In this episode I address stunning new court documents that blow the lid off of another Democrat scandal. I also debunk a media hit piece promoting a series of liberal lies. Finally, I discuss how conservatives are fighting back against liberal social justice warriors.
News Picks:The FBI hasn’t even seen the full DNC “hack” analysis.
This is how you fight back against tyrannical, liberal social justice warriors.
The Clinton “surplus” myth refuses to go away.
Was this the man responsible for the framing of Mike Flynn?
Liberal snowflake convention cancels keynote speaker because he’s supports life.
The Democrats, and their media pals, are total hypocrites on foreign interference.
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.
Alright, welcome to the Dan Bongino Show.
Producer Joe, how are you today?
Sorry, I have to answer for him.
He's doing great.
We gave Joe the day off.
Have no fear.
Producer Joe will be doing some behind the scenes work, but it's been a long, busy day.
We had Fox and Friends today.
I have Fox and Friends again tomorrow.
So it's been a busy day.
I want Joe to maintain his sanity so he's the hardest working producer in the business.
But we are here to produce another show for you.
Got a ton of good content for you today.
Ladies and gentlemen, the entire case is falling apart.
Their entire case.
Just a stunning court revelation over the weekend that you are not going to want to miss.
And when I say stunning, I mean it.
I'm not overselling this.
A stunning court revelation about this entire hole.
The DNC was hacked.
The Russians did it.
Are you sure about that?
We'll get to that in a second.
I also have to do some extensive debunking today.
I saw an article on Drudge that just puts out so many Democratic talking point falsehoods in one piece.
I feel the need to address it, especially during this election cycle.
All right, let's go.
Today's show brought to you by Buddies at Lending Club.
Big fan of Lending Club.
Listen, for decades, credit cards have been telling us, buy now, pay for it later with interest.
And despite your best intentions, interest can get out of control fast.
Unfortunately, a lot of us know the feeling.
With LendingClub, you can consolidate your debt, pay off your credit cards with one fixed monthly payment.
It's very easy to use.
Since 2007, LendingClub has helped millions of people regain control of their finances with affordable, fixed-rate personal loans.
No trips to a bank and no high-interest credit cards.
Just go to LendingClub.com.
Tell them about yourself, how much you want to borrow.
You pick the terms that are right for you if you're approved.
The loan is automatically deposited in 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.
Very easy to use, folks.
Go to LendingClub.com slash Dan.
Check your rate in minutes, 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.
LendingClub.com slash Dan.
All right, so story number one.
What have we been told?
Folks, this is just the whole entire thing is a complete joke and a hoax.
We've known this from the start, but we've been told by the collusion hoaxer crowd for a long time now.
We've been told that the DNC was hacked.
Follow me here.
Number one, because I'm going to need you.
Ombudsman Joe is not here today.
That the DNC was hacked by the Russians.
Staple number one of their case, right?
And that the Trump team colluded with the Russians.
That's now the second half of that has been entirely debunked.
We know there was no collusion.
But we were told the DNC was hacked by the Russians.
You remember that, right?
Well, how do we know that?
Well, supposedly we know that, dreaded air quotes.
We know that because the FBI must have analyzed these DMC computers, correct?
And figured out that they were in fact hacked by the Russians.
Understand, their whole collusion hoax was bedrocked on that.
Russians hacked into these DNC servers, stole the information, and gave it to the Trump team to influence the election.
That was their whole hoax!
So now we know the second part of that, that they colluded with the Trump team, has been entirely, completely, 100% decimated, destroyed.
It is a hoax.
Even the anti-Trump Bob Mueller, anti-Weissman team determined that that is in fact a hoax.
But ladies and gentlemen, what about the first Leg of this two-legged stool, if you could have one.
I don't even have three legs.
Got a teeter on it.
Balance it like a seesaw.
What if the first leg of that, the Russians hacked the DNC?
What if I told you we're having a really tough time finding conclusive evidence that that even happened?
Let me put up a screenshot from some court documents.
Hat tip American thinker.
Hat tip at TechnoFog on Twitter as well.
Here is a photo of a court document.
Roger Stone, many of you know Roger Stone.
Roger Stone was a Republican operative.
He was friendly with the Trump team for a while.
Roger Stone is being prosecuted by the Mueller team for some false statements charges.
So Roger Stone went to the court and said, listen, I want to see the FBI's documents about this hack of the DNC.
So, they come back in a court filing, the DOJ and the FBI, and again, hat tip, techno fog on this.
Here is a highlighted portion of their response about how the FBI and DOJ knows they were hacked by the Russians.
Copies of these reports were subsequently produced voluntarily to the government by counsel for the DNC and DCCC.
The DNC being the Democratic National Committee, DCCC, Democratic Congressional Committee, whatever, you know, it's their congressional arm, right?
So they did produce some documents about the Russian hacking into their computers.
It goes on.
At the time of... I gotta read that.
Sorry.
At the time of the voluntary production, counsel for the DNC told the government that the redacted material concerned steps taken to remediate the attack and to harden the DNC and DCCC systems against future attack.
Okay, so some documents were produced by the DNC and DCCC about the hack.
We know that.
Back to the footnote at the bottom of this piece.
Although the reports produced to the defendant are marked draft, counsel for DNC and DCCC inform the government that they are the last version of the report produced.
So let me get this straight.
Documents produced by the DNC showing that the Russians hacked the DNC computers and the DCCC computers.
They've only seen a draft report by CrowdStrike.
Remember, the FBI never looked at these computers.
Ever.
CrowdStrike, an independent, non-government entity, a computer security firm associated with the Democrat Party.
They had paid them for this contract here.
We're the ones who came in and concluded that the Russians had hacked the DNC server.
Now, that first part may have been a little confusing, but I wanted to establish the fact that they did produce some documents, but the documents they produced, keep in mind, we're talking about the CrowdStrike company, what they produced for the government, because the government never looked at these computers.
The documents they produced were just draft documents.
And apparently there were some significant redactions in there.
The government hasn't even seen the full document.
Now, look at the second part of this court filing.
It gets even worse.
In any case, this is what the government's arguing, the DOJ.
This is their words and their filing.
And in any case, the government does not need to prove at the defendant's trial, talking about Stone, that the Russians hacked the DNC in order to prove the defendant make false statements, tamper with a witness, etc, etc.
The defendant is thus not entitled to the information he seeks.
So, number one, they say, hey, we don't even need to prove the Russians hacked the DNC.
In other words, why would they say that?
Because they can't.
Because their whole case that the Russians hacked the DNC and traded the information with Donald Trump, both parts of that, we know the second part's a total hoax.
The first part, there's no hard evidence we have of that either at this point.
The government's not even confident in its own case.
It goes on.
The second part of this is an absolute gem.
And when I say gem, I mean like a piece of coal.
As the government has advised the defendant in a letter following the defendant's filing, in other words, Stone saying, I want to see these documents from CrowdStrike.
Listen to this doozy.
The government does not possess the material the defendant seeks.
The material was provided to the government by counsel for the DNC with the remediation information redacted.
However, the government has provided Defense Council the opportunity to review additional unredacted CrowdStrike reports it possesses, and Defense Council has done so too.
They don't even possess the original reports!
The government doesn't even have it!
Ladies and gentlemen, is this- put that up again, please!
This- is this not significant?
Look at bullet point number two!
The government does not possess the requested information!
They didn't even look at, the government doesn't, didn't even look at the servers and doesn't even have the information anymore.
All they saw was a draft report by CrowdStrike.
Folks, this entire thing is collapsing inwards on them.
This is going to get much, much worse.
They don't even have a final, they saw a draft report.
Unbelievable.
Is the FBI ever going to look at these computers and do their own report?
No, of course not.
Because you don't want to know what you're going to find.
Now, the two pegs of this case, the DNC hack and the collusion error.
The first part was based on this CrowdStrike report that the DNC computers were hacked by the Russians, right?
Which we now know is a draft report and the government doesn't even have the report anymore.
And then they tell Stone, and by the way, you can't see it anyway.
We are living in like a police state with these people now.
But the second part of this is critical, too, because there's another breaking news story by Paul Sperry this weekend.
Paul Sperry, who I follow on Twitter, has done some very good work into this case.
He's had some good, breaking, solid news at Real Clear Investigations, where he writes, I was looking at his Twitter the other day, And he has a fascinating little tidbit of information I think would be interesting to you to know.
Because the second component of this case that they colluded, that after the Russians stole the information from the DNC they were going to give it to the Trump team, hinges on Papadopoulos, this Trump aide, getting that said information from this guy Mifsud, who's alleged to have told Papadopoulos in an April of 2016 meeting, he's alleged to have told Papadopoulos, Mifsud that is, that the Russians had this dirt on Hillary.
Again, that's not the DNC.
Hillary's computers and the DNC are not the same thing.
But the FBI, in their broken logic, seems to think that this guy, Ms.
Sood, was a Russian agent.
You get it?
DNC?
Emails hacked by the Russians?
Again, questionable.
We've only seen a draft report.
Secondly, that information was going to be passed on, and the FBI and the Mueller report paint this guy Mifsud as having significant Russian connections, and he was going to give that information to Trump aide Papadopoulos.
What's the problem with this?
This guy Mifsud, as I've said a thousand times on this show, ladies and gentlemen, was not a Russian agent.
He was connected to Western intelligence assets.
Now, I've had this theory for a very long time based on sourcing information and research and two books I've written on the topic.
What makes me believe we nailed this from the start again?
If Sperry's tweet here is right, then boom, pow, ping, we nailed this thing.
Breaking!
The Washington Post is preparing a, quote, in-depth story on the mysterious Joseph Massoud, bylined by Shane Harris, who is good pals with Benjamin Whitties, Comey's top spinmeister.
Benjamin Whitties is the guy Jim Comey keeps leaking information to.
That's his buddy.
I think he writes for Lawfare Blog.
Whitty's buddy, according to Sperry, is this guy Shane Harris, who's about to write a piece about Mifsud.
Ladies and gentlemen, the piece has not come out yet.
I haven't seen it yet.
I'll keep my eyes out on it.
But I can guarantee you this piece is going to be Comey, his leak posse, his FBI and DOJ higher-ups.
It is going to be them getting out ahead of the story when they find Mifsud, that Mifsud was not, in fact, a Russian agent.
It was not his Russian connections that were a concern.
It was his Western connections.
In other words, ladies and gentlemen, this was a setup from the start.
Papadopoulos and the Trump team were framed with a capital F. I have been telling you this for almost two years now.
So to sum up where we were, so the whole hack narrative is based on a draft report with redactions that the government doesn't even have and they won't let Roger Stone see?
And secondly, that this information was going to be relayed through the Trump team, through Papadopoulos, through Joseph Massoud.
Now all of a sudden a report's coming out by the Washington Post by one of Comey's buddies.
Comey, let me be precise, one of Comey's buddies' buddies, according to Sperry.
There's going to be an expose about Mifsud.
I guarantee you this Mifsud story is going to be them trying to pre-frame the narrative.
Because it's going to come out that Mifsud was in fact working for our friendly intelligence assets who were working to set Papadopoulos up and say, look, we were going to give him information on Russians and he took it.
Are you Russian?
No, I work with these guys, the friendlies.
I've been telling you this for two years.
You've not been wasting your time.
It is going to be the biggest, Bombshell in this case yet.
I'm getting sick of that word and I get it, you probably are too because there are so many.
But I can't think of a more appropriate term to describe what's going to come out.
The two big unanswered questions.
Who was Ms.
Sood?
That's about to come out.
He was working with friendlies.
And secondly, who were the private contractors that were given access to the NSA database and were abusing it to get information?
Those are the two biggest open-ended questions right now.
But once we find out, this is not a coincidence that Comey's buddy's buddy is apparently writing this piece.
They're trying to get ahead of this story.
It's going to be bad, folks.
I'm telling you, it's going to be awful.
Okay.
I saw this in the Drudge Report yesterday as I was looking through it, this piece.
The piece was by France24.
Sorry, moving on, folks.
It's not related to the two legs of the broken Russia stool.
Can you imagine a two-legged stool?
You'd have to have fantastic gluteus maximus control.
You'd have to sit there in the middle like you're serving a surfboard or something like that.
But France 24 had this piece up and it's just, you know, you wonder why people can't stand the mainstream media.
The mainstream media is really generally a joke.
They're largely liberal activists.
Very few of them do good work.
And they repeat Democrat talking points that are obvious lies.
I joke with you often that I wake up every morning thinking, you know, what's my priority today?
What liberal lie are we going to destroy today?
It's just so easy to do because really almost all of the information they put out there,
it's substantive, and you know, substantive is just garbage.
So this French 24 piece has some real doozies in it.
It's basically an attack on the Trump tax cuts.
The piece is titled American Paradox, Deficit Widens Even As The Economy Grows.
And I put the piece up there, I'm gonna put some snippets up from the piece,
to show you how seamlessly Democrats repeat debunked talking points
with no concern for honesty or truth whatsoever, knowing you can research this yourself.
Now one of these you'll get a kick out of if you're a long-time listener, because you know it's been a bête noire of me for a long time.
This has been just stinging.
It's been a splinter under my skin forever.
Democrats love to repeat this broken talking point, as they do in the piece, about the Bill Clinton administration presidency running a surplus.
They do it to make, of course, Democrats look great and Republicans look bad.
Here it is.
This is, keep in mind, this piece was just, it's just from the other day, the 16th, as you can see at the bottom.
It says, the last time the United States posted a budget surplus was during the economic boom under Democratic President Bill Clinton in 99 and 2000 when Congress was controlled by Republicans.
Goes on to talk about the Iraq war and others.
Okay, so the premise here...
Oh, you older listeners are probably like, I can't believe we're going here again.
Yes, we are going here again because I cannot stand misinformation amongst ignoramus people like this who write this stuff and assume it's true because they have a journalism degree.
Ladies and gentlemen, there was no Clinton surplus.
This guy or woman, whoever wrote this piece, is writing that in the piece to make Donald Trump look extra bad.
Listen, the deficits and the annual deficits and the government debt we've accumulated and are still growing is horrible.
Very little has been done about it.
The Trump administration has said they're going to slow this down.
We have seen very little curbing and spending.
Deficits are out of control.
I'm not here to cover for anybody.
Deficits were entirely out of control in the Obama administration.
They were historic for all the wrong reasons.
But this debunked talking point that the Clinton administration ran government surpluses is, ladies and gentlemen, it is 100% made up.
It is garbage.
You are going to hear it during the 2020 election.
Now, I have a piece in the show notes I have put in, gosh, 10, 20, 30 times before.
By Craig Steiner.
It's an older piece from 2011.
But it is so well done.
It'll be in the show notes today at Bongino.com.
If you subscribe to my email list on the website, as always, I will send you these articles.
Folks, I'm sorry, but you almost can't even be a conservative without reading this piece.
Because this Clinton surplus talking point is bandied about so much, people actually believe it's true.
It is a myth.
Now, from the piece, which you can see again at Bongino.com, You will see he has a little chart that is very easy to read.
This is not complicated.
Ladies and gentlemen, the simple question you need to ask your friends, as you'll see by this chart as I go down it here, the very simple question for your liberal friends, if Clinton ran a surplus, why did the national debt go up every single year of the Clinton presidency?
Let me read off to you the numbers.
1993, national debt, $4.4 trillion.
1994, $4.6 trillion.
95, 4.9 trillion.
96, 5.2 trillion.
97, 5.4 trillion.
98, 5.5 trillion.
99, 5.6 trillion.
Fiscal year 2000, 5.67.
It was 5.65 the year before.
Fiscal year 2001, 5.807.
Paula, I'm not crazy.
Are those numbers going up every time?
trillion. 99, 5.6 trillion. Fiscal year 2000, 5.67. It was 5.65 the year before. Fiscal
year 2001, 5.807. Paula, I'm not crazy. Are those numbers going up every time? Do those
numbers ever go down? Thank you, Paula.
My wife is one of the most intelligent people I know, but honestly, she doesn't even need to recruit one one-millionth of her neuronal capacity to figure that out.
Can you put that chart up one more time?
I want to show you something.
Because I'm not here to knock what the Republican Congress did in conjunction with the Clinton administration.
There were some years, look at 2000, fiscal year 2000.
The deficit was only 17.9 billion.
That's pretty solid work right there.
I'm not here to knock them or make up or fabricate numbers.
But ladies and gentlemen, no year, no year, look at the chart of the Clinton presidency, had a surplus.
None.
The national debt went up every year.
Just ask your liberal friends a basic, simple question.
If Bill Clinton's administration ran a surplus, how did the national debt go up every year?
How does your debt go up if you're running a surplus?
It doesn't.
The trick they used, the accounting trick in the Clinton years to make it look like there was a surplus, ladies and gentlemen, Is they took your social security money and your payroll taxes, and they use that money to fund the government.
But that money has to be paid back.
It's still debt!
How is it not debt?
If it's your social security money you paid in, as many of you emailed me, which you did, and they take that money and spend it on government programs, the money's gone.
It's spent.
It's been given to someone else as a TANF check or a Section 8 voucher.
It's gone.
That money has to be paid back to you!
It's still debt!
The government ran a debt every single year of the Clinton administration.
Folks, listen, I'm not covering this today because we're short on topics.
I promise you, I've got a lot more to get to.
Please, I know sometimes I get emails, and we never ever do that.
There are a lot of great people out there, but there's some people in the business who run out of stuff to talk about, and you get air fluff, where they bring up a topic just to waste time.
That is not why I'm doing this.
This Clinton surplus talking point is going to be brought up repeatedly during the campaign to make the Obama administration, excuse me, the Trump administration look bad.
Now, the national debt is growing now.
Our annual deficit this year is horrible.
But don't compare it to Bill Clinton and suggest it was a surplus.
That is not in fact true.
You're making it up.
The national debt rose every year.
The only time they even got close to balancing the books was fiscal year 2000.
Please read that piece.
I can't, in strong enough terms, ask you to read it so you understand the shenanigans Democrats pull with this ridiculous Clinton surplus.
Okay.
Now, continuing from the France 24 piece, so we established how they've already put talking point number one out there, that Clinton's surplus existed, when in fact didn't.
It's a lie.
Again, it's a mathematical impossibility to increase your debt every year by running a surplus.
But the second snippet from the piece, they relay another ridiculous focus group test, the Democrat talking point, that again is in fact false, but France 24, you know, who expects any of these people to tell the truth?
He's talking about the Trump tax cuts and the piece that says, and while government revenues grew a modest 2% from October to May, total outlays jumped 9%.
Okay, just on that first one first.
In the piece, they're trying to make the point that the Trump tax cuts cost the government money.
Okay?
Cost the government.
That's their way of kind of phrasing this.
Again, we got into that last week and we debunked that extensively.
Tax revenues in 2018 were the second highest on record ever.
But watch the way in the second paragraph here, they rephrase the exact opposite of what they just said.
Put that back up again.
So I'm going to reread the first line.
It says, and while government revenues grew a modest 2% from October to May.
That's the fiscal year so far.
The government fiscal year starts October 1st.
Total outlays jumped 9%.
So in other words, they have a spending problem.
But in order to get away from that, they say the exact opposite.
They then go on to say Trump's tax cuts, which mostly benefited big corporations and the very rich, reduced revenues by 11%.
While military spending increased 13%, which also added to the bill.
I don't get it.
How could revenues be down by 11% when you just said revenues were up?
Can you put that up again?
Because I just want to make sure we're reading the same thing.
Let me show you this scam so you understand the scam these media people use.
Revenues are up by 2%.
The tax cuts did not cost the government anything.
Revenues are up.
When they say it reduced revenues by 11%, which is the exact opposite of what they say in the prior paragraph, what they're talking about are projections.
In other words, liberal projections about what tax cuts would have been.
Oh, and it's 11- not what the tax cuts actually are.
What the tax revenue- you get what I'm saying?
Please tell me that makes sense.
Actual revenues are up.
Money in the government coffers is up.
When they're talking about a decrease of 11%, they're talking about fictitious Aesop's Fable money.
Projected money.
Money that never materialized.
You understand how they do?
This is the trick they play with you.
I thought you just said revenues were up while you simultaneously suggested tax cuts cost the government revenue.
Now you're like, I don't get it.
You're not supposed to.
These people are liars.
Tax revenue is up.
Income tax collections are up.
The only revenue source that went down after the Trump tax cuts was the corporate tax, uh, to corporate tax intake.
It was a pretty big cut, which I guarantee you will recover like every other tax cut is recovered from in American history and produce more revenue.
Tax revenues are up!
Now, one more time with this, because there's another ridiculous, stupid, debunked talking point that I just gotta get out, because this just keeps coming up and coming up, and there's no adherence or fidelity to truth and honesty at all by these people.
They bring up in there that this was a tax cut for the very rich.
Let me read their exact words.
Trump's tax cuts, which mostly benefited big corporations and the very rich.
Okay, folks, this should be a relatively easy thing to discuss, right?
Did these tax cuts benefit only big business and the very rich, or did they not?
We now have a year's worth of data.
We should be able to figure this out.
But French 24 puts that in there as if it's fact!
The tax cuts benefited the very rich.
And big corporations!
This is all they do!
Is make this stuff up!
How do I know that?
Even the New York Times, ladies and gentlemen.
The New York Times of all places.
By Ben Castleman and Jim Tankersley.
April 14th, 2019.
Title.
Face it.
You probably got a tax cut.
Studies consistently find that the 2017 law cut taxes for most Americans.
Except many of them don't buy it.
Here's the first line of the report.
If you're an American taxpayer, you probably got a tax cut last year.
And there's a good chance you don't believe it.
Gee!
Why would that be?
Why would you not believe it?
Maybe because France 24 can't get their facts straight and said, you didn't get a tax cut, it was only for the very rich and the big corporations.
The slimes themselves!
The conspiracy theory promoting New York slimes!
How to actually admit that all of the gas lighting is not true!
You gotta tax cut, folks!
You don't believe me?
From the piece!
Other analyses reach similar conclusions.
This is from the New York Times.
The Joint Committee on Taxation, Congress's non-partisan team of tax analysts, found that every income group would see a tax cut on average.
So did the Institute on Taxation and Economic Supply, a left-leaning think tank that was sharply critical of the law.
In fact, that group went even further.
This is a left-wing group.
In a December 2017 analysis, it found that every income group in every state would pay less on average under the law in 2019.
I'm gonna read that again.
This left-wing group written about in the left-wing New York Times in an analysis found that quote
"every income group in every state would pay less on average under the law in 2019."
Folks, what part of this is not breaking through?
This is unreal how the New York Times themselves, it's so funny, the Times puts in the piece how the American people are getting a tax cut, every group in every state.
Nobody believes it.
And then France 24, in their own piece, writes the exact opposite.
And they wonder why nobody believes they got a tax cut.
Now listen, you know, shame on some of the Republicans up on the hill for not doing a better job selling this thing, but the reality is it's not all the Republicans' fault.
It's just easy to throw them under a Republican's, you know, complain about them, you know, to sound like, but it's not their fault.
They could do better, but this is primarily the fault of people like France24 and others.
Again, I credit the New York Times for writing that piece.
I don't want to, you know, they've done a horrible job on promoting the collusion hoax and, you know, the New York Times will generally attack Trump for nothing, make up a lot of nonsense.
Remember the Nikki Haley drape story?
You know, they'll attack at any opportunity.
But they can't run away from a simple statistical analysis that showed that this story is, in fact, incorrect.
That the tax cuts only benefited the very rich and corporations.
Ladies and gentlemen, it's just not true.
It's just entirely, completely made up.
But this is what the left does.
They are experts in misinformation and disinformation campaigns.
I got another one from the Wall Street Journal in a minute, too, that I want to get to, because it's another topic that really got under my, burrowed in like a tick, this net neutrality thing, but how the left just continued to promote a lie, even to this day, and unbelievably continues to get away with it.
I'll get to that in a second.
All right.
Today's show also brought to you by our buddies at Boosted.
You know what?
Let me just show you Boosted for a minute.
Hold on a sec.
Check this out.
That's my boosted board.
You see that?
Wheels all worn out.
Check that out.
Thank you, Paul.
Look at that!
Check that out.
You like that?
If you want to check it out, go to youtube.com slash bungie.
Now listen, instead of sitting in traffic, searching for parking or smelling your seatmate sandwich on the bus, imagine riding the streets, wind in your hair on your own with Boosted's electric vehicle.
Time spent in traffic is spent not exploring, creating and having fun.
Use Boosted to get where you need to be faster.
The remote on this thing is super easy to use.
Very intuitive.
Getting from point A to point B means spending more time waiting to moving.
If you're sick of waiting to get where you're going, let Boosted give you a lift.
Boosted's vehicle-grade electric skateboards and scooters are the modern solution to your transportation woes.
With a 22-mile range, 22 miles at a max speed of 24 miles an hour, Boosted's perfect for both running to the store and traveling across town.
Designed to provide a luxurious experience, it's no wonder Boosted was one of Time Magazine's best inventions of 2018.
It's pretty cool.
My daughter loves it too.
With five options to pick from, including their new scooter, the Boosted Rev, there's a personal electric vehicle that's tailor-made for you.
Starting at just $61 a month with financing, there's no better time to change how you move than right now.
Right now, Boosted is offering our listeners a $75 off.
$75 off the purchase of an electric vehicle when you use the code DAN.
Dan at Checkout.
Go to BoostedBoards.com.
Use code Dan at Checkout to get $75 off your vehicle.
That's BoostedBoards.com.
Promo code Dan at Checkout for $75 off.
BoostedBoards.com.
Dan at Checkout, $75 off.
Okay.
So we heard about, you know, net neutrality a long time ago and the Obama administration wanted to get control over the internet.
This is why I warned you, by the way, about opening up government control into the big tech companies, Facebook and Google, because once they do it, the government will unquestionably use that to commoditize these services, Facebook, Twitter, and elsewhere, and they will basically institutionalize and make de jure a lot of this thought suppression and elimination of conservative content we have now.
Introducing the government into any entity is always going to introduce a problem.
Ladies and gentlemen, the golden rule?
Big government, big problems.
Little government, manageable problems.
One more time.
Big government, big problems.
Little government, little problems, manageable problems.
Big government, Now, I told you this was net neutrality.
Even conservatives, some conservatives, I got filleted on this.
Net neutrality, the idea that the government should regulate internet service providers and their line was a bid is a bid is a bid.
Every piece of information on the internet should be treated the same.
Okay, that sounds cutesy.
That's another one of those talking points like the Clinton surplus and Trump's tax cuts benefited the rich.
It's a cutesy talking point.
The problem is it doesn't make any sense.
Because a bid is not a bid, okay?
If some dude next door is watching Netflix for 16 hours a day, hogging up the entire neighborhood's bandwidth, while I'm just trying to get online and check the stock price of Uber or whatever it may be, and I can't get online because the neighbor's hogging the stuff up, then the neighbor should pay.
Ladies and gentlemen, that's not price discrimination, that's called the free market, okay?
You wanna get in a bigger, more luxurious seat on an airplane?
You gotta pay for it.
You like saving money on an airplane?
You wanna sit in a bathroom seat?
Pay for the bathroom seat.
Whatevs.
That's your call.
Called the free market.
A bit is not a bit.
The government wanted to regulate the internet because that's what the government likes.
They wanted power over these entities because the government craves control.
Some conservatives, shockingly, got suckered by this.
So the Trump administration thankfully stopped a lot of this net neutrality garbage through Ajit Pai and the FCC.
Didn't stop any regulation of the internet at all, that's not true.
But turned it back over to the FTC and also the Federal Trade Commission if there were complaints to be had, which is where it should be.
Well, this piece in the Wall Street Journal is pretty telling.
Don't forget the net neutrality panic.
Remember like the Clinton surplus and the Trump tax cuts only benefited the rich?
Remember those panics?
Well, the net neutrality panic.
We were told when Trump's team got rid of this net neutrality stuff, ladies and gentlemen, the price for your broadband, your ISPs, the price for the internet was going to be out of control.
You're going to have to pay for this every second on the internet.
You're all going to go broke and it's going to slow down the internet and you're all going to get throttled.
Any of that actually happened?
From the piece.
Remember the prophecies of a web slowdown?
If we don't save net neutrality, you'll get the internet one word at a time!
The Senate Democrats' official account tweeted.
Instead, broadband tweens have actually gotten faster.
A good thing, given how many millions of people recently were simultaneously streaming Game of Thrones.
They lie to you.
All the time.
Every time.
It is nothing but a... I mean, it's like milking a cow with lies.
Milk, milk, milk.
Lie, lie, lie.
Democrat talking point.
Get the udder and milk the lies out of them.
The Democrat cow gives you nothing but lie.
This thick gooey substance of lie goo.
That is all they give you.
Goo.
It is all garbage every single time.
Nothing they tell you is true.
The Democrat cow cannot produce actual truthful milk ever.
It is beyond their capacity.
So they lie to you.
The internet's going to slow down.
The internet has a lot slowed.
It's actually sped up.
Trump tax cuts are going to benefit the rich.
They do not benefit the rich.
Did you even look at the data?
The Clinton surplus is real.
It's not real.
Can you do basic math?
That's why it's so easy to debate these people.
So, you know this, um, Press secretary thing opened up.
So I get a lot of tweets from people.
Some of us say, oh, get there, buddy.
He loves to debate the libs.
I do.
I love it.
I love every minute.
I know some conservators don't like it.
They don't like going.
Some of them, not all, but they don't like going on cable news and Fox and debating.
They just don't.
I don't know.
Maybe because it's more time for them.
I'm not knocking your approach.
I love it.
I love I know it even annoys some of you.
Some of you like I can't stand when you debate, you know, Geraldo or Chris Hunt.
I think it's the greatest thing ever.
I love it.
Because I'm totally comfortable with the facts on my side.
Facts don't lie.
People do.
All right.
New rules segment.
Moving on.
What'd I tell you about the new rules?
New rules show was one of our most listened to shows ever.
Ladies and gentlemen, the new rules right now.
We are in A political wartime posture here with the left and I only use that and I use that analogy.
I'm not comfortable with it.
I have to be candid with you because there's there's nothing like war, but I don't know any other way to hammer the analogy home.
So forgive me for a moment.
I've said before with Trump that the reason we're willing to forgive a lot of Donald Trump's political past, some associations with Democrats and others, is because right now, and the liberals and some never-Trump Republicans actually mock this, because he fights.
We're in the trenches with Donald Trump right now, and you're in a trench warfare fight.
You're not worrying about the guy's Twitter behavior, you're worried about the guy's ability to fight back against this oncoming onslaught.
The left wants you silenced, suppressed, in some cases would prefer you be jailed.
I mean, you ever see some of these like campus reform type videos where they go to a college campus and they ask what should happen to people who use the wrong pronoun?
I just saw this the other day.
And the woman they were interviewing actually suggests that you should be in handcuffs because you use the wrong pronoun for a transgender person, that you should be put in jail.
It was a real interview.
I saw it.
You know, we had the case in Kentucky and others.
I mean, it's not uncommon for the tyrannical liberals to want you in handcuffs in jail and want you to be silenced.
So I said, the new rules are this.
The new rules are we win, you lose.
Those are the new rules.
This whole, we gotta be diplomatic, we gotta be cutesy about it, we gotta be nice with the left.
We have to be personally kind.
We're obligated personally to follow a moral code.
Many of us are spiritual, religious beings.
I am, I'm a Christian.
It would be sinful and immoral for me to personally treat people in an unsolicited manner in a horrible way.
But when we're engaging in this political combat right now, ladies and gentlemen, the new rules are in effect.
We have to win, and they have to lose.
Because they want you silenced.
So I found three stories this weekend to show you how bad this has gotten, and how finally, finally people are starting to take back using the new rules.
Remember, we win, You lose.
We're not always gonna win.
Sometimes O2 rules, you know what?
They may be applied to us.
They're coming for us too.
But we're fighting back right now.
This time for, you know, roasting marshmallows and singing kumbaya is long gone.
Story number one.
This Oberlin College case, covered beautifully by William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection.
Oberlin College was hit with $22 million in punitive damages by a bakery.
This was covered by Legal Insurrection.
The show will be in the show notes.
Let me just give you a quick synopsis.
You may have heard the case about it on Tucker's show.
Tucker Carlson.
There's a bakery, Gibson's Bakery, outside of Oberlin College.
It's been there forever.
It's been there, I believe, since prior to the Great Depression.
Oberlin College is very, very liberal.
Couple kids walk into this bakery, try to steal wine.
They get caught.
No, they try to pay for the wine.
Excuse me, they get caught, they're not of age.
They then try to steal the wine.
Owner catches them.
Kids start beating up on the owner.
Kids wear minorities.
Kids get arrested.
You may say, what's the problem?
Of course, it's a liberal college.
So the liberal college, instead of simply staying out of it and letting the legal system take care of it, the liberal college decides, because these kids who tried to steal the wine from the place, and it got stopped by the owner, and it proceeded to beat the owner up, by the way, Oberlin College then decides that they are going to start to instigate protests against Gibsons because these students were minority, and it was racial profiling.
There have been no problems with this bakery for a hundred years, but now all of a sudden, liberal Oberlin decided they were going to start to attack them.
Now, this is amazing.
The court filings are on Legal Insurrection's Twitter feed.
I strongly encourage you to read these.
I could have put them all up, but I wanted to pick this one.
Read this highlighted portions.
This is absolutely incredible.
These are emails within the college showing you how afraid they are of the social justice warrior students who are completely delusional about this being a racial incident.
The guy didn't want his product stolen.
Look at these highlights.
One of the emails they pointed out from various administrators within the school that the students may throw a tantrum on campus in the cafeteria while eating dinner and that might be a reason to get their cookies and bagels elsewhere.
What does that mean?
The college had a contract with the bakery that had the incident with the students trying to steal the wine.
They cancelled the contract because they were afraid that the students, like a bunch of children, were going to start throwing the cookies and bagels on the floor.
Ladies and gentlemen, is this Romper Room?
Aren't these kids embarrassed?
Oh my gosh, you're afraid the kids are going to start stomping on bagels and cookies on the floor because a couple of students were arrested for trying to steal wine?
Do you kids have anything else to do in this college?
Where were the adults on this college campus?
It goes on.
These internal emails are devastating.
Again, this is one.
You can go to legalinsurrection, it's at legendsurrection on Twitter.
You can read all this stuff.
It is, the emails are unbelievably embarrassing for this Oberlin College.
It goes on.
The concern was that the students were angry, Plakis, who's one of the lawyers, asked.
The fear was that angry students would throw the food made by Gibson's on the floor and stomp on it.
What are the people at the school?
Yes, that was one of the concerns they answered.
It goes on.
Doesn't that sound more like a nursery school than a college, the lawyer asks?
Nursery school students do throw food on the floor.
Yes, they are.
This is unbelievable.
They were afraid of the students throwing cookies and bagels on the floor.
Like, this is like, who are the people in your neighborhood?
This is like Mr. Rogers' neighborhood.
These are children in college.
They're worried about near-grown adults in Oberlin College throwing food and stomping on it on the floor because a kid got arrested for trying to steal wine.
New rules though.
Oberlin College fought back.
Gibson's fought back against Oberlin College.
And Oberlin College got smoked.
Smoked!
Like a Cohiba.
22 million dollars, the maximum allowed by law, in punitive damages, this college is gonna pay to that bakery.
You know folks, I told you a long time ago, my friend Tom Fitton at Judicial Watch, he has a line about how the left makes the process punishment.
Don't ever forget that line.
The left understands that they don't have to win a case against you, all they have to do is sue you.
The left understands it.
They don't have to prove Trump-Russia collusion.
They just have to lob the charge and start an investigation.
They didn't prove it.
Trump was exonerated.
Fully.
Fully exonerated.
But it doesn't matter.
They beat him up for two years of his presidency.
They cost him and his team a fortune in time, legal expenses, stress.
The left has learned to make the process the punishment, not the result.
Tell me you understand that, please.
It's important.
Now it's time we do the same thing.
Oh, damn, that's immoral.
No, no.
Sorry, it's not.
That process exists.
And if the left wants to use that process to attack us, then we will use that process on the right cause of this, fighting back like Gibson's Bakery did, to make sure that people who attack us pay, too.
Good for Gibson's bakery.
I got another example of peak snowflake, by the way.
I want to make sure if you do business with this conference, you know what's going on.
Let me get this one.
We have one final read for the day.
Good company wants to be here, and then we'll get to the rest of this.
Don't go anywhere.
I got two more stories for you.
They're very important.
All right, Hair Club.
Ladies and gentlemen, confidence is important.
Listen, everybody needs good hair, right?
Good hair is the key to good confidence.
Sometimes one small change can make a difference.
HairClub knows this.
They're inviting you to become part of the HairClub family to see how getting the most out of your hair can change your life.
They understand the emotions you're feeling and the questions you have about your hair.
HairClub is the leader in total hair solutions with a legacy of success.
For over 40 years!
40 years.
Whether you're looking to revitalize the growth of your own hair or to learn more about the latest proven methods for hair replacement or restoration, HairClub's professionally trained stylists, hair health experts, and consultants will craft a personalized solution to ensure you feel your best and get the most out of your hair.
See it for yourself.
See how powerful great hair can be.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is super easy to use.
They really care about you there.
If you're even remotely interested in looking into some issues you're having with your hair, go to HairClub.
Check them out.
HairClub.com slash Bongino.
HairClub.com slash Bongino.
They're there for you.
They are super customer friendly.
Go to HairClub.com slash Bongino today for a free hair, health, and scalp analysis for new customers.
Enjoy a $250 savings on any qualifying HairClub service after your initial consultation.
That's HairClub.com slash Bongino for a free hair, health, and scalp analysis, and enjoy a $250 savings on any qualifying hair club service.
HairClub.com slash Bongino.
HairClub.com slash Bongino.
Experience your hair and your life at its best only with HairClub.
I'm certain you'll love the club.
Check it out.
HairClub.com slash Bongino.
Okay.
So again, I look around on the weekends and I'm trying to find some of these stories and I thought about this new rules segment and I said, okay, new rules.
You want to start dancing with us?
Let's dance.
You want to tango?
Let's tango.
You want to Foxtrot with us too?
Let's bingo, babe.
Let's do it.
So there's this conference.
It's a cybersecurity conference.
Some black hat cybersecurity conference.
I love black That sounds so like, you know, mysterious.
The Black Hat Cybersecurity Conference.
Surprised the left there, Identity Politics, hasn't lost their mind.
You can't say Black Hat!
You can't say that!
Clearly you're a racist.
So they had this cybersecurity conference and the keynote speaker was going to be a Republican who I don't agree with all the time.
He's kind of a moderate, but Will Hurd from Texas.
Will Hurd was a member of the intelligence community for a long time.
Very smart man.
Again, I don't always agree with what he has to say.
But Will Hurd, having been an intelligence community member, now a member of Congress from the important state of Texas.
Sheesh, what better guy, right?
To keynote a black hat intelligence community conference.
This guy's a real, right, this guy's a stud.
You'd want this guy, at least in that field.
This is like an A plus guest to get.
No, no, not according to Axios.
Snowflake social justice warriors strike again.
Will Hurd loses cyber keynote over women's issue votes.
So apparently because Will Hurd voted pro-life in certain cases, these social justice warriors pressured this Black Hat conference to kick Will Hurd off their keynote and these idiots actually tweeted about it and their Twitter account which explains why they weren't sensitive to the politics.
I thought it was an intelligence conference you knuckleheads.
That they weren't sensitive to it and that Will Hurd was going to be removed.
This tweet, by the way, is being ratioed into the Phantom Zone.
You know what ratioed is?
For those of you who don't use Twitter, if you tweet something and it gets Tons more comments than it does retweets.
That's called getting ratioed.
It's complicated, but it basically means that people are attacking you via comments, but nobody's retweeting it, meaning they don't like it.
So if you have a bad ratio, a thousand comments to ten retweets, that means you probably tweeted something dumb and people are commenting on it.
And it ain't good.
So Blackhat, their conference Twitter account, the tweet is being ratioed into the phantom zone.
Folks, listen, I'm not telling you to boycott anything.
You spend your own money wisely.
You're all smart people.
I hate boycotts, personally.
I mean, in some places, I don't spend my money.
But I'm just saying, if you're doing business with this black hat thing, you may start to ask yourself why people who support life are not welcome.
Just a question, a respectful question.
Will Hurd's not welcome?
An important voice out there?
Again, I don't even agree with Will Hurd on a lot of issues.
He's very moderate on some issues I'm not.
I'm very conservative on.
But kicking a guy off a conference?
Are you kidding me?
Ridiculous.
So ridiculous.
And things have gotten so out of control.
Okay.
Last story in the new rules.
Ask the questions.
Just ask the question.
You deal with Blackhat?
Why are Republicans not welcome?
I'd like to know.
Interesting story at the wrap.
The wrap with a W, of course.
New rules!
Get woke, go broke.
Of course, I didn't make that up.
I just love that line.
I see it on Twitter all the time.
You know, the liberals, the snowflakes, social justice warriors, they have this thing, we're woke.
Woke meaning, you know, we're identity politics people.
We're aware of the diversity issues.
We are so read in on the liberal agenda.
Well, conservatives usually joke, okay, get woke.
In other words, get liberal, go broke.
Your company will probably go out of business.
Well, proving my point, that again, the new rules are in effect, and conservatives are absolutely tired of getting crap done by Hollywood media types, Oberlin College, and people like Black Hat, a couple movies came out this past week or week and a half ago, and they bombed.
Big time.
What does this have to do with this segment?
Oh, don't go anywhere, I will explain.
The rap.
Men in Black International leads box office, but sequels keep slumping.
The spinoff and shaft open below expectations, while Dark Phoenix continues to crash.
Folks, I don't want to be overly dramatic about the implications of this, but there's no question in my mind, because I know I can speak for myself, obviously, and friends of mine.
So we see two movies there that are crashing and doing abysmal business.
Men in Black International.
Oh, is that the movie where Tessa Thompson, the co-star of the movie?
She was in Creed, and I think she was in Thor Ragnarok as well.
Um, she made a comment about how the title of the movie should be changed or can be changed later all to what like people in black or something that men in black what like insinuating somehow that it was in some way misogynistic.
Folks, let me tell you something.
Here's me walking to the movie theater, right?
To see Men in Black International, right?
I didn't really do this, but just let's play the game for a minute.
So I'm walking, here's the movie theater door.
Then Dan Bongino opens up his phone, talking about himself in the third person, like Bob Dole, right?
He gets up to the door.
On his phone, he sees a Twitter.
Men in Black female star says the title should be People in Black.
Here's me, wait.
Here's me getting in my car.
Let's use the remote.
Here's me getting in my car.
So now I'm in the car and here's the car.
Speeding away.
Away from the movie theater immediately.
I'm not interested in your social justice warrior nonsense.
The title of the movie is Men in Black.
It's not a shot on women.
It's a joke.
It's a joke.
Tessa, get over it.
But of course, she spoke.
So that movie, of course, is bombing.
Too bad.
Not so sad.
Dark Phoenix.
A movie I actually was interested in seeing.
Dark Phoenix is an X-Men movie.
I like Marvel.
I grew up on Marvel comic books.
It was a great escape for me when I was a kid.
It's not some sob story.
Don't worry.
But you know, when I was a kid, I used to love comic books.
Things got a little rough at one point.
And to this day, it kind of allows me to go back to my childhood.
I loved the X-Men growing up.
I thought they were really great.
I'm not seeing this movie.
Not interested at all.
Turns out that Sophie Turner, who plays the Phoenix in the X-Men movie, is another one of these, you know, we have to terminate the lives of infants in the womb people.
And if you don't support me, I'm not going to support you.
We're going to boycott Alabama and their new, or Georgia, excuse me, their new pro-life laws.
And Sophie Turner decided she, again, if you're a pro-lifer, she can't support your state of your business, so we can't support you either, Sophie.
You're the lead in the movie.
Bye-bye.
See ya.
Wouldn't want to be.
I'll watch it free when it comes up on TNT, but I ain't giving you anything.
Of course, Jennifer Lawrence is in that movie too, made disparaging comments about Christians a long time ago.
But yeah, continue to ask us for our money.
Dumbest business model ever.
Ever.
Dumbest business model I have ever seen in my entire life.
Get woke.
Alright, one last story of the day, being the show host was worth your time.
Andy McCarthy had a great piece in National Review, I'm going to cover it quickly, about, again, the double standard when it comes to Trump's comments, his interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC, where I thought he was crystal clear.
The title of the piece is Democrats' hypocrisy on foreign interference.
To be clear, the Democrats for days have been losing their minds.
Still, on Monday, even though Trump was crystal clear on what he said, Trump said if, you know, foreigners tried to give him information, it depends what the information is, he may go to the FBI.
He may, if it depends what it was.
So McCarthy sums this up beautifully.
Here's the first part of his speech.
Here's the standard for Republicans.
He says, you see how this works?
In the Stephanopoulos construct, excuse me, when a Republican president gets information about the Democrat rival, there is a duty to treat the matter as a crime and report it to the FBI.
The Outreach Show is not a crime, and the FBI won't actually do anything with it other than note it in an intelligence file.
But, the transparent purpose of this construct is to convert any Republican failure to report this non-crime into a scandal bordering on treason.
So... Andy McCarthy is the best of the best at cream of the crop.
So when Republicans get information from foreigners, however non-criminal it may be, if they don't immediately report it to the FBI, this is treason.
Well, what's the standard for the Democrats?
This is a beaut.
By contrast, when a Democrat president's in power, the intelligence community is placed in the service of the Democratic candidate.
If a foreign power reaches out with information, no matter how dubious, about the Republican candidate, the administration does not notify the FBI to investigate the foreign power for interfering in our election.
The Democratic administration thanks the foreign power and then directs the FBI to investigate the Republican candidate.
Yes!
Yes!
Republicans, you either report every piece of foreign information or it's treason.
When Democrats get information about the Republican candidate, demand the FBI investigate them, no matter how dubious or ridiculous the information non-criminal is, and make sure the IC is weaponized to attack your political opponents.
That's genius.
How we're ever going to continue a constitutional republic like this with double standards and rules like this is beyond me.
All right, folks.
Thanks again for tuning.
I hope you saw me on Fox & Friends.
Please, if you didn't, tune in tomorrow.
I'll be guest hosting again on Tuesday.
Check it out.
I really appreciate it.
I'll be guest hosting from 6 to 9, Fox & Friends.
Check that out.
Thanks for everything, folks.
Please subscribe to our account, youtube.com slash Bongino.
Subscribe to our show on Apple Podcasts, iHeartRadio, SoundCloud.
It's all free, but the subscriptions are what help us move up the charts.
It really matters a lot to us.
Thanks so much for your loyalty.
I really appreciate it.
You just heard The Dan Bongino Show.
You can also get Dan's podcasts on iTunes or SoundCloud.
