David Clinton

Ontario’s Auditor General just released a performance audit on the Toronto District School Board. I’m sure it’ll surprise exactly no one that “financial and capital resources are not consistently allocated in the most cost-effective or efficient way” or that “The effective management of operations was not always being measured and assessed for internal decision-making”.

And there was plenty of institutional chaos:

“Between 2017/18 and 2022/23…about 38% of TDSB schools did not report conducting the minimum number of fire drills required by the Ontario Fire Code annually, and about 31% of TDSB schools did not report conducting the minimum number of lockdown drills required by TDSB policy annually. The TDSB does not have an effective process to ensure the required number of drills are performed by each school, each year, or that they are performed in accordance with TDSB policy when performed.”

What else would you expect from a massive government bureaucracy that employs 40,000 people, spends $3.6 billion annually and – based on many of the highlighted items on their website – is laser-focused on pretty much anything besides education?

What you might not have seen coming was that around half of the report centered on in-school violence. To be sure, we’re told that there were only 407 violent events reported to the board during the 2022/2023 school year – which is a rate of around 17 events for every 10,000 students. 17:10,000 doesn’t exactly sound like an environment that’s spiraling out of control.

There was a caveat:

“Due to input errors by principals, the TDSB underreported the number of violent incidents that occurred between 2017/18 to 2021/22 to the Ministry by about 9%.”

Ok. But we’re still nowhere near Mad Max levels of violence. So what’s attracting so much of the auditor’s attention? Perhaps it’s got something to do with a couple of recent surveys whose results don’t quite match the board’s own records. Here’s how the audit describes the first of those:

“The 2022/23 TDSB Student and Parent Census was responded to by over 138,000 students, parents, guardians and caregivers. It showed that 23% of students in Grades 4 to 12 that responded to the survey said they were physically bullied (e.g., grabbed, shoved, punched, kicked, tripped, spat at), and about 71% stated they were verbally bullied (e.g., sworn at, threatened, insulted, teased, put down, called names, made fun of). Further, about 14% of student respondents indicated they had been cyberbullied. TDSB’s central tracking of all bullying incidents is much lower than this, suggesting that they are not centrally capturing a large number of bullying incidents that are occurring.”

“23% of students in Grades 4 to 12 that responded to the survey said they were physically bullied”. That’s not a great fit with that 17:10,000 ratio, even if you add the 9 percent of underreported incidents. And bear in mind that these students and their families were willing to discuss their experiences in a survey run by the school board itself, so it’s not like they’re hard to find.

But that’s not the worst of it. The Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario (ETFO) ran their own survey in 2023. They wanted to hear about their members’ experiences with workplace violence. Here, quoting from the audit report, is what TDSB respondents told them:

• 42% had experienced physical force against themselves in 2022/23;
• 18% had experienced more than 10 of these physical force incidents in 2022/23;
• 81% indicated the number of violent incidents increased since they started working;
• about 77% responded that violence was a growing problem at their school;
• about 29% indicated they had suffered a physical injury;
• 57% had suffered a psychological injury/illness (such as mental stress, psychological or emotional harm) as a result of workplace violence against them; and
• about 85% indicated that violence at their school made teaching and working with students more difficult.

29 percent of teachers suffered a physical injury due to workplace violence. That’s elementary school teachers we’re talking about.

For perspective, even accounting for the 9 percent underreporting, the TDSB was aware of events impacting less than a quarter of a percentage point of their students (and apparently didn’t report any violence against teachers). But by their own accounts, 23 percent of all students and 42 percent of elementary teachers have suffered attacks. Are board officials willfully ignoring this stuff?

And if only there was some way to address violence and other criminal activities on school property. Perhaps – and I’m just spitballing here – there could even be people working in schools whose job it would be to (what’s the word I’m looking for?) police crime.

On a completely unrelated note, back in November, 2017, the Toronto District School Board voted 18-3 to permanently end their School Resource Officer (SRO) program. Since then, police officers have been unwelcome on board property.

To be sure, the TDSB has “accepted” all 18 of the report’s recommendations. But talk is cheap. Who’s to say that commitment won’t play out the same way we’ve seen with their fire drill compliance.

Can you spell “class action lawsuit”?

Sam Cooper

Intel warned of tens of thousands of illegal votes via fake IDs tied to CCP-linked students; FBI shut it down days after Wray denied foreign interference.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley announced that his panel will launch a formal investigation into why the FBI in September 2020 ordered the withdrawal and destruction of an explosive “raw intelligence” report alleging that Beijing harvested American private identity data from millions of TikTok accounts, enabling Chinese intelligence to manufacture fraudulent driver’s licenses that “would allow tens of thousands of Chinese students” to cast mail-in ballots in favor of Joe Biden during the 2020 presidential election.

Grassley confirmed receipt of the now-declassified document and said it raises “serious national‑security concerns that need to be fully investigated by the FBI.” The Senate Judiciary Committee is now requesting internal communications, a formal justification for the FBI’s “substantive recall” of the document, and a review of the FBI’s compliance with federal intelligence record-keeping laws.

The pre-election document does not assert that fraudulent ballots were cast, and explicitly warns that the information should not be actioned without FBI coordination. But the scale and specificity of the allegations—now under Senate scrutiny—have dramatically reignited questions over how U.S. intelligence agencies handled politically sensitive reports implicating the Chinese Communist Party in election interference.

According to Fox News, the heavily redacted FBI intelligence now under investigation has declassified sections that reveal the potential of a Beijing-directed voter fraud campaign designed to leverage Chinese international students, fraudulent ID records mailed into U.S. states, and populations sympathetic to the Chinese Communist Party living in America, all in efforts to elect Joe Biden over Donald Trump.

One section of the report cited by Fox News states the subject as: “[REDACTED] Chinese Government Production and Export of Fraudulent US Drivers Licenses to Chinese Sympathizers in the United States, in Order to Create Tens of Thousands of Fraudulent Mail-In Votes for US Presidential Candidate Joe Biden, in late August 2020.”

The FBI’s source allegedly obtained the information from an identified sub-source, who claimed they obtained the information from unidentified PRC government officials. One of the report’s core claims is that in late August 2020, the Chinese government had produced a large amount of fraudulent United States drivers licenses that were secretly exported to the United States.

The memo states: “The fraudulent drivers licenses would allow tens of thousands of Chinese students and immigrants sympathetic to the Chinese Communist Party to vote for US Presidential Candidate USPER Joe ((Biden)), despite not being eligible to vote in the United States.”

As reported yesterday by The Bureau, the FBI’s report aligns with seizures from CBP in Chicago, where officers at the International Mail Facility intercepted nearly 20,000 counterfeit U.S. driver’s licenses in the first half of 2020—the vast majority shipped from China and Hong Kong. The licenses were often destined for college-aged recipients, with many containing real ID numbers and scannable barcodes, raising alarms that they could be used for fraudulent identification.

The FBI election interference report—allegedly pulled from circulation by then-Director Christopher Wray—contained consequential assertions about TikTok, which has been identified in subsequent U.S. intelligence assessments as a Chinese information warfare and election interference asset.

The 2020 memo stated: “China had collected private US user data from millions of TikTok accounts, to include name, ID and address, which would allow the Chinese government to use real US persons’ information to create the fraudulent drivers license.” It added that the fraudulent drivers licenses were to include true ID number and true address of U.S. citizens, making them difficult to detect, and that China planned to use the fraudulent drivers licenses to account for tens of thousands of mail-in votes.

Beijing has already succeeded in directing the social video app TikTok to “censor content outside of China,” according to a classified Department of Justice brief filed last summer in a case that casts one of the world’s most popular media platforms as a Chinese Communist Party weapon poised to attack Americans during an election or geopolitical crisis in the same manner as Chinese cyber-spies and hackers that are currently buried within North American critical infrastructure.

Yet the FBI “warning” document also reveals internal doubts. According to Fox News, FBI notations flagged gaps in the TikTok claim, stating that “a person’s address information was not a valid field when creating a TikTok account. It was unspecified how China would attain US address data from the application.” Another annotation stated that the source is available for re-contact.

The following page of the intelligence report reportedly included a directive for “SUBSTANTIVE RECALL,” dated September 25, 2020—one day after FBI Director Wray told Congress that the Bureau had seen “no coordinated voter fraud” ahead of the 2020 election. The FBI’s internal context note acknowledged that the source received the information from a sub-source who cited anonymous PRC officials. The warning section of the document repeated that the allegations were part of “an information report, not finally evaluated intelligence.” The document also stated: “Recipients should also ensure that any citation of the information in finished intelligence products draws on the SUBSTANTIVE RECALL of this report rather than the previous version.”

The document reportedly instructed all recipients to destroy all copies of the original report and remove the original report from all computer holdings, and to cite only the recall order in any future analysis. That sequence—first, a claim implicating China in voter manipulation; next, immediate questioning of the methodology; and finally, a full internal shutdown—has now become the focus of a politically and institutionally charged congressional investigation.

The remainder of the document is heavily redacted, Fox reported, and more information is being requested from the FBI as part of the Senate’s investigation. “Grassley is requesting additional documentation from the FBI to verify the production and is urging the FBI to do its due diligence to investigate why the document was recalled, who recalled it and inform the American people of its findings,” a Grassley spokesperson reportedly told Fox News.

The FBI memo’s resurfacing also casts renewed light on a broader internal struggle inside the U.S. intelligence community in 2020: whether to formally acknowledge China’s intent or actions in shaping the presidential election. At the time, DNI John Ratcliffe and a small group of dissenting officials reportedly suggested that China had taken covert steps to influence the race—particularly in opposition to Donald Trump—and that this was being downplayed or scrubbed from official analyses for political reasons. Ratcliffe’s January 7, 2021 memo to Congress directly accused senior intelligence officers of pressuring analysts to downplay or suppress these findings, especially at the CIA and ODNI. He wrote that the 2021 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) failed to fully and accurately reflect the scope of the Chinese government’s efforts to influence the 2020 U.S. federal elections.

According to Ratcliffe, internal IC investigations found that China analysts appeared reluctant to assess Chinese actions as interference because they tend to disagree with the administration’s policies. The whistleblower report from ODNI’s own Analytic Ombudsman warned of undue pressure on analysts offering alternative views and concluded that politicization existed from both above and below.

One of the officials who refused to back down was Christopher Porter, then the National Intelligence Officer for Cyber, who claims that his minority assessment on Chinese influence was effectively buried. Porter alleged in late 2024 that he was harassed and forced out of government after submitting his dissent.

In a series of posts on X applauding the decision to release the report to Grassley, Porter wrote that he was upbraided four years ago for raising similar warnings. He argued that the failure of U.S. intelligence to confront China’s espionage—particularly its hacking of critical infrastructure and telecommunications networks—would only embolden the regime. “We are now reaping the harvest of that bad decision,” he added. In another message, Porter emphasized that “politics has to stop at the water’s edge,” urging national leaders to call out Chinese influence operations “at the highest level.”

Porter went further, criticizing U.S. allies like the United Kingdom for dragging their feet on national security decisions regarding China’s penetration of telecommunications. Canada, under Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, took about three years to decide on banning Huawei. Critics such as Porter attribute such reluctance to economic motives overriding sober analysis.

Today, with the FBI’s suppressed memo in the hands of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Porter’s and Ratcliffe’s minority views are no longer isolated warnings. They are now part of a growing body of evidence suggesting that political sensitivity—especially over which party Beijing may prefer—might have played a role in sidelining national security intelligence during one of the most consequential U.S. elections in history.