In this episode, I address the Democrats’ shameful handling of the international Coronavirus outbreak. I also address the failure of the media to call out this leading Democrat on his devastating lies and gaslighting.
News Picks:President Trump puts Vice President Pence in charge of the Coronavirus efforts.
Another big win for President Trump on immigration.
Bernie Sanders is wrong, again. We are much better off than we were 45 years ago.
Bernie Sanders is lying. Median household income is at a record high.
What’s the real fatality rate for the corona virus?
Is there a corona virus vaccine on the horizon?
Copyright Bongino Inc 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.
We're back.
CPAC.
It's been a while.
Here with producer Joe and my lovely wife Paula and the rest of the crew here.
We got Sharon, we got Don and the team.
Folks, I got a great show for you today.
New information's come out.
Exposing what I told you a long time ago, that the entire Mueller probe from the start has been colossal BS.
Don't go anywhere.
We've got that.
I've got a loaded show.
Today's show brought to you by buddies at ExpressVPN.
Protect your privacy today, folks.
ExpressVPN.com slash Bongino.
Don't waste any time.
Welcome to the Dan Bongino Show.
Producer Joe on set.
Good to see you.
How you doing, buddy?
Well, it's CPAC!
Yeah, we're here together.
We finally got on the road together.
I know.
We're a little late, unfortunately.
We had just a little technical issue this morning.
We took over for Chris de Gaulle out in Philly, but we're okay.
So, folks, I got a loaded show for you today.
I got some Bernie stuff, too.
They're failing to call out a lot of Bernie's nonsense.
You know I like exposing his crap, so I got a lot on that, too.
Today's show brought to you by Buddy's At.
Rock Auto, with the ever-increasing number of makes of cars and models, it's now impossible to stock all the parts you need in a traditional chain storefront.
Why endure pointless or seemingly intimidating questioning?
Is your Odyssey an LX or an EX?
And wait until the counterman orders the parts on his computer, choosing the only brand his warehouse happens to carry.
You have computers with access to rockauto.com at home and in your pocket.
rockauto.com is a family business serving auto parts customers online for 20 years.
Joe, you love Rock Auto, right?
They have everything from engine control modules and brake parts to tail lamps, motor oil, and even new carpet, whether it's for your classic or daily driver.
RockAuto.com, their catalog is unique and remarkably easy to navigate.
Quickly see all the parts available for your vehicle and choose the brands, specs, and prices you prefer.
Best of all, prices at RockAuto.com are always reliably low.
And the same for the pros, and do-it-yourselfers like Armacost here.
Why spend up to twice as much for the same parts?
Go to rockauto.com right now, see all the parts available for your car or truck.
Write Bongino, B-O-N-G-I-N-O, in that.
How did you hear about us?
So they know we sent you.
An amazing selection, reliably low prices, all the parts, your car, all the parts, your car... rockauto.com, rockauto.com.
All right, Joe, let's go.
We got the manual bell today.
All right, so folks, before we get to this stuff, this coronavirus scare, the Democrats will politicize anything.
I think we know that if you're a regular listener to the show.
They politicized our intelligence apparatus.
They use politics to attack their political opponents all the time.
It's been Quite disgraceful, though, and I think a new low for the Democrats using this potentially, you know, deadly virus for some to score political points.
So, in case you doubt me and you think I'm just pulling this out of my caboose to kind of make stuff up to attack them, I want to show you this tweet by the Washington Post.
This is real, by the way.
I'm not messing, but this is an actual tweet.
So, by the Washington Post, opinion.
Coronavirus makes the case for Medicare for All.
Now, I have warned you, yes, I have warned you early and often that the Rahm Emanuel line, President Obama's former chief of staff, and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, that old line, never let a crisis go to waste, they are not kidding.
Now, we have to debunk some of their nonsense because they're not interested in solving this problem.
If it becomes a pandemic, God forbid, in the United States, sadly, many of them are not interested in helping.
They're interested in using it to attack Donald Trump and to knock down his political capital.
It's a shame, folks.
It's actually quite disgraceful.
I want you to watch this video and pay close attention here.
This is Nancy Pelosi.
And in the video, she tries to make a point about Donald Trump and the Republican Senate and Republicans out there in general.
Their proposals for a spending bill to combat the coronavirus, COVID-19.
But she counteracts and contradicts, excuse me, her own point while making it.
Listen to this cut and see if you can pick up where she goes wrong.
Check this out.
The Senate has a proposal, we'll have something similar, which addresses the need for the professionals to be in place.
Let go a couple of years ago, never replaced them, this is shameful, puts forth a proposal now that is meager, unmeaning, in terms of addressing the Ebola.
We did five billion, now they're trying to take the Ebola money and spend it to Did you catch it?
Did you see what she did there?
So Pelosi, again, who doesn't seem interested in solving this problem.
Now, granted, you know, I'm not trying to undersell or oversell to you the potential danger from this virus.
I rely on scientists and doctors to tell me what the fatality rate is and what the threat is, and I trust their judgment on that.
That's fine.
The problem I have with this silly attack Pelosi just engaged in is she said something and she goes, well, of course, Donald Trump's proposed $2 billion isn't enough.
We should handle it like we handled Ebola.
And then she says, and then look, he's trying to spend the leftover Ebola money on Corona.
Did you catch it, Joe?
So let me get this straight.
So she's saying on one hand that Donald Trump, she's basically saying he's so horrible, he's not spending enough money to combat the coronavirus.
We should handle it like we spent this amount on Ebola.
And then she's saying, but we didn't even spend that Ebola money.
Do you understand how that point makes no sense?
Folks, this is typical Democrat nonsense, where they step on their own message and they don't even realize it, but you have to be savvy enough, and I hope this show is helping, to pick through the nonsense and the weeds.
So what is it, Nancy?
Did we overspend on Ebola, and therefore there's money left over we can use towards the coronavirus threat, or should we spend more money than we spent on Ebola that we didn't spend?
Again, they step on their own message all the time.
It's shameful.
I was on last night, on Fox, debating Richard Goodstein on Laura Ingraham's show.
Many of you saw it.
And folks, this is really gross.
They have, on this coronavirus, we have had CNN complaining about, remember the tweet we put on the show last week?
Complaining about the too many white males and the racial makeup of the people Trump has appointed to the task force.
Remember that one?
Remember that doozy?
So, CNN's concerned about the diversity on the task force, not if scientists and people who know what's going on are on that task force.
That was number one.
Then they called Trump's travel ban.
From countries having coronavirus outbreaks to the United States, they called that racist despite the fact that it appears now that that very policy is the one that may have prevented a more significant outbreak here.
And then now we have them complaining about, as we show, the money and comparing it to Ebola, despite the fact that the Ebola spending wasn't even spent, showing you they are complete frauds.
I want to get to that.
I haven't been ignoring this story.
I've gotten a lot of emails from you all, received a lot of emails.
It's just, it's a sensitive topic and you always want to balance that.
Let's get the facts out there and make sure we're not unnecessarily scaring people while simultaneously letting them know what they can do to prevent an outbreak.
That's the reason why, folks.
I like to take these stories easy, and unlike Democrats, it's really unnecessary and really immoral to use them to score political points.
People could die from this, so it's very serious.
All right, moving on, because I've got a lot more to get to.
This goes under topic number two.
You know, I like to bullet point them in my head to see how we could sum this up in a headline for you.
So this goes under the chapter in the Dan Bongino saga today of what the hell?
Like, what is this?
So, hat tip to our buddy.
Was this from Technofog?
Do you remember, Paula?
Lovely Paula on camera.
I think this was from our buddy on Twitter at Technofog, who we really love.
I told you a long time ago, wrote in my second book, Exonerated, my second book on the whole Spygate affair, that Bob Mueller and his team knew from the start that this Trump, the whole Trump collusion thing was nonsense.
Now, none of that's breaking news.
We already get that.
Everybody already knows that.
There's nothing mysterious about that.
Right, right, right.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, we have the proof we need.
A little background.
Again, hat tip Technofog, who picks this stuff out and does great work.
I'm going to show you some screenshots from his Twitter feed in a moment.
We now have access to Rod Rosenstein, who was the former Deputy Attorney General.
We have access to his 302s where he interviewed with the FBI.
And in these 302s are some stunning, stunning nuggets.
I mean that.
Because we now have proof everything I wrote and exonerated was true.
The Mueller probe was a joke.
There was no purpose to the Mueller probe other than to buy time To get Trump impeached from office and to cover up the Spygate affair.
That was the only purpose.
I spent a whole book proving it.
Now, check out these 302s.
So we have these.
This is all, again, from technophob.
But this is Rod Rosenstein interviewing with the FBI.
I want you to pay particular attention, right, to what Rosenstein said during his briefing.
Now, remember the dates and remember the names.
May 10th.
Why is that date significant?
May 10th is the date that the Mueller probe starts.
May 10th of- it starts officially.
May 10th of 2017.
Now listen to this.
Here's Rod Rosenstein in their brief with the FBI.
During his May 10th briefing, the team confirmed for Rosenstein the president was not a suspect.
The FBI team.
Listen to this.
This gets better.
Or worse.
This was also Rosenstein's impression from his initial April 28th briefing he received from Director Comey.
Carl Gaddis, that's an FBI agent, may have attended this briefing as well as several prosecutors.
Wait, wait, wait, it gets better.
Next one.
Whenever you get to the next one.
There we go.
Sorry.
There we go.
Rosenstein elaborated that based on his May 10th briefing, there appeared to be, listen to this, pay close attention, there appeared to be no evidence the president was involved personally.
Rosenstein inquired whether they needed additional resources and was informed that there was no such need.
Folks, do you understand the tactical nuke this is right here?
Rosenstein knows he's been briefed by the FBI as early as April.
He has been briefed that this case is total garbage and that President Trump is not a suspect in this thing, and they refuse to clear him.
Why?
Because the Mueller probe has one purpose, the purpose I've been telling you about the entire time.
Paula, since you're here, what's the purpose?
To nail Donald Trump!
To nail Donald Trump.
That's the purpose.
Sorry, I'm getting away from the camera.
That's the purpose.
We got you.
Cowboys for Trump.
There you go.
That's the whole purpose.
On May 10th, Mueller's appointed.
To investigate Trump for a scandal that doesn't exist.
This comes out... I mean, is this not clearly obvious?
Rosenstein told them, told the FBI, this case is complete BS.
You have it.
Save these screenshots.
This was garbage from the start.
It was always an effort to accumulate enough political damage on Donald Trump to hopefully impeach him, to get him out of office before this thing resulted in some denouement at the end.
Now you have it nailed down.
Rosenstein knew what Mueller was going to do.
That's why they appointed Andy Weissman.
Andy Weissman having a reputation for the best shady legal tactics.
They appointed him knowing he'd keep this case open and knowing Trump wasn't a suspect the entire time.
I mean, what else do you need to hear?
By the way, on a side note, I just had an interesting spirited debate here at CPAC with some liberal guy who hosts a show on SiriusXM.
I don't know if anybody actually listened to it.
But it's funny, he tweeted out, it got me warmed up before the show.
I sure did.
Yeah, you saw that show?
So we're going back and forth, folks, on this case here.
It's the only reason I'm bringing it up.
And he doesn't know anything, of course, about the case.
He keeps calling these things conspiracy theories, but when I ask him questions, he doesn't know anything.
And he tweets out on his account, which I retweeted, that I called him the dumbest guy in media.
So I subtweeted and said, this is true.
This is the dumbest guy in media.
He may be taken over for Brian Stelzner.
But that's just, that happens at CPAC all the time.
Just wanted to throw that in there.
All right.
All right.
So more updates on this entire debacle, the targeting of the Trump team.
So, Les, I think this was undercover Huber.
Forgive me with the hat tips.
It's CPAC.
It's always a little hectic getting the show together down here, especially you can hear a lot of the crowd noise.
But we had another revelation last night, this entire targeted effort to get the Trump team, to nail the Trump team, to frighten them and get anyone associated with them politically damaged.
So some documents and transcripts have come out regarding the Roger Stone case.
Many of you know Roger Stone.
He wasn't on the Trump, a member of the Trump team, but he's been portrayed in the media as a member of the Trump team.
Why?
Because, you know, he's a Republican consultant and they think that they can tie him to Trump to hurt Trump.
So Stone is being prosecuted right now for false statements to Congress.
And interestingly enough, there has been a juror on the Roger Stone trial.
That wrote some things about Trump that were really vicious.
Ran for office as a Democrat.
My humble opinion, ladies and gentlemen, this juror had no business being on this trial.
There were clearly other people without these biases there who would have been much better suited for a trial here to render a non-partisan, unbiased verdict.
Now here's where it gets strange.
Judge Amy Berman Jackson seems to be very concerned about this, especially the way she appears to be stifling debate about this juror.
Roger Stone's legal team, I know it gets a little convoluted, I get that Joe's giving me that look right now.
Yeah, I am.
Roger Stone's legal team, because he was found guilty, is now looking for a new trial.
Saying, hey listen, this can't possibly be fair because you had this jury foreman on the case that clearly hated Donald Trump.
Yeah.
But now we have some of the transcripts about some of her answers.
It appears on some of her answers she was trying to get on this trial and both of her stories can't possibly be true.
Here's a transcript of some questions that were asked about her.
So, the court asks her, this jury foreperson they're alleging from the Stone campaign, they're alleging is biased.
They ask her about some of her comments, and the court says, was this a comment about Roger Stone?
The jury foreperson says, no.
So, Mr. Ginsburg, did you understand Roger Stone, he's asking the juror, to be an associate of President Trump on August 2nd of 2019?
The jury foreperson, yeah.
Okay, so we have that established, right?
This jury foreperson, they're alleging has been biased against Trump the whole time, says she clearly knows that Trump and Stone were some associates at some point.
You heard it.
There's the trench.
I'm not making it up.
I didn't fabricate the trench.
The whole word's right there.
Under oath, by the way.
Oh, all of a sudden this little gem surfaces.
So Sky Ginsburg asks again, says, so what I'm asking is, you've answered that Roger Stone, you would consider an associate of President Trump, right?
She says here, prior to the trial, I don't know that I would consider him an associate of President Trump.
That's not exactly what we know about the jury for person.
Ladies and gentlemen, this case gets worse by the minute.
It's becoming clear as day right now.
That there were definitely biases here and Roger Stone is entitled to a fair trial like any other American out there.
But again, because he's an associate of Donald Trump, justice gets thrown out the window and tossed.
It's a damn shame what's happening right now.
Listen, I've met Roger Stone.
I've said that.
We're not personal friends.
We've had probably no more than 30 minutes of conversation in my entire life.
Probably less.
I'm being generous and that to be fair to you and my audience.
But it's absurd to think that a jury foreperson, on a jury, keep in mind they could have found anyone to be on this jury, who has tweeted about Trump, who has run as a Democrat, could possibly be an unbiased observer here, and especially one who gives answers that are deeply conflicting.
Both of those answers can't possibly be true.
Either you knew about Stone or you didn't.
Just be honest.
He is entitled to a new and fair trial, no question.
Alright.
Now, I just wanted to get to this too before.
I know I'm going to bounce around a little bit today, but it is a really heavy news day, especially with the COVID-19 virus.
But to go back before where I was, I was talking about the sad entrance of politics into this debate about what could be a very serious problem in the United States, could turn into one quickly if we don't pay attention.
The media and the Democrats are not interested in solving this problem.
Ladies and gentlemen, they are interested in dinging Trump's political capitalist bank account.
You know, I've run for office before.
I've warned you how this works.
You have to view politics like a political bank account where good news headlines, good snapshots, and good soundbites are deposits.
Bad stories, negative stories, bad snapshots, bad videos, bad interviews are withdrawals.
They want to whittle Trump's political bank account down to so little so that on election day he has nothing left to finance his winning of the race, to use a monetary analogy.
They're doing it by politicizing everything, even the outbreak of a potentially deadly virus.
As I said before, in case you think I'm making this up, here's a headline from The Atlantic.
This is not a joke.
A left-leaning magazine, sometimes they do fair stories, sometimes they don't, headline.
The coronavirus outbreak could bring out the worst in Trump.
It doesn't matter, like the travel ban, how effective it is or not.
It doesn't matter.
They are going to knock him.
They say it in the Atlantic piece.
Guiding Trump's response is a hard-headed nationalism.
On January 31st, the administration announced strict travel bans.
Most foreign nationals who've recently been to China were barred from entering the U.S., and Americans wanted to stay clear of the country.
These measures, which career public health officials argued were needed to delay the virus' spread, broke with guidance from the WHO, which did not recommend curbs on travel or trade.
Here we go.
Here we go.
Here's the line.
Here it is, Joe.
Here it is.
The restrictions did, however, reflect the alarm coming from Trump's base.
So here it is.
All right.
The attack on Trump.
We're all hysterical.
We're propagating hysteria.
This isn't based in science or fact.
Now, all of a sudden, where it looks like this ban on travel from countries having a severe outbreak of this has actually worked to curb an outbreak here, one of the most open countries on earth.
Now all of a sudden they're forgetting a lot of those headlines in the past where it was deemed racist and a really stupid idea.
Sadly, folks, this isn't going to go away.
I want you to remind your liberal friends of this.
They called it racist.
They called Trump's task force on it, too populated with white males seemingly concerned with identity politics over the lives of Americans.
They called the travel ban racist.
And again, they can't even get their heads out of their collective cabooses when it comes to funding.
They're trying to make the case on one end that we should spend as much as we should, as we did on Ebola, while Pelosi acknowledges we spent too much on Ebola and the leftover funds she doesn't want to even use for coronavirus.
It doesn't make any sense.
But as Democrats, they never make any sense.
Ever.
All right, we're moving quick today.
It's good to see Paul on camera.
Can they see her, Don, at home?
They can.
We got Don over here.
We got a whole crew.
CPAC's really packed this year.
Folks, by the way, we're going to do an interview show from here before I get to it.
You know, I should probably get a spot.
But we'll get to the spot in a second here.
I'm going to be doing an interview show here.
We'll probably load it.
Sunday, maybe Monday.
We got a couple of guests line up.
I'm gonna kind of leave it as a surprise until we get it done in case they don't show up.
But we got some good, right?
I got some good ones.
We're gonna load it as a separate show this weekend.
I don't know.
We'll call it the CPAC interviews or whatever, but please don't miss that too.
We've got a couple who've confirmed, but as you know, it's CPAC.
Things can change quickly.
So I got Carter Page over there too.
There you go.
He was spied on.
There he is right there.
Carter Page.
All right.
Second spot.
Today's show also sponsored by buddies at OMAX.
Folks, listen.
Insomnia is a big deal.
You know it.
I have trouble sleeping.
Paula, you have trouble sleeping all the time?
I know.
How do I know that?
We sleep in the same bed every night.
I have issues with it.
I get wired up.
I just can't not out, folks.
It's hard.
I'm thinking about stuff, thinking about the show the next day.
I use Omax Sleep.
I love it.
With over 70 million Americans who suffer from insomnia and sleep deprivation and the accelerating demands of work, family, and stress, it's no wonder so many of us can't sleep well and end up feeling sluggish, cranky, or just exhausted on a daily basis.
So if melatonin or over-the-counter sleeping aids aren't doing the trick, you need to try Max Sleep with CBD.
Omax Sleep is a breakthrough.
We love it in our household.
It's just the calming effect and really, really needed at times.
You can probably tell I'm always wearing it.
Omax Sleep is a breakthrough patent-pending combination of all-natural ingredients scientifically developed to optimize your sleep cycle so you can get your best night of sleep ever.
This stuff really works.
In a clinical study...
Of sleep-deprived men and women, participants in the study improved their quality of sleep and felt more rested after only three days of using MAT sleep.
Many of you don't even remember what it feels like to get a good... I didn't.
To get a good night's sleep.
I had forgotten.
You always want to sleep like a baby.
Try this stuff.
Get a full eight hours of sleep.
Feel better.
Get your blissful sleep with OMAX.
We love this stuff.
Highly recommended.
For a limited time, OMAX is offering my listeners 20% off their first bottle of Max Sleep, plus free shipping.
And if you don't experience your best night's sleep in just three nights, you can return it for a full refund.
They are that confident in this product.
So if you're ready to relax your mind, chill like we do at night, get your best night's sleep ever, you need to try Max Sleep.
Go to omax, O-M-A-X, health.com.
Today, enter promo code Bongino to get 20% off a one-month supply plus free shipping.
Get your best sleep in just three nights or return it for a full refund.
That's omaxhealth.com to get free shipping and 20% off sitewide with code Bongino, B-O-N-G-I-N-O.
omaxhealth.com, enter code Bongino.
Try it today.
Get a good night's sleep.
We're going to need it tonight, too.
All right.
So, many of you regular listeners know that for the past few years I've been very concerned about the rise of Bernie Sanders.
Now, there's two alternative theories out there about Bernie, and I understand.
I read your feedback.
It matters to me.
Some of you have emailed me.
You know who you are, and I always appreciate your feedback.
I disagree with this perspective, but nonetheless, it's worth putting out there.
Some of you said to me, Ease up on Bernie Sanders.
We want Bernie as the nominee.
Bernie can't beat Trump.
Some of the other candidates, whether it be Biden or others, have a better shot.
So we should kind of do an Operation Chaos, get Bernie in there, and we'll stand a better shot in the general.
I respect your opinion.
I understand that.
I've heard that often.
How many emails have we gotten on that?
Tons, right?
A lot.
I get it.
And I really do deeply appreciate your feedback on that.
I have to tell you, I categorically disagree.
Yeah?
I think Bernie Sanders is a more formidable opponent than we give him credit for.
Bernie is an expert at BS.
He has all the focus group tested talking points.
The media will cover for him.
And in a different era, In a different era, a non-Donald Trump era, where, say, a president didn't elicit the emotional response from the media like Trump does.
I mean, they didn't like Bush.
They hated Bush, too.
I don't want to be dramatic.
And they hated Reagan, as you know.
But I don't think I've ever seen the vitriol directed at a president like I have at Donald Trump.
My point I'm trying to make here is that they will do anything to stop Trump, ladies and gentlemen, even if a socialist, borderline communist like Bernie Sanders is the alternative.
The problem with this is they're not doing their homework on Bernie.
We've seen a couple media outlets, I played a clip the other day of Anderson Cooper at CNN, excuse me, on 60 Minutes, he is from CNN, but he was on 60 Minutes doing his regular spot there, questioning Bernie on his spending programs.
But folks, they have not nailed Bernie down on his socialist ties and some of his nonsense.
Now, one of his talking points, he keeps reiterating, and hat tip to the audience that sent this to me.
is debunked.
It's totally discredited.
It's garbage.
It is not true.
It's inaccurate.
I'm going to give you the ammo going forward to argue with the Bernie Bros who don't know what they're talking about.
And the talking point is this, you know, middle class wages are stagnant.
They're not going anywhere.
The middle class hasn't got a raise in four decades.
Folks, that is It's garbage.
That's not true.
He's making this up.
That is total crap.
It is totally made up.
You think I'm making it up?
Alright, let's play the cup.
This is Bernie himself.
It's not Saul, it's Bernie.
This is Bernie himself.
You need your glasses and your shoes?
You jerky boy fans get the joke.
This is Bernie himself.
Bernie himself, pumping again, up America's collective caboose, this ridiculous talking point.
Check this out.
When after 45 years of an increase in productivity and technology, the average American worker is not making a nickel more than he or she did 45 years ago.
When in the last three years, the billionaires of this country have seen an $800 billion increase in their wealth, while last year the average American worker saw a 1% increase in his or her income.
We need fundamental changes.
We need a government that works for all.
Okay, there you go, in case again for the liberals who listen to this show, and that's fine, you're always welcome here, but understand what Bernie is telling you there about middle class wages being stagnant is a lie.
Now what bothers me about it is Bernie is not dumb.
He acts dumb.
He's not dumb.
Sanders knows this talking point is ridiculous.
Before I get to the specifics, because again, on this show we do facts and data.
You want nonsense, listen to Bernie Sanders.
But before I get to that, I just want to ask you generally about that.
And again, to the liberals listening, does that even make sense?
Would you... You know, sometimes it's better phrased, forgive me, in the form of a question.
Would you rather Be super wealthy back in the 50s and have access to 1950s technology, food, food safety, cars, the lack of air conditioning, no cable news.
Would you rather be the richest guy in the 1950s or would you rather be an upper middle class person alive now?
Serious, ponder that for a minute.
Don, upper middle class.
There we go.
We got three.
Don's giving us three.
So we got three for upper middle class.
We got four.
There we go.
We got the whole audience here.
We got Chris too.
So four people would rather be upper middle class now We have cleaner food, we have cleaner air, we have better cars, air conditioning, cable news, the internet.
They would rather have that than be the richest person back in the 50s where you have none of that.
So I'm asking a simple question before we get into the hard data because I know liberals you have like these vibranium coated skulls and you have a tough time with facts and data.
Does that even make sense?
Bernie Sanders' point that the middle class have seemingly stagnated and conditions in their lives are so evil thanks to capitalism.
They're awful.
They've stagnated.
No one's gotten any wealthier.
Of course it doesn't.
It's a stupid talking point.
Now let's give you the hard numbers.
I surfed around last night for good articles on this.
They'll be in the show notes.
Always available.
Bongino.com slash newsletter.
Subscribe to our newsletter.
I'll email you these articles every day.
My good friend David Harsanyi, who is terrific, writes at National Review, has a piece up, very simply stated, Bernie's wrong, we are better off today than we were 45 years ago.
Now, given the question I just asked you, I think that's obvious, but the data should matter, right Joe?
I mean, again, we do numbers on this show, unlike the left.
Let me read to you from David's piece to show you why this Bernie wage stagnation, the middle class is stagnant argument, is total BS.
Quote, the alleged wage stagnation that Bernie and others are referring to is a myth.
For one thing, wage stagnation fails to take into account the health care benefits, pensions, vacations, family leave, and other perks now embedded in job packages.
Folks, those are worth something.
Vacation time, time off, health benefits, fringe benefits from a job, pension packages, they have a cash value.
Of course this is hard for them to believe.
Yeah, it's easier to see here.
This value, going back to Harsani's piece, is somewhere around 30% of an employee's overall benefits.
Ah, it gets better!
Once those benefits are added in, Americans probably have seen about a 45% wage increase since 1964.
Don't tell Bertie!
Don't tell Bertie!
This debunks his entire stupid talking point.
It goes on.
Most important, the amount of time we work to buy things we need is less.
What we buy does more, and it's of higher quality.
Does anyone believe that a dollar spent on medical care in 1975 equals a dollar spent today?
No!
Genius!
Genius!
David, well done.
Fantastic article.
You scratching your head there?
You okay, Jeff?
I got bit.
Did you?
It's Elvis Melanier.
Folks, this is nonsense.
When you factor in your entire package of benefits and pay, the middle class have moved up dramatically.
Median wages.
Quality of life, products they have access to.
Where has that happened?
In the United States.
Where has it not happened?
In Venezuela and in Cuba.
I take that back, it did happen in Venezuela before the socialist scum took over and bankrupted the entire country.
Now, it gets better.
In case you're more wonky, and I like wonky think tanks, AEI, Heritage, they do great work, even if they don't agree with us about our political candidates, that's always fine.
Numbers are numbers, and numbers matter.
AEI is a great piece.
A little older, it's from 2018, but regardless, it's still accurate.
If Bernie Sanders' point is that the middle class, their wages, and they're not better off, has been stagnant for decades now, then a piece from 2018 shouldn't make a difference, right?
Because if we're worse off than we were 50 years ago, according to Bernie, or even 30 years ago, then his point should be accurate even in 2018.
So I found this piece up at AEI.
Headline, median household income is at an all-time high.
Are you happy yet?
Folks, that can't possibly... Joe, that's clearly a lie, right?
Because Bernie told us that median middle-class income is not at an all-time high.
He said it was stagnant.
So clearly AEI must be lying.
Well, they're not lying.
They actually have numbers on this and data.
That is really sad.
I'm glad I got good eyesight.
Oh man, that's hard to see.
Paula's got a little bit worse eyesight than me, but I can actually read this.
This is from the AEI piece.
Remember, folks, remember Bernie's talking point, okay?
It's bold.
It's not true.
His talking point is you're not making more money, your wages are stagnant.
Okay, here are the numbers.
Quote, AEI.
Again, this will be in the show notes.
Please print it for your liberal friends who have no idea what they're talking about.
Quote, here's some really good news.
Median household income in the United States is at a record high.
Can't be!
Can't possibly be true.
And you know what that record high is?
This was in 2018.
An inflation-adjusted $61,372.
Oh!
Oh, it gets better!
It gets better.
We need, like, Fritz from Shamwell.
There's more!
There's more.
Not only is it at an all-time inflation-adjusted high of $61,300, median household income, that Bernie said was stagnant, When you factor in the fact that today's households contain fewer people, the news is even better.
So folks, we're talking now about a bigger pot of money in a smaller household.
Think about this for a second.
You want $61,000 divided amongst 10 people?
Or do you want $61,000 divided amongst three people?
Not a trick question.
You're talking to me?
I was looking at the board.
I know, I saw you.
I caught you off guard.
I would say three people.
Wouldn't you agree?
We have two.
There we go.
Don, we got three.
So, it goes on.
So now you have more money, you have median middle class households making more money, splitting it amongst fewer households because households are smaller, because people have more money and they're moving out earlier, it gets even better.
Wait, there's more!
More?
There's more!
In 1975, for instance, average income per household, per person, was just $19,500 in today's dollars.
Now it's $34,000.
You don't have Jay's abacus with you, do you?
Someone was asking me about that.
You should have brought that.
That would have been so awesome on camera.
I've never touched Jay's abacus.
Folks, you don't need an abacus.
We got an abacus from Jay for our early listeners.
A guy named Jay sent us an abacus to do math for liberals.
So Jay, I have never actually touched Jay's abacus.
Next time.
I took it as a name, Jay Zabikus.
Jay Zabikus, right.
You don't need Jay Zabikus to determine that the average person in a household is far wealthier today.
$34,000 is more than $19,500.
That's right.
Shockingly, the story gets even better.
I mean, you're being manipulated by this utter buffoon.
This guy is such a zero.
The piece goes on, and get a load of this.
Folks, there's no evidence, no evidence that income inequality has grown since the 1990s.
Another stupid talking point by Bernie.
Or that the ability to move up and down the income ladder has shrunk in that time period.
More people than ever live in households pulling down $100,000 a year.
Again, adjusted for inflation.
Fewer households make less than $35,000 a year.
Folks, This is all nonsense.
Do you understand he's making this up?
And Bernie's making this up because he needs to shred the country.
Because here's the thing, and I brought this up last night on Ingram's show as well.
I bring it up on Fox whenever I get the opportunity.
The Democrats can't get you.
Consider this tautological.
A credo.
A principle of what my show stands for.
The Democrats cannot get you to vote for them.
Their policies are grossly unpopular.
They appeal to a fringe, maybe 30% of the population who's been suckered by this.
They can't.
Give us more of your money, give us your health care, and give us your kids' education is not a winning platform in an entrepreneurial, free-spirited country like the United States.
It is not.
You will never get 51% of the vote on that.
So they're tactics forever.
So you got that?
That's tautological point number one.
It's a fact.
Radical Democrats have a garbage platform and they know it.
The only way to win elections then is to make the alternative so not palatable that by default you choose the Democrats to protect you.
So what they do is they then move to option B, which is destroy, decimate, demonize the character of the Republican Party and the Republicans who compose it to make them so unpalatable that what happens is by default they choose a Democrat.
This is why they engage in identity politics.
You're a racist, you know, you've been through the whole list of phobophobic, gistophobic phobisms.
Misogyny, you get it.
That's why they do that.
It's a political tactic, ladies and gentlemen.
I've said that before.
Now, having said that, it is losing some of its effect.
Why?
Bernie knows this, and so do his socialist Bernie bros.
Bernie's aware that you can only call 40% of the country racist for so long, before it becomes obvious what you're doing is just a sick tactical ploy with no basis in reality.
Republicans are obviously not racist.
I'm not even going to address the point because it's so stupid.
It's such a dumb point.
Now, that attack, having lost its edge, they still have to go back to their first option, which is, okay, well, we can't run on our stuff, so we have to make them unpalatable.
So what do we do?
They go to attack number two.
Attack number two is, if we can't get them on the race thing because it's losing its edge, and it has, they call everybody racist, they're going to go to class warfare.
They want to make the middle class feel like they've been exploited.
It's typical Olinsky, Marxist-type tactics.
Create class division to make it appear, falsely, that the wealth of the wealthy has been accumulated at your expense.
And that this is a war going on there that they're going to protect you against.
Now, that point is absurd, because think about it.
If you're not wealthy yourself, how could the wealthy take their wealth from you?
Where did they get it from?
It doesn't, the point doesn't make any sense.
It makes no sense.
But this is why Bernie's doing this.
But that point, that is categorically false.
The numbers belie the fact that the middle class has gotten wealthier.
It is nonsense.
In one of the freest countries on earth.
Income inequality has gone down.
He is just doing it to divide people and to categorize them into boxes and to get people to not vote for him but to get people to vote against the other guy.
So I know I went on a little long there, folks, but it's important.
We have to stop this now.
I disagree with this theory strongly that allowing Bernie Sanders or actually helping him get the nomination It's gonna be an easier fight for Trump.
I don't think you have any idea the power of the mainstream media to indoctrinate people into BS theories.
Don't, listen.
Do not underestimate this guy.
Do not underestimate this guy.
I can't warn you in strong enough terms.
We gotta get this guy out now.
He is way too dangerous.
Did I spend too much time on that?
Paula loves that stuff, don't you?
That's her favorite part.
She's really into the economics, right?
That's always her thing.
Okay, let me move on.
Important thing going on right now up on Capitol Hill.
I don't want to demean it by calling it a thing, but... Ladies and gentlemen, we know the FISA courts have been abused.
We know that.
Been talking about it for three years now.
They use the FISA courts to spy on their political opponents.
We get all that.
I got a communication yesterday from a friend up there.
Folks, they're about to reauthorize a government provision, section 215 of the Patriot Act, which although not directly related to the Spygate case, other provisions were used in there.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is an abomination.
What has been our point on the show the whole time?
You want to spy on American citizens, get a warrant!
Period!
Exclamation point.
Go in front of a judge in some adversarial hearing where a judge calls out your probable cause and you have to prove to a court why you should be spying on American citizens based on evidence.
Right now, ladies and gentlemen, since the passing of the god-awful Patriot Act, which I've been speaking out against forever, Forever.
It's on the record.
You can read it yourself.
It is about to be renewed again and they are trying to do this behind closed doors.
I need you to do me a favor.
I need you to do me a big favor.
I don't ask much.
I need you to call your lawmakers, your congressmen, call your senator's office.
Make yourself be heard.
This is important.
They are about to renew section 215 of the Patriot Act, which is a grossly overbroad provision that allows them to basically access business records on only the slightest of provisions.
And the catch is, Joe, business records could mean anything.
I mean like your library card.
This is dangerous stuff.
Very dangerous.
They're trying to do it behind closed doors, and certain people within the law enforcement and intelligence community who think this is a good idea are lobbying hard for this.
Now, Steve Scalise made an appearance, I think it was yesterday on Fox News, maybe the day before, forgive me.
Yesterday.
But he spoke out about this.
I want you to listen to Scalise when we come back.
I want to tell you where we need to go.
Please, I need you on this, folks.
This is really important stuff.
We can't be fake libertarians and fake constitutionalists.
We have to stand up when it matters, and it matters now.
Listen to Scalise.
Well, if you look, Congressman Jordan is proposing a number of changes in committee, and unfortunately, Jerry Nadler is trying to make this a very partisan a process where he's shutting out the Republican side, but
he would be well served to work with both parties and sit down with Congressman Jordan on
the reforms that he and the members of his committee have been looking at and responsibly
putting together.
So far we're not seeing that cooperation, but we're going to push for the kind of reforms
that are necessary to make sure that this important national security tool maintains
the ability and the integrity that it deserves, with criminal penalties on the other side
if somebody abuses the process like we've already seen.
Folks, please, again, I don't want to ask for a third time, but I need you here.
Freedom.
Liberty.
These are not talking points.
They're not bumper stickers.
I'm not putting them on a sign for a slogan.
I'm not running for office.
Our Constitution matters.
We have whittled it away via FISA and via the Patriot Act.
Get a damn warrant.
It is not hard.
It is not complicated.
Produce probable cause to spy on an American citizen because you have probable cause they were involved in a crime or with a foreign power in violation of U.S.
law.
This should go the way of the woolly mammoth.
Section 215 is a disaster.
It is an overly broad provision which is ripe for abuse.
Please, call your lawmakers, tell them we're watching.
Do not reauthorize Section 215.
Very, very, very important.
Alright, moving on.
Perfect segue, right?
Here we go.
How about that?
Why these things are abused?
It's killing me to do this.
I mean like seriously chewing pieces of my heart away figuratively on the show to have to put up an article from NBC News by Fusion Kendallanian, one of the worst Russian collusion hoaxers out there with Natasha Bertrand, Maggie Haberman, Adam Goldman.
This is the non-dream team.
This is like the reverse 1992 U.S.
basketball team.
Like a bunch of kids, they got off the schoolyard, never seen a basketball before.
I have to put this up because Fusion Ken Delaney who wrote the speech, you can see the headline here, US intel officials worry their latest findings about Russian election interference are being distorted.
Distorted?
Gee, you think?
Who's the author?
Fusion Ken Delaney.
Again, folks, one of the worst Russian collusion hoaxers out there.
Even Fusion Ken has had to acknowledge that the latest Intel leak, remember this one?
Which wasn't an Intel leak, it was a Democrat leak.
Remember this leak?
That we gave a briefing up on Capitol Hill, the Intel community, and it leaked that the Russians are helping again to elect Donald Trump.
Remember that from last week?
Yeah!
Of course.
Folks, that story we warned you last week, we had good sources who told us that is not what Intel officials briefed Congress and the Intel committees up there.
They did not say that.
I warned you it was a false story.
I told you to apply the Bongino rule.
And now, even Fusion Ken has had to acknowledge that last week's bombshell, dreaded air quotes, was complete horse, you get the rest.
Quote.
From Fusion Ken.
I can't believe we're doing this.
We're reading Fusion Ken.
I can't believe it.
This is really a new low for the show.
Just to show you how bad this is, quote, Fusion Ken.
Last week, a bombshell report in the New York Times said Pearson, who did the brief for the CIA and other briefers in the meeting, had told lawmakers, quote, that Russia was interfering in the 2020 campaign to try to get President Trump elected.
That is not what happened.
Fusion Ken goes on.
Intelligence officials say that was an overstatement.
Oh!
Oh, it was?
Oh, well, if you listen to our show, you already knew that.
Fueled, they believe, by a misinterpretation by some Democratic lawmakers on the committee.
A misinterpretation.
I would call that willing BS, but that's nice of Fusion Ken.
He leaves it at this.
Two intelligence officials told NBC News this week that Pearson did not tell lawmakers intelligence showed Russia was actively working to help the president's re-election campaign.
Folks, ugh.
I warned you.
I told you last week I had a top-notch, tier one, A1 source on this, that this was colossal BS.
It was not true.
There was never a briefing on Capitol Hill that said that.
There was a briefing, but there was no briefing that said the Russians were trying to elect Trump.
What I heard was the briefing was this, that the Russians feel like Trump is a deal maker and that there may be a possibility of a deal, which is nothing unusual about.
Everybody knows that about President Trump.
He has tried to make deals to the benefit of the United States, I believe, with a number of foreign countries, denuclearization on the North Korean peninsula.
None of this is breaking news.
That that turned into the Russians want Trump elected is a pure Democrat talking point fed to people in the media who were dumb enough to put it out there.
But again, if you listen to our show, you didn't fall for that nonsense.
That was total crap.
All right.
Now, is this our comedy break?
What?
What?
You want to tell me something?
Okay.
She's good.
Did you see the briefing yesterday, Joe?
Trump's coronavirus briefing?
No, I didn't.
I was traveling and setting up.
Folks, you know, listen, it's a serious topic, obviously.
We don't play around with stuff like that on our show.
But I have to tell you, we do need a president, obviously, who can calm the public when I think there are people out there trying to stir irrational fears.
Viruses and issues, no question about it, could become a more significant issue.
And some of the fears are rational.
You see, you know, people coughing around you who are ill and you wash your hands.
There's nothing irrational about that, okay?
Pretty much straight... Yeah, like Paula, who, there was a lady on the plane coughing.
She was, like, dressed in a full hazmat suit.
Paula, by the time she got off, she was ready to take a bleach bath in there.
But it is good to have a president that can ground the public so nobody worries and panics unnecessarily.
And President Trump has a unique ability, at times, to really kind of bring the conversation down and kind of de-escalate a little bit.
I want to play this at the end of the show, a little bit of comic relief.
This is President Trump in one of the funniest moments I've seen in his presidency, talking about Him being a germaphobe.
Now, anyone who knows the president's been around him knows this.
He is a germaphobe, big time.
And I want to explain why this is significant in relationship to Spygate.
I know you're like, how's this?
It's going to make total sense.
But listen to this.
This is Trump.
Hilarious.
Talking about one of his friends shows up and starts hugging him with the flu.
Check this out.
Any of their behaviors?
No, I think you have to always, you know, I do it a lot anyway, as you probably heard, wash your hands, stay clean.
You don't have to necessarily grab every handrail unless you have to.
You know, you do certain things that you do when you have the flu.
I mean, view this the same as the flu.
When somebody sneezes, I mean, I try and bail out as much as possible with the sneezing.
I had a man come up to me a week ago.
I hadn't seen him in a long time.
I said, how you doing?
He said, fine, fine.
He hugs me, kisses me.
I said, are you well?
He says, no.
He said, I have the worst fever and the worst flu.
And he's hugging and kissing me.
So I said, excuse me.
I went there and started washing my hands.
Is that hilarious?
No.
Listen, I love the president.
I'm a supporter.
I think that's obvious.
We've met him.
We've been honored enough to meet him quite a few times.
You understand that anyone who knows the president, and I'm not, listen, I'm not overselling this.
I don't mean to be hyperbolic.
He's not my best friend.
We don't have dinner together every night.
But anyone who knows the president even a little bit is aware of this.
He is a germaphobe.
He doesn't hide it.
He openly talks about it.
He loves hand sanitizer.
He washes his hands all the time.
He doesn't like germs.
He just doesn't.
Now, why is that relevant?
And why is that cut yesterday?
A little bit of levity in the middle of obviously a very serious situation, which I think was appropriate yesterday.
But why does that matter?
I'm not kidding when I tell you this.
One of the early warning signs I had three plus years ago, four years ago, when the dossier came out, and I saw it, one of the early warning signs I had that this thing was absurd, that the dossier was ridiculous, I mean, not even a sliver of reality in it, was the line in the dossier about Trump and the prostitutes and the bed and, you know, it's a family-friendly show.
But you know the line.
We'll call it the pee-pee tape line.
There was a tape of all that stuff.
If you read that and you knew Donald Trump, folks, you were laughing hysterically.
The pee-pee tape?
You don't even shake his hand without him getting out like a bucket of hand sanitizer.
The story was so dumb to anyone who knew him that it should have been a warning sign that Christopher Steele was either making this up or relaying stuff from people who are making it up to.
Again, but, you know, media put on their blinders and, you know, missed all the obvious points there.
Just so stupid, so ridiculous.
Folks, really appreciate it.
Thanks again for tuning in from CPAC.
I know it was a little loud.
We'll be here again tomorrow.
I've got another loaded show for you tomorrow.
There's been some breaking news today about Steele that it came on a little too late for me to get it into the show, but it's interesting.
He's still defending this thing, so I'll dig into more of that tomorrow.
And keep your eye out, please, for our interview show.
We've got some great guests lined up.
Just got my fingers crossed.
They show up, hopefully be out on Sunday, maybe.
What do you think, Drew?
Sunday or Monday for the interview show?
Maybe?
Drew's like, don't you get me on a record!
Drew's doing his own show from CPAC 2, from 6 to 9 in the morning.
Alright, thanks again for tuning in.
Please subscribe to my show on YouTube, youtube.com slash bungino.
