Ezra Levante and Robert Krachik update Tamara Lich’s trial, which began September 15 in Ottawa, after Ezra missed early sessions due to the Abraham Accords. Prosecutors Tim Radcliffe and Siobhan Wetscher framed the Freedom Convoy as non-peaceful, despite a police body cam showing only an officer’s violence. Defense lawyer Lawrence Greenspawn, praised for competence, faces resource gaps while 22 Crown witnesses risk dragging the trial past two weeks. Polling shows Trudeau’s support crumbling—Abacus data reveals Ontario young families oppose him, likely over carbon taxes—raising questions about strategic voting. Lich remains composed, with supporters praising Rebel News’s convoy coverage as honest, contrasting it with mainstream media. Levante teases deeper coverage of trials like Arthur Pavlovsky’s sentencing in Calgary and Derek Reimer’s, alongside his own legal battle tied to The Labranos book. [Automatically generated summary]
One of the reasons I miss being here is that Tamara Leach's trial was going on when we were away.
Luckily, we had two great reporters on the scene, our old friend Lincoln Jay and a newer reporter, Robert Krachik, who was live tweeting from the court every day, interviewing the people as they came and went.
So we're going to have a feature interview with Robert.
We're going to play some clips, including when he chatted with Tamara Leach's lawyer, Lawrence Greenspawn.
It's a great interview.
I feel completely caught up after talking to him about it, and I hope you will too.
By the way, if you want the video version of this podcast, go to RebelNewsPlus.com and click subscribe.
All right, here's today's podcast.
Tonight, a full report.
How is Tamara Leach's trial going?
It's September 15th, and this is the Ezra Levance Show.
Shame on you, you censorious bug.
Well, I got back very early this morning from Dubai.
That's a phrase I would not have thought I would be saying until quite recently, the Abraham Accords.
What an interesting trip.
I loved the trip.
It was great to hang out with such enthusiastic rebels, but I have to say, the number one thing weighing on me was that the trip started exactly the same day that Tamara Leach's trial started in Ottawa.
And we, of course, have been following Tamara Leach since the trucker convoy.
The Democracy Fund has been paying for Tamara Leach's lawyer, crowdfunded from Rebel News's viewers.
So, and as you know, Rebel News published Tamara Leach's wonderful autobiography, a great bestseller, by the way.
And we helped put on a tour of her books.
So, we love Tamara Leach, and we think that putting aside our affection for her, it's indisputable that she was the newsmaker of the year last year.
And this trial is one of the most important trials of the year this year.
So, I felt a genuine pain that I and my colleague Sheila Gunreed, who's gotten to know Tamara very well, that we were out of the country, off of the continent.
But I was deeply relieved when I saw the great work done by our Ottawa reporter, Robert Krajik, in tandem with young Lincoln Jay, who first made his name as a journalist during the convoy itself a year and a half ago.
So, that tag team of Robert Krachik in the court, live tweeting every day, Lincoln Jay with the camera outside the court.
I think not only did they cover the bases, they did a great job of showing people what was going on.
So, without further ado, let me now introduce to you Robert Krajik, who's been doing such a good job on the ground.
Robert, congratulations, and even more, thank you for really stepping it up and doing great coverage when Sheila and I were away because that was sort of our beat and we weren't there for those key days.
Thanks for covering it.
I want to thank you for the kind words.
It's great to hear that sort of praise from the big boss himself and also some Sheila.
I've had a lot of help.
Linking Jay is incredible.
And of course, the team behind the scenes is really upgrading my capabilities.
So, there's a lot of stuff in terms of assistance and help and guidance that may not be visible when you're seeing me out there, but it's definitely a team effort.
Well, that's nice of you to say those words about the team.
Brian's Defense Against Violations00:08:02
Why don't you give our viewers a bit of a summary?
I know a lot of people have been going to our special website, tamaratrial.com.
That's where we have all our coverage, a compilation of your tweets.
And I know folks have been following you as you live tweet from the court.
But maybe for those of us like me who have been out of the country for more than a week, how would you summarize the first, I guess it's almost two full weeks of court?
What would you say the highlights and the lowlights have been for the month of September so far?
I'll share with you the grand themes that I think are the major takeaways, and they both intercept.
The first one will be that the prosecution in its opening statement characterized the Freedom Convoy as a demonstration of protest that was anything but peaceful.
That's a direct quote.
Now, for those who've been with Rebel News for a while, paying attention to it or consuming first-hand content from the Freedom Convoy or were fortunate enough to attend and participate, you'll know that that description is the opposite of the truth.
It's not reconcilable with what actually happened.
You can see it sort of echoes this media narrative that was derisive and denigrating the demonstration through dishonesty.
Now, how does that relate to the trial?
The evidence that's been introduced by both the Crown and the defense contradicts that assessment.
And I'll give you specifics.
One of the first pieces of evidence introduced by the prosecution was this 11 and a half minute video montage compilation that was primarily composed of body cam footage that was captured by police officers on the ground during the Freedom Convoy.
Some of it was also aerial surveillance footage.
And you would think that the prosecution, which is seeking to secure convictions, would come out with an opening salvo that was very incriminating and that would show a protest as they described it as anything but peaceful.
But there was no violence to be seen on that video, except for, and this is also very interesting, the judge herself remarked on that 11 and a half minute video, and she said a couple of days into the trial that the only violence that was seen on that video came from a police officer towards a demonstrator.
So that's the major thing.
The second one, I'll just wrap it up real quick in terms of how this relates to us at Rebel News.
This may seem a bit self-serving, but this divide between the characterization of the Freedom Convoy and the reality on the ground blends right into the secondary overarching theme as I see it, which is the parallel universes within which the fictional world of so-called mainstream media and legacy media exists.
And those of us on the dissident side, those of us on the honest side, those of us who are not on the tape from the government, trying to present our audiences with accurate information.
And that weaved into the trial itself.
And I'll give you a couple of examples here.
Some of the videos that were presented by the prosecution and defense included these press conferences that were held by Tamara Leach, by Chris Barber, and some of their volunteers or supporters.
And they would remark regularly on how the characterizations from the media, you know, white supremacists, safeties, protests, races, infos, all these nonsense buzzwords that are regularly used to derive detractors were not compatible with what you were seeing on the ground, which was shared by both Tamara Leach and Chris Barber with their videos on site.
And of course, anyone is welcome to do that themselves.
There are still live streams out there that you can see reporting from Rebel News, for example, where Lincoln Jay and others were all out there on the streets of Ottawa capturing hundreds of hours of footage.
You can see for yourself that the way CBC types would describe it is not what was actually happening.
Well, you've said so many interesting things there.
I want to go back to your reference to the judge.
A lot of people are worried about the independence of our judicial system, and I'm one of them.
Even though I used to be a lawyer and an officer of the court, as they say, I still have a respect for the law.
I've got to, because what else is our choice?
But still, I can't help but notice that not a single substantial lockdown policy anywhere in the country has been declared unconstitutional.
Our Supreme Court hasn't even bothered to hear a lockdown case yet at all.
And I think a lot of people are starting to lose faith in the courts.
And yet, you say that at one moment, the judge said something that I think could be characterized as sympathetic to the defense by pointing out that the only violence in a video, 11-minute video clip by the prosecution, was police violence.
So I think that's a very interesting thing for the judge to say out loud.
Judges normally keep their cards close to their chest and wait until the judgment, the verdict, to give their opinion.
Can you tell me anything about the judge?
Is she young?
Is she old?
Is she talkative?
Does she ask questions?
Does she sort of take a hands-off approach?
Have there been other things she has said that maybe suggests she's more sympathetic to Tamara Leach and Chris Barber than might be expected?
Give me a little bit on the judge.
Well, since I'm there every day, of course I can give you insights into her behaviors and her remarks.
And I also initially thought that that statement that she made, where she specifically remarked on how the only violence visible in that video, that 11 and a half video montage compilation, only came from a police officer towards a demonstrator.
And I also use that word, sympathetic, but it's actually more than that.
It's really an objective assessment.
Even if she is hostile towards the defense for whatever reason, that's an objective remark.
It's not a matter of opinion that the only violence seen was from a police officer.
I'll share with you some other observations I've made.
And this happened in the last days.
So this was Thursday, this was yesterday, in which a video of Brian Peford's speech at the Freedom Convoy was shared by the defense.
And for those that don't know, Brian Peford was one of the composers, one of the drafters of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which I think we can agree, or we can state fairly is sort of foundational legal document in Canada.
He was also a former premier in Newfoundland.
And Brian Peckford remarked a lot about the violations that you just commented on as a function of what I call the COVID-19 enterprise, this apparatus of censorship, surveillance, violation of your basic rights to movement, to due process, property rights, freedom of association, religious rights.
So basically, all of our fundamental rights were violated without due process in the auspices of the so-called public health framework.
Don't be fooled by those who try to tell you that somehow you can skirt around the charter rights and freedoms.
I was there.
I helped right the damn thing and they're wrong and we're right.
Now, this relates to the judge how, because when the first video was played of Brian Pickford's remarks, it was kind of blurry with sort of this citizen journalist cell phone video.
And she had never done this before until this moment.
She said, Wait, can you pause that and play that?
She really wanted to confirm that that was Brian Peckford.
So Brian Peford captured her attention, presumably, because she's a lady of the law.
She's a judge, and Brian Peckford played a central role in a document that ostensibly guides her judgment.
Now, just as part of the superficial considerations, she's a woman, obviously.
She's middle-aged, probably around 60.
She did make a remark about how her comments on Brian Pickford dated her or aged her.
In terms of her demeanor, she's quite professional.
I wouldn't say she is hands-off.
She is authoritative when she thinks that things are sort of going off the rails, which is a quote that she used.
And she definitely is mindful of not wasting courtroom resources.
Professional Prosecutor's Dilemma00:07:21
And I'll give you one more example of that, too, in which the prosecution is trying to submit requests to change some of their evidentiary submissions to refine certain evidence that was submitted or introduce these or those witnesses.
And she has remarked several times, she stated, almost reprimanded, I would say, the prosecution to crown for not doing all of these things by August 1st, which apparently was their sort of tentatively agreed upon deadline between all the parties at hand.
Right.
And it makes sense because, of course, both sides have to know the case.
Well, I mean, or more importantly, the defense, the accused, has to know the case they have to meet.
So if the prosecution is changing the game just moments before trial or even during the trial, that does not allow them to make a fair and full defense, especially since the facts at issue here happened a year and a half ago.
They're all on tape.
It's not like the prosecution just discovered something.
Anyways, I appreciate that review of the judge.
Tell me about the prosecution.
The reason I ask is because the former prosecutor, if I'm getting his name right, Moyes Kashimji.
I'm sorry if I'm pronouncing that wrong, but there was a prosecutor on this case for the first year or so, and he was a very large Liberal Party donor.
He was emotional.
He was vindictive.
He tried to get our own reporter, Sheila Gunread, on contempt of court charges.
Like he was a madman.
He would argue with the judge.
He was, yeah, I think he had a vendetta.
And just a few months ago, he was yanked off the file and replaced with the prosecutors who were actually running the trial.
And I had mixed feelings about that because, on the one hand, Karimji, if I'm saying his name right, was so revved up and he was running so hot and he was quarreling with the judge.
I thought, oh, that's great.
He'll blow it.
On the other hand, having a better prosecutor, maybe it'll be a fairer trial.
But you don't switch prosecutors just a few months before trial.
That's like switching horses in the middle of a race.
Anyway, that's the last I heard of things.
Then I went overseas for 10 days.
So now I'm back.
And my question to you, Robert, is: what are the prosecutors like?
How many prosecutors are there?
Is there one senior person doing all the talking and a couple of juniors helping muster the documents?
What does the government's team look like?
There are two that are there.
One's a man, one's a woman.
He's probably approaching 50.
His name is Tim Radcliffe, white guy, very professional from what I can tell.
The other one's a white lady.
She's probably a few years behind him.
I mentioned his name is Tim Radcliffe.
Her name is Siobhan Wetscher, I think.
For what it's worth, and I sort of remarked on this, I think, in a tweet or two, they're actually maintaining a pretty congenial exchange relationship with the defense.
And I found that sort of admirable in my dualistic way.
It's not particularly antagonistic or acrimonious.
They're deferential where they should be.
They're always accommodating, making sure the defense follows what they're doing.
And there's this element of camaraderie, I would say, professional collegiality, perhaps is a better term, between the defense and the prosecution.
And to a degree, the judge.
Now, does that seem weird?
Is it like, oh my God, are they all in cahoots or something?
I don't get that vibe at all.
This just seems like they maintain a highly professional demeanor.
And they're not, as you described, this former prosecutor who was removed, they are not over the top.
They are not highly emotional.
And I'll just share my own hot take here.
I think the prosecution, in a sense, has an impossible job.
They're trying to prove two plus two is five.
So, regardless of the character of the person selected to represent the crown, they have a very, very difficult proposition to pursue convictions on these charges with Tamara Leach and Chris Barber.
I think you're right.
And, you know, the Democracy Fund, as you may know, represents literally 3,000 people who have been charged with various offenses.
Some are spectacular cases, like Arthur Pavlovsky or Chris Scott or the Whistle Stop Diner, or of course, Tamara Leach.
But most of the cases are anonymous.
They're severely normal people who got a $5,000 fine or $10,000 fine.
And for example, in one fell swoop, 300 such cases in British Columbia were stayed in the stroke of a pen.
So 300 cases just abandoned because either the prosecutors realized there was a flaw in the charges or they just didn't have the resources, or the judges basically said, we're not wasting 300 days hearing those political charges when we've got this backlog of real cases.
Here's my point.
Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of minor lockdown offenses are simply being thrown out or abandoned.
My theory is that the case against Tamara Leach and Chris Barber is modest and weak and political.
And frankly, it would not be pursued had there not been so much political buildup around it.
So now the government can't lose face.
If they were to abandon these minor charges the same way these 300 BC cases were thrown out in one day, it would be too embarrassing because they built it up as this Hilda Dion.
But I would suggest, based on my understanding of things, and of course I haven't been there in trial, that the case against Tamara Leach is so obviously a political case, an emotional case, not rooted in the facts or the law.
And so maybe I would say those prosecutors have a bloody tough job to do because at the end of the day, this judge is going to apply the law.
She's not running for mayor.
She's not running for MP.
And if she's going to do her job, she's going to say, no, there's no conviction here beyond a reasonable doubt.
I think that the prosecution sort of wishes this case wasn't before the courts.
That's just my theory.
What do you think of that?
I totally agree with you.
I might be naive and somewhat idealistic, but I think the prosecution just cannot secure this conviction given that the case itself is impossible.
I will give you a sort of digression related to your speculation that the prosecution doesn't even really want this job.
They didn't want this gig.
Chris Barber remarked in some of the videos that were played as evidence, and this is something that I confirm myself through personal anecdotes, personal conversations, that a lot of police officers that were required, or maybe requires the wrong word, but commanded ordered to do this or that during these Freedom Convoy demonstrations or across the broader COVID-19 enterprise, like arresting someone for not having a mask and it's ignored as these absurd commands.
They don't want to do it, but most people comply, including police officers.
And I think that's true for the prosecution as well.
I mean, this whole apparatus of control and abuse has really revealed a lot and made slaves out of many people in many ways.
22 More Witnesses?00:12:26
We're talking with Robert Krachik.
He's been on the ground in the court reporting every day from the trial of Tamara Leach.
You can follow all his work at tamaratrial.com.
Hey, I want to do one more thing.
We talked about the judge.
We talked about the prosecutors.
I have had the chance to speak with Lawrence Greenspawn, who is the Ottawa criminal lawyer defending Tamara.
And I have to say, I'm a fan.
I've met probably 20 different lawyers over the last few years with the Fight the Finds project and the Democracy Fund and all the different battles.
And we've got some very interesting and some very sharp lawyers.
One of my favorites is Sarah Miller defending Arthur Pavlovsky, for example.
But with fairness to all the other lawyers, I have to say I believe that Lawrence Greenspawn, because of his seniority, because of his command of the law, his familiarity with very complex and serious cases.
I mean, he's taken terrorists as clients.
He's taken murderers as clients.
For his personality, for his intelligence, for his experience, for his seniority, for his command of the bar and the bench, like he knows who's who in the zoo in Ottawa, I think Lawrence Greenspawn may be the best lawyer I have encountered in the last three years.
That's how he has come across to me in my conversations with him.
I want to ask you how he comes across in court.
And then we're going to play a couple of clips of your interviews, brief interviews with him.
So first of all, give me your impression.
What's he like in the court?
Is he bold?
Is he calculated?
Is he friendly?
Is he dramatic?
How does he come across in the court?
So far, he's succincted to the point.
There was one moment yesterday where he was a little bit perturbed, let's say, with some timeline issues.
But I'll have to defer to your assessment on this.
Even though, yeah, I'm in the court every day, you're not, your exchanges with Lawrence Wienuspawn are obviously of a much deeper flavor than mine are, given that at this stage in the trial, the prosecution is still laying out its witnesses, its evidence, and Lawrence Wienspawn still hasn't yet had a time to really showcase his talent when the defense gets their chance to start doing that.
So both from what I've seen so far, competent lawyer, not excessively verbose or super animated, succinct to the point.
And as far as one point of, as I described it, sort of frustrating, this related to a timeline issue that occurred yesterday in which the prosecution wants to introduce something like 22 more witnesses.
And that wouldn't be problematic unto itself, but let's look at the rate of speed thus far.
We're eight days into the trial.
We've gone through two and a half witnesses.
So let's do the math, right?
I mean, that's going to be what, 90-something days, 99 days.
If the pace continues, he doesn't get any worse.
And only at that point would we begin to see the defense operate's pushback.
Well, this is madness for a mischief charge.
It's absolute madness.
And I have no idea what 22 different witnesses would possibly have to say that bears on what Tamara Leach actually did.
It sounds like it's a political stitch-up.
Hey, we've got a couple of quick clips when you buttonhold Lawrence Greenspawn coming and going from court.
So let's just play a few of those moments just to give our people some of the flavor of it.
Here's the first, these are short clips.
Let's take a look at the first one.
We've got, we just finished day eight.
The crown said that they would have their evidence in in 10 days.
And there's no way in the world that's going to happen.
So the judge is looking at finding an additional two weeks.
The way this trial is going, I don't think two weeks is even going to be enough.
So at some point, we have to sit down, and I assume that's going to happen on Monday, and realistically see how the Crown is going to, how long it's going to take for the Crown to get its evidence in.
You know, I use a phrase from time to time.
The process is the punishment.
Tamara Leach not only has had her entire life disrupted by the charges, but just the actual time in Ottawa, weeks with the lawyers huddled preparing, weeks in court, now extra weeks to come.
Nobody can do that.
Nobody, I mean, and by the way, she doesn't even live in Ottawa.
She lives in Madison Hat.
So you've got the hotel and you've got the discombobulation of your life, of her life.
22 witnesses, 22 witnesses for a mischief case.
That's not even real.
That is a political frame up.
Give me, give me, actually, you sort of did already refer to that comment.
So let's skip to the next clip.
I'd like you to unpack this one.
Let's take a look.
Can you remark on your experience or knowledge of mischief convictions or sentencing?
Yeah.
Mischief is a low-level criminal charge, but it is a criminal charge.
And Tamara Leach has already spent 49 days in jail.
And there's a lot of time, a lot of court time, and a lot of resources being spent on this prosecution.
And that's what he said before there was a contemplation of expanding it.
You know what?
He's very mild-mannered because he wants to save his fire for the actual courtroom.
He's very smart that way.
He's not over-chatty.
He's making some points, but no judge would object.
I don't know.
If you need 22 witnesses to prove that Tamara Leach is guilty, if they had one witness to prove she's guilty, I might be afraid.
If they needed 22 witnesses, that tells me they don't got nothing.
That is such a good point, the way you're putting it, because there is this sense of overflow, of just excess in terms of the presentation redundancy.
And to your implicit point, it's like they're just trying to see if there may be a shred of something that might stick somewhere.
And I actually want to remark on something you said a moment ago about the process being the punishment.
And this relates to the sort of imbalance in capacities between the government on the one side, ostensibly with unlimited resources, and the defense on the other, which are ordinary citizens and have limited resources.
So when the prosecution dumps all of this so-called evidence, remember, they've got access to everything.
This is a massively documented event, thousands of hours of footage, photographs, all kinds of witnesses you could talk to saw this or that or the other.
They've also got these chat logs that they intercepted or captured from presumably the mobile devices of both Leach and Barber.
So I think they sort of broke into it with some de-encryption program because they mentioned it was WhatsApp and Signal Telegram.
So you've just got this Mount Everest of data.
And the prosecution has no intention of going through all of it.
They're going to use keyword searches to find particular things they want or search for certain dates when things happen that they think they happen.
Now, they just dump that on the defense, right?
And then ad hoc in sort of play-by-play style, restyling within the context of the trial that's already begun.
They're like, oh, you know what?
We want to use page 306 from this chat log.
Oh, you know what?
I want to use minute 56 from video 380.
You know what I'm saying?
So there's this total overbearing punishment.
It's almost abusive.
It sure is in terms of blizzarding them under disclosure.
But when you say you have 22 witnesses, you know, that's a different move.
I think that is an offense to the judge.
Does the judge really, is the judge really going to sit through 22 people?
I understand, for example, that a political activist named Zexie Lee is going to be one of the, she's the agent provocateur behind the civil suit.
What on earth does she have to say?
I don't think she's ever met Tamara Leach.
I don't think she had any firsthand knowledge.
She's a political gossip.
And if that's the caliber of the 22 witnesses, the prosecution here might just be overplaying their hand.
And there will come a point in time, I think, and I hope that the judge says, you know what?
This is not a criminal trial.
This has become a political circus.
And we're going to wrap it up.
Choose your best witnesses or let's have, or I mean, the fact that eight days have gone by and only two and a half witnesses have testified is crazy to me.
Well, listen, I'm delighted with your coverage.
Keep it up.
I'm back in Canada now.
I'm going to overcome my jet lag soon.
I've got to go west to cover Arthur Pavlovsky's sentencing hearing on Monday.
I myself am in court on Tuesday.
The Calgary police want to see some of our footage.
I'm there to try and stop him.
Wednesday, we've got Derek Reimer, the pastor in Calgary going on trial, another Democracy Fund client.
Thursday, I know this sounds crazy, Robert, but I'm on trial again in Toronto for my old book, The Labranos.
The election commissioner is fighting me on that battle four years later.
So there's a lot going on, but it is my intention to get to Ottawa and you and me will sit with each other in court and we'll both hang out and cover the trial together.
And it sounds like, unfortunately, it's going to be going on for quite a long time.
So I will get there to the courthouse to sit next to you.
But in the meantime, please keep up the great work.
And it seems like you're really getting a mastery of this case.
Give us one last comment.
Have you interacted with Tamara Leach at all?
Or she just said hello and goodbye as she walks in.
Has she said anything or not even?
Yeah, yeah, we'll chat on occasion on break.
She's very friendly.
She's in good spirits.
She's familiar with Lincoln and I.
So she's very sweet.
I kind of like talking to her.
You know, full disclosure of my bias when I watch videos of her.
I find her very compelling.
I do want to share with you one last thing that's sort of, again, self-celebratory in a Rebel News this and beating it kind of way, but you're going to love this.
I think the Rebel News audience will also love this.
This happened to me today, but this has happened to me for the past two weeks.
I had three guys at the gym this morning be like, hey, you're that Rebel News guy.
I saw your reports and they're praising the work that we're doing over at the courthouse.
They're remarking on the Freedom Convoy.
They were there.
Two of these guys were like Muslim Arabs from Lebanon.
They said that what they were being told was a total disconnection from reality, contrary to their own experiences when they attended.
Another guy just came from Saskatchewan.
He's like an East Indian guy, maybe like a Sikh or something.
And he was also giving me praise for the work that we're doing.
And he praised Rebel News specifically with having sort of woken him up or deprogrammed, deconditioned some of the narratives that were being put into his mind from the usual suspects.
That's what happened to me yesterday, by the way.
Yesterday morning, same thing.
Another guy told me the same thing in the parking lot of the gym that he had this certain impression.
He's what was a Muslim Arab guy himself, was worried about Islamophobia, the ridiculous terms that keep getting thrown out by CBC.
And I'm like, hey, man, you were there.
You saw it for yourself, right?
And by the way, lastly, all the people that I've met or either directly or indirectly who castigated the Freedom Convoy in these nonsense terms or just fake characterizations, all of them, without fault, never attended it.
Instead of going to see for themselves, they decided at home and let CBC tell them what to believe.
Yeah.
Well, you know, our motto is telling the other side of the story.
And another one of our mottos, we've got a few of them, is follow the facts wherever they lead.
And when we covered the convoy, you mentioned Lincoln Jay, Alexa Lavoie.
We just filmed and streamed hours and hours, just showing the facts.
And that's what you're doing in court.
You're just live tweeting as fast as your fingers can type.
So there's a lot of facts there.
And I think people have learned that the CBC and CTV torque their coverage and that Rebel News, although we have a strong point of view, we're probably going to be more accurate on this stuff than they are.
Keep it up, my friend.
Thank you for going out there.
And I'm glad you've had such positive feedback from just ordinary folks on the street.
That's our base.
Trudeau's Political Calculus00:03:05
Severely normal people.
Let the fancy pants tune into CBC and be disinformed.
We're with the people.
Thanks very much.
Keep it up.
Bye, Ezra.
Thank you.
All right, there you have it.
Robert Kraitschick.
You can see all of his work on this trial at tamaritrial.com.
Stay with us.
more ahead hey welcome back you Your letters to me.
Red Room Studios says, great analysis of the numbers here, Ezra, talking about the new abacus poll.
Reality is starting to set in, even for the left.
Sad to see my home province of Ontario still only with weak support for the Conservatives.
Definitely Canada's most woke province.
Yeah, Ontario and Quebec in its own way.
I'm astounded to see that even in the Atlantic, Trudeau's losing ground.
I think his carbon taxes are really biting out there.
Syed Ali Abidi, 1346, says, I am a university graduate and own my home.
But at the same time, I understand the economy very well.
And the actions of Trudeau has destroyed the economy.
So as a university graduate millennial, I will not vote for Trudeau.
That's what's so interesting.
And this has been the case in several of these abacus polls in a row.
The weakest cohort for Trudeau are young people.
Not super young, but the age where you sort of move out of your house of your parents and get your own house and you start to get married and have kids.
Sort of young families are the people that like Trudeau the least.
In fact, really, the only group that likes him are college-aged older people who obviously have their mortgage paid off or not worried about the economy.
People who are sort of in the later phases of life and they aren't affected by some of the problems that Trudeau has caused for young people.
Chris DA88 says, I think we saw this when Trump was running against Biden.
Polls were showing there was no way Biden would win.
And look what happened.
We could only hope, though.
I mean, of course, there's a couple of wrinkles here.
The NDP.
If the media party manages to convince most NDP voters to cast a strategic vote for Trudeau, he could still pull it off.
I mean, that NDP vote won't collapse completely, but it's not unthinkable to me that Trudeau goes even further to the left to get more of the NDP votes.
And then he and the media say together, look, it's either Trudeau or Polyev.
There's no hope for Jagmeet saying you've got to vote strategically for Trudeau.
Could happen.
Well, that's our show for today.
It's great to be back in Canada.
I'm going to be on the road next week, but I'll be doing journalism.
As I mentioned to Robert Kraitschick, I will be covering Arthur Pavlovsky's sentencing and other trials too.