Is Trump Setting a Trap for the Democrats? (Ep 1316)
In this episode, I address the big trap Trump is setting for the Democrats. I also address the real reason this Spygate co-conspirator is panicking.
News Picks:
Republicans are hopeful that the election has begun to tighten.
The twitter staffer who announced the Trump censorship decision used to work for Kamala Harris.
Europe’s top health officials say masks aren’t helpful in beating coronavirus.
What the heck is going on in Melbourne? Is it now a police state?
Spygate co-conspirator Andrew Weissmann should be immediately investigated for obstruction of justice.
Andrew Weissmann was warned in 2016 about the origins of the dossier.
Is Trump setting a trap for the Dems?
1.8 Million jobs were added in July.
The US economy is starting to look like the economic death spiral in Japan.
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.
So is Donald J. Trump setting another trap?
You know, we hear often because, you know, mainstream media folks obviously are left-wing activists.
That's just what they do.
But we hear all the time.
How brilliant of a political tactician Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer are.
That's hilarious, because they're constantly getting wrecked.
Wrecked by Trump, who's supposedly some Neanderthal.
So I ask this question again.
This will be the opening segment of today's show.
Is Trump setting another trap that these buffoons are You are about to fall into, yet again.
Today's show brought to you by ExpressVPN.
Ladies and gentlemen, surf the internet with peace of mind today.
Get a VPN.
Don't wait.
Go to expressvpn.com slash Bongino.
Welcome to the Dan Bongino Show.
Producer Joe, how are you today on this Friday?
It's Friday!
So I'm doing great.
Yeah.
And everybody looks forward to your best 1960s game show voice.
It is fun.
Intro Friday.
We wouldn't be able to ground ourselves without it.
All right.
Let me get right to that.
The Trump trap.
I got some stuff on Weissman and I was in the news yesterday, so I want to clarify what's going on and what happened.
It was an interesting story and I think you'll enjoy it.
Speaks to what's going on with the media environment today.
Today's show brought to you by our friends at Zip Recruiter.
Listen, hiring can be difficult.
But if you're a company that's currently trying to hire, you face new difficulties, from safely reopening your doors to finding the right person for a specialized role.
Housing Wire could relate.
They needed to hire an ambitious reporter to cover news stories on the U.S.
mortgage and housing markets.
So what'd they do?
They turned to ZipRecruiter.
ZipRecruiter's smart matching technology finds people with the right experience for your job.
In fact, four out of five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate within the first day.
And that's how Housing Wire found Alexandra Roja.
Alexandra never imagined she'd get a reporter job in the midst of COVID-19.
Hiring was frozen, the idea of looking for a job was discouraging.
So she created a profile on ZipRecruiter.
ZipRecruiter matched Alexandra to HousingWire's reporter job because her degree and writing skills were a perfect fit for the role.
HousingWire received her application only four hours after they posted the job.
A few weeks later, Alexandra started her dream career.
ZipRecruiter helped Alexandra find the right job, and they helped HousingWire find the right person for their role fast.
See how ZipRecruiter can help you hire.
Try it now for free.
That's right.
For free at ZipRecruiter.com slash Bongino.
That's ZipRecruiter.com slash Bongino.
B-O-N-G-I-N-O.
Go today.
ZipRecruiter.com slash Bongino.
All right, Joe, let's go.
All right.
Okay.
So, Again, I get tired of hearing what a brilliant political tactician, swamp creature Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer.
Oh my gosh, they're so brilliant.
They've always got Trump boxed into a corner.
Really?
I've seen no evidence of that whatsoever.
But first, let's start with this.
What is this?
What am I talking about?
Where am I going with this?
Some good job numbers came out today.
Washington Examiner had a post about it.
Exceeded expectations, which is always nice.
They expected about 1.5 million jobs to be added in July.
The number was actually 1.8.
Article by Jay Heflin, the business editor of Washington Examiner.
Economy added 1.8 million jobs in July, adding to record gains in wake of the pandemic's destruction.
Now, again, to keep it all in perspective, because we're not liberal media fake news specialists, we lost over 20 million jobs.
But we are making our way back.
We hadn't had a month of a million job gains in, gosh, I think ever.
I mean, a million's a big number.
Now, in light of how many we lost, we have to keep it in perspective, but this does speak to the fact that we are on the road to some form of a recovery right now.
The damage is severe.
Nobody should doubt that.
I'm not trying to downplay it.
But clearly, President Trump's focus on tax cuts and this lightened regulatory red tape burden has led to a runway, at least, where the economic plane can start to take off as the damage from the plague starts to settle.
Okay?
Having said that, So right before I came on the air, this always happens to me, I have the show set up, I'm locked in, Paula's like, Dan, can you give me the rundown?
Everything's all set.
And I read something right before I came on the air.
I sent it to Paula five minutes before we got started.
It's a great article.
Red State.
Be in the show notes.
I encourage you to read it.
Please subscribe to my show notes.
It's our newsletter.
It's the same thing.
I use the terms interchangeably.
Go to bongino.com slash newsletter.
I will send you these articles every day in an email.
We won't spam your inbox.
This is a good one.
It's by Mike Ford at Red State.
Opinion.
Trump sets a trap for Pelosi and Schumer.
I have been thinking about this for a couple days.
I hate when people say it because I'm... But Ford said it because then it looks like I'm trying to, like, scoop this guy.
Like, Mike Ford said it, but I've been thinking about it, sir.
That's not what I'm saying.
I'm not sure.
He writes it better than I did.
So read the piece.
But the gist of his piece is this, and it's been on my mind for a while.
So President Trump, here's the trap.
Obviously, we have a lot of economic dislocation.
That's an understatement.
People are really suffering right now.
Millions of jobs have been lost.
The entertainment industry has been wiped out.
The restaurant industry is struggling.
But people are starting to figure it out, what this new business model in the corona era is going to look like.
They're starting to figure it out.
Is it going to be curbside delivery?
More takeout?
Socially distanced tables?
Movie theaters with partitions?
People are starting to figure it out.
The U.S.
entrepreneurs will.
They're not going to go bankrupt.
We have hardworking people.
So what's happening here is as the stimulus money through the CARES Act, that extended unemployment benefit that was passed by the federal government, as that wanes and stops, we all know the end point.
It's coming soon.
There's a debate in Congress over what the amount of a new stimulus, government stimulus, and I dispute that term, but for the sake of everybody understanding what I'm talking about, there's a debate over the level of government intervention and the amount of government spending in a new stimulus.
Everybody dig?
And one of the debates is over the amount of unemployment insurance we should pay to people who are unemployed.
We obviously shouldn't pay people more than they made in their jobs, or else you're going to disincentivize them to go back to work.
There's also a debate over evictions.
Whether people should be evicted if they don't pay their rent in this time.
So here's the trap Trump beautifully set.
He is now threatening Pelosi and the Democrats with an executive order That would put a halt to evictions if you don't pay your rent and would move around some money in the federal government to extend these unemployment benefits even when the CARES Act expires.
Let me be crystal clear, because I'm not a hypocrite on government spending or executive orders.
I'm not suggesting he can even do this.
But he might.
So you're like, well, what's the trap?
Again, I'm not debating whether it's good or bad right now, I'm just debating the political mechanics.
Think about this, Joseph, and if I don't explain this well, please stop me mid-sentence.
I will.
So let's say President Trump does an executive order and says, because Congress and Nancy Pelosi want a huge stimulus package we can't afford, the Republicans up on the Hill say, we're not going to spend $3 trillion, we'll maybe go for $500 billion, but we're not doing all that.
So Trump comes in and says, screw all you guys and ladies over there squabbling.
I'm just going to do it via executive order.
He probably can't.
So what happens, Joe?
Well, Pelosi will probably, what, have to take him to court?
Which would lead to some pretty crappy optics for Pelosi, wouldn't it?
Ooh.
Again, not benefiting the pros and cons of the policy.
I've already done shows on that.
I don't think these extended unemployment benefits at the level we pay them now are a good idea.
I don't.
Do you really want to be in court, Joe, as Nancy Pelosi of the Democrats, 90 days before an election, arguing why people should be evicted for their houses and shouldn't have unemployment benefits?
I'm not debating the policy, I'm just debating the optics.
Oh, looks bad.
Looks real bad.
Looks bad?
Yeah.
Looks horrendous.
You want to be in court every day?
And then, even if you win, I'm trying to imagine the outtakes here.
So Nancy Pelosi comes out of court.
We did it.
We did it.
I met Dora the Explorer.
We did it.
Yay.
Lohi Simos.
We did it.
I mean, you really want to be celebrating on the steps of the Supreme Court or whatever, an appellate court in DC, that we shut you down.
We shut you down, Mr. President.
Evict all those people.
No more unemployment benefits.
Listen, again, I think Trump is a smarter political tactician than people give him credit for.
He probably understands he can't do this executive order.
Spending packages have to come from the legislative branch.
All of those bills originate in the House of Representatives.
The president can move some money around, but he's very limited.
As for an order on evictions, I don't know.
No one's sure that'll pass muster.
But that's not the point.
The political point is, what are the Democrats going to do?
And Mike Ford brilliantly writes this up in this piece at Red State.
I encourage you to read it.
They have no options.
Well, it's going to take him to court.
We're going to throw you out of your house, damn it!
Get out!
Tomorrow!
We did it.
It'd be like a new Dora Explorer episode.
She can have backpack and everything with her.
And boots.
Remember boots?
A lot of you parents watched Dora growing up.
I did.
I think I've seen every episode.
Sorry.
I'm laughing at my own terrible joke.
Does that make sense, Joe?
Oh yeah.
Big time.
You get it?
Brilliant move by Joe.
Politically speaking.
I don't like these usurpations of power.
I just want to be clear on that.
I'm principled on these issues, but as a political, strict political move, the Democrats are in a world of trouble right now on this, and they know it.
Of course, the Republicans, I don't know in the House if they'll do anything.
We got a few people, but other than that, remember the golden rule.
Most Republicans on Capitol Hill are really Democrats, but no Democrats on Capitol Hill are really Republicans.
That's why I have no faith that they'll stop this economic apocalypse we're looking at.
All right, a lot more ahead, including me in the news and this tech tyranny story I want to get to as well.
As you know, again, I own part of the company Parler, an alternative to Twitter and Facebook, but that's not the focus of this segment today.
The tech tyrants are at it again, ladies and gentlemen, and they genuinely don't care, like not even a little bit.
If you think Jack Dorsey cares, I get these calls all the time.
Again, I brought this up yesterday, so I don't like to repeat the story, but a radio friend of mine keeps calling me about something that's happening to him on Twitter and he's really stunned that Twitter doesn't care.
I'm not kidding, like he's like puzzled that Twitter isn't, but I keep putting it on Parler and I got all these people talking about it.
I'm like, Girl, they don't care.
Twitter banned us from running ads four years- four years?
Is it four years?
Three years ago?
They don't care!
Do you understand?
Listen to me, everyone.
Horse blinders for a minute.
If you're listening on radio, audio horse blinders.
I'm telling you right now, Jack Dorsey does not care.
Jack Dorsey runs Twitter.
He doesn't care what you think.
I'm very sorry.
It's why I got involved in parlor.
Jack doesn't care.
There is no political pressure you will put on.
He doesn't care.
They hate conservatives and they don't care.
And the radio friend of mine said, well, what, you know, you're going to be banned soon too.
I said, yeah, I know.
He's like waiting for another response.
Yeah, I get it.
I know we'll be banned.
I have no doubt about that.
My account will be banned from Twitter.
I'm sure of it.
I get that.
That's why I'm on Parler.
Twitter hates you.
They really just don't like you.
Why does Jack not care?
Because Jack makes a lot of his money from other enterprises, ladies and gentlemen.
Twitter's his plaything.
He doesn't care.
He doesn't care about the optics of things, how things look.
He's not trying to get elected.
Dorsey doesn't like you.
I just want to make sure you all get this, because people on Twitter still complain about it.
Like, oh my gosh, Twitter, what if I put, they don't care.
Let me show you this piece.
Hat tip, Benny Johnson, by the way, did a great job with this.
To show you how little they actually care about what you think.
So we're all, you know, reading from the same sheet of music here.
Here's a Hill headline.
Twitter bans Trump campaign until it deletes tweet with COVID-19 misinformation.
The Hill.
Long story short, Twitter deleted a tweet where Trump had said that kids may be immune from the virus.
That's not what he meant.
Granted, the choice of words was not great, to be fair there.
But he didn't mean they were immune, like they couldn't get the virus.
He meant immune from the rough effects of it, that generally speaking, generally, kids won't suffer the symptoms that older folks, they're not immune.
Kids are not immune from the virus, unless you've had it before.
But you know, it was probably, the choice of words could have been better.
But you delete his tweet because of it?
Now you may say, okay, so Twitter's, they're principals, right Joe?
Because they're principals, right?
Twitter principals.
Oh, yes, yes.
So they don't like coronavirus misinformation?
Yes.
Let's go to this second headline from the hill.
This is fascinating.
Twitter will not delete coronavirus disinformation spread by Chinese officials.
I'm just principles, right?
So Twitter won't delete Chinese noted misinformation that we've seen from them and the WHO.
Remember that misinformation?
The virus can't spread through the air.
Not true.
It's not person-to-person transmission.
Definitely not true.
They won't delete that.
They won't stop the Chinese government, Twitter, but they'll stop President Trump for basically Saying in essence what was his information was correct.
The use of the word was wrong.
They're not a kids are not immune.
They don't care.
Again, I don't mean to just, I want to just pile drive this home.
So you understand there's no process for you.
They don't care.
Find an alternative, whether it's us at parlor or someplace else, because yes, you will be banned and no, they don't care.
Showing you how they don't care.
Imagine how bad the optics on what I'm about to show you are.
The optics, how it looks.
And you'd think Twitter would like fire someone or issue an apology or be like, this was probably a bad idea.
Look who issued the explanation for why they deleted Trump's tweet.
Here is the Twitter account of Nick Passilio, who says, this guy's from Twitter, Twitter Communications.
He says the original tweet from Team Trump is in violation of the Twitter rule.
Clearly not, but you get it.
Is in violation of Twitter rules on COVID-19 misinformation.
Except China, asterisk.
Sorry, I had to throw that in there.
And we've required removal.
Oh, thanks, Nick.
Appreciate that.
Nick, Twitter communications guy.
Probably listening like, okay, I don't get it.
So what's, what's your point?
Now, wouldn't it be really weird?
I mean, almost crazy if Nick Passilio Was a former communications guy for the leading candidate for the vice presidency for Joe Biden right now, Kamala Harris.
That would be absolutely insane.
Like, no way they would have him issue that.
Then Nick Pecilio!
Communications at Twitter, former Kamala Harris press secretary!
Oh, and he went to Berserkly, too.
University of California, Berkeley.
Folks, I'm going to end this here because I love my audience and I don't want to like harass you with this.
They don't care.
Find a new home.
I'm telling you, Twitter doesn't care.
Believe me, now that I'm involved financially in this entire space, I've become really familiar with what goes on behind the scenes.
They don't care.
Not one bit.
Okay, moving on.
I think we made that point.
Before I get to Dan Bogino's appearance in the news.
So, uh, this is not funny.
This is just, again, I get a lot of emails.
Dan, why do you always, you try to be nice to Biden and say it's not funny.
This one, this one is just tragic.
This guy is just a total train wreck.
Can I be candid with you for a moment?
This is one of those fourth wall moments that I know is not going to help me with my audience.
Cause I know a lot of you are angry at what's going on and you should be.
I am too, but.
I just have a hard time watching seniors and this because it's happened in my family.
I mean, if you really want to know the answer, I know it doesn't help.
A lot of you are mad at me because you're like, just go out.
I am going after Biden.
He's awful.
He's a far left radical who's going to destroy the country.
But, you know, again, just being candid because you deserve that from me.
You deserve truth.
It's hard for me to watch.
It really is.
This, however, is just outrageous.
I tweeted yesterday, if they saw this clip of Biden yesterday, some of you have seen it on the news, some of you may not have.
I tweeted yesterday, holy... Did he actually say this?
Now, Joe, if I were to come on my show today and suggest that black people are not diverse and basically all think alike, we'd probably be off the air.
Tomorrow we'd be banned from YouTube, SoundCloud, Apple Podcasts, the known universe.
We'd be sent to the Phantom Zone in one of those mirrors like in Superman 2 with Zod.
But when you're a Democrat, you apparently can say that, that, nah, all black people, they're all alike, don't you worry about it.
You don't believe me?
Listen to Biden here, ironically, talking to a group of black and Hispanic voters.
Watch him suggest in this short clip that, nah, all blacks are the same, basically.
It's only Latinos that are different.
Check this out.
What you all know, but most people don't know, unlike the African American community, with notable exceptions, the Latino community is an incredibly diverse community.
With incredibly different attitudes about different things.
I'm looking for, like, some kind of prop here.
Do we have that red thing?
Dude.
Oh, here we go.
We haven't used this in a while.
Oh, there it is!
There's laundry on the field, folks!
Is this holding?
Holding!
It's holding 10 yards!
10 yards!
Offense!
What?
Unlike the black community, the Latino community is diverse?
And I love the Democrats trying to explain this obviously racist statement.
Obviously.
There's no couching this in like cutesy language.
You have black Americans that are from Jamaica, black Americans from Haiti, black Americans who have ancestors in African countries.
Joe, last time I checked, Africa's quite large too.
You have Southern Africa, you have Sub-Saharan Africa, you have Northern Africa.
There's diversity within Jamaica.
Very diverse.
Just checking.
All people who are black are not the same.
Do we have to put...
This is what's frustrating, and I'm not kidding.
Why is it that it's conservative shows where according to the media hack lunatic nutjobs, the conservatives, they're all racist.
Of course, that's a false tarring and feathering of us because you're uncomfortable with actual human rights and dignity and you use it as a weapon.
But why is it that it's always conservative shows that have to say that this stuff is crazy?
Why isn't, I'm not kidding, why wasn't the mainstream media out all over this tonight like, hey, that's pretty racist.
Unlike the black community, Latinos are diverse.
I'm done with this guy.
I'm tired of this guy.
I don't like him folks.
I'm not trying to be nice to him.
I just, as I've said before, just a few minutes ago, and I'll say now, maybe it's not right.
I know, you know, maybe you want me to like take off the, I do, but watching this guy collapse, it's tough for me to watch an older person just lose their attachment to reality, but he needs to stop talking seriously.
Just stop talking.
All blacks are alike.
I mean, uh, It gets worse with Biden.
Why you're voting for this, I really have no idea.
You want to protest Trump, vote for a third-party candidate.
Why you're voting for this lunatic, I have no idea.
Here's Biden yesterday on another show saying that people in the country illegally should be entitled to our taxpayer-funded healthcare system too, as if there's no consequence to that at all.
Listen to this.
Should undocumented immigrants also be able to get subsidized healthcare?
If they are working in the United States of America, and they are paying taxes, they should have access to healthcare.
They should have access to what everybody else has access to.
So can we just run down the list of things you're voting for if you choose Joe Biden in this upcoming election?
He's going to destroy the suburbs.
He's already pledged to do it.
He wants to destroy the suburbs by building low-income housing, high-density development in the middle of the suburbs.
In the middle of the suburbs, and then they want to use these consortiums to take your tax money from the suburbs to give them to the cities that you moved out of.
Look it up.
AFFH, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing.
That's a Joe Biden initiative.
He's already pledged to dramatically hike your taxes, to repeal the tax cuts you just got.
He's already pledged to now subsidize your taxpayer-funded healthcare to people who came in the country not even legally.
As if that won't create an incentive for everybody to rush into the country because he's also pledged to stop building any kind of a border wall too.
Good luck.
If that's what you want, that's your guy.
He's also pledged, too, about any kind of rifles.
We're going to take your guns away.
He calls them assault weapons.
He can't define what an assault weapon is.
He's like, you're damn right we're going to take them away.
If that's what you want, Joe Biden's your guy.
If that's not what you want, Joe Biden is not your guy.
It's not Joe Biden.
Your guy is then not Joe Biden.
Joe Biden, not Joe Biden.
Which for many of us, thankfully, will be Donald Trump.
Guy's a mess, folks.
The guy's a mess.
A total mess.
He clearly has no respect for black voters either.
And believe me, I don't say that lightly.
I don't.
I think Joe Biden actually at some point back was on the right side of criminal justice reform.
I have no problem.
I'm not going to be unprincipled.
I'm telling you, though, right now, this man has no respect for black voters at all.
You ain't black if you don't vote for me.
His words.
Remember him with Charlemagne?
The interviewer?
You ain't black if you don't vote.
You're not black if you don't vote.
What the?
All right.
I want to get to me.
I rarely talk about myself, but this is important because it's a bigger story and I'll tell you why we did what we did and why we're proud of the result, even though it wasn't exactly what we intended.
Let me get to my second sponsor today.
Today's show also brought to you by our friends at NetSuite.
Listen, these last few months have been tough.
They've taught us what's really important out there.
It also taught us what we need to eliminate or change, especially in our business.
It's no different for business.
What are the changes you need to make right now to adjust to this new economy?
Do you have this hairball of multiple software systems?
We did.
You shouldn't have that.
You can streamline it with one.
All you need is NetSuite by Oracle, the world's number one cloud business system, the best.
Finance, HR, inventory, e-commerce, everything you need, one spot.
It saves you three things.
It saves you time.
It saves you money.
And it saves you headaches, which for me is the most important.
Whether you're doing a million or hundreds of millions in sales, NetSuite is for you.
It will give you the visibility and the control so you can manage every penny of your business with precision.
Join over 20,000 companies who trust NetSuite to go faster with confidence.
NetSuite surveyed hundreds of business leaders and assembled a playbook of the top strategies they're using as America reopens for business.
Get your free guide, seven actions businesses need to take now, and schedule your free product tour at netsuite.com slash Bongino.
Get your free guide, schedule your free product tour today at netsuite.com slash Bongino.
That's netsuite.com slash Bongino.
All right.
So I was in the news yesterday and I don't like talking about stories about myself.
Matter of fact, I rarely do.
But here's just a quick backstory, and the story I want to relate is to a bigger topic of media bias, and I want to talk about this as a warning to you.
Because a lot of you out there, activists, you know, conservatives out there who go to groups and stuff, may decide one day to run for office, or you yourself may decide to get a show, whatever it may be.
Conservative Bobby's, you know, A conservative hour, a liberty hour, whatever it may be.
And you may become a public figure one day yourself.
And I want to warn you how the media works.
I'm going to show you what happened to me.
So a while ago, an article was written about me.
I used to work at a company that provided content to NRA TV.
Some of you saw the show.
It was called We Stand.
I worked there for a year.
I enjoyed my time there.
I left.
I was offered a very generous compensation package to stay, which is relevant to the story here for a reason, which I'll get to in a minute.
I turned it down for other reasons.
I wound up signing with Fox News instead.
Now, interestingly enough, after I chose to not re-sign, again, after being offered a nice deal to stay, I was, I read this article in the Daily Beast, which was strange.
Here it is by Lachlan Marquet, who pretends to be a journalist.
And it said, Dan Bongino out in NRA TV.
And I read, wow, out.
And it says that they were downsizing and I appear to be a casualty of those plans.
This is fascinating.
Now this story came out about a year ago, a little over a year ago.
And I thought to myself, well, that's not true.
They went on in the piece.
In other words, they're kind of implying here that I was let go or terminated because of downsizing.
Well, it was me.
I knew the story was false.
So they wrote that the NRA's media arm has dropped.
They dropped me, Joe.
Pro-Trump firebrand, Dan Bongino from It's a Lie to Me.
I know, terrible, right?
Two sources told this guy, apparently, Lachlan Marquet.
Did they really?
That's interesting.
So the story seems to imply that I was dropped and let go.
The story is, of course, categorically false.
Yeah.
It's not true.
I'm going to show you the evidence that 100% this guy knew this story was false and wrote it anyway.
So again, the implication here is that I was dropped.
They let me go down time as a casualty.
Oh my gosh, what a casualty.
Damn Banshee, we got to get rid of him.
Terrible.
This kind of stuff, ladies and gentlemen, I got another quote from the piece for a minute, but I want to show you how the coin of the realm works if you get into this public space.
The only coin of the realm they have is reputational damage.
They can't hurt you physically.
You're not going to come to your house with like a baseball bat.
So what they do to you when you become a public figure, a conservative, not a liberal, I want to be clear on this, is they have to, they view your reputation like a bank account.
Your goal is to make deposits to make your reputation strong.
Good quality content, good shows, runs for office, things like that where you're actually repping the cause, you know?
The media's goal is to make withdrawals and to take your reputation down until no one takes you seriously anymore.
And the way they do that is they do it bit by bit.
It's, you know, how do you eat an elephant?
Bite by bite.
So they write these stories that they don't write you a fire, they imply it, which does enough reputational damage that you would assume reading that article, man, Dan's show must have been so bad, they got rid of him in a downsizing effort.
Matter of fact, he says again that a source told him that.
Here's the second bite from the piece, the second clip from the piece.
He says, the author of this piece, He says he subsequently confirmed that We Stand is in fact ending, but suggested, he's talking about me, that the decision not to renew the show was his, not the network's.
That's in fact true.
A characterization questioned by a source familiar with the organization's decision.
So again, now, showing you exactly how fake news works, the implication is not only I was dropped due to downsizing and that I was a casualty of it, so it's so bad I had to get rid of him, but that a source confirmed this.
Right.
Did it really?
Let me show you a text from this reporter who had my phone number because I had known him when he pretended to be a conservative years ago.
A text he actually sent my phone, which is in the court documents because we follow the law.
Check this out.
Here's the text.
Monday, December 6th.
Heard you didn't renew with NRA TV.
Couple days later, just circling back on this, probably publishing something today.
So that's kind of different, isn't it?
He says a source told him that I was dropped.
In other words, they got rid of me.
But then he texts me saying, I heard you didn't renew, which is in fact accurate and confirmed by both me and the production company I worked for.
I turned down the deal.
But the story that I turned down the deal, That is a deposit into my reputational bank account.
I turned down the deal because I got a better deal somewhere else.
But that makes me look good.
So they can't write, I didn't renew.
So they write a knowingly false story, the same guy who texts me the opposite thing just days before he published it.
It's the first time in my life we ever sued.
We took a legal hit yesterday.
Judge tossed the case at Discovery there, saying that it was without merit.
Listen, we lost fair and square.
I respect the judge's decision.
I think he was wrong.
Obviously, I wouldn't have filed the lawsuit otherwise.
I don't see how, you know, when you text someone that you knew, in fact, I didn't renew, and then you write an article suggesting the opposite, But the judge's decision is what it is.
We're still deciding now what to do, whether to refile or withdraw.
It depends on, you know, workload and stuff.
There's some other information out there.
But folks, I bring this up to you because I'm proud of what we did.
And you know, I thought about it last night.
My wife and I talked about it.
Again, I always break down the fourth wall.
You're entitled to the truth.
And at first we were like, gosh, you know, maybe, you know, we shouldn't have, we, you know, because these cases are hard to win when you're a public figure.
And then my wife said to me last night, and I appreciated it because I was feeling really bad yesterday about it.
My wife said, you know what?
You did the right thing.
She said, the truth is now out there because that guy's, the actual journalist, air quotes, who wrote that article, That text wasn't in his article at all.
Now it's in all the court documents.
So now when you write about this case from future, even though we didn't get the legal outcome we wanted, again, we respect the judge's decision, that's fine.
We're not crybabies here about it.
But now you're gonna have to go and actually read the court case.
And you're gonna see that the author, at best, at best, lied in the article.
He knew I didn't renew and wrote the opposite.
At worst, is the worst journalist you've seen in a long time.
Because his sources told him one thing, and he wrote the opposite in the article.
Either he didn't understand, or he lied to you.
Either he doesn't understand what his sources are telling him, even though he texted it to me, or he lied to you.
Cautionary note, anything you read from Lachlan Marquet in the future, and his name will creep up on internet searches.
I'm proud of what we did, and I encourage you all to do the same thing.
If you are defamed in these pieces, these fights matter.
One more thing about this, not to, you know, go on and on about my personal, because I try to keep my personal business out of the show, but it's important and it's a warning for you because some of you will become public figures and it's open season on you from this point on.
Once you do, they have to prove actual malice.
They can't just lie.
They have to like prove it was done with intent to defame you, which again, I thought was clear.
I wouldn't have filed the lawsuit.
This has happened to me before.
I had another author write that we had bulk sales on our book because the New York Times said so.
In other words, that we got on the bestseller list with my second book exonerated, and there's an asterisk in the New York Times.
May have benefited from bulk sales.
They do this to conservatives all the time.
I'm just warning you.
The same way sources told this author something they didn't tell him.
It was made up.
No one told him that.
His text said the opposite.
They do this to conservative authors all the time.
And what they're trying to do is they're trying to say that your book didn't really sell.
A bunch of conservative groups out there just bought thousands of copies and your book really was terrible.
They do this all, they put an asterisk, it's almost always next to conservative books.
Shockingly, my last book, New York Times put an asterisk next to my book and said, benefited from bulk sales.
Hint, hint, he really didn't sell that many.
So I called my publisher and I said, Anthony, did we have any bulk sales from the book?
He said, no, none.
I said, zero.
He said, zero.
He said, matter of fact, the only sale we had to any group that was even considered, not even really bulk, but was Fox Nation, the Patriot Awards, they bought about 100 or 200 books to give out to people there.
And the Fox Nation event was on November 6th.
My book was on the bestseller list September 24th.
November...
But again, it doesn't matter.
I bring up these two stories about false stories.
I was dropped from NRA TV.
My book was bulk sales.
Because what happens?
Nobody really reads these articles.
So you may say, well, then what's the point?
Why are you worried about it?
Because the way the left works is if you go to Wikipedia, Scamipedia, The left-wing lunatics at Wikipedia then take these articles nobody reads.
It was dropped from NRA TV.
His book was a scam, bulk sales, even though it's factually incorrect.
No, there's not an entity on the planet that can show me a receipt from a bulk sale for my book.
Nowhere!
Nowhere!
It makes it onto Wikipedia.
And left-wing lunatics then use Scamipedia from that point on to say, look, the guy was fired from NRA TV.
Look, his book, there's all phonies, the books.
So it doesn't matter that nobody reads the articles.
What matters is it becomes canon and canon fodder for people to then shoot you down and make withdrawals from your reputational bank account to destroy you.
That's what the left does.
It's sad.
Lachlan didn't think we would fight back.
But now, no, whenever you read from him, whenever he has said sources, just screenshot that text.
Be like, was this your source too?
Because you didn't exactly put that in the article.
Just checking.
Okay, moving on.
I don't want to spend too much time on that.
I got some important Spygate update.
Weissman.
Weissman is panicking.
Let me get to my last sponsor before doing that.
And let me just tease one thing.
The Sean Hannity interview is great.
I really loved it.
We taped it.
Joe and Drew and Paula are working hard on it.
It will be out tomorrow morning, Saturday.
Please check it out.
It's a really candid conversation, about a half an hour, me and Sean Hannity about his new book.
It's really a good interview.
Please check it out again tomorrow.
YouTube.com slash Bongino and on our regular Apple podcast account.
All right, today's show brought to you by friends at BrickHouse Nutrition.
Ladies and gentlemen, one of my favorite sponsors, also the original.
Now more than ever, maintaining a healthy diet and immune system is vital, which is why me and Paula take a boatload of this stuff, field of greens, from BrickHouse Nutrition every day.
I give it to my mother-in-law too.
It is a real superfood.
This is not some cheap extract supplement which is flooding the market right now claiming to be good for you.
This is real fruits and vegetables.
Real fruits and vegetables packed with vitamins, antioxidants, ground up into a delicious tasting powder that's super easy to prepare.
I throw it in some green tea, sometimes some tomato juice.
I love it.
You don't believe me, this is real food?
Go to the back.
Notice what it says on the back.
It says nutrition facts.
What does that mean, Dan?
It doesn't say supplement facts, because this is real food.
That's why.
Healthy, wholesome, fresh fruits and vegetables taste delicious.
One scoop of Field of Greens has a full serving of USDA organic fruits and vegetables that'll power you with clean energy and fuel a healthier, happier lifestyle.
That healthy part is really important right now.
Go to BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan and get 15% off your first order using promo code Dan.
Don't wait.
Take care of your health today.
A lot of us can't eat fresh fruits and vegetables all the time.
BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
There are two flavors.
They have a brand new wild berry flavor that's terrific too.
Again, go to BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan.
Use promo code Dan today.
Okay.
So yesterday I kind of teased this story a little bit and it's important because Sarah Carter and other great real journalists, Sajan Solomon and others, we're all getting really frustrated we followed the Spygate case.
You know, seriously folks, when are people going to wind up in handcuffs here?
No, I'm serious.
I mean, we know crimes were committed.
Felony links to media reporters about classified information, none of this is a secret.
Lying under oath to FISA courts, lying to federal investigators.
We know federal felonies were committed.
When is something going to happen?
And not only is the pace of justice turning into a glacial one, but the people involved in this scam, including dreadful Mueller witch hunter, Mueller team member, Andrew Weissman, who really led the team.
Mueller was just a figurehead.
This guy keeps getting away with, I mean, ridiculous amounts of potential corruption and illicit immoral behavior.
The guy's got an MSNBC contract.
What do I mean?
I searched this piece from the Washington Examiner yesterday.
Andrew Weissman, who was a Mueller lieutenant in the witch hunt to get Donald Trump for a crime collusion they knew didn't exist, is now urging people publicly, he's not even hiding it, to obstruct justice.
He's telling DOJ people don't cooperate with the investigations into the Spygate scandal.
He's doing this publicly, which goes to show you again the unbelievable power of the media.
If this was Donald Trump doing this, Donald Trump encouraging people inside the government, obligated to do the right thing under their administrative guidelines, To not cooperate with a bona fide investigation into the biggest scandal of our time, Donald Trump, they would want him removed from office as a traitor tomorrow morning.
But because it's corruptocrat, swamp demon, Andrew Weissman, everything is saying, okay, he's doing this publicly!
He's not hiding this.
Now why is Weissman panicked?
There's a reason, folks.
Again, he's the Mueller lieutenant who is knee-deep in the entire scandal to spy on Trump.
This article, by the way, will be in the show notes.
It's an older one from John Solomon.
But it's important you read it.
Be in the show notes today.
Bongino.com slash newsletter.
FISA shocker.
DOJ official warns Steele dossier was connected to Clinton and might be biased.
Follow me here.
Here's this article by Solomon.
I got a couple of screenshots from it in a minute.
How does it involve Weissman?
Again, Mueller's lieutenant.
When the FBI went to the FISA court for a warrant to spy on the Trump team and raise their right hand, they left out of the document the fact that the information in the document, the PP stuff and the dossier was paid for political misinformation.
It's no more complicated than that.
You think that's kind of relevant?
You may want to tell the judge.
Yeah, I'd say so.
Now wouldn't it be awfully odd if Andrew Weissman, who later went on to investigate Donald Trump as Mueller's lieutenant for the PP stuff and all the other collusion hoax stuff, knowing it was false because in January the FBI was told it was false by Steele's own sources, the guy who wrote the dossier.
Wouldn't it be weird if Weissman knew as far back as 2016?
Remember, Mueller's not appointed until mid-2017, a year later.
Wouldn't it be weird if Weissman knew this was strictly political information and a political hit job and let the whole thing proceed anyway?
Let's go to John Solomon's excellent piece from The Hill.
It's from a while ago, but it's worth your time again.
So Bruce Ohr, who worked in the Department of Justice, went up to Congress and spoke, and he revealed that the FBI and justice lawyers had no need to speculate.
Bruce Ohr from the DOJ explicitly warned them in a series of contacts beginning in July of 2016 that Christopher Steele expressed bias against Trump and was working on a project connected to the Clinton campaign.
Oh, he did?
Well, who exactly did he warn?
Hey, this is a political document.
It goes on.
Ohr had first-hand knowledge about the motive and the client.
The political motive, they mean.
He had just met with Steele on July 30th, 2016, and Broussard's wife, Nellie, worked for Fusion GPS, who employed Steele.
Here's a quote from Broussard.
I certainly told the FBI that Fusion GPS was working with and doing opposition research on
Donald Trump, he told congressional investigators, adding that he warned the FBI that Steele
expressed bias during their conversations too. Well, what does this have to do with Weissman?
So the guy who writes the dossier, Steele, using sources that were discredited six months after,
January of 2017, tells Bruce Ohr, upper level official in the Department of Justice,
whose wife is working with the company that hired the guy who wrote the PP dossier.
Bruce Ohr tells Congress, I warned everyone that this was a political document.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
Well, why didn't they say anything?
Well, who else did Bruce Ohr tell in 2016?
And why may he be a little bit panicked now?
Let's go to screenshot two here.
Orr didn't only contact the FBI, he said in August of 2016, nearly two months before the Pfizer was issued.
He also briefed people, including Andrew Weissman, the then head of the DOJ fraud section, Bruce Schwartz, longtime DOJ international operation, and Zayn Ahmed, who was also on the Mueller team, by the way, an accomplished terrorism prosecutor at the time, was assigned to work with Lynch as a senior counselor.
Amad Weissman will later go on to work for Mueller, the special prosecutor overseeing the Russia probe.
Orr's extensive testimony also undercuts one argument that House Democrats sought to make last year.
So, the same guy, Andrew Weissman, Discredited, obvious partisan hack posing as a lawyer, who is now openly encouraging government officials obligated to do the right thing to obstruct justice and not cooperate with a legal probe into their malfeasance, is the same guy who was warned
In the middle of 2016, that the PP stuff we're gonna use to spy on Donald Trump is all political garbage?
and then not only allowed it to proceed, but then went on and joined Mueller's team later
and investigated it again despite knowing it was false.
Again, if this was a Republican, you'd be in handcuffs right now.
But because it's Andy Weissman, not only is it documented, you knew you did a partisan investigation, you knew the information was political, you then engaged in a political witch hunt on political information you knew was political, but then you go get paid by MSNBC, and you go on their air and write op-eds encouraging people to obstruct justice into the investigation, into your political investigation.
And everybody's like, this is great.
The media loves him!
The media thinks this guy is a hero!
hero. Hero. Right.
I'm getting frustrated.
So I'm going to move on to the next story because it's important.
It's a loaded news day today.
So I get emails from, receive emails a lot from listeners who are really great.
And so one guy emails me a lot, but he sent me an article yesterday.
I saw it at first, I thought it was a scam.
For all my Australian listeners, and we have a lot of them, we get to do that research thing we can see.
I can't see into your house or anything, but we can see generally where you're listening from.
We have a lot of listeners in Australia.
I feel really bad for you if you live in Melbourne right now.
Have you heard what's going on in Melbourne?
Here's an article from the American Institute for Economic Research.
This will be in the show notes again today.
Please check it out.
By Jeffrey Tucker.
Madness in Melbourne.
This is not funny.
Folks, you are watching your civil liberties go down the tubes right now, being flushed down the toilet.
I can't even tell you how bad what I read in this article is, so I'm just gonna go down the list.
So Melbourne, using the coronavirus as a backdrop, has basically turned their city into a police state.
Out of fears from the coronavirus, despite no evidence whatsoever these lockdowns actually work.
They don't.
This virus doesn't care about your lockdowns at all.
You're just locking people down indoors to recirculate air so if someone gets it, the whole house gets it.
The lockdowns don't work.
They haven't worked.
Look at some of the draconian measures happening.
I really feel bad if you live in Melbourne right now.
The guy who writes the article says, a friend summarized for me what's happening right now, the situation in Melbourne.
Even one of these is bad.
Police may now enter anyone's home without a warrant.
Huh?
There's an 8 p.m.
curfew, a $1,600 fine if you're outside your house without, quote, a valid reason, the amount being raised by the day.
You may say to yourself, Dan, come on, this is 1980s Soviet Union.
No, no, this is Melbourne now.
You're not allowed to visit family or friends.
There's a $200 fine for no mask, mandatory masks at all times.
Folks, please confirm for me if you live in Melbourne, email us if this is true.
You can only exercise once per day for up to an hour?
What the hell does that have to do with anything?
Only one person per household per day can leave the house, including for groceries?
I'm not even sure that was a rule in the Soviet Union.
You may have been more free and the Soviets didn't even have these rules.
You may say, wow, that sounds bad.
No, no, there's more.
You're not allowed to go more than three miles from your home.
Weddings are illegal.
No gatherings of any size.
We got to go to page two because there's actually more.
Shockingly.
Yeah, I know.
No, no, no, there's more.
The army is on the street fining and arresting people.
Come on, Dan, this is Cuba.
No, no, this is Melbourne.
Since March 21st, a total of 193,700 spot checks have been conducted by police.
Spot checks, Joe, spot checks.
At the 5-0, knocking on your door now.
Protests and activism is illegal.
People have already been arrested for peaceful gatherings.
The media, which is extremely biased, no shocker, is calling the protesters right-wing conspiracy nutjobs, and won't even allow discussions of whether these lockdowns are right or not.
And several thousand people were placed under house arrest, unable to leave for any reason, with food rations delivered by the army, leading to appalling levels of personal trauma.
Here's one last one.
There's actually more, but in the interest of time, I had to cut it down.
Australia won't release how many fines they've given out, but an ABC News report said it's over $5.2 million so far.
Ladies and gentlemen, what is going on?
Do you understand that if we don't take some kind of action at the voting booth and get these people out and let them know we will never allow this again, that in the name of public health, your neighborhood could be next?
How is that not what I just described, a police state?
Again, if any of it's inaccurate, and that article is wrong or misplaced, let us know.
Melbourne government officials, we're happy to hear.
We'll put your statement on the air.
But how is what I just not described the Gulag Archipelago?
Explain, please.
I'd love to hear it.
We're doing good.
Doing good.
Moving on.
What do I always tell you about liberals?
Especially people like Nancy Pelosi.
Ladies and gentlemen, they're not used to being challenged.
And why is that?
You can never challenge liberals because liberals aren't used to being challenged.
And when you challenge them, they freak out.
What do they do?
They either emotionally meltdown, right, Joe?
Or their next line is, if they don't emotionally meltdown, you're a racist, definitely.
Or you definitely don't like people who are gay or trans or you don't like people who are black or Hispanic.
That's their only, they don't have any, they never respond with anything of substance.
They don't.
I'm very sorry.
I know we have liberal listeners.
Some actually enjoy the show, but my experience with liberals has generally been awful.
They can't debate.
They have no grasp of the facts at all.
And as I said on Sean Hannity's show last night, talking about the gun debate, They just lie about everything all the time.
That's for two reasons.
Liberals dominate the media, and they dominate academia.
So they're never challenged by anyone in the media, almost ever, unless you go on Fox.
And they're never challenged by academics, because academics are liberals, who aren't really interested in actual academics.
So what happens when you go on the air and someone actually dares to ask you a substantive question?
Well, here's a video of Nancy Pelosi absolutely losing it yesterday, when Judy Woodruff, who is no conservative, by the way, from PBS, asks a simple question about this stimulus thing she's about to get wrecked on by the Donald Trump trap we talked about in the beginning.
The other point Republicans are making is they are now showing flexibility in money for state and local governments.
basically says like, "Hey, here's the Republican position.
What's your response?"
She can't even take it. Check this out.
The other point Republicans are making is they are now showing flexibility in money for state and local
governments.
This is again a difference. Democrats want more money.
Republicans want a lot less.
They are saying they're willing to show flexibility, and they're also saying a lot of the money that was passed in the spring, Madam Speaker, has not even been spent yet.
Well, if you want to be an advocate for them, Judy, if you want to be an advocate for them, that's not what the facts are.
I'm playing devil's advocate here to ask you for your position.
She melts it.
She melts down totally.
Like a snowball in the hot Florida sun.
She can't take it.
Well, if you want to be an advocate, the woman's just bringing... Judy Woodruff's just bringing up a point.
Hey, here's what the Republicans... She's not arguing for them.
They can't take it.
They are never challenged.
They own the media.
They own academia.
Liberals go through four years of college never having one of their dopey, ridiculous, non-fact-based arguments ever challenged.
So when you challenge them, they melt down like the snowflakes they are because they've never been challenged before.
They're not used to it.
What they accept as dogma is actually a bunch of lies.
And when confronted with the lies, their response is always, always anger.
I saw that on social media yesterday.
I want to put it out there because that's, expect that.
Remember what I always tell you about arguing with liberals and don't forget this.
I've done a lot of it.
Grown up in two blue states before I moved to Florida.
You're never arguing with the liberal.
They're largely lost.
99% of them don't really, I'm not kidding, don't care about facts at all.
It's like the guy Lachlan who wrote that piece.
No matter how many times I tell him and no matter what evidence I produce, I wasn't, that I left the job.
It doesn't mean he's going to, they already know in their head what they want to say.
Liberals, that's what liberals do.
You're not going to argue them at, you're never arguing with them.
You're arguing for the third party listening.
When I was running for office, it happened all the time.
I'd get into a debate with someone who's a liberal.
Talking to them was ridiculous, but I'd hear other people listening.
And I can't tell you how many times people would come up to me and say, Hey, you did a good job there.
I never heard that before.
You're always arguing for the third person listening.
I'm telling you this story.
And I told you the story about the daily beast about me, not because I'm going to convert the daily beast.
They're going to continue to make up stories about me.
That's what they do.
That's what they, that's their business model.
Me and others, not all about me.
I'm talking to you, the third person, who's watching what goes on and says, gosh, Dan's story seems right.
Guy actually texted him with the information that was correct and wrote the opposite.
I'm talking to the third person.
I'm not talking to Lachlan.
He's lost.
Remember that.
That's what happens.
They always melt down because the facts are never on their side.
Okay.
Alright, doing good on time.
I want to get to a couple more stories here.
So just, this is a good one.
I have it up in the show notes.
Show notes are really loaded today.
Strongly encourage you again to check them out.
National Review has a great story up, folks, by Douglas Carr.
Is the U.S.
following the Japanese death spiral?
You know, I used to do a lot of heavy economics on the show.
I try to sprinkle it in here and there.
Folks, I don't want to leave you in a depressed kind of mood on Friday, because we can recover from this, but I do want to put out to you the data here that we're in a little bit of trouble economically.
The government's spending an absurd amount of money we don't have, and the correlation between government spending, the correlation between government spending and the lack of economic growth, meaning more government spending, less economic growth, obviously, is so strong That a causal inference is right there.
You know, just because you get more colds in the winter doesn't mean cold weather gives you the common cold.
There's another variable at play.
More mucus, you stay inside more, you touch your face more, you scratch your nose more.
That has a lot to do with it.
But some correlations are so strong that it's probably pretty reasonable that you can make a causal inference.
Meaning, in this case, I'm going to show you two charts from this National Review piece by Douglas Carr.
Showing you how Japan and the United States, as the government spends more money, the economy goes down.
More government, less economic growth.
Liberals, more government up, less economic growth down.
Now, the chart's done in inverse so they move together.
I'll show you in a minute, it'll make more sense.
As government spending goes up, economic growth goes down.
The correlation is so strong that you would seriously have to be a grade A imbecile to not say to yourself, well, that's interesting, because that would probably mean, right Joe, that if the government spent less money, there'd be more economic growth.
Mm-hmm.
Just throwing that out there.
Mm-hmm.
Look at these two charts.
It's a warning for us, because we're going down Japan's path, which is their economic growth is entirely stagnant now.
They were once the envy of the entire world.
Remember the 80s, Joe?
The Time magazine, Japan, they're going to surpass our economy.
Oh my gosh, they even did movies about it.
That Michael Keaton movie with the car factory.
How Japan was going to take over the world.
Ladies and gentlemen, Japan can't get out of its own economic way anymore.
What happened?
Look at chart number one from this piece.
So here's real growth.
U.S.
versus Japan.
Japan is in red.
The U.S.
is in blue.
For those of you listening on the radio, real growth has gone down in both the U.S.
and Japan.
Down.
Down.
Meaning the opposite of up.
Up.
Down.
So you may say, well, Japan and the United States, interesting.
Their economic growth has gone down.
Well, what's... If you were interested in data, I know most liberals, you can stop listening now, Libs.
This is for, again, serious people who are interested in data.
Well, what changed, Joe, right?
You would say to yourself, if economic growth used to be high in both the United States and Japan, and economic growth is struggling now, well, what's the variable that changed that may have caused that?
Yeah.
There it is!
Thank you, Ms.
Paula.
Government expenditures have gone up.
So when you look at a chart of Japanese government expenditures versus investment, you'll notice now, keep in mind, they move hand in hand.
That's because one is the inverse.
So they're moving in the opposite, but they scaled it.
So it looks like the same.
You can see if you check out the, all you need to know is they're moving in the opposite direction based on how they scaled the chart.
They're moving in the same direction, but they scaled the chart in the inverse.
So as Japanese government expenditures have gone up, you can see investment has gone down.
Dramatically.
Look at the chart.
You'll see it even says on the right side, inverse.
Japan, Joe, spent in 1960 about 17.5% of its GDP on government.
17.5% of its GDP on government.
Now Japan spends 38.8%.
Oh.
1738.8.
1738.8.
The United States, ladies and gentlemen, has taken the same trajectory.
As government spends more... Now, liberals, this is going to be really difficult.
For the conservatives, you're going to laugh at the simplicity of why this is.
For liberals, you may find this to be a stunning statement.
Why would it be as the government spends more money, investment in the economy goes down, and we grow less?
That's because as the government spends more money, they take it from... Wait for it!
Wait for it, Joe!
It's gonna be a shocker!
They take it from you!
Who then spends less money!
I know you're stunned.
Get a hold of yourself.
Elizabeth, someone get some nitro pills to Armacost in Maryland.
Everybody, anyone close to him now.
He's having a coronary incident.
I know this is hard to understand.
Government has to take money.
So when they spend more money, they take it from you, which means you spend less money.
I know it's tough.
Joe, read the pieces.
I don't usually encourage you to read the show notes, but I know this was just, this was one of those moonshot moments for you where you're like, now it all makes sense.
Thank you, Dan.
Of course, this made sense five minutes ago to my sane audience, but to liberals listening, they still have a tough time with this.
Japan used to be rocking and rolling.
Now the economy's stagnant.
Yeah, that's because the government took more money out of the economy.
Kind of like the exact same thing that's happening in the United States as we take more money out.
But don't let that get in the way.
I only put the article in the show notes because, not to depress you again on a Friday, because at the end, Douglas Carr, the writer, is like, hey, you know what?
The reality is we could fix this tomorrow and be the envy of the world again.
Control government spending.
Joe, wait, wait.
Joe, it's really hard, the solution.
Control government spending and get a lid on entitlements and people have more of their own money to spend, the economy will grow again.
Bold, bold, genius.
There's another, that's another poll.
We did it.
We did it.
Louie Simoes, we did it.
That's a moment Republicans could actually come out and sing the Dora song and actually mean it.
But nobody will do that because they, again, they don't have the political to do it.
They just don't.
And that's why Trump in his second term, if he wins, I'm hoping he gets a hold on this.
You will not have any significant economic growth with an explosive government spending ledger.
You just won't.
It's as simple as that.
That's the solution for the future in one line.
Cut government spending, let people spend more of their own money.
Alright, one last story.
Bongino.com, check this out.
We use some of our content once in a while.
The great Matt Palumbo, the greatest fact checker in the world, who just humiliated Tom Kircher, the worst fact checker in the world, at PolitiFact the other day.
The guy tried to PolitiFact check us, Joe, and actually he judges our article mostly false, and then writes a whole article about how our article's true, which is amazing.
Which is really incredible, this guy.
So Matt wrote an article about him too, which is kind of funny.
So, the article by Matt Palumbo, 25% of Brooklyn mail-in ballots were disqualified.
I talked about this story the other day.
Ladies and gentlemen, they had an election for Congress.
Kings County, which is Brooklyn in New York.
25% of the ballots are going to be disqualified.
Now, hat tip Vince Colonace, radio host at WMAL.
I saw this on his social media feed.
84,000 votes in one congressional district.
Well, I should say in one area of Brooklyn, to be precise.
84,000 votes in one county were deemed disqualified, not admissible.
84,000.
Now you see why Trump's concerned about the election coming up?
Let me put it in perspective.
Again, hat tip to Vince where I show these numbers.
One county.
Joe, you know how many votes President Trump won Pennsylvania by?
Hmm.
Keep this number in the back of your head, too.
84,000 votes were dismissed, disqualified, in one county in New York.
President Trump won the entire swing state of Virginia by 68,000 votes.
Hmm.
Sounds like we may be in a little bit of trouble.
Oh, there's more.
President Trump won Wisconsin by 27,000 votes.
Finally, President Trump won Michigan by 11,000 votes.
About one-seventh of the total that were disqualified in one county in the entire United States.
And you're telling me you're not worried about the election?
Folks, I'm gonna leave you with this.
You're used to, many of you, like I am, 45, some are older, some are younger, You're used to elections being definitive moments, being dispositive.
Election happens, there's a winner and a loser, right?
What would you do if there was no winner or loser?
What do you mean?
That can't happen.
Oh no, it can.
What are you gonna do if out of the hundreds of counties in swing states, hundreds of counties are coming up with thousands, a thousand, five thousand, ten thousand, eighty-four thousand ballots that are deemed disqualified?
Oh, well, we'll just recheck them all.
You will?
How long is that going to take?
Imagine a hanging Chad moment for the—remember the Bush v. Gore election?
Happening in every county in America for months.
Would anyone accept the outcome?
No, it's a fair question.
The media question has been— Joe, has the media question not been, well, is Trump going to accept it if he loses?
That's the media, right?
Right.
But would not—but seriously, Joe, wouldn't it be a fair question to say, What if Biden loses?
Will Biden accept the outcome?
That's fair, right?
Fair enough.
What I'm getting at is, for those Democrats who are dismissing Trump's concerns about mail-in voting, and, oh, well, Trump's just an idiot, I'm talking to you, too.
What if you lose, and these swing states have 60, 70, 80,000 ballots that could have helped you win?
Oh, now all of a sudden you may be a little concerned.
See, the difference between liberals and us is we're concerned regardless if we win or lose.
And I mean that because elections and their integrity matter.
That's why we believe in voter ID and things like that.
You're only concerned about getting your guy to win and you think your guy's so far ahead that you don't care about the integrity of the election because you just think your guy's going to win anyway and you don't want the result in doubt.
Sorry, but that's pretty disgraceful.
All right, folks, thanks again for tuning in.
That was really a loaded show.
Nine topics, that may be a record.
Paula didn't think we were gonna get through that.
We had one more, but I'll have to save it for next week.
Please watch my Sean Hannity interview.
I'd really appreciate it.
It'll be launching tomorrow morning, Saturday, youtube.com slash Bongino, and on our Apple podcast channel as well.
Please subscribe as well.
Thanks for a great week.
We got some surprises coming up next week, too, so stay tuned, folks.
