In this episode I address the Democrats’ latest line of attack on the President, despite evidence that it’s all made up. I also address Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s latest screw-up on twitter. News Picks:Liberal “fact-checkers” blow it, again!
Did Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez illegally pay her boyfriend?
Wealthy Americans are already paying the overwhelming majority of taxes.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tweets out another lie.
Another silly liberal talking point evaporates as tax refund check amounts rise.
Judge orders the release of the Christopher Steele deposition.
The Democrats latest charges are total nonsense.
Copyright Dan Bongino 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 the Dan Bongino Show.
Producer Joe, how are you today?
Oh, man, I'm doing great.
I'm doing great.
Glad to have you back, dude.
Yeah, I got back Saturday night.
It was a long trip.
You know, the commercial flight stuff, you gotta get up a lot, though.
That's the thing.
If you can get up and walk around a little bit, it's not too bad.
It was about six hours from Hanoi.
Getting out of Hanoi was really tough.
The airport was just We could barely get in.
So that took a while.
I hooked up with a few Secret Service guys to get through there.
We wound up getting in and finally making it through security.
So six hours to Tokyo, 12 hours from Tokyo back to Chicago.
Ran into a few listeners in both Tokyo, ironically, and Chicago, which was funny.
And then another six and a half hours back.
I went up into the lounge, Joe, in Chicago.
And I was one of the late, yeah, and I'm like, listen, I got to get a pass here for the day.
So I went up in the lounge and just nodded out.
I woke up like in utter paranoia that I had missed my flight.
And luckily I had about a half an hour to go.
So it was some trip back, made it back Saturday night.
Got a lot to talk about.
Did an appearance on Fox and Friends this morning where I just crushed Jerry Nadler and the Democrats.
That's our fake studio audience, man.
They're all ready for you.
Yeah, it's our fake studio audience, the peanut gallery.
Very excited to see me back.
All right, today's show brought to you by buddies at OpenFit.
OpenFit is customizing fitness for you.
Custom fitness is important.
It's bringing you something new.
It makes it easier to work out and never miss a session.
Lose the commute to the gym and let the workouts come to you.
OpenFit takes all the complexity out of losing weight and getting fit.
It's a brand new, super simple streaming service that allows you to work out from the comfort of your own living room in as little as 10 minutes a day.
Listen, everybody's different.
Your workouts should be different too.
OpenFit will customize it for you.
My wife loves these programs.
Amazing trainers and classes here.
They have classes led by some of the most effective and engaging trainers in the world.
Scope Your Body with Andrea Rogers, founder of the worldwide sensation Xtend Barre.
Or Get in Great Shape with Hunter McIntyre, named by Sports Illustrated, one of the top 20 fittest athletes in the world.
These trainers know how to get you results quick.
It's super simple.
It's not complex.
It's really easy.
Just press play and work out on your schedule.
600 seconds with celebrity trainer Devin Wiggins packs the fat-burning, muscle-building, and body-sculpting into one session.
You get it anywhere.
Your web-enabled tablet, your smartphone, Roku on your computer.
Lose up to 15 pounds in just 30 days.
OpenFit has changed the way we work out here in the Bongino household.
Use my code DANB.
You can join me on a fitness journey personalized for you.
Again, use my code DANB and start using OpenFit for your journey to a healthier life.
Here's how it goes.
Right now, during the OpenFit 30-Day Challenge, my listeners get a special extended 30-day free trial membership to OpenFit.
Lose up to 15 pounds in 30 days when you text DANB to 30-30-30.
That's 30-30-30.
Again, get full access to OpenFit, all the workouts and nutrition information totally free.
Text DANB to 30-30-30.
That's 30-30-30.
All right, getting right to it.
So Jerry Nadler and the Democrats are doubling down on stupid.
Actually, take that back, Joe.
They're quadrupling down on Stupid.
They doubled down last week on Stupid.
Now it's a quadruple.
The Quesnel is next for you horse people out there who bet the ponies.
Yeah, this is ridiculous.
So the collusion narrative, as you know if you followed my shows last week, is completely entirely collapsed because one of the central tenets of it was the idea that Michael Cohen, Trump's lawyer, had gone to Prague to coordinate the collusion and conspiracy with the Russians.
And Michael Cohen, who is the Anti-Trump conspirators lead witness, not Trump's lead witness, he's turned against Trump, has already debunked that and says he was never in Prague.
So the Democrats are moving on from the collusion narrative to an obstruction of justice narrative.
Now, this is unsurprising because they're preparing America for a big letdown on the collusion front.
Why would they be doing that?
Because there's no there there.
That's the words of Peter Strzok, by the way, the lead investigator who was involved early in the Trump case when he texted his girlfriend.
He said, hey, I'd jump at the opportunity to investigate this basically, but a quote, there's no there there.
So, I want to debunk this thing entirely and completely for you now, the obstruction charge Jerry Nadler's laying out.
To be clear...
Where we're going with this.
Collusion has entirely fallen apart, folks.
It's dead as a doornail.
Bury it.
It's like the serpent in the rainbow, you know?
Bury that sucker.
Except in this case, remember the serpent in the rainbow?
They bury the guy and he's still alive.
In this case, he's really dead.
Collusion's over, okay?
It's done.
He's really dead, right?
So they're moving on to this narrative.
Jerry Nadler, the Democrat in House Judiciary, who's chairing the committee, to a Trump-obstructed justice narrative.
It's been all over cable news today.
Now, what they're trying to claim is Trump obstructed the investigation into his organization or into his organization of the investigation into collusion.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, the logic here is so bizarre that it takes about seven degrees of stupid to figure it out.
But I'm going to ask you for a moment to take off your...
What did he say?
My Miss Guildfeather, my fifth grade teacher, God rest her soul, used to say, put your thinking caps on now, boys.
I'm asking you seriously, as thinking, sane, rational people, for a moment, to take your thinking caps off.
Because if you're a smart person, you're not going to understand this.
But if you're really dopey, or you can pretend to be for a minute, and try to drop a few IQ points, maybe this will make sense to you.
Nadler's claim Is that the collusion investigation, which was based on a hoax, the dossier, that Trump obstructed the collusion investigation even though the collusion investigation was disingenuous and a hoax from the beginning.
Now, I know that doesn't make a lot of sense, but again, if you're a liberal, it makes perfect sense because you just can't stand Donald Trump.
And rational, reasonable thought are all colored by your rage and anger, which you can no longer control.
So the obstruction charge would seem to indicate that they had some evidence, Joe, that Trump took some steps to stop the FBI from investigating him.
You would think, yeah.
Now, let's go through and walk through the actual evidence showing you right, how ridiculous and silly these stupid charges are.
Ladies and gentlemen, James Comey, former FBI director, while this whole Spygate scandal was going on into the first few months of the Trump presidency into May and June there, Jim Comey was the FBI director.
Now, assuredly, if there was an effort to obstruct the investigation by Donald J. Trump into this collusion hoax, then Comey would have some evidence that that happened, that Trump took some Firm hard material steps to stop and obstruct that investigation.
That's the whole essence of an obstruction investigation charge.
But here's this quote from Jim Comey in his own memos.
Ladies and gentlemen, these are Comey's own memos, okay?
The president went on to say that if there were some satellite associates of his who did something wrong, it would be good to find that out.
But that he hadn't done anything wrong and hoped we'd find a way to get it out that we weren't investigating him.
Folks, I can't read this to you enough because this is the next evolution now.
I've explained this to you for two years.
They are going to move on to this obstruction charge, which will fall apart completely because there's no evidence of that either, just like collusion.
And next, they're going to move on to Trump's financial dealings.
Actually, I shouldn't say next.
They will do them on parallel tracks because they don't have anything.
Now Joe, as the audience ombudsman, what I told you is just logical, right?
That this is Comey's own memo, where he's indicating that not only did Trump make no effort to obstruct his investigation, which by the way, Comey's already testified to under oath, he's acknowledging in a memo that we can all read, James Comey, that Trump asked him to investigate satellites, in other words, people working for him, who may have done something wrong.
Folks, I'm just asking you to be logical for a moment.
I know liberals, I know you hate Donald Trump.
I get it.
I understand that.
I read your tweets.
I see the uncontrollable rage, the anger, the Nosferatu-like, vampire-like, blood-sucking mentality.
I get it.
But I'm asking you, and I'm asking you conservatives out there listening, and liberty-minded folks who don't believe in the police state, to ask your liberal friends this question I'm asking now.
How could Trump obstruct an investigation when the FBI director is acknowledging in his own memos that Trump asked him to investigate?
I don't get it.
No, I'm serious.
Email me.
Tweet me.
If you have an explanation, if you're of reasonable sound mind and body, that makes sense to you.
Comey's own memo, please investigate any satellites to see if they did anything wrong because, quote, that would be good to know.
Right.
How is that obstruction?
Are you insane?
Are you so knee-deep in the anti-Trump Kool-Aid that you've placed reason on the sidelines?
Now, it doesn't end there, ladies and gentlemen.
It goes on.
Andrew McCabe.
Was asked by Senator Rubio two days after Comey was fired up on Capitol Hill.
He was asked point blank if there was any effort made to obstruct the investigation.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, again, I'm only bringing this up again because over the weekend it broke that again, Jerry Nadler, head of the House Judiciary Committee, is now going to open up an obstruction probe against Trump, despite the fact that if Nadler had just listened to my podcast last week, he knows as well as you do, there is absolutely no evidence that Trump obstructed, if anything, He assisted the investigation by asking Comey to look into it!
But McCabe is crystal clear here.
Now this is a critical date.
If there was ever evidence, Joe, of obstruction and the firing of Comey, which is perfectly constitutional.
Jim Comey is the FBI director, worked in the executive branch, worked for Donald Trump.
Donald Trump's ability to fire Jim Comey is unquestioned by sane people.
Again, but I said sane, which pretty much discounts anti-Trump TDS-infected liberals right now.
Trump Derangement Syndrome, for any of you wondering what TDS is.
If there was ever a time where there was evidence that would surface that there was an obstruction, a legitimate obstruction investigation into Donald J. Trump, you would think it would be two days after he fires Jim Comey, which is when McCabe goes up to the Hill.
Now, as point blank about that, I'm going to read to you verbatim his response again to show you how ridiculous this is.
Andrew McCabe, as you know, Senator Rubio, the work of the men and women of the FBI continues despite any change in circumstance or decisions.
So there has been no effort to impede our investigation today.
You know, folks, I really, I'm not trying to bore you here.
I'm not trying to...
I'm not trying to upset you by constantly hammering this stuff home, but you need to commit this stuff to memory so you understand that regardless of your personal feelings for Donald Trump, some of you like him, some of you don't.
I'm a supporter of the president.
I think he's been by far the most conservative president we've had since Ronald Reagan.
That what you're saying I mean, it not only reinforces a police state attitude that we can target people and not crimes, which is clearly happening right now.
We're not targeting crimes because there are none.
There are no evidence of crimes against Donald Trump that we can use in a case against Donald Trump.
You're clearly targeting Donald Trump looking for crimes.
Now, think about the danger of that.
It's not only that that bothers me, it's the fact that you are so You've, like, blocked yourself off with a brick wall against facts that are out there for any sane person to read!
We investigate crimes looking for people.
We don't investigate people looking for crimes.
That is the hallmark of a police state.
Do you understand the danger zone we're in right now?
They've got nothing!
So what do they do, Joe?
Instead of seamlessly We're rolling into a Mueller report that says, listen, we investigated collusion.
There is no evidence of collusion.
Thanks for your time, folks.
Have a nice day.
What do they do?
Because they're targeting Trump.
They move instead seamlessly into a new set of investigative parameters.
Oh, now we're looking at obstruction.
Well, there's even less evidence of that.
And then when there's no evidence of that, they move into financial crimes.
You know, folks, if we did this to this hack loser, Jerry Nadler, And we told Nadler, we're investigating you.
For what?
I don't know.
Something.
We'll find it later.
The outcry from the media and the Democrats would be relentless.
And yet the Democrats get away with bloody murder every single time.
When are people going to rein these police state tyrants in?
One more point on this ridiculous obstruction charge, which has now been debunked by Comey and McCabe themselves.
Jim Baker, FBI lawyer, general counsel over at the FBI, connected in deep with the small group cabal of players who targeted Trump in the spying operation under the Obama administration.
Baker was brought up to Capitol Hill to testify under oath as well.
He's asked a question by Congressman Ratcliffe.
This is important.
He says, do you know, Congressman Ratcliffe asked him, do you know if at any point in time Jim Comey, his FBI director, did he tell President Trump they were under criminal investigation?
The answer here is critical.
Mr. Baker, I think, my understanding and belief, is that he never told.
That he told the President the opposite.
Folks, the opposite meaning he was never under investigation.
How exactly do you obstruct an investigation you were not aware was even going on?
Do you understand the importance of Baker's testimony in relationship to Nadler's absurdities?
Nadler's claiming Trump obstructed justice into an investigation that the FBI's claiming he never told him was happening!
Now, again, you may say, oh, well, what about an investigation into Flynn?
And otherwise, Comey already said, he asked him, Trump asked Comey to investigate those people.
And then McCabe said, there has been no effort to obstruct our investigation.
This is even too dumb for Caveman Joe, man.
It is.
I know.
You know what, even, just seriously, even Caveman Joe is insulted by this conversation.
I don't want to embarrass him.
Because he's like, he doesn't want to embarrass himself by being on tape on a recording.
I said this on, I was on Fox & Friends this morning and Kilmeade's funny.
He's a character.
And Brian Kilmeade, I said, listen, folks, we're all dumber for having this conversation right now.
And Kilmeade's like, there's nothing better than a Billy Madison reference in the middle of Fox & Friends.
You know, I love that movie.
That's from Billy Madison.
We are all dumber for having heard that.
These things that drop on my old NRA TV show all the time.
Because it's true!
We're having a conversation about obstruction charges that the FBI investigators, who allegedly were obstructed, have already acknowledged didn't happen!
And also about a case that the FBI told Trump didn't exist!
That's why I'm saying, folks, I'm really, I'm genuinely sorry for the Democrats, not for bringing this up, but that you have to tolerate this.
And I said it on the show this morning on Fox.
I said, you know, my apologies to America for the Democrats hoisting this onto our backs, making us discuss this nonsense.
But it just goes to show you the sorry state of American politics that these losers, these epic losers, continue to get away with this.
It's just gross.
You know, one more note on this before I move on.
My wife and I last night, don't ask us why, watched this A&E Biography on Trump, which was just a grotesque kid piece.
Um, it's really, it was horrible.
And, and my wife who's, you know, follows politics.
We're, we're knee deep in it.
You know, she helps produce the show and everything, but you know, she's got a life.
I mean, she doesn't like me.
I have no life.
I don't.
I sort of, my wife and kids, it's my wife, kids and politics.
Like that's it.
My wife does stuff and has interests.
She's not as knee deep in it as I am.
She watched the show last night.
I kid you not right, Paula, I'm not making this up.
She walks in this morning, she's shaking her head.
And she's like, you know, I've been thinking about that last night, that biography, how horrible it was what this guy has to deal with talking about Trump.
Joe, the entire show was a nothing but a logic 101 gone wrong course in college, like modus tonens and modus pollens, like if then, modus pollens, like if then, it was all ifs.
It was, well, if Trump had done this, and if Trump had done that, but they never produced any evidence that the ifs, and I said something to Paul, I can't repeat on the air, because I was so deeply offended by the show.
I said, well, if your er was an er-er, then that would, you know, kind of, some of you could, it's a family-friendly show, but she's not, so we won't worry about that.
Right, right.
Like, you know, that's not how you run a show.
That's not a, and then there was one point at the end where they're like, And Putin sent a black lacquer box to Trump after the Miss Universe pageant in 2013 to Trump Tower.
And there was a letter in there.
And they acknowledge in the show they have no idea what was in the letter!
None!
But they're like, but if it said this!
You know, I handed Joe a letter once too when he was doing something at my house.
If that letter was an invitation to rob the local Severna Park bank, it wasn't!
That's the whole point!
You can't say that!
I said to my wife, Trump should sue these people.
It was so stupid.
He's got to deal with this all the time.
It's a joke.
A&E, they should call it the fiction channel, not the biography.
It was so stupid.
All right, so moving on.
Devin Nunes was on, you always have to use the Devin Nunes translator.
Nunes knows everything.
He understands the parameters of the whole case now.
So he was on the wonderful Maria Bartiromo show on the weekend, Sunday Futures, which I really enjoy.
She always seems to break news on there.
And he brought up the next phase of the investigation on the Republican side, at least, where we're trying to hammer down the information superhighway angle.
Remember, I've told you there are three components to this whole Spygate scandal.
The first, It's the spying scandal.
The fact that intelligence, spying assets, and informants were used to spy in a political campaign.
That's one tranche.
The second tranche is the information superhighway.
How the information garnered from spies, foreign spies, foreign intel, was laundered into the FBI to make it look legitimate.
The third part is the Mueller cover-up.
But the second part, Nunes is finally starting to get to the bottom of this.
The information I used an analogy, and forgive me, I didn't explain it well, and I got some emails on this a while ago, that John Solomon, I picked up from John Solomon at the Hill, another guy doing excellent work out there.
And I said, what the Clinton campaign and the Obama administration did is they flooded the zone.
That's Solomon's analogy.
And a lot of people emailed me and said, Dan, people who don't understand football, they don't get the analogy of what flooding the zone means.
Fair enough.
Flooding the zone is basically like sending all your people, your receivers and everything down field, you know, to get more targets for you to shoot.
That's what they did.
They flooded the FBI with different people bringing this information into the FBI to make it appear that the information was legitimate.
Understand, folks, If I want Joe to believe that Paula is involved in a bank robbery here in Martin County, but she's not, of course, I can send Joe an email.
Hey Joe, Paula was involved in a bank robbery.
Joe's probably going to know when Paula's going to be like, ah, that's kind of dumb.
But if I tell a friend to do the same thing, hey Joe, listen, I live next door to Dan.
I heard his wife was involved in a bank robbery.
Now maybe Joe's like, wow, is there something to this?
And then if I tell a third guy who knows Joe up there where Joe lives in Anne Arundel County in Maryland, if I tell a third guy to go knock on Joe's door and get hit, Joe, I got bad information.
That guy you work with, Dan, his wife was involved in a bank robbery.
Now all of a sudden Joe's like, wow, this may be true.
The problem is it's me incentivizing all these people to contact Joe.
That's what the information laundering, the second tranche of this scandal, this three-part scandal is.
It was an effort to get information to the FBI through multiple channels despite the fact that being the source of the information was always the Clinton campaign.
Now, I want to play this cut by Devin Nunes on Maria Bartiromo's show because it explains how they use the media to do exactly what I just described.
Play that cut.
Also, let's not forget, we also have evidence that at one time that Weissman was meeting with reporters.
And you know, so you have this, and this is part of this whole disinformation campaign.
I should have said this earlier.
It's not just the media.
It's not just that they were getting it from the Clinton campaign.
You also had people within the Department of Justice and the FBI that were briefing reporters.
Now, what on earth are you doing briefing reporters?
What was Weissman doing talking to AP reporters?
Folks, do you understand what he's getting at here?
He's not just bringing this up haphazardly on the weekend show because he's bored.
He's trying to explain to you with a wink and a nod because he can't tell you everything, Devin Nunes, all at one time.
He's trying to explain to you that it was the same information laundered through multiple vehicles and the media, in fact, was one of the outlets used to do that.
The media folks were leak this stuff, and they were using media stories by Yahoo, by Isikoff, and by David Korn at Mother Jones.
They were using those media stories in the FBI, even though they originated in the end with the Clinton campaign, as all of this stuff did, they were using that to Buttress there claims that the information was true, just like the analogy I just gave you about Joe.
Now, why is this important?
Why am I bringing it up now?
Because what's fascinating, in an unbelievable act of the lack of self-awareness, this A&E biography of Trump, who do they use as a subject matter expert on this case, Joe?
David Korn from Mother Jones, who was essentially a media co-conspirator in the laundering of this information to the FBI!
And they have him on A&E!
Brilliant!
Brilliant!
I told my wife, I looked, I'm like, I can't believe this!
One of the guys responsible for the media's role in information laundering, fake information into the FBI, is now a subject matter expert for A&E?
This is outstandingly stupid!
Folks, the information superhighway is going to be a very big deal.
Now, Nunes, I've got a ton of stuff to get to, but I want to wrap it up with this.
Nunes brings up an angle on this that's critical because it ties in, and it's another reason I'm bringing this up, Tranche 2, remember, Tranche 1, the spying scandal, Tranche 2, the scandals, the information laundering operation, Tranche 3 is Mueller's cover-up.
What Nunes said on Maria Bartiromo's show ties Tranche 2 and 3 together.
This is one big scandal in different subsets.
He brings up the fact that Andrew Weissman, who is on the special counsel investigation now, investigating Donald Trump on a fake collusion charge, Weissman already knew where the information was coming from that was being laundered because Weissman was briefed himself by Bruce Ohr, who got the information from his wife, who got it from Fusion, who got it from Hillary.
Folks, all roads lead back to Hillary and Obama.
All of them.
All of them.
It's the same information.
Forking off here, forking off there, forking off up there.
It's like a... Here's what it looks like.
Two triangles on top of each other.
Like diamonds on top of each other.
You have this... Kind of reminds me of an analogy when we used to do motorcades in the Secret Service.
We call it like the deadly diamond.
It's actually an interesting analogy.
When you're doing motorcade security, what's the most dangerous point of the motorcade, Joe?
The arrival and departure locations.
Why?
Because everybody knows where the location is.
In other words, if President Trump's landing at Joint Base Andrews and going back to the White House, There's a number of different ways to get there.
So if you're going to set up an attack halfway through the White House and Joint Base Andrews, it's hard for you because you don't know, unless you have a source, God forbid, what road they're going to take, right Joe?
But if you look at it like two diamonds on top of each other and at arrival and departure points, there are two entities you know.
You know they're going to arrive at the White House and you know they're going to leave Andrews.
So if you were going to set up, that's where they're going to set up.
It's, you know, it's just a common thing in security.
It's not like classified information.
So they call it the deadly diamond.
And the way security counteracts that is if you're going to allocate your assets, Joe, you allocate them towards the arrival and departure points because that's where it's most likely to happen and attack.
Well, think about that deadly diamond, right?
You have an arrival and a departure point at both ends.
The departure point for the information was always Hillary and the Obama administration.
The arrival point was always the FBI.
Now those paths it took were variable.
The State Department through Jonathan Weiner, Clinton's people through Cody Scheer and Sid Blumenthal, Nellie Orr through Fusion GPS and Bruce, Andy Weissman through getting briefed from Bruce, and it always wound up back at the FBI.
Christopher Steele, the dossier, it was all the same stuff.
Now, what Nunes is getting at is the link between all of this, the link between Tranche 2 and Tranche 3, is in fact Weissman.
Andy Weissman was briefed by Bruce Ohr back in August of 2016.
Ladies and gentlemen, he had to know that this information originated with the Hillary team, and yet he did nothing to stop it.
He did nothing to stop political information from winding up in the FISA court without being vetted.
He did nothing.
And now, this guy?
He's your lead investigator?
Bob Mueller, this is your pitbull?
Folks, you understand how dirty this is?
He is the connection between the information laundering operation and the cover-up of said operation later.
That Mueller has not fired this guy yet is absolutely inexcusable.
It's kind of disgusting.
But evidence of Mueller's shady operation from the start.
All right.
I got a lot more to get to.
Today's show also brought to you by our buddies at Lending Club.
Lendingclub.com slash Dan is the site for decades.
Credit cards have been telling us, buy it now and pay for it later with interest.
And despite your best intentions, that interest can get out of control fast.
With LendingClub, you can consolidate your debt or pay off credit cards with one fixed monthly payment.
By the way, thanks for the emails from the people who use LendingClub.
I appreciate it.
It means a lot to us.
We got a few of them.
They're great.
Since 2007, LendingClub has helped millions of people regain control of their finances with affordable fixed rate personal loans.
No trip to a bank, no high interest credit cards.
Just go to LendingClub.com slash Dan, tell them about yourself and how much you want to borrow.
Pick the terms that are right for you.
And if you're approved, your loan is automatically deposited into your bank account in as little as a few days.
LendingClub is the number one peer-to-peer lending platform with over 35 billion in loans issued.
Go to LendingClub.com slash Dan.
Check your rate in minutes and borrow up to $40,000.
That's LendingClub.com slash Dan.
LendingClub.com slash Dan.
All loans made by WebBank member FDIC equal housing lender.
Go check them out.
Okay.
A lot more to get through.
So CPAC.
The Conservative Political Action Conference.
Sorry I couldn't make it this year, folks.
I was obviously in Vietnam.
Had some other stuff to get done there on the coverage.
But Donald Trump gave a two hour speech at CPAC and it was incredible.
It was a tour de force.
And at the end of the speech, Trump addressed an executive order he is going to be implementing regarding college campuses and free speech.
And I want to applaud him for this, folks.
This is a, you know me, I am not for government intervention, but I am.
There are a couple of conservative pundits out there who attacked this saying, you know, there's nothing conservative about using the government to enforce free speech.
Joe, last time I checked, that's exactly what the Constitution is, a governing document that guarantees freedom of speech.
Did I miss that?
I'm not trying to be a jerk, but... No, you're right.
Okay, Joe, neither you and I are constitutional lawyers, but the very idea that we have a Constitution that guarantees the right to free speech is government intervention to stop the intervention and to suppress speech.
So I don't know, you know, I'm not going to knock the guy, not going to get into who it was because I don't want to get, he's a nice guy and he generally gets it right.
But this one he screwed up bad and he tweeted, I'm not, but this is a great move.
So the executive order, how it's going to work is, Any efforts to suppress free speech on campus will be met by the Trump administration with efforts to rescind any kind of federal funding to said campus.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is a good idea.
And I had a line below this I underlined because I want to give you a top line takeaway.
And the top line takeaway is this.
They have stomped on us for too long.
It's time to make it hurt now.
And I say make it hurt financially, obviously, if you listen to what I'm talking about.
We are financing a lot of these public institutions.
We are financing a lot of these private education facilities as well at the higher level.
You may say, how if they're not, you know, Penn State or University of Florida?
Because ladies and gentlemen, the subsidized student loan market is subsidized largely by the United States government.
Your taxpayer money is being given to people and then transferred over to private education institutions that are then turning around and crapping all over our constitution.
It's time to make that hurt, folks.
You want to play ball?
It's time to play ball.
You want to get up and dance?
You want to tango?
Well, let's tango.
You want to start screwing around with the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and free speech, and you don't want free speech protections on your campus?
You think it's some kind of totalitarian communist zone, safe space for communists?
Fine.
You're not getting a dime of our tax money.
You do your own thing.
And by the way, every student whose rights are violated should sue as well.
It's time to make it hurt.
As I said to you last week, the gloves are off.
They want to play by a different set of rules?
They want to wipe their noses with our Constitution?
Then it's time for us to fight back.
And it's not a coincidence, Joe.
That the loudest applause line Trump got at CPAC during his two-hour speech was while stating that he was going to implement this executive order rescinding federal funds to campuses that don't protect free speech.
And you know why?
Joe and I have been to CPAC.
This is the first one we've missed in a while.
Yeah, man.
Gosh, you and I used to go there with CBM.
I mean, Joe's been to probably 20 of these things.
I've been to, I think it was like 12 in a row.
This is the first one I missed.
Yeah.
But Joe, it's a young crowd, right?
Yeah.
Yeah, it is.
A lot of college kids go there, a lot of younger conservatives go there.
Yes.
Loaded.
It's a good event.
If you've never been there, by the way, I recommend it.
Yeah, and why do you think he got the loudest applause line there?
Well, folks, it's pretty obvious.
Because, as I said, I was on Judge Jeanine's show Saturday night.
I brought up this point.
I was on on no sleep, by the way.
I don't know if you watch me on Judge Jeanine's show on Saturday night.
I was so exhausted.
But I brought up this point.
My eyes were, like, sunk in my head.
I had to put makeup on.
I never do that.
I only put, like, anti-shining stuff.
Oh, my eyes were black underneath my eyes.
You never do that, dude.
But I brought up the point to the judge.
No, I know.
Never.
I know.
I had to.
I was so bad.
I was so tired.
That all politics, I got psyched up though halfway through it, sorry, like it was rocking and rolling, all politics are personal and all politics are local.
That's the oldest saying in the book.
Yeah.
You know, down here, it's a quick example, down here in Florida the water situation is really bad, really bad.
The Lake Okeechobee, now Governor DeSantis, newly elected Governor DeSantis is fixing it, but I bring that up because I find in Florida that the water situation transcends party lines.
Democrats and Republicans both agree like it needs to be fixed and that's why Governor DeSantis approval right now because he's trying to fix it and he's doing a good job.
It's like 65%.
It's so high because he's making a real dent in this.
All politics are local.
The reason these younger kids at CPAC went wild when Trump made this announcement about this executive order protecting free speech is precisely because those young kids, Joe, have been subjected to this on their college campuses and they're tired of it.
They're tired of it.
They're living in what I described as de facto and de jure speech suppression.
I'm not trying to give you fancy words or anything, but some of these speech codes are by regulation.
In other words, these colleges are actually putting down on paper speech codes, microaggressions.
This is absurd.
They're gonna be sued, and now they're gonna find that they're losing millions of dollars in cash and subsidized student loans.
Great!
Nice job.
But it's not just that, Joe.
De jure, you know, meaning generally by law.
De facto means not by law, but by fact, in fact.
Right.
So whether it's a speech code regulation on campus or not, Joe, these young kids feel like they can't speak out in their classroom, or in fact they're going to be discriminated against by what?
By lower grades, angry professors, and they don't want to deal with it, so they keep their mouths shut.
That is why these kids got up, all politics are local and personal, and these kids were like, yes!
We finally got a fighter who's gonna make this hurt!
You wanna tango?
Let's tango!
And this is the guy who's gonna tango for us!
And this is the reason President Trump's approval amongst Republicans is closing in on 90%!
Because finally, after all the chumps, cowards, you know, Republican losers we've elected up on Capitol Hill, who have done nothing to fight for what actually matters to conservatives, we're finally in a battlefield morality Where despite the A&E biography of all, oh Trump, this business failed.
Yeah, but he came back and this business failed, but he came back.
And even in the A&E biography, they say most of Trump's fellow real estate developers went bankrupt and never came back.
And they paint his comeback like some kind of a failure.
Despite that, despite Trump's ups and downs, despite some personal piccadillos he has, this guy fights.
He fights.
The Never Trumpers use that as a pejorative.
Oh, you guys are idiots.
All you can say is he fights.
Because he does!
Are you missing this?
This guy is a warrior.
He's not free of sin.
Nobody's saying that.
Not every policy prescription's been great.
But he has been fantastic in taking it to the left.
And when you're in that trench, in that fight on the college campus, and you can't open your mouth, and you finally get the President of the United States talking to you personally, where you've been hurt by this, that matters.
He actually does stuff.
He doesn't talk about it like some of these other chumps.
I don't know why they don't get that, what the Never Trump crowd is missing.
It doesn't make any sense.
All right.
Another great piece by ResidentBongino.com debunker of liberal myths, Matt Belumbo.
He's one of the better researchers out there.
So I'm in Vietnam working out in the gym at three o'clock in the morning because it's three in the afternoon.
That's why I'm so chipper today.
I stayed on Eastern time.
So to refocus myself back to Eastern time wasn't a big deal.
I just basically worked overnight.
But I'm working out there, and I read this tweet by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
I know, I know, I get it.
You're frustrated, but folks, I can't emphasize this to you enough.
Please stop telling conservatives to ignore her and she will go away.
She will not.
The same thing was said about Barack Obama and Beto O'Rourke.
Ignore Beto in Texas.
He almost beat Ted Cruz.
Do not ignore Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
That is a huge, catastrophic, tactical error in judgment that will bite you in the caboose if she's sitting in the White House one day.
She says deliberately dopey things that don't make sense, and it's up to us to make sure the general public knows how silly these things are.
So by the time she gets to the White House, we have a record of her saying this stuff and debunking it.
You get it?
You dig?
I'm not doing this to annoy you.
I love you guys and ladies who listen to the show.
It is important we do this and that we are on the right side of history here.
Ocasio-Cortez sends this tweet, I read it in the gym, it says that basically that workers, American workers are being screwed over because productivity levels have risen faster than wages.
Let me, why she's putting out pseudo-intellectual, you know, junk like this, I don't know if an advisor on her staff told her to tweet that, I'm not really sure where she got that from.
But she cited a study that Matt, well, I know she got it from the study, but she didn't clearly look into where the study was wrong.
Let me just translate what she's trying to say.
She's trying to say, Joe, that business productivity, in other words, the things they're producing and the money they're making is going up while wages aren't rising in a corresponding fashion.
In other words, that business is confiscating your profits and not paying workers in a commensurate fashion.
Folks, that's garbage.
That's nonsense.
So I automatically, Matt knows, I automatically go to Matt, and I had known where he was going to go on the healthcare front, but I said, Matt, I need you to pick this Ocasio-Cortez tweet apart, and I need you to debunk it for us.
And of course, he responded back, easy, because he already knew this stuff.
By the way, Matt's coming, I have a book coming out.
on basically his Debunk This columns, which he's put into a nice book.
So when that comes out, I'll let you, I'm going to get a little tease from my buddy Matt Palumbo, but you're all going to want to buy that.
All right, Matt.
So Matt wrote this piece at Bongino.com.
Yeah, it's good.
He did it.
I know what he's writing the book.
It's going to be really good.
He wrote this piece of Bongino.com, it's in the show notes today, and it points out the flaws of this study, again, indicating that businesses are making all this money on increased productivity, but they're not paying commensurately high wages.
Okay, so here we go.
If you actually read the report, which I'm not sure Representative Ocasio-Cortez actually did, that she cites to prove this ridiculous theory she has, the EPI, which did the study, has the following note.
The data they use, Joe, are for compensation, wages, and benefits of production and non-supervisory workers in the private sector and net productivity of the total economy.
Okay, you're probably, you're sitting at home, you may be scratching your head, you go, what does that mean?
Yeah, well, okay, Matt'll translate for you.
To translate, what they meant by that is they're only including the bottom 80% of American income earners while ignoring the top 20%.
In other words, they leave out overtime hours and supervisory staff.
Now, Joe.
Yeah.
You are not an economist, right?
But I love you to death.
I was an MBA, not an economist myself.
But we're just going to do a simple thought experiment.
If you were trying to, this study, right?
If you were trying to make a political point, not a data-driven one, but this study's trying to do, and make the point that businesses are making a lot of money, but they're paying workers, but they're not paying them the amount they're worth.
You would want the average amount of your wages paid to your employees to be low, right?
To prove you're paying them low wages.
Yeah.
Are you following?
You're totally tracking me there.
I'm with you so far, Dan.
I'm not playing dumb with you.
Okay, great.
So this, keep in mind, this study wants to prove you're all getting screwed over.
So to do that, they want to make your wages look low.
Now, Joe, if you wanted to make the average wages businesses were paying look low, would you include or exclude the people who are making a lot of money, like your supervisory staff?
You would probably exclude them, correct?
Yeah, that's what I would do, Dan.
Yes, yes.
Thank you!
Joe could have done this study.
Again, this is even too dumb for Caveman Joe.
At the end of it all, Joe's like, no, not today.
I don't do this.
I'm not going to risk my reputation on the show by doing this.
The study eliminates the people who are earning the most money in wages to make sure it makes the wages look lower.
But don't let that get in the way of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's tweet, by the way.
And they don't include overtime in it either.
Well, Matt says the EPI uses hourly wages, which doesn't include overtime bonuses and some shifts paying more than other shifts.
Yeah, why would you want to include that where people actually make more money if you're looking to make their wages look low?
But this is the kicker.
This is where it gets really fun.
Again, this study was a hack study designed to make you believe businesses are taking profits and not paying you, despite the fact that wages are rising.
And Ocasio-Cortez cannot get out of her own way.
She probably didn't even understand this study before someone told her to tweet it out.
Here we go.
This study, Joe, uses two different adjustment methods.
To deflate productivity and compensation.
Deflate just means to adjust back to their real value, such as adjusting a wage from years ago for inflation.
Now, hold on, let me get out of this for a second.
Someone's trying to FaceTime me in the middle of... I gotta put this thing on Do Not Disturb more often.
Yeah, you can leave that in, by the way.
So what is he saying there, Matt?
They used two different measures of inflation to make it appear that productivity, prices, and other things, that businesses were making all this money when they adjusted it for inflation.
They made it seem, using one measure, that they were making all this money, but used a different measure to measure wages.
Now, why would you do that?
Well, you would only do it because you were trying to make wages look lower and productivity look higher.
They use the NDP for one measure and the CPI for others.
Now, Joe, that's like, you know, measuring a, you know, measuring a stick in a, you know, measuring the measurement of something Let's say you were looking for, like, the distance of a football field, right?
Yes.
And one guy brings out a ruler in inches, and one guy brings out another ruler where the inch is different.
Mm.
Well, you'd be like, wait, wait, an inch is an inch.
Like, if you're going to tell me the football field is whatever, 100,000 inches or whatever the heck it may be, then I want to know what the inch actually means.
If the inch is two inches, then it doesn't make sense.
No.
There's a reliability validity problem here.
In other words, a scale can be reliable, but it can be reliably wrong, therefore it's not valid.
If Joe's scale is always plus 20, say Joe weighs, whatever, 180.
Fine.
Joe's gonna weigh 200 on that scale because it's always 20 pounds off.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, the scale's reliable.
It says the same thing every time.
Joe weighs 200.
The problem is it's not valid because Joe doesn't weigh 200 pounds.
He weighs 180.
Reliability and validity are not the same thing.
These are not valid.
They're using different measures of inflation.
They're comparing apples to oranges.
Folks, they do this all the time.
You have to learn to pick through this liberal drivel.
And Ocasio-Cortez does this constantly.
And us ignoring it is only going to let the narrative set in that the economy is somehow screwing over the workers, which she's doing for one reason and one reason only.
Why, Joe?
She likes class warfare.
You got it, bro.
That's what they do.
They love class warfare, that's their thing.
So to institute a class warfare, businesses are coming for you, rich people are raking you over the coals.
She puts out nonsense studies like this, which any... I mean, Matt spent five minutes writing this because it's so easy to debunk.
Read the piece, it's up on my website today.
All right, let's read today for our GenuCell.
We love GenuCell.
Thanks for being there for us, GenuCell.
Ladies and gentlemen, what was your Valentine's gift this year?
How about taking 10 or 15 years off your appearance with the new GenuCell Jawline Treatment.
No more turkey necks, double chins, or sagging jawlines.
It works amazingly well.
Just listen to Linda B. from Marina Del Rey.
I love your jawline cream.
It really works.
I mean, I really see a difference.
And people never believe my age.
It works.
And guys, it works for you too.
Right now, the brand new GenuCell jawline treatment is yours free when you order GenuCell for bags and puffiness under the eyes.
Hey, let me just say, my mother-in-law loves this stuff.
It's really good.
It works.
And I wouldn't use them as a sponsor if I didn't believe in it.
This is a really good company.
We love GenuCell.
And for 12-hour results, the GenuCell Immediate Effects is also free.
Say goodbye to the double-chin, under-eye bags, and even those laugh lines and crow's feet are gone.
Guaranteed, or your money back.
Text the word YOUNG, like the opposite of OLD, because that's what this stuff is going to do for you.
Text YOUNG.
To 77453, text YOUNG to 77453 or go to genucel.com.
G-E-N-U-C-E-L, genucel.com.
Call now and get a surprise luxury gift also free.
That's three free gifts.
Order now and express shipping is also free.
Text YOUNG to 77453 or go to genucel.com.
That's genucel.com.
They're a great company.
Stuff really works.
Okay, moving on.
So, remember the... Again, Neanderthal Joe has taken a vacation today because he's just horrified at the amount of economic ignorance emanating from the left sphere of the ideological spectrum.
So there was the argument a few weeks ago being propagated by liberal hacks that tax refund checks were going down this year.
Now, a couple of points on this.
Number one, why were they saying that?
Remember that show?
Yes, sure.
Kamala Harris and others.
Tax refunds are down.
Trump said he cut taxes.
You all are getting screwed over.
Now, this was dumb for a couple of reasons.
The first reason is a tax season isn't even over.
The second reason is a tax refund check is an abysmal way to measure your tax liability to the government.
Because if you're getting a refund, ladies and gentlemen, that means by simple, you know, a tautological explanation here is that you paid too much to the government.
So one of the reasons some of the early filers did not get as big of a refund check as they did in years before, was because due to Trump's tax cuts, you paid... Joe, I'm so... I'm really... Ladies and gentlemen, I'm... Is there some kind of neuroprotective compound?
You know, BrickHouse didn't even pay for the, uh, an antidote.
Maybe you should buy a foundation from BrickHouse, because it may be the creatine ATP will fortify your brain against the destruction of neurons.
From having to constantly debunk liberal stupid every single day.
And the stupid is just Legion.
You didn't get as big a refund if you filed early, some of those aggressive filers with heavy tax liabilities, because Trump's tax cuts you didn't pay as much in.
Now, this is not complicated.
This is not complicated for sane people to figure out.
Now making their talking point even worse is that the week-over-week tax refund checks, some of the refunds from people who have a lesser tax liability and therefore don't aggressively file their taxes early to get out in front of it, are people who are getting refunds and have a negative tax
liability.
In other words, Joe, due to the Trump tax cuts, some people owe zero,
or even getting a refund based on the EITC, earned income tax credit,
for taxes they didn't even pay.
So the week-over-week marker, and I have a piece up from National Review up in the show
notes today for you to debunk this stupid nonsense to your liberal
friends, Tax refund checks last week, Joe, were up 17%, which now has us basically at net zero.
Meaning that even their argument about tax refunds going down was over.
But again, don't let this get in the way of your stupid, nonsense, liberal talking points.
They are so dopey and silly.
People who filed early usually do so, Joe, because they probably have a significant tax liability.
They had a lesser tax liability because of the tax cuts and therefore got less back.
People who owed less money at the bottom end because their taxes were cut too, and they probably paid less during the year as well, also got money back as well, some of them due to the EITC.
Now, having said that, I have a really good write-up by the Tax Foundation, up in the show notes.
Today's show notes are really good, I strongly encourage you to read them.
A really nice, solid write-up by the Tax Foundation about what the tax liability is, circling back to Ocasio-Cortez.
She put out that thing about wages, that tweet that you're getting screwed over with your wages while companies are making a killing because she wants to institute a class warfare environment to get you to hate the bougies, the bourgeoisie, you know, an old socialist trick.
Now, why did I bring that up?
Because if you look at the Tax Foundation's newest data that they put out in their report show, you will see that not only are the wealthiest in society and the top 1 in 10% paying a significant portion of taxes, they are paying an overwhelming portion of our taxes.
So, let's get to it.
Here's the latest data to debunk your liberal friend's nonsense about how the rich are getting over and they got this huge tax cut under the Trump plan while the middle class are sitting there languishing.
That is nonsense.
Here are the actual numbers, if you're interested in that kind of stuff.
If you're not interested in facts and data, and you have that wall against truth, that thermo-insulation, the fax vaccine, since you're a kid, because you're a liberal, this show's not for you.
Tune out now, because this one may hurt.
Here's the numbers.
2016, the latest data we now have, Joe.
The top 1% The top 1% of income earners in our great United States of America.
Right.
Paid 37% of the tax load.
Oh!
Think about what I just told you.
1 out of 100 people paid 37 cents of every dollar in taxes.
Now, if that's not a fair share, you owe it to me to explain what is and why.
What should 1 out of 100 people pay?
All of the taxes?
Now, you may say, well, of course, you know, the bottom 50% paid too.
The top 1% show, 1 out of every 100 taxpayers paid an astonishing 12 times more of the tax burden of the bottom half.
In other words, 1 out of 100 people paid 12 times more than the bottom 50 out of 100 people.
Ladies and gentlemen, listen.
We can argue what appropriate tax rates are all day, and we should.
A healthy constitutional republic, this is what we do.
And I'm not mad at you for wanting a fair and free tax rate, if that's what you're for.
I'm not.
Even if it is higher.
I'll argue against it because the government can't spend your money better than you can spend it on yourself.
But what you're obligated to do is produce some data to reinforce your point.
You can't do that.
I can.
I can show you how higher taxes have damaged the economy.
I can show you how higher taxes, ironically, have damaged the tax intake on the revenue side of the U.S.
government.
Which seems counterintuitive, but it's true.
But you can't argue that back.
You're obligated to produce some evidence that wealthy people aren't paying their fair share, and you can't!
Because the evidence makes you look silly.
It doesn't end there, Joe.
The top 10%, 10 out of 100 of the highest income earners in America, are paying, again, an incredible 70% of the tax burden.
of the tax burden.
Dude.
70%!
Folks, 70 cents of every dollar in taxes is being paid by 10 out of 100 taxpayers.
Can you please explain to me how this is not a fair share?
You need to have this information on your fingertips.
The top 1% pay 37% of the tax burden, top 10% 70%.
Folks, this is more than a fair share.
This is, as a matter of fact, this is the overwhelming proportion of taxes paid by people in the top 10% of our income brackets.
If you don't believe that's a fair share, you are obligated to explain to me what is a fair share and why you believe that to be so.
Why?
What's a fair share?
You can't answer that question.
And that's why Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez relies on debunked nonsense studies.
She needs to get you and engender this feeling of rage and anger because she knows emotion will override reason when she says things like, we should take more of successful people's money.
Well, why?
There's no reason why, other than you're angry at them.
She needs that to happen.
Alright, last story of the day.
Actually, let me just hit two quick ones.
First, there's a really good op-ed in the Wall Street Journal today about Trump's declaration of a national emergency at the border.
And the article basically says, listen, Trump's power to do this is not in question.
We can argue about his use of money and moving money around, Joe, and the constitutional power of the purse, and we should.
I'm all for limiting executive power.
And I think if you believe Trump did this and you want to change the law so we take back the power of the purse to Congress, I'm fine with that.
But my problem with it is that they seem to only want to limit executive power when it's a Republican in office.
That's kind of an issue.
Obama expanded executive power, too.
But the piece makes a good point that the ability for Trump to do this, declare this, is pursuant to the 1976 National Emergencies Act.
In other words, Joe, there is nothing illegal, immoral, or unethical about Trump executing powers that the legislative branch, the Congress, has already delegated to him.
But it goes into an angle you and I addressed on the show before.
I just want to hit this quickly.
Congress is full of cowards and chumps.
They are.
Outside of like Jim Jordan and Mark Meadows and a couple of the good guys on the Senate side, very few of the people up on Capitol Hill have any guts at all.
And the reason we've seen an expansion of executive power is because the legislative branch is afraid to make a decision because they're chumps.
They don't want to decide things like, remember on gay marriage, they wanted that to go through the courts.
They don't want to decide things about immigration because they don't want to face the voters.
So what did they do, Joe?
They let Obama do it.
Through DACA and DAPA.
Where they delegated these powers to the presidency because why?
Because they're cowards.
Because they're chumps.
And they didn't want to make the decision on their own.
They wanted to blame it on Obama or the courts.
If you want to stand up and show some guts and take back your constitutional Article 1, Section 8 powers, then do it.
Step up and face the voters and have the courage of your convictions.
But until then, until you do that, Trump is going to continue to execute on powers you should have taken, which you gave to him.
It's not his fault, it's yours.
Stand up and do the right thing.
And restrain the executive branch and take back your constitutional duties.
But you won't.
Because you have no guts.
Alright, one last story.
You get where I was getting at, right Joe?
Yeah man.
They don't want to make the decisions.
And when the founders divvied up the branches of government into our constitutional system of government now, legislative, executive, and the judiciary branch, they figured those branches would jealously guard their power.
They didn't figure a bunch of chumps and cowards would get elected on the congressional side afraid to make a decision and just let the courts and the executive take their powers away.
The revolutionary generation is clearly dead.
This is the chump generation.
Not Trump.
Trump generation on the legislative side.
One more story.
There appears to have been some kind of a breakthrough.
There's a report in the Wall Street Journal came out over the weekend about a bold Trade agreement that may be coming forward quickly with the Chinese, with the Chinese government.
Ladies and gentlemen, this could be a good thing.
I've read some of the leaked information.
It appears there's going to be a lowering of tariffs, an agreement on joint ventures.
Remember, joint ventures in China used to be a mess because if we agreed to do business in China, American companies, the Chinese would say, fine, but you have to turn over your intellectual property as a result.
There appears to be some agreement on that.
We'll see if it's enforced.
I don't want to be overly optimistic.
Again, this is what's been leaked out.
There also appears to be an agreement by the Chinese to do mass, a massive purchase of some of our agricultural products.
Is what leaks perfect?
No.
Are the tariffs gone?
No.
But they are lowered.
But ladies and gentlemen, this could be really, really big for our economy if this does in fact go through.
And it could give Trump a nice potential boost as the Democrats start to run for president.
If we can get, let's say it leads from What do we have?
2.9% annualized growth last year to 3.2%.
That's a big difference, ladies and gentlemen.
That's a lot of jobs.
So I'll keep you updated on that.
The parameters of the deal just leaked.
I'm not sure what's true and what's not, if the sources are accurate, but from what I've seen, it sounds like a pretty decent deal.
All right, folks, thanks again for tuning in.
I really appreciate your patience with us last week from Vietnam.
I felt like we put out a really good product.
That Friday show went crazy.
Yeah, the Friday show about the golden file.
If you haven't listened to it, please do.
The golden file of information that implicates Obama.
Check that out.
But we're back.
We're back at home base here in Palm City.
Good to be home.
Thanks to producer Joe and Paula for dealing with me last week, too.
Also, we got some video content up on our YouTube channel now as well.
YouTube.com slash Dan Bongino.
Is that right, Paula?
Yeah, YouTube.com slash Dan Bongino.
Check that out.
We're going to try to load some shows up this week for you on the video side, but it won't affect the audio content at all.
