[Firebot]

Originally Posted by shotinthebacklund

Found the anchor.

CBC news anchor Aarti Pole - Guest Michel Juneau-Katsuya
Zero evidence the interview even exists. seems to have been removed or something.

I was in the dentist chair but pretty sure I was not high...

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/...ript-1.7445425


Here's the transcript. Was Matt Galloway on the Current.

MICHEL JUNEAU-KATSUYA: Well, we're dealing with a judge. A judge is usually sticking to the rules of law and the definition that the law gives to the word traitors. Traitors in the criminal code is defined very, very clearly. But certain actions, certain behaviour, certain accommodation that are certain that some elected officials and senators have done through the years are close enough to be a treason to this country.

MG: But you're suggesting that that doesn't meet the legal threshold of treason.

MICHEL JUNEAU-KATSUYA: Here, that would need to be investigated much, much more. I come from the operational side. She comes from the judge or the legal justice system side. She comes also in a way that she was criticized right from the get go from being maybe too close to the Trudeau family. And already, we were predicting that it would be a sweet and sour report, and we had the sweet and sour report. Sweet in the sense that it finally acknowledged that foreign interference existed, but sour because it didn't go far enough. And it basically repeated the messages that Mr. Trudeau himself said in his announcement of the public inquiry that they would be focusing on two specific election, 2019, 2021, and specifically to look at if CSIS had made mistakes or had difficulties to communicate. And that's exactly what she said. CSIS had difficulties to communicate information. But wait a minute, let's go back to the testimonies that were given to us. The director, the former director of CSIS, Mr. Vigneault, himself testified twice and said, I spoke directly to the prime minister. I presented the evidence that we collected. And twice, I was told also to change the reports that we wrote as CSIS in order to accommodate the narrative that the Prime Minister wanted to hear. This is not a lack of communication. This is not a problem of communication. This is a problem of who wants to receive the information and who doesn't want to hear what it’s been said. That’s the problem.

Basically, he pans it as a report from a judge perspective without an intelligence perspective and having too many connections with Trudeau (nearly to the level of the David Johnston rapporteur farce)

You are welcome (I have top notch googlefu skills). This stuff tends to get scrubbed into the backpages and void if it doesn't fit a narrative. The focus has pretty much just been on Poilievre and the security clearance question instead of the traitor question, in which Singh himself stated there were traitors in parliament after reading the initial NSICOP report and set off the dominoes. So now Singh was stuck having to respond to questions about his comments last year (which I do believe was genuine).

We have what a number of reputable experts would classify as 'traitors' in parliament and senate, they are being protected, and it's being brushed aside.