The Dan Bongino Show - A Disastrous Night for the Democrats (Ep 1066)

Episode Date: September 13, 2019

In this episode, I address the worst moments from last night’s disastrous Democrat Debate and I debunk the numerous lies told on stage, and off. I also address the scandalous revelation about John Brennan in light of CNN’s latest news story. Finally, I cover the GOP scandal in North Carolina that wasn’t. News Picks:A new low for Hillary Clinton.   An explosive article about sleazy John Brennan’s scheming.   Breaking down the imminent indictment of Spygate player, Andrew McCabe.   Kim Strassel‘s latest article about the removal of the “spy” from Russia is damning for the FBI.    The real costs of “Medicare for All” are staggering.   The wealthiest Americans are moving to Florida to escape high taxes elsewhere.   Copyright Dan Bongino All Rights Reserved. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Here's the truth. Your cell phone company is probably funding liberal gun grabbers, Planned Parenthood and liberal candidates. Patriot Mobile, America's only conservative cell phone company, gives you the option of pulling your hard-earned money out of liberal hands and putting it into organizations that fight for the First and Second Amendment, border security and the sanctity of life and saves you money. Join thousands of Americans using Patriot Mobile and get reliable nationwide coverage, unlimited talk and text and high speed data that fights for your freedom. Switch today at Patriot Mobile dot com slash Dan. Again, that's Patriot Mobile dot com slash Dan. dot com slash Dan. Get ready to hear the truth about America on a show that's not immune to the facts with your host, Dan Bongino.

OK, what was that last night? Another complete epic fail of a debate by the Democrats. Stack show. No time to mess around. Major Spygate news blowing upowing up Brennan's spot. Ton of stuff to get to. Let's get right to it. Welcome to the Dan Bongino Show.

Producer Joe, how are you today? It's Friday. That was the condensed version. Joe's like, I'm going to condense it because he knows we got a stack show. It's Friday. Let's go. Okay, getting right to it. Do not go anywhere.

Today's going to be one of your favorite shows. Thank you yesterday, by the way. I know know earlier in the week the viewership was down i think it was football yesterday we were back blew it up yesterday you all the best uh our listenership was great all right today's show brought to you by buddies at omax health love omax health two of my favorite products from omax health these are great listen if you're obsessed with cryo freezes cbd roll-on which i am this is like a menthol CBD roll on. You roll it on when your joints are sore. My wife and I love this. She heard her trap yesterday working out. I'm not kidding. She said, Hey Dan, can you put that stuff on? You take it off. You have the roller, you roll that thing on. You get this

nice freezing cooling sensation. How do you feel today, Paula? Excellent. Thank you. Then if you love that product, which I love, they put out a new product, the CBD once a day, CBD plus NEM eggshell membrane for inflammation and pain. This stuff is fantastic. Love it. This is one of my favorite new sponsors, Omax Health. Check them out. It's insanely popular.

The feedback on this product has been fantastic. CryoFreeze Advanced Joint Defense is a one-a-day supplement. There it is right there. See it? Containing hemp-derived CBD and clinically proven ingredient called NEM that relieves joint discomfort and soreness in seven days or less. I love this stuff because I'm always in pain. Breakthrough formula can reduce aches and pains for muscles, overuse, aging, and arthritis

like me. If you want to stay super active, it's a must for recovery while improving flexibility and long-term joint health. The best part is the CBD-powered supplement contains absolutely no THC, and our friends at OMAX, I would make sure I wouldn't get involved with them otherwise. It's third-party tested, so you can get 100% premium quality you can trust. OMAX is offering my listeners a limited-time offer of 25% off their introductory pricing on Omax Cryo-Free supplements plus free shipping. You will love this stuff. This discount also applies towards any product site-wide through the end of the month. Just go to Omax, O-M-A-X, health.com,

Omax, health.com today. Omax, health.com, enter promo code Bongino25. Take advantage of this incredible savings. That's Omax, health.com enter code bongino25 to get 25% off omax cryo freeze advanced joint defense site-wide omaxhealth.com promo code bongino25 all right let's go yeah okay the debate last night first then i'm going to get to some brennan stuff next it's i promise you is really good it's going to tie into a show we didn't make you're going to be like ah now it all makes sense but getting to the the debate, the New York Post, I think, summed it up best with the front page of their paper today. There he goes again. Biden babbles through Democrat debate. Biden was a train wreck last night, a complete mess. He started out somewhat

energetic. And I'll tell you, Joee although i think this guy is a huge corruptocrat there's a side of me that thinks i don't know what this guy i almost feel bad for him he really needs to just drop out he looked terrible at one point i'm not messing with him i'm not trying to be a jerk at one point because the video is out there and you're going to see it it appears that biden is actually losing his teeth and he's fumbling and it's like he looks like he's chewing i'm not kidding like teeth are like he's chewing. I'm not kidding. Like teeth are falling out. It's just a sad sight to watch. They really summed it up well.

But getting to the more substantive portions of the debate, because I want to pack this in. We got a stacked show today. Here's Bateau, Robert Francis O'Rourke. Here's him about a year ago on a local Texas radio station. Here's him talking about AR-15s,

rifles, sporting rifles, and what he plans to do with them when he was running for Senate and Beto, who is Gozer the Gozerian. Remember my Gozer the analogy? Remember Ghostbusters? Gozer the Gozerian. How Gozer's whatever you think he is

and he becomes the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man when they can't keep the Stay Puft man that's beto beto robert francis is whatever you think he is he has no spine he has no substance he will change his opinion at the drop of a hat here's him running for senate when he needed moderate texas voters and second amendment supporters here's his take on the ar-15 check this out i own an ar-15 a lot of our listeners own ar-15s why should they not have one um to be clear they should have them if you purchase that ar-15 if you own it keep it um continue to use it responsibly okie dokie hat tip the chad hasty show and ryan savidra on twitter who pulls these he does a good job i think he's over at the daily

wire saw that on his account give credit where credit is due so joe bitto robert francis when he was running for senate and he needed second amendment supporters votes to close in on ted cruz in a race he lost but came close he was all about you keeping your ar-15 yeah here's robert francis bitto last night spineless jellyfish that he is doing a total complete flipper ruski on the exact same thing he talked about on that chad hasty show a while ago check this out hell yes we're gonna take your ar-15 your ak-47 we're not gonna allow it to be you the verdict is in Beto's full folks again I just when you have so I can go on and on about this

I'm just going to leave it here when you have principles a set of principles you believe in and adhere to and you believe they're inalienable rights the right to petition your government the right to free speech to practice your religion when you believe those things they don't change based on a lick your finger political winds of the day. The people who do that do that because they're pandering.

They pander because they don't have principles and they seek power over principles. Meaning by default, tautologically, that these are not good people. They're unprincipled, meaning bad. This guy's got a floundering campaign. He's a total joke of a candidate. He has no principles. And I'm proud to say when I ran in a heavily Democratic district in Maryland, a D plus six district, that I didn't have to do any of that.

I didn't have to do any of that because I wasn't going to forfeit my principles. And we almost won that race. All right, moving on, because there was a lot to get. I'm going to sum up the debate in these few pieces of video here. Here was Joe Biden last night with, I'd like to say, the most nonsensical claim of the night. But given that there was so much nonsense, this one's tough. But here's Biden and his new stance on national crime and his national crime policy is to now not imprison people for nonviolent crime. So for all of you burglars out there, GLA, grand larceny, auto car thieves, all you people who pet it, largely people who walk into stores and steal stuff. Don't worry. Joe Biden has a new approach to that.

Check this out. Nobody should be in jail for a non-violent crime as when we were in the white house we released 36 000 people from the federal prison system joe yes do me a favor email me your address if i'm coming over to break in if joe biden i'm taking all your stuff because it's not a crime it's, just make sure you're not home because then it might, me and you might get into a tussle and it might get violent. Then I'll be arrested. But Joe Biden, nonviolent crime. Nobody goes

to jail anymore. Release everyone. They're very nice criminals. Folks, a couple points on this. As long as you're nice about it, don't get violent. You're now free, according to Joe Biden, to steal your neighbor's stuff. Don't worry folks. You're now all god yeah everybody can break into there of course we're being yeah i don't know any other way than

to be facetious about this because it's so dumb what he said and he didn't even catch it usually like they'll catch themselves back i didn't mean non-violent crime what i meant to say is non-violent offenders will look at some kind of sentencing uh fix or something that's not what he said he wants to release non-violent criminals just forget it let's just abolish non-violent crime not make it criminal at all which is insane couple points on this the obvious question is well what about paul manafort george papadopoulos oh is anyone going to ask biden about that paul manifarts in jail for a non-violent crime remember donald trump's old campaign manager remember that guy george papadopoulos went to prison is he gonna can he sue now i mean is there is that going to be expunged is joe biden going

to pardon him now folks you may say um that's a it's a stress is it is it he just said right that people non-violent criminals should not go to jail is it not a fair question then to ask him being that he was integral in the spygate scandal well should paul manafort do jail time no no that guy should definitely go to jail for non-violent oh so just people you don't like should go to jail for non-violent crime folks this guy's running to be president the united states in some states he's polling pretty well he's the leading nominee for the democrat party joe biden are these not fair questions to ask now granted i'm not expecting any media types outside of the conservative ecosystem and people like Fox to actually ask these

questions? I know liberal media types won't, but is it not a fair question? The other takeaway to this, I live in Martin County. The sheriff down here is tough. Bill Snyder, tough, like very tough. They don't mess around down here. You don't believe me? Ask any criminal in southern Florida.

You drive into Martin County, people do it. You turn and drive right back. You get arrested in Martin County, you're going to jail. Probably for a long time. Well, a while ago, I got into a discussion with someone about why the Martin County crime rates are so low where I live. And he was saying one of the reasons is they treat property crime, nonviolent crime, what Joe Biden was talking about, as seriously as they treat violent crime. You break in a house, they're going to fingerprint that house and catch you.

You steal a car, you're going to jail for the maximum allowable time under law. And you know what happens, Joe? All of a sudden, I'm not going to say crime is non-existent here, but given our population, it's very, very low. Because my experience as a cop, Joe, criminals talk.

They're not stupid. And once they find out that if they get arrested in Martin County, they're going to go to jail for twice the amount of time anywhere else because they're not going to plea the case out. They see, welcome to Martin County. You turn right back down south. Joe Biden is not that bright.

Of all the dumb things said last night, this one's potentially the platinum medal of winning award winner for just pure stupidity. No one will ask him that question. All right, here's Elizabeth Warren, who really lies so fluidly, I almost have to admire her temerity. Her ability to do it and lie is just incredible. So Elizabeth Warren is proposing this Medicare for All plan, which we know based on every sound, rational, credible study will double your income tax rate and triple your payroll tax triple the amount of payroll taxes you pay and double the amount of income taxes you pay.

Check out Mercatus. I have a link in the show notes to a Fortune article that's very good. It's from about a month ago that talks about the cost for Medicare for all and links to some research in there you'll need. Medicare for all, let's be crystal clear. Elizabeth Warren last night, I'll get to what she says in a minute, is claiming this is not going to increase middle class taxes. What she's saying is a lie. She's just making it up. She's inventing it out of whole cloth.

This is a lie, not a misstatement. She knows it's a lie. She's not stupid. Check out what she says. We'll debunk this in a second. Very top, the richest individuals and the biggest corporations are going to pay more and middle class families are going to pay less. That's how this is going to work. Direct question. You said middle class families are going to pay less, but will middle class taxes go up to pay for the program? I know you believe that the deductibles and the premiums will go down.

Will middle class taxes go up? Will private insurance be eliminated? Look, what families have to deal with is cost, total cost. That's what they have to deal with. And understand, families are paying for their health care today. Families pay every time an insurance company says, sorry, you can't see that specialist. Every time an insurance company says, sorry, that doctor is out of network. Sorry, we are not covering that prescription. Families are paying every time. They don't get a prescription filled because they can't pay for it.

They don't have a lump checked out because they can't afford the co-pay. What we're talking about here is what's going to happen in families' pockets, what's going to happen in their budgets. And the answer is on Medicare for all. Costs are going to go up for wealthier individuals and costs are going to go up for giant corporations. But for hardworking families across this country, costs are going to go down. And that's how it should work under Medicare for all in our health care. OK, she's just lying.

She's just making that up. You understand that, right? Again, I'm not telling you who to vote for. That's not my job. My job is to inform what you do with the information, the facts and the data we present here is entirely up to you. It's a free country. Liberals, you're welcome to listen to my show.

Anyone's welcome here. I don't like a lot of your dopey ideas, but you're welcome to tune in. I'm just suggesting to you, if you're voting on that, that I'm voting for Elizabeth Warren because she said rich people are going to pay for Medicare for all and I'm not, that you are voting on a lie. A significant piece of misinformation that you've either been suckered by, I'm sorry, or willingly suckered by, or choice three, you're too dumb to fact check.

I'm sorry, I don't know any way to put lipstick on that pig. I'm talking about the facts. Don't jump to conclusions. That fact she put out there is wrong that is an inaccurate statement there is no credible study that back stack up back set up none zero none a big fat donut there is none mercatus i mean tons of the tax foundation others have looked at this medicare for all

she avoids two questions there by the way i don't know if you picked up on it yeah question number one will you saw it right joe will my insurance will free market insurance but in other words the insurance a lot of you americans out there working have now will that be canceled she doesn't answer that one at all the answer is yes yes as it was pointed out last night in a debate i believe was it by amy klobuchar on page eight of bernie's medicare for all bill it clearly states free market health care will be banned folks just please look that up don't take my for it. The insurance you have now will be canceled. That is not open for dispute. Again, you either didn't do your homework or you did and you're willingly misleading yourself

or you're too dopey to sift through the internet and figure it out. Just Google the bill and look at page eight. Your insurance will be canceled. Secondly, will middle class taxes go up no they want no study says that nowhere your payroll taxes you know what payroll taxes are your fica your social security your medicare taxes those will triple three times you know three times in joe b Matt, your income taxes will double the cost of this program with the rationing built in.

In other words, they're only going to pay doctors 40% of what they get now, which will cause doctors to leave the business, which will cause your care to be rationed with the rationing built in will cost 32 trillion over 10 years. And Bernie says, well, it was going to cost $50 trillion. Otherwise, that's not true. It's about $24 trillion otherwise, and that's only because the government is still involved in healthcare. Bernie's lying too.

Now, one other thing I pointed out to my wife this morning, because it sounds good what she's saying if you're not savvy enough to sift through what she's saying she says well middle class people are paying anyway they're going to doctor and they're paying premiums and i'll get to this a second bernie parrott's the same talking point but now you'll be prepared when you hear bernie next in his interview post debate where he elaborates more and how he's going to screw you over. Folks, the difference now with your premiums is you can choose your health care now. There's no more individual mandate. You want a catastrophic plan?

There are some ways you can choose that. Some, not all. There's still some Obamacare remnants around contouring the plans and screwing you over a bit. But you have a general idea of what your costs will be and what you can afford. That plan is for your household. So if you're the earner, woman or man, a head of household, and you're working, that, say, $10,000 a year in premiums to cover your family is by choice number one, and it covers

your whole family. But notice how they do this bait and switch. What a Elizabeth Warren is not telling you folks is the tripling of your payroll taxes and the doubling of your income taxes does not just apply to the head of household. It applies to everyone. Oh, mom, dad, maybe a 20-year-old you got living at home.

Now you're all going to pay double and triple. She leaves that out conveniently. In other words, Joe, you track it as the audience ombudsman? Yes, I am. She's telling you like,

oh, don't worry. We're going to scrap your premiums for just a little bit of extra taxes the rich people are going to pay. No, no, no. They're going to scrap your premiums, cancel your plan, ration your health care, and charge every single person in your household double and triple what they're paying now, whether they want health care or not.

That's the deal. Now, here's video of Bernie doing the same bait and switch in an interview post debate where he tries to make it out that, oh, don't worry, the taxes you pay now are going to make up for the premiums you paid. And therefore, you're better off. He never mentions they're going to double the tax load and triple the payroll tax load for everybody in your household, whether they want health insurance or not. He leaves that all out. Check this out. Vice President Biden pressed you and Senator Warren on how you would pay for Medicare for all. And the taxes go up on the middle class.

What's the answer? Yes or no? The answer is that the average American will be paying substantially less for health care than he or she is. See, that's like a Republican talking about. Are you going to raise taxes? It's not a Republican. It's a fair question because the middle class would like to know. But here's the other point. We're going to do away with all premiums. If you pay $1,000 a month, what do you call that? Is that a tax for the insurance companies? What would you call it? All right. I would call it a tax. That's gone. How much are you paying out of pocket? That's gone. How much are you paying for copayments? Gone. How much are you paying for prescription drugs? Under Medicare for all, you won't pay more than $200 a year for all the prescription drugs you

need. At the end of the day, of course, we're going to pay for it like every other major country out of the general tax base. Of course we will. Like we pay for military spending. It will be funded progressively. Upper income people will pay the bulk. I'm not going to tell you that average people will not pay more, but they will not be paying premiums, copayments, out-of-pocket expenses. Folks, can somebody please buy this guy an econ 101 textbook? He goes, a healthcare premium. I would call that a tax. Ladies and gentlemen, a tax is a forced payment. At the end of the barrel of a gun government, it has a monopoly of the use of force.

You must pay. You all get that. Yeah, yeah. of a gun government has a monopoly of the use of force. You must pay you, you, I, you all get that. Yeah. Yeah. A tax.

The government has a monopoly on force. They can literally use force, arrest you on a, on a using. They can. And if you object, they can use force on you. If you do not pay the money to come, that's what a tax is.

It is a forced transfer of money from you to a specific government entity. A healthcare premium shares nothing in common with that, other than that the exchange is made in money. It shares nothing. It's not forced. There's no force involved.

There's no literal force involved. You will not be jailed if you don't make it. And the healthcare company has no power over you whatsoever. Oh, sure they do, Dan. They can give us crappy service. And you can cancel them.

They can't arrest you for canceling them. I did it. I used to tell the story when I had my back surgery. I had one company, shall remain nameless. They wouldn't pay for it.

They wanted me to have a spinal fusion. I said no. I was in in my twenties. You know what we did? We canceled them. And what would another insurance company? He said, yeah, we'll pay for it. I still have that company to this day. Is my insurance perfect? Nah, sometimes they're a pain in the butt. Do I like it? I like it. He's just making this up. He's making all of this up, equating premiums with taxes. One other thing, he compares it to military spending. No, no, no. Military spending and the ability to finance our military

is a generally agreed upon collective good to defend our country. a generally agreed upon collective good to defend our country. Nobody questions it. The amount certainly is open for interpretation and should be, but that we spend money on a collective defense mechanism is a generally accepted

public good. In other words, I pay for it even though it benefits Joe too because I think it benefits me. That is not what taxes to pay for Joe's health care do. I like Joe. Joe is one of my best friends. But speaking from pure economics, which Bernie doesn't want to do, an economic perspective,

me paying for Joe's health care through my taxes, through my tax tax money does not benefit me or my family. It benefits Joe. If I don't use my healthcare for 30 years and Joe decides to take up a heroin habit away, he's not, I'm just making a point and I'm paying for it. That's Joe's issue, not mine. I don't benefit like I benefit from military spending. It's not the same thing. The economics of it are in time. I'm not talking about the morality of it. My wife and I do charitable things, not because we're forced to do it,

because we want to. We believe they help. I'm talking from a pure economic perspective, forcing me to give my money to Joe to finance whatever lifestyle he wants is not economically sound for me. They're not the same thing. Oh, what a disaster this debate was. All right, I got to move on.

I don't think anybody helped themselves last night. I think if the economy stays good, I think the president finds himself in pretty decent position. We'll see. But last night was a total debacle all right i want to get to the massive massive revelation the spy gate story i want to explain to you what happened with mccabe yesterday a lot of questions on that and what happened with the impeachment hearing wasn't impeached this is all a charade all right today's show about your buddies at my patriot supply hey the world is changing the facts are everywhere just read the headlines and it only takes one major disaster. Unfortunately,

we've seen too much of this lately to remind us how fragile life is. There's turns out there's another tropical disturbance coming down our way in Florida. I'm like, again, we're prepared here. I have my Patriot supply emergency food. I have about eight to 10 boxes. I should count them. I always say eight to 10, but I have a lot of it in my closet inside. Why? Because we're prepared. We insure everything in our lives that matter. You insure your car, you insure your health,

you insure your home. How can you not insure your food supply? It just doesn't make any sense. God forbid there's a supply disruption in the local food chain. How many days of food do you have? Listen, for a really cost-effective, you can save $100 on a four-week emergency food plan now

when you go to preparewithdan.com. That's unbelievably cost-effective for the peace of mind of having an emergency food plan. It's National Preparedness Month. Make a plan. I have one. I built my food supply. Today's the day to do it. I prepare with my Patriot Supply. They have the best emergency equipment food supplies out there. Act now. Save $100 on a four-week emergency food supply when you go to my special website, preparewithdan save $100 on a four-week emergency food supply. When you go to my special website, preparewithdan.com. These tasty four-week food kits last up to 25 years in storage. They average over 2,000 calories a day. Order now and get free shipping from MyPatriot Supply too. They'll ship it right to your door discreetly. Don't ignore the writing on the wall.

Prepare for what's coming and save $100. Go to preparewithdan.com. That's preparewithdan.com, preparewithdan.com. Take advantage of the limited time special pricing today. Okay. Folks, this spy exfiltration story from Russia that CNN and Jim Sciutto put out there is really starting to blow up in their face. Now, for those of you who missed the Monday or Tuesday show, again, thank you to everyone. We had a massive comeback yesterday. I got a little nervous. I think it was the football thing.

We were down a little bit. I was like, what? But I'm always honest with you. Yesterday, we blew it up. So thank you. I feel better now. Go back and listen to those shows if you don't mind. They're very good and they're worth your time.

CNN put out a story that said the FBI had this major league and CIA, excuse me, the CIA had this major Russian source inside the Russian government and due to Trump's opening his mouth about it, they had to get this source out of Russia

because he was in danger. Story was widely debunked. Turns out the guy was taken out of Russia because of media coverage had nothing to do with Donald Trump. Even the Washington Post and New York Times

refuted CNN and Jim Sciutto's now discredited, entirely discredited story. Now, I'm not bringing this up again to wear you out on that story. An angle on this story has surfaced and I've made some connections thanks to some friends of mine. Hat tip, you know who you are.

They don't want to be named. And an article I read yesterday by our good friend Jeff Carlson at the Epic Times. It's in the show notes. Please read it. September 11th, 2019, Jeff Carlson, the Epic Times. Russian spy revelation raises questions on CIA information and potential links to Steele dossier.

Apollo, when I explained this to you last night, you thought this was pretty cool, right? You know, my wife, she loves this story, but she's usually busy. She's always doing something. You have to explain it in quick nuggets, or she's like, listen,

you got to go come back later when you put it together. So I got the test run on her last night. She loved it. There's an angle on this. Everybody's missing, not Carlson and not some of the inside baseball people, but I'm going to explain is, is Joe put your audience on Buzman hat on.

So John Brennan has stated specifically many times and in many different places that he only came into contact with the Steele dossier used to spy on Trump. Right. The information Hillary Clinton paid for to spy on Trump. Brennan has stated multiple times that he only saw the dossier in December and that it was in no way used in the corpus of intelligence they used to spy on the trump team right he said i played that cut a million different times i don't have time today i got a lot to get to right let's just accept that as the fact point stipulated well what's fascinating joe is that this spy and i'm using air quotes because this level of spyingness of the spy is an open question.

Yes, that was exfiltrated or removed from Russia, according to CNN story. What's fascinating is this spy's boss is actually mentioned in the dossier. Really? In a September 14th memo. Oh, yes. Yes, Joseph. Yes, he is. So follow me here, yes. Yes, Joseph. Yes, he is. So follow me here, Daddy-O.

Okay. So John Brennan, who continuously claims that he had not seen the dossier until December. What's fascinating is the spy, who is a CIA asset. We know that. That's not in dispute. Yes. Run by John Brennan. Yes. Run by John Brennan. The spy's boss is referenced in the September 14th memo in the dossier.

My, my. Well, that's fascinating. Because if the CIA source was reporting the CIA run by John Brennan and the CIA source and his information was relayed to Steele and the spy's boss appears in the Steele dossier in September, how the heck did Christopher Steele get information from that same CIA source who we assume he's giving information on his boss? If his boss is in there, it's the same guy. In other words, this is the source appearing in the Steele dossier. You get it? Yeah, yeah, yeah.

How did they get it? Because Brennan said he didn't see it until December. Follow me here. The FBI, Lisa Page has already insisted under oath, and I'll get to this in a second.

She's already insisted, the FBI lawyer, that they did not get the dossier until September. In September, the same information from that same stream, the CIA source and his boss, appears in this dossier. So the FBI has the information from the CIA source. Hmm. But that's not possible, Joe. Because Lisa Page on the Roth has already said this. I'll give you the unredacted version. Check this out from Lisa Page up on Capitol Hill. She's answering questions. Keep this up a second. I'll let the YouTubers, you can

read ahead, but for audio, I'll explain this to you slow. Keep that up. Brennan's already said, I didn't see any of this information until December. Yet the FBI has the information in September from the same line of people. But Lisa Page says, well, that's not possible. Here's what she says when answering questions to Mark Meadows. In other words, you get the information from the same source? Page answers, because with all due honesty, if Director Brennan got the information from our source, right? The FBI got this information from our source. She's confused here. Then she goes on, if the CIA had another source of that information, I am neither aware of

that, nor did the CIA provide it to us if they did. Because the first time we, Meadows interrupts, we do know there are multiple sources. Page says, I do know that. I do know that the information ultimately found its way to a lot of different places, certainly in October of 2016. Listen to this. Listen. But if the CIA, as early as August, in fact, had those same reports, I'm not aware of it. I'm not aware of that, nor do I believe they provided them to us. And that would be unusual. You remember my May show?

I was out in the road in LA when we busted the Trebnikov bubble and Surkov, how Steele had these two Russian sources, Trebnikov and Surkov, who were disinformation specialists, one of our most listened to shows ever. I covered what was called the parallel construction scheme back then. Yes. Ladies and gentlemen, this is the essence of the entire Spygate scandal. John Brennan, it is now crystal clear, had access to this stream of information from this CIA source, the same source whose information is appearing in the Steele dossier. While Brennan's saying, I didn't have that information, and Page is saying, the CIA didn't have that information. How is that?

Well, the answer is, of course, Brennan had the information. So you may be saying, well, what's the problem, Dan? If he had the information in August, why is he lying and saying he didn't get this information until December? Why is he lying? Why not just say, yeah, I got this information and I gave it to the FBI? Because ladies and gentlemen, what he did was he received unvetted intelligence he had not vetted through proper channels. Think about it. So I'm going to get to this Kim Strassel article in a minute, but let me just tease it. It's important. Someone said I should get a shirt. This is important, but it's a critical, you take this

away. If this source that they exfiltrated from Russia Joe is so valuable and so connected to Putin how is it that the Obama administration missed the Crimea invasion missed everything that happened in Ukraine missed the Russian interference in the election

how is it that they missed all this stuff if we had such a high placed Russian source we didn't it was placed Russian source? We didn't. It was a BS source. Brennan was using information he knew had not been vetted. It was pure gossip and bringing it in the golden file. I keep talking it right to Obama without having his analysts vetted first. Brennan doesn't want anybody to know that.

Now, the FBI, which would have been a little savvier and probably would have looked at the information if they had gotten it from Brennan without it being vetted. Gosh, please follow me. This is important. Yeah, yeah, go for it. The FBI, for as crazy as Comey was, was never going to put their name on a FISA warrant. If Brennan walked up to him and said, hey, here's the golden file, someone would have said, Joe, hey, did you vet this through your channels?

He can't lie about it, Brennan. He can't. I know these guys are corrupt, but there's a paper trail they weren't. They were smart enough to cover. Brennan couldn't do that and if he had it vetted it would have come up bs so what does he do joe he reconstructs the information from a different alleged spy who has nothing but garbage information. Someone gives it to Steele, a previously vetted FBI source, to run it over to the FBI and say, look, I worked with you guys before, Christopher Steele, that is.

I'm a credible source. Look what I have now. Oh, we're getting it from Steele. It's got to be serious. That's why Lisa Page is confused. Meadows is like, it's the same information the CIA had. She goes, no, it's

not. No, it's not. I'm not aware of that. That would be unusual. Okay, yeah. Now, does the insurance policy make sense? Look at this Washington Examiner piece from a while ago we covered it in may by dan chaitlin hat tip good job may 14 2019 devin nunes peter stroke's insurance policy was about getting into trump campaign emails what was the insurance policy really about

from chaitlin's piece this is important stroke testified to Congress that mid-August of 2016 that the text, the same time period Brennan is getting this information from the CIA source, folks, was part of a larger conversation about protecting an extremely sensitive source. Ding! Ding! Some of you got it. Yeah. ding ding some of you got it yeah some may not lisa page and peter stroke these two fbi bigwigs running this counter intel op against trump the insurance policy text in August is them talking about how far they should lean into this case before burning the source. Who is the source?

It's Brennan's guy. They just don't know it's Brennan's guy because they're getting it from Steele and not Brennan. And what they don't tell you because they don't't know it yet, is Brennan already burned the source by leaking all this stuff, by people in the intel committee leaking this stuff about the source to the media. That's how the source got burned, as confirmed by the Washington Post and the Times. Brennan already burned the source. That may have been a little confusing. The insurance policy was them saying, hey, if we have to,

we're going to have to burn this source and put this information out there that he gave us, knowing that information was going to burn who he was. If Joe gives me information about a bank robbery he conducted with six of his friends

and five of his friends are in jail, everybody knows it was Joe. The insurance policy was were they going to burn this guy or not he'd already been burned brennan already leaked the information page just didn't know or stroke that they were getting it from brennan okay because brennan's laundering it through steel this was so oh i want to drop and i guess i can't it's a family show this was such bs now i'll get to mccabe and i got a lot to get i want to get to the strassel piece because this is important too if this source was so high level he wasn't it's important you understand that because if the source was high level, his information about Trump would have been accurate.

It wasn't. And Brennan would have run it through normal channels and vetted it. He didn't. And he wouldn't have hidden the information through Steele when they gave it to the FBI. If this source was high level, why did he miss all this stuff?

Now, Strassel, I rarely do this because Wall Street Journal subscription only. I'm putting the link in the show notes today to this story if you're a subscriber great if not it's worth a shot maybe it's free kimberly strassel potomac watch about that russian spy she says you notice these stories always seem to link at the most convenient times for the FBI? From the piece, one, she undresses the fact that this spy was not a spy. It was either Russian disinformation or he was the worst spy ever because we missed all this stuff. Crimea, the Russian interference. Where was the spy's information then? So close to Putin, he got everything wrong. But she mentions how whenever times get tough for the FBI, the Halper spy link was about to come out. The FBI report, the report by Nunes and then

was about to come out. There's always a leak to the media. Check this out from Strasl's piece, worth your time. She said, you notice at the beginning of 2018, as the GOP prepared to expose the degree to which Clinton funded the St steel dossier uh in the in the ci investigation had informed the ci investigation the leakers suddenly put out a new claim it wasn't remember this one folks it wasn't the dossier it was the papadopoulos meeting remember that leak that was bs then she says remember the spring of 2018 when conservative media discovered that the fbi had employed a spy against the trump campaign. Hat tip Chuck Russ on that from the Daily Caller. The leakers got out ahead of that one.

The ensuing stories blew the identity of the informant and casted the spy in the most positive patriotic light. This is another scam. They are trying to get out ahead of this and the narrative, remember, media is telling you a story not the story the story cnn is trying to tell you is this spy joe was so well connected so well connected in the russian government that we had to exfiltrate him from russia to protect his identity

the problem is that story why now why did they I don't want to put you on the spot. I'll put the audience on the spot. If you're listening in your car, why do you think CNN would want that narrative out there? That this guy was such a serious source, a major exfiltration op had to occur to get them out of Russia. Why do they want that out there? What's that leak trying to cover up for the FBI now in the mode of covering up the Halper story

and the dossier story like Strassel points out. The story they want to tell you, Joe, is oh, okay, we screwed up on the dossier, but look, we based it on this from this serious, serious source, Joe. You get it? Yeah. We

screwed up. My bad. Nelson Muntz style. But look, our intentions were noble. This guy was such a credible source. Problem is, he wasn't ever a credible source. And everybody knew it. That's the reason for the leak.

Woo. I love this show. I could go on all day with this. All right, last sponsor day, and I got a lot more. Don't go anywhere. I got a McCabe impeachment thing. We're going to power through this,

but don't go anywhere. I've got some more killer videos ahead. Law Shield, U.S. Law Shield. Ladies and gentlemen, do you carry a firearm like I do? Do not carry naked. Big mistake. I don't mean naked without clothes.

I mean naked without legal protections. Thank you. Big, huge mistake. You've heard about me. Joe's like, I don't want to envision that. Sorry, buddy. Love you. Not that much. You heard me talking about my membership with U.S. Law Shield for a while now. I am a member proudly. They're the company I trust to have my back if some criminal nut job forces me to use my firearm in defense of myself or my family. They're 400,000 members, me included, rely on U.S. Law Shield to provide us with 24-7, 365 access to a strong pro-Second Amendment attorney who will tenaciously fight to defend your freedom, your finances, and your future in a courtroom if, God forbid, you're ever forced to pull the trigger in a self-defense scenario.

We hope that never happens. Let me tell you, with the current political climate the way it is, this is not a fight you want to have on your own. Just read the headlines. You see these people getting locked up for defending themselves legally all the time, and they got to get lawyers. They're bankrupted. Do not put yourself in that scenario.

That's why I joined. So if you go to uslawshield.com slash Dan right now and activate your annual US Law Shield membership, they'll throw in two additional months absolutely free. Don't leave your future to chance any longer. Do not carry naked. Big mistake. Join me and 400,000 of your fellow gun owners by going to uslawshield.com slash Dan right now. Activate the powerful protections of your U.S. Law Shield membership and get two free months of membership in the process. Don't carry naked. Go to uslawshield.com slash Dan now. Check it out. Okay. Moving on. Story number three. This is a quick one.

Again, I'm not even going to, because I get a lot of emails from people about this and I don't want to, I'm not really trying to pat myself on the back. But again, my predictions with this have come true. I told you a lot of these people would skate. I think I was pretty clear that McCabe had some liability. There are two people who have liability here. So I just want to reiterate my position because there's always a lot of confusion. I think Comey skated on that last one because the case was weak because Comey was devious. I had said to you, though, in one of those shows, McCabe has some liability. And there's another person who has liability, too, and we still don't know the identity of him. And that's the person who leaked to David Ignatius of the Washington Post,

the secure contents of Mike Flynn's call with the Russian ambassador. When that person is discovered, if they haven't been already, there will be significant legal liability in there. Chalk that one up. McCabe looks like he's going to be indicted now. Finally, finally, after an interminable amount of time, it seems, McCabe looks like he's going to be indicted now. Finally, finally, after an interminable amount of time, it seems, McCabe looks like he's going to be indicted to deputy director of the FBI. I've been getting a lot of questions. Dan, is this case solid? What do you think is going to happen? It's always tough to predict juries, as we've seen in a lot of these cases. I was stunned at what happened with Manafort despite that case.

But Andy McCarthy, who always does a great job, is a good piece of National Review. It's worth your time. Breaking down the report of an imminent Andrew McCabe indictment. In the piece, he points out why he thinks McCabe is in a lot of trouble here. And I happen to agree. He says, moreover, according to the IG, McCabe at one point, this is amazing, folks.

McCabe leaks the story to the Wall Street Journal about the Clinton investigation. And then he dresses down the FBI chiefs in New York and Washington as if their field offices were responsible for the leak. Think about this for a second. McCabe, we know now, leaked information to the Wall Street Journal about the Clinton probe. And then gets on a conference call with the SAC in New York and Washington and starts yelling at them for the leak he did. That's not going to go over well with the jury, ladies and gentlemen. This is a major black eye. It's going to make him look like a total sleazeball when he gets into court. Continuing from the McCarthy piece.

Again, this is the reasons why I think McCabe is in a lot of trouble. That is, McCabe knew that he himself was the culprit, yet he tried to shift suspicion and blame innocent agents. It proved that if proved, that's the kind of fact that would not endear McCabe to a jury. It would also make it hard for him to betray himself as a fundamentally honest guy who would never deceive other FBI agents. Folks, for those of you who missed what went on here with McCabe, there's a couple of takeaways. Again, headline from the Bongino show, I'm telling you McCabe's in a lot of trouble.

It appears now he is going to be indicted. Finally. Took forever, but we're getting there. Two black eyes against McCabe, because there are a lot of people saying, well, it's D.C., it's going to be the D.C. courts, there's not a lot of pro-Trump people in D.C., there's a good chance McCabe could skate.

He could. I can't predict the future. Juries do interesting things. But two things working against him. Ladies and gentlemen, the leak to the Wall Street Journal was not about Trump. It was about Clinton. You get it? In other words, if the leak was a negative leak about Trump and you're getting from a jury pool in DC, people who don't like Trump, listen, sometimes personal feelings get in the way. They may be like,

I don't see it. You know what I'm saying, Joe? We'll give him a pass. Trump stinks kind of thing. You know, that's not what this case is about folks. Andy McCabe's alleged to have leaked to the Wall Street Journal the existence of the Clinton probe to combat allegations that he was politically motivated to squash the Clinton probe.

Why? Because his wife had run for the state Senate. Virginia is a Democrat and had been supported by Democrats associated with Hillary Clinton. In other words, either way, it looks bad. Hillary Clinton. In other words, either way, it looks bad. So he leaks against Hillary Clinton because he feels that personally his wife ran as a Democrat and he wants to salvage his own reputation. So he leaks to the media that the Clinton probe is going on and then blames the sack of New York and the sack of Washington, D.C. or supervisors there. Folks, it's not going to look good. So we have that.

Basically, we have the two takeaways. They won't be tainted by anti-Trump bias because it's a Clinton case. And he screwed Mrs. Clinton over too. One more thing on this. A key takeaway. Then I got to get to my North Carolina story from yesterday because it's so worth your time. Joe, do you have that fake news siren? Yeah, I do.

We made it. Cue that baby up. You got it. The big question now is, will he flip? McCabe's looking at jail time, folks. It may not be substantial. It's the nonviolent crime Joe Biden wants to forgive him for.

It may not be substantial, but it is real jail time. And it will ruin Andy McCabe's career. Yeah, he'll write a book again. He'll probably make some money. But listen, being a federal felon is a big deal, folks, if he's convicted. A big deal. It's not a joke.

That's Papadopoulos and Manafort figuring out now. Will he flip? If Andy McCabe flips, turns states evidence, whatever you want to call it. I hear that in the movies. He's going to turn states. No one ever says that in the real world, but whatever. In the movies, he's going to turn states. If he flips and starts diming out Comey and McCabe, excuse me, and Brennan and Page and Stroke and Prystep and others. He seems like a flipper to me, and others he seems like a flipper to me man

he seems like a flipper yeah big time he seems like a big big time that's the 64 quadrillion dollar question right now all right joe please would you uh can you activate the fake news oh no what right not yet i I'm sorry, Paula. I don't mean to go out of order. Paula will get mad at me. Let me get to this first. Quickly, on the alleged impeachment thing yesterday, what's really going on?

Let me play quickly. Here's Doug Collins, the ranking Republican on House Judiciary. The news reports yesterday, oh, Jerry Nadler, the Democrat hack. They're starting impeachment. That's not what happened. This is all fake news.

Here's Doug Collins summing up what happened yesterday. Check this out. What's happened today is great. The Judiciary Committee has became a giant Instagram filter to make you appear that something's happening that's not. It's really interesting, and I hope he'll come back at this. The difference between formal impeachment proceedings and what we're doing today is a world apart, no matter what the chairman just said. Folks, do not believe

the fake news, please. There was a 24 to 17 vote yesterday in House Judiciary led by hack Jerry Nadler, one of the worst, most disgraceful politicians, unprincipled guys in Washington, D.C. What's really going on here? The takeaway, Jerry Nadler is running in a, he's a congressman, obviously, in New York, in a very, very Democratic district. There is no chance of a Republican winning there. Nadler's being primaried by an even more radical leftist who is pushing him on the impeachment issue. Nadler, follow me? Here's the problem.

You may say, okay, well, if Nadler wants to get reelected, why not just vote to take impeachment to the floor? Because no moderate Democrat wants that. Even radical Nancy Pelosi, who stormed off the stage yesterday when asked about impeachment, wants an impeachment trial. Why? Ladies and gentlemen, Donald Trump will not be removed from office. Will he be impeached if they start it? Maybe. Impeachment happens in the House. The trial happens in the Senate. They do not have anywhere close to the numbers in the Senate to remove Donald Trump

from up none. They will be humiliated in an impeachment proceeding, humiliated. It will suck all the oxygen out of the room. It will be 24 seven like Bill Clinton media cycle. And you know who will not be on the evening news? Think about it. Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg, Cory Booker, Beto O'Rourke, John Delaney, and you can go down the list of other, Andrew Yang and others.

You think they're going to crack the news cycle when there's an impeachment trial going on? Ladies and gentlemen, man, if that's not clickbait, I don't know what is. Every day, Joe,

will be a new charade on the house floor it will be a disaster for the democrats of unimaginable proportions so what happened yesterday what was the vote because nadler can't impeach because pelosi will never ever go for this, ever. She knows the disaster. She's not dumb, folks. She's a radical, but she's not stupid. Don't make that mistake, ever.

Nadler is pretty dopey. So what Nadler's doing is, in order to get out of this primary, where this leftist is pushing him to impeach, he took a vote yesterday, Joe, on a possible impeachment inquiry. Okay. If you're like, what the hell are we talking about? Exactly. That's why Doug Collins, the Republican is like, if you think this is an impeachment hearing, you've been misled. This is fantasy island, Nicole. It was not. It was a ruling on proceeding with a possible

impeachment inquiry. This is what they're going to do throughout the campaign. They will not vote to impeach. They will vote on motions to seek a motion, to seek a motion to possibly seek a motion about seeking a motion on an impeachment motion they'll seek later. And then they'll seek a motion on seeking that motion and then the delay on the motion to delay a motion on impeachment to get to the impeachment proceeding motion that they delayed previously and then they'll vote to delay that and then they'll vote to experimentally look at the impeachment delay proceeding of the delay of the impeachment proceeding you will folks trust me, this is not the last vote

on a delayed, delayed impeachment proceeding on a motion to proceed on an impeachment proceeding. Very emotional. It's all very, very, very emotional. Very emotional, yeah. It's like the Virginia judge we talked about yesterday. A couple viewers got that. It took me a little while to figure that one out

oh yeah we have to say everybody's smart a lot of them quick they get it right away folks this is a complete show trial it's just jerry nadler tried they are not there's not going unless there's some major break like donald trump is in a photo with vladimir putin smoking cigars and giving away a nuclear weapon. They are not going to impeach him. They don't have the votes. This is just, don't fall for the hype, please. Hey, Paul, I'm going to save that retirement story

for next week, if you don't mind, because I really want to get to this. The North Carolina thing yesterday. For Joe, please, if you could activate the fake news siren, I'd really appreciate it. This is important. Coming right up i even let the whole thing usually joe pods it down when i start talking we got to play out the whole fake news this north carolina so i'll leave you on a Friday with this.

By the way, don't miss me tonight on Tucker's show for my news explosion. It's one of Fox's more popular segments. So I'll be there tonight. It's eight o'clock, Tucker Carlson show. Check that out. I can't get over it. The North Carolina story is hysterical. Here's the gist of the story.

I teased it a little bit yesterday. The North Carolina national media ran with this story that the Democrat governor overrode a budget, no, vetoed a budget by the North Carolina Republicans who are in charge in the General Assembly. You get it? GOP puts a budget on the Democrat governor's desk, he vetoes it. The GOP was scheduled to vote to override the veto. The GOP was scheduled to vote to override the veto. The vote was scheduled on 9-11. The vote was scheduled in advance. Now, the national media ran with the story that they scheduled the vote on 9-11. When, according to the Washington Post, you can see it on the YouTube account, youtube.com slash Bongino. I'll read it to you. Leticia Beecham, September 11th, 321 p.m. at the Washington Post, writes the fake news.

Here's how the fake news starts. While North Carolina Democrats were remembering the lives lost on September 11th, their Republican colleagues took advantage of their absence and voted to override the governor's budget veto Wednesday morning. North Carolina House Republicans called for a, quote, surprise vote while Democrat Governor Roy Cooper and many, many House members were attending a 9-11 memorial event cooper said at a news conference now that is awful joe right yes horrible republicans scheduling a vote on 9-11 when the democrats joe a surprise vote oh man the democrats what the national media ran with this. Again, the Bongino rule, ladies and gentlemen, please wait 24 hours.

This Democrat legislator on the House floor did not wait 24 hours. Watch her lose her about this fake news story. Check this out. She goes off. This is priceless. You shall not do this to democracy in North Carolina, Mr. Speaker. How dare you do this, Mr. Speaker? We're not going to let anybody touch her.

I will not yield. We're not going to let anybody touch her. I will not yield, Mr. Speaker. I will not yield. You shall not usurp the process, Mr. Speaker. How dare you subject this body to trickery, deceptive practices, hijacking the process? We have been here day and night for months defending what we believe. And you would submit this body to trickery, deception, deceit.

It is so typical of the way you conduct yourself. How dare you, Mr. Speaker? Man, makes Ethel Merman look like a church mouse. Woo! Holy cow. Remember the hangover? The dopey guy in a bunch? What the hell was that that state democratic rep deb butler um

going losing the up in the defcon level right there to maximum over this alleged sneaky surprise vote um that's not exactly what happened now a local reporter here's his tweet put up this tweet when he started to see the story go national. So this guy, Colin Campbell, at Raleigh Reporter, who's a local guy, said, well, regarding reports that the House Democrats were attending this 9-11 event the morning during the override vote, only one was. Rep Garland Pierce, who was at a commemoration in Rayford, says he would have been at the vote if he knew it was a vote. a commemoration in Rayford. Says he would have been at the vote if he knew it was a vote. Now you may say,

well, the Washington Post reported it was a surprise vote. Not so much. The AP, shockingly, did their homework on this, applied the Bongino rule, waited 24 hours, Joe, and they found out

that there's an actual recording of the GOP saying days earlier that there would be a vote on that day that the guy missed and said was a surprise would be a vote on that day that the guy missed and said was a surprise vote. Don't let that get in the way of your story. Now comes the correction, of course, days later. It doesn't matter. It's already too late. But here's the correction by The Washington Post after the clarification. And this is a weak clarification of best. An earlier version of this article overly generalized the reason for Democrats' absence from the General Assembly session.

This version has been updated. You just lied. You just made up the story. It was not a surprise vote. There's a recording of the vote being announced days earlier. It wasn't multiple people who were out of town. It was one representative who clearly missed the vote because they didn't do their homework. So state rep Deb Butler losing her marbles on the House floor there.

Nice acting job. Well done. Unfortunately, it's all fake news. You just made it up. Ladies and gentlemen, always, always apply the Bongino rule. Please. All right. I had enough.

I can't. This is too big. It's just incredibly busy. So next week, I'm going to have to get to some of this stuff I left behind. I had the California rent control story, this retirement story that's really good, and this vaping story I still have to get to. But make sure you don't miss Monday. I got a stack week. I got a surprise to announce for you next week too. It's going to be pretty cool. You're going to like it. All right. Thanks for tuning in, folks. Please subscribe to our YouTube channel, youtube.com slash Bongino. Subscribe

to our audio show as well, Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, SoundCloud, iHeart. It's all free, those subscriptions, but they help us move up the charts. Thanks a lot. It's been a great week. We appreciate it. I'll see you all on Monday. Good day, sir. You just heard the Dan Bongino Show. You can also get Dan's podcasts on iTunes or SoundCloud and follow Dan on Twitter 24-7 at DBongino.