In this episode, I address the explosive debate last night on Fox over President Trump’s Iran policy. I also address the Democrats consistently being on the wrong side of America in this critical time. Finally, I address some outrageous comments by CNN in their defamation case and the failures of liberalism multiplying across the country.News Picks:My debate with Geraldo got heated last night.
Chronic TDS patients blame Trump for Iranian crimes.
Why are the Democrats acting as lawyers for the Iranians?
Troubling new allegations emerge in the Spygate scandal.
What exactly was Stefan Halper up to?
Media lawyer explains why CNN settling the lawsuit against them is a big deal.
Study shows that the worst run states are run by Democrats.
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.
So it happened last night.
It went down.
Me and Geraldo on the Hannity Show.
You say, what is he talking about?
What did I miss?
Well, if you missed it, don't worry, we'll play a little recap.
For those of you who listen to my show every day and follow me on Fox News, on YouTube and elsewhere, you know I debate Geraldo.
Tuesdays and Thursday nights on Sean Hannity's program on Fox News at 9pm Eastern.
You know, we agree sometimes, a lot of times we disagree, sometimes it gets heated.
Last night I'd say it got a little heated, just a little bit, about the whole Iran thing.
And I told you, and I said to Geraldo on the air, I wouldn't confront him until I saw him on the air.
We had, we covered his comments on the show, which I disagree with.
So you're not going to want to miss that.
I got that.
I got some, again, some more crazy Spygate coincidences, air quotes, you're not going to want to miss.
Today's show brought to you by our buddies at GenuCell.
Ladies and gentlemen, the new year inventory clearance sale from Chamonix is here now.
If you missed out on GenuCell's outrageous Christmas sale, today's your lucky day.
Imagine the double chin and turkey neck.
Gobble, gobble, gobble, gobble, gobble!
Gone with the famous GenuCell breakthrough jawline treatment with MDL technology.
Joe, your turkey neck is getting worse.
You need GenuCell worse than anyone.
Right now, get the classic GenuCell for eye bags and puffiness, absolutely free, plus GenuCell's immediate effects, which I use before I go on the air for results in 12 hours.
Look 10, 15, even 20 years younger, right before your eyes, guaranteed a 100% of your money back.
But your order today is even more special.
Chamonix is partnering with Women Rising to give the same exact package you get, To a woman seeking support and assistance from domestic violence.
Go to genucel.com.
That's G-E-N-U-C-E-L.com and enter DAN30 at checkout.
Your order today includes Genucel XV anti-wrinkle treatment, which we love in the Bongino household, and will be upgraded to priority shipping for free.
Order now and get a surprise gift just for ordering today.
Order now at genucel.com and use my special discount code DAN30.
Again, that's genucel.com.
Go check it out.
All right, Joe, let's go.
Ding!
I mean, the boxing bell tonight may be more than appropriate.
So again, you know, Geraldo and I debate often on Hannity.
We agree about some things we disagree about a lot, notably our biggest blowups over immigration, at one point Israel policy, and lately I've had some beefs with Geraldo and his comments on the killing of Soleimani, the terrorist.
Geraldo's take is, and I'm summing it up using his words, that it's unnecessary, that we shouldn't be involved in this.
I thought that take was absurd, and I think it's a strawman argument.
He's conflating engaging in some World War III type regional war with a targeted assassination of a known terrorist.
Folks, to be crystal clear, that is a strawman argument.
They are not the same thing.
Okay?
The fact that we killed a man who killed and was personally responsible for at a minimum the death of 600 U.S.
soldiers via horrific means does not mean we're engaging in World War III.
Obviously.
Because we're not right now.
Are we engaging in some World War III I don't know about?
Did it miss me?
Am I missing the breaking news?
They are not the same thing and I'm getting annoyed at that argument.
I understand I have a very strong libertarian streak.
I do not support a lot of the things we do with our U.S.
military overseas.
A lot of adventurism that doesn't work out and brings our people home, sadly, no longer alive or maimed permanently.
If you're a listener to the show, you know that.
But killing a man who has organized the attacks on 600 U.S.
soldiers at a minimum and has been a leading sponsor of terrorism worldwide, regionally, and targeted at us is an unabashedly good thing as I can't repeat enough.
Geraldo and I disagreed.
I don't like playing segments of my appearances because it's kind of weird to say, hey, here's me last night, because I can just say it again.
But Geraldo's not here to defend himself, so I'm going to play the cut of me and Geraldo last night.
This is about a minute long.
This is me and him really going at it last night on the Hannity Show over his take on the Iran thing, saying Soleimani's killing was unnecessary.
Check this out.
I did 11 assignments in the war in Iraq.
I've attended more memorial services than you ever did, Dan.
I deeply feel every loss we've... Listen!
Listen to me, please for a minute!
This doesn't give you the right to be wrong!
They have lost over 600,000!
They have lost over 600,000!
You know what?
I don't sit here on the network and tell everyone about my time in the Secret Service running around the world with the President of the United States in some of the world's dangerous hot zones.
I'm glad you did.
Congratulations.
Nice work.
That doesn't give you the right to be wrong.
And that doesn't give you special insight to say things that are ridiculous.
Soleimani was one of the world's leading terrorists.
This was an unabashedly good thing, not just for the United States, for the world.
The fact that you spent time in the course of Congress— Is that going to be the new normal, Dan?
That's great work.
Is the new normal that we assassinate the people that we don't like?
He's the number two guy in the Iranian government.
He's like the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
It's not like he showed up late for a birthday party.
I mean, get your head out of your butt.
Are you kidding me?
You know, you know you you you you insult I never insulted I never insult you personally buddy
But you you feel that you can go even go better Surfing I'm telling you right now that I disagree with this
action Okay
Man, that guy was heated last night.
Oh, that was me.
Listen, I'm going to try to get Geraldo on my interview show.
After last night, I'm not sure he's going to come on.
He was kind of upset at me this morning, even on Fox and Friends.
Yeah.
If you missed the clip on Fox and Friends this morning, he apologized to kill me.
Geraldo, he went after kill me the other day.
Some of you saw the clip on my show.
We played it on On, I believe, the Monday show, where he was very upset at Kilmeade over the Iran thing.
Geraldo also apologized to Hannity, but then they said, well, what about Bongino?
He goes, I don't know.
I still got a beef with Bongino.
So we may not get Geraldo on my show, but it would be fascinating.
We'll see.
I'm going to try to get him so he can defend himself.
I just want to leave this here so we don't beat a dead horse about this one.
But, folks, it's important.
The argument isn't what Geraldo is saying it is.
I played you his take last night.
His take is, so are we going to run around the world just killing people we don't like?
I'm confused.
Who is making that argument?
Who?
This is what's known as a strawman argument.
You fabricate an argument that doesn't exist to counter an argument you can't counter.
In other words, what credible Republican, Democrat, I'm serious, I'm not talking about fringe lunatics.
I'm talking about credible people out there who do good work.
What credible person has suggested that the U.S.
should change its policy to now going around the world to quote, killing people we don't like?
The answer is zero.
Nobody has done that, right?
So strawman arguments are arguments fabricated to counter an argument you can't in fact counter because you don't have a good answer.
So you fight a different argument that's usually hyperbolic in nature and fabricated.
That's made up.
Nobody is suggesting that.
Nobody.
And as I said last night during the clip and during that back and forth with Geraldo, killing people we don't like Don't like?
Like what?
I said at the end you may have missed it because you were yelling back and forth.
Like he put a 50 spot instead of the 100 you thought you were going to get in a birthday card for your kid.
Like what?
He gave us 50?
What a cheapo.
Don't like?
This guy was one of the world's leading killers and terrorists.
You're diminishing what we're talking about by suggesting that we did it because we simply don't like him.
It's a straw man argument.
It was a bad one.
But as I said, the invitation is open to Geraldo.
You can tweet at him, folks.
He's welcome to come on my show and make his case.
We can debate Israel.
We can debate immigration.
We can debate Iran.
Those are the things we disagree on.
And maybe we can talk about some things we do agree on as well, which he's always been on our team with collusion, understanding it's a hoax from day one.
Invitation's open.
We'll see.
Apparently he still has a beef with me though.
We're a little behind the scenes.
Should I do this?
Yeah, I'll do it.
I don't know.
You sure?
Don't do it.
Don't do it.
Josie, don't do it.
I don't know.
It's not bad, I promise you.
She's already looking at me.
Listen, here's the deal.
I do cable news commentary often.
I get along with 99.9% of people at Fox.
Always.
On commentary.
Even when I was doing commentary on CNN and MSNBC.
You have to learn to leave things on the air.
All right?
You do.
You know why?
Not because I'm suggesting Geraldo was right, or not that I should fight back with a passion against dumb ideas, but because it's a long, long haul.
When you do this for a living, folks, Please tell me, Joe, you did this for a living for a lot longer than I have.
When you do this for a living, you have to learn to leave the fights on the air for the audience to sort out.
You make your point.
Geraldo made his point.
You can't take it into the locker room.
You can't.
And I get it.
There are some people who email me.
I get this a lot, Joe.
They say, that's nonsense.
These people are enemies of the United States.
Folks, listen.
There are some people who genuinely do hate this country.
Some people don't.
They just think we could get to a better tomorrow a different way.
Unfortunately, the way they think we get there is really stupid.
You gotta leave it in the... Really.
You don't bring it back in a locker room.
You leave it out on a playing field.
I've always thought that way.
Except for one person.
I'll leave that for another day.
Well, you know what?
Now she's like, really, she's like, I'm cutting that part out of the show.
While you're talking about that though, it's not like you guys or we even get together, probably not get together and say, Hey, how about that part where I said this?
Yeah, man.
And I came back.
People think that's what goes on.
That does not go on.
You just cool off and move apart.
No, no.
That is, folks, Joe, actually, you know, I'm glad you brought that up because people love behind the scenes stuff.
Good point.
I want you to understand, folks, and I'm telling you this from the bottom of my heart with absolute candor, I would, there's nothing I've ever told you more truthful than this.
Nothing is planned there.
Right.
What you see on the air is real.
That's not like, Geraldo, you say this and Dan, you say that.
That's not what Fox does.
That's not what CNN did when I was doing commentary over there or MSNBC either.
What you see on the air, believe me, is genuine and authentic.
That's not an act at all.
Good point.
All right, moving on.
We got a lot to get through.
I'm just quickly showing you how the media is basically on the wrong side of America these days, just about everywhere.
There's growing concern out there.
I don't know if you saw this, but there's a really, really good David Drucker article at the Washington Examiner about some serious concerns starting to develop in the Democrat Party, Joe, that The Democrats are starting to look like, to quote, lawyers for the Iranians.
Folks, yeah.
Here's the article.
Watch the exam.
It'll be up at the show notes.
Please subscribe to my email list.
It's bongino.com slash newsletter.
Click subscribe.
I'll send you the best articles of the day every day.
You go to bonginoreport.com to our alternative to Drudge Report, where we usually have this stuff.
So David Drucker.
Watch the Examiner headline.
Avoid being Iran's lawyer.
Democrat insiders are warning the Democrats' 2020 contenders to frame the right approach.
Ladies and gentlemen, I'm just giving you some quick history here.
I believe Kim Strassel may have addressed this this morning as well in our Wall Street Journal op-ed.
She always does great work.
Folks, purely from a strategic perspective, leave the ideology behind.
I'm asking you for a second to take our ideological hat off and put on your just pure political strategy hat.
If you're a Democrat right now, you should be really, really concerned.
This is not a country that relishes war.
We never have.
There's an overwhelming consensus right now to avoid a war with Iran, which I agree with 100%.
I don't agree with tactical measures to keep us safer, but an all-out war with Iran?
Overwhelming consensus against it.
We are not a country that relishes war.
Having said that, the caveat, we are also not a country that respects weakness.
And there is a point Where constant concession vis-a-vis what we saw in the Obama administration to Iran is perceived as weakness and does not go over well.
Why are the Democrats concerned now?
Because you've seen Democrat after Democrat, I've got some video coming up here, of Democrats in the media, Chris Matthews from MSNBC and Jackie Spier, a really terrible House of Representatives member from the Democrat Party, again blaming America first and appearing to be lawyers for Iran.
This is concerning to Democrats, Joe, because look at presidential candidates on the Democrat side, which have completely face-planted into the curb, right?
Whoa.
Because they've gone way overboard with the America sucks, our enemies are really great stuff, and we shouldn't fire back no matter what, all the way on the Dove side.
McCarthy?
McGovern?
Dukakis?
John Kerry?
They get smoked!
They get crushed.
Well, Kerry was a little tighter that election.
But Dukakis got destroyed.
George McGovern got wrecked.
Eugene McCarthy destroyed.
These were all people who were perceived as weak.
I'm not getting into their ideology.
I'm suggesting as a strategic win versus non-win in politics and strategic components to get to a win at the presidential level, being perceived as weak and apologizing for our enemies has never been a winner.
We don't relish war.
We hate it in this country.
The consensus is we should be very diplomatic and take diplomacy as far as we can before we strike.
But once you start killing our men and women, it's time to hit back.
When you start blaming America for this, you are looking at a disaster.
And believe me, folks, the Democrat strategy groups and the insider focus groups and the consultants are starting to panic that they may be handing Trump yet another victory here by appearing as, quote, the lawyers for Iran all the time.
What do I mean?
Let's go to the videotape, as Warner Wolfe used to say.
Here is videotape piece number one here of Chris Matthews on MSNBC.
This is not a joke.
This is not deceptively edited.
This is Chris Matthews comparing the killing of Soleimani, the terrorist, to the deaths of Princess Diana and Elvis.
I'm not kidding.
This is an actual cut.
Go ahead.
You know, when some people die, we, you know, you don't know what the impact's going to be.
When Princess Diana died, for example, there was a huge emotional outpouring.
These kinds of... Elvis Presley in our culture.
It turns out that this general we killed was a beloved hero of the Iranian people to the point where, look at the people we've got pictures of now.
These enormous crowds coming out.
There's no American emotion in this case, but there's a hell of a lot of emotion on the other side.
Should our leaders know what they're doing when they kill somebody?
Oh, oh, oh, oh, you got a little Pepto.
If that mean it, oh, my, this is a Maylocks moment.
I mean, really?
Listen, I get it.
I get what he was trying to say.
Because again, whereas I love to dismantle nonsense on the air, I understand what he was trying to say was, strategically speaking, we should understand what the Iranian response is going to be.
The way he said it was so abhorrent that someone should have cut that out of the show in live time and went to just a black screen.
You bet.
It was worded so awfully.
And the problem I have with it is if a Republican would have said that about the killing of bin Laden, An equally significant event in knocking off a terrorist who killed Americans.
If a Republican would have compared it literally to the death of Elvis, that's what he said, not figuratively, or Princess Diana, and suggested how he was this revered figure and not taken into account the context of him being a terrorist, you would never be allowed on a network news show again.
Media matters and all the liberal lunatics out there all day be calling for boycotts, the end of your career.
But again, because a leftist like Chris Matthews said it and said something really dumb, he gets a total pass.
Matter of fact, you're probably not going to hear about it elsewhere besides on this show today.
It gets worse.
Here is a representative.
Now, before I get to Jackie Spier, who's just atrocious, another Democrat representative who manages in this clip to blame America for the Iranian shooting down a passenger airliner the other night.
We now are pretty confident it was a missile launched from Iranian territory that shot down a passenger airliner, a Ukrainian airline.
I'm not, listen, because I try to keep the show somewhat family friendly, I'm not going to describe what happened here.
And I was going, there's video of it.
I was going to play the video.
I changed my mind.
Because even though it's taken from a distance, this passenger airliner being shot down by a, uh, what they believe is a buck missile.
It's, I'm not going to do it.
I'm sorry.
It's a disturbing video and it's, I'm not going to do it.
Having said that, The Iranian shot down and killed upwards of 170 people.
Yeah.
Flying down, flying on a passenger airline, a non-military vehicle.
And you're ready to blame us for this?
Of course, you're a Democrat.
You don't believe me?
Listen to Jackie Spier do exactly that.
Check this out.
I want to start with this plane crash.
Have you been briefed on it?
Because it certainly sounds like it was a mistake by the Iranians.
Do you think they assumed this was some sort of US military plane?
Well, I have been briefed on it, Wolf, in the Intelligence Committee, so I'm not really at liberty to say.
But if what is being projected is true, this is yet another example of collateral damage from the actions that have been taken in a provocative way by the President of the United States.
Holy Moses!
This is real!
This is really happening!
We really have legions of Democrats who are absolutely convinced that a winning message in the 2020 election is to blame America for the Iranians shooting down a passenger airline.
They are absolutely convinced this is a winning message.
Folks, this is a broken, atrocious, horrible shell of a party that is quite literally in many occasions on the opposite side of America.
Whatever side America's on in any significant crisis of our time, you can almost always count on the Democrats to be on the opposite side.
I mean, this is, listen, we joke a lot about TDS level 6 infections, Trump derangement syndrome, it's become kind of cliched at this point.
But folks, do you realize how sick of a person you have to be to implicate the President of the United States as if he had anything to do with the Iranians' complete, utter military incompetence?
Or, because I'm not, a lot of people are chalking this up to like Wolf Blitzer said, it was an Iranian mistake, they may have thought it was a U.S.
missile.
Folks, I'm not giving the Iranians any pass.
You shot down a passenger airliner because what?
You're either unbelievably stupid and incompetent, your military sucks that bad, or you deliberately targeted it?
Honestly, I'm not sure which one's more dangerous.
That you suck so bad you can't stop killing people by accident?
Or that you killed people intentionally?
What's more dangerous?
Who knows?
All right, moving on.
Folks, this next story is going to bake your bagels.
It's a last-minute addition to the show.
It's something Margot Cleveland at The Federalist is kind of putting together, and I think it's more significant than anybody knows.
But this is a huge break in the Spygate case where I've been warning you for a long time That I believe the FBI may have been duped by John Brennan to open up this case.
I've got some more evidence.
Stay tuned.
All right.
Today's show also brought to you by my buddies at Helix Sleep.
Thankfully, Helix Sleep has saved us over the last few nights.
We've got some work being done around the house.
Been some late nights.
We got a lot going on.
I have, I've been sleeping great though, thankfully, because my Helix Sleep mattress, ladies and gentlemen, it is hands down the most comfortable mattress out there.
There's a true story when I tell you one, I have two daughters.
One of my daughters has a Helix Sleep mattress, the other doesn't, right?
So my daughter was watching her one day, reading a book, and they fell asleep.
She woke up next morning, I'm not kidding, and she said, Dad, Amelia's mattress is really, really comfortable.
How do I get one of those?
That was one of the Helix Sleep mattresses.
I'm not kidding around.
Helix Sleep is a quiz, a sleep quiz.
It takes two minutes to complete, matches your body type and sleep preferences to the perfect mattress for you.
You a side sleeper, a hot sleeper?
You like a plush or a firm bed?
With Helix, there's no more confusion and no more compromising.
Helix Sleep Mattresses are rated number one by GQ and Wired Magazine.
It is by far the most comfortable mattress I've ever slept on.
Go to Helix, H-E-L-I-X, sleep.com slash Dan.
Take their two-minute sleep quiz, that's it, and they'll match you to a customized mattress for you.
Not for your neighbor, not for Joey Bag of Donuts, for you!
I took the quiz.
Paula took the quiz.
We were matched to a Helix Midnight Luxe.
The Midnight Luxe is like sleeping on a cloud.
It's medium firm and it's designed for side sleepers like me.
I've been sleeping on it for years.
It's perfect.
Love it.
They have a 10-year warranty.
Try it for 100 nights, risk-free.
You don't like it?
They'll pick it up for you.
They ain't gonna pick it up.
Why?
Because you're gonna love it, like we do.
Right now, Helix is offering up to $200, $200, that's a lot, off all mattress orders for our listeners.
Go to helixsleep.com slash Dan for $200 off your mattress order today.
Helix, H-E-L-I-X sleep.com slash Dan for up to $200 off today.
Check it out.
These are great mattresses.
Okay.
Let me get back to the story here, and I should give you the lead first.
One of the ongoing theories I've had for a long time, based on my multiple books on the topic, Spygate and Exonerated, has been the plot to spy on Donald Trump's presidential campaign and others.
That's why I called the book Spygate, not Trumpgate.
I believe was hatched Potentially with John Brennan and foreign intelligence partners in an effort to circumvent U.S.
laws prohibiting the spying on of innocent American citizens.
Now, I've gotten some feedback on this theory, a lot of pro, some con, some people say, no, the FBI was in on it from the beginning.
I'm not sure of that.
So my suggestion here and my theory so you understand where I'm about to go with this because this is an important break is a terrific piece by Margot Cleveland is this.
I believe Brennan or some intelligence operators associated with Brennan.
Basically prodded the FBI through politicians to open up a case because, you know, why?
Because the CIA can't swear out warrants in court.
To get a warrant to spy on people, they needed the FBI.
So I believe certain information and the sources of it were fake.
The footprints trail was flattened out.
Mm-hmm.
To make the FBI believe the case was stronger than it really was.
Having said that, I'm not giving the FBI, Jim Comey, Andy McCabe, and these other atrocious actors a pass, because at the latest, as I've always said, by January of 2017, the FBI knows, because they interviewed steel sources, that the case they are investigating is total crap.
So the Bureau is just as culpable, if not more, for knowing they were investigating crap.
But I do believe they got duped.
Hey, spy on the Trump team.
We've got some stuff here.
You do, John Brennan?
Yeah, we got some great stuff, do you?
So, this piece by Margot Cleveland is a must-read.
It's so good.
I actually have two of them up in my show notes today.
Again, Bongino.com slash newsletter or Bongino.com.
You can read the articles are linked right there.
Here's the piece by Cleveland at the Federalist.
It is so worth your time.
Exclusive Carter Page interview raises new questions about the inaccuracy-laden IG report.
Folks, something big broke in this story.
Let's set it up in light of what I just told you, the larger headline.
The bureau, the FBI was clearly, I think at this point, duped by Brennan and the CIA into starting this case.
Hey, look at all this stuff we got.
Now, how do we know that?
When does the case, the FBI case, when is it opened against Donald Trump?
The FBI case is opened on July 31st of 2016.
And the IG report, the Inspector General report that looked into this whole thing, stated, and I think wrongly, that, well, no human sources, spies, were used prior to July 31st.
Makes sense, pretty simple.
The IG report said, the FBI says they started the case on July 31st.
No spying happened before that.
Really?
Because we know Stefan Halper was a spy being used by the FBI.
So if the FBI story and the IG report story is right, and I'll relate this back to the CIA dupe in a minute.
Then clearly, Joe, Halper could not have contacted anyone in the Trump campaign until July 31st because the FBI said they didn't use spies prior to July 31st.
Interesting.
Keep that in your head.
All right.
Keep that little nugget right there.
All right.
Back to the Margo Cleveland piece.
Let's go to screenshot one from the piece where this gets really, really interesting.
Quote, Halper's handling agent from the FBI told the inspector general that it was serendipitous that Source 2 Halper had contacts with three or four of their subjects, including Carter Page.
Wow!
Quote, they couldn't believe their luck, the handling agent noted.
Upon learning that Halper, their spy, knew Mike Flynn and Paul Manafort and had crossed paths with Page just weeks before.
Wait, what?
I thought the FBI said that there wasn't any spying done just weeks before they opened the case on July 31st.
That's what they said, right?
Right!
The IG report said, no, no, the FBI has said July 31st is when the spying begun.
Ladies and gentlemen, what the hell was Stephen Halper doing inviting Carter Page from the Trump campaign then to a dinner in mid, mid, M-I-D, mid-July?
July 31st, Joe.
Call me crazy.
It's the end of July, right?
Yeah, you're right.
Are there 32 days in July?
I don't think so.
No, you're good.
Okay, thank you.
I don't think the rest of the audience does either.
So that would be officially the end of July.
So if Halper, the spy, is meeting with Carter Page from the Trump campaign in mid-July... What's he doing?
Now, I know I may get a lot of negative feedback on this from a lot of the solid investigative reporters out there, but that's okay because I'm interested in the truth.
Again, this does not give the FBI a pass what I'm about to say.
They continued an investigation they knew was false.
End of story.
I don't think they're lying here.
Now, I think they know more than they're saying.
I think they had a hint that Halper may have been up to no good contacting Carter Page.
He was clearly spying on him as early as mid-July, despite protestations otherwise.
The question, Joe, is who was Halper spying for?
Now, the FBI may be winking and nodding here, but I don't believe he was officially spying for the FBI in mid-July.
I don't think they're that dumb to create that because there's a paper trail there.
Yeah.
They're not going to say we started the spying on July 31st knowing there's a paper trail.
You know what I'm saying, Joe?
It's just dumb.
Right.
Knowing there's a paper trail showing they asked Halper to spy in mid-July.
They're not that stupid.
They're not.
So the question now, now that we know Halper in mid-July had contacted Page at this dinner Margot Cleveland has the exclusive on, What the hell was he doing?
And why was the FBI so surprised that Halpern already met Carter Page?
Well, let's go to screenshot number two here because this is a trip.
Apparently Halpern's the one who brings up to the FBI in this meeting.
Halpern's the one who brings up Carter Page.
Listen to this little gem.
Quote, Margot Cleveland, after asking Halper about Papadopoulos, whom Halper says, quote, he had never heard of, the FBI agent told the Office of Inspector General that Halper, Halper asked whether the team had any interest in an individual named Carter Page.
The Crossfire Hurricane team inquired how Halper knew Page.
And according to the IG report, Halper claimed, in mid-July 2016, Carter Page attended a three-day conference, during which Page had approached Halper and asked Halper to be a foreign policy advisor for the Trump campaign.
Page denies this, by the way.
Interesting.
Folks, what's Halper doing here?
Why is he inviting Page in mid-July to this conference?
Who else is at that conference and what's going on?
Why is Halper pushing the FBI now?
I believe this version of events!
According to the IG report, why is Halper the one pushing the FBI to investigate Carter Page, rather than who the FBI says they want to investigate, which is George Papadopoulos?
Which makes sense, given that I believe the FBI knows about Papadopoulos' meeting with Downer.
The day after it happens on May 11th.
Despite saying they get that information later in July, I don't believe that for a second.
Based on Stroke and Page Text, I believe the FBI knows about Papadopoulos' meeting with Downer and is suspicious of it in early May.
I think they're lying on that.
I believe FBI target number one is Papadopoulos.
But all of a sudden Halper comes in, Joe, to flip him the old dipsy-do-flipper-ooski, and says, no, FBI guys, you gotta start looking at Page.
Now, audience folks out there listening in your cars, listening at home, watching me on your TV screens, why would Halpert do that?
Joe, does Papadopoulos have any significant contacts with Russians that we know about?
Anything like Russian?
No, no, nothing.
No.
But who does?
And who knows about it?
Remember, Halper's trying to set up this collusion narrative on behalf of someone.
We'll get to that in a second.
He knows the FBI is going down a rabbit hole.
They got nothing on Papadopoulos.
Believe me, they know that from the start.
So Halper magically pops up in the FBI office.
The FBI guys are like, wow, this is crazy.
He knows this guy, Paige.
What a coincidence.
And then Halper says, wink and a nod.
You really need to start looking at Paige because what does Halper already know?
Not sure what Halper knows, but I know what Brennan knows.
Brennan's the head of the CIA.
And Brennan knows that there's only one person in this whole case that's had significant contact with Russians.
And it's Page.
Why?
Because the CIA, which Brennan was running at the time, Was asking Carter Page to go contact Russian intelligence officials as part of a counterintel operation on behalf of the US government.
Folks, if this doesn't hit you like a seismic earthquake in the side of your melon, I don't know what will.
I'll tie it together for you in a second.
Some of you are putting it together right now.
But you may say, okay, Dan, Brennan knew Paige had contact with Russians, so it would be a better target for the FBI that Papadopoulos was a rabbit hole.
But how would that information possibly get to Halper to push the FBI, saying, you may want to look in this direction instead?
Well, ladies and gentlemen, Halper's buddy is an old intelligence head for one of the British intelligence services, a guy by the name of Dearlove.
Richard Dearlove.
We know Dearlove and Brennan.
We know Dearlove and Brennan know each other.
We know Christopher Steele and his information, and Glenn Simpson are getting back to the Democratic Party apparatchiks.
And we already know Dearlove, but we know knows Brennan, and we know knows Steele.
Has already vouched for Steele.
Matter of fact, Dearlove said about Steele in a New Yorker interview that he was the go-to guy on Russia, and that Christopher Steele was superb.
I'm just gonna ask the question and throw this out there.
Is it possible that foreign intel people are feeding information to Brennan and the intel services, which we know is happening according to CNN's own reporting, We know that Steele's inventing this collusion narrative that's being fed to our intel services, that Steele's passing it on to intel people who know Brennan and others, that Brennan understand that this thing is probably a weak case, that they need someone on the Trump campaign to directly contact Russians to make this narrative firm, not just loose cement.
They can't find anyone on the Trump campaign who's had any significant contact with Russian intel.
But Brennan knows that there is someone who's had contact with Russian intel.
Granted, it was for a patriotic U.S.
mission, but that doesn't matter when you're trying to frame someone and set them up.
So somehow it gets back to Halper that maybe you should tell the FBI guys that
they should really look at this Page guy instead.
I'm just asking, ladies and gentlemen, who knew?
Who knew about Page's contacts with Russian officials?
The only people that knew were the CIA.
Because they'd asked him to do it.
God forbid that information got back to Halper.
Hey, we got a Trump guy who contacted Russians.
Go tell the FBI.
Push him into investigating Halper.
I hope that made sense.
Yeah.
But Margot Cleveland's piece is damning because it's now circling back to the beginning.
I asked you the question, if the FBI didn't start the spying with Halper till July 31st,
and Halper's admitting now that he was doing some work on Carter Page, work, in mid-July,
who asked him to do it?
Makes total sense when you think about it.
All right, moving on.
So I got a lot more to get to here.
Paula, that makes sense?
Joe, got it?
Oh yeah, yeah, yeah.
Somebody, somebody asked, someone, someone asked Halper to do some work in mid-July.
Somebody who knew on Carter Page, somebody who knew Carter Page had contacted Russians in the past.
Someone.
Let's see how that materializes, folks.
All right, moving on.
So Matt Palumbo does great work on our website, bongino.com.
We have two websites, bongino.com, where we do editorial content and we break some news over there.
And then we have bonginoreport.com, which is an aggregator, again, your conservative alternative to the Drudge Report, which has blown up thanks to you.
But on bongino.com, Matt wrote a great piece, and I'm going to title this segment of the show, as I wrote here on my thing, Liberalism sucks.
This is the liberalism sucks segment.
Thanks, Mort.
Liberalism sucks.
What is liberalism sucks for 200?
This is the liberalism is destroying the country segment of the show.
And here's article number one by Matt Palumbo.
New study.
Worst run states are run by Democrats.
No surprise at all.
Story will be in the show notes.
Again, please check it out.
But here's more evidence that liberalism really sucks.
Here's photo number one, showing you the debt per person states have accumulated bankrupting their citizens.
There is a common theme here about all of these states here.
So, Going 1 through 10 here.
So Vermont, New York, California, Kentucky, Delaware, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Illinois, and New Jersey are all the leaders when it comes to accumulated debt per citizens of their states.
Meaning they're bankrupting their citizens rapidly with liabilities they don't have the money to pay.
What is the common thread with pretty much all of those states with the one exception of Kentucky?
Yes, they are all run by liberals who either have a liberal governor and a liberal legislature or a Republican governor and a near supermajority liberal legislature.
In other words, they are dominated almost exclusively by liberal politics and also dominated by debt.
Don't let that get in the way, facts and data liberals, of your argument that you are fine financial stewards and you have such great control wherever you're in charge.
Wherever you're in charge, things degenerate because liberalism sucks.
Nine out of the ten states carrying the biggest debt loads per citizen are run almost exclusively by liberals.
In some limited circles, Joe, we haven't said this in a while, they would call that A clue!
A clue!
Thank you!
You're welcome, Dan.
We would call that a clue.
But again, liberals are pretty much vaccinated against clues, so I don't expect you to take anything from that.
Now, let's show chart number two.
The least amount of debt, deficits, red tape, and garbage per citizen in photo two are in states largely run by, crazy how this happens, Republicans and conservatives.
These are states that actually had a surplus per citizen.
Yes, surplus.
Meaning they're generating tax revenue, not only to pay and finance their bills, but they have a surplus.
Alaska, North Dakota, Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, Tennessee, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oregon, and Iowa.
Again, nine out of ten run almost exclusively by Republican politics or conservatives.
But again, liberals, don't let this get in the way of your dopey arguments that you guys really have a grasp of economics and finances.
You got this thing down.
Nine out of ten states that are swimming in red ink and bankrupting their citizens are run by libs.
Nine out of ten states running a surplus and efficient government services, so much so that they have a tax surplus, are run by Republicans.
Yes.
Yes.
For those of you watching on the YouTube, I'm doing a visual head nod so you understand this means yes.
That's just portion subsection A of the liberalism sucks segment.
Here's portion B, section B, A1, B2, 6, Liberalism Sucks, Part 2, Wall Street Journal article.
Liberalism is so great, people can't get the hell out of liberal states fast enough.
Wall Street Journal from yesterday, blue state redistribution.
High tax states are losing people, money, and seats in Congress.
I'm sure they're leaving because liberalism is a utopia.
They're leaving because they want to escape utopia and they want to run into these dystopian Republican underworlds, right?
That's why this is happening?
Yeah, probably.
Now, again, liberals will have a tough time with facts.
We're going to use charts because somehow diagrams help more sometimes.
Let's go to the chart here and show you exactly how bad it is, how people are replicating the Snake Plissken plan and escaping from New York and California in drones.
So, this is the net AGI outflow.
In other words, billions of dollars of money.
People taking their money and leaving.
Look at the states that are leading in people taking their jobs and their money and evacuating rapidly.
Look at states one through four.
California, New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, and then five is Illinois, then we have Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin.
So the top four we see on this chart.
Are all states exclusively dominated by liberal politics?
California, Illinois, New Jersey, New York.
People can't get out of there fast enough, folks.
But again, I know we're on the radio KBC now in California, which I love.
We travel out there often, again, in some limited circles, we would call people taking their money and evacuating your state in mass, despite having the most beautiful environment in the United States, California, the weather, the climate is beautiful.
You have a Silicon Valley up there, all of that.
People can't get out fast enough.
Again, we would call that a clue that something's wrong.
Now, you may say, OK, people leave for all kinds of reasons.
I'm sure they're going to other liberal states where things are just peachy.
You'd be wrong there, too, because here's the inflow.
In other words, people entering into new states.
Where are they going?
Oh, Florida, the great state I live in.
Arizona, Texas, North Carolina, Nevada, Colorado, Washington, and Idaho.
Pretty much the majority of those states either have strong Republican influence or are dominated almost exclusively by Republican and conservative politics.
Again, don't let that get in the way of your stupid arguments that liberalism is just so peachy.
It's great people can't get out of there fast enough.
The U-Haul business from California to Texas is a really good one.
The U-Haul business from Texas to California?
Eh, not so much.
Here's another one.
Washington Examiner.
California, the breadbasket of the world, dominated by liberals.
It's so wonderful that surging California homeless crisis offsets the drop in the nation's drop in the homelessness.
By Paul Bedard.
Somebody in the Washington Examiner in the show notes again today.
What's the gist of this article?
Ladies and gentlemen, homelessness is dropping, thankfully, throughout the entire country.
It's down dramatically.
Except in California.
The Liberal Holy Land, where it's up 16%.
So now we know debt per person is high in liberal states.
We know people are fleeing liberal states like California, taking their jobs with them.
And we also know this little inconvenient fact that California, which claims to be this beautiful utopia for everyone, we support everybody, it's actually got a dramatically horrible homelessness crisis that is wiping out the trend in the rest of the nation.
The nation's homelessness population is up because of California.
Here's another one I saw in the Wall Street Journal today.
You know how liberals, they love to tell you they've got it down.
This Medicare for all, government-run healthcare is the answer, man.
Alright.
You want government-run in your healthcare.
Yes, sir.
Because government's so good at the DMV and everything else, Joe.
Yeah, yeah.
You definitely want the government cracking open your chest.
You know it, brother.
You know it, babe.
You know it.
Yeah.
Wall Street Journal today.
If you get cancer, you definitely want to be in a socialist country or a Medicare for all or government run health care country, right?
Wrong.
Huh?
Wall Street Journal.
I know you're shocked, Joe, putting on your liberal hat.
Where do you want to get cancer is the title of the argument.
Well, you don't want to get cancer anywhere, but that is the title of the article in the Wall Street Journal.
Kind of a weird title.
I read that.
I was like, I don't think anybody wants to get it anywhere.
Having said that, Unfortunately, if that is to happen to you, it's happened to people in my family, if you do come down, God forbid, with cancer, you want to be treated in the United States.
I can't be!
That can't be!
Because the United States, we've been told by liberals, has a horrible healthcare system, even though the government still screws it up.
Well, let's look at the five-year survival rates for cancer.
In other words, how likely are you to survive five years if you're diagnosed with cancer?
Look at this handy chart we have here.
It measures the United Kingdom, government-run healthcare.
France, government-run healthcare, and the United States, only partially government-run healthcare.
And the survival rates, not coincidentally in the United States, with the exception of liver cancer, for pancreatic, lung, brain, and stomach cancer, are dramatically longer in the United States that the liberals told us our system is just horrible and awful.
Can a prophet medicine?
Can't have profit.
I love when liberals say that.
You can't have profits.
The first question you should ask him in response is, really, do you work for a salary?
Yeah, I work for a salary.
Oh, so you can profit from the fruits of your labor, but doctors who study their whole lives and work for a living, they're not allowed to make any money?
Do you realize what a moron you sound like?
It should be a profit medicine!
What are you, a child?
Are you that much of an idiot?
Have you asked yourself how dumb you are lately?
If you're not, you should.
No, I work for a salary because I work hard.
And so do you.
And people pay the value they think you add to society.
It's called the salary.
No, doctors shouldn't get that.
Neither should nurses or people who construct hospitals.
They shouldn't be paid for any of that.
Idiots.
I'm sorry, folks.
I know we should be kind to Leon.
You be kind to Leon.
I'm not interested anymore.
I've told you a million times.
I'm more than happy to have a civil conversation with moderate Democrats who are sane.
Forget the libs.
They're lost.
Well, why are we doing this?
Because as I've said to you another couple thousand times in this show, because when you debate sane people, you can change them.
And even when you debate the liberals, you're never going to change.
Sane people are listening.
And when liberals talk, they say insane things.
And third party people listening to you debate the liberals, you're never going to change.
We'll change their mind when they see how insane liberals are.
Now, you may say, well, those statistics, what else do they have on that?
So what?
People are living longer in the United States, despite the fact that liberals keep telling us, you can't have profit medicine.
Where they don't have profit medicine, people are dying and dying faster from cancer, a deadly disease.
Here's another piece from the Wall Street Journal, again, showing you liberalism really sucks.
Check this out.
That was my cue.
Check this out.
That was my cue.
Oh, you don't, what, what, what?
You can leave that in there.
Sorry, that's my fault, but I thought I sent my wife Paula another screenshot from the thing.
If I did that, yeah, there you go.
Remember the Matrix?
Look at that, look at that.
I knew I wasn't wrong.
You know, I've seen the movie, The Matrix, where there's a blip in the Matrix.
That was the blip in the Matrix.
Now we could cut that out, but I choose not to because I like my show to be raw.
So producer Drew, leave that in.
Here we go again.
I knew I sent that over.
Government rationing and price controls on drugs are one major reason that countries with socialized medicine, like the United Kingdom, I thought this was great, Joe, have lower, yes, lower cancer survival rates than the United States.
That's not possible.
Liberals told us that's not true.
Huh.
The age adjusted cancer mortality rate is about 20% higher in the United Kingdom and 10% higher in Canada and France than in the U.S.
Survival rates for hard-to-treat cancers are also higher in the U.S.
than in most countries with nationalized health systems.
Ladies and gentlemen, I know this data is irrelevant to the far-left lunatics who think they can centrally plan our way into utopia.
I get it.
I get it that liberals are immune to facts.
I'm suggesting to moderate folks out there who are sane, does this even matter to you?
That the system the Democrats are proposing in the 2020 election of a government takeover of healthcare, We'll drown us in debt, we'll drown us in deficits, and we'll kill you quicker?
Can you tell me what the upside is?
Let me see.
It's gonna cost me more, it's gonna bankrupt me, my country, and my kids, and I'm gonna die faster.
Sounds like a winner!
Sounds like a winner to me!
Whoa.
That's a threefer!
Quick death, a lot of debt, screws over my grandkids and kids?
Wow, that's really great!
Please tell me what part of that, by the way, isn't true.
The answer is all of it was true.
You just don't like it.
Right.
No, no.
We don't like that data.
We don't like that.
That's if that data was, it was the data.
It's from Lancet, a medical journal.
That data I just gave you and the chart about survival rate.
That's from a medical journal.
It's not from Bongino.com.
Not that we don't do good work, but it's not a, I have an ideological bent.
That's clear.
That's from a medical journal.
Pay more, die quicker.
What a salesman.
Put that in.
Bernie, 2020, give us more money and we'll kill you faster.
This is your campaign pitch?
Die faster.
Vote Bernie.
Take five years off your life.
I mean, what kind of... You will die.
Do you have the people will die?
I just hit it.
Hit it again.
If there was ever a moment, this is it.
People will die.
Oh, that was Liz.
No, no, that's good too.
That's good too.
That's Elizabeth Warren.
That's Elizabeth Warren.
You gotta fire that one up.
That's Elizabeth Warren.
If we don't, Medicare for all, if we don't get people, we'll die.
Play it again.
Oh, I'd like to.
It left.
Oh, come on!
We needed a twofer on that one.
All right.
I got to move on anyway, because I want to get through this before the week.
Oh, by the way, Paul will kill me if I don't tease it.
Marklevin interview.
We will be recording it today on Friday, be launched tomorrow morning on Saturday on our YouTube channel, youtube.com slash Bongino.
Do not miss my interview with the great one.
He doesn't do a lot of interviews.
He was kind enough to give us some of his time.
We will launch it tomorrow.
God forbid some major technical breakdown.
I look forward to it.
It's going to be great.
YouTube.com slash Bongino and on our Apple podcast channel and bongino.com as well.
So check that out.
All right.
Final stories of the day.
Exposing media lies and nonsense, which we love to do.
Not to pile on the media unnecessarily and waste your time, but to show you that the media likes to tell you a story, not the story.
And again, proving to you over and over that what I just said to you is in fact the fact.
The media never tells you the facts anymore.
They tell you spin.
So here's a story at National Review where emails from a Facebook executive were exposed.
These are interesting emails.
This is from, what is it, Tobias?
I can't read the rest, my eyesight is going down.
Top Facebook exec says Trump didn't get elected because of Russia or misinformation in internal memo.
Wait!
Wait, wait, wait, that can't be.
Because the Democrats and their media buddies, these chumps, these bootlickers, have told us now for three years, Joe, that the Russians used Facebook to manipulate the election and that Russian disinformation clearly changed the election, right?
We heard that, right, Joe, didn't we?
Clearly, clearly, yeah.
Just checking.
Yeah.
Pretty loud and clear.
Yeah.
Siren sound, clarion, woo!
Bing, bing, bing!
Signs, bells going off everywhere!
Well, interestingly enough, someone got a hold of these Facebook internal emails, and there's this fascinating little exchange where one of the Facebook execs says, quote, one of the guys who ran the platform's aired organization during the 2016 election dismissed claims that President Trump won the election because of Russian misinformation campaigns.
Again, don't let this get in the way of your good story, liberals.
Stating, this is the Facebook guy, by the way, not conservatives, a Facebook employee, stating, quote, Trump got elected because he ran the single best digital ad campaign I've ever seen from any advertiser.
Again, liberals listening, don't let that get in the way of your stupid narrative that Russia did it.
That's the Facebook guy who ran their ad ops in an email saying that the media narrative that the Russians manipulated Facebook and handed Trump the win is garbage.
But again, don't let that get in the way of your adamantium-coated skulls where facts simply can't penetrate.
Here's one more, Jim, and I gotta leave it at this because we're running out of time.
Joe, this one's good.
Paula loved this story this morning, so I'm going to end on a high note again, showing you high notes, exposing the media nonsense.
So, again, the media likes to portray to you that they're telling you the story, the facts.
They're journalists, Joe.
They do facts, right?
Yes, of course.
I've suggested to you, as I just did a minute ago, that they're really telling you a story, meaning they're telling you a narrative devoid of facts.
They're telling you a story where facts are absent.
That's what they're really doing.
So, what has been one of the persistent, evergreen, ongoing media narratives, especially at CNN against Donald Trump?
And it's a narrative, meaning it's a fake story.
It's made up.
Trump's a racist.
Trump is definitely a racist.
Now, they've said this over and over.
The examples are ad nauseum.
I can't even play them all here.
CNN has insisted for a long time that Trump is a racist.
It's not based in any fact.
It's a BS story.
It's an offensive story.
But CNN doesn't really care.
But CNN, Joe, has repeatedly stated over and over, including Costanza over there, Brian Stelter, that they are a serious news network.
In other words, when we say he's a racist, we're reporting news.
You are?
You haven't, Joe has not seen this.
I want your genuine, this is a great story.
And if it isn't, tell me at the end, because I won't cover it again.
So CNN has this lawsuit filed against them by the Covington kid, Nicholas Sandman, who they just settled.
Some of the stuff that CNN said in the motion to dismiss the case has now come out.
Great, great Daily Signal piece by Jared Stedman.
Media lawyer explains why CNN's settlement, the libel case with Sandman from Covington, is a big deal.
Listen to this quote.
This is genius.
This media lawyer has picked this thing apart.
CNN, whose firm stance from day one of the Trump administration has been, Joe, Trump's a racist and we're doing news.
So claiming he's a racist on a news show means we've done our homework and saying that is based in fact, right?
You get it?
Yeah.
Yeah.
With it.
Okay.
Now let's go to this little Jared Stepman piece.
This is the lawyer who analyzed CNN's defense here.
Glasser cited CNN's argument in a short article on Instapundit.
CNN argued in court, quote, listen to this, folks, that courts treat statements characterizing people as racist as non-actionable opinion because they cannot be proved true or false.
But why?
Wait, it goes on.
Sandman cannot, as a matter of law, base a defamation claim on this statement as it offers an expression of opinion so subjective as to be unprovable.
Wait, it goes on!
The problem with this line of argument, Glasser, the lawyer said, is that CNN analysts frequently call President Trump and others a racist as a statement of fact.
I thought they were doing news.
The lawyer says, it's fascinating that there's a news organization that will look the audience right in the eye and say, hey, we report facts, and the fact is Trump is a racist.
And then they go into court and say, that's not even possible to call him a racist.
It can't be a fact.
That's a total disconnect that really deserves, from a societal standpoint, some thought and discussion.
Thank you, Mr. Lawyer, Mr. Glasser, Esquire.
That is a brilliant point.
CNN.
We're a news organization.
Trump's a racist.
CNN in court when they get sued for calling someone a racist.
Actually, that's just a really stupid opinion we can never prove is fact.
Thank you, CNN.
I'd like to see Humpty Dumpty Stelter address that one on his show Unreliable Sources.
Love to see you handle that one, Brian.
As always, the dumbest guy in media.
Only followed by Chuck Todd at NBC.
Go check that one out.
Let's see how Brian Stelter, Captain Reliable Sources on his show, handles that little disconnect.
CNN, we're telling you the news and Trump's a racist.
CNN in court.
We just kind of made that up.
It's just opinion.
We don't really have any facts.
Matter of fact, it's not even provable.
Great piece.
Again, up at the show notes.
Bongino.com slash newsletter.
I'll send these articles right to you every day.
Folks, been a great week.
Thank you so much for the support of our show.
Record numbers.
I'm not kidding.
Joe's seen them.
We get the back end.
What?
We did?
I know, Paul is impressed we got through all the topics, which is kind of amazing because we never do that.
That's cool.
We will see you all on Monday, and please subscribe to my YouTube channel, youtube.com slash Bongino, trying to get to 400,000 subscribers, and subscribe to our podcast on Apple Podcasts and elsewhere.
It's all free, folks, but it really helps us move up the charts and helps other people find the show.
Thanks a lot.
See you all on Monday.
Good day, sir!
You just heard The Dan Bongino Show.
You can also get Dan's podcasts on iTunes or SoundCloud.
