In this episode, I address the stunning turn of events in the Wuhan Virus coverage, which highlights what the media are really up to. I also produce hard evidence that the new “narrative” about the Spygate case is total BS. Finally, I discuss the potential for mass voter fraud in the 2020 election.
News Picks:
The fight for liberty begins. And it starts with religion.
Obama finally endorsed the hapless Joe Biden.
The sleazy Democrats try to blame Trump for the economic damage from the Wuhan Virus.
Sleazy Adam Schiff goes full Wuhan Virus.
Was the Wisconsin Supreme Court victory really a “stunning upset” for the Democrats?
Bill Barr just signaled that things are going to get really bad for the Spygate colluders.
What the WHO was really saying about the Wuhan Virus.
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.
So, Obama finally, air quotes, endorses Biden.
Jesus, that's a really way.
Endorses him again.
The whole idea of an endorsement is a selection.
Hey, I pick this guy over that guy.
It's really not much of an endorsement if you're picking this guy over no other guy or woman ever, ever, ever.
I got that.
I've got the... Stop laughing!
I haven't even said, welcome to the Dan Bongino Show.
Nobody even knows you're there yet, Joe, so no laughing.
I have also the Washington Post totally flipping the script now on the Wuhan virus, and why, of course.
I'll always give you an explanation.
And some damning texts, hat tip to the great 279, the greatest source in the history of humankind.
Showing you that this was not Russian disinformation in the Spygate case.
You're not going to want to go into it.
Today's show is sponsored by ExpressVPN.
Your online activity is yours.
Keep prying eyes away.
Get a VPN at ExpressVPN.com slash Bongino today.
Welcome to the Dan Bongino Show.
Producer Joe, how are you today?
Fine, sir.
I guess it's wacky Wednesday.
Laughter in the background and all.
Yeah, I couldn't help myself, man.
It's funny.
After that endorsement last night, it is.
I mean, what a ridiculous, absurd endorsement.
He waits for everybody else to drop out of the race, and then he endorses him in a classic.
All right, let's get right to the content.
We got a loaded show today.
Today's show brought to you by our good friends at Tommy John.
Over the next few weeks, we're going to be spending a lot of time at home.
That means a comfortable wardrobe of loungewear and underwear are going to be your best friends.
So right now, Tommy John, the revolutionary loungewear and underwear brand that's redefining comfort is offering all customers 25% off orders.
Treat yourself and upgrade to a few pairs of Tommy John underwear in the softest, most breathable fabrics you've ever worn.
We love Tommy John in this house!
I was buying these before they were even a sponsor.
When your fresh underwear is delivered, slip into them and experience the no-roll waistband for a perfect fit.
That's because Tommy John obsesses over every little detail and stitch by using proprietary fabrics that perform like nothing you've ever worn before.
Their underwear comes with a no wedgie guarantee.
Can't beat that.
They've eliminated visible panty lines for women and their quick draw fly has been proven to save men over 217 unfurling minutes a year.
That's a long.
Tommy John is so confident in their underwear.
If you don't love your first pair, you get a full refund with the best pair you've ever wear or it's free guarantee.
Tommy John, no adjustment needed.
Paula, how much you love your Tommy Johns?
Hurry to TommyJohn.com slash Dan.
TommyJohn.com slash Dan for 25% off your order.
That's TommyJohn.com slash Dan for 25% off orders.
TommyJohn.com slash Dan.
See site for details.
All right, Joe, let's go.
Here we go, daddy-o!
Okay, again, so no need to pile on here.
Elizabeth Warren just in, you know, air quotes, endorsed Obama, excuse me, Biden, too, after Obama, folks.
It's not an endorsement.
I think one of the benefits of this program, I know self-praise stinks, I'm not that obtuse, but really, I I appreciate your time here.
I don't want you to think you're wasting it.
I've run for office.
I think one of the benefits of having Joe as a producer is not only was he in the radio business for years as well, but having been in the radio business on a pretty prominent morning show in Maryland for, gosh, decades, he's interviewed a lot of politicians.
We're very familiar with their chicanery nonsense, their lies, how they work, and all their BS.
Sadly, sometimes ignorance can be bliss, but it doesn't make for a good show ignorance.
This is not an endorsement, folks.
There was literally nobody left, okay?
There's nobody left.
You can't endorse a guy, in other words, I pick him and you should too, if there's nothing to pick.
There's nothing to pick.
It's not an endorsement.
That's like saying, listen, here you go.
You have your choice of this apple or this orange.
There's no orange.
It's just an apple.
My bad!
Just picked the apple!
It's not an endorsement.
This is an embarrassment.
At this point, honestly, I'm not messing with you.
Not a joke.
Obama and Elizabeth Warren, who, quote, endorsed Biden yesterday, I'm not messing with you.
We're better off saying nothing.
Endorsement-wise, they can say nice things about the candidate.
Of course, they're Democrats.
Vote for the Democrat.
We don't like Trump.
Vote for Biden.
Whatever it may be.
But just leave the endorsement word out.
It just highlights the fact... Yeah.
This is why this endorsement is totally useless.
It highlights the fact that Obama and Elizabeth Warren had so little faith in Sleepy Joe that they waited till he had no other opponents before finally saying, this is the best guy in the race.
But there is no one else.
He's the best guy!
Yeah.
Oh, man.
All right, enough on that.
I'm just... Okay, moving on.
So, ladies and gentlemen, The Washington Post has flipped the script.
Remember usual suspects, Benicio Del Toro?
They flip you.
They flip you for real.
Totally flipped the script and flipped the story.
What is the story?
Let me get the headline out there first.
The same Washington Post that told us months ago That any, Joe, any allegations that the Wuhan virus may have leaked from a lab in Wuhan, China, and not have naturally occurred in the environment at the wet market.
Those were conspiracy theories.
You're all nuts.
Yeah.
And Tom Cotton, Republican Senator, suggested he's a conspiracy theorist and no one should take this guy seriously.
That was the Washington Post.
The democracy dies in the darkness, Washington Post, although they are the darkness, of course.
Magically, Joseph, they've now flipped the script.
This is crazy.
How did that happen?
In the same Washington Post.
Yeah.
Same Washington Post.
Same one.
Yesterday by Josh Rogan.
Same one, kids.
Same one.
Now, Josh Rogan, Washington Post columnist says State Department cables warned of safety issues at Wuhan lab studying bat coronavirus.
No!
Come on!
Come on, Guy!
I thought this was a conspiracy theory!
We're all crazy!
Ooh, crazy time!
Why?
Now, as always with this show...
Me telling you the media lies to you all the time, doesn't know what they're talking about, or largely ignorant of foreign policy, economics, financial markets, current affairs, law enforcement issues, and elsewhere, is not a mystery.
The fact that the media are not bright, it's not news, and it's not worthy of two seconds on the show because you already know that.
The question always with the media is motive.
Why did they do what they did?
Let's read from the piece first, because I want to be clear.
These new cables that they're getting about there may have been a dangerous condition in the Wuhan lab that was studying coronaviruses, Joe.
These cables are not new.
In other words, somebody who leaked these cables, because Josh Rogin, the columnist for the Washington Post, is not a State Department insider.
In other words, he didn't have access to these cables.
Somebody leaked them.
Alright, yeah.
You tracking?
Yeah, okay.
These are old, though.
They're not from last week.
These cables are from months ago.
So why flip this script and report on them now, and why leak them now?
The Deep State.
That's another conspiracy theory.
Let's go to the Washington Post piece.
Two years!
Quote, two years before the novel coronavirus pandemic upended the world, U.S.
embassy officials visited a Chinese research facility in the city of Wuhan several times and sent two official warnings back to Washington about inadequate safety at the lab which was conducting risky studies on coronaviruses from bats.
Wow.
Damning new evidence.
The cables have fueled discussions inside the U.S.
government about whether this or another Wuhan lab was the source of the virus, even though conclusive proof is yet to emerge.
So, just to be clear, the same Washington Post that printed this garbage, this other headline, from the infamous Paula Farrazi, who will now live in infamy for writing this stupid piece, Headline, Paula Farrazi, Paulina Froidever.
I don't even care.
Tom Cotton keeps repeating a coronavirus conspiracy theory that was already debunked.
She writes, Cotton repeated a fringe theory, Joe, suggesting that the ongoing spread of the coronavirus is connected to research in the disease-ravaged epicenter of Wuhan.
So the journal, Oh, I'm so holding it in because I can't take it anymore.
That's really.
These are the people again who are calling me and all my listeners.
You're all nuts.
You're all fringe lunatics.
So we were right.
You're acknowledging now you were wrong.
Now the question many of you, I know Joe and Paul are asking right now is, well, if the state department, Leakers who leaked that information to the Post that, yes, that Wuhan lab is big trouble.
If they've had this information for two years, why leak it now?
In other words, Joe, if the Washington Post was doing real journalism, which they never are, why not when Tom Cotton suggested a credible Established, sincere United States Senator from Arkansas, but who happens to be a Republican.
When he first leveled that allegation, because he does have access to information the Washington Post does not, that hey, this virus may have originated in a lab accident or a lab infection that was unintended.
Why not do your homework then, Shake some trees, go get your sources, your deep state sources, and then find out, oh my gosh, Tom Cotton could be right.
We have these cables that have been around for two years.
Why not do that?
Let's think this through.
Right.
Because the Washington Post is... I've purposely bleeped myself.
I hope your kids can't read lips if you're watching us at YouTube.
It rhymes with hit.
They are garbage.
They have always been garbage, run by garbage people and garbage journalists who do garbage work.
Back when Tom Cotton said that, you have to remember and go back and put yourself in the whatever the media narrative was of that time, not the media narrative now.
What's the media narrative now?
Remember, a story they're telling you, but not the story.
A story they're telling you now is Trump dropped the ball, he knew this thing was going to be a deadly virus, and he did nothing.
Trump lied, people died.
That's their fake narrative now, but that wasn't their fake narrative back in January and February when this thing was raging in China.
Their fake narrative then, because they didn't know how serious it was going to be, their fake narrative then, Joe, was, listen, Trump's just trying to blame China right now.
Trump's just really stupid.
China's not at fault.
That was their narrative then.
Yes, it was.
So any story out there, and many of you forgot that, their narrative back then is Trump is scapegoating people.
Yeah, yeah.
He's scapegoating China.
Because why, Joe?
Because the narrative back then, remember, was because Trump's a racist and a xenophobe.
Because they felt the media, which is Get it?
Rhymes with hit, which is hot garbage.
Thought a more effective story, not the story, again, us story, is Trump's a racist.
Never realizing this was going to become a serious pathogen.
They know they can use identity politics lies to attack Trump.
The fact that China is obviously populated by people from China.
They can use an identity politics attack and say, Oh my gosh, Asians, racism.
Trump is scapegoating China, and so is that evil fringe theory lunatic Tom Cotton.
It is racist, xenophobic, and absurd to suggest that this virus may have leaked from a lab.
Same Washington Post folks.
We did not manipulate those headlines.
It's not a joke.
It's not the Onion.
This is not the Babylon Bee.
All of a sudden, this gets really serious.
The media starts to figure out that the public is starting to turn on the Chinese government, not the Chinese people, but the Chinese government, because they're starting to say, my gosh, this is really starting to break out in Washington, starts to hit New York.
All of a sudden it's declared a pandemic and the United States citizenry.
Is on fire.
And all of a sudden, Trump's anti-Chinese government, not Chinese people, travel bans, and Republican Tom Cotton's, what was perceived as anti-China rhetoric at the time, is now turning into a political benefit.
And the Washington Post, which is, smells this and says, we need a new narrative now.
Let's now stop talking about Calling out China, Joe, may be xenophobic because that'd help Trump now.
In other words, not that Trump's xenophobic, but that Trump called out China and so did Tom Cott.
We have to bury that story now.
Now what happens?
Now the deep staters come in.
You know the deep staters.
That's a fringe theory!
The deep staters who had access to these cables for years, that the Wuhan lab may have been a source of some serious biosafety issues, now when they need to flip the script to the new narrative because it's serious, it's so serious and Trump dropped the ball, they scrapped the old fake story, they introduced a new story, Everybody knew how dangerous this was all the time, even the State Department people and these other representatives who sent cables saying how bad this was, and Trump ignored it.
Now the deep staters come forward and start leaking the information they could have leaked a month ago, but that would have made the Washington Post look bad and Trump look good.
Again, please with a straight face tell me why we should be taking these people seriously.
Ladies and gentlemen, I unfortunately have to have a subscription to the Washington Post because I can't get these articles otherwise, and the New York Times.
I'm humbly and with the greatest of respect begging you If you have one of these and you're not gonna dump this thing tomorrow, never ever click on their pieces.
Get away from them.
It is total garbage.
I will cover their garbage on the show.
These are garbage propaganda.
Pravda-like outfits who have no interest in the truth whatsoever.
Zero.
They are here for one reason only.
To advance the liberal agenda, attack conservatives, obfuscate the truth, promote foreign propaganda, and make sure you never see what really happened in favor of what they want you to believe happened.
I just produced the receipts.
Their receipts, not mine.
They lied to you.
They lied to you.
And their story had to shift because their original story, just like what they did in Spygate.
The reason in my original book on the Spygate fiasco, just a side note before I move on to some other stories too, there's a lot of important things going on.
The reason I wrote in Spygate in my book and used left-wing sources, the New York Times and the Washington Post, if you read the footnotes, a lot of them are from CNN, the Washington Post, and the New York Times, was because they pulled the same stunt in Spygate.
Do you remember when CNN and others were reporting about foreign intelligences passing information on the Trump team to the Obama administration?
Remember that?
I used to put the articles up on the show all the time.
You say, why did they do that?
CNN was essentially outing a foreign spying ring on the Trump team because that's not what they thought they were doing back then.
When they thought the Russian collusion hoax was real, they reported on foreigners spying on the Trump team because that narrative at the time, Joe, was this is so serious, the Trump collusion, that even foreigners are spying too.
Yeah.
Then when they found out it was a fake, they retconned it and pretended none of that was happening.
But they can't delete the articles.
They're still there.
They're still there.
I have one.
Look at this.
I'll put it up on my phone.
For those of you watching on YouTube, here it is right here.
I keep it up on my phone all the time.
This is not a joke.
I keep this up, it'll never go away.
Here it is right there.
On my phone.
CNN.
British intelligence passed Trump associates communications with Russians onto US counterparts.
Their article.
Acknowledging Trump was spied on with the help of foreigners.
They didn't know what they were doing back then.
They thought they were saying, look how serious this collusion is, even the UK's involved.
Problem is, there was no collusion.
And now they can't delete the article.
This is the same thing with the Wuhan virus.
They can't delete their old stuff.
It'll leave a guilty trail if they delete it, and the Wayback Machine never forgets on the internet.
They're busted.
Again.
All right, I want to move on because I've got some religious liberty stories.
Finally, the Department of Justice is starting to fight back, and I want to talk a little bit about what I kind of hinted at yesterday, how lawsuits are going to change everything.
I don't want you to—it's time to fight right now, but I don't want people to freak out that it's all over, everything's done, this is the new normal, as someone suggested to me—it's not the new normal, trust me.
We are a litigious society, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse.
Let me just get to my second sponsor, because I want to run through this.
It'll be important.
Today's show also... I got their shirt on today.
Brought to you by Bravo Company.
We love Bravo Company.
Ladies and gentlemen, if you're in the market for a rifle, the finest rifles in the business, I personally recommend them.
I have two of them.
I love them.
Are from Bravo Company Manufacturing, or BCM for short.
Ladies and gentlemen, these are not sporting rifles.
You know, you're never supposed to say what a company isn't in a read or an advertising, but in this case, it matters.
They build a professional grade product, which is built to combat standards.
If you want a sporting rifle, there are a lot of good products out there.
You can do that for hunting stuff.
That's not what BCM does.
They build their rifles to the same level of protection that should be provided to every American, regardless if they're a private citizen or a professional.
Again, Bravo Company is not a sporting arms company.
They design, engineer, and manufacture, right here in the United States, life-saving equipment.
They're not focused on sporting arms.
These are life-saving rifles.
They assume that when a rifle leaves their shop, it will be used in a life-or-death situation by a responsible citizen, a law enforcement officer, or a soldier overseas.
Quality is all that matters to them.
Again, they build their rifles to a life-saving standard.
They put people before their products.
They build them right here in Heartland, Wisconsin.
They work with lead instructors of marksmanship, with military folks who have input.
This company was founded by people who know what they're doing.
I can't say strongly enough how much I believe in the quality of their product.
It's absolutely terrific.
It's been vouched for by me, by many people who run FFLs, who deal with firearms every day.
Learn more about Bravo Company Manufacturing.
Head on over to Bravo company, M like Mary, F like Frank, G like George.com.
Bravo company, MFG.com, where you can discover more about their products.
They have special offers and upcoming news.
That's Bravo company, MFG.com.
You need more convincing?
Check out their YouTube channel, youtube.com slash Bravo company USA.
Go to Bravo company, MFG.com.
Okay.
So, uh, I wanted to put up this Fox news story because what's going on right now in Michigan and throughout the country, ladies and gentlemen, is an absolute outrage.
You know, I did an episode, I don't know, Joe.
Two years ago, I lost track of time.
Who knows anymore?
But where I talked about how some friends of mine in the intelligence field and in the political field, there's a video out there.
It's probably copyrighted, so I can't put it on the show, but I'll describe it to you quickly what it is.
It's a video of a guy in a park dancing and everybody's laughing.
It's a real video.
It's not a joke.
About two years.
You know the video.
Yeah.
He's in a party.
It's on a grainy, it doesn't even look like a cell phone camera.
It looks like it was from so long ago that it's on some kind of portable camera.
It's very grainy.
And he's dancing kind of erratically and everybody's laughing at him and making a big joke out of it.
And all of a sudden someone else gets up and dances with them.
And next thing you know, you have three people, then five people, then a hundred people, then the whole park is dancing.
It's a real video.
It's about three minutes long.
It's one of the best videos I've seen in a while.
It's not because the dancing is any good or because the music is any good or because it's even remotely entertaining.
It says a lot about sociology, social psychology, the individual and the crowd dynamic.
Ladies and gentlemen, It's not the person that gets up and dances really that matters.
He was dancing for a long time.
Everybody was laughing at him.
He's not the change agent.
It's the first guy who gets up and dances with him.
That's the one that matters.
It's time to dance now.
It's time to dance, ladies and gentlemen.
It's not time to put anybody in danger.
Don't mistake what I'm saying.
Nobody's doing that.
Nobody's suggesting that.
It's a serious virus.
You should be treated as such.
But ladies and gentlemen, we're not going to have a country left if we allow the governor of Michigan, the disastrous Gretchen Whitmer, Larry Hogan in Maryland, who I think has been as bad, and candidly, he's a Republican, and their ridiculous, draconian measures where they think they're keeping the public safe, but they're not.
Now, some things make a lot of sense.
Social distancing, the wearing of masks.
I'm not saying they should be mandated, but they definitely make sense.
There are some sincere at-risk populations.
But Gretchen Whitmer in Michigan, the disastrous governor, closing down aisles in supermarkets you're already in because the items are not essential?
Ladies and gentlemen, what the hell sense does that make?
The governors in some other states, like the disastrous Andy Beshear in Kentucky, in essence trying to put a halt on religious services where people are in their cars with the windows closed?
What is this, an x-ray virus?
What is it, travel through proton streams?
Are we serious?
Even worse, what happened in Mississippi?
Where people were ticketed and fined for being at a religious service?
No, no, no.
This is gonna stop.
It's time to dance.
Oh boy, it's a time to dance.
It's time for you to get up and dance and everybody to get up and dance with you, ladies and gentlemen.
Playtime's over.
Playtime is over.
In your car with the windows closed.
Here's a story at Fox News.
Brooke Singman.
It'll be in the show notes today.
Please read it.
This is worth your time.
It's very well done.
It's a long piece, but it describes our fight with our balance always between religious liberty and government intervention.
Headline, Fox News, DOJ intervenes in Mississippi drive-in church case.
Said city's actions target religious conduct.
The Department of Justice under Bill Barr is finally getting involved.
Put a statement of interest in a lawsuit.
Where a bunch of people in Mississippi showed up for religious service in their cars and were fined and given tickets, quote, from the piece.
Today, the DOJ filed a statement of interest in support of a church in Mississippi that allegedly sought to hold parking lot worship services in which congregants listen to their pastor preach over their car radios while sitting in their cars in the lot with the windows up, Attorney General Barr said.
The city of Greenville fined congregants $500 per person for attending these park-at-lot services while permitting citizens to attend nearby drive-in restaurants even with their windows open.
No, no, no, no, no.
No, no, no.
Time to dance, folks.
No way.
Not on our watch.
Not a chance.
Oh, what's happening?
Oh my gosh.
What is happening?
I never thought in my, I honestly never in my lifetime thought we'd be seeing this here.
Never, Dan.
Now, the piece is good for a number of reasons.
I like pieces, articles, I should say.
There's a guy who emails me, he hates when I say pieces.
Articles.
This one is good by Brooke Singman.
Because it not only describes the problem accurately, but it describes the argument and counter-argument.
Obviously, the argument by the officials in Greenville who decided somehow fining people attending a religious service in their car with the windows closed was a good idea.
But we need to know what their argument is.
It makes you a more robust, vigorous debater when you understand the other side.
Liberals never make an attempt to understand us.
That's why they're so horrible debating.
The argument is, well, this is a public safety threat.
Okay.
We get it.
The virus is a public safety threat.
The problem is, if you're suggesting sitting in your car around other people with the windows closed, listening to a service on your car radio, is a public safety threat, then how come going to a restaurant, driving with the windows open, isn't a public safety threat?
In other words, That doesn't quite pass the common sense test.
So it gives you the argument counter.
Another thing that the article does, which I always like, is it gives you the constitutional perspective.
While we've litigated these things before, ladies and gentlemen, no right... I don't want to say it that way because then it confuses people.
There is some Components of your big R, God-given rights.
The Constitution doesn't give you any rights.
I want to be clear on that.
Your rights are granted by God.
The people are the sovereign in the United States.
Period.
Full stop.
God-given, inalienable rights.
The Constitution describes in many cases what the government can't do to you.
But it does enumerate some powers to the government.
There are some circumstances where a right is not absolute.
In other words, the right to free speech obviously is not absolute if I walk up to you and threaten to kill you in front of people while brandishing a weapon, even if I don't do anything.
That's not my right.
Well, it's not absolute.
There is a compelling government interest in stopping people from threatening the lives of other people.
Religious freedom is obviously a right too.
Having said that, if you, I mean, to give an extreme example, because sometimes I get emails from people saying, you don't, I do, I believe me, I've had to deal with this for years through my time on the law enforcement side.
I get it.
You don't have to be an attorney to figure this out.
If you practice a religion, religion A, and religion A says, you know, on the third day of every month, we're going to sacrifice our first born.
That's not an absolute right.
You think?
Yeah.
So there's a balancing test.
And the balancing test is always going to be this.
Can the government curtail a religious practice like they did in Mississippi?
Don't show up to the service or we're going to fine you.
People showed up and they got fined.
For the government to do that, they have to have a compelling interest, number one.
That one will give them a check.
Stopping the spread of a virus Is a compelling interest.
I'm not saying this is legit.
It's not the only fork here.
So for the government to curtail a religious activity, going to church, practicing your religion, they must have a compelling, legitimate interest.
So you can give them a checkmark on that.
Alright, we don't want people at religious services because they can spread this deadly virus.
Okay.
They'll probably pass some legal muster for that.
But that's not it!
Because then, Joe, the government could stop religion and say anything's a compelling interest, right?
Well, we don't want you going to church on Sunday because it stops economic activity for an hour on Sunday.
That's our compelling interest.
No more church on Sunday.
They'd be laughed out of court.
You have to meet the second prong, too, which is the more important one.
Because anything could be a compelling interest, especially with the government.
It has to be done, your activity, government activity, to stop this religious activity via the least restrictive means.
Meaning of all the options you have to stop that religious activity, you have to pick the least restrictive, not the most restrictive means.
Ladies and gentlemen, this action in Greenville, Mississippi, clearly, clear as day, they have no argument here whatsoever to suggest you can't show up to a church service in your car with the windows closed.
That we engaged in the least restrictive means of doing that, which was fining you.
You did?
Then how come you didn't fine people who went to the restaurant?
I thought you said of all the options, you picked the least restrictive.
No, you picked the most restrictive, issuing a fine.
The least restrictive would have been to put out some kind of memo or public saying, Hey, listen, we're not going to ban this service, but here are some guidelines for you.
Wash your hands, keep your window.
Right, Joe?
That would have been the least.
They picked the most restrictive.
They chose law enforcement.
People said, Hey, go give these people a fine, but don't find the people in the restaurant there with the windows open.
That's punishment too.
You know, they have no argument.
Yeah.
They are going to get crushed here.
And good.
Yeah.
Because it's time to dance.
Yes, sir.
It's time to get up, to see people dance, and to dance with them.
Because, ladies and gentlemen, we're the sovereign here.
This is our country.
That's not a tagline.
It's not a campaign slogan.
The Constitution is meaningless if you don't believe in the Constitution and we don't have buy-in.
And the Constitution grants powers to the people.
Sometimes limited in some respects based on certain litigation and constitutional interpretations.
But the Bill of Rights is a document that limits the government, not you.
It says what the government can't do.
It doesn't say what you can't do.
Shall not be infringed.
Remember all that stuff?
Bill of Rights, that kind of thing?
Mm-hmm.
There's not an asterisk in the Bill of Rights that says, unless there's a coronavirus outbreak.
I miss that.
Now, I wanted to add one more thing, because it's important.
I said to this good friend of mine I was talking to, who is genuinely concerned, she was raised in a communist country and is really concerned, that this curtailment on our liberties, religious liberties, don't go out, wear a face mask, we're gonna send you to jail, all this other crap that's coming out right now, There's a genuine concern amongst people who've lived through this totalitarianism in the past that this could become the new normal.
And ladies and gentlemen, we better dance to make sure it doesn't.
But having said that, I'd be doing you a disservice if I thought that was likely now.
Maybe a little bit of worrying about it's a good thing, or a lot a bit of worrying about it.
But I'll tell you why, to put a little bit of a good note on this.
Folks, I was a member of the Secret Service for a long time.
I hate injecting these stories.
Some people say, but I can only give you through my lens.
That's why it's called the Dan Bongino Show.
When I was an early Secret Service agent, 1999, early in my career to be precise, we would go and do advances at these sites where the president would visit.
And we would have to set up an area, a protest zone area, where people could protest.
And everybody just did it because that's what we did.
I honestly, I can't even give you a reason why, other than that's just how it happened.
Where's the protest zone?
Oh, it's over there.
And then finally, someone got up and danced.
No, I'm not kidding.
Someone got up and danced and says, I'll protest wherever the F I want, as long as I don't impact your security plan.
We're like, you can't do that.
There's this protest zone.
And everybody had a tough time kind of thinking that through, like, hmm.
Uh, that kind of First Amendment, petition your government, right, to prove all that stuff, doesn't have an asterisk unless it's a Secret Service show.
I missed that.
Mm-hmm.
Well, there was a lawsuit about it, and they won.
Easily.
And there are, believe me when I tell you, because I lived through it, absolutely no protest zones now.
America's a protest zone.
Now, you're not allowed to walk into a secure site.
That's different.
But that affects everyone.
Everybody goes through the magnetometer.
End of story.
We don't throw out protesters at sight.
The staff can ask people to be removed.
We only stop people unless they present a danger to the president.
I say that because, as I said to this person I was talking to on the phone who's really concerned this curtailment of our liberties is the new normal, once checks start getting paid out, and people start suing, and people start getting embarrassed like the Greenville folks are about to in Mississippi, trust me when I tell you, ladies and gentlemen, once those checks start getting cashed, and people start getting wrecked in court, There ain't gonna be no new normal.
The lawsuits from what's happening now have just begun.
Have just begun.
Trust me.
Take that to the bank.
People are gonna start dancing soon, as the lawsuits start piling up over this.
Alright.
You know what, let me get to my last sponsor speech, because this next- don't go anywhere for this next block.
I told you the story was gonna catch fire that- It's out there.
The FBI fell for Russian disinformation.
Aw, shucks, we didn't do anything wrong.
No, no, no, no, no.
I've got receipts.
Hattip 279 are the best source in the history of humankind.
Our final sponsor today, before I get to that, Abide.
Listen, they have come in handy for me now.
You deal with stress and anxiety throughout your day.
You find yourself on the phone constantly?
Stop checking social media and pop open the Abide, A-B-I-D-E app to ease your mind.
Abide is the number one Christian meditation app.
Abide users report less stress, I know I do, lower levels of anxiety and depression, and better sleep.
Start your day with Abide's daily meditation based on biblical scripture.
These audio meditations will center you and draw you closer to Christ.
I can't recommend it enough, ladies and gentlemen, especially with everything going on.
For a limited time, our listeners will get 25% off a premium subscription when you visit Abide.co.
Abide's meditations start at two minutes long.
They're easy to fit in your schedule.
They feature topics like overcoming anxiety, managing stress, addiction, recovery, finding forgiveness, and more.
At the end of the day, find deep, sound rest with Abide's bedtime stories.
Based on the Bible, they're great for kids and adults alike.
Join the millions of people using Abide, including Grammy award-winning singers, church leaders, and Christians like you.
Get started now with 25% off a premium subscription by downloading the Abide app at abide.co.co slash Bongino.
You'll get additional stories and meditations, premium music, soothing sounds, and more.
Support the show and get 25% off by going to abide.co slash Bongino.
That's A-B-I-D-E.co slash Bongino.
Download the Abide app and get 25% off your premium subscription.
Really puts you at ease at night.
I have to go tranquilo at night.
Video.
What do you mean?
Oh, oh!
Paula's giving me a note in the back.
Video.
I totally forgot that.
Oh yeah, let's get to that before I get to that.
One quick thing.
President Trump is done with... See, this is why you need a great producer back there.
He's holding up notes.
But I can't see anything anyway.
You need a sharpie.
That's what we... Here.
Hold on.
Here.
For the future.
Sharpie, because I can't, the pen, I can't, well, you can't, sorry, I didn't throw it far enough.
I can't read when it's your writing pen.
Here's just a quick video yesterday, big announcement at the press conference yesterday Trump had, where he just annihilated that silly Brian Karam, that press guy.
I'm leaving if you keep talking!
But we are going to apparently cut temporarily funding to the dreadful World Health Organization until Trump finds out why the World Health Organization was misleading us about the China numbers.
Just quickly, President Trump from yesterday.
Today I'm instructing my administration to halt Funding of the World Health Organization while a review is conducted to assess the world.
Health organizations' role in severely mismanaging and covering up the spread of the coronavirus.
I love this guy.
I'm telling you no one else would do that.
Everyone else would just take it.
Oh my gosh, the media is saying we can't do that in the middle of a pandemic.
Why?
Why?
As I said, even Paula said this morning, why is he doing it now?
Why not?
The World Health Organization's sole goal is to assist world health, not to lie to the American people.
It's not that they It's not that they missed the ball, Joe, by telling us, oh, there's no evidence of human-to-human transmission.
I keep saying transition.
Transmission.
It's not that they didn't help us, Joe.
They hurt us.
That's right.
Ah, don't worry.
They were the ones calling out Trump's travel ban.
This is unnecessary.
Xenophobic.
But no, no money for you.
No money for you.
Sorry.
Until we figure that out.
Hmm.
Nah.
All right, so this is my Stop the Nonsense segment.
Stop the nonsense.
I told you it was going to get out there.
I even saw an article in the New York Post today by Rich Lowry.
I like Rich.
It's not a knock on Rich.
But the headline of the article is, now it looks like Mueller and Comey were misled by Russian disinformation.
Folks, please, please.
The dossier used to spy on Donald Trump, allegedly written by Christopher Steele, though we know others had input, is a fake.
They did this on purpose and I'm going to produce the receipts.
Remember, this argument matters for one reason.
There are two standards here.
I bring these words up often on the show because the media, when they realize they're caught in a scam, will always lead towards misfeasance over malfeasance.
Because malfeasance is worse, right?
What's the example I gave?
You're walking down the sidewalk.
Old woman falls.
You just walk past her.
That's misfeasance.
She didn't do anything.
It's bad.
But what's worse?
You walk past her.
She goes to get up and you punch her in the face.
That's malfeasance.
You actively did something wrong.
When the media is caught like they are with Spygate, they know they're going to have to acknowledge the Trump team was spied on.
They're going to air towards misfeasance like, it wasn't intentional.
Aw, shucks.
We just didn't see the old lady on the sidewalk.
No, no, no.
We're not falling for that on the show.
No.
Let's produce the receipts.
The receipts saying what?
This was not a trick.
The FBI knew the whole time what they were doing.
They were propagating a lie and they were fully aware as far back as 2015, not after the fact, that the Russians are really good at disinformation.
You got receipts?
You got receipts?
Paul, I hate that when I say that.
You got receipts?
Oh, we got receipts!
Let's go to receipt number one.
A text from the lead FBI investigator in the case, Peter Stroke, to his FBI lawyer girlfriend, Lisa Page, from 2015, where he fully acknowledges in the text that the FBI could be suckers and that Vladimir Putin is really good.
No, Dan, you're clearly making that up.
No, I'm not.
Here it is from 2015.
A lot of it's redacted.
But he says to his girlfriend, this is the FBI investigator investigating Trump in 2015.
He's, ah, you know, we can play it by ear, you know, Putin redacted, and it says Putin is very good.
We're kind of suckers.
His girlfriend, he totally is.
Makes some sense, too, given his training.
He talks about later there about Russian disinformation in 2015.
Oh, shucks.
We got fooled.
You got fooled?
You're talking to your girlfriend in 2015 about how Putin's really good and actively engages in disinformation.
So your narrative now is what?
You knew the Russians were engaged in disinformation campaigns?
You're acknowledging how great Putin is to your girlfriend while you're being subjected to Russian disinformation?
Guys, that makes you really, really stupid if that's the case.
You may say, ah, that's your receipt, Dan.
I get it.
They knew they were probably getting smoked, but it's not really hard evidence that this thing wasn't Russian disinformation.
It was all lies the whole time, and the FBI knew it.
Don't worry.
I have more receipts.
All right.
Have no fear.
I don't brief Joe before the show, because at the end of the show, when we hang up, I always say to him, what do you think of that?
Because if I know if I don't make a compelling argument to him and he's confused, everyone else is too, let's go to receipt number two here.
This is a doozy.
Here is a text from Lisa Page, FBI lawyer girlfriend, back to FBI boyfriend, lead investigator into Donald Trump, Peter Stroh.
This is from 2016.
This is a fascinating one.
279, thanks for the red lines on it.
If you're watching on YouTube, youtube.com slash Bongino.
They're talking about an article in Lawfare magazine, which I'll put up in a minute.
And Paige says to Stroke, ha, ha, ha, laughing.
The first line of this article made me smile.
He says in reply, Stroke says, interesting.
Good comments about Comey too.
They're talking about an article.
Paige loves it.
Loves it, Joe.
Loves the article.
Hmm.
Stroke's like, me too.
It's so great.
The comments about Comey.
What article are they talking about?
Oh, this one in Lawfare.
Lawfare by Susan Hennessey.
Monday, July 25th, 2016.
What does the U.S.
government know about Russia and the DNC hack?
Well, what's the first line, Joe, that Lisa Page loves and Stroke thinks is just great?
The first line of the article is this.
Potentially unpleasant news for Jim Comey.
We're going to need you to intervene in the 2016 election again.
Oh.
Now, Joe, you, unfortunately, because it makes you a terrible ombudsman, but a very educated,
you're not a good ombudsman because you know everything because you've been listening to
me ramble on about this case forever. That's true.
That's true.
You've read most of my books.
But this is kind of bad, no?
I would say so, yeah.
There's an article out there that says We may need Jim Comey to interfere in the 2016 election again.
The lead FBI lawyer and the lead FBI agent investigating Trump are texting each other back and forth.
Hey, we love it!
Yeah.
We love it.
Especially the first line.
No, no, folks.
The media's right.
The Russians just duped them.
Aw, shucks.
Golly!
No worries.
They were all duped.
They're texting each other.
With glee that the media is calling for Comey to interfere again in the 2016 election.
Don't worry, folks.
Misfeasance.
It wasn't malfeasance.
All unintentional.
It's all a mistake.
We're making all of this up.
Now, you may say to yourself, okay, well, that's kind of compelling.
That sounds pretty bad.
You think?
Let's produce some more receipts, like those CVS receipts when you go there.
You know those CVS receipts?
Yeah.
They look like rolls of toilet paper.
You come out of there, you're like, what the?
Special coupons.
Like a ticker tape parade.
It's a lot of coupons.
Yeah.
Let's go to receipt number three.
We're at another article.
They start talking about another article.
This one's fascinating about a guy, John.
Let's go to this text.
This is another John.
John.
Yeah, old John comes up.
So, this is Paige to Stroke again.
I'll send separately to Andy.
He's talking about McCabe.
Though I'm sure Bill, that's Bill Price, Stroke's boss, will brief it in a morning meeting.
She attaches an article.
He says, it was just a New York Times article to you and John about Russia.
He says, well, thanks a lot.
This will definitely come up in the morning meeting too.
Thanks.
Hopefully without printed handouts.
She says, I'm done with MYE.
That's the investigation into mid-year exam.
In other words, like we're dumping the mid-year Hillary Clinton exam.
And we're really excited about this article and I think we should talk about it.
What's the article that they want to talk about?
And John comes up.
You're never going to, but this is, this is almost you.
I swear, if you think we were making this up, this is how we would make it up.
But we're not.
Here's the article they think is so terrific that where they're exchanging to each other on text.
A powerful Russian weapon. The spread of false stories. New York Times.
Neil McFarquhar. October 2016.
This is hilarious.
It's all Russian disinformation.
We got duped.
We didn't know.
You're texting each other about Russian disinformation in 2015.
You're texting in 2016 telling each other you're going to brief the deputy director of the FBI and Stroke's own boss about an article about Russian disinformation while you're going to claim now we all got duped by Russian disinformation.
What am I missing here?
Again, I get that after the first one, you're like, the second one, that's ugly.
The third one, you're like, oh boy.
So your narrative going forward is going to be, oh shucks, we got duped.
While you're texting each other about not getting duped.
Literally attaching articles about how the Russians duped people.
We got duped, but you were texting about not getting duped, texting articles about how the Russians duped the dupees by the dupers.
The dupers and the dupees were...
All a conspiracy theory, folks, don't worry.
Yes, we're all idiots on this show.
We have no idea.
We actually produce receipts here all the time.
We're all the dopes and the New York Times and the Washington Post, they're all over it.
That's too much.
You may say, surely, Dan, you don't have any more receipts.
No.
You've made a pretty compelling case.
No.
Dan, you have more?
Well, you'd be wrong.
Yeah.
Oh, trust me, there's always more.
Always more.
Here's another receipt, and this one's really interesting.
This one's got an angle to it, a twist.
It's not as straightforward when you read it, but if you know this case back and forth, you'll understand exactly what's going on in this little doozy.
Remember what we're talking about.
Keep the headline in your mind.
They were not duped by the Russians.
They knew full well the Russians engage in disinformation the whole time.
And the dossier was a lie.
They just hated Trump.
That's it.
They weren't duped by anybody.
They're talking about getting duped by the dupers and they're pretending to be the dupees.
Look at this text.
This is a good one.
I'll explain to you why in a minute.
You may say, if you're watching on YouTube, you may be like, well, what the hell's that?
It looks like a big black dot.
That's the point.
Yeah.
Bart, this is a text.
The entire exchange is redacted up until the end.
The whole exchange.
One, two, three, four.
There's got to be 15 lines of redactions there.
Fully.
Which says to you what?
Keep that up for a minute.
Which says what if you're watching this?
Oh, they were talking about something.
Something real bad there.
Real bad.
And how does it end?
The one line we can read, it says, and F the cheating mother effing Russians.
Bastards.
I hate them.
A tweet from Stroke to Paige.
What the hell were they talking about?
Wait, wait, look at the date.
Pop that up one more minute.
The date on this is important.
Because this is the day before, the day before, in 2016, dossier number 94 is launched.
So they're talking about something so damaging to the FBI that the entire exchange is redacted.
Up until the end, it's clear they're talking about something with the Russians because Stroke says, and the only unredacted line relevant to that exchange, I hate the Russians.
Stroke and page.
And they're like, yeah, yeah, we can't stand them.
Ladies and gentlemen, that's back in July.
It's the day before dossier number 94 is dropped by Christopher Steele.
Why would that matter?
Well, let's follow the timeline here.
The FBI has said from the start, we didn't rely on the dossier.
Which is a lie to spy on Donald Trump, right?
Follow me.
What's been their official story?
No, no, no.
We relied on a tip we got from the Australian government about George Papadopoulos from the Trump team meeting with Alexander Downer and allegedly saying something about the Russians having information on Hillary.
That is their official story to this day.
That story is a steaming pile of horse manure.
That is not true.
The FBI's case was always, always about the dossier, which is a lie.
It is not Russian disinformation.
There are tidbits of it in there, but it's not Russian disinformation.
It's a lie and they knew it.
That's why they have to pretend they didn't learn about the dossier until, what's their official story?
What is their official story?
Follow the timeline.
Their official story is we didn't receive the dossier until September.
Well, gosh, that's awfully weird, Joe, because they're texting each other in a fully redacted text exchange.
These two investigators working the case who claiming they know nothing about the dossier at this point in July.
Remember, they're saying we don't get it till September.
That's right.
It's fully redacted.
Then they say how much they hate the Russians.
And conveniently, the next day is when dossier number 94 drops or is dated.
Why is dossier number 94, memo number 94, by Christopher Steele important?
Well, number one, because it's dated in July and they're claiming they didn't get it in September.
But it's the first time Carter, Page, and Rosneft, the alleged bribe between the Russian oil company, it's the first time it's mentioned.
Not the bribe, but Carter, Page, and Rosneft were mentioned.
It's the first time.
Was whoever wrote that, Halper, Steele, or whoever wrote that memo, talking to the FBI in July, and Stroke and Page are talking about it on that text, and the government doesn't want you to know that, so they redacted it fully?
They have to, because I'm telling you, the FBI is going to stick to their story.
We didn't learn about any of this until September.
My bad.
Really?
We need to see that text.
Listen, to our congressional friends, you know who you are.
We need that redacted.
There is a reason they are covering that text up in July.
I guarantee you that text is about information in the dossier from July that they said they didn't get till September.
What does that have to do with the fake Russian disinformation line?
Because back then, if they were dealing with Christopher Steele, and Steele was producing information back then, They were clearly lying about the genesis of this story and were trying to cover up that they were suspicious of Russian disinformation back then, knew it, and they ran with the dossier anyway, knowing it was a lie.
Please tell me you're tracking.
It's really simple.
Copy.
Are they talking in July about something they didn't say they got until September?
Right.
And why is it that that dossier that mentions the only players in an alleged crime, Carter Page taking a bribe from Rosner, first come up the next day.
There's a reason you were looking at a black dot there.
Get that black dot off those texts.
It will destroy their whole story.
Get those strokes off that page.
Get those... It can have many different meanings, given... Let's go to photo five!
My last receipt of the day.
This one's interesting, because again, you're suggesting that, oh, you know, they thought the Russian disinformation, oh my gosh, they got duped.
They got duped, really?
They thought it was the Russians?
Because that's not what they say in this text exchange.
Here they are in May of 2016, talking about how the sleazy Romanians and Guccifer were involved in this whole thing.
Quote, Guccifer, sleazy Romanian, they all are.
Wait, I thought it was the Russians, the disinformation.
So back in May, you're suspicious that this internet activity and the so-called hacking of the DNC and all this stuff, back in May, you're suspicious that it may have been the quote, sleazy Romanians?
I thought it was the Russians the whole time.
Folks, don't get played.
This is obviously an attempt by Deep State insiders to tailor the narrative.
We didn't base anything on the dossier.
We didn't learn about it until September.
And when we did learn about it, oh man, they slipped some Russian information about there and aw shucks, we all got fooled.
That's crap.
That's total garbage.
Don't be a sucker for this.
Unlike fake news journalists out there, we do real investigative reporting here.
Don't ever call me a member of the media.
It's the biggest insult you can make.
We do reporting.
Actual reporting.
And we produce the numbers and the receipts.
Alright, last story of the day, because if I don't get to this, my wife will kill me.
I've been pumping it for a couple days.
Folks, there's a reason Obama, the Democrats, Michelle Obama, are pushing for vote by mail.
Not vote by mail as an adjunct to voting in person.
I vote by mail.
They want near-universal vote-by-mail in this election, which is a bad idea.
You may say, well, you vote by mail.
I've already explained why I would have no, I want to be clear, I would have no problem whatsoever with voting by mail being limited to very strict circumstances, even if it involves me, because there's a reason I do it.
I've already explained it.
I'm not going to wear you out.
You may say, well, that's hypocritical.
It's not.
It's just me trying to avoid a scene.
I would have no problem with that going away unless it was for people who can't get out of their house in limited circumstances.
Why?
Because ladies and gentlemen, as I've spoken about in the show, the reason the Democrats want mass nationwide voting by mail is because the potential for fraud is enormous and the Democrats don't care about fraud.
Matter of fact, not only do they not care about fraud, fraud actually assists them in getting elected in many cases, as I've been a victim of in an election myself I ran in, where people voted in the election who came back earlier And we found out they told people during a jury duty assignment that they were not citizens.
Well, how did they vote then?
Who knows?
Not sour grapes.
Election's over.
Just saying.
Voter fraud is very real.
Democrats want you to pretend it isn't real so they can continue to get elected because they're frauds.
That's what Democrats do.
So there's an article in the Daily Signal written by one of the imminent experts in this voter fraud field, Hans von Spakovsky, a good friend of mine.
Potential for fraud is why mail-in elections should be dead letter.
He gives a number of examples, including the fact that the Heritage Foundation has upwards of a thousand plus examples of legitimate voter fraud that you're, again, asking the media to do journalism.
Instead of voter fraud, it's a Republican myth.
And actually going and asking the Heritage Foundation, can we see the evidence here in the receipts?
They're not serious people to me.
Come to us and you'll get the actual receipts.
But in the article, he points out a number of places where voter fraud has been very real, all too unfortunately.
But here's one specific one that should really, really bake your bagels.
This one should set your temperature up at about another 10 degrees.
Look at this example out of California.
Quote, another case out of California demonstrates how voter fraud often hurts the most marginalized individuals and communities.
Again, Democrats don't care about any of this.
They just want to win elections.
Norman Hall was involved in a scheme with eight other individuals involving the homeless on Skid Row.
According to the LA District Attorney, they solicited hundreds of false and or forged signatures on state ballot petitions and voter registration forms by offering homeless people a dollar and or cigarettes for their participation.
The ballot petitions for which Hall and others gathered fraudulent signatures included calling for reducing jail time, changing the authority of the sheriff's office, and increasing taxes on millionaires and other business owners.
Again, a case clearly on a docket somewhere, a legal case, by the L.A.
County District Attorney's Office.
But you're not going to read that in a paper.
You're going to read, this stuff doesn't happen with mail-in ballots and absentees.
It doesn't happen.
It's a Republican myth.
It is very real.
And the reason Obama and them are pushing it is precisely because it's very real.
And this is how Democrats, unfortunately, not all, I'm not talking about all voting Democrats out there.
There's some who are concerned about voter integrity measures too.
But this is how institutional swamp Democrats get done what they want done.
They love voter fraud.
They don't want it to go away, ever.
All right, don't miss tomorrow's show.
There's a debt story I want to get to from CNS News talking about a real legitimate existential threat with our debt.
And I want to explain to you some quick dynamics here about what's going to happen, folks.
Someone's going to pay.
Remember, all debts are paid either by the debtor or the creditor.
They're also being paid by savers now.
I'll get to that tomorrow too.
Savers, how are savers paying?
Oh, you'll figure that out tomorrow.
Or taxes, which are not going to materialize.
You can't tax something that doesn't exist.
I want to get to that story tomorrow and a couple more updates on the Spygate case, because this thing is just fascinating to me.
Again, we produce receipts.
Thanks everybody for tuning in.
Please subscribe on our YouTube channel.
I think we're like 3,000 away from 400,000 subscribers, all free.
YouTube.com slash Bongino.
We really appreciate it trying to bump up those numbers.
