The Libs Finally Reveal Their Real Plan # 1021 (Ep 1021)
In this episode I address the stunning comments by this prominent liberal about their real plans for the economy. I also address what happened at the White House social media summit yesterday. I address President Trump’s latest move on the census citizenship question and some insane comments by a liberal television personality. News Picks:We are going bankrupt. Federal spending hits another record.
President Trump makes a big announcement on the census/citizenship question.
Liberal Joy Behar compares immigration raids to “Nazi Germany.”
President Trump is transforming the liberal 9th Circuit Court.
Are the Dems turning on AOC?
AOC’s Chief of Staff finally tells the truth about his real goals.
Tucker Carlson and I take on the Mueller Report “comic book.”
Copyright Dan Bongino All Rights Reserved.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Get ready to hear the truth about America on a show that's not immune to the facts with your host, Dan Bongino.
All right, welcome to the Dan Bongino Show.
Good to see you all today.
As you all know, I said on yesterday's show, I was over at the White House yesterday for the social media conference.
Interesting.
I've got a couple of takeaways from that, from having been there on the inside.
It was interesting, to say the least.
Some portions more interesting than others.
We'll get to that.
I want to talk about the citizenship question yesterday.
I think Trump wins on this again, despite some of the anti-Trump furor out there.
I think he managed to throw another curveball at them, which is excellent.
I've got some killer video, too.
Updates on the Flynn case.
Stack show for a Friday.
Don't go anywhere.
As you can see, we're still in the Trump Hotel for a roadshow.
We'll be back at the home base on Monday.
So thank you all for tuning in.
Thanks for your patience.
Producer Joe is here.
He's just listening to Maryland.
Today's show brought to you by our buddies at GenuCell.
GenuCell, hey, you wish that double chin would just disappear?
Here is our famous friend from Robin.
Robin from Lubbock, Texas.
I put GenuCell, the jawline cream, in my neck two or three days ago.
It's the best my neck has looked in 20 years.
People told me my face looks young.
I'm blown away.
Listen, your neck kind of tells your age.
Who needs those problems?
Using MDL technology.
In Chaminade's proprietary base, GenuCell's brand new jawline treatment.
Specifically targets the delicate skin around the neck and jaw for tight, healthy, younger looking skin.
See results right before your eyes or 100% of your money back.
No questions asked.
Order now and the classic GenuCell for bags and puffiness is free with your order.
And to start seeing results in 12 hours or less, GenuCell's immediate effects is also yours free.
Can't beat that.
No double chin, no turkey necks.
I gotta do my own effects, gobble gobble, because Joe's not here.
And no sagging jawline, because no one needs to know your age.
Go to genucel.com, that's G-E-N-U-C-E-L.com, and enter Dan25 at checkout.
Genucel.com, enter Dan25 at checkout.
Get your two free gifts and free express shipping.
Go to genucel.com, enter Dan25 at checkout.
That's genucel.com, don't miss it.
All right, let's get to it.
Was at the White House yesterday.
It's always interesting going back, having worked there for a very long time.
Seems to be some nice new security enhancements there.
You know, when I walked in, I never remembered it being that long when I used to go there as an agent on the Secret Service side.
So they have this big, long, circuitous path now I never took before.
So that was interesting.
But went there, there were about, I don't know, 200 people or so at the summit.
President came in, gave a pretty rousing, kind of maybe 45 minute long speech.
And here are the takeaways I got from yesterday.
The whole purpose of the summit, by the way, according to what the White House put out,
was to have like kind of a listening session with conservatives on social media platforms and others,
YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, whatever it may be, who feel like their voices are being silenced.
Facebook, I don't know if I left that out there.
And it was kind of a back and forth while there was some Q&A in the beginning with Kellyanne and Diamond and Silk.
Diamond and Silk, many of you probably know.
Uh, who they are.
They had been victims of kind of a harassment campaign by Facebook where their content was being throttled, their content wasn't being seen by their fans.
So they talked about that a little bit, what went on behind the scenes there and how they, excuse me, how they dealt with Facebook.
But I have three takeaways from it yesterday.
First, before I get to it, I want to play a video, a short video, it's about 15 seconds, of the delirious crowd at NBC led by Democrat activist Chuck Todd pretending to be a media representative.
And how they kind of framed it and framed this social media summit amongst social media influencers at the house, how they framed this whole thing, and how the media, despite the fact that they got the biggest political scandal in American history wrong, they blew it, they told us Spygate was fake and Collusion was real, yet Spygate was real and Collusion was fake, they got the two biggest stories backwards, right?
Despite the fact that they have zero credibility, they lie to you, They blew the two biggest stories of the century.
We got it right, a lot of the people who were at that conference yesterday, the social media conference at the White House.
Despite that, you hear this kind of nonsense from Chuck Todd, full-time Democrat activist.
Kelly O'Donnell, tell me, the president has spent half his day with some of the more unique characters on Twitter, on the right side of Twitter.
What kind of mood is this going to put him in, do we think?
All right.
Sorry, I need some cues here.
I have Paula next to me.
It's a tough road operation, even with, like, four and five computers running around, a focus right, microphones, everything.
But it is an audio show first, so the video is kind of... Our original intention, by the way, was to do the video as a throw on it when we did road shows, not to do the video.
But the video took off so quickly on the YouTube channel, to be candid with you, now I feel an obligation for you to produce video content every day, because you're my audience, you're very loyal, and I love you all to death.
So clearly Chuck Todd has an interest in painting the group of people there yesterday were a bunch of conspiracy theorists.
There was an MSNBC tweet I saw it suggested there were um that this was a conspiracy theory crowd uh who were using identity politics.
That's hysterical because that's what the left is.
So that was going to be my third point but I'll but I'll put that out there first that that's just kind of amusing how the mainstream media got this story entirely wrong and yet painted the people who got it right who showed up yesterday As like a conspiracy theory crowd.
That's what they do.
That's why they're a joke and nobody really pays attention.
They're a farce, a laughingstock.
The joke's on them.
It's the Truman Show, right?
They're the Jim Carrey character in the Truman Show where they're, everybody's acting around them and kissing their butts and pretending they're real and they don't know it's all an act.
It's really disgusting.
Okay, Josh Hawley was here yesterday, Senator from Missouri, a Republican, he beat Claire McCaskill, and he got up and spoke a little bit, so it's one of my takeaways about his proposed legislation, ensuring that the algorithms of these companies don't discriminate against conservatives.
Here's the gist of what's going on.
I talked about this in a show two weeks ago, but it's worth re-discussing today.
Right now, the Communications Decency Act, if you are designated a platform and not a publisher, right?
In other words, if you're... A great example yesterday, Kevin McCarthy was there.
The minority leader in the House for the Republicans.
And McCarthy gave a pretty good example.
He said it's almost like the telephone or the post office, right?
Like, consider those platforms.
They're platforms.
They don't discriminate.
Like, when you go to mail a letter, there's a great analogy, right?
This is a good one, right?
When you mail a letter, the post office doesn't read the content and go, no, no, you can't mail this letter.
This letter supports Donald Trump, right?
It was a really good analogy.
I actually, in my head, thought, Kevin, I'm going to steal that one.
I'll footnote it, of course, because we don't steal content unauthorized, but it's his analogy, and it's a good one.
That Communications Decency Act protects the phone company, basically, it's an analogy here, and the post office, if that were the analogy, because on the phone company too, you call people, you have a conversation, as long as you don't threaten them over the phone, what you say is none of the government's business, right?
Or the company's business.
That is why these companies, Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube, acting as platforms, right?
Platforms.
That's why they're given protections against lawsuits.
In other words, the phone company and the post office can't be sued for somebody writing in a letter that, hey, I'm a conservative and I do this, or saying something out of line, because they're not responsible for the content of the letter or the phone call, right?
Hawley's bill would take some of those protections away if the algorithm discriminates against conservatives and shows, say, the algorithm, there's some math equation shows the conservative content was being suppressed.
Now, I know many of you listening are thinking, okay, that sounds like a great idea, Dan.
What's the problem?
They are discriminating against us.
I'll talk about that in a second, too.
Believe me, I've been a victim of it.
I have actual, like, skin in this game right now.
I'll tell you a story in a second about what happened to us yesterday.
But folks, I'm telling you it's a bad idea.
I think Hawley's well-intentioned, I think he's a good guy, I think he's going to be a great senator, but I think the bill is poorly intentioned.
Why?
Because what's going to happen with these algorithms is if an algorithm shows that it's discriminating inadvertently against liberal content, let's say Vox with a V, not Fox, Vox with a V, which is a far-left radical left outlet, Say they complain and say, hey, we're not getting as much PR now or publicity on whatever, Google or YouTube, as much as, say, Breitbart.
What they could wind up doing is end the algorithms adjusted to suppress Breitbart.
Ladies and gentlemen, it's a bad idea, as most government solutions are.
Did that make sense?
Yeah, thank you.
Because I don't want you to be misled into thinking this is going to fix the problem.
I can almost guarantee you it's going to make the problem worse.
And with all due respect to Hawley, I just think it's a bad idea.
So that was takeaway number one.
He spoke, very good guy, very nice guy.
I think he's very well-intentioned on this, and I'm glad to see somebody's doing something.
That particular piece of legislation, I was even less convinced yesterday after hearing it, is the answer.
Now, having said that, Senator Marsha Blackburn from Tennessee spoke too, and had some very good ideas.
One of the questions, the media left and there were questions afterwards.
They said we were allowed to report on this, so I don't want you to think I'm disclosing behind-the-scenes information without authorization from the White House.
I just want you to be clear on that.
They said in the beginning of the social media summit that we're allowed to talk about what happened.
So if somebody said it wasn't off the record, if they didn't mention that specifically, I'm bringing it up.
So Senator Marsha Blackburn got up and had some great ideas.
One of the questions was about, hey listen, what about election manipulation?
This is legitimate.
There are specific equal time rules for radio stations and television where if you're going to present the viewpoint of a candidate for office, Republican or Democrat, you should give equal time to the opponent.
I'm not crazy about those laws, but I don't think they're a bad idea.
I think they could be done a little differently.
I was kind of a victim of that too when I ran for office when one of my opponents pulled this equal time stunt despite being like a billionaire himself, which was kind of ridiculous.
But they're not horribly bad ideas because what winds up happening is you could cover a candidate for office and just basically crush his opponent by not letting him on TV at all.
So there are equal time laws for that.
What was interesting is the question was posed, well, if Twitter and, say, Facebook or whatever, Snapchat, whatever it may be, starts designing algorithms that suppress the campaign ads of someone like Marsha Blackburn, who it actually happened to.
Remember she put out that ad, she's pro-life, and the ad wasn't accepted by Twitter?
Wait, wait, wait, that's a political ad.
Now you're going to start interfering in elections?
So one of the ideas that came up, and Blackburn discussed it a little bit, is the idea that Regulatory agencies within the government that monitor elections, during election season, do have a role here.
And for that, I entirely agree.
You cannot, cannot, in a constitutional free republic, have Twitter and Facebook and Snapchat manipulating elections, crushing people's content, because they just don't want Republicans to win.
So that, I am entirely open to.
And folks, again, we already have experience with that with equal time laws.
They're not perfect, But they're, we're well-intentioned and they work.
They, nothing works perfectly, but they work.
They keep basically media outlets from blocking people to getting their message out to the public.
So that is a good idea to have the FEC Federal Elections Commission.
If there are going to be problems with the, if you're running a campaign ad and in that campaign ad, you as a conservative Republican or libertarian, there's no crime, there's no call to violence.
Then basically I don't care what that campaign ad says.
Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, whatever it may be, Google, should be forced to run that.
That is unquestionably manipulating elections.
That was takeaway number two.
I got into number three, how the media painted this, and I got more on that in a second.
But let me throw one more takeaway in.
I don't mean to add, I only meant to do about 10 minutes on this segment because I got a lot of news to get to, but it's important.
One of the questions was asked to the President yesterday as well, in the Q&A afterwards.
The media had left, of course, which is always a good thing when the media leaves, because they're always going to paint the story and tell a narrative anyway.
The question was asked to the President, you know, would you consider joining another platform?
And my opinion is that President Trump absolutely gets it, that one of these days there's going to be a competitor.
Now, briefly on this, because I talked about this before and it's important, You know, CNN and, well actually, let's just say CNN.
CNN at one time was the king of the hill in 24-hour cable news.
They were.
I don't know how, you know, my audience, I have a general idea of how old you are, most of you probably remember.
There was a time when CNN ran the roost.
It was their ship.
When Fox News came in as a competitor with Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch, and disclosure, I work at Fox News, I don't think that's a secret.
But the idea that they would overtake CNN was pretty transparent to people at Fox, but not to everyone else.
I think they kind of laughed off Fox.
It's like, oh, look at these losers coming in trying to take CNN out.
Within years, they knocked CNN off their perch and made CNN now an afterthought.
CNN's a joke now.
I mean, they finished third in a three-way race for media every time.
My podcast does a higher audience than their weekend shows do.
My podcast on YouTube.
I'm not kidding.
I mean, we crush them.
So, the president was asked about the possibility of The Fox analogy, I'm just giving you to kind of set this up, how Twitter and Facebook now have a monopoly.
Would you join another platform or start one?
And he seemed very, very open to the idea.
Now, having said that, I hope he gets reelected.
I think he's got a good chance.
In six years, when the president leaves office, I was talking to Paul yesterday in the room, I said, you know, he is the one guy with enough sway and influence and power and enough reach, the president of the United States right now, President Trump, that if he were to start that platform or Join another as a partner, whatever it may be.
There's Parler, there's others out there.
If he were to join them as a partner, it would be Roger Ailes, Rupert Murdoch again.
It basically would take, I'm relatively confident within a few years it would take some of these platforms off their perch.
So he seemed very, very open to the idea.
I can't speak for him.
I can only tell you what he said yesterday.
Again, it wasn't off the record, um, that he would definitely be open though.
And he said he had looked at the idea of doing one, um, potentially himself.
But I think his answer was, yes, obviously too much going on with, you know, running the country and stuff, which I think everybody gets now.
Uh, we're going to move on in a second here, but I just want to give you an example of what, why I don't want you to think I'm speaking with forked tongue here, folks.
This is happening to me right now, right?
So yesterday, YouTube keeps messing with our videos.
They keep getting demonetized.
The way YouTube works is we put these videos out there for you.
We do five a week, every weekday.
It's an audio podcast first, obviously, but the videos are there as a courtesy to the audience.
We put on YouTube.
Paul and I finance the whole thing.
It's not cheap.
And the way we can earn money back on it is YouTube runs ads and the proceeds are split between me and YouTube.
YouTube makes a lot of money off the content we provide to them, okay?
Decent amount of money.
What they managed to do to conservative content is they demonetize it.
But they pulled it, meaning there are ads not eligible to run, certain ads, on your videos.
Now, I don't see this happening to liberal videos.
It is almost universal on the conservative side.
Your videos are demonetized.
But here's the trick they use.
They demonetize and say you can't earn money on your videos for the first 24 hours.
And then they say, no, no, no, we didn't demonetize, we only demonetized it for the first 24 hours.
Okay, well, what's the stunt they're pulling here?
My buddy Andy Bayer going, everything was a stunt.
Stunts, they're pulling stunts.
What's the stunt?
The stunt is, no audience after 24 hours goes down.
Why?
Because there's a new show.
Only a fraction of the people watch yesterday's show today.
Some people missed it, some people watch it again.
90% of our audience, if not 95, is within the first 24 hours.
So what YouTube does is they basically throttle your content to advertisers for the first 24 hours so you can't earn any money.
And then they say, oh, we didn't demonetize you, we only did it for 24 hours.
No, Sherlock, we get it.
That's what they do.
So Paula made the mistake yesterday of calling YouTube or live chatting YouTube, sorry, live chatting YouTube and saying, guys, what's going on?
You're demonetizing our videos.
You won't tell us why.
There's no troubling content.
There's no calls to violence on a violent show.
There's nothing here.
It violates your terms of service at all.
They came back and said, no, what did they tell you?
We don't, we only do it for 24 hours, right?
Or something like that.
And we said, that's the point.
What I'm getting at here is this is a scam.
This is a big stunt.
We're getting tired of it, folks.
You know, we're working on plan B and hopefully we'll have some updates for you soon, but it will not, I promise you this though, it will not affect the audio portion of the show, the audio podcast at all.
So have no fear.
Excuse me.
But what's happening with conservatives on these platforms, I'm telling you, is very, very, very real.
Make no mistake.
All right, I've got a ton more to get to.
I still haven't discussed the other big breaking news yesterday, the citizenship question.
By the way, a near brawl broke out.
In the Rose Garden with Gorka.
Sebastian Gorka and that lunatic Brian Karam used to write for Playboy.
Now he claims to be a journalist for CNN.
He's like the biggest nut in the press pool.
The guy's insane.
He tells Gorka like you want to go outside or something.
Gorka would've whooped that guy.
This is in the Rose Garden.
This guy's supposed to be a journalist, this guy Karam.
What a joke.
You can probably see the video out there.
It's all over the place.
Alright, before I get to that.
Excuse me.
Today's show brought to you by our buddies at Bowl and Branch.
Bowl.
B-O-L-L.
Not ball.
Bowl.
Bowl and Branch.
Best sheets out there.
Best sheets.
Hands down.
Hands down.
Bowl and Branch.
They're like a fine wine.
They age.
The more you sleep on Bowl and Branch sheets, the better.
The better they get.
We're never gonna agree on everything, but I think we can all agree good sleep means a good, nice, long, healthy life.
Getting a great night's sleep is easier now, more affordable than you think.
You don't need a new expensive mattress or these crazy sleeping pills.
You just need to change your sheets.
That's why you need to check out Bole & Branch.
Everything Bole & Branch makes from bedding to blankets is made from 100% organic cotton, which means they start out super soft and they get softer.
Over time.
You can't beat it.
Everyone who tries Bolin Branch sheets loves them.
Even three U.S.
presidents.
Forbes, Wall Street Journal, and Fast Company are all talking about Bolin Branch.
There's no risk, no reason for you not to give them a try.
If you don't like them, send them back for a full refund.
You will not do that.
I'm telling you.
Because you won't have to.
Because they're the best sheets ever.
We love them.
We don't sleep on anything else.
To get you started right now, my listeners, get $50 off, $50 off your first set of sheets at bowlandbranch.com, promo code Bongino.
$50 off, $5-0 off.
That's bowlandbranch.com, promo code Bongino.
Go to bowlandbranch.com today for $50 off your first set of sheets.
Best sheets out there, hands down, you won't regret it.
Okay.
I've been getting a lot of questions by my listeners, uh, via email, Twitter and elsewhere about what is really going on with the citizenship question.
Quick backstory.
The citizenship question was asked on our census, very simply, are you a citizen or not?
It was asked for decades throughout most of the recording of the U S census, the counting of the people in the United States as mandated by the constitution every 10 years.
As Rush Limbaugh eloquently said this morning on Fox & Friends during an appearance, the real controversy here is not that President Trump wants to ask the citizenship question on the census, are you a citizen?
The real controversy, and Rush is absolutely right, is why did the Obama team not want this question asked?
Rush always seems to get to the point.
I mean, the guy's been the king forever.
That's the scandal.
But the media, in their never-ending narrative gaslighting efforts, has tried to make the real scandal why President Trump wants to do something the country's done up until the Obama administration.
Amazing effort at gaslighting.
But the question I've been getting is, why are the Democrats fighting this, Dan?
What is the real reason?
You always tell us what the real reason is.
Here's what they say, here's the real reason.
I've got you.
I've got you covered, don't you worry.
Put up that John Allen tweet if you don't mind, Miss Paula.
This tweet kind of explains it all, doesn't it?
Attorney General Bill Barr was with President Trump yesterday during the press conference in the Rose Garden after the social media summit, and Attorney General Barr had mentioned that yes, what they're going to do, what they're going to plan to do, which I'll get to in a second, regarding the census, now that they can't ask the citizenship question on this particular census because the form's already being printed, He was asked kind of what they were going to do with it, and in the end, notice that last line where he says, yes, it will be basically considered for apportionment purposes.
What does this mean to you?
What's the real story?
Okay, throw up the Breitbart piece if you don't mind.
Breitbart has a good piece up on this up in the show notes at Bongino.com.
Please check it out.
What the president's gonna do first, I'll explain to you why then and why the liberals are worried.
Now that the president, according to the Supreme Court, which is an absurd ruling, can't ask this question on this census because they didn't explain it well.
There's not a legality problem with it.
Basically John Roberts, who's turned into a full-time Democrat activist on the Supreme Court, shockingly, said they didn't like the president's reason for asking the question.
The president's now going to plow ahead and what they're going to do is he put out an executive order yesterday that he signed mandating federal agencies that have citizenship information, which is everywhere by the way, to turn it over to be factored in for what Bill Barr said, apportionment purposes.
So in other words, if we can't ask the question, this is a nice Herbal, by the way, by Trump, which he always seems to do.
If we can't ask the question on the census directly, are you a citizen?
We'll just ask, well, we were going over it yesterday, right?
Department of Labor, there's HHS, that's citizenship questions all over the place.
They can get the data otherwise.
They can get a count, probably 90% of the people in the United States, citizenship-wise, just by other data in the government database.
Are you tracking my explaining that well?
If you're in the audience, nod your head or give me a side to side.
The Supreme Court, John Roberts, tried to kick Trump in the cojones.
He says, you can't ask the citizenship question on this census.
Trump turns around and says, okay, we don't have to.
We'll just go to the other federal agencies that have already asked the question.
And then that's how we'll calculate the numbers for apportionment purposes.
That is why the Democrats are freaking out.
Why?
What does apportionment purposes mean?
Ladies and gentlemen, congressional districts have roughly 650,000 to 700,000 people per district.
That's how many people.
So if your population grows, once you surpass a certain mark of 700,000 more people, roughly, you will get another congressional seat.
If you lose roughly 700,000 people, you will lose congressional seats.
What does that mean?
Well, if they use the citizenship data for apportionment purposes on counting congressional members, in other words, not persons in the United States, but citizens, which is the fair way to do it, And there are upwards of 10 to 20 million illegal immigrants in the United States.
The Democrats are concerned that, one, they will lose significant congressional seats, and secondly, their long-term play to import millions of people into the country, legally or illegally, they don't care, and get them to vote Democrat is entirely sabotage.
I hope you weren't confused by that, because I've got probably 100, 200 emails from people who don't get why the Democrats are fighting so fiercely, fighting this citizenship question.
They are fighting it because if it's used to allocate congressional representatives, and I'll give you just an example.
Let's say in California, liberal state, I'm just throwing up.
These are not precise numbers.
I'm just using it as an analogy.
Let me be clear for the media matters, lunatics and others that listen to my show on the left.
You're always welcome here, by the way.
Thanks for your free promo.
We always appreciate it.
Let's say California had 2.1 million illegal immigrants.
Those 2.1 million illegal immigrants, you'd find out now they're in the country illegally or they're not citizens, right?
If those 2.1 million, that could be three additional congressional seats they have based on people who are not in the country legally.
This was always the Democrats' long-term play.
It's not designed to intimidate people.
The citizenship questions asked everywhere.
You're not going to be thrown out of the country if you answer no, despite the protestations of liberal lunatics everywhere.
That is not what's going to happen.
But if it's used for apportionment and other things, you could lose funding.
States could lose funding because they're importing people into the country that are not here legally, and they could also lose congressional seats, which is a loss of power.
You could potentially lose the majority in the House.
That's what's really going on behind the scenes.
Does that make sense?
Because it's critical, it explains, it's all about power, it's all about votes, and it's all about money.
And if they lose those votes in Congress, and they lose the money to their state because they're harboring a lot of illegal immigrants and doing nothing about it, It is going to cost people real power and real money.
I hope that made sense because that's what's going on right now.
Okay.
Uh, Flynn update to Mike Flynn case.
I, um, was talking to a buddy in the hotel last night when I came back, my wife and I went downstairs to have a, what do you call it?
An adult soda.
Let's call it a barley soda.
Maybe.
Um, we were down to a couple of people recognize this in a hotel.
One guy I was chatting with, we brought up the Flynn case.
I was talking about the Mike Flynn case.
Uh, and earlier in the week, we had discussed some updates here.
Now, The Flynn case is getting interesting.
If you don't mind, throw up that court document, have a little piece highlighted.
Again, hat tip our friend at Techno underscore Fog, Technofog on Twitter, who does a really awesome job with his legal reviews on his Twitter account.
I can't recommend you follow the account enough.
The legal analysis there is excellent.
It's funny, by the way.
If Techno was a liberal, he'd have no problem using his real name, I'll bet.
But the fact that he puts stuff out there that probably runs against a liberal narrative?
Poor guy.
Probably has to worry about his job every day.
I feel bad.
Everybody's got to use anonymous accounts if you're conservative.
But they're not targeting us, right?
Don't worry.
Look at this part, from the court filing, the highlighted part.
Counsel, talking about Flynn's lawyer, Sidney Powell, the new lawyer.
Counsel has identified crucial and troubling issues that should concern any court.
Uh, what?
This is an illegal filing, folks.
If you're not smelling big trouble, then your sniffer doesn't work.
Folks, I hope you listened to my show earlier in the week.
Here is what's going on here.
Now that Mike Flynn's new lawyers have requested access to classified information, they are probably reading some things they did not see before.
What?
What could they possibly be reading that would be, quote, crucial and troubling issues that should concern any court?
Ladies and gentlemen, if they asked for access of recordings to Mike Flynn's recordings that the government's using as evidence, recordings of his phone calls, with his emails, whatever they may be.
In other words, give us the information you have because you spied on Flynn.
And let's just say the government said they had A, And A is a file like this, and now that Sidney Powell can get access to some of that classified information, the file she actually got is like this?
How long were they spying on Flynn?
How much do they have?
Why were they spying on Flynn?
Why does that matter?
Because folks, as I told you earlier in the week, They got Flynn to sign a FARA form.
In other words, sign this form that you are lobbying for this outside entity.
They got him to sign the form knowing what he was signing was going to be a false document.
It was a setup.
He was entrapped into signing it again.
I don't want to relitigate Monday's show, but it's important you understand what this crucial and troubling issue is.
The government had been spying on Flynn, I believe, for an extended period of time, potentially as far back as 2015, based on evidence, based on his interactions with Halper, some of the reports that came back to the U.S.
government.
Flynn was lobbying for a company that had some ties, allegedly, to the Turkish government.
Flynn's team is saying, we didn't know about those ties.
All we knew was it was a private company.
You keep that point in your head.
Flynn is adamant, Lieutenant General Mike Flynn, that they did not know the company they were doing some lobbying for, some writing some op-eds for, was working with the Turkish government to the extent they were.
So Flynn's take is, I didn't have to report I was working for the Turkish government because I didn't know.
Flynn hired a lawyer, they paid $170,000 to file this form registering saying, we worked for this company.
Ladies and gentlemen, the government already knew about this company's ties to the Turkish government.
How did they know?
Because they were spying on Flynn!
So instead of just telling Flynn about the ties to the Turkish government, they brought in this big, thick form, this Farrah form, that was unbelievably confusing according to Sarah Carter or Hit on Hannity, which I played, I believe, on the Monday or Tuesday show.
Got him to sign the form knowing that later it was going to be proved to be not a lie on Flynn's part because he didn't know.
I lobbied for whatever, private company so-and-so.
But the government knew about the company's ties.
They didn't tell Flynn to set him up.
This is what's going on here.
Do you know how devastating this is?
Do you know how disingenuous, immoral, and unethical what they did is?
That's like you thinking you work for a bank, the bank is hired by the mob, but you have no idea, you're a teller.
All you do is get a paycheck, you do your job, you give people, here's the deposit slip, here's the money, you have no idea.
The government knows the bank works for the mob.
They get you to sign a form saying you work for the bank.
You're not lying.
Yes, I work for the bank.
You've worked there Monday through Friday for the last two years.
And then all of a sudden the government comes out.
You were charged that you lied.
That you filed a false form.
Because they knew the whole time.
But keep in mind, this is a good analogy.
I hope this will work.
Maybe this will explain the whole thing.
They only got you to sign the form saying you clearly work for the bank, not the mob, knowing that it's not true.
And that you don't know it's not true.
Because you legitimately think you work for the bank.
You don't know the bank's run by mobsters.
That's what they did with Flynn.
Now this new crucial information, I'm pretty confident, is probably...
Recorded, or data recorded, because Flynn was spied on, that they were not disclosing before that they had classified.
And in that data is probably some information that the government knew about this company's ties to the Turkish government and got Flynn to sign the form anyway as a way to turn around later and go, look, we got paper, you lied.
Big, big scam.
Scamorama, folks.
Big time.
All right, I got more.
AOC's chief of staff gives up, finally, the whole jar of cookies.
You're not going to want to miss this.
I've always warned you about what Kevin Williamson over at National Review calls the new socialism.
And AOC's chief of staff finally, finally lets the cat out of the bag.
Our last sponsor of the day is War Dragons.
Hey, you into video games?
War Dragons is pretty cool.
You're gonna love this, ladies and gentlemen.
We're sponsored today by War Dragons.
War Dragons is a 3D real-time strategy video game right on your phone.
It's really cool.
Over 150 different dragons to breed and collect in the game, each with different attack styles, abilities, and classes.
Attack styles!
For the month of July, War Dragons is partnering with StackUp, an organization dedicated to bringing military personnel, veterans, and civilian supporters, which is pretty cool, together through a shared love of video gaming.
War Dragons will match all donations made through this link in the game between July 4th through July 31st up to a maximum of $10,000.
Donors will also get an exclusive in-game portrait.
That's pretty cool.
Can't donate but want to support StackUp's work?
Breeding your dragons in-game can also help contribute an additional $10,000 donation by War Dragons.
Download War Dragons by visiting podcast.wardragons.com slash Bongino.
That's podcast.wardragons.com slash Bongino on your phone or tablet for more details on how to participate.
That's podcast.wardragons.com slash Bongino.
Go check it out.
You won't regret it.
A lot of fun.
Okay.
AOC, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, has a chief of staff, Mr. Chakrabarti, I think is his last name, and the chief of staff, unbelievably, opened up the cookie jar and spilled all the cookies on the floor for everyone to see, and it was missed.
By a lot of people.
Thankfully, conservative Twitter, which is always good, always.
I mean, fantastic.
Whether it's Sean Davis, TechnoFog, Jeff Carlson, Cates, you got people out there who do really, really good work on Twitter.
Conservative Twitter didn't miss it.
So there's this Washington Post piece, and inside the Washington Post piece, AOC's Chief of Staff, this Mr. Chakra Bharti here, who's obviously a radical far leftist, is asked about the Green New Deal, and I want you to listen to the money quote, the money quote, because I've talked about this before.
Here it is, at the end, as you can see, talking about the Green New Deal.
Because we really think of it, of a how do you change the entire economy thing.
His line, not mine.
So wait, let me get this straight.
The Green New Deal was never about the environment.
It was a how do you change the entire economy thing?
Now, if you're a regular listener to this show, back from say, I don't know, episode 100 on, you've heard this before.
If not, you may be hearing this from the first time.
Kevin Williamson, who's not a big fan of mine, which is fine, he wrote a book a while ago, whatever, The Idiot's Guide to Socialism.
It's actually a pretty good book.
I know the title's kind of funny, but it's a serious book.
I read it.
I've recommended it a lot.
It's very, very good.
Worth your time.
And I may be getting the title wrong, but it's in the book.
It's a good book.
He talks about how no serious person right now advocates for socialism.
We're not talking about the lunatic class.
We're talking about serious people who've read the material and understand that socialism means death and destruction.
When I say socialism, let's be precise in the terminology, so unlike the left, we know what we're talking about.
We're talking about the government control of the means of production.
The government control of the factories, the service industry, everything.
The government controls it, owns it, you work for them.
That is what socialism is.
Well, Williamson, in his book, makes this really astute observation that serious people understanding how hundreds of millions were killed because when the government runs the farms, they bankrupt the farms and people starve to death, which, whatever, you fill in the industry.
The farms, the oil industry, the government will run it into the ground, as we see in Venezuela now.
But the oil industry.
Williamson's point is that serious people understand that you can't advocate for socialism anymore because you're advocating for basically torture, death, and destruction because that's what's happened.
So what the Democrats and the radical left have done is they've instituted this new socialism, as he calls it, this book.
And the new socialism is this.
Old socialism where the government takes over the factories and the farms and the oil companies is a dead end because the government is too stupid to run these things.
If the government was smart enough, they'd be able to run the government, which they can't do, no less run an oil company or the farming industry.
The government will bankrupt every single thing it touches because if the people in the government, I'm not talking about our military and our police officers, I'm talking about these high up government politicians who think they know better than you and really are morons.
If they could have made money, they would have made money in the private sector, so they run for office instead.
I mean, believe me, I ran for office.
I'm glad I lost every single day, and I'm not associated with some of these 435 lunatics up there.
Well, no, there's some good people up there, but you get the point.
Kind of bitter at them up there, because they're ruining the whole place.
But new socialism is this.
Because they don't have the ability or knowledge to run the economy, there's a fear here that if they take over an industry by the Democrats, they'll bankrupt it, and what'll happen is what happened in the Soviet Union, it'll eventually collapse and they'll all be out of power.
So they advocate for the new socialism, and the new socialism is this, and AOC's Chief of Staff just basically described to you what it is.
We don't have to own the means of production if you're a new socialist.
You don't have to own the oil companies, you don't have to own the farms, you don't have to own the energy industry.
All you have to do is tax and regulate it to death, and you own it anyway.
Think about the genius here.
I used to use this and make an analogy to what Obamacare was.
The government via Obamacare didn't have to take over the healthcare industry.
It didn't.
It did it de facto, by default, by instituting new taxes via Obamacare and regulations and rules Where the government effectively ran it anyway, but left the ownership, dreaded air quotes, right?
Left the ownership in the hands of the companies.
What's the benefit of that?
You may say, I don't get it, Dan.
So you're saying the distinction is old socialism, the government fully takes over, say, healthcare or the oil companies.
New socialism, they don't take over, but they institute taxes and regulations.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.
Why?
Because when you tax them to death, you get their money anyway.
So whether you own the company or not, the government that is, the socialists, it doesn't matter.
You've taxed them, you're already getting their money through taxes.
Secondly, through the regulatory front.
You may not own them, but you control them through such detailed, laborious regulations, you effectively own them anyway.
You tell them what to do, they listen to you.
Well, what's the benefit?
Why not just take them over then?
Because when they fail, Which they inevitably do.
These private companies, when government comes in and taxes and regulates them to death, if they fail, the government has an out.
They can still blame them.
Look, they did it.
They own the company.
Aetna, Exxon, Mobil, whatever.
They did it.
If the government owns them outright, like in old socialism, traditional socialism, the government, of course, is gonna take the blame like they have in North Korea, Venezuela, and the Soviet Union.
There's no out.
Venezuela drove the country into the ground because they took over the oil industry and buried it because they were too stupid to figure it out.
You get it?
Does that distinction make sense?
Now, do you understand why AOC's Chief of Staff, exactly what they're talking about?
Their goal with the Green New Deal was never to do anything with green energy.
Forget about it.
They don't care about green energy.
It was simply a pathway to tax and regulate the energy industry, and by default, because everything uses energy, everything else in the economy, and to transform the economy through taxes and regulation into this new socialist atmosphere.
And if those companies then fail, AOC or Chief of Staff and all her liberal acolytes can blame the companies and take no responsibility for the failure.
Failure at all.
That's what Obamacare was.
They planned on blaming the healthcare companies when Obamacare collapsed as a vehicle to then come in like white knights and say, look, now the government's going to fix it.
Just give us it all.
Look what happened last time when those private companies took over.
You see it?
That makes sense?
It did?
You sure?
Yeah, the new show.
It's in that book.
He lays it out beautifully, but it's an older book, worth your time.
It's funny, this guy really can't stand me.
I think I've sold his book more than he's sold his actual book.
It's kind of hysterical, but it's so good that he's right.
Why own it?
Why would the government own it?
Just tax and regulate it to death.
You own it anyway.
And then when they fail, you just blame them.
Okay.
Oh, let's see.
Eleanor Friday.
Yes, we're doing good on time.
Great.
Bad news.
I got a little bit of bad news for you.
The economy's doing well.
You know, I don't mean to be Debbie Downer, but I'm not here to be a propaganda outlet for anybody either.
The economy's doing well.
Dow's up.
We've seen some great moves by Trump on the tax front, the regulatory front, but ladies and gentlemen, as we see at CNS News today, Terrence Jeffrey, who writes there and is doing the nation a national service by writing about this story constantly, Our national debt, folks, is out of control.
Our debt and deficit, it's entirely out of control.
I don't know any other way to express the gravity of the situation other than we're approaching a fiscal apocalypse right now.
The national debt this year, excuse me, the deficit this year, so our spending levels are 3.3 trillion dollars this year.
This is the largest amount of government spending in American history.
Ladies and gentlemen, we are headed towards close to a trillion dollars in debt again.
Put this in perspective, how much money we are spending.
Our entire economy, every year, produces about $22 trillion worth of goods and services.
Ladies and gentlemen, we owe that entire amount.
Maybe in smaller numbers, on the micro scale, the gravity of it will make more sense.
If you made $80,000 a year, and you owed $80,000 a year, do you think you'd be in a pretty bad debt problem?
Of course!
Now you may say, okay, Dan, that sounds bad, but it doesn't sound that bad.
I owe 80, but I make 80 a year.
Folks, the problem is it's getting, it would, it's bad now if you make 80 and owe 80.
What's even worse is your debt is accumulating and piling up.
You're not paying it off at all.
The government is making no effort whatsoever.
The rhinos in Congress and the Democrats who will spend this off a cliff, not only not to pay it off, they're piling it on every year at rates we haven't seen anywhere in human history outside of the Obama administration, which was the worst.
Folks, this is a catastrophe.
Now let me tell you what's going to happen and make it real for you.
You make 80, you owe 80.
Next year, you owe 82, 85, 90, 100.
Sooner or later, you lose the ability entirely to ever pay that back.
Folks, despite what the liberals and the rhinos are telling you, who seem to think the national debt is not our biggest problem, it is.
And sadly, one day we're gonna have an economic collapse, and people are gonna go back and listen to these shows and be like, well, he was talking about it.
I'm not gonna be on the wrong side of this.
We are looking at the biggest and most predictable financial crisis in human history and nobody is doing a damn thing.
Nobody.
I don't want to give up this.
I don't want to give up that.
You want to give up everything because it's going to collapse.
Here's what's going to happen.
Reminds me of the tulip crisis.
Google it if you want the whole story.
Where they exchanged in tulips and they went up in value and everybody did.
Real, but it's not a joke by the way.
I thought these tulips were terrific and they were so much money until somebody said this tulip's probably not worth this and the tulip market collapsed overnight.
The same thing is happening with the United States now.
People are under the impression the United States is going to pay them back.
Still, interest rates are very low.
Very low.
It's the paradox of our time.
Why are you investing money in the United States knowing the United States has an unsustainable amount of debt?
Why?
Why are you lending the government money?
The answer is because there's no other option right now.
But even when you have no other option, sooner or later you're going to want your money back.
Just because the Japanese economy owes more doesn't mean you're not going to want your money back.
Sooner or later, we're going to reach a crescendo and a tipping point where people are going to say in mass, I want the money I lent the U.S.
government back.
And when the government says, we can't pay you, folks, interest rates are going to go through the roof.
This is the most predictable financial crisis in human history.
How are you going to feel paying 22% for a mortgage?
You go to buy a used car, you loan it out, that's 25% interest.
What?
Remember folks, people pay based on monthly payments.
They budget.
If your monthly payment for a car that you have is $1,000 and $600 of it is interest, you're not going to be able to buy the car.
You're just not.
Or you're going to have to get a really crappy car.
This is going to happen.
You can't lend money to people forever.
People eventually are going to want their money back.
Remember, all debts are paid.
Milton Friedman, famous line, all debts are paid by the creditor or the debtor.
You lend money to someone, they don't pay you back, the debt was paid by you.
You lent them the money, they didn't pay you back.
You lend them the money, they do pay you back, they paid you back.
Read the story, folks.
I mean, listen, I know the President's limited in what he can do, the budget's put out there by Congress, but if you're up in Congress, I just, I know some of you listen to my show, and I know there are some good people up there, you know, the Jim Jordans and Mark Meadows and others, you know, Devin Nunes and others, but guys, please.
I mean, did you really want to be on the wrong side of this?
I mean, when this thing collapses, we're going to become an international laughingstock.
It's really sad.
It was this headline in Drudge this morning, this national debt report, and I just, it brings the sads to me every single day I see it.
Alright, I got a quick cut for you, showing you how, what have I always told you, right?
The gift of Donald Trump in this new Trump era, the gift of Trump is getting the liberals Getting the liberals to show their butts to everybody.
Show us who they really are.
Liberals forever have gotten away with this trick with the media, and that kind of way the media plays along, of course.
But with some people, liberals have gotten away with this.
We're the compassionate ones.
The conservatives are all xenophobe, racist, misogynist.
You've heard the whole litany of istophobic, phobophobe insults.
They don't mean any of it.
They just use it to hurt us, of course, and to hurt us politically.
But the gift of Trump is he refuses to give in to these people.
And by basically flipping them off and fighting back, he enrages them because they're used to conservatives caving.
The liberal trick in the past is call conservatives racist, watch them back down, bury them, make them look like fools, and go raise money off it, get re-elected.
Trump refuses to back down.
You call him any of these names or anything else, and what does he do?
He gives you sharp elbows.
He'll basically crush you.
So this drives, by the way, breaking news, uh, Alexander Acosta is the labor secretary.
He's going to step down.
He was the one involved in the Epstein prosecution.
I just saw that on Fox.
Sorry to interrupt that train of thought there, but, uh, it's, you know, it's again, the liberals somehow managed to turn a Democrat sex scandal and make it about Republicans.
And it's, it's unbelievable.
It really, it's really incredible.
But the gift of Trump here is his ability to punch these guys in the face back personally, and it enrages them.
And it makes them say really stupid stuff.
Perfect example of the view is Joy Behar, who again, cannot stop the Nazi analogies, which are so absurd and ridiculous, but she just can't help herself.
Check this out.
So, you know, here's another outrage for you.
There are reports today that Trump intends to move forward with his immigration raids targeting migrant families.
This weekend, I thought it was supposed to be gangs coming from these places, not families with children.
He's going to, you know, raid these people's houses and what have you.
They're very reminiscent of Nazi Germany, just saying.
I know you're not supposed to make that connection, but I've been around long enough and I've read enough to know that this is very similar to what happened to the Jews.
Go in and take them out of their houses.
What are the Democrats going to do?
You know the Godwin's Rule?
Have you ever heard of Godwin's Rule?
Godwin's Rule is the longer a conversation proceeds that has some political overtones, eventually someone will analogize someone to a Nazi.
That's why I put Godwin sometimes, Hooters.
It's usually liberals that do it.
No matter how long, whatever you're talking about, cell phones, papers, microphones, taxes, coffee pots, so the coffee pot's sitting there, marmalade, whatever the heck that is, it doesn't matter.
A liberal will eventually, if the conversation goes on long enough, call someone a Nazi.
Joy Behard only took, what, a minute or something in that shot?
And that piece of video there?
That's what they do.
But this is the gift of Trump, is getting these people to expose themselves to America as who they really are.
Joy Behar, ironically, thinks she's helping the cause with this hyperbolic, outrageous analogies.
AOC and others do this as well with the concentration camp stuff.
I'm just telling you, I'm sure of this, that although this may appeal to 30% of liberal lunatics out there who find this kind of rhetoric appealing, It is not the majority of America who find this stuff absolutely appalling.
And the gift of Trump is getting the Democrats to constantly do this.
Constantly humiliate and embarrass themselves.
All right.
Last story of the day, piece of good news.
It's Friday.
I'll leave you with some good stuff.
It's going to be a nice weekend.
We get the summer out there, go out, have some adult sodas, jump in the pool, have some time with your kids and your wife.
President Trump, Washington Times piece, the ninth circuit, the ninth circuit, a court of appeals.
You know, the courts have been a problem for us forever.
When the Democrats can't win an issue with the polls, social issues or whatever, what do they do?
They go and litigate it in the courts and get black robe judges who are really liberals trying to be judges because they're really politicians.
They get the judges to rule in their favor.
We've seen this over and over on social issues, the travel ban, the Trump agenda, the citizenship question, the left runs to the courts.
It is absolutely essential that we get the courts back to their original intent, the original intent being to act as judges and not as politicians, to act as strict constructionists, right?
President Trump has been doing a fantastic job with this.
The Ninth Circuit, the most liberal circuit court of appeals in the land, where the liberals take all their cases, has 28 active judges, right?
28.
Trump has now appointed seven of them.
If we can get a second term, ladies and gentlemen, there's a distinct possibility that that liberal Ninth Circuit will tip and we could get 15.
If we get 15, of course, that would be the majority, which would mean When judges who are randomly selected from the Ninth Circuit for cases and important cases that decide our future, the travel ban, the citizenship question that eventually went up to the Supreme Court.
Remember, a lot of these cases die at the appeals court level.
That's why the appeals court is so important.
Supreme Court's important, but very, very few cases, very few get there.
The appeals court is where all the action is.
If we can flip the DC Circuit and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and get a majority of strict constructionist judges, Then when those judges are randomly selected, the chance, obviously, of getting a judge who abides by the Constitution is going to be significantly greater.
And the liberals' agenda of shutting us down in the courts would be entirely closed off.
Very, very important.
Good work by the Trump team.
They got Dan Bress onto the 9th Circuit.
That's 7 out of 28.
We need a second term.
That's going to be, in my opinion, the legacy of the Trump administration in the long run.
The economy's good, no question, but I think his real legacy, if he gets a second term, is going to be a transformation of our courts back to their original intent.
So there's some good news for you on a Friday, even the Ninth Circuit's starting to slowly turn around.
All right, folks, thanks again for tuning in.
I really appreciate it.
It's been a good week of shows.
Thanks for bearing with me with the video on the road.
It's, you know, again, our original intent was only to do audio on the road, but since you all seem to really like the YouTube channel, youtube.com slash Bongino, if you want to subscribe, even though they throttled the snot out of us and demonetized our videos, we felt the need to bring this to you.
So I, you know, background's the best we can do on the road.
We travel with a boatload of equipment.
Thank you, Paula.
for great road work this week.
You're pretty awesome.
My wife spent all night getting the show ready today.
Please subscribe to our audio show as well.
Audio on Apple podcasts, Google podcasts, iHeart, SoundCloud, it's all free.
