The Dan Bongino Show - Ep. 803 Is this Major Player in the Scandal Still Alive?

Episode Date: September 10, 2018

Summary: In this episode I address the stunning news that Joseph Mifsud, a major figure in the Spygate scandal, may be dead. I also address the first television interview of George Papadopoulos and I discuss the reappearance of Barack Obama on the campaign trail.    News Picks: Is Joseph Mifsud, a major player in the Spygate scandal, dead?   Rod Rosenstein owes us an explanation, immediately. What is the crime Mueller is investigating?    Is President Trump about to declassify these critical documents?    Should the government regulate Google?   The NFL still allows disrespect of our national anthem.     Texans may strongly object to this retelling of the Alamo story.   What we know about “Tax Cuts 2.0”   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 all right welcome to the dan bongino show producer joe how are you today as well as one can do for a monday dan yeah no kidding what the heck is going on i get uh over the weekend this breaking news that uh joseph mifsud the Maltese professor at the heart of this entire Spygate scandal, the guy who is the founder of the Feast, who starts this whole thing by allegedly telling George Papadopoulos about Russian dirt on Hillary. Joe, did you see this article in The Hill? This was not in some crazy far left, far right um looney tunes otherworldly site um this was a this was up in a number of of credible places yeah that myth should may in fact be deceased

how about that oh my gosh i was like is this for real so i'm gonna get it i i have reasons to be very skeptical by the way yeah i did here. I got reasons to be skeptical as well. So I'll get to that because I got a ton of email. I love the feedback on the show, folks, and I deeply appreciate it. But I probably got close to 200 emails this weekend. What is going on? What is going on?

So don't worry, we'll get to that. I got a lot of other stories for you as well, including the Washington Post, astonishingly, publishing a piece, and I don't even think they see it, that decimates the idea that big government is somehow helping you. The piece really unbelievably shows how government is cannibalizing itself. So we'll get to some of that.

All right, today's show brought to you by our buddies at WaxRx. Yeah. I will be using this today, as a matter of fact, to clean out my ears. I love to do it after a haircut, because sometimes I get those little hairs from the haircut, WaxRx. Yeah. I will be using this today, as a matter of fact, to clean out my ears. I'd love to do it after a haircut because sometimes I get those little hairs from the haircut, given that I have short hair in my ear, and it really annoys the heck out of me. You all know how much I love my sponsors. I only work with companies I believe in. WaxRx is one of them. It's not the sexiest product to talk about, but as I've told you, I had to deal with earwax buildup

in the past when I used that earpiece in the Secret Service. It was really annoying. But you don't need to go to a doctor. You can use WaxRx at home. This is the same system they use. Here's a customer review from them that I want to share with you. We got this email. I used to have to go to the doctor twice a year to get rid of my stubborn, hardened earwax. With my rising cost of healthcare and thus double deductible, I had to spend $60 per visit, $120 per year to treat my ears. Now I can do it myself with WaxRx and a significant savings. It doesn't require me to miss a half a day of work. Thanks, WaxRx.

Right now, try the WaxRx system. This stuff's great. It makes your ears feel good, too. By typing in gowaxrx.com. That's gowaxrx.com. gowaxrx.com. Use offer code DAN at checkout for free shipping. This is a really good product here.

gowaxrx.com. Don't wait. You have for free shipping. This is a really good product here. GoWaxRx.com. Don't wait. You have no idea what you might be missing because of interview earwax. Who knows? It might just change your life. You don't know what you're not hearing if you're not hearing it, right? GoWaxRx.com. Offer code DAN for free shipping.

Go check that out. Okay. So I get these series of emails this weekend. I start doing some homework on this. And the Mifsud story. I have it in the show notes. I encourage you to read it. It appeared in the Hill.

It appeared elsewhere. Not a huge fan of the Hill. Some of their headlines have been absolutely ridiculous and sensational lately. But, you know, sometimes they'll print things that actually make sense. So here's what happened, folks. And this should really, this should pique your interest. So we know Mifsud, Joseph Mifsud, the Maltese professor, just according to just about every Spygate story out there from people on the left, the right, and the media.

It depends on how they interpret the events. But Mifsud is the guy who contacts George Papadopoulos, and he's working on the Trump team. And this Maltese professor is alleged to be the guy who tells him hey you know the Russians have some information on Hillary now this is confirmed uh through George Papadopoulos at least through his account he confirms that this happened if you watch the interview he did with Jake Tapper uh he mentions this that Mifsud had made this comment now Papadopoulos makes clear, Joe, and this is going to throw a wrinkle in the left story.

Pay close attention to this. The left story has always been about collusion, that there was some kind of a corrupt bargain here, Joe. In other words, that the Russians had information on Hillary, potentially negative information, hacked into the DNC and they were going to trade it or give it to the Trump team and the Trump team was going to use it

to make the Democrats look bad and win the election. You understand that? I know you do, folks. You've been here forever. Now, Papadopoulos throws a huge monkey wrench in it this weekend with his Friday night interview with Jake Tapper. According to Papadopoulos in his first public interview, he says in there something critical which of course uh the you know the big media miss because they don't want to you know they don't want to uh tell you the truth on this papadopoulos says that it was not in fact an offer that it was just a statement that he almost immediately discarded and he he assumed miss sood was just reading it out of the news or using it like uh you know a hyperbolic statement to make himself appear more connected. In other words, Joe, he says to him, it'd be different than me telling you,

hey, Joe, you're running for president. I have information on your opponent I want to give you. And me saying, hey, Joe, the Russians may have information on your opponent. One's an offer, one's just a statement. So Papadopoulos, interestingly enough, said in the interview, he goes, hey, he didn't offer me anything.

He's unequivocal on this, by the way. He did not equivocate at all. He was crystal clear this was not some offer. And that the statement he felt was just kind of a statement of, you know, Mifsud trying to engage in puffery. You know, like puff in his chest. Like, hey, look, the Russians may have this information. I'm connected, right? That's a key point, folks.

That's critical. And it also puts Mifsud in, right now, at least according to the narrative we have, paragraph one of this whole thing. This whole thing starts with Mifsud telling Papadopoulos about this information. Now we get the information from The Hill this weekend and others that the DNC, folks, this is amazing.

This is like, I can't believe, I've read this story. I'm like, this is just astonishing. That the DNC that filed a lawsuit against the Trump campaign because of this, it's a nonsense lawsuit, just to be clear. But they filed a lawsuit against the Trump campaign for this Russian collusion. It's a publicity tactic, folks, make no mistake. But in order to follow through with the lawsuit,

the DNC had to have subpoenas issued to people to testify in the case. So, folks, as I just explained to you, if you're going to allege collusion that the Trump team colluded with the Russians to get this information that Mifsud allegedly had and told Papadopoulos about. Joe, you think subpoenaing Mifsud would be important? Yeah, I think so, Dan. Yeah, I think so. Kind of, sort of, maybe, right? So the DNC goes to find him and comes out with this court file. And it's, again, largely ignored by the media.

And says in the court filing that they can't locate him and he may, in fact, be deceased now. Where's the beef? Where's the beef is right. Where's Ms. Sood? Even better. Now, people are all weekend people are freaking out was listen i i here's the thing folks i as you well know i i've spent the last year of my life researching this the book is thorough uh when you read the spy gate book we put out it's available on amazon you'll see it's very thorough it's footnoted to death death. I'm not going to get into

things I can't prove or disprove. I'm just telling you now, he may be deceased. He may not. I don't know that. No sourcing I have says he is deceased. What I'm telling you is more suspicious. Obviously, if he died, we'd obviously like to know why. Was it natural causes? What happened? Were the circumstances suspicious? Now, having said that, what I find even more odd about this entire case is not the fact that the DNC thinks he may be deceased. It's the fact that nobody can find this guy. Ladies and gentlemen, where in this world of social media, internet connectivity, 24-hour cable news, video cameras on every corner and in every person's hand in the portion

of their cell phone, how do you explain the fact and by the way financial tracking of just about everything you do with the advent of the debit card and everything else how do you explain the fact that the guy who starts the entire investigation according to the current narrative we have Mifsud who tells Papadopoulos I don't believe that story by the way I'm just saying according to the narrative we have by the media that Mifsud told Papadopoulos about this Russian info. This was the start of the whole thing. How do you explain the fact that this guy can't be found? Joe,

say for a second, Joe, I'm going to play a game. I'm not messing with you here again, but you are the audience on Budsman. Okay. Let's assume for a second he's not dead, okay? Because remember the a second he's not dead okay because remember the article says he may be deceased nobody has confirmed that i'm gonna i have a lot of reasons to disbelieve that i'm gonna i'm gonna get to that in a second but a serious question for you joe how if you needed to hide and never be found again do you think you could do i mean think it

through think it through i mean think about what you'd have to do to never be tracked financially on a video camera if you had to do it would you know where to even start boy you know no i really wouldn't you'd have to first of all you'd have to dump all your credit cards so many ways of being tracked you'd have to alter your appearance you'd have to scrap your cell phone you'd have to go with either cricket phones or something like that. Even those cricket phones you'd have to buy with cash. It would be almost impossible. You couldn't have a bank account. Ladies and gentlemen, think about it.

I mean, as a former criminal investigator, tracking people down, candidly speaking, these days is not difficult. And believe me, I was a federal agent. I left the job in 2011. Now it's even worse but you know when I was doing criminal investigations in 2000 2001 it's it's almost impossible to disappear almost impossible back then we had auto track lexus nexus lexus nexus right now you can get stuff on commercially available or even I mean we have truth finder you can find people it's not hard people. It's not hard to find.

They're not hard to find at all. You may say, well, okay, what are you suggesting, Dan? Folks, I'm suggesting to you based on the evidence that there are only two possible solutions here for Mifsud. Number one is he may in fact be deceased. I'm not here to discredit that at all. I'm just telling you, I'm not sure I believe that, but it may be, it's possible. He may be. And if that's the case, we damn well better find out those circumstances really quick. I'm just telling you, I'm not sure I believe that. But it's possible.

He may be. And if that's the case, we damn well better find out those circumstances really quick. The founder of the feast here, the guy who organizes, you know, the guy this whole case is organized around, I guess is a more precise way to say it. He just randomly disappears and nobody's even remotely curious in the media. I don't believe it. Got to be a corpse somewhere. Where's the death register? Where's the records?

You know, Joe, that's a good point. I'm glad you actually brought that up. I don't want to get distracted, but Joe brought up a good point there. Even dying, given the ubiquitous nature of of electronic record keeping surely there's a record somewhere of a guy by the name of joseph missoud dying his name is not i mean joe armacost is a unique last name if joe armacost god forbid were to pass we would probably have a record of it now if it's john smith it may be difficult because there's probably thousands of john smiths with even the same birth date.

But I'll be honest with you, folks, even that's not difficult. There's social security numbers and other things. I don't believe it. I'll tell you why. Number one, the guy who has been speaking out publicly for Mifsud, this guy, Stephen Rowe, who's mentioned in Jake Tapper's interview, by the way. Stephen Rowe has been a very, very interesting character. Mifsud is connected to

the Stephen Rowe. They're friends. Stephen Rowe is alleged to be representing him in some legal capacity. I say alleged because it's unclear what exactly Rowe does, at least in my eyes. But Stephen Rowe has been speaking out for Mifsud now now now here's where it gets interesting joe roe has made a couple of assertions here assertion number one he's made about mifsud which has been the very bedrock of the show for the last few months is that mifsud is not a russian asset that he is a western intelligence asset ladies Ladies and gentlemen, if that's the case, and that is in fact true, and he was working on behalf of Western intelligence agencies, we, again, we have a scandal the likes of, well, we have a scandal anyway.

I mean, we've already laid out the case, but the scandal gets even worse because now we know Papadopoulos was not only approached by a U.S. asset in Stefan Halpern spying on behalf of the Obama administration for the Obama administration's DOJ, IC, intelligence community, and FBI, but now we have suspicions, according to a guy who has direct contact with Mifsud, that Mifsud may in fact have been working

for Western intelligence agencies as well, indicating with 100% certainty that this is a setup the whole time. It's not only that it's a setup, that it's a setup by our own guys, by friendlies. If Roe is right. Now, what is Roe indicating that Mifsud was a Western intelligence asset, not a Russian one? What does that have to do with the death story? Folks, who has the capacity?

I mean, think about it. From standard, even things like witness protection programs, and they're never, by the way, they're never having been involved with not the formal U.S. Marshals Witness Protection Program, but other types of these programs at the state and local level, especially when I was a former federal agent, looking into some of these programs for people who cooperated with us.

The witness protection programs are never as cryptic as you see them in TV, where it's like, you know, we're going to change this guy's fingerprints. You know, it's like ridiculous. They had that Arnold Schwarzenegger movie. It's just dumb. I mean, it's a good program, but things are never as dramatic as they are in the movies. But when you look at witness protection program type things,

who has the power to make someone disappear? The answer is the state does. The state is the power. I mean, it's not a conspiracy theory, folks. It's obvious. That's what the witness protection program is. Is it not? I mean, you know what I'm saying? I mean, because liberal not a conspiracy theory, folks. It's obvious. That's what the witness protection program is, is it not? I mean, you know what I'm saying?

I mean, because liberal goofballs listen to the show all the time, and they do everything they can to try to discredit even basic concepts that we all agree on, that the whole purpose of things like witness protection programs is to use state power to make someone disappear. That's a tautological statement, but not to the idiots in the media, of which there are many, right? Right. What I'm suggesting to you is

he may not be dead. This may be some kind of bait and switch, and this is why I urge you to be very careful. He may be, maybe, I'm not sure. I'm not going to tell you anything I can't confirm, but I'm suggesting to you this may be a bait and switch to either, number one,

get us to stop by the, remember, this is the DNC trying to locate this guy, folks. This may have a couple different purposes. Number one, may be to get us off the trail looking for Mifsud. Why, Joe? Because if we get Mifsud and someone interviews Mifsud and Mifsud comes out and gives up all the cookies that he was working for Western friendly intelligence assets the entire time.

Ladies and gentlemen, that's if Mifsud's telling the truth, that's proof positive first person information that the Papadopoulos and the Trump team were set up. So my suggestion to you is be careful with this information. He may be dead. He may not. But the information is coming from the DNC's alleged search for this guy. They may be trying to throw people off the trail because they know they may have some information that Mifsud is an integral figure in this entire thing. And his information could be potentially devastating.

Remember what the DNC's lawsuit is about. Folks, it's about Russian collusion. lawsuit is about folks it's about russian collusion again if mifsud started the whole thing by telling a member of the trump team he has information on russia and he's not a russian asset he's a friendly intelligence asset the dnc's whole story goes out the window joe is this making sense everybody yep perfectly clear number one get off the trail they're sniffing around like bloodhounds. Are they really? Maybe. Maybe.

I always think about this with a skeptical eye, folks. The Democrats are not stupid, okay? We may not like their ideology, but disrespecting their tactical genius in some of these things is a catastrophic mistake. These guys know what they're doing. They almost pulled off the Spygate operation. They still haven't been held to account. So number one, again, it may be throwing us off the trail. Number two, they may know where Mifsud is.

They may know he's alive. They want us to get baited into all kinds of, oh, look, Obama did it, or Hillary did it, and someone, a ninja did it. You know what I'm saying? Yeah. Be very skeptical of these stories. Folks, I'm just telling you,

I'm very cautious with this, and I know it bothers some people, and that's okay. I'm not here to, I love my audience, but my show is about the truth and the facts, and when I speculate, I'll tell'll tell you again i'm not sure i'm being crystal clear that he's he may be dead i'm just telling you to be cautious of these stories because they may be baiting you down a

road where people invest fully in some kind of a theory out there that you know the ninjas got him the samurai got him the space martians got him And then all of a sudden later on when he turns up and these people go to report and again, they go, oh, those are the same idiots who said the aliens got, you get what I'm saying here? They want to bait you down this path. Now, I think the first reason is more likely. I think the first reason is they want to throw people off the scent. But the second reason is possible too, that if he's not dead, that they're just saying that to get people to, you know, he may be dead, to basically water the chia pet seeds of a theory out there that people go down this road.

Oh, look, he's dead. The Clintons got him or something. And then later on, they're going to use that, all that stuff to discredit you. So be very careful. The only responsible thing to do for people like you and I have been following this for a long time intimately is to look at the information we have, use a solid construct of ideas, historical evidence, even circumstantial evidence is fine as long as the circumstances add up, right? And to come to some sort of a reasonable hypothesis, acknowledging that we don't have all the information at this time.

We don't. If Mifsud turns up, the logical question would be, well, why was he hiding and who hit him? Was this state-sponsored? Who has the ability to hide someone? I just walked through that whole thing with you with Joe. The ability to hide in today's interconnected world is to the degree this guy's been able to hide,

despite everybody looking for him, the DNC, the FBI, all of these other people. The FBI has already acknowledged Joe air quotes are looking for him. Why can't they find him? You have to ask honest questions like is this a state-sponsored effort

to hide this guy and who's the state sponsoring it? If it is in fact Russia, good, we need to know. If it's a Western intelligence asset, then we really need to know. And secondly, if the DNC can't find him, why would they presume him to be dead if they have no evidence? If they have evidence, why not see it? The answer is they may be throwing that out there to get you either off the trail yourself or to get you to engage in some

theory that's going to be debunked later on to make you look silly. Be very, very careful with this. Folks, that's the most reasonable, down-to-earth, sober analysis I can give you of where we are now. Mifsud, the Maltese professor who started this whole thing with Papadopoulos, I'm telling you is the key to this whole thing. There are a number of different entities with vested interests in making this guy go away. entities with vested interests in making this guy go away. Stat, making him shut up, just like it was in Mueller's interest to keep Papadopoulos quiet. Now Papadopoulos is going to serve his time, and I strongly encourage him to come out and continue to talk if he has information he thinks can help.

That little nugget in there about Mifsud not actually offering anything, but just offering a deal, but just making a statement, is a critical component of this. Folks, remember, the whole thing is, oh man, Papadopoulos, they were offered this email on Hillary, and the Trump team took it, and they rolled with it,

and they colluded in an effort, a collusion effort to overthrow the election. That's not what Papadopoulos said. The guy was crystal clear in the interview that the guy just threw this out there as a statement that he just almost immediately dismissed. Papadopoulos brings up another good point in the interview. Joe, if the Trump team was going to collude

through Papadopoulos to get this information about Hillary from the Russians, right? Wouldn't you think Papadopoulos would have relayed the information about Mifsud's offer, which was no offer at all? Seems like he'd be a likely guy, yeah. Where are the emails?

Papadopoulos brings up a great point. Sorry, just here. He brings up a terrific point. This chair, I was sitting the wrong way in the chair. He says, listen, where are these emails? Papadopoulos says to Jake Tapper, if I colluded with someone on the Trump team to pass off this information about this statement

that Smith-Sood made, right? He says, how come they don't have the email? Which is a really basic common sense question. And Papadopoulos says, even if I deleted it and I don't have it, surely the recipient does. How come nobody's produced these emails? Folks, because the strong possibility is these emails don't exist.

Does anyone ever consider the fact that Papadopoulos is telling the truth? That he was just some low-level advisor brought in. He's clearly an ambitious cat. He's brought in on the thing. This guy makes it on the campaign. This guy, Ms. Sood, makes a throwaway statement about emails. He disregards it and moves on. Is it possible that that actually happened?

The answer is not only is it possible, it's likely. Folks, live your life by Occam's razor, right? Commonly stated is keep it simple, stupid. More elegantly stated by others as given all possible scenarios except the one that requires the least amount of explanations is the most parsimonious, right?

In other words, for you to it requires six different leaps and explanations. For you to believe that George Papadopoulos was the key figure in a scandal to gather information from the Russians on behalf of the Trump team to overthrow the election.

He has to have been a key figure. He has to have had access to the information. He has to have colluded with Russians who had access to the information. He has to have passed it to the Trump team. The Trump team had to use it. It had to impact the election. I'm already at, what is that, six, seven, six different leaps in explanation.

By the way, none of which are proven and there's no evidence of it all. To explain away what is far more parsimonious by saying, oh, he met with this guy. He thought the guy had contacts. The guy made a throwaway comment about Hillary's emails and they moved on. He thought the guy had contacts. The guy made a throwaway comment about Hillary's emails and they moved on. That requires one explanation. That the guy made a statement that Papadopoulos disregarded.

But again, nobody lives by Occam's razor anymore because the left is knee deep in conspiracy theories. They accept the least parsimonious explanations with seven leaps in logic to explain away what is simply explained by one simple throwaway statement. And again, doubling down on it, if any of this was true, why didn't Bob Mueller charge Papadopoulos with conspiracy? He was never charged with any collusion-related crime at all, ever. The guy's basically serving 14 days in jail for fibbing about a date that he spoke to Mifsud. Remember, Papadopoulos initially told the FBI Mifsud reached out to him before he was hired by the Trump campaign, not after. You may say, well, who cares?

Why does that even matter? Because the FBI is alleging that Mifsud reached out to him because he was a member of the Trump team to get that information out. Do you understand that, Joe? This is important, folks. Yeah, sure. This is the FBI's whole story against Papadopoulos, which is stupid. It's so dumb. That this guy, Mifsud, who nobody can find, the FBI interviewed, let him go, and nobody can find him. The DNC thinks he may be dead.

I already told you that whole story. the DNC thinks he may be dead. I already told you that whole story. The FBI is saying, well, Mifsud only reached out to Papadopoulos because he was on the Trump team and was getting ready to use this guy in this collusion scheme. When the FBI initially spoke to Papadopoulos, Papadopoulos said that, no, no, Mifsud reached out to me before I joined the Trump team,

which would throw the FBI narrative out the window. Now, again, the non-Occam's razor conspiracy theorist on the left, there's proof. Papadopoulos was trying to hide the fact that he knew, you know, Mifsud was using him for his contacts on the Trump team. That's not what Papadopoulos says at all. Papadopoulos said it was pretty clear to his lawyer that he was just at that point trying to protect the Trump team because he didn't know what he was involved in, which makes total sense. The guy gets out of the shower, the FBI's at his door, and starts asking him about a conversation

he had with a Russian guy, so he screws up the date. Maybe the guy was just confused, but you jump immediately to an international conspiracy with a Russian-connected guy who nobody can seem to find, who nobody can seem to even point out his Russian connections?

Come on, guy, give me a break all right one more thing about this papadopoulos was pretty clear um on the effort to the jake tapper interviews is a good one i encourage you to watch it um there's a thread throughout it's only about 40 minutes of content but in there the thread throughout the whole thing is what i've been telling you again for six months. And I'm going to move on after this because this case just fascinates me. And it's just so unbelievable how the greatest act of malfeasance in media history is to ignore the fact that George Papadopoulos was clearly set up. He points out a number of contacts made Papadopoulos with him over the course of his time on the Trump team. And all of these contacts are suspicious, and yet the media has almost zero interest,

collectively, in who these contacts were. He points out that Mifsud contacted him after he joined the Trump team. Of course, we just heard the Mifsud story. Oh, he got information by the Russians. No one's ever proven that, nothing, that he's connected to the Russians. His connections are to Western assets,

according to his own lawyer. He talks about Halper, a U.S. intelligence community linked spy, who now it's indisputable, contacted George Papadopoulos in an effort to get information. Started asking George Papadopoulos about the emails. This is a United

States government intelligence asset, a spy. We know about Sergei Millian reaching out to George Papadopoulos. He talks about it in the interview. Sergey Millian, who is alleged to be source D in the dossier. So let me get this straight, Joe. We have a guy, a very well-connected, wealthy guy in Sergey Millian, a real estate guy who reaches out to Papadopoulos, according to George,

with an offer to give him $30,000 a month. And this guy, according to credible allegations, is also a source for Christopher Steele's dossier, who's working for Hillary Clinton. Nothing to see there, folks. Nothing to see there. Move along. Move along.

While you were all, you know, rubbernecking a car accident on Long Island Expressway. Move along, folks. Nothing to see. I mean, are you serious? You're not even interested in this at all, the media. So a guy offers him $30,000 a month, a Trump advisor, after multiple suspicious contacts with the U.S. government. This is so clearly a setup.

The same guy is alleged to be a source in the dossier, a dossier produced and paid for by the Hillary Clinton team. Nothing to see there, folks. Don't you worry. And then he brings up at for by the Hillary Clinton team. Nothing to see there, folks. Don't you worry. And then he brings up at the end the four suspicious contacts. We have Mithrid, Halper, Millian, and you have this guy Charles Tawil now, who Tawil, to give disclosure on Tawil,

Tawil says, hey, I had nothing to do with this. This is a business deal. I am not a spy. According to at least some people in the Papadopoulos circle, this Tawil may have been some intelligence asset giving Papadopoulos money, gives him $10,000 overseas before he travels back to the United States, gives him $10,000 for a business deal, Tawil saying Papadopoulos asked for it. But this guy Tawil, if you look up his name, there are some allegations of his

connections to the intelligence community too. But ladies and gentlemen, again, the media has zero interest whatsoever in getting to the bottom of this story because they want to make this all go away. Just come in full circle. That's why I'm urging you to be very, very careful with the Mifsud may be dead story. Be very careful. Trust me on this one. Okay. Please. If we get confirmation. I'll be the first to tell you about it.

If I get some good sourcing on it. That he's dead. I'll tell you about it. But until that's confirmed. Remember. It is not in your interest to make Mifsud go away. It's in their interest. Because if he comes out.

And says he's a western intelligence asset. And provides some proof. Some emails. Oh boy. This thing is going to go, you know, tier one nuclear in a heartbeat. All right. Today's show also brought to you by our buddies at iTarget. iTarget, the iTarget Pro system, is the single best way to increase your proficiency with a firearm. Proficiency and safety.

Those are the two things that matter with a firearm more than anything. If you're not safe with it, you're a danger to yourself too. There's no point in having it. If you're not proficient with it and you can't hit where you're firing at, God forbid in a self-defense scenario or hunting or even at the range, you want to be sure you hit what you're firing at, then really it's no good for you. You need the iTarget Pro system. What does it do? It's going to take your dry firing to the next level. I love this system. I use it all the time. This thing is incredible. You'll be shooting the wings off a firefly at the end of a week. If you have wide groupings, you have some problem with your grip, your sight alignment, you're just not accurate with your firearm now, pick up this

system. It's available at itargetpro.com. That's the letter I, targetpro.com, itargetpro.com. Folks, remember, competitive shooters dry fire 10 times more than they live fire. What does this system do for you? Dry firing is when you take a safely unloaded weapon at the range, always point in a safe direction, and you depress the trigger on a safely unloaded firearm. Safely unloaded firearm. The benefit of that is there's no recoil and you can practice without any fear of the recoil or anything throwing off your sight alignment. This is one of the best ways to practice.

What they will do is they'll send you a laser round. The laser round goes in the firearm you have now, whatever firearm you have, 9mm,.38 special, and it will emit a laser onto a target they send you. And you will see exactly where those rounds would have gone. Don't miss this system. I highly recommend it. Use it all the time. It keeps my groupings nice and strong. Go to itargetpro.com. That's the letter, itargetpro.com. Use promo code DAN, and you'll get 10% off. That's itargetpro.com. Okay. I have a really good piece also in the show notes today by Andy McCarthy.

It's excellent at National Review. Read that Hill piece, too, about Mifsud. And read it, by the way, the Hill piece, read the Mifsud piece with a critical eye after what we just said. But the National Review piece is a good one. And Andy McCarthy brings up a really great question. It's a long piece, but it is definitely worth your time. People forget, folks, that the independent council statute that has since lapsed, There is no more independent counsel. It was not renewed. That's why the Mueller probe is a special counsel and not an independent counsel. There is

no statute for special counsels. There are some Department of Justice guidelines and regulations, but Andy McCarthy goes through it at length. And I encourage you to read it because it's very good. It talks about the mechanics behind a special counsel investigation, which as an informed listener of the show, you really should know. It is definitely worth your time. It talks about the mechanics behind a special counsel investigation, which as an informed listener of the show, you really should know. It is definitely worth your time. It talks about a couple things. Why a special counsel would be formed and used. One would be formed because there's an alleged conflict in the DOJ, Joe, that the Department of Justice can't handle this case themselves. Secondly, it should lay out a specific crime. These are all very important things. Secondly, it should lay out a specific crime.

These are all very important things. Now, McCarthy just absolutely decimates the special counsel investigation and goes after Rosenstein in the piece, probably being a little more aggressive than he does. Andy's a pretty sober guy and a great guy, but it's a good piece. And he says in the piece that, listen, neither one of those things right now is actually accurate. Now, to be clear, the special counsel guidelines by the DOJ, because the independent counsel statute has lapsed, folks, let's be clear, just so you understand that.

The special counsel guidelines do not mandate that a crime be named, okay? But there is no history of independent counsels or special counsels in the past, as McCarthy points out, that did not name a specific crime. The reason is, folks, we are a country that investigates crimes. We don't investigate people. I cannot be clearer on this. You have to take this to the bank, cash this check, spend it. Special counsels should never be formed open-ended because what do you get? You get an investigation that goes after a person and doesn't go after a crime that is the very essence of non-blind justice justice that's targeting someone why is that dangerous because if i want to look for a crime with joe armacost if i want to look

for a crime for my own wife i promise you we'll find it from matrix tag ripping to jaywalking we will find it ladies and gentlemen if you paid 99 cents in taxes when you were supposed to pay $1.10, I've got news for you. You committed a crime. Show me the man, and I will show you the crime. As the Marxist police chiefs used to say often. And it's funny because McCarthy actually attributes that exact quote in the piece. Show me the man, I'll show you the

crime what is it I always say his name wrong whenever the guy so that's why I didn't say it I don't know who I am yeah it's in there though that quote is actually in the piece that is exactly the problem we're trying to avoid that's why with special counsels Joe the history has always been you have to line out exactly what

you're looking for and line out exactly why the Department of Justice as as it stands now, can't handle this. So McCarthy makes some fascinating, fascinating points. One, I, you know, shamefully, when I miss something, I tell you because, you know, listen, I'm not I'm not omniscient here, obviously. You know, I'm a sinner like everyone else. How did I when he made this point, I thought, gosh, how the heck did I miss this? I would have loved to have said this on Fox or anywhere, even on my show.

McCarthy brings up this great point. He goes, okay, so point number one, Joe, that the DOJ could not handle this themselves. They needed a special counsel because of conflicts in the DOJ. Really? Then how come the people they hired were all people,

mostly, who had worked in the DOJ? Who? We had, you had Jeannie Rhee, you had Andy Weissman. This is a great, folks, do you understand what a terrific point this is? So we needed a special counsel to go out and investigate, because the normal Department of Justice folks we have now can't do it. So what does Mueller do? The first thing he does is runs out and hires people from the DOJ with massive political

conflicts. Democrat donors, Jeannie Rhee, who had represented the Clinton Foundation, Aaron Zebley, who actually represented one of the guys alleged to have destroyed the Blackberries in the Hillary email scandal. So McCarthy writes, listen, and again, he's a sober analyst, Joe. He goes, listen, I'm not criticizing Mueller personally. I'm just saying like, have a brain, dude. This is me kind of obviously improvising.

But have a, you go, you want to, this is a nonpartisan investigation. So you go out and hire DOJ people who are the most partisan people out there. One other point of this, because your liberal friends will bring this up. I'm always here to debunk them immediately. You get ready to roll on this. Your liberal friends would say, well, it's against the rules to ask them their partisan affiliation before appointing them to

special counsel. Yes, you're right. Point stipulated. Ladies and gentlemen, these were known partisans, though. They didn't have to ask any questions. It was no secret that Andy Weissman, the chief investigator in the Mueller probe, was a Hillary supporter. If you did a modest amount of research on trying to stay ideologically centered in your special counsel, you would have known who Weissman and Jeannie Rhee and Zebley were. The media found this out in two seconds. This was not a mystery, The media found this out in two seconds. This was not a mystery, folks. Instead of hiring heartland American lawyers, maybe state-level prosecutors, deputizing them at the federal level, who had no connections to the D.C. swamp, what does Mueller do?

He immediately goes out and hires the swampiest DOJ officials possible from within the DOJ to prove that the DOJ couldn't handle the investigation. What? Is your head spinning? Are you like Reagan from The Exorcist right now? Is pea soup coming out of your throat? What was the priest's name? Father Marin in The Exorcist? Do you remember?

No. Now I'll get a thousand emails today. I'm the worst with movies. You know, folks, one of the things about the horrible movies, but this is the whole point. The DOJ can't handle us. Let's hire DOJ lawyers. Wait, I thought there was a conflict in the GOJ. Not anymore.

We're going to go get the DOJ lawyers. We're going to hold a nonpartisan investigation. Give me the most partisan people possible. I mean, is Mueller, can he, seriously, can he be this ignorant? Or is what I'm telling you true? The answer is Mueller's not this ignorant, folks. He's not stupid. Mueller's not dumb.

The answer is Mueller knew he would get covered by the media and just hired the most partisan people possible to sweep, you know about Plan C if you listened to last week's show, to sweep the Spygate scandal under the rug by attacking Donald Trump endlessly. And to attack Donald Trump, he needed a bunch of partisan hacks. So he went back into the DOJ and pulled him out. Now, Joe, why go back into the DOJ? Why create that chasm?

In other words, why create a scandal? Why go back into the doj if you're trying to prove the doj couldn't handle it you know what um why why would you joe if you're investigating donald trump yes you are absolutely you're not investigating collusion let's get that out of the way muller's not invest stop believing the nonsense this is not you know liberal media hour here if you are desperate to go after donald, Joe, desperate, and you have to hide all of Hillary's crimes, the DOJ Spygate debacle, the FBI Spygate debacle, and your real charge is to make that all go away. Yeah. Do you want people who have deep connections within the DOJ who may be intimately familiar with what you're trying to hide?

Or do you want a lawyer at Heartland America who's going to be nonpartisan, who's going to uncover the facts? I want the guys that are on my side, baby. Of course! Of course! Folks, the McCarthy piece explains it all. Right. Why would you hire the DOJ people if you thought there was a DOJ conflict?

Because you need people who are aware of the malfeasance you're trying to sweep up. That's why you don't want a bunch of Heartland American state prosecutors coming in there and looking at the facts objectively give me a break don't be stupid not talking to you i'm talking to the media people secondly why hire partisan hacks because this is a partisan attack the answers are very simple occam's razor folks keep it simple stupid why. Why hire DOJ people? Because they're hiding DOJ malfeasance. Why hire partisan hacks?

Because it's a partisan attack. No further explanation needed. Another point on this that McCarthy brings up, which is a beautiful one. He says if there was such a DOJ conflict, yet Mueller hired DOJ people anyway, Joe, why does he keep referring cases back into the DOJ? Folks, the Russian GRU case. Remember, we got these Russian GRU military officials, Joe. We got them with this.

Remember the detailed indictment hacking into the U.S. election data system, trying to get information from the DNC. Remember that indictment? Everybody was blowing away the media. Oh, we got the Russians. Folks, that case was referred back to the DOJ National Security Division. Why? Why? Come again?

The whole premise, the whole, this is why I'm so mad at Andy. Joking. I wanted to think of this first. The whole premise is the DOJ can't handle this because there's a conflict. So what does Mueller do? The biggest indictment we have so far, these Russian military guys, he sends right back to the DOJ. I thought there was a conflict. This is supposed to be about Russian collusion, yet you get the Russians.

And where does it go? Right back to the DOJ. Oh, not only that, Trump's lawyer, Michael Cohen, his personal lawyer, you would think would have intimate knowledge of a Russian collusion scandal if it were to occur. It didn't. What happens to his case, Joe? It was referred back into the DOJ, the Southern

District. Jeez. This is the craziest thing I have ever heard. The craziest thing I've ever heard. Finally, he brings up one final really, really good point in the piece.

How Rod Rosenstein is hiding. There was an initial appointing of the special counsel, Joe, looking into Russian collusion. There's also a supplemental memo issued on August 2nd, 2017. That supplemental memo still remains classified. Only pieces of it have leaked out. So just to be clear, a lot of the liberals are saying, okay, remember the two points we're making here, Joe. There's a conflict in the DOJ, which I've just debunked, which is nonsense. They just want to sweep the DOJ stuff under the rug. The second point is that a specific crime needs to be named and has been in the past even

though it's not mandated that's been the history but no crime's been named here the liberal comeback to point number two is that oh no no no there's a crime name but it's in the second uh letter the reclassification of the investigation by rod rosenstein issued august 2nd 2007 the supplemental memo joe well andy m Andy McCarthy brings up a great point. Why are they hiding that? Why are they still classifying that thing? Andy's like, hey, listen, you can hide the names. You know, if you have names in there you don't want let out, then fine.

But that should be released. You owe us an explanation as to what this crime is, right? Yeah. But he brings up a terrific point saying, is the real information in that supplemental memo, Joe, issued August 2nd, 2017, used to clarify this alleged crime against the Trump team? This is something I had thought of before and I should have said.

He says, is it the dossier? Is it, again, the information in the dossier, again, that appeared in the FISA, that appeared with Bruce Ohier again that appeared in the FISA that appeared with Bruce or that appeared in the FBI ladies and gentlemen you know how devastating this would be it would take apart and dismantle the entire special counsel investigation Donald Trump should demand that that supplemental memo be declassified and I'm telling you right now if there is any information from this now wholly discredited dossier in that supplemental memo outlining the, quote, crimes that were just made up, Joe, man, we have another hardcore problem going on here. Declassify that memo, too.

And if Rosenstein can't back it up with actual crimes, we better find out real quick. My buddy should say right quick all right um i got a couple more things to get through uh let's read today lending club thank god for lending club we need everybody needs a place like lending club these days for decades credit cards have been telling us to buy it now and pay for it later with interest that is not a good idea. Despite your best intentions, that interest can get out of control fast. With Lending Club, you can consolidate your debt or pay off credit cards with one fixed monthly payment.

Who doesn't want to do that? Keep it simple, right? Just talk about that. Since 2007, Lending Club has helped millions of people regain control of their finances with affordable fixed rate personal loans. No trips to a bank, no high interest credit cards. That is not the way to go. Just go to lendingclub.com. Tell them about yourself and how much you want to borrow. Pick the terms that are right for you.

And if you're approved, your loan is automatically deposited into your bank account in as little as a few days. Lending Club is the number one, folks, peer-to-peer lending platform with over $35 billion in loans issued. We love Lending Club. Go to LendingClub.com slash Dan. That's LendingClub.com slash Dan. Check your rate in minutes and borrow up to $40,000. That's LendingClub.com slash Dan. LendingClub.com slash Dan. All loans made by WebBank, bank member fdic equal housing lender thanks lending club for being part of the show today we appreciate it thanks for your patience folks as always um okay joe you got that obama uh sot ready there sure do so this is uh hysterical obama reappears again sad you know it's it's horrifying sad funny at the same time i was on fox and friends this morning and a later hit today i did at 8 30 which felt so i used to doing 6 30 in the morning hits

on fox i did 8 30 i i told uh one of the one of the producers i was talking it felt like doing a hannity hit it felt so late i'm never i'm never up that late for fox and friends you know so um obama reappears on the campaign trail and immediately starts attacking Donald Trump and hilariously starts somehow taking credit for the economy. Now, before I get to this great piece of video, which contrasts Obama in 2016, talking about how none of what Trump did on the economy is possible and then later taking credit for what Trump did on the economy, I just want to say to you, pointing out the absurdity of Barack Obama's statements.

I just want to say to you, pointing out the absurdity of Barack Obama's statements. Ladies and gentlemen, Barack Obama spent eight years, eight years blaming George W. Bush for the worst recovery in modern American history. Cumulative GDP start to finish, an average GDP rate of 2%, roughly 2%, depending on how actually below 2%, an average GDP growth rate of 2%, depending on how actually we handle it, below 2%, an average GDP growth rate of 2%, which is the first president, by the way, in American history to never reach annual, annual 3% GDP growth. That's Barack Obama. Historic lows in productivity and investment. Barack Obama's economy was an absolute disaster. 60% of Americans thought we were headed in the wrong direction when he left office. Barack Obama presided over the wipeout of over a thousand Democrat seats at the state and local level. Barack Obama was a disaster for the economy and for his party. That his poor economic performance. And then he gets out of office. Donald Trump changes his regime around, goes to a deregulatory instead of a regulatory regime, starts cutting red tape, starts cutting taxes.

The economy turns around right away. Barack Obama leaves him in the last year with a 1.6% growth rate. Trump turns it around right away to 2.2. Last quarter was 4.2. The next quarter is predicted to be 4.7 and barack obama after blaming bush for eight years is now taking credit for trump's economy which is hysterical hysterical now here's this is this is this is really wonderful this is barack obama in 2016 telling us how this is all impossible and now taking credit for what was possible when his team got out of office. When the job numbers come out, monthly job numbers, and suddenly Republicans are saying

it's America. I had to kind of remind them, actually, those job numbers are the same as they were in 2015, in 2016. Because some of those jobs of the past are just not going to come back. And when somebody says, like the person you just mentioned, who I'm not going to advertise for, that he's going to bring all these jobs back. Well, how exactly are you going to do that? What are you going to do? There's no answer to it. He just says, well, I'm going to do that? What are you going to do? There's no answer to it.

He just says, well, I'm going to negotiate a better deal. Well, how exactly are you going to negotiate that? What magic wand do you have? And usually the answer is, he doesn't have an answer. This is so funny. This is classic. Keep in mind, what Barack Obama was talking about in that latter clip right from 2016 was the the the uh the the dearth of manufacturing jobs and how they were leaving

the country we've seen a manufacturing resurgence back in the united states since trump took office and by the way when you compare the last 19 20 months of the of the obama administration with the 20 months we've seen thus far of the Trump administration, folks, who had more full-time jobs, good quality jobs that Barack Obama in 2016 said would never come back, despite now him laughingly taking credit for it.

Donald Trump, 4.1 million full-time equivalent jobs. Barack Obama, 3.3. Keep in mind, Trump is farther into a recovery than Obama was. After eight years, Trump, if anything, even despite unbelievably strong economic policies, tax cuts, deregulatory reform, the economy should still be slowing down a bit. We're at almost full employment, although the employment rate is, there are people who are underemployed still. I don't want to be dramatic.

And there are people sitting out of the workforce who've given up. But it should be slowing down, not speeding up at the end stages of a recovery if Barack Obama's right. Why is it speeding up? Because we weren't at the end stages of recovery. The jobs the Obama administration created,

even according to Donna Brazile herself at the DNC who sent this in an email, were basically crappy jobs. They were part-time jobs. Oh, Obama, this guy has to be kidding. All right, I'm not done with the silly liberal stuff. So Bill Maher this weekend, Ace Ventura's on, pet detective, Jim Carrey, who is,

the guy's, he's actually literally a comedian right but uh he's also an economist i don't know if you knew this joe yeah he's a uh he's a world-class economist so jim carrey up here yeah yeah he is he is uh he's wonderful he understands the politics of redistribution scarce resources uh you know rationing versus pricing models and all that stuff jim's really great at this so jim appeared on the bill maher show this weekend and jim uh jim Carrey clearly doesn't understand what socialism is. Clearly, I was joking. Play this cut from Jim Carrey. I've always said

the United States has been a quasi-socialist government for a hundred years, for crying out loud. There's plenty of subsidies for oil companies and everybody else. But also Medicare and Social Security. Yes, of course. There's nothing more socialistic than some of the Pentagon programs that are just jobs programs.

The Pentagon says we don't want these tanks and they build them anyway. If that's not socialism, I don't know what is. But with that word, the Democrats seem to get a plan to fight this slander of socialism. You're going to be living in Venice. Well, I don't see it. We have to say yes to socialism, to the word and everything. We have to stop apologizing. Oh my gosh. Joe, again, the stupid is strong. Ladies and gentlemen,

this is not what socialism is. I want to make two points because the Washington Post themselves, they said in the beginning of the show, put out a piece. I'm not going to link to it in the show notes. I'll give you everything you need to know. Don't worry about giving them any clicks. The Washington Post is a complete joke. But they inadvertently debunked this constant theme that government spending is socialism. Ladies and gentlemen, well, number one, Kerry's an idiot. He has no idea what he's talking about.

Say yes to socialism. Say yes to death, destruction, poverty, despair, torture, and political prisons. That's the history of socialism. What they're really saying, quote, yes to Joe, is taxing and spending policies, taxing citizen, the citizenry and allocating that money towards programs voted on by people is not socialism. Gosh, guys, how many times do we got to do this on this show? Socialism has a very clear and distinct definition. If you don't know it and you're not interested, tune out now. The show is not for you.

If you are interested in reality, even if you're a liberal who's here, then let's argue and argue vigorously about things we know. Me arguing with you about things you don't know is a waste of my time, okay? Socialism is the government control of the means of production. The means of production meaning the economy, what we produce, the factories, the service industry, everything. You work for the government, the government redistributes the resources to people who they think need them. What actually happens in real life is the government takes them for themselves, pays off their friends, their oligarchical, bureaucratically connected friends,

starves out its population, puts their opponents in political prison. That's what socialism is. The United States government, when Bill Maher says ridiculous things about the military being evidence of socialism, Bill Maher, who's ordinarily a smart, but just, he says dumb things,

but he's not stupid. Jim Carrey's just straight up dumb. There's subsidies for oil companies. That's evidence of social... What do you mean subsidies? So an oil company earns revenue, the government doesn't tax it, and that's the government...

Ask your liberal friends, how is that evidence of the government's control of the means of production? Question number one, does the government own the oil company? No, it doesn't. Are they giving the oil company anything? No. No, no, they're giving them subsidies? No, it doesn't. Are they giving the oil company anything? No.

No, no, they're giving them subsidies. No, they're not giving them subsidies. They're not giving them, what they're doing is allowing, air quotes, the oil company to keep its own money. It's not your money, it's their money. The government isn't giving them anything. You being allowed to keep your own money

because you earned it is not a gift folks it's called liberty and freedom and it definitely isn't socialism it is only socialism if you are an idiot you're an idiot oh you are the man brother idiot you idiot i love rent snippy it's so stupid that was awesome so dumb i i all right because I can't argue this anymore. If you're going to argue that the military and taxing, listen, just to be clear on this before I move on to the next one, taxing the citizenry that vote on representatives, taxing them and using the money to allocate it

towards government-run programs that are voted on is not socialism. They may be poor political decisions, but it is not socialism because the government does not control the means of production. They may take money from them and redistribute it, redistribute the money. It is not socialism. You are simply dopey for saying, you're just dumb. I don't know what to tell you.

Or misinformed. There is no option C. What it is, is a constitutional republic that votes on taxing decisions and government programs. Most of them poorly designed. But it is not socialism. Now, how does this relate to the Washington Post piece? I saw this on Con Carroll's Twitter feed. So hat tip to you, Con, for putting this out

there. Here's a quote from a Washington Post piece about those taxing decisions. So in other words, we're not talking about socialism, Joe. We're talking about big government spending programs. The Washington Post themselves acknowledging that even big government, which isn't socialism, is catabolizing itself. So Jim Carrey's not only

an idiot because he doesn't know what socialism is. He's just dumb. Marr's just misinforming you. Even what they are talking about, Joe, which is big government liberalism, is still a big failure. Here's a quote from the Washington Post. State Medicaid spending, Joe, is the single biggest contributor to decline in higher education funding at the state and local level. The Washington Post themselves acknowledging that heavy taxation to redistribute the money to other programs is already cannibalizing programs because you can't pay for everything at the same time.

The citizens are going to have a basically limited appetite for working 50% to 60% of their lives to finance the government. So what's happening? Government money is drying up because the government gets its money from people that are getting tired of working for the government. Now, how is this happening? Joe, Medicaid spending is doubling. Higher education spending, down 15% according to the Washington Post piece. And why? The Washington Post piece. And why?

The Washington Post themselves. Because state Medicaid spending, in other words, government funding, folks, is taken from the people. The funds are limited. Liberals do not want to make hard choices about these programs. And rather than turning these programs over to the free market to let them handle themselves, education and things like that, where people are perfectly capable of making their own decisions, they decide to engage in decisions where they're going to

tax people and spend that money on things they can use their own money to buy themselves, notably education. And what's happening? Where is that money coming from now that the state money's drying up? It's coming from the explosive spending in the government healthcare arena. Folks, this cannot continue. People out there are going, we need to pay our teachers more. Fine, where's it coming from? Well, it's going to come

from Medicaid. No, no, we need to pay more into Medicaid. Okay, where's that money coming from? I don't know, but we need to pay more into higher education. Okay, where's that money coming from? I don't know, but we need to take care of children's healthcare. Okay, where's that money coming from? I don't know, but we need to take care of children's dental care. Where's that money coming from? I don't know,

but we need to take care of unemployment benefits. Okay, where's that money coming from? I don't know, but we need to take care of unemployment benefits. Okay, where's that money coming from? Do you understand how this is a guaranteed path off a bankruptcy cliff? The Post themselves acknowledges in the piece they are cannibalizing themselves, liberals, with their own perverse incentives, which are to provide government funding for everything and anything, which means you'll provide government funding for nothing in the future

as we walk towards guaranteed bankruptcy. That is not socialism. Socialism is the government takeover of the means of production. It is big government liberalism. It is just economically as devastating as socialism over time. It will guaranteed lead to bankruptcy and despair, but it is not socialism. Jim Carrey is an idiot. I'm sorry. He does not know what he's talking about. And I wish he would stick to Ace Ventura movies, but those weren't even very good.

Oh, boy. What a show today. Jam-packed with information. All right, folks. Thanks again for tuning in. Please, if you don't mind, I'll pick up a copy of my new book, Spygate, available on Amazon.

If you pick it up or pre-order today, it'll be at your house probably before the release date on October 9th. So go check that out. I really appreciate all the information I talked about. Most of it is in there. It describes all of this stuff, so you won't miss anything. And please subscribe to the podcast. It's free on iTunes, iHeartRadio, SoundCloud, Spotify.

It's free, and it helps us move up the charts. We really appreciate that. Thanks, folks. I will see you all 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.