In this episode, I address the media’s silly attempts to resurrect the Russia hoax now that the Trump administration is zeroing in on Spygate. I also eviscerate the silly claims that the booming economy is due to Obama policies. Finally, I address the real Ukraine scandal the media wants to go away.
News Picks:How convenient. The day after the disastrous Democrat debate the media resurrects the Russia hoax.
Why did this Mueller team offer a sweetheart deal to this George Soros’ business rival?
Trump’s economy is the economy Obama always wanted.
Elizabeth Warren, who said she would take any support from super PACs, is now taking support from super PACs.
California’s anti-Uber law is blowing up in the lawmaker’s faces.
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.
The Russia hoax is back, ladies and gentlemen.
It is back again.
As I said on Twitter yesterday, the Russia hoax is like the Jason Voorhees of hoaxes.
Remember Jason?
Oh yeah, man.
Every Friday the 13th, the Jason Voorhees of hoaxes.
Sequels just keep coming.
You think it's dead?
And Jason keeps coming back just like the Russia hoax.
Folks, today's show is sponsored by ExpressVPN.
Stop putting your online data at risk.
No good.
Go to expressvpn.com slash Bongino today.
All right.
Welcome to the Dan Bongino Show.
Producer Joe, how are you today?
Fine, sir.
It's Friday.
That's right.
It is, man.
Fine, sir.
Folks, there is so much going on today.
I am going to just nail to the wall these media lunatics that, again, have totally misinterpreted a bunch of intelligence that was given to the House and then to President Trump later, how they've used it to again resurrect the Russia hoax.
But I want to tell you why.
Something happened that's very important.
Don't go anywhere.
Very important show today.
All right, let's get right to it.
Today's show brought to you by our buddies at Life lock.
Hey, tax season can be a pain, but it's all worth it when you open the mailbox and you see that one envelope you've been waiting for.
Unless it turns out that somebody else has already filed your tax return.
Can you imagine?
This happens all the time.
We used to investigate this in the Secret Service.
We'd get the calls.
Where's my check?
Well, someone else already cashed it.
Sorry.
During tax season, your personal info, like your name or social security number, may be emailed and shared more than usual.
Criminals can steal info from your devices and sell it on the dark web or use it to commit identity theft.
This actually happened to me.
It was a really horrible moment in my life.
It took me a long time to clear it up.
You need LifeLock, the number one most recognized brand in identity theft protection.
They're fantastic.
LifeLock monitors for uses of your personal info, alerts you to possible suspicious activity.
We got a text the other day about a credit check.
Luckily it was legitimate, but LifeLock was all over it like that.
If you become a victim of identity theft, a dedicated identity restoration specialist will work to fix it.
No one can prevent all identity theft.
Nobody.
We monitor every transaction, all businesses.
But having LifeLock means one less thing to stress about during tax season.
I love LifeLock.
We use it.
My family has it.
I have it for my kids too.
Join now and save up to 25% off your first year.
Just go to lifelock.com slash Bongino.
That's lifelock.com slash Bongino.
B-O-N-G-I-N-O for 25% off today.
Don't let your data get out there.
Get the protection of LifeLock.
LifeLock.com slash Bongino.
All right, Joe, let's go.
And they're off!
A couple quick announcements.
As I said yesterday, I will be in for Sean Hannity tonight on Fox.
I would deeply appreciate it if you would tune in or set your DVR.
Set your DVR.
I may have them out wrong.
Thank you.
You always make us number one when we're in there.
I really appreciate your support.
So please watch the show, 9 p.m.
Eastern time, Fox News Channel tonight.
I'll be in for Sean, headed up after this.
A show and also my interview with Jocko Willink yesterday.
We taped it, Leadership Strategy and Tactics, his new book.
Absolutely terrific.
You're going to want to see that.
We will launch it on a Saturday morning or so.
Joe, they're working on it now.
Drew and Joe.
Yeah, Saturday morning.
And Paula.
So it'll be pretty, you're going to love it.
I promise you, don't miss this one.
All right, so let's get right to it.
The New York Times has resurrected the Russia hoax.
Now, Before I get into why they're doing it, which is the critical question, let's get into what they're actually doing and how, again, and I'm very sorry I brought this up yesterday.
I'm not kidding.
I'm not being sarcastic or silly or dopey or, you know, I'm not trying to mislead you.
I'm very sorry for you.
I'm sorry.
I empathize with you.
I feel bad for you if you actually believe that what you're getting from media outlets like the New York Times, Washington Post, Politico, CNN, MSNBC, and elsewhere is news.
If you believe that's news, journalism, based on facts and data they're trying to relay to you, I feel bad for you.
I really do.
My apologies.
You're being subjected to an ongoing, never-ending, Pravda-like, gaslighting, lying campaign because they're trying to advance a very specific narrative in line with the liberal agenda, which is to take down Donald Trump.
It's obvious.
This isn't rocket science, or as I jokingly say sometimes, it's not rocket surgery.
It's just not.
Let's go to the New York Times piece.
So, this broke yesterday.
It was all over the place.
CNN was like, MSNBC, you know, oh my god, Russia's back!
The Russians again!
Oh, Russia, Russia, Russia!
So, headline, New York Times, Lawmakers are warned that Russia is meddling to re-elect Trump.
A classified briefing to House members is said to have angered the president, who complained that Democrats would weaponize the disclosure.
Hilariously, look at the byline on this.
Look who wrote this piece.
Adam Goldman, collusion hoaxer.
Maggie Haberman, another collusion hoaxer.
Folks, how many times, how, how, how many times are we going to get played for suckers by these people?
How many times?
Again, I'm going to explain to you in a minute why this is coming out now.
But folks, let's get into what the article says and what really happened.
I've got the kind of behind-the-scenes scoop on what really happened.
And of course, it's nothing what Maggie Haberman and Adam Goldman noted collusion hoaxers, fake news specialists.
It's nothing like what they're writing in this article.
It's not what happened at all.
Of course.
This is not a journalism piece.
This is a fiction tale.
Let's go to takeaway number one, one of the opening paragraphs of the piece.
From the New York Times.
Quote, intelligence officials warned House lawmakers last week that Russia was interfering in the 2020 campaign to try to get President Trump re-elected.
That is false, okay?
That is not what happened.
It goes on.
Five people familiar with the matter, guaranteed, by the way, folks, to be Democrats, said a disclosure to Congress that angered Mr. Trump, who complained that Democrats would use it against him.
Okay, let's get into this first.
Are these sources the same sources that told you that Spygate was real and that Trump was colluding with the Russians as stated in the dossier?
That's now worth, uh, not even, I wouldn't even use it as toilet paper.
You may get a rash.
Are these the same sources that told you Spygate was a hoax and collusion was real?
We're supposed to take the New York Times.
I'm just, folks, I'm just asking you.
We're supposed to take the New York Times that relentlessly and ruthlessly promoted the now thoroughly discredited dossier and collusion hoax based on it.
We're supposed to take them seriously that their same sources that told us that lie are now telling the truth that Russia's meddling again in 2020 and it's to elect Trump.
Keep in mind.
And a great point was made last night on Fox News, and forgive me for the life of me, I cannot remember who said it.
I looked at Paula, we were watching Laura Ingraham.
Oh, it was Devin Nunes!
Devin Nunes.
Hat tip, Devin Nunes.
He was on Laura Ingraham's show last night.
I had done Hannity, went to bed, was watching it.
I looked over at Paula, I said, that's a great point.
Actually, I didn't say that.
I'm sorry, Paula.
But I was thinking that.
Paula, you were ready to fall asleep.
And I wanted to tell you, but I didn't want to wake you up.
But I was thinking of telling her that.
I'm not kidding.
Nunes said, isn't it amazing, Joe, how we've had an election since Trump's election?
We did, right?
The 2018 midterms?
Did everybody miss that?
A third of the Senate was up and the entire House of Representatives was up, which is, you know, it's up every two years.
Remember the 2018 elections?
Liberals forgot that.
Yeah.
Liberals did very well.
Matter of fact, Democrats retook the House.
Right.
Joe, you know what's amazing?
As Devin Nunes brought up?
Great point.
Serious tip of the cap to you, Congressman Nunes.
How come there were no rumors of Russian interference?
I thought the Russians were so powerful that they can tip elections.
But did you notice that narrative, Joe, only resurfaces when the Democrats are in trouble and may lose an election?
Like after a debate that was a real disaster for Democrats the other night.
Oh, that has nothing to do with it.
How about that?
How about that?
So Democrats win in 2018, do very well for themselves.
Yeah.
Yeah.
The Russians seemingly disappear.
No one hears anything.
But now they have a disastrous debate.
Nanny Bloomberg's falling apart.
The election's collapsing.
Bernie Sanders is the frontrunner.
And all of a sudden, the rumors again.
The Russians are back!
They're back!
And they want Trump.
Did they want the Democrats in the midterms?
Or did they want the Republicans in the midterms?
And the Russians are just so ineffective at doing what the media tells us they're so good at that the Democrats won.
What story is it, you media lunatics?
What story is it?
Either the Russians are interfering in elections, which they always do.
Point stipulated.
They always do.
I was a security professional.
We consumed intelligence for a long time.
Doesn't matter, I'm not hat tipping myself.
I'm just telling you, the Russians interfere in our elections, our political process.
They've been doing it for decades.
Point 100% stipulated.
Nobody's arguing that.
No.
What I'm suggesting to you is the media narrative is that the Russians are so effective at doing it that they got Trump elected seems to take a vacation when Democrats get elected.
So the Russians, what?
We're trying to get Republicans elected in 2018 and suck so bad that the Democrats won pretty overwhelmingly in the House?
No, no, they just took a vacation in 2018.
That's not what you're saying!
The media tells the Russians are there all the time!
What argument are you trying to make?
So now, of course, right after conveniently dreaded air quotes, conveniently after the Democrats have an abomination of a debate, all of a sudden this leaked to the New York Times, the Russians are meddling in 2020 and it's to re-elect Trump.
Let me give you the inside scoop.
So again, two takeaways here.
Number one, convenient how the Russians only take a vacation when Democrats win.
And number two, are these the same sources that told you about the dossier, Maggie Haberman, how great it was, and how collusion was real, and basically put egg on all your faces?
These the same sources?
We're just checking.
Because you have zero credibility.
Now let me tell you what my sources are telling me.
I mean actual sources, like real sources.
That's not what was said in this intelligence briefing.
To quote the New York Times headline, Can we put that headline up again?
I just want to make sure I get the precision matters.
I want to get the quote accurate.
The New York Times headline, my sources are telling me, is total garbage.
Lawmakers warn that Russia is meddling to re-elect Trump.
That is not what happened!
This is fake news!
What happened is, an intelligence professional from our Elections Interference Center gave a briefing And in that briefing, appeared to indicate that on a separate matter, not related to the Russians are meddling because they want to get Trump elected, on a separate matter indicated that the Russians think Trump is a deal maker.
And that they could potentially deal with him.
That he's looking for a deal.
Peace, prosperity, maybe some economic rapprochement here.
By the way, none of this is in any way controversial.
Trump's been looking for a deal with the North Koreans.
He's been looking to deal.
He's even offered a channel to the Iranians.
He's looking to make some kind of... They're opening up a channel right now with the Taliban.
It's not a controversial... I shouldn't say controversial.
That's the wrong word.
Precision does matter.
Because it may be controversial if someone doesn't agree.
But to people who don't agree with Trump's foreign policy, it's fine.
Fair enough.
It's not a secret is a better way to say it.
Again, precision does matter.
It's not a secret that President Trump is willing to deal with people at a deal-making table, even who are our enemies, if he thinks the United States may benefit from it.
That's not a secret.
No.
That the Russians have seen that does not mean that the Russians are interfering in the election to get Trump elected.
That's insane!
Trump has expanded Magnitsky.
He's expanded the sanctions regime.
He has armed the Ukrainians.
Again, policies you don't have to agree with, that's fine.
But suggesting those policies will benefit Russia is idiotic!
The sanctions he's levied against Russia.
A recent sanction against Gazprom, one of their largest natural gas providers in Russia.
Trump did that!
His battle against the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, from Russia to Germany, that would significantly benefit the Russians.
It's Trump fighting that.
Suggesting that the Russians are trying to get him re-elected by meddling, by misinterpreting what our intelligence interpretation of the Russians was, is downright idiotic!
Nobody said that, folks, nobody said that in the briefing.
This is fake news.
I'm telling you, what you're hearing is a lie.
That is not what was said.
That is a Maggie Haberman, Adam Goldman, colossal BS story because the Democrat debate was a disaster.
Democrat lawmakers, led by Schiff and others, need to change the narrative from the debate because it was that bad.
And the way to change the narrative from the debate is go back to the old tried and true Jason Voorhees of hoaxes.
Russia!
And suckers, idiots, imbeciles, cosmic level morons fall for it.
Basically, I'm talking about our media people.
That is not what was said.
Why the hell would the Russians support Trump over a communist in Bernie Sanders?
Does this make any sense to you?
You know, Libs listening to the show, I'm just asking you for a moment to take your dunce caps off.
I know they're like sewn to your skull, but just think this through.
Are you always this stupid?
You have a devout socialist who has professed his love for the Soviet system on recordings I've played on this show.
And you believe Vladimir Putin, a Soviet-style autocrat, wants Donald Trump, who has sanctioned the snot out of his regime and armed his political enemies, the Ukrainians, you believe they're meddling to get Trump elected rather than Bernie.
Do you realize what kind of a moron you have to be?
Oh, I'm sorry, you're being too harsh today, Dan.
Hey, I'm sorry I'm being too harsh, but it's true.
These media people are really this stupid.
That is not what was said in the briefing.
The Russians aren't stupid.
They're aware if Trump is re-elected that there may be a potential for a deal, like there's a potential for a deal with anyone with Trump, because that's what Trump does.
He makes deals.
That doesn't mean they prefer Trump over Sanders, or that they're engaged in some collusion scheme.
You're just making all of this up.
Again, folks, I'm not kidding.
I really, genuinely, sincerely feel bad for you if you are believing any of this garbage.
Do your own homework.
Don't trust anything these media people tell you.
This was a strategically timed leak after a disastrous debate to change an ad.
Let's go to the second takeaway from this New York Times report, because this is important too.
I'll explain to you how ridiculous this piece is.
I'm ashamed to even have to highlight this garbage.
Second takeaway from the piece.
Quote, this is a congressman, a Republican congressman, Mr. Stewart, who was in the briefing, declined to discuss the briefing, but said that Moscow had no reason to support Mr. Trump.
This is a Republican congressman talking.
He pointed to the president's work to confront Iran, a Russian ally, and to encourage European energy independence for Moscow.
Talking about the Nord Stream 2 pipeline I just referenced.
Stewart said, quote, I'd challenge anyone to give me a real-world argument where Putin would rather have President Trump and not Bernie Sanders.
Stewart said in an interview, referring to the nominal Democrat primary race frontrunner.
Folks, how dumb do you have to be?
Thank you, Chris Stewart, for stating the obvious.
You believe the Russians would prefer Trump, who is sanctioning the hell out of them, combating their pipeline, and arming Putin's opponents over a devout socialist who's praised communist regimes in the past?
Ladies and gentlemen, please, if you are a liberal listening to this show, wake up!
I love big R God-given rights.
And I will always, always fight for a free press.
Always.
But gosh, I tell you folks, it's hard at times.
It is.
I will never change my mind on it, but it is difficult.
We give them these rights because they matter.
The press should be reporting on government malfeasance, facts and data and real journalism.
But that also gives them the right to be stupid.
And do they have to take us up on that offer every single time?
How many times is Maggie Haberman and Adam Goldman going to promote this Russia hoax without asking any critical questions?
Like, uh, he wants Trump?
That doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.
Putin wants Trump elected.
Are they really this dumb?
Okay, now let me show you why this surfaced now.
So again, just to reiterate, my sources told me that is not at all what was said at the briefing.
It was simply an intelligence analysis that the Russians know Trump is a dealmaker.
That had nothing to do with their meddling to re-elect Trump.
That's just Maggie Haberman lying to you again.
But the second takeaway from it, why is Schiff and his intelligence crew desperately trying to change the narrative back to Russia?
As Tucker Carlson always says, Russia, Russia, Russia.
Why?
Why now?
Let me play this little montage, Zagrebian montage, about a minute 20 so long.
This is the media freaking out over the disastrous dumpster fire of debate that happened a couple nights ago on the Democrat side, where Bloomberg melted down, Buttigieg melted down, Klobuchar melted down.
Biden was, again, just a no-show.
Here's the leftist media response about this debate.
Now you know why they need the argument to go back to Russia.
Check this out.
I thought it was a great night for Bernie Sanders.
I thought it was a great night for Donald Trump.
I thought it was a terrible night for the Democrats.
The truth is Bernie Sanders is on its trajectory to be the Democratic nominee.
To me, I just don't see him having any shot in a general election.
I'm panicked.
I am absolutely panicked.
No one but Bernie, Stephanie.
Come on.
He's an anarchist.
He would love to burn down the United States.
If we nominate a socialist like Bernie Sanders, we're gonna lose.
It'll be like George McGovern.
It'll be a blowout.
Nobody just says the obvious.
Bernie, you're full of it.
They're just pandering to the Bernie people.
And you know what pandering gets you?
Nothing.
It certainly doesn't get you respect.
Tom Perez needs to step down.
He's a joke.
He's a clown.
He can't run the Democratic Party anymore.
It's lost its way.
I don't see how Democrats do anything but bleed out when they put a socialist at the top of the ticket.
It is a death sentence for the party and it will lead to Donald Trump's re-election.
That's not Republicans, folks.
Well, Steve Schmidt, who pretends to be a Republican, was in there.
and say, I disagree with socialism.
I believe in the markets.
I think he's wrong.
I think you'll never get it done.
And in this country, we'll never go that direction.
And by the way, we'll lose 49 states.
Corbyn didn't work in England.
Bernie ain't gonna work in the United States.
Anyone but Bernie.
That's not Republicans, folks.
Well, Steve Schmidt, who pretends to be a Republican, was in there.
He's really a Democrat, but he pretends to be a Republican.
Those were Democrat or left-leaning media types who see the writing on the wall.
Bernie Sanders could be the nominee.
There is a strong, strong possibility.
And although I disagree with Chris Matthews, he won't, Trump's, we're not going to win 49 states.
I'm sorry.
That's just not realistic.
But as I've been telling Paula and Joe often, I think the potential is there to win 38 or 39 states if Bernie Sanders is the nominee.
States we lost last time, New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, I think go back into Trump's column.
I think Minnesota goes back into Trump's column.
I think New Hampshire goes into Trump's column.
I think, you're gonna laugh, but I think in play, low probability, but even in play, would be New Jersey and Virginia.
Virginia, which has gone almost deep blue.
Yeah, I could see that.
But I think New Jersey and Virginia are... New Jersey, low probability.
Virginia's in play.
Yeah.
Folks, it will be a disaster.
Maine goes to Trump.
It will be a disaster for the Democrats.
Do you understand why they are now desperate to change the narrative?
Because if Bernie's the nominee, they know they will lose.
And when they lose, they can't possibly have the election being about idea versus idea.
Now, please follow me.
I don't want to get overly complicated.
This won't be, but just follow me for a moment.
The Democrats are socialists, all of them, okay?
That's what they do.
Don't believe the nonsense that they're really capitalist and, you know, Bloomberg.
I don't believe it.
They don't believe in it.
They are social.
They're hardcore socialists.
Some of them just disguise it better than others.
They never ever want an election to be about ideas.
That's why they always couch elections in terms of emotion.
Income inequality!
You're a racist!
They never actually say to you what they want.
You doubt me?
Hmm.
Before Bernie Sanders came along.
They never say to you what they want.
They never say to you, I want to tax you at 90%.
They never say to you, I'm gonna forbid you from choosing where your kid goes to school.
They never say to you, I'm gonna cancel your private healthcare because the government's gonna take it.
They never say that.
When they've tried things like that, McGovern and Walter Mondale, they have been annihilated in elections.
Because America's a liberty-loving country, period, full stop.
So what they do is, even though that's what they want, they disguise it in terms of hopey-changey, you're a racist, emotional nonsense, to get you not to vote for them because they know their ideas are a loser.
Excuse me.
They can't get you to vote for them.
They know no plurality or majority will ever support 90% taxes, government-run healthcare, and government-enforced schools.
They know that.
So they use emotion.
Hopey changey!
And the other guys are racist.
Hoping you'll vote against the other guy.
Not for them.
That you'll go and pull the lever for Barack Obama.
Excuse me.
Thinking that John McCain and Mitt Romney were racist and income inequality proponents.
They want to take all the money.
Please tell me you understand that.
They never want a race to be about ideas.
How does that go back to the resurrection of the Russia hoax in Jason Voorhees style?
Bernie's the first guy, who again, he's not authentic, he's a fraud, but he's consistently a fraud.
He has been consistent, and he will not back down.
He's gonna cancel your insurance, he's gonna tax you into Hades, and he's going to basically institute, you know, he's a warrior against school choice, and he's a warrior against the Constitution.
It'll be the first time these ideas will be out in the open, Joe.
Where they can't run from them, because Bernie's not running from them.
He's not using Hopi Changey!
He's actually telling you this stuff.
And when it's on the ballot, for the first time in a long time, basically since Mondale, and they get wrecked!
R-E-K-T!
Wrecked!
When they get wrecked in the election.
Remember, these are real socialists, all of them.
They do not want the narrative to be like it is in the UK right now after the Corbyn loss just cited in that piece.
They do not want the narrative to be Americans hate socialism.
Americans come out in droves against socialism, elect Trump.
They can't have that.
They can't have that.
So they're prepping the narrative again now?
Oh, we didn't lose because of the ideas.
No, no, no.
It wasn't socialism versus freedom.
That's not what happened, Joe.
The Russians did it again.
Again.
Listen to me, please.
Mark my words.
Check this show.
What time is it here?
10.33 Eastern time.
10.33 and 29 seconds.
I got the atomic clock.
Mark it.
Mark it!
That'll be the media narrative.
It'll be nothing about socialism losing.
Maybe you'll see a few sprinkled pieces here and there.
It'll be about, again, the Russians.
There's another reason they're in a panic though.
Oh, this one's special.
You may not be hearing this in too many spots.
I got a few tweets I'm going to highlight for you.
Before we get to that though, let me just get to my sponsor, but this is important.
It's not just that they want to stay away from, you know, they know they're going to lose with Bernie.
There's another thing happening that they have to resurrect the Voorhees narrative of Russia.
This is critical.
All right, today's show also brought to you by our buddies at Patriot Mobile.
Listen, I'm asking you to support Patriot Mobile.
You know why?
We talk a lot about supporting President Trump defeating the Democrats in the deep state, but what are we doing about it?
You know, I said yesterday on the show, the do matters.
Talk is great, but it's the do.
We don't have the luxury of looking the other way any longer.
We need to support companies who stand with us.
Patriot Mobile is the only cell phone service that donates a portion of your monthly bill To organizations fighting for the values you and I believe in, like the right to bear arms, life, religious liberty, and supporting our vets.
I know, switching cell phone carriers is scary, but Patriot Mobile makes it super easy.
You can keep your number, bring your own phone, or buy a new one and get the same reliable nationwide service.
Go to patriotmobile.com slash Dan today and get free activation when you use the offer code Dan, D-A-N, plus a free gift when you open a new line.
Or call their U.S.-based customer service team at 972-PATRIOT.
That's 972-PATRIOT.
That's patriotmobile.com slash Dan.
Patriotmobile.com slash Dan or 972 Patriot.
Offer code Dan.
Check them out today.
Stop giving money to these other companies that are fighting against us.
It's terrible.
Patriot Mobile.
They're on our team.
Patriotmobile.com slash Dan.
Check them out.
Okay.
So reason number one, they need to change the narrative from the disastrous debate and the fact that Bernie is their front runner.
But reason number two, the New York Times, the Maggie Haberman collusion hoaxer crew, they're resurrecting this nonsense.
Is because, well, let me go to the great Katherine Harridge and one of her tweets.
Katherine Harridge, who's a terrific investigative reporter, tweeted this out yesterday, quote, breaking.
Pay attention to these names.
A source close to the matter tells CBS News that National Security Council staffer Kash Patel, oh, remember that name, tapped to serve as senior advisor to Ambassador Rick Grinnell, who's going to be the acting intel chief to DNI.
Source says that the mandate to Grinnell and Patel is to clean house, including a top to bottom review of the DNI operations that expanded dramatically since 2005.
You know, I get a lot of these emails from folks a lot and I tell you, you know, feel free to vent.
I don't like the, you know, some of them just are obnoxious.
I wish they wouldn't do that when they eat, but that's okay.
Whatever.
I mean, if you're really upset about stuff, But people vent to me all the time, nothing's happening ever, ever, nothing's happening.
Listen, I wish, I can't tell you what's going to happen on the legal side.
Who's going to be arrested?
Who's not going to be arrested?
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't, I don't have meetings daily with Bill Barr.
I can't, I'm not in the justice department.
Again, why people get angry at me or the show or Molly Hemingway or Chuck Ross or others who've been exposing this thing is bizarre, but whatever makes you happy.
Things are happening on the political side, which Donald Trump can control.
He can't go out and arrest people.
Rick Grinnell, for those of you who missed it, who's a terrific guy, who's our ambassador to Germany, has been appointed as the acting head of our intelligence infrastructure, the DNI.
Catherine Herridge, who has impeccable sources, is not lying when she says Grinnell's been given the mandate to clean this shop up and start, quote, cleaning house.
But it's not just Grinnell that was in that tweet.
There was another name.
What was that name?
Oh, Kash Patel.
Many of you were thinking, Kash Patel, ring a bell.
Who's Kash Patel?
Oh, who's Kash Patel?
Kash Patel is one of the unsung heroes of the Spygate, the exposing of the Spygate scandal.
Kash Patel worked with the great Congressman Devin Nunes hand in hand.
And painstakingly did all the homework and uncovered the whole Spygate scandal, the FISA abuse, the unmaskings, what the Obama administration was doing in conjunction with Brennan to target their political enemies.
That was Kash Patel.
Ladies and gentlemen, again, for those of you out there, nothing's happening ever.
It's a very small number.
Again, I love my audience.
I mean it.
You all mean the world to me.
I'm here for you.
I do this show for you.
It's not a criticism, I give you my email for a reason.
But I just encourage you again, stay vigilant, be angry, stay angry that the justice system isn't working very well right now.
Matter of fact, it's working horribly.
But on the political side, Trump can control.
He is finally making, now if we could just get rid of Christopher Wray at the FBI, things would be terrific.
Yeah.
There is a reason he appointed Grinnell.
Grinnell is a bulldog.
Patel Is the library of information the bulldog's gonna need, as Catherine Herod said her source told her, to clean house in the intelligence community.
I wish it would have happened sooner.
It didn't.
But it's happening now.
Now you see why the Democrats are panicking again, and they need to resurrect the Russia thing?
Folks, there's always a story.
Always.
That's what I'm here to do for you.
You don't have time.
A lot of you have really complicated, busy lives.
I'm here to translate all of this that's going on.
Now, you may say, how do you do that translation thing?
Well, typically I wait for sources to call and give me the inside scoop.
But what I do, she'll probably block me shortly.
I'm surprised she hasn't done it yet, by the way.
But whenever you want to see what's really going on, and the panic, you can always go to Maggie Haberman at the New York Times, who will relentlessly promote a left-leaning narrative.
But if you want to dissect the narrative, This one's not as bright as Maggie Haberman.
She's really not that good at disguising her intentions.
Natasha Bertrand from Politico is always there to show you what the left-leaning focus groups want you to believe, and she's not good at disguising it either.
Haberman's a little bit better, just marginally better at disguising.
Natasha Bertrand, no such luck.
Not very good at this at all.
Known Russian collusion hoaxter, hoaxter, Pravda-like gaslighter Bertrand.
She put up this tweet which clued me in as to, remember, her tweets are always a good indicator of what the left is worried about.
That's the point I was trying to get out.
Forgive me for being too circuitous about it.
Read Bertrand and you'll find out what the left is worried about.
So here's Natasha Bertrand from Politico, noted and discredited Russian collusion hoaxer Bertrand.
Quote breaking now.
This is great.
Cash Patel, a former NSC official who also played a key role as a Hill staffer for Nunes, by the way, and listen how she phrases this show, played a key role in helping the GOP discredit the Russia probe.
Nobody discredited the Russia probe.
They uncovered Spygate, you knucklehead!
But notice, this is what they're worried about.
Folks, listen.
I'm not messing with you, okay?
I should get a shirt.
I'm not messing with you.
I say that all the time.
I'm not messing with you.
If you ever want to know, because Bertrand's not even clever enough to Strategically word her tweets.
She just takes the focus group points right from the liberals' mouths.
When you want to know what they're worried about, go right to Bertrand.
Bertrand is terrified right now.
Absolutely terrified that Cash Patello has the keys to the kingdom.
He knows about the proto-dossiers.
He knows about Steele.
He knows about Steele meeting FBI agent Gaeta in London way before the FBI probe was said to have opened in July.
July 31st, the FBI says they opened up the probe, right?
Well, what was Christopher Steele meeting July 5th in London with FBI agent Gaeta for?
Oh, Patel knows all of that!
Patel knows everything.
And Bertrand is freaking out because she has promoted the Russia hoax to you for three years.
Patel also knows about the media's role in propagating the Russia hoax on behalf of Christopher Steele and others.
So they're aiming to discredit Patel and notice the language she uses.
Mm-hmm.
That they tried to discredit the Russia probe.
The Russia probe?
No, no, no.
They discredited the Spygate.
The whole Spygate hoax.
You heard that Spygate was, you know, Skyer, Spygate was a hoax.
That's what Bertrand wanted you to believe.
Patel and Nunes exposed you for being a hoaxter.
Spygate was real.
Your collusion narrative was a hoax.
She frames that, though, in the way the focus group wanted her to, because that's what she does.
Rather ineffectively, too.
I'm serious.
I'm stunned she hasn't blocked me yet.
I go right to her.
She's my go-to.
All right.
Moving on.
Does that explain it, though, folks?
I hope you got a full cornucopia of exactly what happened yesterday.
Don't buy into this.
This is just like the Freddy Krueger of Russia hoax sequels.
They're terrified right now, and they need to have a reason to lose the election, because they're going to lose at this rate.
All right.
Moving on.
Hat tip, James Woods.
You know the actor James Woods.
He's back on Twitter.
For those of you Bernie bros out there, again, who have a problem with this thing called arithmetic or math, if you don't know what arithmetic is, James Woods did a little quick calculation on his Twitter feed yesterday.
Hat tip to him.
And he put it up.
It's just supposed to show you how the Bernie's gonna give us free college, he's gonna raise the minimum wage.
How, when you don't understand cash flows, how the government only spends money it takes from you, there is no money fairy.
How, when you don't understand that, and you believe the government's spending money, is the government spending some money fairy-like money or something like that?
How, when you don't understand math and cash flows, you get confused by things like basic arithmetic.
So, Woods did this quick calculation, this is genius, and I hope you can retweet this and make this go viral.
Again, this is from his Twitter feed and I quote, he says, so Bernie Sanders said at the debate last night that he wants a minimum wage to be $15 per hour.
So follow me here, folks.
If you want to watch it on YouTube, youtube.com slash Bungie, you know, you can actually see it.
He did some math.
So $15 an hour minimum wage, Joe, by a 40-hour work week means you'd make $600 a week.
Fair enough?
Mm-hmm.
Times that by 52 weeks a year, if you get Bernie's $15 an hour minimum wage, you would make $31,000, $31,200 per year.
He goes on, James Woods.
He says, okay, so under Bernie's minimum wage, you're gonna make $31,200 a year.
Great, everybody's celebrating.
Minimum wage, free money, great.
So he says Bernie Sanders wants free healthcare for all and was asked how he would pay for it.
His answer was to raise taxes to 52% on anybody making over $29,000 per year.
Well, let's do the math!
Well, let's do the math. 52% of the $31,200 you'd make under Bernie's minimum wage equals $16,224 in taxes.
So if you subtract that amount from the $31,200 you'd be making under Bernie's minimum wage, you're left with your
pay being $14,976.
dollars.
When you divide that by 52 weeks, that means you'd make $288 per week, which means you'd be making below minimum wage right now, which is $7.20 an hour.
the minimum wage is $7.25.
[laughter]
That was so good.
Why didn't I think of this?
James, hat tip, my friend.
I'm slightly envious, I did not think to do this math earlier, but good content is good content, hat tips are hat tips, wonderful!
See, when you're dopey, and you don't understand that there's no money fairy, and that what Bernie Sanders is promising you to be free, healthcare and college, has to come from a tax pool that has to be paid for by taxpayers, When you don't understand that, you believe things are actually free.
When you're sane and rational, and you're not a Bernie bro, and you start doing basic math and you figure out that the government gets its money from you, you figure out that Bernie's plans are actually going to cost you a salary, they're going to impose upon you a salary below the federal minimum wage now.
But again, don't let that basic math get in the way of your argument that, hey man, feel the burn, brother.
All excited about the Bernie Bros.
Please make that tweet go viral.
I retweeted it.
Everybody, go to Twitter, follow James Woods, go to that account, and retweet the snot out of that thing.
Because there's no refuting it.
What he said there is mathematically correct.
You will be making less than the federal minimum wage now under Bernie's new $15 an hour minimum wage if he institutes his health care plan.
All right.
I want to get this Rudy Giuliani stuff.
You know what?
Can we do this just quickly?
Our last sponsor of the day is our good friends at ExpressVPN.
They sponsored the beginning of our show, too, as many of you have noticed.
We love ExpressVPN.
We use it in our house because we're interested in online privacy and security, folks.
It's as simple as that.
I don't want people, you know, out here logging on to our Wi-Fi system.
I just don't want it.
We are concerned in our house about online security and privacy.
There are tons of VPN providers out there.
You've probably heard of a couple of them.
Some of them, you know, you may have even used some of their VPNs before.
But we do research on our sponsors.
We don't mess around.
We only use companies we can recommend here.
And I only recommend ExpressVPN.
Here's why.
ExpressVPN is the best VPN on the market.
Couple of things, they don't log your data.
Lots of cheap VPNs make, they make money, believe this, by selling your data to ad companies.
ExpressVPN developed a technology called Trusted Server that makes it impossible for their servers to log on to any of your info.
Second, speed.
I've tried lots of VPNs.
Haven't we, Paula, they're crap.
Many slow your connection down and make your device sluggish.
We've been using ExpressVPN for years now.
My internet speeds are lightning fast.
Even when I connect to servers thousands of miles away, stream HD quality videos, no problem, zero lag.
The last thing that sets them apart from other VPNs is how easy it is to use.
Unlike other VPNs, it's not complicated installs.
There's a programming here.
You just fire up the app and click one button and connect.
So easy even grandma can do it.
It's not just me saying that.
TechRadar, The Verge, CNET and others rate ExpressVPN the number one VPN in the world.
So protect yourself today with the VPN that we use here and we trust.
Use my link, expressvpn.com slash Bongino.
You heard at the beginning of my show from now on, expressvpn.com slash Bongino.
Get an extra three months free on a one-year package.
That's ExpressVPN.com slash Bongino.
ExpressVPN.com slash Bongino today to learn more.
Go check them out.
Thank you.
All right, folks.
I've been teasing this all week.
It's important, and I'm sorry I haven't been able to get to it, but it's been such a stack-loaded Newsweek, sometimes things get put on the back burner.
But given its importance, I feel the need to put this out there.
There was an appearance last week by Rudy Giuliani talking about, again, what the Democrats are really hiding in Ukraine.
Remember, as Tucker says often, whatever the Democrats are accusing you of is what they're doing themselves, because they know they're media lunatics.
You know, the Habermans and all these other folks in the world will propagate their narratives and not be critical at all and not actually do journalism.
They're hiding something, but it's not just their collusion with the Democrats in the election where they were giving the DNC information used to target Trump operatives like Paul Manafort and where Nellie Orr from Fusion GPS says she was working with a Ukrainian lawmaker.
It's not even that.
That's bad enough.
There's other things they're hiding.
Notably, let's get right to it, a monstrous money laundering scandal.
Before I get to that though, I just want to put this Daily Caller article up too to show you how these names in Ukraine just keep creeping up.
Remember the name I was talking about the other day?
So Alan Dershowitz does an appearance on Breitbart Radio.
During that appearance, he says, hey, listen, people keep talking about people lobbying Trump for prosecutions and investigations and quid pro quos, but Dershowitz claims to have information that actually it was George Soros himself who was lobbying Obama to have people prosecuted, which sounds kind of like a quid pro quo to me.
Yeah.
And I suggested to you that that person was likely business rival to Soros, Dimitri Ofertas.
So look at this Chuck Ross piece.
Headline, report, Mueller's pitbull, talking about Andrew Weissman, who was Mueller's chief investigator, offered a Ukrainian oligarch a sweet deal to provide dirt on Trump.
Ah, crazy.
Who is that oligarch in Ukraine?
Dmitry Firtash, George Soros' business rival, who it's alleged by John Solomon's reporting, Soros wanted targeted, In Ukraine, and who I believe may be the person Alan Dershowitz was talking about, that Soros was poking around to Obama to get prosecuted.
You have to ask yourself the question.
This is going to be the focus of my third book.
Is our government for sale to the highest bidder or the highest donor?
Soros types?
Are we for sale?
How did Andy Weissman find Dmitry Ofertich?
Why do you find them so interesting?
Told you, the same names keep creeping up.
And many of them are in Ukraine.
Moving on.
So, talking about the Ukrainian scandal, how it's not just this information sharing, how they keep going to Ukraine for information on Trump, suspiciously, I believe they're hiding a massive money laundering scheme.
Follow the money, ladies and gentlemen.
Follow the money.
Always.
Let me start out with this article from Forbes to set this up.
There's this guy in Forbes, this guy, Okolomiski, if I'm saying his last name right, forgive me.
But this guy's interesting.
Forbes has this little piece on him, check this out, who he is.
His name is Igor Okolomiski.
And he says he founded this bank called Privatbank in the early 1990s.
It grew to be a key bank in Ukraine, handling more than a third of private deposits and serving approximately half the country's population.
Sounds like a pretty big bank, folks.
In 2016, Ukraine's government nationalized the bank.
An investigation suggested large-scale fraud at PrivatBank over a period of 10 years.
PrivatBank-Kolomisky.
PrivatBank-Kolomisky.
Interesting.
Reminds me of when Alec Baldwin hosted on the radio that time and screwed it up.
Interesting.
And he just kept saying interesting because he couldn't think of anything else to say.
So we have this guy in Ukraine, Kolomisky.
Let's make this real simple.
Who starts this bank, Privat Bank, that was investigated by the Ukrainian government for a massive fraud.
Okay, let's go to this Daily Wire piece, where Kolomyskyi and Privat are addressed again.
We'll see why the Democrats again are panicked about Ukraine.
This is part of their impeachment hoax.
Daily Wire.
Report.
New evidence shows Hunter Biden Ukraine payments were flagged as suspicious in early 2016.
Let's go to the screenshot from that Daily Wire piece.
This gets really special, doesn't it?
So the Latvian government, their investigators put out a memo which quote, identified a series of loan payments totaling about $16.6 million.
That were routed from companies in Belize and the United Kingdom to Burisma.
Oh, Hunter Biden's company.
That's really odd.
Through what bank?
So these payments are routed to Hunter Biden's company, Burisma, through the bank.
Oh, PrivatBank!
You mean the one that was under investigation for fraud?
How can that be?
Between 2012 and 2015.
John Solomon writes, quote, the flagged funds routed through Privat were partially transferred to Hunter Biden, a board member of Burisma since May of 2014, and three other officials.
Oh my gosh, what are the chances of that?
So just to be clear, the Latvian government's investigative unit flags suspicious payments Routed through multiple countries?
Why would you do that?
Folks, common sense here, take the vibranium coating off your skull.
Why do you route payments through multiple countries?
Thank you, Investigator Joe, wearing his investigator hat.
You're welcome.
Because when you route it through multiple places and multiple countries and multiple companies, as Joe just accurately stated, it makes those payments hard to follow when they reach the end user, which was in many of these cases, according to the reporting, Hunter Biden, son of former Vice President Joseph Biden, who of course was Obama's point man, In Ukraine.
So you're telling me a bank alleged to be involved in a massive, large-scale fraud is a key conduit in payments being transferred all around the world, totaling $16.6 million that wind up in the pocket of the Vice President's son, and where's the media on this?
Covering a fake Russian collusion hoax, Friday the 13th, Freddie Meets Jason, Part 62.
Because they're dunces.
It gets better.
Folks, Giuliani's all over this.
This is why the media is so terrified of Rudy Giuliani.
All over this.
Giuliani knows all of this.
So Giuliani last week was on television, former mayor.
And I'm going to play two cuts here.
Here's the first cut where he starts talking about, hey, the Latvian government thought this was awfully suspicious.
You know, like, why did we ignore this whole thing?
Check out what I have a document here. That's a smoking gun.
It comes from Latvia. It describes Hunter Biden's involvement in laundering 14.8 million
dollars. It's a government document of Latvia. 14.8 million dollars being laundered through
three different banks and disguised as loan. So he has a official government document.
It's not an email.
It's not some conspiracy theory.
No.
It's an official investigative document from the Latvian government about suspicious payments totaling, on that document, $14 million, routed through these specific banks I just referenced.
Nobody wants that document, keep in mind.
No one in the media... This is incredible, Joe.
Nobody in the media has thought to ask Giuliani, hey, can we take a look at that?
Is that real?
Because we don't have a media!
It's a joke!
We have a bunch of Teddy Ruxpins.
You drop a quarter in them, they tell you a fable.
We don't have media people.
I laugh at media people.
Don't ever call me a journalist.
I'll be deeply offended.
Ever.
I'll have to block you on Twitter immediately.
Journal?
I don't want to be in with those people.
Journal?
Are you kidding me?
Here's cut two.
Here's Giuliani talking about another media myth that, well, you know, okay, maybe there was an investigation, but when Joe Biden demanded the prosecutor in Ukraine, looking into all this stuff, the money laundering I just told you about, Giuliani just stated, so we're clear.
The media narrative, which is a myth, which it always is, is that, well, they had closed all that out when Biden wanted the prosecutor fired.
Why are they saying that?
It's obvious, folks.
Because if Biden, who was on tape saying he wanted the prosecutor in Ukraine looking into this fire, was still looking into it, any sane person's going to be like, well, of course Biden wanted the prosecutor fired because he was looking into these payments to his son.
So the media narrative has been, oh no, that investigation was closed down.
Ladies and gentlemen, that is categorically 1 million percent false.
The investigation when Biden demanded the prosecutor looking into this stuff Be fired was not closed down.
That is just false.
I don't know any other way to tell you it is false.
It is inaccurate.
Listen to Rudy Giuliani on that point.
On February 2nd, 2016, the investigator Shoken, who wasn't investigating, raided the offices of Burisma and put them under arrest.
On February 18th, he received a notification from the Latvian government that Hunter Biden was under investigation for substantial money laundering activities.
He had issued numerous subpoenas.
I have all the records of the prosecutor's office, so the Democrats can lie all they want.
It is a matter of record.
That Biden's son was under investigation.
And I'll shock you even more.
What about the UK, though?
Joe Biden was under investigation.
Again, folks, don't let the facts get in the way of another stupid media narrative.
Oh, that investigation was closed.
Biden just wanted him fired because he was corrupt or whatever.
It was closed?
It was closed.
So how come Giuliani has a stack of official government subpoenas from Ukraine?
The prosecutors fired in March of 2016 for those liberals who were confused about the timeline.
How come Giuliani has a stack of subpoenas and investigative documents and information about a raid that happened in February, a month early?
How did that happen if it was closed?
I don't understand.
If the investigation was closed, how is it that just weeks earlier, they're raiding people's homes, investigating this money laundering scheme, which may implicate people in the Biden sphere, and as Giuliani seems to indicate, Biden himself in this investigation, How is it closed if there are raids going on and subpoenas being issued?
I'm just asking, folks.
He has the actual subpoenas.
Do you understand, again, to reiterate the ongoing theme of today's show?
If you are reading the news, you are being lied to.
If you are not independently doing your own homework, you are being played for a moron.
The documents are out there for anybody to see.
They just don't want to see them.
Because they're liars.
The impeachment hoax and the fake Ukrainian quid pro quo was always an effort to get Trump out of office and destroy the reputation of Rudy Giuliani before this information eventually makes it into the mainstream press because they can't ignore it forever, folks.
There it is.
They can try.
It's right there, Joe, and I'm sorry it took so long to get this out.
It really has been just a heavy news week.
All right, I've got one final quick story, but it's in the show notes today, and I'd really like you to read it.
It's an excellent article in the Washington Examiner about, again, this continued, perpetuated myth that Trump's economy is due to Obama's policies, which is utterly, completely absurd and ridiculous.
You can always get the show notes by going to bongino.com slash newsletter.
Sign up there.
We'll email them to you every morning.
But this is a really good piece.
Check this out.
You can read it for yourself.
I'm just going to do a few quick takeaways.
It's their editorial board.
Trump's economy is what Obama always wanted, but never got.
They make three quick points.
And by the way, the Examiner is not some, you know, pro-Trump outlet.
They do news.
They just do the news of the day.
Check out takeaway number one.
Well, if Trump's economy is due to Obama, how come the CBO predicted that Obama's policies, if continued, were not going to do what they did?
It says here, better phrased this way, if it's a Trump economy, the Trump economy was achieved what Obama dreamed of and never accomplished.
One sign of this is that during his term, economic forecasters did not expect or project continued expansions after Obama left office.
In its last forecast before the election, the CBO projected unemployment would rise between 2017 and 2019, and that the labor force participation would continue to decline.
Ladies and gentlemen, the opposite happened.
Unemployment fell to 50-year lows, and the economy pulled people back into the labor force.
Again, don't let that get in the way of your dopey narrative that Obama's policies did this.
Takeaway number two.
Remember Obama?
We're all about reducing income inequality.
Nonsense.
He didn't do that.
Trump did that.
Quote, despite Obama's concerns about racial and wealth inequality, these gaps only began to close after Obama left office.
Again, folks, facts.
I know they're hard for the libs.
Under Obama, beginning in the second half of 2019, African Americans in the bottom 10% of workers saw their earnings grow only modestly.
Yet their earnings have grown twice as fast under Trump.
And under Trump, wages of black workers have grown faster than those of white workers.
And the bottom 10% of workers' wages have risen faster than the top 10%.
Again, I know this is tough.
Liberals, get your Pepto.
I know it's a Malox moment for you.
But you just continue to lie to people and it's just really sickening at this point.
Nothing you're saying is true.
Everything Obama said he did and lied about happened under Trump.
Black workers are making more, their wages are rising faster than white workers.
And the bottom 10%, our poorest Americans, our wages are going faster than the top 10%.
That's not under Obama.
That's under Trump.
Finally, as for Obama's claims that he was going to slow the rising of the seas that he wanted, the rise in global emissions continues in spite, in spite of America's free market economy, not because of it.
Annual carbon dioxide emissions from the U.S.
have continued to fall since Obama left office.
They fell in 2019 and are 14% below 2007 levels before Obama took office.
They are forecast to fall again in 2020 and 2021.
Folks, again, I'm sorry to have to give you facts and data all the time, but we've got an election coming up, and I promise you every argument being made to you by these liberal hoaxers and their media allies is chronic BS.
The Chronic.
Remember that Dr. Dram?
That was the best.
Man, when I was a kid, that was... He was referring to something else.
But still, people like, Paula, you like that one?
You should put more into that.
Who was your guy?
She was always in the clubs, like the Spanish clubs in New York.
You didn't listen to that stuff, did you?
I can't.
All right, folks, thanks again for tuning in.
I really appreciate it.
Do not miss my interview with Jaco Willink on leadership.
We get into everything.
Working out, Brazilian jiu-jitsu, stories from his time in the Navy SEALs, leadership lessons he learned.
It's a really terrific interview.
It's about 40 minutes.
I promise you're going to love it.
Go to youtube.com slash Bongino and subscribe.
You can see Jaco.
It's a video interview, not just a phone interview this time.
I think you'll really enjoy it.
Tune in to Hannity tonight, 9 p.m.
Really appreciate your support.
I'll be guest hosting for Sean, and I will 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.
