Podcast Summary
FBI Director's Response to Spying Allegations: FBI Director Wray attempted to ease concerns about potential spying on the Trump campaign, but some remain skeptical.
During a recent hearing on Capitol Hill, FBI Director Christopher Wray answered a question from Senator Shaheen regarding potential spying on the Trump campaign by the intelligence agency and the FBI. Wray's response aimed to provide comfort to the deep state and was significant because it was addressed to a Democratic senator. Meanwhile, Dan Vongino expressed his disappointment in Wray for previously being given the benefit of the doubt. Additionally, Vongino promoted a product called the Calming Comfort weighted blanket, which he claimed helped him sleep better and reduce stress. He encouraged listeners to check it out with a discount code on the product's website.
Senate Hearing: FBI Directors Clarifies Use of Term 'Spying' vs 'Surveillance': FBI Director Wray clarified the use of 'spying' versus 'surveillance' during a Senate hearing, emphasizing lawful authorities and clear communication in high-stakes situations.
During a Senate hearing, there was a discussion about the use of the term "spying" versus "surveillance" in relation to FBI investigations. Senator Shaheen asked FBI Director Christopher Wray if FBI agents engage in "spine" when conducting investigations against criminals. Wray clarified that he would not use that term and instead emphasized the importance of following lawful authorities. Some people argue that this was a deliberate attempt by Wray to give Democrats a soundbite for the media, who were eager to label him as opposed to surveillance. Others believe that Wray's use of different terminology was simply a matter of colloquialism. Regardless of the intent, the exchange highlighted the political nature of language and the importance of clear communication in high-stakes situations. It also underscored the ongoing debate about the appropriate use of surveillance and investigative powers by law enforcement agencies.
Senator Shaheen's use of 'spying' term sparks controversy: Unscripted political questions can lead to controversy, highlighting the sensitivity around political surveillance and the importance of clear communication.
During a Senate hearing, Democrat Senator Jeanne Shaheen's question about investigations into potential spying during the 2016 election led to a misstep, causing backlash from her party's activist base. The term "spying" was used, and although there may have been justifications for the investigation, the use of the term sparked controversy. The incident highlights the sensitivity around the topic of political surveillance and the potential consequences of unscripted follow-up questions in political contexts. It also underscores the importance of clear communication and the potential repercussions of missteps in the political arena.
Critics Surprised by Trump's Business Losses: Despite some criticism over Trump's reported business losses, the speaker argues that many critics lack business experience and that even successful companies and entrepreneurs experience losses.
The release of Donald Trump's tax returns from certain years sparked criticism from some journalists and media outlets, with some expressing surprise over the businessman's reported paper losses during volatile real estate markets. However, the speaker argues that these critics have a lack of understanding about business and finance, as many have never made significant money themselves. He also references notable business failures, such as New Coke and the Newton, to highlight that even successful companies and entrepreneurs experience losses. The speaker expresses disdain for journalists who attack Trump based on his financial history, while ignoring their own lack of business experience. He concludes by encouraging listeners to join U.S. Law Shield, a company that provides support and education for gun owners.
Russia Gate Story: A Potential Cover for Massive Spying Operation: The Russia gate story may have been a cover for a massive spying operation against political opponents by the Obama administration and former CIA director John Brennan, withholding critical information from FISA warrants.
The Russia gate story was potentially a cover story for a massive spying operation run by former CIA director John Brennan and the Obama administration against political opponents. John Solomon's report at The Hill revealed that a State Department official, Kavalec, received information from Christopher Steele, the producer of the Russian dossier, that he needed this information to be made public before the election. Steele was working for the Democratic National Committee (DNC) at the time, but this critical information was not disclosed in the FISA warrants. This raises questions about the legitimacy of the spying and the motivations behind the Russia investigation. It's important to note that these reports and investigations can be valuable resources for individuals who carry firearms and have CCW permits. For more information, visit uslawshield.com/Dan.
FBI and State Department Received Information from Biased Spy During 2016 Election: The FBI and State Department received information from a biased spy, Christopher Steele, during the 2016 election, which was used to secure a FISA warrant and brief the State Department, raising questions about collusion and the need for transparency and accountability.
During the 2016 election, the FBI and State Department were both receiving information from Christopher Steele, a foreign spy who was working for both Hillary Clinton's campaign and the FBI. Steele's memos, which were used to secure a FISA warrant to spy on Carter Page, were classified as secret by the FBI just a few days ago. However, it's now known that Steele had a political motive and an election day deadline to make his dossier public. The State Department, which is not a law enforcement entity, was briefed by Steele ten days before the FISA warrant was produced, and Steele indicated in a note that Hillary Clinton's team was paying him to do this. This raises serious questions about collusion to impact the election. It's important that these documents be declassified to provide transparency and accountability.
Foreign spy met with State Dept and FBI during 2016 election: A foreign spy worked for both Hillary Clinton and the FBI during the 2016 election, pushing for the release of false info and pressuring for a FISA warrant
During the 2016 election, a foreign spy working for Hillary Clinton met with the State Department while also working for the FBI, pushing for the release of false information before the election. At the same time, FBI investigators were under pressure to obtain a FISA warrant based on information from the same foreign spy, Christopher Steele. This raises concerns of potential election interference and the FBI's knowledge of Steele's dual roles and actions. These revelations add to the ongoing discussion about the origins of the Russian collusion hoax and the extent of government surveillance during the election.
FBI agents discussed potential derogatory info on Christopher Steele: FBI investigated Trump team for Russian ties based on unclear origins, raising concerns about transparency and potential manipulation
Following Donald Trump's surprise win in the 2016 presidential election, FBI agents showed concern about potential derogatory information related to Christopher Steele and his role as a political operative. This concern led them to discuss exchanging lists and scrubbing names, suggesting they may have had access to information from Steele. The FBI has since been criticized for not properly disclosing the origins of their investigation into Trump's team, with some speculating that they were manipulated by John Brennan and the CIA. The exact contents of the initial electronic communication (EC) that initiated the counterintelligence case against the Trump team remain unknown, but it is believed to have referred to suspicious Russian ties involving Manafort and others. Overall, the situation highlights the importance of transparency and unbiased decision-making in law enforcement and intelligence gathering.
Brennan briefed on same info as dossier, overlap not disclosed: Brennan briefed the President on Steele info before FBI had it, leading to confusion and mistrust when overlap discovered
There was significant overlap between the information John Brennan received from Christopher Steele and the dossier that the FBI investigated. This overlap was not disclosed to the FBI, leading to confusion and potential misrepresentation of the origins of the information. John Brennan briefed the President and other officials on this information in August 2016, before the FBI had obtained the dossier. When this was discovered, it caused concern and the need for further conversations. Lisa Page, an FBI lawyer involved in the case, was surprised to learn that Brennan had been briefed on the same information from Steele, as she believed their sources were distinct. The failure to disclose this overlap and verify the authenticity of the sources led to a lack of trust in the information and potential misuse of intelligence.
CIA and FBI overlapping intel on Steele dossier, former CIA Dir John Brennan may have misled officials: The CIA and FBI had overlapping intel on the Steele dossier, and former CIA Dir John Brennan may have misled officials about its origin, leading to a potentially misinformed investigation
There was a significant overlap between information the CIA and the FBI had regarding the infamous Steele dossier, and former CIA Director John Brennan may have misled officials about the origin of this information. This miscommunication led to the FBI opening an investigation based on information they believed was independently sourced, when in reality it was the same intelligence Brennan had briefed to other officials. This revelation sheds light on the complex web of intelligence sharing during the 2016 election and raises questions about the accuracy and transparency of the information being circulated. Additionally, during the discussion, a promotion for WaxRx, an earwax removal system, was interjected. Despite its seemingly unrelated nature, the speaker shared his positive experience with the product and encouraged listeners to try it.
FBI and CIA collaboration during election investigation: Concerns over potential collusion and communication between FBI and CIA during election probe, raised by use of same source and late disclosure, fuel debates about intelligence agencies' role in politics.
There are concerns about potential collusion and communication between the CIA and FBI during the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. The FBI's use of the same source, Christopher Steele, as the CIA, and the late disclosure of this information to the FBI, has raised questions about the agencies' due diligence and transparency. Additionally, the FBI's appointment of an executive with expertise in sensitive surveillance equipment as a liaison to the Trump transition team has raised eyebrows and added to the growing suspicion of impropriety. The full extent of these interactions and their impact on the investigation is still unclear, but the revelations have added fuel to ongoing debates about the role of intelligence agencies in political affairs.
Allegations of suspicious FBI official activities in White House transition: Reports of FBI official's spouse communicating with transition team about sources and unusual White House sweeps raised concerns for potential listening devices
There were allegations of suspicious activities surrounding the appointment of an FBI official with surveillance capabilities to the White House transition team. The spouse of this official was reportedly communicating with the transition team about developing sources inside the White House, as they were married to individuals in the FBI. Following this, there were reports of unusual technical surveillance sweeps being conducted in the White House, prompting concerns about potential listening devices in and around the Oval Office. Chuck Schumer, a prominent political figure, publicly acknowledged these events, implying potential retaliation against those who challenge the intelligence community. This situation highlights the complex web of relationships and potential power plays that can occur within government circles.
