Podcast Summary
Democrats shift from Russian collusion to obstruction narrative: Dan Bongino believes Democrats lack evidence in their investigations against Trump, predicting a shift from collusion to obstruction narrative, but uncertainty exists about Mike Flynn's lies to the FBI
Dan Bongino predicted the Democratic shift from the Russian collusion narrative to an obstruction narrative, and he believes that the collusion narrative has fallen apart. The new narrative suggests that Trump knew about Mike Flynn's lies to the FBI and attempted to make the case go away. However, Bongino expresses uncertainty about whether Flynn actually lied and encourages listeners to read an article by Andy McCarthy in National Review for further insight. Overall, Bongino emphasizes the predictability of the Democrats and their lack of evidence in their investigations against Trump.
Misunderstandings during Flynn's FBI interview: Flynn's interview with the FBI may have been misunderstood, but it didn't meet the legal standard for obstruction of justice.
The interview between Michael Flynn and the FBI agents may not have been taken seriously by Flynn, leading to potential misunderstandings and misstatements. The legal implications of these misstatements have been used as evidence in the investigation into potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. However, it's important to note that the case for obstruction of justice requires the presence of a threat or intimidation, and Trump's expression of hope that the investigation against Flynn would go away does not meet that standard. Overall, the situation raises questions about the nature of the interview and the motivations of those involved.
Challenges to the obstruction of justice argument against Trump: Despite media speculation, the case for obstruction of justice against President Trump regarding the Flynn investigation is weak due to the lack of a formal order to drop it, agents believing Flynn's truthfulness, and Trump's constitutional authority to fire Comey.
The argument for obstruction of justice against President Trump regarding the Flynn investigation is facing significant challenges. First, there was no formal order for Comey to drop the investigation. Second, the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn believed he was telling the truth at the time. Third, the president was well within his constitutional authority to fire Comey, and the investigation is still ongoing. The notion that Trump obstructed justice by interfering with an ongoing investigation doesn't hold up, as nothing has been impeded or halted. The ongoing nature of the investigation and the lack of clear evidence of obstruction make this a tenuous argument.
Improve marksmanship skills at home with iTargetPro: The iTargetPro laser bullet training system offers a fun, effective, and convenient way to enhance shooting skills, with the added benefit of avoiding range fees and limited access.
The iTargetPro laser bullet training system is an effective and convenient way to improve marksmanship skills from the comfort of home. The user shared his experience of being intrigued by an advertisement despite his usual immunity, leading him to purchase the product and appreciate its benefits. The system works with standard firearms, and the accompanying app turns training into a video game-like experience. With the rising cost of range fees and limited access, this product offers a valuable solution for those seeking to enhance their shooting skills more frequently. The tax implications of the product's price were discussed, and it was explained that the tax reform goes beyond just rates and includes the design of the plan, making it worth the investment for many.
Tax design impacts economy: Designing a fair tax system can lead to economic growth, while distorting taxes can harm the market
While the rate of a tax may be important, the design of the tax system itself can have significant impacts on the economy. Using the example of an island that generates revenue primarily through the export of cars, the discussion highlighted that an export tax on cars makes the cars more expensive and distorts the market. By contrast, a more equitable tax code that eliminates such distorting taxes and lowers rates can lead to overall economic growth, even if some individuals face higher taxes. The article recommended by the speaker, which will be linked in the show notes, further explores this idea in the context of DACA.
Debate over DACA reauthorization: Facts vs. Narratives: The DACA debate involves conflicting narratives about the program and its recipients, with some emphasizing their education and vetting, while others raise concerns about their educational levels and background checks.
The ongoing debate about the reauthorization of DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) involves conflicting narratives about the program and its recipients. While some argue that DACA recipients are well-educated individuals who came to the US through no fault of their own and have been thoroughly vetted, others point out that only about half of them have a high school diploma, and the vetting process is not foolproof. The Democrats are passionately advocating for DACA as they see it as a way to replenish their voter base, but it's essential to have an informed and factual discussion about immigration policy. The Obama administration's admission of a lean background check on DACA recipients and the fact that over a thousand of them had their status terminated due to gang membership or felony convictions should be taken into account. Let's keep the conversation fair and factual.
Democrats Shift Focus to Fear and Victimhood: Democrats rely on fear and victimhood to keep certain voter groups engaged, but as these groups become more prosperous, they may turn to the GOP based on economic factors. Democrats are fighting to keep programs like DACA to maintain control and new victim groups.
The Democratic Party has shifted its focus from positive ideas and running on a message of what they will do, to an anti-message of fear and victimhood. This strategy has been effective in keeping certain voter groups, such as black and Latino communities, within the Democratic fold. However, as these groups become more prosperous and the tendency for them to vote Republican based on economic factors increases, the Democrats are facing a conundrum. They may be running out of groups to use as political pawns in their victimology game. This is why they are fighting so hard to keep programs like DACA in place, as it provides them with a new group of potential victims. The Democrats' reliance on this strategy is unfortunate and it's important to understand that it's not just about immigration, but about control. Additionally, Ben Shapiro's piece in RealClearPolitics, "The Democrats Need You to Be Angry," highlights this point and is worth a read. The show was also brought to you by Brickhouse Nutrition and their product Dawn to Dusk, which helps the host get through long days on the road.
Sustained Energy from Don to Dusk and Aluminum Tariffs Discussed: Don to Dusk offers a time-release energy solution for busy individuals, while proposed aluminum tariffs could increase costs and lead to retaliation.
The discussion touched on two distinct topics: the benefits of a time-release energy product called Don to Dusk, and the potential negative consequences of proposed aluminum tariffs by the Trump administration. Regarding the energy product, the speakers emphasized its ability to provide sustained energy throughout the day, making it an ideal solution for busy individuals. They encouraged listeners to check it out at brickhousenutrition.com/Dan. On the other hand, the speakers warned against the proposed aluminum tariffs, explaining that they would raise the cost of imported goods and potentially lead to retaliatory tariffs from other countries. They urged listeners to be aware of the potential negative impacts of such trade policies.
Potential economic consequences of aluminum tariffs: Although aluminum tariffs bring revenue, potential retaliation and unfair trade environment could cost the US agricultural industry $160 billion and increase costs for one party.
Imposing import taxes on aluminum, despite raising some revenue, could lead to significant economic consequences. The potential retaliation from exporting countries, such as China, could result in a loss of $160 billion for the American agricultural industry, which outweighs the revenue gained from the aluminum tariff. Additionally, the inconsistency in rules and regulations between trading partners can create an unfair trade environment, leading to increased costs for one party. It is essential to approach trade policies with caution and consider the potential long-term consequences. Furthermore, the speaker emphasized his pro-life beliefs and the impact of ultrasound technology on the public perception of the abortion debate.
Ultrasound images changing public perception towards pro-life views: Ultrasound images' visibility challenges pro-choice argument, Planned Parenthood faces funding issues, and religious freedom vs anti-discrimination laws debated in Supreme Court case
The visibility of ultrasound images has played a significant role in shifting public perception towards pro-life views, making it harder to argue that a developing fetus is just a clump of cells. However, on the legislative front, Planned Parenthood continues to receive significant funding, despite allegations of financial mismanagement and illegal activities. A potential investigation into Planned Parenthood's infant body part trafficking operation is a promising development, but the organization has a history of successfully challenging defunding efforts in court. Another significant social issue being addressed this week is the Supreme Court case involving a baker who refused to create a custom cake for a gay wedding. This case highlights the ongoing debate between religious freedom and anti-discrimination laws. Ultimately, these issues underscore the importance of moral clarity and respect for all individuals, regardless of their beliefs or orientations.
Government force in cake baking case raises concerns: The government's use of force in the cake baking case disproportionately impacts one party, potentially infringing on religious freedoms without justification, and sets a concerning precedent for future cases.
The application of government force in the controversial cake baking case for a gay wedding raises serious concerns. The government's use of force only goes in one direction, potentially infringing on individuals' religious freedoms without a compelling justification or the least restrictive means. While feelings may be hurt on both sides, only one party faces the risk of investigation, lawsuits, and potential legal consequences. This imbalance of government force should be a concern for everyone, including those involved in the case, as it sets a precedent for future cases involving deeply held beliefs. It's crucial to consider the role of government force and its impact on individual liberties in these debates.
