The Explosive Connections The Media is Scrambling to Cover up (Ep 1122)
In this episode, I address the disturbing connections in the scheme to spy on the Trump team that are now coming to light, and the media is trying to hide. News Picks:This May, 2019 article describes the troubling relationship between these Spygate characters.
This August, 2019 article deserves attention because it addresses why your tax dollars may have financed Spygate.
The NY Times spin on the IG report is pathetic.
2020 campaign rhetoric from Democrats on firearms sends firearm sales soaring.
Are Democrats scared of the upcoming IG report?
Behind the scenes of the President’s secret trip to Afghanistan.
Elizabeth Warren is getting desperate as she doubles down on pandering.
A devastating takedown of The NY Times.
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.
You know, I'd love to tell you I can't believe it, or as my mother-in-law would say, I cannot believe.
I'd love to tell you that, but I can believe it.
These media people, everywhere by the way, are running with a patently false story.
Again, it is unbelievable how in the tank for the Democrats, no it's not, it's believable how in the tank for the Democrats the media are.
I've got a loaded, stacked show for you today addressing this New York Times story everybody's talking about from, what was it, Tuesday or so?
Loaded show today.
I'm going to nail these guys to the wall for complete, total hackery.
Don't go anywhere.
Welcome on this post Thanksgiving show on Friday morning, back to the Dan Bongino Show.
Producer Joe, how are you today?
Well, it's Friday!
We gotta deal with American Pravda!
Yeah!
American Pravda!
Accurately stated.
Joe's best game show.
He's famous.
It's Friday opener every day.
How was your Thanksgiving, buddy?
Good?
Oh, it was great, Dan.
It was really good.
I had a little bit of turkey.
I controlled myself.
Controlled myself.
And enjoyed the day.
But it felt weird because I didn't know what to do with my time.
We've done a show every day!
I know, me either.
We had my former campaign manager over our other house, our old house, where my mother-in-law lives now, for Thanksgiving, and we were reminiscing about old times.
She's telling me a funny story.
She just moved to Florida, so she shows up to the local Republican Club meeting, and you need someone to sponsor you, apparently, to be on this committee or whatever it is.
So she's like, well, you know, I was Dan Bongino's campaign manager.
And I'm like, no, you weren't.
No, you weren't.
Like, they didn't believe her.
It's hysterical!
I said, tell you what, let's take a picture.
You know those hostage photos where you hold the newspaper up?
I said, let's take one of those photos so you can show it.
I didn't believe her, it's so funny.
No, you weren't.
I can see her.
So she's still trying to get someone to vouch for her.
I said, call me on speaker next time and I'll vouch for you.
She didn't want to bother me or whatever, but it was really funny.
All right, we've got a loaded show for you today.
Got a lot to get to, including Friday.
So it's our honorary news explosion show, being that the news explosion died a painful death.
It now exists only on the Dan Bongino Show.
All right, today's show brought to you by Helix Sleep.
Visit helixsleep.com slash Dan to get up to $200 off your mattress order.
Now, a caveat before this read, because I got a Facebook message from a listener, you know who you are, who shockingly thinks I was making that story up about my daughter and the Helix Sleep Mattress.
I'm not.
She's actually outside.
They have the day off from school.
My teenage daughter, who doesn't appear on the show ever, she doesn't like to.
My younger one will come on at any opportunity.
She's always in the background jumping around.
But the story's true.
My teenage daughter was watching my younger one, the youngest one has a Helix Sleep mattress, and they were watching a movie in a room and they fell asleep on the mattress and my daughter came in the next morning.
She does not know about Helix Sleep or anything.
And she said, Amelia's mattress is really comfortable.
Can I get one of those?
That's a true story.
I don't mess with you guys.
But the guy's like, come on, that didn't happen.
It really happened.
Listen, Helix Sleep is a quiz.
Takes two minutes to complete.
Matches your body type and sleep preferences to the perfect mattress for you.
For your side sleep or a hot sleeper, like a plush or a firm bed with Helix, there's no more confusion, no more compromising.
Helix Sleep is rated the number one mattress by GQ and Wired Magazine.
It's the most comfortable mattress you'll ever sleep on.
Just go to helixsleep.com slash Dan, take their two-minute sleep quiz, and they'll match you to a customized mattress that'll give you the best sleep of your life.
We have one too, me and Paul.
They have a 10-year warranty.
You get to try it out for 100 nights risk-free.
You will not find a better mattress, period.
They'll even pick it up for you if you don't love it.
That's how confident they are, but you will.
Helix Sleep is now offering a monstrous $200 off all mattress orders for our listeners.
Go to HelixSleep.com.
That's H-E-L-I-X HelixSleep.com slash Dan for up to $200 off your mattress order.
HelixSleep.com slash Dan.
Don't wait, get it today.
All right, let's go.
Now, setting you up for the apocalyptic media disaster that has been this Thanksgiving week.
The fake news just, it doesn't only start with the New York Times story we're going to get to, which has been a major bombshell that media people, shockingly, even on our side have run with.
It's false.
There have been a number of hilarious face plants into the sidewalk that happened even yesterday on Thanksgiving.
Let me show you this.
This is just so embarrassingly stupid.
I'm sorry, folks, to have to do this to you the day after Thanksgiving, but I don't want to hit you today with a bunch of macabre stuff right out of the box.
Let's go to Newsweek, which tweeted this.
I'm sorry, folks.
How is Trump spending Thanksgiving?
Newsweek, of course, hates Trump, so I tried to take a shot at him.
How is he spending Thanksgiving?
Tweeting, golfing, and more.
Obviously, attempt by the hapless lunatics at Newsweek to make Trump look like an idiot on Thanksgiving.
Look at him, tweeting and golfing.
What a loser.
What was President Trump actually doing?
Well, as you can see and hear, President Trump was showing up in Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, greeting our troops.
Your troops celebrating here, happy to see.
Yes, President Trump took a secret trip into an Afghan That's right!
war zone, putting his own life, by the way, in danger, significant danger.
Yeah, you're darn right.
That's right.
And Joe knows why, where I'm going with this, to spend Thanksgiving with our troops and
to serve them food and take pictures and to meet with the Afghani president over there.
This is just an embarrassing, epic face plant by the New York, excuse me, by Newsweek, who
is just trying to slime the president.
Just embarrassing.
And just a quick note on this.
This is not, and I sincerely mean this, please.
It is not because I tweeted this out and I kind of regretted it afterwards a little bit
because I thought it came off wrong.
I tweeted out, I had done, literally did the lead advance for President Obama's trip in 2010 to the exact same place, Bagram Airport.
Matter of fact, I believe to the exact same hangar.
I had done the lead advance when I was in the Secret Service.
And when I tweet, I regret it, because I wasn't trying to make it about me.
I was just trying to set up that I understood firsthand how dangerous this is, to make it about the troops and Trump.
But I get it.
One person was like out of 5,000 comments or whatever.
Somebody tweeted back, like, don't make this.
It's not, I promise.
That was not my intention.
I really, my only intention was, and to you right now, is to explain to you that, ladies and gentlemen, these are super dangerous trips.
This is an active war zone.
When I was over there in Afghanistan with President Obama, the exact same place.
The threats we have there, although we prepare for them here, ladies and gentlemen, the probability of making contact with a threat like that on U.S.
soil here is infinitesimally low.
What do I mean?
We were over there with Obama, and we had, I believe the two-star general I was dealing with at the time was Campbell, if I remember correctly, but nice guy.
And we were dealing with David Petraeus, who at the time was the ISAF commander.
And the stuff they were telling us through their intermediaries and through them and stuff was just like crazy.
Like, they were like, Dan, there's, you know, we can have a serious problem with IDF, indirect fire.
And I said, well, what do you mean?
Like, well, sometimes they just lob stuff, mortars and whatever, onto the airbase and people have to take cover.
And it was like there's a potential once they find that Air Force One is here that one of those things can hit the plane.
Now, granted, we prepare for that on U.S.
soil, but folks, the chances of that happening in U.S.
soil are infinitesimally small.
I'm not going to tell you how we prepare for it, obviously, but the chances of it happening in an active war zone, ladies and gentlemen, Are pretty significant.
Pretty good!
Right, and so what I'm trying to get to is Trump, and listen, Obama too, he went there.
I'm not here to play partisan games about wars and the commander-in-chief.
That's not what I do here.
They are taking on significant personal risk, and they're briefed on it, by the way, so they know exactly what they're doing when they go over there.
Remember, I can sit here and tell you, good for Obama for doing that.
No problem.
It's not a partisan thing for me.
These media people taking shots at Trump for doing it?
Look at the comments to my tweet from the liberals.
Seek help.
I mean it.
Seek help.
You are really troubled, desperate people.
And the meaningness or the lack of meaning to your lives is really troubling.
That you can find fault in the president for putting his own life at risk to spend time with our brave soldiers whose lives are at risk every minute of every day in that war zone.
You're a joke.
And you're an embarrassment to the entire country.
The media folks, that is.
A total embarrassment.
I wanted to set that up because it was one of the biggest faceplants I've ever seen.
Now, folks, this story has been going bonkers.
Before we get to it, the New York Times put out a piece on, when was it?
Was it Tuesday?
It was the 27th.
They put out a piece, and what's going on here is so transparently obvious.
They are trying to get a head.
Keep that up there in the corner.
It's important.
Right up there.
No, the other way.
So everything's backwards in the teleprompter.
I always do that.
Even on Fox, I did it with Chris Hahn.
I'm like, this guy!
And I was pointing the wrong way to the other because everything's backwards in the prompter, I see, because it's reversed on a one-way mirror.
This guy!
And he was on the other side.
This story right there.
Keep that up.
The New York Times put out a piece trying to get ahead of the IG report covering the Spygate disaster.
Now, one of the takeaways from the piece, which I'm going to get to in a second, keep this one up, is there was no spying on the Trump campaign.
Interesting.
Because this was a May 2017 headline from the New York Slimes themselves.
FBI sent an investigator posing as an assistant to meet with a Trump aide in 2016.
In other words, they spied on the Trump campaign.
Keep in mind that that is May.
Eh?
Got it right.
I gotta remember to point towards the wall.
That is May of 2017.
The FBI sent an investigator basically to spy on a Trump aide in 2016.
The story now is changing.
All of a sudden, magically changing.
Let's go to the other New York Times article that came out this week that everybody's running with the story now that the IG report, according to the New York Times and their leakers, which isn't even out yet, December 9th, is going to debunk the conspiracy theory that the New York Times themselves wrote about that the FBI had a spy working on the Trump campaign.
Here's the article.
We're going to go through this.
Folks, everybody is running with this stupidity.
Here's the article of Adam Goldman.
Russia inquiry review is expected to undercut Trump claim of FBI spying.
Oh my gosh, folks, that Slimes wrote this story in May.
What do you mean Trump allies?
You wrote the story, the New York Times.
Hey, you got the stupid stick?
Give it to me!
Give me the stupid stick!
Somebody will send the stupid stick now, I'm sure, to the P.O.
I guarantee, whenever you mention something, Joe, my P.O.
box overflows with stuff.
Every time.
I don't know what to tell you.
The Times wrote this story themselves and is now walking back their story of the FBI sending spies to spy on a Trump campaign.
Now, what's disturbing about this, and believe me, I'm painting a broad brush here because I've seen this everywhere.
Is the media is now running with this headline.
Despite the fact, which I'll get to in a moment, if you actually read the New York Times story, which I did and have multiple screenshots from, it completely refutes the headline and their May headline.
The May headline was basically, the FBI sent a spy on the Trump campaign.
The new headline, there was no spying on the Trump campaign by the FBI.
What?
Then you read the story and it clearly lays out, in no uncertain terms, that the FBI sent people to spy on the Trump campaign.
Let's break down the spin for the media people who are shamefully running with this headline.
The story's been debunked, no spying on the Trump campaign.
You are doing the whole world a disservice.
You are doing, as Joe said, Pravda-like activities.
Russian propaganda from the Soviet days.
It's embarrassing.
Did you even read the story?
Let's get to it.
First, takeaway number one.
They actually admit in the piece they were spied on, folks.
Do I need to read this to you?
I will.
Because I actually did journalism-ing that journalists refuse to do.
Quote, New York Times, Adam Goldman.
For one, agents had an informant, an academic named Stefan Halper.
Meet with Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopoulos while they were affiliated with the campaign.
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
Time out.
Time out.
You just said Stefan Halper, who is a noted spy.
You're now saying the FBI worked with a spy to interact with two Trump campaign members while your headline reads, the FBI did not spy on a Trump campaign.
Oh my gosh, give me the gavel!
What?
Did you even read your own piece, Adam Goldman?
Did you read your own piece?
Back to this.
This is unbelievable.
They don't only admit that Halper, a known spy, the FBI was working with them while they were interacting with the campaign.
It goes on to say...
Also, Joe's reading ahead here.
Stop laughing because you're reading how dumb this is.
I know what you're doing.
The FBI did have an undercover agent who posed as Mr. Halper's assistant
during a London meeting with Mr. Papadopoulos in August of 2016.
Paula, please, because Joe's been overtaken.
The stupid fog has overtaken both of us.
Neither one of us can get a word out.
Please!
Are you reading the same thing I'm reading?
We did not mess with this screenshot, correct?
This is from the Times article.
You can read it.
I'm not going to link to it because I refuse to give these idiots one extra click.
I refuse to do it.
Their own article cites the FBI working with a known spy, Stefan Halper, Working with him to spy on the Trump campaign and then sending an additional FBI informant with Halper to spy on the Trump campaign.
I have to almost like, the show doesn't have breaks, like commercial breaks.
If we did, I mean like traditional commercial breaks, I would take one right now because I want you to digest the stupid.
Folks, I've been tweeting out all weekend.
If you want these screenshots yourself, you can take them off the screen, you can cite them, you can go to the Times article yourself.
Again, I'm not going to publicize the article.
I have taken screenshots all weekend on my Twitter account, at The Bongino.
Most of you follow me already.
You're free to take them and show them to your liberal friends.
And I strongly, strongly encourage you to do it.
The report cites the spying in specific terms.
Now, you may say, well, Dan, then why did they write in the headline that the story's been debunked, that there's been no spying despite writing about the spying?
They do what the left, and by the left, I mean the media too, obviously, always does, folks.
They bury you in an avalanche of, hold on, I'm gonna hit the mute button here because I don't wanna, they bury you in an avalanche of Euphemisms.
That's what they do.
For those of you watching on the YouTube, you could probably figure out what I said, but I'm trying to keep the show family friendly.
They do what the left always does.
Word games.
Word games.
Joe, you know the word games.
They're not illegal immigrants, Joe.
They're undocumented workers.
It's not terrorism, Joe.
It's homegrown domestic violence.
It's not terrorism.
It's extremism.
They always play word games.
No, but keep in mind why this matters.
Nobody is disputing the facts of the case.
Even the Times acknowledges the FBI worked with a spy and then sent one of their own informants with a spy to spy on members of the Trump campaign.
You just read it and saw it on the YouTube channel.
The Times, they're not disputing the facts.
What they're disputing is the language, what they always do.
When you can't argue the facts, argue the language.
How do they do this?
Okay, we're going to wire four more screenshots from the piece where they show you how the facts which are not in dispute are now danced around to make it look what obvious spying, make obvious spying look like something completely innocent.
Meanwhile, if this was Obama, this would be, forget it, the story of not even the century, be the biggest story in U.S.
history if the Obama team was spied on.
Let's go to this.
This is incredible.
This is all from the Times piece.
Let me read this about how they frame the spying activity.
This is just stunning.
Keep in mind, this is spying on a presidential campaign.
Quote from the New York Times piece.
Mr. Trump and his allies have pointed to some of the investigative steps the FBI took as evidence of spying.
Though they were typical law enforcement activities, This is great!
Folks, I'm asking you liberals to take the dunce cap off for two minutes.
Just that.
I know you live with it and you're comfortable with it, but just for two minutes.
Do you actually believe with a straight face?
That inserting a spy into a presidential campaign and one of your own employees in the FBI to work with that spy to target a member of a presidential campaign, you really believe with a straight face this is just showing up for work 9 to 5 in the FBI like nothing's happened?
Folks, Again, as I open the show, it's not about me, and I'm not, like, doing a, hey, let me pat myself on the back, look how wonderful I was.
The only reason I ever talk about my prior experience, whether it's my trip to Afghanistan or what I'm going to say now, is to do one simple thing.
To establish bona fides that I've been there and that the information you're hearing is false because I know different from experience.
Journalists were not federal agents.
They know very little, if anything, my experience with them, most of them know very little, if anything, about how the law enforcement process actually works.
They claim they do.
They're national security experts.
They're not experts.
I'm telling you, they don't know squat.
They still call the presidential limo the beast, despite the fact I've told you on the show, nobody calls it that because they think it sounds cool.
I mean, that's a silly example, but it's true.
Oh, everybody calls it.
Nobody calls it the beast.
Folks, when I was a Secret Service agent and you got a call about a stolen treasury check, that was a big thing back in the day, people used to steal tax refund checks, and a congressman called the office, say Joe had his tax refund check stolen and nothing happened, a lot of times Joe would call his congressman and the congressman would call the Secret Service office, constituent service, you know, fair for him to do, and say, listen, one of my constituents got his treasury check stolen and what are you guys doing about it?
Folks, that would happen a lot.
We used to investigate that when I was a young agent in the field.
Right.
If that congressman called, it was like the biggest deal ever.
I'm sorry to tell you that connections matter, but they do.
The boss would come running in, you better get on this right away, a congressman call.
So you're telling me, with a straight face, again, you liberal lunatics, Ren, remove the, you're two minutes off, take the dunce cap off again.
I'm going to add another two minutes.
You're telling me with a straight face, my experience with a federal agent, when a congressman calls about a stolen treasury check, it lights the world on fire.
That when the FBI is working with a spy to spy on a presidential campaign, using their own FBI spy too, under a fake pseudonym, interacting with George Papadopoulos as Azra Turk, That this is just a day at the office and we're all supposed to go, ah, okay.
Holy mo, this is actual journalism by Adam Goldman?
Do you understand what a dunce this guy is?
Joe, please tell me this makes sense.
Paula, does this make sense?
You're telling me, who was an 1811 federal agent, that this is just a standard day in the office.
Ladies and gentlemen, if that's true, There's only two explanations for this.
That that is a standard day in the office.
There's only two explanations for that quote being in there.
Number one, the country is totally lost, and now a standard law enforcement activity is to spy on presidential campaigns.
His own words, not mine.
The second explanation, more plausible, is that Goldman, or wait a second, is a dyed-in-the-wall liberal.
Who is desperate, and as Joe said, a Pravda-like propaganda effort to desperately get you to believe that what was obviously spying on the campaign, the facts are clear, is not in fact spying, but is just standard operating procedure, although he knows it's not true.
Yeah.
It's number two.
It's number two.
That is not standard operating procedure.
Anybody who tells you otherwise is a moron.
And is totally lying to you.
All right, I've got a lot more to get to on this.
I've got a few more because this New York Times, this is a new piece, by the way.
You may say, Dan, I thought you covered this New York Times piece the other day.
No, no, this is a new piece that came out this week.
It shows you how desperate the Times is.
Remember we covered the other Times piece?
No spying, no spying, no spying.
This is a new piece.
This is how desperate they are.
And I'm covering it today because even some of our own media are running with this story.
Debunked, story debunked.
It's confirmed, they spied.
All right, let me get to this because we do have to pay for the show.
Today's show also brought to you by my buddies at Bravo!
Got their shirt on today.
Bravo company.
Love their shirts, by the way.
Bravo Company Manufacturing.
Ladies and gentlemen, are you in the market for a rifle?
If you are in the market for a rifle, you are making a huge, big, enormous, catastrophic mistake if you are not checking out Bravo Company Manufacturing first.
Ladies and gentlemen, Bravo Company Manufacturing, BCM for short, makes the finest rifles on the market.
Listen to me, listen.
As I always say, You never want to talk in an ad about what a company isn't.
But in this case, it's important what Bravo Company isn't because of what they are.
They are not a sporting arms company.
This is not a sporting rifle company.
Those are great companies.
They do great work.
This company builds one thing and one thing only.
Life-saving, professional-grade products built to combat standards.
This is not a joke.
Bravo Company Manufacturing believes the same level of protection Should be provided to every American, all my listeners, regardless if you're a private citizen or a professional.
Again, they are not a sporting arms company.
They design, engineer, manufacture life-saving equipment.
They make it here in the United States, in Hartland, Wisconsin, by former military folks who run this company.
BCM assumes that when one of their rifles leaves their shop, it will be used, God forbid, in a life or death situation by a responsible citizen, law enforcement officer, or a soldier overseas.
Quality is of the utmost importance.
My friend who is an expert in firearms, he was employed in a local firearms dealer, swears by these products.
Every component of a BCM rifle is hand-assembled and tested by Americans right here to a life-saving standard.
They put their people before their products.
They know it's their moral responsibility to provide rifles that will not fail when the end user, God forbid, needs to use it against not just a paper target.
To learn more about these spectacular rifles, Bravo Company Manufacturing, Head on over to BravoCompanyM, like Mary, F like Frank, g.com.
BravoCompanyMFG.com.
BravoCompanyMFG.com.
Discover more about their products.
You have special offers coming and upcoming news.
That's BravoCompanyMFG.com.
Every time I wear this shirt, I get compliments on it.
People love these products.
Or check out their YouTube channel, youtube.com slash BravoCompanyUSA.
All right.
Getting back to where we are.
So, now to reset.
The Times piece has become the new media narrative.
No spying on the Trump campaign, despite the fact I just showed you the spying is now confirmed by the New York Times themselves.
They're now lying to you, telling you, don't worry about the spying, it's just a typical law enforcement activity.
That's false.
But it gets even worse.
They're doubling down now on the Mifsud spin.
Now, this is classic, because remember, again, I know I'm even tired of talking about this myself, Joseph Mifsud, according to the liberal media narrative, is a Russian agent that met with Papadopoulos in early 2016 about the Hillary Clinton emails, or D.I.R.T.
That started this whole thing.
Remember Papadopoulos then tells Downer that becomes, according to their narrative, the genesis of the FBI case.
If Mifsud is not a Russian agent, this whole story is complete garbage.
He's not.
Listen to the New York Times spin on Mifsud.
Again, the victory lap about Mifsud is just classic.
Classic.
Check this out.
Mr. Horowitz from the New York Times.
Mr. Horowitz, of course, the IG, will also undercut another claim by Trump allies.
That the Russian intermediary who promised... Here we go again!
Now he's an intermediary who promised dirt to Mr. Papadopoulos, a Maltese professor named Joseph Misson.
He's not Russian, folks, was an FBI informant.
Nobody said, by the way, he was an FBI informant who's actually studied the case.
This is what's known as a straw man argument.
They're creating a fake bogus argument as a counter that no one ever made.
Mr. Papadopoulos has also helped spread that claim, he contends, without evidence that the FBI or the CIA set him up to derail Mr. Trump's campaign.
Ladies and gentlemen, number one, there's a lot of evidence that Mifsud may have been part of an elaborate setup.
His ties to Western intelligence are known, are detailed through the link campus, through photographs, and through an internet search journalists are not willing to do because they're an embarrassment to journalism.
I don't want to hammer this too much, but it's absolutely hysterical that now the best victory lap they can take is not that he was a Russian agent.
Now he's an intermediary, Joe.
And we don't even know what that means, a Russian intermediary.
So your whole case is garbage.
But now they take a victory lap because, hey, at least he wasn't an FBI informant.
Wow.
Let's get the Olympic torch and take a lap around the track.
Idiots.
Idiots.
Adam Goldman, you're not even remotely curious how this whole case starts on the allegation that a Russian agent talked to the Trump campaign member, Papadopoulos, and now he's not even a Russian agent anymore?
Now he's an intermediary, but you can't even back that up?
I know nothing!
Nothing!
I know you don't.
Oh my gosh.
Alright, moving on.
This Times piece, shockingly, gets even better.
And by better, I mean worse.
Listen to the dance this guy does, this clown fake journalist.
Listen to this dance about the dossier, which Andrew McCabe, the acting director of the FBI at one point during this case, has already cited was the key component of their warrant to spy on Trump, the information in the dossier.
Listen to this phrasing.
Quote, the FBI did cite the dossier to some extent, Joe, to apply for the wiretap on Mr. Page.
To some extent, does he even know what Andy McCabe said?
He probably doesn't because he's not a journalist.
The inspector general will fault the FBI for failing to tell the judges who approved the wiretap applications about potential problems with the dossier.
The people familiar with the draft report said.
Ladies and gentlemen, promising you again.
We're going to go back to that in a second, so keep that handy.
Again, that you are not wasting your time here.
What did I tell you months ago?
That the biggest piece of information to come out that I have from an unimpeachable source was the fact that the FBI interviewed one of Steele's alleged sources in January of 2017 and determined that that source was full of stuff.
Not good stuff.
That the person who was involved in that interview was reporting back to Comey and told Jim Comey that Steele's sources were not legitimate.
Why is that a problem?
Because ladies and gentlemen, the entire FISA warrant was based on steel sources in the dossier.
Andy McCabe's words, the former acting director of the FBI, not mine.
Adam, I know I have to coach you through this, Adam Goldman, for your story, so take notes.
This is slow, but listen.
This is called journalism-ing.
Andy McCabe has actually said the dossier was the bulk of their reason to spy on Trump.
So now to be clear, you're suggesting not only that it was cited, to some extent.
No, no.
That was their information.
He doesn't know that because he's not that bright, Goldman.
But now, listen to this, put that back up.
What does the FBI acknowledge?
I already told you about this, so you're, as usual, you're about six months ahead of the story.
Now the New York Times admits, quote, FBI agents have interviewed some of Steele's sources and found out that their information differed somewhat from his dossier.
Oh boy!
Differed somewhat.
Yeah, like the source told him it was a peanut butter and jelly sandwich and it was actually roast beef.
It differed somewhat.
The texture was somewhat similar.
Oh boy.
I'm a little feisty this morning because I got into a bit of a Twitter spat this morning.
Sergei Millian, who I actually give an out to in my book, who is alleged by journalists to be source D&E in the dossier.
We actually get Millian and out.
And right before the show, Paul was like, what are you doing?
I get into a Twitter spout.
I actually defended this guy.
And he's like, coming after me.
I'm like, really?
And then some other guy who I'm going to use in a minute, who I like his research, this guy at Climate Audit on Twitter, who does good work, comes after me too.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have nailed this case from day one.
Please tell me where we were wrong.
The New York Times is reporting again.
Again, I'm not taking a celebratory lap.
I just don't want you to think you're wasting your time.
We already reported already.
The Bureau interviewed Steele's sources in January.
They then renewed the FISA three times.
Folks, listen to what I'm telling you.
The FISA is based almost exclusively on the dossier, despite what Goldman tells you.
McCabe's own words from the FBI.
No dossier, no FISA.
In January, they interview Steele's sources for the dossier.
Before they renew the thing three more times, they find out his sources are garbage too, in addition to Steele!
Steele's information's crap!
They then renew it and swear to it three more times!
The New York Times now confirming my reporting, and they act like it's no big deal!
Oh, the information was somewhat different.
No, it was different!
I'm trying to think of an analogy for you again.
Imagine going to court, swearing Joe robbed the bank.
Yeah.
Finding out Joe was in Texas the day the bank was robbed in California, and then suggesting that my source who told me Joe robbed the bank, we found out that the information was a little different than what he told us.
No, no!
It was totally different.
It was not the same thing.
Now, why is Goldman covering up for Steele's sources?
Oh, oh, oh, I'm going to drop a bombshell on you.
I've been holding it, but now, based on, ironically, with this guy who was hitting me on Twitter this morning, caught in a book.
I'm going to show you why.
Something I've been holding for a long time.
Steal sources for the dossier may be a little more troubling than you've been let on to.
Some of you will get what I'm putting down already because you've been listening to the show and I've been hinting at it for months.
But now that it's coming out in the open, I feel a little more comfortable.
I don't like burning people, and I'm not.
Now that it's out in the open, I think it's time.
All right.
So again, we told you they interviewed steel sources and they were garbage.
Now, you know, even the New York Times.
All right, let's get to the last part of this, of the New York Times piece, because I want to move on to what's really the explosive connections I talk about in the title of this piece.
From the final portion of the New York Times piece, though a wiretap itself is an intrusive investigative tool, gee, you think?
FBI officials obtained a wiretap on Carter Page after he had left the Trump campaign.
Here we go again.
We are back to like episode 628, where this whole thing started.
Our famous episode 628, which like quadrupled our audience.
Now the talking point, what?
I wish I had like a peanut gallery or a call-in section for the show or something like that, you know?
Like a studio response.
I would ask the studio, I would say, hey, What narrative story do you think Goldman's trying to tell you?
It's not the facts.
What spin is he trying to put on this?
Well, it's simple.
Most of you figured it out.
Goldman is trying to tell you now in the New York Times, don't worry.
They weren't spying on the Trump campaign.
Carter Page already left.
Goldman, who really is an embarrassment to journalists for even writing this.
Do you not understand how this works?
Again, sorry to bring this up.
Having been a federal agent, When you get a warrant to spy on Page and you access his emails and texts, it's not from the day you do it.
In other words, if Page is responding to older emails, you access his email file and his texts, you get his texts and emails when he was on the campaign too.
Goldman's not bright enough to figure that out, but he's not a journalist, he's a fake news guy.
So he's trying to tell you a story, not the story.
The story is the Trump campaign was absolutely 100% spied on.
As he says in his own story, he's just trying to be, Oh, don't worry.
They only spied on Carter Page after he left the campaign.
Well, again, showing you how these, and I'm sorry to have to constantly waste your time with these morons, but you have to be prepared.
How do I know they were spying on the Trump campaign?
Because Jim Comey said it himself, the director of the FBI, which Goldman, who's really not bright, apparently hasn't looked up.
Let's put up a little screenshot of Comey's own testimony, which Paula was kind enough to even highlight for you.
Here's Jim Comey's own words.
Quote, James Comey, former FBI director.
Gosh, Goldman, just do your homework for once.
Quote, I have been authorized by the DOJ to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 election.
That includes investigating the nature of any leaks between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government.
Highlighted for you on the YouTube, youtube.com slash Bongino.
Adam, are you taking notes?
Did you miss that?
Because I know what you're hinting at.
You're not smart enough to get it to slip on past the goalie.
We know exactly what you're doing.
They weren't spying on a Trump campaign.
They said they were, knucklehead.
Did you read that?
Holy Moses, are these people stupid?
Now, I want to, I'm going to sum this up.
I'm going to hat tip the Conservative Treehouse guys here in a second.
They have an interesting article out there.
And I'm going to sum up what we know from the New York Times article to tell you what I've told others, and will continue to tell others.
They should be celebrating this New York Times piece, despite its headlines and its spin.
If this is their best face forward show about what's coming in the IG report, holy Moses are they in a world of trouble.
I don't know.
I haven't seen it.
It's not out yet till December 9th.
I'm only telling you, if this is the best story that came out of this, and the New York Times spin is the best they can do, holy Moses are they in trouble.
From this conservative treehouse piece, which is fascinating.
There's an interesting snippet in there I just wanted to highlight.
The piece is titled, More IG Report Leaks.
New York Times reports FBI spies are around Trump campaign.
We're not spying on the Trump campaign.
Right?
Great title.
FBI report reports that FBI spies were not actually spying on the Trump campaign.
That title, you scratch your head with the title because you're like it can't be true.
It is true.
From the piece though, remember the New York Times is reporting on leaks about the IG report.
Here's an interesting takeaway from the last Refuge, the conservative treehouse guy, Sundance wrote this.
Each principal, in other words the people being investigated by the IG folks, can provide feedback for inclusion in the report.
However, all feedback added to the report generates an IG rebuttal.
Stay with me.
Keep this in mind, folks, because these leaks to The Times are the feedback, and the leakers have no idea what the IG rebuttal will actually be.
The more the principals obfuscate and justify conduct to the IG in their feedback, the stronger the rebuttal that feedback will be in the final report.
Let me translate that.
Folks, obviously the people leaking to the friendly Democrat run and operate in New York Times and CNN, and to Adam Goldman and others, who they know aren't going to do journalism, these people aren't pro-Trump.
These are probably people being investigated by the IG that are leaking their rebuttal to the report.
You get it?
So in other words, Joe, if I have not seen the report again, if the report says the FBI used their own operatives to interact with the Trump campaign, I don't care how they word spying.
I'm just, in other words, the FBI spy, if the rebuttal from the principal involved in it, McCabe or others is, hey, we weren't spying.
These are typical law enforcement activities.
Do you see what's happening?
The times is reporting.
These were typical law enforcement activities.
That's not what the report says.
That could be what the leakers said.
In other words, everybody, take a time out until we actually read what's there.
The times is clearly spinning for the people being investigated.
T-O, baby.
T-O.
Time out.
Okay, let's sum this up.
And I want to get to some really, really important, the connections I talk about in the title.
So I had to write this down.
So the summary from the New York Times' own report, by the way.
Remember, this is their best face forward.
We now know the FBI spied using multiple spies.
Halper and their own informant.
We now know that.
They reported it.
I read it to you myself.
We now know the FBI cited the dossier paid for by Hillary and widely debunked in an effort to spy on the Trump team.
And we now know Andy McCabe has already said, no dossier, no FISA.
So we know they spied on the Trump team and they used discredited, debunked information to spy on a presidential campaign.
Sound like huge bombshells to me.
Not according to the New York Times.
Typical law enforcement activities.
We now know what I told you six to eight months ago or whatever.
It's a joke.
We now know that the FBI interviewed steel sources and debunked them too.
Sounds like kind of a big deal.
No, folks, not according to the New York Times.
No big deal.
Trump allies like Dan Bogino, they're making all this up.
We now know they renewed the Pfizer warrant three times anyway despite knowing Steele's dossier was discredited and the information wasn't accurate.
We now know they investigated the campaign despite Goldman's protestations because Comey's already told us they investigated the campaign.
And we now know that the New York Times can't even prove that Mifsud, the Russian who supposedly started this whole thing, was actually a Russian.
Their victory lap is, well, at least he wasn't working for the FBI.
Nice.
Good face to put forward, guys.
Well done.
It's embarrassing.
Like I said in my tweet last week, never, ever insult me by calling me a journalist.
Ever.
You want to get blocked on Twitter instantly?
Tweet to me, I'm a journalist.
It's no worse insult.
I'm serious.
I'm not messing with you.
It's not a joke.
I am an investigator who investigates facts, who had a credible work history of doing fact-based investigation.
That's what we do here.
Don't ever call me a journalist.
I'll block you instantly.
I'm sorry.
There's no worst insult given what you just read in the New York Times and calling someone a journalist.
And the media is running with this.
It appears the stories have been debunked about spying.
Did you even read the story, bro?
Oh, hell no!
Darn right.
All right.
Today's show, one of my favorite sponsors.
Don't go anywhere.
I still haven't even made the connection.
I got a lot to get through.
It's important on a Friday show.
Also brought to you by...
You see that?
My buddies at Vincero.
Look at that.
I gotta get away from that light.
Ladies and gentlemen, these are the finest watches for the money you're ever gonna get.
I got a couple of them right here.
I got the Altitude and the Chronos.
Folks, listen.
Don't mess with Vincero.
I'm telling you right now, if you have one of those $5,000, $10,000 watches where you're paying for the name only on your wrist, You are probably paying, overpaying, for a garbage watch nobody cares about.
You want a watch, I'm not kidding, that every time I wear, I get emails.
I'm not messing with you.
I don't do that with sponsors.
I get emails and tweets about, hey, where'd you get that watch?
I saw you with that watch on.
They're Vinceros.
This is one of my faves, the Altitude.
I'm wearing the Chrono S. This one's a beauty.
I love this.
Always, always get compliments on the Altitude every time.
This is a gift-giving season, and today's sponsor, Vincero, this company's a great example of entrepreneurs who found their passion.
They went in on it, and it paid off.
They're one of my favorite sponsors.
You have to check out their watches.
They are gorgeous.
Look at the weight on this thing.
Feel that.
Well, you can't look into it.
Feel the weight of the marble back, the high quality glass, the beautiful leather.
Look how thick that is.
This is all worn because I've already been wearing the thing forever.
Vincero, they want to let you know this week is their massive holiday sale.
You will not find a better gift for the woman or man.
Paula, you love your new one, right?
The new Vincero they sent you?
Woman or man.
Everything on the site is on sale.
No exclusions and products sell out quick, really quick.
Don't wait to buy.
Head over to Vincero, V-I-N, look at that.
Look at, there's a watch in that picture.
Look at that.
Nice watch!
Head over to Vincero Watches, V-I-N, C-E-R-O watches.com slash Bongino.
Check out my favorite picks and take advantage of the biggest sale of the year.
Everyone needs a fine timepiece for men and women.
Everybody needs a quality watch.
I'm so excited.
You feel like a million bucks with this on.
Even though you paid less than 200 bucks for it.
This is a beautiful, beautiful watch.
No one will believe it.
My brother-in-law's a watch collector, and my brother-in-law actually works in a jewelry store.
He says, great, great, great, great watches.
Shop at Vincero, know where you're buying from.
They put customer experience above anything else.
They have a ton, 18,000 five-star reviews.
Come on.
They make an incredible gift, perfect time to pick one up.
They have multiple collections for men and women.
The deal's too good to pass up.
Go to Vincero, V-I-N-C-E-R-O, watches.com.
So, what's the real scandal here?
be automatically applied at checkout.
Vincero makes it easy to shop with a huge selection.
VinceroWatches.com/Bongino.
Check 'em out.
All right.
So, what's the real scandal here?
Why is the New York Times, the left-wing media, some other media folks who don't wanna read
the actual New York Times story before they report on it, why are they so desperate to continue to insist
that the dossier and everything else was written by Steele?
Now, I've covered some of this before, but I haven't covered this angle.
I've been holding this for so long, I feel it may be anticlimactic, but I'll put it out anyway.
So we've all been told Christopher Steele wrote the dossier, right?
What are you doing over there?
She's like surfing like Teen Wolf and Michael J. Fox in the movie.
We've been told for a long time, Steele wrote the dossier, and they stick by that story no matter what.
That it was Steele's information.
Why?
I've already set this up for you.
I'll quickly set it up again, because Steele had worked with the FBI before.
In order to sell the dossier to a judge to spy on the Trump team, they had to insist that it came from a credible source, and Steele had worked with them before.
It's as simple as that.
They couldn't say, hey, Hillary gave us the information through Glenn Simpson.
The judge would have never, that's why they hid it in the footnote.
You got it?
Very simple.
Yeah.
Folks, did Steele write the dossier?
I think you already know from listening to my show that I believe, according to information we presented in our own book, reported in Tablet Mag and elsewhere, Simpson's own wife seems to indicate that Glenn Simpson had significant input into this takedown of Donald Trump, Simpson himself.
Simpson's wife wrote in a now-deleted Facebook post, according to Tablet Mag, that it was Glenn who basically took down Donald Trump.
Now, Glenn Simpson and his co-worker Peter Frisch at Fusion GPS have a book coming out, and there's something in the book that should get everybody's antenna going up.
I'm gonna ask you a question so I don't bury the lead like the New York Times did about the spying.
Was Halper a part of the dossier?
Did you pay for it?
And was Halper double-dipping?
I've been holding this for a long time.
Out of respect for people.
I don't mean bad guys.
I mean, I don't, you talk to me and you tell me not to share something, it doesn't get shared.
I don't do clickbait stuff and I don't burn people.
But now it's out there.
It's out there.
So now it's pretty much fair game.
And people are starting to ask some serious questions.
Ladies and gentlemen, do you understand what I just told you?
Because that may have slipped by a few.
I'm not even sure Joe caught that.
He may have, he may not.
Did Stefan Halper, who now the New York Times acknowledges was working with the FBI, you saw it yourself.
Yeah.
And we know, which I'll get to in a minute, was being paid by your taxpayer dollars through the Office of Net Assessments.
Did Stefan Halper Actually write some of the dossier or contribute to it?
Say what?
What?
Where'd this come from?
I've been holding this one for a while.
I was quiet, but I was just thinking that.
Yeah.
What?
Well, I know cause I kind of hinted to you once something.
Yeah.
But this gets worse.
I'm going to say, because there's an even bigger question, which I'm going to answer at the end of this.
Did you pay for parts of the dossier by paying Halper?
And secondly, was Halper double dipping?
Oh, oh, oh, this is where it gets really good.
Was this a money-making operation the whole time?
Okay.
Keep those two things in mind.
Did your taxpayer dollars finance Halper writing Parsons to the dossier or contributing to it is a precise way to say it.
And was Halper double dipping and getting money from other people too?
Let's now walk through this.
Let's go to Bruce Ohr, who was a Department of Justice official in the Obama administration, whose wife worked for Fusion GPS, who created the dossier.
Of course, you know that.
You know the details.
He was questioned by Trey Gowdy.
This is his testimony.
By the way, hat tips to Svetlana Lukova in her Twitter feed.
She's the one who did the highlights, for those of you watching on the YouTube.
Gowdy asks Bruce Ohr, did you and Chris Steele ever discuss Donald Trump?
Remember, Bruce Ohr is working in the Justice Department.
He's handling Christopher Steele for the FBI.
In the July 30th conversation, Orr responds, one of the items, this is the day before they open up the case against Trump, one of the items Christopher Steele gave to me, Orr, that he had information, let me, I gotta say this right.
That Christopher Steele gave to Orr, that he had information, Steele that is, from a former head of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service, the SVR, who had stated to someone, Orr says, I don't know who, that they had Donald Trump over a barrel.
Let me translate that for you, because it's one of those impeachment hearing things.
He said, they said, heard it from a friend who, remember, this is this again.
Remember I told you it's the same hoax, right?
They all weave together.
So just to sum this up, Bruce Ohr and the Department of Justice, who's meeting with Christopher Steele, the alleged author of the dossier, the day before the FBI opens the case.
They open it July 31st.
He's meeting Bruce Ohr with Steele July 30th.
He then runs to the FBI that opens up a case the next day, on a weekend.
Steele allegedly told Ohr, according to Ohr's own testimony, that he heard from someone, someone, Who heard from a Russian intel person, the former head of the SVR, that the Russians had Trump over a barrel.
You following?
Yeah.
Steele says he heard from someone, Person A, who heard from another person who was a Russian intel guy, that Trump basically was over a barrel.
The Russians had info on him.
Who the hell is Person A?
Who did Steele hear from about this information the Russians allegedly had on Trump?
And who did that person, Person A, hear from in Russian intel?
A former head of Russian intel?
Who was that?
Was that Trebnikov?
The old head of the SVR?
Was that who that was?
We'll get to that in a second.
Here's the AtClimateAudit account on Twitter.
It's a good account.
Guy doesn't seem to like me, but I don't really care.
Again, I do.
It's not personal for me.
But he's found this interesting snippet.
He says it's from the Fusion GPS book.
Glenn Simpson and his partner that wrote this.
It's in a tweet feed.
He's writing about Fusion GPS's book.
That's where I got this tweet.
It's his highlights.
AtClimateAudit, if you want to follow him and check it out yourself.
Here's a piece from the book.
Steele said that one of his collectors was among the finest he had ever worked with, an individual known to U.S.
intel and law enforcement.
Okay.
Follow me.
So the day before they open the case, Steele meets with a DOJ guy who's handling him, Bruce Ohr.
Steele tells him he heard from a person who heard from this Russian intel guy that they had stuff on Trump, the Russians.
We now know that Steele apparently told Simpson and Frisch that one of the people he was using as an informant or a collector was already known to U.S.
intelligence and law enforcement contact.
Was that Halper?
Oh, I hope not.
I'm not kidding.
I hope not.
Because ladies and gentlemen, this is third world Cuba type stuff.
Was Steele using Halper Is helper person A to get information from Tribnikov, the former head of the Russian foreign intel?
Is that how that information got in the dossier?
Was the head of the former SVR, Russian Intel Service, feeding information to a U.S.
spy known to law enforcement and the intel community, who's feeding it to another foreign national, who's feeding it to the FBI to use to spy on Donald Trump?
Holy Moses, is this happening?
Reminds me of that scene in Bridesmaids, where they're trying on the dresses after eating at the restaurant.
It's happening.
It's happening in the street.
For those of you who saw the movie, you know what was happening.
The same thing's happening here, just with information.
That's a really appropriate analogy.
However gross it may seem, the same thing is happening.
Let's go to this Christopher Steele.
Oh, Dan, what makes you think... Trubnikov was the head, okay, former head of Russian SVR Intel Services.
What makes you think Trubnikov could have been feeding Halper, who was feeding Steele?
Don't take my word for it.
Take Steele's word for it.
Who went to the State Department, Christopher Steele, in October, right before the Pfizer was approved.
And as you can see in this note taken by Kathleen Kavalec from the State Department, who actually interviewed Steele, The handwriting may be tough to make out.
Steele actually told her, and we circled it for you, that Steele told her that Trebnikoff was one of his sources.
You can see the note on the screen.
Sources, Trebnikoff.
Don't take my word for it.
Again, journalists out there, this is called journalism-ing.
You may want to try it sometime.
Steele already told the State Department the former head of the SVR was one of his sources.
But that's not what Steele told Orr.
Steele told Orr that someone told him the former head of the Russian SVR told him something.
You get it?
Steele's telling the State Department, hey, one of my sources is this former head of the SVR.
But then he's telling Bruce Orr that that former head of the SVR, Russian intel, told someone else who told me.
Who's that somebody else?
Well, did Trubnikov and Halper, was that someone else, Halper?
Does Trubnikov and Halper, they even know each other?
Let's go to this Bongino.com piece again.
Bongino.com is packed full of show notes today.
Read them, please.
Bongino.com slash newsletter.
I'll send them right to you.
Read this one by Matt Palumbo from May.
New document, which we just showed you, was that note about Trubnikov with the State Department.
New document exposes two Russian dossier sources.
As Matt writes in the piece where he quotes Sarah Carter as well,
has done some great work on this case too.
From the inside of the piece, "In May of 2015, Trubnikov returned to teach with Halper at
his seminar in Cambridge on current relations between the Russian Federation and the
West."
So Halper and Trubnikov know each other and teach a course together at Cambridge?
Thank you so much.
So let me get this straight.
Again, we were told Steele wrote the dossier because he'd worked with the FBI before.
Now we find out that Steele didn't actually get the information from the dossier himself.
He got it from another guy who heard it from likely Trubnikoff, because Steele's already said that, and that Trubnikoff has worked with Halper in the past, teaching a class at Cambridge, and that Halper was on the U.S.
government payroll at the Office of Net Assessments being paid for work.
No, you say he wasn't?
Let's go to the Washington Times, the excellent Rowan Scarborough, whose older piece, by the way, from back in 20, what is this?
That was August 18, 2019.
This will be in the show notes again today.
Sometimes older pieces are new again.
Rowan Scarborough, Washington Times.
Loose contracting practices at the Pentagon office waste millions, and a whistleblower was punished.
So a whistleblower, Adam Lovinger, at the Office of Net Assessments, which is paying Stefan Halper, blows the whistle that they're wasting a lot of money.
Wink and a nod.
Check this from the piece.
Check this out.
All of a sudden, this guy, Adam Lovinger, is sanctioned for opening his mouth.
Don't we love whistleblowers?
Quote from the piece.
Stefan Halper, the professor who became an FBI informant to spy on the Trump campaign, failed to document the research, Joe, he did as a contractor on four Pentagon studies worth one million dollars, an investigation found.
The DoD Inspector General report exposes loose contracting practices.
The Office of Net Assessment, there's the ones who paid Halper.
The same kind of problems reported by Adam Lovinger, who was later accused, shockingly by the way, of mishandling sensitive data and has been suspended.
Again, I thought we loved whistleblowers.
Not when you blow the whistle on the government paying Stefan Halper, who may in fact, according to reporting and according to connections, may May have been a source for Christopher Steele and an intermediary between the Russians and Steele.
Now, why is this a problem beyond the obvious?
Because ladies and gentlemen, as I addressed to you last week, if Halper had any input into that dossier at all, and he is in fact the intermediary between his buddy Trubnikov, the Russians, and another foreign national, Steele, while being paid by the United States government, There's no hyperbole.
I just said it for you all yourself.
We paid to spy on a presidential campaign?
Huh?
But the big question I have not asked before, I'm going to ask you now.
We're just asking questions, folks.
Was Halper double dipping?
Was Steele paying Halper for that information too?
Oh boy.
Oh boy.
Was a foreign national, Steele, paying a guy paid by taxpayer dollars to spy on a Trump campaign for information that spy was getting from a Russian Intel head?
While simultaneously taking taxpayer dollars too?
Guess we're all gonna have to find that out, ain't we?
Wouldn't that be an interesting money trail?
Russians feed disinformation to U.S.
spy working with the FBI to spy on an innocent presidential campaign being paid by tax dollars who may, in fact, may, we'll see, has a business association at least with Steele, with Steele paying him to?
Astounding.
Only the biggest scandal of our generation.
But again, don't worry folks, the New York Times says there's no spying, nothing to worry about here, so everybody can just go home and eat your Thanksgiving leftovers.
All right, folks, thanks again for tuning in.
I really appreciate it.
I'll be interviewing Brian Kilmeade later.
Hopefully, we'll launch it today.
We'll see.
It's a busy weekend.
It's going to be a good interview, so I don't want to bury it.
But this show is important.
Please share it.
Thank you to all the folks on Reddit and elsewhere who shared our shows on these platforms.
You've grown our audience exponentially, and I deeply appreciate it.
Please subscribe.
It's all free.
Subscribe to our show on YouTube, youtube.com slash Bongino.
It's free.
Won't hurt you one bit in the pocket, I promise.
And subscribe on Apple Podcasts, wherever you get your podcasts.
