In this episode I address the panic developing among the liberal and media class as their case against the president collapses. I also address a slick, strategic play by Jim Comey to change the narrative. Finally, I discuss the fractures developing in the liberal movement.
News Picks:
Jim Comey absolutely humiliated himself on Capitol Hill last week.
This excellent Byron York piece describes the Democrats’ new line of attack now that the collusion hoax has been exposed.
This October 31, 2016, NY Times piece is clear evidence that the investigation into the Trump team was not kept “secret.”
Why is the FBI hiding the reasons behind its raid of a Clinton Foundation whistleblower’s residence?
The Democrats are preparing to go to war with the Trump administration.
The costs of minimum wage hikes are passed on to consumers, according to a new study.
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.
We're back!
Wow.
We're on the air.
Joe, have we been fired?
No, we have not been fired.
We're still on the air.
Okay, great.
We have not been terminated from our employment.
That's good to know.
A lot of fake news out there.
Yeah, yeah.
I'm shocked.
Me and you are allowed back- Am I speaking to the right person?
You're speaking of the right guy.
I'm still here.
So listen, I'm going to address a little later in the show, uh, my, my future folks.
I've, you know, of course, with reporters out there like Lachlan, uh, Markay and his buddy, uh, this Looney Tune friend of his, they write, they get thirsty.
So they write reports about me and all they need clicks Joe.
So they throw my name in something, you know, you have Betsy, uh, Rothstein at the Daily Caller.
Yeah.
The Daily Caller who loves to write, uh, pieces about me when she needs some clicks for articles too.
You have, like, Rick Wilson and a couple other clowns out there.
And they love to jump on fake news stories.
So I'll get into that later, what's going to happen with my future, because I want you to know first.
But I want to assure you this show will continue exactly as it is now, and there are some other plans in our future.
So don't worry, folks.
I'm going to expose these lunatics for who they are and how disingenuous.
One of them actually texted me with the truth and then proceeded to write a fake headline.
I have the text.
It's on my Twitter feed.
Yeah, it's beautiful, as you showed Joe.
So we'll get to that later.
Today's show brought to you by my friends at iTarget.
iTarget is the single best system out there for improving your proficiency with a firearm.
If you own a firearm, two things matter more than anything, safety and proficiency.
You have to be safe with it, but you have to be proficient as well.
God forbid you need to use that tool in a self-defense situation.
Now, one of the best ways to increase your proficiency, your marksmanship with that firearm, is by dry firing.
As a matter of fact, competitive shooters Who do this for a living, dry fire ten times more than a live fire.
Ten times more.
Dry firing is taking a safely unloaded weapon, which you check twice, you check three times, make sure it's unloaded, and you pull the trigger, of course, to point it downrange in a safe direction, on a safely unloaded weapon.
You don't have any recoil, and you get to practice your grip, your trigger pull, your sight alignment, your sight picture, right?
It's important stuff.
You don't have to worry about any recoil on the firearm.
The problem is you have no idea where the rounds would have gone because there's no rounds.
It's unloaded.
Well, iTarget solves that problem.
They will send you a laser round.
You will insert into the weapon.
You don't have to make any manipulations to the firearm you have now.
You have a 9mm.
You have a .40.
It doesn't make a difference.
They will send you a round.
You will slide right in there on a safely unloaded weapon.
It'll emit a laser, and now you'll see where the round would have gone, onto a target they send you.
It is easy to use.
The feedback on this, people send me pictures of their targets, is amazing.
They go from shooting a basketball-like group to, like, a golf ball-sized group in a week.
It's incredible.
It is the best system out there.
Again, it's a laser round they will send you.
It's inserted into the firearm you have now with a target.
You will love it.
It's available at itargetpro.com.
That's the letter.
Itargetpro.com.
The letter I. Targetpro.com.
Itargetpro.com.
Use promo code DAN for 10% off.
You will love this system.
The reviews on it are absolutely spectacular.
Okay.
First story, I just want to get out there.
David French, who writes at National Review.
Listen, I'm not here for Republican on Republican political attacks here, except when they deserve it.
But David French wrote an interesting piece at National Review yesterday saying, listen, it's kind of time for us to get rid of this myth.
That the FBI was looking to hurt Donald Trump and help Hillary Clinton.
Again, I don't know David personally.
I know he's a Republican.
I'm absolutely sure he's not a big fan of Donald Trump.
I think we all know that.
There was actually talk, I believe, of him running against him.
I think that was the same guy.
But I read a piece yesterday.
It was fascinating.
So just to set up his premise, because I want to debunk this, and I do this with all due respect, because again, I don't want, I'm not looking to like start Stuff here.
The truth matters.
I got enough fights to deal with the Looney Tunes on the left.
Those fights I welcome.
But I really don't want to start too many fights with Republicans that are unnecessary.
But the truth does matter.
So his premise, folks, is clear in this National Review piece he put out yesterday.
He's basically saying that, listen, it's time to stop saying the FBI was looking to hurt Trump and help Hillary.
And one of his pieces of evidence for this premise, you get where I'm going with this, right?
Oh, yeah.
The FBI, the fact that they dumped the Hillary investigation and investigated Trump and they were looking to hurt Trump and help Hillary, that's not true.
And his evidence for this is that they didn't leak the Trump investigation, but they were public about the Hillary investigation.
Matter of fact, he says at one point about the Trump investigation that it, quote, remained secret.
Now, Joe, who's the producer for the show, we've been following this case for a long time.
This is actually in my book, too.
It did not remain secret.
May I read to you the title of an October 31st, 2016?
Joe.
Yo.
October 31st.
I'm not trying to be a smart aleck, guys and ladies.
I'm just putting this out there because facts matter.
You can't suggest that because they were public about the Hillary investigation, the FBI, and that the Trump investigation remains secret, that that's evidence they weren't trying to hurt Trump.
They did leak the investigation to the media.
October 31st, 2016.
Joe, are elections for president in November or October?
That'd be November.
That'd be November, Dan!
Ding, ding, ding, ding!
What is November?
You win $200 for the Jeopardy prize for the day.
Yes, what is November?
October 31st is before November.
October 31st, 2016, headline New York Times.
Investigating Donald Trump, FBI sees no clear link to Russia by Eric Lickblau and Stephen Lee Myers.
I mean, did you not know this?
Again, I'm really not trying to be an instigator here, because I think we've got enough fights with the media clowns on the left and inter-liberal activist cronies, right?
I get that.
But the facts do matter.
Now, to show you I'm not making this up, I know you don't think that, but I'm going to put the actual link, it's not a fake link, it's not a story at the Onion, I'm going to put the New York Times piece, which I hate to do, I'm going to put it in the show notes today at Bongino.com.
Please, I always ask, subscribe to my email list.
I will email you these articles.
I want you to keep this, this article, up on your phone or your device because you may need it with liberals who will insist now, based on French's article, that the leak, that the Trump investigation the FBI was engaged in was kept secret.
No, it was leaked right before the election!
The whole, it debunks your entire premise!
I mean, I don't understand how you could write a piece like that, and I tweeted back to David, and I was not trying to like, push the guy's buttons, but I tweeted back to him, are you going to correct your article?
I don't know if he has.
That is simply inaccurate.
The New York Times piece leaked right before the election about the existence of the Trump case was from a law enforcement official.
Who do you think those law enforcement officials were?
The NYPD?
It was clearly the FBI.
They were managing the investigation.
So not only is your premise that they didn't leak the Trump investigation because they didn't want to damage Trump before the election not true, they leaked it to the New York Times just weeks before the election.
That's just not true.
You're just making it up.
Oh, he's a sick man.
You got it just for the sake of, of, of, of, of your own integrity.
That is not an accurate statement and suggesting that it's somehow.
So, uh, his, his Hokies, like it's a hoax that the FBI was trying to hurt Trump and, and, uh, and help Hillary.
That's not what the Inspector General's report even said.
The Inspector General, Michael Horowitz, who's been looking at the FBI's decision to dump and scrap the Hillary investigation in favor of the Trump investigation, clearly said they could not rule out political bias for making that abrupt U-turn.
Dump Hillary, let's start investigating Trump.
Are you suggesting the IG's a hoaxer too?
I mean again, David, I know people read your stuff, and good, read his article in National Review, go check it out.
I use National Review stuff often in my show notes.
I don't have any beefs with him.
There's some great writers over there, Andy McCarthy and stuff, but this is just nonsense.
The whole article is, you should just really put a disclaimer at the top that none of what I'm about to say here is actually true.
In the piece.
Alright, that was kind of a dick.
Sorry, dude.
Imagine that disclaimer, none of the below is actually factually correct.
But it's not!
You can read the New York Times piece yourself.
And the IG clearly said they could not rule out political bias for the FBI's bizarre decision to close the Hillary case despite mounds of evidence her and her team had potential criminal liability.
Despite all this evidence and you turning to investigate Trump despite no evidence the collusion narrative was actually true according to Jim Comey himself who couldn't even didn't even bother to try to verify the dossier while he was the FBI director.
This is a bizarre piece that's suggesting it's a hoax somehow.
That Republicans should be concerned that the FBI was looking to hurt Trump and help Clinton.
How is that a hoax?
You have to back that up with evidence.
You can't just make stuff up.
You know, you were saying that and I was remembering that old show, the FBI with Ephraim Zimbalist Jr.
I can imagine this disclaimer.
None of what you're about to see is true, but we expect you to believe it anyway.
That audio file should be inserted into that piece.
It's just not accurate.
I mean, I'm sorry.
You're obligated somehow for your own credibility to tell the truth.
Listen, it happens.
I get it.
You know, we've done 869 episodes now.
We've had a couple where we've had to come back and say, hey, that prediction was off.
I mean, remember the Blasey Ford thing?
I'm like, she's not going to show.
I said, hey guys, that wasn't wrong.
It happens.
But this is important.
It's critical stuff.
All right.
I got a lot to get through.
So I want to move on to this.
Comey again yesterday.
His answers are just unbelievable.
And as I've been going through the transcript, some of the stuff is just staggeringly bad.
One of them in particular.
Which was highlighted by the Wall Street Journal today, too.
There's a couple of exchanges with Jim Comey, which are so unbelievably telling as to this man's hubris.
His chest.
Hey, look at me.
I'm Jim Comey.
I don't live in the Constitutional Republic.
L'Etat c'est moi, right?
I have horrible French.
You know, I am the Republic.
I'm waiting for him to say that, right?
That's Comey.
He's such an egomaniac.
Take a quick listen to this exchange.
It's incredible.
Trey Gowdy.
Hey, do you recall who drafted the FBI's initiation document for that late July 2016 Russia investigation?
Comey.
I do not.
Wait, what, Daddio?
You don't even recall who initiated this thing?
Now, Gowdy, keep in mind, already knows the answer to this.
So he says, would you disagree that it was Peter Stroke?
Comey.
I don't know one way or the other.
Mr. Gowdy, do you know who approved that draft of an initial plan for the Russia investigation of late July 2016?
Mr. Comey.
I don't.
So this guy, the FBI director, former FBI director Jim Comey, is about to initiate the most significant Impactful counterintelligence investigation against a presidential candidate in modern United States history.
He has no memory at all who started it or how it started.
None.
And we're supposed to take this guy seriously.
Jim Comey.
Go buy my book.
Unlike Jim Comey's book, my book actually has facts in it.
You know, Jim Comey has no idea, folks.
No idea.
So again, harping on yesterday, so I don't want to stay on this too long, but just doubling down is Jim Comey is one of two things.
He is either a pathological liar or he is simply the most incompetent FBI director in the history of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
And there have been a few doozies in there.
There's another one.
Again, highlighted by the Wall Street Journal today.
Mr. Gowdy, how does the FBI launch counterintelligence investigations?
What documents are required?
This is incredible.
Joe, I'm not making this.
This is the transcript.
Mr. Comey, I don't know for sure because it's open far below the director's level, but there's documentation in criminal investigations and CI investigations to explain the predication for the opening of a file.
That is the basis for the opening of a file.
Oh, okay.
Gowdy says, well, who at the FBI has the authority to launch a counterintelligence investigation into a major political campaign?
And would that eventually have to be approved by you?
I mean, he is the director, right?
Mr. Comey, Uh, I don't know!
For a variety of reasons.
I've never, listen to this, I've never encountered a circumstance where an investigation into a political campaign was launched, and so I don't know how it would be done.
You see what he did there?
Now, I got an email this morning from a guy, regular, regular emailer, good guy, knows his stuff, and he says, you know, I picked out something interesting with statements like that.
Listen to Comey's answer here to Gowdy.
Gowdy's asking him, Who in the FBI has the authority to basically initiate a counterintelligence investigation into a major party presidential candidate?
Clearly there are procedures.
I explained this yesterday.
Comey's answer is very telling.
He says, I don't know.
Basically, we've never launched an investigation into a political campaign.
Folks, why did Comey want all this stuff public?
Now it makes sense.
For the same reason Dianne Feinstein, right?
The same reason Dianne Feinstein leaked the testimony of Glenn Simpson from Fusion GPS.
Remember that, Joe?
What did we say when she did that?
She did it for a very strategic reason.
Yes.
So that everybody out there, the co-conspirators in this plot to spy on and take down Donald Trump and the Clinton team of political players would all know what Glenn Simpson from Fusion GPS, the guy whose team produced the dossier, would all know his answers so they could do what, Joe?
Coordinate their answers!
Bingo!
Bingo.
Why?
Because clearly the Department of Justice is focused now on false statements.
1001.
That's the code.
Title 18, United States Code 1001.
False statements.
Now, if the Democrats are accused en masse of making false statements too, they're not going to have a case because of the Mike Flynn and Papadopoulos convictions for false statements.
They are not going to have a case that false statements are okay.
Track me here.
This is important.
This was a great point.
So Feinstein, what is it, about a year ago, leaks the testimony of Glenn Simpson so that everybody's wondering, why'd she do that?
It's clear!
So all the co-conspirators could read what Simpson said and coordinate their stories.
Or else they wouldn't know!
I think Comey may be doing the same thing.
It's a great point.
This is why Comey wanted a public hearing or wanted the transcript released immediately.
His line is clearly going to be now, yeah, we may have investigated the Trump team, but it wasn't an investigation into a political campaign.
In other words, you better stick to your story, because once the political tinge is inserted into this case, it's going to become clear the FBI did what the IG is accusing them of doing, which is dumping the Clinton campaign and picking up the Trump campaign investigation, clearly because they had political animus to Donald Trump.
So Comey wants it out there that, I don't know, just stick to the script that this was not a political investigation, therefore we didn't have to follow those rules.
Please tell me you tracked that.
Serious dog whistle, dude.
Serious.
Yes!
Yes!
Yes, yes, yes.
You get what he's doing?
I'll tell you what.
This guy's a clever cat.
Yeah.
That's why I don't believe, number two, that he's the dopiest FBI investigator in modern American history.
This guy just has an allergy to the truth and he's very clever.
Look at what he's doing here.
He's suggesting that the investigation had absolutely nothing to do with politics.
Therefore, I don't know how an investigation into political campaigns would start because we never did one.
But you did.
You see where he's going?
This is genius by Comey.
And by genius, I mean nasty, deceptive, manipulative, quite disgusting.
Politically tinged, but it is a strategically genius move by Jim Comey to not, to, cause see Gowdy's smarter than him, right?
So Gowdy's trying to pin him down on what the procedures are for opening up a political investigation into a political campaign.
Comey's claiming ignorance because he doesn't want to be on the record because he's just going to claim, oh, I didn't know because I never looked it up how to investigate a political campaign because it wasn't political.
Despite the fact that the IG is already indicating that there may be political bias, that it cannot be ruled out for their decisions.
It's Comey, man!
Little Slickster!
Little Slickster!
Jimmy!
Jimmy B!
Jimmy B?
Jimmy C?
No, Jimmy Bag of Donuts.
Jimmy Bag of D's!
This guy's a little tactical little guy, isn't he?
Knows exactly what he's doing.
One more.
This is a good one.
So Gowdy.
Again, we covered this a little bit yesterday, but it's important given the Democrats changing, never-ending evolution here and changing the case.
Who is Christopher Steele?
He asked Comey.
My understanding is that Christopher Steele is a former lintel officer of an allied nation who prepared a series of reports in the summer of 2016 that have become known as the Steele dossier.
He's given a textbook answer right there.
Probably his lawyer told him to say that.
How long did he have a relationship with the FBI?
Gowdy asks, Jim Comey, I don't know.
Does this guy know anything?
Does this guy, of course he knows, he just knows that I don't know, if he says I don't know he can't be prosecuted for false statements, right?
When did you learn he was working for Fusion GPS?
I don't know that I ever knew that.
Really?
You believe that, folks?
Do you seriously believe that?
You believe this guy's this stupid?
When did you learn that Fusion GPS was hired by Perkins Coie?
Mr. Comey, I never learned that.
Certainly not while I was director.
Well, when did you learn that the DNC had hired Perkins Coie?
Comey, I never learned that.
Again, while I was director.
I think I've read it in the media, but yeah, even today, I don't know whether it's true.
Now, how do you not know whether it's true?
This is all documented out in the public space information that's easily researchable.
This guy was the FBI director and he has no idea that a Democrat law firm was hired to pay money to Fusion GPS to get the dossier together.
He doesn't know any of this?
Unbelievable.
Alright, here it is now.
I'm sorry, I said one more.
And again, the Wall Street Journal has this today in their opinion column.
But this is all in the transcript if you look it up.
These are some of the really, really sharp highlights from it.
Showing you that this is all likely being coordinated between the Democrats, their activist groups, the media, and somehow Jim Comey's hip to what's going on.
I explained to you before that Comey's tactics now are clear.
He's going to claim he was naive and didn't know how a political investigation is started because he didn't need to know because the investigation into the Trump team wasn't political.
Right?
You all get that now.
Yeah.
Now!
I'm teeing it up, Joe.
This is a bunt.
Arc softball bunt coming up right here.
Bunt!
What is it?
My big fat Greek wedding?
Remember that?
A bunt cake?
A bunt cake.
Remember that?
Bunt.
What is a bunt?
Bunt?
And they can't say it.
Bunt.
I remember that.
I was a funny movie.
So listen, the Democrats are teeing it up for him.
So now the Dems jump in.
This is in the transcript.
This is far left radical Democrat Ted Deutch from Florida down here by me.
So Ted Deutch, the Democrat, runs in and he needs to get Comey out of this.
Remember where we're going with this?
Comey, I didn't know how to do a political investigation because we never did one.
It wasn't political.
Oh, Teddy Deutch, here he comes.
Mr. Deutch says, Director Comey, do you believe the FBI or DOJ ever investigated the Trump campaign for political purposes?
Oh!
Oh!
Here we go, buddy!
Here we go!
Bunt!
Buh-bunt?
Bunt?
What do you mean?
Buh-uh-uh-bunt?
This is... He's teeing him up!
He's teeing... This is the driving range!
He's teeing him up!
You don't even have to bend down against the balls.
It's one of those driving ranges where the balls just come up from the floor automatically.
This is how easy Teddy Deutch is teeing him up, right?
Because he knows they can never, ever, ever make it public that the FBI stopped investigating Hillary and investigated Trump because they just couldn't stand Trump and it was political.
So Deutsch wants Comey now on the record again, because he's teeing him up.
On the record about this.
Comey, I not only don't believe it, I know it's not true.
In other words, that they investigated Trump for political purposes.
Mr. Deutsch, now we need, no, get him on the record again.
He goes, I'm sorry, would you repeat that, Mr. Comey?
Mr. Comey answers, I know it not to be true.
I know that we never investigated the Trump campaign for political purposes.
Wow!
Isn't that special?
How about that?
Democrat, right?
Joe, are we up in the sky or what?
How about that?
How about that?
This week it's been Twip Notes.
This week in baseball.
How about that?
Yeah!
This guy is... Teddy Deutch is teeing him up!
Comey's defense is clearly going to be that.
I don't know how you investigate someone with political connections like that because we've never done it before even though the evidence is overwhelming that it happened.
It's just really, really sad.
Okay, let me just get into this career thing for a second, because I want to get to what's going on with me, because you are my audience.
I love you all to death.
You're the best.
You made us the number two conservative podcast in the country.
We had just an epic growth in our listenership.
Thanks exclusively to you, and I have a lot of love for you.
I mean that, and I feel like I see you all in public when I go out, if I ever get out of my house.
You all mean everything to me, so you're entitled to the truth.
So here's the deal.
I work in a couple different places right now.
I work with CRTV and NRA TV.
I have a show at 530 Eastern Time at NRA TV.
I love every place I've worked.
There is absolutely no ill will in either spot.
Can I make that clear?
And Joe, can you vouch for me?
I get you're my producer and you're kind of biased, but can you, for a second, objectively speaking, Can you attest to this, that there's absolutely no will will?
You talk to me off the air all the time.
Yeah, no will will at all.
There's no issues, there's no nothing.
Joe and I have just been offered other things that we entertained and we thought it was in our best interest to not renew with either company.
That will not affect this podcast at all.
At all.
This podcast will be exactly where it is now on iTunes and at Bongino.com and elsewhere.
They are great companies.
I don't have any, there's no animus there.
It's just other opportunities that presented themselves, which we are entertaining and are very good ones.
Now, I only say that because, and I'll make this quick because I don't want to harp on these losers.
I really hate even giving them PR.
They use my name for clickbait and I ignored their last story, which was, you know, BS.
But this one I got to address because the Daily Beast decided it would be a good idea yesterday to write a piece that I was dropped from NRA TV.
Dropped, insinuating somehow I was fired.
Erroneous!
Yes, thank you, Vince.
That is absolutely incorrect.
As a matter of fact, I have the tweet here from Lachlan Marquet, the writer, who texted me Thursday at 1.15 p.m.
Eastern Time.
I heard you Didn't renew with NRA TV.
Now, if you want a screenshot of this tweet, I've been humiliating these losers all day on Twitter.
It's out there on Twitter.
So how did he hear I didn't renew with NRA TV, yet transform that into a headline that I was dropped from NRA TV?
So either I didn't renew by my own volition, by my choice, or they dropped me.
Now, Joe, you are not a philosopher in chief, correct?
But I'm going to ask you a basic question.
Can those two things be true at the same time?
No, they can't.
No, they cannot.
Either I chose not to renew to pursue other opportunities, which I will announce here when the time is right.
There are limitations to what I can say, but you will be very happy about it.
I promise.
You will hear first, but I have to wait for other people involved.
But those two things cannot be true.
Now, because Lachlan Marquet and his goofy co-writer, I don't even know this guy, can't get a story correct just like they blew the last one.
They actually in the last story, this is really nasty, but the writer of the piece tried to use a guy as a source in a hit piece they tried against me, Joe, I'm not kidding.
Who has a documented record of contacts with the police that are really deeply disturbing.
And me and my family have had to like significantly distance ourself from because he's that troubled.
They tried to use this guy as a source.
All they had to do was Google him and figure out he was a troubled man to say the least.
They didn't even do that.
They didn't even do that.
So these are not serious reporters.
So there's only two solutions here.
The guy texts me that I didn't renew with that.
So he knows.
So some source told him the truth that I chose not to renew despite a very gracious and generous offer from NRA TV.
Now keep in mind folks, to show you how lying and disingenuous these people are, I'm opening myself up right now to probably some serious liability.
If I'm lying about this, right?
If I'm lying about how this went down, I could cause myself real problems.
Do you think I would do that on my own show?
If you're fired or dropped, you're fired or dropped.
That's it.
Yeah, people get fired from stuff all the time.
Suck it up and move on, buttercup.
But you putting out a story to damage my reputation that I was fired or dropped, that's parroted by losers like Basement Dweller, you remember Rick Wilson and his other zero rights for the Daily Beast, Schecter or something?
These guys parrot this stuff because, you know, I'm a conservative who has the second biggest podcast in the country right now for conservatives.
I'm a threat to them.
Yeah.
So they want you to believe that.
Folks, I chose not to renew.
It is a great place.
It's a wonderful place to work.
I love my time at NRATV and CRTV.
I chose not to renew.
It's as simple as that.
You can look at the tweets.
Lachlan heard that.
Why he decided to then write an article saying I was dropped shows one of two things.
It shows either that he has the worst sources in human history for a pseudo-journalist, or second, he has really good sources that told him the truth, like he texted me, and he just chose to lie about it.
There is no option C. Either he knew the truth and lied about it, or he has the worst sources I've ever heard, because that story is just not true.
All right, enough of that.
I don't want to waste your time on any of this BS, especially give these guys any PR.
All right, I want to get to this evolution to now this campaign finance stuff.
I know I covered this a little bit yesterday, but there's an interesting new angle up at the Washington Examiner that I got to get out there.
It's a really good one about how they've evolved from Treason, Trump committing treason, the Democrats, that is, and their media buddies, to collusion, then to obstruction.
Now we're finally down to Willie committed campaign finance reform, but there was an interesting angle pointed out at the Examiner today that zing, totally zings, they have nowhere to go with this now.
So I want to get to that, but let's just get through this.
Appreciate it.
We're continually evolving.
Yeah, there'll be something else after this, after this one's debunked too.
23andMe now through December 25th.
23andMe DNA kits are on sale.
23andMe helps you understand what your DNA can tell you about you and your family's story.
It's named for the 23 pairs of chromosomes that make up our 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, siblings, aunts, grandparents, and everyone else on your list.
It's the one gift that you can buy the entire family that will be unique for each loved one.
23andMe plus Ancestry service includes 90 plus personalized genetic reports that offer DNA insights on what makes you unique.
It's easy to do.
I did it.
You simply spit into the tube provided that's as easy as that.
In your 23andMe kit, you close it.
It pops this little thing in.
Register your sample to your personal 23andMe account.
In a few weeks, you receive your personalized online reports.
It's real simple.
You can get a wellness report, learn how your genes play a role in your wellbeing and lifestyle choices.
Muscle composition, your sleep movement.
I found out that I have a gene for restless sleep, Joe, which is absolutely true because I'm up all the time.
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.
You can even get things like a cilantro taste aversion.
Many people dislike cilantro, describing the taste as soapy.
I love it.
Do you have the genetic markers associated with this aversion?
You can find 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.
So this is great because now they've moved on to campaign finance.
That Trump committed a campaign finance violation is therefore worthy of impeachment.
The problem is they really haven't thought this thing through because they never think things through because they're really not that bright.
So I have a piece in the show notes today from the Washington Examiner.
And whereas I described yesterday, Joe, how I don't even believe this is a campaign finance violation, and when I say it, I mean the payments, in case you missed yesterday's show.
The payments Trump is alleged to have made from his personal account to some women who he, according to the allegations, had some relationships with.
Payoffs.
They keep quiet, basically.
Now keep in mind, these payoffs are not illegal.
Non-disclosure arraignments, no one's suggesting that.
They're not illegal, and even the prosecutor isn't suggesting that the payments are illegal.
They're not.
It happens all the time.
No one's alleging it was an assault or anything like that.
It was consensual behavior.
Trump didn't want the reputational damage, according to the allegation, and paid these women off.
I'm not apologizing for anything.
I'm just telling you what we know from the allegations, alright?
Now, I had said to you yesterday that...
I don't believe that this is even a campaign payment, because a campaign payment is a payment that would have existed only if the campaign didn't exist, would the payment have existed anyway.
And that's the measure of it.
And the answer to this is probably yes, because Trump's argument is going to be, well, it doesn't matter that I was running for president.
I made this payment out of my personal funds precisely because it was about reputational damage.
So in other words, if the campaign hadn't existed, would this payment have existed anyway?
If the answer is yes, then it's not a campaign payment.
Are you tracking?
I said this yesterday, but it's important.
It's extra important here because of this next angle that the Washington Examiner does a fine job at filleting.
It's pieces in the show notes today.
They say, President Trump would point out that any accusation against him differ in at least one key respect from Edwards.
Now, what are they talking about?
John Edwards, who had run for president, had that affair with that... I'm sorry, I forget the woman's name.
She was a photojournalist.
So he has this affair and they have a child together.
John Edwards was accused of using campaign money.
He was actually tried for this and he was not convicted.
Edwards was tried for, so you may say, oh damn, well what's the problem then?
I mean, what argument are you making?
If you're saying John Edwards was brought to trial for trying to, you know, pay off a woman who, you know, he didn't want the story out there because of reputational damage, then how are you suggesting Trump's going to get off scot-free?
Well, Edwards wasn't convicted.
Edwards was found not guilty.
Number one, but number two, there's another key difference in the Edwards case and the Trump case.
Here it is.
This is an important piece.
Prosecutors, Joe, accused Edwards of raising donor money to pay off the women.
Again, this is not a moral argument.
It's a legal one.
Trump used his own money, which even the most Byzantine and restrictive campaign finance laws give candidates a lot of freedom to use in unlimited amounts.
So it goes on.
So even more than Edwards, if the Justice Department pursued a case against Trump, it would be on unprecedented grounds.
So just to be clear, you need to understand the facts on this.
Because the Democrats are going to make a legal argument.
There's no moral argument to be made here.
Listen, we can all agree, alright, it was seedy stuff.
There's no need to argue that.
Points stipulated, alright?
Whatever.
I didn't vote for this kind of... I voted for tax cuts that save the lives of people in the womb.
I said to you all the time, new rules or we win, you lose.
I don't care about any of this stuff.
I don't care!
I don't care!
At all!
You're free to care.
That's fine.
I want infants in the womb saved.
I want the economy saved.
I want the national debt hopefully to get controlled.
I want a solid, strong military.
That's what I want.
I don't care about this stuff anymore.
You are free to do what you want.
My care meter is zero.
But the Justice Department, if they decide to indict Trump after he leaves office, one, or if the Democrats try to impeach him, do you understand John Edwards, who actually raised money, donor money, gave other people's money, according to the allegations, to this woman he had the child with, to keep her quiet?
And they still got off, Edwards, that the Trump team, Trump used his own money.
The case is even worse against Donald Trump.
Legally speaking, you have nowhere to go with this.
There's nowhere to go, folks.
We don't care.
You don't understand.
We don't care.
This is what the liberals don't get anymore.
But finally we have a guy in office who takes the fight back to these maniacs.
We don't care.
You have forced us into this Manichaean fight where you pushed us into a corner where you've called us the worst things on the planet.
Racists, homophobes, transophobes, all lies.
Knowing, absolutely knowing it was going to get under our skin and force us into an untenable situation where our neighbors even look at us funny.
Oh, you're Trump supporters?
You must be racist.
I'm like, what are you talking about?
You have forced this fight on us by making this personal and not political.
Do we understand where we're going here?
Yes.
Liberals did this.
And now you wonder why we pick a guy for president, support him, who fights you guys and ladies back on your own terms.
He makes it personal too.
He makes it personal too now.
You attack us, we attack back.
When you're ready to go back to civil political discourse and stop making it personal, the identity politics, istophobic, phobophobe insults against us, we are all ready and willing.
Until that time, we are going to fight.
And we don't care about the extraneous nonsense.
You care, we don't.
The legal argument you have is nonsense.
Nonsense.
John Edwards, a Democrat, got off for raising campaign donors' money.
Campaign donations.
And made a campaign payment.
You got nothing here.
Zero.
Great piece, though.
Read it in the Washington Examiner.
It's a good one.
Okay.
Some of you heard me on Levin last night, by the way.
It was own the libs night on Levin.
Did you guys catch that last night?
Some of you loved it.
You know, just taking lib caller shows is a lot of fun.
Sometimes I wonder on this show if we should do like a Friday show where we just open it.
We have own the libs night.
We just open up the phones to libs.
What do you think?
I had a blast just debunking liberal callers last night.
One guy called last night a liberal to the Levin show in case you missed it.
And maybe we can pull it for tomorrow.
I'll try to grab it.
It's kind of funny actually.
And the guy calls in and he's trying to make the case that, well Dan, you said Christopher Steele was a verified source because the FBI used him before and therefore you debunked your own argument.
I'm thinking to myself, I did?
Because I clearly made the case on the show that Steele had the information, but Steele wasn't the source!
So even if Christopher Steele, who had been debunked as a source by the FBI, who deemed him, quote, not suitable for use, that's a quote from the FBI.
Even if the FBI hadn't done that, which they did, so he wasn't suitable for use, FBI's own words.
You saying, oh, well the FBI, you know, they used Steele before, so therefore his information should be trusted.
Joe!
The information Steele put in the dossier wasn't his!
Folks, how many times, I mean, are you even following the case if you're a far-left radical nutjob?
Do you even do facts, bro?
Even basic facts?
Christopher Steele admitted in a sworn deposition that it wasn't his information, that he got it from a Russian intel guy.
Therefore, Christopher Steele, who had already been discredited as a source, even if he hadn't, wasn't the source!
As Andy McCarthy constantly points out, there is no vicarious credibility.
You are credible as a source when it's your information, not second-hand information you're passing on from someone else.
I said last night on Levin, think about how ineffective that would be, Joe.
If the FBI was allowed to take information from not credible sources, And give it to a credible source they've used before, and that would make it credible.
Well, what's the incentive there, Joe?
It's pretty simple.
As I said last night, you have a source you've used in the past.
Who has produced information.
You have him sit in the lobby of the FBI office in New York.
Every not-credible source that comes in who makes up a story, if you're interested in a politically biased attack, you just say, hey, not-credible source, do me a favor.
There's a guy in the lobby.
I want you to tell him that information.
Then the credible source comes back in and goes, hey, I just heard from this guy who's not credible that Trump was born on Mars.
A dossier time!
Let's get into FISA court.
Do you understand how stupid that is?
There is no vicarious credibility.
Steele was not the source.
He admitted it.
He's the messenger.
Come on, man.
He was the messenger.
Sheesh, do you guys even do facts?
Man, it's so easy.
And then they call in the show, Levin's National Radio Show.
They call in to humiliate themselves.
It's amazing.
Hey, you did that.
We brought a caller on one morning a few weeks ago.
It was a lady.
I forgot what she was talking about.
It was a lefty.
We were having fun with it.
Oh, we should.
We should take a clip from it.
Yeah, you know what?
I'll try to get it.
I think it's a Mark Levin show.
He has the podcast.
I want you to hear it because it's kind of funny how they can't, they just can't wiggle themselves out of this stuff.
And then he said, one other caller calls later, the liberal callers guy, Walter from Bethesda, Maryland.
And he says, well, if the shoe was on the other foot and the Republicans had done this, basically politically motivated attacks against people that you wouldn't be saying anything.
I'm like, bro, Wally, did you even read my book?
Like, my book has chapters about the Republicans involved in targeting us.
Like, are you that much of a knucklehead?
I gave him the chance to apologize.
He didn't want to do it, but that was kind of funny too.
All right, another story here I have.
Folks, there's a very serious story here.
There is a significant fracture developing on the left.
Now, this has been a common theme running through the show for a very long time, but there is a very, very serious schism developing on the left, and that schism is developing and is being kind of downplayed by the media because they don't want to appear that the liberal socialist movement is in chaos, but it is.
They don't want that to—so they kind of downplay the real narratives and the common thread throughout these stories, but know this.
I said to you a long time ago, and it's been a constant theme, that identity politics can't possibly continue the way it's continuing now because the endless search for new victims to replace the old victims requires people to pit victim classes against each other.
Do you track what I'm saying here?
The whole central tenet behind identity politics is to not get people to vote for you.
It's to get you to vote against Republicans.
So what they do is they categorize you in a box.
I'm talking about radical leftists.
Whatever box they see fit for you.
They don't care what you think of yourself.
I know how Joe identifies himself.
Follower of Jesus Christ first.
Father.
He has other relationships with people.
You know, I'm not going to go into Liberty, but you know, and then he's, you know, he's a, he's probably, and then his employment.
I have a good idea where Joe's priorities are, but the left can't have that.
There's no place for God.
There's no place for Joe being a dad or in a relationship with someone.
None of that.
Joe has to be identified as some identity group first.
Why?
Because the Democrats want to explain to you how that group they put you in is under attack by Republicans.
How many times we went to war on women, to war on minorities, to war on inner city.
This is the Democrats whole plan.
They have a garbage steaming pile of horse manure agenda, high taxes, government control of healthcare, crappy public education systems, bloated government budgets.
None of this sells.
It's all garbage.
So the way the Democrats get votes and they've been successful at it, I gotta, I gotta admit how they've been successful at it is Republicans are coming for you.
You are this.
In order for that to set in, they have to put you in a group first, whether you like it or not.
The problem with that is the group they put people in, people aren't sticking to it.
You're seeing it in Texas where people who the Democrats identify as Hispanic.
Now that may be their culture and background, But Hispanic men and women may not identify as that at all.
I don't mean identify like they're making it go away.
It just may not matter to them how much Democrats want it to matter.
Does that make sense, Joe?
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
You're like Hispanic.
Yeah, whatever.
I'm a mom.
I work at Macy's or whatever.
I don't vote like a robot.
Don't put me in a box.
Nobody's listening.
Hispanic voters, Ted Cruz and Greg Abbott, the governor of Texas, did very well with Hispanic voters.
In Florida, governor-elect Ron DeSantis did a bang-up job with Hispanic votes because they don't vote like Hispanic votes, air quotes, they vote like human beings.
So the problem, Joe, is in order to make up for those votes they're losing in the, quote, Hispanic community, and I say quote because people aren't listening, They have to find new victims.
No, the Republicans don't like- Who's next, Joe?
They don't like Muslims!
They don't like you either!
There's a Muslim ban!
There is?
You're banned from coming in the United States if you're a Muslim?
No, not really.
But we just made it up!
They have to fi- You're a transgender?
Oh, the Republicans definitely hate you!
They're trans-a-phobes!
They have to find new votes.
The problem with finding new votes, Joe, is sometimes in the interest of finding new votes, you have to pit these new groups you put people in these boxes against other groups you've claimed you were championing in the past.
And there's a nasty little schism developing now.
You can see it in two news stories that happened recently.
I wanted to cover them yesterday, but the Comey stuff was very pressing.
Story number one, Kevin Hart.
Famous comedian.
I'm not a big fan of him.
He said some stuff about Trump I didn't like, but fine.
I don't, you know, it's his right to do that.
So Kevin Hart had some, uh, you know, nasty tweets directed at some, uh, they were, they were jokes.
And, and, and listen, I am not, don't take this the wrong way.
Jokes are jokes.
People need a sense of humor.
Uh, but you know, the jokes given his, he apologized for him.
The problem with this is the liberals folks you have to remember what liberals liberals can't forgive ever because if liberals can forgive and say well Kevin Hart made some some off-color jokes about people who are gay in his Twitter feed whatever years ago if they apologize and acknowledge that there's some kind of human frailty and that Kevin Hart really doesn't dislike gay people which I don't know Kevin Hart but I'm reasonably confident that's not the case that he's some kind of homophobe I'm reasonably confident I don't know the guy but I don't believe that it was a joke right There is no room for forgiveness in identity politics.
None.
They can't have that.
Because if forgiveness happens, then they lose their weapon against conservatives they need you to hate.
Because anytime a conservative says anything, anything, like I always give that example of I read this article a while back that You weren't allowed to call people who are gay, homosexual, or homosexual gay because one of those words is now offensive.
The left changes the rules only to make sure you're painted as a bigot.
So you understand how they can't forgive.
They've locked themselves in, Joe.
Once you're a bigot, you're a bigot.
You can't be an un-bigot.
But now the problem is other groups they've said Republicans can't stand you either.
Black Americans, which Kevin Hart happens to be.
Now they've come after black Americans too, who are like, wait, I'm not a bigot.
I made a joke.
Now, all of a sudden, a lot of Hollywood people are starting to say, this may not be working out so well because they're going through the Twitter feeds of Amy Schumer, a non-funny comedian, Sarah Silverman, even less funny comedian.
They're going through their Twitter feeds, Joe, and all of a sudden they're finding a lot of gay jokes in there.
And all of a sudden people are like, oh no, what do we do now?
I thought Hollywood was on our side.
We can't let them, if we let them say, hey, people make bad jokes sometimes.
If we let them say that, then we'll have to use the same standard against conservatives and we can't do that because we've been bludgeoning conservatives over the head with the identity politics thing, telling them there's no forgiveness, they're bigots.
We can't do that.
Oh, this schism's getting ugly.
There are others in Hollywood who are not happy with what happened to Kevin Hart.
Oh, it's gonna- Nick Cannon unleashed a Twitter tirade against all of these comedians who had also- Amy Schumer, Sarah Silverman- made gay jokes as well and all of a sudden nobody knows what to do!
Are we allowed to forgive people for off-color jokes or not?
What's the rules?
They don't know.
Folks, this schism is real.
It's not just there, by the way.
There is a serious fracture developing.
I told you this.
I've predicted it repeatedly and I'll predict it again.
The liberal lurch towards identity politics cannot possibly continue.
The backlash is going to get worse and worse over time.
The Democrats need to re-emerge into a Bill Clinton, John F. Kennedy-like, more moderate brand to stay viable.
Identity politics is cannibalistic by nature.
Sooner or later, groups you pretend to defend, Black America, Gay America, pretend because they're not really defending you.
They will have to, by the very definition of identity grievance politics, sick people on each other from groups they claim you belong in.
I love this segment.
This may be one of the most, I'm telling you, I'm thoroughly enjoying this.
Because it is so true if you see the writing on the wall.
This absolutely cannot continue.
It is cannibalistic!
I'm going to give you a few more examples of what's going on.
Just let me read this.
And this is good because it's not just there.
You may say, well that's an isolated example.
Oh, no, no, no, no.
There's a lot more.
This schism is real.
Hey, you ever get an off-the-rack suit?
They're usually, you know, the worst.
You get, like, the pirate suit with the wings, you know, like you have the Spider-Man wings under your armpits.
Nothing fits, right?
The sleeves are up to your elbows.
John loves the pirate, right?
Pirate show is back.
Yeah, you got the floods on.
You know the floods, right?
Looks like you're in a flood.
The pants are up to your knees.
I can't wear off-the-rack stuff, ever.
I never have.
So I got the solution for you.
Indochino.
Every man looks better and feels more confident when he puts on a suit.
They have a huge variety of fabrics, colors, and patterns that make Indochino so stylish.
There's no longer an excuse for wearing any ill-fitting suit.
A lot of those off-the-rack suits look terrible, especially when they're available at great prices.
They have the highest quality and the lowest price out there.
It's unbelievable.
Their suits are amazing.
It's a unique experience where you play designer in consultation with their style guides at Indochino.
Indochino is North America's leading made-to-measure menswear company.
They make suits and shirts to your exact measurements.
No more Spider-Man wings underneath your armpits, none of that stuff.
For an unparalleled fit and comfort, I love their suits.
Guys love the wide selection of high-quality fabrics and colors to choose from and the option to personalize the details, including your lapel, the lining, the pockets, the buttons, and you can even put a little monogram writing on there.
Here's how it works.
Visit a stylist at our showroom and have them take your measurements personally or measure at home yourself and shop online at Indochino.com.
Choose your fabric inside and out, your design customization, submit your measurements with your choices, and relax while your suit gets professionally tailored and mailed to you in a couple of weeks.
This week, my listeners can get any premium Indochino suit for just $359.
That is a steal.
At Indochino.
That's I-N-D-O-C-H-I-N-O.
Indochino.com.
Enter promo code Bongino at checkout.
Folks, these are sharp looking suits.
That's 50% off the regular price for made-to-measure premium suits.
Plus, shipping is free.
That's Indochino.com.
Promo code Bongino for any premium suit for just $359 and free shipping.
It's an incredible deal for a premium made-to-measure suit.
Yes, Indochina, we love you.
Nice work there.
All right, here's the other fracture on the left developing.
No more stories this week.
Folks, there's a bunch of lawsuits going on in California right now.
200 civil rights groups have joined together to sue... who?
Who are they suing in California?
Oh, clearly the Republicans, right?
Wrong!
200 civil rights groups are suing the California Air Resources Board.
Oh!
Why would they be doing that?
Maybe because they believe, not maybe, this is what the lawsuit's about, because they believe that California's overly restrictive environmental policies incentivize heavy traffic.
They cause heavy traffic by trying to constantly make gas more expensive and not building new highways in favor of public transportation.
Well, the gas part, the gas part's another argument, I'm sorry.
So, just to be clear, and I don't want to confuse you, I framed that wrong.
These civil rights groups are suing on behalf of some lower-income minority groups because the traffic is out of control because these California environmentalists don't want new roads built.
And these civil rights groups, to be clear, are making the case that, listen, you liberals in San Francisco and elsewhere with all your money that can afford to live down the block from Cupertino or whatever outside San Francisco, all your Apple headquarters and stuff like that, you're not affected by the six and seven hour commutes we have because you won't build the damn road.
The civil rights groups are suing the liberal government regulators.
They're also suing because of the gas taxes and other stuff which take out an inordinate amount of lower income folks' salaries and income.
Folks, if you're making a million dollars a year as some executive at Apple, what do you give a darn about $5 a gallon gas?
Because of taxes.
Doesn't matter to you.
But I assure you it matters a whole lot to some lower income folks.
So not just are some people in Hollywood starting to wake up to the fact that identity politics is cannibalizing itself, people on the lower end of the income scale are starting to band together, especially civil rights groups, as we're seeing in this lawsuit, and are starting to sue the very same liberals because their high-end environmental policies don't affect the rich liberals, they affect people who are poor, who again, liberals disingenuously, fraudulently claim to champion.
Doesn't end there.
Ladies and gentlemen, the schism on the left continues.
What is happening right now in France, Germany, and the United Kingdom?
Oh!
Yeah, oh yeah.
We don't do a lot of foreign policy on the show for a number of reasons.
Domestic policy is just so fascinating right now.
But once in a while I see a story that really tickles my fancy.
Think about this.
These social democracies, so-called, where liberalism is supposed to be thriving.
What are we seeing right now in these three countries?
We're seeing a near rebellion in Germany against unmitigated open borders and immigration policy against Angela Merkel.
It's not the only reason they're upset at her, but it is a significant one.
Wait, I thought that was good.
Show diversity, right?
Open borders.
This is great.
Yes, yes.
Who needs borders?
Borders are just suggestions, right?
That's what the liberals have been telling us.
All that matters, right?
That's right.
Apparently not, because in Germany it's not quite working out that way.
Where Merkel's popularity has taken a significant nosedive, despite a relatively healthy German economy.
By the way, hat tip too, I think William Galston has a piece up in a journal about this this morning, Wall Street Journal.
France!
Surely, France is full of liberals, right?
Social democracy, France.
What's happening in France right now?
Yeah, you may have missed the story, but there's riots like we haven't seen in decades in the street because Macron, Emmanuel Macron, decided it would be a good idea to hike the gas tax in France.
France, where they pay about five to six dollars a gallon right now, yes, that's true, in gas right now, and already has a significant gas tax, thought it would be a good idea to, Joe, save the environment, just like the California Air Resources Board, which is bankrupting California's lower income folks, right?
Macron thought it'd be a good idea to hike that gas tax.
Not so much!
Listen, I never condone... You know me.
Violence is never the answer, obviously.
I always think it's not like some silly talking point.
But civil disobedience?
You're free to do what you want.
You don't attack other people or violate their civil rights.
Some people have taken the violent route in France, unfortunately, but a lot of these yellow vest protesters were required in France to carry this yellow vest, apparently, in the trunk of your car.
So the yellow vest has become a symbol of this anti-tax protest.
How's that, Joe?
I thought France was full of liberals!
Apparently, ladies and gentlemen, not just are the identity politics liberals suffering a rebellion within their ranks from people now they're cannibalizing, but the environmental liberal liberals are now suffering a mutiny within their ranks from liberals who don't make as much money as the rich liberals do, who are now saying, wait, I'm not so much for that, you know, $5 gas tax thing.
Doesn't sound so great to me.
Not quite working out, Libs, the way you thought it was, is it?
Folks, when you look at history and the vicissitudes and the ups and downs and the cycles, everything changes and everything comes around.
I mean, going back from the Renaissance to the Dark Ages to all this, you see what happens is this rebellion against bougie values, and then you have bougie values, whatever you want to call them, being reinserted.
It's all cyclical.
The Democrats, I believe, are at the end of a cycle.
They have been in a post-Bill Clinton two-decade era of identity politics and environmental tyranny focused agenda-driven stuff that is now eating alive their own base.
I believe it explains the Trump effect in the working areas of Pennsylvania, why he won Pennsylvania, in Michigan, in Wisconsin.
This explains this rebellion in their ranks quite easily.
The good news is the Democrats still don't see any of this coming.
They are doubling down.
I have another piece from the Washington Examiner in the show notes I want you to read today.
The Democrats are doubling down on police state tyranny, identity politics, and everything else, and a complete obstruction of the Trump agenda.
They do not get it.
That's the good news.
Because some of you email me, why are you giving them advice?
They're immune to advice.
These people are not smart anymore.
Trump has made them lose their mind.
I'm not giving them any advice.
They are not going to change.
This cycle will exhaust itself when the Democrats and their far-left lurch towards liberalism basically cannibalizes and eats itself alive.
There's no other explanation.
Hey, did I congratulate our meme winner for today, Joe?
No.
I didn't, right?
Not yet.
Oh, good.
I'm sorry.
We got a minute left.
Good.
Our meme winner of the meme contest.
You can still submit them.
We are going to pick five winners.
This is now the second one.
So you need a drum roll for this.
Meme winner for today.
Our buddy Sean H. I'm not going to say your last name.
We will email you and reach out.
He tweeted.
He tweeted us or sent us, emailed us a really funny meme.
I'm going to put it up on my Instagram because I can't, it's a Bob Mueller meme, but I can't explain it.
It will lose all, it's, it just, let me leave it, it involves redactions in the meme.
It'll be up on my Instagram.
I am at dbongino on Instagram.
I'm the checkmark account.
Please, it is super funny.
Sean H put it together or found it somewhere, submitted it.
You still have time to submit a Dan Bongino meme.
Send them to info at bongino.com.
We'll pick three more winners.
Just to be clear, the winners will get copies signed, personalized of all my books.
We will send them to your house.
So we had yesterday's winner and today's winner is Sean H with the Muller meme.
It'll be up on my Instagram a little later.
It's super funny.
You're going to enjoy it.
But me explaining the redactions and the meme do this thing absolutely no justice.
Alright folks, thanks again for tuning in.
I appreciate all your support.
I promise you when I finalize a lot of stuff I will update you on what's happening.
Just know this, this podcast is not going anywhere.
We are now the number two show in the country.
And yes, I was not fired from NRE TV.
Fake news, they enjoy doing that.
But it's just not true.
I will be back tomorrow.
Please subscribe to the show on iTunes.
You can also follow us on iHeart.
Sorry about the delay on iHeart yesterday.
It was not our fault.
And SoundCloud as well.
You can also follow us on Spotify.
It's all free.
We really appreciate your support.
Thanks a lot, folks.
I will see you all 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.
