He was "confused"?

No, no, no, Mr. Judd. Despite the Respect Deficit™ evident in us mere voters, it is you suffering from confusion.

I am a direct witness to the event in which I watched a loyal and dedicated Canadian serviceman lose his security clearance and his livelihood for simply picking up a newspaper which was politically unacceptable to the predecessors of CSIS.

I know who you are.

The confusion is that Geoffrey O'Brian even has a job with the Canadian government after he clearly displayed that he was willing to counsel the body you govern to break the law to reduce or eliminate due diligence on the part of your service.

To justify illegal means.... for any reason you and he deem appropriate.

You do not have my permission to do that.

And you need it to get away with it.

If a Leading Radio Special rating in the Royal Canadian Navy can have his life ruined because he looked at something the government didn't like, we can expect, even in a more enlightened world, that somebody who would intentionally violate Canadian law, and be in a position to do so, would be unemployable by the Crown.

Let's face it, my friend was screwed for a "hypothetical" that was more than a stretch. Your lawyer fully intends to turn his "hypothetical" into action given the slightest opportunity.

Why, Mr. Judd, are you defending him?

The answer to that is obvious. You're with him.