The Dan Bongino Show - Ep 460 The Civil War is Here

Episode Date: May 16, 2017

In this episode I address the troubling details surrounding the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich.   I also discuss the story about Trump and the sharing of classified information with the Russians.   Finally, I address the the destruction of our constitutional norms by liberals obsessed with Trump.  http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/266197/civil-war-here-daniel-greenfield#.WRkWBQoWf3c.facebook Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Dan Bongino. All the Sanders supporters love throwing bombs at me, and I throw them right back. I'm not here to pull any punches, right? The Dan Bongino Show. This is the great irony of conservatism. Even liberals win under conservatism. Get ready to hear the truth about America. Are you suggesting you're that stupid that other people can run your lives better than you can,

even though the cost and quality of what they buy, quote, for you doesn't even matter to them? On a show that's not immune to the facts with your host, Dan Bongino. All right. Welcome to the Renegade Republican with Dan Bongino. Producer Joe, how are you today? Hey, babe, I'm doing good. How about you? Doing well? Yeah, man, doing great. A lot to talk about, man. So much breaking news. you doing well yeah man doing great a lot to talk about man so much breaking news yesterday i was in the car and i heard the story about uh you know trump allegedly giving up classified information to the russians and the media again calling for impeachment i wonder when this all fizzles out and the people say it's a crying wolf phenomenon with the left in other words folks how often can

you cry for impeachment uh arrest public hanging, decapitation? I mean, it's ridiculous how these people are hysterical before people just stop listening. I mean, I'm not here to give the Democrats advice strategically. I'm not. But I think for the betterment of the country, if you're looking to save your party, you guys just have to calm down. I mean, listen, I'm an excitable guy don't get me wrong i think the proof is in the pudding there and i could be emotional and but i'm not strategically stupid you guys got to relax i mean every 10 minutes it's like impeach him nobody's listening anymore i mean it should say something that trump's approval ratings aren't aren't particularly high you know let's let's give

the facts here and not you know know, be golden calf worshipers. He's not doing great in approval. But his approval ratings haven't moved down at all. I mean, relax with the impeachment talk. Gosh. All right, I'll get into that in a second. A couple things you need to know. I also, you know, the Seth Rich story is getting weirder by the minute.

The DNC staffer who was killed, tragically killed. I mean, this story, apparently there's some WikiLeaks connection now. It's just getting more bizarre by the minute. But today's show brought to you by our buddies at Birch Gold. Hey, you're looking for some stability in your retirement, your IRA, or your eligible 401k?

I'm asking you to give a look. I was like, yeah, of course I am. I'm asking you to give a look at our friends at Birch Gold. B-I-R-C-H Gold. Give them a look. They will send you precious metals. Matter of fact, I have five ounces of a precious metal right in front of me, five ounces of silver, which they were kind enough to send to me. I like to touch it, the stuff. I'm a big believer in being able to look and feel and taste your money if you want to chew on the silver, which you don't want to do. All right. The company I trust with precious metal purchase, Birch Gold Group. They'll sell you the physical precious metals

right to your door where you can possess it yourself if you want. This is a five-star reviewed company. Check them out. Google them. Birch Gold Group. I'm not kidding.

A-plus rated with the Better Business Bureau. Contact Birch Gold Group today to request a free information kit on physical precious metals. Folks, inflation's a really big deal, okay? We've printed a ton of money. Banks are holding a ton of reserves. If you're invested in a stock market, great. I am too. But some stability and a little diversification in your portfolio will help. As inflation goes up, if stock markets rise in 4% or 5% a year, but inflation turns into 6% or 7% a year,

I got news for you. You're losing money. Physical precious metals is your hedge against that. Go to birchgold.com slash Dan. That's birchgold.com slash Dan. Now to request your free information kit on physical precious metals, go check it out. It's a comprehensive 16-page kit, which will show you how you can protect your savings. Protect it. Now you can legally move your IRA or 401k out of risky stocks and bonds and into a precious metals IRA. Birchgold.com slash Dan. Check them out.

Okay. So before I get to all that stuff, Mika Brzezinski, who is the big new Brzezinski's daughter, who hosts the Morning Joe. Have you seen her, Joe? Morning Joe, she's the co-host of the show with

Joe Scarborough, who was just revealed they're engaged. They're going to get married. Great. Congratulations to them. I've never been on the show. And full disclosure, when I was running for office, I had a PR person, and they used to send out blasts, and they were on the list. So I don't like to take pot shots at these people because they have a relatively successful show on MSNBC. And although I don't like the network, you know,

some people find the show interesting. Okay. Fair enough. But she did something this week to Kellyanne Conway. That is frankly, you know, you know, this story. I didn't know if you, you know, Joe and I don't coordinate. I like get a little bit of an honest response. I don't tell him what I'm going to talk about, but this is really horrible. Now Joe knows Joe has been in, how long you've been working at WCBM, the radio station? Almost 30 years. I say

the radio station, not for Joe. He knows what it is, but for the audience. So Joe's been in the conservative talk radio business, what I call the edutainment sphere, educational entertainment, which is what this show is, for a really long time. And Joe, one of the golden rules is,

actually, when I met Joe, I was getting ready to do a hit. I was running for Senate in Maryland. I was getting ready to do a hit on the radio station. I started talking to Joe beforehand. And Joe, you know, we hit it off. We became friends. This was five, six years ago.

Gosh, a really long time. Joe, you can vouch for me on this. The golden rule of talk radio and TV and cable hits and cable news is what happens off the air stays off the air. You bet. And that needs to be that way. Yes. Oh, my. See, Joe.

Now, Joe said this forcefully because this is like this is it. I didn't notice. I didn't say the silver rule. I didn't say that the brass rule. I said the golden rule. When you go into the studio, Joe and I talked about a lot of things before I went on the air. I mean, Joe, I remember Tommy telling me about photography and stuff like that. I mean, it was nothing, you know, we didn't say anything that I'd be uncomfortable saying on the air today. But if we did, God forbid, Joe said, Dad, I broke my hand yesterday, punched

this guy in the face. You don't go on the air and say, hey, I was just in a room talking to Armacost in there. And hey, you believe he punched this guy in the face. So Brzezinski goes on the air and tells this story about Kellyanne Conway, advisor to the president and one of his campaign higher ups, campaign managers. And she goes, listen, we used to have her on the set here all the time at MSNBC. And when the segment would end, she would take out the earpiece and she'd be like, man, I can't believe I'm doing this. I have to take a shower. In other words, insinuating that she was uncomfortable defending Trump in the interviews. Now, folks, regardless of that happened or not, and given that Mika Brzezinski didn't have the ethics to not say that, I can't trust her ethics that she's telling the truth about the story. But assume that's true, that Kellyanne Conway did say that.

You never, ever, ever do that, ever. That is like a major breach of ethics, folks. I don't do MSNBC anymore. I've turned them down the last five or six times i'm not saying i have to take a unnecessary shot i just don't do it there's no use in doing it it's a total propaganda outlet but it's just fascinating because i do fox and and other outlets all the time and i can't even imagine in that 30 seconds before you go on the air where you're talking to the producer, you know, in your lapel mic and he's talking in your in your earpiece. I can't even imagine them putting that stuff on the air.

Yeah. I mean, that's, you know, occasionally I get students from colleges. And one of the very first things is either the first or second thing is you don't repeat things you hear in the studio. And most of all, when somebody says off the record, it means off the record. Forget it. You don't talk about it. You don't show off about the people you know. There's an issue of trust. You have to have that trust if you're going to do a good job. You'll never get guests on your show again. I think it's the fact that it's Morning Joe and they have a reasonably decent sized audience that they feel comfortable enough selling out their guests. But, you know, I could tell you now and listen, they haven't asked me, so I don't want to be like, well, I'm not going to appear on it. Well,

you don't have to. They've never asked you. They haven't. I mean, I'm not going to spin your wheels. I've never had a solicitation from them to be on their show but they're out i mean i wouldn't do their show no matter what even though i have a book coming out i mean that's just a that's just a horrible breach of ethics so i thought i'd bring that story up because uh a lot of you don't get the behind the scenes on how these cable hits work you go to a studio you plug a little thing in your ear the producer talks to you for you know sometimes just briefly but if you're a new guest they may talk to you for like a minute or two. If you say something like, oh man, I'm having problems at home with my kids

and they put that stuff on the air. I mean, that's just really bad stuff and a terrible breach of decorum and ethics. It just doesn't happen. So MSNBC should be ashamed of themselves. Okay. Also another thing, yesterday we had this story break about

the president sharing classified information with the Russians during an Oval Office meeting. Here's the crux of the story, because it's very complicated and I don't want to come off like I'm trying to defend either side without the background knowledge to do so. We don't do this on the show, but the president of the United States, President Trump, had an interview or meeting, I should say is a better way to say it, with the Russian foreign minister and the Russian ambassador in the Oval Office. In that Oval Office meeting, it is now alleged by anonymous sources, which I always question, that the president gave up some classified information in regards to a tip about laptops on planes, that terrorist groups were looking to plant

explosives in laptops on planes, that the groups were looking to plant explosives in laptops on planes, that the president decided to discuss this with the Russians. And in the course of discussing it, he gave up the city, which the information was obtained from. That city was a critical piece of information and potentially identifying the source of the information. And a lot of the liberals and some Republican lawmakers are now alleging that by giving up that city, they may have, in fact, jeopardized the life of the information source. Now, the president had an unexpected meeting thrown onto the schedule with the Jordanian with was it the Jordanian king today? So that says to me and many others that that may in fact be a Jordanian source. Nobody knows. Folks, here's the deal on this. Let's just distill this down to some quick talking points. So you

have some information on it. Number one, the president can share whatever classified information he wants. I can't be clearer on that. So anyone alleging to you that this is somehow a crime, I'm not saying it was prudent. I'm not saying it was wise. Are we clear on that? I'm just saying the legality of it is not in question. The president can share classified information with whoever he wants. If the president decides to go into a meeting with the Saudis and he wants to let the Saudis know that there is an imminent terror threat in Saudi Arabia and it's information they got from the Israelis, The president is perfectly within

his presidential authority to do that. Are we clear on that? There is no question of legality at all. Now, the question of prudence, the wiseness of the decision is an entirely different one. The Washington Post story which broke this is alleging that the president was in a braggadocious mood and was just doing this to show the Russians how impressive his access to information was. I don't know how to prove or disprove that because I can't get in the president's head and I don't know the information. But the story, I will say this to be. To be fair to both sides, I don't trust anything The Washington Post says. I don't consider him a credible source, but the Washington Post does have the name of the city, which if that is the critical piece of information, that seems to lend some credence to the story. But what I dispute about the story is, again, this anonymous sourcing. are deep state holdovers from the Obama administration. Some of them just don't like Trump. And what I think happened here is these meetings, what happens with these meetings,

Joe, is readouts are given. In other words, there's a note taker in the room. They may want to brief people in Congress about what happened in the meeting because it's an important meeting with the Russians. So in the readout, that city may have been there and the leak may have come from some deep state holdovers so i i would just caution everyone to take a deep breath on this this is not a crime it may not have been prudent uh we will see we'll see how how how that information how destructive it potentially was but the left going into hysterics over every little thing is amazing now last night i got into a little twitter back and forth with some knucklehead who I really can't stand.

This guy, I think he used to work at Mediaite. I'm not really sure. He works at the Washington Free Beacon now, which surprises me. They're a pretty good outlet. I thought they had better hiring standards. Seriously, this guy, this knucklehead, Alex Griswold, who always has some dumb comment to say, but he doesn't understand why I'm bothered by this story. I don't know if people are putting two and two together, my regular listeners, some dumb comment to say, but he doesn't understand why I'm bothered by this story. And you,

I don't know if people are putting two and two together, my regular listeners, but Joe, when I get into this a little bit here, you're going to understand why I'm so upset about this story. I am, if it does turn out that it was braggadocio and Trump revealed the source inadvertently or advertently by bragging, I should say, then yeah, that's a big mistake. And you know, we shouldn't defend it because it's Trump. I mean, that's not what we do here. But we don't know that yet. But what bothers me about it is the left's hypocrisy on the issue. Because as we reported, Joe, here, gosh, a year ago, maybe more, as I wrote a conservative review, as I put on my Facebook page, we had an unimpeachable source. And I mean, absolutely unimpeachable source, and I mean absolutely unimpeachable with firsthand knowledge, who relayed to me information about the Hillary Clinton server and information kept on that server, which was highly destructive and that the server was in fact compromised. That information was relayed to me a year ago.

The source was unimpeachable. I mean, not impeachable, but by any credible journalistic standards. And the media ignored that story altogether. So I tweeted last night that basically I find it kind of hypocritical that the media ignored the classified information story on Hillary Clinton's server, but is now in total hysterics about this Donald Trump server. I'm not saying that it's right because two people may have done it. That's what the left does to us. I hate that. Well, Bush ran up a lot of debt, too.

OK, so you're admitting debt is bad. It's worse under Obama. We don't do that here. If there was a breach of classified information, it was unnecessary. It's wrong when Trump does it. It's wrong when Hillary does it. We don't know that yet about the Trump thing, though. So I'm cautioning everyone to take a step back and not believe everything you read in The Washington Post. The problem I'm having with the story is the media had no interest in that story at all. I mean, we put it out there. I wrote a piece of conservative review and I'm guessing most people in the media probably said, oh, it's Bongino. He's a conservative. This guy for Joe, you know, being the executive producer of the Renegade Republican show that we don't put stuff out here that we can't back up. Right. We had a pretty devastating story a long time ago.

We don't put stuff out here that we can't back up. Right. We had a pretty devastating story a long time ago we held back on because I had a tough time getting the source to verify the exact details. There were critical details of the story we had to leave out. As a producer, I got to tell you, Dan and our listeners, you're very conscientious on backing everything up. Yeah, you really are. You do a good job. I mean, at one point, Joe was like a little upset at me. Like, let's just put this stuff.

Gosh, it was pretty. We had a pretty good. But it wasn't the sourcing I needed. I'm telling you this story about the classified information on Hillary's server. The source is absolutely 100 percent unimpeachable. There's no way you could say this guy doesn't know what he's talking about. He had firsthand knowledge. But my point, and this is what bothered me about this Twitter war with this knucklehead Griswold.

He responds back. He says, in what universe do you live in where they didn't cover the Clinton email story? That's not what I said. I didn't say that. I didn't say they didn't cover the Clinton email story. I was specifically talking about the classified information on her server, which was largely ignored. How do I know that? Because I was the one that broke the story.

Of course. I mean, this is what bothers me about it. This is what I hate about Twitter. Cause I really get bothered by this. I'm not going to pretend anymore. I have a thick skin. I do in some occasions,

but not with Twitter. I, I will go crazy on you on Twitter at a heartbeat. If you, if you call out my integrity, especially when you don't understand the story. The problem with Twitter is people are in a rush to be a smart ass on Twitter. And it's who can give the most smart ass responses in the least amount of time to try and get a lot of retweets. And this guy, not knowing my history with the classified information story and my source that looked at the damn server and knew people who did not knowing my history at all. He responds back and he responds back with some snarky comment about me losing a congressional seat, which I always find hysterical. People who've never run for office and had no guts themselves to run for office commenting about people who have.

about people who have. You know, I came within one point of winning a congressional seat would have been the biggest upset probably based on the Cook PVI, at least one of the biggest upsets in modern history in Congress. I mean, that's just, you can look that up yourself.

Again, that's not silly braggadocio. Those are just simple base numbers. And this guy's making comments about, you know, me running for office. You're supposed to be some kind of a journalist. Get over yourself, man. Besides the fact that not that I'm like obsessed with social media followings or anything,

but, you know, we've developed the following amongst people who care what we have to say. This clown's got like this minute little following on Twitter, and his whole job is getting people to listen to him. Like maybe you should do a better job yourself building your own audience before you start calling out other people. All right, folks. Today's show also brought to you by our buddies at BrickHouse. Have you tried Dawn to Dusk yet?

I got a really great email this morning from a woman who said that she's a charge nurse or a nurse in the hospital and loves the product. Yeah, it's a really great product. It's called Dawn to Dusk. See, the problem with today's energy drinks is you drink them, and an hour later, you fall off a cliff. You're so tired. You have a cup of coffee. You need 10 more cups to keep yourself going for the rest of the day. So the guys at Brickhouse figured out a better way to do it. They said, you know what? Let's make this a time

release product. This is a really terrific product. It has this interesting proprietary product called tea accretion in it. So go check it out. Brickhousenutrition.com slash Dan. That's Brickhousenutrition.com slash Dan. Check out Dawn to Dusk. It's great if you're a cop, you're a fireman, you're working all day in a tough manual labor job, you're a driven CEO, you're working moms and dads who have to have your energy level up the entire day. Go check it out. You get a nice mood elevation out of it. Get a good level of energy. Lasts up to 10 hours.

BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan. Email me your comments on it. People really love the product. All right. And more to get to. So much news today. The Seth Rich story. This is a fascinating story. So a DNC staffer by the name of Seth Rich was tragically killed, as I said, when we opened up the show. Now, the official story from law enforcement at this point has been that it is a robbery that had gone bad in Washington, D.C. Now, why this story was suspicious is it happened

right around the time of a lot of the WikiLeaks information of the DNC emails. So this caused the big ruckus that, you know, was this guy killed and this guy related? Now, I am very, very, very skeptical. I don't even want to call it a conspiracy theory because there's some good evidence here, but I don't know any other way to describe it. I'm very skeptical of these things because I worked in the government for a long time. I had an SCI clearance. And one of the points I try to make to people often is most conspiracy theories that involve the government are nonsense. And I'll give you two reasons why. Number one, the government is, I don't know how to say this without offending people. And it's certainly not a knock on government employees.

It's a knock on the bureaucratic apparatus. It's not set up in a smart way to contain information. It's just not. The government's not smart enough to do this. It's not smart enough to pull off massive conspiracies. Secondly, there are so many leakers within the government, and there's such a motivation to leak information, especially to friendly reporters, that if there was a major conspiracy within the government or within the DNC or within the D.C. police department to hide this case, I'm absolutely sure we would have heard about it already. So here it is in a nutshell. This guy, Seth Rich, was a DNC staffer, and Rod Wheeler, who's a good man, former D.C. cop, super competent, was a private investigator it still is working on the

case and found out that seth rich was communicating with wikileaks so the when i the idea of floating out there joe is that this seth rich guy the dnc staffer may in fact have given this cache of emails from the dnc that's all that's become the subject of this entire Russian vet. This is why this important. That's become the subject of the Trump Russia collusion fairy tale. The idea out there is that this is all nonsense, that the Russians did not hack into the DNC to get this information, that the information was given by Rich. Seth Rich, two WikiLeaks and then put out there and then rich was then subsequently killed and then it was made to look like a robbery gone bad now that's i mean that's an interesting x files theory and i'm the real wheeler is not wrong wheeler says at one point that um at the on on his

computer seth rich's computer there's evidence that he was communicating with wikileaks i have absolutely no reason to question Rod Wheeler at all. I know Rod. He's a good man. Rod is not a hyperbolic media. He's got enough media. He's a Fox News contributor. He doesn't need to do press releases.

He probably finds it more annoying than anything that people are calling him. So that may be true. And I do. I believe this portion of the story that Rich was communicating with WikiLeaks and may, I don't have any hard proof of this yet, but may have been a source of the information that WikiLeaks got on the DNC. Now, I don't believe that he was killed because of it, because it doesn't make sense, folks. I mean, just from, you know, be a super sleuth for a minute, put together a spy novel, right? Does it make sense to you that a guy leaks information to WikiLeaks damaging to the DNC, the Democratic National Committee, a major organization, very powerful, no question about

it. But after he leaks the information, why would you have the guy killed knowing that killing him is not going to stop the story. It's going to stop the guy because he's dead, tragically. But it's not going to stop the story. It's just not going to do it. Matter of fact, if anything, it's going to keep the story alive. It doesn't make any sense, folks. I mean, not that I... One of the things we used to do...

I got to be very delicate in my words here. One of the things we used to do, I got to be very delicate in my words here. One of the things we used to do when we were Secret Service agents is you have to put yourself in the mind of assassins and bad guys. Now, I mean that in a very real way. It's hard to do when you, because I'm not, you know, we're not deranged people, agents like that. They don't, you can't think like deranged assassins would. It's very difficult to put yourself in that mindset.

You know, that's why a lot of guys in the Secret Service didn't want to go do the internet crimes thing because no one wants to sit there and get in the mind of a child pornographer. They just don't want to do it. It'll disrupt your whole, it's just so disturbing that guys don't like doing it. They just didn't want it. It's a tough position to stand.

It's, you know, the similar kind of mentality with assassins. It's hard to get in their heads. But I'm asking you for a second to get in the head of a DNC higher up that would have coordinated a hit on this guy after he gave DNC sensitive Democratic National Committee emails to WikiLeaks, assuming he did it. Why would you say, OK, first, you got to get a hit man. OK, I mean, walk yourself through this practically. How do you find a hit man? You're going to leave some computer trace, some phone records, even if it's a cricket phone. There's going to be a phone record somewhere. How do you guarantee later on the hitman doesn't talk if the hitman is caught?

Also, there are probably going to be surveillance cameras. There's got to be a staking out of the location. Once you kill the guy, you got to make the gun untraceable. Where do you get the gun from? You're staking out of the location. Once you kill the guy, you got to make the gun untraceable. Where do you get the gun from? Do you realize how many investigative breadcrumbs are left behind when all they had to do was basically fire the guy and have the guy prosecuted?

Later on, they would have been heroes. Hey, this guy gave up information to WikiLeaks, his bad outfit, and we caught him. It just doesn't make sense. I'm not disputing at all that this guy may have been in communication with WikiLeaks and may have been the source. But I'm just suggesting to you that having the guy killed is obviously morally disgusting. But I don't see it making any sense from a tragic, strategery perspective. Does that make sense, Joe?

You're not doing anything to suppress the story now putting that aside for a second that i don't believe that that's the reason the guy was killed i think it may have in fact been a robbery gone bad on the other side of this if seth rich was the source of the dnc email league do you realize that the entire Trump Russia collusion narrative just fell apart like that? Because the Democrats are basing their entire story on an intelligence assessment that's never shown conclusively that the Russian government hacked into the never. That's never shown conclusively that the Russian government hacked into the DNC. Never. Now, there are patterns, but it's never shown conclusively that the Russian government hacked into the DNC.

What they have shown is that there is a pattern of activity that may indicate as such. But if the DNC emails that were so damaging to Hillary were given over to WikiLeaks by a DNC insider, folks, the whole Russia story falls apart. The Democrats will be in a world, world of hurt. I was communicating with a guy this morning who shall remain nameless for obvious reasons, who is really read in on this story and said, if this is the truth, if it turns out that Rich was the source of the DNC emails that the Democratic Party is involved in one of the biggest scandals in the last 30 or 40 years, that they may have known this through their. I mean, they would have known it from the DNC at that point. Right. The DNC would have been advised that this guy's email account had been compromised or he had been sending emails to someone else. And they ran with this Trump Russia story, regardless, knowing the entire time it was completely false.

Folks, this is a really, really big deal. Do not dismiss this story. And there's a couple of angles on this that you you haven't heard yet. And that's one of them. All right. Hey, one last story I wanted to talk about today because it's a disturbing story. You know what? Should I get to this tomorrow, Daniel Greenfield?

I tweeted out a Daniel Greenfield piece. Let me just tease because I don't want to miss this other big data thing because it's a topic I'm fascinated with. But Daniel Greenfield has a piece of front page mag that I tweeted out. And you know what? I'll put it in the show notes today and I'll maybe include it in tomorrow's show as well. But the title of the piece is the civil war is here. And I get it. You read the title and you'd be like, Oh gosh, here we go. Another, you know, we don't do drama pieces here, folks. It's a very, very, very well-written piece by Greenfield. And he lays out the case. I'm going to just quote this line and maybe I'll get into it in a little

more depth tomorrow because it's a really big topic. He says, political conflicts become civil wars when one side refuses to accept the existing authority. The point he's trying to make, and he makes throughout the piece, is that a point I've tried to make on the show all the time, that the left is not principled. You can't argue the left on principles because they have no principles. They only have a guiding ideology. And the point he tries to make is think about it, Joe. When the left had the presidency, Barack Obama was all powerful. Federal court rulings didn't matter. Remember when the federal courts ruled against them on environmental issues and Obama just plowed ahead through the regulatory apparatus and just ignored the law? The left was all about it. When

the president enacted DACA and DAPA and circumvented the constitution completely and rewrote the idea of prosecutorial discretion, all of a sudden the left was all for it. Oh, presidential power matters. Forget what everybody else does. Now that Trump's in office, they take the exact opposite approach. Presidential power doesn't mean anything. The courts are in charge. The point he tries to make is that these people are not willing to accept authority. And a point I've made in the past, too, although he says it in different words, is that the left doesn't like big government show.

Let me see. Did he just say that wrong? No, no, I didn't say it wrong at all. The left likes liberal government. When the big government is run by Republicans, the left is a total meltdown. So the point Greenfield's trying to make in the piece is that we're already in an ideological civil war now. One side that believes in the rule of law.

No one suggested, no one credible. I'm not talking about like fringe elements, folks. I'm talking about, you know, actual people in D.C. People with credible political profiles. Very few people suggested Barack Obama was elected illegitimately. I mean, I said about Obamacare a thousand times. I think it sucks. I think it was terrible.

But I accept, sadly, that it's the law. I just wish we would get rid of it. See, the country can't continue when we as conservatives say that. But the left says, no, but when we lose an election, nothing matters. Whatever this guy says, despite his constitutional authority, Trump, nothing matters. I'm going to throw it out. That can't possibly continue because he says at one point, I'm getting a little deeper than I wanted to because there's really, really a lot in this piece. He says at one point, if you are a

government operator, a bureaucrat, a politician, unfortunately, at some point, you're going to have to pick sides. Either you are for and you accept the fact that Trump is the president and should be subjected to the Constitution and the regular rules and the fidelity to the law, or he's not. And leaks are okay. Ignoring Trump executive orders is okay. Ignoring laws Trump signs are okay. Either you accept it or you don't. But this is binary at this point, Joe. And that civil war has already begun. It's a fascinating piece. I'll talk a little bit more about it tomorrow because there's a couple of things in there that are really juicy. Hey, here's another couple of stories. So, you know, I'm fascinated by big data. You know,

the Turkey problem we talk about all the time, Joe Bertrand Russell. You know, how big data is a great thing, but big data can lead to big errors if you're not careful about it, because if the big data changes people's behavior and they all move in the same direction, you can cause a massive knowledge crisis through big data. You're like, well, what does that mean? If you have more data, shouldn't you be smarter? Not if the information's wrong. And big data was one of the contributors to the housing crisis. But Bertrand Russell's turkey problem always sums it up nicely. That if you had a bunch of turkeys on a farm and they were just born and turkeys could talk and get on the internet and they were scheduled to be killed a year after their birth to be eaten. On day 360, 361, 362, you would see these turkeys sending emails to their friends going, man, you guys all got to come here.

This is great. Farmer Jones feeds us. He's got us all fat. He keeps the wolves away, keeps the bears away. We got a nice warm turkey pit. We can kick dirt around. This is the greatest thing ever. All the turkeys show.

Their information's not wrong. Their information's 100% accurate. They have been fed for a year. The wolves are kept away. They got a great turkey pit. Information's 100% accurate. They have been fed for a year. The wolves are kept away.

They got a great turkey pit. They all show up, all these turkeys, and on day 365, whoosh, off with their heads. They all die at the same time. The information wasn't wrong. It just led to a distortion in behaviors. Those turkeys would not have showed up if they didn't have this information. So be very, very careful with big data.

I can't say enough. Big data can and does lead to big errors when it's not handled responsibly. It's what happened in the housing crisis. Everybody buy housing, housing securities. We're going to securitize these mortgages. This is great. Housing's going to go up forever. Boom. And then it didn't. And everybody lost at the same time. People who wouldn't have ordinarily invested in housing did it because of the big data problem. That's the information that spread. in housing did it because of the big data problem as the information spread. Well, there were two stories I saw this week that every time I see them, I'm always like, gosh, I got to talk about

that. Medical records, the Obamacare provision that mandated medical records now has all of these doctors buying into this same medical record program. And the medical record program is costing them all kinds of time with their patients. Now, this is more of an operational process problem than a big data, big error problem. But in other words, the doctors are all complaining now, Joe, they have 15 minutes with a patient and 14 is spent filling out a computer form. So now you go into the doctor to talk to the doctor about your health problem. What are you doing? You're engaging in a big data gathering process that actually prevents you from talking to your doctor about your health problem. Pretty interesting. And then secondly, and this one was a real kicker, they're doing a crime pattern analysis program in Chicago. And one of the analysis parts of the program figured out that

even if your friends are in a gunfight and are hit, or in other words, victims, that you are more likely to be a criminal later. So they're doing this big data gathering program. And it's kind of like a minority report thing, trying to figure out who's more likely to be a criminal later so they're doing this big data gathering program and it's kind of like a minority report thing trying to figure out who's more likely to commit crime later and one of the problems you're having is people who are victims are now being given like a probability or a likelihood of being criminals later simply because they were surrounded by people who were involved in crime or they were victims of a gunshot themselves be very careful about big data folks i'm telling you big errors follow when you don't judge the data with an umbrella view and you're not very careful about what happens.

If they disengage longitudinally over time, be very careful about correlations. The turkeys would have figured out that on day 366, all those other turkeys are gone. So be very careful. All right, folks. Thanks again for tuning in. I'll see you all tomorrow. You just heard the Dan Bongino Show. Get more of Dan online anytime at conservativereview.com.

You can also get Dan's podcasts on iTunes or SoundCloud and follow Dan on Twitter 24-7 at DBongino.