The Democrats Are Tearing Themselves Apart # 1020 (Ep 1020)
In this episode I address the exploding civil war erupting inside the Democrat Party as they turn on each other. I discuss new questions for Bill Clinton and his statements about the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. I also address a stunning new piece addressing the scheme by John Brennan to try to take down the Trump team. Finally I address the panic over the trade deficit and why you shouldn’t be overly concerned. News Picks:Was the whole Spygate scandal a coverup of a dirty intelligence operation?
AOC quotes a Nazi sympathizer in a tweet.
Breaking: ICE raids to begin on Sunday.
There are numerous problems with Bill Clinton’s statement about Jeffrey Epstein.
House Democrats delete tweet after realizing they used an Obama era photo of migrant kids in cages.
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.
Hi, welcome to the Dan Bongino Show, broadcasting from the Trump International Hotel in D.C.
As I told you all, I'm here for the social media conference at the White House.
I will let you know tomorrow how it goes.
I'm really excited about it.
So some people in the lobby you may know who are here for the conference as well.
Producer Joe is here, folks.
Have no fear.
He's up in Maryland.
You just can't hear him, because we do these remote shows.
We only have a couple lines.
There's me and Paula.
Paula, who's off to the right, recording this show.
We don't miss shows for you here.
So thanks again for tuning in.
I got a stacked show for you today, including, you know, what have I told you over and over repeatedly?
That identity politics is cannibalistic, right?
Constantly lobbying charges of racism, misogyny, xenophobia at people and finding out that it works when you make it up.
Listen, if it's real, it's real.
And then you deserve to be bit by the bug.
But If it's not, and you do it and it works, I told you it's cannibalistic that the left was going to eat itself with these fake charges of racism.
It's happening right now.
I've got that, I've got some economics news debunking liberal myths, and I've got another great story about the Spygate drama and this parallel construction scheme I described a few weeks ago, but I don't want you to miss it.
It's fantastic by Paul Sperry at the New York Post.
Check that out.
All right, today's show brought to you by our buddies at SimpliSafe.
Listen, a recent Gallup survey showed Americans worry more about burglary than almost all other crimes.
You don't want some Dude in your house robbing your stuff.
Come on, man.
More than mugging, more than terrorism, more than car theft and murder.
According to studies, just over 10% of break-ins are planned.
They're crimes of opportunity.
Most break-ins happen in the daytime between 6a and 6p.
I don't know if you knew that.
According to the FBI, the average loss in a burglary is over $2,000.
That can be hard to recover from.
There are over 2 million burglaries reported every year.
This one every 13 seconds.
Having been a cop and Secret Service agent myself, I know how important home security is.
I recommend to you SimpliSafe.
We have SimpliSafe in my house.
We love it.
It works.
It's easy.
No contract.
Super easy to use.
Their customer service is top-notch.
SimpliSafe protects your whole home, every window, room, and door with 24-7 monitoring for just a fraction of that cost.
Their police dispatch is up to three and a half times faster because they use video verification.
Can't beat that.
No contracts, hidden fees, or fine print.
They don't need it.
It's designed to blend right into your home.
No wires, no drilling.
It's easy to order, easy to use.
They've won tons of awards, from CNET to the New York Times.
You can't beat it.
Prices are always fair and honest.
Around-the-clock monitoring is just $15 a month.
Visit simplisafe.com slash danbongino.
You'll get free shipping, free shipping and a 60-day risk-free trial.
You've got nothing to lose.
Go to simplisafe.com slash danbongino so they know our show sent you.
That's simplisafe.com slash danbongino.
All right, let's get right into it.
So, As I told you, identity politics, the left relentlessly attacking us with these bogus charges of racism.
They do this for a reason, folks, which I've described to you many times before.
The reason they do it is because it works.
It works because it requires you as an opponent of the left to defend yourself against charges people understand inherently to be abhorrent.
Everybody understands outside of, you know, murder, you know, rape, assault, pedophilia, that racism is one of the more disgusting labels to tar someone with.
So the left's used it for years against conservatives, Republicans, Libertarians, and any of their ideological opponents to tar them.
To tar them disingenuously, knowing it's not true and knowing they'll be forced to respond.
I've warned you repeatedly that this was bound to turn on the left and make the left eat itself alive over time.
Why?
Why?
It's important you understand this.
Because it works.
Have this note.
It works.
I put it on my show sheet today to remind you.
Because it works.
I wish it didn't.
But a compliant media, which refuses to call these people out and say, wait, you just accused this man of being a racist.
Do you have any actual evidence of that?
The media won't do that because the media enjoys this.
The media are leftists themselves.
They're liberal activists at heart.
They're not real journalists.
The media enjoys this.
They enjoy the ideological beatings they can levy upon people with these bogus charges of racism.
So they don't call anybody out on it.
By not calling them out, they incentivize people to do it again because it works.
You get people to answer that question and say, I'm not a racist.
And by answering that question, if you're on the front page of the Washington Post or whatever it is, Congressman Joe Smith, I'm not a racist.
What do people see?
Congressman Joe Smith and the word racist.
Do you get that?
That's why it works.
Because it works as a tactical, effective, strategic weapon on the political battlefield, the left inevitably, when power's at stake, money's at stake, and they're prestigious at stake, leftists were bound to use it on each other to win.
You're already seeing it now.
Here's a tweet by Yasher Ali who covers the media.
Yasher tweets about AOC.
AOC, astonishingly, now this is a great one.
AOC gets tough on Pelosi.
Here's a quote by AOC.
I don't mean qualitatively great.
I mean great in the fact that I told you the left was going to eat itself alive on this.
Here's AOC.
The persistent singling out, it got to a point where it was just outright disrespectful.
She's talking about Nancy Pelosi, by the way.
The explicit singling out of newly elected women of color.
Of course, what does she mean by that?
What she's suggesting now is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, is that the speaker, Nancy Pelosi, is singling her, Ayanna Pressley, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, they call the squad.
Four congresswomen, Democrats, happen to be minority.
She's suggesting AOC that Nancy Pelosi is singling them out for criticism because they are people of color.
Now, ladies and gentlemen.
They are the more progressive members of the Democrat caucus.
They are newly elected.
Some of their proposals are absurd.
Some of the language displayed by some of them is downright anti-Semitic.
The left is afraid of them.
Nancy Pelosi is afraid of them.
And there's a schism developing in the party.
AOC and Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar are what they call the Squad now.
And Ayanna Pressley from Massachusetts.
They don't have any institutional power.
They were elected in small congressional districts of 650,000 members in overwhelmingly Democrat districts.
They have no power.
They couldn't win Senate seats.
They're not going to do anything outside of their congressional district, and they're not going to get their legislation passed because it's so far left it would destroy the Democrat party.
They have no power.
Understand where I'm going with this.
These four members of Congress who are now levying charges of racism at Nancy Pelosi, who I am obviously no fan of, okay, But I don't believe for a second, and I don't think you do either, that Nancy Pelosi's a racist.
I mean, she's ridiculous.
Nancy Pelosi's no better, by the way.
She's lobbed fake charges of racism at Trump the other day.
She's awful, too.
This is like a battle of awfuls.
It's like those races they have with the, you know those mascot races they have at the ballparks where the mascots race?
This is a race of awfuls.
Awful mascots.
So I'm not apologizing for Pelosi, but I'm telling you sincerely, I don't believe Nancy Pelosi's a racist, and AOC doesn't believe that either.
But she knows because she has no organizational, institutional power, and no ability to get anything done because she represents such a radical portion of her party, that the only way to fight back is, again, to use a tactical, battlefield weapon she knows will work, and that's charges of racism.
Ladies and gentlemen, I told you this party would eat itself alive.
Because it's such a devastating, powerful weapon, the temptation to use it is overwhelming.
I'm sorry to, you know, I don't mean to get overly ridiculous here with this guy, and I hate to even promote him, but you even see it with morons like this Joe Walsh.
This guy was an alleged conservative at one time.
He was voted the most corrupt member of Congress.
He has one of the worst listened to radio shows in the country.
His company can't stand him.
Tried to get rid of him repeatedly.
And Joe Walsh jumped in the Brigade last night too, the Identity Politics Brigade, by taking a shot at Tucker Carlson, who was defending himself against Ilhan Omar last night.
As you can see, Joe Walsh, just a real pathetic human being, claiming Tucker Carlson.
He obviously didn't watch the show.
Is some kind of white nationalist or something, because that's what Joe Walsh does, because he's a loser.
So I figured I would just throw that in there.
Sorry, Joe, but living your life as Joe Walsh must be really tough.
I don't know what that's like, so good luck.
All right, moving on, because we have a lot of important stories to get to.
This story is one of my favorites up at Bongino.com.
Please check it out at our show notes today.
Bongino.com.
If you subscribe to our email list, I will email these stories right to you.
Of course, we'd really appreciate if you do that.
The house Democrats are holding this hearing on the immigration crisis at the Southern border.
So they decided they were going to send out a tweet with a little bit of a pictogram in there, right?
And it's kind of funny what they did, what they put in the pictogram there is hysterical.
The picture, In the back, not really a pictogram.
No need to use like, oh, I remember that from the Secret Service.
Everything was a pictogram in our PowerPoint.
Put a pictogram in there!
This picture they use in the background of the tweet where they're trying to attack Trump for his immigration policies at the border.
The House Dems tweet out this photo and the photo is of what?
The photo is from taken from Obama.
Those are the Obama cages.
It's just the Obama administration build.
So they were forced to delete the tweet.
Again, quick story up at the show notes, please read it, but showing you again how, ladies and gentlemen, this is not about principles.
I only segued from the race story to this story to make this point to you repeatedly that the essence of a proper dialogue between rational thinking adults is to argue certain principles right you would think in other words if we're conservatives and they're liberals and we're arguing let's say something simple like tax rates you would argue why you think a higher tax rate is better if you're a liberal i would make arguments to you as to why i think a lower tax rate is better better for the economy better for the government better for liberty you'd make the opposite argument that's fine we go back and forth but there would be a set of principles right follow me here
Your principle is bigger government, higher taxes, lead to X, Y, and Z. And that's why I believe in this.
The problem I have with liberals now, with things like the race debate they have, where they accuse people of being racist, is it's not based on any coherent principle.
They don't actually believe that.
They will accuse anybody, anywhere, of being a racist at any time because they don't believe in principle.
It's not about a principle.
The principle, right, would be, if AOC was arguing on principle, that she genuinely believes Nancy Pelosi is a racist and she is a warrior for the cause and is looking to combat racism where it exists, which is noble.
But that's not what she's doing.
That's not what she's doing.
She doesn't believe any of that.
She has no principles there.
She's doing it to damage Nancy Pelosi, knowing she's lying and making up.
She is absolutely lying.
The same thing happens here with the Democrats.
That's why I put this brief story as a follow-up here.
They're not arguing about the Trump administration's policies on immigration and how it results in detentions at the border and some of those detentions involve facilities with chain-link fence.
That's not what they're arguing.
How do we know that?
Because the picture they put up is from the Obama administration and the same Democrats who claim to be fighting against Trump administration caging policies, whatever they make up, whatever ridiculous phrase they make up to describe it, was happening under the Obama administration and they said nothing.
Zero.
Zilch.
Nada.
They are not arguing principles.
That's the problem with the libs.
That is why you may say, well, why would we even debate them?
You're not debating them.
You're debating the third party listening.
You know, I went to this speech once.
It was interesting.
When I was running for office, I think it was the Senate in Maryland.
And forgive me, I forget the guy's name, but he gave this speech on how to debate liberals.
And he made this point repeatedly.
And I've made it to you as well.
I learned valuable lessons from it.
You're not debating liberals.
They are immune to facts because they're not debating principles.
But there is some worth and value in a back and forth with them, even though you know you can't win the argument because they're just going to accuse you of being a racist or change their principles as they did on Cage's.
They were against Cage's when it was Trump.
Then when they found out it was Obama, they delete the tweet.
Because they're not arguing principles about cages.
What you're arguing when you debate liberals is you're debating for that third person listening.
I can't say that enough.
There's always someone listening in.
Whether it's on Twitter, social media, whether you're at a county fair where it happened to me, whether you're at a debate, there's always someone listening in.
Forget the liberals.
Their skulls are six feet thick.
None of it's going to penetrate.
They have no principles.
You're arguing for that third person who's going to hear that irrationality on the liberal side and hear you present facts and data.
And that's how we win this, folks.
That's always, always how we'll win this.
Every single time.
So there is value in it.
All right, moving on.
I got my notes here.
Got a stacked show for you today, so stick with me.
All right, today's show also brought to you by our buddies at BrickHouse Nutrition.
You know, that's one of my favorite products I've used.
They've been with me from the beginning.
I can't personally attest to the value of BrickHouse Nutrition enough.
They were my original sponsor.
My favorite product is Foundation.
I also use a product they sell called Fielder Greens.
My wife, Paula, you like Fielder Greens?
Paula's giving us a thumbs up.
She loves field of greens.
My kids love it.
What is field of greens?
We all know, all of us, every doctor, nutritionist, trainer has told us, eat your fruits and vegetables.
A lot of us don't do it.
Why do you not do it?
You don't do it because it's tough.
They're tough to prepare.
They're perishable.
You got to go shop for them.
I have the solution for you right now.
Field of Greens.
It's a powder, but it's not some garbage extract.
It is high quality fruits and vegetables.
The highest quality, nutritious fruits and vegetables you can find.
Ground up into this fine tasting powder.
You just take the water out.
It tastes great.
It tastes like it's got a little berry tinge to it.
Put it in water.
I put it in a little like V8, sometimes some green tea.
Put a couple scoops in there.
You got your fruits and vegetables servings every day.
Feel better.
I feel great when I take this stuff.
I love it.
I can't attest to it enough.
My wife loves it.
We go through bottles of it.
It's called Field of Greens.
It's available at BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
That's BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
Go pick it up.
I personally, I can personally vouch for this stuff.
I love it.
Field of Greens.
Feel better, look better.
It is just great for your health.
Everybody knows you should eat your fruits and vegetables.
Field of Greens.
Available at BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
Go pick it up today.
Okay, moving on.
So I've been getting a lot of questions about this.
Clinton-Epstein scandal.
And there's an interesting piece by Aaron Klein at Breitbart I have in the show notes today.
I strongly encourage you to read.
It discusses five or six questions that are still open about this Epstein scandal.
Let me just go back and rewind to Monday, what I talked about without repeating the show, but giving you kind of the high points.
I was presented with information from an unimpeachable source.
I don't know any other way to describe this source.
Credibility.
Unquestioned credibility.
I'm trying to be diplomatic to keep the anonymity of the source there, obviously.
But the information is that the Clinton-Epstein relationship, Epstein, of course, as many of you know, seeing the press coverage this week, Jeffrey Epstein is the man accused in now new charges of sexual impropriety with minors.
He's a very wealthy guy who is deeply connected to the Democrat Party.
The Democrats are running around in circles right now, desperately trying to make this scandal.
About Donald Trump, because Epstein was a member of Donald Trump's club many years ago before Donald Trump threw him out.
Make no mistake, this is a Democrat scandal.
I don't care, personally, as I've said repeatedly on the show, if a Republican's involved in the sexual exploitation of minors, then they need to go down and go down hard, too.
I don't even think that requires us to say, but unfortunately, because, you know, liberals are listening and misinterpret everything we say, it's only a political scandal for them.
For us, it's a criminal scandal, and I don't care what your party label is.
Having said that, Epstein's ties to the Democrat Party are extensive.
Bill Clinton put out this statement because he's flown on Epstein's plane multiple times, and the statement is worded, let's just say, ladies and gentlemen, very carefully.
Now, the information I've been presented with does not necessarily jive with the Nuanced language in Clinton's statement.
Clinton puts out a statement through his office saying, notably, and Aaron Klein brings this up in the piece, where he has four or five questions, excuse me, five or six questions, problems with the Clinton statement.
He says, I flew six times aboard the Epstein's plane, but he doesn't mention specifically with Epstein on there.
So here's question number one.
You only took, what, four or five trips, you say, with Epstein, or five or six trips, whatever he says in his statement?
Ladies and gentlemen, because I'm familiar with the research that's been done with this topic, that's not what the flight logs say.
You know, not to beat this case to death, but when there are manifests, you know what manifests are, right?
Most of you, you manifest, you record the passengers on a plane, on a boat.
Matter of fact, funny story, when we were in the Secret Service, we would do elevator manifests.
You know, not to get off topic, but because what eventually happens in the Secret Service is everybody tries to pile in the elevator with the president.
So we started decades ago manifesting.
It's a big sign on the outside.
Who's allowed in?
Who's not?
You get out of the elevator.
Well, they manifest planes too.
In other words, there are lists of people written down who was on the plane.
Well, ladies and gentlemen, as I have noted here, based on some reporting I'm familiar with, Those manifests on Epstein's plane called the Lolita Express because of the alleged sexual impropriety that happened on Epstein's plane, right?
Bill Clinton's there for 26 trips.
Not four or five.
So something about Clinton's statement isn't right.
Now, what Clinton's going to do is he's going to do the famous Bill Clinton lawyerly.
Remember, uh, it depends on what the definition of is, is Clinton.
This is the, this is get ready.
Here's the stump.
Here's the curve ball.
They're going to throw.
Here it comes.
Here comes the hook, right?
They're going to say, well, when I said trips, I didn't mean legs.
In other words, I can take a trip to Europe with three legs, right?
I can take a trip from, they say I'm going to Europe and we need to refuel.
I can go from here to Florida to New York, New York to whatever.
It's Spain, road to Spain, where we used to refuel in the Secret Service, road to Spain, to Milan, whatever it may be.
That may be one trip ending up in Milan, but it may have three, four, even five legs to it, right?
You stop off, you refuel, maybe you make a stop off for a short soiree, who knows?
But this is how Clinton, this is the slick willy act he pulls every time.
Oh, I was only there for four or five trips.
It's actually about 26 trips.
He's not telling you the whole story.
Why is that important based on the information I put out on Monday's show?
Because one of the alleged incidents happened on one of those planes.
So he's trying to minimize his exposure here.
The manifests tell a completely different story.
Question number two Klein puts out there in his Breitbart piece, which is fairly weird.
He says, well, why does he write in his piece that I was a guest on Epstein's plane, but conveniently leaves out the fact that Epstein was on it?
That's the whole point.
He was traveling with Epstein.
Epstein's on the manifest too, folks.
We know who's on the plane.
It's not a mystery, okay?
He words it carefully in slick Willie E's about trips rather than legs and he puts on Epstein's plane as if Epstein wasn't there.
As if Clinton like hijacked his plane like Passenger 57 with Wesley Snipes or something.
Remember that movie?
This is not a hijacking.
Clinton was a guest with Epstein.
with people on the plane who, and I'm quoting the piece by Aaron Klein,
people on the plane who were doing massages.
I hope you're watching the video right now.
YouTube.com slash Bongino.
Otherwise known as Massager.
Right?
Otherwise known as Massager.
I'm not sure these were Professional, uh, what is it?
Reiki or something where they do the massage thing with the elbows and uh, is that it?
I don't know.
I don't know much about the arena.
I wish I did.
I don't think these were professional Swedish massagers.
If you don't, they may have been, again, we're trying to keep the show family friendly here.
Uh, relatively, they may have been Swedish massagers.
But they are not massagers, okay?
So Bill's kind of leaving that out.
The people who were on the plane were of a questionable reputation, let's say.
But don't worry, don't put that in the statement, of course.
There's one other point I don't want to get too deep into because I don't want to, not because I'm not hiding anything from you, I mean I'm in this arena now and not looking to save anybody's reputation or anything, but I don't want to pretend like Jim Clapper and Brennan do that because of my prior line of work I have insight on this specific topic that I don't.
The questions come up and Klein brings it up again in the Breitbart piece.
I strongly encourage you to read.
Where was the secret service that on some of these flights...
There are, again, manifest lists of passengers on the flight, and on some of the flights, notably, some of the Secret Service isn't there, isn't listed.
On most of them, they are.
It doesn't list names.
It says three Secret Service, four Secret Service, but that's not on all the flights.
Let me just make a suggestion to you, and I'm not dancing around.
This one, I don't have inside info.
I'm just speculating here, but based on my experience working there, what I think happened here.
There's a possibility on some of those manifests that the Secret Service names are just missing.
I'm not sure that's the case, but there's a possibility that on some of those manifests they just may not have included the Secret Service agents.
Possible.
Unlikely, but possible.
The more likely scenario, and understand why Klein puts that in there, by the way.
I should have opened up with this.
Shame on me.
I'm sorry.
The reason Klein's putting that in there is, in other words, if Clinton's on this Lolita Express airplane with a guy who's alleged to have committed sexual improprieties with young women, underage women in some cases, right?
Clinton's on the plane.
And some of the people on the plane are massager specialists and others, if you get what I'm saying.
I think the inference there is that the Secret Service was intentionally left behind for a reason.
Could be.
Could be.
Distinct possibility.
But having said that, the inside baseball on that, if you are a Secret Service designated protectee, like Bill Clinton is, By law.
If the Secret Service doesn't just protect them because they like it, they protect them because by law they have to.
In order for the Secret Service to be left off that flight, there would have to be a form he would have to sign.
We call it the Secret Service signing off.
In other words, the only one who can't sign off his protection is the President.
President Trump can't sign.
He can't sign off as protect, no matter what.
But other protectees can.
Foreign dignitaries, heads of state, former presidents, they can sign off.
Not permanently, but you have to sign a form acknowledging you're taking that risk.
I say that because if that's the case, there would be forms out there.
Again, I'm just telling you what anybody on the inside would know.
If those forms are there, you would know.
So that's why I'm saying I'm not so sure that the Secret Service just wasn't left off the manifest because those forms would be out there.
Does that make sense?
A little hint for some of you journalists out there trying to figure out what's going on.
Also, he brings up Klein and the Piece, which is a good one.
Again, please read it.
That there are, you know, multiple flight legs here.
That trips doesn't mean legs, and it's probably another slick willy dance around what actually happened there.
That's not uncommon for a, you know, Clinton, the pun intended, message words to try and make something out to be that it's not.
But this story is a lot deeper than I think a lot of you know at this point, and it's going to get a lot worse.
And it's nothing I haven't said on the show before.
All right.
Excellent article.
Moving on by Bob Palsperry in the New York Post, who's done some really good investigative journalism on the Spygate case.
And the gist of the Post story, which, again, I hope you read at the show notes today, is this parallel construction scheme that I've been discussing for a long time.
He doesn't use those words, but that's what he's getting at.
It's a well done piece.
Folks, you know, I had an interesting conversation last night with someone who shall remain nameless, but I was discussing how Combine this with yesterday's show, right?
Yesterday's show I discussed the scheme to set up Mike Flynn again.
Mike Flynn, Lieutenant General Mike Flynn, who I believe was spied on as far back as 2015 by the Obama administration in the Spygate scandal.
So keep in mind the headline, what I'm getting at here.
The real scandal that the Democrats are hiding with regards to the collusion, Obamagate, Spygate, Russiagate, whatever you want to call it, the real scandal is Spygate.
That's why my first book on the topic is called Spygate, not Obamagate, Trumpgate, Russiagate, or Collusiongate.
Because the real story here is the Obama administration's Weaponizing of our assets.
We're taxpayers.
We finance the FBI and CIA to attack his own political opponents.
Mike Flynn being one of them in 2015 when Trump wasn't even running for president.
It's spy game.
In other words, this is about the Obama administration spying.
Ladies and gentlemen, for as much as I would like to make this about Trump, it's not.
It's bigger than just Donald Trump and I think the president is aware of that and he knows that.
Now, showing my point again is this piece by Sperry, which is an excellent one, where he shows and lays out how the entire FISA operation, the FBI law enforcement operation, using the FISA court to formally, using paperwork and warrants, spy on the Trump team, I believe ...is a cover-up for a pre-existing intelligence operation to spy on the Trump campaign exactly like they did against Mike Flynn.
I've been calling it other... I don't take any credit for... this is a term that's been out there for a long time.
It's not... I don't own it, so please, I wouldn't... I'm not trying to take credit for something I didn't invent.
But it's called parallel construction.
I've spoken about this on my show many, many times.
What is parallel construction?
To understand the essence of how the devious Obama spying operation on the Trump team worked, let's leave Flynn behind, you can listen to yesterday's show to get the full details on that devious disaster, is if I'm running an illegal spying operation on you because I think you robbed a bank, say producer Joe, I think he may have robbed a bank.
So what do I do?
I don't want to go out and get a Title III warrant or a wiretap against Joe because I don't have any evidence.
I just don't like Joe, say, and I want to nail this guy for robbing a bank, whether he robbed it or not.
So what do I do?
I go into Joe's house, I break in late at night, committing a crime essentially.
I need a warrant to spy on Joe, right, to get his phone conversations monitored.
But I don't want to get a warrant, I have no info.
Break into his house, I put a bug, a listening device, whatever it may be, a transmitter, on his phone.
And I get all of his phone calls, and on those phone calls, I hear Joe engaging in suspicious conversations with his neighbors about banks and money.
What's the problem, folks?
Think this thing through.
What's the issue here?
The issue here is I'm running in a legal intelligence operation, and I can't use any of that material to go out and actually get a warrant.
It is useless.
Legally.
Not politically.
So what I have to do now is I have to get the information I've obtained illegally by my illegal bug and recording device in Joe's house.
I committed the crime, not Joe.
I have to then use that if I get suspicious conversations about him and banks and money.
I have to somehow launder that information into a legal warrant without a judge knowing where I got it from.
What better way to do it than to hire a private investigator you've worked with before, who's got credibility in front of the courts, who you've used to prosecute cases before, who's a credible witness in court, to make spurious, phony allegations against Joe, and use the information I got through the illegal intelligence, the bug, give it to the source, and say, hey, just repeat this back to me, and I'll say I got it from you.
Does that make sense?
Seriously?
All right, because Ombudsman Joe isn't here.
I got to check with Ombudsman Paula for this one because Joe's not here.
Let me make sure.
I just don't want my thing to shut down.
We got like, what, one, two, three, four computers here.
You got to see what we got to travel with to do, Rogers, because I don't want to miss shows for you.
You get what I'm saying?
You've obtained evidence illegally to launder it and clean the information like money laundering, like laundering drug profits through a legal business.
You give it to a source you've hired before and you tell them, you say this and I'll pretend I got it from you.
Folks, that is clearly 100% what happened here.
Sperry lays out, in this parallel construction scheme, a couple of questions for Bob Mueller, Brennan, and others that would break this thing down.
Now, I gave you the analogy, but I didn't give you the story.
Just to summarize, because some of you have heard this on my show before, what I believe happened is John Brennan and his intelligence cronies overseas were running an illegal intelligence operation against Donald Trump.
Whether it was unmasking through the Obama administration or basically wiretapping Trump administration officials under the guise of national security, which was nonsense.
It was political information.
That's it.
That's all they wanted.
Information to attack the Trump team on.
Whether it was using foreign intelligence officers to circumvent and do a big loop around American surveillance laws, whether it was that, it doesn't matter what it was.
He was running a rogue intelligence operation against US citizens.
Think about what I just said.
Brennan and his team of people, this cabal at the top that was running this op, was illegally spying on U.S.
citizens.
Strictly prohibited by U.S.
law without very, very specific carve-outs.
The Central Intelligence Agency and U.S.
intelligence agencies, not the FBI, the FBI is a law enforcement entity, are specifically prohibited with very few carve-outs from spying on U.S.
citizens for a reason.
Because the When the CIA was first started, one of the fears they had was that it was going to be used.
By Obama types, Nixonian types in some cases, right?
I mean, corrupt administrations to spy on their political opponents, that's exactly what happened here.
But the information Brennan had and passed on to the FBI had to be laundered through a law enforcement entity.
That law enforcement entity was the Bureau, but Brennan can't tell people where he's getting the information from, so he pretends he's getting the information from someone else.
The FBI then goes to a guy who mysteriously appears out of nowhere, Christopher Steele, who's conveniently hired by the Clinton administration, excuse me, the Clinton team, to lawyers familiar with the Obama administration.
Now, that part was a little confusing.
Track this.
I'm going to make this quick, but I want to move on, but I want you to understand this.
Brennan needs to take that illegal information he obtained illegally, illicitly, immorally against the Trump team.
He's not supposed to be spying on U.S.
citizens.
He needs to launder it.
But he can't tell the FBI what he's doing.
Because he knows Comey at some point is going to be... Comey's an awful guy.
Please don't mistake this as a defense of Comey's character.
He's awful.
Comey didn't ask any questions.
They interviewed a guy in January, a Russian source.
Comey knew the Russian source.
Steelhead was garbage.
Comey's a bad guy.
But he knows Comey is gonna need some cover because there's paperwork.
When the CIA refers this case to the FBI, the, hey, Joe's robbing a bank, or Trump's colluding with Russians, to the FBI, there is an EC, an electronic communication, called on this show frequently, paragraph one.
There is a piece of paper from Brennan asking Comey, I need you to start an investigation.
Comey is not gonna do it based on hearsay, knowing Brennan violated the law.
So conveniently, Brennan tells him some information he may have heard, and who pops up out of nowhere and reports to the FBI that he has the exact same information?
Conveniently, a guy hired by Team Hillary Clinton.
Christopher Steele, working for a company Glenn Simpson owns, who had already written a story in the Wall Street Journal in 2007 that had the exact same contours, I call it the movie script, as the story Brennan's telling Comey.
Brennan tells Comey, hey, Jim, got some information here.
Trump may be colluding with the Russians.
Hey, that's crazy, Jim.
This guy, or John, that's insane.
We just had this source come forward.
This guy, Christopher Steele, amazingly giving us the same information.
Well, doggone.
Isn't that crazy?
We better open up a case.
You understand what they did?
I got the information about Joe robbing the bank.
I can't tell them I have a bug in the house.
So I pay a guy, Glenn Simpson, an old news reporter, who's already written a story about Joe in 2007.
I pay a guy to then go hire a foreign operative, Christopher Steele, to then go tell the local cops that they think Joe robbed the bank because the cops have worked with Steele before.
Who's better than you?
Here's a couple questions Sperry has in the piece, which will break this parallel construction scheme right down.
Because once Brennan, understand this, once Brennan acknowledges formally he got his information from Steele too, once he acknowledges that, this whole case falls apart.
Why, folks?
Because Brennan, I don't believe, told Comey, I know he didn't, and the FBI, that the information they got was political information from Steele and Steele's contacts.
How do I know that?
Because Lisa Page, the FBI lawyer, has already told Congressmen under oath that she didn't think the FBI got that, that the CIA got their information from Steele.
So question number one, what was Brennan doing in interagency meetings and foreign intelligence meetings in the summer of 2016?
What was he doing?
What was he talking about?
Was he talking about the exact same information that came to the FBI by Christopher Steele in July of 2016?
Where they met with him in London.
And if they were talking about the exact same information, Brennan, in these interagency meetings and these information meetings in 2015 with British Intel, was it the exact same information Steele had?
How did Steele get the information then?
And how did he get it from Brennan or Brennan get it from him?
This was an information laundering operation.
They had a reconstructed on the FBI side and the law enforcement side, and they reconstructed it using a paid source, political operative, Christopher Steele.
Question two.
What exactly?
Precisely?
Did John Brennan tell Barack Obama?
What did Obama know and when did he know it?
Ladies and gentlemen, I think it's awfully odd that some of this information would have stayed out of the White House.
Matter of fact, I know it is not true.
There is no way.
We have FBI texts.
The POTUS wants to know everything we're doing.
The White House wanted to be read in on it.
The deputy director of the CIA at the time was meeting at the White House.
The FBI says we need to speak with one voice in their own text.
There is no way Obama didn't know.
He is clearly The tie between the law enforcement community he's in charge of in the executive branch, the FBI, and the intelligence community he's in charge of as well.
He is clearly the bridge.
There's no way this is happening without Obama's tacit approval.
Third question, an important one.
Why did Brennan push the steal information into the ICA, the Intelligence Community Assessment, later?
Well, I believe he did it to pass the buck off to Jim Comey and others to say, look, it was credible it was in the ICA.
I've talked about this before, how this battle back and forth between Comey and Brennan is going to blow up in their faces.
He tried to rebuild the case.
Now, Sperry puts this one quote from his piece, it's an interesting one, where he discusses the change in the FISA laws back in 2012.
One more final thought on this.
Back in 2012, remember, 2012, Donald Trump's not even, there's not even a whisper of him running for president.
The Obama administration cleverly figures out That if they can end around and spy on Americans using foreign partners, foreign intelligence partners, that if they can use them to spy on Americans, they can circumvent American laws because it's foreign intelligence services.
But I believe, and what I'm getting from people who know this material well, Ladies and gentlemen, those foreign partners aren't stupid, okay?
They may have liked Barack Obama, they may have acted in a corrupt manner, at minimum an immoral and unethical manner by spying on American citizens for the Obama administration, but they're not dumb.
These foreign partners clearly needed some meat on the bone to do something.
So as Sperry indicates in this piece here, that this 2012 change in the FISA laws, where the U.S.
government and the intel agencies are now allowed to share information with these foreign partners.
By the way, I cover this in detail.
Please pick this up in my second book, Exonerated.
It's going to be out in September.
We're super excited.
It's available on Amazon now.
There is a long chapter on exactly How this works, you're going to be blown away by it, I promise.
Available on Amazon, Barnes & Noble now for pre-order.
Exonerated by me, I'd appreciate if you pick it up.
You know, up to you, of course.
But I talk about this at length.
How this 2012 change enabled the Obama administration and the U.S.
government to share information they obtained from Pfizer's with foreign governments because, ladies and gentlemen, what was probably happening here?
These requests for partnerships with foreign governments to ask them to spy on U.S.
citizens?
These foreign governments are like, you gotta give us something.
Listen, we gotta talk turkey here.
You're gonna have to put some meat on this bone.
You're going to have to give us something, but the government couldn't give them anything because they weren't, we, we are prohibited, our intelligence agencies, again, with certain carve outs from spying on us citizens.
So if you're asking foreigners to do it, they're probably like, okay, um, we'll play ball with you, but you want us to spy on Trump or Flynn or whatever, Joey bag of donuts.
You got to give us something.
The only way to do it was to get Pfizer information, to get the Pfizer information, to share it with them.
That's the whole essence of this.
That's the reason they needed that.
Because they had to put some meat on the bone.
Sorry, I'm just looking at this headline of Fox, so funny.
Did you all see that speech?
That hockey coach speech about kneeling for the national anthem?
Where he tells the players, get the F out if you're going to do that here.
It was classic.
Alright, but get back to my story, so we'll wrap on that.
That 2012 change, expanding the network of people who had access to our intelligence, is clearly an effort by the Obama team to be able to give meat to foreign intel, to spy back in the circular route of stupid, to spy on our own citizens, because that's what they did.
Alright, moving on.
Speaking of, the reason I brought that up is the next story's involved with this, but this, the kneeling, the Colin Kaepernick, Megan Rapinoe, you know, scandals, which is what they are, you know, kneeling and disgracing our national anthem and our flag.
They seem to enjoy it and gain pleasure somehow out of insulting the many Americans who died for that flag and what it means.
Listen, it's the United States.
You have free speech rights.
Obviously, do what you want.
I proudly defend those free speech rights and your right to be an idiot.
I also defend my right to call you a moron for doing it.
So this Megan Rapinoe, who plays for our U.S.
team that just won the World Cup, and I sincerely want to congratulate the U.S.
World Cup team.
You know, just because a couple of knuckleheads on the team decide to, you know, crap all over our flag and our country overseas, doesn't mean everyone's responsible.
You did a great job.
I mean, just a tremendous display of athleticism.
So big congrats.
Unfortunately, one of the representatives of the team, Megan Rapinoe, continues to just Defile and disgrace herself.
Go after the Trump administration.
She's playing for the United States.
She's not playing for herself.
And as I said in a tweet, it's not about you, Megan.
It's about the country.
You're playing for the U.S.
team.
Go play for a private club and do whatever you want.
If the club's okay with it.
You're not.
You're playing for the United States.
All of us.
Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians.
Conservatives, Greens, whatever, Socialists.
You're playing for all of us.
But it's not about that for Meghan.
For Meghan, it's about Meghan.
And showing you it's about Meghan, and again, how I like to tie things through the show and weave storylines together.
In the beginning, I told you whether it was the AOC accusing Pelosi of a racism story, or the Democrats with their pictures of Obama cages claiming somehow Trump did it.
It's never really about arguing principles with him.
It's about insulting you, attacking you, and gaining power, even for people like Megan Rapinoe.
You don't believe me?
I'm going to play this cut of Megan Rapinoe on CNN.
I want you to pay particular attention.
This is the kneeler in front of the flag, by the way, and who attacks Donald Trump.
I'm not visiting the effing White House, as she said.
I want you to pay particular attention to the last sentence she says at the end of this.
And let's see how open-minded the liberals are.
Play that cut.
I know you've been invited by, I think, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, I think Nancy Pelosi.
Shout out!
Shout out, AOC!
So does that mean, is that an invitation you're taking up?
Nancy Pelosi has said, you know, you'd be welcome to a bipartisan congressional thing.
Do you plan on going to Washington in one way or another?
Yes, definitely.
And I think even just the conversations with the teammates that I've had, I think everyone is interested in going to Washington.
I think we've always been interested in going to Washington.
This is such a special moment for us.
And to be able to, you know, sort of leverage this movement and talk about the things that we want to talk about and to celebrate like this with the leaders of our country is an incredible moment.
Yes to AOC, yes to Nancy Pelosi, yes to the bipartisan Congress, yes to Chuck Schumer, yes to anyone else that wants to invite us and have a real substantive conversation and that believe in the same things that we believe in.
Okie dokes, yeah.
So she's willing to engage in a conversation, as long as it's with people who believe in what she believes in.
In other words, that's not a dialogue.
She just wants to basically echo her.
You know, when I was a kid, Forrest Brooks School was down the block from my house on Rose Lane when I grew up on Long Island when I was younger, before my parents' divorce, right?
And you used to go down there, they had this big wall, kids would play handball on, and you'd yell, And it would echo.
So that's what Megan Rapinoe wants.
She wants to yell something and she wants it echoed back at her by people up on the hill.
Folks, I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this kind of idiocy, but it's exactly what they stand for, which is nothing.
They have no interest in a debate at all.
They only have an interest in echoing their own talking points.
And just to show you, I'm not speaking with forked tongue here.
If any of you have heard me filling in on the radio for Sean Hannity or Mark Levin, or you've seen me on television, on Fox news, Nobody with a straight face can dispute the fact that I take on all comers.
Liberals, conservatives, whatever.
Republicans, Democrats, you want a debate?
We leave a line open when I fill in for Mark.
We leave a line open on the show.
Rich can tell you, the producer over there, for liberals to call in.
Why?
Because I want to hear your side because I know you're typically wrong, but if you're not, call in.
If you can defend your argument about why the government can run healthcare better, why school choice is no good, whatever.
If you think that, fine.
Call in.
Let's have it out.
But we leave the line open.
Megan Rapinoe doesn't leave the line open.
She just wants to hear from people who think exactly like she does.
Unbelievable.
I'm not debating principles, folks.
It's a total joke.
All right.
I've got a couple more stories.
They're good ones though.
So please don't go.
I want to talk about the, this persistent, again, liberal garbage about how the Trump economy is leaving the little guy behind.
It's a such bogus garbage.
I've got a great piece, small snippety from the daily signal.
I'll get to in a second.
Finally, today's show brought to you by our friends at Ollie.
Listen, your dog's health is important.
They're like members of the family.
Why would you give them that garbage food?
My, my mother-in-law calls them a pepitos.
Are they pepitos or pepitas?
Pepitas, sorry.
They're horrible.
You know the little kibble?
That's awful.
The dogs don't even want to eat that.
I think that my mother-in-law's dogs are rather starved.
So what do we do?
We gave them Ollie food.
They love it.
They can't put the stuff down.
They'll eat the whole bit.
There's two of them, so they fight over it.
Ollie Puts Dogs First, with vet-formulated recipes and fully transparent ingredients to give your dog the healthiest food.
Possible.
It makes fresh meals ollie for dogs with real ingredients.
People can eat.
Delivers them on a regular schedule.
They beat out store dog food, pet store dog food 10 to 1 on the palatability scale.
It means it just tastes good.
They create customized vet formulated recipes made with all natural ingredients.
No preservatives.
Sourced from U.S.
Family Farms.
Go to myali.com slash try slash Bongino for 60% off plus a free bag of treats.
Check that out.
Answer just a few questions about your dog and they will customize for your dog.
Recipes ship pre-portioned meals so your pup gets the perfect portion every time.
They've delivered, get a load of this, 5 million meals and counting.
Shipping is free.
And your dog, if it doesn't like the meals, your dog, He or she didn't get your money back.
Can't beat that, right?
Ollie's offering our listeners 60% off your first box plus a free bag of treats at myollie.com slash try slash Bongino.
This is the best deal they have available anywhere.
Spelled my O-L-L-I-E.com slash try slash Bongino.
myollie.com slash try slash Bongino.
This is some seriously good dog food.
Check it out.
Your dogs will love you for it.
Okay.
So, you know, I love economics and the show, we talk about it often, but I don't like it because I want to be in any way professorial.
I like it because it really speaks to how human beings make decisions about resources.
Democrats live in a fantasy land.
They constantly lie about the hard rules of economics and the facts and data.
It's just infuriating.
And one of their persistent talking points We've seen, whether in debates, on TV appearances, on MSDNC or CNN, whatever, is this, well, the Trump economy's doing well, but it's leaving the little guy behind.
Ladies and gentlemen, that statement is categorically false.
I'm sincerely apologetic for having to bring this up once or twice a week.
But it's incredible that I continue to nail this on the show.
They continue to nail it on Fox and otherwise.
And the left, with this just penchant for dishonesty, continues to parrot this point, although it is so categorically untrue.
Now, Daily Signal piece up in the show notes today.
Again, definitely worth your time.
Here's a portion of the piece I want you to take a look at that is just telling.
Ladies and gentlemen, average wage growth in the economy is about 3%, which is healthy, which is well above inflation, meaning real wages, people are making real money.
So the Democrats' response, which you'll hear, and you have to be ready at the snap, at a thunno snap like that, right?
You have to be ready with your response.
Well, it may be rising at 3%, but that's certainly not for the little guy at the bottom of the scale.
Actually, you're wrong.
It's more for the little guy.
The bottom 24%, as we see in the piece in the Daily Signal, the bottom 25% of the income scale, wages are actually rising more, over 4%.
You're just...
Making it up.
You are, you're lying.
You're just making up data and facts because you have no tangible, touchable material to rely on.
Again.
Filtering and weaving back to the beginning of the show.
They are not arguing principles, ladies and gentlemen.
If their principle was genuine, and their genuine principle was, we are fighting for income growth for the little guy, not just for the wealthy fat cats or whatever pejorative you want to use to describe successful people in the country, right?
Fine.
If that's your argument, make it.
But you can't make it.
So you bathe yourself in class warfare language, conveniently avoiding facts and data that refute the principle you claim to be advancing.
If you were for income growth and wage growth for low-income workers at the lower end of the income scale, you would be celebrating the Trump administration, not pillorying it.
But you do that because, again, it is not about principle.
It is about a tax.
Why do they keep bringing up the fact this is not benefiting minority workers?
Actually, minority unemployment has been close to half of the job growth in the country.
Why do they say that?
Because they're doing what AOC did in that tweet I told you about before, directed at Nancy Pelosi in the beginning of the show.
They are using the strategic battlefield race identity politics weapon because it works, not because it is based on principle, integrity, I can't believe I got through.
and data-based argument. It is a complete, total, utter fabrication. Lower-income workers'
incomes are rising higher than the average for everybody else. You're just making it up. Please
read the piece. Daily Signal is very good. It's short. It's not that long, and it's worth your
time. It just provides irrefutable data for your, again, silly liberal friends who are just making
stuff up to attack the president. All right. I can't believe I got through. You believe that?
Got through all this?
Pretty impressive, huh?
Yeah, thank you.
This Trump Hotel is nice, by the way.
I mean, I'm on, like, uh, I've said that a couple times, but this is one of my favorite spots.
I'm not just saying that because he's the president, but it's a really nice place.
Please.
Take your time.
It's fun.
It's a family-friendly show, so we'll leave that here.
Can't get this anywhere else.
That's why I love this show.
Okay.
Last show of the day, jumping from the Trump Hotel and my interesting night last night, to the trade deficits.
That's a, what an incredible segue that is.
Wall Street Journal has a great piece up about trade deficits.
Folks, this is, I listen, I'm a supporter of the president's conservative agenda.
I think that's pretty obvious.
And I know I'll get some negative feedback on email.
That's okay.
I'm, you know, I do an honest show.
It doesn't, you know, always appeal to every person on every single idea they hold sacred all the time.
I am not a big believer, and we may differ a little bit from the Trump administration on this, that you should panic over trade deficits.
I'm not, and I have a reason for it.
I'm just making it up to be contrarian and try to sound like some virtue-signaling elitist.
There's a reason trade deficits happen and uh you know because it can be complicated discussing international supply chains you know re-flagging material and some of the stuff addressed in the Wall Street Journal piece by the way.
I like to talk in simple analogies because economics really isn't that complicated.
It gets in complicated by people who want to intentionally make it complicated so they can use jargon to confuse you.
But one of the simplest ways to describe why the United States has a trade deficit and that trade deficit ironically grows In times of economic booms.
I didn't get that wrong.
The economy flourishes, grows robustly and vibrantly, and trade deficits get bigger.
It's happened in the Reagan years, it happened in the Clinton, you know, internet boom.
Why does that happen, folks?
It's very simple.
When the United States economy flourishes and we go through these business cycle booms, foreign investment flows into the United States to take advantage of those booms so they can earn a return on their money.
It's not complicated.
Why does money flow into Apple when iPhones sell well?
Because people want to make money on Apple stock.
It's not hard.
Think of the United States as a stock.
People buy their stock.
Chinese investors, Japanese investors, South American investors, Canadian investors, Mexican investors, they pour money into the United States, okay?
Why does that expand the trade deficit during economic booms and why should you not panic over trade deficits?
I'm not saying you shouldn't be concerned about it.
I'm just saying I wouldn't panic over it.
That's it.
Don't confuse because I know I'm going to get emails on it.
That's fine.
I appreciate your feedback.
I appreciate, by the way, the guy who emailed me yesterday about the gold standard.
Nice email.
He disagrees with me totally, but nice job.
Any respectful conversation on email you want to send my way, I'll read it.
No problem at all.
You have my email.
It's on my website.
But with the trade deficit, when foreign economies and foreign investors buy the stock of the United States, let's say, and pour money into the United States, ladies and gentlemen, they do it in their currency.
Now, when they pour that money, whether it's, let's say, Japanese yen into the United States, you can't... the investors who get a hold of that money in the United States can't spend that yen here.
We don't deal in yen.
We deal in dollars.
So that yen somehow has to buy its way and find its way back to Japan.
So how do we do that?
Well, we then go in turn and buy Japanese products with those yen that they imported to the United States because our economy is flourishing so much we have more buying power and their products then appear cheaper.
Does that make sense?
This is super important.
It's the easiest way to explain it.
When our economy is flourishing, we have more money, which gives our dollar more buying power and makes those products denominated in the foreign currencies trying to buy into the United States cheaper, so we just buy more foreign stuff.
Not that it's not a concern.
There are genuine hollowing out portions of America happening right now because of production being sent overseas that should genuinely concern us in Appalachia, some areas of the South, the Midwest, where entire towns have been hollowed out.
That is unquestionably a concern.
What I'm telling you is it's not a panic level thing where we should make drastic decisions to try to alter it.
Here's a chart by the Wall Street Journal to show you what I mean in this piece today.
Where they indicate how the tariffs with China are not necessarily, and I'm not, again, I'm not saying those aren't a good move.
The Chinese are engaged in some really ruthless trade policies.
So, but I'm just trying to show you how the effects aren't as simple as they seem.
Well, we're going to tariff China.
Okay.
Well, they'll bring their stuff back to the United States.
That's not necessarily what's happening in every case.
Instead of China, as you can see by this chart, they're just moving production to Vietnam, Thailand, and elsewhere, Taiwan and other places.
You look at it right there.
Those are just the numbers.
So we're not necessarily bringing some of that stuff back.
I'm simply trying to suggest to you with some basic economic analogies that the trade deficit should not panic you.
What should panic you is our national debt and our national deficit because we're looking at an unquestioned bankruptcy if we keep spending this kind of money.
That should worry you.
You know, other things like bad tax policy, bad regulatory policy, and Trump's done great work on both of those.
But don't get too hung up on the trade deficit.
It's not panic time over that.
Concern?
Yes.
The hollowing out of American manufacturing and small towns in America?
Yes, definitely a concern.
You know, the fact that some people can't find jobs based on outdated skills, definitely a concern, but not panic time over the trade deficit.
Send me emails, though.
I always get interesting ones on this, and thanks again to the guy who called me a gold bug, but whatever.
I'm not really a gold bug.
I think you misinterpreted what I said, but that's okay.
I still appreciate your email.
All right, folks, thanks a lot for tuning in.
I really appreciate it.
Again, headed over to the White House Social Media Summit.
Please tune in tomorrow.
I'll give you a full update on what happened there.
Should be enjoyable.
So I'm looking forward to hopefully have some pictures for you, too.
You think we could load some of those tomorrow if I get some pics?
I don't know if they'll let cell phones in.
I think it's in the East Wing.
I know in the West Wing they don't.
Please subscribe to our YouTube channel, youtube.com slash Bongino, and subscribe to The Audio Show on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, iHeartRadio, SoundCloud, wherever you find it.
I really appreciate it.
It's those subscriptions that help us move up the charts.
