Can’t Miss Video Fireworks at the Presser (Ep 1227)
In this episode, I address the explosive video from the Trump press conference, where he annihilated a false narrative. I also address an interesting story asking the question “do economic shutdowns work?” Finally, I address an article from 2017 that we all should’ve paid attention to, now that we know the dossier was fake news.
News Picks:
More evidence that the WHO completely botched the response to the Wuhan Virus.
Conflicting advice was everywhere when the coronavirus hit, even with Dr. Fauci.
Do state shutdowns work? Are they effective?
The NY Times admits that the Biden campaign influenced its ridiculous edits to their alleged sexual assault story.
Revelations showing that the FBI never had a collusion case.
The national debt, tax collection, and government spending numbers are horrendous.
This 2017 article dismantles the idea that the dossier was an intelligence product.
Copyright Bongino Inc 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.
I have a, and I'm not kidding, I'm not joking, this is not me trying to do a Stephen Wright, Howie Mandel routine, a hilarious update to the New York Times retconning of their Joe Biden story.
I'm not kidding.
(laughing)
Oh boy, we got that.
I've got an interesting story at Medium about, hey, are these speedy shutdowns, are they working, these economic shutdowns?
The data should say something, right?
It's noisy, but I got a story on it.
And another update on what I talked about yesterday with this spy gate thing from an older article I've been dying to get to.
Today's show is sponsored by ExpressVPN.
Don't let prying eyes track your online activity.
Don't do it.
Protect yourself online today at expressvpn.com slash Bongino.
Producer Joe, how are you today?
Fine, sir.
Hey, man.
Welcome to the Dan Bongino Show.
Yeah, I'm right here with you.
Retcon 5.
It's just, you know, what level are we?
Retcon 5.
Here we go.
We are at Retcon 5.
That's right.
It's like Def Con 5.
We're at Retcon 5.
That's a good way to go.
Yeah, this is getting quite hilarious how they're trying to rewrite history, so we got that.
B-E-E was created specifically for small businesses.
You get a dedicated HR manager.
They can craft HR policy, maintain your compliance, all for just $99 a month.
Nice.
With Bambi, you can change HR from your biggest liability to your biggest strength.
Your dedicated HR manager's available by phone, by email, or real-time chat.
From onboarding to terminations, they customize your policies to fit your business, help you manage your employees day-to-day, all for $99 a month.
That's it.
Month to month, no hidden fees, cancel anytime.
You didn't start your business because you wanted to spend time on HR compliance.
We need Bambi.
We need a Bambi.
It really makes it easy.
Let Bambi help get your free HR audit today.
Go to Bambi.com slash Dan right now to schedule your free HR audit.
That's Bambi.com slash Dan.
Spell B-A-M.
B-E-E dot com slash DanBambi dot com slash and go today.
Fix those HR issues.
All right, folks.
Well, let's go.
Cannot step on the bell ever.
It is Joe's little signature thing we've done for all.
All right.
First story.
Number one update on the New York Times story.
So.
On a very serious story, yet a seriously hilarious response by the New York Times trying to defend their malfeasance.
So, for those of you who missed yesterday's show, a woman by the name of Tara Reid made some very serious charges against Joe Biden.
Allegations, again, everyone, our political enemies, doesn't matter.
Constitution matters.
You are innocent until proven guilty in a constitutional republic.
I don't care who the hell you are.
End of story.
But Joe Biden is entitled to the presumption of innocence, but some very serious charges were alleged against him by a woman named Ms.
Tara Reid, who alleges there was some inappropriate touching, totally inappropriate touching, Serious.
In the interest of keeping the show family-friendly, you get the idea, okay?
The allegations are gross against Biden.
The New York Times, in their tweet yesterday, I want to just redo the tweets because they have now responded as to why they did this, wrote in the story this, as evidenced by their tweets, which they've now deleted.
Here was tweet number one by the New York Times.
When they're writing their story about these allegations against Joe Biden by Ms.
Tara Reid, they say, well, no other allegation about sexual assault has surfaced in the course of our reporting, nor did any other former Biden staff corroborate Tara Reid's allegation.
We found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Biden beyond hugs, kisses, and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable.
What the hell?
WTH, over?
Huh?
You found no other pattern beyond a pattern of touching that made women uncomfortable?
Um, okay.
We discussed the issue.
I don't want to go.
Yeah.
Yeah.
That's their reporting.
Not myself on Gino.com.
That's a New York slimes, right?
The slimes then realizes that, Oh my gosh, this may reflect poorly on Biden, our own reporting.
So what do they do?
They come out with tweet.
Number two, deleting tweet.
Number one, we've deleted a tweet in this thread that, Oh man, had some imprecise language that has been changed in this story.
Mm-hmm.
Of course, even to be fair here, I hate that expression, but seriously, to be fair, even some liberals were like, liberal actors and people who were into the Me Too movement and promulgated the Me Too movement were like, wait, wait, wait.
What?
So, Ben Smith, who I don't think, honestly, he's not credible, but asked some honest questions, interviewed Dean, I always get his name, Baquet, or Baquet, I don't even care, the editor of the New York Times, and said, hey, daddy-o, what's the deal?
You waited 14 days to report this very serious allegation against Biden by Ms.
Tara Reid, and not only that, you deleted your own reporting on the story about a history of inappropriate touching.
Why did you do that?
Let's go to the Washington Examiner, because I refuse to put up a link to the New York Times name.
This is in my show notes so you can read the story.
The Washington Examiner has the answers the New York Times gave this, which are disturbing.
I mean, Madison Dibble, Washington Examiner, in the show notes.
Bongino.com slash newsletter if you want us to email you these articles every day.
New York Times admits the Biden team influenced edits to their story on sexual assault allegation.
Wait, what?
Yeah.
Well, let's get to the admittance first.
The New York Times is now admitting the Joe Biden team basically runs their newspaper.
Don't worry, ladies and gentlemen, all the news is fit to print.
The gray lady, the Washington Post, democracy dies in the darkness.
These people are the darkness.
Let's go to a screencap from this piece.
This is unbelievable.
This is the editor of the New York Times.
He added, listen to the opening line when asked why you deleted your own language about Biden's history of touching women inappropriately.
The Times editor, Dean Baquet, says, well, we didn't think it was a factual mistake.
Oh, that should be it, folks.
That should be the end of it.
So your facts were right.
No, no, it goes on, Joe, as if Bakke can't dig himself any deeper.
He says, we didn't think it was a factual mistake.
I thought it was an awkward phrasing issue that could be read different ways and that it wasn't something factual we were correcting.
So I didn't think it was necessary to explain.
Oh my gosh.
What?
So you you're pretending to be news reporters, right?
It's the New York Times.
The Grayling.
The ultimate authority on the facts!
And you're admitting you corrected a report even though the facts were right?
Not my words!
Dean Baché!
Dean Baché!
He's got one of those fancy names.
Baché!
Dean Baché says it's not, we're not a factual issue.
We were correct.
We just deleted it because we didn't like it basically.
Oh.
Wish they would have cut that courtesy to Kavanaugh, Brett Kavanaugh.
No, no, no, no, no.
Clarence Thomas or anyone else can't give them that same courtesy.
Imprecise language.
Now, they go on, because I want to make a few points on this, because this is a bigger issue than just about Creepy Joe.
Second screencap from this piece.
Madison Dibble, Washington Examiner.
This is his additional reasoning why they reported on the allegations with zero evidence against Brett Kavanaugh immediately, yet while they waited on the Tara Reid allegations and then rewrote their own story, Rhett Cunningham.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is hilarious in its stupidity.
Listen to this explanation, and if you want to punch yourself in the face when you're done, you're not wrong.
Because you'll want to stop the pain of the idiocy you're about to hear.
Here's Bakke.
So Kavanaugh was already in a public forum in a large way.
Kavanaugh's status as a Supreme Court justice was in question because of a very serious allegation.
And when I say in a public way, I don't mean in the public way of Tara Reads.
If you ask the average person in America, they didn't know about Tara Reads' case.
Bakke explained.
What?
The hell?
Believe me, if I know... I'm really trying to keep this show semi-family friendly.
If there was ever a moment in the history of the show I wanted to drop an F-bomb after a what-the, this is the moment right now.
Did you... Did you process what this moron just said?
Oh, Ted, you gotta stop copying Boris.
No, no.
This is moronic.
This is imbecilic to the thousandth degree on a geometric scale.
He says, so even though basically there's no evidence, any of the Kavanaugh allegations were actually true, we wanted to print them because they were out there.
And because they were out there, we had to print them.
Can you put that up again?
I'm not kidding.
He says, we had to put them out there because they were already out there because we put them out there.
But Tara Reads, Joe, we didn't have to put up because nobody knew about them because we didn't put them out there.
I'm not kidding.
Look at, read this again.
He says, talking about why Kavanaugh, the allegations against Kavanaugh, despite no evidence were out there.
He says, they were out there in a public way.
He goes, and when I say in a public way, I don't mean in the public way of Tara Reads.
Ombudsman Joe, we haven't asked you to put the ombudsman hat on.
As the audience referee, as the spokesman for the audience, when Dan Bongino and Paul are speaking about himself in the third person, Bob Dole style, thinks the audience is confused, I need you to step up.
Does this make sense, my translation here?
Bakay is essentially saying that because we already aired the fake allegations against Kavanaugh, they were out there, and because they were out there, we aired more allegations against Kavanaugh.
But because we didn't air the allegations about Tara Reade, because it was Joe Biden, we felt no need to air them.
It's not a joke.
It's just the New York Times.
Oh, oh boy.
That's real.
Oh, hold on.
I really, I'm crying.
I'm crying because I can't believe people take these people seriously.
I want you, please, to rewind the podcast at some point, or if you're watching on YouTube, hit that back button.
If you tap the screen, it goes back 10 seconds.
And I want you to read and go over that again, because that is exactly what he just said.
We printed bogus allegations against Kavanaugh, and therefore, because we printed them, they were out there.
So because he was running for a Supreme—or nominated, excuse me, for a Supreme Court spot, we really had to hammer him, so we made sure we got it out there more.
But because we were hiding the Reid allegations, we felt no need to jump on the Reid allegations.
Keep taking these people seriously, folks.
I'm really sorry on the left if you're getting suckered by this effort of fake news.
All right.
I've got a lot to get through today, but that is just—one more—wait, one more thing on this.
I wanted to get this in, I took a note.
So, Bakke admits, by the way, in the New York Times, I didn't even hit this part, the headline, I kind of skipped over the whole lead, I buried the lead, forgive me, because there was so much juicy stuff in there.
Bakke admits that they changed it because of complaints from the Biden campaign.
You know what's fascinating about that?
As the New York Times reported endlessly, Endlessly about the collusion hoax.
Yes.
A thoroughly discredited collusion hoax and the Trump campaign publicly complained to the New York Times.
There's no evidence this is true.
Did you notice, Joe, they never made any alterations to the reporting about the collusion hoax and still to this day insinuate it happened.
Yeah, how about that?
Nice how those courtesies are never extended to Republican campaigns.
Fascinating.
When I ran for office, I did the same thing.
I complained about a mischaracterization of a comment I made about education spending over four decades that was statistically accurate.
And a paper told me, go pound sand.
We're interpreting it another way.
Really happened.
Not kidding.
If I was a Democrat, they would have interpreted that totally differently.
What a scam.
All right, folks.
Today's show also brought to you by our friends at Omaha Steaks.
We love Omaha Steaks.
The taste is just fantastic.
The only thing I don't love about Omaha Steaks is I eat the heck out of them and I finish the whole box all at once.
So I had to get more Omaha Steaks.
So we ordered two.
That's right.
We ordered back.
They were kind enough to send us a freebie.
And Paula ordered another one because I punished the whole box.
It was that good.
Staying home, there's never been a better time to stock up on Omaha Steaks.
They'll deliver the world's best steaks and a huge variety of family favorites without ever leaving home.
Right now, the Omaha Steaks Limited Time Stock Up Sale is available for our listeners to help your family stock up on the food you love.
Go to omahasteaks.com, and in the search bar at the top of the page at omahasteaks.com, enter code BONGINO, B-O-N-G-I-N-O, and unlock your savings.
For my listeners, there's a variety of ready-to-ship stock-up boxes available right now.
By entering the BONGINO code in the search bar, you save more than 50% on your order, and you get free shipping on orders of $69 or more.
These packages are perfect for families.
They're ready to head straight to your door with free shipping.
Stock-up boxes include their world-famous Omaha steaks.
You can cut these with a butter knife.
They're so delicious.
Naturally aged to tenderness, trimmed to perfection.
Premium poultry and pork cut by their butchers and individually sealed for freshness and flavor.
Tasty and easy to make side dishes.
I have some fajitas in my freezer.
I'm ready to eat from them.
No work, family meals for your slow cooker or oven, skillet meals ready in 15 minutes or less.
They have artisan desserts and much more.
Right now, stock up boxes are ready to ship and save big on shipments of $69 or more.
Get free shipping.
Omaha Steaks delivers guaranteed quality and safety with every order.
As you're stocking up on things you need, don't forget the food you love.
There's never been a better time to stock up on Omaha Steaks.
The stock up sale is going on right now with ready to ship packages to save 50% or more on and free shipping on orders of $69 or more.
Visit omahasteaks.com and make sure to type on Gino in the search bar to shop today.
Omaha Steaks, absolutely delicious.
All right, folks.
So this Medium article I was talking about, you know, again, I'm not here and I refuse to get into arguments.
I'm even getting these from some listeners who email me.
And I get it.
I understand in a dangerous time where there's a pandemic and a very serious virus, especially for people who are immunocompromised and people who are older.
I understand the hesitation to want to kind of toe a company line and not say things that are considered politically or unpolitically correct, whatever it may be.
I'm not going to do that, ladies and gentlemen.
I'm going to let the facts and the data speak for themselves, because I've found in my experience, what, eight years of doing this and 12 years in the Secret Service before that, That eventually the truth comes out, and if you're engaged in the politically charged and perfectly correct rhetoric of the day, even though you know it's false, one, you're destroying your own morals and ethics, and secondly, history's gonna prove you to be a fool like it did to Rachel Maddow, Chuck Todd, and the Collusion Hoaxers.
What I'm getting at is the data speaks.
It may be noisy, but it should tell us something.
There's a fascinating article I need you to read.
It's not that, well, it's long enough, but it's long enough for you to read, but not too long that it gets boring.
It's in Medium.
I'll put it up in the show notes.
Again, Bongino.com slash newsletter, and I strongly encourage you to check this out.
The basic question the writer who does a statistical correlational analysis here is, Was the speed of the shutdown in a state or a locality, was it correlated with less deaths and better outcomes?
The title by, if I'm saying the name wrong, forgive me, Yanan Weiss, Medium, Let's Visualize State-by-State Shutdown Effectiveness on COVID-19.
He says, Subtitle, Many are wondering when we should begin to loosen social distancing measures and which one should we loosen first.
Without going through the entire piece, you can read it yourself.
I want to get to the big takeaways.
He does a simple correlation.
In other words, can we correlate, not necessarily make a causal inference, but correlate two variables?
I don't want to talk down the money.
If you've taken statistics courses, you know what I mean.
But for those who haven't, you've done other things.
You're busy right now.
Totally understandable.
A lot of things I don't know about, but I took many a statistics course in graduate school.
If A happens and B happens, Are those variables correlated?
Are they moving together?
In other words, if we shut it down and there are less deaths, are those two things correlated?
Notice I didn't say, if we shut it down, did it cause less deaths?
Because correlation and causation are not the same thing.
The example I give often, but it's important here before we go into the takeaway.
Yeah, of course.
Is the common cold in the winter.
Yeah.
The common cold, the winter, variable A, the weather, is correlated with an increase in the common cold, prevalence of the common cold.
That does not mean cold weather causes the common cold.
It doesn't.
It's just in the winter you have drier air, people are indoors more, people touch their noses more because the cold weather causes more mucus secretions, people wipe their nose, they touch their face, and therefore transmit the virus more easily in that environment and by touching their face.
It is not the cold weather.
Cold weather does not cause the cold.
Therefore, cold weather is correlated with the cold.
It does not cause it.
There's a difference.
Those variables move together.
Having said that, correlation doesn't mean there's no causation either.
If you read the book The Black Swan by Nassim Taleb, he says all the time, you know, the absence of evidence doesn't mean evidence of absence.
In other words, You know, because you don't see the evidence now doesn't mean there isn't an effect.
So the fact that two variables are correlated, shutdowns versus deaths, doesn't mean it's not causal either.
I don't want to overcomplicate, I'm just saying the data should tell us something about the effectiveness.
So, when you do these correlations between the speed of a shutdown in the state, you would think, as the public health experts have told us, that the speed of the shutdown, Joe, how quick they shut everything down, should have a decent correlation to Decreased incidence of this coronavirus and deaths, right?
Yeah, you'd think.
Yeah.
You would, as the audience ombudsman, Joe.
That's why I need you.
You would think that.
But you would think wrong.
Oh, good.
From the piece, one would expect that the faster a state shut down, the less deaths it would incur.
But that's surprisingly not what we find.
Ladies and gentlemen, there is virtually zero correlation.
Zero.
The correlations are measured between 0 and 1.
There is 0 meaning none.
There is no relationship between the variables.
There is virtually zero correlation between the speed of shutdown and expected death totals.
Now, again, that doesn't mean there isn't a relationship because the data is noisy.
And he acknowledged this.
He says here, now, there are a lot of states out there with small populations.
So, Joe, one may argue fairly enough that this may not paint a complete picture.
Yeah.
So the author went ahead and re-ran the numbers, but this time limiting the graph and the correlations to only the 15 most populous US states.
In other words, to use unnecessarily academic language, to control for confounding variables.
The confound or the problem would be population.
Well, Dan, you can't say that because some states are more populated.
All right, let's control for population.
And let's only use the 15 most populous states and say, now let's wipe that out as a variable, a confounding, a conflicting variable that may pollute our data, make it noisy.
Let's control for that.
And now let's see, did the speed of a shutdown correlate to less deaths?
I mean, we're talking about a public policy, which has an impact on 30 million people who are losing their job.
We should be guided by data, right?
I mean, again, nothing I'm saying should have any emotional connotation.
People are getting very upset at these segments.
That's fine.
I'm only here to speak the truth.
We are guiding public policy based on data, right?
Supposed to.
Let's look at the data when you control for popular- Surely there's a correlation here between the speed of shutdown and the less incidence of death.
Well, the author did the data, ran the data, and ladies and gentlemen, no.
Quote, we again find no meaningful correlation between the speed of statewide shutdowns versus projected total deaths.
He asks, well, how can this be?
Well, ladies and gentlemen, there may be more important factors influencing the spread of the virus or lack thereof.
He goes through some data points here.
Maybe it's not the shutdowns, folks, that are doing this.
Maybe it's voluntary behavior change, such as more people washing their hands, staying away from large groups, not touching your own faces.
Maybe it's municipal-level shutdowns, such as what happened in Texas.
In other words, it doesn't make sense to treat Dallas the same as a 200-person town.
Maybe it's the more measured closures, such as restaurants, where it's a little more densely packed, but not all businesses.
Maybe it's the natural slow of viral spread related to the weather.
Maybe it's the different health profiles of state residents.
In other words, ladies and gentlemen, and he makes the point later in the piece, I just want to be clear, this is not causal and it's not causal and reverse either.
He's not saying the state shutdowns did nothing.
He's simply saying you don't know that was it.
Right, right.
You get what I'm saying?
You don't know the shutdown did it because there's no correlation between shutting it down and less incidents of death.
So if you're going to engage in a policy that is going to impoverish people and put out of work 30, 40, potentially more million people and destroy their lives, you damn well better have some evidence that it works.
And ladies and gentlemen, we're not really sure it does.
He points to other things that may have been real confounds and real conflicts.
Maybe people are just washing their hands more.
Maybe the fear of the virus, which is serious trouble for immunocompromised folks.
There's a relationship to obesity now, too, for people with compromised lung tissue, and for older folks.
This is deadly serious.
Deadly serious.
But what he's suggesting is maybe the seriousness of it has imposed upon people behaviors that would have happened whether you shut the economy down or not.
Folks, we should be guided by data.
Just because we're suggesting or someone said there should be a scaled safe reopening of the economy doesn't mean, oh screw it, Armageddon, death to everyone, screw the virus, pretend it doesn't exist.
Nobody is saying that.
No one.
We're simply saying that if there are other measures, scaled openings, maybe continued shutdowns for businesses where the risk is high, in areas where there's a less healthy population, there's a large percentage of older folks, maybe that.
But maybe other things we're doing it.
If we continue to wear masks, wash our hands in public, maybe we didn't need to do that.
And ladies and gentlemen, and I'm getting a lot, you know, I don't mean to downplay this.
I'm getting a lot of emails.
Overwhelming, and I don't mean to say this to kind of like, hey, look at my show, we're so popular.
I'm not doing any of that.
They've been overwhelmingly positive about our approaches, probably 80%.
But 20% negative is a lot of negative emails for us.
And they're very nice, except for one.
Yes, I'm convinced with spam, but people are saying this is, you know, it's a crazy idea to open it up.
And I'm simply suggesting to you, well, what are you basing that on?
Are we basing it on data or are we basing it on an impulse?
Because these are serious decisions, and I'm not going to change my mind on it unless the data changes my mind.
If someone comes out tomorrow with a new study showing a very high correlation, a 0.6, 0.7, between state shutdowns and lower instances of death, it's something I'd be open to.
That data's not there.
You can read the piece yourself, and I strongly encourage you to read it.
It's in the show notes today.
All right, I've got some on a lighter note.
I've got two really good stories coming up.
And again, I always appreciate your patience on Tuesday.
We have a loaded day.
We have great sponsors.
But I've got some video.
You probably all know where I'm going to go with this.
Trump's presser yesterday.
But I want to just dispel the new media narrative they're putting out there before it gets any kind of legs.
It's the new collusion hoax.
And I also want to get to an article I've been holding for a long time at Forbes.
that a listener sent to me today.
You know who you are.
And it's just damning because it speaks to the larger dossier scandal and the story I had yesterday.
And it was written three years ago, which is killer.
All right, today's show also brought to you by my buddies at Keeps.
Ladies and gentlemen, did you know two out of three guys will experience some form of male pattern baldness by the time they're 35?
The best way to prevent hair loss is to do something about it while you still have hair left.
You used to go to the doctor's office for your hair loss prescription.
Now, thanks to Keeps, you can visit a doctor online And get hair loss medication delivered right to your house.
They make it super easy and deliver your medication every three months so you can say goodbye to pharmacy checkout lines and awkward doctor visits.
Keeps treatments can take up to four to six months or more to see results, so it's important to act fast.
The sooner you start using Keeps, the more hair you'll save.
Find out why Keeps has more five-star reviews than any of its competitors and nearly 100,000 men trust Keeps for their hair loss prevention medicine.
Keeps treatment starts at just $10 a month, plus for a limited time, you can get your first month free.
If you're ready to take action and prevent hair loss, go to Keeps.com slash Bongino to receive your first month of treatment for free.
Can't beat that.
That's Keeps.
K-E-E-P-S.com slash Bongino.
Keeps.com slash Bongino.
Keeps.com slash Bongino.
Please check it out today.
All right.
So getting back to my show, I think you all know where I'm going with this.
So Trump had a presser yesterday that may have been the, did you see it Joe?
Oh yeah man, yeah.
It was wild.
I tweeted out yesterday as it was happening that Paul and I were sitting there in our living room and we were watching, right Paula?
And I'm looking at her and I'm like, this is the greatest moment I've ever seen in the history of television, of moving pictures.
I saw your tweet, yeah.
Really, the greatest moment in moving pictures ever.
I've never seen anything like it.
Trump came out just in flames yesterday, and just, it reminded me of Al Pacino in, what's that movie, Descent of a Woman, right?
I take up my flamethrower to this place!
Well, Trump did yesterday.
He's had enough of the media BS, and what a great moment when he comes out and plays a video of the media downplaying the coronavirus, and then the media on CNN comes out and says it's propaganda!
He plays a video, Trump, of the media downplaying the coronavirus and CNN runs a chyron and it's them.
It's their video of them.
And CNN says, Trump plays propaganda video of CNN.
This actually happened.
It was great.
But there was one exchange.
I could play the whole thing, but in the interest of time, as Joey says, one hour, we're going to get you everything you need to know.
I think this was the most telling... Well, you know, before I get to it, let me get to this Daily Caller piece first, because it'll set up why this exchange matters and why Trump played the video.
The Daily Caller piece magically appears by our good friend, Peter Hassan.
WHO, World Health Organization official says she suspected human to human COVID-19 transmission, quote, right from the start.
But the WHO echoed misleading Chinese claims to the contrary for weeks.
Again, I can't get to why what happened at the press or matter unless you understand the background.
The media narrative going forward from this point, which I refuse to let harden up like concrete.
This is the new collusion hoax after the quid pro quo hoax.
This is hoax number three.
Hoax number three is going to be Trump did nothing while this virus raged and we sounded the alarm in the media.
Ladies and gentlemen, we all know that story is false.
To be fair, and to give you objective sound analysis based on the data and the history and the actual reporting, ladies and gentlemen, in January and February, nobody had a good grasp on the severity of this.
No one.
Why?
Because of what I just told you in Peter Hassan's report.
Let's go to the Daily Caller, the screenshot.
The World Health Organization themselves, Joe, their own officials said they were being silenced.
Quote, Daily Caller.
A WHO organization official said Monday she suspected human-to-human transmission of the novel coronavirus.
Quote, right from the start, beginning in December, on December 31st of 2019.
31st of 2019. But WHO officials echoed Chinese authorities and denied any suggestion of human
to human transmission for weeks after December 31st.
Chinese doctors, meanwhile, were reported to have known for weeks prior that the virus could be transmitted between humans.
Ladies and gentlemen, the point I want to make is there are two competing narratives.
One of them is the truth, and one of them is made up by the media.
The media doesn't do the truth anymore.
I'm sorry if you felt that way.
That's a mistake, as I showed you by the New York Times story we opened up with.
The real story is that in January and February and December, there was a lot of confusion about the coronavirus.
A lot.
The confusion was deliberate.
It was confusion sowed by the Chinese Communist government to make sure their story of malfeasance, how a virus that could have originated in a Chinese lab and mistakenly gotten out, made it out to the general population and was wiping out people by the tens of thousands.
The Chinese, in an effort to be as opaque as possible, to be as opaque as, you know, as a pair of lead glasses, wanted to make sure you could see none of this.
So they imprisoned people, they locked people, doctors up who were telling the truth, and they used their cronies at the WHO, who were probably unwittings in this, although I'm not sure, to put out false information.
And remember, there were no known cases in the United States in December or early January.
Known cases.
Right.
Okay.
The confusion, folks, was everywhere.
Yes, the Trump administration.
Yes, the media.
Yes, conservative media.
Yes, liberal media.
I know because I'm in the media.
Everybody was confused.
It wasn't an act of malfeasance.
Nobody knew what this thing was.
So Trump yesterday played a montage, which was brilliant by the way, at the presser of media people saying that this thing is basically no big deal.
Folks, I want to be clear on my point.
I'm not blaming the media people.
Everybody was saying, do you understand?
I want to be clear on this.
And you shouldn't either.
The media is, are horrendous.
They're a joke and what they're doing now, retconning their own history and rewriting it, is disgusting.
Grotesque.
But back then, I'm not saying back then that they should have known, but nobody knew better because the WHO and others, they were not putting out accurate information.
Nobody knew the R-naughts, the contagiousness level of this.
Nobody knew the fatality levels because the Chinese were not telling us the truth.
The media now is trying to tell you, okay?
You got story number one?
Nobody knew.
Right.
No one.
Story number two the media wants to tell you now is, we all knew, and the Trump administration did nothing.
Trump lied, people died.
In a redo of the Bush lied, people died.
That is totally, completely, 1000% false and made up.
percent false and made up.
Totally made up.
Now I'm not putting this piece up to knock Fauci either.
But Dr. Fauci, who has been lionized and is the idol of the mainstream media.
I'm not knocking him.
I don't say that as to be nasty about it.
Yeah.
But the media is constantly talking about how wonderful Dr. Fauci is.
Even Dr. Fauci, who they love.
If you go to this John Solomon story in Just the News, again, up in the showroom, it's worth your time.
Even Dr. Fauci, one of the most brilliant medical minds in the country, was totally confusing about his statements.
Just the News, Fauci versus Fauci, how America's infectious disease chief evolved his pandemic advice, like everyone else, by John Solomon, April 14.
This is a rather long snippet from the PM.
I'm going to read a few lines from it.
This is one of the world's leading medical professionals in this field who's been through pandemics before.
Even he was confused about advising.
But Joe, the media knew better, even though they didn't, and we have the receipts.
Yeah.
Quote from the Solomon piece.
Fauci, for instance, specifically stated on February 25th that it wasn't, quote, absolutely necessary to impose social distancing yet.
Then two weeks later, he declared he saw no problems with healthy Americans continuing to go on cruise ships, an activity hardly conducive to social distancing, as several outbreaks aboard ships have since proved.
Keep that up.
I'm gonna go on, but again, folks, it's not a knock on Fauci.
It's simply to highlight the real story here, that nobody knew what was going on, including the medical professionals.
Here's another Fauci line.
If you are a healthy young person, there's no reason if you want to go on a cruise ship, no reason not to go on a cruise ship, Fauci said in a March 8th press conference.
But the fact is that if you have an individual with an underlying condition, an elderly person with an underlying condition, I'd recommend strongly they do not go on a cruise ship.
That was Fauci's advice on March 8th.
Fauci gave a similar answer a week later when asked about if he would like to see a ban on domestic air travel, saying that he himself wouldn't travel for a pleasure trip but saw no reason to impose a ban on domestic travel and might himself take one if a serious need arose.
Folks, again, so we're clear, and we're not falling into traps set by the media for everyone, and we're not doing what others will do.
Attack, counterattack.
No, no, we're not doing attack, counterattack.
We're doing evidence and data and facts.
Nobody knew.
Nobody knew.
Even the left's new messiah, Dr. Fauci.
That's not a knock.
That's their treatment of him.
The man is a medical, a serious medical professional.
He's been through pandemics before.
Even he was confused.
And your story is that Trump, despite no one in the media knowing how serious this was, nobody, the media was saying the opposite.
Trump played it yesterday.
Despite nobody in the media have any idea how serious this was, anywhere.
Despite the WHO, the World Health Organization, Telling us, ah, there's no evidence of human-to-human transmission, despite the Chinese government where it originated lying.
And despite the fact that the medical experts, the media says are the experts, saying nothing of the sort about, hey, don't travel, don't do this.
And at that time period, they wanted Trump to magically figure it out, like, because he's the president, he somehow got some omnipotent powers that he can predict the future?
You understand how stupid the media looks right now?
Now, that's the backstory behind why Trump is so fired up and why, folks, I think what he did yesterday was perfect.
Perfect.
It had to be done.
I don't agree with every back and forth at pressers.
I don't think every back and forth needs to happen.
Yesterday needed to happen.
Because he needs to correct the record now or this, like the collusion hoax, is going to continue to fester.
Everybody was telling Trump this was serious and he didn't listen.
That is false.
That is false.
This is Paula Reed from CBS, and one of the more disgraceful appearances I've ever seen in a press conference.
She should be embarrassed.
I'm sure the media is proud of her.
First time, I thought.
But really, one of the most amateur hour appearances I've ever seen.
Amen, bro.
Herk, just disgusting.
This is the President of the United States.
Are you kidding me?
I mean, I worked for Barack Obama, a man I honestly could not have more sincere political disagreements with.
I'm telling you right now, I've never disrespected the man.
Matter of fact, if you read some of, personally, personally, Personally.
When he says dumb things politically, I attack.
I have never said anything.
He's never treated me wrong, nor did his family personally.
I will never say otherwise.
Not because it makes a convenient political argument, because I'm not a liar.
The disrespect shown towards the President of the United States yesterday by Ms.
Paula Reid, with the constant interruptions, talking over the President of the United States, and the lies, was one of the most disgraceful episodes I've ever seen.
But again, she'll be a martyr to the left.
Here's her saying to the President, the narrative, you should have known, but you didn't do anything in February when everybody was warning you.
You didn't do anything.
A total lie, and we'll produce the receipts in a moment.
First, check out the video.
Thought I made a mistake when I did it.
I saved tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of lives by hurting you.
The argument is that you bought yourself some time.
You didn't use it to prepare hospitals.
You didn't use it to ramp up testing.
You're so disgraceful.
It's so disgraceful the way you say that.
Let me just... Listen, I just went over it.
I just went over it.
Nobody thought we should do it.
to make people look confident in an unprecedented crisis.
Nobody thought we should do it.
And when I did it...
But what did you do with the time that you bought?
The month of February.
You know what we did?
Yeah.
What do you do when you have no case in the whole United States?
You had cases in February.
Excuse me.
You reported it.
Zero cases, zero deaths on January 17th.
January.
I said in January.
On January 30th.
A lot.
A lot.
And in fact, we'll give you a list what we did.
In fact, part of it was up there.
We did a lot.
Look, look.
You know you're a fake.
You know that your whole network, the way you cover it, is fake.
And most of you, and not all of you, but the people are wise to you.
That's why you have a lower approval rating than you've ever had before, times probably three.
This woman's a liar.
She's a liar.
What she did there is gross and disgusting.
She took an opportunity, Ms.
Paula Reuven, I've never met her, I don't know the woman personally, don't care to, ever.
Because I don't hang around liars.
She took an opportunity, knowing she had a national audience, to lie about what the president did, to talk over him, to treat him like a child, and to act like one herself.
The president just put up a timeline before that and a montage.
Now we have to do videos for them because the press are that dumb.
We have to put together PowerPoints because they are really double-digit IQ cretins at this point, who doesn't matter what you say, they need like exhibits and appendices now, like it's a court case.
He just put up what they did after he instituted the travel ban in January.
They called him a racist for it.
Yes, when they were claiming they knew better, but were downplaying the virus, while Trump was instituting a travel ban, they were calling him a racist.
He just put up the timeline.
Now, for those of you who need the receipts, you can, I'll read through some of them if you want to watch, if you want to screenshot it.
I'm trying to think of a way to get this out.
You know what?
Erin, Erin, what's her name?
Erin Perrin, I think has it on.
I'll try to tweet these out today.
I retweeted it on my Twitter feed, but I'll read through some of the things because Paula Reid is lying.
Or she's not bright enough to do the homework herself that President Trump just gave her.
Here's what President Trump did between that time in the travel ban and that February period where Ms.
Paula Reid's suggesting he did nothing because she's not bright enough to do her own homework.
You'll notice if you're watching us on YouTube, youtube.com slash Bongino, please watch, that you're like, gosh, that's really small handwriting.
Ladies and gentlemen, the reason the handwriting is really small is because the president did a whole lot of stuff on February and it can't even all fit on one page.
Let's just go through a few on February 4th.
President Trump vowed in his State of the Union address to take all necessary steps to protect Americans from coronavirus.
On February 5th, the Trump administration and health officials briefed lawmakers on the coronavirus response.
February 6th, the CDC began to ship CDC-developed test kits for the 2019 coronavirus to U.S.
and international laboratories.
February 7th, President Trump and Chairman Xi Jinping hold a phone call to discuss the coronavirus response, and the list goes on.
And on and on.
Please put up page two.
Here's page two.
Folks, if you're like, my gosh, I can't even read that on your YouTube.
You're not supposed to.
And it can't even fit on one list.
Make no mistake.
Come back to me here.
The reason I put this up is not so you can read through it all.
I retweeted the tweet.
I'm at the bungee.
If you want to read through the list, the media was given this and Miss Paula Reed, Is doing what Paula Reed and CBS and others do.
She's just lying.
You didn't do anything in February.
They have the list.
It doesn't even fit on one page in font eight on our YouTube screen.
If I read that, the show would be over.
If I read through everything he did.
Yeah.
After his travel ban that the media called racist.
My gosh, folks, are you falling for this again?
Of course you're not, Maya, but to the liberals who listen, are you really?
Are you this thick?
Are your skulls this thick?
You can read what he did!
Don't you remember the travel ban he called him a racist for?
Your narrative that you warned him and the media, the good guys, and he did nothing is the exact opposite story than what actually happened.
He warned you and you did nothing!
Retcon 5!
Ladies and gentlemen.
Retcon 5, brother.
I mean, this is just preposterous how easily people are suckered by liars like Paula Reed.
She's just lying!
Honestly, I'm not messing with you.
I don't want to make this personal with Ms.
Reed.
I don't know her.
Can you please explain to me what option C is?
She either doesn't know anything and is a journalist and doesn't know how to do homework about what the president did.
Meanwhile, the list is out there.
Or she has no reading comprehension and doesn't know how to read dates, which I doubt.
In other words, the former.
She's just lying to you.
And the media will celebrate her today.
Oh, look at this act of bold journalism.
Look at it.
The president did nothing.
Actually, we have the list of things.
It doesn't matter.
He didn't do anything.
He didn't do it.
And when he did something, we called him a racist.
Don't say that either.
Listen to me, too.
The liberals watching this, you know I'm telling you, you know it.
You wake up every morning and you know you're wrong.
You know you do.
You know it.
I know it hurts you.
I know you're wounded by this show.
I read your death threat emails when you send them to me.
Screw you and your family and your mom and your dad and everyone else.
You should have been aborted, you hellion.
We get them all the time.
Hellion.
All the time.
Oh yeah, we get them all the time.
But that rage is not at me.
You may think it's directed at me, but it's not.
That rage is directed at you.
Because you look in the mirror every day and you're smart.
You're not stupid.
And a lot of liberals I know are not dumb.
They have triple digit IQs and can figure things out.
And what they've figured out is their whole life is a lie.
Everything they're telling themselves is a lie, that they're compassionate, loving people.
They don't.
They hate you.
Just go to Twitter every day and read their responses.
A pastor who held the service despite the lockdown died.
Read the response.
They're celebrating it.
I'm not kidding.
I am not joking.
Read the tweet.
There was a New York Post story about a pastor who held the service despite the coronavirus shutdown and died from coronavirus.
Read the... But these are the compassionate liberals.
They're like, good for him.
He deserves it.
Those are real, I'm not joking.
Read the story on Twitter.
They wake up every day and they don't hate you, they hate themselves.
That hatred for themselves and who they are and what they represent, how they've lied to their families, their kids, and everyone about who they are, it manifests themselves in hatred directed at you.
But it's really a self-hatred directed at themselves because they know they are not the person they think they are.
Is there any more painful experience?
I mean, listen, I ain't doing some Freudian analysis, Carl Jung nonsense for you here, even though that is my background.
There's no need for it.
But really, in your life, if you led your whole, one of the most, let me tell you something.
Can I just tell you a quick story?
I'll make it fast, I promise.
But one of the more painful moments in my life is when I thought I was being a good Christian in my younger days as a secret service instructor, and a friend of mine who was an agent, who was a good man, He gave me this book by Lee Strobel called The Case for Christ.
And he said, you think you're going to heaven?
I said, I think so.
I think I'm a good person.
He said, no, you're not.
I swear to you.
And I'm not kidding.
It's one of the more painful moments in my life.
Even that one sentence made me, I don't really, how does he know that?
And it made me question everything.
I'm not suggesting now I'm not a sinner or beyond sin.
I'm simply suggesting that that one statement made me reevaluate my life and how good of a man, air quotes, I really was.
Imagine being a liberal, waking up every day, knowing your life is a lie, that you lie to people, that nothing you've said to people is ever true.
And yet you have to continue to put on this facade to make yourself believe you're an authentic human being.
The pain and the disconnect and the friction has got to be overwhelming.
And that's why they celebrate the death of a pastor who came down with coronavirus, and they think it's a wonderful thing.
Because they hate themselves.
They hate themselves.
It's not you.
It's just manifested that way.
Scary stuff, folks.
I've never seen anything like this.
All right, one final sponsor.
I gotta get to this story by Forbes.
This story is three years old.
I've been holding this forever.
I get reminded about it this morning.
And it is damning about this dossier.
It points out a couple things, and they're just absurd even.
Final sponsor of the day, our friends at LifeLock.
Ladies and gentlemen, tax season's coming around.
There'll be checks going out.
This is a bad time to have your identity stolen.
Listen, there's some people who seem like they're prepared for anything.
They have a cut.
They'll give you a band-aid.
You need a battery.
They have one.
They have multiple sizes.
But if they're worried about identity theft and only monitoring their credit, they may not be as prepared as they think.
Breaches seem like they're happening more these days, and with your breached information, like your name, social security number, and more, criminals can commit identity theft.
This is one of the most troubling crimes out there, folks.
It happened to me.
It was a horror show.
It took me months and hours of stress to clean this mess up.
That's why we have LifeLock, and not only I have it for me, I have it for my whole family, my kids included.
They'll steal your kid's identity, too.
LifeLock sees more threats, like someone taking out a payday loan in your name, alerts you to possible suspicious activity.
I get texts.
It's great.
And if you end up having an identity theft issue, you'll have a dedicated identity restoration specialist who's just a phone call away.
No one can prevent all identity theft or monitor all transactions at all businesses.
But with breaches on the rise, doesn't it make sense to be prepared?
Join LifeLock today and save up to 25% of big savings off your first year.
Go to LifeLock.com slash Bongino.
B-O-N-G-I-N-O.
That's LifeLock.com slash Bongino.
Save 25% today.
Secure your identity, yours, your family's.
It's important.
LifeLock.com slash Bongino.
Okay.
Oh boy.
So this Forbes article I've been holding forever.
Matter of fact, in my screen of available articles I want to discuss, it was up there for so long that I forgot where it was because I kept opening new screens and it got buried.
But this is an important story nonetheless.
There was an article written in 2017 in Forbes by a man with extensive An extensive background in Russia.
I've been there forever.
I don't know the man personally.
I can't personally vouch for his bona fides.
But he's in Forbes and he seems to have the backup and the receipts to prove he has a decent idea of the comings and goings in Russian politics and with the Putin regime.
So, this article's written in 2017, before anybody really knows how fake the dossier is.
There's still a sliver of people, even in the Republican party, very small, who think, is there something to this thing?
Did Trump really take a bribe from Putin?
Now, when I say sliver, I mean infinitesimally small, but there are still people out there who shockingly think there could be something to this.
The Democrats are all in.
They think it's real in 2017.
This is three years ago.
The IG report isn't out yet.
Devin Nunes is on it, but they're not really as into it as they'd gotten to recently because the information hadn't come out.
So this article is fascinating, because back in 2017, this guy, who I don't think he has a dog in the fight, he doesn't strike me as overly political, he writes this article in Forbes that has somehow escaped scrutiny, but is back today, given yesterday's story, that we now know for sure that the Dossier, for sure, was a total hoax, and anything that wasn't a hoax was Russian disinformation, the Russians playing us.
In other words, the Democrats colluding with the Russians, which is a scintilla of it, by the way.
If you listen to yesterday's show, you'll understand why that's important.
Forbes by Paul Roderick Gregory.
This is in the show notes today.
Please read it.
The Trump dossier is fake, and here are the reasons why.
Keep in mind, if this story's written today, it's no big deal.
Matter of fact, it's not even a story.
Everybody knows it's fake.
Folks, the story is written in 2017.
People who were in the know in Russia knew this thing was a fake.
And it's a story that makes sense today.
And I'm going to produce some receipts for you to show you why it makes sense today.
How fake the dossier was at the time, even then.
So let's go to the screenshot from the Forbes speech.
Remember, the key allegation in the dossier has always been that Carter Page,
who was a foreign policy advisor for Trump, on behalf of the Trump campaign,
was going to work to relieve sanctions on Russia if Trump was a president.
And in exchange, Carter Page was going to get something.
Now, here's what he was going to get.
Don't laugh while I'm telling you.
This is in the dossier.
And remember, this is the dossier dated October 18 of 2017.
He says, "To offer Trump either the entirety of "or a brokerage commission on the market value
"of 19.5% of Rosneft shares, "even a 6% commission on 12 billion worth of Rosneft shares
"would amount to an astonishing $720 million."
Ooh.
And it would deplete the cash Putin needed for military spending and budget deficits, all in return for a promise to lift sanctions if Trump were elected?
Keep in mind, the author says, Rosneft, as a public company, would have to conceal that the U.S.
president was a part of this major transaction?
This remarkable secret of secrets seems to be bandied about to an Orbis, Christopher Steele's trusted compatriot, a senior member of Sechin's staff, and disclosed by Sechin himself.
I guess there are a lot of loose lips in Rosneft's offices.
Can I translate that for you?
Please do, sir.
The author who, again, is familiar with Russian politics says, let me get this straight.
This is in 2017 he wrote this.
You're telling me that Trump is colluding with the Russians.
The Russians are going to give Trump information on Hillary.
In exchange, Trump is going to scrap sanctions against Russia if he becomes president.
and in turn for that scrapping of the sanctions, the Russians are also going to give Trump and
Carter Page a 720 million dollar bribe? You know, all my backgrounds in law enforcement,
can we just like scrap that for a minute?
Because I don't even want to, like, contaminate the event.
You don't need to have a background You don't even need to have a background in tiddlywinks as a seven-year-old to start the sage elf.
Well, mommy, that sounds like a lot of money, close to a billion dollars.
How are they going to hide that?
They weren't.
It was a story for idiots.
You're telling me, to be clear, that $720 million was going to be transferred to Carter Page and Trump and nobody was going to know about it?
Folks, the story was ridiculous.
Ridiculous.
It was totally made up.
This is why I'm bringing this up today for a number of reasons.
To pile on yesterday's show, do not fall for the media narrative coming now that the footnotes been declassified.
And in the foot, new footnote, we've now seen for the first time in the inspector general's report about what the FBI did.
It says, Hey, listen, The FBI was suspicious that a lot of this was Russian disinformation.
It wasn't!
Because that gives the FBI an excuse.
And the media, they're going to say going forward, oh, look, Arshak's the Russian's goddess.
That's not the case.
This story in the dossier, documented in 2017 by this writer in Forbes with a background in Russia, is totally made up!
Not even the Russians were dumb enough to try to pretend this was real fake intel, if you get what I mean.
Joe, is this making sense?
This story is so stupid, folks, that this guy in Russia's like, wait, what?
A publicly traded company, Rosneft, is going to give out nearly a billion dollars to Carter Page and nobody's going to know?
The guy's like, how stupid are you?
This is not Russian disinformation.
This is totally, 100%, made-up, grade-A, tier-1, prime-cut BS.
Now, why?
Why?
The why matters.
Why would Steele, Simpson, Halper, and the cabal of idiots Why would they fabricate a story so stupid that, again, a 70-year-old could have picked out that it was nonsense?
Why?
Because they needed to.
Because Halper's being paid by the U.S.
government's Office of Net Assessments in the Pentagon on contracts to produce information about Carter Page.
And if you're being paid to produce information, you damn well better produce information.
Who else is being paid to produce information about Carter Page and the Trump team?
Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS, who's being paid by a law firm that's being paid by Hillary Clinton.
And again, just like Halper.
And we can't attribute this specific to either one of them yet.
We don't know who exactly said it.
We know one of them did.
They're all being paid to produce allegations that will damage Trump.
Who is also being paid to produce allegations about the Trump team that will be damaging?
Remember, that will be damaging.
Don't forget that phrase there, because it's going to come up in a minute.
Christopher Steele, who's being paid by Glenn Simpson, who's being paid by Hillary's team.
They had nothing, so they just made it up.
But why did they make it up?
They made it up because the FBI wanted to spy.
On the Trump team through Carter Page, who was on the Trump team.
And in order to spy, they have to prove two things, not one.
In order to get a warrant show on a US citizen in a FISA court, as I've said a multitude of times now, You have to prove that Carter Page is not just an agent of a foreign power.
That's not illegal.
What?
No, ladies and gentlemen, it's not.
Lobbyists lobby on behalf of foreign governments as agents of foreign governments in the United States all the time.
All they have to do is file a report.
It's not illegal.
There's nothing illegal about that.
What is illegal is not one, being an agent of a foreign power is not illegal.
Diplomats in the United States are agents of foreign powers.
They're not here illegally.
The second part's illegal.
Being an agent of a foreign power in violation of U.S.
law.
What is a violation of U.S.
law?
A bribe.
They just made it up.
The FBI didn't have anything on Carter Page.
They needed a crime.
Even if Carter Page was an agent of a foreign power, it wasn't enough.
They needed a crime.
So what do they do?
They go back to Christopher Steele, and all of a sudden, voila!
And allegation surfaces in July that Carter Page took this bribe, this ridiculous $720 million laughable bribe back in July.
Well, what else happened in July?
Well, let's go to the IG report where we already know what happened in July.
Look at this, Joe.
Footnote, we've used number 461 from the IG report over and over again.
We find out that Andy McCabe, they were dealing when they were concerned about a former FBI source who contacted the FBI in a field office in late July to report information from a colleague who runs an investigative firm hired by the DNC to explore Donald Trump's ties to Russian entities They also gave the FBI a list of individuals and entities?
Wow.
That sounds like that could be Halper telling the FBI about Christopher Steele, a guy hired by the DNC who runs an intelligence firm.
Wow.
Isn't that strange how it all seems to fit?
We need to spy on the Trump team, folks.
Well, we don't have a crime.
Wow.
Look at Halper.
He showed up and said they got a guy who knows about a crime, air quotes.
In July, right around the time that bribe happened, when Carter Page is in Moscow in July.
You get it, folks?
As I said in my book, Exonerated, they just needed a quote machine, someone to make stuff up.
Halpern, no, no, Steele said he took a bribe.
Did he take a bribe?
No, no, we just made the whole thing up.
It's okay, put it in there anyway.
Folks, it's so obvious what happened.
It's so obvious.
Now, now does it make sense why the FBI is still lying to this day and saying we didn't get Steele's dossiers until October?
Or September now, excuse me, September?
They're saying we didn't get Steele's reports until September.
Yeah, yeah.
Stop the nonsense.
You were getting things in July.
It's right there in the footnote, right after Carter Page comes back.
Late July, notice that's why they use late July.
Carter Page's trip happens in July.
They don't wanna nail the date down.
Carter Page goes to Moscow.
There is no bribe, it's totally made up.
They need the bribe cuz they need a FISA warrant, they need a crime.
They go to their guy, Halper.
Halper then goes to Steele, who then puts it in a report, and just says, yeah, there was a bribe, and makes it up.
And that a bribe appears later, conveniently, right around the time of the FISA warrant, October 18th in writing, although they're talking about it in July, telling the FBI.
Total BS, folks.
Made up the whole time.
That make sense, Joe?
Yes, son.
Yes, it did.
Yeah, it did.
Easily.
I hope so.
Folks, one more quick note.
I know we're going a little long today, but I'm going to start adding a little more content to the show.
One more quick note, and I'll get into this in a little more detail tomorrow.
A big controversy has erupted over President Trump's total authority statement.
He had total authority to open up the economy.
Folks, that's not accurate.
I don't know if he's talking about his constitutional total authority.
I don't want to mince words and try to put lipstick on anything, but that's not accurate.
There is no presidential authority to shut the economy down.
Therefore, there is no presidential authority to open it up.
Don't ever forget, the Constitution doesn't delegate power to the federal government.
It delegates power to the people.
It's not a joke.
It's not a campaign slogan.
There are enumerated powers within the Constitution delegated to the government.
Taxes, duties, imposed, excises, enumerated.
In other words, described out, delineated powers the government has.
But the power is to the people through their government.
There is no appendix to the Constitution that says, if a viral outbreak happens, all this goes away.
Total authority is not accurate.
I don't want to mince his words again, what he was saying, but I don't think that's what he was trying to suggest, that he's some kind of a monarch.
And the reason I say that is not to protect anyone.
I say that because that's not how he acts.
It's not what he's done.
At all.
It doesn't make sense.
Having said that, that's not an accurate statement.
But also, those powers not enumerated and delineated to the federal government are reserved for the states in the 10th Amendment.
But the states don't get to override the constitution either.
Ladies and gentlemen, the lawsuits, and this is what I want to discuss tomorrow, and I want to get to that voting story too.
Paula, remind me, please.
This is important.
I'm going to get to this tomorrow.
This is a longer section, but we had a lot to cover today.
I had a conversation with someone you and I both know, good person involved in the Spygate thing, but it was, we got off topic.
We were talking about other things.
And there was a fear there.
Hey, listen, this is the government's encroaching on people's rights, and I think this is going to be the new normal.
And I disagreed.
You know why, ladies and gentlemen?
It's not going to be the new normal.
Because once the lawsuits start coming out and people have to start paying up, trust me, when state and city coffers get bankrupted over this, there ain't going to be no new normal.
I'll get into more of that tomorrow.
Thanks for tuning in today.
Really appreciate it.
Please subscribe to our YouTube channel, youtube.com slash Bongino.
