The Greatest Constitutional Crisis Since the Civil War (Ep 923)
In this episode I address the massive constitutional crisis staring us in the face. I also address the latest embarrassing comments by Green New Deal proponents. Finally, I debunk the media story that “hate crimes” are rising due to President Trump. News Picks:
Conrad Black’s devastating new piece makes the case that we are in the midst of the biggest constitutional crisis since the Civil War.
Clueless Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez brags about spending more of your tax money on her office expenses.
This one question turns socialists into capitalists.
The top 5 arguments against climate change alarmism.
Are “hate crimes” really on the rise?
Some Democrats are increasingly worried about the radical shift in their party.
You are making a big difference. The unnecessarily political Academy Awards program is struggling to maintain its audience.
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?
Good morning Vietnam!
I knew it, I knew you were gonna say that.
So I made it here over to Vietnam.
I was just in the gym.
The gym in the Novotel here in Vietnam and Hanoi is actually really good.
Hotel gyms are the worst, folks.
This gym is really good.
They have like high-tech pre-core equipment and stuff.
Not a lot of free weights, but enough to get a good workout, up to like 55 pounds.
And I'm in the gym and I'm thinking to myself, I know what Armacost is going to say.
He's going to definitely go on Robin Williams.
I knew it.
I could have totally predicted that before the show.
So I made it over here, folks.
Really nice hotel.
People are great.
They're super nice.
Very, very kind.
And it was like the longest flight ever.
Two hour ride to Miami, six and a half hours to LA, three hour layover, 12 hours to Nikita, Narita, excuse me, this isn't the movie La Femme Nikita, to Narita in Tokyo.
Two hour layover, ran into some cool DSS guys, Diplomatic Security Service guys in the airport who recognized me.
They're like the secret service for the State Department.
So I talked with them for like two hours.
Seven hours, six and a half hours to Hanoi and then like an hour to the airport.
It was quite a journey getting over here, but as you know, I don't skip shows.
And I was telling Armacost that Joe's like, you sound, you know, just chipper.
And I am because folks, I didn't sleep for any extended period of time for about 36 hours.
I got horizontal at one point, you know, at the final flight because I was dying, but I only slept like two hours.
So when I got into the hotel, folks, keep in mind, if you're on Eastern time in New York, we're exactly 12 hours ahead here in Vietnam.
So I get into the hotel like two in the morning.
So my brain thinks it's two in the afternoon, right?
New York time, DC time, Florida time.
So I'm really tired because I haven't slept on a plane, but I want to go to sleep because I'm trying to stay on Eastern time.
So the podcast sounds like, you know, it should sound and that, uh, uh, and that I could do the Fox schedule.
Long story short is I go downstairs for breakfast here.
Four hours later, I wind up staying up unbelievably another four hours.
I'm dying.
It's 6am local.
So 6p your time.
And I hook up with Anne Henry from Fox and we're talking, you know, the Fox people are all here.
We're all in the same, uh, same hotel.
And we talked for like two hours.
So I went to sleep at eight, eight o'clock in the morning, local after breakfast and slept 12 straight hours, 12 hours.
So when I got up a little while ago, I was feeling fine.
So I'm ready to go.
Sorry for the long-winded intro, but I love my audience.
Sometimes I feel like I want to read you in on what's going on with my life because I dig you guys so much.
All right, today's show, let's get to the good material.
Today's show brought to you by our buddies at WaxRx.
You know how much I love my sponsors.
I only work with companies that I believe in and have a product or service that is value to you.
I use this all the time.
Once a week, I use WaxRx after I get a haircut because I get those little hairs stuck in my ear and you're not supposed to put those cotton swabs inside your ears.
They're very dangerous to do that.
WaxRx is not the sexiest product to talk about, but as I've told you, even I had to deal with the earwax buildup because the earpiece I wear all day in radio.
Tries to be crazy.
Here's a custom review I saw from the Manhattan Share because it shows what the product can do for you, how it can help you save money and avoid expensive trips to the doctors to take care of your ears.
I used to have to go to the doctor twice a year to get rid of my stubborn hard earwax.
With my rising cost of healthcare and thus double deductible, I'd have to spend $60 per visit, $120 per year to treat my ears.
Now I can do it myself with WaxRx and a significant savings that also doesn't require me to miss a half a day of work.
Thanks WaxRx.
Right now you can try the WaxRX system by typing in gowaxrx.com.
That's gowaxrx.com.
Use offer code Dan, my first name, at checkout for free shipping.
Don't wait.
You have no idea what you might be missing because of inner ear wax.
That's gowaxrx.com.
Offer code Dan, gowaxrx.com.
All right.
So.
I've been cued into a few things, folks, on why Trump isn't declassifying some of the material.
I want to get to that in a second because this is really important.
I think some people are confused.
They're saying if Trump has all these people, which he does, all these conspirators in the Spygate case, you get it.
Why isn't he just declassifying the material?
I want to get to that because it's important and I want to give you a little background on some things we may have missed because it's been a while.
So don't go anywhere.
But before I get to that, I want to get to some AOC stuff.
I know it drives some of you crazy, but she's just become such a disaster now for the Democrats.
I mean it.
She has.
You may say, AOC, she's not a disaster.
The Democrats are all socialists.
Listen, ladies and gentlemen, yes, a lot of the Democrats are.
Their party has taken a far-left lurch.
But there are still people over there who care about power only.
Power only.
I'm not lauding them.
I'm not applauding them.
I'm not giving them any credit for anything.
I'm just telling you that the Democrats are obsessed with power, and some Democrats who are sane are starting to realize that going out there and talking about farting cows, paying people not to work, and a ridiculous Green New Deal which would bankrupt the United States in record time is a disaster for their party.
Not everyone on the Democrats, they're all power hungry.
And they're all big government, um, self destructive folks, but not, they're not stupid and they're getting that she is blowing up the entire party.
So first I wanted to play this sound I sent over to Joe, which is just, Listen, I don't even know what to, let me just play, I'll comment on it after.
This is so bad.
And hat tip, by the way, Ryan Saavedra from The Daily Wire, who put together this little, what do we want to call it, Joe?
Comparison of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and someone we've used on the show before.
Play that cut.
So people are like, oh, it's unrealistic.
Oh, it's vague.
Oh, it doesn't address this little minute thing.
And I'm like, you try.
You do it.
Right.
Because you're not.
Because you're not.
So until you do it, I'm the boss.
How about that?
You heard it here.
Nope.
And all these **** laughing like it's so funny.
She's talking about the audience.
That they're laughing at her.
Did you say the **** are laughing?
Yep.
So the audience are a bunch of ****?
Yeah.
Catch me outside, how about that?
Huh?
Catch me outside, how about that?
Catch you outside?
What does that mean?
What I just said.
Dude.
We did not do that.
That's Ryan Sevidra, Daily Wire.
Someone sent it to me.
We've used the how about that young lady from the Dr. Phil before.
That's who that is.
And that's Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in the beginning talking about the Green New Deal.
I'm in charge!
How about that?
I'm in charge.
And if you don't propose something different now, listen, we could make fun of this all day and I think Ryan does a good job.
Listen, humor is a devastating weapon, Joe.
But the reality is, there's a very easy comeback to all of this.
So Kasey O'Cortez is turning into a total disaster for a party.
We have tried something different.
Joe, it's called economic freedom and capitalism.
That's why the United States is leading the world in the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions from their own factories.
Listen, carbon dioxide is not even a toxin.
It is a natural byproduct of respiration.
Having said that, even for the left that measures CO2 emissions as some metric of fidelity to their economic cause, right?
Even by their own standards, the United States is leading the world in CO2 emissions.
So when Ocasio-Cortez goes, how about that?
I'm in charge.
How about you either propose something different or you basically shut your mouth.
How about that?
How about that?
And she's talking like the Dr. Phil gal, right?
We did try something different.
And it worked by your measure.
I mean, this woman is a disaster for her party.
How do you think that looks?
I'm in charge.
You're not in charge.
Give it a rest.
Take it down a notch.
You're one of 435 members of Congress.
You represent roughly 700,000 people in a district in Queens and I believe portions of the Bronx.
Take it easy.
Calm down.
I'm in charge, Alex.
She's some kind of a tyrant.
I'm in charge.
You either pro-subdivision or help out.
I'm president and you're not.
Play it again.
I'm president and you're not.
Exactly.
Now, there is one guy in charge of the executive branch of government, a third of our system.
I don't support, you know, of course, usurping power anywhere, but the president does actually have power over the executive branch.
I believe in the unitary executive model.
And he is in charge.
You are not.
You're not even the speaker.
You're not even in charge of the floor schedule.
How about that?
I love this guy.
I love this guy.
I love, it's like, Joe, I can never, Joe's such an integral part of the show.
God forbid, Joe.
Nothing can ever happen to you.
Ever.
Guys are dispensable.
How about that?
Perfectly timed.
She's not even in charge of the floor schedule.
Now, it doesn't just end there, but I wanted to leave that.
Not just, listen, it's easy to make fun of, and humor is a potent weapon.
I say that all the time.
But folks, this argument is simple.
The leftists who support this Green New Deal that's turning into a total embarrassment for the Democrat Party are coming back with this argument that if you don't propose something different to their self-destructive, economically destructive, hilariously stupid plan, that that is in fact a measure of your failure, not theirs.
That's like saying, Armacost, I'm gonna kill you with a chainsaw, but you got something different in mind?
You got something different?
What's wrong with you, idiot?
Like, you're the moron here, right?
So, you got something different, dude?
So, folks, the argument back is simple.
The United States is leading the world in CO2 reductions, a measure of their success, because we are one of the more economically free countries who have found ways to reduce what they consider to be pollution, not us, through economic freedom and investments.
Per free market investments.
I always think of that story of the paper factory I went to when I was running for Congress in Maryland, where the guy said to me years ago, they used to throw away all these scraps of paper.
And now because it was economically made sense for them, they found a way to recycle it back to pulp and make money off it.
It's called capitalism numbskulls liberals.
I'm talking to, of course, figure it out.
Alright, another thing that happened with Ocasio-Cortez, and we can't stop talking about this because her profile in this party is gaining amongst the radical left as she becomes a pariah for the power-seeking moderates in the party.
So another story came out this week, Joe, about her.
She's celebrating on her Twitter account, ridiculously so.
Did you see this story, Joe?
She's celebrating that she pays her staff an entry-level salary of $52,000 a year.
I did not see that, no.
Yeah, she's celebrating and she goes, look what I did.
I support a living wage for all these people.
I pay them $52,000 a year.
Joe, let me ask you a quick question.
You're pretty familiar with politics and members of Congress.
Is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez paying her staff with her money?
Simple question.
No.
No, right?
She's paying with your money.
She's paying with your money, Joe, and my money.
So this is the hilarious, absolutely ridiculous, laughable Democrat party that the only time they support economic inequality and a quote living wage is when they're paying with other people's money.
This isn't even her money.
Now, what's even more ridiculous about this is how do you think her senior staff members feel?
That some of their raises and their benefits, as they've been more experienced, they've worked up on the hill, they've spent time in school or overseas in the Diplomatic Corps, doing work in foreign countries, they have some experience.
How do you think they feel that their raise or their money is being given away to an entry-level, good for them, entry-level person though, who hasn't accumulated the value-added skills yet?
This is the Democrat Party, folks.
Do you understand this?
So the two takeaways.
She only believes in a living wage and income equality when it's not her money.
No, she's not giving them the extra money.
And secondly, how do you think this feels to the people who've accumulated skills worth more than $52,000 a year?
The answer is it probably feels pretty crappy.
Now, I'll bet she's not having a hard time recruiting because there's probably some ideologues who just want to say they worked for her to get jobs with radical far-left lobby firms after they're done.
But this is just completely outrageous.
Representative Cortez doesn't even understand basic economics.
Now, Um, Yashir Ali on Twitter, he's, you know, I, I, me and him had a beef a while ago.
I don't even remember what it was about, but, uh, he, he can be, you know, a down the center guy sometimes.
And sometimes he goes, but he tweeted something that's just, I'm sorry, but it's just wrong.
I'm not trying to like pick a fight with the guy, but he tweeted, you know, the people who are criticizing this AOC thing about her pay and entry level people, $52,000 a year.
They don't understand how the budgeting works.
She gets a fixed amount of money.
And she can allocate it as she sees fit.
Okay, point stipulated.
What does that have to do with anything?
Right.
Joe, I don't get it.
Like, what does that have to... I don't understand what that has to do... One, it's still not her money.
The fixed pot of money she gets is from us.
It's not her money.
It's our money, number one.
And number two, money that's unused, she's free to refund.
Oh, people don't do that.
Oh, no.
Rand Paul does it all the time.
So just to be clear, it's still our money.
That's not in dispute.
So because it's our money, she can afford to pay staffers for skills they don't yet have.
Because it's our money, she can overpay them.
And because it's a fixed budget, who cares?
She can refund the money.
I mean, Joe, doesn't that sum up the problem of government right there?
It kind of reminds me of when I was in the Secret Service.
One time there was this thing like, oh, you got to go out before the spending deadline and spend this money or we don't get the money next year.
Who would ever do that in a regular business?
In a free market?
You wouldn't.
It's because it's other people's money that she feels like she can allocate it because, oh, she's been given it so she has to spend it.
No, she doesn't have to spend it.
If she doesn't have people who are worth those kinds of skills, then don't pay them and give us our money back.
Step up.
Yeah, exactly.
You want to, I mean, seriously, you want to, you know, you want to be a leader, then lead by example.
I mean, Rand Paul does it.
No.
All right.
Hey show also brought to you by, but he said, Jen, you sell.
Hey, do you wish that double chin would just disappear?
Are those bags and puffiness getting a little worse every day?
Just listen to Robin S from Lubbock, Texas.
I put the jawline cream on my neck like two or three days ago.
That is the best my neck is looking over 20 years.
Several people told me my face looks young.
I am blown away.
This stuff works.
My mother-in-law loves it.
With GenuCell's natural actives and a pure antioxidant base with no parabens, no chemical scents, and no pharmaceutical preservatives, it's the clean luxury your skin deserves every day.
Order right now and the GenuCell jawline treatment is yours absolutely free.
Just for ordering the classic GenuCell plant stem cell therapy for bags and puffiness.
It's great stuff.
Text YOUNG.
It's the opposite of OLD, because that's how you'll look at this.
YOUNG.
Text YOUNG to 77453 or go to genucel.com.
That's genucel.com.
With Chaminade's 100% money-back guarantee, you'll only have the bags, wrinkles, and the double chin to lose.
Order now while three-day shipping is still free.
Text YOUNG to 77453 or go to genucel.com.
That's G-E-N-U-C-E-L dot com.
Genucel.com.
Okay.
So, I'm flying over and I'm on the plane.
And I'm thinking to myself, because I've been getting a lot of emails, now that things are wrapping up, it looks like the Mueller probe is coming to an end, an unceremonious end, as I've predicted the entire time.
I don't mean to, I'm not patting me on the back, but it's, you know, it was pretty obvious, I think, from Joe and I and everyone else from the start, that this was going to be a big, fat, empty air balloon.
And it looks like it.
They're going to get a lot of process crimes.
They may take Stone down, but this is, it's going to end with a big whimper.
I've been getting emails and tweets from people saying, well, now that it's going to end, what is Trump waiting for on the declassification side?
And let me be very specific what I mean.
Trump has ultimate declassification authority as the president of the United States.
He can order people to declassify information to let the public see it.
Now, we've all suspected from the start, based on information we got from David Nunes, Jim Jordan, Mark Meadows, John Ratcliffe, and others who have followed this case extensively up in Congress, that some of the information that's been classified, both in the FISA warrant show and some of the email information, And when I say that, I mean the emails from the FBI and the texts from those individuals back and forth is potentially devastating.
Now, why isn't he doing that?
Well, let me go on the record here and say I am sure he is going to.
I think he's waiting.
I think he's waiting for this to wrap up.
Let Mueller finish his thing.
Let Mueller sign off on the project.
Get Mueller out of the pictures.
Mueller's clearly, right now, his only goal in this entire thing has been to obstruct Trump and keep the heat on Donald Trump, as I've said from the beginning.
Mueller's not a good guy.
I'm sorry, but anybody... I have a lot of friends in this business doing great work on this case.
We have sincere disagreements about Mueller and Rosenstein, and that's okay.
I respect them a thousand percent, but I think they're wrong.
Rosenstein and Mueller are not good guys in this.
I'm sure of it.
But one of the things I think they're hiding, Joe, is the United Kingdom and the Australians' involvement in this entire thing.
Now, I bring this up now because what started, I believe, this whole debacle is the tip-off From the British in about the fall of 2015, that they may have had something on Mike Flynn.
Now, I've talked about this before.
Mike Flynn was hated by the Obama administration.
Lieutenant General Flynn was running the Defense Intelligence Agency under the Obama administration.
And it's important to keep this in context.
Keep in mind what we're talking about here.
The lead of the story is What is going to be in the declassification?
What's so damaging that they're hiding?
That what they're hiding is a clandestine effort between U.S.
intelligence agencies and foreign intelligence agencies to ding U.S.
citizens for political reasons.
Does that make sense, Joe?
That's the lead of the story.
So there was a tip-off, clearly, in the fall of 2015 from the British about Flint.
Remember this.
Flynn's hated by the Obama administration.
Why?
Because he opposes the Iran deal.
He has spoken out vigorously about the dangers the Iranians present to us, how the Iran deal is a bad deal.
And Flynn is a lieutenant general who's very well respected.
In the intelligence community, he's got a decorated career in the military.
He's a real patriot and a hero.
Obama knows this guy is dangerous because of his, you know, to use the dreaded D.C.
word, gravitas in the I.C.
He needs this guy sidelined or he needs this guy to appear dirty, that he's somehow conflicted by these foreign contacts.
This is the genesis, in my humble belief, of the entire Russian collusion scandal.
They've already tried this template on John McCain.
They try it on Mike Flynn.
They're going to try it again on Donald Trump.
It's just easier to nail the Russians with it for a number of different reasons.
Conveniently.
Right around December of 2015, Mike Flynn has this dinner with Vladimir.
Vladimir Putin's at the dinner.
It's an RT dinner and he's there, Russian television dinner.
And right around the fall of 2015, he's at this dinner and accusations start to swirl that he's had some inappropriate contact with a Russian woman there.
The charges are debunked.
No, it's total nonsense.
I want you to keep in mind because even saying it, you know, is bad because then it impugns.
There's no there there, I assure you.
The DIA looked into it.
The Russian woman has vigorously denied any of this.
It was like, oh, well, she was showing him a postcard of some, like, naked person or something.
It's just so stupid.
The charges are absurd.
But because they have this template, because remember, if you're a regular listener to my show, you know the Democrats tried this Russian collusion narrative already.
on John McCain when Hillary was running the last time against Obama for the nomination.
So this has been tried before and we already know from the Wall Street Journal article that Glenn Simpson, who used to write for the Wall Street Journal, has already written numerous pieces about the players in the ex-Soviet empire trying to woo American politicians.
So the movie script is already there.
They try it on McCain, they're going to try it again on Flynn.
Now how do we know this?
Folks, do you remember the text from Peter Stroke The counterintel investigator who is knee deep in the Hillary scandal.
He is deeply connected to McCabe and everyone else.
And he's the guy who later goes on.
This is very, very, very important.
He's the guy who later goes on to be one of the lead investigators in the Trump case.
Right around the same time, Flynn meets with, he sits at the same table as Putin at this Russian television dinner.
That text comes out about how they're looking for approval for OCONUS laws.
Okonis, meaning outside of the United States, outside of the continental United States.
That's what that stands for.
Okonis, outside of the continental United States.
In other words, people who are foreign lords, people who are lords like bait, to bait people in.
So the lead investigator at the time in counterintel, It's looking for approval to use these foreign lures.
This happens right after this meeting.
It's not a meeting, I shouldn't say, where Flynn attends this dinner for Russian television and Putin is there.
This happens right around the same time, folks.
Now, the question has always been, what the heck are they talking about?
Who are these OCONUS lures?
Who are these people, these bait people they're using to bait people in?
Well, the options at this point, knowing what we know about the investigation, are quite limited.
There are a number of suspects.
One of the lead suspects in this, Joe, is Stefan Halper.
Stefan Halper, now, here's where the connection is.
Remember, we're the lead of the story here.
They're hiding an illicit connection between U.S.
and foreign intelligence to spy on Americans.
That's the lead here.
So at this dinner, they're looking for some foreign lures, people out of the United States to lure people in.
What happens after that dinner?
The United States starts getting negative information on Flynn regarding that dinner announcement from Stefan Halper, who is a known Central Intelligence Agency asset who has deep connections to the CIA through his family and otherwise.
He has been used as an asset by the intelligence agency before.
Halper starts feeding them information, negative information about Flynn.
Now, was the lure someone at the dinner?
Was the lure Halper?
There's a number of suspects here, but it's important because Halper's ties are not just, he's a U.S.
citizen, Halper, but he's deeply connected through Hacklet and this Cambridge Intelligence Seminar.
Halper is deeply connected to United Kingdom intelligence officials too.
Folks, this is very important, all of this.
This is what they're hiding with the FISA and the communications back and forth.
Everything that seems to happen has a foreign connection to the United Kingdom or some foreign intel agency because, Joe, our... Is this making sense, Armacost?
Yeah, we're good.
Our intel agencies have very restrictive rules on spying on American citizens.
So there's a political spying scandal here that is bigger, folks, than anybody can imagine.
I bring this up because a lot of you sent me this article by Conrad Black, which is really, really good.
And the title of the article is This is the biggest constitutional crisis since the Civil War.
It's a damning article.
It appeared in the Daily Mail and some other outlets as well.
I will put it in the show notes at Bongino.com.
You go to the menu, podcasts, and all the articles are connected to the show.
It's showing my email list.
I'll send them right to you.
But Conrad Black, ladies and gentlemen, is right.
The United Kingdom is terrified that they're going to be exposed, their intelligence agency, as political players, not intelligence players.
This is a constitutional crisis because it's clear right now that people on the president's team were spied on using foreign assets who were not subjected to the strict IC rules the intelligence community has to prevent spying on American citizens.
This is a huge scandal and expect nobody in the media at all to cover this.
Nobody in the media, excuse me, nobody in the media, I'm talking about the hack media, not like the real media.
I'm talking about like the CNNs and the other folks.
They won't cover this at all.
So I've got a couple points here.
Number one, that tax appears right around the same time.
December of 2015, they're looking for permission for people outside of the United States to lure people in.
That happens right after this Flynn dinner he's at where Putin is there.
All of a sudden information starts popping into the United States how Flynn is dirty.
They're trying to dirty up a decorated Lieutenant General with malicious, disgusting charges of basically treason and being a traitor and a sellout to the Russian government when they know these charges aren't true.
Now, Just a few months later.
Stroke.
Again, Peter Stroke, who's the key to this whole thing.
FBI agent, counterintel, connected to all the big players at the FBI in this.
Just a few months after that.
To be precise, three months after the Flynn, uh, uh, Putin RT dinner, where all these accusations that Flynn is, uh, you know, dealing with the Russians in an untoward manner, he's dangerous.
All of this stuff starts happening.
Three months later, Shroek texts his girlfriend again.
This is about the same time Papadopoulos meets with Joseph Mifsud, another guy connected to Western intelligence.
Papadopoulos, Mifsud, connected to Western intelligence by his own lawyer's admission.
Papadopoulos has been talking a lot lately about Mifsud.
Three months after that stroke, Texas girlfriend, FBI lawyer, Lisa Page, our boy is talking.
That happened around March, 2016.
So they need approval for these lures.
People outside the United States to lure people in and bait them in.
Who were those people?
Were they people at the dinner?
Now, it's becoming pretty clear that Mifsud, that Joseph Mifsud, was being used by Western intelligence, potentially the United Kingdom as well, to bait Papadopoulos in.
Again, like they tried to bait Flynn in at this dinner with Putin.
It's pretty clear they're trying to bait him in to try to get him to talk about anything Russian connected so they can do the same thing they did to John McCain.
The same thing they did to, uh, to, uh, Mike Flynn, excuse me.
And the same exact thing they're trying now on Papadopoulos.
This timeline is important.
Our guy is talking.
That's the text.
Right around the time Mifsud meets Papadopoulos.
Now, who is our guy?
Who's our guy?
Is it Halper?
Is it Mifsud?
Folks, I believe the unredacted materials in the FISA are going to be damning.
And those materials are going to expose questions like who were the Oconus lores?
Who were the lores they were using to bait people in?
Our guy is talking.
Excuse me, it says our boy is talking.
No, excuse me, it says our guy is talking.
Who's that guy?
Who is that guy?
Are they talking about Mifsud?
Keep the lead in mind here, folks.
Don't lose where I'm going.
This is a scandal and a constitutional crisis of epic proportions.
Conrad Black is right.
Did we use foreign intel to bait U.S.
citizens in and violate their constitutional rights simply because they were political opponents of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton?
These are devastating, devastating questions.
Now, here, this is from, I believe this is from the New York Times.
A quote from the New York Times.
I was going through some of my notes on this on the plane over to make sure I was prepared for the show for you.
I believe this is the New York times.
It is unclear whether they highlighted the British role, which has been closely held in the briefing, but as a critical part of the timeline, because it suggests that some of the first tip offs in the fall of 2015 came from voice intercepts, computer traffic, or human sources outside of the United States as emails and other data from the DNC float out of the country.
Hold on.
I'm going to go on a second, but this is important.
It suggests here, That they're monitoring in live time voice communications via the British who are tipping us off in the fall of 2015 about information about U.S.
citizens.
And they're tying it to the hacking of the DNC despite the fact that there's no connection between these two at all.
Joe, you see where I'm going with this?
They now need a cover.
They need a reason why they're doing this.
Their reason can't be because they're political opponents.
We don't like them.
So they figure out if they could tie them and make a connection to the DNC emails, they'll be golden.
It goes on.
The British picked it up and we may have had it about the same time, said one cyber expert who's been briefed on the finding.
British intelligence, especially the signals intelligence unit, GCHQ, has a major role in tracking Russian activity.
Now, there's been some breaks on that end too.
On the case of the GCHQ, the British NSA, that clearly has a knee-deep role in the monitoring of U.S.
citizens to circumvent U.S.
law, Joe, the GCHQ has had problems too.
The GCHQ has had problems because Bob Hannigan, their director, resigns basically right after the Trump election victory, not thereafter, and resigns for very suspicious reasons now.
It just came out, Joe, I just saw this story, that Hannigan may have had a role in writing a letter for some pedophile who was a member of the church over there, a supporting role, and that this is one of the reasons he resigned.
Now, that story, there haven't been any denials of that story, that he wrote this letter in support of him, so I'm assuming the story's accurate.
But this is a chicken or egg thing, Joe.
In other words, what I'm saying is did Hannigan really resign because he wrote this?
I mean, listen, it's pretty disgusting.
There's no doubt about it.
Or did Hannigan become someone else's political opponent?
Hannigan was a real rising star over in the UK.
In other words, after he figured out he played the wrong side, Hannigan, did Hannigan become a target as well?
And did someone say to Hannigan, Hey, um, Buddy, all that GCHQ spying on us.
Yeah, it's not really gonna work out.
Hey, you wrote this letter, right?
A while back in support of this guy.
You know this guy's a pedophile, right?
Doesn't look good.
Maybe you should step aside.
Interesting new developments as the threat for declassification comes out.
We see all the players involved in this.
All of a sudden, all this stuff starts to come out.
It's just crazy how that happens.
Now, one more thing.
You know, when I talk about this case, I always refer to plan A, plan B, and plan C. Plan A was clearly to just spy, was to use human sources, intercepts, and the British to just basically spy on their political opponent.
When they got caught because Mike Rogers outs them, he requests an audit of the misuse of the NSA for spying.
Mike Rogers, I believe, is the good guy in this tale.
They move on to making this formal.
They move on to plan B. Plan C, of course, is the Mueller cleanup operation.
Clean up aisle four, Bob Mueller.
Clean up aisle, bring him out, Bob Mueller, aisle four.
So Joe, it's clear at this point that they understand when they get outed that they have to move on to a more robust plan.
That they can't just rely exclusively on unmaskings and unmitigated spying anymore because they're setting off too many alarms.
So what do they do?
They move on to the FISA courts.
Now, remember, April 30th, 2016.
Remember the text from Stroke and it'll start to make sense, Joe.
Stroke texts his girlfriend about a month after the Mifsud Papadopoulos encounter and the our guy is talking stuff.
He says, and now we've switched from the Patriot Act to a wire carrying current.
Let me translate what he probably means there.
Stroke.
Again, this is a month after.
They probably got some information from a human source.
Hence the text, our guy is talking.
Was that Halper?
Was it Mifsud?
Was it someone connected to Mifsud?
Was it someone at the Mifsud Papadopoulos meeting?
Was it Vinogradova, the Russian at the meeting?
Clearly somebody is talking.
Now he says guy, so I'm assuming it's obviously a guy, but you never know.
I take these people at their, I don't take them at their word for anything.
So, Stroke, Tex again, and now we've switched from the Patriot Act to a wire carrying current.
Here's what I think he means.
I think they had accumulated enough information at that point, Joe, via the British and via misuse of the NSA database.
Remember my show last week, Nellie Orr, conveniently, a contractor, Russian You know, Russian language person, language specialist, all of a sudden we have all these allegations that they're using contractors to tap into the database.
It's just awfully convenient, isn't it?
Now we know Nellie Orr may have produced her own dossier, which she handed off to her husband in the Justice Department.
Folks, all the pieces are starting to fit together now.
What that says to me, now we switch from the Patriot Act.
The Patriot Act, he's probably referring to the business records provision that is used to spy on people under the Patriot Act, which by the way, so we're crystal clear, I have never, ever agreed with ever.
Not that I've been accused otherwise, but You know, sometimes you get these liberals, well where were you speaking out against the Patriot Act before?
I don't know, just Google my name and you can see when I was running for office in 2011 screaming about the Patriot Act and how terrible it was.
So I don't know, just do some research.
It just upsets me when people do that because you're questioning my credibility.
The Patriot Act was a Republican measure passed by George W. Bush's administration, which is terrible.
What I think Stroke is referring to, Joe, is a business records provision which allows them to spy on American citizens using an expanded definition of what business records are.
I mean, what are they talking about, library cards?
I mean, are they talking about business emails?
So I think Stroke is saying we're moving on from strict spying under Patriot to wire-carrying current, meaning people at the locations, human sources who may be recording.
The question is how many recordings are out there?
Now, I bring this up and I want to move on because I got other stuff to get to too.
The reason I bring up the idea of recordings, folks, Is because Jim Jordan, Devin Nunes, and others who are intimately familiar with this case have said multiple times that there is exculpatory information out there that you have not yet seen.
In other words, there is information likely about Papadopoulos and others involved in this case, potentially Mike Flynn, that are likely recordings that indicates watch show that they are not guilty of the accusations put out there and presented before them.
What does that tell you, folks?
That says that not only was the government involved in a ridiculous, absurd, outrageous, unconstitutional spying scandal under Barack Obama's administration, but that the spying in and of itself produced evidence of innocence, not guilt, and they still ran with it anyway.
Conrad Black is right, folks.
We are looking at a massive constitutional crisis of the highest order, and people will have to be prosecuted over this.
Frustrating.
Very, very frustrating to talk about.
I sense your frustration.
I read your emails.
Folks, we can't give up, though.
I know a lot of you are like, forget it!
No one's been arrested yet!
We have to hang in.
There's nothing else we can do.
I'm not giving up and you shouldn't either.
The president knows what's coming.
He's intimately familiar with what's going on.
He knows once he declassifies all of these questions are going to come out.
Everything I just talked about.
The British involvement in circumventing U.S.
intelligence restrictions, the fact that exculpatory information is out there, and the fact that we may have used lures to lure people, bait people in, otherwise known as entrapment, to nail their political enemies.
This is devastating.
All right, folks, today's show brought to you by our buddies at G-Code.
G-Code, love their holsters.
Many of you have gotten your feedback on them, and I really appreciate it.
We have a lot of great companies that advertise with us.
G-Code's one of the better ones out there.
Really, really enjoy their products.
Listen, I'm a big supporter of the Second Amendment.
I know you are, too.
And depending on the state you live in, concealed carry laws, you want to protect your family when you go out.
That's why you need a great holster to properly carry your firearm.
You don't want some garbage holster out there with a, you know, it doesn't click to your belt right, or if you have a pocket holster, you don't, you know, you want to make sure it's right.
For more than 20 years, G-code has produced what many consider to be the finest holsters in the industry.
Today, they clearly lead the pack.
They are 100% American made products, all materials, all components sourced right here in the great old US of A.
The owners of G-Code holsters are military veterans and they are meticulous about quality, innovation, and workmanship.
Excellence drives everything they do and every product comes with a lifetime, lifetime warranty.
Whether you're military, law enforcement, or civilian, G-Code has a holster for you.
Check out their all-new G-Code Phenom.
It's an in-the-waistband holster being hailed as a game-changer for comfort and concealability.
That's a must-have.
I got one.
Order online at range5.com.
That's range, the number 5.com.
Range, the number 5.com.
Be sure to use the code Bongino for a terrific 15% off.
That's range5.com.
Use code Bongino for 15% off.
Go check G-code out.
You'll love them.
Okay.
Uh, where are we?
Oh, uh, let's see.
What did we go to next?
I had about six or seven stories here.
Oh, hate crime, hysteria, hate crime.
We need like a Joe, do you have any kind of dramatic, like we, we need one of those for the hate, the hate crime, hysteria thing that's going on right now.
Everything's a, you know, and there's a reason this is happening after these Jussie Smollett actor from empire Joe, after that case fell apart, The media understanding their role in propagating the myth that Smollett was attacked by people wearing MAGA hats who hated him and screamed these racial and anti-gay epithets at him.
After that collapse, the media needed to somehow save their reputations, Joe.
So the line, just like, you know, the AOC line on the Green Deal has changed from, you know, this thing stinks to, well, what do you got?
How about that?
What do you got?
I'm in charge now.
How about that?
Just like they've changed to produce something or I'm in charge.
The Smollett narrative now is, well, just because Smollett may have been involved in a hoax here, doesn't mean hate crimes aren't exploding and it's all Donald Trump's fault.
So, of course, Joe, We have our resident fact checker on our site who we brought in.
I pay Matt Palumbo to do one thing and one thing only.
I said, Matt, I need you to look at this hate crime stuff.
And I want a detailed analysis of this one question.
Uh, here's the headline.
Headline.
Remember?
Let's go.
Headline.
Are hate crimes going up under the Donald Trump administration?
Uh, the answer is folks, uh, not the way the liberal media is saying it, which is no surprise at all.
Okay.
Let me give you some headlines first.
This is in my piece, folks.
This is a really terrific piece.
I strongly, strongly, uh, encourage you.
Oh, sorry.
I just got a bad text.
Uh, hold Joe.
Don't cut this out.
It's my, my Amelia has this.
My wife just texted me from home.
Amelia has a sty in her eye.
Is that bad?
Do you know anything about that Joe?
It's kind of like a pink eye thing.
It itches a lot.
Is it bad?
No, it's pretty common with kids and some adults as well.
Yeah.
Yeah.
You can leave this in.
Yeah.
I love my eyes.
My wife just texts, sorry folks, but you're all part of my life.
It's really irritating to deal with.
I mean, it really itches and it's red.
Why does this, you know, and for those of you who travel, don't you, this always happens when you're on the road.
Did you notice that?
Oh, Well, if you have a doc, if there's any docs in the audience, can you email my wife info at Bungie?
You know, if you know if this dies, if that's bad, well, she'll take her to.
I'm not a doctor.
Uh, yeah, yeah, I know.
But, uh, I, I'm looking for the, yeah, it just happened here on the show.
So let me read to you some headlines.
This is the Washington Post, St.
Louis Dispatch, San Francisco Chronicle, um, and United Press Chronicle, uh, respectively here.
Here are headlines after the Smollett case, uh, uh, fell apart.
Hate crimes rose 17% last year, according to new FBI data.
That's so WAPO.
Hate crimes are increasing alongside Trump's rhetoric at St.
Louis Post.
Hate crimes in the US California surged in the first year of the Trump presidency.
San Francisco Chronicle.
FBI.
Surge in hate crimes in 2017, the largest since 9-11.
United Press Chronicle.
Okay.
Each arguing a similar message, as Matt writes, that hate crimes are on the rise and that we can blame Donald Trump for it.
Please, folks, read this piece because it shows again how almost nothing the left ever tells you is BS.
Now, we'll put the facts out there.
You can decide.
Here are the actual facts.
Law enforcement did in fact report 7,175 hate crimes in 2017.
6,175 hate crimes in 2017. That is up from 6,121 in 2016.
So folks, you may say, "Okay, well, you're just making their point, Dan."
Hate crimes are up by roughly a thousand as reported in 2017.
Ladies and gentlemen, listen, nothing the media tells you is, they tell you things without context to lead you to believe that somehow this is Donald Trump's fault.
Here's the real data when we start peeling off the layers of the onion and get to the message underneath that you can be rest assured I'm telling you the truth here.
What they leave out of that, folks, Is there were over in about 1,000 additional agencies contributing information to the FBI's Unified Crime Reporting Program in 2017 in contrast to 2016.
Each new agency therefore would only need to report one hate crime to explain the entire rise.
So let's be clear here.
The headline from the media, hate crimes are rising in the Trump era.
They leave out the fact that the agencies reporting are rising in the Trump era.
Now, you may say, okay, Dan, so it's just more agencies reporting, but there could also be more hate crimes.
That doesn't absolve the newspaper of their responsibility.
In other words, they're not wrong.
There are more hate crimes being reported, even though there's more agencies.
Okay, well, let's dig into the data even more.
Joe, I'm gonna ask you a question, is the audience on buzz?
If Donald Trump is the anti-Muslim, anti-minority racist, they're painting him out to be, right?
So, point one.
And hate crimes are supposedly increasing in the Trump administration, according to the hack media.
Don't you think that the hate crimes, if they believe he's some kind of a racist, which is absurd, would be increasing against black American citizens and Muslims?
Is that reasonable?
Simple question.
I'm not messing with you.
Of course it's reasonable.
If you're making the allegation that Trump is anti-Muslim and anti-Black, and that hate crimes are up there, those are in fact the groups that would be on the sad receiving end of a hate crisis.
Well, that's not the case, Joe, of course, because the media is never telling you the truth.
Here's from Matt Palumbo's piece.
Hate crimes not only didn't increase, Joe, they decreased against some of the groups in 2017 that the media would like us to believe are under siege in Donald Trump's America.
Hate crimes against Muslims decreased from 307 incidents to 273 from 2016 to 2017.
Folks, I don't understand.
The data is so easy to read when you get past the stupid media headlines that you wonder if anybody out there is actually doing genuine journalism anymore, or if anybody even cares.
So the number of reporting agencies went up, which could easily have led to the thousand... I mean, which corresponds, by the way, directly to the increase.
A thousand more reports of hate crime, a thousand more agencies reporting.
Secondly, you're making an allegation, absurd on its face, that Trump is somehow anti-Muslim or anti-Black.
And in fact, anti-Muslim hate crimes, the reports went down, not up.
Meanwhile, the number of anti-transgender hate crimes declined by a third, and the number of anti-male hate crimes tripled.
But this is due to an extremely small sample size.
For most part, the increase in hate crimes, remember there's more reporting agencies, was proportional across the board.
Matt writes a great point here, which is exactly what we would expect if the rise was due to increased agency reporting and not increased targeting of a particular group.
Folks, if the increases across the board amongst all these racial and sexual orientation and sex-based groups that we're categorizing people, if it's across the board and we've had a thousand new agencies and it wasn't isolated to one specific group that you're alleging Trump is targeting, it rebuts you and basically knocks down your entire point that it's Trump's rhetoric that's involved in this increase.
There was no increase in the group you target the most that you're saying, oh, he's Trump's anti-Muslim.
He's not.
It's stupid.
You're making it up.
Here's another one.
So one of the other talking points that they're throwing out there, Joe, is, well, there has been an increase in anti-Semitic hate crimes, and they did in fact rise 57% in 2017, Joe.
But here's Matt's piece again.
The entire rise, Joe, was attributable to one guy who was phoning in bomb threats to synagogues.
Without him, when you take him out of the scene, this one maniac, Anti-Semitic violence actually decreased by 47% according to the Anti-Defamation League's own statistics.
Folks, again, nothing the media is telling you is true.
You need this information to get into a healthy back and forth with your liberal friends who are trying to gaslight everybody, make stories up, to paint Donald Trump as they try to paint every prominent conservative out there.
As a racist, anti-Muslim xenophobe.
None of it is true.
Hate crime reporting went up because agency reporting went up.
It was proportional across categories, which indicates it wasn't directed at any particular group.
And the one group they always come out on TV and indicate Trump is anti, being anti-Muslim, the number of reported hate crimes against Muslim groups actually went down.
And if you take the one guy out of the anti-Semitic category here, The one guy calling in the bomb threats to synagogues all over the country, anti-Semitic violence dropped by 47%.
But don't let that get in the way of your fairy tales.
Oh, gosh.
Okay, moving on.
I have another article today.
I should have probably covered this right after the AOC stuff.
Another article about the Green New Deal.
It's a pretty decent article with some nice sub-links inside of it and YouTube videos and things like that.
The title of the article is Five Articles Against Climate Alarmism.
I'm not gonna cover every one of them.
You can read the piece yourself, and there's a lot of good sub-links in there and videos as well.
I haven't covered this often, but given the prominence now of the Green New Deal and the vigorous defense by AOC, How about that?
I'm in charge now.
How about that?
You know, given all that, I feel like we should engage in some of it.
Well, one of the things that you hear being thrown out there by climate alarmists like AOC And others, Joe, is the famous Barack Obama tweet about 97% of climate scientists agree that the world is going to explode tomorrow.
No, that climate change is in fact real.
Ladies and gentlemen, that is a bogus nonsense statistic.
This piece addresses it, undresses it, breaks it apart.
There's even a video on it if you care to watch it.
What actually happened with that is that it's a number of people who responded to a survey directed at certain climate scientists.
And the question was not, you know, is climate change going to lead to the destruction of humankind?
It was basically as the climate changing.
So it was not some kind of formal study.
Now, there was a pretty decent survey done of people who are members of the American Meteorological Society.
In other words, Joe, people who understand meteorology, the effects of weather and climate, which are not the same thing.
And an interesting result from this, which largely debunks this 97% figure, remember, it was only the people who responded.
I guess the best way to describe that, this 97% number, is...
The people who are always most motivated to respond to a survey, think about customer service surveys you get, right?
If you had an okay experience on an airline, do you respond to those?
Generally, no.
No, right?
No, I don't either.
I mean, you just, you know, me and Joe are busy.
You're busy at home, you work, you got to get kids around, get food on the table.
If it was an okay, there was nothing particularly great or awful about it.
It was, you know, it was an airline ticket.
You did what you had to do.
You just delete it from your email.
You're like, okay, fine, I'm out, thanks, but have a nice day.
Who are the people who respond?
The people who respond, and why a lot of these reviews tend to skew negative, like the world's gonna collapse, climate change is real, are the people who have a vested interest in doing it.
They want a refund for a crappy experience they had on an airline.
I just took one of these reasons.
I'm not gonna say what airline, but, you know, because it wasn't, I don't wanna hurt them, and it wasn't that catastrophic, but I get on a plane, You know, usually when I carry my suit when I have to do fox and stuff, I don't fold it up.
I just hang it.
Right.
Or if I have to, I stick it in the overhead and I'll just fold it in half so it doesn't get all wrinkled.
But you know, 999 out of 100 times if there's a closet, the flight attendant will say, hey, you want me to hang that for you?
So I asked the lady on one of these airlines, I'm like, hey, you mind if I hang this?
She goes, no.
She tells me no.
She goes, no.
Meanwhile, keep in mind, the closet's, I'm like the last guy in the plane, the closet's empty.
So I look at her and I'm like, I'm going to make a scene about it.
I'm like, um, okay.
So I'm walking in the back and the other lady says, oh, the other flight attendant goes, you should have asked her to hang that up front.
I go, I did.
She told me no.
She goes, oh, okay.
And I just jam, it's all wrinkled.
So I actually responded to the survey because I was motivated.
I'm like, what kind of crappy customer service is this?
He could have hung the thing.
But I know, crazy story.
So, the whole point is that people who are most motivated to respond, that's what happened with the survey.
It's not coincidental that 97% of the people who responded indicated that the climate change was real.
The climate is changing, it is real.
It should have been 100%.
The question should have been more appropriately stated.
Is man, human beings, are we causing changes in the climate?
Well, that question again, sorry, I should have just got right to the point, was asked to these meteorologists and only 52% said that it is primarily man-made.
So your points about that are just nonsense.
It's 97%.
There's also some interesting charts in the piece indicating that unusual weather events, super powerful hurricanes, super storms like that, and dramatic increases in temperature, folks, are really a largely man-made myth on the left.
When you look at the charts in the piece I have in the show notes, you'll see, folks, that the temperature hasn't changed much at all.
Um, the temper and the number of unusual weather events has gone down, not up.
So again, the left is making this up.
Uh, representative Cortez and others are making this up.
Um, it's climate alarmism.
It's climate alarmism for a reason.
They want to command and control economy, just like socialists where government controls the means of production and their vehicle to do that and get in there is going to be through, you know, the environment, you know, what they call mom.
The red-green axis.
You know, what were prior communists and socialists who just wanted to command and control the economy because they thought government bureaucrats could do better.
When that fell apart after the Soviet Union, they moved on to environmentalism.
Environmentalism as a way to institute things like government control over the economy.
You can see that in Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's New Deal.
So think about that.
One other thing is, when they use measures for historical temperature, folks, they use things like ice cores and dendrochronology.
Dendrochronology is the study of the depth of tree rings.
And they think they can correlate that to temperature.
Ladies and gentlemen, it's absurd to try and make percent.
Now, there is some correlation to temperature and CO2 emissions in the atmosphere and the depth of the tree ring, because that's, you know, plant life does like reverse respiration for us.
You know, we breathe in oxygen, expel carbon dioxide.
They obviously do the opposite.
You know, basic biology all know that.
So the presence of heavy amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can be associated with a thicker tree ring, meaning it was healthier that year.
But Joe, the level of precision in that measurement is not even close to the level of precision they say it is.
So be very careful of tree ring data when they cite tree ring data as evidence of historical temperatures.
Ladies and gentlemen, they don't know that.
They can't even correlate tree ring data to temperature 10 years ago.
Forget about a thousand years ago.
It's a bunch of crap.
Might as well read tea leaves, yeah.
Yeah, they are.
That's what they're doing.
Basically reading the TV.
One final story here for the day and I will let you roll from Vietnam.
You are having an effect.
I have a Deadline.com story.
What you're doing is working, ladies and gentlemen.
Hollywood receipts are down dramatically.
Hollywood has taken a far left lurch.
We all know that.
You and I have fought back.
I'm very limited in my movie consumption now.
Matter of fact, one of the things I like about plane rides is I can watch movies I don't have to give any money for.
I don't have to pay for anything.
And I can basically consume all their content and not give them a dime, which is absolutely terrific.
So, you know, I'll see movies with my kids, but I used to go every weekend.
You're having an effect.
There's an article at Deadline about how the Hollywood receipts are down, but not just that show, the Academy Awards for the first time.
The ratings have been going down for so long and they're still healthy.
I don't want to make it out like no one watches, people are watching, but the ratings are down so significantly due to political BS at the Academy Awards show that they've had, you're familiar with the radio industry and how advertising works, even with our show.
Joe, we don't give guarantees because we don't need to because our show grows every month.
The Academy Awards have had to give their advertisers, they're looking at guarantees for next year's show.
In other words, well, give us this amount of money for an ad, we can guarantee you this because they're not even sure anymore that the audience is going to be there.
You're having an effect, folks.
It's slow.
I understand that.
I get with the Trump spygate case and the declassification.
Justice is slow, real justice.
Fake justice that the left engages in climate, climate justice, spying on political opponents.
That's not real justice.
That's tyranny.
But when we do it the right way, it is slow.
And it is deliberate.
And you're having an effect.
I know it's hard to, you know, have to rebut hate crime, hysteria, Green New Deal nonsense.
To have to, you know, demand people in handcuffs right away.
Listen, I'd like to see that too in the spygating.
But real justice takes time.
And what you're doing now, This quiet, slow, deliberate bleed of the entertainment industry as they start to attack us and take on an anti-conservative bent is working.
It's making a real difference.
And advertisers are noticing that money is going to be the ultimate arbiter of how this comes out in the end.
That's why you're seeing a lot of these Hollywood studios start to produce a lot of faith-based movies now, because they're starting to realize they may have gone a little bit too far in the other direction.
And believe me, money talks and BS walks.
All right, folks, thanks again for tuning in.
I'll give you some updates on the trip here as we get going.
I've only been in Vietnam for about 12 hours now, so I'll give you some updates during the week about how the summit's going and everything, so don't miss the show this week.
It's going to be a lot of good stuff going on.
I'll give you some lowdown on the skinny underground too, so don't forget.
All right, folks, thanks again.
Please subscribe to the show on iTunes.
It is free.
Go to the podcast app and click the subscribe button.
You can go to iHeartRadio if you have an Android or other phone and click the follow button.
