TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

There are concerns about releasing the names of parliamentarians in the unredacted NCAP report. The speaker emphasizes the importance of protecting secret information to maintain trade partnerships. They mention the distinction between need-to-know and right-to-know when sharing information with the government. If an MP were to reveal classified information under parliamentary privilege, it would pose a challenge for the RCMP Commissioner. The speaker hopes to avoid such a situation.

The meeting was abruptly adjourned after the motion was made by Madame Fortier. The motion was not up for debate, so a vote was taken. The majority voted in favor of adjourning the meeting, despite the presence of the RCMP commissioner and staff sergeant. The speaker expressed disappointment in the Liberal members who voted to shut down the meeting, accusing them of protecting Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. The speaker criticized the use of cabinet confidence to withhold information from the RCMP, hindering their investigation into obstruction of justice charges. The speaker concluded by stating that after 8 years of Trudeau's leadership, transparency and accountability are lacking in our democratic institutions.

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.

The committee asked for information on how many of these so‑called police stations are operating currently in Canada, and whether any have been shut down. Response: There is deep concern about allegations and reports of foreign interference, including public reports of these so‑called police stations. The details of the investigation are the subject of ongoing initiatives by the RCMP, and questions about those details should be directed to the commissioner. The subsequent question specifically asked the commissioner to provide information to Canadians on how many of these alleged stations are operating in Canada, have operated previously, and if any have been shut down. Answer: Currently, we’re looking at three of the police stations in Toronto and one in Vancouver. We’re working with our police jurisdictions as well as with other Government of Canada national security agencies. An investigation has been initiated and is led by the Greater Toronto Integrated National Security Enforcement Team (INSET). So far, elements of the investigation have been very overt—there have been marked police cars and uniformed members to cause disruption to the allegations. We’ve released that visible presence, and that’s mostly so that people will see the actions, for two reasons: first, because we need more information, and second, so that when police are in the area dealing with the allegations, people will come forward. The investigation is ongoing, and while the details can’t be discussed publicly, a statement in October/November indicated that an investigation was underway into reports of possible activities at those locations. The committee member then asked for clarification: Can you confirm that you know the locations of these supposed police stations, and that RCMP in uniform have been at those locations causing disruption? Response: No. In the initial instances, instead of disruption by going in uniform with marked police cars, the approach was to speak with the people involved at those police stations or locations because those locations are a legitimate business in the front. The committee then asked for a timeline on when the investigation would conclude and whether the allegations are true. The conversation moved to indicate the inquiry would continue, but no specific conclusion timeline was provided in the exchanged statements.

The speaker accuses the government of covering up corruption and obstructing a criminal investigation into the prime minister's conduct. They highlight the prime minister's involvement in the SNC Lavalin scandal and his firing of the attorney general. The speaker criticizes the prime minister's ethical violations and claims that he thwarted a criminal investigation. The meeting is abruptly adjourned, angering the speaker who believes the government is trying to protect the prime minister. They mention the use of cabinet confidence to hide information from the RCMP. The speaker concludes that after 8 years, the prime minister is not worth the cost and promises to speak further on the matter.

There's no cross-examination allowed in this committee, so important questions remain unaddressed. For instance, why did a Capitol Hill police officer with a history of mishandling firearms shoot an unarmed Air Force veteran in the neck? We're also not allowed to inquire about the thousands of hours of surveillance footage or why police were seen letting people into the Capitol on January 6th. These critical issues are off-limits for questioning.

The conversation centers on the Epstein file controversy, the DOJ's handling of it, and what the speakers see as systemic failures and political risk for Donald Trump and allied figures. - The Epstein/file issue is framed as predictable and frustrating. Alex Jones notes a “slow drip of nothing” and calls the initial promise of full file disclosure a pattern of “promise something, deliver nothing.” Pam Bondi’s statement that “the files were on my desk” is discussed as an apparent misstep or staged moment, but the core point is that large amounts of material are not being released despite public promises. - The discourse questions where the files actually reside and who controls access. The claim that a “truckload of files” existed and was hidden at DOJ is rejected as a mischaracterization; the speakers emphasize that the FBI and DOJ have files, but access and disclosure have been hampered by internal political dynamics. They highlight the tension between the Southern District of New York and the DOJ, noting that SDNY answers to the DOJ and the Attorney General, thereby questioning the premise that one regional office is independently sabotaging access. - There is a persistent critique of DOJ leadership and governance. The argument is that DOJ has not been “rooted out of corruption,” with mid-level and high-level managers and appointees still in place, propagating practices that the speakers deem contrary to transparency and accountability. They point to supposed failures by individuals such as Cash Patel and Pam Bondi in relying on FBI briefings rather than verifiable records, suggesting that power in intelligence agencies is still too dependent on information control. - The Epstein files are treated as emblematic of a broader issue: a two-tier or selective justice system. The speakers argue that there’s a pattern whereby powerful individuals have access to information and protection, while the public lacks full visibility. They mention that Trump’s response and the way the files have been handled have become a larger “Russiagate-like” narrative, with Epstein serving as a lightning rod for accusations of corruption and cover-up. - The political dynamic is central. Several participants emphasize that Trump’s stance and the responses of his allies are under intense scrutiny. They discuss the risk that Trump’s association with the Epstein disclosures could become a political liability if the files aren’t released. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Tom Massey are mentioned as consistent voices pushing for full disclosure, while Roger Stone’s warnings about CIA and foreign involvement in the Epstein nexus are cited as supporting the view that a larger, international financial/transnational network may be implicated. - There is criticism of how the media and political opponents handle the issue. The speakers claim Democrats are using hearings to turn the Epstein matter into a broader political weapon and to portray Trump as obstructive or complicit, regardless of the factual state of file disclosure. They argue that the public is being led by a PR war, with “photoshopped” or redacted material used to frame narratives rather than to reveal truth. - The discussion turns toward accountability and remedies. The speakers insist that federal law requires the release of the Epstein files by a deadline, and that failing to comply constitutes a constitutional or institutional crisis. They argue that Congress lacks direct enforcement power and must consider funding or other leverage to compel compliance, noting the apparent reluctance of Congress to act decisively. - There are predictions about personnel changes and institutional reform. Dan Bongino is discussed as likely to depart from his DOJ-related role, with Todd Blanche as the lead prosecutor taking heat for not meeting deadlines. Andrew Bailey is floated as a potential replacement. The broader implication is that there will be a shake-up in DOJ and possibly FBI leadership in the near term, though the speakers acknowledge uncertainty about how far reforms will go or whether entrenched interests will impede real change. - The Epstein matter is used to illustrate how compromises and cover-ups operate across power structures. The speakers argue that the problem isn’t just the existence of the files but how the system treats those files—how access is controlled, how redactions are justified, and how political narratives are constructed around high-profile investigations. Harmony Dillon and Liz Harrington are cited as voices who underscore the need for mid-level reform and more transparency, suggesting that the deepest issues lie in organizational culture and incentives rather than in isolated acts by a few individuals. - A broader reflection on American governance finishes the discussion. The speakers warn that a failure to release the Epstein files or to purge corrupt practices could deepen distrust in federal institutions and threaten the legitimacy of the government. They suggest that if reform stalls, the country might devolve into a state-by-state dynamic or other less cohesive arrangements, as confidence in a functioning central government erodes. In summary, the transcript frames the Epstein file disclosures as a litmus test for DOJ integrity and political accountability. It portrays a pattern of delayed or selective disclosure, questions about who controls information within the FBI/DOJ, and a risk that political calculations are interfering with lawful obligations. It also foresees significant leadership changes and intensified scrutiny of the department in the near future, with Epstein serving as a focal point for broader critiques of how power and information are managed in the United States.

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 government says it has been in close contact with Ottawa's mayor and municipal and provincial officials, and that the RCMP has mobilized nearly 300 officers to support the Ottawa Police Services, with readiness to do more. A second speaker says Trudeau is using police against the public, and describes officials and others with terms such as “globalist players and thugs.” The transcript centers on Peter Slowly, portrayed as a former deputy police chief who allegedly argued that being Black made him a suitable candidate for Toronto's next police chief, and who resigned after not being chosen. It is claimed he joined Deloitte, whose CEO sits on Pfizer’s board and who was awarded money by the CDC to build a vaccine-management system, and that Slowly was made chief of the Ottawa police a few months before the COVID-19 pandemic. The text links these claims to alleged international private-sector connections.

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.

The speaker is part of a senate bipartisan investigation into an assassination attempt. According to the speaker, the Secret Service and FBI are dragging their feet and not providing requested documents, such as 302s and interview transcriptions. Documents that are provided are heavily redacted and delivered the day of the interview, making them unusable. The speaker believes this behavior is suspicious and fuels conspiracy theories. They claim releasing the body for cremation before autopsy or toxicology reports further drives suspicion and conspiracy theories.

The speaker questions the FBI's practice of tipping off the subject of a search warrant before it is executed. They inquire about the FBI's contact with the protective detail of individuals and the potential undermining of investigations. The speaker expresses frustration with the lack of answers and accuses the FBI of a cover-up. Director Wray requests a 5-minute recess. The speaker acknowledges the frustration but explains that policies prevent discussing ongoing investigations. They mention that these policies were strengthened under the previous administration. The speaker concludes by stating that there is an obligation to call out corruption.

I will be questioning the RCMP commissioner tomorrow about why they chose not to investigate Justin Trudeau's actions in the SNC Lavalin scandal. Trudeau pressured Jody Wilson Raybould to offer a deal to SNC Lavalin, but she stood firm. I will ask why Trudeau wasn't charged with obstruction of justice. Stay tuned for updates.

Speaker 0 notes a doubling or tripling of baby deaths in the last year, which sparked curiosity. Speaker 1 says their own government told them a medical treatment was safe, and it killed babies. Speaker 2 states they have lost all faith that Health Canada is looking out genuine for the best interests of Canadians. Speaker 1 says doctors made extra money to push vaccines and were given a billing code to do it, and she has pulled all the billing codes. Speaker 3 asserts they’ve purchased the vaccine that hasn’t been approved and distributed it to the provinces, so the second it’s approved they can start jabbing themselves and pregnant mothers with it. Speaker 4 asks why vaccinations were necessary, noting that when going to the hospital for birth, you expect to go home, and then you don’t. Speaker 0 suspects criminal negligence by the government and public health officials. Speaker 2 agrees, saying “Possible.” Speaker 0 contends they pushed a narrative to everybody, including pregnant and breastfeeding women, that the mRNA shots were safe and effective. Speaker 2 recalls wiretapping, harassment, and charges, and that they didn’t allow any expert witnesses to testify. Speaker 1 says Canadian babies died, and police are trying to cover it up by stopping detective Helen Graves from testifying about it. Speaker 3 comments that dominant individuals maintain subordinates’ place through constant aggression. Speaker 5 argues that choosing not to vaccinate is one thing, but being unable to fly or ride trains with vaccinated people and thus putting them at risk is another issue. Speaker 2 says CBC started with a story to implicate her and paint her in an uncomplimentary light to the public. Speaker 6 claims Canada must shift its understanding of CBC, describing it as a state broadcaster pushing the agenda of the Liberal government of Canada. Speaker 3 declares this is the most significant health matter affecting children today, and they are still not investigating. Speaker 2 asserts that everything emanates outward from this case involving law enforcement, the judicial system, the pharmaceutical industry, and health agencies, and how they work together and censored information; all of it ties to this one case, making it dangerous.

Speaker 0 calls Speaker 1 to confirm that three excavators were disabled to prevent illegal activity. Speaker 0 asks about the expectation of how the excavators would be used, but Speaker 1 doesn't have an answer. Speaker 0 thanks Speaker 1 and ends the call. Speaker 0 then calls Corporal Southern Cobb to confirm the damage caused by the RCMP. Speaker 1 doesn't know the specific steps taken to disable the vehicles. Speaker 0 thanks Speaker 1 and ends the call.

The denial of the request for national guardsmen on January 6th remains a pivotal moment. The person responsible for that decision is known, but the reason behind it is still unknown. There has been no answer to that question. Additionally, Representative Bennie Thompson stated that Speaker Pelosi was off limits and her records would not be obtained by the J6 committee. However, she was in charge of the House that day. It is important to uncover the truth and understand what truly happened. Otherwise, it seems absurd, like a scene from a play.

Some suggest waiting for all witnesses and documents before proceeding with impeachment, but President Trump obstructed the investigation. He instructed his senior aides not to testify and defy subpoenas. He also told agencies not to provide relevant records, hindering our investigation.

The discussion centers on the RCMP examination into whether the prime minister violated section 139(2) of the Criminal Code by obstructing justice, specifically in relation to SNC-Lavalin. The RCMP confirmed that the strongest theory of obstruction centered on the prime minister’s decision to shuffle Jody Wilson-Raybould from the position of attorney general to a different role, in order for a new attorney general to potentially make a different decision regarding the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin. It was acknowledged that the RCMP did not have access to all material evidence surrounding Wilson-Raybould’s removal as attorney general. The witnesses clarified that the missing material evidence was central to determining if the prime minister had broken the law, and the gap existed because the scope of the order in council with respect to waiving cabinet confidentiality did not permit full examination of that evidence. The RCMP stated that the parameters of the order limited their ability to pursue the most consequential line of inquiry related to obstruction of justice. When asked who could expand the parameters of the order in council, the witnesses indicated that the prime minister would be the responsible decision-maker within the government, though one witness was unsure of the exact process. The RCMP had, prior to their assessment, requested an expansion of the parameters to obtain that evidence, but the request was denied. The denial was attributed to the Prime Minister’s Office (PCO), and a letter from the Department of Justice was referenced in the RCMP investigation report as having clarified that the expansion was not permitted. The RCMP observers testified that the refusal to expand the scope significantly impeded the full investigation into the prime minister’s potential obstruction of justice, limiting their capability to pursue a full inquiry. One speaker acknowledged the difficulty of speculating about what additional information might exist, describing it as potentially a “Pandora’s box.” In response to questions about accountability, one speaker stated that no single Canadian could block an RCMP investigation, but conceded that the RCMP must operate within the parameters and regulations in place. The Prime Minister’s personal department’s refusal to broaden the search was characterized as part of a pattern of cover-up by the questioning party, with the suggestion that the prime minister, to be subject to the rule of law, should not be shielded by his department from investigation. Both speakers emphasized that the investigation proceeded within the established regulatory framework, that attempts were made to obtain more information, and that those attempts were refused. The session concluded with a formal courtesy and thanks to the commissioner and the justice officials.

In January 2022, a colleague alerted Speaker 0 that there had been a doubling or tripling of baby deaths in the last year, which sparked curiosity. Speaker 1 states that “Their own government told us a medical treatment was safe, and it killed babies.” Speaker 2 says she has “lost all faith that Health Canada is looking out genuinely for the best interests of Canadians.” Speaker 3 alleges that doctors “made extra money to push vaccines” and were given a billing code to do it, and that she has “pulled all the billing codes.” Speaker 4 asserts that “They've purchased the vaccine that hasn't been approved,” distributed it to the provinces so that once it’s approved, they can “start jabbing ourselves with it” and “start jabbing pregnant mothers with it.” Speaker 3 questions the necessity of vaccinations: “Why did we have to get these vaccinations? Like, why was this something that we had to do? You go to the hospital, you expect to have a baby, and you expect to go home, and then you don't.” Speaker 0 speculates on criminal negligence, saying, “I would suspect that there was criminal negligence on part of the government and the public health officials.” Speaker 3 notes that it is “highly recommended that pregnant women get their vaccine as soon as possible.” Speaker 0 contends that a narrative was pushed to everybody, including pregnant and breastfeeding women, that the mRNA shots were safe and effective. Speaker 2 claims wiretapping, harassment, charging, and barring expert witnesses: “They had wiretapped her phone. They had harassed her. They had charged her. They didn't allow any expert witnesses to testify.” Speaker 1 accuses police of trying to cover up Canadian babies’ deaths “to the point of stopping detective Helen Greaves from testifying about it.” Speaker 4 observes that “The dominant individuals keep the subordinates in their place by constant aggression.” Speaker 5 discusses vaccination choice versus public risk, remarking, “If you don't wanna get vaccinated, that's your choice. But don't think you can get on a plane or a train besides vaccinated people and put them at risk,” and claims CBC initially “started off with CBC running a story to implicate her and to paint her with a brush that looks uncomplimentary to the public.” Speaker 6 claims Canada must shift its understanding of what the is, describing it as “a state broadcaster pushing the agenda of the Liberal government of Canada.” Speaker 4 calls this “the most significant matter affecting our children today from a health perspective,” noting that authorities are “not investigating.” Speaker 2 concludes that everything emanates outward from this case involving law enforcement, the judicial system, the pharmaceutical industry, and health agencies, “how they work together, how they censored information. It all ties together to this one case, and that's what makes it so dangerous.”

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 asks why Paul Irving, who had the authority, didn't give the okay. Speaker 1 explains that he testified at the Senate hearing in 2021 and disagreed with Speaker 1's recollection. Speaker 1 turned over his phone records and fought to testify. Speaker 0 questions why Speaker 1 wasn't allowed to testify since he was the chief of Capitol Police on January 6th. Speaker 1 explains that initially, the hearing was only for current employees, excluding the top 3 people in security. Speaker 1 called someone on the rules committee to request testifying and promised to show up in person. Speaker 0 highlights the denial of Speaker 1's request for national guardsmen, which was a pivotal moment.

The denial of the request for national guardsmen on January 6th was a pivotal moment. The person who made that decision has not answered why. Representative Bennie Thompson stated that Speaker Pelosi was off limits to the inquiries of the January 6th committee. However, if we truly want to find out what happened, everyone's records should be examined. The speaker emphasizes that they have been forthright and provided their phone records. They made numerous calls to request approval and called multiple police agencies and officers to help regain control of the Capitol. The speaker's recollection is detailed and precise.

The RCMP has expanded surveillance capabilities in the last 5 years, adopting technologies raising privacy concerns. Covert software infiltrates devices, accessing communications and activating cameras/microphones. Cell site simulators collect data from devices, potentially tracking innocent individuals. The speaker suggests the RCMP's actions indicate a willingness to protect corrupt politicians and a tendency towards unfair practices, leading to self-censorship among Canadians. The speaker claims that the RCMP's surveillance capabilities can cause people to curb what they are saying. The speaker equates these surveillance tactics to those used in totalitarian regimes to drive obedience within the population.

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.