The Dan Bongino Show - When Will This Farce End? (Ep 1171)

Episode Date: January 31, 2020

In this episode, I address the dramatic late night developments in the sham impeachment trial. I also address the latest troubling comments by lying Jim Comey. Finally, I discuss this little reported fact about Joe Biden that may explain the Ukraine scandal. News Picks:GOP Senator Susan Collins folds under pressure on the question of witnesses.    Hilarious! The Democrats claimed yesterday that foreign interference in our elections is okay as long as the Democrats pay for it.    Adam Schiff shamefully ducks a question about his efforts to coordinate the impeachment smear.    The fired Ukrainian prosecutor says Joe Biden abused his power in complaint. Democrats ignore.    Joe Biden’s daughter seems to be doing really well too. Check out where some of her money comes from.   Revealed! Here’s Rand Paul’s question which was blocked by Chief Justice Roberts.    Our national debt is a growing, and unavoidable, menace.   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 big impeachment update ladies and gentlemen it looks like the democrats effort to prolong this trial uh requesting new witnesses to a crime air quotes that never happened is going to fall face plant right on the floor. We'll see. You never know with mittens and others up there. I saw a funny tweet from Andrew Wilkow today. Someone asked on Twitter, who is your least favorite Democrat in Congress?

Andrew Wilkow responded, Mitt Romney. Good job, Andrew. Very funny. I retweeted that. Welcome to the Dan Bongino Show. Producer Joe, how are you today? Fine, sir. Well retweeted that. Welcome to the Dan Bongino Show. Producer Joe, how are you today? Fine, sir? Well, it's Friday.

It is. It usually is on Fridays. Joe's trademark intro to the Friday show, of course, which we always love. I've got a lot for you today. I've got what's going on with the impeachment trial. I've got killer video, Jerry Nadler and Adam Schiff. I don't even want to. It's so

funny. Yeah, I know. It's funny. I want to put that on there. I'm going to end the show today with a thing about Joe Biden that I think is going to open your eyes to a possible motive to what really went on in 2014 with his son and Burisma. It's very

simple. Follow the money. Yes, hat tip 279er again on that one. Great pickup. All right, today's show brought to you by Buddy's at ExpressVPN. Listen, we all know what VPN protects your privacy and security online, right? But I didn't know this until recently. It's taken my TV watching game to the next level. You can use

a VPN to unlock movies and shows only available in other countries. Over the weekend, we used ExpressVPN to watch on UK Netflix shows we really liked. They were only available over there, but it was really simple. You fire up the ExpressVPN app, change your location to the UK, refresh Netflix, and there it is. Voila. Beautiful. See, ExpressVPN hides your IP address and lets you control where you want sites to think you're located. So you can choose from

almost a hundred different countries. So just think about all the Netflix libraries you can go through. Also, you'll keep your browsing history to you. That's your information. You don't need that all around the world. You love anime? Use ExpressVPN to access Japanese Netflix and be spirited away. But it's not just Netflix. ExpressVPN works with any streaming service. Hulu, BBC iPlayer, YouTube, you name it. There are hundreds of VPNs out there. But the reason I use ExpressVPN to watch shows is it's ridiculously fast. Super fast. They don't have any buffering or lag.

You can stream in HD no problem at all. We love ExpressVPN here. It's also compatible with all your devices, phones, media consoles, smart TVs, and more. You can watch what you want

on the go, on the big screen wherever you are. We don't do anything without ExpressVPN on this house. I don't need everybody knowing where we've been

on the internet. Don't need you to know that. If you visit my special link right now, expressvpn. this house i don't need everybody knowing where we've been on the internet don't need you to know that if you visit my special link right now expressvpn.com slash bongino you can get an extra three months of expressvpn for free support the show watch what you want protect yourself at expressvpn.com slash bongino b-o-n-g-i-n-o expressvpn.com slash bongino all right let's go. Here we go. Ding, ding. By the way, Paula thinks I'm grumpy today. I am not.

I've had a bout with wicked allergies. She swears I'm infected with like some deadly virus. I am not. I have allergies. I know it. She's telling me I'm sick, which would, again, as I said yesterday, make no sense because she would be sick too. Now she's saying she's not sick it's allergies i'm telling you it's allergies this has been an argument for a couple days people are emailing i

love it this is why i put her email dan you're sick dan you're not sick some lady sent me the greatest allergy tips ever she said put this stuff in your ears do this and that very nice thank you for all the pointers we appreciate it all right impeachment update ladies and gentlemen we've been so focused on everything going on and tying the connections between the swamp players and their motives for doing what they're doing. The shows recently have exploded that I haven't been able to get to much of the impeachment hoax outside of the big questions, what the Democrats are really hiding in Ukraine via the impeachment hoax. But last night there was a development. PJ Media has a story on it. So here's the story.

The Democrats want to call new witnesses. Now, let me give you a little background on this so you understand what's going on. This would be unprecedented. Despite what the Democrats have told you, we're having a trial without witnesses, all these liars. Ladies and gentlemen, there have been 18 witnesses in the impeachment portion of the trial, the impeachment portion of the proceeding so far in the House. There have not been no witnesses. That's just a lie.

Democrats lie all the time because that's what Democrats do. They are liars. They lie about lying. They're shameless, effortless liars. And it's effortless because lying is what they do. So it creates no effort. They probably pass a polygraph because they think their lies are the truth because they lie so much. There have been 18 witnesses.

Now, Adam Schiff has told you there are 17 witnesses because he's hiding the testimony of the 18th witness, the inspector general of the intelligence community, who allegedly his testimony, remember he's the 18th witness in the house impeachment proceedings that were held secretly. His testimony is about, he's the 18th witness in the House impeachment proceedings that were held secretly. His testimony is about how Adam Schiff coordinated with the whistleblower to fabricate these impeachment charges.

So Adam Schiff keeps telling everybody there's only 17 witnesses. There are 18. He's just hiding the portion where he gets where he gets nailed in this thing for his coordinated efforts. And I'll get to that in a few minutes, too. There have been witnesses. Now, for those of you saying on the Democrat side, I'm giving you all the ammo you need. The Democrats are going to say a trial without witnesses.

False. There have been 18 witnesses. Second, they're going to say, well, in the Clinton proceeding, there were witnesses in the Clinton impeachment trial. That is, there were witnesses in the clinton impeachment trial that is there were witnesses in the senate trial that is accurate here's the problem they were not new witnesses ladies and gentlemen i need you to understand this i cannot have you go into the weekend being misled by faulty lying democrat talking points. The Clinton standard was not to introduce witnesses

into the Senate impeachment trial that had never been spoken to before. No one has spoken to John Bolton before. No one has spoken to Mick Mulvaney, the president's acting chief of staff at the time. Nobody has spoken. These are new witnesses. Folks, I need your, everybody, I know you're really smart,

but I'm sorry to have to lay this out like I am. And, you know, this is where I have Joe as the audience referee. But you have to understand, we're speaking to the lowest common denominator here. And the lowest common denominator here are liberals listening who are brain dead. Well, that's different then. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. That was very funny. It's true.

It is different. There has never been an impeachment trial in the Senate where witnesses who have never been spoken to before are randomly introduced to the trial without having been interviewed by either the House or in the case of the Clinton impeachment,

the independent prosecutor ken stars team who was looking at that has never been that's never happened before do you understand the distinction the democrats are trying to confuse you here by saying oh well the clinton standard we had new witnesses we introduced you know monica lewinsky gave testimony in the senate trial fair accurate but she was not a new witness they were only talking to her joe in the Senate trial? Fair, accurate. But she was not a new witness. They were only talking to her, Joe, in the Senate trial to clear up some miscommunication

that she'd already given in testimony on the House side. That's not what they're looking for here. Okay, yeah. They said they had an open and shut case against the president when they impeached them. Their words, not mine. We have made the case. It's open and shut. And the president when they impeached them. Their words, not mine. We have made the case.

It's open and shut. And now they want to, what they want, Joe, is a never ending ongoing Senate trial where they can constantly produce new Julie Swetnick like Kavanaugh charges. We saw Brett Kavanaugh at the punch bowl. They want this to go on in perpetuity, hoping somebody comes forward at some point and lies about the president. And so they can then vote once they get this new Julie Swetnick type information. Remember the Kavanaugh thing? All of these new witnesses that came out.

Geez, Louise. The punch ball lady and others. And then we had Swetnick and all these other people leveling these charts. The lady, oh, he attacked me in the back of a car. False. That's what they want. Do you get what they're doing? They don't want witnesses.

They want an ongoing Senate fiasco. So every Tuesday night at three or four o'clock Tuesday afternoon, excuse me, so they can hit the evening news cycle. They'll launch another fake charge. No, no. I heard President Trump told a guy who told a guy who told a woman who heard a dude overhear a dude who said that the president made a quid pro quo. No facts in this case have changed at all. The aid was delivered on time before the September 30th deadline to the Ukrainians. aid was delivered on time before the September 30th deadline to the Ukrainians. The Ukrainians are not victims. Just ask them. They have not, no one in Ukraine is claiming they were pressured and the Democrat corruption in Ukraine is real. None of that changes. No witness will ever change

that. That's why they want this vote. So as you see in the PJ media piece, you can always count on Susan um to abandon you or create unnecessary drama they may say well she did the right thing in the kavanaugh thing you know what it was after like days and days of i mean come on she knows this is a sham so susan collins has said well i'll vote for witnesses well ladies and gentlemen let's do some simple math the senate currently has 53 republicans and 47 Democrats are people who caucus with Democrats. In order to get witnesses, they need 51, a majority. It's very simple.

So if Collins folds and Romney folds, and Romney's just, I have no faith in Romney at all. And then Murkowski, I mean, there are three Democrats are not really even Republicans. If they fold, the vote would be 53 minus three Collins, Romney, and Murkowski. It'd be 50, 50. Now, some of you may say, well, the vice president then votes, right? No, the vice president does not vote, not in an impeachment trial. So Dan, what happens well again the reader's digest version is a 50 50 vote in the senate in an impeachment trial the tie is not broken by the vice president it goes it goes down yeah meaning even if they lose collins murkowski and romney who vote for witnesses they don't again it's all a sham i get that but evenney who vote for witnesses, they don't, again, it's all a sham. I get that.

But even if they vote for new witnesses, unprecedented in any impeachment trial in American history, new witnesses, never spoken to before after an impeachment, he's already been impeached. If they vote for him, it goes down. Now, again, because we do facts, which you will not get from the media. John Roberts is the presider, the chief justice of the United States in the impeachment trial. There is a precedent for a chief justice of the United States in an impeachment trial to cast a deciding vote. Chief Justice Chase in the Andrew Johnson impeachment actually two times broke a tie. Having said that, there is no constitutional precedent

for that. There may be precedent that it happened, but because it wasn't challenged doesn't mean it was right. The Constitution is crystal clear, Joe. The Senate has the sole power to try impeachments. Yes.

It mentions nothing at any point anywhere in the Constitution about the chief justice of the United States casting a deciding vote in such a critical question. Nothing. I'm not in the predictions game anymore. And I don't trust John Roberts as far as I could throw him. But I would have a really hard time believing John Roberts is going to cast a critical vote, knowing the Constitution has no specific carve out for him to do that. None. Now, so the big question is, what will Roberts do?

Again, I don't know again i don't know i don't know i i'm guessing with only 50.001 probability because i don't trust roberts that roberts will stay out of it and say listen it's a tie. It fails. Either get 51 people or I'm out. Could be wrong. We'll know, of course, by tomorrow. Second, I want you to be prepared. And I've got a bunch of video to show you. Video and audio, that's just hilarious. I'm going to break the ice a little bit. But this is important too. I want to prepare you for the next Democrat. I'm always good at preparing you for these Democrat narratives.

Oh, I always call it because it's just so easy. It it's just so easy i told you about the turkey narrative that's coming not talking about thanksgiving turkey i'm talking about the country of turkey that's going to be the next narrative that president trump colluded with the turks and there's a quid pro quo that's already already seeing it yeah some of you already picked up on it's already seeping into the twitter sphere and social media already that's going to be their next impeachment. Mark the date. Or at least their next charge. But their narrative on impeachment, if, and it looks like it's going to go down. Because remember, even if Mittens, Murkowski, the rhino, and Collins, the rhino, if they all vote for witnesses and it's 50-50, the strong likelihood is Roberts will stay out.

The motion will fail. And they'll wrap this thing up late tonight with an acquittal, which will be great, by the way. How great is that going to be? President Trump walking into the State of the Union. He should walk in like this. Yes, yes, yes. He should walk in. Paula, what do you think of this? He should walk in with like a big sign that says hashtag acquitted and exonerated again that like this he should walk you know he should walk in like triple h when he walks you know or lebron you know lebron when lebron comes out before the game when he puts the chalk on his hands he goes that's what he should do listen i know people listen to this show at the white house staff strongly consider this put a little table with chalk right in front of the chamber when the president's getting ready to

give the state of the union once he's acquitted and exonerated i want him to rub his hands on just like lebron awesome come on paula is that not a great idea? Of course, I'm kidding. But it would be funny, wouldn't it? Acquitted and exonerated again. Now, I didn't forget where I was. What's the Democrat narrative going to be? Because they always got a BS story to tell you. I'm already seeing it.

Kamala Harris and these other phonies, Senator, Democrat from California. If we don't get witnesses, Joe, this is an illegitimate trial yeah yeah now hat tip to buck sexton who tweeted this out this morning joe don't you find it funny every time the democrats lose something every single time it's illegitimate remember the kavanaugh kavanaugh got appointed to the supreme court it's illegitimate we don't know we don't know Kavanaugh's history about yeah okay sure remember they lost the election in 2016 totally illegitimate the Russians did it everything is illegitimate when the Democrats lose everything

because that's their narrative so you can count on throughout 2016 hearing throughout the election about how it's totally illegitimate. He's not a legitimate president. And why are they saying that? Think this one through, gavel time. Think this one through, folks. Why are they saying that? Because, and I'm not, please, I don't wish ill on anyone. I mean that from the bottom of my heart.

If another Supreme Court seat was to open up, whether due to retirement or something else, you can be guaranteed they're going to go back to this and say, nope, he's not allowed to appoint anyone, nominate, excuse me, anyone because he's illegitimate. It wasn't a legitimate trial. He should have been removed from office and it was illegitimate because there were no witnesses. Guaranteed. Narrative number two. Number one, he's illegitimate.

Number two, because he's illegitimate, no Supreme Court for you. No soup for you. A hundred percent. Okay, I've got some great video. This is our comic relief for the day. I'm going to have to describe some of it for you. But for those of you listening on audio, you can almost hear it in the background.

So I want you to pay close attention here. It's a short video. This is great. So last night, the end of the night, John Roberts, again, presiding over chief justice of the United States, he asked the last question and he basically says, does anybody have any final words for the end of the night? Now, the most dangerous place in America right now is between Chuck Schumer, Adam Schiff, or Jerry Nadler and a camera. Very dangerous. Even those guys could potentially hurt you like black belt level jujitsu if you get between. They'll triangle choke your caboose right out of there. They'll develop skills just to get you out of the way.

Thanos-like claps to get you out of the way. Thanos-like claps to get you gone, to get to that camera. They are all desperate, desperate for camera time because that's all they care about because they're big, phony frauds. So I want you to watch and listen to this. This is the last question. And John Roberts says, hey, does anybody have on the House manager side, the Democrats basically, do any of you have any last words? So listen closely after Roberts is done. You're going to hear a,

Jerry, Jerry, Jerry, Jerry. It's Adam Schiff desperately trying to stop Jerry Nadler, who amazingly, trying to be somewhat nice here, amazingly pounces out of the seat with cat-like reflexes. I'm not kidding. Don't, don't, don't. Hold it. We're not getting kicked off the air, Joe.

Hold it. I know what you, I see you, I hear it. Well, so do others, I'm sure. I know what you're thinking, man. Well, I could read your mind. Watch Nadler, cat-like reflexes, pounce out of seat to beat Schiff to think and Schiff tries to stop him.

This is hysterical. Check this out. Could you please respond to the answer just given by the president's counsel and provide any other comments the Senate would benefit from hearing before we adjourn for the evening? Mr. Chief Justice, members of the Senate, we've just heard from the House and from the President's Council, is the usual nonsense. There are only three as we draw to a close tonight. Oh, dude.

I had to, like, use my shirt to wipe my eyes. I know. Do you see the cat-like reflexes? Jerry Nadler. Cat-like. Pound. Up, like, listen. I'm okay.

I'm old, but I'm in okay shape. I cannot move as quick as Jerry. He was like this. I mean, he bounced like a cat. If I had those skills in jujitsu, I'd never lose a grappling match again. I only wish when a guy exposed his arm, I could arm bar him as quick as Jerry Nadler got up and pounced to that microphone. And folks, did you hear it?

For the audio list, did you hear it in the beds? Very faint. Did you hear him? You can see it, did you hear it in the bed? It's very faint. Yes. Did you hear him? You can see it on the YouTube, youtube.com slash Bungie. If you want to see it, it's even funnier. But you can hear it in the bed. Jerry, Jerry, Jerry, microphone, Jerry.

I am stunned that Adam Schiff did not shoot a double leg takedown, grab the back of Nadler's knees, take him down to the mat, engage in a full mount and do like a UFC style takedown to get him away from I'm stunned I'm stunned Jerry

Jerry this is my turn I want to be the last one what a bunch of losers so pathetic on a very serious note do you ever go to bed at night after watching this

I know Paul and I at night sometimes we have to turn this stuff off. We just do because it's so infuriating. Do you ever go to sleep at night and say to yourself, in a nation of 330 million wonderful, spectacular people, the most successful nation unquestionably in the history of humankind. We have created things and made things and created an economic engine never seen in the history of sentient human beings. Us. This country.

We've conquered fascism, socialism, tyranny. We've liberated entire countries and then gave those countries back. In the greatest country in the history of mankind, the most powerful, productive workforce, we feed the whole world. We conquered famines, poverty, capitalism. We've used as an engine to feed the globe

that were led by this hapless class of buffoons. I'm not kidding. Have you ever asked yourself that? I go to sleep disappointed every night. In them, not in us. This country will succeed despite the Jerry Nadlers and Adam Schiff's of the world. despite the Jerry Nadlers and Adam Schiff's of the world.

But it really is sad that people in these congressional districts elect possibly one of the bottom one percenters in intellect, capability, and integrity to lead them. It's unbelievable. I don't know how these people continue to deceive people. All right, impeachment update continues. So that was kind of a little comic relief for you just to kind of get away from that serious stuff with the roberts vote and collins but now let's get back to some this is a comic relief but it's serious because this is hilarious in its ineptitude

so hakeem jeffries another total lightweight, who is one of the House managers, gets up yesterday and he's, I'm not going to play the question. I'll play his answer. He's asked the question, hey, if you guys are so concerned about foreign interference in elections, the Democrats, like you say you are, President wants foreign interference, President Trump from the Ukrainians. There you are. President wants foreign interference.

President Trump from the Ukrainians. Were you as concerned about the foreign intelligence official, Christopher Steele, who produced a fake dossier used to spy on President Trump? We're just asking. You care about foreign interference, right? A foreigner, Christopher Stee steel from the united kingdom allegedly spoke to russians foreigners to use a to create a fake document to spy on president then candidate donald trump are you concerned but listen ladies and gentlemen this is a real answer he gives i watched this live

yesterday if you follow my twitter account you'll see a simultaneous, I'm at D. Bongino, a simultaneous tweet the minute he said it. I had to put the TV on pause to tweet. I cannot believe his answer. This is real. This is not a joke. This is unbelievable. The analogy is not applicable to the present situation because first, the extent uh that opposition research was obtained

it was opposition research that was purchased did you hear it so according to the democrats now just so we're all clear foreign interference in elections is a-okay it It's not a joke. As long as the Democrats pay for it. Folks, that is not doctored. Those are his words, Hakeem Jeffries, managing this case for the House. His words, those aren't my words. Those are his words. Foreign interference in elections is a-okay as long as the Democrats pay for it. I'm not kidding, ladies and gentlemen. How do you wake up in the morning as a Democrat anymore? How? How do you do it? How do you get up in the morning with a straight face? Again, I'm not telling you or insisting to you that the Republicans are the answers to all of your problems. I can't say this enough. They are not. I'm hoping to get to this debt story. We're in a catastrophic debt situation. Republicans are doing nothing about it. Zero.

They're laughing off the cliff too. I am not suggesting they have the answers to all your problems. I am suggesting to you though, with certainty that the cause of most of your problems are Democrats. How do you reconcile this? You're impeaching the president for allegedly pressuring the Ukrainians to give them information on Biden when no Ukrainian will say that actually happened. None. Oh, but they're just hiding it for the, they, that's your excuse. They're hiding it. So a crime happened. Nobody knows about even the Ukrainians, but you're guessing it happened because you think the Ukrainians said it happened and are hiding it. That's your excuse. Yet we know with absolute certainty that we have financial records. We have sworn testimony that the Democrats

paid a foreign intelligence officer to go get information from Russians used to spy on Trump. And none of that bothers you at all. How do you look yourself in the face? You total phonies. The answer is you can't. You hang your head in shame because shame and shameful is what you are. Chew on that. Chew on that. You have no principles. You're just making this whole thing up Hakeem Jeffries oh this is a-okay it's all good everything's good don't you worry about it everything's good as long as the Democrats pay foreigners to interfere in the election all right moving on here's adam schiff this is classic so a couple of centers i think it was ron johnson republican senator from wisconsin i'm reasonably sure i watched this live too from the i watched this from the bathroom tv

sitting there shaving getting ready i'm a shave after the show and watch adam schiff melt down in this this is great schiff is asked by the republicans hey you've got this guy sean misko who used to work on the national security council where the alleged whistleblower works this is a fake whistleblower he didn't blow the whistle on anything right so the whistleblower works. This is a fake whistleblower. He didn't blow the whistle on anything, right? So the whistleblower worked on the National Security Council with this guy Misko. The National Security Council is under the executive branch of the presidency, supposed to be working for the president to provide what?

National security information. And yet, conveniently, this guy Sean Misko, who knows the fake whistleblower, leaves in August to go work for you, Adam Schiff, the same month the fake whistleblower makes his complaint that led to the impeachment. Did Adam Schiff coordinate all this? I don't know. Fair question, right? Guy leaves, goes to work for you whistleblower complaint you're all over it screaming about impeachment all of a sudden the guy leaves the republican white house

to go work for you he's friends with the fake whistleblower crazy adam schiff was asked about this watch him give the standard democrat colossal bs armageddon-like BS answer they give all the time. You're going to create a dangerous situation for the whistleblower. This guy's a total fraud. He doxed Devin Nunes and put his phone records out there. Adam Schiff, he's been calling the president a traitor to the country and a Russian stooge. You know how many threats go to the president because Adam Schiff is a lying sleazeball. He doesn't give a damn about the safety of the whistleblower or he wouldn't have worked with the whistleblower's buddies to fabricate this fake whistleblower complaint. Become a whistleblower on a fake charge. We'll make a hero out of you.

So here's Adam Schiff's answer when he's confronted on this. This is great. I'm appalled at some of the smearing of the professional people that work for the Intelligence Committee. Now, this question refers to allegations in a newspaper article which are circulating smears on my staff and asked me to respond to those smears. And I will not dignify those smears on my staff by giving them any credence whatsoever, nor will I share any information that I believe could or could not lead to the identification of the whistleblower. Do you understand what a human sleazeball this guy is?

Adam Schiff was the one calling for the whistleblower to come out publicly and state his case. Adam Schiff. And then when he realized, some of you may have forgotten this timeline, when it was exposed in the press, as we see in this Washington Examiner report by Kerry Pickett, when it was exposed in the press that Adam Schiff had coordinated with the whistleblower, in the press that Adam Schiff had coordinated with the whistleblower, Adam Schiff's staff, to lodge a fake complaint and that people on the National Security Council had left to go work for Adam Schiff, who knew the whistleblower. All of a sudden, Adam Schiff now doesn't want anybody to know who the whistleblower is. Here's the report by Kerry Pickett. It's up in the show notes today, bongino.com slash newsletter, if you want the show notes emailed to you.

Adam Schiff has two aides who worked with the whistleblower at the White House. From inside the piece, why is this not a fair question, folks? The whistleblower lodged a fake complaint about a quid pro quo that never happened. Why is the fact that Abigail Grace,

who worked with the whistleblower at the National Security Council, was hired in February? While Sean Misko, another National Security Council aide until 2017, joined Schiff's committee staff in August, the same month the whistleblower submitted his complaint. it not important that the whistleblower was an NSC official who, oh, worked with former Vice President Joe Biden and who has expertise in Ukraine, as the Washington Examiner has reported. None of that's relevant? Now, Trey Gowdy was on with, I believe, Martha McCallum last night, and as a former prosecutor, made a great point.

So you're suggesting in our system of justice, your right to confront your accuser has all of a sudden gone out the window? Gowdy's point was an excellent one. That, Joe, even victims of the most heinous crimes, because justice sometimes is painful, and it's not easy. It's not.

Even victims of some of the most heinous crimes assaults attempted murders if you're accused of that attempted murder or assault even in our system here even even if you're guilty or not guilty you have the right to confront your accuser right because you're Because as it's been stated many times, we do not want the innocent to go to prison. We would rather have a couple of guilty people go free than hundreds of innocent people in prison. You have that right. It's painful. It's not easy. It's not easy for a victim of a crime knowing that person did it

to have to walk into court and confront them. But in a fair system of justice, it's not the easy answer. It is only the least worst option because it's the only way to keep innocent people falsely accused out of prison. So you're suggesting to me, sleazy Adam Schiff, you hired people on the National Security Council who work with this whistleblower. You lied about contacting the whistleblower. It's clear as day now that you had some coordination with the whistleblower to file a complaint

and that the complaint had no merit at all. And we're not allowed to look into that at all. We're not allowed to know who the whistleblower is. Why again? Because you said so? Abusing your power again? Guys, a total disgrace. A total disgrace to the Congress.

Listen, there are bad Democrats, awful Democrats. And then there's,'s seriously apocalyptic level disgraces to humankind. Nadler and Schiff are easily in that category. I don't even put Jakeem Jeffries in that category yet because this guy's a lightweight. Like, I don't even think he knew what he said yesterday. Yeah, foreign interference is great as long as we pay for it. He didn't even look like he knew he said anything wrong.

This guy's just a sleazy two-bit liar. Adam Schiff. Folks, he coordinated this whole thing. It's so obvious to anyone with their eyeballs open. And no, I'm not sick.

A lot of fighting going on here today she's giving me like the Dracula stuff she got garlic around her neck there's not it's not happy there in the background there was a major screw up there I'm sorry we had to like edit some stuff that's why major major league all right moving on see how this one goes so jim comey just will not give up folks he gives this interview this guy speaking this is like i had the impeachment update this is like the sleazeball update adam shiff and now jim comey comey who paints himself as this bastion of truth and integrity i'm not even kidding folks he shows all the evidence of a almost a sociopathic level liar it doesn't matter what facts now jim comey's not like i expect that from adam schiff he's a politician who i expect nothing from and you'll typically get nothing so you're not disappointed

but jim comey was the director of the FBI. He was, at one point, was he the deputy attorney general? I mean, he definitely had a high-ranking position in the Justice Department. This is a guy you expect of the utmost integrity, honesty, and impartiality, who is a chronic, unrepentant, I mean, absolutely, almost to the point of insanity, a committed liar. I don't even have enough ways to describe the insanity of what Comey's doing. The IG report is out.

We know the Steele dossier was the overwhelming majority of the Pfizer report. We know it's been completely discredited and debunked. We know Steele's sources said it was garbage and Comey just cannot give up. He still insists on going out there and defending his legacy, which is clearly to to any sane person now, a stain on the FBI in the United States. Instead of slinking away in horror at supervising the single most scandalous investigation in the history of the FBI, instead of doing that, Comey insists on still defending himself. So I'm going to break this up into two parts. Here's about a 30-second clip of Comey insisting again that Christopher Steele's information

was not the source of the opening of the investigation, despite mounds of evidence indicating this is an absolute lie, which we'll get to in a second. I'll show you actual testimony refuting this nonsense. Check out Comey. The so-called Steele dossier came to us at headquarters in the middle of September. So almost two months after we began the investigation, and it was information from a reliable source that we didn't know what to make of. And so treated it carefully and set out to try and validate it on our own. As you said, some of it, I believe, was disproven. Some of it was unvalidated. Some of it was consistent in its most important allegations with other intelligence we had. But the simple answer is it had nothing to

do with the opening of the investigation. I don't even know where to start with this guy. I know what you're thinking, because's frustrating because you're like, this guy can't be this stupid. He's clearly a smart, if not conniving, kind of snaky guy, but he's not dumb. He can't be this stupid to think that, I think he thinks if he keeps lying, eventually people will believe him. So first, we got our information,

he says, from a reliable source steel was not reliable steel was not reliable people warned the fbi the united states government from the united kingdom and steals information was not reliable that's a on the record fact secondly we vetted the information carefully jim the woods file which is the spreadsheet which shows steals allegations and what you did to vet them is we've already seen it it shows you did not vet them and the ones you did vet, you found out were not true. What part of this are you missing? We have the paperwork. We have the documentation. Allegation one, not true. Allegation two, not true. Allegation three, can't verify. We've seen the Woods file. I've only been talking about the Woods file now for two years. We've seen it.

The FBI did nothing to verify that it wasn't verified. And what they could verify, they verified Joe as false. Right, right. Oh my gosh. Now on the bigger charge here, which I opened up with that, oh, the Steele dossier had nothing to do with us opening the case. Folks, this is garbage.

It is not true. Can we go over a quick timeline here, please? The Crossfire Hurricane case against Donald Trump, the spying operation against the campaign team, was opened on July 31st of 2016. Do you realize how immune to facts you have to be after what I'm about to show you here to believe this had nothing to do, Steele, with opening up the case on July 31st? I'm going to show you some testimony here from Bruce Ohr, sworn testimony. And I want you to pay special attention to his answers and the dates. And you tell me with a straight face

that Steele's information had nothing to do with the FBI opening up, with a straight face. I'm not talking about liberals again, because you can't make a straight face. You'll make it a weird face because you know you're lying. You're trying to hold it in.

Here's the testimony of Bruce Ohr. Again, pay special attention here to the dates. So Jim Jordan asks, talking about Steele, he of Bruce Ohr. Again, pay special attention here to the dates. So Jim Jordan asks, talking about Steele, he asks Bruce Ohr, who is a senior official at the Justice Department, whose wife works for Fusion GPS, that hired Christopher Steele. Jordan says, okay, did Steele talk about that at all?

Did he talk about what he was given to the FBI? Did he talk about his meeting with the FBI in your July 30th meeting? Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. So Bruce Ohr, number four official at the FBI, whose wife Nellie claims she's getting information from Ukrainians about Trump and is working with Fusion GPS That hired Christopher Steele to generate negative information on Trump. Yeah, same guy. That's his wife. Is meeting with his wife and Steele on July 30th, the day before they open up the case. Ladies and gentlemen, just pointing to sworn testimony.

Jim Comey may not have seen this. Sure. So here's Orr's answer. The only thing I recall Steele mentioning is that he had provided two of his reports, known as the dossier to Special Agent Gaeta. Jordan says, so the same information he gave you, did he tell you he had given that directly to the FBI?

Orr says, well, I don't know what he told the FBI. So just to be clear, who's special agent Gator? Why does this matter? Again, let's go through a timeline for liberals whose skulls are coated with Wolverine-like adamantium. I know you're immune to facts, but just try for a moment to digest this. It's called the timeline. immune to facts but just try for a moment to digest this it's called the timeline so christopher steel meets with this special agent aforementioned special agent gato when when was that joe oh that

was on july 5th of 2016 case opens july 31st christopher steals meeting with a special agent he knows from the fbi on july 5th july 5th would be Joe. Quick fact check is July 5th before or after July 31st. I know this is tough. That was liberals are listening. So think before, right? Thank you. Yes,

sir. Thank you, Joe. We need that because liberals are a little slow, man. So steals meeting with the FBI three weeks or so before they open up the case. He's meeting with them in London. Steele's work associate, Nellie Orr, is married to a senior official in the Justice Department, Bruce Orr,

who meets with Steele again July 30th after Steele meets with the FBI on July 5th, 5th, 30th, 31st for the liberals. It's not the scale. 5th, 30th, 31st. Although I'm trying to make it a scale. July 5th, July 30th, July 31st. Got it? Meeting with FBI, July 5th. Meeting with Department of Justice,

Bruce Orr and his wife working for Fusion GPS and hired Christopher Steele, July 30th. Next day, July 31st, on a weekend, by the way, when no one's around, the FBI opens up the case against Donald Trump. Don't worry, folks. It's all a coincidence. You're all the stupid ones, and the media's got this story nailed, and Jim Comey is of the utmost integrity,

and when he tells you Christopher Steele had nothing to do with it, even though he met with the Department of Justice the day before they opened up the case and they rushed to the FBI on the weekend to open up the case the next day, and that Steele met with the FBI in London on July 5th before they opened up the case to give them their information, don't you worry. Jim Comey is a bastion of integrity it had nothing to do with it stop it Joe shameful that you're thinking that well it's Comey he's always tells the truth of course you believe that if I'm sorry if you believe this guy okay this is clips a little bit longer it's about a minute here's Comey. Part two of this interview. I'm serious. Incredibly,

he is still insisting, despite conclusions by the IG report, conclusive evidence based on legions of FBI interviews, all they had in the FISA warrant was the Steele dossier. The Steele dossier and the Steele information given to Bruce Orr and the FBI, they opened up the case with, obviously, as I just showed you. The Steele dossier was all they had. The IG report has nailed them to the wall

on this. Comey is still insisting, what's his words here, that it was just, quote, a part of it, the FISA warrant to spy on Trump, or just a feature. You understand? There is no evidence anything he says here is true. Outside of the deranged mind of this, I mean, habitual, unrepentant liar. Here's part two, Comey lying again, and we'll dissect him when we come back.

But my understanding is that in terms of getting the FISA warrant for Carter Page, that the Steele dossier was part of the case put forward for getting that warrant. So is that what you think people are potentially conflating in their narrative that the Steele dossier was used to drive the investigation? I think maybe. And also, there's been so much focus on the Steele dossier. I don't blame your listeners for being confused about it. It's not their fault. It's the way in which it's been focused on and presented in Congress and in the media. It was a feature of an application made to a federal judge at the end of October, so shortly before the election that we didn't tell anybody about, to conduct electronic surveillance of a person who was not with the Trump campaign at that point, this fellow named Carter Page.

And it was, I gather, a key element of that application. And I think the focus on that is what confuses people to think it was a Carter page was one element. And that was one investigative element focused on Carter page. But I understand why people are often confused. Hilarious. This is absolutely hilarious in like a Stephen King it clown kind of way you know like you you you don't know like you know I'm not you know those are creepy clowns

you're not sure if you're supposed to laugh or run right do I laugh or do I run do me a favor always err on the side of running always if you If you see a creepy clown, I'm just saying. You're like, hey, hey, is this? Wait, let me get this straight. We're confused. Joe, do you hear him? We're confused. Yeah, we are.

You and I are confused. Jim, I'm sorry you're all confused. This is one of those. Yeah, you ever see this before? Not to get a personal point of personal privilege here, as I say often. You ever notice when like people don't want to apologize, they say something they're like man you're a moron how dopey are you and then you're like then they come back later go listen i'm sorry you were offended by that you just call me a moron like is there a good way to say that i'm they're sorry you're offended they're not

sorry they're sorry because they think you're a moron that's what this is call me no no you're confused you're we need joe pesci here we need that say let me unconfuse you we're not confused nobody who listens to my show is confused about what happened the ig report is out the muller report is out your fbi jim comey and you personally signed a warrant to spy on the trump team based wholly on a Steele dossier and Steele's information that turned out to be false. Nobody is confused but you. I'm sorry you're confused. I mean, this is classic Jim Comey. The hubris, the puffery, the near sociopathic lying. We're confused?

We have not been confused from day one. You spied on the president using false information from a foreign intelligence official who said he was dealing with Russia. That's the case. It's no more complicated than that. And you signed it. You led the biggest political spying scandal in US history. Nobody's confused but you.

But there's a couple more tidbits in there you may have missed. First, he says, well, oh gosh, ladies and gentlemen, forgive me. And for you regular listeners, I am sorry to have to do this again. But we've got a new audience out there on terrestrial radio, KABC in Los Angeles and elsewhere who may not have heard this. If I hear one more time, Comey slipped this out. I don't know if you caught it,

Joe, he slipped it in and the media slips this in all the time. I've heard commentators on Fox, CNN, MSNBC and elsewhere. Liberals still lie about this. They say, well,

if we were looking to damage Trump with this fake steel information we spied on him for joe wouldn't we have leaked it before the election do you notice at the end of that what comey says he says we kept it secret before the election do you hear it why is he doing that because jim comey does not want to go down in history as the FBI director who contributed to the loss of his favorite, not son, favorite daughter, Hillary Clinton. So what he wants you to think is,

well, you know what, we may have investigated Trump, but nobody knew about it, so it couldn't have possibly been an effort to damage his election chances. Okay, let's look at this New Yorker piece, and I want you to pay close attention to the date. Oh, look at this. Crazy time again.

It's been crazy time all week. Yes, it sure has. November 1st, 2016. Joe, it's not a trick question. Now, was that before or after the election? That's before, 2016. Joe, it's not a trick question. Now, was that before or after the election? Oh, that's before. Yeah. Yeah, that's before.

You were confused because you thought I was messing with you, right? Because it seems fairly obvious. He's like, wait, where's he going with this? I was looking at something else. It's before November. The New Yorker, the the New York this is a liberal magazine love this somehow on November 1st of 2016

right before the election to do maximum damage by the way the elections coming up just a week later releases this little gem final October surprises reveal the FBI is probing Trump's alleged Russia ties.

Well, hold on a second. Okay. I'm serious. Like I can't, I'm like, I've been laughing and crying the whole show. I'm like,

I'm sorry. My head is all, I'm not, and I'm not sick. It's becoming a big controversy on the show. She's still insisting. I am. I can't take it.

Call me is a... I'm trying to find a way. What am I not getting? What are we missing here? Well, are we screwing this up? No. We didn't leak to the media that there was an investigation against Trump.

Can you please put that up again? Just to be sure I'm not crazy. This is the media before the election about the FBI leaking to them about probing Trump's Russia ties, which are only in the fake steel dossier. Yeah. Folks, you can read it right there. Yeah. Final October surprise reveal. FBI is probing Trump's alleged Russia ties.

Who do you think leaked that? Leaked that? The FDA? What do you, who do you, what, who do you think leaked that? Leaked that? The FDA? What do you, who do you, what, who do you think leaked that? Who do you think leaked that? The US Trade Commission? The Bureau of Indian Affairs? Customs?

The Secret Service? Who do you think leaked that? The FBI is in the headline talking about Trump's ties to Russia, which didn't exist outside of the Steele dossier. He is lying to you again. Please do not accept this line anymore from the media that well if they wanted to damage trump about russia they would have leaked it to the press they did my gosh does anybody do facts anymore i'm gonna paul i'm gonna skip past this call call wall street journal stuff clients but just quickly he also tries to gloss over the Carter Page stuff, like, ah, Carter Page was just one feature. You mean the feature where Carter Page, who's working

with the CIA to gather information in a patriotic US-focused mission on Russian intel people? You mean that Carter Page where your FBI lawyer, Kevin Kleinsmith, alleged in a very serious act to have altered an FBI email to indicate that Carter Page was working with Russians against the United States, like the exact opposite of what he was doing? Yeah, yeah. Just gloss over that, Jim. That's no big deal either. This guy is an unrepentant liar, ladies and gentlemen, a liar, a total liar.

I was going to cover this thing in the Wall Street Journal, but it's really simple, just in case some of you are saying, well, why just give up? It's just an interesting piece by James Freeman, where he just lays out quickly, like, well, what do you think's worse, a bigger scandal for the country, right? The FBI manipulating an email indicating that a U.S. intelligence asset working on behalf of the U.S. government to nail Russians is, in fact, a spy? Lying about him, Carter Page. Is that bad? I'd say that's kind of bad.

The verdict is in. That really sucks. Or President Trump asking the Ukrainians to look into known corruption in their country that may have impacted a guy or been central to a guy who was the former vice president. What do you think's worse? I think the answer is fairly obvious.

All right, quickly. There was Washington examiner stories important to be in the show notes today on the debt. Ladies and gentlemen, again, I don't know what the Republicans are. I mean,

you can always count on the Democrats to spend this into bankruptcy, but why some Rhino, not all, but sadly, a lot of them, play along with this mess. This is a total disaster. Story from the Washington Examiner today being the show's new projections

of deficits provoke what? No response from Congress. Basically, ladies and gentlemen, here's the cliff. Here's us walking off it. They are now projecting $2 trillion deficits per year in the coming future. Not $1 trillion, $2 trillion. We already owe everything our economy is worth and nobody's

doing anything about it, ladies and gentlemen. And they point out one specific thing in this, we've discussed in this show often, from the Washington Examiner piece, quote, current low interest rates make it relatively cheap to service the debt, but rising rates would be a rude awakening. Ladies and gentlemen, I have warned you repeatedly. You may say, oh, deficits don't matter. Yeah, they said the same thing in Argentina until the interest rates went up to like 19, 20%. How do you think that's going to affect your first home purchase when you find out that the majority of your mortgage payment for the rest of your life is going to be interest

in other words you're never actually going to pay down the house how do you think it's going to affect you when you walk into a car dealership to get a car and you find out your monthly payments a thousand dollars on a twenty thousand dollar car it's all interest don't worry debts don't matter deficits don't matter you realize what kind of an idiot you have to be to think that. Listen, I get a lot of feedback on this and I'm not talking about you. People feedback, very smart.

I'm not the idiots. I'm talking about the liberals, but some of them say, well, we'll never go bankrupt. We can print money. Um, okay.

Yeah. That's called counterfeiting. By the way, if you do that, at least we can print money. So you, let me get this straight money, which is, we can all agree, correct,

is a representation of value, right? That's what we do, right? You value my work. I value it at a certain amount. The money's just paper, but it represents value. I can then trade for things I value. This isn't hard, right? No, not hard.

I work, you pay me $100 a day or whatever it may be because you value my work at that much. I then take said $100, purchase food, a movie ticket, things I value that matter to me. Money is the mechanism we use to transmit value back and forth. So you're suggesting to me that because the government has a monopoly power on printing, we can just print money with no value created behind it. Is that what you're saying?

And it's not going to have any penalty? I rarely get these emails, but once in a while, people send them to me and I appreciate them, but it's nonsense. Just because we technically don't go bankrupt because we can print money endlessly to pay off debts, doesn't mean we're not de facto bankrupt because the money then becomes worthless. doesn't mean we're not de facto bankrupt because the money then becomes worthless. Because that money printed without value behind it makes the money printed with value behind it effectively worthless.

Never forget Milton Friedman. What did he say? Bad money always replaces good money. What does he mean by that? I heard this example once. Maybe it'll make sense. Let's say a representation of value was tobacco leaves. That happened once. Instead of trading money, people would trade tobacco leaves were very valuable. Again, this is decades, if not

centuries ago, but I've heard this example and it makes sense. So if I owe you something, say you give me some whatever wood for me to build a farm, build, excuse me, a barn, and building that barn, I have to pay you for the wood, so I pay you in tobacco leaves, which are valuable. You smoke it, all kinds of things, right? Well, what happened?

People started growing cheap tobacco that they didn't have to labor a lot on. Why? Because why would I grow really expensive and labor a lot on why because why would i grow really expensive and pay a lot you know a lot of time spend a lot of time on my tobacco if i can give you cheap tobacco and get the same wood if tobacco is money you're always going to give your guy in exchange for something cheapest tobacco you're not going to give him your best stuff bad money printed money with no value always chases good money out. Fact.

Now, I want to leave you with an open question. Hat tip, do seven niner for this lead. We're going to cover this more next week. I'm going to dig into this a little bit. But ladies and gentlemen, I want to throw something out there. If we're going to start investigating the finances of Donald Trump, his family, everything else they've been doing to torture this man. I want to ask you a question. Would it not be fair then if Joe Biden's running for president to look into some of his finances as well?

Good for the goose, right? Good for the gander. I want you to check out this Forbes piece. This is interesting. It's about Joe Biden's financial situation. It out this Forbes piece. This is interesting. It's about Joe Biden's financial situation. It's an older piece. Forbes staff, this one is from 2019. Here's how much 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden is worth.

I don't really care how much he's worth. That's not the interesting portion of it. The interesting portion comes down a little further in the piece. Listen to this. Again, pay special attention to the dates. In 2014, let me say that again. In 2014, Joe Biden spoke at a White House event that centered on problems working families face.

He noted that he had been listed as, quote, the poorest man in Congress, wearing what he referred to as a mildly expensive suit, he stated plainly, quote, don't hold it against me that I don't own a single stock or bond. I have no savings account, but I got a great pension and I got a good salary. So in 2014, Joe Biden's complaining about being broke and his records show he wasn't broke, but he wasn't really doing that well either. Apparently, he complained to barack obama he may have had to sell his house because of his uh son beau's tragic death but joe biden was

have it was having significant financial problems in 2014 even as the vice president joe i'm just gonna throw something out there what year do you think his son, Hunter, was hired by Burisma on this $80,000-plus a month contract to work at Burisma in Ukraine while Joe Biden, the VP, was working in Ukraine as a point man on natural gas issues? I'm just going to throw it out.

I'll ask you the question. Do you think it could have been 2014? Just render it yes. Yeah, I do Do you think it could have been 2014? Just render it. Yes. Yeah, I do. I think it could have been. Yes. You would be absolutely correct. Strange. Again, folks, always. It's like that show on Netflix, Stranger Things. Insane how that happens. 2014, Joe Biden's having financial problems. Hunter comes to the rescue with this lucrative position in Ukraine while Joe Biden's the point man in Ukraine. Ladies and gentlemen, if that story I just told you was about Don Trump Jr. or Eric,

it would be on the front page of every single newspaper all over the globe. But because it's a Democrat and Joe Biden, by the way, that's from Forbes. That's not some right-leaning magazine. Because it's Joe Biden and Joe Biden, by the way, that's from Forbes. That's not some right-leaning magazine. Because it's Joe Biden and Democrats are a protected class, you will hear nothing about the crazy coincidence that Joe Biden claims he was going broke in 2014 right as his son got a lucrative gig over there. No worries at all. Carpet, sweep under.

All right, folks, thanks again for tuning in. I really appreciate it. Please subscribe to our YouTube channel, youtube.com right, folks. Thanks again for tuning in. I really appreciate it. Please subscribe to our YouTube channel, youtube.com slash Bongino. We really appreciate it. Trying to get the 400,000 subscribers. We are almost there. Thanks to you and your efforts.

I really appreciate it. It's all free, of course. There's no money for those subscriptions. It's all free. Gratis. On the arm, as we used to say in the NYPD. All right, folks. Thanks a lot.

I'll see you all on Monday. Good day, sir. You just heard the Dan Bongino Show. You can also get Dan's podcasts on iTunes or SoundCloud and follow Dan on Twitter 24-7 at DBongino.