In this episode, I address the decision by this major company to attack your Second Amendment Rights. I also discuss the possibility of some major information drops coming in the next few weeks. Finally, I discuss the tidal wave of fake news in the last few days.
News Picks:Terrifying video of Hurricane Dorian’s devastation by the numbers.
What the heck is Walmart thinking?
Here’s what may be coming out in the Spygate case.
What you’re buying could be the perfect surveillance network.
The media is ignoring the mayhem in Chicago because it doesn’t for their narrative.
The Left simply cannot stop lying about the Tea Party.
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.
Hey, thank you very much for the unbelievable, incredible response to yesterday's show.
It was our most listened to audio podcast ever.
Thank you very much.
You are the best audience in the business.
I think those debunking liberal lies shows do very well.
Yesterday was just a cornucopia of liberal stupidity debunked.
So today, we're going to flip the script a little bit.
And talk about a series of media fake news stories that have emerged in the past few days.
We're going to nail that to the wall.
I've got some commentary on Walmart making one of the dumbest business decisions in the history of humankind.
And then that real clear investigations piece I promised you I'd get to last week, but I had to push into this week about what's ahead and some major stingers from a source about what could be coming out after the Comey IG report.
All right, welcome to the Dan Bongino Show.
Producer Joe, how are you today?
Well, I'm all ready for this cornucopia of information and entertainment.
You see?
You see?
Yes!
As we need, I keep saying, a compilation of Producer Joe commentaries when he opens up the show.
We're OK.
Thank you to everyone who commented.
We are OK.
No problems.
Just a little minor damage.
And my backyard, I got a new pool in my backyard, in my place in Stewart.
It's a joke.
Nature gave us the pool.
So yeah, yeah, my backyard is underwater over there in the new neighborhood.
But listen, we're fine.
And it pales in comparison to, again, what happened in the Bahamas.
My wife has been looking at pictures.
They're heartbreaking for the last few days.
So, yeah, we're sending some stuff over there.
All right, folks, today's show brought to you by our buddies at Genucel.
Genucel, ladies and gentlemen, the summer inventory clearance sale.
You're never gonna get a better deal from Chamonix.
It's here.
Right now, when you order Genucel's jawline treatment, you get the classic Genucel for bags and puffiness free.
That's right, free today.
I'm not kidding.
My mother-in-law's here.
She was outside yesterday, she loves GenuCell, and she was saying how my youngest daughter, when she put the under eye treatment on, that my youngest daughter was like, wow, my youngest daughter, she's not in any way like paying attention to that stuff, how different she looks.
This stuff really works.
Here's Beverly from Huntsville, Alabama, soon to be famous, Beverly.
OMG, I love this product.
I saw a difference almost immediately and would recommend it to everyone if they have a problem with their jawline.
All the GenuCell products are amazing.
Using MDL technology and Chamonix proprietary base, GenuCell's new Jawline Treatment specifically targets that delicate skin around the neck and jaw for tight, healthy, younger-looking skin.
Results guaranteed or 100% of your money back, no questions asked.
See results in 12 hours or less.
Use GenuCell Immediate Effects.
Immediate!
Also free.
Order now in their legendary Collagen Builder also.
Free.
Go to GenuCell.com.
GenuCell.com.
Enter Dan30 at checkout.
That's Dan30.
My first name.
3-0.
Dan30.
Dan30 at checkout.
That's three free gifts with the order.
Limited time only.
Go to GenuCell.com.
GenuCell.com.
G-E-N-U-C-E-L.com.
Enter Dan30 at checkout.
Alright, let's go!
Yeah!
Nice.
So, in one of the dumbest virtue-signaling business decisions I've seen in modern American history, Walmart, which I generally enjoy going to, I'm going to have to take a hard pass on this for a while while I reevaluate my relationship there, Walmart decided that they were going to single-handedly solve the violence problem in this country by stopping certain ammunition sales, and they're only going to sell sporting rifles now.
Oh, that was a brilliant decision.
And by brilliant, I mean one of the dumbest decisions I've ever heard in human history.
Remember when Dick's Sporting Goods tried that stunt too?
Folks, this was really dumb.
Walmart obviously caters to an audience that many of whom are Trump supporters, conservatives,
Republicans, libertarians, in other words.
They don't want to be virtue signaled by corporations that will do nothing to solve the gun violence problem in this country.
This will do nothing.
Ladies and gentlemen, this will have no impact at all.
What I mean by the term virtue signaling, for those of you who haven't heard this.
This is a company signaling its virtue to the public by making decisions they know in advance will have zero impact on the problem they claim they're trying to solve.
You get what I'm saying?
Yeah.
They're only signaling, look at us.
We're on a higher moral plane, Joe.
We are the new social justice warriors.
Go broke.
Every single time.
This was unbelievably stupid.
Now, I got an email from our buddy Vic.
I won't read his last name, of course.
This is an email he sent to Walmart, which I encourage you to speak out as well.
You know, be cool about it.
You always are.
We're not liberals.
We're not the anti-First Amendment group Antifa.
But this is an email from Vic.
He forwarded it on to me that he sent over to Walmart.
Quote, I'll be canceling my Walmart credit card and see shopping at your stores and walmart.com due to your decision to stifle my Second Amendment right.
I am a law-abiding gun owner.
I will not support a company is against our freedom.
I had to save them my phone.
Next, you'll start trying to silence my free speech.
The hard-earned $6,000 a year I spend with you for gas, food, and other goods will be spent elsewhere.
Good luck, law-abiding citizen, and I'll leave the state out.
Thanks, Vic, for that email.
Ladies and gentlemen, I kid you not, I received probably A hundred, two hundred of those?
That's a lot for a topic.
Really.
I mean, Joe is in talk radio on a big radio station.
If you get like four or five emails on a topic, it's a big deal.
I generally, the Dan Bongino rule on this is, if I don't get 20 plus emails, it's not as hot a topic as the person emailing thinks they are.
That rule's always kind of worked.
I got about a hundred, five times that amount.
People are furious.
Ladies and gentlemen, this will do nothing, zero to solve the problem.
But why?
It doesn't do me any good to rant on Walmart without suggesting to you why Walmart is virtue signaling.
Because ladies and gentlemen, criminals do not buy their guns at Walmart.
Okay?
And then Walmart ridiculously suggesting, hey we'd prefer if you didn't carry your firearms in our store.
How about this?
How about you prefer I just don't carry me inside your store?
I'm not going there.
Paula can do what she wants.
I'm not going back to Walmart.
Drop me off after church from Mount Paula.
It's like you didn't tell me this yesterday.
I'm telling you now on the show.
I'm not going in that place.
This was really stupid and this was just an attempt to cater to the social justice warrior left that will have zero goose egg impact on this problem because criminals don't buy their guns at Walmart.
However, You do have law-abiding Second Amendment Democrats and Republicans, a lot of Democrats are firearm owners, who Walmart is their only access to some of these products because they don't live in New York City and the cosmopolitan big cities all these liberal social justice warriors Walmart's kissing the caboose of live in.
They may not have an FFL locally, a federal firearms license dealer to get a firearm to protect themselves.
This is the new wokeness.
What they can't win at the ballot box is Americans aren't giving up their right to protect themselves because of these lunatics out there.
Matter of fact, they're doubling down.
Because of these lunatics, Americans want to protect themselves.
The liberals are reading this all wrong.
Yeah.
So what do liberals do?
What they can't win at the ballot box, they press you virtue signaling CEOs and boards like Walmart.
To make these decisions.
I'm done.
I'm out of there.
I've run into a lot of you in the Walmart by me.
You know, some of you listen to the show.
I've seen you in there.
How do I know you listen to the show?
Because I've seen you in Walmart.
You told me you listen to the show.
Dumb.
Dumb.
Unbelievably stupid.
Now, having said that, you've heard about, of course, the tragedy in Odessa, which is obviously newsworthy and should be covered.
But another story you haven't heard a lot about, Joe, because it doesn't fit the narrative.
Remember, this show is about the media today, a lot of it.
I'm gonna put out to you four or five stories here, all media garbage.
Media's dead, but there's no media anymore.
It's all nonsense, hysterical, tabloid-type garbage.
It's not even journalism.
You haven't heard much about the Chicago story covered by Breitbart.
Is this an AWR Hawkins story?
He does a lot of their firearms stuff.
I'll put that, it'll be in the show notes today.
It is, AWR Hawkins.
25 shot, 7 killed during first half of Labor Day weekend in Chicago.
Let me read that headline again.
September 1st, 2019, AWR Hawkins, Breitbart.com, be in the show notes.
25 shot, 7 killed during first half of Labor Day weekend in Chicago.
One more time in case the liberals miss this.
25 shot, 7 killed in the first half of Labor Day weekend in Chicago.
Now, Lori Lightfoot, the mayor of Chicago, has conveniently tried to deflect it.
A lot of those guns are bought out of state.
Well, actually, the chart she posed herself, she was responding to some criticism by Republican Senator Ted Cruz from Texas.
She says, well, they're not being bought in Chicago.
One, you don't know that because a lot of those guns are bought illegally.
And secondly, don't you find it odd that even, one, the percentage of guns bought in Texas was 1.8%.
Most of them were, in fact, bought in Illinois and the surrounding areas.
Don't you find it odd that if these guns are being bought in Republican areas or Republican-leaning areas, which is certainly not Illinois, folks, That the crimes aren't being committed in those Republican areas?
Uh, why would that be?
Maybe because those people have a Second Amendment right to carry in their homes and criminals choose to prey on an unarmed populace?
I'm just throwing that out there, Lori Lightfoot!
Maybe you want to consider that in your detailed intellectual analysis.
Did you get what I just said?
The mayor of Chicago, who is now in the hot seat because conservative media outlets are talking about the Chicago mayhem, chaos and bloodshed.
Nobody else.
The liberal media glances over it and pretends it's not happening.
Why, Joe?
It doesn't fit their narrative, of course.
And what's their narrative?
The media's narrative is gun control works.
If we would implement gun control, all this chaos would stop.
That's interesting, because Chicago has some of the strictest gun control in the country, and it's mayhem every single weekend.
Don't talk about that!
Media are hacks.
They're not interested in the truth.
So Lori Leifert, the mayor of Chicago, now in an effort to further deflect her failed leadership already.
It's done.
She's a total chaos under her reign.
Lori Lightfoot saying, well, it's not our fault, they're buying these guns in Republican-leaning states.
Even if that was true, which it's not, the majority of guns do not come from Republican-leaning states, have you asked yourself why these people buy guns in Republican-leaning states in illegal, probably strawman-type purchases, and then sell them later on, but they don't commit the same amount of crime there?
Joe, putting on your hat, your audience on Budsman hat, am you getting what I'm saying?
Like, you're gonna go to Texas, even if that was true, it's not, but let's just roll with her saying, all these guns are coming from Texas, whatever.
Not true, but whatever.
So you go to Texas to buy a gun.
You plan on selling illegally later.
So you're a criminal, whether you bought the gun legally or not.
You're a criminal because you plan on committing an illegal act and selling it to probably a prohibited possessor later on.
But you don't stay in Texas to commit the crime.
No.
Why not?
It's local.
You drive all the way to Chicago to commit the crime.
Why would you do that?
Because you're pretty much guaranteed in Chicago, New York, Washington, D.C., L.A.
and elsewhere to be preying on people who can't defend themselves.
Has she thought this through?
My guess is you haven't.
And the media, which is just feckless.
I mean, just done.
You had this Bloomberg reporter yesterday, too.
I don't even want to get into it.
It's so unbelievable what happened.
Basically reported a sarcastic post by a Trump administration official.
Accused the guy of anti-Semitism.
The guy got fired.
The only good news is the Bloomberg reporter is getting shellacked by both sides today.
Again, if it doesn't fit the narrative, The media will not report on it.
Gun control is being implemented.
Air quotes, gun control, because guns have never been controlled.
In DC, New York, and Chicago.
And in some of those cities, we have bloodbaths going on.
I had this conversation with another guy this morning who doesn't seem to get what I'm trying to tell him.
Here's the second fake news story.
The first one's not fake news, what's happening in Chicago is real, but it's fake in that the media is not acting as actual journalists and covering the mayhem in Chicago.
This is an actual fake news story from Politico.
I'll put this in the show notes, I hate to give them clicks, but it's worth you reading to understand how the media does what it does, even though they do unfortunately get clicks.
Now, Politico, by people on the inside who know Politico, is traditionally called BullCo.
You can fill in the rest.
Because it's a left-leaning activist rag, Politico hires people who will tell a story, not tell you the story.
You get the difference?
Yeah.
Politico is telling you a story, not the story.
So a friend of mine was used and abused this morning.
Here's this Politico story about Trump.
Here we go again.
Trump, who, keep in mind, doesn't take a federal salary and has probably lost billions of dollars in goodwill on his name for running for president as a Republican.
The media, Natasha Bernstein, who is one of the worst Fake news reporters I've ever seen, and Quint Forgy, I don't know Quint Forgy, but man, is that a name.
Natasha Bertrand, total fake news.
She has had it in for Trump for days, but she pretends to be a journalist.
Here's her Politico piece again.
Total fake news.
Trump resorts aren't easier to defend.
Secret service vets grumble.
I know these secret service vets.
It's going to be delicate here.
Yeah.
So here's the story, let me give you the bottom line up front.
Natasha Bertrand, who is not a journalist, okay, let's just be clear on this, she's an opinion writer and a bad one at that at Bull Itico, she had a narrative going into this.
Joe, she had a story, right?
Not this story.
She had a narrative.
The narrative she had going into this story, she was going to write no matter what.
It didn't matter what the story was.
It matters what the narrative was, right?
Correct, yes.
Her narrative was that Trump and Mike Pence, when they travel, sometimes stay at these Trump resorts because Trump is somehow getting richer and benefiting off this, which is hilarious when you understand the devastation.
I know.
Joe and I chat a lot off the air.
Do you understand the damage that Trump has done to his business by running for president?
Folks, it's not a knock on Trump.
If anything, it's a laudatory pat on the back that this guy was willing to take a massive reputational hit on his business to go run for president.
Do you honestly think Trump's making any money off running for president?
Say the guy at the low end is worth 50 million.
He's worth a lot more than that, but just say that.
Do you really think that $500,000 a year salary's like, oh man, we made it now!
Woohoo!
500 grand!
Melania, look at this, we're loaded!
We did it now, Melania!
Half a mil a year!
Folks, the guy's probably worth about 200 mil.
He doesn't even take a salary, he donates it.
Right.
The reputational harm he has gone through by running as a Republican, because the media hates Republicans.
We all know that.
The media just hates Republicans.
That's the biggest narrative of all, but that's actually true.
Media hates Republicans.
They have destroyed this guy's reputation.
Any business goodwill.
You know the term goodwill?
You don't need to be a business school major.
Goodwill.
Companies have goodwill.
There's goodwill built into their brand.
You know, companies like Coca-Cola or whatever, that through years of people liking their product, the name carries a cachet with it worth more than their capital assets in and of itself.
Kind of like, you know, when people talk about Xerox copies, right?
You know, Xerox, it's really a photocopy, not a Xerox.
But people, Xerox gets its brand name out there just because they were the first mover.
There's a lot of things like that built into a brand name.
Trump's brand name is annihilated.
The Trump brand, when he was doing The Apprentice, every, folks, I grew up in New York, everybody wanted, you live in Trump Tower?
Oh my gosh.
It was, there was cachet built in that, that wasn't necessarily representative of the capital value of the condo you had or the apartment you had in Trump Tower.
You get what I'm saying?
Yeah, man.
The apartment may have been worth a million, but it's probably worth a million and five because people could say, I lived in Trump Tower.
That's gone.
Yeah.
So Natasha Bertrand, who's not a reporter, she's not a serious person.
She has a narrative in advance.
The narrative is false.
Trump is profiting from the presidency.
This guy's losing millions.
So she goes out and she finds gullible people who don't know that.
And I'm sorry, fellas, but you just didn't know, I guess, or you just wanted to be in the paper bad enough?
I'm not sure.
So you go out and you get a call from Natasha Bertrand.
I don't take those calls ever.
I never talk to Politico, the New York Times, or any of these people ever because they're not serious journalists.
I'll talk to serious journalists, the Wall Street Journal and elsewhere, but not fake news people.
Instead of knowing that, they talk to this reporter, these Secret Service vets who Yeah, Daniel.
Easy.
Easy, fella.
Easy.
Yeah, I know.
And the Secret Service vets are now puzzled, probably, that their quotes are being used to reinforce the narrative.
Ladies and gentlemen, here's the narrative.
The narrative is, again, Trump is profiting.
And when the administration says, hey, we only use the Trump resort, it's not because we're making money.
They're not.
Trump is losing money.
But it's just easier for us to do it and coordinate it.
Natasha Bertrand goes to these two Secret Service guys who give quotes, and the quotes enter, you say, that's not true, it's not easier to secure this place.
So you get it?
Follow me here, because I want you to understand how the fake news, fake journalists work.
Bertrand wants to knock down this theory that it's just easier to secure Trump resorts when the president travels, because she wants you to believe Trump is making money and profiteering off his presidency.
Absolutely false.
So she goes to these two guys who aren't savvy to how narratives work.
They give her a quote.
Those quotes are used to reinforce her narrative.
Now you can read some of the quotes.
Some of them are, you know, well, you know, if we go back to a place a lot doesn't necessarily mean it's more secure.
Yeah, fine.
That's a fair assessment.
I get that.
We go back to, there is sometimes a sense of complacency.
I can tell you when we did airport advances for the president, the low guy on the totem pole does the airport advance.
So if the president lands at JFK, the junior guy in the Secret Service protective detail does the airport advance.
Why?
Because we've been there a million times, and it really kind of works itself out.
You may say, well, that sounds more secure, not less.
Eh, not so much.
Sometimes there's this, ah, we've done this a thousand times, junior Secret Service guy, don't even worry about it.
And you get it, Joe, like this inside the box thinking occurs?
Yeah.
So you may say, well, Dan, you're kind of reinforcing a point.
No, there are other variables that go into this at these Trump resorts.
The other, and I'm sorry if that's a little confusing, but One of the guys quoted was like, well, if we go back to a Trump resort a lot, it doesn't necessarily mean it's more secure.
Okay, fair enough.
But what they fail to put in the story, and what Natasha Bertrand, fake news journalist, doesn't know, because she has zero experience in security at all, is, ladies and gentlemen, I'll go back to the same place a million times over if they're insanely cooperative and they want to fit and mold their agenda towards our security plan.
Let me just ask you a simple question I asked Paula before the show.
Would you rather, if Joe Armacost was president, go to a place, a resort, where the staff is very accommodating to the plans?
Hey, we need to do this to the HVAC system.
We need to do this to the windows.
We need to do this to set up the ballistic glass.
Do you want to go there, Joe?
Or do you want to go to a hotel that says, no, no, you're not doing that here.
You're not doing that.
Just quick.
I mean, I'm really serious.
You want to go to the cooperator or the non-cooperator?
I want to go to number one, the cooperator.
Yeah.
Thank you!
You're welcome.
It's not hard to figure out, but of course that's left out of the story because Natasha Bertrand, fake news, alleged journalist, doesn't want the story.
She wants a story.
Okay, we got the doggies losing their minds out there.
The show's going to the dogs, man.
Hey doggies, chill out!
I love the doggies, but everyone needs to chill out there.
Oh my.
They're over here for the hurricane.
Alright.
You get my point?
She had a story in advance.
Trump is profiteering.
This line they're using, Trump, that, well, we go there because they're cooperative, is not true because these two Secret Service guys said so.
Guys, come on, smarten up.
I'm serious.
By smarten up, I don't mean lie to anybody, but I mean understand that these people are not coming in there to tell people the story.
You had to know you were going to be taken out of context, or what you said was going to be used as Trump bashing, not as a sincere analysis of the security situation.
And let me be clear on one thing before I move on from this.
Honestly, folks, I get it.
It's hard for me always to be an objective observer.
I get it.
I'm a conservative.
I don't hide my bias like fake news journalists try to.
I don't.
But I do try to give you an independent analysis.
If, honest to God, if I thought going to a Trump resort was less safe than the VP or the President going to another resort and they were just doing it to make money, on my life I would tell you.
Because I have no interest in the President getting hurt or the Secret Service humiliated and failing.
But it's a dumb analysis from a fake news reporter, I mean desperate, to generate a fake news headline.
Alright, I got another one coming up next.
Media tansuits stupidity.
Showing you how they take one narrative and transplant it into a new narrative to create a third kind of mutant-like X-Men narrative from the two narratives.
Don't go anywhere.
You're crazy.
All right.
Today's show brought to you by my favorite new sponsor, Tommy John.
I love Tommy John.
I'm not kidding.
I was wearing Tommy John way, way before they were a sponsor.
I have like the original Tommy John's.
I think I'm going to keep them as an antique and like frame them on my wall.
What's that?
It's my original Tommy John's.
Dude, it's underwear.
That's how much I like them.
There's a lot of underwear brands out there that claim to be big on comfort.
But if that were true, then why are 75% of men and women dissatisfied with their underwear?
My hunch is that they haven't tried Tommy John, the revolutionary underwear brand that's upgraded over 1 million lives.
Tommy John doesn't just claim to be the most comfortable underwear on the planet, they actually have the stats to back it up.
How about this number?
Over 7 million.
That's the number of pairs Tommy John underwears sold, with 96% of their customers rating them a 4 stars or greater.
Frankly, I'm wondering who the other 4% are.
These are the best underwear out there.
With Tommy John's revolutionary underwear, the legs never ride up.
I hate that!
I hate that, especially in the gym, everybody starts looking at you, what are you doing down there?
And the waistbands never roll down.
Their horizontal quick-dry flaw, like that, has been proven to save men over 270 unfurling minutes a year, and their feather-light air fabric guarantees zero visible panty lines for women.
And Tommy John is more than just underwear.
They've got 750 products online, such as super soft loungewear, polo shirts, and apparel.
Paula's getting nervous out there.
Tommy John is so sure you're going to love their fit and feel that it's all backed by their best pair you'll ever wear or it's free, guaranteed.
It is the best pair you'll ever wear.
I'm telling you, I guarantee it.
It means if you don't love your first pair, you get a full refund.
Tommy John, no adjustment needed.
I love, love, love Tommy John.
Hurry to TommyJohn.com slash Dan.
Tommy, T-O-M-M-Y John.com slash Dan for 20% off your order.
TommyJohn.com slash Dan for 20% off your order.
TommyJohn.com slash Dan 20% Yeah.
Off your order.
And let me just say, they sent some product over for Paula.
Good stuff.
Yes!
Date night has been spectacular, thanks to Tommy.
Tommy, can you hear me?
She gets nervous.
She gets nervous out there.
I see I'm like crying because I'm laughing because I know I can read my wife's mind after so many years of marriage.
She's like, where's he going with this?
She knows it's true.
That's why I was a little tired this morning.
If you're missing the YouTube, you have no idea what you're missing.
I ain't saying anything!
Nothing!
I know nothing!
Nothing!
Let me tell you, that was not fake news.
That was legitimate journalism.
Right.
All right.
Moving on to real fake news.
Real fake.
We should quote that.
Here's real fake news.
PJ Media has a great piece.
It'll be in the show notes.
It's the yesterday's show notes.
I think I'll have it in today's as well.
Media tan suits stupidity.
So again, keep in mind here, hold that up on the screen because this is important.
The media is telling you a story, not the story.
First was about the Secret Service story, fake news.
They're ignoring the Chicago story, which is real news, but a fake narrative because they don't want to tell the real story.
This one's hysterical.
The media, desperate to pile on Trump, want you to believe the Obama administration was scandal-free.
So we saw this bevy of stories last week about the tan suit controversy.
Matt Margolis, PJ Media.
14 real Obama scandals that have nothing to do with his wearing a tan suit.
It's not fake, it was a real tan suit.
Okie dokie!
So here's the genesis of this story.
In an effort, again, for them to tell a story that Trump is a uniquely corrupt president, What they want to do is create a foil effect.
You know what a foil effect is, right?
It's when you put a diamond on a black background, it always looks shinier.
You put a diamond on a white background, your brain doesn't process the contrast as well.
Even though it's the same diamond, it doesn't look as bright.
So the media, in order to paint Trump as a uniquely awful human being, wants to create this foil.
And the foil is, look how pure as the driven snow Barack Obama was.
That's their thing.
You know what I'm saying?
This guy had, there were no... So the story last week was the biggest scandal of the Obama administration was the tan suit controversy.
Now, if you're sitting there right there, pen in your hand like I am right now going... Yeah.
Yeah.
If you're scratching your head going, what the?
Was the tan suit controversy?
So is everybody else in America.
Yeah.
Again, they're telling a story, not this story.
Little background.
Barack Obama showed up to a presser in the Brady press room one time to answer questions when he was president and he had a tan suit on.
If you haven't heard of this story, that's because no one else, no sentient being on the planet has heard of it either.
A couple of bloggers, I don't know who they were.
Someone wrote about how it does look weird, like a tan suit, especially if you're the president.
I like tan suits.
They're not bad.
I mean, they're perfect for some Florida occasions too.
But it does look a little weird when you're the president.
It was not a scandal!
Nobody cared!
Prima facie evidence that nobody cares.
I'm telling you about it now, and you're like, where are you going with this?
Because you've never heard of it.
But the media, their narrative this week, a couple of people printed this.
You know how they have a focus group narrative that goes around the media ecosystem?
Think about how pure as the driven snow Obama was.
The biggest scandal was when he wore that tan suit.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is what I meant before, where I'm going to morph one scandal to the next.
The making of the Tansuits scandal was a scandal in and of itself because it wasn't a scandal.
It was one of those, you know these stories Joe, Republicans Pounce stories, that are totally made up.
Republicans pounce on Obama's tan suit.
Nobody cares or gives a shit about Obama's tan suit.
Nobody cared.
You listening, check out the PJ Media piece.
You can see a picture of it.
It's the first time you've ever seen it.
Nobody cared.
This was not a scandal.
So in the media's effort to create a new scandal that Trump is uniquely dangerous and Obama wasn't, they go back to a third scandal which wasn't a scandal.
The media tansuit scandal to show this is how great Obama was.
The biggest scandal of his presidency was the tansuit debacle.
Oh my god.
Ladies and gentlemen, journalism is dead.
Nobody cared about this story.
Now, what the media who wrote about the tansuit scandal, not scandal, they made a scandal through a GOP pouncing scandal.
What they're not telling you is, I mean, do we really need to go through the list?
Fast and Furious, the IRS scandal, the VA scandal, the AP scandal, the James Rosen scandal when they targeted their phones.
What else do we got?
What am I missing here?
Benghazi, which actually had body bags.
Spygate, the biggest scandal in American history.
There's more here.
I know I'm missing, now PJ Media has them listed out, I'm not going to go through them all because it would take the whole show, but has a list of the Obama scandals that were actual scandals, some of them resulting in dead bodies, that I assure you had nothing to do with tan suits.
I mean, legitimately, people were killed due to ineptitude by Obama administration officials like in Benghazi.
But yes, the media has to go back to the tan suits... I keep saying suits from the money show yesterday.
Suit scandal was the biggest deal of the Obama administration.
No!
Not true!
They're making this up.
That is fake news again.
Because that's what the media does.
Ladies and gentlemen, journalism is dead.
Alright, here's another one.
So we had this story, I promised you yesterday, I get this, we had this story blow out in the media, it was all over Twitter.
Phoenix, Arizona.
People are targeting transgender illegals in this country.
So, the narrative they want to put out there is because a transgender woman, who was in the country illegally, stepped onto a train platform, she was arrested because she was transgender.
Because of course, Joe, according to the News Times, and he says we're all istophobic, phobophobes, you know, you know the whole routine, we don't have to go through this.
Yeah, yeah.
Unfortunately, folks, for the alleged journalist in that case, that's not what actually happened.
The transgender woman who was in the country illegally was on the platform without a ticket, which is against the law or against the rules at a minimum.
Was questioned by the authorities at the scene for being there.
When she was questioned, had two outstanding warrants for crimes, or an assault according to the reporting, and then was taken into ICE custody.
Kind of a different story than the story they wanted to tell you that people approached, the authorities approached this woman because she was transgender.
Completely, totally made up, more unbelievably bad taste, fake news from the media.
Folks, they're not serious.
That's why I'm having a hard time taking seriously a lot of the reporting about the 2020 election, about Donald Trump.
It's almost a joke.
Yes, Daniel, yes.
It's become a big joke at this point.
A lot of people feel that, yeah.
I know!
I mean, you know, I get out there and I don't get out as much as I want to, but my kind of like, because I don't really go to bars much often anymore with my wife and we kind of like do our own thing, but my bar is the gym.
I go there three, four times a week.
A lot of you listen to my show know me from there.
And I kind of get a decent flavor of what people are thinking.
I live in a 50-50 Republican Democrat County.
And if there was one common theme I hear more often than anything, it's how much these people cannot stand the media anymore.
Amen, brother.
And the media just doesn't get it.
They are complete, their credibility is done.
You guys and ladies did it.
You just evaporated away your credibility.
It's over.
Okay, I'm going to wrap up that media thing because I've got two more important stories to get to.
I want to get to this Spygate thing.
What's coming?
Because I believe this guy's sources are good and what's coming is going to be really, really Ugly for them.
Again, I don't want to get into the whole because last week we got about legally.
Legally is a different situation.
I've already said my piece on that.
Some people will face legal action, some will skate.
But the exposing of information at a minimum is going to cause a whole reworking of how our intelligence community works is going to be devastating.
I want to get to that.
I want to get to an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal about some 2020 not-predictions.
Let's call them anti-predictions, because I'm trying to stay out of the predictions game.
All right, finally, today's show brought to you by our buddies at Helix Sleep.
If you're sleeping on any other mattress other than Helix Sleep, you're making a huge mistake.
We have two of them in this house.
We love them.
Most comfortable mattress, best-priced mattress, and they're customized for you.
Here's what you do.
Helix.
Helix.
H-E-L-I-X.
Like Watson and Crick.
Double Helix.
Helix Sleep has a quiz that takes just two minutes to complete and matches your body type and sleep preferences to the perfect mattress for you.
Whether you're a side sleeper like me, a hot sleeper like me, You like a plush or firm bed?
With Helix, there's no more confusion and no more compromising on your mattress.
Helix Sleep is rated the number one mattress by GQ and Wired Magazine.
Just go to HelixSleep, H-E-L-I-X dot com slash Dan.
HelixSleep dot com slash Dan.
Take their two, two minute sleep quiz.
Utah, give me two.
Take their two minute sleep quiz and they'll match you to a customized mattress that will give you the best sleep of your life.
I'd be lost without it, especially after last night.
And for couples, Helix can split the mattress down the middle, providing individual support needs and field preferences for each side.
I'm sorry.
I'm not.
I may be after the show.
They have a 10-year warranty, and you get to try out your Helix Sleep mattress, like mine, for 100 nights, risk-free.
They'll even pick it up for you if you don't love it.
But you will.
We can't sleep on anything else.
You know why Helix Sleep set me up?
I'm not messing with you.
Helix Sleep sent me another one because my wife was falling asleep on my daughter's mattress reading her books at night.
That's how awesome the Helix Sleep mattress is.
I'm not kidding.
That's a true story.
Helix is offering up to $125 off all mattress orders for our listeners.
Get up to $125 off at helixsleep.com.
That's HelixSleep.com slash Dan for up to $125 off your mattress orders.
HelixSleep.com slash Dan, go check them out.
Support our sponsors.
They're here talking to you.
They love to be here.
They keep the show free.
We really appreciate it.
HelixSleep.com slash Dan, $125 off all mattress orders.
All right, we're trying to recover.
The show.
Yeah.
Let's see where this goes.
Pretty good though.
Maybe get a baseball bat to the head after this, right?
I don't have a helmet anymore.
No.
So here are my not-so predictions for 2020.
So an interesting piece of the Wall Street Journal.
You know, I blew my House call on the 2018 midterms.
Did pretty well on the Senate call.
Did really well on the 2016 election.
So two out of three ain't bad, as Meatloaf once said.
There's a great piece in the Wall Street Journal about here's what's sure to happen in 2020 by William Galston.
I wanted to discuss this article a little bit because I'm calling them the anti-predictions.
In other words, the gist of the piece is this.
These are things we're relatively sure of that could influence the 2020 election.
So like I said, they're kind of anti-predictions.
He goes through these things.
He has four of them.
I'm going to talk about three.
The other one, if you want to read the piece, you can.
It's again, it's up at the Wall Street Journal.
So his takeaway number one is an obvious one.
I think we should all factor into our 2020 decision-making.
The first one from the piece is that 2020 turnout is going to be really, really, really high.
From the piece, turnout will be very high.
The 2018 election, listen to this folks, featured the highest midterm turnout since 1914.
The first time U.S.
Senators were popularly elected.
If the historical relationship between midterm and general elections hold, 2020 would bring the highest share of the voting age population to the polls in half a century, and perhaps since 1908.
Why is that useful to you?
I don't talk about stuff on this show to waste your time.
Okay, great, Dan.
Turnout will be high.
I know I'm showing up.
Of course I know turnout will be high.
It's not about you.
That's not why I'm talking about this.
It's about the anti-Trumpers.
Notice that didn't say Republican turnout will be high.
It will.
It said turnout will be high.
In other words, folks, I don't care what happens on election day, unless a nuclear blast, God forbid, goes off within 500 miles of your voting station.
Go and vote, no matter what, because nothing is going to stop Democrats from showing up.
I don't want to scare you, this is not hyperbole, this is data based, based on Galston's own figures, based on the midterm, and historical correlations between the midterm and the popular vote.
You sitting there, I know you're not doing this, I don't mean to be condescending, please don't take it the wrong way, but if you're sitting there going, oh that's not true, I'm not worried, get worried!
Like, fast!
Don't panic!
I think Trump stands a good chance of re-election, and you'll see why in a second based on some of his other takeaways.
But get a little worried!
Turnout will be off the charts.
You absolutely have to vote.
There's no excuse.
Have someone drive you if you can't get there.
If you're not registered, register now.
You have more than enough time.
You can't get out?
Vote by mail.
You can't vote by mail?
Vote absentee.
You can't absentee?
Vote early.
You can't vote early?
Vote on game day.
There's no excuse.
And follow my 10-10-10 rule.
Email 10 friends, make 10 social media posts, and call 10 people before the election every month.
I don't want to do that.
I don't want to get involved.
All right, then you don't want to win.
What did you think this was going to be?
A wiffle ball game?
This is going to be trench warfare politics.
I promise you there is going to be nothing, nothing outside of total annihilation of the United States from keeping Democrats from voting.
Those numbers and data and trend lines are crystal clear.
Not a lecture at all, just a warning.
You want to win, bring ten people with you.
Okay, number two, again, of the anti-predictions.
Despite the rise of cultural issues, the economy will matter.
This is important.
This is why I said if the economy stays strong, I think Trump's chances of re-election are solid.
Check this out.
In every election since 1980, with the exception of 1992, an increase in economic growth between the third and fourth year of a president's term, where we are now, has been followed by victory for his party, while a decrease was followed by a defeat.
The slowdown of economic growth from 2.9% in 2015 to 1.6% in 2016 roughened Hillary Clinton's road to the White House.
A predicted slowdown from 2.9% in 2018 to an estimated 2.1% in 2019 and 1.8% to 1.9% in 2020 would create a headwind for President Trump's re-election campaign.
This is not any kind of a warning or lecture.
There's nothing we can do about the economy motors because of the private sector, but the government can't get in the way.
This is more of a cautionary tale for lawmakers in DC.
The Trump administration's committed to growing.
What are you doing now?
What are you doing to help besides getting in the way?
The answer is probably nothing.
Because a lot of these rhinos probably don't want to see Trump re-elected.
But the good news is if we can keep the economy motoring, re-election, there's a good chance.
Again, I'm not in the predictions business anymore.
Finally, another warning from the peace, but an important one.
On the popular vote.
Another reason why there's no excuse.
I'm not voting, I live in New York, my vote doesn't matter.
No, it does!
Get off the couch and vote, no matter what!
President Trump is likely to receive significantly less, this is from the piece, than 50% of the popular vote and a smaller share than his Democrat opponent.
In the past three general elections, a Republican nominee has averaged 46.3%, almost exactly what Trump received in 2016, compared with 50.7% for the Democrat.
In the past five elections, the Republican average has been 47.5% versus the Democrat's 49.9%.
Since Trump entered office, his job approval has seldom exceeded the share of the vote he received in 2016.
Again, just a bit of a warning.
Not any kind of a lecture.
Your vote matters.
Why?
Are elections determined by popular vote for the presidency?
No, of course not.
The Electoral College determines that.
The national presidential election is not a national election.
It's for a national office.
It is a series of 50 state elections.
You all know that.
But you suggesting, if you have, some- and the only reason I say this is some people have said that to me.
Nah, I live in New York, my vote doesn't matter.
No, it does.
Folks, we cannot afford to lose the popular vote.
We can't.
We have to at least try to win the popular vote.
It has not worked out well for the last five elections.
The problem is the media, to tie this in before I move on, interested in telling a story, not the story, will then paint the picture, if we lose the popular vote again, that, oh, listen, look what happened.
Donald Trump's a tyrant.
The public doesn't even want him.
We can't give them that opportunity.
You live in New York, you live in LA, you live in Chicago, yes, Baltimore, there are conservatives there.
I know, I ran in one of those states.
Please get out and vote.
No excuses.
Zero.
Totally unsat to not show up.
Alright, moving on to my last show.
I really wanted to cover this last week and we were just so deluged with information.
I had to keep pushing it back, especially when the Comey debacle broke last week.
Paul Sperry has a really wonderful piece.
It'll be in the show notes again today.
It was from last week in Real Clear Investigations.
It's dated August 28, 2019.
U.S.
intel gatekeeper dragging feet on Trump-Russia files, insiders say.
Sperry has some decent sources.
He's broken some solid news on the whole Spygate debacle, the effort to spy on and take down the Trump team.
Now, we had the Comey IG report come out last week, which I get it, I've heard your emails, we've had our back and forth, appreciate the positive and the negative feedback, always, that's why my email's out there.
Can we all agree, on the middle ground on the Comey IG report, that yes, although there were no legal consequences, which stinks, it was a weak case, I explained that last week, That the reputational damage at a minimum... Again, I'm not suggesting this is enough.
I'm just... Let's just take the middle ground here for a second.
Right.
The reputational damage to Comey was... It's over.
I mean, Comey is an egomaniac who wanted his legacy to be this corruption fighter in D.C.
and his legacy is going to be as the worst FBI director in the history of the agency.
Not enough for a lot of you?
I get it.
I understand.
I read your feedback.
But that was the first.
Don't get complacent.
This is why I say we gotta stay in this fight.
We still haven't had a decision about McCabe and others.
Here's what's coming out.
Let's go by it piece by piece and you can read the whole piece up at the show notes today.
First, Sperry's sources are telling him that what's coming out in the Pfizer report and other reports in the future, relatively soon, Are evidence that President Obama's C.I.A., F.B.I., and D.O.J.
illegally eavesdropped on the Trump campaign.
Listen to this part.
Cases separate from the F.B.I.' 's disputed FISA court-approved surveillance of Trump campaign advisor Carter Page.
Ladies and gentlemen, there are a lot of nuggets in there.
Yes, sir.
Notice what he said.
Because some of you listening to the first part will be like, What's coming out is that the Obama team spied on the Trump team, like, whippedy-doo, daddy-o!
Like, we already knew that if you wrote a book on it called Spygate two years ago.
That's not what he said!
I'm getting the same thing, by the way.
That's why I'm- I don't- If I was getting information on the contrary, I wouldn't talk about it on my show.
Folks, what have I told you now for two years?
My book was called Spygate, not Trumpgate, and not Russiagate.
Why?
Because the purpose of the whole operation was to spy on Obama's political enemies.
Trump was just one other portion of that.
It wasn't even about Trump only until Trump became the nominee.
Joe, we've said this a lot, right?
This is about the Obama team headline spying on its political opposition repeatedly, not just Trump.
So when Sperry's sources are telling him, hey man, listen, there's some stuff coming out about a spying operation, not necessarily limited to the FISA warrant on the Trump team.
What I think they're talking about is unmasking.
In other words, the use of effectively non-warrant wiretaps to listen in on American citizens, unmasking their identities.
Efforts to use sources and media outlets.
To get information into the mainstream public.
To change political narratives.
Of course, the media is lapping it up.
Eager to lap it all up.
People like Brennan and Clapper.
Metadata spying.
702 inquiries.
Brennan spying up on Capitol Hill during the Iran deal.
It is bigger than just Trump.
But again, don't worry, folks.
The biggest scandal of the Obama administration was he wore a tan suit.
Don't even worry about it.
Tan suit!
Tan suit, Gabe!
That was the worst thing that happened.
That's hopefully coming out soon.
I don't have a timeline.
If I did, I would give it to you.
Second, what else have we talked about on the show that Sperry's sources seem to be indicating is true?
Remember when I talked about the Golden File, because I couldn't think of any other clever name for it?
Yeah.
How something wound up in the White House that Obama read that shouldn't have been there.
I call it the Golden File.
Now, here's what Sperry's getting, quoting from the piece.
An August 2016 briefing, this may be coming out, CIA Director John Brennan hand-delivered in a sealed envelope to Obama, containing information from what Brennan claimed was a critical informant close to Putin.
The informant is believed to have actually been a Russian source recycled from the debunked dossier compiled by Christopher Steele from the Hillary Clinton campaign.
Folks, we've been talking about this for a year and a half now.
Look back to Devin Nunes' press conference right around, was it March of 2017?
He goes over to the White House complex and gets information from a whistleblower, gives a press conference and talks about information that was not necessarily related to Russians trying to interfere in our campaign.
The only thing I can speculate from what he saw and what whistleblowers at the White House might have is that information made it to Obama's desk without being vetted first that was political.
Folks, think about how devastating that is.
Let me just explain the first part, because some of you are new listeners, and forgive me, some of you older listeners probably have heard this before, but it's worth repeating.
The reason the information Nunes sought, the congressman, Republican congressman from California, who's done a great job on this, The reason he had to see it at the OEOB, which is on the White House 18-acre complex, is because the way information is compartmentalized within the government, folks, a lot of it is not kept on servers accessible from off-site.
In other words, there's some information so sensitive, it is only collected on siloed computers within the White House complex.
If you want to see it, you have to go there, to the White House.
They're not going to give you an email link.
They're not going to email it.
It's not available through a portal.
The fact that Nunes had to go there to see it says to me that it was on the White House complex because it was sensitive and was for somebody's eyes only, and those eyes may have been Obama.
And if that information was political information from John Brennan, from the Hillary campaign, not vetted intel up through the ranks, ladies and gentlemen, think about how dangerous that is.
Take Obama out of it a minute, because I know liberals worship him like the golden calf.
For liberals who listen to the show, I'm asking you to put Trump's name in it for a second.
Imagine Trump had an advisor, John Smith, the advisor, who's a Brennan-like hack.
And John Smith, the advisor, wants to start a war with Kraplakistan somewhere, right?
I have to make it up, because I don't want people to get the wrong idea.
So John Smith wants to start a war with Kripakistan, so he goes to his intel people and goes, hey, you guys got any intel on Kripakistan forming a military brigade operation to hit us over at Jones Beach in New York?
It's the dumbest story I ever heard.
You know what, one of the political people heard it, though.
Can you check on it?
Yeah, yeah, it's debunked.
That's nonsense.
Okay, I got an idea.
How about this?
How about I put it in a sealed envelope and just walk it right over to the President himself?
Mr. President!
Kraplakistan's planning an attack on Jones Beach tomorrow!
4 to 5!
Get Paul Revere out there on Jones Beach!
Off the beaches!
Off Beach 4 on Jones Beach!
Kraplakistan's got a military brigade coming in!
Can you imagine the damage?
There's a reason we have an intelligence hierarchy to vet information so you don't walk stuff into the White House complex.
It's so the president doesn't start a nuclear war on bad intel!
What was in the golden file?
Was it information from the Russian source interviewed by the FBI?
Later on in January of 2017?
Where the FBI later on figured out this guy was a complete sham as a source?
I told ya!
What else is coming out?
This one's a fascinating one.
This Brennan-Comey email exchange from the piece, an email exchange in December 2016 between Brennan and FBI Director Comey, in which Brennan is said to have argued for using the dossier in early drafts of the intelligence assessment.
That spread the narrative that Putin ordered the alleged Clinton campaign hacking to steal the election for Trump.
What's the problem here?
You have two discredited hacks, Comey the liar, Brennan the political hack, emailing each other about the ICA.
The ICA was in the last months of the Obama presidency, after the election was over.
In December, this intelligence community assessment comes out, the Russians tried to attack the election to benefit Hillary.
Ladies and gentlemen, I can tell you now conclusively, significant portions of that report were complete garbage.
Why was that put out there?
It was put out there because the Obama administration needed to go back and cover its tracks now as to why they lost the election despite before the election saying the Russians and others weren't a threat to the election.
They had to go back and cover their tracks because they knew now there was going to be an investigation into Trump and the investigation couldn't be predicated on Barack Obama's prior statements before the election that the Russians and others were not going to be able to attack the election.
I know, audience, I'm buzzman Joe.
I'm getting Obama's head a minute.
Obama before the election is telling everybody because he thinks Hillary's going to win in a landslide.
Get in his head.
Nobody thinks Trump's going to win.
Trump is saying before the election, I don't know if I'm going to accept the results.
We'll see what happens.
Remember when he said that in the debate?
Yes, I do.
Something like that.
He raised his hand.
Obama starts attacking Trump.
Nobody's messing with the election.
That guy's crazy.
Nobody's messing with the election.
Yeah.
That guy's nuts.
Forget it.
That's Obama.
After Trump wins, Obama's sitting there going, scratching his head thinking, what the heck do I do now?
Oh my gosh.
And we just, I just told everybody Russian was no big deal.
So what does he do?
So instead of coming out and going, hey, my bad, I screwed up, what happens?
Obama comes out after the election, orders this intelligence community assessment, which says the exact opposite of what Obama said before the election.
And then Brennan, taking this debunked document, wants Comey to include a lot of this poor analysis in that assessment to make sure the FBI is on board, too.
Obama's probably sitting there at his desk.
I can only imagine it like this.
I'm kind of in a bit of a pickle here, ain't I?
I just gave a presser a month ago talking about how the election wasn't in any jeopardy.
Don't forget, don't view history through the lens of what you know now.
View it through the lens of what Obama knew then, and this all makes sense.
He needed the ICA to cover his tracks.
He needed the ICA to come out and say, hey, the Russians are a real threat, despite the fact that I said they aren't a threat, because they needed Hillary to win.
He didn't say that before the election, and that was the predicate for them to continue spying on Trump.
All right, these are pretty easy, but the last few here, the Mifsud documents, copies of all FBI, CIA, State Department records relating to Mifsud, the Maltese professor whose statements regarding Papadopoulos allegedly triggered the original Russia collusion probe.
Remember, when this comes out on Mifsud, If Mifsud was not a Russian agent talking to Papadopoulos, the entire narrative falls apart.
Remember, the media is telling a story, not this story.
Remember, the media narrative in the past was that, oh, this Russian agent told Papadopoulos about emails, he was working for the Trump team, and then, look, it was over after that.
They were all colluding.
Well, if Mifsud was working for friendlies trying to set up the Papadopoulos operation on the Trump team, that's all over.
And the last one's important, the transcripts of 53 closed door interviews of FBI and Justice Department officials.
Why?
Why are the transcripts important?
Because ladies and gentlemen, there are two stories that simultaneously cannot be true at the same time.
The transcripts of Christopher Simpson, Glenn Simpson.
I always say Christopher, he's one of my buddies from the Secret Service.
Glenn Simpson's interview.
Glenn Simpson said he met Bruce Ohr after the election.
Or the DOJ official is saying that's not true, I met Simpson before.
Both of those things can't be true.
Why is that critical?
Because somebody lied under oath.
And I believe Simpson did it, I believe Orr, to cover his tracks and to try and distance himself to the fake dossier.
Which, you know, you can call it the Simpson dossier, because as I cover in my next book, Exonerated, please pick it up, you'll see I cover that at length.
How Simpson's gonna try to backtrack and walk away from his own comments and that of his wife's as well.
they're in a lot of trouble. All right folks, thanks again for tuning in. I really appreciate
it. Please subscribe to our YouTube channel. It was a stack show. YouTube.com/Bongino.
Someone tweeted me yesterday, they love our Greek god of media stupidity, Heronius.
I forgot I even said that.
Yeah.
You can also subscribe to our audio show on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, iHeart, SoundCloud, and wherever your podcasts are available.
I really appreciate the subscriptions drive us up the charts.
They're all free, but they help people find the show.
