In this episode, I address the release of the Mar a Lago affidavit, and how it’s even worse than we thought. An FBI agent wrote a damning opinion piece about this, which we’ll cover in the show.
News Picks:
A great article about why the Biden student loan welfare program isn’t legal or moral.
Former FBI supervisor eviscerates the bureau on their handling of the Trump case.
The release of the affidavit shows the raid on Mar a Lago was political.
Another new low for Fakebook and the “fact-checkers.”
Big news for Rumble and free speech.
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 Monday show, you know, on a Monday show, I always have a lot of material I got to get through.
It's been clogging up my cerebral cortex for a long time over the weekend.
The show may look a little different today.
That's because I'm up in New York.
I'll explain more about that in the coming weeks, but I've got some big plans for some things.
And, um, I'm always glad that you all can be a part of it, so I'll talk about that more later.
Welcome to the Dan Bongino Show.
You won't hear much of producer Joe today.
He is listening, however, as is Guy.
The whole crew is actually here.
We got Catherine and the Fox crew as well helping us out, which I deeply appreciate.
Here's what I'm going to get to today.
I want to just start out with how the affidavit was released last week, and stunningly, folks, Well, maybe not, considering we currently live in the third world.
It's actually worse than we thought, which is hard to believe.
I mean, when we didn't see black dots, you know, the whole black dot tattoo joke I make all the time, you didn't see a bunch of black dots and entire pages redacted.
There were things in there which seemed to indicate, again, as Pete said to me on my Friday show, that this is about national security.
Nope.
Nope.
Terrorism?
Nope.
Espionage?
Not that either.
Nope.
It's about paperwork!
Yeah, paperwork.
If you're in the market for a rifle, shotgun, or revolver, you want to go with the best
in the business, and as far as I'm concerned, that's Henry Repeating Arms.
You'll be amazed by their quality craftsmanship and buttery smooth action that makes them
a pleasure to shoot.
Mine were accurate right out of the box, and they've been reliable ever since.
The best way to learn about Henry Repeating Arms 200 models is to go to HenryUSA.com and
order their free catalog.
The catalog is a great guide to showcasing their Made in America firearms, plus you'll get free decals, a list of dealers in your area, and a great newsletter.
Henry's are backed with a lifetime warranty for 100% satisfaction.
They're made in America or they won't be made at all.
And if you have questions, you can call the award-winning customer service department to speak with an expert who can help you.
Make sure you go to henryusa.com to order their free catalog and decals.
The best way to learn about Henry Repeating Arms 200 models is to go to henryusa.com and order their free catalog.
That's henryusa.com to order a free catalog and decals and to learn more about this great American company.
I'm gonna have to ring my own bell today.
Ding, ding.
I don't know if Joe pre-recorded a bell.
So if you hear a pre-recorded bell, it's not as good as my bell, like Apollo Creed and Rocky at the end of Rocky III.
Ding, ding.
Shockingly, this thing is worse than I thought.
Folks, the affidavit came out last week.
I've got some sound coming up.
I've got a loaded show for you today.
But the affidavit in support of this ridiculous, immoral, unethical, what I believe to be unconstitutional raid on Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago home.
What we can see in the affidavit in the unredacted portions is an abomination.
So bad that a guy who writes often at The Hill and elsewhere, a guy by the name of Kevin Brock, he's a former FBI supervisor, pretty sober, level-headed guy.
He doesn't drop bombs on people's heads when he feels like he wants to make a political point to get on TV.
I don't know the guy well, but I've read his stuff.
And he'll defend the FBI when he thinks they need it, but when he thinks they screwed up, he'll say it too.
And I think a lot of people respect him for that in the space.
Again, I don't know him.
I can't vouch for him.
I can just tell you I've read his stuff.
He's got a piece in the hill.
It'll be in the newsletter today.
Bongino.com slash newsletter.
It's called Unsealed Mar-a-Lago Search Warrant Affidavit Reveals the Government Has No Case Against Trump.
He addresses two critical points that you're going to hear from your lefty friends.
Number one, well, we don't know what's underneath the redactions.
Fine.
Fine.
Point stipulated.
I wish I had my gavel.
Fair enough.
Okay.
We don't know.
I am not in the FBI.
I did not serve the search warrant.
I do not see what's underneath the redactions.
No one has leaked to me what's under the redactions.
Fair.
I get it.
Okay.
But that's not the point.
The point is, We have seen an extraordinary number of leaks in this case, right?
Do you actually believe with a straight face, and you're going to tell me, you're going to lecture me if you're a leftist, that the FBI managed to find nuclear codes or nuclear weapons or some devastating national security secret in the home of Donald Trump?
It's underneath the redactions and that hasn't leaked?
Now, again, because I do facts and I'm not a dope like these people on the left.
Okay, fair point.
You don't know.
Could be there.
All right, I'll give you that.
But can you back that up with any evidence at all, given your history of how the FBI and the DOJ has treated Donald Trump, that if they did have negative and damning information, even given the history of leaks in this case, that it wouldn't have leaked out?
I'm asking you for a second to engage in Occam's Razor type reason, right?
Given all possible assumptions, except the one that requires the least amount of explanations, not the most.
Keep it simple, stupid.
You're telling me there's been a history of devastating leaks in this case meant to politically damage and personally damage Donald Trump in the media space out there.
The media's been more than eager to lap it up like thirsty dogs, and yet they've got something big hiding under those redactions and you haven't heard.
That's just stupid.
That's stupid.
Here, here's Brock.
Again, Brock is not, this is not some like hyper-partisan flamethrowing guy in this piece in the hill.
Quote.
Any clinging hope in certain quarters that the affidavit possessed pulverizing cause to believe Trump was engaged in a truly serious federal violation, I think, can be considered dashed.
His words, not mine!
Wait, he goes on.
The pipe dream that Trump was engaged in espionage, actively providing secrets to an enemy, I think is as fanciful as the Steele dossier's Moscow hotel bed reverie.
Reverie.
And no, I don't believe a smoking gun of espionage or something equally shocking will be in the redacted sections.
If the FBI had that, it would have fronted that in the unredacted portions.
Yes!
Of course, there are...
Come on, man.
Listen, this is like Coach Stan.
Tom, I haven't cited Coach Stan in a long time, my baseball coach who I love.
Coach Stan, whenever you do something stupid, he'd yell from the deck out, come on, guy!
Everyone was guy.
This is a come on guy moment.
You're suggesting to me a series of litany of leaks in this case about nuclear codes, espionage, devastating national secrets.
It's hiding under the redactions.
And yes, they're not publishing them.
Why?
To protect Trump's reputation?
Come on, don't be an idiot.
Come on.
If you're a lefty out there, don't be stupid.
This piece gets better in the hell.
Again, this is an FBI manager.
This guy knows his stuff.
He's been on the inside.
He makes the point here that anyone can declassify this case, specifically Donald Trump.
So he makes the point that if you're hoping and clinging to the fact that, well, at least the documents were classified and he shouldn't have them, he makes the point in the second part of this piece that that's not the case either.
That there is one person out there, one person in our federal government that has the single greatest authority to declassify information, and that person is the President of the United States.
Ladies and gentlemen, I made this point often.
I don't want to beat it up too much.
But even if you're making the case, okay, it may not have been devastating, as Brock says, pulverizing information involving national security.
Fine.
It may not have been all that.
But what it definitely was were classified documents.
That's thin gruel too.
Because Trump's not required to leave some kind of paper trail for an order to declassify documents.
He could have declassified them and taken them.
That is not to say... I just had a conversation with one of my friends here at Fox.
We have a disagreement on it, which is fine.
I don't require anyone to be automatons.
I'm not the left, right?
But I was trying to make this very simple point that even if you believe it was untoward, immoral, and unethical to take these papers, that's fine.
You're allowed to believe that.
It's the United States.
You have the right to speak freely and petition your government for whatever you'd like as long as it doesn't violate anyone else's civil liberties.
Fine.
But that doesn't make it a legal case.
It doesn't.
You still haven't overcome the fact that President Trump could have declassified the information before he left and he doesn't have to notify you.
That's just a fact.
He brings up another point here.
This is Brock being quoted.
He was a retired assistant director, by the way, in another great piece in just the news, in the newsletter.
Again, if you want to check it out.
Retired FBI boss disassembles Trump's search warrant.
He notes that the feds are going to regret this.
He makes another point I made to you often.
Listen, my value added to the show.
I'm not a heart surgeon.
I'm not Mehmet Oz, you know, was an actual surgeon.
You know, I'm not a nuclear engineer.
There are things I can comment on because I read them in the media and I have an opinion on them and I try to do my homework.
But there are things I can't comment as a subject matter expert specifically because I'm not.
And that's fair.
I mean, that's a journalist.
Journalists comment on stories they have no expertise in at all.
They write about Obamacare.
No, they don't.
They're not doctors.
What do they know?
Not even healthcare economists.
The difference is, I actually do my homework, unlike the left.
But this specific space, I have a ton of experience in, and I'm telling you, having worked, gosh, tens if not hundreds as a secondary agent and primary on white-collar cases, both at the NYPD and in the Secret Service, NYPD low-level losses, but Secret Service, big white-collar cases.
These are the kinds of things, when these disputes arise, about things like paperwork, where you go to the attorney and you work it out.
Why?
Why would you do that?
Forgive me if you've heard this before, but you would do it because you don't want to piss off the client.
Well, why would you care?
You're going to arrest him because you want his cooperation, folks.
Most of these cases at the federal level are plead out.
There's a plea bargain.
They don't want to go to trial.
There's not enough AUSAs.
There's not enough judges.
There's not enough magistrates for initial hearings.
They don't want all of these hundreds of thousands of cases to go to trial every year.
So what do they do?
They want to get the guy or the lady's cooperation, who's the subject of the case, get him to admit to it and take a plea.
Whether you agree with that system or not is subject of another show.
I'm just telling you what is, not what should be.
Why, in God's name, and I'm not using his name in vain, he would destroy this constitutional republic he and I and you and all of us all love, and destroy 200 plus years of history by raiding a former president's home over a paperwork dispute where the president could have declassified this when you could have just went to the attorneys and continued to work this thing out, says this was a political raid.
Here, from Brock.
He was asked if the FBI, whether they should have authorized the search warrant.
Brock answered, no.
Frankly not.
I've got some audio coming up in a minute.
Pete on this too, me and Pete on my show.
I don't like playing clips of my show because you probably saw it unfiltered, but this was a good one.
But Brock goes on.
It's puzzling to a lot of folks who've been involved in search warrants for much more serious disputes and white collar crimes where these things are settled, listen to this, in attorney's offices and you don't have to go in with an invasive search.
Contrary to the attorney general's statement during the press conference that they've exhausted all other means, he continued.
Amen, Kevin Brock.
You get the attorney, you do these things called proffer sessions.
You guys are going to be criminal federal case experts by the time this thing is done.
We used to jokingly call him king for a day deal.
You bring the attorney in, you come in with the government attorney, and as long as the subject doesn't lie in the proper session, you agree not to use that stuff against him in court.
You get it?
You dig?
I bring you in, you rob the bank, you're going to admit to it, you're going to tell who all the other peoples are, excuse me, all the other perpetrators are peoples.
But peoples, you're going to fess up?
What you say in there, they won't use against you as long as you don't lie.
Once you lie, it's game on.
And the attorney's typically your best friend, folks.
I just think they're destroying this place, man.
They're ripping it apart.
Got notes everywhere.
It's so much stuff to get me.
I'm staying over in this hotel.
I'm writing on the hotel pads.
I got so much stuff I want to get to.
I want to play this first.
Pete was on my show, Pete Hegseth.
He comes on pretty much every week.
We always love having him.
And he made this point, and I said I would, You'll see this.
I said on the show because Guy was sitting there while we were recording the show for Fox.
And Pete made a great point that this is still a dispute about paperwork, paperwork.
And he brought up Allen Iverson.
Allen Iverson, you're like, the basketball player?
The guard?
Yeah, the basketball player.
What does that have to do with this?
Here, listen to Pete.
Maybe they do want to hide the why, because there's no rationalization or justification for it.
And then when you compare it to what you and others have covered so well, the idea that the FBI knew about Hunter Biden's laptop, were told not to look into it, and at the same time gave a heads up to social media companies to say, make sure you characterize this as Russian disinformation and suppress it, and that same FBI is fighting over Paperwork?
It's like, it's like Allen Iverson when he said, are we talking about practice?
You talking about practice?
You talking about paperwork?
One of my favorite soundbites.
This is about paperwork?
Really?
With the National Archives?
You're telling me it's about paperwork?
No, no, no.
It's about a lot more than that.
They're looking for crimes so they can prevent him from running.
Paperwork.
Hey, we heard him.
About paperwork.
So I promised, as you heard there, that I would play that again.
This is a dispute about paperwork.
Dumping the Constitutional Republic over paperwork.
Here is Allen Iverson, as I promised Pete.
Pete Hegseth, this is the ode to Hegseth.
Here is Allen Iverson when he missed the practice, talking about practice.
We're talking about practice?
Reminds me of playoff.
Playoff?
We should have played that one too.
Here's Allen Iverson on practice, as promised.
It's not about that at all.
You know what I'm saying?
I mean, But it's easy to talk about, it's easy to sum it up when you just talk about practice.
We sitting here, I'm supposed to be the franchise player and we in here talking about practice.
I mean, listen, we're talking about practice.
Not a game, not a game, not a game.
We're talking about practice.
There you go, Pete.
Told you I'd do it, and I did it, so that was for you.
Ode to Pete Hicks.
He was in the studio that time, so I told him, you gotta remind me, we gotta get that in there.
Folks, aggravating this situation further, this is a real legitimate constitutional republic crisis we're in right now.
If this isn't stopped and enough political pressure, I was talking to a guy yesterday in an event I was at.
I was chatting with this guy who's very involved in politics.
And I was trying to make the point that if the public pressure isn't kept up on these people who did this, right?
If it isn't kept up and they're not dissuaded from doing this in the future by the backlash, it makes a difference, folks.
I'm telling you.
Don't think for a second Garland and the FBI aren't listening to what we're talking about, what you're talking about.
If the backlash is not severe and the PR for them isn't bad enough, they will do this again.
This will become a template for the future.
The electoral consequences have to be severe and the public backlash to this has to be so bad for them that they risk ruining any possibility they could function as a law enforcement entity in the future going forward in a constitutional republic that operates on consent of the governed.
Here's another issue they have here too.
I object strongly to the title of this piece for reasons I've stated before.
It's a Wall Street Journal piece from the editorial board.
It's called the Comey-Clinton Document Standard and Trump.
They're trying to bring up the fact that this is a double standard.
I disagree.
In other words, in the way Hillary Clinton's handling of unquestionably classified information through her server was handled, and the way it's been handled with Donald Trump.
There were no raids of Hillary Clinton's home.
All the meetings with the FBI were non-adversarial.
The FBI let lawyers in the room who were not Mrs. Clinton's lawyers.
They were staffers who had law degrees.
It was different.
We know all this.
But I've argued and I made the case often that it's not a double standard.
Please don't use that language.
I know it's hard and we slip sometimes, but it makes it appear that this is simple hypocrisy and it's not.
It's more dangerous.
It's devastating.
This is hierarchy.
This is totalitarianism.
It's authoritarianism.
This is we're in charge and you're not.
Shut your freaking mouth.
That's far different than saying, oh my gosh, it's just a little hypocrisy here and there, a little double standard.
It's not.
I'll read it anyway, but they make the point about Hillary Clinton.
I want to address another point as well.
They say, Mrs. Clinton was obliged to follow all the typical classification rules that apply to government officials.
As Jim Comey said in his 2016 press statement, Mrs. Clinton falsely claimed she turned over all the work-related emails to state, but the FBI found several thousand work-related emails that weren't turned over.
And some of those were in fact classified, ladies and gentlemen.
I got to make this point and make it again, and I've got to drill it into you.
I'm telling you, this is not a double standard.
They don't think of it as hypocrisy.
That's not the way authoritarians think.
Their attitude is we're in charge and the ends will justify the means.
They've literally said that, like literally said that, not figurative.
That is their thing.
We've got to crack a few eggs to make an omelet.
They don't care.
The problem with calling it simple hypocrisy is the threat and the level of the threat, the gravity of the threat, is not properly taken in by the electorate when they make their electoral decisions.
This is totalitarianism.
It is not hypocrisy.
I want to get to one more point about this that's really important about the Mar-a-Lago raid and something the intelligence community is doing that is so deeply disturbing.
They have been entirely corrupted.
You're like, it gets worse?
Yeah, ladies and gentlemen, it sure does get worse.
I'm sorry to tell you that.
Let me take a quick break for the sponsor.
I'm going to get to that next.
It's the same stunt they used last time.
If you're looking for a firearm, I wholeheartedly recommend Henry Repeating Arms.
They make 200 models of rifles, shotguns, and revolvers in a wide variety of calibers and finishes.
Plus, they have new releases throughout the year.
And trust me, folks, you just can't beat their quality.
The best way to learn about Henry Firearms is to order their free catalog to check out their line at home.
Plus, you'll get two free decals, a list of dealers in your area, and a great newsletter.
Just go to HenryUSA.com and click on the free catalog button in the top right corner.
Henry Repeating Arms uses old-world craftsmanship combined with cutting-edge technology to deliver reliability and accuracy you can trust.
They're easy to use and maintain, making them an excellent choice for personal and property defense, hunting and the shooting sports, and beginners.
And they're made in America, or they won't be made at all.
Remember to order their free catalog and decals at HenryUSA.com.
Just go to HenryUSA.com and click on the free catalog button in the top right corner.
That's HenryUSA.com and click on the free catalog button in the top right corner.
You're going to love this company.
Listen to this.
Liberals will be wet in their diapers when I call them out on this one because they just, they love abusing and weaponizing the law enforcement and intel community.
They love crapping all over them when it's calling for defunding the police and attacking the CIA, you know, COINTELPRO and all this other stuff.
They love that.
That was a left doing that.
Okay.
It was conservatives who defended law enforcement, not necessarily, obviously, intelligence abuses past or present.
You get that.
But it's the left and that whole entire hippie generation that fundamentally mistrusted the intel and law enforcement community, which makes it so unbelievably ridiculous that these are the exact same people now who are surgically attaching their lips to the ass of the intel and law enforcement community.
Now they love him as long as they can damage Donald Trump.
Where do we go in the morning?
When we want to see what the left is talking about we go to playbook of course.
So political playbook had this piece out the other day and they're talking about how our director of national intelligence Avril Haines told congressional committees in a letter Friday that the intelligence community is going to examine the potential national security ramifications from the top secret documents Trump allegedly took to his Florida residence.
You notice how they leave the allegedly out of that.
This is their scoop from Politico from this past week.
Make sure my time is we stay on time here for the show.
Now, this is a stunt.
It's a scam.
As my friend Andy used to say growing up, yes, he's real.
Some liberal tried to call me out on it.
Everything was a stunt to him.
This is a stunt.
They know Avril Haines.
They know the intelligence community now by simply suggesting they'll do a damage assessment, which who was talking about?
Damage assessment.
Oh, Adam Schiff!
Adam Schiff, I think we should do a damage assessment.
I'm sure that was totally not political, folks, at all.
You know Adam Schiff.
Adam Schiff, how do you know Adam Schiff's lying?
What's the joke about Adam Schiff?
His tongue and his mouth are moving.
That's how you know he's lying.
The guy's full of it.
He's always been full of it.
So he starts talking about a damage assessment, and there you go, as if on cue, a director of national intelligence, Avril Haines, you're gonna do a damage assessment.
What's the problem with that?
Well, there wouldn't be a problem with that if this was consistently how things were done in these scenarios.
Has there been a damage assessment that's been publicized about Hillary Clinton's server?
Listen, I told you a few times, and I'm actually kind of stunned this story doesn't get more traction, which is fine.
But one of the biggest scoops of our time is that Hillary Clinton's server was hacked.
The sources I have on that are not impeachable.
That server was hacked, and the fact that she had thousands of classified documents on it, that that's not an eye-opener to people in the media.
I'm telling you, you can disregard the story all you want.
Oh, damn, Bongino, enough sources.
Really, I don't have sources?
It's interesting how I scooped you guys on SpyGate, on Russiagate, and all of it in the books.
My sources were right, your sources were wrong.
That server was hacked.
People had access to that server.
Kind of strange how we haven't seen a comprehensive damage assessment on that on exactly what our enemies have.
Let me ask you another question about the damage assessment here.
I'm using air quotes because they know this is a political ploy.
What about the damage assessment on the Chinese Communist Party and what kind of information they may have on Joe and Hunter Biden?
I mean, he was part and parcel of the CEFC Chinese Communist Party connected big guy deal, right?
What about the damage assessment there?
Don't you find it strange you haven't heard anything about that?
It's almost as if this damage assessment is only being done to imply that there's damage.
Oh, that needed an assessment.
Yeah, that's right.
A damage assessment implies, wink and nod, that there's damage from these national security things, which is perfect timing.
Let's do the timeline just quick again.
They leak out that there may be nuclear secrets.
Media runs the story there.
It dies completely.
There were no nuclear secrets.
It's nonsense.
As I predicted, it was probably handwritten notes to Kim Jong-un, which contained no nuclear secrets at all.
That's crap and garbage.
They made it up.
That story dies.
Then the affidavit, the judge forces them to release it.
They release the affidavit.
It's a big, juicy, fat, nothing burger.
It's not even like a veggie burger.
It's an absolute nothing burger.
It's an air burger.
It's bread with lettuce and mayonnaise in the middle.
And all of a sudden the DNI comes out, we need a damage assessment here.
That damage is going to be rough.
Yeah, perfect timing, isn't it?
You know, I don't like putting Bill Mark clips up that much because, you know, he is a lefty and I'm not a huge fan of his politics, but I'll say this.
You know, I think it's a mistake to gaffe these kind of people off on the left who say things like he says here to Rob, you know Rob Reiner, Meathead from All in the Family?
I mean, a total dipwad, a guy who has zero attachment to reality whatsoever.
You want to talk about a serious case of Trump derangement syndrome?
That's a real thing.
That's Rob Reiner.
So Bill Maher brings up this exact point about this so-called double standard, which is really hierarchy, all of this stuff, and how Trump seems to be a target of this stuff, yet the media seems to constantly err on the side of protecting the Biden family.
So he brings up to Rob Reiner, hey, don't you find it odd that they squashed the Hunter Biden story before the election, the media, when they knew about this?
I want you to watch what hierarchy looks like in action.
See, if it was hypocrisy and he was exposed, Reiner would be forced to admit that there are in fact two standards.
But because he doesn't care about two standards, they care exclusively about hierarchy and I'm in charge and you're not, Reiner just pretends nothing, none of it's happening.
That the media didn't, we can't prove it, that those aren't the facts, even though out media outlets have already admitted publicly, many of them, that that was a mistake.
They only, they didn't do it for philanthropic reasons, of course.
Watch, this is what hierarchy in action looks like.
Check this out.
Anything is justified in preventing them from taking office.
Is it?
No, no.
You know what's not justified?
Using armed violence to try to kill people in the Capitol.
That's not justified.
Answer this question.
Is it?
Was it?
Answer this question.
What is the question?
The question is, was it appropriate to bury the Hunter Biden?
You're talking about the press doing that?
He's saying that's what they did and that is what they did.
They buried the Hunter Biden story before the election because they were like, we can't risk having the election thrown to Trump.
We'll tell them after the election.
And we know for a fact that that's what they did?
Of course.
You don't follow this?
You know for a fact that that's what they did?
I don't know what they did.
I know because you only watch MSNBC.
No, that's not true.
That's not true.
Well, then you would know about this.
I do know about that.
Well, you're acting like you know.
I do know about that, and I do watch Fox.
But the point is, we're going to prove now that the press tried to... They're admitting it.
The press is admitting it.
Yes, that's not even an issue anymore.
There you go, folks.
That's what it looks like in action, right there.
I told you, man, we can't continue like this.
There's just no way.
We can't continue as a country like this.
It's not possible.
The idea of a constitutional republic, without getting too deep into the weeds here, but I know you get this, and with every DNA 5-3 prime, whatever, 3-5 prime, I dig back to my college days, aspect of your being, that the whole idea of a constitutional republic is that there's not a hierarchy.
This isn't a monarchy.
We don't have a king.
We don't have oligarchs.
It's not supposed to be a kleptocracy.
The idea of a constitutional republic is that powers are granted to government by consent of the people, and those people are protected from government via the Bill of Rights, and that we're all supposed to be treated equally under the guise of the law.
That was a weird deep breath there.
If I have a heart attack, Catherine, call 911 immediately.
Immediately.
I'm kidding.
Not today.
Maybe tomorrow on the way home.
We're not supposed to be living in a hierarchy.
That's the point.
Freedoms were granted to the press and they're exclusively mentioned in the Constitution for a reason, to go out there and tell the truth, not to hide the truth so you can manipulate elections.
That was never supposed to be the point.
All right.
As I said, I had a lot to get to, so I'm putting together this show the whole weekend because I can't get away from work ever because it's not work for me.
It's life.
It is.
It's everything to me.
All right.
Let me get to my next sponsor here, and here's what I got coming up.
The IRS is lying to you.
They're full of stuff.
I got to buzz myself sometimes.
They're lying to you.
Big announcement that happened at Rumble.
I don't know if you saw what happened at Rumble, but they were What are they now?
They just exploded this weekend.
I mean, I'm an investor in Rumble.
I always put that out there so you know for disclosure, but I'm just looking at my phone here to see an update where they are.
They had an incredible weekend of downloads on apps.
You can see that publicly.
They're currently number nine in the Apple App Store overall.
What happened?
Well, it has a lot with being lied to and people being banned for telling the truth.
And I'll get to that in a second.
Let me get to this first.
I'd be remissed, by the way, if I didn't throw this in on the podcast today.
Today is my anniversary.
You're like, you're working on your anniversary?
Yes, I'm always working.
We love working.
I do, because it's not work.
I enjoy it.
But we've been married 19 years.
It's been a great 19 years.
You know, once in a while we'll go to a wedding, it's rare, I was at one not that long ago, and the woman who was getting married, I'll leave the names out of it, but she's like, you have any advice for us?
I said, yeah, it was advice given to me by my grandmother who's married 60 years.
She said, you know, Daniel, Daniel, everyone in my family called Daniel.
No one else knows you by that name.
She said, you know, there are, you've heard there are good days and down days.
I'm like, yeah, yeah, of course.
She's like, but there's good years and down years too.
She said, I'll tell you what, there are even good decades and down decades.
She said, but if you give yourself on highway off-ramp there, you know, and you're looking for an exit, you're gonna find it.
But if you don't, and you're going to get to your destination on that highway without taking an exit, you'll figure it out.
That was good advice.
So 19 years.
Congratulations to lovely Paula for sticking with me.
I really appreciate that.
I congratulate her like it's some kind of award bee with me.
I should congratulate myself, it's an award bee with her.
But she's really a fantastic human being.
I love her to death.
So thanks, Paula.
Thanks for sticking with me all this time.
All right, just a personal note, sorry.
Did I get off track there?
Catherine's like, when you get back to the damn show, stop messing around.
I said, come on, guy.
It's content here.
No one wants to hear about your personal life.
Just stick to the issues, crowds.
They're ready to shave my head right now and tar and feather me.
All right, let me get back to the real stuff.
So the IRS, they're lying to you about this IRS bill.
Remember what I told you about the fact checkers?
How you can always tell the government, the swamp, the media apparatus, academia, whatever, they're having a narrative problem when the fact checkers lose their mind.
And start wetting their pants over a subject?
Well, that happened over the IRS story.
Biden signs this ridiculously titled Inflation Reduction Act, which is only going to make inflation worse.
He signs this thing, and promptly people find out that tens of billions of dollars are going to go to the IRS, large portions of it, for audits and enforcement.
That's just in the bill.
Just read the freaking bill.
Like, it's right there.
It's right there.
So they're like, oh boy, now we got a problem.
I mean, no one in the middle class who's getting destroyed with these ridiculous tax rates we have in this country now.
And they are ridiculous.
Taxation is theft.
Outside of paying for our military and the constitutional functions of government laid out in our constitution, it's just theft.
They just steal your money to give it to other people.
And I have zero problem saying that.
Someone let Kevin Williamson know at National Review so he can write another op-ed no one will read about this exact topic, right?
So they figuring out they have a narrative problem with the IRS here.
So I said, you know what?
Let's go back to the, let's go back to the drawing board.
Just get the hard facts.
So you, you know, you don't get dissuaded by fact checkers who are going to make you believe this is about service enhancements.
It is not.
Wall Street Journal has an op-ed this weekend called the IRS wants to sell you on its service.
Like, oh, don't worry, folks.
This is just billions of dollars in new money to enhance.
Like, we're just going to pick up the phone quicker when you call.
Yeah, that's bullshit.
They note here in the journal that enforcement is by far the biggest line item in the new IRS funding.
More than half of the spending, just a small amount folks, $46 billion, will go to monitoring and compliance.
That includes hiring tens of thousands of new agents and increasing the number of audience.
But Democrats committed only $3.2 billion of new funding to taxpayer service, only 4% of the outlay now.
This is going over like a cinder block on bare toes with America because we are already paying confiscatory levels of taxation here.
People are funding this profligate government through both their taxes and through inflation.
You see, because when the government spends money it doesn't have in the tax base to support what it's spending.
It has to come from somewhere.
I mean, when I was in my prior line of work, I was paid a check by the government and the check cashed.
But if the government didn't have the money, where'd they get it?
Well, the answer is they print it.
The Federal Reserve just digitally prints it or digitally creates it and just gives it to the federal government by buying U.S.
government-denominated assets.
So even if you think, well, I'm only paying this amount of taxes, you're leaving out the inflation tax.
Because as they print more money they don't have, the value of your dollar goes down.
Ladies and gentlemen, either way you pay.
There's no way out of it.
Either way, you are going to pay.
Period.
Whether through inflation or through taxes.
So now that you're paying that and you realize if you're sitting there and you're savvy, you're like, wow, this is kind of crazy.
I can't believe all this happened.
I can't believe I'm now financing the IRS to come after me, even though I still have all of these tax bills outstanding.
I got to pay these people more.
Yeah, you do.
So the fact checkers lost their minds.
So you see this article up at Reclaim the Nata site.
I really like Didi Rankovic.
Facebook, right before the election, apparently let their investors know that going forward in the future, they're going to let fact checkers comment on posts that may not be verifiably false.
You see what's happening here?
So because of what I just said about the IRS, which is based in fact, fact, those are the hard numbers.
Billions of dollars to enforcement, to tens of billions, to make sure you pay higher taxes.
That's a fact.
Whether you're uncomfortable with it or not is entirely irrelevant to me.
Because fact checkers can't say that's false because everyone could just cite the bill.
Facebook is gonna now let them, they've morphed from fact checking, To missing context, which is just an opinion about what the context of something is.
They'll label an article missing context to put a sheet over it in front.
You can't look at this.
See why fact checkers have questioned this.
Now, if they can't put missing context, because this is a missing context.
That is the context.
The 46 billions for enforcement, 3 billions for services.
This is a fact.
There's no context missing.
Now they're going to let fact checkers comment on the posts?
Just to make sure the administration-government-Pravda-like spin gets on a Facebook post where everyone can see it, and they'll probably put that comment right at the top.
Folks, this is total bullshit, man.
It just is.
We are living in, like, the freaking third world, man.
I told you in the beginning of the show, between the Trump raid I opened up with and this, this is straight-up information control out of, like, the Soviet Union, man.
Even worse, because at least now everyone knew that was state propaganda.
These people actually pretend.
Now you're seeing why this parallel economy I've spent most of the last five years building out, why it's taken off.
And one of the companies I'm proudest of is Rumble.
I'm an investor in Rumble.
I love Rumble.
It is a free speech video alternative to YouTube.
We had a great weekend.
You can see it's all out there publicly on the app platforms where you can see the downloads have gone just crazy.
Why?
Because of Andrew Tate this weekend.
Andrew Tate was banned.
He is a kickboxer.
He talks about issues involving men.
Talks about strongmen, other things, some of the things he says people don't like.
It doesn't mean you get to censor the guy, only a moron would think that.
But of course, media people and big tech people are morons, so they censored him.
So you see in this Reclaim the Net, Andrew Tate joins Rumble after big tech de-platforming and posts exclusive content.
That's why Rumble exploded this weekend, ladies and gentlemen.
Because people are eager, unsurprisingly, to not be spoken to like idiots and to let adults talk.
Now, even more troubling about this bill, on hat tip, Kerry Pickett, she's a great reporter, she sent this to me.
This is from a couple years back.
Joe Biden is being interviewed.
Kerry Pickett gets a question in.
Now, in this Inflation Reduction Act that had all this outrageous IRS funding, right?
In this Inflation Reduction Act was a bevy of billions of dollars A hundred billion plus dollars in Solyndra-like subsidies, loan guarantees for green energy companies.
I want you to listen to this soundbite coming up.
I addressed this this weekend on my Fox show because the IRS part's bad enough.
That's the segue there's intentional.
The IRS funding was in this inflation reduction act nonsense that he calls this bill.
Also embedded in there was hundreds of billions of dollars, potentially in the long run with interest payments, of loan guarantees to green energy companies.
That's what happened to Ener-1 and Solyndra.
Solyndra blew through a half a billion dollars.
I addressed that on my show this weekend, but Kerry sent me this.
This is so telling why we live in the third world.
We live in a third world where these people can say something, right?
Where they can call something out, say they can't do something, just like the student loan thing, I'll get to that in a minute too.
Flip the switch, do it anyway, and yet zero people in the media hold them accountable in the real way.
The right way.
You see, in the media, when a Republican screws up, the media demands accountability until you leave office.
You see, when a Democrat screws up and says, oh, like Biden does in this clip, yeah, I don't agree with subsidies like that towards Solyndra and stuff, and then does it anyway, the media doesn't demand he leaves office.
They find way to put fact checker people out there saying, oh, this is missing context.
Here, take a look.
I'm talking about Solyndra.
You already orchestrated that.
You're calling for more green energy subsidies.
Why do people trust you now?
Because we should not be supporting any of these subsidies.
Period.
There, you saw it yourself.
Thanks Kerry Pickett for sending that over.
That was years ago.
That was Joe Biden saying, in an interview, that no, he doesn't agree with these Solyndra-type subsidies, yet he does it anyway, and nobody seems to care.
Ladies and gentlemen, we're living in, I'm telling you, the third world.
It's not the economic third world, granted.
Thankfully so.
I understand that.
I get it.
And hopefully it doesn't get to that point.
I want to see people starve to make a political point, but make no mistake, if you think we live in a representative democracy where your voice matters, I'm sorry, but when it comes to political matters these days, your only voice is your vote.
Everything else, these people don't care.
It's why 2022 and 2024 are so important.
I had a woman ask me yesterday in an event, she said, you know, well, what if they cheat again?
I said, they always cheat.
I said, I'm not telling you what's fair or not, I'm telling you what is.
What if they cheat again?
My guess is, it's based on speculation, based on my race, something that happened with me, is in really competitive races, in blue states that have very poor voter security laws, maybe a half a point to a point of the vote could be fraudulent.
It's hard to prove a counterfactual.
What does that mean?
It means we gotta win by more than one.
I don't know any easy way to tell you that.
I'm not forfeiting anything.
It sucks.
Not an answer that makes me happy.
It's just an answer that is.
We are in the third world and the student loan thing is part of it too.
I'm going to get to that in a second.
Let me get to my last sponsor.
I appreciate your patience and thank you for your patience with the different look today.
And thank you to, again, the Fox crew for allowing me to kind of hijack the studio today.
I'll be doing my radio show from here later.
It's a big studio, folks.
I wish I could kind of pan around, like, I'm not used to this.
I'm used to my home studio, which is like a tenth of the size.
This is like, you could do like a Studio 54 disco ball event in here, and you'd have like a pretty good party going.
People would be smoking dubes in the corner and whatever.
But that's for a whole other show, the not family-friendly version of the show.
So this is the third world.
In the third world, there are no rules.
In the third world, the media doesn't hold political leaders accountable if they want to call themselves that.
It doesn't hold anyone accountable.
What they do in the third world is they change on a moment's notice because it's hierarchy, because they're in charge and you're not.
Everybody shut your mouth.
We're in charge.
You're not.
No soup for you.
Watch, I'll show you what I mean right here.
Watch and listen to this video.
This is Cedric Richmond from the Obama administration.
He's on a cable news show this weekend with Jennifer Griffin on Fox.
And she's asked the question, she plays a cut, she's like, hey, is this stuff even legal, this student loan bailout?
Because Biden seemed to imply it wasn't, and so did Nancy Pelosi.
I want you to listen to his answer as he cites a law that has absolutely nothing to do with student loans at all.
Here, check this out.
Is the President's move even legal?
Here are the President and Speaker Pelosi just last year.
I'm prepared to write off the $10,000 debt, but not $50,000.
Mr. President, let me ask you— Because I don't think I have the authority to do a placenta.
People think that the President of the United States has the power for debt forgiveness.
He does not.
He can postpone, he can delay, but he does not have that power.
That has to be an act of Congress.
What changed?
Well, Congress acted.
And if you look at the legislation that allowed President Trump and President Biden to delay loan repayment, it's the same legislation that allows him to forgive $10,000 worth of debt and $20,000 worth of debt to those who are on Pell Grants, which is the hardest and lowest income people that are going to college.
So, there it is.
This is what happens in the third world.
In the third world, you just make it up as you go along.
It's hierarchy.
They're in charge, you're not.
The worst part about this whole thing is most of the benefit from this student loan crisis we're now in, because trillions of dollars, according to the Penn Morton model, potentially up to a trillion, to be fair and precise, is going to go from people who are poor, middle class, and upper middle class, to pay off people who went to graduate school to get graduate degrees to make more money so you can pay off their loans.
You know, is this any of this legal?
I don't think so.
Folks, I want to just run this first, because this has really annoyed me.
I'm going to get to this Federalist piece in a second.
I ran those kind of cuts out of order a bit for Guy.
Sorry, Guy, but the Cedric Richman, I want to play that first.
I did my Fox show this weekend on Filtered, and I don't know if you caught this.
I hope you did.
If you did, it's just about a minute of it, but I need you to see it again.
I was really annoyed about this.
So this weekend, I just asked Sabrina, Will, and Nico, and the team, I said, listen, guys, I don't want to do a scripted monologue.
Typically, we'll write them out for timing.
It's, you know, who cares?
What do you, you don't need to hear the backend of what happens on TV.
I don't want to bore you to death.
But I said to them, I just, I'm really passionate about this.
You know, it's one of those things like, you know, when you need to talk about your kids, right?
And you talk about your kids, you don't need a script, right?
You love your kids.
You talk about them all day.
I'm really passionate about this.
This is the end of the republic, I'm not kidding.
When you can ask a bunch of well-to-do graduate students, not ask them, you can ask other people to pay off the loans of well-to-do graduate students.
There is a loan repayment program.
It's called a job.
If you get your ass out of the seat and go to the job, you would figure out the loan repayment program.
Here, I covered this on the Fox show, totally off, completely off script, whiteboard and everything.
This was Jim's idea from the radio show to whiteboard, which I thought was great.
Here, check this out.
I thought of a little diagram so I put this together.
It's very fancy.
I just did this.
Here it is.
Here's the loan repayment program.
Right here.
I even labeled it loan repayment program.
You see, that's you.
And that's the rump.
Sometimes called the ass, but for family friendly purposes we'll call it the rump.
I even circled it.
Now if you remove the rump, You see the up arrow from the seat up arrow, the rump goes up.
Okay.
And if you move it to this object, let me label this.
Hold on.
Let me label what that is, what that object is here.
I even got my little thing here.
J O B here.
If you take the rump and you go to that building called a job, you will get this thing called money.
So let's go over this one more time.
The rump, you remove the rump up and then you go over to the job and you get money and then you repay your loans.
Because if you don't do this, then that's my rump that has to get up and go to another job to pay your loans.
And I don't want to pay your loans.
Because I'm not interested!
Thank you!
All right, there it is.
Job repayment program.
You take the rump upwards in this direction.
You go that way to a job I'm at right now.
I had to draw a little building.
And you get this crazy thing called money.
Now, there's a great piece in the newsletter by David Harsanyi about this.
It's really, really important you check it out.
It's called Biden's Student Loan Forgiveness is an Unjust, Cynical Abuse of Power.
And he talks about, not only is there a problem with spiking higher education costs, which I addressed in the rebuttal this weekend with the Democrat who never answered my question.
I said, don't you find that odd?
You keep talking about the government helping, yet the more they help in education, the higher the costs go.
You don't think that's weird?
You know what, it's a myth that most, he says, by the way, though there's clearly a problem with spiking higher education costs, it's a myth that most students who graduate with BAs, bachelor's degrees, face debilitating debt.
This is important.
BAs and BSs.
According to Brookings, around 30% of undergrads graduate with zero debt.
All right, that's a good chunk.
25% with less than $20,000 worth of debt.
Only 6% of graduates owe more than $100,000.
That's what you're gonna pay off.
Half of college debt is held by a quarter of borrowers, those who go to graduate school, which is to say Biden's compelling American taxpayers to foot the bill for people's graduate degrees.
Graduate degrees, folks.
I've got a graduate degree.
I've got two.
Am I trying to impress you?
Not at all.
Don't care.
You know my take on that.
If you're citing your education, you're probably a dipwad who's insecure and you're telling people you went to school because you're an idiot and you want to tell them how smart you are.
We all know that person, don't we?
I'm telling you that not to impress you with academic bona fides, but because I paid off my loans and they were expensive.
I paid them off and they enabled me to get these jobs I have now.
So I use those loans to finance my livelihood and pay off my debt and then increase the prosperity of my family by having a greater income later.
Why should you pay for that?
Why should you pay for my student loans?
Even better.
You may say, well, Dan, here's where I know you're going to go with this.
I can already hear the libs.
Dan, they're not going to pay for your student loans.
It's only for people making $125,000 or less.
Really?
My daughter makes more than $125,000?
Because she's going to have a student loan too, eventually, here.
That's weird.
You want to pay off my... Listen, folks, I make a lot of money.
I'm not telling you that to impress you.
I'm telling you that because it's true.
You want to pay off my daughter's student loans?
She's making less than $100,000.
She should be eligible.
Total freaking scam.
I can't believe people fell for this.
I mean, this is like really peak idiocy.
All right, two quick stories before we wrap today.
It's a loaded show today.
This was sent over by the production staff and it fits, it's right up my alley.
It's by Times UK.
Britain falling out of love with the NHS.
Folks, as we grow into this third world republic where the government in a zero-sum game of freedom increasingly takes your freedom, which is zero-sum, right?
Minus one on the freedom scale from you, plus one on the freedom scale, on the anti-freedom scale for government.
That's how zero-sum games work.
Every time the government injects itself into a decision-making sphere in your life, it's one less decision you can make and one more they can make, period.
I've warned you about government control of the student loan market.
We talked about on the show government control of law enforcement.
That's become political, not law enforcement.
But government control of the healthcare system is devastating.
Devastating with a capital D. It is so destructive.
Folks, you can't trust the government to print the driver's license right at the DMV.
You want to trust the government to crack open your chest?
I've told you resources are only allocated two ways.
You can price them, Or you can ration them, that's it.
A doctor's time, penicillin, surgical sweets, they're limited.
So if you have limited assets, you have two choices.
You can price those assets in a free market, or you can ration them and give them to your political buddies.
Well, that's what happens in the UK, where rationing is widespread.
Up to 5% of doctors over there in the NHS know a patient who's died waiting for care.
Those are just the ones that admit it.
This Times UK article, Britain falls out of love with the NHS.
Poll reveals 3 in 5 now expect delays.
Of course they expect delays.
You don't price a product, you get shortages.
And then it's rationed.
Well, how are delays rationed?
That's rationing by time, folks.
You don't have enough resources.
So you don't want to price them, like in a free market system.
So what do you do?
The doctor's time is limited.
Everybody gets it for free.
Everybody gets it for free means nobody gets it because everybody floods the office because they don't have to pay.
So then the doctor just says, ah, don't, don't worry about it.
I'll see you in six months.
I'll be dead in six months.
I have stage five pancreatic cancer.
Sorry, no soup for you, buddy.
So it's called rationing by time.
Spoken about it often on the show.
And one last piece.
Did you guys see this Axios tweet over the weekend?
These people are so freaking out of touch sometimes, man.
It cracks me up.
Here's Axios on their blue checkmark account.
Trump and close allies have argued that the multiple investigations he's facing, in particular the search of Mar-a-Lago, are something out of a banana republic.
But former leaders have been jailed or charged all over the world.
Do you see the map?
Guy, put that up on the screen.
The map and the tweet is hilarious.
A lot of these countries are banana republics in the third world.
They put up.
This is not making the point you think you're making.
Hey, look at this.
People are arrested and charged in banana republics all over the world, but we're not one?
No, no.
That's not the argument you think you're making.
You're making the exact opposite one.
A bunch of idiots over there.
Who's the dope who put that up on Twitter?
Fire that guy.
I mean, no, no, actually keep him up.
The guy's a real honest broker, showing what the media really thinks, right?
Prop the idiots.
All right, folks, thanks again for tuning in.
We'll see you on the radio show later, and if you wouldn't mind, please subscribe to the podcast.
Deeply appreciated.
Apple, Spotify, and Rumble.
Rumble.com slash Bongino.
We had a huge uptick in Rumble views this past week.
We appreciate it.
Rumble.com slash Bongino, where you get the video version of the show if you want to check out the different view.
