Podcast Summary
No concrete evidence of Russian collusion with Trump campaign: Latest indictments don't mention Trump team in alleged Russian interference, listeners urged to stay informed
Despite multiple indictments and allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 US election, there is still no concrete evidence of collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign. The latest indictment of Paul Manafort and the 13 Russians makes no mention of a criminal conspiracy involving the Trump team. The host, Dan Bongino, believes that something significant is being hidden and encourages listeners to stay informed and not be swayed by liberal panic. Additionally, the show was sponsored by WaxRx, a company offering a doctor-developed earwax removal system.
Mueller investigation did not find Americans involved in buying Russian Facebook ads or colluding to influence US elections: The Mueller investigation has not uncovered any evidence of Americans knowingly participating in Russian efforts to interfere with the US elections or buying Facebook ads, and the indictments against Russians did not involve illegal election spending.
Despite the Mueller investigation's claims of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign, no Americans were knowingly involved in the Russians' efforts to buy Facebook ads and cause chaos. The indictments against Russians did not charge them with spending money to influence US elections, which is illegal for foreign nationals. The conspiracy charges against Manafort had nothing to do with the Trump team's collusion with Russians to win the election. The Democrats are panicking as the investigation continues to yield no evidence of collusion. The question remains, what is the Mueller team hiding?
Possible reasons for not charging Russians in Mueller probe: Theories suggest Hillary's involvement in complex dealings with Russians through Fusion GPS and a law firm might explain why Russians in Mueller probe were not charged with election interference.
The reasons why Russians indicted in the Mueller probe were not charged with influencing the US election could be due to potential implications for Hillary Clinton and her team. According to a theory presented, paying Christopher Steele for his services through Fusion GPS and a law firm instead of directly could suggest a more complex and layered arrangement between Hillary, Fusion GPS, and Russian sources. The lack of any guilty pleas to a conspiracy to collude or engage in foreign election interference adds to the suspicion that the Mueller probe may be hiding something. It's important to note that this is speculation, but the lack of clear evidence of collusion between Trump and the Russians in the indictments contradicts the liberal belief that Trump colluded to win the election.
Russian investigation reveals more than expected connections: The Russian investigation may uncover intricate relationships between Russians and US political figures beyond the initial hacking allegations.
The ongoing investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 US election and potential collusion with the Trump campaign may be revealing more than just the actions of the Russians. The recent indictment of four Russian nationals for allegedly attempting to influence the election did not include charges related to hacking the Democratic National Committee or stealing emails. Some commentators believe that there may be information being hidden regarding Hillary Clinton's relationship with Russians through Perkins Coie, a law firm. If the Mueller team charges these Russians with foreign influence in the election, they may be asked why they haven't charged Clinton as well, and they would need a plausible deniability. Additionally, Adam Schiff, the Democratic ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee, has suggested that Russian meddling in the election began in 2014, which could potentially widen the scope of the investigation. Overall, it seems that the investigation is revealing more complex connections between the Russians and individuals involved in the US political scene than initially anticipated.
Democrats recognize potential oversight of Obama administration: Democrats face potential scrutiny over Hillary Clinton's contacts with foreign governments as they investigate Russian collusion with Trump campaign, while Republicans recover in polls and tax cuts gain popularity.
The Democrats, who have been heavily focused on investigating Russian collusion with the Trump campaign during the 2016 election, are starting to recognize that they may have overlooked some issues during the Obama administration. Adam Schiff, a prominent Democrat and vocal critic of Trump, has acknowledged that the Obama administration's response to the 2014 Sony hack may have encouraged Russian interference in the 2016 election. The Democrats, who have been heavily invested in the idea of Trump colluding with the Russians, are now facing the possibility that there may be unsavory contacts between Hillary Clinton and foreign governments that will be revealed in the upcoming inspector general report. The panic among Democrats comes as the Republicans are starting to recover in the polls and the tax cuts are becoming popular. The Democrats may have to do some explaining when the IG report is released, which is expected to contain information about Hillary Clinton's contacts with foreign governments.
Skepticism towards Mueller's investigation and potential Clinton camp hypocrisy: The speaker questions Mueller's investigation into Russian interference, citing potential Clinton camp payments to the same law firm and lack of evidence for Trump-Russia collusion.
The speaker expresses skepticism towards Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, suggesting that there may be hypocrisy regarding the handling of allegations against both the Trump and Clinton camps. The speaker believes that Mueller's focus on Trump's campaign seems vindictive and that there is evidence of payments made by the Clinton campaign and Obama's Organizing for America to the same law firm that paid for information from Russians. The speaker argues that if these payments were on the up and up, then why were they hidden through a law firm? The speaker also mentions the lack of charges for actual collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, and raises concerns about the deeper entanglements between the Hillary team, Fusion GPS, Christopher Steele, and the Russians. The speaker concludes by expressing the belief that the Mueller team is panicking because they have little substantial evidence against the Trump campaign.
FBI never examined DNC servers, collusion allegations based on Russian ads and Steele dossier: The Russian collusion narrative, based on hacked DNC servers and alleged Trump-Russia collusion, may not be as solid as once believed, as the FBI never examined the servers and the evidence is based on Russian-bought Facebook ads and the Steele dossier, neither of which constitute collusion.
The entire Russian collusion narrative, which was based on the belief that Russians hacked the Democratic National Committee (DNC) servers and colluded with the Trump team to release the stolen information, may not be as solid as once believed. The FBI never examined the DNC servers, and the collusion allegations are based on Russian-bought Facebook ads and the Steele dossier, neither of which constitute collusion. The narrative took off after Obama's last press conference, where he mentioned the hacking incident but did not provide any concrete evidence. The media then ran with the story, and it snowballed from there. The lack of solid evidence and the FBI's refusal to examine the servers casts doubt on the entire collusion narrative.
Obama downplays Russian interference in 2016 election: Obama played down Russian interference to protect his legacy and avoid implicating himself and Clinton
During his last press conference before leaving office, President Obama downplayed the Russian interference in the 2016 election as not an elaborate or sophisticated scheme. However, this contradicts the Democrats' narrative for over a year that it was an elaborate scheme to overthrow the election. Obama's reason for minimizing it was likely due to his need to protect his legacy and avoid implicating himself and Hillary Clinton in the spying scandal, as he was emailing her from his private email account during the time of the alleged interference. Obama's actions demonstrate the complexity of the situation and the importance of understanding the motivations behind political statements.
The claim of Russian hacking of DNC servers largely debunked: Despite widespread belief, evidence for Russian hacking of DNC servers is discredited, and key parties involved deny allegations. Intelligence agencies never definitively concluded this, and collusion narrative is falling apart.
The claim that the Russians hacked the Democratic National Committee (DNC) servers in 2016 and caused significant damage, leading to the collusion narrative between the Trump campaign and Russia, has been largely debunked. The evidence used to support this claim, including the report by CrowdStrike, has been discredited, and key parties involved, such as the Ukrainian military and the app maker, have denied the allegations. Furthermore, intelligence agencies never definitively concluded that the Russians hacked the DNC servers, and there is no mention of this in the recent indictment. The Democrats and Mueller team's collusion narrative is falling apart, leaving them in a panicked state.
Russians bought ads after the election, not before: The Mueller investigation did not find evidence of Russian hacking or social media ad manipulation before the election. Most Russian ads were bought and run after the election, challenging the collusion narrative.
The Mueller investigation did not charge Russians with influencing the election's outcome through hacking or manipulating social media ads before the election. Instead, most of the ads were bought and run after the election. This is significant because it challenges the narrative that the Russians colluded with the Trump campaign to influence the election. Additionally, the speaker believes that the Obama administration's role in spreading the myth of Russian hacking and their involvement in spying on the Trump campaign may soon come to light. The Facebook Vice President of Advertising's admission that most of the Russian-paid ads were run after the election further undermines the collusion narrative. These revelations may lead to a shift in the narrative and potential consequences for those involved.
Facebook Advertising Executive's Revelation About Post-Election Spending: Despite ongoing investigations, the impact and significance of post-election Facebook ad spending on the 2016 election outcome remains unclear, with some using it to further their own agendas and potentially obscure the truth.
The ongoing investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and alleged collusion with the Trump campaign continues to be a contentious issue, with some believing there is evidence of wrongdoing despite a lack of concrete proof. The latest development involves Facebook's VP of advertising admitting that most of the spending related to the election, both pro and anti-Trump, occurred after the election. This raises questions about the impact of such spending on the election outcome. Additionally, some commentators argue that partisans on both sides and potentially even Russians are using this issue to advance their own agendas and cover up their tracks. Another narrative gaining traction is the obstruction of justice, but critics argue that this is a dead end as Trump acted within his constitutional authority to fire certain individuals involved in the investigation. It's important to maintain a clear understanding of the facts and separate fact from fiction in the face of constant information overload.
Examining Facts About Gun Control and the NRA: It's essential to examine facts, not agendas, when discussing gun control and the NRA. The NRA's influence is often exaggerated, and gun control measures in other countries don't always lead to decreased gun violence.
It's important to examine facts and not be swayed by agendas when discussing issues related to gun control and organizations like the NRA. The NRA has been accused of buying off the Republican Party and being responsible for mass shootings, but the facts show that their spending is significantly less than other influential organizations and that gun control measures in other countries, like Australia, have not led to the expected decrease in gun violence. It's crucial to hold all parties involved to the same standard and not make baseless accusations. Additionally, the effectiveness of gun control measures is complex and requires careful consideration of various factors, including population size and cultural differences.
Study finds mixed results on gun control and firearm deaths: The AMA study does not prove that gun control reduces firearm suicides or homicides, as the findings were not statistically significant and non-firearm suicides declined more.
The data from the AMA study does not definitively support the idea that gun control or confiscation decreases firearm suicides or homicides. The study found a decline in firearm suicides following gun control, but it was not statistically significant and could have been part of a larger trend. Moreover, there was a larger decline in non-firearm suicides. The study also found no evidence of a statistically significant effect of gun control on the preexisting downward trend of the firearm homicide rate. The speaker argues that taking away people's right to defend themselves with their preferred firearm does not make anyone safer, as criminals will obtain weapons through illegal channels. The argument against gun control will persist until the premise that criminals will obtain guns regardless is accepted. The speaker encourages listeners to read the articles on his website and join his email list for more information.
