CSIS: Liberal MP is alleged Chinese agent, Trudeau ignored warnings

[West]

https://edmontonsun.com/opinion/columnists/lilley-report-on-election-interference-not-credible-due-to-who-wrote-it-and-the-shallow-contents

 

You can't make this stuff up.. the writer of the report "exonerating" Trudeau was written by a man in charge of the Pierre Trudeau Foundation, who recieved $200k from the Chinese. 

Also of note, law schools are being infiltrated by China. No wonder why our legal system is so whacked right now

[Moonlight Graham]

The difference between Trump and Trudeau is that Trump is a lot better at covering his tracks.

[Moonlight Graham]

Is CBC News engaging in a cover-up, or am I just paranoid?  Look at this headline on the main page of our national public news org:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/fadden-vigneault-intelligence-bar-evidence-1.6765673

That was the 2nd highest featured headline on CBC News right now, here's the top headline:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/china-foreign-interference-jody-thomas-analays-wherry-1.6764775

The implication being that this is all part of China's "plan" and G&M & Global News are complicit.

CBC News looks more and more like Liberal propoganda ever day.  What's happening to this country.  Canada and the US are turning into tin-pot banana republics.

[CdnFox]

12 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

In my view, Conservatives need to take advantage of what the CBC is doing and bring up what is happening there in the public sphere more, regardless of what big mouths say. Maybe they should use other media to call them out?

I understand that sentiment but honestly that always winds up looking bad for the people doing it. Trump never won a new vote picking fights with the media the way he did.

I think that they have to work better with 'friendly' media and also pursue other ways to get the message and anger out to the public.  PP has had some success doing that.  They need to perfect those arts

[Moonlight Graham]

30 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

In my view, Conservatives need to take advantage of what the CBC is doing and bring up what is happening there in the public sphere more, regardless of what big mouths say. Maybe they should use other media to call them out?

Everyone has their spinmasters to send orders to.  CPC has The National Post.  But that's not the public broadcaster.  Disturbing...

[CdnFox]

On 3/1/2023 at 5:52 PM, eyeball said:

Oh boy not another one.

Another person who speaks truth which confuses and enrages you? Fraid so   Take an advil.

On 3/1/2023 at 5:52 PM, eyeball said:

Who exactly is doing this filtering of newsworthy events you're taking about? Clearly you've bought into the same MSM conspiracy hooey a pile of posters around here subscribe to - you're in good company if you believe brainwashing is a real thing.

Depends on the paper. Editorial staff and publishers as a rule, although often such things are reflected in the reporter's bias as well.

On 3/1/2023 at 5:52 PM, eyeball said:

Do you have any email lists, meeting notes, directives to and from the PMO and editorial rooms... got any whistleblowers maybe?  No one else does either but the utter lack of any evidence of what you're talking about doesn't faze them a bit either

Sure. How about this:

https://nypost.com/2022/01/05/canadian-journalist-tara-henley-quit-cbc-over-woke-agenda/

There's tonnes of analysis and such on the issue. And as a former professional writer myself i can easily point  out the deliberate use of emotionally charged language to either highlight or downplay something. Many stories don't get covered by the CBC or get very poor coverage if they're embarrasing to the liberals but the cpc gets prime time if they screw up.

And with the CBC there's the out and out fake news.  They proudly insisted that the convoy was foreign funded, despite having been told there was no real evidence of that. They insisted that Smith wrote emails to the justice department, when an independant review found that never happened. And then doubled down on it even after admitting they'd never seen them but the 'unnamed source' was just SO reliable...

These aren't mistakes or the like. Those are very deliberate examples of very poor and frowned upon reporting methods. Accusations with no evidence that happen to promote a political agenda.

There is no trouble finding slews of examples and it's pretty blatant at this point. The CBC has even been chewed out by the ombudsman for "editing" harper's stuff to make it look like he responed in a way he didn't. IT's not new.

 

On 3/1/2023 at 5:52 PM, eyeball said:

How many people do you think it takes to plan, coordinate, execute not to mention monitor the effectiveness of their filtering and report this back to the PMO or whoever...WEF maybe...or Soros...aliens from space?

They're called an "editor" and it takes one.

[Moonlight Graham]

3 hours ago, Contrarian said:

That same controversial representative skipped a vote on Beijing sanctions and then Trudeau comes out and says:

it's not up to CSIS to tell parties who should and shouldn't run for office.

• I see, so it is like in Zimbabwe or in North Korea?!, the leader decides at the end without advice.
• So why keep CSIS around? 
• Is anyone here that wants to defend the politicians in general, I am curious to listen. 

An MP should have to pass a basic security screening like any other public employee that has access to high responsibility and secure info.

Can you imagine what kinds of information a typical MP like him has access to?

If the allegations are true this is an abomination to our democracy and national security.  One of the biggest scandals in modern Canadian political history.  This MP needs to be investigated by the RCMP.  He's already had several days to hide evidence.

[eyeball]

 

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

They're called an "editor" and it takes one.

No. The scope of what you people imagine is happening would require hundreds in Canada alone and 10's of thousands globally.

You said you had slews of examples. How many is there in a slew anyway? A slew is defined as a large number or amount.

You provided one disgruntled individual.

You have a long way to go and then you need to show evidence of government officials (who, when, how, email, courier, carrier pigeon, telepathy etc) conveying their instructions to their counterparts in media.

You obviously need to think this through better.

 

[CdnFox]

7 hours ago, eyeball said:

No. The scope of what you people imagine is happening would require hundreds in Canada alone and 10's of thousands globally.

That's absolutely not how it works.  You Very clearly have never worked in media.

This requires next to no effort and virtually no co-ordination.  The cbc editorial board leans left, they tend to hire like minded journalists, they set the story priorities and their people get the message and act accordingly. Boom, there's the cbc slanted.

In fact, virtually every canadian media source (and every other one i'm aware of) has some bias baked in. Not only is it easy, it's unavoidable.  The GOOD ones tend to look for balance, where both sides are told more.  The bad ones, like the cbc. lean into their bias and run  with it.

Now - there's nothing wrong with that, PROVIDED you're not pretending to be fair and balanced and ESPECIALLY PROVIDED you're not taking public money to do it.

8 hours ago, eyeball said:

You provided one disgruntled individual.

I provided a very well known and respected source who spelled it out precisely. A person so sick of that crap she literally left her job and burned her bridges with them.

And you said i'd have none. Sorry - you lose.

I have proven  my point. If you disagree you'll have to provide evidence i'm wrong. So lets see it - oh  you don't have any? And i do? well how about that.

The CBC is outrageously bias.  Period. 

[eyeball]

13 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

That's absolutely not how it works.  You Very clearly have never worked in media.

I made money hand over fist delivering newspapers when I was a kid.

Quote

I have proven  my point. If you disagree you'll have to provide evidence i'm wrong. So lets see it - oh  you don't have any? And i do? well how about that.

You need to show the connection between the PMO and the editorial rooms of the MSM and the physical evidence/digital evidence of communications back and forth that ensure the news is properly fabricated and filtered according to the governments wishes.  

You say it only takes one person per media outlet to do this and they can do it on the fly as news is breaking?   How many people in the government are assigned to this job?  I've worked close enough with people in government to know nothing moves very fast so you're describing a dynamic efficient organization that defy's everyday experience.

Quote

The CBC is outrageously bias.  Period.

So what? Bias is baked into our genes and everyone has evolved the means to smell Denmark. You MSM fetishists OTOH have leaped to some ridiculous panicked conclusion that bias is evidence of a giant program of social brainwashing.

Run by one guy - like the Wizard of Oz or something.

?

[CdnFox]

7 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I made money hand over fist delivering newspapers when I was a kid.

Sounds like that's still about your level of professional skill

 

7 minutes ago, eyeball said:

You need to show the connection between the PMO and the editorial rooms of the MSM and the physical evidence/digital evidence of communications back and forth that ensure the news is properly fabricated and filtered according to the governments wishes.  

No i don't.  In fact there doesn't need to be one. A media source can be bias without collusion with the gov't head.  they can decide they don't like the conservatives on their own and that they're going to hurt the conservatives and help their opponents without any outside input.

Frank Greaves for example said he hated Pierre Pollievre and would keep him from winning:

"Pierre Poilievre is an acolyte of authoritarian populism. This is never healthy. You are on notice. Going to make sure you are never going to lead my country. I don’t make idle threats"

You think EKOS isn't going to manipulate the data and how their polling is done now?

And the fact you would make such a ridiculous demand for proof even if it were true is laughable.

7 minutes ago, eyeball said:

You say it only takes one person per media outlet to do this and they can do it on the fly as news is breaking? 

Who said anything about 'on the fly'?

You know the easiest way to tell if a leftie knows he's losing an argument? He invents NEW things that were never said and argues against that instead

 

7 minutes ago, eyeball said:

 How many people in the government are assigned to this job?

How many in the gov't work in media relations? Are you serious? Hundreds and hundreds.  And they can egg that on a little bit, they all have their favorite reporters that they give heads up to and winks and nods to. But it's not necessary as i showed earlier. Media companies can be bias on their own.

7 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I've worked close enough with people in government to know nothing moves very fast so you're describing a dynamic efficient organization that defy's everyday experience.

Are you suggesting that the media wing of the gov't or any political party can't put out a press release in a day? I bet if you open your eyes and look around right now you can see your colon.

7 minutes ago, eyeball said:

So what? Bias is baked into our genes and everyone has evolved the means to smell Denmark. You MSM fetishists OTOH have leaped to some ridiculous panicked conclusion that bias is evidence of a giant program of social brainwashing.

So - bias is baked into our genes and is unavoidable and i've reached a panicked conclusion saying there's bias. 

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!  Tell me you know you lost without telling me HAHAHAHAAHAA!!!!!!!

Yes - the media is bias. You're right. I don't know why i didn't think of that myself LOLOLOLOL!!!!!

Thanks for playing kiddo, you've been great

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

No i don't.  In fact there doesn't need to be one. A media source can be bias without collusion with the gov't head.  they can decide they don't like the conservatives on their own and that they're going to hurt the conservatives and help their opponents without any outside input.

Sure they can, but there's clearly slews of people who believe to the point of never shutting up about it that there is rampant collusion happening - almost all of it on the left. 

Quote

Who said anything about 'on the fly'?

Report's that some story isn't being reported adequately if at all are common. Not only in forums like this but even media talking heads label their competition as propagandists. Some seem to think what other outlets are reporting or not reporting are the bigger story.

Quote

How many in the gov't work in media relations? Are you serious? Hundreds and hundreds.  And they can egg that on a little bit, they all have their favorite reporters that they give heads up to and winks and nods to. But it's not necessary as i showed earlier. Media companies can be bias on their own.

As I said, so what.  In any case it seems it's quite necessary for certain people to stoke the belief that ordinary human bias is evidence of an insidious deliberate effort to brainwash society.  I get it that there's a right-wing bandwagon against public funding for the CBC but that really just stems from the typical right-wing disdain for public funding that's existed forever.

Quote

Are you suggesting that the media wing of the gov't or any political party can't put out a press release in a day?

No, I'm suggesting you're basically agreeing with me that there's really nothing chronically insidious going on at all but due to your own bias you're content to ride the coat-tails of the truly deluded who screech about brainwashing and mind control.  As was mentioned elsewhere you need to own your own but more importantly disown your own as well.

As for me, I'd short-circuit the whole news process by outlawing private/secret in-camera lobbying of public officials where the public has a clear interest in knowing what's being discussed on their behalf.

I'm convinced the epidemic of misinformation and mistrust can simply be traced to the natural  evasiveness of people in power that are also in a position to be influenced. There's a reason why Question Period isn't called Answer Period and that seems to be lost on a lot of people.

If you believe people are to stupid or excitable to handle frank discussions or that a little corruption here and there is a necessary ingredient of responsible governing then you're probably happy with the status quo.

Edited March 3, 2023 by eyeball

[CdnFox]

Just now, eyeball said:

Sure they can, but there's clearly slews of people who believe to the point of never shutting up about it that there is rampant collusion happening - almost all of it on the left. 

Uhhhh - riiiighttt, soo - it's this large group of unidentified people who've formed some sort of alliance to constantly bombard you with theories about the leftist media.  THAT'S the conspiracy theory here is it?

I've told you before, The voices in your head are not your friend.

3 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Report's that some story isn't being reported adequately if at all only are common.

That has nothing to do with being "on the fly".  Nice attempt to change the topic again. 

4 minutes ago, eyeball said:

As I said, so what.

no, you didn't. You literally asked the question and claimed it was of some importance. You suggested there weren't any people workng on this in the gov't, and snottily said "so how many people are there". I pointed out there's hundreds. Now you're saying 'Errr.. oh.. are there...  ummm..... so what? Doesn't matter anyway".

Followed by 'of course the media is bias".  LOL

Look - it all comes back to the same thing - media is bias and people often trust what they say instead of looking it up on their own.  And the cbc is horribly bias.  You've been forced to admit it yourself now.

So there you go.' Jezuz what a long way to get back to the same thing i said in the first place. The media in geneeral is bias the cbc doubly so, and yes they absolutely downplay stories they don't want to see fussed over and promote stories they do want people pissed about.

Thanks for playing

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Uhhhh - riiiighttt, soo - it's this large group of unidentified people who've formed some sort of alliance to constantly bombard you with theories about the leftist media.  THAT'S the conspiracy theory here is it?

No, that's not it 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

No, that's not it 

Well i can certainly understand you changing your story (much like cbc nyuck nyuck )

 

[eyeball]

31 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Well i can certainly understand you changing your story (much like cbc nyuck nyuck )

I can't, because it would defeat its purpose if I did.

I guess that's why you changed what I said  Sure they can, but there's clearly slews of people who believe to the point of never shutting up about it that there is rampant collusion happening - almost all of it on the left. ...

To what you heard... it's this large group of unidentified people who've formed some sort of alliance to constantly bombard you with theories about the leftist media.  THAT'S the conspiracy theory here is it?

No. It isn't what I said. These people aren't making it up, they believe it, whole heartedly. Millions believe it, hook line and sinker.

Without any real evidence of be it. Just more bias and heaps of it too 

[CdnFox]

20 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I can't, because it would defeat its purpose if I did.

That's never held you back before

20 minutes ago, eyeball said:

No. It isn't what I said. These people aren't making it up, they believe it, whole heartedly. Millions believe it, hook line and sinker.

it is precisely what you said. And i never suggested they were making anything up. You posted what i said - do YOU see the words "Making it up" in my post anywhere?

So look who's backtracking again

22 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Without any real evidence of be it.

There is tonnes of evidence. You're just in denial.

THERE'S NO EVIDENCE! - i post evidence -  "ER.. Ummm..drat!..umm ... THERE"S NO EVIDENCE" - post more evidence - "(goddamnit).  ER.... WHY CAN NO ONE FIND ANY EVIDENCE!!!! (rending of garments intensifies...) "

Simply repeating there's no evidence when there's tonnes doesn't change anything.

If you're hearing lots of people say the media is bias then you're hearing people speak the truth. The left wing media is especially so for various reasons.  It's not a conspiracy, it's not some weird unproven allegation, it's simple fact.

 

[eyeball]

56 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

You posted what i said - do YOU see the words "Making it up" in my post anywhere?

Yeah, that's your name. You see it everywhere you post.

[eyeball]

58 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

You posted what i said

I posted what I said, not what you heard.

[I am Groot]

On 3/1/2023 at 1:27 PM, eyeball said:

Nonsense. What the people hear at worst is something made up or embellished by a reporter or pundit in the absence of something an evasive politician mouthed. 

There seems to have been a noted lack of enthusiasm on the part of the CBC to cover the story of Trudeau and his Chinese election helpers. Not a conspiracy. Just a predilection on the part of a largely progressive media to not do anything to harm 'their team' if they can get away with it.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

Yeah, that's your name. You see it everywhere you post.

Oh how witty! With that kind of mental agility you'll soon be qualified to debate people in grade 3, maybe even 4!  A big step up in your skills

Well at least you admit you made it up

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

I posted what I said, not what you heard.

ROFLMAO - ahhh, no, you quoted me. So that would literally be what I said.

Man, every time you get shown up you go to pieces so fast people are in danger of getting hit by the shrapnel

 

[CdnFox]

48 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

There seems to have been a noted lack of enthusiasm on the part of the CBC to cover the story of Trudeau and his Chinese election helpers. Not a conspiracy. Just a predilection on the part of a largely progressive media to not do anything to harm 'their team' if they can get away with it.

Yes, to sane people this is obvious.

And it would be fine as well normally. There's no law that says a media outlet can't have a bias, or can't tailor the stories it chooses to produce to appeal to it's target audience. As one american character once said "go ahead, i'll just start my own paper to lie the other way"

Except - the CBC is publicly funded. And that's why people have a problem with them right now. If they get defunded they can go on their own and try to make a business model out of their bias;, but i think they'll have a hard time convincing people to give them ad dollars and subscriptions if they're being that selective.

Edited March 4, 2023 by CdnFox

[WestCanMan]

On 3/3/2023 at 4:29 PM, I am Groot said:

There seems to have been a noted lack of enthusiasm on the part of the CBC to cover the story of Trudeau and his Chinese election helpers. Not a conspiracy. Just a predilection on the part of a largely progressive media to not do anything to harm 'their team' if they can get away with it.

Global: https://globalnews.ca/news/9518923/canada-china-election-interference-poll/

Quote

Most Canadians believe China did try to interfere in elections: poll

"Believe China did try to interfere..." lol.

This is a perfect example of downplaying the scenario.

Of course they "tried", we know that for a fact. 

Trudeau was given an "urgent briefing" and ignored it. 

We were completely left in the dark as voters.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-says-leaks-interfernece-2021-election-innacurate-1.6758179:

Quote

"We are very concerned with the leaks, particularly because there are so many inaccuracies in those leaks," Trudeau told a news conference on Thursday

He knows this is going in, in two election cycles, chose to keep us in the dark for all these years, now he's shifting the focus to "How accurate the leaked info is" instead of giving us the rundown on the length and breadth of this issue in a timely manner. 

[Dougie93]

27 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Global: https://globalnews.ca/news/9518923/canada-china-election-interference-poll/

"Believe China did try to interfere..." lol.

This is a perfect example of downplaying the scenario.

Of course they "tried", we know that for a fact. 

Trudeau was given an "urgent briefing" and ignored it. 

We were completely left in the dark as voters.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-says-leaks-interfernece-2021-election-innacurate-1.6758179:

He knows this is going in, in two election cycles, chose to keep us in the dark for all these years, now he's shifting the focus to "How accurate the leaked info is" instead of giving us the rundown on the length and breadth of this issue in a timely manner. 

Raymond J. de Souza: China has been pulling Canada's strings for nearly four decades

A statue of a Canadian PM shaking the blood-soaked hand of a Chinese tyrant would be a fitting expression of Canadian policy

Regarding the Chinese election interference scandal, there was this little nugget that came to public attention. The Chinese donors — who were to be reimbursed by the Chinese communist state — who ponied up a cool million for the Trudeau Foundation wanted to build a joint statue for Pierre Elliott Trudeau and Chairman Mao at the University of Montreal law school.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/china-has-been-pulling-canadas-strings-for-nearly-four-decades

Chinese President Xi Jinping shakes hands with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau during the G20 Summit in Hangzhou, China, in 2016. Photo by Damir Sagolj / Reuters

Edited March 5, 2023 by Dougie93