reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker discusses consulting fees received from OSI Technologies, a company owned by Francisco Partners. They criticize Lynn for publicly sharing a private conversation and express disbelief at the accusation of making $1,000,000 from Pegasus. The speaker clarifies that they had a $100,000 consulting fee with Francisco Partners. They mention the speaker's extensive military intelligence background and question the need for scrutinizing every detail. Another person brings up a document suggesting the speaker received $1,000,000 from Pegasus, but the speaker denies it as false information and fake news. The conversation ends with a warning to be cautious.

The Prime Minister's $60 million Arrive scam is being investigated by the RCMP. Contractors received millions from the project, with evidence of fraud and corruption. Liberals want internal investigations, but this lacks accountability. Testimony revealed bribery, extortion, and criminal acts. The project was deemed a waste of money by the auditor general. Liberals tried to block key witnesses from testifying. Conservatives continue to push for accountability.

The speaker asked Chat GPT how much money the Pentagon had unaccounted for in its last audit. Chat GPT initially stated the Pentagon had about $220 billion in assets. The speaker thought the figure was closer to $1.5 trillion and corrected Chat GPT. Chat GPT responded that the speaker was correct and that in its most recent audit, the Pentagon could not account for $1.5 trillion in assets. The speaker then prompted Chat GPT to put $1.5 trillion into perspective. Chat GPT stated that if you spent $1 million every day since the birth of Christ, you still would not have spent $1.5 trillion, and it would take over 4,100 years to reach that amount. The speaker emphasizes that $1.5 trillion is just the amount of money that is unaccounted for.

Gates was asked to condemn Microsoft's Azure program for allegedly leaking sensitive classified information to the CCP. He was also asked if he is pro-CCP. The speaker referenced the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation's financial connections to the CCP and its ownership of Microsoft shares. Gates was asked again to condemn Microsoft's government Azure program for leaking classified information from the US military. Gates did not respond.

Official A states that in 2022, the office found that president Biden's DHS allowed some Afghans into the country before they were fully vetted, including one who had been liberated from prison by the Taliban. Official A notes that over 50 known or suspected terrorists had entered the United States as a result of Biden administration screening or lack thereof, and that last month the director of national intelligence said that 2,000 Afghans in America may have ties to terrorism. Official A asks whether a formal vetting process was in place, and asserts that the department did not have a formal process at the start of the OAW. Official A repeats the figure and corrects it to 36,000, calling it astounding. Official B replies that CARE, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, is the organization in question, stating that CARE was founded at a 1993 meeting and that they specifically state they are going to present themselves as a legitimate civil rights organization while furthering the mission of Hamas. Official A asks how much money CARE received from the federal government to shepherd Afghan parolees. Official B responds that CARE received $15,000,000 in California and more than $1,000,000 in Washington. Official A adds that when they check federal databases for CARE, they find nothing, and Official B explains that the money did not go directly from the federal government to CARE, but rather through an intermediary, and that this is how they’ve hidden the money. Official A states, “We need to find out where this money has gone. This is a scandal. This is corruption, and we've gotta figure out how taxpayer money has ended up in the hands of yet another organization terrorized.”

The speaker asks a series of yes or no questions to determine the qualifications of Speaker 1. Speaker 1 admits to not having experience in creating or balancing a budget, acquiring or selling a business, raising capital, providing quarterly reports to shareholders, choosing health insurance plans for employees, dealing with workers' compensation, filing taxes for a business, complying with federal regulations, or having their business model threatened by government regulations. Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1's understanding of corporations based on a comment made in 2005, to which Speaker 1 does not provide a clear answer.

How many relatives, including in-laws, do you have on your payroll? We hire based on qualifications only. Assuming they are all qualified, how many are related to you, and what are their roles? Everyone on my staff is uniquely qualified. What are their relationships and salaries? There’s a transport portal for transparency. So, the portal reveals family connections? I stand by my team; they are the best. Did you hire a brother-in-law for over $100,000? I appreciate the question. You did, didn’t you? We have the best staff in our office. I've never seen such refusal to disclose information while asking for budget increases. I will vote against your budget due to your lack of transparency regarding contracts and relatives. Thank you for your time.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 about payments made through GC Strategies and their relationship with Mr. Firth. Speaker 1 states they are not friends with Mr. Firth and have only met him a few times. Speaker 0 questions why Speaker 1 trusted Mr. Firth for an important project, mentioning the expensive cost and illegal detainment of Canadians. Speaker 0 also mentions allegations of lying and rule-breaking, leading to an RCMP investigation. Speaker 1 admits that Mr. Firth was not honest, but is unsure about the others. Speaker 0 requests a detailed written explanation of their dishonesty. Speaker 1 agrees to provide it within 72 hours.

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.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about accepting a large IPO deal from Visa while serving as Speaker of the House. Speaker 1 defends the decision, stating there was no conflict of interest. Speaker 0 presses for clarification, but Speaker 1 maintains there was no wrongdoing.

A federal consulting group within the Department of Interior managed contracts for various agencies. One contract was for $830 million to conduct surveys. The surveys were simple, consisting of 10 questions on an 8.5 x 11 sheet of paper, easily created by a child or AI. This contract was stopped after the inauguration. The speaker stated that the contract was a fraud.

Two individuals who ran a company with no other employees were hired by the government to do no IT work. Instead, they subcontracted the work and received over $11,000,000 for themselves. The government's decision to hire these middlemen who did not perform any IT work is questionable. The speaker questions why government officials thought it was a good idea to give such a large sum to these individuals. The response from Speaker 1 suggests that the hiring was done through a standing offer or supply arrangement. The speaker further highlights the absurdity of the situation, wondering why any two Canadians couldn't do the same. The lack of knowledge regarding who made the decision to hire these individuals is mentioned, with an ongoing investigation by the RCMP.

Antonio Utano and Cameron McDonald have been suspended without pay in the ArriveCAN scandal. The government is using public servants as scapegoats instead of taking responsibility for the $54 million scandal. Taxpayers are unhappy and want the truth. The ministers need to show leadership and oversight to prevent such scandals. The Public Safety Minister, Minister Duclos, and Minister Anand should come to the Government Operations Committee to explain and take responsibility. This is an opportunity for them to make things right and not leave public servants and taxpayers in a mess. The Minister of Public Safety should start by attending the committee.

Speaker 0 addresses Microsoft Azure, saying, “Like to condemn Microsoft Azure program for leaking sensitive classified information to the CCP.” The speaker then questions Bill Gates directly: “And then I think that Are you pro CCP, mister Gates? I understand your foundation owns a lot of Microsoft shares now, and your Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has heavily financed and is financially connected to the CCP.” The speaker asks, “So is that why you're not answering the questions about governments, Microsoft's Azure program, mister Gates?” Continuing, the speaker presses the issue: “Are you sure you don't wanna condemn them for leaking classified information from our US military?” The speaker reiterates the demand: “One more time, mister Gates. Would you like to condemn Microsoft's government Azure program for leaking classified information at the CCP?” The response implied by the transcript is “No? Okay.”

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about their role in the government of Canada and the value their company provides. Speaker 1 explains that they manage the company and are responsible for governance and daily operations. They clarify that their company specializes in project and contract management for federal government contracts. Speaker 0 challenges this, stating that the subcontractor deals directly with the government and questions the actual value Speaker 1's company adds. Speaker 1 emphasizes the importance of security clearances, billing, and overall contract management. Speaker 0 argues that Speaker 1's company doesn't actually produce anything and compares it to hiring someone else to do a job. Speaker 1 defends their company's work, highlighting the effort put into bidding and responding to requests for proposals. The conversation ends as time runs out.

Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1's travel expenses are being paid and by whom. Speaker 1 says it depends on the expenses and doesn't see why they have to justify their travel to Quinell, but confirms they were invited. Speaker 0 asks who invited them and if they are selling books, inquiring about their motivation for going. Speaker 1 states they receive no money for the books. Speaker 0 suggests it's a lot of trouble to claim 215 children died to get $7,000,000, implying there are easier ways to obtain that amount.

Speaker 0: We are proud to have penetrated the cabinet. Speaker 1: A constituent asked about outside interference in our democracy. Klaus Schwab, head of the World Economic Forum, boasted about infiltrating governments worldwide, including over half of Canada's cabinet. Can the member disclose which cabinet ministers support the WEF agenda for transparency? Speaker 2: Sorry for the poor audio and video quality. I'm unsure if the member...

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if they know who Palantir is and if they agree with the comparison to Stanford Analytica. Speaker 1 says they haven't heard that. Speaker 0 then asks if Palantir taught Cambridge Analytica how to use certain tactics, to which Speaker 1 replies that they don't know. Lastly, Speaker 0 asks if Palantir has ever scraped data from Facebook, and Speaker 1 says they are not aware of that.

A company that never had federal government contracts suddenly received a billion dollars for IT, even though it doesn't do IT and has only 4 employees in a basement cottage headquarters. The speaker questions why this suspicious company started getting contracts exactly 21 days after the prime minister took office. The prime minister's response is that the relevant authorities need to investigate the situation. Meanwhile, the focus on the government's side is on making life more affordable for Canadians, such as attracting healthcare workers, forgiving student loans for rural doctors and nurses, and accelerating housing construction. The conservative party is blocking these initiatives, but the government will continue to support Canadians.

The Liberal NDP Coalition government held an emergency meeting with the Auditor General of Canada to discuss the $54 million ArriveCAN app scandal. The RCMP is now investigating potential criminality related to the app's contracts. However, the government shut down the Auditor General's testimony after just 30 minutes of a scheduled 2-hour meeting. Serious allegations of fraudulent contract practices have been made, and there is concern about how an app could cost taxpayers such a large amount. The opposition party vows to expose the corruption and hold those responsible accountable. They believe the NDP liberal government is not worth the cost.

Speaker 0: "Do you owe your conspiracy theory friend an apology? The government has finally admitted that they have a contract with the WEF, a $105,000,000 for a digital identity program. No. Would you take a look at that? Oh, there it is. Right there. Okay."

Speaker 0 asks if anyone on the vaccine committee has received money from vaccine manufacturers. Speaker 1 tries to answer but is interrupted. Speaker 1 explains that according to regulations, people who receive royalties are not required to disclose them, even under the Bayh Dole Act.

The procurement watchdog revealed that 76% of contractors involved in Trudeau's $54 million ArriveCAN app did no work at all. This includes the IT firm GC Strategies, which received $11 million. Trudeau's government has spent $1 billion on outside consultants, costing each Canadian family around $1,400. GC Strategies alone has received over $60 million in government contracts since 2017. This is just the beginning of the corruption and waste within Trudeau's government. Canadians are struggling while insiders in Ottawa profit. The procurement ombudsman's report exposes the lack of work done by contractors, and we await the auditor general's findings. We will continue to investigate and expose the corruption in Trudeau's government. Share this video to help us uncover the truth.

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.

New information reveals that ArriveCAN contractors submitted receipts for a non-existent company. The investigation already involves allegations of identity theft, forged resumes, contractual theft, fraudulent billing, price fixing, and collusion in the creation of the $54 million ArriveCAN app. The speaker questions how much worse this situation can get and asks which Liberal insiders got rich. In response, the honorable minister states that public servants are expected to follow appropriate contracting practices. The Border Services Agency uncovered information during an internal audit and referred it to the police. The minister emphasizes the importance of letting the RCMP handle the investigation.