The Dan Bongino Show - Ep. 810 Did You Catch the Stunning Revelation Last Night?

Episode Date: September 19, 2018

Summary:In this episode I address the real reason the Democrats are demanding an FBI investigation into Brett Kavanaugh. I also address the stunning revelations last night by George Papadapoulos in a live cable news interview. Finally, I address the failures of single-payer health care and debunk liberal talking points on the issue. News Picks:The Democrats are demanding the impossible of Brett Kavanaugh. More denials in the Kavanaugh case. This IJR piece addresses the failures of government-run health care. Project Veritas exposes more astonishing deep-state corruption. Michelle Obama is back on the campaign trail. 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? Well, I'm doing fine, Danny, on this National Speak Like a Pirate Day. Is it National Pirate Day or something like that? Oh, aye it is, Danny. Aye it is. Did you learn that in the kickers? You know, when you do talk radio like Joe does, I get these sheets like the kickers things in the morning, which are a bunch of irrelevant, nonsensical facts nobody cares about.

That's why Joe pops on the, I know, right? You got that off the kickers thing, didn't you, or something like that? Oh, absolutely, Danny. Mention his pirate day. All right, I got a stacked show for you last night. Papa D, George Papadopoulos, appears on Martha McCallum last night and drops a nuclear bomb on the show. So I got some of the coverage from that.

I just every single day my theory about the push and pull is confirmed more. I also want to talk briefly about what's going on with Kavanaugh. Folks, it's not what you think it is. I promise you what's going on right now is a very deliberate tactical sick deranged strategy by the democrats so uh we i didn't get to it yesterday because of all the bombshell news um all right let's get right to it today's show brought to you by buddies at truth finder do you ever feel like someone's hiding something sometimes yeah that there's maybe more than meets the eye there you can trust your gut and walk away or you can trust your gut and protect yourself

with truth finder with truth find, access background reports for almost everybody in the country, access government records like criminal records, past addresses, contact information, birthdays, and a whole lot more information. I ran myself and I was like, whoa. Discover if someone has had a felony conviction. I promise you, we don't have any of those. Look up the addresses of an old friend or even find out if someone is lying about their age. Military veterans even use Truthfinder to get in touch with people they've served with. Visit truthfinder.com slash Bongino to get 15% off becoming a member today and receive unlimited background checks. Important.

You can pull 10 records or 100. It's up to you. Check yourself out or you'd be surprised what's out there. As an extra bonus, you will receive Truthfinder dark web monitoring and you'll know if you're at risk for identity theft. You ready to discover the truth?

Protect yourself and your family? Just go to truthfinder.com slash Bongino and enter a name to learn what a background report reveals about someone you know

or even you. That's truthfinder.com slash Bongino for 15% off. Okay. I want the truth! You can't handle the truth! My man!

Yeah. Good one, Dan. That movie was great when it happened. When I saw that in the movie theater, I was like, whoa. All right, let me start with Kavanaugh before I get to Papadopoulos and some other stuff, because it's important and we didn't get to it yesterday. Ladies and gentlemen, the Democrats are clearly engaged right now to steal an old one. I think it's a Rush Limbaugh term.

The politics of personal destruction. Yep. I kid you not. And Joe, I tell you this as a friend and a producer of the show and a co-worker here. And to you, my audience, who I consider friends. A lot of you I interact with on email. I wake up every day and thank God that I'm not a Democrat today. I mean it.

I mean, I'm not impugning the character of all the Democrats across the country. I certainly don't want to do what they do to us, calling us deplorables. And as Joe Biden just said, the dregs of society. But I kid you not, and I mean this from the bottom of my heart, I wake up every day thanking god i have not been corrupted um into joining this cesspool of a political party what is happening to this man cavanaugh right now is simply incredible um it is one of the most disturbing episodes i've ever witnessed in my 43 years on this planet now i've said repeatedly there are only two possible scenarios here joe there are and only two either this event happened and brett kavanaugh did made a really serious mistake when he was uh in his teenage years right or this event did not happen and the character

of what has been based on every single assessment of this man's character by by anyone who knows him personally this man's life has been utterly and completely destroyed now i have to tell you i am starting to err now seriously towards the latter in this case now this may have happened to this woman miss ford i don't know that but whether it happened and involved brett kavanaugh looks very very suspicious and that is based on something we do in this country which is evidence and a presumption of innocence not a presumption of guilt yep let's lay out quickly what's going on here and why this is suspicious. Ms. Kavanaugh, excuse me, Ms. Ford claims there were two people at the scene who were there for this.

Claims there was one guy, what's his name, PJ Smith and another guy, Mark Judge. They both vigorously deny this. Kavanaugh denies even being at any kind of a party like the woman describes. Not only does he say it didn't happen, he says he wasn't even at this party and doesn't even remember going to a party like that. If there was an evidence of Kavanaugh's malicious character and lying and being deceptive in the past, I'd have a reason to disbelieve this guy. The problem is, Joe, there is zero evidence of that now what are

the democrats doing this is the again i this is why i thank god i am not a democrat i think the democrats know full well that there's a strong possibility that the events as miss ford remembers them involving kavanaugh are not in fact uh. Why? I'm basing it on the Democrats' own words. Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat police state supporter, intimately involved in the Spygate debacle, but who's on the Judiciary Committee, Joe, came out yesterday. Did you hear it?

Did you hear her equivocating? Yeah, I sure did. Did you hear what she said last night? I'm sitting there washing the dishes in my kitchen. I'm watching Dianne Feinstein, who got the letter from the woman, Miss Ford, about these allegations and has sat on them since July, folks. Sat on these allegations since July.

Did nothing about them and waited for a couple days before a vote to launch this out there. Senator Diane Feinstein said last night well i'm not sure it's all true oh you're not sure it's all true so let me just be clear on this you're making unbelievably serious life-altering allegations against a man whose life in public service and character has been vouched for by credible people repeatedly through six FBI investigations. And now you're not even sure it's true. Are you serious? This sucks.

This sucks. Oh, my God. however non-corroborated and not backed up by evidence is enough to derail your personal professional career and stain you as a sex offender for the rest of your life it's over i mean it's i don't know where i don't know where we go from there folks we've always understood as a republic that the presumption of innocence was a clear designated hallmark of a free society. It's to prevent witch hunts. It's to prevent people from being scarred with the scarlet letter the rest of their lives.

You can't Hester Prynne people. You have to produce some kind of evidence, any kind of evidence. Now, so number one, the reason I'm starting to seriously, seriously doubt this story as it's been told. The two people she alleges were there both vigorously deny it. Kavanaugh not only denies it, but denies he was even at a party like that. This is an unequivocal denial by Kavanaugh. It's not any way caveated. There are no little provisos in there.

There's no appendixes in there. Nothing. Secondly, Ms. Ford was offered the opportunity. Supposedly, she claimed to her lawyer she wanted her story to be told. Fine. I told you I personally didn't have any issue with that. She wants to get out there and tell her story. Let her story be told. The senators, the Republicans and the Democrats said, fine, we will acquiesce to that point, Joseph. And what are we going to do? We're going to set up a hearing on Monday. We're going to go under oath. We're going to get your side of the story. We're going to get his side of the story. We're going to provide our advice and consent role, which is what the Senate by the Constitution is supposed to do under these circumstances.

We'll see who's more credible and we'll move on. Now, all of a sudden, Joe, I don't want to talk. Now she doesn't want to tell the story. Why not? Why? No, this is a serious question.

I'm not joking around. I know. For the liberals who listen to this, why would you? I've never. Folks, I was a criminal investigator at the federal level for 12 years with the New York City Police Department for two out of my four when I worked there. Tell them, Dan.

Tell them. I have never seen a victim who wanted their victim prosecuted not want to tell the story about how they were victimized. I've never seen that. I don't understand. Now, keep in mind, I'm not suggesting that they want to be public. Some of them, and you'd be right by saying,

well, Dan, not everybody wants their face plastered all over TV. Correct. Point absolutely stipulated. Here's the counterpoint. They offered her a closed hearing. Bam! There's no TV cameras, nothing.

Tell us what happened. There has been no effort to suppress this woman or her story at all give us the story we'll go behind closed doors and nothing still doesn't want to do it now i have a strong suspicion here that this is because these be under oath factor three there is a paucity of details in this story critical details in miss ford's retelling of the event joseph are missing now again in my experience with this doing criminal investigations. Details are usually missing for a reason. Now, that reason, to be fair, can be trauma.

That does happen. People's retelling of events sometimes can have missing details due to trauma. I've seen it. I'm not going to spin your wheels for any kind of political narrative like the left does to us. Having said that, though, what I find odd is she remembers specifically it was about Kavanaugh, remembers specifics of what he did, the virulent components, allegedly did. I want to be clear about this. Ripping the clothes off her. She said she had a one-piece bathing suit on.

These are details that paint. Think about this, Joe. You see where I'm going with this, right? So you remember details about who he was. You remember details about what you were wearing and exactly what he did, but you don't remember anything else. The year, the place, the part, nothing else? It seems like the recalling of the details, Joe,

is very specific. Folks, the man is entitled to defend himself. We as United States citizens are entitled to know the truth. Don't do not for a second fall into this liberal trap that you're somehow the bad guy for asking questions, which is still a free society and people are presumed innocent until corroborating facts indicate that that person is in fact guilty. We are not going to throw people off a cliff and destroy their lives based on entirely uncorroborated evidence and be bullied into the left by the media and not having to ask questions at all. So we have these three factors here.

All contributing to what I believe a retelling of events that is not entirely accurate at this point. Now, the Democrats, their strategy here, their strategy is really horrendous. I've never seen anything like this. I haven't. I mean, you know, listen, 1991, the character assassination of a wonderful human being in Clarence Thomas. I'll just say disclosure. I know his wife very well she's wonderful um but I don't I was young back then I don't recall the intimate details like I do this I have never seen anything so disgusting what are they doing right now well a couple of people on the democrat side, Democrat senators, slipped and they slipped and admitted what their strategy was.

Joe Mazzi, Hirono, a Democrat senator, slipped and said, hey, you know, we can hold the seat open for up to two years. Look what they did to Merrick Garland, the Republicans. By the way, the Republicans were only following the Biden rule, the Joe Biden rule, which is that you don't nominate someone for a Supreme Court opening if it were to open up in the middle of a presidential election year. That was Joe Biden who said that. So the Democrats claiming that the Republicans did something unprecedented in holding a seat open in an election year when Antonin Scalia tragically passed early are just really following what was just you don't believe me. Google the Biden rule. I played the clip last night on NRA TV on my show. Joe Biden in 1992 saying it would be unprecedented to nominate a Supreme Court nominee for the Supreme Court

in a presidential election year without letting the voters decide. That was Joe Biden. So the Merrick Garland thing, we're just following the Democrats' own rules. You don't like it? New rules. Sorry. Remember the new rules, Joe? We don't care. Thanks. New rules. We're going to follow your rules, which make you look stupid. You didn't like the filibuster? scrapped it good we're not gonna let you filibuster either

new rules thank you we win you lose have a nice day but and uh and in this case uh listen but with the biden rule uh they did they won mcconnell came back and did the right thing kept that seat open and we got neil gorsuch who was an excellent pick. Excellent pick. So since we followed that rule, Mazzy Hirono now, Hirono, thinks that they should hold this seat open. And here's what they're hoping for, folks. They're hoping for interminable delays. And by the way, Bl Blumenthal another Democrat senator is suggesting ridiculously um that uh Kavanaugh excuse me Kavanaugh should uh should uh should withdraw which is absurd now the strategy is exposed hold the seat open have Kavanaugh withdraw what are they hoping for

folks they're looking at some polling and they think there's a small likelihood they may be able to take back the Senate in the November elections. What will happen then if they can delay this vote past the November elections? And I believe there's less than a 20 percent chance that the Democrats take back the Senate. What they're going to do, Joe, is if they do take back the Senate and they win, they're going to say we can't hold the vote until these new senators are seated in January with a Democrat majority. They're going to shut down whoever Trump nominates. And ladies and gentlemen, for two years, we will have that seat open. It will be unprecedented gridlock at the Supreme Court. This is their strategy. Hirono admitted it yesterday. Oh, we can keep the seat open, which is face Blumenthal. Well,

we should withdraw. He should withdraw. Withdraw for what? Unfounded, uncorroborated allegations not supported by any additional evidence at all? Are you crazy? Stolen valor, Rich Blumenthal. Now, let me explain to you from an inside baseball perspective, having done, and listen, no one's going to know this better than me because I did it. I did backgrounds for federal agents when I was a Secret Service agent. I worked in an office in Melville outside of New York. Typically offices, bigger offices in New York, Los Angeles have special like background type units. The office I worked in was small enough that the regular rank and file agents like me had to pick up background investigations in addition to our protection and criminal work. It was just, it was no special unit.

So I did backgrounds. I did multiple backgrounds for uniformed division and special agent positions. I know exactly how they work. The Democrat senators understand right now that asking for an FBI background investigation, one will delay, but secondly, will not prove anything.

And therefore, what will they do, Joe? If they can't prove that it happened or didn't happen, the Democrats are going to accuse this guy of being a rapist forever. And when he's seated, if you read Byron York's tweet stream at Washington Examiner, Democrats are already hinting

that if he is in fact confirmed, Joe, that this is going to be their attack forever. All of these decisions at the Supreme Court level that Kavanaugh is involved in will be discredited because what? They'll say, well, look, there's a rapist on the Supreme Court. This is folks.

I wake up every day again, thanking God I am not a Democrat. Do you understand the moral ethical vacuum, the level of sin that stains your soul that you have to have to ruin this father, this coach, this public servant's life over allegations? You know, darn well, feinstein herself said it may not be accurate as stated now and you're going to call this guy a rapist and you're going to impugn his character forever what you did to clarence thomas do you understand the depravity of this this is why they want an fbi investigation one it's going to delay until after the midterms. And secondly, there is no possible way

the FBI will be able to come to any affirmative conclusion on the veracity of these claims. Why? Because that's not what background checks do. Let me explain to you, having done them,

how these work. Folks, when you are background checked for a federal position, it is no different for anyone else. If I was background checking Joe, I have to contact Joe. I asked Joe for, give me some resources, Joe, give me some people who can vouch for your character. I need you to sign off on some tax records, some medical records. I need you to sign off on a criminal background check. And that's what happens. Also, when you give me those people, those contacts, I go out and I talk to them.

I'm going to get to that in a second because this is an important point. But before I get to that, notice what I'm telling you here, Joe. And notice the cleverness, the evil, deceitful cleverness of these hacks on the Democrat side. If I'm doing a background check, and by the way, Kavanaugh's been background checked six times. But if I am now going to initiate some kind of supplemental satellite investigation, which is essentially a background on Ms. Ford. Joe, who do I have to contact? Ms. Ford, do I not? Yes, you do.

But she's already said she's not going to talk. You get it? Get it? Got it? Good? This is what they're doing. They know she will not cooperate. By not cooperating,

it'll extend out the timeline of this FBI investigation, which they're not, they have no charter to do this at all. They are not criminal investigators for state crimes that the statute of limitations is passed on. They have no expertise in this specific area at all. They know perfectly well that if Ms. Ford does not cooperate, there will be no conclusions drawn from this investigation at all.

It will prolong it till after the election, and it'll permanently stain Brett Kavanaugh's reputation because, Joe, what the Democrats will continue to say is, well, you didn't disprove it. You didn't disprove it. So here's the way this works. When I'm doing a background check on on joe for employment or whatever it may be within the federal government i asked joe for three to four sources who can

vouch for his character but here's the catch this is the little trick when i go to those three sources when i was doing backgrounds you could not close out a case until you got unnamed sources because Joe if you're looking for a job with the federal government looking to make yourself look good you're going to give me three sources that love you right you bet I am well when I do my report on Joe for a special agent position with the secret service or whatever it may be I have to include three to four unnamed sources as well you may say well how do you do that if they're not named how do you find them well the trick is whatever it may be, I have to include three to four unnamed sources as well. You may say, well, how do you do that? If they're not named, how do you find them?

Well, the trick is you go to the people they name and you say, hey, do you know any other people who know them? I think the neighbor down the block, that's where you get the information. But folks, this is almost impossible to do without some initial cooperation from the subject themselves. If Ms.d does not cooperate in this investigation the democrats fully understand the delays will be interminable and there will be no way around it this is a this is a devious evil tactical manipulation by the democrats to postpone this thing till after the election and permanently stain the reputation of

what has been otherwise by all available evidence an outstanding United States citizen. Here are the things they look for as well, Joe. When you go out and you do a background, this type of investigation, so you understand when they did the initial background on Kavanaugh, remove yourself from Ford for a second, I'm just talking about the general background. They did six times show on Kavanaugh, which he obviously passed with flying colors. Yeah. They are not criminal investigations.

They are criminal history investigations. Please understand the difference. When the FBI or Secret Service does a federal background on Kavanaugh or anyone else they are not doing a criminal investigation they are doing a criminal history investigation to determine what Joe your character it is not a criminal investigation if I'm doing a background on Kavanaugh and someone says because remember Kavanaugh's going to sign a form where we look him up in NCIC,

National Crime Information Center. I can almost guarantee you that Kavanaugh has no criminal history at all. That's not what they do. They will go out, though, and ask people who Kavanaugh referred to us, who we then find other people, the unnamed, you get it?

He names people. We then get unnamed sources from there. And we'll say things like, hey, what kind of kid was he growing up? What kind of person, what kind of neighbor is he? Well, we think he may be involved in the drug trade. The Secret Service or FBI

would absolutely not get involved in that event. They may refer it. They may call the local police and say, hey, we got information while we were doing a background that this guy's selling drugs. they will not do the criminal background they are looking at criminal history please understand that if you don't understand the difference this Kavanaugh story will make

no sense if they did a criminal background and we're looking at him a criminal investigation they'd say oh you think he's selling drugs then they'd say alright let's get a CI in there let's try to buy drugs from cavanaugh but obviously this is a ridiculous story folks i'm just trying because the left is trying to

confuse you and stupid people in the media are falling right in the trap the fbi background is not a criminal investigation they will not do that they will report back potentially uh refer something to the locals and put in a file that there are indications of a criminal history. Having said that, there are zero, zero indications as evidenced by Kavanaugh's multiple passing of FBI backgrounds, six times, White House appointments, traditional appointments, that there is no evidence of a criminal history at all. They will look for blackmailable material.

They'll ask him, hey, does he have any debts? Does he have any, has he been in bankruptcy? Do you know about any extramarital, you know, stuff going on here? Any terrorism ties? Drug use? Anything that can blackmail him? these are all to build a case about the man's character the criminal history investigation falls under that it is not it is not a criminal investigation folks i did these nobody is going to lecture me on how these work

and if you don't understand the difference and you're in the media and you're listening to my show, please stop reporting until you can actually educate the public about what you know, not what you're propagandizing on. It is not true. So let me sum this up here. The Democrats asking for a criminal investigation about an allegation that's over three decades old is absolutely entirely disingenuous and would be unprecedented. It does not happen. That is not what a background investigation is.

It is a criminal history check of which Kavanaugh has passed multiple times. What happens now is the FBI, they don't need to make the referral. The woman can make the referral herself. If she believes she was the victim of a crime, report it, which she did. She's now given the opportunity to talk about that crime in front of U.S. senators who have offered her an open end on Monday to talk about it, and she doesn't want to do it. Ladies and gentlemen, take the vote.

Take the—you're darn right, Joseph. Take the vote. If she doesn't want to show up and tell her story, it is time to vote. And if you think any of this is going to stop the Democrats from the rest of their lives, from calling Kavanaugh a rapist, which is disgusting, filthy, the moral vacuum you live in to do this is abhorrent. It is over. It's over. do this is abhorrent it is over the democrat it's over the democrats now have committed to the rest of their lives from painting this guy as some kind of a sexual predator and you know what uh to judge kavanaugh i feel for you man um i really do for you and your kids that for the rest of your life

uh you are going to be stained by this because the politics of personal destruction take precedence over any kind of moral or ethical guidelines. They don't have them. They don't have them, folks. It is just disgusting. Disgusting. All right, sorry. I didn't have my phone on.

Do not disturb it. I started to hear some ringing in my ear. Do-do-do-do-do-do. That horrible, awful ring. All right, folks. I'm going to move on because I got the Papadopoulos story. I got a lot of stuff to get. There's so much news out.

Today's show also brought to you by my buddies at BrickHouse Nutrition. I want to talk about foundations. Today's one of the best products they have out there. Ladies and gentlemen, who doesn't want to look better, right? More importantly, who doesn't want to perform better? You go to the gym. You want to be able to do more repetitions. And when you do more repetitions, your muscles grow more, you look better, you feel better.

What are you? Oh, Joe's kissing his biceps. I thought you were smelling your armpits for a second. I'm like, what, did you forget deodorant? This guy's a character. Arrgh. He's doing the old biceps kissing routine, the Schwarzenegger drill back from the day. But you want to look better, right?

Everybody looks in the mirror and wants to look better. What if I told you there was a supplement out there that could provide both? Not only provide both, but a lot of both. You'll look a lot better and you'll perform a lot better. It's called Foundation. This is a creatine ATP blend. It is a fantastic product. The first time I tried it, I was blown away.

The reviews on this product on my email are absolutely outstanding. Miles from Brickhouse Nutrition, who runs the company, has some of these reviews on the website. They are not a joke. People call and they're like, and email me and like, gosh, this stuff is incredible. It's that good. Go to brickhousenutrition.com slash Dan. That's brickhousenutrition.com slash Dan. Pick up a bottle of foundation today. If you don't believe me, all I ask that you do is take the mirror test. This is how confident I am this product's going to work for you. Before you start taking it, look in the mirror and then look back in the mirror seven days later.

Give it a little chance to load in your system. You're going to be like, wow. I had a guy email me say, hey, my wife loved it too. It's great, great stuff. It's like having two gas tanks in the gym. This stuff is terrific. Go give it a shot. BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.

BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan. Pick up Foundation today. Okay. So last night, Papadopoulos appears. George Papadopoulos appears on Martha McCallum's show. Hey, wait. Can I address one thing, folks? I'm sorry.

I got a lot of emails yesterday, a couple from people, and I addressed them. Some people, and I understand this. The show is for you. It's not for me. I already know this stuff. Some people did not like in yesterday's show. I got about a thousand emails saying you loved it, so I appreciate that, too. But a couple people did not like the fact that I went back and explained things multiple times.

Folks, I get it. I understand. I'm sorry, but the show may not be for you then, okay? I do it deliberately on purpose. Not everybody follows at the show may not be for you then okay i do it deliberately on purpose not everybody follows at the same pace um i have you know what i'm saying i i i'm trying to streamline it and quicken the pace on stuff but when i repeat complicated topics it's because not everybody thinks at lightning speed some people need it repeat and my apologies for doing that but it is important on complicated topics that you go back and do what I learned in school,

which is tell them what you're going to tell them, tell them, and then tell them what you told them. So I'm sorry for that. But I did want to address it because I got four or five emails yesterday. And that's why I do that. Okay, moving on. Papadopoulos. This is a little bit easier topic to explain than yesterday. Appeared on Martha McCallum last night and just dropped this nuclear bomb.

Now, Joe has some new fancy soundboard stuff. So I'm going to get right into the sound clip. And Joe, you said we can stop this now, right? Yeah. All right. So keep your eye on me. And it's about a two minute clip, but I'm going to stop it at a certain point.

Okay, go ahead. There was an Israeli diplomat named Christian Cantor who absolutely detested Trump, who one day in London decided to introduce me to his so-called girlfriend, a girl named Erica Thompson, Wait, what? What? about the dirt from Joseph Mifsud in late April 2016. Wait, what? What? Did you catch that? Now, if you're a regular listener to the show,

you understand the gravity of what he just said, right? This whole FBI case that they're alleging started with Papadopoulos and his boozy encounter with this guy Alexander Downer in a bar talking about dirt and emails he'd heard about from Hillary that he heard from with Joseph Mifsud in April. The whole case revolves around the fact that a Russian connected individual, which is what the FBI is alleging, approached Papadopoulos in April a guy Mifsud who he just says and that Mifsud told him that the Russians had dirt on Hillary but he just said that he was approached before Mifsud even got to him by someone by a guy named

Cantor who's connected to the Israelis, this is his words, who then introduced him to Erica Thompson, who is an Australian intelligence official working with Downer, who then connects him with Downer. Folks, this throws the whole push, now, I mean, just, I'm not, read my book, this will all make sense now this throws the whole timeline out of whack my book explains all of this this throws the whole timeline out of whack the fbi timeline was mifsud approaches papadopoulos in April, says the Russians have dirt on Hillary.

Papadopoulos then passes that information off to Downer in May. And Downer then contacts the, we know he contacted the State Department, but the FBI gets wind of the information. Therefore, they think Papadopoulos is a spy working with the Russians to get this dirt on Hillary. That is the FBI story we've been told forever. But now we find out that a contact of downers, this Erica Thompson, had approached Papadopoulos before even the Mifsud meeting. Folks, what have I been telling you forever?

This is a classic push-pull setup. Classic. Classic push-pull where you push information into a target you're looking to lock up. You push information with the goal of using one of your sources to pull the information out later to make it look like the subject is guilty. Hey, we're going to rob a bank. You're going to rob a bank. Then a spy comes in.

Hey, did you hear about robbing a bank? I heard someone mentioned robbing a bank. Arrest them for conspiracy of robbing a bank. It is clear as day what happened right now how about that how about how about that how about that now we find out from papadopoulos that the downer connection was being pre-established don't forget this before mifsud even enters the picture now now we know mifsud has substantial connections to western intelligence assets joe including significant connections to claire smith and others people connected deeply to the united kingdom spy agencies right this

mifsud guy who the fbi is alleging is a Russian, right? He's the pusher. He's the pusher. He's pushing this information to Papadopoulos. Russian emails, Russian emails, Russian dirt, Russian dirt. He's pushing this into Papadopoulos. The anti-Papadopoulos, anti-Trump IC forces out there need to pull that information out of Papadopoulos later to make it seem like he's a conspirator in this. This is obvious what's going on.

Because now we can start to put the pieces together. We can put the pieces, that the connection, the later poll Joe, the groundwork for the poll was being set up before the push even happened. Joe, again, you're the audience.

Is this making sense? Yeah, yes, exactly. Push the Russian dirt narrative onto Papadopoulos to frame him for being a collaborator with the Russian dirt collusion thesis and pull it out later. But before we even push it in, let's make sure we have the poll angle set up.

This is a huge, nobody i i'm actually astonished they didn't catch this last night this is a huge bombshell he just revealed this i've never heard this information before but this is why if you read my book it'll all make sense what the motive for these uk intelligence entities and Australians to work together was. I didn't catch it last night. I'll be perfectly honest with you and the listeners. I did not catch it until you just mentioned that. Joe, I don't think anybody did.

Because I've heard... I taped it. I got it to Joe. That's why with the show today, I had to start like two minutes late. I'm like, Joe, you got to get me this audio. Now, you still have the Papadopoulos audio. Oh, we're good to go, baby. Okay, so just to be clear, again,

what we're saying here is that this is a push-pull and that the setup for the pull, the Downer meeting was happening even before the push to make sure it would happen. In other words, let's set up this meeting later on, but we got to make sure he'll meet with Downer. That way, if we put the information, we can pull it out. All right, the interview goes on.

Intelligence officer meeting with me probing me about my ties to the energy business in israel why were they why was she probing me about what the campaign was up to regarding russia in april before joseph mifsud even told me about the dirt now fast forward to the beginning of may all of a sudden i give I give an interview to the Times of London in which I essentially humiliate by accident, I guess, the UK prime minister by asking him to apologize or retract his derogatory statements about candidate Trump about his idea of a Muslim ban. oh boy oh boy now again when you listen I'll put out there

it's in a lot of them it's in more detail pick it up but I'm not looking to really profit off you folks life is good okay right Joe

life is great I put together the book that I worked hard in I'm proud of it you see what's happening now now we're looking for one of the things my book The The Spy Gate, provides that you have not heard before, I promise, anywhere, is a motive.

It's now becoming crystal clear that there is some role, intervention in this U.S. election by foreign intelligence entities who had it in for Trump. But the question is why? And I don't like simple answers because even though I believe in Occam's razor, simple answers without further corroborating evidence just seem to me like efforts to just bypass what's a real, potentially more elaborate problem. The simple answer is they didn't like Trump. But that creates a lot of problems there. Because if they didn't like Trump, they still, these are international players, Joe. They're not stupid.

They must have realized that there was at least a small chance that Donald Trump was going to become president. And I doubt the United Kingdom and Australia, intelligence and unquestionable allies of us throughout the years, would take on the liability of intervening in an election if they didn't have a bigger motive. It just doesn't make sense, folks.

Again, I believe in Occam's razor, given all possible explanations, except the one that's the most parsimonious and requires the least amount of assumptions. But in this case, that requires a lot of assumptions, saying oh, they just didn't like him. That they were going to throw away U.S. relations forever, that they were entirely unaware of the possibility

he would win. They were willing to basically, you know, crap on their relationship with the Republican Party in the future. I doubt it. There was something more there. And Papadopoulos, whether he knows it or not, I'm not sure he did there, kind of hints at what the motive would have been for a man, Mifsud, with significant Western intelligence ties to push information into Papadopoulos. Whereas a poll meeting with Downer, an Australian diplomat, would have been set up both before and enacted afterwards to pull the information out to make them look bad. Folks, listen to the speeches of some of the UK intelligence officials before the election about what they say about Donald Trump. I have them in my book. My co-author, Denise McAllister,

did an excellent job of getting to the bottom. This was her. She nailed this thing. Read their words. They were very, very worried about the impact on their domestic constituencies of appearing to support what they claimed was a Muslim travel ban. It wasn't. Some of the speeches, Trump could have worded differently. It is not and never has been a Muslim travel ban. That is a myth. Before the election, though, you have to remember any international support of that. Remember, folks, these people are liberals. These are diehard liberals overseas to the people involved in this. These are Clinton supporters, Clinton

acolytes and people who are subscribing to a European model of liberalism, right? They do not want to alienate their identity politics base by appearing to align with Trump, who they believed at the time, however disingenuously so, was going to enact a Muslim ban. Joe, does that make sense? Yes. Now, the fact that this is brought up to Papadopoulos, that Papadopoulos goes after these UK officials in a paper as a representative of the Trump campaign

for them attacking the Muslim ban just infuriates them even more. Please follow me. Papadopoulos is quoted in a UK paper. Keep in mind, the setup's already there to take this guy down. Here's the fuel on the fire. He's quoted in the paper attacking people

who attack trump for what they believe is a muslim ban that infuriates them even more because now they have to look and appear to their liberal bases that they are protecting the the identity politics regime is protected they need to go after him this provides further fuel for the fire. It's not just that. There are other motives here as well. There was Trump's enhanced interrogation, his speeches about that, and again, when you read

the book, you'll see that there were cooperative measures we have with them that were contingent on this. The United Kingdom has some stipulations that they cannot engage in significant intelligence sharing if we would, if the United States was still engaged in specific enhanced interrogation techniques. Trump obviously had given speeches saying he was looking to go down that road again. I'm just telling you what people said.

You don't have to agree with it. It's in the book. The motive here is clear. They think Trump is out of control. They think that he's going to enact a Muslim travel ban. He did not. They had to appeal to the liberal base. They hear his speeches on enhanced interrogation. They're afraid it's going to impact the intelligence sharing, Joe, when they need us. We don't need them nearly as much as they need us in the Five Eyes arrangement, the Five Eyes intel sharing. They need our money

and they need our intel. They are terrified if trump gets elected that this is deeply going to impact a money stream and an intel stream going back and forth between these five eye countries with us with us providing most of the intel and with us providing a lot of the money the motive is clear papadopoulos steps into it and and I'm not even sure he knows. The Muslim ban and the enhanced interrogation are two significant reasons. Don't accept these simple explanations. They just didn't like Trump. Folks, that doesn't make any sense.

It makes sense they didn't like him. It doesn't make sense that that would cause them to do this push-pull operation where I'm absolutely sure right now Papadopoulos was set up with the at least tacit knowledge of locals on the ground in the United Kingdom and Australian intelligence officials who saw Papadopoulos as an easy way into the campaign. Now there's more left to this is that what we got like 30 more play the rest of it and I'll wrap it up on this time. Yeah 57 seconds. Okay play with it. I felt, you know, David Cameron should have never been calling Donald Trump stupid or idiotic for those comments. And it doesn't matter if the UK is an ally or not.

Their prime minister should not have intervened in the democratic process in this country. Now, a couple of days after that interview, all of a sudden I'm approached by two officials from what I think are the Defense Intelligence Agency of the U.S. I'm approached by two officials from what I think are the Defense Intelligence Agency of the U.S. Embassy in London who decide to meet with me and basically probe me about what's happening. And then a day or so after that, Alexander Downer wants to meet me in a bar along with his assistant who was an Australian intelligence officer. Now, I do not remember at all talking about emails with Alexander Downer. I do not remember at all talking about emails with with Alexander Downer. He himself has contradicted himself, I think, at least three times in subsequent interviews he has given about the encounter.

What I remember about this encounter with Alexander Downer was he was incredibly belligerent. He despised Trump. He was very hostile towards the campaign. You got it. You got it. Let me just say, you got it? You got it? Here's what I'm now starting to, I'm just, I feel so vindicated because again, this stuff, we finished the book probably a month and a half ago, but everything in there is now coming out.

Like it's all coming to fruition. I feel like I didn't waste my time or yours now. There's another key point there at the end of that interview. He says Downer, who he meets with, this is the poll part of the operation that's already been set up in advance, which we just find out last night. Push, pull, push, pull. The poll part of the operation, Downer shows up and is extremely belligerent with him. According to Downer and papadopoulos now

downer has now recanted the story that these emails are even mentioned folks does this not tell you that this is a setup how would a push-pull operation work if the information's never pulled out if they pushed in the information which i strongly suspect at this point through mifsud if friendlies did this if they pushed this into Mifsud and set up this operation with Downer to pull it out later, here's what I think happened. I think Downer, Joe, was so upset about George Papadopoulos' comments in the local paper about local officials going after Trump that Downer got so emotionally vested. Remember, Downer is not a trained intel guy, Joe. This is all important. Don't forget any, I don't care who's giving you

any evaluation on what happened in this case. I'm telling you I've been there. People's emotions take over and stupid stuff happens. Downer is not a trained intel guy. He is an Australian diplomat. He has never been an intel guy. Downer is a diplomat straight up and simple he is a left-leaning liberal diplomat we know liberals can be angry he walks into this meeting there's no question with my goal with this with uh with this erica

thompson so he walks into the meeting with an australian intelligence person who i guarantee is prodding him make sure you get to the emails make sure you get to the emails make sure you get to the emails here is my strong guess about what happens he walks in he's again he's getting elbowed by the Australian intelligence person who we find out now is there hey make sure you ask about the emails we got to pull the information out to make him look guilty. And what happens? His rage takes over. Chewie. Perfect. Perfect.

Chewie. He goes, loses his mind. You ripped on camera. What the hell? This guy sucks. By this point, Papadopoulos, as you can tell, is probably flustered. He has no idea. That's why I never believed this story from the beginning they never even get to the emails papadopoulos at that point is probably trying

to defend himself saying hey he's a low-level guy he probably understands his job may be in jeopardy on the trump campaign because he he uh he ticked off down as a high-level guy it's not a low-level guy in australian politics keep in mind his meetings happening happening in London, by the way, not in Australia. He's not a trained intel guy. He's not a trained interrogator. So what does he do? He loses his mind. He gets knee deep in the politics of attacking Trump. You better recount those, excuse me, recall those statements. You better take it back, man. And he loses his marbles. And the information goes entirely off the rails i can see this now i can see this happening the intel woman next to him or the intel asset from australia is probably elbowing him right giving him an elbow shiver in the ribs dude it's about

the emails he never mentions the emails at all. Now. Now, here's where I'm going to throw you the curveball. Here comes the hook. Here it comes. Why is it that the story gets reported through State Department folks, notably Elizabeth Dibble? Remember, this never goes to official channels. This intel never goes to official intelligence channels back to the United States. I've told you why before. Because the entire case is garbage and they're

afraid if they vet it through official intel channels that their whole operation is going to be exposed. So what do they do? They vet it through political channels at the State Department knowing these are all players with the Obama administration and will Joe, wink it or not, make sure this information gets back to the FBI how does it get back to the FBI or leak into the

media that somehow emails were discussed when both Papadopoulos and Downer admit this poll never happened the email conversation that was designed to be pulled out never happened here is my now again to be fair i obviously i was not there i'm telling you what i'm speculating i'm speculating here but i'm i'm i'm doing it again based on strong evidence my guess here is the emotions of the conversation take over and downer doesn't even recall anymore what was said or what wasn't but knowing that they were supposed to go in there and talk about the emails and knowing that they don't want to disappoint people right joe this is it this is the poll yeah if this poll doesn't happen you blew it he doesn't want to upset his

state department contacts in the united states remember that's where they shuttle the information to the state department those are his. He is not an intelligence guy. He deals with State Department diplomats. He doesn't want to upset them. They're like, hey, Alex. Yo, Alex. Reminds me of Family Ties. Yo, Alex.

Remember Nick, the boyfriend? Did you get the email information? Yeah, yeah, yeah. We got it. Downer doesn't want to walk into that State Department interview with his State Department contact he needs, who he's developed professional relationships with in the United States, and say, dude, you had one job.

You had one job to get Papadopoulos to say the word emails. You went in there crapping all over him about this stupid interview he gave in a paper. It is crystal clear what's happening right now. So what does he say? goes yeah yeah i'm uh i'm pretty sure we did it i'm pretty sure we mentioned the emails it filters out we got it we got it papadopoulos later on when downer realizes trump wins and understands the gravity of exactly what he the role he played in this push and pull operation he had one job one job now all of a sudden he realizes oh i'm a central player in this and trump's the president i'm a diplomat i can't have my fingerprints on this all of a sudden he recants

well emails weren't mentioned wait wait wait emails were the whole whole genesis of the FBI story is that he mentioned emails. That's the whole story. Paul hates that so much. That's the whole story. He's kidding. I'm going to hear it later. My wife hates, hates Muttley. She hates Muttley.

She hates Muttley. Is that Dick Dastardly? Yeah, wife hates, hates Muttley. She hates Muttley. She hates Muttley. Is that Dick Dastardly? Yeah, Muttley's, yeah. He's the owner, yeah. Oh, gosh. That's the whole thing. That's the, this is now, I just, I can't, I'm really, I'm astounded how many people, I'm not knocking anyone, but how many people missed the gravity of what Papadopoulos said

last night? Downer had one job. it appears clear as day get them to get papadopoulos to say emails we put together all this effort we now set up in advance we now know according to papadopoulos's new interview we set up in advance an interview with downer we then set up the push to pull the information out in that interview the push worked papadopoulos heard about the russian dirt you have one job just get him to mention emails and they blew it downer now is it retracts the entire story papadopoulos says it never happened and it makes total sense papadopoulos saying downer lost his marbles with him and started screaming. That he got emotional. He started yelling at him.

The Intel person's giving him the elbow shiver. Hey, shiver. Say emails. Say email. He never says it. Downer doesn't want to be embarrassed with his State Department contacts because they're not dealing with Intel people. He walks into the State Department. Someone says, hey, you got that email thing from Papa Dobble?

Um, I think so, yeah. Emails. Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding. But it never happened. It never happened. It never happened. This is all a scam. That is a key interview, folks.

And, you know, not to toot anybody's horn here, mine, Joe's, or anyone else's, but I think what we can offer you on this show, and I say this with no air of pretension at all don't take it the wrong way is having been involved in criminal investigations interviewing sources having been involved in intelligence community briefings on just about every single foreign trip i took with the president united states where you get detailed briefings you uh you know the liaison with the intelligence community is extensive

you see how they work you see how they work. You see how they get information. You see how they don't get information. You sit in on these interviews. You start to pick apart little things in a story that don't make sense. But more importantly, in this case, you start to pick apart things in Papadopoulos' story that absolutely make sense. And now the whole story comes together. They set up this Downer meeting in advance.

The meeting didn't work out. The push worked out. The poll failed. And Joe, when the poll failed, you think that might explain the transition to using human intelligence? You think that may explain Halper? So now the poll fails.

At some point, there's a recognition that Downer's probably going to retract this story about the emails, and the Bureau's like, oh, no. Uh-oh, what do we got? Now it is the activation of the Central Intelligence Agency assets. Stefan Halper makes sense.

All right, guys, looks like this downer poll didn't work on the setup so uh halper can you email papadopoulos and can you ask him about email somebody's got to get this cat to say emails i can envision the con does that make sense joe i can visit the conversation envision it right now yeah stefan you got to get this guy to say emails it looks like this australian diplomat we had on board looks like he's kind of he's getting wobbly on the story it also explains the john solomon hypothesis who i'm telling you knows the whole story that papadopoulos was the initial paragraph one target not carter page that is an explosive revelation the papadopoulos case falls apart joe if a case falls apart and you don't have evidence in the FBI, what do you think would

typically happen? They would probably move on and say there's no there there. Oh, Peter Stroke said that, didn't he? Yeah, I'm sorry. He actually texted that. That's not what happened. The John Solomon theory is looking more likely by the moment, Joe. The Papadopoulos angle fell apart.

The downer went wobbly. Halper got nothing from Papadopoulos angle fell apart the downer went wobbly halper got nothing from papadopoulos then what did they do they moved on to target number two oh if we don't get papadopoulos we will most certainly get carter page who peter stroke as a division supervisor had supervised the case carter page was involved with against the russians in new york look at this guy let's move on it also make provides evidence that the John Solomon longitudinal theory is correct because after the case against Page falls apart, instead of doing, again, in a normal investigation, what would happen, Joe? You'd let the case go because

there's no there there, like Peter Stroke already said. What happens? They move back to Papadopoulos when they interview him in January because they realized Page didn't work out to Papadopoulos when they interview him in January because they realized Page didn't work out. Papadopoulos didn't work out. Now we better get Mueller's team in there and shut these guys up stat. That's what happened. All right, folks.

Today's show also brought to you by our buddy. That was good. I got to tell you, that was one of the most enjoyable segments I've ever done. I watched that Papa D thing last night. I'm i'm like oh my gosh this guy just dropped a few tier one level bombshells and no one's even picking it up i was so upset about it last night all right a new study just came out of china discovered that air pollution causes a huge reduction in intelligence this in addition to the well-known impacts on your physical health

high pollution levels lead to significant drops in test scores with language and arithmetic the average impact equivalent to having lost an entire year of education. Ouch. Now we know what is going on at the Department of Justice. They never change their air filters over there. There's a filter. I love this because it's the greatest company ever. This is why you should buy your filters from them.

This is especially important with 95% of the global population breathing unsafe air. So do the smart thing. Go to FilterBuy.com, America's leading provider of HVAC filters for homes and small businesses. Choose from over 600 sizes, including custom options that ship free within 24 hours. Plus they support working Americans manufacturing all their filters right here in America. Save 5% when you subscribe for auto replacement, so you will never forget to change your air filters again. FilterBuy will save you time, money, you'll breathe better, you'll save your lungs,

and apparently you'll become more intelligent in the process. So stop procrastinating. That's FilterBuy.com, FilterBuy.com, FilterBuy.com. And don't forget to tell them Dan sent you. We really appreciate that. This is a great company. Please. I know you need air filters.

You may not need them now, but when you do, don't forget FilterBuy.com. It's a good company. They like to be here, and they want to talk to you. That's why they're on our show. You know what, Joe? Save that Ocasio-Cortez thing for tomorrow's show. But I do want to talk about this just finally. There's a really, really cool story at IJ Review, Independent Journal Review, I have up in the show notes today.

I also have some good Kavanaugh articles I strongly encourage you to read. But this one, I need you to keep this IJ article. It's in my show notes. Keep it, bookmark it, because you're going to hear a lot more in the coming months, especially as the midterms come around and then as the presidential election cycle picks up right after the election about single payer healthcare, because this is the new push for the Democrats, Joe, government run healthcare, Medicare for all all which is going to be health care for none but there's a really good i i almost i think too fair at times i don't know if that's appropriate to say but article on ij that evaluates the canadian single-payer system versus the united states system and the author is very fair it's a a good piece. It's worth reading. She says, hey, here are some pros.

Here are some cons. So quickly, just to, again, give it a fair shake here. I mean, we know it doesn't work, but let's put the evidence out there because we do facts and data, Joe. Canadians do spend less as a percentage of GDP on healthcare. The United States spends about 17.2%. The Canadians spend about 10.3% of their GDP.

So yes, if you're going to make the argument that they spend less, it doesn't make any sense for us to fight that argument on their grounds. Number one, we do facts. Arguing facts is just plain dumb. I'm sorry. They do spend less. The question isn't do they spend less, it's what are they getting for their money and what are the consequences of government running it managing it and effectively rationing it by price yes they spend less here are the consequences i'm going to read you from the piece canadian patients however joe face lower costs and they enjoy universal coverage but often done in exchange for extremely long wait times compared to the rest of the world although wait times tend to vary from province to province, a 2017 Fraser Institute study,

get a load of this, found a median wait time of 21.2 weeks between receiving a referral from a general practitioner and getting to a specialist. You may say, okay, well, 21 weeks, that sounds like a lot. You know what it is in the United States? Well, what 21 weeks? That sounds like a lot. You know what it is in the United States? Wait times for specialists average around just 24 days in major markets, according to a Merit Hawkins study.

Folks, there are only two ways to allocate resources. And again, the United States is not a free market healthcare system. Let's not have any illusions about that. Roughly 50% of medicine is paid for by the government now. That's why the system is screwed up. But ironically, even with the system still being deeply impacted by the government to the tune of 40, 50% of spending, we still have shortened wait times between referrals from 21 weeks to 24 days. That's not a small difference, folks. That's huge. Now, I'm going to explain something in a second.

Even worse, even getting diagnosed can take a while in Canada. This is from the piece. As patients also experience significant wait times for diagnostic technologies. The Fraser study estimated that patients could wait around four weeks for a CT scan, 10 weeks for an MRI, and 3.9 weeks for an ultrasound in 2018. The issue has led numerous Canadians to travel to other countries to receive care with a whopping 63,000 doing so. So you're already paying confiscatory taxes and 63,000 that we know of leave the country to pay for it again somewhere else because they can't get a CT scan or an MRI. Folks, remember, the essence of being human is existing in a society with scarce resources. Everything is scarce.

Land, water, everything. A doctor's time. A doctor's time is scarce, is it not? It's obviously not unlimited. There are only two ways to allocate scarce resources. Do you know what they are? If you don't, memorize this. Because liberals, you will floor them every single time you bring

this up. You can price those resources or you can ration them. Ask them for a third way to do it. What's the third way to allocate scarce resources? A doctor has eight hours of time in his workday. How do you allocate the doctor's time? You can price it or you can ration it. If you do not support free market pricing, you support rationing. There is no option C. Ask them to explain to you what the third way is. So you're

suggesting rationing. No, no, no. I'm not suggesting rationing. You bite. What you're saying is indefensible. It's logically indefensible you have scarce resources oil food you can allocate it by price where high prices induce more people to get into the arena to get those high prices which increases the supply which decreases the prices that's why flat screen tvs are now 200 in best buy for a small one. And when they were $10,000 just 10 years ago.

Or you can ration. That's it. And what do the Canadians do? They ration. They ration by time. Because you can't effectively buy your way into the system. They do have some free market insurance. I don't want to make categorical statements.

But because the system is run by the government and government bureaucrats, it is rationed by time. A doctor has an eight-hour workday. You can't pay more or pay less for that doctor's time. You'll go when the government tells you. The doctor says, okay, we'll take 10 people a day. Well, I need one too. Yeah, you'll get in 21 weeks from now. That's what happens.

Either price it or you ration it. Keep that article, bookmark it. It's a very good one. And ask them that question always. If you don't accept pricing in free markets in medicine, you accept rationing. And if they say, no, I don't, ask them to explain the third way to allocate a scarce resource. They'll look at you puzzled because they can never argue because they just work on talking

points only. All right, folks. Thanks again for tuning in. I really enjoyed today's show for what it's worth, and I really appreciate all the subscriptions. You've been rocking us up the charts. We have not left the iTunes top charts forever, and that's because of the subscriptions. I deeply appreciate that. It's free. You can do it on iTunes. If you don't like Apple, that's fine. You can go to iHeartRadio and follow. It's all free. You can go to SoundCloud, Spotify, Google Podcasts. We really appreciate it. And please go subscribe to my email list at Bongino.com.

Thanks a lot, folks. I'll 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.