Podcast Summary
2020 Election: Prepare for Potential Post-Election Chaos: Listeners are urged to be prepared for potential post-election unrest and not be caught off guard, with concerns of a contested election outcome leading to more severe fallout than Bush v. Gore.
The 2020 presidential election could result in significant unrest if the outcome is close and contested in the courts. Dan Bongino, the host of the show, has been warning his audience about critical dates related to the election and the Democrats' plans for potential post-election chaos. He urges listeners to be prepared and not be caught off guard like they were during previous protests and looting. The show also promotes ExpressVPN for online privacy and SimplySafe for home security, both of which offer easy setup and no hidden fees. The Wall Street Journal has expressed concern that the fallout from a contested election could be more severe than Bush v. Gore.
Democrats misusing term 'disenfranchisement' for election fraud: Democrats are using 'disenfranchisement' as a euphemism for election fraud, ignoring legal guidelines and election deadlines, and misleading the public.
The Democratic Party is using the term "disenfranchisement" to justify ignoring legal guidelines and election deadlines. This is not an accurate use of the term, which refers to being denied the right to vote. Instead, it's being used as a euphemism for election fraud. A recent example of this can be seen in a federal judge's ruling in Georgia, which allows ballots to be counted even if they are received after election day. The judge's decision was based on the risk of "disenfranchisement," but it is actually a violation of election laws. It's important for individuals and institutions to be prepared for this kind of legal maneuvering and to understand that it is not an acceptable justification for breaking the law. The ongoing court battles over election deadlines are a cause for concern, and it's crucial to pay attention to the dates that matter, such as the actual election day.
Potential Legal Controversies in Mail-in Ballot Counting: Thousands of late mail-in ballots in urban areas may be discarded due to issues like missing postmarks or suspect signatures, potentially leading to accusations of disenfranchisement and racism. Constitutional and statutory deadlines for electoral vote decisions could result in forfeited electoral votes if not met.
The discussion revolves around the potential legal controversies surrounding the counting of mail-in ballots in the 2020 US Presidential Election. The speaker emphasizes that thousands of late ballots, particularly in urban areas, may be discarded due to various issues like missing postmarks or suspect signatures. These actions could lead to accusations of urban area disenfranchisement and allegations of racism. The speaker also highlights that the Constitution and statutory law set key deadlines for deciding electoral votes, and failure to meet these deadlines could result in forfeited electoral votes. The speaker encourages listeners to refer to the article in the show notes for more detailed information on these key dates and the legal implications of the election process.
Possible political turmoil and cyber threats during election period: During Dec 8-14, political turmoil is possible due to election outcome disputes. Cyber criminals may exploit identity theft concerns.
The period between December 8th and December 14th could see significant political turmoil in the United States as states work to determine the outcome of the presidential election. If no agreement can be reached, there is a possibility of lawsuits over every single vote, particularly those with missing or bad signatures. The situation could escalate into a "street fight," according to some experts. Additionally, personal information is a valuable commodity for cyber criminals, and identity theft is a growing concern. It's important to be aware of this and take steps to protect yourself. In the meantime, stay informed about the political situation and be prepared for potential developments.
Media's shift on mail-in voting issues: Media initially downplayed mail-in voting concerns, but now acknowledge potential issues due to legal battles, not journalistic integrity
The media's stance on mail-in voting has shifted due to the potential issues arising in the 2020 election. Previously, they downplayed any concerns raised by President Trump and his supporters, but now they are acknowledging the possibility of increased rejections of absentee ballots. However, this shift is not driven by a newfound commitment to journalistic integrity, but rather by the need to prepare for legal battles as the deadline for determining the election results approaches. The media's role as liberal activists has come to the forefront, with their narratives often being the opposite of what Trump says, regardless of the facts. The potential for a significant increase in rejected ballots this year is a concern that has been discussed on the show for weeks, and the media's recent acknowledgment of the issue should not be seen as a vindication of Trump's earlier warnings.
Concerns about mail-in voting legitimacy and potential issues: Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg prepares public for prolonged election result uncertainty, potential civil unrest, and alignment of Dems and tech companies on election approach.
There are concerns about the legitimacy and potential issues with mail-in voting, as opposed to absentee ballots, in the upcoming US election. These concerns are being raised more publicly now as the polls shift in favor of Donald Trump and the possibility of a contested election becomes more likely. Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook has also weighed in, preparing the public for the possibility of a prolonged period after the election before a consensus result is reached. The potential for civil unrest is also a concern, and Facebook is taking steps to prevent any organized violence or unrest on its platform. The discussion also highlighted the alignment of the Democratic Party and tech companies like Facebook in their approach to the election.
Preparing for Election Uncertainty: Stay informed and prepared for potential election chaos from November 3rd to December 14th, as both parties may contest results and tensions could lead to violent incidents.
The 2020 election may be contested and potentially chaotic, with both Democrats and Republicans expressing strong opinions and preparing for possible outcomes. Mark Zuckerberg has stated that Facebook will not allow election misinformation after the election, and Joe Biden's campaign has suggested they may not use the courts to contest results, instead opting for a "street fight." Tensions are high, and there have been reports of violent incidents during political events. It's important for individuals to prepare for potential unrest and ensure their safety. The window between the election on November 3rd and the presidential electors being chosen on December 14th could see unprecedented chaos if there's a conflict about who won. It's crucial to stay informed and be prepared for the possibility of prolonged election-related uncertainty.
Man's response to stolen campaign sign: Despite theft, man donated more money and bought new signs, expressed frustration towards liberals, and encouraged listeners to prepare for emergencies
A man described an encounter with a woman who stole his political campaign sign, and his response was to donate more money to the campaign and buy new signs. He also expressed his frustration with liberals and encouraged listeners to prepare for potential chaos and emergencies. The man also mentioned that President Trump held a press conference outside the White House, where he spoke about having a good relationship with soldiers despite tension with military brass. It's important to note that the man's language was aggressive and derogatory towards the woman and liberals in general. Additionally, he promoted a company selling emergency food supplies as a way to prepare for potential chaos.
Respecting the Military but Opposing Endless Wars: Advocating for clear battle plans, exit strategies, and victory plans before engaging in military conflicts to preserve lives and avoid long-term conflicts of interest between military leadership and defense companies.
While the speaker has immense respect for the military and law enforcement, he believes that sending the best personnel overseas to fight in wars without a clear exit strategy is not patriotic. He advocates for adhering to Fox Connor's rules of war, which include avoiding long wars, fighting alone, and going to war only when absolutely necessary to preserve lives. The speaker criticizes endless wars and the potential conflict of interest between military leadership and defense companies. He calls for clear battle plans, exit strategies, and victory plans before engaging in military conflicts.
Military officials and defense contractors: Questions about potential conflicts of interest arise when military officials join defense companies after retirement.
There seems to be a revolving door between high-ranking military officials and defense contractors, raising questions about potential conflicts of interest. During the discussion, examples were given of retired military officials joining the boards of defense companies after leaving their military positions. The speaker suggested that Trump's criticism of this phenomenon might have merit, as the motivations and intentions of these individuals should be scrutinized in a constitutional republic. Additionally, an interview given by the lead FBI investigator for the Spygate scandal on CBS was criticized for containing easily debunked lies. The speaker emphasized the importance of asking questions and seeking the truth in order to make informed decisions.
Error in timing of Australian tip to FBI: Lead FBI investigator's mistake about when Australians contacted FBI casts doubt on investigation's accuracy and credibility
During the investigation into potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, the lead FBI investigator, Peter Strzok, made an error regarding the timing of when the Australians approached the FBI with concerning information. This error was significant because it called into question Strzok's credibility and raised doubts about the accuracy of the investigation. The Australians reportedly approached the FBI on July 26th, a day before Trump's July 27th press conference where he made a comment that allegedly prompted the Australians to come forward. However, Strzok stated in a clip from July 2020 that the Australians came forward after the July 27th speech. This discrepancy, among other issues, has led some to question the validity of the investigation and the competence of those involved. It's important to note that this discussion is not an endorsement or condemnation of any political figure or party, but rather a focus on the accuracy and credibility of information presented during an investigation.
Former FBI Director's inconsistent statements about Flynn's interaction with Russian ambassador: Despite inconsistencies in his statements and notes, former FBI Director Peter Stroke continued to assert that Michael Flynn lied about his conversation with the Russian ambassador.
During an interview, former FBI Director Peter Stroke made false claims about Michael Flynn's interactions with the Russian ambassador regarding sanctions. However, when their notes from the interview were reviewed, it was discovered that there was no mention of sanctions in their conversation. Stroke also seemed to have trouble remembering the timeline of events and the details of his own investigation. This raises questions about Stroke's credibility and his ability to accurately recall important information related to the case. Despite these inconsistencies, Stroke continued to assert that Flynn lied about the conversation.
Interview reveals inconsistencies between Strzok's claims and FBI notes on Flynn: Former FBI official Peter Strzok's interview statements about Michael Flynn's lies contradict FBI notes, raising concerns about narrative manipulation and the need for thorough reporting.
During a recent interview, it was revealed that there were inconsistencies between what former FBI official Peter Strzok claimed he knew about Michael Flynn's lies about sanctions and the actual FBI notes from their interview with Flynn. Strzok claimed there were no physical indications of deception during the interview, despite Flynn's subsequent admission of lying about sanctions. Strzok also appeared to be massaging the narrative around the investigation, according to the speaker. Additionally, during the same interview, Strzok was not pressed about Paul Manafort's alleged sharing of campaign polling data with a Russian intelligence officer, despite it being a serious allegation. The speaker criticized the interviewer for not asking more probing questions and for accepting Strzok's version of events without questioning it. The speaker also highlighted the importance of accurate reporting and urged listeners to seek out reliable sources of information.
Commentator criticizes FBI for mistakes, American Airlines for double standards: Commentator emphasizes accountability and consistency in authority figures, criticizes FBI for errors and AA for double standards
During an interview, a commentator criticized the FBI for making mistakes due to being "overworked," specifically regarding the handling of information involving Carter Page and the FBI's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. However, the commentator's tone was dismissive and derisive, implying that the FBI's errors were unacceptable and that those responsible should resign. The commentator also criticized American Airlines for allowing employees to wear Black Lives Matter pins while allegedly banning MAGA pins. The overall message was that those in positions of authority should be held accountable for their actions and mistakes, and that double standards should not be applied.
Speaker acknowledges Black Lives Matter but dislikes its label as a Marxist terror group: Appreciate the importance of movements like Black Lives Matter, but be mindful of labels and focus on personal growth and new additions to family, like a new pet.
While the speaker acknowledges the importance of the Black Lives Matter movement, he also expresses a negative view towards it being labeled as a Marxist terror group. He encourages his audience to spend their money wisely and appreciate the new addition to his family, Lucy, a dog they've had for only two days. He thanks his audience for their feedback on the previous day's show and encourages those who missed it to watch it on YouTube or listen to it on Apple Podcasts or other podcast platforms. The speaker promises to see everyone tomorrow. The discussion also includes a brief mention of the need to train new pets.
