Mueller Wont Give Up On His Witch Hunt # 970 (Ep 970)
In this episode I address the outrageous attack by Mueller’s disgraced team of witch hunters. I also address the scheme Mueller is engaging in to discredit the Attorney General. Finally I address Hollywood’s disturbing support of Venezuelan socialism. News Picks: What Mueller did last night was a complete disgrace.
Here’s AG Barr’s opening statement.
Bob Mueller’s letter is another disturbing scam by a disgraced team of witch hunters.
Here’s a compilation of all the stories the media got wrong about collusion, and where the Mueller team sat on their hands.
4 critical takeaways from the “Medicare for all” hearing on the Hill yesterday.
Eric Swalwell‘s proposed legislation would’ve hurt Hillary’s efforts to collude with foreigners.
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?
Hello, Daniel!
How are you doing?
I'm doing well.
Yeah, man.
Yeah, good.
So listen, Barr's testifying up on the hill right now.
Bill Barr laying into a lot of these Democrat hacks up there in Capitol Hill looking to impugn the integrity of our Attorney General.
I want to get to this because the media freakout last night was priceless, priceless.
On Mueller's latest attempt to sabotage the Trump presidency.
That's all that happened yesterday, make no mistake.
I've got some video from CNN of Don Lemon and Ted Lieu in a full-blown panic attack, the both of them.
Freaking out on television, just making stuff up, and I'm gonna lay out what Mueller's really doing right now, and I want you to read between the lines.
This is nothing but another sick Mueller attempt at sabotaging the Trump presidency.
It's really disgusting and gross.
When I'm done with this, If anyone listening had any faith left that Mueller was acting benevolently, or acting without bias, or acting without willful intent to harm the presidency, you are out of your mind.
I'm sorry.
All right, let's get to it.
Today's show brought to you by our buddies at FilterBuy.
According to CDC, about 7 million people are getting hit with the flu this year.
Many think getting sick has to do with the cold, but that's not true.
We get sick because we spend more time inside and some of the air inside is polluted.
I'm inside my house all the time.
That's why I use FilterBuy.
I keep my HVAC system and my air clean using American-made filters from FilterBuy.
You want to improve your chances this cold and flu season?
Improve the quality of your air with FilterBuy.
It's America's leading provider of HVAC filters for homes and small businesses.
Don't kick the can down the road.
Go to your computer, order yours today.
Change those air filters.
Breathe healthier air.
Yes!
Breathe in through the nose, out through the mouth.
Healthier air.
Sign up for auto delivery with FilterBuy and you can save 5% off your order.
They have over 600 sizes including custom options that ship free right to your door.
They manufacture all their filters right here in America.
They've been a good sponsor with us for a long time.
Reminds me of the end of Rocky 3 when he asked him to ring the bell, Apollo.
Ding, ding.
Okay, so what's going on here?
So yesterday, in case you missed the news, Bob Mueller in another shameless attack on the presidency.
History is going to judge this man, Mueller that is, very harshly, by the way.
He's disgraced himself, disgraced his investigation, disgraced the country.
A letter leaks that Mueller sends to Bill Barr after Barr releases a brief synopsis, a four-page synopsis of Mueller's report to the press indicating that there's no collusion and that he did not exonerate the president, Mueller that is, on obstruction, but he did not indicate that he wanted to charge with obstruction either.
Right.
That letter's released on March 24th.
Follow me here, folks.
Joe, if this gets confusing, stop me, because this is important and it'll indicate how the bad faith Mueller is acting.
So Mueller, a few days after that March 24th release of the synopsis of Mueller's 400-page report, Which Mueller indicates clearly to Barr is not inaccurate.
That's in the New York Times and Washington Report bombshell last night, right?
When Mueller releases his accurate summary or synopsis, whatever you want to call it, of what's in Mueller's 400-page report, when Barr releases that, Mueller sends him a letter apparently objecting to what?
The media coverage of the report!
So let me just give you the lead right now.
All right.
Hissy fit Bob Mueller and his deranged Democrat witch hunters targeting the Trump team are upset that the synopsis of his report doesn't lead to negative media coverage.
That's exactly what happened yesterday.
This guy has disgraced himself.
Mueller notice in the New York Times report, I think you have to get down to like the 13th paragraph or so and the Washington Post report on this thing.
All right.
About this Mueller letter.
Mueller was upset about Barr's characterization of his report.
You have to get down to the end of the report to find out.
Mueller didn't think the synopsis of his report was inaccurate at all.
Put up that screenshot, please, from the Washington Post piece.
You have to get all the way to the end to get to the part where it actually indicates this, from the Washington Post.
When Barr pressed him whether he thought his letter was inaccurate, again, the letter synopsizing Mueller's report, Mueller said he did not.
He did not think it was inaccurate, but felt that the media coverage of the letter was misinterpreting the investigation.
So let's get this lead out here immediately.
All right.
What an unbelievably dishonest, disingenuous figure Bob Mueller has become.
This guy has disgraced himself.
He's upset that the media coverage of the synopsis of his report wasn't negative enough on Donald Trump?
You know what?
Let me play this cut from these lunatics on CNN yesterday, Don Lemon and Ted Lieu, and you'll see how they take a story that is a non-story.
Mueller did not think Barr's synopsis of his report was inaccurate at all.
He's just complaining about the media coverage.
And then watch the media that Mueller's complaining about, distorting his report.
Distort what's in the report about Mueller's report.
You heard Kerry Cardero just before the break, normally very measured.
She said, I'm sick of the lying.
I'm frustrated.
Bill Barr has been lying for three weeks.
The Senate and the Congress should just get rid of him and bring Mueller in.
What do you say to that?
We're going to do both.
Certainly want to give Bill Barr the opportunity to perjure himself, but we're also going to want to hear from Robert Mueller.
But at this point, based on what I know, Bill Barr needs to resign.
He took an oath to the Constitution, not to Donald Trump.
He is supposed to be America's attorney, not Trump's stooge.
And because he doesn't understand his job, and he's repeatedly misled the American people, he's gotta go.
Notice Ted Lieu.
Thanks, Ted, for summing that up.
Thank you, Ted.
Ted Lieu, one of the dumbest guys in Congress, no question about it.
A guy with the intellectual capacity of a preschooler says, well, we're tired of the lying.
We gotta get this guy up there, the lying.
But he never tells you what the lie is.
Right.
Did we miss it?
Like, what's the lie?
Where is it?
He doesn't tell us what the lie is!
Can you put up this screenshot again from the report?
The Washington Post report, when you get to the end, when they're done whining about Mueller whining about the media coverage not being negative up on Trump.
Let me read it again.
Mueller said he did not feel Barr's letter was inaccurate.
I don't know.
Folks, I'm serious when I say this.
I'm genuinely trying to give the media some objective sense of, like, where are they going with this?
And I cannot figure out how you would write a story that refutes your own story.
The Washington Post is clearly trying to attack the president.
Because the report indicated no collusion by saying somehow that Barr's interpretation of the report was inaccurate while writing a story that says the guy who wrote the report didn't feel that the summary was inaccurate.
I don't get it.
Now, Mueller's a snake.
He's shown himself to be a snake.
He has disgraced himself.
His team has disgraced himself.
He's become an embarrassment to the justice system now.
He's now whining, throwing a two-year-old hissy fit in a letter because he's upset the media coverage wasn't negative enough?
Are we forgetting?
Are we forgetting the fact, Joe, that Mueller was offered the opportunity to read the letter Barr put out, the synopsis of the report, and Mueller declined.
Now, why would Mueller do that?
Oh, oh, this is where it's going to get good.
But this is also where it's going to get a little bit complicated.
All right.
A little bit.
That's where I need Producer Joe and Paula to help me here, because if I don't sum this up accurately, I'm going to do you all a disservice.
We got you.
Keep this in mind.
Mueller is given an opportunity to review the synopsis Barr writes about his report, which he's now whining about in this leaked letter.
Conveniently leaked, by the way, the day before Barr goes up the Capitol Hill.
But nothing to see there, folks.
Don't you worry.
It's Mueller's all on the up and up, along with his disgraceful team, right?
Mueller declines to review the letter.
Ladies and gentlemen, Mueller tried to set Barr up.
And Barr smoked him out.
Here's what's going on behind the scenes.
And take it to the bank, cash the check, spend the money.
Mueller hates Trump.
Mueller has lost his marbles.
He is not thinking straight.
He is single-handedly committed to humiliating Trump and taking down the Trump presidency.
Do not take anything Bob Mueller says seriously.
He thought his report would do that.
The problem inside the report is Mueller is not dumb.
Mueller can't fabricate evidence.
Mueller wrote the report as a roadmap to impeachment.
The problem is he thought Trump was stupid.
And he thinks he's going to get Trump by doing the investigation on an obstruction charge.
Follow me here.
He knows collusion is a hoax immediately.
I'll get to this in a second.
It's a John Solomon piece.
I'll get to this in a second.
Mueller knows the collusion hoax is a hoax immediately.
So you must be asking yourself, well, if he hates Trump, then why take on an investigation about something he knows is a hoax?
Because Mueller's going to have to be the one to write a report exonerating Trump, which he does later.
He gets all that.
Think four-dimensional chess for a moment.
Muller understands, though.
That if he keeps the investigation open long enough, with a recused Attorney General, Jeff Sessions at the time, and a spineless Deputy Attorney General in Rosenstein who's overseeing him, that if Mueller keeps the investigation open into the hoax long enough, that at some point he believes Trump is going to slip up, Joe.
Okay.
Trump is going to slip up by firing someone, by getting angry, and he thinks Trump has no control, and Trump is definitely going to fire him or someone else.
And they are then going to use that to move forward with impeachment on an obstruction charge.
In other words, Mueller is counting on Trump to do what, Joe?
To take action.
Yes, sir.
But what's the problem, Joseph?
Trump doesn't fall into that trap.
No, he didn't.
Granted, folks, I was one of the guys who recommended he fire Mueller a long time ago.
I don't run from that at all.
But candidly, now looking back, I was wrong.
It's not my business to sit up here and defend to you wrong decisions.
My thought, because I thought what they were going to do is go and run with the Trump kids and try to go further with the financial stuff.
I think they were blocked, but that was the logic behind it.
But I don't want to dig into old stuff, but I'd be remiss if I didn't tell you that.
I thought Trump should fire Mueller.
And at the time, I thought my logic was sound.
He didn't do it.
He took no obstructive action at all.
Mueller, at this point, must be panicking.
He knows he's investigating a hoax.
He's waiting for Trump to slip up and fire someone, and he doesn't do it.
So he keeps the investigation open in perpetuity.
Well, what happens?
Finally, we get rid of Sessions.
Whitaker gets into the position as the acting, starts asking questions, Barr comes in as the now confirmed Attorney General, and starts asking more questions.
Hey, what are we doing here?
Mueller now has to wrap this up because Mueller knows what he's doing.
He's engaged in an ongoing political, not judicial, not justice-based fight against the President of the United States.
Now, rewind a little bit.
If that's the case, why then does Mueller do two things?
There are two critical decisions here.
Why does Mueller, one, not make a decision in the report on obstruction?
If you're saying he wanted to hurt the president, why not just indicate in the report that the president should have been indicted?
It is our decision that if the president was not in office, we would indict him and write it in the report.
Because Mueller doesn't have the evidence.
Trump doesn't do anything.
It's all hearsay talk.
Well, he told someone who told someone else that he's gonna fire someone.
He told this guy to fire the guy.
Well, did he fire him?
No, he didn't fire him.
He changed his mind.
So now you're in Trump's head?
You attempted obstruction that didn't even happen?
So point number one, why does Mueller not charge him if he hates him so much?
Because he can't.
Mueller cannot be humiliated by taking this case to court later on.
But number two, in regards to what happened yesterday, why does Mueller decline the opportunity to review Bill Barr's letter synopsizing his report?
Oh, this is where it gets good.
Because discredited Bob Mueller, who has stained and tarnished his reputation, knows full well that Bill Barr, before he came into the Attorney General position and was confirmed, wrote an opinion piece indicating that Donald Trump's actions regarding the firing of Jim Comey were entirely constitutional and could not constitute obstruction of justice.
You say, well, now I'm confused.
Mueller knows he has no evidence of obstruction, no criminal evidence, to lead to a none.
So if he punts in the report and puts it in the hands of a guy who's already written an op-ed on this, then he's giving the Democrats ammunition to do what?
To run with the story that, well, Bill Barr was already tainted in advance and already made a decision.
This is a political decision, therefore Bill Barr should resign and we should move ahead with impeaching Donald Trump.
Brilliant tactical move.
Sick, disgusting, disturbing, typical of the Mueller team of witch hunters, but a brilliant tactical move.
He must have been sitting around the table with this hack Weissman, this discredited hack, Andy Weissman, his chief pitbull, and saying to himself, guys, we have a problem here.
The problem we have is we really hate Donald Trump, and we need this guy impeached, and we need to salvage the reputation of the Department of Justice and the FBI that spied on Donald Trump, along with our intelligence agencies.
We can't do that because we have no evidence of this collusion.
It was a hoax from the start.
The problem is, our two-year-long obstruction investigation on a crime that never happened is also turning up negative as well, Joe, because we don't have evidence of Donald Trump actually doing anything to obstruct the investigation.
Now we're getting pressure from Bill Barr, the new Attorney General, who refuses to be sidelined in this case.
And we don't have the goods.
So I'm wondering if there's an entrepreneurial titanium-spined attorney in that group, I doubt it, in the team of Mueller witch hunters, who in this little hypothetical meeting we're talking about, Joe, raises his hand and says, Special Counsel Mueller, has it ever occurred to you if we can't produce the probable cause to charge the President of the United States with an obstruction charge that maybe it would be in our best interest to do what normal prosecutors do in cases like this and just say there will be no charges and move on?
No, no, no, we can't do that.
That won't do enough political damage.
So what does he do?
These deranged hacks on the Mueller team.
They then make sure they get a letter in writing, Joe, because you're gonna leak that later.
Put a letter in writing about the synopsis, Bill Barr's synopsis, you refuse to look at and review, but make sure you get in writing.
Make sure that you disagree with some of the characterizations by the media.
Make sure it's in writing so you can leak it later at an opportune time, maybe the night before the Attorney General testifies up on the Hill, giving what?
Giving the Democrats ammunition for their public hearing in front of all of America to look Barr in the eye and attack his character.
And by the way, the Washington Post, the co-conspirators over there, make sure... See, you know what?
Here's the problem.
Mueller... You may say, well, why would Mueller then just not say Bill Barr's letter was inaccurate?
Because Bill Barr quotes Mueller's report in the letter!
Listen, please tell me you're getting this.
I would be so disappointed if you don't.
Yeah, yeah, we're good.
If Mueller's trying to attack him in this letter just a few days after Barr releases his synopsis, which he is, he wants it in writing, Mueller, because he wants to attack Barr's credibility to later leak the letter to Congress, right?
So why not just, Mueller, skip the nonsense and just write in a letter like, really attack him?
Attorney General Barr, you have mischaracterized the report.
It is wildly inaccurate.
You know, wink wink, Congress, here's this letter that's going to be leaked.
By the way, it was leaked right away.
Charlie Crist, the congressman down here from Florida, it's pretty apparent based on his questioning of Bill Barr in the last hearing that Charlie Crist already knew about the letter.
So why not just go for it?
Why not just write in a letter?
Bill Barr, you've disgraced yourself.
You've made wildly inaccurate statements about my report.
Donald Trump really is orange man bad.
Orange man bad.
Because Barr boxed him in again.
Mueller's not bright.
Mueller and his team of idiots are really stupid.
Barr used actual quotes from Mueller's report in the synopsis.
Boxing Mueller out from claiming that the letter's inaccurate.
Really?
Because we have your actual quotes in there.
Which part's inaccurate?
The part where you, Mueller, said this?
So what does Mueller have?
Nothing!
All he has is a baseless charge that the media coverage isn't negative enough.
Which he knows the hack media, when the letters leaked, will run with to create what?
More negative media!
This is amazing!
This is incredible!
Write a letter complaining about not the accuracy of the report, the media coverage of the report, knowing liberal activists in the media will take said letter and then mischaracterize what's in your letter about the letter.
We're living in crazy town!
The great space coaster.
We are in crazy town.
I'm waiting for Gary Ganou to show up.
And the media doesn't even see how they've been played again for the idiots they are.
They wait until the end of the story.
Is the letter inaccurate?
No, it's not inaccurate.
There it is again.
By the way, everybody needs to go back.
Can I say one thing?
Joe, you convinced me to talk about this.
Alright.
For some reason, yesterday's show on YouTube didn't do very well.
I don't know what it was, and you're probably not supposed to talk about this stuff.
It was the first show we've ever done that didn't blow it out on YouTube, and I gotta tell you, I'm a little upset.
We put a lot of work into yesterday's show.
I think it's because the beginning was somber on the Venezuela stuff.
And that's fine, but ladies and gentlemen, please, I'm humbly and requestfully asking, even if you have to skip past that stuff, please go to the end of the show.
Joe and I had a blast.
It's some of the best material.
Joe, wouldn't you agree?
Yeah, it was a lot of fun.
Yeah.
Oh, it was a blast.
Joe's drops.
Episode 969.
I don't say this for the view.
Listen, the Omni, our audio show did great yesterday.
Killer numbers.
But please watch the end.
It is so funny.
I mean, I know what self-praise stinks, but Joe, not just me, Joe was great.
We were.
Check it out.
We did a little bit on minimum wage and on don't be that guy, which just was, we loved it.
We had a lot of fun.
I'd really love for y'all to check it out.
Sorry.
I didn't mean to get sidetracked, but please check out yesterday's show too.
All right.
Let me walk through this now.
So another, another thing here.
I want to explain to you from my prior line of work in law enforcement, why what's going on here is a disgrace too.
I'm going to walk through again this Mueller thing, but I want to explain to you why we don't do what Mueller's doing now in law enforcement.
What Mueller's doing now is he released a 400 page report.
With a compilation of what he believes to be facts that hurt the president, even though he made the decision in his report to punt on actually trying to prosecute the president on obstruction.
Mm-hmm.
Ladies and gentlemen, there is a reason prosecutors, government lawyers, DAs, ADAs, AGs, state attorney generals, there is a reason That starts yesterday at show, about minute 40 if you want to watch 969.
Paula just texted me.
But there's a reason we don't say, if I'm trying to charge Joe with a bank robbery, and I don't have the evidence Joe robbed the bank, there's a reason the prosecutor doesn't release a report on Joe when he refuses to charge him.
And the reason we don't do that is simple.
I have it here as why we don't release evidence.
Let's say I do an investigation of Joe, and I've explained this before, but it's important.
And Joe's neighbor says, I think Joe robbed the amalgamated bank on the corner.
Uh oh.
And we start an investigation into Joe.
And another neighbor says, you know, suspiciously, I saw Joe leaving the house with a firearm that morning.
Oh my gosh.
Another guy comes out and says, you know, I saw Joe that day and his wallet, he had a couple hundred dollar bills.
This is all in the report we release afterwards.
The public gets this information, even though Joe hasn't been charged.
And Joe, what do you think the public thinks?
Well, that they think the worst.
That you robbed the bank.
Yeah.
They think the worst.
They think Joe robbed the bank.
Well, what's the problem, folks?
Why don't we release reports full of negative information?
And Joe, there's no question that that would be, quote, negative information for you, right?
Big time.
It's not meant to make you look good.
Big time.
What's the problem, folks?
The problem is when the investigators, the cops or the federal agents, went out and investigated the case for the prosecutor, what happened?
We found out Joe had a firearm that day because he's a concealed carry permit holder in Florida and Joe has carried his firearm every day for 10 years.
It's not connected to the bank robbery at all.
We find out Joe had those $200 bills that day because he went to an ATM at the local Publix before that.
Then we find out that the neighbor who said Joe robbed the bank had a beef against Joe about their property line and a tree on Joe's property that's shading his house and blocking his view.
And Joe, he wanted to get back at Joe for filing a local report with the county commissioner on the property.
I hate that guy.
But, oh, he's the worst.
Yeah.
But all of that, Joe, is completely left out of the report they issued to the press on Joe Armacost.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, does it make sense to you why what Mueller did is disgraceful?
He issues this report about a crime that never happened, and an obstruction case on a crime that never happened, includes a bunch of negative information about Russians, and other things, and conversations Trump allegedly had, and he leaves out all the exculpatory information.
Trump didn't fire anybody, he leaves out the stuff about Andy McCabe saying there was no effort to obstruct, the stuff about Jim Comey, There's a great piece up at the Daily Caller.
I'll have it in the show notes.
It's from a week ago.
Peter Hassan.
Why am I putting this up now?
Because it's the title.
Mueller Report Exposes String of Anonymously Sourced Stories That Got It Wrong.
So conveniently, what Mueller failed to do during the 675 days he was investigating, Joe, He failed to debunk any of these stories, which Peter has signed in a Daily Caller piece, which will be up in the show notes today.
Any of the negative stories on Trump, Mueller didn't get out in front of.
The WikiLeaks, Don Jr.
story, the Deutsche Bank stuff.
He leaves it all to fester in the public, meant to make the Trump team look horrible.
Trump, Mueller says nothing about it.
But the second Joe, That Barr's letter, which he refused to review Mueller, is released, which uses quotes of Mueller's own report.
The second that doesn't lead to media coverage that hack Mueller thinks is negative enough, Mueller immediately jumps out and writes a letter knowing it'll be leaked to the media to make sure the media coverage is extra super negative.
Devious.
What a disgusting, disgraceful episode in American history.
Ladies and gentlemen, I'm sorry.
I, again, thank you Bob Mueller for your service in the Marine Corps.
What you have done to America in this episode is one of the most disgusting, horrific stains on justice I have ever seen.
This is a grotesque abomination.
Trump won.
He beat you.
You failed.
You failed to take down the Trump presidency.
Now you're trying to take down the Attorney General.
Because you have lost it.
You have done the worst thing a prosecutor and investigator could do.
You let your personal hatred of another human being blind your professional acumen.
You completely went off the rails.
And this is your effort now, your last-ditch effort, to turn the media coverage back in a negative direction.
All right, I'm gonna sum this up one more time in a kind of a different way, and I want to move on.
I got a lot to talk about, but this is important because this bar hearing today, we'll have some cuts for you tomorrow, is gonna be another just disgusting episode.
All right, today's show, bye to you, but you know what I mean?
Harry's!
This is my Harry's razor.
You see that?
Nice travel cover.
Look at that.
Is that a beauty or what?
Check that out.
The nice part about these Harry's razors that I have, I love Harry's.
If you go to harrys.com slash Bongino, you can redeem your free trial set today.
I only have to shave once.
These other razors with the flexi balls, the moving heads, the flux capacitor, it's got a time machine bilked in the back, they charge you a boatload.
For Harry's, it doesn't need that.
Harry's makes a good quality razor.
They have their own razor factory and it shaves so close I only need to shave once.
I shave for the morning show, I don't need to shave again at night because this is such a great shave.
Look at that.
Look at that piece of machinery.
Harry's, can't beat it.
I brought my own in today.
Listen, here's the deal about Harry's razors.
Join the 10 million who've tried Harry's.
Claim your trial offer today by going to harrys.com slash Bongino.
Harry's founders were tired of paying for razors that had all these gimmicks and overpriced nonsense in it.
Again, we don't need a time machine and a razor.
The razor has to shave.
That's it.
We don't need to be teletransported Avengers Endgame style back to get the Infinity Stones.
We just need a close quality shave.
And that's what this razor will do for you.
Harry's combines a simple, clean design with quality, durable blades at a fair price.
They bought their own world-class braid factory in Germany.
It's been making quality blades for over 95 years.
They have over 20,000 five-star reviews on Trustpilot and Google.
Replacement cartridges are just $2 each.
Harry's blades come with 100% money back guarantee.
If you don't love your shave, you will.
Let them know.
They'll give you a full refund.
Here we go.
Get a $13 value trial set that comes with everything you need for a clean, close, comfortable shave.
A weighted ergonomic handle, five blade razor with a lubricating strip and a trimmer blade, rich lathering shave gel, nice, and a travel blade cover.
Listeners of my show can redeem their trial set at harrys.com slash Bongino.
Make sure you go to harrys.com slash Bongino.
Redeem your offer.
Let them know I sent you to help support the show.
Thank you, Harry's, for being here tonight.
Okay.
All right, finally, on this Mueller thing, just to prove to you from the beginning that this was nothing but complete, total hackery.
Because you may say, oh, Mueller was a decent guy.
I'm hearing this a lot on the news, even on Fox today.
I heard a couple of people allude to the fact, well, you know, Mueller's an honorable guy.
He may have been.
He certainly hasn't acted honorably in this case.
Ladies and gentlemen, he knew this whole case was a fraud from the beginning.
Put up that John Solomon piece from the help.
John Solomon writes this piece back in January called Pfizer Shocker.
DOJ official warned the Steele dossier was connected to Clinton and might be biased.
There's a nugget in this piece about halfway down.
That just decimates, and you should keep this handy, this little tidbit, screenshot this from the piece and keep it on your phone or your computer, for your liberal friends who still believe Mueller was actually investigating collusion.
Here's a portion of the piece.
They're talking about Bruce Ohr's contacts at the, Bruce Ohr is a DOJ official.
Solomon writes, but Orr's contacts about the Steele dossier, by the way, which was a hoax, weren't limited to the FBI.
He said in August of 2016, nearly two months before the FISA warrant was issued, that he, Orr, was asked to conduct a briefing for senior justice officials.
Okay, stand by.
Bruce Orr, his wife's working for Fusion, they produced the dossier.
At this point, they must know the dossier is paid for by Hillary because his wife is working there.
Which should immediately make them suspect of the contents of this fake dossier.
So instead of shutting this thing down, what does Orr do?
He goes and briefs Justice Department officials.
But who does he brief?
Oh, this is where this gets just Rico Suave.
Those he briefed, or that is, included Andrew Weissman, then the head of the DOJ's fraud section, Bruce Schwartz, Zaina Ahmad, who was assigned to work with Lynch as a senior counselor.
Ahmad and Weissman would go on to work for Mueller, the special prosecutor overseeing the Mueller probe.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is August of 2016.
Mueller's not appointed until May of 2017.
The guy, the first guy Mueller picks for his team, Andy Weissman, already knows the dossier's a hoax.
He's been briefed by Bruce Ohr.
Please tell me again with a straight face how Mueller's a stand-up guy.
Stand-up where?
He's not a stand-up guy.
He puts a guy on his team who knows this thing is a hoax and yet he runs with the collusion hoax anyway.
So step one.
Mueller, I have this written down because I don't want to miss it.
Mueller knows collusion's a fraud.
But instead of doing the honorable thing, giving a press conference that week and saying, ladies and gentlemen, we're investigating a hoax based on a political document paid for by Donald Trump's enemies.
No, he keeps the investigation open until Bill Barr's appointed and they shut him down.
They actually don't shut him down.
They start asking questions, which Mueller can't answer.
Mueller basically shuts himself down.
What are you doing?
Was probably question number one.
Step two.
Mueller then transitions from collusion, which he knows immediately is a hoax, By the way, my second book, I'm sorry to keep mentioning this, but just nails these guys to the wall.
I'm so proud of this book.
Exonerated.
That's the title.
Thank you, Paula.
It's available on Amazon now.
Nails Mueller to the wall.
Buy a copy for your liberal friends and send it to their house.
Please.
Highlight it.
Mueller then transitions to a thought crime.
Because he doesn't have a bank robbery.
No bank has been robbed.
He knows there was no collusion.
There was no crime.
So Mueller needs to keep the investigation open.
He transitions to a thought crime.
The thought crime is what?
Attempted obstruction.
Because why, Joe?
There is no obstruction.
Trump hasn't done anything.
The do matters.
Not the talk.
He hasn't actually obstructed anything.
Mueller knows by transitioning to a thought crime that he can continue the investigation indefinitely, continuing to use Trump's own statements against him.
Anything Trump says will be painted by Mueller as evidence.
Joe left his house with a firearm.
He has a carry permit, you knuckleheads!
Doesn't matter, that's evidence to me!
He could have robbed a bank!
You get it?
Oh yeah.
Transition to a thought crime and any fact, however dismissed from the actual crime, Trump gave a speech and he mentioned a Russian guy.
There you go!
He's obstructing justice!
This is the disgusting nature of what Mueller did.
So first, he knows it's a hoax.
Second, he invents a thought crime.
Third, Mueller finds out, after nearly two years, 675 days, that he's never going to get Trump to do anything on obstruction.
Therefore, he figures, with Barr in there asking him questions, he's going to have to wrap it up.
So he writes a report in the most negative, humiliating way possible, but Mueller refuses to take a stand on obstruction.
Why?
Because he won't dare humiliate himself in court if he ever had to actually charge Donald J. Trump.
His case would be laughed out of court, just like prosecuting Joe for a bank robbery, based on those three nonsense facts you made appear as evidence.
If that's what you're prosecuting your case on, you would be humiliated in court.
Mueller then punts to Barr for one reason and one reason only, to politicize this decision, knowing Barr is a Donald J. Trump appointee confirmed by the Senate, that Barr already disagrees about these unique, insane legal theories about obstruction, and he knows the media, acting like the lackey, hack, goons they are for the Democrat Party, will then attack Barr's credibility.
He then conveniently leaks a letter, his team, to the media the night before Barr testifies to discredit.
Barr complaining the media coverage isn't bad enough on Trump while simultaneously doing nothing to discredit the insane media reporting for two years against Donald Trump while Mueller knew the whole time in that Daily Caller piece.
All of those stories were false.
How do we know he knew?
because it's in his report.
Unbelievable.
Unbelievable what is going on here.
All right, moving on.
On some good news.
You can tell I was fired up this morning.
Some job numbers just quickly came out.
ADP puts out a job number reports from NBC.
This must kill them to put this out.
That's why I put NBC's tweet up.
There were hundreds of them.
I picked NBC.
It must drive them nuts.
Remember the nothing but Clinton network, right?
Private sector jobs are surging.
The ADP employment report out today shows the economy added folks a staggering 275,000 private payroll jobs in April.
Far more than analysts estimated and the most since last July.
Analysts were expecting 180,000.
Yes!
That must be killing NBC!
Analysts were expecting 180,000 jobs 275,000 showing those tax cuts, economic reform packages, the regulatory reform, and getting rid of the red tape is having significant impact on our U.S.
economy.
If we could just get a hold of the catastrophic debt situation we're in, again, I can't tell you this enough, we will be looking at an era of prosperity we have not seen anywhere in human history.
Please, if anybody up on the hill is listening, get out of your boxes for a minute.
Stand up and do something about this out-of-control government spending.
Alright, moving on.
Venezuela yesterday, I just wanted to highlight this one simple point here.
Venezuela's gotten ugly.
We've seen vehicles running people over, firing on civilians.
It's a humanitarian disgrace.
This is what happens with socialism.
I wanted to make two quick points on this.
The first is, ladies and gentlemen, do not let Any of the socialism apologists, Hollywood elitist animals, and politicians who have supported deadly, torturous, homicidal socialism who have supported this.
Do not let them off the hook.
Look at this 2013 tweet from Michael Moore.
Human disgrace Michael Moore, producer of socialist propaganda type films.
This is from early 2013.
Hugo Chavez declared the oil belonged to the people.
He used the oil money to eliminate 75% of extreme poverty, provided free health and education for all.
Yeah, Michael missed the resulting six years afterwards, the political prisoners, the human torture, the 20 pounds of body weight Venezuelans have lost due to starvation because governments socialized the economy.
He also missed the armored vehicles running people over and the shooting at civilians.
You may have missed that, Michael.
You're a disgusting person.
You're human filth.
You are nothing but an apology for, apologist for tyranny, for tyranny.
You are no different than a fascist.
People who apologize for fascism are no different than people who apologize for socialists because they both result in the same thing.
Oppression, death, and tyranny.
I'm disgusted by you.
I'm disgusted by your ilk.
I'm disgusted by politicians who have done this.
You're a disgrace to humankind.
Do not let these people off the hook.
Hold them to account on your social media and make sure they're reminded daily about what they did to endorse a system that runs over people in armored vehicles and crushes the life out of them.
It compresses their lungs, breaks their bones, their chest, and runs them over in the middle of the street.
Folks, there is no difference.
None.
As Hayek has pointed out repeatedly in his book, The Road to Serfdom, an iconic work, There is no difference between the taking of economic liberty and the taking of political liberty.
What do I mean by this?
The Democrats want to separate the two.
Oh, we'll call it democratic socialism, Joe.
Don't worry, you can still vote for people.
Ladies and gentlemen, it doesn't matter who you vote for when either person, man or woman, who wins in a socialist system has the right to take your money, your labor, Put you into a lifetime of indentured servitude, take away your healthcare decisions, your education decisions, and your basic freedom for objecting to their political policies.
There is no difference between the taking of economic liberty using big government policies and the taking of your political liberty.
Your political liberty or ability to vote doesn't mean a damn thing.
When the people you vote for, every one of them, has complete control over your economic life and your freedom and can imprison you and run you over in an armored vehicle when you disagree with them.
There is no difference.
There is no such thing as democratic socialism.
Socialism is a complete control and the subservience of innocent human beings by government bureaucrats put into power to terrorize you.
Whether you vote for them or not while they terrorize you and beat you to death is irrelevant.
There are no change agents in socialism.
There are despots and tyrants.
A ballot doesn't make that go away.
Let me say, well, what do you mean, Dan?
You can vote for... That's what happened in Venezuela!
And what did Maduro do?
Maduro stacked the ballot!
It doesn't matter if you get to vote!
What did the Russians used to say, the Soviets, Joe?
It matters who counts the votes!
Yes!
And they always seem to magically count the votes for them!
Stop allowing the Democrats to convince you that there is a distinction between economic liberty and political liberty.
Is this clear what I'm telling you?
The Democrats in Congress, the radical leftists, want you to believe That empowering big government over your healthcare, Medicare for all.
Empowering big government over your money, 90% tax rates, Julian Castro proposed.
Empowering them over your kids, public schools, no school choice.
They want you to believe that is separate and distinct, Joe, from political liberty and that you'll still be free because you can pick your leaders.
That's not the way this works.
When you forfeit your freedom, the ballot box is meaningless.
There is no difference between economic and political liberty.
When you forfeit away your money, your healthcare, your education, and your very right to assemble and object to a government for the people, what results is people being run over on the streets by armored vehicles by the socialist tyrants in charge, who count the votes.
That's all that matters.
Taxes are not just about money.
Not about the rich getting to keep more money.
Healthcare and you controlling your healthcare is not just about you getting a hip replacement.
School choice is not just about education for struggling kids in Appalachia and inner city communities.
It's about freedom and the essence of freedom.
And protecting freedoms.
Freedoms to dictate what road you choose to walk down instead of one the government dictates for you.
Once you forfeit those things away, piecemeal, a little bit of your healthcare here, a lot of bit of your education here, a little bit more of your money here, the ballot box becomes entirely irrelevant.
Power corrupts, as Lord Acton said.
Absolute power corrupts.
Absolutely.
There is no emergency brake on power if you allow these people to whittle away your freedoms one by one.
What's happening in Venezuela right now could very well happen here or anywhere else if you put socialists in charge.
This is not a cautionary tale, folks.
It is, but it's an account of history.
Every place we've put socialist tyrants in charge, it has resulted in death and destruction!
There is no democratic so- What about Sweden?
Sweden is a free market economy, you knuckleheads!
My gosh, it is not a socialist country!
That's unbelievable.
When are we going to hold AOC and Sanders and Michael Moore and Sean Penn?
How are these people held accountable for the death and destruction that they endorsed?
Oh, it's not that one.
We endorse real socialism.
That is real socialism.
People being run over by an armored car.
That is real socialism.
Speaking of which, more knucklehead policies.
So Kirsten Gillibrand, Democrat Senator from New York, who pretended at one point to be a moderate to get elected by upstate New Yorkers when she needed some political votes.
She's now running for president, although you'd never know.
She's polling at negative 62 percent, which is impossible.
I didn't think it was even possible to poll negative.
How do you poll negative?
How do you do that?
I'm kidding, of course, she's not polling negative.
She's polling at about zero.
It's like polling negative.
You poll someone, you ask them who they'd support, and you're like, this person I will absolutely not support no matter what.
As a matter of fact, take my name off this list and don't ever call me again.
That would be negative support.
Kirsten Gillibrand.
They want to rescind their vote.
That's a negative vote.
They go into the local board of elections after voting by mail.
Can I have that back please?
I want to burn that.
Sir, that's not how it works.
This is a negative vote for Kirsten Gillibrand.
Take my vote back.
So she's polling nowhere.
So she's getting desperate.
So she comes out with this ridiculous plan, and I'm tying this together, of course, because I try to put threads throughout the show to make it seem somewhat continuous.
This is the new socialist plan, Joe.
Democracy dollars, she calls them.
Gillibrand's plan to give every voter $600 to donate to campaigns.
Yes, this is just a doozy, isn't it?
So Kirsten Gillibrand, radical leftist from New York, wants to give voters your money to donate back to her campaigns and others.
And she calls them hysterically democracy dollars.
I call them anti-democracy dollars.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, there's a couple of obvious basic flaws with this ridiculous plan.
So just to be clear, She wants to give voters up to $600 for vouchers.
Those vouchers you can then give to a candidate that they can then give to the candidate, which they can redeem for a campaign fund.
So from the NBC news piece, every eligible voter could register for vouchers to donate up to $100 in a primary, $100
in a general, either all at once or in $10 increments to one or more candidates.
Each participant would get a separate $200 pool for House, Senate, and Presidential contests for a total maximum
donation of $600 to those federal offices.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
Ladies and gentlemen, what's the problem with this plan?
Which is interesting, by the way, Joe, because the Democrats will lobby ferociously against school vouchers, right?
For kids who could actually go to school and get an education.
But they'll lobby for vouchers that can go back into their campaign coffers.
Here's the problem.
I mean, the problem's obvious.
One, it opens up all kinds of Pandora's boxes about tax dollars.
But secondly, here's what I'd see happening.
Candidates would start campaigning for vouchers and not votes.
So think about this scenario.
See, remember, when you're a Democrat, you never have to think about, as Thomas Sowell would call it, like stage two questions.
They just ask the simple questions like, well, that'd be great.
It would allow people to participate in democracy.
Okay, and then what?
Like, what's the stage two question?
Say you're in a race, Joe lives in Maryland, and there are a number of congressional seats in Maryland which he's familiar with, where the outcome of the race is predetermined.
You have a guy, say, like Elijah Cummings.
I'm not sure what congressional district he's in in Maryland.
I think it may be five.
I'm not really sure.
But Elijah Cummings wins his race in Maryland for Congress.
He represents parts of Baltimore City.
Typically, Joe, by what, like 30 and 40 points?
Big, big, big.
It's pretty bad.
Like, there's never a primary.
I mean, even if it's 20 points, it's never close.
Elijah Cummings is in office as long as he wants to stay there, right?
I don't mean to single him out, even though we have disagreements on policy.
I'm just trying to give an example I'm kind of familiar with because I know Maryland politics haven't run there.
Elijah Cummings has no electoral worries at all.
In other words, Joe, he doesn't have to campaign for votes.
He's got name ID, nobody primaries him, and there's no serious Republican challenger who's going to be able to take him out because it's a Democrat plus 20 district, right?
So let's say Elijah Cummings now knows that he can get upwards of say $200 per person for his house race for his campaign.
Now all of a sudden you have a bunch of people only marginally interested in politics, but they're very interested in some business decisions in their community.
Well now.
Keep in mind, Cummings isn't campaigning for votes.
He's going to get elected no matter what.
Now you have a group of these citizens that get together and say, hey, you know, we could use this little government handout over here.
And by the way, if we get 100 or 200 of us together, we could marshal together thousands of dollars in campaign vouchers and we could go into Elijah Cummings office and not tell him our votes are at stake, but our vouchers are at stake.
Ladies and gentlemen, has anyone thought this through?
The potential for corruption here is geometric.
This is a really stupid idea that only quasi-socialists would want to enact.
The system is bad now, granted.
This thing would be even worse.
scrap this disaster stat.
All right.
All right.
Let me go to quickly under Medicare for all. Great Daily Signal piece up about Medicare for all.
I had a hearing up on the Hill yesterday. I'd like you to read it.
I'm just gonna cover four takeaways.
This is important.
Daily Signal piece, four takeaways from House Democrats, Medicare for All hearing by Rachel Del Geddes.
I think I'm saying that right.
I'm Italian.
I should know how to say that.
Or is it Geddes?
It's Bongino, not Bongino.
So I'm assuming it's Geddes.
We say our G's like J's, right?
So they had this hearing and four points they brought up about Medicare for All.
Again, the theme here being, What's happening in Venezuela can darn well happen here when you empower socialists who now want to take over campaign donations, they want to take over your healthcare system.
So they had a couple of people up there yesterday, up on the hill, and they brought up four points in this Medicare for All hearing in this piece.
The first was that one of the Democrat groups that went up there to lobby for Medicare for All, Joe, said, tragically, and I mean this, That the VA system is like the perfect model for this.
Go check out Veterans Affairs.
Veterans are getting great healthcare up there.
Parroting the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez line about how great the VA is.
Conveniently leaving out the fact that there was an enormous VA scandal under the Obama administration where veterans, the best of us, people who sacrifice men and women, their safety and security, protect our freedom under our constitutional republic.
Their healthcare, they were being left on rationed waiting lists to die.
The guy up there on the hill who was advocating for the VA system and AOC, they might have missed that story.
So that was the number one takeaway.
That the Democrats are tragically using the VA as a model of government efficiency knowing people have actually died waiting for health care on these VA lists.
Number two.
Another Democrat group up there cited the efficiencies built in in a government system.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is a joke.
I have debunked this talking point a thousand times over on this show.
There are no cost and quality benefits or efficiency benefits for introducing third-party payers.
The government is a third-party payer.
In a traditional free market, there are two parties.
There is a doctor and a patient.
The patient agrees on a price they're willing to pay.
The doctor agrees on a price they're willing to charge.
The patient wants quality.
The doctor needs to provide quality to attract the patient.
This is not hard.
When a third party pays, the government, the government pays the doctor.
The doctor has no incentive to provide quality or to serve as many patients as he can or her.
Because the patients aren't paying.
Right.
The patient also has no incentive to seek out the best price from the doctor.
Not impugning doctors, by the way.
It's just simple economics.
It works anywhere, in any field.
Not healthcare only.
The patient doesn't care about the price.
They're not paying.
They already paid through their tax dollars.
They're gonna try to get as many of those dollars back as they can.
Right.
Which drives up costs.
So the second point the Democrats brought up on the Hill is utterly absurd.
The third, there was some Republican counter-strikes.
The takeaway was, there's going to be a massive doctor shortage.
There's approximately a shortage of 120,000 doctors now.
This will only be exacerbated as doctors find out that under Medicare for All, they're all going to take a 40% haircut on their salaries.
Good luck retaining people then.
Finally, last takeaway and we'll run for the day.
Rationing is inevitable, ladies and gentlemen.
There is no doubt that this is going to happen.
Reasonable people understand there are only two ways.
In the world we know, if you can find a third way, let me know.
You'll win the Nobel Prize for Economics to allocate scarce resources.
A doctor's time, medicine, and hospital beds are scarce resources by nature.
They are not unlimited.
You can allocate them by rationing, or you can allocate them by price.
Anyone who tells you there's a third way, that in a government-run third-party system, That doesn't use prices.
It can't use prices as an effective measure because the government is paying.
The price mechanism is controlled by supply and demand.
When the supply demand between the patient and the doctor is interrupted by a third party, the price mechanism doesn't work.
The patient doesn't care about the price.
They're not paying.
And the doctor doesn't care about the price because they know the patient isn't paying.
So if there are two ways, prices and rationing, and the price mechanism fails... I was accidentally going to lower the wrong finger there, I'm not even kidding.
Totally by mistake.
That would have been weird on the video, right?
Yeah, good catch is right.
If the price mechanism fails because you're introducing a third party, the government, to pay, which disrupts the relationship, what takes over?
Rationing!
Those are the only two ways!
You can ration or price, and when you introduce the government as a third-party payer, you are introducing, by default, rationing.
Just be honest with people.
But they won't, because the Democrats love to lie.
All right, folks, thanks again for tuning in.
I really appreciate it.
Please check out our YouTube channel.
Check out yesterday's show.
We put a little clip up from it on yesterday's show, a little teaser clip.
Paula, it was nice enough to put in there.
YouTube.com slash Bongino.
And please subscribe to our show.
Can I make this request extra strong today, please?
Please go to iTunes, the podcast app.
If you have an iPhone, you can go use iHeart or SoundCloud if you have an Android.
Please subscribe to the show.
The subscriptions this week have been a little slow.
I think it's because a lot of new shows are being introduced, but it's the subscriptions that move us up the charts and help people find our show.
We don't have a huge marketing budget here.
We try to keep our costs low, you know, so we can keep the show running.
Please go to iTunes and subscribe.
It's all free.
Thanks a lot.
I really appreciate it.
I'll see you all tomorrow with some, I'm sure, some highlights from this bar hearing.
