Podcast Summary
Discussed importance of customized mattresses and hypocrisy of Bernie Sanders: Bernie Sanders criticizes wealth while being wealthy himself, Helix Sleep offers personalized mattresses for optimal sleep
During the Dan Bonjino show, they discussed various topics including the importance of getting a customized mattress for optimal sleep with Helix Sleep, and the hypocrisy of Bernie Sanders, who criticizes millionaires and billionaires while being one himself. The show also mentioned that Bernie Sanders will be releasing his tax returns soon, which had previously been hidden. Additionally, they touched on Bill Barr's testimony and the undercover Hubert Twitter account. The show was sponsored by Helix Sleep, which offers personalized mattresses based on sleep preferences and body types, and comes with a 10-year warranty and a 100-night risk-free trial.
Bernie Sanders' Critics Call Out His Millionaire Status: Bernie Sanders faces criticism for his millionaire status despite being a vocal critic of wealth. Critics suggest he donate half of book sales to regain trust.
Bernie Sanders' reputation as a vocal critic of wealth and millionaires has been called into question due to his own newfound millionaire status. Critics argue that he should lead by example and donate a significant portion of his earnings to salvage his reputation. The suggestion is for Sanders to give back at least 50% of his book sales to demonstrate his commitment to his socialist beliefs. The criticism has gained traction on social media with the hashtag #GiveItBackBernie. The inconsistency between Sanders' rhetoric and his personal wealth has led some to label him a hypocrite and a fraud.
AG Barr investigates FBI's conduct during Russia probe: AG Barr probes FBI's actions during Russia investigation, potentially revealing important info on probe's origins and FBI's role.
Attorney General Bill Barr is investigating the FBI's conduct during the Russia investigation into the Trump campaign. This was revealed in a piece by John Solomon in The Hill. The investigation includes how the FBI opened the probe against Trump, who was then the Republican nominee for president in the summer of 2016. This is significant because it shows that Barr is looking into potential misconduct within his own department. The investigation could potentially uncover important information regarding the origins of the Russia investigation and the role of the FBI in it. Barr's decision to investigate the FBI's actions during the Russia probe adds another layer of complexity to the ongoing saga surrounding the investigation and the Trump administration.
Barr's Probe into Origins of Trump-Russia Investigation More Extensive Than Previously Known: AG Barr's separate investigation has subpoena power, allowing access to new info potentially damaging to those involved in the original Trump-Russia probe.
Attorney General William Barr's investigation into the origins of the FBI's investigation into the Trump campaign is more extensive than previously thought. While the Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz has been investigating potential abuse of the FISA court, Barr's review is separate and has the power to issue subpoenas. This means Barr can compel testimony and documents that Horowitz cannot, which could potentially uncover new information about the origins of the investigation. The meeting between FBI officials and the producer of the dossier, which took place the day before the investigation was opened, is a key point of interest. Barr's investigation goes back to the moment the probe, codenamed Crossfire Hurricane, was opened on July 31, 2016, and is distinct from Horowitz's investigation. This is significant because investigators, unlike prosecutors, do not have subpoena power. The potential for new information to come to light with Barr's investigation could be damaging for those involved in the original investigation.
Two investigations into the FBI's Trump probe: Devin Nunes probes start date, IG investigates role of FBI informant Stefan Halper, who contacted Trump team before July 31, 2016
The investigations into the origins of the FBI's probe into the Trump campaign are heating up, with two separate investigations underway. Devin Nunes is looking into when the case actually began, which he believes is much earlier than the July 31, 2016, date the FBI has given. Meanwhile, the Inspector General, Michael Horowitz, is investigating the role of FBI informant Stefan Halper, who made contact with the Trump campaign as early as July 11, 2016. This is significant because the FBI has maintained that the case began on July 31, 2016. The Halper investigation could be explosive, as it raises questions about why a spy known to the US intelligence community was contacting the Trump campaign before the formal investigation had begun. The New York Times has acknowledged that Halper was indeed used to gather information on the Trump team, making the investigation all the more important.
Contact between government asset and Trump advisor raises questions about investigation's legitimacy: The investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election may have been based on flawed or fabricated information, as contact between a government asset and a Trump advisor predating the formal investigation was facilitated by the infamous Steele dossier, which was paid for by Hillary Clinton's team.
The contact between government intelligence asset Stefan Halper and Trump campaign advisor Carter Page, which predates the formal opening of the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, raises serious questions about the legitimacy and timing of the investigation. Halper's contact with Page was facilitated by false information from the infamous Steele dossier, which was paid for by Hillary Clinton's team. This suggests that the investigation may have been based on flawed or fabricated information, and that the FBI may have been spying on the Trump team before the formal investigation began, contradicting previous assertions. The ongoing investigation by Attorney General Barr is expected to shed more light on these matters.
Investigation into Russia probe origins heats up: DOJ probes Stefan Halper's role in Russia probe, Mueller declined to review Barr's report exonerating Trump, potential trouble for those involved
The Department of Justice is now investigating the origins of the Russia probe, specifically looking into the role of an intelligence asset, Stefan Halper, and his contacts with Trump campaign official Sam Clovis. This development could potentially "blow the thing wide open." Another significant takeaway is that Robert Mueller declined to review Bill Barr's report exonerating Trump of any wrongdoing. These investigations and developments suggest that those involved in the Russia probe may be in serious trouble. Despite concerns about the speed of justice, it's important to remember that justice delayed is not justice denied, and it will not be delayed forever. The investigation into the investigation continues.
Democrats accused Trump of obstruction despite Mueller's lack of evidence: Democrats used Mueller's inaction on an obstruction letter as leverage for political attacks, despite Mueller's lack of evidence and intention to avoid impeachment during Trump's presidency.
The Democrats' strategy to accuse President Trump of obstruction of justice after Robert Mueller's investigation found no collusion was a calculated move. Mueller, knowing that Barr would be making the decision on whether to charge Trump with obstruction, passed on reviewing a letter regarding the matter. This put the responsibility on Barr for Trump's exoneration, which the Democrats could then criticize. Mueller, who had already indicated in a memo that obstruction was an unwarranted charge, did not want to review the letter. The Democrats' argument that Barr gave Trump a pass is now on the record, but it ignores the fact that Mueller had no evidence of obstruction and would not have pursued impeachment and a trial during Trump's presidency. The entire situation was a political maneuver, and the key players involved knew exactly what they were doing.
Mueller's handling of Comey documents raises suspicions: Mueller's decision to not review Comey's involvement in Russia investigation documents and his status as a witness is questionable, with Peter Strzok leading the investigation instead.
Robert Mueller's handling of certain court documents related to Jim Comey during the Russia investigation has raised suspicions. Mueller declined to review a letter regarding these documents, instead putting the blame on Attorney General Barr and creating a suspicious situation. Additionally, recent revelations from October 2017 court documents have shown that Comey was listed as a witness in the Russia investigation, despite his repeated claims under oath that he was not involved. However, it was actually Peter Strzok who led the investigation, and Comey's status as a witness is highly questionable. Meanwhile, in a completely unrelated topic, the importance of maintaining good oral health was discussed, with a promotion for the electric toothbrush Quip.
Former FBI Director Comey's memos led to obstruction probe against Trump: Comey's firing of memos to McCabe initiated an obstruction investigation, which could have continued indefinitely without substantial evidence, but was slowed down by the appointment of Barr and Whitaker as Heads of DOJ.
Former FBI Director James Comey, who was fired by President Trump, became a witness in the obstruction probe against the president. This is significant because Comey's firing initiated the investigation, and before Mueller was appointed as the special counsel, Comey gave his memos about his interactions with Trump to his deputy director, Andrew McCabe. Trump, as the president, has the authority to hire and fire the FBI director, but McCabe used the memos to start an investigation into the president for firing his boss. Mueller was not hired to investigate collusion, as it was widely believed, but to investigate obstruction. The obstruction investigation was intended to be used to dismantle the Trump presidency, and it could have continued indefinitely without producing significant evidence. The appointment of Bill Barr and Matthew Whitaker as heads of the Justice Department was the only thing that slowed down the investigation. This situation highlights the potential for a biased investigation when the lead investigator holds a negative opinion towards the target of the investigation.
Investigation into Trump's potential obstruction of justice now includes Comey's actions: Former FBI Director Comey, now a witness, is under investigation for his role in Trump probe and his actions post-firing
The investigation into potential obstruction of justice by President Trump has evolved to include the actions of former FBI Director James Comey. Comey, who was fired by Trump, is now being considered a witness in the case due to his role in initiating the investigation and his subsequent actions. The back-and-forth between the two parties has led to a complex situation where Comey's firing is being used as evidence of potential obstruction. The level of hubris displayed by both sides is stunning, with Comey's decision to initiate an investigation against Trump after being fired adding to the intrigue. The back-and-forth between politicians and witnesses during hearings, as seen in the exchange between Candace Owens and Congressman Ted Lieu, highlights the polarized nature of American politics and the importance of listening carefully to full conversations.
Defending Against False Accusations and Objective Truth: Candace Owens clarified false accusations, Dan Bongino criticized manipulation of truth, and they emphasized the importance of objective truth and supporting the podcast.
During a podcast discussion, Candace Owens was falsely accused by a conspiracy theorist named Ted Loon of making derogatory comments about black people. In response, Owens clarified that she did not make such comments and defended herself against the false accusations. The podcast host, Dan Bongino, also criticized Democrats for attempting to manipulate people's perceptions of the truth and using language that is not factual. Bongino used the example of basic math to illustrate the concept of objective truth. The conversation also touched on the importance of subscribing to the podcast and supporting it to help it grow.
