I'm evil or something for having this position?
Like, what's your problem?
Yeah, you are female.
This should be an issue for you.
This has nothing to do with you.
Okay.
That's right.
I'm a female.
It has nothing to do with me, this trans thing.
No.
No.
Nothing to do with women.
I'm talking to somebody else about something, okay?
It doesn't even, these conversations are pointless right now.
You're trying to, now you're trying to insinuate that that was a mutual thing.
Like, my gosh, mutual thing.
I'd walked away from the crowd three times.
They kept following me.
Then they surrounded me from all sides, started yelling in my ear from inches away while you all did nothing.
And then when I can't even get out of that surrounding and I get punched in the face, I get pulled, you're telling me that's a mutual engagement?
Yes, it is.
Incredible.
You don't have the right not to be here either.
It's incredible.
I have the right to be here.
Yes, you do.
Have you read this thing called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
Yes, I have.
Have you?
Yes, I have.
You should go home and read it again.
On whose orders are you guys acting on?
What an absolute disgrace to the force.
Since then, the deputy police chief has come out in favor of the cop, not the victim of crime.
What an absolute disgrace.
We have a petition at fireofficerbachman.com.
Lynn writes, I think you should think about the cops.
Your show tonight talks about the cops and what they did in Ottawa to Alexa and others.
Conspiracy Suspicions Raised00:02:11
If they did that in Ottawa, then they did in Coutz probably fits the same bill, and framing the four guys would be possible.
Remember, they were the ones that vandalized those three track hoes.
By the way, I never heard of any of them being charged for that.
I still think you should give more attention to those four guys and the cops and the legal system that still has them in jail.
Thanks for the great job you do.
Well, thanks for that friendly letter.
We just did, the Democracy Fund, I believe, just finished paying for the legal representation of a man in the Lethbridge-Coutts area who was facing certain charges.
I don't have all the details in front of me.
We are between Rebel News and the Democracy Fund defending over 30 truckers.
And I remain open to support for the four men who were accused of conspiracy to commit murder.
But you've heard me say this before.
You can understand why I'm reluctant to take money that was crowdfunded by donors to support peaceful protesters to defend people who were charged with conspiracy to commit murder.
I do accept the premise of your point, which is there's a chance this whole thing is a fake, a frame-up, a stitch-up, a put-up, that this is just a PR stunt to demonize the truckers as violent.
I accept that that's a possibility.
But until we know that that is what happened here, I cannot in good conscience take donations that came in in $50 and $100 increments from viewers for peaceful protesters and spend it on legal defense for those who may have been part of a conspiracy to commit murder.
I understand that they're innocent until proven guilty.
I'm open to learning more about their case, and I'm open to possibly defending them in the future, but not until I have some more confidence that the accusation against them is false.
That's my point of view.
If you disagree with it, I respect that.
But please try and see it from my point of view as a decider and as the recipient of the crowdfunding funds.
It's my duty to be careful with it.
Bob Quadruple X says, James O'Keefe is investigating Act Blue.
James O'Keefe's New Project00:00:54
Seems that there may be a scandal about to break.
Yeah, I'm enjoying following James O'Keefe's new OMG, O'Keefe Media Group.
That's a great acronym, as you know.
I was very sad when he broke paths, parted ways with Project Veritas, which he founded and ran for, what, 13 years or something?
I really wish that that would have been more harmonious and he would have stayed there.
I think he was in so many ways the leader of that, not just journalistically, but fundraising-wise and in the media, and he had the vision.
It's really a shame that didn't work, but hopefully his new project will be a success.
And I don't know.
I don't know if the remains of Project Veritas will continue.
I don't know who could possibly fill those shoes.
But yeah, I am watching James O'Keefe with great interest.