Liberals are blaming “climate change” for the California fires. But, was it liberal policies to blame?
https://legalinsurrection.com/2017/12/cooking-fire-at-a-homeless-encampment-sparked-las-inferno/
Here are some sobering numbers about our exploding national debt.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454582/congress-profligate-spending-hurts-taxpayers
This reporter may have uncovered the explosive reason for the outbreak of fake news.
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/251387/why-glenn-greenwald-deserves-a-pulitzer-prize
Check out the US Army’s sharp new pistol.
https://www.military.com/kitup/2017/12/09/sig-sauer-offer-commercial-version-armys-new-sidearm.html
Trump’s impressive war on government red-tape.
https://t.co/uDMjAFZhgf?amp=1
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.
Welcome to the Dan Bongino Show, Producer Joe.
How are you today, my friend?
Dan-o, what's up with all this Who Struck Don stuff, man?
You know, listen, I've got some stuff today.
This is one of those shows, you know, folks, you do a show every day, you wake up with varying degrees of energy.
I got a show today I'm unbelievably excited about.
By the way, I'll be in, filling in for Hannity on December 18th, and it looks like Levin, filling in for Levin on the 22nd, I think, and the 26th of December too.
I'll update you on those dates, but I'm definitely in for Hannity on Monday.
I get excited about that.
I'm super stoked about today's show, and I may go into some of this stuff in a little more detail on those shows as well, because this is just insane stuff.
Those of you who listen to the show regularly know I am a devout non-conspiracy theorist, to the chagrin of some, to the excitement of many.
But I've got to tell you, I read a piece yesterday that is in the show notes.
I know I say go to the show notes.
I know it benefits me if you go to Bongino.com.
I'm not pretending in any way to be objective here.
But please, please go to the show notes at Bongino.com today, or subscribe to my email list, and read this story at the tablet.
I tweeted it out yesterday, if you're on Twitter and you're not interested in going to my website, that's cool too.
Go to my Twitter, it's there.
And I said that this is the most important story of the week, and I took a screenshot from Nick Short on Twitter, hat tip to him, of the most important part of the most important story of the week.
Now, I don't like conspiracy theories, but there's a lot of evidence here that there's something going on.
And that's why I titled this show, Is the Fake News Media Getting Played?
Let's get to the, uh, let's get to the milk and cookies here.
All right.
So, and I said that Joe's like, well, Joe was even excited.
He said, Dan, before the show, he goes, what are you talking about?
I said, I can't tell you because I want a genuine reaction from you before the show.
Now, I'm just gonna say, I don't know this is true, but there's possible evidence that it may be true.
Here's the story.
So, last week or two weeks ago, whatever it was, a story about Donald Trump Jr.
leaked.
And the gist of the story was this, that he had been provided by WikiLeaks, Don Trump Jr., Via email.
A special encryption key to gain access to information that they had hacked from the DNC and others.
Alright.
Now, that would be an explosive story.
Now, keep in mind, Don Jr., there were no allegations by anyone, anywhere, Democrats, Republicans, even the most livid, vitriolic anti-Trump haters that Don Jr.
responded to this email.
In other words, he didn't.
But nonetheless, that would be an interesting story that, wow, WikiLeaks was trying to get Don Jr.
special access to some encrypted file of DNC emails, right, Joe?
Would be a big story.
Yeah.
Now, I don't want to rehash the story, but this story, this is critical.
You understand the specifics of this story to understand the explosive story I'm about to tell you afterwards.
I think there's a lot of evidence for it.
The date provided To certain members of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, a bunch of congressional members, the date provided on that email to some of them was September 4th.
That date is absolutely critical because the email was released publicly after September 4th.
Now, here's the kicker, folks.
The story which was then blasted out there by left-wing hack media outlets.
Look at this!
Donald Trump got special access to this treasure trove of hacked information by Wikileaks.
By the way, but she didn't respond to.
No one's even alleging he did that.
The problem is, that was not the date of the email.
The date of the email to Trump Jr., Joe, was September 14th, not September 4th.
Why is that critical to understanding what I'm about to tell you?
Forgive me the long setup, I'm sorry for rehashing it, but you have to get the details right here.
The reason the September 14th date of the email is critical is because the information was already public!
It's a non-story!
You see where I'm going, Joe?
Yeah.
WikiLeaks had already released the information.
Right.
Providing Donald Trump with an encryption key to Trump Jr., I should say, excuse me, with an encryption key to data that is already available to any Joe Schmoe on Google is a non-story.
By the way, an email he never responded to.
Folks, seriously, even if you are a rabbit foaming at the mouth anti-Trumpist, how is that a story?
As one person reported, forgive me, I don't remember who.
You know what the real story is?
Donald Trump Jr.
was spammed by WikiLeaks.
That's the story.
He even sent an email like, hey, here's an encryption key to information.
Oh, really?
Which, by the way, he didn't even respond to.
But it's already on the internet for everyone to see and the media has already reported on it.
Now, why is that date critical?
The initial date of September 4th, which was fake news.
Because somebody, and this is where there's evidence.
I'm just putting this out there for you to analyze, and I hate doing this, but this is an explosive story.
Somebody leaked that date, the September 4th date to the media, which was the wrong date!
Folks, only a few people had access to that information.
Now, a very credible person who I deeply respect and who is connected out the wazoo.
No one knows where the wazoo is, but the wazoo is important.
There are some theories about it.
Proposed something a little while ago, rather cryptically, on an account on social media.
That this was in fact a inside operation by government individuals in the IC and law enforcement community to out leakers in the government.
Now, how would that be?
How would that happen?
Well, Joe, if Don Trump Jr.
was coming to testify in front of just you and me, and we were members of Congress, and you were a rabid anti-Trump or Democrat, and I am a conservative Republican, and the information changing hands One set of information goes to you, and another set of information goes to me, and one set of information is purposefully wrong.
And that purposefully wrong information makes it out to the press.
Can I reasonably assume you leaked it?
You could.
You could?
Yeah.
Now, I know yesterday I was talking about the movie Miami Vice, which I love, with Colin Farrell, Jamie Foxx, who's kind of a turd, but nonetheless, I like the movie.
The movie gets panned.
But there's a scene in the movie Towards the end, where they're trying to find out who the leak within law enforcement is.
There's a mole in law enforcement giving information to Jose Uro and the cartel.
So what they do is they set up this fake drug, this drug deal, excuse me, but they give the date and time of the delivery of the drug deal to different agencies at different times.
Therefore, when they get the information back through the cartel, look, we got the info.
They know exactly, Tuesday in the evening, who they told that to.
They told that, I think, in the movie to the FBI.
So the leak has to be in the FBI, because that's not what we told any other law enforcement agency.
You get it, Joe?
Gotcha.
Yep.
There is a very, very strong headwind going now.
That there is some kind of an intel operation going on, and this is the big coup de grace here, that there's an intel operation going on against members of Congress.
What?
Yeah, thank you, Spider-Man.
Folks, this is a big deal.
Yeah.
I think it's a good deal because you're a member of Congress with a security clearance that is not entitled you to leak it to the media.
Now, I can't confirm this, but here's the evidence, because I never throw stuff out there, and I was very, very hesitant.
I've known about this for about a week and a half now, and I've been very hesitant to talk about it, but here's some evidence for you.
From the tablet piece by Lee Smith, who deserves—he says Glenn Greenwald deserves a Pulitzer Prize for reporting about this stuff.
I think he does for this piece, because it's so good.
It's at Bongino.com, right?
A text from it.
Here's some of his evidence.
He says first that the DOJ, Department of Justice, Joe, got a hold of 10,000 texts between Peter Strzok, the anti-Trump FBI supervisor who was a key player in the Clinton email investigation and the Trump investigation, so that the DOJ got a hold of these texts between Strzok and his FBI lover suggests a pretty serious investigation is ongoing.
Folks, I agree.
Now, we talked about the text yesterday, these anti-Trump texts from this guy Strzok and the FBI and this FBI lawyer.
But nobody's asked, like, well, how did we get them?
Well, there's an IG investigation going on.
Okay, folks, this is pretty serious stuff.
They didn't just appear out of nowhere.
That's evidence piece number one, that there is a very serious intelligence operation gathering, operation going on in the inside.
Secondly, as covered in the piece as well, and they're right, and I think we may have covered this on the show.
I don't know, I'm not sure.
Back in August, Jeff Sessions, the Attorney General, and Dan Coats, the Director of National Intelligence, already announced publicly that they were looking at leaks within the United—illegal leaks.
Folks, I'm not suggesting, by the way, that any of this is nefarious.
The investigation into the leaks, Joe, that's what I mean.
The leaks are nefarious, but I'm not suggesting any of this is wrongdoing.
This is a good thing.
I am fully in support of this.
If you are a member of Congress entrusted with clandestine secret information and you reveal that information, you are not immune to prosecution for that.
But they announced in August, Joe, Sessions and Coates, the DNI, that they were looking at an intelligence operation to uncover leaks within the government.
Now, Folks, we all know who's been on TV disclosing all kinds of information.
Now, he hasn't said anything at this point classified on television, we know, but Adam Schiff is on, that the Republican from California, the virulent anti-Trump.
He's been almost maniacal.
He's been on TV claiming he has all kinds of information about Trump and how it, you know, alludes to collusion.
He never says there's collusion.
He just says, well, there's information out there.
Now, Joe, Has anyone ever considered that the information Schiff has is wrong?
That the information has been purposely fed to him and a few other Democrats only, and the information, although the core information is right, Trump Jr.
was sent an email, Joe, by WikiLeaks.
The key data is wrong.
Now, as Lee Smith points out in the tablet piece, and it's a good point, Some of you may say, well, that's kind of wrong, you know, trying to out members of Congress and trying to make Trump look good.
No, no, no.
The information, this is the brilliant, if this is happening, and I strongly believe it is, this intelligence operation, the information, Joseph, that they're feeding to these members of Congress that they know are going to leak it illegally, It doesn't make Trump look good.
It makes Trump look bad.
That's how they know that it's going to be fed to the media.
In other words, guys, say Trump was contacted by email, but just change the date to the 4th for the Democrats and the 14th for the Republican on the committee.
And watch, because the 4th date makes it look like it's a conspiracy.
They send encrypted information.
We know the Democrats will leak it.
Folks, this is explosive, explosive stuff.
If members of Congress, right now, on a traditionally, by the way, very non-political piece of Congress, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, in the past, Joe, this has not been, there have been episodes, granted, but this has not been a hotbed of partisan activity for obvious reasons, Joe.
Intelligence that could destroy the United States is not fodder to win a political race.
I think we all understand that, right?
Yeah.
Now, there have been episodes in the past there, but this has traditionally not been a place where you put hyper-partisan people.
The fact that it has been now potentially corrupted, and people, whether staffers or congressmen in there, may be leaking information, and may be suckers for an intel operation, is an enormous, enormous story.
And a story of national importance.
These people should be sanctioned, and if they committed a crime, they should be arrested, and they should be prosecuted, and I mean, this should be the end of their careers.
I say this, and you may say, well, how does this relate to the title of the show?
Is the fake news media being played?
Because there's something very, very critical.
Another, and this is the final missing piece.
So first we have the 10,000 texts uncovered.
That's clearly part of some investigation, Joe.
No one releases 10,000 texts just randomly.
Oh, let me just release my text file to the public.
Something's going on there.
We know there's an IG investigation.
We know that's what happened there.
Point number two.
Sessions and Coates already announced they were going to try to uncover leakers within the government.
Point number three, which I think is escaping a lot of folks, is the fact that when CNN had to retract this story, Joe, about the WikiLeaks, you know, email Trump about the encrypted data, by the way, that was already on the internet, right?
So Trump was spammed, basically.
I don't know if you noticed this, but when CNN retracted the story, People started to ask, well, are these reporters who reported this story going to be punished?
And CNN's response is very, very telling.
They said, no, we're not going to chastise and punish these reporters because they followed our editorial standards on sourcing.
Why is that interesting?
That's interesting, because I don't know exactly what CNN's editorial standards on sourced information are, but to be fair to CNN, after the debacles they've undergone with the Scaramucci fake news and the other stuff, I'm not a CNN fan.
I get that, Joe, and you should get it too.
But they don't want to be embarrassed.
I mean, listen, that's just a fact.
CNN's not going to knowingly report fake news.
Can we all agree?
Now, they may report fake news to hurt the president, but they're not going to knowingly do it and destroy their reputation.
Folks, if you think otherwise, I'm sorry.
That's just silly.
Let me stipulate this.
CNN hates the president.
They will report anything to embarrass him.
But you see where I'm going with this show?
They're not going to embarrass themselves by reporting something they know six, seven hours later they're going to have to retract.
They're not stupid.
That says to me, That the source they got that September 4th date from, which was wrong, and I think planted information, just like Jose Uro, Cochi Loco, the crazy pig, I think the source of that information was either a member of Congress or a staffer.
Because that would certainly meet the editorial standards for CNN to publish such an explosive story.
Do you see where I'm going with this, Joe?
In other words, if it was just some Joe Schmo, you know, like a guy who, I don't know, say the guy who was the...
I don't know.
He was washing windows in a congressional office and overheard a conversation.
Yeah, listen, that would be the kind of thing you'd want to double and triple source, because you're like, all right, this is a nice guy, but who knows what he heard?
He was outside the window.
He was looking in.
You know what I'm saying, Joe?
That's the kind of thing that might break the rules of sourcing if you got it from a member of Congress or a staffer who was assigned to the Permanent Select Committee on Intel.
That probably met their rigorous standards to publish it, even though It may have been fake news, intentionally planted, and the media, if this is the case, you just got played!
You got suckered!
You just got snookered big time!
Now, I'm not a reporter.
I'm an opinion guy.
And Joe knows a lot of what I know because I've told him.
But as I've said, I get knocked on this all the time on Twitter.
Fair enough, folks.
People go, if you know something about the Clintons, put it out there, man.
You're destroying the country.
I get it all the time.
All right, folks.
Fair enough.
You're free to feel that way.
I'm telling you, I'm not going to destroy my credibility or destroy the sources I have who've asked me not to say anything until they can be In a better position, let's say.
I'm not going to do it.
I'm sorry.
I'm not going to do it.
I'm not going to break my trust in people.
CNN seems to have no such desire.
They want to be first on the story, even when the story is coming from people who may be getting entirely suckered and played.
I had a story one time about Mrs. Clinton, which I put out there, that I thought we were getting played on.
Until I heard from like the fourth or fifth different source that it actually happened.
And then I believed it.
You're getting played in the media.
That is why this litany- I believe that is why the Deutsche Bank story, Joe?
The Deutsche Bank story, for those of you who missed it.
BREAKING NEWS!
I forget the media outlet that published it, but it was, uh, you know, it wasn't- it was, in my opinion, a- not a- not a cent- not one played- played it- played it straight, right?
They said, Trump's bank records and stuff were being subpoenaed!
Trump's Deutsche Bank records!
It was fake news!
Folks, I think it was intentional.
I think it was part of this intelligence operation.
To- to out these people.
The Mike Flynn story.
Remember that one, Joe?
Mike Flynn's going to testify against Trump that as a candidate, Flynn was told by Trump to contact the Russians.
Fake news.
He was not told as a candidate.
He was told as the President-elect's choice for National Security Advisor to contact the Russians.
Part of his job!
Folks, the key part of that story that I'm telling you was changed was not that Flynn was told to contact the Russians.
True, right, Joe?
The fake news plant to play the media for suckers and these dopey sources that are giving this up was that change president-elect to candidate.
Feed one piece of information to this guy and another piece of information to the next guy and see what leaks.
You see where I'm going with this, Joe?
I sure do.
On the Deutsche Bank story.
Tell them a fact.
Deutsche Bank records are being looked into.
Apparently that is a fact.
But it's not about Trump.
It's about other people involved with Trump.
So change one piece of information.
It's about Trump.
Trump's bank records being looked into!
Ah, fake news!
You got burned again!
I believe they are outing sources.
I also believe that there is a tidal wave coming ashore soon.
I think I may have been too harsh on some of the people in DOJ, and I mean it, Joe.
I'm talking about the good guys, not the people in DOJ who've been going after Trump and sending all these nasty tweets, and Bruce Ohr and his wife who works for Fusion GPS, who met with Fusion GPS.
I think the good guys, and this is a little bit of good news for you all, I think the good guys over in DOJ are getting ready for something big.
I think there is a big thunderstorm coming.
We'll see.
You know what I'm saying, Joe?
Like, I've been very harsh.
I'm like, what are they doing?
They're letting all this... I don't know.
I think I was wrong.
And when I'm wrong, I got to kind of dial it back in, you know, and admit it a little bit.
And I think there's something people are getting ready to be really embarrassed.
And maybe members of Congress and their staff, too.
So I know we have liberals who listen.
I would just say to the media, I would be really careful on reporting this stuff because you may be getting suckered big time.
All right, today's show brought to you by, I love these guys.
I love these guys.
I got one.
They sent me one.
It's the greatest thing ever, right?
What is it?
Well, listen, it's the holidays.
Everybody's got a tough time picking out gifts for guys.
Joe, you know it.
I know my wife does.
I have a tough time finding gifts for my friends, like my cop buddies and stuff.
I mean, what do you get guys?
I don't buy them anything.
Yeah, you can't because there's nothing to get them.
I have a solution for this problem though.
It's really hard to pick out the perfect gift and it's very easy to get it wrong.
We're introducing our buddies, mancrates.com.
I love this.
They sent me one of these, the coolest thing ever.
The surest way to find gifts that guys will actually love, guaranteed.
This isn't a cheese of the month club, we all hate that, or a new tie.
Mancrates offers over 100 hand curated gift collections for every type of guy.
From the rugged outdoorsman to the sports fanatic and everything in between.
Here's one of their man crates.
They have the whiskey appreciation crate with a personalized decanter and glasses for his favorite drink.
Come on, who wouldn't love that?
They have the grill master crate, Joe, with, get a load of this, the brass knuckle meat tenderizer and a cast iron smoker box.
Go to mancrates.com, pick the perfect crate and choose the delivery date.
I've gotten one of these in the mail.
I received these things were awesome.
When the crate arrives, you get to pry the bad boy open with your own laser engraved crowbar.
I'm not kidding.
The crowbar comes in a box.
I think it takes an average of 15 minutes to open the crate, but man, you'll have fun doing it.
I got my hammer out.
My wife's like, Whack it!
Hit that sucker!
Boom!
You hammer the crowbar in.
I think opening the crate is almost as much fun as looking to see what's inside.
Both Men's Health and Allure Magazine are saying man crates are the perfect gift for men, and those two don't agree on anything.
That's absolutely true.
They have thousands of five-star reviews, and every man crate comes with a 100% satisfaction guarantee.
Own the holidays!
Go to mancrates.com slash dan.
That's mancrates.com slash Dan, and you will get 5% off.
They don't do this for anybody, folks.
They don't give discounts because they don't need to, because the company's exploding right now.
They don't offer this discount anywhere else.
That's 5% off at mancrates.com slash Dan.
That's mancrates.com slash Dan.
You're going to love this.
This is like the coolest thing ever.
When they signed up to sponsor, I was like, they're like, you guys, you want to read for this company?
I'm like, read for this company?
Are you kidding me?
I said, send me one of them crates while you're at it.
No, it's good stuff.
I gotta get you one, Joe.
You're gonna love it.
I'm telling you.
Smashing this thing open is just... It's 90% of the fun.
That's right.
Oh boy.
All right.
I got a lot of stuff.
I'm not gonna just cover this today, so don't worry.
I got a lot of stuff to get to, because there's a lot of cool stories out there.
There's one good story at National Review, but I do want to make sure we cover this as well, because there is an explosive op-ed.
Again, I hate to keep using that term, but it's just so true.
There's so much going on right now, and it ties into what we just talked about.
Explosive op-ed at the Wall Street Journal today, which, listen, everybody knows they try to play it down the middle, okay?
I like it.
I've been reading it since I'm a kid, but they do go after friends of mine sometimes, and I wish they wouldn't.
They try to play it down the middle.
In the op-ed, the gist of it, Joe, is, did the FBI change the outcome of a presidential election?
I mean, I know it was anticlimactic saying that, but think about what I just said to you.
A mainstream American newspaper that, you know, they're right-leaning, no question about that, but tries to play it somewhat down the center.
has an op-ed up today asking if the FBI changed the outcome of a presidential election.
Wait, wait, what?
Come again?
Even I was surprised because they really do.
They are very careful with their op-eds.
I've been reading their journal since I'm 16.
They are very, very careful about their op-eds.
Now, I want to propose to you I don't want to do a lot of theories today, but this is important because this all ties together, folks, and I think it explains this.
I'm scratching my head because I don't want to lose you all, but this is critical.
When I say did the FBI change the outcome of an election, there is another theory out there that We're viewing all of this historically, what happened with the Comey exoneration of Hillary Clinton, the reopening of the Clinton case.
For those of you who don't remember that, remember Jim Comey gave that nationally televised speech about the Clinton email investigation where he laid out this ironclad case seemingly against Hillary Clinton.
Remember that, Joe?
I can't forget it, man.
and nobody can and all of a sudden at the end he's like but no reasonable prosecutor would charge her and everybody was like wait what what come again like we were all scratching our heads like what just happened he laid out this perfect case against Hillary and that's the speech by the way Where it's alleged that Peter Strzok changed the content of that Comey speech from grossly negligent Hillary Clinton's activities with the email, Joe, Strzok changed it to Comey didn't say grossly negligent, he said extremely careless.
Now why is that critical?
Because gross negligence is the standard for criminal conduct in that case.
So you following what I'm saying here, Joe?
Yeah.
Peter Strzok, the deputy director of counterintel, involved heavily in the Clinton email investigation and the interviews of Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills.
And Hillary, from what I remember correctly, Strzok changes Comey's speech from the use of words that would indicate criminal conduct to the words extremely careless, which are not in the statute.
Huh.
What?
Now, one of the theories out there now is we're viewing this all wrong.
And this is what I find fascinating.
And I, again, have been hesitant to talk about it, but if we're going to throw out there stuff, today's the day to do it.
All right?
Yeah.
One of the theories now that's gaining some steam is that we're viewing this all wrong, Joe.
That when Comey's speeches at the time, which first damaged Mrs. Clinton and then saved her by exonerating her in the same speech, Joe.
And then the speech he gave later, remember when he reopened the case?
The case is being reopened because they thought they found new emails on Anthony Weiner's laptop, remember that?
A couple weeks before the election?
People were saying, oh gosh, this was Comey's effort.
Dude, the Democrats were saying, Comey's trying to hurt Hillary!
He's trying to destroy her!
So folks, just so we're clear, I don't want to lose you, but this is really critical, you get this, it's so important what's going on right now, to understanding the sad state of American politics.
Democrats were saying, with the initial exoneration, even after the damning speech, public speech, Oh, Comey did the right thing, right, Joe?
Look, he exonerated her.
He said she made some extremely careless decisions, but ultimately, even though he had no power to exonerate her, he's an investigator, not a judge or a jury or a prosecutor, right?
Democrats loved him.
Then three weeks before the election, or whatever it was, a couple weeks before, Comey comes out again and says, we're going to reopen the Hillary email case because we may have found additional emails on Weiner's laptop.
And Democrats were screaming, Comey's jeopardizing the election!
The theory now is we're looking at this all wrong, and I'm really starting to believe this.
The theory now is this.
That Jim Comey, Peter Strzok, and other FBI officials at high ranking levels, this has nothing to do with rank and file agents, I want to be crystal clear, love them all, men and women.
We're absolutely convinced, Joe, that Hillary Clinton was going to win this election.
Now, Joe, you and I both know, because our shows from those days are still on tape on our podcast.
You can go listen to them.
Everybody was convinced Hillary was going to win.
Yeah, everybody.
Chris Sillizza, I still have a screenshot of it, put out an article, I think it was at the Washington Post, saying Donald Trump's chances of winning the presidential election are close to zero.
I have a screenshot of it.
Nobody thought Trump was going to win.
Nobody.
Nobody in conservative review thought Trump was going to win.
I got into an argument with Dan Horowitz.
I'm not an argument, but we got into a spirited conversation the day of our election coverage.
He's telling me he's got no chance.
I love Dan, but I said, Dan, you're wrong.
Trump's going to win this thing.
He thought I was nuts.
Why is any of this important?
Because the theory now Is that the entire charade, Joe?
The initial press conference?
Oh, she was extremely careless, but no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute.
And then the reopening.
Were all efforts to get ahead of an effort after Hillary's win to delegitimize her election.
Does that make sense?
If it doesn't, please tell me.
Not doesn't.
Clarify a little bit for me.
I can sense by your hesitancy that you're not eating the chili I'm putting on the plate here.
No.
The theory now is that Comey and Strzok were so in the tank for Hillary.
Okay.
That they knew there was bad information out there.
The email investigation we all know about, that that was gonna corrupt her future presidency if this email investigation was hanging over her head.
So they exonerate her in this speech, but he gives this speech and he lays it all out, Joe.
In other words, Comey says, hey guys, Comey, I have no, this was the thinking that, what they were thinking, Comey is thinking.
Hey, all this information's already out there about Hillary's bad email practice.
Let's give a speech on it, Joe, that way it's all out there, we clear the air, right?
And then at the end let's say, and by the way we're not going to prosecute, okay?
The speech three weeks before the election or the public pronouncement the congress said we're going to reopen the investigation.
The theory there is that Comey and people on the inside knew that there was a separate investigation going on for Wiener.
That may uncover something really nasty about Hillary.
Okay.
So it was another effort to say, listen, she's going to win anyway, let's just get out ahead of this and say we're reopening it and we can shut it in a couple days and that way no one can accuse us of being in a tank.
Does that make sense now?
Yep.
Got it.
Yes, it does.
Folks, if that's the case, this is just amazing.
If that's the case, the FBI leaders, not the men and women of the FBI, but the rank-and-file, not the rank-and-file, the management of the FBI that was in the tank for Hillary may have in fact changed the course of an American election and done it only because they thought they were helping.
That's what I'm trying to say Joe.
In other words, Comey This is where I got confused and why it took me seriously a week to get this so I could put it out on my show without confusing the hell out of all of you.
Okay.
Comey could have kept his mouth shut the entire time, Joe.
There was no obligation for him to do a public speech about a sensitive investigation to Hillary Clinton.
Joe, do you understand that?
He could have said nothing.
There was no obligation for him to do that.
To give the first speech or the second speech about the reopening and the investigation.
What some people are starting to say is he only gave those speeches because he was so sure Hillary was gonna win that him and Strzok and these other guys may have been thinking, Joe, let's just get it out there.
She's gonna win anyway and that way her presidency later on won't have to deal with this hanging over their head.
Does that make sense?
Yeah, a little CYA.
A lot of CYA.
Yes!
Yes, Armacost!
This is a CYA for the Bureau.
Look, we put it out there.
And a CYA for Hillary later, who says, look, they put it out there.
It's all over.
I'm president.
The point is they only said it because they were so confident she was going to win.
Folks, if you're not picking up what I'm putting down, you're missing potentially one of the biggest stories, political stories in a hundred years, that an FBI director may have done all of this only under the belief that they were fine.
Hillary was going to win.
No big deal.
Trump had no shot.
Let's just clear the deck for a presidency later.
Put it out there.
But by putting it out there, they actually elected Donald Trump.
Oh my gosh!
If your head's spitting right now, it should, but please listen to it again then and go back and I know it's just a really long setup, but this is an amazing story.
The first story I told you is mind-blowing.
The second one is blowing the remnants of your mind that weren't blown by the first one.
That there's an intelligence operation going on against leaking members of Congress who are using the press to destroy the president with fake news fed to them on purpose.
What?
Secondly, that the FBI, or managers at the FBI, were so in the tank for Hillary and were so comfortable with her victory that they knowingly came out in advance with public speeches that so damaged their reputation, because they thought they were helping, that they actually handed the election to Donald Trump.
What the heck?
Now does it make sense, Joe?
Yeah, and I never, I never, ever would have looked at it, you know, from that point of view.
Ever.
Brother, me either.
And I'm glad you're the audience ombudsman because I'm just being candid with you folks.
This theory's been out there for a couple weeks now.
Matter of fact, I think Kim Strassel wrote a piece about it in the journal.
And again, being totally frank and honest, I had a really tough time getting where she was going with it.
You know, it's an op-ed.
I'm not there interviewing Kim Strassel.
So I can't... Well, what did you mean by this?
But after reading and homeworking this and doing, like, really, I mean, I was reading for hours different pieces about this by just Googling it.
Finally, like, a light went off.
All right, now I get what they're saying.
Comey thought he was helping, but actually handed the election to Trump.
They were under no obligation to say anything.
Just shut up.
And they didn't.
Wow.
Big stuff, folks.
That's incredible.
All right.
Today's show also brought to you by our buddies at Filterby.
This is why I told you it's one of my favorite shows.
I'm telling you, I'm so stoked about doing this show today because I love putting out information based on hard evidence that's explosive like this and hoping you're all going, wow.
I hope, because that's what I was doing when I finally put two and two together.
All right, filterbuy.com.
We love filterbuy.com.
Most of you have air filters in your house, and the chances are, folks, they're probably pretty messed up right now.
I love the prior homeowner here.
He was a super nice guy, but he didn't change the filters.
When I moved into my house, I went and looked at my... I have these two AC units, and I went to the garage and looked, and they were black.
The filters were supposed to be white.
They were so caked up, they were like concrete.
I think if you dropped them on the floor, they would have one thunk.
So I'm thinking, gosh, now I know why I was getting like this really wicked itch on my hand.
I have the worst allergies ever.
So you got to change your air filters.
And the perfect time to change them is the change of seasons, which passed a bit here, but this is still a really good time to go out and check.
If you're a commercial business, you have a thousand air filters in your factory, or you're a home and you have a couple air filters in your vents, filterbuy.com Filterbuy.com is the way to go.
Please support our sponsors.
They support us.
These guys use double the industry standard MERV rating on their filters.
They're manufactured right here in the United States.
And if you auto enroll, that way they'll just send them to you.
You don't have to worry about them ever again.
You'll get 5% off.
Go to filterbuy.com.
That's filterbuy.com.
The air in your house can be really polluted, folks.
Matter of fact, some studies out there show it can have all kinds of particulates.
Their filters take the pollen, they take the allergy aggravating pollution, the mold, The dust.
Get that stuff out of the air.
Breathe clean, healthy air in your house.
You probably need to change your filter.
You probably haven't checked in a while.
Go to filterbuy.com.
Manufactured right here in the U.S.
They will ship right to your house.
The shipping is free.
You don't have to worry about the shipping.
Go to filterbuy.com.
Replace your filters today.
Set up the auto enroll until you get 5% off.
You never have to worry about filters again.
That's filterbuy.com.
Filterbuy.com.
Thanks to everybody who supports our sponsors.
It means the world to us.
We really appreciate it.
All right.
Where do I go next?
So many good stuff.
By the way, thanks to the guy who sent me the article about the Army's new pistol.
Did you see this, Joe?
The Army's changing their pistol, finally.
Yeah, I saw it on the monitor this morning, but I didn't get any particulars.
Yeah, they're going from the Beretta to the Sig Sauer.
Now, I'm not trying to play all sides of the fence.
Beretta's a great gun.
I like them.
Glock's a great gun.
I own one.
Actually, I own a few.
I own a .43, a .42.
I have a .31, too, the .357.
But the Army is going with Sig Sauer, and the pistol's pretty incredible.
I have not seen it personally, but I've seen it on the news.
I had a Sig Sauer 229 in the Secret Service.
It's an amazing gun.
Interesting story.
I will put in the show notes.
Go check it out.
So thanks to the guy who sent me that.
Pretty cool story.
All right, I'm just going to get right to this one.
There's another great piece by Michael Tanner in National Review today, which will be in the show notes.
And it struck a nerve with me, folks, because I'm all in for tax reform, good tax reform.
And I think the bill we have now, it isn't perfect.
I've done entire shows about its shortfalls, so I'm not going to relitigate that now.
But putting more money in your wallet is priority number one for me.
If I were king for a day, the first thing I'm concerned about is absolutely fattening up your wallet.
The reason I say that, folks, is we are in such a perilous, destructive debt situation right now that if we don't grow the economy, there's absolutely no way we're going to be able to pay off our debt.
Now, Tanner has an interesting piece where he says, hey, listen, hoorah, great, tax reform is terrific.
But folks, we have to be honest.
We're not doing a darn thing about government spending, and why this is not an international crisis right now, because it is international, Joe.
If the United States goes bankrupt, the entire world economy collapses.
We're the biggest economy in the world, by far.
And don't believe the hype that the Chinese are gonna catch up to us.
I don't buy it.
I don't.
I don't buy it at all.
Not in a planned economy, they won't.
If the United States goes bankrupt, the entire world economy will collapse.
A couple points from this piece that Tanner has in National Review.
It's great.
It's short, sweet, not overly wonky.
But he says, listen, tax cuts, terrific, Joe, but what are we going to do about spending?
We have Republican control of the House, Republican control of the Senate, and we're not doing anything.
Matter of fact, Joe, what we're doing is in the wrong direction.
The new budget deal, Joe, proposed by the GOP.
This is like laughable.
I'm not getting these numbers wrong, by the way.
First, the Democrats are proposing $200 billion more in spending this year.
$200 billion!
We're already projected for a $666.
Hmm.
Whoa.
What is that?
Gosh, that's like evil.
Like Damien from the... Look, Damien!
Remember that movie, The Omen?
Remember the lady jumps off the roof?
Look, Damien!
It's all for you!
$666 billion deficits projected for this year, so the Democrats are proposing next year to spend $200 billion more.
Now, if you're a regular listener, you're like, oh, all right, so the GOP, of course, you know, we're the party of fiscal restraint.
The GOP surely isn't proposing $200 billion and spending more.
No, they're proposing 182 billion.
Nice job, guys.
Nice job.
There you go.
So you're only proposing 182 billion.
You're not proposing any cuts at all.
You're just like, hey, those Dems, man, they're big spenders.
So we have a $666 billion projected deficit.
The Dems want to spend 200 billion more.
We're going to really... Let's only spend 182 billion.
Oh, I love that.
You guys are awesome.
That's a really wonderful... What are you guys doing up there?
No, I'm serious.
I know we have staffers that listen.
I know it because I've seen some of the emails.
What are you guys doing up there?
You're now in charge.
You want your cake and you want to eat it too.
I don't want to make it personal because then you lose people.
I mean members and staff members who may be listening.
Do you have no guts at all?
I mean, listen to me.
There's no doubt in my mind that the Republicans up on the Hill in the Senate know this is wrong.
They know we are spending money we don't have.
They know there is going to be at some point an interest rate apocalypse.
And yet you continue to do it!
I don't get it.
You know, there's talk now of bailing out a multi-state pension fund that the government has almost no obligation to bail out outside of the pension benefits guarantee.
But that's broke too.
We're spending money like we have it when we're 20 trillion in debt projected to go to 30 trillion in debt and we're looking at 666 billion next year and you can't get your... I mean, what is going on here?
By the way, the deficit this year, folks, $666 billion is up $80 billion from last year and the Republicans are in charge!
Guys, couple points on this.
You may say to yourself now, and I know I addressed this a few weeks ago, but it's important because some of you didn't get it.
I know, because a guy sent me an email the other day.
He didn't understand what I was talking about.
I thought because Joe did, he did.
But maybe Joe only understood it because I've said it to him 10,000 times.
Maybe a new listener.
Seriously.
You get stuff because I've said it to you so often.
I understand that even a lot of Republicans right now are like, ah, national debt, smash national debt, who cares?
Like, nothing's happening, the economy's moving, I still got my flat screen TV, I got my job, the economy's humming along at 3%.
Folks, when these things hit, they hit you like a thief in the night.
If you could predict a crisis, it wouldn't be a crisis, because you'd avoid it!
Remember, Joe, everything was moving along just hummingly before what happened with the housing market.
Boom!
Bam!
Punch in the gut.
Joe, outside of a few people, like people in the Bush administration, did anybody see that coming?
No.
No, because if you did, you would have sold your house in advance or gotten out of debt or sold your stocks.
I'm just telling you the obvious.
The overwhelming majority of people had no idea that was coming.
This debt crisis we're living in right now, while Republicans continue to spend money we don't have, is going to be a similar crisis when it hits and everybody's going to go, why?
What happened?
Yeah.
Folks, what happened?
It's happening now!
Here's what's going to happen.
There's going to be a call at some point on U.S.
debt.
This money we're spending is real money.
In other words, we're spending $666 billion we don't have, but it's real.
It's still being spent.
There's money being given to people on entitlement programs.
Where are they getting it from?
The answer is they're taking loans from people in the United States who buy U.S.
bonds, from the Chinese, from the Japanese who are buying U.S.
debt.
They are lending us money.
To support a tax base that isn't there to support government spending.
Does that make sense, Joe?
The government's spending money it don't have.
Okay, well, where's it getting the money?
If Joe Armacost spends money he doesn't earn, well, where's he getting it from?
Well, he's probably getting it from a credit card.
Who's getting it from who?
The people who are spending money at the credit card company.
They're just lending Joe money to spend that he doesn't have.
The United States government's no different.
The United States government is spending money lent to it by other people.
Well, just like Joe who's spending money on a credit card like a drunken sailor that he doesn't have, which he's not, but you get the point.
Yeah.
Sooner or later, Joe's credit card company is going to say, wait, Joe owes us $100,000 on an income.
I don't know what Joe makes.
Let's say it's $40,000, just for the sake of easy numbers here.
Sooner or later, they're going to say, wait, you're spending $100,000 a year on $40,000 in income?
Joe, we're not lending you any more money.
Time to pay back.
Uh-oh!
All of a sudden, Joe's cyclical spending habit of $100,000 a year supported by a credit card and an income he doesn't have dries up.
What does he do?
Joe owes all these people money every year.
Joe's running up a $60,000 tab on iTunes or whatever it is.
All of a sudden, nobody's getting their money.
Folks, this is what's going to happen with the United States government.
It is inevitable.
As Herb Stein famously once said, what can't continue won't.
This can't continue.
Sooner or later, just like a credit card company, the Chinese, the Japanese, and U.S.
debt holders are going to say, U.S.
government, you got to start paying us our money back.
What do you mean?
No, what do you mean?
What do we mean?
I want my money back.
Well, we don't have your money.
And all of a sudden, just like the credit card company Joe, they're going to cut off future credit.
We're not going to have that money anymore.
And the interest rate on loans we have now is going to go through the roof because, this is my explanation about interest rates that the guy in the email missed, An interest rate on a loan, just like the credit card companies giving money to Joe every year to spend that he doesn't have otherwise, all it is is a measure of risk.
That is all that is, Joe.
If Joe is at relatively low risk, To default on that.
In other words, Joe will pay the money back.
The credit card companies don't have any need to compensate.
They want to give Joe the money because they can make some interest on it, right Joe?
If I give you the money and I say, you know what Joe, I'm going to give it to you at 8%, I know I'm going to make a steady 8% on Joe because he pays back his loans all the time.
The minute Joe doesn't pay that back because he runs out of funds, short-term funds, because people stop giving him money to pay back the debt he had before Joe, all of a sudden the credit card company goes, wait, Joe, you don't have the money to pay us back?
Okay, now we're going to charge you 18%.
Why?
Because you're risky!
And now to give you any additional money, they have to be compensated by a almost confiscatory interest rate.
Does that make sense, Joe?
Yes, Dan.
All debts are paid.
All, as I've said often, and as you excitedly remember, I'm glad you pay attention when I talk.
Yes, as Milton Friedman said, all debts are paid, whether by the creditor or by the debtor.
Yep.
Either the person taking the money as a loan doesn't pay it back, and therefore it's paid by the person who gave them a loan and gave you the money, or the person taking the loan pays back the money.
All debts are paid.
All debts are paid.
The question is, who's going to pay them?
Is it going to be the Chinese?
Is it going to be the Japanese?
Is it going to be American citizens who've loaned the government money?
And when those debts are paid, they're going to be paid by you or by them, and we are going to have a massive fiscal crisis.
All right.
I had another story I really was eager to get to, but we spent a lot of time on some very serious stuff going on.
Do me a favor, folks.
I know I don't have to say it, but please tune in tomorrow.
I have a really cool story about Net neutrality and Netflix and it entirely, completely, 100% debunks every piece of crap, garbage story you've been told about, air quotes, there's nothing neutral about net neutrality you've ever heard.
And it does it so simply and easily.
You're not going to want to miss it.
And they're going to sum it up in a way that I think only Joe and I do on the show.
I can't get through it today because it requires a bit of a setup, but it's really, really, really good.
All right.
Tune in tomorrow, folks.
Go to Bongino.com.
Subscribe to my email list.
I'll get you the stories from today's show.
See you tomorrow.
You just heard the Dan Bongino Show.
Get more of Dan online anytime at conservativereview.com.
You can also get Dan's podcasts on iTunes or SoundCloud.
