The Deep State is Real, and They’re Not Playing Games (Ep 1154)
In this episode, I address the stunning connections between the anti-Trump impeachment players and the Spygate hoaxers. I also address the imploding impeachment farce and the failure of Pelosi’s latest gamble. Finally, I address failure of media outlets to understand the significance of Trump’s strike against Soleimani. News Picks:Study says the worst run states are run by Democrats.
The Senate Democrats are now turning on Pelosi.
Pelosi’s impeachment gamble is blowing up in spectacular fashion.
Homelessness surges in liberal California.
Devin Nunes is leading an investigation into ICIG Atkinson. Atkinson’s resume is interesting.
The shady connections of these anti-Trumpers, to the Obama Administration, are frightening.
President Trump’s stock is at an all-time high.
The chances of President Trump being removed from office is sinking like a rock.
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.
Another loaded news day.
Devin Nunes last night on the Fox News Channel Laura Ingraham show dropping another bomb out.
You gotta love Devin Nunes.
We, of course, are big fans of Devin Nunes here.
Exposing the swamp last night.
Yeah.
And the intricate, shady web of swamp-like ties between the sinewy connections of the Swamp Rats.
You're not going to want to miss that story.
I got that.
An update on how the media is totally missing the point on Trump's hit on Soleimani.
I got that.
I got cocaine Mitch strikes again, too.
We'll get to that.
We always love those stories.
Welcome to the Dan Bongino Show.
Producer Joe, how are you today?
Fine, sir.
I love it.
Sino-y connections.
Sino-y connections, and I'm doing well.
Yeah, they're like spider webs.
Really, this stuff is too good.
You're not going to want to miss that portion of the show, I promise you.
Alrighty.
Let's get right to it.
No more delays.
Today's show brought to you by our friends at Policy Genius.
Listen, it's January of 2020.
The year 2020 shows up a lot in science fiction.
A lot of people predicted by now we'd be teleporting to work, living on Mars, flying to work, and a lot of those predictions were wrong.
The truth is we'll always get the future wrong.
We all know that, which is why we need to get life insurance right now, not the future.
That's where our friends at Policy Genius can help.
Policy Genius makes finding the right life insurance a breeze.
In minutes, yes minutes, you can compare quotes from the top insurers to find your best price.
Why, you know, go around and do this?
You should let PolicyGenius do the work for you.
You could save $1,500 or more a year by using PolicyGenius to compare life insurance policies.
That's a big savings.
Once you apply, the PolicyGenius team will handle all the paperwork and red tape.
PolicyGenius doesn't just make life insurance easy, they can also help you find the right home, Auto insurance and disability insurance too.
Come on, who could beat that?
So if your science fiction dreams for 2020 still haven't become science fact, don't get discouraged.
Get life insurance.
It takes just a few minutes to find your best price and apply at policygenius.com.
Policygenius.com.
Policygenius.com.
We'll always get the future wrong.
You better get life insurance right.
Policygenius.com.
Thanks Policygenius for helping us out, supporting the show.
We appreciate it.
All right, let's go.
So our good friend the great Devin Nunes, congressman from California who of course has been all over the Spygate disaster, has now taken on, in addition to his role in exposing the Spygate swamp rat conspiracy to take down President Trump and spy on his campaign in the process, has decided to take on a new mission here.
Now, I had addressed this a little bit last week, the shenanigans behind the fake whistleblower complaint.
Remember that?
How we had this whistleblower who allegedly blew the whistle.
He didn't blow the whistle.
He's not going to blow the whistle on.
But stated that President Trump made this phone call with Ukraine.
This led to the impeachment fiasco disaster, which we'll get more to later.
We'll get into the details of that, how Mitch McConnell's just stomping on Nancy Pelosi's impeachment dreams here.
But the whole whistleblower complaint was a farce.
President Trump released the transcript of his call with Ukraine.
Nothing that the whistleblower alleged happened in the transcript of the call was actually in the call.
There was no quid pro quo.
There was no illicit deal with Ukraine.
It was all made up, a fake hoax, a Democrat dream, an Aesop's fable.
Really what's becoming now a nightmare, not a dream for the Democrats.
Now, as I addressed earlier in the week, there was something really fishy about this whistleblower complaint.
First off, the whistleblower who alleged that there was malfeasance in President Trump's call to the Ukrainian president and his deal, give us information on Biden.
Allegedly, President Trump said, well, we're not going to give you military aid, something that never happened in the call.
What was interesting is that to make a complaint like that, you needed to have first-hand information according to the guidelines that the Inspector General's office had.
In other words, if you don't have evidence yourself that you saw or heard this illicit activity you're blowing the whistle on, you're not supposed to report it.
The person who saw it's supposed to report it.
Not complicated, folks.
If you saw it, report it.
If you didn't see it and heard it from someone else, then that someone else should report it.
Why is that done?
It's done very simply to prevent in the federal government, anywhere else for that matter where they have these kind of rules and regulations, to prevent the telephone game from happening.
To prevent Joe from telling Bob, from telling Diane, telling Paula, to telling producer Joe that they heard from a guy who heard from a guy who heard from another guy that heard from a dude who heard from a dude who overheard a dude who said they heard something a dude said.
By the time the telephone game ends, the allegation turns out to be bogus and you've wasted everybody's time.
Hence, the designation in the Inspector General Report that you have to have first-hand information.
Well, that paperwork was changed.
I'm going to expose to you.
Do not miss this segment, ladies and gentlemen.
This one is going to bake your bagels.
I'm going to expose to you the explosive connections between all the people involved in this impeachment hoax, the Inspector General, and the attempted takedown of President Trump.
We're gonna do that.
But first, I want to show you a video last night of Congressman Nunes on the Laura Ingraham Show.
He's asked specifically about how the paperwork was changed and backdated to allow the fake whistleblower who has no first-hand information of the call between President Trump and Ukraine.
How the paperwork was changed to eliminate that requirement And changed after the fact and then backdated to make it look like it was all A-OK.
This is Nunes last night and Laura Ingram explaining how he's looking into this.
This story is explosive, folks.
You're going to hear more of this as the impeachment fiasco continues.
you play that cut? Well, the law, if you believe this or not, there is no such
thing as the law. They're trying to claim that this was the case, but yet the
forms didn't show that. And then when only when questioned by the media did
the form get changed.
And remember, it got backdated.
And if it wouldn't have been for us asking the questions originally, they would have got away with it.
But there's more to this story.
Doesn't it sound a little bit... I mean, it's a different set of facts, but you did the same thing when it came to the Mueller investigation.
You were pressing and pressing and pressing, and then they started vilifying you.
Well, if they think I'm going to go away, I'm not.
Well, you didn't do it before, right?
If I was the I.C.I.G., I would say... I feel like this is déjà vu all over again.
They may think, you know, because I don't have subpoena power that there's going to be some issue here.
But we do have other powers, right?
So we can run this investigation.
We can get other people to come and testify.
We do have people that come in as whistleblowers and talk to us, right?
Or informants that talk to us.
So if I was the I.C.I.G., I would provide all the documentation.
So essentially, you have to either believe he's in on it, Or he's incompetent.
Okay?
Now, if he's incompetent, and if they're, because that's what he's claiming in letters, essentially, we're incompetent, we have all these mistakes.
Well, we need to have evidence of your incompetence.
Interesting.
So Nunes' office wrote a letter to the ICIG, who is Atkinson, an intelligence community inspector general, who was the one who promoted this fake whistleblower complaint via a form they had to change and backdate to change the requirements to allow the whistleblower, who shouldn't have been allowed to make the complaint, to make the complaint.
Well, why would he do that?
Why would the ICIG, Atkinson, who Nunes is now looking into and investigating, why would he then change a form to allow a complaint to proceed against President Trump that was not valid?
And by the way, that was based on a lie, on information and a call that wasn't there because we've seen the transcript.
Why would he do that?
Well, let me put a theory out there.
I'm having big capital letters on my show notes run down here because this is the swamp.
People love to tell you, Democrats, media hacks, media types, they love to tell you, no, the swamp doesn't exist, the deep state is a conspiracy theory.
Really?
Because the connections between the people who always seem to get busted backdating forms, changing forms, advancing anti-Trump conspiracy theories, like he made some quid pro quo on a call that never happened, these people always seem to be connected to the same people involved in the Spygate thing.
It's crazy how that happens.
Now, I did cover a little bit of this last week, but given Congressman Nunes' appearance last night, I wanted to be sure I readdressed this because it's going to tie into the impeachment story later and why the Democrats are now desperate to make this impeachment go away.
The cocaine Mitch story coming up later.
Cocaine Mitch is not an insult, by the way.
I'll get to that later.
I get a lot of questions about that.
Don't go anywhere.
That's why I'm bringing this up again.
It's important.
So, Red State, Red State Peace by Elizabeth Vaughn.
Who is this Inspector General who, according to Devin Nunes, his testimony up on Capitol Hill was really troubling.
Adam Schiff is hiding the Inspector General's testimony.
And this is the same Inspector General, Atkinson, who changed the rules to allow the whistleblower to make a fake complaint.
And now Adam Schiff is hiding all of the evidence around it and they're afraid for this thing to go forward.
Well, Elizabeth Vaughn is a piece.
We highlighted this last week.
It'll be up in the show notes again today.
It's older, but it's worth your time again.
Resume of Inspector General behind the whistleblower air quotes tells us all we need to know.
Remember the hypothesis I'm throwing out there for you in the listening audience?
That what's really going on here, whether it was the Spygate hoax, the Mueller hoax, the impeachment hoax, all of the hoaxes designed to take down Trump, they're all tied together.
They are all deep state swamp rat bureaucrats, desperate to cover their tracks.
And each time one of their track covering methods fails, accuse them of collusion, they'll impeach them.
Get Mueller on the case.
Then they'll impeach him.
Accuse him of a quid pro quo with Ukraine.
Then they'll impeach him.
These are all tied together.
It's the same scam.
It's the same people.
What evidence do I have of that?
Well, it is the same people.
From Elizabeth Vaughn's piece.
As she quotes.
Please read this.
It's at BobPangino.com.
She says, American Greatness' Julie Kelly took a shot at Atkinson's resume and it tells us everything we need to know.
Kelly notes that in July of 2016, Atkinson, the ICIG, became the senior counsel to John Carlin, the head of the National Security Division.
John Carlin was Bob Mueller's chief of staff when he ran the FBI and was appointed National Security Division chief by Barack Obama in 2013.
So let's get this straight.
Just so we sum this up so I can move on to another connection I have showing you how the swamp is getting swampier and the web-like connections between all these players.
It's all the same scandal.
That is the only takeaway you need from this segment.
It's people trying to take down Trump, trying to hide what they did.
So now we know that the Inspector General Atkinson, whose office backdated a report, Changed the requirements to allow a fake complaint against President Trump to proceed.
Said it was really urgent, but it wasn't even only urgent, it was made up.
It was a hoax.
We know the same guy, Devin Nunes, is saying, listen, the only reason he could have possibly done this, these two reasons, are because he's in on the scam.
You heard Nunes himself talking about Atkinson.
He's either in on the scam to get Trump out of office and promote these hoaxes, like the whistleblower hoax, or, Joe, number two, Devin Nunes says, or he's incompetent, which is what Atkinson's answer was when Nunes tried to call him out.
Hey, we're just really dumb over here.
Now, who is Atkinson and what does that red state quote have to do with anything?
Used to work for John Carlin.
John Carlin, ladies and gentlemen, is a key figure in Spygate.
Who's also John Carlin, a key figure.
Here's the handy-dandy chart we have.
A key figure in... Look, she added Atkinson on there.
Nice job, Paula.
John Carlin, ladies and gentlemen.
You see the chart.
If you want to see the chart, go to YouTube.
YouTube.com slash Bongino.
Check us out on video as well.
John Carlin was Bob Mueller's chief of staff.
John Carlin was Bob Mueller's chief of staff, was the National Security Division head under Barack Obama.
Why does that matter?
Because not only is John Carlin connected to Bob Mueller, John Carlin was also one of the last guys in the Obama administration to sign off on the FISA warrants to spy on Trump!
This guy Atkinson, the ICIG Nunes is investigating, was John Carlin's lawyer!
Was his counsel.
Again, please explain to me how none of this should matter.
Listen, again, many of you know me, some of you don't for our new radio audience out there.
I used to be a federal investigator and a police officer.
I'm not trying to promote or self-praise anything.
No, who cares?
I'm only suggesting to you that my prior... I'm just establishing quick bona fides to tell you that one of the first things you do investigating some criminal syndicate is obviously finding out the connections of the criminals.
It's not dispositive, it doesn't always mean someone is guilty.
Listen, a lot of people out there know criminals.
A lot of people out there hang out with people who are criminals.
Okay.
It doesn't, matter of fact, most of the time it doesn't mean they're a criminal at all.
But it can provide evidence in a case.
If you're trying to prove a guy was involved in a conspiracy to rob a bank, it's pretty helpful, is it not, Joe, to find out if the guy who's allegedly involved in a conspiracy to rob a bank knows the people who robbed the bank?
May help, right?
That's a big help, yeah.
I'm just throwing that out there.
I know you're laughing, but I'm just throwing that out there.
I'm not suggesting any of this is this positive and that Atkinson is a grade A felon anywhere.
It's not what I'm saying.
I'm simply suggesting to you that don't the media people out there interested in doing basic journalism find it a little strange that the same names that keep turning up in Spygate and the Mueller probe keep turning up in the Ukraine hoax and the impeachment hoax too?
Is anybody interested in this at all?
So the IG, who we now know, according to Nunes, who has not been proven wrong on his Spygate investigation or any other investigations, we now know His office deliberately altered forms to allow a fake complaint against the president to proceed.
We know the guy running that office was the lawyer for the National Security Division guy named John Carlin, who signed off on the illicit FISA warrants to spy on the Trump team.
So he's tied to Spygate.
And we also know that the same guy he's tied to, Carlin, is tied to Mueller.
He was Mueller's old chief of staff, Carlin.
None of this concerns you at all?
Now, of course it does.
You're just hiding it because it's precisely because it concerns you.
Because you're Democrats.
And you know that this provides evidence that the swamp is deep, the swamp is rich, and the swamp has a whole lot of power to try to take down people they don't agree with.
Now, you may say, okay, Dan, you discussed a lot of that last week.
Again, bringing it up last night, because Nunes is apparently onto something, and whenever Nunes Winks and nods at America on Fox News at night, you should all be paying attention because he's been proven correct nearly 100% of the time in the past, warning us about Spygate and Mueller.
Right?
Mm-hmm.
Tell me where he was wrong.
Oh, you can't.
That's right.
Talking to the libs out there, of course.
Well, let me show you some other shady connections.
Again, under the headline, ladies and gentlemen, this is the swamp.
They hate Trump.
They're desperately trying to cover their tracks.
By the way, we know the whistleblower had deep connections to people involved in the Spygate thing, notably Alexandra Chalupa, who was the one working with Ukrainians to promote the fake information and the Black Ledger information that they got on Manafort.
So we already know the whistleblower's tied to Spygate.
That's a whole other story.
But where did the fake whistleblower complaint emanate from?
Do you remember?
It's a quiz for the listening audience.
The National Security Council within the White House.
Now, showing you again that Nunes did not go on Laura Ingraham last night to waste his time or yours.
Clearly he's on to something about another conspiracy to take down the president.
A lot of theory.
It's real.
Look at this article in AP I want to show you from a while ago.
This is fascinating.
Some more ties.
Remember where the fake whistleblowers complain that the ICIG changed the paperwork to allow Go Forward, who's connected to the SpyGate players.
Remember where it emanated from the National Security Council.
Look at this article February 7th of 2019.
Adam Schiff Hires ex-National Security Council staff for panel.
Whoa!
Wow!
What a coinkydink!
That's crazy how that happens.
So a Democrat, Adam Schiff, that's one of the sleaziest Democrats, by the way, is hiring people from a Republican White House's staff.
Remember, the National Security Council works for the President of the United States.
He is a Republican last time I checked.
Fact check, Joe, quick.
Is Donald Trump a Republican?
I know it's a tough one.
Yeah, Dan!
Thank you!
There we go.
We have a quick fact check, Joe, is correct.
So weird how that happens.
How a Democrat, one of the sleaziest, most radical Democrats, all of a sudden has this interest in National Security Council staffers in a Republican White House.
Let's dig further into the AP piece.
Who is that staffer they're hiring?
One of the staff members, Abigail Grace, is listed in a House directory as working for Adam Schiff on the intelligence panel.
A person familiar with the committee staff confirms that she is working for the panel and used to work for the National Security Council.
Man!
That is so weird!
So weird how the Intelligence Community Inspector General, whose they're manipulating paperwork, is connected to SpyGates Carlin, who's connected to Bob Mueller.
And also where the whistleblower complaint emanates from, that the ICIG is promoting and changing the paperwork for, is the National Security Council.
And one of the members of the National Security Council, or a couple of them apparently, are leaving a Republican White House to go work for a Democrat who hates President Trump and is leading the impeachment probe?
Weird!
Crazy time!
Now!
Who did Abigail Grace, who left the National Security Council of the Trump administration to go work for Adam Schiff, who's marshalling a fake impeachment based on a fake whistleblower report promoted by an ICIG with connections to the spy game players, Who did Abigail Grace used to work for beforehand?
Let's go to our old friends at Conservative Review where I used to work.
Pretty great website over there.
And this was an older article, again, worth your time, which will be up in the show notes.
If you want to subscribe and get our email articles every day for free, go to bongino.com slash newsletter, and I will email you not just today's articles, but older ones like this that are now relevant again.
Conservative Review by the great Dan Horowitz.
Trump's defense of H.R.
McMaster is indefensible.
H.R.
McMaster was an insider swamp rat who used to be President Trump's National Security Advisor who is thankfully gone.
H.R.
McMaster fired all the people who were interested in cleaning up the swamp and hired all the people who were the swamp rats themselves and promoted them.
Now, buried in the body of this piece, remember who we're talking about?
Abigail Grace, National Security Council member, leaves Trump's White House to go work for Adam Schiff, of all people.
That's crazy.
Who did Abigail Grace used to work for?
Oh!
Oh, this is crazy time!
Losing my marbles here.
Quote, conservative review, as Jed Babin reported in the American Spectator, four staffers who reported directly to Ben Rhodes.
Hold on.
Time out.
Remember Ben Rhodes?
Remember Ben Rhodes?
Obama's former fiction writer who became his national security guy on the council.
Ben Rhodes, the guy who promoted the Iran deal and is still promoting the Iran deal.
Remember Ben Rhodes?
Yep.
Who's, who's, who's by the way, his family has pretty interesting connections himself.
Oh yeah.
So Ben Rhodes, former fiction writer with no real world experience whatsoever to be a national security advisor is sitting in this national security council promoting myths to the media.
Remember the same Ben Rhodes, Obama guy who bragged about how stupid the media was and how they could mislead them on Obama's foreign policy approach.
Remember that Ben Rhodes?
Yes, that guy.
Put up the piece from Conservative Review again.
Let's just go back to that again, just as a reminder.
I know most of you knew that, but there are liberals watching who don't know much.
So, four staffers reported directly to Ben Rhodes and have been protected by H.R.
McMaster.
Abigail Grace!
Oh!
Oh!
There we go!
Of course, there's a couple more in there, but isn't that fascinating?
So the same Abigail Grace, who worked in Trump's National Security Council, also worked for Obama's Ben Rhodes on the National Security Council?
The guy promoting the Iran deal, attacking Trump every day on his Twitter?
By the way, Ben Rhodes is in mourning over the death of Soleimani, still, to this day.
So that guy?
Abigail Grace used to work for Ben Rhodes, Obama's lying mouthpiece, who openly bragged about lying and manipulating to the media.
She worked for him, leaves the Trump National Security Council, go work for Adam Schiff.
Mysteriously, a fake whistleblower complaint then emanates, Joe, from the National Security Council.
Abigail Grace just left.
Gets its way over to Adam Schiff's office.
They lie about it and say they didn't know about it when they did in advance.
We know that now.
That same complaint that doesn't meet the requirements for reporting of a first-person requirement, the reporting requirements are then changed and backdated in a shady deal.
Nunes calls them out on it, and then we find out the guy's office who did it used to work for the guy who approved the spy gate warrants to spy on the Trump team, who used to be Bob Mueller's chief of staff.
Crazy!
Crazy how this is all happening.
And the only place you're hearing it is here and amongst the great Twitter investigative journalists out there.
Jeff Carlson, the names go out to Chuck Ross, Sarah Carter, John Solomon, and others.
Crazy how the New York Slimes and the Democracy Dies in the Darkness Washington Post have just no interest in all of these shady, slimy connections at all.
That deep state's a conspiracy theory.
None of this matters to them one bit.
So let me just kind of sum up the facts, because I know liberals have a tough time with, like, facts and stuff like that.
In an Alicia Silverstone clueless kind of way, like, you know, you know, facts, man, like, you know, you know what I'm talking about?
Facts.
You ever heard of those things?
Oh, as if.
Remember, I love that movie.
I know.
I know it's embarrassing.
I love it.
It's a funny movie, OK?
Dion's the greatest character ever.
Love Dion.
As if.
So let's sum up the facts.
We now know paperwork was manipulated to advance a whistleblower complaint from a whistleblower who made up stuff about a call between Trump and the Ukrainian president that didn't happen.
We know the paperwork was then backdated to make the change look legitimate.
We know the person who did it, Inspector General Atkinson, was then brought up in front of the Hill and testified about those changes, and now Adam Schiff mysteriously is hiding his testimony.
We know Devin Nunes asked about those changes and the malfeasance and all the other stuff that may have went on here, and we know that Atkinson responded saying, hey, we're just really stupid over here, sorry, we screwed it up.
Okay.
We now know—appropriately timed laughter—we now know Atkinson, as well, used to be the lawyer for John Carlin, who worked in the Obama administration and signed off on the warrants to spy on Trump, who used to be Bob Mueller's chief of staff, John Carlin.
We also know the complaint emanated, fact, from the National Security Council, where people who used to work for Obama's mouthpiece, Ben Rhodes, on the Iran deal, left to go work for Adam Schiff, who secretly met with the whistleblower and then said he didn't.
Nothing to see here, media folks.
Do me a favor.
To all you clown liberals out there, like Roswell Rachel and others.
Roswell Rachel has her own debunk this segment, like we do on our website.
Debunk one thing I just said.
One of those facts.
Tell me how any of those things are.
Is Abigail Grace not working for Schiff?
Did she not work for Ben Rhodes?
Did the complaint not emanate from the National Security Council?
Was the paperwork not changed?
Was the change not backdated?
Did Atkinson not work for Carlin?
Did Carlin not work for Mueller?
And did Atkinson not write a letter saying, hey, we're just really stupid over here.
Sorry we screwed it up.
Please debunk any of those.
Of course you can't.
You'll just pretend, oh, it's all just a big winky dink.
Move along.
Nothing to see now, kids.
All right.
I spent a little more time on that one than I planned, but it's important because you're going to hear more about this as the impeachment hoax rolls on and Mitch McConnell strikes back.
It's like the sequel to Star Wars.
The Empire Strikes Back.
It's Cocaine Mitch Strikes Back.
Listen, before we get to that, I'm gonna get to my second sponsor, but just a quick announcement.
Folks, I'm really sorry to say this, but Facebook, we have a Facebook account.
It is legitimate.
It's facebook.com slash dan.bongino.
Right, Paula?
We are the blue checkmark Facebook account.
It is an official page.
Dan Bongino.
You'll see a blue checkmark.
It's a checkmark.
It means our page is verified.
Listen, that is our only Facebook page.
Only.
I have a personal page.
I don't use it much.
It's, don't worry about that.
It's, I don't even think it's public.
Our page is the blue check mark facebook.com slash dan.bongino page.
There's a, if you don't see a blue check mark next to my page, it's the one with, I think like 660 plus thousand followers.
I don't say that.
I'm not bragging.
I'm just telling you, if you see a page with a hundred followers, 200, 300, it's not me.
I say that because someone keeps putting up these scams and replying to my Facebook audience saying, contact the Dan Bongino Show for your $5,000 prize.
It's a scam.
Any prize thing, whatever we do, we will announce on this show.
We have no prize thing going.
Please do not get scammed.
Please report that page.
I've reported it.
I hope Facebook takes it down.
It happens all the time on Facebook.
I wish it didn't.
Please report it.
Thank you.
I just want to be sure.
I love my audience to death.
I don't want to see anybody get scammed.
I'm getting a lot of questions.
Any contest we run will be announced on this show only.
That is our only Facebook page.
All right, getting back to the show.
Today's show also brought to you by our buddies at BrickHouse Nutrition.
Listen, I'm super excited to announce the launch of a great new product with BrickHouse Nutrition.
They've been with me from the beginning.
The single best nutrition supplement company out there on the market.
Listen, folks, it's a new year.
In a new year, a lot of you, which is I think wonderful, make a commitment, New Year's resolutions, to get healthier.
Maybe to lose weight, to feel healthier, to work out.
I have the product for you.
I have a bottle right here.
I got one of the first ones.
This stuff is absolutely delicious.
What is it?
There it is right there.
It's called Field of Greens.
You can see it.
Now, you say Field of Greens?
They've had Field of Greens before.
Ladies and gentlemen, they have a new flavor.
Berry.
And it is delicious.
What does this do for you?
Folks, you go to a doctor, nutritionist, personal trainer, anyone who has any semblance of knowledge about health and fitness, they're going to tell you what?
What's rule number one?
You've got to eat your vegetables.
The micronutrients, the fiber, the macronutrients, all of the life-giving, life-enhancing benefits of vegetables are unquestioned.
So you may say to yourself, then how come you're not doing it?
Folks, the reason is pretty simple.
They're tough to prepare.
Some of us, frankly, don't like the taste of some vegetables, but we know our life would be enhanced.
All the positive benefits, long-term health benefits of eating voluminous quantities of fruits and vegetables, we're giving them up.
Why?
Because we can't prepare them.
We don't have the time.
We don't like the taste.
that solves your problems. Feel the greens, the new berry flavor. This is food. This is not a
supplement. This is ground up, high quality, fresh fruits and vegetables grounded to a fine tasting
now berry flavored powder. They have the original flavor too, which me and Paula love. We use it
every day and we love it. Paula is a huge fan.
She uses the Field of Greens, the original flavor, and it leaves a little green.
I always know she took it because on our glass cups, I see them in the sink, right?
With the little green around her.
She loves it.
She loves Field of Greens.
Give it a shot today.
Look better, feel better.
Go to BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
Pick up your bottle of Fielder Greens today.
Stop leaving the tremendous health benefits of fruits and vegetables on the table.
This is real, ground up, high quality, fine tasting, beautifully tasting fruits and vegetables.
BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
Try Fielder Greens, new berry flavor today.
You're gonna love it.
All right, moving on.
Great company, we love them.
So just quickly, the Wall Street Journal had a piece up today, and I like the Wall Street Journal.
I've been reading it for eons.
I got a free subscription when I was in college, and I don't think I've missed an op-ed column in, I'm not even kidding, in like 10 years.
I save them if I miss them.
So I like, they're a little, you know, centrist for me, especially on immigration issues, but still, they usually make good points.
But I got to tell you, I think they missed the mark on this completely.
Now, if you missed yesterday's show, go back and watch it, please, because it's important.
I discuss the importance, based on a Lee Smith article, about how, how, President Trump decided to hit Soleimani and why that matters, but I want to address it in light of this article in the Wall Street Journal and kind of just hit quickly yesterday's point again because it's an important one.
It's by their editorial board.
It says Tehran's retaliation and Trump's reply.
Early returns show deterrence beats appeasement with Iran.
They're right.
I don't disagree with their point.
But I think they missed the mark a little bit with this portion of the piece where they say this.
I'll put the screenshot up on our YouTube.
Again, youtube.com slash Bongino if you want to follow along on video.
Here's a quote from the piece.
It says, The showdown with Iran is far from over, which I agree with, by the way.
And the mullahs may strike again in the coming months, which I agree with as well.
I covered on yesterday's show.
Using proxy forces that give it deniability.
Huh.
On that score, the president missed an opportunity to make clear that an attack on Americans by Iranian-linked groups would be treated as an attack by Iran.
Listen, with all due respect to the Wall Street Journal editorial board, you're very smart.
Again, I'm not trying to take unnecessary potshots.
That's not entirely accurate.
Follow what they're saying there.
They're saying that in the president's speech yesterday, in his reply, which was terrific, by the way, It was done in the White House East Wing, which is very rare.
When I was a Secret Service agent, we never did speeches in that specific spot.
We'd do them in, you know, on the Far East.
I forget the names of the rooms.
I've been gone from the White House so long.
But very rarely on the state floor like that, with the Blue Room right behind it.
Very rarely.
I mean, it happened, but rare.
But he gave a great speech yesterday.
The Wall Street Journal saying, well, he should have said, If you attack us with one of your Iranian-linked terror groups, then we're going to attribute that attack to you, Iran.
Folks, if you caught yesterday's show in the excellent article by Lee Smith in Tablet Mag, which is in yesterday's show notes, but worth your time, that's exactly what President Trump did.
Did he have to say it?
So follow me here.
The journal is kind of, I'm not taking a shot at him, I don't want to be hyperbolic, but saying, hey, Trump missed the mark because he should have specifically said, Joe, if you attack us with the amount of your proxy terror groups, we're going to blame you.
Folks, the strike President Trump ordered through our brave military that hit Soleimani in Iraq Also killed the Iraqi, Iraqi, Iraqi, not Iranian, Iraqi proxy leader.
I pretty much think Trump sent the message that proxy attacks by your surrogates are going to be treated like attacks by Iran.
Yeah.
Did he have, I mean, Joe, am I missing something?
Did he have to say it?
That's what I thought.
Yeah.
They both wound up in the same body bags.
Yeah.
I mean, what is he, did he have to announce that?
Now, please, again, in the interest of time, I don't want to redo yesterday's show.
Please watch it.
But I address this exact point in the Lee Smith piece that a lot of these folks don't want to give Trump the credit because they think he's an idiot, just like they did with Reagan.
And you have grossly underestimated.
They tried that during the campaign and he promptly beat Hillary Clinton and all the other people thought he was an idiot.
What he did was tactical brilliance.
He didn't wait for Soleimani to be alone.
They terminated Soleimani in the car while he was with the Iraqi proxy guy, saying, you deal with Soleimani, you're not gonna be able to say anymore, oh, we're just a proxy group, that's not official Iranian action.
By killing them both, he has clearly, whether he said it in this statement or not, said any attacks by your proxies will be treated as attacks by the Iranian government.
Again, I'm not trying to be fake highbrow elitist.
I'm not.
I'm not trying to be, you know, the high-end totem pole of foreign policy analysis.
I'm just suggesting something that I thought I thought it was fairly obvious and I think the journal missed the mark on.
Did he really have to make that announcement?
He killed the proxy leader with the Iranian.
I don't know what other statement you need to make.
Would you rather him not have killed him and made a statement about it or killed him and not make a statement about it?
I really think you missed the mark on that one big time.
What Trump did is dramatically change decades of U.S.
policy that had said in the past, all right, Iran, we're going to wink and nod and pretend we don't look, we don't see anything.
If your proxy groups do it, but your Iranians don't do it specifically, we're going to pretend it wasn't you.
The strike on Soleimani clearly throws that strategy out the window and says, you sponsor a group that hits us, we're coming for you too.
You don't have to agree with it, but that's what it is now.
I'm just saying.
All right, moving on.
On to the Cocaine Mitch update!
Now, folks, it's not an insult.
Mitch McConnell, just to tell you the quick background on this, I get a lot of email, why are you taking a shot at Mitch McConnell?
Call him Cocaine Mitch.
It's a joke.
McConnell's office uses it themselves.
When he was running for Senate, a guy in West Virginia, Don Blankenship, was trying to run against McConnell's obviously from Kentucky, but was trying to run against the establishment McConnell.
He branded Mitch McConnell cocaine Mitch because of these ridiculous allegations.
It was so crazy.
And it became a meme, like a joke.
Whenever Mitch did something right, it became a funny joke because it's so not in alignment with who Mitch McConnell is.
Listen, as you know, I've had my beefs with McConnell in the past, but I'm pretty sure Joe, Call me out, Joe, if you think I'm crazy.
I'm reasonably sure Mitch McConnell's not a cocaine drug runner.
Yeah, he doesn't.
Just saying.
I'm just throwing that out there.
If I had to bet my right arm on it, I would bet that of all the things Mitch McConnell is or was, a cocaine drug runner is probably not one of them.
Just saying.
That's why the joke is funny.
That the guy called him Cocaine Mitch.
Mitch McConnell's own team uses it sometimes as a joke when McConnell does something they like.
Cocaine Mitch strikes again.
I just want to prevent the emails from coming in and give you some background on why we use them because I think it's hysterical.
I'm sorry.
Maybe it's schoolyard humor, but it's still funny.
I'm still a kid at heart.
Yeah.
So, cocaine mid-strikes again.
Nancy Pelosi, again, she's on TV now.
She's losing.
She's getting just annihilated on this impeachment thing.
Folks, I'm going to show you three articles and another piece of video after this presenting facts and data to you that Pelosi's effort To keep the impeachment hidden in the House.
Remember, they impeached the President based on all that stuff I told you before.
The fake whistleblower complaint, Atkinson, the connected Swamp Rat IG and all that stuff.
They impeached, he's already impeached the President.
But now there has to be a trial in the Senate to remove him.
Pelosi is now terrified of this impeachment.
She knows Nunes is on the trail about how it happened with the fake whistleblower complaint.
She knows the quid pro quo didn't happen.
She knows it is the weakest impeachment, not even in U.S.
history, it's the weakest impeachment ever proposed in U.S.
history.
There's no there there.
She's desperately trying to keep it away from the Senate.
And this hide-and-seek game is killing her.
Absolutely destroying her politically.
Destroying her.
Her own party is turning on her.
I'll get to that in a second.
But here's Mitch McConnell on the House floor yesterday just wrecking Pelosi.
And you know, when I say wrecked, it's Mitch McConnell wreck, so keep your emotions in check if you know what I mean.
But in the Mitch McConnell way, Lack of emotion, Mitch McConnell.
He just absolutely floors Pelosi, stomps all over this strategy, and basically says, you have no leverage here.
There is nothing you are going to do to change the Senate trial, trying to play hide-and-seek with the impeachment things, because you have no leverage.
Check this out.
There will be no haggling with the House over Senate procedure.
We will not cede our authority to try this impeachment.
The House Democrats' turn is over.
The Senate has made its decision.
The 1999 precedent does not guarantee witnesses or foreclose witnesses.
Let me say that again.
It neither guarantees witnesses nor forecloses witnesses.
It leaves those determinations until later in the trial where they belong.
I fully expect the parties will raise questions of witnesses at the appropriate time.
And I would remind My friends on the other side, I strongly suspect that not all the potential witnesses would be people the Democrats are eager to hear from.
So the Senate will address all these questions at the appropriate time.
And that is for the Senate and the Senate only to decide.
Period.
Joe, what was that song?
Joe, for those of you, Joe used to be a musician.
And I always get pop culture references wrong.
It's become a running joke on the show.
I even got the movie wrong the other day.
It's not the specialist, the Gary Oldman.
It's the professional.
Of course, I screwed that up because I don't watch movies much anymore.
And I've been terrible at music.
Joe, what was that song?
I don't know if it was the 70s or the 60s or whatever.
That was a song, right?
Alright, I'm not crazy, right?
Now, of course, due to copyright restrictions, we're not allowed to play that song on the show, but we can do horrible renditions because it sounds nothing like the actual song anyway when I sing it.
Cocaine.
That's how it went, right?
Joe, I'm not crazy.
Now, I know everybody, but this, the great part about my lack of singing skills and my generally awful voice is we never run into copyright problems because it sounds absolutely nothing like the actual song.
But he needs a theme song.
And it was, was it Clapton, Joe?
Yeah, Clapton.
She don't lie, she don't lie, she don't lie.
Be careful!
Joe can actually sing.
You actually sound like Clyde, so be careful.
We may get a copyright infringement.
Not a problem when I sing, of course.
Joe is an actual singer who has music out there.
I gotta be careful though.
Now, having said that, Mitch McConnell needs to get a license to that song because this is great.
I've had beefs with McConnell in the past, and I probably have some more in the future.
But folks, you have no- I love this line.
You have no leverage here.
There will be no haggling.
You can send the impeachment articles over, or you can go pound sand.
Thanks.
Sorry.
Not sorry.
Have a nice day, Nance.
Now, you may say, well, what evidence do you have, Dan, that this is imploding on the Democrats?
Well, ladies and gentlemen, don't just throw stuff out on the show randomly to mislead you.
Joe likes to say the motto of the show is everything you need to know in an hour.
Well, here's what you need to know about how it's imploding on Nancy Pelosi.
Let's go to this interesting Washington Examiner piece first.
Now, you may say, well, how's this really tied to impeachment?
It is, I promise you.
GOP Senator Mike Broad from Indiana.
Trump's stock level is now at an all-time high.
Folks, believe me, you're not going to go public.
Paul Bedard, Washington Examiner, again, will be up in the show notes today.
Read the article.
Talking about the Trump economy, Trump's strike on one of the world's most deadly terrorists in Soleimani.
Folks, impeachment is a political gambit.
It is not a criminal trial.
It is a political trial, which requires, Joe, you to do political damage.
The only person doing political damage on anyone right now is Trump to the Democrats.
You do not have the political leverage to pull this off.
McConnell should replicate the Bain voice.
We need Dana Lash for that, who does the best Bain voice ever.
Remember Bain from The Dark Knight?
Do you feel like you're in charge?
We should add on, Bain, Bain to Nancy Pelosi in that scene.
There will be no haggling here.
You have no leverage here.
We need, we need the Bain character, Tom Hardy, to implement those lines.
They have nowhere to go.
You have no political leverage against this guy.
None.
Now, you may say, listen, I'm going in ascending order of importance, facts and data-wise.
You may say, okay, that's just one GOP center's opinion.
How does that matter?
Impeachment's political, Trump's political approval ratings and everything are going up.
Okay, that's a nice opinion, but it doesn't matter to me.
Okay, let's give you some data.
Washington Examiner, piece two.
Again, up in the show notes today for you to see and peruse yourself.
Paul Bedard, Paul Bedard making a double appearance on today's show.
Washington Examiner, be up in the show notes.
Chance of Trump removal sinks to 12%!
A new low.
Folks, what is impeachment?
I just said it.
This is not like a trick.
Impeachment is a political trial where you need the political will of the American body politic to turn against the president, to force their representatives in a constitutional republic to remove him.
When 12% of the people in a Rasmussen poll cited by Paul Bedard in that article, 12, 1, 2, in Joe Biden language, 12, 1, 2, 12% of the people say this will succeed, you... up.
Fill in expletive there.
This has been a disaster.
Now do you see why Pelosi's hiding this thing?
A disaster!
You're telling me you can't get more than 12% of people to agree with you that there's a chance, just a chance, President Trump will be removed from office despite you putting the American public through this 6-7 month disaster and this fake impeachment?
Only 12 out of 100 people even think there's a chance he'll be removed?
Oh, it gets worse!
You may say, okay, that's kind of bad, but I need some more.
Okay, I'll give you some more.
Another article up at Fox News, foxnews.com.
Now the Democrats are turning on Pelosi.
Is it breestimson, foxnews.com?
Feinstein and Manchin, two Democrat senators, by the way, folks, from California and West Virginia, respectively, joined the Democrats in pressuring Pelosi to send the impeachment articles to the Senate.
These are Democrats!
This is not cocaine Mitch!
They don't work for Mitch!
They're not involved with cocaine either!
So we're 0 for 2!
They don't work for Mitch!
0 for 2!
They are Democrats!
Telling Pelosi, cut the crap!
Send these stupid articles over so we can get rid of this thing!
Expect more Democrats to fold in the coming days!
Again, I make my point.
You need facts or data?
I just gave you poll data.
I gave you Democrats in the Senate.
Democrats are turning on their own party.
You think they're doing that by chance?
They just made it up?
Come on, don't be a knucklehead.
Now, here's a really good video.
Hattip GOP House Oversight Committee and their Twitter account.
I saw this video today.
It is spectacular.
This is about a minute, 12, minute 20, whatever.
This is a quick video audio of Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats.
The beginning is the Democrats when they thought they had Trump on the ropes because of the fake whistleblower complaint that turned out to be a hoax that Adam Schiff engineered with the whistleblower hoaxer, right?
They thought in the beginning they had Trump on the ropes, Joe.
So listen to the beginning.
It's a bunch of sound bites from Democrats.
We got him.
This is urgent.
This impeachment is urgent, Joe.
It's so urgent.
We got to get it going right now, right away.
We got to get Trump out of office.
He's a threat to national security.
And then the second 30-second portion of the video is the Democrats now starting to like, ah, maybe we should slow down on this impeachment thing as it totally imploded on the Democrats.
Check this out.
This is really well done.
He is openly seeking foreign interference in the 2020 election, and he poses a continuing threat to our national security and to the integrity of our elections, to our democratic system itself.
It's a clear and present danger, I think, to our democracy.
The timing is really driven by the urgency, and that is a national security issue.
Yes.
It's about urgency.
It is urgent.
It is urgent.
There's a sense of urgency.
Nothing could be more urgent.
Urgent.
Meanwhile... Waiting for Pelosi.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is holding back those articles of impeachment.
Holding back the articles.
Saying she is not going to move at this point.
She's sort of losing leverage here.
A number of Senate Democrats are saying, time's up, come on, give us these articles.
Angus King, an independent from Maine, Chris Murphy, who's a liberal from Connecticut, Joe Manchin, a moderate from West Virginia, all on record saying it's time Nancy Pelosi to send us the articles.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is still holding on to the articles of impeachment.
And without, you know, the support of her party in terms of holding the line on this,
it looks like she's holding an increasingly losing hand.
Hat tip GOP oversight.
Whoever put that out...
Gene, if you want to see the video here, you get the idea from the audio.
But please, and again, I always humbly and respectfully request you subscribe to our YouTube account.
YouTube.com slash Bongino.
YouTube.com slash Bongino.
YouTube subscriptions to our account are free.
The video is the same as the audio, probably just a couple added video elements.
Doesn't change the content of the show.
But if you want to see the video, you can see it there.
It's worth your time.
Trying to get to 400,000 subscribers so we'd appreciate it.
But that is just a beautiful piece of work.
And let me just say before I move on, I got one other topic I want to get to today about Ilhan Omar that... I don't even want to tease it.
I know I'm supposed to tease stuff.
Joe always tells me to do that more.
But I just want to leave that there because I don't want to ruin it.
I'll just leave this with Pelosi and we'll get on to that next one.
I always thought Pelosi was a little bit smarter than this.
I did.
I'm not kidding.
Listen, folks, obviously I'm a conservative.
I don't agree.
Do we even need to say that?
But I have to tell you, from a tactical perspective, you have to respect your political opponents and their tactics, and if you don't, you'll get steamrolled.
They didn't respect Donald Trump in the election, and he crushed them in an Electoral College landslide because they were the idiots, not him.
We should not repay the favor.
And ever discount strategic components on the other side that have their act together.
I always thought Pelosi was smarter than this.
We warned her, Joe, did we not on this show?
How many times have you and I had this conversation before the impeachment went downhill?
How many times did we say on the show, do not do this, it will blow up in your face?
Over and over.
We warned you, it was over and over and over and you did it anyway.
If someone in our listening audience wants to send me a series of cuts of me warning them not to do it, I will put it on the air if it's short enough.
And if you can do a decent job on it that we can incorporate into the show, I will put it on there.
There's enough out there.
Oh, it's everywhere.
There's so much, there's a lot of material for you.
We warned them and they did it anyway.
This is going to be Nancy Pelosi.
You know how we talk about people's finest hours?
This is going to be her least finest.
This is going to be her worst hour ever.
She is going to go down in history as a speaker who totally blew it for the Democrats and potentially gave a second term to Donald J. Trump.
Just a stupid move.
So dumb.
Like I said, we warned you.
All right, this is time for the Ilhan Omar principles check portion of the show.
Now, I was on Laura Ingraham's show last night debating Chris Han.
And I did a principal's check on Chris.
Chris said that he was complaining about the hit on Soleimani and how President Trump didn't have authorization for it, which of course is nonsense.
But I said to Chris, it's funny, I didn't hear you speaking out when this happened under Obama and he was droning even an American citizen at the time.
Now Chris says he did speak out about that.
And I said to Chris, and I mean it because I'm a man of principle.
If Chris, I emailed him last night, and I'm not a joke.
If Chris can show me a clip or a piece he wrote challenging Obama on drone strikes, I will absolutely put it on the show and stand corrected.
I remember none of that, to be clear.
But, as a man of principle, I said to my wife last night, she's shaking her head now, I said, I will absolutely correct the record for Chris.
I never saw that.
I don't remember Chris saying any of that, but I could be wrong.
It happens sometimes.
It was an interesting debate last night.
A lot of fire.
So, in the principles check section, continuing from last night, let's do a principles check on Ilhan Omar.
Democratic congressman from Minnesota, who seems to be on the wrong side of just every issue lately.
It's just crazy how that happens.
So Ilhan Omar tweeted this yesterday.
I want to hat tip Matt Palumbo at our website, bunginoreport.com, your conservative alternative to the Drudge Report.
We appreciate all the traffic there.
But Matt found this gem on Ilhan Omar's Twitter feed.
She says, quote, talking about the Iranian sanctions, this makes no sense.
Sanctions are economic warfare.
They have already caused medical shortages and countless deaths in Iran.
You cannot claim the escalation and announce new sanctions with no clear goal.
This is not a measured response.
So, principles check, Joe.
Keep that up a second.
Put that back up.
Right, we're checking principles.
That's what the principles check portion of the show is.
Because conservatives have principles, and libertarians, you may not like their principles, but at least they're honest.
Liberals have none.
Zero principles like Ilhan Omar.
So just to be clear, it's her tweet, we didn't doctor this at all, it's just a line underneath to highlight this part.
She believes sanctions are bad and that they're economic warfare and that they could cause medical shortages and countless deaths.
So Ilhan Omar, this is Ilhan Omar 1.
Ilhan Omar 1, because there's multiple versions of Ilhan Omar, is telling you sanctions are bad, that they cause deaths and medical shortages and we should not support sanctions.
Right.
You got it, Joe?
Okay, principles check.
Now let's go to Ilhan Omar version 2, the clone of Ilhan Omar.
Ilhan Omar number two.
Here's some coverage by U.S.
News on Ilhan Omar's prior statements, which are bizarre because she just told us sanctions are really bad and cause all kinds of death and destruction and they're terrible.
Oh!
Oh!
Crazy!
July 17, 2019, U.S.
News & World Report.
Brian Harris article.
Congressional correspondent.
Ilhan Omar seizes the spotlight to push pro-BDS resolution.
I don't get it.
The liberals are like, the conservatives get it right away, of course, so does Joe.
But the liberals are like, I'm confused.
What do you mean?
What's BDS?
I don't know what any of this stuff is because they never do their fact-checking or their homework or anything like that.
They're anxiously doing Wikipedia right now.
BDS.
So Omar told us Ilhan Omar won.
Sanctions are awful and they kill people.
But Ilhan Omar number two supports the BDS movement.
S. S. S. All right.
Wait, do I have a Sharpie?
Like a snake.
Yeah, an S. Where's my Sharpie?
I have stuff everywhere.
Do we have a Sharpie anywhere?
I need a Sharpie.
Here we go!
There it is.
Because some of you may not have seen that at home.
S!
S!
BDS movement she supports.
Kept the Sharpie handy.
These are important papers.
This is now a transcript.
I still have it when I was on block.
Sorry, I moved away from the microphone.
I didn't say anything of significance for you audio folks out there.
So Ilhan Omar supports the BDS movement.
What is the BDS movement?
Let's put up a quick screenshot.
The Boycott, Divest, and Sanctions Movement, which is a Palestinian-led movement for freedom, justice, and equality.
That's their spin on it.
Crazy.
Crazy.
Principles check.
Principles check.
Ilhan Omar won.
Sanctions really suck.
They're so bad.
They're going to kill people.
Medical shortages.
Ilhan Omar number two.
BDS is really great.
We love it.
The S stands for sanctions.
S. I'm confused.
S. Superman.
S. Oh.
You're confused?
We're all confused.
Because these people have no principles at all.
None.
Zero.
Zero.
Goose egg.
I mean, I used to, when I had my old show on NRA TV, I used to have to draw stuff for liberals because they're so incompetent sometimes.
Can you please explain to me how that works?
I know I gotta wrap this up.
I know.
But just seriously, one more time.
Can you explain to me how you're supposed to be principled when you tweet that sanctions on a regime that chants death to America, literally, are horrible because they could kill people and cause medical shortages.
But then you turn around and support sanctions on one of our Middle East partners, the Israelis, who never chant death to America.
Can you please explain that?
Of course you can.
You're a liberal.
You can't even explain why you're a liberal, no less why someone else is.
Ugh.
Frustrating having to deal with the imbecility out there.
Nice!
Nice!
Paula to the rescue.
Puts the S on the screen.
For you audio listeners, you must go to YouTube today and check out the actual S. I did not coordinate that with Miss Paula in the background.
She had to put a diagram up for the liberals.
BDS.
The S is sanctions.
S.
We gotta do it backwards on a thing, right?
So... Because everything's backwards in the camera.
Whatever!
You get the point!
Backwards S!
S!
Sanctions!
Oh, Drew, you should have fun with this today.
Who's he talking to?
And for those of you on radio, by the way, KABC7 who just found this on radio, Joe is the producer of the show.
Paula is my wife who produces video and Drew produces the video afterwards.
So sometimes, because I don't do anything like you're supposed to do, they tell you on radio never to do something.
I don't care.
We throw all the rules.
That's why this show has been such a success because we follow our own rules.
I talked to Drew, even though Drew's not even here, because I know Drew's going to be watching the show later, doing the show.
Yep.
That's the Drew you hear on the radio.
Real pain in the ass.
If you see our YouTube, Drew did that.
He's not here right now.
He is not.
But Joe is, and Paula is.
It's a family affair.
Yeah.
Oh, this has been a great show today.
One of my favorites.
All right, folks, thanks again for tuning in.
I really appreciate it.
Paula will yell at me if I don't tease my interview this week.
On my interview show this week, We record on Friday, we launch it on Saturday morning.
This Saturday, the great one, the greatest of radio hosts, our good friend Mark Levin.
You're not going to want to miss this.
We are big fans of Mark here.
That's coming up this weekend.
Please subscribe to our YouTube channel, youtube.com slash Bongino.
And please make bonginoreport.com your new homepage for conservative news.
