Ep. 828 New Information Threatens the Anti-Trump Narrative
Summary:In this episode I address Trump’s terrific performance during the "60 Minutes" interview this weekend. I also discuss revealing new details about the Spygate scandal that point in a troubling direction. Finally, I debunk liberal talking points about “fair share” economics. New Picks:
New details emerge about the Anti-Trump dossier.
Chuck Ross’s new piece addresses potential legal trouble for Glenn Simpson.
This Chuck Ross piece unravels the Papadopoulos/Downer meeting.
Why CNN must destroy Kanye West.
Big news: Hillary Clinton’s security clearance is no more.
More ANTIFA chaos this past week.
Copyright CRTV. All rights reserved.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Get ready to hear the truth about America on a show that's not immune to the facts with your host, Dan Bongino.
All right, welcome to the Dan Bongino Show.
Producer Joe, how are you today?
Here we go again, Dano!
Yes, big Monday, big week.
Thank you last week for another great week of listens.
We really appreciate it.
Got a lot to get through as always, including if...
If you missed, Joe, am I right here?
If you missed last night, Donald Trump's interview on 60 Minutes with far-left activist Leslie Stahl pretending to be a journalist at 60 Minutes.
Ladies and gentlemen, I'm sorry, I know 60 Minutes is a liberal show, you don't want to give them ratings, but you have to break the rules sometimes.
Yesterday, I tweeted out last night, if there was a ceremony A formal ceremony, Joe, for owning the libs.
Donald Trump's interview last night was a hallmark of what that formal owning of the libs ceremony should look like.
It was the greatest throw at 20 minutes of television I think I've seen in forever.
So I have a cut from that we're going to play in a little while.
Also, And just astonishingly deep interview with Representative John Ratcliffe, who's been all over the Papadopoulos angle in the Spygate case.
Just some nuggets in there that were just priceless that I want to cover.
So, big week.
Today's show brought to you by our buddies at WaxRx.
Hey, you know how much I love my sponsors?
I don't take on products that I can't use, won't use, or can't vouch for.
WaxRx is great.
I had a lot of trouble with my ears when I was a secret service agent.
Watched an interesting show last night of Nat Geo about that, the secret service.
And you know, you have to stick that earpiece in your ear all the time and I couldn't hear anything.
It turns out I had an earwax blockage in my ear and you had to get it out.
And it's really kind of tough because you don't want to stick those cotton swabs in.
It's not what you're supposed to do.
It's not what they're for.
It's not the sexiest product in the world by XRX, but it works, and it works great.
I use it on me, my kids.
I use it after I get a haircut sometimes, too, because I get those little hairs in your ears.
Here's a customer review I saw from them I wanted to share.
This is an email we got.
I used to have to go to the doctor twice a year to get rid of my stubborn hardener wax.
With my rising cost of healthcare and thus double deductible, I'd have to spend $60 per visit.
That's $120 a year.
$120 a year to treat my ears.
Now I can do it myself with WaxRx and I can save some money.
Doesn't require me to miss a half a day of work.
Thank you, WaxRx.
Yes, thank you is right.
Right now, you can go to WaxRx at GoWaxRx.com.
That's GoWaxRx.com.
To try the WaxRx system, use offer code DAN at checkout for free shipping.
Don't wait.
You have no idea what you're not hearing because you're not hearing it.
It may just change your life.
Go to GoWaxRx.com.
Offer code DAN.
That's GoWaxRx.com.
Offer code DAN.
Don't miss out.
These guys are great.
Okay.
So, from yesterday's 60 Minutes interview, one of the things I like about Donald Trump, and I want to get across this because Joe knows this about the show, one of the things I don't want to do is do empty commentary.
Just say, oh, Donald Trump, on the libs, great, haha, rah-rah, great, that's terrific.
That sucks.
I want to provide some, right.
I mean, you know, a lot of people do that.
That's what I love about Mark Levin's radio shows, that he doesn't do that.
He goes into deeper stuff.
So one of the things I want to cover here is what Leslie Stahl tried to do and how you can learn from what Donald Trump did last night and why Donald Trump resonates with an increasingly large number of Americans that have surpassed party labels.
In other words, whether they considered themselves in the past, moderate Democrats or Republicans, they align with Trump.
And it's because he fights back and he understands framing.
He understands framing.
How to frame a question so that the question advances a pre-existing storyline, or what we call a narrative on this show, and it's not really designed to be a question at all.
The media does this all the time.
It's the, you know, the oldest example in the book, but it's the most illuminating and the best, is the, you know, when did you stop beating your wife question?
It's not a question, folks.
It's designed to frame a narrative.
It's phrased as a question, but it's not a question.
The answer is, I don't beat my wife.
Therefore, the narrative is the Republican's evil.
The Republican is going to be character assassinated.
And the quote we're going to put on the front page of the Baltimore Sun or wherever is, You know, Candidate X says, I don't beat my wife, and then everybody says what?
Oh my gosh, there's allegations he beat his wife?
Do you understand, folks?
That is what they do.
They do it all the time.
They frame questions to Republicans in a way to advance a pre-existing narrative.
Now, Leslie Stahl tried to do this with Donald Trump last night, who, he did something incredible.
I want to play the cut and I want to show you how he absolutely destroys the effort to frame the question to advance the narrative.
Play that cut.
I never knew how dishonest the media was.
I really mean it.
I'm not saying that as a soundbite.
I never knew how dishonest... I'm going to change the subject again.
But even the way you asked me a question about separation.
When I say Obama did it, you don't want to talk about it.
No.
When I say I did it, let's make a big deal out of it.
I'm going to run your answer, but you did it four times.
I'm just telling you that you treated me much differently on the subject.
I disagree, but I don't want to have that fight with you.
Hey, it's okay.
I don't want to have another fight with you.
Leslie, it's okay.
Okay, in the meantime, I'm president and you're not.
(laughing)
I watched that, not live, but live on 60 Minutes, but of course it was a taped interview,
and I looked at my wife, we're sitting at the kitchen table, we're having some brisket, we're eating,
and I looked at her and she looked at me and we both at the same time,
we didn't have to say anything, just broke out in laughter, like,
this is the ownership of the libs.
This is what I'm talking about!
Owning the libs has to be a commitment in your every, it's a lifestyle owning the libs.
Own the libs today.
Own the libs tomorrow.
Own the libs on election day.
Own them next year.
Don't give them a second.
Don't give them a reprieve at all.
Own the libs every day.
Now, how did he break the frame?
The framing of the question, which he asked, but I didn't play the whole thing, but she had asked the question about the separations policy at the border, to which Trump responds correctly so that this is not his policy.
It's the Flores consent decree that kids can't be held for more than 10 days in a detainment facility.
Therefore, if the adult with them broke the law, the kid has to be released.
So if you're a Democrat, I don't understand what you're arguing for.
You arguing for prolonged detention of children.
I don't get it.
Now, Trump understands that.
But the media is not interested in telling you the truth about the Flores consent decree at all, or Trump's role in it.
Not even a little bit, Joe.
What they're interested in is painting Trump as Satan.
Satan!
That's exactly!
Was that the Three Stooges?
Curly!
Curly!
Yeah, it's embarrassing.
I didn't know that, like, right offhand.
But this is their goal!
This is what they want to do.
They want to paint Trump as this evil, morally inept, just horrible human being.
So when Trump then goes in and actually explains what's happening, Leslie Stahl has to cut that off.
Why?
This is important, folks.
When you're in the media business, you figure this out.
I've been in this a long... Joe's been in it longer than me.
I'm sorry.
But I've been in this now since 2011.
This is seven years.
I think I've done between CNN, Fox, MSNBC, and others, probably close to 1,500 hits.
They call them hits.
It's like a media term.
In this business, radio and otherwise.
And there's a thing Trump has mastered, which Lesley Stahl knows too, but Trump tried to figure it out.
The last word always matters.
Always!
Lesley Stahl knows that!
Hence Joe, in her clip there, in a cut, and you can play it again if you want, you know, you guys have the rewind button.
In that clip, you'll notice Leslie Stahl is desperate to cut him off as he's giving this answer about the media and how they paint him as the bad guy.
Notice!
Now let's pay attention to the frame.
This matters folks.
You have to understand what's going on.
Some of you are going to become activists.
Some of you are activists.
Some of you may become candidates.
The frame in the beginning, the framing of the question designed to get the, I don't beat my wife narrative, right?
It's not a real question.
Is you're an evil guy for separating kids at the border.
She thinks she's going to make them dance on it and say, you know, kids are awful or whatever.
He doesn't do that.
He immediately changes the frame to what?
Think, folks.
You heard it.
Think about what he did.
This is the brilliance of this guy in dealing with the media.
He changes it immediately to a frame about how sucky the media is.
And she senses it!
She's not stupid!
No.
She's not dumb either!
She's an activist for liberals.
She's a tactician.
She's not dumb.
Don't make that mistake.
Oh, this is stupid.
That may make you feel good, but it's not true.
Leslie Stahl's not stupid.
She's been doing this a long time.
She understands the frame, Joe.
The frame has changed.
Now to an argument about the media.
Now Trump has taken the football and he's playing on.
Now he's back down in the opponent's end zone.
He's getting ready to rock and roll.
You know, he's getting ready to—horrible example.
My sports analogies have been way off lately.
He now—let's give an MMA analogy, something I'm more familiar with, okay?
Go with what you know, brother.
I love football, but you want to, you know, seriously.
Mixed martial arts analogy.
There are stand-up fighters, and there are ground fighters, and there are stand-up and ground fighters, but you're always better at something.
I'm a good guard guy on my back.
He is now on the ground grappling, and the opponent desperately wants to stand up, and he won't let it happen.
She tries to stop.
She tries to get back on her feet because she wants to do the boxing.
Trump doesn't like that.
He likes playing guard.
He likes playing the Brazilian jiu-jitsu game on the ground, so he gets you and he sucks you in, and they can't control it anymore.
And he doesn't know what to, and Leslie doesn't know what to do, how to respond.
It's now gone from a framing piece about Trump's evil intent when it comes to immigrants and how bad and awful of a guy he is, to a straight-up debate about how crappy the media is, which she knows she can't win.
Folks, these pieces with Trump don't, they're not, you can't subject them to simple analysis.
I don't mean to oversell this.
But I really never cover a topic on this show unless I feel I can add something, however small, to your life.
And over time, the cumulative knowledge base, I think, from being here will help you out a lot.
I only know it because I've been, not because I'm trying to claim some kind of intellectual high ground, I've been beaten a lot of times by this stuff when I first started running for office and fell prey to it.
When you see what they're doing, it's not really a question.
When you understand that, and you change it back to areas you're comfortable with, like Trump, with these attacks on the ruthless media, he wins.
Now, one last point on this, and we'll move on, because I don't want to beat it to death, but if you're ever doing this, you're doing interviews.
Remember, the last word always matters.
Always matters.
Why?
Joe, it's simple.
You've been on, I mean... Yeah, it's the last thing you hear, man.
Yes, it's not complicated.
That's what you want to remember, yeah.
Right.
You know, I remember in college, you know, studying the nodal distance effect when your information nodes and it's a complicated way of saying one of the last pieces of information you encounter is the one most likely to stick in your mind.
Now, is Trump thinking in his head about the nodal distance effect?
He's not.
He doesn't have to.
Why, Joe?
He's a natural at this.
I'm president and you're not.
You're playing it now!
I did not tell Joe to do it.
He loves this so much he's already cut the darn clip up.
We've only been in the show for 12 minutes and 11 seconds.
It's him.
Joe's doing this all on his own.
Those are the kind of things that stick.
Nobody remembers now.
So just to take it from the left's perspective how badly Leslie Stahl got owned in this.
The initial question's not a question.
It's an effort to reinforce the fact that Trump does not like immigrant children.
A fake complete garbage narrative.
It's not a question.
No.
She wants to play the stand-up game.
Trump tactically sees it.
Whether it's... He's never... He doesn't have to study the media.
He's been in this whole life.
He just knows it.
It's like, you know, why Derek Jeter could hit a baseball to the opposite field better than most players.
He just knew the inside-out swing.
Right.
Can he explain every nuance of it?
Probably not.
He can explain basic mechanics, but he just has the neuromuscular capability to do it.
Trump just gets it.
He gets that this is a trap.
He moves immediately into a different argument about how you're questioning him different than now that you brought up Obama.
She tries to stop it.
Trump understands he must get the last word and he hits her with, well, I'm president and you are not.
And everybody goes, oh, oh, even Joe and I, we were not, we didn't play Joe.
Three, two, one, let's both scream out.
I'm watching Joe.
Joe's watching me.
I see Joe rocking back from the chair.
I know where he's going.
And it's just a natural, you're like, oh, Oh man, oh.
This guy, it's just, the ownership of the libs is just a lifestyle with this guy.
He just gets it.
And what Leslie Stahl, 60 minutes in liberal America, doesn't get.
Is Americans... Again, I can't speak for everybody.
I'm not the designated spokesman for 330 million Americans.
I'm telling you based on, granted, a lot of anecdotal experience, but having run for office in the last cycle and knocking on thousands and thousands and thousands of doors in both the last election cycle and the one before that.
People crave... I'm going to use a term that sounds oxymoronic, but it's not.
People crave genuine authenticity.
Genuine authenticity.
You said the same thing twice.
No, no, no, no, no.
No, I didn't.
I didn't.
Here's what I, I'm going to get, I'm going to get into the, you know, I might as well just get into it now, but authenticity, genuine authenticity is different than authenticity.
What do I mean by that?
Look at a guy who is air quotes authentic or fake authentic and a guy like Trump, who's real.
Who's the guy who's fake authentic?
The biggest scam I've seen in politics since the initial Obama election when the media painted him as a moderate.
Robert O'Rourke, who calls himself Beto or Beto.
Beto O'Rourke down in Texas running against Cruz.
The biggest scam ever.
They paint this guy as like the next coming of Barack Obama.
Oh, he's so authentic.
He said, folks, there's nothing authentic about this guy running for Senate in Texas at all.
He is a standard, run-of-the-mill politician who grew up in a connected family.
There's a... Joel.
He skateboards.
Democrats are wetting themselves, getting their depends on.
He skateboards.
Oh my gosh, he skateboards.
Let me tell you something.
And I mean this, I'm the Joe.
Again, I don't discuss the show with Joe in advance because I like his authentic reaction.
You want to meet an authentic guy, meet Joe Armacost.
No, I mean it.
Okay.
Joe is a music loving.
He's had some scruffs when he was a kid.
We've all had our problems.
He's had his ups and downs with, with, uh, you know, jobs and in and then he, but he gets up every morning at two o'clock.
He goes to work.
He has had real troubles.
Real Americans have.
He's had to deal with them.
He's had to get dirty under his fingernails.
This is a real dude.
Now that's authentic.
There's nothing authentic about Beto!
Nothing!
This guy's a standard, run-of-the-mill politician who skateboards.
Wow, Joe plays the guitar.
Whoa!
Maybe, Joe, you should run for office.
And he sings!
This is a talented guy!
A talented guy!
Yeah, I mean, he takes, I mean, his kid, he's invested his entire life in little Joe.
I mean, they, Joe does other things, too, people may think.
Don't, didn't you and Joe used to do the stock car things?
Oh, slot cars, yeah, we used to race slot cars.
Sorry, slot cars.
That was fun.
Oh!
Joe, run for office!
Joe Armacost does slot cars.
Oh my gosh!
Like, seriously folks, Joe never ever talks about this on the air and I don't talk about it with him.
Not because I don't care.
Joe's an interesting cat.
It's just, that's not Joe's identity.
Joe's Joe.
Like, that he does stuff is great, but it's not like, hey Dan, I played an interesting chord on the guitar.
Oh wow!
Joe, run for office!
The Democrats wet their drawers over every single guy the media paints as Authentic.
They're not authentic.
Folks, you want me to- let me prove this to you.
The contrast with Beto and Trump.
How the Democrats are total complete frauds, right?
Beto.
Watch any Beto interview.
I cover this on my NRA TV show all the time because my producer, producer Denise, loves the Beto story because she's from Texas.
I mean, loves the coverage.
She's a Cruz supporter, don't get me wrong.
But She brought up a great point to me the other day.
Watch any Beto interview, Joe.
It is the exact same answer to every single question.
Every time.
Every time.
It is some canned response.
Beto has been told, oh, he has these unique positions.
He doesn't have any unique positions in Texas!
He's a gun grabber!
He's a Democrat running as a Democrat in a red state who skateboards!
Oh he skateboards!
Oh get the Depends!
I'm gonna wet myself!
Get a hold of yourself!
These golden calf worshipers!
Oh my gosh!
They worship the golden calf.
People don't worship Trump.
The Democrats like to paint it that way.
That's not the case.
They see a guy they know has flaws, who acknowledges those flaws, you run from it.
But he's had to build stuff in the real world.
He's had to deal with, you know, union people, city bureaucrats shaking him down, you know, organized crime in New York.
He had to actually build stuff.
Oh my gosh.
You know, he may have had some, some women growing up.
Okay.
At least he didn't lie about it.
Like Clinton.
You know, so what, the guy's got some scars.
Great!
At least when you ask him a question, he fires back bombs like everyone else does when they're attacked by the media constantly.
I'm not kissing the guys, but I have no interest in doing that.
Zero!
I'm just telling you what the media continues to miss about this guy, and it's the reason Beto is down almost 10 points to Cruz, and Trump's popularity continues to go up, is that Trump is genuinely authentic.
The rest of these Democrats are total frauds!
They're skateboards!
Whoa!
He skateboards in the Whataburger parking lot!
This thing's gone viral!
His skateboard videos go viral!
He's gonna take your money, he's gonna take your healthcare, he's gonna take your guns, but he skateboards!
And he eats Whataburger!
Who gives a?
Who cares?
I eat Chipotle.
You don't see me like Elizabeth Warren pretending I have Mexican-American heritage.
I'm one five hundred and twelve Mexican-American.
Are you?
No, not really.
But I ate at Chipotle.
What the hell is going on?
Why do you need that?
People will die.
I haven't even touched Warren yet.
If you don't believe her new claim that she's won 512th, people will die!
People will die!
I haven't even touched Warren yet. If you don't believe her new claim that she's
one five hundred twelve people will die. People will die.
This is insane. This is that that I swear I only wanted to cover this for two
minutes the owning of the libs by Trump
But it is important.
The takeaways here are critical.
Understand the framing of questions to advance narratives that are not questions.
Take the frame, throw it on the ground, kick it and break that frame.
Break the frame and destroy it.
I don't even like to talk about liberals being so violent.
You know what I'm saying.
I'm talking about the framing of the argument.
Leave the violence for the liberal.
That's their thing, alright?
But take the frame and masterfully deconstruct the frame.
Change the argument to your comfort zone, watch the media cringe, and make sure you get the last word in.
That's how you beat these guys.
Every single time.
And most importantly, give answers that are not canned.
Yeah!
Trump just talks like a normal person.
He tells you what Obama did.
He tells you why you're a fraud.
Then he tells you, and basically I'm the president and you're not.
And boom, he's done.
There was one more point in that interview.
I didn't give Joe the sound because I seriously only wanted to spend a few minutes on this, but it's such a bigger topic.
There's another point in that interview where Leslie Stahl from 60 Minutes asks him for a pledge that he's not going to shut the Mueller probe down.
And like normal, everyday people who have been under relentless assault from a witch-hunt-fraud investigation like Bob Mueller's running, what does he respond?
Pledge.
I don't need to pledge to you.
What do I need to pledge to you for?
I'll do what I want.
Yes!
Yeah!
Imagine Beto giving that answer?
Never!
Because a focus group didn't tell it to him.
People.
Focus group.
I don't know, Donald.
Maybe that's not the answer you're supposed to give.
Yeah, I'll talk how I want.
Thanks.
Have a nice day.
This is the ownership of the libs.
Now, on the fraud front, it's not just Beto.
So again, we're wrapping that up with the framing and get the last word in and Trump has mastered the switching of the narrative.
He's good at that.
But secondly, I want to talk about this genuine authenticity thing, which Trump has and they don't.
I already talked to you about Beto, who's a complete fraud.
The guy's a standard run-of-the-mill politician who Democrats are burning money on left and right.
Good.
Send as much money to Beto, Democrats, as you can, because we're gonna wind up winning in these other states that have siphoned off money to send to this phony.
But we find out this weekend the Democrat candidate in Arizona running against Martha McSally, who was, I believe, an A-10 pilot in the military.
Now we find out, Joe, that Kirsten Sinema, who is another phony who seems to love attacking the citizens of Arizona.
Yeah, I didn't say that wrong.
She's running in Arizona and there are multiple soundbites out there of this Democrat candidate running for office in Arizona who can't stop attacking people from Arizona.
She's like, and you know they call it the Laboratory of Democracy, the states?
She's like, Arizona's the meth lab of democracy.
She's running for Senate in Arizona.
What a fool!
U.S.
Senate, yes.
That's a real, the woman is amazing.
She cannot, foot in mouth, right?
She cannot get her foot out of her mouth.
She's on tape bashing Arizona left and right.
That's not the fraud angle though.
So now, the National Association of Latino Elected Officials, N-A-L-E-O, there's a controversy developing there now too, where Sinema apparently has been represented as a Latino elected official somehow on their website.
She's not Latino!
At all!
Not even like a little bit!
Now, I'll give you both sides, unlike the liberals would do to you.
She's saying, hey, it's on them, we didn't do this.
Meanwhile, the people at NALEO, who had her listed as a Latino lawmaker, hint, she's not, breaking news, she's not, have said, well, you know, we go by self-identification and we check this stuff with the campaign.
In other words, that we listed her as a Latino lawmaker, we checked with them at one point.
Folks, these people are phonies.
Their entire identity is fake phony stuff.
I'm a Latino lawmaker.
Um, you're not.
Then we have the breaking news today about Pocahontas.
Pocahontas is back.
She will not let this I'm an American Indian go.
She will not.
Elizabeth Warren, of course, we're talking about the liberal far-left radical senator.
from Massachusetts, who wants to run for president against Trump, will not let this go!
She has said multiple times she has claimed her Native American ancestry that her mom and dad or grandpa and grandmother had to elope because of their Native American ancestry.
Folks, she actually takes a DNA test, and the DNA test comes back, Joe, That it's possible that she is 1,512th Native American.
Ladies and gentlemen, I'm not making this up.
I'm not making this up.
I had to write this down so I didn't miss the greats.
Where did I put it?
Oh, here it is.
According to DNA test, it's possible that her great-great-great grandmother, O.C.
Smith, may have had some Native American heritage.
Which makes her possibly 1,512th Native American.
This is a woman who claimed her mother and father and her grandparents, or one of them, I forget which one, had to elope because of her Native American, like they were being discriminated against.
Folks, these people are phonies.
They are total frauds.
Do you understand their entire lives are labels?
Their entire lives.
And if they don't fit into one of these labels that they, they deem victim groups, they do this.
The liberals, that they deem victim groups, their lives have no meaning.
I want you to smile a little bit today again, because I, you know, I know the show can be a lot of bad news sometimes, but I like to sprinkle in some positive stuff to make you feel better.
You all go to church on Sunday, or synagogue, wherever you go.
A lot of you are deep people of faith.
You believe in higher ideals.
Big R rights, granted by God.
Big R, not little R rights.
You don't genuflect at the altar of state stupidity.
You question authority.
You challenge authority.
You look past simple stories like, oh, well, you know, Donald Trump was a playboy.
Yeah, well, what else did he do?
Oh, you know what?
He made a couple of billion dollars.
He may have lost some money too, but he worked in the real world.
Alright, well that matters to me.
You don't go, Donald Trump skateboards in a parking lot.
You all are deeper than that.
Your families matter.
You're not perfect, fallen short of God's plan for you many times.
I know I have.
Your family matters.
Your ability to defend your family matters.
Not because you worship guns.
Guns are a tool.
Firearms are a tool like anything else.
You understand that we live in a society full of people sadly looking to do ill will on others.
That malicious evil behavior is very real.
This isn't utopia.
But your kids and your family matter to you.
And you want every tool available to protect them.
You understand your money matters in your pocket because you care about the cost of products.
The quality of products.
The stuff you're going to put on your kids back or feed to your kids.
This stuff matters.
The safety of the car you're going to drive in.
No government person is going to be able to determine that for you.
You determine that.
You know, with your healthcare, your decisions matter.
You all are deeper than these people.
These people are shallow frauds.
They are invested entirely in victim culture and victimology.
And when they are not part of that victim class, they have deemed to be victims.
Minority voters, women, younger folks, when they deem them victims, when they are not part of that victim class and they're on the outside looking in, oh my gosh, I happen to be white, so I better fake it and say I have Indian ancestry or that I'm a Hispanic elected official when I'm not.
Their entire lives are meaningless.
It is such a sad, pathetic, gross way to live, to fake it your entire life, to try to pretend you are part of a class of people.
No, you've deemed victims, not them.
My wife's Hispanic.
She doesn't see herself a victim anywhere.
She is a powerful, powerful American citizen who came here as an immigrant, who has taken life by the cojones and run with it.
We don't, we do not apologize for anything.
And we certainly ain't sitting at the back begging for people's compassion or empathy.
Oh my gosh, I'm such a victim.
If anybody had the right to be the victim, my wife did.
And she didn't.
She followed the simple American rules.
Come here, learn how to speak the language we speak, follow the education system, get a college degree, apply for a job in a field that has openings, and you know what?
My wife was a hugely successful web developer.
My entire web operation was, up until we brought partners in, because it's now so big, was grown by her.
She didn't have to fake anything.
The formula for success is simple and the Democrats don't believe in it at all.
They believe purely in victim and blame culture.
Throw the rules out the window.
Go out of school, forget that, get a job.
It's nonsense.
This is all nonsense.
That formula works.
They know it works.
But if it works, then victim culture goes out the window because if you, listen to me, if you follow those rules, Go to school.
Invest in your education.
Learn how to dress for a business interview.
Comb your hair.
Brush your darn teeth.
Learn how to mop a floor when you're younger and the work ethic that comes with sweeping floors and mopping when you're a kid.
Learn a work ethic.
Show up early.
Leave late at work.
The chances of you being a failure in life in the United States of America are almost zero!
Zero!
None.
Joe, I assure you, was not born with a silver spoon.
He wasn't even given a silver spoon later.
Joe and this podcast worked because Joe said, I will work with you for free, which he did for a year.
Because we know this will work.
I spent my last $10,000 buying this recording equipment.
It works!
The formula works!
The Democrats can't have you believe that.
They have to constantly keep you angry.
So they ignore the fact that this formula works for everyone.
Everyone.
And they constantly say, no, no, no.
You're a victim.
And they need you to believe it.
Why?
Because you're a victim of what, Joe?
Something.
And what is that something?
It's always conservative values.
That work!
That work!
Go to school!
Brush your darn teeth!
Wash your face!
Show up early!
Leave late!
It doesn't matter what color that face is!
You will succeed!
They cannot have you believe that!
You have to be a victim of something so they can protect you against what you're a victim of!
That's their only game!
We will protect you against those conservatives.
But they don't want... This is why Kanye drives them crazy!
Kanye's not a conservative.
I'm not looking to Kanye ever for political advice.
But what disturbs them so much about Kanye is his simple message.
Hey!
Think for yourself.
Drives them wild!
Because they know when intelligent young black men and women and Hispanic men and women, young people in general who follow Kanye actually do think for themselves and say, you know what if I go to school, I pay attention, I buy a nice suit, I show up for a job interview, I'll probably get a job and make a lot of money and buy a house.
Then all of a sudden they'll be like, well why do I need Democrats?
I thought they were protecting me against those values that actually are good things, not bad things.
They can't have that!
That's why Kanye freaks them out!
*sigh* Just, it's a total fraud.
It's a total power racket.
Total, complete power racket, Identity Politics.
You're getting suckered.
Hey, I gotta, sorry, I gotta pay for the show, so I appreciate your patience.
Hey now!
Today's show also brought to you by our buddies at iTarget.
iTarget is the single best system out there for improving your proficiency with a firearm.
The website is the letter itargetpro.com.
That's itargetpro.com.
What is the iTarget system?
Spent nearly my entire adult life in law enforcement.
One of the best ways to improve your proficiency with a firearm is what they call dry firing.
You take your weapon.
You obviously make sure it's safely unloaded.
Check it.
Check it twice.
Check it three times.
There's absolutely no room for error.
You'll go at the range.
You'll point that firearm downrange in a safe direction.
Always, even when it's unloaded, that's a habit you cannot break.
And you just safely pull the trigger on a safely unloaded weapon.
Now, why would you do that?
Well, you do it because you can practice your trigger pull, your grip, your sight alignment, your sight picture, all of the components of proficiency with a firearm.
You can practice them without the recoil of an actual round going off.
Well, the iTarget Pro system solves one of the problems you have with that.
What's the problem, Joe?
You don't know where the round would have gone.
Yep.
Because it's dry.
That's why it's called dry fire.
They will send you a laser round.
Fits in the firearm you have now.
No manipulations necessary at all.
You have a 9mm firearm, they'll send you a 9mm round.
And it will emit a laser onto a target they send you as well.
It works so easily and fluidly with this phone app.
You'll be able to see exactly where the rounds would have gone.
Therefore, you're not only dry firing, but you're seeing how well you're doing it.
You will see by the end of the week, your groups will be so tight, you'll be hitting the wings off a fruit fly.
I love this system.
My father loves it.
The feedback I get on it is tremendous.
Go to itargetpro.com.
That's the letter, itargetpro.com.
Use promo code Dan for 10% off.
That's itargetpro.com.
Remember, competitive shooters dry fire 10 times more than they live fire.
It's important.
Crescency matters.
Okay.
So Ratcliffe, John Ratcliffe, who's been doing a terrific job up in Congress on this Papadopoulos angle and Spygate case and others, and thanks, by the way, for the book.
Can I just make one quick pitch?
Sorry, Joe, I don't mean to waste you any time.
Folks, I'm sorry to keep wearing you out my book.
I know it's a little annoying at times, but I really put a lot of work into it, and there's some snafus.
I don't want to get too much into it, but Because of some situations that happened, some opportunities, unfortunately, were missed.
It's nobody's fault.
It's just some things happened.
There's some people who were sick, and we didn't get to do some of the PR we wanted.
I was really hoping we'd get this book into the top 10.
I really would like to see it get into the top 10 on Amazon.
It's a good book.
It's the reviews.
We have 310 reviews on Amazon.
309 of them are five-star, and read the reviews.
They're detailed.
You will not be able to put the book down, so please check it out.
Spygate, The Attempted Sabotage of Donald Trump, my new book.
It's out, came out this week.
It's ready and available on Amazon.
Please check it out.
You will love it.
It puts this whole thing together.
Okay, thanks.
I appreciate the opportunity to do that.
But getting back to this, so Ratcliffe had an interesting interview on Maria Bartiromo this weekend, and I'm going to quote to you some of the things he said, which is really important.
They've been insisting the whole time that, you remember, the whole case, according to the FBI, the latest, because the story about how the FBI originated this case, if you listen to last week's show, is the controversy.
I told you that the FBI's paragraph one in this case makes no sense.
They're insisting the latest, you know, the latest and greatest we have from last December is that the Papadopoulos meeting with Alexander Downer in Australia, where, you know, Papadopoulos is alleged to have said that the Russians have dirt to this Alexander Downer who passes it to the State Department, who passes it to the FBI.
That's the FBI story and that's the one they're sticking to it.
So just to be clear, you have to understand, the FBI cannot start a case randomly.
There is an actual process in their diag, their manual, on how to start a case.
Steps have to be followed, Joe.
And they're insisting now that it was Papadopoulos' comments in the United Kingdom to Downer that initiated this case.
But that doesn't make any sense, folks, because Downer and Papadopoulos both insist that the way the FBI framed the conversation about, oh, the Russians have dirt on Hillary, never happened.
Now Ratcliffe said something interesting this weekend.
He said, and this is according to a piece I have in the Daily Caller by Chuck Ross up at the show notes today.
Please read the show notes, they're really good.
He said, other Republican lawmakers, this is the Chuck Ross piece, have hinted that intelligence exists which exonerates Papadopoulos, who has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about contacts he had with a Maltese professor named Joseph Massoud.
Ratcliffe said the declassification of a batch of FBI and Justice Department documents, quote, would corroborate his claims about the Papadopoulos intelligence.
He goes on.
Chuck Ross.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes has said that the FBI failed to provide, quote, exculpatory evidence in the FISA applications.
He said Americans will be, quote, shocked by the information behind the FISA redactions.
What's going on here, folks?
Why does this matter?
Are there tapes?
Now, Papadopoulos has hinted that he felt he was being taped by Downer.
So remember, this conversation in the UK is supposedly about, you know, Russians having dirt on Hillary, and Papadopoulos works for the Trump team, and Downer passes it off to the State Department.
Nunes, Ratcliffe, and others have been insisting forever that there is, quote, exculpatory evidence out there.
There is genuine, legit exculpatory evidence.
Indicating that Papadopoulos is innocent.
So let's be clear, let's view this very simply.
The Bureau, which I believe is lying, says they started their case because this Trump guy, Papadopoulos, said something about the Russians having dirt.
Republicans up on the Hill have seen the information, folks, are adamant that there is quote exculpatory evidence On Papadopoulos, McSculptor, meaning this is not true.
Meaning there's evidence indicating Papadopoulos is innocent.
There are two questions that should come from this.
Number one, did someone tape Papadopoulos and are there tapes out there?
And in the tape of that conversation, if it happened, are there tapes indicating that the conversation did not happen the way the FBI said it happened?
Now, if there are tapes and that information is out there and that information was not disclosed to the FISA court while trying to spy on an American citizen, or there's information in there that this whole thing is a scam, folks, the Bureau is going to be in a world of trouble.
The upper level FBI management involved in this is going to be in a world of trouble.
I'm going to get to some of that too in a second.
This is important.
But the second question, The last FISA application, the last FISA application happens after the last, not application, the last renewal.
There's one FISA application, three renewals.
Happens after the FBI, this is important folks, interviews Joseph Mifsud in February of 2017.
The FBI interviews Mifsud.
Why does this matter?
Because remember, the Bureau's saying they started the case because Papadopoulos tells Downer about Russian dirt.
But where does Papadopoulos, according to the Bureau's story, get the information from?
He gets it from Mifsud.
That's the Bureau's whole story, that Mifsud's the pusher.
Remember I told you this before.
Mifsud pushes this into it, pushes it into Papadopoulos.
That's the whole story.
Mifsud tells Papadopoulos about Russian dirt.
Papadopoulos tells Downer.
Boom!
FBI investigation.
I have said to you from the start, the real scandal here is the Bush.
Who the hell was Mifsud working for?
Was Mifsud instructed?
To find Papadopoulos and tell him about Russian dirt, knowing that US intelligence working in conjunction with others was going to try to pull that information out later to set him up as a middleman in an exchange of information about the Russians.
Folks, please tell me you understand.
I've explained it a lot that most of you seem to be straight on it, but understand the real scandal here are two conflicting narratives that can't possibly exist at the same time.
It is impossible.
There is one piece of space, the mass cannot exist in the same, it doesn't, it's not going to work.
These masses of stories cannot exist at the same time.
The democrat's story is Mifsud was working in conjunction with the Russians, therefore when he told Papadopoulos about this Russian dirt, that Papadopoulos was part of a scheme to get this information from Russia into the Trump team.
That's the Dems' story.
Do you understand how the story that seems increasingly likely by the day cannot exist with that story at the same time in the same space?
In the same sphere?
The real story, based on credible information out there about Mifsud and his own history, is that Mifsud was likely not a Russian agent.
He was likely working with friendlies.
Why were friendlies trying to set up Donald Trump?
Mifsud can't be a Russian agent and simultaneously working with friendly intelligence assets, folks, or else we have an even bigger conspiracy, do we not?
These two stories cannot coexist.
Why is this a problem with the latest revelation here?
With Radcliffe this weekend, Joe.
The problem they're going to have is if he's saying there's exculpatory information, that's going to like blow people's minds.
Is it possible that when the FBI, Joe interviewed Mifsud in February, that some of this information about Mifsud's ties to friendlies and not in fact, the Russians may have come out and they renewed the FISA anyway?
Oh, that one.
Oh boy.
Oh, is that going to sting?
Oh, folks.
When you read the chapter in my book about Mifsud, you're going to be blown away.
There are people who think they've heard everything in the podcast.
Read the book.
There are tidbits in every single chapter.
I promise you have not heard.
Is it possible that they renewed the FISA warrant to spy on the Trump team knowing in February that this thing was a scam the entire time?
That it was an operation with friendlies to dirty up the Trump team?
Big questions, folks.
Big questions.
Now, Ratcliffe and others have also indicated that Glenn Simpson, as I said last week Joe, is in real legal jeopardy.
He is in real trouble.
Glenn Simpson from Fusion GPS, who was the company working for Hillary that put together the dossier.
Glenn Simpson's in a world of hurt right now.
Glenn Simpson has testified under oath that he started talking to Bruce Ohr after the election.
The reason's very simple.
The story against Trump is that they wanted to overturn the results of an election by working with the Russians, or influence the election, I should say, to be more precise.
So Simpson has consistently said on the road that he only met Bruce Ohr afterwards, but that's not what Bruce Ohr says.
Bruce Ohr at the DOJ has notes saying that he was talking to Simpson as far back as August, which is obviously before the November election.
Simpson's in a world of trouble right now, too, folks.
I want to leave this portion of the show with that, because I want you to, again, I get your frustrations with the glacial pace of this investigation into Trump.
I fully understand.
I am with you.
I would like to see it proceed faster.
I just don't want you to mistakenly believe that nothing's going on.
That's a mistake.
That's not true.
There are things going on behind the scenes.
There is a reason Glenn Simpson and his team are now pleading the fifth and saying we will not go up there.
We will not speak.
Because they know they are in a world of legal trouble right now.
They are going to have no...
Legal recourse out of this perjury case if it comes up.
Because what Joe?
Other people have been charged with lying to the FBI and lying under oath.
So there's no way they can be able to say, oh you're singling us out.
Do you understand that?
They singled out Mike Flynn and Papadopoulos despite the fact that Flynn was being honest.
And Papadopoulos had a misstated a date that he met Ms.
Soot.
Simpson's not gonna be able to say, if he's charged with crimes here, he's not gonna be able to say, oh, well, you're just singling me out.
They are terrified right now, folks.
Believe me, they are in a world of trouble.
All right.
A few more stories to get through that are important.
But today's show also brought to you by our buddies at BrickHouse Nutrition.
Best nutrition supplements on the market.
My personal favorite is foundation.
Love foundation.
Why?
Because it makes you feel better, makes you look better, and it makes you perform better.
This stuff is amazing.
It is a creatine ATP blend.
Creatine, like, I guess you could say it gives you an extra gas tank in the gym.
Mixed with EATP gives you two extra gas tanks.
Now, I'm so confident the product works, I'll give you the double test.
I'll give you the mirror test first.
Before you try the product, take a little mental snapshot of what you look like in a mirror.
Hey, how do I look there?
Take the stuff for seven days, let it load in your system, the Creatine EATP.
Look at yourself again in seven days, you're going to be like, whoa, this stuff is legit.
But also take a note of how many reps you do and whatever exercise, doesn't matter, bench press, squats, deadlifts, whatever it may be, pull-ups.
Seven days later, look back at the note you took and I bet you beat that number.
I bet the stuff is that good.
It's called Foundation.
It's available at BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
That's BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
Go check out Foundation today.
Send me your reviews.
I know you're going to absolutely love this product.
Look better, feel better.
It is terrific.
It is well worth the time investing in it.
It is that great.
BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
Pick up a bottle of Foundation today.
Okay.
So Joe, the Democrats are not dialing back on Kavanaugh at all.
There's an interesting op-ed in the Wall Street Journal today.
I strongly encourage you to check out.
I can't put it in the show notes because it's subscription only, but if you have a subscription, it's a good one.
And it covers the two-prong attack going forward.
And folks, I'm bringing this up not to rehash old Kavanaugh stories at all.
That news cycle is now dead.
This is a new news cycle now.
And the new news cycle, although the story's about Kavanaugh, it's not about Kavanaugh.
This is about, you damn well gotta get out there and vote, folks, and you gotta take ten people with you.
Because this is what's coming if, God forbid, we lose the House of Representatives or the Senate.
This is what's coming down the pipeline.
They have a two-fold insanity, a completely insane track of attack against Kavanaugh.
Here's number one, Joe.
Number one is some of these papers and documents, the administrative filings, emails and stuff, will become public in relatively short time, probably from the Bush administration, from Kavanaugh's time there.
They are going to use his experience in the Bush administration, which is, you know, there's no there there.
He was a staff secretary in the Bush administration, right?
They're going to use that to demand recusals on just about every case that goes in front of the Supreme Court.
Well, if it touched the George W. Bush administration, they are going to demand the recusal from Kavanaugh.
Folks, take it to the bank.
That's what's going to happen.
That's strategy number one, which would render the 5-4 Supreme Court conservative majority completely ineffective.
It is a nonsense, garbage, ridiculous chaos strategy, but that's what the Democrats are.
They're the party of, as I saw Phil Kirpin put out this weekend, mobs, not jobs, right?
That's the Democrats' motto.
Mobs, not jobs, babe.
They want chaos.
Number two, and folks, I covered this last because this is, this is beyond insane.
I don't even have a descriptor for it.
The Democrats are actually murmuring behind the scenes.
We're not talking about fringe elements only here.
We're talking about elected people in the swamp who are seriously discussing packing the courts.
In other words, adding Supreme Court justices if a Democrat is elected president and they take over the Senate.
Adding!
We've had nine since the late 1800s.
They are seriously... This was a strategy, by the way, that almost decimated FDR's presidency, trying to pack the courts.
But you see where they're going with this, folks, right?
Right now you need a Supreme Court justice to step down or, sadly, to pass like Scalia did to fill that seat.
The Democrats are seriously discussing, if they take the presidency in the Senate, adding nine.
Well, if we have nine, Joe, we can have 11.
Let's add two more liberal justices.
Instead of 5-4, it'd be 6-5 liberal.
Folks, this is complete, unadulterated, utter chaos.
The Democrats have turned into a party of complete tyrants up on the hill.
It's the, you know, we win, we win.
We lose, we win strategy.
We lose, then we just go pack the courts.
We ignore everything Donald Trump does.
We attack people in the streets.
We attack them when they go out to dinner.
We character assassinate Brett Kavanaugh.
Please understand, this stuff, it's not over.
That's why I told you the story's not about Kavanaugh.
Right.
This story is about the chaos the Democrats are going to bring if they win this thing back.
This is a disaster.
Please, please, please get out and vote.
It is hypercritical.
This is an important time.
Alright, one last story which is important because you know I like debunking liberal nonsense and I saw it in Bloomberg this morning.
You know, not the greatest website in the world.
They have obviously left leaning bent, but they do some decent stuff on economics.
And there's a fascinating piece up about fair share economics.
You know, this is one of these things that really ticks me off.
You have people like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren who will constantly go out there and lecture people about fair share.
You know, everybody rich got to pay their fair share.
And folks, nothing ticks me off more than that.
Because if you saw my tax bill, you'd be like, wow, that sounds like a fair share to me.
Just having this conversation with, um, Let's say a business associate of mine this weekend.
You know, I want to buy a new house eventually, and, you know, my studio's not big enough, but, you know, we're limited, because we're limited because we owe the government, you know, so much money in January every year.
Yeah.
Forget it.
Yeah.
I know.
I know.
It's ridiculous.
I'll go wine on all day, so I'm not even going to go there anymore.
It's just so annoying.
But fair share, you have to understand these fair share numbers.
Because the wealthy in this country are not paying a fair share.
What?
What?
No, they're paying an unfair share!
Yep.
They're paying too much!
You want to take a narrative, that narrative frame, and smash it?
Smash this narrative!
You know what?
Libs, you're right.
The rich aren't paying their fair share.
It is grossly unfair how much money they pay.
Know these numbers.
Memorize these numbers.
Write them down as I'm talking.
Keep them in your pocket.
Type them in an email to yourself.
This is the unfair share.
These numbers are stunning.
The top 1% of earners in this country.
EARNERS!
EARNERS!
I know that pisses liberals off.
Pays an astonishing 37.3% of the federal income tax load.
1.3% of the federal income tax load.
One out of every hundred people pays more than more than 37 cents of every dollar of income taxes in this
country.
One out of every hundred people.
The bottom 90% for those liberals having a tough time with math, Joe,
that is 90 out of 100 people.
The bottom 90% only pay 30.5%.
So let's be clear about what we're saying here.
Liberals are paying, the rich folks out there, you're paying way too much.
You want to take a narrative and smash it?
Turn it right in its head and fight back the other way.
One out of a hundred people are paying seven percentage points more of the income tax than the bottom 90 out of a hundred.
You're right.
It's not a fair share.
It's a grossly unfair share.
Oh, it gets better.
The top 50%!
50 out of 100.
Wouldn't be the top, the top, you know, the top half.
Pays 97% of the income tax load.
That's right, Chewie.
And Chewie's upset.
Oh yeah.
When Chewie's upset, Joe only whips Chewie out once in a while.
You know things are ugly.
Meaning the bottom... Joe, what's 97 minus 100?
This is not hard.
3, Dan.
3?
Yes, 3.
Thank you.
I'm sorry I had to put you on the spot there, but liberals have a tough time with math.
That means the bottom 50% of earners pay 3%.
97, top 50, bottom... Now, I'm bringing this up for a reason.
Bottom 50, 3%.
If the bottom 50% pay only 3% of the income tax, the guy in the Bloomberg article, which is shockingly fair, brings up an interesting point.
He says, well, what percentage of taxpayers pay about 3% of the tax load, too?
In other words, think about the argument.
It's a very clever argument.
So we get it now, right?
The bottom 50% of earners pay only 3% of the income tax load.
They only pay 3 cents out of every dollar.
He said, if we go to the top half, how high do we have to get given that the wealthy pay the majority of taxes?
What percentage of taxpayers at the top half, how wealthy do they have to match the 3% of the entire bottom 50% of earners?
I promise it'll make sense in a second, but I had to set it up a little bit complicated.
0.001%.
In other words, folks, very simply, the 1,400, not 14,000.
Joe, you may need the depends after this, like the liberals.
Now 14,000.
This is a joke.
This is gonna...
You may need the depends after this, like the liberals.
The 1,400 wealthiest taxpayers in the United States pay the same percentage of the income tax load
as the bottom 50% of the country.
14!
1,400 people in the country pay the entire percentage of the income tax load as the bottom 50% in the United States.
.001%.
You're right!
That is not a fair share.
That is a grossly unfair share.
Folks, please understand what I'm telling you.
The 1,400 wealthiest Americans pay the same percentage of the income tax load as 50% of the country.
You want to take an argument and just smash it completely?
That money could be invested in businesses.
That money could be providing jobs.
Instead, What is it?
It's given to the government to flush down the toilet bowl and I am tired, tired, finished, done, making the argument that the government spent... Here's the thing.
Taxes suck.
It's a scam.
It's theft.
Outside of the military and the constitutional role of government laid out in our constitution, taxes suck.
It's a total waste of money.
Stop apologizing.
I can't believe you're saying that.
It's true!
Government flushes your money down the toilet bowl.
Period.
Full stop.
Thank you.
Have a nice day.
All right, folks, I appreciate you tuning in.
Thanks again for picking up my book, SpyGate.
I appreciate you all clicking on the new website.
Sorry, but we had a couple hiccups last week.
Traffic was overwhelming.
But Bongino.com is up and running with fresh new content.
I have great articles at the show notes today.
Good one by Chuck Ross.
Good one at Bongino.com.
Please check it out.
And again, please pick up my new book, SpyGate, available at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, bookstores everywhere.
Really appreciate it.
I will see you all tomorrow.
Thanks, folks.
Take care.
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.
