The Dan Bongino Show - Ep. 731 There's Only One Way to Fix This
Episode Date: May 30, 2018Summary: In this episode I address the controversial tweet by Roseanne Barr. I also address the explosive revelations about Spygate and the origins of the case. Finally, I discuss the expanding Trump ...economy and the electoral ramifications for Democrats.  News Picks: This piece debunks the latest liberal myths about Trump’s immigration policy.  Lee Smith’s explosive piece about the origins of the Spygate case.  How is the Mueller witch hunt going to end?  The Trump economy is giving the Democrats headaches.  Debunking myths about immigration enforcement.  The solution to the liberal assault on conservatives is economic growth.  Copyright CRTV. All rights reserved. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Transcript
Discussion (0)
get ready to hear the truth about america on a show that's not immune to the facts with your host
dan bongino all right welcome to the dan bongino show producer joe how are you today man i'm doing
good babe how about you you doing good no you cannot stay ahead of the news like we could do
three shows a day yeah we may do that at some point. Do like a morning, afternoon, and evening show. I mean, it's ridiculous. You cannot stay ahead of the news cycle.
Roseanne, North Korea, Spygate.
It goes on and on and on.
Economic numbers yesterday that got lost.
Grassley.
There's an article yesterday I didn't even get to that I got to talk about today from Daniel Greenfield.
About economics.
Not so much the formality of it but how trump is
winning and how the democrats are now running for the hills in these midterms elections although
they were claiming there was going to be a blue wave it may be a blue trickle who knows well that's
why people come here dan oh man all right so let me get right to it i want to waste your time today's
show brought to you by a buddy said filter by you filter by. You know, we love filter by. You got air filters in your house,
right? You got air filters in your business? Well, let's
support a patriotic, God-loving
American company like filter by.
Yeah, baby. Yeah.
It's spring cleaning time and like Trump is
cleaning out corrupt officials.
You can clean up the air you breathe, clean out
your lungs, make your HVAC system great
again. And folks, don't
procrastinate. Otherwise, dust, mold, and pollutants will clog up your HVAC system. It'll become inefficient,
end up costing you a lot of money. Sounds like the federal government.
Clean up that HVAC system with my friends at FilterBuy, America's leading provider
of HVAC filters for homes and small businesses. Folks, please support these companies. They
support us. They carry over 600 different filter sizes, including custom options, all shipped free within 24 hours, and they're
manufactured right here in America. Filter Buy offers a multitude of MIRV options, all the way
up to hospital grade, so you'll be removing dangerous pollen, mold, dust, and other allergy
aggravating pollution while maximizing the efficiency of your system. Right now, you can
save 5%. Just set up auto delivery,
and you'll never have to think about air filters again.
Simple as that.
Simple.
Easy peasy.
Save money.
Save time.
Breathe better with FilterBuy.com.
That's FilterBuy.com.
FilterBuy.com.
FilterBuy.com.
Yeah, baby.
Yeah, to use the Joe Armacost radio voice.
All right.
Yeah.
So, let me say yesterday, I have a lot to get to.
There's some just Lee Smith has another explosive piece at Real Clear Investigations, which will be in the show notes today, which is it's critical you read it because it's something.
And I don't like talking like this because it sounds really pretentious, but it's something we've known for a long time.
Me and the or strongly suspected, I should say, to be precise, for a long time, me and the co-writers of my book, that just blows the doors off this entire investigation into the Spygate scandal.
And it provides some pretty, pretty strong evidence that this was a setup the entire time.
Now, I always say, remember the names, you will remember the names.
Hold on before we get to that, because a lot of stuff happened yesterday.
Roseanne, let's get to that first.
Dude.
Yeah, listen.
Folks, I'm never, ever, ever going to spin your wheels on this show.
Now, I know sometimes the conversation,
I had an email exchange back and forth with a guy named Lon who was upset. By the way,
he was the only one. I got probably 200 or 300 emails I received yesterday that people love to
get the mop thing. Well, I can't take credit for it. It was the author of that piece, but
I stand by every word of that. Go get
the mop, learn to work, learn to be responsible. But I did get some one negative piece of feedback.
He didn't like it. He thought, yo, follow your passion. Well, that's fine. Do your thing,
you know, seed your passion, but, you know, take care of your kids and stuff first.
I say that because I know there's going to be a lot of differing opinions on what happened with
Roseanne. And I know the convenient thing to do
is to always duck and run from these topics.
And, you know, let's stick to milquetoast stuff.
Joe, let's talk about economics and North Korea and all that other stuff.
Oh, sure, Dan, yeah.
I'm not going to do that here.
I'm going to give you Dan Bongino unfiltered, okay?
Here's my take on Roseanne.
Joe, a couple times,
do you remember early in the show when we were first doing it in my basement?
Me and you had an exchange and we had a delete later on.
I'm not going to say what it was.
It's not important who said, but it wasn't in any way meant to be inflammatory.
Matter of fact, you know what I'm talking about.
And we deleted it because we both kind of got it, right?
Like, all right, even though no one intended at all to say anything negative i'm not going to put it out there because it doesn't matter and i'm not going to give media matters idiots any ammunition but it was totally
not meant like that at all and we were like you know what just in case let's just get rid of it
even though it would not have hurt us at all i'm sure of it i i am not from the snowflake crowd, but there are things that you probably shouldn't do.
You know, one of them is not probably you just shouldn't do.
I just be crystal clear on that.
You know, comparing someone to an ape on Twitter is just dumb.
I'm sorry.
It's just dumb.
Now, she's acknowledged that, Roseanne.
She's apologized now twice.
She apologized again this morning.
So let's stipulate that, number one.
At least in my case.
And by the way,
I don't know many conservatives
who were saying this was a good idea.
It's not.
It was an awful idea, okay?
Let's stipulate that this was just
a really dumb tweet which
she's already acknowledged thankfully twice right yeah let's stipulate point number two
that abc is a free market company and i can't with a straight face argue that you know the nfl
is a free market company and you know should be able to do what it wants with its national
anthem policy which i did yesterday debating sarah m McLachlan on my NRA TV show about this.
And then say, oh, well, ABC is not a free company when they cancel the show.
Listen, they're free to do what they want.
Just like we were free not to watch the NFL, you're free not to watch ABC if you disagree with the decision.
I don't watch ABC anyway, so it doesn't matter to me.
So point one, it was a a really really poor decision
to send that tweet point number two um and by the way again we're not speaking with forked tongue
because joe and i say things i'm telling you we're totally milk toast and we're careful because we
don't want to give leftists any ammunition even if it's even a slight amount of ambiguity there
yep that was there was no ambiguity in that tweet.
You shouldn't have sent it.
Point number two, ABC can do what it wants.
And you're free to not watch.
There's no government solution to this.
There's just your eyeballs and your decisions.
And that's it.
And that's the great part about living in a free country.
Once those two things are out of the way, and we've set the groundwork for this, I think
the takeaway argument from this is where conservatives have a
legitimate gripe here is it's not what about ism folks to say,
well,
what about joy read?
All right.
Well,
what about Kathy Griffin?
Well,
what about Keith Oberman?
You may say,
well,
you're saying it's not about what about ism and you're saying what about
because we're not,
I'm not asking about over. I don care about keith oberman kathy griffin who
held the decapitated trump head keith oberman who's called us effing nazis in a tweet
i'm not talking about joy reed who made homophobic comments on a blog and then lied about it. I don't care what they say. I don't watch
them. ESPN just hired Keith Olbermann, who has been ruthlessly attacking Trump and Trump supporters
forever. I don't care. I'm not asking what about them. I'm asking what about the rules?
I think it's a fair argument for everyone out there, conservatives and liberals
alike, to say, Joe, okay, we can all roundly condemn Roseanne's tweet. She's done it herself.
She's come out and said this was really dumb. That's unanimous. But what are the rules?
I'm serious. This is a question for my liberal friends. I use that term loosely who
listen to the show. I know you listen because you get right after the show, you hit us on Twitter
and I see them, which is fine. I'm glad you're listening. What are the rules? Are the rules?
Say something stupid on Twitter, which, gosh, say something.
Griffin actually held a decapitated head.
And your career is fit.
Griffin, by the way, Kathy Griffin, she was just at the White House Correspondents thing.
The dinner thing with that other comedian who brutally attacked Sarah Sanders on stage
with just unbelievably poorly written jokes.
What are the rules?
Are the rules you do something dumb, you apologize, and then we can all move on?
Or are the rules do something dumb, apologize, when you're a conservative, you're shunned
from polite society forever, but when you're a liberal, just give it a few weeks and we welcome you back i'm folks i'm not being a jerk i mean this i am
asking you a sincere question what are the rules oh the rules can change at any time that's the
rules how's that which as you and i both know are not rules right if the rule is don't punch the guy
in the gonads in a boxing match. And one guy does it continuously.
Those aren't rules.
There you go.
They're only rules for the other guy.
I am not defending Roseanne, okay? Roseanne's not defending Roseanne.
But I'm genuinely curious as to what the rules are.
Joy Reid's blog was openly homophobic
on a network that professes to be about
inclusivity, equality, diversity.
She's on MSNBC.
Now, just for a second,
let me just tell you right now,
and I know producer Denise from my NRA TV show
who listens to my podcast,
she knows this and can
vouch for me on this
when that Joy Reid story
came up about her
her
homophobic blog posts
and she claimed wasn't her
she doesn't recognize that it was her blog
and she lied and claimed like her blog
was hacked and things like that
I did not talk about that story on NRA TV.
I did not make it a central focus of my show,
despite the fact that it was in the news.
If it came up, it came up in passing.
Why?
Because I don't watch Joy Reid.
I don't care.
Joy Reid is a fake to me. I don't watch joy read i don't care joy read is a fake to me i don't care i'm not joe i don't want
joy read to be fired from msnbc do whatever you want to do at msnbc you think having joy read on
the air benefits your business keep her employed you think kneeling on the field hurts your
business or helps your business do what you got to do nfl abc you want to fire roseanne fire roseanne i don't know
what to tell you it's your business i stayed away from that story because i don't get into this
stuff because i believe that even liberals who say really dumb nasty stuff should be able to say
hey i screwed up and i'm moving on you know why i believe that joe sometimes people tell me not to talk to you or to talk to the audience which is like bad radio
babe i can't i have to talk to you because you're my friend and you're part of the show and i feel
like you are the audience too sometimes because we don't rehearse this before the show right yeah
so joe is the de facto you in the car listening now. I'm in this business.
You've been in it a long time at CBM.
Yeah.
It's hard, folks.
I'm not whining.
This isn't snowflake stuff.
I wouldn't trade it for the world.
I love this fight.
But it's hard.
It is hard to go on the air every day, hours, hours, 10s, 20 20, 30 hours sometimes of content a week on a really busy week between blogs, between the podcast, between Fox, between NRA TV, between Facebook live appearances,
tweeting, hours and hours a week of content.
It is nearly impossible at some point for you to not say something stupid.
It is impossible.
Right, right, right.
Right.
Is it, Joe, you've had guests on the radio
station who probably leave come out and go oh man i shouldn't have said that absolutely all the time
now we do it every day we're not guests you were going to say something dumb matter of fact the
benefit of a podcast is joe and i can edit it because sometimes i say something dumb right
joe i'm like joe can you just delete that it was just stupid no me too i said something yesterday in response to joe's comment that we had to cut out of the show you
know why not because i meant anything by it but because you know what it wasn't phrased right
live radio it's hard live tweeting all the time it's hard i'm not apologizing for her comment
she's not doing it we shouldn't't either. But what are the rules?
We just want a set of standards.
Now, liberals, listen, do you understand why conservatives feel like they're under assault?
No one's defending the comments, okay?
Nobody's doing that.
Stop saying that, libs.
They're simply asking you all, what are the darn rules?
Are conservatives allowed to say, hey i screwed up when are liberals gonna say you know what folks give them a pet now i'm not saying everybody gave joy read a pass some
conservatives didn't and that's your choice folks i did not cover that story and did not call for
joy read to be fired because it's not my call.
Maybe she is sorry.
I'm not defending Joy Reid.
I don't know Joy Reid.
Just like I don't know Roseanne
and I'm not defending Roseanne.
I don't know her.
I'm just saying,
is this the society we want to live in?
Where if you're a conservative,
one slip up,
the liberal mob comes after you
and makes sure it's all over. And yet when you're a conservative, one slip up, the liberal mob comes after you and make sure it's all over.
And yet when you're a liberal, you're allowed to do grotesque things like fake a decapitation of Donald Trump.
And all of a sudden you're a rock star at the White House Correspondents Dinner.
Dude, you don't even have to slip up.
You know that too.
Yeah, it's true.
You're going to hear after this show, Bongino defends.
Of course. You will, Dano. Yeah, I know. I know I will.
But I'm not running from this
anymore, this topic. I'm not.
I'm not anymore. I never did in the first place.
But it's fair enough for
us to ask this question.
What are the rules?
I mean, the reason I brought up that story
with Joe in the beginning too about that is I listen
I totally get it yeah you can't say it's credits the whole movement you can't call people apes
come on I mean seriously have some common sense I said to my wife this morning so I don't think
like hey he's one guy on the years one guy no I'm the same guy off the air. I said to my wife this morning, you can't say that kind of stuff.
You can't.
You just can't do that.
But I'm genuinely curious as to, are we as a society going to say, okay, she's screwed up.
Maybe she, by the way, this is, Roseanne's got a history of saying controversial things.
It's not like this is new yeah but i'm just curious as
to how liberals think we're ever going to bridge some kind of partisan divide not ideologically
it's clear our ideologies are different but at some point we're going to have to agree that we
are at least all americans and we should abide by a brace a basic framework i mean even countries
that hate each other that aren't savages, abide by general rules
of war. Can we not agree that we can have very sincere, in-depth, detailed ideological fights,
but agree on a basic framework that, all right, if you say something really dumb in a now 24-hour
news cycle with Twitter and everything else, that maybe, just maybe, we should consider
on both sides and saying, hey, people screw up.
It's not our call.
It's a private company.
Let's move on.
I'm not suggesting, by the way, you don't have the right to boycott.
I don't watch the NFL.
That's my choice.
I'm not suggesting like some government intervention or anything like that i just i'm
just the whole thing just you know i didn't get to cover it yesterday in the nra tv show but
i had to hit it this morning because it's just it's just disappointing it really is i mean keith
olbermann read this guy's twitter feed it is some of the most disgusting stuff you've ever seen and
espn just brought him on board to get oh oh, hey, let's bring this guy back.
He's great.
Kathy Griffin, again, decapitated ahead of Donald Trump.
Fine, you want to go see her in concert?
Go ahead.
I don't care.
I'm not suggesting Kathy Griffin should be permanently impoverished and have her career taken away.
If people in a free country want to go see her, go see her.
I don't.
I don't want to watch the NFL.
If you want to watch it, knock yourself out.
But my gosh, the Joy Reid thing.
What is going on?
Everybody on the left gets a free pass.
And by the way, Roseanne's not even a conservative, Joe.
She is not a conservative.
Let's be crystal clear on that.
Understood.
But she, you know, the rules just are not, there are no rules anymore.
And this is why liberals listening are genuinely looking into some insight into the Trump voter and into America.
I want you to understand, I talk to people all the time, whether it's church, meetings I do, activist stuff I go to.
All the time.
You need to understand the silo atmosphere people have.
They're constantly under attack from liberals because you are.
Because they don't feel like the rules apply. people have, like they're constantly under attack from liberals, because you are. Because
they don't feel like the rules apply.
And if the rules are, just to be clear
on this too, say something
pretty disturbing like that
and you're out, then fine. Then make
the rules apply to everyone else too.
And we would respect it.
Fire
Oberman then. Fire Reid.
Kathy Griffin
should lose whole her representation everything
else too
I'm not advocating for that I'm just saying
make the rules consistent
darn enough of this already
all right I do have a lot to get to I spent a little more
time on that than I wanted to but that's
okay we got a lot going on
all right today's show also brought to you by buddies at
iTarget the iTarget.
The iTarget system is probably, in my experience,
the best system out there for taking your dry fire to the next level.
By the way, you got to safely unload your weapon before you try this.
I got an email last night from a guy who was like,
hey, Dan, I didn't check it twice, check it three times.
You know who you are.
And yeah, I'm not kidding.
This guy, he fired a round into his
neighbor's wall. It goes to show
you the importance. Why in the Secret Service we say
check it, check it twice, check it three times.
Look away. When you're trying to safely
unload a weapon, rack the slide to the rear, pop
the cylinder open, look at it. Is it empty?
Look away for a minute.
Get a fresh new picture. Look again.
Fresh new picture, look a third
time. Take that pinky finger, finger probe, the cylinder on a revolver, an open chamber.
Make sure that thing is empty.
Joe's a, you're a funny cat.
But when you do that and you make sure a weapon is safely unloaded, you can practice what we call dry firing, which is pulling the trigger on a safely unloaded weapon.
Practicing your trigger pull, your sight alignment.
You want equal light on both sides of that front sight,
level across the top.
You want a clear sight picture, good sight alignment,
solid trigger pull, and a good grip.
You can practice all of that
in the safety and security of your own home.
You don't have to be at the range.
The range is great, but it's expensive.
It takes time.
You got to clean your weapon.
You can do this from the safety and security
of your own home.
Well, what does iTarget do?
The iTarget system, the website is itargetpro.com.
They will send you a laser round.
You drop into the firearm safely unloaded that you have now.
Whether it's a nine millimeter, they'll send you a nine millimeter round.
And what it does is when that hammer drops on that laser round, it will emit a laser
onto a target they send you.
And you can see where the round
would have gone, which is terrific because now you know. I mean, dry firing is great,
but you have no idea what would happen. Now you know because it will emit a laser onto that target
they send you. This is the best system out there for taking your firearms precision and proficiency
to the next level. Do not bypass an opportunity to get this product. I can't recommend it enough.
It is itargetpro.com.
That is the letter, itargetpro.com, itargetpro.com.
Promo code Dan, you'll get 10% off.
Pick this up today.
You will not regret it.
The reviews on this product are absolutely terrific.
Thanks to everyone who picked it up.
You will not regret it.
Okay, where do we go next here?
All right.
One just quick thing.
I have an article in the show notes
by Daniel Greenfield sent in by a listener.
I referenced it yesterday,
but I'll put it in the show notes again today
because it's so good.
And it talks about how the Democrats
are in real trouble here, Joe,
because voters, generally speaking,
remember we keep talking on the show
about the three spheres, right? Right talking on the show about the three spheres,
right? The political sphere, the culture sphere, and economic warfare sphere, and how the Democrats
seamlessly move from one to the other when they lose. Don't forget this. This is going to be a
template for the show going forward because it's important you understand this. When the Democrats
lose the political sphere, which is purely elections, getting people elected in power to do things Democrats want, they move to the culture sphere.
Seamlessly.
These aren't planned.
They just know.
Matter of fact, there's activity ongoing in each sphere all the time.
The culture sphere is, again, what's happening in Hollywood, what's happening in academia with the liberal indoctrination of our students,
what they lose in the political sphere and power they gain in the cultures field by minimizing
and relegating conservatives to outcasts in society by making you feel like you don't belong.
They do it on TV where you start to get this perception that being a conservative is somehow
being crazy because that's how you're painted on TV and in films and things like that.
Then they have the economic sphere where they've learned the boycott game,
do email and social media. You slip up for a minute as a conservative, it's over. They will
come after you. They will target you. They will target news channels. They will target
entertainers. They will target anyone who doesn't tow the company line, the liberal line.
They move between these spheres constantly. And in this
piece by Daniel Greenfield that I'll put in the show notes today, which is really, really good.
He talks about how economics, Joe, the fact that Trump, and I'm going to get to Trumponomics in a
second at some of the spectacular economic numbers coming out, but how the economic success story of
the early Trump administration is overwhelming a lot of this. It is now starting
to mute the power in the cultural and economic boycott sphere because they can't win in the
political sphere. Now, they may do okay in the midterms. I don't think it's going to be a blue
wave. But the point of the piece is that the economic success of the early Trump administration,
and again, I'll give you some numbers in a second here, are so good that people are starting to say, hey, you know what? People in the cultural
sphere who may be not diehard liberals, but leaning Democrat are like, well, what do we do?
Do we vote identity politics or do we vote for our wallet? Because my wallet's good and I just
got a raise. What do I do? Right? I mean, we saw this in Maryland where I used to live with Joe,
where it was a diehard blue state until the rain tax came around, started bankrupting businesses.
And all of a sudden, even liberals were like, I'm not so sure about that.
Governor O'Malley and his lieutenant governor, who was then running for governor, and they voted for Larry Hogan, a Republican, now up for reelection.
Hasn't been the greatest Republican in the world, but we get it.
I'll leave Joe out of that one.
Nah. I know. Joe out of that one. Nah.
I know, yeah, I know.
Now, on that, Greenfield makes a great point
that economics is going to trump a lot of this.
You can boycott all you want.
Are people really going to join in these boycotts?
If, again, if they're getting promotions,
they're getting raises,
and their businesses are doing well.
But I wanted to kind of double down on a piece.
Read that. It's a good piece. It's interesting. It's short to kind of double down on a piece. Read that.
It's a good piece.
It's interesting.
It's short.
It's sweet.
It's in the show notes.
But that's the takeaway, that the Trump economy is going to eventually overpower all of this
because people vote political power into power based on kitchen table issues in their own
wallets.
Period.
Full stop.
Now, I titled today's show you know the only
way to fix this because folks in the in the cultural and economic boycott arena where we're
losing liberals are taking over the culture i want to make a suggestion to you that a lot of this is
going to die down substantially if trump is reelected. Right now, the bureaucracy,
a lot of the state bureaucracies, a lot of the appointed federal government officials,
even in the FBI, after eight years of Obama, and in my opinion, eight years of a weak presidency
in George W. Bush on the Republican side, the bureaucracy at the federal level, the people
governing, the people who are being influenced by entertainment types who make campaign donations, the people who are being influenced by far left donors are liberal.
A lot of them are even liberal Republicans.
They are.
They are.
They have overtaken the bureaucracy.
They've overtaken the Justice Department.
There are even senior managers at the FBI.
Clearly, you had a Trump animus in this case.
You would think organizations like the FBI would be immune to this.
They are not.
After, just think of the simple life cycle of a federal employee, folks.
Most of them do not, you know, work the whole entire 25 years.
There's a good portion of them that leave early, that take other jobs.
Some do.
Some stay the whole 25 years.
But if we get Trump reelected
and you have eight years, think of this. You're talking about a third of the career,
even for the people who stay. A lot of those employees are going to retire and leave and
are going to be replaced by more competent, constitutionally oriented appointees by the
Trump administration. A reelection by the Trump team would be absolutely devastating to this entire organism working symbiotically with the American
left to impact and rule upon American livelihoods, which is the federal bureaucracy. So it's not a
complicated point I'm making today. The economics is, if it continues on this successful path, is going to overwhelm a lot of this cultural and economic pressure by the left.
It could lead to potential re-election.
Re-election will wash out federal employees appointed under a liberal, relatively left-leaning Republican administration, at least during some points of the second term.
And eight years of Obama.
And by the way, eight years of Clinton before that as well.
Eight years of Clinton, so we've been sandwiched.
There's been a Democrat sandwich.
It is very important that you understand re-election will swap out a lot of those people
for more constitutionally oriented people, and we can start moving the country back to the liberty station instead of away from it important point okay uh i have
just on quickly on trumponomics joe just to before i get to some of this russia stuff because it's
oh my gosh it's just amazing oh my girl i just got a text from about my youngest she's so cute
man you can't get enough
of her adorable all right so this is an article i'll have in the show and i'll say from the
washington times muddy week joe is reporting that april which is a tax month to be fair this is
always the month that the government runs a surplus so i don't want to be overly dramatic
here right but april typically runs a a MoneyWeek is reporting that the $218
billion monthly tax revenue surplus, revenues over expenditures this April, Joe,
was the largest ever, with the previous record being $180 billion in 2001.
Here's a simple lesson. More growth, more tax revenue. Folks, I've said this over and over to you. Please take it to
the bank, cash that check, and run away with it. When you cut taxes, you induce growth because
people take that money. They don't burn it. They invest in their businesses. They invest in the
economy. The economy grows larger, and the taxes that come in as a result of that growing economy
typically far outweigh what would have come in otherwise with a higher tax rate and a lower growth rate economy.
More growth, more revenue.
Now you see the numbers.
I don't want to be overly dramatic, but also in the Steve Moore piece, he writes that we're halfway through this quarter, Joe, in April.
Growth rates now are looking like they could approach 4% this quarter.
If they approach 4%, Joe, President Trump will have averaged 3% growth of GDP growth over his
first year, a number that liberals, including Paul Krugman, said were ridiculous. He said we
would see flying cars, that's a quote, before we would see 3% growth again. And yet, if we hit this 4% target, we're halfway there.
Trump will have done it in year one.
Something Obama never did, Joe.
From the flea market to the free market.
That's right.
That's right.
That's exactly.
The flea market economy to the free market economy.
Do you see what happens?
Look at this yeah the
results the proof is in the pudding the proof is in the pudding yeah read the piece in the
washington times yeah all right uh this is important there is a great piece by lee smith
out today that i i can't encourage you i know you know listen I don't get anything from this these aren't
my links this is Lee Smith he's at Real Clear
Investigations
yeah I'll do it
but
I don't get anything from it it's not
my website but the link is at
my website at Bongino.com if you subscribe to
my email list I'll send it to you it is an amazing
piece and this is what I was talking about in the beginning
of the show
my co-authors and I writing the book have suspected
for a long time, and I thought about a way to kind of sum this up, that this was a push and
pull operation the entire time to set up and frame the Trump team. A push in that, and this is the
part that the Democrats are running away from. It's also why they won't mention the word spy.
They don't want to mention the word spy and they want to keep it out of polite conversation.
Because a spy is someone from the outside who looks in.
Right?
If I'm spying on your house, am I in your house?
No, I'm probably outside peeping in a window like a peeping Tom.
It has a nefarious connotation when it comes to the government doing it for political reasons right right spy outside looking in they
want to use the word informant because the word informant with the way it's used in law enforcement
and a lot of intel investigations by the way i've actually used informants and run them before, is an informant
is typically someone inside the house informing the cops outside the house of what's going on
inside the house. Now, why is that connotation better for Democrats on this? Because if the
informant inside the house is informing the cops about something going on inside the house,
you assume what's going on inside the house joe is nefarious and illegal
exactly and it makes it appear that oh we were just taking information that was already there
about a poorly run trump organization during the campaign that may have been colluding with the
uh with the russians and what were we not to take it that's not what happened. Gotcha. They want to avoid the spy word because the
spy word means someone was pushed
outside of the house
to look in.
They were pushed.
Now another
and by the way, who
is doing the pushing?
That's the question the Democrats
desperately want to avoid.
What were Halper's instructions?
Where did the idea come about to push him into the Trump orbit,
to query people from the Trump team about Russian emails?
Who pushed him in?
Why did they push him in?
No one is given a coherent answer.
Now, something I've suspected for a long time
is that this was a push-pull operation with information too. Don't you forget what I'm about to say. I believe they pushed and inserted information into the Trump sphere to then pull that information out later, to then use that information later as a reason to spy on the Trump team. Let me give you, before I explain this, let me give you a simpler analogy because it's going to get a little complicated, but it's critical you understand this.
If I want to entrap Joe, I can knock on his door every day and say, hey, Joe, I have information about a bank robbery.
Hey, Joe, I have information about a bank robbery.
Joe's like, who is this guy knocking on my door?
Dude, can you please go away? By the third or fourth try, you let the guy in. He tells
you about this bank robbery. You think he's half a kook, right? Yeah. And then all of a sudden,
a week later, another guy knocks at your door, a separate guy, and says, hey, Joe, have you heard
about a bank robbery? Yeah, yeah. Some guy was knocking on my door last week and talking about
that. All of a sudden, the handcuffs come out. You're like, wait, wait, what? What's going on?
Hands behind your back, sir. You're being arrested, the handcuffs come out. You're like, wait, wait, what? What's going on? Hands behind your back, sir.
You're being arrested for conspiracy to rob a
bank. You're like, what are you talking about?
What are you talking about?
I had some guy, some nut
knocked on my door. I didn't take this guy. I thought he was crazy.
You
push information into Joe's house
about a bank robbery.
You send someone else to pull it out
later. Joe had never any intentions of robbing a bank, colluding to rob a bank robbery. You send someone else to pull it out later. Joe had never any intentions of robbing a bank,
colluding to rob a bank or anything.
Someone pulls the information out later
and then the same information about Joe
knowing about the bank robbery
because of someone knocking on his door
is used as a reason to investigate Joe
for colluding with the bank robber.
What?
Now, read Lee Smith's piece today
and you'll understand what I'm talking about.
There's a potential here that someone involved in this
may have been pushed into doing this.
In Smith's piece, he talks about an assertion in the Papadopoulos indictment. Papadopoulos,
the low-level campaign advisor who was prosecuted by the FBI for false statements.
There's an interesting part of that where they claim that the guy Papadopoulos spoke to, Joseph Mifsud,
that they claim Mifsud was Kremlin-linked.
Kremlin-linked, that's a quote.
sud was kremlin linked and kremlin linked that's a quote and basically papadopoulos here's here's the allegation and the false statements charge against papadopoulos that he spoke to mifsud who
they claim is kremlin linked and lied about his conversations with mifsud and mifsud was so
basically he lied about conversations with this russian agent joe okay yeah he was kremlin linked are we sure about that
now it makes sense why they're trying to shut papadopoulos up so quickly you notice we haven't
heard from papadopoulos yeah do you notice he was one of the first targets of this investigation he
was completely shut down we haven't heard a peep from this guy you think we would right
yeah why haven't we heard a peep from papadopoulos papadopoulos was prosecuted for
a conversation he had with this guy mifsud who's alleged to have told him about some dirt they had
on hillary the russians and they call him kremlin linked but if he's kremlin linked why was he
interviewed by the fbi just two weeks after papadopoulos was interviewed in February of 2017 and then allowed to leave?
He's gone.
They can't find Mifsud.
I'm not saying he's dead.
We don't do conspiracy theories here.
I'm not suggesting he evaporated into the mist.
But he's suspiciously,
as we would say in the Secret Service,
out of pocket.
Nobody's interviewed him.
So let me just be clear on this.
Your entire case, Joe,
revolves around a conversation a Trump advisor had with a, quote,
Kremlin-linked agent
that Democrats allege is a cutout for the russians
an intermediary a stooge right yet the bureau interviewed him two weeks after papadopoulos
and nothing happened what what and he's gone he's gone another line we used these were kids he's gone. He's gone. Another line we used to use when we were kids.
He's in the wind.
He's in the wind.
Why is that?
So the guy who is the Russian Kremlin carve-out,
you allege is the founder of the feast,
who had this information he gave to Papadopoulos.
The Russians have dirt.
Papadopoulos allegedly shares this information with an Australian diplomat later.
It starts the whole investigation in July.
You don't know anything about him and he's gone?
After the FBI interviewed him?
Is it possible this was a push and pull operation?
this was a push and pull operation that someone else other than the russians may have pushed that information onto mifsud with the intention of fbi informants and others working with intelligence
entities were to pull that information from papadopoulos later hey tell papadopoulos about
russian dirt then we'll ask him about Russian dirt later.
And that's how we'll start the whole thing
about Russian dirt.
Ha, what?
Come again?
Let me read to you from Lee Smith's piece.
I want you to keep a couple questions in mind.
Who really gave that information to Mifsud
to pass into the Trump team to pull out later?
Who's Mifsud really working for?
And why is he hiding?
Let me read to you from Lee Smith's brilliant piece at Real Clear today. Please read this.
It's long. It is worth your time. It'll be at the show notes.
If Mifsud truly is a Russian agent, which is key to the collusion narrative,
he could prove to be one of the most promiscuous spies in modern history.
Western intelligence agencies and European politicians would have to spend the next few decades repairing the damage he did to global security by infiltrating key institutions and
personnel. As of yet, however, there is no indication that any intelligence service has
begun the embarrassing but highly important assessment of how it was penetrated
and how it can re-fortify the vulnerabilities that Mifsud may have exposed. There has been
no public effort to arrest him. What does he mean by that? Well, contained in the piece,
you'll find out something. Again, I'm not trying to pat myself on the back. Please don't take it
the wrong way. We're not like Ted on the offers but my authors uh but we've been researching this for
a long time yeah joe mifsud's connections are not that deep with the russians but they are very deep
with western intelligence agencies let me quote from from Lee Smith's piece again, quickly.
A person who knows Mifsud,
talking about his connections to intel.
Remember, if this is the guy
that got the information from the Russians
about the dirt and gave it to Papadopoulos,
and it was Papadopoulos spreading that word around
that started this whole investigation,
and you're alleging that started this whole investigation, and
you're alleging that he's Kremlin-linked and is some kind of a cutout for the Russians,
Joe, then how come Mifsud's buddy said this?
Misfud.
Mifsud.
Sorry, I keep saying that wrong.
Mifsud.
Quote, he had only one master, the Western political, diplomatic, and intelligence world,
his only home, of which he is still deeply dependent.
Let me read to you another line.
Mifsud, before he went into hiding, said,
The only foundation I'm a member of is the Clinton Foundation.
Wait, wait, come again?
I'm not making that up.
Read the piece.
I wouldn't.
Read the piece.
So your whole narrative is that a Kremlin-linked Russian cutout intermediary
who got some information from Russia about emails on Hillary,
fed it to a Trump team member that later spoke about it, and that was the initiation of the incident. So you're assuming
the push, Joe. Remember the push and pull? Let me back this out a minute.
You're assuming the push of information into the Trump orbit came from Russia. That's the
heart of your collusion narrative. The Russians fed the Trump team information
they wanted to use.
Did they?
Because the guy who started this whole thing
is deeply connected to Western intelligence.
Claims to be a member of only one foundation,
the Clinton Foundation.
Why is nobody asking these questions?
What's even more interesting joe the fbi office in rome they have these positions called league legal attaches one of the fbi agents in rome was the handler for christopher steel who was
working for the clinton organization to go dig up nasty information on Trump, which he got from the Russians.
He sends one of his buddies.
So there's a guy in Rome, in the FBI office in Rome, who's handling Christopher Steele.
A guy working with the Clintons, a British intelligence asset, to go gin up negative
information on Trump from the Russians.
A guy who works with him in his office goes to a seminar in September at this Link University
where Mifsud works.
Folks, after, by the way, this is in September, while this whole operation is going on.
By the way, this is in September, while this whole operation is going on.
And he asks in July of 2016, this is the original guy who works in the FBI office in Rome.
I'm establishing connections here.
He asks Christopher Steele, the handler for Steele, working in the FBI office in Rome.
When he meets with Steele, he asks Steele in July of 2016 if he's ever heard of George Papadopoulos.
Why would he do that?
How would Steele have heard of George Papadopoulos?
Folks, walk through it.
I know this is confusing.
I can see Joe's look right now.
You don't get it. I'm with you.
Yeah.
Okay.
Yeah.
If the FBI is meeting with a British former intel guy
working for the Clintons,
and the FBI agent in Rome is the handler for him,
and this FBI agent is working with Steele,
and Steele is gathering independent,
say air quotes here,
information about the Trump team that the FBI
deems so concerning, then why is the FBI asking that source about George Papadopoulos? How the
hell do they know about George Papadopoulos? That's where I was, yes. If they know about
George Papadopoulos from Downer, why is it so concerning to him that he asks Steele about it in this July meeting?
Who, in other words, who fed this?
By the way, as one of his people who works in his office is at a seminar with Mifsud, who started this whole thing with Papadopoulos just months later in September.
What is, folks, let me ask,
let me just leave this again with these questions.
I know this is a bit confusing,
but let me make it simple for you.
This case revolves around the fact
that a alleged Kremlin-linked asset
fed information to the Trump team
they tried to use to win an election.
Nobody's proved this guy's Kremlin-linked.
Matter of fact, the evidence is this guy's
linked to western intelligence supposedly the good guys he himself says he's a member of the
clinton foundation i didn't know they had membership cards then they're asking a british
spy about papadopoulos the same office that's sending a guy to go speak at a seminar at this Link University campus where Mifsud works?
Suggesting what? They knew about this the whole time?
How? In other words, Mifsud, they knew about Mifsud the whole time? Did they?
Let me ask those questions again. Who was Mifsud working for?
Why is he hiding?
Why does the Mueller allegations in the indictment for, excuse me, the paperwork drawn up in the charging documents for Papadopoulos call him Kremlin linked?
Yet seemingly all of the available evidence out there points to the fact that he's linked to Western contacts.
Folks, do you see why the media is desperately scrambling to cover this thing up?
Who pushed Mifsud into this?
Listen to me.
If you're going to remember any name in this,
whether it was Vexelberg or Deripaska, all the names you've gone into,
Downer, we've been doing this for months now.
Don't forget the name Joseph Mifsud.
Who pushed him into this orbit?
Listen, if it was in fact the Russians who did that,
and he is a Russian cutout and a Russian spy,
then you know what?
Go after him to the fullest extent of the law.
I'm suggesting to you though if this guy is a russian asset why was the fbi office managing christopher steel who's working for clinton
giving a speech at the campus he works there where he works you're going to give a speech
near a russian asset in a place which hired a Russian asset?
Does that make sense?
You see where I'm going with this show?
So you're saying to me that Link, which had a Russian asset on board, according to your own doctor, Kremlin-backed asset, you're sending FBI agents to go speak where he works?
Also, Joe, you interviewed him in February as he was allowed into the United States with the Bureau just a couple weeks after Papadopoulos.
Everybody now is quiet about these interviews.
Papadopoulos isn't talking.
Neither is Mifsud.
And you can't find Mifsud?
Why is he hiding?
Where'd he go?
Interestingly enough, Joe, Mifsud was invited to speak at an event with the State Department,
a president at the event, after all this went down.
So you're telling me a Russian asset who has very serious and deep links to British intelligence,
Claire Smith from British intelligence, who sits on a very important intelligence advisory board,
who teaches at a campus the FBI spoke at after all this, who was invited to the United States
to speak at an event the State Department was at, and who was interviewed by the FBI in February
and has subsequently disappeared, is this major league Russian spy, Kremlin-backed asset that
tried to overthrow an election. And yet all of that happened. State Department speeches connected to British intelligence.
He's got photos with people, British political leaders.
He teaches at a campus the FBI spoke at.
Folks, does any of this make sense to you?
Do you understand why the push parsed into this?
How the information was pushed into the Trump orbit, how it's connected
to Mifsud, the questions about Mifsud, who was Mifsud working for, what is he hiding?
Do you understand how those questions are all put to the forefront and become prominent when
the word spy is used? Yeah. Because when the word spy is used, Joe,
you have someone externally spying, looking into an operation,
and all of a sudden, if they don't find anything,
something has to be pushed in for them to, quote, find later.
Oh, yeah.
I'm trying to target, I'm running against Joe for office for Congress.
Gotcha. I'm spying on his house every night. I got a video camera. I know I'm going to see
Joe counting drug money one night, right? Yeah. I said, boy, Joe's a poor guy, right?
Did I say yeah? Yeah. So every night I'm there. I can see Joe's house. I know that's not true,
but you get the point. Every night I'm there. go by we get desperate i get nothing on joe joe's creeping he's up in the polls yeah exactly that's funny
i got nothing what do we do gosh the election's coming around i've been spying on joe every night
someone told me joe was an international drug runner i see nothing he's there playing with
little joe every night they're working out. They're doing their thing. They're watching NASCAR racing. Nothing's happening. I got the spy.
I got an idea. Let's push a guy into the house. Hey, pizza. Oh, come on in. All of a sudden,
he drops a bag of Coke on the counter. Look what I got. Video cocaine on the counter. There we go. Do you see how the spy
component, when information has to be pushed in and nothing is going wrong, when you talk about
a spy, they had to push something in to pull it out. They pushed the coke into the house to pull
out the picture. Who pushed Mifsud into this? Why is Mifsud hiding? Why is he quiet? Why won't Papadopoulos speak?
Do you now understand why the Mueller team had to shut Papadopoulos down from day one?
Why was a low level backbencher, Trump nothing burger in his organization, who Trump had almost
zero personal dealings with outside of a group meeting one time. Why was he
public enemy number one to Bob Mueller? Maybe because Papadopoulos and Mifsud know exactly
what happened here. That it wasn't the Russians who pushed Mifsud into this. It was someone else,
potentially from Western intelligence, that did it. The contacts are right there. Let me quote
again, Mifsud's buddy. He had only one master, the Western political, diplomatic, and intelligence
world, his only home of which he is still deeply dependent. The pictures, the evidence, the speeches,
the place he worked, Mifsud, it's overwhelming. Folks, I'm not pretending to have all the answers here. I'm telling you, me and my
co-authors have been on this for months, and the Mifsud thing, that's why I've tweeted the name out,
is deeply concerning. I'm not suggesting to you I have the answers. What I am suggesting to you,
with absolute certainty, is there are deeply, deeply troubling questions that nobody, nobody is asking.
Why?
Maybe because the answers are equally troubling.
Who pushed Mifsud into the House?
Liberals, media hacks, and swamp-rap Republicans want you to believe it was the Russians.
I'm telling you, the evidence is overwhelming right now
and I hope and pray I'm proven wrong.
I really mean that.
That it wasn't the Russians.
That it was someone else.
And that someone else is going to be
deeply, deeply disturbing when it comes out.
That's why they don't want to use the word spy.
All right, I got one more thing to cover
that's important.
Gowdy. I don't... All right. Let me get to that in a minute. Today's show also brought to you by our buddies
at BrickHouse Nutrition. Listen, I can't say enough about BrickHouse. I talk about Field of
Greens, their fruit and vegetable supplement all the time, which I think is great. But today,
I want to talk about Dawn to Dusk. If your days are long like mine, I'll be on the Donald Trump
Facebook page later interviewing with Lara Trump.
If you want to check that out, I recommend it.
But I have really long days.
I'd be lost without dawn to dusk.
It is an energy pill.
It gives you 10 hours of sustained energy.
Not the ups and downs.
None of the crashes.
None of this, oh, I feel great.
Oh, I feel terrible.
That's the problem with coffee and a lot of these energy drinks out there now.
I feel terrible.
That's the problem with coffee and a lot of these energy drinks out there now.
Brickhouse Nutrition invented an energy pill in conjunction with the doctor they employ on staff that it gives you a nice, steady 10-hour rate of energy.
It is absolutely terrific.
Help you get you through the day.
The product sells like crazy.
People love it.
It's called Dawn to Dusk.
It's a great way without the ups and downs.
If you have a really hard workday, manual labor, even you're in a white collar job that's very stressful, give it a shot. It's called Dawn to Dusk. It's a great way without the ups and downs. If you have a really hard workday, manual labor, even you're in a white collar job that's very stressful, give it a shot.
It's called Dawn to Dusk. Dawn to Dusk. It's available at brickhousenutrition.com
slash Dan. That's brickhousenutrition.com slash Dan. The product is great for working parents,
busy people who have busy days. Even if you're a crossfitter, military, law enforcement,
you have to be alert. It's a really terrific product.
It's called Dawn to Dusk.
It's available at BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
That's BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
Give it a shot.
You'll love it.
Send me your reviews.
I always love to hear them.
That's how positive I am.
You're going to really enjoy the product.
Again, Dawn to Dusk.
Give you a sustained 10-hour burst of energy.
You don't have the ups and downs.
Gives you a nice sense of focus.
It's really, really good stuff.
Dawn to Dusk.
Go check it out.
So last night, Trey Gowdy, Republican congressman, was on Martha McCallum.
And I get it.
A lot of you are confused about Gowdy.
Let me unconfuse you.
I am not here to personally attack Ty gowdy he's leaving he should do his own thing and fine whatever um politically speaking
not it's not a personal attack i have never trusted gowdy i base that on a number i know
that's going to be shocking to a lot of you who were convinced otherwise. It's your business.
Do what you want to do.
I'm not here to engage in Republican on Republican violence.
But Trey Gowdy did the cause of cleaning up the police state a an enormous disservice last night.
He went on Martha McCallum.
And I'm telling you, based on feedback from responsible and very informed conservative activists who've been involved in this movement for a long time.
The expression I've heard frequently about Gowdy is,
and I'm just telling you what I've heard from other people,
is, as I don't know him personally,
is all hat, no cattle.
No cattle.
So you take from that what you want.
He ran that Benghazi commission would we see you know
that came out of that and he this is really what accountability if we had
Gowdy came out last night on Martha McCallum and said that and I am quoting him that based on his
review of the evidence the FBI did what we wanted them to do, which, of course, liberals jumped at right away.
They now love Trey Gowdy.
He's their new favorite Republican.
Liberals jumped on, including Mo Alethi, who came after me this morning on Twitter, which is fine, saying, oh, look, Gowdy said so.
Which is funny, Joe.
They ignore Nunes, who has seen the same evidence and has a completely different conclusion.
They ignore Nunes, who's seen the same evidence and has a completely different conclusion.
They ignore Dershowitz, who's a liberal and experienced in a lot of these matters, who has basically said this investigation is a really horrible idea.
They ignore Andy McCarthy and a lot of other significant thought leaders out there who've reviewed the available evidence.
And again, Nunes, who has seen the classified stuff and has a different opinion. But now Gowdy's their new hero.
Ness who has seen the classified stuff and has a different opinion.
But now Gowdy's their new hero.
Don't be confused.
And don't let people in the swamp dissuade you from the obvious fact that the FBI did not do what we wanted them to do.
And if Gowdy believes that, I'm going to encourage you to respectfully, of course, you know,
I'm not lecturing anyone, but you know, you know the deal.
We don't want to do what liberals do.
Respectfully email his office. Or if you live in his district, he's still leaving,
but he's still your congressman. I'd like you to ask him these simple questions.
Trey, the FBI was doing what we wanted them to do. Why did they hide the investigation from
Congress for eight months when they were supposed to give quarterly briefings?
Oh, wait, Jim Comey said it was sensitive. Oh, but in the very same speech,
when asked about why they give quarterly briefings, he says, because there are sensitive
investigations. Okay. Trey, you want to clear that one up for us? If the FBI was doing what
we wanted them to do, why hide an investigation from Congress for eight months? Just check it.
If you can answer that, we'd love to hear it secondly the fbi is doing what we wanted them to do which is have spies intentionally interact
with the political campaign to pull out information with as we've seen yet no probable
cause whatsoever of a crime or that any of these people were in fact foreign agents violating u.s
law which by the way is the actual law to prosecute these people.
No one's yet prosecuted.
So the FBI is now spying on campaigns.
Listen, Trey and your crew, I've actually worked in this arena,
so please spare us the nonsense.
This is not the least impactful way to do it.
The least impactful way to do it, Joe, way to do it joe would be to go and
interview the trump team hey do you know about this guy page which leads to point number three
why did the fbi fail to give a full spectrum brief on exactly what was going on to the trump team if
they were so afraid the trump team was being infiltrated by Russians. Just asking, Trey, can you explain? Martha McCallum hit him on that
one last night. He was like, I don't know. Of course you don't know. Finally, Trey, if the FBI
was doing what we wanted them to do, why did a, quote, law enforcement official, and by the way,
I don't know another law enforcement
entity working on this case other than the fbi it was a small group the cia nsa and others were
intel agencies so we can conclude based on reason something missing here that somebody leaked to the
press and they are in october the presence of this investigation you heard me read through that washington post article in last week's show where they had incredible detail October the presence of this investigation. You heard me read through that
Washington Post article on last week's show where they had incredible detail on a lot of this.
Somebody leaked to the press the existence of this investigation into Trump. Fascinating, Trey.
So while you're explaining to us why they hid the investigation from Congress for eight months,
can you also explain to us if they're doing what the public wanted the FBI to do? Why someone in the FBI leaked the presence of the investigation to
the press while hiding it from Congress? I'm waiting. We'd like those answers in writing,
too, if you don't mind, since you seem so confident. And by the way, all the liberals
out there who are newfound Trey Gowdy fans after assaulting Trey Gowdy on Twitter and social media
and cable news for years, if you could explain the answers to those questions too, I'd love to hear them.
Listen, Trey, if you have legitimate answers to that, I'd be happy because it would let me believe
that our FBI and DOJ did not in fact spy in a political campaign and I could breathe easy at night.
But if you can't, can you please explain to us why you went on television last night and said
something so ridiculous?
It requires a response today from this show and others.
I'm not the only one upset at what Gowdy did last night.
He gave police state Democrats refuge on our side based on,
and just atrocious evaluation of the situation.
Frustrating.
All right, folks.
Got to run.
Check me out.
I'll be on the Donald Trump Facebook page later if you want.
I'll be on Laura Ingraham tonight, 10 o'clock.
And please check out my NRA TV show, 5.30 p.m. Eastern time,
available for free at nratv.com.
Go check out the website.
Super slick.
And thanks for all your support.
I really appreciate it, especially with the YouTube thing yesterday.
So you guys helped out a lot.
Thanks so much.
See you tomorrow.
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.