What They’re Not Telling You About The Recent Police Shootings (Ep 1501)
Don’t believe the media hype about the latest police shooting. In this episode, I break down the video and show why the media is gaslighting you. I also cover the latest effort by members of the intelligence community to destroy Donald Trump.
News Picks:
CBS News accused of cropping bodycam video footage of the Adam Toledo shooting.
An informative article about why police officers sometimes mistake their firearm for a taser.
Major League Baseball’s favorability has collapsed with Republicans.
These UFO videos are some of the most troubling we’ve ever seen.
Master list of all of the debunked Russian “collusion” conspiracy theories.
Republicans have a new plan to combat the big tech totalitarians.
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 a lot of you who are reasonable out there, which is my listening audience, we're not talking about the liberals, of course, or their media buddies, are probably asking sound, sane questions right now.
Like, how is it in that A shooting incident in Minneapolis that the police officer reached for the firearm while she thought she was reaching for the taser.
That's a fair question, a good question, a necessary question to ask, correct?
We're gonna get to that today.
We're gonna get to it towards the end of the show.
No matter what, Guy, we gotta get to that story, okay?
But in the beginning of the show first, I want to talk about another police shooting incident we had in Chicago and how, again, The anger merchants looking to promote chaos and anger.
How exactly they're trying to form a narrative without telling you what actually happened.
Do not miss this show tonight.
Sorry.
That sounded very like, do not miss the show.
Like your grandma pointing a finger at you or something like that, Daniel.
Don't let big tech spy on you.
Get a VPN.
Go to expressvpn.com slash Bongino today.
Welcome to the Dan Bongino Show.
Let's get right to it.
Joe, it is Friday.
So if you wouldn't mind giving us the traditional 1960s game show voice Friday opening, we would appreciate it.
It's Friday!
I got that.
I also got another Russian collusion story making its way around.
I'll explain to you why the intelligence community, especially the higher-ups, we have to be very careful.
All right, today's show brought to you by ExpressVPN.
You ever stop to wonder why the internet access is so much cheaper these days, like 30 to 40 bucks a month?
It's because internet service providers, the companies that provide you with your internet, aren't just making money off subscription fees, they're making money from you, spying on your internet activity and selling your history and data to big tech companies.
You know that?
You know what now?
So what's the best way to make sure that 100% of your data is encrypted and that your ISP can't get a hold of your data?
You guessed it, our friends at ExpressVPN.
It's what I use.
ExpressVPN creates a secure tunnel between all your devices and the internet so everything you do online is encrypted.
It reroutes your connection through a secure server that blocks your ISP from seeing what you do online.
All they see is that you're connected to an ExpressVPN server, but nothing beyond that.
It's not just for your phone or computer.
ExpressVPN works on all your devices, tablets, smart TVs, even your routers, so your entire family can stay protected.
I can't stress this enough.
ExpressVPN is simple to use.
Just open up the app, tap a button to connect, and you're ready to rock and roll.
Your data is your business, protected at all costs.
Go to expressvpn.com slash Bongino and get three extra months of ExpressVPN protection for free.
That's expressvpn.com slash Bungino to learn more.
Expressvpn.com slash Bungino.
All right, Joe, let's go.
Oh, she's not firing.
Dead mouse.
Hit the Kenny bell.
Yeah!
The Kenny bell to the rescue, folks.
The Kenny bell to the rescue.
All right.
So let me dig right into this thing.
The Kenny bell rings forever.
That's the only, we have to like stop the Kenny bell to the rescue.
You know, it does.
It rings forever.
All right.
So we had this, uh, Really horrible situation.
You run out of ways to describe these things, folks.
There was a 13-year-old boy who was shot pursuant to a police foot chase in Chicago.
Now, of course, that's where the analysis ends for a lot of people looking to cause chaos and anger.
They don't want to dig deep into these stories.
They don't want to know why it happened.
They want to promote a narrative somehow that this was either Racist or evidence of police brutality, whatever it may be.
We're not going to do that today.
We are going to talk about the facts and the truth.
We are going to thoroughly refute the anger merchants eager to promote chaos and anger and racial narratives and the people who are giving you limited information on what happened.
And I'm going to show you how they did it.
So if you were on social media at any point yesterday, Facebook, Twitter, whatever it may be, You probably saw this photo making the rounds.
There's this 13-year-old boy, this Adam Toledo.
He is standing there in a dark alley.
You'll see some kind of a flashlight illuminating him.
Keep in mind, this is 2 in the morning.
This is a still shot that made its way around, and Toledo's hands are up.
This is the shot that made its way around.
Now, if this is all you looked at, right, which is a lot of liberals out there, because this is all they want to see, if this is all you saw from the police body camera, again, taken from about 10 feet away, dark alley, 2 a.m., Chicago, late at night, 13-year-old boy, facing the officer, hands up in the air, you would say to yourself, my gosh, This 13-year-old boy was shot.
This is clearly police brutality.
This police officer should be charged with murder.
If, of course, that's all the homework you did.
Which, sadly, are most liberals out there.
Because most liberals out there don't want to hear the truth.
That picture is what you saw.
If you're watching on Rumble, you can see the photo.
If not, I just described it to you.
Again, 13-year-old boy, dark alley, late at night, flashlight on the boy, facing, hands up, shots ring out from the police officer after the shot.
The boy tragically dies.
Adam Toledo.
Now I'm going to play for you the full video.
I had to cut out one portion of it because it's silent until the officer turns his microphone on on his police body cam.
You're not missing anything.
What you're going to see here is when the foot pursuit starts.
Now, the background on how this foot pursuit starts is important.
Because remember, we're trying to analyze this as reasonable people.
Why would a police officer believe his life was in danger to the point where he engages with his firearm and shoots and kills this 13-year-old boy.
Why?
Wouldn't you be interested in that rather than just looking at a still shot?
Well, we are because we actually do facts here.
The background on this is important.
Cities around America, big cities, have these gunshot detectors.
They use kind of sound location to target where gunshots are coming from.
The police officer's responding.
It's two in the morning.
They get into a foot pursuit right in the area where this gunshot went off with this 13-year-old boy who has a gun in his right hand at some point during this exchange.
We're gonna pick it up here from when the officer activates his microphone on his body cam and gets into the foot pursuit.
Joe had to edit it out for language a little bit.
Ladies and gentlemen, let me warn you in advance.
I'm not blurring this out.
This is not appropriate viewing for children.
If your kids are watching, I'm going to play it in about 5 to 10 seconds.
I strongly encourage you to turn them away.
I'm not blurring this out.
You're entitled to see what happened if you were an adult and choose to watch it, but you need to see the whole thing.
Do a countdown here.
5... 4... 3... 2... 1... Right f***ing now!
Hey!
Show me your c***!
Stop it!
Stop it!
Shots fired!
Shots fired!
Get an ambulance over here now!
Look at me!
You alright?
Not easy to watch.
It's not.
He's dead.
The young man is dead now.
Now, you may be saying to yourself, if you just saw that video, well, where did he put his hands up?
Because it's...
Hard to see when you're looking at it in live time.
Well, why would I play the video but put the photo up first of him with his hands up?
Because, ladies and gentlemen, you just saw what the officer saw.
That was his body cam.
The human mind in stressful situations, ladies and gentlemen, does not process information in still shots.
This isn't a baseball card.
This isn't one of those inaction photos in a baseball card.
This is the real world where the human brain is processing information under a stressful situation rapidly.
It does not stop to think in stills.
Now, why would the officer have thought that as the subject turned to him and put his hands up, why would the officer think that his life may have been in danger to the point where he engages the subject with the firearm and kills him?
Why?
Well, when you put up shot number two, screenshot photo number two, hat tip Andy Ngo, his social media for pointing this out, you will see quite clearly, the red circles around it, that this is probably what the officers saw.
As the subject blades his body off when he stops about 10 feet away from the police officer in this dark alley, you will notice in the right hand circled here on the video, again if you're listening on audio I'll explain it to you, in his right hand as he's bladed off, the officer is seeing, folks, his left hip, the subject, in his left arm.
And the left side of his body.
The right side of his body the officer can't see.
All he can see is creeping out from the right side of his body a hand with a firearm in it which appears to be a 9mm Ruger.
Recovered at the scene later.
Look at this photo.
Because you say, well, Dan, the brain doesn't think in still shots.
No, the brain does not.
So why show a still shot to say the officer may have thought that he had a firearm in his hand?
Because folks, you'll notice the blading of the body.
And when you watch that video again, if you'll rewind, you'll notice as the subject drops the firearm, You can't see it.
All you can see are his hands coming forward and you can't see his right hand because his body's bladed off.
In other words, hands shoot people, ladies and gentlemen.
Fingers, not elbows, not shoulders, not eyeballs, not knees.
Fingers are what get people killed.
Fingers manipulate triggers, not toes, not elbows.
When the subject's right hand disappears behind his body because he's bladed off, all the officer can see is the left side of his body.
The officer, it appears pretty clearly at this point, likely didn't know that the subject had dropped the weapon.
Because he couldn't see the hand because his body's bladed off.
Analysis of this matters.
I'm not running cover for anyone, folks, okay?
I'm trying to give you the perspective, the morals and ethics of this, as I said last night and I'll say again today.
You can judge on your own.
I'm trying to do what irresponsible journalists and media people and liberal activists won't do, which is to explain a tragic situation, not in terms of good or bad.
There are no good shoots, bad shoots.
There are legally justifiable shootings and non-legally justifiable shootings.
That's it.
There's no good or bad.
There's bad and worse here.
Does everybody get that?
The 13-year-old is dead.
There are only bad and worse explanations.
There are no good explanations.
But throwing this officer under the bus immediately because you've sent around a still shot as if the officer's brain processes information in discrete series of photos and the photo of the kid with his hands up, oh, he just ignored it and shot him anyway, is ridiculous.
Just microseconds before that, it appears from this photo that the subject had a firearm in his right hand that was hidden and secreted behind his body.
Is that not relevant to this?
Or are you just intentionally being obtuse?
It's time for some professional analysis from people who've been there.
I was in a foot pursuit once, literally in a dark alley.
I was in the 75 precinct, it was late at night.
Heard a gunshot.
There's a guy, all I remember, it was a long time ago.
It was right after Halloween.
When did I get out of the police academy?
1997.
I was in the 75 precinct in the Southern part of the precinct.
I was with a female police officer, a friend of mine, Laura.
And, um, I hear a gunshot.
I get into a foot pursuit.
The guy's about 50 feet, maybe more in front of me.
I remember he had a big red puffy jacket on.
As I'm turning around the corner, He jumps under a van.
I don't see it, because when I turn the corner, the white van is on the corner.
I run past him.
He takes his jacket off underneath the van, walks out calmly, and keeps walking down the road.
Thank God a task force officer, Brooklyn North Task Force, saw him, even though I described him as a red jacket, picked him out based on the descriptors, the height and all, and we found the red jacket later.
And the firearm.
Folks, I'm telling you from having been in a foot pursuit, which is what happened prior to this interaction, media lunatics on the left who know nothing about policing can ignore it all they want that just makes them absolutely out of the loop.
I don't want to get into personal stuff.
Forget it.
Let me just stick to the facts.
You get tunnel vision.
Again, liberal media people won't know this because they've never been in a foot pursuit with a man with a gun.
You cannot override that tunnel vision.
Your nervous system fight-or-flight response kicks in, and your peripheral vision goes.
You focus on one thing when you hear a gunshot.
Do you know what that thing is?
You know where your eyes go?
And I'll talk about this later with the other piece about the taser, that's important.
Where would your eyes go if you had a man with a gun you thought was turning towards you?
To the gun!
You don't see anything else, folks.
The police officers listening to my show right now know what I'm saying is absolutely correct.
Your eyes go to the gun.
Folks, there could be a 7,000 pound elephant 10 feet behind your subject.
I promise you, as my name is Dan Bongino, I promise you on my credibility, I would bet you my right arm, you wouldn't see that elephant.
All you see is the gun.
Selective attention.
Why?
Because that's what's going to kill you if you don't respond.
You see nothing else.
No matter how much training, you will focus on that firearm.
Now you see in that picture.
Guy, can you put the picture back up with the Andy Ngo picture?
Now you see why the officer, while he was processing what was going on, probably only saw this.
And the next thing he saw was a hand disappearing.
Selective attention.
Heart rate is up.
Blood pressure is up.
Breathing rate is extraordinary.
You're low on oxygen.
You just were in a foot pursuit.
You're screaming.
It's a low-light situation.
It's two o'clock in the morning.
You know shots have been fired.
The subject flees from you, is not responding to your commands.
Finally turns, makes a furtive motion.
Last thing you saw was what?
The firearm in this picture right here.
How do you respond?
Your eyes always, always go to the firearm.
Combine that with the fact the subject's body's bladed off.
Again, hands shoot people and fingers, not elbows.
The hand on the right side with the firearm disappears behind his back because his body's bladed.
It's a low-light scenario, a dark alley.
There's no escape for the police officer.
When I got into a pursuit one time, I had a kid we got into a foot pursuit with down an alley.
He had crawled up on kind of a ledge and was staring down at me.
Thank God he didn't have a gun.
He had the beat on me.
But the first thing that occurred to me when I saw him up there and I pulled out my gun is, I have no way out of here.
If this kid takes a shot at me, he didn't.
He didn't have a gun.
This is a different foot pursuit I was in.
And he did come down off the ledge.
The first thing that occurred to me is, I have nowhere to go.
I'm in an alley.
The officer can't escape.
There's nowhere to go to.
Combine that with the right hand disappearing and maybe you'll have some understanding of why this officer acted the way he did.
You're trying to get in his head and determine again why this police officer felt his life was in danger.
Now, the media, of course, anger, chaos, merchants, that's all they want.
That's all they want.
If it bleeds, it leads.
That's their thing, right?
That's all they want to do is sell to you chaos and anger.
Nothing makes them happier, the mainstream media, than promoting division, racial discord, and anti-police rhetoric.
Well, I want you to look at this.
Here's the CBS News footage.
And you may say to yourself, when you first see it, you may not catch it.
I want you to watch a video today.
Rumble.com slash Bongino if you can.
Again, I'll explain it for the audio listeners, but it's important.
I want you to watch this video from CBS News of the exact same incident.
And I want, again, this is viewer discretion heavily advised here.
We can play it in about five seconds.
I want you to see if you can catch the difference between the CBS News footage of the body camera and the actual footage I played before the body camera.
I'll give you a three countdown.
We're going to play it.
Three, two, one.
on.
I don't know.
The CBS News footage is noticeably cropped.
Cropped, so, Guy, can you put the picture back up again from Andy Ngo, please?
You'll notice in the CBS footage, if you watch it on Rumble, sorry, poor guy, I'm sorry, I don't mean to drive you crazy today on the show, but this is important.
If you watch this footage on Rumble I just put up there from CBS News, you'll notice that it's suspiciously cropped.
It's cropped in such a way that you cannot see the right arm of the subject.
The right arm of the subject that has the firearm in it.
Was it done intentionally?
I don't know that.
Was it done?
Yes, that's CBS News' own tweet.
Want to know why Americans don't trust the media?
And why you should question absolutely everything all the time?
That's it.
All you see in that CBS News footage is the hands up and they stop right there as if that's where the officer's brain processed the information in a series of still shots like it was a slideshow, not a continuous movie.
Explains a lot about where the media's head is today, right?
All right, as I said, at the end of the show, no matter what, I'm going to get to a great article.
Folks, please go to my newsletter and read this article.
It's by, I believe, Force Shield.
It was sent to me by a friend, Adam.
Very smart guy I was in the Secret Service with.
It is in our newsletter today.
Bongino.com slash newsletter.
Please read it.
It is a thorough, detailed, scientific explanation about why police officers sometimes make what they call slips.
Or errors, and they think they have their taser when they have their firearm.
I'm going to get to it at the end of the show because it's fascinating and it uses a real world example you can all relate to.
And I promise you, you'll say, oh, now it makes sense.
All right.
Let me get to my second sponsor.
And I want to talk about the big question in this next segment.
And believe me, it pains me to say this.
I'm not talking about all of them.
I'm not stereotyping anyone, but I'm talking about some really bad seeds.
Can we trust the intelligence community anymore?
It's a big thing to say, especially for me.
But folks, I am having real, real doubts right now.
You'll understand once we get done with the next block.
Today's show brought to you by Producer Joe's favorite, favorite sponsor ever, Rock Auto.
Chain stores have different price tiers for the pros and do-it-yourselfers who work in their own cars.
Rockauto.com's prices are the same.
They're reliably low for everyone.
They offer the lowest prices possible rather than changing prices based on what the market will bear.
You know, like airlines do.
Rockauto.com.
Rockauto.com.
It's for everyone.
Doesn't require some fancy membership or an account login.
It's super easy to use.
It's a family business serving auto parts customers online for 20 years.
Go to rockauto.com to shop for auto and body parts from hundreds of manufacturers.
They have everything.
Engine control modules, brakes, brake parts, tail lamps, oil, even new carpet.
Whether it's for your classic or your daily driver, get everything you need in a few easy clicks delivered directly to your door.
The rockauto.com catalog is unique and really easy to navigate.
Quickly see all the parts available for your vehicle.
Choose the brand, specs, and prices you prefer.
Best of all, the prices at rockauto.com, I can't say this enough, are always reliably low and the same for pros and do-it-yourselfers.
Don't spend twice as much for the same parts.
Go to rockauto.com right now.
See all the parts available for your car or truck.
Just do us one favor.
They have a How Did You Hear About Us box.
Just write Bongino in that box, B-O-N-G-I-N-O, so they know we sent you.
We'd appreciate that.
They have an amazing selection, reliably low prices, all the parts your car will ever need.
Rockauto.com, rockauto.com.
Go check them out.
Okay.
Getting back to segment two here.
I do not say this lightly, and I do not say it to stir the pot.
I am not one of these media hysterical lunatics.
That just says things to get clicks.
But this is a serious question.
Can we trust the intelligence community anymore?
After the disaster of fake Russiagate, PPTapegate, Spygate, where they actually spied on a presidential campaign and a president.
It's a fact.
It's a fact.
I know it's an inconvenient fact.
Can we trust them anymore?
Well, what happened?
Well, yesterday, if you were following on social media, another Russian, believe it or not, another Russian collusion scandal broke.
The media, I'll get to it in a minute.
The media was all over it.
Look, Confirmation!
It's real this time!
People involved with Trump definitely colluded with the Russians.
We have proof.
Now, you may have been saying to yourself, if you're an astute observer of the PP tape collusion hoax, like I happen to be, I wrote three books on it, right?
You always have to say to yourself, why would people in the intelligence community, the intelligence infrastructure, involved in the PP hoax, collusion hoax, leak yesterday, or let out yesterday, this information that came out?
That they're now saying, oh, look, we now have proof of the Russian collusion hoax.
Why would that happen yesterday?
Maybe because their other Russian collusion, fantasy Russian bounty hoax fell apart and they needed to save face and replace it with another fake story?
Watch, here's what I mean.
So yesterday we found out that, do you remember this scandal?
Again, showing you how the media is a total joke.
The Russians put bounties on American troops in Afghanistan scandal.
Do you remember this?
This happened months ago.
This was a huge deal in the left-wing media.
Rachel Maddow hyperventilating on her show.
Donald Trump is doing nothing.
The Russians, it's confirmed, have put bounties on our troops in Afghanistan.
The Russians want our troops killed.
They're paying money.
Brian Stelter, George Costanza at CNN.
Everyone, all the left-wing media infrastructure, that Lawrence O'Donnell clown, Donald Trump should resign tomorrow.
And Donald Trump, do you remember the story, folks?
Donald Trump said, That information's not confirmed.
That's why I didn't act on it.
And fact checkers checked him on it.
Donald Trump is lying.
Here is a supercut, hat tip, daily caller.
Here is a supercut, and I had to cut this short.
This is actually three minutes long.
I only get about a minute of it.
Here's a supercut of media left-wing lunatics telling you Donald Trump is the worst.
He hates American troops.
Russians want to kill them, and he's doing nothing.
Problem is, the whole story was a hoax.
Check this out.
The White House also responding tonight to a bombshell report accusing Russia of offering bounties to the Taliban to kill American soldiers in Afghanistan.
And now, you know, from this reporting in the New York Times, which has since been confirmed by the Wall Street Journal, that not only does the president know that Russia was paying for American soldiers' deaths.
Get this, the Washington Post is now reporting that the alleged Russian bounties to Taliban fighters in Afghanistan are believed to have resulted in the deaths of US troops.
Like this New York Times story about a stunning US intel assessment.
What's the issue with that?
ordered offered Afghan militants bounties to kill US troops.
So comes on the fire over those bombshell reports that the White House was told Russia
was paying bounties to kill US troops in Afghanistan.
What's what's the issue with that?
The issue is the story's fake.
It was made up by an Afghani detainee apparently trying to curry favor.
with forces who were detaining him by completely making up the story.
Now, you'd say to yourself, if you were a sane person, not including the media, well, doesn't the media double and triple check this stuff?
Apparently not.
Not when it involves Donald Trump, at least.
Not only did they not figure out that this story was a hoax by actually checking it, they just took the intel community, many of whom hated Donald Trump's word for it, that this in fact happened when it was a hoax.
Now, you may say, okay, it was, what, CNN in that clip?
We heard Brian Stelter, Wolf Blitzer, NBC News, Rachel Maddow.
It was just limited there, right?
They were the only ones that promoted this Russian bounties on American troops hoax.
No, here's a tweet from Charlie Savage.
I believe he's a New York Times author.
He says, exclusive, a Russian spy unit secretly offered bounties to militants in Afghanistan for killing American troops.
U.S.
intel officials found.
Trump and the White House have known for months but not authorized any response.
Story's fake.
Maybe that's why Trump didn't authorize a response.
Here's Charlie Savage tweet number two.
He says the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post have confirmed that reporting.
Really?
Story's fake.
But they confirmed a fake story.
By listening to who?
Maybe the exact same intel official who appears to have had a political motive against Donald Trump rather than giving them an actual story because the story was fake.
All right, Dan, the New York Times got taken, MSNBC, NBC, CNN, George Costanza got taken by it.
Here's the Washington Post.
What a joke.
This is an actual fact check, all right?
I'm not kidding.
It's the Washington Post.
Salvador Rizzo!
He says Trump's 4 Pinocchio interview on Russian bounties.
Remember the interview with Axios' Jonathan Swan?
Where he said to Swan, who seemed puzzled by the whole thing, by the way, Hey, um, we didn't act on that because we're not sure it's actually true.
And Swan was like, huh?
What?
The Washington Post was like, we're fact checking Trump.
What an idiot.
You see the hilarity of this right now?
The hilarity of this?
The tragic hilarity of this?
You have these nutbag, lunatic, lying frauds at CNN, The Washington Post, The New York Times, MSNBC, constantly promoting fake false stories every day, while simultaneously trying to get us removed from the internet for misinformation.
Do you not see what's going on here?
Were they the only ones who got caught into this?
Web of lies?
No, here are the losers at the Daily Beast.
Believe me, I've been a victim of them.
Dan Bongino, dropped from NRA TV.
An article yesterday comes out.
Uh, maybe the Daily Beast's reporting on that was inaccurate.
He was actually offered a million and a half dollars to stay there.
Oh, that sounds like a different story.
But no, the Daily Beast and the truth have never kind of done, you know, that's not a symbiotic relationship right there.
Here's the Daily Beast with four headlines about the Russian bounty story.
Totally made up.
Russian bounties mess.
It's all a Trump scandals rolled into one.
Here's the next one.
Russia offered Afghan militants bounties for killing U.S.
soldiers.
By the way, it says bombshell underneath.
Here's Madeline Charbonneau.
Russian bounties led to U.S.
troops' deaths, intelligence officials believe.
Oh, interesting.
Here's the next one.
They really got their clicks out of this sucker here.
Daily Beast, again.
Where's the next one there?
You got it?
That's it?
There was only three?
I thought there were four.
There's another.
There's got to be another one of those, right?
Where?
Russian, oh, oh, that's it.
Yeah, don't, folks.
Seriously, Guy, do not cut that out.
I'll tell you why.
Sometimes we edit this stuff.
Don't cut that out.
There's a, there's an actual learning moment here.
The headlines are so similar.
I'm reading them on the prompter.
On my life, I thought that was the same headline.
Don't cut that out.
I'm serious.
It'll ruin the show.
That is perfect.
I'm not, this was not scripted.
I just read, it's almost the same headline.
It's a different article.
Russian bounties for killing Americans go back five years, ex-Taliban claims.
I thought it was the same piece.
But now we find out the Daily Beast, who has a shady at best relationship with the truth, They had to publish this piece yesterday.
Daily Beast, April 15th, 2021.
U.S.
Intel walks back claim Russians put bounties on American troops by the dreadful Ossowins, Subsang, Spencer, Ackerman, and Adam Ronsley, all who have issues with the facts.
Folks, this segment gives me no joy because I have worked with, in my prior line of work, some extremely talented and very dedicated intelligence community professionals who do an amazing job for very little money at all, under extremely dangerous conditions.
Can I tell you something?
Can I share a story?
I'm waiting for you to respond, which is ridiculous because you obviously can't.
I applied for the CIA.
When I was in the Secret Service.
Have I ever told this story before?
I don't know if I'm allowed to, but I'm going to tell it anyway.
I did.
I'm not going to tell you how the process went down because I'm sure, you know, where they do it out of, but I made it all the way to the end.
And I was interviewing with one of their personnel.
It was the last step.
There's a whole bunch of tests and stuff you got to do.
Believe me, there's no exaggeration for effect here.
And I make it up to the end.
And you had to take a bus through this place.
And right before I get on the bus, the guy who was interviewing me, he walks out with me and when we get outside, he looks at me and he's like, you know, I got to talk to you for a minute.
And I said, what?
He said, I didn't want to say this in front of, you know, in the audience, but I don't think you're going to be a good fit for this job.
And I said, why?
He said, you know, we were inside, you were explaining to me how when you were a secret service agent, you were overseas in Russia and you, you stayed in these very nice hotels.
You do, you stay where the president stays.
So you wind up staying in a nice hotel.
And it reminded me of their professionalism and how these rank and file working agents and operatives in the CIA really bust their butts.
He said to me, you guys, I got to tell you, man, I've stayed in some of the crappiest places all over the world, pretending to be, you know, whatever, a department of agriculture worker, whatever it may be.
He said, it's no fun, Dan.
He said, this probably isn't going to be for you.
And I, and I'm really glad he did that.
I think he did both of us a favor.
I thought it was responsible from the side.
I never took the job, but these guys and ladies out there bust their butts.
Sadly, they're being led by a bureaucracy at the top of people like John Brennan and other politicians.
They are not patriots.
They are not patriots, okay?
Stop the nonsense.
They are not... Patriots pledge allegiance to God-given civil rights for everyone, even their political opponents.
John Brennan does none of that.
There are people in the upper level of the intelligence community which deserve extra scrutiny, because why does this keep happening?
Where people in the intelligence community leak stories to the media, which then confirm the stories to other members of the media, turn out later to be totally false, and yet all of those stories seem to be targeting one political party.
And you expect us to say, oh, you know what, don't question them.
Don't question them.
Why are we not questioning them?
Again, I'm not questioning the hard-working real patriots on the ground doing God's work overseas to try to give the United States government an intelligence portfolio which enables us to act based on informed information on what foreign countries are up to.
I'm talking about the people at the top who have thrown aside the oath they raised their right hand and swore to and have decided to act entirely as politicians.
How does this keep happening?
Where you leak a story to the media that only impacts MAGA people and the Trump administration.
And anytime there's negative information against Obama or everyone else, it gets hidden in Deep Six.
We still don't know what happened in Benghazi.
It also explains why big tech works with big government to silence the truth tellers.
Look at this.
James O'Keefe.
That's a screenshot of his Twitter account.
What?
Is it?
It says account suspended.
Yep.
Remember James O'Keefe, Project Veritas?
They exposed CNN the other day.
The CNN, Russian bounty, PP tape liars.
O'Keefe exposed them and then one of their technical directors.
All of a sudden, Twitter, again, working with the big government fascists, and some in the intel community who clearly have a political agenda.
There you go!
O'Keefe gets suspended.
Because... What?
We're the conspiracy theorists?
Now, my guess is someone in the intelligence community Got wind that this Russian bounties on American troops story was a total hoax.
Completely made up hoax.
Knew it was gonna come out and was gonna be very embarrassing to the media.
So they had to give the media something else to put out there.
Folks, don't for a second think this is an accident.
Please.
Don't say, oh no, higher ups in the intelligence community.
This is just a big coinkydink.
It's not.
This story surfaces yesterday at the exact same time the Russian bounties hoax is exposed with egg on the face of the media and the anti-Trump left.
Here's Greg Miller.
You know, another media guy.
I'll show you where he's from in a minute.
Sub-tweeting a Marshall Cohen.
I'll show you who these two are in a minute.
Greg Miller says, so the circle is complete.
Trump campaign chairman Manafort provided info to Konstantin Kalimnik, and Kalimnik relayed that info to Russian intelligence.
He's subtweeting Marshall Cohen!
For the first time ever, all caps, the U.S.
government said Russian agent Konstantin Kalimnik provided Russian intelligence agencies with internal Trump campaign polling data he received from Manafort and Gates.
Even Mueller didn't go that far.
You see this from the treasury.gov site.
Wow.
That's incredible.
So finally, folks, the PP tape collusion hoax is real.
We have evidence now.
This guy, Konstantin Kalimnik, who Paul Manafort knew, Gave polling data to Russian Intel?
Kalimnik, Russian Intel, Trump.
Trump worked with Paul Manafort.
Manafort was his campaign manager.
It's true!
Greg Miller, here's his bio.
Oh, he works for the Washington Post.
National security correspondent.
This guy, of course, if he says it, it must be true.
And he's subtweeting Marshall Cohen, CNN reporter.
Previously CBS News.
He's getting the connections here, folks.
Well, if you were a journalist and actually did any homework, which you don't, because you're a journalist for CNN, The Washington Post, previously CBS News, video croppers.
You'd know that Konstantin Kalimnik, who was connected to Paul Manafort, who was Trump's campaign manager, who is now this alleged deep Russian spy, and they've now made the connection.
You would know that Konstantin Kalimnik has been an ongoing source for the United States government since back in... 2013!
in 2013 and last time I checked the president 2013 was Kenny Bell Redo. It was Barack Obama.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
Here's an article at The Hill, maybe a little helpful for you media types.
Greg Miller, Marshall Cohen, you embarrassing fraudsters, right?
The Hill.
Key figure that Mueller report linked to Russia was a State Department intel source.
John Solomon.
The Hill.
Who was that?
Who was that key figure?
Guy, can you put up the screenshot?
We'll see who that key figure was in this.
Oh, look!
It was Konstantin Kilimnik!
What the Mueller report doesn't state is that Kilimnik was a sensitive intelligence source for the State Department going back to at least 2013, while he was still working for Manafort, according to the FBI and State Department memos Solomon reviewed.
By the way, Kilimnik wasn't just a run-of-the-mill source either.
He interacted with the Chief Political Officer at the U.S.
Embassy in Kiev, meeting several times a week to provide information on the Ukraine government.
He relayed messages back to Ukraine's leader and delivered reports to U.S.
officials via emails that stretched on for thousands of words.
The memos show.
So just to be clear, the intelligence community that told us that there were Russian bounties on US troops turned out to be a total hoax, that leaked it to the media, that then confirmed it, that was breathlessly reported on by Moscow Maddow, Coffee Boy Stelter, Wolf Blitzer, and other pretend journalists out there.
The same intel community has been using a source since the Obama administration, Konstantin Kalimnik, who has known Manafort since he was a source under the Obama administration.
But then when that source deals with Manafort when Trump's running for office, that source is a Russian spy and he needs to be a target of the investigation and collusion is real.
Collusion's real when Kalimnik knew Manafort and Manafort knew Trump.
But collusion wasn't real when Kalimnick was a source for the Obama administration and still knew Manafort.
If that makes sense to you, you're probably a member of the media, meaning you're probably an imbecile.
If Konstantin Kalimnick's a Russian spy, then what the hell was he doing working for the Obama administration since 2013?
Is anybody in the media asking that?
Of course not.
They were fed by the intelligence community yesterday a little fake gold nugget Look, run with this story.
Kalimnik's a Russian spy.
Yeah, but the Obama administration used him.
Doesn't matter.
He knew Manafort.
Well, why are we running this story, Intel?
My suckling on the teat of the Intel community?
These pathetic losers in the media?
Taylor, Cohen, all these losers, why are they running this story when the intel community fed it to them?
Because they need to run interference for the other story that made them look like idiots that they reported on for the thousandth time that turned out to be fake, the Russian bounty on U.S.
troops story.
Now everybody's distracted.
Collusion's real!
Manafort knew Kalimnick.
Kalimnick, the Obama administration source.
And if you're a liberal media person, you probably fell for this.
All right.
Let me get to my last sponsor.
Here's what I got coming.
I got that article at Forced Science about, again, why police officers use the taser sometimes or the firearm instead of the taser.
It's an important article.
It'll help us all understand policing better.
And I've got an interesting UFO piece.
We got to get to that.
And Guy, we cannot miss the hero of the day.
The hero of the day is important today.
The animal rights people may not like the hero of the day, but I think the hero of the day is definitely a hero.
Stay tuned.
As the occurrence of identity scams continues to increase, more people are looking for ways to protect themselves from cybercriminals.
In fact, 60% of Americans believe it's likely that identity theft will cause them a financial loss in the next year.
I had my identity stolen.
It was a horror show.
It really took me a year to clean it up.
It's important to understand how cybercrime and identity theft are affecting our lives.
Every day we put our information at risk on the internet.
In an instant, the cybercriminal can harm what's yours, your finances, and your credit.
Good thing there's LifeLock.
LifeLock helps detect a wide range of identity threats, like your social security number for sale on the dark web.
If they detect your information has been potentially compromised, they will send you an alert.
I get texts and voicemails on my phone.
Priceless protection.
You have access to a dedicated restoration specialist if you, God forbid, become a victim.
Listen, no one can prevent all identity theft.
Or monitor all transactions at all businesses.
But you can keep what's yours with LifeLock Identity Theft Protection.
I have it for me, I have it for my family, my daughters, and my mother-in-law.
Join now and save up to 25% off your first year at LifeLock.com slash Bongino.
How do you get this protection?
Go to LifeLock.com slash Bongino today.
Get 25% off.
Don't take chances for your identity.
LifeLock.com slash Bongino.
25% off today.
It's worth your time.
Okay, a little bit of a lighter story before we get back into the serious stuff.
So Fox News, I have this story again up in my newsletter.
Please read the newsletter today because of this story we're gonna talk to you about next too.
Bongino.com slash newsletter is how you follow the newsletter.
I'll send you emails every day.
Fox News, pyramid-shaped UFOs spotted by the Navy may be, quote, the best the world has ever seen, a filmmaker says.
Hat tip to this guy, Jeremy Corbell.
This is an article by Brian Yannis.
You can read it.
Folks, I'm going to show you the video here.
I have to talk through it because there's no sound.
But I just want you to understand that... I know many of you who... And by the way, UFO means unidentified flying object.
It doesn't mean it's an alien object.
It just means it's unidentified.
So these are UFOs.
By... Tautologically, they're UFOs.
We don't know what they are.
Therefore, they're unidentified.
I want to play this video.
This is a pretty shocking video.
By the way, this was taken by Navy personnel.
It's not a joke.
They're investigating this right now, which says to me it's serious.
Play the video.
This isn't some scam.
You can hear a little bit in the background there.
You can see it with the night vision.
And it appears to be a triangular object floating in the sky.
Now, it doesn't seem, under this night vision, to have any... You can see there.
Look, I was just hovering there.
No one can seem to figure out what the propulsion mechanism of this is.
If you read the Fox News piece, and that video, by the way, hat tip Jeremy Korbel there.
Korbel is apparently an expert on these matters.
Says we got an issue here because the technology here is not really explainable.
There doesn't seem to be any emission From this object.
In other words, you have a jet engine and it emits jet fumes at the end.
You have rotors.
There's rotor wash.
You have a car.
You have an exhaust pipe.
That's what happens.
It doesn't look like it's actually burning anything.
Well, if it's not burning anything to create energy, how is it creating energy to hover and move?
Only one of a couple explanations, right?
Occam's razor?
You know Occam's razor, right?
We talk about it on the show all the time.
Given all possible explanations, always accept the one that's the most parsimonious, right?
Requires the least amount of explanation, not the most.
Well, there's only two possible explanations here.
It's a technology we're unfamiliar with because the military themselves is investigating it.
Guy said to me this morning, what if it's our military doing it?
Well, maybe, but then they're not telling the Navy that's a video taken from the Navy.
Could be, who knows?
Maybe some branches of the military don't share everything with the other branches.
But you'd think they'd shut the investigation down then, right?
Try to eliminate all the possible explanations and you will eventually find the truth.
So either it's a technology we are entirely unfamiliar with, which would be a national security threat, right?
I think.
Or it's a technology unfamiliar with because it doesn't exist on this planet.
Man, that sounds crazy.
Does it?
Eliminate all other possible explanations and you'll get to the right one.
I don't know what it is.
I don't know what it is.
And that's the scary part.
Watch that video.
Again, go to rumble.com slash Bongito.
You'll see it's a triangular object in the sky with that green night vision background.
Again, just hovering with no noticeable propulsion at all.
And apparently they've eliminated a drone as a possibility.
Okay.
Dee, can we skip ahead to the For Science article?
I know I had the Fauci video, but I've had enough of Fauci for now.
If we get to it, we get to it.
But I want to get to this For Science Institute.
Hat tip, my friend Adam sent this to me this morning via text.
Very good guy.
Was an agent with him.
Very, very talented guy.
And he sent this to me this morning, and it's one of the best pieces I've ever seen.
And it explains what I was trying to explain on Fox News the other night.
About why sometimes police officers, as we saw in the incident in Brooklyn Center outside of Minneapolis, The officer, Kim Potter, who shoots Dante Wright.
Dante Wright later dies.
She says at one point, taser, taser.
Now, officers are trained to say taser when they deploy the taser because you can potentially electrocute other people.
So you say taser, so they'll back away.
She says taser.
Well, what's the problem?
She says taser.
She doesn't have her taser.
She has her firearm.
And a lot of people like Geraldo and others with no experience in policing, Said, well, how can that be?
Taser's a different color, it's a different weight, it's a different handle, and it's on a different side.
How can you possibly screw that up?
Well, again, we're not doing emotion here.
We're going to do facts.
There's a reason people screw it up, as evidenced by this article in For Science in my newsletter that I really encourage you to read.
Very short, but very well done.
It's called Unintended, A Theory of Taser Slash Weapon Confusion.
Very well done.
By the way, one show note, Joe asked me to explain, and he's right, he sent me a text on our show.
He said, listen, explain bladed off.
Bladed off, what I was saying in the beginning while analyzing that video, means he's not facing you, the subject.
Means he's showing you only one side of his body.
Bladed off so that you can't see his right arm.
So in case some of you mistook that in the beginning, that's what I was trying to get at.
But an important point.
So here's this article by For Science Institute.
Again, why do police officers under stress sometimes, this is very rare, sometimes grab a firearm rather than the taser which is on the other side of their body.
Listen, this is necessary material right now.
It's called a capture error.
A capture error can occur when an infrequent action, like drawing a taser, is non-consciously substituted by a similar, more familiar, and more practiced action, like drawing a firearm.
I'll translate this in a minute.
Research has shown that people are particularly susceptible to this type of error when they're occupied by other mental processes.
For police, these processes might involve time-compressed threat assessments, the need for immediate action, or simultaneous efforts to communicate, including verbal warnings and de-escalation attempts.
Let me translate for you what that means.
A firearm is typically on your right side if you're right hand dominant.
Most people are.
The taser is on the other side.
Either crossed, straw, or some other configuration.
Some keep it on their vest.
If the taser is in a different spot, either on the chest, on the opposite side left hip, from the firearm, why would you possibly go for your firearm and think it was your taser?
Because folks, when you replace a very repetitive action police officers have done thousands of times, pull their firearm.
Dan, officers don't pull firearms in the street thousands of times.
Yes, you are right.
They don't.
So how is it repetitive action?
You just said they don't pull in the street because they pull it in training.
I would estimate in the modern police academies that an officer is trained to go to his gun belt or her gun belt on the right side of their body at a rate of probably a thousand to one for as many times they train to go to the left side of the body, maybe a little less, maybe a hundred to one to grab the taser.
So if you're doing this a hundred times for every one time you do this, why is it shocking that sometimes, and this is rare.
I want to be very going for the, the firearm instead of the taser.
When you intend to deploy a taser, the woman said taser taser is very rare, but it does happen.
That is one of the reasons under stress, your body will default to the most familiar action, which is going to the right side.
Even if you think you're getting your taser.
Dan, come on.
You're just running cover for police officers.
Am I?
I'll give you an example in a minute, and maybe it'll make more sense.
Because I know, I'm not saying my audience, but there's some people, especially liberals who listen to my show, that want to instantly blame police for everything.
And they think every accident is attributable to a criminal motive.
People looking to have Kim Potter, the officer involved in the Brooklyn Center shooting, convicted immediately without even hearing her story.
Again, there's no good outcome.
Daunte Wright is dead.
There are bad and worse outcomes.
What does it say to police officers if they make a mistake that they go to jail forever without even hearing their story?
Does that make any sense to you?
Before I get to that, the explanation as to why the real world example that'll make more sense, I want to talk about this selective attention because it ties back to the beginning of the show.
Folks, I've been in foot pursuits.
I've been there.
Thousands of cops happen.
There's nothing new.
It's not a sob story.
It happens all the time, okay?
Sadly, it's not unusual.
You can't see what's anything but what your peripheral vision shuts down.
You selectively focus on the threat.
A knife, a firearm.
You don't see anything.
The guy's face could turn.
He could be under demonic possession.
You wouldn't even notice.
All you notice is the firearm or the knife.
If this was the knife, that's all you see.
This is it.
Nothing else.
Not the fan, not the computer, not the microphone.
That's it.
Because you are selectively Paying attention to the threat.
Here, described beautifully in this For Science piece.
quote, "When a person is intently paying attention to what they perceive as a threat,
Quote.
it's expected that they will not perceive the other stimuli around them.
That includes factors we would expect someone to notice under calmer circumstances,
factors like the weight, shape, and color of a taser as compared to a full-size firearm."
Folks, under extreme stress, you will default to your lowest,
not your highest level of training.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
Your brain is not processing information like you and I are right now, you listening in your car, hopefully in a very calm or listening in your house, have your headphones in.
We're talking, even though it's my Queens voice in a very calm voice.
This is calm for Queens, by the way.
Some of you say I yell a lot on the mic.
I'm very sorry.
I don't mean to bother you.
That's just, you grew up from Queens.
This is a normal tone.
When we're calm, our heart rate is 50 to 70, even up to a hundred.
We can think straight.
You'd pull out a firearm and say, this is a firearm, not the taser.
It feels different.
It looks different.
It's on the wrong side.
As your heart rate goes up.
As your peripheral vision shuts down.
As the subject starts to fight you and you're fearing for your own life.
You know he's got a history with firearms.
You think he could be grabbing a firearm as he gets in the car.
I'm asking you to get in the officer's head.
Does it now make sense?
I'm not justifying anything.
I'm jailed.
They'll all have their day in court.
I'm simply suggesting to you, does it now make sense how you would default to lower and lower and lower levels of training?
And your first instinct would be to do what's familiar and to do this, which you've done a hundred times for every one time you've done that, to grab the taser.
You'd go to your right side.
Sorry, I realize I have an audio audience.
Instead of your left side where the taser is.
Oh, come on.
You're just making excuses.
Am I?
Let me give you a real-world example from this piece, because this happened to me quite a bit.
A lot of you younger folks—gee, definitely.
Joe, not so much.
And me.
We grew up with regular standard brakes on a car.
What does this have to do with going for a taser rather than a gun?
I'll get to it in a second.
A lot of you younger listeners who listen to my show, you've never known anything but anti-lock brakes.
They teach you in driving school to do what?
To slam on the brakes and hold them down.
Because the anti-lock braking system pumps itself on the rotor and prevents the wheels from locking up.
That's what it does.
It does it, gosh, in microseconds.
When we learned to drive, ladies and gentlemen, me at 46, I know Joe, I know my wife too, they didn't have anti-lock brakes.
If, God forbid, you got in a skid situation on ice, what did they tell you?
Pump the brakes yourself with your foot, which is obviously thousands of times slower than a machine computer determining how to do it.
You'd have to pump the brakes, hit, let up, hit, let up, hit, let up, hit, let up, so that the tires wouldn't skid and lock up.
Well, folks, when us older drivers had to transition to ABS, everything we've been taught in an emergency, when we resort to our lowest levels of training, tractor-trailer stops in front of you, you're doing 90 miles an hour, peripheral vision shuts down, heart rate goes up right away, pupils dilate, you panic, heart rate goes up, You resorted to your lowest level of training, which if you grew up training to pump the brakes, you pumped your ABS brakes, which effectively made them useless.
How?
You knew you had ABS brakes.
You bought the car.
You may say, yeah, the officer knew her gun was on the right side.
You knew the car had ABS brakes too.
It was on the window sticker when you bought the car.
So why did you pump the brakes when they specifically tell you not to?
Go to the Force Sciences piece and maybe it'll make sense.
Quote, after transitioning from older power brakes to the new automatic brakes, police officers in the 1980s were involved in an increased number of crashes during high-speed driving because they reverted to their more familiar braking habits under stress, i.e.
pumping the brakes.
In doing so, the officers effectively defeated the automatic braking system operation and lost control of their vehicles.
This error occurred despite the officers knowing the new brakes required a different manipulation.
I'm not justifying anything.
I'm just trying to explain to you that if you think what I'm telling you about this resorting to the lowest level of training, a repetitive thing you've done in the past multiple times, despite knowing in your brain, when you're conscious and thinking, it's not the right thing.
I'm going for my taser, but I'm reaching for my fart.
You know, that's not your taser.
Your brain knows, but your brain's not processing that.
Because your lowest level of training, you're doing what you did repetitively, just like people pumped the brakes when they knew pumping the brakes would get them killed.
Because it was done under stress.
So you may say, what's the solution?
Well, just quickly, the solution here, ladies and gentlemen, is constant, repetitive red zone training.
What we did in the Secret Service Academy.
Don't have people do things when they're thinking straight.
Have them do these things under stress.
We had the stress course.
You had to do a 200-yard sprint down to the shoot house.
The firearms instructors are screaming in your ear.
You would have to then take out your pistol.
You do a 50-round course.
They're screaming, go, go, go, go, go!
Screaming in your ear.
There are threats coming, threats turning, non-threats turning.
The target turns.
It's an old lady.
You're not allowed.
You shoot her or you lose.
You fail.
Then you have to go hide behind a car, pick up a shotgun.
Everybody's Secret Service agent's been through this stress course.
They're screaming.
Do a couple push-ups in between.
You do that when your heart rate's through the roof and you get used to operating in the red zone.
And you can actually train your peripheral vision not to shut down as much.
How to operate with a high heart rate and not effectively grab the firearm and pump the brakes like that under stress.
It's the only way.
You have to train in the red zone all the time.
All right, folks.
On a lighter note, it is Friday.
Hero of the day.
This guy's our hero of the week because we haven't had anyone else this week.
But here's a quick video.
You're going to hear some screaming and yelling.
This poor guy, he's just getting ready to go to work.
He's got some brownies in a bin, some coffee.
I'm not kidding.
You watch the video again.
Rumble.com slash Bongino.
And you'll hear some screaming as his wife gets attacked by a bobcat.
Wait till you see what this guy does.
Check this out.
Oh my God!
Get out!
Get the beef!
Get out!
Good beef!
Watch out!
Oh, shoot that ****!
Get out!
Watch out!
Get out, get out, get out!
Get out!
Watch out!
Oh, shoot that *****!
Get out! Watch out!
Watch out!
It's a bomb can! Take my wife!
A bobcat?
A bobcat!
Everybody's okay in the video, including the bobcat.
I love animals.
A lot.
Trust me.
But the guy, for those of you listening on audio, this guy's my hero of the day.
He grabs his bobcat, he's like staring it in the face, he's got this bobcat, and he's like, that's a bobcat!
And he like launches his bobcat like 20 feet.
Everybody's okay.
There's a lot of bobcat defenders online.
Listen, I love bobcats.
They're beautiful creatures.
I'm just saying, I love my kids and my wife a lot more.
You start eating my wife's leg, and it's my wife or the bobcat?
Under no scenario am I erring towards the bobcat.
I don't care.
And believe me, I love animals.
I was a vegetarian until I was like 21 years old.
I love them.
But Paula, Isabel, or Amelia, or the bobcat?
It's the bobcat every time.
You're our hero of the day for defending your family.
Nice work, Bobcat guy.
All right, folks.
Thanks again for tuning in.
I really appreciate it.
Please subscribe to my video show, Rumble.com slash Bongino, especially today.
