In this episode, I address the stunning display of left wing bias by the media in their coverage of the fake whistleblower. I also discuss the reasons the Democrats’ star “witness” against Trump is actually a liability. Finally, I address a critical immigration story and I make an important announcement about the show.
News Picks:What?? The son of a member of a domestic terror group was elected as San Francisco’s new District Attorney?
The Democrats have a serious Col. Vindman problem.
The Democrats’ Soviet-style impeachment gets uglier. This is a national disgrace.
Key impeachment witness undercuts Democrats’ collusion hoax.
Fox News host accuses Drudge of being anti-Trump.
A devastating critique of socialism from a Venezuelan insider.
Why is Mexico pressuring our Supreme Court to uphold DACA?
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, this is the same BS over and over and over again.
You know, I heard Limbaugh yesterday, Rush Limbaugh, the clip was played on the Hannity Show.
This is the Kavanaugh Supreme Court hearing over again, this impeachment farce.
It's the exact same thing.
Trot out witness after witness saying the same debunked discredited conspiracy theories like they did against Kavanaugh and pretend you have new information.
What an absolute farce.
I've got a ton of information for you today about that.
An exciting announcement I want to make on the show, one of two this week, and a whole lot more.
Don't go anywhere.
Welcome to The Dan Bongino Show, producer Joseph Armacost.
How are you today?
Fine, sir.
Hello, Mr. Bongino, I'm doing well.
Good to be here as always.
And we do, we have some surprises for y'all.
Yes, Joe knows what we're talking about.
Got a lot of heads, so don't go anywhere.
Let's get right to it.
Today's show brought to you by buddies at Genucel.
Genucel, listen, folks, Genucel is great.
We use it.
I use the immediate effects in this house.
My mother-in-law uses it.
My wife uses it.
It's one of the finest skincare products out there.
Go to genucel.com, G-E-N-U-C-E-L.com.
Enter Dan 30 at checkout.
To get these terrific products.
We love them.
They've been an advertiser on our show for a long time.
Folks, we've gotten a ton of positive feedback about GenuCell.
I use it before I go on the air.
The immediate effects.
You got a hot date or whatever?
Perfect for you.
The immediate effect.
You want to rock and roll with them.
Listen, Thanksgiving's a couple weeks away, ladies and gentlemen.
It is still enough time to get rid of that turkey neck.
Oh!
Gobble, gobble, gobble, gobble, gobble!
Thank you!
Thank you!
And sagging jawline and get compliments around the dinner table.
If you haven't tried GenuCell's Breakthrough Jawline Treatment with MDL Technology, pick up the phone or go to GenuCell.com right now.
They'll include their classic GenuCell eye bags and puffiness treatment absolutely free.
You'll get their immediate effects for results, which you can see in 12 hours.
You'll also receive that.
And for Thanksgiving, GenuCell's offer gets better.
You'll get their top selling GenuCell Eyelid Lift for sagging droopy eyelids absolutely free.
You'll give thanks this holiday for 10 years off your appearance and everyone will see the difference guaranteed or 100% of your money back.
That's the Chamonix promise.
Go to GenuCell.com enter Dan30 at checkout from now until Thanksgiving.
You'll also get the GenuCell XV anti-wrinkle treatment for fine lines and wrinkles as a third free gift!
And shipping is also free!
Order now at GenuCell.com and use Dan30 at checkout.
That's GenuCell.com, G-E-N-U-C-E-L dot com.
Enter Dan30 at checkout.
All right, Joe, let's go!
I was cueing up the bell!
Oh, we love the bell.
I'm always lost when we give Joe a day off and Joe's not here.
I'm lost without his commentary, but without the bell, it doesn't ground me in where I need to go.
I have to ring my own bell, ding, ding, ding, like Apollo in Rocky III.
Ding, ding, when he does that thing.
All right, so Limbaugh had some great commentary yesterday, hat tip to him, about how this impeachment farce, fiasco, lie, hoax, hoax number three.
Remember Hoax No.
3?
Hoax No.
1, collusion.
Hoax No.
2, Mueller was investigating a crime.
He wasn't.
He was covering up a crime by the Democrats.
Third hoax is going to be the impeachment Ukraine deal that didn't happen.
You're all familiar with this.
So folks, like the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court hearings, where they trotted one debunked, discredited witness after another out in front of the nation to tell you Brett Kavanaugh was some kind of a serial rapist, which was utterly absurd and ridiculous.
Limbaugh made the comment that this impeachment farce reminds him of that, and I thought it was brilliant.
He's absolutely correct.
Folks, this is going to be a basically broken record every day of people coming out in front of these committees as these impeachment hearings start tomorrow and Wednesday, saying that they heard from someone who heard from someone who heard from someone else that there may have been this illicit deal.
We have the transcript of the phone call between President Trump and the Ukrainian Prime Minister where this so-called illicit deal never happened.
The rest, as Judge Jeanine said this weekend on the show with me when I was doing my interview, is white noise.
It's all noise.
It is noise.
It doesn't matter.
We have the transcript.
Now, again, I want to set up for you, because the media, by the way, this is going to be a devastating show for the media.
Devastating.
Wait till we get to the end.
The Bevin, Matt Bevin, Kentucky thing.
I've got some.
Don't go anywhere.
This show is going to be nuclear for the media.
The media, Joe, is in on this, just like they were in on the Kavanaugh deal.
Remember when the network's airing that interview with that lady?
We think he spiked the punch.
We think he's, what are you talking about?
She just made that up.
The media's in on this.
There was testimony yesterday from another insider in this whole NSC operation, the National Security Council operation to take down Trump, because that's what it is, named Laura Cooper.
She gave some testimony about the deal in the phone call that never happened, because we have the transcript.
And here's how CNN framed it, again, in apocalyptic terms.
Check this out.
Many more witnesses just within the last hour or so have been released, including the first witness from the Pentagon, Laura Cooper, testifying that the Pentagon's position was that money to Ukraine should flow and have been appropriate or authorized by the House and the Senate, signed into law by the President.
But she was told all of a sudden in late August that Ukraine might have to commit to investigating on the President's behalf in order to get that money.
So what's your reaction to that?
And I read as quickly as I could some of the synopsis of her testimony.
And what's damning about it is it says that the President, she testifies that the President directed through the Office of Management and Budget the withholding of the $391 million worth of military aid to Ukraine.
Okay.
Here we go again, Joe.
Witness number 6722, suggesting that the transcript we have of a call where they're illicit, we're holding up money to Ukraine, if you don't give us information on Biden, information isn't there.
Okay, it's not there.
There is no deal in the transcript.
But again, it doesn't matter to CNN.
This is not a news... If you think this is a news network, I genuinely feel sorry for you because you're living a life that's a lie.
You're being propagandized, gaslit, and lied to every day.
And you're under the fake... You're under the guise of fooling yourself that you're listening to actual facts, data points, and news.
So, CNN's perspective, Wolf Blitzer, Their perspective is that this is devastating because it's another witness suggesting a deal that was never a deal that's not in the transcript exists.
So what did the witness Laura Cooper from the Pentagon actually say?
Well, again, unlike CNN, which we are, this is an opinion show that ironically does more news than CNN.
We're going to show you the actual transcript of what Laura Cooper said.
Supposedly she has evidence of this deal.
Quid pro nil.
Thank you to everyone who sent me the Latin for nothing.
Nihilistic.
I guess the root of nihilistic.
Quid pro nil.
Here is takeaway number one from Laura Cooper's testimony.
Again, we're actually producing the transcript, the real transcript.
So she's questioned Ms.
Cooper, you've never had any communications with the president about this issue.
Wait, keep that up.
So remember, Laura Cooper has direct knowledge here of this deal.
CNN is like, they're sold on it.
So they ask her, have you ever communicated with the president about this?
No, I've never had any communications with the president, period.
What about acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney?
No, sir.
Ah.
All righty then.
All righty then.
So you know about a deal the president made.
Have you had any communications with the president about a deal you heard about third and fourth hand?
No, none.
Well, what about the chief of staff?
No, not with him either.
Okay, that's some open and shut evidence there.
Nice work, Miss Cooper.
Okay, here's testimony takeaway number two.
Oh, it gets better, Joe.
So she's never talked to the president or the chief of staff about this at all, but she's sure of it.
They ask her, did you get any readout at any point of what happened on the July 25th call?
I never got a readout.
I don't think I know anyone in DoD who got a readout on the call.
Okay.
Wait, hold on.
So you're telling me that you haven't even seen the transcript, but you already know about a deal in the transcript that you haven't seen.
They go on.
They say, okay.
So the first time you learned about the developments on that call was when it became public in September?
Yes, that's correct.
When it was released to the public, that was the first time I had seen that content.
It gets better.
Have you seen the July 25th transcripts involving President Trump and President Zelensky?
I saw them when they were publicly released.
In other words, folks, you have as much information as Laura Cooper does.
They ask him again, they say, okay, do you now have any understanding of what the president's concerns were with regard to corruption on July 26, the day after his call with Zelensky?
I think I have, this is great, this is classic.
I think I have the same interpretation of anyone reading it for the first time.
I don't have any direct knowledge beyond what's actually in that transcript and what he states himself.
Next question, why are you here?
Can we go to the Cricket Man Dave?
Please!
Let's go to the Cricket Man Dave sound machine.
Here we go.
Oh my gosh.
So she's never spoken with the president.
She's never even spoken with the chief of staff.
She has no direct knowledge of the transcript.
She had never seen the transcript until you all at home had seen it was released to the public.
We now have the transcript and what she's suggesting is in the transcript isn't there.
You're right, CNN.
This is an open... What did Joe... Joe was laughing before the show.
What's the show?
Chapter 7 of the book?
Yeah.
We got him now.
Joe's like, this is chapter 22 of the... We got him now, Manuel.
You really got... You're right, folks.
You've got him in a corner.
You've really locked him up now.
I'm like crying.
I see my eyes.
This is like unbelievable how people fall for this stupidity.
This is incredible.
Now, One more to show you how awful this witness's testimony was for the Democrats, not for Trump.
Final takeaway.
I'm not going to go through the whole thing, but she says when asked about if she heard about the deal from Volcker and Taylor, she says, I know they knew about it based on what Ambassador Volcker and Ambassador Taylor told me.
Not that those two were the sources.
So again, her information is second-hand from Taylor Jo, whose information is fourth-hand.
So in exponential, it's four.
She gets it fourth-hand.
I mean, this is like, it's this geometric or arithmetic expansion of the hands it's passed through before you actually got it.
So now, again, it's not just second-hand.
She's hearing it from Taylor, who's got it fourth-hand after she heard it second-hand.
There's more.
So she says, But I don't even know what the source of that information was.
So Congressman Zeldin asked her, do you recall the first time that either of them, talking about Taylor and Volker, told you that there was a hold on the aid to Ukraine?
Cooper.
I don't recall specifically when.
I mean, I know when I met with Volker in August, on or about August 20th, so that's a specific.
I didn't talk to him, you know, routinely about this throughout the summer.
Zeldin says, then you stated that Ambassador Volker mentioned something about a statement, correct?
Yes.
But did he say anything at the time about Ukraine knowing there was a hold on aid?
She goes, I don't recall if he said anything specifically about that.
Folks, again, this is all a big scam.
You understand you're getting worked.
You better work!
Work it, girl!
This is like RuPaul time here.
Folks, you're getting worked.
You're being treated like total idiots as if you can't read the transcripts in front of your very eyes.
And candidly, CNN is expecting you not to read them, and CNN is expecting people like me not to go into the details about what's actually in these transcripts.
Yes.
So just to sum up block one of the show, you have another witness who doesn't even have second-hand information.
She has second-hand information from someone who's got it fourth-hand, Taylor.
She's not sure she even specifically talked about the Ukrainian aid.
The Ukrainians had no idea the aid was on hold.
The Ukrainians felt no pressure over the aid.
She hadn't seen the transcript, this witness, until you saw it in the public.
She can't point to any demand for Ukrainian information based on aid in the transcript and has no direct knowledge of this deal at all.
You're right.
Great witness.
Well done, Democrats.
This is really an open and shut case.
You guys, Adam Schiff, just wonderful job you're doing here.
What a dope.
All right.
Today's show also brought to you by our buddies at Brickhouse Nutrition.
You know, I love Brickhouse Nutrition, folks.
Brickhouse Nutrition makes the finest nutrition supplement on the market, in my humble opinion.
IMHO.
It is called Foundation.
It's available at brickhousenutrition.com slash Dan.
I have used this product for a very long time.
Joe uses it.
Little Joe uses it.
Paul uses it.
What does Foundation do?
What is it?
Why should you use it?
And I'm going to give you a little test in case you think, eh, I don't know.
Maybe it doesn't work that well.
No.
Folks, it is a creatine ATP blend.
It is like having two additional gas tanks in your life, not just in the gym.
I always say in the gym, but I think about it.
Even if you don't work out, this product can help you.
Creatine and ATP are basically phosphogens.
They help you develop energy in your body.
It's really that simple.
Did you know you can maximize your body stores of that?
It's like having a gas tank, right?
You don't fill your gas tank up halfway, but most of you, because of diet and other things, I'm not saying you have a bad diet.
It's just hard to get a lot of creatine.
You'd have to eat like 10, 20 steaks.
Most of us aren't going to do that.
Maybe I would, but most people aren't going to do that.
Yeah.
So when you supplement with creatine, it's like getting vitamin C from an orange, you can max out that gas tank.
Well, what's the benefit of that?
Number one, you're going to have more energy, you're going to perform better, but you look better.
Because a lot of that creatine is held in muscle tissue, it volumizes, and it makes you look nice.
Trust me.
Don't believe me?
Take the 7-Day Mirror Test.
Take a little mental snapshot of what you look like in a mirror.
Give foundation a shot for seven days.
Go back and look in the mirror again.
You're gonna be like, nice.
Right, Paula?
Nice!
She loves it.
You see?
She's nodding her head in approval.
She's really not.
But she is, because she... But I'm telling you, take the seven-day mirror test.
Go to BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
That's BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
Pick up your bottle today.
Terrific stuff.
Okay.
Getting back to it.
Talking.
I mean, talking up the Democrats.
I should have opened that better.
The Democrats are talking up Colonel Vindman, too.
So we had Laura Cooper yesterday from the Pentagon.
Colonel Vindman is their star witness.
You know, he showed up in his military uniform, which I thought was a little odd because Colonel Vindman works in the National Security Council.
Well, they don't typically dress in military uniform.
Colonel Vindman, and remember we're not allowed to question Colonel Vindman because he was in the military, which again is almost farcical considering how the Democrats have absolutely shredded an American patriot in Lieutenant General Mike Flynn because it fits their partisan narrative.
So we're going to take a hard pass on this we're not allowed to question anybody in the military stuff for good.
I respect and honor our military personnel and always have, but that has candidly very little relation to the fact of what's in this transcript or not.
We're talking about impeaching the president over the contents of a phone call we've all seen where the information you're claiming is there is not there.
So, Byron York has a knockout piece in the show notes.
By the way, you're really going to want to subscribe to my show notes.
I'm going to get to this later with an announcement we have.
Go to bongino.com slash newsletter.
I'll mention that again later.
Subscribe to my show notes.
I'll get these articles to you in your email box every day.
This one's terrific by Byron York.
It is definitely worth your time.
Washington Examiner analysis.
The Democrats have a Colonel Vindman problem and it's a big one.
So, Byron York, like myself and others, actually went through the transcripts, again, of what Colonel Vindman, the Democrat, star-witnessed.
Suggesting again, Joe, for the umpteenth time, that a deal exists between Trump and the Ukrainians that is not in any transcript, and no one seems to know what the deal is, except they heard it sixth-hand through someone who heard it tenth-hand.
Vindman's their star guy because Vindman does have an impressive military career and that doesn't take away from that at all.
But it doesn't impact Vindman's recollection of what he says he knows if it's not accurate.
Now, going through the points in Byron York's excellent piece, he has four points, four takeaways about why Vindman is going to pose big problems for the Democrats even though they claim he's their star witness, right?
Big B!
Takeaway number one.
Vindman had nothing new to offer.
Except his opinion.
Byron York says, well, Vindman seemed to be an important fact witness, the first who'd actually been on the call, Joe.
Finally, Joe, finally.
A guy who's actually heard the call on July 25th, right?
But the problem, Joe, is what?
The White House already released the transcript of the call.
And nothing Vindman testified to, nothing, is new.
It's in the call.
We have the transcript.
So Vindman had an opinion about the call, Joe.
And when questioned on his opinion about the call by John Ratcliffe and others, an excellent, excellent congressman from Texas, who's done an amazing job in both Spygate and this, Vindman, all Vindman could admit, Joe, was that he had policy differences with the president, that he could detect no illegality in the call at all.
The verdict is in.
Ladies and gentlemen, they have a Vindman problem.
Joe, simple question.
Joe, you're not an attorney, either am I, correct?
But this is going to be kind of a common sense, everyday man's analysis, because some lawyers are some of the worst legal analysts, ironically, I've ever seen.
Yeah.
Some of you know what I'm talking about.
If you listen to the show.
If you're going to trial, Joe, on a case, right?
A bank robbery case?
Yeah.
And your star witness, lawyer Joe, in the case that you're putting on the stand, I would be concerned, Dan.
I would be concerned.
The verdict is in!
who robbed the bank gets up there and says Joey Pagodonis didn't rob a bank. Do you think that
creates a small problem for you Joe? I would be concerned Dan, I would be concerned. Yes.
The verdict is in, Joe is very smart. Joe brilliant of course putting on another hat as a lawyer.
Yes, that would create a problem if your star witness, when questioned, has no new facts, number one, and the facts he does add to the case are only his, not facts, but his opinions, and even his opinion is that the president broke no laws in this call.
Kind of a big deal when you're impeaching him for a, not just a crime, but a high crime or misdemeanor, high crimes and misdemeanors, treason or bribery.
And your star witness can point to none of that.
Did he commit a crime?
No.
But we're impeaching him for a crime.
I don't think he committed one.
Now, Vindman went on and on about how he disagreed with the president's policy.
Great!
Thank you for your service, sir.
I mean it.
When you're done with the military and you're done with your service to the country, I mean this.
Go run for office like I did.
It's really hard.
We lost.
We knocked on tens of thousands of doors.
We sat there at every strawberry festival shaking hands until I got arthritis in my thumbs.
Yep.
Right, Joe?
That's how I met producer Joe.
It's really, really hard.
But Joe, that's how people change political policy.
They run for politics.
Correct, Dan.
You are a military officer.
Thank you for your service in the military.
Your function is to protect the nation, which I believe by your service you've done.
Thank you.
You are not a politician.
If you don't like the policy, and you can point to no legal issue with the call, then run for office, man!
Maybe the public will like you.
Maybe they won't.
Maybe you win.
You can impact policy all you want.
But I'll take a hard pass on Colonel Vindman dictating what our policy to Ukraine is.
I'll stick with the President of the United States and the Constitution.
Thank you very much.
I'm holding back a little bit here as Paul experienced before the show today.
Takeaway number two, the Byron York piece.
Definitely worth your time.
Oh, well now we find out Colonel Vindman, the star witness, withheld important information from the investigators.
Vindman ended his opening statement in a standard way by suggesting, well, now I'd be happy to answer your questions.
Byron York says, but as it turned out, the answering questions cooperation did not extend to both parties.
What does he mean by that?
Well, if you actually read the transcripts of Vindman's testimony, you'll find out he was very cooperative with the Democrats, but when the Republicans had basic questions like, who Vindman may have shared some of this information with, sensitive information about the president's phone call, his lawyer, a man named Volkov, jumped right in.
We're not willing to share that.
Oh, you're not?
So you have a guy on the National Security Council, a military officer, who's not willing to say who he may have shared?
Very sensitive information with, and yet you want to use it to impeach the president.
Despite the fact that the information Vindman has, he's already stated, is his opinion, and the information he has in fact, the fact is nothing that happened was illegal.
Was Vindman, what's his relationship with the whistleblower?
Is there one?
Did he know the whistleblower?
Was he talking to Adam Schiff?
Folks, this is all important.
Because I believe this is all an effort to hide the real scandal, which is the Democrats' collusion with Ukraine.
But Vindman doesn't seem to want to talk to the Republicans.
He's willing to answer questions for the Democrats.
His lawyer jumped- By the way, if you read the Byron New York piece, there's an exchange with Lee Zeldin where this lawyer could not be more obnoxious.
Zeldin even says to him at one point, good Republican congressman from New York, one, Hey, you know this is going to become public at one point.
In other words, like, This is ridiculous where you're going.
You're going to be embarrassed later.
He's like, I don't care.
Read it.
Takeaway number three.
Vindman, who by the way, celebrated himself at this hearing as the key Ukrainian expert.
He's the guy, Joe, on Ukraine.
He's the guy.
The man.
Well, Byron York says there were notable gaps in Vindman's knowledge.
Quote, Vindman portrayed himself as the man to see on NSC policy when it came to issues involving Ukraine.
Quote from Vindman, I'm the director for Ukraine.
I'm responsible for Ukraine.
This is an actual quote.
I'm the most knowledgeable.
This is a real quote, folks.
I'm the authority for Ukraine for the National Security Council and the White House.
Yet at times, Joe, there were striking gaps in Vindman's knowledge of the subject matter.
He seemed, for instance, distinctly incurious about the corruption issues in Ukraine that touched on Joe and Hunter Biden.
Wow, that's fascinating.
Joe, he's the man.
His words, he's the most knowledgeable.
He's in charge.
Direct quotes.
He's the authority.
He's in charge.
I'm in charge.
He is the authority.
He's the most knowledgeable.
Yet when they asked him about Zlochevsky, Who they're a credible corruption charge against, who runs a company, Burisma, a natural gas Ukraine company, a big issue internationally, that then hired Joe Biden's kid.
Oh, I don't know about that, man.
Yeah, I don't know.
Never heard of that one.
Ah, this sucks.
Let's go to the Dave machine here.
There we go.
I won't be using it.
Don't worry, I'm just going to kick out of this stuff.
The Cricket Man Dave sound machine.
He doesn't know much about that, Joe.
Wait, he's the guy!
He's the guy!
The guy!
He said he knows all about it!
Except when it comes to information that reflects poorly on Democrats after he only answers questions basically by Democrats.
Crazy how that keeps happening.
It's a bipartisan impeachment hearing.
Yeah, yeah, okay.
Sure it is.
You're an idiot.
Big time.
If you believe that... Do you have that again?
Cue that.
If you believe that, you are an... You're an idiot.
Yes!
Thank you, Ren.
Oh my gosh, people are getting so suckered.
I can't believe this.
These media people fall right into the trap as a fun cue.
All right, fourth takeaway.
Listen, this, Vindman works as part of the swamp, okay?
Yeah.
Can we just be honest about this?
We're good.
This NSC has been eager to take down Donald Trump As Byron York indicates this piece, Vindman was a creature of a bureaucracy that's often opposed Trump.
Listen to a quote from Vindman talking about the layers of the swamp.
How he, you know, he's the guy, interagency cooperation, and his perspective is numbingly bureaucratic.
He said, so I hold at my level sub-PCCs, deputy assistant director levels, PCCs are my boss, senior director with assistant secretaries, DCs are the deputy of national security with his direct counterparts within the interagency.
What does that mean, folks?
Quote from York, Vindman believed that the interagency has set a clear U.S.
policy toward Ukraine.
You know who sets the policy toward Ukraine, Colonel Vindman?
President of the United States, read the Constitution.
We don't care about your PCCs, DC2, AC Director 62, Deputy Assistant Director of the PCICUC, Interagency ICUC PCC.
Don't care.
Nice.
Thank you all for your service.
Great.
You guys are awesome.
I worked in the government bureaucracy too.
You have a very important job.
So did I at one point.
You don't dictate foreign policy.
The President of the United States does.
You don't like it?
Ask to be removed.
Go run for office yourself.
Bye.
We have this thing called elections that determine the direction of the country by the citizens of the country.
It's our country.
It's not yours, swamp rats.
Thank you.
It's our country.
Thank you.
Move along.
You don't like our choice for president?
Go run for president yourself.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
So frustrating, man.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
And the media is all buying into this.
This would be described as a coup every single day if Obama was the president.
Sure would.
Every day, people would be outed, whistleblowers would be outed, everything.
You know it, Joe.
Yes, I do.
But that it's Trump, it's just patriotic.
So I'll get to that in a minute, too, with Swalwell and others.
All right.
Today's show, also brought to you by my buddies at Bravo Company Manufacturing.
Ladies and gentlemen, if you're in the market, For a rifle or a pistol.
And you are not checking out Bravo Company Manufacturing.
You are making an enormous mistake.
This is a terrific company.
I have two of their rifles.
This is precision.
Let me tell you, you know what?
Again, I tell you on airs never to say what a company isn't, but in this case, this is important.
Bravo Company's not a sporting arms company, okay?
They're not.
If you're looking for sporting arms, hunting, great, that's terrific.
But that's not Bravo.
They design, engineer, and manufacture life-saving equipment only.
That's what they do.
BCM assures that when their rifles, this is life-saving equipment, leaves their shop.
God forbid it'll be used in a life or death situation.
There's no room for error.
They manufacture precision equipment that will function every time.
Used by a responsible citizen, law enforcement officer.
They envision soldiers overseas using their products.
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.
BCM puts people before their products.
They build their products because they feel.
It's their moral responsibility to provide tools that will not fail the end user when, God forbid, it's not just a paper target, but someone coming to do them harm.
Ladies and gentlemen, this company was founded by a Marine veteran more than two decades ago.
BCM, or Bravo Company Manufacturing, builds a professional-grade product built to combat standards.
To learn more about Bravo Company Manufacturing, head on over to BravoCompanyMFG.com where you can discover more about their products, special offers, and upcoming news.
That's Bravo Company M as in Mary, F as in Frank, G as in George.com.
BravoCompanyMFG.com.
Need more convincing?
Check out their YouTube channel.
YouTube.com slash Bravo, uh, what is it?
Bravo Company USA.
Sorry.
I can't see the Bravo Company USA.
Sorry.
I couldn't see the bottom of that.
Check them out.
All right, getting back.
Bravo Company, go check them out.
Do not buy a rifle or a pistol until you check out Bravo Company USA.
All right, folks, getting back to this.
What is this all about?
I think I need to ground this a little bit because I've been getting a lot of emails from people who are like, what's the what's going on?
I don't like this whole impeachment.
I'm getting confused.
Ladies and gentlemen, it's the same farce, the same hoax.
And you have to remember, as I said in a speech a couple of weeks ago up in Volusia County, whatever the Democrats accuse you of with their media allies, because that's what they are, they are doing it for a tactical reason.
It's because they're covering up the exact same thing they did themselves.
If the Democrats were to accuse Trump of felonious mopery in the umpteenth degree, it's because the Democrats committed felonious mopery in the umpteenth degree.
It's a tried-and-true tactic of the Democrats.
And why do they get away with it?
Because the media are Democrats.
They're full-time liberal activists.
Journalism in the United States is dead.
It's buried.
I hope you don't take CNN or MSNBC, The Washington Post, or The New York Times seriously.
These are collusion hoaxers, documented liars, and conspiracy theorists.
I'm sorry I have to tell you that, but it's true.
Now, what are they covering up?
First, I want to play this cut of Swalwell.
Eric Swalwell, another just, I mean, out of left field, complete conspiracy theorist, hoaxer, who just self-owns himself on Twitter all day.
This is the guy who was going to nuke the guy on Twitter, talking about how the government has nukes.
This is the same clown.
He ran for president, he got negative 46% of the vote, if it was even possible, dropped out immediately, beclowned himself completely.
This is a video audio of Eric Swalwell kind of describing what they think they have on the president again and again trying the same tried-and-true tactic of saying folks No, no.
We have evidence they've yet to produce.
Keep in mind.
Just like, remember the collusion hoax?
Adam Schiff and Swalwell?
We have evidence.
They've never produced.
Here he goes again with the same line of BS.
Check this out.
It's important that the president has due process and evidence is not a conclusion.
We have enough evidence from the depositions that we've done to warrant bringing this forward.
Evidence of an extortion scheme using taxpayer dollars to ask a foreign government But do you expect anything new from these testimonies?
But it's important that these witnesses raise their right hands and take questions from both Republicans and
Democrats.
The president is going to get that. It's important that the Republicans be afforded the opportunity to suggest
witnesses that we should call and that we determine whether that is relevant.
That, you know, the facts are just as important as the process behind the facts as far as what if anything goes
over to the Senate.
But do you expect anything new from these testimonies or is it going to be a recitation of what we can read in these
depositions already?
already. These witnesses have been fairly consistent.
And for the most part, they've not been coordinating or talking to each other.
But again, this is America and we don't just have, you know, railroading of justice.
These witnesses, you know, should come public and, you know, the American people should judge for themselves as well as we will as to, you know, what happened.
Work that sucker to death.
Come on now.
Work that sucker to death.
Right?
Yeah.
Exactly.
Yeah.
Beat that dead horse, man.
Eventually you'll get him to drink some more water.
Beat that dead horse.
The beatings will continue until morale improves.
Folks, there is evidence.
There's no evidence of a deal in a transcript we've all read.
Nobody has put forth that evidence.
The only evidence we have is six times removed hearsay from someone who heard from someone who heard from someone who presumed there was a deal that didn't happen.
That's all.
There is no evidence.
But Swalwell is trying to convince America and suckers in the media, again, after being the number two collusion hoaxer after ship, that no, this time they really have evidence.
Let me show you, however, and by the way, we're going to dig into this media because this is going to get really good in a second.
Let me show you what evidence we do have.
This is actual evidence, okay?
Politico, a piece I've showed many times by Ken Vogel.
Keep this piece in mind.
Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire.
Kiev officials are scrambling to make amends with the president-elect after quietly working to boost Clinton.
Ken Vogel, David Stern at Politico, left-wing Politico, which published in January of 2017, an exhaustively researched, well-sourced article indicating that the Ukrainians colluded to help Clinton and hurt Trump.
We have actual evidence of that, real evidence, being completely ignored by the media and the left.
They're not just ignoring this piece in Politico that talks about the Ukrainian collusion to impact Trump.
I'll get to it in a second.
Even worse, it's not that they're just ignoring it, y'all.
I haven't even told you.
It gets better.
Let's show you what else we have evidence of.
Which, again, Swalwell's accusing the other side of what his party did.
Foreign collusion.
Now we have evidence of the Ukrainian collusion.
Here's a CNN piece.
Still yet to be retracted, by the way, folks.
We've put this up many times.
You older listeners have seen this since episode 628.
British intelligence passed Trump associates' communications with Russians on to U.S.
counterparts.
Really?
UK intelligence was spying on the Trump team and passing it on to the Obama administration?
That kind of sounds like collusion.
Crazy, isn't it?
But no, no, let's keep talking about Trump colluding to make a deal that no one can seem to find the deal in the transcript where they said the deal was.
Even worse, it's not just that the media is ignoring the overwhelming evidence of foreign collusion with the Obama administration and the Democrat Party to deeply impact Trump and help Clinton.
Now that that Politico article is making its way around conservative websites that are interested in the facts and places like Fox that actually do news... Oh, look who creeps up again!
The conspiracy theory lunatics at BuzzFeed who've been wrong on just about every issue on the Collusion Hoax.
Look at this tweet, Joe!
How a viral article.
They're talking about the Politico piece, Joe.
Not any piece on my website.
They're talking about the Politico piece.
Okay.
How a viral article on Facebook convinced Trump's inner circle they had found their very own Ukrainian whistleblower.
The conspiracy theorist liberal activists at BuzzFeed, which are all in on the national cover-up about the Democrats' collusion with Ukrainians, are now trying to discredit a left-wing website, Politico, for exposing the actual collusion hoax.
Remember, Swalwell has evidence that's yet to appear, just like he had evidence for the collusion hoax that still hasn't appeared.
But when actual evidence surfaces, the full-time cover-up left-wing conspiracy theory media discredits the actual evidence, a well-resourced article.
Discredits it from left-wing websites!
Ladies and gentlemen, we are living.
And I got a story on this coming up that you're not going to want to miss about.
Matt Bevin in Kentucky versus Stacey Abrams in Georgia.
The media is done.
Journalism is dead.
Bury it.
It's over.
Completely, totally done.
Finished.
Stick a fork in it, folks.
Now I just want to show you what else they're hiding and why the second part of that Swalwell interview where he says, we're going to give the president a chance to defend himself.
You're not.
Adam Schiff's already denied most of the witnesses.
This is the only trial in the world where witnesses in defense of Trump aren't allowed.
But yeah, let's not call it Soviet style.
It is Soviet style.
It's a propaganda effort.
Here's the catch.
Even the witnesses they're bringing up, Laura Cooper, Vindman, are all deeply, deeply flawed as it relates to the case.
They have no knowledge.
Vindman says contradictory things.
But here's what's crazy.
They brought up Fiona Hill, who was, again, supposed to be a star witness for the Democrats about the deal-no-deal that no one can seem to find in the transcript.
So Chuck Ross wrote a great piece.
It'll be in the show notes today at Bongino.com.
He wrote a fantastic piece about how Fiona Hill, who was supposed to be a ringer for the Democrats, real ringer, had a bombshell, but it had nothing to do with a Democrat talking point.
Headline, impeachment witness undercut the Steele dossier in bombshell testimony.
Chuck Ross at the Daily Caller.
Oh, is this going to get good?
Wait till these impeachment hearings tomorrow.
You are not going to want to miss my show.
We are going to sum up everything for you.
We are going to give you the takeaways, the highs, the lows.
This is going to be the place to be.
I expect this show to explode in the next few weeks because we have got some great sources.
From Chuck Ross's piece.
Fiona Hill, remember, was supposed to be a witness about the Ukrainian deal.
All of a sudden, it veered off into a different kind of testimony?
Didn't kind of work out that well for the Dems.
Quote, Fiona Hill, who served as the White House's top advisor on Russia affairs until July, told lawmakers she was, quote, shocked to find out that Christopher Steele, alleged author of the hoax dossier, a former MI6 officer, was the author of the dossier.
She says that's in large part because when she met Steele in the years leading up to his dossier, he was, quote, constantly trying to drum up business.
It's working out great for you guys, Democrats.
Schiff, you're really knocking it out of the park.
Your witnesses don't know anything.
Everything is fifth and sixth hand.
No one can point to any demand or transcript.
You can't find a Ukrainian who thinks they were pressured.
You can't find the delay that the Ukrainians actually knew about.
The delay they think they know about is largely about corruption in Ukraine, which is a good thing.
And then you have a guy, Colonel Vindman, who wants to run U.S.
foreign policy despite that not being his job at all and never being elected.
And then you have a witness, Fiona Hill, who comes up there and says, hey, Christopher Steele, the author of the dossier.
Yeah, I was kind of shocked.
All that guy was trying to do was drum up business.
Seems weird a little bit.
Weird.
Little bit.
By the way, a lot of you noticed you were regular listeners to my show.
I kind of slipped that in on Fox the other day.
Weird a little bit.
Yes.
That was intentional.
Yes.
Thank you for the emails.
You caught that Joe?
Yeah, man.
Weird a little bit.
Now, what are they really protecting here?
Folks, as I've told you in prior shows, and I'll repeat to you again, the Democrats are trying to protect their collusion with Ukraine, trying to protect their collusion with UK intelligence to hurt Trump.
They're trying to make all those stories go away by counter-accusing Trump.
But what they opened the door on yesterday is they're really in trouble with Christopher Steele because there's only two pathways now.
As I said to you before, either they're right about Christopher Steele, that Christopher Steele colluded with Russians.
You have that Tribnikov thing?
That Christopher Steele colluded with Russians.
And his information in the dossier was from Russians, even though it's all false?
You can see Christopher Steele in his own interview notes when he was talking to the State Department and Kathleen Kavlik has already indicated that his sources, as you can see from this, were Trebnikov and Surkov.
Quote, sources, Trebnikov, Surkov.
Trebnikov is a former head of Russian Intel, one of their heads, and Surkov is known as Putin's architect.
So, keep in mind what the Democrats, they have no way out of this now.
Either their source for the dossier wrote it himself, and his sources were Russian, in other words, the Democrats paid a guy to collude with Russians.
He admitted it!
Or, number two, which I am reasonably confident is more accurate, Steele didn't write the dossier.
I think Simpson may have had a role in it.
Nellie Orr.
Someone else.
I've got more on that coming in the future.
Wait till you hear this one.
And that Steele was just really a bit player in the dossier.
Meaning, the Democrats have been lying the whole time.
Even Fiona Hill seems skeptical.
This guy was just trying to drum up business.
So your options are this.
Steele's telling the truth, and he colluded with Russians to hurt Donald Trump.
Or Steele's lying, and the Democrats, what they've been calling the Steele dossier the whole time, isn't Steele's dossier at all.
It's written by someone else.
They may be hiding that person out there.
Let's call him Person X, which we'll get to in the future.
Not good!
NG.
No bueno.
Either way.
Nice job, Fiona Hill.
Good job.
Well done.
It's going just swimmingly, isn't it?
All right, final sponsor of the day, and I've got a couple more stories for you.
Don't go anywhere.
I haven't even made my special announcement yet.
New sponsor, Mrs. Fields Cookies, the greatest sponsor ever.
They emailed me, they said, listen, do you want to do a read for Mrs. Fields?
I said, are you kidding me?
Under one condition.
I need a sample of Mrs. Fields because I love them.
Every time I go to the mall, I eat the heck out of Mrs. Fields Cookies.
They are the greatest, most delectable, delicious, mouth-watering cookies you've ever eaten in your life.
They melt in your mouth.
Ladies and gentlemen, end the year on a good note with your clients, okay?
Are you a business owner?
What better way to leave a good impression than the gift of cookies?
But not any cookies!
Mrs. Fields!
Listen, December's coming up.
You're running out of time to send the gift before Christmas.
You got Thanksgiving coming up, too.
Fortunately, there's a superhero out there known as Mrs. Fields.
You break these things in half and they're gooey chocolate.
It is the most delicious cookie I have ever eaten in my life.
If you ever had trouble finding the perfect present, Mrs. Fields' cookies are for you.
When time is short, but the need to give gifts is high, the answer is the gift of Mrs. Fields Cookies!
Cookies.
Debbie Fields started Mrs. Fields Cookies 40 years ago.
She won over cookie lovers everywhere with her gooey chocolate chip cookies, melt-in-your-mouth brownies, and passion for the love of baked goods.
Nowadays, you can have these cookies sent right to where you want them without visiting your bakery.
With gourmet gift tins and baskets filled with fresh baked cookies, you know your order will arrive fresh and full of flavor.
Ordering is easy.
They can ship your cookies anywhere across the country.
And if you're ordering as a gift, my mouth is watering right now.
I'm not even kidding.
Yeah, me too.
Thanks, pal.
Oh, they're so good.
I know.
I'm rooting.
You can add a personal custom.
They're so good.
I love these cookies.
Add a personal custom message, a company logo, or a family photo.
Best of all, Mrs. Fields offers a 100% customer satisfaction guarantee.
That's a lock.
To sweeten the deal, our listeners get 20% off your first order at Mrs. Fields when you go to mrsfields, M-R-S-F-I-E-L-D-S dot com and enter promo code Bongino.
That's 20% off any gift at mrsfields.com, promo code Bon Gino, mrsfields.com, promo code Bon Gino.
Your cookies are waiting for you and so are your taste buds.
Don't miss this opportunity for 20% off mrsfields.com, promo code Bon Gino.
Okay.
Big announcement.
Big announcement.
And ladies and gentlemen, I want to be very candid with you about messing around.
You know, sometimes Joe and I, you know, the subject of our content here is obviously serious.
It's not a sports show.
It's not comedy.
It's politics.
But you know, we like to take the edge off.
We don't need people, you know, blood pressure going up 6,000 points every show.
But this, I'm being candid.
I'm not trying to be funny or sarcastic or coy.
This gives me no pleasure in making this announcement.
It's a big announcement for us, but I never wanted to make it.
Let me just put up this article first by Mediaite.
You'll probably get a drift of where I'm going.
Mediaite, who's really been no friend to me in the past, but they have an article I'll put up at the show notes.
Jesse Watters, I love Jesse at Fox.
He's a co-host of The Five and has his own show, Watters World, on Saturday, which I will be on, by the way, this Saturday, so make sure you tune in.
Jesse Watters Show, Watters World.
Jesse Watters yesterday accused Drudger of being anti-Trump.
He says that's what you log on to CNN.com for.
Folks, he's right.
I'm sorry, Drudge is very powerful.
When I talk about Drudge, I'm talking about the Drudge Report, the website.
Drudge has been an aggregator of news for a long time.
They've done a very nice job of the website through the years, but for some reason, I don't know Drudge.
I've never met Matt Drudge.
Drudge, obviously, is his last name.
I've never met Matt Drudge in my life.
Don't know who he is.
Some articles of mine have appeared on there.
Um, the site is leaned left.
I don't know what they're doing.
Um, their headlines sometimes and how they write them, um, I believe are misleading.
And I think we need a place that is unabashedly conservative where you can get conservative news.
Real news.
Not fake news.
And I don't know what happened to Drudge.
I don't care to speculate.
I'm sure he's a nice guy.
Don't know him.
Never met him in my life.
But that is not the place to go for news anymore.
They have drifted unabashedly left.
And for some reason, they seem to have a pernicious anti-Trump agenda.
I can't allow that.
I'm sorry.
I've relied on them for a long time.
No more.
I'm just announcing to you today that we are gonna do... I haven't told Joe this either.
Our own report now.
We'll call it the Bongino Report.
Because I'm a simple guy.
Sounds logical to me.
It'll be launching soon.
Yeah, logical to me, too.
We are making a heavy financial investment in it.
You know, are we going to beat Drudge?
Probably not.
Are we going to become a viable competitor, Drudge?
I'm determined.
Because you need to go to a place where you can get sound conservative news.
I'll be making some additional announcements about the detail about that in the future.
If you'd like to get a head start on it, though, in the very near future, And you want to go to a site that actually promotes the truth and conservative websites.
It's not going to be any Washington Post, New York Times junk on there.
Right.
Go to bongino.com slash newsletter, bongino.com slash newsletter and sign up for our newsletter today.
And you will be privy to some really cool stuff coming very, very soon.
All right, moving on.
How'd I do, Paula?
A little worried about that.
There we go.
She wanted me to make sure Bongino.com slash newsletter.
And I always like forget the details.
I'm like the worst promoter of my own stuff ever.
And I'm serious, folks, just to wrap it up.
This gives me no joy in doing that at all.
I have 6,000 different business ventures going on.
It's not a money thing for me.
It's actually costing me more money, a lot more right now.
If it makes money later, great.
It's not.
It really just, we need an alternative.
I'm sorry.
We can't have this anymore.
We just can't have it.
So coming soon, the Bungie No Ripple.
All righty.
Now, I said I was going to dismantle the media and their nonsense today.
This is NPR.
Let me just show you how these left-wing media outlets are total, complete frauds with media.
Forget it.
Journalism is dead and buried.
They have zero interest in principles at all.
Just to give you a little background, before we put these up, these are going to be two tweets by NPR.
By the way, um, hat tip, I think his hashtag is at Red Steez on Twitter.
It's a guy named Steve.
I forget his last name.
Sorry.
I think it's Miller.
But they have a podcast.
I haven't listened to it, but I'm sure it's pretty good.
But he found these two, so it's not mine.
But I saw them and I'd like to put them out.
We always got to hat tip the right people.
Before we get to a little background, so Matt Bevin was the governor of Kentucky.
He's yet to concede, but is losing a ridiculously tight race in Kentucky.
Matt Bevin is a Republican.
Now, Bevin has some credible evidence of some possible voter fraud.
You can't say that to the left-wing media when you're a Republican.
But you know, someone else on the other side of the political aisle still hasn't conceded a race in Georgia, is making false claims of voter fraud.
She has no evidence of it all.
And she was portrayed as a hero, like someone out of the Avengers.
Let's go to NPR tweet number one about Bevin.
And I want you to watch the framing.
Because if you don't understand how the left-wing media works, you'll miss all of it.
Here's left-wing NPR.
Without evidence, Joe!
Without evidence.
NPR claiming they're a news network without evidence.
That's how I should preface this.
Without evidence, Governor Matt Bevin questioned the election's legitimacy.
And he isn't the first politician to do so.
Election specialists worry that unsubstantiated claims about voter fraud erode confidence in democracy.
Okay, before we get to the next tweet.
So let's pretend for a minute NPR was principled.
They're not.
But let's just pretend.
Alright.
So their principles at NPR are we should not- I'm just reading their tweet, right Joe?
Do not make unsubstantiated claims about the legitimacy of elections.
Don't do it without evidence.
It's not the same way they framed the same exact situation when it came to Stacey Abrams, liberal Democrat who lost fair and square the election in Georgia.
And by the way, still hasn't conceded.
This is how they frame this doozy.
In a fiery speech, without evidence.
No, no, just kidding.
That's not actually in there.
In a fiery speech, Stacey Abrams insisted this was no normal concession, decrying what she called deliberate and intentional voter suppression by Brian Kemp, the Republican, that she believes led to this result in the Georgia's governor's race.
Ladies and gentlemen, are you falling for this crap?
Do you see the framing?
You see how they do this?
Bevin has actual evidence of potential voter fraud.
I'm not suggesting it's going to overturn the results of the election.
By the way, so did I in my congressional election, which we conceded in because we didn't have the time or the money for the lawsuit.
I would say graciously, by the way.
I know self-praise stinks, but I wrote a nice letter to John Delaney when we lost to him, even though I thought there were serious irregularities.
Bevin has actual evidence.
You can't do that.
We don't question elections.
Yeah, when Stacey Abrams, the Democrat does it.
In a fiery speech.
Get 'em!
Yeah, I mean, are you this much- I'm not.
I know you're not being suckered by this.
But you get it, right?
Like how this is all, how the media frames this whole thing.
How they frame Vindman as a hero.
If Vindman was speaking out against Obama, he'd be a traitor.
Oh, like they called Mike Flynn a traitor.
Yeah, yeah, like that.
Exactly like that.
Laura Cooper.
Oh, oh, testimony was devastating.
Really?
She didn't know anything.
I just showed you the testimony.
She didn't even know anything.
She knew she heard from a guy who heard from four other people.
Totally.
If that was against Obama, Laura Cooper would be a discredited conspiracy theorist.
Right?
BuzzFeed, an alleged media outlet.
By the way, CNN's bad.
If you are trusting BuzzFeed, please seek a mental health professional out immediately.
BuzzFeed has been on the wrong side of nearly every single major story about Trump.
BuzzFeed's like, this Politico story, it's a conspiracy theory.
It's Politico, you imbeciles.
All right.
I've got some important news.
So we're going to wrap up the show.
And I know I had one more, so we'll try to get that tomorrow.
There is an important case in immigration.
There's always a lot going on.
I try to stack it.
What do you say, Joe?
All the information you need in an hour.
In an hour.
That's right.
So we're trying our best here.
There's so much going on.
It's like we're drinking from a firehose.
There is a very, very important immigration case.
Look at me being teased on Fox.
Check that out.
Very nice.
Dan Bongino coming up tonight on Hannity with Geraldo.
I'm teasing Hannity on my show, watching a tease of Hannity on the other show.
There is a very important immigration case being heard in the Supreme Court.
It is on DACA and DAPA.
Of course, that's the Deferred Amnesty of Childhood Arrivals and their parents.
Basically, the amnesty program by Obama.
Now, you may say, what, they had a problem with the law?
No, no, it wasn't a law.
DACA and DAPA were not laws.
DACA and DAPA were basically Barack Obama edicts.
They were not laws, okay?
Nobody's challenging the DACA, there is no DACA law.
There was President Obama's opinion on who he should prosecute and not.
Which is, by the way, broad-based discretion by the President.
I questioned this from the start.
The President, as the Chief Executive, can dictate what we dedicate our assets to and don't.
What the President should not be doing is making a crime not a crime.
The difference is, I used to use this analogy a lot.
When you're a police officer, you're given wide discretion, say on traffic tickets, to give a ticket.
You are under no legal obligation or employment contract, Joe, as a cop, to ticket everyone you pull over.
You understand that, right?
Right.
Many of you have probably been pulled over and a cop, some of them, a lot of them are really nice.
They say, I'm going to give you a warning.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I get warning.
I got a few warnings.
I have a few tickets too.
Yeah, exactly.
I've got a few of those too.
But they're under no obligation to give you a ticket.
Right.
However, if a police officer—they have discretion—if a police officer shows up at roll call and says, I am not going to enforce traffic laws at all anymore for this class of people, and I'm going to give them a special lane on the highway, you'd be fired immediately.
That's the difference.
Obama didn't say, we're not going to prosecute this case and that case and this case as the chief executive of the country.
Law enforcement falls under the executive branch.
That's not what he said.
He said, if you came into the country illegally and meet this criteria, not only are we not going to prosecute you, we're going to give you work permits too or special privileges.
Totally unconstitutional.
Now.
This case about DACA and DAPA and the legality of it is now working its way to Supreme Court.
Let me put up screenshot number one, because I warned you about this.
Ladies and gentlemen, we're in a lot of trouble with John Roberts.
This is going to be confusing.
The case, by the way, in the Wall Street Journal is called the Court and the Dreamer Pawns.
It's by their editorial, but they're very, very kind of to the left, the Wall Street Journal on immigration.
They have good stuff on economics.
Having said that, though, even they understand there's a real problem with this case.
We are gonna have a John Roberts problem here.
I'm gonna read this, it's gonna be a little complicated, but I'm gonna explain it to you.
Don't worry, I'm not gonna leave you out there in the cold.
"Plaintiffs also cite the court's 5-4 ruling last term in Commerce v. New York to argue
that DHS's stated reason for rescinding DACA was pretextual, and the president was using
it as a bargaining chip to get more money for his border wall."
Here's the key takeaway, which I'll explain.
We warn the census citizenship ruling would invite challenges to lawful uses of executive power.
And here we go.
What are they saying?
I know it's a little complicated.
Yeah.
Remember the citizenship question?
President Trump wanted to include a citizenship question on the census.
Yeah.
Perfectly within his executive authority to do so, folks.
John Roberts, who is not a conservative, who has sold this out many times, Justice John Roberts on the Supreme Court, said in his swing vote ruling on this that, no, the president can't include that question.
Not because he doesn't have the power to do it.
But because his reason was no good.
That's not the Supreme Court's job.
In other words, Joe, the pretext for the president's... So now John Roberts in the president's head?
Okay.
John Roberts is Karnak from the Johnny Carson show.
Gotcha.
And I... Remember this show?
I know you remember this show.
Along with many others on the conservative side who do punditry here.
Said, wow.
Now we're in a... We've crossed the event horizon now.
Now John Roberts is not voting on if the president has the power to do something.
He's voting on what he thinks the president's motivations are?
Huh?
How does he know, number one?
And secondly, where's that in the Constitution?
Supreme Court, you will determine if the president's motivations were pure or impure.
Where's that?
Where's that one?
So now in the DACA case, notice what's happening here.
Of course the left caught on to that.
Great, now we can get in the president's head and talk about motive and pretextual evidence.
So what are they saying about DACA?
The left is suing, of course, to stop President Trump from throwing DACA out.
And they're saying, it's not that he doesn't have the power, Joe, but what was the real motivation and the pretext for doing it?
Hey, Johnny Roberts, you were with us before on that one.
Let's do it again.
Yeah.
You dig?
Yeah, man.
Now there are some other leftist groups who are saying, well, the president's reason isn't good enough and he can't do this.
He can't.
That's crazy because President Obama could.
Now we have what, a second class presidency now from the journal piece.
This is a fascinating argument here.
Quote, University of California, they're the ones suing to keep DACA.
And other plaintiffs argue that DACA was a valid use of the enforcement discretion granted by Congress to the president.
That's Obama.
But then they argue that the Trump administration abused this discretion by reversing the same policy.
This is one of the many contradictions by the plaintiffs.
Okay.
So just to be clear, You're arguing on one hand that the President of the United States, when it was Barack Obama, had the full discretion to do what I told you he couldn't do.
But then when President Trump comes in, in the exact same office, different person,
he doesn't have the discretion to undo what the last president had the discretion to do,
even though he did it and had no constitutional power to do it.
I don't even know, like the left can't even get to the store.
He didn't have the discretion to do it, Obama.
President Trump is right in two ways.
Because the last president did something he wasn't authorized to do, which this president is rightfully undoing.
But even the left's argument that, no, no, no, he did have the authority to do what he shouldn't do, because he's the president, doesn't work because Trump's the president now.
Therefore, he can undo it.
And so ends another episode of...
We got him now!
Chapter 622.
We got him now!
Oh, dude.
Gosh, I can't.
Really, if you're not watching this show, I'm sorry, but you are missing out on all of the key stories of our time.
You are!
You're missing out on everything.
If you're watching the news thinking you're getting the real skinny, you're not.
Alright, I got a lot of stuff tomorrow.
We'll talk about the impeachment thing.
I still have this story about San Francisco and this horrible story in Venezuela.
But folks, please, Bongino.com slash newsletter.
Get ready.
Bongino Report.
Very creative.
Coming soon.
And we will finally have a place to go for conservative news.
And we're not trying to be anything else other than that.
We want conservatives, libertarians, republicans, and candidly, constitutional democrats as well.
We want them to have a place to go to get the real news.
