Podcast Summary
Democrats Confirm Use of Dossier in Trump Spying: Democrats' memo admitted to using the dossier in spying on Trump team, raising concerns over civil liberties and disregard for the Fourth Amendment.
During the discussion on The Dan Vongino Show, it was revealed that the Democrats have confirmed that the dossier of alleged false information on Donald Trump was indeed used to spy on the Trump team. The Democrats released their own memo in response to the Nunez memo, which detailed the Obama team's spying on the Trump team. The Democrats' memo aimed to clarify the situation, but instead, they confirmed the use of the dossier in the spying process. The Democrats' disregard for civil liberties, specifically the Fourth Amendment, was also highlighted as a concern. The discussion also featured a promotion for Quip, an electric toothbrush that offers a sleek design, effective brushing, and a convenient subscription plan.
Democrats' memo fails to disprove Republicans' claims: The Democrats' memo did not disprove the Republicans' allegations of misconduct in the FISA warrant application process, and only served to bolster the Republicans' argument against them.
The Democrats' memo, which was intended to counter the Republicans' memo regarding the FISA warrant used to investigate the Trump campaign, has been criticized as a political disaster for the Democrats. The memo did not disprove the Republicans' claims that the dossier, which was used as part of the warrant application, was based on fake information. The host, Dan Bongino, who is a former federal agent, emphasized that there is a clear legal standard for obtaining a warrant, and that the standard was not met if the dossier was only a part of the evidence. The memo's release over the weekend did not contain any new information and only served to bolster the Republicans' argument that the Democrats are in favor of a police state. The memo was widely criticized by reputable figures such as Byron York and Andy McCarthy, and it is recommended to read their articles for a detailed understanding of the situation.
Dossier was crucial for FISA warrant: Without the discredited dossier, Democrats can't prove they had probable cause for FISA warrant
The Democratic argument for the use of the discredited dossier in obtaining a warrant to spy on the Trump team is not holding up. The Democrats' claim that the dossier was only a small part of the probable cause for the warrant is being challenged, as the FBI's deputy director, Andrew McCabe, has admitted that the warrant would not have been granted without it. The standard for obtaining a warrant is probable cause, and without the dossier, the Democrats cannot make the case that they had it. The dossier, which has been entirely discredited, was used to establish probable cause, and its absence would mean the absence of the necessary standard. The debate around this issue is not about being close or almost there, but about having or not having the required probable cause.
Emphasis on lack of probable cause for Dem warrants: The Democrats' claims for warrants on Carter Page and Paul Manafort lacked probable cause, with the Pfizer warrant on Page being a 'ruse' to access emails of others. The FBI's acknowledgement of the dossier's role in obtaining the warrant raises questions about its legitimacy.
During this discussion, it was emphasized that the Democrats did not have sufficient probable cause to obtain warrants on Carter Page and Paul Manafort, despite their claims. The Pfizer warrant issued on Page was described as a "ruse" and a "spy on Trump," with Page being used as a "vehicle" to access emails of others. The FBI has acknowledged that the warrant against Page would not have happened without the dossier. Carter Page, who is not in federal prison, has been all over cable news, which raises questions about the seriousness of the alleged espionage. The standard for obtaining a warrant and for arresting someone is the same - probable cause. If the Democrats had probable cause without the dossier, they wouldn't have needed it. The conversation also highlighted the importance of understanding the legal concepts involved and the potential consequences of misunderstanding them.
FISA Application Used Debunked Dossier: The Democratic memo admits using a debunked dossier in a FISA application, but downplays its significance. Without it, there was no probable cause for spying on the Trump team.
The Democratic memo confirming the use of the Steele dossier in the FISA application against the Trump team exposes the lack of probable cause for the surveillance. The dossier, now debunked, was a crucial piece of evidence, and without it, there was no legal justification for spying on the Trump team. The Democrats' memo acknowledges this, but they continue to downplay the dossier's significance. However, once the full FISA application is released, the evidence used to obtain the warrant will become a public record, revealing the truth. The Democrats' attempts to hide their actions will ultimately fail, and they will have to face the consequences for violating the Constitution. The iTargetPro system mentioned in the text is a laser round system that allows for safe and accurate shooting practice at home.
Practice shooting skills at home with Glock 43 and laser training rounds: Improve accuracy and proficiency with cost-effective and safe laser training rounds for home practice, without frequent range trips.
The Glock 43 handgun with a laser training round offers a cost-effective and safe alternative for practicing shooting skills at home. The use of this technology allows individuals to improve their accuracy and proficiency in gun handling without the need for frequent trips to the range. Additionally, the recent Democratic memo regarding the Russia investigation did not refute the fact that the judge overseeing the case was not informed that the debunked information in the Trump dossier was paid for by Hillary Clinton. The memo acknowledged the possibility of political motivations, but no names were mentioned. It's unclear why the Democrats released a memo that seemed to reinforce Republican talking points, but it may have been an attempt to buy time until new developments in the Manafort case.
The credibility of Christopher Steele is not the issue, it's the sources of the dossier: Despite attempts to establish Steele's credibility, it's the unknown sources of the dossier that matter for its accuracy and reliability.
The credibility of Christopher Steele, the British spy whose dossier was used to initiate the Russia investigation against Trump, is irrelevant. The sources of the information in the dossier are the ones whose credibility matters, but their identities remain unknown. The Democrats have been trying to establish Steele's credibility, but it is the sources' credibility that is crucial, and we have no way of evaluating it since we don't know who they are. The Russia investigation was a setup, with the Obama team using Hillary Clinton and the Democrats to target the Trump team with false claims of Russian involvement in their campaigns. The media continues to treat these approaches as random, but they were not. Conversations about Russians were reported back to Fusion GPS, and several individuals approached the Trump team with information about Russian emails or Hillary's emails that the Russians supposedly had. This is clear from episodes 6 to 28 of this show. The daily signal and Breitbart have published damning pieces on this topic, which will be in the show notes.
Interactions between individuals connected to Trump team and Democrats/Clinton camp raise suspicions of a potential sting operation: During the 2016 election, various individuals with connections to both the Trump team and Democrats/Clinton camp had interactions that raised suspicions of a potential sting operation, involving figures like Alexander Downer, George Papadopoulos, Sergei Millian, and Oleg Deripaska, as well as their associates and lobbyists.
During the 2016 election, various individuals connected to both the Trump team and the Democrats or Clinton camp, such as Alexander Downer, George Papadopoulos, and Sergei Millian, had interactions that raised suspicions of a potential sting operation. Million, an international businessman, is also alleged to have been the source of information that ended up in the dossier, and a photo of him with Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska, who is close to Putin, surfaced. Deripaska's D.C. lobbyist, Tony Podesta, reached out to Democratic Senator Mark Warner on behalf of Christopher Steele to set up a meeting. While it's unclear if this was a deliberate sting, the coincidental connections are highly unlikely. The FBI is reportedly having trouble locating Million for questioning. This complex web of relationships and interactions adds to the intrigue surrounding the origins of the Russia investigation.
Russian oligarch Deripaska linked to Million, who provided golden shower info to Steele. Downer, Weiner involved.: Russian oligarch Deripaska's connection to Million, an alleged golden shower informant, and the involvement of Downer and Weiner in the Russia investigation raise questions about its origins.
Several key players in the Russia investigation, including Deripaska, Million, Downer, and Weiner, appear to be interconnected in various ways. Deripaska, a Russian oligarch, has been linked to Putin and is reportedly connected to Million, who allegedly provided information about the golden shower to Steele. Downer, an Australian diplomat, had meetings with the Trump team and later reported the information to American intelligence. Weiner, a State Department official, met with Steele and reportedly received information from him, despite not being a law enforcement or intelligence official. These connections raise questions about the origins of the Russia investigation and suggest that it may have been a setup. It's important to remember these names as they continue to emerge in the investigation.
Allegations of information passing between Libya, Hillary Clinton, and the State Department involving Weiner and APCO: During Obama's tenure, Weiner's involvement in APCO and potential role in passing information to the FBI raised questions about the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation and the interconnectedness of individuals and organizations involved.
During the Obama administration, there were allegations of individuals passing information between Libya, Hillary Clinton, and the State Department, involving Huma Abedin's former husband, Anthony Weiner. The information was reportedly passed through Weiner to the FBI, creating the appearance of multiple sources confirming Trump's involvement with Russians. Weiner had previously worked for APCO, a company allegedly lobbying the Clintons for Uranium deals. Additionally, APCO provided pro bono work to the Clinton Global Initiative. These connections raise questions about the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation and the role of various individuals and organizations in shaping the narrative. It's essential to acknowledge that these allegations are not without controversy and require further investigation to determine their validity. However, the interconnected nature of these individuals and organizations highlights the complexity of the situation and the importance of transparency in government.
Discussion covered various topics, including a disappointing Republican dinner, pro bono work, HVAC filters, and the Janice case impacting labor's influence.: Discussion touched upon a disappointing event, charitable work, importance of HVAC filters, and a potential Supreme Court case that may affect labor's political power.
During the discussion, there were mentions of various topics including a Republican Party event with a disappointing chicken dinner, pro bono work for the Clinton Global Initiative, the importance of maintaining HVAC filters, and an upcoming Supreme Court case, the Janice case, that could significantly impact organized labor's influence in politics. Despite a dropped sponsor, the focus remained on promoting FilterBuy.com as a reliable provider of HVAC filters. The Janice case is expected to have significant implications on labor's political power at all government levels.
Labor Unions Facing Financial Challenges Due to Pension Promises and Janus v. AFSCME: The Janus v. AFSCME ruling may lead to financial losses for Democratic Party from labor unions, potentially impacting presidential elections
The current model of organized labor management and the financing behind it is unsustainable due to financial constraints, particularly regarding pension promises made by states. The Supreme Court case, Janus v. AFSCME, is expected to rule that mandatory union fees for non-members, known as agency fees, are unconstitutional. This could potentially lead to significant financial losses for the Democratic Party, as they have historically relied heavily on labor unions and special interests for campaign funding. The expected ruling could result in a shift in presidential elections, potentially reversing the Democrats' last three losses.
Union leaders misrepresenting interests and broken campaign promises: Individuals are concerned about recent decisions by their representatives, particularly in regards to unions and the Second Amendment. Holding representatives accountable and seeking primary runs are urged to address these issues.
There is deep concern among some individuals, particularly union members and gun rights advocates, about recent decisions made by their representatives. The speaker expressed disappointment towards union leaders for misrepresenting their interests and towards a congressman for making a decision against his campaign promises. These actions, according to the speaker, could have catastrophic consequences for unions and the Second Amendment. The speaker urged audiences to hold their representatives accountable and to seek primary runs if necessary. The speaker's passion for the issues and personal connections to the representatives were evident throughout the discussion.
Gun show loophole is a misconception: Every gun purchase from a federally licensed dealer requires a background check, debunking the myth of a gun show loophole. Private sales between citizens of the same state do not mandate a check.
There is no gun show loophole allowing private firearm sales without background checks. Contrary to popular belief, every purchase made from a federally licensed firearms dealer at a gun show or elsewhere requires a background check. The misconception of a gun show loophole is a political talking point used to confuse people. Only private sales between citizens of the same state do not mandate a background check. For more information, check out Sean Davis' article on The Federalist. Remember, stop the spread of false information and ensure firearm transactions are conducted legally. Tune in tomorrow for more discussions on relevant topics.
