In this episode I address the big shakeup this weekend in the Trump administration. I also address the breaking news about the trouble ahead for Democrats and the Russia-gate conspirators from both John Solomon and Devin Nunes.
News Picks:
President Trump should tell the Democrats to pound sand on seeing his tax returns.
The Ukrainians have evidence damning to Democrats, yet no one in the Justice Department appears to want it.
Is justice finally coming for the Spygate conspirators?
The media is lying to you, again. President Trump did not call immigrants “animals.” This is another media myth.
Liberal lunatics are demanding a boycott of former Trump administration officials.
This is what single-payer healthcare really looks like.
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?
Hey baby, feeling groovy?
It's Monday and we're ready to go!
Wow, very excited Joe out of my face.
The audience loves your overly dramatic entrance every day morning.
I've got some good stuff.
I said, Joe, a lot of videos over the weekend.
Listen, here's what we're going to get to today.
I want to lay it out for you.
Nunes again on Maria Bartiromo's show.
Devin Nunes just drops another couple of bombshells.
I've got that.
Breaking news on the DHS secretary resigning.
I got a kind of an inside scoop on that.
Adam Schiff losing his mind.
Making a reappearance, a discredited hoaxer Adam Schiff who's shockingly still allowed on television.
We're going to get to all that, but I want to start today with a great story of me and Media Matters.
This is classic in case you have any aspirations of getting into conservative podcasting, doing media commentary on Fox or anything like that.
It's classic.
I want to get to that.
So don't go anywhere.
Today's show brought to you by our buddies at WaxRx.
Let me show you first.
Wax Rx.
There's the kit right there.
Comes like this.
The perfect ear wash system.
You can't be... Let me move that over a little bit.
Be a little... Cover my face.
Wax Rx.
pH conditioned ear wash system.
You can't miss this thing.
It's great.
You know how much I love my sponsors?
And I only work with products I use or can vouch for.
Wax Rx is great.
You're not supposed to stick those cotton swabs inside your ear.
It's quite dangerous.
You could pierce your eardrum.
It says it on the back of the cotton swabs.
So how do you clean out your inner ears?
Well, you can go to the doctor.
It's just going to cost you a lot of money to go to the doctor to do that.
Here's a customer review we actually got from one of our customers, WaxRx, one of their customers, excuse me.
I used to have to go to the doctor twice a year to get rid of hardened, stubborn earwax.
With my rising cost of healthcare and dust double deductible, I'd have to spend $60 per visit.
That's $120 per year to treat my ears.
Now I do it myself with WaxRx and a significant savings that doesn't require me to miss.
A half a day of work.
Thank you, WaxRx.
This stuff, WaxRx, this works.
It works great.
Get all that goop out of your inner ears.
Right now, you can try the WaxRx system by typing in gowaxrx.com.
That's gowaxrx.com.
Use the offer code Dan at checkout for free shipping.
Don't wait.
You have no idea what you may be missing because of inner ear wax.
Who knows?
It might just change your life.
Visit gowaxrx.com.
Use offer code Dan for, excuse me, use offer code Dan.
For free shipping.
Here's the back of it.
That's what you get.
You get that kit.
It's super easy to clean out yours.
We use it cause I have the stick stuff in my ears all the time.
Like this ear piece now.
All right.
Getting right to it.
So first, do you have any aspirations whatsoever?
Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding of getting into the conservative commentary business.
You can expect the absolute lunatics at Media Matters to watch and follow you as you gain some kind of whatever prominence or profile in this, in this business.
Uh, Joe's, familiar with them too. What Media Matters does is they get
paid I don't know almost nothing because they probably can't get real
jobs but these people sit in their basements usually mommy's basement with
s'mores you know with probably internet porn running in the background or
whatever and they watch Fox News all day.
And they're assigned to certain programs, right?
So you have like this wacky guy, Andrew, who watches Prime Time.
I get used to their patterns, right?
And you have this guy, Bobby Lewis, who follows Fox & Friends.
So he stalks Fox & Friends, and what he was doing was, they send out clips of you on Fox & Friends, like I appear every Monday morning.
They send out cuts, and they usually put nasty commentary on it.
But here's the thing, folks.
Keep in mind, these are liberal lunatics.
The cuts are usually very good.
So I would actually steal his cuts and I send them out to my own audience promoting my show, which drives this guy insane.
So he had a full-blown meltdown this morning And the result of his meltdown, from me stealing his videos, which he steals from Fox & Friends, and sending them, he, Joe, I never send you, Joe does a lot of video cutting, in addition to my lovely wife Paula, have I ever sent you a Monday morning video from Bobby Lewis?
No, because Bobby Lewis does our job for us.
So he's de facto working for us.
So he gets so upset that I was using his videos to promote our content that this is what happened.
Paul, if you throw it up on the screen right now, put it up on the screen.
People hate what I say.
Bobby Lewis!
He's at RevRRLewis.
Blocked me from Twitter.
Blocked me from using his content.
If there was ever a time for Mötley, this is a double Mötley, it's a triple Mötley, a quadruple Mötley, a quintuple Mötley, it'll never stop.
I block people a lot on Twitter because I block imbeciles.
So if you're blocked on Twitter, you know why.
I block people all the time.
But this guy is using, this is the funny thing.
I'm not stalking this idiot.
I've never heard of this guy in my life.
I have no idea who Bobby Lewis is.
He stalks me and now he's upset that after stalking me, I use his stalker stuff to promote my own stuff and therefore block me.
This is great.
Paula, was this not one of the finer moments in my entire time in conservative commentary?
I enjoyed the snot out of this this morning.
I'm telling you, I said to my wife, this is great.
Love it.
All right, moving on to more serious stuff, but I like to fill you in on what's going on, you know, in my life, too.
I hope some of it makes sense.
So, Kirsten Nielsen, DHS Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, is out.
See the headline there from the Washington Examiner?
Trump announces Kirsten Nielsen out as DHS Secretary.
Happened this weekend.
Listen, here's what I'm getting kind of behind the scenes.
I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this because, you know, I try not to cover stuff you're going to get in the mainstream media because I don't want to waste your time.
You'll see it on the news anyway.
But if I have something to add, I'll add it.
I'm hearing and it's not a mystery.
It's not just me.
I don't want to act like it's proprietary information.
Trump just wasn't happy with Kirstjen Nielsen.
She was, you know, she's being defended by a lot of establishment rhinos this weekend, too, as well.
I think he thought she was rather soft on the border issue.
She was an ally of John Kelly, the former chief of staff.
I'm not knocking Kelly.
Kelly was a great guy.
But not a lot of people were fans.
John Bolton was not a fan.
So it was time to move along.
These personnel decisions happen all the time, of course.
They'll be painted by the liberal media as total chaos.
Although people are hired and fired all the time within the executive office of the presidency.
Not a big deal.
I'm hearing some potential replay.
Kevin McAleenan is the interim acting Good guy.
I'm hearing, though, Chris Kobach, Cuccinelli, Ken Cuccinelli, former gubernatorial candidates from Kansas and Virginia, respectfully, good conservatives, maybe in consideration.
So we'll see what happens.
But Kirsten Nielsen leaving has led to another liberal meltdown this weekend amongst the standard liberal lunatics.
One of them was a meltdown by people in the media, again, going back to two debunked talking points I want to knock out today.
Now, to be clear, here's the lead here.
These two headlines are going to be used over and over during the election cycle.
You need to have this mental ammunition ready to fight back against these lunatic liberals on Twitter immediately to debunk them.
One is going to be that Donald Trump called immigrants animals.
It is not true.
So we'll get to this first.
I'll get to the second one in a minute, but here's the first one.
I have a headline up from Legal Insurrection, the article in the show notes today by our friend Fuzzy Slippers, who we love.
Headline, Legal Insurrection.
Media jumps on debunked lie.
Shocker!
Like they never do that.
No, Trump did not call asylum seekers, quote, animals.
Let's give you, now this is going to, Beto said it this weekend.
Folks, I'm not making this up.
Beto, you know, Beto as Tucker calls him.
Why is the president calling asylum seekers animals?
You're just lying.
You're just making it up.
It didn't happen.
Here is the actual quote, courtesy of our friends at Legal Insurrection.
Please read the article at the show notes at apongino.com.
Here's, this is from a guy, or Stacey, whatever it is, says, Trump did not describe asylum seekers as rapists, criminals, animals.
He was talking about MS-13.
Here's what he actually said in May of 2018.
The Fresno County Sheriff, Sheriff Margaret Mims, said, thank you.
There could be an MS-13 member I know about.
If they don't reach a certain threshold, I cannot tell ICE about it.
So this Fresno County Sheriff, Margaret Mims, in a meeting with the President, in front of the media, is talking about MS-13.
The quote's right here.
If you want to see it, you can look at it on YouTube.com slash Bongino or read the article.
The President responded about MS-13.
We have people coming into the country or trying to come in and we're stopping a lot of them, but we're taking people out of the country.
You wouldn't believe how bad these people are.
These aren't people.
These are animals.
And we're taking them out of the country at a level and at a rate that's never happened before.
And because of the weak laws, they come in fast.
We get them, we release them.
We get them again, we bring them out.
It's crazy.
They are talking about, Trump is talking about MS-13.
Yep.
Just read the quote!
But folks, if you're... Again, if you're getting your news from the liberal mainstream media, I genuinely feel bad for you.
It's not a joke, I really do.
Because you're being lied to on a daily basis and a lot of you are just lapping it up, lapping it up like you're, you know, having a soup meal from the soup guy up in New York.
You're lapping it up like it's some kind of edible arrangement.
This is fake news!
He did not call asylum seekers animals.
That question and statement from the sheriff had nothing to do with asylum seekers at all.
Have that at the ready.
The sheriff was asking, making a statement, excuse me, to be precise, was making a statement about MS-13 gang members.
What's their motto?
Rape, torture, kill?
Yeah.
Yeah, those guys.
Okay, again, because I'm seeing this one creep up again too.
Here is a video of Sleazeball Adam Schiff, a lie we debunked three weeks ago, but we're going to have to continue to debunk it because you need to be ready during this 2020 election season to immediately humiliate some of these liberals out there who are going to lie.
Trump called immigrants animals.
That's actually a lie.
The sheriff was making a statement about MS-13.
The second one is going to be that Trump, after the Charlottesville incident we had
where the woman tragically died at the hands of this maniac, that Trump called neo-Nazis
good people.
You don't believe me that this is going to continue to creep up despite the fact that
it's been debunked seven different ways from Sunday?
Here is sleazeball Adam Schiff on with Jake Tapper, who should have called him out and
I don't know why he didn't do it, again making this statement that Trump called neo-Nazis
You just heard what President Trump said yesterday about your party, the Democrats, at the Republican-Jewish coalition convention in Las Vegas.
You're one of the highest-ranking Jewish members of Congress.
What's your response?
Well, I hate to even dignify those remarks, but look, it's not the Democratic Party that believes that there are good people on both sides of a Nazi rally.
There's just one party and one party leader who believes that, and that's Donald Trump.
Ladies and gentlemen, this guy, exactly, this guy is the biggest sleazeball in Congress.
He's a joker.
He's a clown.
He's not worth the dignity of any positive comment at all.
You know, a guy tweeted me this morning.
It was nice.
Mr. Positive or something.
He's like, hey, you need to be more positive.
No, I don't.
I'm sorry.
I'm trying.
There's no way to be positive with lying, discredited sleazeballs like Adam Schiff.
He's a hack.
What is the actual goal?
Now the fact that if you believe this guy, there's only two explanations.
Believing that Trump called neo-nazis good people, right?
One explanation, and I'm sorry to have to tell you this, and you're never supposed to insult your audience and I'm not trying to do that, is you're just ignorant.
You just don't know what you're talking about, haven't done your homework.
The second is, You're a liar.
You're lying to yourself.
You're lying on behalf of Adam Schiff.
You're a bad person.
You have no spine.
You're unethical.
And you follow unethical, slimy people like sleazeball, dirtbag Adam Schiff.
Here's the actual quote from President Trump, hat tip, Steve Cortez's article at Real Clear Politics.
The actual quote.
This is Trump.
I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists.
Referencing the Charlottesville incident there.
Because they should be condemned totally.
Because they should be condemned totally.
Not condemned partially, Joe.
Not semi-condemned.
Not a quarter or a third condemned.
They should be condemned totally.
Now, if you're a lying sleazeball, Like filthy Adam Schiff, a liar, a discredited conspiracy theorist, a really a human being not worthy of our time anymore in Congress, an undignified who has destroyed his office, the Congress, and the credibility of anyone else.
He knows this quote is out there.
Sure.
This is what bothers me so much about Schiff.
He's not stupid.
This is a smart guy who is just lying on cable news.
And I say to CNN, To Jake Tapper and others out there, Jake, I'm sorry, but...
You know, I know Jake.
Why are you letting this guy on your show?
He has no credibility.
He's the lead collusion hoaxer.
I have evidence of collusion.
Are you ever going to produce it?
Never.
Never.
But I'm going to keep talking about it.
You're darn right.
You're darn skippy, darn tootin'.
I'm going to keep talking about it.
You don't have any evidence.
Why is this guy allowed on television?
President Trump called neo-Nazis good people.
He actually said the opposite.
Does that not bother you a little bit that this guy goes on your network and I mean he's categorically lying.
He is repeating a known debunked falsehood along with Beto and other people out there in the party.
President Trump called immigrants and asylum seekers animals.
That's just not true.
It's just not true.
You're making it up.
Memorize that quote.
I'm not talking about neo-nazis and white nationalists.
But what's that Joe?
You can only take so much shift.
Oh, from this guy it's horrible.
I'm not talking about neo-nazis and white nationalists because they should be condemned totally.
You need to memorize that.
Because that's the actual quote.
That's what was actually said.
Oh, it's just so disturbing with this guy.
All right, moving on.
I got a lot to cover today.
Monday's always a busy show.
So the Ukraine story is breaking wide open.
Hat tip to John Solomon.
Article up at The Hill again this weekend.
In the show notes.
Please, again, check it out.
Go to bongino.com.
Click on the menu.
You'll see it says podcast.
You can read all these articles there.
Or if you click on subscribe, you can subscribe to my email list.
We're always happy to have you.
We will send you the best articles we can find on the internet every day.
We keep them short and sweet.
An article this weekend from John Solomon titled, The Hail Ukrainian to U.S.
Prosecutors.
Why don't you want our evidence on Democrats?
Yes!
Yes!
The real collusion scandal is starting to heat up, folks.
I haven't even gotten to Nunes yet.
The Nunes translator from his bombshell interview this weekend with Maria Bartiromo is becoming must-see TV on Sunday with regards to this case.
I haven't even gotten to that yet.
But justice may finally be coming around.
What's going on right now in Ukraine?
Folks, Ukrainian prosecutors Have uncovered and unearthed evidence.
I discussed last week, so I'm not going to redo all of it.
I'll just give you the top-line information.
Ukrainian prosecutors have uncovered evidence that massive payments in the millions were made to a company Hunter Biden, Joe Biden's son, was associated with.
That that company and those payments were under criminal investigation in Ukraine.
And evidence has emerged that Joe Biden may have pressured Ukrainian prosecutors himself to make that case go away and demanded, Joe Biden's actually on tape at a foreign affairs seminar.
He's on tape bragging about getting a Ukrainian prosecutor fired who was looking into his kid.
Wow, that's going to be ugly if JB enters the race.
I can't wait to hear the details on that.
Now, this is a multi-layered story.
There's also evidence and some public commentaries emerged from people I trust, I have a good source on this as well, that the U.S.
Ambassador to Ukraine, a woman with the last name Yovanovitch, that she is out there bad-mouthing the President.
She may have played some central role in this.
So just to be clear what we're talking about, Ukraine prosecutors are, there's a criminal investigation about interference in the U.S.
election, number one, I'm sorry I failed to mention that, that a guy by the name of Serhiy Leshenko, Serhiy Leshenko, who is a Ukrainian, was a Ukrainian media personality turned a politician, may have been feeding information to Fusion GPS who was working for Hillary Clinton, negative information on Donald Trump and his team.
Who do we get that from?
We get that from Nellie Orr under oath at Fusion.
So we have information Ukrainians are colluding to help Hillary Clinton, number one, and number two, that they have information about Joe Biden and the Obama administration pressuring them to ease up on a guy investigating Joe Biden's kid that would be potentially devastating.
That's what we covered last week.
Here's the clip from the piece that's new, and this is where it gets really hairy because the boomerang effect on this one is substantial and is very, very real.
Quote from the John Solomon piece.
This is a Ukrainian by the name of Kulik.
He says, we were supposed to share this information during a working trip to the United States.
Kulik told me in a wide-ranging interview.
However, the U.S.
ambassador, oh boy, blocked us from obtaining a visa.
She didn't explicitly deny our visa but also didn't give it to us.
Hold on, keep that up on the screen if you don't mind.
So this person with information about that they want to share with the United States, the Department of Justice, indicating serious corruption between U.S.
officials and UK in an effort to impact our election and give Joe Biden's kid a pass.
They want to get into the United States to share it, and the U.S.
ambassador over there is apparently getting in the way.
What are we hiding, fellas?
It goes on.
One focus of Ukrainian investigators, Kulik said, has been money spirited unlawfully out of Ukraine and moved to the United States by businessmen friendly to the prior pro-Russia regime of Viktor Yanukovych.
Wow!
This is... I thought Yanukovych, the scandal with Yanukovych involved Manafort.
What?
That's... Manafort?
I thought we were talking about some... Hold on, hold on.
Ukrainian businessman, quote, authorized payments for lobbying efforts directed at the U.S.
government, he told me.
In addition, this is the money, quote, these payments were made from funds that were acquired during the money laundering operation.
We have information that a U.S.
company was involved in these payments.
That company is tied to one or more prominent Democrats, Ukrainian officials insist.
Oh, isn't that special?
So let's just be clear on this, right?
Man.
The Mueller witch hunt probe, the cover-up job, you know, no one should be applauding Bob Mueller.
He did an extremely unethical disservice to the United States of America by continuing an illicit witch hunt into a crime that didn't happen.
Notice he goes after Manafort with 6am in the morning raids.
Manafort's working with Yanukovych and yet the Ukrainians, Joe, have information about the same guy, Yanukovych, who was pro-Russia.
They have information about the same guy, people working with him, and payments made to companies run by two prominent Democrats.
How bad.
Wow.
Why are those Democrats not under investigation?
Yeah.
Folks, This is going to get ugly.
I think those Democrats are in fact under investigation.
I just don't think the Ukrainians know about it and I think there are people within the bureaucratic deep state here doing everything they can within the State Department to block the transfer of this information back to the United States.
Folks, this is all going to come out.
In other words, what I'm telling you, Joe, is what Mueller... You may have missed that.
I won't do that kind of quick because I've got a lot of stories to get to.
You may have missed what I'm hinting at here.
Bob Mueller's witch hunt, where he thinks he was doing a service to the Democrats by keeping the heat on Trump so long, even though he knew the investigation was nonsense, which we covered last week at length, He arrests and prosecutes Paul Manafort for dealing with this guy Yanukovych.
What I'm trying to get at is the allegations in Solomon's piece are some of the very same crimes may have been committed by a company linked to Democrats.
In other words, once this comes out, the Democrats are not going to be able to say, Joe, oh, well, this isn't serious stuff.
Nobody ever gets prosecuted for this.
Really?
Right.
What about Paul Manafort?
Oh, oh, yeah.
I forgot about that.
You see where I'm going with this?
Yeah.
Mueller's prosecution of Manafort On these financial crimes related to Ukraine are some of the same crimes Ukrainian officials say have evidence of Democrats committed.
The Democrats are going to have nowhere to go!
What are they going to say?
Oh no, we should have prosecuted Manafort but not these Democrats for the same thing?
I know who they are, folks.
This is going to get ugly real fast for the Democrats once this information comes out.
But Trump's administration, unfortunately, is dealing with a bureaucratic mess with people in the State Department and Justice who will not get out of his way.
As I understand your frustration, a lot of you may email me and say, Dan, what's to celebrate in this story?
So Ukrainians have evidence on the Democrats and we can't get it over to the Department of Justice?
Listen, things are happening, trust me, behind the scenes.
Things are happening, but Trump is dealing with a major obstacle and it's bureaucrats in state and justice who are trying to block this information from getting over there.
It's not going to work.
We are going to get to the bottom of it.
And Solomon's doing, John Solomon's doing Yeoman's work getting to the bottom of it.
So a hat tip to him.
Really great work.
Read that piece.
It's really good in the show notes today.
All right.
I want to move on.
I got a lot to cover today again.
Today's show brought to you by buddies at Robin Hood.
This is my investing app.
I love it.
Just got my statement on email the other day.
Robinhood is an investing app that lets you buy and sell stocks, ETFs, options, and cryptos, all commission-free.
Can't beat that.
While other brokerages charge up to $10 for every trade, Robinhood doesn't charge any commission fees, so you can trade stocks and keep all of your profits.
Plus, there's no account minimum deposit needed to get started.
You can start investing at any level.
The simple intuitive design of Robinhood makes investing easy for newcomers and experts alike.
These charts are not complicated.
Very easy to understand.
You can view these easy to understand charts and market data and place a trade in just four taps on your smartphone.
It's really that easy.
It's the app I use.
You can also view stock collections such as the 100 most popular.
With Robinhood, you can learn how to invest in the market as you build your portfolio.
Discover new stocks, track your favorite companies, and get custom notifications for price movements so you never miss the right moment to invest.
Robinhood is giving listeners of The Dan Bongino Show a free stock like Apple, Ford, or Sprint to help you build your portfolio.
Sign up at bongino.robinhood.com.
That's bongino.robinhood.com.
Sign up for your free stock today at bongino.robinhood.com.
Check it out.
Really easy to use.
Highly recommended.
Okay.
Getting back to it.
Let's see.
Should I jump?
No, I don't want to choose anybody.
All right, let's go to the Nunes translator.
Devin Nunes has appeared this weekend.
I drive poor Joe crazy over the weekend.
But I told you, Joe, you don't have to respond to me on the weekend.
I just do it because I don't want to have to look for it again on Monday morning when I get up.
And Maria Bartiromo's show, which is really wonderful on Fox News, Sunday Morning Futures, She has Devin Nunes on a lot.
Nunes comes on and if he's gonna drop a bombshell he usually does it on that show so I have to sit there right before church with rapt attention and then I come home later and I dig out the clips.
So let's get right to it.
I have three cuts from his appearance with Maria Bartiromo where piling on to our justice is coming thing based on that Ukraine article these Democrats are in a world of trouble for what they did in Ukraine.
I'm telling you, this stuff is not going to end well.
They are also in a world of trouble based on what Devin Nunes told us this weekend.
Let's start with cut number one.
Devin Nunes, Maria Bartiromo.
This is a great one.
How many people is this capturing?
You've got eight referrals.
Several people lied to Congress.
Several people also apparently misled the FISA court.
And I want you to explain how they misled the FISA court.
But first, tell us, how many people is this capturing?
Can you give us any names on this list in terms of your referrals?
Well, I'm not prepared to give any names, but I think most people that have followed Russiagate for a long time, they know a lot of the names.
But there's five that are straight up, five names.
Then there are, when you get to the leaks, we don't know.
We think there's only a few people behind these leaks, but there could be multiple people.
So on the leak, the global leak referral, there could be several individuals.
When you look at the conspiracy, I mean, that could get up to a dozen, two dozen people.
So, you know, for example, we don't know all the people that are involved.
Look, we know Strzok and Page, and we know their involvement because they've been interviewed.
But, you know, there's other people that were above Strzok and below Strzok that have not been interviewed.
So we don't know if they're involved in this conspiracy or not.
But, you know, one of the things that's been great is we've had so many whistleblowers, so many people over the last two and a half years that have come, great Americans who have come and said, Look, this isn't right, and you guys have to get to the bottom of it, and it's been an unbelievable investigation that we've undertaken, but I think one that has been quite fruitful so that we can put the United States on the road to recovery to get over this manufactured hoax.
Oh boy, I don't even know where to start.
I know, there's so much in that minute, what is it, about a minute 15 cut.
I had to take notes on the one, I have two more cuts here, on that one alone to get out to you the tidbits here.
We have to employ the Nunes translator, because remember, Devin Nunes, who's a great guy, I really, really love what he's doing.
Gosh, this guy, if you're going to support anybody out of your local district, this guy has really been getting to the bottom of this stuff.
Nunes can only say limited things because he's bound by confidentiality, classified information, so you have to understand the translator.
So let's translate a couple of the takeaways there from what he said.
First, he notes that there are eight referrals.
He says five are straight up, and then he mentions those five are straight up that they're involved in this conspiracy.
Now what conspiracy is he talking about?
Folks, If you listen to this show, you're about to scream something right now.
The Woods Procedure.
We've only talked about this 10,000 times on the show.
Okay, slightly hyperbolic, but a lot.
Ladies and gentlemen, they walked in a FISA court.
I'm gonna make this real simple.
Raised their right hand, these FBI agents, and swore to information that isn't true.
The information was false.
Well, what's the problem?
The problem is, people took a pen out, signed their John Hancock, and their signature to a Woods file.
Which mandates the Woods procedure and the file associated with it mandates that you verify the information first!
In other words...
What's the problem?
Somebody, let's do this.
Somebody, Joe, did this.
Here's my signature.
Dan, Bungie, it's ugly.
Somebody signed their name.
You can't see it on that white wall.
It's like, will you stop doing that?
I used to do that on the ERA TV show.
You have to get a Sharpie to do it.
Somebody signed their name to a Woods file authenticating and verifying information that was false.
Now, how is that a conspiracy to lie with these people?
He's making criminal referrals now, Nunes.
This is huge.
Because Joe, not only did they sign their names indicating, I said this on Fox & Friends this morning, that the information was true.
Here's the next shoe to drop.
You'll hear it here first.
Well, you'll hear it in a later clip too, but I'll translate it for you first.
Some of their targets, folks, maybe Papadopoulos and Page, give you the wink and a nod.
It's not just that they knew the information was false, indicating they were Russian assets or involved in some Russian conspiracy.
There's information out there indicating That it was exculpatory.
In other words, that they had nothing to do with it at all that was not put in the file.
Yeah.
Not only are you lying saying, yes, Papadopoulos and Page are Russian assets in violation of U.S.
law.
Information that indicates they had nothing to do with it at all and were absolutely not Russian assets.
You left that out completely in a conspiracy Amongst some top-level players to hide potentially exculpatory evidence.
Wait till that evidence comes out.
Maybe it's in the redactions?
You think?
Now, Nunes goes on about this exculpatory evidence in this second clip.
Hold on, before we get to it though, there's a couple other things he says there.
He mentions that some of the other players are involved in a leaks to the media scheme.
We don't need to hammer that.
It's easy.
They leaked information that was classified to the media and they got caught.
We've already been talking about James Baker and the lawyer at the FBI and he's under investigation for that.
Andy McCabe.
That's straightforward.
Doesn't require a lot of deeper analysis.
Doesn't even require the Nunes translator.
But keep in mind.
The Nunes translator on the conspiracy, I believe that's what he's referring to.
This effort to sign and verify information they knew was false, and to suppress information they knew absolved Page, Papadopoulos, and potentially others of any guilt in a collusion case.
Is that clear, Joe?
Pretty simple, but I just want to be sure before we move on.
That's an easy one.
One final takeaway from clip number one, because this is the deepest one.
He says we have to look at people above and below Peter Strzok.
Now, why is this important?
Because Strzok's the lead investigator in this illicit investigation of the Trump for the FBI.
He's a management-level guy.
Strzok is not a field office-level agent.
I believe he's an SES, Senior Executive Service.
Strzok is a very high-ranking FBI agent.
So he mentions people above and below.
That's significant.
It's significant because this cabal of people involved in the attempted takedown of Donald Trump, we may not even have all the players yet there.
And Nunes says we have a lot of whistleblowers.
I think we know who those are, too, if you're a listener to the show.
I'm reasonably confident Bill Price, that Peter Stroke's boss, is cooperating.
Now, What are these above and below agents, above and below struck, and what is he talking about?
Hat tip to one of my sources this morning, he brings up a good point.
Ladies and gentlemen, that Woods file.
Who else's signature is on that Woods file?
Who else signed their names?
Were those people above and below who signed that Woods file indicating that this information used to target the Trump team, the dossier, which was false, but signing your name that it was true?
Who are those people?
Who else signed that file?
Folks, I believe this is with the Nunes translator employed.
I think that's what he's talking about.
Alright, let's go to cut number two because this is where he specifically mentions how not only was the information false, but there may be information out there indicating sources that they were using for their information.
We're not guilty at all!
Exculpatory information.
And they may be hiding it.
Play cut two.
There's still more information.
I've said this before.
This was their insurance policy.
A lot of people think the insurance policy was just the overall investigation of the Trump campaign.
It's actually much more conspiratorial than that.
It's left behind there.
There was exculpatory information.
We've talked about it on your show many times.
So, look, Maria, if you take what the Democrats have said throughout the last two and a half years, there's only one thing that you can be certain of.
And that is whatever they tell you is wrong or a lie or they actually mean the opposite.
I loved it.
I really loved Nunes.
This guy, he doesn't have that, and I mean this as a compliment.
I don't mean this as a negative or a shot at all.
He doesn't have that politician filter.
Everybody knows the politician filter.
It drives me and my wife crazy.
When you just can't give an answer outside of a canned focus group response, you can't.
They just, and that's why people like Trump, he just, he never gives a focus group tested response ever.
Either there's newness.
Newness is like, at the end he goes, not only are what the Democrats telling you a lie, it's exactly the opposite.
In other words, Trump's guilty of collusion.
No, collusion's real, it's just not with Trump, it's with the Democrats.
So what he's saying on this case is, the insurance policy, to be very specific, is not just the overall targeting of Donald Trump, the spy on him, to hopefully get him to lose the presidency or get him impeached afterwards via this Mueller probe.
I believe what he's saying is the insurance policy is a very specific set of facts, i.e.
the dossier that's false, that people conspired in the FBI to all pretend it was true.
I raised my right hand.
While simultaneously at the same time ignoring evidence that all of it was garbage.
That's the exculpatory information he points out.
That one's pretty simple.
This last one is key.
This last one is, this last cut is great because he talks about what we discussed last week, we've been talking about for a while now.
How the Mueller probe was, the collusion hoax is the big hoax.
The second biggest hoax is the Mueller probe, that they were investigating collusion.
I gave a speech this week and I said, Mueller was never investigating collusion.
Stop the nonsense.
Mueller knows at the latest, July of 2017, right after he's appointed, he's investigating a hoax.
But by this third clip here, What Nunes, I believe, back to the Nunes translator, is hinting at here is that Mueller may have known before he was even appointed, Rosenstein and others,
Or when he was appointed in the infancy of his appointment.
I'll give him a little leeway.
Let's say after a week.
Mueller may have known in May when he's appointed that he was investigating a hoax.
And he says something in here that leads me to believe that I was onto something last week.
Play that cut.
Many people that are on the team, the Mueller team, are involved in a lot of these conspiracies.
Right?
So you have the leader on the team, the deputy supposedly, and another top lawyer, were both involved in the chain of custody of the Steele dossier, the Democratic oppo Dirk.
It is impossible for me to believe that those two lawyers, very smart lawyers, didn't know in the middle of 2016 That that information was dirt coming from the Democrats.
It's impossible.
The other two, you had two FBI agents, Strzok and Page, who were kicked off the Mueller team.
So I want the underlying information because I don't believe, I think the indictments that were made by the Mueller team, I think some are very questionable.
Yes!
Finally we go on offense!
pieces of them that always read like Russian spy novels, that was done on purpose to create
a narrative to make the American people think as they were indicting these people that somehow
this had to do with collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.
Yes!
Finally we go on offense!
I love this guy!
Enough of this.
Oh, Mueller did a great job.
He exonerated the president.
Mueller did not exonerate Trump.
Trump exonerated Trump.
Mueller now, we turn our sights on Mueller and start to look at what he was doing in closer detail.
The microscope is on, and Nunes is opening up the aperture on this thing to take a close look at what he did, and he hints at a couple big things right there.
You may have missed it.
Nunes Translator, we need like a sounder for the Nunes Translator Initiate.
What is he saying?
He mentions two members of the Mueller team, the Mueller team, who knew early on because they were in the quote chain of custody for the dossier, that this dossier was a political document and was a hoax.
Those two members are Weissman and Zayn Ahmad.
Andrew Weissman, his lead investigator, Mueller's lead investigator, Andrew Weissman, was briefed in August of 2016.
2-0-1-6.
Almost a year before Mueller's appointed.
Was briefed about the dossier.
By Bruce Ohr and the Department of Justice.
Remember, Weissman worked at the Department of Justice.
So was Ahmad, Zayn Ahmad.
They are two members who were appointed specifically to the Mueller team.
How do you explain this away?
That two deeply conflicted members of the Department of Justice who were briefed about a hoax document paid for by Donald Trump's political opponents, knew about the document, are now investigating a case based on a document they knew was a hoax.
He mentioned something else.
Yeah.
So just to be clear, takeaway number one, Mueller intentionally, intentionally appointed people who already knew the case was a hoax.
You may say, Dan, this makes no sense.
Why would Bob Mueller investigating collusion, if he knew it was a hoax, hire two people from the department of justice who clearly knew it was a hoax because they were briefed on it a year earlier.
Exactly!
To cover up the hoax and keep the heat on Donald Trump!
That was the whole purpose of the Mueller probe!
I mean, do we really need an analogy?
Liberals may!
If I know police acted unethically in targeting Joe for robbing a bank, yet there was no bank robbery.
It never happened.
And I'm trying to cover it up and I appoint a prosecutor.
I want prosecutors who know the hoax and will hide it and who are vested in the whole thing.
Who was vested in the dossier?
Andrew Weissman, who got briefed on it a year earlier.
What better way to make the hoax seem real than appoint one of the guys who got hoaxed?
He says something else.
He says, and two FBI agents as well.
One's a lawyer, Lisa Page, and one's the agent.
Stroke, Peter Stroke, we've been talking about before.
Stroke, Stroke, I don't really care what his name is.
A lot of people send me the corrections.
I'm sorry, I just don't care.
You know who I'm talking about.
I know what you mean, dude.
I'm not interested.
Yeah, exactly.
People are stroking out over me mispronouncing Stroke.
I don't care what his pronunciation of his last name is anymore.
I'm not interested.
Because this guy was a dog.
What he's saying there is not only does Mueller pick two lawyers from the DOJ, Weissman and Ahmaud, who know this is a hoax, he picks two FBI personnel, Page and Stroke, who know it was a hoax too, because they were the lead investigators involved in it the entire time, covering up all this exculpatory information.
Now you may say, well Dan, that doesn't make sense.
Because Mueller had a fire stroke in Page.
So clearly he didn't want those two around.
No, no.
No, no, no, no.
No, no, no.
Erroneous!
Erroneous on all counts.
Thank you, Vince.
Mueller only fires Stroke and Page, who clearly know this case is a hoax because Stroke has been investigating.
They're texting each other that there's no there there.
In other words, there's no evidence that this is true.
They're texting each other that.
Mueller wants people who know it's a hoax to hide the hoax and just keep the investigation on Trump because they're going to go back and revise their duties later and make it about obstruction, not collusion, in an effort to hide the collusion hoax, make it go away, and lock up Donald Trump for something else or his people after he gets impeached.
Why does he fire Stroke and Page then?
You're still probably saying it still doesn't make sense.
Because he gets the texts from the Inspector General, Michael Horowitz, who's the internal affairs guy for the Department of Justice, essentially, who gives Mueller the texts.
Mueller knows this is all gonna go public, so then he fires him to look like some white knight.
Oh, look, I fired these two.
Why'd you pick them in the first place?
You know this is a hoax!
Because, Joe, they were invested in the hoax.
That's what Nunes is saying.
Stroke and Page were invested in the hoax.
He only fired them because they got the text and it was going to go public.
Notice Weissman leaves the campaign.
Excuse me, Weissman.
You may say, well, why didn't they fire Weissman?
Good question.
Because we only found out about Weissman getting the briefing on the dossier, we, the public, Mueller knows about it, when Bruce Ohr's testimony went public, which was just a few months ago.
And then suspiciously, Joe, who leaves right after that?
Weissman.
Mueller was engaging in one of the most grotesque, unethical enterprises I have ever seen in U.S.
law enforcement and the justice system.
Gross.
He hired these four people precisely because they were investigated and, uh, invested, excuse me, in the hoax.
And he only fired them, or they left, after it became public.
Marlon's a great guy!
You sure about that?
You're not a great guy if you believe that.
I'm sorry.
Total, complete hoax.
All right, got a couple more things to get to.
Stack Show, always on Monday.
Today's show, finally, brought to you by our buddies at Bravo Company Manufacturing.
I really, really love this company.
Their products are top-notch today.
Bravo Company Manufacturing manufactures some of the finest rifles and pistols out there.
If you've not seen their collection, go to bravocompanymfg.com.
I recently had a couple of their firearms shipped over to an FFL dealer here where I picked them up.
They were kind enough to send them to me and the dealer could not believe, he said, these are some of the finest products out there.
He goes, damn, I'm not kidding.
He's like, you're lucky to get these.
These are really good products.
We know we're big fans of the second amendment here.
I am a gun owner.
I love learning about our rights as Americans.
Owning a rifle is a responsibility.
It's an awesome responsibility and building rifles is no different.
A Bravo company manufacturing was started in garage by a marine veteran more than two decades ago.
They build professional grade products built to combat standards.
Folks, this is not a sporting company.
This company manufactures life-saving equipment.
They realize all their products are going to be used either by private citizens, law enforcement professionals, or our military in a potentially life-saving situation.
Bravo Company Manufacturing again manufactures, designs, and engineers life-saving equipment.
They assume when a rifle leaves their shop, it will be used in a life-or-death situation by a responsible citizen, law enforcement officer, or soldier.
Every component.
of a BCM rifle is hand assembled and tested by Americans in Heartland, Wisconsin to a life-saving
standard. They put people before products. They know that building tools is only life-saving
tools only half the story. They also work with leading instructors of marksmanship
from Army Special Forces Marine Corps Force Recon and they connect them with other Americans. These
top instructors then teach the skills necessary to defend yourself or others.
Where do you learn about Bravo Company?
You go to bravocompanymfg.com, where you can discover more about their products, special offers, and upcoming news.
That's bravocompanymfg.com.
Need more convincing?
Check out their YouTube channel, youtube.com slash bravocompanyusa.
These are really, really high quality, life-saving rifles and pistols.
Really good products here.
Okay.
Moving on.
Ladies and gentlemen, are you sure you want this Medicare for All?
I'm seeing this Medicare for All, I addressed a little bit of it last week, which is really government-run healthcare.
I'm seeing this creeping up in the polls amongst people who don't understand what this actually is.
Let's be clear, Bernie Sanders is advocating for this now.
We've had Kamala Harris and others on the Democrat side running in the 2020 presidential election speak out on behalf of what they're calling Medicare for All.
This is not Medicare for All, it is Medicare for None.
It is a government-controlled healthcare system where private insurance, free market insurance, you can gain and control yourself.
You have access to make your own healthcare decisions.
You have access to your own doctors and hospitals that you like.
That system would be banned.
Gone.
Goodbye.
See you later.
You will be calling, make no mistake, under Medicare for All.
Which is government-controlled healthcare.
You will be calling a government bureaucrat who doesn't give a rat's caboose about your healthcare, your kids' healthcare, or candidly, your life or death.
You will be calling them for healthcare.
We will be engaging over this presidential election, so you can be safe here on this show.
We will be on top of this 2020 election like no one else.
We will be engaging in an all-out effort to inform the American people about what lies ahead if they vote for a Democrat who supports government-run healthcare.
I was kind enough to get this article from a reader.
It's from 2017 of December, but it still describes what government healthcare looks like where they actually practice it.
The article is from The Telegraph.
I'll put it in the show notes today.
Title, remember this is 2017, by Steven Swinford.
Patients are going blind due to six month waiting list for cataract surgery.
Ladies and gentlemen, they can't find doctors to produce it.
They can't find enough medical staff to get people cataract surgery who are going blind.
What's the problem with cataracts?
I'm not a doctor, but you don't need to be a doctor to do some basic homework.
Cataracts get worse over time, like many medical conditions.
It's not like the common cold that improves.
What happens over time is people start to lose their vision, they become more socially isolated, as the article indicates, they stay home more and more, and you not only have the obviously physical ramifications of cataracts, which are destructive, but you have psychological ones as well, as social isolation kicks in, as people can't see.
They can't leave their house after a while.
This is government-run healthcare.
You are calling a bureaucrat for permission to get on a waiting list to be able to see Folks, I bring this, this is the second time now I'm bringing up an article associated with government-run healthcare and eyesight because it's a sensitive topic for me.
I had an aunt, Natalie, God rest her soul, my great aunt.
She was my grandmother's sister.
She's since left us, but she went blind later in life and it was tough for our entire family.
She lived literally next door to me.
I mean, here was our house, here was her house.
We used to go over there all the time.
My brother lived there.
My mother lived with her for a while.
She went blind later in life and it was so difficult on my family because she had grown up with her vision her whole life and she was in basically her 60s or so when she lost her sight and she used to tell me all the time she almost wished she'd been blind her whole life because she had learned to see and now it was just so damaging because you know she missed everything.
Folks, this is what lies ahead and is waiting for you in a government-run bureaucratic healthcare system where you have to pick up the phone and dial the number of a government bureaucrat to get permission to sit on a waiting list while you progressively go blind at home due to an extremely curable medical problem called cataracts.
I explained the economics of why that happens last week, and it's obvious.
When you institute a third-party payer, the government, In other words, you're not paying the doctor for your services.
The doctors and hospitals know that.
They don't have to answer to you.
Why?
You're not the customer.
Of course I am.
I'm getting my cataracts removed.
You are not.
You're the recipient of their services.
But let's get this damn straight.
You ain't the customer and ain't is a word in this case.
Who's the customer, Joe?
The G!
The G, baby!
The government's the customer.
It ain't you!
You're the recipient, but you're not paying.
You already gave the government your money.
And your tax dollars.
The government's the one they have to please.
It's not you.
And you think the government cares about you and how your services work out when your cataracts are removed?
They don't care about any of that.
They already have your money.
When you're paying for these services, whether through your insurance company, who you can cancel and get away from, or you're paying cash yourself for whatever it may be for a medical procedure, you are the customer.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is going to keep coming up.
This 2020 campaign, this Medicare for All nonsense, you are going to see it.
All right, before I get to my last story about the tax returns here, the President's tax returns, I just want to thank you.
I have a screenshot here quickly of my book on Amazon.
I don't like to bother you all with plugs all the time, especially for my own content.
It kind of drives me crazy.
But we have the title and now we have the book cover is out.
So here it is.
Basically, the book cover, just to give you a little backstory, we read your emails.
I got some nice suggestions.
And this is the title for our new book available on Amazon, Exonerated, The Failed Takedown of President Donald Trump by the Swamp.
You can see it.
On our YouTube channel, youtube.com slash Bongino.
You can also go to Amazon and check it out there.
Sorry for the audio only audience, but I know you're going to love the cover.
You propelled us to be the number one bestseller in law enforcement category on pre-orders only.
So please go check it out.
Amazon, Barnes & Noble, pre-order your copy today.
You're going to love it.
There's some real bombshells in there.
This is going to be, I've got another special project I'm working on too.
When we finalize it up, I'll announce it on the show first.
So please check that out.
Check out the new book cover.
All right.
You hear that?
You hear the dogs?
Can you guys hear that on the show?
My mother-in-law's here.
We love the dogs.
I'm allergic, so we can only borrow the dogs until my allergies kick in, and then I have to go back to my mother-in-law.
Come on in, doggies!
Come on in!
Paula's outside.
You hear Paula?
Linda!
Linda, baby, come on in!
Join the show!
You guys, Joe, is that coming over?
Oh, yeah.
Yeah, man, I hear it pretty clearly.
Yeah.
All right.
With the doggies barking and for the last part of the show, we get President Trump's tax returns.
This story is driving me crazy.
So the Democrats are demanding President Trump's tax returns.
I say the president tells them to go pound sand.
Why would we give them our tax returns?
I want to base this on two stories, okay?
Story number one that's really irritating about this is the IRS story.
Remember, the Democrats have shown no proclivity whatsoever to keep sensitive tax data and tax documents private.
They use them for political attacks.
They attacked them with the IRS using their data to attack conservative groups, but it's not just that.
When they had that Proposition 8 and they were voting for it in California when it came to legalizing gay marriage and things like that.
I don't know if you remember this but there were companies that donated to the cause where their IRS data and the tax data for that company that was involved in it was leaked in order to attack people that had donated to the conservative side of the issue.
Yeah, yeah, I remember.
Folks, this is ongoing.
There have been people's private tax returns leaked, so the takeaway here is President Trump should tell them to go pound sand, no doubt about it.
But there's a reason for this, and this is the mental ammunition you need to go at it with your liberal friends.
Until Democrats can stop illegally Incentivizing IRS swamp rats to leaking criminal information about people's tax returns, I would say, eh, forget it!
No double-barreled middle finger to you, I have no interest whatsoever in giving you my tax returns, and I'm not making any apologies whatsoever about it, so forget it!
Secondly, The Democrats now have engaged in illegal leaking.
We've had that to tie the whole show together.
As Devin Nunes said in the beginning, there are criminal investigations ongoing about not just tax returns and things like that, where there have been probes and criminal probes into stuff like that.
But there's also investigations going on with FBI using criminal referrals from Nunes over criminal leaks from the FBI about sensitive information about ongoing investigations into the Department of Justice and FBI and into Donald Trump that was classified.
What incentive do we have right now as conservatives to allow liberals to engage in another endless Mueller type witch hunt into President Trump's tax returns to fabricate process crimes and just make stuff up Knowing their track record with the IRS leaking that, and leaking sensitive classified information, classified at the highest levels.
Why would we do that?
The answer is we shouldn't.
We should tell them to pound sand, and that's it.
That's the argument.
We're not releasing it.
Forget it.
Thank you.
Have a nice day.
Thanks for joining us.
There is no reason to do it.
I'm sorry.
They have shown no proclivity whatsoever to do this.
Sorry, I was going to say my last story, but I have about two more minutes left,
so I want to fit this in. I am going to get into the border crisis stuff.
I know we covered a little bit last week, but we haven't really dug into it.
But when I do the show on the border crisis, I want to do a little kind of a thorough job on it, and I want to make sure I tie it up.
But to give you just a preview of what's ahead when we talk about this, Mark Morgan, who's a good friend, he does some commentary for Fox.
He was a lead border official under the Obama administration, ironically.
He was on Fox this morning, and he said there's an easy fix to this, and he's right.
And we'll dig into this probably a little bit more in a later show.
But we have to get rid of this Flores consent decree, Joe, where we cannot detain children for more than 20 days.
So what's happening?
It's incentivizing people to bring their children illegally across the border, knowing that they won't separate the family.
So when you release the children, what happens, Joe?
You have to release the parents, too.
So what's happening?
They're leaving, walking out into the United States, essentially free people entering illegally.
And second, the rules for deporting people who come from Honduras, Guatemala, and other countries are not the same as deporting people back to Mexico.
We have to hold on to people from Honduras and Guatemala, whereas people from Mexico we can deport right back over the border.
This has to change.
If you came from Mexico, regardless of your country of origin, we should be able to deport you back.
Mexico lets you pass through?
That's fine.
They can take you back until you're willing to cross the border legally, like legal immigrants do.
So those are two key changes.
But I am going to get to that more.
I'm sorry, last week was just really busy with a lot of stuff going on in the Mueller report.
All right, folks, thanks again for tuning in.
That was a stacked show today, a lot of information to digest.
I really appreciate it.
Last week, we had some phenomenal listenership.
Please subscribe to our YouTube channel, youtube.com slash Bongino, and subscribe to our audio podcast on iTunes, SoundCloud, and iHeartRadio.
It is all free, helps us move up the charts.
So thanks a lot, folks.
I appreciate it.
I'll see you all tomorrow.
You just heard The Dan Bongino Show.
You can also get Dan's podcasts on iTunes or SoundCloud.
