Podcast Summary
Dan Bongino to Broadcast from Vietnam for Trump-Kim Summit: Dan Bongino adjusts show schedule for Trump-Kim summit in Vietnam, shares humorous time difference story, and promotes air filter change for good indoor air quality and heating issues prevention.
Dan Bongino, the host of the Dan Bongino Show, will be broadcasting from Vietnam next week to cover President Trump's summit with Kim, despite the challenging 12-hour time difference. This will require recording the show at night instead of the usual morning time. Dan shared a humorous anecdote about a misunderstanding of time differences with a Secret Service agent. Additionally, Dan encouraged listeners to change their air filters regularly to ensure good indoor air quality and prevent heating issues during the cold weather season. The Dan Bongino Show is sponsored by Filter By, a leading provider of HVAC filters in the US.
FBI lawyer believed Clinton committed crimes with classified info: FBI lawyer held belief Clinton violated Espionage Act, but FBI director disregarded advice, leading to controversy
During the investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server, the lead FBI lawyer, Jim Baker, believed she had committed crimes involving classified information. However, FBI Director Jim Comey, who was not a prosecutor but an investigator, took on the role of a prosecutor in his July 5th speech where he exonerated Clinton. Despite Baker's legal belief that Clinton had violated the Espionage Act, Comey disregarded his advice, leading to disagreement and potential political sway in the FBI's handling of the case. This disagreement is significant, as the FBI lawyer at the upper echelons of the bureau held the belief that Clinton had committed crimes based on the highly classified nature of the information involved.
FBI officials believed Obama could have been a material witness or co-conspirator in Clinton's email case: FBI investigators suspected Obama's involvement in Clinton's private email server, but later removed any mention of him from Comey's statement.
During the investigation into Hillary Clinton's private email server, FBI officials, including James Comey and Lisa Page, were concerned about emails between Clinton and then-President Barack Obama. In an early draft of Comey's July 2016 statement, he mentioned that Clinton had emailed Obama from a foreign country. However, this was later changed to "senior government official" and eventually removed entirely. Baker's alarm about these emails suggests that they believed Obama could have been a material witness or even a co-conspirator. Despite Obama's public statements that he wasn't aware of Clinton's private email use, emails between the two existed, potentially raising questions about his truthfulness. The leftist response to this argument is that Obama might not have directly seen Clinton's email address, but given the White House's communication protocols, it's unlikely that he communicated with her through an unsecured channel.
Obama Administration Knew About Clinton's Email Server: Despite public denials, Obama officials knew about Clinton's personal email server for official business, and the FBI had to whitelist her emails to reach Obama's Blackberry.
Key figures in the Obama administration, including the FBI, knew about Hillary Clinton's use of a personal email server for official business despite public denials. This was evident as emails from her server had to be whitelisted to bypass security protocols and reach Obama's personal Blackberry. The FBI's knowledge of this fact undermines the plausible deniability of Obama and his team regarding their awareness of Clinton's email practices. The media's reporting on this issue has been inaccurate, and the public should be cautious about relying on mainstream news sources for information. The cover-up of Clinton's email scandal and the subsequent investigation into the Trump team is a significant scandal in American history.
FBI's Selective Enforcement in Clinton and Trump Cases: The FBI's handling of investigations into Clinton and Trump teams raises concerns of impartiality and selective enforcement, with Clinton's case seemingly dropped despite evidence and Trump's ongoing despite a lack of it.
The FBI's handling of investigations into both the Clinton and Trump teams raises serious concerns about impartiality and the rule of law. While there was substantial evidence against Clinton for mishandling classified information, the investigation against her was effectively dropped. On the other hand, despite a lack of evidence against the Trump team for collusion or obstruction, these investigations have continued unabated. McCabe, a key figure in both investigations, has provided conflicting statements regarding obstruction efforts. Trump himself asked for an investigation into potential collusion on his team before Comey's firing. These actions suggest a disturbing pattern of selective enforcement and politically motivated investigations. It's essential to maintain transparency and uphold the integrity of our justice system.
Democrats' Obstruction Narrative for Impeachment is Weak: Democrats' impeachment case lacks substance, relying on a weak obstruction narrative and baseless collusion claims. McCabe's testimony, under scrutiny, is their main evidence.
The obstruction narrative being pushed by Democrats for impeachment is weak and baseless. The quote from Comey that Trump didn't order him to shut down the Russian investigation, but instead asked him to investigate any potential wrongdoing by associates, undermines the obstruction claim. The Democrats' entire case relies on this narrative since they no longer have a collusion case. The collusion narrative was always baseless, and there is no evidence to support it. The Democrats are in a panic and need this obstruction lie to stick, and they're relying heavily on the testimony of McCabe, who is now under scrutiny for his own actions. The monthly subscription box for men, Battle Box, offers high-quality gear for adventure seekers, survivalists, and outdoor enthusiasts, providing excellent value for the price.
Investigations into Trump's potential obstruction of justice may lack substantial evidence: Despite media and Democratic claims, former FBI officials' statements suggest Trump was pushing for investigations, not obstructing them. The anticipated Mueller report is expected to reveal little to no evidence of wrongdoing.
The ongoing investigations into potential obstruction of justice by President Trump may be based on thin evidence, as indicated by recent statements from former FBI officials. McCabe's statements, as well as Comey's, suggest that Trump was pushing for investigations, not obstructing them. The Democrats and the media are continuing to pursue this line of investigation due to their desire for impeachment, despite having little to no evidence. Mueller's report, which is expected soon, is also expected to contain little to no evidence of wrongdoing by Trump. The media is attempting to condition the public to believe that there has been obstruction, even though it is likely that the report will show otherwise. This is a significant development as the outcome of the investigation could have major political implications.
FBI's Clinton email investigation influenced by protecting Obama: The FBI's Clinton email investigation was influenced by protecting Obama, leading to a focus on collusion and an obstruction charge against Trump without sufficient evidence.
The FBI's handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation was influenced by a desire to protect both Clinton and President Obama. The case was sidelined due to Obama's involvement, potentially making him a witness or a liar if the truth came out. The FBI then moved on to investigate collusion with the Russian election interference, but discovered the dossier used to generate the case was fake. To salvage their reputation, they appointed Robert Mueller to lead the investigation and eventually focused on an obstruction charge against President Trump. However, this charge did not exist as Trump had previously encouraged the investigation. The media is now conditioning the public for an obstruction trial despite the lack of evidence, and this could lead to humiliation in a Senate trial. The speaker expresses frustration with the situation and the potential damage it is causing to the constitutional republic.
McCabe's account of Flynn call inconsistent with documents: McCabe's belief that Flynn lied about Russian contact was based on his awareness of surveillance, not actual deception during interview
Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe's credibility is questionable due to inconsistencies in his account of a conversation with then-National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. McCabe's narrative about the timing of their phone call and an appointment for agents to visit the White House doesn't align with investigative documents. Furthermore, McCabe's belief that Flynn was lying about his conversations with the Russian ambassador was based on Flynn's awareness that their calls could be monitored, which McCabe inexplicably used as evidence of deception instead of acknowledging Flynn's knowledge of the surveillance as a reason for honesty. The agents present at the White House also reported no deception from Flynn during their interview.
McCabe's reasoning for Flynn's lies is questioned: Despite no signs of deception during Flynn's interview and no evidence of illicit activity in the call, McCabe believed Flynn lied, casting doubt on his credibility and motives.
Former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe's reasoning for believing Michael Flynn lied about the contents of his call with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, despite the call being recorded, is not logical. McCabe's assertion that Flynn's knowledge of being monitored makes his lies more suspicious is contradictory, as the FBI's own agents reported no signs of deception during their interview with Flynn. Furthermore, a leak to The Washington Post prior to McCabe's conversation with Flynn indicated that there was no evidence of illicit activity in the calls. McCabe's actions and statements raise questions about his credibility and motives.
The Importance of Challenging Radical Policies: Ignoring influential figures like AOC and her policies could lead to detrimental consequences. Understanding economic principles is crucial for making informed decisions, and challenging radical policies is necessary even if uncomfortable.
Ignoring influential figures like Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her radical policies could lead to detrimental consequences. The speaker argues that exposing and challenging such policies is crucial, even if it may not be popular or comfortable. Ocasio-Cortez's influence within the Democrat Party and potential future political ambitions should not be underestimated. In the discussed example, she advocated for Amazon leaving New York as a positive thing, despite the potential loss of jobs and tax revenue. The speaker emphasizes that understanding economic principles is essential for making informed decisions and criticizes Ocasio-Cortez for her lack of knowledge in this area. Ignoring her influence and dismissing her views could lead to policies that are not in the best interest of the community or the economy.
Amazon's Impact on New York's Economy: Amazon's presence in NYC doesn't mean a $3bn loss, employees pay taxes, and incentives let Amazon keep more revenue
Amazon's presence in New York, despite tax incentives, does not equate to a net loss for the city. The company's employees will still pay income and sales taxes, and their income will contribute to the local economy. The tax incentives do not constitute a $3 billion handout from New York City to Amazon, as some politicians claim. Instead, these incentives allow Amazon to keep more of its revenue, which it would have otherwise given to the government as taxes. This is a common practice among businesses seeking to expand or relocate, and it does not imply any ethical compromise on Amazon's part. The controversy over the deal largely stems from misunderstandings about how tax incentives work and a desire to protect local industries from competition.
Amazon's departure from NYC: Negative consequences for local economy and jobs: The loss of Amazon's headquarters in NYC will result in significant job and revenue losses, impacting various industries and New Yorkers alike. Stay informed and engaged on important issues.
The departure of Amazon from New York City following the withdrawal of their proposed headquarters will have significant negative consequences for the local economy and jobs market. Dan Bongino, the speaker in the text, expressed his disappointment towards Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for her perceived ignorance or manipulation on the issue. He emphasized that the loss of jobs and revenue will not be celebrated by all New Yorkers, particularly those in the labor and real estate industries. Bongino urged his listeners to stay informed by subscribing to his email list and following him on Twitter for daily articles on important issues. He also encouraged listeners to subscribe to the show and help drive up the charts. Overall, the departure of Amazon from New York City represents a potential economic setback, and it's crucial for individuals to stay informed and engaged on important issues.
