Frances Widdowson, a Mount Royal University professor and Grave Error author, dismantles CBC’s Jordan Tucker in a brutal interview, exposing flaws in GPR claims like Kamloops’ "215 graves" (no excavation) and $250M LiDAR payouts tied to unverified mass burials. She rejects "genocide" framing, citing systemic issues—fetal alcohol syndrome, social dislocation—not evidence of mass graves, while Tucker’s emotional attacks fail to engage with her data-driven rebuttals. Meanwhile, Ezra highlights U.S.-Israel strikes crippling Iran’s nuclear progress and China’s Ukraine gambit: PLA advisors, 12K–13K North Korean troops, and potential 30K reinforcements testing Western defenses. If Russia wins, Beijing may escalate in Taiwan and Asia; Trump’s tariff deadlines with Xi loom amid Xi’s internal purges and no clear successor. Widdowson’s case and Tucker’s bias mirror CBC’s alleged role as a political mouthpiece, while Ottawa’s sentencing of nonviolent convoy figures like Tamara Leach (7-year demand) underscores broader media and legal overreach. [Automatically generated summary]
I actually watched a recording of an interview between Professor Frances Widowson and a CBC reporter.
It was about the residential schools and the claim of mass burials at a residential school in Kamloops.
Frances Widowson was being interviewed by the CBC, and she had the presence of mind to record the interview herself.
And it's the most amazing thing I have heard in years.
I want to take you through it, playing it and pausing with my own commentary.
I think you'll agree this is the most incredible interview maybe you've ever heard.
That's ahead.
But first, let me invite you to become a subscriber to what we call Rebel News Plus.
That's the video version of this podcast.
It's eight bucks a month, which might not be a lot to you, but boy, that adds up for us.
And that's how we pay the bills around here.
So do me the solid and go to rebelnewsplus.com and click subscribe.
Tonight, it's the most incredible media interview I have heard since Jordan Peterson stumped Kathy Newman.
It's July 22nd, and this is the Ezra Levance show.
Shame on you, you sensorism bug.
Do you remember when Jordan Peterson went on a British TV station called Channel 4?
He was interviewed by their star anchor, Kathy Newman is her name, who clearly had her instructions.
Attack Peterson in all ways, at all costs, all the time.
But Peterson was just cool like a cucumber.
And it was amazing.
It was gorgeous.
Here's a minute of that, just as a reminder of what it was like.
Well, you see, there are whole disciplines in universities forthrightly hostile towards men.
These are the areas of study dominated by the post-modern stroke neo-Marxist claim that Western culture in particular is an oppressive structure created by white men to dominate and exclude women.
But then I want to put- Minorities too, dominate and exclude.
Okay, sure.
But I want to put to you that here in the UK, for example, let's take that as an example.
The gender pay gap stands at just over 9%.
You've got women at the BBC recently saying that the broadcaster is illegally paying them less than men to do the same job.
You've got only seven women running the top FTSE 100 companies.
So it seems to a lot of women that they're still being dominated and excluded, to quote your words back to you.
It does seem that way, but multivariate analysis of the pay gap indicate that it doesn't exist.
But that's just not true, is it?
I mean, that 9% pay gap, that's a gap between median hourly earnings between men and women.
But that exists.
Yeah, but there's multiple reasons for that.
One of them is gender, but it's not the only reason.
Oh, that was so painful.
You know, tens of millions of people saw that clip around the world as perhaps the worst example ever of a bad faith journalist.
You know, she said the phrase, so you're saying, 35 times in the interview.
And every time she said something that he actually had not said, sometimes the opposite of what he said.
It was her twisted attempt to argue against a straw man she had concocted in her own head, as opposed to the real Jordan Peterson she was lucky enough to have in studio.
Misinformation Breakdown00:06:24
It was just amazing.
I can't believe she's still working in Channel 4, but I'm sort of glad she is.
That's their kind of news, and we all know it.
So that was seven years ago now, but I stumbled upon an interview yesterday that is even more amazing, more majestic, more incredible, more revealing than that one.
It's an audio recording, though, not a video.
So we won't be able to see the faces of the two people involved, which I deeply regret because I really wish I could see the journalist's face.
Towards the end of this one, the interviewer actually sounds like she's going to start to cry.
And I wish I could tell if she really was.
Now, this video was uploaded just yesterday, and I encountered it, but it had originally been put online actually last year, but it had so few views.
I'm guessing that most of you viewers tonight have not encountered this.
I'm a pretty big media consumer, and I didn't stumble upon it till yesterday.
So I'm taking the risk of showing it to you now, but I don't think you've seen it before.
This was actually a year ago.
I'm talking about this 25-minute interview where a CBC reporter named Jordan Tucker, who is just amazing.
I mean, here she is in her rainbow glasses.
According to her bio, she is a journalist and writer with a degree in English and environmental studies.
What a combination that is.
It doesn't look like she publishes a lot with the CBC, but when she does, oh, it really counts.
Here's one of her very important stories.
Sorry, I shouldn't laugh.
How Pokemon Go is transforming downtown Prince George.
Online game is helping change attitudes towards downtrodden downtown core.
Yeah, I'm sure it is, sister.
You go with that.
Here's another very important investigative story she wrote.
Geese have taken over a BC beach.
Enter the dog squad.
Dogs involved will wear a goose patrol labeled vest or bandana.
That's funny, but I don't think she meant it to be funny.
I kid you not, each of those major investigative reports needed two reporters at the CBC.
I'm surprised it wasn't more.
So we're dealing with a heavy hitter here when I mention Jordan.
That was the interviewer.
And the interviewee who put this up on her YouTube channel yesterday, that's how I came across it.
Frances Widowson, a professor and author and critic of something that's called the Indian industry sometimes.
That is the permanent class of lawyers, bureaucrats, and politicians, many of them who are not Indigenous, that live off the misery of Canada's First Nations, the sort of the deep state, everyone involved with grants and lawsuits and stuff.
Anyway, so Frances Widdowson, a year ago, was going to Northern BC to give a talk.
And young Jordan Tucker from the CBC had some tough questions for the good professor.
But this wasn't Widowson's first rodeo.
She knows who the regime media are and what they're like.
She might not have known who Jordan Tucker was unless she follows stories about goose patrols and Pokemon Go.
But I mean, it's the CBC, right?
Say no more.
So she wisely recorded her own interview and was kind enough to tell that to Jordan Tucker.
I'm surprised Jordan had her breakdown given that she knew she was being recorded.
Now, the interview is about 25 minutes long.
And I guess I could just show you a few excerpts, but I promise you, it is too good just to have a sample.
I really want you to hear the whole thing.
It was a masterclass by Widowson and a devastating proof of just how absolutely awful the CBC is, especially when it comes to official narratives of the Canadian political establishment.
Like in this case, the subject of the hoax, there was 215 bodies in a mass grave in Kamlutz in an old residential school.
It was not.
It was ground-penetrating radar that found some anomalies underground, but they did not excavate.
Those anomalies could have been anything.
It could have been rocks.
It could have been an old septic field.
Could theoretically even be a regular graveyard?
They had those at these residential schools.
It was not a mass grave.
We don't know that there's bodies in there at all.
No one has excavated.
So that is the subject matter here.
But you've got to listen.
Oh, you've got to listen to that, but you've got to listen to the whole thing.
Here's what I'm going to do.
I'm going to play this recording and I'm going to stop it midway, maybe five times, and give you my quick thoughts.
But really, nothing I could say could trump just the sheer gorgeousness of what you are about to hear.
I promise you, the next 25 minutes will go by very quickly.
So maybe get a cup of tea or a cup of coffee and sit down here.
Let's listen to this incredible interview together.
So that's Francis Wittison on the left, of course, and that's our friend Jordan on the right.
And this was an interview they had last year.
Take a listen.
Hey, hi.
Can you hear me?
Hi, there.
I can.
Yes.
Awesome.
Okay.
So I do have the recording on.
Okay, I'm recording this as well.
Yes.
Oh, okay.
Sounds good.
Okay, so do you think that you could introduce yourself for me?
Your name?
Francis.
Yes, Francis Wittison.
Okay, and what you do?
I'm a professor.
I was a professor at Mount Royal University, which is a story in its own right about my ongoing dispute with Mount Royal.
Okay.
And what do you do now?
I'm a writer and basically I'm a senior fellow with the Frontier Center for Public Policy and I'm a board member for the Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship.
Okay, cool.
All right, so why are you going to Quinnell?
I'm going to Quinnel to address the misinformation that was spread by the city councillors at the meeting on March 19th.
Why We Seek Truth00:14:22
And what misinformation is that?
Well, the first is that many of the counselors didn't appear to have read the book and were making comments about it on the basis of their own speculation, I guess.
I don't quite know where they got this information.
But they were arguing that the book denies the abuse and the harms that were caused by the residential schools.
And I believe Tony Goulet even implied that we were denying that the residential schools existed at all, which is one of the problems with this terminology of residential school denialism, which if you just took that description literally, you would think that that meant you were denying the existence of the residential schools.
And that's not a clear term at all.
It was developed by the academic Sean Carlton basically to smear his opponents and discourage debate on the residential schools.
Okay, and so what are you saying?
What are you, if that's what that's what they're saying, what are you saying your book says and how is it different from what they're representing?
Well, the book completely recognizes the abuses that occurred at the residential schools and realizes that there were serious problems.
Many of the articles, there's a whole bunch of different articles.
First of all, it's not written by one person.
There's over 15 contributors to this.
And basically, it's understood that there were terrible problems with the residential schools, logistical, and also the difficulties of abuse and insensitivity and underfunding and so on.
The main issue that we are talking about in the book is the Kamloops case and the false claim that was made by Roseanne Casimir on May 27th, 2021, that the remains of 215 children had been found on that site.
And there is no evidence at all for the existence of remains on that site.
And it is highly improbable that there will be such remains because not one parent has said that their child never came home from the Kamloops Indian Residential School.
So the book is largely about trying to correct information that was spread about that case, but it also tackles the issue of whether the residential schools were genocidal or not.
So it's taking issue with that claim of the residential schools being genocidal.
Okay.
And what do you think would benefit, like to what benefit do you think it would help like that group in Kamloops to lie about that?
Well, they obtained $7 million for making that claim.
And there's all sorts of other disputes and dispersions of transfers that have been made because of the implication that genocide was perpetrated against not just that group, but Indigenous people.
So what people don't understand with respect to Indigenous policy is that there's a huge industry that is built up around these legal disputes and the residential schools and all the settlements that have happened as well as the whole claims about genocide are a way of extracting transfers.
And this is not beneficial at all for ordinary Indigenous people.
They're not the ones benefiting.
It is the lawyers who are initiating these disputes that are benefiting.
Okay, I hear what you're saying.
So I'm just wondering, I've been covering local government for a while and normally they're pretty disorganized.
They're very disorganized.
So I'm just wondering how what information you have to suggest that a government, like a whole series of different governments, these different Indigenous governments, would go about creating a conspiracy this fast, like how they would be able to keep that under wraps.
It's not a conspiracy.
And in fact, it's due to the media's complete failure, the failure of the media and people like yourself.
Why are you not investigating these claims that are being made and trying to see what evidence there exists?
The media has been absolutely terrible.
And the thing, what happens is, and this is what's going on in Quinnell right now, if you are a critical thinker and you analyze the evidence, and this has been done in many articles, and I myself have a piece in there called Billy Remembers, which investigates these claims in depth.
If you do that, you will be hit very hard with accusations of racism, your hatred for Indigenous people.
And because most people, myself included, want to be someone who helps to deal with the terrible problems that Indigenous people are facing, getting accused of these sorts of things makes it very difficult to pursue the truth on the residential school file.
It's not a conspiracy.
People follow their own interests, and there's money to be made by claiming that there's unmarked graves in all these areas.
Okay, pause just for a second.
Very interesting so far.
I mean, just the temperament and the tone of these two women couldn't be more different.
Frances Widowson, absolutely authoritative, at the same time, knowledgeable as compassionate.
She's not denying that there is social dysfunction on Indian reserves.
Of course, there is.
Only a blind person would say otherwise.
She's describing what we have all seen, a claim that 215 children were found.
Jagmeet Singh called it a mass grave.
No excavations.
It's just ground-penetrating radar, which is not meant to detect bodies.
It's meant typically to detect mineral deposits.
And you'll notice the first instinct of Jordan Tucker was: how can you say everyone's lying?
Why do you doubt not just one government, but all these governments?
And her voice starts to become agitated and frail.
But so far, her argument is simply: how can you possibly mistrust government?
Why are you right and they are all wrong?
As if being right and wrong is a matter of a vote or something.
You'll see throughout the interview that Frances Wittison says, pursue the truth.
She's about getting the truth.
And, you know, let the heavens may fall, but let the truth and justice be known, which is very different from Jordan Tucker of the CBC.
She's not about unearthing the truth.
She's not about asking challenging questions of powerful people.
And by the way, the chief of an Indian man is extremely powerful, much more powerful in their own context than, say, a mayor of a city.
Anyways, back to the interview, but you can see it's changed.
And you can hear the agitation in Jordan Tucker's voice, whereas Frances Wittison, she's been through this a hundred times.
By the way, sometimes I interview people on my show about a book and I haven't read the whole book yet.
I've skimmed it or I've read a blurb about it.
I just don't have time to read a two or three hundred page book before interviewing someone on my show.
I wish I did.
But what's so interesting here is this was obviously an attack on Frances Wittison and the book Grave Error, which was edited by Tom Flanagan and Chris Champion.
And as you heard, it had a bunch of essays in it.
Jordan Tucker didn't even crack the spine.
She didn't even look into the book.
She was sent on a mission to destroy Frances Wittison, but she was sent in completely unarmed.
All right, back to the tape.
So today, Tech Hemlips is having, like, they're doing a sealed meeting with the Catholic Church to obtain all the different documents from the residential school about all the different children and all the different things that went on.
If they were to uncover, you know, if those files were to say, the files from the church were to say, yes, these children died, would you accept that as being proof that you were wrong?
Well, we all know that children died at the residential schools.
That's not the same thing as saying that there's these clandestine burials in an apple orchard.
We have death certificates.
I'm saying, if there's the records say that a bunch of priests murdered children, would I accept that?
Yes, if there were records that said that.
But that's not going to happen.
And it's a ridiculous assertion.
We don't have any parent who's saying that their child never came home.
Who are those 215 children who are buried in the apple orchard?
It doesn't make any sense.
And journalists need to be using their critical thinking skills and their journalistic abilities and stop pandering to this ridiculous ridiculous kind of claim.
I don't need you to raise your tone like that.
I'm just, I'm getting a bit tired of the sorts of claims that are being made after three years and being called every name in the book and having incompetent journalists who cannot do their jobs.
I don't need you.
That's not helpful for our line of questioning right now.
It doesn't matter at all what you think.
You do your job.
I'm going to keep asking my questions, which is my job.
And what I'm asking you to do now is not to yell at me.
Well, I'm not yelling at you.
Okay, stop.
Stop there.
Frances Widowson has a strong voice.
It's a confident voice.
And she's certainly projecting.
And maybe that comes from being a lifetime of a professor.
I wouldn't say she's shouting or yelling.
I think she's had the same, there would be, she's talking like this, a strong confidence voice.
I mean, it's, I would say it's a loud voice.
It's a strong voice.
But to say she's yelling at this journalist shows that it's all about the journalist and her feelings and the microaggressions and her rainbow glasses.
And, you know, the fact that she is saying you can't talk to me that way.
The reporter's job is to observe and report what she observes, not to fight with the source.
If Frances Widowson is a little loud or a little noisy, deal with it.
Don't have a pout in the middle of your job.
You are not the story, Jordan Tucker.
I mean, I think it was slightly mean of Frances Widison to say I'm sick of dealing with ignorant journalists.
I think it's true here.
And, you know, imagine if your killer question is, Professor Widowson, what if today the Catholic Church admits they murdered 215 people?
Okay, well, that would be quite a bombshell.
Imagine hanging your hat on that.
All right.
I got to resist because I'm going to be jumping in every second.
Otherwise, watch some more of Jordan Tucker, the CBC, versus Francis Widowson.
That gets in the way of my ability to ask you the questions.
Okay.
All right.
So who has, who invited you to the Quinnell Council?
I'm not going to say that because there's terrible censoriousness that's happening in Quinnell, and people are punishing people for discussing this book.
So it's not.
Was it someone related to the mayor?
I'm not going to answer that question.
And you can understand, being a journalist, how anonymous sources are important in certain circumstances.
When you say censoriousness, what do you mean by that?
What does that mean?
Demands for punishment and trying to actually have censure against people who try to speak freely against these ideas, about these ideas.
Can you give me an example of that happening?
Well, the son of Pat Morton has Sean Carlton trying to encourage people to destroy her tax business.
Not her tax business, her son's tax business.
Isn't that how the free market works, though, where you can choose not to go to a business if you don't like the people who are running that business?
Having a professor make all sorts of outlandish claims about someone, many would say defamation, which should be pursued in the courts, to encourage people rather than discussing things and trying to understand things more, but to punish people and to ruin their livelihood is absolutely shocking.
And people should be very worried about what's happening in Quinnell right now.
Hey, stop just for a second.
By the way, Frances Wittison was drummed out of Mount Royal University.
She alluded to that at the beginning.
An arbitrator found that she was improperly and illegally handled and that being sacked over her points of view was unacceptable.
But the arbitrator said the relationship had deteriorated so much that she wasn't going to, they weren't going to order the university to take her back.
So she received some sort of payment.
At least that's the latest that I've read.
So this reporter was talking to someone whose entire career was canceled illegally and by smears based on her content.
And you can see the question, who invited you?
Was it someone's son?
Bodies Found, Premise Questioned00:08:22
Was it so-and-so?
That's not important journalism.
That's an attempt to find someone and bully them.
So much of journalism on the left is to pretend that you're calling in your capacity of a journalist, but actually be an activist.
It goes something like this.
Oh, I see you're running an ad on rebel news.
Well, Rebel News does this, this, this, and this wrong.
My deadline is in two hours.
So I have two ways I can write the story.
One is your company is advertising with evil rebel news.
Or number two, story which I'd prefer to write is that you've dumped rebel news.
So which story is it?
It's not real journalism.
It's bullying.
And you can see that Jordan Tucker, that's what she aimed to do.
She was trying to smoke out, well, who brought you to town?
Was it so-and-so?
Why are you upset that someone's family's tax business is being destroyed?
Because we're all bullying.
And isn't that the free market?
Never heard the CBC call for the free market before.
Never forget the CBC is first and foremost a political organization that answers to the prime minister, that carries water for the Laurentian elite.
And in this case, the official narrative of what happened in Techemloops, or as the rest of us call it, Kamloops.
All right, let's keep listening.
I mean, that's, but that's not an actual argument.
If you're saying that people should be fighting is not an actual argument.
Well, it's just a bid for emotion.
That doesn't tell me why they should be doing this or what it is that there's lots of things for people to be worried about.
Okay, so are you being, are your travel expenses being paid by anyone?
Or are you paying them yourself?
We'll see what washes out of the whole thing.
What do you mean by that?
It depends on how much the expenses are.
But I don't really see why I have to justify my travel to Quinnell to people.
I'm coming quickly.
Well, if you were invited.
I was invited, yes.
And you won't tell me by who.
And I'm wondering, are you selling books?
What's your motivation to go?
First of all, I receive no money whatsoever for the books.
So there's people claiming that I'm doing this because I'm trying to sell books.
I get no benefit at all from those books.
So that's just trying.
The reason why I want people to read this book is because it provides information which is not being disseminated through the media, which one would expect to be happening in a free and democratic society with a free press.
Don't you think that it's quite like a lot of trouble to go to to say that 215 children died in order to get seven million dollars?
There's a lot of other ways to get seven million dollars.
Well, it's a it's a general benefit that is a financial benefit that's brought by doing that.
The more you can exaggerate the harm that has been caused, the more money you'll be able to extract on that basis.
And it's been very lucrative, not just for the Camloons band, but there has been a quarter of a billion dollars that has been dispersed since that announcement was made in May 2021.
So, because there's been over 6,000 bodies found at this point.
Oh, stop right there.
Stop right there.
Okay, you're dealing with a leading professor on the subject, Francis Wittison, and then you have Jordan Tucker, whose expertise is playing Pokemon Go and how that game will revitalize a decaying urban downtown.
You just heard her say that there have been 6,000 bodies found.
Now, you're not an expert, and I'm not an expert.
Have you ever heard that before?
Have you ever heard that before?
Let's see what Francis Wittison says.
Take a look.
What bodies have been found?
I'm going with information from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and then various other government bodies.
No, no, but you said 6,000 bodies have been found.
That's the current, that's the current number.
Yeah, that's all.
And you say the Truth and Reconciliation Commission says that 6,000 bodies have been found?
Can I complete my questions, please?
I'm just, you're the one who made that claim.
And as a journalist, you should be concerned about the accuracy of your claims.
Yes, don't worry.
I'm very aware of what my job is.
Thank you.
Well, you haven't been doing a very good job so far.
I don't need you to provide feedback.
I don't need that at all.
I need you to answer my questions.
Oh, well, you made a false claim, and I am telling you that your claim is false, and you should be more concerned about the accuracy of information.
I'm going to keep asking my questions.
I don't need you to browbeat me.
That's not helpful.
That's not what we're here to do.
Well, stop for a second.
So sometimes a question is asked: here's a fact.
What do you say about it?
It's sometimes called the premise of a question.
6,000 bodies were found.
What do you say about that?
Well, I dispute, I disagree with the premise of the question.
What is your source from the premise?
I can't answer the question.
It's a loaded question because it's based on something that's factually not true.
Can you tell me the source of 6,000 bodies?
Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
Really?
Who do you think has read that?
Do you think Francis Widowson has read that?
Or do you think Jordan Tucker, who just finished doing a story about Pokemon Go, has read it?
Jordan Tucker, who has not read the book Grave Error?
Jordan Tucker, whose questions are focused on who's paying your travel here?
Who gave you an invitation here?
Isn't it the free market that we're allowed to bully people who disagree with us?
And oh, your point is just a bid for emotion, not an argument.
She's quarreling with Francis Widowson.
And when Frances simply asks, What's your source for the premise of your question?
How can I answer your question if it's based on a falsehood?
Oh, don't you ask me questions.
Don't browbeat me.
This is the consummate CBC reporter.
It won't surprise me if soon she becomes president of the organization.
All right, play some more tape.
Okay.
So, sure, I can find you some documentation later and send it to you that says the number of children's bodies that have been found so far with this LIDAR.
I don't need you to interrupt me while I'm speaking.
That's not that.
I haven't met anyone so thin-skinned in your life.
Have you ever met?
I mean, you know, sometimes I have a debate.
But when I'm out in the world, sometimes doing streeters, you know what I'm talking about?
When I'm on the street and I encounter someone who's a hot potato, at least when I'm on my best behavior, I just shut up and I let the hot potato bake.
I let them say the most unusual things.
Imagine being a reporter that when you're getting spicy or interesting comments from your interviewee, you stop them and you say, no, no, it's about my feelings.
Don't speak too loud.
Don't push back.
That's actually where an interview becomes great.
And an interview is not just reading like a stenographer official talking points and just writing down quietly what, you know, what's so interesting is that I've never seen a CBCer take this kind of a streperous, quarrelsome approach with anyone from the regime.
It's what makes it so riveting is that she's so unarmed in this battle of wits that she was sent out to maul Professor Widdowson.
And Professor Widowson has a stentorious voice.
But she's actually being quite pleasant and quite factual.
Communities and Imagined Distress00:15:17
And they've sent in a child to do a man's work.
It's shocking.
And Jordan Tucker, excuse me, Jordan Tucker has several times basically said, stop being mean to me.
And you can imagine Frances Widowson, who's obviously a professor.
I'm going to guess she's 70 years old.
So she has been, she's probably been a feminist pioneer, is what she would have been called 40 or 45 years ago when she started.
I bet when she graduated with her PhD and got a job as a professor, she was probably the first woman in the whole department.
And she had to be twice as tough as any man, and she had to put aside any daintiness to elbows up in a real sense.
And imagine Jordan Tucker, who just starts falling apart whenever she's pushed and not even pushed by a man.
I tell you, there's two different role models for women here, aren't there?
Which would you rather your daughter take after?
All right, I'll try not to interrupt so much.
Keep watching.
Continuation of the 6,000 bodies of children that have been found.
Please stop interrupting me.
Again, if you're saying that it's some sort of widespread conspiracy, don't you think that there would be a better way for people to obtain money than to be lying about the death of children?
Children dying, children being buried in places Is very sensitive.
Do you think that this is something like why would they do that?
Wouldn't they pick a different thing that would be less harmful to the people that they know, the people in their communities?
Have you finished?
Are you claiming that I'm saying there's a conspiracy?
I think that it is that saying that communities have hopped on to an idea of pretending that children are dead in order to get a lot of money would be a very outrageous thing for a bunch of people to say, especially when I'm quite sure that that would be something that the rest of their community wouldn't go along with.
And given that small communities are very bad at lying, they're very bad at keeping secrets from each other.
Either everyone would have to be going along with this vast conspiracy, or they would just have to be very cruel and be totally fine with saying that all these different children were dead and they were and misrepresenting it.
So which is it?
Are they liars or are they cruel?
They're not liars.
There's no conspiracy.
If you can let me speak for a little while, I would appreciate it.
What happens is that there are these stories that are going around in communities based upon things that have been done by a defrocked United Church minister by the name of Kevin Annett.
Because of the distress that exists in communities, which are very distressed, this tends to be something that has influenced the memories of people as did occur.
Just don't interrupt me.
As did occur, as occurred in the case of the satanic panic that happened in the 1980s and the 1990s, quite a similar situation, which I document in Michelle Remembers.
Those people were not lying.
They are people who are distressed, who have their memories influenced by these sorts of things.
And because money can be made from this, that's why you see these things catch fire within these communities.
So why were they distressed then?
Because of why were they so distressed?
Because of the terrible social dislocation that's happened in Indigenous communities.
The isolation, the dependency which exists in these communities, the terrible fetal alcohol syndrome rates which exist in these communities.
So that's why there is so much distress in these communities.
Stop just for one second there.
See, what Jordan can't process here is that she hates Frances Wittison.
I mean, it's obvious.
She can't bear to hear her talk.
She's accusing her of browbeating her.
She's basically fighting with her instead of interviewing her.
But in the last 30 seconds there, you saw Frances Wittison show compassion for the state of affairs on Canadian reserves, fetal alcohol syndrome, the distress, the social chaos.
And for her to use those phrases to honestly and forcefully describe the tragic situation of First Nations, especially on reserve in Canada, Jordan Tucker doesn't know what to do because she doesn't have the facts at her fingertips.
She clearly doesn't have any sharp questions written down.
She just knew that Frances Wittison was evil and Jordan Tucker was standing up for Indigenous people.
And she doesn't know how to process the fact that, in fact, Frances Wittison not only is a lot smarter than Jordan Tucker and a lot better informed, especially on this issue, but I think it's pretty clear she cares more.
So, what can young Jordan do?
Let's watch a bit more.
Are you saying that they all imagined this?
Like, this is all imagined.
First of all, no one ever said that 215 children were murdered in Kamloops.
No person said that.
What you have is ground-penetrating radar seeing anomalies, and it became assumed that this must have meant that there were 215 children that were buried clandestinely in an apple orchard.
So no one was going around saying 215 children were murdered at Kamloops before this, before the GPR came about.
So, okay, but to be clear, you're saying that these people have imagined this.
Stop again.
Stop just for a second.
So, words are important, and you think a journalist would know that.
I mean, that's why Jagmeet Singh, when he used the phrase mass grave on TV, not even the chief, not even the ground-penetrating radar person called it a mass grave.
That was Jagmeet Singh's own addition to the story to get himself some TV time.
And this reporter talked about murder.
And Frances Widowson said, no one has even accused them.
I mean, imagine 215 murders.
Like, that would be insane.
At worst, people are saying there was a bunch of unmarked graves, but that there were murders, 215 murders.
As Frances Wittison said, no one has actually made that accusation.
No one is that insane.
No one can take the ground-penetrating radar anomalies and say, I mean, you can, it's a stretch to say they're people because they're just anomalies down there.
It could be anything, could be metal, could be a septic tank, a septic field.
It was one theory I read.
But to add on the murder, so you know that they're babies and you know they were murdered.
And how do you know this?
Because you don't know anything about what that is, let alone who they are.
And the contrast between not just a know-nothing, a know-nothing is a blank slate.
Jordan Tucker isn't just a know-nothing, she is full of poisonous lies.
I can't believe that Frances Wittison has the patience for this.
And she just won't even grant that even this crazy thing could be false.
I think she may be, I think we may be dealing with literally the worst reporter in Canada.
All right, let's play somewhere.
I'll try not to interrupt.
For example, there's particular cases that you can look at.
There's a couple induced brain damage in their children.
Like they're, is that, is that what I'm hearing?
No, you were asking me why they were so distressed.
And I was saying that was one of the causes of the distress.
You have people who have suffered from various things, and that makes them highly emotional and suggestive to think various stories like what Kevin Annette was putting forward.
And you have people like Billy Coombs, who's one of the eyewitnesses.
There's only, as far as I know, if you read Billy Remembers, which you probably won't do, it has two eyewitnesses that have actual accounts.
Everything else is secondhand.
So it's not those people who have these stories.
It's just recounting stories of others.
So you have two eyewitnesses.
And so is it that these people then, all these different other Indigenous communities, they thought it was a good idea and they started also kind of mass hallucinating these deaths due to sadness?
Well, this is people who evidently there's stories in the community.
For example, Pine Creek, there were stories that there were people buried in this church.
And so what they did is they went and took a GPR machine down there and they saw that there were anomalies there.
They dug up those, that basement of the church and there were no remains there.
So someone had this kind of story that they'd heard about people being buried in this church.
This is the kind of thing that's happening.
Okay, so I think I have a pretty good idea of what you're saying.
Do you think she's been paying attention in Quinnell?
No.
No.
Okay.
And then are your travel expenses being covered?
Well, I'm going to see how much they are.
If I can cover them myself, I will.
But if they're going to be a large amount, then I will try to raise money from my various associates.
Okay.
And which associates are those?
I know a lot of people through the Indian Residential Schools research that's being done.
So there's a group that I interact with.
And right now I'm not, I don't anticipate it being, the expenses being all that high, but it's hard to know in advance.
But I'm not making any money off of this.
How long are you going to be in Quinnell for?
For a couple of days.
And are you doing any other events while you're there?
I'm hoping to.
I'm hoping to, I was hoping actually to do a presentation in a public forum type of situation, but we'll see how things go.
You know, it depends upon demand, I guess.
But what I really would like to do is have these documents, which I have obtained, which are on the agenda for the April 2nd meeting, and ask the counselors who denounce grave error without ever having read the book, ask them some questions about what they are putting into the public record at that meeting.
So, okay, so, you know, the federal government, the provincial government, the municipal government in Quinnell, they all say that, yes, these things have happened.
There are children buried in apple orchards.
Stop.
Is that true?
Is that true?
Or has this reporter just filled in the blanks with her own imagination that they were murdered, that there were 6,000 such cases across the country?
And now that all levels of government have agreed with her made-up facts.
I have never seen any interview like this.
That Kathy Newman interview on Channel 4 was incredible.
But I am so embarrassed for Jordan Tucker and the CBC.
This is something that a high school journalism class should fail, let alone journalism school, let alone a professional journalist of the CBC.
Unbelievable, but absolutely believable.
Keep rolling.
Are all of those different governments lying?
Like, are all those different people, don't you know?
Where they're going along with these stories imagined by people, by Indigenous people.
Are you saying what the federal and provincial government are saying that there's children buried in that apple orchard?
I'm asking why all of these different people at all these different levels of government, all these different intelligent, thoughtful people who've worked really hard and learned a great number of things to get to their positions, why they would all be so why it would happen that they would all be so stupid.
If that's what's going on, if the truth is as you're reporting it to be, then how is it that all of these government officials have been so connived?
Well, first of all, the onus is on the people who are saying that there's 215 children buried there to provide that evidence.
And they have provided it.
What's that?
And they have provided it, and the majority of people are quite satisfied with.
Are you, as a journalist, are you satisfied with the evidence?
I am.
Of course I am.
You think that there's 215 children buried in the apple orchard in Kamloops?
I think that at this point, there has been enough documentation.
There have been enough social and archaeological consensus to say that social consensus.
To say that we can just believe Indigenous people and move on with trying to do our best by social consensus.
Just believe it.
Believe this report.
So I'm just going to repeat this again to make sure I haven't misunderstood you.
You are saying that there are 215 children buried in the apple orchard.
There is evidence to show that, that there are 215 children buried in the apple orchard in Kamloops.
I think that...
Oh my God, this is...
I'm wondering why it's so important to you to discredit us.
Why She's About to Cry00:02:33
Yeah, why don't you just shut up and go along?
I believe in the truth.
I think the truth is important.
Do you think the truth is important?
I'm going to ask.
Do you.
I think she's about to cry.
I think she's about to cry.
Boy, that's a long pause.
You should read Grave Error.
That's good advice.
I think you really need to read that book because you do not have an understanding at all.
Ma'am, I don't need that from you.
Thank you.
Well, you are a seriously incompetent journalist.
Truth.
And this is what the CBC has sunk to these days.
I don't think that you accusing me or shouting at me is very helpful.
No one's shouting so.
I don't really think I'm shouting at you.
I'm just telling you, for someone who is here doing an interview on this case.
Please stop.
Please stop.
That's enough.
This interview is now over.
Thank you for your time.
Well, you're going to hear more about this.
And there you have it.
Listen, thank you for bearing with it.
I know that was long, but if you're like me, that was riveting.
Jordan Tucker, I've never seen anyone quite like her.
I say again, and this was recorded a year ago, but actually, Frances Wittison only put it on her YouTube page yesterday.
I know it had sort of sneaked out in a few other places.
I just have missed it.
So I'm a bit late off the draw.
But everything that happened there, you know, it's still happening.
I've just never seen an interview like that.
Kathy Newman perfected the so-you-mean-to-say Strawman response, but I haven't seen some of these.
Like, there's a social consensus that it's true.
I don't need any facts.
I'm going to make up facts.
And when you tell me they're wrong, I'm going to say, stop browbeating me, stop shouting at me.
That was just incredible.
And you know what?
What a pity that Mount Royal University students are deprived of a no-nonsense, patient, fact-bearing professor as Francis Wittison.
What a shame.
And what a shame that the CBC is full of Jordan Tuckers.
That's our interview for today.
Sorry, that's my monologue.
That's my monologue for the day.
Really, it was Francis Wittison's monologue.
Stay with us.
More ahead.
Rising Tensions: Ukraine, Taiwan, and Beyond00:14:41
Well, it's been a few weeks since Israel and the United States degraded Iran's military.
The Israeli Air Force took out hundreds of targets.
And once the surface-to-air missile threat, once Israel had the supremacy in the skies, America came in with the coupe de grasse with the B-2 stealth bombers flying all the way from the United States, an enormous mission, dropping very specialized bunker buster bombs into three Iranian nuclear sites.
It was an incredible act of planning and deception.
And it, with one punch, knocked the nuclear program of Iran back years, maybe decades.
What was so interesting is in the days leading up to that, Russia's Vladimir Putin was asked if he would come to the aid of Iran, a country to which he was formally allied.
And he declined to do so.
One of his interesting reasons was that there are 2 million Russians who reside in Israel.
I've never heard that as a geopolitical explanation by Putin before.
He clearly is focused more on his war in Ukraine than in beefing up a regime that was losing.
Very interestingly, Russia's, I'm not going to say puppet, but the Russia-allied president of Syria was also deposed.
He now lives in Russia.
I say all these things because I am most curious about how China has regarded the ongoing battle in the Middle East and Ukraine.
Has Donald Trump's military decision changed or altered the geopolitical battlefield?
What does it mean for Taiwan?
I have no idea.
But if there is someone who knows, it's probably our next guest.
His name is Gordon G. Chang.
He's an essential person to follow online.
And what a pleasure to have him join us now.
Gordon, thank you so much for coming back.
Tell me what China makes of U.S. moves in Iran and even in Ukraine.
Well, first of all, on Ukraine, it was very clear.
Wang Yi, the Chinese foreign minister, on July 2nd, had a private conversation with the EU foreign policy chief, and he told her that China cannot afford to see Russia lose in Ukraine.
It was very clear.
And of course, this confirms what we already knew.
China has been providing across the board support for the Russian war effort, including now allowing Chinese mercenaries to go to the front to fight for Russia.
And also, they're People's Liberation Army officers in Ukraine right now.
Presumably as observers or advisors, but they're also in the battle as well.
So clearly, China across the board support.
It's almost as if you can say that Putin is fighting a proxy war for the Chinese, because Xi Jinping believes that he must disrupt the international order.
And Putin is very important to that because Putin is some person, is somebody who is willing to actually take on the West in battle.
Now, with regard to Iran, it's a bit more complicated, but what we have seen over the last six months is that the United States has chased Russia, China out of the Middle East.
Go back a year, China looked like to be the dominant foreign power in the region.
It had brokered the deal with Saudi Arabia and Iran.
Also, in July of last year, was the Beijing Declaration, which was inked by China and 14 Palestinian groups.
But that deal fell apart very quickly.
And what we have seen is that in recent months, China has lost friends: Saudi Arabia, Syria, and of course, Qatar.
Iran, its proxy, is being beaten up, as you've pointed out.
So, China right now is seeing the power of the United States to reverse things when the U.S. has a leader who believes in making sure that American power is used.
Wow.
Let's just talk for one minute about Ukraine and then let's pivot back to Iran.
It's so fascinating.
And then I want to ask you about Taiwan.
I've heard reports that North Korean soldiers have been fighting in Ukraine for Russia.
I didn't know that Chinese mercenaries were there as well.
Is that a symbolic force?
Is it a large enough force to make a dent?
Have any of these Chinese mercenaries been captured as prisoners of war?
That would be fascinating to see Chinese soldiers fighting in Ukraine.
That might enter the narrative of this battle.
In a way, I never thought of Russia as the puppet for another force, but if they're relying on soldiers from another country, maybe they are.
There were about 150 to 200 Chinese mercenaries in Ukraine, and they could not have gotten there without both the knowledge and the approval of the Communist Party.
So, although they're not formal military, we have to assume that China wanted them to be there.
As regards the PLA officers, we don't know how many they are, but obviously they have been reported to be there from credible sources, and it makes sense from a number of different perspectives.
And when we talk about the North Koreans, North Korea first sent somewhere between 12 and 13,000 of their best troops, by the way, to the front in Ukraine.
Actually, they were in Kursk.
And now there's talk that North Korea will send an additional 30,000.
Because this is a war of attrition, they could very well be maybe not a decisive factor.
They could be an important factor as Russia wears down the Ukrainian forces.
So I actually think that the North Koreans are there with the approval of China, that China probably masterminded this deal.
So again, what we're seeing is close connections among Pyongyang, Moscow, and Beijing.
Wow.
You know, looking at it from the other side, China and North Korea, by deploying to Ukraine itself or the cursed region of Russia where Ukraine had entered, they would be going head to head with Ukraine, which is backed by American CIA and Western weapons.
So I suppose it would be a kind of training, training in a real, you know, a real-life deadly combat, learning Western tactics, learning how to defeat Western weapon systems, using drones, of which I would imagine China is probably a world leader.
So it's not just helping Russia, it's getting battlefield experience, which I don't know if China has actually had in many years.
Yeah, the last real war China was in was 1979 when they invaded Vietnam.
There was sort of like semi-war in 2020 between India and China, where in June of that year, China actually launched a surprise attack on Indian troopers and were badly bloodied by the Indians, even though they had the Chinese had the element of surprise.
So we know that China's ground forces, although they've got great equipment, are not led very well.
And that's a real indication about the problems in the Chinese military generally.
With regard to China and Russia, this is a relationship that's getting very, very close.
And both sides are learning a lot about warfare.
We're learning a lot about drone tactics, for instance, because Ukraine is a master in those.
So this is an experiment for the world's next great war.
Yeah.
Well, I would think, this is just my amateur thinking, that looking at America reviving its leadership in Europe, in the Middle East, has got to make Taiwan feel more confident.
The fact that Russia, which had some really leading-edged weapon systems, and Iran, which had the use of very modern Russian technology, was just beaten handily by Israel and America.
Would that be a sign of hope for Taiwan?
Is there a sort of a retooling of Taiwan's military defenses?
I don't know.
I'm just trying to think.
If I was in Taiwan, I would be encouraged that America still gets involved, maybe not as adventurist as before, maybe more surgical than a world war-style attack.
But that secret raid by the B-2s, I would think that would make China and Russia think twice, because apparently those planes were not detected until they had actually dropped their bombs and were leaving.
I've got to think that that was a wow moment in Beijing and Moscow.
Yes, you know, the one thing that doesn't go remarked very often, and which you pointed out now, and I think is really important, is the flawless execution of that mission.
Because you have the B-2s taking off from Whiteman Air Force Base in central Missouri and flying halfway around the world and then returning.
And that takes a lot of logistics, especially tanker support.
So the fact that we were able to do this, I'm sure, has had an impression on the Chinese and Russians and Iranians and everybody else.
In general, Taiwan believes that its future could be largely written on the battlefields of Ukraine.
And we have heard Taiwan officials talk about that.
And I actually think that that's right.
Because if the United States prevails in Ukraine, I think it makes China think twice about starting a war in East Asia.
If we fail in Ukraine, I think that it emboldens Beijing to engage in all sorts of adventurism around its periphery, including Taiwan.
And we have seen some very provocative Chinese military activity recently against South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, of course, Philippines, as always, and even against faraway Australia.
So this is, it's all a demonstration effect.
And it was a good demonstration of American power, which I think has made the Chinese think twice about what they're going to do in their own region.
You know, Donald Trump seems to have been successful in getting NATO countries to at least pledge 5% of their GDP to the military.
Now, I think there's some creative accounting in there.
They're now simply deeming other existing expenses to be military.
So I think they're fudging it as usual.
But I think there is a general understanding that Europe has to start carrying more of its own burden.
Has that happened at all in Asia?
When you look at Japan, South Korea, Philippines, Vietnam, Taiwan, have those countries ramped up their spending too?
I think Trump is clearly showing he will be a friend to other countries, but he doesn't want the free riding.
What's it looking like for those Asian countries I just listed?
Well, Japan and the Philippines have increased their defense spending.
And that was a long process that is now two, three years old.
And that's driven largely because they're worried about Chinese aggression.
In Taiwan, they're also increasing spending, but there is a political issue because the Guomindong, the KMT, has been blocking increased military expenditures.
So this has been a difficult slog.
And what's going to be really important is that on the 26th of this month, there are going to be recall elections against some of these Guomindong legislators, because the Guomindong controls the legislative UN, their national legislature.
So this will be important.
But in general, we're seeing across Asia, countries are more and more concerned about the Chinese.
And so therefore, they're ramping up their defense spending.
Let me pivot from military talk to economics.
Donald Trump has been putting tariffs on a great many countries, including us here in Canada.
I remember even in his first run in 2016, he talked about China tremendously.
And he, I think, sought to undermine China's dominance or at least its high growth economically.
What is Trump doing now?
Is he appeasing China economically?
Is he just as tough economically as he is militarily?
I find it hard to keep up, frankly.
I don't know if it's a tactical tariff or just almost like a press release.
Trump has new statements almost every day about tariffs.
What's the real deal with Trump and China when it comes to trade?
I wish I knew.
This is not very clear, and I'm not even sure that Trump understands it.
We know certain things, and that is they had a May 12th agreement on tariffs.
It was important, and it was a pause for 90 days, which means we're talking about an August 12th deadline for a deal.
I don't know if the Chinese are going to meet that.
I hope that they will.
We may get some sort of framework out of that.
But we have seen reporting, especially from Bloomberg, but also the Wall Street Journal, let's talk about how Trump has gone soft on China, that often he is taking the softest line of the people in the room.
And that's sort of, I can understand what Trump is doing.
I think that he's trying to do with Xi Jinping what he did with Putin.
You know, when Trump took his second oath of office, he tried to come to terms with Putin, tried to arrange a peace deal for Ukraine, talked to Putin quite a lot, but Putin didn't reciprocate.
And so we've seen a much harder tone from Trump on Putin.
I think we're probably going to go through the same dynamic with Xi Jinping.
Xi Jinping's Loyalists00:04:11
And it's going to be unfortunate because time is really important these days.
And we're going to lose a lot of it as Trump tries to come to terms with the Chinese.
Right now, there is talk that Trump and Xi Jinping will try and meet on the sidelines of APEC, which is at the end of October in South Korea.
We don't know if that'll come to pass.
But my general feeling is the less we talk with China, the better it'll be for us, because talking has just not accomplished what we have wanted to over the last three and a half decades.
You know, it's interesting.
I mean, Trump had that phrase about Iran.
He said, Iran has never won a war, but it's never lost a negotiation.
And I think there was a little bit of wisdom in that.
And I sense that China, which has been doing diplomacy for thousands of years in its own way, I think, I mean, I guess I've been doing the art of war for millennia as well.
But I think there's a seriousness and a strategy behind Chinese diplomacy that perhaps sometimes we don't discern.
Let me ask you one final question.
You mentioned Xi Jinping.
Sometimes it appears that there may be an internal struggle of some sort.
It's hard to do what used to be called Kremlinology, you know, who's up and who's down, because it's not a free press and these things are done behind closed doors.
What is the state of affairs of Xi Jinping?
How old is he these days anyways?
Is there an heir apparent?
Just like in Saudi Arabia, you have this new crown prince who's actually progressive and pro-Western, which you could see the change in Saudi Arabia.
Is there any hope for that or is China really in the hands of hardliners almost no matter who the leader is?
Yeah, I think Xi Jinping has lost control of the Chinese military.
And the reason is that in PLA Daily, which is the main propaganda organ of the Chinese military, since July 9th of last year, there have been a series of articles that praise collective leadership, which is a direct slap at Xi Jinping.
At the same time, we're seeing Xi Jinping's supporters in the military get purged and disappeared.
And so I think you put those two things together, and it is more likely that Xi Jinping's adversaries are getting rid of Xi Jinping's loyalists rather than Xi Jinping getting rid of his own loyalists.
So I think that he's lost a lot of influence in the military.
And among civilians, the evidence is not as clear, but there have been signs, especially since the end of April, that Xi Jinping has lost some altitude.
Probably in the last couple of weeks, in other words, most of this month, I think Xi Jinping has gained some influence.
He's now being portrayed in state and party media in a more prominent way than he was during the two months starting at the end of April.
But we really don't know.
What we can see are signs that are inconsistent with stability at the top of the regime.
And that indicates that the infighting is still intense.
And people say we're going to learn a lot more next month, maybe.
But I think by the end of the year, we'll have some clarity about where Xi Jinping is or isn't.
And by the way, there is no designated successor.
And if Xi Jinping does lose power, it'll probably be to the hands of reformists.
Because one of the reasons why Xi Jinping is in trouble is because he's terribly mismanaged the Chinese economy.
And I think they'll go back to something more reasonable.
Well, we learned so much from talking to you.
We're always grateful for your time and expertise.
Gordon Ji Cheng, great to see you.
And by the way, folks, I really encourage you to follow Gordon on Twitter.
He's by far my number one source of news and commentary on China.
And we're grateful to have you.
Take care, my friend, and we'll talk to you again soon.
Thank you so much, Ezra.
All right.
Take care.
Stay with us.
More ahead.
Hey, welcome back.
Here are some letters to me.
Ottawa Live Tweeting00:03:06
And by the way, these are comments by Rebel News Plus viewers just like you.
You can have a special page where only Rebel News Plus subscribers can comment.
The first one is on the Trucker Convoy and the media political industrial complex.
Robert Perrizo commented, saying, If 100% of your information, if you can call it that, came from CTB Global City and especially the CBC, you would never know this story existed.
In fact, more than one such viewer thinks that only stories that actually happened would have appeared on any of those networks.
You know, I say this a lot.
I believe it.
There's bias in how any story is covered, but the far more powerful bias is the stories you ignore and the stories you choose, who you choose to erase and unperson in the sweep of history and who you choose to promote.
Jane Vandervliet commented, Both stories today are anger.
Anger making.
Thanks, Ezra.
Well, it's true.
It's true.
The world is a frustrating place.
And I suppose there are gentler sources of information than Rebel News, but I don't know.
It's our style to focus on the front lines of the battle.
By the way, Alexa Lavoie has been doing amazing work recently in Montreal.
We've got some videos coming out.
And my friend Lincoln J just returned from right near Wroxham Road.
There's a new crossing.
It's not a Wroxham Road.
It's very close by with some incredible footage.
I just chatted with him as he came back from Quebec.
So we'll have some very exciting news.
But as you correctly say, exciting can usually mean anger making.
Hey, by the way, I'm going to be in Ottawa tomorrow and Thursday, live tweeting the coverage for Tamara Leach.
She is at her sentencing.
And as you know, I was in Lethbridge a few months ago watching the sentencing of the so-called Coutz III.
Those were the three leaders of the Coots blockade during the lockdown.
And two out of the three men there got zero time in jail.
They were convicted of mischief.
But if it's a first offense and no violence involved, the precedent in Canada, probably 20, 30 cases, a lot of which involve Greenpeace, you might want to know.
There's no custodial sentence.
That is, you get the conviction, the judge says, don't do it again.
And you better not do it again because you might go to jail the second time.
But there's no jail time.
So Tamara Leach is, that's exactly what I expect will happen tomorrow.
But the prosecutor is demanding seven years in prison, seven years in prison for her and eight years for Chris Barber, who's on trial at the same time.
Absolutely shocking, abusive.
That is third world authoritarian police state stuff.
And I say again, don't make the mistake of thinking that is Justin Trudeau's or Mark Carney's prosecutor.
That prosecutor works for Doug Ford, the Premier of Ontario.
Anyways, I'll be out there in Ottawa live tweeting up a storm.
During breaks in the court, I'll be recording videos and we will have our beautiful billboard truck there showing our support for Tamara.
So I will be producing shows from Ottawa and I'll be back in the studio here on Friday.