Podcast Summary
Dan discusses Ben Shapiro's podcast and left's hypocrisy: Dan respects Ben Shapiro's podcast but acknowledges questions about its legitimacy. Left criticizes Trump's meeting with a rapper for prison reform, but hypocritically meet with political figures themselves.
The Dan Bongino Show, hosted by Dan Bongino, addresses various controversies and topics, including the legitimacy of claims about Ben Shapiro's podcast and the hypocrisy of the left regarding meetings with political figures. Dan expressed his respect for Ben Shapiro and his conservative podcast, but acknowledged receiving questions about its legitimacy. He also discussed a rapper's planned meeting with Trump at the White House for prison reform, which sparked controversy among the left. Additionally, Dan promoted iTarget, a firearms training system that uses laser rounds to improve proficiency and accuracy in the safety of one's own home. Dan emphasized the importance of firearm proficiency and safety, and encouraged listeners to check out iTargetPro.com and use the promo code "DAN" for a 10% discount.
Left's reaction to Meek Mill's White House invitation: The left's approach to political discourse often involves shutting down conversations, as shown in the Meek Mill controversy, rather than engaging in genuine dialogue to find common ground and solve complex issues.
The left's approach to political discourse often involves shutting down conversations that challenge their ideologies. This was evident in the controversy surrounding rapper Meek Mill's invitation to the White House for a discussion on prison reform. The left's reaction was to pressure Meek Mill not to attend, framing the conversation as a reflection of Donald Trump's supposedly negative beliefs. This hypocritical stance was highlighted by the fact that former President Barack Obama had sat in a church led by a controversial figure without being held accountable for every statement made there. The left's strategy is to maintain power by portraying those who disagree with them as enemies, rather than engaging in genuine dialogue. It's a concerning trend that limits productive discourse and hinders progress towards finding common ground and solving complex issues.
Why were there fewer leaks about spying on Trump?: Possible explanation is that there was less damaging information to leak about Trump compared to anti-Trump efforts.
The ongoing discussion regarding Ben Shapiro's skepticism towards the "Obama gate" narrative and the alleged spying on the Trump team by the US intelligence community, raises questions about why such sensitive information didn't leak out before. However, the answer to this question might be that there was simply nothing damaging or negative to leak about Trump, as opposed to a deliberate effort to keep it hidden. It's important to note that the leaking operation in DC is not a purely Democratic effort, but also involves establishment Republicans. This context sheds light on why the leaks about the spying operation on the Trump campaign were less frequent and less detailed compared to the leaks about anti-Trump efforts.
Washington D.C. politics and Trump's threat to the status quo: Despite efforts to discredit Trump during the 2016 election, no substantial evidence was found. The motivation was not just dislike, but financial gain and preservation of power networks. Trump's independence from the system posed a threat to the status quo, making him an existential threat to many in Washington D.C.
During the 2016 presidential election, there was a significant effort by various political groups and individuals to discredit Donald Trump. However, they came up empty-handed as there was no substantial exculpatory information found. This was not just about disliking Trump, but rather about personal financial gain and the preservation of power networks in Washington D.C. Trump's election was seen as an existential threat to these networks as many people had been promised jobs and other benefits in exchange for their support. The conversation discussed here highlights the interconnected nature of Washington D.C. politics and how Trump's independence from the system posed a threat to the status quo. The foreign intelligence involvement in the election is also explored in the book and provides additional explosive insights.
Trump's Unconventional Campaign Strategy Disrupted Traditional Politics: Trump's high name recognition and self-funding allowed him to bypass traditional campaigning methods, confounding establishment politicians and ultimately securing the nomination and presidency.
During the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump's universal name recognition and self-funding disrupted traditional political dynamics. Politicians like Lindsey Graham relied on name ID, big donors, and access to build their campaigns. Trump, however, had 100% name recognition among primary voters and didn't need their money or promises to secure his nomination. This led to confusion and frustration among establishment politicians and the Democratic establishment, who tried unsuccessfully to find damaging information on Trump. Ultimately, Trump's unconventional approach to campaigning proved successful, and he went on to win the Republican nomination and the presidency.
Attempts to find incriminating information on Trump team during transition period: Despite initial focus on Russian connections, no incriminating information was found to leak during the Trump team's transition period. Ongoing investigations into Obama administration officials may prevent declassification of related information.
The human spying effort on the Trump team during the 2016 election transition period evolved from an initial attempt to probe for non-existent Russian connections to a desperate attempt to find something, but ultimately resulted in no leaks because there was nothing incriminating to leak. The panicked emails and increased attempts to intersect with the Trump team were fruitless. Regarding the question of why Trump doesn't just declassify the whole operation, the answer is that there are ongoing investigations into people in the Obama administration, and releasing the information could potentially harm ongoing investigations and negotiations. The speaker emphasizes that this is based on information they know to be true and is a matter of credibility and livelihood.
Ongoing investigations into Obama administration's FISA abuse and classified leaks: Trump holds back declassification to avoid tipping off potential defendants and contaminating ongoing investigations. Key figures from Obama admin may face liability, and some have left law firms.
The ongoing investigations into the abuse of the FISA process and sensitive leaking of classified information during the Obama administration are ongoing, and the reason Trump hasn't declassified everything is to avoid tipping off potential defendants and contaminating ongoing investigations. The discussion also suggested that key figures from the Obama administration, such as Catherine Rumbler, have left their law firms due to potential liability from these investigations. The speaker believes that Mueller's investigation is a smokescreen and that there is a horse trade going on, with information being given up in exchange for leniency. The speaker expressed frustration with past investigations that resulted in no action being taken against those involved, and expressed hope that this time, justice will be served.
Speaker's Confidence in Nutrition Supplement and Mueller Probe Update: The speaker promotes a nutritional supplement, citing its creatine ATP blend for noticeable physique changes within a week. He also shares exclusive intel on the Mueller probe, revealing potential involvement of more Obama agency informants.
The speaker is highly confident in the effectiveness of a nutrition supplement called Foundation, which he attributes to its creatine ATP blend. He encourages listeners to try it and observe the changes in their physique within a week. Additionally, he shares that during a recent interview, Michael Caputo, a person targeted by the Mueller probe, revealed that there might be more individuals involved in acting as informants against the Trump team from various Obama agencies. The speaker emphasizes that they provide reliable and accurate information on their show, being a few weeks ahead of the news cycle. He also explains that the intensity of the investigation into the Trump team evolved from human intelligence to signals intelligence when initial findings were inconclusive.
Initial impressions can be deceiving: Be cautious not to waste resources on seemingly promising investigations or opportunities that may ultimately disappoint or lead to abandonment.
The pursuit of seemingly promising investigations or opportunities can sometimes lead to disappointment and even abandonment. This can happen in various fields, including law enforcement and politics. People, including those in positions of power, may exaggerate the significance of a case or situation to bait investigators or further their own interests. It's important to remain cautious and not be swayed solely by initial impressions or promises. The reality may turn out to be quite different, and resources and time spent on the investigation could be wasted. Additionally, the consequences of abandoning a case or opportunity can lead to embarrassment or damage to professional relationships.
The Russian collusion investigation began with a human source in March 2016: The Russian collusion investigation was driven by a vulnerable Trump advisor and a human source, with no concrete evidence, and the key figure, Joseph Mifsud, was not interviewed until February 2017.
The investigation into Russian collusion with the Trump campaign began as early as March 2016 and was driven by a human source named George Papadopoulos, who was considered an inexperienced and vulnerable backbencher. Papadopoulos was contacted by a Maltese professor named Joseph Mifsud, who claimed to have connections to Russian officials and told Papadopoulos that the Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton in the form of her emails. This information was then passed on to other individuals, including an FBI informant named Stefan Halper. The investigation started as a human source investigation and later evolved into a signals intelligence investigation. Despite this, the FBI was unable to locate Mifsud for interview until February 2017. The takeaway is that the Russian collusion narrative was planted early on in the campaign and that the investigation was driven by a vulnerable Trump advisor and a human source rather than any concrete evidence.
FBI's Use of George Papadopoulos and Carter Page in Trump Investigation: The FBI may have used a setup involving George Papadopoulos and Carter Page to investigate the Trump team for Russian collusion, possibly using fabricated evidence when they couldn't find substantial proof.
The discussion suggests that the FBI may have used a setup involving George Papadopoulos and Carter Page to investigate the Trump team for alleged Russian collusion. The conversation implies that Papadopoulos may not have been a Russian agent, but rather, was used to spread information about Russian emails to the Trump team and their sources. The FBI then used this information to obtain a FISA warrant to investigate Carter Page. However, when they failed to find substantial evidence, they may have resorted to using a dossier, possibly fabricated, to continue their investigation. The conversation also implies that there was desperation within the FBI and intelligence community to find evidence of collusion before the election.
FBI's Warrant on Carter Page's Emails: The FBI used the FISA court to investigate Carter Page, a former Trump campaign advisor, for Russian collusion based on contacts with a Russian diplomat and unsubstantiated claims. The investigation ultimately proved fruitless.
The FBI's investigation into Russian collusion during the 2016 election involved using a warrant on Carter Page, a former Trump campaign advisor, to gain access to his emails and those of people he communicated with. This was done through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court, which allowed for a wider net of information to be obtained. The investigation initially began due to contacts between Page and a Russian diplomat, as well as claims of Russian dirt on Hillary Clinton. However, there was no substantial evidence of wrongdoing, and the investigation into Page was later deemed a dud. The conversation also touched upon the potential political motivations behind the investigation and the idea that the Clinton campaign may have benefited from accessing some of the obtained emails. The speaker emphasized the importance of cleaning up systems, whether it be the government or one's own HVAC system.
Political Spying Allegations and the Trump-Russia Investigation: The Trump-Russia investigation involved human intelligence sources, a fake dossier, and a desperate attempt for signals intelligence. The dossier, paid for by the Clintons, was used to obtain a warrant to spy on Carter Page without solid evidence, potentially implying circular reasoning in FISA applications and leaks to reporters.
The discussion revolved around the allegations of political spying and the use of a fake dossier in the Trump-Russia investigation. FilterBuy was mentioned as an efficient solution for improving air quality and saving time and money. However, the main focus was on the evolution of the campaign against Trump, starting from human intelligence sources to a desperate attempt for signals intelligence. The dossier, paid for by the Clintons, was used to obtain a warrant to spy on Carter Page, despite having no solid evidence. The potential implications of using information from the dossier in FISA applications, and the possibility of circular reasoning in leaking the same information to reporters, were also discussed. The ongoing investigations into these matters were hinted at.
Connections between Intelligence Figures and Russia Investigation: Several individuals involved in the Russia investigation, including Stefan Halper, Jonathan Clark, Alexander Downer, Luis Susman, and Richard Dearlove, had ties to each other through Hacklett and the Obama and Clinton administrations, raising questions about potential motivations and the origins of the probe.
There were strong connections between various intelligence figures, including those from the United Kingdom and the United States, and the investigation into the Trump campaign's alleged ties to Russia. Stefan Halper, an FBI source, had ties to Hacklett, a company with several individuals involved in the investigation. Halper's co-author, Jonathan Clark, was also a Hacklett member and the US representative for the company. Alexander Downer, an Australian diplomat and Hacklett advisory board member from 2014, met with George Papadopoulos in London, which the FBI considered the start of the case. Another board member, Luis Susman, was a major Obama and Clinton donor and US ambassador to the UK. Former head of MI6, Richard Dearlove, was also a friend of Halper. These individuals' involvement in the investigation raises questions about potential motivations and the origins of the probe. The speaker emphasizes that this is just the tip of the iceberg and that more information will come to light, potentially implicating Obama and Clinton. The speaker encourages listeners to subscribe to the show to stay informed.