The Dan Bongino Show - Ep. 734 Answering Ben Shapiro’s Spygate Questions

Episode Date: June 4, 2018

Summary: In this episode I cover explosive new revelations in the Spygate scandal about the origins of the case. I also address some questions Ben Shapiro has about the case. Finally, I discuss an incident at the White House between the Secret Service and CNN’s Jim Acosta.    News Picks: John Brennan is a liar. He is knee-deep in Spygate.   A fascinating timeline of the use of NSA technology to spy on the Trump team.   Why can’t the FBI get its story straight about how the Trump team investigation began?   More suspicious activity surrounds the case of George Papadopoulos.   Jim Acosta from CNN thinks the rules don’t apply to him at the White House.    Copyright CRTV. All rights reserved. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

get ready to hear the truth about america on a show that's not immune to the facts with your host dan bongino hi welcome to the damn bongino show producer joe how are you today i'm doing pretty good yeah we're just laughing before the show because you know how opera singers and stuff they do those they warm up their voices now of course, I am not an opera singer. You do not want to hear me sing, although I do it on the show sometimes for comic relief. Joe and I were laughing how before the show, we're not really warming up our voices,

but we chit-chat a little bit, and it's the dumbest thing ever. All we do is, just messing around. It works. The outtakes from this show would be absolutely hysterical. Maybe on a holiday once, we'll put outtakes from this show would be absolutely hysterical. Maybe on a holiday once, we'll put like outtakes best though. That would be really funny.

We should like- Yeah, we should. Yeah, I've got quite a few now, so I'll save some more. The sound effects echo on during this show. You have no idea what you're missing. All right. Listen, I got a lot to cover today. So a guy who I respect a lot, and listen, I got an email the other day from a guy.

I love your emails. Send them my way. Emails on the website. I read them. Me and my wife and my daughter actually read them all. So please try not to put any vulgarity in there. But, you know, I respect Ben Shapiro a lot. His show.

Someone said, oh, why do you always kiss his butt? Kiss his butt? Don't kiss anybody's butt. Joe, come on. You've known me a long time. Is that not really my bag of donuts? That's not even... I've never seen or heard anything like that.

I just said to you before the show off the air so it's not an act. Listen, the guy does good work in the conservative arena. I mean, a lot of young kids. He's got the biggest conservative podcast out there. But we don't agree on everything. And apparently we disagree on Spygate. So I'm going to play some cuts from his show and I want to answer his... He has some disagree on Spygate so I'm going to play some cuts from his show and I want to answer his

he has some questions on Spygate and I'm going to answer them we just have a different opinion so I'm going to get to that I also want to try to get to an embarrassing incident at the White House with Jim Acosta from CNN which was horrifying put your White House pass on Acosta everyone else

has to wear it you're not special I know you know what I'm talking about? No, but I can imagine. I can see this looking. I know you know. You're a big, and I'm using the term, big Acosta fan loosely, meaning he really can't stand Acosta. But I'll get to that, too. All right. Today's show brought to you by our buddies at Wax

RX, one of my favorite products given that I had all kinds of problems with my ears from that earpiece in the secret service sticking up my ear forever. You all know how much I love my sponsors, and I do. And that I only work with companies I believe in. If I won't use it, I won't ask you to use it.

That would be entirely hypocritical. I vet my sponsors personally. I only use products that would be valuable to you because I really, I care about my listeners. I'm not going to alienate you over a sponsor. We have people lining up to get on the show. Wax Rx, listen, it's not the sexiest product in the world. Let's be honest. And it's not the easiest one to talk about. But as I've told you, and I just said, I had a lot of problems with this

in the secret service with my ears and you get a lot of earwax buildup. Again, I know this isn't the coolest thing in the world to talk about, but it happens. That's why when they asked me, do you want to take on Wax Rx? I go, heck yeah. I had all kinds of issues with this in the Secret Service. I wore this earpiece all day and had all kinds of ear issues. The story I'm about to tell you illustrates how listeners, how the right product can change their lives and your life too. This is from a listener whose nephew had his life changed by WaxRx. This is a true story. Again, we don't want to make any of this stuff up. The listener says, my nephew Brandon dreamed of becoming an EMT and entered training.

However, he quickly discovered he could not hear through his stethoscope. Without being able to hear the patient's breathing or heartbeats, he simply wasn't going to successfully complete his EMT training. I recommend that he try WaxRx and use it to clean his ears. Amazingly, he removed a large blockage of wax from both sides. Instantly, he could hear everything, including through his stethoscope. Spit it out, Dano. This is a real viewer feedback. With his hearing restored, he finished his training and is now an EMT. We get emails like this all the time about WaxRx, by the way. This is only one because we're crunched for time. Right now, you could try the WaxRx system by typing in gowaxrx.com. That's gowaxrx.com. Gowaxrx.com. Use the offer code Dan at checkout

for free shipping. That's my first name. Don't wait. You have no idea what you might be missing because of inner earwax. Who knows? It might just change your life. Visit gowaxrx.com. Offer code Dan. This is a great product. All right. All right. Let's get right to Ben. Joe, Shapiro has some questions about the case. So let's play Ben Shapiro's questions about Spygate from his show. Again, hat tip, the Daily Wire folks and the Ben Shapiro show. Cut number one, Ben Shapiro. I've always had a few questions about this. Question number one, why exactly wouldn't they release the information if they had it?

Question number two, the only people that they targeted inside the campaign were people who basically have been charged at this point. They never targeted Trump Jr. They never targeted President Trump himself. They never targeted Steve Bannon. They never targeted a bunch of people who are top members of the Trump campaign. It was only Manafort and Gates and Papadopoulos and Carter Page, right? All people with serious, suspicious histories. And then the third question is always the biggest, which is if all this really happened, why doesn't Trump just declassify it? And if the FBI really was going after Trump at the behest of the Obama administration, Trump's the president. He can declassify this stuff at any time.

Okay. Well, Joe, let's answer Ben's questions. And again, I mean, this with all due respect, I'm not trying to be a jerk about it. I can't stand that. This is not a zero. I'm not trying to steal Ben's listeners or anything like that or hijack his show. But Ben has the biggest conservative podcast in the country and talks to a lot of people, and I think it's fair

if he puts the questions out that somebody gets to answer them. Right. So answer to question number one, which Ben just posed. Why won't they release the info? They have. What info are you talking about?

Again, I'm not trying to be a jerk. They have. I mean, did you miss the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence report? Information has been released. Now, I'm going to get to his third question, obviously, in order about declassifying, because I'm not sure if when he says that they not released the info, I don't know what he's talking about specifically. So, I mean, you don't give the case a lot of credence because they didn't release information, but there is information out there.

There's the Grassley letter. There's the report by Devin Nunes. There's the follow-up Grassley letter. I mean, information is everywhere. Now, I'm going to kind of fold this into question three in a minute, but I want to move on. Don't worry. I'm going to get back to that point because it's a big point he made.

But I'm a little confused by his question. I'm not sure if he's asking about declassification or info because the info is already out there. Plus the IG report hasn't even been released yet. We have basically an idea of what's in it. But the IG, they're doing an investigation.

I'm confused about that question. But I will get to what I think he's saying in a second because I want to of what's in it. But the IG, they're doing an investigation. So I'm confused about that question. But I will get to what I think he's saying in a second because I want to get to him in order. His second question is an important one, though. And this is critical. He said, well, if this is such a big deal, basically, the Spygate case, why did they never target Trump or Trump Jr.? Wait, I don't get it. He said they only. So I'm trying to digest

the question. I'm a little confused by where he's going with this, but I'm guessing, and if I'm wrong, if he chooses to correct and be specific on it, he can. But what I don't get is, what are you saying? Like, why they didn't go after Trump himself? In other

words, if they were spying on the campaign... Joe, is this what you got out of that question? If I was spying on Joe Armacost for president, why not go right for Joe, right? Yeah. Why not spy right on Joe Armacost? Why go after the soldiers? Dossier. Yeah, exactly.

I didn't even see you. You beat me to the punch. I'm sorry. Stop beating me. I didn't coordinate with it. No, I'm just messing with you. That was good. That is part of it. That's my third note even. One, that's

not true. They did target Trump Jr. Again, I'm not sure if this is a... if he's not aware of what happened there or what, but they did target Trump Jr. A Russian intelligence connected person, Rinat Akhmedson, aware of what happened there or what but they did target trump jr a russian intelligence uh connected person reenact medicine showed up to trump tower in early june with natalia

veselnitskaya a russian lawyer who was working with the company hired by hillary to gin up fake information or information on the Trump team from the Russians. We already know that. So somebody that Trump Jr. was already targeted. He's already put out these emails. Now, to be clear, and I get it because I'm not going to get hyperbolic or over traumatized the situation. I'm not going to get hyperbolic or over traumatize the situation. We are not exactly sure right now

about how much the Clinton team knew about that meeting. But the fact that people hired by the Clinton team Fusion GPS knew about that meeting is not in dispute. That is evidence. That is evidence.

Is it evidence beyond the reasonable doubt? No, but suggesting that there's no evidence that is evidence is it evidence beyond the reasonable doubt no but suggesting that there's no evidence that the trump trump jr was targeted is just not true the trump jr was targeted the russian lawyer who shows up at trump tower reached out to a friends of trump's to get a meeting at trump Tower with Trump Jr. while she was simultaneously working with a company, Fusion GPS, hired by the Clintons to gin up fake information on Trump. And she shows up with a Russian intelligence officer, a person connected to Russian intelligence, I should say, Renat Akhmedshin. So that's just not true. The Trump Jr. meeting is the entire focus of their case. Look, they colluded. These two Russians showed up at Trump Tower,

allegedly with emails on Hillary. They didn't have emails on Hillary. The whole purpose to the entrapment narrative is that people were thrown consistently at the Trump team in an effort to dirty them up, to create an evidence trail that people were thrown consistently at the Trump team in an effort to dirty them up to create an evidence trail that they were dealing with the Russians. That's not in dispute that that happened. Whether it was an entrapment initiative by Hillary or a renegade operation by the operation hired by Hillary to use later is open for interpretation. But suggesting that there's no evidence they went at trump jr is not it's just not true again i'm not sure what it is if it's an unfamiliarity with the details of the case i'm not

sure but i don't know we're writing a book on it maybe because i'm immersed in this thing every day i heard that and i said wait what all right never targeted trump or trump jr now so that's the trump jr said joe does that make sense yeah that's that's what I, same thing I did, dude. Yeah, I mean, we said, well, they didn't target Trump. They did. That's just not true. Yeah. Now, suggesting that it was unequivocally Hillary that set up the whole thing, you're right, would be a bridge too far right now.

But suggesting that Trump Jr. wasn't targeted by somebody connected to Hillary and the Hillary team is just not true. connected to Hillary and the Hillary team is just not true. They clearly wanted a meeting with Trump Jr. while connected to Russians and simultaneously connected to the operation Hillary had hired. They know this. Look up the link to Ed Baumgartner, another one who was hired by, I mean, this is all in the information that's been released that Christopher Simpson excuse me Glenn Simpson I always get the names backwards Christopher Steele Glenn Simpson the Fusion GPS the guy who runs that operation has already

acknowledged that he hired this Baumgartner to go gin up information on Trump in Russia to provide assistance in that case and was working with the Russian lawyer that showed up to meet Trump Jr. So there is evidence. Is it evidence beyond a reasonable doubt? Granted. But ignoring it as if it doesn't exist is just, that's not right. Now, to get to the second part of that question. Why didn't they target Trump himself?

I don't get this one either. I was a, I don't know, I was a federal agent for 12 years, police officer for three. Granted, as a police officer, I didn't run a lot of CIs. As a federal agent, I ran a whole boatload of them. Confidential informants, that is. This is not how this works. Again, I can't say this enough. I respect the guy's show.

Joe, we've used this content. I'm not trying to kiss anybody's butt. I think he's doing a great thing for the conservative cause. But in this case, I think he's just wrong. That is not how you run a criminal case. If that was the case,

I mean, let me give you an example so this will make more sense. In other words, the question I think he's asking here is why not just run a spy at trump himself if that was the case if this was a spying operation on trump well let me give you a story to make it make sense why not just run a spy at pablo escobar right when escobar was the biggest cocaine trafficker in the world why not joe listen now granted i'm not setting you up and i want your honest response so don't feel like you're on the spot here i'm going to ask you an honest question think this through

on the air you are the audience ombudsman okay i and i'm sure because i want an honest response because i was a federal agent and i may be assuming there's a base of knowledge here that there's not if me and you were working the biggest cocaine trafficker in the world pablo escobar a guy worth a point one point billions upon billions dollars, had a virtual army at his own disposal while he was combating guerrillas in South America himself. He was conducting his own personal war against police departments, guerrillas, everything else. Why would the DEA not just send a spy in say tomorrow to meet with Escobar I don't know seriously okay good fair question maybe Joe let me ask you this then I'm glad you answered that please don't cut any of that out because this is important I won't yeah you think it may be hard

to get a meeting with Pablo Escobar when he was running a multi-billion dollar operation you think someone that sits down with Escobar is probably going to be frisked for a wire? Triple and quadruple check, check for weapons. You think that might be the case? Yeah, I do. Now, I am not comparing Trump to Escobar. Please don't liberals in nutbags. That's not what I'm doing.

I'm using a story here to set up how these investigations work. Because I can see how liberals are. You're laughing. I'm trying to suggest to you that when you run these operations, when you try to take down the kingpin, the reason you hit low level people first is because you try to work up the chain because they're easy to access and they're usually the dumbest people in the chain. If they were smart, they wouldn't take a meeting with your CI and wouldn't have gotten caught.

Okay, gotcha. This is not how either criminal or CI investigations work. Why didn't they hit Trump right away? You think someone who got a sit down with Trump would probably be triple and quadruple vetted first? It would probably be difficult. Your operation would be exposed almost immediately. Of course you're going to work up the chain.

You're going to go to low level people first. Now, Papadopoulos was an easy end. So was Carter Page, who the Russians had already referred to in FBI documents when Carter Page cooperated with the FBI to nail a Russian spy. The Russians in a intercepted call, Joe, had already referred to Carter Page as, quote, an idiot. Yeah. I'm not saying that. That's from the quote. Yep. But Joe, again, let me ask you this.

If you are trying to dupe someone in what you believe to be a criminal or illicit operation into cooperating, do you want the smart guy or do you want the idiot? At first, at the very first, I'd want the idiot. You want the idiot. Yeah. You need the idiot. Because the smart guy, that's not the way this works. You go for the idiot first. That's the way you get into the organization.

And you have the idiot called the mid-level idiot. Then you have the mid-level idiot. You gain his trust. You flip him. And then you have him call the consigliere. And then you flip the Sammy the Bull guy. Yeah, gotcha. Now, even worse, he says, why did they only go after Manafort?

Again, Ben, Manafort was the campaign manager. This wasn't a low-level guy. So when you're trying to flip people, you want to flip the low-level dopes because they're usually gullible. But when you want to spy on people and it doesn't require any art of persuasion, you're just intercepting their emails and they don't know it. Then, of course, you want to go after the big guy. But again, I still don't understand Ben's point because that's what they did. Manafort was the campaign manager. Granted, for a short period of time.

But again, I don't understand what the point here is. Why didn't they go after Trump himself? Because no one was going to get it. You weren't going to get a meeting with Trump wearing a wire. And not to mention, they didn't have anything on Trump. Second, why didn't they target Trump Jr.? They did target Trump Jr. They did.

Who the they is, granted, is up for interpretation, but there's clear evidence that Trump Jr. was the subject of some kind of intelligence operation. Clear as day. The guy who shows up is deeply connected to Russian intelligence. Also, the lawyer that shows up is deeply connected to the company working for Hillary.

This is known. Why didn't they target higher-ups? They did. They didn't target the higher-ups as far as we know yet with spies because they probably would have been a little more savvy to efforts to infiltrate the campaign. So they did target higher-ups like Manafort, but they targeted them with signals intelligence and intelligence gathering operations within the DNC run through Alexandra Chalupa. Again, this is all out there. And finally, if you're going to come at the campaign with spies and informants, why not come at Trump direct?

Again, you're not going to get a meeting with Trump. There was nothing on Trump anyway. You want to work your way in now. You want to work your way into the organization through the low-level idiots first. Now, Joe brought up an interesting point. The dossier, which you were right. That was my other point there. Thank you.

But you beat me to the punch. Joe's correct. The dossier they put together of fake nonsense information on the Trump team. Why not just put a fake dossier together about whatever, about Don Trump Jr.? They put a fake dossier together about Carter Page because they'd already worked with Carter Page, the FBI, in nailing a Russian spy. They already had background on Carter Page and Carter Page had taken a trip to Moscow. He was an easy conduit to put a legal patina on an already illicit spying operation.

They used this information on Carter Page because if they could get a FISA warrant on someone in the campaign, they knew they had to swear this out. By the way, I'm not alleging some, you know, six level conspiracy here. I'm telling you they had already been this out. By the way, I'm not alleging some, you know, sixth-level conspiracy here. I'm telling you they had already been looking into the Trump team. This is, we already know this.

The New York Times themselves have already written stories about informants and government-sponsored informants, spies, whatever you want to call them. I don't care. I'm not playing a euphemism game. Being run at the Trump team before the FBI case opened. We know this. This is a fact. The Carter Page, why target Carter Page? Fair question. Why not FISA Trump himself? Because they weren't going to, there was nothing on Trump. They had at least a little bit of verifiable information on Carter Page. Not information that he was a spy, but it was enough that at least they could go up to court

credibly and swear to it, that he'd been to Moscow, at least, with this. Right. And he'd worked with the FBI before. Right. Now, why go to him? Again, they already knew the guy was probably not slick here.

You know what I'm saying? That they could probably get to him and use him for other things but secondly again if you've been listening to the show uh to the listeners out there you know they have what's called the two hop rule you don't need to target trump to spy on trump guys so again shapiro is asking you know why didn't they just spy on trump direct? Because you don't need to. You can get a warrant on a low-level adult you know is not going to fight back, who you already have experience with, who the Russians have already referred to as an idiot,

which is going to be far easier than walking into court and asking for a FISA warrant on Donald J. Trump. You're not going to get it. No way. So you get it on a low-level guy and you do the two hops. Well, how does the two hops work? When you get a FISA warrant on Carter Page, you also get to spy on one hop, the people he emails. Let's say he emails Corey Lewandowski, who was the campaign manager. I don't know if that happened or it didn't.

I'm just throwing names out there you may be familiar with for the sake of the story. You also get the emails from Corey Lewandowski in a second hop to he emails. You think he may have emailed Trump? Or Trump's right-hand people or people higher up? You think, Joe? You think that's possible? Sure. Of course it's possible.

With the two-hop rule, you don't need to spy on Trump. You're already doing it. Why risk it? Why walk into a FISA court saying,'t need to spy on Trump. You're already doing it. Why risk it? Why walk into a FISA court saying, we want to spy on Donald Trump? Why? You think that's going to, Joe, serious question for you. You think that's going to open some eyes? Wait, what?

Instead, you walk in, you go, hey, I want to spy on Carter Page. You've worked with this guy before. The Russians called him an idiot. He was involved in a Russian spy case, and he traveled to Moscow. And by the way, we have this dossier. May or may not be true, but we're going to swear to it anyway. Yeah. You think that's a lesser chance to take?

Yes, it is. I'm sorry I keep putting you on the spot. I'm not trying to be a jerk. Okay, good. But I'm trying to be fair to Ben. I just don't understand. So again, the second question is the meat of it. You know, why not target Trump directly?

One, because that's not how criminal investigations typically work. But secondly, they don't need to win a FISA case. They don't need to, they have the two hop rule. Okay. His third question. I have some more cuts from his show and I encourage you to check it out. Um,

what is it? I think the title of the show is the saddest news I've ever heard. Uh, saddest story ever told i believe that a story ever told a dailywire.com check it out ben's got a great show again yeah this is not in any way meant to be it may be adversarial we haven't adversarial opinions on this it's not meant to be confrontational at all uh third which is more kind of along the lines of the first and and that's why I skipped over it. Why don't they declassify? If Trump is not guilty, in other words, and he's been spied on, Shapiro's point in the question, you can rewind it if you want to hear it again, was why not just declassify all the information? He is correct. Trump has the authority to declassify everything. I've already addressed this. Again, I don't expect that he's heard this. He's got

enough going on. I don't think he listens to my show, but you do. And so do, you know, millions of other people a month. I've already addressed this. Folks, we have a United States attorney-level prosecutor right now who has grand jury authority in John Huber out there investigating this stuff right now. There are two criminal leaks in question. Criminal.

One in October of 2016 and one in January of 2017. This will make sense in a second. Again, we're asking the question, why doesn't Trump just declassify everything and say, hey, folks, look, here it is, the FBI spy to me. Because, folks, there are criminal investigations going on right now we know this what do you think Huber's what do you think he was appointed for if he's not investigating this Jeff Sessions has already come out publicly and said we know he's there whether there will be prosecutions we don't know but that the fact that Huber is investigating criminal leaks is clear as

day why declassify the information now and contaminate a leak case? Why would you do that? There's already information that's come out indicating extensive corruption within the FBI in this case, based on hiding it from Congress, based on criminal leaks. I use the word corruption intentionally. Now, just to define what we're talking about.

There was a leak in October of 2016. To the New York Times about the existence of the Trump case. Folks, that's a criminal leak. To leak the existence of a counterintelligence investigation to the President of the United States to a reporter using the FISA courts is a potential felony. Now, we know it was also in a felony, the leak to David Ignatius of the Washington Post in January, just a few months later, January of 2017, of the Mike Flynn recorded phone call with Kislyak. Folks, that was, according to the White House's account, an unmasked phone call. That is a criminal felony leak of information to a reporter. I am absolutely sure Huber and Sessions are looking into this for criminal charges.

We already know McCabe's been referred for criminal charges on a leak. So, I get, listen, I get DeSessions, Animus, I'm not getting into that today again. I understand. I'm just telling you, we already have a criminal referral on the number two man in the FBI for a criminal leak. Joe, that's a fact.

That's a fact. Period. Full stop. End of sentence. Whether you agree, oh, nothing's being done on McCabe. He was referred for criminal prosecution on a leak. That's a fact. We also know that there are investigations going on into the October leak of the existence of the, yeah, darn right. The existence of the, Joe's like, I slipped up a little.

No, don't leave. That was great. The October leak of the existence of the Trump case and the January leak of the Flint case. Joe's like, I slipped up a little. No, don't leave. That was great. The October leak of the existence of the Trump case and the January leak of the Flint case. These are criminal leaks. So you're telling me McCabe was referred for criminal prosecution, but those leaks aren't being investigated at all? Huber's just, he was appointed for nothing? That's what he's doing. That's what the DOJ is doing. Could they be doing it better? Could they be doing it faster? Could they be more cooperative with Congress? Yes, you are absolutely right.

But suggesting that Trump should declassify everything when there's ongoing investigations right now into criminal activity within the DOJ and FBI, that's why he's not doing it. It's clear as day. Declassify what? You think they don't know and have information right now about who did this? They knew about McCabe. it's clear as day. They classify what? The whole case? You think they don't know and have information right now about who did this? They knew about McCabe.

Just hang out for a minute. Be patient. All right, I got more from Ben's show. He had some other issues with some other items out there that I want to cover too. All right, today's show also brought to you by buddies at iTarget.

It's the best system out there for increasing your proficiency with a firearm. Listen, if you're going to own a firearm, you better be skilled with it. God forbid that you're involved in a self-defense scenario. This is a great system for anyone from a first-time firearm owner. Say you just bought, you have no idea how to use it. This is a great way to learn. Police officers, military, hunters, self-defense advocates, Second Amendment supporters, you're going to own a firearm and you're involved in a self-defense

scenario. You have to be able to use it proficiently. Now, one of the ways in the Secret Service we used to do this when I was there is we would practice dry firing. Now, dry firing, you have to be very careful. You cannot make a mistake on this. You safely unload that weapon. You lock that slide to the rear. You look. You look again. You look three times. You cannot make a mistake on this. You safely unload that weapon. You lock that slide to the rear. You look. You look again. You look three times. You look away. You use that pinky finger to finger probe that chamber. Make sure it is absolutely empty. Revolver, same thing. Pop open that slide. Look away. Look away. Look back again. Look a third time. Make sure. Cannot have an AD, an accidental discharge. There is no room for error. We always obey the laser rule

as well. No matter how convinced you are that that firearm is empty, no matter how convinced, always treat it like it's loaded. Always. Especially when you're pointing that barrel somewhere. God forbid you make a mistake. But the iTarget system allow you to dry fire, which is when you pull the trigger on a safely unloaded weapon. It allows you to practice your trigger control, your sight alignment, your grip, and your basic firearm mechanics, which is important. Now, the iTarget system will send you a laser round, which you drop into the firearm you have now. No manipulations necessary whatsoever. And when you dry fire the weapon on that laser round, it will emit a laser onto a target,

and you can finally see your groupings. See, the problem with dry firing is on a safely unloaded weapon, when you pull the trigger, you have no idea where the round goes. How do you know? You have no idea. Now you have this target and the laser round you'll put in the firearm

will emit a laser. You can see exactly what your groupings would have looked like. And what you're going to see is Monday, yeah, maybe they're a little basketball-like, maybe grapefruit-like by Wednesday. By Friday, you'll be a little basketball-like. Maybe grapefruit-like by Wednesday. By Friday, you'll be shooting golf ball-like groups. You'll be shooting the wings off a firefly.

That's how good this system is. You won't be able to put it down. The reviews are staggeringly good. The website, itargetpro.com. That's the letter, itargetpro.com. Itargetpro.com. Promo code DAN for a nice 10 off remember competitive shooters drive fire 10 times more than they live fire at the actual range there's a reason give this a shot

my father loves it my co-author's husband won't put it down she's mad at me he's taken away from our book denise's husband put it down put it down the target system, I target pro.com promo code, Dan. Okay. Let's get to cut to Shapiro show where he addresses some other issues that we'd like to answer some of his questions. And so play cut to part of the reason that I don't buy this story is because the president tweets things that are sometimes just not true. So here's the thing that he tweeted that was just not true today. He said the corrupt mainstream media is working overtime, not to mention the infiltration of people, spies into my campaign. Surveillance much? Okay, that's somewhat fair. Here's the part that's not fair. Not that it matters, but I never fired James Comey because of Russia. The corrupt

mainstream media loves to keep pushing that narrative, but they know it is not true. He literally went on Lester Holt's show on national television on NBC and said he fired James Comey because of Russia. Um, no, he didn't. Folks, I'm again, I can't say this enough and it pains me sometimes I have to do this stuff. That is not what Trump said. Even worse, that is literally not what he said. Now, Ben said, well, he literally went on Lester Holt's show on NBC and said that he fired James Comey because of Russia. Folks, that's not even figuratively what he said. No less literal.

That's just not true. Now, I have the quote right here. I'm going'm gonna read it this is not manipulated in any way all right here is what trump said about firing of jim comey in his interview at lester holt on russia and i quote but regardless of recommendations i was going to fire comey knowing there was no good time to do it and in fact when i decided to just do it i said to myself you know this russia thing with trump and russia is a made-up story it's an excuse by the democrats for having lost an election that they should have won folks he did i don't understand i'm really confused on this one it's clear in his answer, he mentions firing him. He doesn't say at any point,

Joe, you heard what I just said, right? Did he at any point in there say he fired him because of Russia? No. And I'm not dancing. I'm not dancing on this. Listen, paint me for whatever you want. We have been more than fair to the Trump team on this show. I don't need, if you're a regular listener, our bona fides are clear.

If you're not, I can't convince you. Go back and listen to the library. There are some substantive disagreements with the Trump team we've had on tariffs and other things. And we have been more than fair, by the way, at the expense of our own show and thousands of emails. So I'm not going to be labeled on some box like, oh, look, there's just a Trumpkin or whatever. No. But I am interested in the facts. He did not say that. He said he fired Comey knowing there was no good time to do it. And he said when he decided to do it, he said, you know, this thing with Russia is a made-up story.

He didn't say he fired him because of Russia. He didn't say that. Matter of fact, he goes on to clarify it even further. But in the interest of time, I'm not going to get into it. Now, was it poorly worded? Maybe. Could you suggest maybe he should have handled it a little more delicately, knowing that was going to be a counter charge?

Probably. But saying he literally said that when he didn't even figuratively say that is just not correct. It's not. I'm sorry. That's just wrong. He did not say that is just not correct it's not i'm sorry that's just wrong he did not say that he said when he fired him that russia was a made-up story that the democrats used as an excuse he didn't say he fired him because of it no

i again i i don't i he didn't literally say that it just speaks for itself i don't know how else to handle that that's that's the actual quote how you choose to interpret that but you know if you go and interpret that and by the way joe fair enough you want to interpret that as saying he fired him because of russia okay but just say that that's your interpretation because that's not what he said and it is definitely not literally what he said. Right. Matter of fact, literally, he never said that. Right. Literally, literally. And literally is literally the most overused word in the English language. Literally.

Literally. That's up there with the dicks comment. Sometimes you just drop a bomb there, brother. And again, I like Ben. I love his show show he's doing us a good service out there but that is not correct i'm sorry and no amount of saying he literally said it is going to make what he said appear that's not what he said i just read you the quote now you have it we're gonna do i to do? I don't know. What are you going to do? No idea. You're on fire today, aren't you? Okay.

Ben, show number three again, Hat Tip Daily Wire. Check out his show. What's it called again, Joe? The Saddest Story Ever Told? The Saddest Story Ever Told. Yeah, Daily Wire. I encourage you to listen to it, please.

You're not going to, you know, this is not a zero-sum game. I'm not envious of anyone else's success. I think he's doing a great job. Okay. This one I find very strange. This is Ben on Trey Gowdy. This one, yeah, even Joe was a little like, wait, what?

All right, play the cut and we'll address it afterwards. What he says here is two things. One of them is that the FBI was not investigating Donald Trump. And the other is that the FBI was not investigating the Trump campaign. Now, there's a case to be made. Andrew McCarthy makes it today that the Trump campaign was basically under investigation. I don't agree with Andrew McCarthy's case. I tend to agree with Trey Gowdy.

But what's happened because Trey Gowdy said something you are not allowed to say now, which is that President Trump is overblowing this case. A lot of folks have been all over Trey Gowdy. Sean Hannity, for example, attacked Trey Gowdy on Fox News and suggested that Trey Gowdy had now been co-opted for some reason. There's the suggestion being made that Trey Gowdy has been co-opted by the deep state

or that Trey Gowdy is now running interference for Democrats and for the FBI. Again, Trey Gowdy, I believe, he might be wrong, but to question his motivations here, I think is really beyond the pale. Again, when the evidence shows that the FBI was directed by President Obama or even hinted at by President Obama to target the Trump campaign, not just people within the Trump campaign, the Trump campaign itself. When we understand why Trump hasn't declassified the material, when we understand why the FBI didn't release the material, then I'm happy to go with the Spygate stuff. Until then, I'm going to have to withhold judgment just as a lawyer.

I'm going to have to withhold judgment. And I don't know what's wrong with that. I think withholding judgment might be the best thing you can do when the evidence is not yet out. Okay, I agree, Ben. The problem is evidence is out. Again, I'm confused here. Let's address the two assertions using his words, not mine. He is disputing Andy McCarthy and pretty much most of the people

read in on this case, the assertion that the FBI was investigating the Trump team. He starts out by saying listen, people are challenging Trey Gowdy now, just to be clear, let me back up a bit Gowdy Gowdy destroyed his credibility

he said things that are factually incorrect which I'm going to prove in a second here Gowdy appeared on credibility. I'm sorry, he said things that are factually incorrect, which I'm going to prove in a second here. Gowdy appeared on Martha McCallum's show. We addressed this last week. He appeared, I'm not sure if it was Wednesday or Thursday, we addressed it on, I think, Thursdays and Friday shows. And Gowdy said something on Martha McCallum's show that was ridiculous.

He said, and he was emphatic about it, that, listen, I've seen the evidence and this was not about Donald Trump. Meaning the FBI investigation. Shapiro says, well, Gowdy said that and basically Andy McCarthy makes the case otherwise. But I tend to side with Gowdy. And then he cites evidence. Well, again, the evidence, I know, is not, I don't get it. The evidence is not on your side.

Here is the evidence Andy McCarthy presents, hat tip, Andy McCarthy, National Review. The evidence is the director of the FBI's own words. Let me read them. So just to be clear, Ben's defending Gowdy. Gowdy's saying Trump was not, Trump was not the subject of the investigation. No, Gowdy said he's worried. He said it has nothing to do with Trump. And Ben is defending that. I'm sorry, he's wrong. Here are Jim Comey's own words. Quote, Jim Comey, March 2017. I have been authorized by the DOJ to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.

And that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia's efforts. Oh, man. This is... Oh, man. What? Joe, we're having a one-way camera. I can see Joee but joe can

but joe from you can you could probably read my mind right now oh yeah i'm confused you're polite yeah you're i'm trying to be because i'm genuinely confused here when the evidence says other what do you mean you have the jim comey's own words he said that they were investigating the trump campaign and the Russian intersection with Russian campaign efforts to over to overturn the election results he said that I just read you his testimony Gowdy is not right he is wrong and then I get I already can already see the comeback well Gowdy's seen the information. No, he hasn't seen the information. Read Molly Hemingway's piece. They did not see the information at DOJ. Matter of fact, Gowdy proves himself wrong. Gowdy has already been complaining about not seeing the information. It had nothing to do with the Trump team. One, he didn't see the information on that meeting that he came out of and made those comments.

And secondly, the FBI director himself said the Trump team was under investigation. March 20th, 2017. It's not a case of Andy McCarthy versus Ben. It's a case of what actually happened and what didn't. They've already acknowledged this. Yeah. So I'm sorry. Point one is entirely inaccurate.

Why side with, there's no sides here. There's what happened and what didn't. The truth doesn't have a side. There is no side. And, and I'm sorry, but it's doing everybody a big disservice by continuing to say things that are factually not true they were investigating the trump team it's on the record all right the second point he makes and i have a quote here from when the evidence shows that the FBI was directed by Obama or any caveats by saying or even hinted at by Obama.

Then we'll talk about the spy gate stuff. All right. Again, evidence. The evidence does say that. gosh, you're free to interpret the evidence however you want, but insisting there's no evidence that the Obama White House directed this investigation is, again, it is not true. I'm sorry. I am genuinely sorry we have to do this. But it is not true. And saying it doesn't make it true.

Let me read to you a quote from John Solomon's piece on Friday. By the way, the McCarthy piece, a markets watch piece from this guy, Jeff Carlson, who's been doing knock-em-out-of-the-park work on this. And this John Solomon piece I'm about to address will all be in the show notes. I say it all the time, but it's because I do a lot of work on this. They are critical reads for today. Please go to Bongino.com. Subscribe to my email list. I will send you these articles.

Please, please read them. I'm not making any of this up, folks. I'm not trying to start a Republican on Republican violence thing. He's an important voice and will remain so, and I highly recommend his show. But this is wrong. The facts are not concerned about what they don't have a side now so assertion one again was that we're not investigating trump by gowdy that's factually not correct okay

the second point when the evidence even hints at the fact that obama was directing the fbi okay let me read you a piece from a quote from John Solomon's piece Friday, which is amazing about the White House's involvement in this case. Quote, John Solomon. They talking about the investigators in this case, investigating the Trump team voiced alarm, Joe, when an FBI colleague named Liz suggested that the Obama White House was about to hijack the investigation. You think Solomon's making this up? John Solomon, a more than credible reporter at the Hill, not known as some partisan hack. Now, it goes on, by the way.

So, suggested the Obama White House was about to, quote, hijack the investigation. It says, this is Peter Stroh, the lead counterintelligence investigator on the case into the Trump team. He says, well, best we could have expected. Stroke texted Page after an August 5th, 2016 meeting. Other than Liz, quote, the White House is running this. Lisa Page then texted to assure a sure stroke of a paper trail showing the FBI in charge. We got emails that say otherwise. Now, next day, this is additionally from Johns Holmes piece. They went into further detail about their White House concerns.

So maybe not the best national security president, but a genuinely good and decent human being, page texted Stroke, referencing President Obama. Stroke replied, yeah, I like him, just not a fan of the weakness globally, was thinking about what the administration would be willing to do re-Russia. There's also another Stroke text page, which we covered weeks ago, where they texted each other saying POTUS, President of the United States, wants to know everything. Guys, okay, fair enough criticism that that, again, is not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. I get it.

But is it not fair to evaluate that at a minimum as evidence that the White House was involved? You're looking at text messages from the lead counterintelligence investigator in the case, the number two guy in the division under Bill Priestap, who's texting his love interest, also in the FBI, about how the White House was about to hijack the investigation and also text her later on, POTUS wants to know everything. That's a hint. How is that not a hint? Is it not fair to suggest that maybe the lead investigator in the case

knows more than we did? Why would he text that? If you can explain to give me a any viable reason any practicable reason why they would text each other that if it was untrue not knowing at the time that their texts were going to be subpoenaed and taken why would they text the POTUS Obama basically wants to everything, and then text the White House trying to hijack the investigation if there's no evidence at all that, quote, the FBI was directed by Obama? I don't understand. I'm genuinely confused here.

It just doesn't make sense to say that there's no evidence of even a hint. I'm sorry. It doesn't. Just acknowledge that there's no evidence of even a hint. I'm sorry. It doesn't. Just acknowledge that there is smoke. Is there fire yet? We'll find out. Notice, Joe, I have not said on my show at any point there's conclusive proof Obama himself directed the whole thing. There's a whole lot of evidence. It's not like we're treating Obama unfairly here.

We're waiting for the IG report to come out. But to insist there's no evidence at all that the Obama White House was directing this thing is just not true. It's just absolutely categorically false. I'm sorry, but it is. Okay. All right. I got a couple more things on this. A couple more sound bites.

Joe pulled some good ones. Today's show also brought to you by my buddies at Brick House Nutrition. I had a great weekend. Thanks to these guys. I double and triple loaded up on Field of Greens, my new favorite supplement out there. We all know. You just Google it. Fruits and vegetables.

Are they healthy? You'll get a million articles out there about the benefits of fruits and vegetables in your lives. The micronutrients, all the good stuff in there and fruits and vegetables. You look at people who eat fruits and vegetables, their cognitive levels, their health, their fitness, everything about fruits and vegetables, those chemicals and blueberries that color them,

all that wonderful stuff in there, God's gift to us, fruits and vegetables. Well, a lot of us don't have a lot of time. It's tough to prepare. I mean, who has time to prepare three, four salads a day, eat your blueberries, your raspberries? Not me. Brickhouse. I know you don't, especially with his busy schedule. Feel the Greens from Brickhouse Nutrition solves all your problems. It is real food.

This is not some crap extract. It's not some garbage stuff. This is real, wholesome, high quality fruits and vegetables. They grind up, they take out the water, and you get multiple servings of fruits and vegetables you'd never have the time to eat on your own. You get them all in a powder. You throw a couple scoops in, whatever you want. OJ, orange juice, cranberry juice. I put it in V8. I put it in green

tea for my super healthy drink. Super duper healthy drink. Reminds me of that Deadpool line. I haven't seen that yet, by the way, the second one. Let's farm, super duper healthy drink. Reminds me of that Deadpool line. I haven't seen that yet, by the way, the second one. Let's farm a super duper deep. It's a super duper healthy drink. Throw a couple scoops of Field of Greens in there. This stuff will change your life. I love it. Change mine. I can't go without. By the way, Miles, I know you listen to these air checks. Please send me some more. I give it to my kids, my wife, everybody. It is awesome.

some more. I give it to my kids, my wife, everybody. It is awesome. Field of Greens, go check it out. BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan. BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan. Go pick up Field of Greens today. You will not regret it. The stuff is awesome. Love it. Field of Greens at BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan. Okay. Let's go quickly to another piece of sound. So we got a lot of sound today, but it's important. This is Congressman Ron DeSantis. Again, another member of Congress who I'm sure has seen information. Some of us haven't because there's this thing out there with Gowdy, as I said before, Oh, Gowdy, we should defend them because he may have seen information. We haven't. Well, other people have seen the information too and strongly dispute gowdy's interpretation of it now here's congressman ron desantis and his take on what happened speaking to judge janine right sure yes judge janine a hat tip judge janine show on fox news 9 p.m saturday

play that cut we now know judge when downer reported that to u.s authorities he didn't even mention emails it was supposedly oh the emails got hacked, he heard about emails. There was never a discussion about emails. So the start of this is as thin as you can possibly be. And I would also say there was more information or evidence that would require you to surveil Hillary's campaign than Trump's campaign. Which was a criminal investigation. I mean, look at the national security implications with the emails.

Look at the Clinton Foundation. Look at the fact that they were paying a foreign national, Christopher Steele, to collect dirt on candidate Donald Trump, and yet they never took any aggressive actions vis-a-vis Hillary. It's a big double standard. Bingo, Ron DeSantis, running for governor in Florida. Great guy.

I really, really appreciate what Ron's doing for the conservative cause. He brings up two points here. Again, I'll address the first one on Gowdy quickly. Well, he doesn't mention Gowdy specifically. Gowdy's point first was that they were not investigating Trump. Nonsense.

I already quoted Jim Comey. That's just factually, Gowdy's telling you something not true. Secondly, Gowdy had said that the FBI was handling things the way the Americans would want them to handle. In other words, they were handling it by the book. Nonsense! DeSantis brings up a great point.

We've been told through numerous leaks, Joe, through the DOJ and elsewhere, that the FBI started the case because an Australian diplomat named Alexander Downer, a name you've heard a million times on the show, heard from George Papadopoulos, a low-level Trump guy, in a meeting in London that they had emails on Hillary. And the FBI, they have emails on Hillary with the Russians? Oh my gosh, does this George Papadopoulos know that? Are they spying? Are they working with

the Russians? We've been told that story from day one. Actually, day two, because the story's changed a million times. Carter Page was the initial story. He kicked it off with his trip to Moscow. The second story was Papadopoulos met with Downer. Oh, now we find out, according to DeSantis and other reports breaking today, I have another article on this in the show notes today,

that that's not the case, Joe. That Downer's story has completely fallen apart. So the original story is Downer heard from a Trump guy, Papadopoulos, that the Russians had emails. Oh my gosh. The FBI had to do the right thing.

The Russians stole emails and Trump knew about it. And then Downer Joe passed it to the Australian ambassador of the US, a guy named Joe Hockey. Now we find out that both forks to that story are bold malarkey.

Downer never mentioned emails. Ever. Because Papadopoulos never said emails to him. The term emails never came up. So now Downer's backing backing away so wait i thought this was about russians hacking emails and sharing with the trump team now we find out the fbi story about how it started oh they mentioned emails the trump team people oh the guy their whole their whole case for it alexander downer is now retracting that story and saying no no he didn't

say emails joe he said information or the information what the hell does that mean the russians had information like what from the new york post what are you talking you started a spying operation against the trump team because a guy said they had information on hillary and we're all supposed to sit back and believe this this was their story jo Joe. Yeah. Yeah. Then he says, oh, and I passed it on to this guy, the Australian ambassador to the U.S., Hockey. Hockey's saying, no, he didn't. And the Australian government's going, he didn't pass it to me. So now your story about emails isn't true, and how you passed it there isn't true either. Now, I'm running out of time, so Joe found found a gem hat tip Joe Armacost from no real hat tip

I mean that but a real hat tip to Maria Bartiromo who again is just crushing it on Fox another sensational soundbite from Devin Nunes explaining how significant untruthful prong number two is

if Downer's story about how he got the information to the United States through the Australian ambassador to the U.S. isn't true, then how did the information get to the United States? Play Devin Nunes. There's new information actually this week that the media is ignoring. So the New York Times has reported in the past that the Australian ambassador, Australian high commissioner is the one that brought this to the attention of the United States government. Now, typically that would have gone through FBI channels. It would have went through the embassy in London and would have came across officially across the pond officially. That's what we, and it didn't. And that's what we would like to have seen.

Now, this week, we now know that Mr. Downer, the former Australian ambassador, high commissioner in London, said that he had given it to the information to the Australian ambassador in the U.S. Well, now we know that that's not true. So, Mr. Downer now has claimed that in an Australian newspaper, but we now know from sources that have now spoke to different media outlets, the Australians are denying that that's how this happened. That the Australian ambassador in the United States had nothing to do with this. Joe, great poll, by the way, this morning. Thank you. Joe sends me cuts.

I was like, I sent him back. This is awesome. Because I already had the DeSantis one. I missed that somehow. It's been a crazy weekend. We'll leave that for another time. Maybe I'll describe to you what happened later. But now, not only is the story about the Trump team

having access to some Russian emails completely false, the story about how the false, the story about the false story, how the false story is false false. The story about how the false, the story about the false story, how the false story, is false too. It's false, false, it's triple, quadruple false.

It almost may be true. It's like bell bottoms are so out, they come in again. The false story is so false, it may inadvertently be a 360 degree shift and be true. That's how false it is. The fake story about the emails,

George Papadopoulos and Dave emails, false. The fake story made it through Australian official channels, false too. Now, we know that it's all false. The whole thing is crap. And we're supposed to take Gowdy

at his word now that this is all legit, Joe. Devin Nunes, who has this same information, has just said something. You think he's lying? You think, no, it really was done right. Nunes is just embarrassing himself. Are you crazy? Folks, the critical point here.

There is an official channel to send intelligence from our intelligence partners to the United States. Please, please, please, I've said this multiple times, understand why I keep addressing this. Unlike some of these other folks in the sphere, I have been in the intelligence sharing space for 12 years. Not a producer, but a voluminous consumer. When you're doing a secret Service op in a foreign country and trying to make sure the president and his family doesn't get killed, you are partnering with a lot of folks. Okay?

Yeah. Kabish? Hey. I'm quite familiar with the development of sources and official channels and how it's vetted. You're not going to pass us information about a group trying to kill or attack the president. That's false. We might want to know that. I'm intimately familiar with how this

actually works in foreign countries on the ground. There are official channels for a reason. We don't pass information to political and diplomatic channels that isn't vetted because you don't want to start a world war based on garbage information from people with no experience in the intelligent space. My gosh. Unless you want fake information not to be vetted. Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding. Then you pass it through political channels where they'll say, this is negative information on Trump.

Yeah, but it's fake. Don't worry. We got this. Wink, nod. Do you understand why what Nunes said there is so important? They had an official channel. Yeah.

They said that's how they passed it. They lied. That's not how they passed it. Wait till find out by the way wink and a nod what the channel was oh boy this is gonna get good they intentionally passed it through alternative channels knowing the information was going to be not vetted, was going to be used raw because it was BS. That's why. All right. One quick last story.

So read this at the show notes. This is just, this really pisses me off. Listen, I worked at the White House for a long time, right? I'm not name dropping or anything. Who cares? I don't care. You don't care. Whatever.

But it's important to this story. Five years I spent there. When you go in the White House, go in whatever gate you go in, Baker 4 or whatever, you have a White House pass. You have to show that White House pass. That's how it works. Everybody. Everybody. I don't remember showing up one day in the White House without my White House

pass. Ever. I had my White House pass taken from me when I left the Secret Service detail. Matter of fact, I remember taking a Secret Service let's say friend of mine. He was an agent, Joe. I'm not going to say who. Just say friend.

To a South Grounds event once. He didn't have a White House pass. Even with his Secret Service credentials was stopped. For a South Grounds event, open to the public. Because he wasn't on the list. This was for a... This wasn't even going in the White House. He was an agent. He got stopped.

I remember it like it was yesterday. My wife was there. Jim Acosta from CNN, big celebrity in his own mind, walks into the White House and doesn't have his White House pass on, so he gets stopped by a Secret Service Uniformed Division officer who, by the way, hat tip,

I know who you are. Good job. She stops him and she's like, hey, where's your pass? And look, and he goes into full diva mode. Oh, what do you mean? Five years I've been coming in here. No one's asked me. No one's asked you for a pass in five years?

Really? Just put the pass on, Jim, alright? If it's good enough for the Secret Service and the people busting their butts to keep you guys, and you, by the way, too, safe in the White House, you can put your pass on without the little fake act. Read the piece up in the hill. You can see the video

too. It's embarrassing. I don't want to be dramatic. He doesn't have, you know, someone putting a piece. He had a meeting. He didn't have a meltdown. I don't want to be dramatic. He doesn't have, you know, someone putting a piece. He had a meet and have a meltdown. I don't want to be ridiculous. Be fair to Jim. You know, it wasn't. I wouldn't have a meltdown. But it was still an inappropriate. Just put your Yeah, I know. I almost slipped. Just put your pass on, dude.

Put your pass on. And a UD guy stopped me once for a pee. Put your pass on. Accidentally slipped into my pocket while I had it on a belt thing. Put your pass on. Accidentally slipped into my pocket while I had it on a belt thing. Put your pass on. What's wrong with you, man? I'm serious. You owe that

woman an apology. Next time, just put your pass on and keep walking. It ain't about you, brother. I'm sorry. And I tell you, I've been honest. I knew Jim Acosta. I met him once in a green room in CNA. He was nice to me. I didn't have any issues. I don't like the way he's handled President Trump, but I'm fair. It wasn't a meltdown.

It's not some career-ending incident, but put your darn pass on. Stopping the lady. Lady's doing her job. She's making, what, one-tenth of what you're making. Just put the pass around your neck and keep walking. Need to hear your comments. Now, apparently he's all upset about the person who videoed it.

Too bad. Read the report. I mean, read the report and watch the video. It's pretty interesting. All right, folks, thanks again for tuning in. And again, I know there's a lot of fans of Ben's show. It's not meant in any way to be confrontational, but there are different opinions out there and I'm going to make sure the truth gets out there. And it was an important show we did today. But go check his show out to daily wire, uh, Ben Shapiro show. It's a pretty good show.

I think you'll like it. And, thanks for everything folks. I mean, we had our best month ever. Um, it means a lot. I said,

it was weird. That just hit me out of nowhere. I get all emotional, but, uh, we, uh, blew it up last month.

Big time. We have, uh, entered the stratosphere of podcasting exclusively. Thanks to you. And, we'll never forget that you have given Joe and I a joy and success. We I'll be honest with you,

even in our most what Joe, our most optimistic, we never thought we would be where we are now, but thank you. It means the world to us. So we appreciate it. Thanks a lot. Thank you.

We'll see you all tomorrow. You just heard the Dan Bongino show. Get more of Dan online. Anytime at conservative review.com. You can also get 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.