In this episode I address the emergence of more suspicious activity and suspicious omissions from Mueller’s report. I also discuss another epic fail from AOC while trying to question an FBI official. News Picks:John Solomon’s latest piece is additional evidence that Mueller’s entire investigation was a fraud.
Here are 5 critical questions for Christopher Steele.
There are major discrepancies in the Mueller report.
DNA tests show there some “families” at the border are not related.
This prominent Democrat has some problems he’s going to have to deal with.
AOC gets absolutely destroyed, again, at a congressional hearing.
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?
It's Friday!
So I'm doing good, baby.
We love Friday.
Everybody loves Friday.
It's built into our genetic code to love Friday.
We love Friday.
Although it is not the end of the week for me, I will be filling in for Hannity tonight on TV.
Again, I, with the greatest of respect, ask you, my fine audience, I love to death, please tune in tonight.
If you can't tune in at 9pm Eastern time for my guest hosting appearance, gotta head up to New York in a few minutes.
Please DVR, watch it afterwards.
I really, really appreciate it.
So we got that.
I've got a ton to cover today.
De Blasio and AOC confused again.
I've got another glaring omission from the Mueller report.
Another nonsensical thing.
I mean, seriously, the Mueller report is just turning into a disgrace all around.
I got another story on immigration as well.
Ton to get to.
Today's show brought to you by our buddies at WaxRx.
We love WaxRx.
Here it is.
Here it is.
WaxRX.
We love WaxRX.
This is my box of WaxRX.
Actually, one of many boxes of WaxRX I have.
Check out what it comes with.
All that equipment to clean your ears.
Look at that!
Clean those inner ears out.
You're not supposed to be cleaning your ears out with cotton swabs inside your ear.
It's dangerous.
I love my sponsors.
I only work with companies I can use.
I use WaxRX because I had a problem with this with these IFB, IFBP, it's like industry term for any earpiece plugged in your ear, as Joe knows.
You get wax buildup, you can't hear anything.
Here's a customer review we got from WaxRx, how good this product is.
I used to have to go to the doctor twice a year to get rid of my stubborn, hardened earwax in my ear.
The rising cost of healthcare and double deductibles cost me $120 a year.
Who wants to pay that to treat my ears?
Now I can do it myself with WaxRx and a significant savings to boot that doesn't require me to miss a half a day of work.
Thank you WaxRx, right now.
Try the WaxRX system.
You never know what you're missing here because you probably got some of that goop stuck in your ear.
You can try the WaxRX system by typing in go, huh?
What?
What?
Go, go waxrx.com.
That's go wax r x.com.
Use offer code Dan at checkout for free shipping.
We use it.
My wife uses it.
My kids use it.
Don't wait.
You have no idea what you might be missing because of inner ear wax.
Who knows?
It might just change your life.
You don't know what you could be hearing if you're not hearing it.
That's right.
Go waxrx.com.
Offer code DAN.
Check it out today.
We love WaxRX.
What a great product.
All right, let's go!
Ding, ding.
Okay, AOC confused again.
This is just a doozy.
It's hit or miss on AOC stuff.
Some people like it, some people hate it.
I use the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez conundrum.
When I say conundrum, it's the whole, do we just ignore her, hope that the nonsensical ideological positions will go away, or do we highlight her and point out her consistent inaccuracies to show you how little she actually knows?
I believe the latter is the better option, I've said it often.
You can't ignore people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
They have social media platforms and others, and she's growing in importance in her caucus, and these ideas she's proposing are very dangerous.
As I've said, and I'll say repeatedly, she won a seat in Congress.
Congratulations.
That's very difficult to do.
I was unable to do that in my efforts.
But with that position of power comes a sense of responsibility, and with that responsibility comes a responsibility to actually know things before you speak.
AOC rarely, if ever, when commenting on an issue, has the requisite facts to comment intelligently.
This one's just downright hysterical, and for all the wrong reasons.
So I'll have the story at sarahcarter.com.
It'll be up at the show notes today where you can read the transcript and Sarah Carter's coverage of it.
But Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was chairing a hearing with the FBI on some terrorism incidents.
Now to give you a little background before I play these two cuts of video because they're really embarrassing for her and again it shows you how little she knows about any topic she discusses.
She's questioning two high-ranking FBI officials about domestic terrorism tax and white supremacy versus Islamic radicalism.
Now, I have to give you some background so you understand what she's trying to do versus reality.
What she's trying to do while questioning these FBI officials, and Joe, if this doesn't make sense, again, as the audience ombudsman, you have to throw the red flag and tell me to go under the hood for review there, okay?
So we can review the play.
She's trying to paint a picture of an FBI under Donald Trump giving a pass to white supremacists because Donald Trump, according to people like AOC, is obviously a racist.
Obviously.
No evidence of that, but it doesn't matter.
They're liberals in identity politics.
That's just their thing.
Okay?
Okay.
She's trying to paint this picture of Donald Trump and his supporters being a racist, and that these white supremacist attacks that are epidemic in the Trump administration, again, not true, I'm just telling you what she's trying to say, that they're giving a pass, Joe, while the Muslim-inspired Islamic radicals, they are being prosecuted using the full weight of law.
That's hard take.
None of that is actually true.
None of this is true.
Zero.
In the interest of time, because this was seven minutes long, I had to cut it into two shorter clips.
I cut out largely her question, but she's asking the FBI here in this snippet, this FBI official.
She's saying to him, hey, listen, there was this church, this African Methodist church that was attacked by a white supremacist.
Why wasn't that classified as domestic terror?
Here's a hint.
It was.
She just doesn't know.
Play cut one.
Mr. McGarrity, why did the FBI not believe that these incidents were domestic terrorist incidents?
That's not correct.
I don't know who told you that we didn't, but we certainly had cases open on them in both those cases.
And I wasn't here for the Dylan Roof case, but it's certainly in our own Department of Justice civil rights about three, four weeks ago.
And their testimony actually stated that it was a domestic terrorism event.
Charged through the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice for a hate crime. I was here for the tree of
life I will tell you I remember that day's distinctly
It was worked as both a domestic terrorism case and a hate crimes case and it still worked that way. Oh boy
Oh boy! (laughs)
Okie dokes!
So now keep in mind, if you watch, AOC's largely reading from a script there.
That script, if you watch the whole footage, you can go to sarahcarter.com, I have the link in the show notes.
You can see the whole seven minute exchange.
It is worth your time, by the way, if you get a moment.
Because you'll see, when she's making her points, she's reading from a script.
Joe, why is she doing that?
Because she doesn't know anything.
She's being given this by her staff that, hey, ask this guy why this white supremacist attack on the AME church and why the anti-semitic attack on the Tree of Life incident, the attack on the synagogue.
Ask them why they weren't treated as domestic terror incidents.
The catch is, ladies and gentlemen, they were.
The FBI official is sitting there going, I don't know what you're talking about because we testified, the FBI that is, on the record that these were treated as domestic terror.
Now keep in mind what's going on here.
Don't lose the headline.
The headline is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez doesn't know a lot about what she's talking about.
Her staff knows even less because they actually prepared this memo and they're trying to get you to believe that racially biased attacks That are from white supremacist individuals are being treated with kid gloves while other incidents, Islamic radicalism, are being treated harshly.
None of that is true, ladies and gentlemen.
None of that is true.
These attacks he's referencing, the AME Church and Tree of Life, by a white supremacist and an anti-Semite, these were treated as domestic terror incidents.
What she's saying is factually not correct.
Now, cut to, this gets even worse.
AOC1 doesn't know that these incidents were treated as domestic terror in contrast to where you guys gave these guys a pass.
She doesn't know that, neither does her staff because she's reading from a script.
But ladies and gentlemen, she doesn't even know how the United States Code works.
There is no separate charge for domestic terror.
There's hate crimes legislation, but there's no 18 U.S.C.
United States Code charge for that.
She is unaware of this.
Now keep in mind, she's a legislator.
They can legislate this.
She doesn't know this.
So now, watching this second cut, the FBI official actually whips out the testimony where they told Congress it was being charged as domestic terror.
And she's like, well, we have two conflicting statements.
The guy's like, no, no, we don't.
Here's the testimony.
You're conflicted.
No one else.
Play Cut 2, watch AOC fumble the football yet again.
You're saying that AME was charged with domestic terrorism.
Dylan Roof.
So, you're using the word charge.
So, as I said before, there's no domestic terrorism charge like 18 U.S.C.
2339 A.B.C.D.
for a foreign terrorist organization.
So, what we do, both on the international terrorism side with the homegrown Von Extremis and domestic terrorists, we'll use any tool in the toolkit to arrest them, hopefully left of attack.
Should it be after, Likely that hate crime statute will come to play through the Civil Rights Division as a charge, because it's a good federal charge for us to use in domestic cases.
It shouldn't be stated that it's not a domestic terrorism.
In fact, on the record, it's stated it's a domestic terrorism.
And the same thing with the synagogue shooting?
Yes.
Okay, so we have two conflicting testimonies.
Well, I mean, I can go back to May 8, 2019 from the Department of Justice.
On the record, that statement called a domestic Terrorism cases involving civil rights charges too, including some of the most serious attacks in recent years.
Dylan Roof, African American parishioners engaged at the Emanuel African Methodist Church.
James Field at the Unite to Right rally in Virginia.
And then also Robert Bowers.
So that's the statement.
All three events were domestic terrorism.
But the actual charge, was it, was the actual charge domestic terrorism?
Oh my gosh.
I can't, I can't believe this.
I cannot believe that this, that Mr. Casio-Cortez, I cannot believe people take her seriously at this point.
She, the absurdities that flow seamlessly from her are just stunning.
From the Fantasyland Green New Deal, where we're going to build trains to Europe over the oceans, to nonsensical tax plans reminiscent of the Soviet Union.
To ridiculous statements about her being stunned that garbage disposals exist.
Again, congratulations on winning your seat.
Please, I'm begging you to crack a book once in a while.
Do you understand what just happened there?
She gets completely destroyed in this testimony and just refuses to back down.
Two takeaways from this.
Folks, watch that again on the video.
You can rewind it, but in the interest of time, I won't play it twice.
Watch it again.
She fumbles the only two points she's trying to make.
She says, well, so you're saying, you know, the AME and the Tree of Life were not charged as domestic terrorism.
The FBI official, Mr. McGarrity, whips out the actual transcript where they said they were being charged as domestic terrorism, and she still is confused why they weren't charged as domestic terrorism.
Stuck on stupid.
It's amazing!
Let me be precise.
She's confused as to why they weren't investigated as domestic terrorism when the statement is clear as day.
Here it is.
We were investigating these as domestic terrorists.
She's like, well, we have two conflicting accounts.
There's no conflict.
Listen to me.
There is zero conflict.
None.
You're conflicted and you're staffed because you don't know what you're talking about.
There's no conflict.
He has highlighted on the record testimony and a bevy of FBI files indicating that AME and Tree of Life were investigated as domestic terrorism.
Now instead of humbly hunching your shoulders forward and inching away from the microphone, she has to double down!
Because when she's- she does this on Twitter all the time!
When she tweets some nonsense, gets destroyed by people who know what they're talking about, and she responds with even more nonsense!
Like nonsense to the power of 10.
She's a nonsense aggregator.
She's like the Drudge Report of nonsense.
She goes, well, okay, so like maybe it was investigated as domestic terror, but why wasn't it charged as domestic terror?
The guy's looking at her again like, did you not hear what I just said?
There is no charge for domestic terror.
There's no, ladies and gentlemen, again, I forget, I am not in any way trying to waste your time and talk down to you.
I am trying to point out why we are arguing with people frequently who have no idea what they're talking about.
And when they get caught, which is all the time, the left, they will double down on lies.
Why didn't you investigate as domestic terror?
We did, here's the testimony.
Well, why didn't you charge it as domestic terror?
Because there's no charge!
Title 18 U.S.C., which stands for Title 18 of the United States Code, lays out a series of charges you can charge people with.
1344, 1343, bank fraud, wire fraud.
We used to charge people with this stuff all the time.
It gives the powers of the Secret Service, Title 18 U.S.C.
3056, which gives the Secret Service its powers.
There is no charge.
She's asking him to do something that doesn't exist.
She's free to introduce a bill to create a new charge.
So what does he say?
Mr. McGarrity, in a relatively level-headed, common-sense fashion?
Yeah.
So when we can't charge them with a domestic terror charge that doesn't exist, folks, he says we charge them with a hate crime.
Which gives them the power of the Civil Rights Division to prosecute these people.
Keep in mind, they're still charged with the attack.
Murder or otherwise.
She doesn't know what she's talking about.
She never knows what she's talking about.
I strongly encourage you to watch the full seven minutes to see how confused Representative Ocasio-Cortez is almost all the time.
When she's questioning the bank executive.
Remember that one we covered a few months ago about a pipeline they had nothing to do with other than financing through a third party?
Well, why aren't you guys taking responsibility for leaks from the pipeline?
We had nothing to do with that.
Well, you financed it.
Actually, we financed the third party that financed it.
Oh, okay.
You guys must be racist then.
I mean, it's staggering.
She just traffics in misinformation constantly.
All right, that's a great, I mean, that's a great story.
Again, definitely worth your time.
Please check it out.
All right, I want to get into here.
There was another big story last night that came out.
Ladies and gentlemen, the Mueller report is collapsing by the day and the Democrats are in an absolute panic here.
The Mueller report, and this is why I am so Angry and upset and I guess disappointed as well because I was a big supporter of this guy about representatives like Republican congressman from Michigan, Justin Amash, who is the only Republican to disingenuously call for Trump's impeachment.
Amash, who claims to be a libertarian, says this often.
You'll see him.
Well, you got to read the report, the Mueller report.
I did read the report.
I wasted a whole weekend reading this stupidity.
Most of it we already knew, by the way, from the statement of offenses if you read them.
If you've actually been researching the case, unlike Amash.
But he'll say things like, read the report.
Folks, don't read the report alone.
Read the report and then research the case.
And you'll find out that what Mueller did is put in all this information, selectively edited to make Trump look guilty, and he leaves out things that make Trump look innocent.
The Mueller Report is not a legal document.
It is nothing more than a poorly worded opinion piece for the Washington Post and the New York Times to impeach Trump.
Some devastating evidence emerged last night that this is true.
Alright, I'm going to get to that in a second, Solomon's story, and I have a couple other pieces from this Jeff Carlson piece at the Epoch Times to show you just how poor of a job the now disgraced Mueller-Weisman team did in this pathetic opinion piece they call the Mueller Report.
Before we get to that, I want to roll right through it.
Today's show also brought to you by our buddies at Dynatrap.
There's one of my Dynatraps, actually.
I've got a couple.
This one's going to go in my garage in the casita.
Hey, it's summer, and the only thing more annoying than hearing Jerry Nadler's ridiculous calls for impeachment Are flies and other insects invading the home?
I have one plugged in in my kitchen, right?
I have about three or four of these plugged in around the house.
These things, you will not have an insect living anywhere near your house.
You just plug this sucker into an outlet, the UV light comes on, there's a glue trap on the other side, don't worry, you don't see any of this stuff, no one's gonna come, it looks like a night light.
And you wake up the next day, you'll see all these flies and mosquitoes, if they're flying around your house, that's it, that'll be the end of them.
Who knows where these flies were last?
They land on food, you don't know what they landed on before that.
You can guess if you've seen flies flying around, it's pretty gross.
So we'd like to thank our sponsors over at Dynatrap.
Dynatrap is the leading manufacturer of outdoor mosquito and indoor insect traps.
I have the outdoor one as well.
There's not a mosquito living within like 200 yards of my house.
It's so good.
They've come up with a solution now for indoor pests, the Dynatrap Fly Light, which I just showed you.
The Dynatrap Fly Light works day and night to attract and trap flies, fruit flies, mosquitoes, and other pesky insects.
And it works.
You wake up in the morning because they attract to that thing and it gets stuck on that trap, gone like that.
Forget the disgusting fly strips.
They're gross.
The Dynatrap fly light looks like a nightlight.
It plugs into any indoor outlet.
It's very subtle.
Trust me, I've been using it for, what is it, like two years now?
And it has been, especially down here in Florida with a lot of insects, but you can use it anywhere.
It is excellent.
I recommend it highly.
Get yours at dynatrap.com.
That's D-Y-N-A-T-R-A-P, dynatrap.com.
Be sure to enter promo code Bongino and you'll receive 15% off any of their products.
Dynatrap, the safe, silent, and simple solution The Household Insect Control.
Dinotrap.com.
Use promo code Bungie.
Don't forget.
Yeah, you know what?
Next time you come down, I'll give you one.
I've got a whole bunch.
The one I got is so old, it's a Dinotrap.
Look at you!
Look at Joe giving his hand at comedy.
Going the George Carlin way.
Very good.
That was very good.
Thank you.
Actually, it wasn't.
But it's alright.
Thank you, Dan.
Sometimes you're the pigeon, sometimes you're the statue, as they used to say in the secret service.
It's when you got a really crappy post-standing assignment.
No pun intended.
You'd look at the guy, you'd be like, hey man, sorry.
Poor guy in a suit be standing in the rain and be, you know, 33 degrees just above freezing.
So the rain is cold enough, but it doesn't snow.
It's creeping down your back.
You're stuck out there for eight hours.
You'd be like, hey buddy, I'm sorry.
Today you got the statue, right?
Sometimes you're the pigeon, sometimes you're the statue.
That was the worst ever!
I've never been as cold as when standing post in the Secret Service as a rookie.
Hey, look at that tree over there!
People used to ask me what it was like to be a Secret Service agent when I was younger.
And when I was a rookie, I'd say, go out in your backyard and stare at that tree for like five hours.
That's what it was like sometimes.
It was a great job.
I mean, really, it was a cool job.
But some of the post-standing assignments were really rough.
Just made me think of that.
All right, so Mueller's, we'll call this section, Mueller's Sins of Omission sub-headline with Justin Amash.
Read the report!
No, don't just read the report.
Study the whole case and you'll see what Mueller did.
Here's number one.
We discussed this the other day.
I just want to bring it up quickly.
Remember the voicemail.
Trump's lawyer, John Dowd.
Calls Mike Flynn.
They had a joint cooperation agreement.
That cooperation agreement disintegrated.
Flynn was cooperating with the Mueller team.
So Trump's lawyer leaves a message.
And in that message, at one point he says, hey, I'm not looking for any confidential information.
Mueller transcribes the voicemail in the report And leaves out the part where Trump's lawyer says, hey, we're not looking for confidential information.
Again, why?
Because Mueller and Weissman disgraced themselves, and they were looking to make the Trump team appear to have obstructed justice.
So they include this transcript from Trump's lawyer, and they leave out all the parts that matter.
Like, hey, we're not looking for confidential information, we're basically looking for stuff that can impact national security.
They leave all of that out.
I discussed that the other day, but again, Exhibit one in the disgraceful episode Mueller and Weissman have hoisted on the backs of America.
Here's another example I brought up before, but it's important in light of what we found out last night.
Veselnitskaya and Rinat Akhmetchen.
Who are they?
They sound like Russian names.
They are!
These are two Russians who meet with Donald Trump Jr.
at Trump Tower.
The whole essence of their case.
Mueller spends pages talking about this meeting.
But he leaves something out.
That these two Russians, conveniently, that meet with Don Trump Jr., that these two Russians are connected to the Hillary team.
One of them is working for the team hired to gin up information on Trump, paid for by Hillary, and the other one freely admits to knowing people on the Clinton staff and has a lawyer whose former spouse, who is now since deceased, was a higher-up in the Bill Clinton administration.
He ignores all of that.
He leaves that out.
So again, Amash, read the Mueller report.
Yes!
And then read the other evidence Mueller left out that's exculpatory.
Like the actual John Dowd transcript, which you won't find in the Mueller report.
You'll find a faked one.
An edited one.
Yeah, read the Mueller report about the Trump Tower meeting.
Yes!
And then read the additional evidence about how they were all connected to the Clinton team.
Hey, Dan.
Amash hasn't read all that.
I got a question for you.
Why wouldn't the Mueller omissions be considered obstruction?
You know what I'm saying?
Because, you know, yeah, I mean, in a legal sense, there's no way any of that would fly.
But in an ethical and moral sense?
Yeah.
You have an obligation if you're going to present an all-encompassing report show to give people information that both contradicts and then indicates the theory you're trying to advance.
Mueller did none of that.
Thank you.
Because they were unethical.
But yeah, legally, they probably have no ground to stand on.
But it'd be interesting for you lawyers out there, you know, chime in.
You have my email.
I put it on my website.
So that's another interesting portion of it that's left out, but good question.
I think that was asked in an article.
Oh, is that right?
Okidoks.
Thanks, man.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
But here's a piece from the Epoch Times.
Jeff Carlson, who does great work over there.
He brings up another one.
You're going to hear this.
This is new.
This is first time on the show here.
But I want to make sure you hear this because you're going to hear it.
This specific talking point from liberal lunatic talking heads on cable news.
And I've already heard it.
And you need to have the immediate comeback from Jeff Carlson's piece at the Epoch Times.
The title of the piece is five discrepancies called the accuracy of Mueller's report into question.
I will have this report in my show notes today.
Please read it.
This piece.
He says here.
He's talking about this Russian, forgive me, Georgian, excuse me, he's from Georgia.
And I'm going to say the name wrong, so forgive me.
Talking about these infamous tapes.
You remember the tapes?
The pee tape and all that other stuff.
And Carlson writes in the piece, the attorney noted that Rizalazdi, I'm sorry, I'm forgetting the name wrong, he's a Georgian.
Indicated to Cohen that there was nothing to the rumors of the tapes and that he did not believe there were any tapes nor had he seen what was on the tapes even if they existed.
The Mueller report also removed the word some from the text transcript.
The original text exchange read some tapes indicating that Rizalazdi, I know I'm saying that wrong, did not know actual details about the tapes.
I get it.
Some of you are confused right now.
What is that about?
Yeah.
I read it in reverse order for a reason.
Here is what the Mueller report says about this from the Republic of Georgia, not the state of Georgia.
Again, I don't mean to talk down to anybody, but just so you understand.
This is what the Mueller report, I'm going to read to you what they put in there about the existence of these tapes.
Remember the allegations of Trump being on tape, you know, having prostitutes soil this bed, Obamacare, you know, it was gross.
It's a family friendly show.
Most of the time.
So I'm going to keep the details.
We call it the pee tape.
It's the only way to keep it relatively, uh, you know, PG 13 on the show.
So here's what Mueller's writes in his report about that quote from the Georgian to Michael Cohen.
Stopped flow of tapes from Russia, but not sure if there's anything else.
Just so you know.
That's the quote from the Mueller report.
The quote.
Joe, sounds nefarious, right?
Yes, it does.
This ethnic Georgian His stopping the flow, I'm quoting the Mueller Report, stop flow of tapes from Russia, but not sure if there's anything else.
Just so you know, the Mueller Report, Justin Amash, read the Mueller Report.
You read that, and Joe, I know you and Paula and all of our listeners out there are thinking, wow, maybe there is something to that tape story.
Well, again, there was a word missing.
Let me fill in the word missing and read that again.
The word they deleted because Mueller and Weissman ran a sleazy, disgusting, unethical, immoral investigation and ruined and disgraced the Department of Justice, their reputations themselves, and the country in the process.
Here's the real quote.
Stopped flow of some tapes.
From Russia.
But not sure if there's anything else.
Just so you know.
Let me read it in the proper way.
The lawyer... Again, Rizal Azdi.
I ended up saying his name wrong, so just... I get it.
What his attorney says... Here's what his attorney says he meant by this.
The actual quote.
Okay.
Stop flow of some tapes.
From Russia.
But not sure if there's anything else.
Just so you know.
This guy's lawyer issued a lengthy rebuttal.
saying this had nothing to do with peepee tapes and then he comes out can you put that up again from the piece from the epic times piece in this lengthy rebuttal says that there was nothing to the rumors of the tapes he did not believe there were any tapes nor had he seen what was on the tapes even if they existed in other words he rebutts that whole thing all right Right.
Now, you may say, I don't get it, Dan.
He said he stopped the flow of some tapes.
So clearly there was some tapes.
In other words, the guy was probably just trying to look like a gamer.
There were some tapes.
Be mine.
He makes no reference whatsoever to the dreaded peepee tapes or anything else.
Notice some tapes.
We don't know what these tapes could be.
Anything could be backstage footage of the Miss America contest.
We have no idea what it is.
And then he admits later, hey listen, to his attorney, there were no tapes, it was a rumor.
Ladies and gentlemen, you will find none of that in the Mueller report.
You will just find this quote, how a guy, you know, living in this Russian region stopped the flow of tapes with the word, some tapes, take it out.
Because that's what Mueller wanted to do.
He wanted to lie to you.
How does serious people take this guy seriously anymore?
Mueller.
He was a dedicated public servant.
Great!
Terrific!
I served in the Secret Service too.
It doesn't stop the left from attacking my character every single day.
I get lunatics on Twitter every day.
Dan Bongino, fill in the blank.
It's always the worst thing possible.
Nobody has any problem on the left attacking me.
I was a public servant.
But God forbid you attack Mueller.
You can't do that.
Why?
What he did was sleazy.
It was slimy.
The evidence is everywhere.
That is not the transcript.
The transcript has the word some in it.
And then the guy writes a rebuttal to his attorney saying that was nonsense.
Those were rumors.
Why not put that in there?
Well, you can't believe him.
You're telling me you believe an edited quote by Mueller, but the actual guy, through his attorney, on the record, says otherwise, and we're not even supposed to include that in the Mueller report?
Why do you guys have to lie all the time?
Why?
Liberals, and ladies out there in the media, why do you have to lie all the time?
Here's another one we covered last week before I haven't even gotten to Solomon yet.
Excuse me, we covered the other day, so no need to re-litigate the whole thing.
But one of Mueller's chief informants in the case was a guy named George Nader.
Who was just arrested on charges of possessing child pornography.
And apparently those charges were kept under wraps so Mueller could use him to go after the Trump team.
Sounds like a real reputable witness.
Good job, Bob.
Very well done.
Let's let a guy alleged to be possessing the most... By the way, it's disgust.
It's like... I can't even tell you.
I'm not even kidding.
The level of...
The horror of the stuff this guy was alleged to possess on his phone, Nader, is so gross I can't even teeter around the edges of what it was.
It's that disgusting.
That's Mahler's guy.
That's Mahler's guy.
Again, they leave out the fact that Mueller's guy, Nader, who has these very serious, grotesque, atrocious allegations against him, they also leave out that he's being repped by Obama's former White House counsel, Obama's lawyer, Catherine Rumler.
Nothing to see here, folks.
Okay, so getting to last night.
John Solomon's piece.
I'm sorry for the lengthy setup, but I'm trying to establish to you conclusively on the Friday so you have the information you need that this Mueller report is a farce.
Read that report!
Okay, I did.
I'll tell you what, I'll make you a deal.
I've already read the report.
Now I want you to actually read what's left out of the report.
I'm not doing that.
Of course you're not, because you're a hack.
So John Solomon reports last night.
He was on Hannity.
He was reporting on this piece last night.
Tier one level tactical nuke dropped on the battlefield of ideas.
A key figure that the Mueller report linked to Russia was actually a State Department intel source.
John Solomon, TheHill.com.
This will be in the show notes today.
Please read it.
From the report.
Get a load of this one.
In a key finding of the Mueller Report, Ukrainian businessman Konstantin Kalimnik, who worked for Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, is tied to Russian intelligence.
Stop there.
I just want to, excuse me, expound on this for a second.
In the Mueller report, there is this extensive documenting of Paul Manafort's relationship to the guy we had just mentioned, Konstantin Kalimnik, this Ukrainian.
How he's connected to Russian intelligence, he's Kalimnik, he was connected to Russia.
Paul Manafort gave him polling data.
So?
They could have run their own poll, who cares?
Gave him polling data?
They fired him!
Yeah, he shouldn't have done it!
There's nothing illegal about giving a guy public polling data, or, well, they gave him campaign credit.
The guy could have run their own poll!
This wasn't classified information!
Hillary Clinton's team was using sources, Russian sources themselves, to gather information on Trump.
You're talking about a guy giving polling data?
Now, Mueller again in his report.
Read the Mueller report!
It goes over this at length.
How Manafort's connected to Kalimnick and Kalimnick has these Russian connections.
But Kalimnick, Joe, has some other interesting connections as well.
Solomon goes on in the piece.
But hundreds of pages of government documents which special counsel Robert Mueller has possessed since 2018, Joe, describe Kalimnick as a sensitive intelligence source for who?
The Russians, clearly, Joe, right?
No!
The US State Department!
Who informed on Ukrainian and Russian matters.
Why Mueller's team omitted that part of the Kalemnik narrative from its report and related court filings is not known.
No, no!
I love you, John, and I understand you're a journalist.
I'm an editorialist.
I'm an opinion guy.
It is known.
He says, but the revelation of it comes as the accuracy of Mueller's Russia conclusions faced increased scrutiny.
No, it is known.
I get what John has to do there, and I respect it.
Mueller and Weissman were acting as political activists to get Trump impeached.
That's why they left that out.
Do you understand what I'm telling you, Joe?
The Mueller report paints Kalemnik as a Russian intel conduit, carve-out, and he was an intel source for the Obama State Department.
Yeah, I'm getting kind of sick here.
What part are we?
Even worse!
Oh, dude.
Solomon's piece again, which is in the show notes.
I encourage you to read it.
At the end of the piece, he talks about how in the Mueller report, they lay out how Kalymnik gave Manafort this plan for Russian-Ukrainian peace.
This is so bad, Joe.
Manafort was clearly acting outside the bounds of moral and ethical behavior.
You know what the report leaves out, Joe?
That he gave the same plan to the Obama State Department that they already had it.
How about that?
Folks, do you understand what a scam you're being exposed to with this Mueller-Weissman fiasco?
How this man acted so unethically and immorally that when history looks back on... Gosh, Bob Mueller, I hope someone close to you is listening and relays this to you.
What you did was a disgrace, was an absolute abomination.
You and Weissman Like I said, your reputation is now soiled forever.
Weissman's reputation was always soiled because he's a complete loser.
He is a loser.
He is a political activist who, I get from all my sources, was hated inside the Justice Department and the FBI.
Hated.
He was a hack.
Mueller, however, had a semi-decent reputation.
That is now over.
How do you leave that out of your report?
That the guy you're alleging some nefarious intent because Manafort was dealing with him was also a source for the Obama State Department.
How do you leave that out?
The answer is very simple.
You leave it out because you're engaged in 10 degrees of hackery.
Folks, it's really disgusting what happened.
It's a darn shame.
It really is.
It's pathetic.
And it makes me quite honestly sick that people in the mainstream media are still covering for this man.
And his horrendous, atrocious, horrible report.
All right, moving on.
I haven't covered immigration all week, and I'm sorry.
I got a couple emails from people, and I listened to your feedback.
The show is for you.
It's out there for you.
I try to cover things I'm interested in, but the content should be topical, daily, and sometimes evergreen, sometimes not.
But I missed the immigration story.
There's two specific components of it I want to bring up today, because it relates to this imposition of this 5% tariff on Mexican goods that's going to go into effect next week if they don't clean up the immigration situation.
Number one, we're finding out now, I have these reports up at Bongino.com, you can check them out, they're worth it.
One is that a lot of people coming over claiming that they have family members with them are not, in fact, families.
Ladies and gentlemen, the United States government does a lot of things wrong, but on the law enforcement front, law enforcement's a lot savvier than a lot of these people attempting to break our laws, give them credit for.
So one of them is they're now doing DNA testing at the border, which is fascinating, because as the DHF chief has said, as you'll see in our report, DNA tests prove multiple cases of false parental claims at the border.
Ladies and gentlemen, I think we would call that child trafficking.
Hey, here's my kid.
I want to come in, wink at a nod.
Really?
Let us get a little cheek swab there.
Let us get your kid there.
This child is not related to you, sir.
He's not?
Huh?
Now, Joe, I'm not messing around.
It's not a trick question.
Your son is Little Joe?
Yes, he is.
Little Joe, our new soon-to-be-minted United States Marine.
Hurrah!
Good job, Little Joe.
You're never confused when you see Little Joe, right?
Like, when he walks in the house, do you ever say, like, What are you doing here?
Who are you?
Why did you just walk in my front door?
Does that ever happen?
No, no, Dan, it doesn't.
Okay, not a trick question.
No, no, no.
I'm not setting up.
Have you ever been at the dinner table that Joe's eating his, you know, whatever he's eating, he's eating his foie gras lunch, because you know Joe, very sophisticated with this stuff.
Having a little sushi, maybe a little steak tartare, whatever he's having.
And you look up and you see little Joe across the table and you're like, Who's this kid?
No.
Dude, what are you doing at my table?
Have you, has that ever happened?
No, no table surprises, Dan.
Nope.
Nope.
Okay.
Now one more thing.
Are you sure?
Like if you were not to see little Joe for six months.
Yeah.
Say six months.
It's a long time.
Yeah.
Do you think you'd recognize him in a crowd or would you be like, where's my kid?
Do you think you'd be able to recognize it?
Yeah, that's easy, man.
Yeah, I sure would.
Okay, thank you, Joe.
Now, I'm pretty sure when people cross the border with kids who aren't theirs, that they probably know that's not their kid.
They probably know.
Again, yeah, I'd say so, right?
We're probably in safe territory saying that.
Liberals, no crisis here, nothing to worry about.
If it's not their kid, ladies and gentlemen, then who is it?
Why are you not worried about an adult walking across the border in violation of US law with a child that is not the adult's child?
Of course you have nothing to say!
We would call that like child trafficking.
Like a very serious crime.
Like you know, like the kids, like Alicia Silverstone, Clueless Times.
Like you know, like arguing with liberals.
Like you know, it'd be called child trafficking, man.
It's not their kid.
The DNA test doesn't lie.
You know why they're doing this?
Because of the Flores consent decree.
An absurdity that Congress could fix tomorrow that they won't.
Because of this consent decree.
It's not a law.
It's called the Flores consent decree.
It's not a law.
You cannot hold children in custody for more than 20 days.
Oh, well, Dan, that sounds reasonable.
No, it doesn't.
Because what winds up happening is it incentivizes adults to take kids who aren't theirs, who are being rented as we cover in the report.
And we highlight the hat tip to the Washington Examiner as well in the piece.
It encourages adults to rent kids that aren't there and to traffic them across the border because they know if they wind up in an immigration facility for breaking our laws, keep in mind they come here legally, they choose not to, they choose to come here illegally, that when they're detained, Joe, that because of the Flores consent decree, that they will be let out in 20 days.
Because they're not going to separate the child from the kid.
Folks, we are in a full-blown crisis at our border.
It is a national emergency.
There is no disputing this anymore.
People are actually renting children because they know after 20 days they will get out of a detention facility in the United States and they are in the wind.
You will never see them again.
Some you will.
Very few.
Congress could fix it tomorrow.
They refuse.
One other note on that, the Mexican government saying, hey, we're holding back 250,000 migrants at the border after the Trump tariff threats.
Another story at Bongino.com.
Folks, this is, let me get this straight.
This is supposed to be a friendly U.S.
trading partner making veiled threats like this?
You're holding them back?
Meaning what?
Like if we, if, if, if the Trump tariff threats go through, you're just going to let 250,000 people walk through your country and break our laws and you're supposed to be a friendly?
I'm sorry, folks.
I'm not a- I'm a free trader.
I always have been.
Tariffs are taxes.
Let's not run away from that.
But what do you want this guy to do?
You have a supposedly friendly government on our southern border, basically issuing a veiled threat that, hey, we're holding 250,000 people back.
You know, wink at a nod, you impose these tariffs, we may have a problem.
It's unbelievable.
Supposed to be a friendly US trading partner.
Get rid of Flores.
Legislate this nonsense away.
We have to be able to hold people together as family units to disincentivize them from renting children to bring them across the border.
This is common sense.
D.C.
What a waste of time.
D.C.
is such a waste of time, Joe.
It's pathetic.
It really is.
These people are so feckless.
It's unbelievable.
Alright, I gotta get to my de Blasio story.
This one on...
De Blasio's up there with AOC for just saying things easily disprovable and false instantaneously always and he says it and it with with no I mean it It doesn't even, he doesn't bat an eyelash while lying.
It's almost admirable how fluidly and eloquently they lie, and they have no problem with it at all.
There's no obstruction to their lying whatsoever.
I'll get to that in a second.
All right, finally, today's show brought to you by our buddies at Omaha Steaks.
Listen, we are an Omaha Steaks household.
I've said this, your mouth's gonna water on the street because it doesn't, my wife and I always get hungry, and I gotta head off to the airport after this, which kinda stinks.
Because I do get hungry after this.
Why?
Because Omaha Steaks makes the best meat out there.
Let me first, you know what?
I'm going to read this in reverse.
I hope Omaha doesn't mind because I want to tell you what I've already consumed from their Father's Day package.
By the way, the Father's Day gift package, their Steak Fix package, it's a $235 value.
You can get that for now $59.99.
It is a 74% discount if you go to omahasteaks.com and type on Geno in the search bar.
But let me read to you what they'll give you because I've eaten all this stuff.
You will get, in their Father's Day gift package, two tender filet mignons.
Delicious.
So, so tender.
Two bald top sirloins.
Incredible.
I put a little adobo on those things.
Nice!
My wife is laughing.
I actually put a lot of adobo.
Two savory pork chops.
Never tasted anything like it.
Four Omaha Steaks burgers.
I ate them all.
All four.
True story.
Not making that up for effect.
Four massive gourmet jumbo franks.
They're big.
Four crispy chicken fried steaks.
My wife's personal favorite.
She's like, what is this?
I said, it's chicken fried steak.
I said, leave me some.
She ate them.
Not all four.
She can't eat that.
All beef meatballs.
She put them in a bowl, cooked them.
She said, take a few meatballs.
She goes back, the bowl's empty, ate the whole thing.
Four premium chicken breasts.
She's like, hey, leave one for the kids.
I said, oh, sorry, I didn't hear you.
I ate them all.
I'm just kidding.
I left some for the kids.
Four premium, we blackened them.
Unbelievable.
Four caramel apple tartlets.
I'm not a sweets guy, but my mother-in-law goes crazy over these things.
She does.
She's like, "Danny, give me the apple tartlets."
Loves them.
A packet of Omaha Steak's signature seasoning, and you'll get four extra Omaha Steak's burgers
if you order.
Extras, that's eight.
I can eat those too.
If you don't want them, send them my way.
They're delicious.
Pickles on, a little ketchup, a little cheeseburger on top.
Oh, nice.
Get this amazing package as a gift for dad or stock up for incredible summer grilling at 75%.
Paula, what did we say last night?
We gotta do this before Father's Day, right?
Did I not say that last night?
Because I already ate the package they sent me.
Thank you for doing that, Omaha.
You guys are awesome.
Order now, get this exclusive Omaha Steaks Father's Day Steak Fix Package valued at $235 for just $59.99.
Go to omahasteaks.com, type in Bongino in the search bar, and get this offer.
Say, don't wait, this offer ends soon.
Go to omahasteaks.com, type Bongino in the search bar to get the Father's Day Steak Fix Package today.
So good.
So good.
All right, de Blasio.
So making more ridiculous claims.
De Blasio has managed to defy the laws of statistics.
He's running for president.
He is the communist mayor of New York City.
And de Blasio has managed to poll at an astounding 0%.
That's incredible.
If you take a poll of anything, you'll always get at least one person to say yes to something.
You know, Joe, right?
If you ask a bunch of kids in grammar school and you say, who wants homework on a Friday?
There's always going to be that one kid who says, I'll take the homework always.
And everybody's like, Tommy, what are you talking about?
Not de Blasio.
Apparently in this poll they asked people who you want to vote for and de Blasio magically came up with a big fat donut.
Zero.
Nobody wants this guy.
His approval rating is 8%.
I saw this in a Brett Baier interview he had with him yesterday on Fox.
His approval rating is an astounding 8%.
Ladies and gentlemen, if I ran for the mayor of San Francisco, I am reasonably confident I would have probably an 8.5% approval rating.
De Blasio is a train wreck.
And he's a liar.
And he just doesn't know a lot.
So we have this story.
Hat tip our friends at Legal Insurrection.
I'll put the story in the show notes.
Stacey Matthews.
Bill de Blasio blasted for claiming anti-semitism is a quote, right-wing movement.
Again, I probably could have put this after the AOC story to make it flow a little better, but I did it intentionally.
I want to bookmark the show with stories like this.
AOC is married, Ms.
Ocasio-Cortez, to identity politics narratives.
So where that FBI story, where she tries to quiz the FBI director on things she didn't know, she did it to instill a narrative in your head that Republicans are racist.
There has been an epidemic of anti-Semitic violence in certain portions of Brooklyn that are densely populated with Jewish residents.
Now, I was a cop in Brooklyn, I was a resident of New York City for a very long time, my wife and I both.
No one's gonna talk to me about New York.
I love New York, I grew up there.
Unfortunately, de Blasio's ruined a lot of it, but nobody knows the city as well as I do.
You can know it as much, but not more.
It was my whole life.
There are portions of Brooklyn that are densely populated with Jewish voters and Jewish residents.
They are under attack.
de Blasio knows this.
Now, de Blasio is claiming, as we can see in the piece where an actual Democrat councilman is firing back, de Blasio is claiming these attacks are right-wingers.
In other words, conservatives, like MAGA types, Trump supporters.
It's a, quote, right-wing movement, this anti-Semitic violence.
Well, this councilman, Councilman Deutsch from New York, who is a Democrat, Chaim Deutsch, a Jewish Democrat from Brooklyn, he's not a Republican, did not buy what de Blasio is attempting to sell.
He says, I don't agree with the mayor.
I have not seen any white supremacists coming in here committing these hate crimes, he told the New York Post.
He repeated his comments on Twitter Wednesday.
Ladies and gentlemen, keep in mind, this is a Democrat councilman from the area of Brooklyn where Jewish residents are under attack.
He's not a Republican.
He's calling de Blasio the liar out.
He says on Twitter, Hate knows no political party.
It comes from both sides of the aisle.
On a national level, we've seen neo-Nazis on the far right and hateful anti-Israel sentiments on the far left and not so far left.
He says, listen to this, quote, this is the Democrat councilman from the area.
Locally, there is zero evidence of far right-wing white supremacists committing these acts.
So ladies and gentlemen, Who is committing these acts?
And why is it important?
Folks, it's important not to advance a political narrative.
And I want to be clear on this.
I am not intertwining politics with this at all.
This is an issue of crime.
If you are a Jewish resident of a neighborhood, and as a Jewish resident, you are subjected to an attack by another individual, Joe, do you think the description of the individual who attacked you would matter?
In other words, time out.
I know you know what I'm getting, but put it on hold for a second.
Some of you may not see where I'm going with this.
Think of this as a law enforcement matter, which is what it is.
It's not a political argument de Blasio's trying to make.
It's a right-wing movement.
If a Jewish resident is attacked by an individual and a cop shows up and says, hey Central, we're looking for two... You may say, why are you going blank?
Because the description matters!
We're looking for two white males.
Would matter if you were actually looking for white males.
The problem is, as we see in the legal insurrection piece, that's not who's attacking Jewish residents in this portion of the city.
Borelli, talking about Joe Borelli, and Deutch are touching on a crucial point on this issue that de Blasio wants everyone to ignore.
Why are they ignoring it?
Because the rise in anti-Semitic hate crimes is mostly an issue of African-American perpetrators attacking Jewish people.
And that inconvenient fact destroys local and national political narratives that the mayor would like to craft about what's happening in the city.
This is not an indictment on black America.
Individuals are responsible for their own individual stupidity regardless of the melanin content of their skin, national origin, religion, sex, or otherwise.
Man.
It is a law enforcement matter!
If you're attacked by a man in his mid-30s who happens to be black, you're not gonna put out over the radio that it was a guy in his teens who happened to be white!
Because you're never going to find him!
But do you understand how when you intertwine your disgusting politics like de Blasio to try to advance some narrative?
It's a right-wing movement.
How all of this stuff is allowed to continue?
We're looking for perpetrators from a far right-wing movement.
Um, where?
Here in Brooklyn where these attacks are happening.
You got the councilman and the cops saying, hey, there's zero evidence of that.
Keep looking though, you'll find it.
Meanwhile, what happens?
The actual perpetrators get away.
What you're saying is not true.
But nothing liberals say is ever true, folks.
They make stuff up on the fly because this is what they do.
They are knee-deep in swamp rat lies because they don't care about your safety.
They don't care about your safety at all.
So we're supposed to be investigating in Brooklyn this legion of white supremacists, although the councilman's saying there's no evidence.
That does happen.
There's no question it happens.
Yeah.
But that's not what's happening with de Blasio.
He's just making that up.
Because he wants to lie to you because he wants to pin it on Trump.
Look at me, stemming the massive right-wing violence in Brooklyn that Trump's causing.
Sir, there's no evidence it's actually happening.
I don't do evidence!
I'm Bill de Blasio.
I'm a socialist.
Who said I do evidence?
Me and AOC.
Evidence?
Evidence shm-evidence.
We don't do evidence.
Who needs evidence?
I have talking points.
Unbelievable.
Maybe we'll cover this in the news exposition.
I don't know.
I can't take it.
Alright, last story and we'll run.
Job numbers just came out.
Ladies and gentlemen, a little soft.
We gotta be candid about where we are right now.
This just came out before we got on the air.
Washington Examiner, James Lankford.
You'll be in the show notes again.
U.S.
adds only 75,000 workers in May as trade war worries mount.
Numbers a little soft, folks.
Some good news and bad news.
Let's get with the bad news first.
I'll leave you with the good news.
Bad news is it's, you know, it's not an atrocious number, 75,000, but it's roughly half of what we've seen month over month job growth.
We've seen about 150 to last month, 180,000 jobs a month.
So, you know, Not great and you know if we're going to be honest about it there's a lot of but again I said to you I think some short-term pain is worth it with the Mexican government.
It is in order to instill some kind of semblance of sanity in our border so we may have to take it on the chin a little bit.
The good news from the report though is wages are still growing.
I say that they went up 3.1 percent keep that number in your head because the left counterpoint to this is going to be what Well, you know, in this economy, even though you've still got 75,000 jobs, wages aren't growing.
No, they are!
You're just lying again.
They rose to 3.1%, so that's a pretty decent number.
That's a strong number.
That's some good news.
Let's hope we get a rebound next month and we can get some kind of trade deals.
I'd love to see one develop with the United Kingdom, Japan, I think China one's going to be a little tough.
And hopefully we can get the Mexicans to control both their southern border and their northern border.
And I think we'd be on the glide path to solid economic growth for the rest of this Trump presidency.
All right, folks, thanks again for tuning in.
It was another great week.
Please subscribe to our YouTube channel, youtube.com slash Bongino.
Despite the fact that YouTube demonetizes most of our videos, we still like to get our message out there.
Again, we're working on plan B. Also subscribe to us on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, iHeartRadio, SoundCloud, wherever you choose.
We really appreciate it.
The subscriptions are free.
They help us move up the charts.
We really appreciate it.
And don't forget, Please watch Hannity Tonight, 9 p.m.
