In this episode I address the partial government shutdown and why President Trump must win this fight. I also address the Syrian drawdown and the lack of substantive action by the Department of Justice against the Clinton cabal. News Picks:
Support for the border wall is peaking; Trump is right.
Will the Democrats ever see justice? What is John Huber doing?
The FBI is fighting transparency again.
Here are the Democrats, in their own words, supporting border enforcement, before they changed their minds.
Here is the definitive list of 2018 fake news stories.
President Trump names Patrick Shanahan acting Secretary of Defense.
Middle-class residents are moving out of New York City in droves.
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?
All dressed up and somewhere to go, dude.
Yeah, Merry Christmas Eve to you all.
We will have a show for you tomorrow.
Joe and I Next year we'll take some days off, but you've been at it for 878 consecutive episodes.
Why break the streak now?
Let's at least make it through the year, so we're not taking any days off for you.
I've got a really stacked show for you today, a lot going on.
You know we don't cover a lot of foreign policy, but I believe this issue about what's going
on in Syria and elsewhere around the world is fomenting this nonsensical media narrative
of nonstop chaos in the Trump White House.
So I want to address it in those terms, because the media I think is gaslighting you and lying
to you again.
I also want to address the shutdown that's going on right now, the partial government
Joe, the government shutdown, are you okay?
Is everything okay?
Now Joe, just to be clear, you live in Maryland, right near the government, so if anybody was going to be impacted by the shutdown, are you okay?
A couple questions for you first.
Is there chaos in the streets?
No, no chaos in the streets.
Did you make it home okay?
Yes, I did, Dan.
Joe, there were not roving bands of walking dead like rapacious street warriors attacking people randomly in the streets on the way home.
Is that correct?
No smelly zombies, Dan.
No smelly zombies.
Were you mugged, attacked, beaten, or otherwise accosted on the way back with this government shutdown?
No, I made it home safely, Dan.
Armacost, who is a... I mean, no one's closer to shutdown than Joe.
He's only like 40 miles out of D.C.
Okay, so things seem to be apparently okay.
Listen, I'm not minimizing this stuff, but everybody needs to kind of relax a little bit.
Okay?
Everybody take a pill on this.
All right.
Today's show brought to you by our buddies at iTarget.
iTarget, the iTarget Pro system is the single best way out there to increase your proficiency with a firearm.
Listen, there are two things that matter when it comes to firearms.
There's safety and proficiency.
Proficiency makes a big difference.
God forbid you're involved in a scenario Where you have to engage with your firearm, you want to make sure you can use it proficiently.
So one of the best ways to do that is to dry fire.
Now dry firing is interesting because you're pulling the trigger on a safely unloaded weapon that you've checked, you've checked twice, you've checked three times to make sure it's unloaded.
The problem with dry firing is you don't know where the round would have gone because it's dry, right?
But one of the better parts of it, the dos of it, is you get to improve your grip, you get to improve your sight picture, your sight alignment, your trigger pull, slow, deliberate to the rear.
You get to do that without any recoil.
So now, the iTarget Pro system is a way to get the best of both worlds.
It is a laser round, yes, a laser round they will send you in conjunction with a target they will send you.
You can put that target wherever you'd like, and then with that target,
you're firing a safely unloaded weapon with this laser round, and the laser will emit a laser
onto the target, and you'll see where the rounds would have gone.
It is the best system out there.
It works with a phone app, and you'll see exactly where your rounds would have gone.
Best system out there.
Your proficiency will go through the roof.
Go give it a look. Go to itargetpro.com.
That's the letter.
Itargetpro.com.
Don't miss it.
Itargetpro.com.
If you use promo code Dan, that's promo code Dan, my first name, you will get 10% off.
That's I, the letter, itargetpro.com.
They will send you a laser round and a target.
It is a terrific system.
You can't beat it.
Itargetpro.com.
Okay.
Um, all right, first Joe.
The media is hell-bent now on reinforcing this narrative that the Trump, the entire Trump presidency is out of control.
It's over.
It's nothing but chaos.
Forget it.
We can all wrap it up and go home.
Now that is, of course, complete utter nonsense, ladies and gentlemen.
This is not chaos.
What is going on right now is Donald Trump is fulfilling a series of promises he made in his campaign.
And let me give you a little inside baseball what I'm hearing now, because it's critical you understand this.
I'm hearing from people on the inside that Trump has accepted now after nearly two years of his presidency, Joe, this critical point that the swamp and some of his advisors that have been careerists inside made a lifetime out of government, you know, air quotes, your service, where they've enriched themselves, that this swamp is not benefiting him.
He is starting to realize that when Trump is Trump and Trump feels he's got the, The pulse of the American people on his index finger.
That he should run with this and that he's not being served by his advice.
I'm getting this from very smart people who know what they're talking about.
For the first couple years, he was not, I don't want to say hesitant, Joe, because that's not exactly true.
He wasn't hesitant to push his agenda.
He was just, he deferred a bit to the advice of people on the inside, I guess with the assumption that since they've been around, they had some good idea of what was going on.
He is now starting to realize that when it comes to this room of people, that if they can't produce tangible results, that it's time to do what he said he was going to do.
Now, whether it's Syria, whether it's immigration, whether it's cabinet officials leaving, this is Trump enacting what he feels is his MAGA agenda.
This is not chaos, ladies and gentlemen.
What's been happening, whether it's the drawdown in Syria, whether it's Trump's doubling down on the border wall with the immigration policies, whether it's Mattis, who I respect, but they had a difference of opinion and Trump is the commander-in-chief, Mattis resigning, Brett McGurk resigning, who was, you know, one of the big believers in this Syrian intervention policy.
These are, this is the expected ramifications of a president enacting what his presidential agenda was.
Now, if this was a Democrat, Joe, this would be painted as, oh, look how principled they are.
Look, if this was Obama, look, he said he was going to do it.
He did it.
The swamp is fighting against him.
We have to admire him.
This is what strategic disruption looks like.
Now, in the business world, strategic disruption is welcomed when a company is failing.
Folks, I hate to tell you this.
And I don't mean this in any kind of an unpatriotic way.
If you know me, that goes without saying.
But if you don't, you may be confused and I don't want you to be.
The country's failing right now.
It is failing.
On a number of metrics, we are in a world of trouble.
The citizens aren't failing.
The governance of the country is failing.
When this happens in the business world, disruption is welcome.
You know, when you look at, you know, look at popular examples that kids can relate to and, and, you know, some adults who've seen, seen the movies, but, you know, don't necessarily follow every, every new business, um, toss and turn up and down.
Look at a company like Apple after a couple strategic failures, you know, the Newton and otherwise.
Strategic disruption was welcome.
Taking the company, bringing it in a different direction.
People who understood, like at Amazon in the beginning where it focused exclusively on books.
Strategic disruption and trying to come in and expand the business model.
Expand the business model to something bigger where the net present value of investments, the present value of those investments is positive.
Big new ideas, what they call in business school, BHAGs, right?
Big hairy audacious goals.
Not a technical term, but still good nonetheless.
BHAGs.
Trump had a BHAG.
His behag was, why are we over there in Syria?
Why?
I'm going to get to Syria specifically in a minute, but right now I'm talking specifically about what the media, just so you understand where we're going with this.
I don't want you to be confused about the opening of this show.
The media is painting you box A. Here's their narrative.
This is chaos, disorder.
This is bad for the United States.
I'm telling you that is not what is happening.
What is happening right now is box two.
It is a president who's finally starting to understand.
That the people who've been in charge for a long time and we're giving him advice do not know what the hell they're doing.
They don't.
We are 20 trillion dollars in debt.
On financial metrics, we are failing.
We're 20 trillion dollars in debt.
We have a military that, despite a colossal amount of money being spent, is having equipment problems, is having training problems.
We are failing.
By the way, this is in no way a reflection on our soldiers.
Who are they?
Please, don't mistake this at all.
You are really misinterpreting what I'm saying.
I'm saying it's a failure of the mission.
We're putting them in a situation where the long-term strategic goal is relatively undefinable.
What is it?
Is it stability in the Middle East?
When you say crush ISIS, do you mean crush ISIS or crush terrorism?
I'm getting ahead of myself.
I'm going to get to the Syria thing in a minute.
I know I'm going to get a lot of feedback on the show, and that's fine.
Please email me.
I respect pro and con, and I know there's going to be a difference between the Jeffersonians, as the Wall Street Journal painted this week, and the Jacksonians, who'd like a more robust commitment overseas, the Libertarians, the Conservatives, and even the moderate Democrats.
I get it.
I owe you an opinion.
This is an opinion show.
You don't have to like it, but I owe you that for being here.
I don't believe we have a long-term vision of what we are looking for in this fight overseas and a lot of these world hot zones and having come from a family where we lost someone.
We lost a patriot and a hero.
My uncle in Vietnam and I know I don't want to do the liberal thing where I make a personal story about emotion and I try to translate that into a larger strategic issue, but I think in this case it matters.
The loss of my uncle in Vietnam changed my entire family's life.
We are losing our kids, our young men and our young women over there.
We're losing them for a strategic vision I don't think is possible to implement based on just a simple reading of the facts.
I mean, look at the French, the Russians, look at the endless litany of countries that have poured assets into this region of the world, and we've come out with no better strategic outcomes in the end than we have now.
This is not, this is not chaos.
This is Donald Trump as an outsider and I'm not, listen man, I have not been hesitant to challenge the president when I feel like we are on, we disagree.
I mean Friday's show I said about I think the president's wrong on interest rates and I got a lot of negative emails on that, that's fine.
I believe interest rates can go up a little more right now.
I think, and that show on Friday elicited a big response, Joe.
I was actually surprised because I kind of threw that in at the end, you know, just because we had missed the story door and we never realized I was going to get tons of email.
That's okay.
I have a disagreement with the president, but I respect what he's doing and I understand.
But on this issue, the president, I believe, is absolutely right.
He has come into office as a strategic disruptor, asking people, what is the long-term plan?
There is clearly an expense to this in real blood and real treasure.
What are we doing?
Oh, well, we're crushing ISIS.
Well, okay, fine.
Do we have to do that in that region, number one?
And this either-or scenario you're painting, well, either we fight them there or we fight them here.
Is that really an either-or scenario or is that an and scenario?
There's a difference, Joe.
Assuming, when you say something like, let me just get right into this here, because clearly I'm interested in this.
Go on, man.
Go.
Isn't it, I ask you this, Joe, and if this sounds confusing as the audience on Buzzman, please stop me.
And I mean it in a, today, I usually joke around with that, but it's always sold to us as, well, we can fight ISIS and terror groups over there on foreign soil with our tremendously heroic and patriotic military.
Right.
Men and women with the, Thickest steel spines I've ever seen.
Or we're going to fight them here.
But I ask you just to, based on a basic historical analysis of what's been happening, is that really true?
In other words, aren't we fighting them over there and here?
It's not an or.
Yes.
Yes.
In other words, Joe, as we've been fighting them there, we're fighting them here too.
Yeah.
So my question to you is, are those assets Better placed on foreign soil where the danger is higher or are those assets better placed in the United States to create a fortress of security around our country where we can fight them here and the environs are clearly safer?
Because it's an and, it's not an or.
Painting it as an or scenario.
In other words, if we get them there, we won't have to fight them.
It's clearly not true.
True, right.
They continue to fight us here.
They continue to find new and disgusting ways to try to murder us.
Pressure cooker bombs, tactical assault tacks using light weapons, trying to hijack planes, drone technology.
These are sick, deranged killers.
It is not an or, it is an and.
Now you may say, okay, Dan, well, if it's an and, we're going to fight them there and here.
It's not an or.
In other words, forget the or scenario.
Just because we're fighting them there overseas does not mean we're not going to fight them here too.
You may say fairly enough in response, but if we fight them there and here, and we dedicate assets there, that we will knock down enough of their strategic capabilities overseas in their bases, their home bases, that they won't have the strategic capability to fight us here.
But ladies and gentlemen, that's not true either.
What we've seen in the past is as we knock them down overseas, They get desperate, and out of desperation, what do they do?
You see attacks over here, whether it's through online radicalization, because what they need to do is, as they lose strategic power overseas and organizational abilities, Joe, they have to raise money and public support for their sick, murderous, rampaging, disgusting, filthy, satanic cause, right?
So what do they do?
They engage in online radicalization, they engage in radicalization on foreign soil, in this case, our soil, which is their foreign soil, in an effort to get an attack, however desperate it is, a pistol, a Kalashnikov, a pressure bomb, whatever it may be, in order to say, look, even though we're getting crushed overseas, we're still doing well over there.
Folks, point out to me where my analysis is wrong.
I'm open to it.
I'm simply suggesting to you that reading the intelligence on it, This is a portion, again, I don't do a lot of foreign policy on the show.
I'd like to get into more, but I've become almost obsessed with this topic lately because I think the Rand Pauls of the world are right!
A strategic allocation of our assets back at home.
A vibrant, constitutional, law-abiding FBI at the management level that focuses on foreign threats.
A military dedicated to protecting our interests.
Why do we keep talking about a stable Middle East as if that's possible?
Where has that been?
Ladies and gentlemen, it may be possible, and I hope it is.
I pray to God every day world peace is somehow in our future.
The problem is, my experience in the Middle East, when I was traveling as a federal agent over there, is that the people of the Middle East and that region of the world, they have to embrace it themselves first.
There has to be a cultural acceptance of individual human dignity and big R God-given rights before any of this is going to set in in Afghanistan.
There has to be a sense in Afghanistan, amongst tribal leaders and Afghanis themselves, that Afghanistan is worth fighting for, Joe.
The problem is there are tribal loyalties, regional loyalties in Afghanistan, where the concept of Afghanistan, to many Afghanis, is not as important as the concept of their local tribe or region.
Their loyalties are not to Afghanistan.
Their loyalties are very parochial.
That did not happen with the United States, with our revolution.
With our Civil War, fighting for the continuance of the Republic.
No one was saying to Maryland, with Maryland, you know, in the Civil War, they used that state for a reason.
You know, listen, it's Maryland versus the rest of us.
People understood they were fighting for a side.
The continuance of the Republic as we know it.
And the stability of the Republic.
Or not.
Two separate states.
Granted, I'm simplifying it, but you get what I'm saying when it comes to this and the Afghanis?
This doesn't apply in a lot of places overseas, where the unifying principles of big R God-given rights and the unifying principle of one common flag we're going to fight for and an allegiance to a common set of values is not there yet.
So when I ask you, what's the purpose to our military?
Is it not to protect our country and our interests?
Are we really doing that?
Or are we protecting the interests of others, ironically, who don't have interests of their own that resemble the interests we think we're fighting for?
Mm-hmm.
That's the rub.
You're darn right that's the rub!
You bet.
How many of our men, of our women, are we going to bring back in boxes without some tangible metric of success?
Now, some may say, well, listen, ISIS has been, and we have done significant damage to ISIS.
I want to go through these points somewhat systematically because I have a feeling I'm going to get a lot of feedback on this show.
You may say.
Let me just rewind the first one first so we can wrap that one up.
Again, one of the reasons we're given for this is, well, we can fight them here or there.
Just to repeat this for a second because it's important.
It is not an or.
We are going to fight them there and here.
There's no or.
Stop saying that.
It is not mutually exclusive.
We are going to fight in both places.
The history of humanity has been one of conflict and conflicting ideologies.
Their ideology, they worship death.
These radical Islamists want to kill us.
And we believe in big R, God-given rights.
Those two spheres cannot exist at the same time.
That conflict is not going to stop tomorrow or anytime soon.
We will fight them there or we will fight them, excuse me, and we will fight them here.
There's no or.
Forget the or.
Wipe that out.
Secondly, okay, we should fight them there.
Some people will say.
Because Joe, in fighting them there, we've had a lot of success.
And we have.
Thanks to our badass United States military, we have had a lot of success in wiping out on foreign soil and cornering a lot of these ISIS syndicates.
There's no question about it.
We've cornered them to very specific regions and we have done it.
There's been a lot of death and destruction we brought down upon them.
So you may say, well, what's the problem, Dan?
I don't understand what you're arguing.
If it's an and we're fighting them there and there.
Dan, some of their fighters are here and they don't even know it.
Yeah.
You know what I'm saying?
Yeah.
Some of their fighters are here.
You're going to have to fight here.
Yeah, well we're always gonna, that's the and.
Yeah!
That's the and portion of it.
But the issue here, Joe, is when it comes to overseas, and, and, and, the and part, and we're fighting here and there.
Yeah!
I ask this question, and I want you to seriously consider this, regardless of your position on this, I'm asking you, and I'm open to listen, I'm open to all of your opinions.
This is not a closed-minded show, it's not a liberal show.
I ask you this, Joe, and I ask you this too.
On the overseas fighting, regardless of the success we've had over there, Why us?
No, I'm serious.
Why us?
The Saudis have an interest over there.
The Saudis have clearly now expressed an interest.
In other words, it's come up, well, we're abandoning our allies, the Kurds.
You know, I'm sorry to say this, but, you know, and the Kurds have been a loyal ally to the United States.
But why us?
Why us?
The Saudis now, are going to introduce a military component to back up the Kurds because they have an interest in fighting the Turks.
They're not happy about what's going on with the Turks for a number of reasons, Khashoggi and elsewhere.
But the Saudis are going to introduce a military fighting component to back up the Turks.
Why us?
Why can't the Saudis help us there?
You know, people complain about the Saudis all the time.
Saudi Arabia has been a hotbed for terrorism and I don't think there's any question in the past that that's the case.
But if the Saudis are now interested in a military component where we can remove our guys and our women and bring them home and allow the Saudis who have a very specific local regional interest in some potential future stability there, why not let the Saudis do it?
No, it's a serious question.
Why do you want my kids over there?
I don't get it.
If there's another fighting force that can do work for regional interests in a region we don't live in, we have interests in, fair, but we don't live in, why do you want us to do it?
And if your only explanation is, well, We're trying to foster democracy overseas.
I go back to point one and I ask you, okay, well, where has that worked in that specific region?
Where?
I'm a big supporter of Israel.
I always have.
But I'm a supporter of Israel because they share our values.
Big R, God-given individual rights.
Arabs in Israel have more freedom than Arabs in Arab countries.
It gives me sometimes a bit of a, you know, the libertarians don't like that.
They'd like us to pull back more from, and that's fine.
But I'm telling you how I feel.
But we've shown no evidence of strong constitutional republics or representative democracies taking over in that region of the world, despite hundreds of thousands of soldiers from various countries, you know, over decades dying in that region.
So if question number one was the end, we're fighting there and here.
Why not fight here and Fortress America, us up now?
Dedicate our assets and security resources to tightening our immigration policy, tightening up our border control, a robust, vibrant FBI, Central Intelligence Agency, and assets that can feed information back and forth so we can take care of the problem.
Anti-radicalization efforts on the Anne front.
On the second front, okay, if it's going to be an Anne, oh, well, we're going to fight over there and, you know, we're having some success.
Fine, but why do those successes have to be at the cost of our lives?
Ask yourself this question.
Why can't regional interests over there, who have a very parochial local interest in some form of stability, why can't they take care of that?
Why do we have to do it?
Third, ladies and gentlemen, you may also say, well, listen, it's a fostering of our values across the world.
You know, it's the duty of our military to create a stable global environment.
Fine.
Fine.
I get that.
I get what you're saying.
I don't agree that that's the duty of our military.
Duty of our military is to protect the homeland, to protect our people and our interests.
That's the duty of our military.
But if you say that, then I ask you this other question.
Why are you looking at this in isolation?
Joe, can we both agree that there is no more precise example of a zero-sum game than our military?
In other words, Joe, what I'm saying, just to be clear with the audience here.
A soldier in Syria putting his butt on the line.
Cannot be in two places at once.
This seems obvious, right?
I mean, I'm not saying anything that's deeply metaphysical or hugely philosophical.
I'm trying to make a basic point.
If your point is that, well, the United States military, we should be fostering some sense of global order, fine.
Well, the globe is disordered.
It's disordered by nature.
And if we put one of our troops in Syria, And Afghanistan.
And we've been there for a very long time.
And I think it's clear now that although we've had some successes, long-term metrics for stability have not been met.
Those are the very same troops.
God forbid there was some conflict with North Korea.
God forbid with Russia, which seems like a tinderbox at the moment.
Or with China, in the South China Sea.
That same soldier, Marine, Navy, Air Force personnel.
Cannot be in two places at once.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is the biggest zero-sum game of all.
Stop treating our military like these are, you know, Monopoly board pieces.
We can just move around.
These are men and women, trained men and women, who are people's kids, people's dads.
If we can't point to a long-term strategic goal that secures the United States, our homeland, and our interests, Then why are we continuing to go down this path?
We have other very real threats.
You may say, oh, you know what?
The North Koreans are a starving country.
Ladies and gentlemen, if you have a nuclear weapon, I've got news for you.
You're a threat.
I'm sorry.
This is where I'll always have some kind of a disagreement with some of my, um, you know, more non-interventionist friends.
And I am a non-interventionist in many respects.
And I'm not saying we should be preparing to engage in a land invasion of North Korea tomorrow, but there should definitely be contingency plans with our military.
God forbid there was some sort of an EMP attack.
The Russians, Vladimir Putin is engaged in trying to rebuild the Soviet empire.
He is!
Thinks it's one of the greatest strategic mistakes of his lifetime was the Soviet Union leaving, you know, having to exit back and retreat.
Why not prepare our military for a potential conflict there, God forbid?
Again, I'm not suggesting we should be engaged in a land war.
I think my approach to Donald Trump's, let's secure the United States, rebuild our military at home, and not have to engage in every single global conflict on behalf of every region of the world, I think that's clear at this point.
I'm simply suggesting to you as well that there are other threats out there as well.
Our military is clearly overstretched at this point.
We have China interested in the South China Sea.
What if they shut off shipping lanes?
What if the Iranians shut the Straits of Hormuz down?
This is real, folks.
This would have real effects on the world economy.
Real effects.
What are we back to?
We're allowing piracy on the open seas again?
The open seas where we transport goods around?
What if China just says, you know what?
We're creating a complete exclusion zone everywhere within the dotted line.
You know what I'm talking about for those of you experts in China policy.
Everywhere around the dotted line.
Nobody's allowed to go anywhere.
There'll be no US ships, no commerce, no nothing.
And by the way, we're invading Taiwan tomorrow.
What do we do?
I'm not suggesting we should jump in tomorrow and engage in a land war at all.
I'm suggesting we should evaluate that in context of how it impacts the citizens of the United States and our security.
But these are all things we have to consider while we have assets stretched all over the place.
This is not our job.
Finally.
Folks, we're 20 trillion dollars in debt.
20 trillion.
We owe more money than our entire economy is worth.
The value we produce and are compensated for, roughly 20 trillion dollars, we owe everything.
How much longer can this go on Before we engage in a tidal wave of red ink, spending money on items where the return long-term, we can't even produce a number or a metric.
What's the marker for success?
I don't understand.
Now, before we move on, Joe, do you have that Rand Paul sot?
Already, boss.
All right.
Joe was kind enough to cut this this morning, sent this over.
I think Paul's been a bit clear-eyed on this, or very clear-eyed on this.
And I'm appreciative of his support for the president, despite a lot of folks up.
And I'm not knocking them.
I'm not, you know, I'm not going to use the neocons and the war hawks.
It doesn't help.
I just believe a lot of folks are misguided on this and can't seem to understand that these are our kids.
These are your boys, your girls.
You want to be in Afghanistan?
You want to be in Syria 15 more years?
You know, my daughter's going to be 15 in January.
Her 30th birthday, you want to be talking to her on Skype from Syria, having this same argument about why democracy hasn't set in yet in Syria?
You really think her being over there is going to stop them attacking us here?
I don't buy it.
I queue up Rand Paul, Joe.
But if we wait until there's no potential for anybody fighting each other when we leave, we won't be there forever.
That's it.
That's the simplest and most elegant way to say it.
Does Rand Paul really believe, by shedding gallons of U.S.
blood and pouring our treasure into that region, endlessly, that the factions in the Middle East, whether it's al-Nusra, ISIS, the Free Syrian Army, the Afghanis, Tribal warlords within the Afghanis, the Taliban, you really believe they're gonna stop fighting because we're there?
I don't buy it.
Again, folks, I respect my audience, that's why I leave you my email.
Please, if you have feedback, send it my way.
I just asked that my daughter reads them, so please don't drop any, if you can, try not to curse, but that's your call.
Either way, my daughter and my wife read them, so all right, I appreciate it.
I spent a little more time on that than I thought, but it's a sensitive topic to me.
All right, today's show also brought to you by our buddies at BrickHouse Nutrition.
BrickHouse makes the finest nutrition supplements on the market.
We love BrickHouse.
Huge fan of BrickHouse.
As a matter of fact, I just took four foundation pills before my going to the gym.
One of their best products out there is foundation.
It's how I originally found them.
The story of how I found BrickHouse is kind of funny.
I met Miles, who runs the company.
And we were talking over the phone.
He said, listen, I want to sponsor your show.
I said, I need a sample of this stuff because I'm into working out.
I love it, but I don't like, you know, garbage nutrition products and I'm not going to get behind us if it isn't the real deal.
He said, Dan, let me just send it to you.
He sent me a box of foundation, which is a creatine ATP blend.
A creatine ATP blend, which gives you the equivalent of like two extra gas tanks in the gym.
I took it for a week.
I was astounded.
The results are amazing.
I, I, I, I'm not overselling this.
I'm so confident.
You're going to love this stuff because I've, I don't think I've ever gotten a negative review.
I can't recall one.
I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm serious about the effectiveness of the product ever.
Everything has always been, wow, this stuff really works.
It'll do two things for you.
You'll look better and you'll perform better.
What else you want?
Go to the gym, take a little note.
You know, how many chin-ups you do.
Come back seven days later after letting foundation load in your system a little bit.
Watch your performance go through the roof.
Look in the mirror, take the mirror test.
Take a mental snapshot of what you look like.
Give foundation about seven days.
You know, around the holidays, sometimes we tend to overeat a little bit.
Foundation, you will look better.
It is that good.
Look at yourself seven days later in the mirror.
Go give it a shot.
Go to BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
That's BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
Pick up a bottle of foundation today.
Ladies and gentlemen, I can personally attest to the, not only the effectiveness, but the extreme effectiveness of this product.
It is that good.
You will look better.
You will feel better.
That significant other in your life will be like, mm, hey man.
Hey, hey, hey lady.
Hey man, not bad.
What you doing over there?
It's that good.
BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
Okay.
On the immigration front and the shutdown, obviously the partial government shutdown, as I kind of laughingly said at the beginning of the show, I'm not meaning to minimize this, I was a government employee, but you know, the chaos narrative, of course, is setting in and that's what the media loves, even though Donald Trump is simply enacting an agenda he ran on and won on, won a historic electoral college victory.
It's largely about immigration right now.
Here's where we are right now.
Here's the update as of this morning, Monday.
The latest offer from the White House back to Schumer and the House is $2.1 billion for the wall and $400 million for other security needs when it comes to immigration.
Now, that is off from the $5 billion request by Donald Trump to get portions of the wall built.
I believe it would cover about 215 miles, which is 215 miles more than we had before.
Uh, I don't think Donald Trump should fold.
I don't think Trump, I think he should stick to this $5 billion figure at this point.
And you may say, well, we're never going to get the government open again.
Ladies and gentlemen, the government shut down on you a long time ago, and the Democrats are not being honest about where they stand in immigration.
It did.
The government shut down on you a long time ago.
We're looking at tidal waves of redding.
They're not serious about securing our border.
They are only serious about thoroughly fighting and combating and obstructing this Trump agenda that he was voted into office by people who voted for Donald Trump in a fair and free election.
Contrast to what the Democrats want to tell you.
I think we need to stand tall on this.
This is the fight, ladies and gentlemen, right now.
If we can't secure our borders, we don't have a country.
A sovereign country without definable borders is nothing more than a landmass.
It is not a country.
A country is defined by borders.
Borders you can enforce, where you can control who comes in and gets to claim the mantle of citizenship, where you can control who comes in and gets to work here under our legal system.
You do not have a country if you simply have a landmass where the borders are meaningless.
Now, the Democrats have not been serious about definable borders and border security for a very long time.
And although you may have seen this clip already or heard it, Stephen Miller was on with Wolf Blitzer in a staggeringly good appearance.
I'm going to play for you about 50 seconds of Stephen Miller, one of Donald Trump's key advisors on the immigration issue.
On with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, where Wolf tries to claim that the Democrats are for border security, and Miller puts him on the spot.
I want you to pay attention to how Wolf answers and responds.
It's very clear that he's not willing to face the truth about the Democrats and immigration.
Democrats, all they need to do is support border security and the government will be funded.
But that barrier that we're talking about is what the Border Patrol The Democrats support border security.
They don't support $5 billion for a wall.
Could you identify, Will, for me some of the kinds of border security you're saying the Democrats are supposed to be here to support?
The Democrats all say they support border security.
Like what?
Where they disagree with you is building a wall.
They voted against Kate's Law.
They voted against ending sanctuary cities.
They voted against deporting MS-13 gang members.
They voted against deporting violent criminals.
They voted time and time again against a physical border wall to stop illegal entry.
I mean, where is the evidence that you keep asserting they're for border security?
They haven't been.
They oppose closing loopholes for asylum that flood our system with meritless claims.
I want to move on to another sensitive issue.
Of course he wants to move on.
I mean, I don't need to put... Wolf was always nice to me on the set.
I'm not trying to pile on Wolf here, but Joe, I think it's pretty clear.
Wolf got beaten up pretty bad there.
Oh yeah.
And so bad that he just wants to move on because he doesn't have... Come back to that now.
I did some homework for you because liberals will try to, of course, dispute all this stuff.
I did a little homework for you and I want to hat tip Eddie Scarry at the Washington Examiner, who has an interesting piece up vetting this stuff as well.
The Democrats did, in fact, fight MS-13 deportations.
Barbara Comstock introduced a bill in September of 2017, Joe, to make it easier to get gang members out of the country by deportation, and the Democrats don't want it.
They have been fighting against that.
It passed the House.
It has not passed the Senate.
That is, in fact, true.
The deportation of gang members.
By MS-13.
Now, there was a later bill for some money to fight gang violence that the Democrats did vote for, because we're going to do facts here, but the deportation and removal of dangerous gang members.
Barbara Comstock, soon-to-be former congresswoman from Virginia, introduced the bill in September of 2017, making it easier to get rid of MS-13 and other gang members, and the Democrats didn't want it.
They didn't support it.
Stephen Miller is absolutely right.
They voted against the border wall.
He's absolutely right.
That's what's happening right now with the shutdown.
Voted against Kate's Law.
Fact!
Voted against sanctuary cities.
Yes, February of 2018.
Pat Toomey had an amendment.
Wanted it brought up on the floor, the Senate floor.
Which would have made it easier for the federal government to combat some of these sanctuary city policies.
Chuck Schumer blocked it.
Obstructed any debate on it.
Folks, he objected to even opening up a vote on it.
Schumer.
This is all fact, ladies and gentlemen.
Now, you have Schumer, Joe.
This is Schumer now, just so you understand.
Ladies and gentlemen, what I'm trying to tell you right now, the Democrats are not for border security.
Kate Slott?
Nope.
Deporting gang members?
Nope.
Fighting sanctuary cities?
Nope.
A border wall?
Nope.
Here's Schumer on the border wall.
Everyone knew yesterday, long before the House vote, that the President's wall lacked 60 votes in the Senate.
It has proven to lack even 50 votes.
It will never pass the Senate.
Not today.
Not next week.
Not next year.
So Mr. President, President Trump, if you want to open the government, you must abandon the wall.
Plain and simple.
Folks, I don't get it.
I don't understand where Wolf is going with this.
It's CNN.
Where is Wolf Blitzer going?
They support border security.
How?
Now, Eddie Scarry writes in his piece and he says, good for Stephen Miller for finally putting them on the spot.
You don't have to like Stephen Miller.
Personally, I do.
You don't have to like him.
I know a lot of liberals think he's, you know, what's that guy from the latest Avengers movie?
Thanos.
They think he's like Thanos from the Avengers movie.
He's like, he is the embodiment of all that's evil.
You can think that all you want, but challenge him on the merits of his argument.
What part of what he said is untrue?
Wolf is saying the Democrats are for border security.
Stephen Miller in that cut says, well, how?
Wolf has no answer and he wants to move on, but Miller says things that are factually correct.
Gang deportation, border wall, Kate's Law.
No, no, no, no.
Sanctuary cities, they're all for him.
They're not for border security.
So I want to just rewind before I move on to what we were talking about in the beginning.
This is not chaos, ladies and gentlemen.
This is President Trump, two years now into his presidency, realizing that the issues he ran on are not the issues of the establishment swamp on either side, Republicans or Democrats.
He's starting to realize this now, that he's going to have to go at this alone.
And when I say alone, I mean alone in terms of his branch of government.
His Article 2 powers.
But he's not going at it alone outside his branch of government.
Because he has the public support with him, in terms of his base.
Ladies and gentlemen, Trump is starting to understand That these Republicans will sell him out in a heartbeat.
That whereas the Democrats will stab you in the front, as I said on Fox & Friends this morning, the Republicans, the swamp ones, will stab you right in the back.
They ran on strong borders, economic freedom, tax cuts, limited government spending.
They don't mean any of it.
Trump is starting to understand, Joe, that his political capital with his base Is what is going to get his agenda passed.
It is not political capital with the Swamp.
Because there is no political capital be gained with the Swamp.
Because the Swamp's interests are not his.
They are not.
They are their own.
Cheap labor.
Open borders.
Continued political donations.
Ladies and gentlemen, Donald Trump's political capital with his base, which will only be enhanced by fulfilling a series of promises he made, that two years in he's realizing that is going to be the Trump legacy.
That is what's going to expand his political bank account, and that is his insurance policy against sellout Republicans up on the Hill.
This is the fight.
Right now.
This border shutdown, partial government shutdown, is the fight right now.
If we fold on this, his political bank account amongst his base will be drained significantly.
It will cause lasting damage.
The people who are going to show up, who are going to knock on the doors, the people out there who get it, understand now that Trump is in it to win it.
He has had a very successful two years.
Judgeships, appointments, tax cuts, economic growth, the regulatory front.
Had some downsides, government spending, we need to do more.
On the immigration front, we need to do more.
But this was his signature promise.
I covered this on Friday's show.
If you binge listening, I covered it on Thursday's show, too.
This is the moment.
This was his promise to get that wall built.
Some portion of that construction on that barrier, which will deter significantly illegal immigration into this country, something has to start getting built soon.
This is the fight, folks, right now.
Make no mistake.
This is the battle.
We cannot lose this fight over this shutdown.
He has to stand fast.
His political bank account will be drained if we lose this.
Okay, I got a lot more to get to.
Finally, today's show brought to you by our buddies at We The People Holsters.
Hey, there's no finer, no finer holster out there.
I love these holsters.
You know, when you first go and you shop for holsters, when I was in the police academy, I bought one of those cheapo-in-the-pants holsters.
You know, whatever, $10.
They're made of like burlap sacks or something.
Scratches up your hip.
You're like, yeah, it's the worst.
You're sitting in a movie, you're like...
Darn, this thing is uncomfortable.
You know, you want to carry your firearm for your personal protection, but you don't want it to be uncomfortable.
Joe's squirming around his seat now.
We, the people at Holsters, have solved that problem.
They made custom-made holsters, precision-cut to your specific firearm.
It's not a one-size-fits-all piece of junk.
They are gorgeous, these things.
Beautiful, precision-made, finely-cut holsters.
They designed them in-house in Las Vegas themselves.
They don't use any crappy third-party molds.
You can adjust the cant.
They can't.
You say, what's that?
You can adjust the ride.
Adjust the can't in the ride?
What's that?
The can't in the ride is a way to adjust the clip, the belt clip on the holster to make it comfortable for you so you're not stuck in one specific spot.
These things are beautiful.
Here, even better, you can adjust the tension.
You can't do that on those crappy in-the-pants holsters.
You can't.
The thing slides right out to fire them.
With this, you can tighten up the tension on the screw.
One turn, one simple turn of a screw for a little more tension.
Loosen it up if you like a little bit of a looser fit there.
They are beautiful.
They have new designs that change every month.
Constitution design, they have the American flag, the camo design, the thin red line, the thin blue line on there.
Gorgeous looking holsters.
Designs change all the time.
Get a load of this price though.
They start at just $34.
They come with a lifetime guarantee and free shipping.
If it's not a perfect fit, perfect precision cut, Send it back for a refund, but I got a deal for you.
You say $34.
That's a really good price for a beautiful holster like this.
I don't know.
It gets better.
If you go to wethepeopleholsters.com slash Dan, that's wethepeopleholsters.com slash Dan, and you put in promo code Dan.
You will get $10 off your first holster.
That's just $24 with free shipping for this beautiful, gorgeous holster.
Precision cut to your firearm.
Go check it out.
WeThePeopleHolsters.com slash Dan.
Put in promo code Dan.
You'll get $10 off making it just $24 with free shipping.
Nice.
They are beautiful.
You will love them.
Okay.
A couple more stories I have to get to here.
Story number one, we're getting a lot of emails on this, there is an excellent piece in Real Clear Investigations out by Paul Sperry who's been doing some really good work on the SpyGate, the DOJ probe, the DOJ probe into the Clinton Foundation, Huber, Sessions, Whitaker, he's been all over this.
It's caused a lot of controversy this weekend, this piece by Sperry.
I've received an email from, gosh, close to probably 200 people, Joe, on this story.
The gist of the story by Sperry is that his contacts in the Justice Department are telling him that this Huber probe is going nowhere.
Now, to be clear on what the Huber probe is, for some of you maybe new listeners, John Huber, in lieu of a special counsel, he is a United States attorney from Utah, was appointed by Jeff Sessions when he was the Attorney General, To look into abuses of the FISA system and basically Department of Justice malfeasance in the investigation of Hillary Clinton.
So just to be clear on that, he's a government attorney, a United States attorney, appointed by Sessions to look into all this stuff.
Now, a lot of people, justifiably so, have been sitting, you know, me included, have been saying, well, what's going on with the probe?
What's Huber doing?
What is she doing?
Reminds me of the mother meatloaf.
What is she doing back there?
What is going on?
What is going on with the Huber probe?
Sperry's sources are telling him that the Huber probe is, I think it's the title of the piece is John Huber, the sheriff who never rode into town.
Are telling him that basically this thing is going nowhere fast.
That there's been very little action on the grand jury front, that there's been no grand jury impaneled, that key witnesses have not been interviewed, like Bruce Ohr and Nellie Ohr, the DOJ husband and wife team.
Bruce Ohr working at the DOJ, Nellie Ohr working for Fusion GPS, the producers of the fake dossier, that there have been no interviews of them.
And this is leading a lot of people to believe that this probe, the Huber probe, is either going to go nowhere or is slow walking it in hopes that people forget about it and then they'll move on over time.
I'm gonna say, and I'm just working off my sources here.
I am not challenging, Sperry's been very good, and I am not sitting here trying to talk anybody off the ledge.
You are very, you are bingo, spot on, 100% correct to say, as I responded to, and you know who you are, someone this weekend who's been a good source and a good friend, but I had a spirited back and forth on DM this weekend with someone who's been a quality source for me.
Where are the metrics of success when compared to the Muller probe?
In other words, Joe, the Muller probe, right?
So for the naysayers on the Huber probe, here's why I think you're right.
The Mueller probe, despite no evidence of any Russian collusion whatsoever, has managed to lock up people for taxicab confessions, perceived fibbing, felonious mopery on the open seas, piracy on the open seas, jaywalking, mattress tag ripping off.
The Mueller probe has managed to somehow manufacture a series of narratives against the Trump team Despite the fact that the Mueller probe's entire reason for being is a Russian collusion fairy tale, I think any sane, rational person can now acknowledge is made up and fabricated, right?
So some are saying, rightfully so, well, if Mueller can get all this done in response to perceived criminality, didn't happen, collusion, but found criminality later, why is it that the Huber probe, when there's real evidence of actual criminality, Joe, Classified emails being exchanged by the Hillary team, money exchanging hands between the Clinton Foundation, allegations by people who specialize in financial audits of charities that the Clinton Foundation was running a potential quid pro quo operation.
Why is it that there's been nothing done?
That even Chewy wants to know.
And Joe, it was a perfect time for a Chewy drop.
Even Chewy can't figure it out.
What is going on?
Where are the tangible metrics of success?
In the Mueller probe, people are going to jail.
People have been forced to flip on other people.
And again, there's no evidence Mueller's reason for being is even genuine.
So just so you understand, Camp One, where I'll put Sperry, The conservative treehouse guys as well.
I'll put them in this camp that, listen, this Huber probe is basically, I guess the simplest way to say, they're not getting it done.
Fair.
There are a lot of fair criticisms.
The metrics for success.
We're talking about, give us hard barometers for success.
Grand jury being impaneled.
Where are the subpoenas?
Where's the testimony of these people?
Why aren't key witnesses being interviewed?
Why aren't people being prosecuted right now?
Fair criticism.
On the other side, what I'm getting from sources on the other end is that the Hubert probe is very real.
I'm, listen to me, please.
I'm just telling you what I'm hearing.
My job here is to give you, it's what I do.
I give you information.
I get a lot.
I'm privileged now to have a big enough audience that people reach out with stuff and it's, and I'm glad to pass it on to you when they say it's okay.
Right.
The other side is saying the Hubert probe is very real, is very active, and it's just taking a long time.
Again, I'm a little skeptical of this.
I'm just telling you what I'm hearing.
I'm skeptical of it because how much time do you need at this point?
The data and the information is out there and we haven't seen tangible markers of success.
But there is another side of it saying that this is a, that, that, that the Sperry piece, this is what they're telling me.
It, you know what, I'm going to give you the exact word that it was used.
This is probably because just in case, you know, I don't want you to think at all.
Like I'm, oh, there's sources and we're just, we're not making this up.
All right.
Um, I'm going to read and here's a quote that the piece is, is bananas.
That's the quote.
That basically the piece that's saying that I'm not saying this, but people on the inside are saying there is action going on on the Huber front with regards to the Clinton Foundation and the FISA stuff and that it's quote bananas.
I don't think it's bananas.
I don't think that at all.
I think Sperry's on to something.
I think this Huber case has been a real big slow walk.
I'm gonna split the baby on this and give you, here's what I think is happening.
It's only fair enough after I've given you Camp 1 and Camp 2.
Camp 1, Huber's nonsense.
Camp 2, a lot's happening with Huber, we just don't know about it.
I think, as always, there is a split the baby difference here, right?
Here's what's going on.
I think the Huber probe is real.
I think there are things going on.
I think that probe is being limited by people in the DOJ and the FBI who will blatantly not cooperate with Michael Horowitz, the IG, who is clearly working in tandem.
Clearly working in tandem with Huber.
Do you understand what I'm saying, Joe?
People involved in the Department of Justice, swamp rats and bureau people, who are still making their best attempt to slow walk this, are doing it, whether it's declassification of information, slow response to interviews, not responding to requests for information, they are doing this in an attempt to slow walk it, in the hopes, in the end, that the Huber and Horowitz people will eventually back down.
Or, Well, I shouldn't say or.
And is a better way to say it.
And knowing that it's not in Huber's interest or Horowitz's interest to publicize how ineffective their pressure on the DOJ and FBI has been.
So here's option three.
They're both right.
Huber's probe has been slow.
It has been glacial.
Option two.
It is, though, working.
But it's working at a pace that's necessarily glacial because they can't force these DOJ people and FBI people without the president intervening on the declassification front to declassify this stuff.
You get it?
Why the president is waiting is candidly, folks, a mystery to me at this point.
I don't know.
You know what?
Let me just say that because I'm not sure that last part made sense.
I think the Huber probe, in conjunction with the Inspector General, working on the Clinton Foundation, working on FISAgate, is pursuing things.
What they're pursuing, they're not getting an adequate response from people who need to produce information for Huber to get an answer.
They are not doing it because they know Huber is not going to publicly advertise how ineffective this has been.
He doesn't want to castrate himself.
So they can slow walk it.
They know eventually they'll have to produce it, but the longer they can drag this out, that's what's leading to the glacial pace and lack of returns on the Huber front.
But Huber, without the president intervening at some point and forcing the DOJ and FBI to declassify, they have nowhere to go.
You can't read or get or expose information to use in a potential criminal proceeding that hasn't been declassified by the president himself.
They need the president to get involved here, to create that declassification, to create public pressure.
I don't know why the president's waiting.
But I've got, well, my gosh, probably 100, 150 emails about this Paul Sperry piece.
I think both of them are right.
But I think it's a function right now, they need executive branch pressure to declassify this material so the public can see it and create that public pressure.
All right.
One last story I have up in the show notes today.
Again, I went to war with the liberals and their entire ideology on my Friday show.
I encourage you to listen to especially the Friedman part about the ways to spend money.
It's important.
I know I've said it before, but it speaks to why the larger failures of liberalism are what they are, and why getting into the wonkery of government spending with liberals as a debate is unnecessary.
Government spending is always inefficient.
I discussed that on Friday.
Liberalism will always fail.
We accept government in our lives for certain reasons in areas of mass consensus where we feel like there's no other way to get that done.
The military court system and the inefficiencies of privatizing that would far outweigh the inefficiencies of the spending model, right?
Showing you again how liberalism is a colossal failure wherever it takes over nearly hegemonically.
New York City, article in the New York Post that he's losing residents.
A hundred residents a day, Joe.
There is a mass exodus of the middle class out of New York City.
This is a stunning number.
In the 1970s, Joe, middle class earners comprised 61% of New York City residents.
They're down to just 48% now.
Ladies and gentlemen, that is not a small difference.
You're talking about a double-digit drop in middle-class earners, the people who make your economy move and hum.
These middle-class earners are fleeing New York in droves.
It is the cost of living.
It is liberalism.
It is just a cornucopia of problems caused by government spending infiltrating on people's lives, their economic freedom, and elsewhere.
I told you it's happening.
I believe in facts and data.
The facts and data are very real.
Read the piece.
It's short.
It's sweet.
It's in the show notes today.
I strongly encourage you to check it out.
All right, folks.
Thanks again for tuning in.
I really enjoyed today's show today.
I hope you did as well.
I don't usually, again, get into long arguments about foreign policy, but when it comes to our men and women, patriots, You're just the best of us.
And I just want to tell you, I remember going overseas traveling a lot and seeing what you all do.
And I want to thank you, especially around this Christmas Eve and Christmas holiday tomorrow.
I want to thank you for putting aside your comfort, your safety, the comfort of your family who have to, you know, every night with you overseas have to wonder if you're going to come home the next day.
Putting all that aside, for people you don't even know, you've never met me.
Maybe you've heard my show, but we've never met.
But you putting your ass on the line for people like me and my family, forfeiting your holidays and those Christmas mornings where your kids are opening presents without daddy and mommy there.
God bless you, brother and sister.
You all are the best of us.
I just think you deserve better.
And email me back though.
I'm always open to comments and criticisms.
Thanks a lot, folks, for tuning in.
Merry Christmas.
We will have a show for you tomorrow.
I hope you like it.
Please tune in.
Merry Christmas again.
I will see you all tomorrow morning.
You just heard the Dan Bongino Show.
Get more of Dan online anytime at conservativereview.com.
