And the Worst Person of the Week is... # 1006 (Ep 1006)
In this episode I address the explosive revelations by John Solomon about additional fake information used to target the Trump team. I address a new bill by a GOP Senator which has the big tech companies running scared. I discuss the “worst person of the week.”Finally, I address the lack of energy on the Democrats’ side and the astonishing Trump fundraising numbers. News Picks:
AOC doubles down on her profound ignorance.
Were Donald Trump’s personal calls spied on too?
The Mueller sham-investigation is looking worse and worse.
GOP Senator introduces a bill which has Big Tech terrified.
The Trump 2020 campaign raised a staggering amount of money in their opening bid.
This Democrat staffer earns our first “worst person of the week” award.
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?
Well, it's Thundering Thursday and I'm here with Dan and glad to be here.
Down for the Thundering Thursday, you know.
Thundering Thursday, yeah.
I don't know where he gets his folks.
I have no idea.
I don't coach him on this stuff.
We had a great conversation before the show.
You know, we should have incorporated that into the show.
Joe, you know, Joe was a rocker in his day.
Like, really played, man.
Did the real thing.
And I was watching a documentary on a plane about Joan Jett and the Runaways, and I was asking Joe, I'm like, Listen, I don't mean to—I love Joan Jett.
She was awesome in Leta Ford and everything.
But, man, the Runaways were just not good.
Their music was so bad.
That song, Cherry Bomb, may be the worst song ever recorded.
I'm like, Joe, you're a musician.
I'm like, am I crazy?
He's like, no, you're not crazy.
That song was awful.
So I may be opening myself up to significant audience negative feedback, but that's okay.
I'm not going to lie to you.
I think Cherry Bomb may be the worst rock and roll song ever recorded.
I'm sorry, man.
I love music, but that was bad.
So thank you, Joe.
It was a good conversation.
Oh yeah, it was fun.
Hey, I'm going to introduce a new segment today, too.
Sorry, I didn't mean to step on you there.
Worst person of the week.
So I couldn't think of any other simpler way.
Who is the worst person of the week?
Stay tuned for the end of the show for the worst person of the week in the worst environment on earth, the swamp.
This guy is a real piece of work.
All right, I got a lot to get to today, including John Solomon's news last night.
You may have missed it.
It was pretty good.
Today's show brought to you by our buddies at SoFi.
SoFi.
Hey, do you know millennials have three times as much student debt as their parents?
That's not right.
Get your student loans refinanced now with SoFi.
It's a fast and easy process all online.
It only takes two minutes to check your rate.
We love SoFi.
Refinancing your student loans could save you thousands.
SoFi is the leading student loan refinancer in the United States.
I had a lot of student loans.
I went back to college twice after I got my BA.
We had a lot of student loans.
We've refinanced hundreds of thousands of student loans.
98% of SoFi members would recommend SoFi to a friend.
It's fast.
It's easy.
All online.
Check your rate in two minutes.
Lock in a fixed low rate.
Who's better than you?
One simple monthly payment.
Refinancing your student loans could save you thousands of dollars.
Lowering your interest rate or choosing one of SoFi's flexible terms Could save you money.
When you refinance your student loans with SoFi, you also get access to SoFi membership.
Exclusive benefits help you get ahead with your money, your life, and your career.
Access to awesome member experiences such as SoFi-sponsored cocktail hours, free tickets to shows, sporting events, and more.
Access to complimentary career coaches to help you get your next promotional race.
Check your rate in just two minutes on SoFi.com.
That's S-O-F-I.com slash Dan.
SoFi.com slash Dan.
SoFi.com slash Dan.
SoFi Lending Corp.
CFL number 6054612.
Go check it out.
SoFi.com slash Dan.
All right, let's go!
Yeah!
So, um, yeah.
So last night, Johnny Solomon, our guy from the hill, was on Hannity.
And, uh, I wouldn't call it so much breaking news.
We covered this in my book, Spygate.
It's an older story with a new twist to it.
But the gist of it was interesting in context of this older Politico piece I'm going to cover here.
Politico had broken a long time ago after the Mueller report.
I should say broken because it was in the Mueller report.
A story that's important related to this breaking news last night.
Hang with me here because this is fascinating, folks.
This is an interesting angle.
So a while ago, Darren Samuelson, Kyle Cheney, and Natasha Bertrand, these are not like pro-Trump people at all, by the way.
They're kind of left-leaning journalists.
But they had this piece out, What You Missed in the Mueller Report.
And down buried inside the piece, I shouldn't say buried, they weren't hiding it, but inside the piece was the revelation that there was potentially a third scope memo.
Third scope memo.
Now, bear with me, because this is very important.
It speaks to my entire second book, which is now done, being printed as we speak.
I am super stoked about this.
My second book, Exonerated.
The whole gist of my second book is that Mueller knows right away That he's investigating a hoax, a hoax, the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, the Chupacabra.
He knows it.
There's actually more evidence for Bigfoot and the Chupacabra than there are for Trump collusion.
Mueller, Bob Mueller, the special counsel, knows this right away.
So you have to ask yourself if he knows this right away, instantly when he's hired, and you may say, well, how did he know right away?
Because the guy he hires first, Andrew Weissman, ladies and gentlemen, was briefed in 2016.
Mueller's not hired till 2017.
That the case had political origins, that Steele just didn't want to see Trump elected, and that the dossier had issues.
Weissman already knows this.
So let's be clear on that.
Mueller knows from the start this thing is a hoax.
By July, when he sees Peter Strzok and Lisa Page texts, they're handed over to him by July of 2017.
By the inspector general who's like, hey, we got a problem, Bob.
He 100% knows not only is it a hoax, it's probably a setup.
So you have to ask yourself what the...
H.E.
Double Hockey Sticks, as my daughter Isabel used to say, was he doing for 675 days?
Solomon's Revelation, in conjunction with the bedrock of this politico piece down below, I should say it's a little snippet of this politico piece down below, it'll make more sense.
They talk about inside the politico piece a third scope memo.
A third scope memo?
What do you mean there was a third scope memo?
In other words, Bob Mueller gets hired by Rod Rosenstein, and he says, go after Trump for Russian collusion.
Now, I want you to keep in mind, because this is an important point.
Why does this third scope memo matter?
It matters because the whole purpose for hiring Bob Mueller was the allegation, Joe, that the Department of Justice couldn't handle this because Jeff Sessions was conflicted because of a meeting he had with the Russians that Mueller himself acknowledged was totally innocuous.
Right.
Does this make sense?
Yeah.
The only reason Mueller was hired as a special counsel Is because there was an allegation amongst Democrats, a false one, that the DOJ under Trump was too, under Sessions, was too conflicted to be able to handle this.
So the Russia stuff had to be analyzed by Mueller.
I just told you Mueller knows right away, though, that the Russia stuff is all false.
So what's Mueller doing the whole time?
Well, interestingly enough, when he finds out the collusion stuff is a hoax, which is immediately, He knows right away, but at the best case scenario for Mueller, best case is he finds out just a couple months later in July of 2017.
I've said to you from the start, he keeps looking, looking, looking, probing, touching, poking for new reasons to investigate Trump.
Why?
Because he knows collusion is a hoax.
So you have this initial scope memo, Rod Rosenstein, which instructing Mueller what to do.
Go find Russian collusion.
There's a second scope memo issued a few months later on August 2nd, which authorizes him to go after Paul Manafort and stuff involving Ukraine.
What does that have to do with Russian collusion?
We now find out that there may have been a third scope memo to expanding Mueller's ability to reach into the Trump campaign to investigate other people that had nothing to do with Russian collusion either.
Ladies and gentlemen, what is happening here?
Do you have that snippet from the Politico piece, by the way?
What's happening here is Mueller keeps expanding his probe farther and farther from his initial charter to go after Russians because he knows the Russian stuff is a hoax.
Hey, here we go here, from this Politico piece.
It wasn't the only scope memo, however.
The Mueller report revealed that Rosenstein delivered a more detailed version of the memo in October of 2017, this is the third one, that cleared the way for investigations into Roger Stone, Michael Cohen, Rick Gates, and two other individuals whose names were redacted for, quote, personal privacy.
Folks, a third... What is going on here?
Now let me tie it, because you may be saying, I don't get it.
How does this tie to what Solomon said last night?
You haven't gotten to that yet.
Keep this in mind.
The Mueller probe is a farce from the beginning.
He's hired to investigate Russia because Russia supposedly conflicted, the Russian collusion thing, because they met with Sessions.
He is not hired to do all this other stuff.
But he keeps going back to Rosenstein to ask for more power to do things not related to Russia.
Why?
Because he wants to investigate Trump endlessly!
Now, Solomon reports last night in The Hill, which is a really terrific piece, on something we discussed in Spygate.
It's not necessarily breaking news, but he has a really unbelievably good angle on it.
John Solomon, which he discussed this on at Hannity, by the way, on Fox.
His piece is in the show notes today at Bongino.com.
Please check it out.
Subscribe to my email list.
I'll send it to you.
FBI warned early and often that Manafort file might be fake and used it anyway.
So now we know the FBI relied on the dossier to spy on the Trump team.
We know that was fake.
But now we find out that the second scope memo, which is Mueller's effort to keep the investigation going because he knows collusion is a hoax.
So Mueller goes to Rosenstein to get the authority to investigate Manafort, Joe.
Why?
Because he'd have to shut his investigation down otherwise.
He knows the collusion thing is a hoax.
Are you tracking me?
Oh yeah.
This is where it gets even worse.
Oh yeah.
This is where it gets even worse.
So he asks for the authority now to go after Manafort, even though Manafort has nothing to do with Russian collusion or his original purpose for being hired.
What's the problem here?
The information they used, the infamous Black Ledger, which to be clear on what this was, Was a ledger of an alleged cash payment made to Paul Manafort for some lobbying on behalf of Ukrainian officials.
Mm-hmm.
Track me here.
It's basically a piece of a ledger taken out that shows some illicit, tax evading, anti-lobbying type cash payment, the Haydn payment made to Manafort.
Okay, so...
What you're saying is, well, Mueller might have discovered that Manafort was paid in cash in violation of some U.S.
law.
What's the problem?
The ledger is a fake.
Nobody can prove this thing is credible.
From John Solomon's piece, for example, Ukraine's top anti-corruption prosecutor, prosecutor, forgive me, I'm going to say his name wrong, Nazar Klotenitsky told me he warned the US, talking about, this is in Solomon's Voice, told me he warned the US State Department's law enforcement liaison and multiple FBI agents in late December of 2016 that Ukrainian authorities who recovered the ledger believed it was likely a fraud.
So now we have not just one, the dossier fake document used to spy on the Trump team, we have this black ledger of a cash payment made to Manafort Who Mueller clearly uses this to go back to Rosenstein to ask for more authority to do things entirely unrelated to his Russian collusion case that he already knows is a hoax.
Folks, it was a fake.
Now, put up screenshot number one from the Hill piece where they use this for the search warrant.
This is where it gets, this is insane.
Listen to what Mueller did.
Mueller's a good guy, the Democrats.
No, he's not a good guy.
What he did was a disgrace.
From Solomon's piece.
But with Manafort, the FBI in Mueller's office did not, This is amazing.
They didn't even cite the actual ledger, which would require agents to discuss their assessment of the evidence, and instead, they cited media reports about it.
The feds assisted on one of those stories as a source.
Hold on a second on that.
Think about what I'm telling you, folks.
Yeah.
Backtrack a little bit.
Mueller's investigating a fraud.
He has to expand his authority because he can't just come out and say collusion's a hoax.
He has to hammer Trump because that's what Mueller does.
He was a vindictive, horrible person at the end.
Him and Weissman.
I don't leave Weissman.
Weissman's even worse.
Mueller may have been a decent guy.
He was corrupted by Weissman.
They have to keep expanding their investigatory net and their investigatory trap because they don't have anything.
So they keep going back to Rosenstein.
Hey, can we investigate this?
Can we investigate that?
Hey, the second scope memo.
We need to investigate Manafort.
Why do you want to investigate Manafort?
Hey, look at this black ledger we got.
It says Manafort was getting cash payments from Ukraine.
He wasn't declaring them.
Tax violations, FARA violations.
This is big trouble.
The Ukrainians told them this ledger was a fraud.
Listen, I'm not defending Manafort.
He's got his own issues.
Right.
Right.
But even worse, Joe, after being told the ledger was most likely a fraud, instead of citing the ledger in search warrants they used to go hit Manafort's house at six o'clock in the morning and wake up his wife out of bed.
Right.
They cited media reports.
Back to that snippet from the Hill piece.
For example, agents mentioned the ledger in an affidavit supporting a July 2017 search warrant for Manafort's house, citing it as one of the reasons the FBI resurrected the criminal case against Manafort.
Now, the next part of the piece, this gets even better.
They cite an AP article, Joe.
Come on.
The FBI.
Yes, yes, yeah, you're not going to wait.
Yes!
They cite an AP article and a search warrant to raid Manafort's house.
This guy knows collusion's a hoax, Mueller.
They cite an April 12, 2017 AP article which reported that DMI, which is Manafort's company, showed two payments that were made to his company that correspond to payments in the, quote, black ledger an FBI agent wrote in a footnote to the affidavit for the search warrant.
There are two glaring problems with that assertion.
First, the FBI agent failed to disclose that both FBI officials and the Department of Justice prosecutor Andy the Hack Weissman, who later became Mueller's deputy, met with those AP reporters one day before the story was published and assisted in their reporting.
Folks, listen to me.
The republic is dying a slow death here and hack disturbed police state tyrant democrats and their sycophantic media acolytes who have sewed their lips to the rear end of liberal activists out there are decimating the republic.
Do you understand what I just told you here?
The Mueller team knows this is a hoax.
There's no evidence it exists.
Instead of saying, listen, case closed, there's no there there, America move on.
They need reasons to keep it going.
They keep going back to Rosenstein for a second scope memo, here's new authority.
For a third scope memo, here's even more authority.
They base the second scope memo Unbelievably, on search warrants and stuff, they acquired, on a fake document, the Black Ledger, and instead of actually using the Black Ledger as evidence, which they don't do in the Mueller Report, they use an article written about the Black Ledger, about these cash payments, and who met with the people who wrote the article?
The same guy, Andy Weissman, citing that as evidence.
Please, I'll give you a quick analogy.
I want to accuse Joe of robbing a bank.
Joe didn't rob the bank.
So I make up a fake confession from Joe.
I robbed the bank.
Signed, Joe Armacost.
It's not even in his handwriting.
No.
I then go to the media and I say, media, listen, I'm Dan Bongino, prosecutor.
I have evidence here.
I'm going to leak this to you that Joe Armacost robbed the bank.
I have this letter.
Can we see the letter?
No, you can't see it.
The media writes a report that there's a written confession about Joe Armacost.
The FBI then uses the media report I leaked about the fake confession I wrote to get a warrant to go hit Joe's house.
You got nothing!
That is what happened.
You got nothing!
Nothing!
You got nothing!
Look at this.
I know you can't see my notebook.
Yeah.
But that's funny you said that.
Yeah.
Because, had nothing.
That's what I wrote right there.
Yeah, you got nothing.
They had nothing the whole time.
They had to fabricate and invent new reasons to continue this horrible, disturbed investigation.
So although Solomon's breaking news last night about the Black Ledger and how the FBI used another debunked discredited document to continue investigating Trump's team.
And by the way, in Trump's interview last night with Hannity, he dropped another nuclear bomb that the DOJ is looking into the recording potentially of his personal calls.
Which, by the way, I discussed on the show a long time ago.
I have no doubt that happened.
None.
But Solomon's story last night, I covered in the initial Spygate, my book.
The Black Ledger is, that's kind of, I'm not knocking, don't take this the wrong way.
Solomon is a terrific, fantastic reporter.
Please read his story.
But the existence of the Black Ledger is old news.
The new news angle he has to it is that the Ukrainians are now acknowledging that this thing was probably a fake and that the FBI relied on it for search warrants.
And in the search warrants, we used media reports.
Folks, this is so disgusting.
It's beyond belief.
All right, coming up, I got a lot more ahead.
Again, worst person of the week.
I have finally, somebody puts out a bill.
Josh Hawley, a prominent Republican Senator, just elected.
He beat Claire McCaskill.
I'm going after big tech.
You may say, oh, that's great news.
I don't know, folks.
Not so much.
Hold on.
There's some big problems with the bill.
I know, you know, suppressing conservative thought, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook is a big deal, but I'm not sure this bill is right.
I'm going to hit some of the kind of the highs and lows off it.
So it's coming up next.
Today's show also brought to you by our buddies at Bowl & Branch.
These are the most comfortable sheets ever.
Ever.
And the nice part about them?
They're like a fine wine.
The more you sleep on them, the softer they get.
I'm not kidding.
You will sleep like you're sleeping on a cloud.
Like someone's holding you up on a blanket of air.
They're fantastic.
Listen, we're not going to agree on everything, but we can agree getting a good night's sleep matters.
You wake up in the morning, you're more chippy, you're ready to rock and roll.
Getting a great night's sleep that was easier and more affordable than you think.
You don't need an expensive mattress or sleeping pills.
You just need to change your sheets.
That's why you should check out Boll, B-O-L-L and Branch.
Everything Boll and Branch makes from bedding to blankets is made from 100% pure organic cotton, which means they start out super soft and they get softer over time.
Everybody who tries Boll and Branch sheets loves them.
They have thousands of five-star reviews.
Forbes, Forbes and Wall Street Journal and Fast Company are all talking about Boll and Branch.
Even three U.S.
presidents sleep on Bowl & Branch sheets.
Shipping is free.
You could try them for 30 nights.
If you don't love them, send them back for a refund.
You won't.
They're great.
To get you started, right now, my listeners get $50 off your first set of fantastic, comfortable, sleeping on air-like sheets at bowlandbranch.com.
Bowl, B-O-L-L, and branch, like tree branch, burlandbranch.com, bowlandbranch.com, using promo code Bongino.
Go to Bolanbranch.com today for $50 off your first set of sheets.
Bolanbranch.com, promo code Bongino for $50 off.
Okay.
So Josh Hawley, who seems like a decent guy, newly elected Republican Senator from Missouri, he took out Claire McCaskill, has introduced this bill that is, shall I say, Joe, horrifying the big tech community.
Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Snapchat, I mean I'm trying to think of any of these social media platforms, are going to, are running for the hills from this thing.
Is the bill going to pass?
Probably not.
But there's an interesting piece up in the Federalist that's worth your time, again it'll be at the show notes, by Emily Jasinski, sorry about that Emily.
In the new bill, Senator Josh Hawley warns big tech, stop political censorship or lose your precious legal immunity.
Now, let me lay out the battlefield here, what we're talking about, why this matters, because we've discussed it before on the show, but you may have missed it.
If you are a social media company or a platform like YouTube, you have protections under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
This is important.
Don't let the wonkiness of this confuse you at all.
The protections are this.
You cannot be held civilly liable for content on your platform, with everything within limits of course, because you are not a publisher, you are a platform.
Very distinctly from newspaper publishers.
If the New York Times publishes a piece that defames Joe and says Joe robbed a bank when Joe did not, and they know it's false, Joe can sue the New York Times and will.
It's happened.
I mean, you had Hulk Hogan who sued Gawker and put him out of business for that tape, if you know what I mean.
And he put him out of business.
Gawker won under.
If you are a publisher, not a neutral platform, you can in fact be sued and in many cases you will lose if you knowingly defame someone.
If someone goes on Twitter and says Joe Armacost robbed the bank, Joe can sue that person.
But Twitter has protections because Twitter's, according to our rules now and our regulatory structure now, Make sure you follow this because none of the rest of the story will make sense if you don't get this.
Twitter has immunities from that because their take on it is we are a platform, we are not making editorial publication decisions.
Anybody who posts on that platform is free to do so but they're responsible for their own stuff.
That's not the case in the New York Times.
Okay.
Joe can't just go and You know, right in the New York Times op-ed section, Joe tweets, he's at Joe Haas 1 with a Z, follow him.
Occasionally.
Yeah, he tweets occasionally.
Sometimes he gets, I noticed Joe, he goes on like Twitter rampages for a couple days and we don't see him for a week, right?
He goes on a Twitter bender for a few days.
But Joe can't do that on the New York Times newspaper.
He can't just go and type a front page story.
There's a difference.
And I agree with that difference.
Me too.
Well, what's the problem, ladies and gentlemen?
The problem is, clearly, Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube have not been acting like independent platforms.
They haven't!
YouTube demonetizes within seconds our video going up.
It gives us no reason.
They're clearly making publication decisions.
They did it to Steven Crowder.
Listen, the litany of complaints about Twitter and Facebook.
I could go on all day.
I don't want to bore you.
We're not allowed to run ads on Twitter.
No reason was given.
None.
You have conservative content on Twitter silenced and suppressed all the time.
It's basically editing.
Yeah, I'm sorry, Dan.
It isn't.
Yeah.
Yeah, no, no, it is.
It's making editorial decisions.
Exactly.
Well, it's perfectly timed.
You're making publication editorial decisions, and they know it.
They hide behind stupid stuff, Joe, like, it's the algorithm.
It's not cut the Crap with the algorithm.
It's not the algorithm.
You have clearly people at your company who don't like conservatives.
We had that story about Facebook.
Candace Owens, conservative activist, was on some kind of blacklist.
I mean, she was supposed to be silenced at every opportunity.
It's absurd.
Now, you may say, well, this sounds great.
What does Josh Hawley's bill do?
Well, from the Federalist piece by Emily, it's interesting.
It says, under Hawley's bill, Fox News reported, big tech firms would have to provide evidence to the FTC, the Federal Trade Commission, proving that their algorithms and content removal practices are neutral.
Tech titans would also be responsible for the cost of performing audits and would have to reapply for immunity every two years.
Folks, there's a problem here.
The problem is, the FTC, the Federal Trade Commission, is a board of federally appointed bureaucrats.
I don't mean that as an insult, I mean it as a fact.
That's what they are.
It's a bureaucratic mechanism in the federal government to monitor trade practices, the Federal Trade Commission.
These are government bureaucrats.
So let me point out problem number one with this.
The FTC, I took a note, is going to determine When moderation decisions are designed, this is from the bill, moderation decisions, in other words, moderating, or as Joe said, editing their content, another word for it, right?
They're gonna decide when they are designed to or intended to negatively impact or have a disproportionate impact on political ideas.
You may say, well, that sounds great.
Folks, Joe, you're the perfect guest here for this.
All right, Dan.
Were you in the radio industry when the Fairness Doctrine was out there?
Yeah, I was.
Yeah, I was.
The Fairness Doctrine folks, Joe was there.
Joe had been in radio a long time.
Joe hasn't been in radio since I'm like 15 years old.
He ain't that old.
He looks pretty good.
But he's been there a long time and he's a wealth of expertise.
He can tell you about all kinds of logs they had to keep and all kinds of stuff.
But the general gist of the Fairness Doctrine back in the day, I think Reagan was the one who scrapped, thankfully scrapped the Fairness Doctrine.
But the general gist of it was you had to provide some form of equal access to opposing political ideas.
So if you ran a conservative program, you would have to run some type of counterbalance liberal type political program.
Folks, kind of sounds like what's in the Hawley bill now, right?
In other words, if their algorithm determines that their content is 51% liberal or 60% liberal, then that algorithm, they're not going to be able to get that immunity, Section 230, and they could be sued.
This is a little complicated, but please track me.
This is a huge, huge topic of conversation in America right now.
I'm trying to give you the downsides.
Think about what I'm telling you.
The old Fairness Doctrine, what was the radio station remedy for that?
The radio station remedy is, because they didn't want to balance programming nobody liked, right Joe?
Nobody wanted to listen to liberal programming?
You could get it on NBC!
With Tom Brokaw, Walter Cronkite on CBS, whatever it was.
Nobody wanted to listen.
So instead of the ra- Joe, correct me if I'm wrong.
I know where you're going.
Go ahead.
The radio stations said, listen, we can't put Rush Limbaugh on.
I mean, Ron Limbaugh was afterwards, but just roll me.
He's the biggest conservative talk radio host we know.
Because if we put Limbaugh on, we got to run three hours of liberal stuff nobody's going to listen to.
So what did radio stations do?
Nothing!
They didn't talk about politics.
There you go.
You notice, ladies and gentlemen, when did talk radio explode?
Limbaugh, Levin, Hannity.
When did it explode?
After the Fairness Doctrine was scrapped.
So this side effect of making a policy that appeared on its face to be the Fairness.
Joe, what's wrong with that?
Fairness.
Republicans are going to get equal access to the radio stations.
Ladies and gentlemen, it actually destroyed Republican GOP conservative talk radio.
It destroyed it.
Until it was wiped out and the market was allowed to come in and fix it, did conservative talk radio explode?
Cause then they weren't obligated for fairness anymore.
It wasn't fair at all.
Nobody wanted to listen to liberal talk radio.
So radio stations scrapped it.
We're not going to give them three hours to, does that make sense?
Everyone in the audience, give me a nod.
All right, cool.
Think about what this algorithm Algorithm problem could be.
So now, in order for you, Twitter, Facebook, Google, YouTube, right?
Alphabet, whatever that Google parent company is.
For you to get these immunity protections you need.
They need them, Joe, because Twitter doesn't want to be sued.
You know how many tweets go out on Twitter every day that are defamatory?
You have no idea what people say about me on Twitter.
It is grotesque.
What are you going to do?
Sue them?
You got to just ignore it.
Twitter, if we could sue Twitter, I'm not saying I would do that, don't get me wrong, but, you know, play the hypothetical for a moment.
Do you know how much Trump, Twitter would be out of business tomorrow?
You may say, well that's a great thing.
Is it, ladies and gentlemen?
Are you sure of that?
Listen, I'm not suggesting, Twitter is awful, okay?
I'm on it because I have to be.
Alright.
But ladies and gentlemen, the point is, I'm on it.
And so are many of you.
And we bypass corporate censors, New York Times censors, Washington Post gatekeepers, by being able to get our ideas out there even though there are downsides and they go after us a lot.
Folks, I'm telling you right now, if a bill like this were to pass, it's not worded right.
There are other things we can do about 230 protections.
But it's worded in such a, I think, a really bad way, I can't think of any other way to describe it, that what's going to happen is the same thing that would happen under the Fairness Doctrine.
They're just going to start eliminating political content because they're afraid their algorithm may show up as biased to either side.
Folks, it's going to create a real problem.
Also, folks, we're assuming here as well, you're assuming that if they start inventing... Listen, I just told you I have no doubt their algorithms now discriminate against conservatives.
None.
None.
So you may say, well, I don't get it.
What do you say?
Well, think about it now.
If Twitter and them are afraid of losing their immunity, so they have to go to the FTC.
You're assuming, by the way, it's going to be dominated by conservatives.
That bureaucratic board is no doubt going to be taken over by Democrats and big government types.
What if they go the other way, and in order to remedy the situation, they create an algorithm, Joe, that just by the free market, like the Rush Limbaugh radio, which was popular, nobody cared about Air America, right?
What if all of a sudden Twitter shows 51% of the material's conservative?
Now what happens?
Twitter has to go back and adjust their algorithm to start suppressing conservatives now!
Again, you're assuming that this algorithm shift is going to benefit conservatives in the long run.
Ladies and gentlemen, that may be an overly optimistic assumption.
I've warned you from the start, be very, very careful with government intervention into this problem because you may be creating a bigger problem than the one you think you're solving.
I disagree, excuse me, I agree with you a thousand percent that this is a huge problem and the free market has done a terrible job of stopping YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook from attacking conservative content.
Point stipulated!
I am not arguing with that point with you at all.
We both win, because I agree.
And I think Hawley's head is in the right place with this.
Yeah.
But this bill, I think, and I gotta tell you, I was looking at a tweet by Chris Pandolfo, my old colleague, we used to work together at CRTV.
Pandolfo said, who's a really brilliant guy, in one of his tweets, he said, listen, I'm having a hard time finding a conservative who supports Hawley's bill.
Well, you can check off me in that box, too, because I can't support it either, folks.
That algorithm, I'm telling you, will blow up spectacularly in our faces.
You will see a near wiping out of YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook content at all.
And for all of the downsides of those platforms, which are significant, there are many downsides, can we be candid and honest with each other and say, listen, Trump's managed to use it pretty well.
For all, I can't run ads on Twitter, but ladies and gentlemen, my books get out there on Spygate.
People found out, I had a lady tweet to me last night, she couldn't put the book down.
Thank you, I retweeted it.
She would have never found the book, probably, if not for Twitter, and I wouldn't have been able to get her ideas out there.
You see my point?
I hope this makes sense, folks.
I get it, there are problems, but introducing the FTC could be an absolute disaster that'll re-invoke a de facto fairness doctrine where Rush Limbaugh wasn't put on the radio because they had to match his content with garbage liberal content nobody wanted and the radio was not going to have three hours of basically dead air with nobody listening to some liberal ranting on about how great socialism was.
You'll see the same thing on Twitter.
Just my warning.
That's a great topic.
Read that piece, by the way, in the Federalist by Emily Jasinski.
It's really, really good.
It's totally worth your time.
By the way, just a personal note.
Someone asked me what this scar on my arm was from yesterday on Twitter.
How did you see that?
You can barely see that on camera.
That's those fatty tumors I had taken out.
You see, I have scars everywhere.
I'm not like dying.
I, you know, my show is always, I don't, I, you know, I'm always honest with everybody.
I don't hide much here.
Uh, no reason to, but yeah, I had a bunch of fatty tumors in my arm and my good friend, Dr. Adler, uh, took them out.
So that's what that scars.
I'm not dying.
Don't worry.
I promise I will be here.
Everything's cool.
But I get the most interesting emails.
Guy emails me, I'm like, how did you see that?
Like, I can't even see that on camera.
I got pretty good eyes.
Almost off camera, man.
Hey listen, I got some video next that I sent to Joe before the show.
Folks, TDS is real.
As you know, what is the highest level of infection?
Level 6.
TDS, Trump Derangement Syndrome, level 6.
We have found a level 6 infection.
We have found it.
So stay tuned, I got a piece of CNN video.
So disturbing.
I'm just warning you, take cover immediately if you find yourself anywhere close to the individual infected.
I don't know if it's a prion, a virus, some kind of bacteria, a TDS thing, but it is contagious and it's escaping the safe zone, so be careful.
Alright, we'll get to that in a minute.
Final sponsor of the day, another great company, BCM.
Bravo Company Manufacturing.
We love Bravo Company.
Ladies and gentlemen, Rockin' one of their shirts right now.
Bravo Company, thank you for the shirts.
Bravo, we love you guys.
But listen, you gotta send me larges, no XLs.
I appreciate it, but I'm an Italian from New York.
Everything's three sizes too small.
I told my Westwood One partners that.
If you're gonna send me a tee, it's gotta be a large.
Maybe an extra small.
Everything in New York is always a size smaller.
Come on, you know that.
But a great shirt, Bravo Company.
Thank you, Bravo.
I love your shirts.
You guys are the best.
Listen folks, if you're in the market for a rifle or a pistol and you're not looking up bravocompanymfg.com, you are making an enormous mistake.
They sent me a couple and I can tell you it is the finest rifle I have ever fired.
Now, one of the great parts about Bravo is this isn't a sporting arms company, folks.
It's not.
This is a, they make life-saving equipment.
They manufacture the materials in Heartland, Wisconsin.
These are people with military experience who make precision gear, precision rifles, precision pistols, meant for life-saving scenarios.
When they produce their equipment, they assume every single rifle or pistol will wind up in the hands of someone in law enforcement.
Military, or God forbid someone, a civilian out there who has to defend his life or the life of his family.
This is not a sporting arms company.
Life-saving equipment, and that is their attention to detail.
When I picked up my rifles at the local firearms store, the guy behind the counter said, you have no idea how good these are.
These are really, really terrific pieces of equipment.
BCM puts their people before products.
They build their products because they feel it's their moral responsibility to provide tools that will not fail the end user when it's not just a paper target, but God forbid someone coming to do them harm.
Ladies and gentlemen, if you are in the market for a rifle or a pistol, please check out Bravo Company Manufacturing.
Head on over to bravocompanymfg.com where you can discover more about their products.
They have special offers and upcoming news.
You need more?
Go to their YouTube channel.
YouTube.com slash Bravo Company USA.
If you are in the market and you are not looking at Bravo Company USA, you're making a Bravo Company MFG, you're making a big mistake.
Rifles, pistols, the best of the business.
Bravo Company MFG.com.
Okay, let's get to the video.
So we've had a level six outbreak.
Maybe we can get a little alarm.
Level six outbreak, take cover!
Take cover, ladies and gentlemen.
If this is a pre-on, by the way, then we're all in trouble.
[Music]
Yes!
Yes!
I did not expect that and that's why I love this guy.
The alarm is sounding.
Everybody take cover.
Level 6 outbreak.
Now as I said, you know, you have prions, these infection protein type molecules.
There's no immunity to this.
This may be a prion.
Here is Angela Rye on CNN.
If you caught yesterday's show, of course we had the ever ridiculous Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez outrageously, offensively, and absurdly comparing facilities to hold illegal immigrants while they await trial on our southern border who broke our laws and came here voluntarily.
to concentration camps and making reference to the term never again meaning she was making a reference to the extermination systematically of six million uh jewish men and women by the uh the most offensive human beings in in modern human history the the nazis It's a disgusting, stupid, outrageous, ridiculous, offensive analogy.
But what's even worse is watching people like Angela Rye on CNN defend this absurdity.
Here's Angela with Steve Cortez, a Republican activist on the Chris Cuomo show, hat tip CNN here.
Here is Angela defending the use of concentration camps and death camps as terminology to describe our immigration problem.
In 1933, there were concentration camps.
In 1941, there were death camps.
And that is where we are going if our consciences are not quickly pierced.
It is a problem.
Do not laugh it off.
Let me tell you- Do not laugh it off.
Oh, dude.
I mean, we are- you understand, Joe, we are living in the dumbest of-
We have officially reached peak stupid.
We are in peak stupid right now.
This is unbelievable.
Even Chuck Todd.
There's no bigger liberal activist in the media right now than Chuck Todd, okay, from NBC.
Even Chuck Todd came out and said, listen, Ms.
Ocasio-Cortez, I'm sorry, but this totally cheapens the Holocaust.
And what you're doing by trying to appropriate concentration camp language is unbelievably offensive.
And he says at one point, you know, you can call our immigration process a lot of things.
Broken, There's issues with it.
There's issues with the facilities, people being kept at.
Fine.
Call it whatever you want.
But making an analogy to the systematic extermination of millions of human lives by the most grotesque, horrible, atrocious means possible.
Can we all agree this was just a dumb comment?
Not AOC, who doubles and triples down on stupid every single time.
And you have people like TDS level six infected Angela, Rye on CNN who thinks if she yells louder that she'll make her point that the United States is running death camps.
It's an embarrassment.
She's an embarrassment.
And I'm going to leave it at this.
Please take cover immediately.
Immediately.
If you are anywhere near Angela Rye, because it may be a prion and TDS can, this may be deadly later on.
We don't know how bad the infection is, but it's clearly outside of the hot zone right now.
Oh my gosh.
So stupid.
Oh man.
By the way, I got one more video at the end of the show.
We'll do it right before our worst person of the week, so I'm gonna motor through a couple stories here that are really important, but did you see the video, Joe?
You know, I'm talking about the cop?
It was, right?
Is that not the coolest video ever?
No, it's cool.
All right, we'll get to that at the end.
Some of you may have seen it this morning on Fox & Friends.
I'll describe it for you in the audio, but if you want to check it out, youtube.com slash Bungina.
We'll get to it at the end of the show.
This may be the baddest A do-do-do I have seen in a long time, this guy.
All right, before I get to that, A Wall Street Journal ran an interesting piece this morning, and I'm only bringing up because I've been attacked for the last two days about comments I made on Hannity by liberals, and I loved them.
I thought they were great comments.
Trump's speech in opening night in Orlando, he mentioned Hillary multiple times, and I had said on Hannity, and I meant it, and I mean it now.
That I like the speech because he absolutely scorched Hillary Clinton.
Right.
Democrats, and even the Journal, listen, I like the Journal, I read it every day, their op-ed column, but you know, we don't agree on everything and that's fine, I'm not a liberal, I don't hate anybody personally, but the Wall Street Journal had this piece up saying, a second term for what?
And they said, Trump can't win by re-litigating 2016 and playing only to his base.
You know, Journal guys, it was written by the editorial board.
I love you guys and ladies over there.
I read you every day.
Your material's pretty good.
We disagree on some immigration stuff, but you are completely wrong on this.
The reason I said what I said, and Trump said, Trump's not stupid.
Why they keep downplaying the man's political instincts, I don't get.
There's a reason he's doing this, ladies and gentlemen, and I would love your email feedback on this.
I really would.
You know my email, it's on the website.
Paul and I read it.
This is not about relitigating 2016.
You may say, Dan, you said that he scorched Hillary Clinton.
He's not running against Hillary Clinton.
Hillary Clinton ran in 2016, so of course he's relitigating 2016.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
That is not why he's doing this.
This guy is not stupid.
Tell me if I'm reading you wrong here, folks.
And Joe, maybe you too.
Maybe.
The reason the Republican Party, conservatives, the Trump base, those are not always the same thing, by the way, moderate Democrats and some Democrat Trump supporters, Support Trump is because Trump has been a warrior against an establishment swamp that has diminished their interest and basically decimated the republic for the last 50, 60 plus years.
Yep, you got the picture.
Hillary, are you getting this?
Hillary Clinton And her ability to bypass any punishment whatsoever for her outrageous flaunting of the law with her email server is not about 2016.
Do you get it?
It's about Trump saying, I am not her.
She is with them, Obama, Biden, Warren, Sanders, the Swamp Rats, frankly, the horrible swampy GOP people too.
That's Hillary.
Hillary and her getting off and having a second set of blind justice, right?
Only blind to Democrats, right?
Her getting off is emblematic of everything wrong with the swamp.
The journal guy, I'm sorry, but you are totally misreading this.
I agree.
Point stipulated.
Not every Trump speech should be 90% about Hillary Clinton.
Not every speech should even mention her.
But Trump going after Hillary and Obama, which I also mentioned in my comments, which most people left out, of course.
Of course they had to leave the Obama part out.
Because then it makes their point.
Bongino's relitigating 2016 too.
You're missing it.
It's about a bigger issue.
The people on the ground want to know, business as usual with Hillary and Obama and Biden and all these people who kiss his butt in the media, they're not going to get off anymore.
If you're going to report fake news, Trump's going to call you out.
If you're going to set up a server, a private server, and break the law by shuttling classified information and removing the labels, Trump's not going to let it go.
It's as simple as that.
It's not re-litigating 2016, it's litigating 2020.
It's us versus them.
And Trump is with us, and Hillary is with them.
I'm telling you, you're reading this all wrong.
A hundred percent.
But check the piece out if you'd like.
You know, it was decent.
I just disagree with it intensely.
All right, one more note before we get the worst person of the week and the greatest video in, I think, in human history of the biggest badass I've ever seen.
Hey, energy.
Energy matters.
I said yesterday in campaigns, right?
Energy's infectious.
Yeah.
Campaigns are about public perception.
The perception of a winner.
Nobody wants to get behind a loser.
Nobody.
Listen, again, I ran for office and I'll tell you.
I ran three campaigns.
One of them we almost pulled off, but in my first campaign we had a lot of momentum going.
That's when I met Joe, when I ran for the U.S.
Senate against Ben Cardin.
Listen, we weren't going to win the race, it was Maryland, but we tried our hardest.
And then this third party guy jumps in, this guy Rob Sabani, and he spends millions of dollars.
He spent like seven million bucks.
Folks, any momentum we had, he crushed it.
He just bombarded us on the air.
The big mo matters.
Momentum matters.
Energy matters.
Now, this is why yesterday I said these polls, I wouldn't buy into all these polls that Trump's down 9 in Florida.
I live in Florida.
He's not down 9 in Florida.
It's absurd.
Don't discount him completely, but he's not down nine.
Look at this Washington Free Beacon story I'll have in the show notes today.
You want to talk about energy?
The media is- you're gonna discount this?
Trump's 2020 campaign raised his record 28.4 million in the first 24 hours!
Ow!
Folks, do you have any idea how much money that is?
Whoa!
In 24 hours.
Put it in perspective, Joe.
Do you know what Joe Biden raised in the first 24 hours?
Joe Biden is supposed to be the next coming of the Messiah for the Democrats.
You know what he raised in 24 hours?
Six.
Six million.
Six million.
And Joe Biden, Matt, six million.
Six million dollars in 24 hours.
Again, I'm not being hyperbolic.
Nothing's this positive.
It doesn't mean Trump's got it in the bag.
It doesn't mean any of that.
But the Big Mo energy matters.
Trump is turning out the energy, the people, and the donors.
But are the Democrats turning out the people?
Let's look at this legal insurrection piece by our buddy Kimberly Kay.
My brother, Jimmy, texted me.
He thought this story was hysterical.
I'm not misreading the headline.
Tens of people show up at impeachment Trump rallies.
I didn't read that wrong, folks.
If you're watching on YouTube, you're reading the headline now yourself.
YouTube.com slash Bungie.
Not tens of thousands.
Tens of people.
Kimberly Kay, sub-headline.
A whole 15!
[laughter]
15!
Oh gosh, I'm getting choked up here.
getting choked up here.
A whole 15-ish people showed up outside of the White House this past weekend to encourage the impeachment of the president.
Ladies and gentlemen, more people show up outside the White House to buy souvenirs from the Trump pin people on any line than showed up for their impeachment rally outside of the White House.
Ladies and gentlemen, energy matters.
That story, Legal Insurrection, will be in the show notes today.
Click on it, read it.
It's hysterical.
Tens of people, Joe.
Tens of people.
Meanwhile, you got tens of thousands showing up at the Trump rally.
I'm not getting crazy on either side.
I'm just saying the media wants you to believe none of this is happening.
They do.
Well, I shouldn't say all of them because yesterday we played that clip by CNN where even they had to acknowledge, hey man, you know, when is Floppy Joe?
Not Sloppy Joe, Floppy Joe.
He's the flip-flopper.
When is Floppy Joe gonna start turning up, you know, even thousands of people at his rallies?
So far we've seen tens, maybe hundreds at a few.
The energy, ladies and gentlemen, just is not there.
Okay.
Now.
This is great.
You gotta watch this video.
I'm gonna describe it to you for our audio folks.
It's so good.
So there's a press conference going on.
I think it's Australia.
And this is going to be a piece of news.
It's about a minute video.
The press conference is going on.
What's this guy's name?
With Sergeant Darren Edwards.
This guy, this sergeant, he's an older gentleman.
What do you think, Joe?
50s, 60s, maybe?
I'm always terrible at judging age.
Yeah.
Let's say he's in his 50s.
He's a little older.
He's a former rugby player, as they refer to him in this news clip, a footie.
I'd never heard that before.
I'm sorry, I don't play rugby.
He's giving a press conference updating people on the police issues.
He's a sergeant.
And a ruckus breaks out behind him and this guy is in a foot pursuit with a man who was harassing his daughter.
Watch what... This is so great.
Watch what Darren Edwards does and we come back.
I'll describe the view.
This is just great.
A senior detective has relived his footy glory days, laying a crushing tackle to stop a serial pest in his tracks.
The quick-thinking officer leapt into action midway through a television interview.
It's certainly good to get that information.
A routine news conference tackling the big issues.
There's damage there.
I'm not 100% on that.
You better get running!
Run, you *******! Run!
*Groans* It's being inappropriate to my daughter!
One of Queensland's top cops springs into action to bring down the target.
Oh my gosh!
Listen, this is not a young man Darren Edwards, okay?
So this guy's giving his press conference right behind, he's got a tree behind him, but he hears this ruckus and this guy's chasing this guy who was harassing his daughter.
This guy, Darren Edwards, lays the perfect Terry Tate office linebacker tackle on this guy, cuts his head while doing it, then goes back and starts, I couldn't play the whole thing, he goes back and Joe had to cut his foot, skips the press conference with blood coming down his head.
Please, YouTube.com slash Bongino.
Check it out.
It's at the end of the show.
You'll love it.
God bless you, Darren Edwards.
You get bad award of the day from me.
Nice job.
What a tackle too.
Yeah.
Reliving his old footy.
I'd never heard that before.
Footy.
I'm not, I'm not hip to the rugby lingo.
That was almost textbook.
Remember Terry Tate?
Wasn't it?
Office linebacker where that guy on ESPN, he starts tackling everybody.
This is a Terry Tate office linebacker moment.
All right.
Last story of the day is our unquestionably our worst person of the week.
I am, um, yeah, I am kind of disturbed by this story.
You should be too.
Hat tip, Luke Rosiak, Daily Caller, who has been all over this like white on rice.
Do you remember the guy?
Here's the title of the piece first.
Daily Caller, Luke Rosiak.
It'll be in the show notes.
Please check it out.
Self-righteous Dem staff are headed to prison as prosecutors look to make example of him for politically motivated crimes.
Okay, couple takeaways.
I'll explain to you what happened in a second, but I just want you to know, as I'm explaining this, ladies and gentlemen, take some solace, smile a little bit.
I'm not saying everything's perfect right now and everything's all cleaned up in DOJ and everything, but people on the Democrats' side who violate the law are not getting away with it like they were under the Obama administration.
This was a Democrat staffer.
What did he do?
What happened?
You remember, of course, most of you listening will remember this.
The Kavanaugh hearings.
Supreme Court, now Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
Remember those awful hearings?
Accused him of being a drunk, playing drinking games.
The Christine Blasey Ford allegations.
The story couldn't even get correct.
During the Kavanaugh hearings, a former staffer for Democrat Senator Maggie Hassan from New Hampshire, this guy by the name of Jackson Cosco.
If that's not a name I've never heard of.
Jackson Cosco.
Jackson Cosco.
Apparently his parents are very wealthy.
He was a staffer.
Jackson Costco was fired by Maggie Hassan's office.
She's a Democrat senator.
He was an IT guy.
He uses an accomplice, Joe, to get back into the office computer system and he puts in a keylogger device, basically stealing passwords by logging all the keystrokes.
He winds up getting a whole bunch of information.
Senators' home addresses, medical records, everything.
He basically hacks the Senate system.
During the Brett Kavanaugh, this guy's a huge lib.
He's a Sanders supporter.
He's a Bernie Sanders acolyte.
He doesn't like the questioning by Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and others, Orrin Hatch.
So he goes online and releases their personal information online according to the reporting.
He then threatens extortion by threatening to release their children's health records of other ones.
So he extorts them.
This kid is a total train wreck.
So apparently he thought he was going to get away with this.
Well, not so much, ladies and gentlemen.
He winds up getting arrested.
Sadly, the Capitol Police apparently, according to the reporting by Luke, they couldn't even find the keylogger device where it was.
He must have really embedded this or hid it in pretty well.
But this kid, I think, thought he was going to get a slap on the wrist, Joe.
And he said at one point, he goes, well, I was taking some drugs or whatever it may be, and it influenced me.
And then they found notes in his apartment where he's laughing, like, look, I ruined Orrin Hatch, Republican Senator's wife's birthday.
Ha ha ha.
He thinks it's funny.
So this kid is apparently some son of wealthy people who thought he was going to, you know, not that I'm knocking their wealth or anything, but thought he was going to get off.
Joe, he got 48 months in prison.
Oh, wow!
So Jackson Costco takes the cake for by far the worst sleazeball of the week and smile a little bit today knowing again that people who are doing some of them, again, not all, Hillary, the whole debacle, we all have big problems with what DOJ's doing with Spygate and everything.
But this kid, Costco, thought he was gonna get a pass and didn't only get a slap on the wrist, he got a total backhand to the face.
48 months.
I don't know what he's gonna serve, but ladies and gentlemen, that's a long time in prison.
So he did not get off on this.
So check out the article by Luke Rosiak, shame on Jackson Costco.
Jackson Costco?
That sounds like one of those ridiculous names you see in a movie, if you get what I mean.
And look who's coming out, Jackson Costco!
Entering the set, everybody's like, ah!
Doesn't that sound like that kind of name?
Johnny Friday or something like that?
They always have formulas for that.
You know, your pet's first name combined with the day of the week.
Sheba Tuesday.
That's Jackson Costco.
We had a dog named Sheba.
Did you know that, Paula?
Yeah, we did.
He ran away.
Sheba Tuesday.
It's Sheba Thursday, actually.
I'm like you, forgetting the day of the week last week.
All right, folks.
Thanks a lot for tuning in today.
I really appreciate it.
Please subscribe to The Video Show.
Check out the video.
YouTube.com slash Bongino of Darren Edwards tackling that guy.
He's a footie.
A footie.
Breaking out his footie skills.
Check that out.
And please subscribe to our audio podcast on Apple Podcasts, iHeartRadio and SoundCloud.
The subscriptions are free.
But they help us, me, Joe, and Paula move up the charts where people can find our show, keeps our market and budget low.
