Summary:
In this episode I address the strong likelihood that the collusion hoax is really a cover story for the Clinton campaign’s dealings with a Putin-connected oligarch. I also debunk liberal talking points about tax reform and address corporate censorship of speech.
News Picks:
This Lee Smith piece asks the question “Was it a setup?” about the Trump Tower meeting.
This John Solomon piece from May highlights some of the troubling conflicts Bob Mueller has.
Read this Russian oligarch’s op-ed and you’ll find a few clues about the collusion hoax.
Another distraction by the Democrats in the Russia probe.
Ocasio-Cortez gets fact-checked by the Washington Post. It doesn’t end well.
Omarosa has entirely disgraced herself. She’s an embarrassment.
The government is raising record tax revenue, yet it is still running a deficit.
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 on this fine Monday?
Well, welcome home, Dan-o!
Good to have you back.
Almost not home, folks.
I had a crazy week.
I was up guest hosting The Five, and then I did Hannity with Judge Jeanine as a guest host on... Well, I wasn't the guest host.
She was on Friday night, and I woke up to do Fox & Friends on Saturday morning.
And I needed to get back to you desperately, and I didn't have enough, I didn't bring enough medication I had, so I was in deep trouble.
So Saturday, I was telling Joe, worst travel experience of my entire life, ever.
And I have been traveling for eons.
I mean, the Secret Service, I was away 300 days on the road for the year.
Yeah.
So Saturday, I'm leaving Fox & Friends, and I get a ride over to the studio for an 11 a.m.
flight out of LaGuardia.
Which, listen, I love the people in New York, but LaGuardia and JFK are probably the two worst airports in the entire country.
It's just a train wreck.
Sitting on the tarmac four hours, four hours, four hours, I watched two movies.
I watched Chappaquiddick and then I watched Avengers Infinity Wars.
Then the pilot's like, hey man, sorry, we're going back to the gate.
We're canceling the flight.
They're like, go over to JFK.
Fox had Was nice enough to get someone on the job to get me home because I was really in dire straits.
Didn't have the podcast stuff or anything.
Yeah.
They sent me over to JFK.
Get over to JFK.
Those flights are canceled too.
It's now five o'clock.
And then they're like, hey!
My wife, thankfully, my wife is just amazing.
She's like the greatest travel planner ever.
She goes, get to MacArthur on Long Island.
She's like, there's a seven o'clock flight.
I'm like, Paula, it's 6 p.m.
MacArthur's 50 miles away.
She goes, find a cab now!
I sprint.
I'm like freaking out.
I run it.
By the way, the lady who listens to the show who I ran into sprinting through the skywalk, who I was very short with, I am deeply apologetic.
I love you to death.
I'm sorry.
I just could not talk.
You are wonderful.
She caught me in the worst time ever.
I get in a cab.
Shockingly enough, the guy makes it.
I get on the plane and I get home and oh man, it was the, I got home at like midnight and I've had some awful ones, but this one was by far, The worst.
It reminds me of that the Uber Skies thing.
They're trying to do something in the United States like Uber in the skies for private charters.
I would have taken that, but there's all kinds of legislative stuff getting in the way of them doing it.
I would have totally done that.
I didn't even care what the price was.
I had to get home so bad.
So thanks to the Fox and Friends crew for getting me out of there.
I appreciate it.
All right, sorry about the long-winded introduction, but a lot going on in my life right now.
All right, I want to get through a couple things today.
Tax revenue up again, which of course contradicts the entire dopey liberal narrative.
Tax cuts gonna cost the government money.
Not only is that factually incorrect, the government actually raised more money in tax revenue.
Don't let those facts get in the way of your stupid arguments.
I want to get to this corporate censorship argument.
Facebook, Twitter, YouTube pulling InfoWars and others off the internet and why I think we're all being baited.
Be very, very careful.
Be very, very quiet.
And I want to get to some more on Oleg Deripaska angle and the Russian collusion thing because now I'm almost 100% confident what the Democrats are hiding in this whole thing.
All right, today's show brought to you by buddies at WaxRx.
You all know how much I love my sponsors, but I will not read for companies that I won't use myself or I don't believe the product is good.
I won't do it.
So WaxRx was a perfect fit because I had problems with this when I was in the federal government as a federal agent.
We wore that earpiece all day.
I had problems with earwax.
It was tough.
You have to go to the doctor to get that stuff out sometimes, but you don't need more.
Because we have this kit at home, WaxRX, which takes care of it for you, and it's wonderful.
It works.
My wife and I both use it.
Listen, it's not the sexiest product to talk about, but as I've told you, it will take care of your wax buildup, and it works for me.
The story I'm about to share illustrates how the right product can change your life.
This is from a listener whose nephew had his life changed by WaxRX.
My nephew Brandon dreamed of becoming an EMT and entered training.
However, he quickly discovered he could not hear through his stethoscope.
Without being able to hear the patient's breathing or heartbeats, he simply wasn't going to successfully complete his EMT training.
I recommended he try WaxRx, and he used it to clean his ears.
Amazingly, he removed a large blockage of wax from both sides.
Instantly, he could hear everything, including through his stethoscope.
With his hearing restored, he finished his training and is now an EMT!
Right now, you can try the WaxRX system by typing in gowaxrx.com.
That's gowaxrx.com.
Use the offer code DAN at checkout for free shipping.
Don't forget, we get credit for that, which we appreciate from our great listeners.
Don't wait.
You have no idea what you might be missing because of Inner Ear Wax.
Who knows?
It might just change your life, too.
gowaxrx.com.
Offer code DAN.
Okie dokie doggie daddy from True Romance.
We got to get that sound.
Okie dokie doggie daddy.
Let's do this tax revenue thing first because it's a really, really good story.
So I have an article in the show notes today at Bongino.com.
Ladies and gentlemen, one of my beefs with liberals has always been that it's not just that they don't tell the truth, it's that the truth they don't tell is usually the exact opposite of what is happening.
Think about it with the Russian collusion fairy tale.
Donald Trump colluded with the Russians when the truth is, and we'll get to this in a few minutes as well, that now it's becoming increasingly obvious that there was in fact collusion.
You can take that to the bank, cash that check, spend that money, buy a new Ferrari, folks, but the collusion Was with the Democrats.
Yep.
Well, the same argument happens.
This is the gaslighting strategy by the Dems, right?
What's gaslighting?
Lie.
Lie often.
Lie confidently.
And isolate people from the real truth.
That's the media's role in this.
You know, the media is the propaganda arm for the Democrats.
So they isolate people from the truth.
Meaning they repeat the Democrat false narrative, but don't actually tell you the truth.
This is transparent on collusion, but it's also transparent on economic issues, especially one that infuriates me and Joe, which is taxes.
One of the things in the earlier days of the show, Joe and I used to talk about what, two, three times a week?
Yeah, at least.
Is how if you just look at the data, which you would think a reasonable person calling themselves a journalist would do, on tax cuts, it's clear as day that tax cuts in the past have not only, I don't want to use a bunch of, have not led to decreases in government revenue.
That's the Democrat narrative.
If we cut tax rates, the government's going to lose money.
That has not happened, folks.
Are we clear on this?
That has not happened.
That is a fact.
Look at Calvin Coolidge, look at John F. Kennedy, look at Bill Clinton's capital gains tax cut, Ronald Reagan's income tax cuts, George Bush's tax cuts, and now Donald Trump's tax cuts.
It is painfully obvious that the Democrats are lying.
It's not just that they're lying, it's that the real story that the media won't tell you because they're active propagandists for the Democrats, is that the tax cuts have led to increases in government revenue.
Joe, again for the umpteenth time, if that is causal or correlational, I can't tell you because I'm being honest, I can't tell you because it's impossible to control for all the other confounding variables, I can't tell you if the tax cuts in fact caused it, caused the increase in government revenue.
It would be disingenuous trying to, you know, trying to do this the right way.
I can, however, tell you that they are correlated, meaning these tax cuts in the past have led to an increase in government revenue.
Those two factors are correlated.
There is no disputing that by any rational person, but I'm trying to talk to rational people, therefore liberals will listen to this and go, that can't possibly be true because they're not interested in reason.
Now, understand the difference between causation and correlation.
Causation, right?
I hate to keep bringing up this example.
Regular listeners have heard it before, but it's important when it comes to tax revenue.
The Democrats' argument is that tax cuts cause a loss in government revenue.
Causation and correlation are not the same thing.
In other words, if someone said to you that, hey, cold weather causes colds, causes, you know, the rhinovirus, head colds that happen in the cold.
Well, I tell you that's false.
They're correlated.
There are more colds in the winter.
People get sick more in the winter, but it's not because of the cold weather.
It's not causing it.
What happens is the cold weather causes your nose, right, to increase more mucus because of the dry air and people touch their nose and their face more and transmit cold viruses into their nasal passages.
They're correlated, but it's not causal.
Joe, is that clear?
Yes.
It's not a hard example, right?
We haven't used this example for a long time, but we've used it a lot.
And it's important.
It's true, yeah.
Because if you take out the whole people touching their face thing, there is no connection between cold weather and increased cold.
None.
It's non-existent.
It doesn't cause.
It's correlated to because people touch their face more.
Causal is a high level of proof.
My point I'm trying to make is the Democrats are not only wrong about the correlation, they're inferring a causation that's not even there.
They're saying, oh, the tax cuts have caused the decrease in government revenue.
The first question a reasonable person would ask is, well, is government revenue decreasing?
And the answer is, no, it's not.
It's gone up.
So not only is it not causal or correlational, it's in the other direction.
This infuriates me.
Read the piece by CNS News I have in the show notes today.
And I read another piece in the Wall Street Journal.
Here are some, folks, these are facts.
Again, I'm not trying to get under your skin if you're a liberal listener.
I'm just trying to tell you the facts.
What you do with those facts in the real world is up to you.
But I'm telling you that ignoring them makes you look foolish and silly.
You either don't know what you're talking about on taxes or you do when you're a liar.
Do you understand there's no option three?
This could very well be the stupidest person on the face of the earth.
Nice.
You.
Could be.
You could because there is no option C. That's option B. You could be the dumbest person on the face of the earth because you're just making it up.
Joe, tax revenues.
Yes, sir.
Are now in for the first 10 months.
Of the fiscal year of 2018.
Remember, the fiscal year doesn't start in January, just so we're clear.
You may say, how's that?
It's only August, because the fiscal year does not start in January.
It starts, what is it, October or September?
Yeah, October.
September, October, November.
Yeah, October.
October 1st, right.
So the first 10 months are in.
Tax revenues, folks, remember the Democrat story here.
Trump tax cuts are going to cost the government money.
Not that that even matters to me.
I'm just saying, I'm just trying to prove out that they're absolute liars.
Tax revenues, Joe, are... Up by 26 billion dollars!
Oh!
Up!
Joe, where am I pointing?
Up, Dan!
Up, up, up!
So this is down, this is up.
Oh, it's up!
This is why we need the video, coming soon, hopefully.
It's up!
Yes, we gotta get video for Joe, too, so everybody can see Joe in all his Elvis glory.
It's coming, babe.
Tax revenue is up!
26 billion dollars!
Up!
Now, even worse, yes, even worse.
I mean, I mean, that's good.
I mean, it's good because it refutes the Democrats.
Not that I'm looking for the government to have additional tax revenue.
Based on, this is a quote from the Wall Street Journal, how is it that they cut tax rates?
How is that?
And the Democrat narrative that the government was going to lose money.
How did this happen?
Well, here's a quote.
It's due to increases in wages and salaries.
Oh, Joe, how long have we been saying this?
This is so, folks, do we even, I mean, I'm sorry that for those of you out there who have functioning, two or three functioning neurons in a circuit, that this is beneath your intelligence because it is.
But do you understand this is the kind of stupid we have to deal with in the Democrats every day?
This is, with the Democrats, this is obvious.
You cut taxes.
It puts more money in the economy.
That money filters through the economy into investment.
The economy grows.
As the economy grows, competition for workers grows.
Because you need people to work to produce stuff in a growing economy.
As competition for workers and employees grows, what happens?
People start demanding more money.
People then start to make more money.
So they start to pay more taxes on even lower tax rates because they're making more money.
This is not hard.
This is not, folks, this is not complicated.
The evidence is overwhelming.
You can't point to a significant income tax cut in modern American history that has led to long-term lower revenues by the government.
You can't.
It's not there.
You're making it up.
Coolidge, JFK, Reagan, George H.W., Clinton's capital gains tax cut, Trump.
Revenues are up due to quote, increases in wages and salaries.
This is not hard.
So argument number one.
Tax rate cuts will cause a decrease in revenue to the government is a lie.
Folks, it is false.
It is completely, entirely, totally made up.
It is garbage.
Your friends are lying.
When your liberal friends bring this up, ask them one simple question.
Please tell me where government tax revenue has gone down after a significant income tax cut.
Please tell me where that's happened.
You're a racist.
They don't have anything else.
They don't have anything else.
There's no evidence of that at all.
None.
They just make it up.
Secondly, they'll say, oh well, these tax rate cuts are causing government deficits.
How that is, is perplexing.
How is a tax rate cut, Joe, that brings in more money to the government, causing a deficit?
In other words, an imbalance between what government takes in and what government spends.
Folks, does that make any sense?
Well, it does make sense if you're a liberal, I guess.
But Joe, the numbers are obvious.
Now we see why.
Now to be clear, the deficit is going up.
Deficits are the annual shortfalls, our yearly shortfalls in the government.
Our accumulated debt is our accumulated debt over time.
All these annual shortfalls added up and up and up and up.
Our debt is close to 20 trillion dollars.
Our deficit this year is projected to be somewhere in the neighborhood of between 700 billion and maybe 900 billion, which by the way is an extraordinary amount of money.
I'm being honest with you.
Listen, we've got a Republican in the White House and a Republican in Congress, and yes, the deficits are out of control.
Deficits are a problem.
I don't care who sits in the White House or what you label yourself in Congress.
If we don't do something about it, we will be bankrupt soon.
Having said that, whereas again, I'm being honest with you about the numbers, those deficits are not being caused by tax cuts.
Tax cuts have resulted in, correlationally, an increase in government revenue.
If the government is raising more money, how is it that the deficit is going up?
And the answer is obvious.
The deficit through the 10 months so far, Joe, through the 10-month cycle in the government fiscal year?
$682 billion up to now.
Government spending is up by $116 billion.
Ladies and gentlemen, simple math, simple logic, simple reason.
Again, if you're a liberal not interested in that, this show is not for you.
If you're interested in a real perspective, honesty, facts, and data, I'm giving them to you now.
Government revenue is up $26 billion.
Government spending, Joe, is up 116 billion.
I am not absolving the Trump White House.
I am not absolving the Republican Congress or the Senate in this.
I'm hoping, and I think he will, I'm hoping Trump, the next budget he signs will have some spending constraint in it.
I have my fingers crossed.
I have to take him at his word that he wouldn't sign another budget like this.
But I'm not ignoring the obvious.
You shouldn't either.
These deficits are clearly, clearly being caused by government spending.
But that, listen to me, that's only if you believe in simple arithmetic and mathematics.
If you do not, again, I can't help you on this show.
I'm not here to shill for Republicans or anyone.
I just told you I'm not absolving the House Republicans or the Senate or the White House of any role in this.
I'm not.
I'm just trying to give you simple, basic math.
Tax cuts, government revenues up, government spending is up more.
You saying the deficit is being driven by the tax cuts is pure unadulterated nonsense.
You are just making it up.
You are being foolish or you're lying to yourself or you're just not interested.
You just want to spout off nonsense.
Be like me talking about the NFL right now.
I don't know anything about it.
I'm done with the NFL.
I don't know.
I'd be spouting nonsense.
I have no idea who's good, who's bad, what running backs are.
I don't know.
Because I don't watch it anymore.
You like how I threw that in there?
Yeah, it was pretty cool.
I don't watch it either.
I'm not interested.
Yeah, I'm done.
Thank you.
I'm finished.
Goodbye.
See you later.
Folks, please, I'm begging you to spread this word amongst your liberal friends.
Please ask them to explain how government revenue is up by 26 billion dollars, but that that's responsible for the deficit.
How?
How is government revenue up and tax rates cuts are responsible for the deficit?
It's not true.
It's a spending problem.
It has always been a spending problem.
You can't handle the truth!
You can't!
You can't!
And that's what drives me crazy because I wake up every morning wishing we could have a serious bipartisan conversation.
I'm not kidding.
With people who are interested in facts and sitting down at a table and going, okay, fellas and ladies, it's obvious right now that the tax cuts did not cost the government money.
It's obvious.
Why?
Because we have the numbers.
Can we talk about spending?
Nobody wants to do that.
Everybody just pretends it doesn't happen.
All right, before I go on to this corporate censorship topic, which is huge, hey, um, I'm really, I, I've, Joe, I've been so hesitant to bring this woman's name up because I'm so disgusted, uh, and I just don't want to give her any PR, but it's gotten out of control, this Omarosa.
Yeah.
Um, do you notice me?
We haven't even talked off the air, but I just, I can't, I just, I'm so disgusted by this, um, by this woman.
I don't even want to mention her name, but I just want to say, listen, I worked in the White House for a long time.
Recording a conversation like Omarosa, who was an aide to Trump.
Trump made this woman famous on The Apprentice, hired her in the White House, despite the judgment of other people, by the way, tried to help her out.
Rehabilitate her reality show image with a serious job in the White House.
She stabs him in the back and as she's getting ready to be terminated for, I'm quoting John Kelly, serious integrity violations, she takes a recording device in the skiff in the White House.
Do you understand what a breach of the rules that is?
I worked in the White House.
When you walk into the West Wing, if you ever take a West Wing tour, it's not like privy information folks, it's on the tour.
The SCIF, the Sensitive Compartmentalized Information Facility in the White House, to where you go to have conversations you're sure nobody's listening to, okay?
Are we tracking what that is?
There's white noise stuff and all the kind of stuff they do to prevent people from listening in.
It's right at the entrance.
When you go in there, It is understood you will leave all your communication devices outside.
Whatever they may be.
Cell phones, iPads, anything that has connectivity to Wi-Fi, the internet.
You have a two-way pager from the 1990s.
You have a one-way pager from the 1980s.
Remember those?
You leave it outside.
To bring a recording device into the skiff is such a serious breach of the rules that I don't know how this woman gets on TV anymore.
She's obviously saying things that people strongly dispute, but to record John Kelly, what a disgrace.
What a disgrace.
And by the way, the recording.
How she thinks these recordings make her look good is incredible.
She released this morning a recording of Donald Trump calling her, feeling bad about her being fired, and she somehow thinks this makes Trump look bad.
And then, did you hear the recording of John Kelly, the chief of staff, Joe?
Yeah, I did hear that one, yeah.
Kelly's like, listen, we have some serious integrity violations here.
We can let you go and we're trying to save your reputation.
And Hamurosa thinks like, this makes, she thinks it makes him look bad.
It makes her look like, like a sleaze.
It makes her look so sleazy.
You're in there recording this guy in a sensitive classified information facility.
He's trying to help you and you go and put the recording out for the media?
Folks, listen, for all my time in the White House, I was offered a Joe Noses, an extraordinary amount of money to do a whole bunch of like, tell us about the real Barack Obama stuff.
Oh yeah, yeah, I know.
Uh, no.
No, I'm not looking for your pat on the back.
You just don't do that.
Ain't happening, no.
No, you just don't do it.
And she did it because that's who Omarosa is.
I hadn't mentioned her up till now, but it's just, I want to throw that in there because I'm so completely and entirely disgusted by what happened.
Just grotesque.
You know, what are you going to say?
Don't buy the, people are going to buy the book.
I mean, you know, every anti-Trumper out there is looking, looking in this book for some nugget of truth, despite the fact that she makes claims about Katrina Pearson and Frank Luntz, that Katrina Pearson and Frank Luntz are like, um, no, we don't say that.
Alright, before we move on to this corporate censorship story, which is very important, and I've got some confirmation!
I warned you last week, do not fall into this trap about, we gotta get Twitter and YouTube and our under-government regula- Be careful!
They're baiting you!
The bait's in the water, don't bite!
They're masters at it.
They are, and now I've got the proof, so.
All right, today's show also brought to you by buddies at iTarget.
This is the best system out there for improving your proficiency with a firearm.
I'm awfully bubbly today, don't you think, Joe, for a Monday?
Yeah, you are.
I'm just a little tired.
I feel good, even though I got up at like 5.30 in the morning to do Fox & Friends after a long weekend.
I missed you guys.
So, because we had a tape Friday show a little early, so I feel like I haven't seen you in a while.
I like this.
I like it.
I like this, Dan.
Yeah, it's pretty cool.
I know.
I didn't even have that much coffee either, which is strange.
I had a good weekend, too, after I did finally get home.
But I picked up two new firearms this weekend.
I picked up the SIG 365 for my buddies at Lotus Gunworks, who I love down there, and I picked up the SIG Legion P229 in 9mm, which we had in .357 in the Secret Service, not the Legion edition.
But one of the great parts about having these is you can practice with the iTarget Pro system.
What is the iTarget Pro system?
Listen, proficiency with your firearm matters, obviously.
These are serious, serious tools for self-defense.
That goes without saying.
Safety and proficiency.
In that order.
Proficiency matters.
How do you improve your proficiency with a firearm?
One of the best ways to do it, that was taught to us in federal and local law enforcement, is to dry fire.
That's when you safely unload your firearm.
Safely.
Check it.
Check it twice.
Check it three times.
There is zero room for error here.
When you're sure that weapon is safely unloaded, you've looked, you've feel, You can practice dry firing at the range where you pull that trigger on a safely unloaded weapon.
You may say, well, what good is that going to do?
Well, the good it does is it allows you to practice your trigger pull, your sight alignment, your sight picture, and your grip without any recoil because there's no round in it.
The iTarget Pro system lets you take that to the next level.
They will send you a laser round.
It's a nerd.
It's just a laser.
You drop it in the firearm you have now.
No special modifications necessary.
And what it does is when you pull the trigger, the hammer will fall on that laser round, and it will emit a laser onto a target.
And now you can see where that round would have gone.
It comes with a phone app and it comes with a target.
You download the phone app and it comes with a target and you can see, you won't be able to put it down.
It's like a video game trainer for your firearm.
You can practice all kinds of different scenarios safely in the security of wherever you want to do it.
And your groups will get super tight.
Go to itargetpro.com.
That's I, the letter I, targetpro.com, the letter itargetpro.com.
Use promo code Dan for 10% off.
This is a great product.
I cannot recommend it enough.
I have yet to receive a bad review about this product.
I had one customer service thing, but that was it and it had nothing to do with the review.
It was just the, I think the guy bought the wrong round.
But you know, if you buy it, if you have a 38, you got to get the 38 round.
This is a terrific product, itargetpro.com.
Okay.
Last week I brought this up.
Big hot topic now.
Understandably so.
And I entirely sympathize with the plight of many of you out there who are upset about corporate censorship.
What's going on?
Well, InfoWars, which is a website out there that's ironically seen a bump in traffic since this happened, so I don't know how much they actually heard InfoWars, but this is the new fight about taking people off of platforms.
They have been taken off of, one of their channels has been taken off of YouTube and others, and I said to you last week, be very careful.
This corporate censorship has happened to me too.
Most of you who listen to the show know Twitter does not allow me to run ads.
They've never explained to me in any kind of detail why they just one day told us no, which is upset me, but which is fine at this point because Twitter lost a good amount of money from me, which is I didn't lose anything from Twitter.
So this this.
The debate currently raging is do we introduce the government into this, being that this is the new public space?
Which I don't think anyone disputes it is, Joe.
In other words, the public space in the 1800s was the town square.
You went out, you had something to say, you got up on your soapbox and you read your speech and that was it.
The new public space now is Twitter, it's Facebook, it's YouTube, and their battle against conservatives is very, very real.
That's not new, I don't dispute it, I've covered it on this show for a very, very long time.
And I can make the case to you that going forward, and I just tweeted this out last week, corporate censorship is going to be as great a threat as government censorship going forward.
Although these corporate entities, Joe, may not have a monopoly on force.
In other words, Twitter doesn't have a police department it can send to your house like the government does.
Right.
Oh yeah, the government has a police department.
And many of them.
IRS, the FBI, local governments, state governments, they all have police and sheriff departments.
Although the government has a monopoly on force, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Google and others do have a monopoly right now on the public square.
Now, you may say, well, Dan, by saying all that, how can you then not defend the government getting involved to save what's going to be an ongoing attack on conservative thought out there?
Because this is not going to end.
We've seen a number of people taken off their platforms by Twitter in recent weeks.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is exactly what they want.
I'm telling you, they're baiting us.
And a piece in the Wall Street Journal I read, which is not in the show notes, Oh, but I have a quote from it.
You know what?
Forgive me one second.
Joe, don't go anywhere.
I just want to make sure I give you the title, because some people get upset when that happens, and I totally understand.
Oh, cool.
Oh, here it is.
It's by Andy Kessler.
It's an op-ed in the opinion column.
It's called Warner's Plan to Ruin the Internet in the Wall Street Journal.
I have snippets from it, so don't worry.
But it's subscription only, so I'm going to leave it out of the show notes.
But either way, this is worth your time.
Mark Warner.
Remember the name, it's Mark Warner, the Russian collusion, uh, uh, guy intimately involved, the senator, Democrat.
Yeah, Democrat, Joe!
Democrat!
Let's be clear on this.
Democrat from Virginia, who is not a moderate as he paints himself anymore.
He wrote this 23-page report suggesting a little bigger role for the G!
The government!
We used to call our government cars the G-Rides.
The G!
The G's moving in!
Now let me ask you this.
I'm not a big fan of, like, quoting Sun Tzu.
I think people do that to sound smart all the time.
So let me give you, like, Dan's rules of ideological combat.
Alright.
When you're doing something that your ideological opponent, the liberals, want you to do, do you think you're doing the right thing or the wrong thing?
Joe, this is not a trick question.
The wrong thing.
Yes, because they want you to do it!
They're baiting you!
Now, Democrat Senator, Democrat Senator, let me say this again for the third time, Democrat Senator Mark Warner from Virginia, who is intimately connected to the Clinton team, the Democrat machine, and everyone else in an influential state in Virginia, wrote this 23-page report Pushing for another look at Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
Oh, we only mentioned this two, three months ago.
So if you're a listener to the show, you have not been wasting your time.
Because we were cued into it by someone who said, don't fall into this trap.
And let me be clear what the trap is.
The Democrats are pushing, pushing, pushing, pushing on social media to get these platforms, Twitter, YouTube, Google, and Facebook, to get and wipe out conservatives.
Step one.
Step two is, they think by poking us long, by poking us long enough, and strong enough, that they can actually get conservatives to then call for government to regulate the space.
This is the plan.
You cannot separate the two.
I get it, you're pissed.
It happened to me.
I'm upset too.
It happened to me.
If anybody has earned the badge to come on here and say, we need the government to get involved with Twitter, it's me, it happened to me.
It's happened to me.
I'm telling you, it's a mistake.
You will look back on this show and listen to it in two or three years if you agree to this.
When you see what's happened with the government and their involvement in this space, even worse if, God forbid, Trump's not re-elected and we get a Democrat in here, you will look back in this episode and say we should have listened.
I mentioned the Communications Decency Act a long time ago in section 230.
What section 230?
Let me just read to you from the Kessler piece and then I'll editorialize a bit and explain to you why you're getting suckered.
Please don't fall in this trap!
From Andy Kessler's piece in the Wall Street Journal.
Talking about this, suggestion by Warner in this report to rewrite Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
He says, consider the SOP to lawyers.
One of the magical characteristics of the online world is that anyone can post anything.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act provides immunity to the Facebooks, Googles, and Twitters of the world with one simple sentence.
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
I'll explain, don't worry.
This allows platforms to host almost anything, as well as to block content based on community standards without being sued.
Folks, the Communications Decency Act Does not, allows these platforms to not be treated as publishers just to be treated as like tabula rasas, like blank slates.
Now, I get it.
Many of you, don't you, did you not notice how the left is baiting us here?
How the left are the ones pushing and now we got people on the right jumping and saying, well, they're acting like publishers.
They're editorializing by deleting conservative content.
Therefore we should get the government involved.
Why do you think Mark, you understand they're baiting you into using their talking points?
The minute you treat them like publishers, what are they gonna do?
Why do the Democrats want this?
Joe, if they're publishers, right?
And they're treated like publishers.
And they open up the Community Decency Act.
And now all of a sudden they can be sued for what they deem hate speech or others.
Who do you think the first group of people Twitter, Facebook, and Google are going to go after once they have government legal protection to target you?
Oh, Dan, Dan.
Think hard.
Conservatives.
Amazing.
You're a genius.
Actually you're not, but you are very smart.
Conservatives!
Yeah.
Guys, you're being suckered in a game of, I have to give them credit, four-dimensional chess here by Democrats that is actually getting conservatives in on the... Do not fall prey... You may say, well, Dan, what do we do?
Yeah.
We do what we... Ladies and gentlemen, we do what we did with the news industry before Fox News.
You create Fox News and Breitbart and Conservative Review.
Do you understand this is the only solution?
The solution being proposed by the Democrats and amazingly some conservatives that we introduce the government as a regulator of newly found publishers who are not publishers.
I'm not suggesting they're not discriminating.
They did it to me.
I'm just saying if you treat them as publishers, they are going to look for a hate speech law.
They are then going to hide behind that hate speech law to get rid of your content.
You are letting them in.
This is the biggest Trojan horse in modern American IT history.
Do not call for this.
I told you what to do.
You don't have to listen.
I'm not your overseer here.
I'm suggesting to you sell your stock in Twitter.
Sell your stock in Facebook.
Get off the platform if you don't need to be there.
Cancel your accounts and just don't use Google.
Folks, that is the only solution.
Can you imagine introducing in the 60s a media law to regulate television because of Walter Cronkite and them?
Right now you wouldn't even have Fox News.
You think they would have allowed that?
They would have been like, wow, conservative platform or a frere in balance.
That sounds like hate speech.
No good to them.
Do not fall prey to this.
Why do you Folks, why do you think a Democrat with a significant profile from Virginia is writing this memo right now to expand the Communications Decency Act?
He wants to, and I'm quoting here from the piece again, Mark Warner proposes to change all that.
In other words, don't treat Twitter like a, like an open forum, treat them like a publisher.
He wants to propose a change to make all platforms liable for state law torts.
In other words, you can now sue them where you couldn't in the past.
You may say, well, that's great.
We could sue.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
You're reading this all wrong.
This is going to open up liberal activist groups to sue these platforms for hate speech violations, and they're going to pick the most liberal districts in the country to go to in the court system.
And what's going to happen?
Twitter and Facebook are now going to have legal protection and say, oh, you know what?
To prevent these lawsuits, we're going to not let The Daily Caller, Breitbart, Conservative Review.
Matter of fact, CRTV, none of you guys.
You're all gone.
And you want this?
You actually think government bureaucrats are going to protect you?
Folks, listen, I have an hour with you every day.
I am very careful with my content.
I would not be bringing this up repeatedly and wasting your time if I did not think this was one of the biggest smoke jobs in American history.
You are getting worked!
I get it.
Twitter sucks.
So does Facebook.
They stink.
I can't stand the platforms.
There will be a competitor.
Nobody ever thought.
It may take a long time.
I don't have any good news to report on it.
The best thing I can tell you is force pressure on their stock price.
Cancel your accounts.
Stop using Google.
Wait for that alternative future to come about.
And by the way, if companies decide to jump up, this is why I keep telling you this economic war is important.
Companies want to boycott conservative outlets, you boycott them too.
Remember, conservatives never forget.
Liberals aren't prepared for this fight.
They think this boycott thing is going to work out.
Liberals don't understand the economic damage they're doing to their economy by forcing companies to boycott conservative outlets.
You see where I'm going with this?
Liberals are putting pressure, like, oh, if you advertise on this outlet or that outlet and they're conservative, we're going to boycott you.
Liberals go right ahead.
You're hurting those companies.
You're not hurting us.
We go other places and we never forget.
We take note.
This company boycotted, that company boycotted.
I'm done. We're good with the NFL, Target, they're all off our list forever.
We never forget.
This can't possibly work out for you in the long run, but it requires some patience.
Never, ever, ever call for the government to get involved on this.
Don't!
They will not help you.
Some guy said to me this weekend in a debate, well what about the Commerce Clause?
The Commerce Clause said what the government couldn't do, not what they could do!
The Commerce Clause was enacted to prevent state governments from enacting laws about like tariffs at the Florida border.
So trade across the United States would be seamless across states.
The Commerce Clause wasn't about creating new laws.
It was the exact opposite.
It was to stop states from creating new laws.
You understand what you're asking for?
You're asking for new laws to regulate the internet that will undoubtedly blow up in your face.
Please, I'm begging you to reconsider this.
Sell your stock.
Get off the platform.
It is the only way.
There is no government solution to this.
Okay.
Uh, one more and then I got, I want to knock this out.
This Deripaska exists.
Uh, Oh boy.
Oh boy.
This one's getting good.
Deripaska.
Remember the names?
Only mentioned that name about a year ago or so.
Told you to pay attention.
We knew early.
All right, today's show also brought to you by my buddies at BrickHouse Nutrition.
BrickHouse Nutrition makes the finest nutrition supplements on the market.
One of my favorites is Fielder Greens.
Ladies and gentlemen, we all know fruits and vegetables, copious amounts of fruits and vegetables and all their life-enhancing chemicals in there, in that God's given us these things, these micronutrients, these macronutrients in there.
These color-enhancing compounds in fruits and vegetables will enhance your life, your cognitive life, your physical life.
They just make you feel better, and they'll increase your health.
And this is obvious.
Everybody tells you, eat your fruits and vegetables.
Well, why don't we do it?
I understand.
People are busy.
You're busy.
Soccer moms, soccer dads, who has time?
Sometimes you come home, and at least my wife and I, she always cooks good meals, but sometimes we're super busy, and I tell her, I go, hey, listen, it's pasta night, whatever, because we just don't have the time.
Pasta is not a fruit or a vegetable.
What's the secret?
The secret is field of greens.
Field of greens, they will send it to you.
It is ground up whole foods.
This is not extract.
It's not some junk.
This is healthy, life enhancing fruits and vegetables ground up into a tasty powder.
You take a scoop, you throw it in orange juice, green tea, water, whatever you want.
I like it in green tea.
Sometimes put a little tomato juice V8 in there, right?
It's delicious.
Has a little blueberry kind of tinge to it.
I like it.
One scoop is a full serving of fruits and vegetables.
You are good to go.
I take two, three throughout the day.
It's really good stuff.
Go give it a try.
You will not regret it.
Take note of how you feel before and after.
Give it a week or two.
Go give it a shot.
FeelTheGreens.com.
Check your energy level, everything afterwards.
Go to BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
That's BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
Pick up a bottle of Field of Greens today.
You will not regret it.
Okay.
This Magnitsky thing with Deripaska is all starting to come together.
So last week I covered on the show and I know a lot of you were a bit confused.
That's why I encourage you to be regular listeners to the show because as you hear things over and over again, and forgive me because as I explain the angles and the collusion fairy tale, I know things so I get it how when I'm explaining it, I'm explaining it from a different viewpoint.
How to you it may be a little confusing.
So I thought of a way Again, to kind of bring this, because more information is now coming out about the Clinton team's link to Putin-connected oligarchs.
In other words, the collusion narrative is real.
It's just a Democrat scandal, not a Republican scandal, which shouldn't surprise anybody.
The story's starting to come together now.
A set of messages from Christopher Steele, who was working for Hillary Clinton, have been released, and you heard this on last week's show, but it's important to bring up again.
Christopher Steele, who is gathering information for Team Clinton, it's now clear as day, has some kind of relationship with a Russian oligarch.
Digest for a minute what I'm telling you.
This is why last week was so important.
But I don't think I accurately summed it up for you from a 30,000 foot level.
The British agent, a foreign agent, working for Team Clinton to gather information about Donald Trump, now it's crystal clear has some kind of a relationship with a Russian oligarch named Oleg Deripaska, intimately linked to Vladimir Putin.
Folks, think about how devastating this is.
I should have taken it out to that 30,000 foot level repeatedly.
The whole story has been that Trump's team colluded with the Russians to overthrow the election.
We now have strong, solid, confirmed text, email evidence that it was a person hired by the Clintons who was actually interacting with a Russian oligarch connected to Vladimir Putin.
The only question is why.
What was going on?
Joe, are we clear on that part?
What I'm trying to establish here, you get what I'm saying?
Yeah, yeah.
Is that the Trump collusion narrative is now officially dead.
I've been telling you for the whole time Mueller was brought in to cover up the fact that there is no Trump-Russia collusion, that the real collusion is between Team Clinton and the Russians.
That is now being exposed.
That is why last week's reporting by John Solomon and others about the link between Steele and Deripaska, the Russian oligarch, is so devastating to the Democrats.
And Joe, As if on cue, this will be in the show notes today, what do the Democrats do?
Every single time there's a significant leak in this case, who comes to the rescue?
Either Bob Mueller or the DNC.
Bob Mueller comes out with some breaking news, we're right in Michael Cohen's office and all the information goes away.
What happened last week?
Now last week the DNC Served a subpoena to WikiLeaks for the leak information about the DNC emails over Twitter and did a big press release.
DNC!
Subpoenas WikiLeaks!
Ladies and gentlemen, it's all a distraction.
Whenever you see stuff like this, understand damaging information's coming out or about to come out.
The damaging information is this.
It is the Clinton team connected to a Russian oligarch connected to Putin.
That's the collusion story.
Now, the only explanation where I may have failed you a bit Is why is a Putin connected oligarch by the name of Oleg Deripaska, why is he working with Christopher Steele, who's working for the Clintons?
It all makes sense.
Oleg Deripaska is a very, very wealthy man.
He needs to conduct business internationally with his companies.
Deals in commodities, metals.
He needs international channels of capital flow and things like that.
He can't possibly be confined business-wise to just Russia.
He needs the markets in the United States, the financial institutions, the investors and otherwise.
Deripaska is connected to Putin.
It needs these things also.
Putin needs to maintain his oligarchy.
Maintaining an oligarchy where the connected few at the top basically run the country requires what Joe?
Requires those oligarchs to stay pretty happy, right?
Yeah.
If you're being funded by You know, 0.01% of the population that owns most of the wealth and the money, ironically in a country that practices some form of socialism, not pure capitalism, right?
Which always defeats the stupid liberal arguments.
But if you're being controlled, Putin, and controlling the wealth in the country through a group of oligarchs, you better damn well keep those oligarchs happy.
Putin and Deripaska are connected at the hip.
They've had falling outs here and there, but they've always gotten back together because money talks and BS walks.
Deripaska desperately needs to stay off the Magnitsky list.
What is the Magnitsky list?
Follow me.
Deripaska is the guy now we know is somehow colluding with people connected to the Clintons.
Right.
We know he's connected to Putin.
Why is he working with Team Clinton?
At the time he starts this operation with the Clintons and the communications or some business relationship there or association starts, everybody thinks and assumes Hillary Clinton's going to be the president.
Deripaska desperately needs to stay off the Magnitsky list.
What is the Magnitsky list?
The Magnitsky list is a list of people sanctioned from basically entering the United States and conducting business here.
It's basically a list of Russians who were connected to the death of a lawyer, Sergei Magnitsky, in Russia.
It's basically a blacklist.
Deripaska Joe desperately needs to stay off that list.
Yes, he does.
Who does Deripaska think is going to be the POTUS, President of the United States?
Hillary!
So interestingly enough, Deripaska and his lobbyist, his representative in the United States, wind up linking up with Christopher Steele, who's working for the Clintons now.
The $64 million question, the $64 trillion, quadrillion dollar question right now.
Was Steele accepting payments from Deripaska too?
In other words, does Deripaska, who needs Hillary Clinton, who may be the president, to stay off the list?
Is Deripaska paying Steele too?
And is he acting as a source for Christopher Steele?
Think about what I'm telling you, please!
Is Hillary Clinton's opposition research guy, Steele, on the payroll of a Russian oligarch and also accepting information from him?
You may say, wow, that sounds like a stretch, does it?
Because there are people on the hill that know stuff.
You got that cut ready, Joe?
Here's our buddy Tom Cotton, Republican senator, asking some very curious questions of Christopher Wray, the FBI director, Mr. Wray, are you aware of a gentleman by the name of Oleg Deripaska?
I've heard the name.
Is it fair to call him a Putin-linked Russian oligarch?
Well, I'll leave that characterization to others, and certainly not in this setting.
Chuck Grassley, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, last week sent a letter to a London-based lawyer who represents Mr. Deripaska and asked if Christopher Steele was employed either directly or indirectly by Oleg Deripaska at the time he was writing the so-called Steele dossier.
Do you know if Christopher Steele worked for Oleg Deripaska?
That's not something I can answer.
Could we discuss it in a classified setting?
Uh, there might be more we could say there.
Oh!
Oh, really?
Is there?
There may be more we can discuss in a classified setting?
Folks, again, my Spygate book.
covers this and being that we finished the book what three weeks ago I think that should serve as proof to you that what we've been telling you the whole time was well sourced and accurate Donald Trump's team was set up to take the fall for Hillary Clinton's team colluding with the Russians!
Why can't Christopher Wray answer that question?
If Oleg Deripaska has nothing to do with this then why not just say it?
Maybe we can talk more in a classified setting.
Maybe we can talk more on the podcast.
How does that sound?
Folks, Deripaska is intimately connected to Putin.
The two takeaway questions here for you.
This is critical, which we'll be able to answer more.
Just be patient with me here.
The two questions about Deripaska, who now we know is connected to people working for Team Clinton and is directly connected to Putin.
Deripaska.
People know stuff.
People know stuff.
Question number one.
Was Christopher Steele being paid by the Clintons at the same time he was being paid by Deripaska?
Wow.
Wouldn't that be an interesting question to answer?
Critical.
Question number two.
Was Deripaska a source of information for Christopher Steele and his dossier?
Think about the ramifications of that.
How about that?
How about that?
A Putin-connected oligarch, one of his right-hand guys.
Was he a source of Christopher Steele?
You understand how the collusion narrative is very real.
It's just not the narrative you think.
Oh man.
This is the whole, this is the Democrat, not to go back to the tax thing, but this is what they do.
Tax rate cuts, they cost the government money.
Not only that cost the government money, they raise money.
This is the Democrats.
Gaslighting.
Trump colluded with the Russians.
Not only did he not collude with the Russians, the Democrats did it.
This is the whole purpose of the Mueller probe.
Now, Interestingly enough, John Solomon, and I included this piece, it is a May of 2018 piece.
Solomon knows stuff at the Hill.
Follow him.
Do yourself a favor.
You will thank me for it later.
John Solomon knows stuff.
Let's leave it at that.
I included a May 2018 piece in the show notes today at Bongino.com.
Please subscribe to my email list.
By the way, it really helps us out a lot and I deeply appreciate it.
I don't mean to be naggy, but it really helps us.
The article's there.
Read the May 2018 piece and read about three quarters of the way down.
The gist of the piece, Joe, Is that Oleg Deripaska has a relationship with Bob Mueller.
Back in 2009, as I told you in last week's show, Oleg Deripaska and Bob Mueller's FBI were involved.
They solicited his help because he had contacts in Iran and getting a U.S.
asset, Bob Levinson, out of Iran.
Mueller knows Deripaska.
I told you that last week.
So why are you bringing it up again?
Read the piece.
By the way, let me hat tip the conservative Treehouse guys, by the way, because they did point this out.
But read the Solomon piece about three-quarters of the way down.
Who's the source for the article, Joe?
So be clear what we're talking about.
Solomon writes a piece in The Hill about Oleg Deripaska Connected to people working for the Hillary team now.
He writes a piece about Deripaska's past relationship with Bob Mueller and the FBI.
Who's the source for it?
Adam Waldman.
Read about three quarters of the way down.
Adam Waldman.
Waldman, who is a lobbyist for Deripaska, who is also working with Christopher Steele.
Now you may say, now I'm really confused.
Don't be.
I'm going to explain to you very simply what's happening here because I'm going to tie it to another story I've been working on.
Deripaska, right before the election of 2016, probably gets a whiff that Hillary Clinton's not going to win this thing.
I don't know if it's his political people.
I don't know what, as a Russian oligarch, what he knows or doesn't know.
I'm not suggesting he was a fortune teller or a mind reader.
I'm just suggesting to you that right before the election, he probably gets a whiff.
Because remember, what's Deripaska's primary motivation here, Joe?
It appears to be to stay off the Magnitsky list.
Yes.
Which Putin wants gone.
He doesn't want his Russian oligarchs sanctioned from coming into the United States.
Guys, ladies, get this, please.
Putin needs the oligarchs.
He needs their money.
He needs their influence.
The oligarchs are sanctioned from coming into the United States because of Magnitsky.
Deripaska needs to stay off that Magnitsky list to maintain his billionaire lifestyle and business.
Deripaska thinks Clinton will be president and may be able to help him.
He now has that, oh, moment where he realizes, she ain't gonna win.
Now, Deripaska, who has zero interest in helping out the United States, now understands, oh my gosh, I gotta cover my tracks.
What does he do?
All of a sudden, they get a leak from a lobbyist connected to Deripaska to a reporter saying, hey, we tried to help in 2009, and we were connected to Bob Mueller.
But what else does he do?
He writes an op-ed, Deripaska himself, in the Daily Caller, a conservative outlet.
It's in the show notes today.
He writes an op-ed and drops some major hints in this thing.
So Deripasko all of a sudden says, oh my gosh, I better pull myself out of this, hide my contacts with Steele, and all of a sudden appeal to conservative America and let them know that this is a whole big scheme.
If he was a source and on the payroll of Steele, he was involved in this, the degree to which is still up in the air.
You see where I'm getting at?
First, he's helping out Steele thinking, you know, oh look we can get in touch with the Clintons and we can, you know, maybe stay off the Magnitsky list.
All of a sudden, emergency break, the Clintons aren't going to win.
Man, we better sweep that up real quick.
I don't want to be known for helping the Clintons.
So what does he do?
They start leaking stories, painting him to Solomon and others.
Painting Deripaska, and it's like, hey, I tried to help.
I tried to help get this US asset back in Iran.
I actually worked with Bob Mueller, hinted.
But he also writes this op-ed where there's some major bombshells in this thing.
We've been working on this for a while.
Here's one of them.
Read the Daily Caller piece.
Deripaska writes this himself.
He drops a few names in there, Joe.
Victoria Nuland being one of them.
Oh, Victoria Nuland!
You mean Victoria Nuland from Hillary Clinton and John Kerry's State Department?
The person who is alleged to have used State Department channels to flush information into the FBI outside of official law enforcement channels?
You mean that one?
Oh, he mentions her name in there.
That's right.
He mentions her name in conjunction with a quote about the deep state.
What's he doing?
Why is he mad?
Is he trying to like drop a hint to cover his tracks?
Or is he trying to say, hey, I'm willing to talk about how the Clinton team... I'm not saying this guy's a good guy, don't get me wrong.
I'm simply trying to suggest to you that he probably knows.
He knows about the information laundering operation and is suggesting, okay, now that Hillary doesn't win and Trump's in office, I'm willing to talk.
Maybe I can get off this list.
Because he's on... Trump sanctioned him.
Not a coincidence, by the way.
Not a coinkydink.
He's on Trump's sanctions list now!
Oh, now I'm willing to talk.
By the way, hint, Victoria Nuland?
I know a little bit there.
What name does he also drop?
Oh, Adam Jones.
Senator Feinstein, Democrat on the Senate Intel Committee.
The corrupt committees.
Her staffer who left to work on the dossier.
He mentions him too.
But in the biggest bombshell of all, how this has gone unnoticed, I have no idea.
He says in the piece that Victoria Nuland may be associated with many dossiers.
Ladies and gentlemen, how long is this information operation between the Russians, the State Department, Clinton team members, and others been going on?
There's more dossiers?
Read the op-ed.
It's littered with clues.
Don't mistake, he's not a good guy.
I'm just telling you, people know stuff.
Remember, was Deripaska paying Christopher Steele while Hillary Clinton was?
Was he a source?
And how does he know all this stuff?
And why, all of a sudden, is he writing for Conservative Outlets, writing op-eds?
By the way, I'm glad they published it.
I'm not knocking them.
And why is his lobbyist leaking stories to reporters connected to Conservative Outlets to try and paint him in a positive light?
Because he needs to get off that sanctions list no matter what.
And so does Putin.
And I think he's willing to talk.
And oh, by the way, conveniently, he offered to testify in 2017 in front of Congress after Trump was president.
Maybe a mea culpa, Joe.
Let me come clean and get in their good graces again.
And Congress said no.
Oh boy.
Folks, I'll cover this a little more tomorrow because this is really detailed stuff.
Yeah.
But let's just take it back out to 30,000 feet and we'll wrap it up.
The Trump collusion fairytale is a myth.
It is a cover story for a very real collusion fairytale between Putin-connected oligarchs and people working for the Democrat Party.
A Putin-connected oligarch who appears to be right now desperate to either cover his tracks or do a full mea culpa to stay off a sanctions list.
The evidence is overwhelming.
Bing!
Pow!
Boom!
Don't forget it.
This is all a scam.
All right, thanks again for tuning in.
Please pick up my book, Spygate, The Tempted Sabotage of Donald Trump, on Amazon.
And if you don't mind, subscribe to the show.
I appreciate the downloads, but it's the subscriptions.
It's free on iTunes, iHeart, SoundCloud.
I always appreciate your applause at the end of the show when it's a good one, Joe.
That means a lot.
I don't have a live audience here.
But the subscriptions drive us up the charts.
We haven't left the top 20, 25 in a long time, thanks to you.
