The Dan Bongino Show - Ep. 658 What Are They Hiding?

Episode Date: February 19, 2018

Suspiciously, the recent indictment of multiple Russians by the special counsel was missing something. Why are leading Democrats now turning on Obama?  Here’s the full transcript of the December 2016 press conference in which former President Obama downplayed Russian meddling in the 2016 election.  Are you absolutely sure the Russians hacked the DNC? This is an older piece that challenges that premise.  Can President Trump be charged with obstruction of justice for exercising his constitutional authority? A Facebook manager is acknowledging that parts of the media’s Russian narrative are not true. This piece debunks the growing liberal attacks on the NRA. Copyright CRTV. All rights reserved. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

From the kitchen to the laundry room, your home deserves the best. Give it the upgrade it deserves at Best Buy's Ultimate Appliance Event. Save up to $1,000 on two or more major appliances. Shop now, in-store, or online at BestBuy.ca. Exclusions apply. Get ready to hear the truth about America on a show that's not immune to the facts with your host, Dan Bongino. Hi, welcome to the Dan Bongino Show.

Producer Joe, how are you today? Strap yourself in. It's going to be a bumpy ride. Yeah, I know. We've got a lot to talk about today, folks. There's been some just incredible breaking news over the weekend. For those of you who listened to my special addendum show on Friday, which was about a 10-minute add-on to the normal show content,

there were some indictments against Russians on Friday. I'm going to go into more of it today because, folks, something's rotten in Denmark. Yeah, yeah. I had some time to digest these indictments over the weekend, and something's up about these indictments. I think

they're hiding something significant, and we're going to scramble your eggs a bit in this show. And as always, I don't rehearse any of this with Joe. So I want a genuine reaction. But today's show brought to you by our buddies at WaxRx. Hey, when your ears aren't clean, they can get really uncomfortable. They itch. They're painful.

You can get plugged up, making it harder to hear. Many people use cotton swabs, candling, or drugstore remedies to clean their ears, but they don't really do the job. They can be dangerous. You're not supposed to stick those cotton swabs, candling, or drugstore remedies to clean their ears, but they don't really do the job. They can be dangerous. You're not supposed to stick those cotton swabs in your ears. Now you can get a real solution for stubborn earwax, the WaxRx Earwash System. Joe loves this, by the way, because Joe has a job, right? Because you're-

Oh, man. Joe, this is an issue for you all the time. My ears are horrible. All right, mine too. The WaxRx Earwash System is doctor-developed and works safely when other products fail. The WaxRx System is the method physicians trust the most, and it's just like the system they use in their own offices. WaxRx comes with everything you need to safely clean out earwax and condition your ears conveniently

at home for less than the cost of a doctor's visit. You don't want to have to go to the doctor. The doctor developed WaxRx system uses special wax softening drops, and it breaks down the earwax inside your ear. It has a specially engineered pump fitted with a unique tip to gently deliver the perfect amount of cleansing pressure to flush wax away. Finally, the pH condition formula rinses and soothes your ears, making for the ultimate, most complete earwax removal system available.

Thanks for supporting our sponsors. It's a great company. Love these guys. Visit GoWaxRx.com. That's GoWaxRx.com. Order's Go WaxRx.com. Order your reusable earwash system today. I'll give you a promo code. We always love those.

Dan, my first name, D-A-N. Have it shipped free right to your front door. GoWaxRx.com. Thanks to WaxRx. Okay. Fascinating piece I read over the weekend. So this indictment comes out. And of course, liberals are are now they're telling you

they're not panicking but they are panicking folks and why are they panicking because you know we've been told uh from uh you know from from early on in the transition through the trump president the presidency throughout that there is a big uh conspiracy with the russians and the trump team to collude you know air quotes collude to overturn the results of the election and the Trump team to collude, you know, air quotes collude, to overturn the results of the election and influence the election. Yet we had more indictments. We had 13 more indictments. We've had indictments and prosecutions

and pleas from Mike Flynn, which is becoming more and more suspicious by the day, by the way. Paul Manafort. We've had George Papadopoulos. And we still, folks, have not seen any evidence of collusion. Boom.

Nothing. Now, here is what's unbelievably suspicious about this indictment, the Manafort indictment, and other ones. There is still no conspiracy to collude to overthrow an election in any of these indictments.

Now, you may say, but Dan, there were 18 USC 371, Manafort got charged with conspiracy. The Russians here got charged with conspiracy. But folks, you know, I have to take this show

slowly today because you can probably tell I'm getting really frustrated here. I have to deal with, this is my job, I have to deal with liberals all day. I'm not whining, I love what I do, but I have to deal with them all day on social media, on emails I get to my email, because I give out my email.

They just won't let it go. There is the conspiracy charged, 18 U.S.C. 371, both in the indictment on Friday of the 13 Russians for meddling in the election and the conspiracy charge level against Paul Manafort make absolutely no mention of a conspiracy, criminal conspiracy with any knowing participants of the Trump campaign. criminal conspiracy with any knowing participants of the Trump campaign. Folks, as I've said now repeatedly, how can you conspire and not know you're conspiring? How can you unwittingly collude?

Rosenstein, I'm repeating this for a reason. It's going to make sense in a second. Rosenstein was crystal clear, the deputy attorney general at his press conference on friday joe yes was crystal clear that no americans were knowingly involved in this effort by the russians to buy facebook ads and to cause chaos how can you unwittingly and unknowingly conspire it you can't you can't but you have understand, we are living in a fantasy land with liberals. They are so deranged. They are, not all of them. I'm talking about the ones committed to this collusion thing.

There's no collusion. They will not let it go. Now, there's a great piece. I think, if I'm saying his name wrong and you're listening, John, I'm sorry. John Hindraker. Hindraker, I'm not really sure if that if I'm saying his name wrong and you're listening, John, I'm sorry. John Hindraker? Hindraker? I'm not really sure if that's how you say his name. Bottom line is there's a PCS and Powerline blog that's a really good one.

It'll be in the show notes today. Read it. Because it talks about something very suspiciously missing, Joseph. Yes. From this indictment in Russia. Now, just to be clear, what I'm talking about here, liberals keep telling you that there's a collusion, collusion, the Russians colluded with Trump to win the election. There is no evidence of that anywhere. None. There is no evidence of that. They say, oh, well, Don Trump

Jr. met with that Russian lawyer at Trump Tower. Right. What happened at the meeting? Oh, nothing. Okay, so you're saying it was a bad idea to meet with Russians? All right, agreed. Point stipulated. How can you collude if nothing exchanges hands? There's no collusion. There is nothing.

There's no evidence. The Manafort indictment was a conspiracy charge for money laundering and tax evasion. It was not a conspiracy to collude to win an election. It had nothing to do with the Trump team at all. It had to do with some money, Joe, that Manafort made from his dealings with the Ukraine government that they allege he laundered

and that they allege he didn't pay taxes on. Do you understand that? Yeah, yeah. That has nothing to do at all with a Trump team effort to collude with Russians to win the election. Now, the Dems are panicking here because

the Mueller, and folks, I'm sorry, but I have no faith in Bob Mueller anymore. I get it. A lot of Republicans, swamp rats, they feel like, oh, we insult Bob Mueller. You don't have to insult him. This is a farce. The special counsel's a farce. Muellerer's team is a joke the whole thing is a farce it was established on this whole premise that trump colluded and they were going to find evidence of it and they can't

and they keep going down and down and down and down the rat hole so this power line blog piece to get to the point sorry pulling this up mentions that it's fascinating that in the opening paragraph of the piece of the excuse me of the uh of the uh the prosecuting document show by muller against the russians it talks about how it's against the law for foreign nationals to spend money to influence u.s selections i'm reading from the piece here or for agents of foreign countries to engage in political activities without registering. But no one in the indictments actually charged with any of that. As a matter of fact, Joe.

Interestingly enough. What is 18 USC 30121, which says here it is prohibited and unlawful for a foreign national directly or indirectly. Let me just go to C because this is where it obviously happened. To make an expenditure, independent expenditure or disbursement for an electioneering communication. It's also illegal for them to make a contribution or donation of anything of value or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution in connection with a federal state or local election. In other words, foreign nationals cannot spend money to electioneer in the United States. That is against the law. But Joe, despite the fact that the Mueller charging document opens by laying all that out,

it never charges them with it. Folks, what are they hiding? I am starting to seriously question the motives of Bob Mueller. I get it. The man had a distinguished career in government. That does not absolve him of due criticism when I think something is absolutely transparently wrong here. wrong here. Now, Joe, the question you should be asking and you're probably doing so as the ombudsman for the audience is, so what the hell were they charged with? That's exactly what I've been asking. They were charged with

conspiracy. 371. But not a conspiracy to collude with the Trump team. They were charged with bank fraud and wire fraud. Right. And they were charged with identity theft for basically setting up fake Facebook accounts in false names. But why weren't they charged with trying to influence an election?

Well, the theory, Henrik. Yeah, you can see you see where I'm going. The theory that this guy Henrik has in this is that because if Mueller's team's team charges this these russians with this crime influencing a u.s election that it opens up the hillary clinton team and christopher steele to all kinds of charges later on now in the hinraker piece there is a i'll give him um some credit he presents another viewpoint from a uh a legal scholar who says well that's not necessarily true because christopher steel didn't in effect provide a contribution or a donation he was paid uh fair value for his services but my question is then if that's the

case and this payments to christopher steel, I promise I'll sum this up. Don't lose me. This is important because it speaks to a larger narrative that I'm going to get to in a minute about how the entire Democrat House of Cards is falling down in front of our very eyes. If the payments to Steele, Joe, were entirely legitimate through Fusion GPS and Hillary, then why didn't Hillary pay Fusion GPS directly? Why did they go through a law firm first and launder it as legal services?

Why? What I'm telling you folks here, and let me be fair here, I am speculating a bit. I am giving you a bit of opinion. I've got some quality sources, but I haven't been led completely down this path where I'm absolutely confident what I'm saying. I'm just going to be, I don't, because I don't like that. But I'm telling you based on a collection of evidence, things I've seen based on the Manafort indictment, the failure at any point for anyone to plead guilty to a conspiracy to collude to overthrow an election or to engage and influence a foreign election. Nobody has pled guilty to that. There is no evidence of that.

I'm starting to believe that the Mueller probe is hiding something. And what I think they're hiding is there is a more detailed and layered arrangement between Hillary, Fusion GPS, and Russian sources of information that we're being led on to believe. Now, let me wrap this up. That may be the reason that they did not indict these Russians for influencing a U.S. election. election, just to be clear, because Joe, it opens up Pandora's box for Hillary and her team then to be indicted as well for basically paying a foreign national to gather information from the Russians to, in fact, influence the U.S. election. Listeners, we all got that. We're with you, Dan. Okay. And it's a brilliant, and by the way, I like this piece because I always like when they

give you point counterpoint. He says, hey, listen, I was contacted by another legal, I like this piece because I always like when they give you point counterpoint. He says, hey, listen, I was contacted by another legal scholar, like I said, who disagrees, and here's why. And he lays it out. But folks, that is a fascinating premise. What else are they hiding here? Now, I'm going to take you further down the rabbit hole. So just to be clear, for i really i beg your forgiveness for walking through this stuff slowly but i do not want you to leave this episode in any way confused about where i'm going or what i'm saying i'm going to tell you what i'm going to tell you i'm going to tell you and i'm

going to tell you what i told you the indictments in this case so far liberals are always celebrating these indictments look we got manafort we got papadopoulos we got Flynn we got 13 Russians ladies and gentlemen the entire liberal credo here their their their their life ethos is that Trump colluded with the Russians to win the election none of these indictments say that read ladies and gentlemen just read them it doesn't say that anywhere it says russians meddled in our election by the way on behalf of hillary in many cases just read the read line 53 in the indictment on friday just read it it's in the show notes on friday just read it line 53 where they talk about support hillary support american muslims that was one of the groups that the Russians paid for to knock Trump.

So the Russians were paying to hurt Trump and to help Trump, to hurt Hillary and to help Hillary. Because as I've said repeatedly, the Russians engage in mutually assured information destruction. They want chaos. Now what I'm telling you is this Friday indictment, as I've gone through it on the weekend and read multiple pieces on it. I think this Hinricher guy is on to something. That the reason they did not charge these guys with the crime they talk about opening up their own legal charging document. They did not charge them with trying to influence an election as foreign nationals 30121 which is sorry folks i'm just it's just i'm wondering after listening to this how you

can't charge them with that well i'm glad you said that because that leads us to point number two here point number two i was just reading through a piece folks i'm sorry i don't mean to sound distracted. I'm glad you said that, Joe. But because I believe they're covering something, folks. The 30,000 missing emails. The entire premise of the story to begin with, that the DNC was hacked. Trump colluded with the Russians to get the information out.

I think this is all falling apart at the exact same time. I think there is some more information out there on Hillary's relationship to Perkins Coie, the law firm, and the Russians that they're hiding, Joe. And if they charge someone with that crime, foreign influence in an election, they're going to be asked the Mueller team why they didn't charge Hillary

and they need some plausible deniability right now. Dig it. I got you. Now, what could they be hiding? Alright, I'm going gonna get to that just bear with me folks um today's show also brought to you by our friends at itarget um thank you to itarget for supporting the show keeping it free for our listeners itarget's the best home system for dry firing your firearm and training how to use your firearm anybody can fire a firearm the question is can you fire it accurately self Self-defense advocates, Second Amendment supporters, a hunter, police officers, military folks, or you're just looking to buy a firearm, learn how to use it effectively.

This is a great system. Folks, competitive shooters try fire 10 times more than they live fire. Now, what is this system, the iTarget Pro system? It's the letter I, by the way. iTargetPro.com. That's iTargetPro.com. It is a laser bullet. My father loves this thing, by the way. He can't put it down. That's itargetpro.com. It is a laser bullet. My father loves this thing, by the way. He can't put it down. A laser bullet they will send to you. It

goes in the firearm you have now. You don't have to make any special manipulations. You have a 9mm weapon, they'll send you a 9mm round, right? It also comes with a target and a phone app. When you drop that round in into a safely unloaded gun, check it, check it twice, check it three times, you're going to drop that laser bullet, and when you depress the trigger of your firearm and you aim at the target, it's going to show you exactly where that round went. My father can't put this thing down. He can practice with it all

day. I mean, see, I'm not messing with you, Joe. You know, listen, sometimes this is legit. My dad can't recall me today. Man, I love this thing. This thing's great. I'm telling you, I love my father to death. But, man, this thing's great. I'm telling you, I love my father to death. Dan, this thing's great, man. I just sent him another one.

So he loves it. It's at itargetpro.com. That's itargetpro.com. You drop this laser bullet in. You don't have to make any special manipulations to your gun. You can work on your grip. You can work on your sight alignment. You can work on your trigger control, all in the safety and security of your own home.

Go pick it up. It's available at itargetpro.com. That's itargetpro.com. Promo code DAN for 10% off. Dan. Okay. Getting back to this. So what are they hiding?

Does Mueller know, Joe? So we ended up, again, if I'm losing anyone, stop me. Does Mueller know something about Hillary's relationship with the Russians that they're afraid when it comes out, if they charge these Russians on Friday with trying to influence a U.S. election as foreign nationals, that it would expose them to charges? Why aren't you charging Hillary too? I think they may.

And here's why I'm starting to think something's up. Adam Schiff made some very very uh interesting comments this week now who's adam schiff adam schiff is the democratic ranking member on the house intelligence uh committee there and schiff after the friday revelations about russians interfering in our election there was a there was an interesting revelation if you listen to the the special commentary we election. There was an interesting revelation, if you listen to the special commentary we did afterwards, there was an interesting revelation in there, Joe, that the Russian meddling started in 2014. Now, Donald Trump's candidacy did not start for president, obviously, in 2014. So one of the, even among some of the liberal media folks,

some of the commentary has been, well, I mean, when are we going to start pointing out that Obama may have dropped the ball here as well? I mean, listen, folks, if it started in 2014 and Trump's campaign for president didn't start till way after that, then we have a serious problem here

because, think about it, if Russians were meddling in the election all the way back to 2014, Trump wasn't even running at the time. Then how is it that they can possibly have gotten involved in the election exclusively for the purpose of electing Trump? It doesn't make sense. starting to recognize this, that they've got a problem. We got a problem. What is the one I always mess up, Joe? Is it the, I'm coming for you. I'm coming. Yeah, Elizabeth, that's it. I always mess that up. Elizabeth, that's right. Elizabeth, I'm coming for you. They got a problem. They know they've got a problem. Adam Schiff has said as much. Listen to this. Peace on the Washington Examiner. Be at the show notes today. Bongino.com along with the Powerline blog piece.

Please read it. If you join my email list, I'll email it right to your email box. Great piece of the Washington Examiner. Talking about these comments Schiff made that, you know, he's like, hey, listen, this is, you know, this is kind of screwed up. This is Schiff, the Democrat. He says, this here's from the Washington Examiner piece. The comment comes after Schiff said

the Obama administration's lax response to the 2014 hack of sony helped encourage the russians to pull off their influence campaign in the 2016 election i think that others around the world watch that and determine that cyber is a cost-free intervention shift told nbc's andrea mitchell as rush would say at an event saturday he added the obama administration should have done more to alert the American public there was interference in the 2016 election. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. This is one of the biggest hack sellout Democrats up on the Hill. Adam Schiff, who for two years now has been telling us that the Russians colluded with Trump to win the election.

He's now coming around and Obama bears some blame, too. What is going on here, folks? Say what? Say what is right. I'm telling you what's going on. I alluded to point one here. There is information, I believe, that's out there. That is coming in the IG report.

Remember the Inspector General report, Michael Horowitz's report on Hillary and the handling of her email case that's due to drop in March. I'm absolutely convinced that there is going to be information in that report about Hillary and contacts with foreign governments that are unsavory at best. And they are going to have a lot of explaining to do. So all of a sudden, the Democrats, after Friday's indictment, which, by the way, contained again for the thousandth time, no evidence of collusion with the Trump team at all. They're starting to panic. They're like, oh, my gosh, we don't have anything. We have spent two years talking about this. By the way, not a coincidence, the Republicans are breaking even in

the congressional generic poll balloting. So think about what's going on behind the scenes, Joe. The Democrat hacks for two years, and I'm not talking about you voters out there i'm talking about the hacks on the hill for two years have been fully invested in trump is is satan trump colluded with the russians to win and the entire thing is falling apart as the tax cuts kick in and people like them and the republicans are recovering they even took the lead in the generic congressional ballot and they're like holy we just spent two years on this. We have not a scintilla of evidence. We're never going to get Trump because there's no there there. And all of a sudden the Republicans are creeping.

They're creeping. They're creeping up. What do we do? Even the hacks are getting worried now. Now they know the IG report's going to drop soon. The Inspector General report. Looking into the Hillary email investigation. By the way, that's been the source of all of these negative stories about the FBI mishandling of the case.

All of this stuff's getting ready to drop. And they are panicking. And I guarantee you you in that ig report there's going to be some campaign contacts with foreign nationals that are unsavory and that is a damn good theory by hindry grass to why muller did not charge them with foreign influence the russians foreign influence in an election because if he did, the public is going to say, hey, what about the Hillary folks? We got some stuff there, too.

I don't trust Bob Mueller as far as I can throw him, folks. One more thing I brought up in the past. I think Schiff and the Democrats, and I think, to some respect, Mueller, who at this point seems to be clearly just vindictive towards Trump. It doesn't seem like this guy has his sole purpose, Joe,

was to determine if Trump colluded with the Russians to win the election. He can't find any evidence and he keeps going and going and going. I think also those Hillary Obama emails I keep telling you about, we know they exist, we just haven't seen them. I've told you over and over that if those emails in any way talk about the coordinated use of money through Perkins Coie, the law firm they paid, Hillary that is, to pay Fusion GPS to get information from the Russians. If Obama was aware of that and aware of payments made that made their way to foreigners, foreign Russians to give information that made it into these charging documents, they are in a world of pain.

We haven't seen those emails. But, folks, we know the emails exist we also know that obama for america his his campaign arm that would excuse me organizing for america was a freudian slip it was obama for america after he couldn't run for office anymore his campaign operation became like a uh an outside spending effort organizing for America. But it was still all of the Obama people. Those same people made hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments to the same law firm that paid foreign nationals to gather information on Trump. Do you see how this ties into what I said about the first thing here?

That one of, and I'm, if I'm confusing folks, I'm with you anyway. Yeah. Okay. My sincere apologies. I'm really trying the counter to the argument that,

Oh, Mueller didn't charge, charge. These foreign nationals were trying to influence an election directly because they're trying to protect Hillary's nonsense because Hillary's payments to Christopher Steele were on the up and up even though he was a foreign national right right right Hillary didn't pay Christopher Steele Hillary's campaign paid to a law firm for legal services that's why I'm telling you I think they're hiding something. Obama's OFA, Organizing for America, made payments to the same law firm. What I'm trying to tell you is that theory to me would hold water. And I don't know the guy who wrote the counter opinion. He sounds like a very reasonable guy in the power line piece. He doesn't sound like he's got an agenda at all. I mean it.

but I think what he's leaving out here is if that were the case and Hillary wasn't worried at all and the Mueller team wasn't worried at all about the Hillary people, then why did Hillary launder the money or, or at least give, I shouldn't say launder the money. Why did they give the money to Perkins Coie to pay fusion GPS? If it was all on the up and up folks, this doesn't make sense.

This thing stinks. They know something. I'm telling you the entangled web between the Hillary team, Fusion GPS, Steele and the Russians is deeper than I think has been revealed yet. And this is why the Mueller team has to be very delicate in everything they charge. They have yet to charge anyone with actual collusion to overthrow the election in conjunction with the trump team it's only been joe almost a year now now this is the coup de grace all right over the

weekend i did an appearance on fox and friends and i mentioned this to them and uh they pulled up the sound later i have the sound for you get this cut ready joe this is why now i've told you a couple reasons why i think hillary and just to be clear to rewind a little bit again i'm sorry i'm trying to insult you i just want to rewind just a little before we get to the sound because it's important the premise of what i'm telling you is the muller team's panicking because they got nothing. They got nothing. Nothing. They've got nothing. The Mueller team is just charging people with stuff totally tangential to their mission. Collusion with Russia to win an election.

They have none of that. They have Russians for Facebook ads, by the way, most, not most, some of which support Hillary, some of which support Trump. That is not in any way collusion with Trump. The Manafort thing had to do with his business dealings in the Ukraine. There's no conspiracy to collude here that anybody's pled guilty to and there's no charges coming forward. It's not happening. They're panicking. The Mueller team's panicking. The Democrats are panicking too because with each passing indictment for everything other than collusion, they look like a bunch of the sky is falling.

The sky is falling. The sky is what they got. Nothing. Now, what was the entire Russian, the entire Russian collusion story premised on? This is important. Go back to 628 and listen. Episode 628 of ours. If you missed any of this.

The entire Russian collusion story in a sentence or two was the Democrats hacked the DNC. Excuse me, the Russians hacked the DNC. Russians hacked the DNC, had the information. They colluded with the Trump team to get that information out there to alter the results of a presidential election. That is the entire premise of the collusion narrative. this a little bit in some of my past shows, but do you understand that if the Russians themselves as an organized intelligence entity, the Russian intelligence services,

did not hack the DNC, that their entire, you understand, right, that their entire story, the whole story falls apart. You following, Joe? Absolutely. The entire premise of the story was the Russians hacked the DNC. The Trump team colluded with them to get the information on WikiLeaks to alter the results of the election.

If the Russians didn't hack the DNC, how could you collude to get the information out if the Russians didn't hack it? Now, you may say, Dan, 17 intelligence agencies agreed that the Russians hacked the DNC. No, they didn't. I'm going to include in the show notes, again, another piece by Zero Hedge. It's a pretty good one. It's an older piece, but it is absolutely applicable right now into the sound I'm about to play for you. It goes over thoroughly how the FBI I wrote this in capital letters, Joe.

The FBI, ladies and gentlemen, never forget this, ever. Never has looked at the DNC servers. Matter of fact, Joe, quoting Jim Comey, there were multiple requests made to look at those DNC servers that, Joe, were hacked by the Russians

that were denied. Now, BuzzFeed is suing them, as I told you on last week's show, for evidence that the DNC servers were hacked because BuzzFeed's being sued about the dossier and needs evidence that the DNC was, in fact, hacked by the Russians. Denied. Why? Why is it denied?

If the DNC is so sure they were hacked by the Russians and that Trump then colluded with the Russians to get this information out there, if they're so sure of it, why not just let us look? Why not let the FBI

do a forensic analysis? Let me suggest to you that this cut by Barack Obama, this is his last press conference after Hillary loses the election. This is in December. Election day was in November. He's still the president, obviously, but he's as lame a lame duck as you're going to get. He's about to lose the presidency in a month. He gives a press conference and here is the genesis of the entire collusion fairy tale this was not some elaborate uh complicated espionage scheme they they hacked into some democratic party emails that contained pretty routine stuff,

some of it embarrassing or uncomfortable because I suspect that if any of us got our emails hacked into, there might be some things that we wouldn't want suddenly appearing on the front page of a newspaper or a telecast, even if there wasn't anything particularly illegal or controversial about it. And then it just took off. What? What? Come again?

Do you see what he did there? Just took off. Just took off. It just took magically, Joe. He doesn't mention, by the way, that the entire story was then fed to liberal media hacks who ran with it. And printed it. And printed it over and over again. Ladies and gentlemen, that is the genesis. That is the most important soundbite I've ever played on this show.

Ever. And forgive me, I've been looking for it for a long time. And I'm not going to tell you how I came around to it again, but you know who sent it. But they were right. That is the genesis of the entire collusion fairy tale.

Obama up there that day, and notice what he does. Because folks, this goes to show you how these they're they're obama's lying now i know in it's considered bad manners show in political commentary to call people liars folks i'm sorry obama's a liar he is lying here he says two things that are outright lies first thing he says is this is not some elaborated elaborate sophisticated scheme yeah right well what is it obama now i say he's lying because one i i agree with him that it was not necessarily an elaborate sophisticated scheme but that's not why he's saying it he's saying it because obama understands

that in his last press conference where he was expected to be handing the reins to hillary to wipe clean the whole spying operation on trump to never be seen again as ren and stimpy say where they go nobody knows it was going to disappear to the land of the left socks. You ever watch Ren and Stimpy? It was the greatest show ever. It was never, ever going to appear again. Now he doesn't know what to do. It's a month later. He can't come out and talk about the elaborate, sophisticated scheme that, believe me, was sophisticated.

Hillary was paying a law firm to pay Fusion GPS to pay the Russians to get money. Oh, it was sophisticated hillary was paying a law firm to pay fusion gps to pay the russians to get money oh it was sophisticated but he's lying about it because he can't talk about now to be clear he's addressing the russian scheme there but he has to minimize it but why why i mean you should be saying but dan i don't get it for the last two years now or you know year plus we've been told by the democrats that this was a scheme with trump to overthrow an election they got involved in purple stay they switched they changed votes in people's minds isn't it in obama's interest then to go up if this is where it all starts? This press conference is where the whole thing starts. Isn't it in his interest to say, what an elaborate, sophisticated scheme the Russians had?

Gosh, we got duped. Why wouldn't he say that? Because he's Barack Obama. I worked with him. I'm patting myself on the back. I'm trying to impress you. I did. This is a fact of my,

I've been around this guy a long time. He's a proud dude. You think he's going to leave office? He doesn't even like Hillary, by the way. You think, I'm not kidding. You think for a second he's going to leave office and talk about what a numbskull his administration was?

That they sat back and watched the Russians destroy our entire electoral process? Do you think for a second he's going to do that? But Hillary's got him by the... She's grabbing. Why? Because he can't throw her under the bus. Because the spying scandal needs to be covered up. He needs

Hillary's cooperation in that. And also, as I said to you now, once, twice, a hundred times, Hillary was tactically brilliant. Hillary emailed Obama from her private email account, roping him into the whole scheme. Obama can't throw Hillary under the bus because he goes down with her. He's on her private email scheme. He's in public statements saying he knew

nothing about her private email system while he was emailing her. Gosh, Hillary, I gotta tell you, for someone as ideologically dangerous, you are tactically brilliant. I mean it. Her team is smart. They roped his butt right in. He can't

throw her under the bus. So he has to do two things in this presser. And go back and rewind it if you'd like. It's such great about podcasts. He does two things. First, he has to save his own ass. And he has to minimize it while still acknowledging it happened.

So the first thing he says is, well, this wasn't some elaborate scheme here. This wasn't like elaborate scheme here you know this wasn't like james bond stuff but he can't say it didn't happen now keep in mind what he said there contradicts entirely what the democrats have been telling us for well over a year now that it was in a lot they've said the exact opposite actually that it was just elaborate scheme to overthrow an election there's obama on the record trying to protect his legacy. He doesn't want to be the president known for Russian infiltration into the election system. He doesn't. He's a proud guy.

Yeah, I've been around him. He may not like him. I certainly don't like his politics, but I'm telling you, he's a proud guy. You see, I've been around the guy for, what, three years of my life. He has to minimize the scandal, but minimize the scandal's impact on him. But he also, Joe, has to sow the seeds for a bigger narrative to come later. And he sows the Chia Pet seeds and he waters the Chia Pet seeds for this big, hairy, scandal Chia Pet by saying something he knows is absolutely false. And trust me, he knows what he's saying is false here.

He says, and you know, they hacked the DNC, and the Russians got in there, and you know, it wasn't boring stuff. It wasn't like anything illegal, the emails, but they hacked the DNC. He knows this isn't true. He knows it's not true. It is false. There was no evidence at that point that the Russians hacked the DNC.

Folks, please read the zero hedge piece. I'll leave you with one that one of the key pieces of evidence that CrowdStrike, which is the firm that analyzed the DNC computers, by the way, paid for by Perkins Coie, who paid Fusion GPS, who paid Chris Steele, who paid Russians for information. Also, Perkins Coie made hundreds of thousand dollars for organizing for America, Obama's former campaign arm. Okay. So they pay CrowdStrike

conveniently to come in there and look at the DNC computers and CrowdStrike says, ah, the Russians did it. And they point to, here's one piece of information to make you laugh hysterically. One piece of evidence that they used to determine, Joe, that the Russians did it is one of the pieces of software they're saying was also

involved in the hacking into of a Ukrainian military artillery app and in the hacking into of a Ukrainian military artillery app and that the hacking into of this artillery app, Joe, caused massive battlefield casualties. So in other words, you get what I'm saying? They're saying, look, the similar type of thing that happened with the Ukrainians happened at the DNC. Therefore, the Russians did it.

Here's the problem, folks. Both the maker of the app and the Ukrainians, who, by the problem, folks. Both the maker of the app and the Ukrainians who, by the way, were very pro-Hillary, are like, uh, hey, Daddy-O, that didn't happen. Folks, there's more. Could the Russians have hacked the

DNC? Yes. What I'm telling you is 17 intelligence agencies at no point came to a conclusion that the Russians hacked the DNC. What they came to with the conclusion was, was that there was similar patterns involved because the intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies involved in the report never looked at the servers, the computers, never. in the report never looked at the servers the computers never they're relying on a now i don't want to say thoroughly discredited but largely discredited report put together by crowd strike that uses information that even the other parties the information is about are saying no that that's not true that's not what happened the ukrainians were pro hillaryillary. They're saying, no, no, that's not, we didn't suffer battlefield losses because they hacked into the app. The app maker, by the way, Joe, is saying,

that's not what happened either. Folks, what am I telling you? I'm telling you that Obama knew this was made up. Obama knew that the DNC being hacked by the Russians was entirely made up. Obama went out and gave this press conference laying the groundwork for the Democrats to destroy the Trump presidency later. I'm telling you also that that narrative is now falling apart and falling apart quickly. There is no mention in the indictment of Russians hacking the DNC computers. There's no evidence of that. The Democrats know this. The Democrats also know if that is not true, then Trump colluding to get

the information from the Russians that they hacked can't be true either because the Russians may not have done it. I'm not absolving the Russians. If you've been following my show, by the way, they are clearly a geopolitical foe that needs to be dealt with harshly. Listen to the show and you'll see. But that's a different show. I'm dealing with evidence now of collusion. That doesn't exist. The Democrats are panicking, folks.

Their entire story is falling apart. I think the Mueller team is panicking because that story is falling apart, too. And their sole reason for being was to determine that there was collusion between the Russians, but they have nothing. And that is why, to sum this up, I believe Mueller's team did not charge these Russians with influencing the election, with that specific charge,

even though they described what they're talking about in the charging document, because Hillary's team, I think later on, is going to have been shown to have tried to make stuff go away here. Along with the Obama team by creating false narratives about hacking that didn't exist. I also believe that's why Adam Schiff now is starting to throw Obama under the bus. I think the Democrats absolutely know that Obama's team right now is in deep, deep, you know what I mean? Yeah. With the spying scandal.

Heavy shift going on, man. Heavy shift going on. We got to put that one on a book, too. This is heavy shift. Heavy shift everywhere. They realize Obama was the genesis of a lot of this. Obama propagated the myth that the Russians hacked the DNC. The Obama team was responsible

for the spying and the unmasking and the work with the British intelligence services and other foreign services to spy on Trump. And they're realizing that pretty darn soon they're going to have to come clean. And as I've said to you in multiple episodes in the past, they are going to have to take a bath at some point soon. All right, I got a couple are going to have to take a bath at some point soon. All right.

I got a couple other things to get to here. One, which was mind-blowing this weekend, that has not made the mainstream media coverage the way it should, because it's a mind-blowing statement by Facebook. And if you missed it, you need to hear about it. All right. Get to that in a second. All right. Filter by folks. Dallas, 11 degrees, New York, super cold. I went up there for a Christmas party.

It was freezing. Minneapolis is minus five for the Super Bowl. Winners in full swing. Your HVAC system is working OT, overtime, baby. If you aren't properly maintaining your filters, you're not only breathing unhealthy air, you might find yourself with no heat and thousands in repairs. Thumbs down for that.

Now there's a better way with FilterBuy.com, America's leading provider of HVAC filters for homes and small businesses. You got a factory with a thousand filters? These are your guys. You got a house with four or five filters? These are your guys too. They make their products right here in America. FilterBuy.com carries over 600 different filter

sizes, including custom options all shipped free within 24 hours manufactured, as I said, right here in the great old US of A. FilterBio offers a multitude of MERV options all the way up to hospital grade, so you'll be removing dangerous pollen, mold, dust, and other allergy aggravating pollution while maximizing the efficiency of your HVAC system. Don't let it break down like me. It cost me a fortune. What a headache that was. Right now, you can save 5% when you set up auto delivery, so you never need to What a headache that was. Right now, you can save 5% when you set up

auto delivery, so you never need to think about air filters again. Save money, save time, breathe better with FilterBuy.com. That's FilterBuy.com, FilterBuy.com. Thanks for supporting them, by the way. By the way, there's no promo code for them, but trust me, folks, they know. Thank you to everyone who emails me. It's FilterBuy.com, but they know it's coming from our audience, but believe me, they are very happy. So we appreciate your support, FilterBy.com. Okay. Story and IJ review, I will put up at the show notes today. If you missed it, you got to read it. It's a great one about the Facebook, their vice president of advertising. I don't know this guy's politics. I personally don't care what his politics are, but it's a pretty amazing story.

Hold on one second here. Oh, okay. Sorry, getting text or in the show, as always. The Facebook VP of advertising, this guy's admitted, and you can read his exact quote that most of the advertising, Joe, that the Russians paid for was done, listen to this, folks, after the election. This is their VP of advertising. This is not some local backbencher in Facebook. Now, he puts up a pretty dispositive statement that, listen, I get that this doesn't correspond with the media Trump narrative. This is him saying this kind of stuff.

But the fact of the matter is a lot of the Facebook ads. So basically, we have Russian Facebook trolls paid for advertising after the election. Folks, how can you collude to win an election with the Russians, to get information hacked into the DNC. If the DNC, number one, wasn't hacked by the Russians, then number two, the Facebook advertising you paid for, supposedly to advance the Trump cause, was done after the election. Yeah, it's kind of tough. It's kind of tough to...

Yeah. That's all about you. Joe's like shaking his head. Yeah, yeah. This does not require even an audience outbudsman. This is the vp of advertising folks i'm gonna put the article up at ij because it's really damning and i i don't think this and by the way of course liberals are going after him because as i opened up the show with liberals are

insane not all of you but the liberals absolutely committed to this collusion fairy tale. You're nuts. You've been driven mad. There's no amount of evidence that can be produced to get you off this laser sight that you believe Trump colluded with the Russians to win the election, despite the fact that you have absolutely no evidence. Not a centil of evidence is going to be produced because it didn't happen. You will continue to go, and by the way, you may very well lose the midterm elections because of it. Because as the tax cuts are rolling in and other legislative priorities are moving forward on the GOP side,

you guys are obsessed with this dead narrative. Facebook, VP himself, oh, most of the spending was after the election. Well, how did you win an election if the spending was after the election well how did you win an election if the spending was after the election due to the spending I hadn't heard that by the way a lot of people haven't because of course the media should be covering this on the front page

Facebook VP of Advertising admits most of the Trump spending anti-n-pro by the way was done after the election it's alleged the spending was done to alter the results of the same election it doesn't make sense, those two things can't be true alright

one more just quick wrap up, I'm sorry I know I spent a lot of time in this today folks, but it's a really important story, and I just feel like you know, I kind of lost it a little bit on Fox and Friends this weekend. I mean, lost it, like, lost my mind or anything. But, you know, I just feel like we're losing the whole country, folks. I feel like the Republic is under very sincere, grave attacks by police staters on the left and right and by russians who are absolutely using these police staters on the left and right and these hyper

partisans to cover up their tracks and nobody wants to tell the truth i tweeted out a tweet can we all agree all right the russians attacked us and have been attacking our democracy they have been forever they did it to cause chaos. But do you understand, Joe, that the chaos they caused is now being advanced by partisans, not the Russians? Yeah, they're taking advantage of it. Sure. They're taking advantage of it. The Russians love this. Finally, they're moving on to the obstruction of justice narrative. I'm not going to spend too much time, but Andy McCarthy has another great piece. I'll put up at the show notes

talking about how this obstruction of justice narrative is a it's a dead end folks it's a dead end um it's you can't obstruct justice for things he did legally they're going to say oh he obstructed justice because he he fired the fbi director he fired the fbi director because the fbi director wouldn't admit that the fbi director told him he wasn't under investigation. This may be the first time in human history a guy's charged with obstructing justice for obstructing justice into an investigation that the justice distributors of justice supposedly told him wasn't his. They told, does that make sense? That Comey wouldn't say publicly that Trump wasn't under investigation despite the fact that he told Trump that. It annoyed Trump.

Trump is perfectly within his constitutional authority to get rid of him. And by the way, the Flynn thing is a dead end because nothing stopped him from prosecuting Flynn. How you can obstruct justice in some kind of corrupt way when he just said, hey, can we let this Flynn thing go

when the Flynn thing wasn't let go is bizarre. Besides, he has prosecutorial discretion anyway. All right. One final thing. I want to spend a few minutes. Folks, listen, wasn't let go is bizarre besides he has prosecutorial discretion anyway all right one um final thing i want to spend a few minutes on folks the listen i work in nra tv i don't work for the nra i work for nra tv in a production company um i'm just telling you that as disclosure so you understand that it's not i wrote on my twitter and i say it everywhere else my opinions are mine nobody i'm not under contract anywhere

to lobby or advance anyone else's opinions. I want to be absolutely crystal clear with you. I do not work for them because they pay me to say something. They don't. They pay me for my opinions. Are we clear? I'm not paid for their opinions.

But what's been happening with the NRA and with these, I'm going to be delicate here, people out there who are trying to advance an agenda is frankly disgusting. There's an interesting piece up with the Daily Wire. You know that after a tragic incident, there are some agenda folks who want to move stuff forward that has very little to do with the safety and security of our kids, our homes, our families, and has everything to do with their agenda. And they want to paint the NRA as some kind of a horrible accomplices in murder organization, which I think is, frankly, pretty disgusting. What I find even more fascinating is some of the same people who say that willingly send money to Planned Parenthood, an organization who is absolutely committed to keeping the termination of human life

a big business for themselves. Kind of amazing how that happens. But there's a daily wire piece about some of the disparities in financing, because you're hearing this a lot now, Joe. Oh, the NRA, they bought off the Republican Party. Ladies and gentlemen, they've averaged $2.2 million in spending

since 1998, the NRA. $2.2 million in spending since 1998, the NRA. $2.2 million in spending. So the facts matter? I'm just asking you guys, you listeners out there and ladies. The facts matter. I know they matter to you. That's why you're here. Let's go over some other numbers. Michael Bloomberg, one year of spending, $23 million.

One year. Again, the NRA's averaged $2.2 million a year since 1998 the seiu service employees international union 28 million in 2008 to elect barack obama 70 million in 2012 folks the nra was six percent of spending electioneering spending in the last election cycle with trump six percent you really think they bought off the republican party you know holding them to a standard you don't hold others to is understandable for the left. But I know what the organization stands for.

And if you are going to call them or anybody associated with them, me included, accomplices to murder, that's pretty disgusting and filthy and you should be ashamed of yourself. Also, one other thing, you're going to start hearing these renewed calls for gun control, and you're going to hear some talk about Australia. Now, it's compliments of my friend Matt Palumbo and his friend Cody, some of the research they did. Here are some numbers. Australia.

Australia engaged in a buyback program for guns. You had to turn in your guns, and they gave you money. So you'll hear the liberals, Joe, often tout Australia. Oh, Australia, what a success it was really let me read to you a 2011 study published in justice policy journal compared the trend this is important compared the trends in mass shootings before and after 1996 when gun control was enacted in australia it compared australia and new zealand new zealand is australia's neighbor and is very similar socioeconomically but unlike in Australia

Joe it retained the legal availability of guns that were banned and confiscated in Australia in 1996 just to be clear 1996 Australia's gun ban goes into effect New Zealand has a similar societal makeup New Zealand does not have the gun ban

so this journal this Justice Policy Journal, did a study. Now, if what liberals are saying, that Australian gun confiscation is such a success, you would think that Australia would see some significant difference in their gun violence in conjunction with New Zealand, that they're not of the gun ban, right? Yeah, that's correct, Dan. You'd be wrong, Joe. Oh, of course, because I set you up and I wanted you to say that, of course. So it says it does serve as a useful control group to observe whatever effects gun control had on mass shootings.

The authors of the study found that after taking into account difference in population size, Australia and New Zealand did not have statistically different trends in mass shootings before or after 1996. Indeed, New Zealand has not had a mass shooting since 1997, despite the availability in that country of firearms banned in Australia. Here's another one.

Sorry to read this to you folks, but this is important because you're going to hear about what is success. By the way, Australia has more guns now than they did before the 1996 gun control. Did you know that? Liberals won't tell you any of this.

Here's another one. By the American Medical Association, Joe. A far right group, right? The American Medical Association. I mean, let's be realistic, folks. The American Medical Association does not have a partisan leaning to the right. It says, what about firearm homicide rates? A 2016 AMA study, American Medical Association,

examined trends in firearm homicides and suicides before and after the adoption of gun control in Australia in 1996. Folks, you interested in data or what? The authors found no evidence of a statistically existing downward trend of the firearm homicide rate. The AMA study did find a decline in firearm suicides following gun control, but noted there was a larger decline in non-firearm suicides, so the decline in firearm suicides could be part of a larger trend.

Folks, let me read this one sentence again. The authors found no evidence of a statistically significant effect of gun control on the pre-existing downward trend of the firearm homicide rate now why am i telling you this because folks the liberals who keep suggesting we follow this australian gun confiscation pathway what What they seem to casually leave out of the argument here is that there is a very real penalty for others here. You will have a large majority of Americans who will be precluded from defending themselves

with the firearm of their choice, legal firearm of their choice. Do you understand that? I don't know if I'm being clear on this show yeah you are the data does not support the fact that these gun bans or confiscation routines work at all right you act as if doing it is quote doing something but doing something is doing something malicious to someone else which is taking away their right to defend themselves with no evidence that you're doing anything to make anyone else any safer do you understand now why in you know i discussed this a little bit in last week's show too why people like us are so upset at the left because you keep talking about doing something but when you talk about doing you have no evidence to show actually works

to do what you say it's going to do. And at the same time, you were stopping me from defending myself how I choose to do it. That's why this argument never goes. By the way, as you call us accomplices to murder, murdering thugs, and you basically hammer us on social media.

Folks, does the data matter or not it's pretty clear that criminals will access weapons when and where they see fit they get them through black market channels i was a cop i told you when i used to work the cells a police officer i would ask criminals arrested for cpw criminal possession of a weapon how'd you get the gun of a weapon, how'd you get the gun? They'd be like, how'd I get the gun? What are you, an idiot? You just buy it on the street. How'd you get the gun?

They're like, what are you, a dope? Folks, I'm not kidding. I would ask them because I was genuinely curious. Criminals don't care. They have no problem at all. The black market

for the hundreds of millions of guns that exist in the world is a vibrant one. Banning guns will do nothing but keeping legal gun owners away from accessing the firearm of their choice, legal firearm of their choice, to defend themselves. It will do nothing. Criminals have no problem at all getting guns. Until you accept that premise, the argument will never go forward. All right, folks.

Thanks again for tuning in. I really appreciate it. Please go to the show notes today at Bongino.com and check us out. And join my email list. I'll send you these articles, some really good ones today. So be sure you read them. Thanks a lot. I really appreciate it.

And I will see you all tomorrow. You just heard the Dan Bongino Show. Get more of Dan online anytime at conservativereview.com. You can also get Dan's podcasts on iTunes or SoundCloud. And follow Dan on Twitter 24-7 at DBongino.