Summary:
In this episode I address the growing problem of internet censorship and how to fight back. I also discuss the suspicious message Bob Mueller appears to be covering up.
Finally, I address the disgraceful behavior of former CIA Director John Brennan. News Picks:
All roads in the Spygate scandal lead to Hillary Clinton. This piece sums up the connections.
Jeff Carlson’s piece asks why Bob Mueller’s team is ignoring these critical messages?
Chuck Ross’s latest piece addresses the latest news regarding Stefan Halper, a CIA asset involved in the Spygate scandal.
If George Papadopoulos is a central player in the Spygate scandal, then why doesn’t the Mueller team say so? Byron York asks this question in this piece.
Daniel Greenfield covers the growing internet censorship crisis.
Is the Left outsourcing its never-ending war on free speech?
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.
Oh boy, what a busy news weekend.
Here we go.
Welcome to the Dan Bongino Show.
Producer Joe, how are you today?
And here we go again!
Here we go!
Yes, there's a lot to talk about today, so let me not waste any time.
Today's show brought to you by our buddies at WaxRx.
You all know how much I love my sponsors and I only work with companies I believe in and have a product or service that is of value to you.
Because I use these products myself.
WaxRX is not the sexiest product to talk about, but as I've told you, I had some problems with earmuffs buildup when I was in the Secret Service.
Jamming that thing in your ear all the time was a pain in the butt.
This is a customer review I saw from them I wanted to share with you as it shows what the product can do to help
everyday people and how it can help you avoid the expensive trip to doctors to clean out your ears.
I used to have to go to the doctor twice a year to get rid of my stubborn hard near wax with my rising cost of health
care and thus double deductible.
I'd have spent $60 per visit, $120 per year to treat my ears.
Now I can do it myself with WaxRx and a significant savings.
That also doesn't require me to miss a half a day of work.
Thanks WaxRx!
Right now you can try the WaxRx system by typing in go waxrx.com.
That's gowaxrx.com.
Use offer code DAN at checkout for free shipping.
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.
This is a great product.
My wife and I use it.
Go waxrx.com, offer code Dan.
I can finally hear Joe like I need to.
Yeah.
All right.
So yeah, we need that.
We're trading places.
We need that one.
Listen, where do I start?
Where do I start?
First, confirming what I told you last week about John Brennan and the security clearances issue.
John Brennan, former hack CIA director, political animal who probably no human being alive has more Liability on the destruction of the credibility of our intelligence community than John Brennan.
This guy is a disaster.
People are now turning on him.
Even Jim Clapper's turning on him a bit.
Clapper, who is no saint himself, the former director of national intelligence under Obama, has come out and basically said, listen, Brennan's rhetoric isn't really helping here.
But last week, Joe, I went into the business of security clearances.
The business of it.
Right.
Why the swamp is losing their mind.
Let me pull you up here.
I'm going to see you on video.
There he is.
There's Big Joe.
I lost you for a second.
Why these business of security clearances was incentivizing swamp rats all over to come out and write op-eds.
Oh, you can't pull John Brennan's security clearance.
No, President Trump can and did.
Yes, nice move.
Long overdue.
Well, proving my point, Joe, let me read to you a little quote from Johnny B. Johnny Boom Bots this week.
What did I tell you last week, Joe?
I said a security clearance is worth money, dinero, ducats, chits, whatever, with a C, whatever you want to call them.
We used to call them overseas.
Every foreign currency with the Secret Service we called scoots.
Because sometimes you'd forget what country you were in and what the name of the currency was.
You go, I got some scoots!
Scoots!
It's all about the scoots!
The scoots!
I told ya!
So, he confirms it this week.
Let me read to you an appearance from Meet the Press.
A quote from John Brennan to Chuck Todd.
Talking about a security clearance.
He says, this is Brennan, but for others, former officials who are on that list, he's talking about the list of people who may have their clearances pulled, some of them serve on boards of directors that require security clearances.
Oh, really?
Because the companies involved deal with classified information.
Wait, wait, it gets better.
And this can have a very punitive, very financial hit against them.
Oh, it does?
So we're all supposed to shed a tear because corporate boards and their financial interests aren't being protected by former government swamp rats having clearances.
Oh, oh, cry me a river.
And so now, this is him, he goes on, and so now if I was asked to be on a board that requires a security clearance, I couldn't.
Oh, Johnny B. Oh man, do we feel awful.
Joe, do you feel awful?
I feel awful.
I don't know about you, I feel terrible.
You know what, let's reinstate that security clearance.
So Johnny Boombots, Mr. Communist Anti-Capitalist, right?
John Brennan voted for a communist for president.
So Mr. Anti-capitalist communist can go serve on a capitalist corporate board to make money and protect his quote financial interests.
Yeah, let's do that.
That sounds like a great idea.
Listen, I'm telling you, I love this show and I love my audience.
I will never ever waste your time.
I told you last week that this was what was really going on with the security clearances.
There are a bunch of swamp rats who Donald Trump gives exactly zero mm about.
He doesn't care.
He doesn't want their money.
He doesn't want their pats on the back.
He doesn't need them putting a shine on his shoes.
He doesn't care.
You mess with the process, he is going to enforce it.
And that's exactly what Trump did.
Brennan went out there insinuating somehow that his security clearance gave him privy information.
Vladimir Putin may have something on Trump.
No, he doesn't, you idiot.
And everybody knows that.
You just keep saying that to keep yourself in the media cycle.
So Trump, understandably so, should have pulled his clearance sooner, and what did I tell you last week?
I said this is about the dough.
The dinero, the scoots.
These people leave government, the benighted class, they take the security clearance with them, they go over to these private boards and these private companies and they make a fortune off it with access to information that is supposed to be in the purview and lockbots of the American people.
Now you have it from Brennan himself.
We're supposed to feel bad for the communist, Brennan, because he can't sit on a corporate board and his buddies and can't have their financial interests protected?
Are you kidding me?
Is this a joke?
Are you serious?
I got a lot to get to on the- the- Jeff Carlson over at the- he wrote a piece at the, uh, Epoch Times that's just, uh, incredible in the show notes today that I'm gonna get into in a minute, too.
This is just- He uncovered an angle you and I talked about a long time ago about Georgie Popadizzle that I want to get to.
But before I get to that, I want to get to this internet censorship thing because this is blowing my mind what's going on here, folks.
I have two great pieces in the show notes today.
One by Daniel Greenfield, the front page mag, and one at Powerline Blog by John Hindraker.
I think that's how you say his name.
Now, I disagree with the conclusions of Hindraker.
He kind of suggests at the end a bit of government involvement in this, which I think you know I disagree with.
I think the left is setting us up with this censorship thing.
They're poking us.
And when I say the left, I mean Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, and all these other left-leaning outlets, too.
They're poking us to get the government somehow involved in this regulatory front on a hate speech thing, so Twitter and them, when they ban you from the platform, they can hide behind, well, it was hate speech.
The government says we got to get rid of hate speech.
I think this is a Trojan horse, and I'm asking you not to fall prey to this.
The fact that Mark Warner, a Democrat Senator, recently put out a letter incentivizing people to sign on board with him on this government control and regulation of the internet thing and social media should tell you that the left is baiting us.
But I understand all the arguments and now I'm going to give you an alternate perspective.
Show me what you got!
I should because I don't want to come out there and I don't want to tell you, hey listen, fight against government involvement here but I don't have a solution myself.
I do and I've brought this up before and some of you may have forgot it so I'm going to talk about it again.
The Greenfield piece is an important one.
Because he talks about the genesis of this and how big tech companies right now, I hate that term big, but that's what people are calling them.
You know, that's usually big oil, but it's usually a leftist thing to get you to hate capitalism.
But in this case, you know, we'll roll left wants to play with the play with the lingo, then we'll play with it too.
So these big tech companies, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, we're now seeing Patreon getting rid of voices they don't like, which Patreon is a One of these crowdfunding sites where you can support people, you know, Jordan Peterson and others, they're starting to kick conservatives off as well.
Greenfield lays this out, how, and it's a really great piece, how Silicon Valley Silicon Valley has been outsourced into the free speech fight.
Folks, let's be clear on what's going on here.
The left cannot win.
They lost 9-0 in the Supreme Court on the last quote hate speech fight.
In other words, their hate speech approach to getting rid of conservatives through legal methods.
In other words, forcing and passing hate speech laws.
Right, right.
Has been a complete loser.
So the left, the far left, not all Democrats, but the far left are totalitarians.
They're tyrants.
That's the very essence of their ideology.
Their ideology is government control, planning, socialism.
And I don't mean planning like building up plans for a building.
I mean planning like taking away economic freedom and turning it over to the government so they can plan your lives.
The left are tyrants at heart.
The far left, that is.
And the far left needs to suppress free speech because in the market of ideas, as I said last week in the show, the left can't win on facts and data because they don't have facts and data.
They only have emotion.
So in order to get people to voluntarily forfeit their rights, they have to use emotion to do it.
So what do they do?
They say, oh my gosh, these Republicans, look, hate speech, he's a racist, misogynist, as we always say, the istophobic phobophobes.
And then when they get you to hate those Republicans by making up stories about them, they get you to attack them, attack their free speech, attack free elections where Republicans win.
This is what they're doing now.
Freedom is the enemy of the far left.
Don't ever, ever forget that.
Free speech is at the vanguard of freedom.
The left needs to crush free speech.
The left cannot crush free speech through the legislative process.
They get smoked every single time in the courts.
They'll call it whatever they can call it to get the courts to pass some perimeter on speech.
You see what I'm saying, Joe?
They'll call it hate speech.
They'll call it that.
I mean, they'll test the focus group.
What do we call speech that we don't like to get people to jump on board with suppressing it?
Oh, hate speech.
That sounds great.
Hate speech.
Oh, hate speech.
Right.
That sounds really bad.
It sounds awful.
So we got to we got to nail the conservatives on it.
They keep losing.
I hate it.
Yeah.
So Greenfield's piece.
Greenfield's piece is a good one.
It talks about how the media Has done this, right?
The media does not like big tech.
Wait, what?
I thought you said the media is liberal.
Why would they not like big, you know, big tech companies like Facebook and Twitter and YouTube and others?
No, no, folks, they don't.
The fact that Facebook Can control the content that these big media companies, the New York Slimes, the Compost, Time Magazine, the fact that people get their content.
See how these shows all time, if you're a regular listener, you've heard all this before.
But I cited you some numbers, I don't know, six, seven months ago, from a survey they did where something upwards of 90% of people get their news from Twitter, Facebook, remember that show?
And other social media platforms.
Ladies and gentlemen, old media, in contrast to big tech, old media hates this.
You used to get your news from the New York Times.
The old gray lady and the compost and Walter Cronkite.
The fact that the old media is now losing and people are getting their news from Facebook where they can block stuff and hide stuff and they see a report from the New York Times, which I'll get to the McGahn story too by the way, I don't think I forgot about that, which put out more fake news this weekend about Don McGahn because that's what they do, the New York Times.
People can block it, this drives the New York Times crazy because they cannot control the national narrative anymore.
The New York Times puts out a fake news story like they did this weekend and within minutes everybody's debunking it.
That's not the way it's supposed to work.
The New York Times are far leftist.
They are committed to getting rid of speech they don't like and making sure their narrative, the one in their paper, is the one that persists.
They don't like it.
They don't like the big tech companies, Joe, because customers can choose their news a la carte.
Yep.
You have to understand this piece to understand what's going on in the longitudinal fight here.
The media does not like big tech.
The media goes to war with big tech.
Oh, Facebook, they run these stories about Facebook swayed the election.
Look, it was fake news.
Meanwhile, New York Times, the purveyors of fake news for what, Joe, 50 plus years now?
New York Times objects to the fact that a few Russian trolls who nobody paid attention to at all On Facebook.
Look, look, they run these stories.
They swayed the election.
They swayed the election, Joe!
A Russian troll who ran an ad on Facebook, a cat video playing the piano, somehow swayed the election of Donald Trump.
Now, the degree of stupidity you have to be embedded in, knee-deep in, to believe in that nonsense is incredible, but the Times thinks you're dumb.
Folks, the big media companies, the old media companies, who don't want to relinquish this control.
So now that the big tech companies, they can throw them under the bus too.
Look what they did.
Look at Facebook's role in this.
They go after big tech.
Now, follow, follow the white rabbit.
Okay.
The big tech companies now to curry favor Realize, oh boy, look at this, we don't want to get on the bad side of the American left.
These are lefty companies, so what do they do?
The big tech companies then go on a hate speech war.
We're going to purge Infowars and others.
We're going to get them all off.
Look, and maybe the big media and the liberals will leave us alone because these are the people we want to curry favor with because we're liberals ourselves.
Keep in mind, this is a broken business model.
The Washington compost and the slimes have tried for decades to make a business model out of catering to far-left narratives, and it's failing!
But these big tech companies, Joe, are so knee-deep and embedded in leftist ideology that they don't see the forest for the trees.
They have to cater to the left because they think the left is really driving the national narrative.
They're not.
Donald Trump's election is the response to that.
But they don't see this.
So Joe, track me here.
Old media singles out big tech.
Look what the Facebook did.
Look what Twitter did.
Look what they did.
Russian bots.
Go after them.
The government comes after them.
They want to play ball now with the government and get hate speech legislation passed so they can't be sued for kicking people off.
They can just say, look, it's hate speech.
You get what I'm saying?
They don't want to be sued by Alex Jones and others and lose a case eventually in court for whatever breach of contract or whatever it may be.
So they actually want this hate speech stuff passed.
They also figure it caters and calms down the old media, which used to be able to drive the narrative, because now it's the old media, New York Times and Washington Post, if they can kick off Breitbart and others, who will get their stuff on their sites more often, and it'll keep the liberal narrative going.
You see where I'm going with this?
Gotcha, gotcha, gotcha, gotcha.
This is an important follow the white rabbit series of events.
When you follow it, you'll understand what's going on.
Now, what's the solution?
So now you see the problem.
Old media attacks big tech, big tech attacks conservatives, hopefully to get old media and government off their back.
Hate speech legislation somehow passes through, it gets passed, and then the media's all happy, big tech is happy too, because their stuff shows up more on social media because they get to kick off conservatives.
You like that?
Of course you don't!
It stinks!
But it's what's happening.
Government cannot fix this.
Do not fall in this trap.
If you listen to the show regularly, I've proposed on and off for well over two years now.
Ladies and gentlemen, it is time, it is way past time to establish a conservative economy.
I don't mean a separate sub-government or like a separate country.
I mean an economy where conservatism is the brand.
What do I mean by that?
For decades, it was assumed by many in the conservative movement that we would never ever break the liberal monopoly on media control.
It was just taken as fact.
True.
You had CNN, ABC, you had Brokaw, you had Cronkite, Peter Jennings.
These were all leftists.
Dan Rather, hardcore leftists, some of them.
These were leftists.
It was just assumed that the media war was lost.
Just like it is now.
It's assumed that, oh, all is lost.
There's Patreon, YouTube, they're kicking everybody, there's nothing we can do.
I'm not so sure about that.
What happens?
The internet comes along, Fox News comes along, and granted, although we're still overwhelmed, make no mistake, ABC, CBS, and NBC Evening News far, far outweighs the influence of Fox.
I wish it weren't the case, but it is.
But with the internet, Breitbart, Conservative Review, Daily Caller, and others, you're seeing a leveling of the playing field, which happened over time.
And it happened due to the free market.
I remember Was it Roger Ailes?
I was in the Secret Service Training Center.
I think it was Ailes who came down to give a speech to the graduating students a while back.
This is a long time ago, over 10 years ago.
Yeah, you said this before.
Yeah, and Ailes, he was saying how when someone asked him about the business model for Fox News, he said that, I'll never forget this.
He goes, yeah, we were tapping into it and untapped the resource.
And everybody's looking around like, what's that?
And he goes, 49 to 50 percent of America were conservatives.
In other words, the business models right in front of your face.
Roger Ailes saw that his business wasn't news, his business was fair news.
News that was going to be fair to conservatives.
The brand was going to be, in other words, we're not those guys.
You get it, Joe?
Sure, yeah.
Fox News' brand was, we're not them.
ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN.
Those guys cover propaganda.
We're going to either play it straight or we're going to give conservatives a voice on our editorial content.
And by the way, I don't work at Fox News, but I'm telling you right now, if you don't think their news programs play it straight, you're not watching the same Fox I am.
If you watch Chris Wallace and Bret Baier, there are no two fairer interviewers in the entire industry.
And by the way, you go to a Fox green room, it's almost equally populated with real liberals as it is with conservatives.
I'm not kissing anybody's butt, I make my own money, I do my own thing.
I'm just telling you, when you go to CNN, the conservatives they have there are fake conservatives.
They're not real.
The liberals that work at Fox and comment on Fox, trust me, are real hardcore liberals.
They actually believe it.
Yeah, they do.
They've got some strong liberals on there.
I mean, they are not kidding around one bit.
Watch my debates on Saturday night in the Judge Jeanine show with Chris Hahn.
Trust me, Chris believes that stuff.
Fox came in and took over this market and their brand became We're Not That.
Ladies and gentlemen, it is only a matter of time before some entrepreneurial business type, the Rupert Murdoch type, figures it out that there is an opening in the United States now for a We're Not That everywhere.
What do I mean?
Folks, liberals are smart.
You may not like their ideology, I certainly don't, but these are not stupid people.
They are smart.
They are going to de-platform you everywhere.
First, they're going to kick you off YouTube.
If they don't get you kicked off YouTube, they're going to get you kicked off.
I saw a story this morning about a credit card company that's no longer going to process payments.
If they can't kick you off the credit card company, they'll get you kicked out of the bank, like they're trying to do with NRA.
I obviously work at NRA TV.
I don't work for the NRA.
I work for NRA TV.
I'm a member of the NRA.
I don't work there for the 15,000th time for the liberal idiots who can't figure out what a contract looks like.
They're really, they're so stupid.
We laugh at me and Joe all the time because they just don't get it.
NRAs, really?
If they can't get you kicked off YouTube, they'll get you kicked off Twitter.
You understand that there are various... Oh, here's another one.
If they get you kicked off Twitter, they get you kicked off YouTube.
And then they get you kicked off your bank.
Say you go to the internet and you go to whatever, Bongino.com, and at Bongino.com you say, okay, you want to support the show?
Send in a check.
What are they going to do?
They'll go after your server company.
Who's hosting that?
So shut down the website.
Ladies and gentlemen, liberals are devious.
The far left has a tyrannical streak you ignore at your own peril.
Not all Democrats, but the far left has a tyrant streak in them to shut down free speech that you ignore at your own peril.
If you think any of this isn't happening, just Google NRA.
I forget the guy this week who had his Patreon taken down, but YouTube, the InfoWars stuff.
Hell, Joe, even Bill Maher, far-left liberal, who, again, I've always respected his stance on free speech, not much else.
Bill Maher has never wavered once on free speech.
Bill Maher came out on his show this weekend, a far-left guy, and he's like, hey, listen, Alex Jones and others have the right to speak.
You don't like it?
Tune out.
I thought we were for free speech.
I thought that's the way you tuned out if you didn't like stuff.
The far-left has a growing tyrannical streak that I think even frightens Bill Maher.
I respect the guy's opinion on it.
He has never wavered one bit.
You know why, Joe?
Mar was the subject of boycotts himself.
Oh, yeah.
And Mar's like, I don't like this.
You don't like my show?
Turn it off.
Right.
What I'm getting at, folks, is all down the line.
At every stage of getting conservative content out there that's going to be attacked, the bank, the website, the server, YouTube, the Patreon account, the finances, the credit card companies, the left is going to attack at every level, at every single level.
There's an opportunity for a company to come in and go, we're not them.
We're not them.
I'm telling you tomorrow, if a bank chartered itself, If a bank chart now listen there's certain bank regulations and obviously you can't there's things you can in the financial industry certain regulations you can't discriminate and nor would I suggest that but if a bank came out tomorrow and said as long as you're not violating any laws and as long as you're not uh engaging in any criminal activity we will support your business we absolutely unequivocally do not discriminate based on political ideology conservatives would move their money tomorrow
If a server company came out tomorrow, we are a server, we do not discriminate.
Remember, I'm not suggesting the opposite, that they discriminate against liberals either.
I'm telling you, their business model shouldn't be, we're a conservative company.
It should be, we're not them.
You're tracking Joe.
It's important.
The bank shouldn't say, we're a conservative bank.
No, because I don't want you to discriminate against liberals.
I don't want you to discriminate against anybody.
Do what Fox News did.
We're going to be fair and balanced.
In other words, we're not those guys who are not fair and balanced.
It was only 50% of America.
That market is out there right now.
A bank, we do not discriminate on political views no matter what.
Break the law, you're out.
Follow the laws, you don't like our bank, go elsewhere.
Right?
Same thing for the web server company.
You are in no danger here being de-platformed for political views.
Don't violate any laws.
Don't incentivize, you know, don't call for violence, which would be, you know, you can't call for people to be attacked.
We are good to go.
There is a market for this everywhere.
Now, on the social platforms, you may say, well, why there?
Why not there?
Why not after all the attacks by Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube?
Why not there?
Because, ladies and gentlemen, there's a crowd effect there, and the crowd effects are difficult to overcome.
If you went to business school, you know about Porter's Five Forces.
You've probably heard about it a thousand times.
What are Porter's Five Forces?
It's a first mover effect.
The first mover in a business traditionally always has an advantage.
You know, Amazon wasn't really a first mover per se, but was a first mover on the model scale.
You know, eBay was an auction site.
Amazon came in after books and said, why don't we sell everything else?
There's a first mover effect to YouTube and Twitter as well.
And people call me all the time.
That's why I bring this up, Joe.
And they go, why don't you start a conservative social media platform?
You have a voice, folks.
I don't have a voice.
Listen, I love my audience.
We're number two or three in the country right now.
But I don't have the money or the resources to do that.
To start a social media company, you need people to move en masse.
En masse to a social media site that's not Twitter or Facebook.
Because nobody wants to post on a platform where nobody is.
They're not going to waste their time.
I post a lot on Twitter.
I post probably 20-30 times a day.
Nobody is going to copy and paste over to another site if there aren't enough people there.
Now, having said that, this is why I brought up in the beginning the Rupert Murdoch example.
You get a guy who leaves office, say like Donald Trump in hopefully six years, not two, with his influence and his income to start that up, he may get, Joe, millions of people to move en masse and Twitter and Facebook would be finished.
I mean it would be exclusively the MySpace for liberals.
But on the financial front, on the server front, on the backbone front, you see what I'm getting at Joe?
There's the forward-facing conservative content arena.
YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, and websites.
Forward-facing.
What you see.
You go to Bongino.com, you hit play, you can listen to my show.
That's forward-facing.
The liberals are on a full-frontal assault, not only against the forward-facing conservative content space, they are assaulting the back-end too.
They are going after financial firms, servers, anybody who processes credit cards.
The back-end space we can do right now.
Right now.
Companies can move in and say, we will not discriminate on political views no matter what.
Conservatives?
Wink and liberals, you're all safe here.
And I'm guaranteeing you, you will be an enormous company quite shortly.
Because remember the model Murdoch and Alesaw.
We're not those guys.
We're not those guys is the brand.
Listen to some wealthy business folks out there.
The brand is not, listen to what I'm telling you.
The back end sales pitch is not, hey, look at our financial services.
They're just terrific.
Your brand is, we're not those guys.
That is the brand.
I see it, I hear it all the time when I go into work and I'll listen to, go into work, I work at my house, I'm driving my car to the gym, I go back to work at my house.
I'll be in the car listening to Sirius XM, I listen to Fox, I think it's 115 or 140, I don't even know the channel.
One of them's Fox News and one of them's Fox Nation or whatever.
But I'll listen and I always hear, this Patriot software, like that's their, they're not a sponsor of us, but that, do you understand that's their brand?
That's a smart company.
I don't know these guys.
They're not a sponsor of my show.
You know, disclosure.
I have no financial... They may.
They're not now.
I'm bringing it up because that's super smart.
They figured out that companies are tired of being attacked for their political values and the guy's like, hey, you're welcome over here.
Patriot Software, whatever it is.
Come on board, babe.
Greatest idea ever.
The brand is we're not them.
This is how we fight back, not through government.
We fight back by starting our own conservative economy.
Our own pipeline of back-end and front-end technologies that are impervious to liberal boycott campaigns.
That's how we do it.
And by the way, once that happens, liberals are out of business.
They're out of business because there's not enough liberals to support the content without the support of conservatives.
How do I know that?
Because everywhere liberals have tried to force a self-sustaining liberal economy, Joe, they failed.
Remember, Joe, you're in the radio business.
Remember Air America?
Uh, yeah.
A lot of you listening.
I was laughing because a lot of you listening don't remember Air America.
Air America was supposed to be the alternative to Rush Limbaugh.
It was a network of liberals.
I know some of the people who worked there.
Was it Randy Rhoads?
They were like Al Franken, I think, had a radio show.
We're going to do a liberal talk radio network, just like the conservatives do.
Failed miserably.
CNN, failing.
MSNBC, outside of the Rachel Maddow show, failing miserably behind Fox.
Getting crushed in the ratings.
CNN's losing to like cat videos on YouTube.
Yes, true.
The New York Times, failing.
The Washington Post, they're struggling with their subscription model.
Everywhere liberals have tried to support an economic model.
Without conservatives, they have failed.
The solution... Meanwhile, who's doing just peachy?
Fox, talk radio, even after all the relentless hack boycotts by the goons at Media Matters and others, there is still A tremendous financial pipeline in conservative talk radio and podcasting.
Why?
Because conservatives are, one, 50%, 40% of America, and they spend money!
Companies want to, it's a reason, that's why I always ask you to support the sponsors.
They're here because they want to be.
It's not a mistake.
They don't, we don't, their idea, I don't, I want to be clear, I don't know if they're liberal or conservative.
We don't ask.
But that matters to me that they don't ask either!
Long as you don't go crazy and say, which I understand, wouldn't want to be associated with it.
They come on the show and they say, we want to be a part of your show and reach your audience.
I don't ask them, are you guys liberal?
I don't care!
They want to be here and talk to you.
That matters to me.
That has not worked in the liberal space.
They can't sustain it, folks.
Conservative economy is the only way to go.
All right.
Speaking of sponsors, today's show brought to you by buddies at iTarget.
The website's iTargetPro.com.
It is the best system out there for improving your proficiency with a firearm, which is your responsibility.
If we're going to purchase and own firearms, which I do, I just bought a couple new ones last weekend.
That SIG 365, by the way, is awesome.
I love that thing.
So accurate for a small firearm.
But one of the best ways to practice your proficiency is dry-firing.
Dry-firing is when you safely unload your weapon, check it, check it twice, check it three times, and at the range, always pointed in a safe direction, you depress the trigger on a safely unloaded weapon.
Well, what's the benefit of that?
The benefit is, well, without the kickback of a exploding round going out, you can practice your trigger control, your sight picture, your sight alignment, you know, and you can just get the feel for it.
This is really important.
It's important for your grip.
It's important for your technique.
It's one of the best ways to learn how to use that firearm and use it proficiently.
Now, the problem with dry fire is it's dry.
There's no round in there.
The iTarget Pro system will send you a laser round.
You drop in the safely unloaded firearm you have now.
He will also send you a target, and in conjunction with a phone app, which is amazing, when you depress the trigger on that laser round, it'll emit a laser and you can see where the round would've gone.
I'm telling you, give it a week.
The feedback on this product is always, always spectacular.
It is one of my favorite sponsors.
You will be shooting the wings off a firefly at the end of the week.
You will be so proficient with your firearm because it'll clean you right up.
It'll clean up your grip, your sight picture, your sight alignment.
Go check it out.
Go to itargetpro.com.
That's itargetpro.com.
That's the letter itargetpro.com.
Letter itargetpro.com.
Use promo code Dan for 10% off.
Remember, competitive shooters, people do this for a living, dry fire like that, 10 times more than they live fire.
That's how to improve your proficiency with a firearm.
itargetpro.com.
Promo code Dan.
Go check it out.
Okay, before I get to an interesting development on Papa D, folks, here's the real McGann story.
What's the McGann story, you may ask?
Well, I'm here to tell you.
Over the weekend, New York Times, more fake news.
The story's not fake, it's their take on it which is fake because it's the New York Times and that's what they do is Democrat propaganda and fake news.
So the story from the New York Times is the White House counsel, this is important, he's not Trump's lawyer specifically, the White House counsel Don McGahn is cooperating with the Mueller probe.
Oh New York Times show, oh it's over!
Joe, have you been keeping track of the times that we've been told it's over?
Oh!
Are we over 2,000 yet?
We're close, right?
We're close, yeah.
Yeah, easily close.
Maybe 1,998 or something.
This is about time number 1,998.
We got him now!
We got him now!
We got Trump!
Again, everybody else is like, yawning, ready to go to sleep.
We're like, really?
You got him now?
You had him last night?
You always have him.
We got him now.
There's nothing to have.
They don't have anything.
So it's kind of funny they think they've got Trump.
The media went into a frenzy saying, well, Trump's White House counsel interviewed for 30 hours with Mueller.
Folks, Trump waived executive privilege for McGahn, his White House counsel, to speak with Mueller.
Does that... I mean, are we really... Let me paint for you the two narratives, okay?
The right one and then the media one, which is almost always fake news.
Here's what's happening here.
McGann is the White House counsel.
I brought that up specifically because there's not really an attorney-client privilege.
He's not Trump's personal attorney.
He's the White House counsel.
We understand, right?
Giuliani and Jay Sekulow are his personal attorneys.
Dowd was his attorney before.
They have, and there is an attorney-client privilege.
The privilege that would apply here if Trump did not want McGahn, the White House counsel, to talk to Mueller would be executive privilege, which would be perfectly legitimate.
In other words, Joe, Trump can tell McGahn, don't talk to that guy.
Right.
He didn't.
That's not what Trump said.
Trump allowed McGahn to talk to Bob Mueller.
Now, only in the world of the psychopathic, you know, New York Times, the conspiracy theorist times, absolutely obsessed with a fake Russian collusion story, is this additional evidence of the conspiracy.
The hallmark of any conspiracy theory, Joe, is any evidence that presents itself no matter how Damning or indemnifying is always evidence of the conspiracy.
In other words, Joe's a space alien.
Well, we sent Joe to a doctor for blood work and Joe's DNA, he is in fact human.
The doctor's in on the conspiracy theory!
Well, we interviewed the doctor on a polygraph and on the polygraph the doctor said he is not in fact in on the conspiracy.
The polygrapher's in on the conspiracy theory!
Right?
That's evidence of the conspiracy theory.
No matter what evidence presents itself, there is always an excuse that that evidence is more evidence of the conspiracy theory.
The collusion conspiracy theory at the New York Times, who are totally fake.
They're fiction writers now.
This, which should have been an example to the Times.
By the way, Bill Clinton fought this in the Whitewater scandal.
Nixon fought this in Watergate.
They claimed executive privilege.
Any reasonable observer Joe would be like, well Trump's not claiming executive privilege, so clearly he has nothing to hide.
He doesn't have to allow this person to talk at all.
Why would he?
But when you're at the New York Times and you're a conspiracy theorist, again, everything is evidence of the conspiracy.
I'm telling you the truth here.
The truth is this.
Here's the story.
Trump is letting him talk because there is nothing to hide and they just want to wrap this witch hunt up already.
There's no there there.
There is no collusion.
Where's the beef?
Now where would you may be asking if narrative two that the New York Times is putting out there the fiction narrative that no this is evidence that McGann this oh I'm sorry I didn't even tell you what the New York Times story absolutely ridiculous story by the way is that no Joe McGann is talking to the special counsel with Trump's permission because Trump is getting ready to throw McGann under the bus for this so McGann's covering his butt By the way, completely disregarding that, McGann couldn't talk without Trump's permission.
Now, if that story sounds dumb and you're sitting there scratching your head going, I got to rewind, hit the 15 second button because that made no sense.
It's not supposed to make sense.
It's the New York Times.
The New York Times theory, again, is McGann is talking because McGann's trying to cover his butt because Trump's going to throw him under the butt, under the bus for the collusion, for the collusion conspiracy thing that never happened.
It's just like, dude, the stupid is so strong that even for the media, the stupid is astonishing.
Now, here's the explanation for story two about, oh no, where that came from.
Solid folks are now starting to understand that Don McGahn, the White House counsel, has a lot of influence in the White House, Joe.
Whether it's in regards to Supreme Court picks, he has Trump's ear.
Trump trusts him.
There are, unfortunately, some palace intrigue.
There are some people who'd probably like to see that influence, you know, weaned a little bit.
Maybe that channel to Trump broken.
I will guarantee you, and you can take it to the bank, that these stories, Joseph, about McGahn cooperating with Mueller because he feels Trump is going to throw him under the bus, are exclusively meant to drive a wedge between McGahn and Trump and have no basis in truth at all.
But again, the New York Times, that's strictly engaged in conspiracy theory nonsense these days, has no interest in that.
Their interest is simply promoting a false narrative.
And again, that's what they got.
And that's exactly what they got, a weekend full of, oh my gosh, another one cooperate.
We got them now.
We got them now.
Time 2172.
You've got nothing.
You've got Zippo.
All right, this is a really good story.
I'm sorry if I've kept you on hold with this, but it's important.
But let me, before we get to that, today's show also brought to you by our buddies at BrickHouse Nutrition.
BrickHouse, listen, foundation, I can't say enough about it.
Joe, doesn't little Joe love it?
Oh yeah, man.
It works great.
It's incredible.
This stuff is amazing.
Foundation is a creatine ATP blend.
What does it do?
It's available first at brickhousenutrition.com slash Dan.
It is a creatine ATP blend, which will make you look better and perform better.
I don't have any easier way to sum it up what this stuff does.
But listen, talk is cheap, actions matter, and results matter, right?
So before you try Foundation, I want you to do me this favor.
By the way, it's like having two extra gas tanks in the gym.
Creatine, ATP, the phosphogens out there, they work by boosting your capacity.
It takes a little bit to load though in your system, maybe five to seven days.
So here's what I encourage you to do.
And before you try foundation, go take a little mental snapshot in the mirror of what you look like, right?
Five to seven days later, I send on, by the way, all the positive reviews over the miles.
I want you to look at yourself again after five to seven days of foundation.
Let it load.
You're going to be like, whoa, this stuff is the real deal.
I got guys sending me emails.
Hey, my wife really loves that stuff.
I look great.
I told you, you heard it here first.
Also take down your performance in the gym.
Take a little note.
How many bench press reps am I doing?
Squat, deadlifts, whatever it may be, pull-ups.
Then seven days later, go back.
You're going to be like, wow, what a difference.
This stuff is the real deal.
Go to BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
That's BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
Pick up a bottle of foundation today.
You will not regret it.
This is an absolutely spectacular supplement I can't say enough about.
Okay.
This is gonna be a little complicated, so I want you to roll with me for a minute.
But there are some really, there's some good work being done by Jeff Carlson.
He writes at MarketsWork and over at Epic Times, and I'll put the pieces in the show notes with one from Chuck Ross today, which are gonna tie together a... something on Spygate I've been telling you for a long time.
Okay?
Joe, on July 27, 2017, Papadopoulos was arrested.
He's arrested in an airport.
He's processed at 145 in the morning the following day, but basically that night, a continuity of that same night.
This arrest, ladies and gentlemen, is highly suspicious.
Now, I've talked about this before, about the suspicious nature of what happened at the arrest, but let me give you a little background on how federal arrests work because I'm going to tell you why Papadopoulos is being worked here and why the need to shut Papadopoulos up is so grave right now.
Papadopoulos is the key to the whole spying scandal.
Papa Dizzle meets with Mifsud in April.
Mifsud is a Maltese professor.
Mifsud is alleged to have told him about dirt on Hillary.
According to the theory by the Democrats right now and the liberal media, that guy, Mifsud, was working on behalf of the Russians.
I've told you repeatedly that Mifsud's contacts are with Western intelligence, not the Russians, leading me to believe, and many others, that Papadopoulos was set up!
Now, on July 27, 2017, Papadizzle's arrested.
It's how he's arrested.
It's very, very interesting.
When you're a federal agent, there are a few different ways to arrest someone.
You can go into a sitting grand jury.
You can get an indictment and an indictment after that and arrest warrants issued.
And I go out and arrest Joe for felonious mopery.
Damn, damn, got him again.
If I have suspicions Joe was involved in felonious mopery and I don't want to indict him for various reasons, indictment, it's, it's, um, It's very difficult to dismiss a federal indictment.
It's not difficult to dismiss a federal complaint.
So sometimes the United States attorney, if they think they're going to get cooperation out of someone, will choose to go the complaint route instead, rather than an indictment.
Why?
Because then later on, if I lock up Joe on a complaint for felonious mopery and he cooperates on the kingpin, I can dismiss the complaint.
No worries.
We have some leverage over Joe.
An indictment, it's not impossible.
Indictments are dismissed all the time, but it's more difficult.
Or the charges that are being dismissed.
Let's just say the indictment.
The indictment doesn't go anywhere.
The charges.
Are we tracking, Joe?
You have to understand this distinction.
I used to teach in the academy.
Indictments, hard to dismiss the charges later, but not impossible.
Complaints, they lead to the same arrest warrant, by the way.
A complaint, pretty easy to dismiss if you want to use the subject later.
You may be asking yourself, well, how was Papadopoulos arrested?
Complaint or indictment?
Neither.
Neither.
Papa Dizzle was arrested PC, a probable cause arrest.
Now, illegal?
No, not at all.
Unethical?
No, not at all.
Perfectly legitimate, probable cause arrests in the local and state system happen every day.
A probable cause arrest, if I see Joe on the street committing felonious mopery and I'm a cop, that's a PC arrest.
I didn't have a warrant, right?
If God forbid, I mean listen, a lot of people sadly have been arrested for stuff.
If you've been arrested in the street and no warrant was presented, it was a probable cause arrest.
Perfectly legitimate, happens all the time.
I'm telling you from my experience in the federal system for over a decade, PC arrests in the federal system with no warrant, although not illegal or unethical, are unicorns.
They exist in theory, But they never ever happen, right?
Right.
They're unicorn.
Reminds me of that little kid in Despicable Me movies.
Unicorn!
They don't happen.
They don't happen for a lot of reasons.
PC arrests in the federal system, one, don't happen because in the federal system you are not on patrol.
What does that mean?
If you're not on patrol, you're not.
There's no secret service agent patrol.
It's not like, hey, the New York field office, go out and patrol the streets of New York for bank fraud.
That's not the way it works in the federal system.
The cops do that.
The cops patrol.
In the federal system, we get our criminal cases by referral.
The police department calls, hey, this is a little out of our hands.
We got a counterfeit case.
A complainant walks in, hey, I got some suspects here in a terrorism case.
So the way the federal system works is the opposite of the local system.
The local system, when you're the NYPD, you see a crime in the street, you arrest them, you build the case afterwards.
You go back to the scene, you get a witness statement, whatever it is.
The federal system works the exact opposite.
You hear about a crime, you build a case, you get the witness statements, you go up on a wire, you get the phone taps, you get the DNRs, the dial number recorders, you get the cell phone records, you get the financial records, and then you make an arrest.
Arrest last!
In the local system, it's largely arrest first, if it's outside of the detective squad.
What does this have to do with Papadia?
Why is it so critical?
Ladies and gentlemen, the PC arrest in the federal system is almost unheard of because that's not how these things work.
The United States attorney largely works nine to five.
They typically have to be at a magistrate hearing.
The federal judges work nine to five.
They have to be available, but it's largely a nine to five schedule for initial appearance.
The US Marshals, where you have to bring the person you arrested, you have to bring them for processing, absolutely hate it when you show up unannounced.
Guys, ladies, listen.
If you are a federal agent, you know exactly what I'm talking about and you know all of this is true.
Everything in the federal system, almost everything, is a respite appointment.
And it's definitely not a respite probable cause.
You damn well better show up with a warrant.
Matter of fact, in my 10 years, I have not even seen a probable cause arrest in the federal system.
I'm not kidding.
And believe me, I was an active guy.
I didn't make one or two arrests.
I made a whole lot of them.
I'm not patting myself on the back.
I'm just telling you the facts.
My name appears on a whole lot of case numbers in the New York and Melville offices of the Secret Service.
I have not even seen a PC arrest.
A PC arrest in the federal system only happens if you are really looking to shut someone down super darn fast.
Why were they so panicked on July 27, 2017 to go with no arrest warrant and lock up Papa Dizzle at the airport and process him at 145 in the morning?
How to wake up the magistrate?
How to get an AUSA up?
Why would they do that?
What else happened on July 27th?
Let me read to you from Jeff Carlson's piece, which will be in the show notes today, which I strongly encourage you to read.
It's labeled Jeff Carlson's piece, so you won't miss it.
Quote, on July 27, 2017, upon our identification of many of the political text messages, the Inspector General met with the Deputy Attorney General and the Special Counsel to inform them of the texts that we had discovered and provided them with a significant number of the texts so that they could take any management action they deemed appropriate.
What?
That's right, Spidey.
July 27th is the same day the Peter Stroke Lisa Page text messages are brought from the Inspector General to Bob Mueller's office.
Bob Mueller's office is looking at these going, Holy Moses, what do we do now?
Ladies and gentlemen, you still sure Papadopoulos is this mastermind international spy figure who was dealing with a Russian connected Mifsud who gave him the... You sure about that?
Now I bring this up in light of Byron York's piece which will be in the show notes today as well at the Washington Examiner which brings up this strange little conundrum we're finding now as the Mueller documents are coming out.
Remember on Friday I told you there was going to be a hearing and Mueller released some paperwork on Friday and in that paperwork Joe you would think if Papadopoulos was key to this entire collusion scandal in other words if the liberal narrative is true that George Papadopoulos was working with a Russian connected person A Russian connected person to get dirt on Hillary to give to the Trump team because Papadopoulos is working for the Trump team.
You would think he would have had some information to offer.
Read the York piece.
Papadopoulos had nothing.
Why did Papa D have nothing?
Because there's nothing to have.
He was set up.
They are... Joe, do you see the urgency in the PCRS now?
Yeah.
They were eager to shut this guy up.
Papa Dizzle's the key to this whole thing.
Once Papadopoulos starts talking and says, hey, I didn't pass any information to the Trump team.
Matter of fact, this dude I was talking to, this guy's connected to Western people.
This guy is not some Russian asset.
Why is this related to the text messages?
Ladies and gentlemen, may I suggest to you that the text messages, that there's some more there there, layered information we may not be able to understand in the context of the text message, that Mueller understands exactly what it means.
What am I saying?
The distinct possibility exists here that Peter Strzok, who was the lead investigator, who was texting this FBI lawyer, who he was involved with, who was also involved in the case.
May I suggest to you that the texts say things that we don't understand right now, but Mueller does.
In other words, the OCONUS lures.
Remember the Okonis Lores tweet?
Oh, Okonis.
Okonis means outside the continent of the United States.
Lores.
Lores.
Traps.
Baits.
Spies.
I'm saying to you that there may be information in those texts that we're reading now that we don't understand because we don't understand the whole context, but Mueller does.
Folks, Mueller knows this case is about to fall apart.
He is desperate to shut Papa Dizzle up.
If Papa D starts talking, and it comes out that this guy was set up, and according to Friday's disclosure of documents showed, Papadopoulos doesn't have any information to offer, how does he not have information to offer if he's the key to the whole scandal?
Does this make any sense to you?
How does Papadopoulos, the guy the left is claiming, oh Mueller arrested him, the scandal's falling apart Joe.
Papadopoulos met with this Russian connected agent and this Russian connected agent passed him information on Hillary and Papadopoulos passed it to the Trump team.
Voila!
There's the whole conspiracy.
Then why doesn't Papadopoulos have anything to offer?
Maybe because that's all a colossal pile of triceratops dung.
There's some imagery for you.
There's nothing there!
In the words of Peter Stroke, there's no there there.
Papadopoulos doesn't have anything because what they're saying happened didn't happen.
He was contacted likely by a Western intelligence asset in an effort to entrap him that he didn't fall into the trap on.
Therefore, Mueller's team gets the text on July 27.
They're reading the text about Okonis, Lors, and other things, thinking, oh boy, is this Ms.
Sood thing, all of this going to fall apart?
Is the fact that Papadopoulos was set up and his whole investigation is a sham going to fall apart?
What do we do?
Someone better head to the airport and pick up Papa Dizzle.
Hey, do we have an arrest warrant?
Don't worry, we'll PC arrest him.
Yeah, we really don't work that way.
Do it anyway.
Papadopoulos shows up at his arraignment, no lawyer, and agrees at that point probably to shut up.
Papa Dizzle's the key.
Papa D is the key.
Someone should have a shirt made up.
Papa D, maybe we'll do that.
Do you see what's going on here?
Now, I'm a little short on time, but don't miss tomorrow's show.
This is going to be important.
Because I have another angle here about the Mueller team and their efforts to hide another.
Extremely suspicious.
It's in Carlson's piece today, so read it because you'll be prepared for tomorrow's show.
But their efforts to hide and bury another angle on Papadopoulos and the endpoint of his connections.
In other words, how this whole Papadopoulos story, the effort right now by Mueller to hide this is so obvious you'd have to be an idiot to miss it.
I don't have enough time in today's show, but do not miss it.
I'm going to walk through the follow the white rabbit on the dates.
This person hit this person at this person that wound up with this person.
It'll make all the sense in the world why Mueller needs to shut Papa Dizzle up.
I just gave you one angle.
I'm going to give you another angle tomorrow.
He needs to shut Papadizzle up because Mueller knows something about those texts that he can read them in a context we can't.
And it makes all the sense in the world that the Papadopoulos whole crew was set up.
And they don't want that out there.
Alright, one last story and we're gonna roll.
By the way, one of the things I'm obsessed with is media hackery and media bias.
Did you see the story this weekend?
Media headlines.
ICE arrests man taking his wife to the hospital to give birth.
Folks, I'll put it in the show notes, but in case you missed the story, he was driving his wife to give birth while wanted on a warrant from Mexico for murder.
By the way, it was a C-section.
She was not in labor.
Not that that makes a difference towards the case, but they're acting like the woman was giving birth in the car.
The guy was wanted for murder.
You notice how the media conveniently leaves that out.
These are lies by omission, not necessarily commission, but that's what media hacks do all the time.
All right, folks, don't miss tomorrow's show.
I'm going to get into that.
It's going to blow your mind how this is all connected to the same Bob Mueller cover-up.
All right.
Thanks for everything.
I really appreciate you listening.
Last week, it was our best week ever, and I really appreciate the subscriptions.
Please go and subscribe to the show.
It's free.
iTunes, SoundCloud, iHeartRadio.
It's all free, but it helps us move up the charts, and we really appreciate it.
