Ep. 579 Why Does Justice Rarely Apply to Democrats?
In this episode - If Trump’s former campaign manager, who was fired by the campaign, committed alleged crimes years ago, then why did he only become a target after Trump was elected President? http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-responds-to-paul-manafort-indictment-sorry-but-this-is-years-ago-before-campaign/article/2638961 An outline of the charges against Paul Manafort. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41804740 This article exposes the outrageous Democrat hypocrisy on tax rate cuts. http://dailysignal.com/2017/10/27/democrats-have-done-a-180-on-corporate-taxes-heres-what-they-said-last-year/?utm_source=TDS_Email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MorningBell%22&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWW1VM05XWmpORGd4WkdFMCIsInQiOiIybXlKS2FaeWd6VjFFV2xzdExDU1VyWU5pTk1rNGE4WGkrbXNmMmI2VFFQVmtQVHMraDVrWnhQWDFtaE9wT2hkRlRsUk10Z2Q1d0hwbEhlcEwrNFMzMStzWEU2UUtFdWkyM1BzMWFVNDBmMGhTSldadzFTTEw4a25wWUJxTWtnSiJ9 Here’s some more excellent news about the economy. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/economic-growth-is-halfway-there-livin-on-a-prayer/article/2638882 This explosive technological development could change the world, and our economy, forever. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-computer-that-could-rule-the-world-1509143922 Sponsor links: www.iTargetPro.com Promo Code “Dan” www.BrickhouseNutrition.com/Dan
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Aiming to stop free speech so the speaker can no longer speak is exclusively a far-left phenomenon.
I'm talking to moderates in the Democratic Party who are actually interested in what's going on, not blind lemmings walking off a cliff into an abyss of stupidity.
Get ready to hear the truth about America.
The rich did it!
Yeah, the rich did it!
They lent money to people who bought homes, and the people never paid the money back.
Oh, wow, that sounds like a great business plan.
On a show that's not immune to the facts, with your host, Dan Bongino.
Holy Moses, did we miss a weekend of news here.
Gosh, welcome to The Renegade Republican on Monday.
Man, I might have to start doing a, not even a seven day a week show, I might have to start doing like the Beatles, eight days a week.
I mean, it is, the breaking news is coming fast and furious.
So welcome back.
Thanks to all our new listeners also for joining us, maybe for the first time.
I know after filling in for Hannity on Friday on the radio, we got a lot of new people.
So welcome.
Good to have you here.
All right, let's get right in.
No more messing around here because the news cycle, you know, I said to a producer at Fox when I was up there, You can't turn off the news for five minutes if you're in the content production business now.
You can't.
No.
Because the news cycle will pass you by.
I know Joe knows that because he does two of these a day.
All right, where do we start with Manafort, the grand jury indictments, Paul Manafort, Trump's former campaign manager.
Turned himself in this morning at the FBI office in Washington, D.C.
I think it was WFO, the Washington Field Office there.
Let's break this down and give you what you need to know and stop with all the shenanigans because the Democrats, of course, are, you know, loving every second of this.
Now, why are they loving every second of this?
And first, let's start with number one, the takeaway number one.
The leak on Friday That someone was going to be arrested.
Of course, we found out today it was Manafort.
We didn't know on Friday who it was going to be.
Manafort, again, was Trump's campaign manager.
The leak from the special counsel investigation by Bob Mueller, that someone was going to be indicted, charges were going to be issued on Monday, or charges were issued, someone was going to turn themselves in on Monday.
I, in my opinion, and I think strongly based on the facts of the circumstances that happened here, was strongly based on the fact that the Democrats are losing the narrative.
Now, I've said to you repeatedly, if you're a regular listener to the show, you already know this.
Democrats are obsessed with the narrative.
The narrative, man.
The narrative.
They always have to control the storyline.
The storyline is always going to be a focus group tested talking point bullet.
Whatever it is, folks.
If it's tax cuts, it's going to be about, you know, fair share.
The rich.
The rich are going to... It's never about the facts.
It's about a talking point.
The Democrats want to isolate everything down to a, what I call, Wheaties box messaging.
Something they can fit on a Wheaties box that benefits them.
The truth and facts and the data don't matter at all.
It's the narrative, as evidenced by this entire Trump-Russia investigation, which it turns out, even after today, has almost nothing to do with either Trump or the Russians.
I don't understand how a money laundering indictment has anything to do with Russians trying to overthrow the election.
Now, this happened on Friday, the leak.
I am absolutely convinced because the Democrats are losing the narrative.
The narrative, Joe, was quickly turning towards them.
Yeah.
The, the, the revelations, the bombshell revelations that the dossier, the Russian dossier of fake intelligence provided by Russian officials, that it was paid for by the Democrats, and what broke over the weekend, like I said, I don't, folks, I'll be honest with you, sometimes I don't even know where to start.
The breaking news over the weekend that Barack Obama's campaign organization The offshoot, OFA, was Obama for America, then it turned into Organizing for America.
That Obama's campaign team, OFA, was paying Fusion GPS, who paid the Russians for this bad intel through this Christopher Steele.
That broke over the weekend too.
The Democrats needed to change the story.
So somebody leaked that Paul Manafort was going to be indicted and was going to turn himself in or that someone was going to be indicted to change the story back from, oh my gosh, you're telling me the Democrats paid the Russians for bad intelligence while claiming Trump was colluding with the Russians?
They needed to change the story.
So point number one and takeaway number one, let's distill this down to what we need to know.
This was obviously A distraction, Joe.
The Democrats can never lose the narrative.
Now, who advances the narrative, Joe?
The media.
The three musketeers of stupid every time the media, Hollywood, and academia.
In this case, the media always controls the narrative in America.
The mainstream media needed a story to stop talking about the devastating bombshell that the Obama administration and the Clintons paid Russian intelligence to provide bad intel on an opposition political campaign.
That story was not allowed to stand.
So they leaked this about Manafort and they needed an arrest.
Now, there have been a lot of questions out there about the leak.
Now, me, I feel this is my area of expertise.
Having been a former federal agent, I've sat in front of a number of federal grand juries.
I'm intimately familiar with how they work.
There's a lot of questions out there.
I've seen a lot of coverage on cable news.
The leak on Friday.
Was that, in fact, a crime?
The answer is, maybe.
Leaking grand jury information can be a crime.
There is a rule that specifically prohibits that.
Now why, Joe?
Here's how a federal grand jury works, folks.
This isn't a legal show, but it's important you understand what's going on right now.
Yeah.
So you understand how we are venturing quickly into Banana Republic territory.
I'm not kidding.
We are quickly venturing into third world republic territory right now.
That the Clintons are not in handcuffs, and Paul Manafort is as of today, to me is incredible.
I don't know what Manafort did or didn't do.
I don't know any specifics of the money laundering case other than what I've seen in the press.
I'm just telling you that the facts I know are public about the Clintons.
How they're not in handcuffs too is amazing to me.
But, getting back to the grand jury.
You have a group of people, they're in panel, the grand jury, and the old expression about a grand jury from the law enforcement perspective is, sadly, I wish it weren't so, but it is, that you could indict a ham sandwich.
Right.
Now there are two ways to get, well, there's actually three, but for the purposes of this, because the third one's kind of the same as the second one.
Joe, there are three ways for me to get a federal arrest warrant for you, okay?
Okay.
I can issue a complaint, which basically says Joe Armacost did A, B, C, D, and E. Okay.
If a judge reads that, that complaint, and that complaint indicates that there is probable cause, Joe, there's a probable cause, a strong likelihood, that is a, you know, a standard, an evidentiary standard.
Yeah.
There's probable cause in that document, that complaint document that I write up as a federal agent, that you then committed that crime, the judge will issue an arrest warrant.
Now there's a third way called an information which is kind of similar so we're going to scrap that for now because it's not a legal show but this is why I wanted to bring this up.
One of the other ways to do it is to issue is to have to sit in front of a grand jury.
So now it's not a judge doing it the grand jury will hear the case Will hear, you know, the information the agent presents, or other people as a matter of fact, and if they believe, Joe, there is the same standard, probable cause, the standard's no different, but if the people, Joe civilians, sitting in a grand jury, they're not judges, if they believe that, in fact, there's probable cause that a crime was committed, they will issue a true bail, which is an indictment.
Now, an indictment's very serious at the federal level, folks, because to cancel an indictment takes like an act of God.
To cancel a complaint, to cancel out a complaint and basically say, Joe, we arrested you on this, but you've been cooperative.
We're going to let this go is really not a big deal.
It happens all the time.
We clear on that?
So if I arrest Joe at the federal level, I'm not talking about NYPD, state and local.
I'm talking about the federal level, FBI, DEA, Secret Service.
If I arrest Joe on a complaint, I'm usually doing it.
For me, in my case, you know, half the time to get Joe to cooperate to get the big fish and then they'll dismiss the complaint later or and plea it down to a lesser charge.
To dismiss an indictment is possible or to plea it down, but it's a bigger deal.
It was a very big deal when I was in the Secret Service.
Therefore, Joe, not many people were indicted.
Most people were arrested by complaint because it's more flexible.
You see where I'm going with this?
Yes, sure.
Why am I bringing any of this up?
The fact that Manafort was indicted Says to me that they have something, because I'm trying to give you fair coverage, unlike the absolute hacks in the mainstream media.
Now, some will respond back and say, well, in federal law enforcement we had a line, you could indict a ham sandwich, which is true.
Why could you indict a ham sandwich?
Because, Joe, here's the kicker with the grand jury.
The defense has no say in the grand jury at all.
None.
So when I go in as a federal agent, I present my side of the story, the prosecutorial side, the investigative side, right?
Right.
But you have no, you have no representation at all.
I can say what, I mean, seriously, I mean, you know, of course you're not going to perjure yourself, but I can say whatever I want.
I mean, I can say, you know, Joe doesn't like the color blue and Joe's not there to go, I object.
There's nothing.
So the joke about grand juries was you can indict a ham sandwich.
Folks, almost nobody goes in front of a grand jury.
As the subject of it and doesn't get indicted.
Now, that's critical.
It's critical you understand those two things.
You say, well, you're kind of saying two different things here, Dan.
You're saying they don't usually indict at the federal level unless they have something, but then you're saying, secondly, that you could basically indict anyone you want.
Yes, both are true.
Both are true.
You can indict anyone you want because you can present a set of facts that could be, candidly, folks could be completely innocent if a defense attorney was there.
But he doesn't get the chance to do that.
Now, I'm bringing you both of those scenarios because I'm telling you they don't typically indict Ham Sam, which is even though they can.
They usually use complaints because you can get rid of them.
The fact that there's an indictment says to me that there's something there.
Now, You may say, what are you saying?
You said the Trump-Russia thing is BS.
Folks, I will bet my life on it.
The Trump-Russia thing is total BS.
The collusion narrative amongst Trump-Russia is total nonsense.
The collusion narrative is fact with the Democrats, though, and Hillary.
That's already been admitted to.
That the Democrats paid for the dossier which was taken from Russian officials who fed false information to the Democrats and Clinton.
So the collusion narrative is true.
For the Democrats and Hillary.
The collusion Trump narrative is false.
Now, the metaphor thing, folks, why I'm saying what you may say, oh man, now we're all over.
We're saying, you know, you're saying they have something on them, but you're saying Trump rush is fake, but then you're saying we're venturing into third world republic status.
Yes, that is all true and here's why.
Let me tie this together for you.
Folks, I have something on all of you.
Okay?
The fact that they have something on Manafort does not mean it's not real, it may very well be.
The point is, we don't target people in this country, we target crimes.
And don't you find it awfully convenient and awfully disturbing that Paul Manafort, regardless of his crimes, Joe, he may or may not have committed.
Was never the target of an investigation until Trump became the president?
Does that bother you a little bit?
Yeah, yeah.
Again, I'm not arguing.
I want to be crystal clear on this.
I'm not this guy's lawyer.
I've never met him.
I don't know him.
I am not a lobbyist.
I have no idea what they did or didn't do other than what's been reported in the press.
I'm telling you they probably have something.
Number one, takeaway number one.
Number two, it was probably a distraction.
And number three, what they had, air quotes here, only became an issue after Trump became the president, which says to me this was a political target, this was not a criminal target.
Did I tie that up, Joe?
Yeah, you did.
Okay, very good.
Yeah, we're good.
Now, I will say one more thing on this, because this is important.
Okay, number one, distraction.
Oh, by the way, a couple other takeaways on this.
There's some talk out there, the leak, was it criminal?
I'm sorry I didn't get to that.
Yes, leaking grand jury information can be criminal if it's leaked from the grand jury.
Meaning one of the grand jury people who are impaneled to sit in the grand jury.
Now folks, you may say, well how else would they get the information?
Ladies, guys, in my experience, I just want to give you both sides of this.
Again, this is a fact show.
It's not a BS show.
You want that?
Listen to these liberal jerkwads who all day sit on TV like idiots.
Like a bunch of, you know, dancing antelopes.
They're so stupid.
It's infuriating.
The information probably leaked from one of the attorneys involved in the case.
I don't know that.
I'm just saying, in my experience, remember that this was... All right, I don't want to get ahead of myself here.
There's so much stuff to get out.
Gosh, I got like 20 stories, so that's why I love doing this show.
I'd love to be able to tell you what's important here.
Here's the kicker, and here's what was the signal to me.
About this, uh, the indictment and the leak.
The arrest this morning, you see a video now of Manafort walking in at, you know, basically nine something o'clock on a Monday morning.
This was not a flight risk arrest.
In other words, Joe, a flight risk arrest.
So let's say I get my indictment, right?
Against Joe Armacost.
I want to arrest Joe, but we think Joe's gonna flee.
Joe's got a million in assets in the Cayman Islands, whatever it is.
It's a serious crime.
I got Joe hook, line, and sinker, right?
Joe has no idea that an arrest warrant's been issued, because it's sealed, many of them, on a Friday.
Joe has no idea.
What do we do?
We go get him on a Saturday morning when he's sleeping.
You know, secret service!
Everybody die!
You know, you've seen it in the movies.
I'll be honest with you, the overwhelming majority of arrests at the federal level, folks, this may surprise you, do not happen that way.
Now I know Joe's like, huh, what?
How do they happen?
We used to call it arrests by appointment.
Now, you may laugh, but folks, the federal government's a nine to five job like anything else.
This is some inside baseball I probably shouldn't share with you, but I will anyway because I think it's important you understand this, especially in light of what's going on.
The federal government's a nine-to-five job, largely.
Neither the U.S.
Marshals who process these people, the judges, the clerks in the courthouse, or the Secret Service or FBI agents work 24 hours a day.
Now, they're on call 24 hours a day.
There's a difference, Joe.
But they don't work 24 hours a day.
They're human beings, okay?
There's no midnight shift in the Secret Service, all right?
Except if you're on protection.
You may get caught.
What am I saying here?
The fact that he turned himself in on Monday morning says to me that the lawyers were likely notified on Friday, the lawyers for Manafort and his alleged co-conspirator here, right Joe?
That they were notified on Friday because there's zero flight risk here, let's be honest.
Paul Manafort, everybody knows who he is.
He's not going to leave the country, it's just stupid.
They probably said, listen, here's the deal because the federal government opens at nine o'clock on Monday morning.
The fact that he walked in at nine o'clock on Monday morning says to me that this was in fact a planned arrest.
Now you're like, well, what the hell does that have to do with leaking?
Well, it also says to me, if it was a planned arrest, we'll see you on Monday morning at nine.
It's someone new on Friday before five o'clock.
There you go.
So if someone knew on Friday before five o'clock in the Manafort camp, don't jump to the conclusion that was a grand jury leak.
Again, I'm not saying it wasn't.
It may have been, and it certainly should be investigated, who leaked this information to CNN that there was going to be an arrest on Monday morning.
That's a good point, Dan.
Yeah, that is a good point.
Yeah, the way the time works out.
I just don't want our audience to make fools of themselves like the liberals do literally every second now on television.
As they jumped here and there and jumped to conclusions.
Joe's got some audio of Hillary we'll play in a minute.
This is what liberals do.
They play dumb all the time.
And they're not dumb.
They play dumb.
And what's insulting about it is they think you're dumb like them.
We're gonna talk about the facts here.
I'm telling you, it may not have been a leak from a grand jury, so don't get caught up in that red herring for now.
It may have, in fact, been one of the lawyers that knew on Friday.
I'm just saying.
Because there's all kinds of commentary on TV, and it's like, do you know that for sure, or are you just guessing?
And I don't have any, I speculate on TV a lot as well, but I think, Joe, it's only fair if you do that to give the alternate side as well.
You know what I'm saying?
Yeah.
Like, yeah, it's certainly possible there's a crime committed, but maybe not.
Okay.
Gosh, that was... I think I summed that up.
I'm really kind of upset about the whole story, folks.
I really... let me just wrap it up in a bow for you here.
I think, you know, sadly we're headed into third world republic status.
I mean, it's just really unbelievably sad that if Paul Manafort was such a threat To the Republic and was such a die-hard, you know, hardened financial criminal involved in all of these very serious allegations he's been charged with.
I mean, the only question you should be asking now is, okay, well, why wasn't he a criminal target before the guy he worked for, Donald Trump, won the presidency?
Is that not a fair question?
Folks, you know, I absolutely believe Gosh, I love this country.
I love it so much because this is the one place on earth where the little guy can really win in the end, where the story, the novel ends, you know, not all the time, but often the novel ends with the little guy winning.
That novel never ends that way, almost anywhere else but here.
And that's the fact that a system of checks and balances, of blind justice, Has led us to the fact that the little guy has the same legal protections as the President of the United States.
The fact that that's collapsing in front of us, and we're throwing this all out because you may or may not have Paul Manafort on a federal crime, but that he worked for Trump.
Folks, to me isn't worth it.
I absolutely believe in the expression, I'd rather a thousand guilty men go free than one innocent man be put in jail.
I absolutely, a thousand percent believe in that.
And I think what we did is we now flipped the script.
We targeted Paul Manafort not because of the crimes he may or may not have committed, but we targeted Paul Manafort as a country because Donald Trump won the presidency.
Disgraceful.
Really disgraceful.
All right, folks, today's show brought to you by our buddies at iTarget.
Thank you for all the amazing feedback on this product.
You know, nothing puts a smile on my face quicker because the show is free for you.
It's not free for us.
Joe has to get paid.
I get paid.
The production takes a lot of time.
Joe puts in a lot of effort with a lot of equipment to make it sound very good.
But the people who keep it free are our sponsors, and nothing makes me happier when I get emails back about a sponsor where people are like, wow.
And you know, I know I say that a lot, but this sponsor, the emails have been amazing.
Folks, this is iTarget.
What is iTarget?
That's I, the letter I, not I like your eyeballs.
iTargetPro.com is a website.
iTargetPro.com.
Listen, good marksmanship is a skill.
It's like anything else.
Hitting a baseball, golfing.
If you don't practice it, you're gonna lose it.
In the Secret Service, we had a line you have to account for every single round.
Folks, any knucklehead can shoot, okay?
It's shooting accurately that makes you the difference in, God forbid, a firefight where you're defending your life.
Shooting accurately matters.
Ammo's expensive.
Range time is expensive.
It's necessary, but it's expensive.
We can't do it every month.
So what are you left with?
You're left with really no other good options.
Now, I have a product they have, and the people who bought this last week are already sending me back rave reviews.
My wife loves this thing.
I'm getting one for my dad.
It is a way to improve your marksmanship once you buy the product for zero cost after that.
Once you get it, it doesn't cost you a dime to do this.
It's called iTargetPro, available at iTargetPro.com.
That's the letter I. iTargetPro.com.
It uses a laser in place of the bullet.
It will not damage your gun in any way.
The laser, it comes with a target, and you'll download this app, and you will dry fire, and it'll show you exactly where your round goes.
It'll teach you trigger control, sight alignment, it's perfect.
It works with a phone app.
Competitive shooters dry fire 10 times more than live fire, and the iTarget system will take it to the next level.
This product is amazing.
Go to iTargetPro.com, the letter I, TargetPro.com, use promo code Dan, my name, D-A-N, And save 10%.
I promise you will love this product.
The reviews have been spectacular.
Okay.
Well, one more thing.
I'm sorry to keep going back to this story, but this is important because it speaks to the fidelity of the Republic.
The Democrats now are still in a little bit of a panic.
I know today we're going to have to deal with the shouting fraud and them celebrating Manafort being arrested.
By the way, Joe, no charges I've seen allege any kind of collusion to overturn an election, but you know, that's for another day, of course.
They're panicking a little bit, though, about Mueller being fired.
Bob Mueller, who is the special counsel, who is running the special counsel.
They're panicking because the ties between Mueller and Uranium One, the sale of our nuclear fuel to the Russians while Barack Obama was in the White House and Hillary Clinton was in the State Department, Mueller is knee-deep in this.
Mueller oversaw the investigation in a couple different facets into the Uranium One FBI investigation about bribery and scandal, and almost nothing was done except a plea four years later in conjunction with Rod Rosenstein, who is now the Deputy AG and was the AUSA, the Assistant United States Attorney for Merritt, the district that covers Maryland.
I know because I worked for him in the Baltimore field office.
Mueller is conflicted till kingdom come.
He is conflicted six different ways from Sunday.
Again, the Democrats can't lose the narrative, man.
It's all about the narrative.
The Democrats now are in a panic because they can't deny the fact that Mueller is knee-deep in the investigation, Joe.
He's running.
Yeah.
Excuse me, that would be the equivalent ...of Joe Armacost running an investigation as a federally appointed special counsel in the Department of Justice into a Joe Armacost case!
We can't have that.
What are you going to do?
What are you going to do?
People love that one too.
I get to know, who is Jay Zabikus?
What are you going to do?
I love it.
You guys are great in the audience, ladies.
I love you to death.
The fact that you tweet me this stuff puts a smile on my face every day.
The Democrats are panicking about firing Mueller.
They're trying to change the narrative right now because Mueller, the firing of Mueller, I think at this point is completely legitimate.
And even some mainstream Republicans are saying, okay, this is getting a little shady now.
Why are they panicking?
Because again, they have to keep the narrative focused.
So what are they doing now?
I want to play a quick clip here Joe brought me this morning.
This is Hillary.
I'm going to talk about Hillary and Adam Schiff, how they're desperate again to switch from one failing narrative to the next, but how none of these narratives actively, actively incorporate the truth in their story.
Play that clip of Hillary.
It does strike me that in the last few days, at least Fox News seems to think that's where I live in the White House.
Because they spend a disproportionate amount of their time talking about impeaching me.
So look, if they want to make a trade, I'd be more than willing.
Okay.
This is beautiful.
Joe sent me this morning, uh, this clip and he said, you want to use it?
I said, you know, every day he sends me stuff.
Some yes, some no.
I said, yes, because this speaks to what the Democrats do all the time.
Let's walk through what happened in this investigation and how the Democrats have stepped on their own narrative repeatedly and nobody calls them out in the media at all.
The media, Hollywood or academia.
And I bring this up because Alyssa Milano, who I used to watch growing up and who's the boss, I used to like Alyssa Milano.
I had a crush on her when I was a kid, right?
She's a huge steamin' lib now.
She tweeted out this weekend, which I laughed at, we're going to take to the streets if they fire Mueller.
So there's the Hollywood portion trying to change the narrative to making this about firing Mueller rather than, because you may say, well, what is that about the narrative?
Rather than Mueller's conflicts, which everybody now knows about.
You see what I mean?
You see the trick, Joe?
So Hollywood switches the narrative.
It's not now, this is not, this is intentional.
It's Mueller's conflicted, everybody knows it, now let's switch it to it's about firing Mueller to get everybody's attention away.
Hillary!
Hillary sees now that the funding of the dossier is coming back on her, boomeranging in her face, and makes her look like potentially a co-conspirator here in the shuttling of Russian intel into the White House for a presidential daily brief, which happened.
The president was briefed on this bogus Russian intel she paid for in her campaign.
So what does Hillary do?
Fox News!
That's all about Fox News!
Fox News!
Fox News!
And stupid Democrat lemmings!
Go Hill!
I'm with her!
This is like, I mean, these are dopey lemmings.
These people are sad.
These are sad, pathetic people.
That nobody cares at all that Hillary Clinton's campaign paid the Russians for bad intel that was used to brief the president, potentially unmask and wiretap a presidential opponent.
All they care about is Fox News!
Bad!
Hillary!
I'm with her!
So stupid!
Such lemmings!
Such dopes!
It's just, it's telling that there's a schism on the Republican side of the aisle between this never-Trump camp and a Trump camp.
Listen, I support the president when needed, which is often, and sometimes not.
But I find it funny that on the Republican side, we have people who, whether they think it's principal or not, they don't believe in the president.
They just, they'd rather stick with other set of ideas.
Alright, whatever.
The Democrats are lemmings!
They're just lemmings!
Right off the cliff, Joe!
Right off the cliff, every single time.
I'm with her!
Fox News!
Fox News paid for the dossier!
Oh!
I think so!
Like, where did you get that?
Oh, wait, we just made it up because we had nothing else to do.
I mean, this is like, how stupid are you people?
Okay, so we got Milano, we got Hillary, now we got Adam Schiff this weekend.
Adam Schiff, who is, I mean, you want to talk about, you know, Captain Clown, up in Congress.
This guy and Ted Lieu, I mean, Brad Sherman, Maxine Waters, it's, what's the, Frederica Wilson, I mean, it's embarrassing.
The goofballs on the left, it is, what a motley crew they have over there.
Adam Schiff comes out this weekend because he realizes now that the Dems were caught switching the story.
What was the story and how did it switch?
Again, at Milano, we had to switch it.
We gotta switch it for Mueller's conflicts.
We can't fire Mueller.
So that's what we're gonna do.
We're gonna make it about firing Mueller, right?
Okay.
Okay, Hillary.
It's not about me and the dossier.
It's about Fox News!
Okay, the narrative.
The narrative.
The narrative.
Man, the narrative.
What about the narrative?
Hold on.
Adam Schiff realized that the Oppo research line is now not working anymore, Joe.
Oh, crap.
Now, what happened?
Let's walk through this quick.
Because this goes to show you the pure stupidity of lemming Democrats who are walking right off the cliff with it.
Not all, but the good majority of them.
This is one of those times where I don't like Bernie Sanders, but I actually have a little bit of respect for people who support him, who are calling out Hillary on this.
You know what?
I don't agree with your socialist redistributionist, crazy, kooky economic ideas, which are hypocritical, I might add.
But at least they're like, you know what?
Hillary's full of crap.
But that's a small portion of the Democrat Party.
So, the Oppo research line started out about this.
Opposition research is campaigns paying for research about their opponents, which is typically not good.
You know, you're not going to publicize good information, you're going to publicize bad stuff.
We saw, you know, Dan Bogino once steal a Bazooka Joe piece of gum from Tommy's Deli when he was seven years old.
Oh my gosh!
I've had OPPO research done on me.
We've done it on others.
There's nothing... I can't say this enough.
I've said this from the start.
I will say it now.
We've been completely consistent on this from the start.
No one will find anything on my podcast saying otherwise.
There is nothing wrong with opposition research.
I'm not talking about the morals or ethics.
I'm talking about legally.
It happens all the time, everywhere.
We clear on this?
Just so we're clear because I don't want any liberals calling me about OPPO.
I had a Twitter back and forth with that fool Ted Lieu, that congressman who wants to impeach Trump because he just made up charges.
This weekend about this.
The Democrats though, Adam Schiff and others and Ted Lieu were the ones who made a big deal about the Donald Trump Jr.
Joe meeting with the Russian lawyer because the Russian lawyer at some point told someone who told Trump Jr.
they had some information about Hillary of interest.
The Democrats then made a big deal, remember this Joe?
I sure do.
Oh my gosh, opposition research from a Russian lawyer and Trump Jr.
took the meeting?
Oh my gosh, keep in mind, nobody has shown an inkling of evidence that actual opposition research changed hands.
As a matter of fact, Donald Trump Jr.
could not have been clearer on this.
He released all the emails.
They weren't flattering, but he released them.
By the way, where are Hillary's 30,000 missing emails?
Oh, I don't know.
But again, Democrats, the shiny red ball.
Let's not, you know, standards here.
Let's not actually, you know, instill a set of standards that we all have to apply by.
Let's just change the standards for each party.
So Hillary can delete her emails.
But Don Trump Jr.
releases all the emails on it.
There's no evidence at all.
Any opposition research actually changes hands.
And Democrats made us think about it.
Saying, oh my gosh, opposition research with the Russians saying they had, this is horrifying!
Well then what happened?
Well, what happened, Joe, is it was uncovered that, of course, the Hillary campaign, the DNC, and now breaking this weekend, unbelievably, by the way, Barack Obama's campaign organization paid Fusion GPS, hundreds of thousands in case, in Hillary's case, millions of dollars to go and pay for opposition research that wound up, money wound up in the hands of actual, well, wound up in the hands of Christopher Steele, Who then went to actual Russians and solicited fake information.
He got fake information from the Russians.
Then all of a sudden, Joe, what happened?
It was no longer about opposition research.
I have a tweet.
Look on my Twitter feed if you think I'm making this up from this wacko Ted Lieu, this congressman.
He tweeted me this weekend, What part of opposition research don't you understand?
I don't understand the part you made a big deal about a month ago when it was Don Trump Jr.
Boom!
Or a couple months ago.
That's the part I don't- There you go.
I never- I've been consistent on this, you dope!
I have said from the start, this is not about opposition research.
What is it about?
It's about opposition research the Democrats paid for, making it onto the President of the United States desk, which was used to then make decisions about wiretapping his political enemies and Donald Trump.
That doesn't matter to you?
Wow.
It's not about opposition research.
So now, it's about what happened to it.
It made it into a presidential daily brief.
Liberal knuckleheads, what part of that don't you understand?
That was then used to make decisions.
So now, what happened this week, and folks, I know this is a lot of info, but it's my job in 45 minutes to distill all of this, this endless black hole of liberal garbage in the media down to some easily digestible bits you can go argue with your liberal friends on.
That's the sole purpose of this show.
For you to take the fight to the public.
Now they're realizing, Joe, that the opposition research line is not working either.
Because they changed their story.
Oppo bad when Donald Trump had it.
Donald Trump Jr., excuse me.
But he didn't have it, that's the catch.
Oppo's now no problem because Hillary paid for it.
So now they're like, gosh, what do we do now?
How do we switch the narrative?
Adam Schiff this weekend, and again, a stroke of Democrat strategic genius, and by genius I mean manipulation, lying, and deceit.
He says this weekend, It's not about the dossier in the oppo, it's that some things in the oppo may have been true.
So now it's not about oppo, Joe.
Now it's about oppo research, that portions of it may have been true.
Now why did he say that?
Because folks, again, they're losing the narrative.
The narrative that opposition research is bad had to turn into a narrative about opposition research being good.
Now they're getting caught in that, so now they're trying to refocus it not on the term opposition research, Because that argument's lost.
You follow me, Joe?
Yeah, that's gone.
They lost it.
They've taken two separate positions.
Now they're trying to refocus back on the dossier, which, folks, I want to take the back of my head with the little hair, I shaved my head pretty close, the little hair I have left, and bash it through my desk because I'm like, wait, now we're at the beginning again, trying to say that the dossier, portions of it are true, despite the fact that this thing has been debunked 55 different ways from Sunday.
You understand how desperate, how lying, how manipulative the snakes, the disgusting snakes these people are, like Schiff?
This guy absolutely is a filth bag.
He is pure filth.
Filth!
He's now back to insisting that this discredited, multiple times debunked, fake crap dossier about Trump's sexual proclivities overseas, which has been debunked by Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Martians, Jupiterians, although I know they're not called Jupiterians based on an email a guy sent me, it has been debunked everywhere.
Now they are desperate to, because they have not, you understand they have nothing else.
They're now back to relying on the same lie they started with.
The dossier, look how bad Trump is, this information.
Now, these people are slime balls.
The dossier, folks, here's what they'll do now.
They'll refocus on the dossier to get people to read about Trump's bizarre sexual habits overseas, which is fake!
This is false!
Nobody thinks this is true!
But Adam Schiff and their kooky band of Democrats, knowing that there's probably one portion of it's true.
Now you may say, well, that's bad.
Folks, here's the catch.
We don't know what portion of it's true.
What if it says in the dossier, which you can read, You know, Donald Trump's confirmation name was Mark or something.
Oh, okay.
And then after that it goes, by the way, he traveled to Mars when he was six.
He really has seven fingers on his left hand.
His hair is really not real.
It's a wig.
So let me get this straight.
We're now supposed to, again, take the dossier seriously according to Adam Schiff because it started off with his correct confirmation name.
I don't even know what his confirmation name is.
I don't even know if he's been confirmed.
I don't think he's Catholic.
Folks, Do you see where I'm going with this?
Imagine if the shoes were reversed.
The Republican party paid the Russians for bogus information on Barack Obama that was used to wiretap Barack Obama's associates before he got in office.
Imagine if that happened.
The information's been completely discredited.
It's totally fake.
And now all of a sudden, they turn around and they go, well, portions of it are true.
Well, what portion?
The beginning.
His middle name is Hussein.
Other than that, it's all false.
Barack Obama was born on Mars.
You know, Barack Obama has a unique gene code with alien DNA in it.
You'd be like, wait, wait, are we serious?
The media would be openly mocking and laughing at the Republican Party.
Joe, am I crazy here?
No, you're not, Dan.
If the Republican Party released a dossier about Barack Obama's sexual habits that was discredited by every single credible analyst in the community, and yet one single sliver of it was true, they would be the laughingstock of politics.
But because they're Democrats, it's a protected class, the media doesn't care at all, and they ate up this Adam Schiff narrative this weekend.
Well now it's not about Apple Research anymore because we already lost that narrative.
Now it's about portions of the dossier true, which are gonna make people, Joe, go read it again and go, oh my gosh, this is what's alleged, Trump?
It's not alleged, it's fake!
Gosh, how stupid do you have to be to buy this?
These people are unbelievable.
Unbelievable.
Shameless, sleaze, filth.
Filth!
Human filth.
Disgusting what they've done to people.
All right.
Today's show also brought to you by our buddies at Brickhouse Nutrition.
This guy's been with us from the beginning.
I took a heavy dose of foundation this morning.
My humble opinion, if you're interested in performance in the gym, right?
But looking better too.
You know, listen, some people don't care.
I mean, I'm married.
I'll be honest with you.
If I look good, great.
But I'm trying to look good for my My wife.
I'm not out there in the dating scene like, gosh, do I have a six pack abs anymore?
You know?
I mean, I don't want to like, I love my wife and we have a great relationship and I like to look good, but you get my point.
You know, some people it's more performance.
Some people it's more looking good, but some people it's both.
That's why I love this product.
Foundation.
I've been taking this for gosh, about two years now.
Yeah.
About two years.
It was the original product Brickhouse Nutrition put out there.
The feedback on it is absolutely tremendous.
And the reason is, listen, I'm going to back it up for you.
All I ask is that you take what I call the mirror test on this product.
Now, the product's a creatine ATP blend.
It will allow you to perform at a higher rate of activity in the gym because of the way it fuels your body.
Creatine acts as a store of phosphate.
It's kind of complicated.
I've explained it to you, but I don't want to bore you to death.
I'm familiar with the process.
But it gives you basically an extra gas tank in the gym.
And the research on it is tremendous.
I mean, just Google, does creatine work?
Now, what these guys did to separate themselves from regular creatine is they added ATP to it, which makes it even more incredible.
It's a tremendous product.
Log your reps, log your sets, go back a week later, you'll see you're performing better in the gym.
But I ask you to take the mirror test.
Look at yourself before you take the product.
Give it about seven days to load.
And watch what happens.
I'm telling you, you're gonna look like a different person.
Your muscles are gonna pop.
You're gonna look fantastic.
I got a guy who sent me the best email ever.
I sent it to Miles.
He's like, listen, my wife was like, whatever you're taking, do not get off that stuff.
Folks, it's really, really, really... Joe's tried it.
Little Joe's tried it.
Joe loves it.
Joe's son, and he's like a monster now.
When I met the kid, he was like 80 pounds with 70 pounds of sand on his back.
Now he's like a gorilla.
The kid looks amazing.
He takes it.
I wouldn't invoke Joe's son's name in vain.
I just know because Joe tells me.
It's really, really good stuff.
My nephew loves it.
He went to drive up here from Fort Lauderdale to get an extra bottle.
Give it a try.
BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
That's BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
Go pick up a bottle of foundation today.
You will not regret it.
You'll never get off the stuff.
It's terrific.
It took a big dose before the show.
That's why I'm so geeked up today.
All right.
I had like 25 stories to talk about today.
I'm clearly not going to get to all of them, but let me give you some good news.
Okay.
Let me do that because I have, there's actually four here I wanted to get to, but one's really important because I know on the show a lot, me being A conservative, that sometimes we tend to be very skeptical of what happens in government, how government's ruining the economy, which they are ruining healthcare, we get all that, right?
But there's some good news on the horizon, and I read an article this weekend I'm gonna tie it in.
There's an article about qubits, not Qbert, like the old video game, qubits, which are basically quantum bits.
It's the use of quantum theory to expand the horizons of computing.
So put that on the shelf for a minute, which would make computing incredible.
Put that on the shelf for a minute.
And I want to start with this on a different note here, because it's important.
We just had two consecutive quarters of 3% GDP growth, folks, which is Good.
Not excellent, but very good.
The Democrats just got done telling us after eight years of Obama.
Joe knows this because we talk about it on the show.
We put articles in the show notes.
And I will put this article about qubits, by the way, and the economic growth in the show notes today at bongino.com.
Please subscribe to my email list and I'll send them right to you.
And you don't have to worry about going to the website if you don't want to.
Send them right to your box, your email box.
Two consecutive quarters of 3% growth, the Democrats just got done telling us that that was not possible.
That the new normal, that secular stagnation had set in, that the new normal was going to be 2% or less growth forever.
Trump gets into office and we have had six months now of 3% growth.
Folks, I'm not making any of this up.
Just Google, please, if you don't believe me, secular stagnation.
You will see a bunch of Democrats and Democrat leading economists telling you that 3% growth is not possible and that we are stagnating.
Secular, meaning the reasons are kind of difficult to understand, all the things that have been invented, have been invented.
It's an overly flowery economic term for, this is just the way it is now, okay?
I've told you on the show for two years that that's garbage, that that is the idea of secular stagnation is a Democrat fairy tale, and I can prove it to you.
Now, we've now had two consecutive quarters of 3% growth.
I don't want to get ahead of myself.
I don't want to attribute all of it to Trump.
I think he's deregulatory.
He's cut $560 million in regulations.
I think that's helped.
I think the talk of tax cuts is going to help significantly.
It's these corporate tax cuts that are going to make a big difference.
These corporate tax cuts, this is where I want to just point out quickly some Democrat hypocrisy right here.
Trump is talking about lowering the business tax from 35% to 20%.
We've covered this on the show multiple times, but I took some screenshots this morning from an article in the Daily Signal by Emily Miller, which is very, very good.
I'll put it in the show notes again, and I'll email it to you if you're on my list.
Talking about the president proposing corporate tax cuts.
Now, here is the president.
I said that very cryptically there.
Maybe you'll get the joke in a minute.
Talking about a corporate tax cut.
Putting the United States in line with major competitor countries and encouraging great investment here at home.
Talking about the corporate tax cut.
What president was that?
Barack Obama!
So Barack Obama talking about the effectiveness of a corporate tax cut, saying it would put the United States in line with major competitor countries and encourage greater investment here at home.
Barack Obama said that.
It's in the piece.
Show it to your liberal friends.
You tried to trick us.
You, John, you tricky trickster Dan Bongino.
Joe, it's just so easy.
This is not hard.
These people go on the record and contradict themselves.
I'm not done.
Chuck Schumer on corporate tax cuts.
The cut in the corporate rate would hardly help the everyday American worker.
This is trickle-down.
Our Republican colleagues don't really talk about trickle-down because they know most of America doesn't believe in it.
Okay, so he's attacking the corporate tax cut, right?
It's trickle-down.
It would hardly help the American worker.
Okay, Emily Miller.
Just last year, Schumer on corporate taxes.
Man, I'm game to do it because I think it's really important to American competitiveness.
Okay, Chuck, you got it.
Who do we believe?
Chuck last year or Chuck now?
Who is it?
Either it sucks or it's great.
By the way, as I always say about Clinton for you regular listeners, same guy, same guy.
Bill Clinton on a golf course when a guy hit a bad shot and a good shot.
He'd go, same guy.
Same guy.
Meaning, come on, you can do it!
Same guy.
It's the same guy!
I'm not done!
Another quote.
Please read the piece yourself if you think I'm making any of this up.
Nancy Pelosi on the corporate tax cut.
Deceptively, the Republicans are deceptive, misleading us, saying to the American people that cutting the taxes of corporate America is going to produce such growth that it will eliminate the increase in the debt.
Ha ha ha!
Okay, here's Nancy Pelosi in a press release in 2016.
This is like, this is like the clown hour!
It is long past time for tax reform that would lower the corporate rate.
Folks!
What the hell?
Same guy!
Same gal!
Same gal!
These are the same people!
Please read this piece, print it and highlight it for all your liberal friends.
Which way?
Which one?
Which one about the Trump corporate tax cut is true?
Pelosi last year?
Schumer last year?
Barack Obama last year?
Or the Democrats now?
Which one?
I'm asking you, which one is true?
No, no, the one now is true.
That's what they'll tell you.
Why?
Why and what does this have to do with qubits?
Folks, we are on the verge, if this corporate tax rate is cut, and this is the good news, of explosive growth in the economy.
I am not kidding when I tell you, over the course of a couple decades, we are talking about trillions of dollars pouring back into our economy.
Non-residential investment.
I'm gonna cover this more tomorrow in more detail.
It's exploding.
I mean, we're not talking about housing here.
We're talking about business investment.
AI, quantum computing, self-diagnosing medical devices on your iPhone.
We are on the verge of an unbelievably prosperous tomorrow.
And this article I read, which I'll put in the show notes in the Wall Street Journal, I don't know if it's subscriber, I'm sorry, but it's a really unbelievable piece, about qubits, shows you, Joe, that secular stagnation, that we can't grow, everything's been invented, is a steaming pile of horse crap.
We are on the verge, now we're in big competition with China, of a quantum-based computer, Joe, that will blow the door open on just about every facet of your life.
Modern encryption.
Gene repair.
These are my notes, this isn't in the piece.
These are just the things I think quantum computing are going to just explode.
Gene repair, medical diagnosis, gene coding, language translation, vector analysis for rockets to be able to process information instantaneously that computers can't now.
Navigation, GPS.
If you could do this, because remember, quantum computing, and I'll explain more tomorrow.
This is going to be a really, really good segment tomorrow.
Quantum computing is thousands, geometrically faster than even the fastest computers today.
Imagine having the power to do that in every household in America in 20 or 30 years.
Folks, you are talking about the ability to do things human beings have never, ever imagined before.
We are on the verge of something very special.
And I think this stupid Democrat theory is about, oh, everything's been invented, corporate tax cuts so bad.
I'm telling you right now, if this corporate tax cuts goes through, this is where I'm going to tie this up for you.
We are going to see explosions in artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and the reason the Democrats are running scared right now over this tax code and openly, openly refuting their own prior statements on the corporate tax cut, Is because they know the economy is going to absolutely blow up in a good way, and Donald Trump is going to get the credit, and they are looking at another potentially 8 to 10 to 20 years out of any significant power base.
I'm telling you, mark my words.
All right, thanks for tuning in, folks.
I appreciate it.
Please go to bongino.com, subscribe to my email list there, and I will email you these articles.
That Emily Miller one is priceless, by the way.
Make sure you go check that out at The Daily Signal.
I'll put it in the show notes today.
I'll see you all tomorrow.
Thanks again.
You just heard the Dan Bongino Show.
Get more of Dan online anytime at conservativereview.com.
