Troubling Questions About Epsteins Death (Ep 1042)
In this episode I address the deeply troubling death of Jeffrey Epstein, and the significant questions we should all be asking. I discuss the new revelations in the Spygate case now that this new Bruce Ohr information has come out. I also address the trouble with “Red Flag” laws. News Picks:“Red Flag” laws are a big problem. Here are the issues.
Jeffrey Epstein told guards this, weeks before he hanged himself.
This week in AOC gaffes.
Attorney General Barr is looking into the suspicious death of Jeffrey Epstein.
The FBI has some serious explaining to do after the release of the Bruce Ohr 302s.
The Second Amendment is an individual, not a collective, Right.
Copyright Dan Bongino All Rights Reserved.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Get ready to hear the truth about America on a show that's not immune to the facts with your host, Dan Bongino.
Alright, welcome to the Dan Bongino Show.
Producer Joe back on this fine Monday.
How are you, sir?
It's a happy, happy Monday.
Yeah, listen, sorry about Friday.
The video on YouTube, you know, we do our best in road shows, but I got a lot of emails from folks.
They're like, you know, you would, I was in the screen and the reason is I brought the mic stand and I think I'm better off holding the mic on road shows.
They're like, it was like the equivalent of like three feet of Dan Bongino in the screen, but the show did well on YouTube.
It was an important show on Friday, but the Bruce Soar 302s.
Let me tell you what we're going to get to today.
Obviously, the deeply disturbing revelations about Jeffrey Epstein's death.
Lots of open questions on that we're going to get into.
I've got more information, as I promised, about the devastating revelations in Bruce Ohr's interviews with the FBI.
There's some nuggets in there that are just definitely worth your time.
I also want to get into red flag, these horrible red flag laws, the hypocrisy on the Second Amendment from some on the left who don't seem to understand the Bill of Rights, and hopefully get to some Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders stuff too, who just entirely discredit themselves.
So it's a stacked show.
Stay with us.
Let's get right to it.
Today's show is brought to you by our buddies at...
Harry's!
Joe and I, our favorite razors.
Joe loves Harry's.
I love Harry's.
Let me tell you one of the best things about Harry's.
This is my razor right here with the travel cover on it.
You can see it.
Look at that great design.
I have to go on video here in the morning for a podcast and typically at night for primetime on Fox.
I don't like to shave twice a day.
Why?
One, because it's annoying, but right?
It's the worst.
Do you get the razor burn like I do?
You get the nasty razor burn and it just hurts.
It's annoying.
I only have to shave once with Harry's.
That's how close the shave gets, and these blades last forever.
They are meticulously designed.
Folks, listen.
I love Harry's.
A lot of guys buy disposable razors when they travel, but this summer, don't sacrifice quality for price.
Harry's delivers high quality, travel-friendly shave supplies at a great low price, just $2 per blade.
Join the 10 million who've tried Harry's.
Claim your special offer by going to harrys.com slash Bongino.
Harrys.com slash Bongino.
Harry's founders are tired of gimmicks, flexi-balls, flux capacitors, time-traveling devices.
They just want a good razor, good blade at a quality price.
It's gonna last and give you a close shave.
That's what you got with Harry's.
They bought their own world-class blade factory in Germany.
It's been making the best razor blades in the world for over 99 years.
They can guarantee great quality at factory direct prices.
100% quality guarantee.
Joe, you don't love your shave?
Send them back.
But Joe's never sent Harry's razors back.
You don't need to.
This summer, refresh your wallet and your face with a Harry's trial set.
It comes with a weighted ergonomic handle.
There it is for an easy grip.
Five blade razor with a lubricating strip and trimmer blade for a close shave.
Rich lathering shave gel that will leave you smelling great.
And a travel blade cover to keep your razor dry and easy on the go.
Redeem your trial set.
My listeners at harrys.com slash Bongino to redeem your offer.
Let them know we sent you to support the show.
harrys.com slash Bongino.
All right, let's go.
Nice, okay.
Folks, the Epstein death this weekend in the cell at MCC.
Listen, I know MCC well.
It's at the Metro Correctional Facility there.
Where Epstein died.
Jeffrey Epstein, for those of you unaware of the backstory, I know many of you are, but Epstein was currently awaiting trial for prosecution on some really atrocious sexual misconduct allegations against minors.
The stories are deeply disturbing, many of you are aware of them.
He was having, you know, young ladies as young as 15, according to the allegations, Do things to him.
It's, you know, I try to keep this show family-friendly most of the time, but you can get the point.
It was pretty gross.
Right.
The reason the Epstein case was so controversial is because of the connections Epstein had.
Epstein was deeply connected to a lot of Democratic donors.
He had this island where a lot of high-profile people were alleged to have visited.
There were allegations some of these high-profile people were the recipient of Yeah.
Treatment, let's say, by these ladies as well that was pretty gross and disgusting.
So, nobody knew if Epstein was cooperating or not, but if Epstein were to talk, the rumor mill was that it was going to bring down a lot of important, prominent people who may have been engaged in this same kind of disturbing behavior.
Okay, we get that out of the way.
Let's get to the problem first.
Obviously, losing a subject of an investigation who dies in your custody is incredibly disturbing.
As a cop, a former cop and a former federal agent, folks, I did the cells in the 75 precinct, the cells.
When you were a new guy, you got thrown in the cells a lot.
You basically sat there in the holding cell in the precinct and your job was, you basically had one job.
Well, maybe two.
Fingerprint the people who were brought in on the live scan machine and make sure they don't harm themselves in the cells.
You had one job.
One job.
Apparently, MCC blew it on this one job.
Now, Bill Barr, the Attorney General, as we can see from this Daily Caller piece, is apparently pretty disturbed by this too.
William Davis wrote this in the Daily Caller.
Bill Barr says Epstein's death raises serious questions.
Yes, obviously.
That's going to be in the show notes today.
Check that out.
The DOJ and the IG are looking into this.
I want to get to the meat and potatoes here, ladies and gentlemen.
First takeaway.
The FBI and the IG, the Inspector General looking into the death of Epstein this weekend, had damn well better handle this quick.
They better handle this by the numbers, and they better handle this publicly.
Folks, I'm gonna wait till the facts come out.
I don't engage in theories I can't back up.
But I think Joe and I would both agree the questions surrounding this alleged suicide are numerous.
Yeah.
And are worth entertaining and worth getting to the bottom of quickly.
I can't say this enough that our constitutional republic You know, lately appears to be hanging by a thread, whether it's Spygate, the relentless attacks on Donald Trump, you know, the collapse of our legal system with, you know, with the judges acting as politicians.
Folks, the trust in our justice system and our FBI, sadly, is at an all-time low.
It's not a reflection of a lot of the working men and women there, but what the managers did to the Trump team destroyed their reputation.
You now have the subject of a criminal case that could bring down some connected high-profile elitists, many on the Democrats' side of the aisle, who obviously own our academic institutions ideologically and our culture, and all of a sudden he shows up dead in a cell in one of the most secure facilities in the country?
They had darn well better handle this quick and by the numbers.
And there are a ton of open questions.
Now, let's do some rumor control first.
Alright.
Number one, he was not on Suicide Watch.
This is important.
Folks, we shouldn't be theorizing on anything until we get the facts in this.
Really, it just discredits everyone later on.
Epstein was not on Suicide Watch.
Now, what's disturbing about that, I'm just putting it out there as a fact.
I'm not saying that was the right call.
Look at this Daily Mail piece we saw, which again, will be in the show notes today.
Epstein had already told the guards before he hanged himself that someone tried to kill him.
Questions mount, this is a Daily Mail headline, Chris Spargo and Andrew Court.
Questions mount over why billionaire pedophile was taken off suicide watch just as sex slave lawsuit naming powerful friends, including Prince Andrew.
Why was he not on Suicide Watch?
Folks, Joe, there's obviously a paper trail here.
Was some mental health professional involved here?
I mean, how of all the people not on Suicide Watch, how did this guy make the list?
He clearly was open about efforts he felt to kill him.
Clearly there was an incident a week ago where there were allegations of self-harm.
How was he not on Suicide Watch?
Another question I have for you.
I have a ton of open questions here.
Folks, I know MCC.
I know how it's laid out.
How exactly did he do this?
Again, I'm trying to keep the gory details out, but how exactly did he do this?
When you see how the cells are laid out, how high they are, how there's not really anchor points or anything, how they don't really give them a lot of metal and things to work with, and even the sheets they give them aren't, like weight, they're not capable of bearing weight.
The show, they give them like, um, it's not, it's like a paper type sheet.
It doesn't bear weight.
In other words, if you were to rip it, yeah, exactly.
Into like a rope type thing.
How exactly did it happen?
Again, I'm not, I'm not suggesting any, I'm just asking legitimate questions here.
How did this happen?
How was he not on suicide watch?
How mechanically did this actually happen?
This better go public quick because there are a lot of questions out there.
Another open question.
As we've discussed on this show many times before.
Folks, again, it's not... Before I get into this, I want to be crystal clear on this.
Because people are using my name, by the way, for viral clicks on their website.
Secret Service Agent this, they're talking about me, I've seen it.
A lot of you sent it to me.
Don't buy a lot of their hype.
Get it from me here on my show.
The information I have about Epstein is not mine.
I was not the witness.
For those of you who missed the show where I discussed this, a person Came to me a certain time period ago with some information about some behavior by Bill Clinton that was suspect at best on an Epstein plane.
That's the totality of the facts.
When that person is ready to share that, I will be happy to bring it out on this show or he's welcome to do it somewhere else.
That's what I know.
But I know that the behavior by very powerful Bill Clinton, even to this day, even though his political capital has diminished greatly, was at best suspicious, at worst, deeply, deeply troubling.
I'm just tired of my name being thrown out there like I'm hiding something.
It's not my information to share.
What I have and was given permission to share, you have.
Not hiding something from you?
What would be the purpose of that, Joe?
Yeah, I've seen those tweets.
No, that doesn't make any sense.
Yeah, it's annoying.
It's getting a little... Yeah, people are doing clickbait stuff on their website.
You know, conservativewarriorwhatever.org.com or something.
Secrets are ready to blow the... It's not my info!
Get it?
So if that's another open question, just when are these people going to come out and talk about what we know?
But secondly, there have been a number of allegations about Jeffrey Epstein's ties as a potential human source or to the intelligence community.
Open question.
What exactly did Epstein, what kind of knowledge did he have?
Was he working as a human source for the FBI?
Was he working for intelligence, some kind of foreign intelligence?
I'm not suggesting he was some, you know, a Mossad asset.
I'm just suggesting to you that there's an open question out there as to why he was given some of these deals in the past, and was there a trade-off?
Was he working as a source for someone?
Alright, alright.
Now folks, I'll throw this out there as well, and I have to be cryptic again because this is not my information to share, and I don't violate people's trust when they tell me that.
But I know someone is working on a story, someone you and I both know, that's very big with regards to this.
Very big with regards to Epstein.
And I'll leave it at that.
There's information out there, and there may in fact be evidence out there, hard evidence, of what's been speculated in the past about his behavior around these young women.
Again, it's not my story to share.
When it comes out, I will share it on the show.
I'm just telling you there are a lot of open questions about who was watching Epstein, who Epstein was watching for other people, who Epstein was dealing with, who was watching the people Epstein was dealing with.
I'm giving you a wink and a nod because this story I think is bigger than even you know.
Copy.
But again, I'm not going to speculate on the circumstances of his death until the information is out there, but I'm clearly going to tell you, a lot of you emailed me this weekend like, Dan, this is suspicious.
I don't disagree.
How is a guy who is alleged to have tried to harm himself already, not on suicide watch, while connected to some of the most powerful people in the world, in a devastating case of alleged sexual misconduct?
How he was- I have no- I cannot explain that with a straight face.
Deeply, deeply disturbing.
All right, I want to get into this, and I want to get on kind of a flow here, folks, because I want to get back to the Friday show.
This is going to be about a 20-minute segment, but there is some devastating nuggets and a theory I want to throw out there that I've heard bandied about, about exactly what was going on post-Trump election to explain Why the Democrats wanted to re-engage Christopher Steele.
I promise, it's very simple when I get to it, but this one's going to open your eyes.
Let's get to this quick and then we can rock and roll.
This is important.
We have good sponsors who want to be here.
They want to talk to you.
Ladies and gentlemen, are you stressed out?
You're having a tough time sleeping?
I have the answer to you.
Visit omaxhealth.com for their sleep and stress remedy.
You're not sleeping well?
If you don't, sometimes I have that issue.
Your entire day suffers.
I don't have that problem anymore thanks to OMAX.
Your patients get shot, you're moody, you're irritable.
So if melatonin or over-the-counter sleeping aids aren't doing the trick for you, you need to try OMAX Sleep and Stress Remedy with CBD.
This breakthrough triple action CBD oil formula helps relax your mind naturally so you can get your best night's sleep ever.
Paula, how much we love this stuff.
I mean, we get pretty stressed out.
You get off the air, the lights are in your face, you do a late hit on Fox.
This Omax Sleep and Stress Remedy with CBD is the best.
You know, some of you don't even remember what it's like to get a full night's sleep.
You will now.
You'll get deep, restful, I know you don't Joe, blissful sleep.
Talk about a guy who used to get up at ungodly hours.
Trust me, the CBD blend is incredible.
You'll feel the difference the first time.
Omax is offering our listeners 20% off their first box of Omax Sleep and Stress Remedy with CBD plus free shipping.
And if you don't experience your best night's sleep in just three nights, you can return it for a full refund.
They are that confident in this product.
Just go to omaxhealth, right?
OmaxHealth.com today and enter code BONGINO to get 20% off a one month supply plus free shipping.
If you don't have your best night's sleep in three nights, return it for a full refund.
That's OmaxHealth.com.
Use promo code BONGINO to get 20% off your first order of free shipping.
Listen, this is a paradigm shift in better sleep.
It combines clinically tested ingredients with premium quality full spectrum CBD.
The special combination of ingredients helps relax, Your mind naturally fall asleep faster, stay asleep longer, and wake up alerted and fresh.
Remember, omaxhealth.com.
Use promo code Bongino for 20% off.
Okey-doke.
So let's get to this, folks.
All right, Joe, I need you as the audience ombudsman here.
So one of the looming Standing by!
Parade rest!
One of the looming questions in this ongoing Spygate saga has been, why were the Democrats, specifically Mark Warner, people like Dan Jones who used to work for Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein, left her staff to still try to, after the dossier had been debunked, put some meat on the bones of it.
Why were they trying to re-engage Steele as late as May of 2017?
After Christopher Steele, the author of the debunked dossier used to spy on Trump, I think all of you know that.
Why were the Democrats still looking to engage this guy?
Keep in mind, ladies and gentlemen, he gives information throughout the summer of 2016.
They used that information, steals paid by Team Hillary through Fusion GPS to gin up this fake dossier with all the nonsense, the pee-pee tape, the ridiculous Carter Page allegations.
He was being bribed for a tune of seven quadrillion dollars.
It was so stupid.
They were like, I mean, if you read the dossier in his face, you'd laugh.
Why were they still trying to engage this guy if they already knew he was a liability?
You tracking?
Is the basic question set up here?
Because when I give you the answer, it's going to blow your mind even more because you regular listeners understand why.
The Democrats know by May of 2017 that the guy who produced the information to spy on Trump is entirely discredited.
The Cohen-Prague story is false.
The PP tape is false.
The Carter-Page thing is false.
They're getting all this heat.
And yet, as we can see, and I want to hat tip the conservative Treehouse guys, they have an interesting piece on this.
This is a tweet from Mark Warner.
This is their labels on it.
He did a good job of this.
Yes.
Here is a, excuse me, not a tweet, forgive me, a text.
The Conservative Treehouse guys are gonna have this up.
A text from Mark Warner, and look at the dates, folks.
May 31st of 2017, where Mark Warner, Democrat Senator on the Intel Committee, is clearly trying to re-engage Steele.
Let me read for you this text so you understand what's going on.
Here's Warner.
He's talking here to Adam Waldman, who is a lawyer representing Steele, who also represents this influential Russian, Oleg Deripaska, connected to Putin.
Senator Warner, we want to do this right.
Private in London.
Don't want to send letter yet, because if we can't get agreement, we'd rather not have a paper trail.
So Warners, and be clear what's going on here, folks.
Democrat Senator Warner on the Intel Committee is texting this lawyer, working with Christopher Steele.
Warner's trying to re-engage with Steele through this lawyer, but does not want to set up a paper trail.
Waldman responds.
That makes sense.
Glad to keep trying to intermediate and see if I can convince him to speak with you directly.
He's talking about Steele.
At the moment, Steele seems spooked.
No pun intended.
Want a response to that?
Keep me informed.
Also, any news from your other guy on Manafort.
Waldman responds to that.
My other guy, the conservative treehouse guys think he's talking about Deripaska, it's certainly possible.
But Waldman responds, my other guy, like Steele, very mistrustful of US government.
He's been essentially shut out of the country and dragged through the mud.
I explored this question with him last night in person.
This is damning stuff, ladies and gentlemen.
With the Orr 302s and the exposure of the fact that Orr's continued to be used as an intermediary as well, Bruce Orr, the DOJ official, between Steele and the FBI, despite the fact that Steele, on paper, Christopher Steele, the source for the dossier, has already allegedly been terminated by the FBI as a source back in November, Joe, because he was deemed unsuitable for use for talking to the media.
Here we get the $64 trillion question.
What the heck was Steele, on paper at least, terminated by the FBI as a source for talking to the media, yet the Democrats are still trying to get in touch with him, and Bruce Ohr is still talking to Steele and passing the information to the FBI?
What is going on here?
Please tell me you get this set up, because when you get the answer, it's going to kick you in the rib cage.
Okay, I'm waiting for the kick.
Well, here it is.
Folks, may I suggest to you that our theory that the dossier Steele produced is not the Steele dossier?
That our theory is behind all of this?
Folks, I'm done with my second book.
It's going to be out in just now a couple weeks.
Exonerated.
It's available now for you to pick up.
When you read this book, this is going to open your eyes.
Folks, this was not the Steele dossier.
The information in that dossier, it's looking more and more likely by the day, was produced by the movie script author, Glenn Simpson, who wrote the piece in the 2007 Wall Street Journal about the exact same players in the dossier.
Also, it now appears Bruce Ohr's wife, Nellie Ohr, who worked for Fusion GPS, the same company as Christopher Steele, was producing dossiers herself.
Now, some of you may have made the connection, some of you may have not.
Let's just get to the hook.
Okay.
Folks, they're trying to reach out to Steele because they want to make sure Steele shuts his mouth.
And that Steele story is going to stay consistent.
Yeah.
Think about it.
Think about it!
Yes!
Why is Christopher Steele's name on a dossier used to spy on Trump if it's not his dossier?
Why?
Why put his name on it?
Folks, you already know the answer because you're regular listeners to this show and you're very smart.
Because if you put Glenn Simpson's name on the dossier, the FBI would have had to verified him as a legitimate source because he hadn't worked with the FBI in a formal, confidential, human source way in the past.
And if they had to go out and verify Simpson and his information in the dossier, Joe, what would have happened?
They would have found out that the dossier was... Let's hear it.
Who says it?
Judges ruling.
Information.
Crap.
They would have figured out immediately that the information was garbage if they had to do the homework of verifying the Simpson or dossier.
So some genius said, well, I've got an idea.
Let's go out and hire this guy Christopher Steele, who's already worked with the FBI and already has that FBI badge of honor as a source, so they won't do the extra legwork to verify it because Steele's already a verified source.
Yeah, but it's not Steele's information, it's ours.
Doesn't matter!
Nobody's gonna check that!
Joe, please tell me you're picking up what I'm putting down.
It's simple.
Now, all of a sudden, the information's entirely discredited.
Steele's outed by a bunch of media outlets.
Trump surprisingly wins the election.
They thought all this was going to go away.
And now, all of a sudden, people start asking questions.
Hey, Steele, is this your information?
Well, I've never really been to Russia, not recently.
This is the Democrats, Mark Warner, and the Bureau, the upper level of the FBI, through Bruce Ohr, who's still meeting with Steele after he's been fired, air quotes, by the FBI.
To do what?
Folks, it's obvious to get Steele to shut his mouth.
Yeah.
Because when Steele comes out, Joe, and says, hey, the Steele dossier is not the Steele dossier.
This isn't even my information stem.
They just put my name on it.
You realize their, well, their whole case is already falling apart.
But another axe chainsaw to the redwood of this case, (imitates chainsaw) timber.
It's a whole thing collapses.
Yeah, keep them close.
Now not only is this, yes.
Keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer.
This is not what it appears to be.
Dan Jones, who leaves Senator Feinstein, Democrat Senator's staff on the Senate Intel Committee.
Remember, Feinstein's on the Intel Committee managing this whole Spygate thing with Democrat Mark Warner.
Jones isn't leaving to continue the investigation into Trump.
They know Steele's information's garbage.
Jones, Waldman, Warner, Feinstein's crew, the Bureau, they're only talking to Steele to give him a couple pats on the back to grease him.
To get him to shut his mouth.
You get it?
Look at those texts.
Warner's desperate to keep the relationship going without a paper trail.
Why?
Why not want a paper?
Folks, why would you not want a paper trail?
If Steele is a verified authentic source with legitimate intelligence information on the sitting president spying for the Russians, why would you not want a paper trail?
Because Warner doesn't want anybody to know he's meeting with Steele.
Hey, Chris, you know, I've been on the Senate Intel Committee.
You know, we've been working this Spygate scheme the whole time and the spying scandal on Trump.
Hey, Wynken and I, Chris, you're not gonna say it's not the Steele dossier, right?
You're gonna still say this was your info, right?
Because the only way the FBI could have used it is if it was your info.
Right, right.
Steele was a front!
Steele was a front!
They don't want him to tell the truth!
That's all coming out now with these Orr 302s.
The Orr 302s show a continued relationship with Steele after he's fired.
Folks, I'm telling you, it's not for intelligence gathering.
It's to get Steele to shut his mouth.
Wow.
Yeah, wow is right.
You're darn right.
You want more proof?
Here's another screenshot from the Orr 302s that were released.
Look at what they did here!
Not gonna read the whole thing.
It's up youtube.com slash bungie and I'll read to you the portion you need to see.
So they're interviewing Bruce Orr, the FBI.
Again, these 302s are memorandums about their interviews with him.
Orr's still communicating with Steele.
They say on December 20, 2016, 11 a.m., Orr provided this writer, talking about the FBI agent who's taking the notes, with a USB microdrive, a thumb drive.
Glenn Simpson at Fusion GPS hired Orr's wife, Nellie Orr, to conduct research for his firm.
Orr voluntarily provided his wife's research to the FBI.
Orr provided the interviewing agent with the thumb drive and indicated it contained the totality of the work Nellie Orr conducted for Simpson.
Get a load of this!
Here's the killer line!
But the Fusion GPS header was stripped.
Nelly Orr is a Russian linguist and former Russian history professor.
The thumb drive was entered into evidence.
Ah.
So folks, again, this strategy to get information into the FBI and launder where it actually came from.
First, they're laundering the information through Steele that clearly some of this is logically from Simpson and Orr, not Steele.
The Steele dossier should be called the Simpson-Orr dossier, but it can't be because it wouldn't be credible because they weren't credible sources.
Secondly, launder the information from Nelly Orr, who's working for Fusion, to her husband, Bruce, through the thumb drive, but make sure you strip away the headers that this came from Fusion.
Folks, this was an information laundering operation, and they're trying to get Steele to shut his mouth because Steele's the one who knows about it.
Finally, one takeaway, because I got a bunch of other stuff to get to today.
It's an important show.
Daily Caller piece, again in the show notes.
Show notes are definitely worth your time.
Subscribe to my email list at bongino.com.
I'll email you these stories every morning.
It's very important, but they're also attached to the podcast.
Daily Caller piece by Chuck Ross, who's been doing yeoman's work on this.
Bruce Soar documents undercut FBI claims in Carter Page FISAs.
Again, another, you know, wooden, big axe to the redwood of this case tree is coming down, folks.
In the Broussard 302s, Broussard acknowledges that there is a detailed ongoing relationship between him and Steele, and he shares at one point this fact that Steele may have had an ongoing relationship with the press.
Well, ladies and gentlemen, that's a big problem.
Because as we can see in the piece, if Bruce Orr is passing to the FBI that Steele had an ongoing relationship with the media, then that debunks a footnote in the FISA warrant.
Here we go.
Chuck Ross, and I quote, the FISA footnote also poses potential problems for Steele, given his contacts with numerous reporters and former British and U.S.
government officials regarding the dossier.
This is in the footnote in the FISA.
Source 1, talking about Steele, told the FBI that he only provided this information to the business associate and the FBI, reads the footnote, which does not cite a date for when Steele allegedly made the claim.
Goes on, not only did Steele brief reporters about the dossier, he also provided a copy to a John McCain associate, David Kramer.
Kramer acknowledged he shared the dossier with BuzzFeed, and Kramer said in a court deposition that Steele encouraged him to speak to BuzzFeed's Ken Benzinger and CNN contributor Carl Bernstein.
What's the problem?
Bruce Ohr openly speculates, ladies and gentlemen, in this interview with the FBI in the 302s, that this relationship was ongoing, that Ohr and Steele met with reporters right around the time of the September Yahoo News report, and that he may have, quote, met jointly with Simpson, with the reporter.
Folks, why is that a problem?
It's obvious.
The footnote clearly says they didn't provide the information to anyone other than the business associate, Fusion, and the FBI.
Someone's lying!
Again, this case is coming down and coming down fast, rapidly, and hard on the left.
Their story, ladies and gentlemen, cannot possibly, possibly be true.
He only spoke with us and Fusion.
Actually, he spoke with the FBI and Bruce Ohren already acknowledged he likely met with Yahoo about the article.
Yahoo News and Isikov.
Listen to me.
I'm telling you this is all coming out and this is going to be really, really, really bad for these hacks at the top who were convinced they were going to get away with this.
All right, stay tuned.
Last sponsor.
Listen, I want to get to this next.
These red flag laws and this just grotesque mischaracterization of the Second Amendment that so easily, easily debunked this liberal talking point.
All right, let's get right to it.
Last point there.
Hey, check this out.
Vincero!
Look at that Vincero.
You like that one?
Isn't that sharp?
You like that one, Joe?
Yeah, it's sharp.
The rogue.
Look at that.
I know.
A special ops watch or something.
Put on your secret service earpiece.
Grab my glasses.
Put the secret service shades on, right?
I love this thing.
Check out that Vincero watch.
Looks sharp, right, folks?
Check it out.
YouTube.com slash Bungino.
Vincero watches are having their biggest sale of the year.
Go now.
Go today to vincerowatches.com.
V-I-N-C-E-R-O.
Everything on site is on sale.
No exclusions.
The more you shop, the more you save.
You could literally save hundreds.
This only happens once a year.
Everything on site is on sale.
No exclusions.
Even the all-new collection they just dropped is available on sale.
Vincero just dropped two new collections and a line of men's wallets all on sale.
Products sell out.
Do not wait to buy.
Check out the rose gold Vincero.
Look at that beauty, Joe.
See the weight on that, folks?
Can you feel that?
Look at that.
Yeah, yeah.
Look at the back.
Nice big weight on the back.
This is like a quality, high quality watch you're gonna love.
My brother loves these watches, he's a big watch collector, big watch collector.
You'll never see watches this caliber on sale, you can't pass up a deal this good.
Vincero has hit the five year milestone, they have over 17,000 five star reviews,
so you know they're doing something right.
You wanna check this brand out, ladies and gentlemen, there's never been a better time to shop.
You got a man in your life, a woman in your life, Oh!
Look at that!
Look at the beautiful Paula makes an appearance.
There's a watch in that picture?
Crazy.
There's Paula with her beautiful Vincero we love.
We'll be wearing it this weekend at a special event we're going to.
Check them out now.
These watches are incredible.
They're cool.
They put the focus on the customer.
That's how they got where they are today.
They offer free shipping worldwide, so there's no excuse not to check them out.
They have collections for men and women.
They offer engraving on select styles.
Treat yourself or shop for a gift.
Go to vincerowatches.com.
Everything on site is on sale.
No exclusions.
I love, love, love these watches.
This is my new favorite though.
Check that one out.
You like that?
Nice.
All right, moving on.
Folks, These red flag laws are a disaster.
I'm going to get to that in a second.
We have an article up at Bongino.com.
But first I want to establish some principles here so we can debate sensibly with liberals who refuse to debate sensibly and debate on emotion rather than fact.
Ladies and gentlemen, the Second Amendment is not a collective right.
Now, this is where the left is going.
I follow them on Twitter.
I'm not going to tell you what accounts I follow because they block me like that clown at Media Matters, Bobby Lewis.
He's supposed to be my stalker and he blocked me.
How are you supposed to stalk me all the time?
How do you block me?
The guy had one job to stalk me, you know?
But they block me, so I can't tell you which ones.
But I follow these liberal accounts and this is where they're going again.
They're going, oh, this is all about the militia.
This was never meant to be an individual right.
And I stewed on this over the weekend.
I thought, what is the easiest way to distill this down to a simple argument for the leftists that you can debunk this nonsense talking point?
And I saw this piece by David Harsanyi in the Federalist, and it's very well done.
Again, it'll be in the show notes today.
Please check it out.
The Second Amendment, as the title, has always been an individual right.
John Paul Stevens is still wrong about District of Columbia versus Heller by David Harsanyi in the Federalist.
Excellent, excellent piece.
A lot of legal wonkery in there, but worth your time.
But the gist of it is this.
Here's one of the takeaways from the piece I really enjoy that's very important.
Folks, I'm quoting from the piece, and he's quoting Judge Antonin Scalia.
He says, putting all these textual elements together, wrote Scalia in his historical, philosophical, and legal exposition of the Second Amendment, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.
The meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment.
Here's the money line, folks.
We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment Like the first and the fourth codified a pre-existing right.
David's a great writer.
I'm just, I'm gonna make it a little simpler for you.
Joe, is the First Amendment your right to speech, your right to petition the government, your right to express your religion, your right to assemble, is that a collective right or is that a right that belongs to you, Joe Armacost?
Uh, that belongs to Joe Armacost.
Thank you, Joe.
You betcha.
Your Fourth Amendment rights against search and seizure, illegal search and seizure, is that a right granted to the collective or a right to Joe Armacost?
Baby, it's all about me.
That's right.
Me.
Joe Armacost.
It's all about Joey A!
Yeah.
It's all about Joey A!
You got it.
Let's get to the meat and potatoes now.
Alright.
So, let's put the Second Amendment up first and make this real simple.
Because we're just going to go to a simple language test.
Okay.
So here's the Second Amendment for liberals who can't read.
A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, comma, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
All right.
So the people who wrote the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, our wonderful founding fathers in this document, In the, said, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
So they're talking about, Joe, an individual right here.
Yes.
How do we know that, that they're not referring to a collective right?
Because the exact same terminology is used in other portions of the Bill of Rights.
The exact words, to be exact, and it, of course, they're talking about individual rights.
Exactly.
Let's go to the First Amendment, because again, liberals have a tough time doing things like reading and word comprehension.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of press, or of the press, or the highlight here, notice where I put my finger down extra hard on them, you can see that on the highlight, or the right of the people, peaceably to assemble, petition the government for a redress of grievances.
So the First Amendment, I had to highlight it for the libs watching the show, uses the exact, literally, not figuratively, right-of-the-people words terminology in the First Amendment to refer to what is unquestionably an individual right.
They say, oh, okay, well, that was just a typo in the Constitution.
Well, they didn't really have typewriters back then, but whatevs, libs.
Let's go to the Fourth Amendment.
Let's go to the videotape, as Warner Wolfe used to say.
Here it is again!
Highlighted for the libs!
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.
You know the rest shall not be violated.
Ladies and gentlemen, it's the exact same language.
Why would the framers of our Constitution and the authors of the Bill of Rights write about individual rights using the exact same terminology, rights of the people, to refer to individual rights, not collective rights of the militia, and then use that exact same terminology in the Second Amendment, but confuse everybody by using the same terminology then to refer to a collective right?
Folks, of course they would.
You're being a dipstick by saying that, and you know it.
And so did Judge Antonin Scalia, who has since passed, sadly.
Of course it was an individual right!
Just ask your liberal friends.
If the right of the people codified in the Second Amendment refers to a collective right, is freedom of speech and against search and seizure a collective, not individual, right?
No, no.
Those are individual rights.
It's the same language!
Listen, there are a thousand arguments.
Reading through some of the historical documents surrounding the Constitution and the drafting of thereof, it's clear they were referring to individual rights.
It's clear they were referring to the militia as individual citizens armed who could then come out and act as a defense force for the United States.
It's clear.
Just read the documents.
Liberals won't do any of that because they don't care.
This is a simple explanation.
Is the First Amendment an individual right?
Yes.
Is the Fourth Amendment, is that about individual rights?
Yes.
Then how is the Second Amendment that uses the exact same language a collective right?
Paula, does that make sense?
I'm sorry, I have to go to my backup.
I'm Buds Woman on the show.
Because I just, I know you get it, but I'm afraid this isn't hitting home strongly enough.
Like with the libs, they don't get basic things.
No, no, it's definitely a collective right.
Yeah, sure.
Sure, guys.
Good job.
Well done, again.
Good solid legal analysis there.
You know, I've never heard it put that way, to tell you the truth.
I didn't know about that Scalia ruling or writing.
That's pretty cool.
It's not hard.
It's so simple.
And Harsanyi, if you want a more detailed, layered legal analysis with some of the historical background, Harsanyi's piece is excellent.
It's definitely worth your time.
Very cool, dude.
I'm simply suggesting you just highlight, just take out your constitution.
Most of you carry a pocket constitution.
I actually have the app.
It's easier to carry on my phone.
And just highlight, right, to the people.
It's not hard, man.
It's not hard.
I'm telling you, I stewed all weekend on this.
The Monday show for me, a little behind the scenes, folks, is always the most stressful for me.
Joe knows this because there's so much.
We had Epstein dying this weekend.
We had the Orr 302s break on Friday night.
Oh, and by the way, thank you to everybody who watched me on Hannity on the 5 on Friday.
The feedback was tremendous.
I love you all to death.
I mean that.
You make my day.
Your feedback was so nice and I really appreciate it.
But Monday, all weekend, I wanted to cover this and these red flag laws, and I just, I'm like, what is the easiest way to say it?
And that's it.
Joe agrees.
Thank you, man.
All right, let's move on to these red flag laws.
Matt Palumbo, our resident fact checker at Bongino.com, wrote a terrific piece, short, sweet, and to the point, about why these red flag laws are a bad idea, even the title's short and sweet.
The Problem with Red Flag Laws, by Matt Palumbo.
Please read the piece up in the show notes today.
Folks, a couple takeaways from Matt's piece.
Now, what are red flag laws?
They're also known as gun violence restraining orders.
They are restraining orders that are supposed to, according to what they tell you, the supporters, they're supposed to be legal restraining orders where people, if they think an individual is a danger to himself, others out there, that they can go in and take firearms from this person without charging them with a crime.
Folks, listen, on paper that may sound great, but there are significant issues, due process issues, with going in and disarming people who have yet to commit a crime.
Now, there are other issues addressed in Matt's piece regarding these red flag laws that he nails, and he hat tips Michelle Malkin who pointed out this problem too.
Folks, we've already seen things like this before.
Red flag laws, or similar Pre-emptive ways, Joe, of putting people on watch lists and warning lists and red flag lists.
And Michelle Malkin gives a great example, which Matt cites in the piece, of the VA.
The Veterans Affairs Administration.
Yeah, listen folks, what happens to our vets when they come back sometimes is a disgrace.
The poor health care they get, how some of them are demonized by people for speaking out about their own health care.
And one of the examples Malkin cites, which again Matt quotes in the piece, is how There is a, Joe, how Orwellian is this?
There's apparently a disruptive behavior committee at the VA, where if you're going to a VA healthcare and you're a vet, you're the best of us, you come back, you've served, you're just looking to get your healthcare situation taken care of, that I guess if you open your mouth and complain about the, you know, sometimes crappy healthcare you get at these, they can put you on like a disruptive behavior list.
And Matt talks about Michelle's piece where Michelle says, you're supposed to be able to get off that list, like to petition to get off, and only something like a 29% of them, if you read the bottom of the piece, have been given or afforded the opportunity to pull their names off this list.
Now, once you're put on that disruptive behavior list, what happens then?
I mean, are you going to get EDP'd like we did emotionally disturbed person, danger to self-worth?
Is there going to be a commitment involved?
What happens?
You have your firearms taken away?
We've already seen a malfunction of the government bureaucracy with our vets.
You want to transplant a similar type model, these warning lists, disruptive behavior lists, into the society at large?
Another good point Matt brings up.
These lists are temporary.
And whereas I have no doubt there are lots of people in the country who have problems and should not have firearms.
Folks, we have to respect due process.
These are temporary.
That's not a permanent fix.
If you think someone is a danger to themselves or others, this needs to start in a home where family members can get these people some help.
Allowing the government to come in, in complete violation of due process, and preemptively take away your Second Amendment right, Without proving probable cause for an arrest or beyond a reasonable doubt for a conviction that you've committed any crime, ladies and gentlemen, this is very dangerous stuff.
And I don't support it.
And I'm sorry, I know a lot of you are supporters of the president, I am too, but this is a very bad idea.
And let me just say, I got a lot of emails about this this weekend.
A lot.
A lot.
Like, up there with the death penalty show.
And I'm just saying to the administration, I know we have a voice and I hope some people listen.
I am telling you now, you're going to lose a lot of support if you move forward with this.
People see this as an unjustified encroachment upon liberty and freedom and a violation of due process.
And a lot of the folks out there do not want to be put on a list because they object to some government policy or they complain about medical care at a VA.
I'm just warning you.
If anyone in the administration is listening, this is a really, really bad idea.
I hope you are.
I have an interesting tweet also by Elizabeth Warren, which I saw this on Don Trump Jr.' 's game.
He's absolutely right.
Elizabeth Warren tweeted this this weekend as well.
This is while we're on the firearm topic and the Second Amendment.
Folks, notice here, while I'm gonna read this tweet, I want you to keep in mind, in the background of this, right, what's the liberal theory about high taxes?
They don't affect business at all.
Don't worry, people will pay them, it's not gonna hurt business.
Here's Elizabeth Warren, at eWarren.
Increasing taxes on gun manufacturers will reduce gun and ammunition sales and bring in new federal revenue that we can use for both gun violence prevention and enforcement of existing gun laws.
Together, we can hold gun manufacturers accountable.
Hold on one second, I just wanna read that opening line again.
Increasing taxes on gun manufacturers will reduce gun and ammunition sales.
Whoa, whoa, timeout.
Timeout.
Here we go.
Oh, there's a flag on the field.
Penalty!
Laundry on the field.
There's laundry on the field, folks.
What is holding it?
Holding 10 yards, Elizabeth Warren.
Replay first now.
Her and Bernie Sanders, Joe, have they not been lecturing us how taxes have no impact on the economy?
They are not going to hurt business.
Taxes are not going to stop commerce.
It's not going to stop consumption.
Raising the prices of products through government taxes, raising the price of your work by forcing higher income taxes on you to work longer for the same amount of money.
That's what income taxes do.
It's not going to affect work.
It's not going to affect consumption.
None of this is going to make a difference.
They've been lecturing us.
Since the Barack Obama years about how stupid it is the idea that taxes impact commerce.
But what's their solution?
We need to tax gun manufacturers because that'll definitely impact gun sales and commerce.
You get how they step on their own all the time?
They can't get out of their own way.
They have completely contradictory, phony, fraudulent messages all the time.
These people are complete frauds.
Any time now, remember that tweet?
Screenshot it, take it off the YouTube, go to Elizabeth Warren's account, put it on your phone.
The next time your liberal friends tell you high taxes don't make a difference and don't affect consumption, the economy, or growth, just show them that tweet!
But what, it only, let me get this straight, it only affects guns?
It only affects the gun and ammunition, but every other business is immune.
Oh, okay, alright.
I mean, did that make any sense?
Yeah, that makes perfect sense.
There you go.
Perfect.
Ruling?
False.
Fraudulent.
I love this.
This is my favorite new tool.
Paula, who gave us this?
Do you remember this guy's name?
This is the gavel.
Mike, was it Mike?
Mike, email us, because I want to give you a hat tip.
This is our favorite new tool.
Ruling in the Bongino Court!
False!
Ten years for felonious mopery in the umpteenth degree!
The gavel!
Every show needs a gavel, right?
We can do that on this show.
One of my doctor friends emailed me this weekend and said he loves the freewheeling nature of the show.
So do I!
That's why it's my favorite thing to do.
Why?
What is it?
Jane?
Like with an N?
Okay, Jane.
Thank you, Jane.
This will be forever referred to as Jane's gavel.
Ruling?
We love Jane.
Nice.
Jane is definitely not Mike.
Okay, last story of the day, but a good one.
Again, on this liberal, I have to tie storylines together here.
Liberal hypocrisy at its finest.
I appeared on Fox & Friends this morning, my regular Monday morning appearance.
I always encourage you to watch it because I love Fox & Friends and they let me talk a lot.
They're really long appearances.
Different shows have different, you know, for those of you who look behind the scenes about Fox, different shows are a different kind of dynamics.
SOPs, Joe knows as he was in radio a long time.
Yeah, exactly.
Some shows I do debates, some shows you have to be short and quick because there's just a lot of guests.
Fox and Friends on Monday, I get to kind of just go and roll.
So they had me on this morning about Bernie Sanders and this ridiculous Bernie Sanders tweet, which I mean saying that is kind of funny because every one of his tweets are ridiculous.
But Bernie, who's the biggest fraud out there, I tweeted this weekend something about Donald Trump and climate change.
It says, Donald Trump believes climate change is a hoax.
Donald Trump is an idiot.
So I just lit Bernie up this morning on Fox & Friends.
Donald Trump is an idiot?
Keep in mind, this is the same... I even got to do my Bernie impression on Fox & Friends.
Donald Trump is an idiot!
Donald Trump believes climate change is a hoax!
He is an idiot!
And I said, wait, Donald Trump's an idiot?
Bernie Sanders thinks Donald Trump's an idiot.
This is a guy who believes in the money fairy.
This is the guy who wants to spend 30 trillion dollars, more than we owe entirely for our national debt now over the next 10 years, on a money fairy-like government-run healthcare system he thinks is going to manage your healthcare better than you.
This is the same guy who tells you he believes in climate change, Flies around on private jets eating foie gras and what was it?
Rib loins?
What the hell was it?
Remember that?
What was it?
Remember that show?
Lemon encrusted purloins or whatever the heck that was?
Remember that show went crazy?
This is the biggest fraud out there.
This is, I don't like millionaires and billionaires.
I can't stand them.
Now all of a sudden he amended that.
Now it's, I don't like billionaires.
You notice why he doesn't talk about millionaires anymore.
Because he's a millionaire!
He's a total fraud!
Martha McCallum asks him during a debate.
I think I'll be on her show tonight.
Asks him during a town hall, excuse me, what he did on Fox.
You know, Bernie, you don't like the Trump tax cuts, right?
Yeah, I'm paraphrasing the question, obviously.
Yeah, they're terrible!
But you pay the Trump tax rates that are lower, right?
Of course I pay them!
You'd be an idiot to pay higher tax!
Thank you, Bernie!
You're absolutely right!
We don't be idiots!
This guy's the biggest fraud!
Folks, This guy bothers me for a number of reasons.
Listen, he's not going to win.
I'm out of the predictions game, but let me say it's highly likely he's not going to win the nomination.
He's going down in the polls.
Elizabeth Warren, who's just as bad, obviously, is creeping up.
But it bothers me because this guy, I think I already told you this story, but it's worth readdressing.
This friend of mine at gym is a really smart guy.
I've run into him in the gym, super smart, follows politics.
You know, not as intently as Joe and I and Paula do, but He heard Bernie on Joe Rogan's show, which is the most popular podcast around.
And he's like, well, a lot of what Bernie said sounds reasonable.
I'm not kidding, folks.
My heart was ripped out of me.
And you understand like that's the game socialists play?
Of course it sounds rich.
Folks, there's nothing unreasonable about saying, hey, you know, middle class people should earn more money.
People work hard.
The rich have a lot of money.
They do have a lot of money.
Working class people do work hard.
And you know, I wish they had some of the money that wealthy folks have.
But folks, the world is not a fair place.
The business world cares about people who add value.
Middle class workers add value, but so do people who are wealthy, too.
And sometimes people in the middle class become rich.
Sometimes people who are rich, who stop adding value, become very poor.
You need me to name the stories of people who've gone bankrupt?
Over and over.
Sometimes middle class people become poor.
Sometimes those circumstances are not fair.
Sometimes they're fired for terrible reasons.
Sometimes companies make bad decisions.
Sometimes they're fired for the right reasons.
But they lie to you, and they paint this Pollyanna-ish view of the world.
We need to help the poor people become rich!
Thanks, Bernie!
Of course, I mean, how?
We need socialism!
Well, here's a story from the Wall Street Journal this weekend, where they actually practice socialism.
So what Bernie's saying, again, makes sense.
It's Bernie's prescriptions that are wrong.
Here's the title of the piece by Mary Anastasia O'Grady, who writes about South and Central America a lot.
Venezuela grows more unequal.
The haves find ways to provide basic services.
The have-nots suffer intensely.
I'm going to get to a portion of this piece in a second because it's important and it's worth your time.
But now, keep in mind, I'm not suggesting what Bernie's saying doesn't make sense.
Of course I want middle class working people to be wealthy.
I want the wealthy to be wealthier.
I want the poor to be middle class and rich one day.
It's how you get there that matters.
Any idiot can go on a podcast and say, we need the poor to get rich.
Oh, gee, thanks, dude.
Brilliant.
Bernie thinks socialism is the path to get there, where the government controls the means of production.
Everything.
The government owns you and your business and everything about you.
And he thinks that's the way to make the poor richer.
It's actually a way to make the poor poorer and to make the connected more connected.
In this piece, I'm gonna get this snippet, but there's another part in there.
She talks about how Venezuela, there's no power.
The power goes out all the time because socialists ran the power grid into the ground because government workers don't know anything about how to run a power company.
They barely know how to do government work.
So she talks about how the connected, with money in Venezuela, the connected few, have gotten together and bought generators for their communities, Joe, so their power is on 24 hours a day.
Yet the poor, that the socialists were supposed to be protecting, have no such luck.
They starve because their food goes bad.
And she also writes in the piece, this is a portion of the piece I was concerned about, because again, Bernie thinks he's helping the poor.
She says, well-to-do Venezuelans with access to dollars, that's U.S.
dollars, they're trying to keep out of Venezuela, by the way, including regime insiders, can overcome shortages.
For those who can't, i.e.
the poor, life has become primitive.
Thus, as Tkal, it's a newspaper entity, reported, the gap in living standards between the haves and the have-nots is wider than ever.
I thought socialism was supposed to shrink that gap.
We need to make the poor rich.
It's wider.
Here?
Here.
Here it is.
There's always a gap.
There's always going to be people who are poor, middle class, and wealthy.
Always.
There is no perfect society on earth.
This is called the utopia fallacy.
When socialists compare the United States to utopia, it doesn't exist.
We need more equality.
Okay, great.
Every country's unequal.
The question is what degree of inequality do we have here?
You look at socialist countries, you have the poor with no access to US dollars, having to use worthless Venezuelan boulevards, showing up with a wheelbarrow of cash to buy a loaf of bread.
No!
The wealthy in Venezuela, connected to the regime, they get dollars.
They can go to the store and buy whatever they want.
It's a scam, folks.
It's a scam.
I say to my buddy, this is on my show, you know I love you to death.
I'm not going to name him, of course.
But my gosh, listen to not what he's saying, but how he prescribes the solutions to get there.
It's what his fixes are that matters, not what he's saying.
They're all scammers.
Besides, I just showed you with Warren and Sanders, whatever they say is usually hypocritical anyway.
I hate the Trump tax cuts, Barney.
You pay the Trump tax rates, you fraud!
Elizabeth Warren, taxes ain't gonna hurt business.
Let's hurt business by taxing guns!
I don't get it!
All right, folks, thanks again for tuning in.
Please subscribe to my YouTube channel, youtube.com slash Bongino for the video version of the show.
Audio podcasts available always on Apple Podcasts.
All of this is free, by the way.
Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, go to SoundCloud as well.
We really appreciate it.
It's the subscriptions that drive us up the charts, all free, all the time.
Thanks for spreading the word about the show.
We had a really great week last week.
And sorry for the three-foot-tall image of Dan Bongino on the YouTube on Friday.
I'm doing a Bob Dole talking about himself in third person.
But I thought the mic stand worked better in a hotel room.
Obviously, holding the mic is better.
Even my wife, when I was done with the show, was like, dude, I love you, man.
You're my husband.
But gosh, I don't need that much of your face in a screen.
