Ep. 668 It’s Past Time for Justice and Accountability
In this episode I address the complete failure of government at multiple levels and the subsequent lack of accountability. This cannot continue.
I also address a recently announced economic policy that will severely damage our economy.
This 2017 piece will astound you. It describes a Russian effort to steal technology, and it ties into the Clintons.
This Democrat Senator said he wouldn’t vote for a judicial nominee because of his skin color.
This is a great piece about the damage tariffs do to the economy.
Georgia is fighting back against liberal economy warfare.
More Obama administration email problems.
Copyright CRTV. All rights reserved.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Get ready to hear the truth about America on a show that's not immune to the facts with your host, Dan Bongino.
Alright, welcome to the Dan Bongino Show.
Producer Joe, how are you today?
Hey, the show must go on, Daniel.
Always.
Always does, right?
Hey, uh...
Big announcement again on Monday.
Thank you to everyone out there supporting our show.
We are exploding here.
We have a big thing coming next week, which I'll talk about.
We're looking to dramatically expand Bongino.com to include original content on debunking liberal nonsense.
We already have a section of the website called Debunk This.
But we're looking to expand.
So I have a proposal for you all next week.
So don't miss it.
I'm hoping you're on board with it.
We dramatically want to increase our marketing and our capability.
We're about the number two or three, depending on the week, conservative podcast in the country now.
We would like to dramatically grow that.
So in conjunction with some help from you, if you see fit, I have an announcement for you next week.
Also on Monday, my new show starts at RATV.com.
It's called We Stand with Dan Bongino.
Thank you, Joe.
So please check it out.
It's available at 5.30.
It's going to be live.
5.30 Eastern Time.
5.30 p.m.
Eastern Time.
I'll have some great content for you.
I'll be working a lot with my buddy Grant Stinchfield from NRATV.
And please check it out.
You're really going to like it.
It's NRATV.com.
It's free.
Just go to the website.
Check it out.
There's no paywall.
Nothing like that.
It's all free.
So I hope you check that out.
All right.
I have been holding this story all week because we got really busy with the Timeline show.
Yesterday we got really busy with combating liberal ideology and their silly boycotts thing.
And by the way, someone emailed me, Joe, and they said, you know, you said throughout the whole show boycotts don't work, but then you talked about boycotting the NFL.
No, that's not what I said.
I said liberal boycotts don't work.
I didn't say anything about conservative boycotts.
I even mentioned Target.
When conservatives boycott, oh it works.
That was the whole point of the show.
Conservatives never forget.
Liberals are pajama boys.
They move on the next day to their next fictitious fight.
You know, in their Spider-Man pajamas.
That's what they do.
One day, you know, it's men in the women's room.
The next day, it's Christian Bakers.
The next day, it's the NRA.
These people have the attention span of a fruit fly.
That was my whole point.
Conservatives, though, never forget.
Ever.
Once they write off Target and the NFL, they write them off for good.
That was the whole point of yesterday's show.
So, I'm sorry.
A couple of folks, I guess, missed that.
I understand.
But I do got a lot to get to today.
Number one, The Broward County Sheriff, Scott Israel.
Folks, this was obviously a disaster of epic proportions.
I mean, we lost 17 kids.
But what's troublesome about this is the complete, utter lack of accountability by people in the government sector, almost exclusively, that these things happen, signs are missed, and nothing happens, folks, nothing!
You know, Milton Friedman had this line about spending money that applies in this specific situation and explains the lack of accountability.
Don't ever forget it.
I've used this before, but it's important you understand this.
Friedman said the best way to spend money is you spending money on yourself.
There's four ways to spend it, right?
You can spend money on yourself, and when you do that, cost and quality matter, because you are spending your own money, so the cost of what you're buying matters, and the quality matters because you're buying something for yourself.
You can spend money on other people, the cost matters, the quality... maybe not so much, because you may be buying a sweater or something for someone else.
So the cost matters for the sweater, but the quality, yeah, if you're buying it for someone else.
Other people can spend other people's money on themselves.
In that case, cost doesn't matter because you're spending other people's money.
If I buy, you know, if I get a hotel room on Joe's credit card, I want the suite.
I want the luxury suite.
I want the penthouse.
Yeah, baby.
So the cost, yeah, baby.
Yeah, baby, yeah.
But the cost matters.
I mean, the cost doesn't matter, but the quality does because I'm buying something with Joe's money for myself.
And these are all increasing in inefficiency, right?
Right.
The most inefficient way to spend money is other people spending other people's money on other people.
That's the government.
It's the government takes money from you in the form of taxes and spends it on things not even related to themselves.
They spend it on police departments.
They spend it on whatever.
You name it.
Medicare, Medicaid, S-chip, Obama phones.
It doesn't matter.
You name the program.
It's not for them.
Now, you may say, well, some of them benefit by government salaries.
Yeah, of course, that's the case.
But the majority of government money is not spent on that person's salary.
The federal government budget is close to $4 trillion.
Nobody's making $4 trillion.
The overwhelming majority of the money is spent on other people.
So it's other people Spending other people's money on other people.
That leads to a severe lack of accountability because neither cost nor quality matter as they should.
Because you're spending other people's money, so who cares about the cost?
And you're buying other people products, whether it's police protection, Obama phones, Section 8 housing.
You don't give a damn about the quality because it's not yours!
There is no accountability in government anymore.
How many scandals are going to break where people seemingly get a free pass for unbelievable malfeasance or misfeasance?
The difference being one, you know, being an overt act.
Malfeasance being, you know, you trip on the corner, you go to get up and I punch you and knock you down.
Misfeasance being you trip on the corner, hurt yourself and I just walk by you and don't do anything.
Both are bad, you know, they're different levels of depravity, though.
Either way, though, they're both bad.
Government malfeasance or misfeasance, Joseph, is rarely punished.
I mean, I had to take some notes on this, because the scandals are legendary.
Just in the last few years, we had the IRS scandal.
The IRS has already admitted to targeting conservatives.
Who gets punished, Joe?
Nobody!
Lois Lerner, oh, you may say, oh, well, Lois Lerner, her reputation's ruined.
Yeah, and she's on a government pension right now, folks.
The Benghazi scandal.
We had four people die.
What happened there?
No one's been punished.
What, did they suffer some reputational damage?
These four guys are dead.
Nobody punished at all.
We had an Oakland mayor, Joe, did you see this story?
The mayor of Oakland warning illegals, criminal illegal aliens, some guilty of very serious crimes, warning them That the government was going to be engaging in immigration raids for illegal immigrants who are dangerous criminals.
And some of them fled!
The Oakland mayor, what happens?
Oh, nothing.
Nothing.
She gets a bad story on cable news.
The GAO scandal, the VA scandal with our vets being put on waiting lists to die.
Nothing happens.
Nothing!
Government gets a pass all the time!
I mentioned that as a preface to this Broward County Sheriff, Scott Israel, who not only, seemingly up to this point, has gotten a pass for grotesque misfeasance on this case of this killer, Nicholas, uh, this, uh, the guy, uh, Nicholas Cruz, who's of course the, um, the alleged killer in this, uh, in this, uh, uh, school shooting in Parkland.
Sorry, it's just a troubling case, folks.
And it's just disturbing to even talk about.
But this kid, The warning signs were everywhere!
Now, Joe was kind enough to pull these two, uh, these two cuts here.
These two sound cuts, what we would call SOTs, sound on tape, right?
Joe knows the lingo better than I do, right?
Joe has been in the industry a long time, sorry to me, but this is such a troubling topic, folks, but he was nice enough to pull these.
I want you to listen to these two deeply disturbing, and I mean it, deeply disturbing 9-1-1 calls, and explain to me again how this sheriff, Scott Israel, the Broward County Sheriff, can go out there on CNN during that town hall and attack Dana Lash while simultaneously, you know, insinuating that he was doing everything he could to keep the community safe.
This first one, this is one of the caregivers of Nicholas Cruz after His mom died.
Calling 911.
Listen to what she says.
And then explain to me again how the NRA screwed up here and not the sheriff.
Play that one.
911 emergency, how can I help you?
Yeah, there was a fight in my house.
The kid and my son.
I'm punching him and that's why he left the house.
I'm afraid he comes back and he has a lot of weapons and he has a weapon he's going to get at Dick's right now because he purchased it.
Is that a house or an apartment?
It's a house.
It's a rental home.
And who did this?
Uh, Nicholas Cruz.
Is he a friend, a brother, uncle, sister, what?
No, he was just somebody I took in because his mother just passed away, and he's going to get his weapon at Dick's.
I know that right now.
He's been waiting for it, and he knows he's not allowed to bring any guns.
He's going to get the gun.
And how long ago did this happen?
It just happened, and he just walked out of the house.
Is he white, black, or Hispanic?
He bought a gun about a week and a half ago, and he gets it today, so we've seen that he's going there now.
So that's all you want is his gun, and that's all he cares about is his gun.
And he brought tons of, I mean, bullets and stuff, and I took it away from him.
And I have a bunch of other little guns here.
And BB guns, though.
But he has a real gun that he's going to get now.
He also dig in the backyard because he knew he was not allowed to bring it here and we found that he did.
He put the gun in the head of his brother before, so it's not the first time.
And he did that to his mom.
His mom died November 1st.
But he's not... It's not the first time he put a gun in somebody's head.
And what's his last name?
Thanks so much.
Cruz.
C-R-U-Z.
His first name?
Folks, did you hear that?
The caregiver there, who is clearly disturbed by this young man, says he gets into a fight with his son.
He's going to get his gun and the end is just beyond troubling.
He's put the gun to the head of his, what he said, brother and the mother before.
That we told him that he couldn't have the guns and he was hiding them.
The warning signs were everywhere, and what's the sheriff out doing?
He's on CNN, blaming Dana Lash and the NRA.
The NRA didn't go and visit this guy's house.
The NRA didn't get a... Joe, when you dial 911, does it go to the NRA?
No, it doesn't, Dan.
I don't think it does.
But no, of course it's legal law-abiding gun owners' fault, and this sheriff jumps on board.
Has this guy been fired?
No, he's out on TV!
He's out on TV there, the sheriff, doing TV promotions for his re-election campaign.
I got one more for you.
This is Cruz himself calling 9-1-1.
I mean, if this isn't like a warning sign and bells and whistles aren't going off.
By the way, folks, this is just a small snippet of the relatively large police file surrounding Nicholas Cruz.
Play Cruz's 9-1-1.
Kind of mad and I started punching walls and stuff and then a kid came at me and threw me on the ground.
He started attacking me and he kicked me out of the house.
Folks, this is him calling 911 himself!
Listen, I'm not going to get lost in the number of calls to the house.
It may have been 5, it may have been 10.
I've heard every number from 45 to 39 to 13, depending on how they categorize the call.
It doesn't matter.
The warning signs were everywhere.
When are we going to get some darn accountability in government?
These people get a free pass over and over and over again.
It's disgusting!
It is way past time for this guy to either explain himself in a rational, reasonable fashion, the Broward County Sheriff that is, or to move along and find someone who will explain what happened.
The NRA did not get those 911 calls.
The Broward County Sheriff's Office did.
Combine that with the fact that there are multiple reports now.
That deputies who showed up at the scene, who may very well, Joe, have wanted to go inside, and knowing most cops, I can only imagine they did, were told to form a perimeter outside, which ladies and gentlemen, no police department I know of trained in active shooter response training, whether they use the alert system from the FBI or any other system, is trained to stay outside during a police shooting.
That was the old days, pre-Columbine.
Set up a perimeter, wait for a hostage situation.
That is not what police departments are trained to do anymore.
Why were these deputies instructed to form a perimeter outside according to multiple news reports?
When is this guy gonna step down?
He said, oh I gave him the badge, I gave him the gun, I gave him the training.
What they did with it?
Clearly you gave them the wrong orders too or the wrong training because that's not how they responded.
Unbelievable.
Unbelievable story.
Thank you for pulling those cuts, Joe.
You're welcome.
You need to go and go right now, Mr. Broward County Sheriff.
Get off TV and go back to private life.
Gosh, we need some accountability.
This swamp is disgusting.
Never, ever, ever.
Other people spending other people's money on other people.
The quality never matters or the service.
It's really sad.
All right, I've got a couple other stories I want to get to today because there's a lot going on in the news.
I want to talk about, I didn't get to the Trump meeting, press conference, policy session in the Roosevelt Room at the White House on guns.
There were some interesting things that were said there that I have, you know, some issues with there and I want to be sure we get that out there.
Before we get to that, today's show brought to you by buddies at Gotenna.
Listen, you know I'm a big fan of preparedness, whether it's My Patriot Supply or other products we sell that would lead you to have a more safe and secure home, but Gotenna is a really good option for you.
Gotenna, it's like antenna with a go.
It's G-O-T-E-N-N-A dot com.
Gotenna dot com.
It's a tiny but mighty device.
It pairs with any smartphone.
To enable the first 100% off-grid, mobile, long-range, consumer-ready mesh network.
It looks like basically a USB stick, like a bigger USB stick.
It allows you to communicate using your cell phone with not being on the grid at all.
You're going out hiking in the middle of nowhere.
You're overseas with your cell phone and you don't want to pay Joe for an overseas plan or overseas extension.
All you need is a GoTenna.
G-O-T-E-N-N-A dot com.
It sends texts and GPS locations immediately and automatically, privately, one-to-one, or to groups, or as public shouts, without any cell service, routers, towers, or satellites necessary.
Great in an emergency, by the way.
Perfect to maintain connectivity and create a backup network when off-grid exploring.
You know, maybe you have a boat, you're out in the ocean, you got another friend in a boat out there, this is terrific for that.
When traveling internationally or emergency situations where power and consequently cell service is unreliable and unavailable, Gotenna is your solution there.
Gotenna.com.
Again, it's a new revolutionary technology.
It's the first company of its kind to use phones to communicate without any of these satellite services around or cell services.
The future is now.
It's compatible with any iOS or Android device.
Helps you leverage the smartphone you already have in your pocket.
It extends your network and strengthens communications.
Plus, The more friends that join, the stronger it gets.
Whether you're spending time outdoors or preparing for an emergency, GoTena is vital where this stuff is unavailable.
Wi-Fi, you don't need any of that.
You just need your phone and the GoTena.
This thing is terrific, folks.
Here's a promo code for you for a really nice savings on this.
Dan 35.
That's my first name, Dan.
D-A-N 35.
Go to Gotenna.com.
That's G-O-T-E-N-N-A dot com.
Gotenna.com.
Pick this up today.
Great to have in an emergency and use promo code Dan 35 for a nice savings on the product.
It's great in an emergency.
Again, you don't need any tower, Wi-Fi, any of that stuff.
Gotenna.com.
Okay.
So they had this conference at the Roosevelt room, press conference, where Trump had some lawmakers there and they were talking about guns and some things that came out in the press conference were interesting and I wanted to be sure I addressed them.
Listen, let me just get this out of the way by saying, I support the president.
I think he's doing a pretty decent job.
I think the tax cuts, the regulatory reform, I think this fight against the DC swamp, I also think his fight against the media are noble endeavors and I think he's handled them correctly.
But I do think there've been some stumbling blocks.
And I would be doing you a huge disservice if I ignored them, because we can't talk about, you know, the Democrats and their allegiance to people rather than ideas.
And then on the show, when we think some ideas that come out that are not necessarily good, you know, we have to be able to speak out.
Again, I think his heart was in the right place with the press conference, but he said something there.
And I just want to explain to you why I think this is a bad idea.
He had mentioned something about due process and how we should take the guns first and worry about due process later when it comes to people.
With mental health issues.
And there's a couple problems with that, folks.
And some people have attributed it to he just doesn't understand the process.
I'm not sure.
I don't know what the president understands or don't or doesn't understand.
And I don't want to say that.
I'm not going to play the left's game and assume the president is ignorant about things.
Maybe he did know.
Maybe he didn't.
I'm not sure.
It doesn't matter.
All I know is what he said.
And what he insinuated was that we should, you know, take the guns first in a situation like that and worry about due process later.
Well, in multiple states, matter of fact, I'm pretty sure across the country, they have these emotionally disturbed person laws called the Baker Act here in Florida, where if you're a danger to yourself or others, the police, in fact, can take your guns.
Now, they have to give them back after a certain period of time without a judicial proceeding.
So, that's kind of a non-issue which confused a lot of people when we're talking about the immediacy, Joe, of removing a person who is, you know, deemed a danger to self or others from firearms.
That's not immediately.
Now, maybe a longer term problem because they can get the guns back and that's fine.
But a couple things I wanted to bring up here.
Number one, Folks, there are unintended consequences if we were to say, write a law where if you're deemed mentally ill, that you are not allowed access to guns.
And let's say you don't get due process, say you get a diagnosis, whatever it may be, depression, You know, general anxiety disorder, you know, check out the DSM.
There is literally a book called the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatric Disorders.
You can check it out yourself.
There's an entire book of definable mental health disorders.
Folks, let me ask you a question.
Think about the unintended consequences.
The revenge of unintended consequences is always, always something we should be concerned about.
Joe, if you have depression and you are a, let's say, an owner of a handgun for self-protection, you know, you need it.
Whatever, you carry money, you have a business, or you just feel like you should be able to defend your home and family like most of us feel.
Are you going to go to seek mental health, a mental health professional to seek help if your depression, let's say, worsens a bit and you know that your guns could be taken away?
No, I wouldn't.
I know most people wouldn't either.
Folks, you have to remember, the implications of this policy are not cut and dried.
If you set up a system where due process goes out the window for mental health, people are not going to seek mental health treatment, which will worsen the situation.
Now, compound that with the fact that the overwhelming majority of people with a mental health disorder are not violent.
They are not.
And I wonder now why the left, which is always so concerned about identity politics and discrimination, why the civil libertarians on the left are jumping on this bandwagon here at so-called civil libertarians show to remove the constitutional rights of people with mental health disorders despite very little evidence that people with mental health disorders are more violent than anyone else.
And they're going to avoid, by the way, seeking mental health treatment, folks.
There are unintended consequences for this stuff.
It is a bad idea.
I'm sorry, but due process matters.
Now, should we make an effort over time to a legal proceeding if we believe someone with, you name the mental disorder, schizophrenia, You know, any effective disorders, whatever they may be.
Should we make an effort over time to establish a legal process by which, you know, if these people are, obviously in the Nicholas Cruz case, are threatening people and are a danger to self-reliance, should not be able to obtain weapons?
Of course, that's common sense, but they should be subjected to the same due process as anyone else.
It's not right, folks.
I'm sorry.
And it was a bad call.
And I don't... Again, I believe his heart was in the right place.
From what I've heard from a lot of people, he was deeply affected by some of the imagery of what happened at the Parkland shooting.
I can't imagine what that scene looked like.
The horror of it.
But we live in a constitutional republic where decisions are difficult and they have ramifications, and we have to be cautious of that.
Now, not to pile on here, folks.
But also, one more thing you mentioned about reciprocity.
The reciprocity agreement, you know, there seemed to be an insinuation that he's looking to sideline reciprocity right now, which is a bill that passed the House that would allow concealed carry holders who get a concealed carry permit in one state to, you know, cross state lines.
Folks, this is a common sense bill.
I don't understand why the left objects to this.
A constitutional right in Florida to carry should be the same constitutional right anywhere else.
Why, when you go to New York, you have to then forfeit your constitutional right to carry despite the fact that you had the right to carry in your own state is absurd.
We shouldn't sideline that.
We should push that.
It will make the country safer, not more dangerous.
Concealed carry permit holders are some of the most law-abiding people on the planet.
I objected to that strongly.
I thought it was just a really bad idea.
Let me just read to you one more thing here, Joe.
And now, you know, I like to get into the political ramifications, too.
I know it sometimes seems shallow on these issues, but it's important, folks.
Listen, politics is a projection of power.
If you can't win the political debate, you can't win the debate about power at the end of the day, either.
This is a loser for anybody in the White House or anywhere else, this gun control issue.
This push for more regulations that will have no impact on crime at all.
From today's Wall Street Journal, Joe.
They're insinuating here based on this data that this is not going to be a winner at the polls.
Most Republicans show and half of all independents live in a household with a gun.
According to Pew Research, just 25% of Democrats do the same.
Guns are very rare in heavily Democratic urban areas, very common in Republican rural America, and fairly common in the contested suburbs.
Culturally, this means that Democrats live in a social circle where few own guns, and many view them as an unmitigated evil with no redeeming qualities.
Following a horrific mass shooting, they wonder when the rest of America will wake up and agree.
But most Americans have a more nuanced view.
Rather than seeing guns as evil, 67% of gun owners say it makes them more safe.
This is a loser, folks.
It's not a winner politically either.
Now, I say all the time we should do what's right.
We should not do what's easy, regardless of the politics.
But in this case, what's right may not be what's easy, but the politics work too.
Establishing more obstacles for legal American law-abiding gun owners to obtain a firearm to defend themselves while criminals get them on the black market is not a recipe to make us safer or for political success.
It is a big mistake.
This matters to me.
I've had a gun for a long, long time.
They are just tools, folks.
That is all.
They don't shoot themselves.
They don't have magic powers.
They are just tools.
That is it.
All right.
This story blew me away yesterday.
Sometimes I share personal stories.
So I've been bouncing around and doing the high school tours with my daughters, getting ready to go to high school next year.
My oldest.
And while I'm in the parking lot headed in, I ran into a couple of supporters.
So if you're listening to the show, nice to meet you yesterday.
But I saw this article come up from 2017 from a friend of mine, Diana West, who It's at the Daily Caller.
Just to be clear, it's a 2017 article.
It'll be up at Bongino.com.
Read it, please.
If you're on my email list, I'll email it to you.
You can subscribe to my email list at Bongino.com, too.
Again, we're thinking about putting more original content up there.
It's going to blow your mind.
A daily debunking section, which will be terrific.
You can already check out Debunk This for some of the good historical pieces we've linked to, but I'm thinking about putting original stuff up there.
But this article is amazing.
Remember, Joe, how I always say in these things, remember the names, especially with the Clinton email case and the Trump-Russia fiasco, the nonsensical scandals?
Those of you who listen to the show know it's been a big part of the show.
I just wanted to quickly cover something, because I read this piece.
Again, it's from 2017, and I was like, Wait, what?
Like it blew my mind.
So if you were listening to his show a few days ago, I see Joe's like, you know, where is she going?
I mentioned a Silicon Valley type Russian project they were doing in Russia to establish a tech hub in Russia.
Yeah.
And in this project, there was a big push to get some U.S.
companies, international companies, to start this technology hub in Russia.
And the Russians were expressing an unusually strong interest in lobbying some American lawmakers to get them to push for this project, right?
Now, this is critical.
In 2012, I'm gonna get to the name in a second, but in 2012, the Army did kind of an intelligence analysis on this project and was very concerned.
The project was called Skolkovo.
Now, I tweeted out yesterday, Skolkovo, don't forget it.
Remember the names.
I told you that the Obama team, the whole, because people ask me all the time, Joe, again, why go through all this effort to frame Trump, to spy on Trump, to make up this fake Trump-Russia scandal afterwards?
Because they had so much to hide.
When it came to Russia, the Iran deal, the efforts to keep the Russians sidelined, the efforts to appease the Russians on the Uranium One deal, to keep them from objecting to the Iran deal.
They needed their support for so much.
They did everything, the Obama administration, to appease the Russians.
Skolkovo was another one of these.
There were 28 companies that were supposed to, folks, please pay close attention to this, because this is a devastating scandal.
I'm going to tell you how it ties into a news story yesterday.
There were 28 companies that were supposed to be a part of this technology hub in Skolkovo, in Russia, in this project, the Skolkovo Center.
The army analysis of this was devastating.
The army said, Joe, and I'm quoting here, Skolkovo was arguably an overt alternative to clandestine industrial espionage.
In other words, they're not even trying to keep their industrial spying a secret.
They just want all these tech companies to come over to Russia for this tech hub so they can just steal it out in the open.
This was the Army's own analysis.
Here's another analysis, another part of the analysis here, and I want you to listen to the last sentence.
Because if you're a news watcher and a news consumer of the day, something I'm going to say in this last sentence, in their army analysis of this, should go ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding!
Alright?
Although military activities are not an official cluster of activity, the Skolkovo Foundation has, in fact, been involved in defense-related activities since December of 2011, when it approved the first weapons-related project, the development of a hypersonic cruise missile engine.
What?
Now, what more is it?
The project is a response to the U.S.
Department of Defense's Advanced Hypersonic Weapon part of the Global, uh, Prompt Global Strike program.
You follow the news?
Any of you, you know, turn on Fox yesterday?
Any of you listen to, you know, WCBM, where Joe works?
Or, you know, uh, the Pull Up Drudge?
What did the Russians announce yesterday?
Vladimir Putin's running for president again for like the 6,000th time.
Guy wants to be the czar of Russia.
He's going to wind up getting cryo-frozen and he'll rule from the grave like RoboCop where they remove his brain from his cryo-frozen body and they put it in like a steel structure RoboCop type thing.
Vladimir Putin wants to rule forever.
He's running again for office.
So he gives his speech and he announces yesterday the development, Joe, of a hypersonic cruise missile engine.
Whoa!
How did that happen?
By the way, they can defeat U.S.
missile defenses.
That was, according to the military, tied deeply to defense-related activities in Skolkovo.
You say, okay, great.
What's your point?
17 of the 28 companies involved in Skolkovo that made substantial donations to The Clinton Foundation!
Oh my god!
How did that happen?
Okay.
As you may say, okay, go on.
And this is all, a lot of this is in the Diana West piece, okay?
So read the piece from the Daily Caller.
It's from 2017, but it is good.
Some of the emails intercepted from the Clinton team as part of FOIA requests, Joe.
In the emails, Clinton Foundation staff were pushing a meeting with Victor Vexelberg, sorry, Victor Vexelberg and Bill Clinton.
So the Clinton staff was pushing this meeting.
Who was Vexelberg and what was the project he was promoting?
Skolkovo.
Folks.
Wow.
Now, I'm gonna tell you a little inside baseball here.
I was at CPAC recently.
And I'm backstage in the green room, and I'm not going to use the names, they didn't give me permission to do so, but these are people you know, investigative reporters, relatively prominent.
And I got into a conversation because I'm pretty confident Skolkovo is going to be another big shoe to drop in this case involving the Obama administration and their ties to Russia.
Not Trump's ties, their ties to Russia.
The real Trump-Russia scandal is the Obama team and Hillary.
The Clinton team clearly was pushing this Skolkovo project based on emails, based on a push to have a meeting with this guy, based on donations Clinton got from Renaissance Bank, Bill Clinton to go give speeches, based on the donations made to the Clinton Foundation from companies involved in Skolkovo.
Now we know that one of Russia's most deadly weapons was at a minimum tied to technology developed at Skolkovo.
Weapons used to potentially destroy us.
But when I was backstage, I was talking to this investigative reporter and I said, I think Skolkovo is a big deal.
He said, he looked at me, Joe, and he goes, you have no idea.
I may not.
I, I, in other words, he knows something.
He probably knows things I don't.
I'm just saying, remember the names, remember Skolkovo folks, because this is a really, really big deal.
Just yet.
Look up the stories.
Just google Russian missile.
You'll see it come right up.
Yesterday they announced the development of a weapon designed to destroy us, make no mistake, that was developed at a project supported by people who made donations to the Clinton Foundation.
And he then, Bill Clinton, was pushed to meet with these people.
There is so much dirt getting ready to come out on these people.
I'm telling you, folks, it is a disaster layered upon an abomination, layered upon a catastrophe.
All right, I got a lot more to get to here, so I'm going to move along, because I feel like on this Friday show, if I don't get to this stuff, you know how it is, Joe.
By next week, the stories are ready, but given that, you know, one thing about the Trump team, they're never boring.
You know, you miss the news for five minutes and it's over, Johnny.
Yep.
Okay.
Again, it pains me to do this because I really do support the president a lot.
I think he has the guts and the gusto here to leave a footprint on the country we haven't seen since the Reagan years.
But again, it pains me to say this, there were some very, very bad decisions announced yesterday.
Uh, really bad.
And I'm not talking about the gun issue.
I think that we can solve.
I think, uh, you know, there's a lot of good voices at the table and I think the president will come around on due process.
But the decision that was publicly announced yesterday about steel and aluminum tariffs is an absolute disaster.
There is no upside to this at all, folks.
Now, some of you may think tariffs, this is a boring issue.
Folks, this will be, I'm warning you now, an economic catastrophe if this goes through.
To sum up, in case you missed it, an announcement was made yesterday by the Trump team that we are going to impose a significant tariff on steel imports into the country and aluminum imports.
What is a tariff?
It is a tax.
That's why we're, as Republicans, we're Levying taxes, I sincerely don't understand.
I suspect I know who's behind this.
I think Wilbur Ross, who's a cabinet secretary with Trump, who has been big on tariffs from day one, is behind this.
He's been a supporter of tariffs.
It's not a secret.
But folks, this is a disaster.
Absolute disaster.
Now, let me explain to you why, because I have an obligation to put out the why in the Why Matters.
So just to be clear on what tariffs are, let's do this, let's make it simple, because we've done this example before, Joe, of the islands.
Okay.
Let's say you have two islands, right?
You have Island A and Island B, right?
And there's a hundred people on each island.
Let's say they trade.
If Island A wants to produce whatever, more coconuts on that island, one of the economically nonsensical ways to do it would be to say, well, listen, We're getting a lot of coconuts from Island B because they have a surplus.
So let's do this.
Let's put a heavy tax on the sale of Island B's coconuts as they come into Island A. What would that do?
It would make the price of Island B coconuts more expensive because you're putting a tax.
They cost more money.
And what would that do?
Well, it would incentivize more people to buy coconuts on Island A. Now, if you're a liberal, Or you're not interested in understanding economics, stop right there, because that makes sense to you.
You're like, oh yeah, so what?
Island bees' coconuts are more expensive, we tax them.
We don't tax our own coconuts, so people buy more of our own.
Again, liberals, you can stop here.
People who are interested in actual economics and what actually happens afterwards, now listen, because this is devastating and has never worked throughout human history.
Here's what really happens in situations like that.
Island A now understanding that they don't have to compete with Island B's coconuts on price, Joe.
Why?
Because Island B's coconuts are going to be more expensive no matter what.
Why?
Because they're taxed!
They're just tariff on them and Island A's aren't!
Island A now raises its prices to match up with Island B, or maybe just a penny shy.
Why?
Because there's no price competition.
Because if Island B's coconuts are say, say they're $20, $10 for the coconut, $10 for the tax, Island A's like, well, we don't have to charge $10.
We can charge $19.99 and we still win.
Right?
But right.
It's just basic economics.
What do you think?
These companies are going to be generous?
Folks, the same thing, I gotta not, there's four, there's four downsides to this, so I got more, but please listen to me on this.
American Steel, absent foreign competition, because we're gonna put tariffs on everybody else's steel coming into the country, will not lower its prices in response.
That is not the way this works.
They will hike their prices, maybe just shy of the tariff.
So now you pay more for imported steel and for domestic steel.
Oh, okay.
What is that?
What is that?
Second, you will unquestionably have global retaliation for this, by the way, which has already begun.
Folks, Chinese steel is actually a very small portion of our steel imports.
You know what's a really large portion of it?
Canada.
And we export a good swath of steel to Canada as well.
And what is Canada and other people now saying, Joe?
Hey man, we're going to have to put a tariff on your steel too, making your steel more expensive.
So now, the domestic steel will raise its prices to meet the tariff.
Secondly, it'll raise their prices overseas as well, because these other countries we export domestic steel to will have a tariff slapped on them too.
This, I am telling you, I know I'm going to get some emails from this from some interest groups.
I will read them.
I appreciate them.
You are wrong.
There are two things in economics, I'm telling you, where common sense people, I'm not talking about ideologues, I mean common sense rational economists, there are two areas, there is absolute unanimity amongst rational actors.
It's that minimum wage does nothing for the economy overall.
It does nothing.
The second one is that tariffs absolutely will not lead to economic growth.
If you raise the price on a product, regardless of where it comes from, you are simply taking the money out of the American citizen's pocket.
There's no other explanation.
Think about this, folks.
The best way I had this explained to me was, if Island B wants to give us the coconuts for free, Give us.
Let's say what people who don't understand trade call dumping.
Like China's dumping cheap steel on us.
So what?
Why do you care?
If Island B wants to import coconuts for free and give them to us for free because they're just really nice people, now we don't have to work to get coconuts anymore.
What's the downside?
You may say, well, it's going to cost steel jobs.
Folks, it may.
It may cost steel jobs, but those jobs and those resources will be allocated.
I know this is hard, and I get it.
Believe me.
I understand.
That doesn't sound good, Dan.
It's going to cost steel jobs.
It may.
It very well may.
But folks, the automobile costs horse and buggy jobs.
I've been there.
I'm not speaking with forked tongue, okay?
Joe, you can vouch for me on this.
I have given up government pensions.
I've given up government jobs.
I'm not looking for anybody.
I don't care.
I'm not, really, I'm not celebrating myself.
Please don't take this the wrong way.
I'm simply saying to you that I realized at some point the futility of what I was doing in that specific line of work.
That it wasn't going to work anymore and I had to find some other way to be, to add to the economy and add value to the world.
If someone wants to give you something for free, you take it!
Now no one's giving us anything for free.
But folks, raising the price, raising the price of it, forget about taking it for free, raising the price of it dramatically is not going to help anyone.
They are going to retaliate and domestic industries are just going to increase prices.
By the way, you know I never say this stuff without backing it up with facts.
I've got some data for you that's pretty darn conclusive.
I just want to set this up first because this is going to be an important argument in the coming days and I want you to be prepared.
Third.
So first was increased prices by the domestic industry as well to meet the tariffs.
Second, you're going to have retaliation overseas.
There's going to be tariffs on our products as well.
Now everybody's going to pay more everywhere.
Job losses, number three.
You will see job losses.
Why will you see job losses?
Because there are far more people who work in steel using steel consumption industries than people who produce steel.
Oh, you want the numbers?
There are 6.5 million people who work in industries that heavily use steel.
There are 140,000 people producing steel.
When you raise the cost of steel for 6.5 million people using it to so-called support the jobs of 140,000 people producing it, which you're not even supporting their jobs because I'm telling you other countries are going to retaliate.
You are guaranteed to see job losses because of it.
Let me ask you a simple question to make this job losses point more salient and clear.
You want to pay more for your house?
Simple question, yes or no.
Of course I don't.
Then you cannot support a steel tariff.
There is no way you can support a steel tariff and say I want to pay less for a house when I'm in the housing market.
Because steel is a heavy component of some house building and construction.
You want to pay more for your rent than your office?
No, I don't.
Okay, then you don't support a steel tariff.
You want to pay more for your car.
No, I don't want to pay more for my car.
Okay, then you don't support a steel tariff.
What do you think one of the main inputs, Joe, into a car is?
Steel!
So now the cost of cars goes up.
And then what happens?
People buy less cars, which means the auto industry hires less employees, which means they lose jobs.
I've got more data on that.
Don't let that go.
I just want to set it up first.
Fourth, let me give you an example here.
About what they call, quote, competitive difficulties in some reports.
What are competitive difficulties?
I was listening to an economics lecture once.
It was fascinating.
They were talking about a case study of the Brazilian computer industry.
I've spoken about this before, Joe.
Brazilians had a brilliant idea once too, that they were going to be a technology center of the world, which is great.
You can do that.
You can foster a solid educational environment.
You know, schools can get into job training for technology.
That's great.
That's not what they did.
The Brazilians said, all right.
We're going to put a big tariff on imported computers.
Why?
Because it's going to make them super expensive, so people use Brazilian computers only, and it will increase jobs in the Brazilian computer industry, and it'll make us the technology capital of the known universe.
It didn't work.
What actually happened?
Well, the three things I spoke about prior happened, but the fourth thing was competitive difficulties happened.
What are competitive difficulties?
Now that the Brazilian computer industry was insulated from competition.
Why?
Because the imported computers were more expensive because of the tariff.
The incentive to make a better product went down dramatically.
Why?
Because you were insulated from competition.
You didn't have to compete.
There was no competition.
Everyone else's computer was more expensive artificially because of a tariff.
So what happened?
The Brazilian computers were substandard.
They were not very good.
But because they were cheaper, they made their way around the economy, affecting every business in the country that used them.
So now the economy goes in the tank and suffered dramatically because of it, because the Brazilian computers were moved around at a higher rate than imported computers because of the price.
And they weren't working as well, which made the industry suffer that used them as well.
Folks, this is not gonna work.
This is going to be a disaster.
And it is one of the few times where swampy Republicans in D.C.
who have been speaking out against this tariff, I hate to say it, are right.
This is a bad idea.
Let me add a couple other angles to this.
So now you know the four things.
Competitive difficulties, job losses, global retaliation, and increased domestic prices too, right?
It's not a coincidence, folks, that the stock market yesterday took a 500-point dump and is now down, as of this time, I'm watching the ticker right now, 294.45 points.
How does the stock market work?
People invest in companies today discounting the value of their future cash flows.
In other words, if I invest in Joe's t-shirt company today, I don't get it at today's prices generally if I'm expecting Joe's company to grow.
If they're growing 10% a year, you're gonna pay a premium for some ownership or equity in Joe's company based on the discounted value, like a reverse interest rate, of what you expect Joe's cash flows and profits and proceeds to be in the future.
When the stock market takes a dump of 500 points and now 287, now as we're looking, over the course of two days after the announcement of a tariff, you can be reasonably confident that some generally intelligent people investing their own money have said, this sucks.
Folks, this is a really, really bad idea.
I am sorry, but Trump has been A-plus on the economy.
Regulations, tax cuts, business sanity in the country, future projections of four years of at least staying out of your business, right?
This is a bad, bad call.
Now, I said I had some data for you.
I'm going to give it to you.
Cato piece, terrific, by Scott Lincecum.
He'll be at the show notes today.
Cato's great.
Great resource.
At Bongino.com.
Go check this piece out.
Please read it.
It's not very long.
It is about, again, unanimous research on steel tariffs.
Here's just one quote talking about steel.
Multiple studies, Joe, which described efforts to restrict imports of various steel products annually cost American consumers.
This is a staggering number.
Digest what I'm about to tell you.
So basically steel tariffs or efforts to reduce imports of steel.
cost American consumers between $200,000 and $2.3 million for every steel job protected.
You're like, "That's not possible."
Like, what do you mean?
I gave someone to it?
No, that's not what they're saying.
What they're saying is the losses to the economy, Joe, were so bad from steel tariffs and restrictions on steel imports were so dramatic that when spread across the American populace, it cost roughly $200,000 to $2.3 million per person for every job that they saved.
Folks, I mean, you think that's a recipe for job growth?
Now, you may say, all right, Dan, I mean, maybe it was different, you know, when George W. Bush did it.
George W. Bush did it?
Yes, another Republican who imposed the steel tariff.
That steel tariff, Joseph, lasted 18 months before they got rid of it.
Why?
It was a disaster.
A disaster of epic proportions.
Now, to be clear, there are various estimates on the job losses from the George W. Bush steel tariffs.
Again, another Republican lost in the tariff war.
But one of them that I found particularly disturbing was 200,000 job losses in addition to the costs I told you before that are spread across the American economy by prices increasing everywhere else for everything else that uses steel.
200,000 job losses after 18 months, the Bush tariffs went out the window.
Folks, this is an atrocious, atrocious, horrible idea.
Please.
Please fight against this.
Email your legislators.
Call them at your House of Representatives, your senators.
This is a really bad idea, and I'm saying it because, listen, every president has missteps.
I genuinely support this guy.
I think he has his head in the right place.
I think sometimes he gets misguided, though, by bad advice.
He got really bad advice on this, and it's going to require us to say something.
And you know what?
If some people on the other side of the aisle want to get on board and fight this too, then this is the perfect opportunity for some form of bipartisanship.
This is not going to help.
I'm telling you if this goes through, it is going to take a substantial cut out of economic growth for next year.
It's a big mistake.
Okay, moving on.
How are we doing on time here?
All right, we're good.
All right, I got a couple more I want to get to here.
Hey!
Really, really cool story.
I saw Judicial Watch.
Be up at the show notes today again.
You know where to find it.
Bungiedo.com.
I hate to keep saying it, folks, but this is how we pay for the show.
And, you know, we're trying to, you'll see next Monday, we've got some ideas to expand the marketing platform and things like that.
So forgive me.
I don't mean, you know, I'm not P.T.
Barnum here, you know.
It's just that as the show grows, as Joe knows, It's getting expensive for a number of reasons, you know, and we don't want to be under pressure here to have to put 6,000 ads in the show, okay?
I'm trying to keep it between, you know, one and three spots per show, as you've seen.
We've kind of cut it down a little bit, even over the last few days.
So we're trying to keep it inexpensive, so forgive me.
But Bongino.com is my website, and that's where I'll keep these show notes, and it does help if you go there and read them, so thank you.
Crazy story.
Judicial Watch, I missed this somehow.
I don't know how I did, but it ties into one of the big shoes to drop, I think, coming up in the Trump-Russia, Clinton email, Uranium One scandal.
It's all one big mishmash of government malfeasance, right?
I told you before about Skolkovo, how we'll see more about Skolkovo in the future.
But here's another story that Judicial Watch has out about these private emails.
I shouldn't say private emails, that's a bad way to phrase it.
These cryptic pseudonym accounts that government officials in the Obama administration were using to communicate.
Now, a lot of them had them.
One of them was Lisa Jackson, the former EPA administrator.
The way these things were found, just to be clear, folks, is they issued a lot of FOIA requests, Freedom of Information Act requests, whether it's Judicial Watch or others, other investigators, reporters and stuff.
And they found a vacuum, like a black hole of emails for people.
In other words, when I was in the Secret Service, my email at the time was dbongino at usss.trege.gov.
I think that was my... Yeah, that probably was it.
I was not active anymore, obviously, but that was my government email.
That was my official account.
What they're finding is pattern with Obama, and I'm going to tie this up for you in a minute, with Obama administration officials, is they had fake names.
So Lisa Jackson had an account show.
Richard Windsor.
Richard Windsor.
That sounds like she's, there may be a movie someone saw that in.
Any kind of movie we'd be watching in a family friendly show, you know?
You know, Summer Rain, Richard Windsor, whatever, you know what I'm saying?
I don't know where they got that from, but Richard Windsor was the account she was using to communicate with.
Now it was an EPA account, but it was a different name.
Why would you do that?
Well, you would do it to hide your communications.
Is there any other legitimate reason, folks?
My name's Dan Bongino, okay?
It's not joey2times at usss.trege.gov, okay?
It was Dan Bongino, D. Bongino.
That was my email.
You would only do it to evade detection.
Why am I bringing this up about the EPA administrator?
Because apparently this was widespread.
Judicial Watch piece indicates that Loretta Lynch had one as well.
This was a little more diplomatic, nuanced name, maybe focus group tested, maybe they bounced around some potential Attorney General Loretta Lynch pseudonyms, and this one came up.
Elizabeth Carlyle.
Well.
Well, hey now.
Hey now.
Yeah, baby, yeah.
So Elizabeth Carlyle comes up.
And the same thing.
There is a FOIA, Freedom of Information Act, for communications on an official government account by Loretta Lynch, and they don't find anything!
So mysteriously, Joe, poof, disappears.
Until they uncover the Elizabeth Carlyle account.
Now, here's another interesting angle before I get to the coup de grace here.
The Elizabeth Carlyle account came up due to a FOIA, and you can read this in the piece, over a communications revolving this thing called the Strong Cities Network.
The Strong Cities Network was this global initiative that had a lot to do with violent extremism, which is, if you listen to yesterday's show, is a way for the leftists to discuss terrorism without mentioning terrorism because they don't want you to get focused on national security because it doesn't benefit them.
So there was a FOIA issued saying, you know, what's the Justice Department, Loretta Lynch, the Attorney General, what's their involvement in this Strong Cities Network thing?
This is a strange project.
We're not really, you know, we're not all on board with this.
What's interesting is they found some emails from this, from John Carlin.
Remember the names?
Yeah.
John Carlin, at the time, was an Assistant Attorney General in the Justice Department.
In one of these emails, by the way, he found out that he was touting this Strong Cities Network at an event sponsored by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which is a radical far-left organization that is anti-First Amendment and tries to suppress conservative voices, right?
So Carlin was touting this Strong Cities Network.
Why am I bringing up Carlin's name?
Because some communiques apparently happened between people in the Justice Department about the Strong Cities Network, and it appears from the reading of it that a Carlisle email, Elizabeth Carlisle's pseudonym email, may have been involved.
Who was John Carlin?
Carlin was later the head of the National Security Division in the DOJ, and one of the central figures in the spying scandal on Donald Trump.
He was also the guy that resigned right after a FISA court reevaluation of the spying operation the NSA was involved in, which was pretty damning.
He resigned right after that.
I've said to you over and over that Carlin's shop in the National Security Division was one of the few shops in the government that was not subjected to internal affairs inspector general type review.
Therefore, they could act relatively unfettered in the spying operation on Trump.
Carlin was the head of that.
Carlin had to know about the spying that was going on on Donald Trump.
He had to.
Carlin was also Bob Mueller, the special counsel's former chief of staff.
What does this have to do with anything?
Did Carlin have one of these emails too?
Did Carlin have a Tommy Two Times email?
TommyTwoTimes.gov or whatever?
Honestly, I don't know.
I'm asking a serious question.
Any sources out there?
You want to contact me?
I mean, real sources.
All I'm saying to you is I brought up to you during the entire timeline and during 6-28, all the episodes I did on this Trump-Russia thing, that the shoe to drop was going to be Obama's emails to Hillary Clinton.
We know they're out there.
What I'm suggesting to you is maybe there are more.
How many people in the government, now we know the EPA administrator, we know the Department of Justice, we know, you know, it seems that Carlin had some communications in here too with these people.
Carlin who was, there's no way he didn't know about the spying scandal going on.
Joe, is there an entire network of communications going on out there using fake addresses?
And I'll leave you with this.
Is one of those, I should say fake names, is one of those fake names going to turn out later on to be a Barack Obama account?
And did that Barack Obama account communicate regularly from say, what is it?
The White House email domain I think is who.eop.gov or something like that.
Is there a Tony Smith at whatever?
Whitehouse.eop.gov or whatever it is?
And is that Tony Smith Barack Obama?
I'm just saying, folks, I know for a fact, it's been widely reported, that there are emails out there from Obama to Hillary on that private email server.
Maybe there are more Barack Obama emails as well to other people, and this... I mean, that would be... It would crack everything.
I mean, if that's out there, it would crack everything wide open.
I think he's in a lot of trouble to begin with, just for emailing Hillary on this private email account she had.
But there could be more and I want to throw that out there.
And again, I don't know.
I'm just, I found it interesting.
I know I don't like to leave open questions.
Nothing worse than watching a movie and not understanding it.
Yeah.
You know, Joe, you ever see like, um, what was that movie?
Vanilla Sky with Tom Cruise.
I still don't get that, but I don't understand it.
What the hell happened to them?
Was he dreaming?
Was he not dreaming?
But I'm putting it out there to be fair, not to leave you with a, you know, how do I leave you in suspense kind of thing.
This is fair.
Now we know there were multiple emails.
We know Hillary emailed Obama.
We know pseudonyms were being used.
I'm suggesting to you there's a strong likelihood that Obama may have had one as well.
He may not.
But if it breaks in the future, I think that would be just catastrophic for the Obama team.
All right, one final story I'll have at the show notes today, which I'd like you to check out because yesterday we hammered the Democrats on identity politics.
They are in love with race baiting because that's all they have, folks.
Yesterday's show was a pretty deep dive into how the Democrats are devoid of any policy ideas and solutions.
Their agenda is control.
Control over your money, your health care, education, everything.
That is all they want.
The means to get there to them is frankly irrelevant and they use identity politics as a vehicle to get there.
In other words, you're black, all conservatives hate you.
You're Hispanic, conservatives hate you too.
You're Muslim, you're a woman, it doesn't matter.
Conservatives hate you and they will put you in that group and they will demand you stay there.
In other words, if you're black and you're female, they don't want you voting as a mother for your future, your kid's future safety.
They want you voting as a black female.
Does that make sense, Joe?
Yeah.
Motherly priorities are obviously not the same as identity politics priorities.
Oh, what do you mean?
I can get school choice for my kids if I vote Republican?
Well, the Democrats say, you don't want to do that because Republicans hate you.
Because you're skin color.
That's the Democrats' only line of attack.
They're not even hiding it anymore.
Chuck Schumer, there's a story by Amber Athey in the Daily Caller, I'll put in the show notes today.
Did you see this?
Did you see this story?
There's a district court judge up for Senate confirmation, last name Quattlebaum.
Chuck Schumer gets up on the Senate floor and he's like, I'm not voting for this guy.
And here's the quote.
Because he replaces not one, but two scuttled Obama nominees who are African-American.
So basically Schumer gets on the Senate floor, Joe, and goes, hey, listen, I'm not voting for a white guy here.
So listen, the story's gone.
Tucker covered it last night on his show, and I think I'll be on tonight if you want to watch.
Folks, they're not even hiding it anymore.
They are not... Chuck Schumer just openly said... Now, keep in mind, the same such rules don't apply in the other direction.
If you are a white person by... I don't even know anymore, seriously, how the media defines it.
Remember we had the famous white Hispanic with George Zimmerman.
No one even knows racial categories.
The media will say anything.
But apparently, if you're white, Or you don't meet the appropriate skin color category.
It's not necessary to fulfill that with another white person.
By the way, thank God!
But anything else, it's okay right now to go on the Senate floor and go, I'm not voting for this guy, basically because he's white.
Forget qualifications, merit, anything else.
This is unbelievable.
Read this story if you think I'm making anything up.
I quoted him directly.
I'm telling you, they're married to identity politics, folks.
They have absolutely nothing else.
All right, thanks again for tuning in.
Been a great week of shows.
Please spread the word.
I really appreciate you tweeting about the show and putting it on Facebook.
I try to like as many of them as I can.
I get a nice little Facebook thing there.
I can see my last name when it comes up, so I really appreciate it.
Thank you so much.
It means the world to me.
Go to Bongino.com, check out the shows, and I will see you all on Monday.
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.
