Podcast Summary
AG Barr confirms spying on Trump campaign, shift in focus: AG Barr's confirmation of spying on the Trump campaign has shifted focus from collusion hoax to spying scandal, causing strong reactions from media and political left, while gun owners can protect themselves by educating themselves on potential legal issues with free resources from US Law Shield
Attorney General Bill Barr confirmed during a Capitol Hill hearing that spying did occur on the Trump campaign. This revelation, which was unexpected by some, has led to a significant shift in focus from the collusion hoax to the spying scandal involving the Obama administration. The media and political left have reacted strongly to this news, with some calling for Barr's resignation. Meanwhile, gun owners can take important steps to protect themselves by educating themselves on potential legal issues related to firearm use. US Law Shield offers valuable resources and education for gun owners, and for a limited time, they are offering five free reports with a combined value of $100. These reports answer important questions that every gun owner should know. Go to uslawshield.com/Dan to claim your free reports.
Stefan Halper's Role in Trump Campaign Surveillance went beyond that of a typical Informant: Halper's actions as a spy during interactions with the Trump campaign were more proactive than a typical informant's role, and media attempts to label him only as an informant can be misleading.
Stefan Halper, who was described by the FBI as an informant, was actually more than just an informant during his interactions with the Trump campaign. He actively courted Trump campaign officials, offering to pay for travel and misrepresenting himself. While an informant is someone who pre-exists within an organization and informs on potential criminal or intelligence-related activity, a spy is more proactive. Halper's actions went beyond that of a typical informant, and it's important to clarify the distinction between the two. The media's attempts to downplay Halper's role in the Obama administration's surveillance of the Trump campaign by labeling him an informant alone is misleading. The use of language matters, and it's crucial to understand the nuances between the two terms.
Spygate: A Spy's False Pretenses: The media's lack of curiosity about a spy's involvement in the 2016 Trump campaign under false pretenses and their continued focus on collusion is concerning, especially with the Mueller report's exoneration of the Trump team.
During the 2016 presidential campaign, a spy named Halper, who was external to the Trump team, was introduced to Trump campaign officials under false pretenses to gather information on them. Halper was not an informant but a spy, and no one in the Trump campaign knew him. The media's lack of curiosity about this fact is concerning, especially since there is no evidence of any crime related to collusion and the Mueller report exonerated the Trump team. The media's attempts to downplay or dismiss the truth about Spygate is malfeasance and an insult to those seeking the facts. The media's narrative of collusion being the main story is no longer valid, and the truth about Spygate should be the focus.
Brennan's Role in the Dossier and FISA Warrant: The former CIA director John Brennan's contradictory statements regarding his knowledge of the infamous dossier and its use in obtaining a FISA warrant raise serious questions about his involvement in intelligence operations and the integrity of the process.
The discussion revolves around the allegations of widespread spying on the Trump campaign during the 2016 elections. John Brennan, the former CIA director, is a key figure in this controversy, as he claimed not to have seen the infamous dossier until December 2016, while a FISA warrant based on it was approved in October 2016. The speaker argues that Brennan's involvement in intelligence operations involving foreign intel and his role in the dossier contradiction raise serious questions. The speaker also criticizes liberal media figures for downplaying or covering up this issue, and expresses concern about the implications for American democracy and journalistic integrity. The conversation also touches upon Bill Barr's investigation into intelligence agencies' activities more broadly.
Misunderstandings and Misinformation Surrounding Trump Campaign Spying: Despite common belief, the Trump campaign was under investigation during the 2016 election through the use of retroactive FISA warrants and the involvement of a spy, Carter Page, within the campaign.
The left's arguments against the Trump administration being spied on during the 2016 presidential election are based on misunderstandings and misinformation. Carter Page was not just an informant, but a spy, as he was an external U.S. intelligence asset pushed into the Trump orbit to monitor the campaign. Furthermore, the FISA warrants used to investigate Russian influence in the election were retroactive, meaning they could access emails, phone calls, and texts sent before the warrant was issued. The fact that the warrant was issued after Carter Page left the campaign does not change this. The left's argument that the Trump campaign was not being spied on because the FISA warrant was issued after Carter Page left is debunked by Comey's admission that they were investigating the Trump campaign and the fact that FISA warrants are retroactive and allow investigators to hop from one person to another in the investigation, effectively creating a dragnet.
The collusion hoax narrative might be based on false premises: If Julian Assange isn't indicted for the DNC hack, it could mean Russian involvement with WikiLeaks was a hoax, impacting American politics for years. Be skeptical of information and wait for facts.
The collusion hoax narrative, which suggests the Russians hacked the DNC emails and gave them to WikiLeaks to influence the election, may be based on false premises. This is significant because if Julian Assange, who is currently in custody, is not indicted for his role in the DNC hack, it could mean that the premise of Russian involvement with WikiLeaks is also a hoax. This is important because the collusion hoax has been a major point of controversy in American politics for years. Additionally, the speaker encourages listeners to be skeptical of information they receive and to wait for facts to be confirmed before drawing conclusions. The speaker also promotes a weighted blanket called Common Comfort, which provides a soothing feeling and helps reduce stress and anxiety for better sleep.
Congresswoman's Misconception About Student Loans: Despite overseeing banking oversight, Congresswoman Maxine Waters was unaware that the US govt took over student loans a decade ago, contributing to the third-party payer problem and rising costs in education.
Congresswoman Maxine Waters, who oversees banking oversight, is unaware that the United States government took over the student loan market about a decade ago. This misconception was highlighted during a hearing where she questioned bank executives about their involvement in student loans, as they had all exited the market when the government took it over. The student loan crisis, with over 1.56 trillion dollars in debt and 1 million defaults each year, is a major issue, and it's worth noting that healthcare and education, two sectors with significant cost control problems, also have large government footprints. This situation, known as the third-party payer problem, occurs when the consumer (in this case, the government) pays the bills, allowing universities and healthcare providers to increase costs without concern for the patient. This dynamic contributes to the rising costs in both sectors.
Officials' contradictory statements about Trump campaign spying: High-ranking officials publicly denied spying on the Trump campaign while leading an investigation involving a spy. This discrepancy highlights the importance of truthfulness and accountability in public office.
There was a significant discrepancy between what high-ranking officials, such as Jim Clapper and Jim Comey, publicly stated about the existence and nature of spying on the Trump campaign, versus the reality of the situation. Jim Clapper, the former Director of National Intelligence under President Obama, denied any spying had taken place, while Jim Comey, the former FBI Director, was leading an investigation that involved the use of a spy, Stefan Halper, to gather information on the Trump campaign. This contradiction raises questions about the accuracy of public statements made by these officials and highlights the importance of holding those in positions of power accountable for their actions and words. The timeline of events, including the issuance of FISA warrants, unmasking requests, and the use of national security letters, further underscores the significance of this issue. It's crucial for the public to be informed and vigilant in the face of potential misinformation and deception from those in power.
Discrepancies in Statements from High-Level Officials on Surveillance Activities: Former officials' conflicting statements about surveillance during the 2016 campaign raise questions about accuracy and transparency. Fact-checking and transparency are crucial in reporting on sensitive matters.
There seems to be a discrepancy between what high-level officials, such as former FBI Director James Comey and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, have stated regarding the existence and knowledge of surveillance activities during the 2016 presidential campaign. Comey has claimed that Clapper was not informed about the investigation, but video evidence and statements from Clapper suggest otherwise. This inconsistency raises questions about the accuracy of statements made by these officials and the role of journalists in reporting on such sensitive matters. Additionally, the denial by Clapper of a FISA warrant for surveillance of Trump Tower has been proven false, as the existence of such a warrant has been confirmed by other sources. Overall, the discussion highlights the importance of fact-checking and transparency in reporting, especially when dealing with matters of national security and potential political implications.
Emphasizing Health and Wellness through Supplements: Dan recommends Foundation, a creatine ATP blend supplement, for enhanced performance, appearance, and overall wellness. He also warns against government-provided healthcare and emphasizes personal responsibility.
During the discussion, the importance of taking care of one's health and well-being through supplements was emphasized. Dan spoke about his experience with Foundation, a creatine ATP blend supplement from Brickhouse Nutrition, which he highly recommends due to its ability to enhance performance, appearance, and overall wellness. He encouraged listeners to try it and share their results after seven days. Additionally, Dan criticized Bernie Sanders' revised Medicare for all proposal, labeling it a government takeover of healthcare that would not work effectively. He warned listeners not to be misled by the fairy tale of government-provided healthcare and instead emphasized the importance of personal responsibility for one's health.
Elimination of Private Insurance under Medicare for All: Bernie Sanders' Medicare for All plan would require transition from current Medicare and private insurance, involve significant tax increases, and potentially lead to rationing due to high costs.
Under the proposed Medicare for All plan by Bernie Sanders, those currently on Medicare or holding private insurance would be required to transition to the government-run healthcare system. This means the Medicare and private insurance plans that people currently rely on would no longer be an option. Additionally, the plan would involve significant tax increases, with estimates suggesting a 7% payroll tax for employers and an additional 4% payroll tax for employees, among other tax hikes. The total cost of the plan is estimated to be around $32 trillion over 10 years, which would result in a substantial increase in government spending and potentially lead to rationing of healthcare services due to limited resources. Overall, the discussion emphasizes that the proposed Medicare for All plan would result in major changes to the current healthcare system, including the elimination of private insurance and significant tax increases.
Misconceptions about lower administrative costs in government-run healthcare systems: Despite the belief that government-run healthcare systems have lower administrative costs, studies show that Medicare's costs might be higher due to serving an older and sicker population, and the idea that keeping people out of ERs saves money is misleading.
The claim that administrative costs will be lower under a government-run healthcare system, as suggested by some politicians like Bernie Sanders, is not accurate. Contrary to popular belief, Medicare's administrative costs are not lower due to its tax-exempt status and help from other agencies. In fact, they might be higher when considering the older and sicker population Medicare serves. Additionally, the idea that keeping people out of the ER will save money because they'll go to the doctor instead is also misleading. An NPR study from 2016 showed that emergency room usage stayed high even after people gained insurance coverage. It's crucial to understand these misconceptions and separate fact from fiction when discussing healthcare policies.
Oregon Study Debunks Myth of Lower ER Usage with Expanded Health Care: The Oregon study showed that expanding government-run health care does not decrease ER usage and even increases doctor visits, leading to higher overall health care costs.
The theory that expanding government-run health care, as proposed by Senator Bernie Sanders, would decrease emergency room usage and save money on health care costs, was debunked by a study conducted in Oregon. The study found that ER usage remained high for Medicaid patients even after they received government-run health insurance coverage, and they also increased their visits to doctors' offices. Contrary to Sanders' claims, this means that not only would there be higher costs at doctors' offices, but also higher ER costs. Additionally, the study revealed that Medicare's administrative costs are actually higher than they appear, as they are hidden and calculated using faulty fractions on an older, sicker population. Overall, the Oregon study challenges the notion that expanding government-run health care would lead to significant cost savings.
