In this episode, I clear the media hysteria and I address the real takeaways from last night’s elections. I also address astonishing new information in the government’s witch hunt against Mike Flynn. Finally, I address the media spiking the Epstein story and the Democrats’ lies about the Gordon Sondland testimony. News Picks:Don’t believe the hype about yesterday’s elections. It was, all things considered, a decent night for the GOP.
Election results were mixed last night.
The Democrats are lying about this Trump administration’s testimony in “whistleblower-gate.”
The media protected Epstein while trying to destroy Brett Kavanaugh.
The numbers on how many Democrats are showing up at Trump rallies are stunning.
John Solomon’s latest article is big trouble for Joe Biden.
A stinging indictment of the FBI’s handling of the Mike Flynn case.
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.
Oh, do I have an update for you on the old Jeff Epstein thingy you've been hearing about?
Yes, an angle of it that was probably missed yesterday by the media reporting.
You are not going to want to go Anywhere, folks.
We've been holding on to it for a little bit now, and I think it's about time to talk about some things, right?
Welcome to the Dan Bongino Show, producer Joseph Armacost.
How are you today?
Fine, sir.
Hey, Dan, good to be with you here on this wonderful Wednesday.
See what happens when we talk about that.
Of course, Joe and I are intentionally being corny because we were discussing before the show how old school radio sounded exactly like what Joe just did, right?
Yeah, got a vowel on that.
The new radio, of course, is what we do here.
The new radio podcast.
Folks, by the way, if you're headed off to the Fox Nation Patriot Awards over in Tampa, St.
Pete area, I will see you there.
I'm getting ready to head out right after the show, so hope to say hello to you.
See you there.
Watch it on Fox Nation where it's going to be streaming and it'll be airing on Fox, the network, sometime later on.
All right, folks, let's get right to it.
Today's show brought to you by buddies at WaxRx.
Folks, as you know, I had a serious problem.
I said this on the show before.
It's why I picked them up as a sponsor.
With earwax buildup, my entire life, I've had ear pieces in my ear as I do now.
A little squiggly thing.
My prior line of work in the Secret Service and now being in TV where they put these IFBs in your ears.
Well, the earwax buildup was uncomfortable.
My ears itched, and frankly, I was having a hard time hearing things.
Well, going to the doctor kind of got to be kind of a mess.
So luckily, WaxRx said, hey, we'd like to sponsor your show.
They've been a sponsor for almost two years now.
And because of your support, Walgreens even took notice and now carries WaxRx.
What does it do?
Listen, it's not the sexiest product to talk about in the world, but it will break up that earwax.
It has this comfortable spray nozzle.
You put a little cup under your ear, you spray Spray the solution.
It breaks up all that stuff in there.
Kind of gross, right?
And you're going to be shocked at what comes out of your ears.
When your ears aren't clean, they get uncomfortable.
They get plugged up.
It's painful.
It makes it harder to hear.
Many people use cotton swabs.
You're not supposed to stick those in your ear.
Just read the instructions on the back.
Those are for your outer ear.
Nail polish removal and other things.
Try the doctor-developed WaxRX earwash system.
We use it, my wife uses it, my kids use it.
It's just like the one doctors use in their office.
Plus you save a trip to the doctor, save the gas, the co-pay.
Do it from your house.
Try the WaxRX system today.
You never know what you're missing by not hearing it.
Visit GoWaxRx.com.
That's GoWaxRx.com.
Use offer code DAN at checkout.
It's important to support the show.
You'll get free shipping, too.
Or visit your local Walgreens.
Don't wait.
You have no idea what you might be missing because of inner ear wax.
Visit GoWaxRx.com.
Offer code DAN.
All right, Joe, let's go.
All right, before we get to the Epstein hysteria yesterday, I just want to cover the elections last night because the media hysteria and the gaslighting about what happened last night, ladies and gentlemen, is extraordinary.
According to the media, we are in apocalypse now.
The smell of napalm in the morning territory.
It's over for the Republicans.
It was an all-around horrible night everywhere all over the country.
Donald Trump is the worst.
The sky is falling.
You've heard it all before.
Now, folks, last night we had elections in Kentucky.
We had some ballot elections and some initiatives in Texas, Colorado.
There were some local elections in, I believe, in Iowa, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and others.
They're off-cycle elections.
Was it a good night last night for Republicans?
The answer is probably on net, no.
But again, we do real news here.
I don't do fake news like the media.
I don't gaslight people for effect.
Was it a catastrophic, apocalyptic night like the lunatic blue checkmark liberal media brigade was saying?
It's over for Trump.
It's over.
They're done.
No.
No.
It's a big, fat no.
So I'm going to do what journalists should do but won't because they're liberal hacks in disguise, and I'm going to give you the good news and the bad news, the facts, and I'm going to let you make an opinion for yourself.
Shocker!
Shocker!
Stunner!
Smart people can make their own call about how bad or good it was last night for the Republicans.
So let's do a quick election update from last night.
This section will be titled, Don't Believe the Hype Like the Public Enemy Song from, what was that, the 80s or the 90s?
I don't ever remember.
Remember Flavor Flavin?
Was it Chuck D or something?
Yeah.
Late 80s.
No, not really.
Yeah, late 80s.
Yeah, I think you're about right.
All right, so Fox News piece being the show notes today, it's definitely worth your time.
It's a very good one.
Subscribe to our newsletter at Bongino.com.
We will email you these articles every day.
We got some special surprises coming up ahead about that too, our newsletter.
Yeah, you're not going to want to hear this one.
GOP's Bevin refuses to concede as Kentucky gubernatorial race goes down to the wire by Gregory at Fox News.
So folks, the Kentucky governor's race was on the ballot along with the Mississippi governor's race, which was being held last night.
It did not go well for sitting Republican governor in Kentucky, Matt Bevin.
Disclosure, I know Matt.
He's a nice guy.
Ladies and gentlemen, he may lose this race.
They haven't finalized the count yet, but he is down at this point as we're recording this show, Matt Bevin.
He was an incumbent Republican in his state.
President Trump won by 30 points.
On its face, of course, if you're a liberal media hack, you are going to paint an end, Joe, making matters even worse for the Republicans, candidly.
President Trump held a rally for Bevin the night before the election, and it looks like in a state President Trump won by a landslide, the Republican governor lost.
So, of course, leave it to the gaslighters and the media to tell you, this is a nationwide referendum.
This is a huge upset, Joe.
Kentucky, Kentucky's going blue.
Uh, okay.
Sure it is.
So, from the Fox News piece, you'll find out that Kentucky was actually pretty much a route for the Republican Party, with the exception of Bevin at the top of the ballot.
Folks, Bevin the Republican governor, just being candid, had very low approval ratings.
He just wasn't well liked in Kentucky.
Showing you how this was more a referendum on Bevin than it was on Kentucky or on Trump, quote, from the Fox News piece, in a strong indicator that Bevin is unpopular among Kentuckians, Cameron, who was the candidate for Attorney General.
He's the first black representative elected at a statewide level in Kentucky.
This guy's a superstar.
Trump had him on the stage at the rally.
You may have seen it.
The Attorney General candidate, Cameron, a Republican.
Joe, by the way, I thought Republicans were huge racists.
It's amazing how they keep voting in black candidates.
Amazing.
We are the worst racists ever, Joe.
We are such incompetent racists.
It's crazy.
So Cameron, the first black official elected in Kentucky at the statewide level, who's a Republican, by the way.
Listen to this.
He received 774,864 votes in a 15 percentage point win.
74,864 votes in a 15 percentage point win.
One, five.
The black Republican statewide, it doesn't matter to us that he's black, but
it matters to liberals who keep claiming we're racist.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
While Bevin, who's at the top of the ticket, folks, the governor, only garnered around 700,000 votes for his gubernatorial bid.
Now, pay attention to this quote, because I've never seen anything like this.
It is highly unusual for down-ballot races to attract more voter interest than the gubernatorial contest at the top.
This is true.
Yes, it is.
As Joe knows, and I'm going to get to more of this in a second.
Remind me, Joe, don't let me forget that point.
Yeah.
Meanwhile, from the piece, the Republican attorney and former elections board member Michael Adams was also easily elected as Kentucky's next Secretary of State.
Okay, another Republican winning Kentucky.
And Republican Mike Harmon was elected as Kentucky Auditor.
Another Republican winning Kentucky.
Additionally, Republican Ryan Quarles was re-elected as Kentucky Commissioner of Agriculture.
And GOP incumbent Alison Ball won a second term as Kentucky's Treasurer.
Those results and Bevin's unique vulnerabilities led Republicans to dismiss the claims that the gubernatorial race had any meaningful national implications.
Okay, two takeaways from this.
This is kind of good news for us, even though Bevin may, may have lost.
It's not over yet.
Folks, suggesting that a gubernatorial race where the dynamics we know are, and the state level, are always a poor reflection of national politics, right?
You made liberals say, no, no, no, Dan, that's not true.
Kentucky's definitely going blue.
Really?
Is Maryland, is Maryland a red state, folks?
What about Massachusetts?
Is that a red state?
What about Chicago?
Is that a red state?
Where am I going with this?
Those three states are led by Republicans or were led by Republicans as little as two and three years ago.
Maryland has a Republican governor, folks.
Larry Hogan.
Is that a red state?
What are you, an idiot?
It's one of the bluest states in the union.
Massachusetts, a deep blue state, has a Republican governor.
Folks, again, I don't know.
These statewide races are in no way indicative of a national trend.
They're local races based on local issues within the state.
Kentuckians just didn't like Bevin based on his approval.
I don't know what to tell you.
I like him.
He's a nice guy.
I actually had him on as a guest on a radio show when I used to guest host where Joe used to work.
So takeaway number one.
Disregard, ladies and gentlemen, these statewide gubernatorial races as a reflection on national politics.
I'm not saying disregard them, meaning don't absolutely get out and vote, but it's not a referendum on Trump.
That's just not true.
The Republicans cleaned up.
Here are some of the margins they won by.
Attorney General, 15.
Treasurer, 21, Kentucky.
The Ag Commissioner, was it 16?
Was that 15?
Whatever.
They blew them out everywhere else.
Kentucky's turned into a blue state?
Come on!
Are you that dumb?
They just didn't like Bevin.
Relax.
Maryland's not a red state.
Kentucky's not a blue state.
Secondly, I want to make sure you understand this, dude.
This down balance phenomenon.
Folks, literally down ballot.
That's what it means.
When you get a ballot, you vote based on the office.
It's governor and then it's whatever it may be below it.
And then sex state and these other ones, but they're down the ballot.
Why does that matter?
Because folks, a lot of people show up, whether they vote for president or for governor, vote at the top of the ticket.
You'll hear that term a lot.
They make the vote in the, they, they put their vote in for that and they leave.
That's why you get what's called drop-off.
As you go further down the ballot, you'll see the governor get 700,000 votes, the Secretary of State 690, Ag Commissioner 650, then you get down to like State Rep, you know, 500, then like City Commissioner 250, Dog Catcher 10,000.
Because people, one, it's for two reasons.
Some people just want to vote for governor and don't know the other candidates.
But secondly, some people just crunch for time.
They go in and vote and leave.
They don't want to sit there for 20 minutes filling out a ballot with 50 different questions.
I mean, even filling out an absentee in Florida or a mail ballot takes forever.
Me and Paula got to sit there for like an hour.
There's like 20 different things on it.
It's called drop-off.
Do you understand the fact that the Attorney General This candidate who happens to be black, again, that only matters to the left, not us, because they're the real identity politics players.
We don't do that.
The attorney general down ballot got more votes than the governor.
Dramatically more.
That's kind of weird.
This is not a referendum on Trump.
Please stop the nonsense.
Here's some more.
So that's the good news.
The good news is Kentucky overall was pretty much a decent success last night.
Here's some more good news from a local New Jersey newspaper.
New Jersey, which again, a really deep blue state.
I don't think anybody disputes that anymore.
It's like the sixth borough of New York City now.
The Democrats suffered major setbacks in New Jersey as Republicans won a bunch of battleground legislative districts.
The Inquirer, Prashu Verna.
Joe, I thought it was a nationwide referendum on how bad Trump is, how bad he sucks.
I thought that's what this was.
Yeah, we think alike there, yeah.
Well, apparently it wasn't a referendum in New Jersey or in Kentucky or in Mississippi.
I don't know what you're talking about.
You're just making that up.
Again, folks, this was not a referendum in New Jersey on Trump pro or con.
I'm not going to flip the script and do what the media did to you and say, well, clearly in New Jersey, it's Trump territory.
That's not what I'm saying.
I'm telling you the truth that these local elections are local issues divorced mostly from national politics, i.e.
President Trump.
People in New Jersey are getting tired of the Democrats hiking their property taxes.
It's as simple as that.
Again, You understand, like, people get paid for political punditry, millions of dollars per year to go on these national networks, cable networks, and tell you things that are amateur-hour, first-grade-level analysis?
It's a referendum on Trump!
Really?
In New Jersey?
It is a referendum in Kentucky?
How come Republicans won by double digits in nearly every other race?
Finally, Virginia, which was definitely bad news.
Yeah, so why are you putting it in the good news territory?
Folks, because Virginia's been going blue forever, I'm actually surprised it wasn't worse.
Virginia, finally, statewide, they lost control of the State House and the State Senate to the Democrats.
Folks, this trend has been going on forever.
Northern Virginia and the Virginia suburbs, this is nothing new here, for some bizarre reason, have been voting in anti-Second Amendment, anti-life, pro-abortion, pro-taxes people that want Virginia to be more like Maryland.
The phenomenon has a lot to do with government workers moving into Virginia and just the liberalizing of surrounding areas.
But the losses last night were largely due to redistricting and the fact that in I believe a quarter of the races there wasn't even a Republican on the ballot.
Don't overthink Virginia.
It's not necessarily good news, but I put it in kind of the good news slash bad news category.
Yeah.
Don't overthink it.
We've been losing Virginia for a long time.
Not that we shouldn't fight there.
I'm just telling you that this is not a referendum on Trump.
It's a referendum on the changing dynamics and demographics of the Virginia population.
We don't know.
All right.
Yeah.
I don't know.
I don't know.
Some more good news.
Just quickly, before we leave, get to the bad stuff.
Texas had a ballot initiative on the ballot.
To basically ban an increase in their tax rates, and that won.
Colorado also had some success in that arena, too.
Here's the bad news.
Pennsylvania, the suburbs in Pennsylvania, had some really rough local elections.
Ladies and gentlemen, we got a big problem in the suburbs before this national election.
We shouldn't ignore that.
Delaware, similar.
There have been local elections for, you know, city council, county council-type seats, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and even in Iowa, that went Democrat for the first time in a long time, and a lot of these areas are suburbs.
We're having issues over there, folks.
We shouldn't gloss over that.
All right.
There's your election analysis, folks.
Don't believe the hype.
This was not a route for Republicans by any stretch.
It was a bad night.
It was an off night.
It wasn't a big tragedy.
Everybody needs to relax.
It's not like we got routed everywhere.
We had some pretty decent successes last night as well.
All right.
I want to get to this story now.
I put it in the end of yesterday's show because you know the Dan Bongino rule.
24 hours, folks.
I try to take on as many stories as I can When the facts aren't fully in and calcified yet, 24 hours to evaluate everything and see what's going on.
So I played the video for you yesterday, a portion of it, of James O'Keefe's group, Project Veritas, which does just incredible work.
Project Veritas specializes in undercover footage, exposing media malfeasance and Democrat malfeasance.
This, I think, May be their coup de gras.
I mean, this is their, I believe, most stunning video yet.
So some of you saw it on Fox and elsewhere.
It's a video of an investigative journalist at ABC on a hot mic talking about how her higher-ups at ABC basically scrapped the story on accused pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, who allegedly killed himself in prison.
There's some dispute about that.
You saw Michael Bodden on Fox and elsewhere, who was a forensic pathologist, saying that some of the biological hallmarks of his death don't comport necessarily with suicide.
It was an interesting clip.
You're free to check it out and google it yourself.
That's not the purpose of that today, the suicide stuff.
The purpose today is the reporter's alleging that she had hard evidence, a bow-tied case of Epstein's involvement with prominent figures and others, and how she disputes the suicide, and she mentions how she had some stuff basically on Bill Clinton, Alan Dershowitz, and others.
Here's another portion of this I want to play for you, and I want to give you two takeaways.
One of them you may not be hearing elsewhere.
Check this out.
We come back on the other side as we're going to dig into this a little more.
So do I think he was killed?
A hundred percent.
Yes, I do.
Because he made his whole living blackmailing people.
There were a lot of men in those planes, a lot of men who visited that island, a lot of powerful men who came into that apartment.
I mean, when I heard he was found dead, that's what you said, "I'll sell him the plane."
I knew immediately.
And they made it seem as though he made that suicide attempt
But his lawyers claim that he was roughed up by his cellmate around the neck.
That was all, like, to plant the seed.
And then... That's why I really believe it.
Like, really believe it.
No one's disputing the veracity or authenticity, by the way, of that audio-video recording, folks.
That's an ABC investigative reporter who doesn't believe Epstein killed himself.
We didn't manipulate that.
Again, Project Veritas, no one's claiming it's manipulated or falsely edited or deceptively edited or anything like that.
ABC's put out a statement that mentions nothing about it being fake or anything like that.
So the ABC reporter now, who mentioned yesterday how she's got some information, she makes two statements here.
Two I want to, one I'm going to, again, the suicide thing, that's up to you.
You can evaluate the evidence, listen to Biden and others, and make the decision yourself whether you believe Jeffrey Epstein killed himself or not.
That's up to you.
I'm not going to dig into that here.
I want to dig into the second part of this because it's important.
She mentioned something in that clip and you're free to rewind and listen again.
That is a stunner.
That she believes, having researched and investigated and interviewed people in this case, that there was blackmail involved?
Huh.
Hmm.
So, folks, I told you a long time ago on this show, I'm sure Joe remembers it because we got a tremendous amount of feedback and the show went nuclear.
I'll say it again.
You know what, before I say it again, because I want to be careful here, I want to be cautious.
This is not my information.
So please don't print clickbait headlines.
Secret service agent says he shot.
It's not my information.
Don't, I get, I hate when they do that.
This is not a sensationalist show where we promote nonsense for the, for effect.
This is information I received from somebody else.
Who has not yet given me permission, it would be unethical, as a purveyor of facts on this show, to violate that person's trust.
Are we all clear on that?
Yeah, cool.
It is not mine.
The person who gave me this information is not yet ready to go out with it.
Having said that, the information which I am free to talk about, but not the identity of the person who is, again, not yet comfortable with going forward with it.
Is that there were some activities with Bill Clinton on one of these Epstein planes, which, by the way, is probably not shocking, sadly, to many of you, with people who were suspiciously young-looking women that, at a minimum, were highly unethical and, at a maximum, potentially illegal.
The details, again, I'm not playing games with you.
It's not my information to share.
I can't give you details I don't have.
I can only give you what I've been told and have been given permission to share.
I want to be crystal clear on that.
So now, when you heard in that clip yesterday and the subsequent clip today from the investigative reporter at ABC, that there's potential blackmail involved, And that she has information potentially about Clinton, I want to go into takeaway number two.
Number one, again, takeaway number one, I'm telling you there is some, at minimum, suspicious involvement of Bill Clinton on these flights with Epstein and suspiciously young-looking women and Bill Clinton's activities on those flights.
The person who told me this, by the way, has unimpeachable credibility.
It would be an actual whistleblower, unlike the fake whistleblower, which I'll get to in a little bit, too.
Here's the second takeaway, and something you may not be hearing.
Ladies and gentlemen, there are credible allegations floating around here that there were relatively sophisticated video networks at Jeffrey Epstein's island, in his apartment, and potentially in other places as well, these planes.
Now, they're allegations, But those allegations... Those may not have been Epstein's cameras.
I'm trying to coordinate my facial expressions with Joe's grunts and groans.
I'm a second or two behind.
Joe's like... I'm like... I'm just gonna leave that one there, folks.
There may be videos out there that are not necessarily Epstein's.
Kind of create a problem for some of those people in those vids, no?
Now you see why this case is such a disaster for them and ABC and everyone else?
Oh boy.
There are a lot of high-profile people, folks, as that reporter said, who visited those places.
They on video too.
By the way, I find it kind of convenient, let me hat tip Molly Hemingway from The Federalist who made an excellent point on Fox News last night, that, you know, ABC that spiked the story on Epstein, according to this reporter, not me, she's on tape talking about it, that these other networks, Joe, they had no problem at all running with unverified, ridiculous lies about Brett Kavanaugh and the Covington kids.
Remember the Covington kids?
Got into the fight with that Indian gentleman, remember that?
Yeah.
Yeah, no problem running with that BS story.
But they've got a story here where an investigative reporter claims to have information from a victim.
A victim!
About high-profile clientele, if you know what I mean.
And ABC spikes it?
And you wonder why the media's credibility is exactly zero.
Credibility of hot garbage.
Because that's what they are.
Hot garbage.
It's a waste of your time.
You know who you are, by the way, at Source.
When you're ready, I'm ready.
Because it's gonna, the whole story is even more interesting than I'm letting on.
Because I don't want to out his identity by giving too many details.
But I promise you, when he's ready, you'll hear it here.
By the way, Folds of Honor, wearing their shirt today, they're gonna be sponsoring the Patriot Awards tonight.
Give them a shout out, that's a great charity.
All right, folks, let me get to our second sponsor of the day.
By Patriot Supply, folks, you ensure everything in your lives that matter.
Correct?
Think about it, right?
You insure your house.
Why?
Because it matters.
You can't lose it.
You insure your car.
You can't lose your car.
You insure your health.
You don't want to lose that either.
How is it that some, not all of you, but some of you don't have an emergency food supply?
Food insurance?
No, this isn't insurance like an insurance policy.
This is actual food.
Folks, here's the reality.
Emergencies usually strike without warning.
When the electricity goes out, it doesn't make an appointment.
When the stock market crashes, it certainly doesn't tell you we'd all get out of it.
Certainly with earthquakes, there's zero warning.
Even with hurricanes, you get warning, but sometimes you don't know how bad they're going to be.
Things happen when you don't expect it.
And when it's breaking news, it's already too late.
You're in a panic scramble, you go to the supermarket and there's no food left.
Could you feed yourself for several weeks if you had to at home?
You have to look at your kids.
Imagine, oh, mommy and daddy are out of food.
Not a good thing.
If not, it's time to build an emergency food supply.
I have my Patriot Supply.
I use them.
You should too.
Get a two-week food kit to get you started.
This week, you can save $70 on these food kits when you go to this special website, preparewithdan.com.
These food kits include meals that last up to 25 years in storage.
That's a whole lot of sanity for you right there.
They arrive fast with guaranteed two-day delivery to your door.
Those that know what's coming are using today to prepare.
Don't wait for an emergency to happen.
Go to preparewithdan.com.
That's preparewithdan.com.
Save $70 on these food kits today at preparewithdan.com.
Ensure your food supply.
It's a smart thing to do.
All right.
Yeah, folks, there's a lot more to come on that Epstein case, and I need you to stay tuned to my show because I'm telling you our sources on this are absolutely unimpeachable.
Now, because as Joe likes to say, this is everything you need to know in an hour.
A lot happened yesterday as well.
I'd like to spend more time on that, but a lot of stuff happened yesterday.
So yesterday, more transcripts from the secret Soviet-style Star Chamber fake impeachment proceedings.
Sleazeball Adam Schiff is running.
More of them were released yesterday.
Instead of us just seeing them on time.
And what they're doing is they're releasing them in a very specific order to do maximum damage toward Trump.
And what they're doing, Joe, is they're releasing them and they're like highlighting certain bullets for the hacks in the media, the same media that scrapped the Epstein story.
They're highlighting certain portions of it to make it seem, again, Like Trump made some special deal with the Ukrainians to attack his political opponents.
Ladies and gentlemen, I can't say this enough.
Democrats, I tweeted this out yesterday, they dazzle you with BS.
You know what I'm saying.
They'd love to do this.
I brought this up yesterday, I'll bring it up again.
The alleged deal they're trying to impeach the president about with Ukraine for information on Biden did not happen, okay?
They call it the quid pro quo.
Latin for this, for that.
You give us Hunter Biden information, the allegations will give you military aid.
Ladies and gentlemen, what the quid pro quo, by the way, is, allegedly, has changed like a hundred times too.
Yeah.
First it was military aid for Hunter Biden information, then it was a meeting at the White House, now nobody knows what it is.
The quid pro quo didn't happen because on the call they allege it happened according to the fake whistleblower.
Whistleblower?
We have the transcript.
We read it.
It's not there!
Listen to me.
We have the transcript.
So the Democrats in their secret meetings now are leaking transcripts trying to dazzle you with wonkery and BS to get you to believe something's in this transcript with this and what happened yesterday.
Well, folks, Gordon Sondland, who was our ambassador to the European Union, who was one of the point people on this Ukraine, on, I shouldn't say on this, on the continuing relationship with Ukraine.
Gordon Sondland.
Sondland gave testimony, which he revised.
And at some point in his revised testimony, he said he had presumed, presumed, the key word, That some of the military aid to Ukraine was going to be contingent on their fight against corruption in a public statement.
Okay?
By the way, that was the media bombshell yesterday.
What did they say?
Now, that's what happened.
Here's what the media wants you to believe happened in conjunction with Schiff and his sleazeball team.
Gordon Sondland admits there was a quid pro quo.
Oh, gosh, ladies and gentlemen, here we go again.
That's not what Sondland said.
Here's the piece from Town Hall.
Please read it.
It's very good.
Mark Meadows.
Gordon Sondland's testimony does not confirm quid pro quo.
I believe this is Julio Rosas.
Good piece, Town Hall.
I will have it up at the show notes today again on my newsletter.
Now, that doesn't sound great.
Sondland did revise his testimony, say that he presumed that.
Again, I'm here to give you the facts.
It's not a shining moment for the trial.
Oh, wow, this is great.
Sondland revines his testimony.
This is the same guy, by the way, Sondland, who texted Bill Taylor to say he was crystal clear from the president there was no quid pro quo.
So now it seems like, well, what was he basing that presumption on?
The military aid in conjunction for a corruption announcement against Burisma and others that were engaged in an investigation of corruption.
Folks, from the town hall piece, here's what the Democrats and the media are leaving out of the Sondland transcript from his testimony.
Joe, this is kind of important, a little bit.
Sondland also told lawmakers, when he talked with Trump about Ukraine, Trump told him, quote, I want nothing.
I want no quid pro quo.
I want Zelensky, the Ukrainian president, to do the right thing.
Oh.
I know.
Yeah.
I know, me too.
I don't get it.
So let's get there.
Let me just to be clear.
The media activists in conjunction with sleazeball shift led you to believe yesterday.
Again, if you didn't wait 24 hours and you reported this, the minute it dropped like the media did breathlessly, confirmed quid pro quo, you were again lied to and made to look like a fool.
Sondland made a presumption based on information he didn't have, which he later stated the president corrected in a call and stated unequivocally, quote, I want nothing, no quid pro quo.
Do you realize what kind of an imbecile you have to be to report that there's a confirmed quid pro quo when his testimony says the exact opposite?
Now, I'm not trying to pile on Sondland.
He was clearly in over his head.
Clearly, with this whole thing.
I'm not piling on the guy.
But facts matter.
You may be saying to yourself, folks, why would Ambassador Sondland, despite being told by Trump and texting to other people repeatedly there was no quid pro quo, why would Sondland be confused and presume otherwise?
Well, ladies and gentlemen, let's take a look at Sondland's testimony yesterday, which I'll put up on the screen.
YouTube.com slash Bongino.
Please subscribe, folks.
All free.
So Lee Zeldin asks him some basic questions.
This is Sondland, who's supposed to be one of the point people on Ukraine.
Lee Zeldin is a Republican congressman from Long Island District 1 up in New York.
New York District 1 in Long Island.
Excuse me, got that backwards.
He starts asking him questions about Burisma.
He says, I'm going to ask you some additional questions about Burisma.
Do you know why Burisma?
And do you know who Zlochevsky is?
Sondland.
Who?
Zeldin!
Zlochevsky!
Ambassador Sondland!
No!
He doesn't know!
Zeldin, do you know why Zlochevsky was an oligarch with ownership stake in Burisma?
He's explaining it to him.
Do you know why Burisma and Zlochevsky were under investigation for corruption in Ukraine?
Sondland, I do not!
One more.
Zeldin, but you are aware that Hunter Biden was hired for a paid position on the board of directors.
Sondland, again, based on press accounts, based on press accounts, yes.
Listen, guys, ladies, I'm not piling on Sondland.
It's not my goal here.
I really, I don't know the man.
I'm sure he's a nice guy.
I've never met him in my life.
But now do you understand why he may have presumed there was a quid pro quo despite the president telling him the opposite?
The guy didn't even know who Burisma and Zlochevsky, one of the proprietors of Burisma that hired... Burisma is the company that hired Biden's kid to be on its board while being investigated by the Ukrainians.
Sondland didn't even know any of this.
He didn't even know Hunter Biden worked there until the press told him.
All I'm trying to say, folks, is maybe not the best guy on subject matter expertise for Ukraine and the president's interest in fighting Ukrainian corruption.
He didn't even know about it.
Then when the guy, Volker's testimony, who to be clear was the envoy, not the ambassador to Ukraine, When Kurt Volker's testimony was released, Volker's asked a question about the quid pro quo, and he clearly states, they ask him why he didn't mention it, he goes, because it didn't exist, I didn't know there was one.
Folks, I'm really genuinely sorry if you keep getting suckered by these false, ridiculous media narratives, but if it's ever determined the president committed high crimes, misdemeanors, treason, or bribery, it will be reported here.
I do not protect golden calves.
I'm interested in law and order in the Constitutional Republic, not the Republican Party first.
I'm telling you, you are being lied to.
There was no confirmation of a quid pro quo yesterday.
There was a confused ambassador who had no details of the case, who told him in unequivocal terms on the road, the president said no quid pro quo, who made a presumption based on information he didn't even have.
That's a second-grade level analysis, unfortunately, we have to engage in to combat the media stupidity you're being subjected to every day.
Within 10 minutes of this thing breaking, I saw an article on Politico.
Confirmed!
Or a tweet of one of these.
Confirmed!
Quid pro quo!
Man.
Full gandum.
There's no quid pro quo, my gosh!
Alright, I got a lot more, don't go anywhere.
Solomon stuff.
More doozies there.
And some- I've been avoiding the Mike Flynn story for a couple days because again, I'm just trying to let the story settle.
You say the Mike Flynn story?
Oh yeah!
This is getting good.
Real good.
Alright, last sponsor of the day.
Ladies and gentlemen, Bravo Company!
Bravo Company Manufacturing.
Visit bravocompanymfg.com.
Why would you want to visit bravocompanymfg.com?
Folks, you in the market for a rifle right now.
If you are, Not visiting BravoCompanyMFG.com is a big mistake.
Why?
This is one of the finest companies right now producing the highest quality rifles.
I have two of them.
I love them.
Owning a rifle is an office and responsibility and building those rifles is no different.
Bravo Company Manufacturing was started in a garage by a Marine veteran more than two decades ago.
Bravo Company Manufacturing, BCM for short, Builds a professional-grade life-saving product built to combat standards.
This is because BCM believes the same level of protection should be provided to every American, regardless if they're a private citizen, law enforcement professional, military officer, soldier, enlisted, it doesn't matter.
BCM, they are not a sporting arms company.
You know, they tell you never in advertising to say what you're not, but in this case it matters.
If you're looking for sporting arms, hunting stuff, fine, that's great, they're all good, that's not Bravo Company.
Bravo Company designs and engineers life-saving equipment to the highest standards.
They assume that when their rifles leave their shop, they will be used in a life-or-death situation, God forbid, by a responsible citizen, law enforcement officer, or soldier overseas.
Quality is all that matters to them.
Every component of a BCM rifle is hand-assembled and tested by Americans in Hartland, Wisconsin to a life-saving standard.
They put people before their products.
I vouch for them.
I have two of them.
They fire with precision every time.
This is life-saving equipment.
To learn more about Bravo Company Manufacturing, head on over to BravoCompanyMFG.com.
Discover more about their products, special offers, and upcoming news.
You're not going to want to miss out.
It's bravocompanymfg.com.
You need more convincing?
Check out their YouTube channel, youtube.com slash bravocompanyusa.
Check it out, folks.
Just spectacular product.
OK, so there's been some additional major breaks in the witch hunt scam case against Mike Flynn.
Sidney Powell, who is an excellent lawyer, who has been all over this Mike Flynn case and has been forcing Brady revelations and others in the government, is getting them to admit to things.
And the things they're admitting to, ladies and gentlemen, are staggering in the level of malfeasance that went into this witch hunt.
For those of you who forget the details, Mike Flynn, the National Security Advisor for President Trump for a brief period of weeks, Was interviewed by the White House in an ambush interview, former FBI Director James Comey's already admitted to in a smug, arrogant, condescending interview he did with, I believe it was Nicole Wallace from MSNBC, where he said, well, we just sent some agents over the White House kind of knowing we wouldn't have gotten away with this with anyone else.
But we tried it anyway on the Trump team because that's the kind of sleazeball Jim Comey is.
In that interview, Mike Flynn was asked about conversations he had with the Russian ambassador months prior.
During that conversation, some details were left out.
Flynn attributes it to a loss in memory.
He took a plea later for other reasons that's beyond the scope of this now, but I'm pretty sure I have the reason why Flynn didn't remember the full details of the conversation.
The FBI takes notes on that.
The notes they take are on a form called a 302.
This is going to be important in a minute.
The notes on the interview do not seem to match up with the statements by the FBI prior.
The FBI agents who interviewed Mike Flynn, Peter Stroke, and Joe Pianca at the White House in the ambush interview It appears, based on the FBI's statements, that they didn't believe he was lying to them.
But why is that a problem?
Because, folks, Mike Flynn is being charged with lying to the FBI.
I didn't say that wrong.
That's a problem.
There were statements made by the FBI, yeah, it's a big problem, where they uncovered no indications, indicia, if you want to sound smart or whatever, of deception.
That's kind of a big deal when you're accusing Flynn of deception.
Now, What's been an ongoing problem, to sum this up and put the lead out front here, is the notes of the interviews seem to keep changing.
And the original 302s, or the original handwritten notes, things are just not jiving with what Flynn actually said.
I covered some of this last week.
But Sidney Powell's gotten him on the record.
And there's this interesting piece up at the Washington Examiner written by a former FBI official, James Galeano.
Be in the show notes today.
Worth your time.
The Michael Flynn smoking gun.
FBI headquarters altered the interview summary.
Now, what's interesting about this piece is this Gentlemen, Galliano worked with the FBI, and he writes in the piece that, listen, I never wanted to attribute to malfeasance what I can attribute to stupidity.
In other words, he starts, it's an excellent piece, totally worth your time.
Please open it in your email today if you get my newsletter.
He says, Joe, which is sensible, that me being with the FBI, Scaliano talking, you know, I don't want to attribute a malicious motive to someone who may just be stupid.
And he says, in the beginning, I thought this effort to target Flynn and Spygate and all this, I didn't believe it, that it was necessarily malfeasance, Joe.
I think it was a guy, stroke, trying to impress his new FBI lawyer girlfriend, Lisa Page, saying dumb stuff and maybe screwing things up.
Okay, fair enough.
Then about halfway through the piece, he says, after reading what happened with Flynn, I am now throwing that theory out the window and telling you what happened to Flynn was an intentional act of malfeasance.
That they seriously went after Mike Flynn.
What is he based that on?
From Galliano's piece.
It's a quote from him in the piece.
Remember, he worked at the FBI.
Remember, there have been allegations from the beginning.
The FBI manipulated the notes on Flynn to make it look like he lied.
Here's Galliano.
Quote, it is unheard of for someone not actually on the interview to materially alter a 302.
As an FBI agent, no one in my chain of command ever directed me to alter consequential wording.
And as a longtime FBI supervisor, I never ever directed an agent to recollect something different from what they discerned during an interview.
Goes on.
Returning a 302 for errors in grammar, punctuation, or syntax is appropriate.
This occurs before the document is ultimately uploaded to a particular file, conjoined with the original interview notes, which are safely secured inside a 1A envelope and secured as part of the evidence at trial.
He goes on, finally, and here it is.
With this in mind, this text message from Peter Stroke to Page dated February 10th nauseated me.
Quote, Stroke to Paige.
I made your edits and sent them to Joe.
I also emailed you an updated 302.
I'm not asking you to edit it this weekend.
I just wanted to send it to you.
Folks, keep in mind the lead here.
The FBI agents that interviewed him, Stroke and Pianka, and Stroke's love interest, Lisa Page.
Stroke and Page interview, Stroke and Pianka interview Flynn.
Page is involved in an editing process of the notes of that interview that don't comport with what the FBI told FBI headquarters.
The FBI agents interviewing him said there were no indications of deception.
Later on, the notes of the interview evolved, to use the Barack Obama evolved term, which doesn't mean evolved, means were deceptively changed to make it appear that Flynn did lie, even though the FBI said he didn't.
Now, Sidney Powell, who's been dropping tactical nukes on these idiots for a long time, Filed a request for Brady material, meaning we want to see the material that may prove Flynn was innocent, right?
Right.
Or not guilty.
Precise legal terms matter.
The DOJ files this bombshell yesterday back with the court.
Look at this thing.
This is incredible.
I have it up on the screen.
The FBI, excuse me, the Department of Justice acknowledges to Sidney Powell in this letter That the notes, the handwritten notes, Joe?
Yeah.
That, oh yeah, the notes we thought were Peter's strokes were really Pianca's.
And the Pianca's notes, we told you were Pianca's, were really Strokes.
Oh!
Oh, that's kind of a big one.
That's kind of a big... Why would that matter?
What's really happening here?
So the FBI building one of the most important consequential cases against a decorated U.S.
patriot, Mike Flynn, have been telling us the entire time that the notes, which were deceptively edited, that were strokes, weren't really strokes.
They were piankas.
Why would that matter?
Ladies and gentlemen, because piankas notes Were the more detailed notes.
So it probably benefits the FBI to say, oh yeah, Stroke, the guy leading the charge on this, he's the one who wrote those.
But he didn't write those.
Those weren't his.
Folks, we've yet to this day seen the entire paper trail of the actual notes for the interview.
Where's that 1A envelope the written notes are supposed to be deposited into?
What's the date on those?
Let me just sum this up for you.
God forbid those original handwritten notes by Pianca or Stroke or Pianca pretending to be Stroke or Stroke pretending to be Pianca.
God forbid those notes say clearly that they believe Flynn is showing no indications of deception and maybe telling the truth.
We'll just have to see what happens on that now, won't we?
Folks, when FBI officials are writing op-eds and the Washington Examiner is saying, listen, I attributed this to stupidity, now it looks like open malfeasance.
The FBI has got a lot of explaining to do, folks.
A lot.
All right, moving on, because it's important here.
A lot of stuff going on.
John Solomon, again, has been all over this case.
I told you, two years ago, I'm convinced John Solomon used to write for The Hill, now writes at John Solomon Reports.
I believe he's a Fox News contributor now, too.
I'm not sure.
Solomon knows the whole story, I'm convinced.
The sources are impeccable.
He has been dripping it out in drips and drabs, and he's been doing the same thing with the Hunter Biden Ukraine story, where this Ukrainian company hired Hunter Biden, clearly now to gain access with the United States government, to make a corruption investigation into that Ukrainian-cast company go away, while VP Biden was the point man on Ukraine.
Yeah, no conflict of interest at all there, folks, at all.
Now, remember, I'm going to talk about this John Solomon Reports piece here.
It's worth your time.
Be in the show notes again.
Check this out.
John Solomon Reports, November 5th, 2019.
In the midst of the 2016 election, State Department saw Burisma as Joe Biden's issue memo show.
How's that?
Joe, we've been... Have we not been getting more media lies?
Because that's what they do.
Have we not been told now, since the story broke about the massive Ukrainian scandal involving the Biden family and the DNC, have we not been told that Joe Biden knew nothing about it?
It was not Biden's problem.
We've been told that, correct?
Folks, everybody ground yourself right here.
You have, right?
You heard it on the show.
This has nothing to do with Biden.
It's his kid.
Hunter does his own thing.
Joe wasn't involved.
This has been the official, not just Biden statement, but the statement of the Democrats defending Biden as well.
Lead.
This has nothing to do with Joe Biden.
Really?
Because in 2016 when this whole thing was going on, as Solomon uncovered in some emails on a FOIA request, that's not what the State Department and everyone else was saying.
Check this out from John Solomon's report.
Quote, in multiple drafts of a Q&A memo prepared for Marie Yovanovitch, oh she'll come up again in a second, who was the ambassador to Ukraine.
So let's get this straight.
The Democrats, the Obama, they're preparing a Q&A for Yovanovitch and she's asked about this at her Senate confirmation.
The department's Ukraine experts urge the incoming ambassador to stick to the simple answer.
Quote, do you have any comment on Hunter Biden, the Vice President's son, serving on the board of Burisma, a major Ukrainian gas company?
The draft Q&A said.
The recommended answer for Yovanovitch?
For questions on Hunter Biden's role in Burisma, I'd refer you to the Vice President Biden's office.
What?
I thought he didn't know!
I thought he didn't.
What is it?
Ladies and gentlemen, this may seem like not a big deal.
This is huge because it's an acknowledgement by the State Department that of course Biden had to know.
They're referring them to Biden's office to get answers on a thing they say is not a problem.
Right.
Oh, don't worry.
It's not a problem, folks.
I thought it was, if it's not a problem, just answer the question.
Why can't Yovanovitch answer the question?
Because they know this thing has a malodorous scent.
And part two, oh, Biden doesn't know anything about anything, so why are we referring him to Biden's office?
Now, Yovanovitch, who really apparently can't stand Donald Trump, and was the ambassador to Ukraine, who, according to multiple sources who fed to me, was bad-mouthing Trump overseas repeatedly, and may have been part, according to Solomon's reporting, of a do-not-prosecute list of people who may have done damage to the Democrat Party in the Ukraine, if they were prosecuted in Ukraine, excuse me, Yovanovitch is trying to paint herself like some kind of a saint.
And you know, folks, remember how, again, we've always been told, oh, you listen to Bongino and Fox and Limbaugh, and they're all conspiracy theorists.
We're the liberals.
We're on the side of truth.
Yovanovitch, she's a saint.
Really?
If Yovanovitch is a saint, and the stories I've reported on the show, by the way, which have been Nailed nearly 100% of the time on Spygate Ukraine.
Then why was Yovanovitch asking for us to be monitored on the show?
Oh, you didn't know that?
Yeah, there was a little watch list.
I don't want to sound conspiratorial about it.
If it was a social media watch list, fine.
My point is not that I'm alleging anything illegal against Yovanovitch.
I don't have all the details on it.
My point is this.
Why was Marie Yovanovitch asking for me, little old damn Mangino, to be monitored if everything here is just a conspiracy theory?
Oh, you don't believe me?
Hat tip judicial watch from my buddy Tom Fitton.
Here's a quick YouTube video, a segment from it, where he describes on a FOIA request how they found out about Yovanovitch monitoring me and others despite the fact that we're supposedly conspiracy theorists.
Check this out.
So, Tom, there's an update with a story that we broke involving the State Department and a so-called enemies list involving journalists and Trump allies.
Can you give our viewers an update on what's going on?
Well, we were first to report that there was what was believed to be a legal monitoring of the activities of people close to Trump, his lawyer.
Uh, his Rudy Giuliani, specifically Donald Trump Jr.
A bunch of journalists, including Fox News hosts, such as Sean Hannity and Lou Dobbs and Sarah Carter and John Solomon and journalists from the Daily Wire.
And Dan Bongino, who's online as well, all were being monitored at the request of Ambassador Yovanovitch, who was pulled back by President Trump and was interviewed by the Schiff investigation, the coup investigation as I call it.
And Yovanovitch supposedly was the one ordering this to take place.
And our reporting is that when they asked for help from the State Department in Washington, D.C., someone said, oh, you're not allowed to be monitoring American citizens like this, even if it is only social media postings.
Well, she confirmed that there was an effort to monitor Americans.
She said she didn't really know who specifically was being monitored and she didn't think it was illegal.
But that's not what our reporting shows.
But it confirms the monitoring was taking place.
Yeah.
Hope she subscribed, you know?
I love this guy.
That's funny.
She's one of our 300,000 YouTube subscribers.
Are you on the email?
Marie!
Good job, that's very good.
Marie, please subscribe to our email list.
Go to youtube.com slash Bongino.
We'd really appreciate you subscribing.
And subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts.
You just saved my teaser at the end of the show.
Thank you, Joe.
Very well done.
I hope you did subscribe.
Gosh, if we, you know, we've got to get on the t-shirt game.
You know, we donate all of the Bongino store on the website.
Folks, by the way, in the interest of charity, quick plug, everything you buy there, our proceeds go to a charity scholarship fund we do.
So if you want to go to bongino.com, pick up show t-shirts, you can do it there, mugs and everything else.
I haven't plugged that in a while, but that would be a great one, Joe.
Dear Marie, hope you subscribe.
Like only insiders to the show would ever get that.
That was good.
Very funny.
All right, I'm just saying again, if it's all a big conspiracy theory, what is Marie Yovanovitch worried about?
All right, I want to end with this brief story, but it's worth your time.
It's been in the show notes for a couple days.
If you want to go back, I had it in there this week.
A Mises.org piece.
Why does this matter?
The bogus consensus argument on climate change.
Robert P. Murphy.
This is the Mises Institute, which does great work.
I have this piece in the show notes.
You can look it up.
I think it's yesterday's show and the day before as well.
I put it in a couple times.
I'm only talking about this to end the show because it's a quick story, but it's important because during this election, you're going to continue to hear this bogus argument, which I'm sure many of you have heard multiple times.
97% of climate scientists agree human beings are destroying the world and climate change is real.
Folks, that is a fake nonsense statistic.
You know, if Matt's listening, my fact checker, it'd be great to do just a quick debunk this on this too as a follow-up.
That is not true.
Okay, folks?
97% of scientists do not agree that climate change is being caused by humans.
Now, you may say, okay, well, what do they, where did that come from?
Well, from the Mises piece.
The Mises piece.
This is definitely worth your time.
When it comes down to what the study actually found, this economist David Henderson noticed that it was even less impressive than what other researchers had reported.
Here's Henderson.
Those 97% that we're talking about, the 97% of scientists, considered only abstracts that expressed a position on anthropogenic global warming, human-caused climate change.
I find it interesting, he writes, that two-thirds of the abstracts didn't take a position at all.
So taking into account Friedman's criticism and mine, Cook and Bedford, in summarizing their findings, what this statistic should say, folks, is, quote, of the approximately one-third of climate scientists writing on global warming who stated a position on the role of humans, 97% thought humans contribute somewhat to global warming.
That doesn't quite have the same ring now, does it?
So folks, only a third of these climate scientists even took a position.
And even then, they do not say conclusively, human beings.
That 97% say human beings are a potential cause, not the potential cause.
Oh, man.
We could do this all day.
It's just, you know, you're going to hear that stupid statistic.
When you hear it, just laugh.
It's not 97%.
It's a third.
And of that third, 97% agree humans have a role, not the role.
That's a little different than what you just said, liar.
Oh boy.
All right, folks.
Thanks again for tuning in again.
I'll see you at the Patriot Awards.
Hopefully you're over there.
We'll be back tomorrow.
I'll give you an update on how it went.
That should be a lot of fun.
Please subscribe to our YouTube channel, youtube.com slash Bongino.
We're almost there!
300,000, teetering on the edge.
Go check that out and subscribe to our newsletter at bongino.com.
