The Real Joe Biden Story isnt Pretty # 966 (Ep 966)
In this episode I address the Joe Biden campaign announcement for President and the many scandals he’ll have to deal with. I also address the key question being left out of the debate about Spygate scandal. News Picks:
Joe Biden jumps in the Presidential race.
Disgraced former FBI Director Jim Comey donated thousands to this Democrat presidential candidate.
Bernie Sanders’ insane new plan would allow 183,000 convicted murderers to vote from prison.
Unsurprisingly, it looks like the “Trump tapes” rumor was nonsense the entire time.
Copyright Dan Bongino All Rights Reserved.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Get ready to hear the truth about America on a show that's not immune to the facts with your host, Dan Bongino.
Alright, welcome to the Dan Bongino Show.
Producer Joe, how are you today?
Hey man, full of vim and vigor.
Ready to go, babe.
Yeah, I'll bet, man.
We got an email from a guy who knew Joe yesterday.
Sent us a picture of Joe's rocker days.
Paula was astonished to find out that Joe was a pretty popular musician back in the day.
I already knew this story.
Shame on me for not telling Bala about it.
But yeah, well, you know, if Joe allows us one of these days, we'll throw up the picture.
You'll see Joe in his rocker days.
Really, you look like the Beatles, you know, but one of the good-looking Beatles.
Well, thank you.
It's pretty cool, man.
Thank you very much.
So yeah, Joe's a multi-faceted guy.
Yeah, man, it's cool.
So that was very nice of you.
All right.
All right.
I got a stack show for you today.
Joe Biden's sleepy Joe has announced he's running for president.
Oh boy.
Do we got a list of Joe Biden's scandals he's going to have to deal with?
We got old ones.
We got new ones.
We got medium old ones.
We got medium rare ones.
We have well done ones.
Joe Biden's list of scandals.
I'm looking around for a thick book is like this big.
We'll cover that.
I have also some really, really good information from a source of mine that you're not going to want to go into.
All right, today's show brought to you by our buddies at GenuCell.
Hey, you ever wish the double chin would just go away, right?
This Mother's Day, your wish is our command.
With GenuCell's outrageous Mother's Day sale, double chins, sagging jawlines, and Joe's favorite, turkey necks are real problems until now.
Get rid of that turkey neck.
Introducing the new GenuCell jawline treatment formulated with MDL technology.
Robin S. from Lubbock, Texas wrote us, I put the jawline cream on my neck about two or three days ago.
It's the best my neck has looked in over 20 years.
Several people told me my face looks young.
I'm blown away.
My mother-in-law loves this product.
She can't get enough.
She's like, Danny, you have to get me some more of this.
Joan, one who calls me Danny.
My mother calls me Daniel.
Paula calls me Dan, of course.
Sure, you could use expensive or harsh treatments to look younger, but why would you do that?
From now until Mother's Day, the GenuCell jawline treatment is yours absolutely free when you order the classic GenuCell for eye bags and puffiness.
And with its instant effects, see results in the first 12 hours guaranteed or your money back.
Go to GenuCell.com.
That's GenuCell.com or text YOUNG.
That's how you'll look.
To 77453.
A surprise Mother's Day premium gift with all orders.
Text YOUNG.
To 77453 or visit genucel.com.
G-E-N-U-C-E-L.
That's genucel.com.
Check it out.
Yes!
Let's go!
Alright, I was waiting for the bell there.
Needed the bell to get me in the mood.
Okay, so Joe Biden announced this morning with a video for president, a disturbing video where he repeats the lie about Charlottesville, where President Trump said, I completely condemn the white supremacists.
That's a direct quote, by the way, completely condemn them.
Of course, Biden has to resort to identity politics in this video.
He announced he's running for president and plays the Charlottesville cuts because this is all Joe Biden has.
I made an appearance on Fox this morning and I was talking about that.
Because Joe Biden can't run on his record, ladies and gentlemen.
The worst recovery from a recession in modern U.S.
history was under the Obama-Biden presidency and vice presidency.
The Obamacare rollout was a disaster.
Obamacare was a disaster.
Premiums are up.
Deductibles are up.
The website crashed multiple times.
They couldn't even figure out how to activate a website.
Excuse me, they took over the student loan market.
That's been a debacle.
Their effort at red tape destroyed wages, destroyed productivity.
They averaged less than 2% growth rates.
The Obama-Biden agenda...
It was the first presidency, vice presidency in American history in eight years to never, listen to me, never reach 3% annualized growth rates.
Do you understand how bad that is?
Think about how long.
We're up to 45 presidents now.
45 presidents have served with vice presidents and Obama and Biden are the first ones, the first ones to ever go through eight years, go through any years, four or eight years, We're even shorter than that.
Some had to leave earlier.
Some of them died of natural causes.
Some were killed.
I mean, JFK.
But some of them didn't even complete their term.
They were the first ones to never, ever, ever reach 3% growth rates.
Ever.
That is a rare distinction.
What is he going to run on?
So he can't run on this productive, fruitful, prosperous eight-year record.
So what does he do?
He goes right back to the canard.
Donald Trump's a racist.
I mean, he doesn't have anything else.
And what do we call him, Joe?
The istophobic phobophobe.
Yes, sir.
When the Democrats don't have anything to run on, they go back to the istophobic phobophobe agenda.
You call someone a racist, a misogynist, a transphobe, homophobe, islamophobe.
That's all they have.
Now, the strategy is very clear.
The reason they do this is for a reason.
It's not because any of it's true that Republicans have any of these characteristics.
It's made up.
It's a fabrication.
It's a lie.
I think everybody gets that.
Sane people, that is.
But the strategy is very clear and distinct.
The strategy is this.
The strategy is To get you to hate the Republicans, not get you to like the Democrats.
In other words, their ideas are always grossly unpopular.
We're going to raise your taxes.
We're going to nationalize your health care.
You get it.
We're going to force your kids into schools they don't want to go to.
So rather than getting you to vote for their agenda, they get you to hate the Republicans.
Mitt Romney's a racist.
John McCain is a racist.
Donald Trump is a racist.
George Bush is a racist.
It's all they do.
They don't believe any of this stuff.
Um, as evidenced by their newfound love for Mitt Romney, being that he's attacking Donald Trump now, they just do it because they figure if they can get you to hate the other side, you will by default support them.
This is exactly where Biden went with this video.
Now, I think it was a really bad idea.
Not here to give the Joe Biden team any advice.
But the Biden team should have taken the Bill Clinton approach with his launch, the Hope Arkansas video.
Look at me, a kid from Hope, Arkansas.
He blew it.
Now, I'm going to go over this.
I've got a couple of minutes to dig into the Biden stuff because I want you to have a comprehensive scope of what's going on with this.
I'm going to give you the ups and the downs to this so you have an idea of, and we say, why would you give us the ups to a Biden presidency?
Because you have to know what the threats are.
A lot of you went to business school.
You ever do SWOT analysis?
Strength, weakness, opportunities, threats.
How do you leverage a strength by taking advantage of an opportunity?
How do you mitigate a weakness by mitigating a threat?
You do the matrix.
You know, it's actually pretty helpful if you run a business to do that kind of stuff.
Well, this is kind of a quick SWOT analysis here of the Biden presidential run.
We have to know what his strengths and weaknesses are so we can take advantage of it.
First, let's go to his weaknesses because there are many.
This guy has a scandal volume the size of War and Peace.
He has so many scandals he's going to have to deal with that are going to be unearthed again now that he's going to be at the top of the ticket and not at the bottom that he is somehow going to have to address.
I want to hat tip a Twitter account at Howard Mortman.
I don't know who this guy is, but I saw this tweet this morning.
He had this video clip.
Now keep in mind, I'm not even talking about the new scandals.
These are some of the old scandals.
Pay attention to this cut.
It's a little over a minute, but it's critical.
Don't forget the old Joe Biden scandals.
I'll go into the Ukraine stuff, the new stuff in a minute.
But back in the day when Joe Biden was running in 1987 in a crowded Democrat field against what would eventually be George H.W.
Bush, Biden had to drop out early because of two major scandals that hit him back then.
Watch this old footage.
It's grainy, the audio's not great, but Joe did a good job of cleaning it up.
I want you to listen to this.
Here's old Joe Biden scandal, chapter one.
The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee is the man in the dock for using other people's words without credit and being less than truthful about the credits he received at law school and at college.
I do it with incredible reluctance and it makes me angry.
I'm angry with myself for having put myself in the position of having to make this choice.
And I am no less frustrated with the environment of presidential politics.
Be that as it may, I've concluded that I will Stop being a candidate for President of the United States.
Biden's troubles began just two weeks ago in Iowa, with reports he had plagiarized a speech by England's fiery Labour Party leader, Neil Kinnock.
Why am I the first Kinnock in a thousand generations to be able to get to university?
Why is it that Joe Biden is the first in his family Ever to go to a university.
There was more.
A videotape caught Biden at a neighborhood coffee in New Hampshire, making exaggerated claims about his college record.
Went back to law school, and in fact ended up in the top half of my class.
In fact, as Biden finally conceded, he finished near the bottom of his class.
Today it was Biden, earlier this year Gary Hart.
With Democrats falling like flies, can anyone survive the intense scrutiny of modern campaigns?
Most insiders still say yes, but they say the candidates must recognize that in an age of instant communications, you have to keep your facts straight.
In the 19th century, if there was a fact, it kind of drifted across the country, slowly.
Today, it's instantaneously heard.
Oh boy, old Sleepy Joe.
Let's not forget the old scandals.
Chapter one, the foreword to the book, Joe Biden's scandal volume one.
So we have two scandals that have been forgotten about largely after the eight years where he attached himself to President Obama.
Scandal number one, Was the plagiarism scandal, where he gives that speech, I am the first, why am I the first one in my family?
A speech he ripped from that Labour Party leader in the United Kingdom.
Totally plagiarized the speech.
Which is, I can't even tell you how lame that is.
Now, I've given, gosh, I don't even know, a thousand speeches or so?
Somewhere close to that.
You know, there are ideas and themes that are always shared amongst people.
Are you better off now than you were four years ago?
I mean, you could rephrase that a thousand different ways, but the point is he ripped the speech speech, like the exact words, and he took out the UK guy's name.
The UK guy's like, why am I the first one in my family to go to college?
What does Joe Biden do?
He just puts his own name in there.
Insert here.
Why is Joe Biden...
Dude, he just puts his own name in there.
This is so great.
This is sleepy Joe.
He was so sleepy he couldn't even write his own speech.
You know what, Joe?
You know when you're swearing in, like I did at the Secret Service in the NYPD, I, state your name, and there's always one guy or woman who goes, I, state your name, and actually says, state your name.
I'm surprised when he gave that speech, he didn't say the other guy's name.
Why am I, what was the guy's name, Neil Carrick?
Why am I, Neil Carrick, I mean Joe Biden, Joe Biden.
No, no, scratch that, Joe Biden.
Why am I, Neil Carrick, the first guy.
I mean, Joe, gosh, can you write your own material?
And the problem is, as I'll get to in a second, when Joe writes his own material, you get a gaffe machine.
You know, we're going to put you all back in chain.
You're going to put people back in chains.
Are you crazy?
Did you just say that to a largely African-American audience?
That's not my word.
That's Joe Biden's words.
I mean, this is the woke generation.
You can't say that.
Why would you?
You know how offensive that is?
I mean, do I have to explain that?
Seriously, we have to explain on the Dan Bongino Show why telling a group of African Americans attending a speech yours that you're going to put them back in chains?
Does that really require an explanation why that's offensive?
You know what?
Joe, go, please, go back to plagiarizing speeches.
Stop writing your own material.
Joe.
We always talk about marginality, right?
Nothing's black or white.
It's not like heat or no heat in winter, it's how much heat.
The problem now is not, is Joe going to get in trouble or is he not?
It's not binary.
The question now, Joe, can we both agree, is how much trouble Joe Biden's going to get himself in with his gas?
I would argue here, I would make the case, and let me know if you agree, Joe, that Joe Biden will get in less trouble if he plagiarizes every single speech for plagiarism than he would if he invents his own speeches and starts telling an African American audience how he's going to put them back in chains.
It's too bad that that's the safe choice.
Oh my god.
You know what?
It is too bad.
No, he said they're going to put you.
He said the Republicans put them back in chase.
It doesn't matter.
It is so grossly offensive.
Then he had the other one.
I didn't even get to scandal number two.
But remember the other one about About Obama?
How he's the first clean African-American candidate?
Guys, listen, the chains thing, and this, I'm serious, and ladies out there, it's really offensive to have to talk about this, and it's uncomfortable, you can probably tell, but Joe Biden actually said this stuff, they're gonna put y'all back in chains.
That was actually said.
I can play the cut, but I don't wanna bore you to death, because you're gonna see it a thousand times on cable news and everywhere else today.
The comment about when he was asked about Obama.
Hey man, what a great story.
The guy's clean.
He can speak well.
He's articulate.
What?
Would you say that about a white guy?
I don't understand.
Like he's clean?
What does that mean?
Like he takes a shower?
Obama takes a shower.
This guy bays, man.
He bays.
Whoa, he's beige?
What the hell does that mean?
And he can speak well.
Okay, the guy went to college.
Smart guy.
I mean, what does that even mean?
But this is Biden.
I thought language was supposed to matter, right Joe?
Remember that story I told you about a while ago?
I read a story.
I was hosting a morning show in Washington, D.C.
at the time.
I was guest hosting.
And I read a piece that it was now offensive to call gay people homosexual or homosexual gay.
I'm dead serious when I say I don't remember which word.
Remember, we've talked about this a lot.
I don't remember what was—and I don't know why that is.
I don't know.
In other words, the piece was, you're not supposed to call people who are gay homosexual.
It may have been the other way around.
That it's now offensive.
Like, someone just said, as of today, this is offensive.
And I remember going on the air saying, I had never heard this rule.
Like, who invented this rule?
People, when they're talking about topics related to the gay community, They talk about the use of those words.
Words have always been used.
I mean, they're not meant to be in any way pejoratives or expletives or anything nasty.
And I was shocked at how the left instantaneously rewrites speech codes.
But I explained to you on the show many times why they do it.
They do it because they want to take you by surprise in case you use the wrong word.
He said gay.
So?
The guy is gay.
You're not allowed to say gay.
You're supposed to call him homosexual.
What?
Who said that?
Yeah, gotcha, right, it's a gotcha moment.
So my point in bringing this up is if speech matters, and the left is constantly rewriting speech codes to getcha and gotcha people, we gotcha, we got you, we got you, then how does Joe Biden get away with, you know, a black candidate for president is unusual because he's clean.
How does he get away with that?
How does he get away with, they're gonna put y'all back in chains?
Or this comment about the 7-Elevens in Delaware.
Oh yeah.
Remember, you can't go into 7-Eleven without an Indian accent or whatever.
He said, what?
Wait, again, I thought this was the woke generation.
How's he going to get away with that?
So Joe, go back to plagiarizing speeches.
You'll be much better off.
Scandal number two from volume one of the Joe Biden scandal.
Because everybody thinks like, oh, Joe Biden, he's just this innocent guy.
Lunch bucket Joe from Scranton.
He's in it for the working man.
No, he's not in it for the working man.
Your wages were down and the economy you were working in during his eight years as vice president stunk to the heavens.
It was the worst economy coming out of a recession we've ever seen in the United States.
Don't take my word for it.
Look it up yourself.
But let's not forget the old stuff.
So we had the plagiarism scandal.
We also had his lies about law school.
Now, listen, candidly speaking, I don't think this one's gonna do a lot of damage, but it's still out there.
Joe Biden is a known hyperbolic fabricator.
He makes up stories all the time about how wonderful he is, how great he is, and he was given that speech during, you know, in the 80s at that event, as you saw in the clip, and he's like, well, I went to law school and finished at the top of my class.
All right, well, you know, Joe, If Joe Biden finished, say, in the 75th percentile, I'd say, okay, maybe not exactly the top, but close to it.
Even if he finished at the 51st percentile of students, you could say, alright, he finished at least in the top half, right?
That's not what happened.
Biden finished at the bottom of his class in law school.
You know, again, is this going to damage him long term?
I don't think so.
I don't either.
It probably didn't damage him for vice president.
Nah, people will probably gloss over it.
But the point is, the guy's a serial fabricator.
He just is.
With this nonsense.
It's pathetic.
I mean, I finished at the top of my class.
Actually, Joe, you were at the bottom of the class.
How did you mess that one up?
By the way, I can't stand when people talk about my education.
I brought it up on my personal educational CV on the show maybe four or five times in close to a thousand episodes.
And it was only in reference to topicality.
Because I can't stand when people do that.
Smart people don't have to tell other smart people they're smart.
Remember G.I.
Jane?
People who don't want to make statements don't make statements about not making statements.
Just let it go.
Just let it go, Joe.
Okay.
Moving on.
This is the big one.
Now, I covered this in depth on my Biden special two weeks ago, three weeks ago or so, which you can go back to.
The Biden name is in the title of the show.
I'll try to get the episode.
Paul is pretty good with that.
Maybe we'll throw it up on the screen where I covered in depth this scandal.
But I want to hit it quickly before we move on, because they're going to be in a world of trouble here.
Joe Biden and his son Hunter are neck deep in a corruption scandal in Ukraine that I promise you is not going to go away.
Here's the down and dirty in the lead.
Joe Biden's son, Hunter, was hired to work for a natural gas company in Ukraine called Burisma right after a very significant event.
Related to Ukraine in Joe Biden's vice presidency.
Put up on the screen a headline from the Washington Post.
I want to show you, and this will pretty much explain it.
Washington Post article by Scott Wilson.
Dated.
Pay attention to the date.
This is very important.
April 21st, 2014.
Here's the headline.
Biden arrives in Ukraine to show U.S.
support as crisis with Russia continues.
Remember the date.
April 21st, 2014.
Now, flip to the New York Times article about Joe Biden's son, Hunter, and his suspicious appointment, he has no natural gas experience at all, to a natural gas company in Ukraine that had some dealings in the country, and Hunter Biden was making a lot of money.
This is from the New York Times.
Headline, Joe Biden, his son, and the case against a Ukrainian oligarch.
Remember the dates here.
Hunter Biden, 45, a former Washington lobbyist, joined the Burisma board, that's the Ukrainian gas company, in April 2014!
That month as part of an investigation into money laundering, British officials froze London bank accounts containing 23 million that allegedly belonged to Mr. Zlochevsky, sorry I'm saying his name wrong, who was one of the guys associated with the company.
Joe Biden visits Ukraine April 2014.
Hunter Biden, April 2014, gets a lucrative appointment to a board in Burisma.
Biden travels.
Burisma appointment for Hunter.
Now, you may say, oh, well, Dan, that's just one big coincidence.
And coincidences do happen.
I would agree with you and say that may be a big coinkydink if Ukrainian officials were not currently investigating the transfer of large sums of money To Hunter Biden and companies he controls through Burisma under very suspicious circumstances and if there weren't a credible allegation out there by other Ukrainian lawmakers that the investigation into the transfer of said monies to Joe Biden's kid, if that investigation weren't being suppressed.
Yes, you do.
Yes, we do.
You do.
Oh boy.
Folks, this is going to be the story of the 2020 election.
By the way, I hate to keep plugging it, but I'm putting a lot of work into it and, you know, I'm sorry to bother you with it, but my second book, Exonerated, the failed takedown of President Donald Trump by the swamp.
It's out for pre-order now on Amazon.
It hammers this topic.
My second book is going to become a big talking point for Joe Biden, for the people in line against Joe Biden, because it hammers them on this.
I've got some killer information in there.
In other words, folks, there's an investigation into the transfer of money and this appointment, this suspicious appointment onto the Burisma board of Hunter Biden's kid.
There's credible allegations out there in the media by sources of mine and others That there were pressure by U.S.
officials to make this investigation go away into Hunter Biden, Joe Biden's kid.
This is going to be a huge deal.
This Ukrainian thing, I promise you, is not going to go away.
Okay, I got one more, I'm gonna come back and get to it.
There is some upside for Biden, which I'll get to, and I only do it not to give them hints, but so you understand how, yes, he's very weak, I understand he's weak, but we have to address some of his strengths as well, or else we're not gonna understand how to mitigate them.
That's important, that's an important component of this show we do.
All right.
Today's show, I'm excited to welcome a new sponsor.
Check it out.
You may have noticed I got my solid Vincero watch on.
A quality wristwatch, right?
Yeah.
It's one of those small things that every guy needs.
When you've got a nice watch on, it changes the way you carry yourself and therefore the way people look at you.
We all know that.
My show is now partnering with Vincero.
Me too, because I love their watches.
So you can get a watch that makes you stand taller and feel more confident than you ever have.
Exclusively for our listeners, Vincero is offering an extra 15% off their already affordable watches.
These watches are beautiful.
They are eye catchers.
You go out with this watch on, people are going to ask you where you got it.
I promise you.
Go to vincerowatches.com.
That's spelled V-I-N-C-E-R-O.
Forward slash Bongino and use code Bongino to save an extra 15%.
That's vincerowatches.com forward slash Bongino.
Use code Bongino for 15% off.
This is our first time working with Vincero and the guys were nice enough to send me two of their watches.
Here's one of them.
You can check it out.
Oh, who's creeping up on the screen?
Who's that?
Now, this is my lovely wife, Paula, if you're watching on the YouTube channel, youtube.com slash Bongino.
She got one, too.
It's the Chrono S Rose Gold.
She loves it.
I don't know what's nice, or the watch, or that face.
Look at that face.
I ain't saying anything.
Am I supposed to say that?
Nothing.
You know what, Paula?
Being that Paula works for Bongino Week, are you going to go to HR and file a complaint?
Are you going to do that?
No complaints, right?
Thank you!
I have the Bellwether silver white non-stop, too.
They're amazing.
I love them.
I've gotten complimented every time.
I've seen people see me on the YouTube channel sometimes and, you know, they're like, hey, look at that.
Vincero claims to be the best value in their industry, and I agree with them.
You're not going to find a better made watch for this solid of a price anywhere.
If you don't believe me, just head to Vincero's website, read one of their over 15,000 Five star reviews they received.
True story, by the way, I have a family member who works in the jewelry and watch business, loves these watches.
They're super sharp.
As I said, I'm wearing, my wife is wearing the Chrono S Rose Gold and the Bellwether Silver White.
That's actually inside, but Vincero has dozens of styles to choose from.
Even if you claim not to be a watch guy, Vincero has a style for you.
Go to Vincerowatches.com forward slash Bongino.
This deal is too good to pass up.
Vincerowatches.com forward slash Bongino.
Use promo code Bongino for 15% off.
These are really sweet watches.
Check them out.
Okay.
On the strength side, so we know how to mitigate this, of the Biden run.
Again, I mentioned on an appearance on Fox and Friends this morning.
This is a primary for the Democrats, folks.
And in a primary, name ID is Not everything, but it's a lot.
Big.
Joe Biden has a name ID.
Now, think about it.
Some of you, this may sound kind of almost tautological for some, but those of you who haven't run or been in a campaign, It may not be.
When you go to vote in a primary, it's different from a general because there's no party line distinction.
So when you go in a general, you can cheat.
When you go down- forget the presidency, because everybody knows the presidential candidates.
When you go down ballot to state delegate races and things like that, let's be honest, a lot of us are working, we're really busy, you don't have the time to research every candidate.
Right.
But you know what, Joe?
You get to cheat a little bit.
You know there's a Republican and a Democrat or a Libertarian and an Independent and you say, well, I'm a Republican.
That's my guy or that's my woman on the ballot.
You vote for him, right?
Even if you've never heard of the name.
Come on, we've all done it at some point.
It's happened.
When I was younger, I'd voted straight line Republican.
You don't get to do that in a primary.
When you go to show up, there's no cheat sheet.
It's a name and where they're from.
Sometimes not even that.
Well, I mean, where they're from.
But Joe, it'll say Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, Bernie Sanders.
And Joe, what do a lot of people do?
They go with the name they recognize.
Of course, yeah.
So Joe Biden's strengths and why I think he may, at a minimum, I'm not sure he's going to win the nomination, but ride this thing out to the end, is his name ID.
Now, secondly, many of these ballots Our alphabetical.
It was an advantage I had in my first primary.
Ah, yes.
My name starts with a B.
Now, I wasn't on top on my first ballot, but I was the second name from the top, and coincidentally, the guy on top in that race, where I was, I mean, folks, nobody knew who I was in that first, I won that primary with a plurality of the vote, but nobody knew who I was.
The guy on top, absolutely nobody knew who this guy was.
I think he jumped in 10 minutes before they printed the ballot.
His name was What was it?
Was it Joseph Alexander?
I think I'd have to look at the... I think I'm pretty sure it was Joseph Alexander.
We still don't know.
This is the most... Yeah, I still don't know.
This is the most famous this guy's ever gonna be.
He jumps in at the last minute.
He leapfrogs me in the ballot.
Ladies and gentlemen, I think he got 9% of the vote.
I'm telling you, because I remember the race well, he jumped in at the last minute.
I don't think the guy did one campaign event.
That 9% of the vote, Joe, was what?
Was people walking in and checking off the first name they saw.
Now, Biden's going to have the advantage of being on top of the ballot, and he's going to be the guy people recognize most.
This is going to be a big deal.
So Biden has a lot, now I bring this up because a lot of these primaries also are plurality wins.
You have pluralities and majorities.
In other words, many of these primaries, you don't need to get 51% of the vote.
You just need to get one more vote than the last guy.
Remember the old joke?
You're with your friend, you're being chased by a bear.
Do you have to outrun the bear?
No, no, I just have to outrun you.
That's right!
Because the bear will get you first.
It'll eat you and I'm gone.
That's the Biden thing.
Biden doesn't have to outrun the bear.
He just has to outrun Bernie.
Now.
In a plurality race, like I said, my first Senate race, I won with only 33% of the vote, the primary, which was a big surprise to everybody.
Sometimes me included.
Right?
Because we had no money.
Biden could win some of these primaries in a 19, 20, maybe 22 to 23 person field.
Who knows who else is going to jump in.
He could win, Joe, with potentially 20% of the vote.
That's it.
Yeah.
Because, now, as someone said, I think it was Ed Henry said to me on Fox & Friends this morning, it's a good question, he said, well, you know, the plurality thing will work for Bernie and him too, and Ed is right, it will.
But the problem is, Joe Biden right now, if he runs as a fake centrist, which I think he will, he's not a centrist, he's gonna run, he's gonna be a leftist, but he's gonna run as Lunchbucket Joe, he's gonna try to take the centrist lane, Joe.
You understand where I'm going with this?
Oh yeah, absolutely.
If he runs as a moderate, He has the moderate lane right now.
It's fake moderate, just to be clear, but he has the moderate lane to himself because there's really no one else who's getting any traction who's in that lane.
I mean, who else do you have?
John Delaney, who I ran against.
I like John.
I ran against him.
He's a Democrat.
He's actually a very nice guy.
He's trying to claim the moderate lane now, but if you're hearing his name for the first time on the show, I just made my point.
Joe Biden right now, unless Delaney gets some traction, effectively has the moderate lane exclusively to himself.
So if Biden takes the moderate lane with 20-25% of the vote, and the rest of the 75% is split up, 19% Bernie, 18% Buttigieg, 17% Kamala Harris, 10% Elizabeth Warren, 9% Patau.
You know, I can't even remember half the other people run.
Julian Castro, 2%.
I mean, it's all good.
Joe Biden can win this thing with 20-30% of the vote.
I mean, in my race, I won with 33% of vote, and there were 10 candidates.
There's going to be upwards of 19.
So we have to be cautious of this.
And why do we have to be cautious of this?
Because you might say, Dan, why are we worried about this?
You're talking about the primary.
Because of a very key voting change.
I think this is the most thorough analysis.
I'm sorry, I don't mean to be, uh, sound, uh, pretentious here in any way, like celebrate myself celebratory, but this is a pretty thorough analysis.
I think having run before I can give you kind of the inner workings of how this stuff works.
There's a lot of nuances that you wouldn't normally hear about, Dan.
Yeah.
So that's good.
Yes.
If Joe Biden can skip through a significant number of states with 25% of the votes that have proportionality, he'll get enough delegates that he will not be at the convention on the first ballot the choice.
There will be a brokered convention somehow.
There will have to be multiple votes.
On the second ballot, on the second ballot, the Democrat superdelegates jump back in.
I only bring this up because the superdelegates are always, always establishment guys.
Ladies, gentlemen, do you think the superdelegates who are unquestionably democrat establishmentarians, they're not the radicals, they're the establishment people, do you think they're going to go with Bernie or Biden?
They're going to go with Biden, of course!
So keep this in mind, name ID, plurality primaries, and the potential for a one, two, or three ballot convention, Biden has the advantage in every one of those things.
He's very dangerous when it comes to getting a nomination.
That's why we have to keep talking about this guy's litany of scandals.
This is serious stuff.
You know, the law school stuff, not so much.
The plagiarism stuff, eh, it's pretty ugly.
But the Ukraine stuff and his son are absolutely devastating.
Um, okay.
I got some good stuff.
Don't go anywhere.
Um, I've got an interesting point.
You know, uh, let me, let me just tease this for a second.
Remember a week ago, Joe, we did the show on John Brennan and Clapper and how I said how John Brennan was lying.
John Brennan has said repeatedly on television, up on Capitol Hill.
Yeah, I remember.
Brennan, the former CIA director under Obama, that he did not see the dossier until December of 2016.
Yeah.
Which I've argued repeatedly is not possible because Brennan briefed Harry Reid and the Gang of Eight in August of 2016.
Remember, he says he hasn't seen the dossier till December.
And components of that briefing were clearly about information in the dossier because Harry Reid wrote a letter after that briefing to the FBI that contained elements of the dossier.
Right after the Brennan meet.
So I said to you, Brennan has to be lying.
Thanks to 27-9, my buddy there, he brings up a good point.
Maybe John Brennan wasn't lying, Joe.
Oh, don't you go anywhere.
All right.
Let's read.
There's another great company.
Slept with them last night.
Slept with them last night.
Your wife is sitting right there.
No, no.
It's calm and comfort blankets.
Come on.
Get your heads out of the gutter here.
Every night I try to fall asleep, but there are always days when anxiety and stress keep me awake.
Politics stuff is rough sometimes.
No matter what I take or do, it doesn't help.
Finally, I tried this blanket calm and comfort by Sharper Image.
The luxurious weighted blanket that helps you relax.
You can fall asleep and stay asleep.
No need to suffer through more sleepless nights.
Try Calm and Comfort by Sharper Image.
The luxurious weighted blanket helps you relax so you can fall asleep and stay asleep naturally.
Now, calm and comfort.
This is not only for people in cold environments.
This is comfortable during the summer months, during the winter months.
It's light, it's airy, but the weight on it keeps you, it feels like you're being embraced at night.
And there's that natural, listen, infants, they're swaddled, right?
You never lose that though.
This thing will naturally calm you.
I have a hard time going to sleep without it.
The only problem I'm having now is they don't have them in hotels.
So when I go to hotels and I go back to a normal blanket, I'm not kidding, it's tough for me to fall asleep.
Calming Comfort is designed with high density comfort fill to provide exactly the right amount of weight to help your body relax.
It mimics the soothing feeling being hugged for less stress and a restful night's sleep.
It's made with super soft velveteen material designed to promote a sense of calmness and relaxation for a more restful sleep.
Wake up feeling refreshed for once.
When under the blanket, you experience the great feeling of being Hugged, which is as soothing for adults as it is for children.
Calm and comfort, 100% machine washable and dryer safe.
Get better sleep, all right?
Folks, listen, I really love this product.
It's really good.
The Calm and Comfort Weighted Blanket comes with a 90-day anxiety-free, stress-free, best night's sleep guarantee.
You won't need it though, but you're not going to return it.
You're going to love it.
You're going to want one on the road too.
Right now, just for our listeners, you can go to calmingcomfortblanket.com.
Use promo code Dan at checkout to receive 15% off the display price.
Again, that's calmingcomfortblanket.com.
Promo code Dan.
And because you can't put a price on a great night's sleep, go online now at calmingcomfortblanket.com and use promo code Dan for your special discount today.
Check it out.
You'll love it.
All right.
So going back to this, I got to lay this out a little bit.
So just to be clear, what we're talking about, get the lead out.
Was Brennan really lying when he said he hadn't seen the dossier until December, or is Brennan playing a little word game?
Keep that in mind, because now I'm going to lay out in a little more detail what I'm talking about.
I think I heard the word.
I think this is going to blow your mind.
Yeah, I think you did too.
All right, the leftist talking point now.
on this because now that we know collusion is dead we know that it was a hoax.
The Mueller report's conclusive on it.
We've known that from the start.
We didn't need the Mueller report.
But now the tides have turned and I like it.
I forget it was Rudy Giuliani who called crossfire hurricane the investigation of the Trump crossfire boomerang because now it's coming back and now we're starting to look at Joe Biden, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and others and their involvement in the biggest political spying scandal of our generation.
So The spying is very serious, ladies and gentlemen.
I can't believe we're having this conversation on my show where we have to readdress this.
But the left is treating the fact that a political administration, the Barack Obama administration, engaged their political opponents with human spies and weaponized intelligence operations.
They're treating it like it's no big deal.
And they're saying, well, you know, they may have spied, but there was a reason to do so.
We thought the Russians were interfering in our election.
So number one, I have it lined out, point one through five.
The Democrats are arguing this, point one, that there was a predicate for this, okay?
Pretty soon, so you're ready for this, the liberals are going to give up denying that the Obama team and the Biden team spied.
Trust me, they're going to let this, because there's no, it's a nonsense argument.
They're going to give it up and their transition, I have not been wrong on any of these predictions, their next talking point, Joe, is going to be, yeah, but it was for a reason.
There was a predicate.
Some of them are doing it now.
You can't deny anymore the spy.
So you see my point here?
They're not going to deny it.
They're just going to say it was adequately predicated.
In other words, there was a reason to spy.
Here's your response.
And it'll feed into this Brennan dossier stuff.
Ladies and gentlemen, the FISA courts they use to spy have to show two things.
Evidence of a crime first.
You're not just allowed to walk into the FISA court, the surveillance courts, these secret courts we use to prosecute terrorists, and just make stuff up.
You have to show two things.
That the target you're looking to surveil is acting on behalf of a foreign government, is a foreign agent.
But, you have to show that they're doing it in violation of U.S.
law.
Ladies and gentlemen, acting on behalf of a foreign agent is not even remotely illegal.
There are lobbyists in this country who file under FARA, the Foreign Agent Registration Act, who lobby the U.S.
government all the time.
It's not illegal.
Foreign affairs are a big deal.
Foreign governments pay people to lobby on their behalf.
However unsavory you may think that is, it is not even remotely illegal.
So prong one by itself, they met with Russians, talk with Russians, is irrelevant.
It means nothing.
Everyone on Capitol Hill, every single senator or congressman has met with some foreign official at some point.
Advocating on behalf of a foreign policy that benefits that government because you think it may benefit the United States too, Joe, is not illegal.
Prong two, though, is critical.
Doing so in violation of U.S.
law, in other words, taking a bribe from a foreign official, is illegal.
You have to meet both prongs, not just one.
Acting on behalf of a foreign government, and doing so in violation of U.S.
law.
So follow me here.
The Democrats are arguing, yes, we spied, or are going to, but don't worry, it was predicated.
We had the information to do it.
Your response should be, okay, well where is the charge that there is a foreign actor Acting on behalf of a foreign government in violation of U.S.
law.
That's the predicate, right Joe?
Because you need that to go to the FISA Court.
It's not optional.
You need to meet the two prongs.
So your question to them should be, well who was the foreign actor acting in violation of U.S.
law that was the predication you're referring to?
The necessary pre-step before you get to the, pun intended, before you get to the step of actually spying.
Good one.
This is where they're going, uh, uh, I don't know.
They have no answer because the only allegation of criminality, remember foreign actor in violation of U.S.
law, the only credible allegation we have in violation of U.S.
law that meets that standard right now, Joe, is Carter Page.
And the allegation that Carter Page took a bribe from Rosneft, a Russian oil company, to influence our sanctions policy towards Russia.
Magnitsky and others.
Please fudge.
Is this confusing?
No, we're good so far.
Okay.
So Democrats are going to argue they needed a predicate.
Secondly, they don't have a predicate because the only predicate information about criminality appears in the dossier.
Now, this is important.
So point number three was the only allegation of criminality in the dossier.
Point number four, they're going to come back and say, well, the dossier, fair enough.
That was information produced by Christopher Steele.
And Christopher Steele was a reliable source and he just got it wrong.
No, no, no, no, no.
Ladies and gentlemen, the information was not produced by Christopher Steele.
The information was produced by subsources who were Russian, who fed the information to Christopher Steele.
So point number five, and the takeaway here, before I tie this back to Brennan and the major bombshell me and 279 talked about yesterday.
He's not like a member of the Borg, by the way.
I just don't want to give you his name or anything.
Obviously.
Christopher Steele was not the source.
So the Democrats' argument that, okay, it was in the dossier, but it came from a reliable source.
Nah, uh-uh.
Time out.
It came from sub-sources who were Russian.
As Andy McCarthy in National Review has pointed out numerous times, one of the best lawyers I know, worked for the Justice Department.
Ladies and gentlemen, there is no such thing as vicarious credibility.
Because Christopher Steele had worked with the FBI before, and he had on the soccer corruption case, gives him credibility.
Not the subsource who fed him the information.
That's called information laundering.
Think about why this is.
This is common sense.
You don't have to be some kind of genius here.
Dano from Hawaii Five-O to figure this out.
Book him, Dano.
If I have a reliable source, and I'm a cop who's fed me information on local drug dealers, he's got a history of credibility, so I can use him in the courts.
And then I get an unquestionable source.
I mean, excuse me, a questionable source, but I really want to target someone anyway.
I could just tell this questionable source who I think is lying.
Hey, just give the information to the other guy.
And I'll say, I got it from the other guy.
Of course, that's not going to work.
There's no such thing as vicarious credibility.
Does that make sense?
There's no credibility by proxy.
The information either came from Steele or it didn't.
And it didn't.
So every argument they have that spying happened, but it was predicated, but it was predicated on alleged criminality of dossier.
Okay, the dossier was bad, but it was from a reliable source.
It was not from a reliable source.
It was from Russians.
But wait, but wait a second.
I thought it wasn't, I thought that getting information from Russians was a bad thing.
Wait, where are we told that?
Joe, haven't we been told for two years now that any attempt to influence an election by Russian actors is not only a bad thing, it's impeachable, it's criminal, everyone should go to jail, we need a special counsel?
Yeah, that is correct, Daniel.
Have you read the FISA documents?
One of the most amazing ironies of this whole process Is the fact that the FISA documents themselves lay out the fact that the FBI was getting information from Steele.
He was getting from the Russians.
Ladies and gentlemen, process what I'm telling you for a moment, please.
Please!
We have been told for two years that Russian influence in our election is unacceptable.
And I can't believe I haven't gotten this out to you sooner.
But if you read the FISA documents themselves, the FBI was taking information from the Russians!
This can't get any simpler!
This does not require Ombudsman Joe!
The FISA documents themselves indicate the Bureau was taking information from Russians!
How is this not talking point of... Now, we not only... We have two things now.
I didn't forget the Brennan stuff.
I'm gonna wrap that up in a second.
I'm gonna actually show you pieces of the FISA document.
We know Hillary was connected to the Russians that met Don Jr.
at Trump Tower through fusion GPS in one case and through her staff in the other case.
The intelligence guy, the Russian intel guy, connected guy that shows up, admits to knowing people on the Clinton staff.
Those are connections.
Clinton staff doesn't deny it, by the way.
And the Russian lawyer that shows up is working for the company hired by Hillary Clinton to gin up information on Trump.
So we know Hillary has Russian connections herself.
But the FBI themselves was taking information from Russians.
It's in the FISA!
Here's point number two.
Turning all the way back to Brennan now.
So Brennan's indicated he hasn't seen the dossier.
And if you notice, they always seem to dance around the word dossier and the word games now make all the sense in the world.
And I hammered this in my second book.
Put up on the screen this snippet from the FISA.
Hat tip to my buddy out there.
Read this and read this carefully.
This is a footnote in the FISA.
Source 1 redacted has been an FBI source since redacted date.
Source 1's reporting, keep in mind, they're talking about steel.
Source 1's reporting has been corroborated and used in criminal proceedings and the FBI assesses Source 1 to be reliable.
Again, they're talking about steel.
Source 1, oh gosh, pay attention to this.
Source One has been compensated by the FBI, and the FBI is unaware of any derogatory information pertaining to Source One.
Now, this is where it gets good.
Source One, who now owns a foreign business intelligence firm, was approached by an identified U.S.
person who indicated to Source One... Next slide, please.
Set the background here.
They're indicating here that they've worked with this guy before, Christopher Steele, and that he's credible.
But he's also working for a U.S.-based law firm, Perkins Coie, I'm gonna fill in the blanks here, that hired the identified U.S.
person to conduct research, we're talking about Simpson, regarding candidate one, Hillary Clinton's ties to Russia.
The identified U.S.
person hired Source One to conduct this research.
The identified person never advised Source One as to the motivation behind the research into Candidate One's ties to Russia.
They're talking about Trump there.
The FBI speculates that the identified U.S.
person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate One's campaign.
Wait.
Goes on.
Listen to this, Source One tasked his subsource, wait I thought Source One was the source, to collect the requisite information.
After Source One received the information from the subsource described herein, Source One provided the information to the identified U.S.
person who had hired Source One and he provided it to the FBI.
Oh, man, is this damaging.
Now, you're probably listening or watching along thinking, um, I don't get it.
Oh, did I get it ever yesterday?
Notice how that footnote, Joe, makes a clear distinction between Christopher Steele and Glenn Simpson's information, which they gave to candidate two, Hillary Clinton.
And they say, AND he was working with the FBI.
Oh, right?
Now are the word games starting to make sense?
The dossier...
They're gonna, this is where they're gonna go with this, mark my words.
The FBI and the CIA are gonna say, we had nothing to do with the dossier, Joe.
That was a political document, handed off to candidate one, no, candidate two, Hillary Clinton's team.
We didn't have anything to do with it.
We got our information from steel, not the dossier.
You may say, but Dan, I don't get it.
It's the same information, which it was.
I see where you're going now.
Carter Page took the, you get it, but it gives you what?
It gives you plausible deniability and it allows you to play word games.
In other words, Brennan may be right, Joe.
I didn't see the dossier until December.
It doesn't matter!
The FBI was working with Steele!
You see where I'm going with this?
In other words, I tried to explain this to a friend of mine I'm working on a book with, right?
I said, it's the equivalent of me taking an index card, Joe Armacost robbed a bank, right?
Handing it off to a political person, telling people from that political person, from that political person that information to call the FBI about the information.
And then the FBI going, we never saw the index card.
It doesn't matter.
You saw what was, you know what was on the index card.
Does that make sense?
Now the Brennan probably wasn't lying.
I didn't see the dossier until December.
But you knew what was in it.
That's the point.
Now it is Devin Nunes and this line he keeps bringing up about how there were no formal intelligence transfers.
This was all informal stuff.
Now it makes sense.
Christopher Steele had been working with the FBI the whole time.
The dossier doesn't matter.
I use the terms the dossier and the steel information interchangeably, but I have to be careful about that in the future because now the word games make sense.
Oh, we didn't use the dossier.
We didn't use it.
It doesn't matter.
You use the spurious charges in it.
Read the footnote.
Defies as clear as day.
Oh, they were working with them on this other stuff.
It's the same stuff.
It's the same stuff.
So there's two takeaways from that FISA footnote.
If you want to check it out on YouTube, you can.
YouTube.com slash Bungie.
I read it for you, so it doesn't really matter.
But there's two takeaways.
Takeaway number one is that they're playing word games.
We didn't see the dossier.
You were working with Steele.
You admitted it in a FISA.
It doesn't matter if you saw the actual piece of paper.
Bingo.
You knew what was on it.
You're just playing word games.
Because Brennan's not stupid.
I wondered this the whole time.
Why does he keep saying this?
I didn't see it till December.
Because he's probably not lying.
He's being malicious, disingenuous, and corrupt, which he is.
But he's playing word games.
And the FBI's about to do it too.
We didn't see the dossier.
That was political stuff.
It's the same stuff.
You admitted you're working with the guy who put his name on the dossier.
But the second takeaway is critical too in there.
It cites a sub-source.
What do you mean a sub-source?
There's no sub-sources.
There's no crying in baseball.
You're either the source and you're credible or you're not.
The FBI lays out their own problem.
We deem this source credible.
He's not the source.
You said it right there.
There's no vicarious credibility.
Which leads us to takeaway number three.
I thought taking Russian information from subsources was bad.
You're admitting to it in your own FISA document.
Folks, this is explosive stuff.
Now, just to hammer this home, Congressman John Ratcliffe from Texas was on with Jason Chaffetz on Monday night, and I got two quick video clips from this of Ratcliffe kind of hinting around some of the problems to come for them on the future on this exact stuff.
Play cut one.
Here's the problem, Jason.
As you know, Trey Gowdy and I, I think, were the only two Republicans that had the opportunity to see that probable cause evidence, to see all of those FISA applications in unredacted form.
And they centered around something called the Steele dossier, which was entirely false and fake.
And now Bob Mueller says it was false and fake.
Because remember, the Steele dossier said that Carter Page was at the center of a well-developed
conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.
Carter Page wasn't charged.
He was never going to be charged.
The idea that he was a Russian agent was a joke.
So the folks at the Justice Department, like Jim Comey and Andy McCabe and the folks at
Sally Yates and others that verified this, they've got some explaining to do.
Oh, do they ever.
Ratcliffe hits two takeaways.
Again, he's using the term, as I have, I'm not knocking him.
I'm going to try to clean it up in my second book.
He's using the terms dossier and steal information interchangeably.
Understand they're not the same thing.
The information's the same, but it's a word game they're going to play.
I think I just set that up.
But notice the point he makes, which goes back to point three I just made.
The only allegation of criminality necessary to spy on the Trump team appears in the Steele information or the dossier, which again, he's using interchangeably.
That's it.
It doesn't appear anywhere else.
And he makes point number two.
The information was never verified.
The Woods procedure.
I've told you this a thousand times.
The Woods procedure mandates it be verified.
Now, In other words, the FBI said this information from Steele, from Russians, really, is all good.
It was not good.
Now, this second video clip is damning, because Ratcliffe, as he just said, has actually seen the FISAs unredacted.
He's seen something on the FISA that is going to be damning.
Play the second cut.
But what about the FISA court itself?
I mean, is the FISA court to blame for this?
I mean, were they just snookered?
No, not necessarily, Jason, because remember what they receive when they're asked to grant a warrant to spy on Carter Page.
The first thing they see in big, bold letters are VERIFIED APPLICATION, all capitals.
So Jim Comey and Sally Yates and everyone else that signed off on those are verifying to the court what's in there and they're verifying that Christopher Steele was a credible source.
They're verifying that the Steele dossier had been corroborated.
None of that was true.
So the folks that signed off on that, the court can only know what they are told and they weren't told that Christopher Steele Yes!
was out to get Donald Trump.
They weren't told that the Steele dossier was paid for by Hillary Clinton.
So the court really was at the mercy of the people who verified this information.
That's what Bill Barr's gonna look at.
That's what he's promised to look at.
That's what we need him to look at to hold folks accountable.
Yes, thank you, Congressman Ratcliffe.
The linchpin to this whole case against them is going to be the Woods procedure.
They stamped in big, bold letters, in all caps according to Radcliffe, on the front of the warrant to spy on the Trump team, VERIFIED APPLICATION.
They didn't verify any of it.
It was fake.
They raised their right hands.
They swore it was all true.
They signed.
They signed off.
It was all fake.
We have been talking about this Woods procedure from the start.
Thank you, Congressman Ratcliffe, for summing it up quickly and eloquently.
It was a verified application that had not been verified.
It was all fake.
I only played that cut because I get a lot of emails from people furious at the FISA court.
Dan, what is the FISA court?
Where are they?
I'm not suggest- They should be acting quick.
I think they're waiting for the IG report to come out.
But I'm not sure- I'm- I'm- Matter of fact, I'm reasonably confident the FISA court was not in on this at all.
The Pfizer court saw a big thick application of information that seemed devastating.
Carter Page took a bribe and on the front it said verified.
The judge is not an investigator.
Right.
He's a judge or she.
Right.
Assuming the investigators aren't lying when they said they verified it.
But they were.
Oh, this is going to get really, really good.
All right, folks, thanks again for tuning in.
It was a really stacked show today.
Motor threw it pretty fast, but I think we got a lot of information out there.
And I think that's a pretty big picture of the problem with the Steele dossier and the Steele information distinction.
And secondly, the ups and downs of this Biden presidency.
So I think we're prepared going forward.
Thanks again for tuning in.
Please check us out, youtube.com slash Bongino, excuse me, and also check us out on iHeartRadio and a podcast.
