The Evidence is Right There in Front of Your Eyes (Ep 1398)
In this episode, I discuss the explosive allegations leveled at yesterday’s Trump-team press conference. I also address the two most important pieces of the Trump team strategy.
News Picks:
Democrats and the media are reaping the fruit of years of crazy conspiracy theories.
There is evidence of fraud, it’s right there in front of their eyes.
Key swing states see mail in ballot rejection rates suspiciously plummet.
Recount witnesses swear they witnessed suspicious vote counting behavior.
Hunter Biden had deep ties to suspect figures in China.
Red states continue leading the economic recovery while blue states lag.
Debunking myths about taxes and the deficit.
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.
You know, folks, we all think for ourselves, right?
You are the smartest audience out there.
I know because I communicate with you.
I read your responses on Parler, Facebook, Twitter, elsewhere.
I see your emails.
Brilliant, brilliant responses.
Sometimes some of the show content is dictated by what you respond back to me.
But we think for ourselves.
We don't need media personalities, me or otherwise, telling you how to think.
My job is to give you the facts, what we know, sometimes my opinion about the facts, but it's not designed to in any way tell you to think like automatons.
We're not the Borg from Star Trek.
You may be saying, where's this coming from?
I'm going to cover this on the show today.
There was a, um, an opening monologue by Tucker Carlson last night on Fox, and it's, uh, just, uh, it resulted in this just back and forth between, you know, like a team Tucker and not team Tucker and team Fox and not team Fox and pro Trump.
We're going to put that, we're going to stick with the facts today, because the facts matter.
I got that, and I've got the two things out of yesterday's press conference that really you should take away that were the most important things Rudy Giuliani, Jenna Ellis, and Sidney Powell brought up.
They're critical, and they're real, and they're not conspiracy theories like the left like to say.
Today's show brought to you by ExpressVPN.
We got a loaded show today, don't go anywhere.
ExpressVPN, protect your online activity from prying eyeballs.
Get a VPN.
Go to expressvpn.com slash Bongino today.
Welcome to the Dan Bongino Show.
Producer Joe in your worst 1960s game show voice.
How are you today?
Fine, sir.
Well, I'm doing, doing well, Dan, because it's Friday!
Yeah, that's no conspiracy theory.
That's definitely That's definitely not.
No.
It is most definitely Friday.
No, it's Friday.
Yeah, I need that once in a while.
Feeling good today.
Good to see you, Lavin, bro.
This is good.
It's a good sign.
Yes, sir.
Yeah, yeah.
That is, right?
Yeah, I know.
It's been kind of a rough- Yeah, man.
I slept great last night.
I was out.
Totally out.
Good.
Like, walking dead zombie-like out.
Ow.
Paul had to like shake me.
She took the iPhone, put it under my nose.
You okay?
You okay?
I see little bits of wind coming out of your nose.
You're okay.
That's how tired I was yesterday.
All right, let's get right to it.
Today's show brought to you by our friends at the American Mind.
American Mind?
Yeah, you remember them.
Remember that article I discussed on the show, The Coming Coup by Michael Anton, that show that went nuclear?
Level 62 viral?
Yeah, that was at the American Mind.
The content over there is absolutely spectacular.
I go to it every day.
It's my go-to when I prep the show.
The information there is absolutely incredible.
It's absolutely incredible also how spot-on Michael Anton's article was.
It's all about the American Mind.
Go check it out today.
It's a terrific website.
If you're not a reader, you should be.
It's a publication of the Claremont Institute, which Trump awarded the National Humanities Medal for its work in educating Americans about our founding principles and how they still provide the answers to the questions driving today's politics.
The content is amazing.
Again, it's one of my go-tos every day.
These guys are smart.
They're legit.
They've been leading the debate about the ideas driving the new American right.
Remember how National Review used to claim to be the publication that defined conservatism?
Well, now that's these guys over at the American Mind.
They're the new conservatism.
Their articles are hard-hitting.
They're the real deal.
That's why I use them on the show.
The American Mind is publishing a series of articles tracking it from every angle, this ongoing coup we're seeing from the Democrats here.
Just search the word coup and you'll see.
They've got a piece up there right now on who are the real winners.
I'll give you a hint, it's the tech oligarchy, and it's China.
There's so much on there, but the best way to take it all in is to subscribe to the American Mind's weekly newsletter, The Roundup.
Here's how you do it.
You'll receive all the week's top content, articles, podcasts, video delivered directly to your inbox.
Go to AmericanMind.org.
That's AmericanMind.org, and subscribe to the newsletter today.
AmericanMind.org, subscribe to the newsletter today.
All right, Joe, let's go.
There it is.
Nice.
So, I debated Deliberated long and strong about how to handle this today because we have this, I don't know, we have this thing on the right.
We tend to fall into sometimes this Borg-like mentality where, you know, we have to jump into one camp or another camp rather than just digesting what people say and thinking for ourselves.
Well, we think for ourselves here because you're the smartest audience in the business and I don't care what anybody says.
I do what I want because it's my show.
It's not an accident that they found the guy by the name of Dan Bongino to host the Dan Bongino Show.
It's my show.
We do what I want.
Here's what I'm getting at.
Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani did a press conference yesterday, and there were some really big and bold allegations thrown out there of a large conspiracy to overthrow the results of the 2020 election.
There was a lot of stuff in there yesterday.
Tucker Carlson covered it on his show last night.
Sidney Powell was one of the attorneys.
You're all familiar with Sidney.
I've had her on the show.
She was General Mike Flynn's lawyer.
She's now working for the Trump team and made a really serious boatload of allegations yesterday.
So Tucker Carlson went on last night and said, listen, I invited her on the show.
These are some bold claims, and we're going to address what happened on both sides.
I'm going to give you Sidney Powell's response in a second, but we need to get to the facts here and not get into, like, who said what.
It's not about teams.
It's about what happened.
There's no time for personality wars.
So check out the Tucker coverage of the press conference that generated all kinds of controversy last night.
Here's part one.
All of which brings us to the bombshell at the center of today's press conference.
That was delivered by former prosecutor Sidney Powell, who has also served as General Mike Flynn's lawyer.
For more than a week, Powell has been all over conservative media with the following story.
This election was stolen by a collection of international leftists who manipulated vote tabulating software in order to flip millions of votes from Donald Trump to Joe Biden.
The other day on television, Powell said of Trump that when the fraud is finally uncovered, quote, I think we'll find he had at least 80 million votes.
In other words, rigged software stole about 7 million votes in this election.
Here's some of what Powell said today about the software.
One of its most characteristic features is its ability to flip votes.
It can set and run an algorithm that probably ran all over the country to take a certain percentage of votes from President Trump and flip them to President Biden.
which we might never have uncovered had the votes for President Trump not been so overwhelming
Whoa.
in so many of these states that it broke the algorithm that had been plugged into the system.
And that's what caused them to have to shut down in the states they shut down in.
Whoa.
Think about that.
So Sidney Powell is alleging there at the presser yesterday that there was an algorithm built into the voting system
in many states.
An algorithm basically preset maybe figuring, I'm trying to kind of sum this up in an easy to understand way, that you know Trump may win by one percentage point so we'll have to flip this many votes, but that Trump's turnout and his vote count was so high And he did so well that it broke the algorithm.
There was a last-minute panic to get votes in and mess with the algorithm at the last minute.
That panic caused them to get careless, and that's how they discovered it.
That's kind of, in essence, what she's alleging there.
Make sense?
That's an enormous allegation.
Yeah.
Obviously, that allegation would be, as was described by Tucker in this cut I'm going to play next, probably accurately so, as the crime of the century.
I've spoken to Sidney Powell.
I know Sidney Powell well.
I know Sidney Powell personally and professionally throughout our time, and I've known Sidney for a long time.
Sidney hasn't disappointed us yet.
Does she have the data to back this up in court?
We're going to find that out.
The question now is, does she owe it to anyone, including people on television?
She doesn't owe it to anybody.
She owes it to the courts to produce that evidence in court if she can back it up.
But it's not automatically illegitimate because it wasn't produced for a host on any show, this show, Tucker's show, or anyone else.
Well, apparently Tucker Carlson invited her on the show, Sidney Powell, and she didn't want to come on.
So again, this was part two.
This is the part that generated, that was the allegation part where Tucker put it out there.
This is the part of Tucker's show that's generating a whole lot of this social media back and forth today, which candidly, I think, is a distraction.
We have to keep our eyes on the prize, folks.
Check this out.
We took Sidney Powell seriously.
We had no intention of fighting with her.
We've always respected her work.
We simply wanted to see the details.
How could you not want to see them?
So we invited Sidney Powell on the show.
We would have given her the whole hour.
We would have given her the entire week, actually, and listened quietly the whole time at rapt attention.
That's a big story.
But she never sent us any evidence, despite a lot of requests.
Polite requests.
Not a page.
When we kept pressing, she got angry and told us to stop contacting her.
When we checked with others around the Trump campaign, people in positions of authority, they told us Powell has never given them any evidence either.
Nor did she provide any today at the press conference.
Powell did say that electronic voting is dangerous.
And she's right.
We're with her there.
But she never demonstrated that a single actual vote was moved illegitimately by software from one candidate to another.
Not one.
Sidney Powell disputes that.
We're going to play her side of this in a moment.
But folks, let me add my two cents here for what it's worth.
My opinion, you can choose to run with it, discard it, whatever you choose.
But this is my opinion.
I just want to be crystal clear.
Sidney Powell owes it to us in the court system when Sidney Powell is good and damn ready.
If she feels she has a case, she has no obligation whatsoever to make that case on cable news or elsewhere.
None.
Not on this show or anyone else's show.
And if she doesn't have a case, then it's her reputation on the line.
She'll have to live with that.
But she doesn't owe it to me, Tucker, Fox News, The Dan Bongino Show, CNN, MSNBC, or anyone else.
She owes it to the voters.
She owes it to the court system if she's going to file a case.
And if not, and it turns out that information is inaccurate, then she should retract it later.
But if it's not inaccurate, and she has evidence to back that up, then maybe we should give her a little bit of space.
I know we're running out of time.
I get it.
December 8th is the safe harbor date where the states are going to have to certify.
For their December 14th deadline to announce their electors for whoever won the popular vote within those states and their presidential electors.
I get that.
But if she has a case, she owes it to the courts to put that case out there.
She doesn't owe it to us.
I want to be crystal clear on that.
That's not me taking anybody's side.
That's me telling you what the damn facts are here and they matter.
Let's keep our eyes on what's going on here.
These are serious allegations.
Now, Sidney Powell appeared this morning, that was from last night, appeared this morning on Maria Bartiromo's show on Fox and gave her response to the allegations by Tucker Carlson.
Here's what Sidney Powell told Maria Bartiromo.
Come on, check this out.
All right, Sidney, I want you to respond to what Tucker Carlson said last night, Sidney.
I don't know if you watched it, but Tucker Carlson said that he had invited you on his
show to share evidence of the software flipping votes.
And he said you got angry and refused to provide evidence for your claims of voting software
flipping votes.
How do you respond to Tucker Carlson?
Did you get angry with the show because they texted you and asked you to please provide evidence of what you're alleging?
No, I didn't get angry with the request to provide evidence.
In fact, I sent an affidavit to Tucker that I had not even attached to a pleading yet.
Clearly both of those stories can't be true.
the situation and I offered him another witness who could explain the mathematics and statistical
evidence far better than I can. I'm not really a numbers person, but he was very insulting,
demanding and rude and I told him not to contact me again in those terms.
Clearly both of those stories can't be true, right? Either one side of it that no evidence
was presented is true, or the other side of it where evidence was presented is true.
But those two, they can't exist, coexist at the same time.
We'll see where that goes.
But I want to encourage you before I move on to, again, more facts and data here, keep your eyes on the prize and let's not get distracted by making stories about what these stories aren't about.
These stories are about the most important election in our lifetime.
And if there was significant enough fraud or malfeasance to question the results we have now, that is the question.
That is the only question that matters.
When she's ready, We're ready to hear it.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, these claims that there are no evidence of fraud are utterly absurd.
The press conference yesterday with Rudy Giuliani, Sidney and others, Jenna Ellis, there was, there were numerous data points of evidence presented yesterday.
Our good friend, Amber Athey at The Spectator has an article up, which is going to be in the show notes today.
Go to bongino.com slash newsletter.
If you'd like to access our newsletters, show notes, same thing.
There is evidence, actually.
The Spectator.
Rudy Giuliani gave examples of voter fraud during his presser at RNC headquarters by Amber Athy.
Folks, again, the tendency by some weak-kneed Republicans to immediately fall in line with acceptable media narratives on the left, I have to be honest with you, is quite pathetic to watch.
It's not you, it's not you in our audience, but you know exactly who I'm talking about.
Rudy Giuliani yesterday, I'll get to a screenshot from this piece in a second, presented piles of sworn affidavits.
Now, I get it for the media types on the left and the weak-kneed, jellyfish, no-backbone Republicans who don't have an ounce of integrity left here.
Sworn affidavits, when an affiant signs his or her name and swears under oath the testimony they're giving in that affidavit is true, is evidence.
I don't know if you've never been involved with a civil tort case, criminal case, if you're just totally unfamiliar with Legalese 101, but an affidavit sworn, a statement saying you witnessed some form of malfeasance or criminality, is evidence.
Please let's not take the Marie Harf approach, who always, our go-to line for everything is, you don't have evidence.
She just doesn't know what evidence is.
I actually worked in the space.
When you go to court and you testify as a criminal investigator, affidavits by affiants and people, they are evidence.
You can cross-examine them.
You can do what you'd like.
But they are, in fact, evidence.
When I went in to collect counterfeit bills on a counterfeit case, we called them runouts.
Hey, you got a counterfeit runout.
Go to that 7-Eleven.
They have a counterfeit bill they got.
You would get a sworn statement from the owner, who are the guy or the woman who took the bill at the 7-Eleven.
I went to a lot of them in my time.
That's why I bring it up.
They were all over Long Island.
That's where the counterfeit appeared a lot, unfortunately.
And they would say, yes, on such and such a date and a time, this individual came in and handed me this bill.
That's evidence!
If someone in a voting location witnesses behavior they deem potential malfeasance, truckloads of ballots appeared at four in the morning.
They were all for Joe Biden.
They were pristine.
They were not handled.
Does that mean those are fraudulent ballots?
Not necessarily.
Could it be?
Could.
Is that evidence?
It certainly is!
From Amber's piece, so we don't buy into the media.
There was no evidence presented yet.
There was actually a lot.
You're just a media moron who's trying to advance a narrative, not advance the truth, and I'm tired of it.
Quote.
Giuliani did, in fact, present evidence of voter fraud today, but many people simply didn't want to hear it.
He cited multiple Americans, one by name, who've signed sworn affidavits stating they witnessed some type of fraud, whether it was pro-Trump ballots being thrown out without cause, ballots being backdated to before the election, poll workers being told not to ask voters for identification, and more.
As Giuliani helpfully pointed out, affidavits are considered evidence in a court case.
Whether you agree or disagree with them is a different question.
And it's reasonable that not all people who sign their names would be willing to go public.
If you want to hear more of the evidence that was presented, just watch the first hour of the press conference.
We can't fall into this trap here.
Where again, the media starts to dictate the acceptable narrative of the day and anyone not complying with their narrative and their gaslighting is deemed not allowed in polite company.
Double-barreled middle finger to you guys, we'll talk about what we want.
We'll address these affidavits one by one and determine if they are in fact verifiable or not.
Don't tell me there's no evidence.
You damn well know if this was evidence of Hillary Clinton votes in 2016 that were thrown out, or Donald Trump votes that showed up at 4 o'clock in the morning in suspicious garbage bags, as Rudy alleged yesterday in the press conference, garbage bags.
They had votes in garbage bags?
Is that true?
If it's true, isn't it worth entertaining?
No, no.
If those were Donald Trump votes that showed up that way, not in ballot boxes, but in garbage bags, I think Democrats would have a bunch of questions, and the hack media.
But of course, because they think Donald Trump lost, it's moveon.org time.
Move on, folks.
Move on.
I'm not moving on.
I'm not interested in moving on.
And to all the leftists trying to intimidate me, attacking my Facebook page, attacking my website, attacking these outbrained people, canceling our ad widgets, trying to get me to stop talking about it, I will not!
I will not comply no matter what.
There's nothing you can do to me.
Do you understand that?
There is no price you can put on nothing.
Nothing.
I will do what I want and talk about what I want.
There's nothing you can do.
The more you try to intimidate the show, I know exactly what you're doing, the more I'll double down.
All right, let me get to my second sponsor.
But on the other side of this, I want to stick to the facts here, because this matters, because you're not going to get it from the media.
There were two things said at yesterday.
We already addressed Sidney Powell's, the bigger accusation of some global conspiracy, which if she has the evidence, we need to see it.
But when she's ready to present it, she's making a court case, we'll see it.
She doesn't owe it to me.
She owes it to the court and to us as voters.
But I want to get to the two line inquiries that are super important here, that really, I think, jumped out yesterday and that the media is totally ignoring.
Let's get to our second sponsor.
Today's show also brought to you by Podium.
Business owners, I've got some critical news for you.
You may not have even realized it, but your customers don't want you to call them.
They don't.
They prefer you send them a text.
Times have changed.
But now, you know, you're going to say, I text my friends, but I call a business.
Well, I'm going to tell you that's simply not true.
Texting is the better way to communicate with your customers.
I prefer a text over a call.
I hate talking on the phone.
I've said that a thousand times.
And I speak into a microphone for a living of all people.
Imagine how your customer feels.
Here's why texting is better for your business.
Saves time and saves money.
Don't spend all this effort calling customers about their order or appointment.
Texts get a load of this.
They get open 97% of the time.
So your customers will get the message.
97% of the time.
You can text back and forth, giving you freedom from being tethered to your phone.
Podium works even better now that business is being done remotely.
Here are some examples.
Car dealers are selling cars only through text.
Furniture stores are sending order updates to keep their customers informed.
Dentists are booking appointments before the end of the year.
I'm teaming up with Podium for a special offer.
For a limited time, sign up with Podium for 20% off your plan.
They're so confident that if Podium doesn't make your business better within 90 days, get a load of this.
They'll send you a $150 Amazon gift card for the holidays.
Come on, I can't beat that.
Go to Podium.com slash Dan to get started.
That's 20% off if you go to Podium, P-O-D-I-U-M.com slash Dan.
Go to Podium.com slash Dan today.
Get with the text revolution.
It's a great company.
Podium.com slash Dan.
All right, thanks, Podium.
We appreciate you being part of the show.
So there are two lines of inquiry that matter that should really raise your antenna.
Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding.
Back in the back of your head.
Like, was that guy Gazoo from the Jetsons?
Remember the Antoinette?
It was Gazoo, right?
From the Jetsons?
We need an antenna like that.
Here are two things that jumped out to me yesterday that stand out as bizarre anomalies not seemingly explainable without more evidence to back it up.
In other words, what the hell is this?
Rejection rates being unbelievably low despite a whole bunch of new first-time mail-in ballot voters.
I'll explain.
Hold on.
And these uniform, pristine ballots filled out uniformly.
Perfect circles in every bubble.
Weird.
Let's go to these rejection rates first, ladies and gentlemen, because this makes absolutely no sense.
And again, as I said yesterday, folks, I'm all about Occam's razor, right?
Keep it simple, stupid.
Given all possible explanations for a problem, low rejection rates, the simplest is most likely always the answer.
Right?
Because it requires you to assume the least.
Let's go to this Just the News article.
In key swing states this year, mail-in ballot rejections plummeted from 2016 rates.
Rates are below historical averages and significantly less than the most recent presidential election.
Folks, I'm going to get to a screenshot from this in a minute, but this doesn't make any sense.
I'm just asking media folks for a minute to take their tinfoil cap and blinders off and to Look through the lens of just a common-sense person, right?
So, we've had this almost unprecedented plague, at least in the last few decades in modern times.
We did this mass mail-in ballot election we have not done before.
Some in states that have really very little experience with mass mail-in balloting like they did, right?
Meaning what?
Logic, folks!
Logic!
With something the media doesn't do.
I voted by mail before down here in Florida.
So has my wife.
We're experienced in it.
We know how it works.
There are a lot of ways to mess up mail-in balloting.
You could forget the security sleeve.
You can forget to sign the envelope.
There's a number of different ways.
You can mess up the ballot, marking it the wrong way.
Now that I voted down here in Florida by mail, I don't know, in the last three or four elections, primaries and generals, we're pretty experienced and my ballots have not been rejected.
Are you suggesting to me now that although historical rejection rates, when people know what they're doing in mail-in balloting, when they know what they're doing, historical rejection rates of one or two percent, for the liberals listening, meaning one or two out of every mail-in ballots, every hundred mail-in ballots that are submitted, in a year where people generally know what they're doing, are thrown out because people forget stuff.
Don't sign, you get my point, right?
You're telling me in a year where states with very little experience with mass mail-in ballots, And people, voters with even less experience who've never done it before, all mailed it in and all nailed it because the rejection rates are a fraction of what they were in the past?
Folks, does that make any sense?
Again, Occam's razor, if you have a simple explanation for it, I would love to hear it.
The Frank Luntz explanation, who has a smart-ass comment for everything, sounds absurd!
It was a public service announcement.
What?
You're telling me a TV commercial led to rejection rates at historic lows?
If that's the case, then let's do some, let's just check that out!
But it doesn't make any sense!
Like I said, only you can prevent forfeiture.
Smokey the Bandit PSA?
Alright, if you got maybe a little bit less in the areas it was shown, I have seen no data to indicate that at all.
From John Solomon's piece.
Check this out.
I'll be in the show notes again.
Historically, mail-in ballots are rejected at around a rate of 1%.
For first-time absentee voters, folks, that rate can go as high as 3%.
The higher number reflecting the unfamiliarity first-time voters have with the mail-in process.
I mean, again, the logic here is it's not a leap.
If you're doing something for the first time, voting via mail, the error rate is going to be higher because you're doing it for the first time.
You know, I've had this conversation with friends of mine in the medical field, talking about this nausea stuff I go through.
You know, one of the few episodes in nature that one trial learning works, did you notice?
Is food aversion, right?
Where you eat a food and it gets you sick?
Because your brain learns right away.
What is it?
The area, prostrema, whatever it is in the back of your... Your brain learns right away not to eat it again, or you'll die!
So one trial, eat bad berry, almost die.
If you survive it, second time your brain goes, oh, that tastes really gross.
You learned it one trial.
That never happens anywhere else.
Show me another example in nature.
You hit a baseball, you don't take one swing and you're like, I'm like Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Honus Wagner, buddy.
It doesn't happen.
You're telling me the first time out of the shoot, everybody figured this out, and that the rejection rate, which should have been higher, roughly 3%, because there are new people, and new people tend to have their ballots rejected at a 3% rate rather than a 1% rate, you're telling me the rate was actually far lower?
Here's part two of John Solomon's piece.
Does this make any sense?
Quote, ballot rejections have thus far been lower across the United States this year than expected.
Lower, not higher.
With battleground states posting strikingly lower numbers relative to both the historical average and even more recent elections.
Let's go through that.
I'm going to read this one by one.
Let's go through Georgia, folks.
In Georgia, a state where Biden has eked out a surprise lead of fewer than 20,000 votes, the rejection rate in 2016 was a whopping 6.4%.
However, this year the rate of rejection, what is it Joe?
6.1?
No, it stands at 0.2.
Huh?
More than, I see where we're going.
More than 30 times lower than the last election.
Similar trends have been observed in Pennsylvania, whose rate was 0.03 this year, compared to 1% in 2016.
Oh, it gets worse.
In Nevada, the rejection rate was more than halved from 1.6 in 2016 to around 0.75.
But it gets worse.
In Nevada, the rejection rate was more than halved from 1.6 in 2016 to around 0.75.
One more North Carolina's rejection rate fell from 2.7 in 2016 to 0.8 this year.
Folks, obviously, keep it simple stupid, right?
[BLANK_AUDIO]
Why are rejection rates lower?
The simplest explanation right here is either machines were calibrated differently, which they were apparently, to reject them at a lower rate, Or the alternate scenario, which Luntz is providing, that some public service announcement led to a mass public education on how to mail in ballots, send them in right, and it resulted in these rejection rates that are lower.
I'm open to it.
Let me hear the evidence on either side.
But you suggesting to me that Georgia in 2016 had a rejection rate of 6.4% Over six out of a hundred mail-in ballots were rejected, and now a mass mail-in ballot to people in Georgia who've never actually mail-in balloted before, and the rejection rate was 30 times lower despite no experience whatsoever with mail-in ballots for a large majority of these people?
Come on, man.
You expect me?
I mean, we're pulling a Joe Biden now.
Yeah.
Come on, man.
Come on.
You expect me to believe this?
And just take it on your word?
Nah, I'm sorry.
I'm not gonna do it.
Your word means nothing to me anymore, media people.
You're the same people who told me the pee-pee tape was real.
You expected us to believe for four years President Trump was a Russian traitor sitting in a smoke-filled room with a cigar-smoking jacket on with Vladimir Putin plotting the destruction of the world and that $10,000 in Facebook ads in a county in Wisconsin through the whole election.
By a Russian group of trolls overseas.
You wanted us to believe that for four years.
I just presented to you hard statistical data of a statistical anomaly about rejection rates being 30 times lower, despite mail-in ballots being geometrically more this year, and experience with mail-in ballots being lower.
And you expect us to discard that out of hand?
Because why?
You said so?
Double barrel for you guys.
No thanks.
So let's stay focused here.
So I said there were two things.
Number one, these rejection rates.
It doesn't make sense.
It is a statistical anomaly.
Is it explainable by fraud?
I don't know.
Is it a fair question to ask?
You're damn right it is, and we will continue to ask it.
The second takeaway.
These sworn affidavits about uniform ballots.
Ladies and gentlemen, there is nothing in nature that's uniform.
I said that to you yesterday.
You don't drop an oil droplet in a thing of water and have it uniformly disperse like you're playing a game of, like, Space Invaders.
Do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do.
Remember that?
The younger kids are like, what the hell is Space Invaders?
Me and Joe are like, we loved that game.
It was awesome, man.
Pong, Space Invaders.
That's not how the oil comes down uniformly.
It just randomly disperses because nature loves disorder.
So if people are swearing in affidavits that a bunch of pristine ballots seemingly not handled by people, people, I thought people voted, so people would have to handle their votes, I'm just checking.
Seemingly pristine ballots not handled, all filled out the exact same way, just like oil droplets coming down like space invaders.
You're suggesting to me that that's no big deal either?
We should just throw that out too?
Ah, no thanks.
So, here's another piece by John Solomon.
It'll all be in the show notes today.
By the way, I say just the news.
It's John Solomon's website.
But check it out about these uniform ballots because it's interesting the allegations being leveled there.
Again, it'll be up in the show notes today.
Folks, there are numerous sworn affidavits by people suggesting they witnessed ballots being delivered in pristine condition Pristine condition uniformly filled out.
Georgia recount witnesses swear to have seen votes for Trump counted for Biden.
Trump campaign attorneys are attempting to block the certification of the Georgia recount.
Kind of interesting allegations, no?
More inside the piece.
Talking about this uniformity.
Again, that exists nowhere in nature.
Nowhere.
But seemingly exists in the Georgia vote count.
Where these pristine ballots all were seemingly filled out at the same way.
Ladies and gentlemen, it makes absolutely no sense.
Here's a quote from the piece.
Nine individual sites in the affidavits swore to have seen suspicious mail-in ballots almost uniformly cast for Joe Biden.
The ballots were in pristine condition and had no creases on them.
How is that, folks?
How is that?
According to the sworn affidavits.
which seem to appear unusual considering mail-in ballots must be folded to fit in the envelope in
which your mail. Um, we got our Hunter Biden receipt.
We use it as a ballot.
Ladies and gentlemen, you got to fold these things.
Liberals, this is the demonstration.
We're going to paint a pretty little tree, Bob Rutherford.
We're getting here.
This is where I have to show you how it's done.
(footsteps)
(laughs)
Lucy, the dog's looking at me like I'm crazy.
Fold.
One more time.
It's your own little happy ballot.
And what is that?
Yeah.
Put it in your little stream right here.
I love that show.
I loved Bob Ross.
I did too.
I've seen every one of them.
But wasn't he great?
PBS.
Folks, it leaves a crease.
You see that?
It's a crease.
You see a bunch of ballots without creases, it means they weren't folded.
Which means they didn't go in envelopes.
Which means they weren't mailed in.
Joe, put on your shock face.
Everybody's stunned.
I know, I know, it's stunning.
Envelopes, you have to stuff them in the envelopes, meaning you have to fold them.
Maybe we should look into that?
Move on!
Move on!
I'm not moving on.
I'm not interested in moving on.
Is there an Occam's Razor explanation that's simple?
Were they collected by some election official who was authorized to collect them who signed for them?
Show us!
Show us the data!
We'll cover it on the show!
The last thing I want to tell you is that we lost this election due to fraud.
If we lost fair and square, we lost.
We will dust off and live to fight another day.
I'm not willing to give up anything.
At all.
And I never will.
It's our country.
And damn it, it's worth fighting for.
I'm gonna dance every day with you.
No doubt about it.
Nothing would make me happier than to discover there was an innocent explanation.
I don't want to think I live in a country where mail fraud is rampant.
I don't want that.
Mail-in voter fraud, or any kind of voter fraud.
Show us.
Show us there's an explanation for this.
Please.
If there is a simple one, I would love to see it.
All right, I want to move on.
I got some video coming up, a little bit of kind of relief from the very serious nature of the show today, forgive me.
But Jesse Waters had a great piece on the 5-ish I want to get to, and I want to get to I can't even describe this.
Right, Paul?
It defies explanation.
The song.
Joe, you've seen it already.
You have to just watch this.
You're not going to want to miss this video.
You know what I'm talking about, right?
We're together for our future and we'll never do you wrong or whatever this is like.
I know your eardrums are bursting all over America.
They're going to burst even worse coming up next.
All right.
I want to welcome back our friends at ETS.
Ladies and gentlemen, firearm enthusiasts have a great gift idea for the firearm owner in your life.
When it comes to training or personal defense, magazines are just as important as the firearm ammo you carry.
You know that.
You know how difficult it can be to find durable, reliable, lightweight magazines for everyday use.
That's why I want to tell you about our friends at ETS.
For the past six, these are my go-to magazines every single time, ladies and gentlemen.
Function right, function right, look good, work well, the best in the business.
ETS has manufactured the toughest polymer magazines.
They're impact resistant.
They won't crack or break when exposed to harsh environments, chemicals, or extreme cold.
Plus they're clear.
See right through those bad boys.
Which means you can see how many rounds you have loaded.
Brilliant idea.
ETS magazines come with a lifetime warranty.
You can see they connect as well.
Really cool.
They come with a lifetime warranty.
Available right now for Glock, Smith & Wesson.
Excuse me, M&P and Shield, Sig P320, Heckler & Koch VP9 plus MP5, AR-15, and new for this year, CZ Scorpion Evo.
In these tumultuous times, you need durability and reliability for every situation.
Stock up at, here's the URL, etsmags.com.
These things are terrific.
They take a licking, man, big time.
Drop them, whatever your name.
These are great.
Those are mine.
That's ETSMAGS.com.
And while you're there, don't forget to check out their ETS lineup of speed loaders.
They're the fastest in the world.
I've showed you those before.
Stock those babies right in.
That's ETSMAGS.com.
Promo code Dan for 15% off your entire order.
ETSMAGS.com.
Use promo code Dan, D-A-N, for 15% off your entire order.
Okay, back to the show.
So, Jesse did a great segment yesterday on The Five.
Jesse Waters, a good man.
And, you know, again, fighting back against these... We're not going to succumb to your liberal pressure to genuflect before your golden calf narratives.
It's time to move on, folks.
It's time to move on.
Their new narrative, by the way, is there may be fraud, but it's not enough to overturn the election.
All right, well, I want to know about the fraud then.
And we will keep going until we discover it, because even if that narrative is true, because we have an election coming up January 5th for two senators in Georgia, that's important.
So here's Jesse on the five yesterday saying, hey, time out there, ladies and gents.
We had to tolerate your BS, your bull for years about your stupid, dopey conspiracy theories.
Let's take some time and let this stuff get litigated through court.
Just as I said when I opened up the show, let Sidney Powell make her case when she has the time and when she's ready to do it in the right way, on the timeline we need to.
Check this out.
Remember, during this whole Russia collusion thing, they had zero eyewitness testimony to say that I saw the Trump campaign collude with Russia.
Rudy Giuliani says he has hundreds of sworn affidavits that say they witnessed corruption.
So you gotta let this play out.
What I saw the case to be is this.
They're saying, do not certify the fraudulent votes until we present our case in court and then let a judge rule on that.
Perfectly normal.
The case consists of two pillars.
One, these sworn affidavits signed under the penalty of perjury that say they witnessed fraud.
And two, circumstantial evidence and whistleblowers.
Remember, we used to like whistleblowers and whistleblowers saying that some of the software was manipulated to add Biden votes.
I'll take Jesse's statement there and his word over the word of all of these PhD JD holding liberal dopey blue checkmark talking heads.
Who just lie to you every day and told you the pee-pee hoax was real because Jesse's right.
We'll make our case when we're darn ready to make our case on the timeline prescribed and at the deadlines we need to.
If there is a case, we'll see it.
If there's not a case, we will see it.
But you will hear us out.
And we will not back down.
Alright.
Now, this is called the, um...
I have this down as the LOL block.
I don't even know how else to describe it because it's, I don't know who's worse here.
The screaming lunatic banshees in the media.
Paula didn't know what, she didn't even know what I was giving her.
I gave her, I don't even know if Joe did either.
I sent this video clip over.
So what's worse?
Screaming media banshees or we're together for our future.
You'll see what I mean in a minute.
I don't know who's worse, AOC or the media banshees.
This is hilarious.
First, let's go to the media banshees.
So here's what happened yesterday.
Vice President Pence and the task force went out and gave a presser in the Brady press room at the White House announcing some just amazing news.
That they have a vaccine.
It's apparently ready to rock and roll.
Pfizer's looking for clearance today.
Ladies and gentlemen, literally, not figuratively, by December, if you choose to get a vaccine, it may be available for frontline health workers, then hopefully teachers, military, police officers, and then for the rest of us.
They need them first.
No doubt about that.
That's great news, right?
Not for the media, because the media is obsessed with already declaring Joe Biden the de facto president and not letting any of these fraud allegations hash themselves out.
The media's already decided you should all shut up.
And despite it being a press conference about the vaccine and the good news, the media's decided it'd be a good idea to scream, I'm not kidding, like a bunch of pouting five-year-old kids whose ice pops are being healthy.
You want an ice pop?
Just kidding.
You want an ice pop?
Just kidding.
Listen to these total losers.
Pout like a bunch of zeros.
Screaming and yelling like the dipwads they are.
Check this out.
Why is the federal government not taking action?
Activist, man.
Do you think?
That came out like crazy.
We always have to go, yo, go to.
Remember the hangover, Joe?
The cousin, the weird cousin kid?
When he's trying to... When he's trying to... We're supposed to take these buffoons seriously?
Jonathan Karl, whoever it is in the front row, rip it off as righteous indignation.
You're undermining democracy.
We're undermining democracy.
How?
How exactly?
Just to be clear, Joe, we're undermining democracy by asking for very simple explanations towards potential voter fraud, potential fraud, to see if it's fraud.
That's undermining democracy because you buffoons won't ask the question.
Undermining democracy.
Now, you may be saying, yeah, Dan, that is tragically hilarious.
Tragically, because we can't believe these utter buffoons are actually considered I mean, some people actually listen to these idiots is what I'm getting at.
This may take the cake.
This reminds me, by the way, of, remember Josie and the Pussycats?
Josie and the Pussycats!
Remember that?
I've been singing way too much on today.
I've been a rough, I gotta say, I'm feeling okay today.
So I, you know me, I'm, whew, whenever I get in a good mood, it goes.
But AOC yesterday is trying, what she's trying to do is, she's trying to gather a group of Green New Deal activists.
Not trying, she did.
But what they're trying to do is they're trying to pressure who they perceive to be the next president, Joe Biden, if this all hashes out.
They're trying to pressure him to move farther left and accept the Green New Deal.
So AOC thought it would be a good idea to hold a press conference with these Green New Deal proponents.
So they get up to the mic.
This is not a joke.
They start talking about the Green New Deal and they just randomly break out into song.
Ladies and gentlemen, if there is a cringe scale of 1 to 10, 1 to 10, Like, and a 10 being you're having a volcanic gastrointestinal episode at a party and someone opens the door and everybody sees you.
If that's a 10 on the cringe scale, this is like a 9.7.
Watch what happens at this, and watch, if you're watching on Rumble, rumble.com slash Bongino.
Watch AOC in the background.
She's like, what do I do?
So she starts clapping.
It's the most uncomfortable thing I've ever seen.
Check this out.
Tell me later who's worse, Screaming Media Banshees or Josie and the Pussycats.
Josie!
Check this out.
So we're about to sing a song called We Are Standing For Our Futures.
If you know the song, sing along.
If you don't know it, listen and then sing it when you figure it out.
All right.
We are standing for our futures, we are healing what is wrong.
We are standing for our futures, and together we are strong.
We are standing for our futures, we are healing what is wrong.
We are standing for our futures, and together we are strong.
Everyone!
We are standing for our futures, we are healing what is wrong.
We are standing for our future and together.
Paula and I, Paula gets to watch everything.
We're picking out who's more uncomfortable here.
So AOC tries to get into a little rhythm, doing a little hip shake and whatever she's doing.
Next to AOC is, I think that's Ed Markey.
Ed Markey doesn't know what to do.
The guy's got the rhythm of a fire hydrant.
He's like, he's not even like clapping on cue.
They're like, we're together for our future.
And Ed Markey's like, when everyone else claps, Ed's like, He can't get the rhythm down because Ed's got the rhythm of a stop sign.
And then there's another dude.
Now, I don't know who that guy is.
There's another dude to the right of Marky who doesn't even know how to clap.
Watch that again.
It's the greatest.
The guy next to him on the right, it's like, he doesn't know if he's golf clapping or is it like, you know, like in church, someone sings a song, they do amazing grace where you're like, yeah, yeah, yeah.
And then a golf clap.
You're like, yeah, yeah.
He doesn't know what to do.
He's like.
Do it.
Rexad Markey right here. This guy's hilarious. I don't know who they- there you see him? He doesn't
know what to do. Look at him! Look at him! He doesn't know what to do! He's like this. Hey, come-
It looks like he's like rolling Play-Doh. He's like- like he's playing with his kids or something with the Play-Doh
thing.
Look, we're gonna make spaghetti with the Play-Doh!
He doesn't know what to do.
And then, there's one more.
Can you put that little thingie just to slow roll again?
This is a security person to the right, you can see.
I can see the pin.
It must be Capitol Hill Police.
It's a woman, right next to the woman in pink.
She's just sitting there.
Listen, I know the Capitol Hill Police, they're really good.
I'm pretty sure she's Capitol Hill Police.
She is sitting here.
Look, she's got a mask on.
I can tell you right now, she's thinking in her head, what the hell am I doing here right now with these buffoons?
Look at her, look.
You see her?
The poor woman.
She's like, what?
She's sitting there, hands out here like this, like, oh my gosh, do I clap too?
What the heck am I stuck here with these buffoons?
That's the greatest video ever.
All right, quick vote in the room.
Personally, I think the Media Banshees are worse.
I'm gonna go with number one.
Joe, Media Banshees worse, or Josie and the Pussycats?
Josie and the Pussycats for me, dude.
That was just horrendous.
I can read your freaking mind.
I knew it.
Paula, what do you think?
Do you think the Media Banshees?
Or Josie and the Pussycats?
Paul is going Josie in the pussy against two.
I'm overruled.
Two out of three.
As Meat Loaf said, two out of three ain't bad.
So you guys win.
Yeah.
Hilarious.
Watch the video.
Rumble.com slash Bongino.
Check it out.
You'll see what I'm saying.
There's all the characters in the back.
AOC is the only one who kind of gets into it.
The rest of them are like, what am I doing here?
I didn't know we were going to be breaking out of the song here.
All right, I gotta get back to some serious stuff.
Let me get to my last sponsor, and then finally, the famous, or the infamous now, Guardian segment my wife has put together, and we've put off now five days in a row, but it's worth your time.
Here, I'll give you a little hint when we come back on the other side of this.
They're already totally misreading the 2020 election, the Libs.
I'm gonna tell you why and what the problem is.
This is an important segment, don't miss it.
Our final sponsor, our friends who I have really come to rely on pretty much every day now, at Teter Inversion Tables.
Teter Inversion Tables use gravity and your own body weight to decompress your spine and relieve pressure on your discs and surrounding nerves.
For me, it helps with my shoulders, my hips, everything.
Decompressing on a teeter inversion table for just a few minutes a day is a fantastic addition to anyone's daily routine.
This is important, even if you don't have back pain, to maintain a healthy spine and active lifestyle without the pain.
If you have back pain or you don't, you need a teeter to invert every day and keep your back and joints feeling great.
I feel like a new guy when I get off it.
I love it.
It helps me a lot.
I've been using it after every workout.
It helps me wake up in the morning, too.
Don't ask me why.
It just does.
It decompresses my spine.
It's good for my shoulders, which are terrible.
I've done my homework.
It's the best inversion table on the market.
Three million people have put their trust in Teeter.
They're the best known name in inversion tables since 1981.
They've been around.
They know what they're doing.
For a limited time, get Teeter's new upgraded model, the Inversion Table, the Teeter Fit Spine with bonus accessories, stretch max handles, and an easy reach ankle system, plus a free inversion program mat for the ultimate inversion experience.
Teeter Inversion Tables have thousands of reviews on Amazon.
Check it out.
They're rated at 4.9 stars.
That's hard to do.
And with this deal, you'll get $150 off when you go to teeter.com.
You'll get free shipping, free returns, and a 60-day money-back guarantee, so there's absolutely no risk for you to try it out.
Remember, you can only get the new Teeter FitSpine Inversion Table plus free inversion program app by going to teeter.com slash Dan.
That's T-E-E-T-E-R.com slash Dan.
Check this thing out.
It's terrific.
Love it.
Use it twice a day sometimes.
All right.
So I've been putting this block off all week, but I put it together earlier.
It's important and I wanted to give it its due time because it matters.
Folks, listen, the libs are totally misreading what happened in the 2020 election.
I saw this Guardian article.
I've only teased like 30 times already.
I want to show you what's going on here.
I want to show you one.
Why?
Because it says, before we get to it.
It says two seemingly contradictory things.
He nails it, the author of this piece, nails it in the opening about why Trump is such a threat to the Democrats.
Hold that in your head, okay?
So his premise, his assertions about why Trump is such a threat, even though they think he lost, why he's such a threat to them, they nail.
But then in the second part, he totally misreads what actually happened in the election, which is weird.
Because it's, again, two seemingly contradictory thoughts.
Let's go to the piece first.
It's an important one.
It's worth your time.
Joe Biden's coalition is whiter, wealthier, and will not stick around.
Biden's win depended on suburbanites tired of Trump, who voted Republican down ballot and will certainly vote Republican in future elections.
That's his assertion, whether you agree with that or not.
So he throws it, but he's not incorrect that Joe Biden's coalition was whiter and wealthier.
That's not wrong.
The data backs that up and data matters.
We do facts here.
His first takeaway, he nails it.
Why Trump is an existential threat at this point to the National Democrat Party if he stays on the political scene, if it doesn't work out his way.
Check this out.
This first takeaway is very, very important, ladies and gentlemen.
Don't forget this.
Most concerningly, it's a quote, Democrats hemorrhaged votes amongst non-white working class voters.
Exit polls show Trump winning more non-white voters than any Republican in a generation.
This was most apparent with Cuban-American voters in Miami-Dade, who of course have their own idiosyncratic politics.
But losses among Latino voters could also be seen, listen to this, in huge margins in the Rio Grande Valley, one of the most impoverished regions in the country, in Osceola County, Florida, that's true, and up and down the map from El Paso, from El Centro, California, to Lawrence, Massachusetts.
Early returns also show consistent gains for Republicans amongst Black voters across the board.
Even in the crucial states, Biden was able to flip.
Trump reduced Democratic margins in Detroit, Milwaukee, and Philadelphia.
These results should be setting off alarm bells among Democrats.
You're damn right.
Nails it.
Which is weird, because what I'm going to get to next, he completely blows it.
The author of this piece.
Did he or she?
I'm sorry, I didn't even look at that.
Who wrote it?
Folks, if President Trump, follow me here, was the spark that lit the fuse in the Black and Hispanic community for people to find the Republican Party for the first time, which all the data seems to indicate historic turnout amongst Latino voters for President Trump, historic turnout amongst Black voters for President Trump.
Think about it.
How many, follow me here, think about how many of these black and Hispanic voters voted GOP for the first time.
How many are going to find themselves on GOP email lists now?
How many of them are now going to go to a GOP meeting for the first time and feel welcome?
Think about that.
Then talk to their kids and then start to talk to others and evangelize the cause.
Folks, it's not about one election.
It's about generational mind-changing.
It's about people for the first time discovering that the party of values, big R God-given rights, economic freedom, life in the womb, from conception to natural death, the right to self-protection, the right to school choice, it's about Black and Hispanic voters, some for the very first time, finding that those are their values too.
And that they've been misled by the media about what the Republican Party is for a very long time.
May I say that I think these voters aren't going anywhere.
I think these new black and Hispanic voters are going to evangelize to their kids and their friends the cause of liberty and are going to cause a downward spiral for the Democrat Party.
They're going to have a really tough time recovering from if we can keep it up and not alienate people.
He nailed it there.
And don't ever forget, Trump did that.
Not Mitt Romney, not John McCain, and not George W. Bush.
It was Trump who brought in those Hispanic and black voters.
Now you may say, how could a writer who got it so right get it so wrong next?
Well, he did.
Screwed it up next.
This is the next part of the article where it totally blows it.
Now, in this part of the article, the writer here, Ben Davis, is trying to say, no, no, no, no.
And by the way, the down-ballot losses where the Republican Congress, congressional representatives and senators did great, that's not an indictment of socialism.
Wrong.
Quote, he says, where the agenda was on the ballot, it was triumphant, even as moderation-obsessed Democrats lost up and down the ballot.
In Florida, where the Dems distanced themselves from a ballot measure to raise the minimum wage, the result was a huge win for the $15 an hour minimum wage and a bloodbath for Democratic candidates.
For many voters, the Democratic Party isn't associated with raising the minimum wage and with the Democrats' messaging strategy, why should it be?
What is he saying here?
Let me translate that for you, because I've seen this talking point bandied about in the media, and you need to just thoroughly discard it.
Florida, unfortunately, did pass a $15 an hour minimum wage on a constitutional question that was put on the ballot.
You have to get 60% of the vote.
How it passed, I have no idea, because the amount of economic research on the destructive effects of wage floors is overwhelming.
But the left, which got crushed down-ballot, is saying, no, no, because minimum wage law, the law passed in Florida with 60% of the vote, socialism and the leftist agenda won across the country.
Let me first explain what happened with minimum wage and what typically happens with minimum wage.
Ladies and gentlemen, the minimum wage is difficult to explain.
It just is.
It's the whole broken windows.
You know, when you break a window, you know the broken windows economic theory?
When you break a window and yet people who don't know anything about economics say, oh, that's great because it gives business to the glassmaker who goes and then rebuilds your window.
But it doesn't because you now have the same window you had before with less money because you gave it to the glassmaker.
That's not a net benefit.
This is that kind of thinking.
Well, if we're paying people more, they have more money to spend.
No, no, they don't have more money to spend because the people paying you have less money to spend because they paid you more.
Makes sense, Joe?
It's not hard, right?
Just checking.
Yeah, I'm all right.
Now, what I'm trying to get to is it's difficult to explain to people the unseen.
All they see, because the media machine wants to believe as well, we're going to pay people $15 an hour.
People don't associate that with a liberal idea.
They associate it with work, and they voted for it.
They don't understand this can actually cost people jobs and cost people money.
The economic research on it is irrefutable.
It's not even arguable.
Minimum wage costs jobs.
It just does.
And it costs low-income workers the worst.
But it's not that it passed an indictment of conservatism.
People associated with work and getting paid.
Where actual liberal policies were on the ballot.
Because remember the guy's assertion, so I don't lose you.
No, no, liberalism didn't lose, even though they lost all the way down the ballot.
Liberalism won because minimum wage.
I've seen this over and over.
When actual liberal policies were on the ballot, in liberal states, they got wrecked.
R-E-K-T, wrecked!
Wait, I thought liberalism didn't lose.
Minimum wage!
Let's look at this piece in the Wall Street Journal.
California had a whole boatload of stuff on their agenda, ballot initiatives on the agenda, that got absolutely crushed.
Identity politics, tax hikes, AB5.
Here, this is from a while ago, by Mike Gonzales, Wall Street Journal.
Tuesday's big loser, identity politics.
Affirmative action, right?
Racial preferences, that's a liberal thing, right?
Conservatives have a very simple policy on that.
Judge people by their character, not the color of their skin.
Not complicated, right?
Not liberals, they want people judged by where they're from, color of their skin, everything but their character.
Well, that was on the ballot, racial preferences in California, which are inherently racist, because you're judging people and preferring them by their race.
I know I have to do this slow, folks.
I'm sorry, there are liberals listening.
It's inherently racist.
That was on the ballot.
Um, it failed.
Miserably.
In California.
I thought liberalism didn't lose.
Minimum wage!
There were also tax hikes on the ballot.
One in Illinois, as a matter of fact.
Illinois, you know, that bastion of right-wing conservatism, Illinois.
That was on the ballot, too.
Wall Street Journal.
Illinois tax repudiation.
Voters may force needed reform by rejecting Governor Pritzker's tax hike, which was on the ballot.
And they did reject it.
Roundly.
In Illinois.
So, ladies and gentlemen, again, we do data, research, facts, and common sense here.
Yes, Trump is an existential threat.
Existential threat to the Democrat Party.
He's correct.
But number two, that liberalism didn't get smoked up and down the ballot?
You're insane.
Minimum wage is not associated with liberalism.
It's associated with work, and it only won because it's hard to explain the unseen.
That's why.
Wherever liberal policies in liberal states were on the ballot, liberal policies like tax hikes and racial preferences, they got crushed in liberal states, along with the congressional representatives on the liberal side that got wiped out because the Republicans picked up 10 seats.
So please don't tell me that, don't tell me liberalism didn't get smoked to try and save your narrative.
All right, folks, I've got a National Review article I'd like you to read.
It's at the end of the show notes today.
It's a great article.
It's a little wonky, but it debunks tax and spending myths.
I want to get to that.
I was going to get to it today, but I don't have enough time.
I'll get to it next week sometime.
There's some really good stuff in there that'll give us a lot of good ammo going forward to make these intellectual arguments, you know, facts and stuff that matters, stuff liberals have a tough time with.
Thanks again for tuning in.
It's been a...
It's been a great week.
Thank you all for hanging in there with me this week.
It's been a real challenge, but it's a pleasure and an honor to speak to you every day.
Our audience has grown substantially, and that's due to you.
We really appreciate it.
We were number 11 this month on Triton in all of the country for podcasts.
Thanks to you.
So please subscribe on Rumble.
Rumble.com slash Bongino.
It's free.
That's the video version of our show, all free to you.
And please subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, SoundCloud, iHeart, wherever you show, Spotify, wherever you go, Stitcher.
