In this episode I address the troubling new revelations about the Hillary Clinton email scandal. I also address an unprecedented liberal attack on the Second Amendment and the courts. Finally, I discuss this liberal presidential candidate doubling down on dishonesty.
News Picks:Why were Hillary’s emails being forwarded to this mysterious email address?
The Democrats are now brazenly threatening the Supreme Court.
Hypocritical Google employees are protesting the Border Patrol.
Stunning numbers regarding our national debt.
Copyright Dan Bongino All Rights Reserved.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Get ready to hear the truth about America on a show that's not immune to the facts with your host, Dan Bongino.
All right, welcome to the Dan Bongino Show.
Producer Joe is not here today.
He's in a remote location in Maryland, but he is listening in, folks.
Sorry, we're gonna miss him.
I do have a snack show for you today.
Thank you very much.
I mean it from the bottom of my heart to everyone who tuned in to Fox & Friends this morning, where I co-hosted.
It's always nice to be there.
Long day, but a good one.
I really enjoyed it.
We had an absolutely terrific band.
The Newsboys on stage, they were amazing.
They had their Friday concert series.
Folks, I mean it.
I'm not just messing with you.
They totally blew it up out there.
It was a real pleasure to be there and listen to them at the end.
I'm gonna go download some of their tunes today.
The music, they had the crowd really going, which is not easy, by the way, at whatever, 8.30 in the morning on a Friday, and they did it.
The nicest guys, too.
Really tremendous.
So I just want to throw that in there, give you a little inside baseball.
All right, I got a stack show for you today.
I want to start off today with a...
Really troubling story.
I had yesterday, Thursday, but I wanted to let things kind of filter out a bit about Hillary Clinton's emails.
I get it.
I don't want to hear about Hillary Clinton.
No, no, folks, I promise you this one's worth your time.
The story is very complicated, so we'll get to that.
I've got another story about something's going on in the Supreme Court and Elizabeth Warren doubling and tripling down on one of the dumbest comments I've heard from the campaign yet.
All right, let's get to it.
Today's show brought to you by our buddies at 23andme.com.
Listen, DNA testing can tell you about where your ancestors are from, but did you know, it can give you a lot of genetic information as well about your health and traits.
I took the test.
Understand more about yourself today and inform how you live your life going forward.
With 23andMe's Health and Ancestry service, you can learn how your genes can affect your health.
It's a lot to take in, but once you know more, you can take action now to stay healthy.
Listen, I like 23andMe.
I found out some interesting things about my past.
Some of the things I had suspected but was already confirmed when I took my Health and Ancestry test as well.
I knew I always had an intolerance for milk, and now I know that for sure.
My genes weren't lying.
There's a whole world of genes just waiting to meet you and 125 plus personalized genetic reports on your health traits and more.
The right personal health plan starts with the right data.
Your health reports can give you insights about your DNA so you can build a health plan that is unique to you.
They have a type 2 diabetes report.
They have a report about hereditary thrombophilia and I hope you don't have to ever find out what that is.
Family hypercholesterolemia for your cholesterol.
I learned a ton about myself.
I also learned I'm a terrible sleeper, which sent me to the doctor to figure that out.
23andMe reports do not diagnose disease or describe overall likelihood of developing any disease.
23andMe tests selected genetic variants only.
Visit 23andme.com slash Bongino for important test information.
Order your Health and Ancestry kit at 23andme.com slash Bongino.
That's 23, the number, 23andme.com slash Bongino.
Go check it out.
Meet your genes at 125 plus personalized genetic reports.
That's the number, 23andme.com slash Bongino.
All right, let's get to it.
I'm flying up to New York yesterday.
You can probably tell we're on a road show today.
Notice I dumped the mic stand.
See, there's the mic right there for those of you watching on YouTube.
Because last time I was so close to the screen, some of you were freaked out.
You're like, damn, we like you, but we don't like you that much.
We don't need to see your brain through your nostrils.
So this road show setup is a little better.
But I was reading about this story up at the Epoch Times.
Let's take a look at this.
Epoch Times has done some really good work.
There's been a disclosure.
Now, here's where this came about, and here's why you're hearing about this now.
Senator Chuck Grassley, who's been doing really good work in the Senate on both Spygate, kind of behind the scenes, and on the Hillary Clinton email scandal, sent a letter asking for more information about this.
Hat tip, Epoch Times.
And forgive me, Ivan, if I'm saying your name wrong.
Ivan Penchikoff.
So forgive me, Ivan.
It's not personal.
August 15, 2019.
This story will be in the show notes.
Read it, please.
Hillary Clinton's emails were sent to a gmail address similar to the name of a Chinese company
Now for those of you regular listeners and followers of the show I had told you that a while ago
I don't want to get it down and distill it this specific time frames because I don't want to give the guy up
But a source of mine had told me that the Hillary Clinton server
There were serious problems, and he strongly believed that the server had been compromised by foreign actors
None of that's new.
Maybe for some of you first-time listeners, but given who the source was, I believe him, and I still believe him to this day.
I think he's giving me accurate information.
But Graslie points out in this letter that all of Hillary's emails that were being sent over this private Hillary Clinton email network, not government-run, were apparently being forwarded to this email address.
Check out this snippet from the Epoch Times piece.
This is gonna blow your mind.
When I read this, I'm like, this can't possibly be true.
Unfortunately, it is.
Quote, Epoch Times, virtually every email which was sent to and received on the Clinton email server was forwarded to, get a load of this, folks, carterheavyindustries at gmail.com.
Which raised concerns that a foreign actor gained access to Clinton's emails after an intelligence community inspector general investigator searched Google for, quote, Carter Heavy Industries, and came up with a result for Shandong Carter Heavy Industry Company, LTD, according to the documents.
Shandong Carter Heavy Industry is a Chinese manufacturer of excavators and heavy equipment.
The company did not respond to a request for comment.
So folks, I'm not gonna get ahead of this story, I'm not gonna... There are times to speculate where it's fair, and there are times not to speculate.
And believe it or not, this is a time not to.
This is a time to just...
Let's run with what we have so far, because we don't know for sure, don't get ahead of me either, I'm not suggesting it didn't happen, but we don't know for sure that that email address all of Hillary's emails were being forwarded to was related to the company that used that name, Carter Heavy Industries, that Chinese company.
Having said that, Think about this.
If you're an email administrator for Hillary's private email network that's not authorized by the State Department, she's clearly doing it to get away with the trafficking of information and not having government eyes looking at it.
Remember, she's working for the government.
She's within the State Department at this point.
Why would you send it to that?
Now, in the Graslie letter where he's asking questions about this, they call it the dummy email address.
It was a dummy account.
But I'm gonna ask you a question, and maybe we can crowdsource here.
I have some ideas, but why I'm not speculating will become clear in the next few weeks, by the way.
I just wanna get at that.
I'm not rendering a harsh opinion here for a very specific reason, but I'd like to crowdsource a bit.
Why do you think the administrator, this is a combata who is doing this at Platte River Networks, would send all of Hillary's emails to a dummy address and not just name the email, Dummy address.
Dummy address 1.
Hillary 1.
Hillary 26.
I don't know.
Hillary 672.
Why would you name it Carter Heavy Industries?
Folks, there's something going on here.
As I said to you before, a credible source has indicated to me that there was a potential serious compromise of that server, but if it turns out later that this dummy email address was an effort to get a copy of all of Hillary's information and classified emails, and even Hillary didn't know about it, ladies and gentlemen, this is a bigger story than even we thought we knew.
I say that because the Inspector General Michael Horowitz, Barr, and Huber, United States Attorney Huber, all have investigations going on right now, and I think we're going to get more of this.
It's going to come out relatively quickly.
But Grassley, just one last thing on this.
Senator Grassley, Republican, who's been all over this Spygate story and this Hillary story.
My experience with Grassley is he never, ever, sends a letter or puts something down in writing unless he knows something's up.
So there's something going on here with this Hillary email story.
All right, I got a stacked show, so I just want to move on here quick.
I will keep you updated.
I'm not letting go of the story.
Don't think for a second.
Some of you are probably like, Dan, make the connection, make the connection.
In due time, folks.
In due time.
Let's get the story right, because Hillary manages the skate all the time.
Gosh, there we go.
Sorry, I'm having a tough time with the papers here.
Okay, I warned you about this.
Story number two, National Review.
I warned you, I warned you over and over.
John Roberts has been absolutely awful on the Supreme Court.
And I warned you that once he capitulates to the left-wing media mob, that we're going to see a down spiral of originalist constitutional interpretations on the court.
And sadly, my predictions have come true.
Let me paint a picture for you and then I'll talk about this story at National Review, why it matters now.
Folks, liberals have figured out that they can intimidate John Roberts.
They're very worried right now.
There may be another opening on the Supreme Court, if not in this term of President Trump, if he gets re-elected.
There will likely be an opening, if not two, for the next term of President Donald Trump, if he's re-elected.
We now, allegedly, have a conservative majority on the Supreme Court, 5-4, since Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed.
I say allegedly because the swing vote status is now transferred from Anthony Kennedy, who retired and Kavanaugh took his spot.
Kennedy was the swing vote, meaning he could go either way.
Conservative, liberal ruling, all these rulings are political, let's not pretend they're not, okay?
So let's just throw that out the window right now.
Liberals refuse to admit that, but that's the truth.
John Roberts has now taken the mantle as the new swing vote.
Now, what's the problem with Roberts?
Number one is he's the Chief Justice and was appointed to be an originalist and to interpret the Constitution, not to be a lawmaker on the bench.
Roberts is easily intimidated.
Do you remember this story when I told you a while ago that they know to intimidate him?
Paul is in the background.
Why don't you say hello, Monica?
It's like, heck no, I ain't going on that camera!
I ain't going on that damn camera!
So, but here's the thing with Roberts.
The op-ed columns, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and elsewhere, they are well aware, the liberal op-ed writers, that if they write pieces kind of ominously threatening Roberts, you're going to appear political.
If you rule this way, they know they can intimidate him.
You follow me?
Paula, you're the audience ombudsman.
He, Roberts, is scared of liberal talking heads.
Takeaway number one.
Takeaway number two.
Their strategy is working.
What was the last case we saw this?
The citizenship question.
Remember Trump wanted to put a citizenship question on the census?
It went all the way to Supreme Court.
John Roberts, unbelievably, sells us out, again, and rules that, yes, it's fair to put the citizenship question on the census.
Trump isn't wrong.
But he just didn't like the reasoning.
So what does he do?
He votes with the liberals for a 5-4 ruling on the liberal side, that there will be no citizenship question, despite acknowledging that Trump is perfectly within his power to do that.
Now, why did that happen?
Folks, if you listen to my show, you'll remember liberals were destroying him in the op-eds before the ruling.
If you don't vote with us on this citizenship question, you will forever have hyper-polarized the courts, you will have embarrassed the courts, you will have made them a political institution.
And I had warned you at the time, this is a big story.
It's infuriating, too.
Because the problem here is, as I had said when that happened, that if Roberts caves and makes a political ruling, which he did, not a legal one, Because he didn't question the legality of the citizenship question.
He just didn't like the fact that Trump phrased it wrong.
I guess he offended his delicate sensibilities or whatever it may be.
So what happened here is I warned you at the time that once Roberts folds, you're going to see this pattern repeat itself and the intimidation of Roberts and the warnings and the liberal efforts to push him in the liberal direction are going to get worse and worse.
Now, here we go.
What do we got?
A piece in National Review by David French.
Listen, I'm not a huge fan of David French all the time, but some of his writing's pretty good.
Now, David French has reviewed a lot of briefs for the Supreme Court.
And in the National Review piece I have on the show, and this is worth your time, even if you don't agree with David, it's called, To Save a Bad Gun Law, Democratic Senators Threaten the Supreme Court, August 15th, 2019.
This is a real piece.
French says in the piece, listen, I've been reading Supreme Court briefs for a long time.
I have never seen anything like this.
Now, what is it about?
What's the case?
I told you about the case a week ago or maybe earlier this week.
I don't remember.
I lose track of time.
Maybe it was this week.
There's a second amendment case that filtered its way up to the Supreme Court involving some hyper-restrictive New York City laws about when and where you can transport a firearm.
The law is ridiculous.
It basically says you can only carry it to a range, unlocked, and this, that, and so.
New York City, you tracking me here folks?
New York City got wind of the fact that there was going to be a lawsuit.
New York City knew they were going to lose.
They knew it.
So what did they do?
They loosened up on the exterior some of the restrictions of this ridiculous law.
You can't carry butt here, here, and here.
You have to be going to this range at this time, and that's it.
So they, it was pretty slick what they did.
New York City loosened some of the restrictions and said, you know what, given that we're going to lose the case, wink and a nod, now this case should be thrown out because, look, we already loosened the restrictions so the case is already a moot point.
The gun group, Second Amendment group, going after them said, no, no, that's not going to happen.
This is going to go to the Supreme Court.
So, now they're in a panic.
Why, folks?
Because they knew they were going to lose the case, and now in their efforts to basically throw the case in the garbage, now they're pushing the case back into the Supreme Court, and they know they're going to lose, so their only tactic now is to go back to their tried and true, well, let's intimidate Justice John Roberts again.
Check out this from National Review.
Again, this is French reading the brief who's read these before.
He says he's never heard anything like the tone of this.
I warned you this was going to get worse.
Here's from his National Review piece, and I quote, "'The brief ends with this ominous warning.
"'The Supreme Court is not well, and the people know it.
"'Perhaps the court can heal itself "'before the public demands it be restructured "'in order to reduce the influence of politics, "'particularly on the urgent issue of gun control "'a nation desperately needs it to heal.'"
So French says, and remember, this brief is from Democratic senators, some of which are running for president, who are intimidating the Supreme Court.
French writes, Translation of this?
Hey, nice nine-person Supreme Court you have there.
Be a real shame if anything happened to it.
I warned you folks.
You're going to see now these increased efforts now that they know that they've got Roberts.
They know they can hook him like a fish and they know they can scare him.
Now they're doubling down and now they're just outright threatening him.
They're not even being cryptic about it anymore.
There's no subtext here.
There's just text.
We want you to rule this way.
If you don't, we're going to talk about packing the courts.
This is astonishing.
I mean, talk about a level of gall we haven't seen before.
It's an important story though, because I warned you it's going to get worse.
Liberals do not want these cases now going before the Supreme Court with Roberts without intimidating him into voting their way first.
It's really disturbing stuff.
Speaking of disturbing stuff, I got a couple more great stories for you today, but I got some video of Elizabeth Warren.
You know, one of the things we do on the show is we debunk liberal lies and nonsense so you have the intellectual material you need to go and debate with your leftist friends.
Um, unfortunately, debating with liberals is really difficult because they not only lie, when they're caught in a lie, they double and triple down.
So I got this video.
Hold on one second.
We have sponsors got to pay for the show.
Great sponsors here today.
Uh, Genucel, listen, they're having their summer blowout sale.
It's here.
Ladies and gentlemen, the Genucel summer blowout sale is here.
All prices, all prices are slashed drastically in August.
A $30 instant coupon is applied automatically to your web and phone orders.
It's really that easy.
Just go to Genucel, G-E-N-U-C-E-L dot com or call them.
Here's Cheryl from Fort Wayne, Indiana.
Wow, the very first time I tried the Genucel jawline treatment, I could immediately feel the tightening sensation.
I've been using it for a week and the results are visible.
My jawline looks so much younger.
Folks, it's the summer.
Repair the summer skin damage now for tighter, healthier, younger-looking skin.
You'll get compliments like Cheryl or your money back with GenuCell's Ironclad 100% money back guarantee.
And right now, when you order the original GenuCell for under-eye bags and puffiness, the jawline treatment is yours for how much?
Absolutely free.
And to start seeing results in 12 hours, GenuCell Immediate Effects is also free.
Come on, you can't beat that.
Go to GenuCell.com and enter DAN30.
That's my first name, Dan, D-A-N, 30 at checkout.
The $30 instant coupon automatically off your order in August.
Go to GenuCell.com.
That's GenuCell.com.
Use code Dan30 at checkout.
Check that out.
All right.
Gosh, Elizabeth Warren.
Where do we even go with this one?
So, earlier in the week, I told you that these candidates running for president are getting desperate.
Now, we've seen Warren creeping up on the polls.
It's probably not surprising.
A poll I saw this morning we discussed on Fox & Friends, if you watched.
Warren's now running number two behind Biden, which, before we get to the video of Warren, I have to be honest, folks, it's just astounding.
Bernie Sanders is probably the biggest ideological fraud, but Elizabeth Warren is the biggest personal fraud I've ever seen.
It's clear she made up stories about ancestry she didn't have to take advantage of a pseudo-minority status to advance her place in academia and in the job market.
It's clear as day.
The woman's a phony.
She's a fraud.
I mean, what else?
Faking being an American Indian?
That's humiliating.
Why would you do that?
You don't fake your ethnicity.
She'd be proud of who she is, but she's not.
She wanted to fake it to get ahead.
And remember she wrote the recipe, the powwow chow thing?
So she's a liar.
She senses an opportunity though here, so earlier in the week she sent out a tweet, which we covered, where she started highlighting the Ferguson, Missouri, Michael Brown case.
Remember, folks, the hands-up-don't-shoot infamous case?
She keeps insisting that Michael Brown, the subject involved in the use-of-force incident who was killed by the police officer Wilson in what was deemed a justified use-of-force incident, She keeps claiming that Brown was murdered.
I have suggested, and I'll suggest again to the officer, he needs to sue Elizabeth Warren.
Like, stat.
Yesterday.
So, she sent out this tweet insinuating that Michael Brown was murdered by this police officer.
And instead, we called her out on the show, and a lot of you sent me emails about it.
Instead of just correcting herself and doing the right thing,
which they're incapable of, here's video of Elizabeth Warren saying what
really matters in the case.
For instance, it doesn't matter that the use of force was justified or not.
It's just what she thinks really matters.
Check this out.
You all have an extraordinary opportunity and responsibility in a primary here in New Hampshire.
Campaigning at a scenic farm in Franconia Wednesday, the Massachusetts Senator faced questions from back home, where the Yarmouth, Massachusetts Police Department described as reckless her tweet about the five-year anniversary of the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, who was killed in a controversial officer-involved shooting.
Warren said the police, quote, murdered Brown.
What matters is that a man was shot, an unarmed man, in the middle of the street by police officers and left to die.
And I think that's where our focus should be.
You get it?
See, that's what really matters there.
You see what she does there?
You see how they almost have this magical power, Democrats, to change the subject?
Now, what's the problem with this?
The problem isn't that she's a liar, we already knew that.
We knew that when she tweeted out on Monday that Michael Brown was murdered, despite the fact, in case you missed the show, I'll just cover it again quickly, Obama's Justice Department, President Obama, under Attorney General Eric Holder, certainly no, you know, friend to the Republican conservative movement or anything, Already had a ruling on this case during an investigation
that the use of force was justified in the Michael Brown case
He wasn't murdered. It was it that's made up He was shot in a use of force incident that was justified
by the police officer question the tactics fine Question use of force policies fine fair debate for you to
have But suggesting that the police officer murdered Michael
Brown is absolutely absurd She gets caught, she gets nailed on, and look what she does.
Whoa, it really matters.
They change the subject every time.
And here's the problem.
Very few people in the media will hold it to account.
Just one quick difference before I move on to the next story.
Here's the difference.
You may say, well, people in the, there's the media questioning her about it.
So Dan, what are you saying?
You're saying the media, you know, didn't question.
No, no, that's not what I'm saying.
What I'm saying is, Tell me as honorary audience ombudsman today, Paula, if this makes sense.
When it comes to Republicans and GOP candidates, if you say something like this, you are asked about it every day on the campaign trail until your campaign is either forced out of being a campaign because they ruin you, Or they want a full mea culpa apology or it will never stop.
Not only that, it's not just you that are forced to apologize for misstatements, it's everybody who knows you.
Hey, believe me, when I ran, how do you feel about Todd Aitken?
How do you feel about... I never met Todd Aitken in my life.
You know how many times I was asked about this guy when I was running for office?
The guy who was running for Senate?
I never met the guy.
I can only talk for myself.
I can't talk for other people.
That's not what happens with Democrats.
In other words, Republicans, they run that thing till the end.
They want an answer, or they want you to step aside.
Not with Democrats.
They'll ask about it for a day or two, she'll just say, well, here's what really matters, throw you the curveball instead of the fastball, and the case entirely goes away, and tomorrow is Elizabeth Warren's a leftist hero again.
It's ridiculous.
It's completely ridiculous, totally inappropriate, and more examples of how the media is, they're not even, forget about doing economics and healthcare, they can't even do basic journalism.
It's really ridiculous and absurd.
Can I say it's ridiculous one more time?
Because it really is ridiculous.
When you run for office, you'll see it.
I ran three times.
I'm telling you, not only do we have to answer questions for you, we demand an answer on the record about Todd Akin.
Meanwhile, they won't even get an on-the-record answer from her about her own lies.
Officer Wilson.
Sue that woman.
Saying you murdered the guy.
Unbelievable.
Did I say it was ridiculous?
It was ridiculous.
I didn't, you didn't hear, Paula didn't hear that.
It was ridiculous.
She was sitting right there.
I look kind of chipper for just having, getting off the air, right?
At Fox, right?
Isn't that right?
I need a little water.
Yeah.
I mean, I was on the air for like three hours too.
Hold on folks.
I just gotta get some water.
So don't edit this out.
This is the road show.
A little Poland spring from the deli down the block.
They make the best egg sandwiches here in New York.
I had a turkey, bacon, and egg.
Paula had it in.
Wasn't it good?
Awesome, right?
Yeah, you like that?
Alright, moving on, because we actually do have real stuff to get to today.
So I saw this tweet, I got into it with this guy on Twitter, and you know I always hesitate to cover my Twitter back and forth, but some of them are Most of them are based on some substance, not just personal.
I can get a little kind of, you know, edgy on Twitter, throw a few punches.
But I saw this tweet and I want to put it on the air as evidence of just the complete, absolute ignorance we have when it comes to the liberal left and their whole attitude towards guns, firearms, and the Second Amendment.
Check out this tweet from this guy, Dylan.
He's at D-Y-L-L-Y-P.
He's a checkmark, blue checkmark account.
For those of you not on Twitter, it means he has some kind of public profile.
I have no idea who this guy is.
I've never heard of him.
I never met him.
But I responded to this ridiculous tweet.
Let me read this stupidity for you.
He tweets, I just watched at least 50 cops in Philadelphia struggle to stop a single active shooter on the news just now.
Can we stop this quote good guy with a gun BS now?
It's a myth.
Um, Okay, so, again, given a set of alternate scenarios, he's talking about, obviously, the shootout in Philadelphia with this deranged gunman who let off multiple rounds, injured six police officers, could have killed them, thankfully they're okay.
God bless them for their heroism.
But he's talking about that situation and he says, can we stop the good guy with a gun myth?
Now folks, I want you to, because Dylan's not a rational human being, I want you to think this through rationally and with reason for a moment.
Is he suggesting the alternate scenario is better?
So if you're suggesting that there are multiple scenarios, one better than the other, you're saying what?
That the gunman up at the top of the building, who was a multiple time felon and already a prohibited possessor of firearms by law, was not legally allowed to possess guns, obviously didn't care because criminals don't care about gun laws.
You're suggesting what?
That the cops should have showed up with Foul language?
What?
Water bottles?
You wanna throw iPhones at them?
What were they gonna do?
You gonna roll up pieces of paper and wrap them on the butt with it?
What exactly were you suggesting the cops show up with?
The reason the guy was stopped...
Was precisely because of good guys with guns and the bravery to go confront and stare down the barrel of a gun held in the hand of a prohibited possessor of firearms who was intent on murdering as many people as possible.
What's your suggestion here?
That they should have sang opera to him?
I mean, this good guy with a gun myth?
Listen, this guy, he doesn't know what he's talking about.
I mean, I don't know the guy.
He's probably not that bright.
I've never met him.
I don't know who he is.
But I see this often where you'll have hundreds of instances of brave citizens, too, not just cops.
Off-duty military folks, CCW carry holders, you'll see cops.
They confront bad guys with firearms.
They stop these bad guys like we saw in Dayton, where the Dayton police officers, these heroes, 30 seconds they stop this mass shooter in Dayton.
They take this guy, they don't even take cover.
Liberals ignore all of that.
They see an example here of obviously a lunatic shooting a place up who was ironically stopped by good guys with guns and they now use that as some prima facie evidence that the good guy with a gun story is a myth.
As if the alternate scenario, good guys using foul language to yell at bad guys is a better scenario.
Maybe we can throw stuff at them.
Maybe we can try our mind control techniques.
Maybe we can get the Wonder Twins to activate.
I mean, this is the kind of dense BS we see with these people.
You know, I don't, again, I don't like putting tweets on the air that I get, but I've, I just felt like this one was...
Kind of, you know, endemic of the stupidity we see on the left, where they use isolated examples to make a point that is, it's, they generalize to a point where it's a very specific example, and even in the specific example he mentions, that's not accurate either, because he can present to you no alternate scenario where good guys without guns would have had a better result.
None.
Just stupid stuff.
All right, let me get to this next story.
But before I get to it, I want to just, this is our last sponsor of the day.
I just want to get them in, folks.
I'm sorry.
They're really good companies.
They are great to be here with us.
And I just don't want them to miss out on the opportunity to speak to you, my audience.
But I've got two more great stories for you.
One is important.
It involves Google and corporate pressure campaigns, and it's something that's kind of been an evergreen topic on the show throughout the years, how the left and their pressure campaigns is imploding and beating up the left and leftist news organizations, too.
So don't go anywhere.
It's our last sponsor of the day, but a good one nonetheless.
WaxRx.
Ladies and gentlemen, you probably have wax in your ears.
You probably have wax buildup in your ears.
It's really annoying.
I had the problem when I was in my prior line of work and now where I have to wear this earpiece in my ear all the time.
It's an issue, but you're not supposed to stick those cotton swabs in your ears.
It's awful.
It says in the back, do not do this.
You're not supposed to stick them in.
It's for cleaning the outside of your ears.
You may say, okay, well, great.
Well, how do I get the wax out of my ears?
Wax Rx is a great product.
I love my sponsors.
I only work with companies that I can use the product and products I wouldn't hesitate to use on my family either.
We use Wax Rx.
Listen, it's not the sexiest product to talk about, but as I've told you, even I had a problem with ear bags build up in my last line of work and with that earpiece I wear now.
Here's a customer review we saw I wanted to share with you.
I used to have to go to the doctor twice a year to get rid of my stubborn hardened earwax with my rising cost of healthcare and thus double deductible.
I'd have to spend $60 a visit.
That's $120 a year to treat my ears.
Now I can do it myself with WaxRx and a significant savings to boot.
And I don't have to miss half a day of work to go to the doctor because it's the same formula.
Thanks WaxRx.
Check this out.
Right now.
You can try the WaxRx system by typing in GO, that's G-O, WaxRx.com, GoWaxRx.com.
Go to checkout, use offer code Dan.
You'll get free shipping.
That's offer code Dan.
Also, if you want to support the show, tell WaxRx, GoWaxRx, we sent ya.
Don't wait, you have no idea what you might be missing because of inter-ear wax.
Who knows, it might just change your life.
Go to GoWaxRx.com, offer code Dan.
GoWaxRx.com, offer code Dan.
Okay.
I'm going to tie two stories together here that are really important, both of them.
Matter.
And they matter because I like to weave threads through the show, and I've told you before that liberals don't have a national referendum, right?
They don't.
Their policies, high taxes, bureaucratic schools, government-run healthcare, the things they support, they understand, their social agenda, will never garner 51% support repeatedly.
They get that.
You may say, well, that doesn't make sense, Dan.
Why do they keep talking about it?
Because what liberals do, their tactics are, number one, never to get you to vote for them, but to get you to vote against Republicans.
So they have an unpopular agenda, but their goal is always to make Republicans more unpopular.
That's how they think they can win presidential elections.
How do they do that?
Well, you know how.
Identity politics.
Republicans, you're racist.
We can go through the whole list.
I call it the isthophobic phobophobes.
You're an isth-phobe.
All of that stuff.
We get that, right?
Also, it's not just that the left can't get you to vote for them and their tactics are to vote against the other guy.
When the left can't win nationally and their policies are only popular in pockets of California, New York, portions of Illinois, Maryland, Hawaii, other places, right?
What they do is they try to move their policies through the courts.
They try to get the courts to vote for them.
Essentially, the strategy, which is a smart one, not a moral or ethical one, but a smart one.
Their strategy, folks, is if we can't convince you that a 90% tax rate and late-term abortion is a good thing at the polls, because we can't, Let's just sue in the courts because all we need is one.
We just need one judge.
I mean, gotta make sure you put up the right finger there.
One judge to rule in your favor.
Why convince... That's funny, right?
You're laughing back there.
Why convince 50, 60 million people to vote for you if I can just convince one judge and they can implement this policy?
Now, how does this tie into the show and this corporate pressure campaign?
Folks, they're losing in the courts now.
Now, I don't want to be dramatic.
Trump has made a big difference to his appointees.
He's appointed a lot of conservative originalists on the court.
He's made a big difference, a substantial difference.
Liberals are having that avenue slowly choked off for them.
They're still doing it.
As we saw, based on their intimidation tactics trying to get John Roberts to rule in the Second Amendment case in the National Review we talked about earlier that David French is addressing with that ominous briefing.
The point here is that that court avenue is closing off.
Now liberals are refining through social media a cultural and corporate pressure campaign.
Check out this story from The Daily Caller.
This is going to tick you off big time.
In the show notes today, please check them out at Bongino.com.
Subscribe to my email list.
I'll send them right to you.
So apparently there are some Google employees who don't think it's a good idea.
The article, by the way, is by Audrey Conklin.
It's titled more than 600 Google employees won't be, quote, complicit in working with CBP.
Here's what happened.
This is going to get under your skin.
It's going to burrow in like a tick.
600 employees at Google signed a letter.
Apparently Google's providing cloud services, IT services, storage in the cloud services for Customs and Border Protection, CBP at our border.
Well, these snowflake, snuggie-wearing Google employees didn't think that was a good idea, so they all signed a letter trying to pressure the company to withhold contracts from CBP.
Ladies and gentlemen, You are going to see more and more of this.
Now, keep in mind, they work for the same company, Google, that's had a presence in China and other repressive regimes around the world.
I'm not sure if they've written that many letters about that.
A lot of these snowflake employees are typically big hypocrites.
They have no problem profiting from something when they don't have the virtue signal.
But now, basically, it's the United States trying to preserve its own borders.
They see an opportunity to virtue signal and stand on their moral high ground.
So they're really upset about this.
So they're engaging in an internal corporate pressure campaign because, like I said, the idea of having borders and CBP is universally popular.
Now, you know, sane Americans don't think we should have zero border enforcement and wipe out our border clean.
That's just nonsense.
That's just a strictly dopey liberal position right there.
So again, when you can't implement policies via elections and through the courts, you engage in these corporate pressure campaigns.
Folks, you're going to see more of this.
But I wanted to tie it to another story.
I like to weave these storylines through in the show.
Another piece of the Wall Street Journal today.
It's a good one.
And this is a topic, I hate to keep saying I've spoken about this before, but regular listeners who may have heard this, Wall Street Journal, shooting, bomb, Trump, advertisers blacklist news stories online.
There are quotes around those words.
Companies are increasingly insisting their ads not appear near articles or videos that contain any of a long list of words.
Folks, here's what's happening now.
I'm gonna get to some snippets from this piece in a second.
What do we have, two?
We have one or two?
Two, right?
Two.
Back in, let's go back to Limbaugh.
When Limbaugh started on talk radio and became really popular, Rush Limbaugh of course, liberals had no way to stop it.
They had a monopoly on the mainstream media, Fox News wasn't around yet, and they became intimidated.
So when they couldn't legally squelch free speech by Limbaugh and others, they started engaging in corporate pressure campaigns to pressure the sponsors of these shows to get them to boycott these shows.
And I'll tell you, for a short time, Uh, for a short time it worked because it was almost exclusively directed at conservative outlets.
You get what I'm saying, folks?
Now, what happened here?
This, as I've warned repeatedly, blew up in the far left's face.
When you institute a boycott to a corporation and you say to that corporation, you know, be really careful, you don't want to, you know, you don't want to upset the customers by advertising on the Rush Limbaugh show or the Dan Bongino show or whatever, companies got scared.
And a lot of companies pulled back and stopped advertising on any political or news show at all.
It's gotten worse, ladies and gentlemen.
Companies are developing blacklists of words and phrases and political shows.
And it's not going to affect my show.
Our sponsors know.
Listen, our sponsors are here to talk to you.
They don't endorse the politics.
They may, they may not.
I don't ask them.
These are companies that just want to be here, who are capitalists, who want to sell their products to you, good customers who hopefully buy their stuff.
They're happy to be here.
I'm happy to help.
It is not a mutual endorsement of anything.
They don't endorse our political views.
This is the way it always was.
Liberals try to tie these companies to the views on the company, which is completely ridiculous.
This is outrageous.
So, from the Wall Street Journal piece, check this out.
Showing you how this is backfiring on the left, not just conservative talk radio.
And you can thank Sleeping Giants and others.
It says, marketers have used blacklists for years to sidestep controversy.
Airlines avoid articles dealing with airline crashes, for instance.
Now those blacklists are becoming more sophisticated, specific, and extensive, Ad Executive said.
Online news publishers are feeling the impact.
Wait, get a load of this.
Here it comes.
From smaller outlets to large players such as CNN.com, USA Today owner, Gannett Company, The Washington Post, and The Journal, according to news and ad executives.
What do you see there, ladies and gentlemen?
One of these things is not like the other.
Those are all liberal outlets other than The Journal.
Or left-leaning.
I don't want to call USA Today liberal, but definitely left-leaning.
So where liberals, you get where I'm going with this?
Where liberals thought their boycott campaign, directed at conservative talk radio, conservative outlets, whatever it may be, Bongino.com, Limbaugh.com, Mark Levin Show, Sean Hannity, whatever it may be, they thought they were trying to pull financial support from them by attacking the sponsors.
And what did the sponsors do?
They pulled out of the liberal programming too.
Now, the nice part about conservative programming is we have an audience.
And as I said to you, sponsors want to be here.
I endorse their products when I use them, and they're good, as I did with our sponsors today.
But they're not forced to endorse anybody's political ideas, and they don't.
They come on the show to speak to you to sell product.
But the difference is conservative shows have an audience.
These liberal shows don't.
So whereas some companies may say, well, we're not comfortable with politics, we will always find sponsors on this show, because we have hundreds of thousands of people, thanks to your goodwill, that listen to the show, and I mean that.
Thanks to you.
These liberal shows don't have that.
You have one or two sponsors that pull out of a liberal show that has 5,000 listeners a show.
It's over.
That's the guy or the woman, the host, that's their entire income.
Gone.
Done.
Burn it.
Now, from the piece again, because again, liberals, it's a cannibalistic movement.
Everything always winds up blowing up in their face every single time.
Check this out.
So there's this group out there, Sleeping Giant, I think it's actually one guy, but you know, everybody's sensitive to these Twitter accounts.
The polarized political environment in the U.S.
has put brands on heightened alerts, quote from the piece.
Marketers are mindful of the backlash they can face on social media when customers feel they advertised inoffensive content.
One Twitter account, Sleeping Giants, called out hundreds of brands that appeared on the right-wing news site Breitbart News Network following the 2016 presidential election, prompting widespread blacklisting of the site.
I'll bet Sleeping Giants, that's end quote by the way.
Never took into the account that that blacklist would wind up roping in the Washington Post and CNN too.
CNN duck.
Again, you keep it up.
We will always, always find people who want to talk to you.
There's nothing we say here that's inappropriate.
This show is a battle of ideas and always has been.
Conservative talk radio fights for liberty and freedom and always has.
If that's a controversial idea, then yes, this show is not for you.
But remember, these continued boycott campaigns are going to take down leftist media outlets way before they take down conservative ones, because you will always have companies that want to come in here and talk to an audience of hundreds of thousands of people.
Always.
I told you folks, this corporate pressure stuff is going to continue and it's going to get worse.
Alright, let me see.
We're looking pretty good here.
Alright, last story of the day.
Folks, The Medicare for All debate is heating up.
We've seen it.
We've seen a couple of candidates on the campaign trail, notably Kamala Harris and Bernie Sanders, support a government takeover of the healthcare system.
Now, you would think if you were a rational, sane actor that evaluating an entire government-wide takeover of the healthcare system, you'd look at what the government's doing now and seeing if the government's interventions in the healthcare system now are working as planned, right?
You get that, right?
I'm not speaking out of turn.
If you wanted the government, like Bernie Sanders wants, the government to take over the entire healthcare system, and everybody will work for the United States government in the healthcare system, you would think your Obamacare, S-CHIP, Medicaid, you would measure the success of these programs now, which, by the way, are almost universally failing by their own measures.
So here's an interesting piece in the Wall Street Journal about Obamacare, which is, folks, it's utterly collapsing.
Anybody who tells you otherwise is lying.
Here's what's really going on.
Obamacare, if you are below a certain income level, the piece, by the way, is called Still Heading for the Obamacare Exits, New Data Shows Enrollment is Falling Fast for the Unsubsidized.
It's the editorial board, August 15, 2019.
So when your liberal friends tell you how great Obamacare is, now it's working so well, and they want, obviously, the government to take over the rest of the healthcare system too, I encourage you to look at this data from the piece showing that if you are not subsidized, Meaning, the government is not giving you money to buy into Obamacare.
People are running for the exits from this disastrous program.
Check this out from the journal piece.
Quote, from 2016 to 2018, enrollment amongst those who didn't qualify for subsidies, meaning you're not getting other taxpayers' money, dropped by 2.5 million people.
A 40% decline nationally.
Did you hear what I just told you?
Obamacare, if you're not getting other taxpayer subsidies to get in it, enrollment is down by 2.5 million people.
Average monthly enrollment across the entire individual market fell 7% between 2007 and 2018.
CMS, which is the Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services says the decline occurred entirely Entirely among people who didn't receive subsidies.
For those who get taxpayer help, in other words, you're paying for their health care, enrollment increased 4%.
Remember that the law's tax credits increase with premiums and thus so does the strain on the public fisc.
Folks, I warned you.
What's happening with Obamacare is clear.
Simple analogy for you so you understand why the prices are so high that if you're not getting a government subsidy you can't afford it.
People are running for the exits from this disastrous abomination of a program.
Here's what's going on.
Obamacare is two things.
It's community rating and guaranteed issue.
Community rating is built into Obamacare, tells the insurance companies how much they can and can't charge people.
You may say, well, what's the problem with that?
Well, the problem is if you tell an insurance company they can charge people $3 a month and their insurance is costing them $10 a month, then somebody's got to make up that $7.
So they're passing on those premiums to other people.
They're basically spreading the cost because the government's telling them what they can and can't charge people.
I'll give you just an example of how it works, right?
The community rating principle now in Obamacare is basically a three-to-one ratio.
You can't charge elderly folks more than three times the cost of what you would charge, say, a young healthy person.
You may say, well, what's wrong with that?
That sounds fair.
Well, what's wrong with it is their health care costs for elderly people are five times, not three times as much.
So what are they doing?
They're charging everybody in between more money to make up for the extra costs they have to do to offset their loss because they're paying more money in benefits to elderly people than they're paying in premiums.
Does that make sense?
You dig?
You got it?
Okay, she's shaking her head.
Paula's shaking her head.
So that's community rating.
You have to rate the program according to a government ratio, not what the actual price is, right?
Now, the other portion is guaranteed issue, which means you have to issue a plan to them when they want it, not necessarily according to a timeline.
So if a guy gets in, say, a motorcycle accident, he can go to the hospital, kind of exaggerating a little bit, but the principle's the same, and say, hey, I want my health insurance now.
Well, you just got in an accident.
Why didn't you pay the premiums before?
Well, I didn't need to, I just got in an accident.
That's an entitlement program.
That's a welfare program.
That's not a health insurance program.
Folks, when you combine those two disasters, community rating and the fact they have to guarantee you issuance of a plan whether you pay the premiums or not...
You have a recipe for disaster which is driving premiums through the roof because now you're paying for the guy who got in the motorcycle accident and he never paid a dime's worth of premiums.
Those costs are rising dramatically.
So now people who are not getting taxpayer subsidies, basically the middle class, are seeing these costs and they're saying it's not worth it for me and they're piling out.
And as more of them pile out of Obamacare, that leaves fewer and fewer people to offset the premiums for the other people who are costing a lot of money because who are the people staying behind?
You probably figured it out.
Older and sicker people.
Because they need the insurance.
So now you have this risk pool of people who are old and getting sick, or people who are sick, who the insurance for them is worth it, but healthy people are piling out and the costs are getting worse and worse and worse.
You are witnessing the death spiral of Obamacare in live time, ladies and gentlemen.
This is not a joke.
So I encourage all of you to question your senators.
If Obamacare can't even take care of people who are not on government subsidies, why in Hades would we want to consider expanding the government's healthcare net to encompass the whole country when a lot of us like the insurance we have now that's not Obamacare?
The answer is because they just don't care.
That's the real reason, folks.
All right, folks, a little bit of an abbreviated show today on Friday.
I really appreciate you all tuning in.
Thank you very much.
It was a good morning on Fox and Friends.
I hope you enjoyed the show.
I will be back with you on Monday with producer Joe, so don't miss the show.
Please subscribe to our show, youtube.com slash Bongino.
And you can subscribe free to the audio show, the video's free as well, at Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, and on SoundCloud as well.
Always great talking to you.
I'll see you all on Monday.
Good day, sir!
You just heard The Dan Bongino Show.
You can also get Dan's podcasts on iTunes or SoundCloud.
