In this episode, I address the latest NY Times’ story which is a clear effort to get out ahead of the growing FBI FISA scandal. I translate what they’re really saying. I also address a stunning rumor about the possible entrance of Hillary Clinton into the Democrats’ race for the presidency. Finally, I expose the nonsense in Bernie’s spending plans.
News Picks:Four things to know about the latest mainstream media Russia hoax.
The latest Russia hoax is already debunked.
Is Hillary Clinton hatching a plan to enter the race at the Democrat Convention?
Friends of the Trump team are helping to drain the Swamp by exposing anti-Trumpers in the administration.
Devin Nunes vows to continue his lawsuit against Fusion GPS.
Here’s the hard reality behind Bernie Sander’s ridiculous 97 trillion dollars in government spending.
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, incredible feedback on our Bernie Sanders segment on Friday which I'm going to address in specifics now.
Some of you fell for a lot of the Snopes stuff.
I will clear that one up.
Secondly, another New York Times story comes out this weekend, which should always tell you they're covering something.
I'll tell you what they're covering for.
You're going to love this.
Also, Bernie Sanders on 60 Minutes humiliating himself again.
Stacked show today.
Today's show is sponsored by ExpressVPN.
Secure your internet and your privacy with ExpressVPN.
Go to expressvpn.com slash Bongino.
Welcome to the Dan Bongino Show.
Producer Joe, how are you today?
Fine, sir.
Well, man, hey, ho, let's go.
That's what I say.
You're going to love our first sponsor today, too, when we get to that.
But yes, folks, we've got a loaded lineup.
Don't go anywhere.
I really want to dig into the Bernie Sanders stuff and the numbers, because you are being hosed by fake fact checkers and a bunch of Bernie bros who do not want to tell you the truth, including Bernie himself.
All right, before we get to that, today's show is brought to you by our new sponsor, Rock Auto.
I keep them in business, dude.
I'm not messing with you.
You love Rock Auto, don't you?
I've ordered a ton of parts from Rock Auto.
Yeah, they're fast and got the right parts.
That's pretty cool.
I love Rock Auto.
They have the best jingles out there.
I've spoken to the management of the company.
This is great, ladies and gentlemen.
Listen, rockauto.com is a family business, serving auto parts customers online for 20 years.
Go to rockauto.com to shop for auto and body parts from hundreds of manufacturers like Joe does.
That was not planned.
No.
Joe said to me before, Rock Auto, I love Rock Auto.
They have everything from engine control modules and brake parts to tail lamps, motor oil, and even new carpet for your car.
Whether it's your classic or your daily driver, get everything you need in a few easy clicks, delivered directly to your door.
The rockauto.com catalog is unique and remarkably easy to navigate.
Quickly see all the parts available for your vehicle.
Choose the brand, specs, and prices you prefer.
Best of all, prices at rockauto.com are always reliably low.
Always.
And the same for professionals and do-it-yourselfers.
No scams like some of these other places.
It's the same prices for the pros and do-it-yourselfers.
Why spend up to twice as much for the same parts?
Go to rockauto.com right now and see all the parts available for your car and truck.
Write Bongino in there.
How did you hear about us, Boxer?
They know we sent you.
Amazing selections, reliably low prices.
All the parts your car will ever need.
All the parts your car will ever need.
You ever hear it?
You've heard it, right?
Oh, yeah.
You know, all the parts your car.
You've heard it on Fox as well.
Rockauto.com, R-O-C-K.
Rockauto.com.
All right, Joe, let's go.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, so we put out on Friday James Woods' semi-tongue-in-cheek piece about how Bernie's wants to, I say threatened, to raise the minimum wage nationally because that's what it would be, a threat to our economy, in conjunction with some of the tax rates that Bernie Sanders would need to finance some of these proposals.
And the responses I got back, and I love your feedback, don't get me wrong, were interesting.
Because I had a lot of conservatives reach out and say, oh, you know, that's not true.
Bernie's not proposing that.
Folks, math belies that point.
Bernie Sanders, I'm going to go through hard numbers because I understand that I'm not, listen, you are my audience.
And if you felt that the trying to marry up his tax proposals with his free stuff proposals didn't work out that way, because some people said, well, Bernie never said a 52% rate.
He's not saying anything.
That's the point.
The simple argument we were trying to make is the math does not work for Bernie Sanders.
That was the point.
That when you marry up what he wants to spend in free programs with what he's telling the Americans what he's going to tax them, it doesn't work.
That was the whole point.
And I'm sorry if I didn't get to that more directly.
My apologies.
Today, we're going to put real meat on the bone to back this up.
But first, let me start with Bernie himself to show you how the math doesn't work.
He's lying.
He is lying to you.
No, no, Bernie said he's not going to tax people who make $30,000 a year.
He's lying.
Here is Bernie Sanders himself on 60 Minutes with Anderson Cooper, who, listen, hat tip to Cooper, you know, Nails him here.
Yeah.
And says, hey, buddy, are you ever going to tell us how you're going to pay for this stuff?
And watch Bernie flail around because he has no explanation how he's going to pay for this stuff.
Check this out.
How much will that cost?
Obviously, those are expensive propositions, but we have done our best on issue after issue in paying for them.
Do you know how much, though?
I mean, do you have a price tag for all this?
We do.
I mean, you know, and the price tag is It will be substantially less than letting the current system go.
I think it's about $30 trillion.
That's just for Medicare for all?
Just Medicare for all, yes.
Do you have a price tag for all of these things?
No, I don't.
No, you mentioned making public colleges and universities tuition-free and cancelling all student debt.
That's correct.
That's what I want to do.
We pay for that through a modest tax on Wall Street speculation.
But you say you don't know what the total price is, but you know how it's going to be paid for.
How do you know it's going to be paid for if you don't know how much the price is?
Well, I can't, you know, I can't rattle off to you every nickel and every dime, but we have accounted for you.
You talked about Medicare for all.
We have options out there that will pay.
Okay.
Don't worry folks.
I will rattle off every nickel and every dime for you because you deserve that.
And again, forgive me for not getting into the hard specifics Friday.
Again, the James Woods tweet was meant tongue-in-cheek to show you that Bernie Sanders can't possibly pay for any of this without instituting draconian tax rates.
Ironically, ladies and gentlemen, worse than what was in the James Woods tweet.
Now let's get into the hard numbers, okay?
I searched all weekend because this was on my mind.
I don't want you to think like, oh, we're putting out there Snopes, factious Snopes, which is hysterical.
Stuff that's been fact-checked as being wrong.
No, no.
We're right.
They're wrong.
Let's put meat on the bone.
I found this piece of City Journal by Brian Rydell, which is one of the better ones.
It'll be in the show notes today.
I encourage you to keep it handy on your computer or your phone.
The piece is titled this.
It's from October 15, 2019.
It's City Journal.
The unaffordable candidate.
Bernie Sanders' $97 trillion agenda would impose incomprehensible costs.
Now, yes, now we're going to go into the specifics here and let's just be crystal clear on this.
Unless you believe in the money fairy, what Bernie Sanders is proposing to give away to you for free, air quotes air, has to come from somewhere.
There's no money fairy.
And it can only come from you.
The government is not a private business.
It doesn't produce anything.
The government takes and spends.
So now that we understand that, that's tautological, that what he spends he has to take from you in the form of taxes, there's no other way.
Spending, deficit spending, all that stuff is just taxes or taxes delayed.
That's it.
Now let's go to the hard numbers to show you how James Woods' tweet where he says you'll be taxed at 50%, even if you make $29,000 a year or lower, is an understatement, not an overstatement, an understatement.
Let's go to screenshot number one from this piece.
The math doesn't lie, folks.
Quote, as long as Bernie Sanders remains in the race, it's worth taking his policy ideas seriously, since he has unveiled expensive new proposals on a near weekly basis.
All told, Sanders' current plans, get a load of, wait for it.
Sanders' current plans would cost as much as $97.5 trillion over the next decade.
Chew on that for a second.
And total government spending at all levels would surge to as high as 70% of our gross domestic product.
Approximately half of the American workforce would be employed by the government, and the 10-year budget deficit would approach $90 trillion, with average annual deficits exceeding 30% of GDP.
Folks, let me put this in perspective for you now, what that means, because I know that was a lot of numbers.
Yeah.
Bernie's proposing $97.5 trillion in additional government spending over 10 years.
Can we just for sense of... I'm hesitant to do this, but just for the sake of ease, can we just factor that up to $100 trillion?
I'm not trying to make it worse for Bernie.
I just want to keep the numbers easy so even liberals listening can understand.
That's cool.
So he's proposing $97.5 will round up to $100 trillion over 10 years.
100 trillion over 10 years.
Divided by 10 equals 10 trillion a year.
Folks, do you understand what the entire federal government spends now?
He's proposing $10 trillion in new spending.
The federal government now only spends $4 trillion a year.
Oh!
Keep in mind, Joe, keep in mind.
At the $4 trillion, we're still a trillion dollars in the red every year.
Holy cow!
So the tax revenue generated under a booming economy now is only $3 trillion a year.
We spend four trillion.
Again, liberals, I know this math is tough.
So we're a trillion dollars in the red every year now.
Yes, even under the Trump presidency, I'm not hiding the deficits and I'm not suggesting because it's a Republican president, any of this is a good thing.
All right.
I'm giving you the numbers because math matters.
I'm not suggesting it's all Trump's fault, but I'm saying something better be done quick and no one gets a pass because you're a Republican.
We are spending too much money.
We raised three trillion.
We spend $4 trillion, Bernie's proposing an additional $10 trillion a year!
Please explain to me, via simple mathematics, how if we're only taxed in the economy at the rates we have now, at $3 trillion, how Bernie is going to times that by a factor of 4 and 5 without raising taxes on people who make $30,000 or less?
I'll wait.
Of course, we don't have to wait long, because what you'll understand rather rapidly is that not only are we looking at 50% tax rates for the middle class and below, we're looking at close to 70% tax rates.
Can you put that screen back up again?
I'm sorry, Paul, I don't mean to get out of order here, but this is important.
Ladies and gentlemen, look at this last part here so you understand what's going on.
He is proposing spending that would surge to as high as 70% of GDP.
Think about this.
Process this.
Our entire gross domestic product, the wealth and value of everything, everything the people of the United States produce, is about $22 trillion a year.
Bernie Sanders is proposing government programs that would eat up 70% of that.
You're talking about 20 percentage points, more than half, that he wants to take from you to finance his government expansion.
Ladies and gentlemen, these are his proposed programs.
I'm not putting words in his mouth.
So again, for those who were offended, we got to speak in facts.
Please tell me what part of this isn't factual.
No, no, he's only going to take 70% of GDP from the rich.
Here's the problem, ladies and gentlemen.
Our gross domestic product is largely produced by the middle class.
You doubt me?
What do you think?
Okay, doubt me for a minute.
Okay, I get it.
You may say, well, the rich produce the majority of our GDP products and wealth.
They produce a good portion of it.
But ladies and gentlemen, the real money is with the middle class.
Do you know what the entire value of all of the financial assets, stocks, bonds, equities, capital accumulation, the entire value of the entire country, you know what they hold in trillions?
I don't know.
82 trillion dollars.
By everyone, not the rich.
401ks, middle class, poor folks who own equities.
What do you think?
Because people are poor, they don't own stock?
The entire value of the financial assets held by the people of the United States is $82 trillion.
Bernie Sanders is proposing $97.5 trillion in additional spending.
Ladies and gentlemen, if you wiped out the entire financial asset base of the entire United States, poor, middle class, and wealthy, you're still $15 trillion short of Bernie Sanders' new spending proposals.
Again, explain to me why we're supposed to feel bad About a Twitter meme.
By the way, the Snopes reaction and the Facebook reaction, fact check, false, none of this is false.
Matter of fact, it understates the tax burden you'd be facing.
The entire reaction here on social media from these liberal-leaning tech companies should show you that that meme frightened them because it finally kicked Americans in the, hmm, showing them exactly how much this is going to cost using basic simple math.
The piece goes on.
Want to put more meat on the bone?
Let's talk about Bernie Sanders.
Communist Bernie.
Quote, City Journal, Brian Rydell, the $97.5 trillion price tag is made up mostly of the cost of Bernie Sanders' three most ambitious proposals.
Again, Sanders' three proposals, not mine.
Sanders concedes that his Medicare for All plan would increase federal spending by somewhere between $30 and $40 trillion over a 10-year period.
There's your $30 right there.
He just addressed that in the Anderson Cooper piece.
He pledged to spend another $16.3 trillion on his climate plan.
He proposes to guarantee all Americans a full-time government job paying $15 an hour with benefits.
That's estimated to cost another $30 trillion.
The final $11 trillion includes $3 trillion to forgive all student loans and guarantee free public college, plus another $1.8 trillion to expand social security, $2.5 trillion on housing, $1.6 trillion on paid family leave, $1 trillion on infrastructure, $800 billion on K-12 education spending, and an additional 400 billion on higher public school
teacher salaries, leading to an incredible, astounding $97.5 trillion dollars, new government spending
over 10 years, equating to roughly 10 trillion a year in a federal budget now that's only 4
trillion a year and is already 1 trillion per year in deficit. Again, please explain to me, I'm
waiting, how suggesting a 50% tax rate for people making $29,000 a year was unrealistic.
You're right.
It is.
It's going to be closer to 60 or 70%.
This piece, this is a gem, by the way, if you want to read this piece, I can't encourage you in strong enough terms to read it and keep it handy.
It'll be up at the show notes.
If you go to bongino.com slash newsletter, you can subscribe to our newsletter.
I'll email you these articles every day.
Folks, don't fall for this now.
Snopes says this is false.
It is false.
It understates the tax burden in the Bernie era.
God forbid he's elected.
Let's go on again.
From this City Journal piece.
Again, absolutely worth your time.
This unprecedented federal outlay will more than double the size of the federal government.
Over the next decade, Washington is already projected to spend $60 trillion.
State and local governments will spend another $30 trillion for non-federal sources.
When you add in Sanders' $97.5 trillion, and then subtract the $3 trillion saved by state governments under Medicare for All, It would raise the total cost of government to $184 trillion, or again, 70% of projected GDP over 10 years.
Ladies and gentlemen, let's make the numbers real simple again for liberals listening.
If Bernie Sanders is planning to spend 70% of the entire value of our economy, where do you think he's going to get the 70% from?
Martians?
Jupiterians?
Saturnians?
Money fairies?
From you!
From you?
No, he's just gonna borrow it.
Oh no, so our grandkids he's gonna take it from with the tax money they have to spend plus the interest on the borrowed money.
Where do you think this money's coming from?
This is what I found hilarious about this debate about Bernie Sanders taxing the middle class at 50%.
50?
You'd be lucky to get out of this with 50% tax rates.
That means his agenda didn't go through.
Let me go to one more because I got a lot to get to from this City Journal piece.
Totally worth your time.
Quote, yet these $23 trillion in proposed taxes would still leave a staggering $90 trillion budget deficit or 34% of GDP.
Closing the rest of the gap, which comes to $66,000 per household, is impossible, given that Sanders already maximizes taxes on the wealthy and leaves the payroll tax or a VAT to raise the rest.
Here we go again.
I just want you to focus on the last line here.
Even seizing ladies and gentlemen, all 80, all, all 82 trillion in household financial assets in the United States would be insufficient to cover Bernie's new plan.
Dude.
That sounds like close to 80, 90% tax rates to me, folks.
I'm sorry, you know, new rules, ladies and gentlemen.
Again, I'm not playing around.
Why don't you get into the whole Snopes thing?
And these aren't legitimate fact checkers.
They're not.
Bernie never said.
He did say it.
I just did the math on Bernie's programs, which will cost 70% of GDP.
You're right.
He didn't say it'd be 50%.
He said it would be 70% of GDP, which has to come from you.
Man.
This isn't hard to understand.
That's assuming the rich folks hang around to be taxed too.
Which, thank you, and Joe from Maryland, Joe who lives in Maryland now, where I used to live, is where I met Joe.
Remember when we tried this in Maryland?
The millionaire's tax in Maryland?
What happened?
They lost money because the millionaires promptly left Maryland just like they'll leave the United States.
Just like the French wealth tax, which they had to abandon because people evacuated France in droves and took their money with them.
Folks, again, I mean this.
I sincerely appreciate your feedback.
It always keeps me sharp.
And I'm just a little surprised because I'm stunned you're taking Snope seriously.
This is exactly what Bernie's proposing.
We just put the meat on the bone for you using hard numbers, using his words and his own programs.
50% tax rates.
You'd be lucky for that under Bernie Sanders.
Keep that article handy.
Puts meat on the bone for you.
All right, folks, today's show also brought to you by our buddies at Blue Vine.
We've got a bunch of new sponsors today.
I gotta make sure we don't go over there.
There we go, Blue Vine.
Get bluevine.com slash Bongino for more details.
Get bluevine.com slash Bongino for more details.
You may be saying, well, who are our friends at Blue Vine?
Don't you worry.
I'm here to explain it to you.
Blue Vine, running a business is filled with unexpected events that require sudden cashflow.
Blue Vine can help you secure cash fast.
Applying online is easy.
It takes just a few minutes.
BlueVine is an easy, fast way to help support your business growth with a line of credit up to $250,000.
Whether you need money to offset upfront costs, secure inventory, pay unexpected expenses, BlueVine can help you and yourself and your business stay secure for any reason.
There's no fee to set up your line of credit, and BlueVine never charges maintenance or prepayment fees.
Never.
Applying is easy.
Just go online to get bluevine.com slash Bongino B-O-N-G-I-N-O.
Fill out a few simple details and you're done with your application within minutes.
Seeing an offer will not affect your credit score.
Once approved, funds can be received in as fast as 24 hours.
Have peace of mind knowing funds can be drawn at the click of a button for any business expense.
Bluevine has helped more than 20,000 customers and has delivered over $2.5 billion in funds to businesses.
They have advisors available to answer any questions and help you meet your business needs.
with an A+ rating from the Better Business Bureau and nearly five star reviews on Trustpilot.
See why, nearly five star review on Trustpilot, excuse me, the rating, excuse me,
see why thousands of satisfied business owners have chosen Bluevine as their go-to source for financing.
For listeners of the show, Bluevine is offering a special limited time promotion
of a $100 gift card when you take out a loan or open a line of credit with Bluevine.
Go to GetBlueVine.com slash Bongino for more details.
All you have to do is go to GetBlueVine.com slash Bongino and apply.
It's really easy, folks.
It's quick, easy, and a meaningful way to help your business in as little as 24 hours.
The promotional offer is subject to terms and conditions that can be found at GetBlueVine.com slash Bongino.
Check them out today.
All right.
I want to play one more piece of sound from Bernie before I get to the media meltdown over the weekend about Russia hoax part two and the New York Times story where they're trying to get ahead of something, ladies and gentlemen.
They're trying to get ahead of something fast.
Bernie Sanders was on 60 Minutes again this weekend, and he was being called out by Anderson Cooper in 60 Minutes.
And it's not 60 Minutes trying to... They are a far-left-leaning outlet.
It's 60 Minutes and the Democrats, ladies and gentlemen, afraid that Bernie Sanders, as a socialist, is going to get routed in the general.
They are not trying to help Trump here.
They're trying to keep Bernie off the ticket under the belief that a better, more centrist candidate will have a better shot against Trump.
That's all that's happening here.
They played this video for him of Bernie Sanders supporting the Cuban regime, and I want you to listen.
To this guy's totally ridiculous, absurd response about why Castro and him, they weren't so bad, check this out.
Back in the 1980s, Sanders had some positive things to say about the former Soviet Union and the Sandinistas in Nicaragua.
And everybody was totally convinced.
Here he is explaining why the Cuban people didn't rise up and help the U.S.
overthrow Cuban leader Fidel Castro.
He educated the kids, gave them health care, totally transformed the society.
We're very opposed to the authoritarian nature of Cuba.
But you know, it's unfair to simply say everything is bad.
You know, when Fidel Castro came into office, you know what he did?
He had a massive literacy program.
Is that a bad thing?
Even though Fidel Castro did it?
Folks, how do you think that sounds where I live in South Florida?
One of my neighbors happens to be Cuban whose family evacuated Cuba, similar to this photo we have, by the way.
Hat tip, David Harsanyi.
If you want to see it, go to youtube.com slash Bongino.
David put this photo up on his Twitter.
Here are Cubans on a makeshift boat trying to escape Bernie Sanders' Cuban literacy programs he's celebrating under Castro.
Do you have any idea how many Cubans freedom?
Health, businesses, property, and homes were wiped out due to the expropriation, torture, and murder of the Castro regime.
Do you have any idea?
I live in South Florida.
I dare you to go to South Florida and start talking in a Cuban restaurant about how wonderful Castro and Maduro and Chavez are.
Actually, I don't want to be responsible for what happens to you, so don't do that.
I'm not even kidding.
Please don't do that.
Because I cannot be held responsible for what happens to you if you do that.
Literacy programs?
Literacy programs.
So, La Perrette, right?
The wall.
Ask Cubans what that means.
You know, Che Guevara and his revolutionaries who put Cubans up against a wall, not to ask them to paint it, but to kill them.
You know, the wall so the bullets wouldn't go through them and hit other people, so they put them up against the wall.
But literacy problems.
This guy is a fraud, fake, phony.
He is an existential threat to everything this country represents, folks.
And I need the Bernie bros that have a modicum of common sense left and at least one or two functioning neurons to wake the up immediately.
You are supporting a man who has supported murderers.
That's his words, not mine.
I have been warning you about this guy for two years.
I take that back.
Four years, since the last election.
Yeah.
We have been all over this.
He is an existential threat to your business, your wallet, your freedom of religion, your kids' education, your healthcare, and everything that makes this country great.
This is not a joke.
I said this weekend on Fox, and I meant it on Jesse Watershow, are we really doing this right now?
Is the United States about to nominate a communist?
Supporting murderers?
I wonder what the literacy rate was in the Soviet gulags.
But they had Muppet, they had Muppet shows!
What a clown!
Folks, this is not a joke.
This guy has to be stopped.
Now.
All right, let me move on.
So we had the Russia thing, which ironically they went after Bernie with the Russia thing too.
He has none of my sympathy from that.
He was the one saying, Donald Trump is a Russian asset.
Good, good.
Now you can see how it goes when you make stuff up.
But to see, for those of you who missed it last week, it came out, a leak which has been now debunked 25 different ways from Sunday.
That Russia's involving themselves in the 2020 election again and they're trying to help Donald Trump.
That is not what was said in the briefing, I covered that on Friday.
But I want to show you how, in a moment, how even CNN is walking back this story.
But here is Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC in one of the most embarrassing moments in media history.
Lawrence O'Donnell is now number three.
Ana, you know we have our dumbest people in media rankings.
Everybody knows the rankings.
Everybody knows.
Brian Stelter, number one, always the gold medal award winner, dumbest guy in media.
Number two, Chuck Todd.
Silver medalist, tries to beat Stelter, sometimes gets close, never beats him.
He's not as dumb, although very dumb.
Number three is now definitely Lawrence O'Donnell from MSNBC.
Oh, he's moving on up!
Watch the hilarity here.
This absolute moron melt down on the air and run with the now debunked discredited story that the Russians are meddling in 2020 election to help Donald Trump.
Listen to this idiot.
We begin tonight With another test of America's ability to be shocked by Donald Trump, who has very deliberately shocked America to the point where he hopes that shock has been replaced by acceptance.
The president is a Russian operative.
That sounds like the description of a bad Hollywood screenplay, but it is real.
And it is Vladimir Putin's greatest achievement.
Decades after America's victory in the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the President of the United States is now helping the President of Russia Help the President of the United States to get re-elected so that the President of Russia will have four more years of the President of the United States who he wants in the Oval Office.
Holy cow!
What a dope!
What a moron!
This is... I mean, we may have to readjust our rankings if he keeps this up.
It's hard to beat Chuck Todd and Stelter, especially Stelter.
But we seriously may have to, like, jump in here and move these things around.
What an... All right, I'm gonna keep the... Because seriously, I'll lose my mind and Paula gets annoyed when I go on too much about these idiots.
Having said that, let's put some meat on the bone again.
Here is even CNN walking back this ridiculous report that Trump is trying to help Russia, who has sanctioned them and is devastating their economy, get re-elected.
It made no sense on his face.
CNN!
Jeremy Dimon, Jake Tapper, and Zachary Cohen.
U.S.
intelligence briefer appears to have overstated the assessment of 2020 Russian interference.
Ladies and gentlemen, if you listen to my show on Friday, you already knew this.
I had sources reach out to me early, tell me this briefing that happened.
For those of you who missed the backstory on Friday, a briefer went up to Capitol Hill, Gave a briefing where she seemed to indicate that Trump was being, uh, was the preferred choice of Vladimir Putin.
That is not what was said.
That was what the Democrats leaked.
That is not at all what was said.
It doesn't comport with common sense.
Apparently the briefer was roundly laughed at by a bunch of Congress people who knew better who said, let me get this straight.
Trump sanctioning their economy, wrecking the Russian economy right now, and providing lethal weapons to their enemies in Ukraine, and yet Putin wants more of that, rather than the Soviet Union supporting Bernie Sanders, who loves their Muppet shows.
Ladies and gentlemen, when something smells really bad, don't eat it.
This thing stunk to the heavens.
Now all of a sudden, people who were in the briefing and heard the entire briefing said, that's not what was said in the briefing and even CNN has been forced to walk this thing back now.
That's not what the assessment was.
Now, now that we've thrown that aside and eliminated that garbage, and by the way, for as much as I can't stand Soviet supporting fraud, phony, fake Bernie Sanders, That story about them wanting Bernie, I gotta be honest, I'm not sure about that either.
I don't feel bad for Bernie that it leaked.
Bernie was more than happy, by the way, to run with the allegations Trump was a Russian asset.
Now that it's coming back on Bernie, remember his briefing leaked too.
Oh, they may be supporting Bernie.
They may be.
Folks, I've got to tell you, I don't trust anything right now coming out of the IC.
I'm sorry.
Not with regard to elections.
I don't.
I'm very sorry.
I don't mean to offend anybody.
I love our people who put their butts on the line to gather intel.
I'm sure 99% of them are great people.
I'm sure of that.
The problem is there are people at the top who clearly have a political, not an intelligence agenda, which is exactly what Mike Flynn warned us about.
And that's why he's the subject of a witch hunt.
I don't trust any of this stuff.
I'm sorry.
I don't.
And I encourage you to do your own homework too.
So ridiculous what's going on right now.
All right let me get to this New York Times report because this is important.
So there was a New York Times story that came out this weekend ladies and gentlemen that should scare everybody again because whenever the New York Times gets out ahead of a story it should tell you one thing they are desperate to set and transform the narrative before the actual story gets out.
Remember the New New York Times was the first to break the Azra Turk story.
Azra Turk was the FBI spy asset sent to spy on George Papadopoulos.
And they did that for one reason.
To get out of the head of the story and make sure that the story wasn't FBI, politically motivated, spies on the Trump campaign.
The story was what when the Times broke it?
Confidential informant used against a Trump associate.
You know what I'm saying?
They want to contour the story to take the edge off.
That way, when the story comes out, political spying on the Trump campaign happened at the FBI.
The New York Times can say, no, no, that's not what happened.
We covered this months ago.
Look at this.
So the story comes out this week, and check this story out.
I want to go to the first thing, because here's what's happening.
They're desperate to get out ahead of two things, the Durham report and something else that happened this weekend, which I'll get to in a moment.
It's buried down in the piece.
Headline, New York Times, the national security wiretap system was long plagued by risk of errors and omissions.
Hmm.
So now the New York Times is acknowledging that they wiretap people?
I thought that was all a big conspiracy theory.
But notice how the headline again is massaging the narrative.
You got a massage therapist out there with the elbows or Reiki or whatever they do.
They're desperate to do this now.
Reflexology pushes on this.
This is what they're doing.
They're trying to get it.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
Joe, this program was plagued with problems for a long time.
Can we apply the Dan Bongino translator here?
The Dan Bongino translator, here's what they really mean.
Folks, this wasn't a political targeting of Donald Trump.
This has been going on for a long time, and it's a cultural thing at the FBI.
Why, why, why, why, why?
Why are they trying to avoid this?
Because the narrative that is the most devastating to the Democrats, which is true, I have video, is that the FBI was politically biased at the upper levels and targeted Donald Trump.
They can't have that out there.
Let's go to takeaway number one from the New York Times piece.
Let me show you how they misogyny.
That's the narrative they don't want.
It wasn't politics.
It's a cultural thing.
New York Times quote, the problems may be part of a broader pattern.
Oh, here we go, Joe.
It's a cultural thing at the FBI.
Maybe part of a broader pattern in other applications that never received the same intense scrutiny.
According to interviews, of course, anonymous interviews with DOJ officials and FBI officials.
The system is vulnerable, they said, these anonymous sources, to lower-level agents.
Here we go, throwing the lower-level agents under the bus, suppressing or overlooking evidence that weakens their case when they seek permission to conduct surveillance.
You get it?
You get it?
Dan Bongino, translator, this was not political targeting by the FBI, the Trump team, Joe.
Under any circumstances, It's a cultural problem.
It's happened before.
And it's these low-level guys and gals that are doing it.
It's not an institutional thing at the high levels.
Those guys, Comey, McCabe, they're above reproach.
It's the low-level guys.
They're really horrible.
Look what they did.
It's a cultural thing there.
Oh, it gets better.
Remember what they're trying to get away from?
Yeah.
And you'll be able to translate where they're going.
They're trying to get away from the truth, which is the FBI and the Obama administration spied on their political, political opponents.
They can't have that!
Takeaway number two from the New York Times piece as they do the dance here, which is just fantabulous watching them do this, especially when you can employ translators like we can.
The FBI's misuse of its powers under the FISA Act has been politicized to a degree it never was in the Robert Hansen case.
He was the infamous FBI spy on the inside.
Where an inspector general's discovery of the failures attracted little notice.
Did you catch it?
So now in the first paragraph of this, come back to me for a minute, I want to go back.
First paragraph.
Yeah.
Did you catch what they did there?
Yes, I did.
They're trying to get away from the Trump political targeting, and now they're blaming anyone looking into the abuse of the FISA course to spy on Trump for politicizing it.
This is amazing!
This is amazing!
And by the way, who wrote this piece?
Adam Goldman, famed Russian collusion hoaxer, a guy with zero credibility with anyone.
They leak to him, the bureau, when they want to get out ahead of a story.
So the story now, according to Goldman, is not only going to be there's no political spying, it was a cultural thing, but you looking into the FISA process is politicizing the story and you're the problem.
Did you catch that?
Put that up again, please.
I'm sorry to keep going back and forth here.
I'm driving the excellent production crew here crazy, which is me and Paul.
Crew.
It's crew.
It's two of us.
That's a crew.
They're saying the FBI's misuse of its Pfizer powers has been politicized to a degree it never was in other cases.
They're blaming you!
You did this.
Remember Tucker Carlson's line?
Whatever the Democrats accuse you of, they're doing themselves.
So, this is the FBI's warning through Adam Goldman, their leak.
Don't you dare politicize this or we'll accuse you of being political.
It goes on.
The piece.
Quote, President Trump and his supporters have long embraced a theory A theory?
That Carter Page was a victim of a high-level political conspiracy?
That's a theory?
I'm unaware of that being a theory, Joe.
I'm pretty sure that's a fact.
It goes on, the Inspector General report did not confirm that narrative, instead finding different yet still serious problems.
That is not true.
That is not true, ladies and gentlemen.
It is not true as Adam Goldman noted collusion hoaxer.
Zero credibility fake news specialist.
Zero.
It is not true that they did not find political bias in the targeting of Carter Page, who worked on the Trump campaign and was spied on.
That is not true.
Now, in order to not repeat the same mistakes in talking and broad overviews on Friday, like the Bernie Sanders thing, again, to use the line I've used only a hundred times today, let's put actual meat on the bone here.
Let's go to Michael Horowitz, the Inspector General who looked into the political spying on the Trump campaign, and listen to his own words.
A couple of things here.
I got three cuts.
We'll go through them one at a time, don't worry about it.
He doesn't eliminate political bias as a motive.
Wait, that's what the New York Times said.
They said no evidence was found.
That's not what he said.
Matter of fact, at some point, he seems to point to political bias as the only possible explanation.
And then at the end, let's point to Horowitz himself, that the FBI knew this thing was BS the whole time.
Let's go to cut number one, where he clearly lays out, granted, Horowitz always talks in circuitous terms because he never wants to give the media a soundbite.
This is him clearly indicating he did find political bias.
Contrary to fake Russian collusion hoaxer Adam Goldman when he says this piece.
Check this out.
But you definitely, in both these investigations, you found political bias.
We found, through the text messages, evidence of people's political bias.
Correct.
Also, political motivation.
For example, Bruce Ord talked about how Christopher Steele was desperate to make sure that President Trump didn't become president. Well, as to Mr. Steele, that was of
course a very important part of this discussion is when they understood his motivations and his potential
bias. And we have the November statement from Mr. Orr that he had been told by Mr. Steele that he
was desperate to prevent. So again, so folks, keep in mind, if you're watching and listening to or
reading New York Times content, do you understand you're being lied to with just impunity?
That is not what Horowitz said.
Understand, Goldman's narrative in this story is there's no evidence of political bias.
The FBI didn't politically spy on Trump.
Follow me here.
It's a cultural problem and some low-level agents did it.
That's his story.
None of that is true.
None of that is true.
You just heard Horowitz himself.
He found rampant political bias in the texts, in the decision by Bruce Ohr to talk to Steele, even though Steele indicated himself he was politically biased.
What part of this are the journalists missing?
He goes on.
This is Patrick Leahy, Democrat Senator, when we started.
That was Ron Johnson, Republican Senator from Wisconsin, asking this question.
Here's Pat Leahy trying to take the sting out of what Horowitz said at the briefing.
This briefing happened a while ago.
But it's not hard to find.
I found it in two seconds on Twitter.
This is Patrick Leahy trying to take the sting out of it and he still can't do it because Horowitz still has to admit that he can't eliminate rampant political bias as the only motive for doing this.
Check this out.
Is it correct that you found...
No evidence that the investigation was motivated by anti-Trump or political bias.
Is that correct?
We found no evidence that the initiation of the investigation was motivated by political bias.
It gets murkier, the question gets more challenging, Senator, when you get to the FISA.
And when you get to the other, when you get to the attorney's actions, for example, in connection with that FISA.
Did they have a duty?
Folks, that's his own words!
to their supervisors and eventually to the court, it's gullipatory information.
Absolutely.
They did not.
They did not.
Why?
That's the question I can't specifically answer for you.
Can you say it wasn't because of political bias?
On decisions regarding those FISA matters, I do not know their state of mind at this point.
Folks, that's his own words, the Inspector General.
Joe did not mess with that.
It's a complete cut.
Now it's obviously edited for time, but that soundbite, we're not messing with that.
That was Lindsey Graham and Patrick Leahy directly asking him, can you eliminate political bias basically as a reason for the FBI spying on the Trump team with the FISA warrant?
He can't!
Now combine that with what he said before.
He found rampant evidence of political bias throughout the investigation.
It's his own words!
The New York Times is lying to you!
Why?
I haven't even gotten to that yet because something else is happening.
I want to play one more cut here.
Because it's important.
Here is Horowitz again, confirming that as early as January of 2017, the FBI interviewed Steele's sources.
Steele is the only source for the FISA warrant to spy on Trump that matters.
It's his information used to spy on Trump.
Here's Horowitz reiterating, for the umpteenth thousandth time, that by January of 2017, before the warrant's been renewed two more times to spy on the Trump team, the FBI knows this is total garbage.
Listen to Horowitz tell the story if you don't believe me.
The Crossfire Hurricane team obtained information from Steele's primary subsource in January 2017 that raised significant questions about the reliability of the Steele reporting.
This was particularly noteworthy because the FISA applications relied entirely on information from the primary subsources reporting to support the allegation that Page was coordinating with the Russian government on 2016 U.S.
presidential election activities.
Folks, again, you know, if you're not watching this show, You're probably missing out on all this.
There is the Inspector General himself indicating that he found rampant political bias, that when it comes to the FISA warrant explanations for spying, the explanations get very murky as to why they did it.
Admitting that the people involved had political bias, then telling you that he can't possibly explain why after January of 2017, they still continued to spy on the Trump team because the sources they were using had already been fully discredited.
Again, if you're reading the New York Times, my sincere apologies that you missed all that.
Now, there's a couple other nuggets in this New York Times piece, because I said to you, why are they trying to get out ahead of it?
Why are they telling you a narrative now?
They're trying to get out ahead of the Dorham Report.
They're trying to cut off at the knees the narrative and the true story that this was politically motivated.
They want to cut it off because something else happened.
I'm going to get to that in a second.
I got my final sponsor of the day.
Stay tuned.
You're not going to want to miss this.
You may, if you're not, you know, this is important, really important in terms of our civil liberties.
All right.
Today's show, finally brought to you, everybody's at Genucel.
Genucel.
We love Genucel in this house.
I use the immediate effects all the time, right before I go on TV.
Hey, the latest trend in skincare is instant results.
Introducing the brand new Genucel RH from Chamonix.
Well, don't check her out too much, but you get the hint.
They have anti-aging effects with zero redness or irritation.
Plus the RH complex provides hyaluronic acid, which she loves.
Crucial for superior retinol effects.
Here's Susan from Toms River, New Jersey.
The Genucel RH is a game changer.
Bags under my eyes are history.
It feels so soft and luxurious.
I even use it for redness on my left cheek and my laugh lines.
Thank you, Chamonix Home Run.
The new Genucel RH is leading the industry once again.
It makes bags, puffiness, hyperpigmentation, even redness a thing of the past.
People love this product.
We get great reviews on it.
Order a brand new GenuCell RH now and get GenuCell jawline treatment and the GenuCell immediate effects absolutely free.
Go to GenuCell.com, enter my special promo code DAN30, that's D-A-N-3-0 at checkout.
GenuCell RH is non-irritating, non-comedogenic, safe in the sun, and highly moisturizing.
Your eyes have never looked better, just like Susan or your money back, no questions asked.
Go online now, go to GenuCell, G-E-N-U-C-E-L.com, enter my special code DAN30 at checkout, that's GenuCell.com, GenuCell.com, go check it out today.
We'll see you at CPAC, by the way.
I will be there Wednesday night through Friday.
We will be broadcasting the Dan Bongino Show from Radio Row at CPAC.
If you haven't bought your tickets, go today.
It's the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C.
Producer Joe will be there as well.
You always know Producer Joe.
He's the Elvis-looking dude.
Remember that?
We said that one year and everybody picked you out right away.
Well, now you know him.
You see him on the YouTube show.
But back then, it was just an audio show.
Okay.
What else is the FBI trying to get out ahead of by leaking to the New York Times and their transcriber Adam Goldman?
Check out this from the New York Times.
What was coming up for renewal?
Oh, check this out!
The timing is being driven by the pending expiration!
Of three investigative powers unrelated to the Page-Wiretap issues, but including the FBI's ability to collect business records for espionage or terrorism cases, the draft bill would extend those powers while ending legal authority for a defunct system that gave counterterrorism analysts with the National Security Agency access to logs of Americans' phone calls.
Isn't the timing here just fantabulous?
So the Bureau is under scrutiny.
There's some draft bills out there to renew and renegotiate some spying powers they have.
Spying powers that we know were abused for political reasons and conveniently a leak comes out right to the New York Times as negotiators up on Capitol Hill and politicians are negotiating re-upping some of these powers in an effort to get out ahead of a story that's coming out that the FBI is engaged in political spying.
Ladies and gentlemen, the timing on this couldn't be more apropos.
The Bureau can't have this story out there that they spied on a presidential candidate for political reasons, although we all know that.
You just heard Horowitz basically say it himself.
He's trying to dance.
But you know exactly what Horowitz was saying.
He played his own words.
They can't have that out there.
Because the Bureau wants to continue with these powers.
Which, by the way, I've said and exonerated my book and I'll say again on the air and I've said repeatedly and I've been entirely consistent on from when I ran for office till now.
You want to spy on an American citizen?
Get a warrant.
Get a warrant!
Get a warrant!
End of story.
Get a warrant.
You want to spy on foreigners outside the United States?
Do your thing!
I don't care!
They don't have constitutional protections.
You want to spy on an American?
Here, anywhere around the world, we are citizens of this country entitled to big R God-given rights.
Get a warrant.
Make your case.
Raise your right hand and swear that you have probable cause that this person is guilty of this crime.
Get a warrant.
Convenient how all this leaks out right before some of those powers may be disappearing in front of the FISA Court.
One last thing here from the New York Times story.
This is the nothing to see here part.
Don't worry, the FBI politically spied on a presidential candidate for years, even when they knew, and people involved with his candidacy, even when they knew the case was total bunk, they spied on him, they employed human assets, human spy assets, signals intelligence, all that stuff.
There's nothing to see here, folks.
Check this out.
Last takeaway from the New York Times.
But similar flaws with surveillance have surfaced before, Joe.
Nothing to worry here.
Don't worry.
Underscoring that the problems may be systemic.
That's a culture thing.
Rather than unique to the page applications, current and former officials said, folks, come on.
Come on.
Come on, guy.
Come on.
You believe this?
That's the nothing to see here.
This has happened before.
It's a minor culture problem with low-level guys.
We can fix it.
Notice the line in there.
It wasn't specific to Page.
Why?
Why do they say that?
Why?
Why?
Think about it.
Because if the spying and the abuse of the FISA process was specific to Page, which is what it is, and the only reasons for spying on Page were political, Then the story is even more devastating than it is now.
That the FBI singled out the Trump campaign at behest of the Obama administration, the CIA, and others to politically spy on their opposition.
So what's their version?
There's nothing to see here.
It's happened before.
It's not specific to Page.
It's not political.
No worries.
Everybody just let this right over your head.
Make it all go bye-bye.
Adam Goldman.
This guy is like an... I mean, he's the reverse to Woodward Bernstein.
I mean, back in the day, you thought they cared about corruption at the highest levels.
Now they're just here to carry water for these institutions that want to protect their own.
What a disgrace.
Total disgrace.
Two-pager today.
All right, I want to break some or unbreak some news here.
Too far.
I got to move on.
But you get the whole point there?
It was political.
They want these powers renewed.
They don't want that story out there.
Critical, critical analysis and translation of that.
So a story came out.
I didn't tell Joe about this before the show.
Paula saw it last night.
I saw this at Axios.
Jonathan Swan put it out.
Breaking news!
Dan Bongino and others were recommended for spots in the Trump administration.
This was it.
This was the breaking news.
This was like a big story this weekend.
Oh my gosh.
Axios scoop.
I'm not going to put the Axios thing up because the story is so dumb.
I'm sorry.
Jonathan Swan's a nice guy.
I don't mean to beef with him.
And I get it.
He's, you know, they're in the business of breaking news and click bait stuff.
That's fine.
But I never got what the gist of the story was.
But given that I'm in the story, I wanted to put out a statement here because you're my audience and, you know, we don't run from anything.
You're entitled to know what's going on.
Do it, bro.
So Washington Examiner has a piece up about it.
Clarence Thomas's wife, Ginny Thomas.
I mean, she's got a name, by the way, guys.
Clarence Thomas's wife, Ginny.
I'm going to add that in there.
She doesn't even add that.
She does a lot in and of herself.
She's not only Clarence Thomas's wife.
Among conservative activists, leading Trump efforts to compile a deep state hit list.
Now, listen, I like Caitlyn.
You look at, I like that, whatever.
I'm sorry if I'm saying your name.
We're going to have to watch the Examiner.
I like the Examiner too, but that's kind of a dumb title.
It was not a hit list.
Ginny Thomas and a group groundswell that years ago, it's just a conservative group that meets in DC, folks.
It's not a big mystery.
I used to go in and I don't, I haven't been to a meeting in a very long time, but I have a lot of friends in there.
They're conservative activists.
There's nothing more.
It's not a complicated endeavor.
Breaking news, conservative group in DC supports conservative policies.
Apparently compiled a list of people that they would recommend for positions in the administration.
I was on that list for some Homeland Security or counter-terrorism spot.
Let me just clear up a couple of things.
I had to write this down because I'm trying to get what the scoop is.
You should be too.
You're like, this is a story?
I'm embarrassed I have to cover this for you.
Yeah, that's where I'm at.
So I wrote down what the headline really is.
The president's political allies are exposing his ideological opponents and recommending replacements.
If you're like, that sounds like a pretty dumb story.
That's because it is.
This is a story that Political allies of the president want political allies of the president in political appointments?
That's the story.
That is the story.
Now, because I'm not going to waste any more time on this.
I'm not making it personal with Jonathan Swan.
He's a nice guy.
I met him at Politicon one time.
He's very nice.
And I get it, but this is not a story.
I want to be crystal clear on this.
These are friends of mine.
I do know these people, and I have a ton of respect for Ginny Thomas.
But the fact that they recommended me for a job, one, I'm not going to take, and would never have taken.
And secondly, let me be clear, that job mentioned there, I was never ever offered or approached by anybody in the White House about it.
Anyone is not a story.
It is not a story.
There are a lot of significant political activists around the country that email and watch my show.
If you email the White House and say, hey, I think Dan Bongino would be a good FBI director.
That is not a story.
I'm sorry.
It's not interesting.
I don't, I genuinely don't know what the angle is here.
Friends of the president recommend friends of the president to support the president's agenda.
Good scoop there, fellas.
Well, at least you got your name out there.
That's pretty cool.
I guess.
What did Gary Gnus say?
No Gnus is good Gnus with Gary Gnus.
Remember the great space coaster?
I'm talking way over the head of anyone under the age of 40 right now.
But if you're 40 or above, you know exactly what I'm talking about.
Folks, I don't get it.
You know, my name is getting, thanks to your support and the growing importance of our show in the conservative ecosystem.
We are the number two conservative podcast in the entire country now.
The show has grown in importance, and the bullseye on my back has grown too.
Yes, it has.
Because a lot of these people put our names in there, the show and what we do, and their stories, no one people will click on it.
Folks, it's not a story, okay?
Sorry.
I was never, ever, offered that job or even contacted about it by anybody.
It's not a story.
Okay, moving on.
I want to put this one out there and be in the show notes.
This is a Hillary story that I got to tell you, I think is far-fetched.
I'm beyond the prediction game now.
I'm not saying this can't happen, but it's floating around.
I want it out there on the show and be a final story of the day.
It's quick.
It's easy, but it sounds a little bit far-fetched to me, but I'd be remiss if I didn't address it.
Washington Examiner covers it well again today, but all of these stories will be in the show notes.
Bongino.com slash newsletter.
Please check them out.
Ex-Bill Clinton advisor, they're talking about Dick Morris.
Bloomberg and Hillary are cooking up a scheme for her to become the Democratic nominee by the same author, Caitlin Yelich.
Forgive me again if I'm saying your name wrong.
Folks, I don't buy this.
Here's the gist of it.
Put up the screenshot from the piece.
Dick Morris, who used to be on Fox and elsewhere, is suggesting that Bernie Sanders, the frontrunner, is going to get destroyed in the general election, basically, and everybody knows it.
So his prediction is that Hillary Clinton would enter the race on a second ballot at a brokered convention.
Let me translate all this for you.
He's saying this, that Bloomberg's not in this race to win.
This is his theory, not mine.
That Bloomberg is not in the race to win, he's in the race to pull delegates away from Bernie Sanders.
Enough delegates so that Bernie can't get the nomination at the convention.
Can't get the nomination on the first ballot.
Now, at the Democrat National Convention, where they nominate their candidate for president, if you don't have enough delegates on the first ballot, that's what's known as a brokered convention, it will go to a second ballot.
His theory is at that point it's open season.
Hillary will jump on in the second ballot, other candidates will then in turn drop out, Hillary will be the anointed one, and that Bloomberg, who knows, could be our VP or otherwise.
Folks, I find this very Very, very hard to believe.
Because I get it, Neil.
I've got, I received a ton of email from listeners.
Dan, cover this on the show.
Couple reasons.
Folks, that would cause absolute chaos with the Bernie bros.
You would see convention walkouts, you would see mass protests in the general election, third party write-ins.
I can't see any scenario where if Bernie's leading in the delegate count over multiple ballots, even though he doesn't have enough delegates to get the nomination, but has the most and more than anyone else.
I see no scenario where the Democrats would be dumb enough to nullify the entire primary caucus process and give it to someone who finished beneath Bernie, no less Hillary Clinton, who got no votes at all in this cycle.
Interesting theory, worth throwing out there.
I see no plausible scenario where that happens.
None.
Hillary Clinton's time has come and gone.
If it does, again, I'm not in a predictions game.
You never know.
Hillary's zeal for power could overwhelm all of this and it could get really ugly.
I'm just telling you I see that as a very low probability event.
Can we just put up that one final photo?
One more thing.
I know I said it was the last story, but I just want to put this up.
Unbelievable photo from President Trump in India today.
If you missed it, I was on Fox & Friends this morning talking about the security, how the security in India has got to be top-notch.
The Secret Service operation they pull off over there is incredible.
Here's a quick photo.
You see Trump is giving a speech at a stadium.
A thousand plus people, ladies and gentlemen, showed up in India to hear President Trump give another magnificent speech.
Again, you want to talk about looking presidential while the Democrats are, you know, rolling on with their Russia conspiracy theories, their socialism garbage, their 90 plus percent spending plans, 70 percent tax raise.
Quite a contrast, huh?
You look great doing it.
We'll see him back in the United States at CPAC at the end of the week, and I will see you there.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, thanks again for tuning in.
Really appreciate it.
Please subscribe to our YouTube channel, youtube.com slash Bongino, and subscribe to our audio show on Apple Podcasts, all free.
