The Dan Bongino Show - Ep. 808 If We Don’t Fight Back Now, We’re Finished

Episode Date: September 17, 2018

Summary:In this episode I address the troubling tactics by the Democrats to derail the Brett Kavanaugh nomination. If this is allowed to stand, these tactics will destroy Trump’s power to appoint people. I also address the explosive new revelations that FBI investigators may have fabricated the entire premise for the Trump investigation. News Picks:Do illegal immigrants commit crimes at a higher rate than American citizens? Another bombshell piece by John Solomon indicating that the FBI investigators knew the case against Trump was a joke.  This piece covers the highlights of another revealing Devin Nunes interview.  Bob Woodward spent two years trying to dig up dirt on Trump and concluded that the collusion story is nonsense. This Daily Caller piece indicates that the FBI used media leaks as a “pretext” to target the Trump team.  Is this former Obama administration lawyer in deep legal trouble with the Mueller probe? Andy McCarthy’s new piece provides some ideas about what may be in the FISA redactions.  Are the Democrats walking into a Colin Kaepernick trap? 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 daddy-o where do we start where do we start um yeah it's been a really insane news weekend it's the times i regret on monday that we're not on the weekends, but I do have to spend some time with my family. So the Kavanaugh situation, I want to get to that. More breaking news on the Mueller probe entirely falling apart now. Lisa Page coming out with some explosive new information in a John Solomon piece.

Yeah. And also some myth that will debunk some myths on the show today, too. I'm hearing a lot of this stuff about, you know, climate change. And this is the kind of stuff that I think we need to understandations. And if it's allowed to stand, destroying them and digging back into their lives for things, this is a double-pronged strategy that is not going to work out well if the Republicans don't fight. All right, let's get right to it. Today's show brought to you by our buddies at WaxRx. You all know how much I love my sponsors. I only work with companies I believe in, have a product or service that could be useful to you and me. I mean, I love WaxRx. It helps me clean out those ears, which you have to do. And you

shouldn't be using those cotton swabs in the ears. That's not what they're for. Listen, it's not the sexiest product to talk about, but as I told you, even I had to deal with earwax buildup because the earpiece I wore all day in my prior line of work and now on the radio. This is a customer review I saw from WaxRx and it can help you avoid expensive trips to the doctors for your wax buildup. I used to have to go to the doctor twice a year to get rid of my stubborn, hard-in-your-wax. With my rising cost of healthcare and, thus, double deductible, I'd have to spend $60 per visit, $120 a year, to treat my ears. Now I can do it myself with WaxRx and a significant savings that doesn't require me to miss a half a day of work. Thanks, WaxRx. Right now, try this product. It works miss a half a day of work. Thanks, WaxRx.

Right now, try this product. It works. You'll be astonished at what comes out of your ears. You can now try the WaxRx system by typing in gowaxrx.com. That's gowaxrx.com. Use offer code DAN at checkout for free shipping. That's gowaxrx.com. You never know what you're missing.

If you can't hear it, it might change your life. Got to send some of that WaxRx over to the Kavanaugh confirmation because I'm sure they'd like their hearing back. Man, it's been... I don't even... Go WaxRx.com or go dad joke. That's a long way for that one, brother. It's a stretch, but it's all right.

We'll roll with it. So what are the rules? I have this down in my notes here. What are the rules? I have this down in my notes here. What are the rules? Now, here's the update over the weekend. In case you're wondering, by the way, why Friday's show was a little shorter than others. Friday's show is about 53 minutes. I want to address this because it relates directly to the Kavanaugh topic, folks. Friday, Joe and I covered it. Some news broke afterwards,

and I am not, you know, I do facts, okay? And the news that broke afterwards is that the charge was a little, the charge, the allegation was a little more serious than we had initially heard. I asked Joe, I said, if you can take that out, let's take it out, even though the show will be a little shorter, because I want to hear what comes out. I'm open to hearing anything. Listen,

if it turned out that the guy was some kind of a sexual deviant, I want to know about it like anyone else. Now that we've had a chance to get the name, to hear the charges, and to hear all available information, ladies and gentlemen, I've become more convinced that this case, that Kavanaugh needs to go forward and needs to be confirmed. Let me tell you why. Number one, this tactic here by the Democrats is very disturbing. It's setting an impossible standard for anyone involved in the conservative movement, appointees, politicians, anyone else, while holding almost no standards whatsoever for their side.

What do I mean? Let's say this incident, let's stipulate for a second that these allegations are true. The guy was 17 years old. No one reported it to police at the time. There's no allegation of a crime. The woman apparently never confronted him about it. From that point on, he had been through multiple investigations

multiple times, and ladies and gentlemen, people do a lot of dumb stuff when they're in their teens. That's assuming, assuming the charge is true, which by the way, Kavanaugh, who's entitled to his say as well, this is still a country where you're innocent until proven guilty, categorically denies this allegation as does the person who's alleged to have been there and seen it, which I find odd. According to the allegation, there were three people present when Kavanaugh supposedly tried to take off an article of this woman's clothing, right?

Supposedly there were three people present. The other person there says it didn't happen. Kavanaugh says it didn't happen. The woman says it happened, but never followed up, never did anything about it. The guy was 17. He's 53 right now. Ladies and gentlemen,ith ellison who is the deputy chair of the dnc has credible allegations against him not very long

ago about physical and emotional abuse by his girlfriend and yet keith ellison there's no widespread call by the democrats to have this guy step down. He's the deputy chair of the DNC. I forgot about that. Now, again, some of you may say, what about ism? What is this? What about ism? Yes, it is. Yeah.

What are the rules? Ladies and gentlemen, if we're going to continue as a constitutional republic, we have to have a set of rules for public life that both sides recognize and abide by. What are the rules? Are the rules that allegations are enough to sideline your career and you have to step aside? Ladies and gentlemen, if that's the case, right, that an allegation is enough, let me ask you a very simple question. What's to stop anybody from any party if allegations, not proof, if allegations are enough to sideline a Supreme Court justice and a politician, right? If allegations are enough, what is to stop your political opponent from shutting down your career by simply getting someone to make an allegation that may or may not be true?

What's to stop that? Have we thought any of this through? Now, you may say, well, Dan, what do you mean this is a new strategy? Folks, where have we seen this recently? Put your thinking caps on for a minute. Where have we seen this strategy where unfounded allegations from the past that are unproven? They are not, I should say unproven. They're unproven allegations from the past resurface.

Where have we seen this recently? Does the Jim Jordan case ring a bell? Oh! So you have Jim Jordan running to be speaker now. Yeah. A supremely qualified, morally upstanding individual with an impeccable conservative record in Congress. morally upstanding individual with an impeccable conservative record in Congress, a good and decent man, a guy I personally interviewed with when I was running for office and was, I mean this in a good way, was shocked at his adherence to principles

because I'd interviewed with so many politicians in the past and they seemed almost mercenary. He was asking me questions about the pro-life movement. I was pleasantly surprised. I'm like, wow, a politician that's actually pro-life like it was stunning where have we seen this before jim jordan folks this is the new democrat tactic the new democrat tactic is going to be to find someone from your past to make allegations that are nearly impossible, impossible for the target of those allegations to put down and disprove.

It's impossible. Jim Jordan has multiple people saying, that's not the Jim Jordan we know. This doesn't make any sense, right? Jim Jordan, it was alleged he knew about some abuse that was going on when he was a wrestling coach at this college. Multiple people from out there say that's not true. He did not know about this, and if he did, he would have done something.

Multiple people. So Jordan has just as much strong evidence on his side that he was in no way did he know about this, and yet that's totally disregarded because the media is on the Democrat side. Now, you're going to see this strong media push. And I'm getting wind about what's going on right now. I'll give you kind of some inside baseball about what's going on up on the Hill. But the media, of course, that's on the side of the Democrat Party jumps on board, Joe.

And what do they do right away? They continue to advance these allegations as if they're automatically assumed to be true while democrats like keith ellison with with similar i would argue worse allegations remember joe these allegations are when cavanaugh was a kid right yeah ellison though these allegations are serious. Physical and emotional abuse by his ex. Physical abuse. These are serious allegations.

Yet nobody in the Democrat Party of the media is calling for a mass resignation or is this being covered nearly to the extent this guy's the deputy chair of the DNC that these Kavanaugh charges are. Now, on the inside baseball note this is why folks we should not cave on this okay if we cave on this it is going to set an impossible standard in the future they meet the left figures out these tactics they learn from them they will use them repeatedly it will be to dredge up an allegation from the past that can't possibly be disproven, which just can't.

It's a he said, she said. Folks, there's no way around it. And the other guy there says it didn't happen. There's no, that's it. There's no, well, she took a polygraph. Ladies and gentlemen, listen, a polygraph. For those of you arguing about the polygraph, let me just tell you something quick about the polygraph. I was not a trained polygrapher, but I know many people who are.

I'm familiar with the program. I know how it works. A polygraph test is not a lie detector test. That's why professionals call it a polygraph test and not a lie detector. Why? It does not detect lies. It detects physiological signs of possible and potential deception. Blood pressure changes, changes in your heart rate,

actually changes in your heart rate, changes in your breathing rate by measuring pressure around your diaphragm. That's what it does. A trained polygrapher is more of a skilled interviewer and he's relying more on his interview skills than he is the tools. The tools just measure physiological changes to what could be potential deception. Polygraphs are not admissible in court because they don't detect lies. They detect the skill of the interviewer. If you don't know that, I'm sorry. But people saying, oh, she took a polygraph.

I'm sorry, folks. It means less than nothing to me. And people saying, well, Kavanaugh should take a polygraph. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a total setup. I told you, this is nothing more than an interview with basic physiological tools that can be mislead interviewers for all kinds of reasons. People are nervous.

People are not nervous. People take beta blockers or whatever it may be. Folks, these tests are wrong all the time. I'm sorry. They're nothing more than tools. I can't tell you how many times applicants for the Secret Service take a polygraph that's, quote, inconclusive. They come back a few weeks later and they pass with flying colors. Well, I thought it was a lie detector.

How did they not know if he was lying? Because it's not a lie detector. Did you know this, Joe? All it detects is... I mean, i don't want to go into any classified stuff but just so you understand ladies and gentlemen and have an idea of what a polygraph does they get a basic physiological measure of what a lie would look like well how do i get joe to lie i ask him a question and i i know he's gonna lie to it

in other words i'm giving you a test, Joe, for a bank job and I need you to take a polygraph. I say to Joe something like, Hey, Joe, when you were in high school, did you ever cheat on a test? Now, I have a pretty good inkling. This is why it's not a lie detector,

Joe, and it's based on the skill of the interviewer. I don't know, but I have a pretty good inkling. The answer for most people, I don't know, I shouldn't put you on the test, but the answer is probably yes. You probably did. At some point, you probably cheated on the the skill of the interviewer. I don't know, but I have a pretty good inkling. The answer for most people, I don't know with you, I shouldn't put you on the spot, but the answer is probably yes. You probably did. At some point, you probably cheated on the test. My answer was blue. Right, right, right.

Like, you know what? Right. Or if I ask you, did you ever lie to your parents? The answer is obviously yes, but most people on a lie detector test think the answer should be no or they're going to fail. You get what I'm saying? Like, did you cheat on a test? No, no, no.

The truth is the guy in the polygraph doesn't really care if you cheated on a test. He's trying to get your measure of what a lie looks like in your physiological response. And then later on they make comparisons. How they do it I'm not going to get into. But that's how it works. But it's all open

to interpretation. I bring that up because that's going to be their next push. Now the inside baseball though is this. Who's there again, Joe, to rescue the Democrats? Because he's a horror show. And I cannot thank him more for stepping aside because he is possibly one of the worst Republican senators I've ever seen in the history of the movement. Jeff Flake, who is now stepping out. And what i'm hearing is flake is a allegedly republican so he should take a lie detector uh from arizona he is stepping aside thankfully because he's um he's awful he's not running for re-election and flake is saying now

i think we need to delay this kavanaugh vote no we don't ladies and gentlemen because there's nothing that's going joe do you understand There is nothing that's going to add to this. It is a he said, she said. By all means, let this woman be heard. Let her air her charges. I have no issue with that. Nah. Kavanaugh has already stated on his side it didn't happen.

Kavanaugh has a letter from something like 65 women he went to school with at that time and said this is in no way indicative of his behavior. There have been no known character defects after that show there's no history of this there's no history with anyone he knows ladies and gentlemen when you balance the body of evidence pro kavanaugh for the anti kavanaugh for me the pro kavanaugh wins hands down show me what you got and you don't got much all you've got are charges that can't possibly be proven. Be heard. Fine.

But delaying the hearing? Absolutely not. The vote is scheduled for Thursday. The vote should go right ahead. The Democrats, Feinstein, have had this information from July. Now, forgive me. I keep dancing around. But the inside baseball is that Flake, who hates Trump, and frankly, at this point, seems to hate the Republican Party, too, and

may be preparing for a 2020 run for president. Don't keep don't let that go. Flake is acting as a front man for this to basically cater to Democrat votes and what you know, what they believe are anti-Trump Republicans to set himself up a little bit. And that Flake may also be the one who comes out because if they lose Flake, they're in a lot of trouble. They lose a Flake and one Democrat. It's over. Right. Excuse me. They lose Flake and one more Republican. It's over.

So because of Mike Pence. So they they be in a lot of trouble. Right. So what's happening here is supposedly Collins and Murkowski are interested in possibly slowing this vote down, too. But they don't want to come out yet and say it so what they're coming out with is like hey jeff you do it and then if we can get a couple more you know the the democrats to fold on this thing maybe the uh the red state democrats then maybe i'll come out and run a little more cover and then they'll vote no too so there's a little constituency behind the scenes of of of you, basically anti-Trump Republicans in the Murkowski-Collins-Flake coalition that really probably want to see this thing sidelined a little bit so they can kind of

cozy up to their moderate Democrat base. That's what I'm hearing. But folks, if we let this happen, it will set an impossible standard, folks. The standard going forward will be any unproven allegation from any point in your past. I mean, we'll be down to boyhood next. He was a teenager, Kavanaugh. We'll be down to like, hey, at six years old, you know, this guy, he kicked his neighbor's kid off a Hot Wheels. Oh, my gosh, we need to sign like this. It will set an impossible standard for Republicans while allowing Democrats a complete pass because the media will, they're just part of the Democrat party. The media are nothing. Please stop telling me about the media. I don't want to hear it. The media is not a serious entity anymore. The mainstream media is

a joke. They are propagandists for the Democrat party. Nothing more. I love a free press. They're free to be stupid. They take us up on it all the time. I'm not suggesting any government intervention in the press, but I'm telling you, completely disregard these loons. They are 100% on the side of sidelining this. They understand fully there is absolutely no way these allegations will be proven. None. It'll be a he said, she said with no evidence in the future that there was any kind of a character defect at all in

Kavanaugh. None. There is no corroborating evidence to this at all. None. Zero. None. Even liberal women that worked for Kavanaugh are saying he was a great guy. So now I just want to be clear because I want to wrap this up. I got to move on to something else because it shows that this is not going to stop here folks they're setting this standard for the republicans the standard will be any unfun any unfounded and proven allegation any point in the past is enough to get these people sidelined if it works once they will do it again uh point number two the democrats are not subjected to this as evidenced obviously by keith ellison still sitting in his chair despite very serious allegations now that democrats will get a free pass the republicans

won't now having said that axios has a report out now uh they have some good sources axios has a report out now joe that insider republicans are saying and i'm this is a warning to the democrats and again i'm not suggesting kavanaugh should be sidelined i just told you we need to go forward or this standard will set in and it'll be over if this if he's sidelined and jeff flake gets his way here and flake sidelines this thing and it winds up resulting in kavanaugh withdrawing then trump needs to double down stat and nominate someone even more conservative than kavanaugh because we got to start teaching these Democrats a lesson up there too, folks. They keep getting over and the Republicans keep allowing it to happen.

Amy Barrett sitting on the sidelines right now. We should not give up on Kavanaugh at all. I'm going to be crystal clear. But if the votes don't present themselves because people start to bail like Flake, I mean, was there ever in a lifetime a last name more apropos to the character of a senator? By the way, Flake. Flake, if Flake flakes, then we send up someone more conservative. But I'll tell you, it'd be a real shame if that happened to Kavanaugh.

He wasn't my first choice. Honestly, he wasn't my second choice. But I think it's clear as day this was a good man. And what's happening to him is disgusting. but I think it's clear as day this was a good man, and what's happening to him is disgusting. Now, one more story, and I'd like to kind of pull these stories out of the conservative content ecosystem

because they're important, and it relates to this strategy the Democrats now have of nonstop, 24-7, 365 obstruction and destruction. Obstruction of the Trump agenda, destruction of anybody they put forward, right? This is what they're going to continue to do. They had an NLRB rule.

This is important. This is not a small story. The National Labor Relations Board under Obama passed this rule called the Joint Employer Standard. It's basically a way to sideline franchises and make sure that these franchises have to unionize all their employees in one fell swoop. It's a way of private unionization, which has been going down forever in the free market. Public unions have stayed relatively

stable while private unionization in the free market's gone down, Joe. The Obama administration, of course, in the pocket of labor unions, wanted to reinstitute a robust private union membership in the United States, despite the fact that American employees are renouncing unions. They just don't want to be part of them. You're seeing right to work grow, even though Missouri was a bit of a setback. But what happened is Obama instituted this rule, the Obama National Labor Relations Board, called the Joint Employer Standard. And what it meant was, whereas, say, each individual McDonald's franchise in the past,

Joe, was individual identity. The joint employer rule would mean if there was even indirect control by some big umbrella company, all of them could be unionized at once. And think about it. If you're trying to unionize, whatever, 50,000 McDonald's employees, what's a better way to do it? Do you want to go to each individual McDonald's restaurant? No. Hell no. What do you want to do? You want to do it all in one fell swoop and force it on mcdonald's the parent company

and get them all unionized at once you see the point folks it's simple why go to each restaurant if you can hammer the big company and make it all filter down right now the trump administration uh reversed this now in a highland decision that's all been put on hold because what did the democrats do again? Obstruction and destruction. They went after one of Trump's appointees on the NLRB, this guy Bill Emanuel, because he worked for a law firm that was involved in the case years ago. And they demanded a recusal, which sadly the Republicans acquiesced on. He recused himself from the case and now this thing is on hold.

Amazingly. Now, does that standard apply to the Democrats? Hell no. Of course it doesn't. Obama's appointee, Craig Becker, was an actual labor lawyer who represented the SEIU, Service Employees International Union, who was involved in multiple cases. He never recused himself. Folks, obstruction and destruction. He never recused himself. Folks, obstruction and destruction. This is what they're all about now, folks. They're going to obstruct the agenda. They're going to weaponize recusals now.

And by the way, they filed an ethics complaint against this guy, Emmanuel, to get him to recuse himself, even though the lawyer for the NLRB said he didn't have to. These are not small stories, folks. If you get through, they will file ethics complaints. They will attack you. The gist of this whole segment I'm doing on the show here today, and I waited for the information to come in. I even had a sideline. Joe and I stewed on this because I don't like producing less than an hour of good content for you. We use very little commercials. Our commercials average six minutes a show. That's one-tenth of the whole show is commercial. I want to give you a solid 50 plus minutes of conservative content. I deleted eight minutes because I did not have the facts. And when I don't, I will not put it on my show. We have the facts now. We know what happened with Kavanaugh.

We have one side story. We have another side story. We have one side story on the Kavanaugh story backed up by years and years of character testimonials of a person who was there who said it didn't happen. We have another side story who says, I've taken a polygraph. I have a lawyer. The answer is what? The answer is, folks, there will be no answer. This is not about getting to an answer for the Democrats. Make no mistake, it is about setting an impossible standard for past character conduct no human being on the planet will measure up to as a way to sideline any potential GOP nominee for anything in the past. It doesn't matter who they throw up there for that Supreme Court seat. These character assassination attempts will never stop. And when they point you, like they did Emanuel on the NLRB, in order to stop the Trump agenda. They'll file an ethics complaint when they're there and shut you down. Joe, where did that happen before? So on Kavanaugh, I gave you an example. Kavanaugh, I said, hey, where did this happen?

He's accused of Jim Jordan. This is what they did. They're trying to do to Jordan. It's not going to work. Where did this happen before with an ethics complaint? Who up in Congress was working pretty hard on this spy gate operation uncovering all this stuff all of a sudden an ethics complaint appears out of nowhere oh devin nunes yeah that happened to him too remember that one the ethics complaint against

nunes folks this is not new this is a pattern when you see a pattern this is why i do this show to flesh out for you that these are not random incidents. This attack on Kavanaugh was thought out. How they were going to do it was thought out. Oh, Dan, you have no evidence. Sure I do. This material surfaced in July. It's September.

Dianne Feinstein had this in July. Why did they wait until the last minute? I thought it was serious. Apparently it wasn't serious enough for Dianne Feinstein to tell anybody. Oh, the victim wanted anonymity. She did because she's out there doing interviews now. Should she be hurt? Let her be hurt. Of course. Kavanaugh deserves to be heard too. And I believe the overwhelming weight of Kavanaugh's evidence suggests that, listen, if it happened, he made a big mistake.

But the overwhelming evidence about the character of this guy is almost exclusively on a pro Kavanaugh front. Folks, if this guy goes down, we are going to be in big, big trouble. This will set an absolutely impossible standard in the future going forward for any Trump nominee. Oh, man, I can't believe it i'm telling you i feel like we're living in uh in in in that seinfeld episode you know we're again where george does everything backwards it's kind of freaking me out man i mean this whole thing is

yeah because we can't have a functioning government like this anymore folks we can't we're the democrats you got a deputy party chair accused of physically abusing his government. And listen, unlike the Democrats, the guy deserves his day in court too. I don't like Keith Ellison. I like almost nothing this guy stands for, but he deserves his day in court too. If he's guilty, he's guilty.

He needs to go. But the Democrats, no, no, listen, we should all assume this is true. But meanwhile, there's no evidence in this guy's history of character that this is the way a Cavanaugh is. None. All right, we got a lot more breaking news, by the way. Spygate stuff went absolutely crazy this weekend.

John Solomon, what do I keep telling you about Solomon? What do I keep telling you about him? Solomon and the Hill, who writes for the Hill, and I have all these stories in the show notes. Please check them out. He knows everything. I'm telling you, he knows everything. He knows the whole thing and I have all these stories in the show notes. Please check them out. He knows everything. I'm telling you, he knows everything. He knows the whole thing.

He's seeping it out slowly but surely. If you're not reading his stuff, you're missing out. Okay. Today's show also brought to you by our buddies at iTarget. iTarget is the best system out there, hands down, for increasing your proficiency with a firearm. If you're going to have a firearm, you need to be safe with it, obviously, but you need to be proficient. God forbid you're involved in a self-defense scenario. You want to be able to engage and obviously neutralize the target if, God forbid, you're in that scenario

where you have to defend yourself or your family. The iTarget Pro system is the best way to do that. When I was a member of law enforcement, one of the ways we used to increase our proficiency with a firearm was through dry fire drills, where you pull the trigger on a safely unloaded weapon, where you check it. You check it twice. You check it three times to make sure it's unloaded. Go to the range. You point the firearm in a safe direction, and you safely depress the trigger on an unloaded weapon. Well, what's the point of that? The point of that is you don't have to worry about the recoil. So you can work on your grip. You can work on your sight alignment. You can work on your sight picture. You can work on a constant, continuous pressure on that trigger. And you would be astonished how dry firing, how quickly it'll

improve your proficiency with a firearm. Once in a while, we would put a dime or a penny on the end of the firearm we had. And you say, well, why would you do that in a dry fire episode? Because it teaches you to keep that firearm steady and not to anticipate the recoil. If the dime falls off, you're doing it wrong. It's a great trick. Now, combine that with the iTarget system, which is a laser round they will send you. You insert it into your safely unloaded weapon, this laser round.

It'll emit a laser onto a target. Now you can see in a dry fire episode where the round would have gone. That's the one weakness of dry fire. You have no idea where it would have gone because it's dry. There's nothing in it. But this laser round they will send you.

They'll send it to you with the target. It works in conjunction with a phone app, and it makes your firearm like a video game for proficiency. You won't be able to put it down. It is a wonderful system. It's the best system out there. Go to itargetpro.com. That's the letter, itargetpro.com.

Letter I, targetpro.com. Use promo code DAN for 10% off. Remember, competitive shooters try fire 10 times more than they live fire. You will not regret picking up this system. It'll really improve your proficiency quickly. iTargetPro.com, promo code DAN. Okay, stunning new news this weekend that came out on the Spygate operation. John Solomon, let's cover that first, has a breaking news story about Lisa Page's testimony in May 2017 up on the Hill. Lisa Page was the FBI lawyer involved with both the Clinton case and the Trump investigation

and was also involved in a extramarital relationship with Peter Stroke, who was the lead FBI investigator in this case. Most of you already know that. Some don't. It's just important to set that up. During her testimony, she says something absolutely stunning that just leaked out. And when I say stunning, I mean it. I mean like jaw drops to the floor and how, again, this isn't breaking news across the country is only a reflection of the fact that the Democrat media is a complete joke and is all in on the propaganda front. Joe, have you heard this? Yeah, I've heard it. Okay, so Solomon reports this.

When she was questioned, Lisa Page, about why, excuse me, I said May 27th. This is her recent testimony. It was about the May 2017, when Bob Mueller was being named as a special prosecutor, there's a text exchange between her and Stroke about, you know, there's no there, there kind of stuff. And they said to her, they said, listen, you were the FBI lawyer intimately involved in this case. They asked her about the Mueller probe. She said, quote, the uncertainty about the level of evidence in the Trump case was, quote, a reflection of us still not knowing.

Now, Solomon says this right. Folks, please don't let the monotonous tone of that, me just, this is huge. And Solomon gets it. It goes on. There's another quote in a minute. Solomon says, with that statement, Page acknowledged a momentous fact. Solomon says with that statement, Page acknowledged a momentous fact. After nine months, Joe, of using some of the most awesome surveillance powers afforded to U.S. intelligence, the FBI still had not made a case connecting Trump or his campaign to Russia's election meddling.

It gets even better. By the way, what have we been telling you the whole time? That this case is complete junk? Page opined further, Joe, acknowledging gets even better. By the way, what have we been telling you the whole time? That this case is complete junk? Page opined further, Joe, acknowledging. This is incredible. Listen to this quote. This is Lisa Page's own under oath testimony up on the Hill. It still existed in the scope of possibility that there would be, quote, literally nothing to connect Trump and russia no matter what muller the fbi did

that there would be it ends at literally nothing the possibility there would be literally nothing oh folks we have a special you believe this show we have a special council appointed now to investigate a sitting president and his team for a collusion event with Russia that she says it's a reflection of us still not know. What do you mean not knowing? We have a special counsel and you have no idea if this even happened. Also, she says that there's a good possibility this was literally nothing. So let's just recap where we are in this case to see how disgusting the abuses have been here on this Trump administration. Here's what we now know. We know the case was started based on the dossier. Jim Comey, the FBI director, has claimed, and it's public,

that the dossier was salacious and unverified. The anti-Trump dossier. We now know the number two in the FBI, Andy McCabe, acknowledged to congressional investigators and Senate investigators. Andy McCabe has acknowledged that there would be no probable cause in the case without the dossier. So just so we're clear, nearly the entire body of evidence to support this collusion fairy tale was based on this fake dossier so just so we're clear the nearly the entire body of evidence to support this collusion

fairy tale was based on this fake dossier Comey says it's salacious and unverified McCabe says we'd have no case without it the guy under McCabe Bill Price step when asked about it when they started the Trump investigation said well its verification its verification was, quote, in its infancy. They had not even begun to verify this thing at a serious level, despite the fact that the Woods procedures for verification require that before it goes to the FISA court. We now have Peter Stroke, the lead investigator who works under Price-Step. We have the lead investigator, Joe, in Peter Stroke saying, hey, there's no there there in the case that's what page was asked about in her testimony hey did you guys say there's no there there in the case and now we have the fbi lawyer working with stroke on the case joe saying

quote it could be literally nothing and it's a reflection of us still not knowing you think you may want to know before you start the most uh important critical counterintelligence investigation on a sitting president and a special counsel probe in modern u.s history you think you may want to figure that out first ladies and gentlemen this muller probe is a complete utter farce as i have told you from the beginning and you know i have to tell you tell you, I'm not one of these guys. Joe, you know this industry better than anyone. You've been in it for decades now.

Content theft is a pretty common thing, right? Now, I attribute my stuff. You know that. I've attributed to Jeff Carlson, Lee Smith, the conservative treehouse guys. When I get something from a source that's not mine, I attribute it and I'm proud to. There's nothing wrong with people out there doing hard work and you citing it.

What really bothers me is when people take my stuff and never acknowledge it at all. I'm not going to say who, but you know what I'm talking about. Yes, I do. Right? Because we listen. There's finally people starting to come around to the fact that the Mueller probe's sole purpose

right now is not to investigate collusion. It's to keep the attention on Trump team members. Indictments. By the way, indictments that have nothing to do with collusion at all. To keep the attention away from the fact that there is no there there. You see what I'm getting at? Mueller knows there's no collusion. Inside sources are reporting all over the place that Mueller's already given up on collusion. Inside sources are reporting all over the place that Mueller's already given up

on collusion. Matter of fact, they're likely giving up on obstruction too. That their sole goal now is to keep the political heat through the election on Donald Trump, knowing collusion's fake. They're going to issue some report later that will be used for impeachment, which it shouldn't be. These should be about legal charges only, as Andy McCarthy indicates. And that's now the new purpose. So purpose number one was collusion. Mueller quickly figured out that was garbage, right? Second, it was obstruction. That's going nowhere either.

Donald Trump asked the FBI to investigate people if there was any allegations of Russian collusion on his team. That's already on the record. So that's dead in the water. The sole purpose of the Mueller probe now, keep the heat on Trump, issue a report. Ladies and gentlemen, this report is going to be critical.

It is not going to be a legal law enforcement report, which is what it should be, Joe. It is going to be a report documenting charges that the Democrats can use for impeachment later on. That's Mueller's goal now. Right. Take it to the bank, folks. Cash that check. Spend that money.

I'm telling you what I'm telling you is true. The Democrats are eagerly awaiting after this election when they take over the House of Representatives. That's why Mueller's waiting. They're waiting for a new report on Democrat that they can use to bring up as evidence in an impeachment trial

in the Senate against Donald Trump. I'm telling you, take it to the bank. I got that in Onya's cut. Did you forget about that? I haven't even got that yet, because I have it right. That's next. Because I have one more thing. Also, let's see what happens with Greg Craig. Now, if you're a regular listener to this show, you even

remember. I know a lot of other listeners may not. I addressed this in a show about four or five months ago. I had some good sources on this one, too. Manafort, remember, his campaign manager, is now going to apparently cooperate with the Mueller probe. The liberals are celebrating. Ladies and gentlemen, don't celebrate so fast on this one. If you actually listen to what Manafort's lawyer said, he was clear as day that

all of the stuff that they're playing to happen before he joined the Trump team. Again, in some circles of common sense, you would call that a clue. Now, Manafort's agreeing to cooperate. Who was Manafort working with on the charges that he's involved with now? The charges he's being charged with are for Foreign Agent Registration act failures to basically he was lobbying on behalf of ukrainian officials and was not properly filed right right right manafort who was working with him on that deal oh greg craig greg craig where does that name sound familiar that was obama's old lawyer wasn't it crazy how, now, folks, this is going to be the test for Mueller. If I'm proven wrong, then good, good.

Please prove for the sake of the republic, prove me wrong. Bob Mueller, if Manafort's really cooperating, then Tony Podesta and Greg Craig have a whole lot to worry about. Because Greg Craig, Obama's former lawyer, was working at that law firm, Skadden Arps, that was working with Manafort on this lobbying effort for Ukrainian officials. They were putting together reports. Greg Craig has since left that law firm. What I'm telling you is Manafort is probably providing information.

Here's where I'm going with this. That is very, very bad for both Tony Podesta and Greg Craig. Greg Craig was Obama's former lawyer working at that company, and lobbying was being done by Manafort. Remember, the same thing he's being accused of, unauthorized, illicit lobbying. The same kind of operation the allegations are were being conducted by Tony Podesta as well. Tony Podesta, John Podesta, Hillary's conciliary there,

that's his brother. If there are no charges against Podesta and Greg Craig, none or no further investigation at all by the Mueller team. You can take it to the bank that what I told you was absolutely categorically true, that Mueller has zero interest whatsoever in moving forward with anything on the Democrat side. He's only trying to keep the heat on Trump. I'm saying it because we know now Manafort's willing to cooperate. And if you're going to charge Manafort with FARA violations, Foreign Agent Registration Act violations, then you darn well better investigate the other two as well.

Let's see where he goes with that, and let's see what they get charged with. Remember, Manafort had, what, 18 charges in the first trial? Another couple more in Washington, D.C., this trial he just avoided by pleading. Let's see what these other two were charged with in that investigation. If they get off, folks, you know what I'm telling you is true.

Mueller's goal at this point appears entirely unethical. Keep the heat on Trump and Trump's team. Avoid any perception of malfeasance by the Democrats, the Democrat DOJ under the Obama administration, and the FBI. Disgusting.

Just filthy, disgusting stuff. Okay. I was glad you told me about Nunes. I was going to, because me when I get lost in a topic. Yeah, I got you. We have more breaking news here over the weekend. Chuck Ross at the Daily Caller. Again, a guy doing really great work. I have his piece up at the show notes today at Bongino.com. Please read it. Please read the John Solomon piece. This is a momentous break. The Lisa Page acknowledgement that they may have had literally nothing to start the Mueller probe. Another break in the case comes from Peter Stroke. We now have a new text. Let me read the text rather than summarize. I'll just read it direct. January 10th, 2017 series of texts texts i'm sitting with bill watching cnn we're

assuming he's talking about bill price step the guy just told you about his boss sitting with bill watching cnn a ton more out stroke a former fbi counterintelligence official texted to lisa page on january 10 2017 listen to this kicker i'm going to tell you why this january 10 2017 thing is important hey let me know when you can talk we're discussing whether now that this is out what is this by the way we will use it as a pretext to go interview some people do you understand that the swamp of corruption we're looking at here? What happened in January of 2017, folks? They're going to use it as a pretext to go interview people.

Joe, if you're a criminal investigator, not a trick question, right? Say you're going to put yourself in the FBI shoes. If you're going to go interview someone for a potential crime you think they have committed, what would lead you to go and interview someone for a potential crime you think they have committed what would lead you to go and interview someone let me just make it simpler for you do you pick out the phone book and randomly interview people no no you don't do that okay i'm being intentionally dumb here because again liberals are still trying to play down now they're like i'm not sure what the word is doing the clinton thing uh tell me what the word is means that they're trying to redefine. Now they're like, I'm not sure what the word is doing the Clinton thing. Tell me what the word

is means. They're trying to redefine what pretext is. A pretext is a reason. Yes. What's the reason, Joe, you would go interview someone if you were an FBI agent? As we think they might have committed a crime. You have what? Evidence? Evidence! Thank you!

Thank you, Joe. The pretext for an interview is actual evidence, which Lisa Page and nearly everyone else I just told you about the case, salacious and unverified, Comey, McCabe, we wouldn't have had anything without the dossier. The evidence was fake. It was the dossier. Apparently, someone knew this dossier was garbage,

and they needed to use it, though, as a pretext to give it the air of credibility so what happens in january of 2017 being that they have no verified evidence joe january of 2017 the dossier leaks the dossier leaks buzzfeed gets a hold of it in january of 2017 and prints the dossier yes yes we have reached the crescendo of stupidity at this point. The FBI has the dossier. The FBI cannot verify the dossier. How do we know that? Jim Comey said it himself. It's salacious and unverified. I'm using his words, not mine. Page is now on the record saying, hey, this could have been literally nothing. And basically acknowledging they did not have a hard case.

Hey, it was still a reflection of us not knowing. Lisa Page's words, not mine. So they don't have hard evidence to interview anyone on the Trump team. So what happens, Joe? Jim Clapper, according to multiple reports, the former Obama Director of National Intelligence, who is knee deep in this scandal, suggested Jim Comey, the FBI director, in the same time frame in January, that he go and discuss the dossier with Trump.

But he doesn't. This is important. He doesn't tell Trump about the criminal allegations in the dossier. He tells him about the sexual stuff. Why? Andy McCarthy has a brilliant piece on this. It's from a while back. McCarthy's suggestion here is that he goes in there and brings up the sexual stuff and doesn't tell him about the criminal allegations. Comey doesn't tell Trump. Why, Joe? He doesn't want Trump to know they're interviewing him why because Comey suspects this whole thing is crap and they don't want to be shut down genius move genius I don't want to Joe if I thought this criminal charge was serious you better let that sitting president know but now Comey knows they're knee deep in this he knows the charges are probably bunk he needs more time to try

to find something on him or a special counsel or something. Remember, it was Comey who leaked the memo to get the special counsel appointed. He's got to buy time. So in order to shut, he doesn't want this fake investigation shut down. He only tells Trump about the sexual stuff in the dossier. He leaves the criminal stuff out, Comey. Clapper tells him to do it. What happens?

CNN then reports, Joe, reports not on the dossier because they know that or they strongly suspect the dossier is garbage. And CNN doesn't want to be put in like the fake news file, at least not right away. So what do they do? They need a predicate. They need it. They need an actual pretext. So CNN gets wind from Clapper, according to multiple reports from Clapper. Hey, hey, the president was briefed on the dossier.

I got an idea. Let's run a story about the president being briefed on the dossier. Folks, please tell me you're following this. This is really important. CNN can't report on the dossier because it's crap and it's unverified but they can report on a factual episode which is the president being briefed on the dossier even though he's not told about the criminal stuff so he can't shut it down clapper leaks at the cnn according to reports multiple reports cnn goes oh the president's briefed on the dossier what's the next public response show

what's in the dossier well next thing you know we see it from buzzfeed's briefed on the dossier. What's the next public response show? What's in the dossier? Well, next thing you know, we see it from BuzzFeed. BuzzFeed puts out the dossier about all these ridiculous, debunked, crap, garbage charges against Donald Trump. Now, in the exact same time period, the circle right back to the beginning. Peter Stroke texts Lisa Page, who knows this thing could be, quote, literally nothing, and says, oh, wow, let me know when you can talk. We're discussing whether now that this, which is obviously the dossier, is out, we will use it as a pretext to go interview some people.

Holy crikeys. Do you understand what's going on right now? The FBI has nothing. The dossier is garbage. It's junk. They can't verify it. So in order to get, they need an excuse to go interview people. I just asked Joe, what's your excuse in the FBI in the real world to interview people?

Evidence. They don't have evidence. They have nothing. They have spurious allegations in this dossier, Joseph. They need an excuse. What do they do? Jim Clapper leaks it to CNN. Allegedly, leaks it to CNN,

but there's strong evidence this happened. Jim Clapper admitted up on the Hill, excuse me, that he had had contacts with CNN about this incident. CNN puts the report out. The report that Stroke and Bill Price that were watching in that office about the dossier is then used as a pretext

to go and interview people because they don't have evidence. Folks, this is just, the level of corruption here is so horrifying. But I want to leave you on that, at least on this story, with some good news. Devin Nunes, who, you know, the Maria Bartiromo show on the weekends, becoming a must-watch. Nunes always gives away some of the cookies on this.

I want to play a cut from him. Just one second on this. I want to play a cut from Nunes about some possible good news here. This was an explosive interview. And Jeff Carlson has a great piece up I have in the show notes today, which goes through this line by line and how important this interview is. There's a number of explosive revelations in this. I'm going to get to the most important one. Hold on one second. Today's show also brought to you by our buddies at Brickhouse Nutrition. Brickhouse Nutrition, the best nutrition product on the

market, I believe right now, is Field of Green. As a matter of fact, funny story for you. My mother-in-law, who is over this week, and I love to death, right? She's like, in her accent, she's like, oh, she calls me Donnie. She says, you look so great on TV. You look so young. And I'm not, listen, it's not a joke. I said to her, I attribute it to two things. The Field of Greens that I take from Brickhouse Nutrition, which is this beautiful combination

of vegetable, of basically vegetables ground up into a fine tasting powder. greens that I take from Brickhouse Nutrition, which is this beautiful combination of vegetables ground up into a fine tasting powder and collagen. I love it. That's my elixir. That's my youth elixir. Hey, listen, I'm a guy. I like to look a little salty, but I don't want to look like a rotting piece of beef jerky either. She said to me, she goes, you look so young on TV. I'm telling you, it's my field of Greens and my Collagen Mix. The Field of Greens is the best product out there. It is a fruit and vegetable powder. It's real food, though.

This is not extract. It's not junk. Basically, they grind up fresh vegetables with all of those healthy, beneficial micronutrients, macronutrients, and all of those wonderful, God-given attributes in fruits and vegetables. And they put it in a great tasting powder. You throw it in juice. You throw it in water. I put it in green tea sometimes.

Like I said, sometimes I throw in a little bit of collagen. You know, collagen is like jello. You can get basically unflavored jello. And it's the key. It is my, that's my secret. It is wonderful. You will never feel better. I enjoy it.

It's one of my favorite products. Go give it a shot. BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan. BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan. Pick up Field of Greens today. Remember, you ensure everything in your lives that matters, right? Ensure your health. You're supposed to eat fruits and vegetables. You know that. Sometimes you can't. Take a scoop of Field of Greens twice a day. You knock that out right away. BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan. Go check it out. You won't regret it. All right, Joe. Cue up that Nunes. So newness appears on Maria Bartiromo. Let's get right to it. He says this. Mr. Chairman, let me ask you to comment on what we learned this week.

Some of these texts that were revealed from Peter Strzok to his girlfriend, Lisa Page, about a media leak strategy. So here's one where Peter Strzok says to her, I had literally just gone to find this phone to tell you I want to talk to you about media leak strategy with DOJ before you go. Twelve days later, he says article is out. Well done, Paige. Your reaction to this? Yeah. Well, and what you see is, is that the mainstream media and even Strzok's attorneys have said, no, no, no. He actually wanted to mainstream media and even Strzok's attorneys have said, no, no, no, he actually wanted to get to the bottom of leaks. He was really worried about getting to the bottom and making sure nobody was leaking.

Look, that's not what was happening. What was happening here, and this ought to scare American people, it scares me, to know that the FBI and DOJ would go out and leak fake news stories in many cases, plant them in many cases, and then pick up those fake news stories to use it as a pretext. And that's the word that they use in their text in one of their text messages, a pretext to go out and interview American citizens, knock on their door and say, look, we read these three news stories that we're not going to tell you we actually planted with the news and we want to talk to you about these news stories. So that's first. Second, don't forget that the Carter Page FISA, it wasn't just that they used the Clinton dirt as a basis to go out and get the FISA. They also used planted news stories to corroborate the the dossier in front of the court. So they went to the court and said, look, look at these news stories, Judge. They

actually match this dossier, never telling the court that actually, no, those were planted news stories by the Clinton campaign and the FBI. So these people are really dirty. I hope that we continue to get all this information out before the election so that people know just how sick this Russia Kool-Aid that's been poured upon the American people, how bad it's really been. Oh, boy, was that a doozy. Now, that goes on. There's more in there. Carlson covers this piece, but I'm goingzy. Now, that goes on. There's more in there.

Carlson covers this piece, but I'm going to hit a few of the highlights. Folks, one quick thing. I don't mean to be distressed, but I get a lot of emails. People, I totally understand. I love your feedback. People are like, hey, man, Dan with the sound effects.

Listen, I'm just a human being. Joe does everything he can to cut out the sound effects. I'm sorry. I breathe, okay? I'm sorry. Joe does his best, okay? My my deep apologies but i do my best i just because i just uh you know i made some kind of you're running at a high pace too i know and i'm just an excitable guy okay so so a couple things number one he mentions the pretext how the whole interview process papadopoulos, interviewing page, all of this stuff was based on media

reports that the FBI gave the media. The FBI goes, hey, media, here's these stories. The FBI then sees these stories, right, and says, hey, listen, look at these stories about this. Where did you get the stories? They got them from the FBI. So the FBI is leaking stories to the media. They're then using as evidence that their story that they leaked to the media is true.

Do you understand that? Dear media, here's a story. Person A did this. Okay, great. Person A did that. How do you know Person A did that? Because we saw it in the media. Yeah, but you gave them the story.

Shut up. Don't tell people that. So we bring, this is huge. The pretext. Secondly, he says, hey, that's not it. That's not it. If you need to listen to it again, listen to it again. He brings up the second point.

He goes, it's not just that. It's that the same media reports, they leaked to the media to start the investigation that was used to establish a FISA. So they do these interviews and they get all this stuff together, this investigation to get a FISA. So they do these interviews and they get all this stuff together, this investigation, to get a FISA warrant in court. The investigation is,

and the pretext for the interviews are press reports. They leaked. They also used the press reports as corroborating information in the actual court documents that a FISA, we're supposed to take this thing seriously?

Now do you see why Nunes is like, dude, dude dude seriously dude this is a Kool-Aid drinking episode he used those words you are a Kool-Aid drink if you believe this is real you are getting worked so bad but there's one other quote now Jeff Carlson covers it in a piece it was a long segment and I like to keep my show compact for your commute to work. That's why we try to keep it an hour or a little over. There's another part of the interview where Nunes says something incredible, that there are up to 70 witnesses that were called to testify in front of House and Senate committees, and he is going to ask DNI Coats, Director of National Intelligence Coats, to declassify that information. Folks, this was not small potatoes. 70 people?

I have to be candid with you. I had no idea that there were that many people who had information. Now, I knew it was a large circle. I did not understand the depth of it as being that wide. Excuse me, that deep and that wide. 70 people. Folks, how widespread was this thing? Now, Nunes is pushing to have those testimonies declassified. Oh, boy, let's see what's in that stuff because I had always assumed like many people that this was relegated to the upper upper echelons of

the FBI and DOJ but how far down the chain did this go 70 people wow it was an incredible interview. Okay. One final note, because I really hate being misled by media people and it happens so often, it's disturbing. You're seeing these stories, now granted, it's a real, turn it into a real human disaster down or up from me in North Carolina. It's just devastating. My father lives up there in Cary, and it's been bad. The water is... In a hurricane, it's usually not the wind, as most people tell you in the right. I mean, the wind does damage too, don't get me wrong, but the water is usually what turns into the more significant damaging component of the storm. But folks, there's always an effort by the media to paint a narrative. Now, you know what I talked about last week, what they did with

Hurricane Maria and what they're looking to do with that but they're using the weather now as a weapon too because that's what the media and the democrats do and they're one in the same one of the narratives they're trying to paint here joe is that climate change is causing an exploding uh cost accumulation on the on the uh on the storms. In other words, costs are going up because of climate change. Yeah. Folks, there's almost no evidence at all that that's true. Ladies and gentlemen, this is really simple.

We are becoming a wealthier population. The population is expanding in the United States. Granted, not as a rapid rate as it was in decades past and not at the rapid rate it is in other countries around the world. But the U.S. population is not only expanding, but it's wealthier. When the population expands and it's wealthier, they will move – I'm trying to say this right because I want to make sure you have the ammunition for your friends. They're moving more towards the coast. They're buying up property that are on beaches. Some of it is in mountainous and heavily wooded areas where forest fires are a problem. We're expanding into places that a less prosperous society wouldn't.

People won't generally move to the coast in a less prosperous society because the housing can be expensive. It can be expensive to construct. It has to be built on stilts. And the property, due to the sight lines, it can be more expensive than property inland usually is. Same with these mountain vistas that are surrounded by trees in the forest. It can be expensive to build out there. It's tougher to get there. The costs are more. As we're wealthier, we expand and expand more. I'm not suggesting that that's good or bad or indifferent. I'm telling you what is.

When you build on more coastline and you build in heavily forested areas prone to forest fires, what's going to happen? It's not that climate change is making the storms more intense. It's that the same storms are causing more damage because there's people and property where there wasn't in the past. This isn't hard to figure out, folks. Let me give you some numbers. Coastal Florida, where I live, the population since 1970 in coastal Florida has increased 165%. There's more people there. The same thing in Texas. We've seen the same thing in other coastal cities as

well. The population is up in North Carolina. It's up dramatically. People and property are moving towards places where it's more dangerous to build based on environmental conditions. It has nothing to do with climate change. Stop believing that. Now, if they can produce evidence i'm open to it i i have nothing wrong i do facts here okay i'm just telling you until they can account exclusively for the build-up of people more expensive property in a wealthier society in places where the traditionally have been more dangerous in the past then attribute it to bad moving decisions fine say hey people shouldn't be living there fine that's okay i want to move to the beachfront i don't expect you to pay for my property i know it's dangerous right i want to move uh to a different i'm staying in florida don't worry but i'm my neighborhood

they have a property on the water i want to move to joe knows it's expensive i'm not asking you to pay for it i understand the cost and you are right to say, Dan, that's a dumb decision. I don't want to pay your flood insurance. Bingo. You're darn right, and you shouldn't have to. And say that's a dumb call. That's a perfectly legitimate thing to say. And if I get flooded out, it may have been a dumb call.

But that's not a climate change argument. That's a Dan Bongino argument. You get what I'm saying? All right, folks. Hey, listen, I appreciate it. Last week was a great week of listens, even despite the new algorithm change. We're still going up.

Thank you very much. Please subscribe to my show. Check out my show notes today, too. I'm going to include an article by Matt Palumbo that's very thorough on the immigration debate and do illegal immigrants commit crimes at a higher rate than the native-born population, which has turned into an explosive argument since my NRA TV interview with Alex from Cato.

So check that out. I got really good stuff there. And please subscribe to the show. It's free on iTunes, SoundCloud. It helps us move up the charts on iHeartRadio, all of them. We really appreciate it. Thanks a lot, folks. I'll see you all soon.

Take care. You just heard the Dan Bongino Show. Get more of Dan online anytime at conservativereview.com. see y'all soon. Take care.