The Dan Bongino Show - Ep. 889 It’s Worse Than You Thought

Episode Date: January 8, 2019

Don’t miss this show. In this episode I address explosive new connections in the Obama administration’s efforts to spy on the Trump team. I also address inconvenient facts liberals choose to ignore about the immigration crisis and our exploding national debt crisis.    News Picks: Geraldo and I got into a heated debate about immigration last night on the Sean Hannity show.   Was LTG Mike Flynn framed? Who was behind it?    The liberal argument about the wealthy paying their “fair share” is nonsense. These numbers prove it.   Hollywood hypocrites were flanked by armed security as many of them fight against your Right to own a firearm.    A troubling new poll indicates that Democrats are now more positive about socialism than capitalism.    This piece points out the uncomfortable irony of the Democrats’ vile attacks on President Trump.  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 yo daddy yo hanging in there man i've got a big announcement after this uh this quick commercial we run in the beginning here uh don't go anywhere you're gonna uh you may love it you may hate it but it's gonna be an interesting announcement i promise you so uh you may hate it, but it's going to be an interesting announcement. I promise you. So are you doing all right, though, Joe?

Everything going good? Oh, man, everything is going great here in Pasadena, Maryland. Joe does not know the announcement, by the way, so you're waiting with bated breath. All right, let's get right to it. Today's show brought to you

by our buddies at GenuCell. GenuCell, my wife, my family, love this stuff. Ladies and gentlemen, the new year is here, but so is that sagging jawline and double chin. Now you can make them disappear and you can look your best in 2019.

Introducing the brand new GenuCell jawline treatment with dual peptide and MDL technology. It's Chamonix's most advanced technology ever. Not only tightens saggy jawlines, but plumps the lipophilic layer of your skin, the contour, and define that jawline within minutes. Using peptides and metal lactones together for the first time, it works amazingly fast and the results get better every day. My family loves this stuff.

It's amazing. My mother-in-law can't get enough of it. And right now, during Shamini's New Year's giveaway, the revolutionary GenuCell jawline treatment is yours absolutely absolutely free, when you order the GenuCell for under eye bags and puffiness. And for results in 12 hours, GenuCell's immediate effects is also free when you call or click now. Here's what you got to do. Text the word young, young, like the opposite of old, because that's what you will look, young, to 77453 or go to GenuCell, G-E-N-U-C-E-L.com, Genucel.com. Start the year right with beautiful skin, no bags and puffiness, and a tighter, higher jawline. Yeah.

Call or click now. Text YOUNG to 77453 or go to Genucel.com. That's Genucel.com, Genucel.com. All right, big announcement. What's the big announcement, Joe? You have not heard this? No. What's the big announcement, Joe?

You have not heard this? No. We are now going to be charging the audience $100 a month in subscription fees to listen to this show every month. What do you think of that, Joe? Dude, I'm going to take this out. I'm going to take this out. No, you got to leave it in. Joe's clearly upset.

You've not heard this. Who came up with this idea dude all right calm down calm down take it easy i think it's a it's a fair price for for your talent two hundred dollars a month right yeah am i gonna see anything in my pocket no and it's too much anyway come on man seriously i'm taking this out no no no leave it in leave it in leave it in but you gotta leave i'm sorry you gotta leave it in all right all right folks clearly i'm messing with you the show is not going to be 100 calm down joe everybody take it the show is now i did this for a reason i wanted to delay and i i even joe did know we were messing around before the show i told him just play it up but i wanted some sense of just a little bit of uncomfortability. Of course, the show is going to remain free to you. We have some surprises coming up on the video side. Don't worry, it's not going to change the podcast at all. But I did this for a reason. I've got a ton of stuff to get to today, some breaking new Spygate stuff.

I read a fascinating piece before I came on the air in the Wall Street Journal. It's subscription only, but the gist of it's simple. You know, you can read it if you'd like. It's in the opinion column today about government pricing and how the price of government is all wrong. And I thought, gosh, there's no way to hammer this home better than an analogy. The gist of the piece is this, that people do not understand the price of government, so they think they're getting a bargain. And the authors of the piece say that this growing trend in younger voters and voters who haven't done their homework.

I don't mean this in a deplorable, talking down to people way at all. People have believed the price of government is a bargain because that's what they've been told by the media and politicians. Joe, they have no reason to believe otherwise. It's not that people are ignorant. they've been told by the media and politicians joe they have no reason to believe otherwise it's not that people are ignorant they've been told otherwise all right the the the the idea in the piece is that people think socialism is a good deal because they don't understand the price of government and once the price hits you in the face all of a sudden you're like what whoa it costs that much that if you understood the real price of government, the demand for the product, the demand for more government vis-a-vis socialism would decrease significantly. And all of a sudden, capitalism would become a far more appealing enterprise. That's accentuated by my opening riff, where I'm sure I'm honored by the fact that many of you love the show and spread the show.

I mean it. Our show has become a beacon of light in my life and Joe's too. And I mean that sincerely. Forgive me the soupy analogies, but because of everything you've done. But I don't think for a second that my show is going to be worth charging you $100 a month. I enjoy it. I enjoy doing it. But the price of my show is free to be worth charging you $100 a month. I enjoy it. I enjoy doing it. But the price of my show is free to you.

It is not free. It is free to you because sponsors, good sponsors, GenuCell, Patriot Supply Today, and Bravo Company, and I don't mean to make this a rift on the business model either, but they choose to advertise on the program, to talk to a substantial audience, and that audience is you. I got you.

If the price was paid by you at that amount, many of you, although, listen, I love my content. I love what Joe does. I love the work we put into it, and the show means the world to me. I can't, with a straight face, charge you that amount of money for this product. When competitors work on a different business model, sponsor arranged programs, and it's free to you. The show is not free. Nothing's free. But when the price of the show slams you in the face, like a hundred dollars a month, all of a sudden people reconsider their demand for even my own product. I use the self-deprecating analogy using a price model on my own

show to dictate to you because I'm sure a lot of you were like when you heard that some of you may have got it. I was kidding. Some of you may not. You must have been like is this guy kidding? He thinks he's going to charge me $100 a month when I could get other products out there for free. Hey, maybe some of you said I'd pay $10

I'd pay $20 but I'm not paying $100 a month. It's called an economics, you know, elasticity of demand. If you want to get all wonky on it, you can look that up. How elastic or inelastic is demand for the product, right? Okay. Now, all of a sudden, when a price slams you in the face, you're like, well, I like Dan's show a lot, but I'm not sure I like it that much. You see how the implementation of a price all of a sudden alters your demand for a product? Ladies and gentlemen, this is why socialism is growing in its appeal towards people who don't understand what socialism is because they've been told the price in their lives to growing government and government and growing government.

Social programs is minuscule they've been lied to or i believe the traditional pronunciation of the word is minuscule but you can i i yeah you could correct me if i'm wrong but i think that i think they're both acceptable now but i believe the original pronunciation of the word is minuscule but this is it you've been told and here are some examples you've been told the price of government is right and i have in highlights here on my notes for the show today what a bargain government what a bargain joe yeah you have been told ladies and gentlemen over the past decade that the price of government to you and your tax bill was $27 trillion. Joe, that was not the price of government over the past decade.

The price of government was 26% higher. It was $35.6 trillion. That's where the $9 trillion in debt over the Obama administration over these past two years and the President Trump's administration, that's where that $9 trillion in debt comes from. You have been lied to about the price of government. It explains perfectly why the demand for government keeps going up in the left-leaning ecosystem, ideological ecosystem,

because people don't understand the price. In other words, that $9 trillion in debt, if it was imposed upon you immediately, Joe, as a genuine price, you and I had to pay right away, ladies and gentlemen, your taxes would have been 25% to 50% higher

depending on if you factor in state debt as well. You understand how we're being lied to? The Democrats want it both ways. Some of them will go on the record and argue for higher taxes, but most of them won't. They want your prices to be a lie. Here's another piece of data from the Wall Street Journal piece today,

a piece about when prices lie. The price of government is a lie. Think about my opening. When that price slammed you in the face, a lot of you were like, oh, my gosh, I like the show, but sheesh, Dan, take it east. Take it east. We haven't used that in a while. Social Security and Medicare.

These are, listen, I get it. I get a thousand emails every time. I understand. I get it. Your money was stolen from you. I totally understand. If you are 65 and older living on Social Security, I understand your money was confiscated and abused

i get it and given the status of your the life cycle chronologically the fact that you were paid into a system and made a promise by a government which is our government it's us i fully get and i understand that those promises should be made right because we elected people that screwed you over basically but i'm telling you for people 55 and younger there's no money there forget it social security and medicare joe the low-end estimates of what is owed over the next 75 years low-end genuine estimates are up to four times higher than this, is $50 trillion. Joe, that's the low end in obligations,

unpaid obligations. In other words, money we don't have over the next 75 years. Joe, to pay for that at the low end would require a 60% tax hike. Erroneous! Folks, a 60% tax hike. Erroneous! Folks, a 60% tax hike.

All of a sudden, those social security benefits for people like us, you're like, yeah, I want my social security if I'm 55. Okay, you're going to have to pay. The tax hike is 60%.

Then you're like, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. I don't want it that bad. Do you understand how the price of government is a lie? It's a lie. Then you're like, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. I don't want it that bad. Do you understand how the price of government is a lie? It's a lie. Joe, we've been smoked up. We've been lied to.

And when I opened up the show today and gave you a price, a price not commensurate with your demand for the show, all of a sudden everybody changed their mind. $100 a month, not paying $1,200 a year. Why not? Why not? Why not? Because a lot of people don't have $1,200 a year, just like a lot of people don't have the money to pay the 60% tax hike

required to pay the Social Security and Medicare benefits for the next 75 years. There's no money. The price of government is a lie. I'm kind of piggybacking on yesterday's show with Ocasio-Cortez and Julian Castro suggesting 60 to 70 and 90% marginal tax rates. Right.

You may say, well, Dan, I think you're making the case for them that they're right. No, no, no, no,

no, no, no. Notice what Ocasio ocasio cortez said if you if you didn't listen to yesterday's show please go back and listen it's a very good show ocasio cortez in her 60 minute interview the radical leftist congresswoman from new york has become the new uh star on the left, is not arguing for a 60, 70% tax hike on you. She's arguing for a 60, 70% tax hike on people who make $10 million or more as a top marginal rate.

Ladies and gentlemen, that is not where the money is, folks. That is not even close. She is being, Joe, please tell me you understand where I'm going with this. She is being doubly dishonest. Sure. Because she's not telling you the cost of government. She's lying about the cost of her, quote, free college and all this other stuff, Medicare for all she backs. And she's making you believe again that the price is going to fall on someone else, just like the price of my show falls on sponsors now and doesn't.

That's not a lie. That's true. She won't tell you that. She's making you believe it's a sponsor model, not the $100 a month I lied to you about in the beginning of the show to make a point. You see what I'm saying, Joe? Yeah. She is lying to you. She's making you believe third parties are going to pay for all this.

Those third parties are who, Joe? $10 million people worth $10 million income earners or more. That is not where the money is, folks. There are not enough people who earn $10 million or more a year at that tax rate to pay the 60-70% tax hikes Social Security, Medicare, and endless government is going to cost. Oh, hell no.

Yes. Her and Julian Castro and Bernie Sanders are lying to you. If they had any credibility at all, they would be candid and say, listen, middle America, lower income folks, people making a hundred thousand, 60,000, 50,000, 20,000, middle America, lower income folks, people making $100,000, $60,000, $50,000, $20,000, and $10 million. You are where the money is. The middle class is the overwhelming majority of this company population-wise. You are where the real money is.

We are going to tax you at rates of 60% to 70% to pay for the expanding government and socialist empire you all want. And then, you know what, Joe? I mean this. I would respect her, but respectfully, honestly, vigorously, and furiously disagree that that is a sensible, rational approach. But at least she's being honest and putting her own congressional career on the line by telling the middle class what they need to hear that the cost

of government and the price of government is wrong i'm here to correct it the price of government is 60 to 70 percent more of your money that's how we're going to implement free college and medicare for all at least she'd be candid agreed but she's not because some of you emailed me yesterday and i love listen i love your emails there was a guy Tim or Tom, he didn't like the show yesterday. He didn't like it. He thinks we should give no airtime whatsoever to liberals. I said to him back, thanks for your feedback. I appreciate it. I strongly disagree in a battle of ideas, not knowing the other side, not knowing your ideological opponent is a disaster. I've learned that through running for office many times. You have to know what they're going to say before they say it. So I side not knowing your ideological opponent is a disaster i've learned that through running for

office many times you have to know what they're going to say before they say it so i disagree but that's fine i appreciate your feedback but one of the comments i got you says well dan you missed the point she's only arguing for a tax hike for people who make 10 million or more no that is the point she's lying about the price of government right she's not being genuine she's pretending it's a sponsor paid model with the sponsors being 10 million genuine. She's pretending it's a sponsor-paid model with the sponsors being 10 millionaires, and it's not. It's a you model

where you're going to pay $100 for the show. You're not, just so we're clear, folks. I hope all of you understand. I have no intention of charging you for my show. Please. The goal always here has been to keep it free for you. I hope I didn't upset you with that analogy. And I thought about, hey, maybe this is dangerous. Maybe some people listen to tune out the show right away. This guy's crazy. You know what,

folks? It's worth it. I'm sorry, but it's worth it. Sometimes analogies that really hit you in the face are the best ones. And you don't need it i mean it's really not for you it's more for the moderate democrats who listen to the show i like and i appreciate your feedback but i just don't tell you the truth it was fun too oh yeah i know i told joe before the gentleman it was fun i'm like just pretend you don't know and joe's actually pretty convincing i must say i'd love your feedback on that if he was convincing it. He's like, this is a stupid idea. It is a stupid idea. You know, I don't mind subscription fees that are reasonable, but that is clearly confiscatory and really ridiculous and almost mercenary.

But it's meant to hit you in the face with what a price is and how that price, when it goes up to an excessive cost, $100 a month, in this case, a 60% tax hike, all of a sudden makes you reevaluate your demand curve for a product. Oh, I don't want it. I demanded this much government at this price. But when the price is real, you're like, well, all of a sudden I don't demand government. Just like you wouldn't demand the show. Those examples work.

I hope it worked in this case. All right. I've got some killer information on this uh growing growing scandal uh it's just uh i haven't forgotten i get some emails people what happened to spy case if nothing happened i only report when there's news i'm not gonna fill your air time when we don't have anything i you know i don't want to waste your time the show matters to us okay today's show brought to you speaking speaking of preparing, folks, preparing matters. You got to be prepared. We ensure everything in our lives that matter.

We ensure our health. We ensure our teeth. People have eyeglass coverage, car insurance, home insurance. How can you not have a basic food supply insurance plan? You got to have a food supply in the event of an emergency. So when an emergency strikes, what's your first impulse? Go to the grocery store. Problem is it's already too late.

The grocery shelves are already empty. It wouldn't be an emergency if you knew in advance. Hurricanes you know in advance, but a lot of times things strike without warning. How do you avoid this? It's simple. Use today to plan ahead. Prepare for things like blizzards, earthquakes, power outages, and all that stuff that could last days. The logical place to start is having a food supply stored in your home. trust my patriot supply for my food storage and you should too folks i have boxes of this i buy it myself as i've said many times i could probably get a lot of it for free from them i don't even but because i i really i'm i am sincere in my heart when i tell you this i could not watch the face of my kids or my wife if there was an emergency two or

three weeks without food asking for i couldn't do it do it. I couldn't. The pain in their face would be overwhelming. Here's how you prepare your food supply. Go get a two-week food kit that comes in a rugged tote from MyPatriotSupply. This week, you'll save $62 on this two-week food kit. When you go to my special site, preparewithdan.com, go to the website, preparewithdan.com. That's preparewithdan.com go to the website prepare with dan.com that's prepare with dan.com or you could call 888-411-8926 these food kits include a tasty variety of breakfast lunches and dinners that last up to 25 years in storage order now prepare yourself rest easy 888-411-8926 or prepare with dan.com 888-411-8926 or preparewithdan.com. Go check it out.

Please ensure your food supply. Okay. I wanted to front load that so we could get to this. So ladies and gentlemen, last week we covered a fascinating component of what we believe to be paragraph one of this devastating operation to take down the Trump team in the Obama administration. And one of the things I discussed last week is I believe now I'm starting to believe that there were multiple investigations into the Trump team, potentially multiple FISA warrants, secret court warrants to spy on the Trump team through the Obama administration. And I can see Joe's interest. Joe's leaning in when he leans in. He's interested in this. And I had said to you that I believe the initial target in this whole thing was an effort to take

down Lieutenant General Mike Flynn. Mike Flynn was the head of the DIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency under Barack Obama. Mike Flynn was a sworn enemy of the Iran deal and was largely a truth teller in the Obama administration. The Obama administration didn't like that. It's probably clear, given Mike Flynn's position as a senior intelligence official in the Obama administration, that let's just say Joe Flynn knew stuff. Flynn probably knew a few things about the shenanigans the Obama administration was up to. Flynn had to be taken out. Flynn became a target of the Obama team right away. Now, I covered this a little bit on last week's show.

If you want to listen to it, it's called The Scandal Exposed. It's a great show. We got a ton of listeners on it, and it covers the background on what the Obama team in paragraph one did to take out Mike Flynn. And when I say paragraph one, I mean in my prior line of work, when you started an investigation, there's a paragraph one that describes how it starts in all your reports. What was paragraph one? What was the initial reason the Obama administration targeted the Trump team? I believe Mike Flynn and Mike Flynn joining the Trump effort to get elected during the

Trump campaign was not giving speeches. I believe paragraph one was, in in fact some targeting of Mike Flynn, and now I have more reason to believe so, thanks to a tremendous piece in the Epoch Times by Jeff Carlson, who I've touted his work on this show often because it is tremendous. Now here's the question I want to ask today. Was there a two-way street in the intelligence community to produce negative intelligence to nail people on the trump team hold stand easy i'll tell you what i mean ladies and gentlemen

a traditional intelligence operation to nail someone who may be a spy in the united states or maybe cooperating with a foreign government the intelligence by nature has to go in one direction think about what i'm saying joe we have a potential spy in the united states right uh whatever the john smith john smith is suspected to be working with the Russians we get information about John Smith from another source who says hey Central Intelligence Agency FBI

there's a mole in the United States a guy his name is John Smith I've seen some of his emails I work with him at work I think he's emailing the Russian government about state secrets in the United States he has some access to a contractor portal. This is a bad guy. The information by nature has to be one way from sources to the Central Intelligence Agency.

The information cannot ever by nature be two way. And what I mean by two way, Joe, is in order to nail John Smith in the United States under espionage charges, potential criminal charges by the Bureau and others, the intelligence agency, Joe, can never go back to the source and say, hey, it would be really nice if you said this. You tracking? It can never be two ways now this may seem obvious but until i explain that to you the rest of the story won't make it i know a lot of you get this so forgive me i am in no way trying to talk down i am just trying to establish that the information flow has to by nature be one way now i'm not talking about working with them. You know, there are always intelligence people can say,

hey, you know, it would be a good idea if you could get us this. Could you get us the emails? Could you get us some recorded phone calls? That happens all the time. In other words, prods and suggestions. Information, core information central to the case, cannot, by nature, flow the other way. It can't.

They can't say to people who are sources, hey, listen, it would be really nice if you could say this, this, and this, and this. Now, leads again, leads and potential, like, hey, it would be helpful. You know, that stuff happens all the time. But you cannot feed them bogus information, a source, with the hope that the source will feed back the bogus information

that makes the bogus information appear credible. Why do I bring this up? Because, folks, as I discussed in last week's show, with the Carter Page warrant on the scandal exposed, Lee Smith at The Federalist did an unbelievable piece which is in the show notes for that day's show you must read it it's long but it's good about how it's incredibly suspicious about how when the obama administration targeted carter page show for a fisa warrant it appears they tried to get a FISA warrant in the summer, in the summer of 2016, a FISA warrant that was denied.

All of a sudden, Christopher Steele's memos on Carter Page appear with new allegations of criminality by Carter Page. And voila, look, in October, all of a sudden, the FISA's approved. Folks, please listen to that show, but I'll sum it up in this sentence. Christopher Steele's memos targeted Carter Page. He's the principal figure. This guy's working with the Russian government. He met with these energy officials from Russia and Rosneft.

They go to the FISA court with that. It appears likely this happened at this point. The problem is meeting with energy officials from Russia, Joe, is not a crime. The Pfizer warrant or the potential Pfizer warrant against Page appears to have been denied. It appears then, Joe, instead of one-way flow, the information becomes two-way.

Someone probably went up to christopher steel and i'm basically the new information is going to show you i think this is highly likely at this point and says hey chris um you know wink and a nod maybe it would be a good idea if we had some new information here indicating that this meeting was a crime if you read lee's piece this is what seems to have happened here the memo is then updated about this meeting between carter page the meeting between page and the russians to include information about a bribe that is in that that's in in fact the new memo in october bang all of a sudden the the FISA court's like, okay, now we got a crime. In other words, folks, the question we should all be asking right now is, was

the information flow two-way? Do you see, Joe, am I explaining the unethical nature of a two-way information flow in an intelligence CIA investigation? I was going to say, but Dan, that's a lie. That's a lie! The whole dossier was a lie. The meeting never happened.

If the meeting never happened if the meeting never happened the alleged bribe to carter page from the russian energy firm we're going to give you all these shares in the company if you can hook us up with the trump team and get rid of sanctions if that never happened the meeting then the bribe never happened either the question is how did steel get this information who told steel there was a bribe folks do you see what the scandal if I don't if I'm not explaining this here it is from 30,000 feet was somebody poking and prodding

Christopher Steele to fabricate fake information in a dossier in a two-way street operation that could be used to funnel to hijack our justice system to get unethical, potentially illegal warrants to spy on Americans. Was that person in the two-way street connected to the

Hillary Clinton orbit? Was it someone in the Clinton team feeding Steele information who was connected to people in the Justice Department, connected to people in the justice department connected to people in the fbi who were telling steel this isn't enough this isn't enough we need more we need more we need more do you see the danger of a two-way information flow like this this tactic could be employed against any american at any time i need to spy on joe armacost i'm running against him for office. I'm a Democrat. He's a Republican. All of a sudden, a source creeps out. Christopher Steele Jr. I think Joe is colluding with the Russians. Do you have evidence? I think he met with Russians. I go to a FISA court. Nah, that's not enough. Hey, somebody feed to that guy ratting on Joe that we need more information. All of a sudden, hey, boom, here's another memo. Hey,

Joe took a bribe from the Russians. We go back to the court. Hey, judge, Joe took a bribe from the Russians. Okay, spy on Joe. This could be employed against anybody. It was all fake. Was this a two-way street? I kept thinking of this last night. I'm like, this is just profound. This is such a a a a a violation of the general trust between the united states and and and its law enforcement and intelligence entities now what broke yesterday in carlson's piece that lead me to believe this was a systemic problem not just applied to carter page carlson who is a tremendous investigator, has a piece up, which is in the show notes today. Please, again, I humbly and most respectfully ask that you read it. This is really important stuff. These are great investigators. Their work needs to be heard. You will not hear any of this in the mainstream media because it's ignored. But guys like Carlson,

Chuck Ross, Lee Smith, Byron York, and others are the ones doing the real entrepreneurial work, cracking open the greatest political scandal of our time. Carlson notes something very suspicious, Joe, about the dossier memos. Remember, the dossier is just a compilation of Christopher Steele's memos. memos how there appears to be a last minute addition in one of them when it comes to kremlin influence and the kremlin engaging with quote high profile u.s players let me read his his description of what i mean first remember how i said to you before about page how page it appears a memo was written page met with the russians the memo was probably used to get a fisa the fisa's denied another memo is written with more information on page oh he was he was bribed oh bingo it appears these last minute additions creep in whenever the government needs something joe political on the

trump team it magically appears through christopher steel, quote, a credible source for the FBI, even though he's not the source and even though he's talking to the media. Here's what Carlson writes. In addition to the obvious questions raised by the timing of Mike Flynn's name appearing in Steele's August 10th memo is the manner in which Flynn is denoted. So just to be clear what he's saying, there's's August 10th memo is the manner in which Flynn is denoted. So just to be clear what he's saying, there's an August 10th memo. The dossier is a compilation of memos. Within that memo, Mike Flynn's name appears and it's alluded to that he's been a target

of a Russian influence operation. Carlson's saying here, but the way his name appears seems very suspicious, folks. Almost like it was added at the last minute. Hey, we need something against Mike Flynn, too. I got you, buddy. Don't worry. Fill in the blank.

He goes on. All other names in the memo are capitalized in the manner of intelligence briefings. But Flynn's name isn't capitalized, and in one case, appears within parentheses. It's almost as if his name was suddenly added at the last minute and by someone other than steel let me read to you the portion of the memo he's talking about and he's right read the piece it's not capitalized it's thrown in at the last minute in a format that applies to no other name in the actual dossier memo nothing Nothing. Everyone else's name is capitalized. You can see it yourself.

He links to it. Quote, Kremlin's engaging with several high-profile U.S. players. This is from Steele's memo, including Stein, talking about Jill Stein, capitalized. Page, Carter Page, capitalized. And, and, and here's this, just thrown in in parentheses and former DIA director, Michael Flynn in standard writing and funding their recent visits to Moscow. This is fascinating folks. How Flynn's name again, by the way, in the next paragraph, when they talk about this delegation and how the Russians are supporting us figures in these paid engagements to Russia. They talk about Lyndon LaRouche's name, capitalized presidential candidate Jill Stein, capitalized Trump foreign policy advisor Carter Page, capitalized. And former director Michael Flynn.

Again, thrown in at the end, not capitalized. You may say, OK, so they forgot to capitalize his name. Folks, I would be willing to toss this out to a simple error if it wasn't so obvious what's going on here. These memos are consistently revised and thrown together at the last minute as political tools whenever they need information to inject intravenously into the FISA court to get a law enforcement warrant against people on the Trump team. Flynn was a target. Now, why do I think this happened? Here's where it gets a little confusing. So please follow me. This is super important, but incredibly interesting. And this is in the Carlson piece. It's long, but worth your time. Seriously worth your time. Remember what I talked about in the show, The Scandal Exposed last week,

how Flynn's December 2015 trip to Russia only became a big deal after Mike Flynn started advocating openly for the Trump campaign for the presidency. John Solomon covered this Mike Flynn paid trip to Russia in December of 2015, whereas Flynn was seated at the same table as Vladimir Putin. Interestingly enough, the same CIA assets, Stefan Halper, who was reporting on Papadopoulos and Carter Page as well, also does some reporting on that instance with Flynn. Almost as if, Joe, they had a Central Intelligence Agency asset ready to provide information on Trump team members at the drop of a hat. Crazy how that happens. Halper just keeps randomly appearing.

But this trip to Russia, which Flynn handled by the books, folks, that was John Solomon's report in The Hill. There is significant exculpatory information. Mike Flynn briefed the DIA, despite not being in the DIA anymore, about the trip before he left. He did a briefing before he left, and he did a briefing after he came back discussing the ramifications of this trip to Russia. Everything, Joe, was done by the numbers with regards to the intelligence nature of the visit. Nobody disputes that anymore. So why was the trip a big deal?

The answer, Joe, is it wasn't. It was only a big deal because Mike Flynn decided to start campaigning for the Trump team. Remember the timeline. The trip happens in December of 2015. Nobody says anything. But all of a sudden, right as Mike Flynn starts to openly advocate for Donald Trump for president, all of a sudden, these memos appear in August. And Mike Flynn's name seems to be randomly inserted in dossiers about Russian influence.

Wow. Isn't that special? Just like Carter Page keeps appearing in these memos with successively more damaging pieces of information, just enough to hurdle a FISA court warrant despite the fact that none of it's true. Now, what's even more interesting? Remember the names, folks. There's a journalist in my book, Spygate, that appears in almost like every other chapter, I think. Michael Isikoff from Yahoo News. Michael Isikoff from Yahoo News is deeply embedded in this. Michael Isikoff, again, if you read the book, you'll see, is working with

Alexandra Chalupa on the Paul Manafort angle. He's being fed. Listen, he's a reporter. Let me just be clear. Michael Isikoff is no conservative. I have no beef with reporters taking information. I'm not knocking Isikoff. If Isikoff has information, I've taken information from sources too. I'm simply suggesting that the sources Isikoff's getting information from are Democrat embeds in the government who are feeding Isikoff what they want him to believe, that the Russians are trying to influence the Trump team and Flint. That's all I'm saying here. But what's fascinating, Joe, is right around the time Mike Flynn starts speaking out and

advocating for the Trump team heavily, in July of 2016, Isikoff confronts Mike Flynn and interviews him. And what's one of the first questions out of his mouth? The transcription of the interview is available in Carlson's piece in the show notes today. What do you think

one of the first questions Isikoff asked Flynn about Joe this is killer. Hey, what about that trip to Russia in December of 2015 that nobody cared about until Flynn started advocating for Trump. Now, you may say, all right, Dan, but that's July and the memo where Flynn's name seems to be randomly inserted into this Steele memo indicating that Flynn may be subjected to,

may have been the subject of a Russian influence operation through payments and things like that. That's August 10th. Who fed Isikoff that information? Who fed Isikoff that information? who fed is a cough that information we know is a cough has a relationship with people at fusion gps was somebody feeding journalists is a cough and others information lies about mike flynn and carter page which were being used then and funneled from said journalists to Fusion GPS, where Christopher Steele were, to be randomly inserted into memos known as the dossier, to be given back to the Justice Department, to be used as a predicate for spying. Oh, boy, that one's going to sting, isn't it?

Think about what I just told you. Talk about a circle of malfeasance. So you can't get a warrant because you have nothing. So what do you do? You drop a hint. If you're in the FBI and DOJ and you're an anti-Trump hack, like a lot of these upper level Comey stroke cabal types were. Bruce Ohr and the DOJ was a relationship with Christopher Steele. We know that they met right before Crossfire Hurricane, the investigation into Trump started. Right. They float to fusion. Hey, we need something. The Bureau, the Bureau's like,

we can't walk into a FISA court with nothing. We don't have enough. We've already gotten turned down once. You need to give us something. They float that to fusion. We know Orr's connected to Steele, who's working for fusion. Steele probably floats back to fusion.

Hey, we need to produce more stuff. Hillary's paying us for information hillary's team they know obama they want information they got to get this trump team spied on they need it all of a sudden they said well let's go to some reporters the reporters get wind that they need information all of a sudden who randomly appears to feed the reporters information insiders in the obama administration like alexandra chalupa and others that they need information. All of a sudden, who randomly appears to feed the reporter's information? Insiders in the Obama administration like Alexandra Chalupa and others

who all of a sudden produce intel. Remember the Evelyn Farkas hit on MSNBC when the insider at the Obama administration at the Defense Department went on MSNBC

and said, oh, if the Trump team only knew how we found out about their Russia stuff. The problem is they didn't know. They were feeding it to everybody and their mother who

would listen, a bunch of reporters who were feeding it back to Fusion, who were feeding it back to the FBI. In a ring of stupid. Now, coincidentally, not, who is used in one of the original and subsequent FISA applications establish that their case against Carter Page and the Trump team is genuine.

What reporters reporting is used to buttress their case in the FISA court? Michael Isikoff, the same guy who in July seems to have information he's supposed to ask Mike Flynn about the trip to Russia. Who told him that? Who fed him that information that this December 15 trip to Russia was trouble, even though it wasn't? Flynn had reported the trip, and had reported the results afterwards. The DIA knew it.

words the DIA knew it and once Isikoff doesn't get a satisfactory answer from Flynn in the July interview and it's and it's a it's a strange answer if you read the transcript Flynn appears taken aback by the questioning and says I'm not being paid by the Russian government once Isikoff gets that on the record who then feeds that that? Hey, we've got trouble here. Back to fusion to insert in the August 10th memo. Make sure you put Mike Flynn's name in there now. These people are subject to a Russian influence operant. Jill Stein, Carter Bates, and Mike Flynn. Mike Flynn.

Someone have whiteout? Mike Flynn. It's like they had a blank line. You're just eagerly anticipating a fill-in joe is this not the craziest story ever this is whack dude so who fed isikoff the information that flynn's trip to russia was trouble even though it wasn't we already the dia's already said he followed the rules. When Isikoff hammers him in July and Flynn doesn't come up with the right answer, who then gets back to Steele and Fusion?

Is it Isikoff? That, hey, we got something here, Russia. Flynn didn't give a great answer. He said the Russians didn't pay him, but technically RT did. It's a state-controlled agency. This is going to be ugly. I think we've got the evidence we need. Who feeds it back

to Steele and Fusion for the dossier? And then who gives that dossier, obviously it's Steele, back to the FBI and DOJ to waltz back into court with? Who then, by the way, in the court, they swear to it in October.

They swear to it. And who do they use to buttress their case? Michael Isikoff, the same reporter who starts this thing in July. Oh, man, is this case full of gems, folks. And by gems, I mean lumps of coal. Yeah. Every single time.

And, you know, that's why I get that, you know, what's with Spike? I only report when there's something to report. And this is huge because the takeaway for you from this is that I believe the information flow was a dangerous, pernicious two-way street. It's not that Intel was being fed to the Bureau, the DOJ, Fusion, and others. It's that when info was needed, even when it was a lie, the request was being made in the other direction too. Let me be clear.

There's nothing wrong with an intelligence agency saying, hey, you think Joe Armacost is going to rob a bank? Give us some evidence. There is something very wrong with the intelligence agency saying, hey, we know Joe's going to rob a bank because we need him to rob a bank for political purposes, and I need you, Mr. Intelligence Source,

to prove it. You see the distinction? Oh, yeah. Because there's a lot of intelligence professionals that email me, and I appreciate your emails. I understand the distinction. The first thing's fine.

We need info on this. That's what sources do. Already telling them what the info is when it is in fact false and telling them to go show it is totally different. What a train wreck this case is. Flynn was set up. It is so obvious. We need information on Page. Look, I've got a new memo. We need information on Flynn. Look, I've got a new memo too. You forgot to capitalize Flynn's name.

Darn, how did I screw that one up? Oh, insane. You like that? Yeah, man. That was good, right? I saw Jeff Carlson's piece. I was like, damn. Now put that together.

Go read and go listen to the scandal exposed from last week read lee smith's piece listen to this show and read carlson's piece and you will see exactly what i'm talking about this was a two-way street it was information and intelligence a la carte whatever you you need, we got it. All right. All right, this spot brought to you by our friends over at Bravo Company Manufacturing. Listen, when our founding fathers crafted the Constitution, the first thing they did was ensure the rights of the individual to share ideas without limitation by government. You know how strongly I feel about freedom of speech, all of our other big R rights, too. I also believe in individual liberty and personal responsibility.

These are cornerstones of a great civilization. I want to talk to you about one of the best companies out there for rifle builds, Bravo Company Manufacturing or BCM for short. It was started in a garage by a Marine veteran more than two decades ago. They build professional grade products built to the highest of standards. BCM believes the same level of protection should be provided to every American, regardless if they are a private citizen or a professional. BCM, this is folks, a company, their rifle builds are just spectacular. It stands for Bravo Company Manufacturing. This is life-saving equipment. BCM does a great job. They have the highest standards. The professionals make this stuff. It is absolutely terrific. Their rifle builds are amazing. You're not going to find a finer product out there. They put people before products, BCM. They build their products because they feel it's

their moral responsibility as Americans to provide tools that will not fail the end user when it's not just a paper target, but someone trying to do them harm. BCM knows that their products can be life-saving. Folks, these guys are the real deal. I ask that you check them out. To learn more about Bravo Company Manufacturing, head on over to bravocompanymfg.com, where you can discover more about their products, special offers, and upcoming news. They have accessories. They have rifle builds they can put together for you. They have a bunch of products over there, the highest quality built for professionals, but you can access them too. Go to bravocompanymfg.com. That's BravoCompanyMFG.com.

Need more convincing? Check out more about them. And they're awesome people that make their products at YouTube.com slash BravoCompanyUSA. Go check them out, folks. Okay. A couple of other stories I don't want to miss here. Forgive me. I didn't bring up.

There's a big speech tonight, 9 p.m. Obviously, Donald Trump is going to give his first Oval Office speech. This is going to be important. It's going to be about the dangers of open borders policies, the dangers presenting themselves

at their southern border. Just a couple of notes on this. The fact that the networks were even considering not, and they were, they were, quote quote deliberating on broadcasting donald trump's first oval office speech is is is is a disgrace um it just speaks yeah you know

the adjectives that go on and on the disgrace they're horrible they're just awful they're terrible people um i just want you to understand the journalism is dead uh it's over honest reporting is over understand i know you already get it the media are full-blown activists they are liberal activists they are not to be taken seriously the fact that the president of the united states the duly elected president united states donald j trump is giving his first oval office address and the networks even had to deliberate for a moment on broadcasting. It speaks volumes to what shams they are. Total shams, hoaxes. These are not genuine folks over there.

Now, they acquiesced, of course, because they had to, because it would have been to their eternal shame had they not had they refused to broadcast an Oval Office address. And by the way, everybody just would have tuned into Fox anyway, which is what everybody will do. So you can watch it on Fox. Don't give any of these people the airtime. It's supposed to be eight minutes, but the fact that this was even an issue is just really just disgraceful. I had a, you know,

can I just one quick story on this? When I was in my prior line of work, one of the finer moments in my career one of the moments where i was really just unbelievably proud of what i what i did at the time was uh when president bush gave his speech now let me be candid with you policy wise i never was a proponent of the iraq war ever or the surge i want to be clear on that so i don't get a thousand emails i wasn't advocating for that but i was on duty the night at the White House when he gave his famous Oval Office speech. I kind of wrote about it in my first book. I did write about it in my

first book. When he gave his Oval Office speech about the surge and estimates of people watching were obviously in the tens of millions and it was everybody around the world watching. It was such an important speech, whether you agreed with the policy, which I didn't at the time, or did not. But I was outside the Oval when that was going on, and they leave the door open in the Oval office when that's happening. And watching it, and just sitting there right outside the office, seeing President Bush in front, and behind the Resolute, the desk, and giving that speech to

basically every important person in the globe was a really transformative experience for me, where it really hit me like, wow, you know, this is really for real. I, you know, standing there, it was an honor. It really was, even though, like I said, the policy wasn't my favorite. I was standing probably 10 feet away from him. And I remember when the guy came to push me, the agent, you know, push, relieve me. Like I was like, I thought to myself, I'll stay. You know, you can't of course, but just a quick note, sorry. Don't mean to interrupt you with personal stories, but watching that live was pretty incredible. So check that out tonight. Oh, let's see. So much here. I have an interesting thread here from james toronto i want to point

out to you some more media bias media bias stories can can be interesting sometimes they're dopey um but this is important because you're going to see a lot of this given the prominence of female candidates and what i believe is going to be the 2020 and large 2020 field on the democrat side for the presidency uh we already have one announced candidate in an exploratory mode, which Joe and I, of course, know is nonsense, not explore it. They're not exploring anything. He's going to run in Elizabeth Warren. I'm also expecting a number of other female candidates to jump in on the Democrat side. Amy Klobuchar, distinct possibility, Kirsten Gillibrand from New York, Kamala Harris, Senator from California

it's going to be a packed field on the Democrat side they're going to be a lot of female candidates now I bring that up not to bore you with you know mundane details but you can expect a bunch of Washington Post New York Times driven driven drivel about nonsense made up and fake misogyny and misogynist charge. Anytime you criticize a female candidate, it's starting already. But James Toronto, who writes at the Wall Street Journal, dished absolutely dismantled Dave Weigel from the Washington Post and his co-author on a Washington Post piece. And it is a thing of beauty. And I just want to point it out there to show you because it's going to happen you're going to see this stuff all throughout the campaign anytime a female candidate is mentioned there's everything you say is going

to be misogynistic it doesn't matter so Weigel at the Washington Post who's come after me in the past and you know kind of a silly matter but whatever weigel wrote this piece and the the the gist of it joe is that questioning elizabeth warren's you know likability is misogynistic like they don't question likability for male candidates like this is just you see folks you see where i'm going with this because i wait that way this is gonna this is so toronto did such a thorough debunking on this twitter thread that it's almost humorous. OK, so the premise, just to be clear with the premises, Weigel wants you to believe that questioning a female candidate's, quote, likability is inherently misogynistic because they don't do that for male candidates. Oh, really? They don't. OK.

From the Washington Post, James Toronto. He's got headline screenshots. Headline number one, Joe. Sorry, this is so great. This is so great. Talk about owning the libs, right? The likability problem of Ted Cruz. Washington Post.

Headline number two. Rubio critics say he's too likable for his own good. The Washington Post. Then Toronto, because he's running out of space on Twitter of all these headlines, he just starts screenshotting Google checks on us. Here's a Google check from 2012 on whether Mitt Romney was likable. Ruth Marcus from the Washington Post, is Mitt Romney likable enough to win? Another Washington Post article. Can Mitt Romney

become more likable? Another headline from the Washington Post. Can Mitt Romney be likable? Play that laugh guy again. We need that. Thank you, Chucky. We need that. Folks, it goes on.

On the Dem side, again, males who were questioned for being like well washington post about john edwards being likable wasn't enough well what i could go on all day i'm gonna stop here and just to save you the but this is the washington this is all from the washington post remember weigel's point They never question men being likable. Here's another one. Michael Dukakis back in 1988. For Dukakis, this is the headline. A challenge to be likable.

Folks, do you understand why these folks are such clowns? They just make it up. They just make it up. The Washington Post has questioned likability of male and female. By the way, here's another female one, just in case you think, all right, this was only a guy. Now they've questioned other females too. The Washington Post from The Fix. I think that's Chris Silliz's thing. Hillary Clinton has a likability problem. Donald Trump has a likability epidemic. This is a made up story. This is the very genesis of fake news, ladies and

gentlemen. Fake news. It's fake. It's made up. But this is how a lie travels around the globe before the truth is even heard. All right. One last note. I was on Hannity last night with Geraldo. For some of you saw it. Some of you may not have. If you missed it, it was pretty explosive. It was on immigration, which is always a hot topic. Geraldo is very passionate about the topic. So am I. I try not to make it personal to anyone. And Geraldo, he has a different view than I do.

But the topic came up about Ronil Singh and Americans being killed by people in the country illegally. And it was fiery, to say the least. Me and Sean both really went at Geraldo pretty heavy when he insisted we were politicizing the tragic deaths of these people killed, including the police officer, by illegal immigrants which i found fascinating because he then proceeded to immediately make the argument political by discussing the the uh presence of dreamers in the country and which i found odd like you're making a political argument as you're accusing us despite the death of many americans due to people in the country legally making it political so i just want i i have in the show notes a piece from biz pack review samantha chang she wrote up on it and the video is there i encourage you to watch it it's short short. It's about a six-minute segment, but check it out because this has to be said, folks, and this is a passionate argument because our national

security matters and so do our borders. But two quick points I was trying to make, but it got passionate right away and sometimes it doesn't come across on the screen. There is no global right, folks, or claim on US citizenship. citizenship none if you are not a citizen of the united states you have absolutely no right to be here without our permission it is our country we pay for it our families have given lives for it some of you have lost sons daughters mothers and fathers some of you warriors out there have come back with no legs missing limbs missing eyes like dan c Dan Crenshaw and Brian Masters, my congressman, two missing the bottom half of both of his legs. It's our country. It is ours.

We fought for it. We have every right to say who is allowed and not allowed to come in here. You have no right as a non-U.S. citizen to declare your claim on U.S. citizenship without our permission. And we make no apologies for that. We have been the most generous country to immigrants in human history. We've taken in millions of people from around the world. But you claim nothing without our explicit permission to our lawmakers to a legal process. You do it the right way, you will be gladly, openly welcomed and integrated into the fabric of our society. You violate our laws.

No. You have to go. I don't know if that came across last night. But secondly, you can cite to me all the statistics you want about people coming into the country illegally, being less prone to commit crime later. Those statistics are off, folks. The reason those statistics are off about the crime rates amongst illegal immigrants show is because most states

do not keep an accurate tally of what the immigration status is of people they arrest. I had Matt Palumbo write a piece on this. Those statistics are not accurate. But the bottom line is those statistics don't matter. Because if you're in the country illegally, and if even one person commits a crime, 100% of people in the country illegally should not be here to commit that crime. That is it. There is no other argument to be made. We have laws for a reason.

They matter. Please watch the clip. I think you'll like it. Folks, check out the show notes today. They are really some of the, it's the best compilation I put together in a long time. You got the Carlson piece. Please go listen to the Scandal Exposed. Read the Lee Smith piece if you haven't heard it.

That's embedded in that as well. And if you wouldn't mind, please subscribe to the Carlson piece. Please go listen to the Scandal Exposed. Read the Lee Smith piece if you haven't heard it. That's embedded in that as well. And if you wouldn't mind, please subscribe to the podcast on iTunes. It is free. It makes a big difference. Of course, we're not charging anybody. I hope that the price thing made a difference in the beginning. And follow us on iHeart, SoundCloud, and elsewhere. It is free, but it helps us move up the charts.

It helps other people find our content. But that's thanks to you. So I really appreciate you all doing that. We haven't been out of the iTunes top charts in forever because you keep subscribing. That's actually measured on subscription. So we really appreciate it. Thanks a lot, folks. I appreciate it. I will see you all tomorrow. Don't miss the speech tonight. We'll cover it all tomorrow. You just heard the Dan Bongino Show. You can also get Dan's podcasts on iTunes or SoundCloud and follow Dan on Twitter 24-7 at DBongino.