In this episode I address the real story behind the debunked Buzzfeed story about Trump. I also discuss Trump’s new proposal to open the government and why it’s trouble for the Democrats. Finally, I cover the astonishing testimony by a lead FBI lawyer about “abnormalities” in the FBI investigation into Trump. News Picks:
The Buzzfeed BS story had red flags all over it.
Here’s a list of President Trump’s incredible accomplishments during his tenure in office.
This former FBI lawyer admits that there were significant abnormalities in the investigation into Trump.
The media had changed the definition of “coequal” now that Nancy Pelosi is the Speaker of the House.
Liberals are all wrong. There are no free lunches when it comes tax policy.
Another liberal pie-in-the-sky proposal blows up in their faces.
Hauser’s law updated for 2019.
Copyright Dan Bongino All Rights Reserved
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Get ready to hear the truth about America on a show that's not immune to the facts with your host, Dan Bongino.
All right, welcome to the Dan Bongino Show.
Producer Joe, how are you today?
I'm doing great, Dan.
Oh boy, what a weekend for the media, huh?
The media.
Listen, I can't say this enough, media folks.
You got one job.
You just have one job.
You know, when I was a kid, it reminds me of when I was in Key Food.
When I was in Key Food working on Metropolitan Avenue and Forest Hills, I had one job.
It was to maintain aisle four with Mr. Victor.
That was my job, Joe.
Me and Mr. Victor, who I love, he was an older gentleman who had been in key food for a long time.
Our job was to maintain aisle four, make sure it was leveled, make sure the cans were stocked up, make sure everything, the sales things were properly marked, the price stickers were right.
Media people have one job to get the story right, and it's been another catastrophic week, catastrophic month, catastrophic couple of years for the now-dying media.
The art of journalism is dead.
I want to hit that today.
I've got a couple more stories, too.
Trump put a proposal out in the media this weekend to end this government shutdown.
We'll get into that, why I think the Democrats are really in a bind right now.
I also got some more breaking news about some testimony by an FBI official, which is absolutely damning right now.
with regards to this whole Spygate controversy.
All right, folks, today's show brought to you by our buddies at Boll & Branch, the most comfortable, beautifully designed sheets around.
You will never sleep on anything else after.
You experience, you experience Boll, B-O-L-L, and Branch.
Everything Boll & Branch makes, from bedding to blankets, is made from pure, 100% organic cotton, which means they start out super soft, and they get softer over time.
Boll & Branch sheets are like a fine wine.
The older they are, the better age they are, the softer they get.
Everyone who tries bowl and branch sheets loves them.
That's why they have thousands of five-star reviews in Forbes, the Wall Street Journal, and Fast Company are all talking about bowl and branch.
Even three U.S.
presidents sleep on bowl and branch sheets.
Shipping is free.
You can try them for 30 nights.
If you don't love them, send them back for a refund.
But I doubt you'll want to send them back.
You won't.
There's no risk and there's no reason not to give them a try.
To get you started, right now, my listeners, you'll get $50 off.
That's $50 off your first set of sheets at BOLL, B-O-L-L, and Branch.com.
That's BOLL and Branch.com.
Use promo code Bongino for $50 off.
Go to BOLLANDBRANCH.com today for $50 off your first set of sheets.
Promo code Bongino, BOLLANDBRANCH.com.
Promo code Bongino.
Thanks to BOLLANDBRANCH.
Okay.
So, this weekend, We had some more fake news.
I don't even know where to start.
This is on top of the fake news.
I had to take a note of all the fake news stories.
So I wanted to go down the list of damaging fake news, anti-Trump narratives promoted endlessly and breathlessly by the mainstream media.
The media's credibility, folks, is finished.
So this weekend we had this story.
I have some coverage up on Gino.com.
I also have it on my show notes.
If you subscribe to my email list, we'll send you the show notes every day.
This media story comes out that Michael Cohen was allegedly, by BuzzFeed, of course, the captains of fake media.
Michael Cohen, Trump's former personal attorney, according to this report, was instructed to lie during his congressional testimony by Donald Trump, the story reported.
Now, the story had red flags from the start.
Red flags were all over the place.
The first red flag in this BuzzFeed story, Joe, was what allegedly Michael Cohen was told to lie about in his congressional testimony by Donald Trump.
Joe, the story reports that he was alleged to lie about this Trump Tower they were building in Moscow.
Now, Joe, does this make any sense?
Think about this, Joe.
You're a reasonable, rational guy.
Why would Donald Trump instruct Michael Cohen to commit a crime, lying to Congress, Joe, which it would have been, right?
Yeah.
To cover up a non-crime.
Does this make any sense?
The answer is, of course it doesn't.
This makes no sense at all!
Why would Donald Trump instruct Cohen to commit a crime and engage in a conspiracy himself to lie to Congress over a completely legal business affair in Moscow that never even came to fruition?
The story made no sense.
Secondly, the BuzzFeed folks themselves seem to be conflicting their own stories.
There's an inherent frictional conflict there.
One of them has indicated that they may have seen some evidence.
One of the authors indicated they hadn't yet seen the evidence, meaning some texts or some
email messages indicating that Cohen had been instructed to lie by Donald Trump.
The fact that they can't even seem to get their story straight about what level of evidence
they've seen should have been red flags for everyone.
I'm trying to think, but nothing happens.
The media breathlessly ran with this story, Joe.
Amber Athey had a story at the Daily Caller.
There were over 179 references to impeachment on CNN and MSNBC alone, Joe, before the story was retracted.
This was one of those, you know, print the story, let it travel around the world, let it salaciously, you know, propagandize people into believing Donald Trump is a criminal, involved in some big Russian collusion.
Nightmare that they've got him, you know, they finally got him pinned to the corner.
And what happened?
The story's debunked only hours later.
But by that time, the media's already run with the impeachment narrative with their new standard for journalism, which is if true.
How many reporters, how many people at allegedly serious dreaded air quotes, media outlets like CNN and MSNBC, Joe said, if this story's true, that's not the standard for journalism.
You had one job, just like my job in aisle four.
And Key Food, your job is to maintain aisle four.
And by maintaining aisle four, I mean to report the facts, not asterisk if true.
If the moon was made of cheese.
Your job is to put it out when you determine it's true.
Now, this BuzzFeed story, which is a major, major black eye for the media, who's ran with this story under their new if true standard.
We should start asterisking everything with the media out there, if credible, because it's usually not.
I warned you, you gotta wait a few days on this stuff.
This is after another fake news story last week, after the New York Times got smacked down last week.
People in the media, you'd think they would have learned the lesson, Joe.
They refuse to take any instructions, even from their own failures.
Joe, remember the story last week about Paul Manafort and the polls?
Yeah.
The New York Times with another stunning expose that Paul Manafort had fed this secret poll data to the Russians when he was working for the Trump team.
Okay, the story was false again.
However untoward the behavior was, the story was not true.
Paul Manafort did not feed poll data to a Russian.
The guy was Ukrainian, number one, and the poll data was largely public.
The story was not true!
Now, I'm going to get into what I think Mueller's doing here, because I don't want to paint Mueller to be the good guy here.
I don't think he's doing this out of the kindness of his heart.
And when I say doing this, I mean I should have been clear on this, Joe.
For those of you who missed the story, BuzzFeed's story about Cohen lying to Congress and Trump telling him to do it, which has now been debunked, was debunked by the Mueller team.
A special counsel came out and said that the story's not true.
That they don't have that story.
Cohen's working with them, Joe.
You understand this, right?
Michael Cohen is cooperating with the Mueller team.
If Cohen was instructed to lie by Trump, and he's cooperating with Bob Mueller, how would Bob Mueller's team not know this?
If I'm a federal agent or a Secret Service agent, and I have a cooperating witness working on me with a case, and a story breaks about this cooperating witness's behavior in the media, Joe, what am I gonna do?
I'm gonna go right to the witness who's cooperating with me and say, hey, is this true or not?
Yeah.
Apparently, Mueller did that and determined the story's not true.
BuzzFeed's still sticking by their story, which is utterly absurd at this point.
Remember, Joe, every time you say something factual about this case, what does the left-wing media say to people like you and me?
They go, well, you guys don't know what Mueller has.
Now it's interesting.
We know what Mueller has, Joe.
Mueller does not have this information Cohen claims to have about Trump lying and that BuzzFeed's still sticking by their story.
What is it?
Do we know what Trump Mueller has?
Is that the standard or is it not?
Because we know what Mueller has.
He's come out and said, we don't have this information.
It's not true.
And the media is still running with it.
This is after this huge black eye.
Then what comes out this weekend?
We had the story of these high school kids from Covington, down in Washington, D.C., who the story breaks.
I'm not gonna say who, it doesn't really matter.
He's a generally nice guy.
But he comes out, he DMs me, hey, we gotta get on this story.
This Trump kid with a Tramaga hat on confronted this Native American veteran and insulted him or something.
Then we find out that's fake news too.
The Native American who confronted the kid was the one who confronted the kid.
He walked up to them.
Now we find out that story's true.
They will never learn anything.
Ladies and gentlemen, please, obey the Bongino rule on the media.
Wait 24 hours.
Always.
Capital A-L-W-A-A-Y-Y-S.
Sorry, Joe Biden moment there.
Always wait.
Capital letters.
I'm messing with you folks, of course.
But Joe Biden.
It's three letters.
I'll take that.
Jobs.
J-O-B-S.
Always, always, always wait 24 hours.
Obey the Bongino rule before you breathlessly report on these stories.
They are likely fake news.
Now let's quickly go through the list because I got a lot to get to of the other major Trump air quote bombshells that blew up in their face.
We had the WikiLeaks story.
WikiLeaks bombshell.
WikiLeaks was feeding information to Don Jr.
They tried to reach out to him on email about information they had.
What was the problem?
The information they had, one, was already public, and secondly, Don Jr.
never answered the email.
So what you're basically telling us is WikiLeaks sent internet information over to a Don Jr.
email account that he never responded to.
In other words, he got spammed, Joe.
The story was not true.
Do you get the essence of the WikiLeaks story?
They were sending him cryptic information.
It was out in the open internet.
The fact that Don Jr.
got email spammed is not a story.
The bomb's bursting in air.
Secondly, the Deutsche Bank story.
I remember I was on outnumbered when this was reported.
They said Donald Trump, Deutsche Bank has been subpoenaed for his bank records.
The story was not true.
It was not Donald Trump's bank records.
I remember that one.
May have been related to some other business, but it wasn't Trump's.
We had the Mike Flynn story.
Joy Behar, again, on The View, screaming and yelling like a fanatic.
Oh, look at this!
We got Mike Flynn!
Mike Flynn was ordered to contact the Russians when Trump was a candidate.
Not true again!
It was when Flynn was the National Security Advisor.
In other words, contacting foreign governments as the incoming National Security Advisor, which is, Joe, his job description.
Finally, we had the McClatchy story, still out there, that they have evidence that Michael Cohen was in Prague coordinating this effort to spy on the Trump team and get data about Hillary's email from the Russians for the Trump team.
Again, a story that has been repeatedly debunked by Cohen and everyone around him, and Cohen is cooperating with Mueller now.
If Cohen had information that he was the key figure In a major scandal to conspire with the Russians to hack into Hillary's email and he's cooperating with Mueller now, why would he not give that information up?
The answer, Joe, because we're near certain now that this didn't happen, this Prague trip.
This is all fake news.
Give it 24 hours.
Give it 24 hours.
Do yourself a favor.
Avoid embarrassment.
The litany of stories coming out of the mouths and the print and the digital outlets of media people hell-bent on getting Donald Trump has just decimated any credibility they have left.
Media credibility is dead.
Bury it.
It is over.
Do your own homework.
Do not trust anything they put out.
I'm sorry, but it's true.
All right, let's go to this other story.
So this weekend there was some more breaking news, Joe.
We had this, Trump put out a proposal on Saturday, what he feels is a compromise with the Democrats to get a budget done and the government that's partially shut down, reopened.
I think he's playing Playing a negotiator here.
I think he's playing a little chess while they're still involved in the Checkers game, Pelosi.
Pelosi and the Democrats.
Here's what I'm hearing is going on, folks.
Give you a little bit of inside baseball on this.
It's obvious right now, this isn't so much inside baseball, but just to lay the groundwork here.
It's obvious, Joe, everyone's dug in.
Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, Pelosi is Speaker of the House, Schumer is a minority leader in the Senate, both obviously Democrats, are absolutely dug in.
They feel they've got Trump in a corner.
I entirely disagree.
I think actually this weekend Trump put them in a corner.
Here's why.
What I'm hearing is the Democrats, and folks, I'm just telling you what I'm hearing.
I obviously hope none of this happens.
I mean that.
But what I'm getting from folks is that the Democrats are hoping for some kind of an emergency.
Sad but true, Joe.
Some kind of, you know, food illness scandal so they can pin it on the government shutdown and food inspections.
Some kind of, you know, incident with TSA at an airport that they can say, hey, this wouldn't have happened.
They are hoping for some kind of emergency to pin it on Trump, damage his public opinion, Joe, and win in the budget fight.
Now, this is pretty sick, but again, it's what I'm hearing by people who know what they're talking about, who are hearing the scuttlebutt up on Capitol Hill.
On the Trump side, I think Trump understands that he's the president, and obviously any perceived chaos with a government shutdown is going to hurt his goals to get the economy going, get the country back on the right path from eight disastrous years of Obama, Joe.
Trump's not naive.
He knows this really doesn't work for anyone.
So everybody's dug in at this point, Joe.
Because Trump is not going to fold on his border wall proposal.
So what he did this weekend was, I believe, to be a pretty smart strategic move.
Now, to be clear, I am not changing my opinion.
I am not a supporter of DACA, never will be.
Now you may say, well Dan, Trump came out with a three-year extension for the DACA kids, so isn't that being hypocritical?
It's not!
I don't support DACA.
But I don't, here's the catch Joe, I don't think Trump does either.
I think Trump knows full well putting that on the table this weekend.
Here's what he put on the table Saturday.
He put on a three-year extension for DACA, three-year extension for TPS.
People are given temporary protective status in the United States who, no, many of them were here illegally when they claimed that status.
He put that on the table in exchange for his border wall funding and 200 million more for additional border security measures.
Now, again, I'm not a DACA supporter.
I never have been.
Nothing changes there.
My principles are my principles.
But I believe what he did was a smart political move.
Political move, Joe.
Because these are things, every component of the plan.
Tell me, Joe, and if I'm not tracking, you need to stop me here, right?
Every component of the plan he put on the plate on Saturday for the Democrats to accept and reopen the government, Joe, has already been voted on in the affirmative by Democrats in the past.
Chuck Schumer and Pelosi themselves have supported, Schumer specifically in the Senate, who's been a really vocal voice against this, supported the Secure Fences Act and the construction of a border wall for more money than Trump's asking for now.
So check, that's off the plate.
The wall and the wall funding they've already voted for in the past.
On the DACA front, they have already been vocal in their support for DACA.
Pelosi and Schumer, on this very specific issue, Now again, I don't support that.
But I'm telling you, Trump has them in a corner.
Trump has them in a corner specifically because they've supported every component of this plan in the past.
And Trump now has the bully pulpit.
Joe, you see where I'm going with this?
Yeah.
At this point, they're going to have a really difficult time, the Democrats, explaining to who, folks?
To American citizens flying in airports and to federal employee constituencies, like federal employee unions, who are now understandably upset that their people have been working without pay.
How are they going to explain this away when the Republicans go to these same people and go, hey, the Democrats supported all this stuff in the past.
Are you tracking me, Armacost, on this?
This is important.
I'm with you, Dano.
Yeah.
So Joe, they're in a real pickle here.
And I know you get this.
They're in a real bind.
Because the Democrats can no longer say that they're the ones looking to compromise, and President Trump has been somewhat reluctant to do so.
He's put this offer on the table.
One more quick thing here before I move on, because I've got a quick story about James Baker and a number of other things to get to.
James Baker, the FBI lawyer, that is.
Fascinating, Joe, how the media coverage, which we already know has been abhorrent, utterly grotesque, completely inaccurate, and hell-bent on destroying President Trump at the expense of their own credibility.
Byron York has an interesting piece I have in the show notes today.
This was a good pickup, Joe.
Byron does a really good job over there at the Washington Examiner about how many times when John Boehner was Speaker of the House and Barack Obama was the President, Joe.
In other words, the situation was flipped, right?
The Republicans ran the House and Barack Obama, obviously a Democrat, was the president.
How many times they made references to a co-equal branches of government versus now, now that Nancy Pelosi is the speaker and Donald Trump is the president?
Now, Joe, you know, why would, of course, why would they make this reference to co-equal branches of government often now that Nancy Pelosi is the speaker?
Because they want to put Nancy Pelosi on equal footing with President Trump, even though it's not true.
So let me read to you from this Byron York piece.
It's a good one.
He talks about, again, the disparity in mentions.
I'll explain it for you in a second.
He says, we were reminded that Congress is a co-equal branch of government, therefore Speaker Nancy Pelosi stands on an even level with President Trump.
But back in 2011, when the two players were Speaker John Boehner and President Barack Obama, there wasn't much of that kind of talk at all.
A comparison from the Nexus database of newspapers, magazines, websites, and television transcripts.
From Election Day 2010 until January 2011, there were only 18 mentions of Boehner and CoEqual.
From Election Day 2018 until January 20th, 2019, there were...
683 mentions of Pelosi and quote, co-equal.
In other words, Joe, which is a great pickup by Byron York, they are trying to put Pelosi on equal footing with Donald Trump and it's simply not true.
They were only 18 mentions!
And it's not true!
Nancy Pelosi is not co-equal with President Trump.
Nancy Pelosi is the leader of the Democrats, the Speaker of the House, for one-half of one-third of government.
Now, the Article 1 legislative branch is meant to be co-equal with Article 3 and the Article 2 executive branch, Joe.
But there is no stipulation whatsoever in our Constitution to put the Speaker of the House on par with the President of the United States.
No.
It is simply untrue.
Ladies and gentlemen, it's a basic fact.
The Congress, taken as a whole, is a co-equal branch with the judiciary and the executive, the presidency.
But Nancy Pelosi is not co-equal to Donald Trump.
And it's obvious, by the way the media is covering this now, that they're trying to put Nancy Pelosi on some kind of a throne to give her equal footing with Donald Trump and these negotiating mechanisms, but she only represents, Nancy Pelosi, one half of one half of one third of government.
Boom.
Read the piece.
It's pretty interesting how, again, it's just the media.
I just read this after this to just highlight the epic media disasters we've seen over the course of this week.
I'm telling you, always, always, always obey the Bongino rule on this.
24 hours.
Wait on any anti-Trump story.
You will probably see a retraction later.
Alright, let me get to this Baker stuff, because this is pretty damning.
This is more from the Epoch Times, which has really had some epic coverage, pun intended, lately on this spygate trauma.
And then I got some more stuff after that, including some Planned Parenthood, more damaging information about Planned Parenthood and how we were all hosed the last time, but more media nonsense.
All right, Lending Club.
Lending Club.
For decades, credit cards have been telling us, buy it now and pay for it later with interest.
Despite your best intentions, that interest can get out of control and fast.
With Lending Club, you can consolidate your debt or pay off credit cards with one fixed monthly payment.
Since 2007, Lending Club has helped millions of people regain control of their finances with affordable, fixed-rate personal loans.
No trips to a bank, no high-interest credit cards.
Just go to LendingClub.com.
Tell them about yourself and how much you want to borrow.
Pick the terms that are right for you.
And if you're approved, your loan is automatically deposited into your bank account.
In as little as a few days.
LendingClub is the number one peer-to-peer lending platform with over $35 billion in loans issued.
We love LendingClub.
So easy to use.
Go to LendingClub.com slash Dan.
Check your rate in minutes and borrow up to $40,000.
That's LendingClub.com slash Dan.
LendingClub.com slash Dan.
All loans made by WebBank member FDIC equal housing lender.
Thank you to LendingClub.
You guys are great.
And ladies over there.
Okay, moving on because this is another devastating story.
The Epoch Times has gotten their hands on equally damning testimony from two people involved in the Spygate disaster.
This is going to blow your mind today, folks.
One was Lisa Page, we covered this last week, who was an FBI lawyer having an affair with the lead investigator in the Trump case, the one whose text messages were unearthed and the text messages were just absolutely horrifying.
Now, The Epoch Times got their hands on her testimony.
The testimony was very damaging, but they also got their hands on James Baker's testimony, Joe, who was general counsel for the FBI.
This is the lawyer working at the top of the FBI echelon, Joe, who was advising Jim Comey directly as the progress of this Hillary Clinton email case stalls, and they refocus on this Trump investigation despite no evidence that Trump's actually done anything wrong or his team, right?
Evidence?
There are some big takeaways and some bombshells in this epic times piece.
I encourage you to read.
It'll be in my show notes today.
I'm going to go through them one by one because they're all important.
Number one, according to Jim Baker's testimony, which they got their hands on, some of the quote abnormalities, Joe, Hillary Clinton should have been charged.
This is the General Counsel for the FBI advising Comey directly, who indicates that there was significant disagreement in the upper ranks of the FBI about this, and he believed, as a lawyer, General Counsel for the Bureau, that Hillary Clinton should have been charged.
This is devastating.
Let me read this to you.
Baker served as the FBI's General Counsel when they investigated the Trump campaign and Hillary's use of an unauthorized server.
During two days of testimony on October 3rd and the 18th, he told lawmakers, listen to this Joe, he believed even toward the end of the Clinton investigation, that's important because all the evidence had already been accumulated Joe, that she should have been charged over her quote, alarming and appalling mishandling of classified information.
He argued with others, including then FBI director Comey about the issue all the way to the end.
What did I tell you?
Justice is going to eventually come down the pipeline for these three-letter agency people and the people in charge of them.
There is absolutely, Joe, no way Jim Baker, who we now know, again, General Counsel for the Bureau, we know is under criminal investigation for leaks according to multiple reports, Joe.
What are they all doing now?
They are all trying to save their butts.
This is a butt, B-U-T-T, butt-saving measure.
It's clear as day right now what they're doing.
They are all trying to get out ahead of this and protect their own butts.
I told you these three-letter agency people were going to have problems.
It's clear as day.
They were going to have significant issues.
You see that's what he's doing?
It's so obvious right now.
Baker's trying to get out of ahead of this because they know their role in this.
There's going to be a paper trail.
They know Hillary Clinton's team was implicated in some very serious crimes and they skated over it.
Alright, it doesn't end there.
This goes on.
Now this is an older story, but again, there were so many bombshells in this story, they all get lost in the bombshellery.
There was a lawyer working for Perkins Coie.
Perkins Coie's the law firm hired by Mrs. Clinton to, for quote, legal services, which were not legal services at all.
Let's be clear on what happened.
Hillary Clinton's team needed to hire Fusion GPS to put together this fake information dossier on Donald Trump, Joe.
They can't pay them directly because they want to wash the money.
They want to wash their hands of it.
So Hillary Clinton's team, Pays a law firm, Perkins Coie, a law firm that has also received money for Obama's former Obama for America that was then organizing for America.
In other words, this is a deeply entrenched law firm, Perkins Coie, with deep ties to the Democrat Party.
Does everybody understand the role of Perkins Coie?
It's critical.
Oh, yeah.
They turn up a lot.
Perkins Coie are the ones, yes, who get the money from the Clinton team because they can't pay Fusion GPS directly, the Clinton team, because they don't want their hands on it.
They want to wash their hands of it.
So they go through an intermediary in a laundering of the money type operation to keep the information seemingly clean.
We didn't pay for it.
We just paid for legal services.
No, you didn't.
You paid for oppo research.
Now, why does this matter?
Because at Baker's testimony, ladies and gentlemen, Baker, what I've told you from the start if you're a regular listener, one of the biggest scandals in this case is not just that the Trump team was spied on by the Obama team, but there was a significant information laundering operation to clean information through multiple channels to make it appear it didn't have a political tinge.
Please understand what I'm saying because it's important.
If Hillary's team would have paid directly for this and would have acknowledged they were paying directly for this information, if Hillary's team would have done that, then what would have happened, Joe?
They would have had to acknowledge in the FISA courts when they were bringing this dossier information up in front of a judge to spy on the Trump team that, hey, Hillary paid for it.
Right.
What did the FBI need more than anything in some of the players involved in this, Joe?
Plausible deniability!
They needed to be able to deny they knew the information was political.
For that, for their role in that, it was critical that the FBI have a bunch of excuses as to why they didn't, you know, know that this was Hillary Clinton's information.
Here's a major revelation from Baker's testimony from the Epoch Times piece.
There's then Joe Pianca, who's managing Bruce Ohr, getting information from Christopher Steele.
Pianca's an FBI agent.
After Steele's been fired, we now find out there's another information superhighway.
Where information is being mainlined into the system.
Baker, this is from the Epoch Times piece, testified that it was Michael Sussman, a partner at Perkins Coie, the law firm, Joe, who shared with him information that detailed alleged communications between servers in Trump Tower and servers located in Russia at Alpha Bank.
Stories which were debunked.
Sussman, conveniently Joe, was also the lawyer who spearheaded the handling of the alleged hack of the DNC servers.
Baker admitted that it was highly unusual to interact with an outside counsel.
Folks, the spy scandal's huge.
I discussed it last week.
Yes, the Obama team spied on the Trump team.
Let's keep the big picture in mind.
But the information laundering scandal is enormous, too.
Clearly, someone at FBI and DOJ knew they could never get this information into a FISA court.
Knowing it was political, that it was paid for by Hillary.
So they developed this sophisticated information laundering operation to disconnect Hillary from the information.
And to make it appear that the information was coming from multiple sources, when in reality it was just coming from the Hillary team's own money.
We had the Bruce Orr channel.
Bruce Orr is working with Steele.
We had that superhighway there.
Steele is the guy generating this information on behalf of the Hillary team.
He's giving it right to the number four official in the DOJ whose wife works for the company Steele's working for.
Right.
Steele's deemed not suitable for use.
He's fired as a source.
What do they do, Joe?
They bring him right back in.
And then they give a handler, according to multiple reports, the FBI, a handler to deal with Bruce Soar.
Who's getting the information from who?
It's from Christopher Steele.
This is an information laundering op.
Now we find out that one of the lead lawyers at, well, we knew this before, but now we have the testimony acknowledging it, one of the lead lawyers at Perkins Coie, the guys who were responsible For handling the DNC hack servers case?
Sussman?
And the same guy, Sussman, the alleged hack, because we don't even know that, now Baker's testifying that Sussman was pipelining information to him as well about debunked scandals?
Folks, you understand what's going on here, right?
They pipelined this information to the top to bypass the rank-and-file FBI agents and IC people out there who would have immediately saw this information was garbage.
This was a sophisticated, very sophisticated, devious information laundering operation designed to insulate Hillary Clinton from the fact that she is a major player on the fraudulent color of justice to spy on the Trump team using the FISA courts.
That's what this is!
More revelations in this piece.
This one's a doozy.
Joe, you know who David Korn is?
I recall the name, yeah.
David Korn's a left-wing, I mean far-left-wing activist pretending to be a journalist.
He works for Mother Jones.
This guy wouldn't know the truth if it slapped him in the face.
David Corn is a full-time liberal activist.
That's what he does.
He pretends to be a journalist.
Now, just go read his stuff.
It's outrageous, his content.
So we find out now, again during Baker's testimony, which they got their hands on, That not only is Baker dealing with Sussman, a lawyer for Perkins Coie, in an extremely unethical, immoral, very questionable information transaction there that's being pipelined to him instead of Sussman from Perkins Coie going through the normal information channels.
He's pipelining it right to the top of the FBI so none of it's vetted.
Turns out Baker's also dealing with David Cohn from Mother Jones.
From the piece, Joe.
During lawmaker questioning of Baker's interactions with Mother Jones reporter David Cohn, it was revealed that Baker was the subject of an ongoing criminal investigation by the FBI.
Criminal leak investigation.
Baker admitted to having received parts of the Steele dossier from David Korn.
Baker testified that these sections were different than the ones that were already in the FBI's possession.
In other words, there's another information laundering operation where David Korn, this reporter for Mother Jones, is being leaked components of the dossier, probably too salacious to give to the FBI directly, They give him the corn.
Corn pipelines it to Baker, who sucks up the information like a vacuum anyway.
Right?
And just takes it right in.
This is the general counsel for the FBI, ladies and gentlemen.
None of this is being vetted through the chain of command.
None of it.
Now, it gets worse.
This is the coup de gras, Joe calls it.
What did you call it?
Coupe de ville.
This is the coup de gras to this whole thing.
I have said to you repeatedly, the three-letter agency people are going to go down.
There's a massive paper trail on this.
We already know Baker's under a criminal leak investigation.
The same guy we're talking about, Andy McCabe.
I think Comey's in a world of trouble.
Here's where this gets worse.
So I now just described to you the second component of the biggest scandal of our lifetime.
The spying operation being number one, second being information laundering, right?
Now, why is this such a big deal?
Because the information laundering operation, according to the FBI's own procedures, Joe, had a natural choke point and backstop that should have stopped all this.
What is the procedure?
If you don't know this in my audience, you haven't been listening to the show.
I believe it's the Woods Procedure, yeah!
Yeah, you would be right, Joe!
Winner, winner, chicken dinner, of course!
The Woods Procedure!
The Woods Procedure dictates, ladies and gentlemen, exactly how this information superhighway should have not worked!
It dictates how the information has to go back to field offices to be checked.
Has to come up through the field office, come up through FBI headquarters, be vetted through the DOJ chain of command.
In other words, Joe, do multiple people at the bottom and the top to make sure the information is accurate.
There is a file created with the Woods procedure where people have to sign off that the information is accurate.
In this case, it wasn't.
Now we know why Baker's in a world of trouble and probably ratting out his buddies right now.
From the Epoch Times piece again, Baker told investigators, Joe, that he personally reviewed portions of the Page FISA application, Carter Page FISA application, adding that this was not something he would usually get involved in.
Oh, here we go.
Here's Joe's coup de ville right here.
He also admitted that he did not review the Woods file, which provides underlying documentation for the accuracy of the facts represented in the FISA application.
This guy is in a world of trouble right now.
He admits two things here, Joe, not just one.
Yeah.
That ordinarily he would not get involved in a FISA application warrant review.
He says it right here.
Adding that it was not something he would usually get involved in reviewing the FISA application.
In other words, for some reason, most likely a political motivation against Trump, this general counsel for the FBI working with Comey and this other small group at the top who wants to crush Trump, Joe, looked at the information personally.
He saw it.
He saw what was in the FISA application.
What was in the FISA application, Joe?
Dossier.
The dossier was the FISA application, which Baker knows came from who?
David Corn.
And he knows it's connected to the lawyers at Perkins Coie.
Why?
Because in the same testimony, he admitted it.
Step one, get information from Democrat lawyers and liberal activists pretending to be a journalist.
Step two, make sure it gets into the FISA application.
Step three, look at the FISA application to make sure it got in there even when you typically don't do it.
Step four, The Woods file.
He doesn't even review the Woods file, which would have checked the information that he wanted in the dossier.
I mean, wanted in the FISA application.
He could have pulled it out.
He could have questioned it.
He didn't even bother, Joe, to look at the Woods file.
He also admitted he did not review the Woods file, which provides underlying documentation for the accuracy of facts in the FISA application.
This guy is in a world of trouble, man.
And they all are too!
Comey, McCabe, Preistep, Stroke, Page, they're all in trouble.
Baker, Rebicki, all of them.
They are all in trouble.
This Woods file, they didn't even bother to do basic verification.
Now do you understand?
Because again, I get this email a lot.
I don't want to beat a dead horse, but it's important.
Do you now understand why, when I get these emails from folks, I get a little bit upset?
People say to me, Dan, you know, you keep defending the rank-and-file FBI agents, but why didn't any of them speak out?
Fair point.
I read your emails.
I enjoy them.
And I like your quiz.
It gives me ideas about why I'm not explaining things well.
I do enjoy them.
I mean it.
But ladies and gentlemen, on this specific point, you're wrong!
It is clear as day that the rank-and-file FBI agents who would have been brought in to verify the information in the FISA, before it got to the FISA court, were not used!
They didn't even look at the Woods file.
My guess is they brought in a couple of guys they knew would be, you know, ready to, quote, play ball.
They had them check against the Woods file box.
The information's true.
And they walked it into the FISA court knowing it was nonsense.
It's clear as day almost nobody at the field office level who could have come out and been a whistleblower was involved.
One more point on this, Joe.
If the rank-and-file agents... People are upset.
Why didn't someone in the rank-and-file speak up?
Again, because they didn't know.
I'm not defend... I have no... I don't work for the FBI.
I have not defended the FBI in this.
Their behavior was abhorrent.
I'm simply suggesting to you that they bypassed the rank-and-file agents knowing someone would have been a whistleblower.
Folks, why do you think, digest this, chew on this for a second, why do you think these higher-ups are turning on each other now?
I believe Bill Preistep is probably talking, that's probably how he saved his job and was allowed to retire without being fired.
We've already seen Baker opening up this entire can of worms, saying we didn't review the Woods file, I was talking to a liberal media activist, I was talking to a lawyer at the DNC.
We've already seen testimony that these people are starting to fold on each other.
Why do you think there haven't been any rank-and-file bureau agents who've come out and say, hey, my name's been implicated in this too, I want to clear the air?
Because they weren't implicated in it!
That's right, and they didn't know!
That's why!
I'm not unnecessarily, like, jumping to defend people in an effort to, you know, just because I feel like it.
I just want to keep the story true and accurate.
There's a lot of purveyors of nonsense out there, folks.
If you follow Twitter, you see it.
A lot of people are offended at my coverage of this.
Because their livelihoods are at stake.
Some of them being paid by foreign governments and stuff.
Their very livelihoods are at stake by the truth being out there.
Sad.
The rats are leaving the ship, Danny.
Big time.
Big time.
Oh, let's see.
All right, let me get this.
I got another couple stories I want to get because they're important.
A lot of news going on, obviously, at Stack Newsweek, and I always enjoy coming back on Monday.
Folks, 2018's in the books, which means that... Joe loves this commercial, right?
The turkey necks and double chins!
They're not getting better by ignoring.
Unfortunately, they'll only be getting worse.
So if you missed out on GenuCell's outrageous Christmas sale, it was a good one.
Today is your lucky day, because now the brand new GenuCell jawline treatment is yours absolutely free when you order the GenuCell for under eye bags and puffiness.
My daughter loves this.
My wife loves it.
My mother-in-law goes crazy over this product.
It's really good stuff.
But wait, here are also three free gifts that you will get for GenuCell for only one more week.
The GenuCell Immediate Effects for results in less than 12 hours.
The GenuCell XV for our most advanced collagen builder anti-wrinkle treatment.
And Chamonix will even throw in the GenuCell Eyelid Treatment.
This stuff works like a charm.
It is really, really good.
Give yourself a before and after shot.
Before you try Genucel and after.
You won't regret it.
This stuff is really great.
That's three free gifts, but you have to hurry.
Text the word YOUNG.
It's the opposite of old, because that's exactly how you will look, is young.
To 77453 or go to genucel.com.
Go to genucel, G-E-N-U-C-E-L.com in the next 20 minutes and you'll get free express shipping.
Call or click now.
Hurry, free gifts for a limited time, all supplies last.
Text young to 77453 or go to genucel.com.
That's genucel.com.
Check it out.
Okay, Joe, I should have probably put this story in the beginning with the media, but timing out the show for your commute.
I always want to keep it to an hour or less, so I want to be sure I got to that Baker stuff because it's so damning.
But another just explosive story about a scandal that seems to have died down because the media wanted it to die down, not because it's any less scandalous or salacious.
Joe, remember the Planned Parenthood videos?
Yeah, yeah.
The undercover deals, the activists.
Yeah, who got the Planned Parenthood associates and people affiliated with Planned Parenthood on tape talking about making a little bit of money from the sale of basically the body parts of aborted children, which was really grotesque.
The videos were horrifying.
They caught America's attention.
And of course, the left-wing media, Joe, in their effort to do what?
Gaslight and make sure that that story... Remember, the media was not even remotely interested in the truth.
They were interested in lying to you, gaslighting you.
In other words, By telling you a lie, repeating the lie proudly, repeating it often, and after that lie is instilled into the American public, say it confidently and isolate people from the truth.
Well, now we know what the truth is, thanks to a Fifth Circuit court ruling.
There was a Fifth Circuit court ruling about Texas and their position on withholding funds from Planned Parenthood, Joe.
And in the trial, this is important, The videos were introduced because Texas used it.
The videos of Planned Parenthood and people associated with them.
Trafficking in the, basically, your body.
I'm sorry, it's a family-friendly show, but this is what they were doing.
In the body parts of aborted children.
Planned Parenthood, they introduced the videos as evidence that Texas had a good reason to stop funding, Joe.
Well, remember the talking point by the media?
I know you remember this, but you and the public may remember this too.
The media talking point, they're never true, they're just talking points.
The media talking point, Joe, is these videos were selectively edited, Joe.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
were selectively edited videos.
In other words, they left out key findings which would have indicated that Planned Parenthood
and their employees and personnel associated with them, they weren't affiliated with this trafficking
in these parts.
They weren't doing any of this stuff that they were selectively, you've heard it so often.
Ladies and gentlemen, the videos were not selectively edited.
Everybody knew this.
I explained this, gosh, countless times on my show.
The edits in the videos were done exclusively for time.
There was one component of a video where the guy recording, or the woman recording, I forget, went into the bathroom, so turned it off.
There was no content left out.
So what did the media do to get this talking point?
Because there's not serious people in the media anymore.
Who do you think the media hired, Joe, to do a forensic analysis of these videos?
Who came out with the talking point that the edits were made?
Perkins Cooey.
Fusion GPS, who was hired by Perkins.
You were probably saying that as a joke.
I'm looking at your face.
He was kidding.
No, I'm not kidding.
It was Fusion GPS.
Is this amazing?
I want to, I want to pull up that.
I didn't, uh, I should have just pulled up this piece automatically, but this is incredible.
This story only gets worse.
The videos were not selectively edited.
The edits were just made for time.
This is incredible.
Where's this piece here?
Oh, here.
Not a single, the story's in the show notes today.
Not a single mention in one of these reports mentioned Fusion GPS has historical ties to the Democrat party, which is aligned with Planned Parenthood.
Planned Parenthood, like the GOP is aligned with the NRA.
That's from the piece today.
Dude, that was a straight-out guess.
Yeah.
What's happened?
That was a straight-out guess.
Yeah.
I know you.
I just watch your face on the camera.
I can see you were messing around.
Perkins Coie hired Fusion GPS.
Fusion GPS was involved in this.
Man.
Now, here's a quote from the Texas Office of Inspector General that used the videos in the case, in the court case.
The video, quote, was authentic and not deceptively edited.
And Planned Parenthood, who insisted in the case that it was selectively edited, Joe, could not identify any pertinent addition or omission.
In other words, the media was lying to you.
Again!
Again.
Again.
When are they... They're in full-blown activist mode now.
These are not serious people.
Why are we supposed... I still don't get why we're supposed to treat these people as serious purveyors of truth when Joe, literally, not figuratively, Every week, if not every other day or two, we find out another story meant to make conservatives, high school kids at a rally in DC, the Trump team, anybody cooperating with the Trump team, to look like idiots is in fact a false story!
The story's not true!
They were not selectively edited!
Now, are you going to get a retraction from any media outlet on this?
Of course you're not!
Slate, Vox, and others.
People on the... Vox with a V. I always have to say that.
Not Fox.
I'll get a thousand emails.
People who ran with this story about, quote, selective edits, are you going to get a retraction?
Of course you're not!
These are not honest people!
These are not honest people.
Folks, this does the country no good.
It gives me no joy in saying this.
I wish, from the bottom of my heart, sincerely and heartfelt, we had an honest media out there that simply indicated what the truth was and allowed people to make decisions based on that.
I wish that were the case, but it's not.
It gives me no joy in telling you this.
Follow the Bongino rule.
Always, always wait 24 hours.
Now, in the case of the Selective Edits talking point, you had to wait over a year to find out from a state investigator in Texas that that talking point was nonsense.
But at a minimum, wait 24 hours for reporting anything from Slate.
Vox.
The New York Times.
Forget BuzzFeed, they're a total joke.
The Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, or anybody else!
Avoid the embarrassment!
Alright, couple quick stories here too because they're important.
I want to stack them into your news day because you need to hear about it.
Again, another Democrat talking point blowing up in their faces.
So, Breitbart has a story to have up in the show notes today.
There's a minimum wage hike that took effect in New York.
Remember the fight for $15 for $15 an hour, which of course, Joe, if you understand the laws of basic economics, is absolutely decimating the restaurant industry in New York, which hires a lot of their employees at, in fact, minimum wage.
So you doubled their costs almost overnight while providing them no relief whatsoever.
So what happened?
Well, unsurprisingly, a lot of these restaurants in New York are now firing people and slashing staff.
Here's a quote.
Joel Blustein, the operator of six New York City restaurants with 50 to 110 workers on the payroll each, said the wage hike is an immense cost.
We lost control of our largest controllable expense.
So in order to live with that and stay in business, we're cutting hours.
Oh gosh, this is like, thank God we got the video going a little.
We may not have it up today, but we're hoping to do a video clip today for you folks.
But this was the most predictable crisis we've ever seen coming.
Ladies and gentlemen, let me explain minimum wage to you in two seconds using the lemonade stand analogy for liberals who have a difficult time with facts and data.
I know this is tough for you.
Joe's heard it, my wife has heard it, she's listening in on the show now, running our production team.
This is very simple how minimum wage works.
If you have a lemonade stand and hiring an additional employee at that lemonade stand will generate for you $10 in additional revenue to the company.
But you were told by the state that to hire that additional employee to make that $10, it is going to cost you $15 per hour.
You'd make $10 an hour by being able to serve extra people at the lemonade stand, Joe, right?
The lines are long.
Some people are walking away.
You've done a math calculation on how many people are leaving.
It'll make you $10 if you had one extra person at your stand, $10 per hour.
Why would you hire someone that cost you $15 an hour?
You wouldn't!
Because that's not what their labor is worth to you.
I know this is hard for liberals to understand.
Because liberals are generally not that bright, they can't do basic math, and they have a fundamental disconnect with basic economics.
I'm not even talking about advanced economics.
If an employee earns you a specific amount of money per hour, that is what the employee is worth to you.
They're probably actually worth a little bit less because you still have to pay things like social security, unemployment insurance, and other costs as well associated with a new hire.
Finding the employee, marketing for the employee, marketing to get the employee.
This is only a surprising story for liberals who aren't that bright.
They up minimum wage in New York, people get fired.
Simple as that, folks.
Not complicated.
Also, on a little more wonky note, I have a really great piece in the show notes.
For those of you out there who like the economic stuff we cover in the show, Joe and I talk about Hauser's Law a lot.
Joe never likes it, but I talk about it anyway.
Hauser's Law is very simple.
It basically says no matter what the tax rates are in the United States, the marginal tax rates, the government's going to raise the same amount of revenue.
I can't say it any simpler way.
You raise tax rates like Ocasio-Cortez, Representative Cortez wants to do, what happens?
People pay accountants to avoid paying taxes.
You lower the tax rates, people fire those accountants and they pay the tax rates.
So you get this level amount of tax revenue over time.
There's a really, really good piece, it was in Town Hall, I have up in the show notes, sent to me by a listener, you know who you are, thank you very much.
Which proves what I'm telling you is true.
You can raise the marginal tax rates all you want.
All you're going to do is make accountants rich.
You're not going to raise any more money and the data's conclusive.
You will raise roughly between 15-18% of GDP in tax revenue, no matter what the tax rates are.
And this guy, it's not overly wonky, who wrote the piece, proves it.
That when the tax rates were 90%, Joe, we raised about 17% of GDP.
When they were 28%, we raised about 17% of GDP.
You are not going to- people are just going to avoid the tax rates.
The evidence is clear as day, but liberals don't believe in evidence.
So read that Hauser's law piece.
It's really, really good, and it lays out the numbers there.
But One final note on this.
So let's debunk that talking point.
Higher tax rates are going to raise revenue for the government.
There is no evidence to show that at all.
None.
Read the piece.
It's clear as day.
Tax revenue to the government has been steady since the 50s regardless of what the rates are because people just avoid paying the rates.
This is simple stuff.
Secondly, You're going to hear another talking point by Paul Krugman and others, Joe, that the overwhelming majority of economists out there agree that higher marginal tax rates are sound economic policy.
Krugman's even said as much.
A discredited former economist.
I say former economist because I don't even know what he's doing now.
Political activism certainly isn't economics anymore.
He writes for the New York Times, Krugman.
No, economists don't agree that higher tax rates are going to lead to inflated government revenues and economic growth.
A piece up by Cato, which I'll have in the show notes again, very short, very sweet, which talks about an actual poll, Joe, not a liberal talk point.
So just to be clear, first, we're debunking tax rates are going to measure our revenue.
They're not.
Second, we're debunking the fact that economists agree higher tax rates are good for the economy.
Here's the actual poll quote from the Cato piece.
In a survey, The Economist were asked, Joe, whether a top federal marginal income tax rate of 70%, what Cortez is proposing, ...within the current code would raise substantially more revenue than today's 37% rate without lowering economic activity.
So the economists are asked, if Representative Cortez's 70% rate under the current tax code is implemented, will it raise revenue and not hurt economic activity?
Clear, Joe?
Mm-hmm.
According to Paul Krugman, the answer is the overwhelming majority of economists agreed with that statement, that it would raise more revenue and not hurt the economy, higher taxes.
Wrong!
Just 18% of those surveyed agreed against 49% who disagreed.
49, we don't even need Jay's abacus for this, Joe.
49% disagreed with that, that it would raise more tax revenue, higher taxes, and not hurt the economy.
And 18% agreed.
It is not the majority of economists.
Matter of fact, almost a majority, 49%.
But to be accurate, Joe, and to speak with precision on this, A clear plurality near majority of economists have said the opposite, that that is in fact not a true statement.
You can never rely on the left for facts and data.
It is gross.
They will lie to you about everything.
Okay, so folks, to recap, we went through the lies, the BuzzFeed lie, the Deutsche Bank lie, the WikiLeaks lie, the Michael Cohen fed poll numbers to the Russians lie, the MAGA kids in D.C.
lie this weekend.
Oh, one thing I neglected to leave out, forgive me.
I'll wrap the show with this.
A lot of people have emailed me and said, why did Mueller Discredit this BuzzFeed story, Dan.
In other words, you think Mueller's a bad guy.
And Mueller is.
I have no doubt in my mind, given everything that's gone on with this investigation.
I want to be clear on this, Joe.
I believe Mueller debunked the BuzzFeed story.
And I said this last week, so I don't mean to repeat it, but I mentioned it at the beginning of the show, and I want to wrap it up on a good note here.
Mueller's doing this right now because he knows he's in trouble.
He knows Bill Barr is going to be confirmed as the new Attorney General.
I'm not a huge fan of a lot of what Barr's positions are, but I think Barr is going to be a straight shooter on this case.
I think Barr understands Mueller has nothing.
But secondly, Mueller took a black eye in the media last week, Joe.
The revelation in the media last week that his number one investigator, Andy Weissman, was briefed in August regarding the political associations of the dossier used to spy on Trump is absolutely damning for Mueller.
His lead investigator investigating Donald Trump, think about this, knew that a fake dossier with political origins was being used to spy on the Trump team.
And he's now, Weissman, the same guy investigating Trump.
Mueller, you may say, well what does it have to do with this?
Mueller desperately has to track backwards.
He probably knew this story was false.
There's nothing in it for him for this story to keep going, Joe, because when Mueller reports this, you're just going to say the opposite.
Cohen's cooperating with him.
So Mueller figures, all right, let me get the distraction in the story away from Weissman for now.
I'll make ourselves look reasonable.
That way, when I drop a bomb on Trump's later, he can say, oh, look, when it came to debunking stuff, I did it.
No, he didn't.
He's let a lot of anti-Trump stuff fester.
So don't give me any of that garbage.
And now we know the Planned Parenthood story was nonsense about the selectively edited videos.
We know the fact that the government's going to raise more money through taxes is debunked according to Hauser's law piece.
And we know that no, the majority of economists do not agree that high taxes are going to juice the economy and raise revenue for the government.
This has been a massive debunking episode.
Alright folks, thanks again for tuning in.
I really appreciate a video coming soon.
Please subscribe to the show on iTunes.
Follow the show on iHeartRadio.
It is all free.
It's the subscriptions that help us move up the charts.
We really appreciate it.
You can also follow on SoundCloud, Spotify, and elsewhere.
