Pelosi and Schiff Keep Digging Themselves Deeper in the Hole (Ep 1101)
In this episode, I address the Democrats’ collapsing case for impeachment as yet another key witness blows up in the Democrats’ faces. I also address the explosive case of the spies working inside the White House. Finally, I discuss deeply troubling video from these two leading Democrats along with the latest economic numbers.
News Picks:Pelosi does an embarrassing about-face on impeachment.
There’s a revolt against the farce impeachment brewing.
The latest witness in the fake “whistleblower” scandal blows up in the Democrats’ face.
Debunking major myths about the Ukraine scandal involving Biden and the Democrats.
The N.Y. Times blows it, again!
The tax bill you’ll pay for Elizabeth Warren’s government takeover of the healthcare system is mind-boggling.
As predicted, liberals are now using twitter to squeeze Facebook on political ads.
The October job numbers are out, and they’re very good.
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.
Folks, you gotta love it.
The impeachment farce, fiasco, this joke of this fake foe, fraudulent Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, star chamber, Soviet Union style overturning of an election that they choose to call an impeachment is collapsing and blowing up in their faces.
Listen, welcome to the Dan Bongino Show.
I got a stack loaded show today.
Producer Joe, How are you today, my friend?
Hey, baby.
Good to be here on Impeachment Fest.
Woo-hoo!
Yeah, Impeachment.
Yeah, exactly.
It's like Woodstock, except for political idiots and liberal hacks, right?
It's the Woodstock for morons.
The Impeachment Fest, you know, 2019.
It's so embarrassing.
I've got huge updates on that and another, I think, stunning reveal based on a text Uh, that'll follow up on yesterday's show about Charlie and potentially who Charlie was.
This is gonna get a lot better.
If you liked yesterday's show, you're gonna love today's show.
Alright, let's get right to it because we're stacked and loaded up today.
Today's show brought to you by our buddies at, yes, Patriot Mobile.
Now, you may have heard about Patriot Mobile in some of our pre-rolls, but ladies and gentlemen, you have to ask what your cell phone provider now What exactly are you financing and paying for?
The chances are you're paying to finance a lot of liberal activist groups, a lot of liberal groups, and a lot of causes that don't comport with things you believe in.
They're one of our newest sponsors, Patriot Mobile, and I want you to support them if you can.
Right now, we aren't just fighting the left in the media, we're fighting the deep state, liberal activists, feckless Republicans, and even corporations that don't like us, like Verizon, who donate millions to candidates and causes on the left.
Patriot Mobile's different.
Every month they donate a portion of your monthly bill to conservative organizations fighting for the values you believe in and helping President Trump move our agenda forward.
I told you about the need to develop a conservative economy many times on the show, folks.
Here's your first step.
They use the same towers as everyone else so you get the same great service.
Don't worry about that.
Keep your number, keep your phone, or buy a new one.
Plans start as low as $25 per month.
You ain't gonna beat that.
Right now, get free activation when you go to patriotmobile.com slash dan.
That's patriotmobile.com slash dan.
Do it today.
Not everyone's cut out to run for office, be on the radio, become an activist, but we need to stick together.
This is one way to fight back.
Support companies willing to fight with you.
Make the switch.
Get free activation today.
Go to patriotmobile.com slash dan.
I'm happy to have them on board.
That's patriotmobile.com slash dan.
All right, Joe, let's go.
All right, folks, Nancy Pelosi's melting down.
There's a number of reasons for this I'm going to get to in this first segment of the show about how the impeachment star chamber effort to overturn a 60 plus million voters in the election is now fully imploding and collapsing upon the Democrats.
So before we get to that, I want to play a little video of Nancy Pelosi yesterday.
This is a. This is a.
This is interesting.
Pelosi's asked a very basic question, nothing out of the ordinary, about how do you plan on addressing the Republican complaints about your impeachment vote yesterday, which you're trying to call an inquiry or an investigation.
We all know it's a vote to impeach, that's what it is, because they want to save their swing state Democrats.
But she's asked by a reporter, who actually asks an honest journalistic question, how do you address the Republican concerns based on prior impeachments and precedent that weren't done this way about openness and how this doesn't appear open.
Republicans have a lot of concerns about this being conducted in secret, kind of like they would do in like a communist third world country.
Watch Pelosi freak out and if this isn't telling about what's going on in her head and how worried she is that this thing isn't floating on her, I don't know what is.
Check out this video.
Yes, they are.
Yes, they are.
Now, if they answered it once, I'll answer it twice.
I'm going to answer it one time.
Are these rules really fair?
-Yes, they are. Yes, they are.
Now, if I answered it once, I'll answer it twice.
I'm gonna answer it one time.
These rules are fairer than anything that had gone before in terms of an impeachment proceeding.
I'm not here to answer what the Republicans say.
If you have any questions, we're doing appropriations, we're doing trade, we're doing drug prices,
lowering the cost of drug prices.
I'm not here to answer any questions about what the Republicans say.
What's that, Botox poisoning?
Only the biggest political story, Joe, in what, 30 years?
I mean, spy gate, impeachment, fake Ukraine gate, fake whistleblower gate, and Pelosi's not answering any questions, Joe.
She wants to talk about things she's not doing.
Literally, they are doing impeachment.
Joe, am I crazy?
You are the audience on BuzzFeed.
Did they vote on drug prices yesterday?
No!
Because that's what she said, right?
I want to talk about lowering drug prices.
Did they vote on that?
What did they vote on yesterday, Joe?
It was impeachment.
Oh, that's right, impeachment!
But she doesn't want to talk about any of that.
Why?
Listen to me, folks.
Because I don't want to beat this thing to death.
If Nancy Pelosi and her crew of lunatics, Schiff and Nadler, Swalwell and these other goofballs, thought this was such a political winner, Then why don't they want to talk about it?
Matter of fact, not only do they not want to talk about it, why is she literally getting angry when a question is asked about the process, the impeachment process she voted on, she seems so proud of.
Yeah.
Why?
Because they're in a panic about what's coming next.
Because they said, well, Republicans wanted to argue the process.
Now we fixed the process.
They didn't.
Republicans don't want to argue the substance.
No, we argue.
I've been arguing the substance because there is no substance to this impeachment charge.
That's the next portion of this.
But before I get to that, this is important.
I want to play a video here of Doug Collins, Congressman Doug Collins, who's excellent.
We love Doug Collins.
He's doing a great job.
I want to play a video of Doug Collins, who kind of hints at what may be coming next from the Republican side as they fight back against this fake impeachment, impeachment nonsense that the Democrats want to impeach but are not calling an impeachment.
Check out Doug Collins and he's like, folks, strap your boots on and get ready for what's ahead.
Check this out.
When it gets to the Judiciary Committee, I do have one thing for Mr. Schiff.
If he wants to be, as said, a special counsel, he's set himself up, then here's my challenge to Mr. Schiff.
You want to be Ken Starr?
Be Ken Starr.
Come to the Judiciary Committee, be the first witness, and take every question asked of you.
Starting with your own involvement with the whistleblower.
Folks, this ain't over.
Get ready.
The cloud that is dropping will be dropping on their heads because process matters and substance will always win out in the end.
And this president has nothing to worry about on substance.
I yield back.
Oh, okie dokie.
So what's our friend representative Doug Collins talking about there?
Well, there are two arguments here about the impeachment that the Democrats don't want to call an impeachment.
First, the process.
The process is horrendous, and this vote yesterday just enshrines a bad process, which I'll get to in a moment, too.
Secondly, is there actual substance to the charge of the impeachment, the alleged deal with the Ukrainians for information on Biden?
The answer is no to both.
The process sucks, and the substance is even worse.
And Collins, I'm glad, mentions that.
But secondly, he brings up an interesting point, Joe, and why is he doing that?
Why is he doing that?
Doug Collins says, well, you want to act like Ken Starr.
We're going to treat you like Ken Starr, sleazy Schiff.
What does he mean?
Well, during the Bill Clinton impeachment being run by Newt Gingrich and then on the Senate side in the trial, it was being run by the United States Senate, where obviously the impeachment, he was not thrown out of office, Bill Clinton, obviously.
The Republicans gave the Democrats subpoena power, the ability to call witnesses, and all of that.
And one of the people the Democrats insisted on calling to testify was Ken Starr himself, who of course led the Justice Department investigation into Bill Clinton's perjury.
We know Bill Clinton lied.
We know that.
He perjured himself.
We know that.
Wow!
Ken Starr!
They allowed Ken Starr to come up there?
The Republicans?
Are the Democrats going to do the same and allow Adam Schiff, who's now a fact witness in the case?
Why is he a fact witness?
Why do the Republicans want to call Adam Schiff?
Because Schiff, like Starr, is leading the investigation, dreaded air quotes, because it's not an investigation at all, Joe.
But secondly, remember Schiff, who based his entire impeachment farce on the whistleblower who we discussed yesterday, the whistleblower's complaint about a quid pro quo that never happened?
There's no evidence that happened at all.
We have the transcript.
Well, remember Schiff saying, no, no, I had no dealings with the whistleblower at all.
We didn't contact him.
Well, that's not true, folks.
Now the question becomes, is everything I told you yesterday about the whistleblower, his connections to Ukraine, his connections to political operatives colluding with Ukraine, were those involving Adam Schiff too?
Remember what I told you a couple of weeks ago about Adam Schiff's staffer?
Flying around Ukraine and elsewhere?
What exactly was Adam Schiff's involvement in this case?
How deep does it go?
Ladies and gentlemen, Adam Schiff is not the investigator in this.
He thinks he is.
Adam Schiff is a witness.
And believe me, once he gets up on that stand, if they allow it, the Republicans didn't mind.
They put Ken Starr up there.
They knew they had a case.
How is Adam Schiff going to answer that question about all his lies?
Folks, this thing is gonna get really ugly.
All right, I wanna motor on, because I've got a lot to get to.
I've got a few sponsors today, though, and it's important, but don't go anywhere.
If you loved yesterday's show about Charlie and the spying, I got another one for you.
Quickly, today's show also brought to you by our good friends at MyPatriotSupply.
Ladies and gentlemen, you need a basic food security plan.
If you don't have one, you're making a big mistake.
Emergencies don't make appointments, okay?
Tornadoes, earthquakes, power outages, they don't make appointments.
If they did, they wouldn't be emergencies, right?
They strike without warning.
They happen when you don't expect them.
And when it's breaking news, it's too late to prepare.
You go to the grocery store.
What are you looking at?
Bread shelves that are empty.
Big, huge mistake.
You insure everything in your lives that matter.
Insure your food supply.
You insure your health, your car, your house.
How can you not insure your food supply and insure you can feed yourself?
God forbid the supply lines break down.
It's not too late.
Trust who I trust.
My Patriot Supply.
I have tons of this stuff.
I love it.
I buy it myself, even though we could probably get freebies from them.
That's how much it matters to me.
A two-week emergency food kit.
Just two weeks.
Get a couple of these at a minimum.
Buy two.
A two-week emergency food kit will get you started.
Save $70 on these food kits when you go to this website, preparewithdan.com.
These food kits include meals that last 25 years in storage.
Talk about mental security there.
25 years, right?
Guaranteed two-day delivery to your door.
Those who know what's coming, prepare, okay?
Go to preparewithdan.com.
That's preparewithdan.com.
Preparewithdan.com.
Be prepared.
Ensure your food supply.
Don't make the mistake of being left out in the dark when the food shelves run barren.
Preparewithdan.com.
Check it out today.
Okay.
So folks, this thing is blowing up in their faces big time.
This impeachment farce, this impeachment fiasco.
The Wall Street Journal has an interesting piece up today that really indicates just how bad this has gotten.
Folks, this is only going to get worse.
Now, precedent matters, right?
Precedent matters because we base our legal rulings and everything typically on precedent, what we've done in the past.
If we don't have precedent to rely on, it says that the Democrats are doing something unprecedented.
Every impeachment we've done in the past, every single one we have done in the past, whether it was Johnson, the impeachment of Nixon that didn't go through because Nixon resigned beforehand, or the impeachment of Bill Clinton, every single one has relied on what I said, this partisan, bipartisan involvement, everyone agreeing, or at least a portion of the opposing party agreeing That there is some bipartisan support to overturn an election and remove a president.
So the article today in the Wall Street Journal is an important one.
Defining impeachment down.
The House vote resolution and vote reveal a partisan inquiry.
Now, here's the first takeaway from the piece and I want you to remember this and don't forget it.
Showing you how this is strictly a democratic measure to overturn an election.
Nothing more.
More Democrats voted against this measure than Republicans voted for it.
Two Democrats voted against this measure and exactly zero Republicans voted for it.
Zero.
Sorry, computer glitch there.
None!
So two Democrats voted against, so this, I took a little note here, this was a bipartisan vote, Joe.
Yeah.
Against it!
Am I wrong?
Democrats voted against the impeachment vote yesterday and no Republicans voted for it.
So there is bipartisan support by definition.
It's tautological.
Instead of the precedent in the past, I'm sorry for that, that kind of explanation where I had to wind it up.
I know it's, but it's important you understand that.
Precedent matters in the courtroom, in politics.
Americans want to know unprecedented things aren't being done, Joe, to overturn an election.
I hope that makes sense.
Yeah.
They don't want to feel like unprecedented.
I mean, let me just talk in plain language.
Sure.
The American people don't want to feel like their votes are being nullified for an unusual reason.
Unusual, unprecedented.
This is not usual.
We have rarely impeached presidents, or tried, in the case of Nixon, Clinton, and Johnson.
When we have, we have relied on support from both parties who have agreed that what the president has done is so malicious and malfeasant that we should at least inquire to impeach him and pass it off to the Senate.
This is the first time you've tried to impeach a president where there is bipartisan support against it.
There are zero, zero Republicans voted for this from the piece.
Quote, not a single Republican voted in favor, not even members who are retiring from Congress next year, which is notably, notably different from the last two presidential impeachments.
Listen to this, folks.
The House Resolution authorizing an inquiry into Richard Nixon passed 410 to 4.
And the resolution offered by a Republican-controlled House against Bill Clinton passed 258 to 176 with 31 Democrats in support.
Now, showing you how unusual this is.
What was that?
What was that jumping around?
Oh.
See, Paul's here.
Like I said, I can see her.
I know her.
I've been married to her forever.
I can, like, read her by... I have the antenna.
She's all upset.
What was that?
What are you mad about?
Oh, my head?
Could I bounce it up?
It's fine.
They don't care.
Do you know what I mean?
Right?
Come on.
Just do it fine.
You don't have to adjust every little camera.
I bounce around a lot, so you can tell me anything.
Yeah.
So, showing you how unprecedented bipartisan support against an impeachment is.
Yeah.
Here's Pelosi herself from a Fox News piece.
Pelosi herself.
This is a direct quote by Nancy Pelosi.
The title of the piece, Brooke Singman.
It's in the show note.
By the way, the show notes today are great.
I have like, I think eight or nine articles.
Bongino.com.
Please subscribe to my newsletter at the website.
I will send you these.
You're not going to want to miss them.
Here's one of them.
Republicans slam Pelosi over impeachment reversal after floor vote.
What's changed?
Well, what has changed?
Let's look at Pelosi's own words.
Own words, not my words.
So Kevin McCarthy is talking about Pelosi and what she talked about in impeachment just a little while ago.
Here is a direct Nancy Pelosi quote.
Pelosi quote, it's so divisive to the country that unless there's something, she's talking about impeachment being divisive, that unless there's something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan I don't think we should go down that path because it divides the country and it's just not worth it.
Her words!
There is bipartisan support against the impeachment!
Exactly the opposite of what Pelosi said.
She said, no, no, we're not going to impeach the president unless there's bipartisan support for it.
Going back to the journal piece.
There's another takeaway about how unprecedented and unusual this is.
from the second part of the Wall Street Journal piece.
Quote, "Mr. Schiff's main obligation of public disclosure is sending a report to the Judiciary Committee
with his findings and recommendations."
Which can include, Joe, whatever his committee may deem appropriate.
Shifts under no obligation to make the hearing transcripts public, even after Democrats have spent weeks selectively leaking what they claim witnesses said.
His committee can leak opening statements, as it has, while keeping questions and answers secret, as it has.
This is an unprecedented inquiry to remove a sitting president.
Folks, summing this up, because I want to now Move on to what happened yesterday and how Schiff is even turning bad witnesses for the Democrats into what the media wants to portray as good witnesses for the Democrats because of the process part.
There is no precedent for this.
They have bipartisan support against it.
The process is broken because only Schiff controls the flow of information as he selectively leaks to the media.
How is this hurting us?
Folks, what happened yesterday, again, blew up in the Democrats' faces.
But because Schiff controls what leaks out to the media from the Democrats' side, you're only getting one side of the story.
Perfect example.
Peace and the Federalists.
There was a witness that appeared yesterday, this guy Morrison, who was a Russia-Ukraine expert over at the National Security Council, who was familiar with the transcript of the call.
Well, what leaked out from Schiff's committee is, oh, this was devastating.
They confirmed some kind of quid pro quo.
That's not at all what happened.
Here's the piece that's in the show notes.
Please read it.
NSC official Tim Morrison to Schiff.
I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed in Trump Ukraine phone call.
That's not what leaked, folks.
That's not what leaked at all from Sleazeball Schiff and his committee.
What leaked is, oh my gosh, this guy Morrison, it was devastating what happened.
Was it?
Because that piece in The Federalist by Sean Davis is a fantastic one.
Let me show you a few snippets from the piece to show you just how devastating Morrison's testimony was to Schiff.
Here's takeaway number one.
A top National Security Council official who listened to Trump's call with Ukrainian President Zelensky testified to Congress that he did not believe Trump had discussed anything illegal during the conversation.
Huh?
Quote, I want to be clear.
I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed, said Tim Morrison, according to a record of his remarks obtained by The Federalist.
That's not what we heard yesterday.
Sleazeball Schiff and his leaks, we heard it was devastating.
It was so bad.
So, so bad.
Substance?
Process?
There's no substance, and the process sucks too.
This is why these star-chamber like impeachment efforts always blow up in their faces.
Here's takeaway number two.
Remember, Joe, this is supposed to be Trump extorting the Ukrainians for information on Biden?
Yeah.
Extorting them.
Oh, yeah.
And holding up military aid if they didn't give it to Trump.
That's Schiff's allegation.
We're clear.
So remember, it leaked to the media.
Morrison's testimony was devastating.
Was it?
Because we have this second takeaway.
The Federalists got a hold of what Morrison actually said.
Or parts of it.
Quote, Morrison testified that Ukrainian officials were not even aware that military funding had been delayed by the Trump administration until late August of 2019.
Wow, that's fascinating, Joe, considering the call happened in July.
Here's a quote.
I have no reason to believe the Ukrainians had any knowledge of the military funding review until August 28.
Wow, isn't that crazy?
What an extortion attempt.
Again, just like I told you before, if President Trump is a racist like liberals want you to believe, he's the worst racist in human history.
As Hispanic and black unemployment drops to historic levels, as the economy grows, people at the lower end of the income spectrum, white, black, Hispanic, Asian, whatever it may be, all their incomes are growing.
I'll try to get to that too later in the show with these outstanding October job numbers.
If President Trump is extorting the Ukrainians, he's the dumbest extorter in human history.
We're going to hold up military funding if you don't give me this information.
You might want to tell them you're holding the military funding before you try to extort them over the military funding you didn't tell them about.
Yeah.
That part didn't leak, Joe, to the media.
Don't leave that.
So now we know.
That a top official was in the call, nothing illegal was discussed.
There was no extortion, quid pro quo effort over military funding.
The Ukrainians didn't even know.
By the way, the Ukrainians have said they felt no pressure either.
But don't leave that, you know, Schiff and the media lunatics reporting all of Schiff's leaks.
Leave that stuff out of your story.
Don't even worry about it.
The facts and stuff, don't let them get in the way.
Finally, here's the third takeaway.
Remember when we were told, well, you're relying on the transcript of the call, and the Democrats and their media lunatic buddies, their new talking point, Joe, is, well, the transcript's not exactly accurate.
There's no evidence to that at all.
Even the whistleblower's own memo says it's an accurate transcript.
The whistleblower, the fake whistleblower who started this whole thing, their own memo says it's an accurate transcript.
But again, don't let that get in the way of your story.
So from the Federalist piece, this guy Morrison was in on the call.
Here's what he said about the allegedly fake transcript.
Quote, Morrison testified that the transcript of the phone call that was declassified and released, quote, accurately and completely reflects the substance of the call.
Folks, so again, I don't know what to tell you if you're if you're a liberal and you're just... Good heavens.
If you're a liberal, there's only one of two ways out of this right now.
You have to continue to lie and fabricate stories because none of what you said is actually true?
Or you can rely on the media to do it for you.
Either way, it's manipulative, disingenuous, and you have to wake up and look yourself in the mirror every morning and know you're a fraud, a fake, a phony, a liar, a sycophantic, ideological, boot-licking moron who surgically attaches his or her lips to the ass of a broken ideology to try to remove a president you didn't like in a tyrannical, soft coup attempt to get rid of a president who is combating your very ideology.
There's no option C. Nothing you said is true about this impeachment.
Nothing.
There's no quid pro quo.
There was no pressure.
There was no hold up in military funding.
This is all confirmed by multiple people now.
Now, I've got another piece.
I've got to move on.
John Solomon.
Excellent, excellent piece.
I'll get to this in a second.
John Solomon reports.
I think it's his new website.
I have this article up in the show notes.
This is a must read too.
It is a quick breakdown of more media lies being told to you.
More media lies.
The piece is called Debunking Some Ukraine Scandal Myths About Biden and Election Interference.
This is a great piece.
Now, before I get to that, I want to just get to another one of our sponsors.
We have a loaded show today.
It may go a little long today, folks, but it's important.
It is a stacked-to-the-brim show, and it's Friday, so I got to get this out for you.
As I said, Liquid IV.
Liquid IV is the fastest, most efficient way to stay hydrated.
Trying to drink more water?
Liquid IV hydrates you two to three times faster and more efficiently than water alone with the added bonus of vitamin C and B vitamins as well.
They give back too.
Feel good?
Do good.
Liquid IV is donated 1.5 million sticks to date to places like Haiti, Uganda, Puerto Rico, most recently Nepal.
With each purchase you make of Liquid IV, it donates to someone around the world.
Liquid IV helps prevent jet lag and headaches when traveling.
I use this stuff.
I love it.
I feel better in the morning.
Folks, candidly, after a night of maybe imbibing some adult sodas, liquid IV helps too.
But, you know, travel everywhere, working out.
It's really a must-have product in your house.
By the way, it's not only for hot weather climates.
You know, you can dehydrate rather easily in cold weather as well if you're out there sweating all day.
It's TSA-friendly, perfect for on-the-go travelers, helps your skin feel hydrated too, can be used before, during, and after flights.
Folks, believe it or not, even in the winter, people get dehydrated.
Liquid IV has an easy, healthy fix for winter dehydration.
One stick and 16 ounces of water, it tastes great too, provides two to three times the hydration of water alone, makes your cells like a sponge, suck up that water.
Many winter sports take place at high altitude.
It's easy to get dehydrated.
Liquid IV is the answer.
It tastes great too.
Folks, pick up a box of Liquid IV today.
You're gonna love it.
We love Liquid IV in the house.
It's the fastest-growing wellness brand out there.
You can find them at Costco.
It is a hydration multiplier.
It has all the stuff you need to stay hydrated and fuel your workouts.
I love Liquid IV.
You will, too.
Right now, my listeners get 25% off at liquidiv.com when you use my code BONGINO at checkout.
That's 25% off anything you order at Liquid IV's website.
Go to Liquid.
IV.com.
Enter my promo code BONGINO to get your savings and start getting better hydration.
That's LIQUID.
IV.com.
Promo code BONGINO.
Don't wait.
Start properly hydrating today.
LIQUIDIV.com.
Promo code BONGINO.
All right.
So we were talking about that John Solomon piece.
Right.
This is important.
The John Solomon piece debunks this just series of media myths, and why is any of this matter?
Why do we keep harping on the media and their constant gaslighting and manipulation of the American public?
Because folks, we already know it's not a mystery that the media are full-time liberal activists.
That's not a mystery.
But you have to understand, if you're watching this show, because we've broken stories, we've been at least a month ahead of the news cycle for a long time now.
Our show has a big audience, folks, but it's nothing compared to the NBC nightly news.
What do they get, 6 million, 7 million a night?
The media is doing their best to lie to the American public full-time, and they're telling you things that are factually incorrect.
Those facts are being used to both impeach the president and give Joe Biden a pass.
Now, Solomon's piece.
Here's the first takeaway from John Solomon's piece, where he breaks down some of these prominent media myths.
There's a myth out there that, Joe, there's no evidence, no evidence that the Ukrainians colluded with the DNC to try and manipulate the results of the 2016 election.
There's no evidence of that.
Now, keep this up a second.
That's important because I'm telling you that's what the whistleblower and others are trying to hide.
Well, ladies and gentlemen, that's not true.
As Solomon writes, here are the facts.
The Ukrainian embassy in Washington confirmed to Solomon in April that a DNC contractor named Alexander Chalupa did in fact solicit dirt on Donald Trump and Paul Manafort during 2016 in hopes of spurring a pre-election congressional hearing into the Trump campaign.
You can read the embassy's own statement here.
It's linked in Solomon's article.
It confirms a January 2017 investigative article in Politico that raised concerns about Chalupa's contacts with the embassy.
Folks, let's just bury that right now.
Whatever your liberal friends are telling you about, it's a conspiracy theory!
It's not a conspiracy theory!
It has already been confirmed!
We have the WikiLeaks emails where Chalupa admits to this conspiracy with the Ukrainians to interfere and collude in the 2016 election, and we have the Ukrainian embassy that actually confirmed it!
It's not a theory!
It is a conspiracy!
It's just not a theory!
This Solomon piece documents it all.
Second, Myth busted.
Oh, Joe Biden did nothing wrong with his son Hunter and the Ukrainians.
It's all nonsense.
Solomon knocks that down, too.
Here are the facts.
Biden's caught on videotaped strong-arming the Ukrainian's president to firing a prosecutor looking into his son.
We know that.
It's also, as Solomon writes, not in dispute that at the time he forced the firing, the vice president's office knew Shokin was investigating his son as Roland Burisma.
They knew it!
Team Biden was alerted to the investigation in a December 2015 New York Times article.
He even links to the article in his piece at John Solomon Reports.
Folks, none of this is in dispute.
Biden knew this prosecutor in Ukraine is investigating his son and his involvement with Burisma.
He knew it!
You can see the article.
And he's on tape calling for that prosecutor to be fired.
None of that's in dispute.
You can question all you want Biden's motivations.
Fine.
Fair enough.
Go ahead.
That it happened is not in dispute.
Stop the nonsense.
Good old quid pro Joe.
Yeah, there we are.
Big time!
Or as my mother-in-law would say, big time.
Big time!
I like her.
Takeaway number three.
Don't worry, the liberal media and the full-time activists will tell you.
At the time Biden demanded the investigator looking into his son be fired, Shoken, the investigation into his son Joe was no longer active, so it's not a big deal.
Ladies and gentlemen, that is a straight-up lie.
It's just a lie.
It's just made up.
It's not true.
I don't know what you're talking about.
As Solomon writes in his piece, here are the facts.
This is one of the most egregiously false statements spread by the media.
Ukraine's official case file for Burisma Holdings, involving Biden's kid, provided to Salomon by prosecutors shows there were two active investigations into the firm and its founder in early 2016, one involving corruption and the other involving unpaid taxes.
Folks, I don't know what to tell you.
If you're a liberal lunatic who's going to continue to say it, you're just lying.
The case documents are there for anybody to look at.
The case was not closed into Burisma, Hunter Biden's company that he was working with, when Biden demanded the prosecutor looking into that company be fired.
It wasn't closed.
It's just not factually correct.
You're just lying because you have no integrity and no soul.
It's just made up.
But again, we're talking about media people.
They lost their souls a long time ago.
That's like the joke!
Like, these are the people- You had one job, media!
Your only job is to report the facts!
You can't even get that right!
So pathetic!
Spineless jellyfish!
You had one job!
One job, it's like the pitcher who goes up to the... One job is to bunt and advance the runners.
Just bunt!
Bunt.
Bunt.
Remember my big fat Greek wedding?
A bunt?
A bunt cake?
A bunt?
You had a bunt!
You just had a bunt!
You can't even get that right!
This case files, it was open!
Alright, finally from the Solomon piece, because I do, we have a lot more to get to.
I haven't even touched the Charlie stuff.
I'm sorry, it's just loaded and it's Friday.
The last takeaway.
This involves me and others who have been on the Yovanovitch, apparently, social media watch list of Yovanovitch, who was the liberal activist ambassador to Ukraine that Trump had recalled, who had me and others on a social media watch list.
And, you know, I love it.
Like liberals like that story didn't go anywhere with this story.
The story is true.
They were watching something about being like X-Files about it.
I don't care.
I mean, I've been arrested.
No one showed up at my house or anything.
But liberals are like, oh, it's no big deal.
No, it's no big deal that the ambassador to Ukraine, who I was reporting on, was asking around to put us on some kind of social media watch list.
Yeah, it's kind of a big deal to me.
I thought the liberals cared about government overreach.
They're full of crap.
This one bothers me because I reported on this a long time ago, and the liberal media are like, that's a conspiracy theory.
So a prosecutor by the name of Lutsenko had told John Solomon a long time ago That, you know, Marie Yovanovitch, the ambassador over there, and other folks at the embassy in Ukraine, who were basically big-time liberals, who were allegedly bad-mouthing Trump, the allegation is that Yovanovitch and others gave the Ukrainians a list of people, via George Kent, to not prosecute.
In other words, a do-not-prosecute list.
So again, we were told that the prosecutor, that the do not prosecute list that the Ukrainian prosecutor was given, we were told that's a conspiracy theory.
He did not recant.
He simply suggested the prosecutor, while again being re-interviewed as you can see here, from Solomon, that the story that they may have gotten some of the names wrong.
Not that there was a do-not-prosecute list.
And Joe, by the way, conveniently, some of the people who allegedly appeared on that do-not-prosecute list were connected to people tied to big liberal activists like George Soros.
Soros-type money.
How about that?
Yeah.
Nothing to see here, folks.
Don't you worry.
It was all recanted, right?
I love it that you come here and get the facts.
Because again, you go to NBC, MSDNC, the Clinton News Network and elsewhere, you're getting absolutely none of this and you've only missed the biggest story of our time.
All right, I got to take a little bit of a break from this stuff because I want to move on to just some lighter stuff.
And then I'm going to get back to, I'm not trying to tease it to keep you around for the end of the show, which is important, but there is a lot of news going on this week.
So I want to get to this segment I'm calling This weekend, you're a racist!
I told you I'd put this yesterday.
I put this on the show yesterday.
Yeah, and we're going to make this quick, but I want to play two quick videos here.
The first video is of Michelle Obama making one of the most ridiculous, absurd statements I've ever heard in my life about how white people are running away from black people like her.
And if you're cringing right now hearing that, you're going to cringe even worse when you're done hearing it from her mouth.
And it's not my, it's hers.
Check this out.
And it's how we should all approach our jobs, especially out there making change.
You can't worry about the legacy while you're in it.
You know, it isn't about the legacy, it's about the work.
And many of you all aren't elected officials.
Some of you will be.
But the luxury of just rolling up your sleeves, not worrying about what people are saying about your initiatives and your programs, and do what you think is right on a daily basis, that's all you can do, is show up and do the work and let your work speak for you.
That's all we learned.
It's like, as people doubted us coming through, are you printed in material?
Can you really make the grade?
Can you cut it?
What do you do in those instances?
All you can do is put your head down and do the work.
And let the work, your truth, speak for yourself.
I can't make people not afraid of black people.
I don't know what's going on.
I can't explain what's happening in your head, but maybe if I show up every day as a human, a good human, doing wonderful things, loving my family, loving your kids, taking care of things that I care about, maybe, just maybe, that work will pick away at the scabs of your discrimination.
Um... Hmm.
I can't make you not afraid of black people?
Folks, I'm not even messing with you.
I'm hesitant.
I'm sorry, that was actually part two of her running away because that's been covered.
She said another part of that, that white people are still running away from black people, which was, again, I'm hesitant to even talk about this because even addressing this kind of stupidity Is one of those when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife questions.
Yes.
You know what I'm saying, Joe?
Exactly.
That's what I'm thinking.
There is no quote that can come out of this show that won't make us look like idiots for addressing the idiocy that was just in there.
Exactly.
I mean, what are you saying?
I'm not kidding, folks.
How do you respond to that?
We're not afraid of black people!
Why would... I don't know.
Folks, listen, I'm going to say this on a very serious note.
There is no way to address that without us all being dumber.
I'm just going to say this because I want to move on to another just insane piece of video.
Um, if you want to ever be, you want to test the hypothesis about the alleged Michelle Obama, how we're afraid of black people.
If you happen to be black, I'm going to put out a challenge for you.
And I mean it.
Go to a MAGA rally.
Go to a Trump rally.
Take video.
I'm serious.
Go.
You don't have to, don't say anything political.
You don't have to support or be against.
I'd rather you not.
I just want you to go.
And this should be a testable hypothesis.
If Michelle Obama, her argument is correct that white people are running from black people and are afraid of them.
If that's an accurate argument, it should be testable.
There are a lot of white folks, Hispanic folks and others at a MAGA rally, I'm sure.
It's based on population breakdown.
Go!
Let's see what happens.
It's the densest concentration of the people Michelle Obama's worried about, right Joe?
See what happens.
Take a video, send it to the show.
I can practically guarantee, as long as you don't, you know, try to fight people, spit on people, or try to hurt someone, if you are, you just go there as a regular person, I can guarantee you there is no place on earth you will find more welcoming.
Guaranteed.
I bet my professional reputation on it.
And I bet Joe would too.
Yeah.
It's a testable hypothesis, but you won't dare test it.
Because you know you're wrong.
That is an absurd statement.
Now, part two of this weekend, you're a racist!
Here is Debbie Wasserman Schultz, failed joke of a congresswoman.
I mean, just destroyed the Democrat party in the last election.
Just a complete joker and a stain on the U.S.
Congress, up there with Adam Schiff levels of incompetence.
Here's Debbie Wasserman Schultz questioning the acting head, Ken Cuccinelli, what is it, USCIS?
And she's not really questioning him.
She just wants to accuse him of being a... He's a white supremacist now.
Check this absurdity out.
This is unbelievable.
Mr. Cuccinelli, under your leadership, USCIS has actually bragged about systematically restricting legal immigration.
And I think it's important for us all to be clear about what you have been aiming to accomplish.
My constituents, Americans across the country aren't fooled by this administration's specious attempts to distinguish between documented and undocumented immigration.
You and Mr. Trump don't want anyone who looks or talks differently than Caucasian Americans to be allowed into this country.
That's false.
I'm sorry.
Please don't interrupt me.
And I'd like the time to add it back.
That's defamatory.
Excuse me.
There's nothing defamatory about it.
The gentlelady controls the time and the witness will get a chance to respond.
Thank you very much.
You want to block all immigration and make life harder for immigrants, and you have demonstrated that you will pursue this heinous white supremacist ideology at all costs.
Even if it means making critically ill children your collateral damage in the process.
By the way, that video goes on, and in the interest of time, we had to cut it off.
But Joe can attest to this.
The witness never got a chance to respond.
Loudmouth blabbermouth Schultz just keeps going on about how Ken Cuccinelli Who I know, Ken, we're not the best of friends, but I know Ken.
He's a white supremacist now.
And you wonder why the Democrat Party is being abandoned in droves by people, white, black, Hispanic, and others who actually work for a living?
What an idiot.
Blabbermouth Schultz.
What a moron.
I'm just going to leave that one there because whatever else I say again will prune off your dendrites and you will be 20 IQ points dumber for having listened to this idiocy and I only put it out there so you understand.
So you understand what we're up against.
We're running from black people.
You're afraid of black people.
You're a white supremacist.
Whatever.
All right, our final sponsor today, and it's a big show, so we've got a lot going on on this Friday, our friends at eToro.
Ladies and gentlemen, I was looking to diversify my portfolio, my investment portfolio a while ago, and as I, you know, I don't want to mess with you, I'm going to be candid.
I did not know much about cryptos in the market.
I know how they work, cryptocurrencies, blockchains, and I understood the mechanics of it, but I was not really read in on what the best coins were, what was moving up, what was trending.
And I was looking for someone to help me out.
Not a joke, this happened.
And conveniently, right at the same time, they said, listen, there's a company out there, Etorge, one of the best in the market.
They're interested in sponsoring your show.
I said, yes, with a big fat Y-E-S.
Recently, we saw Bitcoin prices rise after China devalued its currency and global markets tanked.
We can see now how cryptocurrencies are becoming a genuine alternative to gold as a hedging strategy.
For me, the best place to trade cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin is at eToro.com.
E-T-O-R-O.com.
But here's why.
It matters.
eToro is a smart crypto trading made super easy.
It's the world's number one social trading media platform.
They have over 11 million active traders.
They facilitate over a trillion dollars in trading volume per year globally.
These guys and ladies are the best.
You can access the world's best cryptocurrencies.
They have 15 different coins available.
Their fees are transparent and low.
They have charting features for smart strategy building.
Don't go in this blind.
You don't need to.
And here's the best part about eToro.
You get to try before you trade.
Before you jump in the water, they'll give you a virtual portfolio with a $100,000 budget.
Try it out!
Feel it out for a week or two.
Never miss a trading trend with charts, pricing alerts, and social feeds.
I love eToro.
Super easy to use, ladies and gentlemen.
Can't recommend them highly enough.
Sign up today at etoro.com slash Bongino.
That's e-t-o-r-o.com slash Bongino today.
eToro.com slash Bongino.
Check it out.
Check out the cryptos.
You're going to want to check out eToro.
Okay.
So getting to what I've been teasing for most of the show, and I wanted to kind of wrap with a lot of this because it's important.
So on yesterday's show, we talked about the Paul Sperry article where he believes the whistleblower is a guy by the name of Eric Charamella.
Right.
We had made some connections, and again, those connections... I'm always open to evidence, folks.
We do information, facts, and data on the show, and I pointed out how there is some evidence based on some emails and texts from FBI investigators that there were, in fact, efforts to recruit spies in the White House.
You can read the texts yourself.
They were on yesterday's show.
Yeah.
They're worried about a guy by the name of Charlie showing up, which is kind of charming.
It's kind of fascinating, although these people are spying on the White House.
They're worried about Katie's husband, who turns out was Mike Pence's chief of staff, and if they can use her to recruit people to spy on the White House.
The bottom line is this.
There appears to be some very suspicious connections from what Palsperry believes is the whistleblower, a name we were on a long time ago.
And people involved with the DNC and their involvement with Ukraine.
That show yesterday is really, I believe, a thorough cornucopia of information.
But the takeaway from yesterday's show I want to roll into today and provide some additional evidence.
And I want to thank one of my sources.
You know who you are.
I'm not going to give him any code name for this.
Of course, we have 279, but this one's from a different one.
Maybe we'll call him 3810.
But I got an interesting little tidbit yesterday where my source suggested that people were very suspicious about Charimela a long time ago on the Trump administration national security team.
Now again, if you missed yesterday's show, Paul Sperry from Real Clear Investigations put out a piece Outing the whistleblower as what he believes a guy named Eric Caramella, who has got some very suspicious ties to Democrats and Ukrainian collusion in the 2016 election.
Caramella sat on the National Security Council, is now back over at the CIA.
Yeah.
Now he sat on the National Security Council and worked over there while it was being led for a brief time by Lieutenant General Mike Flynn.
Follow me.
This is going to get very, very interesting.
Okay.
So Mike Flynn is the incoming National Security Advisor.
He is the National Security Advisor for just a couple of weeks before he's relieved of his duties because of the FBI targeting him and lying about him to the Trump team, so he's let go.
He's, of course, then prosecuted later for what the government claims are lies that the FBI claims aren't lies.
Confusing, right?
But it's interesting how Ciaramella was over there at the time and the National Security Council, Mike Flynn marshaled.
And right around that same time in February of 2017, we see this fascinating text exchange between the FBI agents, the same FBI agents, by the way, seeking to recruit spies in the White House to spy on Trump.
Remember that Katie's husband and, uh, should we send Charlie over there?
Tweets like maybe they'll get suspicious about Charlie.
Look at this text.
This is fascinating.
Just heard from, and of course the name's redacted, he said he went up to Flynn's office and was unable to get... Wow!
Who went up to Flynn's office?
Again, we're just asking questions, folks.
So you have a guy on the National Security Council who sperry believes he outs in his real clear piece investigated by the name of Charamella.
We know he's got severe anti-Trump leanings.
We know leaks are permeating from the National Security Council.
We know, we know I'll say it again, we know, or I know, Flynn's team was very suspicious about Caramella and others from the start, that they may not have been working in the interest of national security, but may have been spying on the Trump team for others.
And then we have this text at the exact same time.
Saying that from an FBI agent investigating Trump trying to recruit spies in the White House, that somebody just went up to Flynn's office and tried to get... What exactly did they try to get?
What was that?
What exactly were you guys and ladies doing over there?
Was that Charlie again?
Now, I will say this in a disclaimer, a small disclaimer.
I'm not 100% positive on who Charlie is.
And there are some other possibilities.
There's a senior FBI guy, Charles got an Italian last name, who was involved in the transition.
I'm not 100% sure.
But I think it's awfully suspicious.
That I can now confirm to you that people on Flynn's team were suspicious of Caramella.
Caramella is suspected to be the whistleblower.
Caramella was working with people, working with the Ukrainians to collude in the 2016 election to hurt Trump.
That the FBI is openly wondering about someone who went up to Flynn's office to get something from him.
They're very curious about that.
And they're speculating about if Charlie is going to be detected because he's, you know, the CI guy.
Maybe confidential informant?
I got more.
Stuff is being fed to me daily.
That's why the story evolves.
I'm not holding anything back from you.
I don't do that.
And I'm entirely uninterested about who gets credit.
Matter of fact, there's this guy on Twitter like melting down over this name thing, which we had seriously months ago.
I'm sorry.
I'm really, if we, I had no idea who this guy was, by the way.
He's like, I had it first.
Terrific.
Good for you.
Nice.
I really don't care at all.
The people are upset.
They're like, Sperry stole this from someone else.
Well, if you had it, you should have wrote an article on Real Clear.
I don't know what to tell you.
I mean, I'm not giving any, you know, But there is, there's like a Twitter meltdown going on about who broke the name first.
Doesn't matter to me.
All I care is that the information is true and gets out there.
Folks, this is going to get uglier.
Who the heck are they talking about in that text going up to Flynn's office to get... What were they getting in Flynn's office?
All right, so, because there's a lot of news to cover today, I also want to hit these economic numbers.
Just came out before we went live.
Very, very, very good.
Now, because it's a Friday and I want to leave you with some generally good news, not bad news.
Yeah.
By the way, we're motoring through today's show.
This is good.
There's so much stuff.
This is packed.
The job numbers for October just came out this morning.
They were staggeringly good.
They beat expectations.
You can see in the Washington Examiner.
It'll be up in the show notes.
Melissa Quinn, U.S.
economy added 128,000 jobs in October, beating estimates.
Now, that's great news.
I want to leave you, just a little bit of a downside.
We still, the national debt is out of control.
I'll get to the CNS news piece next week.
I was trying to get, but there's a CNS news piece.
It's been in the show notes.
You've probably seen it a couple of times now.
Our debt and deficits are exploding, and there's no excuse for it.
I don't care who's the president, who's in charge.
There's no excuse for it.
Debt is bad, period.
I'm not like a Democrat.
Debt is only bad when Republicans run it up.
Debt is bad.
Having said that, the Trump tax cuts and the anti-regulatory, anti-red tape effort on the Trump administration's behalf, pro-business environment, are clearly working.
Job numbers, terrific.
Secondly, Wall Street Journal, folks, in case you're here, you know, believing the hype by the left, oh, this isn't trickling down and middle class is getting smoked down and wages aren't going anywhere.
Here's an article by James Freeman, Wall Street Journal.
America is still hiring.
Small businesses report slow and steady growth in October.
But interestingly enough, from this piece, there's a nice little takeaway.
For the leftist media liars out there who want to tell you, oh, the economy is struggling and middle class folks are being left out and wages aren't rising.
Really?
Because that's not at all what the actual data says.
I know liberals are immune to data, but check this out.
I know, you know, you have a really tough time with that.
Labor markets remain especially tight in manufacturing and construction.
And across all industries, it seems that labor markets are getting tighter.
NFIB surveys find that 60% of surveyed firms hired or tried to hire during October, a monthly increase of three percentage points.
Here's where it gets good, Joe.
Future hiring plans increase as well.
A seasonally adjusted net 18% plan to create new jobs up one point.
He adds that the limited supply of workers is naturally forcing employers to raise wages to satisfy their demand for labor.
That can't be true.
That cannot be true.
Wages are going up because the demand for labor is so high in a hot economy.
We've been told the opposite.
Again, you've been told the opposite by lying hacks in the media who have no interest in facts or truth.
You had one job to get the facts out there.
You can't even get that right.
My gosh, how incompetent are you?
Wages are going up dramatically.
Oh man.
You know what?
I missed one thing.
I'm sorry.
Can I, can I, but regarding that text I was telling you about before, I don't want to leave this out because I know this is going to go, that text between someone going up to Flynn's office to get something from them that the FBI seems so concerned about.
As pointed out by another source, you know who you are, that February text I showed you is from a batch where there are a number of texts missing and where the FBI agents and lawyers involved, they switch over to iMessage and back and forth.
I wonder if the identity of the person who goes up to Flynn's office is in one of those missing texts and what they were trying to get.
You heard it here first.
All right, last story.
This is crazy.
I can't believe it.
It's the first time ever.
I think we got through the whole thing.
We're moving.
Nice!
Self-praised things.
So, Elizabeth Warren, socialist near-communist candidate for the presidency who's moving up in the polls and may win the nomination, finally releases some details on her government takeover of the healthcare system.
She calls it Medicare for All.
It's really Medicare for None.
And the price tag came out.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is a Mind-boggling.
Clockwork orange.
Eye-opening.
Price tag.
Oh yeah.
Big time.
So the price tag for Warren's government takeover of healthcare, she calls Medicare for All, is 52 trillion dollars.
52.
52.
For the liberals that need visuals.
Or if Joe Biden was doing it.
Bernie Sanders, Soviet honeymooner, communist.
Yeah.
His takeover of the system only cost 34, only 34 trillion.
Oh, is that all?
Now, folks, this was, I'm going to put this up because I had this up the other day.
This is for the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
These are the numbers on Sanders' plan, which only Joe cost $34 trillion.
Yeah.
These are the taxes.
I'm just going to go through a few because you saw it already.
If you watch it on YouTube, you can see it.
I'll read you for those of our audio listeners.
A 32% payroll tax, a 25% income surtax, a 42% value added tax, a public premium, the equivalent of $12,000 per person, or a doubling of all individual and corporate income taxes.
That's to pay for Sanders' plan.
Folks, Elizabeth Warren's plan is going to cost almost double that.
So you can double the doubling of your income taxes now.
The double of the double.
The doublet of the doublet.
That is a different meaning in this house, which is for another show.
The doublet of the doublet.
Now we're getting into exponents and stuff.
That's how much your taxes are going to go up with this ridiculous plan.
Now, she says, don't you worry, folks.
We're only going to institute a $9 trillion tax hike only on your employer.
Like a payroll tax on your employer.
But don't worry, that's not going to affect you at all.
Oh yeah.
How's that work?
Folks, listen, I have people who work with my company.
Not necessarily employees, but contractors.
I have to pay them.
Joe being one of them.
Joe works elsewhere, too.
But, you know, I have to pay Joe an amount.
Now, if Joe were an employee for my company, say he was full-time, and Elizabeth Warren institutes a $9 trillion tax, What I have to pay Joe, that tax is part of what I have to pay him.
Whether I pay him or pay it to Joe, it's still a cost on me.
This is like, can someone buy Elizabeth Warren a textbook?
What I'm basically saying, folks, is she's lying to you.
She's saying, oh, don't worry, we're just going to tax your employer.
Yeah, who now has less money to pay you?
But again, don't let Econ 101 get in the way of your absurd, ridiculous arguments.
Folks, you are going to get hammered if this woman becomes president.
Trust me.
It's going to be really nasty.
Now, do not miss next week's show.
I've got a stacked lineup.
By the way, I'll be at the Fox Patriot Awards next week in Tampa.
I'll see some of you out there.
If you want to bring my book, I'm happy to sign it for you.
And one request, please.
At the end of the weekend, we're really trying to blow up our YouTube channel.
We're almost there.
We're at 290,000 subscribers, which is a really healthy number, considering we've only been doing these shows, video, for about four or five months.
We'll never abandon our audio audience.
You'll only be first.
But there's a couple things on video we can add in to make the show spicier.
Please subscribe to our YouTube channel, youtube.com slash Bongino.
We really appreciate it.
I know based on the feedback, a lot of you are enjoying the added video component.
So thanks a lot.
Appreciate another great week of listenership, and I will see you all on Monday.
