Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

June 8, 2017 - The Dan Bongino Show

36:27

Ep 477 Jim Comey Exposed

In this episode I deconstruct the Comey testimony on Capitol Hill. I also cover the liberal meltdown over the Paris Accords and I expose some far-left environmental myths. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Dan Bongino.
	All the Sanders supporters love throwing bombs at me and I throw them right back.
	I'm not here to pull any punches, right?
	The Dan Bongino Show.
	This is the great irony of conservatism.
	Even liberals win under conservatism.
	Get ready to hear the truth about America.
	Are you suggesting you're that stupid that other people can run your lives better than you can, even though the cost and quality of what they buy, quote, for you doesn't even matter to them?
	On a show that's not immune to the facts with your host, Dan Bongino.
	All right, welcome to The Renegade Republican with Dan Bongino.
	Producer Joe, how are you today?
	Hey, ready to go, Daniel.
	Ready to go.
	I know, a tremendous news day to call me hearing going on.
	All right, let's get right into it.
	Today's show brought to you by our buddies at BrickHouse Nutrition.
	Today is a great day if you have not yet tried Dawn to Dusk, their new energy product.
	You are doing yourself a huge disservice.
	I forward on to Miles all the tremendous email feedback I get about this product.
	It is one of the best nutritional supplements I've ever seen out there.
	I love foundation.
	I love their product there.
	This is another great product.
	It's called Dawn to Dusk.
	You know, energy drinks, coffee, you crash an hour later.
	This product solves that problem, gives you a nice 10-hour time release, energy boost, mood elevation throughout the day.
	Great for people who are working out, people who are Brazilian jiu-jitsu folks.
	Getting back into that a little bit.
	I'll probably destroy my joints.
	Working moms and dads, cops, firefighters, you name it.
	Give it a shot.
	Dawn to dusk.
	I promise you won't be disappointed.
	You'll feel great.
	It's really good stuff.
	Dawn to dusk.
	Available at BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
	That's BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
	Okie doke.
	So I've been getting a lot of email feedback.
	I'm going to get to the Comey hearing.
	I promise.
	That's obviously the big news of the day.
	And I have a couple of quick takeaways from that, which is important.
	I like to sum things up for you.
	But I've been getting a lot of emails about the London mayor's comments where he said, don't be alarmed.
	Yeah, right.
	And, you know, people have said, hey, Dan, you know, I like your show, usually correct yourself.
	But it was pretty clear that he was talking about don't be alarmed by the police presence.
	Well, listen, I don't have a lot of time to go into it today, but I'm going to play a cut for you tomorrow of him on a recent appearance with Piers Morgan on Good Morning Britain, a show I've been on.
	I don't know why I said that, but it's just, because you have to do it at like two in the morning over here, which is crazy.
	So really, it's like the worst.
	Someone asked me about how these things go, like Fox Hits and stuff like that.
	You have to go to his studio.
	It's down in Palm Beach Garden, so I drive down.
	You got to go down there for two in the morning for Good Morning Britain.
	But he had an appearance with Piers Morgan, and did he say, do not be alarmed about the police presence?
	Yeah, I mean, I'll read to you exactly what he said.
	Let me just pull this up quick.
	But I think it fits in with a larger narrative here.
	Where is this?
	Oh, here it is.
	Okay.
	He said, my message to Londoners and visitors to our great city is to be calm and vigilant.
	Hold on, it just reset at the top.
	Okay.
	You will see an increased police presence today, including armed officers and uniformed officers.
	There's no reason to be alarmed by this.
	We are the safest global city in the world.
	Folks, whether he was referring to the cops or the fact that you shouldn't be alarmed by the terror attacks, and granted, maybe you're right, maybe he was referring to the cops, he follows it up again with this, but we are the safest global city in the world.
	And my point in the Fox appearance in criticizing these comments was, listen, Not to take an unnecessary shot at the guy.
	I don't agree with the guy's politics.
	I think they're terrible, but obviously the UK is in a significant time of stress.
	I'm not trying to pile on.
	What I simply was trying to do by calling attention to these comments, where I clearly said on Fox, by the way, don't panic, don't overreact.
	I'm not lecturing anybody.
	You're all grown adults.
	You know not to do that already.
	You know, but the chances of you being involved in a terror attack are slim, but don't be alarmed whether it's by the police presence, Joe, or the police presence as a result of a bunch of slashing attacks and people getting run over and terrorist attacks.
	Folks, I still think it's bad advice.
	I'm sorry.
	I'm more than happy to correct myself, and I do deeply appreciate the emails, criticisms, comments, whatever they may be.
	Send them my way, daniellatbongino.com.
	I appreciate it.
	I'm not trying to downplay it at all, what you said, but my comments stand.
	Whether it's don't be alarmed about the... Be alarmed!
	Have a low level... I'm not telling anybody to panic.
	I was clear as day.
	There's no need to overreact.
	Frankly, there's no need to alter your lifestyle much at all.
	But have a low level of alarm walking around.
	As I said to you in that show, know the ingress and egress points every time you go out because the place you came in, the restaurant or the movie theater, is where you're going to try to go out in a panic situation.
	It happens all the time.
	Someone said to me, if animals do it too.
	Did you ever notice when you're driving towards a squirrel in the street that they always run back to where they came from, even if it was more efficient to keep going?
	Yeah, I did.
	The animals do that too.
	I mean, folks, if you can get a firearm and learn how to carry it, learn how to be proficient in it, you feel responsible with it, go get one.
	These are low, like, you know, walking around with a low level of alarm, you know, okay, take the seat by the door.
	I always take the seat that looks at the door when I'm eating out in a restaurant.
	My wife even knows, she doesn't even bother trying to sit in it anymore.
	These are little things in your life that take no time at all, that'll give you a base low level of alarm, whatever you want to call it, heightened awareness, if it sounds more politically correct.
	I just think don't be alarmed, whether it's at the cops or anything else, is just Bad advice.
	I'm sorry.
	And I'll play the clip to Mark's.
	I just don't have time today, but don't miss tomorrow's show.
	It's about a minute long clip of a conversation the mayor had with Piers Morgan where they essentially say the same thing and the London mayor just doesn't seem to...
	Get what's going on.
	And when I play the clip tomorrow, you'll get it.
	Okay.
	I gotta move on because there's so much going on, but I will get to that.
	And if I don't get to that Cato piece I teased yesterday, I'll get to that too.
	I don't like leaving stuff out there.
	I'm getting tons of email on the Comey thing.
	All right.
	So Comey's testifying literally right now.
	I'm watching the thing.
	Opening statements are underway.
	We have a recording of his opening statement, and there are a couple takeaways already I'm getting from this thing.
	Excuse me, I shouldn't say recording, so it's obviously being recorded.
	I mean, it's on like every station known to mankind right now.
	Folks, it's clear as day now that there's not going to be an obstruction of justice charge.
	How do we know that?
	This is your big takeaway from this.
	Now, again, I'm not talking to liberals with your seven-foot-thick skulls.
	I'm talking about reasonable people who are interested in, quote, getting to the bottom of this, which I'm really getting tired of hearing.
	There's not going to be obstruction because we know in Comey's opening statements that he could not commit to an obstruction of justice charge, okay?
	Jim Comey would not be testifying if there was a pending criminal charge about obstruction of justice, I can assure you, because there's been a special investigator, special counsel assigned, and Robert Mueller, the former FBI director, to investigate this Trump-Russia fairy tale.
	Now, if there was an obstruction of justice charge, Joe, two things would happen.
	Number one, Comey would have said it.
	And number two, Bob Mueller, you know what?
	Number two, he wouldn't have said it because he wouldn't have been testifying at all.
	Because you don't let your star witness in an obstruction of justice case, right?
	If it's a criminal case, go testify in front of a Senate committee before he gives his full testimony and recounting of events to the special counsel in the case.
	It's absurd.
	Folks, so number one takeaway.
	There is no obstruction of justice charge.
	There is no criminal basis for a criminal obstruction of justice charge.
	It's ridiculous.
	And don't try to make the case to me that And I'm not a trumpeteer, I think you all get that.
	That Trump saying he hopes the investigation goes away into Mike Flynn is an obstruction of justice charge.
	I used the example a while ago, thanks to a friend of mine who brought it up, it's a great example, that you can get pulled over for a traffic ticket and ask the cop that you hope it goes away all you want.
	As long as you don't offer anything in exchange, like, hey, by the way, if I throw you this $100 bill, can we really hope it'll go away?
	That's totally different.
	That's bribery.
	Or obstructing is if you stop him trying to get back to the car, you know, he goes to write the ticket and you take away his pen, you call in your buddies, you know, to stop him from getting back to the car.
	These are all obstruction charges.
	But suggesting to the cop that you hope the ticket goes away, folks, I've got news for you.
	It's not a crime.
	I'm sorry.
	I want to be crystal clear here.
	I'm not defending Trump's actions, okay?
	I'm not.
	I think one of the things as Republicans we have to be willing to do is course-correct here, and I don't want to take unnecessary shots at the guy right now, but it was clearly imprudent, Joe, to say to a guy like Jim Comey, who is a political guy on steroids.
	We all know it.
	Jim Comey is a political operator and always has been.
	Yeah.
	Read some of the articles the Wall Street Journal's done on this guy documenting his history playing politics when he's pretending to be above the fray.
	Worked with the Clintons forever, yeah.
	Yeah, I mean the guy, Joe, the guy...
	The guy understands Washington D.C.
	politics better than anyone.
	You don't go in a room as a savvy dealmaker like Trump is, or purports to be at times, and say to a guy that's a D.C.
	politician, pretending not to be, that, hey, I hope this goes away.
	Listen, can we just accept as Republicans?
	Talking about the Flynn investigation, when Trump said that to him.
	Can we all agree that was just dumb?
	Can we all agree that if, and I haven't heard any, the reason I'm bringing this up, by the way, is I haven't heard Trump dispute those comments.
	Now he has disputed the loyalty oath, but again, saying, just assume for a second, even if there was a, there was another report that at a dinner, Trump asked for a loyalty oath and Jim Comey said, I can provide honest loyalty and Trump said, okay, that's what I'm asking for, honest loyalty.
	Yeah.
	Folks, I don't understand.
	That's an obstruction of justice.
	Are you an idiot?
	Well, no, I mean it.
	I'm not trying to be condescending.
	Maybe I shouldn't.
	Do you know what you're talking about?
	Do you have any experience in even Wikipedia law?
	Have you even Googled obstruction of justice?
	How is the President of the United States asking a political appointee, which Jim Comey is, for a loyalty oath?
	Obstruction of justice.
	Again, clear as day on this.
	Imprudent?
	Absolutely.
	Really?
	Probably not too bright when you're talking to a political operator like Jim Comey?
	Extremely not bright.
	But obstruction of justice?
	Are you serious?
	Joe, this is from the same people.
	Who refused to charge Hillary Clinton and her team with obstruction of justice despite the fact that she used bleach bit to delete emails that were appropriately subpoenaed by law enforcement entities.
	She smashed blackberries on her team, and I got a story I'm holding on that that's pretty devastating.
	I'm trying to confirm, by the way, about the blackberry.
	The blackberries were smashed to avoid the evidence being collected by the Clinton team.
	The Clinton team smashed their blackberries so people couldn't read their emails.
	You have an Obama team that paid a ransom to Iran, and you're talking about obstruction of justice because the president asked a political appointee, supposedly, which isn't even confirmed, for an oath of honest loyalty?
	Ladies and gentlemen, you're delusional if you believe this.
	Do you understand how much time you are wasting on this?
	This is a fairy tale.
	So, I'm getting a little bit off track here, but takeaway number one.
	There is clear as day no obstruction of justice here at all.
	Imprudence?
	Yes.
	Political immaturity?
	Yes.
	Dopey comments?
	Maybe.
	Obstruction of justice?
	You're an imbecile if you believe that.
	Number two.
	It's clear as day again.
	Trump is not under investigation.
	How many times do you need to hear this?
	By the way, a guy sent me a pretty nasty email the other day I didn't like.
	And I responded back.
	I was really PO'd at it.
	And he said I can get shouty at times.
	Hey, I'm sorry.
	Listen, I'm going to get excited about stuff.
	My apology.
	Joe tries to control the volume, I assure you.
	Well, you are who you are, and that's who you have to be, and that's simple.
	Joe, can you just confirm for the audience that the finished product they get is actually not even as loud as the finished product I send you?
	Certain parts, no.
	I said, Joe, a finished product in Adobe Audition that I promise you is a lot shoutier.
	So we're trying to reduce the shoutiness factor.
	So my apologies.
	He sent me a nasty email.
	He's like, hey, you went to a government school and had a government job and you ran for office.
	Like, how dare you critique the government?
	I was like, dude, are you serious?
	Like the whole point of walking away from the six-figure taxpayer-funded salary and pension and healthcare and government car, you know, with no guarantee of financial security at all to run for office was to fight against this stuff.
	I was like, is this guy for real?
	So I got a little mad about that.
	I bet.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	But takeaway number two, Trump is not under investigation.
	Comey is not disputing at all that he told Trump three times that he's not under investigation.
	Trump is not under investigation.
	I don't even know.
	Like, you know, sometimes on the show, I want to cover stuff and give you some, you know, deep, profound points you're not going to get anywhere else.
	And hopefully sometimes we do that.
	I mean, that's up to you based on the listenership.
	I hope we're doing okay there.
	I have nothing deep and profound to say.
	The guy's not under investigation.
	Comey said it.
	Comey said it three times.
	He confirmed it.
	Trump confirmed he said it.
	They both agree Trump's under investigation.
	So there's no obstruction charge that he's not under investigation.
	We gotta move on.
	Call me crazy, but I don't see anything there.
	We have to put that on a t-shirt.
	It's just very frustrating because the liberals are so apt to spin a narrative.
	As a matter of fact, I saw this guy Ed something from the Y. I think it's Ed O'Keefe.
	I'm not really familiar with this guy from the Washington Post.
	He tweeted out yesterday during the Senate Intel hearing that Kamala Harris was told by Richard Burr, the chairman of the Senate Intel Committee, when she was quizzing Rod Rosenstein, the deputy AG, that Kamala Harris was told to pipe down.
	I was watching the hearing, folks.
	That was never said at all.
	She kept interrupting the guy and they stopped there to let the guy answer the question.
	But this just goes to show you how the narrative is, oh, these misogynistic Republican senators told a female black senator to pipe down.
	Except for one critical distinction, Joe.
	It didn't happen.
	Like, it actually never happened, folks.
	It was totally, completely made up.
	All right.
	Now, there's a reason I wanted to talk about the Comey hearing absent the specifics of the Comey hearing.
	While the Democrats have become distracted and fascinated by the Trump-Russia conspiracy theory fairytale, actual things are going on.
	I want to propose something to you.
	You may hear in a couple different places, but I haven't read too much of it.
	This may sound crazy, folks, and let me just go out on a whim if you'll allow me for a minute and speculate, which I hate to do.
	I'm not a journalist, but You know, I like to adhere to some kind of journalistic standards when I can.
	But I want to speculate and editorialize.
	I don't think Trump minds this Trump-Russia fairy tale as much as Erlett Knott.
	I want to give you a couple reasons for this.
	Number one, he tweets about it an awful lot.
	And do you ever notice Joe Wright as it's about to die?
	He always does something to keep it alive.
	He picks the scab.
	Right, right.
	Like it was about to die about a month ago and then Trump tweeted out that thing that said, Jim Comey better be careful, I may have tapes.
	And all of a sudden the story came back, right?
	Remember that?
	Right, right.
	And then, you know, the story was about to die and he fires Jim Comey and then the story was about to die two weeks ago and he tweets about Mike Flynn.
	Trump is not dumb, folks.
	I know the left, and it's actually good that the left believes this because they believed Reagan was dumb too while we changed the country over eight years.
	He's not dumb.
	He does things that I think are imprudent and I think politically immature because he doesn't understand the political process because he hasn't been embedded in it.
	And I know that because when I got involved in the political process running for Senate and Congress, I was politically immature too.
	I just didn't know.
	I'm not talking about emotionally immature.
	I just mean you just don't, you haven't matured through the process, which voters thought was a good thing, Joe.
	The voters think is a good thing.
	Now, so number one, I don't think he thinks Trump, I don't think he wants this to go away.
	Now, you may say, well, why doesn't he want it to go away?
	Well, that leads to number two.
	Because while the Democrats have been fascinated and distracted by the fairy tale, Joe, there are a lot of things going on behind the scenes.
	I can just give you something that happened yesterday that almost nobody is talking about.
	In the mainstream ether of the big national conversation, so to say, because it's all going on behind the scenes while the Democrats waste all their time on the Russia fairytale.
	Here's number one.
	The Harry Reid rule, which means only 51 senators are necessary to confirm judges now with the Supreme Court and on the bench.
	He just called me right now.
	Nobody asked me to stop Russia probe.
	This is hysterical.
	The story just keeps getting better.
	But Trump has about 100 nominations.
	That's a huge number.
	We could transform basically the entire federal judiciary.
	And he nominated 11 more people yesterday.
	And by the way, folks, regardless of your feelings about Trump, if you're a super conservative or a Cruz guy like I was, the 11 people he sent up there for nomination of the federal bench are really, really good.
	You know how I know they're a good joke?
	Because liberals, liberal activist groups, even though they can't penetrate the mainstream ether of the narrative because everybody's obsessed with Trump-Russia, liberal groups are freaking out.
	Because while the liberals obsess about Trump-Russia, Trump is actually doing stuff.
	Repealing the Obama regulations.
	We appointed Gorsuch to the bench now.
	And these nominations to the lower bench are going to transform the federal judiciary for a generation.
	So that's going on, Joe, and nobody's paying attention because they're obsessed about the Trump-Russia scam.
	Secondly, there was another thing that happened yesterday, a topic we've discussed on this show a lot that I'd be remiss if I didn't cover.
	Again, while the Democrats are obsessing over Russia, the DOJ dumped a whole slush fund program.
	You remember us talking about this about six months ago?
	Yeah, I do.
	I'll cue you in.
	The Obama administration, folks, you may not like them, but gosh, were they clever.
	They were always doing the dipsy-doo-flipperoo.
	They would always find a way, you're looking slider, they go forkball, you know?
	You're looking knuckleball, they go high fastball.
	I mean, they're just...
	This is, call me, not for me to say if Trump obstructed.
	This guy's amazing.
	This guy is like a comedian.
	I'm sorry, folks, I'm watching.
	This guy's got to be a comedy act.
	This guy has got to be a comedy act.
	Over and over.
	This guy's the FBI director who has openly commented about anything he can to get in front of a TV screen.
	And now he gets fired from Trump.
	No, it's not for me to say if Trump was obstructing.
	There is no obstruction of justice.
	What, is he not familiar with the law?
	All right, sorry to get sidetracked there, but just watching this live while I do the podcast is making me laugh, because Comey is clearly a political actor, and I wish people would understand that.
	DOJ, under the Obama administration, they did this unbelievably clever thing.
	The DOJ wanted to fund green energy programs, they wanted to fund left-leaning groups like ACORN, but they couldn't get the Republican Congress to pay for it.
	So what did they do?
	The Department of Justice, Joe, you remember this now?
	They would go and sue banks?
	Yeah.
	And they would say to the banks, here's what we're gonna do.
	We'll let the lawsuit go, or if the lawsuit passed through, here's what we'll do with the payments.
	Let's say they sued a bank for, whatever, a billion dollars.
	We will give you credit for $2 towards that settlement for every dollar you give to these groups.
	And believe me, those groups were not the Catholic Church, the NRA.
	It was like acorn, green energy groups.
	Volkswagen paid millions of dollars to a green energy program to get rid of the settlement.
	So think about this, Joe.
	What happened is because under federal law, if a lawsuit is filed by the federal government, it has to go to the victims or to the U.S.
	Treasury.
	Now, you may say, well, Dan, then how did they get around Federal Loft?
	If they said, hey, you're going to have to pay ACORN, or you're going to have to pay a green energy group, whatever.
	What they did is they said, no, you don't have to pay them.
	But if you do, you'll get $2 off for every dollar of your settlement.
	Joe, what company's not going to take that?
	If I can pay a billion dollars to the Treasury or $500 million to Acorn, what am I going to do?
	I'm going to give it to Acorn.
	Now, again, the Obama administration, you may not like them, but gosh, were they tactically clever.
	They always had an end around.
	Folks, this went on for a long time.
	It was a really, really BFD, a big freaking deal.
	It was a big deal because, listen, $2 million, $3 million, $10 million is a huge amount of money when it goes to a group like an Acorn Group or a Green Energy Group.
	But to the federal government, it's nothing.
	This was a big deal, and it was an end-around around the power of the purse.
	Well, to get to the point on this, while you've been distracted, liberals, with the Trump-Russia fairytale conspiracy theory, Jeff Sessions and the DOJ, Department of Justice, stopped that program yesterday.
	And again, you may have been able to fight back if you had some resources, but you've been wasting your resources tracking down this chimerical nonsense, this Trump-Russia garbage.
	So good luck with that.
	While we appoint judges, while we get rid of your slush funds, all of this is happening right into your nose, while you guys continue to say, Trump, stupid.
	Trump, Trump, Russia.
	Good.
	Good luck.
	Keep it up, folks.
	Keep it up, because we're rocking and rolling.
	All right.
	I want to get to another story here, because I don't know what it is, but I've been getting a ton of email asking me to do some debunking on, given the Paris Accords and how we pulled out of it, about climate change.
	So I had to sum it up neatly for you, because I like to give you all talking points that you can walk away with that actually make sense, unlike the lefty talking points, which are usually fabricated nonsense.
	I'm guessing it's because your liberal friends after the Paris Accords are confronting you at dinner time and you need some ammo.
	So I'm more than happy to provide it.
	I love that topic.
	Before we get to that, though, have you signed up for CRTV yet?
	I got a lot of email yesterday, too, about when the launch date is for my show.
	It's close, folks.
	I don't want to give you a hard date yet, although we're closing in on one.
	But I promise you, it's close.
	So go sign up today.
	CRTV.com.
	It's the best conservative content out there.
	I say that unabashedly.
	We have Steven Crowder's show.
	We have Mark Levin's show.
	We have Michelle Malkin's show.
	We have Steve Dace's show.
	The lineup's incredible, and it's all available for around $8 a month.
	Why waste your time with a lot of other garbage you have out there?
	You know, CNN and MSNBC and all this other crap.
	You can go to CRTV, get no commercials and you get actual conservative content.
	We don't hide it.
	Go to CRTV.com, sign up today.
	It's about eight bucks a month.
	I'll give you a promo code, right?
	You'll get $10 off.
	Promo code is Bongino, my last name, B-O-N-G-I-N-O.
	Put it in crtv.com.
	Sign up today.
	I appreciate it.
	I've been getting some great feedback from the suits at CRTV.
	A lot of people are using that promo code, so I'm always very proud to be part of this, so thanks a lot.
	Okay.
	The Paris Accords.
	Pulling out of them was a great move, because it was only going to really impact significantly the United States.
	You know, China and India and other countries were allowed to keep emitting so-called greenhouse gases up until about 2030, while the United States' significant economic restrictions would have hit us.
	So here's a couple of things you always hear about climate change that we should debunk almost immediately.
	I thought about—how many points do I have here?
	Four takeaways, okay?
	Here's the first one.
	Folks, from 2000 to 2014, the United States' GDP has grown by 13%, adjusted for inflation, by the way.
	So, if the liberals concoction that economic growth and capitalism, we're all polluters and we're destroying the environment is true, you would think, Joe, that there would be a commensurate increase in emissions.
	Let me just walk you through that again.
	Okay.
	By the way, this is going to be the most difficult point.
	The rest are really easy.
	But I wanted to put this one in there because it completely debunks, in essence, the entire liberal ethos, the credo there.
	2000 to 2014, GDP in the United States grew by 13% inflation adjusted.
	If the left is right, and capitalism and the use of resources causes pollution, and we have to put a cap on it, because that's a real theory, it's nothing to do with environmentalism, then emissions should have grown too.
	Economy grows, Joe, pollution grows, right?
	Right.
	Well, that's not what happened.
	Emissions were reduced by 6%.
	Now, folks, why is that?
	Because remember, as I've said to you repeatedly, and I'm going to move on because I have a couple more points to fire through here.
	Economic growth does not mean environmental damage.
	Economic growth means better use of resources.
	And those resources, which were traditionally thrown away and cause environmental damage, all of a sudden become assets when people find out a way to use them.
	That's why economic growth, that's why the cleanest air in the world, or some of the cleanest air in the world, is in areas of the United States that have really robust economic growth.
	Because we figured out a way to use resource.
	Here's a quick example.
	When I was running for Congress in Maryland, I used to visit a paper factory up in Western Maryland.
	And he was showing me all these scraps that he said, you know, 10 years ago or whatever, 15 years ago.
	I forget the exact timeline.
	It doesn't matter.
	These paper scraps and this pulp stuff that he used to throw out.
	Garbage.
	It was pollution.
	They would throw it in a landfill, right?
	What you would call pollution, garbage, whatever it may be.
	I don't care what word you use for it.
	Waste.
	They don't do that anymore, Joe.
	They figured out a way when they started investing in their company.
	They were like, well, why are we throwing that out?
	We can reuse that stuff.
	So they figured out a way to reuse it, which is now not waste.
	It now becomes an asset.
	It doesn't wind up in a landfill.
	It winds up being used.
	That's because they invested in their company.
	Folks, economic investment does not mean environmental destruction.
	Now, don't you find it slightly odd that the largest environmental disasters, some of them in American history, largely happen in socialist countries?
	In socialist countries, you don't own the assets.
	The government dictates.
	The government controls the means of production in socialism.
	In the Soviet Union, the government owns the economy.
	The government dictates what happens in the economy.
	And when nobody owns anything, the government, which is a blob, an effusive blob, Or, I take it back, you make it even easier.
	When everybody owns something, nobody owns it.
	You ever notice the neighborhood park never has the best grass, but the neighborhood lawns do?
	Kind of odd, right?
	Because when it's your lawn, you take care of it.
	When it's the neighborhood park, you don't really care, right?
	You're like, ah, whatever.
	I'm not going to go mow it.
	I'll let the other neighbors do it.
	Folks, look at the Pemex disaster.
	Look at the Chernobyl in the Soviet Union, the Aral Sea, the Yangtze River, the Three Gorges Dam in China.
	Kevin Williamson points this out in one of his books.
	The greatest environmental disasters in human history have been in socialist countries because nobody owns it, nobody cares what happens.
	There's no individual pride of ownership and there's no threat, this is important, there's no threat of individual loss.
	You let your lawn go in front of your house, your property loses value, you lose money.
	The neighborhood park, the grass goes dead, you don't care, you don't lose a dime.
	Socialism, there's no buy-in.
	Capitalism, people have bought into environmental preservation.
	You pollute the water well in your house, I got news for you, your house is worth nothing.
	You put radioactive waste in your backyard, your house is worth nothing.
	Folks, I'm going to be very clear on that.
	So again, GDP going up does not mean environmental damage going up.
	Secondly, folks, the entire science of temperature measurement, let me correct that to be precise, okay?
	Because I don't like this when I do that.
	A large portion of historical temperature measurement used to base environmental science on is wrong.
	Folks, how do you think they know what the temperature was 2,000 years ago?
	No, it's a serious question.
	If you're going to say that 2015 and 16 and 17 were the hottest years on record, how do you know that?
	It's obvious you weren't alive for the last 2,000 years, no less millions of years that the earth has been around, right?
	How do they know that?
	Have you ever asked yourself how they know that?
	You say, Well, Dan, the scientists are clear.
	What they do is they do dendocrinology.
	Whoa!
	Oh, interesting.
	That's fascinating, because I used to love anthropology.
	I actually study dendocrinology.
	And every time I hear dendocrinology, I stop people.
	I go, oh, you mean tree ring data?
	And they're like, he knows?
	Again, I'm not trying to be a smartass about it.
	I just, I know what dendocrinology is.
	I'm not a PhD level dendocrinologist, but I'm pretty aware of how it works.
	So you're telling me that tree ring data, just so we're clear on this, tells you what the temperature was a thousand years ago?
	And folks, here's the logic on this.
	The thicker the tree ring, the more CO2 in the atmosphere.
	Plants breathe in, trees obviously included CO2, so the tree rings will be thicker in years where there was more CO2, therefore hotter temperatures.
	Folks, do you understand, I'm not making this up, that we have a problem correlating tree ring data to temperatures like 10 years ago, no less a thousand years ago?
	Are you seriously basing the destruction of the entire U.S.
	economy on a system of tree ring data that you can't even correlate With certainty to temperatures five years ago, but you want to use it for what?
	Two million years?
	Are you guys kidding me?
	What are you using fossilized tree rings?
	Folks, this is insane.
	I'm not kidding.
	They are relying on tree ring data to tell you the earth is warming.
	They have no idea what the temperatures were.
	None.
	They have at best the range.
	Okay, number three.
	Folks, there has been a pause in global warming, a significant pause, for about 18 years.
	Now, there's been a slight uptick in warming over the last two years, but even climate scientists will tell you that it's probably due to El Nino, which happens, you know, occasionally, it happens for about two years.
	So the fact that the globe hasn't warmed for roughly, you know, 18 years, and now we're having a slight uptick due to a phenomenon that happens all the time, should probably tell you that the globe isn't warming.
	And you know what?
	To be fair, when El Nino subsides, if the temperatures go down, we'll know it was due to El Nino.
	If they continue to go up, I'm open to hearing more evidence, unlike the left.
	I'm sure they'll call me a climate denier or compare me to the full godwin on me or something, which is just ridiculous.
	But that's the facts.
	The globe is not warm significantly in about 18 years when you factor out El Nino.
	One more.
	You're going to hear this nonsense about, you know, 97% of climate scientists agree.
	Wrong.
	You'll hear this all the time.
	97% of climate scientists agree that the globe is warming.
	Folks, you want to know how that happened?
	That thing has been debunked so many times, but in order to do a formal debunking, I'm just going to tell you quickly how this actually happened.
	Two scientists did an online survey.
	Yes, I said that correctly.
	Online survey.
	To that survey, 160 people responded.
	That was 5% of the total.
	160 people responded to the survey.
	By the way, 160 respondents were climate scientists.
	Let me say it more correctly.
	160 respondents were climate scientists.
	Let me say it more correctly. 160 respondents were climate scientists. That was 5% of the total.
	79 of those respondents were actual climate scientists who had published
	enough material to be eligible to take the survey.
	So out of all those respondents, only 79 people were eligible as what they would call climate scientists, Joe.
	77 of those scientist respondents agreed with the assertion that human activity is a significant contributing factor to the warming of the globe.
	Now Joe, let me ask you just a basic question if you finished fourth grade in math.
	To say that 77 people is representative of 97% of climate scientists What's the factor you're missing here?
	Now, Joe, let me... Joe, you did fractions, right?
	Yeah.
	So, look, I'm gonna give you a math test here, and I'm gonna put you really hardcore on the spot here.
	All right, this isn't good.
	Okay, no, it's not.
	You know what 77% means, right?
	Like 77 out of 100?
	77 out of 100, correct.
	So let's do a fraction.
	If on the top, you have the number 77, and you're looking to reach 77% in a fraction, what do you think would be on the bottom?
	What number? 100.
	There you go!
	He's like, wait, wait.
	That's just a trick question.
	No, no, it is that dumb.
	No, it's not a trick question.
	Now, why am I saying that?
	Because if you're going to claim that 97% of climate scientists agree that global climate change is real, which is not, by the way, what the question they even answered.
	The question they answered was, is human activity, quote, a significant contributing factor?
	The question they answered was not, is climate change real?
	OK?
	OK.
	It's a different question.
	If you're going to say 97% of climate scientists, what is the factor they're missing?
	Well, how many climate scientists are there in the world?
	I don't know.
	Maybe there's 20,000, 10,000, 5,000.
	But Joe, taking a poll of 77 people without the denominator, how do you come up with that fraction?
	That's like saying 77% of people believe in Superman.
	You polled everyone?
	No, I didn't poll everyone.
	And you would say, well...
	Listen, there are ways to take statistically significant samples.
	100% correct, folks.
	I'm intimately familiar with how statistics work.
	That's not what they did here.
	They did an online survey.
	It was not a statistically significant representative of the climate scientists.
	Let me give you another example showing you what... You get what I'm saying, Joe?
	That if you're going to say 97%, you need the denominator?
	You need to know how many climate scientists there are.
	They only asked only 77 people.
	That's it.
	Now, why was this not statistically significant?
	If I put an online poll up out today and say, because I had stem cells done recently on my shoulder, which I talk about a lot, how many people think stem cell procedures are really terrific?
	And 77 people respond.
	I don't get to say 77% of the world thinks stem cells are terrific because I have no idea how many people receive the stem cell treatment.
	I haven't controlled for variables.
	It's not a statistically significant subset of sample size.
	Joe, the people responding to that survey, Are one, fans of Dan Bongino on my Facebook page, if I put the poll up.
	Number two, they're probably fans of Dan Bongino who are really excited about stem cells and had good results.
	And number three, the ones who had poor results may not be fans of Dan Bongino or may not be willing to respond.
	It's not even a statistically significant sample size.
	Folks, the 97% thing is total garbage.
	Throw it out the window.
	It's only a statistic for amateur hour people who don't understand statistics.
	And the question you should ask your friends when they say that is, how many climate scientists are in the world?
	If they can't answer the question, say, then you have no idea.
	If you don't know how many climate scientists are in the world, you have no idea what percentage of them actually believe in it because that was an online survey.
	Thank you.
	Have a nice day.
	All right, folks.
	Thanks for tuning in.
	Don't miss tomorrow's show.
	There's gonna be a lot to cover after this.
	Call me.
	You just heard the Dan Bongino Show.
	Get more of Dan online anytime at conservativereview.com.

▲