TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @MichaelCooperMP
@MichaelCooperMP - Michael Cooper, MP
NEWSFLASH Justin Trudeau BROKE THE LAW in SNC and then ABUSED his power to COVER IT UP. WATCH the RCMP confirm that Trudeau OBSTRUCTED the investigation into his CRIMINAL WRONGDOING. 👇 https://t.co/ltvQ9m914Q
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 notes that part of the RCMP’s examination concerned whether the prime minister violated section 139(2) of the Criminal Code by obstruction of justice. Speaker 1 confirms this. Speaker 0 cites paragraph 19 of the RCMP investigation report, stating that the strongest fury toward obstruction of justice was that the prime minister shuffled Jody Wilson-Raybould out of the position of attorney general so that a new attorney general would make a different decision regarding the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin. Speaker 1 confirms. Speaker 0 adds that the RCMP did not have access to all material evidence surrounding Wilson-Raybould being shuffled out as attorney general. Speaker 1 confirms. Speaker 0 emphasizes that the RCMP did not have access to all material evidence on the strongest theory about the prime minister’s potential criminality involving obstruction of justice, and explains this was due to the scope parameters of the order in council with respect to the waiver of cabinet confidentiality. Speaker 1 confirms. Speaker 0 clarifies, and then emphasizes, that the reason the RCMP could not obtain that evidence central to determining whether the prime minister broke the law was because of the scope parameters of the order in council. Speaker 1 confirms. Speaker 0 asks who had authority to expand the parameters, suggesting the prime minister could do so. Speaker 1 responds that he is not exactly sure of the process but believes the decision must be made within somewhere in the government. Speaker 0 asserts that the decision would have to be made by the prime minister, but the RCMP requested expansion to obtain that evidence. Speaker 1 says yes, they did request an expansion before proceeding with the assessment. Speaker 2 corrects that the request was not to follow the evidence but to glean additional information that could be evidence. Speaker 0 states the request to expand was turned down on 08/30/2019. Speaker 1 clarifies that the request for expansion was not allowed. Speaker 0 states it was refused by the prime minister’s personal department, the PCO. Speaker 1 recalls receiving a letter from the Department of Justice and notes it originated with the PCO, as referenced in the RCMP investigation report. Speaker 0 asks whether the refusal by the prime minister’s department significantly impeded the full investigation. Speaker 2 says it limited the RCMP’s capability to pursue a full investigation. He adds that there could be additional information but cannot speculate about its contents, describing a “Pandora box” metaphor. Speaker 0 states the record shows the prime minister’s department obstructed the RCMP investigation and asks if there is any other Canadian who could single-handedly block such an investigation. Speaker 2 declines to use the term “block,” reiterating that the RCMP operates within allowed parameters and acknowledges information outside access cannot be used. Speaker 0 asks whether the prime minister’s personal department provided an explanation for refusing to expand the order in council. Speaker 1 states that privilege exists for a reason and that they must operate within the established parameters. Speaker 0 suggests the situation appears to be part of a pattern of cover-up. Speaker 2 agrees to let others draw their own conclusions but reiterates that the RCMP made efforts to obtain more information, which was refused. Speaker 0 thanks Commissioner Cooper.
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.
@MichaelCooperMP - Michael Cooper, MP
SHOCKING Ontario Coroner's Report reveals new DISTURBING cases where MAID was given to patients due to "hopelessness, isolation and loneliness". More evidence that the Liberal Govt's MAID regime is OUT OF CONTROL, with vulnerable persons repeatedly falling through the cracks. https://t.co/Mhu4tzfbF0
@MichaelCooperMP - Michael Cooper, MP
SHOCKING Carney is COMPROMISED by Beijing. Weeks after becoming Trudeau's Economic Advisor, Carney secured a $250M loan from the PEOPLE'S BANK OF CHINA. No wonder he's HIDING his conflicts - his interests are AGAINST Canada's interests. Carney will NEVER put Canada first.
@PierrePoilievre - Pierre Poilievre
BREAKING: In September, Mark Carney officially became the Chair of Trudeau's Task Force on Economic Growth. In October, Carney met with the Deputy Director of the People's Bank of China. Just two weeks later, news broke that Brookfield secured a quarter billion dollar loan from the Chinese state-owned bank. Now he owes a hostile foreign regime. And his interests are against Canada’s interests. Why won’t he reveal to Canadians all his conflicts?
@MichaelCooperMP - Michael Cooper, MP
For 3 years, PMJT covered up massive infiltration by Beijing military scientists - who worked on biological weapons - at Canada's highest security lab. PMJT says he admires Beijing's "basic dictatorship." No wonder they had unfettered access to Canada's biological secrets. https://t.co/ETwXr367gw
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Prime Minister is accused of covering up a national security breach involving collaboration with Beijing military scientists. The Minister of Health deflects by highlighting achievements like National Pharma Care. The opposition criticizes the Prime Minister for ignoring Beijing's interference and allowing access to sensitive biological information. The Minister denies the accusations, stating that the scientists involved were Canadian citizens who deceived the Public Health Agency of Canada, leading to their dismissal and an ongoing RCMP investigation.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Mister speaker, after 8 years, this NDP liberal prime minister isn't worth the cost or the cover up. For 3 years, this prime minister covered up a terrifying national security breach at Canada's highest security WAF, hiding the fact that the head of special pathogens was actively collaborating with top Beijing military scientists engaged in biodefense and bioterrorism. So in the face of that, will the prime minister accept responsibility for this colossal failure on his watch?
Speaker 1: The honorable minister of health. Well, mister speaker, I'd answered that question in numerous occasions, but let me address the preposition to the start of that question where he says the, the the working together with another political party. He doesn't wanna do that, and I get that. He's used to making partisan points and not reaching across the aisle and collaborating. But you know what happens when you collaborate, mister speaker, when you work together?
You get National Pharma Care. You get the ability to say to those that have diabetes that you've got your back and you've got medication. You say to women, we're gonna give you real freedom. Freedom over your sexuality, freedom over re reproductive rights. That's what happens when when you stop focusing on partisan politics and you start focusing on results.
The honorable member from Edmonton
Speaker 0: I'm sorry. State Albert, Edmonton. What a disgraceful answer from this minister. A national security culture begins at the top with the prime minister. This is a prime minister who said that he admires Beijing's basic dictatorship.
This is a prime minister who over the past 8 years has repeatedly ignored Beijing's interference. So in the face of that, is it any wonder that under this prime minister's watch, top Beijing military scientists had unfettered access to some of Canada's most sensitive biological secrets.
Speaker 1: The honorable minister of health, Mister speaker, in the first order, that isn't true. What is true is that the public health agency of Canada, which is one of the most respected agencies in the world, that was there for us throughout the pandemic, is entirely responsible for its operations. And the truth is that they there were 2 individuals hired. They were Canadian citizens, eminent scientists, well known and well respected across Canadian across Canada and indeed, around the world who lied to the Public Health Agency of Canada. The Public Health Agency of Canada then took the very responsible action of firing those individuals, turning the matter over to the RCMP where they currently are under investigation, mister speaker.
@MichaelCooperMP - Michael Cooper, MP
More shocking corruption at the Liberals Green Slush Fund. A former board member admitted she funneled $42.5M to her own companies. Millions were funneled by other board members to companies they have an interest in. Yet, PMJT's Minister refuses to fire these Liberal insiders. https://t.co/uPbiiPhyTS
Video Transcript AI Summary
A board member at SDTC funneled $42.5 million of taxpayers' money into companies she had an interest in, enriching herself. Whistleblowers claim corruption and mismanagement at SDTC exceed $150 million. Despite this, no one has been held accountable. The chair resigned, but not at the minister's request, and the minister supports the corrupt SDTC board. The speaker questions why the minister prioritizes protecting liberal insiders who got rich improperly over addressing corruption in the Liberals' green slush fund.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Yesterday, we learned that another board member at SDTC had funneled a staggering $42,500,000 of taxpayers money into 4 companies that she had an interest in. She enriched herself to the tune of $42,500,000. It's unbelievable. And it appears that it only scratches the surface of corruption and mismanagement at SDTC because according to whistle blowers, the level of corruption and self dealing exceeds $150,000,000 of taxpayers money squandered. Madam speaker, despite the well documented corruption and mismanagement involving tens upon tens upon tens of 1,000,000 of dollars of taxpayers' money.
No one has been held accountable. The chair resigned, but not at the request of the minister, and the minister continues to stand behind the corrupt SDTC board. Why? Why is the minister more interested in protecting liberal insiders who got rich improperly at the expense of taxpayers rather than rooting out the rot and corruption at the Liberals green slush fund.
@MichaelCooperMP - Michael Cooper, MP
An independent report found that multiple board members of Justin Trudeau's Green Slush Fund funneled millions of taxpayer dollars to their own companies. This is self-dealing & corruption. Yet, Minister Champagne refuses to fire the Board. Liberals protecting Liberals. https://t.co/DSi5xFSHOQ
Video Transcript AI Summary
After 8 years, the NDP Liberal government is facing corruption allegations regarding the Green Slush fund. The chair of the fund resigned after funneling over $200,000 of taxpayers' money into her own company. An independent report suggests that this is just the tip of the iceberg. The Minister for Innovation claims that they have commissioned an independent investigation and frozen the fund. The CEO and chair have both resigned. The Minister defends the government's actions and promises to get to the bottom of the issue while continuing to support companies and invest in green technologies.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: After 8 years, this NDP Liberal government isn't worth the cost. The Liberal appointed chair of the Green Slush fund resigned in disgrace after it was revealed that she funneled more than $200,000 of taxpayers' money into her company. An independent report reveals that this just scratches the surface of corruption at the foundation. So how many more liberal insiders have used the green slush fund to line their pockets?
Speaker 1: The honorable min minister for innovation. Thank you very much, mister speaker. And I'm sure that Canadians who are watching this member are wondering what he's saying again, mister speaker. Let me Bring facts to the story. Mister speaker, from the moment we heard of allegation, we commissioned to have an independent investigation.
Should we froze the font of the of the, of the institution, mister speaker. We appointed we accepted the resignation of the chair. The CEO has resigned, mister speaker. We're gonna go to the bottom of this, mister speaker, and we're gonna continue to help the companies in our country, mister speaker.
Speaker 0: Mister speaker, the independent report revealed that multiple board members voted to funnel money from the fund to companies that they had an interest in. This is scandalous. In the face of evidence of self dealing and corruption, the minister has not seen fit to fire anyone. Why? Which liberal insiders fighters is he protected?
Speaker 1: The honorable minister for innovation. Thank you very much, mister speaker. And you know what is scandalous, mister speaker? Is these Conservative making claims, mister speaker. Making allegations against people, mister speaker.
What a responsible government does, mister speaker, is when there's a allegation, we investigate. That's exactly what we did, mister speaker. We suspended the financing of the organization. The CEO has resigned. We have Accepted the resignation of the chair, mister speaker.
We're gonna go to the bottom of this, but we're gonna continue to help companies in this country. We invest in green technologies, mister speaker.
@Cooper4SAE - Michael Cooper, MP
A CSIS memo sent to Bill Blair & his CoS warning that MPs were being targeted by a Beijing diplomat went unread. Incredibly, he didn’t even know the location of the secure terminal where he would have found the memo - down the hall from his office! Staggering incompetence. https://t.co/35Oc3S8p0N
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker questions the Minister about whether her chief of staff read an issues management note. The Minister denies that her chief of staff read it. The speaker accuses the Minister of providing inaccurate testimony in previous committee meetings. The Minister admits that she did not read the issues management note but argues that it was not brought to her attention. The speaker criticizes the Minister for not knowing the location of a secure terminal on the same floor as her office. The Minister defends herself, stating that she does not have access to the terminal. The speaker questions whether the Minister instructed her officials to bring important memos to her attention. The Minister explains that she was not advised about the memo and that it was not shared with her. The speaker argues that the Minister should take responsibility for not reading the memo. The Minister acknowledges the need for responsibility and states that steps have been taken to address the issue. The speaker accuses the Minister of blaming others and asserts that she has failed. The Minister disagrees with the characterization and emphasizes the importance of addressing what did not happen.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Thank you, madam chair. Minister, did your chief of staff, Zita Stravis, read the issues management note, which was also sent to her?
Speaker 1: No. I my understanding is no. I I wouldn't testify for her, but but I asked and she said no.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Minister, for you madam chair, you have had a history, over the last to meetings that you've appeared before this committee in providing inaccurate testimony? On June 1st, you said that the issues management note was withheld by you as part of an operational decision by CSIS, which you now concede, is not the case, but there was an intent that you, see that issues management note? You said in answer to a question that I post to you that the issues management note had not been sent to you even though I have a redacted copy of the issues management note that clearly indicates that it was sent to you? The fact that you didn't read it, the fact that it went into a big black hole is an entirely different matter, minister.
And madam chair of minister, you, seem to make a big deal about accessing a secure terminal. You cited that this would have been transmitted to a secure terminal in the deputy minister of public safety's office. Can you confirm that your office and the deputy minister's office at which this secure terminal is located are at the 19th floor the 269 Laurier?
Speaker 1: I don't know where the secure terminal is, but mister Cooper, if if I wrote you a letter and wrote your name on the letter and then put it back in my brief and never told you the letter existed and never showed it to you and didn't didn't give you access to my briefcase. I think we could assume that you didn't know that I'd written you the letter.
Speaker 0: Admit minister, you mean to tell me you don't know where the secure terminal is on the same floor as your office, in the deputy minister's office? How is that is that is that an answer that lends itself confidence on the part of Canadians that you had a grip on fulfilling your responsibilities and receiving information in this case on a matter of high importance involving a member of parliament who was being targeted by Beijing? Really, minister?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Really, mister Cooper. Really, mister Cooper. That office was not that terminal is is on the other side of building? I do not have access to it.
I I do not have any access to it, and I don't know precisely where it's located because frankly, if I knew where it was located, I might have been given access
Speaker 0: Well, minister, I'm glad I you've now discovered where it is. But but, minister, had you not fought to go down the hall? Did you had you you you talk about this expectation, an expectation that led to this issues management note going into a big black hole. Had you directed your officials to bring to your attention issues management notes on matters of high importance that were addressed to you? Did you ever instruct them to bring those memos to your attention?
I mean, how is it possible? I mean, how can you be told? Do you do you have to be told to read documents that are sent to your attention? Do you have to be told by officials before you bother to do so?
Speaker 1: Mister Cooper, just to be really clear, I have to be advised that that there's a memo that needs to be read, and it was not in this case. The direct the director did not advise me in every other circumstances, and I had that job for 2 years. In every other circumstances, the director would notify my office that he had Top secret information that he needed to convey to me. He would convene a meeting that I would attend in a secure facility, and that information would be shared. That did not happen in this case.
And on there were a few other occasions twice, by the way, in that month where I was actually asked to go down to the Toronto office. That, again, that information was not shared. And and so I I have no way of asking or demanding to be to see a note I don't know exists.
Speaker 0: Mister, does your staff have to tell you to read your emails? Does your staff to tell you to check your text messages? It's right here. And It was sent to you. Now minister And
Speaker 1: mister Cooper, you're confused to what what is
Speaker 0: in your mind. I'm pausing. Do you accept the principle of ministerial responsibility? And absolutely. And consistent with that, do you accept that the buck stops with you as minister, not your officials, not the director of ceaseless with you?
Speaker 1: I believe in responsibility, and I believe taking responsibility means fixing things that don't go well in your department. And in this case, information was not shared, and it should have been. And so steps have been taken down to remedy that.
Speaker 0: And you have spent this entire meeting throwing the director of ceaseless under the bus throwing your deputy minister under the bus? Everyone is responsible but you, minister. Minister, you failed and you failed
Speaker 1: Mister mister Cooper, I'd I simply disagree with your characterization. I I have not throwing anyone under the bus. I'm what happened and in this case, what did not happen that should have happened.