The Dan Bongino Show - Ep. 722 The Whole Scandal Comes Crashing Down

Episode Date: May 17, 2018

Summary: In this episode I address the stunning NY Times story yesterday which is evidence that the entire Russian collusion narrative has collapsed, and the coverup has begun.    News Picks: The NY Times finally admits what we already knew - the Obama administration spied on Donald Trump.    Bloomberg anti-gun shill and anti-civil liberties advocate Shannon Watts gets owned on social media.    The FBI’s troubling spy tactics on the Trump team exposed.    Powerful images of the President which many in the media are ignoring.   Why is the tech community using a hate group to police “hate”?    Today’s edition of liberal myth-busting.   Copyright CRTV. All rights reserved. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The Dan Bongino Show. Get ready to hear the truth about America with your host, Dan Bongino. Alright, welcome to the Dan Bongino Show. Producer Joe, how are you today? I'm doing great, Dan. Great. Strap in, folks. Strap in. We have all been vindicated. The great conspiracy theorists of the world unite. According to the mainstream media, we were all nuts. We were all crazy. Me, Sarah Carter, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, who was the original conspiracy theorist,

according to Brian Stelter, that zero at CNN. Chuck Ross, Lee Smith, the list goes on and on and on. The conservative treehouse guys. Everybody was a conspiracy theorist. Yeah, yeah. And I don't know if you missed it yesterday. If you did, I'm sorry, but I feel for you a bit. I will put a link to a link that has the article in it.

The New York Times yesterday vindicated everyone. The New York Times. Yesicated everyone. The New York Times. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. For six months, Joe and I have been called wackos, nutjobs, conspiracy theorists. We've been accused of trying to make fetch happen.

Yep. Fetch. For you Mean Girls fans when fetch wasn't going to happen. Well, fetch happened yesterday. Yep. The New York Times put out a manifesto, about 700,000 words, the equivalent of War and Peace. Actually, it was about 12 pages.

I don't know how many words it was. Six, 7,000. Basically saying, we were right the whole time. There was a spying operation on Trump. Now, I'm going to get into this in detail today, why they did this. Let me just tell you this. The New

York Times is not finally coming clean. They're not finally acknowledging there was a spy operation on Trump because all of a sudden they're interested in journalism and telling the truth. No. Yeah, exactly, Joe. They're doing this because

the Russian collusion fairy tale is finally dead. Dead as a doornail. And everybody knows it. That's why. All right. Let's get started with the show. I have got, this is, strap in. Strap in.

Because this is, you're getting ready to go on a ride here. Alright, today's show brought to you by our buddies at Helix Sleep. HelixSleep.com slash Dan. We love Helix Sleep. Why? Because I have been annihilated lately. I've been going to the gym and trying this new thing. This deep stretch set

where at the end of a set of say like dumbbell bench press or flies or whatever that's just an easy one you hold the weight in the stretch position at the end of a set for up to 30 seconds it is the most torturous thing i've ever done but i am exploding i am growing like a weed i am up to 231 pounds the downside to this torturous workout routine i've been doing with this forced stretch at the end. You've got to be careful with it, by the way. You run the risk of tearing your pecs right off the

humerus, right? It is. It's so nasty that you wake up the next day in a state of agonizing soreness I've never felt in my entire life. That is not humorous, no. No, no. It's very unhumorous, the attachment to the humor. See, Joe, it takes me a second to catch on to your witty humor because I'm not a witty cat myself.

Thank God for Joe. Someone complained in an email, I mentioned your name too many times. Sorry, love you, but too bad. Joe's part of the show. He is the show in some cases. So I wake up and I need a good night's sleep. Thank God for the Helix Sleep mattress or I'd be lost. We love Helix Sleep.

There's nobody on the planet like you, so why would you buy a mattress built for everyone else? Working with the world's leading sleep experts, Helix Sleep developed a mattress that's customized to your specific height, weight, and sleep preferences so you can have the best sleep of your life at an unbeatable price. They're not kidding. Here's how it works. Go to helixsleep.com slash Dan. Helixsleep.com slash Dan. Fill out their two-minute sleep quiz. That's at helixsleep.com. Fill out their two-minute sleep quiz, and they'll design your custom mattress so they can even customize each side for you and your partner. In 2018, Helix Sleep is taking customized sleep to the next level with the Helix Pillow. I have that, which is awesome.

The all-new pillows are fully adjustable, so you can achieve perfect comfort regardless of sleep position or body type. Helix Sleep has thousands of five-star reviews, which are well-earned. Plus, you get 100 nights to try them out. You can't beat that. Go to helixsleep.com slash Dan right now, and you'll get up to $125 towards your mattress order. You can't beat that. They already have competitive prices.

That's Helixsleep.com slash Dan for up to $125 off your mattress order. Helixsleep.com slash Dan. Up to $125 off. Go there now. All right. What happened yesterday? Why is the New York Times doing this? The New York Times came out with a story.

I'm going to provide a link to you in the show notes to a legal insurrection piece, which in about 500 words, Joe, covers the New York Times piece to save you the headache and to avoid giving the New York Times a click. If you're interested in the New York Times story, though, Joe, there is an embedded link within the legal insurrection story. That way we help our conservative partners. You get a summation of the story. We don't give the New York Times unnecessary clicks if you don't have the time to read the approximately 10,000, I guess, words the New York Times put together in this sham story trying to cover up for the FBI. Here is what is going on.

The Russian collusion myth is now officially dead. How do I know that? I don't know if you missed it, Joe, but there were three key signals that came out yesterday. Two big ones and one kind of smaller one. Maybe stretching the link a little bit, but I think it's still related, so I'll put it out there. Here are the big ones. Story comes out yesterday. Rudy Giuliani, who is now representing Donald Trump in a legal capacity in the Trump-Mueller and the Trump-Mueller now fiasco, at least a fiasco on the Mueller part.

Giuliani comes out yesterday with an exclusive interview on Laura Ingraham's show on the Fox News channel and says what, Joe? That the Mueller team is not going to indict Trump. Right now, this is not a small story. Number one, I don't believe the Mueller team has the legal power to indict the sitting president. I think the Office of Legal Counsel has already established that. But whatever, they were going to you know, they're going to they're going to continue to pump up the public anyway. Now, why would that leak come out yesterday?

pump up the public anyway. Now, why would that leak come out yesterday? Conveniently, at the same time, the New York Times publishes a story admitting that the FBI spied on the Trump team and provides basically a 10,000 word defense of the FBI saying, oh, okay, my bad. We did it. But here's why. Because the case is officially collapsed. The media now realizes that the Trump collusion story with Russia is in fact dead. They are trying to provide justification now to the public as to why an investigation has been going on into a sitting president and his campaign with no legal justification whatsoever because there was no predicate crime. Now what happens? So I have this in capital letters at the top of my notes here.

The collusion myth is dead. Now the media that played a role in the collusion myth by constantly feeding the public fictitious, nonsensical leads based on awful sourcing that they later had to retract. What's the goal of this New York Times story? And the fact that the leak or not the leak, Giuliani telling him that Mueller is not going to indict the president the same day. Do tell. The cover up now has to begin, Joe. Now that the collusion myth is dead, an explanation as to why the power of the federal government

was unleashed on Donald Trump and his team, now that the entire premise for the whole story, Joe, the whole operation was premised on the fact that Trump had colluded with the Russians to win the election. Now that that story is officially dead, trust me, it is dead. There is no evidence of it. There will never be evidence of it. You cannot manufacture evidence in the past.

It didn't happen. The New York Times has realized, we've been reporting on this thing for a long time now and other media outlets on crappy sourcing. Now we all of a sudden are going to have to explain this away because what is about to be released? Yeah, baby. The Inspector General report by Michael Horowitz. The government's internal affairs Department of Justice watchdog Michael Horowitz, you're damn right Armacost, is about to

release his report. It was delayed because of new information. Oh, what could that be? Interesting. So the internal affairs for the federal government their report is about to come out about this entire FISA scam and Clinton

whitewashing where her case was just basically washed away. It's about to come out. We find out Mueller's not going to indict Trump. And we find out the New York times puts together a war and peace manifesto going, Oh yeah, there was an investigation of the Trump, but let's spin it this way

you understand what's going on right folks please understand what i'm telling you collusion is now dead they have found no evidence everybody knows it muller knows it the media knows it the trump team knows it it's a scam it's always been a scam and suckers liberals i just said the same thing twice fell for it and and never trump rhino dopey republicans the scam is dead it is officially in the dc swamp in the circles that no evidence will ever be uncovered of collusion and everyone knows it now they're all left holding their saying what do we do now? We've been reporting for a year and a half that Trump colluded with the Russians to win the election. There's no evidence and Trump's not going to be indicted.

Even worse, Joe, a report's going to come out this week, maybe next week from the government's internal watchdog exposing all of the scams we did to get trump investigated what the hell do we do now you're darn right play that guy again boom you're darn right they are in a world of hurt right now folks uh you know i get it i know a lot of you, I get your emails. You're like, I'm done. I'm looking for action now. I get it. I'm not telling you anymore how to feel about it. You feel however you want.

I can only tell you how I feel about it. I know because I read select accounts on Twitter from people who are read in that the panic is real. Remember, Andy McCabe at the FBI has already been prosecuted for a criminal referral. Jim Comey has gone suspiciously quiet over the last few days. The New York Times is running a 12-page whatever manifesto trying to explain away how they got this story wrong the whole time and give justification to the spying operation. And I'm going to go through it piece by piece.

What's another suspicious piece of information that ties into yesterday's show, which did bonkers numbers thanks to you. Oh, now all of a sudden Clapper, Jim Clapper, Obama's political hack NSA, excuse me, director of national intelligence. And Mike Rogers, who could be a good guy in all this story, who headed the NSA under Obama and briefly under Trump. They came out, if you listen to yesterday's show, and say, oh, yeah, by the way, Joe, all conveniently timed, by the way. They say, yeah, the dossier was used in the assessment that led us to investigate Trump. The intelligence, the famous ICA, remember the 17 agencies agreed that the Russians tried. Remember I played you, listen to yesterday's show, you'll understand more what I mean.

Basically, the Genesis document there that was used as a intelligence community foundation to prove the point to the media that the Russians tried to get Trump elected. Now we find out it was based on what? A steaming pile of horse manure in the dossier that John Brennan said played no role in it. The puppet master CIA director under Obama clearly said, oh, the dossier. No, no, no. This was not part of the corpus of intelligence. The corpus of what?

Can you talk like a normal person? You hack. It wasn't part of the corpus of intelligence. What the hell? Who talks like that? The corpus. Just say body, you dope. Now we find out not only, Joe, was it part of the

corpus of intelligence, it was the intelligence. Go back and listen to yesterday's show and then go right into today's show and it'll make all the sense in the world. The New York Times and everybody else now realizes the whole

investigation was based on a fake dossier. This is all going to come out it's all going to come out in the ig report people are going to panic because they never never verified any of the sources so now the new york times writes this report to say oh we need to cover some asses here now i have some stuff from this report i want to go through i have it in broken down into six points they make and some quotes from the report i've taken screenshots of the piece and in that you will see how the new york times systematically is trying to build almost a court case in advance to protect the obama players involved in the biggest scandal

in american history they spied on trump based on a dossier that was fake and the times is there to do one thing act in their pravda role and provide air cover all right i'm gonna get into this in length so let me just uh get the you know get our reads them because it's important we paid for the show folks um and i really appreciate you supporting our sponsors. They're one of my favorites here. If you're like me and you like books, you want to read a lot of books, the list of books you want to read, you'll never really get to all of them. Sometimes people suggest you read a book.

Sometimes you want to check out a book. You don't want to read through the whole thing. Well, I got the solution for you. You don't have the time to read them all. Our sponsor Blinkist, B-L-I-N-K, Blink, I-S-T, Blinkist has solved your long list of must-reads once and for all. Blinkist is the only app that takes thousands of the best-selling nonfiction books and distills them down to their most impactful elements so you can read or listen to them in under 15 minutes all on your phone.

What I love about this most is if you're thinking about reading a book, but you're like, all right, I don't want to invest a couple of weeks in this. Blinkist, you can get the impactful elements of the book right away and say, oh, you know what? I want to read more. Or you may say, ah, it was okay, but I think I'm good with just the kind of the elements of the book in general. With Blinkist, you will expand your knowledge and learn more in just 15 minutes than you can in almost any other way. Plus you can listen anywhere. Like I said, Wealth of Nations, you don't want to read the entire Adam Smith book. One of my favorites, by the way, go to Blinkist. Check it out. I like to listen to Blinkist while I'm driving, sometimes in the house if I have some spare time

between shows. It's the best way to do it. The library is massive. It has timeless classics like Think and Grow Rich. It has, like I said, Adam Smith, Nessun Taleb books, which I really like, Fool by Randomness, one of my favorites. Check it out. Blinkist is constantly curating and adding new titles from best of lists. So you're always getting the most powerful ideas in a made for mobile format. Five million people are using Blinkist to expand their minds 15 minutes at a time. Get started today. Right now, Blinkist has a special offer just for our audience. Go to Blinkist.com. That's Blinkist, I-S-T, Blink, like you know with your eyes. Blinkist.com slash Dan. Blinkist.com slash Dan to start your free trial or get three months off your yearly plan when you join today. That's Blinkist, spelled B-L-I-N-K-I-S-T.com slash Dan to start your free trial or get three months off your yearly plan. Blinkist.com slash Dan to start your free trial or get three months off your yearly plan. Blinkist.com slash Dan.

Go check it out. It's really great. We love it. Okie doke. Now let's get rocking and rolling through this. So the New York slimes cover-up begins. Oh, by the way, I'm sorry. I didn't hear it.

So number one, a couple things here. I said three things came out just before I get to this. I want to make sure I sum that up well. I don't want to miss anything. The news that of the uh that muller's not going to indict trump number one there you go thanks joe for keeping track for me number two the new york times story the cover-up the third thing was a report came out yesterday which kind of loosely tied but still important about the sars that were released about michael co business records. Now, just to be clear on why this is important yesterday, Michael Cohen was Trump's lawyer.

There are bank documents that they draw up which are not for public release. These bank documents, when there is a suspicious bank transfer, Joe, in other words, if I were to say tomorrow, Joe, you and I have a business relationship, but out of nowhere tomorrow, I transfer you $150,000 in cash into your bank account and you've never gotten that

kind of money and you've never gotten it from me before, received it from me. The bank sometimes will fill out what's called the SAR. It stands for Suspicious Activity Report. In the Secret Service, we used to get these. They send them to the office and they'd say, hey, take a look at these. This looks kind of suspicious. There's also a CTR, a Currency currency transaction report, which is any transaction, I believe, over $10,000. We would get these and we'd be able to look at them and say, wow, Joe got $150,000.

And we may start an investigation. We may not. Needless to say, these are never released publicly. These are not released to the media. These are not the kind of things that go out there. These are not released to the media. These are not the kind of things that go out there. So the open question in the media was, how did Michael Avenatti, the lawyer for this porn star, how did he get his hands on Michael Cohen's bank records or records of Michael Cohen's bank records? we find out the story again joe a cover job that some whatever law enforcement connected official and i'll put this story in the show notes from the daily wire ryan uh sevigio it's really good some law enforcement official joe leaked it the sar the suspicious activity report about this

transfer to trump's lawyer of money they leaked it jo, because information was disappearing from a database. I don't believe that for a second. Here's what I'm telling you happened yesterday. Again, collusion story's dead. Everybody's running for cover. They know the IG report's coming out. They know leakers are about to be exposed. And the guy who leaked the SAR, Joe, he knows he's going to get caught.

So he leaked to the press a story in advance to try to get political cover for himself. Oh, I was afraid they were going to delete information and records. BS, crap, you got busted, you know it, and he's simply running for cover now that he knows these leakers are all going down. Yesterday was a good day for all of us. Smile today, I mean it. I'm telling you, please. I get it. I understand people's impatience with it. I don't blame you one bit, especially with sessions. I get it. I get it. I'm just telling you this. Yesterday was a good day. And I know from watching the panic,

watch Seth Abramson's feed on Twitter. Whenever something bad happens for him and his conspiracy theorist crowd, he's like this left-leaning guy who invents these crazy conspiracy theories about Russian collusion. You asked me a while ago, some of you on Twitter, what Twitter feeds I watch to determine the level of panic on the left. Abramson's one of them. Seth Abramson loses his mind every time this investigation into the spying operation on Trump starts to be disclosed. Read his Twitter feed yesterday. He's in a panic. They're inventing all kinds of new fake Russian collusion fairy tales to cover for the initial Russian collusion fairy tale that fell apart.

Yesterday was a good day. So we had the indictment story, the New York Times cover-up, and the SARS report story where the leak was like, oh, I was just trying to protect the records. Eh, you're busted. You know it. Remember, Trump's team already announced, Joe,

the Treasury Department IG, internal affairs guy, again, was opening up an investigation into how Trump's lawyer's bank records got exposed to the media. Joe, wink, nod, eh, Joe, wink, nod. You seeing the signs?

You see what's going on? Oh, yeah. Again, I completely understand, respect, value your opinion on email, and I understand you want action now. I totally get it. I'm with you. I understand. I'm just telling you, please don't deny the fact that things are happening. They may not be happening at a pace we would like them to.

They may not be happening to the scope we'd like them to. I'm horrified that John Kerry's not being investigated for a Logan Act violation. I don't know what Sessions was thinking on that one. But don't go to bed tonight thinking nothing is happening. These people are scurrying. go to bed tonight thinking nothing is happening. These people are scurrying. Okay. Now, the New York Times story. Remember, this is all under the umbrella of the Russian collusion myth is now officially dead. The New York Times is in cover-up stage now trying to cover up Obamagate. They wanted to target Trump. It's not going anywhere. Now they're like, oh no, we have to cover this whole scandal. Number one, goal number one of the New York slimes in this report yesterday, limit the involvement of players in the Department of Justice.

Why would they want to do that? Now I have this listed out. I'm going to try to do this precisely and get it through efficiently. I've taken screenshots of the New York Times piece. Goal number one, limit the players in the DOJ. Why do you think they would like to do that? They want to do that because the players in the DOJ are all hardcore Democrats and Obama appointees. They want to limit the political involvement of known Democrat operatives and bureaucrats that were appointed at senior level positions in the Department of Justice because it will reflect poorly on the Democrats. It will make it appear as if a supposedly blind Justice Department was weaponized to attack Donald Trump and they cannot have that. Expect shortly the blame to start to shift to the fbi away from the doj why because the left doesn't like the law enforcement anyway all right and the fbi is not traditionally

known as a democratic institution i mean democrat not democratic in the in the sense of uh i'm talking about party-wise, partisanship. Right. Expect the blame. Watch, the transfer starts yesterday. The blame will start to shift now from the DOJ, where we know, Joe, these were Democrats appointed to career positions with hard Democrat ideology. The blame will get shifted.

But goal number one to the Bureau, goal number one is to limit exposure in the DOJ. Let me read you a quote from the New York Times piece. Pay close attention to their efforts here to make sure the net shrinks and shrinks and shrinks. And if people go down, it's as few as possible. All right. Only about five Justice Department officials knew the full scope of the case. Oh, really? Wow, fascinating. Said, uh, said, officials said, not the dozen or more who might normally be briefed on a major national security case. Wow, that's convenient. So you're

telling me major national security cases like the potential that Trump was spying or Trump was a Russian spy. You think that they limited this. Why would you say that now? Because Joe, again, the collusion story is dead and now it's a cover up for the spying operation.

So let me just read that to you again. It's important. Only about five DOJ officials knew the full scope of the case, officials said, not the dozen or more who might normally be briefed on a major national security case. The cover up begins. I mean, one more paragraph here. It's important. be briefed on a major national security case. The cover up begins. I mean, one more paragraph here. It's important.

The facts, had they surfaced, may have devastated the Trump campaign. Mr. Trump's future national security advisor was under investigation, as was his campaign chairman. One advisor appeared to have Russian intelligence contacts. Another was suspected of being a Russian agent himself. Notice the strategic use of the word appeared and how they restate a false narrative. A narrative based on a fake dossier. In other words, like, okay, we knew it was fake. My bad.

We made a mistake. But only a few people knew, Joe. Right. Only a few in the DOJ. Don't, Joe, don't you worry about all those other people who would ordinarily, right, there you go. Big thumbs up from Joe. Let's shrink that circle of people.

So why? So nobody goes to jail or the people that do go to jail, we shrink the net. All right. Let me go back to photo one. I have a screenshot of this. I'm trying to make this so it's really streamlined and so I don't waste any of your time. Two, why are they trying to limit liability again uh piggybacking off bullet point number one limit the exposure why are they

trying to limit the exposure because they're trying to limit uh a limit joe criminal liability what's the crime ladies and gentlemen never, there were criminal leaks in this case. This is what, listen, the Democrats, they care about civil liability. It matters to them. Nobody wants to pay a $2 million fine, okay? Nobody wants to be sued. But ladies and gentlemen, what terr terrifies the democrats the hacks involved in this case more than anything which isn't going to surprise you joe or anybody else is jail

there was an unquestioned crime committed in this case and i believe the ig report again coming out soon this is why the new york times is running interference and explaining this thing away oh look he made a mistake our fault nelson munns this is what the times is doing because there were criminal leaks in the case what was the one major league bombshell criminal release of information that somebody is, in my opinion, unquestionably going to jail for. The leak right around the time of the Trump inauguration, the leak to David Ignatius of The Washington Post, which we've discussed on this show repeatedly, the leak of details of the conversation between Mike Flynn and the Russian ambassador. Folks, listen to what I'm telling you.

A reporter was given access to the fact that a United States military officer was unmasked, potentially at a minimum immorally, potentially illegally, depending on how we frame this. And the contents of his wiretapped conversation were leaked to an uncleared reporter using an unmasking tool reserved for terrorism. That leak is an unquestionable crime.

There's no doubt about that. I forgot about that one, Dan. A lot of people did. That leak is what's driving the Democrats crazy because you can't go back and unwrite that story. And David Ignatius knows it. The fact that someone was spied on using sophisticated, very, very dangerous tools, if they're not used correctly, the federal government, that person being Mike Flynn, a military officer, an incoming national security advisor, that they spied on his call and then leaked details of it to the media. That simple fact has the Democrats running for the hills.

Now do you see why they're trying to limit the sphere in the Department of Justice of people who had access to the information? Joe, only five, Joe, only five people, not the dozen or more. In other words, we didn't leak it. It was only those five. Really? You sure about that? Yeah, yeah.

Only those guys there. Now, let me read to you another quote from the New York Times cover up job. Remember, the cover up begins. Collusion is dead. Ding dong, the wicked witch. It's all over. It's dead. The myth is dead. The myth is dead. Yeah, collusion is dead ding dong the wicked witch it's all over it's dead the myth is dead the myth yeah the myth is dead it's dead now the cover-up begins put a smile on your face okay so on point number one again limit the players point number two limit the players because there was a criminal league from the new york times. Here, your photo one.

Agents considered then rejected interviewing key Trump associates, which might have sped up the investigation, but risked revealing the existence of the case. Top officials quickly became convinced that they would not solve the case before Election Day, which made them more hesitant to act. When agents did take bold investigative steps, like interviewing the ambassador, they were shrouded in secrecy. Listen to this next paragraph. This is key. Remember, there was a criminal leak.

Fearful of leaks, they kept details from political appointees across the street at the Justice Department. Oh, they did? Oh, wow. Wow. Another source says that. Interested in covering his own ass or her ass. Hey, listen, there were leaks, but they never made it here to the Justice Department, Joe.

No worries. By the way, there's a bunch of Democrat political appointees here, and it was only five people knew about the case. And we didn't know. We didn't know, Joe. The New York Times said so. The New York Times said, let me read this again. Talking about the Bureau.

Fearful of leaks, they kept details from political appointees across the street at the Justice Department. New York Times, listen, you guys are awesome. You are the most powerful Pravda-like outlet I have ever seen. You guys are so good at doing like Russian-type propaganda.

You deserve a Pulitzer Prize for stupidity. Oh, Joe, remember, only five people, not the normal 12 at Justice New. And by the way, the political appointees definitely didn't know. It was those fbi guys you see what they're doing is this making sense the new york times is putting out dog because they're terrified that political appointees in other words, demon rats in the Justice Department are going to get criminally nailed for leaking information on a spying operation against their political opposition. So what are they doing? The Times is helping set up the narrative now that the FBI did it.

The Bureau did it. Those crazy cops, they did it. Collusion is dead. The cover-up begins. Here's another gem from that piece. Peter Stroke, a senior FBI agent, explained in a text that Justice Department officials would find it, quote, too tasty to resist sharing, but I'm not worried about our side. They are already setting this up and they're setting it up using like a reverse psychology thing. Oh, look, Peter Stroke, meanwhile, it's funny how they put that one text in there, but not the other text about them actually working with DOJ. In other words, they're setting up a reverse psychology thing. Like, oh,

look at this. Peter Stroke, see, I know the the fbi look they said they weren't going to share the information with the doj they weren't going to share it but i'm not worried about our side they don't include any of the other texts this is nothing but an effort to throw you off the trail that they're overtly working to cover political appointees please follow what i'm saying they can't outright come out and say there's a reason i snip this particular piece they can't just come out and say the slimes hey listen we're doing a thing here the department of justice democrats and the doj working with the white house and the cia director spied on the president they're caught someone's going to be prosecuted for a criminal leak so here's what we're going to do.

We're going to write a piece deflecting attention. They have to throw a piece in there that makes it seem like they're protecting the FBI too. Trust me. That's the only purpose for this specific text. Is to throw you off the trail that they're doing a Pravda job. Unbelievable. Unbelievable. All right. point number three in the pravda cover-up piece by the new york times yesterday my humble opinion based on the information we've accumulated in the case

in the course of writing the book and dedicating my entire life for the last six months to this case i believe they realize brennan is toast i think someone has to be a fall guy for this and i believe they realize right now and when i say they you because i've got i've received this in my email box a lot. Who do you mean they? I mean the Obama administration officials, Weiner, Newland, Obama himself, the chief of staff, Dennis McDonough and others. I believe the Obama administration officials realize right now that they're toast. The Russian collusion myth is dead. The cover-up has to start. Somebody has to go down. Why? Because there were criminal leaks. This IG report is going to be devastating. The IG report has texts from Stroke and Page in it that are just unbelievably toxic.

Brennan is on record lying. Listen to yesterday's show. I don't know anything about the dossier, but I briefed Harry Reid about something. Harry Reid sent a letter to the FBI and the information in the letter was strangely similar, Joe, to the dossier. Oh, oh, hey now. Hey now. Hey now. Brennan is toast. I think everybody knows it. I think they're preparing to throw Brennan under the bus. Now, if you listen to yesterday's show, I'm going to follow it up, and the New York Times, I believe, is preparing for this too.

If you listen to yesterday's show, Jim Clapper and Mike Rogers, the head of Obama's NSA and Obama's director of national intelligence, were pretty clear now that the dossier played a role in the assessment that led to, or at least was the intelligence community's assessment that led to the foundations for the Trump investigation, Joe. We now know Brennan lied. You have that? Play it. When did you first learn of the so-called Steele dossier and what Christopher Steele was doing? Well, it was not a very well-kept secret among press circles for several months before it came out. And it was in late summer of 2016 when there were some individuals from the various U.S. news outlets who asked me about my familiarity with it. And I had heard just snippets about it. I did not know what was in there. I did not see it until later in that year.

I think it was in December. But I was unaware of the providence of it as well as what was in it. And it did not play any role whatsoever in the intelligence community assessments that was done that was presented to then President Obama and then President-elect Trump. How was the Steele dossier treated? How did you treat it? You said you looked at it in December. I assume it's been looked at by, it was obviously looked at by the FBI. We've now learned they've tried to confirm some of it and have had some success. Some, not yet. They don't say it's, they don't, they say it's unconfirmed, but that's about it. Well, there were things in that dossier that made me wonder whether or not

they would, they were in fact accurate and true. and i do think it was up to the fbi to see whether or not they could verify any of it i think jim comey has said that it was contained salacious and unverified information just because it was unverified didn't mean it wasn't true and if the russians were involved in something like that directed against individuals who are aspiring to the highest office in this land there there was an obligation on part of the FBI to seek out the truth on it. Okay, that's a lie. That's a lie. Now, on record,

Brennan is busted. They are getting ready to throw him under the bus. Why? Because it is now crystal clear collusion is dead. The cover-up will begin and the cover-up

is covering up the fact that the entire spying operation on Trump was based on fake information in the dossier, and nobody wants to admit it. Now that Jim Clapper and Mike Rogers from the Obama administration are on the record admitting that the intelligence community used the dossier to come to their conclusion that Trump colluded with the Russians to help win the election. And now that we know the dossier is fake, everybody's left holding their unit in their hand going, uh, what do we do now? Clapper's trying to come clean. You understand, Joe, that's why he's doing this, Clapper, right?

Clapper's trying to come clean right now because he knows he's in trouble. He's in trouble for that leak to CNN about the Jim Comey briefing of the dossier, which later was used for BuzzFeed to publicize the story. Rogers, I believe believe has been a pretty decent player on this and was just coming clean anyway brennan is the one player still holding on to the fact that the dossier is the problem it is the investigation folks and brennan is on the record saying, I didn't know anything about it.

Folks, he briefed Harry Reid in August. Reid turns around a few days later and writes a letter to the FBI after the Brennan briefing demanding they investigate Trump with the same allegations in the dossier. What the hell do you think Brennan briefed him about? Ladies and gentlemen, everybody knows this. It's out there that Brennan's a liar. They're getting ready to throw him under the bus. Let me read to you the New York Times piece. Again, to show you how he will be, in fact, the fall guy. The FBI's thinking crystallized by mid-August.

After the CIA director at the time, John O. Brennan, shared intelligence with Mr. Comey showing that the Russian government was behind an attack on the 2016 presidential election. Where do you think he got the information? Maybe the dossier that was fake? Notice they don't write that,

the New York Times. The New York Times, again, is preparing to cover up. They're going to shift the blame to the cops and the new york times again is preparing to cover up they're going to shift the blame to the cops and the fbi but on the political side they're going to limit exposure in the doj on the criminal leaks and jim john brennan is going to go down intelligence agencies began collaborating to investigate that operation the crossfire Team, that's the code name for the Trump spying operation, was part of that group, but largely operated independently. Three officials say, here we go

again. Efforts to eliminate exposure into the White House, into the DOJ, into the political appointees, into the Democrat Party, focusing on John Brennan, the FBI, and Joe. Just those five people in the Justice Department. All right. Just those five. No one else, Joe. Of course, by the way, you can always count on Marco Rubio to come through for the RINOs. Marco Rubio

said that after studying it, not much to see here. You're Rubio. Total waste. Him and his crew, they're the worst. I had so much hope for that guy, too. Yeah, I know. Okay, so let's just rewind here again because I got two more to go. Goal number one of the Times cover-up, because

collusion is dead. Limit the players in the DOJ. Limit criminal exposure. Number two of those players. Prepare Brennan as the scapegoat. Start to shift blame to the FBI, too. Brennan as the scapegoat. Start to shift blame to the FBI too. Brennan gave the Bureau false information. Brennan, oh, you screwed up. And look, you FBI guys didn't verify it.

Ah, shame on you. Point number five. Oh, point number four. They're readying the public right now for this thing operation. What do I mean by that? This is where, you know what? I was going to not take a victory lap on this, but damn it, I'm going to.

Thanks to you and listeners to the show. I'm sorry. I hate egomaniac jerks. Me and hundreds of others who've been doing great work. I've mentioned their names over and over. No need to do it again. You know who I'm talking about. Men and women who have been doing great work and who have been subjected to the slings and arrows of the conspiracy theory left. You guys are conspiracy theorists. You're all nuts.

We are now vindicated. The New York Times is now ready. I have the note here, readying the public for the fact that this was a sting operation and Donald Trump was framed. You say, no way, Dan, they're not going to admit to that. Oh no, they are. Because once the source comes out, this whole thing in the MI6 connection to the British is going to make a world of sense. Believe me, people know who the source is. How do I know they're readying the public for the fact that this was a sting operation? Listen to this. Another quote from new york times manifesto the fbi obtained phone records and other documents using national security letters a type of secret subpoena officials said at least one government informant met several times with mr page and mr papadopoulos oh who could that be now does it make sense when i was on tucker carlson i said there may be more than one

source make sense said that what a week ago yeah you listen to my show or you listen to my commentary and i'm not taking credit for it i have other folks who help me out you listen to my show you're about two weeks ahead of the news cycle. Read that sentence again. And at least one government informant met several times with Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopoulos. What do you mean at least one, New York Times? The New York Times is preparing you for the horror that's about to come out. It wasn't just one source. The FBI had a full-bl blown operation to set this guy up.

By the way, clue here for you all. I'm not trying to tease, by the way, with you, but there's significant issues with releasing the name that we have to all be very careful about. That's the reason. But this is a clue for you right here if you want to know who it is. At least one government informant met several times with Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopoulos, current and former officials said. That is the clue as to who it is right there. That has become a politically contentious point. Listen to this.

With Mr. Trump's allies questioning whether the FBI was spying on the Trump campaign or trying to entrap campaign officials. Oh, what? Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. The New York Times is reporting that that's a possibility? After months of us all being called nutbags, conspiracy theorists, you're all crazy. I said on the Fox that Trump was being set up. The kooks at Media Matters went nuts. Oh my gosh, look at these wackos.

Wait, the New York Times now is starting to question that too? Now listen to how the Times now, because they can't let everybody know about this thing, Operation Right Away, Joe. So they got to slowly break you in. Listen to the next paragraph. Here's the setup that it may have been a sting operation, but don't worry, my bad, just a mistake.

Looking back, some at the Justice Department, here we go again, limiting Justice Department exposure, and the FBI now believe that the agent show could have been more aggressive. Oh, they weren't aggressive enough. They ultimately interviewed Papadopoulos in January and managed to keep it a secret, suggesting that they could have done so much earlier. You see what they did there? They're prepping you for the fact that the Trump team was set up, was framed. A horrific tier one scandal, Maybe the biggest in American history.

But in the very next sentence, they say, well, you know what? Even if they were framed, it was an innocent mistake because some FBI agents thought they should be even more aggressive. Look how nice they were in only setting up the Trump team. What were they going to do next? Hang them all? More aggressive?

You got it, Joe? You see what they did there? Yeah. They're trying to already set this up and move the Overton window here. Oh, but they could have been more aggressive. What, political assassinations? But they were so nice, Joe,

in just spying on the Trump team. You have to read this stuff carefully. Go get your pen out or your pencil and go through every line. Take five hours to read this time speech. Go get your pen out or your pencil and go to every line. Take five hours to read this time speech. You will pick out the scam immediately if you know this case. They are setting us up. They're prepping the public right now to slowly release the fact that this was a framing operation,

a spy operation on Trump, and they're going to release it slowly with all sorts of caveats. Buyer bewares. And by the time the full story comes out with the IG report, Joe, people are going to be like, oh, that's old news. Just like Benghazi. Oh, that's old news, that story. They are doing this on purpose. The Times knows this is coming out.

All right. I got a couple more. Let me just read this last one for you. This is important too. Today's show also brought to you by our buddies at Filter By. Listen, everybody has air filters. Please use companies that support us and aren't supporting these far left kooks, okay? Filter By, it's a great company.

They write their own ads here. It's spring cleaning time and like Trump is cleaning out corrupt officials, you can clean up the air you breathe and make your hvac system great again and folks don't procrastinate otherwise dust mold and pollutants will clog up your system it'll become inefficient and it'll end up costing you a lot of money hvac systems are expensive sounds like the federal government by the way costing you a fortune clean up your system with my friends at filter by america's leading provider of HVAC filters for homes and small businesses.

Please support these guys. They're great. They carry over 600 different filter sizes, including custom options, all shipped free within 24 hours. Plus, they're manufactured right here in America. FilterBuy 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. Right now, you can save 5% when you set up auto delivery. So you'll never need to think about air filters again.

Save money, save time, breathe better with our friends. Our friends. At filterbuy.com. That's filterbuy.com, filterbuy.com. These guys are great. Change those air filters. You probably need it. I know I do.

It's about time for me. Filterbuy, hook me up. I need a new one. It's about time for me. Okay. Goal number five of the New York Times story. They're trying to prepare you again for the clear the deck excuse something i said oh gosh four or five months ago i'm not celebrating this folks i'm just telling

you if you've been listening to this show you're already ready i told you a long time ago that the fbi's actions before the campaign were not, the Democrats are trying now to strategically frame the narrative. The narrative matters to them. The story that's told in the media more than anything. Are we tracking? The story they're trying to frame now when it comes to Comey and the FBI's actions is, oh, look, nobody was trying to, you know, was trying to hurt, excuse me hurt Trump or spy on Trump. This was before. This was when the Russian collusion narrative exists.

Nobody was trying to hurt Trump. Now, why would they try to do that? Because they believed at some point, some hacked Democrats and some hacks in the media who were fed false information, Joe. They believed the collusion narrative was real. the media who were fed false information, Joe, they believed the collusion narrative was real. So in order for the collusion narrative to be real and the FBI investigation to be legitimate, they had to save the FBI back then. So they were like, nobody tried to hurt Trump. Look, Jim Comey did more damage to Hillary Clinton by coming out 10 days before the election and announcing that the email investigation had been reopened. Remember the Huma Abedin emails and that whole debacle 10 days before the election?

I said to you months ago, that's nonsense. The reason Jim Comey came out 10 days before the presidential election and announced that the Hillary Clinton email investigation was being reopened was because the New York field office of the FBI had the information and they were afraid of leaks. It was assumed at the time that Hillary Clinton was going to win the election. Joe, by everyone except us, listen to our podcast, by the way, the night before the election, where Joe and I call every single state and why. It's pretty fascinating, actually, now listening to it the whole purpose of the comey press conference was to head off the new york field office from leaking the information

themselves and also to clear the deck for hillary so that when she won the election nobody could say oh look there were emails on huma's computer before the election, and you FBI guys didn't release it. Therefore, this isn't legitimate. Is everybody tracking me? This is important. This is a little more complicated, nuanced point. But if you read the Times piece, it's clear what they're doing. The initial narrative was protect the FBI investigation.

And claim disingenuously that the FBI was fine, Joe, because look, they hit Hillary too when they heard her before the election. You get it? By holding that press conference 10 days out. Oh, look, the email investigations reopened. Look, the FBI screwed us too. I'm telling you that entire narrative is garbage. Jim Comey was not trying to be an honest actor. He wanted to maintain his position as the FBI director or maybe the attorney general. And Jim Comey was clearing the deck for Hillary, afraid that the New York field office of the FBI would put out information that wasn't spun and would destroy Hillary's chances. He did not want after the election Hillary to win and it to be uncovered

later that he hid information so that the investigation and the subsequent election seemed illegitimate. Why am I telling you this? Because now the clear the deck narrative and the efforts to kind of salvage the FBI are done. They realize these people are going to be exposed, okay? So listen to this. This is a little more difficult point to understand, but I'll sum it up for you. It'll make sense when we're done. Another quote from the Times here.

But officials have told the inspector general something quite different. They said Ms. Page and others advocated a slower circumspect pace, especially because polls predicted Mr. Trump's defeat. Listen to this. They're talking about the pace of the FBI investigation against Trump slowing down because polls predicted he was going to lose. They said that anything that the FBI did publicly would only give fodder to Mr. Trump's claims on the campaign trail that the

election was rigged. In other words, the FBI is not guiding its actions, which is what we've said the entire time, folks. The Times is finally recognizing this now because it's going to come out in the IG report that the FBI was not acting in the interest of a law enforcement blind justice initiative, Joe. They're admitting it right now. Their actions were guided by the fact that they thought Trump was going to lose. So they slow rolled the investigation into Trump, as they say,

because they said, oh, he's going to lose. Don't worry. We'll just take it up after the election. Really? I thought you investigate so-called criminality. Joe, critical criminality, like colluding with the Russians to win an election.

You would think that would be a priority. But no. The FBI apparently slow rolled it because they thought Trump wasn't going to win. I don't believe any of this, by the way. This is all an effort again now to throw the FBI under the bus. You understand what they're doing, right? They're trying to throw the Bureau under the bus because there are no known Democrat partisan actors there. And there are more known Democrat partisan actors. When I mean partisan, I mean political appointees. The FBI is largely

career officials outside of Comey. The FBI is going to be, they are getting ready to get thrown under the bus. They're trying to save Stroke here too. Mr. Stro stroke countered that even if mr trump's chances of victory were low like dying before 40 the stakes were too that was in his text the stakes were too high to justify inaction folks this this is they are now coming on board with this what the oh my gosh my daughter's got me on a group text 29 texts i'm like what the heck with this... What the... Oh my gosh. My daughter's got me on a group text. 29 texts.

I'm like, what the heck? That's what was buzzing there. They are now starting to get ready for the clear the deck narrative because they know it's going to come out. The efforts to protect anyone in the FBI are over. The efforts to paint Comey as an anti-Clinton operative are over. They will now have to acknowledge that the motives of the FBI, maybe this is the best way to say it, because I know you have to kind of know a little bit about the details for this to make sense, but at the 30,000 foot level, it'll make sense. but at the 30,000 foot level, it'll make sense.

They are now starting to acknowledge the fact that the FBI's actions were guided by political, not law enforcement interests. That's the simplest way to say it. And why is the New York Times doing that? Because the IG report that's getting ready to come out is going to show that the FBI acted because they thought Hillary Clinton was going to win the election,

not because they thought Donald Trump was a spy. Does that make sense, Joe? No, no. I'm sorry if that one was a little complicated. We've been explaining that all the way through this thing, though. Yeah. Yeah, and we've been, I mean, that story about the Bureau in New York I explained months ago. Yeah.

All right, last point. Point number six here about the New York Times piece, how the collusion myth is dead and the cover-up begins. The New York Times makes a point in the piece repeatedly of referencing Christopher Steele, the British spy working for the Clint Clinton team colluded with them to get fake information from Russian intelligence to start an investigation using a dossier they put together of false information on President Trump that at that time candidate Trump. They now have to reestablish the credibility of the dossier because everybody in D.C. Again, Joe is recognizing what I told you on yesterday's show and today they started an investigation based on fake info. They have nowhere else to go because they have no evidence. They have been searching and searching and searching for the Rosetta Stone that Trump colluded with the Russians and they can't find it. And the media is now hip to the fact before the IG report comes out that someone is going to be left in the end, Joe, holding what?

A dossier in their hands and say it all started because of this you can't handle the truth so now what happens now they have to desperately joe desperately try to salvage the dossier does the dan jones project make sense now who's dan jones a former senator diane Feinstein, Democrat hack, on the Intel committee overseeing this operation, who left Dianne Feinstein's staff. Now he's out doing what? Working with left-wing donors and millions of dollars of funding to try to rehabilitate the dossier. Why would he be doing that? Because the dossier is all they have left. And when it comes out that the whole thing was fake, the Democrats, some of them are going to jail. Now, why does the New York Times and the piece

repeatedly try to salvage the reputation of Christopher Steele by referring to him, and I quote, as highly credible? Because in the end, the story is going going to be and they're prepping you for it right now oh joe my bad it was just a mistake christopher steel after all is a super nice guy and he's given us good information in the past sorry the dossier was christopher steel's work what's the problem with this and And the New York Times knows this. They're so slimy. It's not Christopher Steele's information,

ladies and gentlemen. It was Christopher Steele's report of other people's information. Who are those other people? The Russians. Steele's not the source. The Russians are the source. None of this is Christopher Steele's information.

Joe, if you get information from a drug dealer in the neighborhood that Martians exist, is that your information or the drug dealers? It's the drug dealers. Whether Joe's... I trust Joe. I talk to joe every day it doesn't matter it's joe's responsibility to tell me hey dan by the way this drug dealer on the corner said go get your my patriot supply emergency food the martians are evade you like that free plug for the martians are invading tomorrow hey joe do you think this is credible no not really

dan guy's a drug dealer he's kind of a slimeball. Do you understand that Brennan was the guy passing this information to the FBI through the dossier and never bothered to tell them that the real source were a bunch of shady Russians trying to alter the results of the investigation? Now does the Deripaska story make sense? Deripaska story make sense? Why was the FBI seeking out information from Russians connected to Putin?

Seeking out information and interviewing them about Russian collusion on the Trump campaign? Because they had nothing. But you think maybe the CIA was setting them up? Listen to this because this is the darn coup de grace of all coup de grace from six 28 episode six 28 on it all makes sense.

Now, Brennan has nothing. He has a fake dossier. How did he get this fake dossier? He gets it from Russians, giving it to Christopher Steele. They launder it through Christopher Steele. Cause as the New York times said, Joe Christopher Steele. They launder it through Christopher Steele, because as the New York Times

said, Joe, Christopher Steele is quote, highly credible, but the Russians aren't. So they give the information to Steele knowing he's worked with the FBI before, knowing that the fake information is going to be treated with some respect even though it's garbage.

This information gets back to the Russian government. The information gets back to the Russian government. The information gets back to the Russian government that the United States Central Intelligence Agency is out there fishing for Russian collusion information about Trump. What do you think the Russians do with it? The Russians play us for fools. The Russians get wind of it.

Putin gets wind of it. Hey, these idiots, managers over at the CIA. I'm talking about Brennan, not the operators. They're fishing for information about Trump colluding with us to win the election. Hey, you know the British, the GCHQ and other spy entities. You know they listen to our calls, right? Hey, let's get a call to each other and let's play these idiots.

Let's do this. Let's talk on the call about how Trump is colluding with us to win the election. Watch us throw chaos into the American justice system. Mikhail. Mikhail.

Yes. Spiceebo. Spiceebo. Yanni Gabru-Peruski. No, no. Times New York Timeski. New York Timeski. Listening. Trump colluding with us to win election.

These suckers in the intelligence community. We got it. We got it. Look at this. We got it. The Russians are colluding. We just heard them. Meanwhile, you idiots, the one who had started

this fake investigation and let the Russians in on it through their own oligarchs, got it back to Putin, who used it against you to throw chaos into the system. You steaming pile of idiocy. New York Timeski. New York Timeski.

I speak no Russian at all except for Yanni Gavrub Peruski which means I don't speak Russian I'm just telling you we got played Mikhail Vladimir my horrible Russian accent we got played for idiots

this whole thing makes sense now hey let's go reach out to some Russians who are connected putin and tell them we need evidence for a russian collusion fairy tale wow all of a sudden it appears out of nowhere russian intercepts show that the russians were colluding with trump just days after we told russian oligarchs that we're looking for information about the russians colluding with Trump. Oh my gosh. What a kick in the poopsie. Yeah, you're darn right. Oh, it never ends.

This book is going to be epic when I'm done with it. Oh, it's going to be so good. All right, folks. Thanks again for tuning in. It's a ton of information. You may have to listen to today's show twice. But what I just told you at the end is the coup de grace of a coup d'etat.

That's it. Sums the whole thing up. Do not forget the show notes today. Bongino.com. Read the articles. They are really, really good. I'll see you on the podcast. 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.