The Dan Bongino Show - Ep. 788 All Roads Lead to Hillary Clinton
Episode Date: August 20, 2018Summary: In this episode I address the growing problem of internet censorship and how to fight back. I also discuss the suspicious message Bob Mueller appears to be covering up. Finally, I address the... disgraceful behavior of former CIA Director John Brennan. News Picks: All roads in the Spygate scandal lead to Hillary Clinton. This piece sums up the connections.  Jeff Carlson’s piece asks why Bob Mueller’s team is ignoring these critical messages?  Chuck Ross’s latest piece addresses the latest news regarding Stefan Halper, a CIA asset involved in the Spygate scandal.  If George Papadopoulos is a central player in the Spygate scandal, then why doesn’t the Mueller team say so? Byron York asks this question in this piece.  Daniel Greenfield covers the growing internet censorship crisis.  Is the Left outsourcing its never-ending war on free speech?  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 oh boy what a busy news weekend here we go welcome to the dan bongino show producer
joe how are you today dan here we go again here we go yes there's a lot to talk about today so
let me not waste any time today's show brought to you by our buddies at WaxRx.
You all know how much I love my sponsors.
And I only work with companies I believe in and have a product or service that is of value to you.
Because I use these products myself.
WaxRx is not the sexiest product to talk about.
But as I've told you, I had some problems with the Air Max buildup when I was in the Secret Service.
Jamming that thing in your ear all the time was a pain in the butt. This is a customer review I saw from them I wanted to share with you
as it shows what the product can do to help everyday people and how it can help you avoid
the expensive trip to doctors to clean out your ears. I used to have to go to the doctor twice a
year to get rid of my stubborn, hardened ear wax with my rising cost of health care and thus double deductible i'd have spent 60 per visit
120 per year to treat my ears now i can do it myself with wax rx and a significant savings
that also doesn't require me to miss a half a day of work thanks wax rx right now you could try the
wax rx system by typing in go wax rx.com thatwaxrx.com. Use offer code Dan at checkout for free shipping.
Don't wait. You have no idea what you might be missing because of inner earwax. Who knows? It
might just change your life. This is a great product. My wife and I use it. Gowaxrx.com.
Offer code Dan. I can finally hear Joe like I need to. All right.
So, yeah, we need that.
We're trading places.
We need that one.
Listen, where do I start?
Where do I start?
First, confirming what I told you last week about John Brennan and the security clearances issue.
John Brennan, former hack CIA director, political animal who probably no human being alive has more
liability on the destruction of the credibility of our intelligence community than John Brennan.
This guy is a disaster. People are now turning on him. Even Jim Clapper's turning on him a bit.
Clapper, who is no saint himself, the former director of national intelligence under Obama,
has come out and basically said, listen, Brennan's rhetoric isn't really helping here. Clapper, who is no saint himself, the former director of national intelligence under Obama,
has come out and basically said, listen, Brennan's rhetoric isn't really helping here. But last week, Joe, I went into the business of security clearances, the business of it.
Right.
Why the swamp is losing their mind.
Let me pull you up here.
I'm going to see you on video.
There he is.
There's Big Joe.
I lost you for a second.
Let me pull you up here.
I'm going to see you on video.
There he is.
There's Big Joe.
I lost you for a second.
Why these business of security clearances was incentivizing swamp rats all over to come out and write op-eds.
Oh, you can't pull John Brennan's security clearance.
No, President Trump can and did.
Yes.
Nice move.
Long overdue.
Well, proving my point, Joe, let me read to you a little quote from Johnny B b johnny boom bots this week what did i tell you last week joe i said a security clearance is worth money yeah narrow
ducats chits whatever with a c whatever you want to call them we used to call them overseas every
foreign currency with the secret service we called scoots because sometimes you'd forget what country you were in
and what the name of the currency was.
You go, I got some scoots.
Scoots.
It's all about the scoots.
The scoots.
I told you.
So he confirms it this week.
Let me read to you an appearance from Meet the Press,
a quote from John Brennan to Chuck Todd,
talking about a security clearance.
He says, this is Brennan to Chuck Todd talking about a security clearance. He says, this is Brennan, but for others,
former officials who are on that list,
he's talking about the list of people who may have their clearances pulled.
Some of them serve on boards of directors that require security clearances.
Oh, really?
Because the companies involved deal with classified information wait it gets better
and this can have a very punitive very financial hit against them oh it does
so we're all supposed to shed a tear because corporate boards and their financial interests
aren't being protected by former government swamp rats having clearances oh oh cry me a river and so now this is him he goes on and so now if i
was asked to be on on a board that requires a security clearance i couldn't oh johnny b oh man
do we feel awful joe do you feel awful i feel awful i don't know about you i feel terrible
you know what let's reinstate that security clearance. So Johnny Boombas, Mr. Communist anti-capitalist, right? John Brennan voted for a communist for president. So Mr. Anti-Capitalist communist can go serve on a capitalist corporate board to make money and protect my audience. I will never, ever waste your time.
I told you last week that this was what was really going on with the security clearances.
There are a bunch of swamp rats who Donald Trump gives exactly zero about.
He doesn't care.
He doesn't want their money.
He doesn't want their pats on the back.
He doesn't need them putting a shine on his shoes.
He doesn't care. You mess with the process. He doesn't need them putting a shine on his shoes. He doesn't care.
You mess with the process.
He is going to enforce it.
And that's exactly what Trump did.
Brennan went out there insinuating somehow that his security clearance gave him privy information.
Vladimir Putin may have something on Trump.
No, he doesn't, you idiot.
And everybody knows that.
You just keep saying that to keep yourself in the media cycle.
Right. So Trump, understandably so, should have pulled his clearance sooner. And everybody knows that. You just keep saying that to keep yourself in the media cycle.
So Trump, understandably so, should have pulled his clearance sooner.
And what did I tell you last week?
I said this is about the dough.
The dinero, the scoots. These people leave government, the benighted class.
They take the security clearance with them.
They go over to these private boards and these private companies,
and they make a fortune off it with access to information that is supposed to be in the purview and lockbox of the American people.
Now you have it from Brennan himself.
We're supposed to feel bad for the communist Brennan because he can't sit on a corporate board and his buddies and can't have their financial interests protected?
Are you kidding me?
Is this a joke?
Are you serious?
I got a lot to get to on the Jeff Carlson over at the,
he wrote a piece at the Epic Times that's just incredible
in the show notes today that I'm going to get into in a minute too.
This is just, he uncovered an angle you and i talked about a long time ago about georgie papadizzo that i want
to get to before i get to that i want to get to this internet censorship thing because this are
this is just uh yeah this is blowing my mind what's going on here folks i have two great pieces
in the show new show notes today one by daniel greenfield the front page mag and one at powerline
by a blog by john
hindraker i think that's how you say his name now i disagree with the conclusions of hindraker he
kind of suggests at the end a bit of government involvement in this which i think you know i
disagree with i don't think i think the left is setting us up with this censorship thing
they're poking us and when i say the left i mean twitter youtube facebook and all these other left
leaning outlets too they're poking us to get the government somehow involved in this regulatory front on a hate speech thing.
So Twitter and them, when they ban you from the platform, they can hide behind, well, it was hate speech.
The government says we got to get rid of hate speech.
I think this is a Trojan horse, and I'm asking you not to fall prey to this.
you not to fall prey to this. The fact that Mark Warner, a Democrat senator, recently put out a letter incentivizing people to sign on board with him on this government control and regulation of
the internet thing and social media should tell you that the left is baiting us. But I understand
all the arguments. And now I'm going to give you an alternate perspective. Show me what you got.
I should because I don't want to come out there and I don't want to tell you, hey, listen,
fight against government involvement here, but I don't have a solution myself.
I do.
And I've brought this up before and some of you may have forgot it.
So I'm going to talk about it again.
The Greenfield piece is an important one because he talks about the genesis of this and how
big tech companies right now,
I hate that term big,
but that's what people are calling them.
That's usually big oil.
It's usually a leftist thing to get you to hate capitalism.
But in this case, we'll roll.
Left wants to play with the lingo,
then we'll play with it too.
So these big tech companies, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter,
we're now seeing Patreon getting rid of voices they don't like,
which Patreon is one of these crowdfunding sites where you can support people, Jordan Peterson and
others. They're starting to kick conservatives off as well. Greenfield lays this out, and it's
a really great piece, how Silicon Valley has been outsourced into the free speech fight.
Folks, let's be clear on what's going on here.
The left cannot win.
They lost 9-0 in the Supreme Court on the last, quote, hate speech fight.
In other words, their hate speech approach to getting rid of conservatives through legal methods.
In other words, forcing and passing hate speech laws.
Right, right.
Has been a complete loser.
So the far left, not all Democrats, but the far left are totalitarians. They're tyrants. That's
the very essence of their ideology. Their ideology is government control, planning,
socialism. And I don't mean planning like building up plans for a building. I mean planning like
taking away economic freedom and turning it over to the government so they can plan your lives. The left are tyrants at heart,
the far left that is. And the far left needs to suppress free speech because in the market of
ideas, as I said last week in the show, the left can't win on facts and data because they don't
have facts and data. They only have emotion. So in order to get people to voluntarily forfeit their
rights, they have to use emotion to do it. So what do they do? They say, oh my gosh,
these Republicans, look, hate speech. He's a racist, misogynist, as we always say,
the istophobic phobophobes. And then when they get you to hate those Republicans by making up
stories about them, they get you to attack them, attack their free speech, attack free elections
where Republicans win.
This is what they're doing now.
Freedom is the enemy of the far left.
Don't ever, ever forget that.
Free speech is at the vanguard of freedom.
The left needs to crush free speech.
The left cannot crush free speech through the legislative process.
They get smoked every single time in the courts.
speech through the legislative process.
They get smoked every single time in the courts.
They'll call it whatever they can call it
to get the courts to pass
some perimeter
on speech.
You see what I'm saying, Joe? They'll call it
hate speech. They'll call it, I mean,
they'll test the focus group. What do we call
speech that we don't like to get
people to jump on board with suppressing it?
Oh, hate speech. That sounds great. Hate speech. Right. That sounds really bad. It sounds awful. So we got to nail
the conservatives on it. They keep losing. I hate it. So Greenfield's piece is a good one. It talks
about how the media has done this, right? The media does not like big tech.
Wait, what?
I thought you said the media is liberal.
Why would they not like big tech companies
like Facebook and Twitter and YouTube and others?
No, no, folks, they don't.
The fact that Facebook can control the content
that these big media companies,
the New York Slimes, the Compost, Time Magazine,
the fact that people get their content.
See how these shows all time,
if you're a regular listener, you've heard all this before,
but I cited you some numbers, I don't know,
six, seven months ago from a survey they did
where something upwards of 90% of people
get their news from Twitter,
Facebook, remember that, Joe?
Yeah.
And other social media platforms.
Ladies and gentlemen, old media, in contrast to big tech, old media hates this.
You used to get your news from the New York Times.
The old gray lady and the compost and Walter Cronkite. The fact that the old media is now losing and people are getting their news from Facebook
where they can block stuff and hide stuff and they see a report from the New York Times,
which I'll get to the McGahn story too, by the way.
I don't think I forgot about that, which put out more fake news this weekend about Don
McGahn because that's what they do.
The New York Times.
People can block it.
This drives the New York Times crazy
because they cannot control
the national narrative anymore.
The New York Times puts out a fake news story
like they did this weekend
and within minutes,
everybody's debunking it.
That's not the way it's supposed to work.
The New York Times are far leftist.
They are committed to getting rid of speech
they don't like
and making sure their narrative, the one in their
paper, is the one that persists. They don't like it.
They don't like the big tech companies,
Joe, because customers
can choose their news a la carte.
Yep.
You have to understand
this piece to understand what's
going on in
the
longitudinal fight here.
The media does not like big tech.
The media goes to war with big tech.
Oh, Facebook, they run these stories about Facebook swayed the election.
Look, it was fake news.
Meanwhile, New York Times, the purveyors of fake news for what, Joe,
50-plus years now?
New York Times objects to the fact that a few Russian trolls
who nobody paid attention to
at all on Facebook look look they run these stories they swayed the election they swayed
the election Joe a Russian troll who read an ad on Facebook a cat video playing the piano
somehow swayed the election of Donald Trump now the degree of stupidity you have to be embedded
in knee deep in to believe in that nonsense is incredible, but the Times thinks you're dumb.
Folks, the big media companies,
the old media companies
who don't want to relinquish this control.
So now that the big tech companies,
they can throw them under the bus too.
Look what they did.
Look at Facebook's wrongness.
They go after big tech.
Now, follow the white rabbit.
The big tech companies now to curry favor realize, oh boy, look at this.
We don't want to get on the bad side of the American left.
These are lefty companies.
So what do they do?
The big tech companies then go on a hate speech war.
We're going to purge InfoWars and others.
We're going to get them all off.
Look, and maybe the big media and the liberals will leave us alone because these are the people we want to curry favor with because we're liberals ourselves.
Keep in mind, this is a broken business model.
The Washington compost and the slimes have tried for decades to make a business model out of catering to far left narratives, and it's failing.
out of catering to far-left narratives,
and it's failing.
But these big tech companies, Joe,
are so knee-deep and embedded in leftist ideology that they don't see the forest for the trees.
They have to cater to the left
because they think the left
is really driving the national narrative.
They're not.
Donald Trump's election is the response to that.
Yeah.
But they don't see this.
So, Joe, track me here.
All right.
Old media singles out big tech.
Look what the Facebook did.
Look what Twitter did.
Look what they did.
Russian bots.
Go after them.
The government comes after them.
They want to play ball now with the government
and get hate speech legislation passed
so they can't be sued for kicking people off.
They can just say, look, it's hate speech.
You get what I'm saying?
They don't want to be sued by Alex Jones and others
and lose a case eventually in court
for whatever breach of contract or whatever it may be.
So they actually want this hate speech stuff passed.
They also figure it caters and calms down the old media,
which used to be able to drive the narrative,
because now it's the old media,
New York Times and Washington Post,
if they can kick off Breitbart and others
who will get their stuff on their sites more often
and it'll keep the liberal narrative going.
You see where I'm going with this?
Gotcha, gotcha, gotcha.
This is an important follow the white rabbit series of events.
When you follow it, you'll understand what's going on.
Now, what's the solution?
So now you see the problem.
Old media attacks big tech tech big tech attacks conservatives hopefully to get old media and government off their back hate speech
legislation somehow passes through it gets passed and then the media is all happy big tech is happy
too because their stuff shows up more on social media because they get to kick off conservatives
you like that of course you don't.
It stinks.
But it's what's happening.
Government cannot fix this.
Do not fall in this trap.
If you listen to the show regularly,
I've proposed on and off
for well over two years now.
Ladies and gentlemen,
it is time,
it is way past time
to establish a conservative economy.
I don't mean a separate sub-government
or like a separate country.
I mean an economy where conservatism is the brand.
What do I mean by that?
For decades, it was assumed by many
in the conservative movement
that we would never ever break the liberal monopoly
on media control it
was just taken as fact true you had cnn abc you had brokaw you had cronkite peter jennings these
were all leftists dan rather hardcore leftists some of them these were leftists you were it was
just assumed that the media war was lost. Just like it is now.
It's assumed that, oh, all is lost.
There's Patreon, YouTube, they're kicking everybody.
There's nothing we can do.
I'm not so sure about that.
What happens?
The internet comes along.
Fox News comes along.
And granted, although we're still overwhelmed, make no mistake, ABC, CBS, and NBC Evening News far, far outweighs the influence of uh you know the influence of fox i wish it weren't
the case but it is but with the internet breitbart conservative review daily caller and others you're
seeing a leveling of the playing field which happened over time and it happened due to the
free market um i remember was it roger ailes I was in the Secret Service Training Center.
I think it was Ailes who came down to give a speech
to the graduating students a while back.
This is a long time ago, over 10 years ago.
Yeah, you said this before.
Yeah, and Ailes, he was saying how
when someone asked him about the business model
for Fox News, he said that, I'll never forget this.
He goes, yeah, we were tapping into it
and untapped the resource.
And everybody's looking around like, what's that?
And he goes, 49 to 50% of America were conservatives.
In other words, the business model's right in front of your face.
Roger Ailes saw that his business wasn't news.
His business was fair news, was news that was going to be fair to conservatives.
The brand was going to be, in other other words we're not those guys you get
it joe sure fox fox news's brand was we're not them abc nbc cbs and cnn those guys cover propaganda
we're going to either play it straight or we're going to give conservatives a voice on our
editorial content and by the way i don't work Fox News, but I'm telling you right now,
if you don't think their news programs play it straight, you're not watching the same Fox I am.
If you watch Chris Wallace and Bret Baier, there are no two fairer interviewers in the entire
industry. And by the way, you go to a Fox green room, it's almost equally populated with real
liberals as it is with conservatives. I'm not kissing anybody's butt.
I don't have any... I make my own money.
I do my own thing.
I'm just telling you
when you go to CNN, the conservatives
they have there are fake conservatives.
They're not real. The liberals that work
at Fox and comment on Fox, trust
me, are real hardcore liberals.
They actually believe it. Yeah, they do.
They've got some strong liberals on there.
I mean, they are not kidding around.
Watch my debates on Saturday night in the Judge Jeanine show with Chris Hahn.
Trust me, Chris believes that stuff.
Fox came in and took over this market, and their brand became We're Not That.
Ladies and gentlemen, it is only a matter of time
before some entrepreneurial business type,
the Rupert Murdoch type,
figures it out
that there is an opening
in the United States now
for a where not that
everywhere.
What do I mean?
Folks, liberals are smart.
You may not like their ideology.
I certainly don't, but these are not stupid people.
They are smart.
They are going to de-platform you everywhere.
First, they're going to kick you off YouTube.
If they don't get you kicked off YouTube, they're going to get you kicked off.
I saw a story this morning about a credit card company that's no longer going to process payments.
off. I saw a story this morning about a credit card company that's no longer going to process
payments.
If they can't kick you off the credit
card company, they'll get you kicked
out of the bank like they're trying
to do with NRA. I obviously work at
NRA TV. I don't work for the NRA.
I work for NRA TV. I'm a member of
the NRA. I don't work there for the 15,000
times for the liberal idiots who
can't figure out what a contract looks like.
They're really so stupid. We laugh at and joe all the time okay nras really
if they can't get you kicked off youtube they'll get you kicked off twitter
you understand that there are various oh here's another one if they can't if they get you kicked
off twitter and twitter they get you quick uh excuse me kicked off youtube and If they get you kicked off Twitter, they get you kicked off YouTube, and then they get you
kicked off your bank. Say you go to the internet and you go to whatever, Bongino.com, and at
Bongino.com you say, okay, you want to support the show? Send in a check. What are they going to do?
They'll go after your server company. Who's hosting this? Shut down the website. Ladies and gentlemen,
liberals are devious the far left
has a tyrannical streak you ignore at your own peril not all democrats but the far left has a
tyrant streak in them to shut down free speech that you ignore at your own peril if you think
any of this isn't happening just google nra um i forget the guy this week who had his Patreon taken down, but YouTube, the InfoWars stuff.
Hell, Joe, even Bill Maher, far left liberal, who again, I've always respected his stance on free speech, not much else.
Bill Maher has never wavered once on free speech.
Bill Maher came out on his show this weekend, a far left guy.
And he's like, hey, listen, Alex Jones and others have the right to speak.
You don't like it? Tune out.
I thought we were for free speech.
I thought that's the way you tuned out if you didn't like stuff.
The far left has a growing tyrannical streak that I think even frightens Bill Maher.
I respect the guy's opinion on it.
He has never wavered one bit.
You know why, Joe?
Maher was the subject of boycotts himself.
Oh, yeah.
And Maher's like, I don't like this.
You don't like my show?
Turn it off.
Right.
What I'm getting at, folks, is all down the line,
at every stage of getting conservative content out there
that's going to be attacked,
the bank, the website, the server, YouTube,
the Patreon account, the finances,
the credit card companies, the left
is going to attack at every level, at every single level.
There's an opportunity for a company to come in and go, we're not them.
We're not them.
I'm telling you tomorrow, if a bank chartered itself, if a bank chartered, now listen, there's
certain bank regulations and obviously there's things you can't, in the financial industry, certain regulations, you can't discriminate.
And nor would I suggest that.
But if a bank came out tomorrow and said, as long as you're not violating any laws, and as long as you're not engaging in any criminal activity, we will support your business.
We absolutely unequivocally do not discriminate based on political ideology.
Conservatives would move their money tomorrow.
If a server company came out tomorrow,
we are a server.
We do not discriminate.
Remember, I'm not suggesting the opposite,
that they discriminate against liberals either.
I'm telling you, their business model
shouldn't be we're a conservative company.
It should be we're not them.
You're tracking, Joe. Yeah, 10 joe yeah this is important yeah the bank shouldn't say we're a conservative bank no because you i don't want you to discriminate against liberals i don't want you to discriminate
against anybody do what fox news did we're going to be fair and balanced in other words we're not
those guys who are not fair and balanced it It was only 50% of America.
That market is out there right now.
A bank, we do not discriminate on political views
no matter what.
Break the law, you're out.
Follow the laws, you don't like our bank,
go elsewhere, right?
Same thing for the web server company.
You are in no danger here being deplatformed
for political views.
Don't violate any laws. Don't incentivize uh you know uh don't call for violence which would be you know you can't call for people to be attacked either we are good to go
there is a market for this everywhere now on the social platforms you may say well why there why
not there why not after all the attacks by Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube? Why not there? Because, ladies and gentlemen, there's a crowd effect there, and the crowd effects are difficult to overcome. If you went to business school, you know about Porter's Five Forces. You probably heard about it a thousand times. effect. The first mover in a business traditionally always has an advantage.
Amazon wasn't really a first mover per se, but was a first mover on the model scale.
eBay was an auction site. Amazon came in after books and said, why don't we sell everything else?
There's a first mover effect to YouTube and Twitter as well. And people call me all the
time. That's why I bring this up, Joe. And they go, well, why don't you start a conservative social media platform? You have a voice, folks. I don't have
a voice. Listen, I love my audience. We're number two or three in the country right now,
but I don't have the money or the resources to do that. To start a social media company,
you need people to move en masse, en masse to a social media site that's not Twitter or Facebook.
Because nobody wants to post on a platform where nobody is.
They're not going to waste their time.
I post a lot on Twitter.
I post probably 20, 30 times a day.
Nobody is going to copy and paste over to another site if there aren't enough people there.
Now, having said that, this is why I brought up in the beginning the Rupert Murdoch example.
You get a guy who leaves office,
say like Donald Trump in hopefully six years, not two,
with his influence and his income to start that up,
he may get, Joe, millions of people to move en masse
and Twitter and Facebook would be finished.
I mean, it would be exclusively the MySpace for liberals.
But on the financial front, on the server front, on the backbone front, you see what I'm getting at, Joe?
There's the forward-facing conservative content arena.
YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, and websites.
Forward-facing.
What you see.
You go to Bongino.com, you hit play, you can listen to my show.
That's forward-facing.
The liberals are on a full frontal assault,
not only against the forward-facing conservative content space,
they are assaulting the back end too.
They are going after financial firms, servers,
anybody who processes credit cards.
The back end space we can do right now.
Right now. Companies
can move in and say we will not
discriminate on political views no matter what.
Conservatives,
wink, and liberals, you're all safe here.
And I'm guaranteeing
you, you will be an enormous company
quite shortly.
Because remember
the model Murdoch and Alesaw.
We're not those guys.
We're not those guys is the brand.
Listen to some wealthy business folks out there.
The brand is not, listen to what I'm telling you.
The back end sales pitch is not, hey, look at our financial services.
They're just terrific.
Your brand is we're not those guys that is the brand i see it i hear it all the time on when i go into
work and i'll listen to uh going to work i work in my house i'm driving my car to the gym i go
back to work at my house i'll be in the car listening to serious xm i listen to fox i think
it's 115 or 140 i don't even know the channel one One of them is Fox News and one of them is Fox Nation
or whatever.
But I'll listen
and I always hear
this Patriot Software.
They're not a sponsor of us,
but you understand
that's their brand?
That's a smart company.
I don't know.
These guys are not a sponsor
of my show.
Disclosure,
I have no financial.
They may.
They're not now.
I'm bringing it up because that's super smart.
They figured out that companies are tired of being attacked for their political values. And the guy's like, hey, you're welcome over here.
Patriot Software, whatever it is.
Come on board, babe.
Greatest idea ever.
The brand is we're not them.
This is how we fight back, not through government.
We fight back by starting our own conservative economy.
Our own pipeline of back-end and front-end technologies
that are impervious to liberal boycott campaigns.
That's how we do it.
And by the way, once that happens, liberals are out of business.
They're out of business because there's not enough liberals to support the content without the support of conservatives.
How do I know that?
Because everywhere liberals have tried to force a self-sustaining liberal economy, Joe, they failed.
Remember, Joe, you're in the radio business.
Remember Air America?
Yeah.
A lot of you listening, Joe, I was laughing because a lot of you listening don't remember
Air America.
Air America was supposed to be the alternative to Rush Limbaugh.
It was a network of liberals.
I know some of the people who worked there.
Was it Randy Rhoades?
They were like Al Franken, I think, had a radio
show. We're going to do a liberal talk
radio network, just like the conservatives do.
Failed miserably.
CNN, failing.
MSNBC, outside of the Rachel Maddow
show, failing miserably behind
Fox. Getting crushed
in the ratings. CNN's losing to
cat videos on YouTube.
Yes, true.
The New York Times failing.
The Washington Post, they're struggling with their subscription model.
Everywhere liberals have tried to support an economic model without conservatives, they
have failed.
The solution.
Meanwhile, who's doing just peachy?
Fox,
talk radio,
even after all the relentless
hack boycotts
by the goons
at Media Matters and others,
there is still
a tremendous financial pipeline
in conservative talk radio
and podcasting.
Why?
Because conservatives are,
one,
50%, 40% of America,
and they spend money.
Companies want to read.
It's a reason.
That's why I always ask you to support the sponsors.
They're here because they want to be.
It's not a mistake.
They don't, we don't,
their idea, I don't,
I want to be clear.
I don't know if they're liberal or conservative.
We don't ask. But that matters to me that they don't, their idea, I want to be clear, I don't know if they're liberal or conservative. We don't ask.
But that matters to me that they don't ask either.
Long as you don't go crazy, which I understand, wouldn't want to be associated with any.
They come on the show and they say, hey, we want to be a part of your show and reach your audience.
I don't ask them, are you guys liberal?
I don't care.
They want to be here and talk to you.
That matters to me.
That has not worked in the liberal space.
They can't sustain it, folks.
Conservative economy is the only way to go.
All right, speaking of sponsors,
today's show brought to you by buddies at iTarget.
The website's itargetpro.com.
It is the best system out there
for improving your proficiency with a firearm,
which is your responsibility.
If we're going to purchase and own firearms, which I do, I just bought a couple new ones last weekend.
That SIG 365, by the way, is awesome.
I love that thing.
So accurate for a small firearm.
But one of the best ways to practice your proficiency is dry firing.
Dry firing is when you safely unload your weapon, check it, check it twice, check it
three times, and at the range, always point it in a safe direction, you depress the trigger
on a safely unloaded weapon.
Well, what's the benefit of that?
The benefit is, well, without the kickback of a exploding round going out, you can practice
your trigger control, your sight picture, your sight alignment, and you can just get
the feel for it.
This is really important.
It's important for your grip. It's important for your grip.
It's important for your technique.
It's one of the best ways to learn how to use that firearm and use it proficiently.
Now, the problem with dry fire is it's dry.
There's no round in there.
The iTarget Pro system will send you a laser round.
You drop in the safely unloaded firearm you have now.
It will also send you a target.
And in conjunction with a phone app, which is amazing,
when you depress the trigger on that laser round, it'll emit a laser and you can see where the round
would have gone. I'm telling you, give it a week. The feedback on this product is always,
always spectacular. It is one of my favorite sponsors. You will be shooting the wings off
a firefly at the end of the week. You will be so proficient with your firearm
because it'll clean you right up.
It'll clean up your grip, your sight picture,
your sight alignment.
Go check it out.
Go to itargetpro.com.
That's itargetpro.com.
That's the letter I, targetpro.com.
Letter I, targetpro.com.
Use promo code Dan for 10% off.
Remember, competitive shooters,
people do this for a living.
Dry fire like that, 10 times more than they live fire.
That's how to improve your proficiency
with a firearm. iTargetPro.com
promo code DAN. Go check it out.
Okay. Before I get
to an interesting development
on Papa D, folks, here's
the real McGann story.
What's the McGann story, you may ask? Well,
I'm here to tell you. Over the weekend, New York
Times, more fake news. The story's not fake. It's their takeahn story, you may ask? Well, I'm here to tell you. Over the weekend, New York Times, more fake news.
You know, the story's not fake.
It's their take on it, which is fake, because it's the New York Times, and that's what they do, is Democrat propaganda and fake news.
So the story from the New York Times is the White House counsel, this is important, he's not Trump's lawyer specifically.
The White House counsel, Don McGahn, is cooperating with the Mueller probe.
Oh, New York Times show.
Oh, it's over.
Joe, have you been keeping track of the times that we've been told it's over?
Oh.
Is it?
Are we over 2000 yet?
We're close, right?
Close.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Easily close.
Maybe 1998 or something.
This is about time number 1998.
We got him now.
We got him now.
We got Trump.
Again, everybody else is like,
yawning, ready to go to sleep.
We're like, really?
You got him now?
You had him last night?
You always have him.
We got him now.
There's nothing to have.
They don't have anything.
So it's kind of funny they think they've got Trump.
But the media went into a frenzy saying,
well, Trump's White House counsel interviewed for 30 hours with Mueller.
Folks, Trump waived executive privilege for McGahn, his White House counsel, to speak with Mueller.
Does that, I mean, are we really, let me paint for you the two narratives, okay?
The right one and then the media one which is almost
always fake news here's what's happening here McGahn is at the White House counsel I brought
that up specifically because there's not really an attorney client privilege he's not Trump's
personal attorney he's the White House counsel we understand right Giuliani and Jay Sekulow are his personal attorneys. Dowd was his attorney before. They have, and there is an attorney-client privilege.
The privilege that would apply here if Trump did not want McGahn, the White House counsel,
to talk to Mueller would be executive privilege, which would be perfectly legitimate. In other
words, Joe, Trump can tell McGahn, don't talk to that guy.
Right.
He didn't.
That's not what Trump said.
Trump allowed McGahn to talk to Bob Mueller. Now, only in the world of the psychopathic New York Times, the conspiracy theorist Times, absolutely obsessed with a fake Russian collusion story is this
additional evidence of the conspiracy.
The hallmark of any conspiracy theory, Joe, is any evidence that presents itself, no matter
how damning or indemnifying, is always evidence of the conspiracy.
In other words, Joe's a space alien.
Well, we sent Joe to a doctor for blood work,
and Joe's DNA, he is in fact human.
The doctor's in on the conspiracy theory.
Well, we interviewed the doctor on a polygraph,
and on the polygraph, the doctor said
he is not in fact in on the conspiracy.
The polygrapher's in on the conspiracy theory.
Right? That's evidence of the conspiracy the polygraphers in on the conspiracy theory yeah right is that not that's evidence of the conspiracy theory no matter what evidence presents itself there is always an excuse
that that evidence is more evidence of the conspiracy theory the collusion's conspiracy
theory at the new york times who are totally fake they're fiction writers now this which should have
been an example to the times
by the way bill clinton fought this and the watergate and excuse me the whitewater um scandal
nixon fought this and watergate they did not they claimed executive privilege any reasonable
observer joe would be like well trump's not claiming executive privilege so clearly he has
nothing to hide he doesn't have to allow this person to talk at all why would he
but when you're at the new york times and you're a conspiracy theorist again everything is evidence so clearly he has nothing to hide. He doesn't have to allow this person to talk at all. Why would he?
But when you're at the New York Times and you're a conspiracy theorist,
again, everything is evidence of the conspiracy.
I'm telling you the truth here.
The truth is this.
Here's the story.
Trump is letting him talk
because there is nothing to hide
and they just want to wrap this witch hunt up already.
There's no there there.
There is no collusion.
Where's the beef?
Now, you may be asking if narrative two
that the New York Times is putting out there,
the fiction narrative,
that no, this is evidence that McGahn,
oh, I'm sorry, I didn't even tell you what that,
the New York Times story,
absolutely ridiculous story, by the way, is that no, oh, I'm sorry, I didn't even tell you what the New York Times story, absolutely ridiculous story, by the way, is that no, Joe, McGahn is talking to the special counsel with Trump's permission because Trump is getting ready to throw McGahn under the bus for this.
So McGahn's covering his butt.
By the way, completely disregarding that McGahn couldn't talk without Trump's permission.
completely disregarding that McGahn couldn't talk without Trump's permission.
Now, if that story sounds dumb and you're sitting there scratching your head going,
I got to rewind, hit the 15 second button because that made no sense.
It's not supposed to make sense.
It's the New York Times.
The New York Times theory, again, is McGahn is talking because McGahn's trying to cover his butt because Trump's going to throw him under the butt, under the bus for the collusion conspiracy thing that never happened.
Oh my gosh.
This is like...
Dude.
The stupid is so strong
that even for the media,
the stupid is astonishing.
Now, here's the explanation for story two
about, oh no, where that came from.
Solid folks are now starting to understand that Don McGahn, the White House counsel, has a lot of influence in the White House, Joe, whether it's in regards to Supreme Court picks.
He has Trump's ear.
Trump trusts him.
There are, unfortunately, some palace intrigue.
There are some people who probably like to see that influence, you know, weaned a little bit.
Maybe that channel to Trump broken.
I will guarantee you, and you can take it to the bank, that these stories, Joseph, about McGahn cooperating with Mueller because he feels Trump is going to throw him under the bus are exclusively meant to drive a wedge between McGahn and Trump
and have no basis in truth at all. But again, the New York Times that's strictly engaged in
conspiracy theory nonsense these days has no interest in that. Their interest is simply
promoting a false narrative. And again, that's what they got. And that's exactly what they got
a weekend full of. Oh, my gosh. Another one cooperated. We got them now.
We got them now.
Time 2,172.
You've got nothing.
You've got Zippo.
All right.
This is a really good story.
I'm sorry if I've kept you on hold with this, but it's important.
But before we get to that, today's show also brought to you by our buddies at Brickhouse Nutrition.
Brickhouse.
Listen, foundation. I can't say enough about it. Joe, doesn't little Joe love it?
Oh, yeah, man. It works great.
It's incredible. This stuff is amazing. Foundation is a creatine ATP blend. What does it do? It's
available first at brickhousenutrition.com. It is a creatine ATP blend, which will make you look
better and perform better. I don't have any easier way to sum it up what this stuff does, but listen, talk is cheap. Actions matter and results matter,
right? So before you try foundation, I want you to do me this favor. It's by the way,
it's like having two extra gas tanks in the gym, creatine, ATP, the phosphogens out there. They,
they, they work. They work by boosting your capacity. It takes a little bit to load though
in your system,
maybe five to seven days.
So here's what I encourage you to do.
Before you try foundation,
go take a little mental snapshot in the mirror of what you look like, right?
Five to seven days later, I send on, by the way,
all the positive reviews over the miles.
I want you to look at yourself again
after five to seven days of foundation, let it load.
You're gonna be like, whoa, this stuff is the real deal. I got guys sending
me emails, hey, my wife really loves that stuff.
I look great. I told you.
You heard it here first.
Also take down your performance in the gym.
Take a little note. How many bench
press reps am I doing? Squat, deadlift, whatever it may
be, pull-ups. Then seven days
later, go back. You're going to be like, wow, what a
difference. This stuff is the real
deal. Go to BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan. That's BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan. Pick up a
bottle of foundation today. You will not regret it. This is an absolutely spectacular supplement
I can't say enough about. Okay. This is going to be a little complicated, so I want you to roll
with me for a minute, but there are some really, there's some good work
being done by Jeff Carlson. He writes at Markets
Work and over at Epic Times, and I'll put the pieces
in the show notes with one from Chuck Ross today,
which are going to tie together
a
something on Spygate I've been telling you for a long
time. Okay?
Joe, on July
27, 2017, Papadopoulos
was arrested.
He's arrested in an airport.
He's processed at 1.45 in the morning the following day, but basically that night, a continuity of that same night.
This arrest, ladies and gentlemen, is highly suspicious.
Now, I've talked about this before, about the suspicious nature of what
happened at the arrest, but let me give you a little background on how federal arrests work,
because I'm going to tell you why Papadopoulos is being worked here and why the need to shut
Papadopoulos up is so grave right now. Papadopoulos is the key to the whole spying scandal.
Papadopoulos is the key to the whole spying scandal Papa Dizzle meets with Mifsud in April
Mifsud is a Maltese professor
Mifsud is alleged to have told him about dirt on Hillary
According to the theory by the Democrats right now
And the liberal media
That guy Mifsud was working on behalf of the Russians
I've told you repeatedly, Mifsud, was working on behalf of the Russians.
I've told you repeatedly that Mifsud's contacts are with Western intelligence,
not the Russians, leading me to believe, and many others, that Papadopoulos was set up.
Now, on July 27, 2017, Papadissel's arrested. It's how he's arrested that's very, very interesting.
When you're a federal agent, there are a few different ways to arrest someone.
You can go into a sitting grand jury.
You can get an indictment.
And an indictment after that, an arrest warrant's issued.
And I go out and arrest Joe for felonious mopery.
Damn.
Damn.
Got him again.
If I have suspicions Joe was involved in feloniousopery and I don't want to indict him for various reasons. Indictment, it the complaint route instead rather than an indictment
why because then later on if joe's you know i get i'd lock up joe on a complaint for felonious
mopery and he cooperates on the kingpin i can dismiss the complaint no worries we have some
leverage over joe an indictment it's not impossible and indictments are dismissed all the time but
it's more difficult or Or the charges being dismissed.
Let's just say the indictment.
The indictment doesn't go anywhere.
The charges.
Are we tracking, Joe?
You have to understand this distinction.
I used to teach in the academy.
Indictments, hard to dismiss the charges later,
but not impossible.
Complaints, they lead to the same arrest warrant,
by the way.
A complaint, pretty easy to dismiss
if you want to use the subject later.
You may be asking yourself, well, how was Papadopoulos arrested?
Complain or indictment?
Neither.
Neither.
Papadizzle was arrested PC, a probable cause arrest.
Now, illegal?
No, not at all.
Unethical?
No, not at all.
Perfectly legitimate.
Probable cause arrests in the local and state system happen every day.
A probable cause arrest, if I see Joe on the street committing felonious mopery and I'm a cop, that's a PC arrest.
I didn't have a warrant, right?
No.
If God forbid, I mean, listen, a lot of people, sadly, have been arrested for stuff.
If you've been arrested in the street and no warrant was presented, it was a probable cause arrest.
Perfectly legitimate.
Happens all the time.
I'm telling you from my experience in the federal system for over a decade, PC arrests in the federal system with no warrant, although not illegal or unethical, are unicorns.
They exist in theory, but they never, ever happen, right?
Right.
They're unicorns. Reminds me of the little kid in the Despicable Me movie.
She's like, the unicorn!
They don't happen.
They don't happen for a lot of reasons.
PC arrests in the federal system, one, don't happen because in the federal system, you are not on patrol.
What does that mean?
If you're not on patrol, you're not. There's no
Secret Service agent patrol. It's not like, hey, the New York field office, go out and patrol the
streets of New York for bank fraud. That's not the way it works in the federal system. The cops do
that. The cops patrol. In the federal system, we get our criminal cases by referral. The police
department calls, hey, this is a little out of our hands.
We got a counterfeit case.
A complainant walks in,
hey, I got some suspects here
in a terrorism case.
So the way the federal system works
is the opposite of the local system.
The local system, when you're the NYPD,
you see a crime in the street,
you arrest them,
you build the case afterwards.
You go back to the scene,
you get a witness statement, whatever it is.
The federal system works the exact opposite.
You hear about a crime, you build a case, you get the witness statements, you go up
on a wire, you get the phone taps, you get the DNRs, the dial number recorders, you get
the cell phone records, you get the financial records. And then you make an arrest.
Arrest last.
In the local system, it's largely arrest first if it's outside of the detective squad.
What does this have to do with Papa D and why is this so critical?
Ladies and gentlemen, the PC arrest in the federal system is almost unheard of because that's not how these things work.
The United States attorney largely works nine to five. They typically have to be at a magistrate hearing. The federal judges work
nine to five. They have to be available, but it's largely a nine to five schedule for initial
appearance. The U.S. Marshals, where you have to bring the person you arrested, you have to bring
them for processing, absolutely hate it when you show up unannounced guys ladies listen if you are a federal agent you know exactly what i'm talking about and you know
all of this is true everything in the federal system almost everything is arrest by appointment
and it's definitely not arrest by probable cause you damn well better show up with a warrant
matter of fact in my 10 years,
I have not even seen a probable
cause arrest in the federal system. I'm not
kidding. And believe me, I was an
active guy. I didn't make one or two arrests. I
made a whole lot of them. I'm not patting myself
on the back. I'm just telling you the facts.
My name
appears on a whole lot of case numbers in the
New York and Melville offices of the Secret Service.
I've not even seen a PC arrest.
A PC arrest in the federal system
only happens
if you are really looking to shut someone down
super darn fast.
Why were they so panicked
on July 27, 2017
to go with no arrest warrant
and lock up Papa Dizzle at the airport
and process him at 1.45 in the morning
how to wake up the magistrate
how to get an AUSA up
why would they do that
what else happened on July 27
let me read to you from Jeff Carlson's piece what else happened on July 27th?
Let me read to you from Jeff Carlson's piece,
which will be in the show notes today,
which I strongly encourage you to read.
It's labeled Jeff Carlson's piece,
so you won't miss it.
Quote, on July 27th, 2017,
upon our identification of many of the political text messages,
the inspector general met with the deputy attorney general
and the special counsel to inform them of the political text messages the inspector general met with the deputy attorney general and the special counsel to inform them of the texts that we had discovered and provided them with a
significant number of the texts so that they could take any management action they deemed appropriate
what that's right spidey. July 27th is the same day
the Peter Stroke, Lisa Page text messages
are brought from the Inspector General
to Bob Mueller's office.
Bob Mueller's office is looking at these going,
Holy Moses, what do we do now?
Ladies and gentlemen, are you still sure
Papadopoulos is this mastermindmind international spy figure who was dealing with a Russian connected Mifsud who gave him the, are you sure about that?
Now I bring this up in light of Byron York's piece, which will be in the show notes today as well at the Washington Examiner, which brings up this strange little conundrum we're finding now
as the Mueller documents are coming out.
Remember on Friday,
I told you there was going to be a hearing
and Mueller released some paperwork on Friday.
And in that paperwork, Joe,
you would think if Papadopoulos
was key to this entire collusion scandal.
In other words,
if the liberal narrative is true
that George Papadopoulos
was working with a Russian-connected person,
a Russian-connected person to get dirt on Hillary to give to the Trump team,
because Papadopoulos is working for the Trump team,
you would think he would have had some information to offer.
Read the York piece.
Papadopoulos had nothing.
Why did Papa D have nothing?
Because there's nothing to have he was set up they are joe do you see the urgency in the pc arrest now yeah they were eager to shut this guy up papa dizzles the
key to this whole thing once papadopoulos starts talking and says hey i didn't pass any information to the trump team
matter of fact this dude i was talking to this guy's connected to western people
i this guy was not some russian asset
why is this related to the text messages
ladies and gentlemen may i suggest to you that the text messages that there's some
more there there layered information we may not be able to understand in the context of
the text message that muller understands exactly what it means what am i saying
the distinct possibility exists here that peterke, who was the lead investigator,
who was texting this FBI lawyer, who he was involved with, who was also involved in the case.
May I suggest to you that the texts say things that we don't understand right now, but Mueller does.
In other words, the Oconis lures. Remember the Oconis lures tweet?
Oh, Oconis.
Oconis means outside the continent of the United States.
Lures.
Lures.
Traps.
Baits.
Spies.
I'm saying to you that there may be information in those texts that we're reading now that we don't understand because we don't understand the whole context, but Mueller does.
Folks, Mueller knows this case is about to fall apart.
He is desperate to shut Papa Dizzle up.
If Papa D starts talking and it comes out that this guy was set up and according to Friday's disclosure of documents showed, Papadopoulos doesn't have any information to offer.
How does he not have information to offer if he's the key to the whole scandal?
Does this make any sense to you?
How does Papadopoulos, the guy the left is claiming, look, Mueller arrested him.
The scandal's falling apart, Joe.
Papadopoulos met with this Russian connected agent and this Russian connected agent passed him information on Hillary and Papadopoulos passed it to the Trump team.
Voila!
There's the whole conspiracy.
Then why doesn't Papadopoulos
have anything to offer?
Maybe because that's all
a colossal pile of triceratops dung.
There's some imagery for you.
There's nothing there.
In the words of Peter Stroke,
there's no there there.
Papadopoulos doesn't have anything
because what they're saying happened didn't happen.
He was contacted likely by a Western intelligence asset
in an effort to entrap him
that he didn't fall into the trap on.
Therefore, Mueller's team gets the text on July 27.
They're reading the text about Oconus, Lors, and other things, thinking, oh boy, is this
Mifsud thing, all of this going to fall apart?
Is the fact that Papadopoulos was set up and his whole investigation is a sham going to
fall apart?
What do we do?
Someone better head to the airport and pick up Papa Dizzle.
Hey, do we have an arrest warrant?
Don't worry, we'll PC arrest him.
Yeah, we really don't work that way.
Do it anyway.
Papadopoulos shows up at his arraignment.
No lawyer.
And agrees at that point probably to shut up.
Papa Dizzle's the key.
Papa D is the key.
Someone should have a shirt made up.
Papa D, maybe we'll do that.
Do you see what's going on here?
Now, I'm a little short on time,
but don't miss tomorrow's show.
This is going to be important.
Because I have another angle here
about the Mueller team
and their efforts to hide another
extremely suspicious,
it's in Carlson's piece today,
so read it because you'll be prepared for tomorrow's show,
but their efforts to hide
and bury another angle on Papadopoulos
and the end point of his connections.
In other words, how this whole Papadopoulos,
the effort right now by Mueller to hide this is so obvious
you'd have to be an idiot to miss it.
I don't have enough time in today's show,
but do not miss it.
I'm going to walk through the follow the white rabbit on the dates.
This person hit this person, hit this person,
that wound up with this person,
and it'll make all the sense in the world
why Mueller needs to shut Papadissel up.
I just gave you one angle. I'm going to give you another angle tomorrow. He needs to shut Papa Dizzle up. I just gave you one angle.
I'm going to give you another angle tomorrow.
He needs to shut Papa Dizzle up because Mueller knows something about those texts
that he can read them in a context we can't.
And it makes all the sense in the world that the Papadopoulos whole crew was set up.
And they don't want that out there.
All right, one last story story we're going to roll a by
the way one of the things i'm obsessed with is media hackery and media bias did you see the story
this weekend media headlines ice arrests a man taking his wife to the hospital to give birth
yeah um folks i'll put it in the show notes but in case you missed the story he was driving his
wife to give birth while wanted it on a warrant from Mexico for murder.
By the way, it was a C-section.
She was not in labor. Not that that
makes a difference towards the case,
but they're acting like the woman was giving birth
in the car. The guy was wanted
for murder. You notice how the media
conveniently leaves that out.
These are lies by omission, not necessarily
commission, but that's what media hacks
do all the time.
All right, folks, don't miss tomorrow's show.
I'm going to get into that.
It's going to blow your mind how this is all connected to the same Bob Mueller cover-up.
All right.
Thanks for everything.
I really appreciate you listening.
Last week, it was our best week ever, and I really appreciate the subscriptions.
Please go and subscribe to the show.
It's free.
iTunes, SoundCloud, iHeartRadio, it's all free, but it helps us move up the charts and we really appreciate it. Thanks a lot, folks. I'll 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.