TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 is concerned about feeding the whole town. Speaker 1 is not allowed to cross the bridge and suggests going through CSRD. Speaker 3 mentions liability on their property. Speaker 1 questions why resources are being wasted on this situation. Speaker 2 explains that nobody is allowed to cross the bridge due to an order. Speaker 1 asks for the reason behind the order, but Speaker 2 only mentions following instructions. Speaker 3 emphasizes the urgency of the situation and the need to save houses from the fire.

The speaker received a call that a car was found at 30 First, next to their farm, and authorities would be searching the area. They later received a text asking to set up a command unit on the property. The speaker discussed the terrain and buildings on the farm with law enforcement, mentioning an unlocked camper and house. They also informed them about an old, hard-to-access abandoned house on the hill. The speaker and a neighbor told the authorities that the buildings were unlocked. The speaker also heard reports of shots fired early in the morning. A neighbor claimed to have been awakened by a couple of shots while outside late at night.

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 speakers discuss the sabotage of three valuable machines, including cutting wires, removing filters, and foaming shut fuel lines. The equipment was parked on private land with permission, but the RCMP requested it be moved out of view of the highway. After the move, the equipment was sabotaged. The speakers express frustration at the damage and the labor required to fix the machines. Speaker 2 confirms that they disabled the excavators to prevent their use in illegal activities, but does not provide details on how they were expected to be used. The conversation ends with gratitude for the information.

Speaker 0 mentions having friends with trucks nearby to pick up some equipment. Speaker 1 agrees, saying they need the equipment for the car. Speaker 0 expresses concern about wasting time and not wanting to be rude. Speaker 1 reassures Speaker 0 and suggests discussing the matter. Speaker 0 asks if they can walk across a bridge and questions the possibility of being arrested. Speaker 1 confirms they cannot walk across and explains that someone had previously said it was allowed. Speaker 0 questions the use of resources for this situation. Speaker 1 acknowledges that it is just the way it is.

A man in a gray shirt and pants arrived in a Chevy pickup truck and told Speaker 0 and others they had to leave. He said he worked for 35 years. The man approached Speaker 0 first, who was by the fence near a picnic table. After speaking to Speaker 0, he moved up the fence toward two other men. The man said no truck was allowed across the property. The truck left, came back, stayed for a while, and then left again. Speaker 1 mentioned Tyler was blowing the roof and that the same car was coming down White Star Road. Speaker 0 didn't know if Tyler was shot at. Speaker 0 is going to get people to take Speaker 1's statement.

Speaker 0 mentions having friends with trucks nearby to pick up some equipment. Speaker 1 agrees and says they need the equipment for the car. Speaker 0 expresses concern about wasting time and not wanting to be rude. Speaker 1 reassures Speaker 0 and suggests discussing the situation. Speaker 0 asks if they can walk across a bridge and questions the possibility of being arrested. Speaker 1 says they can't walk across and explains that someone had previously said it was allowed. Speaker 0 expresses frustration about wasting resources. Speaker 1 acknowledges the situation and says it is just the way it is.

Speaker 0 asks the person what happened and what they were trying to do, specifically if they were trying to protect someone.

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.

They are aggressively destroying the cross, throwing it down and smashing it. The action is taking place on the first at 3:25, and then they move off camera to do the same to the ones on the right. Speaker 1 expresses confusion and asks why this is happening.

The speaker asks if the FBI had communication with their agents during the Capitol attack, to which Speaker 1 denies any involvement. Speaker 0 then asks about "ghost vehicles," but Speaker 1 is unfamiliar with the term. Speaker 0 claims to have evidence of two buses used by FBI informants disguised as Trump supporters during the attack. There is a brief interruption from Speaker 2, who reminds everyone to stay within their allotted time. Speaker 0 objects to his question being cut off, stating that the buses were nefarious and filled with FBI informants. The transcript ends with Speaker 2 attempting to move on to the next speaker.

The speaker states that Rowan Abdulry, an illegal immigrant, burned down a building on 03/28/2025 and was moved to the Bell Hotel, which he then also set fire to. He is now facing two arson charges. An individual questions the speaker's presence on the property, alleging illegal trespassing. The speaker says they were invited to assess the damage. The individual insists they entered illegally and should have used the main entrance after making an appointment. The individual asks how long the speaker has been there but then says they are not supposed to say. The speaker says they are free to go, but the individual tries to direct them away from the main entrance. Police arrive and are told the speakers entered the property illegally and were taking pictures and videos of the building. The police confirm they did not enter the building or do anything wrong. The speakers state they wanted to leave out the main entrance to get refreshments at the farm shop, but the individual wouldn't let them. The police say they have not committed any criminal offenses.

Speaker 0 expresses concern about not being allowed to cross the bridge and questions why resources are being wasted. Speaker 1 explains that they were given an order to stop everyone from crossing the bridge but doesn't provide a reason. Speaker 2 shares their frustration about the fire risk on their property and their ability to help extinguish spot fires. The conversation ends with Speaker 2 mentioning the lack of people in the area.

There was a generator that belongs to us, and we didn't issue any to this vehicle. You have our stolen generators. We need them back, especially for disabled individuals who can't start their own. You didn't have a list of recipients. It doesn't matter; they still need them. You took them in the middle of the night, which raises suspicions. We want your names and badge numbers. If you did nothing wrong, you would have no problem revealing where the generators are. You can't just take things from a vehicle without consequences. We want to ensure the generators are being used properly or returned to us.

Speaker 0 asks why the person is removing kidnapped people and requests them to call the police. The speaker insists on calling the police and asks for an explanation for the removal. They mention that there are babies and kids who have been kidnapped. The person being spoken to refuses to talk and the conversation ends.

Speaker 0 confirms making a phone call to the Prime Minister at 3:34 pm. Speaker 1 questions if there is a record of this call that hasn't been disclosed. Speaker 0 clarifies that there is a record of the call but not the content. Speaker 1 asks if Speaker 0 remembers what was said, to which Speaker 0 affirms.

Speaker 0 asks if anyone is present and mentions that they are conducting an investigation related to an accident. They inquire about the presence of law enforcement and request credentials. After receiving the necessary information, Speaker 0 concludes by advising the listener to improve their hiding skills.

Speaker 0 is questioning why someone is removing kidnapped people and asks them to call the police. They mention that there are missing dogs as well. Speaker 0 accuses the other person of being antisemitic and threatens to call the police again. They ask for an explanation as to why the removal is happening, particularly because there are babies and kids who have been kidnapped. The other person refuses to engage in conversation. The transcript ends abruptly without further information.

The speaker received a call that a car was found at 30 First, next to their farm, and authorities would be searching the area. They later received a text asking to set up a command unit on the property. The speaker spoke with someone from the BCA who inquired about the terrain and what was on the farm, including a camper and ice house, both of which are unlocked. The speaker and a neighbor informed the BCA about an old, hard-to-access abandoned house up on the hill. The speaker also heard reports of shots fired early in the morning. A neighbor claimed to have been awakened by a couple of shots while outside late at night.

The speaker asks if the Australian Federal Police (AFP) had long range acoustic devices at parliament house during the protest. The AFP representative responds that they would need to consider a public interest immunity claim and would have to seek advice before confirming. The speaker agrees to wait for the response and also asks for information on the type of devices and whether they were used. The speaker thanks the representative and the chair.

The transcript is a tense telephone exchange between two people discussing a suspected incident at an asylum intake center. - Speaker 1 identifies themselves as the wijkagent (district police officer) of the aanmeldcentrum in Ter Apel and says they are calling to address an incident. They express that how Speaker 0 is speaking to them is “a bit disrespectful.” - The core dispute revolves around whether Speaker 0 tried to enter the premises of the aanmeldcentrum. Speaker 1 states that Speaker 0 came onto the terrein (the site) of the aanmeldcentrum, and also mentions the Drapenerveene as belonging to the aanmeldcentrum and not being public. - Speaker 0 counters that they did not enter the site, only walked around on the public road. They emphasize that they were not inside and argue that they did not commit any rule violation, asserting that they “have not done any violation” and that Speaker 1 is recording or documenting the event. - Speaker 1 insists that Speaker 0 was on the Drapenerveene, which, according to Speaker 1, is part of the aanmeldcentrum and therefore not public. They claim that there were signs missing and question what Speaker 0 was seeking there. - The dialogue touches on what is permissible around the area: Speaker 1 asserts that Speaker 0 was on or around a restricted area (Drapenerveene) linked to the intake center, while Speaker 0 maintains they merely walked on the public road around the premises. - The conversation also covers the manner of the communication itself: Speaker 0 asks for a proper introduction and the reason for the call; Speaker 1 responds with the need to clearly state who they are and what is happening, stating they intend to proceed with documenting the situation. - By the end, Speaker 0 asks for Speaker 1’s name, indicating a desire to establish identity and purpose for the call. Key points emphasized by Speaker 1: - The call is about an alleged entry attempt or presence on the premises. - The Drapenerveene is described as part of the aanmeldcentrum and not public. - There is a focus on signs and access control, with a claim that this is not public space. Key points from Speaker 0: - They assert they never entered the site, only walked around on the public road. - They challenge the behavior and tone of the caller, seeking a straightforward explanation of who is calling and why. No judgments are offered in the transcript; the speakers are focused on identifying who is on the premises, what areas were accessed, and the appropriate grounds for the call.

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.

The speaker asks an officer what is happening and what is going on. The speaker repeats, "What's that?" and "What?" The officer responds that they can't describe exactly what's going on, stating, "It's an ongoing investigation." The speaker repeats the word "crime" multiple times.

The main battery cable and wires on the solenoids were cut, and the control box had its wires removed. Fuel lines were also spray foamed shut and filters were missing. The equipment was initially parked on private land with permission, but the RCMP requested it to be moved out of view of the highway. After the move, someone sabotaged the equipment by cutting wires, removing filters, and spray foaming the fuel lines. The machines are valuable and will require a lot of work to fix. Parts are missing and need to be replaced, and there is a significant amount of labor needed before the equipment can be used again.

Speaker 0 questions if Speaker 1 knew the crowd wouldn't react well to interference. Speaker 1 denies knowing. Speaker 0 mentions the "fuck around and find out" comment after a dumpster was lit on fire. Speaker 1 didn't witness it but tried to move the dumpster. Speaker 0 suggests the comment implies using a gun. Speaker 1 didn't witness and can't confirm. Speaker 0 withdraws the question.