Podcast Summary
Discussing McCabe's actions and Bravo Company Manufacturing: Bongino expresses confusion over McCabe's actions, praises Bravo Company Manufacturing for producing high-quality firearms, and criticizes the media for spreading misinformation.
The Dan Bongino show discusses various topics, including the actions of former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and the quality of firearms manufactured by Bravo Company Manufacturing. Regarding McCabe, Bongino expresses confusion over McCabe's actions and believes he's either being stupid or intentionally trying to ruin his reputation. About Bravo Company Manufacturing, Bongino praises the company for producing high-quality firearms that can be used for self-defense or by law enforcement. He shares his personal experience with their products and emphasizes their commitment to providing reliable tools for protection. The media's reaction to Bongino's comments on McCabe is criticized for spreading misinformation and potentially enabling the normalization of coups or police state tactics.
Disappointment towards media coverage of McCabe investigation: The media's sensational coverage of the McCabe investigation undermines efforts to prevent future presidents from facing unjust investigations, listeners are urged to read factual articles by Jeff Carlson at The Epic Times instead.
The speaker expresses strong disappointment towards the media, specifically the Washington Post and New York Times, for their coverage of the investigation into former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and the alleged attempted coup against President Trump. The speaker believes that the media is forfeiting an opportunity for the country to establish a roadblock against future presidents facing baseless investigations and attacks from a police state bureaucracy. He urges listeners to ignore these sources for factual data and instead read articles by Jeff Carlson at The Epic Times, which addresses McCabe's claims and the lack of a predicate crime for the investigation. The speaker emphasizes that Trump's efforts to speak out against the investigation cannot be considered obstruction if there was no initial justification for the investigation. The Carlson piece is described as damning due to its exploration of the timeline surrounding Comey's firing and the opening of the Russia investigation.
McCabe's Testimony on Capitol Hill: Former FBI Deputy Director McCabe initially testified under oath that there were no efforts to obstruct the FBI's investigation into Russian election interference on that day. However, he later made public statements suggesting otherwise, raising questions about the accuracy of his later claims.
During his testimony on Capitol Hill in May 2017, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe was asked under oath if there had been any efforts to obstruct the FBI's investigation into potential Russian interference in the election. McCabe responded that there had been no such efforts that day. However, McCabe has since made numerous public statements suggesting that President Trump's actions, including the firing of FBI Director James Comey, constituted obstruction. Yet, during his testimony, McCabe did not make this claim. This discrepancy raises questions about the accuracy of McCabe's more recent statements regarding potential obstruction by the President.
President's actions during Russia investigation raised concerns beyond obstruction: The president's public efforts to undermine the Russia investigation and prevent it from looking into Michael Flynn hinted at potential collusion, despite his denials under oath.
During the investigation into potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, there were concerns about the president's actions that went beyond obstruction of justice. These concerns included his public undermining of the investigation and his attempt to stop the investigation into Michael Flynn. The president's behavior raised questions about why he would not want the FBI to investigate Russian interference in the election. Despite the president's denials under oath, there were indications that the investigation was initiated based on the president's reaction to it, rather than any evidence of wrongdoing. The logic of this sequence of events does not make sense, and it raises questions about the motivations and credibility of those involved.
The 2016 Trump campaign investigation was based on biased information and political motivations: Former FBI officials continued an investigation based on unverified Clinton dossier and political biases against Trump, while media coverage perpetuated false narratives and failed to hold those involved accountable.
The investigation into Donald Trump's campaign in 2016 was predicated on the unverified dossier from Hillary Clinton, and former FBI officials like McCabe knew this but continued the investigation based on their political biases against Trump. McCabe's inconsistent explanations for starting the investigation and his unique liability in the case highlight this fact. Additionally, the media's coverage of the scandal has been biased and inadequate, failing to hold those involved accountable and instead perpetuating false narratives. A key example is the mischaracterization of Trump's conversation with Comey regarding the Flynn investigation. The media's role in the cover-up of this scandal is likely to be as significant as the scandal itself. Brickhouse Nutrition offers a solution to the challenge of consuming enough fruits and vegetables with their real food supplement, Field of Greens, making it an easy and effective way to boost overall health.
Political narrative vs reality in US investigations: Despite lack of evidence, investigations into US political figures continue, causing disconnect between narrative and reality, and undermining principles of liberty, freedom, and justice.
There is a disconnect between the political narrative being pushed by some individuals and institutions, and the reality of the situation. This was discussed in relation to the ongoing investigation into alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. It was pointed out that there was a lack of evidence to support this claim, yet investigations and allegations continued. Another example given was the behavior of the FBI during this time, with some officials refusing to answer simple questions about the origins of the investigation. The speaker expressed frustration and disbelief that this situation was being allowed to continue, and called for collective agreement on the importance of upholding the principles of liberty, freedom, and justice in the United States. Additionally, it was mentioned that there is a product called "Field of Greens" available at brickhousenutrition.com/Dan, which ensures high-quality fuel for the body.
Former FBI Deputy Director McCabe unable to justify 2016 campaign investigation against Trump: McCabe, despite claims of obstruction and need to remove Trump, admitted under oath no evidence supported these allegations. Media continues to push false investigation narrative.
During a discussion in May 2017, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and others could not articulate a valid reason for opening an investigation into President Trump's campaign during the 2016 election. Despite McCabe's claims of obstruction and the need to remove Trump from office, there was no evidence to support these allegations. McCabe, the FBI's lead lawyer, and lead investigator all acknowledged this under oath. Yet, the media continues to push the narrative of a legitimate investigation. McCabe, who has been exposed as a liar, is now trying to bring down others with him. This situation is heart-wrenching and a disgrace to the country, as it highlights the lack of truth and integrity in certain circles.
McCabe's delayed Congress briefing on Trump probe: McCabe misled by waiting 8 months to inform Congress about the FBI's Trump campaign investigation, breaking standard protocol.
Former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe is attempting to rewrite history regarding the timing and disclosure of the FBI's investigation into President Trump's campaign. McCabe, who was fired for lying to investigators, is now claiming that he briefed Congress on the investigation and that no one objected. However, the truth is that McCabe did not follow standard protocol by notifying Congress every three months about the existence of the sensitive investigation. Instead, he waited eight months to do so, only after it became clear that the investigation had yielded no results and Trump was about to be dismissed as FBI Director. McCabe's actions were disingenuous, and his attempt to reverse engineer the timeline of events is an attempt to cover up the FBI's lack of oversight and potential misconduct during the investigation.
FBI and DOJ officials under scrutiny for withholding info, inconsistent statements: FBI's McCabe and DOJ's Rosenstein face potential consequences for inconsistent statements and withheld info, including loss of employment and legal action.
Key figures in the FBI and Department of Justice, specifically Comey, McCabe, and Rosenstein, have been withholding information from Congress and potentially engaging in questionable activities during the investigation into the Trump administration. McCabe's credibility is in question due to his inconsistent statements regarding the timeline of events in 2017. Rosenstein's version of events regarding the 25th Amendment discussion is also under scrutiny, as it now appears that this conversation may have been fabricated. Both McCabe and Rosenstein are facing potential consequences, including loss of employment and potential legal action, as they may be called to testify under oath and could face serious charges if they lie. In light of these developments, Rosenstein's upcoming departure from the DOJ is seen as an attempt to avoid the administrative repercussions that could come with being forced to testify.
Impact of Rod Rosenstein's departure on ongoing investigations: Rosenstein's departure may limit scrutiny and consequences for his actions and could impact ongoing investigations, while staying informed and holding those in power accountable is crucial for our democracy.
The departure of Rod Rosenstein from his role at the Department of Justice could significantly impact ongoing investigations and the ability to hold certain individuals accountable for their actions. This is because, as a high-ranking official, Rosenstein was subject to certain administrative restrictions. With his departure, he may no longer face the same level of scrutiny or consequences for his actions. Additionally, there is ongoing controversy surrounding the actions of Rosenstein and other officials, such as Andy McCabe, and their roles in various investigations and potential attempts to undermine the Trump administration. It is important to stay informed about these developments and the potential implications for our political landscape. On a lighter note, another key takeaway is the importance of understanding complex topics, such as life insurance, and the resources available to make the process easier. Policy Genius is a valuable tool for comparing quotes, getting advice, and applying for coverage, making it simple and convenient for individuals to get the coverage they need. Furthermore, Victor Davis Hanson's piece on the American Greatness website provides a damning indictment of the media's role in covering up scandals related to the Trump administration and the potential consequences of these actions for our democracy. It is essential to stay informed and hold those in power accountable for their actions.
Media bias during political campaigns: The media's bias in political campaigns can lead to inaccurate reporting and damage their credibility. Waiting 72 hours before discussing negative stories about Trump can help prevent the spread of hoaxes.
The media's role in shaping public perception can be biased and their credibility can be questioned, especially during political campaigns. The speaker shares an example from New York City's mayoral race in the 1990s, where the media defended Democratic mayor David Dinkins despite the city's struggles, while criticizing Republican candidate Rudy Giuliani. The speaker argues that the media's bias became clear years later when the facts showed Dinkins' administration was a disaster. The speaker also mentions the Jesse Smollett case, where Smollett claimed to be the victim of a hate crime but it appears to have been a hoax. The speaker advises waiting 72 hours before discussing negative Trump stories brought about by the media due to the high likelihood of hoaxes. The speaker also mentions an intriguing detail about Smollett's alleged attempt to record the attack on tape. The media's eagerness to jump on negative stories about Trump without fact-checking first undermines their credibility and can lead to the spread of hoaxes.
Jussie Smollett's Alleged Hate Crime Hoax: Jussie Smollett's reported hate crime was likely a hoax, as evidence suggests he staged the attack for attention. Wait for facts before jumping to conclusions.
The attack on Jussie Smollett, a prominent actor on the TV show "Empire," which was initially reported as a hate crime, appears to have been an elaborate hoax. Smollett allegedly staged the attack, hoping to gain attention and victim status. He reportedly believed a surveillance camera would capture the incident, but it was actually pointed in the wrong direction. Additionally, there have been reports that Smollett sent a death threat to himself on the set of Empire to further his desire for victim status. The liberal media had seized on the initial report of the hate crime, but it now seems that the entire incident was fabricated. It's important to wait for all the facts before jumping to conclusions and avoiding being wrong in reporting. Another topic is the liberal narrative about the crime drop in El Paso, Texas, which some claim predates the implementation of border security measures. However, Trump's statement about the city's safety after border security measures was put in place sparked a wave of articles disputing his claim. The truth lies in the facts, and it's crucial to wait for a solid picture before commenting.
Fact-checking President Trump's border security claims in El Paso leads to conflicting evidence: Thorough research and fact-checking are crucial for accurate reporting, as conflicting evidence can arise when examining the impact of border security measures on crime rates.
The media's fact-checking of President Trump's claims about border security and the impact of fences and agents on crime rates in El Paso, Texas, has resulted in contradictory evidence being presented. In 1993, Operation Hold the Line was initiated, leading to a significant increase in border agents and fence upgrades in El Paso. According to data presented in an article by Matt Palumbo, crime rates in El Paso dropped after these measures were implemented. However, when the Washington Post attempted to debunk Trump's claims, they used a chart that showed a decrease in crime rates after the fence was completed in 2009, seemingly contradicting their initial stance. This highlights the importance of thorough research and fact-checking to ensure accuracy and consistency in reporting.
