In this episode I address the media’s central role in advancing the set up of Mike Flynn, and the spying operation on the Trump team. This episode will disturb and trouble you. News Picks:This NY Times piece from March, 2017 lays out in detail how the media got played by Obama Administration officials trying to advance the collusion hoax.
Is this it? Is any evidence of collusion ever going to surface?
Is this FBI email chain going to sink the Spygate conspirators?
The Russians have a new weapon.
Secret Facebook documents have been leaked.
President Trump is prepping for all out political war.
Copyright Blaze Media LLC. 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.
All right, welcome to the Dan Bongino Show.
Producer Joe, how are you today?
Up, up and away, babe.
Up, up and away.
Amazing.
I get it.
I get it.
Inside joke.
Folks, yesterday's show went bonkers, crazy.
Everybody out there who shared it, thank you very much.
Today, I am going to double and triple down on this, and I'm going to show you exactly how the media was complicit in this, complicit in this entire debacle, so you understand where we're going, and there is absolutely no miscommunication at all.
Monday, I laid out the scandal they're trying to hide.
Please go back and listen again.
Uranium One, this international money laundering scheme, and all of the politicians who were soaked up on it.
Tuesday, we laid out again what the scandal on the Obama administration, how they targeted the Trump team to make the scandal go away.
Because if the Trump team exposed them, they would be lost.
So they implicated the Trump team in this.
Yesterday's show, I talked about Mike Flynn and the persecution.
Prosecution is a nonsensical term in this case.
The persecution of Mike Flynn played fully into this scheme and how Mike Flynn was always going to be the linchpin of this fake narrative.
Courtesy of a listener who caught on to something that I missed, I am going to prove to you that the media was complicit in this the whole time.
I also want to hat tip a listener, Judy, if you want to go back and listen to the episode I cited yesterday about, excuse me, Mike Flynn, to show you how eerily we predicted this whole thing.
Go back either in our iTunes library or SoundCloud library and Google or look up episode 605 of the Dan Bongino Show.
It was on my birthday in 2017, December 4th or December 5th.
December 4th is my birthday, I can't figure it out, but it's episode 605.
And you will see exactly what I told you yesterday, Joe.
Me and you predicted a year ago to the day.
Not because we're, you know, we're just geniuses or anything.
People were telling us stuff and now it's all coming true.
Go back and listen.
You'll get a kick out of it.
Episode 605.
All right.
Today's show brought to you by Helix Sleep.
Hey, there's nobody on the planet like you.
So why would you buy a generic mattress built for everyone else?
Helix Sleep built a sleep quiz that takes two minutes to complete, and they use the answers to match your body type and sleep preferences to the perfect mattress.
Whether you're a side sleeper, hot sleeper, like a plush or firm bed, with Helix, there's no more guessing or confusion.
I like a little bit of firm.
Paula likes a little bit of plush side.
My daughter has a Helix Sleep mattress.
It is the most comfortable thing ever.
My wife lays down with her at night, my six-year-old, to read books.
And sometimes I'm in, I'm like, where's Paula?
She's in there sleeping on the Helix Sleep mattress because it's that comfortable.
Just go to HelixSleep.com slash Dan.
Take their two-minute sleep quiz, and they'll match you to a mattress that will give you the best sleep of your life.
For couples, Helix can even split the mattress down the middle, providing individual support needs and feel preferences for each side.
They have a 10-year warranty, and you get to try it out.
Get a load of this.
100 nights for free.
You won't have to bring it back.
You'll never sleep better.
Right now, Helix is offering up to $125 off all mattress orders.
Get up to $125 off at helixsleep.com.
Dan, please support our sponsors, helixsleep.com.
Dan, for $125 off your mattress order, helixsleep.com.
Dan, the best mattresses out there.
All right.
I haven't heard that for a while.
Matthew McConaughey.
Yeah.
A entrepreneurial listener who doesn't miss anything emailed me yesterday and said, Dan, you already spoke about this New York Times piece from a long time ago back in March.
But gosh, is this awfully reminiscent of what's going on now?
Sounds like the media knew about this story the whole time and was putting out pieces to advance the narrative.
In other words, The narrative that this collusion thing was real and that Mike Flynn was going to be the center of it, his communications with the Russians.
Paula, here we go.
You're going to have to hear from Paula today.
I know.
Let's go back to the videotape, folks.
I am going to walk through this March, this is March 1st, excuse me, March 1st, 2017.
Here's the title of the piece.
You know what?
I'll put it in the show notes today.
That's okay.
Even though it's the New York Times, you need to read this.
How the New York Times had this story the whole time and were being played to advance this narrative.
Here's the title of the piece.
Obama administration rushed to preserve intelligence of Russian election hacking.
The Obama administration had evidence of Russian intelligence election hacking?
Wow!
Isn't that great?
They rushed to preserve it because the Trump team was going to get rid of it?
Stunning!
Let's walk through this piece, folks, and you will see how the New York Times was used as a megaphone and the Washington Post to advance the narrative that Trump colluded with the Russians and the centerpiece of the whole thing was Mike Flynn.
I'm going to read it from the end first.
I'm going to go through some quotes.
The hacking intel about the Russians hacking that was relayed to the media, ladies and gentlemen, was really the collusion narrative.
This whole idea that the Russians hacked the election.
Through Wikileaks and all of that.
The United States government and the Obama administration did not know this, but they needed a story to feed to the hacks in the media, pun intended, to advance the idea that Trump had won the election by colluding with the Russians and this is how they were going to take them down to hide their own malfeasance, right?
For as crazy as the media is, Joe, you see where I'm going with this?
They can't just throw out to the media, Trump colluded with the Russians to win the election.
How?
And not give anything back.
The media doesn't want to be sued.
Folks, I'm not defending the New York Times or the Post.
Please.
I get that.
I read your emails a lot.
Sometimes you misinterpret stuff.
I'm simply suggesting to you these are liberal hacks at the times, but they're not stupid.
They don't want to be sued.
So they need something.
So these sources in the Obama administration needed a narrative to give to the media.
The narrative was going to be the Obama team has evidence that the Russians hacked the election and that Trump people are going to try to get rid of it.
Hence the title of the piece, The Obama Administration Show, Rush to Preserve the Intelligence of Russian Election Hacking.
Except for the fact they didn't have the intelligence.
They had evidence of Russians trying to engage in disinformation efforts in the United States.
And again, for the umpteenth time, the Russians are not our friends at all.
They are geopolitical enemies.
They can't stand the United States, the Russian government.
Period.
I'm not debating that.
I'm simply suggesting to you the title of this New York Times piece is the scandal.
They bought hook, line, and sinker the fact that the Russians had hacked the election and that's why all this stuff was going on with Donald Trump.
There's no evidence they hacked the election.
There's evidence of a disinformation campaign, but the Times bought it in the title.
So the hacking of the election was the vehicle, stop me I'm Budsman Joe if this doesn't make sense, the hacking of the election was the vehicle to feed to thirsty New York Times reporters, oh give us the story, that Trump team members were involved in this.
Yeah.
They can't just throw out collusion and not give them anything.
Flynn was always going to be the linchpin to this.
You doubt me?
Let me read the end of the piece first, and then I'll go down and order some.
I'm not going to read you the whole piece, don't worry, you can do that yourself.
But I'm going to read you select cutouts.
Here, the concerns about the contacts, the contacts between the Russians and the Trump team, right?
Uh-huh.
Were cemented by a series of phone calls between Russian Ambassador Kislyak and Michael T. Flynn, who had been poised to become Mr. Trump's national security advisor.
The calls began on December 29th.
Sheesh, how does the New York Times know this?
It's amazing.
It's amazing how they have all these wiretap intercepted phone calls.
But you know what?
Here's a funny joke.
You know how the New York Times had?
I'm not even messing with you.
This is a joke, but it's not.
You know where the New York Times got access to wiretap Mike Flynn phone calls from the Dominican Republic?
From the Washington Post!
And the Washington Post gets them from the Obama administration.
Folks, listen, we're not laughing because it's funny.
We're laughing because we'd be crying.
Otherwise, this is how stupid this scandal is.
How dumb, how the people were so ignorant and did such a crap job covering their tracks.
They left a paper trail of stupid everywhere.
So the Times already knows about this December 29th phone call because they're getting it from the Washington Post.
The calls began on December 29th, shortly after Ambassador Kislyak was summoned to the State Department and informed that in retaliation for Russian election meddling, the United States was going to expel suspected Russian intelligence operatives and impose other sanctions.
Here, this is great, Joe.
So let's be clear.
Remember yesterday's show?
You gotta listen if you haven't heard it.
Please, yeah.
December 29th, two events happen.
It's not a coincidence.
The Obama team waits for Flynn to leave the country.
Flynn leaves, he's in the Dominican Republic on December 29th.
The Obama administration calls in Kislyak.
You're reading it right here in the New York Times.
Calls in Kislyak, says, hey, we're expelling your diplomats.
Here, it goes on.
Kislyak, Joe, was irate and threatened a forceful Russian response, according to people familiar with the exchange.
What do you think's going on in the Obama team?
They're saying right now, get his phone, get his phone, get up on his phone.
Who's he gonna call?
Who do they call?
Mike Flynn!
We got him!
We got him!
Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding!
We got him!
Let me read the opening sentence again.
The concerns about the context were cemented.
Cemented.
The concerns, by the way, are not concerns.
It's the Obama team desperate to connect the Trump team to the Russians.
That's the concerns.
The concerns about the context were cemented by a series of phone calls between Kislyak and Flynn.
How the hell are they listening to those calls?
Because they call Kislyak in.
The Times has it right here.
Hey, Kislyak, get your Russians out of Maryland and New York.
Kislyak was irate and threatened a forceful Russian response, according to people familiar with the exchange.
More sources.
Crazy how the New York Times has all this.
Oh, oh, it gets better.
Oh, this is nice.
Isn't this cute?
But a day later, Mr. Putin said his government would not retaliate, prompting a Twitter post from Mr. Trump praising the Russian president and puzzling Obama White House officials.
How the hell were Obama White House officials puzzled, you idiots?
They were listening in on Flynn's call on the 29th!
Do you understand how stupid these New York Times people are?
Joe, please tell me this makes sense, brother.
Yeah!
Brother!
Was that Macho Man or is that the hoax?
Brother!
I always get the pop culture references wrong.
From my Starsky and Hutch remake thing the other day.
I said naked gun part, dude.
It was hot shots part, dude.
Thank you to the email guys.
I'm always screwing that stuff up.
Do you understand how dumb this is?
The New York Times.
The Obama administration was stunned that the Russians didn't forcefully respond.
How were you stunned?
You were listening in on the phone calls, you idiots!
Were you stunned?
Dude.
Do you understand this?
The Times doesn't even pick this up!
The guy actually wrote this in the piece!
What is it, Matthew Schmidt?
I'm not sure who wrote the piece.
You can read it yourself.
So you bring Kislyak in, you kick out his diplomats, you immediately get up on his phone, you know he's gonna call Flynn, same day, you record the phone calls, you have the transcripts of the phone calls, where Flynn tries to talk them off the ledge, Which is perfectly legal, he's the incoming National Security Advisor.
Sure!
Perfectly legal.
It's done all the time.
The Russians don't respond forcefully.
What did you want, World War II?
Three?
Excuse me, we already had World War II.
Nah.
What do you want to happen?
You want a nuclear counter-strike by the Russians?
The Obama administration was surprised.
You were not surprised, you knuckleheads!
You listened in on the call!
Stop lying!
These loons at the New York Times don't even pick up the inconsistency there.
They listened in on the call.
But the takeaway from this, point one, again, now understand what the headline of this show is today.
The media was complicit in this the whole time.
The New York Times and the Washington Post were being used as an Obama administration megaphone, both before and after leaving office, to keep alive a nonsense fairy tale that Trump, through the linchpin Mike Flynn, colluded with the Russians to win the election.
Do you understand what I'm saying?
The story was nonsense.
They were using the media Knowing the media would dutifully report all of this stuff without doing even basic journalistic homework.
Like, really?
You guys were surprised?
Did the reporter not think to ask that?
So if you were listening to the ambassador talk to Flynn and agree that the Russians shouldn't respond forcefully, then why are you telling me now that the Obama administration was, quote, puzzled the next day about the lack of a forceful response?
Do you guys even do journalism, bro?
Bruh.
Bruh.
Do you even do that stuff?
Alright, I had to do the end first because that's the media.
Again, the media's complicit role here.
Make sure you understand, number one, that there was collusion, but the collusion narrative is going to be forced on the media by using this hacking of, uh, this hacking nonsense that they had no evidence of.
Russians didn't hack the election.
And they're gonna make sure Flynn is the linchpin and they're using the media to do it.
I had to take screenshots of all this, keep this organized for you.
Today's show took a long time to put together.
This was like three hours.
Usually it takes me about two.
Second, they have to get out through the media, their propaganda arm, not just that Flynn is the linchpin and this is really about hacking, Joe, when it's really about a fake collusion narrative.
True, yeah.
They have to get out there as well That they used foreign spies, but that they have to cover this because they circumvented... I'm saying this wrong.
I hate when I do this.
The United States government, the Obama administration, and the media did not want to admit they spied on the Trump team.
Nobody likes a spy and nobody likes a rat.
They knew it was going to get out that they had kind of circumvented the rules.
So they had to use the media to get out there this idea that, oh, Joe, foreigners came to us.
We didn't we didn't institute any of this.
You know, we were spying on Joe, but only because a bunch of foreign intel agencies came to us.
That is not what happened.
No.
But I want you to listen how administration officials, trying to cover up the fact... Joe, again, if we're not clear, stop me for the audience.
They don't want to admit that they spied on US citizens.
The Trump team.
Right.
They also don't want to admit they asked foreign governments to do it for them.
So listen to how they portray this to their media propaganda arm, their media bullhorn, to make it seem like this is all innocent.
From the New York Times, March 1st, 2017.
American allies, including the British and the Dutch, had provided information describing meetings in European cities between Russian officials and others close to Russia's president, Vladimir Putin, and associates of President-elect Trump, according to three former American officials who requested anonymity in discussing classified intelligence.
Separately, American intelligence... Notice how they put separately in it, to make like these two things aren't related.
Separately, American intelligence agencies had intercepted communications of Russian officials, some of them with the Kremlin, discussing contact with Trump associates.
Oh my gosh.
Erroneous!
Notice, by the way, erroneous is right.
How nobody to this day has been arrested for treason, for conspiracy to collude with the Russians.
Nobody has been arrested for trading U.S.
government secrets with the Russians.
Ladies and gentlemen, do you see now why this Felix Sater sponsored Michael Cohen business deal in Russia has become a linchpin of Mueller's prosecution?
Because they're trying to make this New York Times story make sense.
They notice how they talk about American allies.
In other words, foreign intelligence that was being used to spy on Trump people for the Obama administration.
Let's not make this sound like anything other than it was.
The Times will try, but I'm not going to let it happen.
Pull out the Obama translator.
Yes, the Obama translator.
This is all innocent.
Don't worry.
They had provided information.
Notice Joe, describing meetings between Russian officials and others Close to the Russian president?
And associates of President-elect Trump?
So what?
So what?
Who are you talking about?
Carter Page?
He gave a speech in Russia!
That's not illegal!
That's not even immoral!
Now the content of this speech, I don't know.
What if you want to give a speech in Russia about childhood adoption?
You got to be worried about being accused of conspiracy?
Notice how the New York Times Joe, according to three former American officials who, notice, they request anonymity.
Oh, yes.
Anonymity.
Notice how they frame this like something, there's something going on, right?
No one, nobody to this day has been accused of, proven, or prosecuted for any kind of treasonous activity with the Russians, conspiracy to collude, none of that stuff.
There has been nothing.
It's all process garbage.
But notice how this New York Times piece says, oh, and American allies gave it to us.
So Trump had a business deal in Russia that they never signed on to.
No paperwork was signed.
The building was never built.
A guy named Felix Sater is involved with Michael Cohen.
What's the crime?
But by this New York Times piece, you get the impression, Joe, people associated with Trump are meeting with Russians.
So what?
So what?
John Kerry just met with the Iranians.
You know, the Death to America crowd?
No, no, John Kerry, the former Secretary of State, who's now Joe's citizen.
Joe, remember this?
Literally, not figuratively, I'm not messing with you.
Just met with the Iranians, the Death to America crowd.
Why isn't he under investigation?
Joe, nowhere in this piece, anywhere, does it say that they met with Russians and committed espionage or anything like that, or collusion.
10-4.
All it says is that three knuckleheads, American officials who are probably Obama people, leaking to the Times, told the Times that someone met with Russians.
And then, I love this part.
You have to know how to read this crap.
Separately, American intelligence agencies had intercepted communications of Russian officials, some of them within the Kremlin, discussing contacts with the Russian associates.
Who are these people?
If you have transcripts and you have been intercepting separately, which when I say separately is put in there for a reason, it's meant to give you the impression, Joe, that these foreign allies of ours, who I'm starting to question their ally status in a lot of these cases, were clearly spying on Trump for Obama.
When they were spying on Trump for Obama, for what seems to be innocuous business dealings with Russia, the American intel agencies were clearly using this as a predicate to go and unmask, unmask and listen in on phone conversations.
How do we know?
Because they have the darn transcripts of Flynn's call.
They were listening.
Oh, look, they waltz into the White House.
Check this out.
Mr. Obama.
President.
Mr. President.
Look what we got.
We got a bunch of information from the Dutch and the British.
Downer.
The Australians.
All these people.
The hacklet crew.
Look, they're passing us all this information.
Trump's meeting with Russians.
Man, we better go unmask some folks.
Based on what?
Well, they were in Russia.
Mr. President, that's not illegal.
Well, the British said it was.
You understand how the Times now has... This is pretend reporting.
At first, they don't ask a basic question like why the Obama administration was puzzled, even though they listened in on the phone calls, which would have unpuzzled them.
And now in this little snippet here from the piece, no one at the New York Times is entrepreneurial enough, Joe, to ask a basic question like, hey, so American allies were feeding us information about the Trump team doing business in Russia?
Was any of that illegal?
Oh, no, no, no, it wasn't illegal, but we were listening anyway.
Oh, okay!
Mr. New York Times guy, reporter, you think you may want to ask that one next time?
Just throwin' that out there.
Just throwin' that out there.
A little softball, underhand softball for you.
Arc softball.
Hey, just gonna lob that in.
Oh my gosh, and you call this journalism?
This is propaganda.
Let's move on.
There's even more tidbits in there.
So first, the New York Times makes sure that this is about hacking.
Hacking.
That's why the Obama team was investigating collusion.
The Russians hacked it.
They don't produce any evidence of that in the piece.
Second, the New York Times is providing cover as to why foreign allies were spying on U.S.
citizens.
Third, within that number two, 2B I should say, They try to disconnect American unmasking from the intel they're receiving from foreigners.
Oh, separately, American intelligence agencies.
Separately, my... You get it.
Yes.
Now, another interesting part about, too, before I move on quick, I have a little note here.
It's funny how they keep talking about these contacts with, quote, Trump associates and people close to Putin.
You guys remember my George Papadopoulos interview?
If you don't, you better go back and listen.
Actually better.
That's way too demanding.
And I never liked that, but the audience I love.
I humbly and respectfully request to be polite.
And I mean that, that you listen to the Papadopoulos interview.
When George Papadopoulos meets with Joseph Mifsud, the guy who allegedly tells Papadopoulos about the Hillary dirt, who does he bring rhythm on one of the meetings?
You remember, Joe?
You remember Olga Vinogradova?
Yeah, yeah.
And how does Mifsud introduce this woman he brings along to the meeting with Papadopoulos?
The niece of Putin.
Yes, daddy-o!
Yes!
Bingo!
Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding!
Winner, winner, chicken dinner!
So Joseph Mifsud, the guy who I am absolutely convinced in this case, Is communicating information somehow through Western intelligence back to the United States, based on what his own lawyer says, brings a woman to the second meeting who claims to be Putin's niece?
Let me read this sentence again.
Does it make sense now?
American allies, including the British... Oh, where did some of those meetings happen?
Oh, in the United Kingdom.
Damn, what a coinkydink that is.
American allies, including the British and the Dutch, provided information about meetings between people close to Russia's President Vladimir Putin and associates of President-elect Trump.
Wow, kind of fits the bill of an Olga Vinogradova-George Papadopoulos meeting, doesn't it?
Duh.
Nyet.
She wasn't Putin's niece.
Yet.
It was a scam.
And a New York Times fell right in the darn trap.
Because they're not doing journalism.
And they're not asking basic questions of these anonymous sources.
Like, really?
Who exactly in Putin's inner circle were they meeting with?
Olga Vinogradova?
What does that mean?
Like Olga Grape Store or something?
I forget someone told me the translation.
Olga Grape Shop?
She's Putin's niece?
You sure?
Because she wasn't.
Well, who told her to say that?
Oh, you didn't think to ask those questions, did you?
Kind of fits right into the story these anonymous American intel people are telling the New York Times in March, right?
Joe, why would they tell them that story?
They'd tell them that story because they're trying to cement the narrative in the public mind through the New York Times propaganda outlet that the Trump people were illicitly meeting with Russians.
But they don't have any of that.
All they have are legitimate business deals and a bunch of setups that Western intelligence, like our allies, tried to enact and blew up spectacularly on.
What else is in this doozy of a piece?
I can't thank the guy enough who sent me this.
He's like, remember when you talked about this thing?
Or was it this piece?
He's like, you got to bring this up again.
It lays out the whole scheme, especially in light of the information on yesterday's show from Flynn.
They must get rid of Sessions.
Point number three.
The Obama administration has to cement Flynn in as the linchpin.
They hate Flynn.
Cement in the hack narrative that has something to do with hacking and collusion with Trump.
They have to cover for their use of foreign spies.
And they absolutely have to set the narrative that Jeff Sessions has got to go.
He gots to go!
Get rid of Sessions no matter what!
Why?
Because at the time, the Democrats believed that Sessions was going to be a strong Trump ally running the Justice Department and was going to do what, Joe?
Uncover all this stuff!
He's the Attorney General!
So they absolutely have to get rid of Sessions.
But they can't get rid of Sessions.
You know why?
Jeff Sessions was a choir boy.
They had nothing on Sessions.
In comes the New York Times.
Land that plane, New York Times.
Don't worry.
I can only imagine the conversation.
We are going to do this March 1st piece with the New York Times.
We're going to clean up all this stuff in the same piece.
This is like Spygate, the miniseries in the New York Times.
They lay out the whole narrative.
They just don't know they got played.
The narrative starts moving along about sessions.
Let me read this to you.
This is delicious.
All right.
The disclosures about these contacts, Joe, between these fictitious Russians and the Trump team, or the business deals, right?
The disclosures about the contacts came as new questions were raised.
New questions?
These aren't new questions.
This is just Obama people leaking to the New York Times fake information about Sessions.
Came as new questions were raised about Attorney General Jeff Sessions' ties to Russia.
Everybody's tied to Russia.
You're a Russian, they're a Russian, we're a Russian too.
Everybody's a Russian.
Where's your tune?
We need snippets of your song.
Get the song.
We need snippets of Joe's tune.
He's got a tune for this.
We can play the chorus every time.
Everybody's connected to the Russians in this piece.
Everyone.
So new questions are raised about Attorney General Sessions' ties to Russia.
Keep in mind, this guy's only been in politics since 1642, Jeff Sessions.
Not a soul on the planet has ever tied Jeff Sessions to Russia.
Now he's the Attorney General.
They're trying to make up a Russian collusion case.
Jeff Sessions is tied to Russia.
And these idiots at the New York Times suck it right up.
Goes on.
Keep in mind, every source in this piece is unnamed because they are castrated man-children.
They don't have a set of cojones on them to put their name on the record.
According to a former senior American fish official, coward, punk, loser, that's not in the piece.
But it should be.
Sessions met with the Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak twice in the past year.
He's a US senator, you idiots!
Kislyak's the ambassador to Russia!
Are you people this stupid, the New York Times?
Are you this stupid?
Can you be this dumb?
You actually put this in print?
A United States senator met with the Russian ambassador.
Oh my god!
Donald Trump met with Kim Jong-un!
This is the kind of stuff that happens when nations are pointing nuclear weapons at each other!
You flaming piles of dog waste!
Are you this dumb?
Sessions met with the Russian ambassador.
Oh my gosh!
So is every member of the staff on Capitol Hill, you idiots!
You call this journalism?
Here, this gets even better, Joe.
They print this anyway, by the way.
Yeah.
The details of the meeting were not clear.
But the contact appeared to contradict testimony Mr. Sessions, no it didn't, provided Congress during his confirmation hearing in January when he said he, quote, did not have communications with the Russians.
That's not what he said!
You lying, steaming pile of dog stuff!
He was asked a question about, in his role as a campaign surrogate for the Trump team, his communications with Russians.
That's what he answered no to.
It's on tape!
Did you guys at the New York Times miss that?
Are you incapable of doing basic homework?
Can you be this dumb?
You were being used as a propaganda mouthpiece by the Democrats and the Obama administration officials to cover for massive malfeasance and misfeasance.
You were being used like cheap rubber dog toys.
To destroy the reputation of Sessions and you sucked it up by dishonestly reporting what he said in its context and insinuating that when a US senator meets with a foreign ambassador, it's somehow nefarious.
You morons!
Morons!
Gosh, are you stupid.
Read this piece.
Click on it one time in the New York Times to see how dumb these people were.
Now you see why they're so eager to make this Flynn case go away?
They don't want Flynn talking to anybody about anything.
Oh, he provided substantial cooperation.
Substantial cooperation?
Why do you assume that's bad?
What if he's providing cooperation on the leak investigation to the moron who leaked his name and committed a federal felony in violation of Title 18-793 who leaked his name to the Washington Post?
You think he may have information on that?
No, they automatically assume substantial cooperation means he's selling out Donald Trump.
You're an idiot.
You guys are morons.
Sorry about the folks, but they are.
They need to be called out, and I'm sorry about that, you know, you're trying to play nice with these idiots anymore.
They're attacking the very fabric of our society.
The Constitutional Republic.
Innocence until proven guilty.
Non-weaponized government.
They're ripping it all apart at the same time.
And these morons at the New York Times can't even do basic homework.
Alright.
So just backing up again.
The Times does their dirty work.
Gets the hacking, collusion, you know, conflates the two.
Gets the idea out there that this has all been cemented by Flynn's contact with the Russians.
Gives them a reason that they were contacting foreign governments.
The Obama administration apologizes for them in the piece.
Must get rid of Sessions.
They use the New York Times for that, too.
There's more, folks.
It gets better.
Let me just get this...
Get this read in and we'll get right back to it.
Disappoint is going to pay for the show.
These companies want to be here.
They like supporting our show and we appreciate if you support them.
Uh, folks now through December 25th, the 23andme DNA kits are on sale.
23andme helps you understand what your DNA can tell you about you and your family story.
It's named for the 23 pairs of chromosomes that make up your DNA.
A 23andMe DNA kit is the perfect gift for everyone you love.
There's never been a better way to give the gift of genetic discovery to your parents, your siblings, your aunts, your grandparents, and everyone else on your list.
It's the one gift you can buy for the entire family.
It'll be unique for each loved one.
I just took it.
It's very easy to use, by the way.
23andMe Health & Ancestry Service includes 90-plus personalized genetic reports that offer DNA insights on what makes you unique.
It's easy to do.
You simply spit into the tube provided in your 23andMe kit.
You register the sample to your personal 23andMe account.
In a few weeks, you receive your personalized online reports.
I learned a lot about myself.
I found out, Joe, that we have some French in us.
Um, I didn't know that.
Parlez-vous français?
Oui, oui.
So my daughter takes French.
She was happy to hear that.
Uh, it was interesting.
I did not, I did not know that.
You can get a bunch of reports out of this.
I got one about my muscle type too, which I, I'm going to stop mentioning cause my wife thinks it sounds ridiculous.
And I keep telling people we have like this, this is going to be a backdoor way to get this in there.
That I have some kind of power lifting gene or something.
It was pretty cool.
I was like, yeah, baby.
She's like, stop saying that.
Wellness!
You can learn how your genes play a role in your well-being and lifestyle choices.
Get your muscle composition.
You'll see that's what I got.
You could determine your genetic patterns in your sleep movement.
Do your arms and legs twitch while you're sleeping?
With 23andMe's Sleep Movement Report, you can discover how your genetics may be influencing how much you move your arms and legs during your sleep.
They also have other things, like traits.
Explore the genetics behind your appearances and senses.
They have a cilantro taste aversion.
Many people dislike cilantro, describing the taste as soapy.
Do you have the genetic markers associated with this aversion?
Go check it out now through December 25th.
Get 30% off any 23andme kit.
Order your DNA kit at 23andme.com slash Bongino.
That's the number.
23andme.com slash Bongino.
Again, 23andme.com slash Bongino.
23andme.com slash Bongino.
Thank you very much.
All right.
Number four.
Unlock my phone.
Cause I took massive screenshots.
So if you didn't want to give them any clicks, I could read it all for you.
Use the New York Times on March 1st of 2017 to do something else.
Prevent exposure of the Obama team at all costs, Joseph!
Obama didn't do it!
Remember that Susan Rice email just minutes after Obama leaves office?
And Obama told us to do everything by the book.
Remember that Susan Rice email she sent to herself?
Oh, did he?
Really?
Protect the crown, no matter what.
Protect the crown!
Protected.
Can't let that go.
So how are we going to do that?
Oh, let's go to our buddies at the New York Times.
Folks, this is the same piece.
This is the same.
You've got to read this thing.
These people got played like fiddles.
Here we go.
New York Times, March 1st, 2017.
Can I give a quick hat tip to, uh, Les Consolving?
God rest your soul, brother.
You were a good man.
Reminds me of, uh, he passed.
Yeah.
Amen.
Uh, Les Consolving was a radio host at Joe Station at WC.
He used to say, headline!
So in honor of Les Consolving, we loved you, Les.
Headline!
New York Times, March 1st, 2017.
At the Obama White House, Mr. Trump's statement stoked fears among some that intelligence could be covered up or destroyed.
No, no!
No, no, no, no!
That's not what they're saying!
This is what Obama people are feeding the slimes.
What are they really concerned about, Joe?
They're concerned about the Trump team in Sessions finding out everything Obama did to frame the Trump team for Russian collusion.
They're not worried about Trump destroying evidence.
They're worried about Trump producing it.
Big, big difference.
But it gets better.
So the Obama White House is worried that Trump would cover up or destroy intelligence or their sources would be exposed.
You mean like the spies you used on the Trump team?
Once power changed hands.
This is good.
This is the slimes.
They're so dumb.
What followed was a push to preserve the intelligence that underscored the deep anxiety with which the White House and American intelligence agencies had come to view the threat from Moscow.
Cover up for Obama at all costs.
Obama, their White House, they weren't doing anything wrong.
They were just trying desperately to make sure that all of this intelligence didn't go away.
That's not what they were doing.
They were spreading the intelligence, declassifying certain things, spreading it up on the hill so Capitol Hill hacks and swamp rats could go to the media and have tidbits of information they could leak about the fake dossier.
That's what this is about.
This has nothing to do at all with Obama trying to preserve evidence.
He's trying to destroy it.
It gets better.
This one is just... Oh, man.
It... I can't... I don't mean to sound... I just can't get over how... All right, let me just go on.
The New York Times also needs to make sure that an evidence trail, a continuous evidence trail of leaked, what I'm calling evidence, but what really is fake evidence, the dossier and nonsensical collusion charges, allegations Flynn was working with the Russians.
The Obama administration was out of office.
The President Obama at the time was the ultimate declassifier.
He could classify and unclassify as he wished.
He obviously loses that power.
In January, when Trump takes power, they're afraid the Trump team is going to find out what's going on.
In order to get their version of events as widely disseminated as possible, Joe, so that the Trump team can't shut this fake dossier nonsense down, they start selectively pushing out information to key players.
I want you to listen to this.
Headline, New York Times.
There was also an effort to pass reports and other sensitive materials to Congress.
Oh, was there?
Really?
In one instance, the State Department... What the hell is the State Department doing doing this?
The State Department sent a cache of documents marked secret, to someone Joe knows, to Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland, days before the January 20th inauguration of Donald Trump.
The documents The documents, the fake dossier, detailing Russian efforts to intervene in elections worldwide, were sent in response to a request from Mr. Cardin, the top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, and were shared with Republicans, swap rats, on the panel!
Wow!
Wow!
Isn't that great?
What does Senator Cardin have to do with this, Joe?
Well, I'm going to explain it to you, don't you worry.
Please do.
Because you're looking at me with that, well, why would I know that?
And I'm going to tell you thatio.
Yes, I am.
Senator Cardin's got an interesting role in all this.
Senator Cardin was one of the primary proponents.
I ran against Senator Cardin for the United States Senate.
I lost to him in 2012 in Maryland.
He was a big proponent of the Magnitsky Act.
The Magnitsky Act, which sanctioned the Russians who were involved in the death of Sergei Magnitsky from coming into the country.
The Russians hated this thing.
So what better advocate than a known anti-Russia warrior up on the hill than liberal Democrat Benjamin Cardin?
What a perfect guy to leak information to, to ensure, because he's got your street cred on the Russians.
He was the Magnitsky guy, Cardin, right?
Oh, by the way, Magnitsky, the same act that the Veselnitskaya, the lawyer, and Rinat Akhmetshin, who meet with Trump Jr.
at Trump Tower, the people connected to the Clinton sphere.
Remember, Veselnitskaya is working for the company working for Clinton.
Akhmetshin knows the Clintons and knows the staffers.
They show up, and instead of talking about Hillary's emails, what do they talk about?
Oh, the Magnitsky Act, which was Senator Cardin's baby.
What better guy up on the hill than Senator Cardin, with anti-Russia street cred, to go out there and make sure that we bang that drum that Trump colluded with the evil Russians.
Oh, what a plan!
Dude!
Isn't this insane?
At times, and again, they don't even ask basic questions.
Basic questions like, hey, wasn't Senator Cardin heavily involved in Magnitsky?
Didn't those people that showed up to lobby Don Trump Jr., who said it was about Hillary, weren't they lobbying against the Magnitsky Act, too, while they were connected to the Clinton space?
Nobody thinks to ask that!
Basic journalism, fellas.
101.
But don't ask any questions.
The senior administration officials, of course, are leaking that it was given to Cardin because Cardin's a known anti-Russia guy because of the Magnitsky Act.
It leaves an evidence trail, folks.
It leaves an evidence trail.
Sorry, I'm looking for something else here.
I know I had taken some screenshots and one of them I missed, but it's okay.
All right.
Now they have to hide the spies.
Well, actually, you know what?
First they have to get the WikiLeaks information out.
Remember what I told you yesterday.
WikiLeaks is the key to this whole thing now.
They understand fully right now, the Mueller probe, that they have absolutely zero evidence of collusion.
It's fake.
It's made up.
I said to you yesterday, and I'm sorry, but someone told me Joe DeGeneva may have brought this up in the past too.
I'm not trying to take credit for it.
The new Bob Mueller narrative and the reason they are charging everybody with false statements, and you're going to see it in this New York Times piece where the narrative is already out there, right?
The narrative's already out there.
They are going to conflate WikiLeaks with the Russians, and then claim that the Trump team was tied to WikiLeaks, even though, listen to me, WikiLeaks, I don't trust Julian Assange as far as I can throw him.
I'm simply suggesting to you that Wikileaks has been categorical in their denials that they got the emails from the Russians.
The Democrat narrative is Russians gave the Wikileaks, Russians, no, here's, let me walk you through from the start quickly.
Russia hacks into the DNC, gives the emails to Wikileaks, Wikileaks leaks them, the Trump team knew about it.
That's the liberal narrative.
Mueller is trying to show now.
That that's what happened by indicating that Jerome Corsi, Stone, and others may have had contact with WikiLeaks.
What's the problem?
WikiLeaks is denying categorically they got this stuff from the Russians.
How can it be Russian collusion if, if, if, if WikiLeaks is telling the truth?
If they didn't get the information from the Russians, what then, all they were doing was bad journalism.
By exposing this stuff.
So what are they going to do now?
I'm a little confusing on this, I'm sorry.
But I said it yesterday and I'm going to explain it again today.
Mueller is trying to take disconnected events, Russia, WikiLeaks, and insinuate to his report that they're connected, but he doesn't have the evidence to do that yet.
He doesn't know Russia gave Wiki.
If he does, fine, put it out there.
Let's see it.
He's also trying to say, Russia, WikiLeaks, WikiLeaks, Trump team.
The problem is, still to this day, there is no evidence that Donald Trump or his close people involved in his campaign had any knowledge at all whatsoever that WikiLeaks was going to dump this stuff.
Mueller's writing his report to make you think that.
And when his report comes out, as I said to you yesterday, the reason he's charging all of these Trump people with false statements, Joe, is when the evidence is loose, his report is going to indicate that, you know what, we would have tied this case up, Joe, and made those connections, but we charged everyone with lying, and they're all liars!
That's a great- I mean, what a disgusting way to handle this case.
You know what?
If George Papadopoulos didn't lie to us, and Mike Flynn didn't lie to us, we would have tied up this WikiLeaks-Russia-Trump team angle a long time ago.
As someone pointed out to me.
Well said.
Why is it then that in all the prosecuting documents, Mueller puts that in there?
Oh, we would have gotten to the bottom of this Russia investigation, but Papadopoulos' lies screwed the whole thing up.
Because there's no bottom to get to.
And he wants to write a report insisting these connections are there.
And when he doesn't have the evidence to prove it, he's going to blame it on Papadopoulos and Flynn lying.
You get it?
Mm-hmm.
Oh, I would have had it, Joe, but they're all liars.
Impeach him anyway.
Here's the Washington Post, excuse me, New York Times, March 1st, doing their due diligence, making sure the WikiLeaks angle gets out there early.
Brilliant!
Here we go.
The warning signs had been building throughout the summer, but were far from clear.
As WikiLeaks was pushing out emails stolen from the DNC to online publication, American Intel began picking up conversations.
Oh, how'd they do that?
In which Russian officials were discussing contacts with Trump associates.
Notice they don't put criminal contacts, just put contacts.
And European allies, allies, were starting to pass along information about people close to Mr. Trump meeting with Russians in the Netherlands, Britain, and other countries.
Were they meeting with Russians, or were they meeting with Olga Grape Store?
Putin's alleged niece.
Olga Vinogradova.
That's not a real name, folks.
Has the New York Times even considered the fact that these so-called meetings were set-ups the whole time?
Has that even occurred to them?
How these, quote, European allies knew about these meetings?
Oh no!
Read my book.
It's clear as day.
The evidence trail is thick as thieves.
These were setups.
Just like Flynn was set up.
Oh, he's out of the country?
Let's kick some Russians out and let's listen in on their phone call.
Ha!
Lying!
You are lying!
Just like that Scrooge McDuck episode with the lying harp thing, right?
One more!
That's Mueller's whole case!
We would have had it, but everybody lied to us.
It gets better, Joe.
Oh.
So they're already setting up the WikiLeaks narrative for their buddies.
WikiLeaks leaked on behalf of the Russians.
Russians stole the emails and the Trump team was in communication with WikiLeaks.
Oh, oh.
Yeah, put that out there, New York Times.
It goes on.
This is great, Joe.
This may be, and I don't mean this as a joke, and I get that it sounds funny.
This may be the biggest butt in human history.
Not that kind of butt.
This may be the biggest butt in an article in the history of journalism.
So they set up this whole thing.
Trump people were talking to Russians.
Oh my gosh.
This is crazy.
But what was going on in the meetings was unclear to the officials and the intercepted communications did little to clarify matters.
The Russians that appeared were arguing about how far to go in interfering in the presidential election.
So basically you insinuate with this whole piece that these feedings with the Russians and Trump associates Were nefarious, but, but, biggest but ever, what was going on was unclear!
And the intercepted communications didn't clarify the matters.
So you're saying Trump colluded with the Russians, but that none of the communications actually show that, and that you have no idea what was actually going on in the meetings.
Oh, yeah, you really nailed that one down, New York Times.
This is great.
That's really terrific journalism.
Nice job, fellas!
Nice job!
You guys should get a- a- a Pew-Snitzer!
That's the companion to the Pulitzer!
For idiots!
The- the Pulkitzer!
For morons who don't get the Pulitzer!
Is this serious?!
This piece is- Oh.
Let me get this last one.
This is just- This is so embarrassing for- This is why, in my book, The Spygate book.
Please pick it up, brother.
Please read it.
I'm telling you, we put so much work into it.
This is why we used articles like this in the footnotes.
To show you how the left-wing media was used as a vehicle to propagandize you and none of them bothered to ask basic questions and told the whole story of the Spygate scandal to entrap and set up the Trump team.
Because they thought this was real!
All right, I got one more and it's a good one.
Finally, today's show brought to you by our buddies at BrickHouse Nutrition, one of my original sponsors, also the producer of one of the finest nutrition supplements on the market.
It's called Foundation.
Now we take nutrition supplements for a lot of reasons, but primarily we want to look better and we want to feel better.
This is that product, that unique product that does both.
Folks, I'm not kidding.
I take this stuff religiously myself and I just ask you, give it a shot and take the mirror test.
Just give it a shot.
It's called Foundation.
It is a creatine ATP blend.
It's like having two extra gas tanks in the gym.
Creatine enables you to work harder and work longer in the gym, but it has this interesting muscular volumization effect.
In other words, men and women, it makes your muscles look fuller, look harder, look rounder, and just look better.
If you don't believe me, Joe's got the funniest.
I love what he does.
Joe's like impressed himself.
He's turning his chin to the side like, all right, because he knows it.
Because little Joe took it and he's called Big Joe now.
Yeah, it scares me.
It scares everybody.
The guy's a monster.
So, lucky he's a nice guy.
He used to lift in my basement.
Joe and I used to record this show in my basement, Severna Park, Maryland.
Now we got big fancy studios and stuff.
Well, not necessarily fancy, but you get the point.
Take the mirror test.
Look in the mirror now.
Take a little mental snapshot how you look.
Take some notes on how many pushups you do, whatever, bench press, squat.
Come back seven days later.
Your numbers are going to be through the roof.
You're going to look like a million bucks.
Go give it a shot.
BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
That's BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
Pick up Foundation today.
It's worth your time.
All right.
So there's one more thing, Joe.
There's one more thing they got to do.
Just one?
The New York Times.
Just, well, there was a lot.
There's actually like tons of tidbits in here, but the piece is really long.
And I had to pick out like the, the eight top pieces of propaganda, the New York Times prioritized in getting out.
Give us your eight biggest hits.
It's like Casey Kasem, you know, keep your, what is it?
Keep your feet on the ground, but keep reaching for the stars, right?
They had a, here are the top eight.
Here is the final one.
They had to make sure, at all costs, while they disseminated low-level information about the dossier, and the fake collusion, and Olga Grape Shop, and all this fake Papadopoulos setup stuff that they were trying to work, while they disseminated that widely throughout the government.
Why, Joe?
To make sure people had the information to leak to their sources in the media, so they could go on cable news, talk about how Trump was colluding with the Russians.
They had to be sure That other pieces of information were hidden at all costs.
Listen to this.
This gets good.
So just keep in mind before you read this.
Some stuff had to get to the media to keep the collusion fairytale alive.
Other stuff had to be hidden at all costs because it directly implicated the Obama administration on the biggest spying scandal of all time.
Listen.
New York Times, March 1st, 2017.
The opposite, when he says the opposite, they mean hiding because they're talking about disseminating information.
So he said the opposite happened with most sensitive intelligence, including the names of sources and identities of foreigners who were regularly monitored.
Officials tightened the already small number of people who could access that information.
They knew the information could not be kept from the new president or his top advisors, but wanted to be sure they narrowed the number of people who might see the information, officials said.
Why would they do that?
Think about this.
This is the most dastardly thing of all.
They know their spy networks, Stefan Halper and other Central Intelligence Agency, U.S.
intelligence and foreign intelligence assets that have been spying on the Trump team.
It's that simple.
They know Trump is going to find out.
He's the President of the United States.
This is going to be disclosed to him the minute he gets a new Director of National Intelligence, if not sooner, as he gets into office.
Tracking me so far?
The Obama administration, while disseminating wildly conspiracy theories about Russian collusion to anyone who will take the information on the Hill, the actual furtive actions they took—spies, payoffs of spies, working with foreign governments to set people up—that has to be hidden and kept to a limited number of people.
Why would they do that?
They did it so when Trump came into office that only him and a small group of Trump insiders would know about it.
Therefore, Joe, if only they knew about it.
When they accused Trump repeatedly of colluding with the Russians and then obstructing the investigation afterwards, who's the only person who can expose the names of the people involved in the scheme?
Trump and his close circle of insiders.
And the minute they exposed it, rather than say hundreds of other people may have known about it, what were the Democrats going to cry?
Which they did.
Obstruction of justice!
Obstruction!
Please tell me you followed that.
Please tell me you followed that.
It is a genius move.
And by genius, I mean disgusting.
It was a genius move by the Obama administration on the way out the door.
Hide the names of the spies.
Spread the rumors and the myths about the dossier and the p-tape and all that.
Make sure everybody's on the news talking about that.
But do not, under any circumstances, get wide dissemination of the fact that Obama's administration actually employed intelligence assets to spy on Trump.
Keep it classified.
We know, unfortunately, for them, Trump's gonna find out.
But here's what we do.
Given that only Trump and a close circle of advisors will know this, if they disclose that information, we'll accuse them of obstruction of justice because we're investigating him right now for collusion.
Do you dig?
You dig in the chili I'm putting on the table?
The New York Times got played again for fools that Democrats fed it to them.
Here!
Here, fellas!
Here, come on!
Eat your chow!
Eat your Cheerios!
Here's your smoked brisket, guys!
Come along!
They fed this to them!
And the New York Times sucked it right up.
The narrative they had to put out in advance is that, yes, this information was kept in a closed circle, knowing damn well when Trump found out about it, they were going to accuse him of obstruction when he exposed the plot to take his team down.
Whoa.
Freaking genius.
And like I said, by genius, I mean an abomination of humankind.
I mean a moral and ethical failure of the highest order.
I mean an insult to the threat of our constitutional republic.
Folks, the show notes are one of those must-reads today.
I hate giving the New York Times clicks, but you need to read this piece.
So just to sum up the week, I know it's been a busy news week.
I know Monday, I told you that story's still out there.
Don't worry again.
I'm sorry.
Uh, you know, it didn't happen when it did on Monday on, on show, but Sean's on it.
I promise you they're on this stuff.
This isn't going anywhere.
It's been a busy week.
We had the funeral yesterday, uh, uh, George HW Bush in DC.
By the way, did you see Hillary give Melania Trump the side eye?
That was kind of... It was kind of... You're at a funeral.
Just, I mean, shake a hand.
Right?
Wasn't that a little... Did you see it, John?
Wasn't that a little strange?
Yeah, I mean, just shake President Trump's hand.
It's a funeral.
Gosh.
But folks, getting back on topic, I am absolutely determined this week to make sure all of you understand exactly the panic that's going on right now.
Their Monday show again.
What they're covering up.
Tuesday's show, a summation of the plot.
Yesterday's show, why Mike Flynn was so key to this whole thing.
The Iran deal, the fact that they spied on him, they had to make that all go away.
Today's show, how they use the media to get all their stories out there in advance without the media even doing basic journalistic homework.
How pathetic.
All right, folks, thanks for listening.
I deeply appreciate you spreading the show around.
Our numbers this week, right, Joe, have been bonkers, like off the charts.
Our YouTube channel is going crazy.
Thank you so much.
Please subscribe to the show.
It's free.
Go to iTunes.
You can open up your podcast app.
It's very simple.
Click subscribe.
You can also click get and get all the episodes, but it's all free.
Go to SoundCloud.
You can subscribe there.
You can follow on iHeartRadio.
It's all free, but the subscriptions are what really help us move up the charts and other people find the show.
We deeply appreciate that.
I can't ask you that enough.
I really appreciate it.
All right, read the show notes today.
Bongino.com.
Thanks a lot, folks.
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.
