The Dan Bongino Show - The Washington Post is Hiding Something (Ep 1125)

Episode Date: December 3, 2019

In this episode, I address the explosive new Washington Post article addressing a troubling conflict brewing regarding the investigation into the Spygate scandal. They’re hiding something, which I expose in this show. News Picks:Get ready to be disappointed by parts of the IG Report. The IG and the Attorney General may have disagreements.   Here’s the questionable Washington Post article.    This 2018 article lays out the extent of John Brennan’s lying and scheming.   After the “60 Minutes” speech suppression show, will YouTube still allow free speech?    The radical left is descending into aggression, madness and chaos.    This 2017 Lee Smith article addresses the role of John Brennan and Barack Obama in Spygate.   The Trump campaign fights back against media bias and won’t credential Bloomberg reporters.    Clueless millionaire actor calls for an end to capitalism.   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 all right ladies and gentlemen i got a stacked show for you today so i don't want to waste any time all i want to tell you here is the washington post put out a story last night kind of foreshadowing and predicting what we've been talking about how there's a conflict already blue brewing between the department of Justice, the Attorney General, and the IG over his report coming out December 9th. I am going to dig into this story because there's some tremendous nuggets in there

and some stuff I've been telling you for a couple of years that will now make sense. All right, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Dan Bongino Show. Producer Joe, how are you today? Fine, sir? Hey, dude, I'm doing pretty good, but I got to tell you,

I smell a corpus. Beware of the corpus. A corpus, which Joe is foreshadowing. What we will be discussing related to John Brennan, the Washington Post, or don't go anywhere. Joe knows exactly what's coming. All right, ladies and gentlemen, today's show brought to you by Buddy's at Ali.

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm really terrified to call Ali dog food because it's food for your dog. The food is that good, ladies and gentlemen. It is that good. It is human grade food. Your pets are going to love this. Your dog will love it. It is that good. It is human grade food. Your pets are going to love this. Your dog will love it. Go to myali.com slash try slash Bongino because your dog's health is as important as every other member of your family. And it starts with when you feed them.

But do you know what's in your dog's food? Ali puts dogs first with vet formulated recipes. That's right. Fully transparent ingredients give your dog the healthiest food possible. Ali makes fresh, delicious meals for your dogs with real ingredients that people can actually eat and delivers them to your pet on a regular schedule. Well, it delivers them to you for your pet. Your dog's not going to sign for it, but they should. If they knew what was going on, they would. They beat out store-bought dog food on a 10 to 1 on a palatability scale. What does that mean? It just tastes really, really good because they create customized, formulated recipes, all natural ingredients, no preservatives,

sourced from fresh US family farms. Go to myali.com. Answer a few questions about your dog and they'll customize recipes for your dog and ship pre-portioned meals so your pup gets the perfect portion every time. They've delivered 5 million meals and counting. Shipping's free. And if your dog doesn't like the meals, they have a money back guarantee. Your dog will love them. They won't eat anything else. Ali's offering our listeners 60% off your first box, plus a free bag of treats at myollie.com slash try slash Bongino. It's the best deal they have available anywhere. Go to myollie.com slash try slash Bongino for 60% off, plus a free bag of treats. That's a tremendous deal spelled my O-L-l-i-e dot com slash try slash bongino go

today all right joe let's go all right ladies and gentlemen so there is a according to the washington post and listen folks i am applying the bongino rule this came out last night um i am waiting before i determine the authenticity of this piece and how um how much of it is fake news how much is propaganda and how much of it is fake news, how much is propaganda, and how much of it is real. But the genesis of this Washington Post piece is this. The gist of it, I should say, precision definitely matters here, is that there's a fight brewing in the DOJ between the Attorney General Bill Barr and the Inspector General Michael Horowitz, who is investigating the FBI's behavior in the spying scandal on Donald Trump. And the gist of it is that Barr believes the FBI investigation wasn't predicated correctly. In other words, they shouldn't have been spying on Trump.

And Horowitz, this is according to The Washington Post, Horowitz's report they're suggesting suggests that the FBI investigation was predicated. In other words, they may have screwed things up. The fact pattern's ugly, but the FBI had enough information to start this. That is not true. They did not have enough information to start this. Check out the piece. Listen, I put this up in the show notes. I'm hesitant to do it, but it's important because this is one of those stories that even though, oh, excuse me, it's the Washington Post it you should read it because there are some nuggets in here notice that the author is one of the spygate media players devlin barrett as well

who shows up in the text feed of andy mccabe the headline of the piece is washington post bar disputes key inspector general finding about fbi's russia investigation what is going on here again the doj this conflict is bar does not believe, according to this piece, that the spying operation on the FBI was conducting was properly predicated based on a set of facts that would indicate spying was necessary. Apparently, according to this piece, the IG report suggests otherwise. Now, a couple of things here. Let's go right to the report and read their words so I can explain to you what's really going on and again, why you haven't been wasting your time here for two years. Check this out from the Washington Post piece. Quote, Attorney General Bill Barr has privately contended that Horowitz, the IG, does not have enough information to reach the conclusion that the FBI had enough details in hand at the time to justify opening

such a probe. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. This is a bombshell statement in and of itself. Hold on, keep that up there. So we're suggesting that Barr's saying, listen, you don't know enough to conclude that the FBI was appropriately spying on Donald Trump. They go on in the Washington Post piece. Devlin Barrett. Barr argues that other U.S. agencies, such as the CIA, may hold

significant information, Joe, that could alter Horowitz's conclusion on that point, according to people familiar with the matter who spoke in the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. What did I tell you? What have I been pumping on this show for eons now? Joe, I know you have been a guest on this show with me multiple times as my producer here. have we not

been telling you the entire time and please listen to what i'm telling you before you send me every time i say this i get nasty emails please please i'm humbly and with the greatest of respect begging you to listen to what i say before you send me a nasty gram i have been telling you for a while now that i believe the fbi was lied to by elements in our intelligence agencies led by john brennan who mistakenly pushed them into opening up an investigation based on information the fbi thought the cia was getting from credible sources i am not this is why i asked you to listen to all of what i said before because i know you're information the FBI thought the CIA was getting from credible sources. I am not. This is why I asked you to listen to all of what I said before,

because I know you're getting emails right now. Stop giving the FBI pass. I'm not doing that! Exclamation point, not period. Full, full stop. The FBI screwed this thing up huge, and I'm going to prove this to you in a second. Huge. And the leaks, some of them were involved, and may be criminal.

I'm simply suggesting to you that the impetus to start this thing, the initiation component of the scandal, not the scandal, the whole scandal. There's the initiation, the midpoint, and the endpoint. The initiation of the scandal, of the spying, is more of a John Brennan scandal than an FBI scandal. The continuing of the spying is unquestionably an FBI scandal. So please don't send me an email telling me I'm giving the FBI a pass. I am not. Shame on the FBI leaders for continuing the spying when they knew it was bogus.

leaders for continuing the spying when they knew it was bogus. That piece from the, from the Washington post, the devil and Barrett, who again was a media co-conspirator in this whole thing was, was in the, I don't want to call him a co-conspirator, was a recipient of the information is probably an appropriate way. He knows all these people.

They are clearly Barr knows something Horowitz doesn't. That's the takeaway from that snippet from the Washington Post piece. Barr knows something Horowitz doesn't. Joe, why would the attorney general and his investigator on this, John Durham, who is an assistant United States attorney,

has subpoena powers, grand jury powers, why would they know something Horowitz doesn't? Because folks, Horowitz is not a US attorney. Horowitz cannot panel a grand jury and Horowitz is the inspector general for what? For the department of justice, not for the intelligence community. He doesn't even have the power to investigate the intelligence community outside of referrals.

Keep that in your head. Yeah, that's good to know. Now. And remember, yeah. Yeah. So if Horowitz's point, you understand the conflict now that the Washington Post is laying out.

Barr is saying, according to the Washington Post, Barr is saying, hey, listen, the FBI was duped. You should not have opened up this investigation. Horowitz is saying, no, they weren't. It was fine. They had the appropriate fact pattern. Barr is saying, you don't know everything here. We're looking into the intelligence community, too. Horowitz is saying, okay, maybe,

but that's not what I'm going to write in my report. Barr is saying, then maybe you shouldn't have wrote that in your report because you don't have enough information. You dig? Now, before I move on to part two of this, Joe foreshadowed in his corpus opener, sniffing his corpus like joe biden paul is not laughing now i know she's in a bad mood oh she was up late last night all right

she's smiling she's mad at me we had to start the show like 10 times today because i i'll take i kept screwing things up showing you before we move on to the next step that is i again i believe it was an intelligence agency notably john brennan scandal for initiating the spying continuing the spying just quickly showing you that the fbi i am not giving them a pass at all how the malfeasance they expressed and continuing they based their entire case on the dossier how do we know that andy mccabe the deputy director has already said we based our spying warrant on the dossier. How do we know that? Andy McCabe, the deputy director, has already said, we based our spying warrant on the dossier. The FISA warrant wouldn't have existed without the dossier.

So they've already admitted that, end of story. So there's no liberal counterpoint to that, despite their lying. Comey has already said the dossier they based their spying on, according to his deputy director, was salacious and unverified. Their lead investigator in the case, Peter Stroke, texted his girlfriend, FBI lawyer Lisa Page,

that he didn't believe there was any there there when Mueller was appointed. Lisa Page, his girlfriend and FBI lawyer, told the congressional committee that when Mueller was appointed, that the case still could have been literally nothing. Literally nothing. You guys just swore you had probable cause to spy on the Trump team. Now you're telling us it's literally nothing? And even worse, Peter Stroke's boss,

an SES-level FBI manager by the name of Bill Price has already said under oath in a congressional hearing that the verification of the dossier was in its infancy when they swore the warrants out. Combine that with the fact that I told you many times, the FBI in January interviewed one of Steele's sources before the FISA warrant was reauthorized three times and determined his sources were complete garbage. And now do you get why I'm angry and you should be too at the FBI and the CIA?

I just want you to understand what we're talking about. Now, that's the midpoint of the investigation. The FBI screwed up continuing it when they knew it was all bogus. There may be criminal activity involved with leaks. Now let's go back to the initiation because we're talking about this Washington Post piece, Horowitz. No, no, no, it's okay. The FBI initiated investigation appropriately. Bill Barr, No, they didn't. What's Bill Barr talking about? Because remember, ladies and gentlemen,

the FBI's story this entire time, and this is an important takeaway, Joe. The FBI's story this entire time is we didn't initiate this investigation on the Trump team because of the CIA. We did it because we got a tip from an Australian diplomat named Alexander Downer about Papadopoulos.

That's why. It wasn't the CIA. Really? All right. We're going to get to that. Let's say I'm going to play a video. Let me get to my second sponsor. We have a really loaded show today.

I appreciate all your patience. I love our sponsors. They help us pay for the show. But this next clip is going to explain to you why the initiation and beginning of this is a world of trouble for everyone. Today's show also brought to you by buddies at Brickhouse Nutrition. Ladies and gentlemen, they make the finest

nutrition supplements on the market. A lot of New Year's resolutions coming up, right? A lot of them. What better way to start than to get the finest nutrition supplements on the market? Go to brickhousenutrition.com slash Dan. Folks, I am not kidding when I tell you they make a product called Foundation. Of course they make it, but I'm not messing with it. I tell you it's the finest nutrition supplement I've ever taken. It's a creatine ATP blend. What it does is it does a couple of things.

It works like it gives you two extra gas tanks in the gym. You need energy for your life, energy in the gym, energy to be hauling the kids around all day. Foundation's the way to go, but it has another effect. You don't just perform better. You will look better. You doubt me? Men, women, try it out. Look in the mirror. Take a mental snapshot of what you look like. Come back

seven days later. It takes about seven days for foundation from Brickhouse Nutrition to load. Look at yourself. You're going to have that hard-toned look. I promise you, this stuff is no joke. Joe, how much does little Joe love this stuff? He loved using it. Yeah. My nephew drove all the way up from Fort Lauderdale to get a bottle of this stuff from me that he loves it that much. Foundation, it is a creatine ATP blend. Go pick this up today, right around the holidays. Go to brickhousenutrition.com slash Dan, brickhousenutrition.com slash Dan. Do not miss out. Foundation, one of the finest nutrition supplements I've ever taken. Don't take my word for it. Do the mirror test yourself. You will not regret it. All right, getting right back to this. So without further ado, here is John Brennan in a congressional

hearing chatting with Trey Gowdy when he was still in Congress. We'll call that chatting. And Gowdy asks him a key question because Gowdy knows the whole story at the time and says to him, hey, John, when did you learn about the dossier that the FBI has already acknowledged was the central core of their warrant to spy on the Trump team? When did you learn about that? And listen to Brennan's shady, shifty answer. This guy's such a liar. Check this out. Do you know who commissioned the Steele dossier?

I don't. Did the CIA rely on it? No. Why not? Because we didn't. It wasn't part of the corpus of intelligence information that we had. It was not in any way used as a basis for the intelligence community assessment that was done. Oh, you sure about that?

Do you want to revise that answer? Now, remember, John Durham, keep in mind the players here, folks. This is like a big elaborate play. You have to keep in mind who the actors in this play are, the protagonists and the antagonists. Bill Barr, obviously the attorney general, you know that John Durham is his United States attorney.

Barr's a United States attorney. Ours, the Department of Justice, we pay him. Who is investigating this? It is clear he is either interviewed or is looking to interview Brennan. Brennan's answer, you already saw it, is on the record. You just saw it. We didn't manipulate that. That's a full cut.

Only, again, cut for time to fit into the show. Brennan is already on the record in Congress saying, I did not see the dossier. I didn't know anything about it. It had no role ever. And as Joe said in his foreshadowing element at the beginning of the show, it was not part of the corpus

of intelligence we used. We clear on that? John Brennan, CIA. We knew nothing about nothing about nothing about this dossier ladies and gentlemen really let's go back to an older piece by our good friend Lee Smith who has a terrific book out now called the plot against the president Lee Smith wrote this piece in December of 2017 Lee has been read

in on this case for a long time this piece will be up in the show notes and the benefit of our Bongino report in the show notes is we include older articles as well that are now relevant again today. The title of the piece, it's a must read, even though it's older. Did President Obama read

the Steele dossier in the White House last August? Wow, that's not possible, Joe, because his primary intelligence guy, John Brennan, didn't see the dossier. Yeah, right. He didn't know anything about the dossier until

when? December or so? Something like that. That's what he told Chuck Todd. Let's go to Lee Smith. Let's take a little screenshot from the piece and take a look at what Lee Smith... This is a little longer, but this is important you hear this. Because remember what Brennan said. He hasn't seen the

dossier till December. This case with the FBI, joe started because of downer papadopoulos not the cia right wink it or not here's lee smith from that piece in contrast to the fbi according to jacoby mary jacoby glenn simpson from fusion gps's wife who's hired to dig up dirt on trump by the way according to according to Jacoby, the CIA, quote, hopped to and immediately worked to verify this dossier. By August of 2016, by August of 2016, folks, remember the by,

the CIA had verified the key finding of the dossier to the point that the Washington Post revealed it was having eyes-only top-secret meetings with Obama about it. That's not possible, folks. How is any of this possible? How is the CIA, by August, not in August, in other words, they'd verified it before, for liberals listening, by August.

How is the CIA verified a dossier that's already been debunked and that John Brennan has said he hasn't even seen? How is this? How is this happening? How is this happening? Let's go back to the Lee Smith piece. I got to tell you, Paul, you're on fire. After a rough start, you are on fire with the pieces today. Nice

work. Just giving me that look. Lee Smith says, what? Former CIA director John Brennan testified in front of the House Intel Committee this May that the dossier, quote, wasn't part of the corpus of intelligence information we had. It was not used in any way as a basis. But Mary Jacoby, Glenn Simpson's wife, says he brought it to President Obama. It seems that Glenn Simpson's wife may be correct again. In April, the New York Times reported that last summer, Brennan was so concerned about Russian efforts to help Trump. Remember, that only exists in the dossier because it's fake.

That he briefed top lawmakers, including Harry Reid. that he briefed top lawmakers, including Harry Reid. In the August briefing for Mr. Reid, the Times reports, Mr. Brennan indicated that the CIA focused on foreign intelligence and was limited in its legal ability to investigate possible connections to Trump. It goes on. This is critical. The briefing, talking about Brenrenning briefing reed in august about these russian connections which only exist in the dossier prompted harry reid to write a public letter to the agency responsible for collecting domestic intelligence on august 29th harry reid wrote to

director comey the fbi that the threat threat of Russian interference is more extensive than widely known and may include the attempt to falsify official election results. Recent classified briefings from officials in an interview have left them fearful that president Putin is goal is to tamper with the election by August. So by august the cia verified a dossier john brennan claimed he hadn't seen by august they're briefing harry reed about information in the dossier about russian interference it's clearly fake harry reed because john brennan can't domestic could domestically investigate people he has no law enforcement powers he's running an intel operation at the CIA. John Brennan pushes Harry Reid to write a letter to the FBI to start investigating

Trump. Folks, based on a dossier Brennan hasn't seen? Huh? Oh, this Lee Smith piece goes, this piece is a gem. This is one of those evergreen pieces you should keep up on your iPhone. It is so, so worth your time. And keep in mind gem this is one of those evergreen pieces you should keep up on your iphone it is so so worth your time and keep in mind this is all being written keep in mind the actor's protagonist antagonist on out there being written putting out there in the social

media ecosystem by glenn simpson the fusion gps owner who's paid by Hillary. This is being written by his wife. Lee Smith goes on in the piece. It gets worse, believe it or not. In this piece, he's discussing here, keep this up for a second, on June 23rd, apparently, June 23rd of 2017, some bombshell arrives at the White House, writes the Washington Post. Someone hand delivers a bombshell document to the White House. Lee Smith reports. This is from the Washington Post. He says, inside was an intelligence bombshell,

writes Greg Miller, Ellen Nakashima, and Adam Antios of the Washington Post. They write in the Washington Post, a report drawn from sourcing deep inside the Russian government that detailed Putin's direct involvement in a cyber campaign to disrupt and discredit the US presidential race. That's what's in the envelope. But it went further, Joe. The intelligence captured Putin's specific instructions to the operation's objectives, defeat or damage the Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton clinton and help elect her opponent donald trump you know when glenn simpson's wife mary jacobi writes that facebook post

about how the cia had verified that you know the date on that it's the date after that Washington Post piece. What? I thought the CIA hadn't seen the dossier till December. So how is it that the Washington Post is reporting that an envelope, which ladies and gentlemen, I assure you, contains some information from likely even Halper or Steele, that made its way into the dossier, made its way to the White House, but Brennan's saying he hasn't seen any of this, yet Mary Jacoby,

the day after the Washington Post report, Brennan has seen some of this, and actually delivered it to Obama. Glenn Simpson's wife, who's read in on this whole thing, because they're running this intel operation through Fusion GPS, is writing about it on Facebook and then deleting the post, according to Lee Smith. Two questions here.

Don't forget where we came in. Remember Pink Floyd, the wall? Is this where we came in? Don't forget where we came in. The leaks to the Washington Post about this piece earlier. The IG is about to say this case was predicated. Fine. No big deal.

The FBI had great information to start it. Bill Barr. Time out. Pump the brakes. Well, EBS, you don't have to pump the brakes anymore. We may have some information from the intelligence community, Inspector General. You don't have information. We may have some information from the intelligence community, Inspector General. You don't have.

Remember, the official FBI story is we didn't start this investigation based on information from the CIA or Brennan. We started it because Australian diplomat Downer told us about Papadopoulos. So now I've led you down the path. What are the two questions we still have open? The envelope Lee Smith's writing about that in June of 2017 that's delivered to the White House, ladies and gentlemen, God forbid in that envelope was information from Steele and Halper. Because then we would know conclusively with a period and an exclamation point at the end of that sentence, both, we would know conclusively that John Brennan was lying. That John Brennan lied under oath, was familiar with the Steele information that made its way into the dossier.

Don't get confused with me. Whether it was in the dossier or not, it was Steele's information. If Steele was getting the information from Stefan Halper, a spy who, if you listen to yesterday's show, was undoubtedly being paid by the US government through a spying slush fund, the Office of Net Assessments, then ladies and gentlemen, I'm telling you, we've blown the doors off this thing. And it explains exactly why the leak's coming out. The leaks, don't worry, the FBI's investigation was properly predicated and done. Why? It's based on an incomplete data set because Horowitz doesn't have the authority to go investigate the intelligence community. He's the inspector general for justice, the FBI. The FBI is going to say what I've been telling you

the whole time. We were duped. It does not give them a pass. They continued the investigation knowing the dossier was garbage. That may be even worse than the intel community but get ready be prepared mark this show today have this information at your fingertips because the liberal narrative with their media pals which the washington post and devlin barrett is preparing for now is as a friend of mine said she knows who she is yesterday we'll be interviewing her soon they are preparing you for another oh joe's faulty intelligence like the iraq war thing you know what is as a friend of mine said, she knows who she is yesterday. We'll be interviewing her soon. They are preparing you for another, oh, Joe, it was faulty intelligence,

like the Iraq war thing. You know, it happens all the time. Brilliant point made by this person. It was all faulty intel, the FBI is going to say. They are going to throw, Comey's going to throw Brennan under the bus and Brennan's going to throw Comey under the bus. Comey's going to say,

hey, listen, we were told in electronic communication by the CIA and the intel community that they had information about this Russian scam. They didn't tell us

it was from the same guy, Steele and Halper. They told us they had sources in Russia. Brennan's going to say, hey, it's not my fault. It was bad intel. I passed it off to the FBI to investigate. It's not my fault. They continued the investigation based on this crappy dossier. Hey, I didn't see the dossier.

Oh, I love that word. The month ahead. Easy. A month ahead of the cycle. Get ready. The faulty intelligence line is coming. Hey, just one quick thing. I didn't nail the two questions. The two questions, was that dossier in the envelope sent to the White House in June? Point number two, was information in there from Halper and alleged to be from Chubnikov?

Because then think about it, the Russian intel guy. There's only two possible solutions then. If Brennan hand-delivered a eyes-only for Barack Obama document in June of 2017 containing faulty information from Halper that either was from Trebnikov, that means the Russians got information

into the White House that they made decisions to spy on, the Obama administration. Or if Halper was lying, if you listen to yesterday's show, and was just using Treubnikov's name because they're friends and saying, yeah, I got this information from Trubnikov. You want to buy it and it's fake? Then a spy paid by the US government used fake information to manipulate the White

House. Either road is bad. The Russians manipulated the White House or a US spy manipulated the White House with our tax dollars. There is no way out for them. None. Do you understand that? No way out. Zero. Now, I'm going to tie this up in a bow for you. I still haven't even got back to the original Washington Post because there's other nuggets in there. I'm going to tie that up for you too.

I want to get to Lisa Page's comments, which I put on this thing, this show probably 10 times or more, because I don't think she's lying, this FBI lawyer, that are going to point to, again, my central thesis here, the CIA started this investigation

by pushing the FBI to investigate, and the CIA, through John Brennan, lied about where they were getting their information from. The FBI tried to cover their tracks by saying, no, we got this information from Downer. Nonsense. This was CIA driven and Brennan. I'll get to that in a second. Just got to pay for the show again. Today's show also brought to you by buddies at U.S. Law Shield. Ladies and gentlemen, do not carry your firearm naked. By naked, I don't mean without clothes. Obviously, I mean without the fine, fantastic, really peace of mind protections of our good friends at the U.S. Law Shield. I am a member. Listen, a little update about a story I shared with you a few months ago.

It was about a 64-year-old New York state man who fatally shot a pair of prowlers looking inside his home. After killing the suspects, he, yes, the man was arrested because the gun which saved his life originally belonged to his dead father and he failed to register it when he inherited it. After four months, the charges were finally dropped according to his lawyer. Imagine that. You defend yourself during a robbery and this was the second time and you get arrested. This is exactly why I am a proud member of U.S. Law Shield. For less than $11 a month, you get the peace of mind of having immediate, 24-7, 365 days a year access to an attorney. You won't pay a penny in attorney fees if this nightmare, God forbid, ever happens to

you. I want you to go to uslawshield.com slash Dan. You'll get five Defender reports absolutely free with incredible information you need to know if you're carrying a firearm. You'll be amazed how much useful information is inside we're living in scary times and ladies and gentlemen sadly the world isn't a fair place a good guy doesn't always win you need the legal protections of a 24 7 365 lawyer access by going to uslawshield.com slash dan right now that's uslawshield.com slash Dan. Check it out. Don't carry naked. Okay.

Showing you again, folks, how I believe the FBI was duped into initiating a bad investigation, which they continued shamefully later, knowing the information was garbage. Lisa Page, FBI lawyer who's appeared in the news. Obviously, yesterday we covered her on our show, who is just playing victim now and one of the most pathetic things I've ever seen in my life. She was a lead FBI lawyer in the biggest political spying scandal in US history. I'm sorry we offended you by calling you out on it. I mean, seriously? But I do believe Lisa Page was being genuine when she went up to Capitol Hill and she gave

some testimony. I do believe Lisa Page was being genuine when she went up to Capitol Hill and she gave some testimony. She was asked very specifically by Mark Meadows about where the FBI and the CIA, where they got their information from and who their sources are. Remember the central tenet of what we're discussing. I have to continue to harp on this because you understand this is the scandal. The FBI story's been we got the information from Downer. And that the information we may have gotten from the CIA, oh, that was from different sources. They didn't know anything about the dossier. Why? Because Brennan just told you he didn't know about the dossier and Steele. Really? Put up our testimony. I want to read this to you again.

So Mark Meadows, he tells an excellent congressman from North Carolina, tells Lisa Page in this testimony, hey, we know there are multiple sources. Page says, yeah, I know that. I know the information found its way to a lot of different places, certainly in October of 2016. But if the CIA as early as August, in fact, had those same reports, dossier, Steele, I'm not aware of that i'm not aware of that and then it's redacted meadow says so you say our source is your source was he working for you page says well no sir well i mean how could he be is he exclusively your source i believe they're talking about steel potentially helper potentially Halper. Page says, I don't know. If the CIA had Mr. Steele open as a source, I would not know that. Oh.

Folks, listen, I don't trust Lisa Page as far as I can throw her, and I can't throw anybody very far, nor would I want to. I'm simply suggesting to you that I don't believe she's lying here. I believe she is telling the truth. Do you get what she's saying? She is still under the impression that the FBI opened their massive spying investigation into Donald Trump

because they believe the information they were getting from the intelligence community and the CIA and the EC, the electronic communication, was coming from verified separate sources. Folks, the information was likely coming from Steele, the exact same source they were using, and they don't know it. It's not verified. It's the same thing. She goes on. It gets good here. Lisa Page says, yes, sir, because with all due honesty, if Director Brennan, so we got that information from our source,

right? I'm just reading this directly. The FBI got this information from our source. If the CIA had another source of that information, I am neither aware of that, nor did the CIA provide it to us if they did. Because the first time we, Meadows interrupts, we do know there are multiple sources. Page comes back. I do know that. And then she goes on to what we were talking about before. It's backwards, but it's important we put it that way. You get where I'm going with this.

The Bureau was involved in massive malfeasance for continuing a spy investigation. Continuing an investigation they knew was predicated by the latest January of 2017 when they're interviewing Steele's sources on bogus information, and they kept swearing to it anyway. I'm telling you the malfeasance is rife. We are only discussing the initiation phase now. The disagreement outed in the Washington Post piece we're talking about right now between bar and Horowitz is based only on that.

And I believe Horowitz, if, if I'm not trying to get ahead of this, but I want to discuss this piece because it's in the news and you need to know about it. If Horowitz is conclusion on the report coming out this Monday, if his conclusion, the inspector general is they opened up the investigation properly and on the report coming out this Monday, if his conclusion, the Inspector General,

is they opened up the investigation properly, this is not an out for the deep state. Why, Joe? And please tell me this makes sense. Yeah, go ahead. Because Horowitz doesn't know what the CIA is or is not lying about. And if the FBI produces a file saying, hey, this is the information we got from Brennan,

of course we were going to spy on the Trump team. Brennan told us there was a massive scandal. Then Horowitz may be right. That makes sense. And Barr may be right too. How can they both be right? The FBI investigation was properly open. The FBI investigation wasn't.

They're saying different things. No, they're not. No, they're not. Lindsey Graham kind of hinted at this last night. Everybody take a big, fat, juicy time out. We don't know what's in the report. If Horowitz's report says, yes, it was open based on information they got from the Intel community, and then Durham's report coming out hopefully weeks or maybe a month or so later,

we haven't seen Durham's report yet, says that information they got was based on lies from John Brennan, who didn't tell the FBI he was using the same sources. Folks, this is not a pass for the deep state at all. Everybody chill. We don't know yet joe please tell me that made sense yeah you're good we don't know yet everybody could be right it does not give a the media of course is jumping to paint this as no the fbi did nothing wrong they were investigated based on solid information bar saying you all don't know where the information came from

yet right now takeaway number two from this washington post piece last night they kind of throw this in at the end there's a throwaway now to reset where we are on this though because this is important the post is saying well horowitz, you know, this was properly predicated. What is the FBI's official story about what it was predicated on? I already told you. The official stories, we opened the investigation because an Australian diplomat told us they talked to his Trump campaign member, Papadopoulos, who told him about dirt on Hillary, who Papadopoulos heard from a Russian agent. That's the official leftist story and the FBI story too. How do we know that? Because Comey's the only person who refers to Mifsud, who talked to Papadopoulos initially about the dirt on

Hillary allegedly. Comey's the only one who refers to Mifsud as a Russian agent. No one else, not even Mueller, not Brennan either. Why would Comey say that? Because Comey, I told you, is going to stick to the script that, hey, the intel we were fed from Brennan and the intel community said a Russian agent was talking to Papadopoulos. That's what we were told. You get it? The official version of events relies entirely on Mifsud being a Russian agent. So Devlin Barrett throws this little throwaway in at the end from the Washington Post piece that

came out yesterday. In the months since, Attorney General Barr, through Durham, has pursued information related to one-time associate of Papadopoulos, a European academic named Joseph Mifsud. Mifsud was publicly linked to Russian interference efforts in late 2017 when Mueller revealed Papadopoulos had pled guilty to lying to the FBI about the details of his interactions with Mifsud. Shortly after his name surfaced publicly, Mifsud told Italian media he did not work for Russia. I've never gotten any money from Russia. My conscience is clear, Mifsud told La Repubblica. I am not a secret agent, quote. Since then, the professor has disappeared from public life. What? Listen to how he frames this, Devlin Barrett, leading to a host of theories about him and his whereabouts.

While court papers filed in Mueller's investigation suggested Mifsud operated in Russia's interest, Papadopoulos, conservatives, and conspiracy theorists have suggested he was working for Western intelligence agencies. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm not suggesting that. His own lawyer said it, you knucklehead Barrett. Are you this stupid? Mifsud's lawyer, Stefan Rowe, has already said his associations are with Western intelligence. That's his lawyer. Did you miss that?

This is why these fake news guys, I want you to read this piece. I'm sorry to give these morons at the Washington Post any clicks, but it's important you read it since you understand how journalism is completely dead. The FBI's entire story

for starting this case, which is not true. Hey, we started this based on a tip from Downer. They started based on a tip from Brennan he's lying about. And that's going to come out soon. The tip from Downer only makes sense if Mifsud was a Russian agent. Mifsud was not a Russian agent. mifsud was not a russian agent his own lawyer and the photographic history of mifsud on the internet indicates he's connected to friendly intelligence app or uh operations meaning he

may have been part of a setup meaning what even if the mifsud backup story they're using no we heard from downer about mifsud talking to Papadopoulos. It's not a Brandon thing. That means even their backup story is total crap because Durham is over there investigating Mifsud's real ties. Ladies and gentlemen, take a hard pause on the IG report until dorham's information comes out i'm telling you they can both be right because the ig report is not privy to the corpus the real corpus of intelligence they're using to investigate this thing he doesn't have the information on Mifsud that Durham has.

He doesn't have the information on the intelligence community Durham has. If Horowitz's case is the FBI was duped, therefore they were right because they thought the intelligence was real. But they continued the investigation in shambolic fashion.

He may be right. That doesn't absolve the deep state. That's even worse. Because now the FBI continues and near at some points with the leaks, criminal investigation of the Donald Trump. I mean, on their part, not on Donald Trump's part. And the CIA lied to them to start it. How is that in any way

a vindication of the deep state? In any way? You can't possibly be this stupid. The media people, well, yes, you can. I underestimate your capacity for stupidity often. Folks, this segment is key.

Key. All right, I got a lot more to get to, but you know where I'm going with it. Don't buy into the hype. Everyone just put everything on pause, okay? Everyone could be right here. The CIA could have lied to the FBI. The FBI continued a shambolic investigation, and everybody now clearly knows Mifsud was not a Russian agent, and they're keeping this facade up to make pretend that they had legit info on Papadopoulos from a Russian agent when they didn't. It's all a big farce. All right. Finally, before I get to it, I got a great story in immigration environment. I also had income inequality thing. There's a lot of other news going on, so don't go anywhere. Today's show also brought to you by the most delicious mouthwatering cookies you have ever tasted in your life. Our good friends at Mrs. Fields.

When they initially approached this as a sponsor, I, whenever I go to the mall, just tear up a bag of delicious mouthwatering gooey chocolate chip cookies. Oh, melt in your mouth for Mrs. Fields. I love them. I said, I have one stipulation. I refuse to take Mrs. Fields on as a sponsor unless I can get free Mrs. Fields. And I did. And my kids promptly ate them before I even got a shot at eating. I had one chocolate chip cookie. Well, maybe two. My daughter loves these. Have you ever had trouble finding the perfect gift for someone around this holiday season?

Here's a fun piece of trivia that's been thoroughly fact-checked. No one, nobody, no human being in human history has ever been disappointed to get cookies. When time is short, but you got to give a gift. The answer is the gift of cookies. That's where Mrs. Fields come in. Do not go wrong. Don't blow this. This is the perfect opportunity to pick up gifts

for the friends and family in your life. When Debbie Fields started Mrs. Fields Cookies 40 years ago, she went over cookie lovers everywhere. They're gooey, moist chocolate chip cookies, melt-in-your-mouth brownies, and passion for baked goods. Nowadays, you can have cookies sent right to where you want them without visiting a bakery. With gourmet gift tins, we have one in my, keep them in the refrigerator. I love them cold, these cookies. And baskets filled with fresh baked cookies, you know that your order will arrive fresh and flavorful. Ordering is easy. They'll ship your

cookies anywhere across the country. And if you're ordering as a gift, add a personal custom message company logo, which is super cool, or a family photo. Best of all, Mrs. Fields offers a 100% customer satisfaction guarantee. I promise you, nobody is sending these cookies back ever. They are that good. To sweeten the deal, our listeners will get 20% off your entire order when you go to mrsfields.com

and enter promo code Bongino. 20% off any gift at mrsfields.com and enter promo code bongino 20 off any gift at mrsfields.com promo code bongino that's mrsfields.com promo code bongino and your cookies are on the way mrsfields f-i-e-l-d-s mrsfields.com promo code bongino don't miss these delicious mouth-watering cookies they are so good good. See, now I'm hungry. Are you, Paula? She is hungry. You know, our audience must love to eat because we have a lot of sponsors

that are food-oriented. You notice that? Sponsors love being here. I know, and they love it. They're like, your show crushes it. Your audience is so great. So thank you. I know we usually run three spots.

Tuesday, we run four. There's a lot of demand around the holidays, and I do appreciate your patience. These are great companies that want to be here, and they help keep the show free to you. So I always appreciate your patience. These are really great sponsors. All right, moving on. So yesterday, I had this immigration story I wanted to put out, because it's hilarious in how dopey the media is and why I'm suggesting you should completely ignore them. Really, the media is just off the deep end so homan jenkins had this piece up at

the wall street journal talking about media hypocrisy and immigration that's just fascinating um he has some quotes up here which you would think um were from trump administration folks on how tough they were on immigration but wait till you hear who they're really from the piece is entitled by homan jenkins border dilemmas are the same for trump or obama listen to this so you would swear these were Trump quotes. Check this out from the Holman Jenkins piece. This is so good because again, these media people have completely abandoned you.

They're such liars. Says Holman Jenkins, still the current administration's fans gallingly argue that failing to deport immigration offenders will only encourage more to come. There is nothing more humanitarian and excuse me there's nothing humanitarian and tacitly encouraging tens of thousands of children to risk their lives often at the hands of cutthroat smugglers to enter this country illegally where are these quotes from here's another one here's another from the uh from the homan jenkins

piece here's another one from the homan jenkins piece no there's not one from the homer shankin's piece no there's not one from the homer your key stuck over there we have a keystone ladies and gentlemen what's that no all right no big deal those were from the obama administration those quotes they were not from the trump administration it's a fascinating piece because all of the the obama administration said the same thing about immigration the trump administration did but yet the Trump administration is very harsh on immigrants. Those are Obama administration quotes. They're littered throughout that piece. All right, moving on.

I just want to put that up there. It's a good one. There's another piece in the Wall Street Journal about the environment. You're hearing a lot of this. Of course, we have the 2020 campaign. Everybody's running on the fake new green deal, this ridiculous guaranteed bankruptcy, apocalyptic plan to destroy farting cows and air travel and everything else.

So there's an article in the Wall Street Journal by the editorial board. Pelosi will always have Paris talking about the Paris Accords. So Nancy Pelosi has apparently usurped the power of the presidency. And it's now claiming as a speaker of the house that she's going to negotiate foreign deals like the Paris Accords, despite the fact that she hasn't read the constitution in a long time. But I wanted to put this piece up there and discuss a quick snippet from it because it matters. Ladies and gentlemen, if you listen to leftists and primarily younger liberals who sadly haven't

read a lot about the material, you would think the United States is the world's leader in pollution. We've polluted the entire globe. We're destroying the earth and everyone else is just awesome, especially the socialist planners in China. Well ladies and gentlemen the chinese are actually expanding their emissions load did you know that the piece goes at length describing how the the chinese society thought they would peak at 2030 their emissions and now their emissions are going up they're saying no no we're just going to continue producing these emissions that the left is saying causing. I don't, by the way, I don't buy the argument that CO2 is a pollutant at all,

just so we're clear. But even if you did, China's expanding their CO2 load into the atmosphere. Well, the United States, Joe, which is clearly awful, according to the leftists, we're the worst, right?

We're horrible. We have to be. The leftists said it's true. Get a load of this from the Wall Street Journal. This is fascinating. The U.S. is actually moving away from coal

thanks to inexpensive natural gas from shale and CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels for electricity peaked in 2007. This is in the U.S. per data from the EPA, in case you liberals think we're making this up. By 2017, the latest year in the EPA's data, emissions dropped. This is in the United States, the evil United States going to the left, had dropped 28% and were 5% lower than in 1990.

Overall, U.S. emissions of CO2 fell about 14% in a decade. Yet the leading Democratic presidential contenders want to ban shale drilling for natural gas. Folks, oh my gosh. Liberal argument. The United States is the worst. We're the world's worst pollut polluters this is an apocalyptic place shut it all down actually ladies and gentlemen it's china right now that is expanding its emissions load into the atmosphere while the united states

is five percent lower in emissions than he were even in 1990 capitalism and free markets work. Socialism and central planning creates pollution. Don't let your liberal narratives and your liberal professors, don't let that get in the way of their stupid stories to you in class. You understand that? The United States is a global leader

in reducing the emissions you think are pollution. CO2, It's not, by the way. Even if I stipulate your point, you're wrong. While China, your socialist paradise, is the world's leader in pollution. Socialism, pollution. Capitalism, not pollution. Socialism, pollution. Capitalism, anti-pollution. That's only if you do data and stuff from the epa which i know liberals don't i know you'll ignore it yeah some more debunking in a debunk-a-thon because you're going to hear more of this in the 2020 election we hit immigration we hit the environment you know i know spy gate was heavy this week and i like to diversify the show but there's just with this

thing breaking on monday there's just so much happening right now. James Freeman has a piece in the journal today. Journal was loaded with some good stuff today. They can be, you know, squishes on immigration stuff, but they have good pieces once in a while, especially Freeman. Wall Street Journal opinion, Nevermind the Bullock by James Freeman. It's an article about Steve Bullock who dropped out of the race, but towards the bottom, he cites a fascinating study by the National Bureau of Economic Research. So we've been told, again, Trump is uniquely awful on immigration. We just debunked that. The Obama administration was saying the same thing.

We've been told the United States is uniquely awful on the environment, despite being the world leader in the reduction of global emissions. We've also told that income inequality is uniquely awful in this free market capitalist society we are taking advantage of the poor here it's so terrible really because that's not what this nber study says quoting freeman's piece now a new paper from the nber suggested some inequality simply results joe get a load of this one don't read ahead from well-educated white collar workers putting in longer hours wow shocker here's a stunner here's their findings people work more and they work more money this is like a liberal this is they are so dumb quote the paper provides theory and evidence that worker

effort has played an important role in the increase in income inequality in the u.s between 1980 and 2016 income rose only for those with advanced degrees and with weekly hours in excess of 40 we attribute this to the natural talent needed to make a computer deliver exceptional value and to the relative ease which with long by which long hours can be chosen when working over the internet. Let me translate for you what that said. Income inequality. In other words, wealthy upper middle class and middle class folks are making more money because they're taking their computers home and working longer hours. There it is.

Income inequality. That's awful. Forget it. That's your shocking finding. Again, don't let that, the left will spin this into some ridiculous, but income inequality is getting worse. Yeah, because people are working more. That's it. It's no more difficult than that. The internet has enabled people, and sadly in many cases, because we never get a break, I might add, including Paul and Joe sometimes.

Last night we were up with the Killmeat interview. We put that out there. We wanted to make it available for you. This was not possible 30 years ago. I'd have to call Joe on the phone. Joe, do this. Do what? He'd have to call back.

Now I can send them a file over the internet. Bang, bang, bang. Joe's done. Joe would have had to be here. We don't have, we can work remotely now because people are taking their work home. Again, I'm not saying that or suggesting by any means that that is some kind of an overall positive

because there are downsides to that too. People never get a break. I work all weekend. It's not a sob story, folks. I love my job. Please. I'm not whining. I love my job.

But I'm not going to lie to you. I work all weekend. I get Saturday night after Judge Jeanine off until basically the afternoon on Sunday, and that's it. And it's back to work for Monday morning. Yeah, everybody's got you all the time, but electronically, all the time. All the time. Yeah.

So their argument is income inequality is uniquely bad when the research shows it's not uniquely bad. People are just working harder and making more money. Yeah. All right, on a lighter note today, because it was a stacked show, I want to leave... Joe's seen this already, so has Paula.

Paula didn't know why I was putting... This is from Elizabeth Warren. This is an actual campaign piece by Elizabeth Warren. She's like, why are you, I don't get what you're doing. I want you to just check this video out. Elizabeth Warren, who is so socially awkward. It is really like uncomfortable to watch sometimes. But I want to play this ad with Elizabeth Warren,

who can never, ever tell the truth. And she has this quick thing. And I guess she's trying to sound like more of a, hey, my name is Betsy. Look at me. I'm one of you people. When she just isn't, she's an elitist snob and she knows it. She's trying to be one of us. Check out this quick video of Elizabeth Warren talking to this woman in a crowd at a campaign

event. Hi. Hi, how are you? I'm good. How about you? You even look better in person. Whoa. I'm hanging on to you.

Okay. This is good. Tell me your name. Thanks. Tell me your name. Very good job, thanks. Tell me your name. My question for you is about Medicare. Tell me your name. Betsy.

Hi, Betsy. Are you an Elizabeth? I am Elizabeth. Oh, okay. So we got this. We're kindred sisters. That's right. I was seven years old before I found out my name was not Betsy.

They just always called me Betsy. And my family still does to this day. But when I hit high school, I became Elizabeth. Part of growing up. Okay. She was seven years old before she figured out her name wasn't Elizabeth.

That's funny because I was 44 years old when I found out she wasn't an Indian. But really, this is crazy. Do you believe this? You actually believe this story? Ladies and gentlemen, listen. For as disconnected from reality as Joe Biden's become,

these stories, although crazy, are probably true. I was in the pool and I had a blonde hair on my legs and I throw the kid in the lap and I know what a roach is because that was his thing. I don't know what any of that means.

It's Joe Biden. And they rub my leg in the pool and they throw the kid on my leg and they rub the hair and the hair goes up because it was blonde. This stuff probably happened. He's not lying.

He's just disconnected from it. Elizabeth Warren just makes up everything. You didn't know your name was Elizabeth. Like you didn't, you're seven. My daughter's seven.

My nickname, our nickname for a daughter, it was, she likes to be called Leah. My nickname for the daughter has always been Mimi. Her name is Amelia. She knew it

when she was like four. Elizabeth Warren has a PhD. You're telling me she was seven before she figured out putting her name on a paper that her name wasn't Betsy? Oh my gosh. Can you ever tell the truth about anything? Holy Moses. Sheesh. Just once. Start telling Joe Biden stories. I was in the pool and the kid jumped on the lap and goes under with the blonde hair and the leg. It started feeling the calf muscle and the soleus in the leg. And that's when I learned what a roach was like. What was the roach reference even about in that thing?

What the hell was that? Listen to that Joe Biden thing. It's just as crazy. We discussed it the other day. Just start telling those. They're more credible than you were seven before you figured out what your actual name was. Oh, man. I'm sorry.

Hey, mom. I can't. No. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We needed that. Yeah. God, man.

All right, folks. Thanks for tuning in. Again, please check out my interview with the fantastic Brian Kilmeade. I promise you're going to really like it. This week, coming up, we got our next interview with Greg Jarrett. I'll tell you when we're going to launch that.

We got Candace Owens coming up, too, as well, in the coming weeks. So the interview show, I really appreciate you when we're going to launch that. We got Candace Owens coming up too as well in the coming weeks. So the interview show, I really appreciate your support. Please subscribe. I ask you with humility and respect to our YouTube channel, youtube.com slash Bongino. We'd like to get to 400,000 subscribers. It means a lot.

Thank you very much for doing that. Please subscribe to our audio show on Apple Podcasts and Google Podcasts, wherever you get your podcasts. It is always free for you. Thanks to our generous sponsors. I will see you all tomorrow.