This Video on Big Tech Should Frighten Everyone # 1024 (Ep 1024)
In this episode I address the frightening ability of big tech to manipulate election outcomes. I also cover the disintegrating immigration debate and the Democrats changing positions. Finally, I address the hidden scheme behind the “government option” for healthcare. News Picks:John Solomon’s new piece decimates the dirty dossier.
Barack Obama once supported the same immigration asylum position as President Trump.
Nancy Pelosi violates House rules in a desperate effort to attack Trump.
Unbelievable! Sanctuary State California released illegal aliens charged with murder and rape.
Population shifts are setting up a huge 2020 election fight.
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?
Dan-o.
Producer Joe is a-okay.
All systems go.
Joe, do you know what Vocal Fry is?
I was listening to Howard Stern yesterday do the radio.
He does some good interviews.
I think so.
He was talking about Vocal Fry.
It drives me nuts.
I just listened to this interview between Gayle King and AOC and the squad and the Vocal Fry is awesome.
Ah, I can't take vocal fry.
You know vocal fry?
I think they can make some sound more intelligent when they talk like that.
It is so irritating.
No. No.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Oh, I cannot take it.
Just end your words.
Just end them.
Please.
Hello, Joe.
How are you?
Ms.
Turbantino.
End it.
I'm doing well.
End it.
Cut it off!
I can't take it.
I was just thinking, I was listening.
We had a bit of a technical thing before this.
I said, Joe, hold on a minute.
I want to listen to this thing.
You know, AOC and the squad are accusing Nancy Pelosi again of basically the death threats that they're getting.
She's trying to tie them and her squad to Nancy Pelosi.
And the whole thing was the death threat.
Oh my gosh, the most annoying thing.
Even us imitating it is annoying.
Yes it is.
Okay, I've got a stacked show for you, right?
I've got some video, it's going to blow your mind.
Big hat tip to Breitbart for picking this out.
Yeah.
Potential big tech, right?
This is good.
Big tech manipulation of the election.
And I'll bet it's something you haven't thought of before.
I got that, another John Solomon piece, and the immigration crisis again exploding.
So let's get right to it.
Today's show brought to you by our buddies at GenuCell.
Jen you sell here is the jawline treatment as a matter of fact you wish that double chin would just disappear news flash ladies and gentlemen people look at your jawline it simply tells your age here is the famous robin from lubbock texas famous i put gen you sell jawline cream on my neck two or three days ago it's the best my neck has looked in 20 years oh people told me my face looks young I'm blown away!
Robin was blown away.
Using MDL technology and Chaminade's proprietary base, GenuCell's brand new jawline treatment specifically targets the delicate skin around the neck for tight, healthy, younger looking skin.
That's what you want!
See results right before your eyes or 100% of your money back.
No questions asked.
Order now and the classic gin you sell for bags and puffiness is free with your order.
And to start seeing results in 12 hours or less, gin you sell immediate effects.
You got a date or something?
Use immediate effects.
No double chin.
No turkey neck.
Yeah.
Yes!
No sagging jaw lines because no one needs to know your age.
Go to genucel.com.
That's genucel.com.
Enter Dan25.
That's Dan25 at checkout.
That's G-E-N-U-C-E-L.
Genucel.com.
Dan25 at checkout.
Get you two free gifts, free express shipping.
Go to genucel.com.
Enter Dan25 at checkout.
That's genucel.com.
All right, let's go!
Nice, right on target.
Okay, let's get right to this video.
This is Senator Ted Cruz again, big hat tip, bright part.
I retweeted this video, hope you see it on my Twitter account as well.
The audio lays it out completely though.
This is an expert in online manipulation, I think he's a social science researcher, and he's talking about the threat Google, Facebook, and big tech can potentially pose manipulating an election.
And he talks about this go-out-and-vote message that could have been targeted to a specific population, and what he thought would happen if he... You know what?
Let me let him explain it.
When he comes back, I will talk about this, because, ladies and gentlemen, this is really, really scary stuff.
Play the cut.
Now, you described the go-vote reminder, and you said it wasn't a public service announcement, but rather manipulation.
Can you explain how?
I'm not sure everyone followed the details of that.
Well, sure.
If on Election Day in 2016, if Mark Zuckerberg, for example, had chosen to send out a go-vote reminder, say, just to Democrats, and no one would have known if he had done this, that would have given that day An additional at least 450,000 votes to Democrats.
And we know this without doubt because of Facebook's own published data because they did an experiment that they didn't tell anyone about during the 2010 election.
They published it in 2012.
It had 60 million Facebook users involved.
They sent out a go vote reminder and they got something like 360,000 more people to get off their sofas and go vote who otherwise would have stayed home.
The point is, I don't think that Mr. Zuckerberg sent out that reminder in 2016.
I think he was overconfident.
I think Google was overconfident.
All these companies were.
I don't think he sent that out without monitoring systems in place.
We'll never know what these companies are doing.
But the point is, in 2018, I'm sure they were more aggressive.
We have lots of data to support that.
And in 2020, you can bet that all of these companies are going to go all out.
And the methods that they're using are invisible.
They're subliminal.
They're more powerful than most any effects I've ever seen in the behavioral sciences.
And I've been in the behavioral sciences for almost 40 years.
Folks, oh boy, that is not the most disturbing minute and 30 you've heard on election manipulation in a long time.
I don't know what is.
That is a hat tip to Senator Cruz and Breitbart for the video.
Great question.
Great line of questioning there.
And to the good doctor there in the social sciences for letting us know what happened there.
Think about what he just said.
Facebook's own internal data from a GOTV get out the vote Excuse me, Google's internal data.
Message.
Their own data seems to indicate that they could have moved hundreds of thousands of additional people to the polls, and he brings up a fascinating point.
What if Google targeted this only to likely Democratic voters?
Ladies and gentlemen, 400,000 votes in select swing states could swing the entire presidential election.
No question about it.
Not to mention State Senate, State House of Reps, Congressional seats, U.S.
Senate seats.
Some of these races are decided by a sliver.
Think of the Norm Coleman Minnesota election, which flipped back and forth.
Al Franken winded up taking that seat based on some shady numbers.
Folks, this is frightening stuff.
Now, you know my stance if you're a regular listener.
I don't believe government intervention here is going to help.
I believe it's only going to exacerbate the problem when it comes to big tech, because the government you're assuming is going to be acting in your best interest, not in the effort to suppress conservative thought, which will likely happen in the long run, because the government will not be run by conservatives the entire time.
I do not trust the government.
The issue, and where I've made the exception frequently, and I'll make it again, is when it comes to elections.
We have very specific, I believe very well done, laws And regulations on election manipulation, where the monitor is the FEC, the Federal Election Commission.
Ladies and gentlemen, there has to be a standard, some sort of, again, big tech or consumer bill of rights for election that you can be expecting from these big tech companies, fair and open access to election data, and you can expect that any of their efforts that are pushed out to GOTV, get out the vote, Are not in any way manipulated with any partisan intent.
If they are, then that would be effectively an in-kind donation to the Democrats and would be illegal if you didn't declare it.
You track what I'm saying there?
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
If there's going to be a Google, Facebook, whatever it may be, YouTube, Twitter effort to get out to vote, there cannot be any partisan intent.
The FEC should be allowed to review those algorithms, the FEC, and to make sure they are not targeted at a specific political party, Democrat or Republican.
I'm not kidding.
I have no interest in these big tech companies pushing either side.
If they want to do it as a public service, broad-based, nonpartisan in intent, fine.
But they should open that algorithm up for public review for the FEC to look at because if Google is pushing out only what they believe to be Democrat voters to get out and vote and are manipulating elections, this is Orwellian frightening stuff.
Very frightening stuff.
And the good professor pointed out it was subliminal.
So I'm kind of wondering if they'll even know what to look for.
You know, I don't know.
That's why we have to open up these algorithms for review when it comes to electioneering.
Any type of electioneering.
In-kind donations.
Listen, I ran for office a couple times, so I'm pretty familiar with this.
In-kind donations, the way some people would attempt, if you didn't have to declare in-kind, meaning not, there wasn't a cash transaction, let's say, right?
The way people would get around donation limits, if in-kind donations, you didn't have to declare them is, let's say you own a tech company and you want to give whatever, Joe Biden's campaign, a bunch of free services.
Well, Joe Biden's campaign doesn't have to pay for those services now, and if those services are worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, that's not fair to the other campaigns.
So Joe Biden's campaign has to declare those as in-kind, not cash exchange services, but free services given to them.
You have to declare them.
There are rules against that.
If Google's gonna do a massive get-out-the-vote effort and target it towards Democrats, that's an in-kind donation to the Democrat Party.
You'd have to declare that.
Of course Google would never do that.
So, but you're right, Joe.
Subliminal, it's kind of like that at the movie theater where they used to briefly flash the popcorn and the soda and nobody saw it and they're like, yeah, you know what, I want a popcorn and a soda.
Yes, we wouldn't know, but that's why you have to open up these algorithms.
Listen, I don't want to beat this story to death.
I just, I was actually going to cover this last and I thought this is important enough.
That I open up the show with this.
This is a very serious topic.
Again, I'm not for government intervention, but when it comes to a free and fair election, declaring in-kind donations, intent to these companies, an open and honest intent about what they're doing, if they are going to help the Democrats, and that's their intention, those algorithms should be open for government monitors and the FEC to look at.
No question about it.
Right, brother.
That would unquestionably be an in-kind donation and would be absolutely unfair to Republican candidates.
All right, moving on.
Ladies and gentlemen, the immigration crisis is absolutely exploding here.
I want to point out here, I've got this, I've got Solomon's story coming up, so don't go anywhere with that.
Another bombshell last night from John Solomon.
Completely annihilating leftist narratives, by the way.
But the immigration story is blowing up.
I've been getting a lot of questions About the citizenship question, what it means, why Donald Trump attempting to put the citizenship question on the census is a big deal.
I had described to you last week in one of the roadshows that one of the reasons the left fears the citizenship question is the way we Allocate congressional representatives, not the Senate.
Obviously, the U.S.
Senate, you get two per state.
Doesn't matter what the population is.
Montana gets two, New York gets two.
I mean, I'm not talking down to anyone, but I do get a lot of questions.
I just want to be sure we're clear on this.
The intent of the founders was to make one of the bicameral branches of our Congress, the House of Representatives, sensitive to population, while the other could display its own regional interests by having two per state.
The House of Representatives being sensitive to population, you get roughly one congressman for every 700,000 citizens.
Now, every 10 years, because the population of the United States increases and decreases in certain areas, on net we generally increase overall, but certain areas lose population, certain gain.
California and New York have been hemorrhaging people for a long time.
Florida and Texas have been gaining people, therefore they get more congressional representatives.
Your state bumps up by 700,000 people, you'll get one extra congressman or congresswoman.
That's obvious.
Now if that's based on a pure citizenship count, California, which is populated because of its sanctuary state status, and I'll get to that in a second too, by a lot of people here illegally would likely lose members of Congress.
The fact that they believe there is an undercount, there would be an undercount on the census on the citizenship question, although that's not its intent, and I believe it's perfectly fair and has been asked forever, An undercount of roughly six million people.
The Democrats are panicking because they think they'd lose how many, Joe?
About eight or nine congressional seats.
That's it.
Just it's simple math.
Now, I discussed that last week, but I bring it up again because it's not just the fact that the Democrats want representation in the House of Representatives based on illegal aliens populating those states.
They want that.
They want to flood the country with people here illegally, not legally, And use them to gain voting power in the House of Representatives.
But there's a second reason.
The second reason is there's a cash value to this, too, in benefits paid for by who?
You.
Of course, you.
Wall Street Journal piece today, it's a good one, talks about the actual cash value in certain places of having people counted in the country who are here illegally and the cash value you're paying for it.
Sanctuary Cities get a census bonus, yeah, by Peter A. Morrison and David A. Swanson.
In the end, it's all about money.
Money and voting power.
That's why, keep in mind ladies and gentlemen, this is not about legal immigration.
Of course legal immigrants, green card holders, people who are here and have become citizens, resident aliens, of course they should be counted in the citizenship.
And we should know how many people are here legally and illegally.
I don't think it's going to disincentivize people, but Democrats will tell you that again because they don't want to lose congressional seats.
But here from the Wall Street Journal piece is what every person here in the country illegally is worth in Portland.
Check this out.
This citizenship question, quote, this also means more federal money.
Population data from the 2020 census will direct the flow of billions of federal dollars to states and cities for 10 years thereafter.
Andrew Reamer, a professor of public policy at George Washington University, has identified more than 300 federal programs that allocate funding based on census population count.
Using his data, we estimate that Portland stands to receive from these programs $2,772 per migrant in federal funds annually.
This is worth $27,720 over the next 10 years.
A quote, census bonus.
Ladies and gentlemen, the Democrats never tell you their true intent.
They're telling you, oh my gosh, the census question asking about citizenship is going to frighten people.
Why would it frighten people?
If you're here in the country legally and not a citizen, what's the problem?
You're here, Lee, just answer the question!
If you're here illegally in violation of our laws, and you don't want to answer the question, then maybe you should enter the country legally!
This is not hard!
This question has been asked throughout our history, and was asked on the Community Research Survey, the long form.
There's nothing controversial about this question.
They ask everything else in the census.
But now you know why.
Number one, they're afraid of losing congressional representatives, and number two, they want your money.
They want you to be able to finance sanctuary states and people who just don't care about our laws.
How do we know that?
Because they entered the country illegally and said, ah, laws, schmoz, I don't really care.
I never thought of it that way.
Well, now you know.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is real money.
You're gonna pay roughly $2,700 per person here illegally in your money while also allocating to those states that want and harbor people here illegally through sanctuary state status.
In other words, come here, we won't enforce the laws.
They want more voting power, too, to take more of your money.
This is an endless spiral, downward spiral of chaos.
Take our money, we work for, and then get more voting power in those states to vote to take more of our money in the end.
And what a disgrace, by the way, to people in the country legally.
Now, immigration chaos continues.
It's not just that.
Sanctuary City's up at Bongino.com and Sanctuary State's.
Look at this disaster.
Up at our website, ICE.
Sanctuary State, California released illegal aliens charged with what?
Petit larceny?
No, murder and rape.
Yes, from the peace, ladies and gentlemen.
And I discussed this on Fox & Friends the other day.
You believe this?
The report by Breitbart, Breitbart did a report, extensively outlined that Sanctuary State, California routinely, routinely, Joe, released illegal aliens charged with drunk driving.
California also released an illegal alien who was arrested for drug possession.
One month later, the same illegal alien was arrested for murder and is currently in ICE custody.
Those charged with rape have also been released.
Folks, as I discussed in my regular Monday morning appearance on Fox & Friends, this is outrageous.
This is outrageous.
Not only is this a slap in the face, not only is this a hit to our wallet, financing the law-breaking into our country and the harboring of people who have broken the law in sanctuary states, this is creating a public danger to the public.
Because what they have essentially created, and someone on Twitter misinterpreted my words during this Monday Fox & Friends appearance, where I stated, what the Democrats want to create is a class of super-citizens.
The guy on Twitter thought I meant super citizens.
I mean it as a pejorative for the Democrats.
In other words, you and I, Joe, are subjected to U.S.
law, obviously.
We have to obey laws we even don't like.
I can't stand Obamacare.
Frankly, I live in the United States where this garbage law was passed, and we're forced to obey it until we can vote people out and change it.
I don't break the law as a matter of practice.
I mean, unless the law, you know, violates the civil liberties of others and civil disobedience is in order, like we had in the Jim Crow Democrat-run South, where luckily the Freedom Marchers went down there and broke this tyranny to pieces.
We have to obey the law.
That's not what the Democrats want.
They want to create a class of air quotes super citizens who don't, who by the way, aren't citizens at all.
They're here illegally, right?
And they don't have to not only obey the law, they're not even detained on murder and rape charges.
Oh!
These are people not subjected to any of it.
Our laws are meaningless to them.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is the immigration chaos we have found ourselves in with the Democrat Party.
It's utterly, completely absurd.
The super citizen is not meant to be a compliment.
Yeah, someone misinterpreted that.
Yeah, yeah.
What I mean is this is the Democrats' version of where our country is going.
That lawbreakers who enter the country illegally are not subjected to the same laws, ironically, of the people who actually are citizens, came here legally, were born here, financed the country, worked to pay the tax dollars, and worked to make the country a better place.
Now, one last story on this immigration chaos, because I got a lot to get to.
Folks, the Democrats Morphing, and evolving is the term they use, into the immigration chaos party, which is what they are now.
Immigration is devolving into, it's just, the Democrats' standards now are open borders, taxpayer finance, benefits for illegal aliens, sanctuary states, super citizen status for illegal aliens.
It is entirely immigration chaos.
To show you how quickly they've evolved, Donald Trump and his team came out just the other day with an initiative to make people coming to the United States filing for asylum, to make them file in the first country they arrive at.
So if you're coming from Central America, Guatemala, Ecuador, and you traverse Mexico first, you have to declare asylum in Mexico before you try anything in the United States.
Okay, is everybody clear on that?
We're good.
You land in Mexico, you land in Canada, you have to file for asylum there.
Because your asylum claim is supposed to be based on you believing reasonably that there is a threat to you that you've been targeted for your political beliefs, and that your life is in danger.
In other words, you're not coming here for economic reasons, you are coming here because you think you're going to be killed, tortured, or in prison because of who you are or your political beliefs.
Right.
Therefore, if you're escaping and you escape to Mexico, you should file for asylum there.
Or in Canada, you should file for asylum there.
The Democrats, of course, are claiming this is racist, xenophobic.
Ladies and gentlemen, here's video Barack Obama saying the exact same thing the Trump team said.
And notice, there was zero goose egg media outcry at the time.
None!
Because the media and liberal activists are frauds.
They only want to impugn the integrity of Republicans who pose the exact same solutions as Barack Obama.
Here's Obama, again, proposing the exact same thing.
Big hat tip to the examiner that pulled this out.
Check this out.
As I explained to my fellow presidents, under US law, We admit a certain number of refugees from all around the world based on some fairly narrow criteria.
And typically, refugee status is not granted just based on economic need or because a family lives in a bad neighborhood or poverty.
It's typically defined fairly narrowly.
You have a state, for example, that was targeting a political activist and they need to get out of the country for fear of prosecution or even death.
There may be some narrow circumstances in which there is a humanitarian or refugee status that a family might be eligible for.
If that were the case, it would be better for them to be able to apply in country rather than take a very dangerous journey all the way up to Texas to make those same claims.
But I think it's important to recognize that that would not necessarily accommodate a large number of additional migrants.
Do you understand that's the exact same policy as Trump?
Where was the media?
That's right.
Crickets!
Nothing!
Folks, every day I wake up and say to myself, how can we point out the fact that hack media activists and their liberal cronies are only in this to attack Republicans, to diminish them, to gain political power.
Remember, the golden rule, I discussed this last night on Hannity, during my Fox appearance.
We think liberals are people with bad ideas.
Liberals think we are bad people with ideas.
They are not attacking us on our ideas.
How do I know that?
Because Barack Obama just gave a speech that could have been almost verbatim a Trump speech and the media said what?
Come on cricket guy.
Come on cricket guy!
There's you!
[Cricket noises]
Yes, I love this.
This is my favorite.
Who sent this to me again?
This is the cool, if you're not watching this at YouTube.com, check this out.
They sent me, this is the greatest thing ever.
It's a good drop, too.
Nothing!
The media said nothing!
They said zilch, zero, nada, because this is not about attacking ideas.
Liberals think we are bad people with ideas.
It is about attacking and diminishing bad, air quotes, people.
Therefore, go after Trump.
Well, that's the same idea brought about by the Obama administration.
How can we attack him?
Come on, knucklehead!
This isn't about ideas.
Trump, orange man, bad.
We must take him out.
He's got nothing to do with ideas.
This is about power, this is about votes, this is about money, and this is about attacking the GOP and conservatives and libertarians regardless of the exact same idea proposed by Barack Obama.
Ladies and gentlemen, please wake up to this.
This is why I told you, you're never debating the liberal.
When you're out in public and you're talking and you're going back and forth with them, and I do it on Fox, you're not debating them.
However, you should.
Why, Dan, that doesn't make any sense.
Why would I talk to people who aren't interested in facts and data?
Because someone's listening.
And someone is going to hear at some point that, wait, Barack Obama supported the same thing and this liberal guy's attacking the conservative guy?
And the conservative guy pointed that out?
Then why's the liberal guy object to the idea if Obama supported the same thing?
Because the liberal guy just hates the conservative guy!
Sheesh, maybe the conservative guy's my kind of guy.
Because the liberal clearly has no facts and data to back things up.
You're always arguing for the third person.
Always.
Always.
The liberal is lost.
They are lost.
They have no adherence to principles or ideology at all.
This is all about the personal diminishment of Republicans.
Because remember Golden Rule No.
2?
Golden Rule No.
1, they think we're bad people with ideas.
Golden Rule No.
2, liberals never get you to vote for them.
They get you to vote against the other guy.
Whereas conservatives have a consistent platform that's been consistent for 40 or 50 years.
Economic freedom, healthcare freedom, school choice, pro-life, pro-second amendment.
Liberals do not.
Liberals have been all over the map.
Obama was against gay marriage, and he's for gay marriage.
Obama was for asylum claims in other countries, now the Democrats are against it.
You had blue dogs that were for the Second Amendment in swing states who now can't stand the Second Amendment.
Democrats' platform changes all the time.
Why?
Because a platform is based on ideas, and again, they don't have any!
They don't get you to vote for them because they don't have a consistent set of ideas.
They get you to hate the other guy.
And that's where identity politics fills in the hole.
They can't get you to hate the other guy's ideas.
Why, Joe?
Because they had the same ideas!
I just played the tape for you, Barack Obama!
They can't get you to hate the idea.
Of asylum claims in a third country?
Obama said it.
So what did they get you to do?
They say asylum claims in a third country.
You're definitely a racist.
And a total xenophobe.
Getting, xenophobe, getting you to hate the person.
Don't vote for me, vote against that maniac.
Trump, he's definitely a xenophobe.
But Obama said the same thing.
It's not about the ideas.
Guys, ladies, please.
I know you listen to my show often.
If you understand those two rules, your political instincts will never fail you.
We think they're people with bad ideas, they think we're bad people with ideas, and Democrats never to get you to vote for them, it's they get you to vote against the other guy.
If you understand that, you'll be ready for the personal tax, and you'll be ready to refocus it on the facts and the data that they don't have.
I promise you, I have been debating liberals on television for eight years.
I can tell you with no air of pretension.
I know this.
I don't even care if you think it's cocky or whatever.
I can tell you I have never ever left an appearance on Fox or anywhere else, CNN or MSNBC when I used to do those networks, where I felt like I lost the debate.
It's not that I'm claiming some super high power social intelligence or IQ.
It's just that liberals don't know anything.
They just don't know.
It's an emotion-based argument always.
When they emotion you, out-emotion them.
When they emotion you with facts that are wrong, expose their facts as being wrong, give them the right ones.
They have no argument.
All right.
I enjoyed that segment.
Today's show brought to you by Bravo!
Bravo!
Thank you again, Bravo Company, for the shirts.
If you're in the market for a rifle or a pistol, Bravo Company is for you.
These are the finest rifles and pistols out there.
Ladies and gentlemen, what makes Bravo Company different?
Because you may be saying to yourself, fair enough, listening right now, I have a lot of choices in rifles and pistols and self-defense firearms.
Why Bravo?
Ladies and gentlemen, because this is not a sporting arms company, okay?
I want to be clear about that.
Bravo Company Firearms, they make life-saving equipment.
They get input from people across the spectrum.
End-users, military, police officers, people who are out there and have experience with firearms in life-saving situations.
They make life-saving Saving equipment.
It's not a sporting arms company.
You're gonna have to go elsewhere for that.
They understand every rifle they make in America's Heartland, literally Heartland, Wisconsin, where they make their firearms, they understand that every precision rifle or pistol they're producing is to be made in spec to a life-saving standard.
It's not sporting arms stuff.
They think every end-user, when they're putting together their firearms, And every end-user could be a military officer, a soldier, an infantryman, army, navy, marines, coast guard, air force, law enforcement, or it could wind up in the end-user's hands who is someone who may, God forbid, one day have to use that firearm in a life-saving situation.
Bravo Company Manufacturing understands that.
This is one of my finest sponsors out there.
I have two of their firearms, and I always tell the story when I picked them up, the owner of the FFL location where I picked it up, who has extensive experience with firearms, said, hey, listen, these are top of the line.
If you are in the market for a rifle or a pistol, Please go to bravocompanymfg.com.
That's bravocompanymfg.com to learn more about their products.
They have special offers there too.
You want to check them out on their YouTube channel?
Go to youtube.com slash bravocompanyUSA.
USA.
Bravo Company, the finest rifles and pistols out there.
Please check them out at bravocompanymfg.com.
They make really cool t-shirts too.
Check this out.
Check it out at mineyoutube.com slash Bungie.
Looks like Captain America, right?
Yeah, yeah!
I need a shield or something.
I need like a Captain America shield.
I actually saw they have a replica of the Captain America shield from the Marvel movies.
I'm thinking about getting it for my daughter for Christmas.
She loves, she probably heard that.
She's out there.
They're off from school.
It's the summer.
Good job, Santa.
But they're really cool.
Yeah, yeah, I know.
I just totally blew it.
But it would be pretty cool.
It looks exactly like, I think it even has the claws on it from when Captain America's shield got clawed in that Avengers where Black Panther like ripped it up.
Yeah.
So I mean, it looks, it's like the real deal, the leather straps and everything.
Although I'm sure it's not made out of vibranium.
Uh, which they allege in the Marvel movies.
I don't think vibranium is actually real.
I'm actually a hundred liberals may think that, but I'm actually a hundred percent.
Oh yeah.
Vibranium.
Oh, I've got one in my head.
It's all, it's all basis.
Uh, return.
All right, moving on.
John Solomon last night on Hannity.
Another piece blowing the Dems' nonsense, collusion, hoax narrative out of the water.
Solomon always does great work.
Here's his piece at the Hill, up at the show notes.
Please check it out today.
And check out, by the way, we did some upgrades to the website.
I think you'll like it.
Bongino.com.
We will have this article there.
John Solomon at the Hill.
FBI spreadsheet puts a stake through the heart of the Steele dossier.
Why this piece?
Why now?
Folks, this is important.
You have seen in the last few days, as I discussed again on one of last week's shows, a renewed media effort, again, to rescue Christopher Steele as a legitimate source.
What's the backstory?
Why do you need to know this, and why does Solomon's story finally do a, you know, one of those big, like, Braveheart-like spears through the heart of the Steele dossier?
Okay, number one.
Let's address question number one.
Why is the media, Politico, The Washington Post, and elsewhere trying to rescue Christopher Steele?
The Inspector General's report about the abuses directed at the Trump team in Spygate is about to come out soon, folks.
I assure you, it is going to be devastating.
In that Inspector General report, from what I've heard, it's been out there in the public forum.
Sources are indicating that Christopher Steele was interviewed by the Inspector General.
Politico and the Washington Post put out reports suggesting that, well, the Inspector General found out that Christopher Steele, the source of the dossier, used to spy on Trump, Joe.
That is information that he may have been somewhat legitimate, and that all us crazy anti-Trumpers who debunked the dossier a long time ago, we may be the crazy ones.
Why are they doing this now?
They're doing it because they don't understand What exactly the IG is saying.
Whatever sources told you Steele was credible.
Jote.
Alright, I need you to put the ombudsman hat on here.
That is not what the IG report is going to say.
Christopher Steele's credibility, what they mean is he was telling the IG the truth about his bad information.
Not that the information he got was true.
Okay.
Does that make sense?
But of course, Politico and the Washington Post, in an effort to take the edge off this devastating IG report, which is going to point out the extensive reliance on a foreign source, Christopher Steele, to generate fake information to spy on the Trump team, to take the edge off, the Post and Politico are trying to pre-advance the narrative that Steele was credible.
Yes, he was credible about his uncredibility.
There's a difference.
Let me give you an analogy as a former law enforcement officer.
If I'm a source and I'm copping to the fact that I've been lying to the police for years about my information.
That I gave up all these people that weren't, in fact, criminals.
And then I come in with a lawyer one day, and all these people were falsely arrested based on my accusations.
And I then, in a proffer session or whatever it may be, say to the government attorney with my lawyer present, listen, I'm about to come clean.
I said Joe Armacost robbed a bank.
It's not true.
I said Joe Armacost held up the local deli at gunpoint.
That's not true, too.
I can come out of that and say to a prosecutor, as an agent or a prosecutor in the room, hey, I think he's telling us the truth.
That does not mean his other information was true.
It is unbelievable how Politico and the Washington Post can't figure this out.
So they're trying to advance a narrative in advance of the IG report that Steele was somehow credible.
We can now rescue the dossier.
Okay, no, no, no.
Now sticking a heart in this stupid theory.
So we have the theory, right?
WaPo, Politico, others.
Steele may have been credible.
Here is the first piece from John Solomon's excellent piece at the Hill.
Some in the news media have tried in recent days to rekindle their love affair with former MI6 agent Christopher Steele and his now infamous dossier.
The main trigger was a lengthy interview in June with the DOJ Inspector General, which some news outlets suggested meant U.S.
officials have found Steele, the former Hillary Clinton-backed political muckraker, to be believable.
No!
It goes on.
Here's Politico, a quote from Politico.
Investigators ultimately found Steele's testimony credible and even surprising.
Again, Politico's not smart enough to figure out what I just said, the analogy.
The Washington Post went even further, suggesting that Steele's assistance to the Inspector General might, quote, undermine Trump world's All narrative that the Russia collusion investigation was flawed.
Here we go.
Again, this is full-time political Washington Post activism, liberal activism.
This should be an in-kind donation to the Democrats.
Understand what's happening.
I'm Budsman Joe.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Get what's happening.
The IG report will be devastating.
It's going to conclusively bury the Steele dossier as a fake document used to spy on a U.S.
citizen.
Period.
Period.
They are trying to rescue Steele's reputation in advance so they can say in the end, well, you know, even the IG thought he was credible, so the FBI got fooled too.
Now we understand why they spied on Trump.
Nope.
Sorry.
That's not what they're saying.
The IG suggesting they're credible are saying that his information now about coming clean is credible.
Not the stuff he said before that's already been debunked.
Okay.
But again, they're not smart enough to figure that out.
It's not hard.
Or they are smart enough and they're engaged in full-time liberal activism.
Activision.
That was a game system.
Activism.
The latter is probably the more likely scenario.
Okay.
Takeaway number two from the John Solomon piece.
Quote, multiple sources familiar with an FBI spreadsheet tell me that the vast majority of Steele's claims were deemed to be wrong or cannot be corroborated, even with the most awesome tools available to the U.S.
intel community.
One of Solomon's sources estimated that the spreadsheet found upward of 90% of the dossier's claims to be either wrong, non-verifiable, or open-source intelligence found with a Google search.
In other words, It was mostly useless.
So, let's be clear about what happened.
Solomon reveals last night on Hannity and in his piece, that a spreadsheet, Joe, has surfaced with the FBI.
In that spreadsheet is allegation number one, status.
Allegation number two by Steele, status.
Allegation number three, where did these allegations surface?
The dossier and in Steele's other information.
Remember, it wasn't just the dossier he produced, it was another series of information as well.
Right.
You go back, listen to some of my older shows, you'll understand what I mean that.
That's how Clapper and Brennan get around the whole- You didn't see the dossier.
Yeah, but you were talking to Steele, right?
It was other information.
The FBI, ladies and gentlemen, kept a spreadsheet.
And 90% of the claims in the FBI's own spreadsheet were unverifiable.
Folks, do you understand how bad that is for a credible air-quote source?
I could go to the gym tomorrow and ask a guy to speculate—this is my day off, my joints are sore—ask a guy to speculate about the next Al Qaeda attack in the United States, and I can guarantee you probably 20 or 30 percent of their guesses, one of them will be right.
Well, it's going to be an attack maybe in New York, God forbid.
They're probably going to use some kind of explosive.
Seriously, if I ask someone to speculate on the next terror attack in the United States as a source, keep in mind, some rando in the gym who has no intel experience at all, I can almost guarantee you 20 or 30% of their predictions, God forbid there are one, will be right.
Steele was 90% wrong, unverified, or simply found the stuff on the internet.
Jesus!
Joe, if you ask kids in a grammar school who wants homework, you're gonna get probably 10-15% that'll raise their hand.
You have a better chance of getting kids to volunteer for homework than proving one of Christopher Steele's assertions right.
The spreadsheet is going to be an apocalyptic disaster for these FBI managers who relied on Steele's assertions to spy on a U.S.
citizen.
This is unheard of!
This thing was useless.
Takeaway number three from Solomon's Piece of the Hill.
The FBI's final assessment, they're talking about a Steele's credibility, was driven by many findings contained in the classified footnotes at the bottom of the spreadsheet.
But it was also informed, get a load of this, I told you about this weeks ago, we were ahead of this, but it was also informed by an FBI agent's interview in early 2017, it happened in January, that's me, I can tell you that, with a Russian that Steele claimed was one of his main providers of intelligence according to Solomon's sources.
The FBI came to suspect that the Russian misled Steele either intentionally or through exaggeration, the sources said.
Ladies and gentlemen, I've already described this to you.
You're way ahead of the curve if you've been listening to my show.
The FBI, and Jim Comey knows about this, interviewed one of Steele's alleged Russian sources he was colluding with.
Remember, that's the real Russian collusion scandal.
Hillary paying Steele, going to Russians.
That's the real collusion, right?
The FBI located one of Steele's Russian sources, Joe, and interviewed them in January of 2017, and found the information to be a steaming hot pile of garbage.
Well, why is that a problem?
Because, ladies and gentlemen, they continued to go back to the FISA court three more times, knowing Christopher Steele's information was debunked by the State Department in the Kavalec interview, by the spreadsheet Solomon just found that surfaced, and by the January 2017 interview with the Russian source Steele claimed to have, who was garbage!
They had nothing!
That's why the Washington Post and Politico is desperate to establish Steele as credible.
They're going to say, oh, we all got fooled.
Look, even the IG thought he was credible.
Red flag under the hood for review.
The flag on the field, ladies and gentlemen.
It's laundry on the field, folks.
This one actually landed right behind me.
Thank you everyone who sent in one of these.
We need a yellow flag, though.
We need a penalty flag.
Because the red flag is to review the play.
We need the yellow flag for holding 15 yards offense.
We need a yellow flag, too.
Crying in the wind.
I get so much.
I know, ever since the show like exploded, every time I say that people sense that.
It's very nice.
We got the whistles.
We got the cricket.
We got the red flag.
We got the famous referee hat.
We got props everywhere.
We're moving to a new studio.
We'll have more space in the future.
So hopefully one of these days.
We'll have a prop room.
I know, seriously, right?
Don't we?
All right, I've got a lot more to get to.
Good stuff today in the show.
Stack, stack, line up, including this story about why the government option, single payer, Medicare for all, is really a backdoor way to sleaze you out of your insurance plan now.
Now we've got the numbers.
Great story coming right up.
All right, today's show.
Finally brought to you by our buddies at U.S.
Law Shield.
Are you carrying a firearm in self-defense?
Listen, if you're doing it and you don't have U.S.
Law Shield protections, you are doing it naked.
Big, big mistake.
Nobody wakes up thinking today will be the day they're going to be pushed into a corner and forced to use their firearm in self-defense.
But God forbid it is.
What if it is?
That was the case for a 64-year-old New York state man who fatally shot two prowlers rooting through his home.
And this was the second time they hit this poor guy's house.
That's not why this story is so crazy.
After killing the suspects, the homeowner was arrested because the firearm which saved his life originally belonged to his dead father and he failed to—this is a true story—and he failed to register upon inheriting it.
I read this story.
It's amazing.
He was arrested and charged with felony possession of an illegal handgun.
Thankfully, he's out on bail, but his legal issues aren't over, possibly costing him thousands.
I'll argue, probably costing him a whole lot more than thousands.
Stories like this are exactly why I'm a proud member, which I am, of U.S.
Law Shield.
For less than $11 per month, you will not only have immediate, 24-7, 365 access to an attorney, but you won't pay a penny in attorney's fees.
Not a penny.
Zero, if this nightmare ever happens to you.
Do not carry a firearm without U.S.
Law Shield protections.
You will be carrying naked.
Go to uslawshield.com slash dan and a special gift for my listeners.
You'll get five defender reports.
They're worth reading.
Worth $100, absolutely free.
You'll be amazed how much useful information is inside.
Given the choice, I feel better knowing U.S.
Law Shield has my back.
Join me in the fight to protect your right to keep and bear arms.
Go to uslawshield.com slash dan.
That's uslawshield.com slash Dan.
Don't carry naked.
You're going to need these protections.
All right, folks, uh, moving on.
So, interesting story in the Wall Street Journal today, again, about how this Medicare-for-all, government option nonsense is a big scam.
By Scott Atlas, title of the piece, Public Option Kills Private Insurance.
Now, some of you are being misled, or as Al Sharpton once called it, mizeled.
You're being mizeled into believing, he did, on a prompter, you misread the prompter, mizeled.
You're being mizeled into believing that the government option is this benevolent thing.
Now, what is the government option?
What are Democrats saying?
Why is it going to affect you?
Number one, the government option is Joe Biden and others claiming, well, you know, if we just started a government-run health care plan and don't force people off their private plan like Kamala Harris and Bernie Sanders want to do, What's the harm there, Joe?
No big deal.
You could just go over to the government plan if your private insurance plan isn't meeting your needs.
Even some moderate Democrats are kind of like, well that doesn't sound so bad.
Yeah.
Ladies and gentlemen, there's always a scam with the Democrats.
Always.
And leave it to the Dan Bongino Show to uncover the scam for you.
What is this scam?
Well, number one, what a government plan or option is intended to do is to cost shift.
The only way a government plan can stay in business, Joe, Is by rationing and underpricing that care, meaning paying doctors and hospitals less than their market share value.
How do doctors and hospitals recoup those costs?
By overcharging people with private free market insurance.
As the piece indicates here, here are some meat on the bone numbers for you.
Excellent work here.
They say in the Wall Street Journal piece by Scott Atlas, consider the experience in Hawaii.
This is the only state in the union where they actually tried this.
A public option.
Only seven months, Joe, after offering care in 2008, the country's only statewide universal child health insurance, the state ended its optional program.
Only seven months afterwards.
Why?
Because 85% that signed on to the healthcare already had private insurance.
Those costs were suddenly shifted onto the taxpayers.
In other words, People who already had free market insurance, Joe.
Already had it.
Canceled it because they didn't want to pay the premiums to jump on to get taxpayer funded government programs instead.
The piece goes on.
And the beat goes on.
Wasn't that a song?
The beat goes on.
The beat goes on.
This guy knows everything about music, Joe.
I don't know.
I'm a pop culture.
I always listen.
Everybody like my Iron Mike Sharp reference here on WWF.
Thank you for the emails.
The public option would cause premiums for private insurance to skyrocket because of underpayment by government insurance compared with the cost for services.
According to the American Hospital Association, annual underpayments by Medicare and Medicaid surged to nearly $76 billion in 2017, nearly doubling once Obamacare's regulations came into play.
That added a burden of more than $1,500 a year on families paying private premiums.
Ladies and gentlemen, the math is not complicated.
The government will not pay because they can't.
The tax base is not there to finance insurance for the entire world.
Illegal aliens, everybody who can afford insurance.
Keep in mind, this is not A Medicaid, they're talking about a government option for everybody.
So what will the government do?
And again, Joe, put the ombudsman, I gotta get you an ombudsman hat.
Put your ombudsman hat on for a moment if this makes sense here.
What the government will do, because Democrats want to destroy free market insurance you control, they want to control your healthcare because the Democrats are in love with control, that's what they do.
That's their socialist streak, right?
In order to make sure private insurance disappears, They will undercut their premiums dramatically.
You're paying, whatever, $500 a month.
Democrats will come in, institute a government plan for $250.
Now again, you may say, that's crazy.
Okay, ladies and gentlemen, that may sound spectacular, but the problem is, if you're costing $500 a month in those premiums based on your healthcare needs, someone's got to come up with the $250.
That the Democrats are charging you via the government plan.
Who's gonna do it?
The answer is free market insurance.
You're now gonna pay $7.50 but to pay off the difference between what governments are paying doctors and hospitals and what people actually cost doctors and hospitals.
You're gonna pay!
Meaning what?
That $250 you're paying in government insurance is now going to look a whole lot better compared to the now $750 you have to pay with free market insurance to cover the difference, which is going to wipe them out.
How does that feel?
They want to cancel your private insurance.
So any of these lunatics out there on the left telling you, well, free market insurance, this isn't an attack.
If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.
Remember yesterday's show, Joe Biden dragging that thing out of the water again?
That disastrous line?
You will not be able to keep your plan.
A government option is a backdoor Trojan horse effort to undercut free market insurance you have now, and many of you like, to overprice it, to offset the difference, to drive them out of the market, to crush it.
Now, folks, there's another portion of the Atlas piece that should disturb you.
You'll say, well, it works in Sweden and the United Kingdom.
Oh, does it really?
We sure about that?
Again, double red flags on the show.
Under the hood for a view from the Wall Street Journal piece.
Foreign experience is also instructive.
More than 600,000 Swedes currently buy private insurance.
How's that?
How is that?
I thought they had single payer for everybody in Sweden.
According to Insurance Sweden, on top of paying, on top of, Paying $20,000 per family annually through taxes for their socialized system.
Wait, wait, digest that for a moment, please.
Digest that for a moment.
Verdy, verdy, verdy, vee.
Yeah.
Bjorn Amakar, of course, over there.
So just to be clear on this, Bernie Sanders and all the socialists, oh, he loves Sweden, it's so great.
So in Sweden, where they have nationalized healthcare, the average Swede is paying $20,000 in taxes for healthcare that's allegedly free.
It's free, but it costs $20,000, as PJ O'Rourke said.
You think healthcare's expensive, now wait till it's free.
In addition to that, 600,000 Swedes are buying additional insurance for the insurance they're not getting through the free insurance they got that they paid $20,000 for.
Am I following correctly here?
Oh my goodness.
So the Swedes have free insurance that costs them $20,000 and in addition to the $20,000 they're paying for a free product, they're also, 600,000 are buying additional insurance to subsidize the free insurance they got but the $20,000.
Does this make any sense?
Yeah.
If it doesn't, it shouldn't.
Yeah.
Moving on, in addition, while the United Kingdom is surely an example of how well this is going to work in practice, despite spending thousands of dollars through taxes on the NHS, half of Britons earning $50,000 a year or more buy private insurance or plan to, and some 250,000 pay cash for medical services, according to official statistics.
Combine this with the statistic I read for you yesterday, 63,000 Canadians a year, despite Free insurance are crossing the border into the United States to pay for it again here.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is the biggest scam ever.
Only suckers believe insurance or healthcare is free.
Suckers, with a capital S. Yes, if you believe health insurance and healthcare free, you're a sucker.
You are clearly not a bright person.
I'm sorry.
I'm not trying to insult you.
It's just true.
You're just not a bright person.
You have no interest in facts or data or elsewhere.
In socialized countries, people are paying again because the taxes they pay are still rationing their health care, so they have to pay cash.
And in a state where they already tried this government option, they dumped it after seven months because people who could pay for health care cancelled it to take your money, taxpayer money, to pay for health care.
Allegedly that's free.
Scam.
One last thing.
Quick story.
Leave you off on... We have a file on the show.
A file cabinet.
It's in my mind.
It doesn't really exist.
There's no room in here.
This office is too small.
But we have the hat tip to Tom Marr.
You're a racist file.
We pull it out once in a while, and it's things you'll be accused of being a racist for by the left, because as we opened up the show, Democrats don't get you to vote for them, they get you to vote against the other guy.
One of the ways to do that is by convincing Democrats that every Republican or conservative is somehow a racist.
So everything's racist.
Everything.
Air conditioning.
No, it's true, that's misogynistic, turning the air conditioner on.
We talked about that last week.
Voter ID.
You know, it's clearly racist, according to Democrats.
But I gotta tell you, Joe, this one even surprised me.
This is the Washington Post, which pretends to be a newspaper, declaring, Joe...
That the moon landing, the moon landing, this is an actual tweet, is racist.
Here's a tweet from the Washington Post.
The culture that put men on the moon was intense, fun, family, unfriendly, and mostly white and male.
So now the moon landing is racist.
This is allegedly a serious newspaper.
I mean, this is, you will get more verified, better, more quality information from the National Enquirer than you will from the joke of an activist outlet called the Washington Post.
But this is surely a new low.
The moon landing was racist.
In the end, I wanted to play this just quick video of this.
I mean, of course, if the moon landing was racist, then guys who advocate political leaders, Joe, for the moon landing, am I right here, have to be racist too?
I mean, simple logic, correct?
They have to be, yeah.
Thank you.
I mean, of course, of course they have to be.
Have to be.
So here is, according to the Democrats in the Washington Post, who must be a racist, the great John F. Kennedy, who apparently is now a racist, advocating for going to the moon.
We choose to go to the moon.
We choose to go to the moon.
[Applause]
We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things.
Not because they are easy, but because they are hard.
Now, I thought that was a great speech.
I actually admire a lot about JFK, including his push to cut taxes.
But apparently, according to the left in the Washington Post, he was a racist for wanting to go to the moon.
Again, if you're laughing at the idiocy and wondering why we cover this stuff, it's not to embarrass you or insult your intelligence.
It's to show you that you're not dealing with rational people.
And if you remember the two rules I told you, you will always understand what the liberal activists in the Post are there for.
Liberals think we are bad people with ideas.
We think they're people with bad ideas, number one.
Number two, liberals never get you to vote for them.
They just demean and destroy the other guy and get you to vote against them.
If you understand those two rules, your instincts politically will never, ever be wrong.
You know what JFK was?
He was a spacist racist.
Of course Joe has to throw in one of his witty Joe one-liners at the end.
He must have been.
He must have been.
A spacist.
Racist.
You don't even need the racist.
You just need a spacist.
That says it all.
Maybe we'll throw that on a t-shirt.
Was JFK a spacist before?
What is that?
Listen to the Dan Bongino show for answers, episode 1024.
Very nice, Joe.
You're a witty cat, unlike me.
All right, folks, please subscribe to our show, youtube.com slash Bongino.
You can subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, iHeart, SoundCloud.
We're getting a lot of listens and subscriptions from all of those platforms.
They're all free.
Matters to me.
Helps us move up the charts.
We really appreciate your loyalty.
We had our best podcast downloads on our audio show yesterday.
