In this episode I address the FBI Director selling us out yesterday at a critical time. I also discuss an explosive new piece by an FBI whistleblower which should have James Comey very worried. Finally, I address The NY Times latest attack on President Trump and I debunk more liberal lies about the economy. News Picks:Pathetic: The FBI Director says “spying” is not the term he’d use.
Bernie Sanders’ campaign is struggling in national polls.
FBI whistleblower says Jim Comey may be in big trouble.
Here’s troubling new evidence that the State Department and the FBI knew about the political origins of the dossier.
This John Solomon piece from last year regarding “scrubbing the lists” sheds some light on CIA involvement in Spygate.
The NY Times attacks President Trump again by releasing his personal financial information.
Liberals were wrong about the Trump tax cuts, again.
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?
It's wonderful Wednesday.
Yes, it is.
Yes, we had a great suggestion from a viewer yesterday, wants a montage of famous Joe Armacost openings to the show.
We will work on that right around holiday time.
It will be a gift to you.
All right, listen, I've got a really stacked show today.
Joe knows it.
It's going to be a one of our, if I nail this today, folks, this is going to be one of our finest pieces of work yet, because the show yesterday about how the Bureau and the CIA got, they, This is going to blow your mind.
So don't go anywhere.
Also, the FBI director sold this out yesterday, big time, up on Capitol Hill.
And I want to get to that, too.
All right, let's get right to it.
Today's show brought to you by our friends at Calm and Comfort.
I love this blanket.
Listen, I have a real hard time going to sleep.
Really hard time.
I'm, you know, at night I'm always thinking about what the show's gonna consist of the next day, the news of the day, and I've always had a tough time going to sleep.
I absolutely refuse to use prescription pills.
I won't.
I mean, I've had to take them in emergencies at times, but I refuse to use them.
You know, you need to have some, like, assistance here.
So I found the key.
The key is calming comfort.
This calming comfort blanket is absolutely terrific.
Calming comfort, it is a weighted blanket.
It's designed with high density comfort fill to provide exactly the right amount of weight to help relax your body.
It mimics the soothing feeling of being hugged for less stress and a restful night's sleep.
Folks, I can't attest to this thing enough.
The only problem is it's hard to sleep without it when you start using it.
Made with super soft velveteen material and designed to promote a sense of calmness and relaxation for a more restful sleep.
I'm gonna have to start bringing this to my hotel rooms.
Wake up feeling refreshed when under the blanket you experience that feeling.
That soothing feeling.
It's as soothing as for adults as it is for children.
That feeling of being like hugged, you know?
Like kids, they like that feeling.
Well, you don't lose that as an adult.
Take relaxation to the next level.
Sleep better, feel great, stress less.
Check it out.
It is worth it.
Choose a weight.
Recommended to be about 7-12% of your body weight.
They have different weights.
Help reduce stress, help reduce anxiety, get a good night's sleep.
Folks, it's super important.
You got to make this thing part of your sleep routine.
You will love it.
The Calm and Comfort Weighted Blanket comes with a 90-day anxiety-free, stress-free, best night's sleep of your life guarantee from Sharper Image.
Right now, just for our listeners, you can go to calmandcomfortblanket.com, use promo code DAN at checkout to receive 15% off the displayed price.
But receive a better night's sleep.
That's important.
Again, that's calmandcomfortblanket.com.
Promo code DAN.
And because you can't put a price on a great night's sleep, go online now at calmandcomfortblanket.com.
Calmandcomfortblanket.com.
That's calmandcomfortblanket.com.
Use promo code DAN for your special discount today.
Don't miss out.
All right, let's get right into this.
Need the bell.
So Christopher Wray was up on Capitol Hill yesterday, the FBI director, and completely sold this out.
I don't know what's up with this guy.
I apologize to all of you for giving this guy the benefit of the doubt, but he's up on Capitol Hill and he's answering a question from Senator Shaheen, a Democrat, and don't forget the name or the face if you're watching on YouTube, Senator Shaheen.
Why it's important that he answers this question the way he does, Christopher Wray, to give the deep state folks some comfort.
But it's also important that he's answering it to Senator Shaheen, which I'll explain at the end.
Senator Shaheen is asking him about the intelligence agencies, the FBI, potentially spying on the Trump campaign.
Here's his first answer.
I'd like to follow up on Senator Moran's question about the hearing we had with Attorney General Barr, because I was very concerned by his use of the word spying, which I think is a very loaded word.
It conjures a criminal connotation.
And I want to ask you, and I'd appreciate a yes or no answer if possible.
When FBI agents conduct investigations against alleged mobsters, suspected terrorists, other criminals, do you believe that they're engaging in spying when they're following FBI investigative policies and procedures?
Well, that's not the term I would use.
Thank you.
So I would say that's a no to that question.
Well, I mean, look, there are lots of people who have different colloquial phrases.
I believe that the FBI is engaged in investigative activity, and part of investigative activity includes surveillance activity of different shapes and sizes.
And to me, the key question is making sure that it's done by the book, consistent with our lawful authorities.
That's the key question.
Different people use different colloquial phrases.
Okay.
Ray totally sold this out yesterday.
Christopher Wray needed, the FBI needed an out.
The bureaucrats and the politicians up on DC needed a soundbite.
And Christopher Wray gave them exactly what they needed yesterday.
Well, that's not the phrase I would use.
That's the phrase that's been used forever.
It's a common term in the English language.
Make no mistake, Senator Shaheen, and I'll get to this in a second, why specifically she needed that answer that way.
Senator Shaheen needed a soundbite for the media, which of course, the police state tyrannical liberal buffoons in the media jumped on.
Oh, he doesn't agree with spying the FBI director.
Now, I've had a few people, friends of mine, I like, I communicated with, some of you know, good folks.
But they said to me yesterday and Twitter DMs and elsewhere, people we communicate with each other, a lot of people investigating the Spygate case, they said, Dan, it's really not that bad.
Ray's simply suggesting that he'd use a different term and that he's saying really exactly what Barr said, that as long as the spying or surveillance or whatever you want to call it is predicated, it's fine.
But we're looking into that.
I don't buy that at all.
Christopher Wray's not stupid.
He understands exactly what happened.
He knows the Trump team was spied on, and instead of backing up Bill Barr, the Attorney General, what does he do?
He takes the euphemism game and the, oh, we'll talk about surveillance.
That's a synonym for spying.
Give us all a break.
Shaheen doubles down.
This is where it gets even worse.
Instead of answering the question honestly and saying, listen, I'm not going to answer that because there's an ongoing investigation, he gives Democrats like Shaheen soundbite number two with this ridiculous exchange.
Do you have any evidence that any illegal surveillance into the campaigns or individuals associated with the campaigns by the FBI occurred?
I don't think I personally have any evidence of that sort.
Now, instead of answering the question honestly and saying there's an ongoing Inspector General investigation, I'm not going to get into that right now, he gives the Democrats exactly what they want.
Ladies and gentlemen, I apologize to you, and I mean this, for giving this guy the benefit of the doubt.
The Democrats needed a soundbite for the media.
Everything is staged in advance.
Ray had to know he was going to get this question.
The FBI director.
What does he do?
I personally don't have any evidence.
Just say there's an ongoing investigation and you don't know.
He didn't.
So what does, Joe, what does the police state media do?
The police state hacks in the media.
There's no evidence of spying.
That's not what Ray said.
That's not what he said.
He said he personally doesn't have evidence.
Yeah, caught that.
And goes on later, oh, there's an ongoing investigation.
Just say there's an ongoing investigation and don't answer the question.
I personally don't have any evidence there's a bank being robbed in Oregon right now, but I'm not in Oregon investigating bank robberies.
Gosh, these deeps, I can't stand it.
That deep stay, it's all a conspiracy.
These guys, this guy's the FBI director.
Are you even interested in getting to the bottom of this?
Now, to wrap this segment up, because I got a ton of stuff to get to, please don't go anywhere.
I'm going to blow your mind today if I do this right, okay?
We need like six or seven producers on this show to tie everything together.
Why was it important yesterday?
Sorry, Joe.
That may have been perceived as a nod.
I don't mind.
The audience loves you.
I was not knocking.
I'm just saying today's show is so complicated that Joe and Paula could use some assistance.
My apologies.
I just want to clear that.
I'll get 20 emails.
Here is the video audio piece number three.
This is very important.
Why did Senator Shaheen, Democrat Senator, need to ask that question to Wray, and why did she need Wray to give her an out and say, well I wouldn't use the term spying and I personally don't have any evidence, because Shaheen screwed up, and when I say screwed up, I mean, for her Democrat activist base, when she got into this back and forth with Bill Barr, the Attorney General, a few weeks ago, and she needed a lifeline, and Christopher Wray gave it to her because she did this.
Can you share with us why you feel a need to do that?
Well, for the same reason we're worried about foreign influence in elections, we want to make sure that during an election... I think spying on a political campaign is a big deal.
It's a big deal.
The generation I grew up in, which was the Vietnam War period, people were all concerned about spying on anti-war people and so forth by the government.
And there were a lot of rules put in place to make sure that there's an adequate basis before our law enforcement agencies get involved in political surveillance.
I'm not suggesting that those rules were violated, but I think it's important to look at that.
And I'm not talking about the FBI necessarily, but intelligence agencies more broadly.
So you're not suggesting, though, that spying occurred?
I don't, well, I guess you could, I think there was a spying did occur.
Yes, I think spying did occur.
Homer Simpson moment two weeks ago.
Nelson Monson, eh heh!
Senator Jeanne Sahin aggravated the mmm out of the Democrat-Liberal-Radical-Police-State base by asking Barr a question he answered honestly that turned into a huge misstep.
She's asking him why he's investigating this whole, you know, spying into the Trump team thing.
And he says the word spying, and she goes, well, you're not suggesting spying occurred.
He immediately responds, yo, spying occurred.
We're just looking at why.
She needed to be rescued.
I hope I'm tying this up right.
Yeah, you are.
You're good.
Her Democrat radical base, Joe, was probably emailing her like, what are you, an idiot?
Why would you ask the attorney general about spying, not knowing, of course he's going to say there was spying.
So she needed to be rescued.
Please understand what goes on behind the scenes at these things.
None of this stuff is random.
She screwed up by asking a follow-up question.
Her first question was planned.
I didn't play the whole thing because it's too long.
She's asking him, why are you looking into this whole Pfizer thing?
Which is fine, because she wants to attack him.
And instead of just letting it go, she asks for a second, an unscripted follow-up question, thinking he's going to say, no, no, there was no spying.
But he answers honestly, and it becomes an enormous soundbite.
The liberal activist police state tyrant base and their media sycophant buddies.
Their bootlicking media pals were furious at her because they gave Barr an opening to say, Joe, yeah, spying occurred.
You notice, by the way, she has the same jacket on in both.
Those clips are like a couple of weeks apart.
She has the same red jacket.
It's a power jacket.
It's a power jab, right?
It's a power jab, exactly.
That's good, that's good.
She goes to, and she needed to be rescued by Wray, and instead of Wray doing the honest thing and saying, listen, I mean, it's obvious based on media reports spying occurred.
Me as the FBI director, I'm trying to get to the bottom of why to establish faith in our agency again.
That's not what he says.
He gives her an ounce and says, that's not the term I'd use, and I don't personally have any evidence.
Just gross.
Just gross.
I have no faith in this guy at all and you shouldn't either.
Embarrassed himself yesterday playing the political hack instead of an honest broker.
And he thinks he's doing the country a big favor trying to salvage the reputation of the FBI.
You're not doing anybody any favors, pal.
Anybody.
Faith in the FBI has been decimated.
And it's comments like that yesterday, the euphemisms game, which only adds to the complete lack of faith in the law enforcement infrastructure in this country.
Alright, I gotta move on.
I got a couple other stories here today.
I'd be remiss if I didn't mention the release last night by the New York Slimes, this slimy rag releasing Trump's tax returns.
Totally illegal, by the way, his tax returns being leaked.
Not to publish them.
The media basically gets to do whatever the heck they want, sadly.
But broke yesterday in New York Times.
Trump's tax returns from a certain set of years were released.
And I just, you know, find it funny that media lunatics who can't even do journalism right, these hacks who missed the story of the century, that collusion was dead and spying was real, who insisted collusion was real and spying was dead, they got the story backwards the whole time.
They can't even do journalism.
They're like, look, Trump's entities showed paper losses in their tax returns.
Oh, Joe, shocker.
I'm stunned.
Joe, this is astonishing.
During the real estate boom and bust, a real estate developer may have showed some paper losses in his tax returns.
Oh my gosh!
Breaking news!
Another big colossal facepalm by the New York Times.
By the way, reporters and journalists at the New York Times who graduated with journalism degrees, many of them, because they flunked out of biology 101 and couldn't figure out basic chemistry, so took journalism, they can barely write a complete sentence, blew the story of the century, and they're sitting there attacking a businessman who lost money, made money, lost money, made money, like a lot of successful real estate people in a volatile market?
Yeah, that's shocking.
Breaking news.
Lunatics.
I have zero, zero respect for liberal media activists.
Zero.
None.
Not a scintilla.
They are some of the dumbest people on the planet.
I dealt with them when I ran for office.
I'm not going to belabor you with that story again.
How dumb some of these people were when I dealt with them.
They would say things to you, you'd scratch your head and be like, is this guy really this stupid?
And the answer is yes.
And they're all in journalism.
Trump lost money in real estate.
You never made money to lose!
How does that feel?
Thanks, Chewie!
How does that feel, knuckleheads?
Trump showed paper losses of a billion dollars.
You show paper profits of zero dollars!
Because you've never made any money!
You've never made a dollar, you're working for 25 grand a year, pumping, uh, uh, uh, crapping out clickbait articles at BuzzFeed, and you're attacking a guy who's been involved in some of the highest stakes real estate deals of the last 30 years?
Not defending the guy's business decisions, losing money stinks!
But you know, my wife and I have been in business for ourselves for long.
We've made money, we've lost money.
We've opened businesses, we've shut businesses.
That's what happens.
Yep.
Some of the greatest business people of our time have had some of the biggest failures.
Remembered Steve Jobs and the Newton?
What's the Newton?
Exactly!
You don't even remember it, a lot of the younger folks listening.
Remember New Coke?
Coca-Cola, one of the most successful companies in the history of civilized man.
Put out a product called New Coke once.
One of the most calamitous business decisions of all time.
Man, it sucked.
It was awful, wasn't it?
It was awful.
Talk about a PR disaster.
This happens all the time.
But the one thing common about journalists is journalists have never made money to lose because they couldn't hack it anywhere else.
And therefore, they write about other people.
And there are some good ones out there, even in some left-leaning areas, there are some decent people left.
I'm not knocking everyone.
Right.
But them poking fun at business losses and a real estate, a known volatile real estate view, are you serious?
You've never made any money to lose, you lunatics.
All right.
Here's the part of the show where things start to get super hairy.
I can't say this enough.
I can pull this off.
The show's going to blow your mind.
If I can't, you're going to be super confused, but this is going to be good.
All right.
Today's show brought to you by our buddies at U.S.
Law Shield.
Listen, if you are carrying a firearm, you need to look at U.S.
Law Shield.
Go to uslawshield.com.
Get their five defender reports completely free.
Listen, I'm a strong defender of the Second Amendment.
I always have been.
I also carry a firearm.
I am a member of U.S.
Law Shield and I think you should be too.
U.S.
Law Shield is pretty unique because they not only defend gun owners who are forced to use their firearms to protect themselves or their loved ones, they provide educational tools and training to empower you as a law-abiding gun owner.
This is really important.
You never know what can happen out there.
They have a special website for my listeners, uslawshield.com.
You can get their five defender reports with $100 absolutely free.
Coming from a law enforcement background, this information is critical.
Forget the politics for a second.
This is about being a responsible gun owner.
You'll be amazed at the number of legal potholes and scenarios you didn't think of.
Which is why these Defender Reports are so valuable.
God forbid you're involved in a life or death scenario where you have to use your firearm.
You want to be familiar with the information in these reports.
You want to have the backup of U.S.
Law Shield, go to uslawshield.com.
This is a limited time offer.
Get your free reports today.
$100 value at uslawshield.com.
Again, that's uslawshield.com.
Please go check them out.
If you are carrying a firearm, you plan on carrying a firearm, you have a CCW permit, it is definitely worth your time.
uslawshield.com.
Go check it out today.
All right.
Moving on here.
So yesterday, this is where we're going to start digging through this.
I did a show yesterday.
It was very important.
And I've been very careful about how I word it because I'm very sensitive to audience feedback, especially when we say things that I know are true but can be perceived the wrong way.
And the headline at the top of yesterday's show basically was that I believe John Brennan is the ringleader, former CIA director, of a massive spying operation being run against the Obama administration's political opponents that Brennan was running and the whole Russia story about collusion was nothing more than a cover story later for them to legitimize what they were doing to a compliant press.
In other words, the Obama administration was spying using Brennan and intelligence community assets on all kinds of things.
Working with foreign partners, circumventing U.S.
spying laws, In order to make that seem legitimate after the surprise election of Donald Trump.
Remember, they thought Hillary would get elected and all this would go away.
They needed a reason.
Therefore, this whole Russian collusion fiasco was created to make it appear that they were doing something noble.
Does that make sense?
Yeah.
If that doesn't make sense, I can't go any further.
No, you're good.
Okay, it does.
Thank you.
Yeah, easy.
Sometimes I wish we had callers.
I'd be able to get audience feedback.
I agree with you.
But your emails suffice.
The Russiagate story is a cover story to legitimize this spying thing.
So John Solomon breaks the story yesterday, it's important.
It's another critical piece of the puzzle we are finally starting to put together.
So keep in mind what we're talking about.
We're talking about the CIA's involvement here in a big spying operation.
Solomon breaks the story at The Hill yesterday about a State Department official Her last name, Kavalec, that was told in a briefing by Christopher Steele, the guy who produces this Russian collusion information in the form of the dossier and briefings to the FBI and Broussard and elsewhere, that right before, 10 days before the FISA warrant in October, 10 days before the FISA warrant in October on Carter Page, Christopher Steele tells this woman Kavalec at the State Department, and she takes it down in a note, she memorializes it in a note,
That Christopher Steele needs this information to come out before the election, and she figures out as well that Christopher Steele is working for the DNC, a client that had been hacked into, the DNC.
Remember the DNC, you know, hack?
I use the air quotes because we, you know, we can never really conclusively prove that because the DNC never turned over their servers.
Right, right.
Why is this important?
One, because Christopher Steele is the producer of the entire Russia cover story, right?
It's produced by Steele, who's working for Hillary in the DNC.
The FBI has stated in their FISA warrants and elsewhere, they have refused to put in their FISA warrants where they were spying on Carter Page, where Carter Page is the subject of a dossier.
They did not put in there that Christopher Steele was working for Hillary Clinton.
They did not, and Hillary Clinton's team.
They left it out of the FISA warrants, hoodwinking the FISA judge.
Leaving it out.
That's a critical piece of information.
That this information may be political, not intelligence.
Does this make sense so far?
Alright.
A critical takeaway from John Solomon's Hill piece yesterday.
This is worth your time here.
She's talking, Solomon's talking about the memo Kavalec wrote.
He writes, everything else in the memo was redacted.
The FOIA notes contain this explanation for the redactions.
Classified by the FBI on, wait, wait, when?
What?
4-25, April 25th of 2019?
In other words, the FBI, under who?
Director Christopher Wray, who we were just talking about, who sold you out yesterday, classified the documents as secret just a few days ago.
To add insult to injury, the FBI added this hopeful note.
Don't worry Joe, that's not in there, don't worry Joe, but this is the note the FBI has on their, they have this thing redacted, this memo Kavalec wrote about our meeting with Steele.
Don't worry Joe, declassify on 12-31, 2041.
So don't worry, we'll get this info Joe, 25 years after the 2016 election.
Oh great.
Solomon goes on, for the first time we have written proof.
The US government knew well before the FBI secured the Pfizer warrant that Steele had a political
motive and an election day deadline to make his dossier, by the way, and his information,
because they may not be the exact same thing, public. Folks, do you understand now that any
plausible deniability the FBI may have had that their paid source.
They were paying him at the time he's also briefing the State Department.
Why is he briefing the State Department?
These are not law enforcement officials.
Why is he briefing this woman, Kavalech, at the State Department?
And Kavalech, who writes down in a note, she knows he's working for the DNC and Hillary Clinton.
This guy's also being paid by the FBI.
Do you understand how profound this is?
Joe, are you putting this together?
Yeah, man, sure.
That a paid FBI source they're using to spy on a political campaign via Carter Page is also feeding information to the State Department and acknowledging he works for the opposition political campaign?
He's being paid by the FBI at the same time he's briefing this lady!
Why is Christopher Wray declassifying this last week?
Or classifying it, excuse me, redacting it.
Thank you for catching that.
Why is he blacking it out?
I'm humbly, I know people listen to this show.
I am humbly and respectfully, as a supporter of the President of the United States, I mean this.
Do I need to get on a knee to do this?
Do I have to beg?
Please, in the name of all that is sound and safe, and in the name of the Republic, and in the name of all that is good, please declassify this stuff already!
This game has gone on too long already!
The euphemisms game, Christopher, it's not spying!
I don't have a- declassify this already!
Enough!
Enough of this... Gosh, I don't like cuss words, but if there was ever a time, this is it.
Can you bleep this out?
Enough of this bullshit!
I'm sorry for those of you kids listening.
Don't use that word.
But enough of this already!
Please!
Mr. President!
Declassify this!
This blackout game, black this out, what else is in that note?
Well, I can tell you because Solomon speculates later in the piece, which is in the show notes, you gotta read it, that a source told him that in that woman's note from the State Department, she's getting briefed by Steele 10 days before they produce the FISA warrant in October of 2016.
A source tells John Solomon that in the note are indications that Hillary Clinton's team was paying him to do this.
So let's just follow what this is here.
The State Department, not a law enforcement entity at all, for some bizarre reason, is meeting with Christopher Steele, a foreign spy, they know is being paid by Hillary, who is also working for the FBI, to feed information to the FISA court to spy on Donald Trump, and Christopher Steele tells the State Department woman that he really needs this out before the election.
Sounds like collusion to impact an election to me, folks!
Enough of this dance!
Damn it!
Declassify this already!
There are people out there putting their reputations on the hook!
John Solomon, Sarah Carter, Chuck Ross, Molly Hemingway, Margot Cleveland, Byron York, a ton of people, Jeff Carlson, who have been working on this for two years!
Stop leaving us hanging!
Declassify this, enough of this game!
We are entitled to the truth, man!
So keep in mind now.
October 2016.
Cause it's gonna, now I'm gonna tie this into an older bit.
You know what?
If I may give myself a small pat on the back here, if I may.
Self-praise stinks, I get it.
My lovely aunt used to tell me that.
I love Dan Jane.
God rest her soul.
Self-praise stinks, Daniel.
But following everybody's work and having some sources of my own has allowed me to put things together differently.
And I think having a criminal investigative background helps a little bit here.
I want to tie this to an older John Solomon piece from last year.
Before I do that, keep in mind what I'm talking about now.
Wray has sold us out.
He has now declassified, excuse me, classified, redacted, just a week ago, a memo we just discovered, thanks to a FOIA request, the Freedom of Information Act request, this was not given to Nunes or any other investigators, telling us that just a month before the election, One month, a foreign spy working for Mrs. Clinton was briefing the State Department while working for the FBI and demanding that his information get out before the election, even though it was false, to impact our election.
Now, if we may, go to this John Solomon piece in The Hill from last year and a quote from it.
I'm gonna pull it up on my phone here, too, just in case.
John Solomon, from 2018.
Memos detail FBI's, quote, hurry the F up pressure to probe Trump campaign.
Wait, the FBI, when is the FBI worrying about, quote, this is not me using foul language, this is an actual quote from the investigators investigating Trump at a very critical period They're emailing each other about getting this Pfizer warrant that they need to, quote, hurry the F up.
Here's the first piece from this letter.
This is from 2018.
Hat tip, my buddy 279, by the way.
You know who you are.
Nice work on this.
In one email exchange with the subject line Crossfire FISA, Stroke and Lisa Page, these two investigators in the case, discussed talking points to get FBI Deputy Director McCabe to persuade a high-ranking DOJ official to sign off on the warrant.
So Stroke, the FBI agent investigating Donald Trump, in this very critical time period I'll get to in a second, is trying to persuade a skeptical Department of Justice official that this FISA warrant based on Christopher Steele's information is legit.
Here's the quote.
This is an email exchange between Stroke and his FBI lawyer girlfriend who's also working on the case.
At a minimum, that keeps the hurry the eff up pressure on him, talking about this DOJ official who's skeptical about this investigation.
Stroke email page on October 14th, 2016.
Less than four weeks before election day.
Here's the goosebumps again for the second day in a row.
Yeah.
Now does this new John Solomon article about October of 2016 I just went over start to have more color and context?
So Christopher Steele, who is the source of the entire Russian collusion hoax cover story to hide a massive spying operation under the Obama administration.
Christopher Steele is the only source of this.
Russian collusion is a hoax invented in the mind of Christopher Steele and Fusion GPS.
He's their quote machine for the FBI.
They need a quote, they go to him.
Just a few days before this email exchange we just mentioned, hurry the f up, get the DOJ to do this.
Just a few days before that, Steele meets with the State Department, and the State Department takes a memo, never disclosed to anyone, the first time we've seen this is yesterday.
Steele meets with the State Department and the State Department official is dumb enough to write down in a memo that he's probably working for Hillary Clinton and he's definitely working for the DNC and he needs to push this out before election day.
Sounds to me like election interference.
You think it's possible?
Is it just possible that the FBI gets wind that their paid source, Christopher Steele, is now at the State Department for some bizarre reason and is dumb enough to disclose that he wants this out before election day and is working with Hillary Clinton?
You think the FBI is a little concerned that may get back to the DOJ therefore they should hurry the f up?
Armacost, please tell me that made sense to you.
Yeah, yeah, it made sense.
Sadly.
Just three days after Steele is at the State Department giving up the entire bag of cookies to an untrained law enforcement, not law enforcement, the State Department, who is dumb enough to put this down in a memo that could be discovered later, which now Christopher Wray is hiding and redacting from us all.
The Bureau probably knew about this and said, we got a problem.
We told the DOJ, the Department of Justice, this guy steals a reliable source for intel.
Steals going to the State Department.
The State Department figured out that this guy's a political operator working for Hillary.
We better hurry the F up and get this DOJ thing through right away before they figure it out.
Wow.
Oh, the corruption here.
Moving on, the second, this is from Solomon's piece from last year, from 2018.
The second piece from there is another, oh gosh, this is crazy.
The day after Trump's surprising win on November 9, 2016, the FBI counterintelligence team engaged in a new mission bluntly described in another string of emails prompted by another news leak.
Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to switch gears here for a second.
We were just talking about you so we're clear.
We were just talking about Steele briefs the State Department, gives up his whole political motive.
I need to impact the election.
I'm working for Hillary and the DNC.
The State Department hides the memo, doesn't disclose it.
Christopher Wray now redacts it.
I believe Stroke and his team found out about it.
The DOJ, people in the DOJ who had to sign off on this thing, weren't going to sign off because they didn't believe Steele was reliable.
And they had to hurry the F up before they found out Steele released the cookies to the State Department.
Copy that.
Now, in the same piece, we're going to switch gears because I want to go back to Brennan being the puppet master of this whole thing.
The ringleader.
The head of this circus.
Back to that second piece there.
Here, this is, oh, this one is just devastating.
Here's a communication between all of, from Stroke and Page, emailing each other, the day after the election.
We need all, emphasis theirs, of their names to scrub, and we should give them ours for the same purpose, Stroke emailed Page on November 10th, citing a Daily Beast article about Manafort.
Andy, talking about Andy McCabe, didn't get any others, Page wrote back, apparently indicating McCabe didn't have names to add to the quote, scrub.
I'm gonna explain this, don't go anywhere.
That's what Bill said, Stroke wrote back, apparently referring to then-FBI Chief of Counterintelligence William Prystep.
I suggest we need to exchange our entire lists as we each have potential derogatory CI info the other dozen.
CI is short for confidential informants.
The day after Trump surprises the world and wins this election, the FBI agents, who just a month earlier are telling the DOJ to hurry the F up, On getting that Pfizer warrant because they're worried Christopher Steele's political ties are going to come out and his efforts to impact our election.
They're all surprised.
They're astonished because Trump won.
And nobody, nobody expected that.
They thought Hillary was going to make this all go away.
Trump wins.
A day later, they panic, and they're worried about scrubbing lists.
Ladies and gentlemen, what lists are they talking about?
If you listen to yesterday's show, you may see exactly where I'm going with this.
Folks, the FBI agents involved in this clearly, I can't say this enough, at the top, acted with malicious intent.
This is in no way, shape, form, any way, giving them a pass.
But I legitimately believe at this point that the FBI agents at the top who wanted to harm Trump, there's no doubt, got played by John Brennan and certain operators and players at the CIA too.
Now, you may say, well, you're giving them an out.
I'm not giving them an out!
If the FBI would have done their homework and acted with clear eyes instead of with, and acting as they did with hatred towards Donald Trump, the scam would have been obvious.
But because they hated him so much, they willingly fell for this.
What's this?
What's the scam?
What are you talking about?
Ladies and gentlemen, I believe the FBI in sucking in this information from Christopher Steele, paying him, even though he's a political operative and the government knows it at this point.
We have this new memo.
Steele feeds this to the State Department.
They know he's a political operative.
I believe the FBI thinks the information they're getting from Steele, even though they know he's a political operative, is confirming information they get in paragraph one from the CIA.
You're confused, I can tell.
Because Joe is completely silent.
Oh, I'm taking this in, man.
I've told you repeatedly, the FBI continues to hide the origins of their investigation into Trump.
They're lying, saying it began with Papadopoulos.
It didn't.
Right.
I call it paragraph one.
Every investigative report has a first paragraph talking about how it started.
We have no idea to this day what paragraph one The EC, the electronic communication that starts this case, counterintelligence case, into the Trump team.
We have no idea what it says.
Right.
I'm going to tell you what it says.
It is a referral from our intelligence community, probably from Brennan's crew at the CIA, indicating that Trump's team, Manafort and others, have suspicious Russian ties.
And I believe that information is from some of the same players connected to Christopher Steele.
Understand what I'm telling you!
Steel and this network of foreign intelligence operators, who are supposedly friendly to the United States, are feeding information to John Brennan.
Remember that meeting with the British intelligence head?
At the director level with John Brennan?
It's all the same garbage information.
Brennan gets this garbage information.
Brennan needs this information, this Russian collusion story as a cover story to hide Brennan's illicit activities for Obama.
The spying that went on.
Brennan feeds this information to the FBI and pretends it's distinct, separate information from Steele.
The FBI then gets the information from Steele in the form of Steele information and the dossier, not always the same thing.
Right.
And says, Joe, look!
Maybe Brennan was right!
This dossier we have said the same thing we got from the agency, the CIA!
Now does it make sense why the day after the election day they're talking about scrubbing the list of informants?
Yeah.
Yeah.
They're in a panic!
They're figuring out the day after election day that the same informants the CIA used that they told them was separate information was the same guy!
You doubt what I'm telling you?
Again, hat tip to my source.
Let's go to page 95 and 96 of Lisa Page's testimony up on Capitol Hill.
The FBI lawyer intimately involved in working on this case.
Lisa Page is up on Capitol Hill and is asked by a congressman, excellent congressman, Mark Meadows from North Carolina.
I adore this guy.
All over this case.
Meadows says, okay, I guess what concern I have is why would Director Brennan be aware of the things that FBI was not aware of at this particular point when it actually would potentially involve, according to Strokes' word on January of 2017, an unverified salacious set of memos?
Page response, I don't understand what you're saying.
What are you saying?
Whatever is in, whatever occurs between Brennan and Reid, I don't understand what the relationship to the dossier is.
That's not what I'm following.
Keep that up there for a minute.
In other words, Meadows is saying, Brennan got the same information you did.
Page responds back under oath, and I believe her.
I believe she's telling the truth.
I don't know what you're talking about.
Our source was separate.
It was Steele.
Meadows is like, it's not separate.
It's the same guy.
It goes on.
Meadows says, so the dossier apparently was mentioned.
In fact, we have documents that would suggest that in the briefing the dossier was mentioned to Harry Reid, and then obviously we're going to have to have conversations.
Does that surprise you?
Let me translate.
Meadows is saying that the dossier and the information you guys got from Steele is the exact same thing John Brennan briefed in August.
In August, before the FBI gets the dossier, Page again is confused.
How is that?
That's not—Brennan's information's not from Steele.
That's our information.
He was our source.
Right.
It goes on.
Ms.
Page answers that.
Wow, that totally surprises me.
Meadows says, what, that Director Brennan would be aware of?
Page says, yes, sir.
Because with all due honesty, if Director Brennan—so we got that information all redacted, her answer after that.
I don't—why is that redacted?
Declassify this!
Meadows goes on.
We do know there are multiple sources.
Paige, I do know that.
I do know that the information ultimately found its way to a lot of different places,
certainly in October of 2016.
Oh!
Ah!
Paige, the FBI lawyer is acknowledging right here on the screen that she knows Steele's
information went to multiple sources.
Maybe the State Department, where Steele told them he was a political operator, and you used it anyway?
Put that back up.
Not only does she acknowledge it made its way to the State Department, Mr. Meadows says, so you say our source is your source, or is that because he was working for you?
In other words, what Meadows is saying is, okay, so you're saying Steele's your source, but you're also saying his information made its way to multiple other agencies?
Page's answer is critical.
I don't know if the CIA has or had Mr. Steele open as a source.
I would not know that.
Folks, I think she's telling the truth!
These idiots got totally, totally worked because they hated this president so much they failed to do their basic job, their responsibility to verify and authenticate their source.
They thought the information they were getting from Steele was corroborating information coming from Brennan.
It's the same damn thing.
Brennan, she's stunned that Brennan had the information in August.
What, the dossier?
That's impossible.
The dossier came to us way after August.
We got that information separately from Brennan.
No.
You didn't.
Now does the panic on November 10th make sense?
We gotta scrub the lists.
We gotta make sure that our C.I., Christopher Steele, wasn't the agency's C.I.
too!
The C.I.A.!
We're telling people we were corroborating the C.I.A.' 's information!
It was the same information!
Joe, please tell me this makes sense, brother.
Oh, man, it does.
They got worked big time, dude.
Oh!
Holy cow!
Idiots!
Brennan played you for fools!
Brennan went and briefed Harry Reid on Capitol Hill about Christopher Steele's information, which then gets a letter from Reid sent to the FBI telling him to open up a case.
Steele then goes to the FBI and the State Department, probably doesn't tell him about dealing with Brennan at all.
Matter of fact, I'm almost sure he doesn't.
Tells them the same information.
The FBI's reading it, thinking it's the first time.
He goes, wow, this sounds like the stuff Brennan told us.
Of course it does!
It's the same information, you dopes!
This is gonna get better.
Don't go anywhere.
Sorry, it's impolite to wave a finger, but not in this case.
This gets better.
I've got another tactical nuke to drop here.
We gotta pay for the show.
Today's show finally brought to you by my buddies at, love these guys, WaxRx.
There's a box, it's my box, I get a couple boxes of stuff.
What's WaxRx?
Listen, I don't use stuff I can't use on my family, and I wouldn't use on my family, and I don't use stuff I don't like, and I certainly don't advertise stuff I don't like.
WaxRX is the only product out there that's going to clean out those ears.
You're not supposed to stick those cotton swabs in your ears.
It is dangerous.
Just read the back of the box.
So you may say, well how do I clean out my ears?
Well hopefully the same way I do.
I had a big problem.
Back in the day when I used to wear an earpiece full time, my old line of work as a federal agent there, I had a big problem with earwax buildup.
True story.
It's painful, it gets hard to hear.
You gotta get that earwax out.
This is the safest, most effective way to do it.
You will actually be surprised what comes out of your ear.
Sometimes it's not pretty.
It works really well.
Listen, it's not the sexiest product to talk about, but as I've told you in the past, I had a problem with earwax buildup.
Thank God for WaxRX.
Here's a customer review from one of our customers.
They love WaxRX.
I used to have to go to the doctor twice a year to get rid of my stubborn, hardened earwax.
With my rising cost of healthcare and double deductible, I'd have to spend $60 a visit.
It's $120 a year to treat my ears.
Now I can do it myself with WaxRX and a significant savings that doesn't require me to miss a half a day of work.
Thank you, WaxRX.
Right now, this stuff works.
It works really, really well.
Please check it out.
Right now you can try the WaxRx system by typing in gowaxrx.com.
That's gowaxrx.com.
Use the offer code DAN at checkout for free shipping.
Don't wait, you have no idea what you might be missing because of inner ear wax.
Who knows?
It might just change your life.
Visit gowaxrx.com.
Use offer code Dan for free shipping.
Clean out those ears.
You'd be stunned, but you know, I got to use this today.
I, when I get a haircut, I come home and I do wax Rx.
I do every time.
Yeah.
Yeah.
That's what you get there.
You get the spray nozzle, you get the ear cup underneath and the, uh, the, the conditioner that gets the wax out.
It's really easy to use.
Okay.
So let's just tie up where we've been, and then we can move on to my final takeaway, which I promise is gonna bake your bagels.
All right.
Takeaway number one.
Ray is a lost cause, the new FBI director.
He sold us out on Capitol Hill yesterday by giving the one senator who needed an out, the out she needed.
I wouldn't use the term spying.
Then says, well, I personally don't have any evidence.
You know what?
I personally didn't meet Jesus Christ, but I believe in him.
I mean, what is this, an article of faith?
You personally don't have the evidence?
Secondly, Ray Redax, a document we just found from a State Department official.
Personally Redax, Ray, right?
His operation, he's the FBI director.
A key component of a passage where we now know Steele met with the State Department and his political ties were revealed.
We now know Lisa Page, one of the investigators under oath, admits under oath that she's aware of Steele working with other entities, but she seems confused by his relationship with the CIA, who starts this investigation, Brennan, by pushing the FBI to open up a law enforcement case, because the CIA can't do that, they have no law enforcement authority, by going up to Capitol Hill, briefing Harry Reid on information they unquestionably got from Steele, but didn't tell the FBI about.
Why?
Because when the FBI gets the information from Steele as a paid source later on, even though he tells the State Department he's a political operator, the FBI can then pretend they're shocked.
You know what?
I shouldn't say pretend.
I don't think they're shocked.
I mean, excuse me, I don't think they're pretending.
I think they are genuinely shocked that they got duped by this idiot Brennan.
If they just would have done basic due diligence and scrubbed the lists in advance, They would have figured out that the FBI and the CIA were not corroborating each other, they were using the same guy!
Now does Brennan's little CYA on TV, I didn't see the dossier until December.
December, that's conveniently after October.
Now does it make sense?
Brennan probably didn't see the dossier.
Right, no.
What he saw was Steele's information.
The dossier was handed off to the political people.
It's the same stuff.
Please tell me that makes sense.
He's playing a word game with you here.
Exactly.
I didn't see the dossier.
Did you talk to Christopher Steele?
Uh, that's a different story.
I plead the fifth.
Damn it. This is frustrating [BLANK_AUDIO]
Just declassify this stuff!
Sorry, I didn't lose my... I'm just really... This whole thing just pisses me off, man.
Declassify this already!
Enough of this dance!
Brennan, dupe these idiots!
Hey, look, we've got information.
You better open up a case.
Harry Reid, tell him to open up a case.
They open up a case based on the information.
The steel guy appears.
They start paying him.
They're like, whoa, look at this, Joe.
He's saying the same thing we were told by the CIA.
Ooh.
Crazy how that happens.
Yeah.
Page.
Well, I didn't know the CIA was using him.
Maybe you should have scrubbed the list before the election.
Do your job, damn it.
Here's the last takeaway.
Sorry, I've teased this thing to death.
From John Solomon's piece last year.
There's a very suspicious appointment made by the FBI.
The FBI appoints a liaison official to the Trump transition team after they start working on scrubbing the lists of informants.
But they make a very suspicious appointment, and the investigators seem very concerned about who this guy is, who's gonna be, just to be clear, Joe, this is the FBI official who's gonna be assigned, tasked, to the Trump transition team.
All right.
Quoting John Solomon's piece, as the president-elect, Trump geared to take over, the FBI made another move that has captured investigators' attention.
John Solomon never says anything without a hint of big impropriety.
It named an executive with expertise in the FBI's most sensitive surveillance equipment to be a liaison to the Trump transition.
Wow!
Solomon goes on.
On its face, that seems odd.
Technical surveillance nerds aren't normally the first picks for plum political assignments.
Even Otter, the FBI counterintelligence team, worried about scrubbing the list by the way, running the Trump-Russia probe, seemed to have an interest in the appointment.
Why would John write that?
You think John just got bored at the end of the story and was like, you know what, let's queue up the Teddy Ruxpin machine, drop a coin, and just throw a little extra in there?
No.
Solomon should be up for a Pulitzer.
I'm not kidding.
Now does the recent revelation about how Peter Stroke, an employee in his office, was married to Mike Pence's old chief of staff, and the FBI text we discussed, Joe, what, a week, two weeks ago, about how these FBI investigators Are texting each other about potentially using their contacts to get a source inside the presidential transition team?
Oh.
I have information.
I'll, I'm not sure I'm breaking it here.
I know other people who broke it, but I can confirm it for you here.
Technical surveillance sweeps outside.
Listen to what I'm telling you.
I'm going to repeat this again.
I didn't, This is a ding ding ding pay attention moment.
Alright.
I'm gonna confirm this for you.
The FBI has a contact.
The spouse of a high-ranking person inside the vice president's office.
They're texting each other about using those inns to get some information from the transition team while they're appointing an FBI official, oddly, who has surveillance capabilities, is a tech nerd, to be the liaison to the transition team.
I'm confirming for you now That technical surveillance sweeps were done of the White House after and outside of their normal protocols.
You don't get it, do you?
So the FBI appoints a technical surveillance nerd to a political spot in the liaison team While they're emailing each other later on back and forth about developing sources inside the White House to use because they're married to people in the FBI, the Secret Service and others, the Technical Security Division, probably in conjunction with WACA, the White House Communications Agency, then feels the need afterwards to do a sweep for potential listening devices in and around the Oval Office.
Confirm.
Outside of their normal sweeps, because I'm... I know what the liberals will say.
Oh, the Secret Service and them sweep for listening devices all the time.
They do.
Why were they doing extra sweeps, by the way?
Land that freaking ship, bro.
Let me leave you today with a little gem from our old boy up Chuck Schumer who knows exactly what happened here.
This is Chuck Schumer telling Rachel Maddow exactly Why all of this went on.
And I'll see you all tomorrow.
You take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.
