TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @JinglaiHe
reSee.it AI Summary
BREAKING: Former CBC host Travis Dhanraj says CBC management banned him from pursuing an interview with Pierre Poilievre and threatened to pull him off the air if he interviewed Melissa Lantsman. The anti-Conservative bias from the CBC is outrageous.
@JinglaiHe - Jinglai He 🇨🇦
BREAKING: Former CBC host Travis Dhanraj reveals that the CBC management BANNED him from requesting an interview with Pierre Poilievre and threatened to have him pulled off the air for interviewing Melissa Lantsman. The anti-Conservative bias coming from the CBC is outrageous.. https://t.co/zYrDdgPtiZ
Video Transcript AI Summary
Host: You mentioned at one point that CDC management actually prevented you from interviewing Conservative leader Pierre Pauli on your show. Can you describe what happened there?
Guest: Well we I mean I basically wasn't allowed to pick the phone and and talk to conservatives. I have some g chats here which I just want to you know read you part of this. I'm talking to my senior producer I'm saying okay, you know this is an editorial discussion. Can we get a Conservative perspective on this is essentially what I'm saying. It is a no to the Conservatives I'm told. We can't chase anyone from the entire party. The chase is with P and P. So if power and politics is not able to secure a conservative, or, you know, somebody that presents an alternate perspective, then we are not allowed to. I'm told at one point we're sure that there's a myriad of other types of interesting guests that you can chase outside of the Conservatives. Can I be included on conversations with power and politics? That's not how we work. I say to management by playing petty office politics we feed into Conservative narratives that we have a bias against them. Canada tonight is a melting pot of news of the day and politics and decisions, from it largely impact Canadians. So we need flexibility to to respond to emerging stories. So yes, I wasn't even allowed to pick up the phone and call to request Pierre Pauliev.
Host: Look at what happened when I had Melissa Lanceman on my show, right? That I was threatened to be pulled off the air which CBC then said in a news statement they didn't threaten to do that. There are recordings of them trying to do this. Why
Guest: I mean there's an effort to essentially, protect those in Ottawa in in terms of their perspectives on these things, in terms of who they want on the show. It should be about you know, we did an interview with Karen Johnson, my cohost on the new podcast I'm doing. She's another former CBC employee that is talking about the toxic culture. She said that she alleges that she was called a brown Barbie, a bimbo, but she says that it's it's a very high school culture. And these are things that this is fine if you if you have hosts doing that it's not fine but it okay but management you are responsible for dealing with that and so if management is not going to do anything, if the President of the CBC is going to come here and expect a tongue lashing and then be able to go back to the CBC and continue to get funding without accountability, these practices will continue. So shame is clearly not enough to get the CBC to a place where they will hold themselves accountable so it's incumbent upon this committee to do that.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You mentioned at one point that CDC management actually prevented you from interviewing Conservative leader Pierre Pauli on your show. Can you describe what happened there?
Speaker 1: Well we I mean I basically wasn't allowed to pick the phone and and talk to conservatives. I have some g chats here which I just want to you know read you part of this. I'm talking to my senior producer I'm saying okay you know this is an editorial discussion. Can we get a Conservative perspective on this is essentially what I'm saying. It is a no to the Conservatives I'm told.
We can't chase anyone from the entire party. The chase is with P and P. So if power and politics is not able to secure a conservative, or you know somebody that presents an alternate perspective, then we are not allowed to. I'm told at one point we're sure that there's a myriad of other types of interesting guests that you can chase outside of the Conservatives. Can I be included on conversations with power and politics?
That's not how we work. I say to to management by playing petty office politics we feed into Conservative narratives that we have a bias against them. Canada tonight is a melting pot of news of the day and politics and decisions, from it largely impact Canadians. So we need flexibility to to respond to emerging stories. So yes, I wasn't even allowed to pick up the phone and call to request Pierre Pauliev.
Look at what happened when I had Melissa Lanceman on my show, right? That I was threatened to be pulled off the air which CBC then said in a news statement they didn't threaten to do that. There are recordings of them trying to do this. Why
Speaker 0: do you think they were doing that?
Speaker 1: I mean there's an effort to essentially, protect those in Ottawa in in terms of their perspectives on these things, in in terms of who they want on the show. It should be about you know, we did an interview with Karen Johnson, my my cohost on the new podcast I'm doing. It is out right now. She's another former CBC employee that is talking about the toxic culture. She said that she alleges that she was called a a brown Barbie, a bimbo, but she says that it's it's a very high school culture.
And these are things that this is fine if you if you have hosts doing that it's not fine but it okay but management you are responsible for dealing with that and so if management is not going to do anything, if the President of the CBC is going to come here and expect a tongue lashing and then be able to go back to the CBC and continue to get funding without accountability, these practices will continue. So shame is clearly not enough to get the CBC to a place where they will hold themselves accountable so it's incumbent upon this committee to do that.
@JinglaiHe - Jinglai He 🇨🇦
BREAKING: Conservative MP Michael Cooper makes the RCMP confirm that Justin Trudeau ILLEGALLY obstructed the investigation into SNC-Lavalin and broke the law. Well would you look at that, Pierre was RIGHT AGAIN! Why isn't the CBC covering this clip? https://t.co/NqZoCE0I2O
Video Transcript AI Summary
The discussion centers on the RCMP examination into whether the prime minister obstructed justice under section 139(2) of the Criminal Code. The RCMP’s strongest theory of obstruction involved the prime minister shuffling Jody Wilson-Raybould out of the position of attorney general so a new attorney general might pursue a different decision regarding SNC-Lavalin. It is stated that the RCMP did not have access to all material evidence related to this strongest theory, because of the parameters of the order in council concerning the waiver of cabinet confidentiality. The RCMP acknowledge that the scope limitations prevented them from fully examining this central aspect of potential criminal conduct.
When pressed, it is indicated that the decision to expand the parameters would have to be made within the government, and that the RCMP did request an expansion to obtain additional evidence, but the request was denied. The denial occurred on 08/30/2019 and came from the Prime Minister’s Department (the PCO). The RCMP clarifies that they did receive a letter from the Department of Justice, but cannot confirm if it originated from the PCO; regardless, the refusal by the prime minister’s personal department significantly impeded the RCMP’s ability to pursue a full investigation into potential obstruction of justice. The RCMP describes this as limiting their capability and suggests that, given the scope constraints, they could not reach the heart of the obstruction issue.
Speaker 0 asserts that the prime minister’s department obstructed the investigation, and questions whether any other Canadian could single-handedly block RCMP access in such a way. Speaker 2 emphasizes that the RCMP operates within established parameters and regulations, noting that certain information remains inaccessible under those rules, including some international security information. Nevertheless, Speaker 0 states that there is no one with such powers and characterizes the situation as part of a pattern of cover-up. Speaker 2 reiterates that they made efforts to obtain additional information, but the expansion request was refused, leaving the investigation constrained.
In closing, Speaker 0 thanks the commissioner and Justice, and the exchange underscores that the RCMP felt hindered by the parameters set by the PCO, which curtailed their ability to conduct a full investigation into the prime minister’s potential obstruction of justice.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Thank you, mister chair. Thank you to the witnesses. A part of the RCMP's examination to determine whether the prime minister violated section one thirty nine sub two of criminal code by committing obstruction of justice. Correct? That was part of the RCMP's examination.
Speaker 1: That's correct, mister chair. And
Speaker 0: paragraph 19 of the RCMP investigation report states that the strongest fury towards an offensive obstruction of justice was that the prime minister shuffled Jody Wilson Raybold out of the position of attorney general so that a new attorney general would make a different decision regarding the prosecution of SNC Lavalin. Correct? That's correct, mister chair. And it's fair to say that the RCMP did not have access to all material evidence surrounding miss Wilson Rabel being shuffled out as attorney general. Correct?
Speaker 1: That's correct, mister chair.
Speaker 0: And so, just to clarify then or emphasize, the RCMP did not have access to all material evidence on the strongest theory surrounding the prime minister's potential criminality involving obstruction of justice. Correct?
Speaker 1: That's correct, mister chair. And
Speaker 0: the reason the RCMP did not have access to that material evidence on what was central to determining whether the prime minister broke the law was because of the parameters of the scope of the order of counsel with respect to the waiver of cabinet confidentiality. Correct?
Speaker 1: That's correct, mister chair. The parameters did not allow us to fully look into this one. However, I should just
Speaker 0: Thank add thank you for that. You answered it. The parameters did not allow you to, get that evidence. Now there is one person who had the authority to expand the parameters of that order and council, and that is the prime minister himself. Correct?
Speaker 1: I would have to say, mister chair, I'm not exactly sure of the exact process of where the prime minister would be involved in such a decision. However, I I do believe the decision has to be made within the Somewhere. Somewhere within the government.
Speaker 0: I would submit the decision would have to be made by the prime minister, but the RCMP went and requested an expansion of the scope to obtain that evidence, to follow that evidence. Correct?
Speaker 1: Before we proceeded with the assessment, yes. We did make a request for an expansion to the parameters.
Speaker 2: I just have, mister Cooper, it's not to follow the evidence. It's to glean additional information. That could be evidence. Correct.
Speaker 0: And that request was turned down on 08/30/2019.
Speaker 1: I would have to say, mister chair, that the request for the expansion was was not allowed.
Speaker 0: It was turned down, and it was turned down by the PCO, the prime minister's department. Correct?
Speaker 1: We mister chair, we did receive a letter from the Department of Justice. I could not remember exactly specifically if this came from the
Speaker 0: Well, it was from the PCO, and that's in the RCMP's investigation report. And, would it be fair to say that the refusal by the prime minister's personal department, the PCO, to expand the scope of the order in council significantly impeded the full investigation into the prime minister's potential obstruction of justice.
Speaker 2: It limited our capability of pursuing a full investigation.
Speaker 0: And it would have limited it in a fairly significant way. Because after all, we're talking about going to the heart of the matter of obstruction.
Speaker 2: And again, I I don't know what additional not knowing what additional information is out there, it's hard for me to speculate that there's a Pandora box out there which is full of information, so it's hard for us without speculating.
Speaker 0: Well, let the record show that the prime minister's department, the PCO, obstructed the RCMP investigation into the prime minister's potential obstruction of justice. Are you aware of any other Canadian who can single handedly block the RCMP from investigating his own criminality in such an effective way as the prime minister? Good question. Fantastic.
Speaker 2: I wouldn't I wouldn't use the term, mister mister president. I wouldn't use the term block. The RCMP is when it runs an investigation, operates within the parameters and the regulations that we're allowed to. And we see international security investigation as well where there's some information that we don't have access to, we can't use into investigations. It's the it's the parameters it's the it's the parameters that we are
Speaker 0: I think the answer to that question is there is no one who has such powers. And was any explanation provided by the prime minister's personal department why there was this refusal to expand the scope of the order in council?
Speaker 1: Again, mister chair, as far as for a response on this one, of course, it was indicated, of course, the the importance, of course, of these privilege that do exist. They are there for a reason. And, again, as the commissioner mentioned Well we do have to operate within these parameters.
Speaker 0: It would seem to me to be part of a pattern of cover up.
Speaker 2: That's right.
Speaker 0: That's what it would seem to me to be. How can the prime minister be subject to the rule of law like every other Canadian if his personal department can shield him from an RCMP criminal investigation?
Speaker 2: Absolutely. So mister chair, I'll I'll I'll let individuals draw their own conclusion. What I what I come back to is we operate within a set of regulations and parameters that, unfortunately, we did we made the effort to go and get additional information, and it was refused.
Speaker 0: Thank you, commissioner. Thank you. Justice, I Thank would you, mister Cooper.