The Dan Bongino Show - The Real Truth Behind The NY Times’ Nonsense (Ep 1119)

Episode Date: November 25, 2019

In this episode, I address The NY Times‘ ridiculous story about the investigation into the Spygate scandal and what they get entirely backwards. I also address the lasting damage being done to the Democrats by their impeachment hoax.  News Picks:Donald Trump Jr. unleashes on the Left in our wide-ranging interview.    Are the Democrats’ leaking about the IG report because they’re nervous about its conclusions?    John Durham is investigating suspicious activity in the Pentagon’s Office of Net Assessments.   Remember this article about suspicious activity in the Pentagon’s Office of Net Assessments?   Remember when George Papadopoulos said he was asked to wear a wire for a Joseph Mifsud meeting.   A strong article on the issues surrounding Mifsud.   John Solomon’s article covers the FBI vetting of informants.   Vulnerable Democrats are taking heavy heat over impeachment.   Elizabeth Warren was confronted by black voters upset with her anti-school choice platform.   Elizabeth Warren got caught lying, again!   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 listen folks i know shouting fraud i always i know it's bad we shouldn't celebrate the demise of our political opponents well maybe we should a little bit, but the utter complete total collapse of fake whistleblower gate and the impeachment hoax over the weekend, you should all take a victory lap as this thing has metastasized into a cancer for the Democrats that they can't cure at this point. They don't know what to do. All right, folks, welcome to the Dan Bongino show. Producer Joe, how are you after that fine weekend we both had nice and relaxing finally i didn't have anything to do you doing okay buddy yeah man i'm doing well had a good time at church this weekend doing an hour

long presentation with a new organ but i have a i have a request for you please do not use the word yes please bombshell what i'm about bombshell now oh i know it's over i know i know it's the most overused word in the lexicon right now it's very this everything's a bombshell now oh i know it's over i know i know it's the most overused word in the lexicon right now it's very this everything's a bombshell which is rarely about they're all duds of course every single time especially the media one we have huge media compilations a bombshell we got him now it's a bombshell you got nothing and this is horribly imploded on him so i'm gonna get to that i'm also gonna get to joe the bombshell the new york Times put out this weekend about the upcoming IG report that's supposed to take the sting out of it.

And I'm going to give you the good news and the bad news, okay? Don't panic. Everybody, let's wait to see what's in it. There's good news and bad news, so don't go anywhere. Let's get right to it. Today's show brought to you by our buddies at SimpliSafe. SimpliSafe is quite simply the safest way

to make your home safe. I made that up myself, but it's true. Go visit simply safe, S-I-M-P-L-I-S-A-F-E.com slash Dan Bongino. They have a Black Friday special. Ladies and gentlemen, simply safe is home security made easy, made efficient, and most importantly, made safe. Paula installed this in under an hour. I kid you not. I went to sleep.

It was about nine o'clock. I woke up. I said, what were you doing back in the office? She said, I was installing SimpliSafe. It was about 10, 15, right, Paula, by the time she was done? It's really that simple, SimpliSafe. They have a Black Friday sale coming up. And if you've been thinking about home security,

there's no better time to get it than right now. Because right now, SimpliSafe Home Security is giving the Dan Bongino Show listeners an amazing exclusive Black Friday offer. This week, SimpliSafe Home Security is giving the Dan Bongino Show listeners an amazing exclusive Black Friday offer. This week, SimpliSafe is offering our listeners a huge exclusive deal for Black Friday, 25% off any new system plus a free, free HD security camera. You're not going to beat that anywhere. SimpliSafe has everything you need to keep your home safe. Entry sensors, motion sensors, a smart lock, locks your door when you forget.

Video doorbells, huge plus, know who's at your front door, plus 24-7 professional monitoring that will dispatch police 3.5 times faster than their competitors. This is my favorite home security system. We love it. Don't wait. Go to simplisafe.com slash danbongino to get 25% off, 25% off, plus a free security camera. This is the best home security deal around. Don't mess around during the holiday season. Get this amazing Black Friday deal. That's 20% off at simplisafe.com slash danbongino.

simplisafe.com slash danbongino. Go now, all right, let's go. All right, for those of you who missed my interview with Don Trump Jr. on Friday, it was, if I may say, very well done on his part. I just asked the questions. I appreciate all who listened. It's up at our YouTube channel now and obviously on audio podcasts as well.

So please check that out if you get the chance. Okay, he was great. And I thank the Trump family for coming on. Of course, President Trump the week before for our opening interview. Quite a way to come out of the gate. President Trump, we like that one. That was good. So folks, you see this legal insurrection piece

before I get to the New York Times article trying to take the sting out of the IG report. It's so transparent with it. The media is trying, listen, it's buried. Journalism's dead. It's over. But legal insurrection has a great piece up at the show notes today, which are extensive.

There's a lot of articles in the show notes today. Some older ones and some newer ones are going to paint a really good picture for you. Votable Democrats are taking impeachment heat over Thanksgiving. Folks, listen, I, like many of you out there, like Joe, like Paula, like many of the conservatives, libertarians, and good Republicans who watch this show, have a lot of sincere beefs with the Republican Party. We've done nothing on the debt and the deficits. There's been very little done to completely uproot Obamacare after President Trump got rid of the individual mandate. I hope they double down and get rid of it, the rest of it. But having said that, on the impeachment drive, the Republican Party and their unified

message in defending this president, who I believe has done the right thing here, has been an incredible victory. Listen, there's no disputing it. If you believe in facts and data, which is what we do on this show, and that's how we form good, solid, concrete opinions about what's going on, there is no way to paint this other than a complete disaster. The Democrats and the Republicans are now on a break. They're back in their districts. They are getting shellacked in swing districts. Listen, nobody cares what's happening in San Francisco.

They don't care. They're all liberal radicals. They want Trump impeached and thrown in jail. It doesn't matter. It's irrelevant. Those are D plus 500 districts nobody cares about. They're not representative of swingy districts in America. It's irrelevant. In districts that matter, where House members in Republican districts,

who are Democrats, who won in Republican Trump-leaning districts, they are getting shellacked at home by their constituents about this ridiculous impeachment that blew up in their face. The RNC's raising massive amounts of money. Trump's raising massive amounts of money. Swing state polls in Wisconsin and elsewhere are going very poorly for the Democrats. And independents are moving in droves away from pro to anti-impeachment. And they are paranoid. Adam Schiff appeared this weekend.

I believe it was on CNN. It doesn't matter. Because he's just annoying at this point. And he's basically saying, well, you know, I don't know about impeachment now. We're going to see what the constituents say. Ladies and gentlemen, they are freaking out. And you did this. You did this by standing up for law, order, and justice.

The president is being, is undergoing an impeachment inquiry in the house right now for one reason and one reason only because he won an election the democrats didn't like yep you're winning and and a hat tip to the gop and the way they handled this again this is we don't golden calf anyone here this is an idol worship of politicians but in a brilliant strategic move, Joe, they are running powerful ads in swing districts against these Democrat House members who are in Trump district. These ads are running right now

and are just wrecking these guys. These guys, they are going to ride this impeachment right out of the majority in the House. Just a quick story on that to put a little smile on your face on a Monday morning. And I brought that up on my regular Fox and Friends appearances on Monday morning as well today, which I always enjoy.

I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore. I love that clip. One of my favorites. See, I don't care. Joe just makes his stuff up. He pulls them out of nowhere. That's one of my favorites. I love that.

How it murders his face is classic too when he does it. All right, moving on, because this is one of the more important stories of the weekend. And I seriously consider doing a special episode over this, but obeying the Bongino rule, I wanted to wait 24 to 72 hours to let the

story kind of flesh out. So the New York Times has this piece they put out over the weekend look at that paula like on cue she was on her phone texting she even hears things in her head boom right the new york times piece that was good i'm impressed paula russia inquiry review is said to criticize fbi but rebuff claims of bias acts uh okay that's kind of hilarious so what's going on here uh first rebuff claims of bias acts by the fbi the fbi investigators involved in the case their words not mine we're tweeting about smelly walmart people and that's not funny it's just like how dumb the new york times is and that trump

should lose 100 million to one joe no political bias don't worry nothing to see here folks verdict is in the fbi no political bias if that was of course texts about obama and the trump administrator excuse me the bush administration was investigating obama like the obama administration investigated trump of course that would be front page news about political bias the political bias is it's a fact it's tautological the political bias is evident evident in the FBI agent's own words. So disregard the headline completely about no political. I don't care what the IG report says about that.

I can read myself. I don't need the IG to tell me about political bias. The FBI, which was clearly evident in their own Peter Stroke, Lisa Page texts. Okay, I'm good. End the story on that. But there's some more important stuff, and this is going to be a little bit detailed, but I need you all on this.

Because you all are the advocates. We are the leaders we've been waiting for. Don't wait for someone else to do this. What's going on right now is important. I'm going to give this to you as a bad as a good, three takeaways. I'm going to break them all down. What the New York Times is doing through their deep state leakers who are leaking the inspector general's report expected to be launched December 9th, which is expected to

be a pretty stinging indictment of the process. How stinging? I don't know. And I'm waiting responsibly to see it. I'm not getting optimistic. I'm not getting pessimistic. I'm just telling you I want to read the report before I draw any conclusions. But there is zero question, zero in my mind. That the leakers who are leaking about the report are trying to do Friday night news dumps to take the sting out of it. Why? Because this is how Democrats work. They leak, leak, leak, leak, leak. That way, when the inspector general reports hits, what do they say, Joe?

Oh, this is old news. Nothing to see here. We covered this weeks ago. We're good. That's the only that's the only thing that's going on. That's why I'm telling you, don't get down. Don't get excited. Just stay euthymic right now. Don't be a bipolar all over the map. Let's see what the report says. Now, let me address you in the leaks, because remember, we don't even know if these leaks are legitimate, but it is news and it's been covered on every network. And I feel the need to fight back. We don't even know the leaks about

the IG report are legitimate, but there are three primary takeaways that even when you and i tweeted this out this weekend even the most generous reading of the new york times story which is clearly meant to say don't worry about the ig report joe it's not going to be a big deal right clearly based on the headline i'm cool and you need audience on bud's been had on today please there are three takeaways that even the most generous liberal leaning interpretation of the New York Times story, three takeaways from it that are devastating. And that's not hyperbolic. If this New York Times story is meant to say the IG report isn't a big deal because here's these three things,

then folks, the New York Times either can't read or has very poor reading comprehension skills. Let's get to the bad stuff first. By the bad stuff, I mean bad for justice and bad for accountability. First, the headline that there's no political bias is obviously nonsense. I already addressed that. We don't need to. But it is the worst part of it because the Democrats and liberals are talking point addicts. They don't do facts and data.

They do emotional talking points. And their takeaway from that. I heard Jessica Tarloff, you know, ridiculously talk this about this on Fox News this weekend. This is not personal. I work with Jessica. I don't make it personal. But, you know, she was on this weekend as the liberal talking head on Chris Wallace's show. And of course they were already running with these kinds of talking points like, well, look, there was no political bias. So

nothing to see here. Okay. That's just dumb. As I said, read the texts on your own. I'm not going anywhere else with that because it's a waste of everybody's time. You can read their texts. Their texts are obviously politically biased. biased okay so that's the bad part about it the good part for justice and the takeaways again even on the most generous reading we have these three things and this is according to the times assuming the leaks are accurate it's a big assumption number one joe that christopher steel who was the fbi's primary source that his information was not vetted. Folks, I don't know how... So let me get this straight.

The New York Times is trying to take this sting out of the IG report. When the FBI's primary source to spy on the president in a presidential campaign was not vetted? I'm going to go... Don't worry. I'm going to go into this in detail.

You're not going gonna hear anywhere else and why this is so damaging but just let's stick with the headlines first let's do the top line takeaways so your primary source was not vetted um okay sounds pretty bad to me second they're obviously lying about the role of the fbi lawyer alleged to have made substantial changes to evidence to get a warrant to spy on the Trump team. So first, your main source is basically discredited, but you ran with it anyway.

Secondly, the New York Times is like, he was a low-level lawyer. He was? Wait till I get to that. He was a low-level lawyer. You sure about that? Again, this isn't reported. This is just, it's not even opinion. It's just straight-up lying.

The guy has a title, Joe. And I assure you, his title is not low-level lawyer in the FBI. So now you know your source was garbage. One of the main lawyers involved in the case was manipulating evidence to spy on a presidential campaign. Yeah, this sounds great. Nothing to see here in this report, Joe.

And takeaway number three, which I'll get to with a liberal reporter from Politico who's a total hack, hysterically tried to put out there. I'll get to that in a few minutes too. Now the bar is moved, Joe. Oh, no. Remember the whole case, Joseph,

was based on what? Joseph Mifsud was a Russian agent who talked to Papadopoulos who worked for the Trump team. That's the whole case. The whole case. Now the bar is this, Joe. Well, we should be taking a victory lap, according to the New York Times,

because the report's going to say that Mifsud was not an FBI informant. Oh, great. You nailed it, fellas. So you spied on the presidential campaign because you thought Papadopoulos was talking to a Russian agent and your victory lap is that. Well, at least he didn't work for the FBI. Well done. Well, the two thumbs, Siskel and Ebert say two thumbs up to them. This is actually people are tweeting this like it's a success, like it's a success. This is it's hysterical.

All right. So now you have the headlines. A generous reading of this being nice to the liberals a generous reading your source sucked a top-line fbi lawyer not a low-level guy manipulated evidence and your whole case was based on a guy being a russian agent who your victory lap now is well at least he didn't work for the FBI, which if you listen to the show, you already knew about. Let's get a bit in-depth. You know what? Before I go, let me just knock out this, because it's very important we have sponsors who pay to be on the show.

I want to just run through this and make sure you understand this fully. Today's show also brought to you by our buddies at GenuCell. GenuCell. Ladies and gentlemen, my wife likes GenuCell. My mother-in-law loves GenuCell. The productCell, ladies and gentlemen my wife likes GenuCell, my mother-in-law loves GenuCell, the product is just terrific, we appreciate it I use it before I go on the air and listen, Thanksgiving's only days away, ladies and gentlemen

it's the last chance to get rid of that turkey neck Joe! Thank you Paul has given me the gobble, gobble, gobble and sagging jawline to get compliments around the dinner table don't have the turkey neck joe usually comes through in the clutch with the turkey neck if you haven't tried genu cells breakthrough jawline treatment with ndl technology then pick up the phone or go to genucell.com right now order today and shaman

will include their classic genu cell eye bags and puffiness absolutely free you'll receive their immediate effects for results you can see in just 12 hours. I use them before I go on the air. And for Thanksgiving, GenuCell's offer gets better. You also get the top-selling GenuCell eyelid lift for sagging, droopy eyelids, absolutely free. You'll give thanks this holiday

for 10 years off your appearance and everyone will see the difference guaranteed. My mother-in-law loves it. Or 100% of your money back. That's the Chamonix promise. Go to GenuCell.com and enter Dan30. That's Dan30 at checkout. And from now until Thanksgiving,

you'll also get the Genucel XV anti-wrinkle treatment for fine lines and wrinkles as a third. Yes, a third free gift. And shipping is also free. Go to Genucel, G-E-N-U-C-E-L.com. Enter Dan30 at checkout. All right, Dan, I want to let you know that the old turkey is headless and in the refrigerator at this point.

So I'm going to have to get a new turkey. Every day has been the best day of this turkey's life. I'm sorry. Joe told me before the show, too, he had a total meltdown. Hey, I'm getting a blue screen over there. That he had a total meltdown with his system. So is the turkey gone? Is the turkey effect gone?

Well, that's my way of covering. I'll fix it. That's funny. You can give me all the manual gobble-gobble next time. That's all right. All right. So getting ahead of this story.

Remember our three takeaways. Steal crappy source. Top-line lawyer manipulates information. Mifsud was not a Russian agent. All bad. So that's the New York Times best reading of what's in the IG report. source top line lawyer manipulates information mifsud was not a russian agent okay all bad so that's the new york times best reading of what's in the ig report let's address number one and why again if this is the best we're going to get this is going to be a really ugly report for the fbi

this ig report first ladies and gentlemen if your defense is nothing to see here steel just wasn't verified and the f FBI put too much trust in Michael Steele. Michael Steele, excuse me. Gosh, that's Maryland speaking right there. Christopher Steele that the FBI put, Joe knows where I'm going with that, put too much trust, Freudian slip, in Christopher Steele, then we're in a world of trouble. Ladies and gentlemen, the bulk of the FISA warrant used to spy on Trump team, on the

Trump team was based on Steele's information. Do you understand how catastrophic this is? Now, John Solomon, like Devin Nunes, you almost need a John Solomon translator. Joe, we don't have the Nunes translator either. No, it's with a turkey.

Man, we got to recycle that. We're going to need solomon translator too because solomon always kind of hints at stuff that's coming in the future too if steel was their primary source then why did solomon write this piece a week ago the answer is i believe because john solomon knows this whole story and has for a long time john solomon reports he wrote this november 20th basically about a week ago it's in the show notes today. Please read it. FBI's vetting of informants like Christopher Steele was slammed by the inspector general.

Folks, the same inspector general of the office of inspector general did a separate and distinct report recently about the FBI failing to vet informants of which Christopher Steele was one of them. FBI failing to vet informants, of which Christopher Steele was one of them. There's a devastating takeaway from the piece, which I believe, folks, is a little vista into the future here about what's going on. From the Solomon piece, again, in today's show notes, I strongly encourage you to read. If you want me to email them to you, go to bongino.com slash newsletter, subscribe to our newsletter. I'll email it right to you. Quote, talking about the problems with informants in the FBI. One analyst, for instance, reported

being told not to document a request to polygraph a lie detector, a suspect informant. And multiple FBI officials admitted on efforts to keep the validation reports of informants void of derogatory information because fbi quote field officers do not want negative information documented that could aid defense lawyers or stop informants from becoming government witnesses at trial oh my we do same with kgb nothing new here thank you you're welcome yes so just to be clear here the fbi in vetting the veracity and truthfulness of informants like christopher steel has had an institutional problem because when negative information comes up that the informant might not be telling the truth they're they're they're sidelining it submarining it underwater because they don't want

it to reflect poorly what's the point what's the point i've got an informant that told me joe robbed the bank uh here's a problem the informant robbed the bank himself and hasn't told the truth in 20 years don't tell anybody that we really want to put joe in jail he's so dangerous folks do you sense a problem there as joe just kind of hinted at, it's kind of like third world communism type stuff. Sure is. We have a right to confront our accuser in a legal proceeding via our constitution in the United States.

Why, Joe? Not because it's cute or they want your accuser intimidated or because they think it's funny, because they want the accused to be able to test the veracity of the accuser's information or else any old joe schmo can say joe robbed the bank dan robbed the bank paula robbed the bank put him in jail folks i don't believe solomon wrote that please read it it's very good it's in the show notes today i don't believe solomon wrote that. Please read it. It's very good. It's in the show notes today. I don't believe Solomon wrote that article by accident.

I believe the IG report, even under this generous reading, is going to point to the fact, and the Times will probably massage this a little bit, that the FBI's primary source to spy on Trump and the campaign was garbage. Garbage. was garbage. Garbage. We were told, we've already been told Steele was the source of the information. It's going to get worse. One more thing I want to add, which regular listeners have heard before,

but it's important to drive home now. Remember what we're doing. I'm giving you the information to counter your liberal friends who are going to stick the New York Times article up and go, look, this report isn't going to be that bad. No political bias. Okay, I can read the text.

They just said they had some trouble with Steele. Steele was their primary source. Kind of big trouble, no? Remember, I've said this before. I have information from a person who has told me that the FBI knows no later, likely much earlier, but no later than January of 2017, right as President Trump's coming into office, no later than that, that Christopher Steele's Russian sources are garbage. There's an interview. There's allegedly a woman present at the interview who is a subordinate of Jim Comey who reports back to Jim Comey that Steele's information is garbage. Ladies and gentlemen, what's the problem with that? That Steele is information is garbage.

Ladies and gentlemen, what's the problem with that? They went on to swear to the same FISA warrant three more times for three more renewals to spy on the Trump team. So again, even generously reading the New York Times, well, they didn't vet Steele. Steele was their only viable source of information. Now, they've painted themselves in kind of a corner here, folks. I've got a lot more on this. They've told us that Christopher Steele was their source,

correct? The Steele dossier. They've told us Steele was their source, the FBI, the liberals, and their media bootlicking sycophantic allies. That's what they said, yeah. That Steele wrote the dossier. Why, Joe? Because Steele had worked with the FBI before on the FIFA case

and allegedly produced some very good information. He didn't. Produced some very good information and therefore he was a credible source. So look, the information about the pee-pee tape and the other stuff he put in the dossier had to be legit. So our bad, so sad.

We just messed up. We were counting on this guy because he'd been so good before you see what they're gonna do you're getting the narrative hey our mistake he was a reliable source in the past we just didn't know you did know in january of 2017 here's the corner they're painting themselves in ladies and gentlemen i believe the higher-ups in the fbi durham who's investigating this case for the department of justice harowitz and others in the intel community their biggest fear right now is you being exposed to one simple, inconvenient truth for the left.

It was not Steele's information, folks. Portions of it may have been. But as I have repeatedly said to you, the biggest tactical blast to go off is going to be the one when you find out that the Steele dossier was actually written by others, Not the source the FBI told you was unimpeachable. We used them before. Yeah, you may have, but he didn't write it. Now, interestingly enough, Rudy Giuliani, who's done some substantial investigative work on this this weekend, he appeared on the Blaze TV tv with glenn beck

and in this interview beck asked some hey you know what do you got about this thing in ukraine and giuliani goes on i'll play this for you right now in a second here giuliani goes on to say some interesting things joe that he found in ukraine when he went over there about who was over there gathering information for the dossier must have must have been Steele, right? Joe, it's Steele's dossier, right? It certainly is, Daniel. That's not what Rudy says. Check out this video here.

Very strong evidence that a lot of the Steele dossier was produced in Ukraine, in Kiev. And also things I didn't know, like Glenn Simpson spent a fair amount of time there during the time that the dossier was being written. And that the document that reopened the Manafort investigation went through the Glenn Simpson company and that there were real questions about whether it wasn't a fraud. And that there were real questions about whether it wasn't a fraud. And also, no question at all that it had been improperly used and leaked to the press in May of 2016. So the New York Times could write a story basically saying Trump has crooked campaign manager. Correct. So when I got all that evidence as a defense lawyer, I said to myself, hallelujah, I now have what a defense lawyer always wants. I can go prove somebody else committed this crime.

Now, again, you're not wasting your time here. I don't waste your time. I've only been telling you this for about a year and a half now. Oh, Simpson, Glenn Simpson was in Ukraine, Joe. No. While information was flowing into the dossier from Ukraine. Oh, man. To Nellie Orr and others who's already testified and wrote some of her sources for her information on the proto-dossiers and elsewhere were from Ukraine.

The proto-dossiers and elsewhere were from Ukraine. The mysterious Manafort black ledger, which no one has yet to prove, showing these mysterious cash payments nobody can prove that started the FBI investigation, came from Ukraine. And Glenn Simpson, Rudy Giuliani is alleging, was in Ukraine? Or talking to Ukraine? We know when Ellie Orr has already testified, she was talking to Ukrainians. Remember the takeaways. The New York Times is trying to take the edge off this

by saying, well, the FBI just didn't do their homework on Steele. Ladies and gentlemen, what if the story is, not just did the FBI not do their homework on Steele, but Steele didn't even write the damn thing. Do you understand the conundrum that creates for the Bureau? Hey, all right, we did a piss poor job on vetting Steele and his information was wrong, but he worked with us before.

Ah, sorry, dude, it's not even him. It was someone else's information you didn't vet, who, by the way, was a paid political operative for Hillary Clinton. Gee, that's kind of an issue, no? political operative for Hillary Clinton. Gee, that's kind of an issue, no? But don't expect the slimes to ever do basic journalism. Forgive me for my rage at this.

But even basic journalism right now would say, Houston, we have a problem. I've already told you about the movie script information from Glenn Simpson, his 2007 article that mysteriously I did the Soros show on Friday, that one nuclear. Nobody wants to pay attention to that. You can't say Soros government. Don't tell me what to say. I ignore you completely, liberals, totally. Matter of fact, when you tell me what to say, I say it again just to aggravate you. Now, I say it again just to aggravate you. Now, so they didn't vet Steele.

Generous reading of the New York Times story. They didn't vet Steele properly. When they did vet Steele, his information was discredited. There's substantial bodies of evidence out there indicating that Steele wasn't even the primary author of the dossier, although the FBI swears he was, even though they didn't vet him. This is the generous reading, folks. Now I want to delve into something I haven't hit yet that I've been working on for a long time, and you'll be privy to here. Ladies and gentlemen, who else was a source for the alleged Steele dossier that I'm telling you was not exclusively written by Steele? Well, let's go to this Bongino.com article.

That should elicit your suspicions here. U.S. Attorney John Durham's Russia probe expands to the Pentagon. We wrote this on my team on November 22nd, 20th. There is a team, Bongino, by the way. It's not me. I'm not making that up. Some people go, team the way. It's not me. I'm not making that up. Sheesh, some people go, Team Bongino? It's not me and Paula making it up.

We have people who write for us and do research. That's up in the show notes today. Again, bongino.com slash newsletter. Check it out. Please read it. Why is John Durham, the Department of Justice appointed investigator looking into the spying scandal for Bill Barr.

Why is he looking at the Pentagon? What does that have to do with Steele, the dossier, and the New York Times desperate to still keep the focus on the fact that Steele was the source and that the only problem here, Joe, is, well, they just didn't vet him right. Because the New York Times wants you to believe Steele's the source of the dossier. I don't believe he was. And they really don't want you to know who other than Simpson may have had a role in that. Let's check out this photo from the piece, from the Bongino.com piece.

U.S. Attorney Durham's probe into the handling of the Trump-Russia investigation is expanding to the Pentagon, the Pentagon office where FBI informant Stefan Halper was contracted, according to a report by Sarah Carter. Durham is questioning personnel at the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment, which granted Halper numerous government contracts. Wow, isn't that special? So the defense department's office of Pentagon's office of net assessments apparently was paying a human intelligence informant, Stefan Halper, intelligence asset,

right? An American. All right. With a history of connections to the CIA, was paying them for something. What exactly was the Office of Net Assessments in the Pentagon that investigator John Durham, U.S. Attorney John Durham, excuse me to be precise, the Pentagon, Durham's investigating now?

What were they paying Halper for? Well, before we get to what they may have been paying Halper for, you remember this doozy from the Washington Times from a few months ago? Again, the difference with our show notes and why you should subscribe, we don't only put today's articles. We put articles up in the past that are now relevant again today. This one by Rowan Scarborough, The Washington Times, from August, is now entirely relevant again. Headline, Loose contracting practices at Pentagon office waste millions. Whistleblower punished.

There's another whistleblower? No. Okay, I don't get it. What now? Stefan Halper was a human spy who we already know was working with entities in our government to spy on the trump campaign we get that right yeah he was being paid by the pentagon's office of net assessments the guy investigating this all is now investigating the pentagon and we now know in the past that the Pentagon, there was a whistleblower who said, hey,

we're spending a lot of money on stuff we probably shouldn't be spending money on. Let's check out from the Scarborough piece what exactly this whistleblower said. Quote, Rowan Scarborough's piece, Stefan Halper, the professor who became an FBI informant to spy on the Trump campaign, failed to document the research he did as a contractor on four Pentagon studies, Joe, studies worth $1 million in investigation found. The DOD inspector general's report exposes loose contracting at the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment. Yeah, the ones that paid Halpern, that's right. The same kinds of problems reported by analyst Adam Lovinger. The Office of Net Assessment later accused Lovinger of mishandling sensitive data,

and he has been suspended without pay. He has? My gosh, I thought whistleblowers were to be beatified and sainted overnight. Not this whistleblower, Lovinger, who apparently was suspended for exposing massive monetary malfeasance in the same office of the Pentagon

that was paying the spy spying on the Trump team. Snitch. That's how he was looked at. According to some. Right? Right, exactly. Remember our other whistleblower? He's to be s looked at. Yeah. According to some. Right? Right. Exactly. Remember our other whistleblower? He's to be sainted tomorrow. But this whistleblower is to be suspended and exposed.

Funny how that works. Crazy. Folks, are you getting the connections? Don't worry if you're not. I'm going to put it together for you right now. Okay. Good. I'm just asking questions, folks.

I'm just asking questions here. Questions that I think everybody, if there was any, if there was a shred of integrity left in our journalistic investigative reporting community, they'd be asking themselves, but they don't have the spine to do so because they're all liberal activists at heart. Were your tax dollars funding our Pentagon, which funds the Office of Net Assessment in the Pentagon, paying a spy by the name of Stefan Halper to input information used to spy on Donald Trump? Remember, the media now, the New York slimes,

in full-blown gaslighting mode, want you to believe the IG reports, no problem. They just did, Steele wrote the dossier. You remember that. Steele wrote it. And they just did a bad job of vetting Steele. No big deal. My bad.

So sad, right? Well, what if, again, we're just asking questions. What if your tax dollars were funding this through ONA, the Office of Net Assessments, paying a human intelligence asset to spy on your presidential candidate at the time? Did any of that paid for information somehow find its way into the dossier or other information relayed by Steele. Okie dokie. You put that one together,

and now you'll see why headline number one for the New York Times, again, don't you worry. It's just some terrible administrative work vetting Steele. You will see why the Slimes is so desperate to take the edge off what's coming. They need you to believe, at least for a couple more weeks till the report comes out, that Steele was the primary source. Do you understand now before what I was getting at where they painted themselves into a small corner? Yeah. They have no way out now, folks.

None. Some get it. Joe does i maybe some of you may not get what i was saying if the times is right and steel was the primary and only source used to wrote the dossier to spy on trump then the fbi that knows in january that steel is has been discredited still signed a warrant to spy on a presidential candidate knowing their primary source of information was garbage. There's no reading of this that's good. Story number two is even worse. That the FBI and others knew the information wasn't Steele's.

They swore it was anyway. But it may have belonged to human intelligence assets and others in foreign governments who were vetting the information or excuse me laundering the information through steel to make it seem like it was steel a prior fbi informants info when it wasn't how does that feel were your tax dollars used in this sometimes you have to rely on the new nest translator and others but we'll see where that goes that could be just peachy all right i want to get to these other two i still haven't gotten to the low-level lawyer it's just a low-level lawyer joe don't worry they grabbed some guy off the street he was uh you know busy in a in an injury case and they put him in the fbi and

low level don't you worry. Let me do this final read because it's important. The final sponsor of the day, Helix Sleep, ladies and gentlemen. I'm not making this story. I know like there are sponsors and sometimes, you know,

they never tell me to be hyperbolic. It just says, listen, read this, but I like my sponsors and luckily our show is in such demand that we can select our sponsors and we

don't have to take all the offers. I love Helix. My daughter, my teenage daughter, I went to dinner with Steve Doocy this weekend. We talked about it on Fox and Friends this morning. My teenager watched my youngest daughter and they fell asleep in my youngest daughter's bed. True story. Watching a movie. And she said to me the next day, she goes, Daddy, can you get me a new mattress? That's the most comfortable. I'm not messing with you. It's not for the read, I swear. Well, my daughter, the youngest one, the mattress they were sleeping on is a Helix Sleep mattress. We have one. It's great. Helix Sleep is a quiz. It takes just two minutes to complete. It matches your body type and sleep preferences to the

perfect mattress for you. You're a side sleeper, a hot sleeper. You like plush. You like firm. With Helix, there's no more guesswork. There's no more confusion, no more compromising. Get a mattress made for you. Helix Sleep is rated the number one mattress by GQ and Wired Magazine. It's the most comfortable mattress we've ever slept on. Just go to Helix, H-E-L-I-X, helixsleep.com slash Dan. Take their two-minute sleep quiz, and they'll match you to a customized mattress for you.

It'll give you the best sleep of your life. Wake up refreshed. Finally, they have a 10 year warranty. You get to try it out for a hundred nights risk-free. Come on. Who's going to do that for you? They'll even pick it up for you. If you don't love it, you will right now. Helix is offering up to $200 off all mattress orders for our listeners. Go to Helix, H-E-L-I-X, sleep.com slash Dan, Helix sleep.com slash Dan for up to $200 off your mattress order. Helix sleep.com slash Dan. Go check it out today. You won't regret it. Okay. Moving on. The New York Times full-blown gaslighting mode, trying to get you to believe many things. The second point they're trying to take away, they want you to take away from it. And remember what they're trying to do. This IG report's no big

deal. That way when it does land December 9th, Joe, they want it to land with a thud. Oh, we already talked about that. Nothing to worry about here. The lawyer alleged to have changed an email, manipulated an email, manipulated evidence, basically, to spy on

to use to spy on Donald Trump. The lawyer, the names out there, is alleged to be Kevin Clinesmith. Now, the New York Times and others, hysterically, and I say hysterically because it's really embarrassing how dumb the media thinks you are, are saying, it was a low-level lawyer. Don't you worry about it. Well, I always prepare you with the show notes. Again, check this article out today up in the show notes from the Washington Examiner. You're sure Kevin Clinesmith is a low-level lawyer?

A piece by Daniel Chaitland. Nervous leakers, an early peek at the DOJ watchdog's Pfizer report emboldens Trump allies. Check this out. emboldens Trump allies. Check this out. In a piece about Kevin Clinesmith, who they're trying to paint as an irrelevant portion of this case, Chaitlin writes,

you know, the initial reports cast the FBI lawyer as a low-level employee. But ladies and gentlemen, Clinesmith was an attorney with the FBI's National Security and Cyber Law Branch and worked under FBI General Counsel

Jim Baker, Comey's right-hand guy, by the way, and Deputy General Counsel Tricia Anderson. Listen, it gets worse. This is the supposedly low-level lawyer, folks. This is a joke. Clinesmith worked on the Clinton email investigation as well as Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation. He was kicked off the latter case after Horowitz discovered he expressed

negative opinions of Trump in messages to colleagues, including one that said, Viva la resistance. He's apparently a pretend French now. Wow. Joe, no political bias. Don't worry. I didn't notice any.

Smelly Walmart people. I hope he loses a million to one. We need an insurance policy. And the actual lawyer who manipulated evidence, apparently in a message exchange with FBI colleagues, said, vive les resistance. Les attaques, c'est moi. Like he's like Napoleon Bonaparte here.

No political bias, Joe. Don't worry. Tell Jessica Tarloff, nothing to see here. No political bias joe don't worry tell jessica tarloff nothing to see here no political bias can you imagine can you just imagine if text messages about obama like this ah the obama supporters are smelly walmart people i hope he loses 100 million one let let's long live the resistance oh people be in handcuffs people be in like the darkest prisons in the united states right now but because it's fbi bureaucrats talking about trump liberal tyrants and police state phony frauds who hate this country love it they think this is great and the new y York Times is like, yes, this is nothing. The guy's a low-level employee. Really?

A low-level employee who worked for the number two lawyer in the FBI? Comey was a lawyer too. James Baker, who reported directly to Comey and was involved in both Clinton and the Mueller case and the investigation of the Trump. Like it's the donut guy in the cafeteria. Yeah, yeah, go get Bobby downstairs, the donut guy.

Let him come up and review the evidence. Are you kidding? This is the best you've got. Folks, I know it seems like I'm giving you mixed messages. I'm not. We have not seen the report. I've heard rumors. I'm not you mixed messages. I'm not. We have not seen the report. I've heard rumors.

I'm not passing them on because they're rumors. I'm not giving you, I'm telling you, I want to see the IG report. I'm also telling you, don't get too excited about it because we haven't seen it. But, but, in the interest of giving you information, which usually includes both sides for you to make an opinion, I can't say this enough for the 15,000th time on this show.

If this is the best reading of it, the New York times has, then they are in a world of trouble. Oh, Steele was the source and the lawyer was just like some guy they dragged off the street. Sure. Sure he was. Now, hat tip to Chuck Ross's Twitter account. Forgive me. I think he's at Chuck Ross DC. Writes for the Daily Caller. I picked this off his Twitter account this weekend. Chuck had an interesting find from the OIG report last time that came out. Remember, Joe, Clinesmith was a low-level FBI employee alleged to have manipulated evidence.

It's not a big deal. Really? That's funny because that's not what the OIG said. Hat tip, Chuck Ross. This is from the actual OIG report. You can see the highlight on our YouTube account, youtube.com slash Bongino. Let me read it to you. Talking about Clinesmith. He was also assigned into the investigation

into Russia's election interference and was the primary FBI attorney assigned to that investigation beginning in early 2017. How can that be, Joe? That's clearly not true. He was a low-level guy serving donuts in the FBI cafeteria. How could he be the primary attorney to the biggest, most consequential political case in modern American history? How can that be?

He's a low-level guy. The answer is the media is just lying to you again like they do every single day. These pathetic, disgusting imbeciles. I'm not talking about all the media folks. I'm not. There are some people out there, shockingly, even on the left, doing a decent job. There are.

There are a few out there who are actually concerned about this. Taibbi, Franks, who are actually doing some work, who are leftists. I'm telling you, they're leftists. The guys who wrote this Times piece are a disgrace to journalism. He's a low-level lawyer. Do you even do facts? He's a low-level lawyer, right, reporting directly to Baker and Comey.

Yeah, that happens all the time. Jim Comey, the FBI, just walks around FBI offices, grabs a guy with a JD and says hey buddy you want to come here that's like between personal injury cases and stuff you know what I mean yeah right you think guy got the you know it was a car accident and then you know it didn't work out that well

so they took I mean it's so stupid it's like I'm really ashamed that we have to like prune your dendrites and make you dumber by having to listen to their stupidity. True. But this is the biggest case of our

time. And I don't I'm Can you give me a moment of personal privilege here? Here's what frightens me, folks, and I mean it. I have invested two years of my life in this my wife's life joe's life my family this has been i wrote two books on it i really i i see this as the most consequential devastating case of our time and if we don't win ladies and gentlemen the republic is

close to finish if we allow political spying motivated purely by ideological needs, not by verified actual information, to continue, it's done. It's over. We're turning into third world Cuba with fancier televisions. But what's bothered me here is you look at people like Roswell Rachel Maddow, conspiracy theorist over at MSNBC. Her audience collapsed, collapsed almost overnight. you look at people like Roswell Rachel Maddow, conspiracy theorist over at MSNBC, her audience collapsed, collapsed almost overnight.

Just making some turn back. I mean, I do, again, facts here. But her audience collapsed almost overnight when the collusion hoax was debunked by Mueller himself. Because I think people realize they had wasted years of their lives on a show that was lying to them. Clearly. And ladies and gentlemen, people don't want to be lied to.

What bothered me this weekend about the New York Times report is I want you to understand that everything we've told you right now is coming to fruition. Nothing we've told you is even remotely debunked by this New York Times. Nothing. Everything is confirmed. They didn't vet Steele. We told you that. Clinesmith was low level. That's just dumb.

It's just not true. I don't know what to tell you. They're just lying to you. But this last one has been the anchor of my show for a long time. This is important. Let me show you first what it is, why it matters, and how absurd and mind-numbingly stupid the media has become. This is an alleged journalist. The guy's a joke, but I got to put his tweet up to show you how low these people will. So here's this lunatic, Kyle Chaney of Politico.

He tweets this out like this is a victory lap. This is stunning. Let me read you his tweet. Again, take some B12 or neuroprotective compounds because you are going to be dumber after hearing this. He's celebrating the fact, supposed to journalist by the way per the times the ig report also indicates that miss sood is not asterisk asterisk an fbi informant and no evidence from the cia or steel dossier were used to open the russia probe a claim trump and allies have made for years let me address the first portion of that first. Joe,

if we ever said on this show that Mifsud was a, was an FBI informant. No. As a matter of fact, the troubling part of this story is that I've told you for about a year and a half now that Mifsud was not an fbi informant you may say how i don't i don't i'm all confused i got you don't worry so the times is taking a victory lap with their politico bootlicker kyle cheney that the fbi and the intelligence community and their media

activists liberal allies who have celebrated for two years the fact that they caught allegedly Papadopoulos meeting with a Russian agent, Mifsud, who allegedly told Papadopoulos about Russian dirt on Hillary. Do you understand that's their whole case? That's their whole case. their whole case. The Steele dossier, Steele Simpson, maybe others dossier, was only used to buttress the assertion that the Trump team was colluding with the Russians because Papadopoulos met with this alleged Russian agent, Mifsud. Please, please, I'm humbly begging you, tell me this makes sense. It is their whole case. Collusion was based on Papa D meeting with a Russian agent. If the guy was not a Russian agent, the whole collusion story and the Steele dossier and whatever was used to buttress it and reinforce it is all a hoax.

it and reinforce it is all a hoax. So this lunatic fake news champion at Politico is celebrating the times piece where they they've now reset the bar to not just that our case was a hoax, but gosh, at least it wasn't an FBI setup. Oh, I, I, right. Am I crazy? Nah, nah. Paula, please. wasn't an FBI setup. Oh. Right? Am I crazy? Nah, nah. Paula, please. Joe, it's unfair because Joe, no, Paula has only been involved with the video show for about six months.

You, maybe more. Okay, she gave me the head. Now she's involved. I have to wear her out at home with this stuff all the time. But do you get what I'm saying? Please not. Their whole case was this guy's a russian asian they're now taking a victory lap because it wasn't a setup specifically run by the fbi oh my gosh

i i can't believe it i cannot instead of coming up in front, I'm not even, I didn't even get to miss it. I'm sorry. But I can't, I really am having a hard time believing that a story you told us for two years has now been totally discredited. And the best you can do is say,

well, at least the guy wasn't working directly for the FBI. Where's our apology? Where is the apology to Trump and America? Hey, by the way, that guy we told you was a Russian agent. Not so much. Sorry. My bad. You take a victory lap? You numb nuts? Are you kidding? Well, at least he wasn't an FBI informant. Which on this show, we've never said. Or if we did in the past, we've evolved it.

I don't think we ever did. But the problem is he was not an FBI informant. What do I mean and why is this an issue? Let me go to a Washington Examiner piece. I want to lay out a little timeline quickly in the end minutes of the show about why Mifsud not working for the FBI is a problem for the left. It's not a New York Times takeaway. Like, look at this. Jerry Dunleavy.

Again, an older article, now relevant again today. Washington Examiner will be in the show notes. This was written in March of 2019. Papadopoulos says the FBI asked him to wear a wire to record contact who promised Clinton dirt.

Who was the FBI asking George Papadopoulos to wear a wire recording device on? Right. Let's go to the piece. Let's not go to the piece. Polish. I don't have.

Who is she's like the headline. I'm sorry. The headline tells story. The FBI in January of 2017 asked George Papadopoulos to wear a wire on Joseph Mifsud. Of course, if you're

a listener to this show and you don't listen to the idiocy spread by Kyle Chaney in the New York Times, you already know this. Now, ladies and gentlemen, as I've said to you before, why would the FBI ask George Papadopoulos a target of their investigation to wear a wire against their own informant because he wasn't their informant

folks i'm sure there are rare cases where things like this have happened but unlike kyle cheney who i'm not sure has ever had an actual job or new york times reporters elsewhere fake journalists i actually was a federal agent who investigated cases i can't think of a scenario where you would want a person you're investigating to record your own informant because joe during the investigation of that person that information would be discoverable and you would out your informant on tape. Yeah. Kind of a problem, no? Yeah. Now, again, when you're a journalist, meaning you don't know anything and you pretend to be an agent when you're not, and you probably never had a real job, you report on that uncritically. Really? Papadopoulos is saying the fbi wanted him to

wear a wire against an alleged russian agent who we're now celebrating wasn't fb it was obvious the guy wasn't an fbi informant if you did your homework knuckleheads well what's the problem with that folks if? If Mifsud was not an FBI informant and is not a Russian agent, then what was Mifsud doing? Hmm. That, my friends, is the question we have centered this show on for the last two years. He's the key to the whole case.

If Mifsud is not a Russian agent, the whole case is bull. The whole case and everything that followed. The meeting with Papadopoulos and alleged Russian agent Mifsud starts this whole thing. It's the equivalent of investigating a bank robbery. You find out never, ever happened that the bank wasn't robbed. Whatever happens after that is irrelevant. The laundering of the alleged proceeds, all of it. There's no proceeds. There was no bank rob. Why this knucklehead is taking a victory lap now about something we already knew is not a positive for the leftist media because it begs the further question, folks, then who the hell was Mifsud working for or with?

Let me put up a real clear investigations piece for you by Eric Felton. Again, an older piece, again, the show notes, but worth your time today. Starting to unravel the mystery of Joseph Mifsud. Now, if we didn't have a complete computer meltdown on Joseph, we had the Nunes translator

initiating. Nunes translator, Dan, I will have to simulate the simulation now. Felton brings up some interesting points about Mifsud in this piece which you can read quote but it's another hypothesis altogether remember the new nest translator that is gaining

traction with republican lawmakers the notion that the professor mifsud was indeed an intelligence asset just not for russia joseph mifsud is the key figure in the FBI's opening of the official investigation of the Trump campaign. Yet no one knows he was working for, end quote, Devin Nunes tells Real Clear Investigations. I'm going to ask you two questions right now I'd like you to ponder between today and tomorrow's show. right now I'd like you to ponder between today and tomorrow's show. Throw out the leftist stupid talking point that Mifsud was not an FBI informant because everybody already knew that. The FBI asked the guy to wear a wire against him. It's irrelevant.

The question Kyle Cheney, who won't because he's not that bright, should ask is, well, who the hell was Joseph Mifsud working for then? And I'm going to leave you with two distinct questions you should be asking, unlike Kyle, who pretends to be a journalist. One, was Mifsud working for anybody? It's still a small possibility, remote, but a possibility nonetheless, Joe,

that Mifsud was just a guy trying to leverage connections into the Trump campaign. Possible. Again, we're doing serious analysis here, not like Politico and the New York Times. The second possibility. There have been rumors out there for a long time

based on evidence openly available on the internet that Massoud is deeply tied to Western, in other words, friendly to the United States intelligence assets. Were there people inside the Western intelligence community friendlies to the United States using Mifsud to advance a narrative about Russian connections to Trump?

In other words, was Mifsud part of an elaborate setup? Questions journalists won't ask. Option three, though. Was Massoud involved in an intelligence freelancing operation with people loosely connected to the intelligence community who were being paid by maybe certain offices with who are under investigation now was miss sud connected to those people and involved in kind of an on the side black ops it sounds very fancy but these guys were really stupid when they did this

was he involved in kind of a side hustle maybe a little freelancing to gather information on Trump to ingratiate themselves to the intel community? I guess only time will tell. But how funny that these lunatics are taking a victory lap, that the one explanation that would have been easy, oh, he was an FBI informant and we got, it's debunked. That opens up three more even damaging options than the FBI informant option. And that these lunatics are taking a victory lap like they somehow won something. All right, I got more tomorrow for you folks.

I'm just stacked show. I didn't even touch the Elizabeth Warren show. There's a political piece too about Devin Nunes. It's just fabricated garbage. They're panicking. I'll get to that tomorrow. I've got a lot more the rest of the week,

but please share this show, that New York Times story. Don't sweat it. Do not sweat it. Their three takeaways work in our favor, not theirs. They're just gaslighting you

to make you believe it's not going to be a big deal. All right, thanks for tuning in. Please subscribe to my YouTube channel. We're over 300,000. Thanks to you. Now we're trying to get to 350,000 subscribers, youtube.com slash Bongino. I appreciate it. It helps me in a lot of ways, especially with plan B, which I'll get to at another time, but youtube.com slash Bongino, please go subscribe

today. Thanks a lot, folks. I'll see you all tomorrow. You just heard the Dan Bongino show. You can also get Dan's podcasts on iTunes or SoundCloud. And follow Dan on Twitter 24-7 at DBongino.