Podcast Summary
New information challenges Mifsud's role in Spygate scandal: Credible sources report Maltese professor Joseph Mifsud may be deceased, casting doubt on his role in the Spygate scandal. It's vital to fact-check information and not rely on sensational headlines or biased sources.
The Maltese professor, Joseph Mifsud, who is believed to be at the heart of the Spygate scandal and is said to have told George Papadopoulos about Russian dirt on Hillary Clinton, may in fact be deceased. This news, which appeared in credible sources like The Hill, challenges the narrative that has been widely circulated about Mifsud's role in the scandal. This revelation, along with other stories, shows how government cannibalizes itself and how important it is to fact-check information. It's crucial to stay informed and not rely on sensational headlines or biased sources. The Dan Vongino Show aims to provide truthful information, and this week, they're bringing you stories that challenge the status quo. Don't forget to check out WaxRx, a product that can help you maintain your ear health and save you money in the long run. Use offer code DAN for free shipping.
New doubts on Russian collusion narrative: George Papadopoulos clarified he didn't receive an offer, only heard about Clinton dirt from Joseph Mifsud, a key figure in the DNC's lawsuit is missing, and evidence of his death is lacking, adding complexity to the Russian collusion investigation
George Papadopoulos' recent interview with Jake Tapper has cast doubt on the initial narrative of Russian collusion during the 2016 election. Papadopoulos clarified that he did not receive an offer from Russians but only heard about potentially damaging information on Hillary Clinton. This new information raises questions about the DNC's lawsuit against the Trump campaign for Russian collusion and their inability to locate a key figure, Joseph Mifsud, who allegedly provided Papadopoulos with the information. The mysterious disappearance of Mifsud and the lack of evidence to prove his death adds to the intrigue and raises suspicions about the entire case. Overall, the latest developments in the Russian collusion investigation add complexity to the narrative and highlight the need for further investigation.
Mifsud's disappearance raises questions: Despite advanced tracking methods, disappearing in today's world remains challenging, as seen with the case of Joseph Mifsud and the ongoing investigation into his involvement in the 2016 US election interference.
The disappearance of Joseph Mifsud, a key figure in the investigation of the alleged Russian interference in the 2016 US elections, raises questions about his whereabouts and possible deceit. The lack of concrete evidence of his death and the ability to hide one's financial and digital footprints make it difficult to confirm his status. The speaker, a former criminal investigator, emphasizes the challenges of disappearing in today's world of advanced tracking methods. While it's possible that Mifsud may be deceased, the lack of official records and the public statements from his alleged representative add to the intrigue. The investigation into Mifsud's disappearance and potential involvement in the election interference case remains ongoing.
Possible new twist in Russian collusion investigation: Former Trump advisor Papadopoulos may have been set up by Western intelligence, not Russian agents, and recent search for Mifsud could be a Democratic distraction
George Papadopoulos, a former Trump campaign advisor, may have been set up by Western intelligence assets, not Russian ones, as previously assumed. This revelation, if true, would add a new layer of complexity to the ongoing investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. The speaker also suggests that the recent search for a man named Mifsud, who is believed to have provided Papadopoulos with information about Russian dirt on Hillary Clinton, may be a deliberate attempt by the Democrats to distract from this new development. The speaker urges caution and encourages listeners to consider the possibility that Mifsud may still be alive and that his information could be damaging to the Democrats' narrative of Russian collusion.
The disappearance of Maltese professor Joseph Mifsud and its implications for the Russia investigation: The disappearance of Maltese professor Joseph Mifsud, who allegedly informed George Papadopoulos about Russian dirt on Hillary Clinton, raises questions about state-sponsored efforts to hide information and the motives of those involved. It's crucial to approach information with caution and use solid evidence to form hypotheses.
The disappearance of Maltese professor Joseph Mifsud, who allegedly told George Papadopoulos about Russian dirt on Hillary Clinton before the 2016 election, is a crucial piece of the puzzle in understanding the complex web of events surrounding the Russia investigation. There are reasons to believe that Mifsud may still be alive and that some forces may be spreading misinformation about his status to throw investigators off the trail or discredit theories. It's essential to approach information with caution and use a solid construct of ideas, historical evidence, and circumstantial evidence to form reasonable hypotheses. The ability to hide someone in today's interconnected world raises questions about state-sponsored efforts to hide information and the motives of those involved. Ultimately, Mifsud's disappearance and the interests of various entities in keeping him quiet are significant clues in unraveling the mystery of the Russia investigation.
Papadopoulos's emails and alleged collusion: Despite claims of Papadopoulos's involvement in Russian collusion, the lack of proven emails and his lack of charges make a simpler explanation more plausible
The existence of emails related to George Papadopoulos's alleged collusion with Russians to obtain damaging information about Hillary Clinton remains unproven. Despite claims suggesting collusion, common sense questions have been raised about the lack of these emails, especially if they were used to pass on the information. The simplicity of the explanation that Papadopoulos made a throwaway comment about Clinton's emails and moved on, requiring only one explanation, contrasts with the complex narrative requiring multiple leaps in logic to believe that he was a key figure in a scandal to overthrow the election. Furthermore, the fact that Papadopoulos was never charged with any collusion-related crime by Robert Mueller adds weight to this perspective.
The George Papadopoulos case: Not as clear-cut as it seems: Despite media focus, the George Papadopoulos case involves complex motivations and potential connections, including those with a wealthy businessman linked to the Steele dossier, that warrant further investigation.
The George Papadopoulos case, which involves allegations of Russian connections during the Trump campaign, is not as clear-cut as it seems. While some claim that Papadopoulos was trying to hide his contacts with Russians, his own account suggests he was trying to protect the Trump team due to unexpected inquiries from law enforcement. Additionally, there are suspicious contacts reported, including those with a wealthy businessman, Sir Richard Dearlove, who is also allegedly a source for the Steele dossier. Despite these potential connections, the media seems disinterested in investigating further, instead choosing to focus on other narratives. This raises questions about the motivations behind the media's coverage and the importance of thorough investigations in understanding complex issues.
Understanding the nuances of sensitive information and firearm proficiency: Exercise caution with sensitive info, prioritize gun safety with iTarget Pro, and stay informed on investigations' legal frameworks
It's important to exercise caution when dealing with sensitive information, especially regarding potential threats of nuclear proportions. Additionally, investing in tools like the iTarget Pro system can significantly improve firearm proficiency and safety. Regarding the ongoing investigation, it's crucial to understand the differences between an independent counsel and a special counsel. While the Mueller probe is currently a special counsel investigation, there is no statute for special counsels, and they are formed based on department of justice guidelines and regulations. Andy McCarthy's piece in National Review delves deeper into the mechanics of a special counsel investigation and raises important questions about the current investigation's legitimacy. In summary, be cautious with sensitive information, prioritize proficiency and safety with firearms through the use of tools like the iTarget Pro system, and stay informed about ongoing investigations and their legal frameworks.
Special counsels should only be used for clear crimes or conflicts of interest: Special counsels should not be used as a tool to target individuals without specific criminal allegations. Hire non-partisan, impartial lawyers for these roles to maintain public trust.
Special counsels should only be appointed when there is a clear crime or conflict of interest within the Department of Justice that prevents them from handling the investigation themselves. The appointment of a special counsel should not be used as a tool to target individuals without specific criminal allegations. Additionally, the hiring of partisan individuals from the DOJ to lead these investigations raises concerns about the impartiality and objectivity of the process. Instead, non-partisan, heartland American lawyers or state level prosecutors should be considered for these roles to maintain public trust and confidence in the justice system.
DOJ's selective involvement in Russia investigation: The DOJ's handling of the Russia investigation was not impartial as it seemed, with selective involvement of partisan individuals and significant cases being referred back to the DOJ.
The DOJ's handling of the investigation into alleged Russian collusion during the 2016 election was not as impartial as it appeared. According to the speaker, Robert Mueller, who led the investigation, intentionally hired partisan individuals from the DOJ to help him, despite supposed conflicts of interest. This was allegedly done to ensure that those familiar with potential malfeasance within the DOJ would be involved in the investigation. Additionally, several significant cases, including one involving Russian military officials, were referred back to the DOJ instead of being handled by Mueller's team. These actions suggest a more complex relationship between the DOJ and the investigation than was initially perceived.
DOJ Debate: Transparency and Confusion Surrounding Memos: Some call for transparency regarding DOJ memos, but the lack of named crimes and potential inclusion of discredited dossier information complicates the situation.
There is ongoing debate regarding the Department of Justice (DOJ) and a supposed conflict within it, with some calling for the declassification of certain memos to clear up any confusion. A key point of contention is the lack of specific crimes being named in relation to the Trump team. Some argue that a crime is mentioned in a supplemental memo from 2017, but it remains classified, leading to calls for transparency and explanation. Additionally, there have been discussions about the possibility of information from the discredited dossier being included in this memo, which could significantly impact the special counsel investigation. On a separate note, Lending Club was highlighted as a valuable financial tool for consolidating debt and paying off high-interest credit cards with affordable, fixed rate personal loans. Obama's recent campaign trail attacks on Trump and his attempts to take credit for the economy were also discussed, showcasing the absurdity of his statements given his past criticisms of Trump's economic policies.
Obama vs Trump: Economic Records Compared: Despite Obama's criticism of Bush's economy, his own record was lackluster with low productivity, investment and GDP growth. Trump's deregulation and tax cuts led to a quick economic turnaround with higher growth rates and fewer jobs created.
Barack Obama's economic record was criticized heavily for having one of the worst recoveries in American history with an average annual GDP growth rate below 2%. He was the first president to never reach an annual three percent GDP growth during his tenure. Productivity and investment were at historic lows, and 60% of Americans believed the country was heading in the wrong direction when he left office. Contrastingly, Donald Trump's deregulatory regime and tax cuts led to a quick economic turnaround, with the economy growing at 4.2% in the last quarter and predicted to reach 4.7%. Despite Obama's eight years of blaming George W. Bush for his poor economic performance, he now claims credit for Trump's economy. The job market, however, shows no significant improvement since 2015 and 2016, with Trump creating 4.1 million more full-time equivalent jobs than Obama. Jim Carrey, a comedian known for his economic expertise, recently showed a lack of understanding about socialism on Bill Maher's show.
Government actions do not make a country socialist: The US is not a socialist country despite government spending as socialism involves controlling the means of production, not just redistributing taxpayer money.
The United States government's actions, such as subsidies for businesses or social programs, do not make it a socialist country. Socialism involves the government controlling the means of production, whereas in the US, the government allows businesses to keep their earnings and redistributes taxpayer money through voted-on programs. The Washington Post's mischaracterization of government spending as socialism is incorrect. Socialism, in reality, leads to government control, poverty, and political oppression, which is not the case in the US. It's essential to understand the definition of socialism and not confuse it with taxing and spending policies.
State Medicaid spending cannibalizing higher education funding: Heavy taxation and redistribution of funds are leading to a limited appetite among citizens to continue financing the government, resulting in an unsustainable pattern of spending in the healthcare arena, threatening bankruptcy
The United States, as a constitutional republic, faces significant challenges with its taxation and spending policies. The Washington Post has highlighted the issue of state Medicaid spending, which is the largest contributor to the decline in higher education funding at the state and local level. This heavy taxation and redistribution of funds are cannibalizing programs and leading to a limited appetite among citizens to continue financing the government. The government's funds come from the people, and as state money dries up, spending in the government healthcare arena continues to explode. This unsustainable pattern cannot continue, and it is not socialism, but rather big government liberalism that is leading the country towards bankruptcy. Jim Carrey's misunderstanding of socialism and his support for such policies only adds to the confusion. It is crucial for policymakers to make hard choices and consider turning programs over to the free market to prevent a guaranteed path to bankruptcy.