In this episode I address the exploding immigration crisis and an immigration statistic that should concern everyone. I also address the other scandal that the Left is desperate to hide. Finally I address the latest liberal myth about tax cuts.
News Picks:This older piece makes the conclusive case that the Bush tax cuts did not “cost” the government money.
Victor Davis Hanson’s latest piece is a stinging indictment of the FBI’s management culture.
A stunning 90% of asylum-seekers are not showing up for their court appearances.
Is Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez going to challenge Chuck Schumer for his Senate seat?
What else did the Obama Administration hide to advance the Iran deal?
Bernie Sanders to make the ridiculous case for “Democratic” Socialism in a new speech.
More coverups.
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.
All right, welcome to the Dan Bongino Show.
Producer Joe, how are you today?
1,000, Dan-o.
1,000 hellos.
1,000 episodes.
Yes, sir.
Yeah, that's amazing.
It's been a long time.
I really can't thank you enough for your loyalty out there.
1,000 episodes.
Growing ever since.
Yeah, you guys and ladies out there are awesome.
I really appreciate it.
You know, I was getting ready.
I don't want to make a huge production out of this today, although it does mean a lot to us.
We should probably make a bigger deal out of 1001 like we did.
Remember, we didn't celebrate episode 100.
We celebrated episode 101 because we just like to do things differently.
Forgot that.
Maybe we'll do that.
I don't know.
But, uh, you know, I was getting ready for the show this morning.
I was shaving, you know, my Harry's razor, of course, and I'm sitting there and I got some of the, uh, I don't shave with shaving cream a lot.
I use this Cetaphil stuff cause it's really gooey and it works, but it's soapy.
So I got in my eye and I was like, ah, that burns.
And I rinsed it out and I kept thinking, remember when you were a kid and you got something in your eye and it was like the most painful, you're my eyes!
You were like the Stygian Witches from the Clash of the Tides.
The eye!
Remember you were... Joe, am I making this up?
When you were a kid and you got shampoo in your eye, it was like you were being stabbed with a hot poker repeatedly.
Hands over the eyes!
Oh, and it just happened to me and I was like, I don't remember this being like this not so painful when I was a kid.
No, just something interesting.
Hey, I forgot to play this video yesterday and shame on me.
After I left the house, Paula was like, how could you forget this?
Quickly, because I'm not going to redo yesterday's show.
But before we get to the main content today.
President Trump sums up former Nixon, former felon Nixon lawyer John Dean and his dopey comments in this one fantastic short piece of sound and I can't believe we missed this yesterday.
This is just peak Trump play this.
the John Deans testimony.
Have you been watching it?
Look, John Deans been a loser for many years.
So I've been watching him on one of the networks that is not exactly Trump oriented.
And I guess they paid him a lot of money over the years.
Now John's been a loser for a long time.
We know that.
I think he was disbarred and he went to prison.
Other than that, he's doing a great job.
(laughing)
There you go.
(laughing)
(sighing)
Listen, I don't even know what to say.
Hey! Hey! Hey!
If you're watching on YouTube or listening on Apple Podcasts or whatever, why not listen to that again?
That is just... I'm crying here.
That's peak show.
How we missed that yesterday?
Folks, a little behind the scenes.
When I left the house, I usually go to the gym afterwards and I come back and the second half of the workday starts, but my wife and Joe get busy on the production stuff.
Paul is like, how did you miss this?
She never says that.
She's like, how do you, this is the funniest thing ever.
She was trying for like an hour to figure out a way to ex post facto insert it into the show.
And we just could not find a second where I stopped.
Talking to do it.
It is the funniest thing.
He's been disbarred and went to charge with obstruction of justice.
He goes, but other than that, he's doing okay.
I love the line Joe.
He goes, John D's been a loser for a long time.
We all know that.
We all know it for a long time.
We all know it.
It's taken as an accepted fact.
John Dee's been a loser for a long time.
And we all know it.
I'm sorry.
It's just peak Trump.
Alright, here's the lineup for today.
I want to start off with an immigration story.
I haven't gotten to enough of these.
It's short, it's sweet, but it describes the devastation.
I can't stop laughing over that.
John, yeah, he's a loser.
He's been a loser for a long time.
But this immigration story is key because it describes really the essence of the crisis in one simple number.
I want to double down on what we were talking about yesterday about how this Iran deal's at the key of, it's at the center, it's the key to this whole case, and give you some more information I didn't get out yesterday that's really gonna bake your bagels, alright?
And then we'll go into some other stuff about crazy Paul Krugman.
What do you call him, Joe?
Freddy Krugman?
Freddy Krugman.
Crazy far-left liberal economist, Paul Krugman, who just tweets things that are just factually incorrect, because he loves doing that.
He tries to confuse people.
All right, today's show brought to you by our buddies at Stamps.com.
Listen, we'd be lost in this house without Stamps.com.
Get your offer at Stamps.com.
Click on the microphone and enter Dan to get your offer.
Hey, listen, no one has time to go to the post office.
You're busy.
Who's got time for the traffic, the parking hassles, lugging all your mail and packages?
Listen, let's be honest.
It's a real hassle to do that.
That's why you need Stamps.com, one of the most popular time-saving tools for small businesses.
You have no idea how effective this is in my house.
With all the stuff we have to ship out here, we'd be lost without it.
Stamps.com eliminates trips to the post office, saves you money with discounts that you can't even get at the post office.
Only with Stamps.com.
They bring you all the amazing services of the U.S.
Post Office right to your computer.
Whether you're a small office sending invoices, an online seller shipping out products, or a warehouse sending out thousands of packages a day, Stamps.com handles it all with ease.
Simply use your computer to print official U.S.
postage 24-7 for any letter, any package, any class of mail, anywhere you want to send it.
Once your mail is ready, hand it over to your mail carrier or drop it in a mailbox.
It's really that simple.
With stamps.com, you get five cents off every first class stamp and up to 40% off priority mail.
Those are real savings, folks.
Helps us out here a lot.
With stamps.com, you get, not to mention, it's a fraction of the cost of those expensive postage meters.
Sorry, I'm still getting over that clip.
It's hysterical.
Stamps.com's a real no-brainer.
It saves you time, it saves you money.
It's no wonder over 700,000 small businesses already use Stamps.com.
Right now, my listeners get a special offer that includes a four-week trial, plus free postage and a digital scale without any long-term commitment.
Go to Stamps.com, click on the microphone at the top of the homepage, and type in Dan.
That's Stamps.com, enter Dan.
All right, let's go!
Okay, first story of the day.
I have, you know, I watch a lot of and consume a lot of conservative content.
I produce it myself, but I'm a fan of a bunch of shows.
I mean, I don't just work at Fox.
I enjoy Hannity's show, Ingram's show, and Tucker's show as well.
My wife really likes Tucker's show.
And he had a guest on last night that was incredible.
And rarely will you see The two divergent views of the immigration crisis in America summed up as eloquently as this guest he had on did.
And it's a point I've been making for a long time, Joe.
We talk past each other, liberals and conservatives, because conservatives talk in facts and liberals talk in emotion.
I have these debates with Geraldo a lot where they say, well, we gotta be compassionate.
Great, nice, we are compassionate, but compassion isn't a legislative proposal.
Right.
Compassion, that's not a proposal.
I don't even know what, what are you talking about?
We take in millions of people.
On our side, on the conservative side, we often make the distinction to people who refuse to make this distinction that there is a difference between immigration and illegal immigration.
We are not opponents of legal immigration that's labor-sensitive and done the right way.
Not many I know.
It's a very small number of conservatives who believe that.
Illegal immigration is different.
It's law-breaking.
Liberals like to conflate the two.
So Tucker had this guest on last night.
He is a professor, an associate professor at a university.
And listen to the way he sums this up.
He does a really great job of explaining this.
Lumping legal and illegal immigration together is not only wrong, it's deeply offensive.
It's like lumping pharmacists and drug dealers together and calling an illegal immigrant a, quote, undocumented immigrant is like calling a drug dealer, quote, an unlicensed pharmacist.
Or a student who intentionally cheated on a test, a quote, answer key borrower.
There have been numerous studies Harvard professor George Borjas has conducted the most in-depth statistical analysis on the negative consequences of illegal immigration on the American economy and how that directly lowers the incomes of high school graduates, those with less than a high school diploma in the United States.
I always vote in every single election.
I'm a proud Georgia Republican.
I vote in the Republican primary.
And I'm going to work as hard as I can to help my friend, Congresswoman Karen Handel, get re-elected in 2020 in the Georgia 6th District.
For one thing is, the United States has 12 million illegal immigrants.
No other country on earth has 12 million illegal immigrants and gives birthright citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants.
So if you look at Canada, you look at Australia, they have a merit-based immigration system that gives priority to those with college degrees, English-speaking skills, and job skills that can contribute to their economy.
So they have very few illegal immigrants.
I mean what, I don't understand what he said that's even controversial.
Of course that appearance always generates a bunch of negative emotions on the left because they can't make the distinction or they, I shouldn't say they can't, they refuse to make the distinction Between what will be a net benefit to our country in the long run, people who want to be here, people who want to be here through the legal process, people who want to be here and work and contribute and add value, create companies, create jobs, create wealth, create prosperity, create charity.
Ladies and gentlemen, I am not, and no conservative I know, and I hate to even phrase it this way because you get to this, when did you stop beating your wife stuff?
Right.
But nobody I know in the conservative movement would be against productive, you know, God-fearing people wanting to come to the United States to work hard and add value and who want to abide by the legal process.
I don't, that's not the argument.
The argument is about others who say, eh, those rules ain't so much for me.
I'm outie.
See you later.
I know I don't discuss it a lot, but that was really the way to sum it up.
And what he describes in the beginning is the euphemisms game the Democrats play all the time.
Euphemisms, you know, oddly phrased terminology to get you to believe something is really undocumented.
They're not undocumented.
They broke the law.
They're not undocumented.
They're illegal immigrants.
They're here illegally.
It's not a word game.
It's not a pejorative or an attack to say that.
It's just a fact.
You came here as an immigrant illegally, making you an illegal immigrant.
They'll say, no person is illegal.
No one's saying their personhood is illegal.
Oddly, we're the ones who argue for personhood because we're pro-life.
They're on the other side of that, for anti-personhood.
No one's saying, no person is illegal.
We're not saying the person is illegal.
We're saying the definition of their immigration status, if they came here illegally, not through a port of entry in violation of our law, it is illegal the way they did it.
And we have to stop letting Democrats play the PC culture game and define the language for us.
I said on Sean Hannity's show last night when I was discussing PC.
PC culture is a guided missile.
It hones in on a target, conservatives, but the guided missile can change paths.
And they can change the rules in a minute.
And I used the example last night of how, in a heartbeat, the Democrats decided that using pronouns he and she makes someone somehow trans-o-phobic, homo-phobic, pho-bo-phobic, is-to-phobic, pho-bo-phobe.
When did they decide that?
We've been using he-she pronouns since the inception of the English language.
All of a sudden, it makes someone trans-phobic to talk like people have talked about men and women for hundreds, thousands of years?
You see how, Joe, they changed what we talked about?
Remember I told you the thing about how to refer to gay men or women?
They said if you refer to them as homosexuals, or maybe it's the other way around.
I don't even remember the article.
I use this example a lot.
That if you use the wrong word, you're homophobic.
And everybody's like, what?
What are you even talking about?
The guided missile hones in on conservatives, but it changes course all the way out, and it changes like this so you can't take it out.
That's the damage of PC culture and this constant conflation of legal with illegal immigrants.
We are not talking about immigrants.
We are talking about people who break the law.
Now, why is this such a devastating crisis?
Look at this piece at IJ Review.
Again, the Democrats want to tell you none of this stuff exists.
The acting DHS secretary reveals a whopping percentage of migrants don't show up for their court hearings.
Well, what's whopping mean?
How many asylum seekers, because many of them aren't seeking asylum, they're seeking jobs and economic opportunity, but you could do that through legal means.
They just refuse to obey the law.
Joe, how many... I'm not setting you up here, but what percentage of people seeking asylum who have a court hearing, what percentage would you say shows up for their hearing?
I'd say...
20% at the most, maybe?
Unbelievably, even at that low number.
Yeah.
In other words, Joe's saying 80% don't show up.
Right, right.
Unbelievably, even at that low number, Joe, you'd be wrong.
Wow!
Joe and I, I'm not messing with you.
I'm like, hey Joe, say 80%.
That was his legitimate guess.
The number of migrants who enter the U.S.
after seeking asylum and are a no-show for their court date is staggering.
DHS Secretary Kevin McAleenan told the Senate Judiciary Committee that 90% of asylum seekers who come into the country are not to be seen again.
Joe, I gotta tell you Joe, before I read that, I kind of, you know, I'd done some homework on it before, but a normal person would say, oh I'm a 50% and that's horrible!
So you're telling me 50% of people who come into the country illegally are just gaffing off the entire judicial process whatsoever?
90!
90% are not showing up.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is devastating, devastating stuff.
This is a monster crisis of historic magnitude at our border, and the Democrats continue to ignore it as if nothing's going on.
And they continue to make and paint conservatives out to be xenophobic, you know, Anti-immigrant, anti-Hispanic, this is all garbage, it's complete nonsense.
My wife's an immigrant to the country, how do I get over my dreaded hatred for immigrants?
One quick thing too, I know personal anecdotes, but I was in the gym the other day with This nice guy, he came up and I was in the middle of doing something and he said, listen, my wife is in the Zumba class.
She'd love to come out and take a picture with it.
And I was leaving in a few minutes.
So I said, sure, no problem.
I said, I have to, but I really do have to, I did.
I was in like a major time crunch.
So he goes and gets her and he looked Greek.
I don't really know, maybe Greek or Italian.
I'm not really sure, but he comes out and his wife was, was Asian.
And his wife was getting a little choked up, and if he's listening, he says he listens to my show, don't know what I'm talking about.
And she was talking about how she's an immigrant to this country legally, and she loves this place.
And I said, you know what?
Thank you.
You are everything this country represents.
You're a hardworking, patriotic, you know, American citizen.
Whether you're conservative, she's obviously conservative, but conservative or not, if you love this country, that's enough.
God bless you.
You are what this country's about.
I just wish the Democrats would stop the nonsense personal attacks on us, conflating illegal immigration, obvious violations of the law, and trying to make it out that conservatives don't somehow want the doors to be shut permanently.
That's just not true.
You're just making it up.
As always.
Speaking of making stuff up.
I dug into a very complicated topic.
I got a lot of feedback on episode 999.
Now, I use Joe as the audience ombudsman.
You know, the sad thing is now that Joe and I have been at it for so long, Joe actually becomes a less effective ombudsman.
Because Joe's heard a lot of this a lot.
Yeah, we talked about that yesterday.
But yeah, Joe, when I got off the air, I discussed the information laundering operation the Obama administration was running, and how that's the real Spygate scandal.
It's not Trumpgate, it's not Russiagate.
Those are symptoms, those are real things.
Trumpgate meaning the spying on Trump, Russiagate meaning the collusion hoax.
But those are symptoms of a larger scandal we've been hammering home to my audience here for as long as I can remember now.
The Obama administration weaponized the government to take out political opponents and effectively spy on them.
They created an entire intelligence apparatus outside of the CIA, DIA, NSA and others to create bogus streams of intelligence to advance their political narratives.
I'd say about 90% of the emails were overwhelmingly positive and most of you got it.
About 10% didn't.
So my wife put together a little chart.
It's real simple, but it'll explain basically the connections between those people.
I'm not going to relitigate that again.
When we get the chart up, I'll do it.
This is what she's basically, this is the law.
What I said, yes, my notebook, I take my, but this is basically what it's going to look like.
You can see the back notes on the other page too.
You know, it's funny.
If you look at the bottom, look at the, if you see the bottom, for those of you listening at WhatsApp, Paula, Oh, well Paula wants me to pretend this is the official chart here, but I'd actually prefer you leave this up for a sec, because it's pretty funny.
Because if you notice on the bottom, if you can see through, I wrote on the other side of the page, the Satan cakes party is back.
Because the guy, remember the guy?
Jack Phillips, the Colorado baker, is being sued for not producing a cake for a wedding.
He didn't want it for a gay wedding.
Well, and then they wanted him to produce a Satan cake.
Well, they're suing the guy again.
I was going to talk about that yesterday.
But that chart really shows the stream of people between the Russians and their back channel.
You know what, let me look at it here because it'll make more sense.
I'm sorry folks, but I really need you to get this.
And even for the 10% who didn't, before I go into the second portion of the show, I'm just going to quickly do this again.
They needed a back channel for intelligence.
Understand.
There is an official intelligence operation with the United States.
Everybody gets that.
We have these 17 intelligence agencies.
What they do is they transmit intelligence that's vetted to the president so he can make policy decisions.
Barack Obama wanted the Iran deal.
He wanted the Iran deal badly.
In order to get the Iran deal, he could not use vetted intelligence through our intelligence channels because the intel we had about the Iranians wanting to kill us, Joe, was not good.
Does that make sense so far?
Yeah.
So look at this chart.
You'll see that in the chart there is a channel he created for, and this is why I put the fork in the chart, for an alternate intelligence channel.
What he did was they created this Dear Love, Richard Dear Love, Who was a former British intelligence guy who had been dealing with Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence guy, who passed information to Jonathan Weiner at the State Department, who then gave it to the DOJ, and the information leaked to the media.
This information created an alternate stream through some of their friends in the United Kingdom's intelligence services, former, who would then streamline information, get it to the media, and create a de facto alternate intelligence channel.
They would then use Halper, who's friends with Dearlove, who is the CIA's intelligence asset for the United States, to go and attack Mike Flynn, Page, and Papadopoulos.
When I say attack, I mean trying to get negative information on them by spying on them.
Halper then passes the information to the CIA, the FBI uses it, and they use it to get a FISA.
Now, who's Trebnikov in the beginning?
For the Russia part of it, the Russiagate scandal, Trebnikov is a Russian, a former Russian intelligence head.
Trebnikov worked with Halper on a course they taught at Cambridge in the United Kingdom.
Halper works with Derlov.
They know this former Russian.
Trebnikov is also, claims, Steele claims, is one of his sources for information.
So when they needed information on Russia, Again, not just to take out Trump who hated the Iran deal, they go to a Russian source who is a Putin stooge, Tribnikov, passes it on through Steele and others.
Steele gives information to Weiner.
This is how they created this whole back channel.
Okay, now, the second one was the official Paula chart.
The first one was my Satan Cakes chart.
The Satan Cakes part.
Remember that show we did on Satan Cakes, Joe?
The Satan Cakes party?
They wanted this Christian baker to bake a Satan Cake.
Like, come on, libs, really?
I mean, seriously.
Devil of a show, buddy.
That may have been your worst show ever.
No, close.
Do you think so?
I don't know.
I'll put that up.
Number one or two, maybe.
Maybe two.
We'll see.
Now, so that's just kind of a quick primer on yesterday's show, what we did.
And you can listen to yesterday's show where I dig into the fine details of that.
But there is an added bonus to yesterday's show that I left out.
So, keep in mind, they use this intelligence back channel outside of the CIA.
To nail Trump on this fake collusion thing.
But they also used it to advance a political agenda, which was Obama's Iran deal.
Now, as we found out yesterday, here's another story from CNS.
The United Kingdom, conveniently, right around the time the Iran deal was being signed, the dreaded Obama-Iran deal, The United Kingdom may have covered up a Hezbollah bomb factory.
This is an article in CNS News by Patrick Goodenough on June 11th, 2019.
Our article will be up in the show notes.
It is a very good one.
It describes what I discussed with you yesterday, how there was an Iranian cell, terror cell, in northwestern London that was using ice packs to transmit in ammonium nitrate for ANFO bombs, the same bomb used in the Oklahoma City bombing.
This attack was kept quiet.
We just found out about this recently.
I believe we found out about it because the United Kingdom's involvement in this alternate intelligence channel the Obama administration was using, this United Kingdom involvement is all gonna come out.
So I'm thinking the UK is just trying to take a bath right now.
But here's another component about this.
So here's the headline.
What else was the Obama administration hiding, intel-wise, To get their Iran deal pushed through.
Follow me here, Joe.
On one hand, Obama and United Kingdom partners are hiding negative intelligence on the Iranians.
I just showed you what the United Kingdom is hiding in this ice pack and faux bomb scandal.
We just found out about this yesterday.
That plot was uncovered in 2015.
Part two is, well, what was the United States hiding?
While part three is, not only were they hiding the bad stuff, but they were trying to promote good stuff, or what they call good stuff about the Iran deal, through fake intelligence channels they had developed on the side.
So, what was the U.S.
hiding?
Hattip Epic Times, another terrific piece I will have in the show notes today, I strongly encourage you to read by our good friend Jeff Carlson.
Remember this story?
Now, we covered this on the show.
Hezbollah's London bomb-making plot, the Iran nuclear deal, and Bruce Ohr!
Hey!
Makes an appearance again, our buddy Bruce!
Here's a portion of the piece from Jeff Carlson's piece.
Again, it's in the show notes if you want to read it in full.
Available at Bongino.com.
You subscribe to my email list.
I'll send it right to you.
You remember Operation Project Cassandra?
Well, folks, if you listen to my show for more than a year or so now, I covered this, and according to a lengthy, detailed, and highly critical December 2017 political report, the secret backstory of how Obama let Hezbollah, Hezbollah!
Off the hook!
The Obama administration may have derailed a campaign targeting drug trafficking by the Iranian-backed terrorist group Hezbollah, known as Project Cassandra.
What else was the Obama administration hiding?
Ladies and gentlemen, what was Project Cassandra?
It was a joint DEA government operation which uncovered holes in our southern border being used to traffic in money, being a traffic in drugs, to benefit Iranian terror groups.
Now, it's an 11-page political report.
It's sublinked in Jeff Carlson's piece right there we just put up, so you can read it if you'd like.
It's an older piece.
And it discusses how the Obama administration threw up obstacles at every possible turn in the case to make sure this case was not either prosecuted or never went public.
Project Cassandra effectively got buried because it would have made the Iranians look bad.
Kind of like uncovering an ANFO bomb ice pack scandal in the middle of Northwest London in 2015 involving Hezbollah operatives as well, which magically disappeared up until recently when Trump threatened to declassify, or actually gave an order to declassify, the information in this back channel.
Don't lose yourself in what I'm talking about here.
The Obama administration is using intelligence channels to, fake intelligence channels, Steele, Weiner, State Department people, not intel people, to attack opponents of the Iran deal, Mike Flynn being one of them, to attack them and destroy their credibility while they're simultaneously suppressing and keeping down like a beach ball underwater negative information that could have made it into the press about how the Iranians, how bad the Iranians were.
Obama wanted this Iran deal so badly as his signature foreign policy achievement, along with that hack former Secretary of State John Kerry, that they did everything they could to hide information about terror attacks, terror operations, terror financing on our southern border.
They did everything they could to hide it.
Now folks, what is absolutely devastating about this is Trump hated the Iran deal from the start.
It was no mystery on his campaign.
The Iran deal was D-O-A if he got into office.
Dead on arrival.
So the people involved in the Iran deal How to fabricate Russiagate.
Remember, Russiagate, Trumpgate, Spygate, they're symptoms of a bigger weaponization thing.
Obama weaponizes the government to take out Trump with the collusion hoax, ironically using some of the same players you saw in that chart involved in taking out Mike Flynn earlier in 2015, who was an opponent of the Iran deal.
It's the same players, it's the same game every time.
Dear Love, Halper, Spy Channels, Jonathan Weiner, the State Department, Christopher Steele.
These are all intel surrogates for the Obama administration to bypass intel channels, to take out their enemies, to advance their sick political agenda, which was taking care of the death to America-Iranians.
Russiagate's just a symptom of that.
It's just a symptom.
Here's another piece.
From Jeff Carlson.
I want you to remember the names here.
Well, the headline gives it up.
From the Carlson piece, who was deeply involved in Project Cassandra?
Quote, while the Politico article makes no mention of Osadef or Bruce Ohr, Fox News confirmed in January of 2018 that Bruce Ohr, as the head of Osadef, was directly involved with Project Cassandra, the interagency investigation spearheaded by the DEA that tracked a massive international drug and money laundering scheme allegedly run by Hezbollah.
Folks, it's the same players.
It's the same game.
Obama, regular intelligence channel, CIA.
That's not good enough.
Forked intelligence channel.
Let's use these people.
Halper, Dearlove, Weiner.
Yeah, but none of those people are CIA, NSA, DIA, Army Intel.
It doesn't matter.
They'll give us what we want to hear.
Information to attack Trump and information to get our Iran deal through.
It's the same players!
Ladies and gentlemen, Bruce Ohr was the OCDEF guy who was deeply involved in Project Cassandra as the Obama administration was trying to make Project Cassandra go away.
Because it made the Iranians look bad.
The DEA agents were complaining, Bruce Ohr does nothing!
Bruce Orr is the same guy who on July 30th meets with Steele, Christopher Steele, July 30th, 2016, and then the next day, or immediately goes over to FBI headquarters, and the next day, the FBI opens up a case on Trump.
Are you tracking?
Oh yeah, yeah.
The same guy involved at the upper levels of a DOJ that scuttles a big massive Iranian Hezbollah money laundering scheme, makes it go away for the Iran deal, is also the same guy who meets with Steele, works as a conduit for Steele?
And then passes information to the FBI, and then literally the next day on a Sunday, they go into headquarters and open up a case on Trump?
Ladies and gentlemen, Trump was an enemy of the Iran deal too.
It's all the same players.
It's all the same game.
That's why I've said to you from the start, remember the names.
Commit to memory the names in this case.
Trebnikov, Serkhov, Steele, Weiner, Victoria Nuland, Dmitry Peskov, Bruce Ohr, Nelly Ohr.
Because when you see these names creep up again, it'll automatically click.
So let me get this straight.
Bruce Ohr was a DOJ manager who had oversight responsibilities for Project Cassandra that the Obama administration scuttled because it made the Iranians look bad?
Bruce Ohr is also involved with Christopher Steele, who's on a back channel of intelligence, working with Dearlove and Halper and others, that attacked Mike Flynn, the enemy of the Iran deal.
The only point is these people all know each other!
It was an intelligence syndicate of off-the-books intelligence, used to weaponize government assets to attack people they didn't like!
It's as simple as that!
What else are they hiding?
Now you see why the Democrats are in a panic over impeachment?
Trump was gonna blow up this garbage Iran deal.
And they all panicked.
The same guy who sidelines Cassandra goes to the FBI and has them open up a case against Trump.
Unbelievable.
All right, I've got a lot more to get to.
Today's show also brought to you by our buddies at BrickHouse Nutrition.
Listen, BrickHouse makes the finest, finest nutrition supplements on the market.
One of my favorites is Fielder Greens.
You can see it up on the screen if you're watching on youtube.com slash bongino.
Field of Greens, you know, I asked Miles, he's the owner of the company, a long time ago.
I said, I was taking another product, it wasn't as good.
And I said, would you please do me this favor?
I have a tough time eating my necessary fruits and vegetables during the day.
Listen, everybody knows voluminous consumption of fruits and vegetables is the key to a long, healthy, productive life.
Keeps your cognitive abilities high, good for your immune system.
A healthy diet matters, that's obvious.
The problem is, a healthy diet with everybody running around, you got people going to soccer games, going to work, it's tough.
So I said, Miles, can you create the highest quality fruit and vegetable powder out there?
So what did they do?
They went out in conjunction with their nutrition supplement designers, And they got the highest quality fruits and vegetables out there.
They ground them up into a great tasting powder.
This is real food, folks.
This is not some junk pill, and it is not extract.
The problem is, one of the other things I was taking is extract from food.
This is real food.
Healthy, ground up, high quality fruits and vegetables.
You will look better, you will feel better.
My mother-in-law loves it.
She thinks it's great for her skin.
I love it.
My wife loves it.
She takes it twice a day.
It is called Feel the Greens.
Go pick it up today.
Go to BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
That's BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
Pick up your jar of Feel the Greens.
Look better, feel better, perform better.
It is a terrific product.
I love it.
I personally vouch for it.
It has done those things for me.
Feel the Greens.
BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
Go check it out today.
Throw it in water, green tea, your protein shake.
I'd like to throw it in some V8 sometimes.
It's really good.
Feel the greens, go check it out.
BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
Okay, moving on.
Joe, did that make sense?
Again, as the audience ombudsman.
Folks, if I can't emphasize to you enough, then this is phase two of, one more quick thing on this.
Again, I'm deeply sorry.
But a lot of things will make sense if you get my headline.
The headline is, this was about Obama abusing his government power and his administration.
To create these alternate channels of information outside of how our government is supposed to work.
But now, think about that.
If you keep that in your head, something's gonna make a whole lot of sense now.
That was good.
Christopher Steele, Joe.
Christopher Steele, our famous, or should I say infamous, dossier producer of false information.
Who we now know has been dealing with Jonathan Weiner and Obama's State Department as far back as 2014.
In other words, ladies and gentlemen, this is not new.
Christopher Steele's dossier and his attack on Trump.
Christopher Steele's been working with these people for a long time.
Which begs the obvious question, how many dossiers are out there on how many different other Obama opponents?
Maybe what Hannity said last night about this is bigger than you can imagine.
By the way, I'm getting really sick and tired of a lot of people who attack Sean.
I'm sorry.
I mean, Sean's a friend, granted, but I'm not saying this because he's a friend.
Trust me when I tell you his sources are top-notch.
I don't know where people, oh, he keeps saying TikTok.
Yeah, that's because it's, he can't, one, he's not going to give you classified information because no one's going to give it to him.
But he does have sources that have indicated this is bigger.
He's not making it up.
He's already number one in the race.
He doesn't have to make stuff up.
But one of the things will start to make sense now.
Joe, did you notice last week, remember we discussed Christopher Steele, fake dossier, collusion hoaxer, right?
Yeah.
Steele has now agreed to an interview.
Yes.
With some of the investigators doing the background investigation on the FISA abuse due to his dossier.
All of a sudden, after the declassification order, Christopher Steele wants to talk.
But notice what he said, Joe.
He said he was only going to talk about the stuff directly related to his work with the FBI on the Trump dossier.
Uh-huh.
Okay.
How about your work on the other stuff, dude?
Yes!
Thank you!
You know, I can be a little verbose with this.
I was trying to find a way to... That's it.
You just summed it up.
What about the other stuff?
I didn't think there was other stuff.
There was other stuff.
Of course, I'm being facetious.
We knew that.
We've been telling you this for two years.
But the liberals want you to believe this is all about Trumpgate, Spygate.
This is about Obamagate.
What do you mean you only want it to only?
I thought all you did was produce the dossier for the FBI for Trump.
Wait, you were producing other information too?
Now does it make sense?
This intelligence backchannel is the scandal.
There are no backchannels for intelligence in a constitutional republic, Joe.
That's not the way this works.
You don't get to have a secret intelligence and police force.
You don't get to do that.
We have good people in our intel community and in our law enforcement community working hard every day and I refuse to forfeit that because I've worked with them who do good work.
Why would you not use them?
You want to create your own side intelligence operation?
OTB Joe off the books?
Like a little secret police force of thugs running around to create dossiers?
Do you understand now also why Steele doesn't want to talk about the other stuff, but also why Nunes keeps talking about how none of the information used to start this Trump investigation was official intelligence?
Ladies and gentlemen, I'm telling you, we have people out there who are good folks who would have called BS on this.
I know it.
Because I know guys and women in the Secret Service I worked with who would not sign off on something like that.
Because their reputations and their integrity matter.
That's why he had his off-the-books intel operation.
Steele, Weiner.
Dearlove, passing information on.
Trebnikov, giving him information.
Because good people would have called BS.
You don't have to create a secret police force.
I'm sorry.
Alright.
Moving on.
So Paul Krugman...
We're going to change course here.
Talk about a little economic stuff.
Yeah.
Joe calls him Freddy Krugman.
He's a mess.
Paul Krugman is, unbelievably, won a PhD for economics.
It's just embarrassing.
He can't even get basic facts right.
I mean, forget about complicated items like, you know, our government bonds, net worth, or anything like that.
Krugman, you know, those are detailed econometric analysis you can do, and they're great, and I love them.
You know, Bob Barrow did some Solid work on that.
But Krugman can't even get basic stuff right.
This guy's a PhD, he should return it immediately.
He sent out these two tweets, which I'm going to show you just by pure common sense or utterly ridiculous.
So here's his first tweet trying to, again, attack tax cuts.
He says, no idea in economics has been thoroughly tested and has completely rejected As the notion that tax cuts pay for themselves.
The reason it has been tested so much is that Republicans keep insisting that it's true.
The second one.
And base policies on the claim.
And then when it fails, which it has done time and time again, from Bush to Trump, from D.C.
to Kansas, they pretend not to notice and do it over again.
Okay.
Just to be sure, keep that up one second.
Look at this split-screen technology.
Man!
This is... Did you just figure that out now?
Nice!
We're like developing all kinds of fancy little doodads on the YouTube channel, youtube.com slash Bongino.
So we're talking rationally, unlike Krugman.
I just want to repeat what he's saying here in this second tweet.
Krugman's supposed to be a PhD in economics.
He's saying that tax cuts have not paid for... pay for themselves is a dumb way of describing it.
No one's saying anything pays for itself.
The Republican suggestion is that tax cuts can lead to economic growth, Which can lead to higher tax revenue.
But Krugman uses euphemisms in the euphemism game because he's, you know, he's silly.
No one's saying they pay for themselves.
We're saying that they'll generate enough tax revenue where we will generate more tax revenue from the tax cuts than we would have with your higher tax rates.
You get it?
So his premise should be testable, Joe.
So his premise should state, if he's talking about from Bush to Trump, from DC to Kansas, He's suggesting that the Trump tax cuts and the Bush tax cuts somehow cost the government money, right?
Folks, tell me you're following me.
This is a very simple premise.
Krugman's saying you're an idiot.
He's suggesting that when we cut taxes, there's some major loss in tax revenue and that they do not, in turn, the government does not, in turn, raise more money.
You got it?
Yep.
Tax cuts, government loses money.
By the way, I don't really care.
I just want to be crystal clear on this.
I care not a hoot if the government loses money because American citizens get to keep it.
I don't care.
But I'm just suggesting to you as a matter of reason that this is an easily testable hypothesis if you have common sense.
How do we test it?
It's not hard, folks.
It's hard for Krugman, of course.
We can look at what happened after the Bush tax cuts and we can see if the government lost money, as Krugman is suggesting, or if the government, in fact, made more money after the tax cuts.
Paul, am I doing okay?
Okay, Joe, this is not hard, right?
Because I know there are liberals listening.
This is easily provable.
Tax cuts either cost the government money or they didn't.
Let's go to the Washington Times because Krugman says in his tweet in front of everybody that the Bush tax cuts obviously must have cost the government money.
Dwyer!
Bush tax cuts boosted federal revenue!
Washington Times, February 3rd, 2010.
I will put this piece in the show notes, even though it's older, so you can read it yourself in case you think you're a liberal and you think I'm just making this up.
From the Dwyer piece in the Washington Times in 2010.
But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was the 2003 Bush tax cuts, which also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts.
From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by, increased by, increased by, increased by... That's not a sound error.
Increased by $785 billion.
The largest four-year increase in American history.
According to the Treasury, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40% in the three years following the Bush tax cuts.
Alright.
So what you're saying, Dan, is that after the Bush tax cuts, the government's revenue increased.
Is that right?
Joe, I know like you're half messing around, but I don't know any easier way to explain.
Joe is toying with the liberals, not you.
The real shame of this, folks, and I do mean it, is that I have to, it's not wasted time, I don't want to say waste your time, because there are legitimately some conservatives, you're busy, you don't have time to research tax receipts.
Some of you may not know this, But now what I'm telling you is fact.
Just go to the government's treasury revenue tables.
Yeah.
Bush cut taxes.
Revenue went up.
What Krugman is telling you in his tweet is patently false!
Well, no one's saying anything pays for itself.
Republicans, some Republicans say that, but they word it wrong.
Conservative orthodoxy is that some tax cuts will generate economic growth, which by said economic growth, will generate more tax growth.
As people buy more stuff, they pay more sales taxes.
They then earn more money at companies and pay higher income taxes.
They then pay more into Social Security and Medicare.
These entitlement funds?
That fact has been proven out by- I mean, just read the article!
Just read the article!
Krugman is lying to you!
So you may say, well Dan, he said from Bush to Trump, so clearly he's talking about Trump too.
Okay, let's go to the Investor's Business Daily article about the Trump's tax cuts.
Go figure!
Federal revenues hit all-time highs under Trump tax cuts.
Investor's Business Daily, 10-16-2018.
I can't believe it.
It doesn't even matter.
Liberals are so brain-dead.
None of this will matter.
Can you please put up from the piece, Paula?
Just because I need to read this to you.
It says, true, the first three months of the fiscal year were before the tax cuts kicked in, but if you limit the accounting to this calendar year, individual income tax revenues are up 5% through September.
Other major sources of revenue climbed as well, as the overall economy revived.
FICA tax collections rose by more than 3%, excise taxes jumped by 13%.
The only category that was down?
Corporate income taxes had dropped by 31%.
Which, ladies and gentlemen, is to be expected in the first year of a major corporate tax overhaul where we dropped the rate from 35 to 21.
But that recovered as well after this article.
Tax revenues were up!
Not down!
Up!
Do we need a diagram in here?
Do we need, like, a compass?
Couple arrows.
Up!
Arrow up, arrow down.
Oh my gosh!
Arrow- Paula, can you put that in there?
Up!
Up!
Arrow up!
That's awful.
Push it!
He's lying!
This guy is just making this up!
Krugman is making this up!
It did not cost the government money!
Tax cuts, economic growth, higher salaries.
Higher salaries mean people pay higher taxes.
That's why, this is not hard!
So let's debunk more of his stupidity.
You may be saying, oh well, alright, so he said Bush to Trump, but clearly he left out Reagan.
And now I know Joe's cringing because he's heard this argument so many times.
He's getting ready to retch.
You may say, he clearly wanted to put Reagan in there.
Because the Reagan tax cuts most definitely, most definitely cost the government money.
Yeah.
I'll get to that in a second.
Okay.
I don't want to, yeah.
Please don't go anywhere.
Because this is my favorite one.
They tell you never to wag the finger, but I'm sorry.
You don't go anywhere.
This is, this is going to be great.
All right.
Today's show also brought to you by our buddies at Omaha.
We love Omaha.
Omaha steaks sent us a package.
Um, we ate it in one night.
Paula thought it was going to be food for the week.
That was funny.
She's like, ah, we're going to have meatballs and chicken.
I'm like, no, I'm eating those like right now.
So I ate the whole thing because Omaha has the most delicious food.
Let me just tell you what I ate.
This is seriously what we ate over a day and a half.
I ate most of this on the first night.
Here's what you'll get for their Father's Day Steak Gift Package, a $235 value, now only $59.99.
You hear that?
This is a $235 value for $59.99 if you go to omahasteaks.com and enter code BONGINO in the search bar.
Thank you to all our listeners, by the way, who sent me pictures of their Omaha Steaks Gift Package.
I promise, this is some of the best food out there.
It's delicious.
You will get two tender filet mignons.
My mouth is watering.
Two bold top sirloins.
Two savory pork chops.
Four Omaha Steaks burgers that are unparalleled.
There's nothing like it out there.
Four massive gourmet jumbo franks.
Four crispy chicken fried steaks.
My wife loved those.
All beef meatballs.
I ate the whole bowl.
Four premium chicken breasts.
We blackened them.
They couldn't have been more delicious.
Four caramel apple tartlets for dessert.
My mother-in-law's favorite.
A packet of Omaha Steaks famous signature seasoning.
And you'll get four extra Omaha Steaks burgers free.
Give this amazing package as a gift for dad or stock up on incredible summer grilling all at 74% off.
Folks, this food is delicious.
Your mouth will water just smelling those blackened chicken breasts and those burgers.
Again, order now, get this exclusive Omaha Steaks Father's Day Steak Fix package valued at $235 for just $59.99.
Go to omahasteaks.com and type code BONGINO into the search bar.
Don't wait, this offer ends soon.
Omahasteaks.com, type BONGINO in the search bar and get this Father's Day Steak Fix package today.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is one of America's oldest butchers.
Their food is fantastic.
Okay, getting back to this.
So again, You'd say to yourself, okay, Krugman's trying to make the point.
Tax cuts cost the government money.
Bush, he's wrong on that.
Trump, wrong on that too.
Well, the Reagan tax cuts definitely cost the money.
You'd be wrong on that too.
Here's a Wall Street Journal piece I love.
Yes, by Phil Graham and Michael Salon from August 3rd of 2017.
Reagan cut taxes, revenue boom.
You know what?
We need that buzzer.
That buzzer.
That show.
I'm thinking of that show.
What's that show with the noise?
Remember that with the little... No, no.
They had the annoyed guy.
They had that... Like the little annoyed guy.
We need... Because they're never right on anything.
From the Wall Street Journal piece.
What happened if the Reagan cut taxes?
Surely the government lost a lot of money.
From the piece, when Reagan left office, real federal revenue was more than 19% higher than it was the day of his first inauguration.
How is that?
How is that?
He cut taxes.
He cut the top tax rate from 70 to 28%.
How was revenue 19% higher?
It goes on.
A major recession had been overcome.
Inflama- oh, inflammation.
Thinking of my arthritis.
Inflation had been broken.
Maybe that too.
The tax code had been indexed to eliminate bracket creep.
And the largest tax cut of the post-war era had been implemented.
The Reagan tax cuts and the boom they created stand as the most successful policy initiative in recovery of the post-war era, the polar opposite of Mr. Obama's program and economy.
Wow.
Do you understand this guy was wrong on everything?
The Reagan tax cuts.
More tax revenue.
The Bush tax cuts.
Historic tax revenue.
The Trump tax cuts.
Tax cuts of revenues relatively flat, but it's not gone down.
Now, income tax revenue after the Trump taxes has gone up.
So has Social Security payments and FICA taxes.
Their argument is false.
One last one, because you'll hear this at the state level.
Another one?
Well, Kansas.
Yeah, we've discussed this a lot.
This case is a little more complicated.
Kansas, because of what happened with the spending on the Kansas side.
But Kansas cut taxes, and granted, the program did not go off swimmingly.
But again, liberals love to tell you that Kansas tax cuts failed, as if it's black or white.
They did not fail.
Here's from the American Legislative Exchange Council.
Alec.
Distinguishing myth from reality, the Kansas tax reform effort.
Remember, I'm bringing this up because Krugman says in his tweets, from D.C.
to Kansas, from the piece, there's a big myth about this.
The myth, tax cuts created Kansas' budget crisis.
Reality.
Over the years, politicians created a budget failure by refusing to match the tax cuts with meaningful spending control or broadening of the tax base.
Get a load of this at the end.
If general fund spending growth had been held to the rate of inflation throughout this period, Fiscal 2017 spending would be $1.12 billion less, dwarfing the predicted deficit.
In other words, folks, in common sense talk, if Kansas had just cut spending as well, they wouldn't have this deficit.
Their deficit, just like the federal government's deficit, is not because of tax cuts, Joseph, it's because of out-of-control government spending.
It is the case every single time.
Krugman is lying to you.
Tax cuts have the benefit of number one, allowing, dreaded air quotes, because it's your money, allowing you to keep more of your own money, number one.
And secondly, leading to booms in our economy because people spend and invest more, which as a byproduct of that, I don't even want, I don't want the government to have more money.
An interesting byproduct of that is that even liberals win because the government generates more tax revenue, which liberals love to spend.
It is a win all around, but Krugman is lying to you.
Now, Paul, can I skip around a little bit?
I want to go to this Bernie story up at foxnews.com.
So Bernie is giving a speech.
Bernie Sanders is going to make a speech today to make his case for democratic socialism in a major speech.
The reason I'm bringing up this Krugman story is because what they're doing is, ladies and gentlemen, none of what liberals do is done just on a whim.
Liberals are very tactical.
I don't like their ideology.
I don't like their big government economic confiscation.
I don't like any of their stuff.
But they are very tactical and they're very politically savvy and they never do things and they never waste time.
Krugman's tweet and these others and people out there, what they're doing is they're softening you up before the election to the idea that higher taxes are some net benefit for society.
They're not.
They're a disaster.
I think we just pretty conclusively made that case.
No need to re-litigate it here.
But I find it convenient that this stuff, well, it's not just Krugman, it's Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and others, that it comes out along with these Democrat groups right around the time where Bernie Sanders is gonna try to make the case for socialism.
Ladies and gentlemen, there is no such thing as democratic socialism.
I've repeatedly said this.
Socialism is the government control of the means of production.
What Bernie Sanders is gonna lay out in his speech is a series of what he believes to be rights.
Right to this, right to that.
Whenever you hear the word rights, I want you to, by instinct, Instantaneously, ask yourself, by declaring a right, a right to housing, a right to some income level, a right to a middle class income, whenever you hear that sounds great, doesn't it?
Everybody should have the right to that.
Everybody should have a path to that.
But when you declare right, I want you to instantly think of the term obligation.
Declaring something a right always confers an obligation on someone else.
If you have the right to housing, it means that someone that built that house has to give you that house because it's your right.
I declare the right of prima nocte!
I think of Braveheart every time when I see that.
Really?
So you're declaring the right of prima nocte of every event?
Listen, it's a family-friendly show, but for those of you who've seen Braveheart, you remember what the right of prima nocte was the first night?
Mm-hmm.
Who knows if it was made up or not.
We don't like that, no.
Right, this English lord comes in to a Scottish wedding and he claims the bride, claims on the first night.
You get what I mean?
First night, yeah.
Now you could declare that a right all you want, but that creates a pretty disgusting obligation on behalf of someone else, does it not?
You can't declare rights, folks.
You don't just declare the right to housing.
Declare the right to housing?
Meaning what?
Meaning I have to build you a house?
It's my right!
It's my right!
It's not your right!
You can't declare rights.
The rights you have are rights instilled by negative liberties given to the government.
In other words, what the Bill of Rights says the government can't do to you.
The right to free speech.
The right to petition the government.
The right to practice your religion.
The right to assemble.
The right to bear arms.
These are things the government can't take away from you.
Not rights granted by the government.
Bernie Sanders wants to empower his own, God forbid, presidency to take rights away from you.
Not to give them.
You may say, how's that, Dan?
He just said he wants to give the right to a home and a fair wage.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
That's not what he wants to do.
What he wants to do is use his presidency to take away the rights of landowners and people who work for a living to do with their income and their land as they please and create an obligation on them to give those products and services away to others for free who don't want to work for them.
He's not giving anybody a right.
He's conferring an obligation on someone else.
Don't miss the distinction.
It is the distinction that matters.
It's the only distinction.
It is my right!
Remember in the middle of the movie?
The guy who lost his wife on the first night wasn't so happy.
You know?
That's what happens when you declare rights, like, I mean, you can't just declare a big R god-given right on something without understanding that there's a hard obligation put on someone else.
You have the right to a certain wage.
Meaning what?
Meaning I can walk into any business in America, whether they can afford that wage that's my right or not, that I can walk in there and demand that wage?
But sir, you don't have the skills for this job.
It's my right!
$50,000 a year.
We don't have $50,000 to give you.
It's my right!
Bernie wants to use concentrated government power to create an obligation on employers, landholders, and others.
He wants to take away your liberty.
It's declaring a right isn't giving you freedom, it's taking it away.
Please, please, please understand the distinction between a right and an obligation.
The government declaring through a Bill of Rights that it doesn't have the power to take away your right to free speech does not confer an obligation on someone else.
It only confers an obligation on the government to secure that right via contract law and other forms of law enforcement.
Don't ever forget that.
When you're listening to this Bernie speech, understand, he is not granting rights to anyone.
He is simply putting a burden on the back of an obligation on someone else.
And that eventually is going to come back to haunt you too.
Alright folks, thanks again for tuning in.
Your loyalty over 1,000 episodes or so, I really appreciate it.
You're the best audience around.
You know, we asked for that survey a couple weeks ago, and I use this, I was talking to a friend about how great you are as an audience.
And they're like, well, how loyal do you think your audience is?
I said, well, the actual, you know, survey return rate, we did a survey a couple weeks ago.
As probably, what, I don't know, Paula, 1%, 2%, 3%?
You send that an email asking around.
Our return rate was ridiculous.
Like, so off the charts that it just goes to show how great and wonderful you are to me, and it is really, to me, Joe and Paula, it is so touching.
I hope to give you 10,000 more episodes, but thank you so much for your continued loyalty.
It means the world to me.
I will see you all tomorrow.
You're the best.
Thanks so much.
You just heard The Dan Bongino Show.
You can also get Dan's podcasts on iTunes or SoundCloud.
