John Brennan is in Deep Trouble & Pelosi is Running Scared (Ep 1140)
In this episode, I address the explosive NY Times article showing that John Brennan is under active investigation for his role in the spying scandal and I articulate exactly what he did. I also cover a viral article about the impeachment of Donald Trump which asks the question “was Trump even impeached?”News Picks:The NY Times is worried now that Brennan is under investigation.
This 2017 Washington Times article shows how deeply Brennan was involved in the illicit Spygate operation.
Did the UK already know about Steele’s information?
This 2017 CNN article gives up the entire scandal.
The economy is motoring, especially for those in the middle and lower middle-class.
Liberals get triggered by the words “Merry Christmas.”
The Trump campaign raises 5 million dollars on the day of impeachment.
Has Trump even been impeached yet?
This is the most partisan impeachment in US history.
The courts have ruled against Obamacare, here’s what’s next.
Democrats are manipulating the impeachment process & messing with norms.
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.
Oh boy, do I have a show for you today, folks.
Everything we've told you is now coming out.
The New York Times is trying to get ahead of it, folks.
Trying to get ahead, run interference for the Spygate.
Co-conspirators got that.
Impeachment blowing up in the Democrats' face.
A little bit of coverage of the debate last night.
Just a disaster.
Really kind of a waste of time, but some funny stuff from last night.
And another interesting article about how the Democrats are lying to you again about the economy.
Welcome to the Dan Bongino Show, Loaded Friday Show.
Producer Joe, how are you today?
Fine, sir?
Oh, dude, it's been one long week.
I'm so glad that it's Friday!
I was waiting for that.
There's a little worry there.
You forgot what you were supposed to do on Friday.
That's your, you know, radio 1970s radio intro.
We all love and adore.
So folks, listen, I got a lot to get through today.
Before I get that, I just want to tell you one quick thing and ask a favor.
I will be guest hosting the Sean Hannity show on Fox on Monday, this Monday coming up 9 p.m.
Eastern time, the Fox news channel.
Please, with the greatest of respect and humility, I ask you check out the show.
DVR it if you can't watch it right away.
I really appreciate it.
We gotta, you know, travel up there.
We still have a show on Monday.
We will be taking off Christmas Eve.
We'll run a Best Of show, some of our best shows of the year.
And Christmas Day, there will be no show.
So a Best Of on Christmas Eve.
No show, Christmas Day, and we're back for you Thursday and Friday.
So Monday, Thursday and Friday will be original shows, best of on Christmas Eve.
Thanks for your patience.
We appreciate it.
I really want to spend some time with the family.
Joe, Paula as well.
Merry Christmas to you all, too.
All right, let's get right to it, Joe.
Today's show brought to you by everybody's at Law Shield.
Listen, you've heard me talking about Law Shield for a long time.
U.S.
Law Shield is a great company.
Do not carry a firearm naked.
I don't mean without clothes, I mean without the protections of U.S.
Law Shield.
They're the company I trust to have my back if some criminal ever forces me, God forbid, to use my firearm in self-defense, me or my family.
Now I want to tell you about a really cool giveaway they put together for my listeners.
They're giving you a chance to win an all-expenses-paid trip To visit Ox Ranch in Texas, where you get to drive and shoot a real World War II Sherman tank.
It's an experience of a lifetime worth $5,000.
You can enter to win right now at uslawshield.com slash dan.
No credit card, no strings attached, no risk.
Just your chance to drive and shoot a real Sherman tank.
It's truly a once in a lifetime experience.
Simply go to USLawShield.com slash Dan right now to secure your free entry.
That's USLawShield.com slash Dan right now.
USLawShield.
They provide you that legal protection.
Ladies and gentlemen, you need, if you are a firearm owner, 24-7, 365.
Don't carry your firearm naked.
USLawShield.com slash Dan.
The best protection out there.
All right, Joe, let's go.
Ding, ding.
Ladies and gentlemen, well, I forget the movie.
You know, I'm always terrible at the pop culture references, but what's the movie that, it's happening.
It's not a TV commercial or something.
It is happening.
Again, I don't want to be dramatic.
I don't like to do this.
Oh man, everybody's going to jail.
Matter of fact, whatever stance I take on the spy gate thing, I always get nasty emails, which is fine.
I give you my email for feedback, positive, negative, or whatever.
But if I tell you I don't think this specific person is going to go to jail, people yell at me, stop saying that.
And then when I say, you know, it's happening, I get other tweets.
They go, stop saying that.
Nothing's happening.
Nobody's going to jail.
So I've given up on that part.
I'm only going to tell you the truth.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I'm just going to tell you what I think, because there's no pandering to people is useless and it's phony too.
And I don't do that.
So what do I mean it's happening?
The New York Times put out an article last night literally as Bill Barr was on the air in an interview.
It was a taped interview with Martha McCallum on Fox last night at 7 p.m.
We covered it yesterday, the highlights from it.
The Attorney General's on the air talking about the spy gate thing and who is going down and as he's on the air, Joe, crazy how this happens!
Crazy talk!
Crazy!
As he's on the air, the New York Times gets this explosive leak about how Dorham, John Dorham, a.k.a.
Bull, John Dorham is scrutinizing ex-CIA director's role, John Brennan, in the Russian interference finding.
That's crazy!
It's crazy!
I know.
Amazing how that keeps happening.
How the New York Times keeps getting these leaks from these deep staters right as information's being put out in real media outlets like Fox about how bad the Spygate scandal is.
So the Times is clearly trying to get ahead of something.
The question you need to ask, and I'm going to tell you today, is what are they trying to get ahead of?
Well, We've been covering a lot of it for two years.
So I'm going to cover just two lowlights, there are no highlights in a New York Times piece, from this New York Times piece, which basically confirms, again, the story we've been telling you for two and a half years now about the information laundering operation, John Brennan's role in the CIA, and the spying on using foreign partners of U.S.
persons in circumvention of U.S.
laws, how that story is real and you haven't been wasting your time.
Without further ado, Clip one from the New York Times piece.
Check this out.
I'm going to read this to you.
This is just fascinating.
So this is how it opens.
It says, the federal prosecutor, talking about Durham, who's looking at the Russia investigation, has begun examining the role, Joseph, of former CIA director John Brennan.
Oh, yes.
In how the intelligence community assessed Russia's 2016 election interference, according to three people briefed on the inquiry.
John Durham, the U.S.
attorney leading the investigation, has requested Brennan's emails, call logs, and other documents from the CIA, according to a person briefed on the inquiry.
He wants to learn what Brennan told other officials, including FBI Director Comey, about the CIA's views of a notorious dossier of assertions about Russia and Trump's associates.
Give him up!
Show us the emails!
What did Jerry Maguire say?
Show me the money!
Show us the emails, give them up!
It reminds me of my friend, my buddy Brian.
He ordered a steak once in a restaurant, right?
And he thought they gave him two steaks, so he gave the extra steak to my brother, only to find out it was a potato upside down that looked like a steak, and he said, bring it back!
Bring it back.
Paula's laughing because she knows it's a true story.
He gave my brother the steak and got stuck with the potato.
Bring it back.
Bring it back.
Bring back the emails.
We want to see them.
Give us the call logs, Johnny B. Johnny B, fess up, buddy.
Let's see what you got.
Give me what you got.
Remember Al Pacino when he walks into the club at night to the source?
Give me what you got.
Give me what you got.
We'll take them emails now.
Thanks, John.
Let's see what you really got.
Now, what has been the operating theory on this show for the last two years?
Yes.
Ladies and gentlemen, the spying operation on the Trump team, this is very simple, did not start with the FBI.
The FISA warrant to spy, the formal operation to go to the courts and spy on Carter Page and other Trump team members, was not the beginning.
The deep staters want you to believe that was the beginning, and they want you to believe that started because of the Papadopoulos downer foreign government tip about Russians.
Papadopoulos heard about Russians, wanted to help us.
That's not what happened.
This started very simply because John Brennan, the CIA, and others likely wanted Intel on Barack Obama's political opponents, but couldn't get it because there are U.S.
laws that prevent the U.S.
government from spying on its own citizens.
But they had another place they could get it from, Joe.
The five E's, the five I's, partners are friendly partners that are supposed to be cooperating on intelligence sharing to target terrorists and the like, not Barack Obama's political opponents.
Do you understand that is the scandal?
Why do you think in the beginning, I just did a New York Times piece, why do you think John Durham, the U.S.
attorney looking into this, wants all of what Brennan was talking about, about the dossier?
If he believed Brennan, and we'll get to the video in a minute, that Brennan didn't, Brennan said he didn't investigate the dossier.
Oh, I got his video.
Don't go anywhere.
Brennan said he didn't even see the dossier until December.
If all that's true, then what's Durham looking at?
No problem.
The dossier that, you know, the FBI used it, obviously.
But Brendan's saying, I didn't see it till December.
It was used to get a warrant in October.
I don't have any pride.
It had nothing to do with that.
October, FBI gets a warrant based on the dossier.
I didn't even see it till December.
I'm good.
If all that's true, then why is Durham saying, give us what you got!
Give us what you got!
Why is he doing that?
Because he's just wasting his time on some fishing expedition?
Why is the New York Times writing this piece now?
Well, of course, the New York Times always gives up its motive.
Remember, it's strictly a Pravda-like propaganda outlet.
Pravda, of course, the Soviet Union's official newspaper.
This is the official newspaper of the Democrat Party.
Let's go to the second take from this New York Times piece, where they give up exactly what their intention is here.
Quote, Mr. Durham's pursuit of Mr. Brennan's records is certain to add to the accusations.
Wait, wait, wait.
Time out.
T.O.
Certain to add to the accusations.
Keep in mind what they're about to lay out is not an accusation.
It's what the New York Times wants you to believe.
Mr. Durham's pursuit of Mr. Brennan's records is certain to add to accusations that the President, President Trump, is using the Justice Department to go after his perceived enemies.
Let me skip down to the second part.
Mr. Durham is also examining whether Brennan privately contradicted his public comments, including his May testimony about both the dossier and about any debate among the intelligence agencies over their conclusions on Russia interference, the people said.
So two takeaways in there.
The first is the most important.
The first is that the New York Times isn't telling you about legitimate accusations.
The New York Times is leveling those accusations.
You get what I'm saying, folks?
The point of the New York Times piece is to advance a propaganda talking point by the left that this looking into of John Brennan's potential malfeasance and maybe criminality, I don't know what we're going to find.
That this is strictly a political witch hunt by Trump.
And they're saying, Joe, there are accusations out there.
Yeah, from you!
No serious person believes that.
Serious people who've looked into Spygate know John Brennan's got a lot of splaying him to do.
Show me the money.
Serious people know that.
But again, I said serious people.
It doesn't include the New York Times.
So you see how they cleverly do that?
The purpose of this piece, Joe, is to tell a story.
Oh, it's pretty blatant.
Not the story.
Yeah.
And the New York Times story they want out there is this is all a partisan witch hunt against Brennan.
Accusations are out there, folks.
No, they're not.
It's only by you.
Again, not serious people.
Why do you think that piece was run last night as Bill Barr, Attorney General, was on Martha McCallum's show dropping tactical nukes on John Brennan's Mellon and Jim Comey?
Why do you think that happened by mistake?
That a couple deep staters, three according to the story, leaked this?
Folks, again, keep in mind the lead.
They have absolutely no doubt our intelligence infrastructure was spying on political campaigns, notably Cruz, Carson and Trump using foreign partners in circumvention of U.S.
law.
There's no doubt about this anymore.
How much trouble he's in.
And by the way, they're also looking into the intelligence community assessment done in December after the election.
Remember the intelligence community assessment?
The 17 agencies said that the Russians interfered to help Trump.
That may not exactly have been true, folks.
Now, we know the Russians interfered in our election.
That point goes without saying.
And no one should dispute that because you'd be disputing known facts.
The Russians have been interfering.
Yeah, in our elections since the Soviet Union days.
That's not the question.
The question is the intelligence community, after Trump was the president-elect, came out with a document backed by Brennan and Comey and others saying, oh no, they did it to help Trump.
Apparently, Durham's looking into that too.
Lee Smith, great writer, with his book out, The Plot Against the President.
Lee Smith calls the intelligence community assessment the 17 agencies that agreed they wanted to help Trump, the Russians.
He calls that Obama's dossier.
We could also call it the cover-up.
That ICA gave them cover.
Cover for what?
That everything they've been doing to spy on the Trump team, Joe, was legitimate.
Look, the intelligence community agrees they were trying to help Trump.
Fair and square to look into it, right?
So why is Dorham looking into that too, Joe?
Dorham's probably looking into that intelligence community assessment because that assertion in there that the Russians were trying specifically to help Trump?
Was that really based on intelligence?
Or was that based on a political opinion that the White House really needed out there?
Oh, oh, oh.
Hey, before you move on, I got a little gift for you.
I know you asked for this.
You ready?
Initiating Bill Barr translator, Dan.
Thank you.
There you go, brother.
Thank you, Joe.
You're welcome.
We need that.
We're going to need that throughout.
I know.
We have the NuNes translator.
By the way, I will be interviewing Devin NuNes today.
Joe and new producer Drew for the video show will be launching the show tomorrow, Saturday.
Do not miss it.
We have the NuNes translator.
Someone wanted me to ask NuNes about the NuNes translator.
We'll see.
But now we have the bar translator.
Thank you, Joe.
That's why you're the best producer in the business.
We love it.
Now, moving on, the Washington Times, the great Rowan Scarborough.
By the way, in my show notes, spongino.com slash newsletter, I have the show notes.
Ladies and gentlemen, the benefit of subscribing to our newsletters, we don't just put stories from today.
I put stories that are older that are now applicable again today.
There is a great piece from 2017 by Rowan Scarborough at the Washington Times.
It will be in the show notes today.
I want you to read it.
Why?
Because again, Brennan is nailed to the wall.
He knew about the dossier.
This was an intelligence laundering operation being run, I believe, through the CIA.
Rowan Scarborough, May 29th, 2017.
Obama loyalist Brennan drove the FBI to investigate Trump associates last summer.
Folks, this is the operating story.
Keep the lead of this in mind.
The New York Times wants this to go away.
They're going to paint this all as a political witch hunt against Brennan.
What do I believe Brennan did?
I believe Brennan was running a rogue spying operation and lied to the FBI to get them to open a criminal operation as cover for what Brennan was already doing.
In other words, we can't tell the American people we're spying in the CIA, but we can tell them the FBI has evidence of criminality and are doing a counterintelligence investigation.
It was all cover.
It was all a cover story.
Now, from the Rowan Scarborough piece, a line that's going to become critical here.
You know what, I have some portions of it highlighted.
By the way, hat tip to, I forget the person on Twitter who highlighted this, forgive me, I'm not trying to like steal your stuff, but this was a really great highlight and I just forgot who put it out there.
But this is from the Rowan Scarborough piece.
This is what Brennan, how he described his actions in front of a congressional committee on their own.
I wanted to make sure that every information and bit of intelligence we had was shared with the FBI so that they could take it.
This is, by the way, Brennan passing the buck to the FBI.
Get ready for it.
It was well beyond my mandate as CIA director to follow up on those leads that involved U.S.
persons.
But I made sure that anything involving U.S.
persons, including involving individuals involved in the Trump campaign, was shared with the Bureau.
It goes on.
This is where it gets hairy.
Brennan quote, I was aware of intelligence and information about contacts between Russian
individuals and US persons that raised concerns in my mind about whether those individuals were
cooperating with the Russians, either winning or unwitting.
And it served as the basis for the FBI investigation to determine whether collusion or
cooperation occurred. He was aware of contacts between people on the Trump campaign and
the Russian government.
Where was that information coming from?
How did he know that?
Where was Brennan getting this information, ladies and gentlemen, about contacts, if they weren't... If Brennan's assertion that he knew nothing about the dossier, the dossier which is the only place where you can find information about people on the Trump campaign, Carter Page, Papadopoulos, and the Russians, that's the only place.
If Brennan's saying he didn't see that, Then where was Brennan getting his information about the Trump campaign allegedly colluding with the Russian government?
Well, let's go back to this CNN article, which I've had to post 62,000 times on this show.
Maybe a bit hyperbolic, but you get the point.
April of 2017, CNN Politics.
British intelligence passed Trump associates communications with Russians on to US counterparts.
Ladies and gentlemen, this scandal is no more complicated than this.
And the devastating portion of it is, as someone explained to me recently, we have multiple sources feeding things into this, and I will not report anything to you unless I can confirm it from multiple places.
I just want to be clear on that.
But as was stated to me recently, and as we've stated on this show before, do you understand that the scandal here Was that U.S.
citizens were being targeted and spied on by an intelligence infrastructure whose sole purpose is to assist U.S.
citizens from being spied on and being the targets of terror investigations.
Their entire role was reversed.
And they were doing it in conjunction with their U.K.
partners.
I've got more on this coming in a minute and some sound that Paula found, which I had somehow missed because of a play button.
I'll get to that in a second.
It gets better.
I want to play this quick video here of John Brennan, who made an appearance on Chuck Todd, again, the second dumbest guy in media, after Brian Stelter.
He's the silver medalist in the Dopey Olympics, right?
Chuck Todd did an interview with Brennan a while ago.
Ladies and gentlemen, Brennan has been running from the dossier from the start.
I didn't know nothing about nothing about nothing.
I didn't see it to December.
I didn't investigate it.
I had nothing to do with this dossier.
You sure?
Well, let's listen to Brandon himself say how he even corrects Chuck Todd.
That he didn't investigate the dossier.
This is him, and this is the opening of the interview.
He is repulsed by the insinuation that he investigated the dossier.
In other words, he had nothing to do with it.
Check this out.
Joining me now is one of the people who investigated the dossier, former CIA Director John Brennan.
He is now an NBC News Senior National Security and Intelligence Analyst.
Director Brennan, welcome back to Meet the Press.
Good morning, Chuck.
And I should correct you, I never investigated the dossier.
Itself.
Okay.
Let me ask you about Michael Cohen, then.
Was he ever on your radar?
I'm not going to get into details about who may or may not have been on my radar as far as a U.S.
citizen is concerned, because that was not CIA's role.
Anytime that the CIA collected information, incidentally, that involved a U.S.
person, we would share that immediately with the FBI, and then it would be the FBI's responsibility to pull the threads and do the follow-on investigation.
So, ladies and gentlemen, again, I'm asking a very simple question.
If the only place on planet Earth we know about Where the allegation that a Trump campaign member colluded with the Russians is in the Steele dossier, right?
That Carter Page was working with the Russians, with Manafort, and all false, of course.
But if that's the only place it exists, and Brennan, we now suspect Had some information about Russians working with U.S.
persons.
You just saw the Washington Times piece, did you not?
Brennan's quote, I had information about the Russians working with U.S.
persons on the Trump campaign, but if the only place that exists is the dossier, do you understand how these two stories can't be true?
Brennan's saying on one hand, Joseph, in the spring of 2016, I had information about the Russians working with Trump campaign officials.
Right, right.
That only exists, ladies and gentlemen, in the dossier.
Brennan claims he didn't investigate.
You just heard him.
And he claims in another clip, which we've played before, I'm not going to play again, he hasn't seen until December of 2016 after the case was already started.
Are you getting how these stories can't be true?
Because they're not true.
Brennan clearly knows about the information in the dossier.
The only question is, did Brennan get it from Steele?
Or is Brennan getting it from other friendly intelligence partners who may be assisting Steele?
Maybe a sophisticated information laundering operation?
Don't you worry, I will tie this up for you in a neat little cute bow and package!
Now, I believe Brennan was getting this information from our foreign intelligence partners.
Supposed to be friendlies, by the way.
The information in the dossier, I believe Brennan was getting that, as some of those intelligence partners were giving it to Steele and others as well.
They're getting it because they don't have to obey U.S.
spying laws on U.S.
citizens because they're not U.S.
citizens.
They're friendlies, like the United Kingdom, supposedly friendlies.
I believe they're feeding that, the CIA to the FBI.
You saw the Washington Times quote from Rowan Scarborough's piece, which again is in the show notes.
Please read it.
It's from 2017.
It's relevant again today.
Brennan's clear as day.
I passed this off to the FBI.
But did Brennan tell them that what he was passing off was what they were getting from Steele?
Can't be, Joe.
He just said he didn't investigate the dossier, and he already told Chuck Todd he hadn't seen Steele's dossier till December.
So when Brennan, he says he hasn't seen the dossier till December 2016, is talking to the FBI in the spring of 2016, December of the spring, December of the spring, what exactly is Brennan telling them, or where is he telling them he's getting the information from?
Clearly not Steele.
He's in a bunch of interviews saying, I didn't hear about Steele's stuff till much later.
I think he was lying to the FBI.
So when the FBI gets the information from Steele later, it seems like it's, wow, this has to be true, Joe.
We heard the same thing from Brennan.
Right.
Ladies and gentlemen, are Brennan's people and others working with Steele?
And not telling the FBI?
Well, let's go back to Lisa Page from the FBI's sworn testimony, which I believe she's telling the truth about, which I think confirms my operating thesis here that Brennan duped the FBI into starting this, telling them, I've got information about Russians.
Meanwhile, it's the same information the FBI is getting from Steele, because I believe Steele and his partners know a whole lot more about their workings with Brennan than they're letting on.
Let's go to Page's testimony up on the hill.
Let's read this.
So the great Mark Meadows, who's leaving his position in Congress, unfortunately, what a great guy.
Love Mark Meadows.
What a warrior.
He says to Lisa Page a while ago, this is sworn testimony, folks.
He says, you know, there are multiple sources.
She says, Lisa Page, FBI lawyer.
She goes, I do know that.
She says, I do know the information ultimately found its way to a lot of different places, certainly in October of 2016.
Listen to this.
But if the CIA, as early as August, in fact, had those same reports, I'm not aware of that.
Meadows says, so you say our source.
Is your source?
Is that because he was working for you?
Page, no, sir.
Meadows, well, I mean, how could he be?
Is he exclusively your source?
They're talking about Steele.
Page says, listen to this.
Don't ever forget this.
I strongly believe she's telling the truth.
Meadows is asking her, is Steele exclusively your source?
Lisa Page responds under oath, I don't know.
If the CIA had Mr. Steele open as a source, I would not know that.
Ladies and gentlemen, Lisa Page has been a lot of things in this case.
I don't think she's lying here.
I, again, am not absolving the FBI of their massive Comey malfeasance, FBI upper-level malfeasance in this case at all.
They worked a case by January of 2017.
If they interview Christopher Steele's sources, they know it's total garbage and bunk.
They know it for a fact, and they keep doing it.
Massive malfeasance, as bad as what Brennan did.
But the initiation of this case, I have been a federal agent, ladies and gentlemen.
A moment of personal privilege, if I may take it on my show, I have been there.
I've been down this road.
I have seen, and this is self-deprecating, it's not meant to be some compliment.
I have been there and seen how the hysteria around cases develop when you think you're onto something.
And ladies and gentlemen, what comes out?
Horse blinders.
I've been there.
I can't give you the details on it, it would be unethical.
But I can give you kind of a broad overview.
There was a very specific case, simply, I got from the Postal Inspection Service that involved a very famous person.
It was the subject of a movie.
The case, ladies and gentlemen, was not very good.
But the hysteria took over the office and it was sold to me and others as a bigger case than it really was because everybody was so excited about it.
We're only human beings.
Yeah, I've seen that.
Nothing happened.
Nothing unethical happened.
I'm not even sure if it was prosecuted.
But it turned into a big fight with me and this postal inspector.
It was a mess.
And it was all because of exactly what happened here.
The FBI sitting in their office, CIA just came over, Joe.
Brennan's people are telling us they've got a Trump campaign guy colluding with the Russians.
Folks, this is coming from Brennan, the UK, and Steele.
The whole operation.
This is happening in the spring.
Oh my gosh, look at what we're getting.
All of a sudden, Christopher Steele, who they don't know fed them this information, pops up again in the fall of that same year.
Guys, you're never going to believe this.
We've got a source, Christopher Steele, telling us the same thing Brennan told us.
Of course he's telling you the same thing, but he's told Brennan!
But they didn't know that.
So they're probably like, this is great!
Look at this!
It's confirmed!
It's true!
Now, all right, before I get to that, I've got to get to a spot, but I want to show you how, again, keep in mind, I always say, tell them what you're going to tell them, tell them and tell them what you told them.
Brennan's story, I didn't know about Steele until December of 2016, is not true!
That's what he told the FBI!
Brennan clearly had this information or some component of Steele's information and how Steele got it in the spring, and I believe misled the FBI into believing it was credible intelligence.
I'm going to show you where I think this network began in a minute, in a left-wing outlet that I think has already exposed this story, and CNN video my wife found, which is really a good job.
Hat tip to Paula.
Before we get to that, today's show also brought to you by our buddies at GenuCell.
Go to GenuCell.com, enter Dan 30 and check out for their special holiday deal.
Ladies and gentlemen, we love GenuCell.
There's only one week left for Shamanese Christmas and holiday sale.
Time is running out on Shamanese best promotion of the year.
Imagine the double chin and turkey neck.
Imagine that turkey neck gone with the famous GenuCell breakthrough jawline treatment
with MDL technology.
Your turkey neck joke gets worse every time.
You know I love you, but it's degenerating quickly.
From now until Christmas, get the classic GenuCell for eye bags and puffiness, free!
Plus, gender yourselves immediate effects for results in 12 hours.
Got a hot date?
Gender yourselves immediate effects is for you.
Holiday party?
Gender yourselves immediate effects is for you.
Look 10, 15, 20 years younger right now before your eyes guarantee to 100% of your money back.
But your order today is even more special.
Shamanese partnered with Women Rising to give the same exact package you get to a woman seeking support and assistance from domestic violence.
Go to GenuCell, G-E-N-U-C-E-L dot com.
Enter DAN30, DAN30 at checkout for an extra special discount.
Your order today includes GenuCell XV anti-wrinkle treatment.
Will be upgraded to priority shipping for free.
Order now!
And get Surprise Luxury Stocking Stuffer, a surprise just in time for Christmas Day.
Get your GenuCell holiday package at GenuCell.com.
That's GenuCell.com.
All right.
Hey, one more thing, folks, before we get back to this, I want to show you again how Brendan knew about this.
He's making this up.
If you go to Bongino.com, our website, we have Mugs, t-shirts, sweaters, hoodies, all that stuff.
Pick them up before the holidays.
I can't guarantee it'll arrive by Christmas now because we use a third-party shipper, but we donate our proceeds, all of them and then some, to a scholarship fund for local kids.
We don't profit from that at all.
So if you'd like to and you want some Dan Bongino Show gear and you want to support a good cause, you are doing a good thing.
Go to Bongino.com.
We don't advertise it a lot, but it's there at the website.
Our shirts and mugs and all that kind of stuff, so check it out again.
We donate all of that and then some over to charity, so we appreciate it.
Okay, so again, Brendan's story.
I didn't hear about Steele until December.
I'm good, don't you worry.
I told the FBI about Russian contacts, but I heard that from other kids.
Oh yeah, sure you did.
Let's look at this piece in The Guardian, because this is just fascinating, isn't it?
The Guardian, a left-leaning outlet, by the way.
This is not some conservative outlet.
This is by Luke Harding and written in November of 2019.
Just recently.
UK knew in 2016 of Trump's suspicious links to Russia.
Book claims.
What book?
Oh, the book by Fusion GPS.
Oh.
The people paid by Hillary Clinton to gin up these fake Russia charges that came from Brennan, Christopher Steele, and a network in the United Kingdom.
So now we know that?
This is interesting because one of Steele's buddies, a guy who used to head one of the UK intelligence agencies, a guy by the name of Richard Dearlove, who knows Steele.
Dearlove has vouched for Steele.
Dearlove said this in the piece.
This is where I'm telling you, folks, we have been on this thing.
We have nailed this from day one.
This is why the New York Times is panicking and freaking out.
The Fusion GPS book claims Dear Love then surprised Christopher Steele by indicating that he was already aware that the British government had suspicions about links between Russia and members of the Trump campaign.
It seemed the British government had made a political decision not to push the matter further.
Wow!
This is really fascinating, isn't it?
So Christopher Steele's dossier, the only allegation anywhere that Trump is colluding with the Russians appears in the Steele dossier.
So Steele starts talking to his buddy, the former head of British Intel, Richard Dearlove, and Dearlove says, oh, no, no, we already know about basically Trump colluding with the Russians.
You do?
You do, Rich?
That's funny because Trump wasn't colluding with the Russians and there is no actual evidence.
So what exactly is Dearlove talking about, Joe?
What exactly does Dearlove know?
And where is Dear Love getting this information?
And is Steele really giving information to Dear Love, or is Dear Love giving information to Steele?
Oh, dear.
Well, let's go back to this gem of a CNN interview a couple of years ago.
Not an interview, a CNN piece.
It's about a minute long.
Keep in mind, a segment that has never been pulled off the air and never been refuted.
Because you may say, oh Dan, the UK feeding information to Brennan's CIA?
That somehow finds its way to Steele and back into the dossier?
Come on.
That's a conspiracy theory, Dan.
I mean, you right-wingers, you never get the story right, right?
Okay, you don't need to hear it from me.
Let's hear it from CNN.
Check this out.
CNN has learned that British and European intelligence intercepted communications between Trump associates and Russian officials and other Russians known to Western intelligence during the U.S.
presidential campaign and shared those communications with their U.S.
counterparts, multiple U.S.
and Western officials tell CNN.
These sources stress that at no point did Western intelligence, including Britain's GCHQ, which is responsible for communications surveillance, target these Trump associates.
Instead, their communications were picked up as incidental collection during routine surveillance of known Russian targets.
The US and Britain are part of the so-called Five Eyes Agreement, along with Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
Which calls for open sharing among member nations of a broad range of intelligence.
This new information comes as former Trump foreign policy advisor Carter Page provides a confusing, even conflicting story about his contacts with Russian intelligence.
He has denied that he was a foreign agent.
Hat tip the wonderful Paula.
There was no place.
How did I miss that?
I've had the article.
Did you get that?
That's CNN, folks.
That's not Fox.
That's not the Dan Bongino show.
That's not a John Solomon article.
That's CNN.
Laying out the whole scandal for you, clear as day.
But don't worry, folks.
They put in a little proviso at the end, a caveat up there.
Don't worry, Joe.
It was all part of just incidental collection by the United Kingdom.
Okay.
So the UK was spying on American citizens associated with the Trump campaign, but it was all by accident.
It was incidental.
It was just incidental stuff.
So just to be clear, Joe.
Yeah.
330 million Americans.
There's probably, I don't know, maybe 500,000 people who've spoken to people in Russia.
Maybe 50 to 100,000 that speak to people in Russia regularly.
Probably 5-6,000 lawmakers at the federal, state, and local level who for some reason, international diplomacy, business dealings, lobbying, whatever, deal with Russia.
But Joe, magically, the UK found Carter Page of all of that communication, fascinating, and decided to only pass that guy's stuff over to the Intel Associates in the United States, which they mean the CIA.
Crazy.
Just crazy.
Yeah, crazy.
Totally insane how that, all by chance, Joe, total randos.
They just found, it was just Carter Page.
Don't worry, Joe, it was all incidental.
Okay, we're cool.
So, just to be clear, of all the political campaigns, politicians, House of Representatives members, senators, governors, mayors, people who deal with Russia all the time for various business, geopolitical, diplomacy reasons, State Department officials, it was only the Trump campaign officials that the UK picked up incidentally and decided to pass on to the CIA, and it conveniently CNN themselves says well and they found this guy Carter Page who then conveniently shows up in a dossier later about a fake bribe he supposedly was involved in with the Russians that's totally made up.
So let me walk through just to wrap this segment up because I do have other things to get to.
Including was the president even impeached?
The answer at this point is clearly no.
We'll get to that.
Let me just walk through to you what happened here.
It's becoming pretty clear, Joe, that the United Kingdom was spying on behalf of the Obama administration on Trump campaign members.
Pretty clear.
Don't worry, it was incidental.
Yeah, okay, whatever.
Just stop the BS, huh?
Don't waste anybody's time.
That information, I believe, was done with the knowledge of U.S.
officials, if not at the specific request of U.S.
officials.
Hey, UK, can you spy on our guys?
Well, why don't you spy on them?
Because we can't, they have laws against that stuff.
But if you do it, send it back to London, and then send it over to our CIA, and then send it back to us in the United States, we can just say, you guys found this stuff, and we didn't ask you to find it.
Then finds its way to Brennan, magically finds its way to a law firm that finds its way to Fusion GPS, and then finds its way to Steele.
Did Steele really write the dossier?
Or did Steele get the information from the Brits who pass it to the UK, who pass it to the CIA, who passes it to Brennan, who passes it to Perkins Coie, who hands it off to Steele later on and says, Hey, Steele used to work with the Russians.
Why don't you write this little story about Carter Page?
We'll get the FBI to spy on him for us.
And then once we caught, once we spy on Carter Page, we can spy on the whole campaign.
Remember the two hop rule.
Libs, I know you're taking a victory lap over the IG report, which is bizarre, because the IG report was damning enough.
I'm telling you right now, you have no idea what's coming.
I am strongly, I am not your friend, I never will be.
I'm simply suggesting to you, as a fellow citizen, in the strongest possible terms, You should seriously think about this before you take any victory laps over Spygate.
I'm telling you with the absolute confidence.
I don't know who's going to jail.
It's not, I'm not getting into that.
I'm not going to get into predictions.
Who's going to go to jail?
I'm not going to, all I'm telling you is the information that I'm sure Durham has and Bill Barr.
It's worse than you can imagine.
And your victory lap is way, way premature.
You think Barr's conversation with McCallum was done haphazardly?
You think that New York Times piece last night, trying to get out ahead of it?
What was their narrative, Joe?
Narrative test.
Here was their narrative.
It's all political.
Trump's going after Brennan because it's politics.
I don't know.
That was put out last night for one specific reason.
They know Brennan's nailed to the wall.
Brennan lied.
Brennan said he didn't have Steele's information.
Brennan clearly had Steele's information.
The only open question is, did he lie to the FBI about it?
And who gave the information to Steele?
If that information Wasn't steal Brennan, but was Brennan's people steal?
Oh, Houston, do we got a problem?
And a big one.
All right, let me do this final read and then we got a lot more to get to, including again, what I told you before, was POTUS, was the president even impeached?
Even lefties are saying, no, so we can kind of give up on that narrative for now.
President wasn't even impeached yet.
Before we get to that, one of my favorite sponsors, the Duke.
The Duke.
Ladies and gentlemen, can a bar of soap like this, this is a bar, this is not a brick, this is a bar of soap.
Can it be patriotic?
It's a lot to ask.
You say it's just a bar of soap after all.
It doesn't get out a little flag and wave it around.
It is patriotic.
You want to smell like manhood?
Duke Cannon.
Duke Cannon superior quality grooming goods for hard-working men tested by soldiers, not boy bands.
You want to smell like manhood?
Duke Cannon.
You want manhood emanating from every pore?
Duke Cannon solid cologne.
You want to smell like manhood out of the shower?
Duke Cannon's patriotic bar of soap.
Smell like a campfire, baby!
Duke Cannon partners with active-duty military to develop new ideas and review products.
Anything that doesn't meet the high standards of soldiers doesn't happen.
Duke Cannon.
Duke Cannon cologne.
Look at this.
Little chunk missing.
I have butt because I use this stuff.
Right, Paula?
Oh, yeah.
Duke Cannon is committed to giving back to men and women serving our country.
You should come over and say hello.
That's why a portion of their proceeds directly support veterans' causes.
Duke Cannon sells everything you need for manhood and nothing you don't.
They're big-ass brick of soap.
You hear that?
That's soap!
A man's soap!
Modeled after the rough-cut, brick-style soap used by GIs.
News Anchor Pomade, the perfect blend of medium hold, matte finish, and sandalwood scent.
Beard wash, superior grade shaving cream, and a solid cologne.
A foolproof way to smell good on the go, especially for those holiday parties and for date nights at home.
Cologne bomb that's DSA friendly and doesn't make you smell like you were attacked by the mall perfume lady.
Check out their products.
Go to dukecanon.com right now.
Get 15% off your first purchase with the promo code Bongino.
Smell like manhood.
Be a man.
Be the best man you can be.
dukecanon.com right now.
Promo code Bongino.
Free shipping on orders over $35.
dukecanon.com right now.
Promo code Bongino.
You have no idea how much I love this stuff.
I don't even consider that a commercial.
That's almost a segment on the show.
I know it's an ad and I have to tell you it's an ad because it is.
They paid for it.
But in my head, I consider it part of the show.
I love it so much.
Okay, getting back to the content.
Was President Trump even impeached?
Well, the answer, according to a left-wing, and believe me, a left-wing professor, is no.
Now, before I put this piece up, if I'm using a piece on Bloomberg, you know it's devastating.
Because the whole idea of BonginoReport.com, which is our conservative alternative to the Drudge Report, thanks to many of you to going there, BonginoReport.com, a lot of you made it your homepage, which I appreciate, was to get away from left-wing sources Drudge keeps using.
So if I'm using one, it's gotta be bad.
This is an article written on Bloomberg by, was it, Noah Feldman, who is a left winger.
Noah Feldman.
He was one of the guys, I believe, who testified at the impeachment hearing against Trump.
Here's the piece of Bloomberg opinion.
It's in the show notes.
Believe me, it's worth your time, even though it's at Bloomberg.
Trump isn't impeached until the House tells the Senate.
So folks, Nancy Pelosi thought she pulled a fast one yesterday, right?
She thought she pulled a fast one with this Trump impeachment charge, saying we're not going to forward the articles of impeachment until Mitch McConnell holds the Senate trial like we say so.
Well, somebody sent me a meme yesterday I put out on my Instagram account.
I'm at the bunch, you know, on Instagram.
Thank you to the viewer listeners who sent this in.
It was Bane from the Batman Dark Knight movie, the Tom Hardy character.
Remember that when the CEO, he meets the CEO and the CEO starts yelling at Bane, who's like a real B.A.
badass, you know?
And he's telling him, I'm in, no worries.
The CEO tells Bane, big monster Bane, he goes, no worries, I'm in charge here.
And Bane says, do you feel like you're in charge?
He then kills him, which we don't want to happen.
That's the movie.
But he sent me the meme of Bane.
Do you feel like you're in charge?
So I asked the House Democrats, you really feel like you're in charge right now?
We have left-wing professors saying, are you serious?
You didn't even impeach the president.
But then they took the vote.
Doesn't matter.
You don't forward the vote onto the Senate.
Nobody's been impeached.
President Trump should come out every day and put out a, he should put out a little counter on whatever their website is, their official campaign website.
Two days since the fake impeachment, not real impeachment has happened.
They should just put a counter.
It's not real.
They didn't forward it to the Senate.
What is it?
Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution.
The Senate has the sole, sole power to try impeachments.
Pelosi's done.
She is not in charge here.
We need Tom Hardy, the Bane character.
I don't know if he's a left-winger or not.
He probably wouldn't do it.
But do you feel like you're in charge?
We need Dana Lash right now.
She does a much better Bane voice than I do.
Dana Lash has the best Bane voice ever.
Seriously.
If you ever heard Dana do Bane, she does it so much better.
The time for fear is later, doctor.
She does it so good.
They're not in charge, Nance.
It's over.
You're humiliating yourself.
Showing you again how awful this impeachment has gone for them.
You know, there's a bunch of statistics and numbers I've shared with you many times, but it's worth repeating.
Swing state polls, support for impeachment is down.
Support for impeachment amongst independents, down.
Minority voters support spiking.
Trump's approval up six points.
And folks, here's two numbers I have for you, I just want to quickly throw out there.
The Trump campaign on the day of impeachment, the day, raised $5 million.
One day.
Ladies and gentlemen, I ran for office three times.
We didn't raise five million, I don't think, on all three campaigns combined.
We got close, but we didn't, on one day.
The RNC in the month of November, a record haul of 20.6 million.
Do you feel like you're in charge?
Not working out quite like you thought, Nansa.
Kind of tough.
Now, I got a bit of video from last night's disastrous Democrat debate.
These things just keep getting worse.
Last time, it was so dumb.
You know, Joe was probably... Joe, right?
Every day after a debate, I usually send you like a hundred clips.
And Joe never complains about anything.
He doesn't.
But I got to imagine, and if I'm wrong, Joe, tell me, that the day after a debate, you wake up and go, damn, I know it's going to be a busy workday because you know I'm going to send you back.
Exactly.
Somebody let off a gun bomb.
And he was expecting 50 clips this morning and we only had four.
And he's probably like, wow, what happened?
Is Dan taking a dirt nap?
Did he have a heart attack last night?
What happened?
No, it was just so dumb, the debate.
I could only find one thing of interest.
Well, two.
One's the moderator.
But one thing of interest from a candidate that was even worth your time because it was so dumb.
Folks, I've described this campaign to you as a disaster for the Democrats.
Listen, I am a devout partisan.
I think you understand that.
I'm a conservative.
But I'm telling you this in the most nonpartisan way, why the Democrats are in trouble.
Almost every election has three lanes and only three lanes to victory.
Don't ever forget this.
There's the establishment safe pick lane.
There's the ideologue lane, like the so-called radical, like the leftist or what they would call for us, the Tea Party guy.
I don't believe that's radical, I'm just saying what they would call.
So you have the establishment safe pick, the radical, and then you have the outsider lane.
Donald Trump took the outsider lane in the last election and won.
This election for the Democrats, all three leaders in those lanes are occupied by people who don't fit the label.
Let's start with the outsider pick, Buttigieg.
He's not an outsider, folks.
He's run for office multiple times.
He got crushed in a state race in Indiana.
He got crushed running for DNC chair.
And he's done a terrible job as the mayor of South Bend.
He's not an outsider.
Trump was a legit outsider.
So your outsider is not an outsider.
Big problem, folks, when you're running as an outsider.
That's his brand.
But it's not.
Who's the radical pick?
Well, you go up in the air between Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
Well, what's the problem with both of them?
Warren used to be a Republican, number one, and she's a millionaire.
And number two, Bernie's a millionaire too and says crazy stuff all the time.
He's not the radical either.
He's a standard old millionaire.
Not a bad thing.
I'm a capitalist.
But when you're a leftist radical and you want a true believer, you don't want a millionaire who runs against millionaires.
So their outsider lane is dead too.
Dead in the water.
I mean, politically speaking.
Right.
Now, what's the problem with Biden?
Getting back to our clip.
Folks, he's not even going to get past Cohen.
He's supposed to be the safe pick.
Like Romney was supposed to be for us.
And that was a disaster.
Folks, Biden can't get out of his own way.
Listen to this cut last night.
Remember Hillary Clinton's infamous line about how she was going to put coal miners out of business in the 2016 campaign?
You remember that?
I'm not going to play the clip.
Most of you've heard of it.
Hillary, we're going to put coal workers out of business.
Meanwhile, people in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, coal states were like, okay, thanks.
We're voting for Trump.
You would think they would have learned from that.
Not Joe Biden, supposed safe pick, who is now taking Hillary's dumb line and adding his own particular edge to it.
Here's his answer last night if he's going to fire people because of green policies who work in the energy industry.
Check this out.
Vice President Biden, I'd like to ask you, three consecutive American presidents have enjoyed stints of explosive economic growth due to a boom in oil and natural gas production.
As president, would you be willing to sacrifice some of that growth Even knowing potentially that it could displace thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of blue-collar workers in the interest of transitioning to that greener economy?
The answer is yes.
The answer is yes.
Folks, listen.
Again, I ran for office.
I know what it's like.
Came close and won.
Lost two other ones.
Got routed pretty bad.
I get calls from candidates all the time asking me for advice.
Not a lot of it's good.
I don't mean not good advice.
I mean, a lot of it's not good.
Politics is an awful place.
It's terrible.
I don't make any apologies.
I thank the Lord every day for the opportunities and the blessings he's put upon me.
And me losing that race for us was the best thing that ever happened.
Because my fight was not there.
It's here.
But I'm telling you, each race I learned something.
Folks, this guy is not the safe pick.
I'm telling you candidly, and in the most non-partisan way I can, self-avowed partisan, but I'm trying to take my head out.
This is the worst establishment safe pick candidate in modern times.
I'm not kidding.
Worse than Romney.
Worse than Dukakis.
This guy is awful.
Biden, he doesn't know what state he's in.
And I'm telling you, believe me, I am not Contrary to my square jaw and generally mean look, I promise you I'm not a mean guy.
I'm a big teddy bear, and anyone who knows me can tell you that.
I have a horrendous temper, but I'm really loyal to my people, and I love my family and my friends, and I've had the same people around me forever.
I'm not a mean guy, and I really genuinely feel bad for this guy.
There's something not right, folks.
Yeah.
He's 77 years old.
His time has passed.
He said dumb things in his 50s and 60s.
This is not ageism.
It's just, this is not right.
He cannot seem to get out of his own way.
He says things that are just bizarre.
He doesn't know what state he's in.
He comes out and repeats talking points that basically lost the election for Hillary.
He can't seem to get a coherent message about what he stands for.
It's really tough to watch.
The Secret Service agents I knew on his detail, listen, outside of the guy's politics, said he was generally a nice guy.
I don't, he really seriously needs to reconsider this, folks.
He is the worst safe establishment pick we have had in decades.
Joe, I'll throw this out.
Have you ever seen a... Think about it.
Have you ever seen a worse candidate who was supposed to be the safe pick?
No.
I mean, we've seen worse candidates.
Yeah.
Yeah.
But not worse safe picks than this.
I mean, you want this guy carrying the football?
I don't think so.
Good point.
Exactly.
I'm telling you, there's something going on there.
Yeah.
Somebody has to step in and say, Joe, You did your thing.
The Democrats love you.
You did your Obama thing.
You were a dutiful vice president.
Great.
It's time to go, man.
He is not the safe.
They were in a lot of trouble, folks.
A lot.
All right, let me get this other video in the interest of time.
Here's the moderator.
You know, they're not moderated.
They're all activists.
It was Politico and PBS.
So let's not pretend they were actual debate moderators.
But here's the debate moderator showing that she's actually a contestant.
A contestant in the debate and not a moderator.
Listen to what she says about wage growth in the economy and how she just completely makes up this question, which isn't a question, it's really an assertion about how low-wage earners are doing just as well now as they were under the Obama administration wage earners.
Although it's completely not true.
Check this out.
address to Vice President Biden, and that is the overall U.S.
economy right now looks strong.
The unemployment rate is at historic lows.
Unemployment among African Americans is down.
The markets are booming.
Wages, while not growing as much as many would like, they're still doing about as well as they were in the Obama-Biden era.
My question to you Okay, that's just simply not true.
Again, I know liberals listening, you don't do facts.
I don't care who you vote for.
Again, I've stopped trying to convince the 20% of the United States, maybe more the radical left, that what you believe in is insane.
It is.
I can't convince you.
Clearly, you know, the mark of a fool is to look at the data in front of you and refute the data.
So the question was, Well, wages are growing, but not as much as we'd like, and they're growing about as much as they were under the Obama administration.
Folks, that's not true.
You want the actual number?
The average wage growth under the Trump administration in the last two and a half years has been 3.1%.
Again, those are just facts.
I know you have a problem with that.
So if the questioner, the moderator there, if our question is accurate, you would think, Joe, She says, oh, it's the same as under the Obama administration, that the Obama administration average wage growth, Joe, would be 3.1%, right?
Not hard.
This isn't like complicated algorithms here and advanced calculus.
When did the Obama administration reach 3.1% wage growth?
In their eight years.
Eight years of the Obama-Biden administration.
They only reached that number three times.
Three months out of eight years, Trump has averaged 3.1% wage growth.
Again, the purpose of the show is always to give you the mental ammunition you need to go and fight the good fight, as Joe says, everything you need in an hour.
If this is the debate moderator who's supposed to be asking questions based on facts and data, parroting leftist talking points, You can only imagine how bad it is in the media and elsewhere.
Folks, it's just not true.
Trump's average wage growth was only hit during three months of the eight years the Obama administration—his average!
It's just not true, folks.
They're just making it up.
Alright, one final kind of almost tragically comical talking point to show you again how foolish liberals are and how they lie to you all the time.
Joe, have we not heard from the libs Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren?
Millionaires and billionaires!
The worst!
We gotta raise them taxes on the millionaires.
Bernie, you're a millionaire.
Not me!
I'm talking about other millionaires.
Not me, millionaire.
I don't count.
I'm a socialist.
I don't have to follow the rules, you dopes.
Come on, man.
We're hypocrites.
What have they told us, Warren and the Bernie Sanders Brigade?
We got to raise the taxes on the rich, man.
That's right.
We got to cut taxes on the middle class.
Yeah, boy.
Yep.
They've told us that a thousand times, right?
Sure have.
Of course they have.
Well, why are they pushing a bill now in the House of Representatives that literally will do the exact opposite?
Not figuratively, you know, I hate the use of the word literally, unless it literally is literally.
Yeah.
They are pushing a bill, the Democrats in the House now, That will cut taxes for the uber-wealthy and raise taxes on the middle class.
I'm not kidding.
This is a center-left-leaning website.
CBPP.org.
Center Budget Priorities.
They have the Center for Budget Policy Priorities.
This is not a right-leaning think tank.
They have a piece out.
Repealing the SALT cap would be regressive and proposed offset would use up needed progressive revenues.
That's a lot.
It's a complicated one.
What are they talking about?
Yeah.
Libs in the House and Democrats are pushing a bill to repeal portions of Donald Trump's tax cut bill with the Republican Party.
One of the portions of the tax cut bill repealed what's called SALT, state and local tax deduction.
Okay.
You used to be able to deduct from your taxes.
Your state and local taxes.
Right.
Almost to an unlimited amount.
So if you live in a high tax state like New York and you're rich and say you're paying $100,000 to New York City and New York State in taxes, you could deduct that from your federal tax bill.
The Trump tax cut plan got rid of that and said, no, we shouldn't be subsidizing high tax states.
We're capping your deduction at $10,000.
Ladies and gentlemen, the Democrats want to get rid of that.
This is a left-leaning think tank.
Here are their conclusions what would happen if you repeal the cap, that Trump put a cap on it.
That it would be regressive and costly.
That the top 1% of households would receive 56% of the benefits of the repeal the Democrats are proposing.
Oh!
So the 1%ers, Joe, get it?
And the top 5% of households would receive 80% of the benefit.
Oh!
While the bottom 80% would receive just 4%, according to the Tax Policy Center.
Folks, you may be saying, I can't be reading this right.
So the Democrats are proposing a bill To give a tax cut for their... By the way, I love tax cuts everywhere.
I'm just telling you how much of an immigrant they are.
They're pushing a bill that would cut taxes for the top 1% and top 5% while railing against the 1% and the 5%!
Yes!
That's what they're doing!
Here's the second part of this, it's even worse.
Almost nobody in middle-income households would benefit.
The vast majority of households will benefit from this Democrat tax cut for the wealthy.
That's their tax cut they're proposing!
The vast majority of households in the bottom 80% would be unaffected and would not benefit from its repeal.
Golly!
I love tax.
I'm just telling you, I love tax cuts.
They are frauds.
Why are they doing this, you may ask?
Because folks, wealthy liberals in New York and California are being hammered By this cap on what they're allowed to deduct because wealthy people pay a lot of state and local taxes, and they don't want to pay more federal tax, and they are hammering their representatives to get this tax cut reinstituted.
And the leftists, who are supposedly in it for the little guy, are the ones pushing for this tax cut.
They are complete, total frauds.
Every time, hands down.
All right.
Thanks again for tuning in folks.
I really appreciate it.
Please subscribe to our YouTube channel, youtube.com slash Bongino.
We're really trying to get to 400,000 subscribers.
We're almost there.
We're in like the high three twenties right now.
So we really appreciate that.
Youtube.com slash Bongino.
It is totally free.
You can also subscribe to our audio podcasts on Apple podcasts, Google podcasts, and don't forget.
Devin Nunes interview coming tomorrow, Saturday.
You are not going to want to miss this.
We are going to crack this Spygate thing wide open.
Long anticipated interview with the great Congressman Devin Nunes.
