In this episode I address the bombshell revelation that there may have been a third dossier compiled on the Trump team. I also address the media’s latest lies designed to cover up the absurd claims of Andrew McCabe. Finally, I discuss a debate I had with a socialist last night on Fox, where he admits it doesn’t work. News Picks:
John Solomon’s bombshell piece about a third dossier is the most important thing you’ll read today.
Chuck Ross’s latest piece shows that Andrew McCabe has nothing on Trump.
What is Bob Mueller up to? Few people seem to know.
The Trump team issues an epic response to Bernie Sanders’ presidential announcement.
McCabe still cannot explain why the FBI was investigating the Trump team.
Socialists are attempting to use teachers to turn purple states blue.
This May, 2017 NY Times piece addresses the congressional briefing which the media is portraying as breaking news.
Andrew McCabe’s lies about Jeff Sessions are another blow to his credibility.
Copyright Dan Bongino All Rights Reserved.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Get ready to hear the truth about America on a show that's not immune to the facts with your host, Dan Bongino.
Alright, welcome to the Dan Bongino Show.
Producer Joe, how are you today?
Uh, from snowy Maryland.
I'm doing okay, Dan.
Good to be here.
Sorry about that.
We never say that about Florida.
You will never hear those two words together in Florida.
If it started snowing down here, people would say, what is that stuff coming from the sky?
Has there been a volcanic eruption?
Is that ash?
No one would have any idea what it is.
Listen, I got a stacked show for you today.
John Solomon again drops another nuclear explosive last night on the Hannity Show.
There may have been a third dossier!
A third!
We know about the Steele dossier.
We know about the Sidney Blumenthal-Cody Shear set of dossiers given to Jonathan Weiner at the State Department.
But now there may have been a third dossier in show.
He offers some tantalizing hints.
So I've got some stuff on that also.
I just want to, again, just shred the media with their kid gloves handling of Andrew McCabe.
They're just parroting a talking point that's so easily debunked again using left-wing sources.
So we want to get to that using this New York Times piece.
It's going to make you laugh.
All right.
Today's show brought to you by our buddies at SimpliSafe.
Hey, here's something interesting.
Studies show that security systems deter burglars.
It's a fact.
It's surprising, but there's still a burglary every eight seconds in America.
How?
Well, think about it.
Do burglars give up just because some houses have security systems?
Of course not.
They find a house that isn't protected.
That's why securing your home is truly a necessity.
So let me recommend this brilliant security system built by my friends at SimpliSafe.
SimpliSafe believes fear has no place in your house.
They have made their system ridiculously smart.
It's super easy to use.
I have one.
SimpliSafe sensors will protect every point of access to your home, doors, windows, garage, you name it.
We hooked it up.
It's real simple.
My wife and I did it.
They'll never lock you into a long-term contract.
They don't need to, because they know you'll be there.
though the police are already on the way.
Best of all, SimpliSafe's 24/7 monitoring is just $14.99 a month.
They'll never lock you into a long-term contract.
They don't need to, 'cause they know you'll be there.
They don't need to lock you in the contract.
More than 3 million people already know it feels good to fear less with SimpliSafe.
Protect your house.
So go with the only home security system I trust, SimpliSafe, by going to simplisafe.com slash danbongino today.
That's simplisafe.com slash danbongino for the home security I trust.
Simplisafe.com slash danbongino.
This is a really good system.
Ding ding ding ding ding ding ding!
Let's go!
Okay, first, because this is a simple one.
It doesn't require a lot of deep analysis, debunking the media because they're so silly, we can just knock them out using their own words on this.
Andrew McCabe has been running around, Joe, parroting this talking point.
You probably heard it yesterday all over the news that, hey, we briefed Congress, the Gang of Eight, composed of senators and congressmen.
It was Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, Nancy Pelosi, some leadership folks on both sides.
We briefed them on the existence of the counterintelligence investigation and nobody objected.
Okay, a couple talking points on this.
Number one, this is important.
If nobody objected, how exactly is it that Andy McCabe's case, that his investigation was somehow obstructed?
Remember, he's already acknowledged on the White House, regarding the White House, that there was quote, if you listen to yesterday's show, Joe, on March 11th of 2017, Andy McCabe goes up in the hill and says, what about President Trump and the White House?
There has been no effort to obstruct our investigation.
No effort.
I've had to tweet this to imbeciles in the business, even some morons who claim to be on our side like this knucklehead Joe Walsh who has a lightly listened to radio show in Chicago.
Apparently he was bad-mouthing me.
I said, you know why Joe?
Because he's a hack.
He doesn't know anything about the case.
He goes on the radio and callers call in and humiliate him and he's one of these never Trump lunatics.
So he says to me, what is Trump hiding?
I said, what is he hiding?
What do you mean, what is he hiding?
I tweeted him the statement by McCabe.
He's not hiding anything.
There's been no effort to obstruct the case at all.
But making it worse, Joe, how is McCabe's point that the media was all over yesterday?
No one in the Gang of Eight objected to his investigation of the Trump.
So how was he obstructed?
Joe, seriously, I'm asking you because I know like I joke around, you being the audience ombudsman, but you are.
Now, you know a lot about the case.
Yeah.
A lot.
Joe knows more than even a lot of people in the business.
But he doesn't know as much as I do because I wrote the book on it.
Right.
And I don't mean that in a jerky kind of way.
I just mean it like this is what I do all day.
Joe's got to do the production stuff.
I'm asking you to seriously get in the audience head here.
Is this difficult to understand?
McCabe's lead, right, if he was writing a newspaper article is President Trump tried to obstruct my case into collusion and that's what made me suspicious he did something, okay?
You're tracking, right?
Dan Bongino point, based on common sense readings of what Andy McCabe has already said.
He goes up in front of Congress and says, there was no effort to obstruct my investigation, by the way.
You tracking that, Joe?
Yeah, man.
Okay.
Point number two.
He comes out yesterday and says, and I briefed Congress on the existence of this investigation, the Gang of Eight, and there were still no objections.
So, seriously, brother, I'm asking you as a favor.
Am I missing something here?
Like, where is the obstruction he keeps claiming is the reason he was suspicious of Trump?
Am I missing something?
No, that's what myself and all of our listeners, right, guys?
This is what we're trying to understand as well.
I don't get it.
I mean, this is what I don't get about... You know what I'm saying?
I don't understand.
And I'm asking, like, even knuckleheads like Joe Walsh, you know, Please send me what the obstruction is.
Please, please.
I don't understand what the obstruction is.
Well, he said something about Mike Flynn hoping the case went away.
Mike Flynn was a friend of Trump, supported him during the campaign.
Everybody hoped it went away.
Apparently even the FBI agents who didn't think Mike Flynn lied.
Will somebody please articulate?
Boom!
Right!
Articulate!
Exactly!
Andy McCabe keeps talking about these articulable facts he can't articulate.
What is it?
I hope the case against Flynn went away.
Does that make me guilty of obstruction of justice?
Flynn pled guilty!
Nobody obstructed anything!
Jim Comey and McCabe both acknowledged their investigations were not obstructed!
I don't understand where these... Is this guy, like, on psychotropic compounds?
I don't get it, now!
I needed that setup because the media is portraying this, Joe, like, this is breaking news.
McCabe briefed Congress.
So again, let's be clear on what that lead is.
McCabe is writing his own headlines now because he's trying to sell books.
We briefed Congress and this is breaking.
You're hearing this for the first time.
We are?
Let me read to you the headline of a New York Times piece dated May 17, 2017.
I love using left-wing resources to debunk left-wing narratives.
It's the greatest thing ever.
New York Times, May 17, 2017.
Headline, Robert Mueller Names Special Counsel for Russia Investigation.
May 17, 2017 by Rebecca R. Ruiz and Mark Landler.
Now, let me read to you from this piece, from May of 2017.
Remember, McCabe's insisting we're hearing for the first time, Joe, that they briefed Congress on the existence of the Russia probe.
This is to show you what a lying disgrace this guy is.
From the piece.
New York Times.
As the announcement was being made, Mr. Rosenstein and the acting director of the FBI, Andrew G. McCabe, were briefing the leaders of the Senate and the House and the heads of the Congressional Intelligence Committees.
The lawmakers said nothing afterwards.
Now, the pregnant pauses work better on video than they do on audio, because you think, like, what happened?
Why is there no sound?
You should never, right Joe, in the radio industry you've been in for a long time, you never want dead air, right, ever.
But I just wanted to let that kind of, just chew the cud for a minute on that.
Do you understand the media is promoting this as breaking news that McCabe briefed Congress on the existence of the investigation, yet the very same left-wing media who wants you to believe this is a bombshell reported on May of 2017 that McCabe briefed Congress.
I just read it to you!
Now, I hate linking to the New York slimes because I don't want to give them one click.
But I will put this story in the show notes today for you to read yourself in case you're a left-wing lunatic or Joe Walsh, a never-Trump maniac, and you don't understand the basics of the case, and you don't trust me.
Oh, I don't like Dan Bongino.
He's a conservative.
Fine!
I don't care!
My book on this topic is footnoted to death with left-wing resources.
I know you guys have a hard time with facts, but don't you... Joe, don't you find it awfully suspicious that my book on this?
Yeah.
Spygate has never been all people like, oh, he's a conspiracy.
They never address one fact in the book because they can't.
Yeah, just like you can't.
You cannot dispute the fact that this is an active link on the New York Times from a real story in May that they reported that McCabe briefed Congress.
And now they're reporting again is breaking news.
Why?
Because folks, the New York Times is making the transition now.
The New York Times is a full-time liberal propagandist activist outfit along with the Washington Post.
They are making the transition now from what?
What we predicted, Joe, over a year and a half ago.
Not six months ago, inside joke for everybody.
We predicted this probably a year and a half, maybe a little less, Maybe Judy or Audience Archives.
When I first said to you, there is no evidence of collusion, they are eventually going to move away from the collusion Hypothesis, really a conspiracy theory, and they're going to move into obstruction of justice.
So follow me here.
If I can find, if Judy can find that show, Judy's one of our listeners, does a great job.
She sends over mounds of terrific research.
So I got to hat tip her again.
I do it all the time.
That's my mom's name too, by the way, Judy.
So I've kind of, you know, that's not a common name.
Are you Judy Garland?
A lot of people were named after Judy Garland.
Then you don't see that name much anymore.
But, I had said to you a long time ago, there was never going to be evidence of collusion, because it doesn't exist.
So what the Democrats were going to do, instead of saying, hey, listen, we tried our best, Trump didn't collude with the Russians, we're moving on, Joe.
Remember this?
I said to you, what they're gonna do now, is they're gonna make a transition, which took a little longer than I thought, into, well, he didn't collude, but our investigation into collusion that didn't happen?
Was obstructed and therefore Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice.
So follow me here.
Yeah.
The Times is using Andy McCabe and his book now to make this transition from a collusion investigation into this is all about Trump obstructing the investigation.
Despite the fact that again, I've already told you that they are on the record, McCabe, Comey and others already claiming there was no obstruction.
There's no evidence of obstruction.
Mueller's case hasn't been shut down.
It hasn't been defunded.
The case against Flynn wasn't defunded.
McCabe's already on the record.
There is no evidence of this.
But in order to keep this narrative going, places like the New York Times,
the Washington Post and others are going to have to continue this cycle
of never ending Joe breaking news bombshells to draw people to new storylines.
You get what I'm saying?
Yeah, yeah.
Because they can't recycle the same old trash.
The New York Times and others, you know, they can't come out
and just recycle the same old garbage.
They have to get people to link to their new stuff.
And the new stuff, you know, the new hotness for them today is Trump obstructed justice because Andy McCabe said so, even though he said Trump didn't obstruct justice on the record up on Capitol Hill.
They're making this transition.
This is all they have, Joe.
Now, you doubt me?
I'm not going to click the link to this article, but there's a new piece up in the New York Times.
Here's the headline.
Inside Trump's two-year war on the investigation encircling him.
You got it?
You dig?
You need a headline, so the headline is breaking.
Yeah.
They briefed Congress, and Congress had no objections.
In other words, laying the groundwork that this was a serious investigation, and Congress knows something's up.
They're now transitioning through these headlines, through the obstruction of justice narrative, to get them flowing again.
This constant level of bombshell here, bombshell there, read this, read that.
McCabe's a serious guy.
Look, he briefed Congress and McCabe is so serious, nobody objected.
New York Times apparently doesn't even realize they ran an article already saying that he briefed Congress.
And the New York Times is apparently missing the fact that their own article about McCabe briefing Congress indicates that there was no obstruction.
How are they not making the connection here?
If McCabe briefed Congress on the Trump investigation, there was no objection, how is the lack of an objection evidence of obstruction of the investigation he briefed Congress on?
It is unbelievable because this doesn't even require like advanced levels of intelligence here.
This doesn't require, you know, deep learning AI to analyze this case for the stupid it is.
Folks, you know, I'll let you in on a little secret.
We're working on right now the sequel to Spygate, which is going to be devastating.
I make the case to you not to tease it too much, but I think it may be even better than the original.
Spygate's my original book.
We've got stuff in here that's going to blow your mind, right?
And one of the chapters I'm working on with, I'm trying to wrap up the deal now, Paul is like, will you stop talking about this?
But I can tell, I know my wife.
One of the chapters is going to be on the media's role in this.
I cannot emphasize enough, The Spygate scandal in and of itself is a scandal, but I think the bigger scandal over time is going to be the media's role in a Pravda-like propaganda fashion, covering up the weaponization of our intelligence community to target political opponents and in creating a series of false narratives.
Think about it, just today.
I mean, excuse me, just yesterday.
Inside Trump's two-year war on the investigation encircling him.
In other words, Joe, again, laying the groundwork for a full transition away from collusion into obstruction of justice.
All right, I got a lot more to get to on this, including, I didn't forget John Solomon.
I just, that was important.
Because this is, it's just, it's so stupid.
It's so dumb.
The Times themselves reported on the existence of this briefing that everybody's claiming now is breaking news.
They need a little AI, baby.
Asinine intervention.
Nice!
We need to put that on the t-shirt.
All right, folks, today's show also brought to you by our buddies at Blinkist.
Blinkist.
Blinkist.
If you're like me, the list of books you want to read or those people suggesting you read is never ending
and it's always expanding.
You simply don't have the time to read them all.
Our sponsor Blinkist has solved your long list of must-reads once and for all.
Blinkist is the only app that takes thousands of the best-selling non-fiction books
and distills them down to their most impactful, life-enhancing elements so you can read or listen to them
in under 15 minutes all on your phone.
With Blinkist, you'll expand your knowledge and learn more in just 15 minutes
than you can in almost any other way.
Plus, you can listen anywhere.
They have a lot of Nassim Taleb's books.
He wrote The Black Swan, one of my favorites on there.
I like to listen in the car when I have some time and I can relax, close the windows.
It's great.
If you really want to increase your knowledge base, this is the way to do it.
The Blinkist library is massive.
They use current bestsellers and they're growing their list all the time.
Blinkist is constantly curating and adding new titles from the best of list, so you're
always getting the most powerful ideas in a made-for-mobile format.
Five million people are using Blinkist to expand their minds, 15 minutes at a time.
Get started today.
Right now, for a limited time, Blinkist has a special offer just for my audience.
Go to Blinkist.com slash Dan to start your free seven-day trial.
That's Blinkist.
Spell B-L-I-N-K-I-S-T.com slash Dan for your free seven-day trial.
Blinkist.com slash Dan.
Go check them out.
All right, round two!
So Solomon, John Solomon, who knows I'm convinced the entire SpyGate story, leaks it out in drips and drabs, which is good, makes it more digestible, was on handy last night, and indicated that he has a major breaking story today about the existence of a third dossier.
Now folks, this is staggering.
I've said to you all along that this is actually three separate scandals.
It is a spying scandal on the Trump team, the use of intelligence assets both overseas and at home to spy on the Trump team, a political opponent of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Secondly, it is an information laundering scandal, like a money laundering scandal with information, where they took dossiers, compilations of information from political sources and laundered them to make it appear legitimate to hijack the FISA courts to spy on the Trump team.
The third component, of course, is the cover-up of this using Bob Mueller.
This is a three-part scandal.
The information laundering scandal is critical to this.
When you understand what they did, they took political information from Christopher Steele, hired by the Clinton team to generate negative information on Trump, and they pretended it was counterintelligence or criminal investigative information that was credible, Joe.
They did that in order to get that information into the FISA courts to spy on Trump.
Now, we know about the Steele dossier.
We know about the dossier, if you're a regular listener to the show, from Sid Blumenthal and Cody Scheer, two acolytes, buddies, friends of the Clinton team.
Sid Blumenthal has been a Clinton hatchet man for a long time.
Cody Scheer is a former journalist who's connected to the Clinton space.
Cody Scheer is also a political oppo guy.
We know they generated a dossier as well that they were shopping around to media folks and that they also had shared with people inside the Obama administration in an effort to get the Trump team investigated.
But we found out recently from Solomon last night about the existence of a third dossier, and Solomon appeared to indicate last night, and forgive me, I don't have the piece in front of me now, but I think based on where we've been going with this, it's pretty clear, seems to indicate that this third dossier was prepared by someone close to Bruce Ohr.
Now, who would that someone close to Bruce Ohr be?
That someone may very well be Nellie Orr.
Now, here's where this gets interesting.
Yes, this is where this gets fascinating, Joe.
So we know Bruce Orr is the number four official at the Justice Department.
We know Bruce Orr and his wife met with Christopher Steele, who produced Dirty Dossier 1.
We know Bruce Ohr was dealing with Christopher Steele even after he was terminated by the FBI as a source when he was deemed not suitable for use for his leaks to the media.
We also know Bruce Ohr's wife Nellie is working for Fusion GPS, who hired Christopher Steele.
So let's be clear.
Fusion GPS is hired by the Clintons to generate negative information about Trump.
Fusion GPS hires Christopher Steele.
Fusion GPS also hires Nellie Orr, Bruce Orr's wife.
This is clearly an effort to use that family relationship, the marriage between the two, to launder information to Bruce Orr and the Justice Department, to make it seem that it's legitimate criminal or CI inquiries, when in fact it's just political oppo dirt.
If Nellie Orr is in fact the author or the source for a third dossier, ladies and gentlemen, we have a world of problems here.
Not just because of what I just told you, what appears to be a sophisticated effort to launder information to make it appear legitimate by getting it to Bruce Orr from Nellie.
What's deeply troubling about this, folks, is start to put the puzzle pieces together.
This is fascinating.
Now, to be fair here, To be open and honest, probably more precisely to say, there is an amount of speculation I'm going to engage in here.
But it wouldn't be right for me not to because I'm basing it based on facts.
Now the facts I'm basing it on may not connect.
Let me just get right to it because I don't want to tease it too much.
Nellie Orr was a Russia expert.
She was also a language expert in Russian.
The Pfizer courts were asked to investigate, Joe, a series of abuses by people abusing the NSA database within the government.
So the NSA has a database of information they can tap into under specific circumstances to get metadata, emails, texts, phone calls.
Mike Rogers, who ran the NSA, noticed there was a pattern of people abusing that system.
Abusing that system to gain information without the proper reasons why.
You tracking me so far?
Oh yeah.
Yeah, I know you know where I'm going with this.
Mike Rogers asks for an inquiry, an investigation into this.
A report is later issued in 2017 by the FISA court, which is damaged.
It's a over 80 page report, page 80 through 82 are particularly damning in that report.
I've referenced this before.
The Pfizer court report on these abuses indicates that there were people who had access, third party contractors, to the NSA database that were making inquiries into the database without the proper reasons why.
Ladies and gentlemen, in other words, people without the proper reasoning were tapping into the NSA database to spy on others.
Now, let me put this whole thing together with Nellie Orr and why this revelation of a potential Nellie Orr Orr-led third dossier is such a big deal.
Because there are legitimate reasons for private contractors, Joe, to have access into this massive NSA database to spy on people.
One of them, Joe, is the FBI and others in the federal government don't necessarily have the language expertise to translate some of the communications and emails that are stored in that NSA database.
So it's perfectly legal and authorized, assuming they have the level of clearance.
They can be cleared.
Contractors can be cleared.
You don't have to be a government employee.
Contractors with a certain language expertise can typically be brought in to analyze information in that NSA database because the FBI and others simply don't have the resources to do it.
Joe, are you picking up what I may be putting down here?
Nelly Orr has an expertise in the Russian language.
She's a Russia expert.
She's hired by Fusion GPS.
She's hired by Fusion GPS.
We know Fusion GPS put together the dossier.
She may have some role in the steel dossier, and now it appears from Solomon that the ores may have had some role in a third dossier as well.
She's a language expert, the FBI brings in language experts, and now we know that some of the people querying the NSA database on behalf of private contractors, like Fusion GPS for instance, who could be a private contractor, may have been making inquiries into a massive spying database into the NSA to spy on some people, like maybe the Trump team?
Granted, there is a fair amount of speculation there.
But folks, the fact that the FBI has used contractors in the past, and those contractors, many of them are language experts, The fact that we know private contractors that the FBI use abuse that privilege.
The fact we know Nellie Orr was a language expert and a Russia expert.
The fact that we know she was brought on right around the time Fusion GPS was hired by the Clinton team to investigate Trump.
And the fact that we know the FISA court already exposed these abuses.
If she was in fact providing input into these dossiers, think about the I mean, the hydrogen bomb level explosion we're talking about here.
We're talking about someone granted access into our most secret databases to spy on a presidential campaign under the guise of a language expert and to use that information to feed it back to the FBI, to feed into the FISA court, to get a formal warrant through a FISA court to spy on an opposition political campaign.
If this is in fact what happened, and these connections are made in the coming days and months, folks, there's simply no coming back from that.
you now formally reside in a police state if that's the case.
It's just hard to believe that it actually happened folks.
It really is.
Alright, a couple more things on McCabe before I move on.
So I have a good piece by Chuck Ross in the Daily Caller today I wanted to address.
Again, in case you're under the mistaken belief that McCabe is holding back some body of information that they had in the FBI about Trump, that Trump is a Russian asset.
Because remember, Joe, the takeaways from McCabe's media appearances over the last few days are, there are two big takeaways.
There's no predicate offense.
McCabe has yet to describe a crime Trump committed to collude with the Russians, ever.
And secondly, McCabe is leading the transition through media and other people who hate Trump into obstruction from collusion because, go back to number one, there is no predicate offense, there is no collusion.
Now, some people have responded to me on Twitter and email, some of our liberal listeners, and said, well, you know, there's still information out there we haven't seen that McCabe knows.
Well, McCabe started the investigation into Donald Trump, the CI investigation.
McCabe was a key player in the investigation into Crossfire Hurricane.
Remember, there are two separate investigations, Joe.
There's a fall 2016 investigation called Crossfire Hurricane into the Trump campaign.
And then there is an investigation started after the firing of Jim Comey into Trump.
Now, you would think the deputy director, then acting director of the FBI, who keeps insisting that there's articulable facts, that Trump was colluding with the Russians, as Comey said, there's a mosaic of facts, as Brennan said, there's a corpus of intelligence, baby, indicating that there was some predicate crime.
Here's McCabe, we tried to pull this cut, but we had the worst time ever getting it, so I'm just gonna read it to you.
McCabe was asked by CNN, Anderson Cooper asked a legitimate question, hey, are we ever gonna hear about this information?
Or is there some secret information that's not out in the public yet?
Here's McCabe's response.
I'm not sure there are things that haven't been made public.
In other words, no!
Everything's already out there, which is nothing!
I just say this not to keep beating this dead horse, but it's important because your liberal friends will continue to insist to you that no, no, there's stuff out there that hasn't been made public.
McCabe was leading these investigations.
He was leading the FBI at one point.
I'm not sure there are things that haven't been made public.
No, there aren't things out there.
There's nothing hiding out there.
There is no predicate crime.
There is no investigation.
They're making this deliberate transition to obstruction using the New York Times inside Trump's two-year war on the investigations encircling him because they don't have collusion and they don't want to admit they were wrong.
So they're trying to move to an obstruction investigation about a case that should have never started in the first place because there was no collusion.
Secondly, I have not read McCabe's book.
I refuse.
I'm sorry.
I won't do it.
The guy's a liar.
Usually I read these oppo books, opposition books, where these people are.
They're opposed to the Constitutional Republic.
Or at least snippets of them for... I refuse to read McCabe's because he's a liar.
He's a documented fraud and a liar.
Now, Quinn Hillier has a piece up in the Washington Examiner today about McCabe's dying credibility here.
Now, Quinn Hillier is, believe me, no Trump supporter at all.
At all.
Matter of fact, quite the opposite.
But it's an interesting piece up at the Washington Examiner.
I'll have in the show notes today.
Again, if you go to the menu at bungino.com, you hit podcast.
The show notes are attached to the show.
They're also at the bottom of the homepage.
If you scroll down, as Paula wanted me to tell you yesterday, all the show notes.
Hilliard brings up an interesting point, Joe, that Sessions in McCabe's book is described as, and this is the New York Times describing the book, okay, just to be clear, as openly racist and just, like, kind of dopey.
Now listen, I'm not a fan of Sessions' recusal, but I'm not gonna sit here and jump on some anti-Sessions bandwagon either because I know people, and I'm not gonna say their names or be irresponsible, but who know Sessions Well, let's say.
Very well.
Sessions did a bad job.
I'm sorry.
The recusal was an awful decision and he really hurt the Trump presidency there.
But Sessions, folks, is a good man otherwise.
He made a bad call.
And people who know him will tell you that.
Even people who can't stand him for his politics.
And Hilliard, who is no Trump supporter, says, listen.
I've met Sessions.
Him being described, according to New York Times and McCabe's book, as openly racist is disgusting, is a smear, and speaks to McCabe's utter lack of integrity, character, a spine, or any credibility at all.
Nobody who knows Jeff Sessions would describe him that.
Nobody.
I have never heard that.
Ever.
And McCabe is doing it.
Why, Joe?
Now.
Put on your ombudsman hat, this has to make sense.
McCabe is in a race against time.
Andy McCabe knows he took part in a bureaucratic coup to take down the president.
He's already admitted it.
Discussions with the legal team at the FBI about wiring up Rod Rosenstein to walk into the White House to investigate a president for articulable facts nobody can articulate.
For an obstruction charge Andy McCabe already admitted on the record doesn't exist.
McCabe knows he took part in a bureaucratic coup.
That he was involved, he was engaging in potentially traitorous activity.
These discussions of the 25th Amendment to remove President Trump from office.
Discussions, the 25th Amendment has nothing to do with the FBI at all.
Has nothing to do with political disagreements or criminal activity either.
That's what impeachment's for.
Andy McCabe has no role in that at all, yet he engaged in these conversations.
McCabe, Joseph, is in a race against time to stay out of jail.
McCabe knows he's being investigated by a grand jury for his, quote, lack of candor, according to the inspector general.
He's a liar.
McCabe is a documented liar.
He is a liar, and what he's doing with these, using the racism dog whistle, Joe, against Sessions, an absurdly outrageous spineless charge by McCabe, is he's sending out dog whistles to the identity politics left in the media.
In hopes of getting in their good graces and turning public opinion onto his side to create enough public pressure to keep him out of jail and make him a martyr.
Does that make sense?
Every word.
We're good.
He needs to be a martyr.
He needs the media to portray him as the patron saint of the left.
The dog whistle to getting on the left's good side is phony charges and fake charges of racism.
McCabe put that in his book intentionally.
Painting Sessions.
Again, this is the New York Times own version of what's in McCabe's book.
I did not read that.
I will not touch this.
You guys are a liar.
I don't trust anything in there.
But this is a dog whistle to change public opinion because he is desperate to stay out of jail for lying to the FBI three times about his contacts with the media.
He is desperate to stay out of jail.
And by the way, Somebody sent me something yesterday.
McCabe did an interview with NPR.
I mean, an incredibly biased interview, though.
The interviewer, I don't know her name, Terry something, was... Terry Gross, I think it was.
The interviewer was awful.
I'm sorry, she was just terrible.
The questions were awful.
She clearly had no grasp of McCabe's involvement in a number of really pernicious things, the spying scandal.
She just didn't know anything.
But she's interviewing him at one point, and they bring up my name, Dan Bongino, and they both pretend not to know.
I love that.
How would you not know?
Like, you brought up my name.
It's not like John Smith, like you mistakenly, you know, hey, that guy, oh, John Smith, you mean the other John Smith?
Dan Bongino's kind of a unique name, I'm pretty sure.
I'm like, she goes, yeah, Dan Bongino, but I don't know him.
And then McCabe's like, yeah, I don't know either.
I don't know how to pronounce it.
Yeah, of course.
And then he goes on, McCabe, this is funny, this goes to show you what a fraud this guy is.
He's like, yeah, I don't know.
Like, I don't know how to pray.
I don't know who that guy is.
Then he says later, he's talking about me, Hannity, and I think Rush Limbaugh.
He goes, yeah, but those three guys are like constantly bashing me or whatever.
I thought you didn't know me.
I thought you didn't know me.
You didn't know me, but now you know I'm bashing you.
The guy is a total fraud.
Play it again, Joe.
He's a total fraud!
Listen, I had a blast in the Secret Service as a federal agent.
But every agency has their bad seeds.
And I'm telling you, there's always a few guys in an agency that just drink their own Kool-Aid.
What did we used to call him?
We used to call him that guy.
The joke in the Secret Service, Joe, when I was there was, don't be that guy.
And what that means is, you know that guy?
He's an egomaniac.
Everybody hates him.
He drinks his own Kool-Aid.
And every time he walks in the room, someone goes, yeah, there's that guy.
What up?
You fill in the blank.
And it's never, believe me, it's an expletive that follows.
Yes, yes, yes.
Andy McCabe was that guy.
He was that guy.
He was a briefer.
He was a guy who was good at briefs and bad at everything else.
He could brief people.
That's all he could do.
I've met guys like this.
That's why I'm so sickened by this liar.
Oh, tighty-wighty.
All right.
Finally, today's show brought to you by our buddies at GenuCell.
Ladies and gentlemen, what was your Valentine's Day gift this year?
I'll give you one.
How about taking 10 or 15 years off your appearance with the new GenuCell jawline treatment?
My family loves this stuff.
My mother-in-law is a big fan.
Right, Paula?
That's right, she says.
Joe loves this part.
No more turkey necks, double chins, or sagging jawlines.
No more.
It works amazingly well.
Just listen to Linda B from Marina Del Rey.
I love your jawline cream.
It really works.
I mean, I really see a difference and people never believe my age.
It works.
And guys, it works for you too, gents.
Right now, the brand new GenuCell Jawline Treatment is yours free when you order GenuCell for bags and puffiness under the eyes.
And for 12-hour results, if you need them quick, The GenuCell Immediate Effects is also free.
Say goodbye to that double chin, under eye bags, and even those laugh lines and crow's feet.
Get them gone!
Get them gone!
Guaranteed or your money back.
Text the word YOUNG, like the opposite of OLD, because that's how you'll look after this.
Text YOUNG to 77453 or go to GenuCell, G-E-N-U-C-E-L dot com.
Call now and get a surprise luxury gift, also free.
That's three free gifts.
Order now and express shipping is also free.
Text YOUNG to 77453, text YOUNG to 77453, or go to Genucel.com.
text "young" to 77453 or go to Genucel.com.
That's Genucel.com.
Okay.
One more final thing on McCabe, because I do got to move on.
He was asked by CNN last night, this is the piece we were trying to get, but it was just a train wreck, so we got to move on.
Do you think Trump is a Russian asset?
And McCabe, again, trying to desperately hold on to some remnant of his credibility.
He's like, well, he could be a Russian asset.
Folks, McCabe knows very well that Donald Trump is not a Russian asset.
This is just an absurd question.
He's clinging on to this to sell books.
The guy is a complete, total fraud.
He deserves none of your respect.
He is a character-free individual who continues to slander the President of the United States.
I tell you, if I were the President, I would sue this clown.
I would.
He is such a scheming, conniving loser that I can't believe the media even takes this guy seriously.
You know, I'm just upset at him because, you know, I care about the country, folks.
I said yesterday, I don't mean to go into some, like, long-winded monologue.
I got a lot to get to, but I just remember this in my time being a federal agent.
There's always a few knuckleheads, man, that ruin it for everyone.
Always.
Every single time.
Every single time.
And this guy just, I mean, almost Single-handedly, maybe with a couple others, so multiple-handedly, with a couple other knuckleheads, is just destroying the reputation of a storied institution like the FBI.
It's gross.
It really is.
This guy's pathetic.
He is the saddest of the whole bunch.
Okay, moving on.
So last night, I was on Laura Ingraham's show.
And there was a panel in the beginning.
It was me, Monica Crowley, and a socialist.
And listen, you know, Joe, I rarely, if ever, send you sots.
That's media for sound on tape, like video and audio clips of me, right?
Because it's goofy.
Hey, look at me last night.
And I can just describe what happened.
I know because I was there.
It was me.
But I just wanted to play this because last night on Laura Ingraham, I debated a socialist, and it was just one of those moments.
I walk back in the room, and for those of you to paint a picture in your mind, I have an office in my house, and it's right next to the bedroom.
I mean, it shares a wall.
The left wall in my office is actually my closet on the other side.
It's where we do our podcasts, where my studio is, where you're seeing this video.
So when I'm done with my hits at night, if they're late, Ingram's at 10 p.m.
Eastern, my wife's usually in bed watching TV, and she watches the hits in the other room, which is kind of funny.
So I walked back in and I'm like, how was that?
And we weren't even talking last night.
We were like fighting.
She's like, why are you telling him that?
Because you have to paint a picture.
You got to get a picture.
We were, we had a little fight about breakfast in the airport, in Ronald Reagan airport.
So I walked back in and I'm like, how was that?
She's like, that was awesome.
Like, and she's very, She's very milquetoast on our comments.
If she doesn't believe it's awesome, she'll tell you it's okay.
But she said that was awesome.
So here's me last night debating this socialist on Laura Ingraham, and there's a couple just mic drop moments I want to highlight.
Play that cut.
It's so absurd on its face, I can't believe that socialists even dare to show their faces on TV without complete total embarrassment.
And not only that, it leads to death and destruction as well.
That's just another nasty negative externality of socialists.
All right, Brian, I mean, you got your chance now.
You tell us where socialism is working in the world and where has it produced positive results for a wide range of citizens?
Well, first of all, what I'm hearing so far is this politics of fear, the red menace, the red fear.
You know, they're going to take everything away from us.
Excuse me while I yawn.
I asked you a question.
Where is socialism working, Brian?
Don't sit back there.
And use your usual insults.
It doesn't work.
I'm asking you a serious question.
Where has it worked and where has it spread happiness and positivity and a higher standard of living for a broad range of citizenry?
Where?
Nowhere.
It is nowhere in this world is socialism working.
And the reason it isn't working is because the United States of America and other capitalist countries have undermined any efforts by a legitimate democratically elected socialist to redistribute the wealth and to radically change the economic system.
What did you do for a living?
Did you ever have a job in the capitalist system?
Yeah, I worked in the private sector, HMOs, until Ronald Reagan came along and he cancelled the HMO Act of 1973 and he turned it over to Wall Street and the private sector and then you ended up with a lot of billionaires and the consumers suffered.
Okay, so socialism doesn't work because freedom gets in the way, Laura.
That's his point?
Socialism doesn't work because things like freedom get in the way.
Socialism promotes freedom and liberty and egalitarianism.
It also promotes death and destruction and gulags.
As long as you don't run afoul of the people with the real power, which is the upper echelon of any socialist government, they have all the perks, they have all the benefits, and they make the decisions for the lone people.
I'm sorry, I know it was a longer cut, and we don't typically like cuts that long, but where does socialism actually work?
Nowhere!
This is the socialist!
And I love it.
He tries to distract.
He blames Ronald Reagan, an anti-communist, an advocate for freedom and liberty.
He blames them for the failure of socialism.
So then I fire back to the guy.
I'm like, so your point is what?
Socialism sucks because freedom gets in the way?
I don't get it.
This guy was such a scammer.
I couldn't believe it.
That's why I said in the beginning, like, that these guys show their face on air.
I almost, like, quietly respect the guy for willing to humiliate himself in public like that.
Like, man, this guy's either the dumbest guy around or he really believes this nonsense.
So he's a socialist who works in a capitalist system.
He's upset that socialism failed because freedom worked instead and asked where socialism has succeeded.
He acknowledges nowhere.
Folks, I just, again, I hate putting my own stuff out there, but sometimes, sometimes it's well worth it.
And I was afraid me summing up what happened rather than just replaying it would take away the oomph of having the guy actually admit that socialism has worked nowhere.
Please, listen, I rarely ask this, but To all of my friends out there in conservative media who listen to the show, can somebody please write this up?
Matter of fact, you know, Lauren, who writes for my website, or Matt, can someone write this up for Bongino.com?
A socialist finally admits socialism works nowhere.
I mean, this was a great cut.
And Laura does the mic drop moment with her pen.
It was really a classic, just getting them on the record.
You may say, OK, well, listen, it's not that we're not advocating for socialism anymore.
So, you know, moving on from that, I'm speaking as a Democrat now, moving to the left.
Well, Dan, we're not arguing for socialism.
We're just arguing for a bigger role of government.
Government is a net good.
Remember, I'm speaking as a Democrat here, so please don't...
Government's a net good in our life, it does all these good things for us, and therefore we should advocate for that, albeit not a complete government takeover of the means of production, which is the very definition of socialism.
Okay, fair enough.
If you're going to assert that, Joe, so let's put the headline out there, you know, a less consulting headline.
Government is a good thing, just not socialism.
Okay, that's the liberal say new point.
You know, Kamala Harris is suggesting she's not a democrat socialist, she just believes government can solve the healthcare crisis and everything else.
So let's analyze that as reasonable people, Joe.
Okay.
If government is a net good in your life, albeit not socialism, but a large government that does things for people, air quotes, that it should be something we can easily analyze based on results, based on polling.
And bingo!
Wall Street Journal today, Stephen Malanga in the op-ed column, analyzed just that assertion.
Are people generally happier in states where they are taxed high, and spending is high, and government is a significant portion of the economy?
A very simple question, Joe.
A testable hypothesis.
Reasonable people should be able to analyze the outcomes of it.
True, sir.
Are people in high-tax, high-spending states happier?
Or are they not?
And are the services any good?
So, let me read to you some quotes from this piece in the Wall Street Journal today.
The title of the piece is why service is lousy in high-tax states.
So I guess you know where we're going with this.
Seven of the eight states with the highest percentages of people who want to move elsewhere, Joe, are solidly Democratic in party affiliation according to Gallup polling.
Gallup, not some right-wing outlet here.
Most are high-tax environments.
So let's be clear, liberals, your assertion is big government is good and people love it.
Then why are seven of the eight states where people are dying to get out of them in the highest numbers all Democrats with high spending, Democrat states with high spending and big government?
I know where you're gonna go with this.
That's why I'm taking a pause before I continue to quote the piece.
What you're gonna say if you're a liberal now, because I can get in your minds, you just can't get in ours, Is you're gonna say, well, that's due to some things like demographics, age, gender, race, ethnicity.
People move for all kinds of reasons.
We don't necessarily know.
Okay.
Quote, from the study, even after controlling for various demographic characteristics, including age, gender, race, ethnicity, and education, Joe, there is still a strong relationship between the total state tax burden and the desire to leave one's current state of residence.
When Monmouth University asked New Jersey residents why they wanted to leave, 30% listed taxes, 24% said the high cost of living, which is due to taxes by the way, and 28% listed quality of life!
What?
Really?
I thought the high taxes produced a better quality of life.
Joe, is that not your assertion?
Am I missing something?
What am I missing here?
You are the official, you are wearing many caps today.
The sap guy, sound guy, audio engineer, and you've had to be the audience ombudsman four or five times.
What am I missing?
Liberals lead story.
Big government is good.
Quality of life is better.
We do things better than other people.
No, you don't!
Almost all of the states people are trying to leave from are states that are subscribing to your tax people and spend their money philosophy.
Not only that, when asked why they're leaving, 30% say the taxes, 24% says the high cost of living due to regulations and taxes, and another 28% list the quality of life you claim is so good!
You know, I know this is hard.
I know liberals have been vaccinated against FACS a long time ago.
I know that.
I get it.
You know, you get measles, mumps, rubella, typhoid, influenza, and FACS when you're a liberal.
Conservatives don't get the FACS vaccine.
They go to different pediatricians.
They go to different, like, immunologists and other things, infectious disease experts.
They don't worry about the FACS vaccine.
Liberals have been vaccinated against fax at an early age, and it's disturbing.
They see these polls, they see the numbers, they see the data, and they just ignore it!
They go, well, you're a racist, like Andy McCabe tried to apparently do with Sessions in his book, to send the dog whistle out to the left.
They don't have anything!
There is nothing on their side in this argument.
If taxes and government spending are so popular, then why are people en masse trying to flee states that implement that very same set of political, ideological, legislative proposals?
Why?
It goes on, the piece.
In CNBC, again folks, CNBC, is that some right-wing outlet?
Annual ranking of the best and worst states for business.
Seven high-tech states were among those ranked lowest in infrastructure quality.
Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, where Joe lives, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island.
Even more startling, Texas, Joe, ranked as having the best infrastructure.
Also scoring high, where Tennessee, which has the third lowest tax burden as a share of state personal income, and Florida, where I live, ranked fourth lowest in taxes.
Here it is.
Here's the money shot.
There seems to be almost an inverse relationship between the resources that state governments take in and the quality of the infrastructure.
Ladies and gentlemen, think about what I'm telling you.
Not only is the left's assertion that confiscatory taxes, high taxes, and big government spending will lead to better quality of life, better infrastructure.
Not only is that not true, Malanga, the author of this piece, points out the correlation is the inverse.
That the states with the worst infrastructure issues, Merritt, Pothole, Maryland, where I used to live, Hawaii, New York, and others, that the states with the highest spending have the worst infrastructure problems, making matters even worse if you're interested in reason.
States that do the lightest amount of taxation, Florida, Texas, Tennessee, Rank high on their infrastructure scores.
I live down here in Florida.
The roads are beautiful.
I spent a lot of time in Texas.
The roads are fantastic.
Now, to be fair here and give you a reasoned analysis, which Malanga brings up in his piece as well, some of the spending on education in those states, some of that spending Some of those states rank relatively higher on some of their education scores.
So the left could make an argument there that, well, some of the spending is resulting in increased education scores.
But as Malanga points out, the spending is so dramatically higher than states who are just as competitive as they are.
That it's tough to make the argument that the increased spending is doing it.
You get what I'm saying, Joe?
In other words, like, if you spend $20,000 per student and your students are getting 90% on whatever test, and then someone's spending $7,000, like in the state of Utah, and their students are getting $89,000 rather than $90,000, it's really tough to argue that you had to double the spending to get a one-point bump.
Right.
So even that argument falls apart.
Folks, Nothing liberals tell you is true.
Nothing they tell you on a gradient.
Well, we're not arguing for full-blown socialism.
We're just arguing government's a force for goodness.
Nothing they tell you is true.
They have no data to back that up.
And this story today in the journal is conclusive evidence that this is not only that their theory that government's a net good in your life, better infrastructure, better quality of life.
It is a net force for negativity and negative influences in your life.
People want to leave.
The business environment is terrible.
They rate the quality of life poorly.
They are lying to you.
Government is not a force for good for your life.
It is a parasitic organism.
Very little outside of the constitutional functions of government.
Our heroic men and women in our military, who work for very little money, keeping this place safe and secure.
Our cops, our firemen, our court system.
Very little outside of the state constitutional roles and the federal constitutional role of government.
Very little the government does is anything other than a net negative in your life.
It is parasitic.
It is not symbiotic.
Alright, a couple more stories I want to get to.
These are quick, but we've been so bogged down with McCabe stuff, I've missed some of the good stuff.
So it looks like Jeff Rosen is going to be nominated to be the Deputy Attorney General.
You obviously know about Bill Barr.
Bill Barr is the Attorney General.
Uh, he has now been confirmed.
Uh, Rosen just from, I would be remiss if I didn't pass on some info from some high quality sources here who know Rosen.
Rosen's apparently a very good guy.
I say that because he is going to take Rod Rosenstein's spot when the dreadful Rod Rosenstein leaves.
Um, and I just want to reassure you for the, some of you out there who are worried, um, although Barr's got some ups and downs, no question.
I think he's going to do a decent job.
Barr has very little to lose here.
Rosen, apparently, from what I'm hearing, is a very good pick.
If you've heard otherwise, please email me.
But again, the people I know who've actually worked with him say he's a good conservative and is, you know, an ally to the Constitution.
So it's important to get that out there.
Secondly, in the end I was referencing schools, and I probably should have segued here instead of going to the Rosen story, but I didn't want to miss it.
So there's another article in the Wall Street Journal today, and folks, this is a topic very sensitive to me.
For those of you who've been listening to the show for a long time, you pretty much know most of my life.
I'm an open book here.
But when I was a kid, we grew up pretty, I'd say lower middle class.
I don't want to say poor, I don't want to be dramatic.
My wife grew up poor.
She came here as an immigrant and they really, her mother, just did amazing things.
I talk about her on Fox all the time.
My mother-in-law is just an amazing person.
But we grew up, let's just say lower middle class.
You know, we ate bologna sandwiches for dinner time.
There wasn't always, you know, stacked food in the fridge.
You get what I'm saying?
It was, you know, my mother was a cashier at Finest, which was a supermarket at the time.
You know, my father was a plumber, but they were divorced.
So, you know, there wasn't a lot of money lying around.
And the reason today I'm in this position I'm in, thanks to you, your support, Is education.
It is.
I don't tout my resume often because it's unnecessary and I can't stand people do that.
But I did an MBA at Penn State, a Master of Business Administration.
I did a master's degree in psychology, a BA in psychology, and went to Malloy High School, which is a very good high school in New York, and I went to grammar school at St.
Pancras.
Why am I telling you any of this?
Because, folks, it's the only reason I'm speaking to you in coherent, somewhat fluid sentences right now with ideas that I hope make sense.
It's because education got me out of a not-so-great neighborhood and a not-so-great financial situation with my family and enabled me to do this.
The honor to talk to you right now in your car or wherever you're listening, on your phone, in the gym.
That opportunity is not availed to a lot of minority, low-income, and poor students in our country.
I was given the opportunity by St.
Pancras where it was a Catholic school.
To go there.
They took us on as kind of a charity case.
We paid.
They paid the tuition, but it was always late.
Sister Jane was the principal.
She was wonderful.
She would let my mother pay late and pay.
You know, we had three kids going there.
And it's that reason.
It was that kind of semi-school choice where my mother did everything she could to put us in St.
Pancras.
That got me out of a dreadful situation.
The public schools in New York were awful.
The fact that the teachers unions right now across the country are fighting against school choice for those same kids like me just looking for an avenue out is really a stain on our national soul.
Listen, I love teachers.
Don't take this the wrong way, and I mean it.
My life was changed because of good teachers.
I just told you that.
Sister Jane, Sister Ellen, Miss Brophy, Miss Skillfeather.
She just died, Miss Skillfeather.
Changed my life, Miss Shortino, Miss Mastropolo.
I remember all of them.
Thank you.
But that your union interests are claiming to represent you and are standing in the way of parents being able to choose where their kids go to school and locking the doors Behind those kids, in failing education institutions, guaranteeing those kids a life of poverty, deprivation, and a complete paucity of opportunity, is a stain on the soul of this country.
And it is up to you, the teachers, to correct this, because these people claim to represent you.
I bring it up because there was an interesting article in the journal op-ed section today, again, about now in West Virginia.
The, you know, recently converted Republican governor folded like a cheap suit.
They wanted to implement a new rating system for teachers, not dependent completely on seniority.
In other words, dependent on skill, where the whole world, by the way, works.
Skill.
And they wanted to start up seven charter schools.
Well of course the union activists who can't stand kids, they hate the kids because they don't want these kids to have good teachers and they don't want these kids to pick their schools.
They hate the kids.
Lobbied of course the governor who folded like a cheap suit and scrapped it.
He should be ashamed of himself.
The governor of West Virginia folding like that.
Disgraceful what happened there.
And I want to leave you with two questions if you're a teacher or a teacher's union representative out there.
Why are you protected from competition?
Why?
I get to pick my doctor, I get to pick my lawyer, I get to pick my web server, I get to pick my web host, I get to pick the kind of bread I eat in a restaurant, I get to pick the steak I buy in the local grocery store, I get to pick what grocery store I shop in.
But the most important decision of my life is picking where my kids are educated, to give them a way out, give them a way up.
Why are you standing in the way?
Why are you protected from the competition we all have to deal with?
And secondly, why do you get to choose where my kids go to school?
Now, thanks to the success of this show, my wife and I have the financial ability to choose for ourselves, but not everybody has that, and I'm not leaving those parents behind.
Why do you get to pick for them?
What makes you so special that you know more about poor, struggling parents and their children, that you know more about them, that you get to chain the doors behind them in schools they don't want to go to?
Why do you get to choose?
I want you to think about that.
Seriously, think about that.
School choice is the civil rights issue of our time.
And make no mistake, that is a conservative position.
I don't care how it polls.
I don't care how the shows do on it.
I don't audience meter test them.
This matters to me because it's what got me here, right now, talking to you.
Choice in education.
All right.
Thanks, folks.
I really appreciate your time today.
It matters to me.
And I hope you can become at some point an advocate for school choice, too, because it's going to save so many people.
It is a key to the next generation of upper middle class people in our United States living a life of prosperity and getting out of the poor economic condition they're in now.
