The Dan Bongino Show - Ep. 651 The Democrats Descend into Madness

Episode Date: February 8, 2018

Here’s the audio your liberal friends wish didn’t exist. It’s Barack Obama saying he doesn’t get involved in ongoing investigations. The hacks in the media buried two troubling stories yesterday. This piece covers the details. Explosive new revelations about Russian attempts to influence Hillary Clinton, while buying our nuclear fuel.  This piece asks some critical questions about the secret FISA courts. Does the Bill of Rights still matter? I hope so.  The proposed budget is a disaster. This piece sums up its major issues.   Copyright CRTV. All rights reserved.     Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Growth is essential for every entrepreneur. At BDC, we get that. And the businesses we support grow at double the average rate. Accelerating the pace. We're on it. BDC. Financing. Advising. Know-how. The Dan Bongino Show. Get ready to hear the truth about America with your host, Dan Bongino. Hi, welcome to the Dan Bongino Show. Producer Joe, how are you today? Yes, sir. All ready to go. It's a funny intro.

Joe gives me a double countdown on the show, and for some reason I wasn't paying attention when he gave me that other one. And the interesting part about a podcast is we can always delete it and start over, but nah, let's just leave that bad boy in there. Oh, boy, did you sense that? I can see Joe on Skype too, so it's not like mysterious when the show starts or anything. All right, there's always a ton of breaking news.

Folks, today I want to get to some news that I've been holding for, gosh, seemingly days now because we've been so enmeshed in all the breaking news in the Trump-Russia fake collusion, you know, Obamagate spying scandal stuff. And, you know, just one note on that. I do have some things I want to get to on that as well, but I have some other stories about the economy, the budget,

a lot of really important things going on. You know, serious question, Joseph. You think that, I mean, I'm not messing around here. Okay. Do you think the Democrats, and I'm asking you your opinion here, and liberals specifically, because I know a lot of Democrat friends of mine are tired of this too, but do you think a lot of far-left liberals ever get tired of defending the just endless litany of BS that came out of the Obama administration and the Hillary administration?

Let me just explain to you what I mean. All right. Every day there's a new revelation, and every day it's the same story from nick merrill and philippe raines and the hillary clinton people and the obama acolytes like i i tweeted out last night oh shucks like look again right that's their defense oh shucks it's another gop conspiracy theory like how many times is it a conspiracy theory before you're like, okay, you know what? We're busted. Let's clean the slate.

Let's just admit we're screwed and apologize and move on. Do you ever think they get tired of defending these people? It's funny because if they are getting tired of it, the ones that are tired of it aren't letting on that they are yet. And I got to know that they are. Yeah, like if they are, they're good actors because they're not right. They're putting on a public face. You what that's a good point because i watched i there's a couple select twitter feeds i watch on the left to see you know what the general zeitgeist of the left is and it's just kind of funny how they it never stops regardless of the evidence i'm going to get

to some of this in a second there's an informant an fbi informant on the uranium one scandal scandal, confirming what we told you, by the way, two weeks ago about the Iran deal and Russia, how all this is tied together. An FBI informant who was paid by the FBI a significant sum of money. So clearly he was credible. This guy, unlike Christopher Steele, he testifies in Congress about Uranium One. And the Democrats are still defending Hillary. It's just astounding. Like, does this ever, ever get old? Do you ever say, all right, enough.

Let's just throw her overboard here and start over from scratch. Do you ever say, like, man, I'm starting to feel kind of stupid here. Yeah, right, right. Like, I've been made to look a fool only so many times. I think you're right, Joe. If they are being made to look foolish, they're certainly not letting on, at least on their social media. All right.

Today's show brought to you by buddies at BrickHouse Nutrition. I haven't talked about this product in a while, but it's my humble opinion. It's my favorite, I think the best. The results from this thing are absolutely incredible. It was their first product too. The product's called Foundation. It's a creatine ATP blend. Listen, if you're a gym goer out there, you're just getting into the gym or you're just looking to look better, you don't even have to go to the gym. This stuff is terrific. It's the equivalent of like two extra gas tanks in the gym. But there's a nice, let's call it side effect to this product. It makes you look better in the mirror. And I always talk about this product because I say, listen, you got to take the

mirror test. It's called Foundation. It's available at BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan. And all I ask, I'm so confident in this product, I take it all the time myself. I called Miles yesterday. I'm like, you got to get me some more. You got to get me some more. You take a mental snapshot of what you look like in the mirror, try the product, give it about seven days to load in your system and then check yourself out again.

This stuff is great. I got a nephew who lives down south in Florida who drives up here to get this stuff for me. It's that good. I gave it to my barber. He loves it too. It's a creatine ATP blend. Now, the science of how creatine works is it makes your muscles able to do more in the gym, but it also has a volumization effect. It makes your muscles look bigger and more dense, so you'll look better. It's really great stuff. If you're a CrossFitter, military, cops, working moms and dads, you just want to look better, try this

product. You're going to really dig it. Send me your results. You'll be very happy with it. It's called Foundation. It's available at BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan. That's BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan. Take the mirror test. You will be very impressed. I had one guy who emailed me and said his wife loved it too. And he was taking it. So there you go. It's good stuff. Okay. So yesterday we had some interesting developments in this case. And I just want to show the reason I started off the show the way I did. It wasn't random. Was because regardless of the evidence it surfaces, liberals will always defend Obama and Hillary. What was I kind of insinuating?

Well, I sent Joe a, we call a sot in the business, if you want to sound all official, sound on tape. I sent Joey a piece of sound on President Obama in April of 2016 on an interview with Fox News Sunday. And the reason I sent him that clip is some liberal comedian, literally, like a liberal comedian, I'm not being like a

jerk, but he's actually a comedian who's a liberal who knows nothing about politics at all based on what I saw on his Twitter feed. He decides to come after me yesterday on Twitter and he's like, you know, that tweet you sent out about, remember that September 2nd text between one of the lead investigators in the Hillary email case

and the Trump case, Peter Stroke, and his love interest who also worked for the FBI, Lisa Page. I discussed the text they sent yesterday, which is deeply troubling, folks, on a very serious note. It's a September 2nd, 2016 text that says POTUS wants to know everything. POTUS being President of the United States, being Barack Obama, about what we're doing. Now, everything about what they're doing. What were they doing?

They were in the process of closing out and then reopening later the hillary clinton case and in the course of a counterintelligence investigation against the trump team so when someone sends a text in the fbi responsible for this and says the president wants to know everything we're doing i think you can generally assume based on common sense logic and reason that they're talking about the everything those people are actually doing which is investigating trump now i send that out and some knucklehead on Twitter responds back. It's Obama's job to know everything, man. No, it's not.

He's the president of the United States. He's not the head of the FBI. The president of the United States' job is not to get involved in active FBI investigations into his political opponents. I don't know why you thought that. in active FBI investigations into his political opponents. I don't know why you thought that. Maybe it's your background in comedy and your lack of background in actual education on how civics works.

I'm not sure. I'm not even going to say to the guys, I don't want to, you know, then it gets petty and it's nonsensical. It doesn't really matter. I blocked him anyway, because after a while you get tired of dealing with ignoramuses.

But ladies and gentlemen, Joe, are we crystal clear on this that is absolutely not the president united states job yeah to bring in the fbi director and and to be updated on active uh counterintelligence investigation against his political opponents that is not his job ladies and gentlemen the president united states despite what your liberal friends have told you is a politician like everyone else. He is head of the F... He is... The FBI falls under the executive branch

as does the Department of Justice. But that does not mean the president gets to get actively involved and briefed on every single investigation going on. Listen, he can do it if he wants to, but that doesn't mean it's smart, ethical, moral, or in some cases legal if there's an obstruction, if there's an actual obstruction of justice going on.

Are we clear on the distinction here? Now, doubling down on stupid, this is a piece of sound from Barack Obama, specifically and clearly, listen to his language. He actually says at one point, full stop, period. Meaning it's dispositive.

That he does not get involved in active Department of Justice and FBI investigations. This is him. Folks, Joe, we did not cut this in any way to be deceptive, right? This is the actual Barack Obama. This is from Grabian. A respected Joe is in the business, right? You can pull sound from Grabian. This is not some right-wing

outlet. This is close to the whole cut. This is nearly the entire this is Barack Obama telling Chris Wallace he does not get briefed on active FBI investigations despite a September 2nd text just months after this saying he demands to know everything. Play the cut.

I can guarantee that. And I can guarantee that not because I give Attorney General Lynch a directive. That is institutionally how we have always operated. I do not talk to the Attorney General about pending investigations. I do not talk to FBI directors about pending investigations. I do not talk to FBI directors about pending investigations. We have a strict line and always have maintained it. Just to button this up.

I guarantee it. I guarantee that there is no political influence in any investigation conducted by the Justice Department or the FBI, not just in this case, but in any case. And she will be. Full stop. Period. And she will be treated any case. And she will be. Full stop. Period. And she will be treated no different. Guaranteed. Full stop.

Nobody gets treated differently when it comes to the Justice Department because nobody is above the law. Even if she ends up as the Democratic nominee. How many times do I have to say it, Chris? Guaranteed. How many times, Chris? How many times I got to say it, Chris? I don't get involved in FBI investigations. Or he's even

more not only full stop he's even more conclusive about the the conclusions he wants chris uh chris wallace from fox news sunday to draw yeah full stop period we don't get involved in doj investigations either nothing it's a policy we never do it so i send this clip back to this knucklehead comedian who then just loses his mind and then he starts typing in all caps he's probably salivating he may have blood dripping from his face he loses it because this is folks this is why i opened up the way i did now to get serious again not to messing around here okay how do we continue as a legitimate, liberty-loving, constitutional republic, as a, let me make it even easier for you,

as a sane collective of people known as a country, right? Collective group of people. I don't mean in a communist way. I just mean like we're a collection of folks. How do we continue as a country if we can't even agree on basic facts when those basic facts are spoken by the very same president of the United States, but the facts absolutely deny what the president of the United States said. In other words, he's saying something that is categorically not true. demanded a briefing apparently on everything the fbi and the specifically the investigators involved in the trump campaign and the hillary campaign uh hillary email text uh excuse me email

debacle he specifically demanded to know what they were doing yet he's on tape saying he never demands to know what they're doing well you can keep your doctor damn it you if you like your plan you can keep your plan i mean if we can't agree that lies are lies folks can how do i don't understand how we move forward right how do we move forward can we just accept that when george hw said read my lips no new taxes that that was not in fact true that there were new taxes later does any sane republican deny that there were new taxes because he was a republican did not make that statement true i'm not trying to absolve i'm not telling you the republicans uh you know we always take the moral high ground i get it there are politics everywhere i'm just telling you that what i find perplexing about Democrats and why I opened up the show the way I did, especially the far left liberals, is we can't even agree on basic systems of logic. Barack Obama, I don't get involved in

any investigation, DOJ, FBI, full stop, period. How many times I got to say it? How many times? How many times, Chris? I'm surprised he didn't punch him. How many times? I mean, he's so upset. And then it's clear as day that he demanded a briefing on what the FBI was doing. Guys, to our liberal listeners, and boy, I know you're out there. I get your hate mail. Do you understand how those two sets of facts cannot exist at the same time? It's a fact that Peter Stroke and Lisa Page text each other. We know this.

That the POTUS, Barack Obama, wanted to know everything about what they were doing. What were they doing? Investigating Hillary for the email, which they closed out, and investigating the Trump team. It is also a fact that Barack Obama is on tape saying he never demands to know anything about ongoing investigations. Do you understand how those things cannot possibly be true? How in a sane, rational world, those two corresponding spheres cannot exist at the same time? You can't live in a world where 4 plus 4 equals 8 and in a world where 5 plus 5 equals 22. Either the rules of math apply or the rules of math do not apply.

Those two worlds cannot simultaneously simultaneously exist one of them is false if we can't agree on that there is absolutely no way to have a conversation about the what the fit what happened in this process the the entire reason i've been discussing this for days on end is that the constitutional republic as we know it as we know it is that state as we know it, as we know it, is that state. As we know it. I'm not saying the United States won't continue to exist.

It's going to evaporate. Poof. It's not going to happen. There will be a United States, regardless of what happens in this case. But not as we know it. Now, I bring this up. Let me move down a bit. And this is what I mean by the U.Ss as we know it will not be able to exist

are we all being led to believe by far-left liberals insane republican never trumpers and police state advocates are you telling us and if you and if you are telling us this i wish you would just be more open and fair about it that the old republic is dead that we are basically living in a new and different form of a police state where spying on american citizens is okay as long as it's done via secret courts are you telling us that is that why you're constantly lying about the Spying Gates scandal, the Obamagate scandal, Hillary email gate? Is that why you're constantly lying about it? Because you just don't want to tell us the real truth that you're new police state supporters? false just like if you like your plan and we're now in a new police state and we're liberals and we support the targeting of political opponents using political dossiers supplied by by foreign officials and clinton campaign people just be honest let me say why would they do that it would expose them folks we they're already exposed yeah that's the point they're already exposed. Yeah. That's the point. The investigation, they're already exposed.

The facts in the case are clear. Now, I bring this up, the Constitutional Republic as we know it, because if we are now in a police state, and police state, I know it has an ominous tone, and it doesn't mean jackbooted thugs are going to show up at your front door tomorrow, rip you out, and start beating you up. doesn't mean you know jackbooted thugs are going to show up at your front door tomorrow rip you out and start beating you up but it does unquestionably mean that police entities have the power to spy on americans outside of the fourth amendment you are supposed to be secure in your articles your transactions in your communications based on the fourth amendment

without probable cause indicating otherwise ladies and, that is clearly not the case anymore. Now, Daniel Greenfield, who has just been knocking it out of the park at Front Page Mag, has another piece. This will be in the show notes. Again, I can't ask you enough. Please download the show notes every day. Download, but go to Bongino.com, my website. Look at the show notes section under podcasts or just subscribe to my email list. I'll email them right to your inbox. Please read this Daniel Greenfield piece because

it points out exactly what I'm trying to tell you. Are we in a not so brave new world to cite Aldous Huxley? Right. Are we in a new world? And if we are, can can we be honest about it, Joe? So American citizens can have an honest conversation about repealing the Fourth Amendment? Obviously, me and you would be absolutely against that. But can we talk about it? If that's where we are, can we have a conversation? Because it is where we are. And how do I know that?

Because what happened, and Greenfield covers a lot of this in his piece, but I'm going to summarize a bit here. If we are living in a not-so-brave new world, where secret courts can spy on people without probable cause, we need to know about it. Because here's where we are now. And folks, there's only two ways to explain away this entire scandal and why your civil liberties are absolutely at risk

here joe pay close attention to this this is important okay i wrote it down to make it real simple either the pfizer court was lied to in other words that the fbi went up there with this Trump dossier, knowing it was false, and lied to the FISA courts. And we have a problem. Why? Because an entity, the most powerful law enforcement entity possibly in the world, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the FBI, walked into a secret court and lied. Keep in mind, I'm saying either, because I'm just being fair. Either they lied to the FISA court and we have a problem.

What's the problem? The FBI lied to the FISA court. They could lie about you, Joe. Yes. We got Joe Omerkos on felonious mopery. We saw him feloniously moping around. Did you see Joe feloniously moping around? No, he was working on my podcast, but it doesn't matter. We're just going to lie and say we did.

It's a damn lie. Especially the way we've been working lately. Right? So this is choice number one. The Bureau lied to the FISA court. Keep in mind, there's no choice three here, right? Right. Or choice number two happened.

They didn't lie to the court. Jeez. They told them about the dossier and mentioned the political origins of it. And the court bought it hook, line, and sinker. And it's really darn easy to spy on your political opponents. Oh, man. I don't want to believe that second one. In addition, we have a problem. What I'm telling you folks and what greenfield sums up in his pieces remember i just told you this for a reason there's no option three either option one we got a damn problem the fbi lied in court to spy on a political opponent of someone they favored in an election hillary clinton which is clear by the text. Or, option two, they didn't lie. They went into court and said,

hey, this dossier, it's probably fake. Hillary funded it. We know that didn't happen, but play the game. Folks, this is the only two options. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And the FISA court ate it up. We're like, yeah, here's a warrant. Go spy on that guy. Ladies and gentlemen,

either way, we are in a not-so- brave new world where the Fourth Amendment clearly did not apply. Please explain to me what option three is. I am deadly serious on this. I am open to, I give you my email on the show. I'm getting now hundreds of emails. I woke up this morning to 183 emails. I'm trying to read them all, I promise you.

Explain to me what option three is. Either they walked up there with a fake dossier and knew it and lied about it, or they walked up there with a fake dossier, they didn't know it, and went in front of a court, and you can now produce fake political documents on your opponent and get a warrant to spy on them there's no option three either way we the constitution was used as a

toilet paper yeah there is no other option folks i'm i'm i'm i'm stuttering because as a constitutional conservative as someone who believes we are the greatest country on earth precisely because of systems of law, order, checks and balances and an illegal system of liberty loving, you know, a liberty loving infrastructure we've set up. That's why we're the greatest country on earth. Do you understand that's falling apart? That it's if there's ever been a time for a national conversation about the republic as we know it, this is it. If we are now living in effectively a police state where there is no more the sanctity of your private papers and your communications no longer exists, do you think it's fair that we have a communication with our politicians, an open line of communication about it? You think it's fair that we have a communication with our politicians an open line of communication about it you think it's fair maybe we have a national conversation you think it's time my gosh folks this is troubling stuff all right i got a couple more things i want to get to hey uh before we get to that today's show also brought to you by our buddies at simply safe you know my i always laugh because my mother-in-law loves this product. And I was laughing because

I said, Miriam, she talks so effusively about it, the effusive praise, that I said, you should cut this spot. She loves this product. Product is simply safe, folks. Listen, here's some exciting news. This is a company I've worked with for a while. I really liked them a lot. They've been around for many years. They've transformed into the fastest growing home security company in the nation. They protect now over 2 million people. Well, they just released their brand new home security system, the all new SimpliSafe. This thing is great, folks. And what I love about it too is they don't get you in any long-term contracts. That's the big, I think, downfall of the security industry. You get locked into a contract, you move, you don't want it anymore. Not SimpliSafe. They're so confident in the quality of their product, they don't need

long-term contracts. I spoke to one of the executives in the company. They are absolutely confident in their product. Me too, or else I wouldn't read for them. The system's been completely rebuilt and redesigned. They've added new safeguards to protect against, listen to this, power outages, downed Wi-Fi, cut landlines cut landlines bats hammers and everything in between those are all things that'll take out the security system you have now not with these guys the all new simply safe was redesigned to be practically invisible with powerful sensors so small you'll hardly notice them you know who will intruders though you'll keep them out of your house simply safe spent years building this system they've added much. But you still get the same fair and honest price, 24-7 protection, and only get a load of this.

$15 a month. Come on. For security in your house? Gosh. The system is so easy to use. Like I said, my mother-in-law, when she went on and on and on, I was like, listen, we love them too, Miriam, but I got to go. And there's no contract. That's the best part.

It's smaller, faster, and stronger than anything they've built before. But supply is limited, folks. So check this out. I need you to visit simplisafe.com slash Bongino. That's B-O-N-G-I-N-O. That's simplisafe.com slash Bongino now to order. That's simplisafe.com slash Bongino. Protect your home.

Protect your family today. It matters to me as a former police officer. simplisafe.com slash bongino go there now go check it out okay um some interesting new developments yesterday as well now you know i'm always hesitant my wife thinks i should you know celebrate our predictive accomplishments more but um i i love my wife to death but i don't like doing that she's like you should play that cut where you and joe were talking about how the Iran deal, Iran deal had everything to do with Obama's and Hillary's team,

their interest in setting up and dirtying up the Trump team to have dirt on them later. You know, we did say that. And, you know, that's great. But again, it's not, I can't celebrate information I get from other people. I mean, I'm just vectored in by quality sources into stuff that matters. But just confirming to you that what we said a couple weeks ago, that the Iran deal was at the heart of a lot of this. Interesting development yesterday in the Uranium One scandal. So one of the sources, a guy by the name of Campbell, who was acting as an undercover agent on behalf of the FBI, involved in a kickback and racketeering scheme,

involving some of the same subsidiaries of companies involved in the Uranium One deal. Long and short of it is this guy had the dirt on the uranium market in the United States and what the Russians were doing to buy influence in our uranium market. The Russians wanted control of an international nuclear supply in uranium for a number of reasons some are obvious for defense purposes uranium can do what Joe it can be used as a nuke in a nuclear weapon but folks it's really it's as I said to you about you know the easiest way to detect

the conspiracy theory is when it's wrapped up in a neat little bow you would say the Russians wanted to own nuclear weapons and therefore the uranium that's's not it. That's not the only reason. It's not neat like that. The Russians were losing influence as well in the international petrochemicals market, Joe. Why? The United States was involved in hydrofracking, shale oil, tight oil, natural gas markets, and our production is exploding. What was that doing? It was destroying Russia's main source of economic wealth, petrochemicals. So the Russians, in addition to controlling what was a potential nuclear weapon fuel, uranium, also saw it as their kind of camel's nose under the tent to gain control in a nuclear

fuel market as well, to use as actual energy. Again, nothing's ever that simple and again i swear to you that's the easiest way to detect when someone's making stuff up when it's wrapped up in this neat little bow you know why human beings aren't neat they're messy and they make mistakes and they do dumb things they're never that smart in retrospect seriously that's why that's how you just sniff this stuff out right so this guy testified in front of congress yesterday long and short of it is he was muzzled he had to sign a non-disclosure agreement now who was involved heavily in the prosecution of uranium one oh well fbi director uh robert

mueller uh bob mueller special bob mueller who was especially is the special counsel lead now in the investigation against donald trump he was the FBI head when it happened. And who was the lead prosecutor? Oh, Rod Rosenstein, who's now the number two with justice, basically the number one on many of these cases, because Jeff Sessions, the attorney general, has recused himself. Another interesting coinkydink, Joe, of course. So this guy, his NDA gets waived, his nondisclosure agreement. He testifies in front of Congress yesterday.

And again, here is just some verification of what I told you a little while ago. His NDA gets waived, his non-disclosure agreement. He testifies in front of Congress yesterday. And again, here is just some verification of what I told you a little while ago about how Obama's desire to get an ideal with Iran for both ideological reasons and to rebalance power in the Middle East away from Israel and Saudi Arabia. away from Israel and Saudi Arabia. His desire to do that forced his administration and Hillary, as the Secretary of State for a good portion of this time when they were trying to reset with Russia, it forced them to make some really bad decisions. Really bad decisions with the Russians, too,

who were intimately involved in the production of Iranian nuclear fuel. Now, let me read to you a portion from an article at The Hill. This is a must read. This is a little bit of a longer article. It'll be there with the Greenfield article at the show notes at Bongino.com. Please read it. It'll explain a lot for those who email me. Why? Why? Why was Obama trying to dirty up Trump so bad? Because they had to. They had to make all of this go away. Here's a quote. This is some of the information Campbell provided to Congress. And he says this is all in a memo. Tenex, which was a subsidiary company of Rosatom, which was involved in the purchase of our uranium, folks. Tenex continues to supply Iran fuel through their Russian company, Campbell wrote in that 2010 document obtained by The Hill,

naming the specific company that was being used to help. They continue to assist with construction, consult, and fabricated assemblies to supply the reactor. Fabricated assemblies require sophisticated engineering and are arranged inside the reactor with the help and consult of Russians. inside the reactor with the help and consult of Russians. The final fabricators to Iran are being flown by Russian air transport due to the sensitive nature of the equipment, his 2012 memo to the FBI added. Folks, there's a lot more in this piece. But think about what I'm telling you here. The Russians are assisting the Iranians in their nuclear program as far back as 2010 and before. There is no question Americans know this because Campbell wrote it in a memo he gave to the FBI. American intelligence authorities already know it anyway.

Let me just be clear. I'm speculating a bit there, to be fair. But I sincerely doubt that Campbell's the only one with this information. By the way, he passes it to the FBI. That's not open for discussion. So the government knows. But I'm telling you it's highly likely the intel community already knows this. The Russians are helping the Iranians build their own nuclear program. And yet we're cutting a deal with the Russians to allow them to buy some of our uranium fuel as we're also trying to simultaneously make a deal with the Iranians do you think these things may have been related like hey Russia wink at a knob we're gonna give you a rain you need to really shut up

about this Iran deal and tone it down a bit no folks I'm sure that had nothing to do with it at all. The corruption was just so thick and deep. And I get it. Many of you keep saying, you know, what's going to happen? Is anybody going to get locked up? The answer is, folks, I don't know. But I know this. And this is, again, why I opened up the show this way, in addition to the comedian's comments about Obama, despite evidence otherwise, that Obama did know and said himself he wasn't supposed to know. You can only cover for this for so long. At what point, after this article comes out

yesterday in The Hill, Democrats are like, oh, that guy Campbell, that by the way, their response about the source, Campbell, who said all this, their response was, and that's not even the most damning revelation in the piece, by the way, their response is, oh, this guy's not credible.

He's not credible? The FBI used this guy to put people in jail. Right, right. They paid him $50,000 from his information. And by the way, Campbell told Congress that the FBI applauded him and said his information was so good it was being given to Barack Obama himself. What is it, folks? Is the FBI credible or not? They said they said well you're saying they're not

credible in the steel case no i'm saying steel's not credible and i'm saying the head fbi investigators in that specific case by their own texts were not credible they hated trump we have no information about that in this case every indication in this case was this was a legitimate prosecution nobody said otherwise there's no allegations otherwise except from the democrats now who are now attacking the fbi joe remember a day ago oh the fbi there you know what the republicans are attacking the fbi no we're not right right we're attacking a corrupt investigation based on evidence that's been prevented via text and via disclosed documents that the FBI managers involved in the Trump investigation pursued it in a very unethical fashion. There's actual evidence. Democrats, you guys are taking the FBI. Now this guy Campbell, who was a paid FBI informant in a prosecution where people actually went to jail.

In other words, show the evidence wasn't cause. It was beyond a reasonable doubt. People were convicted and he was paid $50,000 and the Bureau told him his information was so critical the President of the United States was breathed. Now all of a sudden the Democrats hate the FBI again. No, no, this guy, Campbell's not credible. Why are they saying that? Why? Why? Why? Because

what else did Campbell say? In addition to the Russians helping the Iranians. He said that the Russians specifically hired a lobby firm, APECO, to lobby the Clintons and pay off the Clinton Foundation to ensure that Hillary Clinton's was influenced properly, let's say, in the voting for of the Uranium One deal in the CFIUS Council that she was a part of. Folks, I mean, do you understand what this informant is saying? I'm not saying, the informant who's saying this, who was paid by the FBI in actual prosecutions,

this is in the Hill piece. He swore out in front of Congress yesterday testimony saying that the Clintons were essentially bought off by the Russians for a vote so that the Russians could go and buy our uranium from the United States, despite the fact that we don't have enough uranium for ourselves and still have to import it. to import it uh and what's the what's the democrat response that guy's not credible the fbi stinks um okay what's my response to their response you guys are insane are you like a crazy person you are they must be because it takes a crazy person to read that and say two minutes ago you were swearing the fbi and everybody in it is above reproach and independent entirely and now you're making the case that even though there was an actual criminal prosecution people are in jail on this racketeering scheme that the informant used to obtain that who was celebrated and paid by the fbi for tremendous work and

apparently lauded by obama himself according according to the FBI as they told him. Now you're saying that this guy's crazy and the FBI stinks. I don't get it. I simply don't get it. All right, I got one more breaking piece of news that's important. I want you to pay attention to this one too. Before we get to that,

hey, today's show brought to you by our buddies at Man Crates. Listen, you all blew it up for this company. I appreciate it. And I knew you to pay attention to this one too. Before we get to that, hey, today's show brought to you by our buddies at Man Crates. Listen, you all blew it up for this company. I appreciate it. And I knew you would because when Joe and I first got the proposal to do a read for them, I was like, this is the coolest idea ever. Matter of fact, I was like, darn, why didn't I think of that first? This is an awesome company.

You know why I know this? Because my wife, who I love to death, has a really hard time buying me stuff. I'm a dude and dudes like guns and cars and that's really about it. I mean, for me, there's not much else you can buy from me. I don't collect art, everything else I get on Amazon. So I saw this company and I'm like, oh, here we go. You could just go through the entire portfolio of gifts they have for guys and buy me every single one forever. You never have to worry about it again. Introducing mancrates.com.

Now listen, giving your guy a box of chocolates for Valentine's Day is kind of boring. I don't think they're going to dig it. Just my humble opinion. That may insult the snowflake liberals, but I'm not... Listen, Valentine's Day chocolates for guys, no dice. Surprise him with a heart-shaped box of delicious beef jerky,

the ultimate snack for Odesiak. Again, mancrates.com, the only place to find awesome gifts guys love. This isn't some cologne sampler, some tacky, cheesy mug. Mancrates offers curated gift collections

for every type of guy, from the sports fanatic to the home chef to the outdoorsman. Check out, I love watching joe's reaction during these reads i actually i can see his face he loves this stuff this is like part of the show check out classics like the nfl barware crate and the whiskey appreciation crate or fresh

takes on traditional valentine's gift like the jerky heart or my personal favorite by the way the salami bouquet oh yeah yeah it Yeah, yeah, it's killer. No, dude, it's killer. I mean, it's you gotta go check this stuff out. It brings out the Bongino in you. It certainly does. I'm a big fan. You know me, the Italian guy. Go to mancrates.com, pick the perfect gift,

then wait for that magic moment. He'll fall head over heels when his gift arrives and you, folks, they're not making this up. This isn't a joke. You get to pry open the wooden crate with the included crowbar. That's the best part. I think I got mine open in seven minutes, which I don't know if it's a Man Crates record. I got to ask them.

They have thousands of five-star reviews, and every crate comes with a complete satisfaction guarantee. Folks, go to mancrates.com slash Dan, and you'll get an unbelievable five percent off they usually don't do this go to mancrates.com slash dan for five percent off they don't offer this discount anywhere else get five percent off right now at mancrates.com slash dan that's mancrates.com slash dan this is a they got some cool stuff over there check it out you you'll thank me later okay um one last thing and i got to move on to some other stuff okay um so i've been working with some people let's just say i don't want to say anymore and i've been talking about the next shoes to drop one of them i believe will be the obama emails to hillary clinton they're there uh i'm sure of it and when you see them that that will be particularly disturbing if they're ever released the president united states emailing hillary on a personal email account hillary had on a personal

server is disturbing enough i think the content could be very troubling but another problem i think we're going to have here in the and joe this is um i'm trying to be delicate about this for obvious reasons i haven't told you much about this because i don't want to no you haven't you know you i don't want to put you in any trouble talking about things I know, but you can sense me being cryptic. How do I go with this? Joe, if you were a senior FBI manager,

say the number two in the FBI, if you were in counterintel, if you were in the National Security Division, you think it would be important if you were investigating hillary's email scandal in other words the transferring of classified information over unclassified systems i'm keeping it very simple put the whole politics aside there's now no question that hillary's team transmitted classified information over an unclassed system right we get that yep would you say joseph that it would be a problem if senior managers of

the fbi investigating said case may have been transmitting classified information over an unclassed system too uh that's an issue dan yeah i would say that would be an issue folks um that may be a problem in the coming months wow keep in mind uh we've seen this now again if we've been wrong in anything i just told you about the iran deal prediction all that other stuff uh you know we told you about the missing text showing up which we're never missing which was also well sourced but um there may be an issue here coming up in the in the coming months. Because we don't have right now. At least publicly. The texts and emails. Of Andy McCabe.

And others involved in this. And how do we know. That their communications. Of classified information. Were done on classified systems. Two. I'm going to leave that there and we will readdress that

when some of that comes out. But folks, I think you can piece together what I'm telling you here. We have a bigger national security problem than just Hillary transmitting classified information on an unclassed system. If it was the people investigating Hillary,

it's even worse. Okay, leaving you that little spicy nugget of information. That was a fascinating revelation I received. Let's get back to some economic information because this one kills me. I go on Fox a lot. A lot of you watch it. I always appreciate it. And by the way, just let me give a quick plug. A lot of you watch it. I always appreciate it. And by the way, just let me give a quick plug. I am on NRA TV.

You can watch it at nratv.com every day at 1 p.m. Eastern time with Grant Stinchfield. It's a 15-minute hit. It's really cool. You can check it out on their Facebook page. It's live, nratv.com. I do it from the same studio. I do my podcast. You can watch it on nratv.com on the web or, like I said, their Facebook page, NRA TV. And I really appreciate it if you tune in, comment.

I read the comments. I really appreciate it. But I've been doing a lot of Fox as well. And I get to debate Austin Goolsbee, who was an Obama economic advisor. And who's a nice guy. He's just a liberal. I think he's just wrong in economics. He really is a nice guy.

But we yell at each other a lot on the air, which is fine. But off the air, it's totally different. Unlike liberals, I don't feel the need to personally go after the guy. Right. But one of the more hysterical pieces of analysis, Joe, I've seen lately, and I do mean this, is that Obama is somehow responsible for the Trump boom. Now, what I find amusing about this is, Joe, for eight years, Barack Obama blamed George W. Bush for his horrible performance on the economy. Now that Obama leaves and the economy almost immediately turns around, very same said liberals

who were giving Bush credit for the disaster during the Obama years are now saying that the Trump bump is due to Obama. I don't get it. Now, someone argued to me on Twitter, which I thought was kind of funny, that no, this is liberals being entirely consistent, that the last president is responsible for the current president's economic activity.

You're right. That's actually a pretty clever response. Yeah. It's also patently ridiculous. it's the dumbest thing i've ever heard so you're telling me the economy responds even eight years later to incentives laid out in a prior administration which have been entirely overruled by the current administration think about how dumb this is i don't know if that made sense, right? What you're trying to tell me is George W., for all his faults, cuts income tax rates, engages in one of the largest tax cuts

in modern American history in 2003. Obama reverses that, and the poor performance of the economy under the Obama years is now the fault of George W. Bush, who did the exact opposite of what you're doing now. Wait, wait, come again? This doesn't make any sense. It makes no sense. So you're saying what?

George W. Bush's tax cuts caused the problem? You see where I'm going with this show? Caused the problems of the eight years of Obama? But you hiked taxes. You did the opposite. So what is it? Did the tax cuts cause the problem? Well, if they did, why didn't your tax hikes reverse the problem?

Joe, as the audience on Buds, is this making sense? Yeah, you're making good sense. Now, let me be clear. If Obama had continued the exact same policies across the board as George W. Bush for eight years, and we continue to have a downturn in the economy, there could be a reasonable argument that at a minimum, the policies of George W. Bush continued under Obama,

led to a disastrous economic situation. But that's not what happened. I made bad choices. You're damn right. You made a lot of them. And those bad choices are what caused the economic downturn to continue for eight years. Now, again, folks, I'm trying to use logic. So forgive me to the snowflakes that are losing me because I know logic is foreign to you as you do the ostrich and bury your head in the ground. If Donald Trump had continued the economic policies of Barack Obama, it would then likely be fair to say, OK, Obama deserves some credit. But he didn't. Right, right, right. George W. Bush cuts taxes. Obama hikes them.

Obama economy terrible. Trump comes into office, cuts taxes. Economy turns around and is better. I don't get where you're going with this. He continued to do the exact opposite of what Barack Obama did. Do you understand how logically your argument doesn't work? Now, Andy Puzder has a terrific piece in the Wall Street Journal. Forgive me.

I'm not going to put it in the show notes because I get nasty emails from people. And I got to be honest with you. I'm getting so many emails. I can't read the nasty Wednesday boards. Gosh, it's subscription only. I will just read to you the cool parts of it, okay? That's all you need to know. Puzder

puts in some killer statistics. I'll read a quote in a minute, but here are some of them. Donald Trump, the first full year of growth. Now, remember, this is not the government accounting year, because the government accounting year doesn't correspond to the calendar, right? In other words, the fiscal year for the government is not January to December, Joe. It goes from March into March of the following year for accounting purposes.

But let's just for a second stick to calendar years to keep all of this simple, okay? Okay. The first full year trump is in office the economic growth rate the gold standard for how we measure the performance of a president on the economy was 2.3 percent now you may say well it doesn't sound that great three percent is the historical average. You are absolutely right. Here's the problem, folks. The Obama average was 2.1%. So even at, and I'm going to, stand with me, hang tight.

Even with the 2.3% number, which is not accurate, I'm going to give you the reason for a minute. Not accurate in measuring the Trump performance. Hold on here. Even at the worst possible analysis, using a calendar year number that I'll argue to you has very little bearing on Trump's holistic

performance on the economy. Even at the worst analysis possible, he's still better than Obama. Right. Are we clear on that? Trump 2.3? Joe, do you have Jay Zabacus out? at the worst analysis possible. He's still better than Obama. Right. Are we clear on that? Trump, 2.3? Joe, do you have Jay's abacus out? We haven't used that one.

Get the abacus. We haven't seen that one. Okay. Here is our abacus sent to us by our listener, Jay. Now, I want to do some simple math here, Joe. I want you to tell me, this is very complicated mathematics, right? Yeah.

What is a larger number? First, get the abacus out, and let's put this number in there. 2.1. Move your things around there. Make sure. Okay. 2.1. You got it?

Yeah. What's larger? 2.1 or this number? Uh-huh. 2.3. Go ahead. Oh. Take a minute.

Abacus says 2.3. 2.3. I ahead. Oh. Take a minute. Abacus says 2.3. 2.3. I'm crazy how that happens. 2.3 is bigger than 2.1. So Trump gets into office. The first chronological calendar year. We haven't used that in a while. And Trump is still showing a better economic performance based on growth than Barack Obama.

Love this thing. Now, it is. It's great. It's amazing for doing complicated math like that, but we have to do this for liberal snowflakes that have a tough time with facts, okay? Hey, that's good. Why is that a crappy analysis?

Because, folks, no credible economist, no credible economist, even the most liberal kook jobs, credit the first quarter of a calendar year of an incoming president from a different administration to that incoming president. Think about how stupid that would be. The president swears in in the middle of January. The new president, new from another administration, he has for weeks weeks he's staffing his office forget about

policy initiatives the best he can do is a few executive orders legislatively speaking he doesn't even get his sea legs under him for probably six months i'm not even asking you for a six-month window here on the economy. I'm just telling you the first quarter, calendar quarter, January, February, March, to cite an incoming president for the performance of that when he just gets into office, not if he's reelected because he's been there before, is absolutely ridiculous. Not a credible economist on earth would stake his reputation on basically attaching those numbers to the incoming president. Now, this is important. What was, because I just gave you the average over the first calendar year of Trump's performance, right? 2.3. So that's of

four quarters. Now I just told you that that first quarter, calendar year quarter, was factored into it. A first quarter that no credible economist would ever credit to Donald Trump. That is clearly still remnants of Obama policies, if not more. Remember, we're being generous just carving out the first quarter. Reagan had to deal with basically two years of an economic hangover from Carter. What was that first quarter number? 1.5%. So what you're telling me is,

Barack Obama, your new economic superhero, who's to be credited, by the way, for everything happening now under a Trump team that changed Obama's policies, you're now suggesting to me that Obama handed him some golden egg? Joe, clearly that first quarter he handed him, what, 7%, 8% growth, right? Because Obama handed him this golden egg of an economy, right?

Maybe 10% growth. The number's 1.5. He handed him a dog. It's almost backwards. You're darn right it's backwards. He handed him a dog. most backwards it's you're darn right it's backwards yeah he handed him a dog what i'm telling you is the 2.3 percent number credited to trump for the calendar year would have been far higher if he didn't have to deal with the dog obama gave him completely overriding

the argument you're trying to tell us that obama handed him some golden egg these are just the facts folks they're just the facts i know they They're just the facts. I know they're hard for you snowflakes. I know you're drinking your hot cocoa in your pajamas. You're like, oh, oh, facts, facts. Gosh, I'm sick of safe space, color forms, crayons, magic markers. I get it. We do facts here. Those are just the facts. Obama handed Trump a dog. Those are just the facts. Obama handed Trump a dog. He handed him a dog of an economy, which turned around almost instantaneously when those very set Obama policies were overturned and tax cuts and a deregulatory agenda was put into place. your arguments don't stand up to any scrutiny at all? Now, so debunking argument number one, that Obama handed him a golden egg economy.

No, he didn't. He handed him a dog at 1.5%, which he promptly turned around with three consecutive quarters of three or close to 3% growth. Here's another quote from the Puzder piece in the Wall Street Journal, because here's what Obama will tell you. Here's what the Obama team will tell you, too.

They'll say, well, only 2.1 million jobs have been created in 2017. The calendar year. Calendar is important. The calendar year that Trump took effect. And the last year of the Obama regime, 2.2 million jobs were created. That is factually correct. Now, you may be listening going, Dan, I don't get it.

So Obama created more jobs than Trump? Well, one, presidents don't create jobs, but you get the point. The answer would be yes. See, conservatives, we don't have problems with facts. Here's the problem, though. What kind of jobs were those exactly?

Well, thankfully enough enough we have government data from the bureau of labor statistics provided by our friend anzie puzzler here folks there's always a scam with the left once you pick apart the numbers you find out exactly why the first year of trump was 2.1 million jobs and the last year of obama was 2.2 million jobs this is this is a doozy from the puzz Puzder piece, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the number of people working full-time increased by 2.4 million in 2017. Trump.

Compared with only 1.6 million in 2016. Obama. In other words, the overall number of jobs added was lower in 2017, but only because hundreds of thousands of people left part-time jobs for full-time jobs. Folks, there's always a scam with the left. with the left. So when your liberal friends,

the Looney Tunes, when they come up to you and go, Obama's last year was 2.2 million jobs and Trump was only 2.1 million. Yeah, that's because a lot of people left jobs. Part-time jobs to engage in full-time work. Matter of fact, 2.4 million more of those,

which is more than Obama created in jobs in total in his last year. You understand, Joe, how the job numbers get skewed? Because when you're talking about creating jobs, some jobs were destroyed. Part-time jobs.

In favor of what? Better full-time jobs. Now, another quote from the piece by Puzder. Both 2016 and 2017 set some year-end records. In 2016, Bureau of Labor Statistics recorded the highest number of people working part-time at year's end since it began recording the data in 1968. In 2017, Trump, it recorded the highest number of people working full-time at year's end since

1968 and the fewest working part-time since 2011. Now does it make sense, folks, why the job numbers are skewed? People were leaving part-time jobs in favor of a more growing productive economy in the first Trump year in office into full-time jobs. This is not complicated. It's only complicated to liberals who have a tough time with data and statistics, folks.

It's really unbelievable. Let me make one more point here before we roll for the day, because I saw another story here that's been festering amongst the liberal, you know, decaying liberal media, right? Yeah, it's true. It's disgusting. There was a spending bill that made its rounds yesterday, and the spending bill, folks, is a disaster. You know, in case you think here we're like blind supporters of the Republican Party at any cost, we are not.

The spending bill proposed yesterday is an absolute disaster. Let me give you three quick disastrous points so you know what's going on in there. By the way, it blows past the sequester cuts of $80 billion on defense and $68 billion on non-defense spending. Folks, what the hell was the point of a sequester to control government spending if we're not going to control government

spending? Listen, I love our military, okay? That's not in dispute. But ladies and gentlemen, we are not going to have a military if we go bankrupt. The entire point to the BCA, the Budget Control Act, and the spending cuts was to cap spending so we could get control over our out-of- control fiscal situation. We are now blowing past the cuts. If we're going to blow past them, Joe, just get rid of it. Stop wasting everybody's time. Yeah.

Secondly, it extends this child health insurance program. Chip extends it now for 10 years, six years added on to the four years. Folks, we already have Obamacare. We already have Medicaid. We already have Medicaid. We already have Medicare. How much more money are we going to throw at healthcare in this country before we realize government spending on healthcare is the problem? How often are we going to do this? Finally, it hikes the debt limit. And in relationship to what I was talking about with

the sequester cuts, if we're not serious about spending caps, scrap them. Get rid of them. Stop faking it to the American people. If the debt limit doesn't mean anything and we're going to constantly increase the debt, then just get rid of the damn thing and stop wasting our time. I have an excellent piece by Dan Horowitz, a conservative review up at the show notes today, which sums this up in neat

little bullet points how devastating this is. He's got a couple more in there. But one more thing. The reason I wanted to bring up the CHIP spending, the Child's Health Insurance Program, which is a, folks, it's another, another government Medicaid, Medicare, third party payer problem we're having here.

As Trump made a comment the other day about the United Kingdom's National Health Service and how it's failing their single party payer system. It is failing, folks. There's some damning pieces out there today, one specifically I saw in the Wall Street Journal, about how in the UK right now,

they are essentially rationing by time. Joe, you have to wait now. They used to have a rule about 18 weeks for non-emergency surgery, so if you needed cataracts or hip... Not emergency, I mean you weren't having a heart attack. That they would try to get you the surgery in 18 weeks. They've now blown that out of the window,

which is rationing by time. Folks, just quickly here. You have to understand the mechanics of economics and healthcare spending to understand why I am so upset at the continued third-party payer process. The government's spending money on medicine. I know it sounds great. Ohparty payer process, the government spending money on medicine. I know it sounds great. Oh, poor people, the government. The government's not taking care

of poor people anymore. The government's taking care of everyone with medicine. Why is that a problem? When you have a third-party payer government paying for healthcare, you disconnect the patient from the doctor. The patient doesn't care about the price of the healthcare because you're not paying directly. You've already paid. You've given your money to taxes, so you don't care. Joe, what's the procedure? $5,000, $10,000, $20,000? What do you care?

You're like, I already paid my tax bill. I'm good. I'm going to take whatever I can get. The doctor in the hospital doesn't care about lowering the price either because they'll take whatever the government gives them. Hey, we should try to get $20,000. Will the government pay? Yes, let's take $20, 20. Will the government pay? Yes. Let's take 20. Will the government pay 22? I don't know. Let's try. They're not bad people. They're just obeying the rules of economics. You get what the market will bear, even when there's no market. Folks, but one critical component of a third

party payer system when the government pays for healthcare that should never be overlooked, party payer system when the government pays for healthcare. That should never be overlooked. And I put this in all caps today. Waste is tolerated. Why is it tolerated? Because there's no incentive to not produce waste. You're a doctor working for the government on a government salary in the British single payer system, National Health Service.

You're getting paid 200 grand a year. Do you want to see eight patients a day or do you want to see four joe that check's gonna cash no matter what i'll take the four if i can get i take the four you're damn right are you a doctor um no but i play one on radio but you play one on radio you play many roles on radio that's correct this folks that doesn't make joe a bad guy okay i'm sure many doctors will volunteer their time over time. Many won't. Waste is tolerated because there's no incentive to not waste your time. Matter of fact, you can say,

I want to see two patients a day. Is my check going to change? No, not at all. Okay, great. What's also tolerated? Wasting time. Hey, the doctor will see you tomorrow. Ah, you know what? He's not going to take a vacation. He's not going to see you. I'll see you next week.

None of this is tolerated in a free market system because in a free market system, when the doctor is paid for services, if he doesn't perform the services, he's not paid. He doesn't waste his time. He doesn't waste his money. And he certainly wants to create

an effective product for the cost. Do you understand? Folks, listen to me doesn't waste his money, and he certainly wants to create an effective product for the cost. Do you understand? Folks, listen to me and listen as good as you possibly can. Government is the problem in medicine. It is the most prominent, if you're triaging your needs, problem in the entire world in medicine. If the government were to shrink its footprint in medicine, you would see cost and quality, cost go down and quality go up almost instantaneously. The government is the problem because waste is tolerated. And what are we doing through this budget? We're spending more money on what? Government healthcare spending, which is going to explode the cost and decrease the quality because waste is

tolerated because it can be when the government pays. Thanks again for tuning in, folks. Please go to Bongino.com. Subscribe to my email list there. Please read the show notes today. They are really, really good. Thanks again for tuning in. I'll see y'all.

You just heard the Dan Bongino Show. Get more of Dan online anytime at conservativereview.com. You can also get Dan's podcasts on iTunes or SoundCloud and follow Dan on Twitter 24-7 at DBongino.