Alberta Premier Danielle Smith hints at independence due to federal policies like export taxes and emissions caps, criticizing Prime Minister Mark Carney’s globalist ties. Her remarks follow the Freedom Convoy, where Tamara Leach’s trial—costing over $10M—relied on subjective evidence, raising legal precedent concerns. Meanwhile, letters condemn liberal MP candidate Paul Ching, a 25-year police officer, for alleged bias and lack of justice, contrasting with demands to prosecute Kian Bexte for false reports. The episode underscores Alberta’s growing distrust in federal accountability and the weaponization of legal processes against dissenters. [Automatically generated summary]
An incredible but very softly spoken statement by Alberta Premier Danielle Smith today talking about the possibility of Alberta changing its status, maybe even considering independence.
She didn't go quite that far, but she opened the door a crack.
I'll have the video for you, and that's why I want you to get the video version of this podcast.
Go to RebelNewsPlus.com, click subscribe.
You've got the video version.
You'll see it, not just hear it.
And eight bucks a month.
I know that might not be a lot of dough to you, but it adds up for us.
And that's how we pay the bills around here.
So please go to RebelNewsPlus.com.
This podcast is brought to you by Rebel News.
That's right.
So if you want to support us, why not do it in a win-win fashion by shopping for yourself?
One of my favorite things to do: head to RevelNewsStore.com to pick the patriotic gear that pleases your heart.
And while you're there, use coupon code DREA10 to save while you do.
Tonight, Alberta's premier opens the door just a crack towards independence.
It's no April Fool's Day joke, but it is April 1st.
And this is the Answer Levant Show.
Shame on you, you censorious bug.
Yesterday was a strange day for me.
I went up to Georgetown, about an hour away from our office in Toronto.
I went to watch liberals say, wow, about Mark Carney.
Some of the liberals were nice, some weren't so nice, and some were just a bit over the top.
Like he's a kid, but look at this kid.
My boy here is excited to meet the prime minister.
Yes, I'm really excited.
And why are you excited to meet him?
Because I've never had an opportunity like this before, and I'm just really excited to meet him.
And what will you say to him if you meet him?
Just welcome to Georgetown.
Are you from around here?
Yeah, I was just saying.
And what are you hoping that he does as a prime minister?
I'm just everything that we were asking for.
Are you a student in school?
What grade are you in?
I'm in grade six.
Oh, yeah.
Well, good for you for coming to a political event.
Is that your dad or your grandpa?
Okay, well, good luck.
Now, if you look at the polls, it's mainly baby boomers who love Mark Carney.
I get it.
You already own your house.
You probably paid off the mortgage a long time ago.
Super high housing prices are a good thing for you.
When you sell and downsize, you'll get a lot of money.
You're not working anymore, so you're not competing against literally millions of foreign workers.
So the system is working for you.
The last 10 years haven't been a problem for you.
You're not still living at home with your parents because you can't buy a house.
Maybe your kids are living with you, and maybe you secretly like that.
Mark Carney looks like a central casting version of what a prime minister is supposed to look like.
And if he's anything, he's boring as you'd expect a banker to be.
And boring is good.
Boring is camouflage, actually, hiding extreme ideas.
But you're a boomer, and frankly, that Pierre Polyev seems a bit uppity, a bit cranky, a bit combative, a bit too much like Trump, maybe.
And when Trump talks about annexing Canada, you believe that maybe he means it militarily, even though he hasn't said so.
In fact, he's said the opposite when asked.
But he's just mean.
And because you're a boomer, you actually studied our history and our culture in school before all that was wiped out.
Maybe your school was even called something like the Sir John A. McDonald's School before he was stripped off of our $10 bills.
You grew up loving Canada before Trudeau said we had committed a genocide.
So of course your love for Canada, your patriotism, would be pricked by Donald Trump saying he wants us.
I mean, good for you.
You're patriotic and nationalistic.
Mark Carney isn't, by the way.
He's the definition of a globalist, someone with three passports, someone who calls himself a European.
He's loyal to nobody.
He has a home in New York.
He has a home in London.
And he has a home, I think, in Geneva.
Here, watch this clip.
Your ministers have been telling me for more than a year that a polyev government wouldn't be focused on the issue of reconciliation.
Yet you're here in Winnipeg, which is a majorly Indigenous city with no policy announcement for Indigenous people, no public meetings with them.
What does that signal about the Liberal Party's stance on reconciliation with Indigenous people?
Yeah, thank you for your question.
I'll say a couple of things, if I may.
First, in my opening comments as Prime Minister on the day that I was sworn in, acknowledged the fundamental role of First Nations, Innu, Inuit, and Métis peoples to the founding of our country.
Within two and a half days, I was in Ikalawit with the Premier at meeting First Nations.
The Inu people, sorry, the Innu people and the Métis.
You could tell that he hasn't been following Canadian news for a decade.
He didn't know the word Inuit.
He thought Inuit were First Nations.
They're not.
He's talking about the far north when he was asked about Winnipeg.
I bet if you asked him a question point blank, like, will you reintroduce Bill 63?
If you said just those words to him, he literally would have no idea what you're talking about because he hasn't been here in a decade.
He hasn't been following things.
He hasn't thought about us.
I'm not saying ordinary Canadians have to know what Bill C-63 is.
It's the online harm censorship bill.
But my point is that Mark Carney hasn't been thinking about Canada until about five minutes ago.
I'm sure his driver's license is a British driver's license.
I'm sure his health card is the British NHS.
So yeah, if you're supporting Mark Carney because of his patriotism, you're being tricked.
He's like one of those phone scammers or Nigerian princes.
He preys on boomers and seniors.
And I've said before, asking Canadians to join America is a bit of an indecent proposal, like that movie of the same name featuring Demi Moore and Woody Harrelson as his wife and husband and Robert Redford making the indecent proposal to them.
It's rude and it's shocking to people who are in a happy relationship.
But what if you're not in a happy relationship?
What if you're not in a happy boomer with your house paid off and your car paid off just enjoying life?
What if you're young and have no chance to move up?
What if you're an entire province that's so obviously the whipping boy for Confederation?
Here's Mark Carney talking about Alberta and Bill C-69, the bill that basically stops Alberta from getting its oil to market.
How do you reconcile keeping Bill C-69 with your plans to build infrastructure in Canada?
Do you plan to repeal Bill C-69?
We do not plan to repeal Bill C-69, to answer your question correctly.
What we have said and made very clear 10 days ago, formally with the first minister's meeting, is that we will move for projects of national interest to remove duplication in terms of environmental assessments and other approvals.
And we will follow, as the federal government, the principle of one project, one approval to move forward from that.
So what's essential is to work at this time of crisis to come together as a nation, all levels of government, to focus on those projects that are going to make material differences to our country, to Canadian workers, and to our future.
We don't know what else Mark Carney owns.
Is he a competitor to the oil sands?
He bought or bet big on contrary technologies that he needs the oil sands to go away.
He hasn't disclosed his holdings.
He hasn't sold them either, which is weird.
He's still thinking about going back to Brookfield, maybe, or maybe if things don't work out, he'll go back to London or New York.
Assume the worst, I think.
He's hired the worst of Trudeau's team.
And even Trudeau possibly would not have kept that candidate, Paul Chiang, around after he threatened a hit. on a rival conservative Chinese Canadian who happens to be for democracy in Hong Kong.
But back to my point, we know who is happy in Canada.
Boomers, liberals, environmentalists, globalists, criminals are having a lovely time.
Migrants are here by the million.
Woke activists are loving it.
But who's unhappy?
Well, Albertans, many young people, young men in particular, the oil and gas sector for sure.
And so let me play for you a video that is quite calm in its tone, but quite dramatic in its meaning.
Take a look at this from the Alberta Premier Daniel Smith.
I got a mandate to try to fix Canada.
I got a mandate to try to make Canada work.
And that's what I've been working towards relentlessly over these last two and a half years.
As you know, we did put in place a process for citizen-initiated referenda.
And I leave it to Albertans who may feel differently to put forward a petition campaign.
But I think my job as an Albertan and as a Canadian is to try to put on the table the issues that are causing grave tension in our federation and to solve them.
And I'm going to look at it on the positive side because what I have observed is that it may be that the current prime minister doesn't get it, but all of the other premiers do.
And we have consistently for the last number of meetings signed on to a communiques talking about how we're going to build economic corridors.
This last one, economic corridors with oil and gas and transmission lines, rail lines, and new highways and other infrastructure in those corridors.
And so I believe there's goodwill on the part of the other premiers.
The problem is, unless we solve those federal barriers, it's just words on paper.
So I'm going to continue to use sort of that newfound sense of esprit de corps with my fellow premiers.
We're going to do what we can after the election to make sure that we address those issues.
And I'll keep an open mind.
But so far, I'm dissatisfied with what I'm hearing out of the new prime minister.
He doesn't seem to understand just how foundational these are if we're going to reset the relationship.
What would you say to those who criticize you for sort of entertaining the idea of Alberta independence as Canada faces a trade war and threats of annexation from the U.S.?
Well, I love Canada, and I want Canada to work.
I've been on Team Canada from the beginning.
It's part of the reason why I've been relentlessly going to the United States and trying to advocate for all of our industries, for all of Canada, in every venue I possibly can.
But I'm also Premier of Alberta.
And quite frankly, at some point, Canada has to start working for Alberta.
And it's not right now.
We have a number of policies that came in over the last 10 years that have been damaging to Alberta prosperity.
It's been damaging to our freedom as a province.
And if they persist, it is going to continue a dysfunctional relationship that harms Alberta.
So I put forward the nine major policies that I think have to be repealed after the next election.
Unfortunately, the current prime minister, despite what he said to me privately when he was here, has now gone public saying he supports export taxes.
He supports Bill C-69.
He supports emissions caps.
That is moving in the wrong direction.
So we will get through this election.
We'll see who ends up winning.
And I will continue to advocate for those.
And that's part of the reason why I will do what's next panel.
Did that when my predecessor came in to hear some of the concerns that Albertans had about how to repair the relationship with Canada at that time?
And it'll be time for us to do it again.
And that's not square one in an independence project.
It's more like square zero.
And if Pier Polyev wins and the insanity of Trudeau and Carney recedes, and Carney goes back to New York or London or wherever, I don't think independence will go anywhere.
But if Mark Carney and Stephen Gilbo, his extremist advisor, win, I think the province of Alberta will express itself and the Toronto-based media will gnash its teeth.
The CBC will go to war against Danielle Smith even more than they already do.
The entire province will be defamed and attacked.
We took a poll the other day, and the number of Albertans who wanted to join the United States was still pretty small, less than 20%.
We specifically asked the U.S. version of the question, not independence or something else, just joining the states.
But I promise you, if Mark Carney wins, that number will jump.
And if Danielle Smith gives it life by talking about it, it'll really jump.
And all that needs to happen, because the precedent has been set with Quebec.
All that needs to happen, according to our Supreme Court, according to the Clarity Act, is that a clear result in a referendum with a clear question happened.
And Alberta's gone.
And that'll make many people happy.
People who hate wealth and hate oil and hate capitalism.
They'll be glad Alberta's gone.
At least they'll say they are.
But I suspect in the end, if Alberta leaves, it'll make many people sad when they no longer have Alberta to push around to tax, to take equalization payments from.
And if Alberta goes, Saskatchewan will go soon.
Maybe British Columbia and the North.
Is it true that electing Mark Carney could literally spell the end of Canada through a chain reaction like that?
Truckers' Convoy Ruled Illegal00:03:34
Maybe not.
Probably not.
But just maybe it would.
Stay with us for more.
Hey, welcome back.
You know, it's been more than three years since the trucker convoy electrified the country.
Really, I think it was the largest peaceful civil rights movement in Canadian history.
And the convoy in Ottawa wasn't just watershed in Canadian politics and law.
It was an international event.
I think the entire world was riveted by what those grassroots truckers and their allies were doing.
It was so authentic, so spontaneous.
And you could tell when there was a GoFundMe crowdfund set up for them, the government squashed that.
So what?
They weren't based on money.
No party backed them.
No official instrument of the establishment backed them.
That's why they couldn't be stopped.
And it was amazing to see.
It was a peaceful process and never let anyone tell you it was an illegal meeting.
No judicial organization, no court, no tribunal ever ruled that it was illegal.
That was just a phrase used by its enemies.
In fact, the only thing that's been ruled illegal was the Emergencies Act martial law that was brought in.
As you may know, the Federal Court of Canada ruled that to be illegal and unconstitutional.
And now there's lawsuits against the government for what they did with that false emergency.
But there was one woman who stood out from the whole thing.
You know who I'm talking about, Tamara Leach.
She's not a trucker herself.
She came from the logistics business.
She's just a mom and a grandma from out west.
And this was her moment.
This was her time to shine.
And she got involved with the truckers.
And soon she became sort of their unofficial spokesperson, their poet in a way, who would make Facebook posts and encourage people to stay positive.
She became a symbol.
She was everything that the establishment was not.
She was modest.
She was humble.
She was positive compared to the government's brutality.
So they had to target her.
They had to stop her.
They had to rebrand the truckers as something awful and evil.
She, Tamara Leach, by being the personification of the truckers, made it a positive, fun, family-friendly thing.
Just like the images of the bouncy castles and the hot tubs.
It was not the January 6th narrative that Justin Trudeau so desperately wanted.
Remember, calling people a fringe minority with unacceptable views.
We know the way through this pandemic is by getting everyone vaccinated.
And the overwhelming majority, close to 90% of Canadians, have done exactly that.
The small fringe minority of people who are on their way to Ottawa or who are holding unacceptable views that they're expressing do not represent the views of Canadians who have been there for each other,
who know that following the science and stepping up to protect each other is the best way to continue to ensure our freedoms, our rights, our values as a country.
Five Days of Court00:02:38
Well, Tamara Leach indeed was arrested just over three years ago and charged with inciting mischief.
And here we are more than three years later, and we have not yet had the verdict.
It turned into the longest mischief trial in Canadian history.
In fact, as far as anyone can tell, the longest mischief trial anywhere in the Commonwealth countries, UK, Australia, wherever.
Clearly, the process is the punishment.
As you know, I attended court several times, and Rebel News and the Democracy Fund attended court every time.
It was clear that the process, the prosecution, was designed as an enormous, extraordinary punishment, an absurd, months-long process.
But it's all coming to a close this week.
On Thursday morning, Tamara Leach will be read her judgment by the judge in the courthouse in Ottawa.
And we will be there by we, Amin Me, with Rebel News and Mark Joseph and the team at the Democracy Fund.
And Mark had joined us now.
Mark, great to see you again.
Thanks for having me.
Did I properly get the details of Tamara Leach?
Yep, that was pretty comprehensive and professionalized.
I couldn't have put it better.
Now, Tamara Leach, no normal human being could afford to spend, and I'm not going to say the amount that we spend, but you could figure it out.
We've got Lawrence Greenspawn, one of the top criminal lawyers in the country, plus his two associates.
That's three lawyers who have been working on this case for an enormous amount of time.
I don't think I'm going to reveal their fee, but you can imagine how large it is.
No normal human being could pay that.
And if you were a millionaire, you wouldn't pay that.
You'd say, I'm not spending my life savings.
I didn't work 30 years to save a nest egg, to have it spent on lawyers.
I'm just going to plead guilty.
So it took a very special person to fight, but it also took the Democracy Fund, of which you're a lawyer, to crowdfund from our viewers to pay for it.
It was only that combination that could have fought it.
A rich person wouldn't have paid.
A poor person couldn't have paid.
Only the crowdfunding model and the Democracy Fund would work.
That's right.
I mean, TDF got involved because the civil liberties issues are engaged quite substantially on this trial.
So we turned to Lawrence Greenspawn and his team.
They're obviously one of the best in the country, but they could take other cases.
So we had to convince him that this was a good fit.
He agreed, and TDF then stepped up and our donors came through for us.
And fortunately, Tamara got an excellent defense.
Crown's Evidence Heard00:16:16
Yeah, I attended, I'm going to guess, five days of court over the whole thing.
But you or your colleague, Adam Blake Gallipo, or Alan Hahn, or we had the whole TDF team there.
We were in the court every single day, live tweeting it, observing it, talking to Lawrence and the team.
This was the Democracy Fund's time to shine.
Right.
I mean, I think we provided some intelligent discussion on our feed.
People seem to respond to that.
A lot of these terms are complex.
There was a Carter application we had to explain to our readers and viewers.
She was charged with five offenses.
We had to disambiguate those.
So I think we did a fairly good job.
But again, the Crown spent 45 days slogging through this stuff, trying to make the case, and we had to explain that to our viewers.
You know, I sat there, and the day I really realized what was going on, there was some mid-level bureaucrat from the city of Ottawa who talked about how he would go for walks in downtown Ottawa and just what he would see.
Now, he didn't record anything.
He didn't take a journal.
He was basically just giving his therapeutic views of, and I felt this way, and I felt that way, and he would meander.
And he, like, within half an hour, it was clear that this guy had never spoken to Tamara Leach, had never interacted with her, had never seen her, did not know her other than through the media.
He had no standing as a witness.
He had no standing as an expert.
He was just some guy who the prosecution made the court listen to for nearly an entire day his feelings.
And I was just thinking, what the devil is going on here?
And why is this being permitted?
And when I asked some folks, they said, this is how it's going to be for weeks.
But the judge, and here's the theory I heard.
If the judge wouldn't allow it, if the judge would clamp down on it, the prosecution might find that as some sort of a grounds for appeal.
So the judge was very lenient to let the prosecution take liberties so that an appeal, which is almost a certainty if Tamara Leach wins, that an appeal is not likely because the prosecution was given every indulgence at the trial level.
And a court of appeal will see that and say, no, you guys were given every opportunity.
And that's the theory I heard for why this trial turned into a monster.
Now, I don't like that.
I think the government should have been shided.
Listening to this bureaucrat, you know, dear diary, when I walked down the street, I felt scared.
Like it was that kind of BS.
Right.
Okay.
So there's two things.
I've heard that theory.
I don't disagree.
Lawyers always try to read the tea leaves to figure out what the judge is thinking.
But Justice Perkins-McVeigh is a very experienced judge.
She wants to give wide latitude to the defense and the Crown to present their case.
I think she did so, even though the defense didn't enter a case.
They just disputed the sufficiency of the Crown's case.
And the other thing I would say is that the judge wants hard evidence.
So feelings, what did you think about the convoy?
What did you believe about the convoy?
Those sorts of amorphous type statements aren't going to play for her.
She wants hard evidence here.
Was the road blocked by the defendants?
Did the defendants intimidate anyone through their words?
Did they counsel anyone through their words?
And what words were they?
We heard a lot of things about hold the line was the big phrase.
And the defense pointed out, well, the police were using the phrase, hold the line.
So it's ambiguous.
And if it's ambiguous, it doesn't have a certain meaning.
And therefore, it's not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that that phrase meant a certain thing.
And so, what's your response then if you do get arrested?
If you're the next person that police do arrest, I'd love it if it's behind.
Do you want to know what my response would be if I get arrested?
What's the response?
Hold the line!
Hold the line!
I think you understand where I'm going.
Yeah, and even hold the line.
Like I say, this was not a riot.
This was not an illegal gathering.
It had never been condemned as such.
The Emergencies Act does not stop peaceful protests.
It's actually clear about that.
You know, you make me remember, I was in court in one of the last days of the trial, and I think it was the defense that played, and you correct me if my memory is wrong.
I'm just going from memory here.
Played five very short clips of Tamara Leach.
There were five very short video.
I'm going to call them like a cameo appearance.
It was almost like the video was over there, but Tamara Leach was in the background, or she just passed through and said, hi.
Like they were absurd and ridiculous.
And I'm thinking, why are these being shown?
They don't show anything.
They certainly don't show any crime.
It's almost like they were, you know, you leave your phone camera on by accident and you get like a goofy.
And I thought, what is this?
And I was told by the lawyer, those are the, that is the sum total of all the actual, like you say, hard evidence.
No one saw Tamara Leach do anything.
No one heard her do anything.
No one was a sub that received or sent any email.
Those five little, you know, she's standing in the background was the totality of any video of her doing anything in Ottawa.
She was just a regular person who happened to be a symbol.
And that, and it hit me because I was thinking, why are they showing these meaningless shards?
Some of them were like 10 seconds long to make the point that there is nothing here.
So when you say Tamara Leach brought no case, she didn't, it's on the government's, it's their onus to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
In Canada, a defendant doesn't have to prove they're not guilty.
The government has to prove they are.
I don't want to get ahead of myself, but I am so confident she's going to win.
Look, I don't want to oversell it.
The Crown put in a lot of evidence.
As you say, some of that was a little mystifying to us, but the judge has to judge the totality of the evidence.
And there was a lot in there.
The question is: was the evidence that was presented does it fit within each element of the offense?
Because every element of the offense must be proven.
So that's an open question.
There's some jeopardy here for both the defendants.
You know, so we'll see what Justice Perkins-Wegg does.
You know, I sat in this judge's court a couple years ago when Vice Admiral Mark Norman was being prosecuted in an extremely political sham prosecution by the Trudeau government.
They accused him of some treachery or something because he commented on shipbuilding policy.
And I was there in court in the day when the prosecution admitted they didn't give all the documents to Vice Admiral Norman that he could use to defend himself.
And they had held back.
They had illegally, the Trudeau prosecutors had illegally held back information.
And they finally revealed it, and the case was dropped immediately.
And it was quite a scandal that he had been put through this process to that date.
And I understand he got his legal bills compensated by the government.
He was vindicated, and Trudeau became even a greater disgrace.
My point for saying this is that Justice Perkins McVay was the same judge in that case.
And the reason I find that interesting and noteworthy is because she, with her own eyes, at least on that other occasion, has seen how devious and political and unethical political prosecutions in Ottawa can be.
And just like Vice Admiral Mark Norman was an enemy of the state, Tamara Leach is an enemy of the state.
And that also gives me a little bit of hope that this judge knows BS when she smells it.
Well, look, I can't speculate as to the reasons for this prosecution.
We do know, as you say, it was a lengthy trial, 45 days.
A lot of judicial resources were spent here.
I'll let your viewers speculate as to why that was.
Certainly, Tamara was a dissenter.
But this case is going to have ramifications for protests, peaceful protests, and free speech around the country.
And that goes to labor disputes.
That goes to ethnic and religious protesting that we've seen in the last few months.
That goes to G7 protests.
And I think Justice Perkins-McVay will decide based on the precedents established in those cases.
And she's no fool.
She's going to look at the case law and she's going to look at the evidence and arrive at, I think, at a just decision.
You know, again, I just don't want to reveal the fees of Lawrence Greenspawn.
I think he's worth every penny, by the way.
But it's extremely expensive to have three top criminal lawyers defend.
And that's just Tamara Leach's lawyers.
Chris Barber has a team of lawyers too.
I think there's five or six lawyers in that courtroom every day.
So I have sort of a rough idea of how much money the defense costs.
And it's not unadjacent to a million dollars.
Let me just say that.
But for every defense lawyer, there's a prosecutor.
And by the way, there's the judge and the clerks and the courthouse and the court security.
And then there was the police in the first place.
And then there's the witnesses who 45 days or whatever with.
I don't think there's any way that the prosecution of Tamera Leach cost taxpayers less than $10 million.
I just don't see it.
I know what a sliver of this budget is, what Tamera Leach's lawyer charges.
But then you got to multiply that out and you got to realize all the hands here.
And then there's the whole, you know, it's like that TV show Law and Order.
There's the first drama on the streets with the cops and then there's the second drama in the courts.
I think it's a $10 million sham trial just to get Tamara.
Well, it's certainly a lot of judicial resources.
The TDF represented maybe 30, assisted maybe 40 people charged criminally for offenses arising under the Freedom Convoy.
And the Crown was looking for jail time in all of those cases.
Now, we managed to get positive resolutions, I think, conditional discharges for all of them.
But they certainly spent a lot of time going after what we see as fairly low-level offenses.
And I think that's problematic when it comes to the administration of justice because we see a lot of crime nowadays, serious crime on the streets affecting regular people.
And the Crown has to make a decision as to what they're going to pursue, what things they're going to take to trial.
And they have time limits.
So they have to move quickly.
So, yes.
You know, that's a great point.
You say the trial was 45 days approximately?
45 or 47.
45, 47.
Let's say almost 50, almost 50 days, 50 full days, I think.
So a trial of a minor criminal matter might happen in half a day.
Mightn't take a day.
It might take two days.
Let's just say it takes a full day to prosecute a break and enter.
So I guess the prosecutors would be taking orders from the government of Ontario.
But the feds were pretty heavily involved in this too.
So Doug Ford and Justin Trudeau made the decision that not only should $10 million go to hounding Tamara Leach, but 50 other cases should be abandoned, avoided.
50 other cases should be cleared aside.
Real crimes, property crimes, crimes of violence, just for the political crime.
We've got to take 50 days.
We've got to take $10 million to go after Tamara Leach.
I think she's going to win.
I've said that.
I just said that a moment ago.
And I think it's immediately going to be appealed because I think the government that spent $10 million and gone this far in, they're not going to let her go easily.
I think that's why Perkins McVay is taking so long to write this ruling, too.
I think she wants it to be bulletproof.
She wants it to be appeal-proof as far as possible.
Look, I don't know what the Crown would do this, would do after the judgment.
I can say that acquittals arising from mischief charges from the Freedom Convoy have been appealed by the Crown.
And we know that the penalty in Pat King, the Pat King trial, is under appeal, I believe.
It's going to be appealed by the Crown.
So the Crown certainly takes a hard look at these things, and they do have a motivation apparently to appeal.
So we'll see.
I saw the Coots III trial, and two of the men got discharged.
You know, just they're free to go.
One of them, who didn't show any remorse, spent some time in jail.
Tamara Leach didn't say anything.
She didn't, I don't think she said a word in the entire trial.
I'll be interested to see what happens.
Listen, thanks to you and the TDF crew for helping.
Thanks to our lawyer, Alan Greenspawn and his team.
We haven't got the final bill yet.
And I'm sort of bracing for that.
But if folks want to help, you can go to helptamara.com.
If we, by we, I'm not an officer or a director of the Democracy Fund, but we're the chief fundraisers for it through our rebel news viewers.
If Tamara Leach did not have this lawyer, she would have been steamrolled.
She would have been ground into powder.
She would have been treated like the J6, like the January 6th prisoners in the United States were.
She would have been in jail for an enormous period of time.
She's already in jail for too much.
And I think that this is a case where crowdfunding a lawyer made a real difference.
So thanks to you and the team.
You're welcome.
All right, folks, there you have it.
You're going to be there for the ruling on Thursday?
I will be there live tweeting.
That's correct.
It's Thursday, right?
It's Thursday.
All right, I'll be there for sure.
I'll be there too.
I'll be there live tweeting, and I'll give you a report the moment we know.
In the meantime, if you want to help us with the legal fees, go to helptamara.com.
The money goes straight to the Democracy Fund.
It does not go to rebel news.
And by the way, you also get a charitable tax receipt, which is helpful too.
All right, stay with us.
Moorhead.
Hey, welcome back.
Your letters to me.
Paul Lung says, in my opinion, comments by Ching are a direct reflection of his core values and his political ideology.
Does it matter how many years he's been in law enforcement in Canada?
The fact that Carney used Cheng's years of service in law enforcement to justify his decision of allowing Chen to remain as a liberal MP showed Carney is okay with that sort of behavior.
May God bless the future of this country.
Yeah, I mean, talking about that guy being a cop for 25 years, my first response was, oh, so he perfectly well knows about kidnapping and the crime he's committing by inciting kidnapping.
Like he, so he can't plead ignorance.
And my second thought was, what was he like on the streets for 25 years?
Did he meet out police justice based on your ethnicity or your political loyalties?
It terrifies me that he was a cop for 25 years.
It doesn't reassure me.
Next letter is from David Hines, who says, a police officer's job is to serve and protect.
They should know something about our rights and freedoms.
They should also be trained to de-escalate a situation, not to create one or encourage a crime.
So I ask, what kind of an officer was he?
Was he one who looks forward on trampling people's rights?
What Kind of Officer?00:01:19
I can see why Kearney, who encouraged the use of the Emergency Act and says he will use it to get his way, would be supportive of this candidate.
Yeah, like I said, I mean, it did not make me feel better to know this guy was a cop for 25 years.
And what does he have over Carney that Carney would hold on to him for nearly a week?
I mean, I think sometimes in politics, people are too risk-averse.
They fire or cancel a deplatform people at the merest whiff of conflict, but this was crazy.
And Carney held on for almost a week.
Why?
Why?
Next letter.
On my interview with Kian Bexte, local patriots says, prosecute for making a false police report.
He should offer to pay for the police time and defamation.
You're right.
I mean, if you or I made a false report to police, you think we'd get away with it?
If a trucker convoy made a false report to police, do you doubt they would be charged with mischief or perjury or something like that?
Why does a liberal candidate get to get away with it?
And one more letter from Bob Loblaw, who says, what a coward.
Typical liberal behavior.
Good for Keen.
And as I mentioned, Keenan in that interview, the CBC copied his story and didn't give him credit.