Podcast Summary
Email exchange between Michael Avenatti and Mike Davis: Mike Davis stood firm against Michael Avenatti's persistent emails, emphasizing the importance of standing up to unwanted communication and being prepared.
During a discussion on The Dan Bongino Show, Dan Bongino shared an email exchange between Michael Avenatti, a controversial lawyer, and Mike Davis, Chief Counsel for nominations for the Senate Judiciary Committee. Avenatti had been persistently emailing Davis regarding an interview request for his client. Davis responded with a firm yet respectful email asking Avenatti to stop emailing him and focusing on credible allegations. Bongino, who is known for his appreciation of Trump's tactics, praised Davis for standing up to Avenatti and called it an "epic" response. The exchange highlights the importance of standing firm in the face of persistent and unwanted communication. Additionally, Bongino emphasized the importance of preparedness, promoting his partnership with My Patreon Supply, a company that offers emergency food supplies.
Prepare for natural disasters and emergency situations: Consider if your food supply can sustain you for two weeks, and secure an emergency food kit if necessary.
The best time to prepare for natural disasters and emergency situations is when things are calm. It's essential to ask yourself if you could feed yourself and your family for two weeks with the food you have at home. If not, securing an emergency food supply is necessary. Currently, there's a two-week food kit on sale for $75 at preparewithdan.com or by calling 88411-8926. The Kavanaugh case has seen some developments, including a letter from Christine Blasey Ford's former boyfriend, which has raised questions about the allegations against Brett Kavanaugh. Initially, the Democrats treated the allegations as a criminal matter, but when Kavanaugh tried to defend himself, they argued it was not a criminal trial. This tactic was criticized for being devious and evil, as it allowed the allegations to stand while denying Kavanaugh the ability to defend himself. Now, with the boyfriend's letter, the narrative is starting to shift, and the allegations are collapsing.
Ford's Fear of Flying and Closed Spaces Questioned: A letter from Ford's former boyfriend raises doubts about her claims of fear of flying and closed spaces, and suggests she may have lied about a past sexual assault allegation against Kavanaugh.
Key elements of Christine Ford's testimony, such as her fear of flying and closed spaces, have been called into question following the release of a letter from her former boyfriend. The letter reveals that Ford has a history of flying on small prop planes and living in small apartments, contradicting her claims about her fear of confined spaces. Additionally, her former boyfriend claims that she never mentioned any incident of sexual assault involving Brett Kavanaugh during their relationship. The letter also mentions Monica McLean, a friend of Ford's, who Ford allegedly helped prepare for a polygraph examination. These claims, if true, could significantly impact the ongoing Supreme Court confirmation hearing for Brett Kavanaugh. The full implications of these revelations are still being investigated and analyzed by various media outlets and bloggers.
New twist in Kavanaugh investigation with Monica McLean's involvement: Monica McLean, a friend of Christine Ford, could potentially have ties to the FBI investigation as she helped Ford prepare for a polygraph exam. Lawyers for Ford are requesting an interview with her, raising questions about inconsistencies in her story.
The case surrounding Christine Ford's allegations against Brett Kavanaugh against takes an unexpected turn with the revelation of Monica McLean's involvement. McLean, a lifelong friend of Ford, reportedly helped her prepare for a polygraph examination in the past. The FBI, where McLean worked from 1992 to 2016, could potentially have ties to the investigation. The lawyers representing Ford are reportedly requesting an interview with her, raising questions about inconsistencies in her story. This development could significantly impact the ongoing investigation and the outcome of Kavanaugh's confirmation process.
Democrats' real goal: Force Kavanaugh withdrawal: Democrats aimed to make Kavanaugh confirmation process a war of attrition, fearing FBI investigation might expose inconsistencies in accuser's story, potentially leading to losses in key Senate races
The Democrats' ultimate goal during the Kavanaugh confirmation process was not what they publicly claimed. They aimed to force Kavanaugh to withdraw by launching allegations that could not be disproven and making the process a war of attrition. The Democrats did not want an FBI investigation as they feared it might uncover inconsistencies in the accuser's story. The FBI interviews with potential witnesses, including the accuser's boyfriend and other key individuals, have reportedly revealed significant discrepancies in her account. The Democrats' strategy has backfired, and they are now facing potential losses in key Senate races, as red state Democrats may suffer electoral consequences.
Effective interview techniques: open-ended questions and silence: Open-ended questions and silence can lead to more comprehensive and reliable information during investigations or interviews, as they encourage detailed responses and make interviewees uncomfortable, potentially revealing more information.
During an investigation or interview, asking open-ended questions and utilizing silence are effective techniques to obtain accurate and detailed information. Asking close-ended questions can lead interviewees to provide incomplete or false answers due to their natural inclination to want to talk and fill the silence. In the case of an investigation, gathering extensive notes and information beforehand can strengthen the interview process and potentially lead to a confession or admission of guilt. The use of silence can also make interviewees uncomfortable and may result in them revealing more information than intended. This technique was demonstrated in a counterfeit case where the investigator intentionally left a counterfeit bill outside during the interview and let the suspect talk for an extended period before revealing the evidence. Ultimately, the use of open-ended questions and silence can lead to more comprehensive and reliable information, making it a valuable tool for investigators and interviewers.
Democrats used call for FBI investigation as a tactic to delay Kavanaugh's nomination: Democrats called for an FBI investigation into Kavanaugh's nomination not for a thorough probe, but as a tactic to delay the process and potentially derail it
The call for an FBI investigation into Brett Kavanaugh's nomination was not sincere from the start. Instead, it was a tactic used by Democrats to delay the process and potentially uncover unfounded allegations that could pressure Kavanaugh to withdraw. The history of such tactics was seen in the case of Admiral Ronnie Jackson's nomination for VA secretary, where unfounded allegations led to his withdrawal. The demand for an investigation was not about ensuring a thorough probe, but about delaying the process and potentially derailing the nomination. It's crucial to remember this context as the investigation unfolds.
Battle between those who stand firm and those who push for weakness: Democrats' efforts to derail Kavanaugh's nomination through contradictory evidence and pressure tactics have been unsuccessful due to his refusal to back down, and a new study highlights the importance of addressing air pollution to protect health and potentially increase intelligence.
Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court is a battleground between those who refuse to back down and those who push for weakness. The Democrats have used the Ronnie Jackson model in the past to derail nominations, but Kavanaugh's refusal to back down has made this strategy less effective. The investigation into allegations against Kavanaugh has collapsed due to contradictory evidence and liberal pressure tactics. The Republicans are drawing the line and refusing to succumb to these tactics. Additionally, a new study shows that air pollution can lead to significant drops in intelligence and test scores, emphasizing the importance of using air filters to protect health and potentially increase intelligence.
Obtaining information from unnamed references in background investigations: To ensure thorough background checks, FBI asks for named references but also obtains info from unnamed sources through open-ended questions to named refs. Separating criminal & background investigations preserves credibility and encourages cooperation.
During a background investigation for a position like the Secret Service or a Supreme Court nominee, the process is similar in that you ask for named references. However, to close out the investigation, unnamed references must also be obtained. This is done by asking open-ended questions to named references, who may then provide information about the applicant that could be significant to their character. The FBI keeps these background investigations separate from criminal investigations because people are less likely to speak honestly if they fear criminal prosecution. This understanding is crucial to maintaining the FBI's ability to conduct background investigations and preserving their credibility. As the Wall Street Journal states, conducting a background investigation as if it were a criminal one would cause many Americans to refuse to cooperate, exceed the FBI's constitutional proper remit, and politicize the Bureau.
FBI report on Kavanaugh hearings presents information, not conclusions: The FBI report on Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings does not make conclusions or findings, instead it presents information for the Senate and President to consider. It's unlikely that Christine Ford would be prosecuted for perjury based on the available information.
The FBI report on the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings does not make conclusions or draw findings, but instead presents information for consideration by the Senate and the President. The report's inconclusiveness is why some on the left are trying to discredit it now, as the information it contains contradicts Dr. Ford's accusations. Regarding potential perjury prosecutions, it is unlikely that Christine Ford would be prosecuted based on the information available, as the FBI does not typically make criminal referrals as part of a background investigation. The supplement Foundation by Brickhouse Nutrition, mentioned towards the end of the discussion, is a high-performing nutrition supplement that helps users look and feel better.
Uranium One Scandal: FBI Informant's Revelations of Russian-Iranian Nuclear Collaboration: The Uranium One scandal involves Russian-controlled entities buying uranium during the Obama administration, with an FBI informant revealing Russian assistance to the Iranian nuclear program. Suspicious handling of the case raises questions about deal approval and potential knowledge of those involved, including Hillary Clinton.
There are ongoing investigations into the Uranium One scandal, where uranium was sold to Russian-controlled entities during the Obama administration. Rod Rosenstein, the current Deputy Attorney General, was involved in the case when he was the Assistant United States Attorney for Maryland. An FBI informant revealed that not only were the Russians using their uranium leverage to gain a foothold in the market, but they were also assisting the Iranians with their nuclear program. The information was devastating, with bribery and kickback allegations. The case was handled in a suspicious way, with a brief press release and non-disclosures signed. If the uranium one deal was approved after this case where we knew the Russians were helping the Iranians, it raises questions about how the deal was approved and if those involved, including Hillary Clinton, had this knowledge.
Obama administration's handling of Uranium One deal under scrutiny: New information reveals potential Russian bribery and kickback scheme during Obama's Uranium One deal, possibly aiding Iran's nuclear development. Former Clinton ties to Russian entity involved.
The Uranium One deal, which gave Russia control over a significant portion of America's uranium supply during the Obama administration, is once again under scrutiny. New information suggests that the Obama administration may have had knowledge of Russian involvement in a bribery and kickback scheme to acquire this uranium, and possibly even helped the Iranians develop nuclear capabilities in the process. Alternatively, some question why this information was withheld if it wasn't known at the time of the deal. Former President Clinton's ties to a Russian financial entity involved in the deal have also resurfaced. The current Mueller probe, which alleges Russian interference in the election, may be a smokescreen for a larger scandal involving the Obama administration and Russian involvement in the Uranium One deal. Some believe that President Trump should consider declassifying related documents to shed more light on the situation. The complexity of the situation goes beyond a simple conspiracy theory.
Obama administration and Uranium One deal: During the Obama era, some individuals may have used Russia probe against Trump as a means to further a larger narrative, disregarding rules and individual rights.
During the Obama administration, certain individuals may have had ulterior motives for seeking a Mueller probe into Donald Trump for Russia, as part of a larger narrative surrounding the Uranium One deal. The left, in their pursuit of perceived higher moral causes, can sometimes justify morally questionable actions. This was evident in recent violent incidents targeting political offices. These individuals believe they are above the rules of middle class conduct due to their commitment to their cause, making them dangerous. The ends justifying the means mentality, which some on the left subscribe to, can lead to extreme behavior and disregard for individual rights. It's crucial to remain vigilant and recognize the potential danger posed by this mindset.
Science Replaced by Advocacy: A Hoax Exposes the Dangerous Trend: A hoax exposed the ease of publishing fabricated papers due to advocacy oversight in academia, highlighting the need for scientific rigor and awareness of potential dangers in certain circles.
The academic world is in a state of chaos, with science being slowly replaced by advocacy. This was highlighted in a recent incident where a group of scientists wrote hoax papers to expose the issue of victim culture and the ease with which such papers could be published. Despite the papers being entirely fabricated, one was even published in a scientific journal. The reviewers, instead of catching the hoax, expressed concerns about the authors respecting the privacy of the dogs they observed. This incident underscores the dangerous trend of advocacy oversight in academia and the need for a return to scientific rigor. Additionally, it's important to stay aware of the potential dangers in certain circles, particularly those associated with the radical left, as there have been reports of assaults and other concerning behavior. Stay informed and keep your head on a swivel.