They Can’t Keep Track of Their Own Lies # 979 (Ep 979)
In this episode I address the revealing comments last night by former congressman Trey Gowdy on Hannity. I also address the appointment of John Durham to investigate Spygate. Finally, I address the China tariffs and the positive effects of the Trump tax cuts.
News Picks:AG Bill Barr has appointed a US Attorney to investigate the origins of the Spygate case.
Jim Comey’s pal, and former FBI lawyer, Jim Baker is getting anxious now that the truth is coming out.
Trey Gowdy lets loose last night on Hannity.
Marco Rubio calls for an investigation into John Kerry and potential Logan Act violations.
Government spending is entirely out of control.
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 yesterday after that incredible show?
Thanks to you and Paula.
What a great show yesterday.
And you, brother.
I was getting ready to say I haven't recovered yet.
Man, I mean, that thing was the zerk!
Yeah, yesterday's show number 977, episode 977 is going to be by far most listened to show ever.
I gotta tell you though folks, I'm a little surprised that the story we broke yesterday, me being in the news business now for I guess what, eight years?
Yeah, 2011 I started doing media stuff and when I ran for office, I'm actually stunned that Joe and I and Pauly yesterday broke a major story about the one source everybody used to spy on Trump.
We entirely, completely discredited him yesterday.
And I'm not kidding, I'm seriously astonished that nobody picked it up.
It was not a speculative story.
It was not some conspiracy theory.
We provided hard evidence yesterday by Christopher Steele's own words that their own source, the FBI and the Central Intelligence Agency, Christopher Steele, for their entire basis to spy on Trump, couldn't even get his own story right.
Got the biggest detail of the biggest story of the century wrong within eight days, and he blew it.
I'm going to get into more of that.
I want to cover a little bit of the China stuff today with the tariffs.
Ladies and gentlemen, the Chinese are destroying their own population here.
I am not a fan of tariffs.
I've been clear about that from the start.
I am a free trader.
The problem is the Chinese are not engaging in free trade.
They're engaging in mercenary trade, but what they're doing now Trump has them in a corner because they're actually destroying their own population.
I'll explain that.
I've got a couple other things about Brennan too.
Today's gonna be a great show.
Let's get right to it.
Today's show...
Brought to you by our buddies at Harry's.
Listen, these are the best razors out there.
The best razors.
Here's mine.
It's my Harry's razors.
Got the top on right there.
You see that?
Beautiful.
What a beautiful piece of equipment right there.
It is.
I love Harry's razors.
Listen, here's the problem.
I work all day.
I do my show here in the morning, which I record for you, and I do cable news at night.
So I can't shave two and three times a day.
But when you get a bad razor and it doesn't get a close shave, you have to do that.
Shave two or three times.
What do you get, Joe?
You get razor burn, and it starts to hurt really bad.
I have to shave once.
Thanks to Harry's, we're A-OK.
Harry's, the cleanest, closest shave in a beautiful razor right there.
Check it out.
Harry's founders were tired from paying for razors that had all kinds of gimmicks.
Flexi balls, vibrating heads, flux capacitors, DeLorean time transportation devices from back to the future.
I just need a razor that looks good and shaves close one time.
That's all I need.
All I need.
And you got it right here at Harry's Razors, right?
They fixed that.
They combined this simple, clean, elegant design with durable blades at a fair price.
They bought a world-class blade 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.
And replacement cartridges for Harry's razors are just $2 each.
That's half the price of the Gillette Fusion Pro Shield.
Half the price!
Stop wasting money!
All Harry's blades come with a 100% quality guarantee.
If you don't love your shave, let them know.
They'll give you a full refund right now.
Get a $13 value trial set that comes with everything you need for a close, comfortable shave.
The closest, most comfortable shave.
A weighted ergonomic handle.
Five blade razor with a lubricating strip and trimmer blade.
Rich lathering shave gel and a travel blade cover.
There it is right there.
Listeners of my show can redeem their trial set at harrys.com slash bongino.
Go to harrys.com slash bongino, redeem your offer and let them know I sent you to help support the show.
harrys.com slash bongino.
Alright, let's go!
Okay, so yesterday, not to re-litigate yesterday's show, there's no need to do that, you can listen to it yourself, but I am, I'm disappointed because we showed these two screenshots yesterday.
The first, which is the circling of the Cohen-Prague information here, it notes On October 11th, a State Department official interviewing Christopher Steele, who is the source of the information used to spy on Trump.
Christopher Steele tells the State Department official on October 11th something about Cohen-Prague.
How do we know that?
Because you can see her notes right there.
You don't have to see it if you're listening on audio.
She has written notes that say Cohen-slash-Prague.
It's not complicated.
If you want to watch it, go to youtube.com-slash-bongino.
There's no need to, though.
Now, exactly eight days later, Christopher Steele's own dossier, there it is, highlighted, October 19th, 2016, for those who can't do math on the liberal side, October 19th is eight days after October 11th, 2016.
The same guy, Christopher Steele, is saying that his source was unsure of the location of the meeting he just told the State Department happened in Prague.
Either Steele's lying, or Steele didn't write the dossier.
I'm serious when I say this.
We don't break a lot of news on this show, even though we could.
Believe me, we could.
Paul, am I lying about that?
Paula's mad at me today.
She's deliberately not answering.
Some people email me, they're like, you know we can't hear Paula on the mic.
I know, I know, it's like Mr. Producer on The Levin Show.
Rich doesn't get on the mic either sometimes.
Either there's Bo Snurdley over at Limbaugh.
Folks, we broke this huge story.
We could break more news, and we don't because I prefer this show to be more analysis after it breaks.
We're not trying to be investigative reporters here.
But yesterday's story was critical, and I'm stunned nobody picked this up.
There's only two logical conclusions from this.
That Christopher Steele was a liar who couldn't remember the biggest detail of his biggest story, yet the FBI used him in court, or he didn't write the dossier.
I'm going to leave it there.
You guys figure it out.
But one more note on this.
Look at this redaction.
There's a red line around it here.
I'm requesting some crowdsourcing help from the brilliant investigative journalists out there in the audience.
I mean that.
I get emails every day that are phenomenal.
Judy, 279, all of you.
In the typed version of those same written notes I'm talking about, that Kavalec, the State Department official, Kathleen Kavalec, who's interviewing Steele on October 11th, in the typed version of the notes, the memorialization of that interview, there is a redaction here about travel histories.
I suggested yesterday that what's underneath that redaction has to be critical.
I'm going to ask my audience, The redaction is labeled very suspiciously INA and it's due to, they're citing an immigration and naturalization act section 222 about visas into the United States.
If anyone in the audience has an idea about why the FBI would cite the immigration and nationalization act and the issuance of a visa To redact a key piece of information in what Steele told Kavlik.
I have my ideas, but I'd like to hear your thoughts.
Email info at Bongino.com.
I'd love to hear what you think.
Okay, moving on.
So, I titled this section of the show, the next section, You guys verified this, right?
I got some information yesterday from a trusted source.
I'm not going to say who, why, where, how.
I'm not even going to say the details of what it is specifically, but confirming my Friday show conclusions that John Brennan was the puppet master here.
Ladies and gentlemen, John Brennan is going to go down.
I'm sure of it.
I've insisted from the start that the three-letter agency people were in a world of trouble.
I'm not sure the politicians are going to get as much trouble for this because there's the political, I don't think the Republicans up on the hill have the guts to go after them, but the three-letter agency people are in a world of trouble and Brennan's one of them.
I have no doubt now Brennan marshaled this whole thing.
Brennan was working with foreign intel figures and people like Christopher Steele to get information to push the FBI to open up an investigation into Trump.
Understand what I'm telling you here in the lead.
This is going to be important because I have some new stuff from yesterday.
And I also have a stunning piece of video by Trey Gowdy, who's usually more reserved, but on Hannity last night dropped a tactical nuke on this.
Oh yeah, it was good.
Joe's heard it.
I already gave him the clip to record, so he knows what I'm talking about.
John Brennan is the head of the CIA at the time this whole spying thing is going on with Trump, right?
Brennan has no law enforcement powers.
I cannot emphasize this enough.
There's a lot of confusion among some in the audience who still email me about this.
Brennan is an intelligence official.
He has absolutely zero law enforcement power.
He needs the FBI to swear out warrants in court to spy on Trump.
He needs them.
He cannot swear out a warrant.
He has no power to do that, nor to any of his officers in the CIA.
There's a CIA police force, but they're not, that's a totally different thing, that police their campuses and things like that.
But they have no power to swear out warrants.
He needs a warrant to officially, what Devin Nunes calls the legal spying, He needs a warrant to legally spy on the Trump team for Obama.
Brennan's marshalling this whole thing, I no longer have any doubt.
He can't do that without trying to trick the FBI into opening up an investigation.
Again, I'm not giving a pass to the FBI.
Please don't misconstrue my words.
These people hated Trump, the people at the top, McCabe, Comey.
Comey, who's the worst?
Comey's even worse than Brennan.
Because he has zero, zero...
Comey will screw over anybody, at least Brendan's loyal to Obama.
It is maliciousness.
Comey's the worst.
Comey, McCabe, Stroke, they can't stand Trump.
They're eager to be baited into it.
So they do no homework at all on the information they get.
So on Friday I put out on the show that, and again I'm not giving a pass to the FBI, the key FBI officials involved in opening up this case They get a memo from Harry Reid in August, the Democrat Senate leader at the time, in August of 2016.
They get a memo from him saying, hey, you guys better open up an investigation into Trump.
He's colluding with the Russians.
Look at this information I have.
The information, ladies and gentlemen, is in the dossier.
Who does he get it from?
It's clear as day he gets it from John Brennan, who briefs Harry Reid right before he sends the memo in August.
Okay, copy?
Brennan gives the information from Steele to Reid, who sends it to the FBI.
The FBI is already getting information from Steele.
Let's be clear on this.
This is important.
This is the setup to this.
How do we know that?
Because an FBI agent by the name of Gaeta, Mike Gaeta, meets with Steele in London in July, which is before August, when Brennan briefs Harry Reid and the Gang of Eight on the Steele information.
Joe, are we good?
Yeah, we're good.
It's important.
Yeah, we're good.
Okay.
We're good.
Steele's giving information to the FBI and the media in the summer, June and July of
2016.
He then somehow gets it to Brennan too, Steele.
Brennan gives it to Reid.
Reid writes the information in a memo he sends to Jim Comey and says, we need you to investigate Trump because of this.
It's the Steele information.
I had said to you on Friday's show that I believe, though, key people in the FBI, notably Lisa Page, who testifies under oath, didn't understand that the information they were getting from Harry Reid through John Brennan had come from Steele.
I'm sorry, I don't want to over-abuse analogies, but it's important you understand what we're talking about here.
You know, if one guy you deem kind of shady and not credible, you know, tells you that it's going to rain tomorrow, and his accuracy in predicting rain events is right, you're going to be like, whatever, I don't need an umbrella.
He tells me it's going to rain every day.
But if another guy comes to your house and knocks on the door and goes, hey, I'm sure it's going to rain tomorrow, and you don't know him, but he seems sincere about it, you're going to bring an umbrella.
But what if the second guy who seems sincere got the information from the first guy you don't trust?
It's the same bad information!
The point here, and the analogy, is the FBI and Lisa Page, they were confused.
She's the lead lawyer who's having an affair with the lead investigative agent.
They thought they were getting information confirming it's gonna rain tomorrow when it was from the same shady guy, Steele, who had given it to Brennan.
Good way to put it, man.
Now, I'll get to that in a second.
Thank you.
Yeah.
That's gonna set up this whole story here, so take a few minutes and we'll get on to some other stuff.
I don't want to abuse the stuff today.
But remember, this title of this section is, you guys verified this, right?
Okay?
First, here's Trey Gowdy last night on Sean Hannity's show, who drops a nuke on this thing with this statement last night, and he's talking about, hey, you really want to get to the bottom of this?
You want to look at this specific set of interactions in December of 2016.
Remember the date and remember the players he's talking about.
Are you convinced that there was a fraud committed against the FISA court withholding that Hillary paid for that dossier?
And that, in fact, the bulk of evidence was unverifiable?
And that they never verified whether anything Steele wrote is true?
And did they do it to spy on the Trump campaign, sir?
Sean, I can tell you it is even worse than what you described.
It is what you described, in addition to the withholding of exculpatory information, which is what has Johnny Ratcliffe so exercised, and they made no effort to corroborate the dossier until after it had been used in the application and a renewal.
No effort.
It's not that they failed, they made no effort to do it.
Last question.
So whoever's investigating this, tell them to look for emails between Brennan and Comey in December of 2016.
of 2016.
Gowdy is, oh, Gowdy's very, you may say Gowdy's reserved.
He is.
He's actually very reserved.
He's, he's not the cavalier renegade everybody, you know, thinks he is.
I don't mean as an insult.
I just mean he's just very deliberate.
He's a lawyer and he talks like a lawyer on TV.
And again, I don't mean that as an insult.
He thinks like a prosecutor.
Matter of fact, I had a significant beef with Gowdy a while ago for, you know, saying at one point that the FBI had done things by the numbers, that he wasn't exactly, from what I heard later, saying exactly what I thought he said, but whatever.
That's a whole other point.
So Gowdy just launches this bomb that apparently there's a series of emails him and others have seen between Jim Comey and John Brennan in December of 2016.
Why is this key, ladies and gentlemen?
Because the FISA, the first FISA is in October of 2016.
The first renewal of the FISA, the process is, remember they're three months.
October, November, December.
So they renew it again in January.
The process starts in December and apparently there's a series of emails between the two that seem to be very bad, ugly, devastating, troubling.
What do you think they could be talking about?
Do you think maybe the thing I've been telling you for a year and a half That Comey and his FBI people had an inkling that the information they were getting from Steele was bogus and they just hated Trump so much they bypassed their own professionalism and verification process and rushed the Pfizer through the court and then at the first renewal they start to figure out, Joe, that maybe this information isn't what we thought it was.
That mosaic's looking kind of screwy.
Yeah.
That corpus is falling apart, baby.
I like that the corpus, those articulable facts are just not working out.
You got that one.
Nice.
See, Joe remembers very well.
Now, why are those December emails important?
Because here's what I think's going on.
Let me just explain it to you.
Comey figures out in December when they're getting ready to renew the FISA.
Remember, they've already sworn to court this stuff is true.
It wasn't.
Comey figures out that the information they got from Harry Reid probably came from Brennan, which came from Steele, and does not corroborate the information they have, because it came from Steele too!
Steele can't corroborate his own stuff!
Other people, outside sources, would have to verify Steele's stuff.
That's not how any of this works.
So Comey's probably emailing Brennan saying, hence the title of this section, you guys verified this information you said, right?
Now, now does it, listen to this clip now.
I played this, this is up there with the Evelyn Farkas clip for probably the number of, you know, top number of times we've played a cut on the show.
Here is John Brennan with Chuck Todd emphasizing a specific date.
He claims he first saw the dossier, as he says in that overly pretentious voice.
Play that cut.
When did you first learn of the so-called Steele dossier and what Christopher Steele was doing?
Well, it was not a very well-kept secret among press circles for several months before it came out.
And it was in late summer of 2016 when there were some individuals from the various U.S.
news outlets who asked me about my familiarity with it.
And I had heard just snippets about it.
I did not know what was in there.
I did not see it until later in that year.
I think it was in December.
Oh, December!
Wow, the same time there's this email exchange with Comey and Brennan.
Yeah.
You guys verified this information, right?
Notice what Brennan says.
There are two takeaways from there.
Don't forget that Brennan is a liar.
This guy is a disgrace to the country.
A disgrace to humankind.
Nothing he says there is true in the sense that he's trying to get to the bottom of the story.
Point number one, he says, well, the dossier wasn't a secret.
It was floating around in the media in the summer of 2016.
Why does he say that, Joe?
Brennan is, listen, he's not dumb.
He's a liar.
He's malicious.
This is a malignant character in our national discourse, but he's not stupid.
He says that because as Gowdy and Lindsey Graham have pointed out in the interviews I discussed yesterday and in Gowdy's interview last time, I don't have time to get to all that.
They make a very specific point and Gowdy says it in that thing, in that clip we just played.
You can rewind it and listen again.
The FBI made no effort whatsoever to verify Christopher Steele's information because they hated Trump so much they took it at face value.
Graham says in that clip we played yesterday, That the only thing the FBI did to verify it, Joe, with the dreaded air quotes, is they read media reports!
Media reports?
Where did those media reports come from?
Christopher Steele!
Do you understand it's the same guy telling people to go to your house and telling you it's gonna rain tomorrow because he sells umbrellas?
It's the same guy!
It's the same guy!
Hey, I need an umbrella!
Ten people showed up at my house saying it's gonna rain!
They're all being sent to your house by the umbrella guy!
Brennan!
Brennan can't put the information from Steele out.
It's garbage.
He knows it's garbage.
So he probably tells him, hey, get this stuff to the media.
Then Brennan uses the media reports to go to Harry Reid and others and say, look, this is serious information.
The media is reporting on it.
I've got confirmation too from Christopher Steele.
It's the same stuff.
So what is Brennan doing in that interview?
Point number one, he highlights the fact that the media was reporting on it because he's going to throw Comey and the FBI under the bus.
Bank on it!
Bank on it!
He's gonna say, hey man, it was raw, we saw it in the media, and look, the FBI, shamefully, didn't do their homework and used these media reports.
Get ready!
Get ready!
He is going to throw the FBI in the bus and say, hey, I'm just an Intel guy, man.
I saw some media reports.
I didn't know where they came from.
I gave it to the FBI.
Look, the FBI in the FISA clearly says they verified everything using media reports.
I don't know.
That's their problem.
They're the investigators.
You may be thinking to yourself too, well, that sounds logical, right?
Except for the fact that Devin Nunes, when you apply the Nunes translator, has said often That there were no official channels used for the intelligence.
In other words, the information Brennan's getting himself that he claims is raw, there's a process for raw, unfiltered intelligence.
You run it up the chain of the CIA through analysts so that by the time it gets to the top, the decision makers, the president, Brennan, the deputy director of the CIA and the intel community, you know it's true.
Brennan did none of that.
Brennan handled this thing himself with a small group of people at the top to make sure it wasn't vetted because he probably knew it was BS.
Do you get it?
He's about to throw the FBI under the bus.
Corpus Christi.
He's the corpus guy.
He's the corpus of intelligence.
He's the corpus guy.
So point number one, he's gonna throw them under the bus and go, it's not my fault the FBI screwed it up and used media reports.
Secondly, he is going to stick to his story that he didn't see the dossier until December.
He may be right, as I said last week.
You may be like, whoa, now you're really confusing me.
Don't conflate the paper dossier with Steele's information.
Sorry, my nose itches.
Remember, what I started the show with today, the fact that the dossier story does not marry up with what Christopher Steele told the State Department woman.
He tells the State Department woman, Kavalech, on October 11th that Cohen went to Prague.
A dossier he allegedly wrote eight days later says, oh, we don't know where the meeting happened.
Ladies and gentlemen, I don't think Steele wrote the dossier.
He may have written portions of it, but it's highly likely that other people, Simpson, Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS, Nellie Orr, and others may have had input into the dossier.
Where am I going with this?
This gives Brennan an out.
Brennan's talking to Steele the whole time, the umbrella salesman.
Okie doke.
The dossier is written by other people under Steele's name, so Brennan can say, well, I didn't see that paper dossier until December.
I told you, someone needs to ask Brennan this question on their own.
Forget the dossier for a minute, John.
When was the first time you came across the Steele information about Carter Page that appeared in the FISA?
That's the question to pin him down on.
Gotcha, gotcha.
I will guarantee you that email exchange in December with Comey and Brennan describes exactly what I'm telling you.
Brennan lying to Comey saying, I don't know anything about this information, Jim.
I don't know anything about it.
I didn't see this until December, until you told me about it, when he, you get it?
Comey emails, Gowdy's saying, look at Comey's emails to Brennan, they're suspicious.
It's probably Comey emailing Brennan, hey John, you guys verified this info, right?
It's probably Brennan emailing back saying, I don't know what you're talking about, I didn't see the dossier until December.
Now, God forbid Comey emails him back, well, did you talk to Steele or someone?
Well, yeah, I talked to Steele in August.
Aw, Jim, we got a problem.
Excuse me, John, we got a problem.
We thought the information you guys pitched to us was from a different source and was therefore corroborating Steele.
We didn't know it was the same information.
Now, to show you the lengths that Brennan's gonna go to, to hide where he got his information from, play this cut again.
This is an older cut of Brennan answering Trey Gowdy's question.
Was Trey Gowdy still in Congress?
When Gowdy tries to pin him down, when exactly he got this information.
Check this out.
I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and U.S.
persons involved in the Trump campaign that I was concerned about because of known Russian efforts to suborn such individuals.
And it raised questions in my mind, again, whether or not the Russians were able to gain the cooperation of those individuals.
I don't know whether or not such collusion, that's your term, such collusion existed.
I don't know.
But I know that there was a sufficient basis of information and intelligence that required further investigation by the Bureau to determine whether or not U.S.
persons were actively conspiring, colluding with Russian officials.
Do you know the basis of that information that you share with the Bureau?
I mean, what was the nature of the evidence?
I think, Mr. Gowdy, this committee has now been provided information that relates to that issue in terms of information that the agency shared with the Bureau, and that is something that is appropriately classified.
Notice in that cut, again, Brennan's deception, his effort to hide where he got the information.
What does he cite?
He cites, well, the information's classified.
This is fascinating, Joe.
I can't tell you because it's classified.
Can you tell us, can we go in a classified setting and can you tell us?
Brennan will do anything, anything to hide where he got this information from.
Because he misled people into believing the information he was getting was separate.
You may say, come on, Dan.
How do you know that?
Let's put up the Washington Times piece.
Listen, Bob Woodward, who is absolutely no fan of the president.
Here's a piece by Rowan Scarborough, written September 11th of 2018.
Title, then CIA director John Brennan endorsed Trump dossier.
Bob Woodward said, excuse me, I call him Woodard, Woodward.
Bob Woodward is no friend to Donald Trump.
In his book, Fear, he writes this.
This is fascinating stuff.
Then CIA director John O. Brennan endorsed the Christopher Steele dossier when he acquired a copy in December of 2016.
Listen to this!
Saying it matched the Russia collusion charges from his sources, according to Bob Woodward.
Ladies and gentlemen, it's the same source, Steele!
Or...
It's not the same source.
Simpson writes the dossier and Nellie Orr.
And the FBI went into court and lied and said that Steele wrote it because he was their verified source they'd used before.
You understand how no scenario works out for them?
None.
There is no avenue of escape.
I'm trying to be a little calmer today.
I was very excited yesterday.
And my sincere apologies for cussing.
I mean it.
I try not to do.
It causes everybody around here a lot of headaches for a number of reasons.
And it's just morally not right.
But I was very upset.
I'm trying to stay a little calmer today.
Because I was so miffed yesterday.
But do you understand how neither avenue works out for them?
There are only two stories going forward now that are plausible.
Steele is the source of information and Steele wrote the dossier.
And Steele can't remember his own story because in the dossier he doesn't even remember Cohen and Prague even though he said Cohen and Prague eight days earlier.
That's story number one.
Steele's the source of all of this.
And Brennan...
Is wrong.
Because Brennan's saying in the Washington Times that the dossier confirms his sources.
How does it confirm his sources?
You get what I'm saying, Joe?
If the dossier was written by Steele, it doesn't confirm your sources.
It's just the same information.
It's like saying, my name is Dan.
My name is Dan.
Confirmed.
I said my name is Dan twice.
What if I said my name was Andrew?
It's not.
It doesn't matter if I say it 20 times.
Or story number two, where Brennan's not lying, and Brennan says, hey, the dossier confirmed the story I heard from my source.
His source is obviously Steele, and yet the dossier was written by others, and in that case, the FBI went into court in front of a FISA judge, said Christopher Steele gave us this information, put up their right hand, and they are, in fact, lying.
Now I want to end this segment with this one thing.
If you could put up that Lisa Page testimony that's redacted, what if I told you under those redactions was likely some very suspicious information?
Here's Lisa Pages.
Lisa Page, just so you know what this is.
Lisa Page, FBI lawyer working on this Trump case is being questioned by fantastic Congressman Mark Meadows from North Carolina.
This is a while ago.
She's under oath and Brennan is asking her if she's aware that John Brennan at the CIA had the same information from Steele.
The FBI apparently thinks it's from a different source and is corroborating their information from Steele.
So there's a lot of redactions in it, but Ms.
Page says, well, yes, sir, because with all due honesty, if Director Brennan, so we got that information and it's all redacted.
Meadows then says, well, we know there were multiple sources.
Paige says, I do know that.
I know the information ultimately found its way to a lot of different places, certainly in October of 2016.
Wow, you mean when Steele spoke to Kavalech and told him about Cohen-Pragge and told you guys he didn't know?
Is that what you're talking about?
She goes on.
But if the CIA, as early as August in fact, had those same reports, I'm not aware of that and it's redacted.
What if I told you under those redactions, Say it said something like, well, if they provided him to us, that would be really unusual.
In other words, if the CIA provided us information from Steele and claimed it was verified intelligence, that would be very unusual.
You think they may be redacting the fact that the FBI fell for this scam?
Willingly that they were fed intelligence from Brennan thinking it was verified up-the-chain CIA information when it was a fact Brennan gossiping about Christopher Steele.
What a scam!
All right, I got a lot more to get to.
All right, today's show brought to you by our buddies at Blinkist.
Listen, I love Blinkist.
There's a list of books I want to read is endless.
People email me books all the time.
They say, hey, read this, read this book.
It's great.
I don't have the time to read all these books.
You know, I just don't.
A lot of you don't.
So I go in the car, I listen to Blinkist.
It's the best way to do it.
You get key insights from books you want to read.
Remember, a lot of successful CEOs and business people, they read tons of books each week.
Blinkist is the only app that takes thousands of the best-selling nonfiction books and distills them down to their most impactful elements.
You can read or listen to them in under 15 minutes all on your phone.
Plug it into your car, listen in your car.
With Blinkist, you'll expand your knowledge and learn more in just 15 minutes than you can almost anywhere else.
Plus, you can listen anywhere.
They got some great Nassim Taleb books in there that I really enjoy.
Blinkist is constantly curating and adding new titles from the best of list,
so you're always getting the most powerful ideas in a made for mobile format.
How great is that?
Five million people are using Blinkist to expand their minds 15 minutes at a time.
Get started today.
Right now, for a limited time, Blinkist, you know, like blink, blinking your eyes,
Blinkist has a special offer just for our audience.
Go to Blinkist.com slash Dan to start your free seven-day trial.
Check it out.
That's Blinkist spelled B-L-I-N-K-I-S-T.com slash Dan to start your free seven-day trial now.
Blinkist.com slash Dan.
Listen, 88% of financially successful people read at least 30 minutes a day.
Go check it out.
Blinkist.com slash Dan.
Start your free seven-day trial today.
Okay.
So moving on a bit, I just want to address one quick thing as well.
There is a crowd of people out there, and I want to say this in advance, I have a lot of respect for everybody out there who has alternate theories on what's going on with Spygate, Rushgate, I get it.
But there's a lot of vitriol, and it's unnecessary out there.
I'm not going to attack you all, and I would appreciate it if you don't attack people who believe as I do back.
But there's a crowd of people out there who still insist that, you know, Christopher Wray, head of the FBI, is like a solid guy.
He's getting to the bottom of all this and that Rosenstein was great and that all these people were great and there's like a plan and Sessions was awesome.
Listen, I, I, I, fine.
I get it.
I have a lot of respect for the work you're doing.
I'm just saying the evidence is mounting that that theory is not in fact correct.
I mean, I explained to you the redactions yesterday.
I just showed you at the beginning of the show that odd redaction about a travel thing using the Immigration Naturalization Act for information that wasn't redacted even a couple years ago in 2016.
I'm sorry, I just don't buy the theory that this, you know, Christopher Wray is cleaning house.
I'm sorry.
Based on evidence.
His hesitancy to use the word spy.
No, no, that's part of the plan too.
You can't have it both ways.
Some of the same people telling me Ray's such a great guy.
We're celebrating Bill Barr, the Attorney General, for finally talking about the word spying and then they're ripping me when I call out Ray for running away from the war.
No, no, that's the point.
Well, what is it?
Is it part of the plan to out the spying or not?
Right.
I don't get it.
So again, I don't knock people.
I listen to your stuff.
I read it.
I'm like, but it's just, I'd appreciate it if you'd cut us some due deference too that the evidence is mounting that you're just not correct.
You know, Rosenstein was great.
Really?
He signed the fourth FISA.
The fourth FISA war to spy on the Trump team.
Please explain to me how Rosenstein's some hero here.
I don't get it.
Well, he appointed Mueller.
Mueller hated Trump.
He fired Comey.
Yeah, and he instantly regretted it.
I don't get it.
I'm sorry.
But, uh, I'm sorry.
I didn't mean to get off on a tangent there.
All right.
Uh, big news yesterday.
They have finally, Bill Barr appointed, uh, a US attorney from Connecticut, John Durham.
You see the story up at bongino.com in the show notes today.
Please go to the show notes.
Uh, ladies and gentlemen, if you go to my website, bongino.com, you click on the menu, you'll see the dropdown menu says podcasts.
All these stories are there.
I really appreciate if you read them.
So Bill Barr has appointed a US attorney from Connecticut, John Durham.
to investigate the origins of the Trump case.
Ladies and gentlemen, as I have insisted from the beginning, the three-letter agency people are in a world of trouble.
They are going to be, I think, prosecuted, some of them, for criminal leaks.
Some of them are going to be administratively sanctioned.
Some of them may be fired.
Some of them who are already fired will have their reputations tarred permanently when what comes out, and again, we talked about Comey and Brennan, what they actually did.
Now, why does this matter?
Because remember, ladies and gentlemen, only prosecutors, U.S.
attorneys, have subpoena power.
Investigators do not.
Investigator Michael Horowitz, who's the inspector general looking into a lot of this FISA abuse process, he doesn't have subpoena power.
He doesn't.
He can't impanel a grand jury.
A U.S.
attorney can.
So Horowitz has a lot of power, don't get me wrong.
I mean, he can go to people administratively who still work there and say, hey, you need to, you know, you need to speak up about what's happening.
But he doesn't have the power to subpoena people.
Durham now has that power.
So we now have a U.S.
attorney, Michael, excuse me, John Huber.
I knew a guy named Mike Huber once.
John Huber looking into it.
We also have Durham looking into it.
I just want you to put a little smile on your face.
I know the pace of justice has been glacial.
I get it.
And I'm not expecting you to be happy about any of this.
I just want you to be a little less sad about the destruction of our republic today, knowing that there are people out there.
And if there were crimes committed, I'm absolutely sure Durham's going to find them.
Bill Barr's not messing around.
Okay, and a couple other quick stories I want to get to, too.
Rubio yesterday, Marco Rubio, who we've had significant disagreements with in the past, but Rubio did something great.
Again, at Bongino.com, he's calling for a Department of Justice investigation into John Kerry over his Iran contacts.
Listen, John Kerry is bordering on very serious criminal behavior.
I mean that.
John Kerry, according to the president, has been back-channeling with Iran.
Back-channel?
Some people would call that collusion.
No, no, it's only collusion when it's Republicans.
He's actually back-channeling a communication channel.
Kerry's a private citizen.
He has no government affiliation at all anymore.
Talking with the Iranians, the Death to America crowd, telling them not to talk to Donald Trump.
So he's cavorting and colluding with an enemy of the United States, the world's largest sponsor of terror.
That's your John Kerry.
I mean, this is potentially criminal behavior this guy's engaged in.
There's no question it's anti-American.
No question that what Kerry's doing is anti-American.
None at all.
Among sane people, not the liberal media, who worships Democrats and John Kerry.
I'm not expecting them to get to the truth.
But Rubio's calling it as it is.
If Michael Flynn, Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, Sally Yates in the Department of Justice suggested when he was the National Security Advisor that his call to Kislyak, when he was the incoming National Security Advisor, the Russian ambassador call, if that was a potential violation of the Logan Act, how is a private citizen, John Kerry, Calling the Death to America crowd, telling them to screw over the United States.
How is that not a violation of the Logan Act?
And just in case you're unclear what the Logan Act is, it prohibits private citizens from conducting diplomatic business in the United States.
Now...
The Logan Act's a joke.
It would never pass constitutional muster.
But ladies and gentlemen, it's time to play hardball now.
Let's put the kiddie toys and the wiffle balls away, and let's get the rock out.
Let's get the hardball.
Not softball, the hardball.
And let's start playing the big boy games right now.
If the Department of Justice under Sally Yates thought the Logan Act was for real, then the Logan Act's for real.
But Dan, you said it's a joke.
It is a joke!
It's not a serious crime.
It's never been successfully prosecuted in the history of the United States.
But if it's only a crime for Republicans and Republican appointees like Flynn, then we live with not blind justice, but justice like this.
One eye closed, one eye open.
Justice only sees, apparently, Democrats.
Justice doesn't see Republicans.
You want to prosecute the Logan Act?
Send it to court!
Let's get John Kerry in handcuffs and see how the Democrats feel about the Logan Act all of a sudden.
New rules, folks.
We win, you lose.
It's on the books.
It's not an abuse of power.
It's an actual law.
The Democrats thought it was real when they prosecuted Mike Flynn.
So good for Rubio.
Let's test it out in court, right, Joe?
Let's see if the Democrats' theory about the veracity of the Logan Act is true.
Let's go, babe.
Let's get John Kerry in cuffs.
Let's get him in court.
Let's see what he has to say about talking to the mullahs and the Death to America crowd, telling them to screw us over.
Unreal.
It really is.
It's so disappointing.
All right.
I had an economic story.
You know what?
Let's do this, because I'm going to motor through.
I've got a couple of other things I want to get to, including that.
If I can, I want to... I rushed through that Papa D thing yesterday.
I had a quick angle on the PC thing.
I want to be sure you guys all get.
Finally today, our show brought to you by our good buddies at MyPatriotSupply.
Hey, there are some headlines out there the mainstream media is ignoring.
California's big three utilities remind the public of plans to cut power during fire, bad weather.
Gosh, what would you do for food?
No power, no grocery shelves, no refrigeration, big trouble.
Experts assess damage after first cyber attack in the U.S.
grid.
These are real stories.
North Korea conducts another missile test.
Ladies and gentlemen, you have to be prepared.
You insure everything in your lives that matter.
You insure your health, you insure your teeth, you insure your house, you insure your car.
How can you not insure your food supply?
It makes no sense.
These are stories we aren't hearing about much, but we should be paying attention.
If the power went out for weeks, credit cards wouldn't work, you know, running out of cash.
What are you going to do to get food?
Are you going to barter?
Are we going to go to a barter economy?
The answer is you should have the food in your house with our friends at My Patriot Supply.
I'm prepared.
I have boxes of this stuff.
I use My Patriot Supply for an emergency food supply, and you should too.
Start with a two-week emergency food kit.
Order a few.
I had a limited time, low price, and saved $62 when you go to preparewithdan.com.
That's preparewithdan.com.
Preparewithdan.com for your two-week emergency food kit at a great price.
These kits include breakfast, lunches, and dinners that last up to 25 years.
Come on, you can't beat that.
That's a lot of food security.
You know, when it's breaking news, it's already too late to prepare.
Do it now.
Get emergency food from MyPatriotSupply at preparewithdan.com.
That's preparewithdan.com.
Preparewithdan.com.
Check it out today.
Okay, I wanted to cover this story yesterday.
This is just another one of those debunking liberal nonsense stories because almost nothing liberals tell you is true ever.
You know, liberals will tell you, oh, voter suppression happened in Georgia in the election.
That's why Stacey Abrams should have been a governor.
And then you tell them that the law that she's referencing was passed by Democrats in the 1990s.
They're like, You're a racist!
This is what they do all the time.
So before the... right?
That's their answer to just about every question, because they don't have an actual argument.
So what did liberals tell us, Joe, about the tax cuts?
Tax cuts, they're going to drive the deficit.
The Trump tax cuts are going to drive the deficit.
They're going to cost the government money.
My tax cuts don't cost the government anything.
Tax money comes from you.
As they always say, it's like you get a tax cut, it's like a thief decides not to rob someone and you're claiming like the thief was, it cost him money.
What do you mean it cost him money?
He didn't rob me?
What are you kidding?
Folks, the tax cuts historically have not cost the government revenue.
There is no evidence of this at all.
The Calvin Coolidge tax cuts.
Yes, we're going back that far.
To show you that historically, over time, when taxes get cut, people have more money in their wallet, which they spend at businesses, which grow their businesses, which employ more people, who pay more taxes.
I'm not suggesting they pay for themselves.
I'm simply suggesting the correlation between tax cuts and government revenue going up, not down, is strong.
You call that whatever you want.
Paying for the... I don't care.
I'm just telling you what the evidence says.
Calvin Coolidge tax cuts.
The John F. Kennedy tax cuts.
The Reagan tax cuts.
The George W. Bush tax cuts.
All of these tax cuts were followed up by an immediate gusher of revenue into the federal government.
More.
So what were we told after the Trump tax cuts?
The same stupid canard was rolled out again by Democrats who don't know what they're talking about.
It's gonna cost the government money.
Well, did that happen?
Well, thanks to the good congressman Rod Blum.
Rod's a good guy.
Rod's been following this story.
He put up this tweet the other day.
Again, this is not news to anyone listening to this show, but to some liberals who may have mistakenly tuned in, this is news to them.
At Rep Rod Blum.
B-L-U-M.
Go check him out on Twitter.
He's a verified account.
From the AP report today on the federal budget, two takeaways.
Number one, the reason for the increased deficit is increased spending, not decreased revenues.
How is that possible, Joe?
We were told the tax cuts were going to cost the government money.
Yeah!
Takeaway number two, Revenues have, in all caps, increased to the government.
I was correct when I said the tax cuts won't cost the government.
Cost in quotes.
And he has a little piece.
There you go!
There you go!
Muttley making a return.
And he has a little snippet from the AP piece at the bottom which says, so far this year, ladies, this is from AP, the Associated Press, which usually act as propagandist for the Democrats.
From AP.
So far this year, receipts, tax receipts, are up 1.8% to $2 trillion,
while spending is up 7.6% to $2.57 trillion.
Wall Street Journal covered this story as well.
Oh my gosh, ladies and gentlemen, I can't believe I've got to discuss this stuff, but liberals will lie to you so fluidly and effortlessly.
If you didn't have this show, you would believe they were telling the truth.
Wall Street Journal yesterday.
Tax revenue keeps rising.
The federal deficit is increasing, and the reason is spending.
Listen, the Journal's a right-leaning outlet, but they're not conservatives.
They are, at best, moderate Republicans.
Why would they lie?
Tax revenue is up almost two percent.
It's not down.
It is not down.
Taxes were cut.
You want to know the reason the tax revenue?
Some of you may still have a difficult time processing this.
I'm not talking about the conservatives.
You guys get this.
I don't mean as an insult.
Not everybody has time to study marginal tax rates and revenue functions and how they work.
When you cut taxes, people put more money in their wallets, okay?
That's seemingly tautological to most.
There you go.
The money doesn't get burned.
They don't go throw it in a fireplace.
The money circulates and gets spent in businesses that then make more money.
We've seen corporate profits go up.
We've seen GDP growth go up.
Those companies then pay more corporate taxes on bigger profits and they then hire more workers to keep up with the increased demand.
Workers which pay income taxes which far offset the lost amount from the lower corporate tax and the personal income tax cuts.
Folks, it's not hard to figure out.
No.
But I'll be candid, it is very frustrating to constantly have to talk about because it seems so basic to people who are just willing to follow simple data.
Tax cuts cost the government money.
Have they ever cost the government money?
No.
Okay, then why are you saying that?
Because it's a good talking point, that's why!
Also, CNS News story, I'll have up in the show notes today, by Terrence Jeffrey, who does a lot of work on this stuff.
Federal spending sets a record through April.
Folks, I don't care who's in office, the government spending's out of control.
But the evidence that the deficit right now in our debt is being driven by government spending, not tax cuts, is right in front of your face.
It's not complicated.
Tax revenue is up, and spending is up more!
You make a microeconomic analogy, Joe Armacost is making more money, but he's spending more money than he ever did outpacing his raise.
Not hard to figure out.
A quick video here.
Look, I don't do a lot of funny stuff on the show, but hat tip to Mr. Producer from the Mark Levin Show, Rich Abetta.
This is really funny.
This has got to be the most awkward hug of all time.
So AOC and Bernie Sanders are out with this ridiculous bill to cap interest rates, which is so economically silly.
Maybe I'll explain that in a second too.
Watch this.
I'm going to take it a note.
Price controls never work.
But you know, of course, liberals facts don't really mesh.
But watch these two hug at the end of this proposal to cap interest rates.
It is the most awkward thing I've ever seen.
I'll describe it to the audio people.
Let's go forward together on it.
All right.
See ya.
Thank you.
Bye.
Oh my gosh!
So Birdie touches her on the left elbow.
She grabs him back on the shoulder.
He's like unsure, like with the Joe Biden stuff, do I hug her?
She then seems to be like, well, I don't know.
Is he unsure?
I'm unsure.
He's unsure.
And they like, it's just the most uncomfortable hug I have ever seen in my life.
Hat tip, Mr. Producer, the Mark Levin Show.
Just a quick note, I wasn't going to go into this, but this silly proposal to cap interest rates.
They're putting out a plan.
Hey, credit cards shouldn't be able to charge people more than 15%.
Oh, there you go.
Nice.
We have a story up at the Wall Street Journal.
Bernie and AOC are at credit risk.
They would cap interest rates at 15% while letting the post office write loans.
That's a great idea.
Good work there.
Folks, this is a price control, plain and simple.
It is an effort.
What is an interest rate?
It is a price for money, right?
If I need a loan from the bank, that loan has a price to me.
That price is the interest rate.
If it costs me 6%, that's the price of capital.
6% to get my hands on some money.
Now a price control, or controlling the price of money, will do what price controls do everywhere they're tried.
Everywhere.
There is no instance of price controls in human history where these things haven't happened.
The first thing you get is increased demand for the product.
Well, why?
Well, if I haven't paid a loan off, Joe, in 50 years, and my risk for a credit card is probably closer to 25 or 30%, it's just because I never pay any money back, and then I can get a loan from the credit card at 15%, then everybody and their mother is going to want a loan because it's below the price.
Said easier, because sometimes the price of money rather than tangible goods confuses people.
If Bernie Sanders and AOC put a price control on Corvettes and said you can't charge more than $30,000 for a Corvette, everybody and their mother is going to want to go buy a Corvette because they know the Corvette's worth $70,000 to $80,000 and they can get it for $30,000.
Make sense?
Yeah.
Increase demand.
What comes next in the price controls?
Every single instance in human history.
Decreased supply.
Think of the Corvette analogy.
The Corvette population of the United States is going to dry up really quick because people are going to run to the dealer to get a $70,000 Corvette for $30,000.
So why does decreased supply happen?
Because the Chevy dealer is not going to continue to sell the Corvettes at a loss.
He bought the car from Chevy for $50.
He's got to sell it to you now because of the government for $30.
What do you think he's going to do?
Buy more?
There's not going to be any more Corvettes left.
No.
In the instance of the credit card price control, what's going to happen?
People who are high risk, Joe, are just not going to get credit.
You know who you're going to have to go to?
You're going to have to go to the loan shark from Rocky.
Remember Rocky 1?
I was told to break your thumbs.
Remember?
Rocky's the enforcer.
I forget the guy's name, the loan shark.
We'll get a thousand emails about his name.
Tony or something, whatever.
He's the loan shark in the neighborhood.
He charges 90% interest or whatever.
And Rocky breaks your thumbs if you don't pay him back.
So good job AOC.
Tony to loan shark and Rocky to thumb breaker are back because of you.
Finally, you get black markets, which is what a loan shark is.
It's an unofficial money lending thing, which you'll have.
You'll have the loan shark.
And you get quality problems.
Why?
Because if you have to sell a Corvette at $30,000 and it's really worth $70,000, you're going to build the crappiest Corvette known to man because you're losing money.
You're not going to put any work into it.
And either is the credit cards going to put any money into customer service because they don't care.
They can't charge you what your risk is worth.
Silly stuff.
Silly.
But this is what AOC and Bernie do.
Silly, nonsensical, ridiculous, absurd stuff.
It's just, it's so easy to debunk.
You don't even have to do a lot of homework.
It's like, it's not even Econ 101.
It's like Econ 0001.
Like, my daughter in first grade can figure this stuff out.
Seriously, she's smart enough.
These two aren't, apparently.
But that hog was awkward, wasn't it?
Oh my gosh.
Did you see Bernie's face at the end?
He didn't even wait for the camera to turn off.
Oh my god, he's like... I know, they don't know what to do, it's so funny!
Alright, this um...
China story.
I wanted to hit this because these were all stories I was supposed to cover yesterday, but man, we really got into that story.
So here's what's going on with China.
I am a free trader.
I've always been.
I know it causes a lot of controversy on the show, but listen, I'm here to tell you the truth and you don't always have to agree.
As I emailed a gentleman this morning, my show is not for everybody and that's okay.
But I'm here to be honest with you and I'm not going to just Fall in line with the political talking points of the day.
I never agreed with tariffs.
The problem is, tariffs, which are taxes at our border, let's not make any mistake about what they are, I don't know what else to do, and I don't think Trump does either right now, to get the Chinese to engage in free trade.
What they're doing now is not free trade.
It's costing us a fortune.
Now, there are a number of problems beyond the scope of this show.
Maybe I'll do a show on China one day specifically.
But they have very shady government procurement methods, where their government buys stuff subject to rules that other foreign companies aren't restricted to.
Obviously, the way they're engaging in the surveillance state activities is troubling.
But what's most troubling to me is the fact that in order to do joint projects in China and their economy, American companies going over there have to forfeit their intellectual capital.
The Chinese say, okay, Apple, whatever, you want to come over and engage in the Chinese market?
You have to give us your sensitive technology.
Ladies and gentlemen, that's not free trade.
It's not free.
It's not free to American companies who have to forfeit their most valuable thing.
Folks, a ransom.
This is my iPhone, right?
What was that?
What was blinking on there?
I don't know.
Yeah, that's funny.
It's not on my actual screen.
It's something blinking off the camera.
Oh, it's a reflection?
Yeah, yeah, it's a reflection.
That's my iPhone with a picture of my family on it right there.
The valuable part of this iPhone is not the plastic or the glass.
Frankly, it's not even the chip.
Tons of phones.
Smartphones are like commodities now.
What's valuable about the iPhone is their apps, the intellectual property that went behind it, their iOS operating system, and the people who developed it.
This is what's valuable.
If you have to forfeit that, how your product works, not what your product is physically.
That's not the value.
How it works is the value.
And how it works was created in someone's head.
If you have to forfeit that, we're not gonna have an economy.
Again, I'm not a supporter of tariffs, but in this case, I think the president is correct.
There is no other way to get China to come to the table and say, we will stop stealing your stuff, other than to say, well, then we're going to price your stuff.
Now, the tariff stories yesterday's, literally yesterday's news, came out yesterday and on Friday, right?
What's the problem China's going to have now?
If they want to fight a war of attrition on trade, Make no mistake, it is gonna impact our economy.
It is.
Let's not pretend it won't.
But the impact to the Chinese economy is going to be catastrophic.
Because now we have two problems.
Well, I should say, the Chinese have two problems.
Problem number one is they export to us a whole lot more than we send over to them.
And what they export as a percentage of their economy is enormous.
Really, what we buy from China is a small sliver of our overall economy.
It's not an insignificant one, don't mistake what I'm saying.
But it is not enough to crash our economy.
But what we buy from them, if we can slow that down, is enough to crash their economy.
Secondly, Joe, put up that Investopedia story.
The Chinese have responded by doing something interesting.
This is a story from an update in the 19th.
They have been recently devaluing their currency again.
This is important, right before a lot of these tariffs.
Now, why does devaluing their currency matter?
Devaluing their currency just decimates and destroys their population.
Devaluing their currency makes their products cheaper again.
Now, I don't want to hit you and hammer you to death with a bunch of useless facts and tidbits, but this is critical.
Taxes at the border in the United States, what we call tariffs on Chinese goods, make those products, those Chinese goods, more expensive.
Simple as that.
If a Chinese good coming into the United States costs $100 and we put a 25% tax, it now costs $125.
Bingo.
Which makes people more likely to buy another product that's $100.
Right?
If there's a Chinese widget and an American widget, they'll buy the American widget for $100.
The problem is with tariffs, a lot of American widgets will then raise their price to $125 because they know the Chinese product is $125 too.
What the Chinese are doing is they're making their currency less valuable to make those exports to the United States cheaper despite the tariffs.
Right.
You may say, wow, well, that's a win for China.
We impose a 25% tariff, but now that $100 widget is now only $75 coming in.
So effectively, it's the same price it was before.
Does that make sense, Joe?
It offsets your tariff.
Tariffs make the price go up.
Devaluing your currency makes the price go down.
Yeah.
You may say to yourself, wow, that's a win-win for China.
No, no, no, it's not, ladies and gentlemen.
Because it makes Chinese workers work a whole lot harder to produce products for us at less money than they were compensated for them before.
Remember, they were selling the same widget before the tariffs for $100.
If they devalue their currency, it's the same widget.
Nothing happens to the widget, just the paper behind it's worth less.
So now the same widget they worked their butts off to produce is now being sold for $75 to compensate for the tariff.
Which means their wages go down in China, and their workers have to work harder to give us the same amount of stuff.
What I'm telling you, ladies and gentlemen, is the Chinese have no way out here.
They either can stop stealing our stuff, go to zero tariffs on our goods as we reciprocate, and if we're finally back to free trade, or they can watch their economy suffer, and they can watch their people, their own people, work twice as hard to produce for us the same amount of stuff we bought in the past.
Either way, we win.
They are in a world of trouble, and the Chinese know it.
You know what, tomorrow I wanna, I'm just gonna get to this today, but I wanna get to a New York Times story tomorrow about what was left out of the Mueller report.
There's a key part of that, so I'll get to that tomorrow.
Just one sentence, even the New York Times is starting to acknowledge what a disgrace it was.
But just to end the show, I said I'd hit this with the PC thing.
The PC arrest of Papadopoulos at Dulles Airport.
Listen to yesterday's show at the end.
I can't emphasize enough how unusual this is.
The fact that they arrested Mueller's team, a key figure, what they thought, George Papadopoulos, to this whole Russian collusion thing, remember he's told by allegedly Massoud about the Russian derp, with a PC warrant, meaning, excuse me, with probable cause, not a warrant.
They didn't show up with any warrant at all.
That is highly unusual amongst federal agents.
It's not uncommon amongst border patrol, FBI, police, CIA, police, State Department, police, but amongst 1811s, the suit-wearing federal agent crowd, I cannot emphasize to you enough how unusual a probable cause arrest is.
It says to me, again, if you listen to the end of yesterday's show, that they panicked about Papadopoulos.
And as I saw Maria Bartiromo tweet this morning, I think everybody's starting to get around to the fact that Papadopoulos was set up with that $10,000 coming back into the airport.
They got him at the border because they knew they could search him without a warrant.
He didn't have the money, and they panicked, and they had to arrest him on probable cause because a warrant they thought they were gonna swear out about this money charge in the United States didn't happen because Papadopoulos didn't have the money.
Very, very important.
We'll hear more about that soon, I'm sure of it.
I got more for you coming up this week, too.
I'm working some stuff, shaking some trees, so have no fear, folks.
Hey, thanks a lot for tuning in.
I really appreciate it.
Please subscribe to the show, youtube.com slash bongino, and our audio show, available on the Apple Podcasts app, also available at SoundCloud and iHeartRadio.
The subscriptions are all free, but we really appreciate you doing that.
Thanks a lot.
We'll see you tomorrow.
You just heard The Dan Bongino Show.
You can also get Dan's podcasts on iTunes or SoundCloud.
