All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 16, 2018 - The Dan Bongino Show
01:05:03
Ep. 657 The Scandal Grows
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Get ready to hear the truth about America on a show that's not immune to the facts with your host, Dan Bongino.
Hi, welcome to the Dan Bongino Show.
Producer Joe, how are you today?
Oh, Fridays are always welcome, my friend.
Yeah, I know.
I love Fridays.
I'll be at CPAC next week.
A couple of administrative notes for our listeners out there.
I'll be at CPAC next week down at National Harbor at the Gaylord Hotel.
It's a conservative political action conference for those of you who haven't been there before.
It's a great place to go.
National Harbor, I say that as if everybody knows where that is, in Maryland, in Prince George's County, Maryland.
It's a gathering of conservative activists across the country.
It's one of the bigger ones.
Donald Trump will be there speaking along with a lot of other Yes.
So if you want to come by and say hello, I'll be at the NRATV booth down there.
You're more than welcome.
You can't miss it.
We have one of the biggest booths there.
As always, I'm on NRATV as well at 1 p.m.
Eastern every day with Grant Stinchfield.
You can check that out at NRATV.com.
Hey, I made some updates to the website, Debunk This.
I have a Debunk This section at Bongino.com.
Where I debunk a lot of liberal nonsensical ideas.
I think we're up to about 20 or 25 postings.
I promise when you get through it, you will feel a lot more educated for it.
There's some great articles up there about, you know, the myth of the Clinton surplus.
I updated it with some firearms stuff, too.
You know, which I'll get into today.
You know, the assault weapons ban.
Did that work?
No.
But so go check out, debunk this.
We made some updates.
And please, one more thing.
I'm sorry to get through this administrative stuff, but it's really important for us.
If you're looking to help us and you're listening on YouTube, that's cool, on our channel, on our YouTube channel, we appreciate that.
But also, if you wouldn't mind subscribing on iTunes or iHeartRadio, subscribing to the show on SoundCloud, whatever it may be, we'd appreciate it.
No pressure.
We don't do hard sell tactics here.
But we The show is free because we get paid by advertisers on download numbers.
And if you're listening on YouTube, which is fine.
Again, all I'm concerned about right now is that you get the content of the show.
The downloads are how we get paid and keep the show free.
So we would appreciate if you subscribe.
iTunes, Spotify, SoundCloud, iHeart.
It means a lot to us.
So thank you very much.
Okay.
I got a lot to talk about today.
Let me lay out the show for you.
First, I want to get into some great article by Daniel Greenfield about the abnormalization of Trump and how everything he does now with the left is unprecedented and they rewrite history, Joe, to make Trump appear as if he's unusually insane and we are at some critical junction in history.
I want to get to that and I want to tie it into a couple other stories.
Those stories will be available to show notes today.
All right, today's show brought to you by our buddies at Gotenna.
Welcome on board to our Gotenna people.
What's Gotenna?
They're a new sponsor.
This is a really, really cool thing.
Listen, I like to stay prepared in the event of an emergency.
Did you ever wonder, Joe, if your cell phone, the network went down and you couldn't text or you couldn't email, what would you do?
Well, we'd be up, you know.
Yeah, you'd be up the creek.
Well, you wouldn't be if you had Gotenna and Gotenna Mesh.
What is Gotenna?
It's kind of like antenna with a go, you know, G-O-T-E-N-N-A.
It's a new revolutionary technology.
This company, it's the first company of its kind, by the way.
Where you can use your phone to communicate without cell, internet, or satellite service.
You're like, how the heck could that happen?
This thing looks like a USB stick.
It's a little bigger than that, right?
But the future is now.
This thing's compatible with any iOS or Android device.
It helps you leverage the smartphone you already have in your pocket.
It extends your network and strengthens communications.
Remember, you don't need cell or internet service at all to communicate.
You can text with them.
This thing is great.
You gotta check it out.
Plus, the more friends that join, the stronger the network gets.
Now, Gotenna Mesh is a tiny but mighty device.
It pairs with any smartphone to enable the first 100% off-grid, mobile, long-range, consumer-ready mesh network.
You gotta check this thing out.
It's super cool.
Go check it out at Gotenna.com.
That's G-O-T-E-N-N-A.com.
Gotenna.com.
I got a promo code for you as well.
We always like those.
Dan35.
Thanks, Gotenna, for jumping on board.
So this piece with Daniel Greenfield about the abnormalization of Trump is absolutely fantastic, and it applies right now in light of the horrible tragedy down in Parkland, about 60 miles south of where I live in Florida, in Martin County.
The piece with Greenfield, Joe, says a couple of different things.
It's in there, it says that Everything Trump does now, the left is so driven by rage that rationality has gone out the window, reason's gone out the window, and the left is in a frenzy to rewrite history, to in fact change the narrative.
He gives a really good example of this.
Now folks, this is important.
You need to understand this because it speaks to the psychosis on the left right now.
The example he gives It's not the one I'm gonna use, but his theory is the same.
The example he gives, Joe, is the military parade.
Remember Trump put out, hey, maybe we should have a military parade, and the left went crazy, oh my gosh, he's a fascist!
He's crazy!
He's crazy!
Trump is, this is a unique fascist moment in America, a military parade!
We're losing it, we're losing the country.
Now, as Greenfield points out in his piece, and he's correct, and the piece will be at the show notes at Bongino.com.
Folks, we've had military parades.
We've had military parades proposed by Democrats before in office, and it was never considered to be a big deal.
It was considered to be a celebration of the country, and it's a very competent and effective military.
In other words, none of this was abnormal.
The suggestion of a military parade, an actual military parade.
We had a military parade.
After the first Gulf War.
I remember it well.
None of this was considered abnormal.
But in the left's haste and rage and blind fury to categorize Trump as some unique threat to the republic, they are in a rush, Joe, to categorize everything he does as abnormal.
But here's the critical takeaway, folks.
In doing so, They are destroying their own credibility, number one.
And number two, they are rewriting history that anyone who's still reasonable can go back and look at themselves.
In other words, you can go back and look at this.
Look at the Greenfield article.
The things that were suggested military parades under Democrat administrations actually happened, folks.
So if your operating theory as a blind rage liberal against Trump right now is that military parades are evidence of fascism, then the Democratic Party's full of fascists.
Joe, is what I'm saying making sense?
Yeah, I believe that it was Chuck Schumer, was it?
Schumer, yes, great point!
Schumer, you know what?
We don't even have to go back to JFK and Truman.
You're absolutely right, good point.
Schumer himself was on board for a military parade.
Big time!
Now, the article's from, I think, February 9th, so it's a couple days old, the Greenfield article.
More than a couple days.
But I'm bringing it up today for a reason.
I like to tie these operating theories that run throughout the show that are evergreen over the years into ongoing news.
You're seeing this theory now, the abnormalization of Trump, which to be clear, again, is the rewriting of history and the absence of reason.
A reasonable person could go back and look and say, Hey, have we had military praise before?
Yeah.
Okay.
Who supported them?
As Joe just said, Chuck Schumer, John F. Kennedy, Harry Truman.
Okay.
So maybe you don't like the idea.
I don't know.
Maybe I think, I don't think it's a bad idea at all, but you think it's a waste of money, whatever it may be.
That's fine.
But painting it as some moment of, you know, a fascist turn in our history and some abnormal moment in American history, folks, is ridiculous.
It's utterly absurd.
It's outrageously stupid.
I'm bringing this up now because of what happened in Parkland, the tragedy down there.
And again, the rush to abnormalize Trump, and in the process of abnormalizing Trump, rewrite history, and by the way, in a vacuum of reason.
You're seeing it now.
I don't know if you've seen the coverage by the media.
Again, it's an outright lie.
And forgive me for jumping around, because I'm going to get to this in a little more detail in a minute.
But you've seen the coverage by the media over the last few days where, oh, Joe!
Trump rushed, you know, he rushed this rule through that allowed the mentally ill access to guns.
Have you seen this coverage at all, folks?
If you haven't, I'll put the article in the show notes that entirely debunks this National Review by Charles Cook.
Again, it's an older piece, about, I don't know, six months old or so.
Read the piece.
Trump did not sign anything that gave the mentally ill access to guns.
It's a lie!
But it again is a rush by the media and the left in an incidence of clear national tragedy to abnormalize and paint Trump as a historically dangerous figure rushing to do things that were not done.
I'm going to get into in a second about how folks, that didn't happen.
Trump did not sign a rule, institute a rule, get rid of a rule, anything to do with mentally ill people having access to guns.
I'll tell you what they did and you're going to be stunned how they came to that.
Well, you probably won't because the media are just full of liars.
But before I get to this, so you see where I'm going with this show?
Yeah.
Again, a rush to paint Trump as some abnor- Look, he's so crazy.
Look what he did.
Just months ago, he gave the mentally ill access to guns, and look what happened.
The problem is none of that happened.
We are at a unique moment in history where the media has really forfeited all reason, forfeited all journalistic integrity, in an effort to make this guy crazier than anybody we've ever seen in the past.
Now, I'm getting a lot of feedback on the show we did the other day, positive by the way, and I appreciate the emails.
Sometimes we get negative stuff, but not about this.
I've gotten an overwhelming number of emails from people who are fascinated by the theory I threw out last week about the difference between conservatives and liberals and why I think liberals are more at fault for the heavy partisan divide we've seen right now.
Yeah, I liked it, yeah.
Yeah, I know you did, and the audience did, too.
I got a tremendous amount of feedback.
Now, to be clear, this was not my theory.
I'm not taking credit for it.
I think it's Arnold Kling, his theory.
I heard about it on a podcast I listen to by Russ Roberts, Econ Talk, which is very good.
It's a once a week podcast.
Again, his politics a little different than mine, but he's a brilliant guy and he has some very deep discussions.
It's a different format than my show.
It's an hour interview.
Some of them are really wonky.
Some of them aren't.
But in the shows, one of the shows he did recently was a show, Joe, about the increasing partisan divide, how we may be in a very I don't want to say unique, but at least that we're at a time now where the partisan divide seems to be growing and growing and growing and people are looking for explanations.
Yeah.
You know, one of them out there is, oh, it's social media.
It's, you know, people say, oh, it's Fox News.
You know, the conservatives will say it's NBC and ABC and MSNBC.
But one of the theories that were put out there, and he cites this guy, I think it's Cling, Arnold Cling, but Was how these two different views of the world by conservatives and liberals, how they can't mesh.
Now, he passes kind of blame on both sides, and I get it, but I don't.
I cast the blame overwhelmingly on liberals here, and let me explain my point.
I don't want to redo the show, but it's important here to understand where I'm going with this, with the gun issue, with the firearm issue, and the abnormalization of Donald Trump.
I'm going to tie this together for you.
I'm assuming his name is Kling.
I'm sorry if it's not Arnold.
I know his first name is Arnold, at least.
I'm sorry if I got your name wrong.
He says, conservatives see the world as coercion versus liberty.
In other words, we are afraid of big government and power because we don't want to be coerced, Joseph, into doing things we don't want to do.
We don't want to be coerced into giving more of our money to the government and having to work harder for them rather than us.
We don't want to be coerced into making medical decisions we don't want to make because we have to ask the government for permission first.
We don't want to be coerced into sending our kids to schools that stink because the government said so.
Dilly dilly.
Yeah, we see it as a liberty issue.
We want to pick our own schools.
We want to pick our own doctors.
We want to spend our own money.
We make a trade-off, though.
We do understand that there are some issues of large, overwhelming majority collective agreement, that there are some instances where we will forfeit our money, our ability to make economic decisions, for the betterment of society.
And one of them is, you know, things that are in the Constitution, right?
We have things like, you know, the military, for example.
You know, we understand, you know, the need for a military or some collective defense mechanism to defend our country.
You know, I mean, you can argue about the Constitution, post roads and things like that, but largely we're saying even the most ardent libertarians and conservatives will acknowledge there's at least some areas of fundamental agreement.
Courts, some courts who adjudicate contracts and, you know, you get what I'm saying?
So we get that.
Yeah.
Now, He also says that the problem with liberals, well, liberals see the world differently.
Liberals see the world as the oppressor versus the oppressed.
Now, as I said in the show last week, or excuse me, the other day, I'm sorry folks, I'm just, I'm excited about today's show and I got a lot of information to get to you.
So I love doing, this means a lot to me, like I'm happy to be here with you.
So forgive me for my, for jumping around a little bit.
Take a deep breath.
Liberals see the world as the oppressor versus the oppressed.
In other words, there's always going to be some victim group out there of oppressed people.
LGBTQ, minority, Asian, Islamic, women, unions.
Everything is someone versus someone else and it's always someone involved in the use of power versus someone using that power to oppress someone else.
Yeah.
Now, when you see the world in those two distinct ways, it's very hard for those spheres to mesh.
But I make the case that I don't, and to be clear, the premise here is that this is what may be leading to this excessive partisan divide right now.
I don't think so, folks.
I think this is what's leading to the liberal divide to demonize us, but not the conservatives' effort to demonize the liberals.
Because a lot of the conservatives I know, Joe, understand that the oppressor versus the oppressed narrative that liberals live by is very real.
We've had government, throughout time, oppress people, whether it's through Jim Crow, whether it's through slavery, whether it's through the internment of the Japanese in World War II.
But what the liberals fail to understand is, the oppressor is usually the same government that we're fighting against!
I don't mean fighting against literally, I mean fighting against for excessive power and the taking of liberty.
Liberals don't seem to get that.
We get their point of view.
Am I being clear on this show?
We totally get it.
There are oppressed people and there is a battle and there's always been a battle for people to, you know, break through against powerful forces against them.
But what the liberals fail to understand about us Is that, that coercer is the government!
Yes.
The overwhelming majority of the time!
Yes, there are some powerful corporations that have made bad decisions over time, we get that!
But the overwhelming majority of the time, the monopolistic use of force has been by an oppressor, and that oppressor is the government!
And it infuriates conservatives that liberals don't get this.
They talk about this battle of the oppressor versus the oppressed, Joe, As they simultaneously fight for things like Obamacare, which force people into making decisions they don't want to make.
Yeah.
Hey, buy healthcare, we're going to penalize you.
Wait, what?
I thought this was about oppressor versus the oppressed.
Yeah, they're telling you to do something you don't want to do.
How do we know that, Joe?
Because if you wanted to do it, you would have bought the damn healthcare already.
So wait, I get penalized only when I don't want healthcare.
Joe, I'm not crazy, right?
No.
If there's a penalty, a tax penalty, which there is.
Well, there was.
There's a tax penalty in Obamacare, as it was passed, for not buying healthcare.
Am I correct in assuming, Joe, that that tax penalty will only hit people who don't want to do something and are now being forced to do it?
Yep, that's oppression.
What other way is it?
You don't want to make a decision the government's forcing you now to make.
If you've already made the decision to buy healthcare, it doesn't apply to you.
It only applies to people who don't want to do it.
I mean, this is what infuriates conservatives about liberals, like, how do you not get that?
We get your point of view.
There are oppressed people.
Slavery was a scourge on humankind, the likes of which is unparalleled in human history.
You know, Jim Crow, the indignity of all of this, and Jim Crow, I totally get that.
I just don't understand why you don't get us.
Now, sorry, I didn't mean to get off on a tangent, but how does this relate to what we're talking about now?
This is what, again, I don't get about the abnormalization of Donald Trump and the effort to make him out to be a fascist, a war parade, I mean a military parade.
Joe, this guy's a fascist!
War!
He wants war!
War!
Folks, when you see the world only as an oppressor versus oppressed people, and you fail to see the coercion versus liberty argument on our side, that makes perfect sense to you.
Because you're blind to reason.
The same premise Greenfield puts out there in his piece.
Reason.
The use of facts and logic to come to a conclusion.
Have you asked yourself lately if Donald Trump is uniquely abnormal and he's doing things like giving the mentally ill guns?
Have you considered for a second That what Donald Trump has done in office may have actually decreased and limited government power over you to oppress people?
Listen, I'm not here to be a Trumpkin or to sell you anything.
I'm just telling you to use reason.
If the world to you is about the oppressor versus the oppressed, what has Donald Trump done to take the power he possesses in government to increase it over you?
He has cut your taxes.
He has signed a bill, at least, to cut your taxes.
He has signed a bill to get rid of components of Obamacare that force you to do things he doesn't want to do.
He's come out, at least vocally, for school choice initiatives.
Now, I bring this up today in light of this now, again, this firearm debate, which always comes up after a horrific incident like this, because what Trump really did was scrap an Obama-era law, by the way, folks, That prevented social security recipients who use some kind of a financial intermediary to handle their financial affairs from getting and owning a firearm.
That's what happened, folks.
So if you are a social security recipient who... I don't know why you need a financial intermediary.
Maybe you suck with money.
I have no idea.
The Obama administration put out a rule.
I'm not kidding.
I'm going to read to you from Charles Cook's piece in a minute.
That said, Joe, if you need financial help, your information goes into NICS, the National Instant Check System, and you could very well be prevented from not owning a firearm.
What?
Is that sane?
No, it's not, which is the irony of the left claiming that Trump, by the way, is allowing the mentally ill to get guns.
What does your financial affairs and using an intermediary have to do with you being mentally ill?
How are the two even connected?
Are some people with a mental illness using a financial intermediary?
I am sure.
But folks, isn't this a shocking stigma of a group on the left that talks about oppression versus the oppressor?
To support a law publicly after a tragic shooting and to lie about it, leaving reason outside the door.
To support a law where people who need financial help are now stopped from defending themselves and buying a firearm?
This is crazy!
Do you not see how the coercion versus liberty argument now comes into play?
Screw all you guys!
That's all they want!
That's it!
They don't have anything else!
Let me read to you from this, because this is important.
All right.
This is from Charles Cook's piece, which will be in the show notes today.
It's an older piece, but please read it.
Please rate.
Gosh, I'm so excited.
I'm like stumbling over.
I had to have Joe delete a thing before.
Sorry.
Sometimes you may be able to catch these.
I just, I want you to get a clean show for you folks.
And I get so excited sometimes I get to start tripping over my own words.
So here's from the piece.
Here are the details.
The American Association of People with Disabilities explained what was at stake with this Obama era rule where you couldn't buy a firearm if you needed a financial intermediary.
It says, this rule would require the Social Security Administration to forward the names of all Social Security Disability Insurance, SSDI, and Supplemental Security Income Benefit recipients who use a, listen to this, who use a representative payee to help manage their benefits due to a mental impairment to the National Instant Background Check System.
Now you may say, oh Dan, you just said it!
They have to use a financial intermediary because of a mental impairment.
Folks, that doesn't mean a mental illness!
That could be anything!
Anything at all!
Somebody could have... I'm dead serious when I say this.
Somebody could have some kind of OCD situation.
You know, you have obsessive hand washers, people with cleanliness.
I'm not joking around.
It's not funny.
This stuff happens.
What does that have to do with your ability to possess a firearm?
The mental impairment could be that, you know, who knows, you got in a car accident last month and you're having some cognitive disability.
So now all of a sudden you should be forwarded to NICS, the National Instant Check System, and you should be eliminated from owning a firearm?
I mean, what a horrible stigma to put on people.
Or what about just a bit of cognitive decline when you get older?
You're perfectly fine and functioning, you just don't want to handle your financial affairs.
So you designate an intermediary.
That means you can't defend yourself?
This has nothing to do with the mentally ill.
And it has everything to do with the designation of people that handle financial affairs for you.
Because there are a number of reasons.
Folks, they made this up.
Do you understand this?
They rewrite history all the time to paint Trump as some unique threat to America.
What they said happened did not happen.
A representative payee to help manage their benefits due to a mental impairment.
Now you gotta go to Nick's for that?
Folks, this is really troubling stuff.
Well, what if you have a mental impairment to the point where you don't want an intermediary?
I guess you're cool then.
Yeah, then you don't have, right, exactly.
Then you, like, you were smart enough to figure out that your finances, you may need some help with it, but because of that, all of a sudden, you're not allowed to defend yourself.
It's so outrageous and so stupid.
And folks, by the way, A bunch of groups, the National Center for the Disabilities, the ACLU, in conjunction, by the way, with the NRA, all came out against this thing.
Now, I bring this specific thing up, and I'm trying to tie a few shows together, and I'll sum this up because I got a couple other things to get to.
Because again, it ties back to the effort to abnormalize Trump as some fascist king, eager to get people hurt and killed, and the rewriting of history, tying that to the Greenfield piece.
War parade, military parade, fascism!
That's been done before and suggested by Democrats.
Doesn't matter!
Trump's a unique threat to the Republic!
There's a deadly shooting in Florida.
Trump wants to give guns to the mentally ill!
Where does it say that?
Oh, it just has to do with some mental impairment and a financial intermediary?
Oh, that sounds a whole lot different than Trump wants to give guns to the mentally ill.
It doesn't matter to the media!
Finally, it again goes back to the conflicting narratives and this increasing partisan divide between liberals and us, not us and liberals.
They see the world as the oppressor versus the oppressed, but they don't understand that the oppressor is overwhelmingly government.
You want to take people's rights away because they need someone to help them with their finances?
What comes next?
You want to take away their right to demand medical treatment at the end of life?
No, no, Joe.
Give that guy the pill.
Remember when Obama said that?
Yeah, give him the pill.
Give him the pill.
Remember he gave that speech, you know, sometimes you just got to give grandma the pill, you know, the pill.
You know, my grandmother's 90 plus, oh gosh, what is she, 96?
She worked a long, tough life.
So she's not entitled to medical care.
Listen, that's a waste.
Give her the bill.
Give her the bill, Dano.
Yeah, but she broke her leg.
Give her the bill.
Don't even fix that.
It's going to cost too much money.
Do you see how this slow degradation of liberty and the overwhelming use of coercion by government is the narrative?
Your oppressor versus the oppressed is a sub-narrative of ours?
Not the other way around?
This is about coercion.
It's always been about coercion.
Conservatism is liberalism in the traditional sense.
Classical liberals was the name for basically the modern conservative.
You've gotten lost.
You need to find your way home, not us.
You're making things up.
Frustrating it really is because you got a debate.
I mean I had a fiery debate last night And it's like people just leave reason behind in an effort to go right to the target narrative immediately all right I got a couple more things to get to all right today's show also brought to you by our pals at iTarget Thank you for all the great feedback with this folks listen if you're gonna own a firearm obviously we have to be super responsible about it But you have to know how to use it.
If you're going to learn how to fire a firearm, you have to do it accurately.
Now, one of the best ways to do it is dry firing.
Now, dry firing done safely and responsibly is one of the best ways to learn trigger control, sight alignment, appropriate grip.
In the Secret Service, we dry fired a lot.
What is dry firing?
Dry firing means firing an empty weapon.
Check it.
Check it twice.
Check it three times.
Look.
Make sure it's unloaded.
Feel.
Use that pinky, not the thumb.
Go down that barrel.
Make sure there's nothing in there.
And what you do is you dry fire the weapon with no round in it in an effort to practice that slow, deliberate trigger control, the resetting of the trigger, the sight alignment on both sides, the sight alignment to equal light on both sides, level across the top.
These are all important skills to learn.
Appropriate grip.
Now, to take your dry fire practice to the next level, the iTargetPro guys developed a really incredible system.
They will send you a laser round.
You drop into the bolt.
It's a laser bullet.
You drop into the firearm you have now.
You don't have to make any special modifications.
Whatever weapon you have, this is what they'll send you.
A 9mm round.
I just sent another one up to my father.
He loves this thing.
What you do is you drop it in an empty weapon, and when you pull the trigger, the laser bullet will emit a laser onto a target they send you, and in conjunction with a phone app, you'll see exactly where that round went.
It'll enable you to take your dry fire practice to the next level.
Listen folks, the range is important, but the range is expensive.
It takes a really long time in some cases to get there, clean your gun, it's expensive.
It's good to go, and you should go, but we can't get there all the time.
The iTarget system, thanks for all the emails on it by the way, is a great way in the safety and security of your own home to take your dry fire practice to the next level because you'll see where the rounds would have won.
Go check it out.
The website is itargetpro.com, that's itargetpro.com, promo code Dan, D-A-N, for 10% off.
That's itargetpro.com, itargetpro.com.
Remember, competitive shooters who do this for a living, dry fire 10 times more than they live fire.
It's very important to learn how to fire that firearm.
Moving on.
I have another great story in the show notes today by Lee Smith at Tablet Mag, who has been doing just absolutely incredible work.
I don't know what his handle is on Twitter, but if you're on Twitter and you're not following this guy, you're making a big mistake.
Just look up Lee Smith, Tablet Mag.
He is doing incredible work.
I publish his pieces as often as I can on my website.
This one he did was Amazing.
I read it yesterday.
It'll be up at the show notes.
And the gist of the piece, Joe, is, you know, the media, why'd they stop covering the Russian collusion narrative?
And the answer is because the media has been part of the Russian collusion narrative.
And he walks you through the whole thing in such a damning case that if it was a criminal indictment, you'd be like, guilty, judge, guilty as charged.
He walks through how a lot of these liberal media outlets, and some who claim not to be liberal, were given information.
It leaks.
Leaked information.
Information from Christopher Steele and Fusion GPS.
Information that was later used in court filings.
Information that was used by other media outlets.
In other words, it's a big circle, Jerk Joe.
Yeah.
We were just talking the other day, you and I, about how we noticed the media dropping off coverage of this.
Of course.
Remember?
Yeah.
And the premise of what Smith is saying in his piece, if I may, because it's such a good piece, it's hard to sum it up in one sentence.
The reason the media is not talking about it anymore is because they're the story now.
Bingo.
How the Russian collusion fake narrative happened was because of the media.
It was the media citing other media.
Now, that's not necessarily a bad thing, folks.
Right.
If they're using a separate series of sources.
But if I tell Joe something, and I tell Joey Bag of Donuts something, and then I tell Harry something, and I tell them everything I'm telling them is the same, and Joe uses Harry, uses Joey Bag of Donuts, and says, hey look, this has to be true because I heard it from Harry.
Well, who'd Harry hear from?
Dan.
Well, you know, who'd Joey Bag of Donuts hear from?
Dan.
Well, Armacost, who'd you hear from?
I heard it from Dan.
So we all heard the same thing.
So you citing Harry is doing nothing to advance your argument because you're really just citing me.
Over and over.
Smith walks through how these media people did exactly that.
And then how the media stories were then used in court to get court documents to spy on the Trump team.
It is a great, wonderful piece.
I just want to bring it up quick because it does an incredible job of laying out a case in a methodical way.
That the media, folks, is the story here.
The story the entire time has been, look at the media's role in this.
And that's why now, Joe, the media is running for the hills.
Because they understand that sooner or later, there's going to be a reckoning and they're going to have to come to face the facts that they are the story.
That this entire collusion story is not a story about collusion, but a story about them.
Good piece.
Check it out.
But I want to move on to something else.
There are some really troubling developments in the Mike Flynn case.
Now, I have another article by Byron York, The Washington Examiner, another writer who's been doing great work on this show, and York points out that the Flynn case, which I've told you has been a scam the entire time, Folks, Flynn was the scalp they needed.
Mike Flynn, the National Security Advisor, was the scalp they needed the entire time.
He was interviewed at the White House with no lawyer present under the guise that this was some kind of just a regular conversation between the FBI and him as the National Security Advisor.
No one told him it was a criminal interview.
They walked in there with a transcript of a call they had recorded that he made, that He was on the call with the Russian ambassador, and when the statements he made didn't align perfectly with that conversation and recorded call, the FBI charged him with making false statements.
Most of us know that story.
The whole thing was a farce.
It was based on a premise that he had discussed sanctions with the Russian ambassador.
That was a violation of the Logan Act.
Nobody has supported the Logan Act.
Excuse me, nobody's been prosecuted with the Logan Act in American history.
Nobody.
It's the jaywalking of federal crimes.
They targeted Flynn from the start.
Now, some of the new revelations in the Flynn case are incredible.
There's a theory going on out there, Joe, that the FISA court, which is basically a handful of federal judges, that one of the judges involved in the approval of the warrants to spy on the Trump team May have been the same guy in the Flynn case.
Now, there's a lot of speculation.
I'm putting it out there.
This is speculation.
Let me be clear, because nobody has a name yet from what I've seen.
But why is there speculation?
An interesting thing happened not very long ago.
Flynn pled guilty to this false statements charge, which I'm telling you, I'm absolutely sure he did.
He was basically coerced.
There was a threat to bankrupt him.
He would have been facing legal fees.
I don't know what happened with his family and threats to them, but this plea, I think, should be vacated immediately.
But Flynn pled guilty to a judge after the plea, Joe.
Have you heard any of this?
No, no.
That's why I'm making these faces, yeah.
After the plea, the judge he pleads guilty to recuses himself from the case.
What?
Yes, there's now a new judge on the case, Emmett Sullivan, who, by the way, has a reputation for making sure the government does the right thing, literally, by the book, not in the Susan Rice way.
In these cases, there's a new judge on the case, and this is interesting, folks.
The sentencing for Mike Flynn for the plea has been delayed, and the new judge on the case, Emmett Sullivan, Has put out an order, Joe, demanding that, quote, all discoverable evidence is presented to the Flynn defense team in a readable form.
All right.
Now... Sorry, folks.
I feel like I got something in my... I may need some wax Rx.
I got something in my ear.
Folks, that's the kind of thing that's supposed to happen before.
Yeah.
A plea agreement is not after.
In other words, if I make, there's information called Brady material.
If I'm prosecuting Joe or investigating Joe in conjunction with a prosecutor for felonious mopery, and I have information that Joe didn't commit the crime, I am obligated by law to give that material in discovery over to Joe's lawyer.
I have no choice.
Nope.
It's Brady material.
So ask yourself, Why the hell would a federal judge, a new one in the case, demand now that all discoverable evidence is presented to the team, the Flynn defense team, in a readable form?
May I suggest to you folks that behind the scenes there's a big scramble going on to CYA big time and there was a boatload of evidence showing that this Flynn thing was a setup the whole time.
May that, you know, have played a role in the delay in the sentencing?
Not exactly sure, but I'm telling you that there are people in that room who interviewed Flynn at the White House who believed that Flynn was telling the truth.
So you may say, why would he take a false statement charge?
I already told you because I think the investigators, by default, were going to bankrupt him and he had no choice.
He was probably trying to protect someone else.
But the FBI agents in the room did not believe he was lying.
Matter of fact, Jim Comey said as much in a congressional hearing.
Folks, if this plea is vacated and thrown out, this case is going to collapse before our very eyes, because the entire linchpin to the Democrats' argument has been, look, look, we already have guilty pleas in this!
What if the guilty plea was coerced the entire time?
Now, let me get back to the judge a second, because I didn't tie that up for you.
I had to kind of give you a background on him.
There's a theory going around on the internet, and it's among some credible sites by the way, so I'm not talking about kook stuff here, that the very same judge, Joe, who approved maybe one of the warrants or maybe multiple warrants, the very same FISA court judge who approved the warrant to spy on Trump, may be the exact same judge who was on the Flynn case and took the plea.
Hmm.
Maybe.
Now, we'll see where that goes.
But I find it awfully puzzling that a judge, after a plea, folks, after, recuses himself from the case.
You smell something, too?
Yeah, yeah, big time.
Something's not right there, folks.
And then all of a sudden, the new judge on the case says, oh, and by the way, If there's evidence out there, hint hint, nod nod, that may show that Mike Flynn's innocent, you damn well better get that evidence to his defense team and you better get it there quick.
Yeah.
Folks, I've said to you repeatedly over and over, don't dismiss this or downplay it at all.
History is going to tell a far different story about Mike Flynn than the one you've heard.
All right, I want to get to some of this firearm stuff, but just one more story here because this is important.
This is a great piece of National Review by Andy McCarthy.
Again, it'll be up at the show notes at Bongino.com.
Please check it out.
You can subscribe to my email list.
As always, I'll email these right to you.
But remember I said to you this theory about the Susan Rice email that there's a threat I saw, which was interesting, and I'm not trying to dismiss anybody at a hand or attack anyone.
I don't like that.
There's no need for that.
This is too important of a story.
But there was a threat I saw the other day.
One of the suggestions was that Susan Rice may be a good guy in this, and that she may have sent that email right before Trump was inaugurated, saying how Obama was going to conduct this investigation of Trump by the book.
But there's another portion at the end where she says, you know, and we talked about potentially withholding information from the Trump team.
There's a theory that, oh, Rice may have been acting as a good guy.
In other words, she waited for Trump to be inaugurated, then sent the email, knowing the Obama team wouldn't see the email, and it memorialized the meeting that nobody said happened.
In other words, nobody acknowledged publicly this meeting even existed.
So, in other words, the theory is, hey, Susan Rice said, hey, look, folks, Obama can't see it anymore.
This meeting happened.
Here it is in my email, okay?
All right.
I don't believe that for a number of reasons.
I don't believe it because she continued to lie about unmasking after she left the administration, and she's been an Obama acolyte the entire time.
She's never really, you know, entirely apologized or completely walked back a role in Benghazi.
There's been some attempt to cover tracks, but I don't believe it at all.
I don't think she, you know, I think Susan Rice's priorities were always to Barack Obama, and I think I think the reason she sent the email was because of what's said in this Andy McCarthy piece at National Review, which is incredible.
McCarthy's premise here, Joe, Is that the Rice email, they knew Trump eventually was going to find out what was going on.
This witch hunt against him and a witch hunt based on a faulty dossier.
They knew basically the President of the United States was going to find out he was spied on based on crap garbage information.
They understood that, right?
So McCarthy writes that this email is probably a way for her to cover this up, the withholding of information from Trump, by kind of intimating that, hey, maybe Obama did it.
Obama, you know, Obama wanted it, but there was a good reason for this.
Now, let me explain it better in his, because I'm not really summing that up quite well.
He says in his piece, Again, an explanation as to why she would write an email about them withholding information from the Trump team.
It says, nevertheless, the Obama administration reckoned that if this were forthrightly explained to Trump, in other words, that he was being investigated on a crappy dossier, that the investigation would be shut down.
Understandably, Joe.
Trump knows he wasn't in a golden shower incident.
Why?
Because he's Trump and it's about him.
The FBI had no solid proof that Trump had actually colluded in any meaningful way with Russia.
The dossier was a hoax, folks.
Continuing.
Furthermore, Trump strenuously denied doing so.
Consequently, the Obama administration had to assume that, if Trump were fully informed, President Trump would not tolerate an investigation by his own administration expressly aimed at proving a traitorous Trump-Russia conspiracy that he denied and of which there was absolutely no evidence.
Folks, this is why I don't believe the Susan Rice is a good guy theory all of a sudden.
Rice knew the entire time the Trump collusion story was garbage.
It's nonsense.
It was bunk.
She was simply doing this knowing history was going to expose them as having withheld all of this from Trump, and she was trying to cover her tracks and cover her own ass, just like Clapper and Brennan, by writing, hey, Obama said do this by the book, as if this was going to resolve all of her sins here.
She says at the end of the email, you know, we talked about Jim Comey about potentially like withholding information, keeping information back from the Trump team.
Now, it brings up another interesting part of this, McCarthy.
How Comey briefed Trump the next day after the meeting she's memorializing.
This is critical.
You may say, well, I don't get it, Dan.
You're suggesting here that the Obama team wanted to withhold information from the Trump team, even as the Trump team got in office.
I believe doing so, by the way, Joe, with the hope that some Russian collusion evidence would emerge.
Because if it didn't, they were in a world of trouble.
Right, Joe?
Like, oh my gosh, we've been spying on these guys the whole time.
We got nothing.
Don't worry, it'll come.
But don't tell them or they'll shut it down.
Do you see where I'm going with this?
Rice's email is an effort to cover the scheme.
Spy on Trump.
We thought we had Russian collusion.
There's no evidence of Russian collusion yet.
We're running out of time.
Why are we running out of time?
Because it's January 5th and Trump is going to take office in 15 days.
Well, what's going to happen in 15 days?
Well, in 15 days, Trump's going to shut this down because he's the president and there's no Russian collusion.
So the January 5th meeting, Joe, happens as an effort to withhold information from the Trump team about the severity of the investigation.
Why, Joe?
So they don't shut it down.
With the hope that eventually collusion will emerge.
But it hasn't.
Now, McCarthy brings up a great point.
What happens the next day after the meeting she's talking about in the email?
Because remember, she sends the email on January 20th, but the meeting happens January 5th.
The next day, Comey briefs Trump on the dossier.
Now, follow me, folks.
This is important.
You may say to yourself, I don't get it, Dan.
Now, the premise you're making here on the McCarthy piece is that Rice is covering her butt because the Obama team was withholding information on the Trump investigation so that Trump wouldn't shut it down.
But now you're telling me the day after the meeting, Comey briefs Trump on the investigation.
Oh, no, no, no, no, no.
Comey briefs Trump on select portions of the investigation.
Comey doesn't brief Trump on the entire scope of it, and as a matter of fact, Comey says something very convenient to Trump.
He tells him, Mr. President, you're not under investigation.
And he tells the Senate later on, he told him, as of that moment.
So what does he do?
He knows this is the snake that Comey is.
He's such a snake.
Comey's part of this whole thing, by the way, to get and nail the Trump team, right?
He knows in 15 days they're at this January 5th meeting in conjunction with the White House, Trump's going to figure out that he's being investigated for nothing.
And he's rightfully going to shut this thing down.
Comey has to tell him something.
So with this January 5th meeting, it's likely they all coordinate a strategy.
Comey briefs Trump the next day, on January 6th, and says, hey, by the way, there's a dossier out there, and one of them mentions this Golden Showers incident, but it's salacious and unverified, and you're not under investigation.
When he knew Trump was under investigation, the whole point was Trump-Russian collusion.
But you see what he's doing, Joe?
He has to tell him something to keep him From looking deeper.
In other words, Mr. President, yeah, there was this thing going on, it was about this golden showers thing, but it was salacious, it's unverified, and you're not under investigation at this moment.
This is critical because it speaks to Comey's role and explains away, and McCarthy does a great job in the piece, it explains away the Rice email.
Everybody's trying to CYA right now.
Comey had to say something to Trump, but he couldn't tell him about the full scope of the investigation.
Hey, we had FISA warrants.
We had Carter Page.
We had all these people looking into your Russian collusion because Trump knows it's crap.
So Trump would have shut it down.
So he tells them just enough, just enough.
Now, what's ironic is, and another great point by Andy, is Trump asks Comey at some point to tell the public that he's not under investigation, but Comey won't do it.
Why won't Comey do it?
Because Comey knows Trump is under investigation.
The investigation is BS.
He knows it.
He's afraid of it being shut down.
He can't say to the public Trump isn't under investigation, because he is!
Matter of fact, you have that whole dispute at the White House, where Andy McCabe and Reince Priebus and, you know, the Trump investigation conversation.
And Reince says, well, can you tell the public that?
No, we can't tell the public that.
And then the story breaks.
Reince Priebus in the White House trying to demand the FBI, you know, disclose information.
That's not what happened.
McCabe approached Priebus.
Comey knows the whole time, Joe, that Trump is under investigation and their biggest fear is that he's going to shut it down.
Read the piece.
Does that make sense that I walked through that?
Yeah.
Especially if you look at it and you don't trust Comey.
Yeah.
Folks, by the way, I think at this point the evidence is overwhelming that you should not trust Jim Comey.
That Jim Comey's motives here, I think, I don't know what they were.
I'm not sure.
I know they weren't good though.
So just to be clear, to wrap this up, the Rice email is a CYA on the withholding of information from the Trump team.
She's trying to cover her own butt now.
So she memorializes a January 5th meeting where they suggest withholding information from the Trump team.
Why?
Because they're afraid the Trump team is going to discover that they were spied on with No probable cause to do so.
No evidence.
They're also afraid they're going to shut it down.
The next day after the meeting, Jim Comey shows up to a Trump meeting, tells Trump, hey, you know, there's this investigation, but it's based on some salacious and unverified, and he talks about like the golden shower thing, but leaves out the scope of it.
Trump says, hey, can you tell the public that I'm not under investigation?
Because Comey hints that to him.
He says, well, you know, we can't do that.
Well, why?
Because he is.
Then he tells Mark Warner in a Senate hearing, he says, listen, we told him he was an investigation as of that moment.
What do you mean?
Like the moment you uttered that?
But before and after he was?
Folks, this is... Do you understand, like, literally a soft coup was happening here?
And this is the disgusting part of this whole story.
I lived through, as a Secret Service agent, the Bush-Obama transition and the Clinton-Bush transition.
I'm telling you, the Bushes, I don't agree with a lot of their politics, but...
The Bushes could not have been more gracious.
I was there, folks.
You're not going to tell me.
There's no email you can send me.
I was there.
I literally worked in the White House.
I was up close and personal.
I saw them walking them through things.
The Bush people saying to the Obama incoming staffers, here's how this works.
Here's where the pens are.
Here's how we produce these documents.
Here's where the offices are.
I watched it.
I saw it.
They could not have been more gracious.
And you will never, ever... And by the way, Obama said that publicly.
So in case you think, oh, you're a Republican, of course you're going to say that.
No, Obama was absolutely crystal clear that the Bush team could not have been more gracious to them.
Yet, when the oppressor versus the oppressed liberal Democrats take over, and they see the outgoing administration as the oppressor, the situation's entirely reversed.
When the Clintons left the Bushes to the White House, what did they do?
They took all the W's off the keyboards.
Stuff was missing from the White House.
They were obnoxious to people.
When the Obama team left the Bush team to the White House, what did they leave them with?
The biggest spying scandal in American history and a threat on January 5th to withhold information to make sure that the Trump team didn't shut down an investigation into a crime that never happened!
But when you see the world as the oppressor versus the oppressed, and you don't understand that you are in fact now the oppressor, because you are coercing people to do things with the power of government they don't want to do, this is all entirely acceptable to you.
Now you understand why there's a partisan divide in the country?
When you are a police state advocate yourself, While you're simultaneously arguing that the world is about the oppressor versus the oppressed, while you're using the power of government to oppress the liberty of others with no evidence, which is exactly what happened to Trump, do you understand how you are the problem you claim to be fighting against?
You're it!
You are the oppressor!
They withheld information from an incoming presidential administration in an attempted soft coup here so they wouldn't shut down an investigation using the law enforcement powers of government into a crime that never happened.
Unbelievable.
All right, let me get to one last thing.
Sorry, sometimes I move away from the mic.
Well, you get very little complaints about the sound quality thanks to Joe on the show, but it's my fault, the rest of it.
Sometimes I do move away from the mic a little bit because I get very animated.
My apologies.
Joe can't fix that.
He tries, but you know.
Watch, I do this.
I do this.
You see that?
That's me moving away from the mic.
Alright, here's a, again, along these lines of how liberals and conservatives see the world differently, and conservatives make an effort to understand the liberal argument, but liberals make no effort to get out of their bubble and understand that they're the coercers, they're the oppressors, right?
I got into a little fiery debate with Geraldo last night, and this gun control debate is coming up again.
Now, I see three core problems with this debate about firearms.
Now, the founders didn't want a debate.
That's why we have the Second Amendment.
But of course, again, the liberals don't understand that the taking of a means of self-protection away from a citizenry is a way to oppress people.
It's only been used historically just about every time we've had a tyrannical regime.
Make sure you disarm the public first.
The left uses every opportunity to do that.
But I see three core problems with the debate.
Just to be clear, what I'm going to get to here is, these are three insurmountable issues that until we get past these, there will be no movement at all in a debate about gun violence in the country.
Because it's a serious debate.
That goes without saying.
I mean, it's tautological.
Of course it's serious.
I mean, it's a serious debate amongst conservatives, because liberals want to discredit us entirely.
Like, oh, you guys fight for the Second Amendment, therefore you want people dead.
Okay, therefore you're an idiot.
Here's problem number one.
Again, the left makes no effort to understand the right.
Rewind the show to the beginning.
The left believes the world is the oppressor versus the oppressed.
Conservatives believe it's coercion versus liberty.
We get your argument.
You don't get ours.
How does this apply to the gun control debate?
There's a piece out there, and forgive me because I cite this piece all the time.
I think Jonah Goldberg wrote it, but I don't even remember.
I've looked for it.
If you have it, by the way, our audience is great.
Can you email to me, daniel.bongino.com?
I'm not sure if it's at National Review, but I read it.
But the premise of the piece is what's important.
The writer makes an analogy between how successful initiatives happen in this country to change public behavior.
And the way they happen is exactly the opposite of what I'm describing to you, Joe.
In other words, the left makes no effort to understand the right, therefore there's no movement on gun violence at all.
Because the left doesn't want to understand why people on the right own firearms.
And in the piece, they say, listen, look at an initiative that has worked, Joe, the fight against cigarette smoking, right?
Yeah, okay.
People in the public on a bipartisan basis generally agreed at some point that cigarette smoking, that something should be done to at least reduce the incidence of it.
I'm not a big government, I'm a libertarian, I believe you should be able to make stupid decisions.
If you want to smoke, smoke.
But I have no problem whatsoever with a government initiative to inform people that, hey, if you smoke, here's what your lungs are going to look like, folks.
Nothing wrong with that at all.
Nope.
The principle of the free market's the free exchange of information.
If you think smoking's good for you, you're wrong, okay?
But the premise of the piece is that that worked, Joe.
Smoking has gone down dramatically.
Were you a smoker?
No.
No.
Okay.
Smoking, my mother was.
Smoking has gone down dramatically precisely because people who were anti-smoking understood people who were smokers.
They grew up with them.
Yeah.
Yeah.
In other words, I grew up, I know my mother very well.
You know why?
She's my mother, okay?
She's not mysterious to me.
I know what drives her.
I know what motivates her.
And I knew certain ways and appeals to get my mother to stop smoking when I had the information.
Secondly, there was no reason to just distrust the information, Joe.
So number one, people who are not smokers understood smokers because they live with them.
They knew how to talk to them.
They made an attempt to understand why they were doing it.
Why do you smoke?
Well, I don't know.
It feels good.
It gives me a little burst of energy in the morning.
I like it.
I enjoy it.
It's relaxing.
Okay.
You understood all those things.
But secondly, you had no reason to dispute the information the government was putting out that was accurate.
When the government put out these ads, this is a lung of a smoker, you had no reason to say, no, that's not really a smoker's lung, somebody spray-painted that black.
I mean, only kooks said that, okay?
The mainstream believed that the government was in fact telling the truth.
Smoking's bad.
None of those things apply now with the firearm debate, Joe.
The left makes zero effort whatsoever to understand the conservative constitutional principle of the right to self-defense.
None!
I got into a Twitter fight with Alyssa Milano, the Who's the Boss actress, yesterday.
You NRA members!
You guys are responsible for this!
Wait, what?
What are you talking about?
The shooter was an NRA member?
No, folks, he wasn't, in case you didn't know.
By the way, no disclosure, I don't work for the NRA.
I work for NRA TV, a production company that produces content.
I'm not a spokesperson for the NRA.
Despite what media matters, these other idiots will tell you.
The NRA does not tell me what my opinions are.
They precisely hired me because I have opinions that may not always align with theirs.
But the NRA had nothing to do with this.
And people like Alyssa Milano, Joe, who make no effort to understand, as I tweeted her, why law-abiding American citizens are either law-abiding Law-abiding American citizen gun owners are either law-abiding or firearm owners, that she makes no effort to understand that, like we understood smokers, is the reason we entirely discount them and their words are meaningless.
They are garbage.
They're only there for us to respond to and fight back.
No one digests them.
No one takes them seriously.
There's no debate.
There's you flapping your mouth, Alyssa Milano, and us humiliating you because you don't know what you're talking about.
That wasn't the case with smoking.
That's why the Initiative Against Smoking largely won.
People made an attempt.
Instead of Alyssa Milano tweeting out, you know, NRA members, I know I'm going to take it on the chin from my Hollywood idiot friends on this, but I'd really like to know, why do you guys fight for the right to self-protection?
Why does the Second Amendment matter to you?
Tweet me back!
Do you understand, Joe, how that would open up a dialogue?
Sure.
Yeah, nice.
And, you know, she may advocate for gun control.
I, of course, never will.
But at least over time, maybe she'll understand why this matters to us.
That we're not cold-blooded killers.
I mean, how did you think that was going to advance the ball?
So, number one, the left makes no effort to understand us, but they make a big effort to hammer us with insults.
Number two, we don't trust the government on this anymore.
The information we put out, we do not trust.
When I say the government, I'm not talking about the Department of Justice.
I'm talking about politicians within the government.
You have Democrats out there who represent us in the government.
Literally, the House of Representatives, U.S.
Senators, and Democratic Presidents who say things that are just not true.
Gun violence is an epidemic.
No, folks, gun violence and the levels of gun violence has gone down with increased gun ownership in the United States.
We have no reason to trust anything you're saying if you can't even get simple facts right.
Crime has gone down.
Gun ownership has gone up.
Those are just facts.
If you would come out in a government infomercial and say that, maybe we'd trust some of the other stuff you say, like you did with cigarettes.
We had no reason to disbelieve that the black lungs you showed were in fact black lungs from cigarette smokers.
But because you've lied so much about the firearm issue and demonized people to such an extent, we have no reason to believe anything you're saying is true.
Unlike the smoking argument.
And that's why, that's point number one, why you will never, ever, you will never advance the ball on the firearm issue.
You will run up against a brick wall of opposition.
Secondly, we don't trust your motives.
This one's pretty quick.
The left, you're not honest about your motives.
How do I know that?
Because I follow accounts on Twitter and they say things that are entirely contradictory, sometimes, Joe, in the same tweet.
They'll say, nobody's coming for your guns, man.
This is crap.
We just want to do common sense gun laws.
Then, in the same tweet, like Australia.
Folks, Joe's laughing because he gets it.
What?
Some of you may not.
Do you have Natalie Portman?
Are you like a crazy person?
Are you like a crazy person?
Folks, Australia was a gun confiscation program.
It was a mandatory buyback.
Turn in your guns, we're gonna give you money.
Oh, do we have to?
Yep, you have to.
So saying in a tweet that, nobody wants to take your guns, man, you guys are all crazy conspiracy theorists, we just need to be more like Australia, which took people's guns, is, again, you have to be crazy to put that in a tweet, but that's the liberals.
And then they don't understand why we don't trust them, and we're not willing to open up any dialogue with them at all, because their motives aren't genuine.
I know what mine are.
I'm genuinely interested in keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.
I think that goes without saying.
Mm-hmm.
A hundred percent.
Yeah.
I'm listening.
Whatever suggestions you have.
But I'm not listening if your opening argument is going to be, first, let me say to you, Dan, nobody is looking to take away your firearms.
But let's talk about Australia.
Okay, thanks.
I'm done.
Have a nice day.
Either you don't know what you're talking about or you're lying.
We don't trust their motives. Finally, last point and we'll wrap it up for the week.
It doesn't really require a lot of explanation because we've already gone down this road.
They lie. It kind of meshes with point number two, they don't tell you their motives, but they lie.
They say things like Trump threw out a law that would allow the mentally ill to have guns.
That's not what happened, folks.
I don't need to go over it again.
Read the National Review piece.
It did not do... It was a social security rule about financial beneficiaries with some mental impairment.
There was not mentally ill people being allowed to buy guns.
Will you just stop lying?
Nobody trusts you when you lie like that.
And you also lie about... One more thing.
I'm going to wrap it up with this quote.
Sorry, folks, but this is important.
This is at the debunk this too today and also at the show notes.
It's a piece from the Washington Times.
It's an older piece.
But Geraldo said last night, you know, with all due respect to Geraldo, I think he's probably trying to find solutions to this.
I just think he's wrong.
But the liberals now calling, and the New York Post shockingly, calling for a reinstitution of the assault weapons ban.
Folks, the Department of Justice did a study on the assault weapons ban, which liberals will lie about all the time.
Here's a quote from a Washington Times piece from the National Institute of Justice.
The National Institute of Justice, a study sponsored by our own Department of Justice about the assault weapons ban.
Joe, I'm just reading the quote.
I'll put the piece in the show notes today from the Washington Times.
We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation's recent drop in gun violence.
And indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence, said the unreleased NIJ report written by Christopher Copper, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania.
So you're telling me you want to reinstitute a ban that the Department of Justice's own study said didn't work.
And then you wonder again why we don't trust you.
Because you're lying about your motives.
It is about confiscating guns.
It always has been.
All right, folks, I really appreciate you tuning in.
Again, please subscribe to my podcast, iTunes, Spotify.
We have iHeart, SoundCloud.
It really helps us a lot, helps us with the sponsors, helps us to keep the show free.
Joe and I got a lot of plans in the future, but we can't do it without you.
So thanks a lot for recommending the show, for all your tweets.
I try to like them all and spread the word around about the show.
We appreciate it.
I will see you all next week.
You just heard the Dan Bongino Show.
Get more of Dan online anytime at conservativereview.com.
▲
Export Selection