The Dan Bongino Show - Best of the year 2019 The Dan Bongino Show (Ep 1143)

Episode Date: December 24, 2019

Some of our favorite segments from shows that ran in 2019. We hope you enjoy them as well. Thanks for listening today and all through the year!   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. So Bill Barr, Attorney General, was up on Capitol Hill yesterday. Here is the video. Watch the face of Senator Jeanne Shaheen, who did not expect the answer she got from Attorney General Barr about if the Obama administration was spying on the Trump team. I think there was a spying did occur. Yes, I think spying did occur. Well, let me question is whether it was predicated, adequately predicated. And I'm not suggesting it wasn't adequately predicated, but I'd need to explore that.

I think it's my obligation. Congress is usually very concerned about intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies staying in their proper lane. And I want to make sure that happens. Oh, look at the face on Jean. She's like, huh? She's stunned that this guy says that, that Bill, right?

Did you see it, Joe? This is, this is going to go down as one of the more iconic images ever in a Capitol Hill hearing. I will never forget her face ever. And you shouldn't either. Because she was expecting a more nuanced kind of DC focus group tested way of tested way of saying that the Obama administration spied on the Trump team. There are two things going on right now, ladies and gentlemen.

The media and the left freaked out yesterday. They lost their minds. Bill Barr should resign. You know, Jennifer Rubin, liberal from The Washington Post, who laughingly pretends to be a conservative, pretends to be rational, which is even worse. Jennifer Rubin, we should impeach Bill Barr. They're losing their minds because two things are happening now simultaneously. What I said was going to happen a very long time ago. The collusion hoax is dead.

The real scandal is a spying scandal on the Trump team by the Obama administration. And that is very, very much alive. Jerry Dunleavy has a good piece in the Washington Examiner today. I will put up in the show notes. Please read it because there's a paragraph in there that is a key takeaway which Joe and I hit a very long time ago. This will sound very familiar to you, Joe. Title of the piece, Stefan Halper, the Cambridge Don the FBI sent to spy on Trump.

So just to be clear for those who are just joining in today, haven't heard the show in the past, Stefan Helper is a U.S. intelligence asset sent to spy on the Trump team during the Obama administration. That is a fact. None of that is any longer in dispute. It's even been acknowledged by the lunatics at the New York Times. at the New York Times. Now, for those of you out there, liberal lunatics, media hacks, activists, and general police state supporters on the liberal side who want to brush under the rug the fact that the Obama administration act like a bunch of tyrants and police staters, what they want to do, Joe, is they want to say, well, he wasn't a spy, aper. He was an informant. Well, considering I have taken information from both as a former federal agent, notice I said both, I'm implying to you that those are not the same thing. Now, Joe, of course the media wants to massage the Halper thing,

the massager. They want to massage, you know, there's massage and massage. They want to like massage the whole thing because they want to make this thing go away and say, well, he was just an informant. There's a little snippet in Jerry Dunleavy's piece, which is very good and describes something Joe and I talked about a while ago. Here is the difference between the two. Spies and informants are not necessarily the same thing. From the piece, while the FBI describes Halper as its informant, he did far more than report things he'd become privy to in the course of his normal life. Rather, this is important, he actively courted at least three Trump campaign officials offering to pay for travel

and misrepresenting himself as eager to work for Trump. During the campaign, Halper was asked by the FBI to gather information on Page and Papadopoulos, a foreign policy aid, a foreign policy aid more junior than Page. And he met with Trump campaign co-chairman Sam Clovis. Now to be clear and get the facts right, which the media has a problem with, we're not sure yet that the FBI instructed Halper to meet with Sam Clovis, Trump campaign aide, but we're darn sure that someone in U.S. intel law enforcement instructed him to meet and go make contact with Page and Papadopoulos. What am I getting at? Ladies and gentlemen, an informant in normal law enforcement jargon, an informant is someone

on the inside of an organization, pre-existing, who's there, who informs on potential criminal activity or intelligence-related activity inside said organization. This is an important distinction. Words matter. Guys, ladies, please, I can't emphasize enough how important this is because it's the dipsy-do flipperoo by the left. They're trying to massage the language to make it sound informant. Stefan Hoppe was informant. That he was informing on some pre-existing criminal activity to get in your head that, oh, it was just the government doing their job. We have informants all the time. Joe, is this making sense? This is very important.

What I'm getting is a spy is more proactive. Yes. Yes. And that's where Dunleavy's snippet in the Washington Examiner piece, which will be in the show notes, at Bongino.com. Subscribe to my email list on my website. I'll send you these articles every day. Please subscribe. I'll give you the best articles of the day.

He brings up the word, which I hadn't used before, courted. Stefan Halper, when Joe and I discussed this, when Chuck Ross from The Daily Caller broke the story about Halper, I had said to you the distinction between an informant and a spy is a spy is someone external to the organization. Joe does not know a spy. This spy has to enter the organization. He has to enter the organization at the behest of someone else to spy on them. There's a difference. Now, sometimes it can be the same thing. Sometimes, you know, in a criminal case, you can get someone who's a long-term spy, you know, someone who enters into a biker gang, excuse me, as a fake member. And eventually, you know, spy informant become interchangeable.

In this case, they are not. Halper was not an informant person. He was a spy. He was an external force to the Trump team who, this is a critical point here, nobody knew. Page did not know him. Trump did not know him. Papadopoulos did not know him.

Sam Clovis, one of the campaign officials, higher ups on the Trump campaign, had no idea who this guy was. He is external to the organization. He makes contact. Why? Well, because he knew them. He didn't know them somebody pushed him in right he is a spy a spy he was his sole purpose for being joe was to spy on the trump team never in the in the in the utilization of the word disgraced has there been a more efficient and proper time to use the word disgraced when talking about the media now. The fact that they are so uncurious about a political opponent of Barack Obama,

who no evidence of any crime related to collusion has ever emerged, ever. Matter of fact, Mueller has entirely exonerated them of collusion. At no time has the media been less uncurious about the fact that an intelligence asset for the United States, a spy without question, was pushed into their orbit to gather information on them about a crime nobody has occurred, nobody has ever acknowledged has occurred, and was predicated on false political information from a political opponent. The media is entirely uncurious about this, Joe. Entirely.

Yeah, no kidding. Unbelievable. Unbelievable. So Bill Barr gave an interview to CBS News yesterday, and we cut some sound and video from it. I'm going to use just one clip, this one clip where he talks about, well, let me just play the clip and let me decipher for you specifically what he's saying. Because Sean Hannity has been talking about this repeatedly, and I think a lot of people missed the point. because Sean Hannity's been talking about this repeatedly. And I think a lot of people missed the point. So play bar.

And then when I get back, I'll decipher on the other side exactly what he's saying and why it's important. You don't think that they've committed treason? Not as a legal matter. But you have concerns about how they conduct the investigation? Yes, but, you know, sometimes people can convince themselves that what they're doing is in the higher interest, the better good. They don't realize that what they're doing is really antithetical to the democratic system we have.

That is a key piece of sound right there. Sean Hannity in his nightly show has been hinting at this over and over by calling Jim Comey the super patriot. It's a knock. It's that he's not looking to, he doesn't really mean Jim Comey, former obviously FBI director, is a super patriot. Sean has been hinting for a while because he has intimate details on the case. Sean's got really good sources that a lot of them who did this, Comey, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Andy McCain, Brennan and others, that in their own internal communications, a lot of them, especially the Strzok-Page texts, what they did was unethical, immoral,

illegal in many cases. By the way, there's a theory out there that this person they were talking about in the DOJ press release and the FBI that was accused of leaking, that that person may be struck. Congressman Doug Collins has that theory. Maybe Peter struck, it was leaking to the media in exchange for like kickbacks and stuff like that. And other things there's an ad,

it's an allegation. Doug Collins has thrown it out. That would be interesting, but I want to be clear on this. Bar is now clearly looking at the body of evidence that Donald Trump's team was spied on by these, by personnel in the FBI and the intelligence agency and overseas intelligence agencies and others. And it's clear from their thread that they were so blinded by their own sense of hubris, by we are the Praetorian Guard of the Republic, that they were blinded to the fact that, and I'm not absolving them of any responsibility for what they did, don't take this the wrong way,

that they were blinded to the fact that what they were doing was so obviously unethical, immoral, and in many cases illegal. And I say that because there are many, there's a lot of quotes out there that nail this, and forgive me if I'm kind of ruining some of them. But the gist of many of these quotes that talk about the ability of power to corrupt people is the most dangerous form of moralizing is that form of moralizing done when people think they're doing it in the name of a higher cause. Does that make sense? In other words, like, you know, we're going to exterminate the population of Alabama because we are in the right. And you're like, wait, you just said what? Like, what are you talking about? Like, you think doing that is somehow taking some high moral hierarchy? I mean, throughout human history, we've had tyrants,

fascist killers, homicidal maniacs who have killed and taken away the liberty and freedom and tortured others in what they believe was incredibly a higher moral cause. Now, I don't want to compare the two to stroke in them. Obviously, there's a different level of depravity on that. That goes without saying. But it's meant to kind of hammer that higher point home, that this is the most dangerous form of this kind of stuff when they really think they're doing it in the name of a higher cause. And Barr hits on that in his interview, and I didn't want to gloss over that. It's a very important takeaway. in his interview and I didn't want to gloss over that. It's a very important takeaway.

And Barr, I mean, listen, guys and ladies out there, for some of you who objected to Barr when I first promoted this guy and said, I think he's going to be a very good choice. And the reason I thought he was going to be a good attorney general is because he has nothing to lose. You know, they asked him about his reputation in the same interview, Joe, and what does he say? He goes, oh, everybody dies. In other words, like, listen, I'm doing what's right. You'll figure it out in the end. History will get on the right side of it, I'm sure. But folks, Barr, I promoted him from the beginning. He has nothing to lose. He's already been the attorney general once. He knows that the right thing has to get done and he's going to do it and they are going to attack him relentlessly and he just has to get done and he's going to do it and they are going to attack him relentlessly and he just doesn't care. And I am absolutely sure this guy is going to uncover this massive scheme.

Now I'm a little disturbed that whoever this FBI leaker was, again, allegations that could be struck, they're going to bypass prosecution. That's kind of a shame. But this was a very important piece by Barr. And Barr knows exactly what he's doing here. He will 100% not be intimidated. Dan Bongino. All right. As I promised, this Seattle clip here. Moving on.

This is. Oh, man. Yeah, I know. I know. It's about two minutes. A long clip. I'm sorry. I don't like to play long clips.

It's kind of verboten in video and TV to play clips longer than like a minute, minute 30. But this is important because it's something I've talked about frequently on the show, how government bureaus, bureaucrats, politicians, and the like, they have this great unwashed attitude towards the rest of us, like we're their minions. Keep in mind, it is not hyperbolic or any exaggeration of our structure of government to say these people work for us. We pay them. We give them power. It is the consent of the governed. We pay them and their power, everything, their financial security is based on our money, our tax dollars. And the very power we give security is based on our money our tax dollars

and the very power we give them is based on the consent of us but that's not the way government works anymore whether at the local federal or state level these lunatics many of them think that that we work for them now Now, I have never, I sent this out and Greg Gutfeld retweeted the tweet because I think he was disturbed by it. I wouldn't be surprised to see it later on one of the shows. Hat tip to Blaze for picking this up

and I have the article in the show notes today as well if you'd like to read it. So the Seattle City Council, Joe, is having an open public hearing. Remember, these city council people work for us. where citizens who empower them and pay them are allowed, and I use the quote allowed because I don't know any other way to say it. They have an open comment period. We're allowed to come in and you're allowed to present your comments in a two-minute time period. That's not unreasonable because a lot of people have a lot of things to say. I don't have any beef with the time thing,

the two-minute time period. But I want you to watch what happens when this guy, I don't know this guy, I've never met him in my life, he comes in with a prepared two-minute statement to talk

and as he gets up to the microphone, these council people don't even have the courtesy. Imagine if I did my show, Joe, like this. Hey, folks, nice to see you today

at Dan Bongino's show. Let me surf a little bit. Here I got my email. Folks, it's annoying now, and I'm making a mockery of it. Yeah, man. If I did a show like that, I'd have about a thousand viewers, if that, and it'd probably be family members and friends and people I'd have to pay to watch the show.

But watch the way the city council people completely ignore this citizen who's trying to petition his government as his god-given right is play that cut next is richard schwartz good afternoon afternoon um before you start the clock could you stop it for a second it's real discouraging to come up here and see all the heads down. It's like... Sir, you're on a two-minute timer here, so let's go.

I'm not following you. You're on a two-minute timer. Could you start it over, please? No, we're not going to. Just go ahead. So it was unreasonable for you to ask that people look up and give me their attention? Sir, you have two minutes. We're all looking at you. You have two minutes.

Now you have a minute and 30 seconds. Okay, well, I guess I won't be able to say it. Last week, you limited, this kind of goes to the heart of what I was going to talk about, which was the state of our democracy. And this kind of goes to the heart of what I was going to talk about, which was the state of our democracy. Last week, you limited speakers because of the number of speakers to one minute each, but you allowed Pamela Jayapal to speak as long as she wanted to. It was four or five minutes.

And it reminded me of George Orwell's famous saying from Animal Farm about how all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. And that's how I feel like I'm being treated now just because I was kind of asking for your attention. Like I noticed you all were very attentive to Miss Jayapal the other last week and I just wanted to ask for your attention before I started and I immediately got a hostile response back from you. I don't understand that. So you don't ever respond to citizens? I do, sir, but you have two minutes for public comment to the agenda items. Well, it's all on tape, and I think it's a pretty sad commentary

that you think that asking for you guys to look up off of your computers and give attention during a short period of time was an unreasonable thing. I really feel bad about that. Thank you. Gosh. That's tough to watch, man, isn't it? Yes, it is. It, dude. That's tough to watch, man, isn't it? Yes, it is. It really is. Yeah.

It really like, that's like the fifth or sixth time I've seen that, and it gets worse every time. God bless you, brother. I don't know this guy. I don't know him from Adam. I don't know if he's a liberal, conservative. I don't even know, communist. I have no idea.

I don't know who this guy is. But God bless you, man. You did the right thing there. I don't know who this guy is, but God bless you, man. You did the right thing there. If these faceless, gotta be careful here. I'm gonna humbly and respectfully ask that you make this thing go viral. And I mean really viral

because everybody needs to see this because this is a microcosm of what we've become. We've become a society where these faceless, unempathetic, non-caring bureaucrats sit there and play Tetris on their phones and computers, Super Mario Brothers 6, while a citizen who takes his time to go out there, to park, to walk up there, compressed into a two-minute timeline, is forced to give comments while these lunatics can't take two seconds to avert their eyes from their level six Super Mario's conquest to listen to what this gentleman had to say. Again, I don't even know what he had to say. This guy could have been advocating

for a 90% tax rate in Seattle. The bottom line is I don't care. His absolute God-given big R right to petition his government is something you didn't give him. God gave him. And you govern because of our consent. This is not a monarchy.

It's not an oligarchy. This is a constitutional republic. We choose you as representatives. I can only hope every member of that city council that barely averted their eyes suffers the wrath of the voters out there in their next election. That was a disgrace. Get that guy on Fox, man. Someone needs to interview him. That should go everywhere. That clip should be on every cable news channel from now into perpetuity. Hey, thanks for tuning in. Today's show was brought to you by my buddies at BrickHouse Nutrition. They make some of the finest nutrition supplements on the market. My personal favorite is Foundation.

Now, you don't hear anything shaking in there. Why? Because the bottle is empty because I use it. I love this product. my personal favorite is foundation now you don't hear anything shaking in there why because the bottle is empty because i use it i love this product check it out foundation it is a creatine atp blend does three things look better feel better perform better go give it a shot go to brickhousenutrition.com slash dan try out this creatine atp blend and take the mirror test if you don't believe me take the mirror test. If you don't believe me, take the mirror test before you try foundation, right? Go check it out. Give it about seven days to work. Take a little mental snapshot of yourself in a mirror. Look at yourself after seven days. You're going

to love this product. Go check it out. Brickhouse nutrition.com slash Dan checkout foundation today. Can't recommend it highly enough. Bottles empty miles. They ordered a company. Send me some more. enough bottles empty miles they ordered a company send me some more dan bongino excellent article moving on by paul sperry in the new york post who's done some really good investigative journalism on the spy gate case and the gist of the post story which i again i hope you read at the show notes today is this parallel construction scheme that i've been discussing for a long time he doesn't use those words but that's what he's getting at. It's a well-done piece. Folks, you know, I had an interesting conversation last night with someone who shall remain nameless, but I was discussing how combine this with yesterday's show, right? Yesterday's show, I discussed the scheme to set up Mike Flynn again.

Mike Flynn, Lieutenant General Mike Flynn, who I believe was spied on as far back as 2015 by the Obama administration in the Spygate scandal. So keep in mind the headline, what I'm getting at here. The real scandal that the Democrats are hiding with regards to the collusion, Obamagate, Spygate, Russiagate, whatever you want to call it. The real scandal is Spygate. That's why my first book on the topic is called Spygate, not Obamagate, Trumpgate, Russiagate, or Collusiongate. Because the real story here is the Obama administration's weaponizing of our assets. We're taxpayers. We finance the FBI and CIA to attack his own political opponents, Mike Flynn being one of them, in 2015 when Trump wasn't even running for president. It's Spyg game. In other words, this is about the Obama administration spying. Ladies and gentlemen, for as much as I would like to make this about Trump, it's not. It's bigger than just Donald Trump.

And I think the president is aware of that and he knows that. Now, showing my point again is this piece by Sperry, which is an excellent one. He shows and lays out how the entire FISA operation, the FBI law enforcement operation using the FISA courts to formally, using paperwork and warrants, spy on the Trump team, I believe is a cover-up for a pre-existing intelligence operation to spy on the Trump campaign exactly like they did against Mike Flynn. I've been calling it other, I don't take any credit for this term. It's been out there for a long time. I don't own it, so please, I'm not trying to take credit for something I didn't invent. But it's called parallel construction. I've spoken about this on my show many, many times. What is parallel

construction? To understand the essence of how the devious Obama spying operation on the Trump teamwork, let's leave Flynn behind. You can listen to yesterday's show to get the full details on that devious disaster, is if I'm running an illegal spying operation on you because I think you robbed the bank. Say, producer Joe, I think he may have robbed the bank. So what do I do? I don't want to go out and get a title three warrant or a wire tap against Joe because I don't have any evidence. I just don't like Joe say, and I want to nail this guy for robbing a bank and whether he robbed it or not. So what do I do? I go into Joe's house. I break in late at night committing a crime. Essentially, I need a warrant to spy on Joe, right, to get his phone conversations monitored. But I don't want to get

a warrant. I have no info. Break into his house. I put a bug, a listening device, whatever it may be, a transmitter on his phone. And I get all of his phone calls. And on those phone calls, I hear Joe engaging in suspicious conversations with his neighbors about banks and money. What's the problem, folks? Think this thing through. What's the issue here? The issue here is I'm running in a legal intelligence operation and I can't use any of that material to go out and actually get a warrant. It is useless legally, not politically. So what I have to do now is I have to get the information I've obtained illegally by my illegal bug and recording device in Joe's house. I committed the crime, not Joe. I have

to then use that if I get suspicious conversations about him and banks and money, I have to somehow launder that information into a legal warrant without a judge knowing where I got it from. What better way to do it than to hire a private investigator you've worked with before, who's got credibility in front of the courts, who you've used to prosecute cases before, who's a credible witness in court, to make spurious, phony allegations against Joe and use the information I got through the illegal intelligence, the bug, give it to the source and say, hey, just repeat this back to me and I'll say I got it from you. You get what I'm saying? You've obtained evidence illegally to launder it

and clean the information like money laundering, like laundering drug profits through a legal business. You give it to a source you've hired before and you tell them, you say this and I'll pretend I got it from you. Folks, that is clearly 100% what happened here. Sperry lays out in this parallel construction scheme, a couple of questions for Bob Mueller, Brennan, and others that would break this thing down. Now, I gave you the analogy, but I didn't give you the story. Just to summarize, because some of you have heard this on my show before, what I believe happened is John Brennan and his intelligence cronies overseas were running an illegal intelligence operation against Donald Trump, whether it was unmasking

through the Obama administration or basically wiretapping Trump administration officials under the guise of national security, which was nonsense. It was political information. That's it. That's all they wanted, information to attack the Trump team on. Whether it was using foreign intelligence officers to circumvent and do a big loop around American surveillance laws, whether it was that, it doesn't matter what it was. He was running a rogue intelligence operation against US citizens. Think about what I just said. Brennan and his team of people, this cabal at the top that was running this op, was illegally spying on US citizens, strictly prohibited by US law without very, very specific carve-outs. The Central Intelligence Agency and U.S. intelligence agencies,

not the FBI, the FBI is a law enforcement entity, are specifically prohibited with very few carve-outs from spying on U.S. citizens for a reason. Because when the CIA was first started, one of the fears the CIA, one of the fears they had was that it was going to be used by Obama types, Nixonian types in some cases, right? I mean, corrupt administrations to spy on their political opponents. That's exactly what happened here. But the information Brennan had and passed on to the FBI had to be laundered to a law enforcement entity. That law enforcement entity was the Bureau, but Brennan can't tell people where he's getting the information from. So he pretends he's getting the information from someone else. The FBI then goes to a guy who

mysteriously appears out of nowhere, Christopher Steele, who's conveniently hired by the Clinton team through lawyers familiar with the Obama administration. Now, that part was a little confusing. Track this. I'm going to make this quick, but I want to move on, but I want you to understand this. Brennan needs to take that illegal information he obtained illegally, illicitly, immorally against the Trump team. He's not supposed to be spying on US citizens. He needs to launder it, but he can't tell the FBI what he's doing because he knows Comey at some point is going to be... Comey's an awful guy, please. Don't mistake this as a defense of Comey's character. He's awful. Comey didn't ask any questions. They interviewed a guy in January, a Russian source. Comey knew the Russian source still had his garbage. Comey's a bad guy. But he knows Comey is going to need some cover

because there's paperwork. When the CIA refers this case to the FBI, the, hey, Joe's robbing a bank or Trump's colluding with Russians to the FBI. There is an EC, an electronic communication called on this show frequently paragraph one. There is a piece of paper from Brennan asking Comey, I need you to start an investigation. Comey is not going to do it based on hearsay, knowing Brennan violated the law. So conveniently, Brennan tells him some information he may have heard, and who pops up out of nowhere and reports to the fbi that he has the exact same information conveniently a guy hired by team hillary clinton christopher steel working for a company glenn simpson owns who had already written a story in the wall street journal in 2007 that had the exact

same contours i call it the movie script as the story brennan's telling kobe liberals are losing their mind including a little jimmy acosta over at cnn president trump had a one of his many pressers this guy's the most open president in american history is he not this guy gives pressers press avails takes questions from the press to get out of the jargon all the time it's kind of funny where they accuse him of hiding stuff. Trump accused him of a lot of things. Hiding stuff? Not so much. So he's giving this presser and he starts getting into this spy gate and what happened in 2016 and the infiltration into the election process where they tried to harm him and benefit

Hillary Clinton, Russians and others, Ukrainians. And Jim Acosta loses mind. I want to play the video first of Trump, what he said. Jim Acosta, fake news Acosta, and his hilarious tweet. And I'm going to lay out for you the evidence making Acosta look like the fool he is. Play this video. Here's Trump talking about what happened in the 2016 election

and the liberals lost their minds after they heard this. Check this out. Just know that our country is looking into the corruption of the 2016 election. It was a corrupt election, whether it's Comey or McCabe or Strzok or his lover, Lisa Page, the two great lovers. There was a lot of corruption. Maybe it goes right up to President Obama. I happen to think it does. But you look at Brennan and you look at Clapper and you get some real beauties.

I know that they're looking into the corruption. Obviously, the IG report's coming out soon. So we'll find out. I don't know anything about the meeting, but certainly it would be appropriate because the word is and you read it in the same papers that I do that they did go to other countries to try and hide what they were doing. Number one. Paul, what do you guys guys hilarious?

Like some of this guy's lines are hysterical. I just say that. Listen, I, I get it. Like you got presidential, whatever. I don't really care.

It may bother you. That's fine. You know, we live in a constitutional Republic. You prefer different presidential talk. Fine. Whatevs your call, not mine.

Vote. How you see fit. But this guy's hysterically talks about talks about Lisa Page and Peter Stroke, two FBI personnel who were involved in the investigation, Trump. And he calls them. He calls, Paul, you hear him? The two great lovers. Like this is like Cleopatra or like Samson and Delilah or something.

The two great lovers. And then he talks about Comey and clapping the two, those two beauty. That's just Trump. He makes me laugh. You know, some people may not like it. I think it's hysterical. So the,

the gist, the takeaway that the, why the liberals were losing their minds, you know, had helmets were coming off everywhere. Volcanic explosions out of CNN. He doesn't have any evidence. Obama was involved.

Okay. You sure about that? Here's a little Jimmy Acosta's tweet, losing his mind. This guy's just become a total and complete embarrassment. So at Acosta, Trump on DOJ probe of 2016 election. Maybe it goes right up to President Obama. I happen to think it does. You just heard President Trump say that. Here's Acosta. Fact check. There is no evidence of this. Folks, this guy's a clown, a joker. We all know it. You know what it is? Acosta's eager for attention because President Trump, as of late, has shut down the White House press conferences that used to do with Sarah Sanders. Stephanie Grisham's in there now. They're not doing them. Why is Acosta upset? Because Acosta's whole life is not about journalism or facts or anything like that.

Acosta's life is about getting on TV and making himself look like the anti-Trump resistance. This guy's not a journalist, you know, any more than I'm the center fielder for the New York Yankees right now. We're in a little bit of trouble, by the way, in that Astro series. He's not a journalist at all. Stop saying that. It's fake. It's embarrassing.

Journalists should be roundly avoiding any association with Jim Acosta at all. Stop saying that. It's fake. It's embarrassing. Journalists should be roundly avoiding any association with Jim Acosta at all. So to be clear, Trump is saying that he believes there is some connection between the spying on his campaign in the 2016 election and the Obama White House. And Acosta is laying out that fact check. There is no evidence of this. Acosta says no evidence. You saw it. I no evidence of this. Acosta says no evidence. You saw it. I showed you the tweet. I didn't manipulate it.

Let's go to article number one from foxnews.com. And I'll go to a screenshot. FBI lovers, latest text messages. Obama wants to know everything. Jake Gibson, Fox News, February 7, 2018. Again, this will be in the show notes. I thought Acosta said there's no evidence of the White House involved. Now the liberals will come back and say,

well, when Lisa Page and Peter Stroke, who were investigating Trump, sent these messages to each other about Obama wanting to know everything, or excuse me, the White House is running this, that this could have been about anything. Folks, it could have. I mean, I could be, you know, the king of Siam, but I'm not. The evidence is Peter Stroke and Lisa Page were working almost exclusively on a case involving the targeting of President Trump and his campaign,

communicating about it, and in that line and chain of communication, they indicate that, quote, the White House is running this. If you were a journalist, you'd be curious about that. If you're Jim Acosta, you're not. You don't think that's evidence at all, because Jim Acosta's just not a bright guy. Here's a screenshot from the piece where we have the actual text. Page wrote to Stroke on September 2nd, 2016 about prepping Comey because POTUS wants to know everything we're doing, according to a newly released Senate report. This text raises questions about Obama's personal involvement in the Clinton email investigation. You can see the quotes in the text yourself. This is what they were doing.

They were scuttling the Clinton email investigation in favor of investigating Trump despite hard evidence of Clinton malfeasance and no evidence of Trump malfeasance. Dan Bongino. I'm going to lay out for you today, again, exactly what happened, why these people are freaking out,

why Brennan, as I said last night on Hannity, John Brennan is in adult diapers, and what exactly precisely is the problem for them right now. And I promise you will be left with no questions when this is over. I had said to you earlier in the week that on Friday's show, I was going to make a conclusive case that, and I'm going to end the show today, by the way, by showing you how Jim Comey is not innocent in this. He is a total disaster as well, so don't worry. I'm going to make a conclusive case to you on how the FBI was misled by John Brennan and the CIA into an investigation to spy on Donald Trump. Please, please, I'm imploring you. I'm begging you to keep that one point in mind throughout this whole threat, that John Brennan was the founder of the feast.

He is the one who initiated this entire operation. He misled the FBI because John Brennan had no law enforcement powers to starting a criminal investigation and a counterintelligence investigation into his political opponent, Donald Trump, because John Brennan was essentially a politician disguised as the CIA director. Keep that in mind, and this will all make sense. First, number one from the Wall Street Journal. Last night, you may have seen the breaking news. Barr's review of the Russia probe is now a criminal investigation. Ladies and gentlemen, this is huge. Why is it huge? Why does this matter to you? Folks, we've been dancing around for a

long time. We've been playing games with this. Finally, there's some action. A criminal probe matters. Why is that? Because now they can convene a grand jury. If they can convene a grand jury in a criminal probe, that means there may be indictments. May. Again, I'm never optimistic about the DOJ, even under the leadership of the stellar Bill Barr. Having said that, it's a step. It's a positive step. Nobody should be overly dramatic about it, but it is a positive step. If you can convene a grand jury and crimes we know were committed, the leak to David Ignatius of the Washington Post about the Flynn phone call, and what I believe now is a concerted effort by your intelligence bureaucracy to mislead the FBI,

there is strong potential for criminal indictments now. Well, be patient. Nobody's jumping the gun on this. We've been disappointed before. This is a positive, extremely positive first step. Nobody opens a criminal investigation at that level with this serious of a case without some predicate for investigation. Nobody. Conveniently, in the same day, showing you the panic that's broken out. New York City Bar Association now wants, no pun intended, Barr, Bill Barr, the Attorney General, if you look at this

tweet, to recuse himself from the investigation. Now, why would they want that? New York City Bar tweet calls on Attorney General Barr to recuse himself from the DOJ review of Ukraine-related issues. If he fails to do so, he should resign or, failing that, be subject to sanctions, including possible removal by Congress. What are they worried about with the Ukraine investigation? How does that relate to what we saw last night? Oh, I'll get to that later. A little tie to George Soros, our buddy Soros, and the malfeasance in Ukraine in the 2016 election trying to hurt Donald Trump. Why are they panicked right now?

Why does the New York City bar not want Bill Barr looking into that? Conveniently, on the same day, a criminal probe is opened up by John Durham, one of his United States attorneys, looking into that. Let me show you one more tweet before we get started. Remember, it's all going to come out now that Johnny Brennan misled everybody into starting the biggest counterintelligence investigation, weaponized law enforcement operation in U.S. history to investigate what essentially was his boss's political opponent. This is going to get good. Check out this tweet by Jack Posobiec over at OANN.

Breaking. Durham is pursuing lines of criminal investigation that the CIA may have willfully misled the FBI into opening the Russia investigation under false pretenses. I'm telling you the CIA misled them. John Brennan misled the FBI into weaponizing their law enforcement powers. Now, that requires a couple of things. That required John Brennan at the CIA to lie about the information he had in the summer of 2016. That is why he is on tape, as I've shown you in recordings earlier this week and interviews he's done with NBC, where Brennan has clearly stated that he did not see the dossier until December of 2016. That is not possible, ladies and gentlemen. Brennan had based his entire case on the dossier,

the Steele information, the Simpson information, and the information from others that I think is going to quake your boots. We'll get to that at a later date. I don't want to scoop anybody on that because it's theirs. More coming on that. Brennan had the information from Fusion, Simpson and Steele

earlier now Brennan misleads the FBI because John Brennan knows he must know at the time that the information he's getting is coming from Fusion Nellie Orr, Glenn Simpson.

Now you say, Dan, that's not possible. It's called the Steele dossier. As we covered earlier in the week, ladies and gentlemen, the reason it's called the Steele dossier is because the FBI needed a face for the dossier other than the political operatives, Simpson and Nellie Orr at Fusion GPS. They can't walk in front of a judge and say, a political operative gave us information about Donald Trump. That would never pass.

So what did they do? They get Steele, who was a former informant for the FBI, to slap his name on the dossier and pretend it's his. Dan Bongino. You just heard The Dan Bongino Show. You can also get Dan's podcasts on iTunes or SoundCloud and follow Dan on Twitter. 24 seven at D Bon Gino.