Be Very Careful, The Media is Setting You Up (Ep 1162)
In this episode, I address the Second Amendment rally in Virginia and the media’s attempts to set you up. I also address the bold move by the GOP Senate to checkmate Adam Schiff in the sham-impeachment trial. Finally, I address the devious plot by Jim Comey which is only now coming to light. News Picks:
The Democrats, and their media allies, are already trying to set up a narrative about the Virginia Second Amendment rally.
A terrific article about the latest Jim Comey scandal.
The impeachment trial rules still include a motion to dismiss.
How many members of the Biden family have become wealthy while Joe Biden was in power?
Flashback: Seven times the GAO said the Obama administration broke the law.
An interesting inside account of the killing of Soleimani.
Mitch McConnell votes to create a “kill switch” in the impeachment farce.
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.
Ladies and gentlemen, be very, very careful at the Virginia Second Event Rally.
I don't know what to tell you there, but I believe there are people there trying to set you up and make you look bad.
I've got, I'm getting live updates from there for a number of friends of mine who are at the event.
I'll give you an update on that.
Most of you know the story.
We got that today.
I have just clips on Chuck Todd as always the second dumbest guy in media behind Brian Stelter from CNN.
This guy is just, his lack of self-awareness is stunning.
I have that and I have another update on the Comey debacle about the alleged leak to the New York Times, which I promise is going to bake your bagels.
This stuff is really fast.
I got a stack show.
Welcome to the Dan Bongino show.
Producer Joe, how are you today?
Fine, sir.
Dude, it's Monday and I'm fighting the same old crap we always do.
Let's got to put it into gear and push it, baby.
You know?
I know.
Yeah.
I know.
Mondays are, I always get up early Monday to do Fox and Friends, which I enjoy.
So this show, this is like the longest workday ever on Monday, but we got a stack lineup.
Don't go anywhere.
Today's show brought to you by our buddies at ZipRecruiter.
It's a new year.
And you want to keep your growing team, but you need the right tools to keep your hiring streamlined and efficient.
That's where ZipRecruiter.com slash Bongino comes in to help you out.
We would be lost without ZipRecruiter.
ZipRecruiter sends your job opening to over 100 of the web's leading job boards, but they don't stop there.
With their powerful matching technology, ZipRecruiter scans thousands of resumes to find people with the right experience and invite them to apply to your job.
As applications come in, ZipRecruiter analyzes each one, spotlights the top candidates, so you never miss a great match.
Ladies and gentlemen, people are your business.
You know that.
Bad people, bad business.
Great people, great business.
ZipRecruiter will help you find the best people out there.
What a competitive advantage to have, right?
ZipRecruiter is so effective.
That four out of five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate through the site within the first day.
We love ZipRecruiter.
We would have been lost without it.
And right now, my listeners can try ZipRecruiter for free at this exclusive web address.
ZipRecruiter.com slash Bongino.
B-O-N-G-I-N-O.
That's ZipRecruiter.com slash Bongino.
ZipRecruiter.com slash Bongino.
Go today.
It is the smartest way to hire.
You will not regret it.
Good people.
Great business.
You need the best people.
ZipRecruiter.com slash Bongino.
All right, Joe, let's go.
And they're off!
Folks, on a, just a separate note before you get started with Virginia, this week will be an interesting series of shows.
I will get most of them in, I hope, but we've had a bit of a family emergency.
I'll talk about it more during the week.
It's, I don't want anybody to be too worried about, we're okay.
It's not anything, it's not an emergency or anything, but I shouldn't have said a family emergency, I shouldn't have said that, but You get what I'm saying.
It's a little hard for me to talk about right now.
We're still kind of adjusting to what happened.
So I'll have more details as the week goes on.
But just hang with us this week, please.
And I just ask you to be patient with me and the show.
You always are.
You're the best audience in the world, and I appreciate that.
All right, getting on to the content.
Virginia, where they're blackface-wearing or Ku Klux Klan hood-wearing governor.
We don't know which one.
That's not a joke, unfortunately.
I wish it were, but it's not.
We had that horrible picture of Democrat liberal governor Ralph North, and we still can't figure out who he is in that photo.
Is trying to engage with some draconian level gun confiscation measures and the good citizens of Virginia aren't having it.
I'm getting live updates from there, thankfully, which isn't surprising to me or Joe or anybody else in the room at all.
It is a largely peaceful rally because that's what concealed carry weapons permit holders and Second Amendment supporters are.
Again, none of that's shocking to me.
I'm getting updates via pictures, videos, everything.
It is a largely peaceful rally.
It is packed.
It is jammed down there.
And I just want to quickly say, be very, very careful down there.
I'm not worried about the Second Amendment supporters at all.
I never am.
They have lower rates of criminality than police officers.
I'm not kidding.
They are largely peaceful people interested in their big R God-given right to defend themselves and their family.
I'm concerned about leftist agitators in the crowd trying to instigate a fight.
Now, luckily, these Second Amendment supporters, again, are largely a mature adult audience who, again, is defending big R God-given rights and isn't interested in getting into petty back-and-forths with fools.
Just please be careful out there.
I know a lot of you listen to my show and watch my show.
Don't get baited by a lot of these leftist agitators who are looking to cause trouble to put a black eye on the entire event.
Moving on.
Just putting that out there for you.
If I didn't have some decent Intel on it.
I wouldn't put it out there.
You know, it's about nonsense on this show.
Yeah.
All right.
So this weekend, Senator David Perdue, Republican, was on with the second dumbest guy in media, as we know, Joe Chuck Todd, in the dopey Olympics.
Yeah.
Chuck is always a close second, and no matter in the dopey decathlon, the dopey 100 meter, the dopey 400 meter swim freestyle, whatever it may be, Chuck Todd is always just a sliver behind.
The dumbest guy in media, who as Joe knows, is Brian Stelter, of course, from CNN.
And every time Chuck trains and does something to like flex his dopey muscles, and you think Chuck's got a chance of taking the gold in the dopey Olympics.
Stelter Costanza always magically beats him at Stelter's commitment to stupidity is unparalleled.
He's like the Rocky of stupidity.
I see him in Rocky three, you know, remember with Apollo running down the beach, right?
Here's Stelter, Chuck.
And Rocky's close it in, remember?
But here's the thing.
The difference is the Rocky Chuck Todd never actually wins.
Apollo Brian Stelter always finishes first in the Dopey Olympics.
But as I said, Chuck is training.
And he's almost there.
So here's a video this weekend of Chuck Todd with David Perdue, where, again, he just says things, Chuck Todd, that either he doesn't know are incorrect, which I doubt, or he does know are incorrect, and he's just lying to you because he's a full-time Democrat activist.
He's talking about Lev Parnas, the associate of Rudy Giuliani, who has almost zero credibility at this point.
He clearly looks like he's looking for a deal from the Justice Department.
He's being prosecuted and Parnas has been throwing out these unbelievably fantastic, and I don't mean fantastic in a qualitatively good way, just these stories that are just unbelievable.
And he keeps getting Touché and checkmated at every turn because a lot of what Parnas is saying is just not true and doesn't comport with what Parnas said in the past.
Right.
So here's Chuck Todd parroting that point that Lev Parnas is really close to the president.
Really close, Joe.
How do these people find themselves so close to the president's orbit?
Check this out.
Why do you think folks like Mr. Parnas end up so close to the president?
Oh, I don't know.
And the president says he doesn't know who he was.
He wasn't close to the president at all.
I don't accept that at all.
Chuck Todd claims he's not an opinion guy, that he's a news guy.
Now, when I say opinion guy, most of you know what I mean, but I'm not suggesting anybody doesn't have an opinion, news or otherwise.
I'm suggesting if your job is to be a journalist and report the facts, you're claiming to the audience that you're not giving an opinion or doing journalism.
Those are facts.
Todd, Chuck Todd, the second dumbest guy in media, claims to be a journalist doing facts.
Lev Parnas is close to the president?
Now if that's a fact, what evidence do you actually have of that?
Now I'm sure Chuck Todd will come back and say something like, well, Lev Parnas said he met the president.
I'll get to that in a second, but here's what's funny about this.
And by funny, I mean horrendous.
Lev Parnas is clearly not telling the truth at this point based on Lev Parnas' own statements in the past about his access to the president.
Parnas said he met the president.
Again, I'll get to that in a second.
But I went on Google this morning to find one of the articles showing that Lev Parnas, who had indicated he had met the president and is now backtracking from that.
Yeah.
Get a load of this, Joe.
I went on Google.
It's not a joke.
This is a screenshot from my phone.
I went on Google this morning to search for the article showing that Lev Parnas and here's what it's a little cut off at the top, but you can see at the top, I Googled Lev Parnas lied basically about meeting the president and look what comes up.
Donald Trump says he doesn't know Lev Parnas.
Parnas says he has pictures with Trump.
Lev Parnas photos with Trump and family despite President's denial.
Lev Parnas.
Trump is lying.
He knows me.
That's not what I googled.
I googled Lev Parnas lie about meeting the President.
How about that?
And Joe, you can't find these articles anywhere.
I'm shocked, Dan.
I'm not kidding, folks.
Yeah.
I am not messing with you.
I scrolled down probably six or seven pages of content and every article was about Trump lying?
I'm just putting that out there to show you.
Get ready for 2020, ladies and gentlemen.
Do you think Google You think Google's fair?
Fair and open, and again, does unbiased search results?
Google, Lev Parnas lied about meeting the president, and look what you'll get.
A bunch of articles about Trump lying about meeting Lev Parnas.
Now, how did I eventually get to the article?
Because I remember where I saw it in the Washington Examiner.
I put in Washington Examiner and the author and the actual article came up.
And this is the article right here, by the way, by Dominic Mastrangelo at the Washington Examiner.
Lev Parnas now denies speaking with Trump despite reports he claimed he had.
January 16, 2020.
You have to act.
This is amazing.
You put in in the Google search.
Again, because we do journalism, unlike Chuck Todd, who does Democrat activism.
He claims in his supposedly news show, Chuck Todd, to a Republican senator that, gee, how is it that all these people wind up so close in the Trump orbit?
Without noting at all that Parnas' statements about being inside the Trump orbit have been retracted by Parnas himself.
You think that's important?
But again, If you are out there and you're a soccer mom, a soccer dad, you work for a living, you're taking care of your kids, and you don't have time to keep track of where you read everything, if you Google that, does Lev Parnas know the president?
I thought he retracted that statement about meeting the president.
You Google it, that's not what you're gonna get.
Unbelievable.
Unbelievable.
You Google it, and that's what comes up.
Actually, totally believable, because we know what Google's up to.
Good job, dude.
I've got more.
Yeah, good job, dude.
Yeah.
Six pages of search results.
Finally, I got tired.
Very cool.
Very cool.
You know, the show takes three, four hours to put together.
Yeah.
I was at the second and a half hour.
I had to get other stories.
I'm like, I can't keep going through these pages here looking for this article.
And I said, where did I see this article?
Washington Examiner.
You will never find it.
Parnas's story is not true according to Parnas.
You think Chuck Todd may have noted that.
He's a news guy.
Whatever.
If you believe that, I'm really, really sorry, okay?
We do facts here.
We do data here.
But this is an opinion-based show.
We've never run from that.
And when we get something wrong, we correct it.
We've done it a few times.
But come on.
Don't take a leak on my leg and tell me it's a rainstorm out.
Please, come on.
I've had enough of that stuff.
How do these people wind up in Trump's orbit?
You may want to note that that story's already been discredited.
Of course you won't, because you have no credibility.
All right, here's Chuck Todd number two.
This is a fascinating lack of self-awareness.
Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the second dumbest media guy of all?
Me!
Chuck Todd, of course!
What a lack of self-awareness on this clown's part here.
Folks, I can't stand this guy.
He is... because he's such a phony and a... I almost feel bad for Stelter because he's such a pathetic human being.
Todd thinks he's the scion of modern journalism.
Yeah.
And he's nothing more than a two-bit liar.
Parnas is in Trump's orbit.
Parnas denied that.
Hide it in page 2022 of the Google search results.
Here's number two.
Again, total lack of self-awareness.
Chuck Todd asking David Perdue, Republican senator, If he has some kind of a problem with foreign help that he believes Trump was getting, despite the fact that we know now this is a debunked conspiracy theory, again, completely missing the point, as always, with Chuck Todd.
Check this out, and I'll put up some stuff afterwards showing you how stupid this guy is.
Check this out.
In 2014, if President Obama was calling Hong Kong, or calling governments, asking about you, and your business career, and your time living in foreign countries, going, this guy wants to be a United States Senator, we just want to make sure he's on the up and up, would that be a legitimate use of presidential power?
That's a totally improper characterization.
Now, Perdue goes on, but honestly, he gave a good answer, but his answer's not the subject of this right here.
I know you know where I'm going with this, so just hold your laugh.
I know you know exactly where I'm going.
I can tell, you have many different kinds of laughter.
I can almost translate them, like Dr. Doolittle.
I saw that at this with my daughter.
I really, I can talk to Armacost, his laughter, they're all coded laughs.
Chuck Todd, hilarious in his lack of self-awareness, actually has the gall to say, well, what would you do?
Would you speak out if Obama was asking foreign governments for help in the last election?
Chuck, did you miss this article by CNN or any of this stuff?
I mean, again, you pretend to be a journalist.
Here's a CNN article we use often on the show showing you how stupid the left-wing media is.
British intelligence passed Trump associates' communications with Russians on to U.S.
counterparts, i.e.
the Obama administration.
Oh, you're making me cry, dude.
I know you know where I was because we use this article all the time and Joe gets to kind of jump ahead like in his head.
Do you understand how ridiculous this question is?
Chuck Todd, who has never ever called out the Obama administration for documented known collusion as reported by CNN, no less.
Of an interface, an interchange of information between foreign governments and his administration about his political opponents.
Has the cojones to ask David Perdue, well how would you feel if the Obama administration did it?
What do you mean how would I feel?
They did do it!
Did you miss that?
I I, now to be fair, I don't even want to be fair because I can't stand this guy.
You have no idea, ladies and gentlemen, it's not personal.
It really, it's a professional thing.
I don't know that he's probably a loser in real life too.
I don't know.
I don't even care.
I have no interest in meeting the zero.
I'm just telling you, it's really not part.
I can't be proud.
I've never met him personally.
I'm simply telling you, you have a 2020 election coming up.
We are in, as you well know, a full blown Gaslighting super tsunami.
And it is up to you.
I know it's tough.
I know you all work for a living.
You have jobs.
You're conservatives.
You work for a living.
A lot of you volunteer.
You're in church.
You're at sport games with your kids.
You're feeding your kids.
You're cooking.
You're cleaning.
I know all that.
I know you're busy.
I'm here for you to give you the ammo that a lot of you simply do not have the time to put together yourself.
Whenever this question comes up, about foreign interference in the election, ask them if they had a problem with Obama's noted foreign collusion with the United Kingdom as reported by CNN.
If they don't, just say, why hasn't CNN retracted the piece if it's false?
You won't get an answer because there isn't one.
All right.
I want to move on to the impeachment.
I mean, you talk about drinking from a firehose this week between impeachment, Comey, this stuff, Virginia.
It's just and you see it now.
I mean, thousands upon thousands of Second Amendment supporters.
God bless you.
Well, of course, peaceful.
We're not leftists, so.
All right.
I want to get to impeachment.
Before I get to that, let me get to my, uh, my second sponsor of the day, because this impeachment thing McConnell, listen, as you know, me and McConnell have not always been the best of friends here.
We'd only see, see eye to eye and everything, but he's, there's a couple of good things going on.
I want to keep you briefed on as this impeachment trial starts tomorrow.
Today's show also brought to you by policygenius, policygenius.com.
Policy genius, ladies and gentlemen, it's January, 2020.
Listen, there's a lot of science fiction coming up, right?
A lot of people predicted in their science fiction novels that by now we'd be teleporting to work Jetson style, living on Mars, like that Matt Damon character in that movie where he has to make the potatoes and they all get burned.
And all his predictions were wrong.
Although he didn't really want to live on Mars.
They kind of left him behind.
The truth is, We always get the future wrong.
You know that!
Which is why we need to get life insurance right.
And this is the time now.
That's where Policy Genius comes in.
Policy Genius.
Policy Genius.
We love Policy Genius.
They made our search for life insurance super simple.
Policy Genius makes finding the right life insurance for you a breeze in just minutes.
Compare quotes from the top insurers to find your best price.
No need to search all around the internet.
Stop wasting your time.
You could save $1,500 or more by using Policy Genius to compare life insurance policies.
Once you apply, the Policy Genius team will handle all the paperwork and the red tape for you.
Come on, who's better than you?
Policy Genius?
This is the way to rock and roll.
Policy Genius doesn't just make life insurance easy, they can also help you find the right home, auto insurance, or disability insurance too.
Go to PolicyGenius today.
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 will always get the future wrong.
You better get life insurance right.
PolicyGenius.com.
Thanks PolicyGenius for supporting the show.
Okay.
So just a quick story from our good friends at the Daily Wire, Ben Shapiro's outlet over there.
So Mitch McConnell, we see, of course, this impeachment fiasco hoax is going to start tomorrow.
Can I just say one thing quick before I get started?
I know I kind of jump around on the show sometimes.
I think that's one of the endearing characteristics of it.
But I watched myself for the first time on YouTube.
If you want to watch this as an actual video program, If you have Comcast or your cable providers, you can go to apps on your menu, just apps and download the YouTube app and sign in and you can watch our show on your television like any other show.
I watched it for the first time and this is going to be weird because self praise totally stinks, but this is a good show.
I enjoyed it.
I'm like, that host is great.
I'm not messing with you.
I know that's horrible.
So I promise I do not.
This is not an ego thing.
I just really enjoyed it.
It's the first time I've ever watched myself.
It was really cool.
I flicked it on my TV.
It came up.
Joe, your tinfoil cap came up, which was funny around the big screen.
It was hysterical.
So YouTube.com slash Bongino.
If you actually want to watch the show, you can go to your cable system.
Just click the menu.
You'll see apps.
Just hit YouTube and sign in.
You don't even have to sign.
I didn't say you just watch the show on your TV.
It's really cool.
Really weird.
Subscribe to the channel.
YouTube.
Yeah.
Yeah, it was.
But I really enjoyed it.
I'm not even kidding.
I know that's horrible.
It's like wearing headphones for the first time.
You sound so different.
Yeah, right?
The tinfoil cap thing was hysterical.
Your face was like this big.
I have a big TV.
Oh, that's scary.
All right, so getting back to McConnell.
Sorry to get sidetracked.
But The Daily Wire is a good story about McConnell, including a kill switch.
In this impeachment trial.
Now, what's really going- I always like to give you kind of the inside scoop behind the scenes.
This is what I'm hearing.
So, headline by Ryan Saavedra, Daily Wire.
It'll be in the show notes today.
Bongino.com.
Bongino.com slash newsletter if you want to get the show notes delivered to your inbox every morning.
McConnell creates kill switch to end impeachment if it becomes a circus run by Adam Schiff.
Folks, here's what's really going on.
Yeah.
The Democrats, led by Schiff, Pelosi, and Nadler, they're relatively feckless on the Senate side right now.
You got Chuck Schumer, but they're nothing compared to the losers.
I mean, on a loser scale, Schumer's like an 8.5, Nadler, Schiff, Pelosi, they're like 10s.
So Schumer has a lot of loser stuff to do to meet their loser standard.
What's happening is Adam Schiff is one of the house managers in this case.
We already know he's a sleaze and a liar, and nobody really knows what Schiff's going to do because he has no integrity.
I mean it, I'm not joking.
You may say, well, we knew that.
No, no, I'm serious.
The Republicans are genuinely concerned in the Senate trial.
There's no case here, folks.
They're not worried.
There's no evidence Trump did anything.
We're not worried about that at all.
Copy.
The case is farcical.
I want to be crystal clear.
What they're worried about is Schiff just pulling more shenanigans.
Like, remember the time in the House impeachment fiasco where he got up there and he just made up this whole transcript?
You remember that, folks?
Sure.
Oh, yes.
Where Schiff was like, let me read to you this transcript.
Remember that, Joe?
And he just made the whole thing up.
Yes.
It's like, he did a Tony Corleone thing or whatever it was, or Don Corleone.
I don't even know.
I never saw The Godfather.
I know it's embarrassing.
But remember when he did that?
Yeah.
They're really afraid of that.
So McConnell's including this kill switch provision.
Now, it can't be implemented in any quote, meaningful portion of the trial.
So for the Democrats who are going to, you know, I know how liberals are.
They're going to jump at that and go, I know what he wants.
McConnell, the minute things get frosty for Trump and they start to get ugly, McConnell's going to jump in and say, we're going to kill this trial.
That's the liberal talking point.
That is categorically false.
Okay.
There is a specific provision saying that the kill switch cannot be implemented during any meaningful portion of the trial.
It is only in there to stop what they already know is going to happen, what the Republicans already know is going to happen, which is another Adam Schiff, Pelosi, Nadler clown show.
Where this starts degenerating into fake movie scripts and Don Corleone and Tony Corleone and Joey Bagadona's Corleone type transcripts that never happen.
They don't, the Republicans aren't having it.
I'm glad they have this kill switch and if it gets out of control, they should implement it and it'll put an end to this trial.
And it allowed Trump's, President Trump's defense team to call for a vote.
Good move.
As an insider said at the end, if you read the Daily Wire piece by Savidra, by the way, an insider up in Congress said to the, said to one of the Daily Wire's reporters, cocaine Mitch strikes again.
So read the piece for those of you listening to my show, you know, yeah, good, good for him.
I hope.
Yeah.
All right.
Enough on that.
I wanted to make sure we did get to the impeachment stuff though, because it is important.
This is a very important story I covered last week, which you really, It's a little complicated and getting more complicated, but it is so, so worth your time.
So I had addressed to you last week in my audience, this whole developing fiasco with Jim Comey.
And ladies and gentlemen, it's an enigma wrapped in a mystery, wrapped in a lie, wrapped in a media gaslighting narrative.
Here's the story in the Wall Street Journal.
Homan Jenkins, by the way, as I've said repeatedly, has been all over this story From day one.
If you Google Holman Jenkins, Wall Street Journal, Comey, you can read a library of probably 10 stories on this specific thing that he's been all over.
The title of the piece today is the Comey coverup unravels.
The FBI, the CIA, and the press all have much to be embarrassed about.
What happened?
I'm always hesitant to talk about this because it appears like
we're giving Comey a pass sometimes and we're not.
What?
One of the... Let me just throw it out there.
Did Jim Comey fabricate this whole Russian collusion narrative on the FBI side and allow himself to be misled by Brennan in order to cover his own tracks for getting deceived by fake Russian intel?
That's a lot.
That's a lot right there.
I get it.
But try to digest what I'm saying here as I walk through the pieces of it.
So let's go through piece number one.
So Jim Comey gives this press conference, July 5th, about Hillary Clinton.
I addressed it last week.
You remember the press conference?
He gets up there, lays out all the elements of the crime.
Hillary Clinton's team may have committed with the email server.
And then at the end of the press conference, he says, well, nobody would prosecute this case.
So Mrs. Clinton, goodbye.
See you later.
Thanks for playing, man.
We really appreciate it.
And everybody was like, wait, what just happened?
One of the budding, sprouting kind of narratives about why Comey may have done that is some Dutch intelligence officials in 2016 fed to the American government.
I thought Chuck Todd said this was no good, Joe.
I thought we shouldn't be dealing with foreign intel when it comes to elections.
Oh, yeah.
Some Dutch intel officials feed to the American government and the Obama administration.
What appears to be a Russian intercept of an email between Debbie Wasserman Schultz and some George Soros associated people, and in that email, Wasserman Schultz allegedly writes, hey, listen, like, don't worry, the fix is in for Hillary Clinton.
Loretta Lynch, the attorney general, is going to make this go away.
Follow me.
It's going to be a lot of info, but it'll make sense at the end if you keep the headline in mind.
Good so far.
Was Comey deceived by a piece of Russian intel, made a bad call, and then invented the collusion narrative to go back and create an excuse as to why he did what he did.
So track me here.
Okay.
The Dutch give this to us.
Hey, look, we've got this Russian piece of intelligence.
Now, why would that part matter?
Because remember, everybody, Comey, Loretta Lynch, all of them won.
They all want jobs in the what's soon to be Hillary Clinton presidential administration.
Nobody thinks Donald Trump's going to win, folks.
Put yourself in the mindset Three years ago.
Not the mindset now, where obviously we know Donald Trump won.
Nobody, nobody thinks he's gonna win.
They're all lobbying for jobs, and they all want to make sure, because remember, this is an important point.
Pay very close attention.
At one point during a Republican debate, Everyone's asked to raise their hand if they're going to support the election results.
Remember that?
Who's the only one who hasn't raised their hand?
Donald Trump.
Trump says, I want it.
Fairly enough.
Joe Trump says, I want to see what happens.
Why would I support a result if it's, if it's cheating?
Right.
Of course, all the other, you know, everybody else raised their hand because you know, that's just what they do with these stupid raise your hand things.
Right.
Well, Trump says, I'm not sure if it's a legitimate election, you know?
Yeah.
But if not, I want to, I want to see what happens.
The Democrats at the time, who are positive, the media, even Republicans are sure Hillary Clinton's going to be the next president, start to get worried, Joe, that what?
Not that Hillary's going to lose.
They're worried that the election results that they expect to be a landslide are going to be questioned by Trump and Trump's going to make a big stink about it after the election as a failed presidential candidate and cause Hillary a lot of heartburn.
Basically, Joe, they're worried Trump is going to do what Hillary, in fact, and the Obama administration did after Trump won.
Try to discredit the presidency.
Right, right, right.
They always accuse you of what they want to do themselves.
So, in order to get out ahead of that, Comey and the other spygate conspirators involved in this are concerned about clearing the deck.
In other words, let's get all this negative info out here.
Let's clear the deck now, that way when Hillary Clinton wins, nobody can say, hey man, why were you hiding this Russian intel about Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the DNC, you know, conspiring with Loretta Lynch to make the case go away.
You get it?
Yeah, man.
The Bureau's concerned, Jim Comey specifically, we believe, according to the story, he's not really concerned About anything other than clearing the deck for Hillary Clinton and making sure she gets to declare herself a legitimate president.
So he goes out, he gives this presser, he lays this all out.
And it's now believed he may have done so because he thought the Russians had this email.
What's the problem?
The email is believed to be a fake.
In other words, whether the Russians had this Debbie Wasserman Schultz email or not may be entirely irrelevant because it's not a real email.
Listen, I'm no fan of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and to be candid and lay the information out for you, we're not sure if it's fake or not.
Although, the people I trust and sources I have told me they believe it was a fake.
It was a disinformation campaign to get the FBI to do something.
Right.
To impact the 2016 election, which sucker Jim Comey, according to the story, fell right into the trap.
He comes out July 5th and gives the presser to clear the deck to make sure later on that this can't come out and that he cleared him and just to clear the deck on Hillary to make sure it's all out there.
What's the problem?
Well, Jenkins points out some interesting things in his piece.
Why has this not come out yet?
Well, he has a theory on one reason.
He says, listen, this particular narrative that this fake piece of Russian intelligence about this email may not come out because the Trump team doesn't want it out there either.
Not my theory, his, but again, I owe you all the information so you can formulate actual opinions.
Why?
Because nothing bothers the president more, and rightfully so, by bogus, spurious allegations that his election was illegitimate.
If a Russian disinformation campaign to produce fake intelligence was slipped into the FBI to get Jim Comey to make a rash decision about a press conference on Hillary Clinton, which impacted the election... Enigma wrapped in a mystery.
It will feed in to the leftist narrative that Trump wasn't legitimately elected.
It's not true.
There's no evidence to that at all.
Hillary Clinton couldn't find Wisconsin on a map.
But Holman Jenkins' theory here is that there's kind of bipartisan interest in making this thing go away.
It's a little twisty.
It's very twisty.
It's very, very twisty.
Yeah.
Take away one.
That takes a second.
Listen, dude.
Yeah.
Yeah, I think it does.
The Trump team isn't interested in this coming out either.
Now, takeaway number two, which is the important part, was Comey's efforts, feverish, desperate, frothing at the mouth efforts to make collusion happen, when he knew damn well by January of 2017, because he interviewed Steele's sources, and Steele's their only source about Russian collusion, Steele's sub-sources allegedly feeding him the information are interviewed in January of 2017.
Comey knows the case is totally bogus, so a lot of smart people out there have been saying, listen, Comey hates Trump, it's clear as day, he loves Hillary Clinton.
But Comey's not dumb.
Why would Comey continue to push and advance this Russian narrative, knowing he's been deceived by Brennan, and knowing he's been deceived by Christopher Steele, and knowing he has nothing?
Well, this fake Russian intel may provide a clue.
According to Jenkins, this is where it gets really interesting.
At some point, Comey figures out this Russian intel may be fake.
There's an allegation in New York Times that he leaks portions of that to the New York Times to give it some sense of seriousness and gravitas.
Okay.
To legitimize his actions.
But Jenkins says something fascinating here that were the Pfizer warrants and the spying operation on the Trump team, looking at the emails, reading pages, emails, getting the Pfizer warrant on page, trying to get a page of Pfizer warrant on Papadopoulos and others.
Was that an effort to hope and pray Joe fingers crossed that they found that fake Russian Intel there too?
Oh, oh, oh, oh, fascinating.
Fascinating.
Comey, in other words, an ex post facto way to justify what he did saying, hey, listen, we didn't get duped.
The Trump team was working with the Russians on a disinformation campaign.
Look, we knew it was disinformation the whole time, but the Trump team was working with them and they couldn't find it because they didn't have it.
Fascinating theory.
And it fills in a big hole.
You know, in my second book on this topic, Exonerated, which again, I hope you pick up.
Thanks for everyone who did.
I go through the motives of each and every player in this case and why I believe they did what they did.
Clapper, Comey, Brennan, McCabe.
But one of the open sores the entire time in this case has been why Comey, a guy who has been tactically smarter than this through his deviousness over and over in the past, he's not dumb.
Why he continued and continued to spy on the Trump team using this debunked dossier he knows is discredited, knowing one day it's going to come out that the information they're using to spy from Steele is a hoax.
The whole thing is a hoax.
Interesting theory by Jenkins that they were hoping and praying to find that piece of Russian disinfo in the Trump campaign too, as a way to blame this whole thing on the Trump team.
That the collusion thing is a total farce.
It was made up from the start, obviously, but that may have been his motive.
That is a absolutely fascinating, fascinating piece of information, which I got to tell you, I had not considered.
Okay.
All right.
I know that's a confusing story.
But just remember, Comey says the Russians have this piece of... And by the way, Comey's still hiding it to this day.
In Comey's book, when he talks about this piece of information that's so devastating it should remain hidden for decades... Yeah.
Do you understand?
He's talking about the fake Russian intel, about the Debbie Washerman Schultz email.
That's what he's talking about.
Okay.
Now he wants it hidden.
Why?
Because he doesn't want the American people to know he fell for a trick and basically lost Hillary the election.
According to their narrative.
All right.
CNN, ladies and gentlemen, blows it again.
Now, why am I going to cover this story about Puerto Rico?
Because I got a call from, let's just say, a family member.
I don't want to say who because he works in a union in New York and, you know, there are a lot of Democrats in there and I don't want to, you know, seriously, you have to worry being a conservative man.
God forbid you express your political beliefs to wear a MAGA hat.
You become the target for violence and harassment almost overnight.
But he said something interesting to me a while ago.
He calls me and he says, uh, yeah, Alice, I got this lady in my office saying Trump, you know, I, uh, he's horrible.
He screwed over to people of Puerto Rico was the worst thing ever.
Of course it was a devastating hurricane, uh, multiple hits.
And it was just terrible.
What happened in Puerto Rico was devastated.
Electrical grid, wiped out homes, wiped out, uh, you know, lives devastated and destroyed.
Listen, we live down in Florida and a hurricane zone.
These are really, uh, well, You go through a couple of them.
They open your eyes really fast.
So it was obviously a tragedy what happened in Puerto Rico.
But the woman had told this family member of mine that, yeah, Trump really screwed over everybody in Puerto Rico.
And where did she get that narrative from?
Of course, she got it from media folks like CNN and elsewhere.
So I had tipped the One America Twitter account, which I retweeted this morning.
They had this interesting little side-by-side of another Google search by CNN about Puerto Rico, and a tweet we just saw from CNN about Puerto Rico, too.
Remember, the liberal narrative, Joe, was always, well, was it?
Puerto Rico's a mess right now because Trump screwed them over and didn't get the aid there in time, and it was Trump, Trump, Trump that did it.
Yep, yep, yep.
So here's the Google search.
Puerto Rico will be an enduring stain on the Trump presidency.
CNN.com.
Federal response to Hurricane Maria slowly takes shape.
CNN politics.
New Puerto Rico death toll amplifies Trump disconnect on relief efforts.
CNN.com.
Those are CNN Google searches for how Trump really screwed over the people of Puerto Rico.
Really?
Let's look at this new CNN tweet that I've apparently totally missed the disconnect here, and I assume they won't go and retract any of their other articles.
CNN breaking news!
The governor of Puerto Rico fired the emergency manager hours after a warehouse was discovered filled with supplies thought to be from when Hurricane Maria hit the island.
What?
Crazy!
Crazy how that happens!
That's nuts!
And here's what they do.
Joe, here's the scam.
Now that the President Trump screwed over the people of Puerto Rico narrative is calcified, it's dried cement, everybody already believes it, now they're okay as a fake news outlet to wait Years after it happened, now they're okay to go back and report that what they first reported was false.
They won't retract any of it because there's no penalty now, Joe.
Because you remember the old adage, a lie travels around the world, right?
Yes, yes it does.
Before the truth gets their pants on and laces up the boots, right?
That is absolutely true.
There's no penalty now for CNN to pretend it does news?
Yeah, by the way, it wasn't exactly Trump who screwed up, it was the emergency managers in Puerto Rico after we delivered all the aid.
Now you're A-OK.
Because you're past the midterm elections, people already believe that's true, including probably the lady who deals with this family member of mine, who probably still believes it's true that President Trump didn't provide aid to the people of Puerto Rico, despite the fact that the aid sat in a warehouse, people have been arrested for corruption, and the emergency manager's now been fired.
Again, don't let that narrative get in the way of the truth.
Still continue to blame Trump, because that's just what you do.
You lie, repeatedly, over and over, and you can count on CNN to provide the bogus mental ammunition you need to continue the lie going forward.
What a hunk of dog.
I mean, seriously.
All right, I want to talk about the New York Times.
I'm going to get to that.
New York Times is levying their endorsement.
Don't go anywhere, because there's a tactical reason for the New York Times' presidential endorsements.
They did something.
I want to give you an update on that GAO story.
But before we get to that, our final sponsor of the day, Genucel!
Genucel is Chamonix's New Year's inventory clearance sale.
It's been extended for another week.
Kick off the new year by looking younger than you ever have.
Guaranteed to get your money back.
Just listen to Beverly from Huntsville, Alabama.
OMG, love this product.
Saw a difference the second time I used it and I recommend it to everyone if they have a problem with their jawline.
Get ready, Joe.
Everybody looks forward to this part of the read.
Okay.
Just like Beverly, see that double chin and turkey neck?
Hit the mark perfectly.
Disappear with the famous GenuCell jawline treatment with MDL technology.
Joe, next time, I want you to go back and forth your turkey neck version and the audio turkey neck cut.
Because people really like your turkey neck.
They think it's getting better by the day.
Get rid of the turkey neck!
Get rid of it!
I'm not messing with you.
I get emails about it all the time.
Order right now on the classic GenuCell for eye bags and puffiness is yours free.
Plus, GenuCell's immediate effects for results in 12 hours.
Get that, too.
During this inventory clearance, you get the incredible GenuCell Eyelid Lift for drooping eyelids, also free!
Go to GenuCell.com, enter my discount code DAN30 at checkout, order today, and get GenuCell XV Anti-Wrinkle Treatment, also free.
All orders will be automatically upgraded to priority shipping for free.
That's five free gifts.
Order now.
Go to genucel.com, G-E-N-U-C-E-L, and enter my discount code DAN30 at checkout.
That's genucel.com, genucel.com.
I do, I'm not messing with you.
I get emails, people like they'd laugh.
They think you're a turkey dick.
It's evolved.
First you had like a little wee gobble gobble, now you've gotten so much better at it.
When it was necessity, the machine broke.
Remember that?
I know, the first time, that was so funny.
Gobble gobble!
Compilation of Joe's turkey neck reads.
on the Dan Bocci and Clips channel.
Gobble, gobble.
Do a compilation of Joe's turkey neck reads.
Yeah, that'd be good.
All right, getting back to this.
So the New York Times has made their presidential endorsements.
By the way, can I just say, newspapers should not be in the endorsement business.
I get it.
It's the opinion and the editorial boards that do it.
Just stay out of it.
If you're doing journalism, dude, I know it's been a, you know, a decades long thing.
Why are we involved in this at all?
Seriously?
Nobody cares what the editorial board of the New York Times thinks.
Or any other newspaper for that matter.
I'm sorry.
I agree.
People make their own decisions.
Yep.
Right?
Get out of the bit.
What's the point?
Just stay out of it.
I mean, you're supposed to be doing journalism.
Who thought this was a good idea?
But here's a tweet from the New York Times.
And I want to tell you again, as we always do on this show, what's really going on behind the scenes with this New York Times editorial board endorsement.
Let me read the tweet at New York Times.
The editorial board's decision to back not one, but two candidates is a significant break with convention.
One meant to address the realist and radical models being presented to voters by the 2020 Democratic field, the editorial says.
Okay.
Oh, come on, dude.
Yeah, I know.
I know.
I can sense in your groan the frustration because if you're going to get in the stupid business of endorsing candidates as a journalism outfit or in the New York Times, even as a fake journalism outfit, Then the whole idea of an endorsement, Joe, call me crazy here, is to pick one.
Yes!
I'm just throwing that out there.
Right!
Here's what I'm going to do.
I have a bunch of friends who are running for office in Congress and everything like that.
If they were running against each other and it's a two-person race, I'm going to endorse both of them.
I endorse Joey Bagadonitz and Bobby Bagadonitz in the Florida 18th District.
They're both great kids.
What's the point of an endorsement then?
Bingo.
Pick one.
One.
One.
That looked kind of weird again.
Just pick one.
Make a decision.
Now, why are they picking two?
Again, as always, I will give you the backstory about what they're really doing.
The New York Times, through their fake news and Russian collusion, hoaxes and conspiracy theorist promotions, and their nonsense, they really, really hate Donald Trump.
A lot.
That is not, of course, breaking news.
So the way to damage Donald Trump is to get rid of what the New York Times editorial board thinks are the weakest candidates in the field to create a better matchup for Donald Trump.
They believe at this point that the best matchup for Donald Trump clearly is Elizabeth Warren.
So you may be saying, well, if the New York Times endorsed Elizabeth Warren... Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't tell you who they endorsed.
Forgive me.
Talk about burying the lead.
Yeah.
Didn't say that in the tweet.
They endorsed Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar.
Why would they do that?
Well, they believe clearly Warren has the best shot.
I disagree with that.
But in order to do some maximum damage on the Democrats' side to get rid of people they think don't have a shot, They created this double endorsement system, and how does that work?
Well, to understand how that works, the New York Times clearly has adopted the Dan Bongino three-lane theory on how elections work.
In every election cycle, just about, at the presidential level, you will see three lanes develop.
You will see an establishment lane, An ideological lane, you know, a very right-leaning or very left-leaning person, like a Tea Party person versus a socialist.
You get it?
Yeah.
So an establishment pick, like a Mitt Romney type, an ideological candidate, and you'll pretty much always see an outsider as well.
The list goes on and on.
Steve Forbes, Herman Cain, Donald Trump.
We've seen these candidates over and over.
Those three lanes are typically, the people who lead those lanes, if they're authentic, can win an election.
The problem the Democrats are having right now is the people at the top of those lanes are disastrous and will likely lose to Donald Trump.
Joe Biden is the head of the establishment lane.
Biden cannot get out of his own way, folks.
I'm not going to do a montage of Biden's faux pas.
The show would be two hours long.
Biden doesn't even know what state he's in.
He's a complete disaster.
He is just falling apart on the campaign trail.
Nuff said.
So establishment lane, big trouble for the New York Times that wants Trump defeated.
Get it?
Yeah.
The radical lane.
Being led by who right now?
Bernie Sanders.
Bernie Sanders, yeah.
Surging in the polls.
Bernie will, ladies and gentlemen, it will be a disaster in the general election.
America is not a socialist country.
Bernie Sanders is beyond radical.
He is a communist.
This guy is a total train wreck.
Even the New York Times sees this guy as trouble.
They see Warren, even though she's espousing some of the same policies, as being more of a pragmatist.
And the New York Times with a wink, I'm not saying that.
This is what they're thinking.
I know it.
They think she's more of a pragmatist.
And when she gets to the general election, she's going to say, yeah, all that stuff I said, like Bernie in the primary, I didn't really mean any of that.
Let's go back to being kind of normal Elizabeth Warren, air quotes.
You get what I'm saying?
So they need to knock Bernie off the radical post.
The outsider lane right now is occupied by Buttigieg, who just has no experience, and the experience he has as the mayor of South Bend, Indiana is disastrous.
He'll get crushed, too.
So how does that tie into the story about the New York Times strangely endorsing two candidates?
They want Warren, so that's easy enough.
They endorse Warren because they want her.
They think she can win.
Simple.
But why endorse Klobuchar, too?
What lane is Amy Klobuchar supposedly in?
Think.
Think this one through.
That's right.
The establishment safe pick lane.
Klobuchar is thought to be a moderate.
She's not.
She's a hard leftist too, but whatever.
The media is painting her as a moderate.
You know, this, uh, this rural kind of outdoorsy Senator who just has a feel for the average working person.
So if the New York times endorses Klobuchar to knowing she has what chance of winning unless she finishes top three in Iowa, she's going to be out soon too.
Why would they do that?
Because they want to sweep Biden out of there.
And they feel like if they boost Klobuchar in the establishment lane, remember the three lanes, radical establishment outsider, I probably should have done that in reverse.
You get the point.
If you're watching me on YouTube, it would have been different if it was the other way.
Yes.
Radical establishment outsider.
The way to damage Biden is to split the establishment vote.
And unfortunately right now, there's nobody really doing that in the early primary states.
The establishment lane is almost solely occupied.
Again, with the Comey story, this is an enigma and a mystery, but it's not that hard to follow.
The socialist vote is being split, Warren and Sanders.
Big trouble for both of them.
You don't want the split vote.
You want to consolidate your vote.
A lot of these are plurality elections where you only need to have more votes than the next guy.
You don't need a majority.
If you split the vote, you're in a world of trouble.
They need Biden to split the vote too.
So they're trying to boost Klobuchar by doing this stupid double endorsement to give Klobuchar a little bit of a head of steam to hopefully pull enough votes away from Biden that Warren can slide ahead in Iowa with like 21.1% of the vote.
Makes sense?
Yes, it does.
That's what's really going on here.
Because they hate Trump.
And they're throwing all of their old rules out the window.
Double endorsements for a candidate who has absolutely no shot at winning.
It's absolutely absurd.
Totally ridiculous.
Alright, one final story.
Again, it's always a busy News Weekend on Monday.
And again, I appreciate your patience this week.
Please don't miss the shows.
We're going to be trying to get around some stuff here.
But there was a fascinating story in the Wall Street Journal.
Remember the GAO bombshell allegations from the GAO, of course, supposed to be a non-partisan office that works for Congress, where they said, we think Donald Trump broke the law by not releasing the aid to Ukraine.
Well, it's funny because the aid was supposed to be released by September 30th and the aid was released September 12th.
So kind of crazy.
And they release it right as some of the impeachment articles or the impeachment articles, excuse me, were being delivered to the Senate.
So GAO is the perfect example of the swamp.
And this Wall Street Journal article has more by James Freeman.
What did the GAO staff and when did they know?
And when did they know it?
Judging the organization by its own standards.
Another fascinating article.
So a couple of things about the GAO.
We have an article I just tweeted out this morning from Matt Palumbo at Bongino.com, our resident fact checker, where he shows that the GAO accused Obama of breaking the law seven times!
Instead of Joe Biden.
Seven times!
Of course, there were no calls for impeachment then because, you know, Obama was a protected class.
He was a Democrat, and Democrats are never to be attacked by the media.
So, uh, this was conveniently timed, but an interesting snippet by James Freeman, where he quotes this member of Congress who says, this is fascinating because under section 686, the GAO shall make a report on the deferral to both houses of Congress.
The GAO report then operates as if it were required notification from the president.
That gives Congress 45 days to act.
Follow me here, folks.
Or if the notice comes with less than 45 days remaining in the fiscal year until September 20th.
Here, by not acting until the fourth month of the following fiscal year, conveniently, right as they deliver the Articles of Impeachment, Joe, GAO failed to do what the law, Section 686, requires it to do.
Is there an impeachment process for GAO officials, too?
So just to be clear, by law, the aid should have been delivered by September 30th to Ukraine.
The Trump administration delivers the aid by September 12th.
12th, 30th, 12th, 30th.
GAO, conveniently on the days the impeachment articles are delivered to the Senate, just drops in this little, we think Trump broke the law nonsense.
Total garbage, completely made up.
Now we find out that that notification, if they felt that this deferral was breaking the law, should have been made within 45 days.
Shockingly, Joe, they wait four months right as the impeachment articles are delivered to the Senate, breaking the actual law themselves.
That's crazy.
See how that happens?
That is crazy.
Totally nuts.
I don't get it, man.
Of course we all get it.
It's obviously just another deep state swamp scheme to take out and kneecap President Trump and his administration.
Pathetic, transparent, see-through.
But if you've been listening to this show, you already know it's complete total hooey.
All right, folks, thanks again for tuning in.
I really appreciate it.
Today's Martin Luther King Day, and I really wish going forward, I know we hear it often, but the content, the character, you know, I really wish we could get back to that.
The words of King should matter.
On a day like today, we should all reflect on that, and it's really sad that some people can't get through that.
Content, the character, it matters.
Identity politics stuff is going to tear us apart.
Thanks for tuning in.
Please subscribe to our YouTube channel, youtube.com slash Bongino.
Trying to get to 400,000 subscribers.
We are almost there.
And subscribe to our newsletter, bongino.com slash newsletter.
