Summary:
In this episode I address the troubling new revelations by John Solomon about a soft coup effort by senior law enforcement officials to remove President Trump from office. I also address a suspicious redacted footnote in a House report that is getting renewed attention in the FISA abuse investigation. Finally, I address the new liberal narrative being used to attack our republic.
News Picks:
My new book, which exposes the players in the Spygate scandal, is available today. Pick up your copy here.
John Solomon’s explosive new piece addresses an alleged soft coup attempt against President Trump.
This suspicious redaction in a footnote in a House report on FISA abuses is getting renewed attention.
Mitch McConnell strikes again. Mitch is using the “new rules” to fight back.
Why is the Left abandoning due process? This piece gives some examples.
The Kavanaugh win is a big one for the GOP.
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.
All right, welcome to the Dan Bongino Show.
Producer Joe, how are you today?
I'm hanging in there, Dan-o, hanging in.
Ready to go, babe.
Yeah, it was a big night last night.
I was filling in for Mark Levin.
Thank you to all the callers who called in.
Somebody called in, forgive me, sir, I forget your name, was like, I love Producer Joe!
Producer Joe!
So Joe picked up all these followers on Twitter.
He's at Joe Haas.
H-O-Z-1.
And thanks for following Joe.
It's not all about me.
Joe does hard work on the show, too.
So thank you.
You'll see he looks like Elvis on his Twitter account.
But yeah, thanks to everyone who called in last night.
Hey, big day today.
My book drops.
Thank you so much for that.
We've already got reviews up there.
And before I jump into the show, I have a humble request and I do mean it humbly.
You all have done just what you've done for me in my life.
I can't I can't articulate in words my gratitude.
All I can say from the bottom of my heart is thank you.
I love my audience to death.
That's why I put my email out there.
I try to get back to as many of you as I can.
You all are absolutely wonderful.
I have a favor to ask.
Obviously, if you would like to, please pick up the book, Spygate.
By me, Dan Bongino, Denise McAllister, and Matt Palumbo.
We put a lot of work into it.
The first reviews are in, and I just want to ask that you please, if take the time, to review the book on Amazon, if you buy it, or on Barnes & Noble, because inevitably what happens with every book I drop is liberals come on there, and they're like, the book sucks, man!
The book sucks!
And meanwhile, they didn't even buy the book, or if they did, but they're like, This book, it's about tax cuts and it sucks!
You're like, does he even have the right book?
Like they don't even, they just do it.
So it happens with every one of my books.
Thankfully we always have four and five star reviews overall because people actually read the book, do commentary.
And hey, listen, honest to God, if you read it and you don't like it, I'm not asking you for a bogus review.
I just, I'm very confident you're going to enjoy it.
I'm just saying, the liberals who don't even read the book attack us, so please go in, review the book on Amazon, Barnes & Noble.
I would deeply appreciate it.
There's this first review by Judy S. I'm not going to read the whole thing, but just to show you how I, and I think she nailed this thing.
She says, whether you follow politics closely or casually, this book pulls together a ton of factual information in a readable and well-organized fashion.
It is well-sourced.
It has literally hundreds of footnotes.
We did that for a reason.
We pointed out the left-leaning people who reported on Russian collusion.
Before they found out it was fake.
Generally with active links so you can review the quoted passages in their full original context online.
The writing flows well, almost like a spy novel.
Thank you to Denise for that, at times.
Except that it actually happened.
The chapters work well together, but each can stand alone if you want to look at one particular topic.
Yes, thank you, Judy, for that review.
That is exactly how we worded it.
You don't have to read the book in order.
You don't.
The book is written almost like a police report.
So you're interested in what happened with Manafort, who he's tied to?
Go to the Manafort chapter.
You're interested in the real story, what really happened, not the fake collusion.
Go to the end.
Read it in reverse.
The book makes sense anyway.
There's charts, there's diagrams, there's a timeline.
It is the authoritative Spygate book out there now.
I can say that comfortably.
That's why we waited.
So please check it out on Amazon.
Thank you.
Enough with the plugs.
I appreciate it.
All right, folks, last night I was on The Mark Levin Show, and I covered a couple things.
But one thing I want to cover today is some explosive new Spygate information that came out from John Solomon at The Hill.
John knows a lot.
John knows everything.
And one of the things he released yesterday was two fascinating stories I have at the show notes at Bongino.com.
The first one is, you know, again, I'm always hesitant with the adjectives because I don't want to wear you out or appear hyperbolic.
I want to try to stick to a Joe Friday, just a fax man approach, but it's, there have been so many explosive revelations in this case, it's hard to categorize them.
What's more explosive, less explosive.
Solomon's report last night in a nutshell says, Joe, that the 25th Amendment conversation That's alleged to have been had by Rod Rosenstein and upper-level managers of the FBI where they were going to, in case you missed it, there's an allegation out there now by people in the FBI
Upper-level managers in the FBI who were talking and apparently cooperating with the congressional investigators that there was an effort underway to record, record President Donald Trump in a conversation in an effort to show that he was somehow mentally unfit for office to give to the cabinet to use as a measure to implement the 25th amendment to remove him from office.
Folks, listen to me.
Do you understand what we're talking about here?
We're talking about a coup, an actual coup, not a conspiracy.
Joe, right?
This is not X-Files stuff.
We're not making this up.
You are actually talking about an effort to remove a duly elected president from office for no legitimate, we're not talking about impeachment here, we're talking about the enactment of the 25th amendment entirely inappropriately.
Now, the reason this is important, folks, and I want to be clear on this, the reason this is important is Donald Trump is not obviously physically or mentally unfit for office.
You may not like the man's style, fine, whatever.
I don't like a lot of people's style up on the Hill.
What you're doing is clearly a usurpation of powers you don't have to remove an elected president.
Now, the Solomon story is important, not because the story, the story is a few weeks old now.
The story that leaked about Rosenstein and apparently his Willingness, according to the allegations, to discuss recording.
In other words, using a listening device against the President of the United States in private conversations to give to the cabinet to show that she was somehow mentally unfit to be in office.
The story had died down until Solomon had this explosive story yesterday that Baker, James Baker, one of the lead, the general counsel for the FBI, one of the big shot upper level lawyers, apparently has said that according to his, now he was not in on the meeting, but he knows the players who were, according to his telling of events, what he heard folks, this was not a joke.
To be fair to both sides, Rosenstein is saying that, listen, the conversation happened, but it was a joke.
It was never meant to be serious.
I'm just telling you what both sides are.
You can judge the credibility of each side.
Now motives matter, Joe, correct?
And Rosenstein clearly, clearly has a motive to suggest that this conversation didn't happen.
Joe, what do you think his motive would be?
To keep his job!
Yeah!
Save his butt!
Save his butt!
Save the caboose!
Yeah!
Baker, who apparently is now cooperating with congressional investigators, James Baker, again, so we're clear, general counsel for the FBI.
Big shot lawyer, upper level manager within the FBI.
Baker has motivation too, obviously.
Baker probably doesn't want to go to jail.
We don't know what his role in leaking information may or may not have been.
So they both have an incentive to tell a story.
But let's be clear on this, folks.
Because when you're a criminal investigator, you always have to look at motive.
This is my beef with the FBI not telling the FISA court that the information they presented was presented by Hillary Clinton, who had a motive to do what, Joe?
Win the election.
Yeah.
Baker's motive to cooperate, ladies and gentlemen, to save his own butt, is not equal to a motive to generate false information.
I'm not explaining this well.
Sometimes analogies work better.
A little funky.
Yeah, I get it.
I know Joe's the ombudsman.
I can see him roll his eyes a bit.
He's like, what are you talking about?
When, when you do what's called, when you're a federal agent, right?
And you do, let's say what we call, we call it a proffer, a proffer deal, right?
I've got Joe hook, line, and sinker, let's say on video, conducting a bank robbery.
I know it's Joe, he looks like Elvis.
It's Joe!
There's the video, you're busted, right?
But Joe's part of, say, a network of bank robbers.
So we nail Joe, we get him in there.
Joe's lawyer knows he's busted.
Now, usually, I'll be honest with you, when you're a federal agent, your worst enemy is the guy you arrested's lawyer.
Because he's gonna say, we want this, this, and this, my client's not gonna cooperate.
My experience as a federal agent, when you've got a guy hook, line, and sinker, and you got him nailed, Your best friend in the world is his lawyer because he doesn't want to go to jail for some bizarre reason.
The bad guy still thinks he's going to get away and the lawyer's looking him in the face going, bro.
It's over.
It's over.
Joe, they got you on video.
Here's the still shots from the video.
No, man!
So you don't even need, you don't even need Joe.
You go right to the lawyer.
You go, really?
You go, Joe, you're like, Joe, I'm going to enact your Miranda rights for you.
Just shut up for now.
I want to talk to your lawyer.
You go to the lawyer.
You go, hey, lawyer bag of donuts.
Your client's busted.
He's nailed.
The lawyer then goes to the guy and goes, hey, Armacost, bro, it's over.
You either talk now or you're going to jail for 30 years for bank robbery.
You can give these guys up.
So what happens next is typically a proffer deal.
A proffer deal, we call it a king for a day deal, right?
King for a day, meaning you come in, anything you said in that proffer session against your other bank robbers that you give up will not be used against you under one condition.
You cannot lie.
You lie in there and you tell us a fairy tale.
What happens?
Everything you said then can be used against you and you are screwed.
So the king for a day deal is this.
You will get a free pass.
We will not use anything you say, Joe, about your role in the bank robbery against you, okay?
But in that proper deal, if you fudge it, And you lie one time, it is over.
And so what, who becomes your best friend in the proffer?
The lawyer!
Because the lawyer understands that all of this stuff his client puts forth has to be true.
And if it's not true, he's screwed because it's going to be used against him in a trial.
I have seen, I've done a number of proffer sessions.
Folks, I have seen lawyers.
Kick their client under the table, ask for a break.
Hey, Dan, can we get a break?
Which, you know what that means to me, Joe?
My client's BSing right now, and I don't want this to happen.
Yeah, and of course, you know, you want him to tell the truth.
Yeah, yeah, let's take a break.
You come back in, the story completely changes.
Let me talk to this Yutz for a minute, yeah.
Let me talk to this dope for a second.
He clearly doesn't understand the rules of this thing.
And you come back in and you start over.
My client misremembered something.
What I'm suggesting to you is this is a huge story that a soft coup was happening within the upper levels of the most powerful law enforcement agency in the world, the FBI.
There are two conflicting stories of the events.
There is Rod Rosenstein saying, I wasn't serious about recording the president and removing him from office in a soft coup.
It was all a joke.
We know Rosenstein's motive.
He wants to keep his job.
He doesn't want to be humiliated.
He doesn't want to be disbarred.
He doesn't want to be a historical embarrassment and cautionary tale.
That is a strong motive to do what, Joe?
To lie.
For Rosenstein, if that was a serious conversation, as Baker alleges, there is a very strong motive for Rosenstein to lie and say, no, no, no, that was all a joke.
We weren't going to record the president.
We weren't going to try to remove him from office.
That proffer story I told you for a reason, not to waste your time or impress you with my proffer.
I don't care about any of that proffer session skills.
It's so you understand the deeper context of this story.
James Baker, although not a proper session, him going up on the hill, Joe, per se, fully understands that if his cooperation is laden with lies and BS, that he's going to be entirely discredited, not useful later on as a witness, and could potentially go to jail himself if he had a role in illegal leaks.
This guy's a lawyer, folks!
Baker, he's not stupid!
I put far more credibility, now granted I'm not a sage, I don't know right now conclusively with 100% certainty who is telling the truth.
I can tell you based on the evidence, potential motives for people to tell that story in conflicting versions of events.
If I was a betting man right now and had my entire life's income and I had to take a side, I am 100% putting all my chips on James Baker's version of events.
That Rosenstein was dead serious about this.
I'm giving you my experience here, folks.
I think Rosenstein, I think Baker's versions of events that Rosenstein was dead serious and this conversation was serious is spot on.
Now, having said that, I'm sorry but I'm very excited about today's show because Solomon is just, I told you weeks ago, Solomon knows the whole story and he's dripping it out in dribs and drabs.
And these last few days have been just explosive.
They've been overshadowed a bit by the Kavanaugh thing.
But now that's over, it's time to move on.
Here is a deeper understanding of what happened during the time, though, because right now I'm telling you the version of events I believe is Rosenstein was in fact serious when the suggestion came up to take the 25th Amendment to get Trump out of office in a coup and record him.
Context matters.
Here's the context, and this is contained in Solomon's piece.
Joe, we have to remember the window in which this happened, the time window.
That's important.
That is absolutely critical.
The time window this alleged meeting happened about recording the president was right around the time Jim Comey was fired.
Now think folks, think for a minute.
You all, as you have, you are the smartest audience.
I get emails from you.
I'm like, damn, they're good.
You are.
I've had so many, you all know, uh, Mitchell, Judy, I'm trying to think, uh, Paul, Mike, you people who send me emails all the time.
That guy, Phil, you guys are great.
And ladies, But think for a second.
Just because Rosenstein, Joe, may have taken part in this meeting and may have been serious about it, it's critical to understand where the actual suggestion came from.
I'm not absolving Rosenstein of responsibility here if he did play a role in a plot to record the president, but I'm telling you as an investigator here, I doubt Rosenstein was the one who popped this 25th Amendment suggestion.
Jim Comey's fired, Joe.
Who's the number two at the FBI at the time, do you remember?
Andrew McCabe.
McCabe.
McCabe's the number two.
McCabe's wife is a diehard Democrat.
She ran for the state senate in the state of Virginia with the backing of a Hillary acolyte, Terry McAuliffe, the governor of Virginia.
She's a diehard Democrat.
McCabe's family has ideological leanings towards the left.
We already know McCabe refused to recuse himself from the Hillary investigation despite his family conflicts with the Democrat Party all the way up to the end.
The firing of Jim Comey happens.
Who's the number two McCabe?
McCabe becomes, Joe, the de facto number one, the acting FBI director.
The suggestion by Solomon, Joe, which is so simple, Yet so mind-blowing, oh my gosh, Nikki Haley just resigned as the UN ambassador.
Say what?
Oh, sorry folks.
Don't mean to break up the show, but again, it's not a live show, but it's live to tape.
And yeah, Nikki Haley just resigned as the UN ambassador.
Wow.
That is stunning.
All right.
I'll get you some more in the show.
Again, my apologies for breaking it up, but, uh, yeah, you know, my show, I want to get you the news and this is wow.
What a stunning, stunning revelation.
Where'd that come from?
Holy cow.
I have no idea, but man, that's going to break up the news cycle today.
Oh boy.
So McCabe is the number two with the FBI.
He's now the de facto number one in the window that Jim Comey has fired.
This is critical.
This is a critical piece of information.
The stunning revelation I was talking about before I just popped that new news story there, and Solomon alludes to this, I think he knows.
Was this a revenge move by senior level managers at the FBI led by Andrew McCabe?
Folks, this is why my book is so important and they say it reads like a spy novel.
This stuff actually happened.
This actually happened.
I know, Joe's got his head in his head.
Were these people so petty?
Ladies and gentlemen, in the most powerful law enforcement institution in the world, the FBI, Were these senior level managers, were they so angry and petty and small and politically motivated that when Comey was fired, they thought they would engage in a soft coup to remove the president?
Ladies and gentlemen, listen to me right now.
If Solomon alluding to that, because if you read his piece, it's pretty clear at the end, that's where he's going with this, that this was some kind of a vindictive retribution thing.
Then ladies and gentlemen, I'm sorry, but I love the working men and women of the Bureau.
I did.
I worked with them.
They are great.
I will continue to say that.
But the upper level managers, anybody who sniffed this, who touched this, who was in the room, who was near it, who knew about it, who said nothing, who failed to sound the alarm, you have absolutely have to, you must be removed from your position.
Must!
There is absolutely no turning back.
Absolutely no turning back.
Joe, do you agree?
You cannot possibly retain your position if you were part of a soft coup effort to remove the President of the United States.
There is no way you should have a firearm, you should have the power to arrest people, and the power to direct law enforcement operations that at this point look 100% political.
Folks, the story is a must-read.
It's in my show notes at The Hill, Bongino.com.
I have two winners by John Solomon today.
I'm telling you again, he knows the whole story.
As I said yesterday, the elegant part of Spygate is it's complicated.
But it's complicated in simplistic ways.
How each player interacted with someone to leverage their own advantage and save their own butts to try to take down Trump, that's complicated.
The big story is not the FBI worked with Hillary and the Obama administration to take down Donald Trump and used every single weaponized IC law enforcement asset they could corrupt to do it.
It is not a complicated story.
The beauty of this whole thing is it doesn't get more complicated.
It gets less complicated.
If you're listening, if you missed yesterday's show because of the holiday, Please listen to it.
We have a soundbite during yesterday's show from Devin Nunes on Maria Bartiromo.
It's a minute long.
He lays out the whole scandal.
The FBI used information from the Democrats, brought it to a FISA court, never verified it, spied on Trump, and then lied about it.
We played that yesterday.
Please go back and listen to it.
It is a critical piece by Devin Nunes.
Critical.
That is the beauty of this case.
All right, you may forget the relationship between Adam Waldman and Oleg Deripaska and the FBI.
I get that.
My book covers that.
You can always reference it.
Just go to the chapter titled Oleg Deripaska, right?
But understand this.
It was all part of a concerted effort by people influencing the FBI and the Central Intelligence Agency led by John Brennan to take, to politically take this president out.
This is disgusting.
This is one of the most horrifying stories I've ever heard.
Just a quick reminder about the 25th Amendment, too, what it is, because some of you may not know.
The 25th Amendment was designed for a physical or mental incapacitation by the President.
God forbid he's wounded, he has a stroke, and the way it works is if the Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet submit a letter to the Congress that the President is incapacitated, the Vice President takes over.
Now, Obviously, the people who wrote out the amendment were brilliant and thought through the consequences of that.
Well, that would give the majority of the cabinet, Joe, a de facto impeachment power if they just didn't like the president.
Because they could submit a letter.
President Joe Armacost, Joe is mentally incapacitated.
No, folks, I'm fine.
What are you talking about?
So they designed an out clause for the president to fight back in case this was used that way.
The out clause is the president submits a letter saying he's not incapacitated, the Congress reconvenes, and it takes two-thirds of the Congress to vote on that.
That yes, the president is in fact incapacitated.
Say, you know, say some, whatever, the president really is injured and he just can't do it and someone submits a letter on his behalf and there's a dispute, two-thirds of the Congress can vote.
But this was never, ever, ever meant to be an impeachment mechanism, folks.
It was meant for physical or mental incapacitation.
Clearly, 100,000% not the case right now.
This was a coup effort which Solomon Sarah Carter, Greg Jarrett, you know, others, I'd like to think we played a small role in this as well, have exposed over time and the case becomes simpler.
This was a coup, a coup, a coup.
And the Democrats, ah man, you're talking conspiracy theory stuff.
No, no, you're talking imbecilic nonsense stuff.
You're just avoiding the facts at this point.
There is, Joe, let's be clear about one thing.
There is no dispute, folks.
No dispute that this conversation happened.
No dispute.
None!
The only dispute is that Rosenstein says he was kidding, James Baker says they were not kidding.
I just laid out for you, given my experience, my knowledge, skills, abilities, what I've done, in my experience, why I believe that conversation was in fact serious, I believe Rosenstein wasn't joking, And I also believe that the conversation was led by Andrew McCabe, and I told you why, because I believe McCabe was angry at the firing of Comey and had political motivations to lead that conversation.
Dan, I mean, I know that you've worked with Rosa Stein.
Can you see him doing something like this?
You know, I didn't know Rod personally, but I worked with him when he was the United States Attorney for the District of Maryland when I was a Secret Service agent in the Baltimore office.
We worked a rather big case, and I can just tell you one experience I found a little bit disturbing, and I don't want to over-dramatize it, but I worked a really big case for this guy who was He was doing a really disgusting thing.
He was selling used cars and apartments.
What's disgusting about that?
Well, what's disgusting is he didn't have the used cars or apartments.
He was just taking people's money.
But it happened.
It was an unbelievable fraud.
I mean, there were thousands and thousands of victims.
It was a complicated case.
We wound up getting a guy convicted.
He wound up threatening me on a recorded phone call.
Who?
They called me the Bon Jovi guy or something.
Yeah, him and his brother.
It was a really disturbing case.
But Rosenstein was the AUSA.
And the case got a lot of... I actually still have... It was on the front page of...
Was it the Baltimore Sun?
It was on one of the sections, the front pages, like City News.
And Rosenstein, when we were going to do a press conference, they wanted me to go on.
I went on WBAL, Joe's competitor, actually, to talk about it.
And they wanted me to do more media.
Matter of fact, they sent Josie Sturman, who used to work for ABC, over.
And Rosenstein shut that down.
And someone told me later, again, I don't want to over-dramatize Rosenstein, but someone told me later, no, no, he wants to do the media.
He doesn't want anyone else on the media talking about it.
And I was like, all right, whatever, you know?
So, but yeah, that's a good question.
I did work with him.
And can I see him doing this based on some of the people who knew him a lot better than I did?
Yeah, absolutely.
I didn't mean to put you on the spot, bro, but I mean, no, no, no, no.
If you have that question, listeners probably have it too.
All right, folks, I didn't do our reads in the beginning of the show, and forgive me, I always appreciate your patience with our sponsors, but it's because it's a big launch day for me today, and I want to make sure I mention that.
We did put a lot of work into the book, and I really would like it to get to number one on Amazon, because the information needs to get out there.
So if you pick it up, I wouldn't mind.
But today's show has been brought to you by our friends at MyPatriotSupply.
Folks, having an emergency supply of food matters.
You ensure everything in your life that matters.
Why you would not ensure your food supply is bizarre.
It is really, really a decision you have to make.
Here's the reality.
Emergencies strike without warning.
We're surprised when the market crashes or power goes out.
Earthquakes, you have hurricanes down here in Florida.
Sometimes this stuff happens without warning.
With hurricanes, you usually get a little warning.
But sadly, by the time you get to the grocery store, the food shelves are usually barren.
And best time to prepare is now, when things are calm, not later.
Ask yourself right now, could you feed yourself or your family for two weeks with the food you have at home at this moment?
What about four weeks?
What about if the supply lines went down?
The time to act is now.
Secure an emergency food supply with our friends at MyPatriotSupply.
I have it.
I buy it myself.
I can get freebies from them.
I don't.
They sent me one box free.
I bought another eight, nine boxes for myself.
A two-week food kit will get you started.
This week, it's on sale for only $75 when you go to my special website, preparewithdan.com.
That's preparewithdan.com or call 888-411-8926.
These food kits last up to 25 years.
Order now.
Prepare yourself so you have no surprises.
888-411-8926 or preparewithdan.com.
That's preparewithdan.com.
Okay, another blockbuster piece by Solomon, which came out the other day.
Folks, something's making a whole lot of sense here.
A lot of us have been kind of tracking this and we were wondering what the deal was with this.
There was a redacted footnote in the House Intelligence Committee report.
Remember, Devin Nunes has been investigating this for a long time.
Remember a few months ago?
When, was it three, four months ago, when Devin Nunes put out that explosive House Intelligence Committee report about the Pfizer abuse, and the Democrats went nuts, and Shifty, oh Shifty!
We haven't said that in a while.
Shifty released his own nonsense report afterwards.
That story seems like eons ago, given the news cycle in the Trump era, right?
But it wasn't that long ago.
It was only a few months ago that that House Intelligence Committee report came out.
But there's been a puzzling piece of information.
There was a redacted footnote in the piece.
And that redacted footnote had some people confused at the time.
The footnote was from page, this is from Solomon's piece in the Hill.
Please read it.
It's two pieces in there.
This is the second one.
Footnote 43 on page 57 of chapter three in the House Intelligence Committee's report earlier this year on Russian interference in the election has some significant redactions, right?
Solomon writes, until this past week, the footnote really had garnered no public intrigue.
It's true.
A lot of us in the inside wondered what it was about, but no one was really talking about it in the media, Joe.
In part because the U.S.
intelligence community blacked out the vast majority of the footnote's verbiage in the name of national security before the report was made public.
So a lot of us were under the impression, Joe, that that footnote was some secret source, some national security critical piece of information that couldn't be revealed.
You know, what could it be, Joe?
But nobody, again, it wasn't the subject of a lot of media reports.
Now it's all coming out, folks.
Again, more evidence of the big 100,000-feet-in-the-air narrative that's finally starting to come out that's easy to understand.
This was a political hit on the president, folks, and his campaign.
This was not a national security operation to interrupt Russian collusion or Russian interference in our election.
That is a made-up, false, fabricated, nonsense narrative.
What does that have to do with this footnote?
Keep in mind, I just explained to you number one, the coup attempt.
Now I'm going to explain to you how the investigation was entirely political.
We have been led to believe by the FBI, some members of the FBI, in conjunction with the media, that there was some effort to interrupt the Russian collusion.
This was a political hit, pure and simple.
What was redacted in that footnote?
Well, now we know.
The footnote indicated that FBI officials had been taking information from a specific source, but who the source was was redacted.
And again, that let people in the media off the hooks.
Oh, that source, Joe, must be a national security source.
Ah, no, ladies and gentlemen, that source appears to be Michael Sussman.
Who was a lawyer working for the Democrat National Committee during the election.
Now explain to me, please, in a coherent, rational sentence, you liberal clowns, explain to me now how it is a national security, a national security Necessity to black out the name of a democrat lawyer who was mainlining, pipelining information into the upper levels of the FBI that's generated as political opposition.
Please explain to me how that's a national security sa- Wait, I'll give you a second.
Oh, you can't?
Figures.
Folks, think about what we're talking about here.
Again, as the case goes on, it gets easier and easier to understand.
Dave, FBI had told us forever we have to protect what, Joe?
Sources and methods!
For national security?
What is the national security interest in protecting a Democrat Party lawyer who pipelined you information?
There is none!
Can I have another five seconds?
You need it, right, Saul?
You can't figure it out!
Because there is... You know what Saul's trying to figure out in that five seconds?
He's trying to figure out how to save his caboose!
There is no answer to this!
There's none!
Folks, this was a political hit!
It is clear as day!
Remember, Occam's Razor.
Keep it simple.
This was a political hit on the press.
It had nothing to do with Russians or collusion.
Forget the collusion narrative.
The collusion narrative applies to one party and one party only.
The collusion narrative applies to the Hillary Clinton team.
It doesn't apply to the Trump team.
Now folks, one more really terrific point.
Solomon, man, I tell you, I can't hat tip this guy.
He did a great job in making, in the second piece I have in the show, it's the one I just quoted from.
Joe, if the redacted footnote in that house intelligence report about Joe, the source that had to be redacted for national security reasons.
Yes.
If that had to be redacted, then why is it that when Baker went up to the house to give his testimony, the lawyer, the same lawyer I just told you about with the 25th amendment stuff with Rosenstein.
Why is it that it was done in an unclassified setting when that information was revealed?
Ladies and gentlemen, I'm telling you why.
Because the DOJ is starting to realize right now that it's screwed.
What it's hoping to do is it's hoping to, you may say, well, how is it if it released the information with Baker in an unclassified setting, but redacted it, how is it admitting it's screwed?
No, no, no, you're thinking about this all wrong.
Joe, if I miss anybody, stop me, right?
Yeah, yeah, you're good, you're good.
What they're doing here is the DOJ understands it's going to have to take a bath.
That this was a political hit and a soft coup is now transparently obvious.
Now, remember the DOJ's known this the whole time.
How, Joe?
Because they were involved in it!
Because they were there!
Joe and I know how the Dan Bongino show started, you know why?
I'm Dan Bongino and Joe was there and they won.
You all don't know, nothing personal, but we were there, we know!
The DOJ knows what happened!
The DOJ is playing small ball.
They're releasing things out in drips and drabs during news cycles.
Kavanaugh, Nikki Haley's resignation today, whatever it may be.
They're hoping during the news cycle that they can release in drips and drabs the information so the public gets tired of it and never sees the hundred thousand foot in the sky narrative that the soft coup effort to remove the president by a politically motivated attack using our weaponized intelligence community was in play for the last two years.
That's why they let Baker go up there in an unclassified setting and reveal this information despite the fact that they redacted the exact same information in a House Intelligence Investigation report.
Because they're dripping and drabbing it out.
They're waiting for the election.
How many times am I going to have to tell you this?
Please, please vote.
Please, please.
I'm praying you vote.
They are hoping the House gets taken over by the Democrats, the committee chairmanships change, and as they change, people like Devin Nunes and all these investigators, Joe, are sidelined.
Goodbye.
And all of this goes away.
That way they can drip and drab it out in the redactions at their own pace under no pressure from Nunes and others.
They'll drip out all of it over a period of two years and you have completely lost interest.
Now, some of you may be saying, no, we won't lose interest.
Folks, listen, people do.
Think about Benghazi.
We still don't even have an answer about where the president was than when he went to sleep the night of Benghazi.
Nobody knows!
Matter of fact, you even talk about it now.
Left Hawkins, Spears, Shekar, Benghazi.
Nobody gives a shit.
I always say to people, okay, I will stop talking about Benghazi.
Just answer three questions.
Where was the president before?
What did he do during?
And why was that, why was a stand down order according to multiple people at the scene given?
Just explain that and we'll make it all, we'll get the answers and we can move on.
But this, you understand this is the exact same strategy?
Drip it out slow.
Slow, slow.
And eventually, the news cycle will bury the story in the DOJ.
The information will come out slowly.
There'll be no punch to it.
You'll have lost interest.
Dude, this show is one of those shows that really has me stressed out about the Republic, but it's also, it's got me pissed off.
It should, Joe.
And I know it has, I can read the emails.
You know what I mean?
It has a lot of people pissed off.
A lot.
And some people email me and go, I want a, I want a, I get it.
I know you want an investigation.
Folks, my job for you, how I envision myself in this and Joe's roles, to give you the information, to give you the information to pressure your lawmakers.
This is not a monarchy, and if there was a monarchy, I wouldn't be interested in being the monarch anyway.
All I can do is get you the information.
I'm telling you it's devastating.
Now, I have a ton of other stuff to get to here, but I want to just wrap it up with this quote from John Solomon, from the second piece, again, in my show notes today, and you need to read it, please.
It's really good, right?
This sums up this whole thing.
Quote, there is now a concrete storyline backed by irrefutable evidence.
Here it is.
The FBI allowed itself to take political oppo research created by one party to defeat another in an election, treated it like actionable intelligence, presented it to the court as substantiated, and then used it to justify spying on an advisor for the campaign of that party's duly chosen nominee for president in the final days of a presidential election.
Yes!
Yes, John Solomon!
There's Spygate in one chapter, I mean in one paragraph.
One more short paragraph, he goes on.
And when nine months later, none of this, the FBI cannot prove the allegation of collusion between Trump and Russia, they couldn't prove any of this.
Unverified evidence was then leaked to the media to try to sustain public support for a continued investigation.
Yes, John Solomon.
Bingo, brother.
That is exactly what happened.
Nailed it.
All right.
I got a couple other things.
Very important stuff to get through.
I may go a little, little long today, but today's show.
Oh, thanks, Joe.
I love when Joe likes the show.
Makes me happy.
Blinds.com, folks.
Window treatments is one of those soulless adulting terms that's sometimes necessary, but boring.
We have blinds!
See, people don't want to talk about blinds.
You don't even want to think about them unless they move or break, but you should.
When they're right, everything in your home looks better, but when they're wrong, everything in your house looks cheap.
But let's be honest, taking the time to pick out and buy blinds, it's expensive, it's kind of boring, and installing them yourself sounds hard.
And no self-respecting adult wants to admit that.
But blinds.com makes it real easy for you, folks.
I'm telling you, Joe knows how incompetent I am with a drill.
Don't you, Joe?
Remember putting together the studio?
Joe, I'm like, Joe, what is it?
He's like, it's an impact driver.
I'm like, oh, I thought, you know, really, folks, I got to call a spade a spade.
That's just me.
This is a screwdriver.
This is a screwdriver.
This is a Phillips head.
I actually, my wife and I, put the blinds.com blinds in my daughter's bed.
Yeah, I'm not kidding.
I'm not making this up.
That's how easy it is.
Here's what you do.
You just send pictures of your house, send them back for custom recommendations from a professional for what'll work with you, your color scheme, furniture, specific rooms.
They make it really easy.
They'll provide free online design consultation.
They'll even send you free samples to make sure it looks as good in person as it does online, and everything is free shipping.
Every order gets that.
This is the best part.
If you accidentally mismeasure, you screw up or pick the wrong color, you do it.
Blinds will, they'll remake your blinds for free, even if you screw up.
They made it really easy for you.
There's no excuse to leave up those mangled blinds that make your place look like a set from The Wire.
And for a limited time, get up to 20% off everything.
20%!
Not two, 20% off blinds.com when you use promo code Dan.
Go to blinds.com, use promo code Dan, D-A-N, for 20% off everything.
Faux wood blinds, cellular shades, roller shades, and more.
Blinds.com, promo code Dan for 20% off.
Rules and restrictions apply.
Thank you, blinds.com.
They are super easy to use.
Okay.
Oh, where do we go next?
Um, I, you know, I'm not into... Well, you alright, Joe?
Looked like you were gonna die.
Yeah, I had a weird noise on my end.
I got it.
Joe's hitting buttons left and right.
You know, last night on the Levin Show, I made a point.
I'm gonna make it simple.
I don't want to go on and on in a long rant for this, but it is a critical one.
I want you to understand.
I drew an analogy between the NFL protests, and I don't want to re-dig that one up, but it's relevant right now to what happened with Kavanaugh and the protests with Kavanaugh this weekend.
And I want to make this simple point because it's a critical one.
Where the Democrats lose here, ladies and gentlemen, is what I called last night and I want to call again today.
They lost, I want to name this, the This Ain't Us moments.
You may say, what are you talking about?
I made the case with the NFL, I'm going to draw a parallel here a little while ago on this show, that the damage done to the NFL by the protests is chronic.
It's not the acute damage.
I have no doubt the NFL will likely recover some, if not all, of its ratings over time somehow.
They probably will.
In the short term, when I say over time, I mean in the short term.
The argument I've made with the NFL is these kneeling protests offended deeply so many people That in order for the NFL to grow its brand at the rate necessary to continue to earn the returns it gets on its product, the NFL has to make sure it generates legions of new customers and that's why the 18 to 50 plus demo is so important in TV.
Long story short is, You have no idea the damage they did to their brand by mothers and fathers who watched this happen in the NFL.
I know you did it, Joe.
I know I did it.
Who looked over at little Joe.
I looked over at my Isabel and Amelia and said, that ain't us.
That ain't us.
I inherited my love for the NFL and football from my mom.
I grew up with a single mom, a single parent.
I love my father.
They got divorced.
I'm not trying to like crap on my dad on the show here.
He's a great guy.
He just didn't work out, right?
But I grew up with a single mom.
My mother loved football, loved it.
She'd watch it every Sunday.
It was a ritual in our house.
That love of football was passed down to me.
I loved it.
My daughter came in one night.
I'm not even kidding.
I was waiting.
I watch 60 Minutes, even though it's a left-leaning show.
I like to see the perspective, at least, of what's going on a little bit.
I'm like, liberals who, you know.
So I was getting ready one night for 60 Minutes, and I must have had it to auto-tune or a reminder to the channel.
And you know what happens with 60 Minutes on football nights.
It starts late if the football game goes late.
So the way my living room's set up, you can see the TV, but the remote wasn't near me, so it must have auto-tuned to an NFL game that was still on.
My daughter came in and said, Dad, shut that off.
The NFL's on.
I was proud of her.
I said, you know what, Isabel?
Thank you.
I forgot.
I really, I wasn't even paying attention.
We were cooking something.
She will never in her entire life watch an NFL game again, either with my daughter, Amelia, because I told her one time and I meant it.
That is not us.
We do not kneel.
And when I say that, I'm talking about the actions.
So I know how, I know how media matters.
Goofballs are.
That's what they do.
I'm specifically talking about the actions here.
You do not disrespect our national anthem.
It's one thing we share in common.
We will fight for that common cause and it's the survival of our republic, even though we have significant political and ideological differences.
If you can't agree on that one thing, the country will fail to exist.
You do not disrespect that anthem.
Why am I telling you that story?
Because folks, what the Democrats don't understand right now is these hysterical histrionics.
These grotesque, sometimes violent, aggressive, confrontational, screaming protests.
You have no idea the generational damage you are doing to your party.
Again, you may recover in the short term like the NFL.
In the long run, you have alienated millions of customers.
Millions.
Because I'm telling you, there are parents all over America watching that woman trying to claw open the doors of the Supreme Court with their bare hands while pounding on them, who I'm telling you, as my name is Dan Bongino, are looking over at their sons and daughters and saying, Tom, Mary, that ain't us.
That ain't us.
You are decimating and destroying your brand.
You are.
Hence my own the libs.
You cannot let these people rest for a moment.
This is what they want.
They want chaos and chaos is not a brand folks.
Chaos is not a brand that sells.
This is not us and the Democrats are going to learn that the hard way.
All right.
I got a couple of quick ones I'm going to get through because this is news of the week.
Finally, again, I appreciate your patience, but the ad reads are a little different today because of the launch of the book.
So one more, but it's a great company.
Been with us from the beginning, BrickHouse Nutrition.
Finest nutrition products on the market.
They have a doctor on board that is way, way ahead of the curve when it comes to designing the finest nutrition supplements in America right now.
I have no doubt about that.
And one of them is Field of Greens.
We all know, we talked about in the beginning, my patron supply and food insurance.
Well, what about, you know, ensuring your health?
No, I don't mean financially.
I mean, engaging in a lifestyle that ensures your long-term mental and physical health.
Exercise, get out there, get some fresh air, get some sun, right?
But one of the things your doctor tells you to do, nutritionist, your exercise physiologist, your personal trainer, what?
They all say the same thing.
What is it?
eat your fruits and vegetables. So I said, "Why don't you do it? Why?" "Oh, it's tough. I got
to go shopping. I got to prepare them." I get it. I got a busy lifestyle too. What if I told you,
"You should stew that by the way, but if you can't and you don't have the time, what if I told you
there was a product that would ensure you got your fruits and vegetables in every day and it tasted
delicious?" There is a product out there.
It's called Field of Greens.
It's available at BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
That's BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
It is a wonderfully tasting product.
It has a very fruity flavor.
You get it in a jar.
It is not extract.
It is real ground up fruits and vegetables.
It is food.
Real food.
It's not cheap pills.
It's not garbage.
It is high quality fruits and vegetables ground up into a wonderfully tasting powder.
I throw it in juice, sometimes orange juice, sometimes green tea, sometimes V8.
It is terrific.
It will ensure you get your fruits and vegetables in and all those benefits.
The mental benefits, the physical benefits, the health benefits.
Go pick up a jar today.
You will not regret it.
I swear by the stuff, I take it twice a day.
BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
That's BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
Pick up a bottle of Field of Greens today.
You will not regret it.
Okay.
Couple stories I want to motor through that are in the show notes, but are really important.
Never in the history of nicknames, as I've said repeatedly, has a nickname backfired as bad as Don Blankenship, who was running for Senate in West Virginia.
His nickname for Mitch McConnell, which was Cocaine Mitch.
Cocaine Mitch was a nickname.
It's a ridiculous backstory where he got it from, but bottom line is this.
The way the internet works these days, you know, it's twitter's kind of funny and the mcconnell
McConnell supporters, my wife's having a hard time understanding this.
She just got on Twitter and she's figuring it out.
If you're not on Twitter, it's tough to understand.
It was meant as an insult.
A guy running for Senate in West Virginia, not against McConnell, was running against the establishment types.
Obviously McConnell, you know, being one of them at the time, being associated, he's regained a lot of his reputation from the Supreme Court appointments, but you get my point.
Everybody used to attack who?
Paul Ryan, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell.
That was the way it went.
Joe, I mean, you and I lived through the Tea Party movement.
Oh yeah.
So Blankenship, in an effort to win the Senate seat, said, I'm gonna go to D.C., I'm gonna fight the establishment, and we're gonna, like, take down cocaine Mitch, too.
And it was, I mean, it was meant to be an insult.
Yeah.
Well, Blankenship lost.
Listen, I don't know Blankenship not knocking a guy.
I don't know anything about him, right?
I never met him.
I'm just telling you what's happened.
The Mitch McConnell team has actually taken a nickname and kind of like quietly made it like a meme.
I'm not, listen, no one's celebrating drug use, I'm just, I don't, we shouldn't have to even put that, I'm just telling you what's happening, okay folks?
It's been used as like a rebel, like, like a rebel without a cause nickname, you know?
If you go to Twitter and put in cocaine Mitch, you'll see a thousand memes and some of them are hysterical.
One of them is, my name is Mitch McConnell.
I traffic cocaine and get Supreme Court justices approved and I'm all out of cocaine.
It's all over the internet.
And it's meant to rehabilitate, in some ways, through edgy, unquestionably edging, questionable marketing, the reputation of McConnell.
You get it, Joe?
Oh yeah, yeah.
I say that because Cocaine Mitch strikes again.
I have a piece up in the show notes.
He was asked, apparently, about 2020.
2020 is what?
A presidential year, presidential election year, right?
Everybody knows Donald Trump's up for re-election in 2020.
Someone said to him, hey, you know, Mitch, now that Ruth Bader Ginsburg is, you know, 85, if a seat came open in 2020, during the election year, would you guys seek to put a, you know, seek to confirm a Supreme Court justice if Trump were to nominate one?
McConnell's like, yeah!
Yeah, we would!
And I'm like, here we go!
New rules!
Now, if you're a regular listener to the show, you see exactly where I'm going with this.
Some of you may not.
McConnell, during the last year of the Obama administration, during a presidential election year, when Merrick Garland was nominated, said, we're not doing it.
We control the Senate.
We are not going to meet with Garland.
I'm sorry.
The seat will not be filled.
We will not vote on it.
And McConnell, give him credit where credit is due, with cojones of steel, stuck to it, and got Neil Gorsuch in that spot after Trump was elected.
Now, new rules.
Listen folks, these new rules may make you a little uncomfortable.
Not me.
I don't care.
Not one bit.
Now, McConnell's saying, well, if it was an election year, yeah, we'll stick someone in there.
Cocaine Mitch strikes again.
New rules.
We win, you lose.
Now, to be fair, McConnell does caveat it and he's correct in saying that, hey, what I was talking about is when an opposition party controls the Senate, which should have been obvious.
Now, you may say, Dan, don't be a hypocrite.
If we meant that during an election year, no Supreme Court justice should be confirmed until the next president comes in, then we should mean it no matter what.
Well, sorry, folks.
Those are the old rules.
I'm not interested.
When liberals start stealing, stop stealing MAGA hats and dumping waters on our head and attacking us, I'm more than willing to go back to the old rules.
Till then, we win, you lose.
Sorry.
Cocaine Mitch strikes again.
But you see the nuance here?
He's introducing a nuance that wasn't there before and reporters are all over it.
I have a great story.
From the Washington Examiner today, Joe, excuse me, in the show notes about this exact topic.
Just to be clear, McConnell's saying, hey, we were using the Biden rule during the last year of the Obama presidency.
Joe Biden gave that famous speech in 92 when the Democrats controlled the Senate and George H.W.
Bush was in office saying, we should not.
He repeated, we should not.
He said it twice.
Seek to confirm a Supreme Court justice in a presidential election year.
McConnell took the Biden rule when the Republicans were in control of the Senate in the last year of Obama's presidency and said, we will not seat Merrick Garland.
Now when asked about it again, McConnell's like, well, I only meant because the Republicans controlled the Senate and it was a Democrat president.
Now that it's a Republican president and Republicans control the Senate, we're going to plow right through that sucker.
Yeah!
You know, Dan, I've been thinking that this is a good time for us to do what the hell we want.
Don't you think?
I didn't see where you were going.
Yes!
Yes it is!
To do what the hell we want!
I'm sorry!
Folks, I told you, when you want to return to civility, standard operating principles, the rules of the Senate, you want to stop calling Supreme Court Justices gang rapists and other things like that, I'm fine!
Okay?
I'm game!
I'm down!
Totally!
Until that time, the new rules, however uncomfortable they may make you, And listen, feel free to email me.
Criticize me.
Dan, we should stick by that principle about the Senate no matter who's in control.
Fine, I get it.
I'm open to hear.
I'm telling you I am on the entirely opposite side of this.
We win, you lose is the new credo.
When the left wants to stop attacking us, then we can go back to some standard set of operating principles.
Until then, it is all about winning.
Hat tip.
Cocaine Mitch.
I'm not kidding.
Put that in Twitter.
There's got to be 10,000 memes of Mitch McConnell.
With that stuff.
I want to explain something, moving on to a different story.
You know, because sometimes you see something on Twitter and you get nailed on something and you feel like you have to explain it.
I want to explain it.
It's not bad or anything, don't worry.
I went on Fox.
No.
Yeah, I did.
I went on Fox.
I'm confusing Charlie Kirk and me, but Charlie went on Fox yesterday and talked about Kanye West and Taylor Swift.
But I went on Fox a while ago and was talking about the importance of Kanye West's statement about, you know, opening your eyes and thinking for yourself.
And I said to you, remember the show, Joe?
I said it on the podcast too.
Please don't dismiss that.
And I was very clear, Joe, you can attest to this, I'm not, call me out.
I'm not going to hold it against you.
Did I not say Kanye is not a conservative?
He's not.
I said, I'm not looking to him for political advice.
I'm not looking to him for, you know, uh, tax reform, marginal tax rate analysis, community rating.
I'm not, I'm simply suggesting to you as a cultural moment, It's important that people with cultural capital, was the term I used, they have capital with young and minority voters come out and say, hey, these Republicans aren't crazy.
I was not suggesting, and maybe it was unclear, and it's my fault, and that's why I'm addressing it, because the guy on Twitter, and I'll tell you what he said in a minute, is not wrong, but I just want to clear up what I said because I think he's misinterpreting what I meant by this.
I did not mean that you should, like, look to Kanye for political endorsements, or even policy endorsements.
I'm simply suggesting That the way to return to a proper discourse at the cultural level where Republicans aren't bad guys and Democrats aren't bad guys and let's talk about policy is when one side acknowledges that the other side, okay, you guys are acting in goodwill.
The Democrats refuse to do that.
Every time we open our mouth, you're a rapist, you're a racist, you hate women.
The Kanye moment's important because minority voters, some, and younger voters believe that stuff because they use the media.
That's why Kanye should not be dismissed.
Now, on Twitter the other night, I went after Taylor Swift and I said what I say all the time.
I don't look to my doctor, he's a very smart guy, I love him to death, I don't look to my doctor for political advice.
I have no idea what his party affiliation, I've never asked him.
I know this, he fixes elbows and he fixes shoulders and he's damn good at it.
Folks, if the guy told me tomorrow he was an Obama supporter, I couldn't give a rat's caboose.
Don't care.
He's good.
Taylor Swift is an unquestionably Beautifully talented singer.
Her voice is amazing.
I have tons of her stuff on iTunes.
Unquestionably.
Full stop.
I made the point, maybe a little, and I could have dialed it, but I said I don't really, I used the term, the S word.
I don't give a, about what she thinks about politics.
Maybe I could have dialed that back a bit.
I granted, right?
But my point was that she's probably a talented singer, but I don't ask my doctor for political advice, and I certainly don't care that Taylor Swift, for those of you who missed the story, endorsed the Democrat Senate candidate in Tennessee.
I don't care, and you shouldn't either.
So some guy screenshotted my stuff from Fox about the importance of Kanye and then screenshotted my tweet about Taylor and said you're being a hypocrite.
I'm not, folks.
That's not some kind of defensive thing.
I'm not looking to them for endorsements on policy or candidates.
I'm simply trying to suggest that the culture's default view that Republicans are Racists and rapists and misogynists.
The only way that's going to get corrected in the culture amongst people who actually believe it because of the media is when people with cultural capital come out and say, folks, I don't care who you vote for, but that's not true.
The Republicans are not those guys.
That's all I was trying to say.
But fair enough criticism on Twitter.
Maybe I should have worded it differently and I'm not immune to screwing stuff up and I read it it wasn't like I didn't get a lot of retweets and people said why are you even highlighting it because listen I'm human like anyone else and when you say something the wrong way or it's not clear to people then you have a responsibility and that's what I what I meant by that is we should not be taking Kanye's political endorsements.
But his voice is an important one, and we shouldn't disregard it.
And that principle applies to Taylor Swift, too.
She's talented.
She's a wonderful businesswoman.
She's brought in billions of dollars of revenue in the entertainment industry.
Folks, I simply don't care what she thinks about a political candidate in the United States Senate race.
I don't care.
And frankly speaking, I know we're going to get a lot of negative feedback from Swifty fans.
So what do they call them?
The Swifties or whatever?
Taylorites?
I don't know what they are.
Fine, bring it.
But I don't know why you should care either.
I don't understand what deep analysis she has on political issues.
Listen, she wants to give advice.
And by the way, I'm not suggesting she shouldn't have a voice.
She's got 21 million Twitter followers.
She's free to say whatever she wants.
I'll always support that.
I'm just telling you, think... Can I just sum it up this way, folks?
Please just think for yourself.
There you go.
Just think for yourself.
That's all I'm saying.
There you go.
And I'll move on.
Alright, this one's important.
So there's a...
A growing kind of, you know, the Democrats are big on outrage campaigns and narratives.
We, you know, first it was the travel ban, actually first it was the electoral college, then it was the Trump presidency in general, then it was the travel ban, then it was the kids in cages that was actually under the Obama administration.
We had all this stuff that happened, the outrage campaign.
So there's a new outrage campaign building and I want you to be aware of it folks.
You heard it here first and be ready to respond because it's getting momentum.
Matter of fact, I took a photo, a screenshot of this.
This Ken Delanian, who is an alleged journalist, he's not a journalist, he's an activist, but he works for NBC.
Believe me, this guy's an activist.
Don't for a second think this guy's a journalist.
Read his Twitter feed.
He's 100% a Democrat activist.
But this is an article by Jason Willick in today's Wall Street Journal.
Here is the new outrage campaign by Democrats it's building.
You heard it here first, all right?
In the wake of Justice Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation, some of his opponents have taken Joe to denouncing the United States Senate as undemocratic.
This is gonna be the new line of attack.
Get ready.
Here is the tweet by Ken Delaney, an alleged reporter at NBC.
It may not happen in our lifetimes, Ken Delaney tweeted, but the idea that North Dakota and New York get the same representation in the Senate has to change.
So ladies and gentlemen, federalism and all of the associated constitutional protections for small states, the NBC reporter, alleged reporter, Ken Delaney wants them thrown out of the window.
Folks, this is building on the left.
They're saying the combined population of all of these Midwestern states doesn't even meet the population of New York City and Los Angeles.
There's no way these people should get to vote with equal representation in the Senate, folks.
Listen, I don't need to explain to you the constitutional protections, the checks and balances laid out horizontally and vertically.
You get that?
But the founders and the beauty of the founders system of a system of equal representation, the House of Representatives, which is based on population, was balanced because there are regional interests in a collective United States unit that they wanted to make sure were balanced out in the Congress and the legislative branch.
Think about why that is.
It's obvious.
Folks, there are people who live in cities and industrial centers whose interests may be different than people who live in primarily agricultural areas.
The United States, when we drew up the Constitution with these protections, wanted to be ensured that they had population representation in the House of Representatives, but that regional parts of the United States were not left out by a tyranny of the majority.
Agricultural interests may not be the same as interest.
People in cities may love some tariff that helps their tech industry that destroys farm interests in the Midwest.
They wanted to make sure these interests were balanced.
We are not a direct democracy.
That is why there are regional interests in the United States that have to be protected.
You can't have New York running what happens in Michigan or Wisconsin or North Dakota.
Although New York does have outsized influence.
Why?
They have 20 plus members of the House of Representatives.
And North Dakota doesn't.
The Senate is meant to balance that.
One final point on how ridiculous, just to be clear, the new narrative this building is this.
The U.S.
Senate is undemocratic.
Look what happened in the Supreme Court.
Don't play this down.
Do it at your own peril.
Ironically, folks, if that was true and the Democrats are saying, well, the population, where the people actually live, should get to dictate everything for the country.
Joe, let me ask you this.
It's not a trick question.
Yes, sir.
Where is there a larger majority in the Congress for the Republicans, in the House of Representatives or in the Senate?
In the House of Representatives, Dan.
I'll explain later.
Yes!
Yes!
Thank you!
Thank you, Joe!
In the House of Representatives!
You're welcome, Dan.
You're the best.
I love this guy.
When this is video, this is gonna be great.
This is gonna be great.
Folks, in the House of Representatives!
Some of you regular listeners will figure that right out.
The House of Representatives!
The irony of this whole thing is if Delaneyan from NBC, the alleged reporter's point was true, Brett Kavanaugh would have been appointed to the Supreme Court by bigger numbers, not smaller numbers.
Do you get it?
This is how stupid they lose on both arguments.
Where the people live should vote.
Yeah, they do.
It's called the House of Representatives.
There's a huge Republican majority there right now.
Did you miss that?
What a dope!
Oh gosh, this is funny stuff.
Alright folks, so just be prepared for the US Senate's undemocratic.
That's going to be the new meme.
He's an activist at heart.
Alright, we're running a little late, but just quickly on Nikki Haley.
She is resigning as a UN ambassador, saying she needs to take a break.
A quote is, it's been the honor of a lifetime.
So we'll see what happens in the coming days.
This is unquestionably breaking news.
And again, folks, please, if you don't mind, please pick up my book today.
I would deeply appreciate it.
It's a launch day.
It's available on audio version, if you'd like to listen to the book.
The Kindle version's on Amazon.
It's available at Barnes & Noble.
The hardcover's available.
It's available everywhere.
Please go check it out.
Spygate, The Attempted Sabotage of Donald J. Trump.
Please help us get to number one.
I'd appreciate it.
The book is the best thing I've ever done.
You're really gonna love it.
Thanks a lot, folks.
I will 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.
