Podcast Summary
Discussing American politics and a chance to win a tank experience: Dan Bongino is guest hosting Sean Hannity, discussing politics and impeachment, while U.S. Law Shield offers a tank giveaway for listeners.
There are significant developments unfolding in American politics, including the fallout from the impeachment process and the economy, which Dan Bongino is addressing on his show. Bongino will be guest hosting the Sean Hannity show on Fox on Monday and encourages listeners to tune in. Additionally, U.S. Law Shield is offering a giveaway for a chance to win an all-expenses-paid trip to drive and shoot a real World War II Sherman tank. Bongino emphasizes the importance of legal protection for firearm owners and encourages listeners to visit uslawshield.com/dan to enter. Despite the controversy surrounding the spygate issue, Bongino promises to only share his honest opinions, regardless of potential backlash.
NYT Confirms CIA's Role in Intelligence Community's Spying on US Persons: The New York Times revealed the CIA's involvement in the intelligence community's operation to spy on US persons, as part of John Durham's investigation into John Brennan's actions regarding the notorious dossier.
The New York Times received an explosive leak about John Durham's investigation into John Brennan's role in the Russian interference finding, just as Bill Barr was discussing the "Spygate" scandal on Fox News. The Times piece confirmed the long-standing narrative about the intelligence community's information laundering operation and the CIA's spying on US persons in circumvention of US laws. Durham has reportedly requested Brennan's emails, call logs, and other documents to learn what he told other officials about the notorious dossier. The operating theory on this show for the last two years is that the spying operation on the Trump team did not begin with the FBI's FISA warrant to spy on Carter Page, but rather with the CIA and other agencies seeking intel on Obama's political opponents through their Five Eyes partners. The leaks from the deep state to the media are an attempt to get ahead of the story and shift the narrative.
New York Times article misrepresents Durham's investigation as a political witch hunt: Durham's investigation into potential intelligence misdeeds is not a political attack but a serious inquiry into potential wrongdoing
The New York Times article accusing John Durham's investigation into potential misdeeds by John Brennan as a political witch hunt is not an accurate representation of the situation. The article is attempting to frame Durham's pursuit of Brennan's records as a partisan attack on Trump's perceived enemies. However, serious investigators and analysts do not view it that way. The intelligence community's assessment of Russian interference in the 2016 election, which was released after Trump's election, is now under scrutiny, and there is evidence that the intelligence infrastructure may have spied on political campaigns, including those of Cruz, Carson, and Trump. The investigation is not a political attack but a serious inquiry into potential wrongdoing. The New York Times piece is an attempt to shape the narrative to fit a particular political agenda.
Brennan's Intelligence on Trump-Russia Contacts: Source Unclear: Former CIA Director John Brennan claimed intelligence of Trump campaign-Russia contacts, but the source remains uncertain, possibly the Steele dossier, which initiated the FBI investigation, is under investigation.
During the 2016 presidential campaign, former CIA Director John Brennan claimed he had intelligence indicating contacts between Trump campaign associates and the Russian government. However, the source of this intelligence remains unclear, as it's unconfirmed whether Brennan was aware of the infamous Steele dossier. The dossier, compiled by a British intelligence officer, is the primary source of allegations of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. If Brennan wasn't aware of the dossier, then the origin of his intelligence is uncertain. This raises questions about the legitimacy of the FBI's investigation into potential collusion, which was reportedly initiated based on Brennan's concerns. The ongoing Durham investigation is examining the origins of the FBI's probe, and the role of the intelligence community in shaping the narrative around Russian interference in the election.
Brennan's Contradictory Statements on Trump-Russia Dossier: Former CIA Director John Brennan claimed not to have investigated the Trump-Russia dossier but had information about Russians working with Trump campaign. However, this info only existed in the dossier, and he didn't see it until late 2016. His source remains unclear, and potential intelligence sharing between nations is a concern.
Former CIA Director John Brennan, who now serves as an NBC News senior national security and intelligence analyst, claimed he didn't investigate the infamous Trump-Russia dossier but had information about Russians working with U.S. persons on the Trump campaign. However, this information only exists in the dossier, and Brennan claims he didn't see it until late 2016. These contradictory statements raise questions about where Brennan obtained this information and whether he misled the public. It's suspected that he may have received it from foreign intelligence partners who were also feeding information to the dossier author, Christopher Steele. This raises concerns about potential intelligence sharing and information laundering between friendly nations.
Former CIA Director John Brennan's Role in FBI's Russia Probe: Brennan may have misled the FBI about his knowledge of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign in 2016 and relied on unreliable information from Christopher Steele.
The initiation of the FBI's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election may have been influenced by misinformation from former CIA Director John Brennan. According to the speaker, Brennan claimed to have obtained information about Russian collusion with the Trump campaign as early as the spring of 2016. However, when the FBI interviewed him, he claimed not to have seen this information until later in the year. The speaker suggests that Brennan may have lied to the FBI and that his information may have come from the same source, Christopher Steele, who the FBI later determined was providing unreliable information. The speaker also mentions that Lisa Page, an FBI official, testified that she did not know if Steele was exclusively the FBI's source, and that the FBI continued to rely on his information despite knowing it was unreliable. The speaker draws a parallel to a case they were involved in and warns of the dangers of "hysteria" and "massive malfeasance" in the FBI's handling of the investigation.
Brennan Misled FBI About Russian Dossier Knowledge: Former CIA Director John Brennan misrepresented his knowledge of the Russian dossier and Christopher Steele to the FBI, casting doubt on the dossier's credibility and raising concerns about his role in the Russia investigation
Former CIA Director John Brennan misled the FBI about his knowledge of Christopher Steele and the origins of the Russian dossier. This was revealed in a piece in The Guardian, a left-leaning outlet, which stated that the UK government was aware of Trump's suspicious links to Russia in 2016. A key figure in this story is Sir Richard Dearlove, a former head of the UK's MI6 intelligence agency, who vouched for Steele. Brennan had claimed he didn't learn about Steele until December 2016, but evidence suggests he had this information earlier. This raises questions about the credibility of the Russian dossier and the role of Brennan in the investigation into Trump's ties to Russia. The importance of this story is underscored by the fact that The New York Times is reportedly panicking about the revelations.
British intelligence intercepted Trump-Russia communications: British intel shared incidental Trump-Russia chats with US counterparts, but only extensively with Carter Page, which later appeared in the Steele dossier, origins and accuracy debated.
British intelligence intercepted communications between Trump campaign associates and Russian officials during the US presidential campaign and shared this information with their US counterparts. However, these communications were picked up incidentally during routine surveillance of known Russian targets, and not specifically targeted at the Trump associates. Despite this, Carter Page, a Trump campaign associate, was the only one whose communications were shared extensively with US intelligence. This information later appeared in the Steele dossier, which alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. The origins and accuracy of the Steele dossier continue to be a subject of debate.
UK spying allegations against Trump campaign: Allegations of UK spying on Trump campaign members during Obama admin, sharing info with US officials, origin and accuracy under investigation, more revelations possible, potential role of John Brennan, perjury allegations.
There were allegations of spying by the United Kingdom on Trump campaign members during the Obama administration, which reportedly involved the sharing of information with U.S. officials. The origin and accuracy of this information, collected in part by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, have been a subject of controversy and investigation. The discussion suggests that there may be more revelations to come regarding the handling of this intelligence and potential deception or impropriety. It's important to note that these are allegations and investigations are ongoing. The conversation also touches on the potential role of former CIA Director John Brennan and the possibility of perjury related to the handling of this information.
Speaker Pelosi's Attempt to Control Impeachment Process: Speaker Pelosi's delay of sending articles of impeachment to the Senate has been criticized as an attempt to manipulate the process, leaving the constitutional impeachment procedure incomplete.
Despite Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's attempt to control the impeachment process by withholding the articles from the Senate, President Trump has not been impeached according to constitutional procedures. The House may have taken a vote, but it is the Senate that holds the power to try impeachments. Pelosi's actions have been criticized as an attempt to manipulate the process, and President Trump's team has even suggested creating a counter on his campaign website to mark the days since the "fake impeachment." The constitutional process for impeachment remains incomplete, and Pelosi's efforts to dictate the terms have been met with skepticism and criticism.
Democratic Party's Challenges in the Presidential Election: Despite having multiple candidates, the Democratic Party lacks a clear frontrunner due to misaligned candidates and changing voter sentiments.
The Democratic Party is facing significant challenges in the upcoming presidential election due to their lack of clear frontrunner and the misalignment of their candidates with the typical election lanes. According to the speaker, the Democratic Party's outsider pick, Pete Buttigieg, is not an outsider as he has run for office multiple times and failed to win. The radical pick, represented by Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, is not radical as both are millionaires. The safe pick, Joe Biden, is struggling to gain momentum and is not perceived as a strong contender. The speaker argues that these misalignments could lead to a disastrous outcome for the Democrats in the election. Additionally, the speaker mentioned that swing state polls show decreasing support for impeachment, Trump's approval rating is up, and minority voters' support is spiking. The lackluster performance of the Democrats in the recent debate further emphasizes their struggles.
Biden's campaign performance and inconsistent messaging criticized: Joe Biden's age, outdated talking points, and prioritization of economic transition over growth drew criticism during the debate, along with moderators' biased behavior.
Joe Biden, despite being a seasoned politician, has faced criticism for his lackluster campaign performance and inconsistent messaging. During the recent debate, he affirmed his willingness to sacrifice economic growth for transitioning to a greener economy, which could potentially displace thousands of workers. The speaker expressed concern about Biden's age and his repeated use of outdated talking points, likening him to the worst safe establishment pick in modern times. Additionally, the debate moderators were criticized for their biased behavior during the event.
Wage growth under Trump surpasses Obama's: The Trump administration's average wage growth of 3.1% exceeds Obama's three instances of reaching this figure.
Despite common liberal claims, the wage growth under the Trump administration has surpassed that of the Obama administration, with an average of 3.1% in the last two and a half years compared to only three instances of reaching that number during the eight years of the Obama administration. Furthermore, the Democrats' recent proposal to repeal a tax cap on state and local taxes, which disproportionately benefits the top 1%, contradicts their persistent calls for raising taxes on the wealthy and cutting taxes for the middle class. These instances highlight the inconsistencies and inaccuracies in liberal talking points.
Political Debate over Tax Cuts: Benefiting the Wealthy Few: The current political debate centers around tax cuts, with Democrats' proposal primarily benefiting top earners, while the majority of middle-income households see no benefit, and wealthy liberals in high-tax states push for the cuts despite claiming to advocate for the little guy.
The current political debate revolves around tax cuts, with the Democrats proposing a bill that would primarily benefit the top 1% and 5% of income earners, while almost no one in middle-income households would benefit. This situation is particularly concerning given that the vast majority of households in the bottom 80% would be unaffected by the repeal of this proposed tax cut. Furthermore, the push for this tax cut comes from wealthy liberals in high-tax states like New York and California, who are lobbying their representatives to reinstate the deductions they can claim on their federal taxes. The irony lies in the fact that the left, who often claim to be advocating for the little guy, are the ones pushing for this tax cut, making them hypocrites and "frauds" according to Dan Bongino. This situation highlights the complexities and contradictions of modern politics, with both parties seemingly prioritizing the interests of their wealthier supporters over the broader population.
