Summary:
In this episode I address the awful week the Democrats and the anti-Trump crowd are having. I also discuss the suspicious guilty plea of a key player in the Russian collusion hoax. Finally, I address the growing budget deficit and the liberal misinformation operation designed to blame it on tax policy.
News Picks:
When the libs lose state power, they have nothing left.
Two times the Clinton campaign faked Russian collusion.
The federal government’s budget deficit is growing again.
The federal government collected record income tax revenue in 2018.
This Democrat senator was caught on tape deceiving voters.
President Trump completely dismantled the "60 Minutes" team in his interview.
James Wolfe’s guilty plea is very suspicious. What is going on in this case?
Chuck Grassley is using the “new rules” and pushing ahead on the confirmation of judges.
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.
Alright, welcome to the Dan Bongino Show.
Producer Joe, how are you today?
Happy Tuesday, everybody!
Yesterday was a big day.
It was in for Levin, did Hannity at night, so...
I had a caller when I was filling in guest hosting for Mark Levin last night, Kathy.
And it was a tremendous call.
I don't take calls on the show and I've never done this before, but by popular demand, I'm going to play portions of the Kathy interview later.
Do not miss this.
I always, when I fill in for Mark Levin, I always leave a line open for liberals to call in because, you know, I like a little spicy debate sometimes.
But this call, I have to tell you, in my history, Joe, I played it for you, right?
It's good, right?
Definitely worth your time.
In all of the time I've been guest hosting on radio, this is bar none the greatest liberal caller I've ever had.
It was absolutely terrific.
All right, so listen to that.
I've got a lot more for you.
Today's show brought to you by our buddies at My Patriot Supply.
Hey, here's the reality.
Emergencies usually strike without warning.
Look at what happened with this hurricane and the panhandle.
It went from a Category 2 to a Category 4 in a day.
And cause massive destruction down here in Florida.
We're surprised when the power goes out.
Michael hit with little warning.
Certainly with earthquakes, there's no warning.
These things happen.
And when it's breaking news, it is too late to prepare the grocery shelves are already empty.
Everybody's in a scramble.
The best thing to do to prepare for emergencies is to prepare now.
When things are calm.
Ask yourself, could you feed yourself or your family for two weeks with the food you have at home at this moment?
You ensure everything in your lives that matters.
Ensure your food supply.
It makes a difference.
If not, it's time to act and secure an emergency food supply with my friends at My Patriot Supply.
I do what you should too.
The two-week emergency 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 if you call 888-411-8926.
These food kits include meals that last up to 25 years in storage.
Order now.
Prepare yourselves.
There's no surprises.
888-411-8926 or preparewithdan.com.
888-411-8926 or preparewithdan.com.
All right.
888-411-8926 or preparewithdan.com.
All right.
So I was in yesterday for Mark, and I always put out the calls,
and I say, I put out the number, and I say, "Hey, give us a call if you're a liberal."
So a lady called in, I just want to play portions of this because it shows you folks that the lady was making the point.
I was arguing about taxes based on, if you listen to the podcast yesterday, that article I covered at Bloomberg that showed that the top 1400 taxpayers in the country, in other words, the wealthiest 1400 taxpayers, 1400, not 14,000.
Pay the same amount, percentage-wise, of the income tax load as the bottom 50% of taxpayers.
Think about what I told you yesterday.
Just 1,400 people who earn good amounts of money You pay the same percentage of the tax load as the bottom 50% of income taxpayers.
That's a staggering number.
So Kathy found that objectionable.
But going to show you how liberals, liberals are completely dominated by emotion.
They have no grips on facts or data at all.
Kathy called in and this was the result of it.
Kathy from New York City, New York.
How are you tonight?
You're on with Dan Bongino.
Great.
I want to say, sir, that the rich in this country should pay 100% of the taxes, because the rich have 100% of the representation.
And the American colonists fought the Revolutionary War to end taxation without representation, which is what we have right now in 2018.
Representation with no representation.
Every single American knows.
Are we the rich have any representation in this government?
Hell no.
Okay, Kathy, are you rich?
Hell no.
You're not. So you don't have a congressional representative?
Kathy, let me ask you a question. What congressional district do you reside in?
My congressional representative...
What number?
What's the district?
Who she cares about... What's the number?
What district do you reside in?
I do believe it's Charles...
Is this the greatest call ever to talk radio?
Sometimes I think maybe we should take calls on the podcast once we go to video.
We'll do live eventually.
I think we should take calls from liberals just to let them expose themselves.
Don't worry, I'll play some more of that.
She calls in and she objects to the fact that supposedly only the rich have congressional representatives.
Yet apparently she's not aware she has a congressional representative.
That's why I asked her if she was rich.
She said no she's not.
So then I said to her, well who's your congressional representative?
She has no idea.
Meaning she may actually in her head believe that people who don't have money don't have a congressional representative.
Of course she doesn't believe it.
She's just making this up on the call.
But goes to show you how they're so embedded in emotion it never even occurred to her to know her own congressional representative.
Representative before she called in!
So keep going, Joe.
Okay.
Kathy, you don't even, let me get this straight.
You want the rich to pay 100% of the taxes.
You're making the claim that you have no representation.
You simultaneously do not even know the number of the congressional district you live in and you're expecting us to take you seriously.
Is that where we are with this?
I know my district.
Tell you what, I'll give you a second, Kathy.
Well, I rarely do this on the air because I'm up against a break here, but I'll give you a second to Google it.
Tell us who your representative is and what the district is.
Go ahead, do your thing.
Maybe we'll play the Jeopardy sound.
Okay, sir.
You don't know, do you?
You have no idea.
Are you kidding me?
You think I don't know?
Who doesn't represent me in Washington?
She has no idea!
She has no idea.
Folks, these, this is liberals.
They have no idea.
She calls it to complain about her congressional representative not representing her because she's not rich and she has absolutely no idea who her congressional representative is.
Ladies and gentlemen, let me give you a little clue.
All you have to do is Google, find my representative in Congress, literally, not figuratively.
Just put that in there.
It'll ask you for your address.
It would have taken her 30 seconds.
She didn't even know how to Google it.
So you don't know the number of the district.
You don't know the name of your rep, and you don't even know how to Google it.
And you're calling, claiming you have no representation, but you don't even know who to contact.
You don't even, because you've never looked it up!
Yet you want the rich to pay more taxes because you don't even know who your congressional representative is.
Hold on one moment.
Who is it?
I don't know exactly who doesn't represent me in Washington.
Kathy, who is your representative?
Simple question.
What's the congressional district number you live in?
Thank you!
I love Rich.
Rich, you are the greatest producer ever.
Kathy, we got the Jeopardy sounder in the background.
Have you figured out yet who your congressional representative is?
Go!
Come on!
Liberals are hoping, they're praying you come through in the clutch.
You're making a strong argument here that the rich should pay 100% of the taxes.
We're asking a basic question.
Oh, you think I don't know, sir?
You think I don't know?
No, I'm just asking, who is it?
You know exactly.
Just make up a name.
Here, I'll make up.
For the liberals out there, Cathy's congressman is Joey Bagadonas.
Representative Bagadonas.
Cat, is that it?
Is it Bagadonas?
And that is the truth.
The rich is the only people they represent.
Oh, that was that's it.
Folks.
You like how I slipped that bag of donuts in there?
Oh, man.
Oh, folks, I'm sorry.
I usually don't begin with frivolous stuff.
But this is it.
There's a bigger point here.
Like I said, I don't just like to say the bigger point in this whole thing is I've been dealing with liberals for a very long time now, basically most of my adult life, living in liberal states, running for office against liberals, living in liberal states and running for office, dealing with liberal media outlets.
Liberal media attacking me all the time.
It's fine.
But you learn quickly that they are so devoid of facts and reason.
I was just so glad she put it.
Her argument was that the rich should pay more in taxes because she's not represented by her representative.
We asked a simple question.
Who is your representative?
She has no idea.
Doesn't even know the name of the the number of the district or the name of the representative.
This is the liberal ethos.
This is it.
This is how they work.
So, again, sorry to replay.
You may have heard it live on Levin last night, but I felt like it was the greatest caller ever, and being that we don't play calls here on the show, I just had to throw that in there.
So, all right, getting back to the news.
Who had a worse day?
Yes, you're looking at me a little puzzled.
I was wondering if you wanted to finish it up, because there was a little bit more there.
Oh, all right.
Play the end of it.
What the heck?
We might as well finish it.
Are you for real?
Seriously, are you a conservative quietly calling conservative shows to act like a liberal who has lost it to make people go out and vote for conservatives?
I'm serious, is this a crank call?
When billionaires are paying nothing in taxes, you think we should be paying anything?
Rich, this is the greatest phone call ever.
This is the... Can you please send me the tape of this?
This may be the... I have to put this... This is the greatest phone call in the district.
Okay, Kathy, because I got 20 seconds.
One more shot.
Come through for the libs all across the country.
Who's your congressional representative in what district?
Come on!
Here you go!
Let's hear it!
Revolutionary War 2.0!
Oh my God!
It's a war and it's not even funny.
Now she wants another American revolution and they say we're the crazy ones.
Oh, the hatred!
You know what?
I'm actually glad you played that.
I forgot about that.
The revolutionary war thing where she was calling for war at the end.
Unreal, dude.
Oh, incredible.
And that aired on Joe's station too.
Joe runs WCB.
He's one of the producers over there for that station.
They run the Levin program.
Oh, yesterday was just crazy.
So all right, getting back to some others.
Who had a worse day yesterday?
I got a lot to get to today, including the James Wolfe, the Senate staffer who pled guilty in a very, very suspicious plea deal.
But we'll get to that in a second.
But who had a worse day yesterday?
The Democrats?
Aviante, otherwise known as Avenatti, a creepy porn lawyer, or Elizabeth Warren.
What a disaster!
I just want to hit this briefly, because the Democrats, a guy called in to Levin last night as well, and he wasn't a liberal, he was kind of a moderate Republican, but he said, you know, I disagree, I think Trump screwed up on this, attacking Warren, you know, we're off message here, and I made the point to him, no, no, no, you're absolutely wrong.
And I know you're absolutely wrong because the Democrats are now panicking.
Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough, you know, two liberals at MSNBC.
Jim Messina, who was Obama's, I believe, deputy campaign manager, but is definitely an Obama guy.
Jim Messina, I remember from the White House, is knee-deep in Obama ideology, was an Obama guy.
They are all complaining about the Democrats right now and what the Democrats are doing.
Matter of fact, Messina, Mika Brzezinski, and Joe Scarborough had basically the same message, and the message was this.
What the hell are you guys doing 22 days out from an election?
What are you doing?
That's why I asked the question, who had a worse day?
Avenatti, the Democrats, or Elizabeth Warren, right?
Here's why.
Here's what's going on.
Folks, for all of my dealings with the Democrats, I really cannot stand and I fight every day of my life against their ideology.
It's pernicious.
It's malicious.
It doesn't work.
It'll lead to economic destruction and basically government confiscation of portions of the economy, your gun rights, everything else.
We get that.
But I'd be lying to you if I said I didn't respect their ability to stay on message.
I do.
I do because you have to know and understand your ideological opponents.
You must.
I've said this to you a lot, Joe, on the air and off the air.
I've always respected dealing with them, their ability to ruthlessly and relentlessly stay on message.
On Obamacare, on taxes.
Their message is consistent all the time.
It's wrong.
It's wrong, but it's consistent.
Tax cuts.
Are you going to benefit the rich?
You know, government.
You're going to throw grandma government health care.
You're going to throw grandma off the cliff.
We need to protect people.
You know, public schools.
You're starving public schools of money.
They are relentlessly and ruthlessly on message.
And that's the way they continue to get elected, by parroting lies.
None of that is true.
The tax cuts, whether they benefit the rich is irrelevant.
The question is, does it benefit the economy?
On healthcare, you're not throwing grandma off the cliff.
The reason grandma can't afford healthcare is because of government.
Not in spite of it, right?
Public education.
We've increased public school education 400% to spending inflation-adjusted dollars and public school education results have stayed stagnant.
So facts don't matter.
Those are just pure facts.
They don't matter to the Democrats.
The Democrats run on gaslighting and lies.
But the lies are believable because the Democrats stay ruthlessly and relentlessly on message all the time and the media parrots it.
All the time.
Their message for this election was going to be one of these, we're going to try to drain the swamp, they were going to try to steal the Trump thing.
There's so much corruption in the Trump, it's all garbage of course, but we're going to go in there, we're going to clean it up.
This was supposed to be their thing.
We're back, we're gonna fight this Trump team, we're gonna clean out this mess in DC, and what are they talking about 22 days before an election?
They're talking about Hillary Clinton, who gave an interview and unbelievably tried to claim that the Monica Lewinsky affair, that her husband didn't do much wrong because Monica Lewinsky was an adult, as if there wasn't an asymmetric power imbalance there between the President of the United States and a White House intern.
So Hillary, now they're talking about Hillary, who has single-handedly thrown a monkey wrench in the Me Too movement by claiming that power imbalances don't matter in cases where there's sexual impropriety alleged.
Joe, that's the Me Too movement's entire case, is that there's a degree of impropriety in this, is based on power imbalances as well, in addition to the sexual impropriety.
So Hillary Clinton has now thrown a monkey wrench in the whole thing by saying, oh you know what, When a powerful man or a powerful woman sexually engages in behavior with someone, a subordinate in the workplace, that none of it matters.
I mean, that's Hillary Clinton.
That's what she said.
Oh, she was an adult.
She can make her own decisions.
Now the Democrats are talking about that and they're talking about Elizabeth Warren's one 1,024th Native American alleged heritage.
I know, isn't it funny?
Who in the PR shop for Elizabeth Warren told her this was a good idea?
They should be immediately arrested for political malpractice.
I'm kidding, of course, you just know.
But you get, right?
That's Joe's actual life, that's not Butler, you're not kidding.
This is ridiculous!
This is what you're talking about 22 days outside of an election?
That Hillary Clinton thinks her husband, who was President of the United States, did nothing wrong, engaging in inappropriate behavior in the Oval Office with an intern, and Elizabeth Warren's alleged Native American ancestry that doesn't exist?
I mean, at least in any noticeable way!
This is absurd!
This is why I made the point to the caller last night.
The Democrats are grossly off-message, folks.
I've always admired their Borg-like, from the Star Trek hive mind, ability to stay on a message no matter what.
And they cannot do it.
And you can thank Donald J. Trump, not to keep harping on this, but it is his ability to never, ever stop punching.
Ever.
To just relentlessly and ruthlessly keep punching back.
That has the Democrats, 22 days before an election, scrambling Now, to recover.
Like I said, when Jim Messina, the Obama guy, and Mika and Joe, two liberals on MSNBC, all agree that the Democrats have massively screwed up.
Messina's tweet read something like, what are you guys doing 22 days before an election?
Get back on message!
Matter of fact, Scarborough and Mika said, put the knife down, that's a quote, don't attack us, we're just telling you, you guys are really screwing up right now.
Hey Jimmy, I got your next tweet for you, babe.
Hey Libs, our mama can't dance and Our daddy don't rock and roll.
Not anymore.
And Messina, you gotta read the tweet.
I mean, it's biting, Joe.
Very biting.
Yeah?
Now, so we have the Dems.
We have Warren.
But did Aviante have a worse day yesterday, too?
He lost his lawsuit against Trump with Stormy Daniels, Avenatti.
Not only did he lose his lawsuit, this is where it gets bad, Joe.
This is where it gets even worse.
Avenatti's team now has to pay Trump's legal fees.
So think about this, as I saw a tweet in the Blaze this morning, which is fascinating.
If you donated to a GoFundMe for Stormy Daniels or whatever, their legal fees, if you donate that you're actually paying Donald Trump's...
Lawyers right now.
Oh man.
Nice job.
Avenatti.
First he brings forth a client with an absolutely outrageous story against Kavanaugh that falls apart in the face of even the mildest of scrutiny.
Then his lawsuit completely falls apart and now all these people who are raising money to defend Stormy Daniels are actually paying Donald Trump's lawyers.
Who could possibly be having a worse week than that?
Just one final note, Elizabeth Warren, seriously, let it go.
Let it go.
Listen, I get it.
I know you're not going to take campaign advice from me, but seriously, let it go at this point.
You look absolutely ridiculous out there with your ridiculous, absurd claims of Cherokee ancestry.
It looks so silly.
Even the Cherokee Nation, Joe, the Cherokee Nation themselves has completely rebuked this woman saying, you're destroying the cause here.
Please stop.
All right.
Let's see, you know, let me get to the Wolfe plea yesterday, because the James Wolfe plea is fascinating.
Now, for those of you who missed this story, and I want to hat tip the guy who emails me sometimes, and you know who you are, he's really good, some really good directional pointers in this stuff.
But I did a little homework on this last night, and I came up with a couple things.
So let me give you just some background in case you missed the story.
So James Wolfe, As a staff member, a long-time staff member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, just so you understand what's going on here in context, the Senate, United States Senate Intel Committee is the one doing an investigation into the alleged Russian collusion spy gate debacle, right?
Mm-hmm.
Therefore, there's an information exchange between the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the Intel Committee that's looking into this thing.
That exchange includes numerous classified documents, FISA applications, and the sort.
Now, the recipient of a lot of those classified documents for the Senate, they don't get delivered directly to the Senate's office, the Senator's office on the committee.
They'll be delivered to a guy like Wolf.
Wolf was a staffer over there.
So just to be clear, Wolf is taking this classified information from the DOJ and the FBI while they're conducting the Russian collusion investigation.
Now, in the charging document, the indictment into Wolf, it's fascinating his plea deal.
His plea deal...
He does not plea, Joe, to leaking classified information.
I want to be clear on this.
Because the information that Wolf Gatz, the Pfizer application and others, leaked out to the media.
There's multiple reports about it.
His girlfriend, Allie Watkins, had written some stories about it.
The information he received had leaked out.
But he, folks, let's be clear on this.
He did not plea Wolf to leaking information.
He pled to one count of lying to the FBI about these leaks.
Lying about his contacts with reporters, I should say, to be precise.
He pled guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with reporters, but he didn't plead to leaking.
Now, there's two takeaways from this plea here.
One, there's a quote by his lawyer.
Because remember, the lawyer swore they were going to fight this.
The lawyer said at one point, Joe, that we may ask for subpoenas of sitting senators here.
Now, remember this.
This is key, folks.
The charges were that he lied about his contacts with reporters, about that leaked information, right?
Why would you, his attorney, back then when they said they were going to fight this, they didn't, they pled yesterday on Monday, right?
Why would you threaten to subpoena sitting senators to defend you against charges that you lied?
Now, for those regular listeners, you may know the answers, but it's critical now.
Because all of a sudden this all went away.
Maybe, just maybe, the Senators on the Intel Committee told him to leak this stuff.
Therefore, he's calling these Senators in his defense, when he was going to fight these charges, to get them under oath and on the record to say yes or no that they told him to leak it.
Folks, you see where I'm going with this?
Let me give you a hypothetical here.
Say a Senator on the Intel Committee who really can't stand Trump They demand the FISA application.
They think there's damaging information in there.
They want that damaging information to get to the media.
The DOJ and the FBI, the FISA court delivered classified documents to Wolf.
The senators, what if they told him leak this stuff to the media and that's his defense?
Hey, I didn't lie about my contacts with reporters.
I contacted reporters because they told me to give it out.
All of a sudden that goes away now, because he pled.
So there's not going to be a trial, and if there's no trial, Joe, there's not going to be senators put on the stand.
Are you tracking where I'm going with this, Joe?
Yeah, I'm with you.
It's a really simple point I'm making.
Did the United States senators, with an anti-Trump bias, order a staffer on their committee to leak information to the media?
Period.
That's the question.
And the fact that Wolf's lawyers were going to ask senators to testify says to me there's something highly suspicious going on there.
Now, here's a quote from his lawyer that was given yesterday, which should definitely give you a little bit of a hair standing on end kind of thing.
He says, we will have much more to say about the facts, and he talks about Wolf's history with him, at the sentencing hearing.
What more will you have to say at the sentencing hearing?
About the facts.
In other words, Wolf is, there's something going on.
You may say, well, it's kind of a light statement.
What does he mean by the fact?
I don't know if the facts are, Joe, if the facts are the case that you lied about your contacts with reporters, they should be clear.
You told the FBI you didn't contact this reporter and you did.
What other, I don't understand what other facts at the sentencing hearing you need to get out.
What is it?
You pled guilty to lying about your contacts with reporters, not to the leaks.
Folks, here's what I think is going on here, if you want my humble opinion, based on, again, and backed by what I think is a good amount of homework into this specific case.
I believe Wolf has potentially devastating information about this cabal inside the Senate Intel Committee to leak information to the media to damage Trump by getting the classified documents from the FBI and the DOJ.
I believe Wolf was the subject of basically an investigation into leaks.
Now, we know that investigation exists because Jeff Sessions and Dan Coats, the DNI, already told us this investigation into leaks exists.
They told us this over a year ago.
They announced it in a press conference.
It's not a conspiracy theory.
The Department of Justice, Sessions, and the DNI, the Director of National Security, announced over a year ago, Joe, they were conducting an investigation into leaks.
So is it possible that Wolf's the fall guy in all this?
That they're really conducting an investigation into the Senate Intel Committee and the staff over there?
And Wolf was the guy that the Senate Intel Committee threw under the bus?
Hey, you go leak this.
And then when Wolf said, well, I'm going to request you guys be subpoenaed at trial to tell the court, get on the record that you told me to leak it, all of a sudden the case goes away, Joe!
Is the DOJ dodging a major bullet here?
If they are, excuse me, we should be really PO'd.
No one should be getting a pass on this.
This entire conspiracy to take down the Trump team needs to be exposed and people need to be held accountable.
What more, I don't understand what other facts need to be disclosed at this sentencing hearing.
It's a simple charge.
But he made a point to say that.
I think, I think Wolf is pissed.
I think Wolf was told to leak all this stuff.
I think he knows he was told to leak all this stuff.
I think he feels like, given that he was instructed by people on the Senate or the Senate staff through conduits to leak this stuff, that he's the one that's going to go to jail.
I think he is pissed.
I think he took this plea to one charge in an effort by the DOJ to assist them in making this thing go away.
Now, there's another alternate scenario.
The other alternate scenario, to give you both sides, is a potential here that Wolf is cooperating.
Ladies and gentlemen, given the history of the DOJ lately, sadly, I don't think this is likely.
I think this was an effort to make this all go away.
I really do.
I'm saddened to say that, but I don't think Wolf is cooperating anymore.
I think if he was cooperating, we would not have had that statement issued.
I think Wolf is pissed.
I think he's annoyed.
Joe, do you see where I'm going with this?
There's only two scenarios right now.
Again, number one, we know there was a leak investigation.
We know Wolf was locked up for lying about these, was arrested for lying to federal agents about his contacts with reporters about the leaks, okay?
We know Wolf took a plea yesterday to just one charge.
My industry's probably not going to do much jail time at all, right?
We know his lawyer comes out saying, hey, we got more to say about this, about the, quote, facts at the end and James's, you know, service to the government.
In other words, he's not happy.
He didn't come out and say, hey, we're really sorry about this.
We're moving on.
It's not what he said.
That indicates to me, based on commencing only to be a former federal investigator, that Wolf is pissed.
Yeah.
The DOJ is probably looking to sweep this thing under the rug.
Went to Wolf and said, we're not going to charge you with the leak.
We're only going to charge you with one count, but you need to take this plea deal.
Wolf's probably thinking, screw that.
I didn't do this leak on my own.
I was told by the Senate to leak this information about Trump.
I'm not taking this deal.
The lawyer probably comes back to him and goes, brother, listen to me right now.
Either way, you're going down for this.
We can call up these senators, we can get them on the stand, we can hurt them too, but you're going to spend a year in jail on potentially six, seven, whatever, eight counts, a lie into the FBI, and then they may charge you with the leak as well.
You better take this deal now.
Wolf reluctantly probably says, all right, screw it, I'll take this deal, but you better come out and clear my name.
So what does the lawyer do?
They take the plea deal and he immediately issues a statement, not apologizing, not anything, saying, Quote, we will have much more to say about the facts and, you know, James's record of public service at the sentencing hearing.
Oh, that's going to be good, isn't it?
That's going to be good.
You see where you say there's only two scenarios, right?
He's either cooperating with the government and is happy with the deal and is ready to throw everybody else under the bus, or he's not cooperating with the government.
He took the deal.
He's looking to end this thing and the government wanted to make this thing go away.
I don't, I'm not sure, I really sincerely doubt this guy's cooperating at this point.
It seems to me that he is furious that he wasn't able to get these charges dismissed and just give up the information on the Senators.
That, then the whole threat to have them subpoenaed makes sense.
Now, one thing here about this.
As a guy emailed me this morning, it was interesting.
He said, remember the 82 pages?
One of the big allegations in the Wolf indictment is the FISA application he got a hold of.
In other words, the application that has all the fake dirt on Donald Trump that was presented to the FISA court to spy on him.
The application, the initial application, you have 82 pages, right, of documents.
Now the publicly disclosed FISA application was redacted.
There were numerous pages fully redacted, right?
So Joe, if I have an 82 page document, I want you to see the document and it's classified.
And there are say 20, 30 pages of redactions and I text photos of it to you.
I'm not going to send you pictures of fully blacked out pages.
Why?
It would make no sense.
Why would I send Joe a picture of a fully, it doesn't make any sense.
If it's 82 pages and 20 of them are redacted, I would send you 62 texts.
Common sense.
One of the interesting things about this case that's fascinating, and I have a ton of articles in the show notes today about this at Bongino.com, so please check them out, is on the day Wolf takes hold of the FISA application and the 82 pages, he texts his girlfriend at the time, Allie Watkins, 82 separate texts.
Now again, if he's texting her, why would he send her redacted pages?
It's fairly obvious to me at this point that James Wolfe likely sent Ali Watkins an unredacted copy of the FISA, meaning the media, folks, has had a copy.
People in the media.
Because remember, there's allegations in the indictment of him contacting multiple reporters, Joe.
It is strongly, strongly likely That the media has had an unredacted copy of the FISA for months now, meaning they've known this whole scam.
Now an interesting question brought up to me this morning, which I've thought about and I'm not, I have a theory on this.
What if, now we know this was a setup now, we know this was a government operation to out the leakers, so they were watching Wolf the whole time.
What if the 82 pages What if some of the information in there was not accurate?
What if it was intentionally false?
In other words, was it a fake FISA document?
It's a good question.
Yeah.
Which would, why is that interesting?
It would be interesting because it would explain a boatload of media misreporting on this Trump thing the whole time.
Think about it!
So folks, are you tracking me?
It's clear at this point That he texts her 82 times, that we know.
It's likely at this point that those 82 texts were the 82 pages of the FISA document that were not redacted because you're not going to text a blacked out page.
If that unredacted document the media's had the whole time is not real, but it's a fake FISA in a sting operation to out them, the media may have been reporting on this Trump Russian collusion thing the whole time.
Using bad information that the government themselves provided.
Think about how stupid the media would look right now.
Can you imagine?
Their entire basis for reporting on the Russian collusion thing has been this FISA application based on bad dirt on the Trump team, Joe.
And the FISA application is a sting document and it's not even real?
Oh, that is new levels.
That's cosmic levels of stupid.
That is cosmic levels of stupid.
It explains all the misreporting on Deutsche Bank, the misreporting on Wikileaks and Don Jr., the misreporting on Flynn.
If they have been leaking out fake information all over the place and the media has been eating it up, do you realize you've been played like a sucker the whole time?
Oh, this would be just poetic justice, wouldn't it?
Poetic justice.
All right.
It's, uh, I just, the Wolf thing is, it, that story fascinates me.
That 82 text thing is just incredible because there's no question right now that something suspicious happened with that Pfizer application and the media has to come clean on what they've been dealing with sooner or later.
They may have been played like fiddles.
All right, today's show also brought to you by our buddies at Indochino.
We love Indochino.
These guys are the best.
You know why I like them?
Because I have to wear suits all the time, and unfortunately, I can't get anything off the rack because I lift.
I'm not trying to, you know, pump myself up here, but...
It's true, I have really awkward body measurements and I can't get anything off the rack.
Made-to-measure suits fit better than compared to generic off-the-rack suits.
You don't want an off-the-rack suit, come on.
Talk about you, you look better than that.
You need to look sharp out there.
I love Indochino, their suits are, you don't get any of that pirate look, you know, or the Spider-Man wings look.
No extra fabric, it's suited to you.
Suited to you, pun intended.
Every guy looks better and feels better and more confident when they put on a finely tailored suit.
You know that look.
Come on, you walk in a room with that power suit.
It's all about you, man.
Folks, the company's expanding into casual clothing with made-to-measure chinos.
We love that.
So, you know, I got some casual clothes there as well.
Indochino is the world's most exciting made-to-measure menswear company.
They make suits and shirts to your exact measurements for an unparalleled fit and comfort.
You will not be disappointed.
Guys love the selection of high-quality fabrics and colors to choose from.
You got the option to personalize the details, including the lapel, the lining, the pockets, the buttons, writing your own monogram.
I gotta be honest.
I have those on my sleeve.
I like it.
I like to know they're my shirts.
You never know.
You're changing in a green room.
Somebody picks up your shirt.
You can't have that.
Visit a stylist at the showroom and have them take your measurements personally or measure at home yourself and shop online at Indochino.com.
Choose your fabric inside and out.
Choose your design customization.
Submit your measurements with your choices.
Relax while your suit gets professionally tailored and mailed to you in a couple of weeks.
This week, my listeners get any premium Indochino suit for just $359.
Folks, that is a steal.
At $359 at Indochino.com.
Enter promo code Bongino, my last name, at checkout.
That's 50% off the regular price for a made-to-measure premium suit, plus shipping is free.
That's Indochino.com.
Indochino.com.
Promo code Bongino for any premium suit for just $359 in free shipping.
It's an incredible deal.
Check it out, folks.
You are not going to want to miss it.
Indochino.com.
Promo code Bongino.
Indochino.com.
Promo code Bongino.
They have casual clothing there, too.
They're made-to-measure chinos and others.
Check them out.
Okay, interesting article by David Rifkin at the Wall Street Journal today talking about how the left can't seem to get a consistent message out there.
Folks, challenge your liberal friends on this repeatedly because they can't seem to make up their minds.
Do they want majority rules or not?
Do they want majoritarian influence or not?
It seems like when the left wins on an ideological issue, abortion, gay marriage, whatever it is, They are anti-majoritarian.
In other words, they don't want the issue on the ballot.
Do you see where I'm going with this?
This is a great piece by the Wall Street Journal that exposes a glaring hypocrisy in the far-left ideological movement, okay?
And I want you to pay close attention to this, because this is critical.
The left changes its position in a heartbeat.
When they want to win on something, and an ideological issue, they don't want the majority to decide on it.
When it came to gay marriage, wherever you stand on this, abortion, they don't want this stuff on the ballot.
They want to avoid it on the ballot at all costs, because in many states, not everywhere, but in many states they've lost.
They don't want it.
They want this pro-abortion, The pro-gay marriage agenda for them, they want it imparted upon states where they don't think it'll succeed on a ballot.
That's why the Obergefell case, Roe v. Wade, that's why they wanted to handle this stuff in the courts.
So on one hand, just to be clear, we don't want the voters to decide it.
We don't want majoritarian rule.
We want the courts to decide it.
You tracking?
Yeah!
This is a big hypocrisy with the left and it's a brilliant piece that points this out.
So when they think they can win on the issue in the courts, they will push anti-majoritarianism.
No voters, push it through the courts, we win, you lose.
They, this has been their rules, that's why I say it's the new rules for us, because it's been their rules for years.
But fascinatingly, Joe, in the Trump era, where they keep dropping L's, losses left and right, on the tax reform package, on their battle for the courts.
Their battle on immigration policy, they keep losing left and right.
They've gone to the courts again to try to stop it, but now, ironically, as they go to courts to try to stop it on anti-majoritarianism, because people, what, voted for Trump, they voted for the wall, they voted for the portions of the travel restrictions, right?
They voted for this.
As they simultaneously go to the courts to fight public opinion and majority rule, Ironically, they're making the exact opposite case when it comes to the political structure of the country.
Don't lose me on this, because this was a brilliant analysis everybody needs to own for your liberal friends.
Tell them to make the choice.
Majority rules or not, what do you want?
Because you want the majority when it comes to the electoral college, when it comes to the Senate, and when it comes to court packing.
But you don't want the majority when it comes to issues you don't like.
But then, now all of a sudden, they want majority rules because they don't like the Electoral College.
Their case now is that the Electoral College, the way we elect presidents, the popular vote, ladies and gentlemen, I'm not going to say it doesn't matter, it does matter, because whoever wins the popular vote within the states... I know a lot of you know this, so forgive me for repeating it, but it's important.
Some of you may have heard this for the first time.
The presidential national election is not a national election.
It is a series of state elections where the winner of that state's popular vote gets that state's electors for president.
The electoral college, whoever gets 270 of those electoral college votes, in fact, wins the presidency.
So it's really a series of 50 separate state votes.
It's really not a national vote per se.
It's a national office, but it's 50 separate state votes.
The Democrats are now arguing that no no no no no popular votes should matter here.
They're doing this popular vote state compact where if they can get states with 270 plus electoral votes to all agree to pledge that the winner of the national popular vote will win, this is their new thing now.
You understand what that would do effectively right folks?
If liberal states If they can find liberal or swing states with a combined 270 presidential electoral votes to pledge that it's not going to matter what happens in their state now, that their electors, and they may be able to do this, that their electors are going to dedicate their presidential electoral votes towards the winner of the national popular vote, not their state popular vote, what you would have is a destruction of the electoral college.
It would be irrelevant.
Tell me you follow that because that's important.
So now, first they're anti-majority, now they're all about the majority again.
Why?
Because they lost the presidency.
Now, I can guarantee you, guarantee you, that if the situation were reversed and the Democrats won the electoral college for the presidency, whoever it is, you know, whoever wins in 2020, Hillary Clinton or otherwise, And they lost the popular vote, like what happened to Trump.
He lost the popular vote, won the electoral college.
Overwhelmingly, by the way.
The Democrats would make the exact opposite argument.
My point in this is the same.
The Democrats are complete, total hypocrites.
And the way you expose hypocrisy is by asking basic questions, because remember, your political opponents can avoid an assertion, they cannot avoid a question.
They can't, or else it looks like they're not answering it.
If you just make a random assertion, they can avoid it.
It's one of the best pieces of political advice I ever got.
Whenever you're debating someone, make sure everything ends with a question mark, because people can't avoid a question.
Ask your liberal friends.
What is it?
Do you want majority rule or not?
Because when we tried to put the... Would you support a national vote on abortion?
A national vote on gay marriage?
How come you don't support the travel restrictions?
How come you don't support immigration reforms?
People voted for that.
People voted.
Donald Trump's the president.
That's his agenda.
They hate it.
They want everything done through the courts.
But then when it comes to losing the Electoral College... Well, you know what?
We lost the Electoral College.
We got to get rid of it.
Majority rules again.
The Senate.
Their new beef on the Senate.
I covered this yesterday.
Their new beef on the Senate is that, which by the way, the Connecticut Compact, with the whole purpose of that, was to give states adequate representation up on the hill within the Congress.
We already have a branch of government, a branch of a branch of government, dedicated To the population representation.
It's called the House of Representatives.
I don't know how liberals keep losing this.
The whole idea was that the states would have adequate representation regardless of population on the other side of the legislature in the Senate.
Every state obviously gets two senators.
The Democrats hate that now.
Their point now is that the Supreme Court The Senate's voted on the Supreme Court, and that the number of senators representing the states that voted to put Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court are far outweighed by the population of states that voted against it.
Are you tracking what I'm putting down here, folks?
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
So first, they don't like the fact that the popular vote does not decide the president, because they want majority rule.
Second, they don't like the fact that the senators from less densely populated states voted to put Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court.
They're saying, look, senators from New York and California basically should not only decide the president, but should decide who goes in the Supreme Court, too.
So now they're attacking the Senate, too.
Also, they're attacking the courts, and they're suggesting that the courts should be packed now.
Erroneous!
There you go, Vince.
You know it.
Vince Vaughn chiming in there.
Now they want to pack the courts, too.
Because they don't like the fact, again, that the United States, given its system of representative democracy and a constitutional republic, we are not a direct democracy, folks!
I'm not going to give the sheep wool for dinner.
It's been said a million times, but you get the point.
We are not a direct democracy.
The fact that the Democrats are losing and have lost, they are attacking things that represent a representative constitutional republic because they want, in the case where they think they can win in their population centers in New York and California, they want to decide who the president is.
They want to decide the Senate now.
Now they want the Senate to be representative based on the number of people in a state.
This is absurd.
And now, because they don't like how the courts worked out, So you attack the presidency, you attack the legislative branch, now they want to pack the courts too.
There are actual suggestions from credible people on the left, credible people on the left, that they add justices to the Supreme Court, which hasn't been done since 1869.
Remember folks, FDR suggested this.
He didn't implement it.
Even with massive control of the government, FDR, the closest thing we've had to a monarch in a long time, even FDR had a back down in his court packing scheme.
Folks, this is actually being suggested right now, that more judges be added to the Supreme Court because the Democrats do not like the fact that they lost their majority.
Yeah, exactly, Joe.
Joe's telling them they're number one right now with the wrong finger.
Actually, the right finger in this case.
This is just amazing.
They cannot decide what they want.
They want majority rule when they lose, and when they think they can't win on an issue, They don't want majority rule.
They want it off the ballot, and they want it decided in the courts.
Pick it.
Which one?
All right.
Finally, Tanisha, I got one.
This is, folks, this is a really good story, by the way, about the budget deficit.
I don't want you to miss this out, because I covered this last night a little bit on Levin.
It's really good stuff.
Today's show brought to you by, sorry, I was just reading the set.
Today's show brought to you by Buddies at BrickHouse Nutrition.
Love BrickHouse.
Foundation's my favorite product.
It is a creatine ATP blend.
What more could you ask from a nutrition supplement?
It makes you look better, feel better, perform better.
It is the best.
Now, I know Little Joe uses it.
I have a nephew who came up and drove up from Fort Lauderdale to get a bottle of this stuff, which is interesting because he probably burned more in gas.
It's not that expensive, foundation.
But he liked the stuff so much, he wanted it right away.
It's called foundation.
What does it do?
It effectively gives you two extra gas tanks in the gym.
But one of the nice side effects of that is not only to get you to work out harder, so you'll grow quicker, you'll look better, you'll lean out, you'll lose body fat, but the way it works inside the muscle cells, it gives you a volumization effect and it makes your muscles look bigger, look almost instantly.
I always say give it seven days, but it happens right away.
The effects are almost transformative.
Do the mirror test.
Go to BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
That's BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
Pick up a bottle of foundation and do the mirror test.
That's all I ask.
That's how good this stuff is.
Look in the mirror.
Take a mental snapshot.
Seven days later, go back after you let the product load.
Give it a little time to take effect.
You're going to be like, wow, I get emails about this all the time.
This stuff is transformative.
Go pick up a bottle of foundation today.
You will not regret it.
You'll perform better in the gym.
You'll feel better.
You'll look better.
It is a triple threat product.
It's terrific.
Go to BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
Pick up a bottle of foundation today.
So folks, a little bit of bad news on the economic front.
And again, I don't mean to be Danny Downer here, but I'm here to give you the facts and I don't like spin.
I can't stand it.
We're in a lot of trouble with the budget deficit.
I have a couple articles in the show notes today.
I strongly encourage you to read one from CNS News and one from the Washington Examiner.
One is about our exploding budget deficit.
Remember, there's a difference between deficits and debt.
Debt is our accumulated deficits over time.
It's basically how much money the United States owes, whether it be to U.S.
citizens or intra-governmental expenditures and debt.
It's how much money we owe.
The deficits are the annual shortfalls every year.
In other words, the government spends $4 trillion, and the government only has, say, $3.2 trillion.
Then the deficit's obviously, you know, about $800 billion this year.
The budget deficit this year.
And I'm saying this, folks, not to be a downer, not to get anybody in a bad mood before this election.
We need to win.
But folks, Trump can only sign the budget that the House of Representatives and the Senate put up there.
It is way, way, way past time we put pressure on these representatives to get Trump a budget which puts a cap or controls on the spending.
Let me give you just an example of what's going on.
The budget deficit this year, $779 billion.
It's the largest budget deficit since 2012.
$779 billion.
We're spending $4.1 trillion.
deficit since 2012. $779 billion. We're spending $4.1 trillion. We only have about $3.3 trillion in tax revenue.
Ladies and gentlemen, government spending is up.
It's up $4.1 trillion from $4 trillion.
I bring this up because the Democrats are going right back to the well with their gaslighting lying nonsense, suggesting again that this is due to a tax problem.
Folks, it is not due to a tax problem.
The way I lay it out in the show notes, the answer is obvious.
First, I have the deficit article.
It's quick, it's lean, it's mean.
Move on right next to the tax article.
In income taxes, the federal government this year, Joe, raised record amounts of money.
1.6 trillion in income taxes.
That is a record.
We do not have a tax problem.
Now, again, being candid on the numbers, the corporate tax intake did go down about a hundred billion.
But the income tax revenue is up.
Corporate taxes likely went down because of the one-time expensing write-off.
They will recover.
This is not a taxing problem, folks.
It's not.
Federal overall tax revenue are down a tad.
The federal government deficit is up dramatically.
And income tax revenue is up.
So yes, overall tax revenue is slightly down by a sliver.
It's 3.4 in the past, about 3.3 now.
3.3 trillion.
Again, a lot of that due to one-time expensing on the corporate front.
But ladies and gentlemen, it is not a tax issue.
Tax revenue is relatively flat, government spending's gone up, and the budget deficit is far more than any decrease in corporate taxes.
If we lost a hundred, and by the way, the government, I don't really care about the government losing tax revenue, let me be clear on that.
But if the government lost 100 billion in tax revenue, was up in income tax revenue, And the government spending and the deficit went up by $779 billion.
It's obviously not a taxing problem.
Even if that $100 billion, Joe, was recovered next year in a corporate tax revenue, we're still $679 billion short.
This is not a taxing issue, folks.
This is a spending issue.
The one final piece to the Trump puzzle to turn this country around for generations.
We've got the tax reform.
We've got tremendous work on the courts.
We've got regulatory reform.
The one final piece is government spending.
He has got to get a lid on this.
He is the one president that can do this.
After these midterm elections, when these budgets come up, he cannot- folks, if we- listen, I'm sorry to say this, but if the government has to shut down, I'm sorry to say this because I don't, you know, I get it.
Some of you may object to this, but the government is shutting itself down by bankrupting itself.
This is going to happen.
We don't have the money.
We cannot possibly run $700 billion plus deficits every single year in a $4 trillion budget.
It's not possible, folks.
It's not possible.
Something has to be done.
We are walking off a bankruptcy clip.
It is an arithmetic mathematical certainty at this point.
We are walking into absolutely certain bankruptcy.
If he can get a cap on this, just a cap, that's all I'm asking at this point.
We need to cut spending dramatically.
But folks, I understand that all this isn't going to be done at one time.
You know, for all the nonsense that gets chatted about me in these liberal media sites who can't stand me, I get it.
I get that we're not going to get everything at one time.
Just put a cap on it.
Just put a cap on it for now.
They had that penny plan a while ago.
It's a great idea.
Cut a penny from every dollar of spending.
Just put a cap on it for now.
At least we can get some government controls on this spending level.
It is out of control, folks.
Out of control.
All right, please read those articles.
They're really good.
All right, here's the last story.
They have one up at Bongino.com.
Check this out at the show notes, too.
Another story up there.
We expanded the website.
We appreciate all your traffic there.
We have a bunch of new material up there.
We've got people now writing for us, which is great.
We've got Matt Palumbo writing.
There's a ton of articles up there.
But one of them I think you'll like.
So there's an article out that a left-wing writer wrote that Hillary, he put a battle plan together for Hillary 2020, for Hillary to get back in the race again, which is, yes, slightly comical.
I mean, why Hillary would run again for the third time for president is absurd.
Usually you get, you know, you lose the first time like a Romney type or a McCain.
You come back, you give it a second try.
You give it the old college try.
And after that, you know, you hang up the cleats.
I mean, you know, listen, I've been pretty brutally honest with my political career.
You give it a couple shots and you move on.
You try something else, right?
This writer suggested Hillary Clinton has a path to the 2020 nomination for president, but it's an interesting one.
The only reason I bring it up is because the battle plan he puts together is the exact same one she did when I was with her as a Secret Service agent early in my career in the Melville Field Office of the Secret Service when she was running initially for the U.S.
Senate.
You know, a lot of you may have forgotten this.
Because so much has happened in the news cycle since Hillary Clinton ran back in that, was it, the election was in 99, 2000, was it?
Yeah, but 2000 or so when she ran.
She ran against Giuliani for Senate in New York, Rudy Giuliani, and later when he dropped out against Rick Lazio.
I was with her all the time.
She was out in Long Island.
It was one area she was struggling a little bit.
She desperately wanted that U.S.
Senate seat.
Joe, people seem to forget that Hillary Clinton at the time, I think it was Moynihan's seat she was running for, the U.S.
Senate ran as a moderate, if not Bill Clinton type Democrat.
Now, Hillary Clinton's a chameleon.
Don't for a second, folks, be fooled by the fact that she did that, she believed in it.
Hillary Clinton is a dyed-in-the-wool liberal.
There's no question about it.
She's farther to the left than Obama.
The thing about Hillary Clinton is she'll fudge the numbers on that, and she'll lie to you to get elected, and then turn around and slam the door in your face when moderates come knocking, right?
But when she did run, this author brings up an interesting point, she ran Joe against, her quote was, super predators, you know, she was going to be tough on crime, you know, she was a centrist on immigration.
She ran as kind of a, not only a moderate, but almost a Bill Clinton type Democrat, and she won handily.
So the guy's suggestion in the piece is that with the Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren wing of the party, in other words, this far-left socialist bent they've all taken, Cory Booker and others, that there may be, Joe, a hole in the offensive line here to run it right up the middle for Hillary Clinton to actually grab the nod for 2020.
I have the piece of my show notes today.
It's at my website.
Check it out.
It's an interesting piece.
Folks, the reason I bring it up, too, is do not for a second, you know, me and Joe laughed at the beginning because it is kind of, it's so stupid, it's funny, but Don't tactically wave it off either.
Don't put it past her for a second to run again.
Having said that, so you understand what the theory is, the theory is Hillary Clinton now needs to lift and shift again, move back to the middle like she did when she won her Senate seat, and I remember, I was there, they're right, I mean, she ran as a pretty moderate Democrat at the time, that there's a hole there.
Here's the problem, folks, that I think the author kind of fails to address in any substantive way.
Hillary Clinton's already on the record taking these far-left positions now in her last race against Donald Trump.
The YouTube videos are endless now.
You may say, yeah, but the media won't give her a pass on that.
No, no, no, no, no, folks.
In a general, they wouldn't.
You're right.
The media will forget all of that.
Hillary's hypocrisy.
But in a primary, it is game on.
Remember, the media in the primary, they're far leftist.
They want their leftist buddies to win.
Hillary Clinton, they've already invested all their time in her and got burned.
In a primary, if Hillary Clinton were to run again, all of these videos and speeches and debates with Trump, where she comes out with these far left positions, if she, if, If she tries to swing right and moderate again back to her 2000 election with Lazio in the Senate, if she tries to do it the media, I have absolutely no doubt, folks, at all, in my mind, the media would expose her as being a complete total phony.
Now, again, if she wins a primary, they'd let all that go.
But don't for a second think that they wouldn't expose her.
So I think that the author of the piece kind of falls short on that.
Remember, she's already on the record with all this stuff.
There's no way to—you know how many campaign videos would be made by Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and others just hammering her for her complete total hypocrisy if she tries to get tough on immigration and crime again?
It would be endless.
She would be in a world of trouble.
I don't think she would have any shot.
All right, folks.
Thanks again for tuning in.
Thanks to everybody who picked up my book.
We're still on the Top 100 on Amazon.
If you haven't picked up a copy yet, please check it out.
Spygate, The Attempted Sabotage of Donald Trump.
Thank you for your terrific reviews on Amazon.
We're up to 334 reviews.
333 of them are five star.
So thank you.
That means a lot to me.
I've been reading them all.
You guys and ladies out there are great.
So available on Amazon, Barnes & Noble, bookstores everywhere.
Go pick up your copy today.
Really appreciate it, folks.
Thanks for tuning in.
Check out the show notes, and I will see you all tomorrow.
You just heard the Dan Bongino Show.
Get more of Dan online anytime at conservativereview.com.
