In this episode I address the stunning piece of information Bob Mueller hid from us in his report. I discuss the latest Democrat presidential candidate to disingenuously cry “racism.” I also address the real reason liberals want to keep the citizenship question off of the census. Finally, I discuss the question every media rep should be asking Joe Biden. News Picks:Law enforcement and the media changed their standards for Trump.
Devin Nunes says the Mueller Report is a fraud, and cites this troubling example.
President Trump refuses to back down to the London Mayor.
The Mueller investigation was always about impeachment.
Why is the DOJ refusing to produce this Mike Flynn transcript?
There is no evidence that the weather is increasingly threatening to human life.
What was the death toll from Fukushima compared to Chernobyl?
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 Dan Bongino's show on this fine Monday.
Producer Joe, how are you today?
Well, this is a fine Monday and I'm glad to be here.
How do you like that?
Very nice.
There you go.
Very cordial.
Maybe because the president's over in the United Kingdom, they're known for their manners over there.
Oh, that's right.
Is that what it was, Jones?
I didn't think of that.
I just nailed you to the wall.
But we can go that way if you like.
There we go.
All right.
Hey, listen, I got a stacked show for you today.
What I want to hammer first is we, listen, we know Mueller, the Mueller-Weissman investigation was a scam, but something came out over the weekend that is absolutely damning.
I was explaining this to my wife in the car as we were driving around this weekend.
This Mueller report selectively, Joe, leaves out a bunch of information that we've now found thanks to a court filing.
When I show it to you, I promise you it is going to...
Cook you in the britches.
This is not going to be good for the Mueller.
Yeah, what a scam this was.
So don't go anywhere.
I got that.
And how a little thing I covered on Friday has exploded into this big thing in the media with Chernobyl.
And I know Rush is a big fan of the series.
So don't go anywhere.
I got a lot to get to.
Today's show brought to you by our buddies at Teeter.
Listen, some of the products we advertise on the show I use often.
Some you don't have to use that often.
This is a product I use twice a day.
Before the show and after my workouts.
It is an inversion table.
They're the finest inversion tables in the business.
Use your own body weight and gravity to invert on the Teeter Inversion Table and I'll tell you what it can do for your joints and your general sense of well-being.
I get off it, I get kind of like a teeter high.
I love this product.
It's terrific.
I have it in my bedroom.
Can't recommend it highly enough.
Decompressing on a Teeter Inversion Table for just a few minutes a day is a great addition to anyone's daily routine.
Maintain a healthy spine and an active lifestyle.
I feel like a new man when I get off my teeter.
You know I have really awful arthritis.
I wish I didn't.
I hate the Dan Bongino Medical Malady Hour.
But when you get old and you beat up your body, it happens.
I'd be lost without teeter.
I use it twice a day and it really, really helps me.
And I haven't had any back pain, thankfully, since I started using it.
For a limited time, you can get Teeter's brand new 2019 upgraded model of the Inversion Table, the Teeter Fit Spine, with bonus accessories, StretchMax handles help you stretch that spine out, an easy reach ankle system, plus a free Inversion program mat with 24 illustrated exercises and stretches.
The Teeter Inversion Tables have thousands of reviews on Amazon.
Amazon, they're rated at 4.6 stars, and with this deal, you'll get $150 off when you go to teeter.comslashdan, Teeter, T-E-E-T-E-R.comslashdan.
You'll also get free shipping, free returns, and a 60-day money-back guarantee, so there's no risk for you to try it out.
Remember, you can get the new 2019 Teeter FitSpine Inversion Table plus a free inversion program mat by going to teeter.comslashdan, that's teeter.comslashdan.
Listen, if you have back pain, you've been lucky enough to avoid it.
You need a teeter.
Invert every day.
Help yourself out.
Get that teeter high.
I get it.
It's really great.
I love this product.
Go check it out.
All right, let's go!
All right!
Ding, ding, ding.
Reminds me of Rocky III when they have no bell at the end.
Apollo Rocky.
Ding, ding.
Okay, first.
So, you know, I've told you from the start, it's not breaking news here.
The whole Mueller-Weissman probe into Trump's a scam.
Andy McCarthy has a terrific piece I have up in the show notes today about how this was never, ever about Collusion, investigating collusion.
Ladies and gentlemen, if you're listening to the show, I'm not going to waste your time.
You already know that.
Mueller was never investigating collusion.
It was a hoax.
He knew it from the start.
So what was Mueller doing, you ask?
Yes.
Mueller and Weissman, two now entirely discredited investigators who are going to spend their careers in total disgrace.
What Mueller and Weissman were doing Where they were outsourcing their investigative powers granted to them by the special counsel appointment.
They were outsourcing those powers to provide an impeachment case for Congress.
That's what they were doing.
Andy McCarthy's piece is fantastic.
It lays this thing out in thorough detail.
Exactly what they were doing.
Now, think about this.
Think about the damage being done here.
Mueller works under the executive branch.
He is empowered by Article 2.
He works for the President.
You may say, well, that doesn't make sense.
He's investigating the President.
Yes!
But he works in the executive branch.
He is an inferior officer to the President of the United States.
He does not work for the Congress.
Ladies and gentlemen, Article 1 powers in the Congress give them a check and balance over the Presidency.
What is that power, Joe?
Impeachment.
The Congress can get rid of the President anytime they want, for a high crime or misdemeanor, engage in an impeachment proceeding, a trial in the Senate, and get rid of the President.
I'm not sure people out there like Preet Bharara and others have read the Constitution or they claim to be lawyers, but the checks and balances system gives each branch some form of Vertical and horizontal checks and balances within and among the branches to check power amongst themselves.
The President of the United States can veto a bill.
The Congress can then come back and override a veto.
The Supreme Court can rule on the constitutionality of an issue.
The Congress can impeach the President.
The President can appoint cabinet officers.
They have to be confirmed by the Senate.
I don't want to waste your time on this.
I'm just trying to tell you that Bob Mueller did not work for the Congress.
If Congress wants to impeach, Bob Mueller is not an officer of the U.S.
Congress to investigate things that the Congress can use for political attacks to impeach the President.
But that's exactly how he acted.
How do we know this?
Something broke this weekend that was just...
Stunning!
And it's, again, I have to go, I can't stand you overusing the same word.
It's the worst thing to do in an industry.
But I'm having a hard time getting a word more apt to describe the Mueller probe than the temerity, the gall, the nerve on this guy, him and Weissman, to do what they did.
What did they do?
Well, Devin Nunes in his Fox News piece calls them out on exactly what happened.
Devin Nunes calls fraud, a piece by Brie Stimson, citing difference between the Mueller report and the Dowd transcript.
What does he mean?
Let me boil this down to you for you in really simple nuggets.
In the Mueller report, there is a transcript of a conversation between Donald Trump's lawyer, John Dowd, and Mike Flynn, Lieutenant General Michael Flynn's lawyer.
It is a voicemail recording.
Joe, are we clear?
You are the audience on Buzz.
Yes, voicemail recording.
In the Mueller report is a transcript of a voicemail recording between Trump's team and Flynn's lawyer.
Now, Joe, not a trick question.
I'm not setting you up to be a jerk here.
If I were to tell you it is a transcript of a voicemail recording that's very short, serious question, what do you think I mean by transcript?
What does that mean?
I mean, it could be written out what was said verbatim, I would think.
Thank you, buddy.
I was not setting you up.
Exactly.
Bingo.
I said the same thing to my wife in the car this week.
She's like, this is a dumb question.
A transcript of a voicemail means what Joe calls in the industries or old radio, the verbate.
The words used and just written down on paper.
The verbiage, yes.
If I leave a voicemail for Joe, hey Joe, you know, we have to record the show 10 minutes early today.
And thanks, see you later.
And he says, here's a transcript of it.
I expect to read exactly that.
Joe, we have to record the show 10 minutes early today.
Right.
Banks, see you later.
The transcript, but something very interesting is missing from the transcript dreaded air
quotes in the Mueller report.
And oh, is right.
And the actual transcript of the voicemail.
Now, how did we find the difference?
Well, Judge Emmett Sullivan, who is overseeing the Mike Flynn prosecution case, they're getting ready for sentencing, demanded that the government produce transcripts of the recordings they have.
One of those recordings was the actual transcript.
of Mike Flynn as lawyer and the John Dowd voicemail.
Now first, I want to put the Mueller report one up.
I'm not going to read the whole thing, but I want to put the transcript in the Mueller report.
You can see this photo up on the screen at youtube.com.
For those of you listening on audio, it's what's not here that matters.
Again, I'm not gonna read the whole thing, but there's a lot, there's dot, dot, dots, dot, dot, dots, you know when you put, there's a break in the conversation.
So clearly, in the Mueller Report version of the Mike Flynn's lawyers, Mike Flynn transcript about it, there are things missing.
Well, what exactly did they leave out?
Well, flip to the next screen, the actual transcript, and it'll all make sense in a second.
Don't worry, if you're watching, great.
If you're listening, I promise you'll understand this.
Let's see, halfway down, let's say three quarters of the way down, Dowd on the voicemail, again Trump's lawyer says to Flynn's lawyer, just for the sake of protecting all our interests, if we can, this is important, without you having to give up any confidential information, that line is missing from the Mueller transcript of the report.
In other words, The Mueller report, thank you to flipping back and forth.
The Mueller report transcript makes it seem by taking out that, hey, we're not looking for any confidential information.
It's just Trump's lawyer clearly says on the voicemail, we're not looking for anything confidential.
We're just looking in the interest of national security.
He was Lieutenant General Flynn.
He was the incoming National Security Advisor.
To get an idea of what you're going to say, the Mueller report leaves that out and paints it like it's this nefarious Joe we're trying to coordinate with the Flynn team to obstruct justice.
This is the Mueller-Weissman scam.
Again, please, ladies and gentlemen, I appreciate Bob Mueller's service to the country and the Marine Corps.
I mean that sincerely.
That does not absolve the man of the responsibility to do the right thing when you are anointed with massive power to investigate the president.
Please stop telling me Mueller's a good guy.
I get one or two of these emails a day from people.
You are entirely confused.
I don't know who's leading you on to tell you Mueller's a white hat.
Mueller's a good guy.
Him and Rosenstein were working to get to the bottom of this.
They were not.
They deliberately left out of the Mueller report the line from Trump's lawyer where he clearly says, we're not looking for any confidential information here.
Man.
Why did they do that?
Because they wanted to make the voicemail seem nefarious.
Look, you better tell us what Flynn's going to say because we're so worried.
That's not what happened.
Trump's lawyer and Flynn's lawyer at some point may have been interested in a joint cooperation agreement, very common in the legal arena, not unusual at all.
It's not unusual for lawyers to talk.
At all.
Even worse, he puts exculpatory information in there on an obstruction case.
We are not looking for confidential information.
And what does Mueller do?
The good guy, Mueller the white hat?
He leaves it out because him and Weissman were doing the sleaziest thing possible.
They wrote a report to send to Congress to outsource their investigative powers, given to them by Trump, by the way.
Trump runs the executive branch.
Mueller works for Trump.
He is a subordinate officer of the president.
Mueller is winking and nodding and outsourcing his powers to the Congress to start an impeachment proceeding against the president he works for.
Ladies and gentlemen, this isn't justice.
Spare me the Justin Amash preaching from the stage of alleged fake libertarianism.
We've got to impeach the president.
This is garbage.
And this is another reason I hate to keep harping on Amash, because I did at one point deeply respect this guy.
This is the Republican congressman, by the way, who thinks Trump should be impeached.
But again, Amash keeps going back to this point, Joe.
You need to read the Mueller report.
Okay, I did.
I spent the whole weekend.
What do you want me to read it ten times?
I've read it.
I covered it.
We've taken snippets from it.
We've highlighted portions of it.
We've read the Mueller report.
But Joe, the Mueller report is not the case.
How do we know that?
Because Mueller leaves out exculpatory information in his report repeatedly.
Talk about editorializing by omission.
Jeez, there you go, dude.
Thank you.
Yeah, man.
Excellent, excellent point.
Yeah.
Mueller's report is an opinion piece.
Boom!
It's an editorial, as Joe just said.
It is not a legal document.
In a legal document laying out the case, where you're writing a report for Congress, not for your law enforcement, the branch you work for in the Department of Justice, you would lay out the exculpatory information too.
Damn right.
By the way, in a legal proceeding, you are obligated to do that.
It's called Brady material.
You understand?
Please track what I'm saying.
I don't mean to get into the wonkery of having been a former federal agent or anything.
I don't want to bore you to death.
It's important.
But if me as a federal agent, it is important.
I'm prosecuting Joe for a bank robbery.
And I have evidence Joe was in the Cayman Islands when the bank robbery happened in New York City.
And I don't give that to the report, to the court.
Oh, folks.
Folks, I kid you not, your career is over.
You could find yourself in jail for that if it was done deliberately.
Yes sir.
I'm not kidding.
No, I know, yeah.
Ask any cop, any cop you know listening to this show or federal agent, police officer, agent, corrections officer, ask anyone with any familiarity with the law enforcement system and say, hey listen, If you have exculpatory evidence, evidence of a subject's innocence, and you don't present it to the court knowingly and deliberately, would you get in trouble?
The cop will be like, uh, in trouble.
You'd be fired.
You could be prosecuted for that.
Yes, sir.
Yet Bob Mueller conveniently leaves all this stuff out.
Justin Amash, you need to read the report.
We did read the report.
Key information.
You need to read the case, Amash.
Read the case!
The case isn't the report!
As Joe just accurately said, the case is Bob Mueller's opinion piece in the Washington Post, so Congress will pick it up!
He leaves out all the interesting stuff about McCabe saying there was no obstruction of justice up in a congressional hearing.
There was no effort to obstruct the case.
Jim Comey's own memos indicating that Trump actually wanted them investigated.
Maybe that context would be a little more appropriate.
He leaves all that out.
Again, please stop telling me Mueller is a good guy.
He's not a good guy.
He has disgraced himself.
I'm sorry, but he has.
Those are the hard facts.
It gives me no pleasure in saying that I've never met Bob Mueller in my life.
You read the McCarthy piece, it's conclusive.
He hammers home what I've been telling you for weeks.
Mueller knew immediately there was no collusion.
He was investigating a discretionary obstruction case from the start, basically fabricating the context, leaving out the exculpatory data in order to wink and nod to Congress, which was the whole point of his press conference, to impeach the president.
This had nothing to do with enforcing the law.
Bob Mueller had no prosecutable case for obstruction.
Buddy, Joe.
I don't want to spend too much time on this.
I got a lot to get to.
But when you understand he was never making a prosecutable case, Bob Mueller.
He wasn't making a legal case, folks.
He was making a political one.
The whole entire Mueller-Weissman scheme makes sense.
He wasn't making a legal case, ever.
There was none.
He was making a political case.
That's how he disgraced himself.
Yes.
There you go.
Created an entirely new standard of justice.
There you go, daddy-o.
Not guilty.
Not not guilty.
Everybody then should be indicted for anything.
That's right.
Not not guilty.
What does that mean?
Oh, it's so bad.
All right.
So I sent this video over to Joe this morning.
I said, Apollo, we need to start a little bit of a lighter note.
We need to start a weekly segment.
You know, we need like, this weekend, you're a racist by Democrats.
You know, Democrats don't have anything else.
They have nothing else.
Their whole entire agenda is basically an identity politics bedrock that they built their house of insults on.
It is always, always about how you're a racist if you're not a Democrat.
Always.
Now, this is short and sweet, I don't need to spend a lot of time on it, but it's definitely worth your time.
This is a Democrat candidate for president who 99.99% of the planet's never heard of.
Seth Moulton, who is a congressman, who is floundering in the polls at an astounding 0%, and Moulton needs some attention.
So Moulton goes to the standard old Democrat trope when they have nothing else to go to.
Here's an answer to the question about why the black female candidate for governor in Georgia is not the governor right now.
She lost to Brian Kemp.
Here's his answer as to why that is.
We have a problem with racism in America today.
If this country wasn't racist, Stacey Abrams would be governor.
Unbelievable disguise!
Yeah, okay, whatever, dude.
Yeah, you got it.
We're all racist.
You know what's amazing about this?
One, this is buffoonery to the umpteenth degree.
I don't even know how to describe the silliness of that ridiculous, absurd comment.
Right, what's crazy about this, Joe, is think about this in context.
Seth Moulton obviously is entirely unaware of the context of what he's talking about.
There's obviously, I mean it's not, it would be ahistorical to say otherwise, there's a history of de facto and de jure racism in our country.
We had slavery, obviously there was Jim Crow in the South.
I mean none of that should be run from.
It's our country's history and our scars, our ups and our downs should always be, you know, we're human beings, we're sinners.
And an ignoring of our historical roots, the good and the bad, leads to the repeat of this kind of stuff in the future.
It's always one of our more benevolent characteristics to study history.
But what I find odd is, as you saw systemic racism ebb in the South, the South became more Republican, not Democrat.
Seth ignores all that.
Joe, in other words, you get what I'm saying?
As institutional de facto and de jure racism ebbs substantially in the South, which has some of the more diverse areas in the country right now.
As it ebbed, the area became more Republican, not Democrat.
But Multan, of course, ignores all of that because he doesn't know what he's talking about and he needs to get out of his zero percent polling status.
So he figures if he lobs a racism charge on CNN, he'll get there.
Just embarrassing.
I'm embarrassed for him.
I'm sorry, Seth, but that was really a pathetic pot shot.
You should be horrified.
All right.
I wanted to break up the Down, dour kind of Flynn stuff.
Because we need some relief, and Democrats always provide it with their silliness.
Yeah, you do, and they always provide it with their dopey comments.
But there's one more thing I want to quickly address on Flynn.
There's something else going on behind the scenes in this Mike Flynn sentencing.
It's separate from the voicemail recording we just discussed from John Dowd to his lawyer.
During the sentencing, as I said to you before, the Judge Emmett Sullivan has demanded transcripts of the voicemail recordings.
He wants the voicemail recordings of any recordings of Flynn.
So something interesting happened, Joe.
Last week, the government prosecuting Flynn came out, the Department of Justice, and said, We are, judge, they basically gave the judge the double-barreled middle finger.
I don't know any other way to say it.
They said we're only going to provide these transcripts, the one you saw before between Dowd and Flynn, but we are not going to provide the transcripts of, this is important, Between the monitored call between Mike Flynn, who was the incoming National Security Advisor at the time, and the Russian Ambassador Kislyak.
Remember, ladies and gentlemen, I'll tie this up for you, I promise.
It is that monitored phone call.
The listening in of Mike Flynn talking to the Russian Ambassador at the time.
It is that call that led to Flynn's downfall.
The government had a transcript of that recording.
Mike Flynn is the incoming National Security Advisor.
It's the transition period.
Trump isn't president yet.
He's a president-elect.
Obama kicks out Russian diplomats from the country.
Mike Flynn and the Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak, then talk on the phone while Mike Flynn conveniently is in the Dominican Republic.
The FBI shows up at the White House to then interview Mike Flynn about the contents of that call.
The FBI has a transcript of the call.
Two agents show up, Joe Pianca and Peter Stroke.
Now discredited FBI agents have been fired.
When Flynn doesn't tell them, according to their version of events, exactly the contents of that call, because I know for a fact Flynn doesn't remember every single detail, The FBI, later on, in conjunction with Mueller, charges Flynn with lying to FBI agents.
The problem with this case, as many of you remember, is that the FBI agents themselves went back and told Jim Comey and Andy McCabe, the one and two at the FBI, that they didn't believe Flynn was being deceptive when he may have missed some of the details of the call.
How is that?
How could Flynn Not be being deceptive.
That was a tongue twister.
But at the same time, lying to the FBI.
Now, follow me.
Ladies and gentlemen, I've covered this on the call before.
The call to Flynn came at an interesting time, and Flynn, I will go to my grave insisting, was in no way being dishonest about his recollection of the call with Kislyak.
I spoke to Joe on the phone last week.
I'll be honest with you, I forget what the phone call was.
I don't even remember what I was saying.
I called him about something.
I'm sure if you gave me a minute I'd think about it, but the precise details of it and the exact words, if you had a transcript, I'd probably bungle it a little bit.
Judge Sullivan, Joe, has demanded the transcripts of that call, and the government's saying, uh, basically double-barreled, middle-finger judge, we're not interested, no thanks, go pound sand.
Really?
Wow, why is that?
Why is that?
Because, Joe, there's a little problem the government might have.
When the judge looks at those transcripts and then looks at the FBI 302s, in other words, the interview summaries of their interview with Flynn about that call, Ladies and gentlemen, God forbid, God forbid the transcripts of that call with Kislyak marry up almost perfectly with what he told the FBI in that interview at the White House, according to their own summary.
Yes!
Oh, is this going to be bad?
So all of a sudden, the G, the government, the DOJ is like, we're not going to produce those transcripts because that's not where we're going with the charging and the sentencing stuff.
No, no, you'll produce the transcripts.
No, you will.
And now we'll get to see, finally, putting the transcripts next to what Flynn told the FBI agents that if these are not material omissions, and they're just minor discrepancies based on poor recollection, the government prosecuted a general, a lieutenant general, in the United States military, and the former head of the DIA, over nothing.
But don't worry again!
Mueller's just a really good guy.
He's a white hat.
He's terrific.
Nah.
And his clown, Weissman.
You know, as I said in a tweet this weekend, what's really sad, Joe, is Mueller's ruined his entire reputation.
It'll end in disgrace.
There's pretty much bipartisan criticism behind closed doors right now of how horrible Mueller's handled this entire thing.
Believe me, behind closed doors, the Democrats know he screwed this up.
They won't ever say anything because they hate Trump so much.
But Weissman, clown, lead bulldog for Mueller, had no reputation to forfeit.
I know people inside of our government who've talked to me about Weissman frequently.
Weissman was hated.
He was never respected.
He's an obnoxious, pretentious, arrogant fool who has gotten nothing but in trouble with the United States government on every high-profile case he's worked.
He's a clown.
He's a joker.
And he led Mueller around with his ridiculous conspiracy theories, his ridiculous legal theories, and his malicious prosecutions.
And when the truth comes out that Flynn and others were prosecuted based on Weissman's fairy tales, Bob Mueller's reputation is going to be stained and tarnished forever.
He let Weissman lead him around.
Shame.
Pathetic.
All right.
Got a lot more to get to.
Don't go anywhere.
I haven't even touched this Chernobyl thing.
I'm so glad I've like inserted myself into the news sites everywhere.
I didn't even mean to.
I really didn't even mean to, which is crazy.
I was just kind of, you know, defending liberty and freedom and that stuff kind of happens.
Hey, today's show also brought to you by our buddies at Robin Hood.
Robinhood is the easiest investing app out there.
It lets you buy and sell stocks, ETFs, options, cryptos, all commission-free.
Stop forfeiting these enormous commissions over these other guys.
Go to Robinhood.
Other brokerages can charge up to $10 for every trade.
That adds up.
I mean, with compounding interest, those $10 add up over time.
You're going to lose a lot of money.
Robinhood doesn't charge any commission fees.
You can trade stocks to keep all of your profits.
Plus, there's no account minimum deposit needed to get started.
You can start investing at any level.
The simple, intuitive design of Robinhood makes investing easy for newcomers and experts alike.
View easy-to-understand charts, market data, place to trade in just four tabs.
One, two, three, four.
On your smartphone.
Did I just do a Joe Biden?
One, two, three, four.
On your smartphone.
You can also view stock collections such as the 100 most popular.
It's easy stuff.
With Robinhood, you can learn how to invest in the market as you build your portfolio.
Discover new stocks, track your favorite companies, get custom notifications for price movements so you never miss the right moment to invest.
Super easy to use.
Robinhood is giving listeners of the Dan Bongino Show a free stock like Apple, Ford, or Sprint to help you build your portfolio.
Sign up now at bongino.robinhood.com That's bongino.robinhood.com.
Robinhood is really, really easy to use.
Go check it out.
Bongino.robinhood.com.
Okay.
Getting back to our material for the day.
So, um, I, for the, I, again, I don't want to beat this story to death.
I covered it last week, but I have been a, I had been a fan of the show Chernobyl.
Chernobyl, very well done.
Show.
I know Rush Limbaugh was talking about last week, too.
I'd said that on the show.
The problem is a producer of the of the show hates you, hates Trump supporters and is basically just a jerk.
So I didn't go after this guy.
I had to spat with Stephen King, Stephen King, the writer who seems to believe That Chernobyl was somehow like a human failure and not a failure of the system of socialism.
Yeah.
So this thing turned into a major thing.
The Hill wrote about it.
So today we have some guy, Dave Drezner, Donnie Drezner, I don't even know his last name.
Dave Drezner from What's his name?
Dan Dresner?
I don't even care.
He writes for the Washington Post, which is funny enough to begin with.
Sorry about that.
But Dresner writes his piece for the Washington Post, and he of course has to come after me because he's looking for me to recommend clicks to his site.
I'm not going to show his article because he's a goof.
But Dresner entirely misunderstands the point I was making, and the point I was making about Chernobyl is an important one relevant to material we cover on this show and it's being deliberately misunderstood by media people who all weekend have attacked me on this, which is okay.
I mean, it's great for the ratings on the show.
Sometimes it gets into your skin a little bit, but when you realize you're in the content business and it promotes your material, you get over it fast.
You have to.
The point I was making is that leftists continue to be upset that people who've been watching HBO series Chernobyl have come away with the conclusion, and conservatives have advertised the show I have for, again, they didn't pay me to say it all, it was a great series.
That socialism is what did this.
And the point I was trying to make in my tweets, folks, is an important one.
I'm not discussing the accident.
Now, this is, forgive me if I was a little confusing my intro.
The Washington Post guy, Donnie Dresner, is trying to say that Bongino's wrong.
It wasn't socialism.
These accidents happen all the time, like Chernobyl.
He references Boeing in the recent, of course, air, you know, the air disasters we've had.
You know, he references other corporate accidents we've had in the business world.
That's not the point I was making.
I was not making the point that in capitalist economies accidents don't happen.
You're just making that up.
Never said it.
I never said that.
I've never said that on the show.
I've never said that in my back and forth with liberals.
This has become a big deal now.
The point I was trying to make is the collectivist socialist system which concentrates power Concentrates power, that's what socialism is.
Power over the means of production, power over the political economy, power over the people.
I mean, gulags, political oppression, that concentrated power in the Chernobyl accident enabled a cover-up that would not happen in a free market.
That's the point I was trying to make.
That the concentrated power, maybe I should have been more clear, but it's Twitter.
But the point is, nobody asked me.
They assumed what I was saying is that accidents don't happen in free markets.
They do happen.
I don't know how anybody gets that.
Joe, were you confused at all when I described this to you last week?
I thought I was pretty clear.
I don't know how anybody would come up with that.
That cover-up, thank you, would never happen in a free market.
Now, do you need evidence of this?
I pulled some data from this World Data site, which is interesting, to show you what I'm talking about.
It's an article by a woman named Hannah Ritchie, our World in Data, from July 24th of 2017.
It compares the death toll from Chernobyl and the Fukushima incident in Japan.
Now, why are these appropriate comparisons?
You may say, why not compare it to Three Mile Island in the United States?
I could, but let's compare equally severe accidents.
They were both Level 7 events.
One of the worst nuclear disasters possible.
Well, from this world data piece, this is a fascinating quote, again, showing you that socialism enabled the cover-up, which killed all these people.
Quote, these technical differences undoubtedly played a role in the relative level of exposure, talking about radiation exposure from both events.
They're talking about how though in Fukushima the death toll was far lower.
It goes on.
However, the governmental response to both events is also likely to have played a crucial role in the number of people who were exposed to high levels of radiation in the days that followed.
Keep that up.
What's the difference in the governmental response?
One government was socialist, one government was run on free market principles.
It goes on.
In the case of Fukushima, the Japanese government responded quickly to the crisis with evacuation efforts, extending rapidly from a 3km to 10km to 20km radius whilst the incidents at the site continued to unfold.
In comparison, the response in the former Soviet Union was one of denial and secrecy.
Ladies and gentlemen, the death toll from Three Mile Island and Fukushima was a sliver of the death toll of Chernobyl.
Because when you have concentrated power, government bureaucrats engaged in political suppression, In economic malfeasance, by taking over the means of production, you can keep secrets.
Again, I'm not suggesting secrets don't happen in capitalist societies either, but the penalties severe later on.
Lawsuits, jail time.
You're not going to sue the government and socialist communist system?
No.
The government took days to evacuate Pripyat, the area in Ukraine, and other areas around the Chernobyl disaster.
Days!
Because they tried to hide it at first!
Watch the series, you know, I can't, people are, it's hard for me, you know what, read a book.
I can't recommend, I'm sorry, watching this, because he's such a knucklehead, this guy, Mazin, who hates Trump supporters.
Read a book on Chernobyl, you'll probably get a more accurate assessment of what happened.
Even some portions of the event where they could have solved problems, the problem solving was delayed because the Russians, excuse me, the Soviets at the time, to be precise, Were more afraid of the international PR damage to their Soviet brand than they were about saving their own people!
That didn't happen in Fukushima!
The death toll from Chernobyl is estimated to be 50 times higher!
The death toll from Three Mile Island, the immediate disaster, was zero!
Zero!
Because it would have been impossible, given the freedom of the press in the United States, which this Washington Post guy and their outlet abuse every day, to cover that up.
It would have been impossible.
That's the point.
Again, I don't want to beat this to death, but it's important because this is becoming a big issue.
I'm not kidding, ladies and gentlemen.
The Hill wrote about it.
The Washington Post now is picking this up.
I'm just astounded that Hollywood, Hollywood elitists, and entertainment industry snobs, who do this series that is a thorough, stinging indictment of collectivism, came away with the theory that this is really an indictment of Donald Trump, who is disempowering the government through deregulatory maneuvers, tax cuts.
He's disempowering the same federal government that enabled a cover-up in the Soviet Union.
Astounding that you have to be that dumb in Hollywood to come away from the opposite lesson from your own production.
It really does.
And some lunatic comes in, I said to him, you work for the Washington Post, you must have non-functioning neurons.
He's like, as if you could tell us how a neuron functions.
I said, actually, I could.
My graduate program was pretty thorough on the electrochemical gradients where neurons function, axonal transmission and others and things like that.
This guy probably barely got out of grammar school, but whatever.
Okay, that's a whole other story.
All right, I want to get to another story.
Interesting story about this Voting Rights Act.
I'll get to that in a second.
How there's an interesting kind of dilemma liberals are finding themselves in now with this Supreme Court case about voting rights.
You know, liberals lie all the time.
That's their thing.
But it's interesting when their lies put them in a corner that they can't get out of.
So don't go anywhere.
I'll get to that story in a second.
Last one for the day.
All right, today's show brought to you by our buddies at GenuCell.
Hey, do you wish that double chin would just disappear?
News flash, ladies and gentlemen, you can do it!
You can look better than your age using GenuCell's products.
Hey, here's Robin.
We love Robin from Lubbock, Texas.
The greatest female ever.
Hey, I put GenuCell's jawline.
She doesn't say hey, I say that.
I put GenuCell's jawline cream on my neck two or three days ago.
It's the best my neck has looked in 20 years.
People told me my face looks young.
I'm blown away.
My mother-in-law loves this stuff.
My wife loves this stuff.
This is a GenuCell household here with Chamonix MDL technology.
GenuCell's brand new jawline treatment specifically targets the delicate skin on your neck area for tight, healthy, younger looking skin.
Can't beat that.
You will see your mirror smile back at you or 100% of your money back No questions asked.
Call now and the Classic Gen U Cell for bags and puffiness is free!
With your order.
Call now.
And to start seeing results in 12 hours or less, Gen U Cell's Immediate Effects is also yours free.
No double chin!
No turkey necks!
Gobble gobble gobble gobble!
Thank you!
Joe to the rescue!
And no sagging jawlines!
Because no one needs to know your age!
That was great.
Text YOUNG to 77453 or go to genucel.com.
Get your two free gifts and free shipping now.
Text YOUNG.
That's how you look.
77453 or go to genucel.com.
That's genucel.com.
Joe Armacost at a rescue again.
You're on fire today.
Very nice.
Gobble, gobble, gobble.
That was good.
You're very witty.
You're a witty cat sometimes.
All right.
This Wall Street Journal article is fascinating.
Talk about this Supreme Court case, Department of Commerce versus New York coming up.
You know, the Democrats are infatuated with selling you the idea, as Seth Moulton tried to before, that, you know, Republicans want to suppress the vote.
They don't want minorities voting.
It's all nonsense, garbage.
It's made up, fabricated crap meant to appeal to an identity politics agenda.
But the Supreme Court case is going to be interesting because it discusses the citizenship question on the census.
Now, it's a little bit of a complicated article, so I'm going to be sparing in my explanation, but there are two big takeaways they're having right now.
Liberals fear that the use of a citizenship question on a census will do a couple things to voting patterns, but they're conflicting goals, right?
Issue number one.
If we redistrict our congressional district based only on eligible voters and not residents of the district, remember, that is not the same thing, okay?
If every congressional district in the country is roughly 700,000 people, because population changes, they have to redistrict every 10 years, so it's roughly 700,000 people.
If you have a district, Joe, with a large population of illegal immigrants, follow me here.
And if this doesn't make sense, I'm relying on you to stop me.
All right, go ahead.
Let's say, well, I mean, I'm going to give exaggerated numbers, but I'm exaggerating it not for effect, I'm exaggerating it so it'll make sense.
Let's say out of those 700,000 residents of a congressional district, 200,000 are illegal immigrants.
That's a lot.
It's probably an unrealistic number, but just roll with me for a second because the point's hard to make otherwise.
The people voting in that district, Joe, according to the one-man-one-vote, your vote is worth a whole lot more than a vote in a district of 700,000 people where everybody's a citizen and eligible to vote.
You tracking me?
Hit me again, baby.
If you are in a district of eligible voters, your vote is one of 700,000.
That's right.
But if you are in a district that has a lot of illegal immigrants, say 200,000, your vote is one of 500,000 because 200,000 people can't vote.
Okay.
So your vote, 1 out of 500,000, is worth a lot more than 1 out of 700,000.
Thank you, got it.
You got it?
Yeah, thanks.
So your vote is weighted higher.
In other words, it's supposed to be one man, one vote, but that's actually not the case.
It's actually one man, 1.012 or whatever votes.
Okie dokie.
Because your vote is worth more.
So, here's the issue they're having.
What they're saying is, and there was this report that came out, suggesting that the Voting Rights Act has given governments the power, state governments, to institute majority-minority districts.
In other words, to carve up the lines to give minority voters voting power by making them primarily black or Hispanic districts.
Minority districts.
You get what I'm saying?
Joe, you're in Maryland.
There are some districts in and around Baltimore County which are majority-minority.
And the idea, according to the Voting Rights Act, was to empower minorities by getting representatives in Congress who should represent their interests.
Right, we're good.
So liberals are fighting against this censor, excuse me, citizenship question on the census because they don't, they want, on one hand, this is where it gets a little confusing.
I promise I'll try to make this, but it's really fascinating.
The liberals don't want this citizenship question on there because they want more representatives in more of the districts that are populated with illegal immigrants because they primarily vote Democrat.
So if you can pack a district full of people and get four or five more districts in New York and California, even though those four or five districts are based on the population of illegal immigrants, then you got five more votes in Congress.
You get it?
Yeah.
States with heavy illegal immigrant populations, if you're counting them, if you're counting them, they will get additional representatives in Congress.
Okay.
What's the issue though?
The issue though, where it kind of works against their interests, is in these supposedly majority-minority districts, a large portion of Hispanic voters in some of these districts are not eligible voters.
So the white voters in those districts actually, interestingly enough, their votes are worth more.
Which goes against the very agenda.
You just said you wanted to give minorities more voting power.
But in these very districts that are populated with large populations of illegal immigrants, white voters actually, their votes mean more.
So they're too, and that's the problem, that's the conundrum liberals are finding.
I know, I know.
If you read the article twice, it'll make sense.
But it's a fascinating piece.
It goes to show you how liberal interests almost always, always work against themselves.
As I told you last week when we were talking about...
How identity politics is always cannibalistic.
Because the goals of Muslim Americans, and Black Americans, and Hispanic Americans, and Indian Americans, and union workers, and traditional democratic constituencies are not all the same.
People aren't robots.
They don't vote like automatons.
Asian voters' agenda may not be a Black voters' agenda.
So identity politics is inherently cannibalistic.
This is another example of that.
That how nationally counting illegal immigrants in the census works for you because California and New York, populated by large populations of illegal immigrants, get more representatives in Congress.
Okay, wow, that's great!
Liberals, we win!
Uh, no, you actually don't.
Because the congressional districts you're talking about, you're actually disenfranchising a lot of Hispanic voters in supposedly Hispanic districts by making white voters vote count more.
Isn't that fascinating?
That is a conundrum, dude.
Right?
It is.
They always find themselves in these cannibalistic enterprises because they just can't stick to the truth.
Of course districts should be based on eligible voters.
That's absurd.
I mean, if that's the case, that you're just going to base it on the people counted in any given area at any given time.
I mean, do tourists count too?
Oh, that's ridiculous.
Why not?
Why does that not matter?
Why doesn't Southern Florida, which has a booming tourism, why don't they get to count tourists?
I mean, of course it should be eligible voters.
So, all right, moving on.
But that's a really good article.
I strongly recommend it.
Yeah, cool, man.
You know, I have a... I sent this piece of sound video over to Joe this morning.
Ladies and gentlemen, Joe Biden, as you, the former vice president, as you well know and are aware of, is now running for president against Donald Trump.
And Joe Biden has, this guy has so much baggage.
I mean, he has more baggage than, you know, you ever go to the, you fly out of the Palm Beach airport, everybody boards early in a Palm Beach airport down by me, and they carry on like four or five bags onto the, the bag, they have to like tag everything at the gate.
By the time you're in group B on, on JetBlue, you can't even put your baggage in the overhead.
Biden's got that kind of baggage.
He's trying to pre-board the plane with seven or eight carry-ons, right?
He's got the Ukraine baggage.
He's got the China baggage.
He's got Hunter Biden, his son's baggage.
Another piece of which I cover in my next book, which I finished finally, Exonerated, coming soon.
Check it out on Amazon.
Another piece of baggage is what is Joe Biden's relationship to the Spygate scandal?
This guy, because the mainstream media is completely not curious at all about what happened in the White House to spy on Donald Trump, right?
The mainstream media is not interested in any of that, as we well know.
Are you telling me the Obama team spied on the Trump team and Joe Biden as the vice president didn't know?
Here's Chris Farrell from Judicial Watch, a really terrific group.
Talking about precisely that.
Joe Biden's involvement in this, potentially, and specifically the White House's involvement in general in this Spygate scandal.
Play that cut.
There's a very important text message from Lisa Page to Peter Strzok in September of 2016.
And the context for the text message is, Strzok asks Lisa Page, hey, what are you doing?
Or words to that effect, she reports back very excitedly that she's preparing talking points for Director Comey to go brief the president on what they're doing.
And the quote from Lisa Page is, quote, POTUS wants to know everything we're doing, close quote.
That POTUS, of course, is Barack Obama.
And I will take Lisa Page at her word.
It's an off-the-cuff communication with her paramour.
She's excited.
She's getting the director prepped.
I want to know, what did Obama know?
What did he approve?
What did he tacitly nod his head for?
What did he explicitly authorize?
This entire... It's a tragedy.
It's a scandal we've never seen before constitutionally.
This rests entirely on Mr. Obama and his administration.
It starts with them.
And we need real accountability.
Let's get Mr. Obama under oath.
Yeah, you're darn right.
Now, Breitbart ran a piece about Joe Biden's involvement in this.
Ladies and gentlemen, that text is damning.
The Breitbart piece, Biden was present at the Russian collusion briefing documented in the odd Susan Rice email by Aaron Klein.
I'll get to that in a second.
But this Peter Stroke Lisa Page text is fascinating.
They're talking about and discussing the whole Spygate scandal.
This is just, you know, days after Days after this whole thing starts, months after they started accumulating evidence to put in the FISA, and they're texting each other that the president wants to know everything they're doing.
The Obama administration, including Biden, had to know what was going on here.
Biden was present.
Now, what meeting are we talking about?
Why is Biden not being hammered by the media about this?
How is he getting a pass on this?
Obviously, you know, the media is not there.
Forget journalism's dead.
Biden is at the meeting on January 5th, right before Days before Trump's gonna take over.
He's at this meeting in the White House, where they're actually discussing the Spygate scandal.
Biden's there!
At the meeting!
That's the January 5th meeting, which Susan Rice, she sends this email, which is in the Breitbart piece.
She sends this email to herself, right during the time the transition's happening, as Trump is swearing, it's one of her last acts, before she gets out of office.
She sends this email to herself.
About this meeting where they're discussing Spygate and what to tell Trump and whatnot.
President Obama began the conversation by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is handled by the intelligence and law enforcement communities, quote, by the book.
By the book.
It goes on.
The President, talking about Obama, stressed that he is not asking about, initiating, or obstructing anything from a law enforcement perspective.
He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed as it normally would, by the book.
Now, she goes on, and this is an email she sends to herself about the meeting Joe Biden was at.
From a national security perspective, however, President Obama said he wants to be sure that as we engage with the incoming team, talking about Trump, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia.
Folks, let me translate for you what Susan Rice was putting in that email to herself in one of her last acts before Trump takes over and swears in.
She makes a distinction in that email, Joe, between law enforcement operations, which should proceed by the book, as Obama said, and national security operations.
She does that for a reason.
Why?
Keep in mind, this is January.
There is no doubt at this point that they know this collusion thing is a hoax they invented.
None.
Obama knows now that the FBI operation, which has been going on for months, remember it starts in October of 2016, the January 5th email, excuse me, meeting Susan Rice is referring to, happens in 2017, months later.
The FBI fabricates this case in conjunction with Brennan, this collusion case based on a hoax dossier.
They're hoping that the FISA warrants spying on Carter Page will find something, anything, so they can reverse engineer an investigation.
In other words, start the investigation based on a hoax, start investigating, hopefully come up with something, and then when you come up with something, say that was the reason you started investigating.
They're reverse engineering a crime.
By January 5th during this meeting, Obama unquestionably knows that this reverse engineering effort has come up with nothing.
They've been spying on Carter Page for months now.
And the Trump team do the two hop rule.
They have nothing.
So why does he make this distinction?
Hey, this law enforcement stuff should have proceeded by the book.
Because Obama knows no probable cause has ever been developed.
That Carter Page was a spy or any member of the Trump team.
He knows that.
He knows the case was a hoax.
So now, why does she write that?
Susan Rice and Remo?
Obama said proceed by the book.
Likely Obama and the team instructed her to do it.
Or she did it to cover her own butt.
And she did it because she wants to pass the buck to the FBI.
Oh, they wouldn't do that.
Oh, you think these people have integrity?
What did you miss?
Now notice, she makes a distinction.
Well, from a national security perspective, however.
So in other words, she's still going to continue to state that this is a national security threat because the Russians are trying to intervene in our elections, which is not false.
They've been trying to do that forever.
Yeah.
Notice the distinction she makes.
But what she does in that same email is she conflates the two.
That the Russians' effort to impact our election had anything to do with the Trump team.
And it didn't.
Please understand what I'm saying.
This is an important email.
And in light of the fact that Joe Biden was there, Joe Biden should be answering these questions every day from the media.
What exactly did you mean by the law enforcement operation was supposed to proceed by the book, when the book says you need probable cause to spy on someone, that Carter Page was an agent of the Russian government, and was in doing so in violation of U.S.
law, and you didn't have probable cause?
Oh, well, you know what we meant by the book?
We meant that the FBI, we told them to do it by the book, and they didn't, so it's their fault.
Remember, they verified it.
Ding!
Tell me you got that!
Yeah.
Yeah, we got it.
They're going to say we, Obama's the commander in chief, he told the FBI you handle this by the book, but it's their fault, they didn't verify the information, so I don't know about that, but I know from a national security perspective, we were, Obama that is, we were cared about this because the Russians were trying to mess with us.
Oh yeah.
But that's not what Obama said in that Rose Garden press conference we play here all the time, where he said, you can't interfere with the election, stop making all this stuff up.
Folks, Joe Biden, question number one, if you told them to do it by the book, By the book, are you now blaming the FBI for their failure to conduct said investigation by their own book?
They were supposed to verify the information.
Is that your fault?
Watch Biden.
Watch this so-called defender of Comey and others.
Biden, all the left, they love Comey because he's attacking Trump.
Watch him go, no, no, no, no, no.
We told them to do it by the book.
They screwed it up.
Biden was there.
Biden was there!
Joe knows!
The book line is damning!
Joe, the FBI has a book!
It's called the Woods Procedures on how to verify information!
They threw it out the window!
She wrote that in there for a reason!
Because these people have no integrity!
They are getting ready to throw the FBI under the bus when the D-class comes out and their involvement in this becomes clear, the Obama administration, as Chris Farrell said in that clip.
POTUS wants to know everything you're doing.
Did he tell them to do it by the book then?
Oh, he did.
Oh, so they disobeyed his orders.
No, no, they obeyed his orders.
No, but you didn't do it by the book.
There is a book.
The DIAG.
The FBI's investigative manual that says exactly how to conduct these investigations.
You did none of that.
So who's lying?
Did Obama tell you to do it by the book and you disobeyed a direct order in the FBI?
Or Obama told you not to do it by the book, wink and a nod, and you followed his instructions.
You can't have it both ways!
Ladies and gentlemen, that is the question Joe Biden should be asked.
But leave it to people at Breitbart, Conservative Review, Fox News, OAN and others.
They're the ones who will ask the questions.
Because I'm telling you the mainstream media has completely, entirely forfeited their role as purveyors of truth.
They are nothing but fairy tale tellers and Teddy Ruxpin artists.
You drop a quarter in them, they'll tell you a story.
It's ridiculous.
All right, folks, thanks again for tuning in.
I really appreciate it.
Please subscribe to our YouTube channel, youtube.com slash Bongino.
We really appreciate it.
Also subscribe to our audio show, if you don't mind, on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, SoundCloud, iHeartRadio.
It's the subscriptions.
They are free.
They will cost you nothing, not a dime, that drive us up the charts and help other people find the show.
We really, really appreciate you doing that.
Thanks a lot.
Hope you enjoyed the show today.
I'll see you all tomorrow.
You just heard The Dan Bongino Show.
You can also get Dan's podcasts on iTunes or SoundCloud.
