Summary:
In this episode I cover the disturbing details about how the Swamp really works. It’s a deeply corrupt enterprise. I also address a brewing controversy over the Trump tax cuts bill and a cryptic reference by a Jim Comey ally about Loretta Lynch.
News Picks:
Today’s Edition of Liberal Myth-busting: “Do Red States Really Take More Welfare?”
Check out this cryptic reference by a known Jim Comey ally about Loretta Lynch.
The use of Sean Hannity’s name in a court preceding, to attack him and Trump, was a legal abomination.
There were more press at a Jim Comey book signing than people.
When is CNN going to address this massive conflict of interest in the case against Trump’s lawyer?
Why are swampy Republicans withholding their support on a potential Trump re-election effort?
Americans aren’t budging on their gun rights.
Democrats finally discover local rule.
Copyright CRTV. All rights reserved.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Get ready to hear the truth about America on a show that's not immune to the facts with your host Dan Bongino.
Alright, welcome to the Dan Bongino Show.
Producer Joe, how are you today?
Hey man, doing well.
How about you?
You doing okay?
Yeah, I had to like prioritize the content again because we're just overflowing with stuff to talk about every single day.
I've got some stuff on this, the tax bill, and it just, this story's gonna just really upset you folks.
I'm sorry, I'm not trying to upset you, but again, we have to know the fight we're in.
It toughens us up.
Embrace it, love it, own the fight.
It's what we're here for.
It's what we're born to do.
But this is gonna really upset you.
This tax bill story I read this morning.
Because it goes to show you the spinelessness of these GOP cats up on the hill.
Don't do the right thing, do the easy thing.
You know, folks, on a serious note, when I pray at night and during the day, I always say, please God, help me do the right thing, not the easy thing.
That's the only reason that came to my head.
If you're in politics, Joe, the golden rule is do the easy thing, not the right thing.
All right, but get to that first, and I want to talk about something else, too.
Some more shady, unbelievably ridiculous, disgusting, disturbing connections in this case against Trump and how they're trying to take down everybody in the Trump orbit.
All right, today's show brought to you, our buddies at My Patriot Supply.
Yeah, baby, yeah, as Joe would say.
Yeah, baby!
We haven't done a read for them in a while.
Preparedness, it matters, folks.
It matters.
Make sure you have an emergency supply of water, of food.
Make sure you have extra gas.
This is the kind of stuff in a hurricane zone in Florida that comes as just second nature.
But it should for everyone.
Having food stocks on hand or wait seven days or even weeks.
If you have food stocks on hand or wait days, even weeks, for help to arrive.
You need food stocks on hand.
Those are two realities many will experience during this year's hurricane and wildfire season.
If something unexpected strikes, like an earthquake or power grid attack, many more could get caught in the fray.
You don't want that, folks.
Be prepared.
Have your food stocks on hand.
You don't want to wait.
Wouldn't you prefer the reality where you prepared while things were calm?
That's the time to prepare, not to wait for the hectic stuff to come around.
Do so by securing food storage today.
My Patriot Supply has a great food kit to get you started, just as they've helped millions for over a decade now, and I use them too.
I do.
I have tons of it in my closet.
I pay I pay for it.
I pay for this stuff.
I like it so much.
This week, get their 4-week emergency food supply for only $99.
You can't beat that.
4-week emergency food supply for only $99.
That's a low price for security and it's shipped free and discreetly to your front door.
Take action now.
888-411-8926.
That's 888-411-8926.
888-411-8926. That's 888-411-8926. Or go to the special website for my listeners, preparewithdan.com.
That's preparewithdan.com.
This food lasts 25 years in storage.
It's your responsibility to make sure every family member has one, only 99 bucks, 888-411-8926, or preparewithdan.com.
That's preparewithdan.com.
Check it out, folks.
This is great stuff.
Have that food supply ready to go.
You ensure everything in your life that matters.
Okay, on the tax bill, two takeaways.
There's discussion, Joe, to get this thing permanent.
Remember, I had explained to you in prior episodes, those of you who may have missed it, that the Democrat talking point that, well, the tax bill for the corporations was permanent, but the income tax side for you was only made temporary.
Dems are like, look, they're screwing you over.
Folks, that's nonsense.
That's entirely a Democrat focus group generated talking point.
It's a lie.
We specialize in debunking liberal nonsense here.
And the reason the income tax cuts, rather than the business side cuts on the corporate tax side, were not permanent is because Democrats stood in the way.
Democrats stood in the way and forced the Republicans to use a reconciliation-based procedure because they couldn't overcome a Democrat filibuster.
The tax cuts on the income side are not permanent, Joe, so we're crystal clear here.
You need to understand this because the Democrats didn't want them permanent.
They blocked it.
Folks, make absolutely no mistake.
I would not steer you wrong.
I would not embarrass you because I know you're going to debate your liberal friends.
I would not give you a piece of information that you're going to get fact-checked on later and look silly.
That's not what we do in our show.
The tax cuts on the income side are not permanent because the Democrats block them because they threaten to filibuster.
That's why.
Now, of course, again, not here to disappoint you, but Republicans who... I'm glad they passed the tax bill.
I think it was a good bill.
Could have been better, but it was a really good bill.
The Republicans never failing to disappoint, right?
There's some talk right now... Okay, great.
There's some talk... Sorry, I was talking to Joe.
Joe, I have like side conversations during the show.
There is some talk now of, and which I think is really smart, in the Republican caucus up there, of, all right Dems, so you want to play ball?
Let's play ball, daddy-o.
You want to dance?
Let's dance a little bit.
So, you know, the Republicans do have a lot of good members up there.
The Freedom Caucus, you know, the Mike Lees, the Rand Pauls of the world, those folks.
You know, those folks, they have some decent members up on the Hill.
They're like, all right, you want to play ball?
You want to go out there with this disingenuous talking point that we didn't make the tax cuts permanent on the personal side, on the income side?
Even though you guys did it?
Joe, let's put a bill out.
Making the tax cuts permanent!
Let's see where the Dems go with this one!
Ha!
Nice!
They've got them up against the wall again, but leave it to spineless jellyfish Republicans to just... I mean, you got the knockout.
He's on the ropes, right?
You're ready to go, and they're like, let's let him recover a little bit, get a few breathers.
This is what they do.
Why do they... some talk now of not putting that bill up there to make it permanent.
Why, Joseph?
Because some Republicans running in Trump states against Democrats in Trump states on the Senate side.
So Republicans running in red states against Democrats that are sitting in Senate offices in red states are saying, well, if we do that, we may give those Democrats a second chance to vote for this tax bill.
And we wouldn't have that weapon to use against them politically if they voted against the tax bill.
No!
You would.
No Democrats voted for the tax bill.
None.
The fact that they didn't vote for it before and then vote for it later makes them look even worse.
Now I say this because clearly, Joe, the right thing to do here, clearly, is to put this bill on the floor and to make these tax cuts permanent, knowing it's the right thing to do, it is good economics, it's good for your wallet, it's good for the country, and it is good for the conservative ethos, the conservative principles we live by.
More money in the wallets of American citizens and consumers and producers and entrepreneurs, less money in the hands of our government.
We know that!
But they won't do it because, again, they're playing silly dopey politics because they're afraid.
They're afraid of the truth.
Oh, maybe if we let the... Do you see where I'm going with this show?
Is this making sense?
Yeah, yeah.
They're allowing the Democrats basically another bite at the apple, even though no Democrats voted for the bill, saying, well, who knows, Joe, if let's say they're John Tester or Joe Manchin in West Virginia, a Democrat senator in West Virginia, a reliably red state now, that if then Manchin turns around and votes for this second bill, there you go, a lot brighter now, that if he votes for this second bill, we're going to give him a shot to say he voted for the tax bill.
He didn't.
He did not vote for it.
He voted no.
That's not open for debate.
This is not Michael J. Fox and Back to the Future.
There's nothing they can do.
They can't travel in time and change their vote.
These guys are gutless.
Just put the bill on the floor.
It's the right thing to do.
Then do it!
Then do it!
Gosh!
It's really upsetting how spineless some of these guys are.
Now, another thing.
Some public sentiment, again, the bill is not overwhelmingly popular yet, the tax bill, but this is another one of these scenarios where I've said to you repeatedly, do the right thing, not the easy thing.
The bill is the right thing.
Public sentiment will come around in the long run.
The bill, and to be candid and fair, is not polling the tax bill, that is the tax cut bill.
It's not polling incredibly well, and it should be.
There are a lot of theories out there, Joe, as to why it's not.
Yeah, I noticed, yeah.
Yeah, it's a shame, because it really is, as I've laid out in multiple prior episodes, the economic fact and statistic-based argument as to why the economy's turning around, I think largely due to this bill and the anticipation of greater revenue streams in the future, greater productivity, and higher wages.
Because there's going to be more money in the pockets of American consumers and American citizens and American businesses.
It's not a complicated argument to make.
But one of the theories, Joe, which is interesting, I hadn't really considered this, is that the bill isn't overwhelmingly popular yet because people don't, a lot of people, not all, a lot of people don't get physical pay stubs anymore.
Oh.
Interesting.
Do you get one?
Yes, I do, and I noticed my pay increase.
You did?
Okay, good, good.
I'm glad you answered that way.
I don't.
I don't.
So, being candid, folks, I have no idea how the tax bill affected me, because I don't get a pay stub.
It's all online.
And my wife handles a lot of the finances in the family.
I have no idea.
No, I'm not saying it affects my... I understand the mechanics of the bill and how it would work for me even if it didn't.
I still support the bill because I think it works for the economy.
But it's an interesting theory that due to electronic bookkeeping and a lot of people getting stuff by email and they can tap into their accounts electronically and the paperless economy, That most people, unlike Joe, are not.
See, you noticed it.
Yeah.
Because, again, I don't plan this with Joe before the show.
That's fascinating.
That if you get a paper stub, you're like, oh, look, I got a $100 raise.
I got a $50 raise.
I got a $60 raise.
That's nice.
You feel good about it.
But if you don't get a paper stub and it's just your bank account and you're not checking it all the time, you have no idea.
Some people may have gotten a raise and not even know it.
Mm-hmm.
You see what I'm saying, Joe?
They may think, oh my gosh, that tax bill.
What a bust that was.
I didn't get anything out of this.
When in fact, you did.
Yeah, a lot of people don't even look sometimes.
Don't even look.
So, you know, interesting stuff.
I wanted to bring it up because it just goes to show you how sometimes the right thing is just not the easy thing to do, but it is the right thing to do, and they should do it, and they just refuse to do it all the time.
Hey, you got that cut, right?
Yeah.
All right, good.
Here's a story that's really upsetting me.
You know, I've been on it for a couple days, how this Mueller probe is just a smokescreen, and how they are making every effort to take down every single person in the Trump orbit.
What they want to do, folks, the goal here of the Mueller probe is to make Trump absolutely untouchable.
Anybody who touches him is to be taken down by the law enforcement system.
Look at the people we're talking about.
Cohen, his lawyer.
Who's going to want to represent Trump now?
Apparently attorney-client privilege doesn't exist as long as you represent Trump.
Sean Hannity, target Sean Hannity in court.
They targeted Jay Sekulow and his organization.
I don't know if you remember that one.
That was a year ago or so when, you know, Sekulow, who's been associated with the Trump team, they went after him.
They're looking to take down anybody in the Trump orbit.
Papadopoulos, Babbage, Flynn, anybody who touches Trump.
You know, that lawyer Avenatti for Stormy Daniels, the porn star, said, You know, if Michael Cohen is toxic, anybody who touches him, you know, you better be careful too, whatever what he said there.
What they really mean, the Democrats, is they want to make Trump toxic.
They want nobody near this guy.
So that's why Hannity was such a target in court.
Now, what happened in the case, I mentioned it a little bit yesterday, but I'll bring it up again today because it's important and I got some audio here.
It's critical.
Media organizations, Democrats, liberals, interest groups, the swamp, swampy Republicans, all have an interest in taking down Trump.
Why?
Let me break back it out to 30,000 feet.
Trump is not a creature of the establishment.
I'm not sure if I've made this clear in the past.
I've made the case over the last few days why Mueller needs to protect the swamp, but some people have emailed me and said, can you describe what the swamp or the deep state is?
The deep state, the swamp, is a network of bureaucrats, in other words, government employees, not politicians, whose vested interest is in keeping their jobs.
Think tanks, both on the left and some on the right, that really aren't on the right, by the way, but some on the left, mostly on the left, vested in big government.
Some of them funded by foreign lobbyists that profit off pushing for foreign aid and things like that.
Think about that.
You're a foreign government funding a think tank that pushes a Democrat or Republican president to give foreign aid to that government that's funding your think tank.
You don't think that stuff happens?
I told you about the Atlantic Council.
I don't remember the names.
We'll get to a little bit of that in a minute too.
Bureaucrats, big donors, big government liberal groups, interest groups, Planned Parenthood, half a billion dollars a year in taxpayer funds.
This is all a component of a deep state swamp atmosphere, some Republicans too, that profit off government as it gets bigger.
They also profit off their ability to say no.
As I told you, one of the most profound things ever said to me was former Howard County, Maryland County Executive Chuck Eckers said to me at an event one time, when I asked why government grows even when Republicans are in charge, he said to me, because Dan, there's no power in yes.
There is only power, and power feels good in the ability to tell people no.
That's why you pass laws, even when Republicans are in charge, and you expand the bureaucracy, pass laws telling people what they can't do.
That's why everybody in the United States is a de facto criminal, because the criminal code is so thick and deep.
There's a law against everything, and it's nice because you get to hold the government cudgel over people's heads.
You get to tell people no all the time, and what do they have to do to get the yes?
Oh, a campaign donation?
Oh, I get to use your private jet?
You understand how expansive government, government that has a monopoly on force, government that has a monopoly on institutional power backed up by force.
There's no private army in the United States.
Government is the one that can put you in jail.
The FBI, local police departments, the Secret Service, DEA, whatever it may be.
They have that power.
Apple may be one of the biggest companies in the world.
Apple cannot put you in jail.
Period.
Full stop.
And by the way, Apple has competitors.
You don't like them?
Go somewhere else.
May be inconvenient to get off iTunes, but it's not going to put you in jail.
When the government says, you owe us money, and by the way, we're going to sue you for that pond in your backyard under the Waters of the United States rule, you better damn well pay.
There is no alternate competitor to go to to complain.
Government B. There is only Government A. What does this have to do with Trump?
The way the government is metastasized and grown and the bureaucracy has grown, has expanded, its powers grown, its influence has grown.
And by the way, while you're in government and people are getting you to yes by bribing you.
Maybe that's a strong word.
Nah, maybe not.
What are they saying?
Oh, by the way, when you leave government, we have a job waiting for you.
Oh, and why do you think all these people leave government become millionaires?
You're going to be an advisor, Joe.
Why is Trump so dangerous to this Circle... Circle of life!
Is that from the Lion King?
The circle of death in this case, right?
Circle of life, yeah.
Lion King.
Circle of doom!
Why is Trump so dangerous to it?
Because he doesn't need any of these people.
Bingo!
He has never come up through the political ranks.
He has never had a sellout for an endorsement.
He's never had to plant his lips on anybody's butt for an endorsement.
He doesn't need your money.
He doesn't need your campaign donations.
He doesn't need your supporters.
He doesn't need anything.
He has his own supporters, his own base, his own money, and he has never had to cut a deal.
For politics.
Because he's never serious, he's entertained running for positions, but he's never seriously run for office.
People who come up through the ranks, they're a local delegate, they're a state senator, they're a congressman, they're a senator.
Folks, I've run for office.
It is disgusting.
The process is gross.
It's why I'm never ever running again.
Do you have any idea how many people approach you with a wink and a nod for all kinds of like deals?
You know how many deals you have to cut before you make it to be President of the United States?
If you came up through the ranks, Congress, Senate, you know, you were a local city council person, you owe so many people favors.
Those favors are used as a way to keep you in check, too.
Hey, Tony, Mr. President Tony, remember that time when you were a city council person and we cut that land deal?
Yeah, you know, you don't want that going public, right?
Maybe we need to talk about another deal you're going to do for me.
Now, that may be a hyperbolic, kind of dramatic example, but you get the point.
You see what I'm saying?
That the deal-cutting creates a set of almost, you know, bookie, client-type relationships where you don't want people to know you're betting over the years.
And the bookie, you don't want me to go to the feds, right?
Trump doesn't need any of this.
He is so dangerous to the swamp.
Because he doesn't care!
You can see the way he acts, the way he tweets, everything they tell him to do, he does the opposite.
That's why Trump is target number one right now, and everybody in his sphere has to be taken down.
That's why I laugh in yesterday's show when they say, well, you know, Bob Mueller's a Republican.
I don't care.
By the way, the investigative team is stacked with Democrats, as we showed in yesterday's show notes from Matt Palumbo's article.
But it doesn't matter.
Swampy Republicans need Trump gone, too.
Oh, don't believe me?
Look, this is one of the rare times, by the way, I'll put a CNN link in the show notes, but it's worth reading.
It's actually a pretty well-done piece.
Rarely do I do this, give CNN clicks.
But a CNN politics piece, Joe.
Where is it?
Oh, here we go.
Two dozen GOP lawmakers, Joe, get a load of this, are refusing to say if they would back Trump in a re-election effort.
Matter of fact, if you read the piece again, it's rare I include CNN, but it's important.
We don't ever want to give them clicks, but for this episode it's important.
Read the direct words of a boatload of Republican lawmakers, John Cornyn and others in there, read how they describe a Trump re-election effort and a potential endorsement.
I don't know, maybe, kind of, sort of, maybe.
Folks, I'm telling you right now, the swamp on the Republican side too has zero interest in this guy doing another six years in office.
None.
They need him out.
That's why there is no significant outcry from the Republican side about this Mueller investigation.
Not only is there no significant outcry, you've got people, you know, Republicans like Lindsey Graham and Tom Tillis trying to ensure that they enact an extra constitutional, excuse me, unconstitutional, is that extra?
Unconstitutional law to protect Bob Mueller from Trump firing him, which is perfectly within his purview to do.
Now, we can disagree on that.
You know where I stand on it.
I think you should fire him, but we can argue about that all day.
Point is, it's perfectly within his legitimate authority to do so.
Lindsey Graham, a Republican, allegedly, and Tom Tillis, another alleged Republican in North Carolina, want to stop Trump legislatively from executing his own powers.
They are desperate to protect this investigation.
These people are, because the investigation is going to make Trump, this is why I say fire Mueller, by the time his re-election effort is coming to a close in two more years, they want to make Trump so toxic that nobody will work for him.
Folks, this is important.
Don't forget this point.
Nobody will work for him legally, so he will have a substandard legal defense when they charge him with felonious smokery because they're gonna find something.
Everybody's a criminal, folks.
Everyone.
If they were investigating you, they'd find you, too.
Joe, this is important, too.
They want nobody to work for him on his campaign.
No seasoned political operative that understands the mechanics of each state's political process.
They don't want anybody touching them.
They want to send a signal right now by going after Hannity, Cohen, Sekulow, Flynn, anyone, that if you work for Trump, you are going to be target number two, no doubt about it.
Total destruction, baby.
Total, complete destruction.
The mother of all political bombs being launched against Trump.
Now, to show you the hypocrisy in how they're working with the media on this, you may say, oh, well, Dan, that's a bold charge.
They're working with the media.
Oh, yes, they are.
I want to play for you some compilation we put together.
We covered this on my NRA TV show last night, which thank you everyone who tunes in.
It's available on NRA TV.
.com, Roku, Amazon, Fire, Apple TV, 5.30 p.m.
live every night Eastern Time.
But I covered this last night.
This was taken from my show.
This is a compilation of CNN and a couple others.
I had to cut it short just for the sake of time.
Talking about the conflict Sean Hannity, your radio host, had, who was outed in court as being someone who's received some legal advice from Trump's lawyer.
And I'm telling you, You know what, just play the cut and I'll get to this in a second.
That is a conflict of interest.
Yeah, there's a massive, massive conflict of interest here.
Talk about a conflict of interest of having Sean Hannity and Cohen.
That doesn't sound either fair nor balanced.
We disclose anything that might even have a whiff of a conflict of interest.
Even a whiff!
Of a conflict of interest, folks, says Alison Camerata from CNN.
Did you hear that?
She said we disclose anything even if there's a whiff of a conflict of interest.
Do you?
Sure about that?
Who was the lawyer in court The other day in federal court that was advocating for Sean Hannity, who just to be clear in case you missed the story, Hannity had sought some legal advice on a real estate deal.
He's never retained Trump's lawyer, Michael Cohen, who was raided.
His office was raided as part of the Mueller witch hunt.
This is again an effort to take down anyone, anywhere near Trump.
Hannity is a powerful Trump supporter.
He has the second biggest radio show in the world, from what I know, second biggest talk radio, no doubt about that.
And he has an enormous audience every night on Fox News.
He has a powerful voice, he has been for conservatism, and he supports President Trump.
I know Sean and love him to death.
I'm not trying to impress anybody, I'm just telling you he's a great guy.
He has to be taken down too.
Now, I'm going to get to the legality of that in a minute by an Andy McCarthy piece, but Sean, all he did was he spoke to Trump's lawyer about some real estate thing where he was just seeking some quick legal advice.
Folks, I mean, can I be honest with you?
Are we, I mean, liberals, are you, for the liberals listening, I'm serious, are you really that dopey?
Sean Hannity makes $36 million a year.
Do you really think Sean is struggling to find a lawyer or legal advice?
What probably happened here?
He knows Cohen because he knows Trump.
Cohen's a lawyer.
Folks, I'm telling you, I would never lie to you.
I haven't even heard any of this from Sean, from his teammates.
I'm guessing what happened here.
But I trust Sean's word.
I would go through the fire for this guy.
I will bet what happened is they were out at dinner or something, or he called them on the phone and said, apparently it's about a real estate thing.
Hey, I've got this thing going on with the house.
I don't know.
Whatever.
What do you think I should do?
Okay, thanks.
That is not an attorney-client relationship.
Give me a break.
But a lawyer in open court wanted to be sure that Michael Cohen was forced to out that he had given legal advice to Sean Hannity.
Who was that lawyer?
Because remember, Alison Camerata said Sean Hannity should have disclosed this relationship, Joe.
Any conflict should be disclosed.
Joe, even if there's a whiff of a conflict, according to Alison Camerata from CNN, as you heard in that clip, it should have been disclosed.
That's right, Dan.
Who was the lawyer?
Oh, was Robert Balin?
Baylin, Baylin, Baylin, where do we know that name?
Where do we know that name?
Oh!
Oh, he works for CNN and the New York Times!
Wait, he does?
I thought, Joe, did you know this?
No.
I thought we were disclosing stuff.
I thought this was all about conflicts.
So, Allison and CNN, we are waiting For you, every single time you report on the Mueller probe and Cohen to report that as a lawyer, as a financial relationship with you and the New York Times, I want to be sure you guys are disclosing that as well.
Because you were mad that Hannity, the whole core of their argument, Joe, just to kind of distill this down, is Hannity, who's not a journalist.
He's an opinion guy.
By the way, journalists aren't.
I don't even care.
That's a stupid label.
Journalism went out the window a long time ago.
Whatever.
But Hannity has an opinion-based show.
The core of their argument is that Hannity's opinion-based show, if he were to comment on Cohen, Joe, should have been prefaced by a disclosure that he had some kind of attorney-client relationship with Cohen, even though he didn't.
Apparently, according to Hannity, he was just seeking out some basic legal advice on a real estate deal.
This was not the lawyer he'd retain.
Now, listen, I defend Sean.
I love Sean to death.
You're free to have an opposite opinion on what he should have disclosed.
I personally couldn't care at all, not even a little bit.
But if your point, Joe, is that Hannity has no right to an opinion unless he disclosed that, you don't think it's relevant while you're criticizing him on a disclosure to disclose the fact that the lawyer advocating for the disclosure worked for CNN?
You don't think that's relevant?
Do you see what I mean?
By the way, while you're advocating in front of a judge, Who officiated George Soros' wedding.
The judge who ordered Hannity's name disclosed in court.
Although it was entirely irrelevant to any of these proceedings at all.
Hannity is not the subject to a criminal investigation.
He has not been accused of any criminality.
He is not seeking any kind of like, you know, waiver from a criminal investigation.
Nothing like that.
He is not part of this criminal investigation.
His name was entirely irrelevant to this entire process.
But a lawyer advocating To get his name exposed, works for CNN and the New York Times, and petitions a judge who officiated left-wing billionaire George Soros.
The judge, Kimba Wood, officiated at Soros' wedding.
Maybe we should disclose that too.
Maybe we should also disclose, Joe, that Kimba Wood was a candidate for Attorney General in the Bill Clinton administration.
Maybe we should put that out there, like I did yesterday.
You think that's important?
You know, maybe on CNN we should start disclosing the financial relationships between CNN and Lisa Monaco, who worked with Mueller and was Obama's counterterrorism advisor, before she comments on the Mueller case.
As Rush Limbaugh said, and I have a link.
From RushLimbaugh.com, his transcript, read it, it is awesome, of his show.
Disclosing relationships between Chuck Todd, Joe at NBC.
What did Chuck Todd, what, oh, Chuck Todd is really, he should disclose relationships too?
Did you know Chuck Todd's wife was receiving money from the Bernie Sanders campaign, did you know about that?
No.
Maybe Chuck should put that on the show every single time he comments on Bernie Sanders, every time.
Or the Democrats for that matter.
Chuck Todd's wife was making a lot of political donations, that should go out there too.
Folks, do you understand what I'm trying to tell you here?
They are going to take down everybody in the Trump orbit.
They don't care.
This is not about principles.
Oh, it's about disclosure and conflicts of interest.
No, it's not!
Camerata and CNN hasn't even mentioned that they're the ones pushing this thing.
It's not about that.
This is crap.
And it should upset everybody.
All right.
Today's show also brought to you by our buddies at BrickHouse Nutrition.
These guys have been with me from the beginning.
Big fans.
They are a really terrific up-and-coming.
They make some of the best nutrition products out there, nutrition supplements.
I think one of the reasons they have the freedom to do it is because these guys are When you're not like a stodgy, old, established company, you know, we don't want to risk our profits, you're not willing to take risks.
These guys are.
These guys are great.
They put out cutting-edge products and the product I want to tell you about today is one of my favorites called Field of Greens.
Everybody knows fruits and vegetables are the key to a good, strong, healthy, vibrant life.
Everybody.
No doctor will tell you otherwise, no nutrition scientist.
God gave us these fantastic fruits and vegetables to eat!
Eat a lot of them!
We've all been told since we were kids, eat your fruits and vegetables.
There are compounds in fruits and vegetables we don't even know about yet.
I try to eat as many as I can each day.
I try to eat my broccoli, my blueberries, my dried berries, but I work from home and even then sometimes it can be difficult.
This is fruit and vegetable insurance.
The product is called Field of Greens.
It is real food.
It is real food, real fruits and vegetables ground up into a powder.
It's not extract.
It's not junk.
It's not some garbage in a pill.
It is real food.
Fruits and vegetables ground up into a wonderfully tasting powder.
It has a nice fruity taste, a little blueberry, a little cherry in there.
It's delicious.
I take it three times a day.
My kids love it.
My wife loves it.
It has become a staple of our nutrition around the house.
It's called Field of Greens.
I highly, highly recommend this product.
I begged them to put this out there.
I am 43.
I, you know, I'm a little beat up in my joints, but since I've been taking Field of Greens, I feel terrific.
It is really, really good stuff.
Take it in the morning before the show.
It gives me a little...
You hear that?
Go to BrickHouseNutrition.com.
Yeah, that's tough to get that.
BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
That's BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
Pick up Field of Greens today.
You will not regret it.
Love this product.
And while you're there, check out their energy product Dawn to Dusk and Foundation as well, which is the best creatine product on the market.
You want to look like a stallion?
Check out Foundation, right?
Little Joe loves it, right?
Oh, boy, he's a stud, let me tell you.
No, that's Joe's son.
Check it out.
BrickHouseNutrition.com.
You can pick up a few of the greens today.
Okay.
Again, in an effort, I wrote this all in caps.
This is an effort to take down everyone in Trump's orbit.
Now, I've told you over the last few days about Mueller, how he's not a good guy.
We already get that.
But, in the course of our investigative work for the book, we found another interesting angle.
Joe, the gas company, the natural gas company in Ukraine.
Now, if you missed this the other day, I'll explain it to you real simple here.
There's a natural gas company in Ukraine called Burisma, with a B. B-U-R-I-S-M-A.
They are one of the few privately held free market companies that provide natural gas in Ukraine.
It was an appointment made to Burisma, to their board, which is quite interesting.
That appointment was Joe Biden's son, which conveniently happened, right?
And Joe Biden took a trip to Ukraine right after the appointment.
Now, this is fascinating because one of the guys, again, targeted by the Trump special counsel team is this guy, Viktor Pinchuk, a Ukrainian who funds largely This think tank, that's why I brought that up before, the think tank, foreign funding, the swamp.
Pinchuk funds, he's not the only funder, but he donates a lot of money to both the Clintons and to a think tank called the Atlantic Council, which hires a lot of left-leaning Democrats.
Not all, but a lot.
Including Evelyn Farkas, who went on MSNBC and talked about how they were leaking information to the Hill to get Trump in trouble.
Oh, nothing to see there, folks.
So, follow me for a second.
Pinchuk's a Ukrainian, very wealthy Ukrainian.
He donates significant amounts of money to the Clinton Foundation and to this Atlantic Council.
The Atlantic Council in 2017 signed a cooperation agreement with Burisma, the Ukrainian gas company.
The same Ukrainian gas company hired Joe Biden's son, Hunter.
So follow me in a mental flowchart here.
This is what I'm talking about by the swamp.
A very wealthy foreigner, Ukrainian, by the name of Pinchuk.
Pinchuk funds a left-leaning think tank that hires a lot of liberal Democrats, that lobbies the government on Ukraine.
This is what really happens.
Listen to the swamp.
This is how it works.
Foreign government, excuse me, foreigner, and foreign governments too, by the way.
Donate money to a think tank.
The Atlantic Council.
This guy Pinchuk.
He donates money to the Clinton Foundation and the Atlantic Council.
The Atlantic Council then lobbies the Obama administration and others on policies affecting Ukraine.
Nothing to see there, folks.
Don't worry.
No undue influence there.
While they're doing that, they sign a cooperation agreement with a natural gas company that hires Joe Biden's kid Hunter.
Nah!
Nothing to see there, folks.
Now, you may say, okay, Dan, great.
We've already heard that.
What's the point?
Protect the crown, protect the crown, protect the swamp at all costs.
Pinchuk is being investigated, the same guy who funds this think tank that's cooperating with this company that hired Biden's kid.
Hired someone else, one, the natural gas company.
I'll get to that in a second.
This is where it gets good.
But what's also fascinating about this is Pinchuk is being investigated not for his donations to the Clinton Foundation, but for a $150,000 speaking fee to Donald Trump, as I told you the other day, that appears on its face to be entirely legal.
There is not a whiff of illegality to this.
Maybe one of those things where they're like, hey, Victor, yeah, we're looking into this donation you made to the Trump Foundation.
You may want to keep quiet about those appointments to the natural gas company.
Oh, which ones?
Oh, Biden's kid?
You think there may be some emails about that between the Clintons and others?
Keep in mind.
Oh, he said, well, how would Mrs. Clinton know Pinchuk?
Oh, she invited him to dinner.
At her house?
Oh yeah, yeah, that is in an email.
And by the way, her staff has denied that this happened.
They got caught inviting him to dinner and her staff suspiciously, Robbie Mook and others, are denying that Pinchuk was invited to the house.
They have an email saying it.
She knows Pinchuk.
Pinchuk funds an organization that partners with a natural gas firm that hires Joe Biden's kid.
Does that make sense, what I just told you?
Clinton invites a guy to her house who donated $25 million to her foundation, who funds a think tank that cooperates with a company that hired Joe Biden's kid.
And now he's under investigation, not for any of that, for a donation of six figures,
not seven or eight like he made to the Clinton Foundation, a six-figure, $150,000 donation
to Trump's charity thing.
Hey, Victor, yeah, you may want to keep super quiet about that other stuff, buddy.
And maybe we'll make this Trump stuff go away.
What Trump stuff?
Yeah, that $150,000 donation.
Was that illegal?
No, not really, but we just need you to shut up about the other stuff.
But we'll find other stuff that's illegal if you don't shut up about the Clinton stuff.
Now, what's the new news here?
The new...
No ganoos is good ganoos, like Gary.
Remember the Great Space Coaster?
Yeah.
Those 18 and 20 year olds listening are like, what the are you talking about?
Yeah, I remember.
The Great Space Coaster.
I used to love that.
Get on board.
All right.
Now, Burisma, that hired Joe Biden's kid, and that partnered with a think tank funded by a major Clinton donor in Pinchuk, who's now under investigation for a relationship with Trump, Also hired somebody else.
Who'd they hire?
A close friend of John Kerry's stepson.
Now, you may say, oh, well, a close friend of John Kerry's stepson.
So what?
With a close friend, meaning what?
They played Little League together?
Oh, no, no, no.
Let me read to you from an article in the Wall Street Journal that's a few years old.
Quoting from the Wall Street Journal about the guy who's also hired on this natural gas company, partnered with a major Clinton donor's think tank.
In addition to being Mr. Hines, that's a, you know, college roommate at Yale, that's John Kerry's stepson, Hines.
So in addition to being Mr. Hines' college roommate at Yale, Mr. Archer, this is the guy who got hired for Burisma, Was an advisor to Mr. Kerry's presidential campaign in 2004.
Get a load of this.
The swamp, the money.
Oh yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And Mr. Archer co-chaired his national finance committee.
According to his biography, he also serves as a trustee of the Heinz family office, which manages the family business.
Remember John Kerry was, is married to Teresa Heinz Kerry, the heir to the Heinz ketchup fortune.
So John Kerry's stepson's buddy, who also was the co-chair of his National Finance Committee and an advisor to his campaign, and who's intimately involved with the Heinz empire, gets hired along with Joe Biden's kid to work at a natural gas company partnered with a think tank funded by a major Clinton donor, who's now under investigation for a donation to the Trump team.
Or the Trump Foundation.
It wasn't a campaign donation.
Is it making sense now, folks, what's going on?
What the swamp is?
The swamp is a tangled, interconnected web of business people, money, think tanks, donors, foreign governments, corrupted politicians, and bureaucrats who all profit handsomely by the circle jerk of people who move in and out seamlessly out of campaign finance positions, consultant positions, bureaucratic positions, think tank positions, political positions, think tank position, private business, Private business connected to Think Tank.
Think Tank connected to private business.
Back to bureaucrat.
Back to politician.
Back to co-chair.
Back to political advisor.
Back to consultant.
You see the circle of doom?
Trump's not part of this.
He doesn't care.
Now, you may say, well, Pinchuk donated to him.
Pinchuk, he wasn't in office!
The whole point is, Pinchuk's foundation Which partners with this natural gas company hired relatives of people who were in two of the most powerful positions in government!
The Secretary of State, John Kerry's stepson, and the Vice President's kid!
What was Trump gonna do?
Trump was a business guy!
He wasn't in office!
They're afraid he knows all of this, the Trump team, and his Justice Department's gonna take all of this down!
The gravy train will end for all of these people.
All the appointments they get to boards, all of these former Obama people with six and seven figure salaries working for Facebook and other places right now.
The path to prosperity in the country now goes through government.
This is what they're afraid of.
This is an absolutely damning connection again.
It never stops, folks.
This is what they're afraid of.
And this is another reason, when I spoke on yesterday's show about liberals being soft, this is another reason.
I'm talking about swampy Republicans, too.
You and I have had a grind.
We've had a grind.
I had to fight for my position in the Secret Service.
They were hiring at 1.1 out of every 4,000 applicants.
I had to work the streets of New York before I got it.
I had to start my business with no help.
I didn't have any politicians helping me out starting my business.
Joe and I and you have had a grind, man.
I had to go back to school twice, I got an MBA, I got a graduate degree in neuropsychology, all to build a resume so I could not possibly be kept out of that hiring bin.
I wanted to make sure my resume was exceptional.
We had a grind.
Liberals are soft, so are swamp rats, they're soft.
They move from government, then they get hired by the lobbyists that lobby them.
Then they move into a think tank that's financed by lobbyists to lobby the government, to pay off the government, paying off the think tank.
The swamp, and I'm not indicting all think tanks.
A lot of them do really good work.
But folks, the network is about to collapse if Trump is reelected.
They know it.
And that's what they're afraid of.
Did you just hear that with my doorbell?
Yeah, I did.
I usually put a sign up that says, don't ring the bell.
Apparently, somebody didn't listen.
All right, folks.
I got a couple more stories I want to get to.
A lot of heavy news.
Joe, does that make sense?
Did we make the swamp connection there?
Yeah, I think so, unfortunately, yeah.
It's pretty devastating, isn't it?
The whole gravy train's about to come down.
Pretty deep, brother.
Yeah, it is pretty deep.
It is.
All right, today's show also brought to you by buddies at Freedom Project Academy.
America's schools are nothing like we remember growing up.
We grew up in safety, and learning was more important than safe spaces, propaganda, and snowflake culture.
I just added that.
Sorry, Freedom Project Academy.
I can't stand it.
Victim culture.
And even though technology continues to offer new opportunities for learning, I think we can all agree that traditional moral values, once woven into the fabric of the classroom, have practically disappeared.
That's why you need to consider Freedom Project Academy's fully accredited, that's important, Judeo-Christian Classical Online School for Kindergarten all the way through high school.
We're talking about an incredible, interactive education where students attend live classes every day.
With teachers and fellow classmates from across the country, Freedom Project Academy doesn't accept a penny of government funding, which allows them to stay committed to teaching students how to think, not what to think.
Families, you can enroll your students full-time, or you can start with a single class.
It is entirely up to you.
It's filling up fast, though.
Go to freedomforschool.com.
That's freedomforschool.com.
And request your free information packet today from Freedom Project Academy.
Enrollment ends in July, but classes fill up fast.
That's freedomforschool.com.
Freedomforschool.com.
Freedomforschool.com.
Don't forget to tell them Dan Bongino sent you.
Okay.
Very, very damaging piece.
Comey knows something.
Comey, I think, is a fraud.
I don't trust Jim Comey at all.
He has discredited himself entirely.
He was the FBI director for FISAgate, you know, the use of the dossier, the fake dossier to spy on Americans.
Flingate, the prosecution of Mike Flynn, despite acknowledging Mike Flynn was not trying to be deceptive.
Hillary emailgate, where they exonerated her before they interviewed her and also allowed immunity in the case to multiple people in the case that did not deserve immunity and did nothing to earn it.
Comey has discredited himself.
He has destroyed the FBI.
It's their reputation, which is sad because they're really great men and women over there.
But I will say this.
He does have a friend.
This is important.
He does have a friend.
The guy's name is Benjamin Whitties.
He runs some kind of a blog, a law blog.
This is Comey's buddy.
Now, if the name sounds familiar, Whitties is the guy Comey leaked the memos to, to leak to the press to start the special counsel investigation.
So you can consider, Joe, Whitties a mouthpiece for Comey.
They know each other.
They've obviously spoken and coordinated in the past on leaks, leaks of classified information.
By the way, don't let the liberals tell you the memos Comey leaked weren't classified.
They were.
Four of the seven were classified.
At, what was it, the, uh, the, the, one, I'll have to get the, but they were unquestionably classified.
There's no doubt about that.
They were retroactively classified for the seven memos.
I think one of them at the secret level, one of them at the confidential level, but they were classified.
Now, what's interesting about this, Comey knows something about Lynch.
Now, I had some theories on yesterday's show as to what that may be.
I don't want to, you know, re-litigate yesterday's show, but another theory I want to throw out at you This is a quote from Whitties and a piece of the Washington Examiner, which will be in the show notes today.
By the way, go to the show notes.
There's another great piece of Andy McCarthy at National Review about why outing Sean Hannity's name in court was an abomination of justice.
We don't name people in court who are not criminal suspects.
We don't.
Sorry to jump around, but when I was working criminal cases at the federal level, if there's a cooperating witness, Joe, you don't put in the indictment, Joe Armacost cooperated against the bank robber.
By the way, here's his address if you want to go whack him.
We don't do that.
They put, you know, cooperating witness number one or whatever it may be.
We don't out people in open court.
Kimba Wood.
Kimba Wood.
Yeah, Kimba Wood.
You.
I got you.
You.
You.
That was good.
But Kimba Wood.
You maybe just get that too.
I'm a little slow today.
Another good Washington Examiner piece.
So here's a quote from Whitties in the piece being a show notes.
Comey told me this story shortly after it happened and for a lot of reasons it's bothered me ever since.
Partly because of it I look... you pay attention.
He's talking about the story about Loretta Lynch having some trouble.
Partly because of it, I very much look forward to how the forthcoming Inspector General's report on the Clinton email investigation treats the Attorney General.
Do not take that statement lightly at all.
That is a serious, if not mind-boggling statement from Whitties who, remember what I'm telling you, there's no doubt in my mind he is speaking for Comey.
Comey knows something.
One thing about Comey, He's desperately trying to salvage his reputation.
Now, I have no doubt he would throw Loretta Lynch under the bus in a heartbeat, but I do doubt he would throw Loretta Lynch under the bus if he didn't know something, Joe.
If he didn't know something about Loretta Lynch, he would not put that out there through Whitties.
That, oh, we look very much forward to the IG report.
Now, one of them I think is going to be some coordination behind the scenes, as I referenced in yesterday's show about the back and forth over fake Russian intelligence.
But one of them also, I think, is going to be those alleged missing emails.
Those Hillary Clinton emails that are supposed to be missing.
Which, by the way, one of the lawyers... Do you understand, one of the lawyers I discussed on yesterday's show and on NRA TV last night, working on the Mueller team investigating Trump, is one of the lawyers, Aaron Zebley, who represented the guy who testified to having a role in destroying some of those emails.
And the equipment.
You understand that, right?
Just again, to prove to you that Mueller is not investigating.
He's investigating Trump to hide Hillary Clinton.
I think Loretta Lynch's private email, not on the government account.
We know the Obama administration was rife with this.
Setting up fake government accounts under fake names.
Richard Windsor for the EPA.
Administrator Lisa Jackson.
They would set up fake names, Joe.
So you would be Joey Bagadona.
It's not Joe Armacost.
I believe.
I believe some of those emails are going to show extensive coordination between the Justice Department and the Hillary campaign about how to message this investigation, and it is going to be devastating.
That's why I said Loretta Lynch, Comey, they should all be talking to lawyers right now.
This is serious.
I know, you know, it comes off like, well, talk to a lawyer, like one of these, you know, conservative commentator bravado things.
It's not.
Folks, I'm serious.
They are in very serious, credible legal trouble.
And you going out there and spouting off on TV, you are giving, I mean, you are just lighting it up with potential testimony in the future.
Yep, you're darn right.
Whitties is definitely talking for Comey and Comey knows something.
Loretta Lynch is in a lot of trouble.
And I mentioned the fact that Whitties mentions the IG report, because again, I don't want to get into the, you know, it should be fire sessions or nothing.
Again, we've done weeks on that and that's, you know, obviously a lot of us are going to disagree.
But why would Jim Comey speaking to Whitties Mention that about the IG report if he knew there was nothing in it.
Somebody told Comey something.
That the IG, Horowitz, who's investigating Lynch, Comey, all of this, must know that that IG report is absolutely gonna hammer, hammer Loretta Lynch.
There's no way he would embarrass himself like that otherwise.
Okay, last piece today is to debunk this piece.
I have a You know, for those of you regular listeners, I'm a little disappointed.
I'm always candid with you because I love you to death.
Not in you, and maybe it's me.
I'm not doing a good enough effort to advertise this.
I mean that.
This is totally on me.
But we have a section on our website, Bungino.com, called Debunk This, and we hired Matt Palumbo, who I love.
He's a young guy.
He's the best.
And there's nobody better at debunking dopey liberal arguments.
That's actually how I found him.
Quick story.
I was sick one day with a neurovirus like five years ago and I'm in my house for days and I'm reading these articles.
I'm like, man, this guy's a genius.
Who is it?
It was Matt.
And he was writing all the debunking these articles about, you know, the Kansas tax cuts and all this other stuff.
And I'm like, I got to get this guy.
So finally we hired him over here at Bongino.com as an independent contractor to do some pieces for us.
So the section debunk this.
He takes on about four or five issues a week and he puts them in and they are great.
It is considerate a conservative education in arguing with liberals because anything they tell you, anything, almost anything is up at the bunk this right now and we're producing fresh content every Monday.
He uploads a ton of articles.
They're in my show notes.
If you sign up to my email list, I'll put them at the top every time, but one of them he did, which is really, really good.
Is an ongoing leftist meme and myth that it's red states, Joe, that are taking most government welfare.
The liberals use this to discredit Republicans.
They go, oh, you Republicans are all phonies.
You want small government.
But look, red states take the most welfare.
So Matt, and I told him, you have to keep these articles short.
All of them are under 600 words.
You can read them in five minutes tops.
And they're all bullet pointed out.
Matt masterfully, yet again, debunks that stupid article.
Point number one.
Red states are naturally eligible for more public assistance, Joe, because they have lower costs of living.
And the federal poverty line and eligibility for benefits doesn't take that into account.
So, for instance, Texas has a higher poverty rate than California in the official statistics, Joe.
But California has a higher poverty rate once you adjust for the cost of living differences.
Despite this, Texas would still be more eligible for federal assistance.
You get what he's saying there?
That yeah, Texas may get more federal assistance, but it's only because the cost of living is cheaper and a lot of this stuff doesn't take that into account.
That's in the piece.
Point number two.
Many of these, you know, quote, the analysis here, when red states get more welfare, are including Social Security and Medicare as, quote, welfare, as if recipients have the choice of foregoing them.
Given that seniors, this is important, tend to lean Republican, this technically could tilt the stats.
Here's another one.
This is a doozy.
And people aside, what about the claim that red states are moochers?
Is it true that red states tend to have a larger percentage of their budgets subsidized by the federal government than blue states?
It may be, but here's, this is the kicker, but only because their budgets are relatively smaller, according to the federalist Kyle Salmon.
So if you're gonna go by percentages, in other words, Joe, 35% of red state budgets are funded by the federal government.
Notice how they don't use the actual amount?
Why would the percentage matter?
Because red states spend less money, so of course the percentage of money is going to be higher.
You get what I'm saying, Joe?
If I give you, Joe, you're a liberal governor.
Your state spends $100 billion.
I'm a conservative governor.
Say everything else is equal, population, everything else.
My state spends $80 billion, so my state spends $20 billion less than you.
Everything else equal.
That's right.
If we both get $10 billion from the government, My state looks like a moocher.
Folks, we got the same amount.
The point is, my state just spends less, so the percentage looks higher.
This is the scam, liberals!
And this is why I'm upset, because it's been getting decent traffic, but I was hoping to get more, because Matt is really lighting it up.
And I get it, I'm not trying in any way to be objective.
It's my website.
But we don't You know, I didn't do it as a money-making endeavor.
We paid him just because I wanted to do this for you because I love debating liberals.
And to do it, you have to have these facts right at the tip of your tongue all the time.
You're not going to have time to Google it.
You have to know all this stuff in advance.
And this is one of the arguments you're going to have against conservatives.
Oh, you guys are hypocrites.
Red states are moochers.
Really?
Maybe because they spend less and the percentages are off because they spend less money.
How are they moochers?
Explain that again.
They don't get it!
So I did this debunk this piece.
Go check him out.
He's got a ton of them over.
That's just one.
That's just today's.
But there are a boatload of good ones in there.
Check it out.
I'll put them in the show notes today.
All right, folks, thanks again for tuning in.
I really appreciate it.
Like I said, go check us out at bongino.com, and I will see you all hopefully tonight, 5.30 p.m.
Eastern Time, nratv.com.
You just heard the Dan Bongino Show.
Get more of Dan online anytime at conservativereview.com.
