The Dan Bongino Show - Fireworks on Fox Last Night (Ep 1155)

Episode Date: January 10, 2020

In this episode, I address the explosive debate last night on Fox over President Trump’s Iran policy. I also address the Democrats consistently being on the wrong side of America in this critical time. Finally, I address some outrageous comments by CNN in their defamation case and the failures of liberalism multiplying across the country.News Picks:My debate with Geraldo got heated last night.   Chronic TDS patients blame Trump for Iranian crimes.   Why are the Democrats acting as lawyers for the Iranians?    Troubling new allegations emerge in the Spygate scandal.   What exactly was Stefan Halper up to?    Media lawyer explains why CNN settling the lawsuit against them is a big deal.    Study shows that the worst run states are run by Democrats.   Copyright Dan Bongino All Rights Reserved. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

get ready to hear the truth about america on a show that's not immune to the facts with your host dan bongino so it happened last night it went down uh me and geraldo on the hannity show you say what is he talking about what did i miss well if you missed it don't worry we'll play a little recap um for those of you who listen to my show every day and follow me on Fox News, on YouTube, and elsewhere, you know I debate Geraldo Tuesdays and Thursday nights on Sean Hannity's program on Fox News at 9 p.m. Eastern. You know, we agree sometimes.

A lot of times we disagree. Sometimes it gets heated. Last night, I'd say it got a little heated, just a little bit, about the whole Iran thing. And I told you, and I said to said that we're all the one here. I wouldn't confront them until I saw him on the air. We had, we covered his comments on the show,

which I disagree with. So you're not going to want to miss that. I got that. I got some, again, some more crazy spy gate coincidences, air quotes. You're not going to want to miss today's show brought to you by,

but he said, Jenny sell ladies and gentlemen, the new year inventory clearance sale from Chamonix is here. Now, if you missed out on genuine sales outrageous christmas sale today is your lucky day imagine the double chin and turkey neck gobble gobble gobble gobble gobble gone with the famous genuine cell breakthrough jawline treatment with mdl technology jo, your turkey neck is getting worse. You need GenuCell worse than anyone. Right now, get the classic GenuCell

for eye bags and puffiness absolutely free, plus GenuCell's immediate effects which I use before I go on the air for results in 12 hours. Look, 10, 15, even 20 years younger right before you rise. Guaranteed 100% of your money back. But your order today is even more special. Chamonix is partnered with Women Rising to give the same

exact package you get to a woman seeking support and assistance from domestic violence. Go to GenuCell.com. That's G-E-N-U-C-E-L.com and enter DAN30 at checkout. Your order today includes GenuCell XV anti-wrinkle treatment,

which we love in the Bongino household, and will be upgraded to priority shipping for free. Order now and get a surprise gift just for ordering today. Order now at GenuCell.com and use my special discount code DAN30. Again, that's GenuCell.com. Go check it out. All right, Joe, let's go.

Ding. I mean, the boxing bell tonight may be more than appropriate. So again, you know, Geraldo and I debate often on Hannity. We agree about some things. We disagree about a lot. Notably, our biggest blow-ups are over immigration. At one point, Israel policy. And lately,

I've had some beefs with Geraldo and his comments on the killing of Soleimani, the terrorist. Geraldo's take is, and I'm summing it up using his words, that it's unnecessary, that we shouldn't be involved in this. I thought that take was absurd.

And I think it's a straw man argument. He's conflating engaging in some World War III type regional war with a targeted assassination of a known terrorist. Folks, to be crystal clear, that is a straw man argument. They are not the same thing. Okay? That is a straw man argument. They are not the same thing. Okay?

The fact that we killed a man who killed and was personally responsible for, at a minimum, the death of 600 U.S. soldiers via horrific means does not mean we're engaging in World War III. Obviously. Because we're not right now. Are we engaged in some World War III I don't know about? Did it miss me? Am I missing the breaking news? They are not the same thing. And I'm getting annoyed at that argument. I understand. I have a very strong libertarian streak. I do not support a lot of the things we do with our US military overseas. A lot of adventurism that doesn't work out and brings

our people home, sadly, no longer alive or maimed permanently if you're a listener to the show you know that but killing a man who has organized the attacks on 600 u.s soldiers at a minimum and has been a leading sponsor of terrorism worldwide regionally and targeted us is an unabashedly good thing as i can't repeat enough heraldo and i disagreed I don't like playing segments of my appearances because it's kind of weird to say, hey, here's me last night because I can just say it again. But Geraldo is not here to defend himself. So I'm going to play the cut of me and Geraldo last night. This is about a minute long. This is me and him really going at it last night on the Hannity show over his take on the Iran thing, saying Soleimani's killing was unnecessary.

Check this out. I did 11 assignments in the war in Iraq. I've attended more memorial services than you ever did, Dan. I deeply feel every loss. Listen, I deeply listen to me. They have lost over 600,000. They have lost over 600,000. You know what? I don't sit here on the network and tell everyone about my time in the Secret Service running around the world with the president United States in some of the world's dangerous hot zones. I'm glad you did. Congratulations. Nice work. That doesn't give you the right to be wrong. And that doesn't give you special insight to say things that are ridiculous. Soleimani was one of the world's leading terrorists. This was an unabashedly good thing,

not just for the United States, for the world. The fact that you spent time in the war zone covering it, that's great work. Is this the new normal? You did a nice job. Is the new normal that we assassinate the people that we don't like? He's the number two guy in the Iranian government.

People we don't like. He's like the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He's holding body bags. It's not the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It's not like he showed up late for a birthday party. I mean, get your head out of your butt. Are you kidding me? You know, you insult, I never insult you. I never insult you personally, buddy.

But you feel that you can go gutter surfing. I'm telling you right now that i disagree with this action that doesn't mean that i am unpatriotic okay man that guy was heated last night oh that was me um listen i'm gonna try to get geraldo on my interview show after last night i'm not sure he's gonna come on he was kind of upset at me this morning even on fox and friends yeah if you missed the clip on fox and friends this morning he apologized to kill me uh geraldo he went after kill me the other day some of you saw the clip on my show we played it on uh

on i believe the monday show where he was very upset at kill me over the iran thing um geraldo also apologized to hannity but then they said well what about bongino he goes i don't know i still got a beef with bongino so we may not get Geraldo on my show, but it would be fascinating. We'll see. I'm going to try to get him so he can defend himself. I just want to leave this here so we don't beat a dead horse about this one. But, folks, it's important. The argument

isn't what Geraldo is saying it is. I played you his take last night. His take is, so are we going to run around the world just killing people we don't like? I'm confused. Who is making that argument? Who? This is what's known as a straw man argument.

You fabricate an argument that doesn't exist to counter an argument you can't counter. In other words, what credible Republican, Democrat, I'm serious, but I'm not talking about fringe lunatics. I'm talking about credible people out there who do good work. What credible person has suggested that the U.S. should change its policy to now going around the world to, quote, killing people we don't like? The answer is zero. Nobody has done that. Right. So straw man arguments are arguments fabricated to counter an argument

you can't in fact counter because you don't have a good answer so you fight a different argument that's usually hyperbolic in nature and fabricated that's made up nobody is suggesting that nobody and as i said last uh last night during the clip and during that back and forth with heraldo killing people we don't like don't like like what I said at the end you may have missed it because we're yelling back and forth like he put a 50 spot instead of the 100 you thought you were gonna get in a birthday card for your kid like why did he give us filling a cheapo don't like this guy was one of the world's leading killers and terrorists you're diminishing what we're talking about by suggesting that we did it because we simply don't like him.

It's a straw man argument. It was a bad one. But as I said, the invitation is open to Geraldo. You can tweet at him, folks. He's welcome to come on my show and make his case. We can debate Israel. We can debate immigration. We can debate Iran.

Those are the things we disagree on and maybe we can talk about some things we do agree on as well which he's always been on our team with collusion understanding it's a hoax from day one invitations open we'll see apparently he still has a beef with me though what a little

behind the scenes should I do this yeah I'll do it I don't know you sure don't do it I don't know it's sure? Don't do it. You sure? I don't know. It's not bad. I promise you. She's already looking at me.

Listen, here's the deal. I do cable news commentary often. I get along with 99.9% of people at Fox. Always. On commentary. Even when I was doing commentary on CNN and MSNBC. You have to learn to leave things on the air all right you do you know why not because i'm suggesting geraldo was right or not

that i should fight back with a passion against dumb ideas but because it's a long long haul you do this and when you do this for a living folks please tell me you know you get joe you get what i mean you did this for a living for a lot longer than i have preaching would you tell me if you think i'm wrong when you do this for a living you have to learn to leave the fights on the air for the audience to sort out absolutely your point geraldo made him point his point you can't take it into the locker room no you can't and i get it there are some people who email me i get this a lot, Joe. They say, that's nonsense. These people are enemies

of the United States. Folks, listen. There are some people who genuinely do hate this country. Some people don't. They just think we could get to a better tomorrow a different way. Unfortunately, the way they think we get there is really stupid. You got to leave it. Really. You don't bring it back

in a locker room. You leave it out on the playing field. I've always thought that way, except for one part. I'll leave that for another time. Well, you know what? Now she's like, now she's like,

really? She's like, I'm cutting that part. While you're talking about that, though, it's not like you guys are, we even get together, probably not and get together and say,

Hey, how about that part where I said this? Yeah, man. And I came back. That does not go on. You just know off no no no no that is a folks joe actually you know i'm glad you brought that up because people love behind the scenes stuff good point i want you to understand folks and i'm telling you this from the bottom of my heart with absolute candor i would there's nothing i've ever told you more truthful than this. Nothing is planned there.

Right. What you see on the air is real. That's not like Geraldo, you say this and Dan, you say that. That's not what Fox does. That's not what CNN did when I was doing commentary over there or MSNBC either. What you see on the air, believe me, is genuine and authentic. That's not an act at all. Good point.

All right. Moving on. We got a lot to get to. I'm just quickly showing you how the media is basically on the wrong side of America these days. Just about everywhere. There's growing concern out there. I don't know if you saw this, but there's a really, really good David Drucker article, The Washington Examiner, about some serious concerns starting to develop in the Democrat Party, Joe,

Various concerns starting to develop in the Democrat Party, Joe, that the Democrats are starting to look like the, quote, lawyers for the Iranians. Folks. Yeah. Here's the article. Watch the exam. It'll be up at the show notes. Please subscribe to my email list. I will. It's Bongino dot com slash newsletter.

Click subscribe. I'll send you the best articles of the day. Every day you go to Bongino report dot com to our alternative to Report, where we usually have this stuff. So David Drucker, Washington Examiner headline, avoid being Iran's lawyer. Democrat insiders are warning the Democrats 2020 contenders to frame the right approach. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm just giving you some quick history here. I believe Kim Strassel may have addressed this this morning as well. This morning as well. In our Wall Street Journal op-ed, she always does great work. Folks, purely from a strategic

perspective, leave the ideology behind, pro-war, anti-war, intervention, non-intervention. I'm asking you for a second to take our ideological hat off and put on your just pure political strategy hat. If you're a Democrat right now, you should be really, really concerned. This is not a country that relishes war. We never have. There's an overwhelming consensus right now to avoid a war with Iran, which I agree with a hundred percent. I don't agree with tactical measures to keep us safer, but an all out war with Iran, overwhelming consensus against us.

We are not a country that relishes war. Having said that, the caveat, we are also not a country that respects weakness. And there is a point where constant concession, vis-a-vis what we saw in the Obama administration to to Iran is perceived as weakness and does not go over well. Why are the Democrats concerned now? Because you've seen Democrat after Democrat. I've got some video coming up here of Democrats in the media. Chris Matthews from MSNBC and Jackie Spire, a really terrible House of Representatives member from the Democrat Party.

Again, blaming America first and appearing to be lawyers for Iran. This is concerning the Democrats, Joe, because look at presidential candidates on the Democrat side, which have completely face planted into the curb, right? Whoa. Because they've gone way overboard with the America sucks. Our enemies are really great stuff. And we shouldn't fire back no matter what. All the way on the dove side.

McCarthy. McGovern Dukakis John Kerry they get smoked they get crushed well Kerry was a little tighter that election but Dukakis got destroyed George McGovern got wrecked. Eugene McCarthy destroyed. These were all people who were perceived as weak. I'm not getting into their ideology. I'm suggesting as a strategic win versus non-win in politics and strategic components to get to a win at the presidential level, being perceived as weak and apologizing for our enemies has never been a winner. We don't relish war. We hate it in this country. The consensus is we should be very diplomatic and take diplomacy as far as we can before we strike. But once you start killing our men and women, it's time to hit back. When

you start blaming America for this, you are looking at a disaster. And believe me, folks, the Democrat strategy groups and the insider focus groups and the consultants are starting to panic that they may be handing Trump yet another victory here by appearing as, quote, the lawyers for Iran all the time. What do I mean? Let's go to the videotape, as Warner Wolf used to say. Here is videotape piece number one here of Chris Matthews on MSNBC. This is not a joke. This is not deceptively edited. This is Chris Matthews comparing the killing of Soleimani, the terrorist, to the deaths of Princess Diana and Elvis.

I'm not kidding. This is an actual cut. Go ahead. You know, when some people die, we, you know, you don't know what the impact is going to be. When Princess Diana died, for example, there was a huge emotional outpouring. These kinds of Elvis Presley in our culture. It turns out that this generally killed was a beloved hero of the Iranian people to the point where look at the people we've got pictures of now. These enormous crowds coming out.

There's no American emotion in this case, but there's a hell of a lot of emotion on the other side. Should our leaders know what they're doing when they kill somebody? Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. You got to, you know, Pepto after that. I mean, what the heck?

Is this a Maalox moment? Gosh. I mean, really? Listen, I get it. I get what he was trying to say. Because, again, you you know whereas i love to dismantle nonsense on the air i understand is what he was trying to say was strategically speaking we should understand what the iranian response is going to be the way he said it was so abhorrent

that someone should have cut that out of the show like in live time and went to just a black screen. You bet. It was so worded so awfully. And the problem I have with it is if a Republican would have said that about the killing of bin Laden, an equally significant event in knocking off a terrorist who killed Americans,

if a Republican would have compared it literally to the death of Elvis, that's what he said, not figuratively or Princess Diana and suggested how he was this revered figure and not taken into account the context of him being a terrorist. You would never be allowed on a network news show again. Media matters and all the liberal lunatics out there all day be calling for boycotts the end of your career but again because a leftist like chris matthews said it and said something really dumb he gets a total pass matter of fact you're probably not going to hear about it elsewhere besides on this show today it gets worse here is a representative now i i let me before i get to jackie spire who's just atrocious another

democrat representative who manages in this clip to blame America for the Iranians shooting down a passenger airliner the other night. We now are pretty confident it was a missile launched from Iranian territory that shot down a passenger airliner, a Ukrainian airline. I'm not, listen, because I try to keep the show somewhat family friendly, I'm not going to describe what happened here. And I was going, there's video of it. I was going to play the video. I changed my mind. Because even though it's taken from a distance, this passenger airline being shot down by a, what they believe was a buck missile. It's, I'm not going to do it.

I'm sorry. It's a disturbing video and it's, I'm not going to do it. I'm sorry. It's a disturbing video and it's, I'm not going to do it. Having said that the Iranian shot down and killed upwards of, it was at 170 people. Yeah. Flying down, flying on a passenger airline, a non-military vehicle.

And you're ready to blame us for this. Of course you're a Democrat. You don't believe me. Listen to Jackie Spire do exactly that. Check this out. I want to start with this plane crash. Have you been briefed on it? Because it certainly sounds like it was a mistake by the Iranians. Do you think they assumed this was some sort of U.S. military plane? Well, I have been briefed on it, Wolf, in the Intelligence Committee, so I'm not really at liberty to say. But if what is being projected is true, this is yet another example of collateral damage from the actions that have been taken in a provocative way by the president of the United States. Holy Moses, this is real. This is really happening. Holy Moses. This is real. This is really happening. We really have legions of Democrats who are absolutely convinced that a winning message in the 2020 election is to blame America

for the Iranians shooting down a passenger airline. They are absolutely convinced this is a winning message. Folks, this is a broken, atrocious, horrible shell of a party that is quite literally in many occasions on the opposite side of America. Whatever side America is on in any significant crisis of our time, you can almost always count on the Democrats to be on the opposite side. I mean, this is, listen, we joke a lot about TDS level six infections, Trump derangement syndrome. It's become kind of cliched at this point. But folks, do you realize how sick of a person you have to be to implicate the president of the United States as if he had anything to do with the Iranians complete utter military incompetence? Or because I'm not a lot of people are chalking this up to like wolf blitzer said it was an iranian mistake they may have thought it was a u.s missile folks i'm not

giving the iranians any pass you shot down a passenger airliner because what you're either unbelievably stupid and incompetent your military sucks that bad or are you deliberately targeted it or are you deliberately targeted it? Honestly, I'm not sure which one's more dangerous. That you suck so bad you can't stop killing people by accident or that you killed people intentionally. What's more dangerous? Who knows? All right, moving on.

Folks, this next story is going to bake your bagels. It's a last minute addition to the show. It's something Margo Cleveland at the Federalist is kind of putting together, and I think it's more significant than anybody knows. I've been warning you for a long time that I believe the FBI may have been duped by John Brennan to open up this case. I've got some more evidence. Stay tuned. All right. Today's show also brought to you by buddies at Helix Sleep. Thankfully, Helix Sleep has saved us over the last few nights.

We've got some work being done around the house. Been some late nights. We got a lot going on. I have been sleeping great though, thankfully, because my Helix Sleep Mattress, ladies and gentlemen, it is hands down the most comfortable mattress out there. The true story when I tell you, I have two daughters. One of my daughters has a Helix Sleep Mattress, the other doesn't, right? So my daughter was watching her one day, reading a book and they fell asleep. She woke up the next morning,

I'm not kidding. And she said, dad, Amelia's mattress is really, really comfortable. How do I get one of those? That was one of the Helix Sleep Mattress. I'm not kidding. And she said, dad, Amelia's mattress is really, really comfortable. How do I get one of those? That was one of the Helix Sleep mattresses. I'm not kidding around. Helix Sleep is a quiz, a sleep quiz. It takes two minutes to complete, matches your body type and sleep preferences to the perfect mattress for you. You a side sleeper, a hot sleeper, you like a plush or a firm bed. With Helix, there's no more confusion and no more compromising. Helix Sleep mattresses are rated number one by GQ and Wired Magazine. It is by far the most comfortable mattress I've ever slept on. Go to helix, H-E-L-I-X, sleep.com slash Dan.

Take their two-minute sleep quiz. That's it. And they'll match you to a customized mattress for you. Not for your neighbor. Not for Joey Bag of Donuts. For you. I took the quiz. Paula took the quiz.

We were matched to a Helix midnight Lux. The midnight Lux is like sleeping on a cloud. It's medium firm and it's designed for side sleepers like me. I've been sleeping on it for years. It's perfect. Love it. They have a 10 year warranty. Try it for a hundred nights, risk-free. You don't like it. They'll pick it up for you. They ain't going to pick it up. Why? Because you're going to love it like we do. Right now, Helix is offering up to $200, $200. That's a lot off all mattress orders for our listeners. Go to helixsleep.com slash Dan for $200 off your mattress order today. Helix, H-E-L-I-X, sleep.com slash Dan for up to $200 off today. Check it out. These are great mattresses. Okay. let me get back to the story here.

And I should give you the lead first. One of the ongoing theories I've had for a long time based on my multiple books on the topic, Spygate and Exonerated, has been the plot to spy on Donald Trump's presidential campaign and others. That's why I called the book Spygate, not Trumpgate. I believe was hatched,

potentially with John Brennan and foreign intelligence partners in an effort to circumvent US laws prohibiting the spying on of innocent American citizens. Now, I've gotten some feedback on this theory, a lot of pro, some con, some people say, no, the FBI was in on it from the beginning. I'm not sure of that.

So my suggestion here and my theory, so you understand where I'm about to go with this, because this is an important break, is a terrific piece by Margo Cleveland, is this. I believe Brennan or some intelligence operators associated with Brennan basically prodded the FBI through politicians to open up a case because, you know, why? Because the CIA can't swear out warrants in court. To get a warrant to spy on people, they needed the FBI. So I believe certain information and the sources of it were fake. The footprints trail was flattened out to make the FBI believe the case was stronger

than it really was. Having said that, I'm not giving the FBI, Jim Comey, Andy McCabe, and these other atrocious actors a pass because at the latest, as I've always said, by January of 2017, the FBI knows because they interviewed Steele's sources that the case they are investigating is total crap. So the Bureau is just as culpable, if not more, for knowing they were investigating crap. But I do believe they got duped. Hey, spy on the Trump team. We've got some stuff here. You do, John Brennan? Yeah, we got some great stuff. Do you?

So this piece by Margo Cleveland is a must read. It's so good. I actually have two of them up in my show notes today. Again, Bongino.com slash newsletter or Bongino.com. You can read the articles are linked right there. Here's the piece by Cleveland at the Federalist. It is so worth your time. Exclusive Carter Page interview raises new questions

about the inaccuracy-laden IG report. Folks, something big broke in this story. Let's set it up. In light of what I just told you, the larger headline, the Bureau, the FBI was clearly, I think at this point, duped by Brennan and the CIA into starting this case. Hey, look at all this stuff we got. Now, how do we know that? When does the case, the FBI case, when is it opened against Donald Trump?

The FBI case is opened on July 31st of 2016. And the IG report, the inspector general report that looked into this whole thing stated, and I thinkly that well no human sources spies were used prior to july 31st makes sense pretty simple the ig report said the fbi says they started the case on july 31st there are no spying happened before that really because we Because we know Stephen Halper was a spy being used by the FBI. So if the FBI story and the IG report story is right, and I'll relate this back to the CIA duping them in a minute, then clearly, Joe, Halper could not have contacted anyone in the Trump campaign until July 31st because the FBI said they didn't use spies prior to July 31st.

Interesting. Keep that in your head. All right. Keep that little nugget right there. All right. Back to the Margo Cleveland piece. Let's go to screenshot one from the piece where this gets really, really interesting. Quote, Halper's handling agent from the FBI told the inspector general that it was serendipitous that source to Halper had contacts with three or four of their subjects including Carter Page wow quote they couldn't believe their luck the handling agent noted upon learning that Halper their spy knew Mike Flynn and Paul Manafort and had cross pass with page just weeks before. Wait, what? I thought the FBI said that there wasn't any spying done just weeks before they opened the case on July 31st. That's what they said, right?

Right. The IG report said, no, no. The FBI has said July 31st is when the spying begun. Ladies and gentlemen, what the hell was Stephen Halper doing inviting Carter Page from the Trump campaign then to a dinner in mid, mid, M-I-D, mid July? July 31st, Joe. Call me crazy. That's the end of Julyuly right yeah you're checking are there 32 days in july i don't think so just no you're good check you okay thank you i don't

think the rest of the audience does either so that would be officially the end of july so if halper the spy is meeting with carter page from the trump campaign in mid-july what's he doing? Now, I know I may get a lot of negative feedback on this from a lot of the solid investigative reporters out there who's been on this case for a while, but that's okay because I'm interested in the truth. Again, this does not give the FBI a pass

what I'm about to say. They continued an investigation they knew was false. End of story. I don't think they're lying here. Now, I think they know more than they're saying. I think they had a hint that Halper may have been up to no good contacting Carter Page. He was clearly spying on him as early as mid-July, despite protestations otherwise. The question, Joe, is who was Halper spying for? Now, the FBI may be winking and nodding here, but I don't believe he was officially spying for the FBI in mid-July. I don't think they're that dumb to create that because there's a paper trail there.

They're not going to say we started the spying on July 31st, knowing there's a paper trail. You know what I'm saying, Joe? It's just dumb. Right. Knowing there's a paper trail showing they asked Halper to spy in mid-July. They're not that stupid. They're not.

knowing they asked Halpern to spy in mid-July. They're not that stupid. They're not. So the question now, now that we know Halpern, in mid-July had contacted Page at this dinner Margo Cleveland has the exclusive on, what the hell was he doing? And why was the FBI so surprised that Halpern had already met Carter Page?

Well, let's go to screenshot number two here because this is a trip. Apparently, Halpern already met Carter Page. Well, let's go to screenshot number two here, because this is a trip. Apparently, Halpern's the one who brings up to the FBI in this meeting. Halpern's the one who brings up Carter Page. Listen to this little gem. Quote, Margo Cleveland, after asking Halpern aboutadopoulos, whom Halper says, quote, he had never heard of, the FBI agent told the Office of Inspector General that Halper, Halper asked whether the team had any interest in an individual named Carter Page. fire hurricane team inquired how halper new page and according to the ig report halper claimed in mid-july 2016 carter page attended a three-day conference during which page had approached halper and asked halper to be a foreign policy advisor for the trump campaign page denies this by the way interesting interesting folks what's Halper doing here why is he inviting Page

in mid July to this conference who else is at that conference and what's going on why is Halper pushing the FBI now I believe this version of events according to the IG report why is Halper the one

pushing the FBI to investigate Carter Page rather than who the FBI says they want to investigate, which is who's George Papadopoulos, which makes sense given that I believe the FBI knows about Papadopoulos' meeting with Downer the day after it happens on May 11th. Despite saying they get that information later in July, I don't believe that for a second. Based on Stroke and Page texts, I believe the FBI knows about Papadopoulos' meeting with Downer and is suspicious of it in early May.

I think they're lying on that. I believe FBI target number one is Papadopoulos. But all of a sudden, Halper comes in, Joe, to flip him the old dipsy-do flip-a-rooski and says no FBI guys you got to start looking at page now audience folks out there listening in your cars listening

at home watching me on your TV screens why would Halper do that Joe does Papadopoulos have any significant contacts with Russians that we know about? Anything like Russian? No.

No. Nothing. No. But who does? And who knows about it? Remember, Halpern's trying to set up this collusion narrative on behalf of someone. We'll get to that in a second he knows the fbi is going down a rabbit hole they got nothing on poppetopolis believe me they know that from the start

so halper magically pops up in the fbi office the fbi guys are like wow this is crazy he knows this guy page what a coincidence. And then Halper says, wink and a nod, you really need to start looking at Page because what does Halper already know? Not sure what Halper knows, but I know what Brennan knows. Brennan's the head of the CIA.

And Brennan knows that there's only one person in this whole case that's had significant contact with Russians. And it's Page. Why? Because the CIA, which Brennan was running at the time, was asking Carter Page to go contact Russian intelligence officials as part of a counterintel operation on behalf of the U.S. government. Folks, if this doesn't hit you like a seismic earthquake in the side of your melon, I don't know what will. I'll tie it together for you in a second.

Some of you are putting it together right now. But you may say, okay, Dan, Brennan knew Page had contact with Russians, so it would be a better target for the FBI that Papadopoulos was a rabbit hole. But how would that information possibly get to Halper to push the FBI saying, you may want to look in this direction instead. Well, ladies and gentlemen, Halper's buddy is an old

intelligence head for one of the British intelligence services, a guy by the name of Dearlove. Richard Dearlove. We know Dearlove and Brennan. We know Dearlove and Brennan know each other. We know Christopher Steele and his information

and Glenn Simpson are getting back to the Democratic Party apparatchiks. And we already know Dear Love, who we know knows Brennan and we know knows Steele, has already vouched for Steele. Matter of fact, Dear Love said about Steele in a New Yorker interview that he was the go-to guy on Russia

and that Christopher Steele was superb. I'm just going to ask the question and throw this out there. Is it possible that foreign intel people are feeding information to Brennan and the intel services, which we know is happening according to CNN's own reporting? which we know is happening according to CNN's own reporting. We know that Steele's inventing this collusion narrative that's being fed to our intel services, that Steele's passing it on to intel people who know Brennan and others,

that Brennan understand that this thing is probably a weak case, that they need someone on the Trump campaign to directly contact Russians to make this narrative firm, not just loose cement. They can't find anyone on the Trump campaign who's had any significant contact with Russian intel. But Brennan knows that there is someone who's had contact with Russian intel. Granted, it was for a patriotic US mission, but that doesn't matter when you're trying to frame someone and set them up.

So somehow it gets back to Halper that maybe you should tell the FBI guys that they should really look at this Page guy instead. I'm just asking, ladies and gentlemen, who knew? Who knew about Page's contacts with Russian officials?

The only people that knew were the CIA because they'd asked him to do it. God forbid that information got back to Halper. Hey, we got a Trump guy who contacted Russians. Go tell the FBI. Push him into investigating Halper. I hope that made sense. Margot Cleveland's piece is damning

because it's now circling back to the beginning. I asked you the question. If the FBI didn't start the spying with Halper until July 31st and Halper's admitting now that he was doing some work on Carter Page.

Work. In mid-July, who asked him to do it? Makes total sense when you think about it. All right, moving on. I got a lot more to get to here paula that makes sense joe got it oh yeah yeah yeah somebody somebody asked someone someone asked halper to do some work in mid-july somebody who knew on carter page somebody who knew carter page had contacted russians in the past someone Carter Page, somebody who knew Carter Page had contacted Russians in the past. Someone. Let's see how that materializes, folks. All right, moving on. So Matt Palumbo does great work on our website, Bongino.com. We have two websites, Bongino.com, where we do editorial content and we

break some news over there. And then we have BonginoReport.com,.com which is an aggregator again your conservative alternative to the drudge report which is blown up thanks to you but on bongino.com matt wrote a great piece and i'm gonna title this segment of the show as i wrote here on my thing liberalism sucks this is the liberalism sucks i mean thanks more liberalism sucks what is liberalism sucks for 200 um this is the liberalism is destroying the country segment of the show and here's article number one by matt palumbo new study worst run states are run by democrats no surprise at all story will be in the show notes again please check it out but here's more evidence that liberalism really sucks here's photo number one showing you the debt per person

states have accumulated bankrupting their citizens. There is a common theme here about all of these states here. So going one through 10 here. So Vermont, New York, California, Kentucky, Delaware, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Illinois, and New Jersey are all the leaders when it comes to accumulated debt per citizens of their states, meaning they're bankrupting their citizens rapidly with liabilities they don't have the money to pay. What is the common thread with pretty much all of those states with the one exception of Kentucky? Yes, they are all run by liberals who either have a liberal governor and a liberal legislature or a Republican governor and a near super majority liberal legislature. In other words, they are dominated almost

exclusively by liberal politics and also dominated by debt. Don't let that get in the way, facts and data liberals of your argument that you are fine financial stewards and you have such great control wherever you're in charge control wherever you're in charge wherever you're in charge things degenerate because liberalism sucks nine out of the 10 states carrying the biggest debt loads per citizen are run almost exclusively by liberals in some limited circles joe we haven't said this in a while they would call that a clue a clip thank you you're welcome to that a clue but again liberals are pretty much vaccinated against clues so i don't expect you to take anything from that now let's show chart number two the least amount of

debt deficits red tape and garbage per citizen in photo to our end states largely run by crazy how this happens. Republicans and conservatives. These are states that actually had a surplus per citizen. Yes, surplus, meaning they're generating tax revenue not only to pay and finance your bills, but they have a surplus. revenue, not only to pay and finance their bills, but they have a surplus. Alaska, North Dakota, Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, Tennessee, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oregon, and Iowa. Again, nine out of 10 run almost exclusively by Republican politics or conservatives. But again, liberals, don't let this get in the way of your dopey arguments that you guys really have a grasp of economics and finances. You got this thing down. Nine out of 10 states

that are swimming in red ink and bankrupting their citizens are run by libs. Nine out of 10 states running a surplus and efficient government services so much so that i have a tax surplus are run by republicans yes yes for those of you watching on the youtube i'm doing a visual head nod so you understand this means yes that's just portion uh subsection a of the liberalism sucks segment here's portion b uh section b uh a1 b26 liberalism sucks part two wall street journal article liberalism is so great people can't get the hell out of liberal states fast enough wall street journal from yesterday blue state redistribution high tax states are losing people money and seats in congress i'm sure they're leaving because liberalism is a utopia they're leaving because liberalism is a utopia. They're leaving because they want to escape utopia and they want to run into these dystopian

Republican underworlds, right? That's why this is happening. Now, again, liberals will have a tough time with facts. We're going to use charts because somehow diagrams help more sometimes. Let's go to the chart here and show you exactly how bad it is, how people are replicating the snake Plissken plan and escaping from New York and California in droves. So this is the net AGI outflow. In other words, billions of dollars of money, people taking their money and leaving. Look at the states that are leading in people taking their jobs and their money and evacuating rapidly. Look at states one through four. California, New York, Connecticut, New Jersey,

and then five is Illinois. Then we have Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin. So the top four we see on this chart are all states exclusively dominated by liberal politics. California, Illinois, New Jersey, New York. People can't get out of there fast enough, folks. But again, I know we're on the radio, KBC now in California, which I love. We travel out there often. Again, in some limited circles, we would call people taking their money and evacuating your state in mass, despite having the most beautiful environment in the United States, California, the weather, the climate

is beautiful. You have Silicon Valley up there, all of that. People can't get out fast enough. Again, we would call that a clue that something's wrong. Now, you may say, okay, people leave for all kinds of reasons. I'm sure they're going to other liberal states where things are just peachy. And you'd be wrong there, too, because here's the inflow. In other words, people entering into new states.

Where are they going? Oh, Florida, the great state I live in. Arizona, Texas, North Carolina, Nevada, Colorado, Washington and Idaho. Pretty much the majority of those states either have strong Republican influence or dominated almost exclusively by Republican and conservative politics. Again, don't let that get in the way of your stupid arguments that liberalism is just so peachy. It's great. People can't get out of there fast enough.

The U-Haul business from California to Texas is a really good one. The U-Haul business from Texas to California? Eh, not so much. Here's another one. Washington Examiner. California, the breadbasket of the world, dominated by liberals. It's so wonderful that surging California homeless crisis offsets the drop

in the nation's drop in the homelessness by Paul Bedard. The Washington Examiner in the show notes again today. What's the gist of this article? Ladies and gentlemen, homelessness is dropping, thankfully, throughout the entire country. It's down dramatically, except in California, the liberal holy land, where it's up 16%. So now we know debt per person is high in liberal

states. We know people are fleeing liberal states like California, taking their jobs with them. And we also know this little inconvenient fact that California, which claims to be this beautiful utopia for everyone, we support everybody, it's actually got a dramatically horrible homelessness crisis

that is wiping out the trend in the rest of the nation. The nation's homelessness population is up because of California. Here's another one I saw on the Wall Street Journal today. You know how liberals, they love to tell you they've got it down. This Medicare for all government run healthcare is the answer, man. You want government running your healthcare. Because government's so good at the DMV and everything else, Joe. You definitely want the government cracking open your chest.

You know it, brother. You know it, babe. You know it. Wall Street Journal today, if you get cancer, you definitely want to be in a socialist country. Or a Medicare for all or government-run healthcare country, right? Wrong. Huh?

I know you're shocked, Joe, putting on your or Medicare for all or government run health care country, right? Wrong. Huh? Wall Street Journal. I know you're shocked, Joe, putting on your liberal hat. Where do you want to get cancer is the title of the argument. Well, you don't want to get cancer anywhere, but that is the title of the article in the Wall Street Journal. Kind of a weird title. I read that. I was like, I don't think anybody wants to get it anywhere.

Having said that, unfortunately, if that is to happen to you, it's happened to people in my family. If you do come down, God forbid, with cancer cancer you want to be treated in the united states i can't be that can't be because the united states we've been told by liberals has a horrible health care system even though the government still screws it up well let's look at the five-year survival rates for cancer in other words how likely are you to survive five years if you're diagnosed with cancer? Look at this handy chart we have here. It measures the United Kingdom, government-run health care, France, government-run health care,

and the United States, only partially government-run health care. And the survival rates, not coincidentally in the United States, with the exception of liver cancer for pancreatic, lung, brain, and stomach cancer are dramatically longer in the United States that the liberals told us our system is just horrible and awful. Can't have profit medicine. Can't have profit.

I love when liberals say that. You can't have profits. The first question you should ask them in response is, really, do you work for a salary? Yeah, I work for a salary. Oh, so you can profit from the fruits of your labor, but doctors who study their whole lives and work for a living, they're not allowed to make any money?

Do you realize what a moron you sound like? It should be a profit medicine. What are you, a child? Are you that much of an idiot? Have you asked yourself how dumb you are lately? If you're not, you should. No, I work for a salary because I work hard. And so do you.

And people pay the value they think you add to society. It's called the salary. No, doctors shouldn't get that. Neither should nurses or people who construct hospitals. They shouldn't be paid for any of that. Idiots. I'm sorry, folks. I know we should be kind to you.

You be kind to limo i'm not interested anymore yeah i've told you a million times i'm more than happy to be have a civil conversation with moderate democrats who are sane forget the limbs they're lost well why are we doing this because i've said to you another a couple thousand times in this show because when you debate sane people you can change them and because when you debate sane people, you can change them. And even when you debate the liberals, you're never going to change. Sane people are listening.

And when liberals talk, they say insane things. And third party people listening to you debate the liberals, you're never going to change, will change their mind when they see how insane liberals are. Now you may say,

well, those statistics, what else do they have on that? So what? People are living longer in the United States, despite the fact that liberals keep telling us you cannot profit medicine. Where they don't have profit medicine, people are dying and dying faster from cancer, a deadly disease. Here's another piece from The Wall Street Journal, again, showing you liberalism really sucks. Check this out. That was my cue. Check this out. That was my cue.

Check this out. That was my cue. Oh, you don't, what? You can leave that in there. Sorry, that's my fault. But I thought I sent my wife Paula another screenshot from the thing. If I did that, yeah, there you go.

Remember the matrix? Look at that. Look at that. I knew I wasn't wrong. You know, have you seen the seen the movie the matrix when there's a blip in the matrix that was the blip in the matrix now we could cut that out but i choose not to because i like my show to be raw so producer drew leave that in here we go again i knew i sent it over government rationing and price controls on drugs and one major reason that countries with socialized medicine like the united kingdom i thought this was great joe have lower yes lower cancer survival rates than the united states that's not possible liberals told us that's not true huh the age

adjusted cancer mortality rate is about 20 higher in the united kingdom and 10 higher in canada and france than in the u.s survival rates for hard to treat cancers are also higher in in Canada and France than in the U.S. Survival rates for hard-to-treat cancers are also higher in the U.S. than in most countries with nationalized health systems. Ladies and gentlemen, I know this data is irrelevant to the far-left lunatics who think they can centrally plan our way into utopia. I get it. I get it that liberals are immune to facts. I'm suggesting to moderate folks out there who are sane, does this even matter to you? That the system the Democrats are proposing in the 2020 election of a government takeover of healthcare

will drown us in debt, will drown us in deficits, and will kill you quicker? Can you tell me what the upside is? Let me see. It's going to cost me more. It's going to bankrupt me my country and my kids and i'm going to die faster sounds like a winner sounds like a winner to me that's a threefer quick death a lot of debt screws over my grandkids and kids wow that's really great

please tell me what part of that, by the way, isn't true. The answer is all of it was true. You just don't like it. Right. No, no, we don't like that data. We don't like that. That's if that data was, it's from Lancet, a medical journal. That data I just gave you and the chart about survival rates, that's from a medical journal.

It's not from Bongino.com. Not that we don't do good work, but it's not a, I have an ideological bent that's clear. That's from a medical journal. Pay more, die quicker. What a salesman. Put that in, Bernie, 2020, give us more money and we'll kill you faster. This is your campaign pitch? Die faster.

Vote Bernie. Take five years off your life. I what kind of oh you will die you have the people will die i just hit it hit it again if there was ever a moment this people will die oh oh that was liz no no that's good too that's good too that's elizabeth that's elizabeth warren you gotta fire that one up that's a little more if we don't medicare for all we don't get people will die play it again oh i'd like to it left oh come on we needed a twofer on that one all right i gotta move on anyway because i want to get through this before the week oh by the way i paul will kill me if i don't tease it mark levin interview we will be recording it today on Friday. Be launched tomorrow morning on Saturday

on our YouTube channel, youtube.com slash Bongino. Do not miss my interview with the great one. He doesn't do a lot of interviews. He was kind enough to give us some of his time. We will launch it tomorrow. God forbid some major technical breakdown. I look forward to it. It's going to be great.

YouTube.com slash Bongino and on our Apple podcast channel and Bongino.com as well. So check that out. All right. Final stories of the day. Exposing media lies and nonsense, which we love to do, not to pile on the media unnecessarily and waste your time, but to show you that the media likes to tell you a story, not the story. And again, proving to you over and over that what I just said to you is in fact, the fact, the media never tells you the facts anymore. They tell you spin.

So here's a story at National Review where emails from a Facebook executive were exposed. These are interesting emails. This is from, what is it, Tobias? I can't read the rest. My eyesight is going to top Facebook exec says Trump didn't get elected because of Russia or misinformation in internal memo. Wait, wait, wait, wait. That can't be because the democrats and their media buddies

these chumps these bootlickers have told us now for three years joe that the russians use facebook to manipulate the election and that russian disinformation clearly changed the election right we heard that right joe didn't we clearly clearly yeah just checking yeah pretty loud and clear yeah siren sound clarion bing bing, bing, bing. Signs, bells going off everywhere. Well, interestingly enough, someone got a hold of these Facebook internal emails. And there's this fascinating little exchange where one of the Facebook execs says, quote, one of the guys who ran the platform's ad organization during the 2016 election dismissed

claims that President Trump won the election because of Russian misinformation campaigns. Again, don't let this get in the way of your good story, liberals. Stating, this is the Facebook guy, by the way, not conservatives, a Facebook employee stating, quote, Trump got elected because he ran the single best digital ad campaign I've ever seen from any advertiser. Again, liberals listening, don't let that get in the way of your stupid narrative that Russia did it. That's the Facebook guy who ran their ad ops in an email saying that the media narrative that the Russians manipulated Facebook and handed Trump the win

is garbage. But again, don't let that get in the way of your adamantium coated skulls where facts simply can't penetrate. Here's one more and i gotta leave it at this because we're running out on time joe this one's good yeah i like paula loved this story this morning so i'm gonna end on a high note again showing you high notes exposing these the media nonsense so again the media likes to portray to you that they're telling you the story the facts facts. They're journalists, Joe. They do facts, right? Yes, of course. I've suggested to you, as I just did a minute ago, that they're really telling you a story, meaning they're telling you a narrative devoid of facts. They're telling you a story where facts are absent. That's what they're really doing. So what has been one of

the persistent, evergreen, ongoing media narratives, especially at CNN against Donald Trump? And it's a narrative, meaning it's a fake story. It's made up. Trump's a racist. Trump is definitely a racist. Now, they've said this over and over. The examples are ad nauseum. I can't even play them all here. CNN has insisted for a long time that Trump is a racist. It's not based in any fact. It's a BS story. It's an offensive story. But CNN doesn't cnn doesn't really care but cnn joe has repeatedly stated over and over including costanza over there brian stelter that they are a serious news network in other words when we say he's a racist we're reporting news oh you are you haven't joe has not seen this i want your genuine this is a great story all right and if

it isn't tell me at the end because I won't cover it again. So CNN has this lawsuit filed against them by the Covington kid, Nicholas Sandman, who they just settled. Some of the stuff that CNN said in the motion to dismiss the case has now come out. Great, great Daily Signal piece by Jared Stetman.

Media lawyer explains why CNN's settlement, the libel case with Sandman from Covington is a big deal. Listen to this quote. This is genius. This media lawyer has picked this thing apart. CNN, whose firm stance from day one of the Trump administration has been Joe, Trump's a racist and we're doing news. So claiming he's a racist on a news show means we've done our homework and saying that is based in fact, right? You get it? Yeah, yeah. With it. Okay. Now let's go to this little Jared Stepman piece. This is the lawyer who analyzed CNN's defense here. Glasser cited CNN's argument in a short article on Instapundit. CNN argued in court, quote, listen to this folks,

CNN argued in court, quote, listen to this, folks, that courts treat statements characterizing people as racist as non-actionable opinion because they cannot be proved true or false. What? Wait, it goes on. Sandman cannot, as a matter of law, base a defamation claim on this statement as it offers an expression of opinion so subjective as to be unprovable. Wait, it goes on. The problem with this line of argument, Glasser, the lawyer said, is that CNN analysts frequently call President Trump and others a racist as a statement of fact. I thought they were doing news. The lawyer says it's fascinating that there's a news organization that will look the audience right in the eye and say, hey, we report facts. And the fact is Trump is a racist. And then

they go into court and say, that's not even possible to call him a racist. It can't be a fact. That's a total disconnect that really deserves from a societal standpoint, some thought and discussion. Thank you, Mr. Lawyer, Mr. Glasser Esquire. That is a brilliant point. CNN, we're a news organization. Trump's a racist. CNN in court when they get sued for calling someone a racist. Actually, that's just a really stupid opinion we can never prove

is fact. Thank you, CNN. I'd like to see Humpty Dumpty Stelter address that one on his show, Unreliable Sources. Love to see you handle that one, Brian. As always, the dumbest guy in media. Only followed by Chuck Todd at NBC. Go check that one on his show, Unreliable Sources. Love to see you handle that one, Brian. As always, the dumbest guy in media. Only followed by Chuck Todd at NBC. Go check that one out. Let's see how Brian Stelter,

Captain Reliable Sources on his show, handles that little disconnect. CNN, we're telling you the news and Trump's a racist. CNN in court, we just kind of made that up. It's just opinion. We don't really have any facts. Matter of fact, it's not even provable. Great piece.

Again, up at the show notes, Bongino.com slash newsletter. I'll send these articles right to you every day. Folks, been a great week. Thank you so much for the support of our show. Record numbers.

I'm not kidding. Joe, seen him. We get the back end. What? We did? I know. Paul is impressed we got through all the topics, which is kind of amazing

because we never do that. We will see you all on Monday and please subscribe to my YouTube channel youtube.com slash Bongino, trying to get the 400,000 subscribers and subscribe to our podcast on Apple Podcasts and elsewhere. It's all free, folks, but it really helps us move up the charts and helps other people find the show. Thanks a lot. See you all on Monday.

Good day, sir! You just heard the Dan Bongino Show. You can also get Dan's podcasts on iTunes or SoundCloud. Thanks a lot. See you all on Monday.