The National Telegraph - Wyatt Claypool - CBC report BLOWS UP at Poilievre as CBC covers for Liberal floor-crossings!

00:00:00.040 Hey guys, Wyatt Claypool here, and welcome back to the National Telegraph YouTube channel.

00:00:06.640 Yes, I finally did go get that haircut I've been talking about for a while.

00:00:11.220 I'm feeling refreshed, feeling breezier today, and for that reason we are going to talk about

00:00:17.200 a fun story in Canadian politics, or at least a story that I consider fun.

00:00:22.680 We're going to talk about a CBC journalist having a meltdown.

00:00:25.660 Hopefully you agree that that is a fun story.

00:00:28.320 Oh, the entitlement that giving a news organization $1.5 billion of taxpayer money fosters in a group of people.

00:00:38.220 They are entitled, apparently, to a question at every single press conference.

00:00:44.320 Kira Polyev and the conservative team didn't give a CBC journalist a question, and she crashed out, and it's on recording.

00:00:52.060 So we are about to get to that video in just a second here.

00:00:55.700 this is the image of how it starts out right now. You can already tell she's pointing at herself

00:01:00.960 with that don't you know who I am energy. But before we get to it, I just want to remind you

00:01:05.960 guys, if you like the channel, make sure to leave a like on this video. Subscribe if you are not yet

00:01:11.040 a subscriber. Help me get to 100,000 subscribers eventually. Always hit the notification bell. It

00:01:16.840 does help make sure that you know when a new video comes out. Type the video if you're on YouTube

00:01:21.940 mobile and consider hitting the join button and becoming a member of the channel, making a small

00:01:27.480 contribution each month to make the channel more sustainable for me. So to give you a little bit of

00:01:33.340 prep, and I'm getting this from the Western Standard article that I believe Alex Zoltan

00:01:37.540 ended up writing. So this reporter who is wearing purple here is named Caroline Bargut, and she is

00:01:45.500 accusing Polyev and his team of basically sidestepping her at the press conference

00:01:51.800 because they didn't want a question from the CBC. Now, if I was Polyev's team, I would actually just

00:01:57.860 actively ignore the CBC all the time. We already have to give them our taxpayer money. We shouldn't

00:02:02.960 also have to give them questions as well whenever they want them. But this is a press conference.

00:02:07.920 You can already see it behind her. There's a lot of people here. Those are not conservative staff

00:02:12.480 members. Now, some of them are security, some of them might be staff members, but a whole lot of

00:02:16.600 those people are the journalists who are still there a few minutes after the press conference.

00:02:21.680 From reports on the ground from Al-Gazoltan, there was like 14 different reporters there,

00:02:27.040 each probably wanting to ask two or three questions. Now, party leaders or just politicians

00:02:33.340 in general, whenever they do a press conference, they don't usually go for dozens and dozens of

00:02:38.100 questions. They'll pick a handful of people, have one question, sometimes a follow-up, and that's

00:02:43.680 it. You know, people got lives to live and they got places to be. The CBC, I shouldn't have to

00:02:48.760 tell you, gets questions all the time at this stuff. And instead of letting the CBC have a

00:02:54.420 question, Polyev let independent media have some questions. There are some mainstream media who

00:02:59.180 got questions too, but you know, David Brett at the New Westminster Times, who in fact is the

00:03:04.260 person who shot this video, and I will be linking him in the description below, he got to ask a

00:03:09.220 question. It was a really good one that he asked. But apparently to Caroline Burgot, this is an

00:03:14.260 affront to her and her God that she does not get to actually ask probably a sneering question to

00:03:20.200 Pierre Polyev. I came all the way out here and I don't get to ask a question. Why do you let scum

00:03:25.580 in front of me ask questions and not point at me? So now you're going to watch this whole thing 1.00

00:03:31.320 play out. It's a minute and a half here. Did anybody see that? We all saw that. You

00:03:37.140 intentionally refused to take my question. You don't even know what my question was.

00:03:42.140 Was that a direction from Mr. Polyev or was that your own? No, there's clearly a direction. You

00:03:48.580 refused to let me ask a question because I work for the CDC. Why is that? Then why didn't you let

00:03:55.580 me ask my question? I was first in line. I kept telling you I'd like to ask a question and you

00:04:01.000 intentionally went around should be a little bit better I would say that that might have helped

00:04:04.360 that maybe you could tell me why you would not let me ask a question is that are you picking and

00:04:09.880 choosing which outlets are allowed to ask questions well of course they're going to pick and choose

00:04:15.920 who asks questions there's no like default seniority order where the CBC always gets to

00:04:21.640 ask a question first and from the sounds of it there was not really like a lineup at most press

00:04:27.100 conferences. I've been at tons of them at the BC legislature and elsewhere. Usually you get a bit

00:04:32.140 of a horseshoe of journalists around the podium where the politician is speaking and whoever's

00:04:37.400 behind him. In this case is Pierre Polyev and a few conservative MPs behind him. After they were

00:04:43.280 done their opening remarks, it went to the journalists. And usually it's people being

00:04:46.900 able to raise their fingers and say, like, you know, indicate they want a question. Someone

00:04:50.300 will point at them, whether it's the politician themselves or their staff members. There's no,

00:04:55.980 there's no like you know little car ticketing system where this where like she's declared that

00:05:01.040 she's going to get the first question and then that's what's going to happen it's just embarrassing

00:05:05.000 because do you really think i know that polyam and the team probably don't like the cbc no rational

00:05:10.760 person does but they take cbc questions all the time he appears on cbc shows himself he'll appear

00:05:18.580 on the show rosemary barton has multiple times he's not scared of a question from the cbc he got

00:05:25.380 tough questions david barrett from the new uh from the new westminster times asked a good question

00:05:31.220 even though he's a more conservative guy he asked a pretty hard-hitting question and she's mad really

00:05:37.120 just because she thinks that somehow all these independent media people should be subservient

00:05:42.420 uh to the cbc they should the cbc should go in there be able to do whatever they want and then

00:05:47.920 the scraps are maybe left for the independent media afterwards and i can only take a certain

00:05:52.800 You told us to line up, sir. I lined up. I followed your rules. And then I asked you if I could ask the question. I wasn't shouting into it. I wasn't shouting into it. You were standing right beside me. Thank you. I was polite and I was respectful and I had a very respectful question and I don't understand. I am shocked. Nobody is respectful. Thank you. I appreciate that.

00:06:22.800 yeah this has never happened before you didn't get a question this has never happened before

00:06:31.600 that's the problem you shouldn't always get a question do you think juno news always gets

00:06:36.680 questioned rebel news like new westminster times western standard do you think they all always get

00:06:41.840 a question no alex zoltan who's worked for both juno and now the western standard says he's been

00:06:48.260 press conferences with conservative politicians friendly to his outlet and sometimes he still

00:06:53.700 doesn't get a question it's just how the cookie crumbles sometimes and she can't handle it

00:07:00.180 but i didn't want to talk to you i wanted to ask the leader of the conservative party

00:07:03.540 a question okay and some other legacy media journals were like no she was very respectful

00:07:19.140 she's obviously not being respectful now it's just how it works out sometimes there are 12

00:07:24.260 to 14 different reporters there there's going to be six questions asked so if you do the math

00:07:29.620 at the very least it's a 50 50 that you're going to be able to ask a question if not worse but

00:07:35.060 she's from the cbc and so of course she should be able to get a question now i just want to you can

00:07:39.940 here's another angle of it if you want to kind of see the attitude here this is from alex zoltan at

00:07:44.420 the western standards own phone first video is from david brett at new westminster intentionally

00:07:50.340 refused to take my question yes you did did anybody see that we all saw that you intentionally

00:07:58.180 refused to take my question you don't even know what my question was was that a direction from 1.00

00:08:04.500 mr polyev or we got your own no there's clearly a direction you refused well that's a stupid 0.95

00:08:10.500 question i was like is this a direction coming from mr polyev or something you chose to do 0.90

00:08:14.260 and he's like there's no direction and you know we're just choosing questions as we go and she's

00:08:18.100 She's like, no, no, there is a direction. Apparently, the CBC is not biased, but a CBC

00:08:23.640 reporter knows when there is bias in the question-selecting process. Now, I want to jump over

00:08:28.860 now to a different CBC moment here where people were pointing out, quite rightfully so, the CBC

00:08:35.600 seems oddly giddy about the floor crossing of Marilyn Gladue to the Liberal Party. This is a

00:08:43.020 great segment clipped by CBC Watcher. And again, just notice the attitude of CBC reporters

00:08:49.380 reporting on Marilyn Gladju coming over. There's a strange gleefulness to the news that they are

00:08:55.180 reporting, where if it happened in reverse, it would be dour. It'd be very serious. Why did this

00:09:00.280 person leave? We need to follow up and ask questions. They kind of asked questions to

00:09:04.920 Marilyn Gladju at a press conference yesterday. They weren't that difficult. You know, they were

00:09:09.820 pretty straightforward questions and she completely fell on her face. Watch them never follow up with

00:09:14.020 her in the future, just as they have with Chris Dontremont, Michael Ma, Matt Jenneru, Laurie

00:09:19.300 Idlout, and now Marilyn Gladju. They're going to ask questions for about a week and then it's going

00:09:24.440 to dissipate. And they'll just keep being these implications. Oh, this proves that Polyev's

00:09:29.400 leadership's on shaky ground. Now, I'm not saying that Polyev's leadership is on rock solid ground.

00:09:35.360 Obviously, you don't like losing people, but we keep hearing, oh, this is a reflection on Polyev's

00:09:39.800 leadership style. Okay, well, how about we have one of the floor crossers come out and tell us 1.00

00:09:44.480 what about poly have caused them to leave? Because none of them have actually come out and explained 1.00

00:09:48.400 it yet. It's almost like if they told the whole story, they would not look like heroes. But here

00:09:54.100 is this segment from CBC News at the Liberal Convention. Three by-elections on Monday could

00:09:59.900 tip the balance of power inside the House of Commons. Liberals are keenly aware of that. They

00:10:04.980 can talk of little else at their party convention in Montreal. Our Catherine Tunney is there.

00:10:09.920 She joins us now live. So Cat Liberals have a bit of a balancing act to maintain at this gathering

00:10:15.800 as they are just one seat shy of a majority that could come to them on Monday, maybe sooner if

00:10:23.020 there's another floor crossing, who knows? But what's the mood like? Yeah, well, you know,

00:10:28.860 right? Lots of laughter, lots of, you know, high spirits here in this room and in the

00:10:34.820 hallway. And that's because, as you say, I think, you know, they can almost taste that

00:10:38.820 majority government. They, of course, gathered here in downtown Montreal the day after Marilyn

00:10:44.180 Cladieu announced that she was leaving the Conservative benches to come join the Liberals.

00:10:48.520 And of course, this whole gathering happens just days, almost hours until those by-elections

00:10:54.740 on monday those three crucial by elections so uh you know while there clearly are lots of things

00:11:00.540 going on in in the world inside this room it's you know spirits are are pretty high lots of laughter

00:11:07.040 lots of jokes um including this one from the conservative mp who kind of started this whole

00:11:12.000 floor crossing trend sorry like the reporting of the general details is fine here but do you notice

00:11:19.180 an attitude difference when the cbc is talking about conservatives especially when they're not

00:11:23.380 given a question at a conservative press conference. And the way the reporters on the CBC

00:11:28.080 joke around, have a levity to the way they talk about the liberals doing well in politics. Oh,

00:11:33.340 they're probably going to secure these by-elections. Oh, everyone's having a great time.

00:11:37.360 There's lots of jokes and laughter and levity. And now let's jump over to Chris Dontremont,

00:11:42.700 who the CBC has still never actually asked to justify why he crossed the floor. It's just

00:11:46.720 one of those assumed things that Paulie of bad, and that's why he left, even though he's never

00:11:51.340 actually told the story. I've been trying a couple of different lines as I've been speaking to folks

00:11:58.780 in the foyer and as we've been going to different events today. So I don't know whether to introduce

00:12:03.680 myself as a recovering conservative or just that I was a liberal and I didn't know it.

00:12:12.980 So you guys tell me, give me some feedback later of what that should be.

00:12:16.520 so a little taste of kind of the jabs that are going on by the way did any of this coverage

00:12:25.980 follow the the federal conservative convention did was there like a lot of like highlighting

00:12:32.380 all the levity and people joking around or or playing clips of jasmine lane making jokes about

00:12:38.280 the liberals when she made a speech on the stage there's none of that here that's the thing that's

00:12:42.680 so frustrating about all this there's so clearly a double standard going on where the the press

00:12:48.980 kind of always likes to highlight the positives the silver lining the fun going on to liberal one

00:12:53.580 when they cover the conservatives all intense poly of in a stable position his leadership

00:12:59.560 is going to prove himself to conservative members is he going to be able to do it is there a split

00:13:03.920 in the party at the liberal convention it's just there's not very many questions even about the

00:13:08.240 fact that is this good that he's basically upending democracy by having background negotiations to try

00:13:14.200 and get a majority government that Canadians did not give him? No, no, it's just it's just assumed

00:13:18.400 that this is a positive political story with no implications at all. No questions needing to be

00:13:22.380 asked. Here, as I mentioned, Chris Donderman was the first MP to cross the floor. There are now

00:13:27.560 five of them in total. And to do some quick math, you know, that brings them up to 171 MPs,

00:13:33.660 one shy of a majority government, a technical majority government, although clearly MPs here

00:13:39.460 are looking for to add more, to get some more breathing room in the House of Commons, because

00:13:44.560 a majority government isn't just about bragging rights, although I'm sure liberals will be very

00:13:48.960 happy, you know, if they get one on Monday. But there are some important things that would change

00:13:54.300 in the House, you know, the speed at which bills... So now I just want to jump now to another part of

00:13:58.840 this segment to, again, give you a little more flavoring of just what, you know, again, trying

00:14:04.000 to spin this whole thing as normal. There's nothing wrong with floor crossings if you're a CBC viewer

00:14:08.660 at home. This is just how the democracy works. This is just boldly okay. Above board. No questions

00:14:14.520 to be asked, as I am saying. These people were just, they were always liberal. Oh, it's just

00:14:19.580 that they really liked how nice Mark Carney's suit was, and so they joined. Oh, well, in Marilyn

00:14:25.760 glad you's case she was always she was always pro-choice even as she was super pro-life before

00:14:30.960 she was always this way like shouldn't this and this is really the thing how there is such a

00:14:37.360 dereliction of duty in the legacy media when it comes to these floor crossings there are they're

00:14:41.920 not hounding these politicians to actually give non-boiler plate answers for why they joined all

00:14:46.720 the answers are basically like if you ask one of these floor crossers why they left they're like 0.97

00:14:50.640 uh mark harney is is the leader we need right now it's like what does that mean that means

00:14:57.780 literally nothing uh but here's that cbc segment uh justifying the floor crossings

00:15:03.040 so interesting perspective about from someone who knows exactly what it's like to work with

00:15:09.260 the other parties and try to get things through in a minority um government especially that word

00:15:14.520 she mentioned it a stability we've heard that over and over this would give us stability this

00:15:18.000 would give us stability and I think some breathing room,

00:15:21.180 especially, you know, depending on where politics might go

00:15:24.300 in the next few years.

00:15:25.960 Is there, though, Kat, a political risk that comes with a majority

00:15:29.960 one through floor crossings versus at the ballot box?

00:15:33.100 This is a question that people have been asking.

00:15:37.480 Yeah, I think Conservative leader Pierre Paliyev

00:15:39.980 would like to see a risk for Prime Minister Mark Carney

00:15:44.060 and would like to see perhaps, you know, some accountability there.

00:15:47.880 he was pushing you know this idea that we hear often when floor cross when a floor crossing

00:15:52.060 happens that you know mp should go run for a by-election and said we took that question to

00:15:56.540 a lot of people here out on the floor and you know perhaps because we're at a very very partisan

00:16:01.740 um event no one seemed too bothered by that question you know what is this coverage like

00:16:08.620 she even just admitted right there well we walked around the convention hall and it's a super

00:16:12.340 partisan liberal event but no one was that bothered i'm like almost like you're at the

00:16:16.400 liberal convention but when when the host brought up well could this be a political risk for mark

00:16:21.940 carney that this maybe looks sleazy and by the way there's polling to back that up polling shows

00:16:26.260 people even the kind of casual liberal voter actually does kind of find this slightly gross

00:16:32.320 there was this one cbc segment where they went to the sarnia lamb did riding and pretty much

00:16:37.420 everyone was against it the only person who's in favor of it was obviously a federal liberal

00:16:42.680 supporter from 2025 saying oh well you know it's good that she uh did this because trump it was

00:16:48.940 basically that shallow uh because carney is the leader we need and we need to stand up to trump

00:16:54.040 as if somehow you were not standing up to trump if you're part of the conservative side and that

00:16:58.700 is a narrative that the media wants to platform the idea that liberals are like the standing up

00:17:03.740 for canada party and the conservatives are something else you fill in the blanks but like

00:17:08.480 Again, she brings up as soon as the idea of is this a political risk for the prime minister based on potential backlash, how sleazy this feels, immediately what she said, if you noticed, was, well, pure poly of all want it to be a political risk.

00:17:22.780 And then she uses some counterfactual counter evidence, counterfactual evidence.

00:17:27.680 Oh, no one on the floor dislikes it.

00:17:29.660 It's like that wasn't what was asked.

00:17:31.800 They'd ask you if you think that poly of wants it to be a risk.

00:17:34.740 They ask, is this a risk?

00:17:36.220 you're supposedly a reporter and analyst in one, have a thought. Not a dismissive answer that

00:17:43.080 indicates the CBC viewer, unless you're that pro-Trump puppet Pierre Polyev, you shouldn't

00:17:50.640 think this is a risk. It's the framing that makes me hate the CBC. Technically, a lot of the

00:17:56.800 information they tell you is accurate. It's the spin, it's what's left out, and it's this kind of

00:18:02.540 eye-rolling framing that they use to try and indicate to the viewer that you're supposed to

00:18:07.920 take the liberal side like anyone who watches the cbc and thinks they're like a smarter political

00:18:12.820 watcher because of it is like falling for the most obvious like psyop on the planet and when i say

00:18:20.020 that i mean it like a literal sense psychologically they are trying to get you to roll have your

00:18:25.780 marble roll into the liberal hole and if they just told you to vote liberal in a certain sense i think

00:18:31.520 a lot of people would chafe against that. They would realize that doesn't feel like fair play

00:18:34.520 from the CBC, and they may actually do the opposite vote conservative. What the CBC does,

00:18:38.540 because they're somewhat smart, is that they just kind of arrange a bunch of puzzle pieces for you

00:18:42.920 in the most, you know, not together. They don't put the puzzle pieces together for you at the

00:18:46.860 conclusion they want you to come to. They just kind of leave them right next to you. And it's

00:18:51.200 like, oh, well, just come up with what do you, how do you think those puzzle pieces go together?

00:18:55.640 And like the pieces pretty much only go together in the way that the CBC wants you to. The very

00:19:01.500 Variations, at best, are like mildly conservative.

00:19:04.620 If you're already conservative, you can kind of maybe like deduce the information from the liberal reporting and still come to a conservative conclusion.

00:19:12.020 But for the vast majority of people, they think they're smart because, oh, wow, the CBC told me a bunch of facts and I stuck them together and I came to a pro-carny, pro-liberal conclusion.

00:19:21.200 It's like it's almost like that's what you're meant to do.

00:19:23.600 They're never going to tell you to come to the pro-liberal conclusion, but the puzzle pieces are like almost together.

00:19:28.220 and then you'll put it together as a viewer

00:19:30.220 and you're like,

00:19:30.880 this means that Paulio is a Trump puppet

00:19:33.620 and the CBC is like,

00:19:34.480 oh, that's so smart.

00:19:35.960 That's such a great analysis

00:19:37.680 from the viewer at home on that one.

00:19:39.520 I can't believe you came to that conclusion

00:19:41.620 based on just the facts you put in front of you.

00:19:44.580 Wow, what a crazy concept. 0.99

00:19:47.120 I hate these people. 0.87

00:19:48.960 Question being, 0.98

00:19:49.900 have you lost your legitimacy

00:19:51.000 if you get a majority through floor crossing

00:19:53.440 versus at the ballot box?

00:19:55.760 We also asked polls analyst,

00:19:57.720 Eric Grenier obviously we see him a lot on CBC you know about this question and he said you know

00:20:03.160 yes while polls show that Canadians don't love this practice of floor crossing it isn't Mark

00:20:09.480 Carney who's being punished by it take a listen we do see in polls that Canadians say they don't

00:20:15.960 really like floor crossing but we also see from the same polling that people thought that the

00:20:21.160 recent flow of floor crossers looked good for Carney looked bad for Polia and we also see that

00:20:27.560 But in elections, voters rarely punish floor crossers, especially when they're crossing to another party that is also in contention for a seat. 0.86

00:20:36.080 So while we do see in polling that people don't really like the idea of it, I'm not sure that we actually see that it actually has any impact on support for the parties or any real implications when it comes to actually voting in an election.

00:20:48.440 That's actually just entirely wrong.

00:20:51.480 And here, he took two different non-related results from floor crossing.

00:20:56.160 asking a voter do you like floor crossing and do you think it's kind of sleazy and they say yes i

00:21:01.440 think it's kind of sleazy you can't ask them then hey do you think the floor crossing benefits

00:21:06.060 polyev or carney and they'll be like obviously the guy who picked up the seat they cannot like 0.98

00:21:11.180 the practice and can even kind of taint their view of the liberal party but any voter is not stupid

00:21:16.600 they know that yeah having someone join your party looks good for you and bad for the other guy i 0.94

00:21:22.240 don't know how, unless you like let a child molester join your party from the other side

00:21:27.240 and you like pick them knowing that, it's not going to make you look bad to bring in

00:21:31.400 somebody on paper.

00:21:33.240 It's more so the long run, you start to feel like the bloated corporate party that's networking

00:21:40.260 its way to victory.

00:21:41.380 It starts to just feel kind of greasy.

00:21:44.440 But the thing is, he kind of used two completely different questions that don't really interact

00:21:49.000 with each other to come to a conclusion that you at home should not care about this. In fact,

00:21:53.660 you should think worse of Polyev because of it. And then he says, well, you know, floor crossing

00:21:58.420 is not actually bad for the candidate that crosses. Have we ever heard of Belinda Stronich?

00:22:04.560 Have we ever heard of Leona Alislev? Have we ever heard of all these other people who ended up

00:22:09.460 crossing and getting wiped out? It's happened many, many times. Remember that lady who was

00:22:15.120 elected in, I believe, in Nova Scotia, Halifax for the Greens, crossed the floor of the Liberals,

00:22:20.280 and then lost? It happens sometimes, God. It was Marina Mosef, the Afghani lady who called the

00:22:26.940 Taliban her brothers. Yes, it is bad. There are some success stories. It's usually just because

00:22:33.960 they usually crossed from an extremely unpopular party to a more popular party,

00:22:37.680 and they were able to get reelected in a district that was better for the party to cross to in the

00:22:42.220 first place like yeah if you had an NDP cross to the liberals in a traditionally liberal seat

00:22:47.900 that they happen to just win one time yeah they're probably going to be able to keep that one

00:22:52.940 but like overall it's not great do you do we all think that do we all think that Maryland glad you

00:23:00.160 would win if a by-election was triggered there's a reason why despite the fact that she thinks

00:23:04.420 apparently two months ago that there should be automatic by-elections or floor crossers there's 0.84

00:23:10.720 a reason that she chose not to do that. She could have. She could have resigned herself and told

00:23:15.900 Carney to make her the liberal candidate for that riding, and she's going to prove that she's got

00:23:20.500 the support of the constituents, as she keeps saying. She's not going to do that because she's

00:23:25.580 going to get wiped out in that riding. Matt Jenner is not going to do that because he would get wiped

00:23:29.620 out. Don Tremont, Michael Ma, none of them will do it because they would get demolished in that

00:23:35.280 riding because, in fact, people don't like floor crossers. Again, Belinda Stronich, Marion Monsef, 1.00

00:23:41.740 Leona Alislev. Yeah, sometimes, like Belinda Stronich, they were narrowly elected a second

00:23:47.140 time, but their careers were pretty much over after that, and they eventually lost because

00:23:51.180 they left a bad taste in voters' mouths having done something so sleazy, and they had to throw 0.99

00:23:55.800 everything at the wall to keep Belinda Stronich into that seat because she looked really bad

00:24:01.900 after she crossed from the conservatives to the liberals in 2004 to try and hold up Paul Martin's

00:24:07.040 party for a little bit longer, Paul Martin's liberal government. Anyways, so that started off

00:24:13.140 as a fun episode laughing at a CBC journalist. I don't know why I did that to myself, because we

00:24:18.560 then went and talked about something that makes me kind of mad, kind of frustrated, but that's just

00:24:24.320 the life of Wyatt Claypool, saying that you're gonna be happy, and then at the end of the day

00:24:30.700 you still end up upset and frustrated because you you went too deep on the politics i should stay

00:24:35.980 surface level one day and just talk about puppies or whatever uh but instead no i always i always

00:24:42.400 end up betraying myself by the end pulling a bit of a judas on myself here and talking about well

00:24:48.140 some cbc segments that make me annoyed but that should be it for today you know like share

00:24:54.660 subscribe if you want to join the membership program for the channel you can always hit that

00:24:58.640 join button below the video. Do it. Don't do it. I've become completely indifferent in this episode

00:25:05.060 by the end. Anyways, see you guys later. Bye.

The National Telegraph - Wyatt Claypool - April 11, 2026

CBC report BLOWS UP at Poilievre as CBC covers for Liberal floor-crossings!

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript