TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The member from Spadina, Fort York, addressed the prime minister regarding national security and the upcoming Hogue Commission report on foreign interference. He questioned the prime minister's ability to work alongside ministers who may not be serving Canada's interests, implying that at least one minister could be compromised. In response, the prime minister criticized the member's comments as disgraceful and irreverent, emphasizing the seriousness of national security issues. He pointed out that the member's alignment with the Conservative Party is concerning, as their leader lacks the necessary clearance for briefings essential to keeping Canadians safe.

Canadians demand transparency in investigating potential traitors. The government is cooperating with the Hogg Commission and providing necessary documents. The National Security Committee of Parliamentarians will also be involved. The opposition should refrain from making baseless claims in parliament.

A commission of inquiry must balance the need for transparency with protecting Canada's national security. It is important for the public and journalists to know if foreign actors targeted Canada's democratic process, but revealing sensitive information could harm national interests. While transparency is crucial, secrecy is also necessary in certain situations to prevent more harm than good.

The speakers discuss a dangerous and divided world, citing threats from Iran, Russia, and China, as well as changing security and commercial relationships with the United States. One speaker mentions having obtained top secret security clearance within three weeks to be informed and make decisions. He then points out that another speaker has refused the opportunity to obtain top secret security clearance for 950 days. The other speaker explains that while he previously held top secret clearance as a minister, he refused the recent offer because it would have gagged him under security law, preventing him from speaking freely about foreign interference without fear of prosecution. He claims Canada has experienced Chinese interference in two elections. He says that refusing the clearance allowed him to speak freely about issues such as a candidate who allegedly threatened a political opponent, and a quarter billion dollar loan obtained in China. The first speaker responds that robust debate has occurred despite the situation, and observes that China is not the only country accused of foreign interference.

I am currently seeking answers regarding classified briefings to ensure none of my MPs have ties to foreign powers. If any do, they should not run in the next election. Other party leaders should do the same. The federal government should be more engaged in defending Quebec regarding bill 96.

The speaker claims that every Canadian prime minister has been compromised by agents of influence working for Chinese intelligence. This poses a significant security risk, raising concerns about who is truly in control of the country. They suggest the need for an independent investigation to protect against future threats, citing Australia's law against foreign interference as a model to follow.

The speaker mentioned that some people were inside the Capitol and the SSA responded. The speaker was personally involved in these conversations and questioned why they couldn't be shown the 11,000 hours of available video footage. The reason given was that there might be undercover officers or confidential human sources in the videos whose identities needed to be safeguarded. The speaker then mentioned Mr. Allen experiencing retaliation.

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.

The Prime Minister previously supported ENSCOCOP's role in examining foreign interference in Canada's democracy, but there seems to be a shift in stance. Questions arise about whether a recent ENSCOCOP report revealed involvement of Liberals seeking political and financial gain. Is the Prime Minister still committed to transparency and public trust in institutions, or has external influence changed this approach? In response, the Minister for Public Safety emphasizes the importance of oversight, noting that the government established a committee of parliamentarians to monitor security agencies for the first time. This committee includes members from all political parties, and their recommendations have been acted upon to enhance national security and combat foreign interference.

I want to be very clear. We can prove that every federal government, from mister Mulroney to mister Trudeau, have been compromised by agent of the communist China. Every government were informed at one point or another. Every government chose to ignore CISO's warning either by negligence, self interest or partnership partisanship, sorry. Every government were infiltrated by agents of influence acting on behalf of the Chinese government, and we knew who they were.

The speaker from Halton Hills accuses the government of neglecting national security, citing documents that show collaboration between Canadian government employees and Beijing's biological weapons unit. The Health Minister's claim that no sensitive information left the country is contradicted by the documents. The speaker questions if the minister still supports those comments. Translation: The speaker criticizes the government for ignoring national security concerns and collaborating with Beijing's biological weapons unit. The Health Minister's statement that no sensitive information left the country is disputed by the documents. The speaker questions if the minister still stands by those remarks.

Documents are being suppressed to protect individuals, and the speaker knows the names of those individuals, why they're being suppressed, and who is suppressing them. However, the speaker is bound by confidentiality from a judge and cases and cannot disclose this information. The speaker knows the names of people whose files are being suppressed for protection, which they believe is wrong. The individuals being protected are politicians and business leaders, among others.

The speaker claims to know that documents are being suppressed to protect individuals, and knows the names of those individuals, why they are being suppressed, and who is suppressing them. However, the speaker states they are bound by confidentiality from a judge and cases, and cannot disclose what they know. When asked if those being protected are politicians, business leaders, or both, the speaker responds that they are everything.

The speaker mentioned that there were individuals inside the Capitol and the SSA responded. The speaker questioned why they couldn't be shown the 11,000 hours of available video footage. The reason given was that there might be undercover officers or confidential human sources whose identities needed protection. The speaker then mentioned that Mr. Allen faced retaliation.

The speaker claims that not only the current government, but all previous governments have ignored their warnings about interference. They believe it took so long for this information to come out because of partisan politics and the influence of Chinese intelligence agents. According to the speaker, every prime minister and government office has been compromised, posing a significant security risk for Canadians. They suggest the need for an independent investigation and the implementation of laws similar to Australia's 2017 law against foreign interference to protect the country's future.

Trudeau government covered up a security breach at a sensitive lab where dangerous viruses are studied. Head of pathogens collaborated with Beijing's People's Liberation Army, allowing access to important virological secrets. A PLA official had personal access to computers. Read the report for details. Translation: The Trudeau government hid a security breach at a lab studying dangerous viruses. The head of pathogens worked with China's People's Liberation Army, giving them access to vital virological information. A PLA official had personal access to computers. Check the report for more information.

When prime minister Carney set up his blind trust, he knew exactly what went in it. The holdings in these funds have not been disclosed to the public. But the prime minister, he knows what's in them. These are millions of dollars to our best estimation. In New York, when the prime minister was there just last week, he met with a variety of investment managers, all who are implicated in funds that he holds. That places them in a pretty precarious position of conflict. It's highly likely that, Mark Carney's Liberal government has made or will make publicly policy decisions that will impact the success of the holdings in these funds, Canada's at risk of entering a massive conflict of interest scenario. So mister Koniker, shouldn't the prime minister be absolutely required to disclose the assets that exist within these funds?

The speaker discovered a confidentiality agreement between the US and UK regarding vaccine adverse events. They express concern about why this information was being kept secret and mention a similar agreement with China during the early days of COVID. The speaker questions the need for secrecy and finds it troubling. This confidentiality agreement with the UK was previously unknown.

Why is there a classified briefing about hobbyist drones if they aren't military? I can't speak for Congress on that. We're sharing as much information as possible, but I don't have the details of the briefing to clarify what is classified. Rest assured, we are providing all the information we can based on what we know.

Adam Schiff misled about classified information to target Trump, which raises concerns about his trustworthiness with sensitive data. He should not serve on any committees.

The speaker claims that both the current and previous governments have ignored their warnings about interference. They believe there are two reasons for this delay: partisan interests and infiltration by Chinese intelligence agents. According to the speaker, every prime minister and government office has been compromised by these agents. This poses a significant security risk for Canadians, as it raises questions about who is really in control of the country. The speaker suggests the need for an independent investigation and the implementation of laws, similar to those in Australia, to protect against foreign interference.

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.

In the discussion, Congressmen Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie were shown viewing the unredacted Epstein files on Capitol Hill, including material that had been previously redacted by the DOJ. The hosts question why large portions of the files were redacted and accuse Pam Bondi’s team of noncompliance with the Epstein Transparency Act. They suggest the move to foreground Bondi is a signal of political maneuvering to manage the release of the documents. Speaker 1 presents a Super Bowl ad urging the DOJ to release what the law requires, followed by a note that Epstein’s associate and alleged child sex trafficking figure Ghislain (Ghislaine) Maxwell appeared before Congress and invoked the Fifth Amendment when asked about the men who allegedly abused underage girls. Ro Khanna’s reaction is shared: Maxwell should not be in a cushy setting and should be sent back to maximum security. Speaker 2 emphasizes that, of the files released, the names of clients and coconspirators in the sex trafficking ring have not been disclosed, while victims’ names have been released. This is framed as either over-redaction or omission, with a claim that government names should not be redacted under the Transparency Act. Speaker 0 introduces Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, who explains her perspective. She notes the urgency of transparency and states that victims deserve the truth, accusing the DOJ of failing to comply with the Epstein Transparency Act and calling out a persistent “battle” over the release of files even after the 2025 law. Speaker 3 (Greene) describes the impact of the disclosures, noting that the files reveal “violence, possibly murder,” and that survivors’ testimonies are harrowing. She recounts facing personal and political backlash for pushing disclosure, arguing that the administration and many Republicans have shifted their positions since the revelations. She asserts that the released files show that “the DOJ breaking the law” through redactions of names of former presidents, secretaries of state, and government officials, while leaving victim information exposed. Speaker 4 asks Greene about the possibility that the information might point to a broader, deeper network. Greene responds by stating that the files include FBI forms about Epstein, implying a level of official involvement, and asserts that the Trump administration has not released the information; she claims President Trump referred to the Epstein issue as a “Democrat hoax” and that Pam Bondi, who works for Trump, controls the release. Greene suggests the “independent counsel” would be the American people themselves, explaining distrust toward political figures and the two-party system. She shares that she would not vote to support foreign aid or a central bank digital currency, and notes the chilling effect of the retaliation she and Massey have faced from party structures, including loss of campaign staff and suggestions of political blacklisting. Speaker 0 asks about potential accountability or a special counsel and whether there might be more significant revelations. Greene predicts limited accountability, arguing that the president has influence over DOJ and other agencies, and that the people are the true independent counsel. She laments the “uni-party” dynamic and predicts continued resistance to releasing the full Epstein files. Towards the end, Greene reiterates that she does not plan to run for higher office and reflects on the broader political environment, emphasizing that the public’s demand for transparency could drive change. The dialogue closes with Greene expressing willingness to return and discuss further.