The Dan Bongino Show - A Disturbing Photo Emerges Exposing The Obama Administration (Ep 1148)

Episode Date: January 2, 2020

In this episode, I address the troubling ramifications of this new liberal policy in New York. I also address the media’s efforts to spin the attacks on our Iraqi Embassy. Finally, I address the reasons behind this NY Times story about John Brennan’s Spygate “sources.” News Picks:Big news about our show. The Dan Bongino Show will now be heard on KABC radio in Los Angeles!    New York DMV offices are overwhelmed, weeks after giving illegal immigrants driver’s licenses.    This December 5th article shows the troubling ties of this key Mueller informant.    These are the stats on self defensive gun use that liberals don’t want you to see.   Sucker liberals keep falling for this discredited “hate-crimes” study, because it’s designed to blame the President.   Stunning. Barack Obama welcomed the leader of the attack on our embassy in Iraq to the White House.    The Trump administration continues to slash wasteful government red-tape.    Discussions about who will run for the presidency in 2024 have already begun.    Most Democrats who support impeachment believe it will fail.    Copyright Dan Bongino All Rights Reserved. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

get ready to hear the truth about america on a show that's not immune to the facts with your host dan bongino welcome to the dan bongino show ladies and gentlemen it's a special day for us i have a tremendous announcement coming right up uh you're going to be very happy especially those of you been with us the dan bongino show from the beginning big announcement coming right up a lot of that a lot of breaking news spy, some news on illegal immigration in New York and driver's licenses. It's probably going to infuriate a lot of you. We got that.

Don't go anywhere. Let's get right to it. Today's show brought to you by our buddies at NetSuite. Listen, if you don't know your numbers, you don't know your business. That's why NetSuite by Oracle, that's a problem they have set out to solve for you and your business.

Most companies don't have a clear picture of their finances and that's why many businesses fail. The question for any business owner out there is, are you confident you've got the right numbers at your fingertips to run your business? That is why we in this house at Bongino Inc. here use NetSuite by Oracle. It is so easy to use, user-friendly,

and gives you the information you need to run your business. Serious entrepreneurs and finance teams run on NetSuite by Oracle, the world's number one cloud business system. NetSuite offers a full picture of all your finances in one place in real time, right from your phone or your desktop right here. No more guessing, no more worrying.

You don't have the right numbers for your business. That could kill your company. That's why NetSuite customers, get a load of this, grow three times faster than the S&P 500, and you can too. Schedule your free demo right now and receive their free guide, seven key strategies to grow your profits at netsuite.com slash Bongino. Sign up today for your free demo and get your free guide today at netsuite.com slash Bongino. That's netsuite.com slash bongino don't miss out if you're a business owner go check it out all right producer joe let's go with our first bell our

first bell of terrestrial radio say what what are you talking about then we will now be heard joe i paula the show drew everyone else involved in the production of the damn bongino show on kabc radio there you go radioinsight.com put it out on kabc radio in los angeles our first terrestrial radio station you will hear this show at 6 p.m pacific time on 790 kabc super happy to do it we're joining andrew claven too is terrific over at the daily wire who will be on at 9 p.m pacific time really excited producer joe great work excited. Producer Joe, great work. Paula, great work. Drew, great work.

Everybody who's put a lot of hard work into this show. We are expanding the Bongino Show empire and moving into California where hopefully we can shake some liberals from their ideological doldrums. We couldn't have done it without you, Dan. Yeah, but self-praise thing, so I'm going to ignore that. There you go, brother.

All right, in the interest of keeping this self-praise to a minimum on the show, let's get right to the content. You know, this one kind of jumped in at the last minute, this story, but my gosh, is this important. And it's important based on a conversation I had last night with someone. You know who you are. I'll leave that out, who it was. But there's a story in New York that's probably going to infuriate

a lot of you. The New York State occupied New York State at this point has decided it was a good idea to issue driver's licenses to people in the country illegally. Obviously an awful idea for reasons, I mean the bevy of

reasons go on and on. National security reasons, does citizenship matter anymore? The lines have been out the door. We have this story up at Bongino.com by a resident fact checker in chief, Matt Palumbo. Headline, New York DMV still overwhelmed weeks after giving illegals licenses. Ladies and gentlemen, how would you think about this? How would you feel about this? So you're a taxpaying citizen of New York.

Obviously in the country legally maybe natural mad naturalized born here maybe born here uh your family over generations doesn't matter but you're in the country legally and now you have to stand on a line seven blocks long to get in the dmv behind people who came into the country and disregarded the laws completely now that that's bad enough i, that's the easy one. But an interesting point was brought up to me last night. Producer Joe, I bet you didn't think of this one.

Because I'll be candid with you folks, I didn't either. So a friend of mine says last night, he goes, do you know what this is going to do to car insurance rates up there? And I looked at him for a second and said, huh? Explain. He said, think this through. So now you came into the country illegally.

So obviously, Joe, tautologically speaking, laws don't matter. Right. All right. You. There you go. You said, screw the law. I'm going to come into the country illegally. And by the way, don't lecture me about illegal immigration.

It's obviously a sensitive issue with my family that did it the right way. Okay. So hard pass on your, you know, nothing about, I actually went through the process with people very close to me. Okay. So no thanks. You guys could take a backseat trying to lecture me on immigration. So if you chose to come into the country illegally and stay here illegally, what are you doing

or saying by doing that? You're saying, I don't really care about the laws. How does this relate to car insurance? So what this guy said to me last night was fascinating. He said, well, listen, once you get the driver's license, you can go to whatever insurance company, progressive, I said ironically, by the way, whatever it may be and say, listen, I need car insurance. Make your first payment, get the car insurance card that's good for a year and never pay again ever oh meaning what joe insurance companies you may say and and a fair point brought up by paula this morning ironically

paula said to me well anybody could do that yeah she's not wrong anybody joe i citizen non-citizen he or legal can pay get the it's not only illegal immigrants that can do that. But my counter argument to Paula, which I'll make to you is, ladies and gentlemen, what is insurance other than a probability equation? That's what it is. You are asking people to pay based on the probability that they'll get in a car accident with health insurance, they'll get sick or won't with home insurance that the house will burn down or won't or be robbed or it won't that's what insurance is is it i mean were you missing something it's a it's a probability

equation that the person you're insuring based on their premiums will cost you money later right that's what it's not a welfare program it's insurance so if you're insuring people joe whose first act in the United States was to say laws don't matter and they buy law, they have to get car insurance. They're probably going to get car insurance, pay a premium. And many of them, not all of them, but many of them are going to say, listen, I'm not making another payment. Thanks. I got my card. We're good to go. They've shown no respect for the law in the past. go. They've shown no respect for the law in the past. It was an excellent, excellent point that wait till people start getting car insurance rates in New York. And by the way,

car insurance in New York is bad enough as is. Believe me, I live there. If you're going to insure people whose first act in the United States was to say the laws don't matter, then my gosh, this is not some kind of stereotypical stigma. It's based on a probability equation. If you say the law doesn't matter, then what do you care about the law, whether driving or otherwise? You get an insurance card and that's it.

By the way, driving laws won't seem to matter more either. I mean, you're talking about people who say they don't care about the law. We don't need good luck getting insurance badges no you're no no i mean wait wait this is one of those things again it's been an evergreen topic on my show that lib the irony of liberalism yeah is that liberalism burns liberals too the beauty of conservatism is is conservatism when enacted helps everyone, including liberals. Wait till people start getting their car insurance bills in New York and they're spiking 10, 20, 30%. You wonder why people are leaving.

All right, enough on that. But that's an angle I had not anticipated before. And it was an interesting one. All right, moving on. Folks, this story, I saw this story, a text from a doctor friend of mine. He knows me. He's a good man. Sent this text to me while I was working out in my local gym.

And I saw it. And I got to be honest with you. When I first saw it, I was skeptical. But now the story has been confirmed by the Daily Mail. The Daily Mail is reporting that these attacks on our embassy in Iraq. One of the guys leading the attacks, this guy Hadi al-Amiri, unbelievably. So one of the guys leading the attacks on our embassy in Iraq, Barack Obama welcomed him to the White House in 2011.

Oh, just read the report. It'll be in the show notes as always at bongino.com you want me to email you these articles i email the best articles of the day for our new listeners on radio if you want to go to bongino.com slash newsletter i'll email you these articles every day but look at this photo one of the guys leading this attack on our people in iraq at the embassy over there which by the way was nothing like the bengh attack. Here's the photo from the daily mail by Ross Ibbotson, a daily mail online. They even have it labeled Joe. There's Hadi Al-Amiri in the white house with Obama to the left.

And there's Hadi Al-Amiri on the right leading basically the attack on our embassy outside. Wow. You know, Dan? Now. I bet a lot of us are, ombudsman time, not surprised. Not surprised. Not.

Listen to me. Daniel. That's weird you just said that. Because if I don't want to out my friend, I'm not sure if he's comfortable with the doctor friend who said it to me. But I kid you not the text I sent back to him when he said is I, he knows it too, is I'm not surprised if true at all. It's it's,

it is so ironic. You just said that I'm not messing with you, Joe. That is exactly what I said to the doc. I said, doc, if true, because I hadn't confirmed it yet.

I'm not surprised. Nobody is surprised by this nobody this is disgusting the death to america crowd we paid 150 billion in ransom payments under the obama administration are now leading attacks on our embassy now making this worse the media hacks who were driving me absolutely crazy they're doing a couple of things here to try and mitigate the blow to the reputation of the Obama administration. What do I mean by that? Well, it's obvious. The Obama administration was pro-Iran, the death to America crowd, and paid them off in a ransom, $150 billion.

So the fact that these same people are now attacking us in Iraq and trying to invade our embassy is kind of a big blow to the Obamaama administration no so the media of course is doing its due diligence trying to act as full-time activists for the democrat party and they're trying to blunt the blow i'm going to get to that in a second but some of their comparisons are utterly absurd and completely stupid i want to play this quick video of a really brilliant guy jim hansen he was on. And there have been these media... Remember, the media folks is always trying to tell you, for our regular listeners, you know it,

a story, not the story. The media doesn't do journalism. The media does storytelling. So the media narrative now is, this is going to be Trump's Benghazi almost celebrating an attack that could have resulted in real casualties and luckily didn't because Trump's the president, not Obama. They're trying to compare this to Benghazi. There is no comparison, as Jim Hansen addressed on Fox. Check this out more in it when I get back.

We ran the Politico headline, Trump tries to avoid his own Benghazi. Do you see any parallels between Benghazi and what happened in Baghdad? The only parallel is that bad guys attacked the U.S. embassy. A hundred percent difference in the response. Obama and Hillary Clinton cringed and hid and did not reinforce our people. President Trump sent Marines and the 82nd Airborne and said, don't you dare. That's the correct way to deal with a provocation like that. Message sent. All right. Let's see if it's received.

So, folks, it's just like Benghazi, what happened in the Iraq embassy attack over there, except for the fact that there were no U.S. casualties. The response was forceful, aggressive, and immediate. There were no lies about a videotape, and air support arrived immediately. But other than that, Joe, yes, it was the exact same as Benghazi. Other than everything that happened in Benghazi, everything that didn't happen here, thank the Lord, and that is not using his name in vain, by the literally thank the lord we have our people over there busting their butts in a mission overseas putting their butts on the line thankfully president trump is in office and not the hapless barack obama and what difference does it make hillary clinton so again other than those things joe okay no u.s casualties an actual response that

was aggressive forceful and immediate air support and the fact that they didn't lie about a videotape to hide the attack other than that yes it was exactly the same okay thanks thanks okay but other than that other than those things yes it was the same other than those things which is everything it was these oh dude now it's worse yes joe it's worse there's a subtle and one of the things we do on this show which is my favorite thing to do is to address the story the media is trying to tell you rather than the story the media is always to tell you rather than the story. The media always has a narrative to defend and back up because they're full-time activists, full-time liberal activists, to back up and make the Democrat Party look good. So the media had to find a way.

Follow me, folks. Audience, I'm Budsman Joe. Track me on this. If this doesn't make sense, you got to let me know. You know, so the media can't have the story out there, the real story, which is a bunch of Iranian militia hacks probably paid for or instigated an attack on the embassy. And Obama was on their team. In other words, we can't have the story out there that the people Obama supported, like the guy you just saw the picture of, are now attacking U.S. personnel or trying to in our embassy overseas. That's the story, folks. That's what happened.

You saw the photos yourself. Right, right. A bunch of people, the Obama administration tried to help, the Death to America crowd turned around, as Joe said, and he's accurate, unsurprisingly, we're attacking our people now overseas in Iraq or trying to. That's the story. Period. Full stop. Overseas in Iraq or trying to. That's the story.

Period. Full stop. They can't have that stories out there. So the New York Times and others are trying to characterize them as mourners. Mourners because we had done some F some fighter jet attacks over there on some outposts against Iranian terror proxies over there. They're mourners, Joe. They're mourners. What they're trying to do, follow me here, is they're trying to conflate previous protests in Iraq, which were anti-Iran, not anti-US, legitimate protests. In other words, there are Iraqis out there protesting who don't want Iranian influence

in their government. These protests have been happening for months. They're trying to make those protests go away and make this all seem like one big anti-US effort. To make those anti-Iran protesters

look like anti-US protesters. You get what they're doing? It's very subtle. Yes. By painting people as mourners You get what they're doing? It's very subtle. By painting people as mourners and protesters, they're trying to take the anti-Iran edge off it because that looks anti-Obama because Obama

supported the Iranian regime. And they're trying to make it one big anti-US thing only. You'll see it by painting them as mourners. But not the terrorists these people are. One hell of a week. Protesters.

Ladies and gentlemen, we're in crazy time with the media. Watch it. Instead of describing them as anti-Iran protesters, some of the people, these protests are still going on. They're going to conflate them and make them one big group of anti-U.S. people to take the anti-Iran angle off it, because anti-Iran protests would look like they were anti-Obama protests too because he supported Iran. Very subtle, but again, that's what we do here. We pick apart media narratives all the time to show you what the real story is because you're being sold a line of colossal BS all the time.

All right. I want to get to this. All right. I want to get to this. I got a really interesting angle for you on, again, the spy gay trauma, which has been an evergreen topic of my show here, because there's always a wrinkle. And now that we have the Mueller report and the IG report and the soon to be Durham report coming out in the spring, the story that we've told you for years is now starting to come together. We haven't been proven wrong on anything so far. We've been way, way ahead of the game. Thanks to sources. I want to be clear on that. And a lot of good sleuths out there. Before I get to that, let's get to our second sponsor of the day. Today's show also brought to you by our buddies at Helix. I'd be lost without Helix because you know what? I slept terribly before getting my Helix sleep mattress. I did. I was a mess. Once you turn like 40, the sleeping thing just eludes you. It's hard. I don't know what it is. There's like a

switch in your brain that turns off. But thanks to Helix sleep and their two-minute sleep quiz that I filled out, I got a mattress customized to me, my body type, and my sleep preferences, and you can too. Are you a side sleeper? I am. You a hot sleeper? Me too. You like a plush or a firm bed? I like it a little firm. With Helix, there's no more confusion and no more compromising. Helix Sleep is rated number one by GQ and Wired Magazine. Not the number two mattress. They're rated the number one mattress.

That's right. Just go to helixsleep.com slash Dan. Take your two-minute sleep quiz today, and they'll match you to a customized mattress that'll give you the best sleep of your life. They have a 10-year warranty. You get to try it out for 100 nights, risk-free. If you don't love it, they'll pick it up for you.

You will love it. Why? I have two of them in my house. I'm not even kidding. My other daughter wants one too because my youngest daughter has one, and she winds up sleeping in there. She likes the bed so much. Not a joke.

Not a joke. The administrations are that comfortable. Right now, Helix is offering up to $200 off all mattress orders for our listeners. $200 off. Go today to helixsleep.com slash Dan for up to $200 off your mattress order. That's Helix, H-E-L-I-X, sleep.com slash Dan, helixsleep.com slash Dan, the best slash Dan, excuse me, helixsleep.com slash Dan. Helixsleep.com slash Dan. The best slash Dan. Excuse me. Helixsleep.com slash Dan. Order today. Best mattress out there. Hands down. Go check it out.

All right. So something kind of creeped into, we had a day off yesterday, which is unusual for Joe and I. We don't take too many days off. It was New Year's Day. And I'm always working. And the Spygate case always fascinates me because there's always a new wrinkle and things always creep up.

And I got to thinking about that story and that headline. And it's been on my mind for a long time. What story, what headline, what am I talking about? The New York Times had the story they put out in September that seemed to me at the time we addressed it like hyperbole at best and at worst, total complete BS. And the story was this, and now it's starting to come together now that the IG report is out there, what exactly the New York Times was doing in their story. The authors, by the way, are known media co-colluders with the Spygate Deep State crowd, Adam Goldman being one of them. The New York Times had this story in September.

The headline was CIA informant extracted from Russia had sent secrets to the US for decades. Everybody was like, whoa, whoa, really? So we found out back in September a few months ago, and I covered this on the show, according to the New York Times and their media co-colluders with the Spygate plotters, right? That the CIA, Joe, had this source in Russia that was so deep and connected to Putin.

And because of Trump and Spygate, they had to get him out of Russia to save him and bring him over in the United States. had to get him out of Russia to save him and bring him over in the United States. Now, remember, folks, the media is here to tell you a story, not the story. Those are not the same thing. Driving Paula crazy with the camera today. It's all right. Try to follow me here. I'm like Tyson here here bobbing and weaving now it's starting to make sense what that was all about now i'm not suggesting the whole story was

bs joe there may have been some source that the central intelligence agency run under brennan at the time that they may have used for something who may have been brought into the United States. Yeah. But I don't think it's for the reason that the New York Times is trying to imply.

Now, get your ombudsman hat on, Producer Joe. There it is. Okay. Remember, what's the story they want to tell you? The New York Times

wants you to believe that we had a source so connected to Vladimir Putin for information that when the Spygate story broke and the media started to cover the dossier and all this information that, remember, was supposed to be coming from sources, Joe, close to Putin. The New York Times wants you to believe that because of that, and because of the Spygate plot being exposed and all that, that the source's identity was going to be exposed, and he was

so dangerous we had to exfiltrate him and get him out of Russia. Folks, I don't believe whoever this spy was, this guy, and there's some suspicions about who he is. A lot of them. I don't believe this had anything to do with Spygate. Or the dossier.

I think it was all crap. Why? Because, folks, we now know that the sources for the dossier, this is important. This is key. We now know the sources for the dossier were not is important. This is key. We now know the sources for the dossier were not in fact sources close to Putin, but were complete total BS the whole time. Halper, Steele, Simpson, all had input into the dossier. Sergey Millian, allegedly,

according to some of the reporting, George Nader. I'll get to that in a second. So are you tracking where I'm going with this? Yeah. Brennan knows he's in trouble. The spy gay plotters know they're in trouble. Yeah. They know they're in trouble because they used a debunked dossier full of crap garbage information to spy on a presidential candidate and president later on on their team they know

this so the only way to save face is going to be to pretend that the information that turned out to be debunked in the dossier at a minimum joe okay at least we got it from a credible source in russia yeah so credible we had to exfiltrate him he was in so much danger look squirrel look look look uh it's a squirrel shiny red i don't even have a shiny red object in front We had to exfiltrate him. He was in so much danger. Look, squirrel. Look, look, look. Wow, that's a squirrel. Shiny red. I don't even have a shiny red object in front. Look, shiny red pen.

Oh, even better. You ever get punchy in a fight and they try to track you? I'm like, follow. You know, listen, we do a lot of that stuff. Yeah, I've seen it. Follow me. If a guy gets really punchy,

it's like, follow the pen. It's like, this is what's going on. They're trying to, they're reverse engineering this thing to make it appear that even though the information was bogus in the dossier, the information they used to spy on Trump, are we clear? That even though now we all know that's bogus, we have the bar, excuse me, we have the IG report,

we have the Mueller report. There's no evidence any of it was true. Collusion was a hoax their backup narrative is going to be well we got it from this serious spy who was so serious that after spygate broke we had to take him out of Russia

now why are they trying to cover this up think this through so I know you got that part so the information was bogus but we're okay because we got it from a source we thought was legitimate. My bad. It's his fault. They didn't get it from him. They are trying to cover up where they got this from and trying to cover it up. Why? Because of obviously what I've been telling you for two years.

This whole case was a setup the whole time. This whole thing against the Trump team, the meeting with Papadopoulos, the meeting with Don Jr., it was all a setup. A hundred percent, it was a setup. The people they were getting information from for the dossier, forget this exfiltrated spy. That's a look squirrel story.

Made to make you believe they were getting information from an actual Russian source, they weren't. They were getting information from people who knew nothing about this and were making it up. Steele, Halper, Simpson, it was all garbage. But one specific guy who has been the subject of my reporting here for a long time, one guy that we know they were getting information from has some very, very suspicious ties to the Clintons. Check this story out in Axios. Listen to this doozy. You remember this guy, George Nader? Where have I heard that name?

You know, I always say in the show, remember the names. Put your head in your palm and say, where have I heard the name George Nader? Oh, George Nader, wherever I heard that name. You know, I always say in the show, remember the names. Put your head in your palm and say, where I heard the name George Nader. Oh, George Nader. You mean the guy who Mueller was using as an informant? Axios report, December 5th, 2019. I'll put it in the show notes. It's a little older from a couple of weeks ago, but worth your time. Axios report, Mueller witnessed George Nader accused of illegal clinton donations oh oh crazy how that

happened so let me just let's get this straight here i got more on the ball i don't go anywhere so a key witness he's not even a witness because he didn't witness anything a key informant for bob muller george nader who muller's using to attack the Trump team in this bogus investigation into a fake collusion charge, was investigated for illegal donations to the Clintons? Well, what did Nader do? Remember what we're talking about here. Let's ground the show again. This was a setup. The Trump team was being framed by the clintons there i said it a hundred percent i'm not even 99 i am a hundred percent

sure now this was a setup the whole time these meetings with russians the downer meeting these all of these people had some connection to either people working for the clintons or the clintons themselves well you said well what meeting did nader set up remember if you're trying to set a narrative joe that the trump team is colluding with russians that's false it's probably pretty helpful to get the trump team to meet with people associated with russians right yeah that's how you set them up? That's exactly what happened. The Russian lawyer, Veselnitskaya and Rinat Akhmetchin, who shows up at the Trump Tower meeting to meet with Don Jr., they were connected to the team working for Hillary Clinton, Fusion GPS.

They met with him before and after. This was a setup the whole time. Look at this Nader meeting. I want to show you something. This is fascinating. Well, before I get that, I want to show you a link from Salon.com from a while ago about the Panama Papers. Yes, left-leaning Salon.com. But I want to set it up for a minute. What did Nader do? Again,

more evidence. This was a setup the whole time. This was a key model witness. Nader, George Nader, is involved in the setup of a meeting in the Seychelles with Eric Prince. Who is Eric Prince? Eric Prince is the brother of now Trump education secretary, Betsy DeVos. He also used to run Blackwater. He sold it, doesn't anymore. Prince must have been a target for them from the start. Why? Because he was obviously, as the head of Blackwater, didn't like him to start with Joe, but he was also connected to people connected to the Trump orbit. Again, you're trying to set up the Trump team for colluding with Russians. You want them to

meet with Russians. So what better way than to set up people associated with people in the Trump orbit? So Nader's involved in setting up this meeting in the Seychelles between Eric Prince from the Trump sphere, I guess is an okay way to say it. And who does he set up the meeting with? He sets up the meeting, Nader, with this guy, Kirill Dmitriev, this Russian, who is in charge of the Russian Direct Investment Fund. Why does that matter to you? Oh, look at this gem in the left-leaning salon.com from a few years ago. Quote, in his report on the Clinton machine's ties to Saudi Arabia, Michael Isikoff, a reporter, also notes that two of the Clinton lobbyist bundlers, Richard Sullivan and David Jones, are principals in a firm that until late last year represented the russia direct investment fund a sovereign wealth fund co-founded by vladimir putin but he was prime minister folks this is so

obvious as i was explaining to a friend last night this is the this setup is so obvious at this point i'm going to tie this all together in a minute because I got a couple other stories I want to get to. We got a loaded show today. But do you see what's going on here? Another guy, Nader, sets up a meeting with a guy associated with the Trump orbit, Eric Prince, and a Russian. And the Russians

operation, the Russian, they set up Kirill Dmitriev. He runs the Russian Direct Investment Fund, co-founded with Vladimir Putin. They were repped by two Clinton bundlers in the past. And the guy who sets up the meeting with the Russian Direct Investment Fund head, again, Russian Direct Investment Fund repped by two Clinton bundlers, according to Salon, not me, left-leaning Salon,

the guy who sets up the meeting was now investigated for illegal donations to the Clintons. Listen, media folks, do you understand you are missing the biggest story of the decade? The story now, Joe, to be clear so we can get through to our audience,

the story now is no longer that collusion was a hoax. That's obvious. We knew that from this. Only idiots believe that. That's not the story. The story now is for us to go on the offensive. The defensive part of this operation is over. And when I mean the operation, I mean our operation to get the real story out there.

The defensive part, we didn't collude with the Russians or Republicans, that is over. That's obviously a hoax now. Only idiots believe in that. Only morons like Seth Abramson and others. Smart people with intellects above 100 on the IQ scale now understand that the real story

is no longer collusion is a hoax. Of course it is. The real story is, well,usion is a hoax of course it is the real story is well how did the hoax start aha oh boy and if the answer to that story which is slapping everybody in the face who care to look at it if the answer that as it started because the clinton team in conjunction with the obama administration and and John Brennan were setting the Trump team up to later accuse them of collusion that never happened and framing them by setting up meetings with Russians that the Clinton team was associated with people involved in it. Ladies and gentlemen, that's the story of not even the decade, that's the story of the century. That an opposition political candidate, the Clinton team, in conjunction with a weaponized CIA and a president, Barack Obama, actually set up the opposing political party and frame them for a hoax, a collusion hoax that never happened and then accused them of being traitors

to the United States? Now do you understand why that New York Times, that's why it all, listen, my days off are trouble for me because my mind starts spinning. You need to keep me, you know, the devil's hands. You know the law. I got to stay occupied at all times

because everything starts spinning in my head. And it all made sense yesterday when I had some time off. That is what that New York Times article was about. They now want you to appear, want it to appear that even though the information they used to start this was a setup, there was no information. The Russian collusion dossier, all of it was a setup and a lie. They now want to make it appear. And what their defense is going to be is going to be the New York Times piece.

Well, you know, we got this information from this overseas spy and it was so serious. Once the spy gate broke, we had to exfiltrate him. And listen, my bad. I'm sorry the information was awful, but we were doing our due diligence. That is not what happened. That was a preemptive strike to get that story out there to distract you from the real narrative that the story was made up the entire time to frame the Trump team. It is obvious to anybody paying attention with their heads out of their rectums.

All right, moving on. all right moving on so if you've been paying attention in the last few days you saw this story it's a tragic story the church shooting in texas obviously we had two people who uh died at the hands of this lunatic thankfully the tragic effects were mitigated because we had a hero a guy by the name of Jack Wilson, who was armed, who eliminated the threat immediately, this shooter, after he engaged and killed, tragically, two people. Folks, in one of the more disgusting media episodes, I'm sorry to keep harping on the media today, but there's just so much material out there because they're just so pathetic.

And one of the more disgusting media episodes I've seen in a long time. The media is now in an ongoing effort to discredit defensive gun use. In other words, the use of a firearm to save lives. Okay, yeah. USA Today had a dreadful op-ed. USA Today had a dreadful op-ed. The gist of the op-ed, Joe, was, well, you know, even though this guy, Jack Wilson, may have eliminated the threat and saved lives,

six other people pulled out their firearms too, and we don't know who those people are, so this is what really scares me. I'm not kidding. That was an actual USA Today. I'm not even putting it, I'm not, I don't even want anything to do with it because it was so dumb i don't want one person to click on this stupidity one because i

don't want to give them the clicks but secondly you will be dumber after you read it and it shows you how stupid people on the left-leaning media are that's a real argument this person tried to make joe that what really scares them is not a maniac. No trying to shoot up a church. Who's killed by a patriotic gun owner. Who stops the threat. That's not the story to this lunatic who wrote this piece. Joe, the story is that six other people,

which they did six other parishioners in the church pulled out their firearms. That's and he doesn't know who they are. And that scares him. That six people had guns in church. If. Yeah. If, yeah. Oh, this gavel is coming very handy. Thank you to the listener sent this.

I forgot. Did we put the name on who? You remember who that was, Paul? Somebody, I forget the name. Was it? Was it Troy or something? Well, thank you, Mr. Or Mrs.

Gavel sender. This thing is coming handy. Because when you got to scratch your head, my bad elbows, I typically can't reach. This is a real story. Only if you're a moron so of course the media instead of saying to the american people well listen you know what obviously carrying a firearm if you're trained and you're safe with it and proficient, can prevent these types of incidents. That's not the story they went after because they hate guns and they hate your freedom.

So Matt did this piece, Matt Palumbo at Bongino.com. We get a lot of Bongino.com content today. It's not because we're on radio for the first time either. It's just because Matt did a lot of good stuff. The stats on self-defensive gun use, liberals don't want you to see. It's a great piece. It's worth your time.

The media is now trying to downplay, again, what is the story they want out there? That is not the story. The story here is clearly defensive gun use works. Thank God for this guy in Texas. This would have been a whole lot worse, even though tragic nonetheless. That's the story. End the story. They can't have that out there.

All weekend and all week week if you've been watching media coverage and cable news coverage of this joe the story liberals want out there is well this is rare joe defensive gun use the use of a firearm to save lives that doesn't happen this is rare that we shouldn't put any stock in this jack wilson story this is all bs this only happens rarely. We don't see defensive gun use that often. Really? Because there are actual stats on this, you know?

And what we do on the show are facts and data, not liberal BS, which is nonstop. So Matt did a debunking piece we just showed you. Be up at Bongino.com. In the show notes, again, you can subscribe at Bongino.com slash newsletter. We'll send you these articles every day. Quote from Matt's piece. A 1994 survey, get a load of this one,

conducted by Bill Clinton's Center for Disease Control. Yes, that's right. He was a Democrat, for those of you who forgot. Found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes

about, what would you say, Joe? Maybe 100 times a year because the liberals are saying it never happens. Defensive gun use doesn't happen. 100? frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about what would you say joe maybe a hundred times a year because the liberals are saying it never happens defensive gun use doesn't have a hundred if i took 200 maybe issued a heart yes yeah 250 right maybe maybe 300 a little bit uh 500 000 times a year this is bill clinton cdc found that americans use, yes, to frighten away intruders breaking into their homes 500,000 times a year. Folks, what's the story? I'm going to get to another statistic in a second, but what's the story the liberal media wants out there?

That defensive gun use like happened in Texas with Jack Wilson, who took out this killer, that doesn't happen. It's a rarity. So don't put your stock in firearms to protect yourself. It's a waste. We got to get rid of guns. Ladies and gentlemen, that story is false.

Clinton's own CDC tells you the number of defensive gun use instances for burglaries alone was 500,000 a year. It's like a half million. Not if you're a liberal. I see. If you're a liberal, what Joe just said made million not if you're a liberal see if you're a liberal that what joe just said made no sense if you're a liberal because you don't do numbers you have adamantium vibranium coated skulls where facts just don't penetrate they bounce off like captain america's shield now there's another statistic you say oh man oh man, Dan, is that an isolated one? Well, we'll see. Now let's go back to Obama's CDC,

which conducted a gun control study in 2013. By the way, there are a lot more data. There's a lot more data in the piece. I'm only giving you the liberal president's CDC stuff to show you how your liberal friends just make stuff up. So Obama's CDC in 2013 finds that, quote, almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least, at least as common as offensive uses by criminals. With estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million. Let me translate that for the liberals.

In other words, at the floor level, people using firearms defensively to save themselves, their property, their lives, the lives of their families and friends is at least as prevalent as the incidences of criminals trying to attack them, at least at a minimum. Meaning your BS story, by the way, criminals who don't care about gun laws at all,

your BS story that we shouldn't rely on guns because the instances of guns protecting us are so rare that we don't need guns and you should get rid of guns is bull, you get the rest. It's made up at a floor level. We are using them as often as criminal who don't care about them we'll have guns on the list to defend ourselves totally completely made up now liberals listening because they're not very bright they'll say well doesn't that show that there's a lot of offensive

criminal usage of of guns by criminals and therefore we should get guns off the street. That's not what it shows because you are not getting guns off the street because criminals don't care about gun laws. That's what makes them criminals. Remember that bumper sticker, greatest bumper sticker ever. When you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. It's true. I was a cop. I remember asking, when I was with the NYPD, I was studying for my graduate degree in neuropsychology. So a lot of times they put me in the cells at night because I was a rookie, number one, and no one wanted to be in the precinct cells. Nobody. It was a horrible job. But also during my breaks, at least, I'd be in the precinct and I could kind of read my

human neuroanatomy textbooks. It was, you know, so it worked for both of us. I didn't mind doing it. No one else wanted to do it. And I could, during my break time, I could read a little bit, right? But while you're working, you know, you have to go around and look at the cells, make sure nobody's doing anything to themselves, trying to hurt themselves, make sure they're not trying to break out or whatever. So I'd walk down in the cells. It wasn't a huge prison in the precinct, holding cells, more precise term. And I would ask these guys who'd been arrested. I'm not kidding because I was interested in politics back then. I'd say, you have a gun crime thing here. I'd be

like, well, what do you guys think about gun laws? And I'm telling you the response every time, I'm not making this up by the way, would be, gun laws? They'd look at you like you're crazy. Is this a real question? And I remember one guy saying to me, and this is not making this up, by the way, would be gun laws. They look at you like you're crazy. Like, is this a real question? And I remember one guy saying to me, like, and this is not an exact quiz. A long time ago. I mean, it was like I was a police officer back in 1997. It's, you know, 2020. But one of them said to me, like, gun laws.

We love gun laws. Like, because you idiots don't get to carry guns and we get to rob the. You know what I'm saying? And that's just a general gist. It's not an exact quote, but I remember thinking about, he's right. The gun laws are great for criminals.

They're lying to you. Defensive gun use is at least as prevalent as offensive criminal gun use, meaning we're defending ourselves against the bad guys who don't even care about gun laws. Heard a Coach Mora moment there. Gun laws? Oh, Jim Mora. heard a coach more a moment there gun laws oh jim mora playoffs playoffs some this is not a dennis miller you know i always say dennis miller used to make these

references and no one if you've ever followed remember the cults of jim or the former head of the cults they ask you what the former head of the Colts, they asked him about the playoffs. What were they? They were like a 500. Playoffs? Playoffs? You want to talk about playoffs? The greatest. My brother, Jim, by the way, loves. That's his favorite sports quote of all time.

You want to talk about playoffs? Jim Moore is beside himself that this guy asked him about the playoffs for a 50-50 team. In other words, Moore's like, my team sucks. Playoffs like my team sucks playoffs what are you crazy asking me about but playoffs you want to talk about gun law playoffs that's exactly right if you had a press conference for criminals like Jim Moore had the press conference after the game if you had this criminal up there just arrested on the gun and they said mr criminal how do you feel about gun laws do you think they're going to clean it got good laws that is exactly what would happen we need to get an actor to play a fake criminal at a press

conference and superimpose the mora press conference playoffs with the criminal bugger. Gun law playoffs? You're absolutely right. They think you're morons for this. Nobody cares about your gun laws. All right, moving on. Again, stacked show today. Another story in the show notes. There is already, shockingly, can we get past 2020 first?

Speculation about what's going to happen in 2024. Who will get the GOP nod? I know, I know, I know. I'm with you. I get it. Right now, 100% of our efforts are 2020. I get it. But it is out there. Great writer at the Washington Examiner who I respect a lot, Carrie Pickett. She has a piece up. Pence and Pompeo, of course, the vice president and secretary of state, lead a growing Republican group looking past Trump to 2024. I just want to casually mention this story. I don't want to go too deep into it because I want to throw something out there too. So here are the lists, and it'll be up in the show notes again for you to check out this article here's the list of people who are potential candidates in 2024 for the presidency regardless of what happens in

2020 according to the piece carrie pickett so pence and pompeo as you saw in the title nicky haley a former ambassador to the un and former governor of south carolina tom cotton arkansas senator which i think is probably likely to h Haley, I don't know. I don't know Nikki Haley. I'm sure she's probably thinking about it. Marco Rubio again, and Ted Cruz again, too. I just want to throw something out there because during our Friday interview show, by the way, this week, we'll be interviewing Rudy Giuliani. It is going to be a former mayor, Rudy Giuliani from New York and the president Trump's personal lawyer. You are not going to want to miss this interview.

We record them on Fridays. We launched them on Saturday mornings. This is going to be a good one. Don't miss it. YouTube.com slash Bongino if you want to subscribe to our YouTube channel to see the interview. I promise you this is going to be a good one. I just want to throw a few more in there. I mentioned the interview show because I interviewed Donald Trump Jr. a little while ago and asked him about it as well. A lot of people. Again,

we're not looking past 2020. 100% of our efforts are getting this president reelected. But having said that, I really like both Don and Eric Trump. They are absolute conservatives, folks. Die hard to the bone conservatives. They are gifted public speakers, successful businessmen. I think we'd be remiss if we're going to get into that conversation to not throw those two in the mix as well. I would be happy with either one. But I asked Don Trump Jr. in our interview, and he didn't eliminate the possibility in the future. Just throwing that out there. I don't want to spend too much time on 2024 we got an election ahead of us now but as you see speculation in this media cycle is always for the next one ahead all right another what i mean it's just so easy i mean our website we could write all

day about dumb stupid media myths they propagate for a gullible general public, sometimes on the liberal side. We don't fall for this stuff. But I saw this again this weekend, and it just goes to show you that even after you debunk a liberal myth out there, even after you debunk it, it will still resurface when convenient because liberals are either one, really not that bright or two absolutely committed to gaslighting and lying to you there's no option c folks what was this one so i'm again uh you know the idle hands this weekend i'm searching through twitter and i'm reading some stuff and i see this liberal who runs vox ezra klein who's been just a notorious gaslighter and liar he tweets this thing out and i'm like i cannot believe it we

already debunked this thing and it's making its return again here's the tweet it's just so ridiculous uh quote ezra klein known liberal activist and fake media guy we found that counties that hosted a Trump campaign rally in 2016 saw a 226% increase in reported hate crimes over a comparable counties that did not host such a rally. And he quotes this Washington Post piece. Folks, we already debunked this. So I promptly got on Twitter and just blasted this complete buffoon and said, did you miss the fact that this is a hoax? Did you miss it? Like, did you, are you that dumb? Are you that much of a sucker? I don't think he is that dumb. I think he's just lying to you because that's what a lot of these liberals do. This is not true. You see what the narrative is, right? This guy did a study

and where Trump goes, hate crimes go up right away yeah it's not true we already debunked this again be up in the show notes today matt palumbo resident debunker in chief bogus study says trump rallies increase hate crimes here's why it's nonsense folks this was obvious nonsense you can see through remember what is a story they want to tell you? Not the story. A story the media wants to tell you is Trump shows up, hate crimes go up. It's not true. It's total garbage. Look at this from Matt. So you have the, because it's shockingly, Matt wrote this piece when, Paula? August of 20, am I reading that right? August of 2019. We debunked this story in August. It's January of 2020. Here's what happened here.

Matt annihilates this study. Quote, there were 1,433 hate crimes in all cities and counties that Trump had campaign rallies in during 2015. That increased 1% to 1,450 in 2016. Yet population in those cities and counties, Joe, rose more than 1%, representing an actual decline in hate crimes permitted per capita where Trump showed up. Oh, my gosh. Now we're not only debunking stuff. Now we're having to debunk stuff again

that resurfaces after being debunked. Now, why is that? Why is it resurfacing again due to lying Ezra Klein and his nonsense outlet Vox? Vox with a V because I always get emails. It's not Fox with an F, V. Vox is a hack liberal activist site known for its lying and nonsense. Why is he citing this Washington Post piece again?

Because Joe, obviously we've seen an outbreak in anti-Semitic attacks in New York, not driven by anything. Trump did by driven sadly by a wave of attacks in New York on the Jewish community by people who have nothing to do with Trump. Nothing. Matter of fact, a lot of these attacks are happening in an area is controlled by liberals.

They can't have that out there, Joe. What do you mean? Liberal places in New York have seen a wave of hate crimes and anti-Semitic attacks on our Jewish friends and brothers over there and sisters. Yes. That is the story. So a story that media needs to tell you and resurface again, even though we already debunked this pure stupidity, is that, hey, where these hate crimes are going up, we think Trump did it. But they're happening in New York in liberal areas.

No, no, Trump did it. Matter of fact, we have evidence, Joe. The science, Joe, dreaded air quotes. The science says that where Trump visits, hate crimes go up. Therefore, Trump, hate crimes, definitely a connection there. Science! Here's the actual connection there is none yeah hate crimes as they define them per capita which is what matters went down

you just made that up nice job matt yeah man very nice of course matt is excellent at actually reading the actual data and parsing yeah it, I just want to tell you. All right, I just want to get one final story and we can wrap it up for the day. It's a simple one. But folks, you know, the Trump economy has been doing very well, particularly well. There's always room for growth. We can always do better. I always worry about the debt.

I've said that often. You know, I've covered that on the show. The debt is an overhang that could cause some real damage if we don't get it under control and get it under control quickly. But one of the things about the Trump economy that sometimes it's not credited enough has been Donald Trump and his team and his effort to get the government red tape out of you and your business. A lot of times you hear these stories about all the Trump tax cuts, which were wonderful and I believe led to this economic boom. That's not the whole pie here. Here's a story by Paul Bedard, Washington Secrets. He does great work. Again, be in the show notes today. Trump issues fewest regulations in 44 years. This is the third record low the Trump

administration has set. Folks, we have this thing called the Federal Register. It's a book of new government regulations. This is the third year in a row the Trump administration has set a record for the lowest amount of new government red tape regulations added to the Federal Register. Now, you may say, yeah, we know he's been involved in a deregulatory effort. It's his third. In other words, he's getting government red tape out of the way. What makes this even more profound is not only has he issued the fewest amount of new government red tape regulations, but even the amount he's issued has been skewed. You may say, well, I don't get it.

Ladies and gentlemen, what is the issue? Something like 2000 regulations. Well, that still sounds like a lot. No, no, no, no,

no. You're missing the story. Even the regulations he's issued, Joe have been new regulations, eliminating old regulations. So what I'm telling you is not only is the number of new regulations at a record low as measured by pages added to the federal register, but even the amount added are new regulations to get rid of regulations.

Folks, why does this matter? Listen, it may not be so obvious if you don't own a business. The obvious reason is, well, regulations cost money, right? They do. I own a business. I told you that at the beginning of the show. Right. Doing our NetSuite.

You know, Joe has his own operation. Yeah. Drew has his own operation yeah drew has his own operation we own businesses when you put a piece of red tape let's just say for joe that there was a licensing requirement for podcast producers in maryland crap and they started tomorrow yeah which who knows in maryland may not be you know joe would that cost money joe would have to pay he has to pay a bureaucrat, he's got to get the license. But ladies and gentlemen, that's the obvious one

why government red tape stinks and destroys businesses. It costs you money. But the not so obvious one is this. It also costs time. Now, Joe, rather than producing value-added activities, putting the show on the air,

producing it, getting rid of the audio gremlins we always have. Rather than doing that, what's Joe doing now? Joe's down at the Maryland Department of Podcast Registrations sitting online like the DMV in New York behind 7,000 other people who may or may not even be here legally and trying to get a license to do what he does, which is valuable to me and you because you enjoy the show.

Now, sir, it's not just the money. It's the time with Donald Trump eliminating all of these garbage crap government red tape regulations. That is now time saved and money saved to money that filters back in the economy so we can grow. Nice job, President Trump. Don't ever forget that. Don't ever forget that. Don't ever forget.

Three record lows for new red tape gone. Nice. All right, folks. That was a really loaded show today. Again, welcome to everybody at 790KBC. We will be heard tonight. If you want to check it out, listen to the show again. 790KBC, 6 p.m pacific time we are super excited

looking forward to expanding in the future too uh good to hear you all and uh speak to you all in los angeles it means a lot to me you know i've always had a soft spot for california you got a beautiful state out there it's too bad the uh liberal politicians are doing their best to ruin it for you but here the real resistance has become. Thanks for listening. You can subscribe to our YouTube channel, youtube.com slash Bongino, and please subscribe to our audio show as well on Apple Podcasts and Google Podcasts, wherever you get your

podcasts. It's always free. We really appreciate it. I will see you all tomorrow. You just heard the Dan Bongino Show. You can also get Dan's podcasts on iTunes or SoundCloud, and follow Dan on Twitter 24-7 at DBonGino.