Summary:
In this episode I address the troubling media cover-up of the Spygate scandal. I also reveal a new connection to the FBI and the Trump team.
News Picks:
Stop calling this hate group “anti-fascist.” They are fascists.
Here’s the real reason Peter Strzok was fired.
This Miami Herald piece about Roger Stone contains some troubling information about an FBI-connected individual.
This Chuck Ross piece covers the origins of the NRA/Russia story.
Here are the real costs of Ocasio-Cortez’s “socialism.”
What’s really driving the deficits?
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.
All right, welcome to Dan Bongino's show.
Producer Joe, how are you today?
Happy Tuesday, Dano.
I'm doing well.
Thanks, man.
Man, our audience is so big now that when I miss a joke, which I often do, I get probably a thousand emails from people.
Yes, I don't get every bit of Joe's humor, but I feel like you all know me so well that you even know When I miss a joke.
Some of you have no idea what I'm talking about.
Some of you may.
But yeah, I missed Joe's joke yesterday about the baiters.
You can figure out the rest.
And I got all these emails.
Man, how did you miss?
I don't know.
Joseph, witty cat.
I'm not.
Sometimes it goes right over my head like it never even happened.
I told Dan I thought he just blew it off.
I wasn't, you know, I didn't even notice.
Sometimes I do blow it off.
Like if I have a topic I really want to get to, sometimes Joe, you know, provides some comic relief and I just keep going.
But no, yesterday I entirely missed it all together.
I was not blowing you off at all.
Very funny.
Had a rough night last night.
The fire alarms again in my house went off.
It's driving me crazy.
I cannot figure out what's going on.
Someone told me dust or spiders get in there or something.
I'm like, oh gosh.
It was my daughter's first day of school today.
And the last thing I needed at one o'clock in the morning was a fire!
Fire!
Fire!
Screaming in my ear.
And then you're all hyped up.
You can't go back to sleep.
Oh gosh.
So, uh, big news day yesterday.
Right when we get off the air, we find out Peter Stroke has been terminated, fired from the FBI.
It was like, oh boy, man, this is, uh, this is going to be interesting.
So, uh, I got a lot to cover today.
Let's get right to it.
Today's show brought to you by our buddies at My Patriot Supply.
Hey, can you imagine going months with only the food in your pantry right now?
You probably can.
I know I can.
We don't shop enough for that.
Well, unfortunately, this reality is brutal.
This is top of the mind right now for people in Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria.
Folks, this is why we need a plan to take care of our families if a crisis strikes where we live.
This is absolutely imperative.
You insure everything in your lives that matter.
We insure our cars, we insure our health, we insure our teeth.
People have vision insurance for eyeglasses, but some people, shockingly, do not have a food insurance plan.
Think about that!
That's crazy!
You have insurance for your eyeglasses, but not for food?
My friends at My Patriot Supply understand this need.
They're busy this month helping Patriots prepare, and the need to prepare has never been greater.
Don't forget this.
This is what we did in my entire prior line of work.
All we did was focus on preparedness.
My Patriot Supply right now will sell you a two-week supply of emergency food.
It lasts for 25 years, folks.
It was $137, it's now $75.
This is a special deal.
Go check it out.
You don't have to worry about your food, okay?
25 years is a two week supply.
I have a bunch of these.
It was $137, it's now $75.
This is a special deal.
Go check it out.
Go to preparewithdan.com.
That's preparewithdan.com or call 888-411-8926.
Go online to preparewithdan.com, pick up your two-week supply of emergency food.
It was $137, now it's just $75.
Go pick it up, put yourself at ease, have a food insurance plan.
It is critical.
All right.
So, before I get to stroke, a couple of other things.
I have a great article up at Sorry, I'm going to turn that up a little bit, a little bit of the gain.
Sorry if the audio is a little out, folks.
I have to, I've been recording my audio book, so the audio, I have to keep adjusting and I don't like messing with the show.
But, um, I want to make sure for you guys, it's obviously great.
Um, where was I going?
Where was I going?
Oh, a great article in the Washington Examiner today about Antifa.
I really would like you to read it if you get the chance at Bongino.com.
Of course, if you subscribe to my email list, I'll send you these articles.
But please, we should stop calling these people Antifa.
We should just start calling them what they are, which are hate groups.
Thugs, criminals, savages, basically what I did on the Laura Ingram show last night.
These are not anti-fascist.
That's what Antifa is supposed to stand for.
Now if you read the piece, the author brilliantly goes into how this is 1930s Stalinist propaganda.
How this is what the original Marxist-Communist In their effort to combat people, remember, in their war against freedom, I guess is what I'm getting at, they've used these semantics, this rhetorical war, to get people, they do what's called framing.
Framing and gaslighting.
They frame an argument in their terms and then they gaslight you to believe that this stuff is true.
Framing themselves, these violent, brutal thugs, these speech suppression, civil liberties threatening advocates, right?
These animals who go and, you know, spits in the face of police officers, attack people brutally.
In an effort to get you to frame them as something different, what do they call themselves?
They call themselves anti-fascists.
And the author goes into, in the article, the history of the term anti-fascism and how it is used by actual fascists and communists To get you to believe that they're on the side of liberty and freedom when they're not.
Oh yeah.
These Antifa thugs are animals.
This is a propaganda ploy.
Anti-fascism.
And he talks about in the piece how anti-fascism has been used for a label to cover for violence and aggression and political suppression and anti-civil liberties advocacy for eons.
So, you know, I don't have a lot to add on that.
I just want to strongly encourage you to read the piece because last night I was doing Laura Ingraham's show and I lost my marbles last night on the show.
I mean, I just did.
I mean, in a good way.
I don't mean like in a, you know, psychosis way, but it was late and I'm in a particularly salty mood yesterday because I'm just, I'm tired.
I'm just, I'm exhausted physically and mentally having to deal with the media buffoonery around this topic.
20 people show up in Washington, D.C.
Hysterically, Joe and A, unite the right.
These people have nothing to do with the right at all.
I don't know these people.
I want nothing to do with these people.
20 people.
20 people.
I could get more people to show up at a book signing in Siberia than these people got to show up in Washington, D.C.
The media spends the entire week in hysterics.
White supremacists rally.
20 people show up, the media the entire week in absolute hysterics, and they completely avoid the story that the Antifa, anti-First Amendment, anti-civil liberties, violence, hate group thugs show up and start basically attacking people again!
Attacking reporters, spitting in the face of cops.
That story is completely ignored to focus on 20 people who show up in Washington, D.C.
And hysterically, the media labels Antifa an anti-hate group.
Because, ladies and gentlemen, the media is a propaganda outfit.
Listen, again, because I have to always caveat this and I mean it, I am an absolute believer in the free press.
Unfortunately, the free press has the ability to be stupid, which they always take us up on that offer.
This is not anti-hate, okay?
Antifa is a hate group.
They embody hate.
They worship hate.
They love hate, violence, anger, aggression, greed.
This is what they are!
Don't buy into the media hype and please, please do not fall into this trap by the media where they're trying to get you to apologize for some racial identity politics group.
So, how do you feel about the white supremacists?
The same way I feel about anybody who engages in racist-type behavior.
Why are you associating them with us?
They have nothing to do with us at all.
What are you talking about?
I don't even answer those questions.
Well, dude, you know, when you see people with their faces covered up, you know that's a bad sign in the very beginning.
Right.
Why are you covering your face up, right?
I mean, you know...
There's a reason you're doing that, because you know you're going to be engaged in criminal thuggery, and you don't want to be exposed and become a YouTube celebrity.
Bingo!
Or infamy, I should say.
Hey, there's another angle.
Wait, let me just cover Stroke quickly, because I got a couple other things I want to get to which are really interesting, including an angle.
An angle on the... How do I say this without sounding like a pretentious jerk?
And I'm really not trying to do that.
It's not my goal, ever.
So Joe, people in the media are starting to finally catch on to our theory here that I think we have a lot of good backing for, you know, it's in my book, about this entire operation on Trump being a setup.
Yeah, I noticed, yeah.
I think even some in the liberal media are now starting to come around to the idea that yes, there may have been something shady that went on in the Trump operation, but they're still holding out there was actual collusion.
So just to be clear on this, My operating theory on this entire Trump-Spygate debacle and why I think it's such a big deal is because I'm sure, based on our research now, that this was a setup.
As I keep saying to you, it's not that they tried to pull information out of the Trump team about Russian collusion.
It's that they pushed the information in.
The media is still operating on a theory that Government entities that may have been weaponized in this case and may have engaged in some form of malfeasance or misfeasance show.
They're still engaged in the theory though that they did it because Trump was colluding with the Russians.
They were trying to pull the information out.
So do you see the difference?
Yeah.
This is a critical distinction.
I want to be crystal clear on this.
Because what I'm going to tell you next is some pretty surprising stuff, and I'm very proud of the fact that me and Joe have been at least three to four months ahead of the news cycle, and this is going to be the next big story.
So get ready.
But you won't understand the next big story if you don't understand the A-B comparison here.
Me, I think, I don't want to speak for other people in the media, but I know other folks out there who are working on this.
Lee Smith primarily has done a great job at Real Clear Investigations and Tablet Mag.
Are operating on the theory that Trump-Russian collusion does not exist.
Okay, folks, please understand.
It's a myth.
That the effort to pull and spy on the Trump team and pull the collusion information out had to be a setup.
Why, Joe?
Because there was nothing to pull out.
Right.
It's like me investigating Joe for a bank robbery he didn't commit.
And I know he didn't commit it, but I'm constantly trying to get Joe to admit to the bank robbery.
So the A side, the A-B comparison here, A is us, the conservatives, B is the liberal media.
The A side says there was no Russian collusion.
The real scandal is they were trying to pull the information out that they pushed in, that they sent contacts into the Trump team to go, hey, what do you think about the Russians?
What do you think about the Russians?
We've got information on the Russians.
Now I'm going to give you a quote later from the Miami Herald and a piece that was sent to me, great job, that I haven't touched on this topic in a while, that shows you how the media is in on this scam.
That the whole scam was to go up to Trump team members and say, hey, the Russians may have information on Hillary and to report back on if they bid or not.
That's the scam.
The media now and the libs are still holding out on the B side.
The media and the libs are still, they're not, I think they've given up, Joe, on the fact that the investigation was above board.
They may not say that publicly, but I think even the kooks at CNN and MSNBC understand that there were a lot of nasty things.
I'm serious.
I'm not giving them credit.
I'm just telling you that these people are devious.
A lot of them are really shady characters, but they're not stupid.
They have to be reading this going, okay, this doesn't look that good.
They justify it by assuming that there was an actual bank robbery.
And although the FBI investigation of the bank robbery didn't go particularly well, these were noble characters because they were trying to solve a bank robbery.
They still believe that there was Russian collusion.
There wasn't.
Understanding that, you'll see why the media is blind to what's finally starting to come out, at least on the fair media and Fox and stuff and in the conservative media.
Lee Smith was on Tucker yesterday and his piece in Real Clear Investigations, which is in yesterday's show notes, about the Trump Tower meeting.
And listen, I've spoken to Lee.
We're not like close friends, but I know Lee.
I've had him on my NRA TV show.
He's a great guy.
He's a terrific reporter.
Lee, I, and others, Joe, have been on this for months.
It's not a pat on the back.
I just, again, don't want you to think you're wasting your time here.
The Trump Tower meeting article he did, it went nuclear yesterday.
That the Trump Tower meeting between Don Jr.
and the Russian lawyer may have, in fact, been a setup.
This is old news to Lee and to me.
It's only just now starting to filter out.
Now, get what I'm saying here.
I'm talking about now the A-side.
That all of these contacts with the Trump team were not in fact efforts to collude with the Russians.
They were in fact pushed contacts by the government trying to set up the Trump team for collusion with the Russians.
The Trump Tower meeting where the Russian lawyer who shows up is working with a company hired by Hillary.
The former Russian intelligence officer that shows up is very close to the Clinton sphere.
His lawyer is very close to the Clinton orbit.
The translator that shows up has done work with the State Department.
The connections are endless to the Clinton team.
Everybody who contacts the Trump orbit has some connection to either the FBI or the Clinton
team and almost no contact with actual Russians who have dirt on Hillary, which is the great
irony.
Now we got another one.
Oh yeah, we got another one.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
You may have missed this, but this is going to be the next story.
And it ties two specific lines of thinking in.
One line of it is the one I was just talking about, that there is no Russian collusion, all of these contacts were forced, were forced by the federal government.
The other thread I've been dealing with the entire time is that the Mueller probe was very specifically engineered for one reason, and Mueller was selected, and his conflicts, and the conflicts of his lawyers, who were mostly Clinton people, They were selected for a reason.
It's to run interference and to keep the attention on the Trump collusion fairytale, even though they know it doesn't exist, while keeping attention away from all the really nasty stuff that happened with the FBI on the Clinton side and on the weaponization of government side against the Trump team, okay?
The Mueller team is a distraction.
It's a probe.
The probe is only there to keep the attention on the Trump team.
And every single time news starts to break you can expect Mueller to drop a new quote bombshell about something he's doing to, you know, to keep the attention on Trump.
We saw it with Cohen and other things.
The story I'm about to tell you ties both of those together.
So.
The contacts.
The contacts matter.
Everyone who contacts the Trump team has some connection to Fusion GPS or the FBI.
I read an article the other day about Roger Stone, who was, you know, a friend to Trump, knows Trump, and may have provided some political guidance.
The exact extent of the relationship's unclear.
I've met Roger Stone once or twice.
We're not, again, we're not buddies.
I actually just saw him not that long ago at an event I was at.
But I know who Roger Stone is, and most of you do.
And just to be clear, he is a political consultant.
He's been around for a long time.
And he had provided, apparently, some kind of political advice to the Trump team.
So I see an article, Joe.
In a left-leaning news outlet saying, Mueller, Mueller's closing in on Stone.
And what's of course the first thing that comes to mind?
Okay, what are they covering up now?
Because I know what Mueller's doing.
What are they covering up now, right?
Anytime you read Mueller's closing in on someone, understand there's either some other story that's gonna break they're trying to cover up, or they're looking into someone Because that person's connected to the Clinton team too and they're trying to let the Pinchuk case comes to mind and the other ones where Mueller's closing in on Pinchuk.
Pinchuk was a Clinton donor.
What are you talking about?
Mueller was investigating for a speaking fee to Trump.
Did that make any sense?
Only if you don't know what you're talking about.
So when I saw Mueller closing in on Stone, I thought, what are they hiding now?
Oh boy!
Oh!
Oh, what are they hiding?
I have an article in the show notes today.
It's from about a month ago or so, but didn't get a lot of mainstream media coverage from the Miami Herald.
Stone was contacted back in March of 2016.
Another contact, Joe!
By someone alleging to have dirt on Hillary!
Amazing!
Now, again, if you're in the media, and you're a liberal, you know, hack, and you're not interested in the facts and the data and doing any research on this case at all, because you're a propagandist for the Democrat Party, Then you'd say, in March of 2016, Stone was contacted by another person alleging to have dirt on Hillary?
Russian collusion!
If you're a sane person who's actually done the homework on this case, the first thing you start looking for is connections to who?
The FBI or the Clinton team?
So what do we got?
Well, we got a doozy of a Miami Herald story about a guy named Henry Greenberg.
Who in March of 2016, wait, March of 2016, according to the FBI, the investigation, that's right Joe, into Trump didn't start until July.
Oh, paragraph one rewritten again, isn't that?
Wow, that's crazy.
Remember I told you, the context, the paragraph one, how they started this case, the FBI cannot seem to develop a coherent story here.
So, in March of 2016, long before the FBI investigation starts into Donald Trump, allegedly, this guy Henry Greenberg approaches Roger Stone and Michael Caputo, another associate of the Trump orbit somehow, and asks for two million dollars for information on Hillary Clinton.
Just incredible how all these people keep approaching the Trump orbit.
George Papadopoulos, Carter Page.
Ladies and gentlemen, how stupid do you have to be to believe at this point this is all chance?
I mean, this is seriously insane at this point.
What's interesting about this interaction?
Of course, I'm not just going to leave you there.
You may say, okay, great.
So a guy approached Stone and Caputo, alleging to have information on Hillary.
What's your point?
Caputo goes in for an interview.
About his contacts with the Russians.
And he says, you know what was interesting?
The FBI seemed more familiar with this guy Greenberg who approached them than I did.
They seemed to have all the answers before I even answered the question.
Even more interesting, Greenberg has in his file these parole letters.
Parole type letters as are issued by federal law enforcement for cooperation with the FBI in the past and there are very credible allegations that Greenberg may have been an FBI source in the past.
Oh, oh really?
Oh, isn't that crazy?
So now we have a March 2016 meeting before a crossfire hurricane starts with yet another person alleged to be some Russian agent with contacts and dirt on Hillary That approaches a Trump team member with an offer of dirt or info, whatever it may be, yet another person who is seemingly connected to the FBI by a paper trail as a potential source in the past.
And during the meeting, Caputo says the FBI had more information about the source than I did.
But again, listen, media types out there, I understand you have no entrepreneurial interest in doing actual journalism.
You may want to start asking questions because this is going to blow up entirely in your face.
Now does it make sense?
Joe, Mueller's closing in on Stone.
Here we go again.
Whenever you want to find out what the Mueller team is up to, just look for the connections to Hillary, Fusion GPS, and the FBI, and you'll figure it out right away.
This Greenberg guy, Read the Miami Herald piece, please.
It's in the show notes today.
Has connections, a paper trail, with the FBI.
Again!
Another source!
Now, to be clear, was he working for the FBI in this case?
Open question at this point.
I cannot confirm that on the show.
In other words, was he working for the FBI specifically with regards to this contact with Caputo?
We don't know that yet.
Was he just, was it, you know, or was it some kind of a shakedown?
In other words, hey, give me two million.
I'll give you information on Hillary.
Um, I'm not sure that's, that's an effective shakedown.
That's kind of a ridiculous price.
I mean, listen, I worked in law enforcement.
That's anyone who's seriously trying to get money for someone, uh, doesn't ask for $2 million right out of the chute for stuff like that.
Especially given a lot of the information on Hillary, sadly was already out there on the internet.
Yeah.
But what we can confirm is that there is most definitely a paper trail between Greenberg and contacts with the FBI.
Now, what's interesting, Joe, is the FBI is not commenting on their relationship with Greenberg.
Folks, again, it is now starting to seep out into the media.
Not the left-wing media, because they're still convinced that there actually is Trump-Russia collusion.
There isn't.
That will never happen.
It does not exist, okay?
But when you look at Fox and you look at other outlets and Lee Smith's been doing God's work on this as well.
You're starting to see the narrative about this being this being a setup that Trump was framed is finally starting to make it out there and everything we've been talking about for the last six months is starting to come out.
I told you I was vectored in the right direction in this early very early and I I came across a piece of information Hat tip to Lee Smith, by the way, for a lot of it.
That pointed me in the right direction.
Lee has been on this for a very long time.
This was a setup, folks.
Now, I said to you I'd read you a quote from the Miami Herald, showing you how genius the setup is.
Because now, what's going to happen, this is going to be phase, what, 672 of the media's propaganda.
I'm sick of them.
I'm so tired.
I am so... I'm tired of being tired.
Just tune them out, ladies and gentlemen.
Do not click on CNN, The Washington Post, The New York Times.
Don't turn on the channel.
Change the channel in the airport, in the gym.
These people are really horrible folks, okay?
They have the right for the free press.
They have the right to be horrible people.
Unfortunately, they take us up on that invitation every single time.
The fact that they continue to propagate this nonsense about Russian collusion in an effort to start some kind of a cold civil war in this country is absolutely disgusting.
Now, the Herald, who's either too dopey to figure it out or knows what they're doing, either one's bad.
The Herald writes in the piece that this meeting between Stone and Caputo and, what's his face, Henry Greenberg, who had contacts with the FBI in the past, Joe, quote, underscored a willingness of the campaign to meet with Russians, boasting of scandalous information.
You understand how this works, Joe?
So here's how it works.
Because remember, the media is solely a propaganda arm right now for the liberals and the anti-Trump left and the anti-Trump swamp.
That's all they are.
These are not journalists.
They're not to be taken seriously.
They're not credible people.
They don't know anything.
What they do know is wrong.
When they know it's wrong, they lie about it.
These are not serious people.
I cannot say this enough.
Ignore them.
Ignore them.
And challenged them at every opportunity.
The way it's working now is some in the media are starting to get a whiff that this may have been a setup.
Some are still committed to the collusion fairy tale, but some are getting a whiff that this may be ugly, Joe.
The new narrative is going to be, the new, new, new, new, new, new narrative is going to be this.
Okay, it may have been a setup from the start.
In other words, there was no Russian collusion, and all these people that contacted the Trump team were connected to Hillary or the FBI.
In other words, not the Russians, Mifsud and others, right?
But, Joe, it quote, underscored a willingness of the campaign to meet with Russians, boasting of scandalous information.
You get it?
You see the trick?
Yeah.
We'll flip you.
We'll flip you for real.
This is the dipsy-do flipper-ooski.
This is the multi-Dipsy-Doo.
Yeah.
The Dipsy-Dipsy-Doo Flipperooski.
This is the Flippy.
The Flippy for real.
This is it.
Every time they get caught, the hacks in the media, the liars in the media, will go out and find a new way to spin their fairy tale.
Their fairy tale now, once the- because I'm telling you, just trust me on this.
Some of them are still holding on to the collusion.
I know I'm saying two seemingly contradictory things.
I'm not.
There are some, a good swath of them, that are still holding on to the fact that, yes, this was Russians trying to reach out to the Trump team.
Some of the smarter ones, who are still devious but smart, are starting to realize that, man, this looks really bad.
All these people we thought were Russians reaching out to the Trump team These people are not Russian.
They're connected to either Western intelligence, the FBI, or the Clintons.
Ladies and gentlemen, Trump may have been framed.
The new narrative is going to be, yeah, but it doesn't matter.
The Trump team is still at fault anyway, because they shouldn't have accepted meetings with people they thought were working for the Russians.
Listen to me.
Listen to me.
I have not steered you wrong.
I have not steered you wrong on anything.
I told you there were things going on behind the scenes.
Now look what's happened.
Stroke's been terminated.
McCabe's been terminated.
Comey's been terminated.
Baker's resigned.
Rabicki's resigned.
Page's resigned.
Yates has been fired.
I told you things were going on behind the scenes.
I've not been wrong.
You may not be happy with the pace of it.
That's fine.
McCabe's been referred for criminal charges.
I get it.
I'm not suggesting to you Sessions has done everything right.
I think the recusal was awful.
But pretending nothing's going on and that Trump is entirely in the blind on this is nonsense.
I have not been wrong.
I have not been wrong to you about this setup.
Everything I have told you has come out in the news.
This was just reported last night.
Lee Smith stories like this was breaking news.
That the Trump Tower meeting may have been a setup.
We have been telling you this forever.
I'm telling you now the next phase is going to be this Greenberg-Stone thing.
They are trying to shut Stone up.
Again, I don't know Stone.
I can't vouch for Stone because I don't know him.
I don't know what he was up to, what he was not up to.
I do know this though, that the guy who reached out to Caputo and him, unquestionably has some ties to the FBI that they are currently not commenting on.
And when it comes out finally in the wash that this was all a setup, I'm telling you again that the media's new narrative is going to be, well, it may have been a setup, but hey, you know, they shouldn't have accepted the meeting in the first place.
Disgusting.
Now, some of you email me and say, well, Dan, you know what?
I don't know what someone said to me today.
I love the story, but I feel like it's frustrating because what's going to happen, ladies and gentlemen, it's already happening.
I just want you to take some solace in the fact that people are paying a price.
You know, we don't do, on the right, mob justice like the left.
They have managed right now, the Trump team, to clean out nearly the entire management level of the FBI.
It is not happening fast, granted.
Are there going to be criminal prosecutions?
If the evidence presents itself, I hope so.
If it doesn't, I hope not.
But folks, things are happening.
Think about it.
Think about this.
Under the Obama administration, Joe, we had the IRS scandal, the Benghazi scandal.
Did anybody get fired over any of that?
No.
No.
Lois Lerner's still getting a pension from the US government, from the IRS.
Trump's been in office two years.
He's nearly cleaned out the entire upper level of the DOJ and the FBI.
You may say, well Bruce Ohr still has a job.
Bruce Ohr has been demoted.
Bruce Ohr will be out of a job shortly too.
I'm sure of it.
It is happening.
Not fast.
But it's happening right.
Smile a little bit.
These people, the people who were involved in this, not that I take solace in their lives being ruined.
I don't take a solace in that for anyone.
But it's over for them.
They engaged in a massive scandal to frame and set up the Trump team and spy on them.
They've lost their jobs.
They have zero credibility.
Their whole management team of the bureau has been wiped out.
They're all a laughingstock.
Comey's a joke.
Comey left the FBI thinking he was Captain Credibility.
He's a laughingstock.
He's a joke on the right and the left.
He's become a punchline to liberal and conservative jokes.
McCabe just got referred for criminal charges.
Strokes become a meme on the internet.
Got fired.
He's humiliated every day with his texts.
Sally Yates, a farce, a total joke, fired by the Trump Justice Department.
Sally Yates, she may be a hero to the left, but her career, history's gonna judge her as nothing more than, you know, someone who abused her authority within the Justice Department to get an innocent man, Mike Flynn, prosecuted.
History's gonna judge these people harshly.
The media is not getting over, folks.
The media's credibility is down to what?
You know, 20% amongst the, something like 9% amongst Republicans now?
Independents don't believe the media anymore?
And you say, oh man, well that's because everybody's saying fake news.
No, no, that's because they're actually reporting fake news.
You want to stop being called fake news?
Stop being fake.
Folks, we're winning here.
The swamp is being cleaned out, slowly but effectively.
The media's credibility is in the garbage.
Mueller's team is in a panic.
They have no collusion, so they have to make stuff up.
They're desperately clinging to any hope that they can keep the attention off the malfeasance of the Justice Department and the FBI and on Trump, but they have nothing left.
There's no predicate crime of collusion to fall back on.
It's not all bad.
I just don't want you to listen to the show and be disappointed.
I get a lot of very depressed emails and I read them.
People are like, well nothing's happening.
It is happening.
It's just not happening.
I just want you to be prepared though for what's coming next.
The media is getting ready for this shift.
Once the framing of Donald Trump is established and the setup and these FBI and Fusion GPS connections to the people that contacted the Trump team are well established.
The transfer is going to be made to, okay, they may have framed Trump, but they did it because he was willing to accept, if he just was unwilling to accept these meetings in the first place, you know, if Woody would have went right to the police, none of this would have ever happened.
The famous Woody Woodpecker episode.
Disgusting.
Really, really disgusting.
Okay.
I got a couple other things to explain.
A lot of confusion out there about this one and two party consent stuff.
And I just want to clear up something quickly before I get this read.
Yesterday on the tax story, you're right, the CNS piece I sent over, the income tax revenue, yes, from last year was down.
I was referring to the income tax revenue, which is up.
Give the corporate tax revenue a moment to send it.
It was a drastic tax cut.
But the income tax revenue, maybe that's why I cited Calvin Coolidge, John F. Kennedy.
I cited Reagan, George H.W.
Bush.
The income tax cuts did not lead to a cut in revenue as anticipated.
That's why I was careful to make the distinction between correlation and causation.
Income tax cuts did not lead to, it led to more income tax revenue.
There has been a dip though in corporate taxes, but there was a massive cut.
But listen to me, listen and please perk your ears up.
Just give it some time and I promise you, give it a year or two, that's gonna go up dramatically too.
But we are, the federal tax revenue this year is, the income tax revenue is at record highs.
So I just wanted to make sure because I don't like to, I'm sorry when I confuse people.
Sometimes I get too deep in the weeds with stuff and I do the show and I'm like, gosh, I should have just been more clear.
Hold on one second.
Okay.
Teeter.
Teeter.
I love Teeter.
If any of you bought this yet, I've already done one read.
I think this is my second read.
If you haven't, you're missing out huge.
You ever try an inversion table?
This is one of the greatest inventions ever, especially if you're like me.
You have arthritis and you have back issues.
I used to use this in the Secret Service Training Center.
We had an inversion Table, it was the greatest thing ever.
You'd come off it.
I almost felt like a teeter high.
Inversion table, they flip you over and you get this just incredible feeling when you get off.
I mean, I said to my wife, when she first saw me doing it, we have it in the bedroom, this inversion table, right?
She walked in one day, she was like, oh my gosh, what are you doing?
And I said, I'm inverting.
And she's like, how does it hurt?
I'm like, hurt?
Like I could fall asleep on this thing.
It's so relaxing.
It's the greatest thing ever.
It's like a massage for your entire spine and soul.
I love it.
I can't say enough about them.
The Teeter Inversion Table.
With the Teeter Inversion Table, you use gravity and your own body weight to decompress your spine and relieve pressure on your discs and surrounding nerves.
And man, does it feel good.
Put on some, you know, some of that like meditation music and invert for a little while.
You feel like a million dollars.
Decompressing on a teeter inversion table for a few minutes a day is a great addition to anyone's daily routine to maintain a healthy spine and active lifestyle without the pain.
If you have back pain, even if you've been lucky enough to avoid back pain, you need a teeter to invert every day and keep your back and joints feeling great.
I just recommended this to my camera guy in my studio, by the way.
I feel like a new man when I get off the thing.
It decompresses my spine, it's good for my shoulders, and it's really, really relaxing.
Some products I talk about, I use regularly.
You know, some I can't use every single day.
But this one, I do twice a day, actually.
I do it before the show.
Not this morning, because I was running late.
But I do it about five minutes before the show, and then after I get out of the gym.
I use the sauna afterwards, then I go on the teeter.
Oh man, you feel like a new man.
You feel like you're 20 years old again.
Over 3 million people have put their trust in Teeter.
They've been the best known name in inversion tables since 1981.
They're the only Inversion Table brand that has been both safety-certified by UL Laboratories and FDA-registered as a Class 1 medical device.
That's pretty cool.
For a limited time, you can get Teeter's upgraded model of the Inversion Table with traction handles, easy-reach ankle system, and StretchMax handles, plus a free vibration cushion for the ultimate muscle relaxation.
The regular price is $499.
But they're offering it to our listeners for $349.
That's a savings of $150 at teeter.comslashdan.
That's T-E-E-T-E-R.comslashdan.
Teeter.comslashdan.
You will save $150.
The product, it used to be $499.
It's $349, $349 at teeter.comslashdan.
Get the Teeter Inversion Table plus a free vibration cushion, free shipping, free returns.
Teter.com/dan you will save $150.
The product used to be $499, it's $349, $349 at Teter.com/dan.
Get the Teter Inversion Table plus a free vibration cushion, free shipping, free returns.
You won't have to return it.
You're gonna love it.
And a 60-day money-back guarantee at teeter.com slash dan.
That's teeter.com slash dan.
Don't miss it.
This is a really, really great product.
Send me your reviews.
You're gonna love it.
Okay.
Quickly on this one- and two-party consent thing.
This is a little bit confusing to the general public.
This is gonna be an epidemic in the future, by the way.
What am I talking about?
I'm talking about the Recording of people in conversations, recording of people on the phone.
This used to be complicated.
I remember as a young federal agent and NYPD officer, we used to do recorded calls all the time.
You'd get a guy, he calls a drug dealer, and you'd, you know, get the call on tape.
That way you'd have evidence for what?
For a prosecution case, for sale of narcotics or drugs in court.
It used to be tough, Joe.
There was an earpiece they would put in their ear, you know, it would run down to a recording device.
I mean, you know, it wasn't like, I don't want to be hyperbolic, it wasn't like rocket science, but it wasn't easy either.
You'd have to put a little, like, header on the tape and, you know, it was actual tape.
Remember the tape?
She'd put the pencil in and rewind them and all that stuff.
There would be little micro cassettes and you'd have to record it and store it.
Nothing was solid state.
And when I first started in the Secret Service, then we went to solid state recorders.
Those were a little easier.
Now, what do you do?
You pick up an iPhone, you download an app and you hit record as you're on the phone.
This is not complicated.
Like a five-year-old could do it.
The problem with that is that everybody's recording everybody now, and as Joe well knows, I was a victim of this myself by an animal guy who pretends to be a reporter, one of the biggest losers in the state of Florida.
Yeah, you can tell I still don't like this guy a little bit, but I was a victim of this myself.
Everybody and anyone is recording everything you say all the time now.
Be prepared.
I'm just warning you.
I hate this about that we can't even have a conversation anymore without somebody recording.
This is becoming a hot issue because now we have Omarosa who, you know, just in one of the more disgusting episodes I've ever seen in my life, was recording people all over the White House.
She's so proud of it too.
Look, I recorded people!
She thinks this makes her sound good.
Omarosa, one of the worst human beings on the planet.
Now she says she recorded Ivanka, Jared, John Kelly.
Omarosa should never be allowed on TV again.
Cable network should shun this woman.
What she did was disgraceful.
So this is becoming a hot issue.
I get, I kid you not, probably 15 to 20 emails a day with people from people asking me questions.
Is this illegal?
What's the law?
I don't understand.
Yeah.
Now, You have to understand the difference between one and two-party consent, okay?
This is not a... Federally, federal law is one-party consent.
States have different laws on consent, though.
I'm not explaining this well.
Let me just explain what one-party consent is first.
When you record someone, if Joe and I were in a conversation and Joe, say, clicks record on his iPhone and doesn't tell me.
So let's say Joe and I are having a conversation about my recent re-signing with CRTV, which actually happened, yeah?
Celebrating that today.
I'm taking this all down.
Just re-up with CRTV.
Joe's recording this right now.
I got it.
See, the difference now is I know Joe's recording it because it's a podcast.
But if Joe, let's say, I'll give you an example.
Let's say at the end of the show, Joe and I, we, you know, we count off and we usually talk.
Let's say Joe at the end of the podcast, right?
Yeah.
Is quietly recording the Skype feed after the show.
And I start talking about CRTV.
Joe, what a great deal.
This is awesome, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Yeah.
And for some reason, Joe thinks there's news value and leaks that to the media.
I've done that.
Yeah.
Joe is, you have, Joe is in Maryland and I am in Florida.
Joe would have committed a crime.
Oh.
You know that Joe?
Because both Maryland and Florida are two-party consent states.
Meaning, Joe and two parties, the two parties on the call, both have to consent.
So if Joe were to record me after the show without my permission and leak that to the media, Joe in Maryland and me in Florida, they're both two-party consent states.
It doesn't really matter as long as one party's in a two-party consent state.
Joe would have committed a crime.
Makes sense?
Yeah, I'm in trouble.
Yeah.
You would be big trouble, Joe.
Joe's in trouble again.
Felonious mopery, bank robbery, spying.
Poor Joe.
Joe and Joey Bag of Donuts, involved in the worst crimes known to man.
Now, if we were in New York, where I'm initially from, and both of us were in New York, and Joe did it.
Joe's in whatever, Smithtown, and I'm in Glendale, two places I lived.
New York is a one-party consent state.
Meaning if one party consents to the recording, Joe, because Joe's recording it, of course he consents.
He hit record.
If one party consents, the other party does not have to know.
Most states are one-party consent.
Only 12 states are two-party consent states.
Now, there's a reason for this.
That, of course, in the shallow, mile-wide, quarter-inch-deep analysis by people in the media with no law enforcement experience at all.
This is, of course, why I object to a lot of people going on the news who claim to be journalists and spouting off about law enforcement matters they have no idea what they're talking about most of the time.
You may say to yourself, well why would a liberal state like New York, Joe, That usually always errs against, you know, all this kind of stuff.
Why would they allow only one party?
You know, you'd think they'd be a two-party consent state.
Yeah, you'd think.
Well, a lot of these states, the law enforcement, law enforcement can't stand two-party consent.
Why?
Because think about it, Joe.
If I catch you and Joe's now say, Joe, let's say Joe's slinging, Joe's slinging meth.
I catch Joe.
I say, Joe, I need your supplier.
He says, all right, I'll call him.
In a two-party consent state, Joe would have to tell the meth dealer, um, excuse me, Mr. Meth Dealer, I am now recording you.
To which the meth dealer's gonna do what, Joe?
Promptly hang up the phone!
So in a lot of these states, both liberal and conservative, law enforcement, um, is, you know, prefers one-party consent.
Now, this is where it gets a little confusing.
Federally, when you're a federal agent, you're only required one-party consent, which created an interesting dilemma for me when I started in the New York field office of the Secret Service and then transferred to Baltimore later in my career in Maryland.
New York is a one-party consent state.
Maryland is a two-party consent state.
Now, I had forgotten that when I got there because I had been on the Secret Service protection detail for four years and it's basically stopped working criminal cases.
So, up in New York, you catch a bad guy with counterfeit, which is what we did a lot.
First thing you did was you got him on the phone with his supplier and you recorded it.
Hey, call up Joey Bag of Donuts.
I want him on tape.
You then bring the tape over to the United States Attorney's Office.
You go, hey, United States Attorney Jones, Here's a tape of Joe's counterfeit source talking about how he sells it for whatever, you know, a dollar to every ten dollars a counterfeit.
Oh great, let's go get him, draw up a warrant.
I go to Baltimore after I leave the Presidential Protection Division and I'm only there a couple weeks and I forget what the case was.
But, remember, federally it's fine.
For a federal case, it's only one party consent.
So I forget what we were doing, but it was a case, and it was initially a federal case, and the United States attorney that says yes or no to prosecution, Joe, they make, remember, they make the prosecution decisions.
The investigators, like the Secret Service and the FBI, only make investigative decisions.
The intake prosecutor says, looks at the case and says, ah, this is crap, I don't want it.
It wasn't crap, it was a good case.
So me, following the New York model, when I was in the New York office, I'm like, hey, let's go bring it to the Maryland State Police.
The guy in the office goes, they can't use it.
I said, well, why not?
He says, because we recorded the guy.
I said, so what?
He's like, no, dude, this is a two-party consent state.
Maryland can't use it.
I was like, oh, like it totally flew off.
Listen, I had just gotten off the protection detail five years, and I was used to the New York model.
I should have known granted but you know I don't show I never spin your wheels and we couldn't do anything with it.
I mean we could you could I mean the evidence wasn't acquired illegally the federal rules are one-party consent but you can't use that evidence in a Maryland state case you'd have to go build the case some other way and I forget what happened but I don't remember all the details of it but bottom line is we didn't move with the case and it may not even been my case it may have been someone else's but I specifically remember that damn it's a two-party consent state here I forgot.
I bring this up because I'm getting all these questions about Omarosa.
Omarosa did this disgusting recording in the White House.
Now, this is unquestionably a violation of the Earth Security Clearance Rules and Regs.
The real question is, is it a violation of the law?
And the answer is probably not, because Washington DC is a one-party consent area.
So, listen, you know my feelings about this.
This is one of the most disgusting, filthy moments I've ever seen in the history of politics.
Omarosa should be shunned from public life forever, but I'm just telling you because we try to report the facts here as best as we can.
I don't think she broke any laws because it's a one-party consent state and if she hits the record button, she's the one party.
You tracking that, folks?
Yeah.
Now, if she had done it in Florida, in Mar-a-Lago, she'd be in a world of trouble.
Because Florida is a two-party consent state.
So if Omarosa has any recordings in Mar-a-Lago, Omarosa, who doesn't appear very bright by the way, may be in a world of trouble.
Because she may have committed a crime.
And remember, it's not where the recording's made.
It's where both of the, both, both, both, both of the parties are.
I had a reporter once call me from New Jersey, true story, from a conservative outlet.
I'm not kidding.
Goes to show you how little, Joe, journalists, I'm using the dreaded air quotes, you know.
And I said to him, are you recording this?
He goes, yes.
I said, you can't record this.
I didn't give you permission.
He goes, yeah, I'm in New Jersey.
I said, what does that mean?
He goes, yeah, it's New Jersey.
We're a one party state.
I said, it doesn't matter.
Are you that stupid?
I was furious.
I said, brother, delete this right now.
It wasn't, it was just like a political comment.
I just don't like being recorded at all, unless I give you my permission.
He didn't know it's the guy.
Both parties have to be in a one-party consensus.
He didn't know this.
He had no idea.
This guy was a journalist.
He had no idea.
He goes, and to his credit, he was like, hey, I'm very sorry.
And I'm reasonably confident.
It doesn't matter if he deleted it.
It was an anodyne conversation anyway.
But he was apologetic afterwards.
He did not know.
I'm like, you may want to look that up in the future, dude.
So what I'm trying to say is even if Omarosa was in D.C.
and Trump called her from Mar-a-Lago or another two-party consent state, Omarosa may be in a lot of trouble.
But Omarosa's not very bright, so I don't think she figured a lot of that out.
Did that make sense, Joe?
Yeah.
Because I'm getting so many questions, and forgive me for not answering them individually on email, but I figured I'd address it on the show.
Yeah, I think you've hit that about three or four times, as a matter of fact.
Yeah.
Cool.
Federal law in a federal criminal case, one-party consent applies.
You're going through the federal system, a federal agent, it doesn't matter where you are.
You can be in Maryland, it doesn't make a difference.
As long as they're not prosecuting you through the state court system, federal law is one-party consent.
Twelve states have two-party consent.
If you want to use that state judicial system, it is currently illegal in those twelve states, outside of law enforcement and other exceptions, but I just told you, federal law enforcement and other things, it is illegal to record someone without their permission.
It only matters where both parties are, not where the guy making the call or the woman making the calls.
While I was in a one-party consent state, doesn't matter.
Doesn't matter.
How about that?
I'm not sure Omarosa knows that, but we'll figure that out in the coming days.
Okay, I got another great story by Chuck Ross.
It's a good one and I'm going to try to squeeze in some quick debunking here too, but today's show also brought to you by our buddies at BrickHouse Nutrition.
Hands down, best nutrition supplement products on the market, no question about it.
My wife said, hey, we should reach out to Miles because we've been, I'm not kidding by the way, I don't make any stuff up to sell.
You know, listen, I love Miles and everything, but we only deal with sponsors we like.
And I've had them forever with us because I always get really terrific reviews.
And we've been getting an unusually large number of positive reviews to our email system about Field of Greens.
We always get positive feedback, but I think now that I've been talking about the product a lot more, people are picking it up and the reviews have been just spectacular.
People feel better.
They love it.
They love the fact that they're getting their fruits and vegetables in every day without having to cook 62 pounds of corn and spinach and kale and, you know, eating blueberries and raspberries.
Listen, that's great.
You should do that.
Make no mistake.
Neither Miles, anyone at BrickHouse or me is suggesting if you have the opportunity to eat vegetables, you should be eating them.
But this is, think of this as your fruit and vegetable insurance.
You should take this every day.
It is ground-up, real, wholesome, fresh, life-enhancing fruits and vegetables.
It's real food.
It's not extract.
It's not the crap and these other products out there.
You know, wonder food!
Wonder food!
Take two pills!
Garbage.
Junk.
Throw it in the garbage.
It's extract.
This is real food.
Ground-up, wholesome fruits and vegetables.
It tastes delicious.
I love it.
My kids love it.
I take a scoop twice a day.
Sometimes in green tea.
If I need a little caffeine.
Sometimes in orange juice.
It tastes really good in orange juice.
My daughter calls it green juice because it gives it a little green tinge when you put it in there.
It's delicious.
Go give it a shot.
You want to feel better?
Want to look a little better?
You want to give it a week, though.
Give it some time and just report back.
I'd love to hear it.
Give this stuff a shot.
You will not regret it.
It's called Field of Greens.
It is your insurance for a better life, better health.
Go check it out.
Go to BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
That's BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
Pick up a jar of Field of Greens today.
Give it a shot.
Send us your reviews.
You're going to love it.
Okay, another terrific story by Chuck Ross in the Daily Caller about just how extensive the disinformation campaign on all of this around Trump was.
This one's a quick one, but, and let me give a disclosure here.
It's important to, you know, I hate when people say a full disclosure.
It's a disclosure.
A full, what is it, a half disclosure?
That's the whole point of disclosure.
If it was a half disclosure, it's not a disclosure, right?
Right?
Isn't that the point?
Full disclosure!
This is a disclosure.
I work for NRA TV now.
I do not work for the NRA!
Now, liberals are really dumb.
They still can't figure that out.
I get these tweets all the time, but I don't expect them to.
They're just not really... I shouldn't say liberals.
A lot of them on Twitter are very dumb.
I know this because I have to read it every day.
They continue... I don't work for the NRA.
NRA TV is a distinct entity.
It is a production company that produces a product for NRA TV.
That is who I work for.
I'm not embarrassed by the NRA.
I'm a member of the NRA.
I'm proud of their mission.
I'm just telling you a fact.
I don't work for the NRA.
Okay?
Because this story involves the NRA.
I don't get talking points for the NRA.
I'm not even allowed to speak on behalf of the NRA because I don't work for them.
But Chuck Ross has a terrific piece today about the information superhighway portion of the Spygate scandal.
Remember, I told you that the Spygate scandal is actually three sub-scandals.
It's the information laundering operation, it's the spying scandal, and the framing of Donald Trump.
Today with the Roger Stone Greenberg story, we talked about portion three, the framing of Donald Trump.
How people were sent into the Trump orbit to set them up.
To Joe, underscore a willingness to meet with Russians.
Yeah, Russian connected people you sent in, you idiots!
This is more along the first one, that information superhighway where they laundered information into the Justice Department through Bruce Ohr.
Bruce Ohr was the number four official in the Justice Department who had absolutely nothing at all to do with the Trump-Russian collusion investigation, but inserted him into it, inserted himself into it, by making illicit contacts with Christopher Steele, Christopher Steele who was working for the Clintons to gin up information on Trump, while Ohr's wife was working for the same organization that hired Christopher Steele.
Now, one of the great mysteries over the last few months which Chuck Ross's piece finally uncovers is a story, Joe, appeared in March.
March of this year about the NRA.
Receiving all this Russian money and an NRA lawyer who knew about it, an NRA lawyer, again, disclosure, I know Cleta Mitchell.
I've actually had conversations with Cleta Mitchell about some legal affairs on prior, you know, campaign runs and stuff.
I know Cleta, but again, we're not friends.
She doesn't represent me in any way.
No money has ever exchanged hands.
But again, with the left's focus on disclosure, except for the fact that they're not engaged in disclosure themselves, I do know Cleta and have had conversations with her in the past.
Not related to anything NRA, it was just related to some campaign advice.
The story was, Joe, in this McClatchy story, that Cleta Mitchell was this NRA lawyer and she warned, she was so worried that the Russians were funneling money to the NRA for Trump and she expressed her concerns and basically these concerns were, you know, ignored and Cleta Mitchell knows and Cleta Mitchell, Cleta Mitchell, Cleta Mitchell.
Yeah.
What's the problem with this story?
It's not true.
Cleta Mitchell... Cleta Mitchell has not worked for the NRA for six years.
Cleta Mitchell, read the Chuck Ross story, has vigorously... Keep in mind, this is a lawyer, Cleta Mitchell.
She's not stupid.
If Cleta Mitchell understood that she was lying under oath or something like that, or was going to set herself up later on, she would be very careful.
Cleta Mitchell has vigorously denied all of these charges from day one, yet McClatchy has yet to retract his story.
Let me just restate what the story is.
The story that appeared in March, and the controversy around it, is where did it come from?
The story is this.
The Russians were funneling money to the NRA to get Trump elected, and that Cleta Mitchell was a lawyer for the NRA, knew it, and expressed some concerns about it.
It's not true.
One of the mysteries about this story, the biggest mystery, Joe, is where did this story come from?
Nobody seemed to know.
Oh, Chuck Ross, knocking it out of the park again.
Daily Caller story in the show notes today.
Ross has uncovered the puzzle.
Apparently the information superhighway was activated again!
Ding ding ding ding ding ding ding!
What did I tell you folks?
This is scandal number one of the three-part series of the scandalous Spygate operation.
Handwritten notes uncovered by Bruce Ohr, who met with Christopher Steele, again working for the Clinton operation under the banner of Fusion GPS to get information on Trump, In December 10th met with Orr in Washington D.C.
Orr took some contemporaneous notes.
Here's what one of the handwritten notes read.
An NRA lawyer named Cleta Mitchell found out about the money pipeline and was very upset, but the election was over.
Now you see where the March leak probably came from after the December meeting?
Now, the story here gets even more interesting because who's our favorite member of Congress right now?
By favorite, I mean the guy who is probably responsible for the propaganda and basically the slow destruction of the Constitutional Republic by his continued efforts to propagandize, gaslight, and lie to people.
Shifty!
Shifty!
We love Shifty, don't we?
Adam Schiff, biggest liar up on the hill, a disgrace to the U.S.
Congress, Adam Schiff, the lead propagandist in the Russian collusion fairy tale who absolutely knows the story is false, by the way.
Who was one of the guys talking about this story, even though the story is in fact false?
Shifty!
Okay, let me give you a little quote here from Shifty.
About this false story.
Mitchell didn't work for the NRA.
Mitchell has not- Cleta Mitchell has absolutely no idea what this story's about.
This story's false.
It is made up.
Mitchell did not express any concerns about Russian money.
She wasn't working for the NRA.
She has- She cannot deny this story in any stronger terms.
Here's a quote by Shifty, who always seemed- By the way, no one knows how Shifty- How did Shifty get this?
And was Broussard talking to Shifty?
Shifty!
That's me, not someone knocking on my door.
Quote by Shifty.
Whether there was an effort by Russia to create a backchannel or assist the Trump campaign through the NRA or gun rights groups is an open question the committee's minority has endeavored to answer for the past year, except for the fact that the story's not true!
But don't let the truth get in the way of Shifty's propaganda.
This guy's a disgrace.
An absolute disgrace.
He knows the entire time this story was complete BS.
There was no lawyer expressing concern about Russian money, the NRA.
The Russian NRA story's a big hoax.
Those were membership fees and people who had bought magazine subscriptions.
It's a total joke.
The story's a farce.
They know it.
But someone leaked information, probably or To McClatchy, who's yet to retract the story despite vigorous denials, and then who picks up the story?
Someone leaks it to Shifty, Shifty then puts it out to the public and goes on CNN, and dopes believe it.
It's what I keep telling you.
The media is the propaganda arm of the Democrat Party that keeps giving this liar Shifty the opportunity to put out absolutely complete false narratives.
It's a made-up story, folks.
It's a made-up story.
Alright, one of these days I'm going to get to this Ocasio-Cortez, but you know what?
I'm just going to take a minute here.
I do have two really great articles up on Gino.com where my resident debunker-in-chief Matt Palumbo does some heavy-duty debunking work on tax cuts causing deficits.
Number one, great piece.
They're real short.
I have Matt keep them short and sweet.
Some good charts, easy to read in there.
And another one on Ocasio-Cortez and her claims about Medicare for all saving money.
But she was debunked even by the Washington Post.
She said some nonsensical stuff that the ICE has 34,000 beds they need to fill every day.
There's a quota.
Really?
What do they do?
Go to foreign countries and import illegal immigrants on purpose to put them in a bed for the... It's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
False.
It's fake.
Of course, we have the everybody's working two jobs nonsense by Ocasio-Cortez, which was garbage.
The percentage of people working two jobs has gone down.
She said the upper middle class is shrinking.
Really, Joe?
In 1979, the upper middle class was 12.9% of the population.
In 2014, it's 29.4.
Joe, 12.9, 29.4, 12.9, 24.
I'm not crazy when I tell you 29.4 is greater than 12.9, right?
Uh, yes it is, Dan.
Did you do that quick, that math?
Did that take you a while?
No, I did it quick.
No, it didn't.
Okay, yeah, I know.
See, Joe, you're not a mathematician, correct?
No, I'm not, Dan.
So we can both assume Ocasio-Cortez is wrong, right?
Right, Dan.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you.
Righto, buddy.
Right.
Also her claims that Medicare for All is going to save us money.
Complete, utter nonsense.
It's going to cost the government $32 trillion.
The Washington Post, by the way, of all people, believe it or not, even a blind squirrel gets a nut once in a while, debunked those five Ocasio-Cortez claims.
My problem with Ocasio-Cortez is it's not that she says things wrong.
It's that she almost never says anything right.
This could very well be the stupidest person on the face of the earth.
Dude, you're a total renegade.
Renegade was Obama's code name.
We may have to take that back.
That'll be it.
Joe could be the renegade.
We used to be the renegade Republican.
We'll have to bring that back, right?
There you go.
A little ode to the past.
Alright, folks, thanks for everything.
Please subscribe to the podcast.
I appreciate that you download it.
It means a lot.
The subscriptions are free, though, and they drive us up the charts.
