In this episode I ask the question, “Is Bob Mueller’s team getting worried about critical evidence?” Also, are key players lying about lying? I address the Obamacare ruling and what it means for your health care. Finally, I cover the recent developments in the net neutrality debate. News Picks:
Is Gen. Mike Flynn’s conviction going to be overturned?
Is Bob Mueller’s team concerned about this piece of critical evidence?
Federal judge rules Obamacare is unconstitutional.
Nancy Pelosi is wondering why the media is focused on allegations against Trump. What?
Net neutrality supporters were all wrong. This latest study debunks all of the hysteria over the repeal of net neutrality.
The father of the deceased young migrant girl says the Border Patrol did everything they could do.
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, man.
All set and ready to go.
Monday morning, busy news weekend again.
Folks, it's only getting worse with Jim Comey up on Capitol Hill today.
I'm sure it will be another just litany of BS.
This guy is just a walking BS spewer at this point.
Comey, it's unbelievable that people even take this guy seriously anymore.
I got a couple things on that.
Massive decision on Obamacare.
What?
Where did that come from?
It's like Friday, everybody's hanging out.
People are having a couple adult sodas, hanging out with their wives, girlfriends, boyfriends, whatever you're doing.
You're sitting there tipping back a couple corona lights, whatever you're doing, popping a little lime in there, and all of a sudden, federal judge rules Obamacare is unconstitutional.
Okay, all right, gotcha.
All right, I'll get into that too.
Today's show Brought to you by our buddies at WaxRX.
Miss WaxRX.
We love you guys.
You know I love my sponsors.
I only work with companies I believe in and can use the product or service myself.
Well, listen, WaxRX is not the sexiest product in the world to talk about, but it is a necessary one.
You know, I had to deal with earwax buildup in my last line of work.
We have to keep that earpiece jammed in your ear all day, and you can't get that stubborn, hardened earwax out.
You're not supposed to stick those cotton swabs in your ears either.
It's very dangerous.
It specifically says on the back of those things not to do that.
It's for the outer ear.
Now, I have the solution for you.
WaxRX.
Here's a customer review we got about WaxRX.
I used to have to go to the doctor twice a year to get rid of my stubborn, hard-ear wax.
With my rising cost of healthcare and thus double deductible, I'd have to spend $60 a visit, $120 a year to treat my ears.
Now I can do it myself with WaxRX and a significant savings that doesn't require me to miss a half a day of work.
Thank you, WaxRX.
Right now, you can try the WaxRX system.
We use it in my house religiously.
By typing in gowaxrx.com.
That's gowaxrx.com.
Use the offer code Dan at checkout for free shipping.
Don't wait.
You have no idea what you might be missing because of inner earwax.
Who knows?
It might just change your life.
gowaxrx.com.
Offer code Dan.
Yeah, baby.
Yeah.
Okay, first, before we get to even Comey and the other stuff, I want to talk about a really serious problem that is being now highlighted, thankfully, by, for those of you who know him, Jordan Peterson, who has written a very popular book.
And Dave Rubin, who is a liberal, but Dave is on our side when it comes to civil liberties and things like that.
Something happened this past week which is really important.
Folks, the deplatforming movement has gone now mainstream with the Democrats.
Make no mistake, the Democrats are absolutely all in in the anti-civil liberties movement, anti-speech movement, anti-free speech, corporate de-platforming, government prosecution of people for process crimes.
The Democrats are all in on police state tactics and have been for a long time.
Now, thankfully, we have some reform Democrats like Dave Rubin and some thinkers like Jordan Peterson out there fighting back against this, you know, totalitarian streak by the left.
So what happened?
What's the solution?
Why am I talking about Peterson?
How are we going to fix it?
Well, here's what happened first.
Here's the what.
There's a guy, and I'm sorry, I'm not intimately familiar with his work.
I've heard of him, but I don't know, I'm not deeply familiar with his content.
So forgive me in advance.
But there's a guy goes by the name of Sargon of Akkad on Twitter.
I think that was his Twitter handle.
I know he had a YouTube channel too.
He does some stuff that apparently the left is deemed controversial.
Again, forgive me for not having a real heavy background into it, but I don't, I can't follow everyone at the same time.
Bottom line is, there was again a liberal push to get this guy pushed off of social media and to get him de-platformed and the way this guy who went by the moniker Sargon of Akkad was funding his operation, his content creation, we funded by sponsors to try to keep it free, he was funding it using Patreon.
Patreon, Patreon, whatever it is.
Patreon is one of these platforms where patrons can donate money to your cause and where you can create content.
Listen, I don't have any problem with it.
I don't use it.
One day we may have to go to some type of platform if we're, you know, if the liberals continue this, but I would rather the sponsors pay for it and keep this stuff free for you all.
But that's a choice.
I'm not, again, I want to be crystal clear.
I'm not knocking anyone else who does that.
In the end, conservative content creation takes work, it takes time, and you gotta find a way to pay for it, right Joe?
I mean, Joe's at a radio station too where they have sponsors and that pays for all the equipment, the capital costs, and all that other stuff.
Sargon chose Patreon.
Patreon apparently From what I'm reading in the story, and getting accurate information is hard because it's always told from a liberal lens, controversial content.
We don't know that.
I mean, I don't know.
I have to look at and see all this content, see what they're talking about.
The point of this is this Sargon apparently didn't break any of the rules of engagement or the operating rules for Patreon.
In other words, Patreon just kicked him off this platform and said, see you later.
You're gone.
Now, I've warned you about this in the past.
It started with Alex Jones and Infowars.
And of course, you had a lot of even, you know, conservatives out there who are, well, you know, he didn't deserve.
Regardless of what you think about Jones, everybody warned that this was a slippery slope, that what started there was going to progressively roll and come downhill and eventually was going to affect everyone.
Who is not a liberal?
Where does Jordan Peterson come into the mix?
Jordan Peterson is a very bright guy, wrote a very successful book who has been speaking out against these culture wars for a long time now and has gained a viral following.
He uses Patreon as well to the tune of a very nice sum of money per month, which again, good for him.
If your content is changing the dialogue, changing lives, and you put the work into it, he puts into it, and people want to fund it, amen, brother, knock yourself out.
The problem is, I can guarantee you, Peterson's going to be next.
Rubin won't be far after Rubin uses, Dave Rubin uses Patreon as well.
So, Peterson and Rubin have joined, you know, have joined, done the Wonder Twins Activate routine.
They've joined together and they are saying now that they are going to start an independent platform, independent of Patreon, where content creators can openly create their stuff and be funded by the people who enjoy that content.
Folks, I have told you this from the start.
The liberal war on free speech is not a joke.
Good for Peterson and Rubin.
This is what has to happen.
Joe, we've done what?
10 shows on this?
Maybe more?
At least.
Nature hates vacuums.
It just hates them.
There is a vacuum right now, from start to finish, for an entire business model based on one simple thing, Joseph.
Here's the motto.
We're not them.
Folks, I'm telling you, there are billions of dollars to be made, just like Fox News saw it back in the day, for saying we're not them.
Now, let me be clear what I'm talking about, and I don't want to mess this up because this is a very, very important debate going on right now.
For moneyed people out there listening to this show, who have money and are looking for a way to make a fortune, here it is.
You need to, from start to finish, start a payment platform like a Patreon type platform.
Go with conservative or, forgive me, we don't even need conservative companies.
Not them companies that deal with servers for the server space.
You need payment processors that are not them.
And there is a fortune to be made.
What does not them mean?
Folks, when the vacuum existed for a media source that was not CNN, NBC, ABC, and CBS, right?
Before Fox News.
Roger Ailes and company came in and said, what's the problem with the news today?
The problem is obvious.
It's left-wing bias.
They asked the simple question, is there an opportunity here?
You ever do SWOT analysis?
Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats.
It's a key component of any business school operation.
And it's actually pretty helpful.
You do a, you do a matrix.
What are our strengths?
What are our weaknesses?
What are our opportunities?
What are our threats?
How do we exacerbate our strength by taking advantage of an opportunity?
How do we mitigate a weakness by mitigating a threat?
This is how you handle SWOT analysis and you figure out an opportunity.
There is a huge opportunity here.
So how can we mitigate, how can we leverage our strength?
Money.
Conservatives out there have money.
A lot of them do.
They work very hard.
They build successful businesses.
How do we take advantage of an opportunity?
The answer is start to finish.
You build these platforms.
Here's what I mean.
You can't do it from the top down.
Because once you start this payment company, the liberals and the anti-civil liberties advocates and the anti-free speech advocates out there, once Peterson and Dave Rubin start this, the problem I think they're going to have is liberals are going to go right down the line and say, okay, Jordan Peterson has a platform where you can donate money to his cause and Dave Rubin's cause, two very talented guys.
What are they going to do next show?
They'll go after the payment process.
Right?
They'll say, oh, listen, ABC payment processor where that processes the credit cards.
You shouldn't work with them.
Some money business interests need to get together and start a payment processor company and they don't have to say they're conservative.
Doesn't even matter.
All you have to do is what Fox News did.
We're not CNN, right Joe?
You're CNN.
We're not them.
And everybody was like, they knew why CNN sucked.
And they knew why they hated CNN at the time because they were liberal.
Maybe they couldn't articulate it, uh, in some, you know, uh, Homer like Odyssey book, you know, uh, or some poetry, but they knew they didn't like CNN.
Even if they couldn't perfectly articulate what the reason was, they found Fox.
Fox said, we're not CNN.
We're fair and balanced and boom, it's now a billion dollar enterprise.
So I'm saying, and I'm sure, listen, Jordan Peterson and Dave Rubin are very bright guys and are very entrepreneurial, smart businessmen.
I know they figured this part out too, but eventually, you see where I'm going with this show?
It's not just good enough to set up a, we're not Patreon, right?
Where you can support them.
You're going to have to get a payment processor as well.
What's the next thing?
You're probably going to have to get a company that provides servers and computer space that also is not them.
Because once liberals figure out they can't attack Peterson and Rubin on their platform, they'll go to the payment processors.
Once a conservative, we're not them, payment processor comes in, they'll attack the server company.
Why are you hosting them?
This has to be built from the bottom up, like the entire news business was rebuilt with Fox News.
And the marketing brand, Joe, clearly, it's very simple, doesn't have to be, we're conservative, we're a liberal, we're a libertarian organization, it doesn't have to be any of that.
I would, matter of fact, recommend you don't do that.
I would say, listen, we are everything, they're not.
You are welcome here, Joe, it's important.
If you were a liberal.
If you're a communist.
If you're a green party.
If you're a conservative.
If you're a really, really conservative guy.
If you're libertarian.
And here are our ground rules.
And you lay the ground rules out very simply.
There'll be no threats of violence.
There'll be no law breaking.
But other than that, free speech is the way we are going to respect free speech.
All you have to say is, we're not them.
Folks, this deplatforming issue is important.
It is critical.
I see it.
We are in this business.
Joe and I have had to deal with things behind the scenes.
We don't talk about on the show as to not waste your time.
If we thought they were interesting, they would.
There are a lot of bureaucratic stuff, but it is a relentless, relentless attack by anti-civil liberties advocates on the left.
Relentless.
And this deplatforming movement is going to continue.
So I just want to start with that story because it's so critical.
I want to applaud Jordan Peterson and Dave Rubin.
I think this is a bold initiative.
And I think if you are on Patreon supporting other people and they get this up and running, I would highly recommend you dump it and go with their company when it starts.
Because remember, they're not them.
They're not Patreon.
And if you're a money person, listen up.
You start this company, you don't have to brand it conservative at all.
You just have to say, we're not the other guy.
This is very, very, very important.
Okay, moving on.
So, gosh, so much to talk about today.
Jim Comey is up on Capitol Hill again today, and there is a wonderful, wonderful piece up in the show notes today up on Gino.com, and I humbly ask that you subscribe to my email list.
We will send you the best articles of the day to get your news day started right.
This article by Margo Cleveland, who I cite often because her work at The Federalist is spectacular.
She has a great piece up about these inconsistencies in the Flynn prosecution, Joe, and Jim Comey just losing his marbles.
He's just saying things that just don't make sense anymore.
So, before we get to that, I want to point out this cut.
Devin Nunes, who appeared on Maria Bartiromo's show on Fox this weekend was talking about some of these inconsistencies in the Flynn operation and issues with Jim Comey and there's no better person to start off with on a Monday morning than the excellent Devin Nunes.
Play that cut.
It was clear from all of our investigation that we have done that the FBI agents who had interviewed Flynn did not think that General Flynn was lying and that it doesn't pass a simple straight face test Folks, okay, this is key.
Now, why do I bring this up in relationship to Jim Comey?
Because in Jim Comey's last appearance up on Capitol Hill and some of his other conversations with Capitol Hill lawmakers, Comey has been insistent that he believed Mike Flynn lied.
Except for the fact that Comey did, that's not what the FBI Comey headed actually said.
Right.
Folks, are we tracking the FBI?
Two FBI agents, Peter Stroke and Joe Pianca, show up at the White House.
I'll get to that in a second, by the way.
Why they were even there, I brought up on Fox & Friends this morning.
There was no reason for them to even be there.
But that's a whole separate... I'll get to that in a second.
But when they get there and they interview Mike Flynn about a conversation with the Russian ambassador, they already have the answers to, folks.
Why is the FBI asking Mike Flynn questions about Joe, listen, I'm not messing with you.
As a non-federal agent but a rational thinker, why would the FBI be asking questions of Mike Flynn they clearly have the answers to in advance?
They want to see if he screws something up.
Yes!
Yes, it's the only—in other words, they're creating an investigation out of thin air to create a crime later.
A screw-up in the transcript they can prosecute him for.
They're not concerned, clearly, about what the content of the interview is going to be.
They're only concerned to get him to screw up so they can charge him with lying.
It's obvious.
How do I know that?
Because again, I'll read to you a headline from the day before.
He's interviewed on January 24th, 2017.
Here's a Washington Post headline from January 3rd, 2017.
The article's in the show notes from last week if you'd like to read it.
FBI reviewed Flynn's calls with Russian ambassador but found nothing illicit.
These are FBI leaks to the Washington Post saying there's nothing wrong with the calls.
Sorry, I got ahead of myself.
I said I'd get to that later, but it's so obvious that they were setting this guy up.
There was no reason to talk to Flynn at all.
None.
They were trying to get him to trip up so they could charge him.
Now, this is critical.
In the documents we now have revealed in the sentencing memo for Flynn, They're talking about both of the FBI agents.
Here's a quote.
Both had the impression at the time that Flynn was not lying or did not think he was lying.
But they charge him with lying.
So the FBI agents who, number one, have no reason to be there at all.
The Washington Post headlines clear as day.
The FBI leaked to the Washington Post somebody in the DOJ or the FBI leaked to the Washington Post that there was nothing illicit about Mike Flynn's call.
There was nothing illegal about it.
He was the incoming National Security Advisor.
Not only have no reason to be there, when they exit the interview, they both had the impression that he was not lying.
Margot Cleveland goes on in this piece.
This fact conflicts with former FBI Director Jim Comey's recent testimony before the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees.
In discussing the agent's view of the Flynn interview, Comey testified that, quote, the agents observed no indicia of deception, physical manifestation, shiftiness, you know, that sort of thing, end quote.
But the former FBI director added that his, quote, recollection was that Flynn was, in the conclusion of the investigators, was obviously lying.
But they saw none of the normal common indicia of deception.
Well, what is it?
Jim Comey just said... Are you tracking, folks, how easy this is to understand the manipulative nature of Jim Comey?
He says here it was the conclusion that he was obviously lying, despite the fact that the FBI agents actually in on the interview, quote, both had the impression at the time that Flynn was not lying or did not think he was lying.
Guys, ladies, what is it?
This is not... Listen, even a brain-dead liberal can figure out there's a problem here.
Comey's testimony cannot be true.
Or the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn are lying.
Somebody's lying here.
They're lying about lying.
It's unbelievable!
How do liberals not see this?
The FBI agents who were in the room, Peter Stroke and Joe Pianca, concluded on documented paperwork that they both had the impression at the time that Flynn was not lying or did not think he was lying.
Jim Comey is now saying in testimony he was obviously lying.
Well, who's lying, Jim?
Joe, who conspicuously was not in the room with the Flynn interview?
Jim Comey!
Yeah!
So how does Comey know he was obviously lying when the two people in the room said he was quote not lying?
My beloved, I love you guys and ladies to death.
You're the best.
Is this hard?
I'm curious.
To all the conservatives that play this stuff at your workplace, and I thank you so much.
I love you because it probably drives liberals crazy that come in.
I get this a lot.
I play it in my shop.
To the liberals that are in the shop of the conservative men and women who play this in their shop.
Just stop liberals.
I know you're doing business, conservative guys and ladies.
I don't want to interrupt your business with them.
Maybe it's a mechanic shop, a bagel store, whatever it is.
Everybody just stop.
And to the liberals, I'm talking to you.
Conservative guys, point to the liberals and tell them to listen to the speaker.
How is it possible that two FBI agents interviewed Mike Flynn, concluded, and I quote, in documented paperwork, that he was not lying or did not think he was lying, and that the FBI director, who was not in the interview, concluded he was obviously lying?
Can you explain that?
By the way, neither of those FBI agents has revised that statement.
The ones that interviewed him.
Okay, liberals, you can go back to your business now with those awesome conservatives running the greatest shop ever, which is what you're doing business right now.
Go home.
Think about that.
Talk amongst yourselves.
Think about that, how that's possible.
Now, even worse in this case, even worse, you may say, You know, well, I could see the liberal response.
Mike Flynn pled guilty to lying.
Folks, it's obvious what happened with Mike Flynn because everybody knows he was bankrupted by this.
You clearly don't understand the justice system or you're just playing stupid.
Maybe you are stupid.
I don't know.
I'm hoping you're not.
I'm not accusing you of anything, but there's only two outs here.
Either you don't understand how an unlimited budget federal justice system works when they target someone or you're blissfully naive.
The federal justice system, when they target you, can bankrupt you.
Their lawyers are on salary.
They will go all day, every day, forever.
You have to pay an attorney.
Flynn was bankrupted.
Flynn obviously had an incentive to plea to this thing, even if he knows he didn't do it.
I'm telling you Flynn didn't do it.
Flynn did not have an honest recollection of what the conversation was about.
He wasn't lying about sanctions.
Even the FBI thought there was nothing illicit.
Why would Flynn lie about a non-crime?
Doubling down on this.
I'm just asking you to be rational.
Why would Flynn lie about a non-crime, number one, that the FBI thought was a non-crime, according to their own leaks to the Washington Post, The DOJ or FBI.
But secondly, Joe, we now find out through the paperwork that Flynn knew the call was recorded.
Oh!
This is relatively new.
Yeah.
Flynn tells Andy McCabe in a phone call, as documented by these memoranda, Flynn tells McCabe, the FBI number two, hey, I know you guys probably have the phone call already.
In other words, he tells McCabe, just read the transcript if you think there's a problem.
Tell me you're picking this up.
McCabe and Flynn.
It's in dispute, by the way, as Margo Cleveland points out in her piece, who calls who.
Does Flynn call McCabe or does McCabe call Flynn?
Now, again, it may be insignificant, but in Mueller's paperwork, it says that Flynn called McCabe.
In other paperwork filed, it says McCabe called Flynn.
Now, the only reason that's important is because is Flynn trying to get out ahead of that?
Now, remember, they're calling him after this Washington Post story by David Ignatius.
Follow me here.
After this story leaks in a felony leak to the Washington Post of Flynn's name about this Non-illegal call he made with the Russian ambassador.
The press attention through the leak is used to create pressure on Mike Flynn, even though Mike Flynn did nothing wrong.
So follow what happens here.
Mike Flynn is now the National Security Advisor for President Trump.
This story and his name that he spoke with the Russian ambassador about sanctions leaks, his name leaks to David Ignatius of the Washington Post in what is a felony criminal act.
Which we haven't seen any justice on at all.
That leak is used then to create public pressure about a mythical collusion scandal on Mike Flynn, although he did nothing wrong.
Someone calls someone.
Does McCabe call Flynn?
Does Flynn call McCabe?
We don't know yet, because it's two different versions of it.
Bottom line though, is that number two at the FBI and Mike Flynn get on a phone call.
McCabe says to Flynn, hey, we're looking to clear this thing up.
Flynn says back to McCabe, hey, you guys already have the call.
Like, what do you need to clear up?
I don't even understand.
You already have the transcript.
Why am I telling you any of this?
Because do you really believe Michael Flynn, the former director of the DIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, a 30-year military, heroic military patriot, who understands deeply the intel apparatus of the United States, and who clearly now understands his entire call has been monitored and transcribed?
How do we know?
Because he tells the number two in the FBI that.
Do you think that Mike Flynn, knowing the calls transcribed, would still lie about it?
Does that make any sense?
He already told the FBI dude, the number two McCabe, that they had the transcribed phone call.
Does it make sense to you now that he just made an honest mistake and forgot they talked about sanctions?
No, no, no it doesn't man.
Typical liberal dubs.
The FBI, so let's be clear on this.
Mike Flynn knows the call's transcribed.
He knows the number two at the FBI has the transcribed phone call.
Well, sanctions are mentioned.
The two guys, FBI agents that show up, agree he was not lying.
They write down he was not lying.
But you still insist, Mike Flynn, we plead guilty.
He has bankrupted.
Yeah, well, you know, that's just like, uh...
Your opinion, man.
We haven't used that in a while.
That is an oldie but goodie.
That's all the liberal, that's their only response.
Well, that's all they've got.
They don't have anything.
They keep saying, he pled, he pled, he pled.
I get it.
I get it.
People plead guilty for all kinds of reasons.
If you don't know that, you're ignoring the, I'm sorry, you're just, you don't understand the system.
Folks, it's absurd what happened to Flynn.
This is an outrage.
Now, getting back to this, Cleveland brings up another piece, another little issue going on here with the Flynn case in our piece at The Federalist.
Where's the darn 302?
Now, this is important.
After the Flynn interview, after Joe Pianca and Peter Strzok interview Mike Flynn at the White House and conclude he wasn't lying, there is a summary, a 302 it's called, that is written up.
How do we know that?
Because it's referred to in later paperwork, excuse me, in August 22nd 302, written seven months after the interview that refers back to the original one.
Now, the only reason I'm bringing it up is there's some speculation out there Because the judge responsible for Flynn's sentencing, Joe, he ordered all, A-L-L, all 302s to be produced.
Now, to be crystal clear on this, all 302s were not produced, at least publicly.
How do we know this?
We know this because the August 22, 2017 302, seven months later, was produced.
It refers to an earlier 302 after the January interview of Flynn, but we don't see that.
So if Sullivan, the judge, ordered all of them to be produced, and yet the release, we don't see it, what happened?
I bring this up because there's a couple of folks, and I'm not knocking them, but there are people speculating that Bob Mueller's team may have destroyed it.
Folks, for as much as I can't stand Mueller's team and this abhorrent, disgusting witch hunt cover-up job, Margo Cleveland addresses something in the piece that pretty much, I think, knocks that down.
I don't think the original 302 was destroyed.
If you read her piece, I think it's pretty conclusive that it was filed under seal.
In other words, it's out there, but was given to the judge under seal.
Here's the problem, Joe, and you know this, I'm very concerned about credibility, unlike liberals who just lie all the time.
I am.
You know, whenever we say something on the show, it doesn't always go right.
We try to correct it.
But I don't want to go down that rabbit hole that Mueller's team destroyed this 302 to hide evidence.
If they did, you'll all get burned and me too.
Margo Cleveland lays out, and what she does is she shows the docket number, Joe, and how there's basically missing numbers, missing docket numbers, showing that it may very well have been produced and is produced under seal.
Now, why is this important?
Why does this 302 matter?
Because, folks, this 302, which I believe Nunes has already seen, turning it all the way back, why he's so concerned about what happened to Mike Flynn, This original 302 written after the original January interview of Mike Flynn, ladies and gentlemen, is probably the Pandora's box of this whole thing.
When you open it, all kinds of nonsense is going to come spewing out.
That original 302 most likely says that Mike Flynn was not lying.
It would make a world of sense why Mueller would be looking to hide it then and file it under seal and wouldn't want anybody to see it.
Because then his entire case against Mike Flynn falls apart.
But I don't, I want to be clear.
I don't believe it was destroyed.
And I believe if you read the piece in the Federalist again, you'll see that clearly it was probably produced under seal, but Mueller's clearly looking to hide it.
And why Joe?
For the obvious reasons that was done right after the interview was written up by the FBI agents who probably clearly, clearly, Understood Flynn was not lying, it was prosecuted for lying to the FBI anyway.
Folks, that number two agent in the room, Joe Bianca, has to talk.
He has to talk at this point.
Somebody up on Capitol Hill, I'm begging you, he's got to talk.
This Joe Bianca has a story to tell.
We can't trust Peter Stroke, obviously.
Peter Stroke has shown himself up on Capitol Hill to be not committed to the truth.
But Bianca can.
He interviewed Mike Flynn.
And the biggest question of all, Joe, was he lying or was he not?
And if he was lying, why did you write right after the interview, most likely in that summary of your interview, that he wasn't?
Why?
It's a simple, simple question.
All right.
I got a lot more to get to.
Today's show also brought to you by our buddies at iTarget.
The iTarget Pro system is the simplest way out there to improve your proficiency with a firearm.
Safety, safety, and proficiency, proficiency.
Those are the two things that matter most to be a responsible firearm owner.
And improving your proficiency can get tough, can get expensive.
You got to go to the range.
Sometimes you need a range instructor to show you all the ins and outs.
Well, iTarget solves one of those problems.
Listen, going to the range is important.
You have to live fire.
When you can't, you don't have the time, you don't have the money, or the range is far from you, get the iTarget Pro System and you will solve all of those problems.
What is the iTarget Pro System?
It is a laser round they will send you for the firearm you have now.
Whatever caliber you have, 9mm, .40, .357, whatever it may be, they will send you a laser round.
It's inert, it only emits a laser, that's it.
You will insert that round in a safely unloaded firearm.
Check it, check it twice, check it three times, and it comes with a target.
That way, with the firearm you have now, no modifications necessary, you can safely dry fire.
In other words, firing an inert round.
Nothing's gonna come out of that chamber but a laser.
And it will go on to that target, and you will see through a phone app exactly where those rounds would have gone.
It is a beautiful system.
People love it.
Of all the feedback I get on products, I'll tell you, this one leads the pack when it comes to sheer addictiveness, because people can't put it down.
It makes a wonderful Christmas gift for that firearm owner in your life interested in improving his accuracy.
Remember, you can practice your grip.
You can practice your sight alignment, your sight picture.
Remember, competitive shooters dry fire 10 times more than they live fire.
Here's what you do.
Go to itargetpro.com.
That's the letter I. Itargetpro.com.
Itargetpro.com.
Pick up the itargetpro system today.
Dramatically improve your proficiency with the firearm and use promo code Dan and you'll get 10% off.
That's itargetpro.com.
Itargetpro.com.
Use promo code Dan for 10% off.
You will not regret it.
Okay, more breaking news this weekend.
Obamacare.
A lot of people are emailing me over the weekend.
What happened, Dan?
Federal judge ruled Obamacare now unconstitutional.
You know, we need the skinnies.
This means Obamacare's gone.
Not really.
Let's go first.
Let's describe what happened.
Then we can do kind of a good news, bad news thing.
I think that's the best way to sum this up.
So we can give you the nice talking, uh, talking points and tidbits and body, a good body of knowledge.
So you can argue with your liberal friends.
Cause that's what we live to do here.
So here's what happened with Obamacare.
Obama, when they, and his administration, when they got Obamacare pushed through the Congress, In order to pay for Obamacare, they levied a penalty.
The penalty was whatever you, individual responsibility payment, the penalty was a penalty for not doing something.
Now, this was a problem for Obama because the United States government under the Constitution does not have the power to compel you to do something and fine you if you don't.
When it comes to the, and as When it comes to the purchase of products, and as the Supreme Court said themselves, notably Scalia, God rest his soul, they argue, Joe, if the government can compel you to buy health insurance under the threat of a penalty, I'm being very careful with the language, then Joe, what's to stop the government from saying, hey, you have to eat broccoli as well.
And if you don't go and buy broccoli, we're going to penalize you for that.
Well, the government had no answer for that.
So we have to be clear on this before we move on.
Obama had a constitutional problem with Obamacare.
The penalty they levied for you not buying health care insurance could not be interpreted as a penalty for not doing something because there was no constitutional muster that was going to pass.
Obama, because he was close to a campaign cycle at that point, argued notably He argued that on TV in front of George Stephanopoulos.
I was going to say George Papadopoulos.
Talk about a Freudian slip.
He argued on TV that it was not a tax.
Now this gets a little confusing, but you gotta follow this to understand why Obamacare is in a world of trouble.
Obama himself argued in a television interview that the penalty, which I just told you is not constitutional, the Constitution does not allow Congress to level penalties for non-compliance with a behavior they mandate.
Buy insurance or we'll penalize you.
That was never gonna pass in the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court said it themselves.
So you may say, well why would Obama then go on TV and argue that in fact it wasn't a tax?
In other words, if the only way to get out of this is to claim it's a tax, not a penalty, then why didn't Obama go on television and say, George, this is a tax, like they argued in court?
Because it was a loser in the election season.
Obama did not want to be on tape talking to George Stephanopoulos saying, I'm levying a big tax on America.
Are we tracking, folks?
Now, this created a problem for Obama, because Obama just argued on television by default that it was a penalty.
He said to Stephanopoulos, it's not a tax!
It's not a tax!
It's not a tax, George!
A penalty's not constitutional!
So again, liberals never tell the truth.
Don't worry about that part.
Liberals have an issue with the truth.
So what did they do?
Obama's Solicitor General turned around in court and argued that it wasn't a penalty, it was a tax.
Now you may be saying, oh my gosh, Dan, this is like my head spinning.
Obama on TV said it was a penalty, not a tax.
Yes.
Yes, true.
And then told the Solicitor General to go to court and argue the exact opposite, that it was in fact a tax, not a penalty, knowing that it would be entirely unconstitutional if it was a penalty for non-compliance.
Yes, that happened.
That actually happened.
Well, in a stroke of genius in the tax reform package, the Trump team and the Republican Congress zeroed out the penalty, or Joe, the tax, as Obama wanted you to believe in court, because again, it wouldn't be constitutional otherwise, zeroed out the penalty.
Yeah.
In other words, if you didn't buy Obamacare, there was a penalty and it was zero.
You dig?
So the judge, the judge who did a brilliant move by the way, this judge in response to a lawsuit by a number of states against Obamacare who argued, well, if the tax is zero and provides no funding mechanism for this mandate, then the whole law is apparently unconstitutional because it's not a tax because it's zero.
So the judge said, it can't exist.
The Democrats themselves had argued on tape that the individual mandate tax they argued in court was necessary for the law to exist.
Now that the tax is zero, there's no other way to argue it.
There's no tax, therefore, there's no law.
That's the good news.
That's what happened.
Alright.
The good news is it was deemed unconstitutional.
The bad news is nothing is going to happen to the law while it's on appeal and the Democrats are already on track to appeal this thing.
They will probably appeal it to the Fifth Circuit.
It will likely go back to the Supreme Court.
Now, so good news, unconstitutional.
Bad news, still in effect, gonna make its way through the courts, will probably take a while, maybe upwards of six months to a year.
The bad news, it'll probably wind up back in the Supreme Court.
Back to the good news!
The good news is, in the Supreme Court, It is highly unlikely.
I don't trust John Roberts.
I'm sorry, folks, at all.
I don't.
He has clearly abandoned conservative principles in a number of respects, even though he was appointed by George.
Yeah, exactly.
You're not alone, man.
You're not alone.
Remember, it was John Roberts, I left that part out, who in the Obamacare lawsuit Where it was deemed constitutional.
It was John Roberts who rewrote it, essentially, and said, no, no, the penalty's a tax.
Because remember, if it's called a penalty, it's unconstitutional.
All right.
Obama said it was a penalty on TV, argued in court it was a tax.
John Roberts, in one of the most bizarre decisions I've ever heard, agrees with them.
It's a tax.
You tracking?
Because now what's the problem?
When it goes back to the Supreme Court and the tax is zero, It's not a tax at all.
A tax of zero is a non-tax.
So if John Roberts just argued that we should save the law because I rewrote it as a tax and the tax is zero, he can't then go back and argue, now we should save the law again without entirely humiliating himself.
So, it's still in effect.
It's making its way through the courts.
But Roberts has painted himself in a corner.
To save his credibility, Joe, they're going to have to scrap this thing.
Or he just doesn't care.
I mean, listen.
Let me be clear.
I'm not predicting anything.
John Roberts may be entirely willing to throw his credibility out the window.
I'm just saying, he cannot rule for this thing to continue to exist at a zero tax without making his old decision look ridiculous that, you know, the tax in it, the tax that was necessary for the maintenance of the law, therefore it's a tax.
He is in a world of trouble.
Now, just to quote, I have a good Washington Examiner piece up at the website today, and at the show notes, I'd like you to read if you get a second.
It's really short, but it explains this in a nutshell.
Here's a quote by the judge who ruled against Obamacare in the case.
Quote, Congress stated many times, unequivocally, Joe, through enacted texts signed by the president, that the individual mandate is quote, essential to the Affordable Care Act.
Goes on, and this essentiality, the Affordable Care Act text makes clear, means the mandate must work together with other provisions for the act to function as intended.
In other words, what happened, ladies and gents?
Simple.
Simple, simple, simple.
Congress themselves has argued that this thing must work together with the tax component of it to work.
Congress that signed the law, the president that argued for it in Obama, now that the tax is in fact zero, they are going to have absolutely nowhere to run with this.
Yeppers!
Big trouble!
Big trouble for the Democrats.
Okay.
Hey, uh, one quick note.
Paula just texted me, uh, the big winner from Friday.
Uh, we had another, we had our final meme winner for the Dan Bongino meme show contest.
Steve M. Steve M is the meme winner that the audience voted at the website at bongino.com.
We will add all the winners to the website at bongino.com.
You can check out the memes.
Some of them are really funny.
Many of them involve producer Joe.
Is that Siri again?
Every time I say something, Siri activates on my phone.
Yeah, that was that beep.
All right.
Uh, let's get this, uh, final one today.
And then I will get to a couple more stories.
Final.
And we'd love Brickhouse nutrition.
Brickhouse has been one of my original sponsors.
One of my favorite products.
I actually just took a nice dose of it.
Matter of fact is foundation.
It's available at brickhouse nutrition.com slash Dan foundation is a creatine ATP blend.
There is no finer supplement on the market today.
I am telling you, I love this stuff.
I have been taking it now for what?
Three years, two years.
I'm not sure.
Uh, it is, uh, it's transformative.
Foundation does two things, right?
If you're taking a supplement, what do you want?
Come on, what do you want?
Seriously, you want to look better, you want to perform better, right?
That's the whole point.
What else would you take it for?
That's the whole purpose of nutrition supplements.
Look better, feel better, perform better.
This does all three.
Does all three.
Now, you don't believe me?
You think I'm messing with you?
I'm not messing with you.
Go take the mirror test.
It's Monday morning.
Go look in your mirror.
Take your phone, your radio, however you listen to the show.
Go look at me.
Take a mental snapshot of how you look.
Go pick up a bottle of foundation, BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
Give it about seven days for this creatine ATP that works like magic to load in your system.
Look seven days later, you're gonna be like, damn!
Damn!
I am.
It's that good.
Not only that, you will perform better in the gym.
You're an athlete, military, police officer, manual labor.
You just need a little more energy around the office.
This Creatine ATP blends like having two extra gas tanks.
Go give it a shot.
BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
That's BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
Don't forget.
Pick it up today.
It is an absolutely wonderful product.
Let's see.
Where do we go next?
Oh, this was another debunking liberal lies.
You know, that's what I do.
Uh, we have the own the libs t-shirt up at the website now too.
This one selling like crazy.
People love to own the libs.
Owning the libs is easy though, because the libs own themselves.
They're actually great at cell phones.
Uh, not self cell phones, self owns.
They are good at that.
What's Joe, one of the topics you and I have been on forever has been this net neutrality thing.
Yeah, it drives the audience crazy.
I always get emails.
It's amazing how many conservatives and lovers of liberty and people who are skeptical of the government have been welcoming to net neutrality.
Well, the government's got to regulate the internet.
If it doesn't, the internet's going to collapse.
I kept saying to folks, listen, this is all nonsense.
It's scare tactics.
The government should have nothing to do with the internet.
Everything the government touches, it destroys.
It is a forest fire.
It burned down the student loan industry.
Everything it touches, it destroys the government.
It is a disaster.
The net neutrality provisions were a nightmare.
Now, it's complicated, but to sum it up, The idea was on net neutrality, the way they phrased it was, you know, a bit is a bit is a bit and all information should be treated equally and the ISPs, Internet Service Providers, shouldn't be allowed to, quote, discriminate.
They use that word deliberately based on content.
Ladies and gentlemen, that is not what was happening.
There were pricing models being developed to deliver the Internet more effectively that liberals just didn't like.
They just didn't like it.
There were plans like zero rating plans.
Zero rating plans show where other companies that provided digital content working with ISPs to charge you nothing for downloading their data.
Nothing.
The net neutrality supporters wanted those guys.
Think about it.
There were companies like, let's say whatever, Disney that wanted to provide Disney content to AT&T subscribers.
There were companies like that, content providers working with companies like that, who said, you know what?
AT&T, we're going to work with you because we want people to watch our stuff, where if they watch it on your platform, we'll subsidize the data.
It was called zero rating, meaning you, listen to me, you wouldn't pay for it.
Someone else would.
Net neutrality supporters went after that.
They were like, no, no, no, no, we can't have that.
Zero rating.
This is discrimination on price.
Folks, if you believe that, you're, I'm sorry, but it's, I don't want to, you're not, you don't understand basic economics.
Saying pricing models are discriminatory.
Now, listen, some of them can.
I'll give you an obvious example.
If I say to Joe, if you happen to be Hispanic or Asian and you come in my shop, I'm going to charge you more.
That is clearly against the law.
100%.
That is a discriminatory price model, not based on anything sane or rational.
It's clearly racist.
And based on the Civil Rights Act, that would be clearly illegal.
A pricing model based on consumption of data is not illegal.
And should never be illegal.
It would be the equivalent of suggesting that charging someone extra for a first class ticket... Joe, discrimination!
Discrimination!
Why is it discrimination?
The guy in first class is consuming more resources on the plane.
What are those resources, Joe?
Leg room?
What are you playing for on a plane?
Space, right?
More seats, more revenue.
First class has less seats.
And how do they compensate for the revenue?
They charge more.
You're consuming more time.
There's typically one dedicated flight attendant in first class who only is helping out say, well, I don't know, five or 10 people on a smaller plane.
There's probably, you know, one for every 15 people in the back.
You are consuming more resources, just like people online who are big data hogs are consuming more data.
It is not discrimination to ask people to pay a market price for resources.
Don't be an economic buffoon.
That's not discrimination!
First-class passengers take up more space, take up more time, and get more expensive meals!
They get better headphones and blankets, too!
That costs more!
This is common sense!
So what happened?
Why am I bringing up the net neutrality debate again?
Another interesting article in the show notes today by Breitbart.
I'm trying to spread the wealth around on my list, get these conservative... I don't just use my own website, folks.
I try to spread the wealth around.
Breitbart has a great story.
Net neutrality was canned in 2017.
It was implemented in short in 2015.
The Obama administration got it going.
In 2017, Ajit Pai and the FCC, in conjunction with the Trump administration, scrapped net neutrality.
What did the liberals tell us, Joe?
Oh, discrimination, man!
Forget it!
It's over!
The internet, there's even a headline running around on Twitter that's funny.
CNN, this is the end of the internet.
It's over.
It's over, Johnny.
It's over.
It's done.
Finished.
Well, a study came out over the weekend which Ajit Pai has been putting around on his Twitter account and other people have as well.
Ookla.
O-O-K-L-A.
It apparently is some company that analyzes data speeds.
Remember, after net neutrality was scrapped and companies could discriminate, which was nonsense.
Oh, yeah.
It was over.
We were all going to be throttled, Joe.
Right?
Everyone.
Where will I look at my pictures?
Oh!
Oh!
He don't know!
He didn't even know.
He didn't know how to get it.
Saul's confused.
He doesn't know how he's gonna... He has no idea how he's gonna see his pictures, how he's gonna get his Netflix.
Saul has no idea.
Well, what happened according to this Ookla study?
Download speeds have increased 35.8 percent.
Wait, wait, wait.
I clearly read that wrong.
That piece clearly meant decrease.
No, no, it didn't!
Download speeds are up!
35.8%!
Liberals!
I'm just asking you a simple question.
Again, to the liberal in the shop, to the real conservative patriot who's got my show on, I love you to death, brother.
Thank you.
You're the best.
To the liberal listening, I'm just asking you a simple question.
You wanted the government to control the internet to combat, dreaded air quotes here, discrimination, which was not discrimination.
It was simple market pricing.
You wanted the government to do that.
You used every scare tactic in the world.
If we get rid of net neutrality, prices are going to go through the roof.
The internet's going to collapse.
Everyone's going to be throttled.
No one's going to be able to, Saul can't download his pictures or whatever the hell else Saul's downloading.
We don't even want to know, right?
So, poor Saul.
Do you understand the opposite happened?
The opposite happened.
You get that, right?
Download speeds are up 35.8%.
Oh, clearly upload speeds were down.
No, no, those were up 22%.
Uploads, downloads, both up double digits.
In other words, you were lying.
Again.
Your apocalyptic nonsense about how the government, if they didn't get involved, everything was going to collapse, was a straight up lie!
Can you just admit you made this whole thing up?
That did not happen!
And I say this with all due respect, and I mean that.
To the Republicans who emailed me, and always do, about net neutrality.
I read your emails.
Some of you are very, very bright.
They've sent me all kinds of stuff.
I learn a lot from your emails.
I just ask again, with all due respect, the Republicans who supported net neutrality, I was always astonished by.
Again, how do you explain this?
We warned very simply, if net neutrality went into effect and government started to regulate the internet, that like when the government regulates anything else in a similar fashion, investment typically decreases because no one wants to deal with government regulations.
Net neutrality went into effect, broadband investment went down, net neutrality scrapped, internet speeds go up.
I'm just asking you, I read your emails, I like, I enjoy your feedback.
I'm not trying to upset you, I'm glad you're here on my show, but I'm asking just a basic simple question.
How do you explain away the fact that that was all wrong?
It was wrong.
The predictions were wrong.
The apocalyptic predictions were wrong.
There have been no mass claims of throttling.
Of course, it's going to be individual stuff that always happens.
There have been no mass claims of mass content discrimination.
Not with the ISP.
Ironically, the only content discrimination has been social media companies kicking conservatives off of their platforms and Patreon de-platforming people, as I talked about in the beginning of the show.
But that has nothing to do with net neutrality.
That was about a bit is a bit is a bit.
A bit is a bit is not a bit.
A seat on a plane is not a seat is not a seat.
A seat in the bathroom in the jump seat is not the same as a first-class seat.
Stop saying that.
A bit is not a bit is not a bit.
Not when you're downloading 10 quadrillion bits a month because you're watching 72 Netflix movies a day.
It was wrong.
The prediction was wrong.
All right.
Last story, Joe was kind enough to pull this just disastrous clip by a Democrat up in the Senate, Jeff Merkley.
I mean, this is just a disgrace.
Folks, do you understand that these people, these radical far leftists, they just can't stand this country.
And even worse, they can't stand the fact that you can stand the country.
It drives them crazy.
No, I'm serious.
If you don't hate the country with them, they are absolutely committed to this critical theory stuff that the white male patriarchy is running everything, and the white male patriarchy is symbolic of the imperialist United States, and unless we can get another generation to hate the United States, our radical far-left ideology is going to die on the vine.
So they continue every day to politicize horrifying incidents.
Horrifying incidents, politicizing just grotesquely tragic incidents to get you to hate the United States.
Here's Jeff Merkley talking about a facility where children brought across the border illegally, in violation, in clear violation of U.S.
law.
Here's him talking about what happens at these facilities.
Listen to his characterization, how horrible and disgusting this is.
Don't call them anything other than child prisons or internment camps.
That's what's going on here.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is a sick man, dude.
Right?
Joe sent me this morning, he said, you gotta listen to this.
trauma is being inflicted as part of a political strategy to hurt children
deliberately as part of a political strategy we need to have everyone in
Congress and in America rise up and say this is wrong it has to end.
Boy, ladies and gentlemen this is a sick man, dude. Right?
Joe sent me this morning he's he got to listen to this. This is a troubled man. Are
you with a straight face, Jeff Merkley?
With a straight, somber, sober face?
Are you suggesting the United States is deliberately looking to hurt children, like you said at the end, by putting them in internment camps?
Folks, this man should be immediately voted out of office.
I don't know when his term in the Senate is up, but voting for this guy, this is a sick, troubled human being.
Yes.
suggesting that the patriotic citizens of the United States, we have been the most generous country on earth with
foreign aid, with immigration. We took in millions and millions of
people for years.
This is a United States Senator suggesting that the people of this country
through their government are intentionally hurting children by putting them in
the equivalent of internment camps. And he's, and he's offended if you call them anything else. Do you
hear him, Joe?
These should not be called anything other than child prisons and internment
camps. Listen to me.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
Once we all get past this nonsense where we're putting lipstick on all this stuff and greasing each other up and we get to the hard truth, it is time to accept this one simple fact with the radical left.
Not all Democrats, but the radical left.
Ladies and gentlemen, let's stop the nonsense.
These people hate the country.
They can't stand the country, the patriots who support it, the taxpayer-based supporters.
They think you are people who hurt kids, who deliberately intern kids in internment camps.
I don't have to make that up!
I just used his soundbite!
It's not mine!
We didn't edit it selectively!
That's his soundbite!
Insistent that you should call these things internment camps and that we're deliberately hurting kids.
These people hate the United States of America.
They are committed to a radical, far-left, big government ideology, but in order to dismantle the system we have now, they must lie to you and insist that this system exists in a moral vacuum where people hate kids, intern kids in internment camps, so that you will intern Dedicate your life to testifying against the United States system.
This is unbelievable.
Those are his words.
This is some of the sickest, most deranged stuff I have ever heard.
But this is the radical far left.
Ladies and gentlemen, the party of John F. Kennedy and Harry Truman.
The Democrat party of Truman and Kennedy is done.
It's dead.
Kiss it goodbye.
Those people are now moderate Republicans.
This is your new Democrat Party.
Absolutely abhorrent.
Disgusting.
Alright folks, thanks again for tuning in.
Sorry I had to leave you with that one, but that is worth highlighting.
If you're in Oregon, you should send a nicely, of course that's what we do, we're not Antifa like the left, a nicely worded email that he will be losing your support from now on because he insists that the United States is deliberately hurting kids and that you are a citizen of the United States and you do not support that and he is in fact a liar.
I appreciate you tuning in.
Please subscribe to the show.
It is the subscriptions to the show that drive us up all the top charts.
We appreciate it.
We've been in the top 50 podcasts, news and politics, seemingly forever now, thanks to you.
The subscriptions are free.
Just go to iTunes.
If you have an Apple device, click the subscribe button.
It does not cost you anything.
If you do not have iTunes and you have a Samsung device or Galaxy, whatever it may be, Samsung Galaxy, just go to iHeartRadio.
You can follow You can also listen at Bongino.com, SoundCloud, Spotify, and elsewhere.
We really appreciate it, folks.
Thanks for tuning in.
Big surprises this week for you.
I will see you all tomorrow.
You just heard the Dan Bongino Show.
Get more of Dan online anytime at conservativereview.com.
