Don’t miss this show. In this episode I address explosive new connections in the Obama administration’s efforts to spy on the Trump team. I also address inconvenient facts liberals choose to ignore about the immigration crisis and our exploding national debt crisis.
News Picks:
Geraldo and I got into a heated debate about immigration last night on the Sean Hannity show.
Was LTG Mike Flynn framed? Who was behind it?
The liberal argument about the wealthy paying their “fair share” is nonsense. These numbers prove it.
Hollywood hypocrites were flanked by armed security as many of them fight against your Right to own a firearm.
A troubling new poll indicates that Democrats are now more positive about socialism than capitalism.
This piece points out the uncomfortable irony of the Democrats’ vile attacks on President Trump.
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?
Yo, daddy-o, hanging in there, man.
Doing good.
I've got a big announcement after this quick commercial we ran in the beginning here.
Don't go anywhere.
You may love it, you may hate it, but it's going to be an interesting announcement, I promise you.
So, you doing alright though, Joe?
Everything going good?
Oh man, everything is going great here in Pasadena, Maryland!
Joe does not know the announcement, by the way, so you're waiting with bated breath.
All right, let's get right to it.
Today's show brought to you by our buddies at Genucel.
Genucel, my wife, my family love this stuff.
Ladies and gentlemen, the new year is here, but so is that sagging jawline and double chin.
Now you can make them disappear and you can look your best in 2019.
Introducing the brand new Genucel jawline treatment with dual peptide and MDL technology.
It's Chamonix's most advanced technology ever.
Not only tightens saggy jawlines, but plumps the lipophilic layer of your skin, the contour, and define that jawline within minutes.
Using peptides and metal lactones together for the first time, it works amazingly fast and the results get better every day.
My family loves this stuff.
It's amazing.
My mother-in-law can't get enough of it.
And right now, during Shamani's New Year's giveaway, the revolutionary GenuCell jawline treatment is yours absolutely free when you order the GenuCell for under-eye bags and puffiness.
And for results in 12 hours, GenuCell's immediate effects is also free when you call or click now.
Here's what you gotta do.
Text the word young, young, like the opposite of old, because that's what you will look, young, to 77453, or go to Genucel, G-E-N-U-C-E-L.com, genucel.com.
Start the year right with beautiful skin, no bags and puffiness, and a tighter, higher jawline, yeah!
Call or click now, text young to 77453, or go to genucel.com, that's genucel.com, genucel.com.
All right, big announcement.
What's the big announcement, Joe?
You have not heard this?
No.
We are now going to be charging the audience $100 a month in subscription fees to listen to this show every month.
What do you think of that, Joe?
Dude, I'm going to take this out.
I'm going to take this out.
No, no, you got to leave it in.
Joe's clearly upset.
You've not heard this before.
Who came up with this idea, dude?
All right, calm down.
Calm down.
Take it easy.
Come on, man.
I think it's a fair price for your talent, too.
$100 a month, right?
Yeah.
Am I going to see anything in my pocket?
No, and it's too much anyway.
Come on, man.
Seriously, I'm taking this out.
No, no, no.
Leave it in.
Leave it in.
Leave it in, bud.
I'm sorry.
You got to leave it in.
All right.
All right, folks, clearly I'm messing with you.
The show is not going to be 100.
Calm down, Joe.
Now, I did this for a reason.
Joe did know we were messing around before the show.
I told him, just play it up.
But I wanted some sense of just a little bit of uncomfortability.
Of course, the show is going to remain free to you.
We have some Surprises coming up on the video side.
Don't worry, it's not going to change the podcast at all, but I did this for a reason.
I've got a ton of stuff to get to today, some breaking new Spygate stuff, but I read a fascinating piece before I came on the air in the Wall Street Journal.
It's subscription only, but the gist of it's simple.
You know, you can read it if you'd like.
It's in the opinion column today about government pricing and how the price of government is all wrong.
And I thought, Gosh, there's no way to hammer this home better than analogy.
The gist of the piece is this, that people do not understand the price of government, so they think they're getting a bargain.
And the authors of the piece say that this growing trend in younger voters, and voters who haven't done their homework, I don't mean this in a...
You know, deplorable, like talking down to people way at all.
People have been, believe the price of government is a bargain because that's what they've been told by the media and politicians.
Joe, they have no reason to believe otherwise.
It's not that people are ignorant, they've been told otherwise.
The idea in the piece is that people think socialism is a good deal because they don't understand the price of government.
And once the price hits you in the face, all of a sudden you're like, whoa, it costs that much?
That if you understood the real price of government, the demand for the product, the demand for more government vis-a-vis socialism would decrease significantly and all of a sudden capitalism would become a far more appealing enterprise.
That's accentuated by my opening riff, where I'm sure, and I'm honored by the fact that many of you love the show and spread the show, I mean it.
Our show has become a beacon of light in my life and Joe's too, and I mean that sincerely, forgive me the soupy analogies, but because of everything you've done, but I don't think for a second that my show is gonna be worth charging you $100 a month.
I enjoy it, I enjoy doing it, But the price of my show is free to you.
It is not free.
It is free to you because sponsors, good sponsors, Jen you sell Patriot Supply Today and Bravo Company, and I don't mean to make this a rift on the business model either, but they choose to advertise on the program to talk to a substantial audience and that audience is you.
I gotcha.
If the price was paid by you at that amount, many of you, although listen I love my content, I love what Joe does, I love the work we put into it, and the show means the world to me, I can't with a straight face charge you that amount of money for this product.
When competitors work on a different business model, sponsor arranged programs, and it's free to you.
The show is not free.
Nothing's free.
But when the price of the show slams you in the face like $100 a month, all of a sudden people reconsider their demand for even my own product.
I used the self-deprecating analogy, using a price model on my own show, to dictate to you, because I'm sure a lot of you were like, when you heard that, some of you may have gone, I was kidding.
Some of you may not have, you must have been like, is this guy kidding?
He thinks he's going to charge me $100 a month when I could get, you know, other products out there for free?
Hey, maybe some of you said I'd pay $10, I'd pay $20, but I'm not paying $100 a month.
It's called an economics, you know, elasticity of demand.
If you want to get all wonky on it, you can look that up.
How elastic or inelastic is demand for the product, right?
Mm-hmm.
Okay.
Now all of a sudden, when a price slams you in the face, you're like, well, I like Dan's show a lot, but I'm not sure I like it that much.
You see how the implementation of a price all of a sudden alters your demand for a product?
Ladies and gentlemen, this is why socialism is growing in its appeal towards people who don't understand what socialism is because they've been told the price in their lives to growing government and growing government social programs is minuscule.
They've been lied to!
Or I believe the traditional pronunciation of the word is minuscule, but you can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think they're both acceptable now.
But I believe the original pronunciation of the word is minuscule.
But this is it.
You've been told, and here are some examples.
You've been told the price of government is growing, and I have highlights here on my notes for the show today.
What a bargain!
Government, what a bargain, Joe!
Yeah.
You have been told, ladies and gentlemen, over the past decade that the price of government to you and your tax bill was $27 trillion.
Joe, that was not the price of government over the past decade.
The price of government was 26% higher.
It was $35.6 trillion.
That's where the $9 trillion in debt over the Obama administration over these past two years and the President Trump's administration, that's where that $9 trillion in debt comes from.
You have been lied to about the price of government.
It explains perfectly why the demand for government keeps going up in the left-leaning ecosystem, ideological ecosystem, because people don't understand the price.
In other words, That nine trillion dollars in debt, if it was imposed upon you immediately, Joe, as a genuine price, you and I had to pay right away, ladies and gentlemen, your taxes would have been 25 to 50 percent higher, depending on if you factor in state debt as well.
You understand how we're being lied to?
The Democrats want it both ways.
Some of them will go on the record and argue for higher taxes.
But most of them won't.
They want your prices to be a lie!
Here's another piece of data from the Wall Street Journal piece today.
A piece about when prices lie.
The price of government is a lie.
Think about my opening.
When that price slammed you in the face, a lot of you were like, oh my gosh, I like the show.
But sheesh, Dan, take it ease.
Take it ease!
We haven't used that in a while.
Social Security and Medicare.
These are, listen, I get it.
I get a thousand emails every time.
I understand.
I get it.
Your money was stolen from you.
I totally understand.
If you are 65 and older living on social security, I understand your money was confiscated and abused.
I get it.
And given the status of your, the life cycle chronologically, the fact that you were paid into a system and made a promise by a government, which is our government, it's us.
I fully get and I understand that those promises should be made right.
Because we elected people that screwed you over, basically.
But I'm telling you, for people 55 and younger, there's no money there.
Forget it!
Social Security and Medicare, Joe.
The low-end estimates of what is owed over the next 75 years.
Low-end.
Genuine estimates are up to four times higher than this, is 50 trillion dollars.
Joe, that's the low end in obligations, unpaid obligations.
In other words, money we don't have over the next 75 years.
Joe, to pay for that at the low end.
Would require a 60% tax hike.
Erroneous!
Folks, a 60% tax hike!
All of a sudden those social security benefits for people like us, you're like, yeah, I want my social security if I'm 55.
Okay, you're gonna have to pay it.
The tax hike is 60%.
Then you're like, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
I don't want it that bad.
Do you understand how the price of government is a lie?
It's a lie.
Joe, we've been smoked up.
We've been lied to.
And when I opened up the show today and gave you a price, a price not commensurate with your demand for the show, all of a sudden everybody changed their mind.
$100 a month?
Not paying $1,200 a year?
Why not?
Not paying $1,200 a year.
Why not?
Why not?
Because a lot of people don't have $1,200 a year, just like a lot of people don't have the money
to pay the 60% tax hike required to pay the Social Security and Medicare benefits for the next 75 years.
There's no money!
The price of government is a lie!
I'm kind of piggybacking on yesterday's show with Ocasio-Cortez and Julian Castro suggesting 60 to 70 and 90% marginal tax rates.
You may say, well, Dan, I think you're making the case for them that they're right.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
Notice what Ocasio-Cortez said.
If you didn't listen to yesterday's show, please go back and listen.
It's a very good show.
Ocasio-Cortez in her 60 minute interview, the radical leftist congresswoman from New York has become the new rising star on the left.
Is not arguing for a 60-70% tax hike on you.
She's arguing for a 60-70% tax hike on people who make $10 million or more as a top marginal rate.
Ladies and gentlemen, that is not where the money is, folks.
That is not even close.
She is being... Joe, please tell me you understand where I'm going with this.
She is being doubly dishonest because she's not telling you the cost of government.
She's lying about the cost of her quote free college and all this other stuff medicare for all she backs and she's making you believe again that the price is gonna fall on someone else just like the price of my show falls on sponsors now and doesn't that's not a lie that's true she won't tell you that she's making you believe it's a sponsor model not the hundred dollars a month I lied to you about in the beginning of the show to make a point.
You see what I'm saying, Joe?
Yeah.
She is lying to you.
She's making you believe third parties are going to pay for all this.
Those third parties are who, Joe?
$10 million people worth $10 million income earners or more.
That is not where the money is, folks.
There are not enough people who earn $10 million or more a year at that tax rate to pay the 60-70% tax hikes Social Security, Medicare, and endless government is going to cost.
Oh, hell no!
Yes!
Her and Julian Castro and Bernie Sanders are lying to you.
If they had any credibility at all, they would be candid and say, listen, Middle America...
Lower income, folks.
People making $100,000, $60,000, $50,000, $20,000, and $10 million.
You are where the money is.
The middle class is the overwhelming majority of this company, population-wise.
You are where the real money is.
We are going to tax you at rates of 60% to 70% to pay for the expanding government and socialist empire you all want.
And then, you know what, Joe?
I mean this.
I would respect her.
But respectfully, honestly, vigorously and furiously disagree that that is a sensible, rational approach.
But at least she's being honest and putting her own congressional career on the line by telling the middle class what they need to hear.
That the cost of government and the price of government is wrong.
I'm here to correct it.
The price of government is 60 to 70 percent more of your money.
That's how we're going to implement free college and Medicare for all.
At least she'd be candid.
Agreed.
But she's not.
Because some of you emailed me yesterday and I love, listen, I love your emails.
There was a guy, Tim or Tom, he didn't like the show yesterday.
He didn't like it.
He thinks we should give no airtime whatsoever to liberals.
I said to him back, thanks for your feedback.
I appreciate it.
I strongly disagree.
In a battle of ideas, not knowing the other side, not knowing your ideological opponent is a disaster.
I've learned that through running for office many times.
You have to know what they're going to say before they say it.
So I disagree, but that's fine.
I appreciate your feedback.
But one of the comments I got yesterday is, well, Dan, you missed the point.
She's only arguing for a tax hike for people who make 10 million or more.
No, that is the point.
She's lying about the price of government.
She's not being genuine.
She's pretending it's a sponsor-paid model with the sponsors being 10 millionaires, and it's not!
It's a you model, where you're gonna pay $100 for the show.
You're not, just so we're clear, folks.
I hope all of you understand, I have no intention of charging you for my show.
Please.
The goal always here has been to keep it free for you.
I hope I didn't upset you with that analogy.
And I thought about, hey, maybe this is dangerous.
Maybe some people listen and tune out the show right away.
This guy's crazy!
You know what, folks?
It's worth it.
I'm sorry, but it's worth it.
Sometimes analogies that really hit you in the face.
Are the best ones.
And you don't need it.
I mean, it's really not for you.
It's more for the moderate Democrats who listen to the show I like, and I appreciate your feedback, but I just don't... To tell you the truth, it was fun, too.
Yeah, I know.
I told Joe before the show.
It was fun.
I'm like, just pretend you don't know.
And Joe's actually pretty convincing, I must say.
Thank you.
I'd love your feedback on that if he was convincing it.
He's like, this is a stupid idea.
It is a stupid idea.
I don't mind subscription fees that are reasonable, but that's clearly confiscatory and really ridiculous and almost mercenary.
But it's meant to hit you in the face with what a price is and how that price, when it goes up, To an excessive cost, $100 a month, in this case a 60% tax hike, all of a sudden makes you reevaluate your demand curve for a product.
Oh, I don't want it.
I demanded this much government at this price.
But when the price is real, you're like, well, all of a sudden I don't demand government.
Just like you wouldn't demand the show.
Those examples work.
I hope it worked in this case.
All right.
I've got some killer information on this, uh, growing, growing scandal.
Uh, it's just, uh, I haven't forgotten.
I get some emails, people, what happened to SpyGaze?
If nothing happened, I only report when there's news.
I'm not going to fill your airtime when we don't have anything.
I, you know, I don't want to waste your time.
The show matters to us.
Okay.
Today's show brought to you, speaking of preparing folks, preparing matters.
You gotta be prepared.
We insure everything in our lives that matter.
We insure our health.
We insure our teeth.
People have eyeglass coverage.
Car insurance.
Home insurance.
How can you not have a basic food supply insurance plan?
You gotta have a food supply in the event of an emergency.
So when an emergency strikes, what's your first impulse?
Go to the grocery store.
Problem is, it's already too late.
The grocery shelves are already empty.
It wouldn't be an emergency if you knew in advance.
You know, hurricanes you know in advance, but a lot of times things strike without warning.
How do you avoid this?
It's simple.
Use today to plan ahead.
Prepare for things like blizzards, earthquakes, power outages, and all that stuff that could last days.
The logical place to start is having a food supply store in your home.
I trust my Patriot Supply for my food storage, and you should too.
Folks, I have boxes of this.
I buy it myself, as I've said many times.
I could probably get a lot of it for free from them.
I don't even, because I really, I am sincere in my heart when I tell you this.
I could not watch the face of my kids or my wife if there was an emergency, two or three weeks without food, asking for, I couldn't do it.
I couldn't.
The pain in their face would be overwhelming.
Here's how you prepare your food supply.
Go get a two-week food kit that comes in a rugged tote from MyPatriotSupply.
This week you'll save $62 on this two-week food kit when you go to my special site, preparewithdan.com.
Go to the website preparewithdan.com.
That's preparewithdan.com.
Or you could call 888-411-8926.
These food kits Include a tasty variety of breakfast, lunches, and dinners that last up to 25 years in storage.
Order now.
Prepare yourself.
Rest easy.
888-411-8926 or preparewithdan.com.
888-411-8926 or preparewithdan.com.
Go check it out.
Please ensure your food supply.
1-892-6 or prepare with dan.com.
Go check it out. Please ensure your food supply. OK.
I wanted to front load that so we could get to this.
So, ladies and gentlemen, last week we covered a fascinating component of what we believe to be paragraph one of this devastating operation to take down the Trump team in the Obama administration.
And one of the things I discussed last week is I believe now, I'm starting to believe that there were multiple investigations into the Trump team.
Potentially multiple FISA warrants, secret court warrants to spy on the Trump team through the Obama administration.
And I can see Joe's interest.
Joe's leaning in when he leans in.
He's interested in this.
And I said to you that I believe the initial target in this whole thing was an effort to take down Lieutenant General Mike Flynn.
Mike Flynn was the head of the DIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency under Barack Obama.
Mike Flynn was a sworn enemy of the Iran deal and was largely a truth teller in the Obama administration.
The Obama administration didn't like that.
It's probably clear, given Mike Flynn's position as a senior intelligence official in the Obama administration, that let's just say Joe Flynn knew stuff.
Flynn probably knew a few things about the shenanigans the Obama administration was up to.
Flynn had to be taken out.
Flynn became a target of the Obama team right away.
Now, I covered this a little bit on last week's show.
If you want to listen to it, it's called The Scandal Exposed.
It's a great show.
We got a ton of listeners on it.
And it covers the background on what the Obama team, in paragraph one, did to take out Mike Flynn.
And when I say paragraph one, I mean in my prior line of work, when you started an investigation, there's a paragraph one that describes how it starts in all your reports.
What was paragraph one?
What was the initial reason the Obama administration targeted the Trump team?
I believe Mike Flynn and Mike Flynn joining the Trump effort to get elected during the Trump campaign was giving speeches.
I believe paragraph one was in fact some targeting of Mike Flynn and now I have more reason to believe so.
Thanks to a tremendous piece in the Epoch Times by Jeff Carlson, who I've touted his work on this show often because it is tremendous.
Now here's the question I want to ask today.
Was there a two-way street in the intelligence community to produce negative intelligence to nail people on the Trump team?
Stand easy, I'll tell you what I mean.
Ladies and gentlemen, in a traditional intelligence operation to nail someone who may be a spy in the United States or who may be cooperating with a foreign government, The intelligence, by nature, has to go in one direction.
Think about what I'm saying, Joe.
We have a potential spy in the United States, right?
Whatever.
John Smith.
John Smith is suspected to be working with the Russians.
We get information about John Smith from another source who says, hey, Central Intelligence Agency, FBI, there's a mole in the United States, a guy, his name is John Smith.
I've seen some of his emails.
I work with him at work.
I think he's emailing the Russian government about state secrets in the United States.
He has some access to a contractor portal.
This is a bad guy.
The information by nature has to be one-way from sources to the Central Intelligence Agency.
The information cannot ever, by nature, be two-way.
And what I mean by two-way, Joe, is in order to nail John Smith in the United States under espionage charges, potential criminal charges by the Bureau and others, the intelligence agency, Joe, can never go back to the source.
And say, hey, it would be really nice if you said this.
You tracking?
It can never be two ways!
Now, this may seem obvious, but until I explain that to you, the rest of the story won't make any... I know a lot of you get this, so forgive me, I'm in no way trying to talk down.
I am just trying to establish that the information flow has to, by nature, be one way.
Now, I'm not talking about working with them.
You know, there are always intelligence people can say, hey, you know, it'd be a good idea if you could get us this.
Could you get us the emails?
Could you get us some recorded phone calls?
That happens all the time.
In other words, prods and suggestions.
Information, core information, central to the case, cannot, by nature, flow the other way.
It can't.
They can't say to people who are sources, hey, listen, it would be really nice if you could say this, this, and this, and this.
Now, leads, again, leads and potential, like, hey, it would be helpful, you know, that stuff happens all the time.
But you cannot feed them bogus information, a source, with the hope that the source will feed back the bogus information that makes the bogus information appear credible.
Why do I bring this up?
Because folks, as I discussed in last week's show, with the Carter Page warrant on the scandal exposed, Lee Smith at The Federalist did an unbelievable piece, which is in the show notes for that day's show.
You must read it.
It's long, but it's good.
About how it's incredibly suspicious about how when the Obama administration targeted Carter Page show for a FISA warrant, it appears they tried to get a FISA warrant in the summer In the summer of 2016, a Pfizer warrant that was denied.
All of a sudden, Christopher Steele's memos on Carter Page appear with new allegations of criminality by Carter Page, and voila!
Look!
In October, all of a sudden, the FISA's approved!
Folks, please listen to that show, but I'll sum it up in this sentence.
Christopher Steele's memos targeted Carter Page.
He's the principal figure.
This guy's working with the Russian government.
He met with these energy officials from Russia and Rosneft.
They go to the FISA court with that.
It appears likely this happened at this point.
The problem is meeting with energy officials from Russia, Joe, is not a crime.
No!
The FISA warrant, or the potential FISA warrant against Page, appears to have been denied.
It appears then, Joe, instead of one-way flow, the information becomes two-way.
Someone probably went up to Christopher Steele, And the new information's gonna show you, I think this is highly likely at this point, and says, hey Chris, you know, wink and a nod.
Maybe it would be a good idea if we had some new information here indicating that this meeting was a crime.
If you read Lee's piece, this is what seems to have happened here.
The memo is then updated about this meeting between Carter Page, the meeting between Page and the Russians to include information about a bribe.
That is in that, that's in, in fact, the new memo in October.
Bang!
All of a sudden the FISA court's like, okay, now we got a crime.
In other words, folks, the question we should all be asking right now is, was the information flow two-way?
Do you see, Joe, am I explaining the unethical nature of a two-way information flow in an intelligence account, a CI investigation?
I was going to say, but Dan, that's a lie.
That's a lie!
The whole dossier was a lie!
The meeting never happened.
If the meeting never happened, the alleged bribe to Carter Page from the Russian energy firm, we're going to give you all these shares in the company if you can hook us up with the Trump team and get rid of sanctions.
If that never happened, the meeting, then the bribe never happened either.
The question is, how did Steele get this information?
Who told Steele there was a bribe?
Folks, do you see what the scandal is?
If I'm not explaining this, here it is from 30,000 feet.
Was somebody poking and prodding Christopher Steele to fabricate fake information in a dossier in a two-way street operation that could be used to funnel, to hijack our justice system, to get unethical, potentially illegal warrants to spy on Americans?
Was that person in the two-way street connected to the Hillary Clinton orbit?
Was it someone in the Clinton team feeding Steele information, who was connected to people in the Justice Department, connected to people in the FBI, who were telling Steele, this isn't enough, this isn't enough, we need more, we need more, we need more?
Do you see the danger of a two-way information flow like this?
This tactic could be employed against any American at any time.
I need to spy on Joe Armacost.
I'm running against him for office.
I'm a Democrat.
He's a Republican.
All of a sudden, a source creeps out.
Christopher Steele Jr.
I think Joe is colluding with the Russians.
Do you have evidence?
I think he met with Russians.
I go to a FISA court.
Ah, that's not enough.
Hey, somebody feed to that guy ratting on Joe that we need more information.
All of a sudden, hey, boom, here's another memo.
Hey, Joe took a bribe from the Russians.
We go back to the court.
Hey, judge, Joe took a bribe from the Russians.
Okay, spy on Joe.
This could be employed against anybody.
It was all fake.
Was this a two-way street?
I kept thinking of this last night.
I'm like, this is just profound.
This is such a violation of the general trust between the United States and its law enforcement and intelligence entities.
Now, what broke yesterday in Carlson's piece that lead me to believe this was a systemic problem, not just applied to Carter Page.
Carlson, who is a tremendous investigator, has a piece up which is in the show notes today.
Please, again, I humbly and most respectfully ask that you read it.
This is really important stuff.
These are great investigators.
Their work needs to be heard.
You will not hear any of this in the mainstream media because it's ignored.
But guys like Carlson, Chuck Ross, Lee Smith, Uh, Byron York and others are the ones doing the real entrepreneurial work, cracking open the greatest political scandal of our time.
Mm-hmm.
Carlson notes something very suspicious, Joe, about the dossier memos.
Remember, the dossier is just a compilation of Christopher Steele's memos.
How there appears to be a last-minute addition in one of them when it comes to Kremlin influence and the Kremlin engaging with, quote, high-profile US players.
Let me read his description of what I mean first.
Remember how I said to you before about Page?
How Page, it appears a memo was written.
Page met with the Russians.
The memo was probably used to get a FISA.
The FISA is denied.
Another memo is written with more information on Page.
Oh, he was bribed.
Oh, bingo!
It appears these last-minute additions creep in whenever the government needs something, Joe, political, on the Trump team.
It magically appears through Christopher Steele, who is, quote, a credible source for the FBI, even though he's not the source, and even though he's talking to the media.
Here's what Carlson writes.
In addition to the obvious questions raised by the timing of Mike Flynn's name appearing in Steele's August 10th memo, is the manner in which Flynn is denoted.
So just to be clear what he's saying, there's an August 10th memo, the dossier is a compilation of memos, within that memo Mike Flynn's name appears and it's alluded to that he's been a target of a Russian influence operation.
Carlson's saying here, but the way his name appears seems very suspicious folks, almost like it was added at the last minute.
Hey, we need something against Mike Flynn, too.
I gotcha, buddy!
Don't worry, fill in the blank!
He goes on.
All other names in the memo are capitalized in the manner of intelligence briefings.
But Flynn's name isn't capitalized, and in one case, appears within parentheses.
It's almost as if his name was suddenly added at the last minute.
And by someone other than Steele.
Let me read to you the portion of the memo he's talking about.
And he's right.
Read the piece.
It's not capitalized.
It's thrown in at the last minute in a format that applies to no other name in the actual dossier memo.
Nothing.
Everyone else's name is capitalized.
You can see it yourself.
He links to it.
Quote, Kremlin's engaging with several high-profile U.S.
players.
This is from Steele's memo.
Including Stein, talking about Jill Stein, capitalized.
Page, Carter Page, capitalized.
And, and, and here's it, it's just thrown in in parentheses.
And former DIA director Michael Flynn.
In standard writing.
And funding their recent visits to Moscow.
This is fascinating, folks.
How Flynn's name, again, by the way, in the next paragraph, when they talk about this delegation and how the Russians are supporting U.S.
figures in these paid engagements to Russia, they talk about Lyndon LaRouche's name, capitalized presidential candidate Jill Stein, capitalized Trump foreign policy advisor Carter Page, capitalized and former director Michael Flynn.
Again, thrown in at the end, not capitalized.
You may say, okay, so they forgot to capitalize his name.
Folks, I would be willing to toss this out to a simple error if it wasn't so obvious what's going on here.
These memos are consistently revised and thrown together at the last minute as political tools whenever they need information to inject intravenously into the FISA court to get a law enforcement warrant against people on the Trump team.
Flynn was a target.
Now, why do I think this happened?
Here's where it gets a little confusing.
So please follow me.
This is super important, but incredibly interesting.
And this is in the Carlson piece.
It's long, but worth your time.
Seriously worth your time.
Remember what I talked about in the show The Scandal Exposed last week?
How Flynn's December 2015 trip to Russia only became a big deal after Mike Flynn started advocating openly for the Trump campaign for the presidency.
John Solomon covered this Mike Flynn paid trip to Russia in December of 2015.
Where Flynn was seated at the same table as Vladimir Putin.
Interestingly enough, the same CIA asset, Stefan Halper, who was reporting on Papadopoulos and Carter Page as well, also does some reporting on that instance with Flynn.
Almost as if, Joe, they had a Central Intelligence Agency asset ready to provide information on Trump team members at the drop of a hat.
Crazy how that happens.
Halper just keeps randomly appearing.
But this trip to Russia, which Flynn handled by the books, folks, that was John Solomon's report in the Hill.
There is significant exculpatory information.
Mike Flynn briefed the DIA, despite not being in the DIA anymore, about the trip before he left.
He did a briefing before he left, and he did a briefing after he came back discussing the ramifications of this trip to Russia.
Everything, Joe, was done by the numbers with regards to the intelligence nature of the visit.
Nobody disputes that anymore.
So why was the trip a big deal?
The answer, Joe, is it wasn't.
It was only a big deal because Mike Flynn decided to start campaigning for the Trump team.
Remember the timeline.
The trip happens in December of 2015.
Nobody says anything.
But all of a sudden, right as Mike Flynn starts to openly advocate for Donald Trump for president, all of a sudden these memos appear in August.
And Mike Flynn's name seems to be randomly inserted in dossiers about Russia.
Wow, isn't that special?
Just like Carter Page keeps appearing in these memos, with successively more damaging pieces of information, just enough to hurdle a FISA court warrant, despite the fact that none of it's true.
Now, what's even more interesting, Remember the names, folks.
There's a journalist in my book SpyGate that appears in almost like every other chapter, I think.
Michael Isikoff from Yahoo News.
Michael Isikoff from Yahoo News is deeply embedded in this.
Michael Isikoff, again if you read the book you'll see, is working with Alexandra Chalupa on the Paul Manafort angle.
He's being fed.
Listen, he's a reporter.
Let me just be clear.
Michael Isikoff is no conservative.
I have no beef with reporters taking it from me.
I'm not knocking Isikoff.
If Isikoff has information, I've taken information from sources too.
I'm simply suggesting that the sources Isikoff's getting information from are Democrat embeds in the government who are feeding Isikoff what they want him to believe, that the Russians are trying to influence the Trump team in Flint.
That's all I'm saying here.
But what's fascinating, Joe, is right around the time Mike Flynn starts speaking out and advocating for the Trump team heavily, in July of 2016, Isikoff confronts Mike Flynn and interviews him, and what's one of the first questions out of his mouth?
The transcription of the interview is available in Carlson's piece in the show notes today.
What do you think one of the first questions Isikoff asked Flynn about, Joe?
This is killer.
Hey, what about that trip to Russia in December of 2015?
That nobody cared about until Flynn started advocating for Trump.
Now, you may say, all right, Dan, but that's July and the memo where Flynn's name seems to be randomly inserted into this Steele memo indicating that Flynn may be subjected to, may have been the subject of a Russian influence operation through payments and things like that.
That's August 10th.
Who fed Isikoff that information?
[BLANK_AUDIO]
Who fed Isikoff that information?
We know Isikoff has a relationship with people at Fusion GPS.
Was somebody feeding journalists, Isikoff and others, information, lies about Mike Flynn and Carter Page?
Which were being used then and funneled from said journalist to Fusion GPS, where Christopher Steele worked, to be randomly inserted into memos known as the dossier, to be given back to the Justice Department, to be used as a predicate for spying.
Oh boy, that one's gonna sting, isn't it?
Think about what I just told you.
Talk about a circle of malfeasance.
So you can't get a warrant because you have nothing.
So what do you do?
You drop a hint if you're in the FBI and DOJ and you're an anti-Trump hack like a lot of these upper-level Comey stroke cabal types were.
Bruce Ohr in the DOJ who has a relationship with Christopher Steele, we know that, they met right before Crossfire Hurricane, the investigation into Trump started.
Right.
They float to fusion.
Hey, we need something.
The Bureau.
The Bureau's like, we can't walk into a FISA court with nothing.
We don't have enough.
We've already gotten turned down once.
You need to give us something.
They float that to fusion.
We know Orr's connected to Steele, who's working for fusion.
Steel probably floats back to fusion.
Hey, we need to produce more stuff.
You know, Hillary's paying us for information.
Hillary's team, they know Obama.
They want information.
They got to get this Trump team spied on.
They need it.
All of a sudden they say, well, let's go to some reporters.
The reporters get wind that they need information.
All of a sudden, who randomly appears to feed the reporters information?
Insiders in the Obama administration, like Alexandra Chalupa and others, who all of a sudden produce intel.
Remember the Evelyn Farkas hit on MSNBC when the insider at the Obama administration at the Defense Department went on MSNBC and said, oh, if the Trump team only knew how we found out about their Russia stuff.
The problem is they didn't know!
They were feeding it to everybody and their mother who would listen, a bunch of reporters who were feeding it back to Fusion, who were feeding it back to the FBI!
In a ring of stupid!
Now, coincidentally, not.
Who is used in one of the original and subsequent FISA applications for a FISA warrant to spy on the Trump Demand Rules?
What reporter is used as a...
A bedrock of factual, as like a pillar to establish that their case against Carter Page and the Trump team is genuine.
What reporter's reporting is used to buttress their case in the FISA court?
Michael Isikoff!
The same guy who in July seems to have information he's supposed to ask Mike Flynn about the trip to Russia.
Who told him that?
Who fed him that information that this December 15 trip to Russia was trouble, even though it wasn't?
Flynn had reported the trip, and it reported the results afterwards.
The DIA knew it!
And once Isikoff doesn't get a satisfactory answer from Flynn in the July interview, and it's a strange answer if you read the transcript, Flynn appears taken aback by the questioning and says, I'm not being paid by the Russian government.
Once Isikoff gets that on the record, who then feeds that, hey, we've got trouble here, back to Fusion to insert in the August 10th memo, make sure you put Mike Flynn's name in there now.
These people are subject to a Russian influence operation.
Jill Stein, Carter Bate, and Mike Flynn!
Mike Flynn!
Someone have Whiteout?
Mike Flynn!
It's like they had a blank line!
Just eagerly anticipating a fill-in!
Joe, is this not the craziest story ever?
This is whack, dude.
So who fed Isikoff the information that Flynn's trip to Russia was trouble, even though it wasn't?
We already, the DIA's already said he followed the rules!
When Isikoff hammers him in July and Flynn doesn't come up with the right answer, who then gets back to Steele and Fusion?
Is it Isikoff?
That, hey, we got something here, Russia.
Flynn didn't give a great answer.
He said the Russians didn't pay him, but technically RT did.
It's a state-controlled agency.
This is going to be ugly.
I think we've got the evidence we need.
Who feeds it back to Steele and Fusion for the dossier?
And then who gives that dossier, obviously it's Steele, back to the FBI and DOJ to waltz back into court with?
Who then, by the way, in the court, they swear to it.
In October, they swear to it.
And who do they use to buttress their case?
Michael Isikoff!
The same reporter who starts this thing in July!
Oh, man, is this case full of gems, folks.
And by gems, I mean lumps of coal.
Yeah.
Every single day.
And, you know, that's why I get that.
Oh, you know what?
What's with Spike?
I only report when there's something to report.
And this is huge because that.
The takeaway for you from this.
Is that I believe the information flow was a dangerous, pernicious two way street.
It's not that Intel was being fed to the Bureau, the DOJ, Fusion, and others.
It's that when info was needed, even when it was a lie, the request was being made in the other direction, too.
Let me be clear.
There's nothing wrong with an intelligence agency saying, hey, you think Joe Armacost is going to rob a bank?
Give us some evidence.
There is something very wrong with the intelligence agency saying, hey, We know Joe's gonna rob a bank because we need him to rob a bank for political purposes and I need you, Mr. Intelligence Source, to prove it.
You see the distinction?
Oh yeah.
Because there's a lot of intelligence professionals that email me and I appreciate your emails.
I understand the distinction.
The first thing's fine.
We need info on this.
That's what sources do.
Already telling them what the info is when it is in fact false and telling them to go show it is totally different.
What a train wreck this case is.
Flynn was set up.
It is so obvious.
We need information on Paige.
Look, I've got a new memo.
We need information on Flynn.
Look, I've got a new memo too.
You forgot to capitalize Flynn's name.
Darn, how did I screw that one up?
Oh, insane.
You like that?
Yeah.
That was good, right?
I saw Jeff Carlson's piece.
I was like, damn.
Now put that together.
Go read and go listen to the Scandal Exposed from last week.
Read Lee Smith's piece.
Listen to this show and read Carlson's piece and you will see exactly what I'm talking about.
This was a two-way street.
It was information and intelligence a la carte.
Whatever you need, we got it.
Alright.
All right, this spot brought to you by our friends over at Bravo Company Manufacturing.
Listen, when our founding fathers crafted the Constitution, the first thing they did was ensure the rights of the individual to share ideas without limitation by government.
You know how strongly I feel about freedom of speech, all of our other big R rights, too.
I also believe in individual liberty and personal responsibility.
These are cornerstones of a great civilization.
I want to talk to you about one of the best companies out there for rifle builds, Bravo Company Manufacturing, or BCM for short.
It was started in a garage by a Marine veteran more than two decades ago.
They build professional grade products built to the highest of standards.
BCM believes the same level of protection should be provided to every American, regardless if they are a private citizen or a professional.
BCM, this is folks, a company, their rifle builds are just spectacular.
It stands for Bravo Company Manufacturing.
This is life-saving equipment.
BCM does a great job.
They have the highest standards.
These are, the professionals make this stuff.
It is absolutely terrific.
Their rifle builds are, I mean, you're not going to find a finer product out there.
They put people before products, BCM.
They build their products because they feel it's their moral responsibility as Americans to provide tools that will not fail the end user when it's not just a paper target, but someone trying to do them harm.
BCM knows that their products can be life-saving.
Folks, these guys are the real deal.
I ask that you check them out.
To learn more about Bravo Company Manufacturing, head on over to BravoCompanyMFG.com, where you can discover more about their products, special offers, and upcoming news.
They have accessories.
They have rifle builds they can put together for you.
They have a bunch of products over there, the highest quality built for professionals, but you can access them too.
Go to bravocompanymfg.com.
That's bravocompanymfg.com.
Need more convincing?
Check out more about them.
And they're awesome people that make their products at youtube.com slash bravocompanyusa.
Go check them out, folks.
Okay.
A couple of other stories I don't want to miss here.
Forgive me, I didn't bring up, there's a big speech tonight 9 p.m.
Obviously Donald Trump is going to give his first Oval Office speech.
This is going to be important.
It's going to be about the dangers of open borders policies, the dangers presenting themselves at their southern border.
Just a couple of notes on this.
The fact that the networks were even considering Not broad.
And they were.
They were, quote, deliberating on broadcasting Donald Trump's first Oval Office speech is a disgrace.
It just speaks, you know, the adjectives that go on and on.
The disgrace.
They're horrible.
They're just awful.
They're terrible people.
I just want you to understand that journalism is dead.
Uh, it's over.
Honest reporting is over.
Understand, I know you already get it, the media are full-blown activists, they are liberal activists, they are not to be taken seriously.
The fact that the President of the United States...
The duly elected President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, is giving his first Oval Office address, and the network's even had to deliberate for a moment on broadcasting it, speaks volumes to what shams they are.
Total shams, hoaxes, these are not genuine folks over there.
Now, they acquiesced, of course, because they had to, because it would have been to their eternal shame had they refused to broadcast an Oval Office address.
And by the way, everybody just would have tuned into Fox anyway, which is what everybody will do.
So you can watch it on Fox.
Don't give any of these people the airtime.
It's supposed to be eight minutes, but the fact that this was even an issue is just really just disgraceful.
I had a Just one quick story on this.
When I was in my prior line of work, one of the finer moments in my career, one of the moments where I was really just Unbelievably proud of what I did at the time was when President Bush gave his speech, now let me be candid with you, policy wise, I never was a proponent of the Iraq war ever or the surge.
I want to be clear on that so I don't get a thousand emails.
I wasn't advocating for that, but I was on duty the night at the White House when he gave his famous Oval Office speech.
I kind of wrote about it my first book.
When he gave his Oval Office speech about the surge, and estimates of people watching were obviously in the tens of millions, and it was everybody around the world watching.
It was such an important speech, whether you agreed with the policy, which I didn't at the time, or did not.
But I was outside the Oval when that was going on, and they leave the door open in the Oval Office when that's happening.
And watching it and just sitting there right outside the office, seeing President Bush in front, you know, and behind the Resolute, the desk, and giving that speech to basically every important person in the globe was a really transformative experience for me, where it really hit me like, wow, you know, this is really for real.
You know, standing there, it was an honor.
It really was, even though, like I said, the policy wasn't my favorite.
I was standing probably 10 feet away from him.
And, uh, I remember when the guy came to push me, the agent, uh, you know, push, relieve me.
Like I was like, I thought to myself, I'll stay, you know, you can't of course, but, uh, just a quick note, sorry.
Don't mean to interrupt you with personal stories, but watching that live was pretty incredible.
Uh, so check that out tonight.
Oh, well, let's see so much here.
I have an interesting thread here from James Toronto.
I want to point out to you some more media bias.
Media bias stories can be interesting.
Sometimes they're dopey.
But this is important because you're going to see a lot of this given the prominence of female candidates in what I believe is going to be the 2020 and large 2020 field on the Democrat side for the presidency.
We already have one announced candidate in an exploratory mode, which Joe and I, of course, know is nonsense.
They're not exploring anything.
She's going to run in Elizabeth Warren.
I'm also expecting a number of other female candidates to jump in on the Democrat side.
Amy Klobuchar, distinct possibility Kirsten Gillibrand from New York, Kamala Harris, Senator from California.
It's going to be a packed field on the Democrat side.
There are going to be a lot of female candidates now.
I bring that up not to bore you with mundane details, but you can expect a bunch of Washington Post, New York Times-driven drivel about nonsense made up and fake misogyny.
And misogyny is charged any time you criticize a female candidate.
It's starting already, but James Toronto Who writes at the Wall Street Journal.
This absolutely dismantled Dave Weigel from the Washington Post and his co-author on a Washington Post piece and it is a thing of beauty and I just want to point it out there to show you because it's gonna happen.
You're gonna see this stuff all throughout the campaign anytime a female candidate is mentioned.
Everything you say is gonna be misogynistic.
It doesn't matter.
So Weigel at the Washington Post, who's come after me in the past and, you know, kind of a silly matter, but whatever.
Weigel wrote this piece and the gist of it, Joe, is that questioning Elizabeth Warren's likeability is misogynistic.
They don't question likeability for male candidates.
Folks, you see where I'm going with this?
Toronto did such a thorough debunking on this Twitter thread that it's almost humorous, okay?
So the premise, just to be clear with the premise, is Weigel wants you to believe that questioning a female candidate's, quote, likeability is inherently misogynistic because they don't do that for male candidates.
Oh, really?
They don't?
Okay.
From the Washington Post, James Toronto.
He's got headline screenshots.
Headline number one, Joe.
Sorry, this is so great.
This is so great.
Talk about holding the libs, right?
The likability problem of Ted Cruz.
Washington Post.
Headline number two.
Rubio critics say he's too likable for his own good.
The Washington Post.
Then Toronto, because he's running out of space on Twitter of all these headlines, he just starts screenshotting Google checks on us.
Here's a Google check from 2012 on whether Mitt Romney was likable.
Ruth Marcus from the Washington Post, is Mitt Romney likable enough to win?
Another Washington Post article, can Mitt Romney become more likable?
Another headline from the Washington Post, can Mitt Romney be likable?
Play that laugh guy again, we need that.
Thank you, Chucky.
We needed that right now.
Folks, it goes on.
On the Dems' side, again, males who were questioned for being likable.
Washington Post, about John Edwards.
Being likable wasn't enough.
I could go on all day.
I'm going to stop here just to save you, but this is all from the Washington Post.
Remember Weigel's point?
They never questioned men being likable.
Here's another one.
Michael Dukakis, back in 1988.
For Dukakis, this is the headline, a challenge to be likable.
Folks, do you understand why these folks are such clowns?
They just make it up.
They just make it up.
The Washington Post has questioned likability of male and female.
By the way, here's another female one.
Just in case you think, uh, all right, this was only guys.
Now they've questioned other females, too.
The Washington Post, from the fix.
I think that's Chris Solis' thing.
Hillary Clinton has a likability problem.
Donald Trump has a likability epidemic.
This is a made-up story.
This is the very genesis of fake news, ladies and gentlemen.
Fake news.
It's fake.
It's made up.
But this is how a lie travels around the globe before the truth is even heard.
All right, one last note.
I was on Hannity last night with Geraldo.
Some of you saw it, some of you may not have.
If you missed it, it was pretty explosive.
It was on immigration, which is always a hot topic.
Geraldo is very passionate about the topic, so am I. I try not to make it personal with anyone.
Geraldo has a different view than I do.
But the topic came up about Ronil Singh and Americans being killed by people in the country illegally, and it was fiery, to say the least.
Me and Sean both really went at Geraldo pretty heavy when he insisted we were politicizing the tragic deaths of these people killed, including the police officer, by illegal immigrants, which I found fascinating because he then proceeded to immediately make the argument political By discussing the presence of dreamers in the country, which I found odd.
You're making a political argument as you're accusing us, despite the death of many Americans due to people in the country illegally, of making it political.
In the show notes, a piece from BizPak Review, Samantha Chang, she wrote up on it and the video's there.
I encourage you to watch it, it's short, it's about a six minute segment, but check it out.
Because this has to be said, folks, and this is a passionate argument because our national security matters and so do our borders.
But two quick points I was trying to make, but it got passionate right away and sometimes it doesn't come across on the screen.
There is no global right, folks, or claim on US citizenship.
None.
If you are not a citizen of the United States, you have absolutely no right to be here without our permission.
It is our country.
We pay for it.
Our families have given lives for it.
Some of you have lost sons, daughters, mothers, and fathers.
Some of you warriors out there have come back with no legs, missing limbs, missing eyes, like Dan Crenshaw and, you know, Brian Mast, who's my congressman, too, missing the bottom half of both of his legs.
It's our country.
It is ours.
We fought for it.
We have every right to say who is allowed and not allowed to come in here.
You have no right, as a non-U.S.
citizen, to declare your claim on U.S.
citizenship without our permission.
And we make no apologies for that.
We have been the most generous country to immigrants in human history.
We've taken in millions of people from around the world.
But you claim nothing!
Without our explicit permission to our lawmakers through a legal process.
You do it the right way, you will be gladly, openly welcomed and integrated into the fabric of our society.
You violate our laws, no.
You have to go.
I don't know if that came across last night.
But secondly, you can cite to me all the statistics you want about people coming into the country illegally, being less prone to commit crime later.
Those statistics are off, folks.
The reason those statistics are off about the crime rates amongst illegal immigrants show is because most states do not keep an accurate tally of what the immigration status is of people they arrest.
I had Matt Palumbo write a piece on this.
Those statistics are not accurate.
But the bottom line is, those statistics don't matter.
Because if you're in the country illegally, and if even one person commits a crime, 100% of people in the country illegally should not be here to commit that crime.
That is it.
There is no other argument to be made.
We have laws for a reason.
They matter.
Please watch the clip.
I think you'll like it.
Folks, check out the show notes today.
They are really some of the, it's the best compilation I put together in a long time.
You got the Carlson piece.
Please go listen to the Scandal Exposed.
Read the Lee Smith piece if you haven't heard it.
That's embedded in that as well.
And if you wouldn't mind, please subscribe to the podcast on iTunes.
It is free.
It makes a big difference.
Of course, we're not charging anybody.
I hope that the price thing made a difference in the beginning.
And follow us on iHeart, SoundCloud and elsewhere.
It is free, but it helps us move up the charts.
It helps other people find our content.
But that's thanks to you.
So I really appreciate you all doing that.
We haven't been out of the iTunes top charts in forever because you keep subscribing.
