Ep. 610 Democrats Don’t Want Minority Voters to Know This
Why the rush to get the NY City bomber in the civilian courts?
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454545/port-authority-jihadist-attack-civilian-court
These job numbers are another reason minority voters should support Trump.
http://dailysignal.com/2017/12/11/fewer-blacks-hispanics-go-jobless-trump/
Asian-Americans are being discriminated against and this piece proves it.
http://dailysignal.com/2017/12/07/how-affirmative-action-tips-college-admissions-scales-against-asian-americans/
Chain migration is a really bad idea.
http://click.heritage.org/f00Ts0e0TS00WH3IMrTJQ05
Another troubling conflict for the Dept. of Justice.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/11/wife-demoted-doj-official-worked-for-firm-behind-anti-trump-dossier.html
Who are the real opponents of Net Neutrality?
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/millions-of-phony-public-comments-muddle-fccs-net-neutrality-vote/article/2642841
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.
Welcome to the Dan Bongino Show.
Producer Joe, how are you today?
The show must go on, Dan.
And it will.
And it will today.
It's been a busy week.
The terror attack yesterday keeps me occupied when it comes to these cable news hits because of the law enforcement background.
So yesterday was a super busy day.
I did a Hannity show last night, and I do it all from the same studio I do the podcast in, so to paint a picture for you.
You know, we got the mic, my desk and office here in my house up in the front, and then we got a big camera and a 70-something inch TV screen behind me.
So we record the podcast, you know, go get changed, put on a collared shirt, and then bounce right into the cable news stuff.
So, you know, last night was an interesting hit.
I was on with Austin Goolsbee on Hannity, debating him about, you know, this Mueller special investigation, which has turned disastrous.
And, you know, I have a couple of comments on that later, some interesting stuff developing about that.
But first thing I want to get to, you know, we did a show after the, what was it, the driver who mowed down those people in New York, the terrorist, the savage man, beast, animal who ran those people down in New York over on the West Side.
We did a show and I was giving you kind of a quick law enforcement perspective about the confusion out there about Miranda.
The federal judicial process, the criminal process, what you and I would go through, you know, we're not terrorists if we committed a federal crime, and the alternative, you know, treating them as enemy combatants process.
Bottom line is, Andy McCarthy, who I really can't say enough good things about over at National Review, his pieces, if you're not reading them and you're interested in In the Trump-Russia investigation, the federal judicial process, terrorism.
You're really doing yourself a disservice.
I mean, the guy's incredible.
All you have to do is read his stuff.
I will post an article today in the show notes at Bongino.com.
Of course, you can subscribe to the email list, which I encourage you to do at my website, and I will send these articles right to you.
But Andy has another amazing piece at National Review, asking the question we asked a couple of weeks ago, Joe, which is why the rush to get this guy, the bomber from yesterday morning, for those of you who missed the story, Guy, Set off a pipe bomb, managing to injure himself more severely than anyone else because terrorists, thankfully, are some of the dumbest animals on the planet.
But why the rush to get him into the federal criminal system?
Yeah.
Now, folks, most of you listening to my show know I am a diehard conservatarian who is extremely skeptical of government power.
You know, I don't think we should send the guy to Gitmo tomorrow.
I think there's some advantages to putting him through the criminal justice system later.
But there's no advantage to doing that right now.
And McCarthy's piece lays this out.
He is a lawyer, worked for the DOJ.
Matter of fact, he worked for the Southern District of New York unit that's actually going to prosecute this bomber from yesterday in New York.
And a couple questions here.
So number one, why the rush to Mirandize him and shut down the interrogation?
Folks, I don't want to repeat that show, but this point is worth repeating.
You don't have to Miranda-ize anyone.
You know the Miranda rights.
You've seen them on TV.
You have the right to remain silent.
You have the right to interfere.
Everybody's heard these a thousand times on TV or if you've been arrested, you've probably heard them yourself.
I'm sure most of you haven't, but you know, I was a cop and a federal agent and you read the same Miranda rights to people.
You don't have to read Miranda.
I can't be clear enough on this.
Yeah, we did a whole half a show on this before.
We did a whole half a show.
Here's all you have to remember about Miranda.
Custody plus interrogation equals Miranda.
For this guy, the bomber yesterday, or anyone else arrested in the federal or state judicial systems, right?
If I have you in custody and I ask you questions, and this is the critical part, so custody, meaning you're not free to leave, Joe.
If you are free to leave, you're not in custody.
I don't have to Mirandaize you.
If I asked Joe Armour... Joe right now is in Maryland.
I am in Florida.
We are talking via Skype connection.
If I was a federal investigator talking to Joe on a Skype connection about Joe ripping a mattress tag off... This may be time, Joe.
Do you have that sounder ready that our friend Ron P sent us from Spider-Man?
What?
What?
Thank you, Ron P. That's funny.
It's Andrew Garfield from Spider-Man.
What?
Joe ripped the mattress tag off.
If I'm interviewing Joe about the mattress tag, what?
And I say to Joe, I'm federal agent Dan Bongino, Joe, you are free to leave.
It's a Skype connection.
I don't have you in custody.
I'm interviewing you over Skype.
I just want to ask you a few questions.
I don't have to Mirandize Joe to use those statements in court against him or anybody else.
He's not in custody.
If he is in custody though, and I say to Joe, I take a trip up to Maryland, I interview Joe about ripping the mattress tag off, what?
And I say to Joe, you are not free to go.
I have to read his Miranda rights if, if, if, if I want to use those statements against him in court.
The reason I'm bringing up the McCarthy piece, the Andrew McCarthy piece, is I was wondering yesterday, and I don't know when they Mirandized him.
I want to be crystal clear on this.
Obviously, I was not involved in the investigation.
I'm a civilian now who does content production.
I'm not a cop anymore.
I don't know when they Mirandized him, but they should be in absolutely no rush to do it, Joe.
Now, think about why, right?
Joe, let's put on your Inspector Clouseau shoes for a minute.
You're involved in this case, right?
What evidence do we have that the New York City bomber yesterday... I'm not even going to pronounce his name because one, he doesn't deserve it, but secondly, I'm going to butcher it anyway.
I'm just not really interested.
I'm not interested in giving this guy any notoriety at all.
He's just a loser, savage pig, and he deserves to die anonymously if he's sentenced to death.
Obviously, I'm a little upset, as most of you are about these guys.
But you're an investigator investigating this guy, Joe.
I know you weren't a cop before, but I'm not trying to set you up.
What evidence do we have right now that this guy committed this act of terrorism?
Well, we have the videotape.
Yes, and in the videotape.
Joe, who's in that videotape in addition to him?
I believe other people.
Other people!
Yes, there are other people there.
So in other words, we have eyewitnesses too.
So very good, Inspector.
Joe is on the ball as always.
Armacost always bringing it.
So there you go.
Joe is right.
Joe is not a professional investigator.
Joe was not a cop.
Joe has been doing this content production stuff for a very long time.
And even Joe realizes that this is, folks, an open and shut case.
It is likely, beyond the reasonable doubt, the evidentiary standard needed for a conviction in court.
Everybody knows that, right?
Probable cause that he committed the crime is needed for the arrest, the taking away of his freedom, beyond a reasonable doubt, is needed for a conviction in a federal court.
Folks, it is More than likely that at this point, it is beyond the reasonable doubt, despite the fact, I mean, excuse me, not despite, in addition to the fact that it's likely after he was arrested, I don't know this, but he probably made some statements incriminating himself as well.
He probably woke up after this idiot realized he'd done more damage to himself, thankfully, than anybody else and was probably like, oh, my stomach hurts.
Did that bomb go off?
Why?
Because he's a jerk.
He's a pig.
He's a loser.
Couldn't even, you know, couldn't even manage to, I mean thankfully these guys are really, I shouldn't even say that, but thankfully these guys are so dumb that they wind up doing more damage to themselves sometimes than others.
He probably said something like, oh my stomach hurts, did the bomb go off?
If you didn't, now Joe, keep in mind, again, Miranda.
If you just show up on the scene and he spontaneously utters that, you can use that.
So my point in this whole thing is, and not to beat the dead horse on this, but, and,
you know, McCarthy writes this in a piece as well, that legally the worst thing that
can happen is you're not going to be able to use these statements if you don't Mirandize
Not the spontaneous utterance on the scene, but let's say it's a prolonged interview at that point.
You don't read a Miranda.
You take him into custody and you start asking him.
He's unquestionably in custody.
He's got handcuffs.
You bring him back to the precinct.
But my point yesterday was why Mirandize him at all?
You don't have to use the statements in court, Joe.
It's an open and shut case.
Interrogate the snot out of this guy.
You don't have to bring a lawyer in there.
The only condition, Joe, is you can't use the statements, but you don't need the statements in court.
Folks, I don't speak with forked tongue here.
Again, I don't know everything they have, but as a former Fed here in this, I'm telling you, you don't need to Mirandize this guy.
McCarthy takes this to another level.
This is why I wanted to include the piece.
I'm going to move on to some other stuff.
He takes it to the next level.
Whereas I would suggest right now not Mirandizing him, potentially Joe, for days.
McCarthy has a better idea.
McCarthy says, hey, you know what?
The statute of limitations on an attempted bombing, Joe, is five years.
Meaning, you have five years to charge this guy in the federal court system, right?
You have five years to do it before the statute of limitations runs out if you decide to take him through the federal system and not declare him an enemy combatant.
McCarthy's like, hey, forget the Miranda delay for a couple hours.
Like, I was suggesting even a couple days.
He's like, why not just do it for years?
And he brings up an interesting point that I think on this show we should consider.
Everybody.
He said, this guy could be valuable forever.
We don't know who this guy met.
Apparently he's traveled overseas significantly.
Let's say, Joe, in two or three months, a name comes over of a foreign terrorist from a foreign intel source and says, hey, look out for this guy, Joey Bag of Donuts, whatever, in Iran.
You don't know.
This guy may know him.
You may say in a couple months because you've delayed Mirandizing him and you haven't put him through the process yet.
You may say to this guy, hey, you know Joey Bagadonis?
Oh yeah, I met him in a terror training camp.
It's a fascinating point that, to be honest with you, I hadn't considered a delay of that long.
Obviously I considered a delay because we've already talked about it in the show two weeks ago.
I'm not trying to celebrate our talking points.
I'm just saying McCarthy and I tend to think alike on a lot of these issues.
But it is a fascinating proposal that why Mirandaize this guy tomorrow, the next day, weeks later?
You don't need to!
Right, right.
Wow.
Custody plus interrogation only to use the statements in court.
Miranda equals custody.
Is he in custody?
Yes.
Are you interrogating him?
Yes.
But do you want to use the statements in court?
I would make the case to you, probably not.
Now, you may say to yourself, and this is a fair question, you may be thinking this, Joe.
Okay, well, you kind of set yourself up there a little bit, right?
Because if custody plus interrogation to use in court, and then later on he identifies Joey Bag of Donuts, are those statements going to be admissible in court?
And the answer is no.
Right.
But you still have intel on Joey Bag of Donuts that can stop an attack.
So are we triaging our responsibilities or not?
Are our responsibilities to stop attacks?
Or to prosecute people after the attack?
And the answer is obviously to stop attacks.
If you had two choices, Joe.
Stop a terror attack in New York by intercepting a terrorist before he does it.
Or successfully prosecute him after he kills people.
The answer is obviously number one.
Interesting piece.
Please, folks, read it.
It'll be at the website, Bongino.com, and in the show notes.
It's a really good piece, and I just strongly encourage you to follow his writings at National Review.
He's a terrific writer.
Okay, let's see.
Where do I go next?
All right, let's go to...
Number two here.
This is a question that has a story, number two, that is.
Let's go to number two.
That can be taken a couple of different ways.
Was something wrong?
Are you okay?
You know, I have kids and that's the first thing.
I have a five-year-old.
That's like the first thing that comes to mind.
By the way, my five-year-old made the most expensive piece of wall art last night in Bongino family history.
Well, what do you mean, you say?
So my wife's doing these Christmas cards, right?
And you know, we got a lot of them.
We take, you know, we take care of everybody.
We send them to people who are on our campaign and everyone.
I mean, we just have a really long Christmas list.
So my wife goes to the post office show and buys, you know, books of stamps, lots of them, like a real lot of them.
Yeah.
And Joe's met my kids.
Joe knows my five-year-old.
Yeah.
So we go in the room and look, mom's stickies everywhere.
It was like a $70 piece of wall art.
So we're like, you know, my wife's like, I don't really even care about the money.
It was funny at that point.
You don't care about waiting on the darn line at the post office again for all these stamps.
So, oh my Amelia, you gotta love that kid.
She's the best.
Look, mom's stickies everywhere.
Ah, those are stamps.
Those are not stickies.
Oh boy.
Alright, so getting back to story number two.
One of the things that's puzzled me for a long time, and if you ever have heard any of my speeches on YouTube when I was running for office or anything, because I ran in Maryland twice, is the Almost unquestioned allegiance by many Black and Hispanic voters to the Democrat Party.
Now, I say in Maryland because Maryland has one of the largest populations of Black voters in the United States.
And when I was knocking on doors, I saw, up close and personal, firsthand, a really puzzling phenomenon.
I would talk to black voters and Hispanic voters who would, you know, pledge to me right off the bat because I'd say, hey, I'm Dan Bongino, Republican running for Senate or Congress when I ran in Maryland.
And they would say, you know, well, I'm a Democrat.
They were all super nice, but they talk to you, you know, but then you get to talk into a lot of the black voters and Hispanic voters and their stated values that they would tell you about Joe were almost always conservative.
Well, I mean, not all.
I'm not trying to stereotype a group of voters in any direction.
I'm just telling you based on probabilities and percentages, the people I spoke to, the overwhelming probability was you were going to run into a black voter who was largely conservative.
The percentages were super high.
And when I say conservative, I mean...
Very pro-life, very religious.
I mean, what else?
On taxes, you'd get both answers.
You know, I think taxes are good, support the government some, I think we should pay less.
But on social values, things like, you know, the position of religion in society, pro-life, I was always astonished how many Black and Hispanic voters were, I mean, not just socially conservative, Joe, but very socially conservative, right?
Yeah.
And I'm thinking to myself, gosh, I mean, I don't, I don't get it.
Like the unfettered allegiance just based on percentages to the Democratic Party.
I mean, we've had numbers up in the, I mean, how many voted for Barack Obama?
And you know, a black voters, 90 plus percent.
And you're thinking, gosh, this can't be right.
Why am I bringing this up?
Daily Signal has a really, really good piece, again, it'll be in the show notes.
About black and Hispanic unemployment and the numbers.
Of course, we do facts and data on the show.
The numbers are very, very telling.
You got that Dom DeLuise one?
Yeah, get a hold of it.
After I read these numbers, play Ron P's Dom D one, because this is pretty funny.
All right?
Here's some numbers from the Daily Signal, okay?
Black unemployment, folks.
Under the Trump administration, now we're almost a year in office, black unemployment has fallen from 8% to 7.3%.
The labor force participation rate, in other words, the amount of people working amongst black voters, has gone up from 61.9% to 62.2%.
Hmm.
All right.
More.
Not done yet.
Hispanic unemployment has dropped from 5.7% to 4.7%, the lowest level in 44 years.
These are historic unemployment lows, which is good.
You obviously want less amount of people unemployed.
For Hispanics, the lowest number in 44 years.
And this is critical.
Listen, listen, listen.
And the lowest number for black Americans, unemployment number, since 2000.
Notice, 2000, a year Barack Obama was not in office.
So in other words, the eight years of the Barack Obama presidency reached no prior level of unemployment as successful as Donald Trump has had in attaining for black Americans.
Folks, this is very telling stuff.
Now, you may say to yourself, oh, okay, you know what?
That's a blip.
That's some kind of, you know, anomaly.
It's not indicative of the effectiveness of Republican policies.
Let me read you something here.
This is a... I had to take a screenshot of some of my own notes I took a while ago.
Hold on.
This is from...
This is from a black columnist by the name of Joseph Perkins.
You can look him up.
P-E-R-K-I-N-S.
He studied the effects of Reagan's economic policies on black America, Joe.
Here are some staggering numbers, okay?
He found that after the Reagan tax cuts gained traction, African-American unemployment fell from 19.5% in 1983 to 11.4% in 1989.
from 15.5% in 1983 to 11.4% in 1989.
Black-owned businesses saw income rise from 12.4 billion in 1982 to 18.1 billion in 1987,
an annual average growth rate of nearly 8%.
The black middle class expanded by one third during the Reagan years, from 3.6 million to 4.8 million.
cue our buddy Dom DeLuise.
I don't get it.
That was from Ron P, by the way.
Shout out.
I don't understand.
I'm being serious, folks.
I get it.
Black voters, Hispanic voters are not one-issue voters.
I understand that.
I'm certainly not trying to paint with a broad brush any group of voters.
What I'm asking is a very simple question.
How is it that 90% plus of black voters support, in some areas of the country, you know, Baltimore and other areas, almost universally Democrat candidates, based on just the voting percentages, and at the national level, Democrat candidates, in the case of Barack Obama, we know that for a fact, given that the numbers, at least the economic numbers, the simple facts and data anybody can look up, are almost universally better Universally better for Republicans and Republican-leaning policies.
You know, I don't want to beat the thing to death because the numbers speak for themselves, folks, but this is kind of puzzling.
I mean, you know, when you look at areas of the country that are struggling, when you look at places like Baltimore, a place I'm intimately familiar with from my time living in Maryland, a large population of black citizens, black voters, large black population in the city, You have struggling schools, you have a struggling economy, you have a struggling public safety situation, and yet you haven't had a Republican city council person in the city of Baltimore since the 1930s.
You have not had a real conservative, I mean, you've had Republican mayors there, but you haven't had a serious conservative movement in the city, I think, in forever.
And you wonder, given that the numbers and the fact that there are black voters out there, Joe, experiencing this right now, the revival in the economy under Trump, because they're getting jobs.
These are real people in real life getting jobs.
You wonder why at least larger percentages of black voters and Hispanic voters aren't saying like, hey, gosh, this is a little different.
I mean, under Obama, I wasn't getting a paycheck, and things weren't quite working out, and now all of a sudden, unemployment's going down, median wages are going up, I just, I don't get it.
I don't, again, it's hard for me to beat it to death.
I just wish if there's people listening to this who happen to be Black or Hispanic voters who are absolutely convinced that the Democrat Party is the only path forward, I'm not suggesting to you Republicans have all the answers.
I'm not.
I'm just suggesting to you based on my experience running for office, knocking on doors, and my experience with the facts and data I just told you, Maybe it's time to consider that there may be an alternative out there.
Maybe it's not Republicans.
Maybe it's Libertarians.
Maybe it's a conservative candidate.
Maybe it's an independent.
But maybe Democrats are not the path forward.
Just a thought.
All right, today's show brought to you by our buddies at iTarget.
I, like the letter I. You know, big supporter of this company because they're terrific.
One of the things in the Secret Service, when I was an agent, we prioritized was marksmanship.
And there's a very simple reason, folks.
You're carrying a high-powered firearm near the President of the United States.
They used to say in the Secret Service, you were responsible for every single round.
Now, the government has a lot of resources, as we all know, so we used to go to the range every month and shoot a course of fire.
And we used to go quarterly, by the way, to shoot the MP5, the shotgun, in some cases the AR platform.
We had to keep our skills sharp.
Good marksmanship's a diminishing skill.
You don't practice it, you're going to lose it like anything else.
You don't shoot a basketball, you're not going to be that good at free throws.
Shooting a firearm is the exact same way.
Folks, you've got to practice.
Now, range fees can get expensive.
We all know you've got to go to the range, but it's just not practical to be able to get there every month.
You have to spend money on the ammunition.
It's the time away from home.
You've got to clean your weapon.
So, these guys said, well, what if there was a way to practice in your home safely with your firearm, with the firearm you own right now?
You don't have to buy any special stuff, any special barrels, special ammunition.
You don't have to do any of that.
And they invented this incredibly cool laser bullet.
This is what iTarget is.
The website is the letter I, itargetpro.com.
A lot of people email me about the website.
It's itargetpro.com.
They'll send you this laser bullet and a target.
You drop it in your firearm, the one you have now.
You just tell them what kind it is.
You drop it.
That's not going to do any damage to your gun.
And when you depress the trigger and you practice your trigger pull and your sight alignment, you're aiming at the target.
It emits a laser.
and you'll see on this phone app exactly where your rounds went.
It is the coolest thing ever.
You won't put it down.
I'm just warning you, once you pick it up, cancel your plans for about eight hours
'cause you're not gonna stop.
And watch, even over the course of one session, how your marksmanship skills go through the roof.
This is an unbelievably cool Christmas gift, by the way.
Go check it out.
iTargetPro, that's the letter, iTargetPro.com.
Competitive shooters dry fire without live ammo 10 times more than they live fire.
They do this for a living.
Folks, this is the best way to improve your marksmanship, trigger control, sight alignment, your grip.
Go check it out, itargetpro.com.
And I'll even give you 10% off if you use promo code.
Well, they'll give it to you.
It's not my company, but I'll read it to you at least.
Promo code Dan.
That's my first name, Dan, D-A-N.
You'll get 10% off, itargetpro.com.
All right.
Let's see.
Story number three.
Discrimination is alive and well in the United States.
Yeah.
I mean, it's a troubling story.
This is one of those stories you're not going to see a lot about in the mainstream media, Joe, because they largely avoid this stuff.
But this is a sad story.
You know, I mean it.
It's in the Daily Signal.
The story's about Asian Americans and acceptance rates into colleges.
And I have some numbers here that are going to really blow your mind.
They're all in this piece at the Daily Signal, which will be at the show notes.
But it's really troubling because you want to believe in the greatest country in the history of humankind, the United States, which I passionately believe.
I know we make mistakes, but this is a big mistake that needs to be remedied.
Asian-American students cannot get into college working at the same speed, rate, and level of effort as other minority groups can.
And that's, by definition, Joe, unfair.
Here's some numbers for you from the piece.
Asian Americans must score 140 points higher on their SATs than white students to gain admission to colleges.
What gets worse, they must score 270 points higher than Hispanic students to get into colleges, and 450 points higher than black students to get into colleges.
Now folks, this is by definition discrimination.
And the reason I bring it up is, you know, the why matters and the overall The overall umbrella view, 30,000 foot view of why this is happening should matter.
It should matter to you.
You know, if you read Hayek's The Road to Serfdom, Friedrich Hayek, which is an amazing book, I strongly encourage you all to read.
It's evergreen.
It's good.
From now, it's good.
It talks about universal principles.
One of the points he hammers in the book repeatedly is government enforced, air quotes here, Joe, equality in outcome is by definition The treating of people unequally.
Think about what he's saying there.
This principle matters, and it matters that you understand this, because it applies directly to this story in the Daily Signal.
And the genesis of the story, so we're not throwing, hey, Asian-Americans are discriminated against.
Well, why?
Well, the news story is the Department of Justice is now looking into Harvard University for what they believe is discrimination, in fact, Joe, against Asian-American students.
That's happening now, and in my humble opinion, long overdue.
But think about what I just told you, right?
How forced equality of outcome means the government has to treat people unequally.
The antithesis of the actual idea.
If you're not basing any of this on achievement and merit, and you're just basing this on skin color, and you're saying, in other words, that black students can score 450 points lower than an Asian student to get in, What liberals see, Joe, and this is critical, what liberals see is the benefit to the black student only.
Remember Thomas Sowell, he always says, you know, the problem with liberalism is they only see the first order effect.
They never say, okay, then what?
The second order effect.
And then the third order effect.
Okay, then what after that?
Right, Joe?
All they see is the first thing.
Oh, look, this is benefiting black students who are getting into Harvard despite lower test scores.
Great.
That's wonderful.
People get opportunities.
But by forcing that outcome on the college, or by the college using racial preferences and de facto quotas, Joe, to enforce, say, we're only going to accept this, you know, it's done with a wink and a nod, of course, they'll say, oh, it's just a holistic evaluation and race is just one factor, which I think we all know is nonsense, at least based on the facts and the data.
When you say we're only going to accept this percentage of Asian students and no more, Regardless of their scores, then that's where liberalism stops.
Liberalism stops at that first order analysis.
You see where I'm going with this show?
Like, oh look, we benefited black students who get into Harvard.
Yeah, perfectly clear.
Right.
Step two is, yeah, but who got screwed over?
Oh, this poor Asian kid who's working his butt off.
And in the piece in The Daily Signal, they talk about this guy, I think his name is Michael Wang, You gotta see this guy's resume, Joe.
He was like, you know, top scorer in his class, you know, perfect GPA.
He's like the number one piano player in his town or whatever it may be.
This guy's got a ringer resume at Harvard or one of the Ivy Leagues.
I don't know if it was Harvard, but said, nah, no thanks, Michael Wang.
And Michael Wang, fairly enough, said, well, was it my last name?
What is it?
I think this guy deserves an answer.
So he's part of this lawsuit that the DOJ is up against Harvard and other Ivy Leagues, where people are looking into this and saying, hey, that's not fair.
Folks, I get it.
There's a history of discrimination in the country.
It's been very severe for Black Americans.
Nobody disputes that.
No sensible person would say that Jim Crow and the history of slavery did not have some generational impact.
But remember, Asian Americans were discriminated against too, granted, not in the exact same way or over the exact same period of time.
Nobody disputes that.
You know, you had the internment of Asian Americans during World War II.
I mean, at some point, Joe, we just have to say, okay, the country's got battle scars.
Significant ones in the case of the black community and the Asian community.
Albeit in different ways, Joe.
But at some point we have to move on and say, okay, those battle scars, let's recognize them.
Let's not repeat the horrible, atrocious sins of the past, but moving on in the future, let's present a level floor for everybody, where everybody can get access to the building based on, based on the access to the building of opportunity, I mean, based on their merit and their ability to work hard.
Let's not pick and choose winners, because when you pick and choose winners in society, whether it's admissions or anything else, Joe, and you're the government, You by default pick losers too.
It's not fair.
Folks, it's just a matter of simple fairness.
And the why matters here too.
This is an effort by the critical theory leftists.
Who believe that everything is an enforcement of the white patriarchal power structure, including college admissions.
So in other words, their line is, well, the system did it, so black Americans shouldn't be held responsible.
So who should be?
Asian Americans?
So Michael Wang, who's trying to get into what works is off the entire time.
He should be kept out of an Ivy League because what he did, what did he do wrong?
Folks, we should not be enforcing equality of outcome.
We should only be enforcing equality of opportunity.
That opportunity is up to you at this point.
It's not an absolution or a forgiveness of what happened in the past.
These are horrible things.
We should always recognize it.
It's part of what happened.
We're a country of men and women.
We made a lot of mistakes.
But doubling down on the mistakes going forward by discriminating against Asian Americans in an effort to help another racial group is by definition discrimination!
What's next?
No, I mean seriously, what's next?
You get a group of Arab Americans who get- Let's say you get a group of Arab Americans, Persian Americans that come over from Iran that are super smart.
Do we keep them out of college too?
No, no, Joe.
We are over our percentage of Persian smart Americans and that is impacting other groups.
So let's keep all the Persian Americans out.
I mean, where does it end?
This is insane.
Guys, this is important stuff because every minute of our collective American life that we engage in discrimination and reverse discrimination and white privilege talk and keeping Asian-Americans out of college only further engenders the next generation of animosity towards a government that can't seem to get its head out of its butt on this.
My man.
That's it, brother.
It's the only way to do it.
I'm sorry.
We're battle-scarred.
I get it.
I totally get it.
I have not been subjected, ever in my life, to the indignities of having to drink from a colored water fountain.
There are people alive who have had to experience that.
We should never, ever forget the sins of the past.
I can't even imagine getting salt thrown in my eyes if I was a black American sitting at the white counter in some places down south.
My heart bleeds for you.
Whether you believe that or not, because I'm a conservative, is irrelevant to me.
I know what's in my head.
You don't.
Even seeing it in movies, in movies, that's all like I didn't witness it, and you know it's fake, it's a movie.
Even seeing it in movies brings tears to my eyes.
It's just so troubling to watch this happen here.
But that era's gone.
Recognize those sins, never repeat them in the past, but let's not double down on repeating the sins in the future against other disfavored groups.
It's not fair.
I'm sorry, and reading this story about Michael Wang, I think you'll feel the same way.
Poor kid, working his butt off.
He probably his entire life wants to get into an Ivy League school, and he can't because why?
He's been subjected to some random racial quote?
Oh, we have enough Asians in here!
Like it's a group of automaton robots.
The Asians are coming!
This is ridiculous!
Sorry, I didn't mean to spend that much time on that, but it's an important story, folks.
You know, read Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, and you'll understand the damage government does by forcing equality.
It's really enforced inequality, inequality, and discrimination.
All right.
Today's show also brought to you by our buddies at BrickHouse Nutrition.
Hey, it's always uncomfortable segways at three, but these guys keep the show free and they're really good.
I wanted to show you something, folks.
I've been privy enough, I get free stuff from them because they're awesome, BrickHouse.
They've been a sponsor for a long time and they sent me their new product.
So I actually took a screenshot of the label of their newest product, which I am crazy about.
It's called Feel the Greens.
Now, we all live busy lives.
I know Joe.
Joe's up all day doing this editing.
He's got to edit today because I screwed something up before.
You know, I only edit when I'm really distracted from the show.
But right, Joe?
We leave in a lot of stuff, but it was like, oh man, I had a total meltdown on that one.
But we all live busy lives.
Joe does.
I do.
And one of the things about brick houses, they're always producing products to make your lives better.
And it's really tough to get in.
We all know eating fruits and vegetables is good for us.
I mean, there's no more universally accepted tenet of nutrition than eat your fruits and vegetables.
The fiber, the micronutrients, the macronutrient profile, they're great.
But who has time?
No, I mean, seriously, who has time to prepare up everything from broccoli to kale to, you know, although it's not a vegetable, like green tea type drinks.
I mean, Nobody has time for that.
These guys put it all in a convenient powder.
This is terrific.
Here's some of the ingredients in this stuff.
This is right off the label in the back.
By the way, I take it now two, three times a day.
It is unbelievable.
The taste is pretty good too, which is shocking.
Some of this stuff tastes like dirt.
This stuff is pretty good.
They have an organic greens blend, spinach powder, parsley powder, kale powder, barley grass, organic wheatgrass powder, spirulina, Chlorella, green pepper, green apple powder.
I'm not even telling you because I don't have a lot of time.
They have probiotic fibers, organic strawberry, organic raspberry, organic blueberry, organic tart cherry, organic pomegranate, cranberry.
It goes on and on.
Ginger powder, licorice powder.
Where are you going to eat all this stuff?
Well, I got the answer for you.
Field of Greens.
Folks, again, there is no more universally accepted tenet of modern nutrition and health that eating fruits and vegetables is good for you and will improve the quality of your life.
Go pick up a bottle of this stuff today.
I'm going to let you in on a little secret.
Don't tell anybody.
It's kind of stupid considering somebody don't tell anybody.
This is my secret.
I call this my long life cocktail.
My long life cocktail.
All right.
I mix green tea with V8 with fielder greens and a little bit of collagen.
Now, You may say, oh, that sounds pretty nasty.
I'm telling you, the Field of Greens is good.
The fruits in it give it a nice taste.
I mix that all together in a big, and I swallow that sucker down like there's no tomorrow.
It is terrific.
That's my secret.
Field of Greens is the core of it.
Go give it a shot.
It actually tastes pretty good.
Go check it out.
Field of Greens available at BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
That's BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
If you check out our email list, it is right there at the top.
There's a quick link to it, but check this stuff out.
It's fantastic.
All right.
The Mueller thing.
I said in the beginning of the show, I just bring this up and, you know, I talk about it a lot and I don't like to repeat shows or beat up the audience too much with it, but there is an interesting piece in the Wall Street Journal today about the dangers of firing Bob Mueller.
And I think it was William McGurn who wrote it, who does great work.
And Bob Mueller is the lead investigator on the special counsel looking into Trump-Russia.
And folks, I have to tell you, I wholeheartedly disagree.
Now, McGurn is a very smart guy, and he brings up a couple interesting points.
He says, well, if he fires Bob Marlowe, Donald Trump, the head of the special counsel, into the fake Trump-Russia investigation, he says it's just going to invite more congressional scrutiny, and it's basically going to be talk of impeachment, and it's going to look like he has something to hide.
He proposes some other mechanisms.
And one of those vehicles he proposes is Kimberly Strassel made a point of, hey, how about we just appoint someone within the FBI and DOJ to make sure FBI compliance with these demands for Congress for an investigation.
OK, fair enough point.
But he basically says, Joe, the point of his piece is don't fire Bob Mueller.
It's a mistake.
Folks, I disagree.
And this is not reactionary.
It's not me trying to be the hyperbolic, you know, screamer on the river.
It's not going to help anything, okay?
It's ridiculous.
It's not going to help anything.
I say it from a strictly practical perspective.
Bob Mueller was assigned as the lead special counsel, lead of the special counsel, precisely to investigate Trump-Russian collusion.
We have seen none of that.
Nothing.
Matter of fact, they're having a hard time showing how the Russians infiltrated the election to change the result, that is.
The Russians are always trying to hurt our election show, note that, but they're not our friends.
Let's be crystal clear on that.
So, there is no Trump-Russia collusion.
We get that.
I've done shows on it.
There's nothing there.
No one's shown that yet.
Nobody's shown any evidence at all of any collusion to overturn an election whatsoever.
But the investigation has streamed off the beaten path.
You've seen this investigation into Paul Manafort.
Paul Manafort and his business dealings prior to becoming Trump's campaign manager.
It has nothing to do with Trump-Russia collusion.
It may have a lot to do with Manafort's collusion, Joe.
But that was an issue that could have been handled by the FBI anyway.
You see where I'm going, Joe?
There was no need for a special... The special counsel, folks, to be crystal clear, was organized and put together specifically to go after Trump under the allegation that he had colluded with the Russians to overturn an election, of which there's no evidence at all, and this is turning into a witch hunt for everything but Trump-Russia collusion.
It is time to fire this guy.
I don't think they will, but you're...
The premise for not firing Gordon McGurn, and again, he's a bright guy, I read his columns all the time, I think he's terrific, but I just respectfully disagree with him.
Not firing him, Joe, under the, you know, under the idea here that, oh, look, it's going to unleash the press and unleash Congress and make them look at Trump and make it look like he's guilty.
That's already happening now.
They hate this guy.
There's going to be talk of impeachment.
There's talk of impeachment now.
Al Green, that representative, just introduced the resolution impeachment articles the other day on the House floor.
In other words, Joe, nothing's going to change.
You fire Mueller, it's not going to stop the FBI from investigating anything.
You're not shutting the FBI down.
It's not going to stop Congress from investigating anything.
It's going to stop a special counsel investigation that has clearly, by any reasonable measure, gone off the rails.
It was started to investigate Trump-Russia.
There's nothing there!
So now it's into Manafort, it's into a couple fibbers, they call it.
You know, Flynn, who at this point, I'm telling you, I think history is going to judge Mike Flynn completely differently, by the way.
But you see my point, Joe?
Yeah.
Like, don't fire Mueller because, you know, it's going to fire up the press.
Oh, the press.
They need firing up to go after Donald Trump.
They invent fake news now.
Or it's going to fire up the impeachment talk.
Folks, it's already happening.
It's going to look like he has something to hide.
They're saying that now.
The guy has nothing to hide.
Don Jr.
has been releasing everything.
Don Jr.' 's like a guy DM'd me on Twitter.
Here's the stuff.
Here's the email.
I mean, what are they hiding?
If there's evidence out there that there was collusion, step up!
Step up!
You know, we have that Phil Robertson, the Duck Commander show on CRTV.
He has this great episode about preparing shrimp.
He's like, if you could prepare something better, you need to announce it and step up!
I love that.
So far, I've watched it a thousand times.
Then step up, folks!
If there's Trump Russia clues, then step up.
If not, fire this guy.
I'm sorry, there's no reason for it.
It's not an effort to hide anything, Joe.
It's an effort to get back to a normal system of justice in this country.
Please.
And yesterday, doubling down on this, by the way, and this is not the special counsel, to be clear, this is the DOJ, but the special counsel has its own problems.
Andy Weissman, who is, you know, quote, the bulldog on the special counsel, who was at Hillary's election night celebration, which turned into a disaster.
He's the one who sent the email to Sally Yates congratulating her, the number two at justice for defying Trump.
These guys, they're clearly, clearly biased.
Clearly.
He had to lead investigators, send in 10,000 texts about Trump or something like that to his mistress.
I mean, come on.
Who was also on the special counsel.
But we find out yesterday, through some stellar reporting by James Rosen, that one of the associate deputy attorney generals in the Department of Justice, a guy by the name of Bruce Orjo, not only met with Fusion GPS, the producers of the fake Russian dossier, but his wife worked there!
What?
What?
See, you're good.
I like it.
See, that's why I'm giving you full control of the soundboard now.
Thank you, Dan.
As of now, you are to go forth with full control of the soundboard.
My friend Ron P has done a nice job.
I said to Joe before the show, I go, I love this, Ron.
I don't have to go out there and get any sound clips.
He sends them to us.
It's terrific.
So Joe's got a nice little cornucopia.
We try not to beat you up with too much sound, but it is funny.
What?
That's good.
Folks, the guy's wife worked for Fusion GPS, so let me get this straight.
A high-ranking Department of Justice official by the name of Bruce Ohr.
He meets with Fusion GPS who produced a fake document on behalf of Hillary's team.
Full of salacious allegations provided by Russians.
So just walking through this.
Hillary and the DNC paid the Russians, through this guy Christopher Steele, for fake information on Trump.
The fake information on Trump, the guy who produced the fake information on Trump, who was the conduit for the money, Christopher Steele and Fusion GPS, met with a high-ranking justice official, who by the way didn't feel the need to disclose this Joe, And by the way, said Justice official's wife was working at Fusion GPS at the time.
Nothing to see here, folks.
Don't you worry at all.
No problems.
No problems.
It's time to wrap this thing up, folks.
I'm sorry.
The country needs to move on.
All right, one quick last thing.
I usually don't do this, but I wanted to squeeze this in because it'll be in the show notes today.
Sometimes I throw stories in there I don't get to discuss, but If you want a good laugh, read this story at the Washington Examiner about the opponents of net neutrality.
Listen, I get it, there are passionate people on both sides of this, but I'm going to ask you a very simple question that I've asked before, but I'm going to ask you again more directly.
Who are the supporters of net neutrality now?
When you look at the supporters, if you were a conservative, you should probably say to yourself, uh, wait, I'm not one of them.
Here's just a list in this Washington Examiner piece of the greatest hits.
You have the Democrat FCC Commissioner, what is it, Jessica Rosenworcel.
You have Democrat Senator from New Hampshire, Maggie Hassan.
You have New York Attorney General, who is a far-left liberal, Eric Schneiderman.
These are all supporters of net neutrality who have been open advocates over the last few days of basically government control of the internet.
That's what it is, make no mistake.
And I just want to show you the grassroots, the failure of grassroots, the total astroturf nonsense going on behind the scenes by some people to make sure the government, through net neutrality, gets its mitts on your internet.
Now, there's a vote scheduled coming up very soon to get rid of this disaster, this Obama administration control over the internet.
And Pew Research did a survey, Joe.
Bro, people supporting government intrusion into the internet, right?
They received 21.7 million comments from April 27 to the end of August.
You may say, wow, gosh, there's so many people out there supporting net neutrality who want the government taking over the internet.
That's amazing.
21.7 million?
This is according to Pew, by the way.
It's not Dan Bongino's opinion.
Pew determined that many of these use duplicate email addresses or temp email addresses and many of the sender's names are these emails supporting government control of the internet, Joe.
Many of the sender names showed up thousands of times in the comments.
AstroTurf, AstroTurf, and I saw this on Twitter.
I saw this on Twitter a couple times.
I just did a Tommy two times, two times.
I was on Twitter the other day, and I got into an easy, quick, little, respectful spat with a guy about net neutrality.
And I went to net neutrality in the search box show, and I noticed something funny on Twitter.
The exact same response one of the guys was sending to the other guy supporting net neutrality had literally been copied and pasted by thousands of bot accounts that were sending the same thing.
It's astroturf, folks.
Net neutrality is a scam to get government involved in the internet.
And as I said when we covered this a week ago, it should tell you something that the first action by the Obama-era FCC using net neutrality to attack was to attack people who were getting the internet Or sites on the internet for free.
Zero rating.
The ability to give your site away for free using certain data providers.
That was the first thing the Obama administration went after.
So don't believe this hype.
Oh, they're going to go after internet fast lanes and rich people are going to get a different internet.
No, no, no.
They went after poorer folks and middle-income folks who actually needed to go to certain sites and use data for free.
That should tell you something.
All right, folks, thanks again for tuning in.
I really appreciate it.
Please go to bongino.com, subscribe to my email list, and I will send you these articles.
See you tomorrow.
You just heard The Dan Bongino Show!
Get more of Dan online anytime at conservativereview.com.
You can also get Dan's podcasts on iTunes or SoundCloud.
