[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Firebot

You quoted it. Sounded important as you called it interesting. Note how I didn't quote a whole block of a transcript as I can filter down on the important parts.

May want to narrow down your quote down to what exactly you are deflecting on.

OK, I’ll re-quote it and remove the offensive comment that Matt refers to and bold the interesting things. Let me know if you want me to read it to you also or explain the big words.

MG: Thanks for being here. How satisfied are you with this report?

CHARLIE ANGUS: Well, I think what it shows is, is that Canada has a culture, a political culture of indifference when it comes to putting protecting Canada over party interests. It's a mediocrity of indifference. And I think what's unfortunate is a lot of attention is on the word traitor. So, you know, Justice Hogue said it didn't meet the test of traitor, just a lot of dimwits who are willing to be used, ethical lapses and questionable judgement. And we'll focus on that. But I think the big issue here with her statement was that she says, quote, The single biggest threat to democracy is online interference and disinformation. It is an existential threat. And so, Matt, I think the issue of, you know, trying to monkey wrench a local riding association meeting is kind of like stagecoach robbery when we're talking about 21st century methods of electoral interference and undermining. And that's the larger threat posed by the platforms like X, by Meta, and the ability of bots, deepfakes and AI. And we are simply not ready to deal with what's going to hit us in this coming election.

MG: Can I just ask you, before we talk about that, about something that you posted on another platform. This is on Bluesky, and it is about, maybe this speaks to what Michel was talking about when it comes to the culture of understanding interference. Pierre Poilievre, leader of the Conservative Party, says that he will no longer receive security briefings from CSIS. You said this is a no brainer. Pierre Poilievre … refuses or can't get security clearance. Something stinks here. What are you suggesting?

CHARLIE ANGUS: Well, the question is, is who doesn't put Canada first?

MG: Are you suggesting he's not putting Canada first?

CHARLIE ANGUS: Absolutely. What kind of person is going to run for leader of the country and not get a security clearance and get briefed on threats to our nation? I mean, I know it's a bit of a ridiculous example, but I mean, my poor mother has to get a security clearance to do food programs at the school. We've got a man who's going to be prime minister, who's the story in the media now is he's not getting it. He's refusing to get it.

MG: He said that he's not getting it because he wouldn't be able to act on that information.

CHARLIE ANGUS: Well, that's ridiculous. How could he act on the information if he doesn't know what it is? So again, I think what, I think, Matt, that that's the issue and the bigger problem. And, you know, Mr. Trudeau certainly comes in for a lot of condemnation in Justice Hogue's report, is that we're seeing partisan interests over the nation. And Canadians are not being reassured that in the larger global threats, and we are in a very dark, dark time with everything from Russian bought information to a president who's threatening our sovereignty, that we have the steps in place to protect the integrity of our nation. And I don't see that. I don't see that with Elections Canada. I don't see that with the willingness of the government to step up at this time. And we may be barreling into an election very quickly. So I think we have to talk about this and raise some alarm bells.

To explain one thing for you, Angus did not “deflect” on the word traitor, he’s referring to the fact that the focus is on there not being any “traitors” which is the wrong thing to focus on in his opinion, something JK touches on as well:

MG: I mean, this is important in part because the headlines were explosive and that led to this inquiry. And Justice Hogue was very clear, saying that there are no traitors in Parliament, but there are MPs whose actions are problematic. So what is problematic behaviour but not treason when it comes to foreign interference? How do you, what's the daylight between the two?

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: Would that be taking a meeting? Would that be… what would that constitute?

MICHEL JUNEAU-KATSUYA: That would be much more than taking a meeting. That would be to very much intentionally, consciously put forward policies or interests of a foreign countries before the interests of Canada. And they do so most of the time because they see personal gain and personal interest in doing so, either because they see that they might get the support for re-election, or if they are a senator, simply gaining personal gain or favour from that 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.

Perhaps it would be better if you actually read it and didn’t just hyperfocus on the specific mention of Trudeau. That way you could understand the entire flow of the segment and what was being discussed instead of making comments about people “spooging” and patting yourself on the back for googling readily available things.