The Definitive Guide to Muellers Witch Hunt # 939 (Ep 939)
In this episode I address the deeply disturbing connections between Bob Mueller and the political hacks who tried to pull this scheme off. I address it because public support for Mueller’s witch-hunt is completely collapsing. I also discuss the liberal myths that middle wages are stagnant and that Australian gun control worked.
News Picks:
Public confidence in the Mueller probe collapses.
Low income and middle class wages are rising, which debunks another silly liberal myth.
Did gun control really work in Australia?
The Democrat’s obsession with political correctness is going to eat them alive.
Watch Nancy Pelosi struggle to define Beto’s accomplishments.
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?
Well, Dan-o, I'm doing pretty good.
You know, I've noticed an unusual amount of emails that have come in, maybe because we started doing the video podcast in addition to the audio lately.
I used to get them a lot on Fox.
People like busting on my hairline on the side.
No, they do it all the time.
And I think it's because I have these, let me see, you see these grays here?
I think people think that's skin and like, I'm like shaving my head back.
That's hair, folks.
Okay.
I don't have like some weirdo hair.
That's just gray hair.
I just want to point, maybe, Joe, send me up a box of that Grecian stuff.
How do you use any of that?
You're all natural, right?
Dye my hair or something like that.
I've been getting so many emails like, what's up with your hairline, dude?
Are you dying or something?
You're missing big... I'm not missing any hair.
It's just gray.
I'm getting old.
I'm 44.
Yeah, you know, it kind of looks like your barber missed a spot.
Paula, don't you say that all the time?
She said all my wife says that all it looks like my barber either or took a chunk out it's not it's just my hair is gray it's over there and I'm gonna have to dye it or something just so I stop having to answer emails about my whacked out hairline all right so this is the show you've been waiting for um A friend of mine, Tanya, from Maryland, who I remember from my campaigning days, had hosted an event for me early when I was running for the U.S.
Senate.
She sent in an email to me yesterday.
She's like, hey, listen, Dan, love you, but I need a diagram.
Now that the Mueller thing's going to come out, you keep telling us how the Mueller probe ended up itself.
I'm not talking about Spygate.
That was yesterday's show and last week.
I'm talking about the Mueller probe itself.
I need a diagram why this thing is so corrupt.
Explain to me how these players all play in to the Mueller witch hunt.
I thought, perfect, I will do that.
So I got that today.
I got another liberal myth debunked on both guns and the economy.
It's going to be a stacked show.
And if I can get to it.
Roger Daltrey of The Who.
I was not a fan of The Who, but I am now.
Roger Daltrey, man.
Laying it out.
I have a terrible British accent, but Daltrey just laying the smackdown on a reporter.
It's so great.
All right, today's show.
Here we go.
Yeah, Joe.
See, this is Joe's area of expertise.
I had to beg him before the show.
You got to rescue me, brother.
I have a terrible British accent.
Well, once we get going, I'll try.
Once I hear it, I'm okay.
I got to hear it.
Then I can imitate it.
If I don't hear it, I'm terrible.
It's like my Bill Clinton thing.
You know, remember Bill Clinton?
Same guy.
That was his thing.
You're the same guy.
All right.
Today's show brought to you by our buddies at Bravo Company Manufacturing.
We love Bravo Company Manufacturing.
They make the finest rifles out there on the market.
Their firearms are made to a life-saving standard, ladies and gentlemen.
It's not a sporting arms company.
These rifles are made to a life-saving standard, understanding that every rifle Bravo Company Manufacturing makes, when it leaves the factory, will be used in the hands of a police officer, law enforcement officer, someone in our military, or someone who, God forbid, is in a situation where they may need to save the lives of themselves or their families.
Bravo Company Manufacturing.
Manufacturers to a life-saving standard.
I can't say it enough.
These are precision-made rifles.
When I picked them up, they sent me a rifle and a pistol.
It was very kind to them.
When I picked them up, my local gun shop...
The guy I deal with over there, he's like, Dan, I'm telling you, I'm not making this story up.
He knows, he listens to the show.
He's like, this is the real deal.
This is a great company, Bravo Company Manufacturing.
Please check them out.
They build their products and do a, again, a life-saving standard.
I can't say this enough.
They're built in Heartland, Wisconsin.
Ladies and gentlemen, they put their people before products.
They build their products because they feel it's their moral responsibility.
As Americans to provide tools that will not fail the end user when it's not a paper target, but someone, God forbid, coming to do them harm.
Because of this, BCM, Bravo Company Manufacturing, knows that making reliable, life-saving tools is only half the story.
They also work with leading instructors of marksmanship from the top levels of Special Forces, Marine Force Recon, U.S.
Army Special Forces, and they connect them with other Americans.
These top instructors then teach the skills necessary to defend yourself, your family, or others.
To learn more about Bravo Company Manufacturing, head over to bravocompanymfg.com.
That's BravoCompanyMFG.com.
Need more convincing?
Check out their YouTube channel.
YouTube.com, excuse me, slash BravoCompanyUSA, YouTube.com slash BravoCompanyUSA or BravoCompanyMFG.com.
All right, before I get to the Mueller thing, I just wanted to hammer this quick, because I'm all about debunking liberal myths and just about everything liberals say is a myth.
They live their lives in one big, long Aesop's Fable.
They make it up and they just hope you're dumb enough to believe it.
So really, I mean, facts and data are just... So one guy, a shout out to Cole, he emails me a lot.
This guy Cole emails me often and he said, Dan, you need to stop talking about liberals and the fax vaccine.
You need to start talking about the faxination.
I said, nice, nice.
So we're going to fleece that from Cole.
Well, we didn't fleece it.
We're giving him credit.
He gave us credit.
He gave us a opportunity to take, but the liberal faxination, they've been vaccinated against fax.
So what's one of the prominent liberal myths about the Trump economy, Joe?
Oh man, it's benefiting businesses!
Rich people!
Ah!
You're all getting screwed!
All you poor people, middle class folks, you're getting worked!
Ah!
We had this guy on our corner, let's call him Mr. K when I grow up, that was his, ah!
He was always screaming, ah kids, ah!
He was, he was that stereotypical guy in the movie, we lived in Glendale in 64th place.
This guy was always screaming at somebody, ah!
Don't yell at my dog!
But that's the liberals!
Poor people struggling in this economy!
Wages down!
Middle-class wages down!
Okay, not so much.
So I intentionally took this article off CNBC.com because no one is going to confuse any outlet affiliated with NBC, the nothing but Clinton Network, as was so aptly named during the Clinton years.
But they backed him up no matter what.
No one is going to confuse NBC with a conservative right-leaning outlet.
CNBC is not a... If anything, they lean left at times.
But CNBC has an article up about wages, which will be in the show notes today.
Always available at Bongino.com.
If you click on the podcast link in the menu, you can read these stories or subscribe to my email list.
I'll send them right to you.
Another liberal myth easily debunked.
Joe, let's go to the videotape.
The CNBC article says, and I'm quoting, The recent jump in paychecks has come with an unusual characteristic, as workers at the, at the, at the, at the lower end of the pay scale, I didn't short circuit there, I'm just trying to set you up, are getting the greater benefit, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, time out.
Paula, pull that down again, we'll throw it back up.
I'm throwing my wife for a loop here, totally, on the YouTube side.
If you want to watch the show, youtube.com slash Bongino, please comment.
You can see the video.
The recent jump in paychecks has come with an unusual characteristic.
As workers at the lower end of the pay scale are getting the greater benefit.
Joe, that's not possible.
That's not possible.
Liberals told us that lower income folks in the middle class got hammered by the Trump economy and the Trump tax cuts.
Joe, that's what they said, right?
You got him.
That's all he did, that guy.
That was his only thing.
All he would do is say, he would speak in short phrases, not even complete sentences.
Doorbell.
He wouldn't even say someone's after, that's actually a full sentence.
Someone doorbell.
This is the liberals.
Poor people struggling in the Trump economy.
This is nonsense.
This is the CNBC article.
Okay, throw it back up because it goes on.
I know because you're actually interested in facts.
Liberals aren't because of the fax-ination.
But let's go on and give you some stuff so you have some material.
Average hourly earnings rose 3.4% in February from the same period a year ago.
How's that possible?
I thought wages were going down in Detroit.
I thought that's what they said.
It is what they said.
They're just liars and you're an idiot for falling for them.
It goes on.
According to a Bureau of Labor Statistics report this week, That's the biggest gain since April of 2009, and the seventh month in a row that compensation has been 3% or better.
So, just to be clear, it's not just that they're wrong and that they're really stupid, it's that they've been wrong for seven months in a row.
You know what it is?
It's like that dunce kid in class who never gets it right, but he doesn't get it right intentionally because he wants to be the stupid guy.
Sadly, when you were a kid sometimes, being like the dopey guy was like, cool, Remember Chris Rock?
You ever see that Chris Rock skit?
Oh yeah, yeah.
Man, I don't know that!
I don't know that!
You were like the cool guy if you didn't know anything.
That's the Democrats.
I don't know that!
They don't know anything!
They don't know anything.
It's not that they've just been wrong about wages.
They've been wrong forever.
Wages have been going up for seven months.
But again, don't let that get in the way of your story, Democrats.
You keep going.
You keep telling that story.
You're just liars.
You're just total frauds.
Alright, it goes on.
What has set this rise apart is that it's the first time during an economic recovery that began in mid-2009 that the bottom half of earners are benefiting more than the top half.
In fact, about twice as much, according to calculations by Goldman Sachs.
I don't know what else to tell you.
Listen, I know in my audience you guys are actually interested in the real world and what's going on.
It's just disappointing that so many liberals out there just insist on parroting nonsense.
Like a stupid bird.
You know like parrots will say anything?
These are like stupid parrots.
Like you tell them done stuff right and they just repeat it over and over again.
Poor people struggling, wages down.
Actually been up for seven months and lower income folks are benefiting.
Poor people struggling, wages down.
Benefiting twice as much.
Don't let that get in the way of your story.
Folks, screenshot that stuff.
Take the article, it's in the show notes.
Screenshot it.
Have it up on your screen.
And just ask people, like, I don't understand what you're saying.
You're just making it up.
Oh my gosh, is it frustrating.
All right, enough on that.
But I want to get that out of the way.
I don't want to miss that story.
I wanted to get you yesterday.
Too much fun, dude.
I'm going to shut up now.
I know.
It was fun.
The audience loves you, man.
Are you kidding me?
They want more Joe.
They love Joe.
Okay, so on the Mueller thing, I've been getting a lot of questions.
Like I said, my friend Tanya emailed me and said, hey, I'd like some kind of a diagram so you can lay this out.
So for those of you listening at home, don't worry, on the audio, I will never neglect my audio audience.
This is an audio podcast first.
Video is a nice supplement for you all.
But if you want to, and you listen to the show, and you listen to it in your car, go home, click on our YouTube, youtube.com slash Bongino, and watch the show later.
You know, you fast forward to the Mueller process.
If you want, watch the whole show, it's fine.
But I think this video, a lot of people are really enjoying the video.
I think this diagram is going to help you.
I want to paint the relationships between Mueller and others that shows you just how corrupt this Mueller probe is.
The whole start of it.
Now, before I get to it, some of you are going to say that, well, why are you bringing this up now, number one?
And number two, well, the fact that, you know, Mueller picked a few people who he knew may have Democrat connections is no big deal.
Okay.
On point number one, the reason I'm bringing it up now is because USA Today story, which I'll have in the show notes today, support for the Mueller probe.
is at historic lows.
Historic for the Muller probe.
I mean, which is kind of a weak word because the history of the Muller probe is only since May of 2017.
But from USA Today.
What's more, Trump's relentless attacks on Mueller and his inquiry have taken a toll on the special counsel's credibility.
28% now say they have a lot of trust in the former FBI director's investigation to be fair and accurate.
That's the lowest level to date and down 5 points since December.
Ladies and gentlemen, trust in this probe is collapsing.
Only about 3 out of 10 Americans believe this thing is fair and accurate.
Why is that?
Because it's not.
So number one, the reason I'm bringing it up is because this poll just came out.
It's been making its way around Twitter.
It's now in the news.
And I will be talking about it on a special Fox and Friends live episode this morning.
Some of you may see it.
Some of you are going to check it out.
We're taping this thing early.
So some of you, if you want to tune into Fox and Friends at eight o'clock, I'll be talking about this specific probe.
The poll, excuse me.
That the probe, it's collapsing.
Public faith in this thing is collapsing.
Ladies and gentlemen, that matters.
Because the impeachment process, which according to Mueller's USA Today story, has the exact same support.
Support for the House of Representatives to consider impeaching the President has dropped since last October by 10 points to the exact same level, 28%.
Showing what, Joe?
That this is a political process impeachment.
It's not an indictment.
You cannot indict a sitting president.
It is a political process.
And if the political will isn't there, where the public only 28% support the impeachment and the same 28% think Mueller's probe is genuine, it should tell you what?
That Mueller's probe is political.
Because only political actors believe it's political.
Now, I'm going to prove that to you.
I'm not just going to make that assertion.
But on the second point, Mueller has a lot of very suspicious ties to the people he hired to investigate this and to the people he should be investigating.
Now, you may say, well, you know, fair enough, but so what?
So Mueller hired some people who donated to Democrats.
No, that's not the point, ladies and gentlemen.
The point is, Bob Mueller is conducting what we were led to believe is one of the important probes, most important probes in American history.
A special counsel probe into if a geopolitical foe in the Russians may have stolen an election with the help of the President of the United States.
Kind of a big deal, huh?
Now, we know that story's bogus, don't get me wrong.
We debunked it yesterday, last week.
The story's garbage.
But if you're going to appoint someone to investigate, it's an important probe.
You would think you would want that probe to be non-partisan given that you're investigating an electoral outcome against Hillary Clinton.
So who does Mueller hire?
Clinton people!
So my point in this is, of all the people to hire in all the world, you go out and you grab like the biggest Democrat hacks you can find to hire?
Are you serious?
And you want us to believe you that this was done in a non-partisan fashion?
Bob Mueller's not stupid, folks.
He's not dumb.
That decision to hire these people was dumb.
Because I don't think he cared.
He wanted people who would keep the heat on Donald Trump and off Hillary Clinton.
So let's get the chart ready.
So the chart starts with Bob Mueller.
Mueller's the first entrant into this chart here.
Bob Mueller's the centerpiece of the investigation, obviously former FBI director.
Now, for all of these people, I want to just knock this out straight.
People, oh, Bob Mueller was appointed by a Republican.
Jim Comey was a Republican.
Folks, listen.
I thought you were just making the case minutes ago that partisan affiliation doesn't matter.
In other words, when I start showing you the people he hired, right, Mueller, the Democrats, you're like, well, the fact that they were Democrats and they went to Hillary's party, that doesn't matter.
Bob Mueller was a Republican.
Listen, I am pointing out relationships that are corrupting based on the fact that they represented people who are subjects in this campaign.
Right.
I don't care that Bob Mueller was appointed by a Republican or Jim Comey.
I don't care.
I don't care about any of that stuff.
So Mueller's number one.
So who does Mueller appoint as his lead pitbull in the investigation into Donald Trump?
Of all the people in all the world to hire, as your numero uno guy, your lieutenant, to go out there and go target Donald Trump and find out if this collusion thing is real, he picks who?
Andrew Weissman.
Now, Andrew Weissman is so deeply conflicted in this case, I just had to pick three quick talking points here.
The fact, number one, that he sends this email, Andrew Weissman, to Sally Yates, Trump's Deputy Attorney General, for a brief period when he gets into office, after Sally Yates defies Donald Trump.
And what does he do?
He congratulates her for her strength.
He also was an attendant at the Hillary Rodham Clinton election night fiasco when she lost.
He is also involved heavily in the Enron case.
In other words, he has some serious conflicts of interest.
You may say, Enron, what the heck?
Pay attention to me, and this will all make sense.
We got the chart up for you.
So he hires Weissman, a known... Sorry, my arm is healing.
I got Band-Aids everywhere.
Can you see that?
I got Band-Aids all over my arm.
Sometimes I get stuck.
Yeah.
He hires Andrew Weissman, who cannot stand Donald Trump.
He clearly is a fan of Hillary Rodham Clinton.
And it's congratulated people within the Justice Department who defy Donald Trump against their own oath, okay?
So let's just put that out there.
He's the easy one.
This is where it starts to get a little interesting.
So Mueller hires Weissman.
Who else does Mueller bring on to his team in the special counsel to target Trump?
Subject number one, Jeannie Rhee.
Jeannie Rhee.
Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding.
Winner, winner.
Who is Jeannie Rhee?
Jeannie Rhee was an outside counsel for who?
So Mueller brings on lawyers.
He's looking for lawyers in what should be a nonpartisan investigation.
You'd think you'd want people who have no prominent political affiliation.
So he brings on Jeannie Rhee, Joe, who was the outside counsel for the Clinton Foundation.
Yes!
Wow!
Again, All the lawyers in all the known universe.
Bob Mueller picks as his lead pitbull the guy who was going to go to Hillary Clinton's election night party, or did go, and congratulates people who fight against Trump.
Then they bring on Jeannie Rhee, who is an outside counsel for the Clinton Foundation, was the Deputy Assistant Attorney General under... Remember, we were told political affiliation doesn't matter, right?
Or does matter.
No, now it's not going to matter when I say this.
Remember, Bob Mueller was a Republican.
Bob Mueller.
So that should, that means it's nonpartisan.
Okay.
So political affiliation all of a sudden matters.
So does this political affiliation matter?
Jeannie Reeve is the deputy assistant attorney general for, who's that guy?
Who's that guy?
Oh, Barack Obama!
Yes, that's right.
Barack Obama.
The guy, remember he was president, Joe?
Remember him before Trump?
Yeah.
Remember that guy?
Yeah, two-termer.
Yes.
Deputy, the DAG, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Obama, who was the outside counsel to the Clintons, who also represented Obama hack Ben Rhodes, noted storyteller and fiction writer.
No, literally was a fiction writer, Ben Rhodes.
Remember the guy who used to brag in the Obama administration about how he used to fool the media?
Yeah, she represented him too.
Joe, they're off to a grand old start, aren't they?
Grand old start, Dan.
It's totally non-partisan.
Of all the lawyers in all the world, you picked these two.
Oh no, I'm not done.
There's more.
Oh yeah.
So, also, turn our chart up, Paul.
So your mother hires Weisman, he also hires Jeannie Rhee.
All connected to Democrats, through professional and political, in some cases, their relationships.
Who else comes on next?
Aaron Zebley, they pick.
Aaron Zebley.
There's another one.
Isn't this great?
So Mueller picks out who's Aaron Zebley, you may ask.
Well, let me solve that one for you.
Again, of all the lawyers in all the known universe, Aaron Zebley gets hired to go after Trump and the special counsel.
Who did Aaron Zebley represent?
He was counsel for a guy named Justin Cooper.
Justin Cooper.
Who is that?
He's the guy who is, folks, this is not a joke.
I'm not making this up to be funny.
This stuff actually happened, okay?
Cooper is the guy who had to hire a lawyer because he was alleged to be the guy who destroyed the Hillary Clinton blackberries when they were trying to cover up the email scandal.
This is the guy who was alleged to have done it, actually done the deed.
Zeppeli was his lawyer.
So of all the lawyers, And you're trying to be non-partisan.
And remember, they love to point out political and partisan affiliation.
Bob Mueller was a Republican.
Jim Comey was a Republican.
But not when it comes to any of this.
The fact that Jeanne Rhee worked for Obama and the Clinton Foundation.
The fact that Aaron Zemly represented the guy who was alleged to have destroyed the BlackBerries in the Clinton email case.
None of this is supposed to matter to us.
You may say, all right, it's some conflict of interest, but it's A-OK, no big deal.
Then you're exaggerating a little bit.
Oh, I'm not done.
Because you may be saying what that chart Paula has up there, like, OK, you've got the right side occupied, but there's still an open space on the left.
Yeah, because I needed more space for all the conflicts this guy has.
Remember, this report's going to drop any day now.
Public support is in the can, and impeachment is a political process.
The reason people think this Mueller thing is a witch hunt is because it is!
What's the fourth suspicious tie here?
One of the sources Bob Mueller has used in this investigation is a guy by the name of George Nader.
George Nader has been an informant.
By the way, he has ties to Democrats as well.
Nader's been involved, if you're a regular listener to the show, you know the history of Nader.
I'll give it to you just quick in a nutshell.
Nader has been a source for Mueller.
In other words, a cooperator, giving Mueller info.
Nader is alleged to have set up many of these meetings, meetings with the UAE and people on the Trump team, meetings with Eric Prince and the Seychelles, Betsy DeVos, a Trump campaign cabinet member's brother, and it's those meetings that the Mueller team has been investigating.
He's highly suspicious about those meetings.
This is the guy who set them up, Nader.
He is one of Mueller's main sources, one of his guys he's going to, to gin up information on the Trump team.
I believe, Nader, I believe there was a big setup that Nader was a part of.
A setup of the Trump team.
Who's Nader's lawyer?
This is where it gets super special.
Nader's lawyer is Cathy Rumler!
Cathy Rumler is representing Nader.
Now you may say, wait, wait, how does this all tie together?
Don't go anywhere.
Cathy Rumler.
Wait, hold on.
Keep that up.
Keep that up a sec, Paul.
So Nader's being represented by Cathy Rumler.
Cathy Rumler Was Barack Obama's White House counsel!
She was literally, not figuratively, and you know I hate literally because it's literally the most overused word in the English language.
Rumler literally worked for Barack Obama as his fixer and his lawyer in the White House.
You can't make this stuff up!
You cannot make this up.
Now, who else worked for President Obama in the White House?
I'm gonna square this circle for you.
The chart will make it make a lot of sense if you want to go home and check it out on YouTube.
A woman by the name of Lisa Monaco.
Lisa Monaco was the Chief of Staff for Bob Mueller at one point.
And Lisa Monaco also had a position on the Enron investigation as one of the prosecutors on the Enron investigation.
Lisa Monaco was investigating Enron with who?
With Kathy Rumler, Obama's White House counsel, later on became Obama's White House counsel.
Oh, this stinks.
And Andrew Weissman, the pitbull, the lead lieutenant in this entire case.
They all know each other, folks.
They all know each other.
In other words, I think Weissman wanted to be sure he had a bunch of Trump haters and Clinton supporters, but not just that.
People tied to the Obama administration, number one, but people he knew because he needed to trust them.
He needed to trust them to keep those horse blinders on.
The prize is Trump.
The prize isn't the Obama administration or Clinton.
Which, ironically, the evidence of Russian and foreign collusion and Ukrainian collusion with the Obama administration, the Clintons, and people at the FBI and DOJ is now thick.
But they were never going to look into that.
Because the key players in this were all Obama-Hillary connected people.
Now, why does Monaco matter?
You may say, well, what does she have to do with the Mueller probe?
She's not on the Mueller probe, and she's not, you'd be right.
But she knows Mueller.
She was his chief of staff.
Monaco worked for Obama.
She was one of his lead national security officials.
She was a right-hand person of Barack Obama.
Make no mistake, while the Spygate thing was going on, Monaco is replaced In her position after she leaves Mueller, she goes to work at the Department of Justice National Security Division.
Who replaces her in that position?
John Carlin.
John Carlin was also Bob Mueller's Chief of Staff, ladies and gentlemen.
John Carlin was the guy in the Department of Justice that had a sign off on all of this information going to the FISA court as the head of the National Security Division.
He's conveniently also Bob Mueller's old chief of staff.
Wow.
Excuse me, so let's keep that up a second.
So Mueller, follow the chart here, hires Weissman.
Weissman hates Trump, we already know that.
Big Hillary supporter.
Weissman, Mueller also hires Jeanne Rhee, outside counsel for the Clinton Foundation, on one of their cases.
Mueller also hires Aaron Zebley.
Aaron Zebley, a counsel for one of the Clinton folks accused of destroying the Blackberries in the email scam.
Mueller's using as a source a guy by the name of George Nader.
Nader is the source, has a lawyer.
The lawyer's Obama's former White House counsel, Kathy Rumler.
Who worked with Lisa Monaco and Andy Weissman on the Enron case.
They know each other.
Monaco went on to work for Obama too as one of his lead national security officials during the Spygate scandal while Rumler was his lawyer, Obama's lawyer.
And who replaces Monaco after she was in the national security division?
That was before she went over to be Obama's, one of his national security folks in the White House.
Homeland security officials.
John Carlin, who is Mueller's former chief of staff, who had to put his John Hancock somewhere on signing off on all this information being used in the FISA court.
And they know each other from the Enron case.
And who was the FBI director during the Enron case?
Bob Mueller.
Folks, I mean, I'm asking you for a moment.
I know that may have sounded a little complicated on the audio, but I think it made sense, Joe.
I think, again, I don't want to ever forfeit our audio.
The audio side, you are the show.
The video's a supplement.
Does that make sense?
Yeah, yeah, but the chart was awesome.
Yeah, Paula.
That's Paula.
My wife is just... Ladies and gentlemen, I'm not kidding you.
You know I love my wife to death, but she did that chart in like 45 minutes.
Oh man, nice.
By the way, you may say, okay, great, 45 minutes.
No, while doing like 10 other things.
Remember, we had to record the show early today.
So while processing like 10 or 12 other things.
So she's really that good.
You watch the chart on the YouTube, it'll all make sense to you.
They all know each other!
I'm willing to forgive, by chance, that Bob Mueller hired Jeannie Rhee.
All right, maybe he hired Jeannie Rhee and then a guy with a Republican leaning.
And you say, well, they can't ask him about partisan affiliation.
Folks, come on!
Are you serious?
Are you this stupid?
Do you really believe Bob Mueller doesn't know Andy Weissman's a diehard Democrat?
He went to Hillary's campaign party!
Alright, if he hired just Weissman, if he just Rhee, just Zebley, but he hires Weissman, Rhee, Aaron Zebley, his informants represented by Obama's attorney, the Obama attorney worked with Andy Weissman, Elisa Monaco worked with Bob Mueller, Monaco was in the White House with Obama, Monaco had this position in the National Security Division, she's replaced by Mueller's other Chief of Staff, Carlin, who signs off on the FISA stuff in the end, and we're all expected to believe this is all by chance.
Now, I'm gonna tie it all up for you and move on.
I got a couple other things I wanted to get to today.
Thank you, Paula, by the way, for that chart.
That was fantastic.
Well done.
We work together like that.
Lickety split.
How did I start this?
I started this by telling you, Joe, this is not a criminal case.
It's not.
The president cannot be indicted while he's in office.
That's clearly understood.
Only idiots will tell you otherwise at this point.
Now, when he's out of office, it's open season.
He can be impeached.
I said to you in the beginning of this that impeachment is a political process.
That the USA Today article has clearly indicated now that that political process is failing.
Why, Joe?
Because if it's a political process, the essence of politics is the projection of power to move public opinion.
Public opinion is moving in the wrong direction!
Only 28% of people support impeachment, and it's roughly the same percentage of people who think Mueller's doing a fair job!
So if this is a political process, it is up to us on the other side of the partisan divide because this is a political attack on Trump.
There is no evidence of collusion, ever.
You produced the evidence, I am willing to entertain it.
You haven't done so, so now we are taking up the politics of it too.
Because we're obligated to fight back.
If it's open season on Trump to hit him politically, then it's open season on the opponents and Mueller and everyone else to hit them with their political choices too, is it not?
Mueller's a non-partisan actor.
No, he's not!
He picked a bunch of partisan hacks!
He's not a non-partisan actor!
He's not!
Cut the garbage!
If you're going to engage in a political attack on the president, which you are, based on no substantive evidence whatsoever, based on a hoaxed dossier, then we're going to fight back!
Put your big boy pants on and say, you can't attack Bob Mueller!
His history of service to this country- Great!
Congrats!
Thank you!
I sincerely mean it!
That does not absolve you of the responsibility to act like a professional, which you haven't!
You had to understand from the start this was a political process, you made bad political choices, horrible political choices, and now you're getting destroyed in the court of public opinion because of it.
Because you did it!
You had, what Joe, 500,000 lawyers to choose from?
Yeah.
You picked these three?
And all of your people, and by the way, and they pick you, Bob Mueller, all of your people were the ones involved in this?
Monaco was in the White House when this was happening, the targeting of Trump.
She was replaced by your Chief of Staff, who signed off on this FISA thing.
And we're supposed to ignore that?
We're supposed to ignore that Obama's lawyers representing your source in the case.
And that they all know each other from the Enron case.
We're just supposed to let all that go.
What do you think, we're stupid?
Like we're a bunch of suckers?
Yeah, just let it go.
By the way, showing you how talented my wife is.
You want to see this?
This is my horrible handwriting.
That's what she made the chart of.
My awful handwriting.
She couldn't read any of it.
I had to translate it.
You see that, Joe?
I'm like, hey, can you do a chart for me out of this thing?
I had to draw it first.
She's explaining it's complicated.
I totally get it.
But I promise you, if it didn't make sense on the audio and I tried to make it pretty clear, YouTube.com slash Bongino.
Go to our channel, subscribe, comment on it, but watch that segment of the show.
I would love for you to watch the whole show, but it'll make a world of sense to you because Paula does some nice stuff with the show too.
Okay, today's show also brought to you by our buddies at iTarget.
This is the single finest system out there for improving your marksmanship, folks.
There are two things that matter if you are going to be a responsible firearm owner.
First is safety, safety, safety.
Of course, you all know that.
Second is you have to be proficient with your firearm.
God forbid you're in a life-saving situation where you're forced to use that because you're in a life and death situation.
You need to defend yourself.
You have to be proficient.
Now, how do the pros do it?
People who are competitive shooters, who do this for a living, who sports shoot.
Did you know that they dry fire ten times more than they live fire?
Now what is dry firing?
Dry firing is when you safely unload your firearm, you check it, you check it twice, you check it three times, there's absolutely no room for error, and you point in a safe direction downrange, and you depress the trigger on an unloaded weapon.
What the heck's the point of that?
The point of that is without the firearm actually ejecting around the live round, you don't have to worry about the recoil.
So what you can do is you can gently pull the trigger, you can practice your trigger pull, you can practice your sight alignment, and you don't have any brass to clean up, you don't have any rounds to go through.
And you know, you can practice your sight alignment, sight picture, trigger pull, grip, all the things that are important components to good marksmanship.
The problem with dry firing is there's no round.
So you have no idea where the round would have gone.
So what do you do?
You buy iTarget, the best system out there.
Go to iTargetPro.com.
That's the letter, iTargetPro.com.
iTargetPro.com and pick up the system for your firearm.
Now you have a nine millimeter, they will send you a nine millimeter laser round.
You don't have to do any manipulations to your firearm.
You'll drop it in.
They will send you a target.
And in conjunction with this phone app, which will mark where your rounds go, You will depress the trigger on this laser round, which you'll put in your, again, no manipulation is necessary, and you'll see exactly where that round would have gone.
Your marksmanship will go through the roof.
This is the best system out there.
I can't recommend it highly enough.
itargetpro.com, itargetpro.com, use promo code Dan, and you'll save 10%.
itargetpro.com, promo code Dan, save 10%.
You will not be able to put this down, folks.
It will dramatically increase your proficiency with your firearm.
Okay.
Joe, were you a big fan of The Who?
Yeah, I really, really liked them a lot.
Joe is, for those of you who want to know a little bit more about producer Joe, uh, you know, I get into my life and I'm, Joe is a big music guy.
He's extremely talented musician.
I mean, I can't say that enough.
He is, uh, he, I mean, he could do anything.
And that's one of the reasons I like, we don't do a, like, cause the show, we try to keep it an hour for your commute for a reason.
But one of these days I wanted to run one of Joe's, like he does parody songs and stuff.
It's really funny actually.
But Joe's a music guy.
I was not a fan of The Who, so I sent this clip to Joe.
Some of you may be.
This is Roger Daltrey, and he's being interviewed by a Sky News reporter about Brexit.
Brexit is the UK leaving the European Union, the vote they took.
It was supposed to happen March 29th.
They're leaving.
They're trying to delay it now.
There's been a bunch of very complicated votes about the border in Northern Ireland.
Trade restrictions, how they're going to handle trade, how they're going to handle borders, how they're going to handle goods coming into the country.
I haven't talked much about Brexit, but the Brexit catastrophe crowd that think the whole world is going to fall apart if the UK does, in fact, leave the EU.
A lot of the people who voted for Brexit in the UK have no time for that.
And it appears that Roger Daltrey from The Who is one of them.
So let me set this up.
The reporter asks him about like, hey, man, how are you going to tour as a rock group?
If Brexit, you know, if there's an ugly Brexit, and basically, you know, you wouldn't be part of the European Union, so maybe you'd have to, like, show a passport again or whatever.
Like, she's trying to make a big catastrophe out of it.
And this, by the way, this is Roger Daltrey, who is only Joe.
You think, how many times do you think Daltrey's traveled around the globe?
About two, three hundred times?
Yeah.
Sound about right, right?
So, this is hysterical.
So she asked him about, this is Daltrey's answer.
Brexit looks like it's getting further and further away.
Is it going to be bad for British rock music?
No, we don't do the rock business.
What's it got to do with rock business?
They're touring Europe!
Oh dear, as if we didn't tour in Europe before the f***ing EU.
Oh, give me that.
On that note.
Give me that.
Thank you very much.
If you want to sign up to be ruled by a f***ing mafia, you do it.
it. Not being governed by FIFA.
But man, Roger Daltrey, I may have to go buy an album.
Are we going to tour in Europe, man?
Like he never toured in Europe before.
How great was it?
I'll tell you what it has to do, Roger.
The American Revolution had great things to do for the rock business.
I'll guarantee you that.
Joe said that before the show, I laughed my butt off.
I go, dude, you got to say that on this show.
Nothing better for rock music than the American Revolution, right?
Because then we had the invasion back again, the Beatles, the Stones, everyone else, right?
But this is great.
How are you good?
And the guy's like, seriously?
Like the world collapsed before the European Union?
You show a passport.
Listen, I don't want to minimize Brexit, okay?
It's very serious.
There are a lot of serious issues.
Are there going to be customs?
How's customs going to work?
Custom duties, tariffs, whatever.
It's a very complicated border with Northern Ireland.
It's a big deal now, how that's going to work.
It's created a lot of problems.
I get it.
But they voted for Brexit.
Stop acting like it's going to be like the nuclear apocalypse.
And at the end, I guess he's not a big fan of the EU.
It's like being rude by the mafia, man.
That was great.
He's like, by FIFA now.
The only reason I played that, I usually don't do like skitty stuff, you know, skits and stuff like that.
It's alright.
But it's alright, it's alright, mate.
That's Australian, probably.
I do the worst accents ever.
Joe's actually good, I'm terrible.
But yesterday we talked about the whole corruption in the FIFA case.
That's how Christopher Steele met the FBI, was the FIFA case, the soccer thing.
So what does Daltrey do?
He's like, it's like being rude by FIFA.
It's like being rude by FIFA.
Adultery.
Like I said, man, I'm going to iTunes today, but I don't even like to who I'm going to pick up a few songs just because of adultery.
That thing's gone pretty viral, by the way.
It's made its way around.
You can see for obvious reasons.
All right, moving on.
So I follow this guy on Twitter.
I think I do.
His name is Andrew Sarabian.
I hope I'm saying that right.
Sarabian.
He put up an interesting tweet yesterday I want to bring up on today's show because it goes back to my, you know, Democrats being sore losers.
They have zero respect for the Constitutional Republic at all.
They only care about the projection of political power.
And his tweet really sums it up.
And I know Don Jr.
retweeted it and he's right.
Because it sums up the Dems' new strategy.
Losing politics, move on to the courts, right?
We talked about this in yesterday's show.
Losing the courts with judicial appointments, move on to financial, trying to bankrupt people financially.
Boycotts, Maxine Waters.
Haunting people up on the hill about the Wells Fargo guy, you know, that's suing firearms manufacturers for producing perfectly legal products.
This is what their goal is.
Now with elections on the political front, because I had said to you yesterday, when they lose in politics, they move on to the courts.
And when they lose in courts, they move on to finance, financially bankrupting their political opponents.
But Joe, I put a caveat in there.
I said, but they never actually give up on the political side, because if they can take office and just abuse their power, they will.
So don't mistake my three-pronged strategy for three separate, distinct entities.
They're all interrelated.
Now, Sarabian tweets this out, how when they lose in politics, they want to change the rules in politics.
So he says, here's this tweet.
It says, prominent Democrats have now endorsed Number one, packing the Supreme Court.
True.
Including people like Beto and others.
Changing the voting age to 16.
We played that last week with Nancy Pelosi.
And abolishing the electoral college for just about every prominent Democrat.
The guy writes, so weird how their answer to losing always seems to be, let's just change the rules.
Great tweet, hat tip, Andrew Sarabian.
I'm sorry, forgive me for saying your name wrong.
But that is a really great tweet.
Nice job.
That is exactly what the Democrats are all about, changing the rules.
So let's go through those one by one and why it matters for them.
First, packing the courts.
That's an obvious one.
As they move from a political strategy to a judicial strategy to try to win in the courts by suing people, you need left-leaning judges who act as politicians and not in fact judges.
So they want to pack the courts obviously with people, Joe, who are going to act like politicians, which does not include conservative constitutionalists.
So that one's an obvious one.
So again, lose the election, change the rules, pack the courts.
The second one, change the voting age to 16.
Joe, simple question.
I'm not setting you up here, but Why do you think Democrats would want to change the voting age to 16?
Do you think it's because 16 year olds would be more or less likely to vote Democrats?
Just give it a shot.
It's not a trick.
Well, I think it's probably because they'd be willing.
To vote more for... I love the way you grab your chin.
Yeah, yeah.
I love the way you grab your chin like you're seriously contemplating this.
He does.
He does.
He gives it a pregnant pause to let it... He's got to chew the cud a little bit, you know?
He's got to think about it.
Of course he doesn't.
It's a joke we do on the show.
But it's important because it's so dumb that it's obvious.
You want 16 year olds to vote.
Now, listen.
I love... My daughter's 15.
I love her to death.
I've said this before.
I have no interest in diminishing people who are... I don't.
You're all children of God.
I mean that.
I'm not being funny about it.
But folks, can we be candid?
A 16-year-old has chronologically spent 16 years on the planet in a far different society than we were even a hundred years ago.
You have very little responsibility at 16 and very little life skills at 16 to be able to translate that into an informed vote.
The fact that we're even having this conversation is utterly and completely absurd, but the Democrats, including the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, are absolutely dead serious about this.
They want to reduce the voting age to 16 because they understand that at 16, the life skills and the life experience just isn't there to understand the ramifications of things like free college!
It's free!
Good for me!
I'm going to college next year!
16-year-olds, vote Democrat!
There's a reason they want this.
Because 16-year-olds are more likely to vote Democrat.
It's as simple as that, folks.
It's not complicated.
It was a video the other day, it was these 16-year-olds or something messing around with the gasoline, almost lit themselves on fire.
And a guy tweeted out, you know, you want these kids to vote?
Listen, I'm not really, I'm not messing with it.
I got a lot of 16-year-olds who send me some really smart emails, but let's just be candid.
Overall, at 16, you just don't know as much.
You haven't been on the planet that long.
Guys, ladies, I'm sorry.
I love that you listen to the show, and I love your feedback, and I love that you're learning.
But I'm telling you, in self-deprecating, not humor, reality, That I did not know much at 16.
I just didn't, life skills-wise.
I was learning.
I was in a great school, Archbishop Malloy in New York.
I loved it.
But you just don't know that much.
I'm sorry.
Alright, the last one.
The difference between knowledge and knowing.
We've said that before, remember?
Bingo!
You know what?
I'm glad you said that.
Great point.
I want to just hit on that a second.
I listened to a podcast once and it's Econ Talk by Russ Roberts, one of my faves.
Love that podcast.
And he had a guy on who was talking about exactly that.
This is something Joe and I talk about a lot.
Knowledge and knowing.
And the guy was talking about how Michael Jordan may know how to shoot a free throw.
Matter of fact, he may know better than 999 out of a thousand people how to shoot a free throw.
Physically, no.
His brain knows how to do it.
He's Michael Jordan.
But he may not know it and be able to explain it like someone who really stinks at shooting free throws.
You may say, that makes no sense.
No, no.
It makes perfect sense.
Perfect sense.
It's why my buddy Wade Boggs, Wade Boggs, I say my buddy, I don't know Wade, but I follow him on Twitter because I love Wade Boggs, but Wade Boggs was not blessed with a bunch of tremendous physical skills.
He didn't have a lot of power, he wasn't a big muscular guy.
Wade Boggs had to learn, Pete Rose too, had to learn how to hit.
So he had to learn all the little tricks, all the little nuances, all the little things to develop his hand-eye coordination.
Because it didn't come natural like it does to some other athletes.
And I'm not suggesting Jordan.
Jordan's a brilliant guy.
He's one of the greatest businessmen ever to come out of professional sports.
It's just in the name we all know.
Don't take it personal.
I'm not attacking Jordan.
I love Jordan.
But you get what I'm saying?
Jordan, genetically, was just amazing.
The guy was born with the ability to jump.
I mean, he could dunk from the free throw line.
You know how hard that is?
You ever see how far away the free throw line is?
It may not be as easy for genetically gifted people to be able to explain to others.
That's the difference.
When you're 16 years old, you haven't taken those lumps.
You gotta fail a little bit.
You gotta strike out a lot.
You have to miss a few free throws.
You know?
And that Joe's right.
That's the difference between knowledge and knowing.
16-year-olds can have a lot of knowledge.
Gosh, some of them are super smart based on the emails I get.
But the knowing part, just chronologically based on your lack of skills in the workforce because you haven't been there, it's just not there yet.
I'm sorry.
I don't mean to break the bad news to you, but good point, Joe.
I'm glad you brought that up.
Excellent Ed McMahon you are sometimes.
Even I forget my own materials.
Thank you.
Finally, the Electoral College.
This is an obvious one.
The Democrats want the presidential race to become a referendum on New York and California.
Basically, they want New York and California to run the whole country.
The Electoral College was designed to defuse that.
The tyranny of the majority.
You don't want two wolves and a sheep voting for what's for dinner.
It's been used a thousand times.
You say stupid people speaking cliches, but That's why I try not to use them.
Oh seriously, but that's a good one and it just makes a lot of sense.
The tyranny of the majority is very real.
The founders never wanted a popular vote.
They didn't want people in population centers where it wasn't California, obviously it was no California at the time, but they didn't want population centers To be able to dictate to the rest of the country how their specific policies in their states were going to work, because their policies in their state were very unique to their states.
You don't want Wisconsin cheese farmers being dictated to how the cheese market should run by a New York stockbroker.
So Wisconsin gets an electoral college vote based on population and based on the fact that it is an independent state.
Not independent in that sense, but in a federalist union.
That's why the Electoral College is the way it is.
The House of Representatives is based on population.
So population does have some say in our system.
But in the checks and balances, we have two senators in each state, and the Electoral College is based on the addition of your House of Representative members plus the two senators, and that's the number of electors you get to elect the president.
It's as simple as that.
The Democrats want to change that and change the rules because they want the president to be decided by New York and California.
And Illinois.
That's basically it.
All right, moving on, last story.
I wanted to get to this because the Democrats, it's just pathetic, this leveraging of tragedies that I just wish, you know there's, forgive me, I'm forgetting who wrote it.
Give me a second, I'll think about it.
I don't like to do this live in here.
Matt Palumbo has a piece, let me just get to the lead here.
It's an older piece, we did it at the website, debunked this, about Australian gun control.
The reason I'm bringing it up is because we had this just, Um, unspeakable human tragedy.
Innocent people praying in a mosque and the savage comes in and videotapes shooting him to death.
Now, Joe, again, I refuse to watch this.
I just, I don't, I'm sorry.
I'm not watching that.
This guy, this sick bat, you know what he is.
Um, GoPro filmed this thing live.
From what I've heard, and I'll try to keep this as family-friendly as possible, folks.
From what I've heard from the video, there are people just writhing in pain on the ground, and he walks up and just finishes the job, like you would expect a savage pig.
Pig.
I don't even wanna disgrace pigs, because pigs have some use in society.
You can eat them, like this guy's just, He's a germ.
He's a stain.
Whatever.
I don't even know what else to say.
I can't imagine what kind of an animal you have to be to watch a human being.
'cause I just, I can't imagine you have, what kind of an animal you have to be
to like watch a human being, you just shot suffering on the ground.
The problem with this, folks, is this should be a time where human beings,
we just have a natural consensus that this was a tragedy, and we should find a way to unite in these times
and figure out to make unspeakable things like this not happen again.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
But that's not what happens anymore, Joe.
There are liberals out there who insist on making political arguments afterwards.
This is no time for this.
And it unfortunately, Joe, puts us in a situation, because instead of an argument or a sensible conversation, it doesn't even need to be a debate, about how we stop this stuff in the future, it inevitably turns into an argument about why you, as a legal gun owner, are at fault, and why your right to defend yourself has to be taken away.
There's no reason for this to happen.
But liberals do it.
Because they make the argument about you, not about this stain on humankind.
This savage, disgraceful, disgusting piece of human filth.
Instead of making it about him, they make it about you.
A legal firearm owner who's never done anything illegal with their firearm at all, and sees it as a tool to protect his family.
So in light of that, Matt wrote an article a while ago about Australian gun control.
The reason I bring that up is because New Zealand now, their attorney, effectively their attorney general, has said they're going to ban semi-automatic weapons, which effectively is going to be an Australian-type gun control measure.
So Joe, if we're going to do that, is it not a fair question, given that we're not even given the chance to mourn these people anymore, that it's become a political argument instantaneously that you forced on us?
I don't want this argument.
You did this.
Is it fair enough to ask if you're going to replicate the Australian gun confiscation policy now in New Zealand, did that actually work?
Fair question, right?
Yeah.
Well, Joe, it didn't work.
It didn't work by just about any measure, again, if you're interested in facts and data.
I know that's hard for some people out there, but in a time like this, that should matter.
Because we're evaluating public policy that's going to affect you, if you're a legal gun owner, who did nothing wrong.
So Matt has this piece up at our website.
I'll include it in the show notes, even though it's an older piece.
It's a very good one.
Matt does very good research.
And he looked in some of the finer data points on the Australian gun confiscation measure, where they basically outlawed certain types of guns, made you turn them in under penalty of law.
It was a buyback.
It really was a confiscation.
So one of the big takeaways from this Australian gun control measure is we should be able to see, if you think Australian gun control works, Jo, a statistically significant decline in the homicide rate in Australia after that, right?
That would be a significant measure.
If we were to see that, reasonable people, whether you're for or against gun control, I am a Second Amendment advocate, I think everybody understands that, But if you were to suggest that this policy worked, you should be able to observe via statistics a statistically significant decrease in the homicide rate in Australia after the 1996 implementation of this gun confiscation in Australia.
Well, what happened?
Well, if you, Paul, put up that chart if you don't mind.
The overall homicide rate in the United States fell, as you can see, Matt's article again will be in the show notes.
The overall homicide rate in the United States fell more sharply than it did in Australia.
You may say, well Dan, that's fascinating because Australia has a drop in the homicide rate too.
Well, what's interesting is the gun ownership rate per person in the United States went up, while the homicide rate in the United States dropped more dramatically than it did in Australia, despite the fact that Australia was confiscating people's weapons.
In other words, I'm just asking you to process the facts I put out there.
If you're telling me gun confiscation worked in Australia, but that the homicide rate in the United States dropped more significantly than it did in Australia, despite the fact that Australia confiscated guns while gun ownership in the United States rose, then your argument to decrease the homicide rate would sensibly, if you believe in statistics, be to increase illegal gun ownership.
That's just a common sense assertion based on that chart.
Now, notice, Matt uses the homicide chart.
Although the gun violence went down in Australia too, gun violence after the implementation of the gun confiscation didn't decrease at any greater of a rate than it did before the ban.
So there's no statistically significant difference.
But the reason I included the homicide chart, not specifically gun homicides, Is because what liberals frequently leave out of the firearm rights argument is the fact that that firearm, that crime rates can go down also in places where they have relatively constitutional, I say relatively constitutional because sadly people have disregarded the constitutional firearm laws, Joe.
Because, a simple question, Joe, again, not a trick, I'm not being funny about this at all.
If you're a bad guy, are you more likely to break into a house where the homeowner is armed or unarmed?
I'd say unarmed, Dan.
Yeah, I mean common sense.
I'm not like setting a guy up.
Of course, because you don't want to, you know, you don't want to get shot at.
Right.
That's the reason I include, that's why crime rates in some of these places go down, because liberals only include the, you know, the bad side, the criminals that use firearms.
These are tools.
There are good law-abiding citizens every day that stop crimes due to these tools.
There are homes that aren't robbed all the time because people in those neighborhoods, it's generally perceived, could have firearms in there.
They leave that out.
But I also, Paul, can you put up that same chart?
Because there's a little text at the bottom.
Excuse me.
The American Medical Association, folks, did a study in 2016 on the Australian gun confiscation legislation.
The American Medical Association, Joe, again, not some bastion of far-right values, okay?
I think we can all be pretty candid about that.
Let me read from the piece.
A 2016 American Medical Association study examined trends in firearm homicides and suicides before and after the adoption of gun control in Australia from the 1996 law.
...and found no evidence of a statistically significant effect of gun control on the pre-existing downward trend of the firearm homicide rate.
Folks, I don't know how to lay it out for you any more simply than that.
The homicide rate in the United States dropped at an even greater rate than it did in Australia, despite gun ownership in the United States going up.
The American Medical Association said that the law had no statistically significant effect on firearm homicides or suicides.
And finally, again, if we're interested in a common sense, rational discussion of gun control policies and the effects and outcomes, Ladies and gentlemen, there are more firearms now in Australia than there were before the ban.
Interesting story behind this.
I had 60 Minutes Australia here.
Nice guys.
They were in my house for about four or five hours.
You know, 60 Minutes, the same show here.
They have one in Australia.
It's the same company though.
And they, you know, same branding and everything.
And the guy was a very nice guy, but they were obviously liberal.
And when I told him that, he said, that's not, that's not true, mate.
There's not more guns in Australia.
And I said, look it up.
Are there more guns now?
He Googled it.
Sure enough, he's like, man, you're right.
I can't believe that.
That's crazy.
Ladies and gentlemen, there are more firearms now in Australia than there were before the ban.
So if your point is that a gun confiscation ban led to this decreasing of the homicide rate, gun suicide rate, gun homicide rate, because there are three distinct and separate things in Australia, then you're making the argument that more guns did it.
Because there are more guns in Australia now than there were before the ban.
Again, read the piece.
Matt's piece is brilliant.
This is all out there, folks.
None of this is hard to figure out.
We're gonna do, with that word I hate, adulting here.
We're gonna talk like adults.
We're not gonna do liberal stuff, okay?
We do facts and data.
You wanna analyze policy outcomes?
Let's talk about the facts.
You wanna gauge emotional hysterics about taking my rights away?
After an unspeakable human tragedy, we should all be coalescing around finding out a way to never let this happen again?
Then you do that.
We're going to do the adult stuff here.
All right, folks, very serious topic.
I appreciate you all tuning in today.
Please subscribe to the audio podcast on your podcast app on your iPhone.
If you don't have an iPhone, you have an Android, you can go to iHeartRadio and follow.
It's all free, folks.
None of this is of no cost to you at all, but the downloads help us move up the charts.
And please, watch today's show on youtube.com slash Bongino.
Go to our YouTube channel, check out the chart, I promise you.
Joe saw the chart, it'll make a world of sense to you how Muller has all kinds of suspicious ties to all the people involved in this case.
