The dossier is still unverified.
Why did Obama’s national security adviser send this bizarre email to herself?
A great synopsis of our debt and spending problems summed up in one article.
No, Obama cannot take credit for the economic growth going on.
An older piece that describes the broad surveillance net a FISA warrant can cast.
This piece from 2017 describes the CIA-FBI relationship with regard to the dossier verification process.
Copyright CRTV. All rights reserved.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Get ready to hear the truth about America with your host, Dan Bongino.
Welcome to the Dan Bongino Show.
Producer Joe, how are you today?
So good to be on one of the most popular conservative podcasts in the nation, Dan.
Well, thank you to our listeners.
Yeah, we really appreciate that.
Thank you for spreading the word, too.
For those of you who don't know, by the way, You know, it's funny, liberals beat me up about this on social media all the time, Joe.
They're like, Dan Pongino, he always said, one guy wrote, he has eagle eyes on Twitter, like he sees everything.
Of course I do!
The show's called the Dan Bongino Show.
I'm in the content creation sphere, folks.
We promote our content because we want our ideas out there.
So we go to social media and we look.
Bottom line is, I see on Twitter and on Facebook through a mentions type app.
It's called Creators now on Facebook.
You get it if you have a blue checkmark thingy.
I don't say that to be Mr. Hey, look at me.
I'm just telling you that's what comes along with having a verified page.
In those apps, you can see and sort for your name.
So I have a very unique name.
It's not Smith, it's Bongino.
So if you write something nice about our show, I typically see it.
I spend a lot of time micro-targeting people and liking their stuff and sharing their stuff.
So bottom line is, thank you very much.
Hey, real quick.
Liberals beat me up on that.
Real quick, too.
Something cool I did last night.
I've got an Amazon Fire Stick and I said, play the Dan Bongino show.
It did.
It did?
Oh, cool.
That's good to know.
Yeah, thanks for telling us that.
I didn't even know that.
But yeah, I appreciate it, folks.
Thank you for spreading the good word.
All right, I have a lot to get through today.
You know, as always, I get a lot of listener feedback, which I read.
Forgive me for not being able to respond to all of them.
I used to at least send a thank you.
But honestly, folks, the show has gotten so big that In order for me to respond to everyone, I won't be able to read everyone.
So I'm still reading all your email, but I don't get the time to respond to them.
But one of them that keeps coming up that people still don't get, and I want to explain it in terms of a bigger picture, is I don't get it with this Page thing.
Why surveil Carter Page after he left the Trump team?
But this is important.
It's not just even about The Trump spying scandal, the Russian collusion nonsense.
It's more about understanding the mechanics of government spying, folks, and why we are so, I believe, in danger of falling towards police state tactics right now.
So I want to explain to you something.
And when I explain it, I think it'll make sense why the Page Surveillance Warrant and why you, specifically listening, should be like, oh boy.
And pay attention, maggot!
Is that our Lee Irby there?
Yes, it is.
Yeah, we love him.
He's great.
All right, folks.
Today's show brought to you by our buddies at iTarget.
Hey, anybody can shoot a firearm, okay?
Anyone.
But can you shoot a firearm accurately?
That's what matters.
You know, competitive shooters, right, who do this, fire dry fire, excuse me, ten times more than they live fire.
Ten times!
Why?
Because... He's always messing with me, this guy.
Because dry-firing, in other words, not with live ammo in the chamber, is a great way to work on your trigger control, trigger pressure, your sight alignment, your grip.
These are all components of solid shooting fundamentals, okay?
The best way to take your dry-firing practice to the next level is with the iTarget Pro System.
That's the letter I.
The website is itargetpro.com.
That's the letter I, targetpro.com.
And what is this system?
It's so simple.
They send you a laser bullet for the firearm you have now.
You don't have to buy any special firearm, any special manipulations, nothing.
You have a .40 cal, they send you a .40 cal laser bullet.
You have a 9mm, they send you a 9mm laser bullet.
.38, whatever it may be.
You drop it in the chamber.
After safely unloading, check it, check it twice, check it three times.
Look, listen, feel.
Make sure you put that in an empty weapon, right?
Put it in there, and when you fire and you depress the trigger, the dry fire, it'll hit the laser bullet, the stopper, and it'll emit a laser onto a target they send you.
It almost makes a video game out of your firearm practice.
People love this thing.
It'll map these on a phone app, and you can actually see where the rounds went.
It is incredible.
Go give this thing a shot.
It's at itargetpro.com.
That's itargetpro.com.
And here's a promo code for you.
Save 10%.
Dan, my first name, D-A-N.
Promo code Dan, save 10%.
You will love this thing.
Military, cops, Second Amendment advocates, self-protection advocates, hunters, anyone who needs, you need to learn how to shoot a firearm in the safety and security of your own home, go to the itargetpro.com website.
Pick up itargetpro.com.
Promo code Dan, save 10%.
Okay.
You know, one of the questions I keep getting, I explained it a little bit last week, is I don't get it.
You know, so they surveilled Carter Page and applied for a FISA warrant after he leaves the Trump campaign in October.
This doesn't make sense.
How were they surveilling the Trump team like you keep claiming?
And for those of you who understand the British connection, how they were using the British, and the unmasking request based on reverse targeting.
In other words, they said they were, the Obama team said they were targeting foreigners.
But I believe, in fact, they were targeting U.S.
citizens on the Trump team.
So you say you're targeting foreigners, but you're really, in that conversation, you're targeting the U.S.
citizen who's talking to the foreigner, right?
Combine that with the fact that we were getting information from the British, from the Dutch, and from others, I believe, as well.
That's what I believe was the illicit spying operation on the Trump team.
Now, they had to formalize it to put legal cover on this, so they get a FISA warrant in October for Carter Page, a Trump foreign policy associate, after he leaves the team.
The question I keep getting, why, why, why, why?
It doesn't make sense.
He already left.
Well folks, there was a thing in the NSA called the three hop rule.
It's now the two hop rule.
But what was a hop and what does a hop mean?
Now I haven't, I don't go over any of this with Joe because I want Joe to, he's the audience ombudsman.
Never heard of it.
But this is how scary this stuff is.
A lot of people haven't.
If I get a FISA warrant, Joe, to tap into your emails, because you're guilty as you always are, Joe, of felonious mopery in the umpteenth degree.
Poor Joe, he's going to jail forever.
He's been charged so many times with felonious mopery in various degrees, including the umpteenth.
And I get a FISA warrant on you for that, what I can do is...
I'm allowed to hop past your emails to other emails, too.
So it's not just about you, Armacostas.
Oh, is that right?
Now, yeah, this is pretty cool.
In the show notes today at Bongino.com, thank you, by the way, everyone visiting my website and reading the show notes.
I really appreciate it.
It makes it so much easier for me to explain this.
If you join my email list, I'll send you these.
I include an article from NPR.
NPR.
Not a, by any stretch, a right-wing outlet, okay?
But it's actually a decent piece.
Now, it describes the three-hop rule.
It's from 2013, but it describes it very shortly and succinctly in about 400 words, and it's done well, so I include it in today's show notes.
Remember, it's now the two-hop rule, but you just need to know what a hop is to understand how dangerous it is.
Here's how they explain it.
It says, testimony before Congress on Wednesday, remember this was written in 2013, showed how easy it is for Americans with no connection to terrorism to unwittingly have their calling patterns analyzed by the government.
This is really wacko stuff.
It hinges on what's known as a hop or chain analysis.
When the NSA identifies a suspect, it can look not just at his phone records, Joe, but also the records of everyone he calls Everyone who calls those people, and everyone who calls those people.
Chain migration.
You ain't kidding, right?
Chain spying migration.
Man, that's a good one.
We got to put that one on one of our t-shirts.
We're working on that, by the way.
We have the Spies a Warrant, Chain Spying Migration.
Please read the show notes.
That's got to be on one of them.
Yeah, seriously.
Now, it goes on though.
Here, this is good.
It says, if the average person, Joe, called 40 unique people, Three hop analysis would allow the government to mine the records, this is a staggering number, of 2.5 million Americans when investigating one suspected terrorist.
Holy moly!
Holy moly is right.
Now, they've cut that down to two hops, but we're still talking about geometric growth, not arithmetic growth.
Arithmetic growth, excuse me.
Folks, it's a big deal.
Now does it, because I keep getting this question, I don't get it.
Why get a FISA warrant for Carter Page after he left the Trump team?
Because, folks, the FISA warrant's retroactive.
All the emails he sent in the past to Trump team members, combine that with two hops, you basically have everybody in the known universe that could have ever contacted the Trump team.
Yeah.
Page sends an email, whatever, to Kushner.
I don't know who he sent emails to.
He probably didn't, but you get the point.
Then you go to another hop, Kushner.
Who'd he send an email to?
Now you got the whole Trump team.
That's the whole point.
That's why I constantly say to you that they were trying to put a legal face on this thing after they realized the election was coming up and they could lose.
They were like, man, we've been spying on these people the whole time.
We've already got most of their emails and their communications.
How do we legally do it now?
Oh, we get a FISA warrant.
We use a couple hops and we're golden.
The hops are important.
It's important you understand that.
Please read the NPR piece.
It's a rather good one.
I know it's NPR, but it's short and it explains to you why this, but remember, it's not, there are no longer three hops.
There've been some modifications to that, but it's important you understand what a hop is.
And I think even though it's an older piece, it lays it out very simply.
It makes it very easy to understand.
Yeah.
I think that's, it's critical that we all get that.
A couple other things that have happened since, and I have a number of other stories, folks.
I know a lot of you are concerned that we're missing out on a lot of the economic news, the debt news, the budget news.
Don't worry, we're going to get to a lot of that today too, but there are some things I want to tie up because it is breaking news as well and it's very concerning.
Yesterday I explained to you Why the John Brennan-CIA-FBI connection and why John Brennan running for the hills right now is so critical.
Brennan is trying to cover his butt, just like Susan Rice with that email we saw yesterday.
I'll get to that in a second.
But Brennan is now in the media trying to cover his butt, and folks, pay particular attention to the Brennan interviews.
He does this in all of his interviews now.
John Brennan, for those of you who don't know, was a former CIA director under Obama, and I covered in detail yesterday how I think he is one of the puppet masters in this.
Based on the timeline, based on the briefings, based on when he said he got information, based on when he was giving that information to others.
Or it's likely he was giving that information to others based on the information they had.
The problem is the CIA has a central role in the verification of foreign intelligence assets and foreign intelligence streams.
That's what they do, folks.
They gather intelligence.
They have no law enforcement mandate.
I said this yesterday.
I can't emphasize this enough.
Right.
Learned it yesterday.
Yeah.
The CIA, they are not cops.
They are not federal agents.
The CIA, their operatives and their analysts and their operatives.
These are people who are intelligence gatherers.
They present information to the executive branch.
For the executive branch to be able to make decisions.
They are not cops.
They needed the FBI to engage in this counterintelligence investigation because the FBI can act against U.S.
citizens based on the appropriate probable cause of evidence.
Probable cause evidence level, which I argued strongly wasn't there.
In other words, the FBI acted against the Trump team without probable cause.
That's the whole essence of this case.
That it was based on the dossier, which was a hoax.
Okay?
Now, yesterday I did some research here, and I'm like obsessed with this case because it's so damaging to our national constitutional republic and the idea of liberty and freedom.
And I came up with a BBC article that I also have at the show notes today that is absolutely damning.
It's from earlier in 2017.
But there's some pieces in there, and I'll cite them to you, and I'll put the article in the show notes if you'd like to read it yourself, but do what I do and take screenshots of the critical parts.
This is crazy.
Remember, this is from last year, okay?
They're talking about the CIA and their role in this.
By the way, I was reading this piece when I was getting an oil change at the local Ford yesterday.
Gosh, it took forever, like two and a half hours to get an oil change.
I was like, man, can you guys speed it?
That was the quick lane, the quick lane.
I'm like, dude, I would have been in and out of Jiffy Lube in like 10 minutes.
I love Ford.
Don't get me wrong.
My Raptor is the greatest car ever.
But man, you got to work on that quick lane, fellas.
I should call it the slow lane.
Let's be honest with people.
But I'm reading this stuff, and this is a damning piece, and it highlights what I covered on yesterday's show.
That the CIA Joe had no law enforcement mandate to go after the Trump team.
They needed the FBI.
So this is why Brennan's running for the hills right now, because I think Brennan quietly knows he prodded Jim Comey into this investigation, into the Trump team, knowing that the information was suspect at the time.
Here's a quote from the BBC piece.
They're talking about Christopher Steele, by the way.
Okay.
They say, then in early October, he came to the U.S.
and was extensively debriefed by them over a week.
The FBI, that is.
He gave the FBI the names of some of his informants, the so-called key to the dossier.
They're talking about Christopher Steele again, the source of all this dossier information.
This is crazy, Joe.
But the CIA never interviewed him and never sought to.
This comes from several people who are in a position to know.
They're alarmed at how the investigation is going and worried it's being fumbled.
One said, this is important.
Listen to me, folks.
This is from an inside source.
The FBI doesn't know about Russia.
The CIA knows about Russia.
Any sources Steele has in Russia, the FBI doesn't know how to evaluate.
The agency does, talking about the CIA.
Who's running this thing from Moscow?
The FBI just aren't capable on that side of even understanding what Chris Steele has.
Another reflected growing frustration with the inquiry among some who served in the Obama administration.
They said, we used to call them the Pheebs.
They would make the simple case, talking about the FBI, but they would never see the bigger picture.
Folks, you may say, well, Dan, in one respect, you're telling us that Brennan's the puppet master here.
And now in another respect, you're citing an article from the BBC that the CIA never even interviewed Steele and never sought to.
Folks, that's the point.
That's exactly... Now, Joe, I see the look.
I know you're a little confused.
I am.
You are the audience ombudsman, as always.
If I don't tie this up, you must let me know.
Yeah, tie it up.
During yesterday's show, I'd said to you that Brennan, I strongly believe, knew that a lot of the information in this dossier provided by Russian sources was, in fact, not going to turn out to be accurate.
Brennan does not want his hands on this thing, but needs the Trump team investigated on behalf of the Obama administration, okay?
Alright.
The CIA, Joe, remember, operates overseas all the time.
If anyone has Russian sources, it's the CIA.
And if anybody has the ability to verify Russian sources that Steele has, it's the CIA.
But the CIA doesn't interview Steele.
And according to the BBC piece, they don't even want to.
Why would that be?
Maybe because Jim Brennan the entire time is suckering Harry Reid through that meeting he had in August when he goes over to the Hill and tells Harry Reid, hey, look at this dossier.
What does Harry Reid do next, Joe?
Harry Reid sends a letter to who?
The FBI citing information in the dossier saying, hey, you guys need to look at this!
Whoa!
Now, bingo!
Now we got a domestic law enforcement agency looking into the Trump team that has the power to make arrests.
In other words, Joe...
The CIA doesn't interview Steele because Brennan and his people want plausible deniability.
They want to say, oh, we didn't verify this.
Look, we gave Steele over to the FBI.
And by the way, and I said this yesterday, folks, conveniently, the CIA absolutely knows Steele's worked with the FBI before.
I'm asking you this.
I'm just going to put this out there.
Is it possible the whole time That this thing's being orchestrated at the behest of the Obama administration and intelligence people at the highest levels, connected deeply to Obama himself and their own political interests, is the entire thing orchestrated the whole time to use Christopher Steele as a fall guy too.
In other words, hey, Hillary, if you hire this guy, Fusion GPS, and they hire this guy Steele, this guy's worked with the FBI before.
Therefore, us and the CIA, we can go hands off because we can push Steele onto the FBI to start a domestic law enforcement CI investigation, which started as a counterintelligence investigation, right?
But we can push it off on them without having our hands on it.
Why, Joe?
Because he's already worked with the FBI.
So you need to hire that guy.
Does that make sense?
Yes.
And the way he manipulated Reed, that makes sense too.
I'd forgotten about that.
Right!
So, hey, Hills?
Hillary?
Wink and a nod.
You need to hire Fusion GPS.
They're going to hire this guy Steele.
By the way, he's already worked with the FBI.
Brennan.
Hey, look, we have the Stasi.
I'm going to go up to Capitol Hill.
Are you going to interview Steele, Brennan, with the CIA?
Because you have contacts in Russia.
No, no, no, we're not going to touch it.
Because Steele's already worked with the FBI.
Don't worry.
Wink at a nod, Joe.
The FBI's got this.
But they don't go to the FBI.
They go to Harry Reid.
One connection away.
They say, hey, Harry, listen, we got a problem here.
We got this dossier.
Is it a hoax?
Maybe, but we need an investigation going on.
What does Harry Reid do?
Fires off a letter to the FBI the next day or two days later and says, hey, we need an investigation into the Trump team.
Look at all these allegations.
The FBI now under pressure is like, oh my gosh, we better get going on this.
You see what I'm saying, Joe?
The BBC article is evident of the genius, the tactical genius, evil, diabolical, but the tactical genius I think was involved here.
I think it was a mechanized plan the whole time.
They already had this thing lined out.
If we use this guy's steel, then the CIA, Brennan, our hands are off this, even though we started the whole thing.
Because we've been working with the Brits, Joe.
We've been providing a lot of intel.
The intel's unmasked.
But now we can get this into the law enforcement sphere.
We can get a Pfizer warrant.
Put a legal FBI cover on this thing.
But to do it, I can't go to the FBI.
I don't want my hands on this.
So I'm Brennan.
I go to Harry Reid.
Harry Reid sends a letter.
Harry Reid sends a letter about information provided on a guy the FBI, whoa, convenient, has already worked for in the past.
All of a sudden, the FBI is involved, and they get a legal cover through a FISA warrant that the CIA can't swear to, Joe.
The FBI has to.
Now you have a legal cover for an illicit operation.
That tied it up nicely for me.
Thank you.
Amazing, huh?
The scam that went on here?
Folks, I've never been more convinced that that's what happened.
Ever.
I mean, it's really disgusting what I think happened here.
Beyond belief that our agencies were weaponized like this.
But listen to this if you missed yesterday's show in conjunction with yesterday's.
And folks, it'll all make sense.
Why Brennan is now running for the hills.
Brennan's take on this is, I didn't know nothing about nothing about nothing, I found out about the dossier in December.
Which is impossible.
Because he briefs Harry Reid, and information Reid has about the dossier then appears in a letter two days later to the FBI.
In August.
August, December.
August is before December.
Last time I checked.
Brennan is now running for the hills because he realizes he has severe liability in this.
But as I said this morning on another radio station, to Brennan and all these other guys, fellas, I'm serious.
Stay off the cable news channels.
Find yourself a good lawyer.
Really.
I cannot give you any better advice.
Stay off the cable news channels.
All right.
I got a couple more things to get to, and I want to get to a great article I saw at the Washington Times eviscerating this idea that Obama is somehow responsible for the economic recovery.
Give me a break.
Come on, folks.
Let's get real.
All right.
Today's show also brought to you by our buddies at FilterBuy.
What do we got here?
Here we go, FilterBuy.
Thankfully, we have so many great sponsors.
It's actually getting hard to find their ads.
It's been cold this year.
It's been a really cold winter.
Dallas was down to 11 degrees, New York 9 degrees, Minneapolis for the Super Bowl was like minus 5 or so.
Winter's in full swing, excuse me.
Freudian slip, full spring.
Looking forward to that.
And your HVAC system is working overtime.
You gotta maintain your filters, folks.
When I moved into my house, mine were all clogged up.
It caused a lot of damage to my system.
I had to replace both units at the same time.
But that's not the only part.
Not only do you have dirty filters and a struggling HVAC system, you're also breathing unhealthy air.
You might find yourself with no heat and thousands in repairs.
There's a better way, folks, with FilterBuy.com.
America's leading provider of HVAC filters for homes and small businesses.
You got a small business with 100 filters?
These are your guys.
You got a home with 5 or 6 air filters?
These are your guys, too.
Filterbuy.com carries over 600 different filter sizes, including custom options, which is cool.
All shipped for free.
Within 24 hours, plus they're manufactured right here in America.
We always appreciate that.
FilterPi offers a multitude of MERV options all the way up to hospital grade.
So you'll be removing dangerous pollen, mold, dust, and other allergy-aggravating pollution out of the air while maximizing the efficiency of your HVAC system, which is good for me.
I have allergies.
Right now, you can save 5% when you set up auto delivery.
I mean, who wants to think about this every year?
Just set up auto delivery.
You'll save 5%.
And you'll never need to think about air filters again.
Save money, save time, breathe better with FilterBuy.com.
That's FilterBuy.com.
FilterBuy.com.
Okay.
Another interesting development yesterday in this case is the Susan Rice email that was uncovered pursuant to the release of a Graslie memo.
Folks, here's the... I have a copy of the email, but I just want to read to you one sentence of it to show you how to... Keep in mind, this is Susan showing you how disturbing this is, by the way.
Susan Rice, by the way, is a famous Benghazi.
The video did it.
Talking Points fame.
And also Susan Rice of MSNBC.
We didn't unmask anyone, except we did unmask anyone fame.
So Susan Rice has, keep in mind, zero credibility.
She was Barack Obama's National Security Advisor.
She sends this troubling email, Joe.
And I say troubling because the left is trying to paint the picture here like, oh, it's not troubling at all.
Let me just read to you one sentence of it.
She's talking about a conversation in the Oval Office with Jim Comey, Vice President Biden, Barack Obama, her, and I believe Sally Yates as well, in the Oval Office January 5th, just days before Donald Trump is about to be inaugurated.
So he is not only a lame duck, Barack Obama's a lame duck ready to leave office.
Okay.
She sends this email though on January 20th.
Memorializing a January 5th conversation.
And here's one of the key sentences she writes in there.
She writes, President Obama began the conversation by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue, talking about the Trump thing, is handled by the intelligence and law enforcement communities, quote, by the book.
And she puts quotes in there.
In other words, insinuating those are the exact words Barack Obama used.
Now folks, This is a really troubling email, because when you handle things, quote, by the book, why do you... By the way, folks, she sends this email to herself.
You may say, she did what?
Yes, Susan Rice sends this email to herself, literally right before Donald Trump is about to become president.
Now, portions of it are redacted, so there's other things she writes in the email that we haven't seen.
But I just want to ask you a very simple question.
Did you ever see, Joe, the movie G.I.
Jane with Demi Moore?
Yes, I did.
You know, I get it.
A lot of PC stuff in there.
I kind of dug the movie when I was younger.
I thought it was a good movie.
I just like hoorah stuff.
I don't care what the... But, you know, there's an interesting line in there.
Where she walks into the commander of the base, the Navy SEAL base.
It's a woman trying to become a Navy SEAL, and she walks in and she gives this big speech to him, and then she leaves it off the end, but she's like, hey, I'm not trying to make a statement here.
And the guy has an interesting line in return.
The commander of the base says, people who don't want to make statements don't make statements about not making statements.
In other words, if you don't want to make a statement, just shut the up, right?
Just shut up.
People who do things by the book don't send themselves emails about doing things by the book!
Folks, during my time as a Secret Service agent, I can't give you an exact number, but I was probably involved in 10 to 15 significant federal investigations.
Remember, half of my time in the Secret Service was spent on protection.
We're not like the FBI that does investigations or counterintel all the time.
We don't do that.
We do protection, obviously, and then we do criminal investigations too.
But I was involved in some pretty significant investigations.
I don't say that to impress anybody, I'm just telling you they were significant in their financial impact and their connections to terrorism in some cases.
I never, one time, sent myself an email saying that my boss, Marty, at the time, who was the resident agent in charge of the Melville office I worked in, that's just outside of New York.
I never sent an email to myself one time, hey, Marty told me we're doing things by the book.
I don't understand why you would do that.
You have to ask yourself, what is the incentive for someone to send themselves an email like that?
Does it make any sense?
I'll answer it for you in a minute.
I don't like leaving you hanging.
But I want to leave you with another question, too.
Why would Chuck Grassley and the people involved who saw the email and the unredacted version Why would they then put this in a memo, Joe, and then demand Susan Rice give them answers to a list of 12 questions they put out, which is basically questioning them about the email?
I'm going to propose to you on number two, Graslie knows a whole lot more than we do.
Obviously he's seen, I mean it's obvious, but he's seen the unredacted material, number one.
And number two, he's seen probably chains of emails as well before.
What have I said to you the whole time, Joe?
The big shoe to drop in this entire thing is when the Obama-Hillary emails become public.
We already know Hillary emailed Obama from her personal account.
We already know that's why the Obama Justice Department would never pursue a legal case against Hillary for sending classified information over email.
Why?
Because she communicated with Obama.
Any time Hillary goes down for sending classified information, Obama would have went down too.
There was never going to be a prosecution, ever!
May I suggest to you that Susan Rice knows about that.
Susan Rice is an Obama, I mean, tied to his hip the entire time.
She is a loyal Obama acolyte.
She's responsible for lying about Benghazi, lying about unmasking.
Susan Rice must know there is an email trail Implicating potentially her, but definitely implicating the Obama White House in this spying scandal.
Now figures these emails are going to be FOIA'd because Trump's now going to be the president in just a matter of hours.
So she sends herself an email saying, oh no, no, Obama told us once to do things by the book.
In other words, trying to make a statement about not making statements.
She's trying to CYA, folks.
Now, you get the Felipe Reines of the world, this Hillary bootlicker who goes on Fox.
This guy disgusts me, by the way.
He's the filthiest of Hillary bootlickers.
And he's like, well, sometimes when you email yourself by the book, that's what it means, by the book.
No, no, nobody does that, Felipe.
I was a federal agent.
I don't email myself about doing investigations by the book.
You do that because you're a bureaucratic staff bootlicker and you've never done a federal investigation.
And people do that when they want to cover their asses.
End of story.
And folks, again, number two on that.
There's a reason Graslie, the Republican on this, is sending this to Susan Rice with a bunch of questions.
I promise you, if it was an innocent email and he's read the unredacted material, he's not going to waste his time with a memo embarrassing himself and sending questions to Susan Rice like, hey, what the hell were you talking about there by the book?
Give me a break.
Hey, one final thing before I get to some of the other news of the day.
There was a...
You know, I try to, again, stay out of the, let's pat ourselves on the back business here because I think it's really dumb.
It kind of makes the host look like an idiot more than anything.
It's funny.
You're trying to celebrate your own material.
Why are they looking like a moron?
But I do think it's important that we do provide some bona fides on our sourcing and that the information you're listening to is information from credible people, unlike the dossier show.
Yeah.
We had said a little bit ago, forgive me, I can't remember when, that one of the next investigative steps in this case was going to be the other FBI agent in the room for the interview with Mike Flynn at the White House.
Yeah.
That happened in January.
Remember that, Joe?
I do.
January of 2017.
I said to you there were two FBI agents in the room who interviewed Mike Flynn.
One of those FBI agents was Peter Stroke, who obviously, given his text message with Lisa Page, the woman he's having an affair with there, from the FBI, it's obvious Stroke is a Hillary Clinton supporter and hates Trump.
I mean, just read the text.
They can smell the Trump people.
POTUS wants to know everything.
Stroke is not a reliable source.
Strokes in that interview.
There's another agent in that interview.
Now, I know the name, I'm not going to put it out there yet, but I know who this agent is.
He's an FBI supervisor, and I said to you a while ago that it's interesting, I don't know, maybe two weeks ago we said this, that the recap of what happened in that interview was different amongst the two agents.
The agents that originally went to Andy McCabe and debriefed him on what happened in the Flynn interview, there's a differing account of what happened.
I strongly believe, based on information I have, that the other agent in the room, not Peter Stroke, that his account of what happened was that Flynn was being honest.
Now keep in mind, Mike Flynn was charged with false statements to the FBI.
So it's clear someone in the room thought he was lying to them.
That has to be strong.
Folks, it's just by the process, just by default.
There are two agents.
One doesn't think he's lying.
And I said this to you two weeks ago that there was probably going to be a different account by the other agent in the room and someone should talk to him.
Now, there's a Byron York piece that's fascinating.
Byron York piece.
Hold on, let me just pull the headline because this is really cool.
Here's the Washington Examiner piece.
Byron York, Comey told Congress, FBI agents didn't think Mike Flynn lied.
Byron York, February 12, 2018.
Jim Comey was the FBI director.
He told Congress in March, after the interview, Joe, the interview happened in January, that he didn't think Comey lied either.
I mean, excuse me, Mike Flynn lied either.
So how the hell was Mike Flynn charged in December with false statements to the FBI?
If Comey didn't think Flynn lied, and I'm telling you based on quality sourcing that the other agents in the room didn't think Mike Flynn lied, then what's going on here, folks?
Well, I've told you from the start, Mike Flynn was a scalp.
In addition to Brennan, the CIA folks, and the Obama administration needing a legal investigation and a forward face for this operation against the Trump team, Brennan using the FBI to do that, they also needed, later on, through the Mueller Special Counsel, to arrest someone.
Someone had to be arrested.
A scalp had to be claimed in this.
Mike Flynn was the most convenient scalp of them all.
Mike Flynn was a convenient scalp because there were people in the FBI who had personal animus towards Mike Flynn based on some interactions he had had with Andy McCabe in the past on other issues.
They did not like Mike Flynn.
Hillary Clinton didn't like Mike Flynn because of the Locker Up speech and other things like that.
Flynn was a convenient target, folks.
Wait till this other FBI agent subpoenaed.
You're gonna get an entirely different story.
Now, you may say, Joe, a fair question right now would be, All right, Dan, but you haven't explained to us, then, what the hell happened.
If someone said he lied, what happened, and what do you think happened?
Here is my opinion on what happened.
These FBI agents, Peter Stroke and the other guy, they walk into White House to interview Flynn.
They don't tell Flynn it's a criminal interview at all.
He has no idea.
He has no lawyer present.
They ask him about a conversation he had while in the Dominican Republic with the Russian ambassador about sanctions.
Flynn at the time either says he didn't have the conversation or he doesn't recall the conversation with the Russian ambassador about sanctions, but they have the transcript because they've already been spying on Flynn.
They have the exact words.
Now you may say, well, if Flynn said he didn't have a conversation about sanctions and the transcript shows otherwise, or if he said he didn't recall it, then clearly he lied.
Did he?
Let me just throw something out there, folks.
You listen to this show, you're gonna get it first.
Flynn was on vacation.
He's in the Dominican Republic.
When did that call happen?
What do people do on vacation?
Maybe, um... See what I'm doing, Joe?
Yeah.
Maybe Flynn legitimately didn't recall.
Maybe Flynn was on vacation and was not particularly in the mood to have a diplomatic conversation after a year of campaigning or being out there on the Trump team and being named the National Security Advisor.
Maybe Flynn was not in the mental state at the time to recall perfectly.
Maybe Flynn legitimately did not recall the exact contents of the conversation.
Folks, I'm trying to be extremely delicate here.
Joe, I know you get what I'm saying.
He might have been hanging out with Captain Morgan, you know?
Possible.
Maybe.
I mean, you do that on vacation.
Maybe there's a reason.
Who knows?
That the FBI agent in the room, the other agent, or Jim Comey, or Flynn, did not recall.
And maybe Flynn was being absolutely honest when he said he did not recall.
Yeah.
Folks, we don't recall a lot of things.
I'm just saying, you heard it here first.
And I'm not trying to be in front of this stuff, I'm just trying to tell you the reputation of a Lieutenant General with a distinguished record of service to the United States over decades was decimated.
His family, decimated.
His life, decimated.
His financial situation, decimated.
His reputation, decimated.
For what?
For a conversation he may have legitimately, legitimately not recalled.
Crazy, man.
Absolutely crazy what happened to this guy.
Okay, there's some good news.
I got some good news and bad.
Let me give you the bad news first, okay?
Moving on to some different stuff because this is important.
I want to leave you with the good news because I'm not a macabre guy and generally our financial treasury situation in the United States, our fiscal and monetary situation is so bad.
It's like you leave and you're like, ah!
You can't take it anymore.
There's some good news, but let's start with the bad news first.
Dan Horowitz has a really terrific piece, A Conservative View, I'll put in the show notes.
And I like the way Dan writes, because he sums things up in bullet points.
Like, hey, here's the eight crappiest parts about this budget we have.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.
It's super readable.
It's real easy.
And he makes no effort to confuse you with jargon and wonkery.
He has a great piece about, it's like, I don't know, 8 to 10.
Negative highlights of the budget bill we just passed.
I want to just motor through what I think are the most prominent of those and tell you really how bad our situation is and why this budget bill Signed by the GOP is an abomination.
Now, folks, I'm proud to be a conservative because, again, we stick by our principles.
I don't give a damn what party signs their name to a bad budget laden in debt with the red menace of debt coming ashore for our kids and grandkids.
It's a bad idea!
I don't care who signs it!
The Democrats, if Obama signed it, it was good.
It didn't matter what it was.
Could be a bill to eliminate puppies all over the United States.
It's great, Obama signed it.
We're not going to do that here.
Here's number one.
I call this budget woes.
Folks, this is more spending than happened under Obama.
I mean, are we going to be consistent on this as conservatives or not?
This budget, Joe, spends $4.4 trillion.
The last year of the Obama budget spent $4.15 trillion.
Let's never do what Democrats do.
And I should say liberals.
Because they're frauds!
They're like, Bush drove up the debt.
Yeah, but Obama drove up the debt twice as fast.
Yeah, but Obama did it, so it was all good.
This is not good.
Are we clear, liberals?
So there's never any allegations of ideological consistency ever in the future, at least on this show.
This is not a good budget.
Full stop, period.
I don't think I like your tone.
Where is that from?
Family Guide, man.
Family Guide!
I knew it!
I thought so.
I didn't want to, because I always ruin it with the cultural references.
I never know anything.
This is more spending.
4.4 trillion to 4.15.
More debt.
Let's make this simple for our liberal friends about where we as conservatives stand.
Joe's laughing his butt off.
More debt.
Spending.
Bad.
Less spending.
Good.
Good.
You see, Caveman Joe makes a return.
We almost have to resort to Caveman Joe to understand.
Right, Joe?
More debt.
Bad.
Bad.
Less debt.
Good.
Good.
It's the only way to get this through to our liberal friends, okay?
So that's number one.
That's a simple one.
Yeah.
Number two.
Over the 10-year horizon, This budget spends $52.6 trillion, this budget outline at least, but only brings in $45.5 trillion.
Now, by simple math, Joe, that's about $7 trillion in additional debt, but here's the problem.
That's on the rosy projection.
In other words, those are good projections of what we're going to do on interest payments on the debt, what they're going to do about capping spending in the future.
Folks, I can make the case to you strongly, that $7 trillion in debt over 10 years is an illusion.
It's going to be closer to $11 to $20 trillion.
Folks, we're in a world of trouble right now if we don't stop this nonsense.
Medicaid spending.
$5.2 trillion over 10 years, plus the additional $2.2 trillion that the states chip in.
Folks, $5.2 trillion plus $2 trillion, that's $7.2 trillion over 10 years on Medicaid.
Medicaid, not Medicare!
Medicaid!
Medicaid, meaning lower income folks who are going to be getting money from the government, absent almost any work requirements at all, to spend on healthcare.
$7 trillion.
The entire military is only going to cost $7.4 trillion over 10 years.
Folks, another one.
Social Security payments are for the first time ever going to be a trillion dollars annually.
This is not sustainable, ladies and gentlemen.
One more.
And I promise I'll get to the good news.
The interest on the debt, in the Rosie scenario, Joe, the interest on the debt.
It's going to rise to $760 billion a year in 10 years.
That's not paying down the debt, folks.
Those are interest payments alone.
You're talking about an interest payment on the debt equivalent to almost our entire Medicaid healthcare budget in one year.
Folks, it's not sustainable.
It is not sustainable.
Now, you may say, is there any good news in this?
The answer is not in that, no.
I'm always reminded of that Herb Stein line where he says, Ben Stein's dad, you know, what can't continue won't.
And this cannot continue.
You may say, well, what's going to stop it?
What's going to stop it is out of control interest rates.
Because people are not going to lend money to Joe, and air quotes your company, let's envision the United States as a company, forever.
That has absolutely no intentions of paying it back.
Sooner or later they're going to demand an interest payment on those loans to them that is so high that they ripple throughout the economy and the American citizen is going to be in a, you know, in an uproar and a political uproar.
I mean this happened in Canada when their debt situation got out of control.
Interest rates are going to be, listen to me, interest rates will be the flashpoint When interest rates start going up because both individual citizens and foreign governments stop lending the U.S.
money, because Joe, sooner or later, they're all going to come to the conclusion that this is never going to be paid back.
Folks, it's not.
There is almost no way to pay this back right now.
Sooner or later, they're going to say, wait, we're lending you money at 3%?
I want 5%.
Someone else is going to say 5%.
I want 10%.
I want 15%.
Oh my God, that never happens.
Really?
Remember what mortgage rates were in the 80s?
12%, 15%?
Yeah.
Wait till your car loan costs you 20 percent.
Your college loan costs you 22.
Your mortgage payment costs you, you know, 12 to 15.
People are going to be really pissed, folks, and that's when even the most hardened Democrats are going to start reevaluating the role of government debt in their lives.
The problem now is there's no consequence.
The debt is going to be signaled by interest rates.
Interest rates will be the canary in the coal mine.
Now, here's some good news for you.
Another great piece, the Washington Times today, I'll put in the show notes app on gino.com.
Again, subscribe to my email list.
I'll send them right to you.
By a, I think it's Pete Ferrara, but it's a very good piece.
Very short, but it's good.
And it also has some links in it that are very good as well.
They talk about how economic growth, or Ferraro talks about in the piece, how economic growth is really starting to turn around, Joe.
And he basically just destroys the laughable claim that the Obama policies have anything to do with this.
Folks, it doesn't make any sense, okay?
If the Obama policies have anything to do with economic growth, I want to ask your friends a fundamental question.
I've asked this before, but it's important I reiterate this, because it just requires simple logic.
It doesn't require you to really think outside the box.
If Obama had a series of policy show, which he did.
These are documented.
This is not a myth.
It's not fantasy.
It's not a Teddy Ruxpin tale, okay?
Barack Obama hiked taxes.
He did.
He hiked the income taxes.
The Obamacare tax was instituted.
This is all on the record.
I mean, this is not mystery, okay?
Obama was also a big fan of government red tape.
We saw an explosive growth in the Federal Register.
What is the Federal Register?
The Federal Register is a It's basically a book the federal government keeps of government regulations.
We had record numbers of pages added, which is a significant and relevant proxy for regulations.
So now we know two things.
We know Barack Obama was the regulator-in-chief, and he was the tax hiker-in-chief.
Now, as is laid out in this piece, the recession and the recovery from the recession during the Obama years was the worst in modern American history.
And in the Washington Times piece, he lays it out by category.
By income growth, by GDP growth, by wage growth, labor force participation.
These are hard numbers, folks.
These are indisputable metrics.
If those policies, hiking taxes and instituting massive amounts of red tape, were successful in recovering the economy, then why was the economic recovery the worst we've seen in modern American history under Obama?
And this is critical, part number two, and this is the question you need to ask your liberal friends.
Why did that only turn around when Trump was elected and those policies were reversed?
Folks, you would be making a salient, cogent argument if Trump continued the Obama policies and the economy began to turn around.
You would!
You'd be saying, well, Trump continued to hike taxes, continued to regulate the economy, now we're at 3% growth, they're closing in on it, which is a point above Barack Obama's 2% growth.
Makes sense, right?
Maybe it took a while, but those policies are now starting to work.
Folks, that's not what happened!
Trump gets into office, immediately starts talking about tax cuts, actually cuts taxes, and begins a massive deregulatory effort to get the government out of your business life.
And all of a sudden, the economy turns around.
What you're saying makes absolutely no sense if you're using simple logic, which I know is tough for liberals.
Just look at the article, look at the notes, look at the data.
That's when it began to turn around.
Now, you may say, well, what's the good news portion of this?
Now that we're seeing significant growth in oil and petrochemical production in the United States, I mean explosive growth back to when it was $100 a barrel, that kind of level of production.
We are becoming the Saudi Arabia of North America when it comes to oil production.
Trump has deregulated the economy to a large extent.
We're wiping out 20 plus regulations for every new one instituted.
He has cut taxes.
You're seeing economic growth finally close in at three and four percent.
I've given you these numbers before.
You know the rule of sevens?
The economy will double in ten years if we grow at seven percent?
Mm-hmm.
Let's be honest.
Seven percent is not really practical.
It's not gonna happen.
Last person to get even close was Reagan in one year.
But folks, here's the good news.
If we grow, and this is in the piece, by the way, in the Washington Times piece.
If we grow at four percent, the economy doubles in 17 years.
Doubles!
Folks, that is in your working lifetime.
Even for people in their late 40s and early 40s like me, I will still be working at 60.
A lot of Americans will.
Many Americans work till 65.
The guy who cuts my hair, I love the guy.
He's the best.
Robert.
Palm City Barbers.
He gives a great haircut, by the way.
Guy's 71.
Does the best haircut I've ever seen.
Guy's terrific.
He's working until 71 years old.
In your working lifetime, if we just maintain 4% growth, we're just a point away from it now, the economy will double in 17 years.
And after 50 years, it'll have doubled 8 times.
Now, why is the doubling after 14 years important?
Because folks, I'm going to put out a proposition to you.
I'm not suggesting this is ideal.
I'm just trying to tell you in relationship to the bad news we started with, that it may be a workable solution for now until we can get some people with some cojones up on the hill who are actually willing to cut government spending, which we don't have now.
We have very few.
If we just cap spending today, okay, so I gave you what the budget number was, $4.4 trillion.
Believe me, folks, that's way too much money, but hear me out.
We don't have the guts right now up on Capitol Hill, not us the listeners, the people on Capitol Hill, to cut spending.
They don't.
How do we know?
Because they just passed a two-year bill that's going to explode the deficit.
If we capped it and said, okay, $4.4 trillion, this is it.
No more.
We're going to cap it here and we'll allow maybe some adjustments for inflation, but we're not going any higher.
If we capped it and doubled the economy, folks, in 17 years, 17 years from now, we have the capacity to nearly halve our national debt.
Without doing anything else other than capping spending levels today, if we can grow.
Does that make sense, Joe?
Because the economy will be... So in other words, if I had $50,000 in debt and was making $50,000, I'm in trouble.
I owe 100% of what I make.
Right.
But if I'm $50,000 in debt and I double my income and I'm making $100,000, all of a sudden that $50,000 in debt's not so bad.
It's not insignificant, but it's not the financial burden it was when we were making $50,000.
Our economy's worth $20 trillion now.
If we double it in 17 years to 40 trillion, all of a sudden 20 plus trillion in debt, folks, doesn't seem that bad.
It's manageable at that point.
The interest payments are manageable.
In other words, growth matters.
Growth has always mattered.
We have to hit those 4% targets.
So that's the good news.
If we can just cap it.
Again, I'm not saying capping it is the right approach.
We should be cutting it dramatically.
But if the best we can do with these gutless wonders up on the hill right now is say, enough's enough.
We've already given you Democrats $4.4 trillion in spending.
This is it.
Not a dollar more next year.
If we even capped it and focused exclusively on growth and hit those 4% targets, we could do a lot to minimize the impact of our debt on our kids just by standard growth alone.
I'm just putting it out there because, you know, We get criticized a lot, Joe, by left-wing idiots for being like, you guys are maniacs and, you know, you're right-wing nutjobs and all this other stuff.
I'm throwing out to you a non-ideal, frankly horrible solution.
But an idea nonetheless that I think even the left could get behind that would at least delay the day of reckoning.
And I guarantee you the left will still say no.
Now who's the nutjob?
You know why, Joe?
They only want more spending.
It doesn't matter.
Bankruptcy doesn't matter.
Math doesn't matter.
Economics doesn't matter.
Growth rates doesn't matter.
They want government spending because government spending is a means to control the population and that's essentially what the hard left wants.
They've always wanted economic control.
I've said to you repeatedly on the show, control, control, control.
They don't care about how much money the government makes.
All they care is that the money the government does make is the money that runs the entire economy.
The allocation of resources must be done by the federal government.
Even if the resources are all squandered.
Because that is the essence of control.
Controlling the economy, controlling healthcare, and controlling your kids in public schools.
It's really pathetic.
Hey, one more story.
This is a good one.
I like to listen to Econ Talk.
It's a really good podcast by Russ Roberts.
He's a little more, I don't know, he's a nice guy.
I love his show.
He's super bright, but he's a little more kind of milquetoast on the politics than I am.
He's very fair to his guests, obviously.
I don't think I could be as fair, but he had an interesting series of guests on.
It reminded me, I was reading a Wall Street Journal piece today, this weekend, and they were talking about the How do you describe it?
I took a note on this.
How we're, Joe, we're really, as a society, gosh, I hate when I stumble through this, but it's a complicated idea I'm trying to sum up in a simple soundbite.
Basically, why is partisanship spiking?
Why are we all on our own teams now, in contrast to the past where there was more, you know, promiscuous voting habits amongst parties.
In other words, if you were a Democrat and you found an interesting Republican down the ballot as your county executive, you could vote for him.
Why are we now like, nope, I'm a D and I'm an R and I don't want to hear it.
Why is that getting seemingly worse?
And there were a lot of, it's an interesting podcast and they were talking about, you know, interesting things like social media, you know, Fox versus MSNBC versus CNN and how the growth in a lot of these platforms has maybe hardened people up a little bit.
But Those are great, but there was one point they made, and I read kind of a similar thing in a Wall Street Journal op-ed today, and it reminded me, they had this great line, the guy said, we make really good partisans, but really bad ideologues.
In other words, we're great when it comes to defending our team, but we're really terrible in defending the ideology.
And when he said that, I thought, you know what, he's right.
And what proves that, Joe?
I don't want to say proves, it provides a really good body of evidence.
You ever see man on the street interviews?
Yeah.
Guy goes out with a camera or whatever, you know, Ami Horowitz does this all the time.
He does some great ones.
This kid, Austin Fletcher, he does them and they go out to like Antifa rallies or left-wing rallies and you stick a camera in someone's face and you go, hey, how do you feel about Obama's tax plan?
He's going to cut this.
He's going to cut that.
He's going to do this.
He's going to do that.
And the guy at the Antifa rally or whatever is like, it's the greatest thing ever.
And all of a sudden you find out, It's Trump's tax plan, not Obama's, and the guy doesn't know what to do.
In other words, the guy's a really good partisan, Joe.
He's at a rally screaming, Down with Trump!
Down with Trump!
And yet you ask him about the ideology, and he's all for it, despite the fact that it's Trump's.
Fascinating how we make great partisans but bad ideologues, and how making great partisans first but bad ideologues It gives us a passionate allegiance to the label, the D or the R, but no passionate allegiance to the actual ideas.
Now, combine that podcast and the assertions made in it based on a paper that's out there with another fascinating op-ed I read today in the journal about how the most dangerous people right now in politics, Joe, and I don't mean violently, I just mean dangerous in that they're not attached to an ideology and they're the most fiery.
You would think, Joe, and this challenged my thinking too, you would think, right, would be the the wings of both parties, right?
And again, I don't mean violently dangerous, I mean like they're not willing to, but the guy in the author of the piece says, no, that's not the case.
He says, surprisingly, the most passionate, angry people right now are the centrists.
And he makes the same assertion, and these two are not referenced in the podcast, I'm making, I just want to be clear on this.
In other words, the podcast doesn't reference the article, the article doesn't reference the podcast.
Because he says, Joe, exactly what the other guy's saying about we're good partisans but bad ideologues.
That when you're not attached to a fundamental ideology, in other words, you're a centrist, you're a squishy moderate.
You're not attached to a right wing or a left wing or anything.
People can come in and easily inflame you because you're not attached to a bedrock set of ideas.
In other words, you know, Trump did it!
He's Hitler!
He's Idi Amin!
He's a dictator!
He's a fascist!
And all of a sudden the centrists are like, get him!
Pitchforks!
Now, in the journal piece they make a really good point.
That, do you notice right now, Joe, that he makes the point that the angry... I don't know if it's a he or she, forgive me.
I'm sorry.
I'm just trying to get through this because it's so important in relation to the podcast.
He said, do you notice right now, the people who are out there who are the angriest right now, politically speaking, Kirsten Gillibrand, Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell, all these other people ginning up the democrat-based Russians, the Russians, Kirsten Gillibrand, the senator from New York running for president, the Russians, the Russians, Trump's evil!
Do you notice how these people are not real left-wingers?
I mean, hardcore left-wingers.
They're not!
Matter of fact, the Journal says that Schiff used to be a... They always thought Schiff was a moderate guy, a milquetoast moderate guy.
They said, think about it, Joe.
Look at, like, the Bernie Sanders and the Elizabeth Warrens.
They're not out there doing all this.
Now, listen, they're not our friends, don't get me wrong.
And they certainly will advance the Russian collusion narrative when it meets their agenda.
But he makes the point that the Sanders and Warren people are so bedrocked in this redistributionist ideology thing, That's their thing.
That's their home.
They have a bedrock.
They don't need to focus 24 hours a day on fake Russian collusion because they're so busy trying to steal your money and your healthcare.
You get it?
I'm sorry, but it really is a fascinating point, as it relates back to the podcast, that we make really good partisans and really terrible ideologues.
And that's why there's this separation into teams, because the teams don't understand that there's a lot of cross-pollination.
In other words, R matters, D matters, no matter what the other guy's my enemy.
Make sense?
Does that make sense, Joe?
And I'll leave you with one last point.
One last point he brings up, which is a great one, because I've thought about this in the past.
He says the problem is liberals, he kind of blames a little bit of conservatives here, puts a little blame on conservatives.
I don't do that.
But he says, he goes, listen, we don't understand each other.
He said liberals see the world as the oppressor versus the oppressed.
Conservatives, like libertarian conservatives, see the world as coercion versus liberty.
Think about it though, Joe.
The problem there, and the reason that there's no disconnect, is liberals, I'm going to blame it exclusively on liberals because I mean it, I think liberals are at fault here, not conservatives, is we have tried to explain to liberals repeatedly, and they don't listen, that the oppressor versus the oppressed narrative that moderates everything in your thinking is a de facto result of government control!
The institutions we rightly rebelled against, slavery, Jim Crow, were government enforced!
So whereas we libertarians see it as government coercion versus liberty, you see it as oppressor versus the oppressed, but you don't understand the oppressor's government!
We've been trying to tell you this!
But because you make an excellent partisan, but an awful ideologue, you're not willing to look at our ideology and say, holy crikeys, those conservatives are onto something!
The oppressor's been in the government the entire time!
Stop being such a partisan.
Open your eyes.
And the reason I'm not willing to blame conservatives here is, I... Joe, and you've heard me say this before, folks, I'm being very serious here.
We've been doing this show, Joe and I, a long time.
He's pretty much familiar with my brain, but greater to an extent than my wife is at some point.
I get it.
I've said repeatedly, I get that I don't get it, is a better way to say it.
I get that I will never know what it's like to be a black man living in the Jim Crow era, having to sit at a colored section of a restaurant or drink from a colored water fountain.
There was never separate or equal.
It was separate and disgusting.
It was meant to demean human beings, God's creatures, because of the melanin component of their skin.
I totally sympathize with our liberal listeners, your oppressor versus oppressed narrative.
Fighting for people who are oppressed is a valid, noble cause.
The civil rights movement was a valid, noble cause, and I applaud every liberal who believes in that still fighting for the oppressed.
I do.
I absolutely understand where you're coming from.
I'm just asking you to stop being such a great partisan.
And be a better ideologue, though.
For a second, understand your own ideology, but try to make an attempt to understand ours.
We're just trying to tell you that the oppressor may be the coercers in government who have the legal ability and a monopoly on force to get people to do things they don't want to do and enforces indignity.
I see your point.
Maybe you should see ours.
All right, folks, thanks again for tuning in.
I really appreciate it.
You can get these articles at Bongino.com today.
Please check on my website and subscribe to my email list.
We'll send them right to your inbox.
Thanks a lot.
We'll see you tomorrow.
You just heard the Dan Bongino Show.
Get more of Dan online anytime at conservativereview.com.
