In this episode I address the stunning revelations in the recently revealed Lisa Page testimony. I also address the college fraud scandal and how the prosecution of it by the FBI differs from the abhorrent techniques they used on Trump. Finally, I address recent comments by AOC indicating her lack of knowledge about economics. News Picks:
Liberal New York is stalking former residents to collect taxes.
Rep. Rashida Tlaib disingenuously claims “Islamophobia” is to blame for criticism of anti-Semite Rep. Ilhan Omar.
Lisa Page’s testimony to Congress was leaked back in January.
Lisa Page confirms that the DOJ gave Hillary a pass.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez humiliated herself again on Capitol Hill.
The college admissions scandal involved the photoshopping of faces onto athlete’s bodies.
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?
Dan-o, Dan-o, Dan-o!
I'm doing pretty good, babe.
Yeah, Joe and I have a good vibe with the show going and Joe always knows when to talk and sometimes he lets me just rant and yesterday I was obviously fired up About my friend Tucker Carlson under relentless assault by the left, not trying to get an apology for words he had said 10 years ago, but trying to get Tucker thrown off the air.
I'm glad a lot of you listened to yesterday's show.
It did really incredible numbers.
But Joe at the end of the show says, Dad, you know, you missed an opportunity though.
I was like, you should have told me during the show.
He said, when you were making this analogy, and just not to redo yesterday's show, but just to be clear, yesterday I was saying how the Never Trumpers and the Rhino Republicans, who are piling on Tucker right now, not understanding the real fight here.
The real fight has absolutely nothing at all to do with Tucker.
The real fight has everything to do with silencing Fox News and getting Tucker thrown off the air.
They don't understand that.
So their articles, I even saw one at the Washington Exam where they're like, we need to call out Tucker.
Yeah, okay, Tucker called himself out.
He'd obviously take those words back if he could.
But that's not what this fight is about.
This is a street fight.
This is not a mixed martial arts fight where there's a referee and rules.
The left wants that, not us.
The left is playing in this for blood.
They want Tucker off the air.
This has nothing to do with an apology.
And Joe said, you should have told that story when you were a cop about the ironing board.
And I thought, you know what?
It was a golden opportunity.
Good one.
So quick, I'm a young cop in the 7'5".
It's one of my first days in a patrol car.
All the rookies were out on foot patrol.
And I get in the car with this guy, Mike, let's call him Mike P. And we respond to this call.
And the guy inside has just lost his mind.
He's going crazy.
He's not that big of a guy either.
Now, I'd been training for a little while in boxing and stuff, but in a trained environment.
You know, you train with a ref and a punching bag and in the Brazilian jiu-jitsu school where they tap out, everybody stops.
So you're used to a controlled environment.
So I respond in the house with this guy.
The guy's sitting there talking to us, you know, not calm, but not totally out of control.
And folks, out of nowhere, he picks up an ironing board.
I kid you not.
The ironing board is like it's being used for ironing.
You know, it's out.
And he swings it and buckles me in half.
I'm not ready for this at all.
My abs aren't contracted, nothing.
And it knocks the wind out of me.
An ironing board's not that heavy.
When you're swinging it as fast as this guy did and as quickly as he did it, Buckle, I fall back on the couch, the guy jumps on top of me in like a mount, and I'm like thinking to myself in my head, did they teach us this escape in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu school?
The couch mount position?
And in my head I'm like, no they hadn't!
And I'm like, holy crap, like this guy, no one's gonna stop this guy!
I gotta tell you folks, you know, in a moment of self-deprecating honesty, it was frightening because I thought to myself, what if this guy gets my gun?
Like, I'll be dead.
Thankfully, my partner at the, yeah, Mike, who was, you know, been around a while, Wound up getting a hold of the guy and he wound up getting arrested later on, but it was a great analogy.
I appreciate Joe bringing it up because it shows you the difference.
I had trained so much and so often under strict rules-based conditions.
In other words, the politics of the past that Republicans are used to.
That Tip O'Neill went over to the White House to have a beer with Reagan, which was all nonsense and stuff, but that's what they believe in.
Well, liberals will come around if we just show them we're nice people.
They won't come around.
It's over.
They're swinging the ironing board at you and buckling you in half, dude.
Wake up.
It's an article in the Washington Examiner, which I like, but, you know, I don't mind people writing countervailing or opposing opinions, but, you know, a lady takes a shot at Tucker and to Pete, ah, we gotta get on Tucker, Tucker, all this, Tucker.
Do you understand the fight we're in?
I mean, seriously, are you that clueless?
Gosh, wake up.
All right, but thanks for the reminder, Joe.
That was a great story.
It ended well.
It could have ended a lot worse if I was on my own.
Thankfully, I was in a patrol car and not a foot patrol where you're by yourself.
All right, today's show brought to you by our buddies at WaxRx.
You know how much I love my sponsors.
I use WaxRx.
I just used it yesterday after I got a haircut.
Cleans out the ears, the inner ear.
You know, you're not supposed to put those cotton swabs inside your ears.
It's very dangerous.
Just read the back of the cotton swabs.
You're not supposed to do that.
So how do you clean your ears?
How do you get hardened earwax out?
Well, you use WaxRx.
It's not the sexiest product in the world, but I wish I would have had it when I was back in the earpiece day wearing Days in the Secret Service, because we would get that earwax buildup inside and you couldn't hear anything.
Here's a customer review I saw from them I wanted to share.
I used to have to go to the doctor twice a year to get rid of my stubborn, hardened earwax.
With the rising costs of healthcare, my double deductible, I pay $60 a visit, $120 a 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.
Thank you, WaxRX.
Right now, you can try the WaxRX system by typing in gowaxrx.com.
That's gowaxrx.com.
Use offer code DAN at checkout.
You'll get free shipping.
It's a nice offer.
Don't wait.
You have no idea what you might be missing because of InterUX.
This stuff works, by the way.
You'd be shocked what comes out of your ears.
Who knows?
It might just change your life.
GoWaxRx.com is the website.
Offer code DAN for free shipping.
Go check that out.
All right.
Yesterday, Joe, the story broke.
I was in the car, and I want to tie it to some of the other stuff going on that's a little more serious.
So the story broke yesterday about this college admissions scandal.
I'm sure you saw it, where a bunch of well-connected people, including some Hollywood actresses, are alleged, let's be fair, we're not liberals here, but they're, you know, innocent till proven guilty, but are alleged to have made significant payments to basically grease the skids to get their kids into elite schools.
The way the scam worked, allegedly, is this guy, I believe his name is Singer, they paid this guy tens of thousands of dollars, in some cases more, to do things like take a placement test for their children, SATs, ACTs, whatever.
Also, Joe, I saw this in the New York Post, I can't believe this.
I cannot believe this story.
They were photo... I don't want to lie.
It's not funny.
It's a crime.
It's fraud, but it's just so ridiculous.
I had to go check it out to make sure it wasn't like a scam story.
Yeah.
Yeah.
They paid this guy to photoshop their kids' faces onto athletes' bodies to pretend they were athletes.
So there's this one photo of this kid like pole vaulting and the photos are like, wow, those are pretty good.
I mean, you're like, was this for real?
So just to describe the scam, These Hollywood actresses and some other connected people had a lot of money pay this guy.
He takes the test.
Now what he did is you'd say, well, what was the guy do?
The guy apparently was super smart.
So, cause a couple of people asked, well, how did he know?
In other words, if I, if Joe Armacost wouldn't do this, by the way, but for little Joe paid a guy to get little Joe into Harvard, you know, and say little Joe has scored maybe, you know, 1200 ESAT, a really good score, but that's not probably not going to get you into Harvard.
So Joe would say to him, we're shooting for a 1400.
Now you may say, Joe, well why didn't they shoot for a 1600?
Because obviously the SAT would catch that there was anomaly there, like no one goes from a 1200 to a perfect score.
But one of the questions that kept getting brought up, again by this guy, it's alleged, innocent until proven guilty here, but it's fascinating, was how did you hit the target score all the time?
And the guy apparently was so smart, like he knew all the answers because he was so smart, he could just get them wrong on purpose.
You're like, darn.
With a guy that smart, why do you have to, you know, why was he alleged to be involved in this fraud ring?
Why not just go start a, right?
Why not just start a real, like a legitimate business?
So I wanted to talk about this for a couple of reasons.
It ties to the whole Spygate thing.
You're like, wait, how?
What?
That's crazy.
No, no, not like that.
There's a message here, though.
And I'm going to get to that.
But before I get to that, I want to talk to you about why this matters and why this scandal is such a big deal, given the status of our higher education system in America.
A little while ago, Joe, I don't know if you remember the show, I was listening to a podcast about higher education by Russ Roberts, Econ Talk, very good show.
And one of the guys on about higher education, you remember this show Joe, was making the argument that it's signaling.
That a diploma from a college is signaling.
In other words, it sends a signal, but it's not indicative of your actual skills.
Boy, that's a while back, yeah.
You remember the show though, right?
Yeah.
Listen, everything works better through analogies.
This is his analogy, not mine.
All right.
But it is brilliant.
And it shows why these people paid all this money to get their kids into these elite colleges, even though they weren't academically prepared for them.
If they were, Joe, they wouldn't need to cheat to get in, right?
10-4.
Two reasons.
First, everything's grade inflated now.
Nobody fails in college anymore.
Everybody gets a gentleman's seat.
Nobody fails out of college anymore.
Nobody.
Meanwhile, I tell you, even when I went to college and when Paula went, which isn't that long ago, I'm not that old, I'm only 44, people failed out.
I know that, because I know a guy who failed out.
You could fail out of college.
Right now it's almost impossible to fail out of college with grade inflation.
So what I'm saying is, once you get into Yale or Harvard, Joe, you're going to get out and you're going to get a degree.
This will tie into the signaling thing in a second.
It reminds me of the old adage about medical school.
Joe, what do they call the guy who graduates last in his class in medical school?
They call him doctor.
That's right!
Because he's a doctor!
Nobody, folks, seriously, have you ever asked your doctor where, if he has a Harvard degree, a Harvard degree from Harvard Medical, you walk in, you're like, darn, this guy is smart!
This guy could have been out of 400 medical doctors in his class, right?
This guy could have been I'm sorry.
Gotta move my fan.
Paula's like, your shirt's on the video.
That's why my shirt's moving.
Oh, she's texting me during the show.
Your shirt's moving all over.
This guy could have been out of 400 graduates.
He could have been 400.
He could have, he could have been that one guy who slipped it.
You don't care.
You see his degree on the wall.
You're like, wow, he's super smart.
So point number one is these Hollywood and famous people and rich people understood if they got their kids in, they were absolutely going to get out.
Number two, The Harvard diploma on the wall is a signal, folks.
Now, I'm not gonna say it doesn't mean anything, but here's the analogy the guy in the podcast gave, and this should really hammer home for you.
Would you rather, in today's workforce, you have a binary option, would you rather have a Harvard degree on your resume in a job interview, and no skills, Or would you rather have the skills you need for the job
you're interviewing for and no degree at all?
You you you darn well know the answer don't you?
You'd rather have the Harvard degree because you know you'll get the job.
And they'll teach you something later on.
But I thought that's what college was about.
I thought college was supposed to teach us the skills for the workforce.
Folks, that analogy.
That choice that the guy laid out in that podcast was absolutely brilliant because it shows that a college degree is a signal.
It's not a certification of anything.
It's just a signal that you did what, Joe?
Went to college!
Went to college, baby!
That's it!
You know how I know this?
Joe's the producer for this show and let's be kind here.
I have some college people who Probably would try to do, and probably couldn't do with Joe.
Now, I'm not saying they couldn't learn, but I'm just saying, like, Joe's got actual workforce experience.
He's been 30 years in radio, you know, five years working for the second biggest conservative podcast in the country, thanks to you.
These are skills.
They're not easy, those audiograms.
That's stuff Joe has to put together.
I'll be candid, folks.
I don't care if Joe has a college degree at all.
It doesn't matter to me.
All I care is that Joe can produce the darn podcast.
It's a signal.
That explains largely what is behind this scandal.
A signaling effect and grade inflation.
All they needed to do was to get their kids in these schools to get the diploma they knew they would get out.
Really dopey scandal.
I was listening to it.
I'm like, gosh, how stupid is this?
Now, you may be saying, how the heck are you going to tie this thing to the Spygate thing?
No, it's not.
I'm not like reaching.
I promise I'm not struggling for material.
We have more than enough stuff.
I have a bunch of video to get to today.
Photos and stuff.
I promise you.
But I was in the car yesterday and I thought about my time as a federal agent and how, why Nancy Pelosi is panicking right now.
Now you're really confused.
Don't worry Joe, I'll get there, right?
Pelosi just came out recently and declared she's not looking for impeachment, that it's quote, not worth it right now.
You may be asking yourself, why?
Why would Nancy Pelosi, a known Trump enemy, she can't, ladies and gentlemen, she cannot stand Trump.
Why would Pelosi come out as the leader of the Democrat caucus on the House side, the Speaker of the House, and come out now and say no impeachment?
Do tell.
Because folks, Nancy Pelosi was briefed back in August by John Brennan about a big conspiracy involving Donald Trump and the Russians.
A conspiracy that never happened.
How do we know that?
Because, listen, I'm going to get into more detail.
Be patient with me on this.
Folks, when I locked up people involved in 371 USC, 18 USC, 371 conspiracy charges when I was a federal agent, and Andy McCarthy has a great piece, an older piece, on this at National Review.
The first thing you do, Joe, when you have a conspiracy, a network of people operating by fraudulent means, Joe, maybe like the allegations in the college thing?
Yeah?
What is the first thing you do as an investigator and a prosecutor?
You nail someone on what the conspiracy is.
Why?
Why would you do that?
Because then all of the co-conspirators know you have them dead to rights, Joe.
Now, Joe, let's put yourself back into the equation.
Let's say Joe wants to get Little Joe into Harvard.
He was part of this and gave this guy, say, $50,000 to get Little Joe into Harvard.
When the investigator shows up to Joe's house and lays out the players, the scandal, the bribes, the test-taking schemes they did, the photoshopping and all the stuff, in other words, the backbone of the conspiracy, Joe knows he's dead to rights.
And what does Joe say?
Alright, what do I need to do to help?
What do I need to do to get out of this?
Right?
Right.
If they show up, Joe, and say, hey, Joe, we think you might have done something wrong with your kid in college.
What is your first question to them, Joe?
Yeah, well, what was that, Daddy-O?
What do you think I did wrong?
What was that, Daddy-O?
In Joe words.
Joe was, what was that, Daddy-O?
If the guy comes back to you and says, I don't know something, it's, no, no, I don't know, comma, something.
I don't know what you did wrong.
I'm just guessing here.
Joe's going to say, thank you, but hashtag sand.
In other words, for the older folks like me, pound.
Remember we used to call it pound, the hashtag sign?
Pound sand.
Thank you.
Have a nice day.
Folks, I have never investigated a conspiracy charge where you didn't discover what the conspiracy was first.
Did you notice that's how this case went down in the FBI?
They charged them with the actual conspiracy first and laid out what happened.
This is not a stretch.
Did you notice in the Mueller case, in the Pelosi charges, the Brennan charges, all the charges by the liberal media lunatics and everyone else about a Trump conspiracy to collude with the Russians, nobody has actually charged formally any version of this conspiracy whatsoever to anyone involved in this case?
Because there isn't one.
There is no conspiracy.
There is nothing to charge.
What does this have to do with the no impeachment thing?
They want to impeach Rashida Tlaib, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Oh, and we got some doozies from her later.
It just keeps getting better.
Maxine Waters.
They want to impeach Trump for what, Joe?
For a collusion conspiracy that Pelosi knows didn't happen.
How does she know?
Not only does she know this didn't happen, but she knows the conspiracy they're alleging is a hoax.
Do you understand now, Joe, how this ties into this fraud case?
The fraud case, you lay out the conspiracy first and that's what you charge people with.
You don't charge people with taxi cab medallion fraud like Michael Cohen, fibbing like they've charged Mike Flynn with at Papadopoulos.
You charge them with the conspiracy.
The actual conspiracy you're alleging!
Nobody's done that.
Because there isn't one.
And Pelosi is freaking out because she was briefed in August of 2016 by John Brennan about this alleged conspiracy.
And this alleged conspiracy was laid out where?
In the dossier.
That is a big fake.
And what is new today and why are we bringing this up?
You may be saying right now, my regular listeners, Dan, all right, we know the dossier is a fake.
We know the conspiracy that they allege was laid out in the fake dossier.
Why are we bringing this up now?
Because Lisa Page's testimony, just like Bruce Ohr's, has now been released by Doug Collins up at the House of Representatives, Republican Doug Collins, and we have some just beautiful information.
Now, I want to give a sincere, heartfelt hat tip to Jeff Carlson at the Epoch Times, who had this testimony a long time ago, in January.
I will, as a courtesy to him, include his older January article, where the exact same testimony is laid out.
But, I don't know.
For some reason, because Jeff did it, maybe some people didn't want to, you know, to give him credit and didn't want to publicize it.
Now that it's gone mainstream, other people are starting to cover the testimony as well.
And I guess now that it's a sanctioned release by the House, Joe, some other people are starting to take it seriously.
I'm not knocking anyone.
I'm just trying to give you a reason why Jeff's January article didn't catch more fire when it should have.
Keep in mind, we covered it back in January too.
Yes, we did.
But now it's getting serious.
Because in the page testimony that's been released, the official testimony, we now know that Pelosi and the others knew back in August of 2016, knew as per Brennan and the FBI knew as well, that this conspiracy was a hoax.
How do we know that?
All right, you know what?
Let me get to this read first, and I'll get to that, because it's going to take a while, and I don't want to be interrupted.
It's important these sponsors care to be here for the show, and I want to give them their due.
Genucel, 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.
It's the best my neck has looked in over 20 years.
Several people told me my face looks really young.
I'm blown away.
My wife and my mother-in-law love this product.
My wife looks young naturally.
She doesn't even need anything.
She still uses it.
My mother-in-law loves it.
My mother-in-law adores this product.
It's really good.
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 for ordering the classic GenuCell Plant Stem Cell Therapy for bags and puffiness.
Text YUNG, that's the word, YUNG, like the opposite of old, because that's how you'll look, YUNG, to 77453 or go to GenuCell.com.
That's GenuCell.com, with Chamonix 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 YUNG to 77453 or go to GenuCell.com.
That's Genucel.
G-E-N-U-C-E-L dot com.
Alright, it's important here that I get on a roll with this, so this is super critical.
Got papers all over here!
So again, keep the lead in mind here.
Pelosi doesn't want to impeach.
Pelosi was briefed in August of 2016 about the conspiracy the other Democrats want to impeach Trump on.
Pelosi not only knows the conspiracy is fake and based on the dossier, but now she knows that it's out there that people know she was briefed.
Let's go to some testimony by Lisa Page.
This is what Lisa Page said, and I'm going to read through this.
I'm going to explain to you how significant this is now that her testimony is out there.
This lead FBI lawyer, that's who we're talking about.
Remember her with the text-to-stroke and stuff?
Her testimony is critical.
Here we go.
It says, it definitely does.
So, upon opening of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, we had a number of discussions up and through and including the director.
She's talking about the FBI, Comey.
Regularly, in which we were trying to find an answer to the question, right?
Which is, is there someone associated with the campaign who is working with the Russians in order to obtain damaging information about Hillary Clinton?
And given that it's August, we were very aware of the speed and sensitivity that we needed to operate under.
August?
Wait, multiple times it's been alleged by John Brennan and others that they didn't find out about the dossier.
Ladies and gentlemen, what she's saying about people working with the Russians, let me quote, working with the Russians in order to obtain damaging information about Hillary Clinton, These people working with the Russians, this information was coming almost exclusively from dossier-related sources and people working for Fusion GPS who were setting up these meetings with Don Jr.
This was the dossier company, Fusion GPS.
Now, John Brennan briefs the Gang of Eight, including who, Joe?
Nancy Pelosi.
In August.
Let me read Page's quote again.
And given that it's August, we were very aware of the speed and sensitivity that we needed to operate under.
Are you telling me with a straight face that John Brennan wasn't briefing people in the FBI as well?
About information they had contained in the dossier and the meetings that were being set up?
Meetings, by the way, set up by people connected to Fusion GPS who met before and afterwards with Fusion GPS, the same company that produced the dossier.
That meeting with Don Jr.
was set up, was set up, there's no doubt in my mind, was set up by people connected to the Clinton team.
This happened in August.
What's the problem, folks?
She's afraid now, Pelosi, if an impeachment scheme goes through, that all of this will be exposed.
That they were spying on the Trump team back in August based on hoax information from a political campaign.
Pelosi knew she was briefed in August and Brennan lied about it.
Brennan lied about it.
Now.
More on Lisa Page.
This is from FoxNews.com.
This is an article from yesterday I have in the show notes as well.
Very, very good.
Page also spoke to how little information the Bureau was starting with, saying the FBI, quote, knew so little about whether the allegations were true or not true, and had a paucity of evidence because we are just starting down the path of vetting the allegations.
Ladies and gentlemen, they never vetted the allegations.
They never vetted the allegations.
How do we know that?
Because the dossier's a hoax!
It's a fake!
How can you vet 2 plus 2 equals 7?
The stuff in there never happened!
Carter Page never met with these people in Russia.
He was never promised shares in Rosneft.
It's a hoax!
He never met Paul Manafort.
It's a fake!
It goes on, the piece, the Fox News piece.
She later said that all they needed was an allegation and claimed it's entirely common, particularly in a counterintelligence investigation, that you would only have, you would only have a small amount of evidence in launching a probe.
Okay, time out.
Fair enough.
And allegations enough to launch a CI probe?
Not a good idea.
Awful.
Police state weaponized tactics.
It should be a serious, credible allegation, which this wasn't.
But it goes on, Joe.
Notice where she goes with this, Lisa Page.
Remember, her testimony just came out yesterday.
The Fox News piece goes on.
The transcripts were released as Mueller continues his investigation, which trumps a sales as a witch hunt on a regular basis, but can have an impact on where congressional investigations, uh, where Democrats go with their investigations or whether they pursue impeachment.
Something Nancy Pelosi has come out against for the time being.
Wow.
Isn't that great?
Folks, here's the problem here.
If you're a little confused, I promise I will tie this up for you.
Brennan is pipelining, feeding this information to as many people as possible up on Capitol Hill and law enforcement connected people.
And someone's leaking it to the press about a document in August and a series of information from Fusion GPS, the quote machine information I talked about last week, the FBI, the DOJ, they need information, they go to Fusion GPS, magically the information appears.
The problem is the information's wrong.
This is briefed in August.
Who briefs Pelosi?
Brennan.
But what did Brennan say about the dossier?
Let's play this first cut of John Brennan on Meet the Press with Chuck Todd, and pay very particular attention to the dates.
We know now for a fact Brennan briefed the Gang of Eight, and some of the stuff he briefed the Gang of Eight, including Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and others on Capitol Hill.
It had to be in the dossier, Joe.
Why?
Because the fake information in the dossier appears just days later.
In a letter from Harry Reid to the FBI demanding them to investigate.
Now does Lisa Page's line make sense?
Because it is August.
We are very aware of the speed and sensitivity that we needed to operate under.
Who's asking that this be investigated with speed and sensitivity?
Is it Brennan?
Is it Brennan through the White House?
Play this cut of Brennan lying through his teeth.
About when he heard about the dossier.
When did you first learn of the so-called Steele dossier and what Christopher Steele was doing?
Well, it was not a very well-kept secret among press circles for several months before it came out.
And it was in late summer of 2016 when there were some individuals from the various U.S.
news outlets who asked me about my familiarity with it.
And I had heard just snippets about it.
I did not know what was in there.
I did not see it until later in that year.
I think it was in December.
But I was unaware of the providence of it as well as what was in it.
And it did not play any role whatsoever in the intelligence community assessment that
was done that was presented to then-President Obama and then-President-elect Trump.
How was the Steele dossier treated?
It was...
You said you looked at it in December.
I assume it's been looked at by, it was obviously looked at by the FBI.
We've now learned they've tried to confirm some of it and have had some success.
Some, not yet.
They don't say it's, they don't say it's unconfirmed, but that's about it.
Well, there were things in that dossier that made me wonder whether or not they were, in fact, accurate and true.
And I do think it was up to the FBI to see whether or not they could verify any of it.
I think Jim Comey has said that it contained salacious and unverified information.
Just because it was unverified didn't mean it wasn't true.
And if the Russians were involved in something like that, directed against individuals who are aspiring to the highest office in this land, there was an obligation on the part of the FBI to Listen to this chump.
What a coward.
What a sniveling snake John Brennan is.
Now do you understand why Brennan's going down in this whole thing?
He lied!
Notice the date.
Joe, did you hear it?
I think I heard about the dossier in December, but I didn't know anything about it.
I laid eyes on it for the first time in December.
Oh, that's convenient.
You mean after the election of Donald Trump?
In other words, to distance yourself from the political spying you did using the CIA before the election?
That's awfully convenient, isn't it?
And Mr. Brennan, you snake.
If you heard about it in December, how is it that you brief Harry Reid up on Capitol Hill in August about some sensitive information about Trump, and the information Harry Reid's office puts out right after contains information about the dossier you said you didn't know about in your August briefing?
By the way, you get the little connection to Nance now?
Nancy and the impeachment?
They want to impeach him on a conspiracy that didn't happen, that Pelosi knew didn't happen, and was briefed about in August, while the CIA director who briefed her is lying about the whole thing!
Oh, he goes on.
Pay particular attention to the chyron.
It's tough to read in this next cut because there's a transcription.
But pay particular attention to the chyron in this Brennan cut with Rachel Maddow where he lies again about the dossier.
Keep in mind, folks, he briefs them in August of 2016 about information he says he has that Harry Reid puts out that's only in the dossier he says he doesn't see till December.
August, December.
August, December.
This guy is lying.
And you see what this snake does?
He blames the FBI.
They have their own problems in this, don't get me wrong.
And he blames the press.
Well, people in the press saw it in the summer, but I didn't see it.
Pay attention to the chyron in this mad-out piece.
This is a quick one.
Play that cut.
It became a hot topic of debate within CI, NSA, and FBI, and DNI, about whether or not to take that dossier into account when the intelligence community assessment was done.
We decided no, because there's no way we could substantiate it.
It wasn't an intelligence document.
So it was appended to it, but it was not taken into account at all.
He's such a liar!
It was not taken... By the way, did you see the chyron?
I first laid eyes on it in December of 2016.
It's hard to see through the transcription.
No, you didn't!
You're a liar!
We didn't take it into account.
It was not substantiated.
It was not an official intelligence document.
You were the CIA director!
You were using that same document to brief members of Congress and the United States Senate in August of 2016!
Everybody knows it!
Everybody knows you did that!
By the way, why is this all important now?
Because again, in the page testimony that's leaked, there are nuggets in there that are absolutely priceless!
She admits that as late as May of 2017, 17, a year after, a little less than a year after Brennan briefs Capitol Hill about the fake dossier, Pelosi included.
She does not want an impeachment, Joe.
Not on this, because then it's going to come out what Pelosi did.
Remember where they screwed up?
It is the Democrats who asked for an investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails, and that's how this whole case broke wide open.
That's how they got Lisa Page and Peter Strokes' texts.
Because of the Democrats' request for an IG investigation.
You think they want an impeachment trial where it's going to come out that Nancy Pelosi was briefed on the dossier by Brennan in August of 2016, which he has subsequently lied about and said he didn't see until December of 2016?
Getting back to my point though.
Page's testimony.
A year after, nearly a year after, in May of 2017.
They still had not verified any of it.
Nothing.
It was a hoax.
And she said, and I quote, the case at this point still could have been literally nothing.
These people are going down.
Brennan has made public statements, openly lying about when he knew about the dossier.
Openly lying.
Do you see why the United Kingdom is freaking out and others?
They probably passed this to him.
This company passed this to him.
Brennan had this information.
He's lying about it.
Why is the FBI in trouble?
This is why I continue to insist that the three-letter agency people are going to go down on this.
Because they had the Woods procedure.
They were supposed to vet this.
Remember, I just read you the quote before, Paige?
We were just in the initial processes of vetting it.
You never vetted it!
You never vetted!
It was never vetted!
You just said on the record that in May of 2017, the case could have been, quote, literally nothing.
Doesn't sound like vetting to me!
Andy McCabe has already admitted The deputy director of the FBI has already admitted they would not have had a case, a FISA case, and a warrant to spy on Trump without the dossier.
Folks, this is a huge scam.
This is also why Adam Schiff, sleazeball Adam Schiff, keeps lying about when Bruce Ohr and Christopher Steele made contact.
Oh, they didn't make contact until after the election.
You understand why, folks?
Why they keep lying about this August date?
And why Adam Schiff keeps saying this?
Because they don't want you to believe that a political candidate for the presidency was spied upon.
They want you to believe this started after the election when all the suspicion arose about these Russian contacts and Trump's business deals.
That is not what happened!
Is this making sense, Joe?
Oh, yeah.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
This is why Schiff keeps lying!
Oh, Bruce Ohr and the Justice Department only met Christopher Steele, whose name is on the dossier, after the election.
That is not true!
That is not- Ohr has testified to the opposite!
They met in July before the election, and they've known each other since 2007!
It's a lie!
John Brennan did not find out about the dossier after the election.
Harry Reid already outed John Brennan.
Putting that information in the letter to the FBI after being briefed by Brennan.
One more thing on this, just to show you how scuzzy this whole thing is.
It's a family-friendly show.
This whole thing is.
Keep in mind, May of 2017, Joe, Lisa Page acknowledges that this case could still be literally nothing, despite being mandated by the Woods Procedure to verify the information in the dossier before they got a warrant.
They did none of that.
They verified nothing and they signed their names to it.
These people are going down.
So the information's fake, they don't vet it, it's literally nothing, and Donald Trump is still being investigated.
But when it comes to Hillary Clinton, Page had a different story.
Lisa Page from the Washington Examiner.
Page further testified that the DOJ put a stop to that, talking about the Clinton investigation.
The Justice Department's assessment was that it was both constitutionally vague, so they didn't actually feel they could permissibly bring that charge.
The specific statute being referenced, 18 U.S.C.
Code 793, deals in part with gross negligence in the handling of national defense information, which Clinton came under scrutiny for possibly violating.
It's Jim Comey whose initial version of the speech about Mrs. Clinton's malfeasance on July 5th says she was grossly negligent and then strikes it from the speech.
So let's be clear, Joe.
Page's testimony, she indicates that they had hard evidence of gross negligence.
They presented to DOJ to prosecute Hillary.
She gets a complete pass.
By May of 2017, they have, quote, literally nothing on Donald Trump, or could have been literally nothing.
They still have not vetted any of the dossier to this day, and yet Donald Trump is still being investigated.
Now you see why people are PO-ed, folks?
Justice.
Justice, my... You know what?
What a scam.
What a scam.
Now do you understand why Pelosi is avoiding impeachment?
They don't want to make the same mistake they made with the Clinton thing.
You forget that.
Some of you may have forgotten.
They were all mad at Jim Comey for investigating Hillary.
They demanded an investigation into the FBI.
Look what they found.
All of this Spygate stuff came out.
You think Pelosi wants a Senate trial for impeachment on Trump?
Ms.
Pelosi, when were you briefed about the dossier?
Can you imagine?
Oh, August of 2016 by John Brennan.
Really?
Because John Brennan's on TV twice saying he didn't learn about the dossier until December.
One of you's lying.
All right, I got some Alexandria Cortez.
I know, I know.
It's important, folks.
This is the intellectual titan on the left now, Cortez.
This is it.
Deal with it.
This intellectual titan got destroyed yesterday again, and it's important we discredit our ideas because they're dangerous, not because it's fun.
Right.
Well, it's funny sometimes because you said stuff that's so ridiculous, but this is serious.
Look at what's happening in Venezuela right now, where they're drinking sewage water.
Someone should have discredited Chavez and Maduro while they had the shot.
I say that because once in a blue moon, not a lot, but I get emails, oh, why are you giving her the PR?
We're not giving her anything.
She's doing it for herself.
And she's getting traction.
All right.
Today's code, today's, excuse me, show also brought to you by our buddies at G-Code.
G-Code.
So like many of you, I'm a gun owner.
Depending on the state you live in and the concealed carry laws, you want to protect your family when you go out.
But you need a great holster.
I can't recommend G-Code highly enough.
This is a great holster.
They make game-changing holsters.
They're really good.
You're not going to get a better one for the money.
For more than 20 years, G-Code has produced what many consider to be the finest holsters in the industry.
They lead the pack today.
These are 100% American-made products.
All materials and components are sourced right here in the U.S.
The owners of G-Code holsters are military veterans, Veterans, excuse me.
They are meticulous about quality, innovation, and worksmanship.
Excellence drives everything they do, and every product comes with a lifetime warranty.
Whether you're military, law enforcement, or civilian, G-Code has a holster for you.
You have to check out.
Check this out.
Their all-new G-Code Phenom.
It's an in-the-waistband holster.
It's super comfortable.
Sits perfectly in that waistband.
Won't bother that hip bone at all like some of these cheaper holsters do.
The Phenom is being hailed as a game changer for comfort and concealability.
This is a must-have holster, folks.
Order online at range5.com.
That's range5.com.
Range5.com.
And be sure to use my promo code, Bongino.
You'll get 15% off.
Range5.com.
The finest holsters out there for the money.
Use promo code Bongino for 15% off.
I use them.
It's the best holster out there.
You're going to love it.
Okay.
So, Ocasio-Cortez, Representative Cortez, is up on Capitol Hill yesterday in a hearing with the CEO of Wells Fargo, obviously a bank financial institution.
And Joe, listen, I don't care about banks and, you know, big banks and big tech and whatever all this stuff, whatever.
I don't really care.
Bottom line is the man's the CEO of Wells Fargo, probably has some significant accomplishments in his life to get there, wouldn't you say, Joe?
Yeah, probably.
Probably not an easy position to get.
I mean, you and I can agree, right?
You don't need to be a rocket scientist, or as I used to joke, rocket surgeons.
Because sometimes you'd be like, what are you, a brain surgeon?
You're a rocket scientist?
I'm a rocket surgeon.
It's different.
You don't have to be a rocket surgeon to figure out that being the CEO of Wells Fargo probably requires you to have some decent knowledge about spreadsheets, net present value, hurdle costs, banking, finance, that kind of stuff.
Probably a fair assessment, right?
So, you know, Ms.
Cortez, who is I don't know if she's even 30 yet, who has not attained any kind of that business success in her life, of course felt it necessary to attack this guy up on Capitol Hill yesterday, and gets utterly and completely destroyed because again, Ms.
Cortez has a difficult time with things like the facts.
Here's what happened.
Let me set it up.
The way this works up on Capitol Hill, some of you know this who are insiders up there, is these questions are typically fed to you by interest groups, activists, and things like that, who want to humiliate and embarrass banks and do that because they couldn't earn money in the private sector themselves.
If they owned their bank, it would be broke.
It'd be the poverty bank stat.
So what they do is they want to humiliate these people into submission, so they hand them these questions.
So Ms.
Cortez probably got handed this question, I doubt she thought of this herself, but she wasn't expecting the answer she got, because the question was based on an entirely BS premise.
Play that cut, this is pretty funny.
Madam Chair, I'd like to seek unanimous consent to submit three reports highlighting the bank's role in debt financing these groups, the for-profit prison companies running ICE detention facilities.
Without objection, such is the order.
Mr. Sloan, why was the bank involved in the caging of children and financing the caging of children to begin with?
I don't know how to answer that question because we weren't.
So you were involved in debt financing of CoreCivic and GeoGroup, correct?
For a period of time, we were involved in financing one of the firms.
We're not anymore in the other.
I'm not familiar with the specific assertion that you're making, but we weren't directly involved in
I can't.
You know, my wife, who helps produce the show, we try to keep our costs down here.
Keeps us competitive, right?
Right, Paula?
Before the show, I said she loves these stories.
Anything AOC, she loves.
Because she can't get past the ignorance.
This is phenomenal.
So do you understand what happened there?
Wells Fargo, Joe, this is not a trick, okay?
I'm not setting you up.
What do banks do?
What's their business?
Well, they lend money, and they hold money, and they invest money!
Thank you!
Thank you!
Not hard!
I'm not saying, I'm not messing with you!
That's what they, they lend money.
Do they manage the companies they lend money?
Let me make this, you know, I don't even want to, I know you know the answer, but for the liberals not to have a tough time with this, because they may, Joe, and you're smarter than them.
So I'm going to set this question for you up even better.
If you were to get a loan and you were starting Armacost Inc, right?
And that's a production company for podcasts.
And the bank lends you $10,000.
Does the bank take an active management role in your company?
Does the guy who sent you the loan sit in the studio where you are now with the bookcase behind you and assist you in managing the daily activities of the podcast?
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Not a trick. Thank you. I, I, again, we had to maybe employ Joe. Let's do it.
Let's go to cave man, Joe, because you're clearly too smart for this. And the bid is not working because you're, you're
even, you're like, dude, I don't get this. Like, this is just stupid for us to even. So cave man, Joe, cave man, Joe
instantly drops at about 90 IQ points. He's down to a 20.
So cave man, Joe, if you loan people money as a bank, does that mean you then go,
and own and manage those companies after you lend them money.
Caveman Joe, yes or no?
Thank you, Caveman.
Cave, we haven't seen Caveman Joe in a while, but sometimes having these arguments with liberals, we have to reintroduce Caveman Neanderthal Joe because they're so stupid, these arguments, that they take a caveman to understand.
Now, this goes on later.
I'm not going to play the other cut because the stupid is so strong in it that I don't want to dumb you down, all of you, right?
But it goes on later.
So clearly what happened is the bank lent one of these companies money, and one of these companies later on may have had a contract with the government with ICE.
The bank has nothing to do with that.
The bank lends money.
Do you not know that?
You're an elected member of Congress.
You're unaware of that?
She goes on later to ask the same guy about the South Dakota natural gas pipeline, Joe.
Apparently they were involved in the lending of money to a natural gas company, too.
She asks him at one point, well, why isn't the bank responsible if there's a natural gas leak in that pipeline?
The guy looks at her, Joe, just like he looks at her here and goes, I don't know about children in cages because we had nothing to do with it.
She goes, OK, let's move on because she doesn't have anything.
The guy looks at her about the South Dakota pipeline leaks and he goes, well, why wouldn't we be responsible for leaks?
He goes, because we don't manage the company.
We have nothing to do.
All we do is lend them money.
We don't ask what they do with it.
Folks.
This is really stupid.
This is peak stupid.
I bring this up because Representative Cortez is becoming the intellectual tip of the spear for this radical far-left wing of the party that is descending into utter complete stupidity.
A vacuum of intellectual nonsense like I haven't seen in my 44 years on this planet.
I have never seen anything like this.
You know, I have significant disagreements, because they're wrong, with Robert Reich, Paul Krugman, and, you know, intellectuals on the left, but listen, these guys, although they're completely wrong, and some of the stuff they say is absurd, they say is absurd, these guys have academic creden- at least they went to school and tried to figure something out, they got it wrong, I don't know.
Cortez doesn't even know anything!
She said, no, I'm serious, like she doesn't even, this is just stupid!
How come you're involved with putting kids in cages?
The guy's gotta be looking at her like, is this serious?
What are you talking about?
Now, the what are you talking about gets worse.
Here's Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez at South by Southwest in Austin, Texas, addressing what her problem with capitalism is.
The tough part about this, about, like, is capitalism redeemable, et cetera, is that it's hard to have these conversations, I think, as a society, because we all have different ideas of what, just in the public imagination, there are different ideas of what does capitalism mean, what does socialism mean, et cetera.
But for me, when I think about What those definitions are.
Capitalism isn't, to me, it's an ideology of capital.
It puts capital, the most important thing is the concentration of capital and it means that we seek and prioritize profit and the accumulation of money above all else and we seek it at any human and environmental cost.
Oh my gosh, even Chewie's getting Ajita over this.
I don't even know where to start, Joe.
Let's start first with a 35,000 foot view perspective here.
No, there are definitions for these terms, Ms.
Cortez.
She says, the problem with the debate, no, the problem with the debate is you're in it, because you don't know anything.
That's the problem with the debate about capital.
You don't know anything.
So when people don't know anything, what they do, Joe, is they say, here's what it means to me.
Now, listen, I think I'm a reasonably smart guy.
But there's a lot of stuff I don't know.
I couldn't tell you much about the NFL because I didn't watch it last season.
You're going to ask me about how the Raiders did?
I heard they did terribly.
I used to be a Raiders fan.
But I don't know.
I don't know anything about the Raiders.
But Joe, this is what liberals do because they never want to lose a debate and they're bedrocked in emotion, not reason.
Yeah.
Instead of acknowledging she has no idea what capitalism is, because her definition is entirely wrong, she says, here's what it means to me.
Okay, so here's what the Raiders' season meant to me last year.
They did great, Joe.
I heard they made it to the Super Bowl.
No, they didn't.
No, they did.
To me, they did.
My definition of the Super Bowl is the game they played on September 16th.
They didn't play a game on September 16th.
No, they did, because the calendar to me, Joe, to me, I run a different calendar.
No, no, Dan, there's an actual calendar, an actual Super Bowl, and an actual NFL season.
No, no, no, Joe, to me, to me, there's a different calendar, a different season, and a different Super Bowl.
So to me, here's what capitalism, no, no, capitalism has a definition.
It is the use of pricing rather than rationing to allocate scarce resources.
It is the ownership of private property and the protection of said property and ownership rights.
And it is the use of wages in an employment system.
In other words, Joe, it is the economic freedom to engage in transactions on property, your labor, and to use prices to allocate those transactions and to allocate scarce resources.
They should say to moderate those transactions and allocate those resources.
These are actual definitions of what capitalism is.
You don't get to make up your own.
She says, well, it's the accumulation of capital at any cost.
Did you just make that up on stage because you don't know what capitalism is instead of just saying, I don't really know what it is, so I'm going to leave?
Of course you did, because you're a liberal.
So you just make stuff up at any cost.
So as Andy Puzder, who's a really brilliant writer, said on Fox and Friends the other day, I was listening to the segment.
It was terrific.
Talking about capitalism, and he wrote in an op-ed too, he was explaining about capitalism.
I'm sorry, it was in a PragerU video, and it was very good, but it was still Andy Puzder.
He said, well, think about Amazon.
I'm not a huge fan of how you use Amazon, but I'm not a huge fan of their business practices.
So you can do things at any cost, Joe?
So let me get this straight, on Amazon, you accumulate capital, so Joe on Amazon is selling his podcast services, and he does it at any cost?
No, he doesn't do it at any cost.
He has to provide a product on Amazon, podcast services, that are priced cheaply enough that people willing to pay for them will come in and buy his product!
So you're telling me Joe goes on Amazon, steals people's money, accumulates capital, produces no product at any cost to everyone else and benefiting Joe only.
Do you understand how dumb this is?
How stupid this is?
But she gets away with it all the time.
Because she is a hero to the stupid on the left.
The intellectual vacuum on the left she has filled.
With this utter garbage.
You can't go on eBay without selling one bad product at any cost, air quotes, and having your buyer-seller rating destroyed.
You sell a bad car at a dealer now, people go on Yelp and complain about you.
I thought they were doing it at any cost.
They're accumulating capital.
Your money for their car.
Mm-hmm.
Do you understand how stupid this is?
And people believe this!
Meanwhile, she's saying, well, we have a definition for socialism, democratic socialism, where it's all done for the benefit of society.
It is?
What do you mean, the hundred million dead?
You mean the gulags, the torture camps?
You mean the people drinking sewer water in Venezuela?
That's for their benefit?
Joe, are there minerals in sewer water?
We don't know.
Have you tried it?
Is it tasty?
Nothing that we need, Dan.
No.
Nothing we need?
Yes.
Good way to frame that.
I'm reasonably confident people drinking sewer water in socialistic Venezuela lacking economic freedom are not being, it's not being done for their benefit.
Ms.
Cortez lives in an intellectual vacuum and her acolytes follow along blindly.
I don't usually do this stuff because I hate cuts like this.
This hat tip, Tom Elliott on Twitter, that's where I got it from.
This is a cut of hard South by Southwest.
Again, ladies and gentlemen, one of the things I can't stand is vapid intellectual garbage.
If you don't know, then just stop talking until you do know.
I've paid due deference to her getting elected, fine, whatever.
But this is Miss Cortez, a mash-up of her at the same thing with the like-you-knows, like-you-knows, like-you-knows, similar to like Alicia Silverstone, Cher from Clueless.
Play that cut.
Hi everyone!
Well, I think, like, you know, or whatever, like, boo, like, like, whatever, um, you know, it's like, you know, um, you know, you know, um, Um, um, like, like, um, like, whatever.
You know, and like, or whatever, like, just like, it's like, like, like this, like, like, like.
Don't hold back.
Tell me how you really feel about incrementalism.
It's like, like for what?
You know, like, you know, like, you know, like, you know, things like that.
Like, like, because we talk about racism so much, we actually aren't talking about race itself.
It's just like, like, it's just like, you know.
Do you have Mötley?
Do you have the Mötley drop?
Oh yeah, you bet I do, daddy!
Wait, play Mötley.
I need another Mötley.
Wait, play Muppet, I need another Muppet. We need a two-foot.
Poor Paula outside's going crazy.
For the regular listeners who've been with us for a while, you know Paula hates Motley.
She's actually growing on her, Motley.
Folks, I don't even know what to say.
I really don't.
I've said many times, congratulations on getting elected to Congress.
It is difficult to do.
I ran myself.
It is very tough.
It is now your responsibility to actually know stuff and formulate coherent sentences.
An hour of a montage of like, you know, like, you knows, like, you know, I tell my, Paula, am I making this up?
So you don't think I'm speaking with forked tongue.
I, every, I love my daughter is about a death.
And whenever she says like in the car, I shut it right down.
I know, like, you knows, no, like, you knows, no, like, you knows.
There will be no like-you-knows.
Like-you-know, there will be no like-you-knows.
No like-you-knows.
You are a member of Congress.
Stop lying to people on Capitol Hill about kids in cages being financed by banks you don't like.
Stop making up definitions of capitalism because you don't know what it is.
Stop making up definitions of socialism to take the deadly edge off it.
And stop saying like-you-know.
Like-you-know?
Oh my gosh, I can't take it anymore, Joe.
I cannot take it.
Alright folks, I'm sorry, but we gotta combat this stuff.
Seriously.
It's why Venezuelans are eating squirrels right now.
It's not a joke, that's really happening.
Because we let stupid ideas like this infest our society without fighting back early.
These are bad ideas.
I don't know what's in this woman's heart, Ms.
Cortez, but I know the ideas are deadly.
Don't fall in the trap.
All right, folks, thanks again for tuning in.
Please subscribe to the show on iTunes, SoundCloud, iHeartRadio.
You can follow on iHeartRadio.
It is free.
It is those subscriptions to the show.
It's absolutely free.
That helps move us up the charts.
We really appreciate you doing that.
We always appreciate you sharing our content as well.
