Summary:
In this episode I address the stunning turn of events in the Kavanaugh case. The credibility of one of Kavanaugh’s accusers is in question as a new letter surfaces. I also address the growing calls to release Uranium One information that could expose deep corruption.
News Picks:
This piece covers the troubling series of anti-Kavanaugh lies we’ve witnessed.
Christine Blasey Ford’s ex-boyfriend has come forward with some troubling new information.
Salena Zito’s new piece throws some water on the “Blue Wave” narrative.
Dennis Prager’s piece addresses the disturbing violent streak on the radical Left.
There’s a dispute among Senate Democrats about what should be done with the FBI report.
This piece addresses a series of hoax studies used to address the corruption of the sciences.
Copyright CRTV. All rights reserved.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Get ready to hear the truth about America with your host, Dan Bongino.
Alright, welcome to the Dan Bongino Show.
Producer Joe, how are you today?
I'm doing good, Dan.
I'm doing good.
I, uh, did you hear Trump last night?
You got this lawyer, Avianti!
No!
Avianti.
He was talking about Avenatti in his speech last night, Trump.
By the way, there's nothing more insulting than calling someone, by the way, that's why I love Trump.
He's the ultimate troll.
Aviante, of course, wants to attack Trump.
You know, he's the creepy porn lawyer.
Everybody knows how filthy his tactics have been.
So what does he do?
He calls him out and says, we got this guy, Aviante.
Aviante.
Listen, before I get to the show, I just want to read an email quick.
I got this.
It's been going around.
I'm not...
You know, I'm not doxing anybody, I'm not giving out any personal information, but an email that was sent to Chuck Grassley's chief counsel.
Chuck Grassley's the head of the Judiciary Committee that's been managing the Kavanaugh confirmation process.
Now, I've not discussed this with you, Joe, before the show, right?
Nope.
But this is one of the funniest things you will ever see in your life.
It's about Aviante.
The creepy porn lawyer, Avenatti.
We don't want to confuse anyone.
So Avenatti, CPL, writes to Mike Davis, who's working for Chuck Grassley on this committee, the Republican senator running the committee.
He says, Mr. Davis, about interviewing his client, stop playing games.
If you are the chief counsel, then you need to do your job.
Please respond to our request.
This is CPL, creepy porn lawyer.
The response here, folks, is Mike Drop Level Epic.
I don't know Mike Davis, but you're my new hero after this one, Mike.
Mike Davis, Chief Counsel for Nominations.
Mr. Avenatti slash Avianti.
Mr. Avenatti.
We have already reviewed your client's allegations.
We focus on credible allegations.
Please stop emailing me.
Thank you.
Paula may actually appreciate that one.
We know she hates Muttly, but Paula may actually enjoy that one.
Is that not the greatest email ever?
Please stop emailing us.
We're focusing on credible allegations.
Mike Davis, I don't know you, but good for you.
Someone's got to put a stop to CPL there, creepy porn lawyer.
He is just, I mean, an embarrassment to the legal profession.
That was cool.
That was cool.
I just wanted to open up with that because, you know, with all this bad news, it's sad that you have gasoline throwers on the fire like Aviante out there.
And I'm, you know, I know people are turned off sometimes by Trump's tactics.
I'm not.
I don't care one bit.
I'm glad this guy's a warrior.
Don't mention Aviante at a thing, you're going to elevate him.
I'm pretty sure Aviante's not elevated after last night.
I'm pretty confident.
Yeah.
Sometimes, you know, sometimes a guy who's trying to be a bully needs to get a little bullied himself to figure out what it's like.
Therefore, he stops doing it in the future.
So I think Aviante got the...
Last night got a rung knocked off that ladder.
All right, folks, I got a lot of material for you today.
Thanks for all the feedback on the last two shows.
It's been great.
Today's show brought to you by our buddies at My Patriot Supply.
This is one of my personal favorite companies because I am, listen, I was a former Secret Service agent.
Preparedness matters for me.
This is what we did.
And preparedness should matter to you too.
We ensure everything in our lives that matter.
You ensure your health.
You have dental insurance, you have car insurance, you have house insurance, life insurance.
Folks, why do you not have food insurance?
That's insane.
You should have an emergency supply of food, and they have such a deal for you right now.
Our friends at MyPatriotSupply, it makes no sense not to follow up.
Emergencies usually strike without warning.
We're surprised when the market crashes or power goes out.
Certainly with earthquakes, there's no warning.
You do get a little bit of warning with hurricanes, but by the time you get to the supermarket, the shelves are bare.
When it's breaking news, it's too late and you're scrambling.
The best thing to do to prepare for natural disasters or emergency situations are when things are calm.
That's right now.
Ask yourself, could you feed yourself or your family for two weeks with the food you have at your home at this moment?
If not, it's time to act and secure an emergency food supply.
I use my Patriot Supply and you should too.
I have tons of it in my closet.
Two Week Food Kit will get you started.
Get one for everyone in your family.
This week it's on sale for only...
$75 when you go to my special website, preparewithdan.com or call 888-411-8926.
These food kits include meals that last up to 25 years in storage.
Order now and prepare yourself so there are no surprises.
Preparewithdan.com or 888-411-8926.
Preparewithdan.com.
Go check it out.
Okay.
Um, excuse me.
A couple of breaking things since yesterday in the Kavanaugh case, and I have some other news I want to get to later.
John Solomon, just to give you a quick update on some Spygate-related stories that Solomon broke the other day, which is fascinating.
It relates to kind of Spygate and the ties to Uranium One, which he's, yeah, the government's hiding something there.
I mean, obviously, it's not conspiracy theory stuff.
They are actually hiding stuff.
But before we get to that, a stunning, absolutely stunning letter revealed yesterday from Christine Blasey Ford, the accuser of Brett Kavanaugh, Christine Blasey Ford's former boyfriend.
The letter went public, the boyfriend wrote this letter, it made its way into the Senate investigators, and folks, I'm starting to see something happening right now.
And the reason I started Monday's show, based on some sourcing we had, with the narrative shift You remember that show, folks, on Monday I discussed how the Democrats are now moving away from Brett Kavanaugh as a serial sexual offender to he's a belligerent drunk with a bad temperament who blacks out and may not remember this stuff?
Right.
Folks, the reason that was happening, which I said to you on Monday and now you're starting to see it, is the sexual assault allegations are entirely collapsing.
Now, Eddie Scarry, who I follow on Twitter, had an interesting comment this morning.
He said, you know, it's fascinating, Joe, that the Democrats initially wanted Kavanaugh treated like a criminal, right?
They made serious criminal allegations of a potential sexual assault, right?
I mean, that's just, that's a fact.
That's what happened.
Yet, when Kavanaugh tried to defend himself, they tried to cut off all those avenues by saying, well, this isn't a criminal trial.
So we don't need to prove anything.
All we need to do is make the allegation.
So treat it like a crime, but treat his defense like an anomaly.
You get what they did?
This is how tactically devious and evil these Democrats are.
Allege a crime.
Joe, I think you robbed the bank.
Then when Joe goes to defend himself, what do you mean?
I was recording the Dan Bongino podcast.
I'm on, it's timestamped.
This is not a trial, Joe.
It's not a criminal trial.
That's right!
Someone said you did it.
You are not allowed to, as if folks...
Alleging a sexual assault, which is one of the, I mean, does anybody question one of the worst possible degrees of a crime you can commit?
As if alleging a sexual assault precludes anyone from defending themselves.
Perfectly illustrated, dude.
I mean, I gotta hat tip Eddie on that because it was a great line.
They want to allege a crime, yet cut off any defense to that crime by saying, well, we're not treating this like a crime.
You just alleged it was a crime!
Not only a crime, one of the sickest, most deranged, disturbing crimes out there is sexual assault on a woman.
But he's not allowed to defend himself because it's a job interview.
It's a job interview.
Armacost, you robbed a bank.
No, I didn't.
Shut up!
Shut your mouth!
This is a job interview!
I was here doing the podcast.
No, you weren't!
Shut your mouth!
Shut your mouth!
Well, what's happening now is the story is entirely collapsing and the boyfriend's letter is absolutely disturbing.
Now, everything should be open for interpretation and interviews here, but the process here, I'm going to let you in on something here, is now starting to make sense.
Let's go over the boyfriend's letter first, the former boyfriend, Dr. Ford here.
There are a couple assertions in it that are stunning.
He says, number one, that he dated her for an extended period of time, Christine Ford, and that the fear of flying, he has no, I'm trying to be diplomatic, no reason to believe that at all.
Remember Dr. Ford said she couldn't come to DC to testify because she had a fear of flying?
Now, I told you that the reason they were doing that is because they had to get the hearing pushed till Thursday, so Brett Kavanaugh would not be seated for this upcoming Supreme Court session, which in fact happened.
The Supreme Court is now getting ready to hear these cases, and Brett Kavanaugh is in fact not there.
They are in a public session.
So they won battle number one.
I think they're going to lose the war on this, but they won battle number one, which was delay it.
One of the delay tactics, it's important because it relates to this, was Christine Ford doesn't want to fly.
She's afraid of flying.
She doesn't want to be in confined spaces.
The letter from the ex-boyfriend almost completely annihilates that.
At one point he says, hey, you know, we did a little island hopping.
Matter of fact, the island hopping we did in Hawaii, was not literally hopping, it was flying, obviously.
And the flying was done in many cases, Joe, in very small prop planes.
Oh, yeah.
Now, I don't know about you, but if you've ever been on a prop plane, I did.
Yeah.
I went to Sandblast Island with Jenna Bush once when I was a Secret Service agent.
We flew on a prop plane.
I'm telling you, I thought we were going down.
I'm like, I can't believe this is happening.
It was one of those prop planes that you're looking at the engine outside and you see like duct tape flying around on the engine of prop planes.
I mean, I'm obviously exaggerating a bit, but it was an old plane.
Yeah, we took a prop plane to Belize.
Oh, man.
And landed on a mud airstrip, and this thing looked like it was held together.
And they're the loudest things ever, right?
Oh!
Oh my gosh, it'll drive you crazy.
So she, Ford, with the old boyfriend, took these planes.
So he basically says, the fear of flying.
So that was a central tenet of her strategy, the legal team strategy surrounding her, for her not to show up in D.C.
before Thursday to delay the seeding of Kavanaugh, which they won that battle because she didn't.
So the fear of flying, we have a really open question, if not a dispositive answer now.
He also says in the letter that he's never heard anything about this fear of closed spaces.
Ford has alleged multiple times that since the incident she alleges Kavanaugh was involved in, that she has this fear of closed spaces.
She'd build another door in her house.
The former boyfriend says there's no evidence of this that he's aware of.
Matter of fact, he rented her a 600 square foot apartment, which is not very big at all.
It's a pretty closed space if you ask me.
Another thing.
He says Christine Ford never mentioned to him ever in the extended period of time that they dated any mention of a sexual assault.
No less by Brett Kavanaugh.
He also mentioned something very, very, very interesting.
He mentions a name of a Monica McClain.
How this Monica McClain is a friend of Christine Ford's and how Monica McClain was assisted, let's say, that's the best way to sum this up, on a polygraph examination she was about to take by Dr. Ford, who used her psychology training to tell Monica McClain how to take the polygraph test.
Folks, there are things going on behind the scenes that have been going on for a long time now.
A lot of this information was known, has been known, and it explains some of the questions posed to Christine Ford during the testimony.
One of those questions being, when she was on television right before Brett Kavanaugh during that worldwide watched hearing, when they asked Dr. Ford during the questioning, have you ever assisted someone or given them tips on how to take a polygraph, she said no.
After raising her right hand.
Folks, the story's falling apart.
But this is where it gets fascinating, Joe.
I want to hat-tip Jeff at The Markets Work and Sundance at The Conservative Treehouse for putting together.
Now, some of it is yet to be tied together, so I'm going to stay 30,000 feet until I'm sure of it.
It's the only thing for me to do.
But some of the leads are very good.
And also, I want to hat-tip Barbara as well.
You know who you are.
Why is this Monica McClain interesting?
So just to track where we are here, the boyfriend's letter says, hey, I dated Christine Ford.
Christine Ford helped...
assist Monica McLean in taking a polygraph examination.
That's important because one of Ford's additional defenses, in addition to her flying story, I'm Afraid of Closed Spaces show, has been, hey, I should be, you know, I should be given some, my story should be given credence because I took a polygraph and the polygraph didn't show any signs of deception.
So it's kind of interesting and material to her case that apparently she's spoken to someone in the past about how to assist in getting past a polygraph examination.
Now, here's where it gets really interesting.
Get ready.
Ford's attorneys, Katz and Bromwich, are freaking out right now.
They sent a letter to the committee and to the FBI investigators.
They sent a letter for them all to read, demanding an interview, stat, right away, with Dr. Ford.
Now why they would need an interview with Ford after providing testimony, sworn testimony, is a bit confusing, but it's not confusing the lawyer's letter if you understand what's going on right now.
So now we know she has this friend, Monica McClain.
Monica McClain took a polygraph test.
She helped assist her in that polygraph test, according to the boyfriend.
These are the allegations in the letter.
Where does Monica McLean live?
And he indicates in the letter that Monica McLean is a lifetime friend of Christine Forgeau.
Monica McLean, according to some public profile information available, lives in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, an area I know you're intimately familiar with.
Yes, I am.
It's only about an hour away from Joe.
I lived close to it at one point when I bought Joe.
So that's where people in Maryland go.
They go to Ocean City and Rehoboth.
Delaware's right there.
It's on the Delmarva Peninsula.
Where did Christine Ford say she was when she put together the letter telling her story?
Rehoboth Beach, Delaware.
This case is getting stranger by the moment because Monica McClain, at least according to some information that appears public at this point, appears to have worked somewhere from 1992 to 2016.
Where does she work?
The Federal Bureau of Investigation.
The FBI.
So, just to be clear on what the connections here are.
So you have a woman who worked at the FBI, who was assisted in a polygraph investigation by Dr. Ford, who claims that her polygraph test about her allegations against Kavanaugh are evidence that the story is true, because the polygrapher, who had some ties to the FBI himself, the polygrapher said there were no indications of deception.
I've already told you that I believe, based on the two questions asked during the polygraph, that it was a nonsense result.
It obviously would not stand up in court, because polygraphs are not admissible in court.
But she goes to Rehoboth, Delaware, meets back up again with this lifelong friend, Monica McLean, who had worked with the FBI, and pens this letter indicating what her allegations are after the rest of the story is entirely collapsing now.
Okay?
Now, here's what's going on.
And here's how I tie this up.
Here's how I had to lay the groundwork for this.
Why are the lawyers panicking?
Why would they want Christine Ford interviewed again by the FBI?
In other words, if you're telling me, Dan, that there are inconsistencies in the story, the confined spaces story, the fact that she has a fear of flying, which her boyfriend says is not true, the fact that she's indicated in her sworn testimony up on the hill she never helped anyone with a polygraph test, it now appears the boyfriend is contradicting that story.
Folks, may I suggest to you that the FBI background investigation supplemental that they're doing now is entirely blowing up in their faces.
And that's why the Democrats, you have that sound ready?
That is why the Democrats that were begging them, begging them for an FBI investigation, and I said this to you a week ago, they really did not want an FBI investigation.
They wanted to stall.
They wanted to stall, desperately hoping what?
Desperately, hoping that Kavanaugh did what Joe?
Withdrew his name?
Yeah, sure.
That's what they, I told you that during yesterday's show.
They don't want to take a vote.
Any vote is a loser for them.
If Kavanaugh goes down or up, it is a total loser for them.
If Kavanaugh wins the vote, Wins the confirmation vote and gets a seat on the Supreme Court, they lose.
If Kavanaugh goes down, he will likely be re-nominated and all of those red state Democrats running for office will lose their seats.
Montana, Jon Tester, North Dakota, Heidi Heitkamp, Joe Donnelly in Indiana, Manchin, Claire McCaskill in Missouri, they will all lose their seats.
And the Democrats know it.
Selena Zito has a great piece in the Washington Examiner today.
I have in the show notes about this, how there may be a red tide coming ashore.
Maybe not a red wave, but the blue wave is looking less and less likely by the day the longer they hold on to this.
Are you tracking me, folks?
It's critical you understand this.
Please, if I'm confusing Joe, you gotta stop me.
The Democrats' goal is not what they said publicly.
The Democrats' goal was to get Kavanaugh to withdraw by dropping nuclear bomb level explosives on him.
Allegations that can never be disproven.
Dragging this thing out and making it a war of attrition.
In other words, they really didn't want the FBI investigation they got.
Because the FBI investigation now, again, I'm not suggesting this was 4D chess by Flake, by the way.
He's still a snake.
Flake's playing along with them the whole time, the Democrats.
Forget Flake.
He's a loser.
He's lost.
You gotta focus on Collins, Murkowski, and Manchin right now.
The FBI investigation they got that they really didn't want may not be turning out too well.
Why?
And why are the lawyers panicking?
Because I think they've interviewed all these people already, including the boyfriend and including Monica McClain, who was a former FBI employee who may have a little more on the line here and may not be able to get away with, um, How do we say, uh, obfuscations?
She may be under a different level of pressure to tell the truth.
What I'm getting at, folks, I'm sorry to be circuitous, but if you don't understand all the pieces to the puzzle, the last piece is not going to make any sense.
The reason Ford hasn't been interviewed yet is because the people they are interviewing are probably entirely dismantling her story.
And they're waiting to the end either to interview her, to try to get her on the record by the way.
on the record about her account, what happened again, to see if the story changes for a fifth, sixth, or seventh time.
Because, you know, Ford's account has changed multiple times.
The number of boys, the layout of the house, where it was, how she got there.
She doesn't remember when the party happened, when it happened chronologically, her age when it happened.
Ford's story's changed so many times.
I'm suggesting to you that the reason they haven't interviewed her yet is because the inconsistencies from people they probably have interviewed The former boyfriend, McClain, and others, they're probably putting together a series of bullet points that don't marry up with what they already know about Ford because Ford has already told her story under oath up in the hill.
Are you tracking?
Are you tracking what I'm saying here?
Where'd my pen go?
I hate when I lose my pen.
They're in a world of trouble, folks.
That's why the Ford team is panicking.
They wanted her, Joe, to be interviewed first.
Mm-hmm.
She had to be interviewed first.
Why?
She had to be interviewed quickly and immediately to get her story out there, but I don't think they ever took into account that the FBI was going to take down those stories, and then go interview the people, find those people, get other sources out there, and confirm the story.
Now, the FBI's not...
I'm explaining this bad, this part of it, so excuse me.
But I want you to understand.
Remember Trump saying this could be a blessing in disguise?
A couple times he said that.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
I gotta hold the pen in my hand every time.
It's like a thing I have.
You see me on my NRA TV show, I do the same thing.
What I'm saying folks, and I explained the last part poorly, is as a former background investigator myself, The FBI background investigators are not going to walk into a Ford interview now after they've interviewed everyone else and tell Ford what they said.
The way you, I'm going to give you a little hint here.
All right.
And I'm not disclosing any foreign secrets or anything like that.
Like, uh, you know, uh, sensitive information, but one of the ways we learned in interrogation and interview school in law enforcement, multiple times through multiple schools.
Matter of fact, I taught it in the secret service Academy, the interview and interrogation class.
You never, ever ask a close-ended question.
Ever!
And silence is your best, best friend.
You don't say to Joe... Is Joe Armacost your name?
Yes or no?
Yes.
What you say to Joe is, what is your name?
My name is Joe Armacost.
You would be stunned how many people in identity fraud cases forget that.
If you get Joe Armacost in there and he's pretending under a false ID to be Noel Ramirez and you go, uh, sir, what's your name?
Noel, uh, Noel Jones.
Oh, is it?
Are you?
Oh, no, no, no, no, no.
It's Noel Ramirez.
You get it?
Yeah.
I mean that's a really oversimplification.
You never ever ever ask a close-ended question.
What I'm telling you is they're gonna walk and silence is your best friend.
I've done this a million times.
People have this natural inclination to want to talk no matter what.
They cannot stand silence.
They hate it.
So you walk in now to Dr. Ford.
If they interview her again they may not need to because remember she's already under oath having given answers that have likely been contradicted by multiple people who said otherwise.
You walk in.
They wanted her interview first.
Now they know.
They wanted her interview first because now they know other people have given accounts that are likely contradictory.
Uh-oh.
So now they walk in and they say, Dr. Ford, tell us your story.
Silent.
Shh.
Say nothing.
Just let Christine Ford go.
You take notes.
You sit there.
You look up once in a while.
Let them know you're still listening.
You write down everything.
I can't tell you how many times in an open-ended question people would screw up minor details, and because they're not investigators themselves, have no idea what they screwed up.
Let me just tell you quick.
I don't get into the personal stories, but just a very quick one.
I was working a counterfeit case once.
I had the counterfeit bill that was passed in my office.
I didn't bring it in.
I didn't bring it in for a reason.
I'll get to it in a second.
I left the bill.
It was a counterfeit.
It must have been a hundred.
That's all people counterfeited, mostly back then.
It was a p-note.
A printer-generated note.
Computer printer.
We used to call them p-notes when I was doing counterfeit cases with the Secret Service.
I intentionally left the bill outside.
We get the guy in there, right?
I say to him, so tell me how you got the bill.
Silence.
He starts talking and talking and talking.
As he stops talking, there's a tendency for you, the event, to want to talk.
Shut up.
Don't say anything.
Shh, shut up.
Don't say anything.
He keeps going.
Finally, finally, after like 20 minutes of this story, he slips up.
He goes, and you know, I saw it and it was in the corner, but he's saying a parking lot.
It was all crumpled up.
Oh, oh, it was.
Was it really?
Are you sure about that?
Now, I don't say anything.
I let him keep on going.
But I take a little note.
Crumpled up in corner.
Very nice.
Folks, the bill was perfectly flat.
Unless he ironed that damn bill, which you know he didn't.
The thing was totally made up.
So, of course, after another hour, hour and a half of getting his story down and taking extensive notes, I walk back in with the bill and go, this is the bill, right?
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I guess.
I guess that's the bill.
It looks like it was.
We know it was a bill.
His fingerprints were on it, right?
Does that look crumpled up to you?
No!
[Groaning]
Alright, I did it!
Yeah, we know you did it.
Thanks, dude.
You want to sign this statement?
This is what you do.
They're building up a repertoire and a repository of information before they walk into an interview with her, or it's so bad right now they don't even need it.
Now, this is why the Democrats are changing their story on the FBI investigation.
They never wanted this.
It was a delay tactic.
But now that Kavanaugh absolutely refuses to withdraw, they now have to discredit the very same FBI investigation they won.
All the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee have been totally consistent in asking for an FBI investigation.
But even if it's seven days, that's bad enough.
But then to limit the FBI as to the scope and who they're going to question, I wanted to use the word force.
There should be an FBI investigation.
We called for an FBI investigation earlier today.
This investigation is a scam.
It's a sham and it's a con job.
One week is what Senator Flake was interested in and you can do a lot if you have the whole FBI looking at things in one week.
I don't think people should be micromanaging the FBI investigation.
She is entitled to the respect of at least a thorough, fair investigation.
So far, an FBI investigation has been Blocked by the White House?
I believe that Jeff Flake truly wants a real investigation, not a check-the-box sham, and that's what the FBI ought to be doing.
Difficult, though, because, as you said very well, this deadline is tight and arbitrary.
Let the FBI, let the professionals, who have no partisan interest in this either way, Let them talk to the various witnesses.
I think it would be a big mistake to put handcuffs on the FBI, if you excuse the analogy.
Folks, I mean, it's almost comical.
They demanded an FBI investigation.
That was their contingency.
By the way, the Democrats who had already said they were going to vote no, so it didn't matter to them.
But you had people like Flaky Flake play right into this.
Now we know why.
Demand an FBI investigation.
They're now trying to thoroughly discredit.
The reason is simple.
Don't get this out of your head.
Keep this in mind the entire time.
They didn't want an FBI investigation.
They wanted to delay it, hoping and praying Julie Swetnick, Aviante's client, Miss Ramirez, the other client who now apparently is not talking to the FBI, that all of them would come out in an avalanche of allegations, unfounded allegations, that would get him to withdraw.
Now, now, now, now.
Montana, listen up.
You're out in Montana.
I know you're out there.
We see our analytics.
I know you're out there.
I don't know who you are.
We just get a, you know, the Bing of the state would bubble at it.
I have no idea where, but I know you're in Montana.
Cause I know what the state looks like.
Where did they get the model for this?
Joe, I'm going to say a name and you're probably going to remember where I'm going with this.
Where did they get the model for this?
Unfounded attacks, tidal wave of them, avalanche of them, get the nominee to pull out, embarrass Donald Trump.
Where did they get the model for this?
You remember Admiral Ronny Jackson?
The White House doctor, remember?
Yes, I do.
Johnny Tester, Democrat phony senator from Montana, up for re-election.
Ladies and gentlemen of Montana, I love you all to death.
You are true American patriots out there in the heartland of America.
God bless you.
I cannot, I don't understand how any of you, and one of you can with a straight face pull the lever for Jon Tester, probably the worst phony in the United States Senate right now, and that's saying a lot.
Jon Tester, phony Democrat Senator from Montana, is the one who crushed the career of a decorated U.S.
military officer, Admiral Ronnie Jackson, who was nominated for VA Secretary by Donald Trump on a bunch of unfounded allegations about what?
Oh, out-of-control drinking and partying.
Does that sound familiar?
Ladies and gentlemen, this book has already been written before by tactically strategic Democrats who far overstepped their boundaries.
Now, Ronny Jackson, because he was in the U.S.
military at the time, and for reasons I'm not about to disclose on this show, I know Ronny Jackson very well.
I gave a passionate defense of Ronny Jackson.
Ronny's a friend of mine and will remain a friend of mine.
Ronnie had to withdraw.
Believe me when I tell you it had nothing to do with personal courage.
Ronnie's one of the bravest, most admirable human beings I know.
But the model worked for them, and the Democrats learned.
Folks, this is why I said to you yesterday, we cannot fold.
There will be no surrender, no matter what.
And thank you for your emails.
Email them again today.
Email your congressmen, email your senators.
I know the Congress doesn't have an advice and consent rule, I get it, but they talk to these guys.
Email your senators and call them again.
Folks, I so deeply appreciate, I adore every one of you that have, I've been sending back, a lot of you know this, I've been responding, I spend, Probably three, four hours a day.
I'm not kidding because I want to do it.
I'm not acting like this is work.
I've been sending a lot of you back the prayer hand saying, thank you, thank you.
I know a lot of you got my emails.
That's me.
I read your stories.
Email them again.
The heat has to be relentless.
The pressure cannot stop.
Montana, get on this guy in a tidal wave of emails.
Melt this guy's phone lines in Tester.
Jon Tester.
We know what he did.
We know what he did in destroying the career of a man who has ten times the dignity of this loser Jon Tester and Ronny Jackson.
The Democrats learn from weakness.
They sniff out weakness, they prod around for soft points in the armor, and that's where the lance goes.
They push, they push, they push until they feel soft, and boom!
Right in there!
They saw this model with Ronny Jackson, folks.
Everybody on the Hill knows it.
The Ronny Jackson model worked.
With Ronny.
Because it had to.
Because it was a different set of circumstances.
Joe, why isn't it working now?
Because what does Kavanaugh refuse to do?
He refuses to back down.
You're damn freaking right, brother.
Brett Kavanaugh, God bless this man, absolutely refuses to back down.
And as I said yesterday, no matter what happens, liberals, you better get used to this.
You better get used to it.
Brett Kavanaugh is going on that Supreme Court.
If he goes down now, we're pushing him back later.
He is going on that Supreme Court.
No pudding!
There will be none!
None.
He is going on that Supreme Court.
You better start getting used to it.
We will not withdraw his name.
This is where we draw the line.
The Ronny Jackson story, that was their model for this.
What's happening now is you see Graslie and you see McConnell, in many respects, fighting back on this and saying, nope, we're drawing the line, we're going to investigate this thing, and I'm sorry.
Although Dr. Ford's story, if something happened to her, she deserves the sympathy if something happened to her.
You're alleging something happened to her by Brett Kavanaugh, and the evidence does not add up at all.
Matter of fact, the evidence is contradictory.
And the story's not adding up at all?
Then you're darn right we're going to start investigating it and do not succumb for a second to liberal pressure tactics.
The story is entirely collapsing.
That is why you're seeing the FBI background investigation that the Democrats called for being actually pilloried and attacked by the Democrats who asked for the FBI investigation.
Yeah, sorry, buddy.
All right, I got more on this in a second.
You always got to pay for the show.
I always appreciate your patience.
We have great sponsors that keep the show free.
One of our greatest sponsors, and they write their own ads.
Listen to this.
Listen to this FilterPi ad.
They wrote this.
Listen to it strategically, okay?
They put this together.
I didn't do this.
A new study just came out of China.
It discovered that air pollution causes a huge reduction in intelligence.
This, in addition to the well-known impacts on your physical health, high pollution levels led to significant drops in test scores with language and arithmetic, the average impact equivalent to having lost an entire year of education.
Uh...
Now we know what is going on at the Department of Justice.
They never change the air filters over there.
I can't read this enough.
These guys are great.
Please support this great company.
You all need air filters in your house.
This is especially important when 95% of the global population breathing unsafe air.
So do the smart thing.
Go to filterbuy.com, America's leading provider of HVAC filters for homes and small businesses.
They build right here in the great old USA supporting working Americans.
Choose from over 600 different filter sizes, including custom options that ship free gratis within 24 hours.
You want to save 5%?
Subscribe for auto replacement, and you never have to worry about air filters again.
Filterbuy will save you time, they will save you money, you'll breathe better, and apparently you'll become more intelligent in the process, so stop procrastinating.
That's filterbuy.com, filterbuy.com, filterbuy.com, tell them that Dan Bongino's show sent you.
Okay.
Let me just read something from the Wall Street Journal I've been pushing back for a couple days.
It came out a few days ago, but I wanted to just, before I move on to some other stuff, I want to talk to you about this FBI background investigation.
What it is.
And the Wall Street Journal summed it up nicely.
And the reason I'm bringing this up now is not to, again, repeat the show, but I had told you that an FBI background investigation, I had done them for the Secret Service.
It's a very similar methodology.
Our criminal history backgrounds are not criminal backgrounds.
And there's a very specific reason for that.
And again, I'll read this quote in a second and it'll explain it.
But folks, when you're doing a background investigation for a Secret Service applicant or a Supreme Court nominee, they are done the same way.
You ask the nominee for named references.
They're gonna give you, of course, however many.
Like for applicants for the Secret Service at the time, you needed three.
So if Joe is applying to be an agent, he's gonna name, here's three character references.
Now folks, obviously Joe's gonna give three people who say nice things about Joe.
He's not gonna give the name of the neighbor who he had a fight with.
Now, here's the catch.
Here's how these things work.
Again, it's not a state secret.
I think it's pretty obvious, and most of you people who've done backgrounds will attest to what I'm telling you.
In order for me to close out my background file on Joe Armacost, if he's an applicant for the Secret Service, I have to develop a certain number of unnamed references as well.
Sometimes it's three more, sometimes it's six, sometimes it's 10.
If there's any questions as to Joe's character, it may be 15.
How do you do that?
Well, very simply, you go to the named references and then you ask for unnamed references, or you go to where he lives and you go to the job and in the job you say, does anybody else... Remember, always ask open-ended questions.
Does anybody else know Joe?
You don't say, does this guy know Joe?
And then they go, um, yeah, Joe dated, uh, you know, uh, Molly Bag of Donuts a few years ago.
Oh, you know where I could find Molly?
Yeah.
She works down the block at, uh, at, at this deli.
You go in all of a sudden, Molly's like, Hey man, that Joe, gosh, let me tell you something.
He was into felonious moping when he was a kid.
Oh my gosh.
Now, Think about it.
If this was a criminal investigation, Joe, I would have to, at that point, criminally investigate you and potentially Molly for her role in it.
Folks, why are backgrounds kept separate in the FBI in a separate unit and not handled like criminal investigations?
Joe, I think it's becoming obvious to you at this point because I see you shaking your head, but I'll answer the question for you.
Who the hell's gonna speak honestly about a background on an applicant if they think they could be arrested as a co-conspirator in a crime?
That's why these aren't criminal backgrounds, folks!
They're criminal history backgrounds.
It is understood as a component of these background investigations that if you speak openly and honestly about Joe as a Secret Service agent applicant or Brett Kavanaugh as a Supreme Court nominee, that what you disclose will not be used against you in a criminal investigation.
You're not going to disclose it.
Is this hard for people to understand?
Is this hard for people to get?
That's why Joe Biden himself in the Clarence Thomas series, that audio clip we played a few shows ago, said, this is not, this is not a criminal investigation.
This is not what we should, this is not conclusive.
It's not, it is a character reference.
That's all.
Here's a quote from the Wall Street Journal that describes this very, very well.
Quote, running a background investigation as if it were a criminal one would destroy the FBI's ability to conduct the former.
It would cause many Americans to refuse to cooperate.
It would cause the Bureau to exceed its constitutionally proper remit.
And having the FBI proffer credibility determinations in the context of a judicial appointment would politicize the Bureau.
Let me just stop there for a second.
In other words, the FBI just says, here's what Molly said about Joe.
It doesn't say Mollie's credible or Mollie's not.
That's the advice and consent role of the Senate.
If the advice and consent role was the FBI's, the FBI would be advising.
All they do is do an appropriate law enforcement trained personnel interview.
They present the information.
There's no threat of criminal prosecution and the Senate makes the determination, or in my case in the Secret Service, a board at the Secret Service that reviews the applicability of the information to the background of the applicant.
They review it.
I got Biden if you want it.
Yeah, you know what?
Play Biden again.
Why not?
The next person that refers to an FBI report as being worth anything obviously doesn't understand anything.
FBI explicitly does not, in this or any other case, reach a conclusion.
Period.
Period.
So judge, there's no reason why you should know this.
The reason why we cannot rely on the FBI report, you wouldn't like it if we did.
Because it is inconclusive.
It says in the, there you go, there's Joe Biden himself.
It is, it does not draw conclusions.
It puts together a packet of information about the subject's criminal history, work history, employment history, financial history, and it allows an applicant board or the Senate to determine the feasibility of that person for the position.
The Wall Street Journal wraps up saying if they did otherwise it would usurp a function that properly belongs to the President and the Senate.
That's why the left now is in a panic to discredit this FBI investigation.
Because they're understanding now that the information coming out is completely contradictory to a lot of the information already presented in a public record by Dr. Ford.
Let me wrap up on this point because I hinted at it before and I want to leave you hanging.
A lot of you are asking now, fairly enough, is the FBI information Going to lead to a potential perjury prosecution.
Folks.
I think.
I'm just going to give you my opinion.
I sincerely doubt that.
Now.
The stuff Swetnick said and said to the media and others, if she gave some of these statements, which indicates that many of them did, some of the other accusers, under the penalty of perjury, and sent those letters to a Senate committee, that's a different investigation.
And there may be some civil liability, and I'm not suggesting it couldn't happen.
In other words, if you knowingly Lied about Kavanaugh under oath.
And I'm not, you should be prosecuted.
I tweeted that yesterday.
Matter of fact, the tweet went viral.
But if you're asking me my opinion about Christine Ford, if the information it turns out was not correct, that she swore to, intentionally not correct, in other words, lying.
And if you're asking me, because I'm getting a lot of these questions, do you think she'll be prosecuted?
I'm just giving you my opinion.
It may not be what you want to hear, but the answer is no.
And the answer is no for the reason I just told you.
That as a part of backgrounds, the FBI does not typically make criminal referrals as part of a background investigation because people would refuse to come forward in the future pro or con.
Just giving you my opinion.
I know it doesn't sound great, but you deserve the truth.
All right.
I got a lot more to get to.
I didn't even touch the uranium one thing.
But finally, again, I always appreciate your patience.
Today's show brought to you by our buddies at BrickHouse Nutrition.
They make the single best performance nutrition supplement I have ever seen in my life.
I say that with no reservations whatsoever, and I have tried almost everything.
It's called Foundation.
It's available at BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
I am so sure it works.
I leave my personal email out there for you to review the product.
I have yet to this day to receive a negative review about Foundation.
Matter of fact, the reviews have been over the top positive.
People love it.
Why?
They love it because it does two things.
You know, a lot of performance supplements, nutrition supplements help you perform better.
Lift more, run faster, fight longer.
A lot of them help you look better.
Very few help you look better and perform better at the same time.
That's what foundation does.
Don't believe me?
Take the Dan Bongino mirror test.
I'm going to patent this one day.
It's so stupid.
I'm such a dope.
No, but I mean it with this, right?
Try foundation.
Give it about seven days to load in your system.
My wife's on it now.
She's never looked more stunning.
She is just an absolute beauty.
I totally married up.
She is ripped.
I'm not gonna tell you her age.
I know, Joe's like, you better calm down, brother.
This is a family-friendly show.
Life is good these days.
I'll leave it at that, right?
My wife is a stud in the gym.
She's on foundation.
I'm on foundation.
You look better, you'll feel better.
You take the mirror test.
Take a mental snapshot of what you look like.
Give it about seven days to load in your system.
Then go back and look in the mirror again.
You're gonna be like, oh boy, this is some serious stuff.
Go give it a shot.
You will not regret it.
It is called Foundation.
It's available at BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
That's BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
Watch your performance in the gym.
Go through the roof.
Your body will improve.
You'll be like, where was this stuff my entire life?
BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
Go pick up a bottle of Foundation today.
Stuff is terrific.
Okay.
Um, moving on.
So John Solomon has a piece.
It's up in yesterday's show notes.
You know what?
Maybe I'll include it again today.
I've got to remember this.
I have so much going on these days.
He has a piece in the show notes, John Solomon from yesterday, about the Uranium One case.
And ladies and gentlemen, this thing is getting worse and worse and worse.
You know from some of my past shows how it ties into the Spygate scandal.
Quick synopsis is, Rod Rosenstein, who signed, and the guy who's emailing me, I appreciate, thank you very much, I forget your name, I'm sorry.
It's Rosenstein.
Trust me, it's Rosenstein.
I know you keep, I've gotten this from so many people, it's Rosenstein.
I say it wrong all the time.
It's Rosenstein.
Rod Rosenstein, who signed the fourth FISA warrant, is the current Deputy Attorney General, who is knee-deep in the Spygate scandal.
He signed the last warrant to spy on Donald Trump, which is important because I believe all the exculpatory information had already been out.
Rosenstein is knee-deep in Spygate, but he's also knee-deep in the Uranium One scandal, which was the sale of our uranium to Russian-controlled entities.
Uranium, potential nuclear fuel to Russia.
It's a monstrous scandal I've gone over in prior episodes.
Solomon's new news is this.
There have been multiple FOIA requests, Freedom of Information Act requests, on the details of the Uranium One scandal.
And the FBI and others and the DOJ continue to hide this stuff.
Apparently there are 37 pages or so of documents, you can read this in the Hill piece, that the FBI will not disclose.
Who was the assistant United States attorney?
Who was the lead government prosecutor on the precursor to the Uranium One scandal?
Some of the same players were involved.
Rod Rosenstein, when he was the United States Attorney for Maryland.
I actually worked for him when I was in the Baltimore Field Office of the Secret Service.
Rod Rosenstein was the prosecuting attorney.
Now, folks, here's where the story gets really, really weird.
They had an FBI informant who they paid $50,000 connected to this company 10X.
This 10X company that was dealing with some of these Russian entities looking to acquire our uranium.
If you're not following, stop me here, Joe.
Again, you're the audience on Budsman.
But this is important.
The FBI informant in the case said clear as day, on the record, he was a paid informant, this was not some, you know, guy they pulled off the street randomly.
This was a guy intimately connected with knowledge of the industry who was paid by the FBI, said that not only were the Russians using their uranium, their leverage with uranium to try to gain a foothold in the market, but that they were also assisting the Iranians with their nuclear program in this kind of lurid, sordid scheme.
Yeah, it was, the information was devastating.
There were bribery allegations, there were kickback allegations.
What's suspicious is the case was dragged out, was dragged out when it was pled out on a Friday night.
There was just a brief press release.
You would think with a major case like this, when they arrested the players involved in the kickbacks trying to gain influence in the U.S.
uranium market, it was pled out and non-disclosures were signed.
The informant got out of the non-disclosure and has been public, at least to some reporters, and said, listen, there's a real problem here.
Something happened.
Now, here's the problem.
And here's what Solomon's kind of leading to in the piece, which I think he's spot on.
There are two issues with this.
If the Uranium One deal that was signed off on by the Obama administration, where we unloaded our uranium to Russian-controlled assets, a nuclear fuel to the Russians during the Obama administration, if that happened after this Rod Rosenstein-led case where we knew the Russians were helping the Iranians, according to the informant, with the development of nuclear explosives, if we knew this, Solomon says you have two problems.
The first one is, how did you know this and approve the deal?
Hillary Clinton was on that CFIUS, was on that board that took the CFIUS recommendation, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.
Hillary Clinton was one of the approving entities, her office on this Uranium One deal.
Did they know?
If they knew that the Russians were engaged in a bribery and kickback scheme to acquire portions of our uranium, and that the Russians were simultaneously helping an enemy of the United States, the Iranians, develop nuclear explosives.
Folks, this is a monstrous scandal, and at least Solomon seems to hint that in this 37 pages or so of documents that are not out there yet, that this may be what they're hiding, the level of information the Obama administration had when they made the deal.
But, let me give you an alternate scenario that's not much better.
If they did not have the information, because remember, the evidence in this case from the FBI informant was known way before Obama signed off and his team on the Uranium One deal, folks.
If they didn't know, why not?
Who was hiding this information about the Russians helping the Iranians and trying to acquire our nuclear fuel in the process?
Who was hiding it?
What was the motive to hide it?
Folks, we already know former President Clinton's taken trips overseas and took a $500,000 speaking free from a Russian financial entity involved in the deal.
The Uranium One story may be an older one but it is not a story that doesn't have currency now because remember the same prosecuting attorney involved in the case Rosenstein is the Deputy Attorney General now running the Mueller probe against Donald Trump with some of the you know with involving the same Russian government they're alleging right now was involved in a bribery scheme to win the election using information.
Basically what I'm getting at folks Is this Mueller probe, as I've alleged from the start, nothing more than a smokescreen operation to weaponize the law enforcement, intelligence, and justice community to keep the attention on Donald Trump no matter what while they hide a larger scandal hiding underneath, which was that either the Obama administration knew the Russians were helping the Iranians and sold them uranium anyway, or somebody within the Obama administration hid it.
Hit it from the people voting on the deal.
The CFIUS and everybody else.
Read the piece, folks.
It is deeply disturbing.
Let me just read to you one line from it because I always like to, you know, quote them.
It's very good.
It says, it's from John Solomon's piece, one former US official who had access to the evidence shared with CFIUS during the Uranium One deal said this to me, and I quote, There is definitely material that would be illuminating to the issues that have been raised.
Somebody should fight to make it public.
That somebody could be President Trump, who could add these 37 pages of now-secret documents to his declassification order he is considering in the Russia case.
Ladies and gentlemen, learn to translate what you just heard there.
I've told you from the start, I believe John Solomon understands this entire Spygate operation.
Right?
If you're a listener, have I not said this from the start?
I believe he understands, from the bird's eye view, exactly what went down here.
Why would John Solomon, just a few days ago, seemingly out of nowhere, drop a story about a Uranium One deal that happened years ago, when the scandal is almost entirely out of the spotlight, Joe?
Did you hear that second paragraph I read?
That, uh, maybe Donald Trump should consider declassifying the 37 pages surrounding the Uranium One deal too?
Really?
While declassifying the Spygate deal?
Again, is John hinting something?
That there may have been an effort here by the people who spied on Donald Trump and were alleging Russian involvement to pin the Russians on Donald Trump to kind of say, hey, look, the Russians work with Donald Trump.
Don't pay attention to the Russians working with Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration.
Solomon doesn't do anything by accident.
I told you from episode 628 on that the uranium deal, people involved in everything from the Benghazi scandal on, had a lot to hide.
It's not a simple conspiracy.
The hallmark of a conspiracy theory is a simple answer.
There's no simple answer here.
People ask me all the time, what were the motives for the players involved?
My book covers all of this.
By the way, if you order it now on Amazon, my book, SpyGate, The attempted sabotage of Donald Trump.
Sorry, I haven't been... My publisher is, uh, understandably, like, please promote your book to anywhere, Turner.
If you order it on Amazon now, it'll probably get to you pretty quickly.
It's available for pre-order, but it comes out on Tuesday, so it'll probably ship almost immediately.
So if you check it out, you'll understand that each player in this had a different motive.
What I'm suggesting to you is Solomon is saying that there may be an additional motive by players who were involved in the corrupt Uranium One deal to also get a Muller probe into Donald Trump for Russia so nobody pays attention to their ties with Russia.
This guy doesn't do anything by accident, I'm telling you.
Every single article he has up in the hill seems to tie into a bigger and bigger narrative.
I think what he's doing now is trying to piece together the motive narrative.
This is why Hillary wanted the Russia story to get tied to Donald Trump, because she had suspicious deals with Russia.
This is why Victoria Nuland, this is why Cody Shearer.
This is why all of these Clintonistas, Sidney Blumenthal, this is why they may have done it.
There's a narrative forming now.
Everybody had something to hide during eight corrupt years of the Obama administration.
That's how they pulled off such a massive spying operation on the Trump team.
All right.
Man, there's so much to get to.
Give me a few minutes here, folks.
This is important.
There's so much good stuff out there today.
I have another great article in the show notes I want you to read.
I'll cover it briefly, but it's by Dennis Prager, who does a really good job.
It's over at The Daily Signal.
And he talks about the left thinking they're living on a higher moral plane.
It's a really good piece and it's short, but he explains pretty quickly and briefly, but in a nice fine way packaged up in a bow, why the left can get away with seemingly reprehensible violence and moral uh living in the moral intellectual vacuum that they do and that no one in the left actually sees it.
I mean do you find it odd ever that liberals will say oh we're the party of you know fighting inequality and compassion while they're beating the living crap out of you with baseball bats?
They don't see that.
Well, Prager explains this kind of cognitive dissonance in his piece there, how it's this contempt for the middle class and this uber-mentioned mentality that we're on a higher moral plane if we're liberals.
Therefore, the normal standard rules of middle-class conduct don't apply to us because we're fighting for a higher cause, and in that higher cause, the ends justify the means.
Oh, where have we heard that before?
I bring it up not just to get wax philosophical about Dennis Prager's excellent piece, so just be clear what he's saying now.
These liberals think they live in this higher moral plane, they're fighting for higher moral causes, and in that fight for this higher moral cause, whatever they have to do to achieve that utopian universe of equality everywhere, that they can do whatever they want, so the rules of middle class working America don't apply to them.
Don't do drugs, don't beat people up, don't do any of that stuff.
Don't be hypocrites, that doesn't apply to them.
It's important because yesterday we saw an extra violent day by the left.
We saw Congressman Joe knows very well, Andy Harris from, he's from one, Maryland District one in the Eastern Shore of Maryland on the Delmarva Peninsula there, covering into a bit of Severna Park.
Andy Harris, his team was attacked in their office yesterday up on the hill.
We saw Ted Cruz's office in Texas get a letter that could have had some kind of a poison in it.
The left is out of control, folks.
They think they live on a higher moral plane.
They have subscribed for this, and a reason I'm bringing this up is they are fully invested in an ends justify the means mentality.
Folks, keep your head on a swivel.
If you believe that, there is no moral emergency brake in your behavior.
There is nothing to stop you from acquiring power if you genuinely believe when you look in the mirror you are fighting for some higher moral cause.
Folks, these people are dangerous.
They are dangerous.
Your break, your emergency break, is now and always will be the fact that big R god-given rights stop you from assaulting people, stop you from spitting in their faces.
The left thinks they're fighting for some higher moral cause where that behavior is justified to achieve an end that's not possible.
That makes these people extremely dangerous.
I'm not kidding.
Keep your head on a swivel around these people.
I have heard multiple stories by friends of mine in the content space.
I'm not name-dropping.
I'm not going to say who they are, but when you sit in green rooms a lot and you run in these circles, you run into a lot of people who have been accosted, some who have been assaulted.
It is getting ugly out there.
Keep your head on a swivel around the radical left.
They are dangerous.
Read the Prager piece.
It's important.
Finally, on a lighter note, We haven't done anything, most of the stories have been so just macabre lately that I feel bad leaving it out.
It's a long story, and I'm putting it in the show notes hesitantly because it's probably close to five, six thousand words, but if you have the time, there's a story in the show notes today, Joe, you'll get a laugh out of this, about a group of scientists who, for a while now, have been putting out hoax papers to expose victim culture.
They've been writing hoax scientific papers to see what... You're gonna love this.
I'll make it quick, but this is super funny.
The Joe Notes piece lays out in detail how they did what they did, but these scientists were having a real issue, Joe, with the Volume of papers out there giving credibility to what they think is like a victim culture, right?
How, you know, everybody's a victim of some, you know, critical theory, white patriarchal power, knowledge is a contract of power thing.
So they started writing hoax papers to see how far they could take this to see if they could get published.
The Wall Street Journal has a piece on this too today.
One of the pieces It's a hoax, this was all made up, but one of the papers they managed to get published, they claimed, they didn't do this obviously, they claimed that they sat in dog parks overseas and they observed dog humping behavior and their observations that they scientifically studied of dogs in dog parks trying to
Engage, let's say, other dogs.
I'm trying to keep this family friendly.
That this was evidence and justified this rape culture mentality on campuses.
Ladies and gentlemen, the story, the study is entirely fabricated.
They did not observe, but you have to see in the piece some of the review.
The paper made, this was a published paper.
This made it into a scientific journal.
One of the reviewers of the piece, if you go to their twitter account, one of the reviewers of the piece, you can see the hoax paper creators laughing about it, one of the reviewers main concerns is, one of the reviewers who reviewed the piece, an alleged academic, was concerned that the authors of the hoax study That they respected the dog's privacy while observing their genitals.
After this was a real critique of the study.
(laughing)
You gotta check it out.
Read the article.
It's a little long, but it describes what they did.
It exposes the absolute chaos on our academic campuses right now and how science is slowly moving away from science and moving towards advocacy.
It's a really good paper.
It's a good piece, though.
Check it out.
I think you'll enjoy it.
All right, folks.
Thanks again for tuning in.
I really appreciate it.
Please, if you haven't yet, please pick up my new book.
And I will have information for you, by the way, tomorrow.
On a live signing, I'll be doing, if you want a signed copy, it'll be a live signing.
All you gotta do is click the link, I'll sign the book, you'll answer some of your questions, and you get entered into a thing where I can give you a phone call and we can chat if you're interested in that kind of thing.
But I'll have information about it tomorrow, and the information will be on my email list as well.
Join my email list at bongino.com.
You can get a signed copy of my book, Spygate.
Go pick it up.
Thanks a lot, folks.
I'll see you all tomorrow.
You just heard the Dan Bongino Show.
Get more of Dan online anytime at conservativereview.com.
You can also get Dan's podcasts on iTunes or SoundCloud.
