reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Palestinian demonstrators accuse Prime Minister Trudeau and his government of genocide. They march through the streets of Ottawa, causing traffic disruptions. The reporters ask Trudeau for comments on various issues, including the presence of a Nazi at a dinner and the WE Charity scandal. They also question the legality and justification of invoking the Emergencies Act. Trudeau remains silent and is criticized for being a narcissist and a sociopath. The reporters request at least a wave from him. The video ends with the comment that Trudeau has no legacy.

We just wrapped up a four-hour legal battle suing David Lemenyi, Trudeau's former Justice Minister, for illegally deleting his Twitter account after he was found to have invoked the Emergencies Act unconstitutionally. The government is trying to argue that it's a private account and they have no control over it, but we believe it's a public record. The Chief Justice presided over the hearing, which was surprising, and it lasted four hours, covering various acts and charter submissions. We argued that Lametti broke the law and the government is trying to let him off easy with just a "pinky swear" not to do it again. Despite contradictory arguments from their counsel, we feel our arguments were consistent. Even if we don't win the injunction, we've already moved from deleted records to promises of preservation. We're concerned about deleted direct messages that could reveal more about Lametti's conduct as a minister. This legal fight is costly, but we're committed to holding the government accountable.

I'm in a taxi heading to the federal court of appeal in Toronto for a hearing regarding my book, "The Libranos," published during the 2019 election. Elections Canada has been prosecuting me for five years, spending over $1 million on this case, while ignoring serious foreign interference in our elections. My book, critical of Justin Trudeau, is the only one among 24 published that has faced legal scrutiny. I'll be live tweeting the proceedings, and I'm likely to be alone in court without support from civil liberties or journalism groups. If you believe in defending free speech, please consider helping with legal costs at thelibranos.com. I'm fighting against Trudeau's government, and I appreciate any support. I'll update you soon on Twitter.

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.

Justin Trudeau is facing ethics questions after a charity asked him to return his speaking fee for an event that didn't make any money. The charity wanted to raise $300,000 for new beds for a nursing home but ended up losing money. Trudeau is asked if he feels obligated to give back the $20,000 fee. He responds by saying he will work with the charity to fix the situation. The interviewer questions Trudeau's decision to charge a fee for a charity event and suggests it goes against the image he is trying to portray to Canadians.

You claim to be running against the Ottawa establishment, yet you've been part of it for a decade. Why should anyone believe you're not part of the establishment? People can see the dynamics of the race. I resigned because I recognized the need to focus on the threat posed by Donald Trump. Wouldn't you have had a better chance to help Canada by staying in cabinet? No, Canada is strong and will impress the world with our resilience. I take pride in rallying Canadians and advocating for our country every day.

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.

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.

Constable Ryan Davidson from the Integrated National Security Enforcement Team addresses a post made by the speaker regarding Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. The speaker denies making threats and claims to seek a lawful remedy for what they perceive as a criminal conspiracy with the Communist Party of China. They express concern for the well-being of citizens and offer their services to authorities for a conversation about the issues. The speaker questions the government's transparency, mentioning Jagmeet Singh's alleged ties to terrorism and the lack of clarity regarding money allocation. They emphasize the need for investigation and express willingness to contribute as a concerned citizen.

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.

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.

Today at the committee, officials were set to discuss the Winnipeg Lab document scandal involving Justin Trudeau. The Liberals and NDP members did not show up, leading to the shutdown of the meeting. The scandal involves a national security breach at Canada's highest security lab, with the government accused of covering it up. The opposition is demanding answers from the top officials involved. This display of shutting down important work is seen as a betrayal of democracy and transparency promised by Trudeau. The fight for truth and accountability continues.

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.

You've betrayed Canada for globalism. You're not serving our country but your globalist allies. I question how much you're being compensated for this betrayal. What should we do with traitors in Canada, Mr. Trudeau? Historically, they faced severe consequences for treason, and your actions feel similar to that betrayal.

Speaker 0: Hello Mr. Trudeau, Alexandre from Rebel News. I want to quickly address what happened yesterday. You demonized one of the few media outlets that doesn't receive government funding. You expressed your opinion that we spread misinformation. If that were true, the Supreme Court wouldn't have allowed us to be here today. Will you kindly answer my question as the Prime Minister, or will you continue to demonize my profession? I shared my perspective on your organization last night, and I have nothing more to say. It makes one wonder who you really are. Thank you.

We are proud of our influence in government. A constituent asked about outside interference in democracy, specifically regarding Klaus Schwab, head of the World Economic Forum. He claimed that the WEF has infiltrated over half of Canada's cabinet. In the interest of transparency, could you name the cabinet ministers aligned with the WEF's agenda? Order, please. The question is important, but the audio and video quality are poor. I apologize for that. The younger generation, including Prime Minister Trudeau, is involved.

The speaker, Ryan Davidson, is being questioned by an Integrated National Security Enforcement Team about his online posts regarding Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Davidson claims he is seeking a lawful remedy for what he perceives as a criminal conspiracy with the Communist Party of China. He expresses concerns about the well-being of citizens and offers to contribute to investigations. Davidson criticizes Trudeau's government and accuses him of being propped up by a terrorist. He calls for an independent civilian to oversee the RCMP investigation. The security team warns Davidson about making inflammatory statements and confirms that they have no interest in stifling his speech. Davidson insists on continuing to voice his opinions until the issues are resolved.

I am here to ask Justin Trudeau basic questions about the carbon tax. Seven premiers oppose the tax hike, including Danielle Smith. The police are behaving strangely, following me and not allowing me to approach the prime minister. We just want answers to questions that Canadians care about. This behavior is outrageous and unnecessary.

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.

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.

Justin Trudeau covered up a security breach at a Canadian lab where dangerous viruses are studied. Documents show collaboration with China's military on bioweapons. Trudeau refused to release documents, sued to keep them secret, and tried to buy vaccines from China. Despite knowing the risks, he called a snap election, and China interfered to help him win. Trudeau's actions show he cannot be trusted to protect Canada.

Trudeau announced that the Canadian Armed Forces can now be deployed against civilians, a move criticized by some. This action would not be accepted in the United States. Spread the word about this concerning decision.