Ep. 779 This Lawsuit Could Destroy the Media's Trump Attacks
Summary:
This lawsuit could absolutely destroy the Russian collusion fairy-tale. I also debunk the latest liberal attacks on the Trump economy.
News Picks:
This Federalist piece addresses the BuzzFeed lawsuit that could cripple the collusion fairy-tale.
A terrific piece by Louis Woodhill that debunks liberal economic arguments.
This Daniel Horowitz piece addresses Democrat DACA hypocrisy.
The elites' war on the deplorables continues.
More on the socialism disaster.
The media is lying again about the Trump Tower meeting.
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.
All right, welcome to Dan Bongino's show.
Producer Joe, how are you today, my friend?
I'm all set, Dan.
All set.
Joe had a great idea, you know, because before we have...
Folks, if I could only tell you, as the studio and the operation has grown more and more complicated and the show has gained a larger following, we've had to add equipment upon equipment upon equipment, we've had daisy chain stuff, so there's always like a technical issue.
So before we get on the air with you guys and ladies, Joe and I are, you know, "Darn, argh, argh, peep, argh, argh."
So I said to Joe, "Yo, one of these days,"
if Joe had to, 'cause we gotta keep it family friendly, one of these days I said,
"You need to produce a monster mashup, "15 minute cuts of outtakes before the show."
And so here's what it would be, we'll play it on a Saturday.
(imitates music)
But, hey, Joe, (imitates music)
It would sound like the show is backing up.
Oh my gosh, right, right, like, it was cut, right, like the UPS, (imitates music)
that's the whole show.
But it would be funny, maybe we'll do that.
We'll have someone, maybe Miles from Brickhouse, we'll have to sponsor that one, a 15 minute mashup.
Oh man, we have, last night, everything's going, I had the longest day ever yesterday, right?
Longest day I've had in forever.
Wake up for Fox and Friends, right?
I'm not a snowflake either.
I love it.
I love what I do.
I'm just telling you because the story is how it ends is kind of funny.
So I get up of course to Fox and Friends 630 right to show prep.
Takes me about two and a half hours right to the podcast.
Done with the podcast.
I have to go get a haircut because I looked like I had like the Jim Morrison hair going or something like that.
I have to run right to the gym, get a quick workout, come right back.
There's a person in my house doing work.
Have to come right back, start preparing for NRA TV.
Knock that out.
The NRA TV show.
Then right after the NRA TV show, went right with a two minute break.
The show ends at 558.30.
So it's actually a minute and a half.
I jump right into Levin, three hours on radio.
Bang!
Right into a Laura Ingram show after that.
Finally go to sleep.
Five o'clock in the morning.
The battery power starts going off in the office.
The thing's not on mute.
I'm like, oh my gosh, this is the worst.
The hardest working man in rock and roll right here.
Yeah, it was crazy.
So yeah, it was funny.
All right, I got a big show for you.
A couple things I want to cover.
The double standards are now ridiculous in the way Trump and Democrats are treated.
I want to hit three things.
Dianne Feinstein, Dianne Feinstein, Democrat Senator on the Intel Committee.
Not like she'd have any sensitive information, right Joe?
She's only on the Senate Intelligence Committee.
So we find out she had a Chinese spy working for her for a few years.
Oh!
Oh, how'd the FBI handle that one?
It's going to create an interesting double standard.
I have some fascinating, just terrific audio of Adam Schiff attempting to collude with the Russians.
And I just want to talk about another double standard.
I want to get to the jobs report, because there's an outstanding article in the show notes by Lewis Woodhill, who does great work, which absolutely annihilates and obliterates any Obama-Trump comparison of the economy.
Your friends will have nowhere to go, so don't go anywhere.
We've got a great show.
Hey, today's show brought to you by my buddies at My Patriot Supply.
Can you imagine going months with only the food in your pantry right now?
What we'll call a food closet, because I hate that word.
No, you can't.
My family, we'd probably starve in a week or two if it was just the food closet.
But we don't have to worry because I have a bunch of my Patriots supply food.
Well, unfortunately, this reality is brutal.
This is top of the mind right now for people in Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria, the tragedy there, where some of them afterwards were out of power, some of them were running out of food.
Folks, this is why we need a plan to take care of our families if a crisis strikes where we live.
My friends at My Patriot Supply understand this need.
They're busy this month helping Patriots prepare, and they feel the need, and the need to prepare has never been greater.
We have storm season here in Florida.
I have my My Patriot Supply food.
You should, too.
Food insurance, we insure.
Everything in our lives that matter.
That's why my Patriot Supply is offering never-seen-before pricing on their popular three-month emergency food kit.
I have one for each of my family members.
This week only, get this food kit for your family, and you will save $250 at this special website, preparewithdan.com.
That's preparewithdan.com.
This three-month emergency food kit is priced to sell out quickly, and it will.
It includes breakfast, lunches, and dinners packed in rugged slimline totes.
The food lasts up to 25 years in storage.
That's $250 in savings this week only.
Go to 888-411-8926 or go online to preparewithdan.com.
That's 888-411-8926 or preparewithdan.com.
That's preparewithdan.com.
Don't miss out.
This is a great opportunity.
Ensure everything in your life as it matters, food being one of them, go do that.
Okay.
So first, Adam Schiff, our buddy Schifty!
Schifty!
We love Schifty!
Schifty Schiff!
Schifty Schiff is guilty of really what most Democrats, when you pay attention to their tactical political strategy, do.
They accuse you of what they're guilty of themselves.
It's all coming together now why Adam Schiff may be the most vocal voice on the Democrat side of the aisle for promoting the Russia hoax and the conspiracy theory.
When I say the Russia hoax, I mean the collusion between the Trump team and Russia hoax.
Well, we already know this is actually older news, but I'm starting to think that there may be a more intimate relationship between the Russians and the Democrats than we've been led to believe in the past.
Now, I want to play some audio here, and I want to hat tip Sean Hannity for bringing this story back into the spotlight again, because it had kind of lost its luster a little bit.
This is actual audio from a bit ago.
This is not a joke.
Well, it is a joke on Schiff, but Adam Schiff, it's very real.
This is actual audio of Adam Schiff, who thinks he's talking to a Russian connected to Putin.
He's being pranked, by the way.
He doesn't know it.
About obtaining information, negative information on Donald Trump.
So just to be clear, why this matters.
We have this clown, Adam Schiff.
Adam Schiff, this Democrat congressman from, this lead conspiracy theorist, Russian hoaxster, Democrat congressman from California, who continues to claim that Trump colluded with the Russians with no evidence whatsoever, but more importantly, It continues to assert, Joe, that interactions with Russians to obtain negative materials on your political opponent is evidence of some kind of a crime.
This is his premise, right, Joe?
Talking with the Russians, trying to obtain negative campaign materials is a crime.
Play the audio of Adam Schiff doing the exact thing he's accusing the Trump team of.
In November 2013, Mr. Trump visited Moscow.
He visited the competition Miss Universe, and there he met with the Russian journalist and celebrity Ksenia Sobchak.
I'm sorry, can you explain that again?
While he was in Moscow in November 2013, he met with a journalist and... Well, she's a poor journalist.
But anyway, she became famous because Putin is her godfather.
Okay.
Putin is Godfather.
Okay.
She also known as a person who provide girls for escort for oligarchs and she met with Trump and she brought him one our Russian girl celebrity Olga Buzova who also known as a person with a strange reputation.
Olga and how do you spell her name?
Olga Buzova.
Buzova.
So Olga Buzova is a friend of the Olga Buzova!
That's real!
Now, what half of it is real?
of reporter and I think the special agent of Russian secret service Ksenia Sobchak.
Olga Buzova. That's real. Now, one half of it is real. The shift half. Adam Schiff thinks he's
talking to Russians connected to Putin and special agents and the Russian secret service, whatever it
may be, about compromising information.
That tape goes on for seven minutes.
Obviously, I just wanted to play a snippet of it.
But again, hat tip to Hannity for bringing this back because I had, I think we may have played this before when it broke, but I had forgotten about this.
Now, the only reason I bring it up is because with the pending un-redaction of a significant portion of the Pfizer application, which I'm hearing from a number of folks may happen this week or early next week.
I think we may be read in more to the Democrats' involvement in this collusion conspiracy from the start.
The conspiracy to work with Fusion GPS to gin up information on Trump.
But this is the guy!
This is Shifty, Shifty Schiff, who goes on television every day telling people that colluding with the Russians to get information about your political opponents, that that is in fact potentially a crime.
And there is a tape of Adam Schiff talking about Olga Buzova.
Olga Buzova?
Who's Olga Buzova?
Olga Bluzava?
(gulps)
It's, I mean, Olga Bluzava, is this, this, Adam Schiff, he's an attorney by the way,
this guy is really not that bright.
How he passed the bar, I am really, I'm unsure of this.
So again, the double standard by the media who should be reporting about this tape where he's actively seeking information.
Compromising information from a guy he believes is connected to Russian secret services and Vladimir Putin himself, or has information from people connected to him.
But nobody talks about that!
They're concerned about a Trump Tower meeting where no information of significance changes hands whatsoever.
Do you see the double standard here?
No!
This is why, Joe, the new rules again are in effect, as I said on Levin's last night, and I'll say over and over again.
We don't care anymore.
You've burned it.
Sorry.
You burned us all.
We're only interested in what Trump does with the pro-life agenda, with the economy.
We don't care about this.
We're not interested anymore.
You want to produce evidence of a crime?
Fine.
We'll hear you out.
Until that point, nobody cares.
Goodbye.
I hear Russia's story.
I cover it on this show only to humiliate the liberals.
That is Adam Schiff actively colluding by his own definition with the Russians.
And Adam, you can't hide those lying eyes.
And they are some set of eyes that he got.
Oh boy.
Wow.
Alright, so on the double standards topic, point number two.
Isn't it interesting that now, I didn't cover the story yesterday because I was stacked up with information.
Senator Dianne Feinstein on the Senate Intel Committee, a senior member of one of the most powerful committees on the U.S.
Senate side, that handles high-level classified intelligence.
We now find out that a Chinese spy was driving her around.
Wow!
How about that?
Isn't that interesting?
Now, what's interesting is not just that a Senate Democrat's never had a Chinese spy, How it relates to the double standard M.O.
we've been going with since we started the show is, again, first the double standard is Schiff.
Schiff colludes with what he believes to be a Russian.
Nobody cares.
But on this one, don't you think it's strange, Joe, that the reporting of how this happened is about five years ago, the FBI approached Dianne Feinstein and said, hey, we have some information that this guy who's inserted himself into your office as a staffer and was some kind of a liaison to the Asian community, that he may be a spy.
And Dianne Feinstein's all proud.
She's like, well, we took action right away.
Joe, why didn't that happen to the Trump team?
In other words, if they thought Carter Page and George Papadopoulos were active spies worthy of a FISA warrant to spy on them, why not just go to the Trump team and say, hey, listen, I think we have a spy in their midst here.
It's Carter Page, it's George Papadopoulos.
We got to take care of this.
The answer is obvious.
Because number one, I think they pretty much understood Carter Page was not a spy.
They were basing it on faulty information.
But number two, their goal was not to notify the Trump team.
Their goal was to entrap the Trump team.
Folks, this is a big story.
This is huge.
This Dianne Feinstein story is a very, very big deal.
She employed a person in her office with access, Diane Feinstein that is, with access to the highest level of intelligence.
They're saying the driver didn't have access to that intelligence.
But folks, come on.
Joe, you've been in the backseat of cars, right?
You've had drivers sent, when I used to do Fox and CNN and I didn't have my home studio, once in a while a driver comes to your house, they pick you up, it's a nice little perk they give you so you don't have to worry, you can do your show prep in the car, right?
Joe, you probably had some conversations in cabs and stuff, right?
Of course, man.
You're surprised at what comes out of your mouth talking to that cab driver.
Folks, I can think of one specific way.
It wasn't classified, but there's one time I remember I was coming out of a restaurant and I was thinking, gosh, I shouldn't have said that in a car.
Now, the guy was just, I don't even think he was paying attention.
It sounded like he was listening to whatever.
They had NPR on in the background.
The point is, we've all had those conversations.
This guy was employed there for years.
While Dianne Feinstein's probably having conversations in the back of the car, we have no idea the damage this guy could have done.
Now, I want to be clear.
I'm not... I'm not suggesting Dianne Feinstein knew the guy was a spy.
I'm simply suggesting to you that the way her case was handled, the appropriate way, you go to the office as an FBI agent, you say, listen, we got a problem, We got a serious problem.
This guy you hired may in fact be a spy for an enemy power.
Or at least a hostile power.
The guy's terminated.
He's kicked out.
Whatever clearance he has is, or whatever access I should say, which is a better term, is revoked.
That's it.
He's gone.
Ladies and gentlemen, why didn't that happen with the Trump team?
Again, it's clear as day because the goal wasn't to stop anything.
It was to entrap the guy.
What other explanation is there?
Oh, we thought Carter Page was a spy.
Did you notify the Trump team you thought Carter Page was a spy?
No, we didn't.
Well, why'd you do it for Dianne Feinstein?
Well, because the guy may have been a spy.
I believe there's two reasons.
Again, the Bureau didn't think Carter Page was a spy and didn't want to embarrass themselves.
And secondly, they had already said and sworn in front of a court that Carter Page was a spy.
And they needed that information by the two hop rule to hop from pages, emails to someone else into the Trump team.
They can hop twice into the Trump team and get their data.
Yeah.
They needed it.
So on one hand, they're skeptical of the information and they know it because if they really believed it, they probably would have told the Trump team.
But on the other hand, they need to be unskeptical of the information to go swear in front of a judge that the information is real so they can entrap and spy on the Trump team.
Ladies and gentlemen, ridiculous, abhorrent, disgusting double standards.
But again, don't expect the liberal media to care about any of this.
Point number three.
This is a simple one I brought up, so I'm not going to spend a lot of time on it.
But again, we're talking about the double standards here, and it's critical you understand this to be able to debate this with your liberal friends.
If they are going to suggest to you that meetings with Russians for opposition research are in fact crimes, which, ladies and gentlemen, they're not.
Conspiracy is a crime, collusion is not.
And I'm not alleging anybody colluded.
I'm simply suggesting to you if your liberal friends are going to argue that Trump's meeting, Trump Jr., at Trump Tower is something nefarious, then they have to acknowledge immediately that Schiff's conversation with what he thought were Russians was worse because they're actually transmitting negative information.
It's fake, but it is negative information.
There are no allegations that that happened at the Trump Jr.
meeting.
Secondly, if they're going to allege, oh, everything was handled by the numbers with the FBI, because I've heard that charge too, even by some Republicans.
Oh, the FBI did everything by the numbers.
Really?
So how come when Dianne Feinstein had this spy, they notified her and he was removed immediately, but nobody notified the Trump team?
Is that by the numbers?
That's by the book?
What does the book say?
Does the book say notify them?
The answer is the book does.
When you look at the DIOG with the FBI and the DOJ guidelines, by the way, which Denise McAllister and I did an un- I shouldn't self-praise things, let me throw it on Denise.
Denise, my co-author in the book, did a great job in Spygate, my new book, breaking down the FBI guidelines specifically for doing what they did to Carter Page and you'll see repeatedly how they violated their own rules.
Repeatedly.
The goal in counterintelligence investigations is to stop the infiltration, not to entrap your political opponent like they did with Trump.
Now third, again the third double standard here, is Hillary Clinton.
If you're going to suggest, as by the way a CNN legal analyst did yesterday on the air, Amber Athey has a really cool piece up at the Daily Caller about this, if you're going to suggest That meeting with a Russian to get opposition research is a net negative and potentially a crime.
But in the Trump case, again, we have no information exchanging hands.
How is Hillary Clinton paying people, paying people to contact Kremlin connected sources, eventually money exchanging hands, to get that information?
How is that not criminal too?
You understand this makes no sense.
They have no case.
It's not a double.
It's a complete lack of standards at all because they're just lying.
Yeah.
So let me get this straight, Libs.
Meeting with Russians is a crime to get information.
Okay, well, is Adam Schiff guilty too?
No, no, he's not guilty, but that's what he did.
No, no, it was a prank.
It was, oh, wait, wait, it was a prank.
But on the Trump junior meeting, there was no information at all.
Forget about a prank.
It wasn't even a prank.
Nobody showed up with any information.
Kompromat.
Schiff actually thinks he's getting information on the phone.
Hillary Clinton.
Oh, meeting with Russians is definitely collusion.
Collusion worthy of an investigation.
Hillary Clinton paid the Russians.
They paid Kremlin connected sources for information on Donald Trump.
The double standard is sickening.
It's frankly pretty disgusting.
And I'm so tired of media people just ignoring this.
All right.
One more thing on this.
I have a couple really, really good articles in the show.
I'll say one by Byron York.
I encourage you to read.
Go to Bongino.com.
Please subscribe to the email list.
We'll send them right to you.
Just to show you how much fake news is out there.
So Trump over the weekend acknowledges in a tweet that the purpose of the meeting at Trump Tower was to get opposition research.
Again, if that's a crime, Adam Schiff and Hillary Clinton are guilty too.
If it's not a crime, then both Don Trump Jr., Hillary Clinton, and Adam Schiff are all guilty of what, Joe?
A bad decision.
You shouldn't be meeting with Russians for opposition research.
But either way, they should all be held to the same standard.
But what's interesting is Trump tweets out over the weekend, How the purpose of the meeting was to get opposition research, and that's politics.
That's how it works.
Folks, the media's reporting on this as if it's news.
Really?
Let me go to the Byron York piece, who has a screenshot, Joe, of Donald Trump's tweet from July 17, 2017.
For liberals, that's 2017.
Joe, we are in 2018, correct?
Yes, we are.
Okay, thank you.
So this is over a year ago.
Here's a Donald Trump tweet.
Because they're suggesting now that Donald Trump finally admitting the purpose of the Trump Tower meeting was opposition research.
Finally?
Can you guys read?
Are you capable of that?
You know the ABCs?
Have you done that?
Did you sing the song?
Tweet from Donald Trump.
July 17, 2017.
Most politicians would have gone to a meeting like the one Don Jr.
attended in order to get info on an opponent.
That's politics.
Again, for the umpteenth time for dopey liberals in the media who say, BREAKING NEWS!
Donald Trump admits oppo research was the purpose!
July 17, 2017.
Folks, do you understand they're just making it up?
Like, we're all dumber for having to have this conversation.
You understand that, right?
Yeah.
But we're all dumber because the media is dumb themselves.
And we have to sadly go down to their level to explain to them basic simple things because they absolutely refuse to tell the truth because most of them are simply fake news.
Oh, you don't like fake news?
As I said last night on Laura Ingraham's show.
You want the CNN sucks chance to stop?
Just stop sucking.
If you stop sucking, maybe people will stop saying CNN sucks.
Yeah.
But you guys cannot report even basic facts.
Donald Trump finally admits.
Finally admits.
He tweeted that out July 17th of 2017.
He didn't finally admit something.
So your two points that meeting with a Russian for opposition research is somehow worthy of a special investigation.
We can debunk that immediately because you're not demanding a special investigation for Hillary.
You actually paid Russian connected sources.
Kremlin connected sources even worse.
Not necessarily the same thing.
And Adam Schiff who's actually on tape trying to collude with Russians.
They're not demanding a special investigation for that.
And secondly, point number two, oh my gosh, this is breaking news.
Trump finally admits it.
No, no, he admitted it a year ago.
You're just too dumb to read the news.
Unreal.
Unbelievable.
We gotta come on the air every morning and debunk this nonsense for your liberal friends because they're really too silly to even read their own stuff and do some basic fact-checking.
All right, one more note on this.
I have another good article from The Federalist about the BuzzFeed lawsuit, which is heating up.
Folks, this BuzzFeed lawsuit, let me just give you a little background on this because this is a really fascinating story.
BuzzFeed, which was one of the first outlets to publish the dossier, That's right.
Remember that?
BuzzFeed publishes the dossier, even though the dossier is unverified and they couldn't verify it, and BuzzFeed's take on it was kind of like, hey we're gonna put this out there and let's see what happens, right?
One of the names, a guy by the name of Gubarev, G-U-B-A-R-E-V, forgive me for saying that wrong, who is mentioned in the dossier, One of the allegations in the dossier, Joe, is that his tech company was plotting to hack the DNC.
Of course, the charge in the dossier was nonsense, because the dossier is nonsense.
It's garbage.
The dossier is a steaming pile of horse manure.
So, Gubarev, of course, sues.
Sues BuzzFeed and says, hey, you guys can't push that out there.
It's unverified garbage.
You can't put that out there.
Is BuzzFeed lawsuits heating up?
Why, folks, this is a fascinating story.
BuzzFeed is obviously a left-leaning entity.
But BuzzFeed's in a pickle right now.
Because BuzzFeed's claim is, hey man, this was legitimate news at the time, and watch, we're gonna go prove it.
Legitimate news being the dossier and reporting on this.
So what's BuzzFeed, a left-leaning outlet, what's the corner they find themselves in?
If they admit the dossier was fake news, right?
They're gonna get sued.
They're gonna lose the lawsuit because they're gonna have published fake news.
And they're gonna have to, by the way, acquiesce to the fact that the whole investigation into Donald Trump was a scam because it's based on the dossier.
Follow me where I'm going with this.
They're in a real corner here.
So BuzzFeed, to get out of that corner, to avoid losing tons of money for publishing fake news, and for acknowledging that the Democrats' entire story about the dossier and Donald Trump and being compromised by the Russians, it all comes from the dossier, they'd have to acknowledge the entire story's bunk!
So they're now fighting their way out of this corner, Joe, trying to authenticate the BuzzFeed dossier.
You see where I'm going with this, right?
So now, in order, it's a dossier, but BuzzFeed is trying to authenticate, say, hey, no, we were reporting on a real story.
In order to say that, what do they have to do?
They have to get testimony and subpoena people like Brennan and Clapper and Obama administration officials, and what are they all doing, Joe?
They're like, hell no!
I ain't going on the record to talk about that thing!
Remember we brought this story up a few months ago?
Where BuzzFeed had said to the DNC they tried to subpoena the DNC server?
Because remember, the dossier makes allegations of collusion.
In other words, the DNC server was hacked.
The Russians had the information.
They colluded with Trump to get the emails out there.
So BuzzFeed said, hey, we didn't print fake news.
The DNC server was really hacked.
By the way, DNC, can you please turn over the server?
What did the DNC say?
Um, no thanks.
What are you worried about?
What are you worried about?
DNC, why not just turn it over to BuzzFeed and the FBI?
Why are you worried?
If the DNC server was hacked by the Russians, as you say it was, why not just turn it over and rescue your left-leaning friends at BuzzFeed?
They told BuzzFeed, no thanks, pound sand, have a nice day, ding ding ding.
Now it turns out, so that's point number one, right?
BuzzFeed needed to be rescued.
All they needed was the proof in the server that the thing was hacked by the Russians to get out of this disastrous lawsuit.
It's a left-leaning website and the DNC said, no, no thank you.
We're not going to turn over that server.
Of course not.
Why would you do that?
But here's where it gets more interesting.
They subpoenaed, again, Brennan and these other people, and they had questions for them.
Of course, none of them wanted to testify on anything.
None of them wanted to answer questions.
The Obama administration didn't want to answer questions.
So, they simplified it in front of the judge, BuzzFeed.
They said, okay, can you, judge, ask the Obama administration these three very simple questions?
The three very simple questions are, Hold on, let me get this.
I should have had it up, but I had so much stuff going on this morning.
Forgive me.
Hold on a second, folks.
You can leave this in, Joe.
I'm sorry.
I don't want to cause you a bunch of editing issues.
Here they are.
This is a great piece of the Federalist, by the way, in the show notes.
Question number one.
Did the FBI possess the two-page memorandum contained within the dossier on January 10, 2017, or prior to January 10, 2017, which was the date BuzzFeed published the article?
In other words, If this dossier is such fake news, did the FBI have it?
Remember, BuzzFeed's trying to save itself right now.
Bureau's like, ah, we don't want to answer that question.
Question two.
Prior to January 10th, which is when BuzzFeed published the article, did the FBI or any other of the defendant agencies possess all 35 pages of the dossier?
In other words, hey, if we publish fake news, why did you guys have the dossier?
The FBI and all these other agencies are like, ah, we don't want to answer that either.
Why?
Because they don't want anyone to know they based their whole case off this crap dossier and it was all over the place!
Here's where it gets really, really interesting.
Joe, listen to this doozy.
The FBI received from Senator John McCain a copy of the first 33 pages of the dossier on or about December 9, 2016.
In other words, if it's fake news, how did a U.S.
Senator on the Republican side have it?
How about that?
How about that?
Ha ha, yeah!
BuzzFeed having to do the work of conservatives right now to save their own butts.
By the way, it's all in the book.
I just kind of dropped a major hint about something you may not have heard yet about the Republican involvement in this that's pretty darn disgusting.
Here's another one.
BuzzFeed question.
Did Mr. Clapper, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Brennan, and or Mr. Comey, oh this is good, before January 10th when BuzzFeed published the piece, Brief President Barack Obama about allegations in the dossier?
Oh!
Oh yeah!
Me and Joe, ping pong in the O's.
Oh!
Now keep in mind, the government doesn't want to answer any of those questions, but the judge in the case, read the piece in the Federalist.
It's in the show notes.
Very good.
Very well done.
Very short.
The judge in the case said, nah, you're gonna have to answer those questions.
Oh boy, somebody under oath now is going to have to answer the question if Barack Obama was briefed on the dossier before they published it.
BuzzFeed, thank you!
Thank you!
But now listen, BuzzFeed is a left-leaning outlet that is not trying to help conservatives.
Let's not make any mistake here.
But BuzzFeed does not want to be put out of business like Gawker.
In a massive lawsuit filed by someone mentioned in this crap fake dossier.
So BuzzFeed's like, hey man, we ain't going down with this ship, daddy-o.
Someone better answer these questions.
If this thing was fake news, why did the FBI have it?
Why did McCain have it?
And why was Obama briefed on it?
You see where I'm going with this, right Joe?
Thanks, Chewie.
You are absolutely...
Chewy knows!
Chewy knows!
You see where I'm going with this?
The BuzzFeed is in the unfortunate predicament right now of either bankruptcy or proving that the Democrats lied about the dossier.
Because the dossier's fake!
Oh!
So BuzzFeed's asking these questions.
They know it's fake, but their only salvation here, follow me where I'm going, is we're, all right, it was fake, but we reported on it because McCain had it, Obama was briefed on it, and the FBI and the other agencies had it.
Therefore, even if it was fake, it was legitimate news.
And they would be right, by the way.
I think it was legitimate news, us reporting on it.
Joe, are you tracking?
Because this is a huge story.
This BuzzFeed lawsuit is going to be catastrophic for the Dems because their own left-leaning media outlet is going to wind up having to take them down because they're going to have to throw them under the bus and go, yeah, okay, we all acknowledge it's fake at this point.
But it was, even though it was fake, we reported on it because look, McCain had it, the bureau had it, the intel agencies had it, and Obama was briefed on it.
And I think BuzzFeed will get a pass.
The problem then is, what's the follow-up question?
Why the heck didn't anybody verify this before Obama was briefed on it and everyone else and they used it to spy on the Trump team?
Folks, do you see how catastrophic this case is?
This BuzzFeed case?
This is an absolute apocalyptic event for the Democrats.
Now the judge, remember, the judge is telling them they have to answer the questions.
I'm going to be on this.
I'm going to pay very close attention to those answers because I'm telling you right now the mainstream media will ignore it.
Thank you BuzzFeed.
BuzzFeed, left-leaning outlet, taking down the whole collusion fairytale.
Nice job fellas and ladies over there.
Goofs.
Little did you know by printing this nonsense document back in January that you were going to open up the entire can of worms and expose the whole thing yourself.
Again, it's all in the book.
It might have been spiky if you want to check it out.
All right.
Today's show also brought to you by buddies at Policy Genius.
These guys are great.
Hey, life insurance is really important, but it's also really confusing.
No wonder four out of 10 people don't have it.
Maybe you're one of those people.
But if anything were to happen, it's important that your loved ones are taken care of.
My family matters more to me than anything.
Listen, I don't casually incorporate them into reads for commercial purposes.
I mean it.
Life insurance is important.
It's critical.
I was all over this at an early age.
Besides, life insurance rates are the lowest they've been in 20 years.
The best time to buy is now, and the best place to buy is policygenius.com.
Check them out.
You're not going to find lower prices anywhere.
PolicyGenius is the easy way to compare life insurance online.
In just five minutes you can compare quotes from the top insurers to find the best policy for you.
This is a really great site.
Super easy to get around to.
And when you compare quotes you save money.
It's that simple.
PolicyGenius has helped over 4 million people shop for insurance.
It's placed over 20 billion dollars in coverage.
They don't just make life insurance easy.
They also compare that you need disability insurance, renter's insurance, health insurance.
If you care about it, they can cover it.
Check them out.
If you've been putting off getting life insurance, don't.
There's no reason to put it off any longer.
Go to policygenius.com.
That's policygenius.com.
Really tremendous website.
Very easy to navigate.
Policygenius.com.
Get quotes and apply in minutes.
It's that easy.
You could do it right now and you should because rates are the lowest in 20 years.
Policygenius.
The easy way to compare and buy life insurance.
Policygenius.com.
Go check them out.
Thank you, Policygenius.
Okay, um, the jobs report, moving on.
Really, really awesome, terrific article, uh, but people call me during shenanigans, it drives me crazy.
Everybody knows I record at this time.
Lewis Woodhill piece, who I really like, he does a terrific job.
He's got a piece in, what is it, Real Clear Markets or whatever it may be, but it's up at the show notes.
It's short, it's sweet, and it just absolutely annihilates the argument that the Obama economy and the Trump economy at this point are comparable.
They're not.
Trump is absolutely slaying them.
I'm going to lay out some numbers because here's... First, let me lay out the new talking point the left has because the left now, Joe, They're in a really precarious situation.
The left understands that a large swath of independent voters and even moderate Democrats will vote based on their jobs, their job prospects, their kids' job prospects, and the economy.
They know they're not stupid.
They also understand the economy right now by any rational person's... I said rational, so we're not talking about the media.
We're talking about like, you know, people who are actually interested in facts.
By any rational measure, the economy is motoring right now.
It is.
It's not perfect.
There's still areas for improvement, but the economy is absolutely motoring.
We just had a 4.1% GDP number.
So the new Democrat talking point, because ladies and gentlemen, they will always, always, always find an angle to try to win an argument, even when the angle they take is ridiculous.
Their only purpose is to delay the inevitable.
It's to delay.
It's to think of a new talking point till they run out of talking points and then hope people forget about the economy.
Now the best way for regular listeners, you've heard this before if you've been here from the beginning, the best way to find out what the New Democrat talking point is, is to do what I do.
It's just to watch the weekend shows.
I prefer Fox, of course.
I do a lot of work over there.
But watch the weekend shows on Fox.
They'll typically have a liberal come on a debate.
The primetime shows, too.
I mean, typically Hannity will bring Austin Goolsbee on or others.
Watch what they say.
The Democrats think like the Borg, you know, from Star Trek.
They have this hive mind mentality.
They get their talking points from focus groups and other people who Democrats have paid to figure out what's going to work.
The new talking point is this.
You're going to hear it.
If you haven't heard it already, when you hear it, you're going to laugh.
You're going to laugh.
You're going to say, I heard it on the Bongino show first.
I do this all the time for you.
The new talking point is this.
Well, job growth in the last 18 months of Obama was better than the first 18 months of Trump.
You've heard this one, Joe?
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Which is a fascinating talking point because you usually compare the first two years of an administration to the first two years of the other administration, not the last two to the first two.
But folks, they don't have anything else.
So that's all they have.
Now, I'm gonna debunk that for you in a minute.
So just to be clear, this is their new talking point because they've run out of everything else.
They can't talk about growth because growth is higher.
They can't talk about the stock market because the stock market's higher.
They can't talk about real GDP because that's higher.
They don't know what to do so they're, oh well the last 18 months of job growth.
Let me go down, I'll get to that in a second, but let me go down the numbers in this fantastic piece.
I even took a screenshot of it so I would read it exactly as it is.
This is Lewis Woodhill.
He says, okay, Let's compare the job numbers for Trump's first 19 months in office with those of Obama's last 19 months in the White House, just to debunk that nonsense.
The employment ratio, which is the ratio of people who are able to work to the, you know, the people working, compared to the people who can work.
The employment ratio is 0.7, plus 0.73 percentage points more, it's more than, I'm sorry, I read that wrong, let me say that again.
The employment ratio under Trump is 0.73 percentage points.
More than twice Obama's 0.35.
So Joe, we haven't had Jay's abacus in a while, right?
Right, yeah.
Just so I'm checking here, there we go, there's Jay's abacus making an appearance here.
For those of you who are new listeners, we have an abacus that was donated by Jay a while ago.
Let's do this for the Democrats.
Joe, what is a greater number, a bigger number here?
Yeah. 35, Or 73.
Yeah, move it around.
35 or... Or 73.
What's the bigger number?
73!
Jay Zabicus makes his return.
Joe figures it out on the abacus.
We haven't used that in a while.
The Trump employment ratio, in other words, people working, is 0.73 percentage points, more than twice Obama's 0.35.
Jay Zabicus to the rescue.
Second, oh wait, there's more.
Trust just like an infant.
Wait, there's more.
The labor force participation rate is plus 0.22 percentage points versus Obama's negative 0.16.
So positive 22 to negative 16 versus Obama.
Trump, positive 22.
Yeah.
Joe, I know the negative is going to screw with you a little bit, so try to figure this out.
That's why we have the advocates.
What is a greater number?
Negative 0.16 or positive 0.22.
What's the bigger number?
Positive 0.22, is that what it was?
Yes, Joe!
Jay Savick is the bing, pow, boo!
To the rescue again!
So Trump beats him on the employment ratio, handily.
Beats him on labor force participation, handily.
Let's go to another one.
Full-time equivalent jobs.
Because yes, Obama's job number during the last 18 months was Bigger than Trump's number in the first 18 months, which by the way is an absurd apples-to-oranges comparison, but let's just play.
Let's go to full-time equivalent jobs.
In other words, full-time equivalent, not part-time jobs, not crap jobs, which the Obama team was responsible for.
Oh, I'll get to that in a second.
Full-time equivalent jobs.
Joe, you have the abacus ready?
Oh, yeah, yeah, uh-huh.
Donald Trump's number.
First 19 months in the Trump White House versus Obama's last 19 months in his White House.
All right.
Donald Trump?
4.1 million full-time equivalent jobs.
Barack Obama, 3.3 million.
Joe, on Jay's abacus, what is a bigger number?
4.1 million or 3.3 million?
Joe is working that abacus hard right now.
4.1!
4.1!
Crazy how that happens!
Crazy!
Never lies!
Bing!
Pow!
Jay's abacus again.
It comes to the rescue.
So Donald Trump, nearly a million more full-time equivalent jobs, using the Democrats' own ridiculous comparison.
One more, Joe.
Average weekly wages.
Donald Trump, what's the bigger number here, Joe?
$40 plus $40.
In other words, weekly wages are growing $40 under Donald Trump.
I'm actually playing it down because it's 40.55, but for the sake of easy math on the abacus, what's a bigger number?
Trump's $40 growth in average weekly wages or Barack Obama's $31 growth in average weekly wages?
Joe, 40 or 31?
I know, I know this is hard.
Work the abacus, work your magic.
What do you got?
40 or 31, what's bigger?
40!
This is crazy!
Jay Zabikus to the rescue again!
To the rescue again for you new listeners who have not heard the glory of Jay Zabikus.
We have people out there who tweet, who is Jay Zabikus?
It's Jays Abicus.
I know you guys, the older ones get that.
But we still, we still get emails.
Who's Jay Zabikus?
We gotta put that on a shirt.
Guys, the Trump economy smokes the Obama economy.
Now, For a full and thorough debunking, because I said I would, of the Democrats' silly talk about, well when you look at jobs in general, the last 18 months of Obama, they performed better than the first 18 months of Trump.
Now keep in mind, if you're factoring in low-paying jobs that are not really careers for people but are just temporary backstops, Yes, Obama is the king of crappy jobs that people don't want to hold for a while and just use to backstop because they couldn't, you know, it's a poor economy.
You think I'm making that up?
Because when it comes to full-time equivalent jobs, quality high-paying jobs, Trump smokes them.
Almost a million more.
4.1 million versus 3.3 million under Obama.
Let me read this little doozy here.
Where is it?
Oh, here we go.
You know Donna Brazile?
She used to be the head of the DNC.
Yeah, yeah.
On February 13th, she sent an email of 2016 that appeared on WikiLeaks.
Donna Brazile, this is the head of the DNC.
Folks, I'm not saying this wrong.
The DNC.
Donna Brazile.
She's not the head of the RNC.
She's not a Republican activist.
This is the head of the Democrat National Committee.
Sends an email that WikiLeaks... No one's disputing the authenticity of the email, by the way.
Let me read to you the email, Joe, showing you how Obama's economy was so crappy, all the jobs they... most of the jobs they created were jobs nobody wanted but had to take because the economy was so bad.
This is Donna Brazile herself putting the final nail in the coffin of this dumb argument that Obama's final 18 months were some massive haven for quality job creation.
Quoting.
Donna Brazile wrote, I think people are more in despair about how things are.
Yes, new jobs, but they are low-wage jobs.
Housing's a huge issue.
Most people are paying half of what they do to make the rent.
This is Donna Brazile talking about how these are low-wage jobs.
In other words, people barely getting by in the Obama economy.
That's the Democrat!
Acknowledging on their own internal emails that the Obama economy created a bunch of low-wage jobs that were not prosperous, career-enhancing jobs.
These were jobs people had to take to stay alive in a horrible economy.
That's her own words!
So when your friends tell you, you know, the last 18 months of Obama, the number of jobs created was better.
Yeah, but not full-time equivalent jobs.
High quality jobs.
Trump smokes Obama.
4 million to 3.3 million.
Oh!
And by the way, tell your liberal friends, if those jobs were so great, why did the head of the DNC email other Democrats that the jobs were low-weight, that they were crap jobs?
What, is she lying?
You got nothing!
By the way, some more numbers from this piece.
It's really good.
Please read it.
The Lewis Woodhill piece, by the way.
Real GDP.
Real GDP.
In other words, growth, a gross domestic product, our measure of productivity, what we produce.
Real GDP growth.
When you factor in inflation.
In other words, get out the effect, the monetary effect, Joe.
Just measure actual hard material growth, right?
Mm-hmm.
Okay.
Real GDP.
Obama's average? 1.57%.
Trump's first six quarters in office?
2.69.
Oh.
Do you understand?
There's no argument anymore.
No, I'm talking about rational argument.
That the Obama economy was... The only rational argument is how much worse it was.
You get that, Joe?
That's the... Which is a fair argument.
Unfortunately.
Was it really horrible or was it just horrible?
By the way... Okay, so... I got more.
Wait, there's more.
I'm sorry, I gotta scroll through some stuff.
You may say, What about the stock market?
Okay, let's compare that!
Remember, the Democrats want to compare the last 18 months to the first 18 months.
I think it's a dumb comparison.
The appropriate comparison is Obama's first 18 months in office with Trump's first 18 months in office, where the policies change.
But because Democrats can't do that and be reasonable, okay, let's play their game.
I just broke that argument down for you too, but they said, but the stock market, the stock market, okay.
Quoting the U.S. Lewis Woodhill piece, "Using month-end numbers, the Dow Jones Industrial
Average has gained 6,272 points under Trump versus 977 during the prior 21 months under Obama."
6,272 versus Joe, I'm pretty confident Trump beats him on that too.
Where else are you guys gonna go?
Where else?
There's got to be somewhere else.
There's got to be somewhere else.
There is.
Let's talk about treasury rates.
Because the treasury rates can generally correlate with expected growth in the economy.
The interest rate on 10-year treasuries, which correlates with expected GDP growth, rose 1.12 percentage points under Trump versus an increase of 0.16 percentage points during the comparable Obama period.
Do you guys have anything?
Seriously, is there anywhere you can go?
What has happened to the new normal?
Right?
Yes!
We used to address that all the time.
How secular stagnation.
The explanation under Obama was, it's not, it's a good point Joe.
It's, we used to bring this up all the time.
It's not Obama's fault.
It's just the new normal.
They called it secular stagnation.
You ever hear that term, start laughing immediately.
Secular stagnation is the liberal talking point.
Secular meaning there's no real economic explanation on the ground.
This is just the way things are going to be from now on.
Everything that can be invented was invented.
It's not Obama's fault.
2% is the new normal, or in Obama's case, real GDP, 1.5%.
It's not Obama's fault.
Great point Joe.
Really?
If that's the new normal, how come Trump said 2.6?
Because it's not the new normal.
You guys just made that up.
Read the piece.
Take screenshots of it.
The Woodhill piece.
It is so good.
And just show it to your liberal friends.
Well, how do you explain this?
Well, the job numbers.
Well, you're not talking about full-time jobs.
You're talking about crap jobs.
How do you know they're crap jobs?
Because the Democrats said so, down in Brazil.
Sorry.
Stock market.
Yeah, yeah.
Trump's doing better there too.
$6,000 to $900.
No, no.
Wages.
Yeah, yeah.
Trump's doing better there, too.
$40 average weekly wage growth versus $30.
Do you have anything?
Do you have anything else?
Treasuries.
Yeah, Treasury.
Expected growth in the economy of Treasuries.
Yeah, Trump, 1.12.
Obama, 0.16.
What else you got?
What else you got?
You know, I get these emails a lot.
I don't say this to do, like, humblebrag, but people will say to me, I saw you for the first time on Fox News and, you know, And you never lose a debate over there.
Guys, listen, I'm being dead serious here.
I'm not kidding around.
I say this to my wife all the time.
And Joe, you know, Joe's my friend.
I've talked to Joe about this a lot.
It's not that I don't lose a debate.
It's that if you even, it's impossible to lose a debate against a liberal because they never tell the truth.
If you do your homework and you understand the numbers, the numbers don't lie.
The numbers I just gave you are facts.
It's a data point.
It's not a refutable data point.
These are actual numbers.
If you know the numbers, it's not like, oh gosh, he's such, believe me, I sincerely appreciate the compliment.
And I would love to take credit for having some aptitude and achievement level beyond the scope of any other human on the planet.
Oh my gosh, Dan's the greatest.
It's not, I just read.
And if you read, you can't lose a debate to a Democrat because they're constantly lying.
The Obama economy was better than Trump's.
How?
Jobs.
Really?
You should tell the Democrats that because that's not what they said.
They said those jobs were crap jobs.
Matter of fact, the full-time jobs were doing better.
And the wage growth and the jobs we did create are higher than they were under Obama.
Ah!
You're a racist!
Okay, whatever.
It's not hard debating these people.
Just listen to this show.
You'll never lose a debate again.
One guy sent me one time.
He says, this is a great one.
May have been a woman.
I'm sorry.
I don't remember exactly.
You said that on the name, but they were like, and it's so great.
Even when you debate these PhDs, they lose.
Guys, it doesn't matter.
Listen, I've got two graduate degrees too.
Who cares?
You either know the numbers or you don't.
Yep.
Joe, am I right?
You either know the numbers or you don't.
If Joe does not have a PhD, neither do I. If you understand the numbers on the economy, you can't lose the debate.
We lost the Reagan tax cuts.
We lost money.
Do you know?
Wait, did you, do you read?
Reagan cut taxes and tax revenue doubled to the government.
Do you know the numbers?
You either know them or you don't.
You understand this stuff, you read this stuff, you screenshot the article, show it to your friends, they're not going to have it!
Their argument's going to be, you're a racist!
They don't have anything else!
Ph.D.
in economics to tell me what?
Numbers I can read myself?
I've got an MBA.
I've never once used the skills in the MBA to read basic economic numbers.
Now, the context of what they mean, yes.
Net present values, hurdle rates, discount rates.
Yeah, there's something.
But understanding basics of economics?
You don't need an MBA or a Ph.D.
This is simple stuff.
Either the stock market performed better under Obama or it performed better under Trump.
This is... This is not under... There's no investigation to be conducted.
The numbers are there.
Gosh, it's frustrating dealing with these people.
But that's why, if you ever get into cable news commentary, seriously, don't sweat it.
I get emails from candidates like, oh my gosh, I gotta go on the air and debate this super smart liberal.
They're not smart.
They're not smart.
They're intelligent.
They're intelligent in that they can figure out stuff, but they're not smart in that they're not tactically smart, I should say.
They don't understand when to just drop an L. When to take a loss.
It's over.
The Obama economy sucked.
Just get over it.
Stop lying.
Don't worry about debating your liberal friends.
They don't know what they're talking about.
All right.
I got one more thing to get to, speaking on Liberals' line, but today's show also brought to you by our buddies at BrickHouse Nutrition.
Hey, I got a really terrific email from a woman this morning.
I'm not making this up.
I don't think she'd mind me reading it on the air.
I'm not going to say her name, but this is a real testimonial from BrickHouse.
I'm not making this up.
Joe, right?
Here's my phone.
You can see it right there.
I'm reading an actual email.
Joe sees the name.
She says, Hey, I'm a 40 year old woman.
I enjoy working out.
So 35 days ago, I decided to try foundation, which is Brickhouse Nutrition's creatine ATP product.
I just got this today.
She says, I was hooked after three days.
She's like, fast forward to yesterday.
I had a long day at work.
It was moving around and all this stuff.
She's like, I got home and had the worst leg day ever.
I guess she went to the gym.
So I just chalked it up to being tired from work.
Later, as I washed the dishes and I listened to the last 15 minutes of your show, you read the foundation commercial for Brickhouse Nutrition.
All of a sudden, I realized why I had a terrible workout.
I forgot to take foundation.
Thank you for recommending this product.
I love that I can now lift heavier than before, and can finally see some muscles poppin'.
I told you, I'm not, that's a real, Joe, did you not, I'm not, I did not read that, it's not, BrickHouse did not send that to me, I got that this morning.
You know who you are, who sent that, I didn't read your name, but.
I saw it, it's real, yep.
That's a real email, I get these all the time.
Go to brickhousenutrition.com slash Dan.
BrickHouseNutrition.com.
Pick up a bottle of foundation.
I am so sure this stuff works.
I take it myself.
I love it.
That I just ask you to do two things because results matter here.
We believe in facts and data, right?
First, take a little mirror test.
Look in the mirror before you start taking it.
Just take a little mental snapshot.
What do the arms look like?
You know, the chest, the legs, whatever.
Take a mental snapshot seven days later after you give the product a chance to set in, load a little bit in the muscles.
I want you to look at yourself again.
You're going to be like, whoa, hey now.
It is awesome.
But secondly, in case you say, oh, so I'll look better.
My muscles will look more toned.
That's nice.
That's cute.
No, no, it's not cute.
This stuff actually works in the gym.
I want you to go to the gym and again, seven days later, take a mental note.
Take a mental note of how much you squat, deadlift, curl, whatever.
Run times, what you're doing on the elliptical.
Then seven days later, measure it again.
Your performance will go through the roof.
This stuff is fantastic.
Go to BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
That's BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
Pick up a bottle of foundation today.
You will absolutely not regret it.
It is the best nutrition supplement on the market, hands down.
Okay.
Another great article.
The show notes today are pretty epic, so please check them out.
The DACA ruling.
There was a ruling by a federal judge, pretending to be a judge, again, Judge Bates.
I don't understand why this guy considers himself a judge.
He's clearly a politician.
On Friday, there was a ruling on DACA.
DACA was Deferred Amnesty for Childhood Arrivals.
It was an amnesty program.
Deferred action.
I always call it deferred amnesty, but it's actually a Freudian slip.
Deferred action childhood arrivals.
We'll call it deferred amnesty.
Deferred amnesty for childhood arrivals, which was instituted under the Obama administration.
It's very simple.
Basically said that if you were brought to the country as a child illegally, that the law, most of them aren't children anymore, by the way, that the law doesn't apply to you, that you get a free pass.
We were like, wait, what?
I thought we were a country of laws.
This was a constitutional republic, right?
Apparently not.
So Trump had put a hold on this program and this federal judge said now, no, not only are you going to reinstitute this illegal program, you are going to start taking new applications on August 23rd.
Now, this is fascinating.
Daniel Horowitz has an outstanding piece in Conservative Review how this judge, this is a complete usurpation of power.
And I'm glad, by the way, that Sessions threw off a stinging rebuke to this judge.
Now, liberals, your liberal friends may be saying, well, this was a perfectly legal program, Obama's amnesty for childhood arrivals.
Really?
Daniel Horowitz has some quotes.
Who were these quotes from, Joe?
Here's a quote.
I am president.
I am not a king.
I can't do these things just by myself.
Talking about DACA, which he did by himself.
There was no law.
It was the pen and the phone.
Who do you think said that?
That'd be Barrio.
Barrio!
Barrio!
Yeah, baby!
Here's another one.
Barack Obama.
With respect to the notion that I could just suspend deportations through executive order, which is exactly what we did, and that's just not the case.
Because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed.
That's what he did!
But the judge ignores all of this.
The judge is saying the program is legal despite Obama, who instituted it, on the record saying the program's not legal.
And he's demanding Trump enforce an illegal program.
Here's another one.
Changing our laws means doing the hard work of changing minds and changing votes, one by one.
That's not what you did!
There were no votes on this, Obama.
This was an executive action.
All these quotes are in the Horowitz piece.
Screenshot them for your liberal friends.
Oh DACA's legal?
Explain this, Joe.
Phone right in the face.
We don't want to be liberals, seriously.
You know me with the, I don't like aggression.
Seriously, not my thing, but it was a joke.
But show it to them.
Nicely.
Because we don't want to be like these jerks.
Throwing water on people and attacking people in public.
Ridiculous.
Here's another one.
And I think there's a great disservice done to the cause of getting the DREAM Act passed and getting comprehensive immigration passed by perpetrating the notion that somehow, by myself, this is Obama, I can go and do these things.
But you did.
It's just not true.
We live in a democracy.
You have to pass bills through the legislature and then I can sign it.
He did none of that!
You understand he did none of that?
Screenshot that, show it to your liberal friends.
Hey libs, if this program's legal, why does Obama now, 1, 2, 3, 4, why does he have 4 quotes on the record saying how it's illegal to do what he did?
But yet the judge is now saying it's legal.
So let's just be clear.
Obama says it's illegal.
Obama does it anyway.
Trump stops Obama's illegal action.
And a judge who has no authority to do this at all demands that Trump follow through with Obama's illegal action and does not stop.
This is unbelievable.
We live in, like, bizarro Superman land.
Boy, crazy times.
But listen, this is why I'm here.
I'm here to debunk this stuff.
So just to be clear with the articles today, If you want to debate your liberal friends, screenshot the part of the Lewis Woodhill piece with all those economic numbers.
They will have nowhere to go.
And screenshot the quotes for Obama on DACA.
And on the DACA thing, they'll have nowhere to go too.
You see, this is what we do.
This was the whole idea of the show from the day we started.
Give you an hour of your day ability to argue with your liberal friends and never lose a debate.
It's not that hard, because they lie all the time.
All right, folks, thanks again for tuning in.
Please subscribe to the podcast.
I know a lot of you download it.
It's free, of course.
Go to iTunes, Spotify, SoundCloud.
You can follow on iHeartRadio.
It does the same thing.
But it's the actual subscriptions that move us up the chart.
And if you haven't yet, I really appreciate it.
Please keep us in the top 100 on Amazon.
My new book, Spygate, The Attempted Sabotage of Donald Trump, is available on Amazon now.
