The Dan Bongino Show - Ep. 895 Liberals Will Never Leave You Alone

Episode Date: January 16, 2019

In this episode I address the latest bombshell about a key FBI player under criminal investigation. I also address the latest attacks by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on your economic freedom. Finally I address some new information which should make John Brennan sweat. News Picks: This report indicates that an FBI lawyer is under criminal investigation for his role in the Spygate scandal.   Yes, we’ve tried high taxes before. Unsurprisingly, it failed.   Radical Liberals want to destroy any opposition to their plans. Their continued attacks on the Little Sisters of the Poor are disgusting.   We could get the TSA employees paid by privatizing the TSA.   Media coverage of President Trump is nearly entirely negative.    Copyright Dan Bongino 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 oh just jim dandy daddy oh jim dandy is he uh what's wrong with you out of my mind we uh we had an incredibly stacked news day yesterday attorney general nominee uh bar was up on the hill for the hearings a couple ups and downs with that i'll get to that in a second nancy pelosi today just came out uh came out and said she wanted uh she wanted donald trump to delay the state of the union address because of get a load of this joe uh the secret service uh the security arrangements and the fact that the Secret Service hasn't been paid. Listen, I was a Secret Service agent. These are my friends. I wish they were being paid right now. But I'm telling you, Nancy Pelosi is making this up.

I keep contact with a number of my former Secret Service friends. Let me get this one thing out there. This will not affect the Secret Service Services security arrangements for the State of the Union address. One iota, not a little bit. Pelosi has no idea what she's talking about, which is pretty common with Nancy Pelosi. She is just making that up. These are really super dedicated men and women. And I assure you, although they're dealing with the shutdown the best way they can, they are going to work and doing their jobs. This is the most ridiculous, absurd request I've ever seen. It's on the news now. Pelosi asked Trump to postpone the State of the Union. She's just playing political posturing and a lame attempt at that.

All right, I got a stacked show today. I want to tell you why John Brennan's in a world of trouble. Talk about an exploding story about an FBI upper-level management individual who is now apparently involved in a criminal investigation, which we just found out about yesterday. Also, a debate I had on Fox last night. Today's show brought to you by our buddies at GenuCell. Hey, listen, 2018's in the books, which means that the turkey necks and double chins are not getting better by just ignoring them. Unfortunately, they'll just be getting worse. Joe, you love this commercial, don't you?

Yeah, me and my turkey neck. You don't have that turkey neck. So if you missed out on GenuCell's outrageous Christmas sale, today's your lucky day because now the brand new GenuCell jawline treatment is yours absolutely free when you order the GenuCell for under eye bags and puffiness. But wait, there are three free gifts you will get for the next two weeks only. The GenuCell immediate effects for results in less than 12 hours. And GenuCell XV for our most advanced collagen builder anti-wrinkle treatment.

And Chamonix will even throw in the GenuCell eyelid treatment. My family loves this stuff. It works really well. That's three free gifts, but you have to hurry. Text YOUNG, Y-O-U-N-G, text young to 77453 or go to genucel.com. Go to genucel.com the next 20 minutes.

You'll also get free express shipping. Call or click now. Hurry, free gifts for a limited time while supplies last. Text young to 77453 or go to genucel.com, G-E-N-U-C-E-L.com or text young to 77453. That's genucel.com, G-E-N-U-C-E-L.com, or text YOUNG to 77453. That's Genucel.com. Okay.

First, just a quick owning of the libs yesterday up on Capitol Hill by Barr. Now, on the, Barr is the, Bill Barr is the Attorney General nominee by President Trump. He's undergoing the confirmation hearings. You may have seen some of them yesterday on the cable news channels. They were playing a lot of it live. There were a couple interesting moments. I'll say, given a fair assessment of Barr, I thought he was very composed. I thought he did an excellent job in the hearings yesterday. But there are some, you know, potential red flags there. I believe he's been very accommodating to Mueller. When asked about the Uranium One investigation, he didn't seem overly eager to pursue potential criminality or influence by foreign governments and Hillary Clinton's decision-making.

Also, again, with the Mueller probe, you know, not willing to, I get it, he can't call it a witch hunt, but I thought he should have been a little more forceful with stating his position on what the Mueller probe scope is, what they're doing, and when it should wrap up. You get what I'm saying, Joe? But on that front, there were some really positive moments too, including this one exchange where he absolutely, Barr, destroys, hack political activist and radical liberal nonsense purveyor, Richard Blumenthal, Democratic Senator,

who tries to nail, listen to this exchange. This is a good one. I'm going to stop it halfway through to kind of set it up. But talking fast because I got a lot of stories to get to today. But Blumenthal, he does this classical liberal trick. Now, Joe, being in talk radio, you've seen this before. And I know, you know, because you and I have discussed it it before as well yeah folks if you are going to be an activist or you are going to be a politician run for office one day as a conservative you have to be ready for this

liberals do this all the time they ask a question that's not a question the question is actually a premise they only want you to confirm and the classical example is when did you stop beating your wife why did i stop yeah i didn? Why did I stop beating my wife? And then that's the headline. The headline is, you know, whatever. Joey Bagadona says, I don't beat my wife. And then everybody asks the question

when they see the headline, well, who said he beat his wife? Nobody said that. The premise was the question. They just wanted you to get a comment on the record about it. Blumenthal tries this trick with Bill Barr, who expertly throws it right back in his face when he tries to set up the premise of the question that Donald Trump being investigated by the FBI in and of itself is indication of guilt, which it isn't. But I'm going to stop it halfway through.

But watch how Barr expertly deflects this back. This is a beautifully well done position on challenging, challenging the premise of the question in itself. When the FBI begins a counterintelligence investigation, if it is of the president of the United States for working with a foreign adversary, that decision would be subject to multiple levels of review within the FBI, correct? I assume. I don't know what rules were in effect at the time. Well, in your experience, it would be. Yes.

And you have no reason to think that those rules have changed. I don't know what the practice was. And almost certainly in that kind of extraordinary investigation, you would agree with me, it would be extraordinary for the FBI to be investigating the president for working with a determined foreign adversary. There probably would be information shared with the deputy attorney general or the attorney general. Agreed? I would hope so. The reason I'm hesitating is because, you know, some of these texts that we've all read are so weird and beyond my experience with the FBI, I don't know what was going on.

Well, these reports are stomach-tripping. Yes. Now, listen, again, I don't want to get over the top celebrating anybody uh too much of a laudatory fashion but this was a beautiful exchange i was in the car just so you know coming back from the gym a mess i had had a brutal workout yesterday and i'm listening to this on sirius xm and i'm like yes finally a guy who gets it up on the hill. Do not accept the premise of the question. Joe, do you see what he did there? Yeah.

Hack Blumenthal. Radical far left activist hack Blumenthal. The question is the answer. Well, wouldn't you agree that the fact that the FBI is investigating an extraordinary investigation of President of the United States for acting with a foreign adversary, wouldn't you agree this has to be vetted multiple ways? The premise of the question is a statement, not a question. He wants Barr to acknowledge that the president is guilty

just because he's being investigated. You get that, right? Yeah. I know you do, but I'm talking to the rest of you out there. Joe's the audience on buzzman. His instinct is to answer for the audience. Barr expertly flips the script in the dipsy do flip a roo. And what does he say?

Yeah, you know what? Would make sense. But given these texts I've read, of course, referring to the text between the lead investigator in the case, Peter Stroke with the FBI and his girlfriend at the time, Lisa Page, a lawyer with the FBI, which indicated how much they hate Trump. He expertly turns it back into Blumendahl and refocuses the premise of the question on the FBI's malice, not on Donald Trump's guilt by association with the FBI. Don't accept the premise of the question. Don't give them the quote. Joey Bag of Donuts, when did you stop beating your wife?

What? Did you just say that to me? Are you kidding? Then the quote in the paper comes, did you just say that to me? Not, I don't beat my wife. You don't give them, don't cede the premise of the question. Don't give them, don't cede the premise of the question. And Barr, who is obviously, given an attorney and his experience in government, is obviously a skilled debater, understands what's happening right away.

And he says, you notice his hesitancy even acknowledges it, Joe. Yeah. Barr says, I'm hesitant to answer the question because, and he automatically reframes the question, reframing it. automatically reframes the question, reframing it, not in terms of why Trump is guilty because he's being investigated by the FBI, but why the FBI is guilty because of these texts. Nice. Nice. It gets better in the second half, though. This is even better. That was the C game.

Bar ups into the A game here. You heard a little bit of that. Can we rewind that a little bit or we have to start right from there? I don't know how Joe's technology works. It's right from there. Okay. So Blumenthal, Blumenthal says, well, wouldn't you agree that these reports are stomach turning. In other words, Blumenthal saying, the fact that Trump is even being investigated by the FBI's reports, isn't that stomach turning? Listen to Barr's response about stomach turning. This is A-plus level trolling right here. In terms of the absolutely stunning and unprecedented kind of investigation that they reflect, you'd agree? You mean the texts are stomach-turning? The reports of the investigation of the president.

I'm not sure what you're talking about when you say the reports of the investigation. The reports that the FBI opened an investigation of the president for working with a foreign adversary, Russia. And what's stomach churning about that? Which is stomach churning the allegation against the president that the fact that allegation would be made and be under investigation. Well, let me let me move on. That is not a laugh track that is genuine hilarity right there what what is what is stomach turning the text no oh no not that let me move on let me move on do you want to talk about grade a ownership owning a completely owning the libs in a debate there it is right there

blumenthal oh let me move on blumenthal who doesn't have the intellectual capabilities to deal with a man who's as skilled in debating his bar bar bar this you have to understand again for for the some of the there were some road bumps say i don't want to get golden cafe on these people you know we shouldn't be you know genuflecting in front of any person in the government. You should question everyone. There were some bad moments. But this was some epic level stuff because Barr, who has been the attorney general before. He doesn't need this. He said that multiple times, Joe. He doesn't need it. He doesn't need the job. He didn't go out and solicit the job or

wasn't overly aggressive in his pursuit of the position. He doesn't need it. He wasn't taking offers from people who could help him advance his position. He doesn't need it. You could tell in his testimony yesterday, he's like, you don't like me? Fine. Don't vote for me. Whatevs, man. I'll do the job. I'm here to do the job. I'm not going to kiss your butt.

End of story. That was a great exchange. I just wanted to get that out there. I really, really enjoyed it. I thought it was perfect the way he – remember the two lessons here. Don't accept the faulty premise. The framing of a question often with liberals and the premise and you will reframe the context of the debate in such a way that it will make the liberals

and their media chums uncomfortable that they'll likely move on. Don't do it. Do not accept the premise of their question. All right. A lot happened yesterday with regards to...

You know what? I just want to get into this immigration debate first. I had yesterday before I jump into Baker, James Baker, the regards to, uh, can I, you know what? I just want to get into this immigration debate. First I had yesterday before I jump into Baker, James Baker, the FBI lawyer, and why Brennan is now in a world of trouble. Um, I had a debate last night with Leslie Marshall on Fox.

I do a lot of debates on Fox. It was on the Hannity show. If some of you missed it, I strongly encourage you to check it out. I don't have the video, uh, but it doesn't require video. I can just sum it up in a,

in a few sentences. Uh, Leslie's a liberal. She's a radio host. I know sum it up in a few sentences uh leslie's a liberal she's a radio host i know leslie she's uh you know she's uh friendly um but she she's she's you know she's a liberal and she believes in what she's saying and she's wrong or else i you know if i didn't think she was wrong i wouldn't debate her but we went on the air last night it was ironic in the debate again she made my point liberals on immigration have become so locked into their own talking points show that they don't realize that while making these these focus group tested talking points and uh and spouting them on the air they're actually making conservative arguments not

liberal ones see that's the problem with being a liberal often it doesn't require you to think outside the box liberals know what they're saying is wrong most of the time i believe this um they know what they're saying is wrong so they have to rely on others for obfuscations and talking points that'll get people off the core issue she tried this twice last night with me the debate on immigration i'm bringing this up to you not to celebrate the debate but because i expect you'll see the same thing in your debates with your liberal friends or uh or some republicans who've lost their way. The first debate they put at the first debate point, focus group tested talking point, they put out a debate which Leslie leveled against me yesterday was.

Well, most of the drugs in the United States enter via ports of entry, in other words, legal border crossing. So there's really no need to build a wall because it's only going to stop a smaller percentage of the drugs that would enter that way. In other words, most of the drugs come in via truck or car through legal ports of entry. They don't get inspected or whatever it may be. They're smuggled in. Folks, this is an absurd argument. I brought up a very common sense reply to this that you should bring up to all your liberal friends. So let me be clear on this, Joe. So because there's a burglary problem in the neighborhood, we should ignore the drug problem on the other corner? No, no, there's a burglary problem. Yeah, they're separate problems. Right.

The ports of entry smuggling problem is a separate problem with a separate solution. More inspectors, Joe, drug dogs, X-ray technologies for trucks. There are other ways to solve the ports of entry drug smuggling problem into the United States that don't involve a wall. Why would you not put a wall at a port of entry? Because it's a port of entry. It's the door. It's how you enter the United States. It requires a different set of solutions. Why is this complicated? Why is this complicated to figure out? A lot of people come into the country and stay on visa overstays. Okay, at least we know who they are.

These are people who are vetted for their visa before they come in. At least we have an identity on them. That's a separate set of solutions. More ICE officers, better case tracking of people who overstay their visas. That is a separate set of solutions. You have a car burglary, excuse me, a car theft problem in a neighborhood. The set of solutions for car theft, dummy cars, auto crime task force is entirely different than the set of solutions for a drug problem in a neighborhood. Liberals, is this hard to understand? Listen, I don't want to make it personal with any of these people because i off the air i i you know i like them and i don't want to be like liberals are with

us where they make everything emotional and personal yeah but joe is this hard to figure out no because drugs come in at ports of entry does it's a separate set of solutions with a separate set of characteristics for the crime doesn't mean you do nothing about non-ports of entry illegal crossings into the united states between ports of entry what part of this is hard to understand i'm no i'm genuinely confused like are you assuming we're all stupid like oh there's a problem at ports of okay let's solve that and then while we're at it, though, we can also fix the other problem between ports of entry. But it was the second point she made that I hear a lot. And pretty much all of my liberal people I associate with at times, I don't mean associate with like we hang out.

I mean associate with on debates on Fox and I see on Twitter and back and forth, Joe. They use this other argument as well. First, the drugs at Port Venture. OK, that's a separate problem. But the second point is walls don't work. They can use ladders so they can tunnel underneath them. I came out in the area and said, Leslie, you just made our point. Why would you need a tunnel, Joe?

Joe, let me ask you. I'm not messing with you. All right. This is a serious question, Joe. If you were an illegal human smuggler smuggling people into the country, why would you construct a tunnel? Dan, I believe that I'd construct a tunnel to get under a wall. A wall.

Thank you, Joe. Another. This is not a trick. Don't show me. If you are walking across an area with no wall. In other words, there's the United States, here's Mexico. Well, where's the line? I don't know.

There's no wall here. Right. Would you build a tunnel? I think after... It's not a trick. Careful, surveil. No tunnel, Dan. No tunnel. No tunnel.

No tunnel. Why not build a tunnel? Why are you not building a tunnel where there's no wall? Dan, you are something you devil there's no wall there i brother listen to me i'm not messing with you i'm just trying to show by these ridiculous don't believe me i get it you're probably like why are you wasting our time with these dumb questions because they're dumb that's the point this is the liberal this was her argument last night that if you build a wall it will require human smugglers to construct a complicated tunnel to get people in and i said to her well why would they build a tunnel because there's a wall and i said yes that's the purpose of an obstruction that's what

obstructions do that's what physical barriers do when the secret service when i during my time puts up a wall bike rack fencing pipe and drape an artificial wall we don't put up the wall assuming the wall in and of itself is going to stop every single person from trying to come in you you put an agent behind the wall. You put some surveillance on the wall. You reinforce the wall. You put a vibration mechanism on the wall to detect if someone's trying to climb it. When we put up an artificial fence, I mean a real fence, but it was a constructed device around the Olympic Village when I was an agent at the Salt Lake City Olympics. We had vibration detectors, cameras.

the Salt Lake City Olympics. We had vibration detectors, cameras. No one was suggesting it was going to stop every single person every single time. The suggestion was the wall as a passive security measure in conjunction with other active security measures like surveillance would stop 99.99% of the people and the other problems would have to be dealt with as is.

That's what obstructions do. You citing that you need a ladder or a tunnel to get around it makes our point, not yours. Why do you need a ladder? Because there's a wall there. Okay, thanks. Thank you. We built a tunnel.

Okay, yeah, thanks. Because there's a wall there. There's a tunnel maker you know it's funny like these idiots at media matters they they piled on this and it was great because it made my point i said that when i was on the five a couple weeks ago that oh they need a ladder that's the liberal talking point they need a ladder to cross the wall exactly that's what obstructions do they create problems for bad guys looking to commit crimes. I said, what is there, a ladder store at the border?

The lips. Bongino says because there are no ladder stores. That's the point. Did you not? Did you miss that? They're making that. Please promote that everywhere. Is there a tunnel, an excavator at the border? Tunnel? An excavator at the border? It reminds me of when I was a Secret Service agent. A couple of my friends used to go out to bars on the weekend, and I'd go out with them. And this one guy had the best life. He never wanted to tell anyone he was with the Secret Service, obviously. So women would ask him what he did, and he'd say, I'm an aqua dozer. I build tunnels underneath the water. And they'd be like, wow, that's incredible, like an aqua dozer like is there an aqua dozer at the is there a tunnel dozer i mean folks there's you have to build the tunnel do you not understand what obstructions and barriers do oh man this is a juvenile conversation but leslie seemingly had no response to that i'd love a rematch with her because she had i really wanted to pin her down on that what's your response to that build the next line is going to be well what if we put uh vibration detectors or some kind of sound technology we can detect tunnels like the

israelis do joe they could get a spaceship and fly over the wall they could get into intergalactic orbit and drop back down into Cape Canaveral. Exactly. That's the point. You got them spring shoes, Dan. Spring shoes. And they just hop on them. They're gone.

You could do the, what is it? The flux capacitor in the back to the future thing and fly back into the past and the future where there was no wall. I mean, do you understand how ridiculous this argument gets? An obstruction is an obstruction. There are no permanent solutions. I used to say to people when I was doing my prior line of work in the security arena,

they'd say, do you guarantee the president's safety as a Secret Service agent, as lead advance? Off the record, I'd say to them, I don't guarantee anything. Secret Service agents, lead advance. Off the record, I'd say to them, I don't guarantee anything. I guarantee the most vibrant, well-thought-out security plan I can put together that will likely stop 999,000 out of any possible attack out there. Out of a million attacks, right? All I can guarantee you is an overwhelming majority will be stopped.

The rest, God forbid, there is a determined adversary who at all costs is trying to get in there. What we train for in Assault on Principle exercises is, God forbid, our best efforts fail. Not because of lack of trying or lack of assets, but because the other side is absolutely determined to trade their lives for ours. All I can hope is that the tactics we train on endlessly in these assault on principle exercises and these evacuation exercises work.

Stop pretending we live in a utopia. You could build a tunnel. You could build a spaceship. You could do James and the giant beanstalk and grow a beanstalk and hop over the wall. That's the point. Oh, man. Did you miss that? All right. I got some other stuff. Stack show. I got to move. But it was a great debate. If you can find it, check it out. It's

I don't record my stuff on Fox. Sorry. I just don't have the capability right now. We're so busy with video and other stuff. So, all right. Today's show also brought to you by our buddies at Hair Club hey your confidence is important and sometimes one change can make all the difference Hair Club knows this excuse me they're inviting you to become part of the Hair Club

family to see how getting the most out of your hair can change your life listen Hair Club understands the emotions you're feeling and they know the questions you have hair's important folks I mean let's be honest we can all you know slough it off and say, oh, you know, it's not true. Everybody knows Joe has a mane of hair.

He knows. Joe's got the Elvis hair. Not the gravy-sweating Elvis. The old, the cool-looking Elvis. That's Joe. Looks exactly like him. HairClub is the leader in total hair solutions with a legacy of success for over 40 years.

You want to revitalize the growth of your hair to learn more about the latest proven methods for hair replacement or restoration? Then HairClub's your place. They're professionally trained stylists, hair health experts, and consultants will craft a personalized solution, not some generic garbage, to ensure that you feel your best and get the most out of your hair. See for yourself just how powerful great hair can be. HairClub is the place.

We get a lot of good feedback on this, folks. The customer service there is tremendous. They will personalize a hair solution for you. Go to HairClub.com slash Bongino today for a free hair analysis and a free take-home hair kit, all valued over $300. That's HairClub.com slash Bongino for a free hair analysis and a free hair kit. Check it out. There's no downside. This is a great

company experience your hair and your life at its best only with hair club i'm certain you'll love the club go check it out hairclub.com slash bongino okay so uh yesterday breaking news i have a story up at bongino.com in the show notes please read it it's critical folks there is I should say are, there are a number of behind the scenes legal things happening to people in the three letter agencies, as I have predicted and stated repeatedly over and over. In public speeches and viral speeches I've given, I get the question all the time. What do you think is going to happen to the players in this Spygate disaster that spied on Donald Trump? What do you think is going to happen to the players in this Spygate disaster that spied on Donald Trump, clearly spied on Donald Trump and used a faulty means to do so while he was both president, as we learned in the earlier shows this week, and a presidential candidate? And my answer has been consistent, that the three letter agency people, the CIA and the FBI folks, I believe are in a world of trouble. They're in a world of trouble because they created a paper trail.

I can't say this enough. Whether it was the information used to spy on Donald Trump that has to go through a verification procedure, that verification procedure was obviously blown up because the information used to spy on Donald Trump, notably the dossier, wasn't verified. So the verification procedure clearly failed. But there's paperwork there. There are 302s, Joe, as well.

302s are FBI summaries of interviews. I addressed earlier in the week how the FBI was using a faulty source, Christopher Steele. When they fired him, they went back to him. And they used a conduit in the DOJ to go back to a fired source. There were FBI summaries generated from that. The paperwork is there. That's why I have repeatedly said the three letter agency people involved are in a world of trouble. That's where the whole take it east line came from.

Remember, I said, take it east. There is going to be some serious penalties. I believe Brennan's in a world of trouble, too, but I'll get to that in a second. Finally, we're starting to see some of these penalties come to fruition here. James Baker, who was a heavy FBI lawyer with some heavy influence Donald Trump, the crossfire hurricane case and the investigation into Donald Trump, obviously based on false intelligence right now. Now we know that the dossier. Apparently, Baker is under criminal investigation. How do we know this? Because a letter from Jim Jordan has made it into the public space where they talk about the actual investigation being run out of one of our United States Attorney Districts in Connecticut.

I believe the AUSA, Assistant United States Attorney, that's a federal jargon for attorneys that work for the government to prosecute people, AUSAs. I believe the AUSA is a guy named Darmoth. Folks, these are just the investigations we know about. We already know Andy McCabe, the number two at the FBI, Joe, is under federal investigation. We know there's been a grand jury panel looking at McCabe. We now know Baker's under criminal investigation. Ladies and gentlemen, I don't think they are the only ones. Let me tell you what I'm not telling you first.

I'm not telling you we shouldn't be concerned. I'm not telling you that this isn't happening at an unnecessarily slow and glacial pace. I'm not telling you that everyone is going to go down and all is good and peaches and cream and hunky dory. That's not what I'm saying. I'm just saying there are some things happening, thankfully. And as I said yesterday, it is time for people to wear the handcuffs. You want to know what it feels like to weaponize your position, use and abuse your FBI position to spy on American citizens because you think you're somehow above the law and better than the rest of us? You'll find out what the law feels like, and it doesn't feel good with nice cold bracelets on your wrist as you're getting perp walked. Not only do you not belong in the FBI if you were going to abuse your power, you belong in a federal prison.

These people are under investigation. Read our report at Bongino.com. It's in the show notes today. Please subscribe to my email list if you haven't. I put together all of these articles for you in one spot so you can read them all for yourself. It's important. Please read it. There are things happening right now. Baker is in a world of trouble.

Now, what do I think he's in a world of trouble for folks? I I've been discussing this earlier in the week and I'm trying to take the case out to about 30,000 feet because it's important. What's important is there were felony leaks to the media. Guys, ladies, we have been lost in the wonkery,

which is good. My whole book, the spy gate book is about the wonkery which is good my whole book the spy gate book is about the wonkery of it but the this is a simple case i i received an email this morning from a woman let me just say why i'm getting into this uh she said she was listening to rush limbaugh yesterday and a caller called in and said you know our eyes are turning back in our head joe because the case is too complicated we don't get get it. There's nothing complicated about it. I just want to be really clear on this. The Obama administration hated Trump, weaponized the IC, the intelligence community and law enforcement, to spy on them to help Hillary win the election. And they got caught. It's as simple as that. Now, there are a lot of detailed players, conflicting motives. I get that. And that's, you know, I talk about

it because all of these people had just, I just want you to be aware of how it happened. So it doesn't happen again and how they're conflicting motives, political motives, how we can be on guard for this in the future. But in the Baker case, it's clear what happened. Baker's a higher up in the FBI, intimately involved in this case. He's clearly under criminal investigation right now and i believe the criminal investigation is for taking classified information whether it was part of an investigation into donald trump joe unmasked or or wiretap type phone calls on the trump team that the obama administration was engaged in and leaking it to the media i already told you this was the case

the obama team spied on the trump team they leaked information they gathered by their weaponized using weaponized government assets and they leaked it to the media to instill a narrative that donald trump was a bad guy so that what would happen a special counsel would get appointed to investigate trump and keep the heat off the media it is no more complicated than that baker is likely a significant part of that. They are talking about potential felony leaks of information from the FBI to the media. And from what I'm hearing from a number of different people, Baker may be knee deep in this, this leak operation.

Now, moving on quick. Brennan, Brennan's in a world of trouble too, folks. Now, moving on quick. Brennan. Brennan's in a world of trouble, too, folks. I keep telling you that Brennan has insisted repeatedly that his contact with the dossier was light and it was part of, Joe, quote, a corpus of intelligence they had. In other words, the dossier didn't drive any of this. Brennan has been running away from the dossier for a long time. Why, Joe? Not a trick question. Is the dossier a hoax or not? The dossier is a hoax, Daniel. So Brennan, who thinks he's going to smoke us all up here, Brennan figures he can run from it and there'll be no accountability. It was just part of a corpus of intel. In other words, a small sliver of what we did.

But Brennan's in a world of trouble. Why? He's in a world of trouble because, as Devin Nunes has repeatedly said, and I keep employing my Nunes translator so you get with the wink and a nod, but he's really telling us. Oh, yeah. Devin Nunes, Republican congressman from California who's been all over this case, has repeatedly told us that no official intelligence was used to initiate the investigation into Donald Trump. In other words, keep it simple here.

Occam's razor, right? Obama team spied on the Trump team, leaked the information to the media to damage the Trump team and get a special counsel later. And to spy on the Trump team, they started a false nonsense garbage hoax investigation based on no official intel at all. Okay, you're like, all right, all that's old news.

Why are you saying Brennan's in trouble now? Oh, boy. Let's go back to the Lisa Page testimony we got from the Epoch Times. Lisa Page, the FBI lawyer involved in this case from the beginning, the Trump case. Her testimony's leaked. The Epoch Times has it. Here's an unidentified congressional representative, they leave the name out,

questioning Lisa Page. This is verbatim here. And I want you to pay close attention, keeping in mind the question you need to ask yourselves, why is Brennan in a lot of trouble? Keep that question in your head as you hear this. All right. Congressional representative asks Page, hey, we have documents that would suggest that in that

briefing, the dossier was mentioned to Harry Reid. And then, obviously, we're going to have to have conversations. Does that surprise you that Director Brennan would be aware of the dossier? Lisa Paige. Yes, sir. Because with all due honesty, if Director Brennan, so we got that information from our source, right? The FBI got the information from our source. If the CIA had another source of that information, I am neither aware of that, nor did the CIA provide it to us if they did, because the first time we, and here's the congressional representative, interrupts her. We do know there are multiple sources. She responds back, I do know that. I do know that the information ultimately found its way

to a lot of different places. Folks, they are in a world of trouble. Why is this important? Why does this matter to you? It matters to you because the FBI didn't get the information as they claim the dossier information until September. If Brennan is already claiming he didn't know about the dossier, but in this August briefing with Harry Reid, Brennan briefs Harry Reid in August before the

FBI has had a chance to vet the dossier. Please tell me you're tracking this timeline. Lisa Page is now claiming the FBI didn't get its hands on the dossier until September. August is before September. Brennan briefs Harry Reid. This congressional representative knows Brennan briefed Harry Reid in August about the dossier. They have sources indicating it happened. How is Brennan briefing members of Congress and the United States Senate, briefing them about a dossier that hasn't even started the verification process in the FBI because they don't get it till September.

Now it is Devin Nunes is no official intelligence line. Makes sense. In other words, official intelligence, ladies and gentlemen, would have been vetted, would have gone through the proper verification procedures before it was used to brief,

hack Democrats up on the Hill. You see where he, Joe, is this making sense? Brennan took this stuff that was junk and unverified that hadn't even begun the verification process in the FBI because they don't have it yet. And he brought it up to the Hill to start an investigation based on completely unverified, unofficial garbage as the CIA director. Do you see what trouble this guy's in?

John Brennan needs to be fully investigated and held accountable, fully investigated. Whether it's another special counsel, whether it's a dedicated United States attorney, John Brennan should be given no mercy on this legally. I am convinced John Brennan is an accomplice in this entire thing. I brought his name up from the beginning. First, he lied about the dossier.

Now we know he lied about it because he briefed Harry Reid on it. He briefed Harry Reid on it before the FBI even had a chance to get their hold, get their hands on it. And it was clearly through unofficial channels because it bypassed the lower levels of the Central Intelligence Agency and other intel agencies. Why? Because if it made it up the ranks, it would have been exposed as a political garbage. It was. And Brennan couldn't have that. He needed to take the political garbage right to the top. Go to Harry Reid, who would pressure the FBI to start an investigation. Listen to me. Brennan is in a world of trouble, a world of trouble right now. All right.

Last read for the day. Another great company. Folks, listen. What's the two most important things when it comes to firearm ownership that matter to you? Obviously, safety, number one, and proficiency. Listen, safety is always going to be first. Proficiency, though, as well. God forbid you're involved in a situation where you need to protect yourself or your family with your firearm.

You have to be proficient with it. Now, proficiency with a firearm requires a few different skills. It requires good sight alignment, a good sight picture, a good quality grip, a good firm stance. These are all things you need to practice. Now, how do most people practice? Well, you practice by going to the range, and that's a good way to do it. But there's a problem with going to the firing range. It costs a lot of money. Rounds can get expensive.

Sometimes you're not conveniently located near a range. It takes time. You have to clean your firearm afterwards. So what do a lot of shooters do? When I was in the law enforcement academies, what do we do? We would dry fire. Dry fire a lot. You would practice 10, 20, 30 times dry firing at a range safely, unload your weapon, check it, check it twice, check it three times and make sure it's unloaded. And you would safely point it in a safe direction, dry fire that weapon to get a feel for the trigger pull, get a feel for your grip,

your stance, your sight alignment. The problem with dry firing is it's dry. The iTarget system has figured out a way to take your dry firing practice to the next level. Competitive shooters dry fire 10 times more than they live fire. Do you know that? The website is iTargetPro.com. That's the letter I. iTargetPro.com. itargetpro.com. They will send you a laser round and a target. It's inert. It only emits a laser. And when you depress the trigger with the laser round inserted in the firearm you have now, you don't have to make any manipulations to the firearm you have now. They have rounds for nearly every kind of firearm out there. You will see now, instead of a standard tri-fire, it will emit a laser onto the target and you can see where those rounds would have gone.

I have people just sending me targets that you can take screenshots because it works with an app of your actual target. On a Monday, they're all over the place. They're shooting basketball-like groups. By Friday, they're shooting the wings off a firefly. The iTarget Pro system is the best system out there. Go check it out.

Increase your proficiency with the firearm. first, safety first proficiency as well. iTargetPro.com. iTargetPro.com. Put in promo code Dan and you'll get 10% off. That's my first name, Dan, and you'll get 10% off. iTargetPro.com. Okay. Listen, I've been trying desperately, Joe, ignore uh a lot of the nonsense not all of it

that comes out of uh the twitter feed of alexandria ocasio-cortez okay but as i've said to you from the beginning um we can't ignore her she is very dangerous to your freedom she is i mean i i don't mean that in some conspiratorial nonsensensical way. I mean, she literally wants things that would diminish your freedom, your money, your right to protect yourself. Seems to be very focused on identity politics in an effort to squelch any kind of opposition to her. This is not this isn't a joke. And dismissing Miss Cortez out of hand is extremely, extremely dangerous. She is very charismatic on Twitter. She has learned to manipulate the platform.

She has done some expert level trolling on Twitter, and she has a rather large following. Us ignoring her and pretending this is all going to go away is so ridiculous that we will be, it was a massive facepalm. Don't do it. Having said that, with Ms. Cortez, I choose to pick my fights with her because literally every day something new comes out and you have to be careful or else it just looks like you're the one wasting your energy. So, Ms. Cortez put out a tweet attacking former Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin. Walker, who tried to make a point about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's call for a 70% marginal tax rate. So, she tried, of course, in her rather, you know, typically condescending tone on Twitter, she says, well, let me explain to you marginal tax rates as if anybody needs Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to explain economics when she doesn't seem to understand that the Pentagon budget is not $20 trillion. But that's a whole other issue. If you're going to claim the intellectual high ground, at least try to stand on it first. 70% just so you understand what a marginal tax rate is because I don't know if Ms. Cortez thinks you're stupid or she I don't get her approach to this but she's trying to use the marginal tax rate as a way to confuse people into what she's what she's what she's trying to implement here here's

how marginal tax rates work what she's arguing for is a 70% tax rate over a certain income level. I believe her last suggestion was $10 million. What that means, folks, is, to keep it simple, say you had two, we don't have two, we have more than that, but say you had two marginal tax rates. One is, say, 30%

for all income you make up to $10 million, which is the overwhelming majority of the country. Joe, do you make $10 million a year? No. No? Do I? I know you know relatively well. No. No, I don't. I'm not even close to that.

No. We do okay, but I promise you it ain't no $10 million a year, babe. So most of the country's tax rates would be 30%. What she is arguing is for a 70% marginal tax rate that, this is where it's important, only kicks in at $10 million plus a year. In other words, it would not affect any amount of money, even if you make 50 million a year, that you've made between zero and 10 million. I want to be clear on this because she relies on a lot of economic ignorance to get you to believe what's not true could be true. The reason she prefers

to use a marginal tax rate as a talking point is because Joe, it's the reason I started off this segment the way I did, she believes the fact that it wouldn't affect the overwhelming majority

of Americans that she can get public support because, hey, it's not going to affect me. It's just going to screw people who make $10 million or more. Right. The problem is, and I'll give you some numbers in a second,

her entire basis for this, economic basis for this, is nonsense and based on garbage talking points. Joe's like, well, wink Martindale over there. Now, just to be clear on this, though, even say you made $11 million, you would pay a 30% tax rate on every dollar you made from zero to 10 million. You would only pay that 70% rate on a million bucks.

Well, where's the million dollars come from? It comes from the million you made over 10 million. If you make $11 million per year, you would only pay that 70% rate. Now, a lot of people, even some middle-, you know, maybe rhino Republicans are like, well, that doesn't sound so bad. You know, it's only going to affect them on the dollars they make over $10 million, even multi-billionaires.

Then what's the problem? They should pay a 70% tax rate. Well, the first problem is we don't know the government's squad and the government can't spend money better than you can. As Milton Friedman has said repeatedly, I can't use this example enough of the four ways to spend money. The government taking money and spending it on other people is the worst and most inefficient way possible. We don't give the government extra money as conservatives because government generally sucks at spending money. That's why.

Because neither cost or quality matter. When you spend money on yourself, cost matters and quality money. That's why. Because neither cost nor quality matter. When you spend money on yourself, cost matters and quality matters. You're buying stuff for yourself, the cost of it matters, the quality matters. When you spend money on other people, the cost matters,

but the quality doesn't matter. You're buying something for someone else, the quality, who cares? You're buying it from someone else. When other people spend other people's money on themselves,

cost doesn't matter. You're buying a hotel room for yourself with other people's money. The quality at least matters, though. You want a good hotel room. At least it incentivizes the hotel to clean the hotel room. You're paying for a hotel room with Joe's money. But what's government? Other people spending other people's money on other people.

Neither cost or quality matter because it's not your product. You're buying it for other people. And cost doesn't matter because you're spending other people's money. Ocasio-Cortez doesn't seem to understand basic economics here. That's the reason we don't give the government extra money when we don't have to. And by the way, Libs, if you want to pay the 70% marginal tax rate, go right ahead. It's voluntary. Pay it. Lead by example, you big phony hypocrite frauds. You want to pay 70%? Go give 70% of your money to the government. Lead by example, you big phonony hypocrite frauds. You want to pay 70%? Go give 70% of your money to the government. Lead by example, you big phonies. Lead by example. There are tens of millions of

liberals in the country. You want to show us what government means to you? Lead by example. Everyone sign a petition. Commit to a 70% tax rate. Give all your money to the government and show us conservatives what it really means to you. but you won't because you're big frauds. You're hypocrites. You've always been hypocrites. You're ideologues and you don't stand for a darn thing. Donate your salary, Ms. Cortez. Step up. Donate your salary. I'm not, I don't give my money to the government. We just made a nice donation to charity on behalf of a scholarship program for struggling kids because I know the school's going to do the right thing with it. You know what I know the government's going to do with it?

Flush the darn money down the toilet bowl. That's what they're going to do with it. That's why I don't give them a dime. You want to give them a dime? Step up. Step up. Representative Cortez, step up. Donate 70% of your salary. You think the government can spend

it better than you can and they've overcome the cost and quality problem? Step up. Lead from the front. You won't. You won't do it. I dare you to do it. Go ahead. So what will you do? I don't want to do it. The government stinks. They can't spend a dime of my money outside of our military and courts. I don't get the government, I don't owe them squat. Government bureaucrat, I'm going to give you my money. Why would I give you my money? I work for it. You've spent this into an abyss of debt.

Your programs stink. They fail everywhere you try them. I'm supposed to give you my money? I'm not a hypocrite. I'm not giving you anything. I'll give it to the local school. My local government, at least I have some accountability.

Step up. Give 70% of your money. Wall Street Journal op-ed today, Joe. The Tax Foundation did a study on Ms. Cortez's ridiculous, economically absurd, outrageous, non-fact based 70% marginal tax rate on $10 million earners and above. And I quote from the Tax Foundation, the Wall Street Journal piece today,

the best case scenario, Joe, a 70% rate, this is the best case scenario, would raise less than $300 billion in revenue over 10 years, which is less than half of the $700 billion that has been cited in press reports because the press are hacks. Progressives aren't eager to put a price tag on their new Green New Deal, which includes universal jobs guarantees and other proposals. But you can bet that ridding the economy of carbon, which is part of their Green New Deal, will cost into the trillions of dollars. So point number one, a best case scenario, you're looking at $30 billion a year, $300

billion over 10 years, which isn't even a fraction of the free, air quotes, college, free jobs benefit to everybody. You're all going to get jobs, according to Ms. Cortez, decarbonizing our economy, which will put millions of you out of work and raise your gas prices through the roof. She doesn't even have a sliver of the money to pay for this with a ridiculous, ridiculous, non-fact-based 70% marginal tax rate. Now, here's where it gets even worse. When the tax foundation authors dynamically, when they did the dynamic scoring, Joe, which is they actually considered the effects on behavior and incentives.

They found that a 70% top rate on all income would lose the government $63.5 billion over 10 years. Brilliant! Brilliant plan. Why? It would disincentivize people from investing it would suck money out of the economy it would turn money over to government bureaucrats who don't care about cost and quality ever folks this is an absurd outrageous proposal us ignoring it please ignore this at your own peril do not diminish representative cortez's influence out there.

It is real. Her stuff, however, is nonsensical, borderline outrageous, and at worst case scenario, potentially catastrophic. Not based in a scintilla of reality and based on Ms. Cortez's pipe dreams about what she thinks her outrageous proposal is going to do, despite the fact that it's going to do the exact opposite. It's going to destroy any economic viability or future you and your kids have. And keep in mind, she won't do it herself. Step up. Do it yourself. Encourage all of your supporters to fork over 70% of their money. Do it.

By the way, one more quick note from this piece. They say a 70% top tax rate would generate even less revenue if extended to capital gains. Well, why is that, Joe? Obvious reasons. If you extend to capital gains, meaning selling your stocks and paying gains on the gains you made, paying taxes on the gains you made, what are people going to do, Joe? They're just going to hold their stocks, which would reduce liquidity in the economy. But don't let incentives and basic economics get in the way, Ms. Cortez, of these outrageous proposals.

The fact that she's so condescending to Scott Walker was actually how to legislate as an executive, too. And I'm not even a big Walker. I don't know Scott Walker. I mean, you know, I don't think I've even ever met him. But it was just ridiculous. One last story for the day that's important. I've spoken about battlefield morality with Trump often. Remember the show, Joe?

It did very well. It was one of our most listened to shows ever, actually. The question comes up often amongst hacks in the media, the never Trump delusional crowd, the zeros out there. How can conservatives conservatives social conservatives and christians support donald trump this happens off you hear the question all the time i'm sure you've heard it before too and what i've been forced to explain repeatedly to people is actions and and actions matter action when you vote for a politician you vote for action do you not

simple question when you adopt a dog you're adopting a dog based on his personality you want a dog that fits your household right when you vote for a politician you vote for a series of principles you believe in the preservation of human life preservation of the right to self-protection economic freedom low taxes this is what you vote for. Actions matter. And I've said that it's not that conservatives have sidelined any of their principles. And by the way, the left side says, well, look at Donald Trump's behavior in the past.

How can you vote for this man? Because this man has advocated for principles we believe in. And you have forced on us a new morality, and that's battlefield morality. You know, when you're sitting there in your liberals and your limousines and you're talking to your buddies and you're living the hollywood lifestyle you have the luxury given your lifestyle and the fact that you know you're not struggling for food or struggling for a job you have the luxury of worrying about things that other people who are struggling to get ahead don't you know i heard an interesting line on econ talk which is a podcast I listen to at Russ Roberts.

It was a great line, Joe. One of the guys who came on was talking about how we find all the, you know, in capitalist countries, we can invent problems sometimes, you know? Yeah. And he was saying, oh, no food, one problem. A lot of food, many problems, right? Yeah. You get where he's going with that? Yeah, I do. You have no food, you have one problem. A lot of food, many problems.

Right? Huh, yeah. You get where he's going with that? Yeah, I do. You have no food, you have one problem. What's your one problem, Joe? Putting it where it belongs, in me. You're going to starve to death. That's your problem.

No food, one problem, staying alive. The problem, and I'm using that term loosely, is not really a problem. The problem in the United States, we've been so successful, our free market economy generally over the years you know a lot of food a lot we hollywood finds new problems the left has now reversed that on conservatives they've made being a conservative an existential threat and it's gotten us out of this oh we don't have to worry about this other stuff and gotten us back to some foundational

thoughts and wow we're in a lot of trouble here. They're squelching our speech. They're getting us fired from jobs. They're getting bakers fired because they don't want to make cakes. They're bankrupting people. The liberals are going after people. The reason I'm bringing this up today is not to repeat that show because the little sisters of the poor who sued the Obama administration based on the Obamacare mandate that they had to provide birth control and contraceptives in contrast to the religious police. I'm talking about the little sisters of the poor here, not MS-13. They sued the Obama administration and won. There was an accommodation made.

Liberals do not get enough. This is the battlefield mentality and morality they've enforced upon us. Pennsylvania, California, and other states are going back again and suing the little sisters of the poor again. The case is now taking on another. It's going to probably head back for the Supreme Court even worse. Joe, I have a piece in the show notes today about this. Please read it in the Washington Examiner. No one has even asked the little sisters of the Poor for contraception and not got it. In other words, the liberals

want to destroy you despite the fact that there's a lot of food, a lot of problems. They found a problem. Their problem is they hate the Little Sisters of the Poor and they can't stand Christians, Catholics, and social conservatives. So they're going to invent a problem that doesn't exist. The liberals are suing the Little Sisters of the Poor again, dragging them into court, stopping them from following their own Christian beliefs. And yet there's no problem. There is no case of a person working for the Little Sisters of the Poor that has asked for contraception and not received it. None. So this is not everyday morality anymore. Everyday morality, a lot of food, a lot of problems.

We're all, you know, eating, everything's great. The economy, we start to find new problems. You don't like the tar spot on your driveway? When you're starving to death, you don't care about the tar spot on your driveway. It's walking dead time. When you're starving to death, you don't care about the tar spot in your driveway. It's walking dead time. The liberals are finding new problems. And the problem, Joe, they're finding is us.

You name it. They want our money. Ms. Cortez wants 70% of your money over a certain amount. They want your kids' education. They fight against school choice at every opportunity. They insist not only that you buy their crappy government mandated health care, but that you go against your religious put us on a battlefield we didn't want to be on. We wanted to live peacefully and coexist with them in a battle of ideas that did not impact our big all rights. The standard de facto default response for the first hundred years of the United

States was political debates happen, but it does not result in the end, win or lose politically, But it does not result in the end, win or lose politically, in the wiping out of the opposition. That is all gone now. Liberals have committed themselves to wiping us out, bankrupting us, taking our money, our liberty, our right to defend ourselves, our firearms, everything. Now do you understand why people are willing to forego some mistakes and ethical lapses Donald Trump has had in the past? Because he fights now. He is on this battlefield with us getting actual results, making entrenched warfare, making incremental progress towards stopping this fight by putting the liberals on their heels. I'm sorry. I don't care anymore.

I told you a thousand times in this show, I don't care anymore about the man's personal picadillos in his prior life before he's president. I don't care. I don't care and you shouldn't either. I care about my money, my job, my kids' economic freedom, their education, saving lives in the womb, and the ability to defend myself against some mutt who breaks into my house at night with a firearm and wants to kill my kids or me because he has access to them in the street.

And we don't because we obey the law. That's what I care about. This is a different mentality. When you're on the battlefield and you're in a stressful situation, it's life or death. There's one problem. Survival.

You don't care about the guy next to you, your battle buddy who texted his girlfriend six years ago when he was married. You don't care. You don't cond he was married. You don't care. You don't condone it, but you don't care. You need him to stay alive. The viability of conservatism and freedom in the future requires Donald Trump to succeed. And that success requires you to get behind him as well if you believe in these ideas.

Because he's the only one since Reagan who showed any ability to fight back against the press, the Hollywood entertainment complex, and academia. This triad of stupid. He is the only one who has shown the ability to fight back against that. And get results. That's why it matters. And if you want to see even a small indication of how toxic this has gotten. and if you want to see even a small indication of how toxic this has gotten, look at the media's response to Donald Trump putting out fast food for Clemson at the White House.

Oh, fast food. What a degenerate. This is what they think of you. Food has always been associated with social status, Joe, has it not? I eat foie gras and sushi on Fridays. Oh, delightful. I eat my steak tartare. Fast food. Look at you steak tartare. Fast food. Look at you fast food idiots.

Fast food. Look at these media jerkwads. Donald Trump serves fast food. Why was that so troublesome? Because this is what they think of you. Your rights, your freedom, everything. You are nothing but deplorable, no teeth, fast food eating idiots. This is exactly

what they think of you and donald trump is the one guy standing up and saying not today not on my watch i'm fighting back and i don't care what any of you think this is the fight right now get behind this guy this is a battlefield mentality that the left has imposed upon us we didn't ask for this fight they gave it to us and we're going to give it right back. All right. Thanks for listening, folks. Please share this if you can. We need to get people on the team.

This fight is not a joke. This is really happening right now. Time to buck up and fight back. I'll see you 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.