The Dan Bongino Show - Ep. 605 Don’t Fall for the Latest Scam

Episode Date: December 5, 2017

Tax cuts do not “cost the government” money, they only cost you money.  https://t.co/ZKxNf1NoJT   Was President Obama the real Russian colluder?  http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/12/claudia-rossett-on-obamas-russia-collusion.php   The Democrats are not telling you the truth about DACA and illegal immigration. http://www.heritage.org/immigration/report/why-congress-should-not-legalize-daca-the-myths-surrounding-the-program   Here’s the latest Democrat talking point on the phony Trump-Russia investigation. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454311/mueller-strategy-obstruction-justice-investigation-leading-impeachment   Democrats need you to stay angry in order to win elections.  http://dailysignal.com/2017/11/29/democrats-incentive-keep-americans-divided-dependent-angry/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Growth is essential for every entrepreneur. At BDC, we get that. And the businesses we support grow at double the average rate, accelerating the pace. We're on it. BDC. Financing. Advising. Know-how. The Dan Bongino Show. Get ready to hear the truth about America with your host, Dan Bongino. Alright, welcome to the Dan Bongino Show. Producer Joe, how are you today? I'm chomping at the bit, baby. Yeah, man. He's laughing because I sent him an email from a faithful listener who's like, listen, I really look forward to Joe's opening every day of the show.

I never know what he's going to say. I'm like, that's funny because Joe has no idea what he's going to say either when we open up the show. If I thought about it, I would have said I'm champing it a bit. There you go. Yeah, yeah. He never, he doesn't take this stuff through. He just comes, that's why he's such a natural. So you doing all right though? Yeah, man. Another road show today for the Bongino Operation.

I'm up in New York doing my Fox stuff. So I'll be on. I think it's outnumbered today. So if you all want to I think it's outnumbered today, so if you all want to check that out. But as always, a ton going on. You can't turn away from the television for five minutes or you'll miss what's going on.

And I wanted to get right into this because as I predicted, Joe, on the show, a couple months ago, if you remember, do you remember when I said that the Democrats were going to seamlessly move from the Russian collusion narrative to the obstruction narrative? Do you remember me saying that? Yeah. Yes, I do.

Yeah, I remember you saying that. Yeah. We did a show. Yeah. And I was saying how, listen, there's no there there. There's the whole thing with Russian collusion is you have to have actual collusion to prove, you know, and you can't have collusion after an election to win an election, as I said on Fox & Friends the other day. Folks, I don't want to spend

the whole show on this, but I want you to be crystal clear about what's going on. And I'm not doing this to say, hey, look at me. Go back and listen to the show. See all the predictive value they have. I'm telling you this

not to pat myself on the back. I'm telling you this because this is how stupid the Democrats are and predictable. I don't mean Democrat voters or you Democrat listeners to the back. I'm telling you this because this is how stupid the Democrats are and predictable. I don't mean Democrat voters or you Democrat listeners to the show. I mean the Democrats in Congress and up on the Hill that are pushing this. I said to you, folks, forgive me. I don't have the episode. I'm not going to play clips of myself talking about it a few months ago. If you listen to the library, you'll know it's there. The titles are pretty indicative of what's

on the show. I said this was going to happen. I warned you in advance that these people, these liberals that are pushing this disingenuous story, that they are just predictable, that they don't have anything. There is no Russian collusion. Now, they moved on to an obstruction narrative, and here's going to be the story going forward. And in today's show notes, I have another piece by Andy McCarthy at National Review, which is really good and lays this whole thing out. I'd like you to read it if you can. The show notes are always available at Bongino.com, or I can email them to you if you join my email list. The collusion narrative has

fallen apart. The narrative now is going to be that Trump knew that Mike Flynn had lied to the FBI and that Trump then tried to pressure former director Jim Comey to make the case go away. Voila, Joe, there is your new obstruction case or your mythical obstruction case. Now, a couple of things on this. Here's the problem with this, folks. Again, one, although he admitted to that the false statements charge i i have to you know i just it pains me to say this because i know what comes off as being in the tank but i'm not i've really thought this through and i've listened to a lot of people who know what's going on in this

joe i'm not sure flynn lied i'm. I'm sure he didn't tell the truth, but I'm not sure he lied. Now, you may say, well, wow, Dan, that's really dancing. I'm not sure at first. I mean, let's be clear on this. But my point is that it's clear that Flynn didn't say everything

in the interview with the FBI, which he didn't have to say. You're free to not incriminate yourself, Joe. You can plead the fifth anytime you want. It was a federal agent. Nobody has to incriminate themselves. But if you were going to make statements, they should in fact be truthful. I'm not sure Flynn remembered everything the way, and I, gosh, I know I'm getting myself in trouble with this. I'm not sure Flynn remembered everything the right way. And I can't say how I know this, folks, or how I think I know this,

but I think what happened is Flynn didn't take the interview seriously with the FBI agent's show. He said some things in the interview. He probably got caught off guard. He didn't exactly remember what happened and I don't think he understood the legal jeopardy he was in by talking to these FBI

agents. Then later Joe found himself in a pickle and in a quagmire he couldn't get out of. And instead of just coming clean with the truth on it, he may have just felt like, well, now I've got to really make this go away. Folks, I'm really worried about this because I think this guy's been, he may be,

he may have been targeted. He may have been targeted. There's some evidence out there, some people really didn't like him and that this whole FBI interview may have been a setup. There's a story out there that the FBI agents were sent to interview him at the White House. When they were sent to interview him, it was assumed by Flynn that it was about the transition, Joe, that it was about security procedures in the transition. And boom, all of a sudden they show up and they're like, it'd be the equivalent of me telling you, Joe, hey, I'm interviewing you about your technical skills on the Dan Bongino show.

And next thing you know, I've got your, evidence of you on video robbing a bank. Wouldn't you be surprised? Quite. Quite. Well, notably because you didn't rob a bank. But you see what I'm saying? How Flynn at that point may have panicked? Yeah.

Folks, I'm not trying to cover for him. He obviously pled guilty to the charge. I'm not trying to cover for anyone. I'm just saying that this entire thing now, this entire case, now that the collusion narrative has died, is pretext on the fact that Flynn lied, or they say he lied, and that Trump tried to cover up for him. But I'm telling you, I'm not so sure he lied in the traditional sense we're thinking. And this isn't a Bill Clinton, what is his moment, you know, what does this mean? What does that mean?

Nonsense. I mean, he may have, I really mean this. He may have been caught off guard by this. And they screwed up. But is this really a pretext for impeachment of a president? I don't think so. Now, here's a couple problems with this thing. For obstruction of justice, at some point, there has to be some threat or intimidation

or some promise of something in return, folks, legally. Now, where was the order or where was the threat to Comey if he didn't drop the investigation when the investigation wasn't dropped? Now, I was on with Hannity yesterday on the radio with Greg Jarrett, who's a lawyer from Fox, and he brought up the fact to me, and he's right. He said the case doesn't actually have to be dropped to obstruct justice. In other words, Joe, if it was me and you, and I said to the FBI director, hey, drop that bank robbery case against Joe Armacost, or I'm going to fire you tomorrow, I think you'd have a pretty good case for obstruction, no? But if I say to the FBI director, hey, I'd like to see this thing against Joe go away. Is that obstruction of justice? Because that's what Trump said to Comey. Trump expressing his desire

that this go away because Flynn was, quote, a good guy is not a crime, folks. I don't see how any jury would accept that. Do you get what I'm saying, Joe? You see the distinction? Sure. In one case, drop the case against Joe Armacost

or I'm going to fire you, Jim Comey. In the other case, hey, you know, Joe's a good guy. I hope we can make this go away or something. Now, could that be perceived as not the right thing to say? Absolutely. 100% I understand. But is it a crime, folks? Is it obstruction of justice?

I'm not so sure. So number one, the takeaway on this, on the obstruction charge, there was no order here. There was no official formal presidential decree, statement, command to Jim Comey to drop the investigation because they didn't. Second problem they're going to have, Joe, even the FBI agents, including Jim Comey, acknowledged the fact that at the time they interviewed him, they felt that Flynn was being truthful. Uh-huh. I never

say anything I can't back up on this show, folks. The FBI agents who interviewed him acknowledged, there were many sources, by the way, out on this. This has been reported widely by CNN as well, not just like right-wing outlets, Joe. The FBI agents who interviewed Flynn

said they felt that he was being truthful. So Andy McCarthy makes another great point. I love this guy. He does amazing work in National Review. If the FBI agents thought he was being truthful, how can you explain away the fact that now you think the president thought he was lying and knew it? Because remember, Joe, the case now, the case now to be crystal clear is that the president knew this is what the liberals are saying the president president trump knew flynn lied to the fbi and tried to get the case to go away with jim comey but andy mccarthy makes a great point if the fbi agents at the time thought he was telling the truth, how the heck would Trump know he was lying? Hmm.

Interesting. Yeah. So there's no order. Number two, the FBI agents thought he was telling the truth. Number three, and this is the biggest hassle they're going to have in their nonsense obstruction narrative. Joe, the order was entirely constitutional. Folks, contrary to what your liberal friends want you to believe, the FBI is not an independent agency. It is not.

The FBI falls under the Department of Justice, who falls under Article 2. Article 2. And by the way, thank you to the guy who sent me the email. I said Article 3. Those are the courts, obviously. Article 2. I just misspoke. We said Article 3 courts a thousand times on the show.

But Article 2, they fall under the executive branch, the FBI. Of course, the FBI is not in the Constitution. We get that. But the Department of Justice is under the executive branch. The FBI is not an independent agency. The president has the absolute authority to hire and fire who he wants under the executive branch, Joe. Yeah. Firing the director under the guise that the liberals are saying

that he fired the director because he wouldn't drop the case against Flynn is nonsense. It's just garbage. The case was never dropped against Flynn. The case still hasn't been dropped against Flynn. I mean, Joe, he just pled guilty. I mean, is this, are we missing something?

They obstructed justice except for the fact that Mike Flynn just pled guilty to lying to a federal, to lying to FBI agents. This is entirely constitutional. The president can hire and fire who he wants. Third, as I just said, and I'll move on from here, but this is important because this is in the news. The investigation is ongoing, folks. How exactly do you obstruct justice if the case is ongoing? I get it. The

case doesn't have to stop legally, but you would think at some point, Joe, doesn't it just make sense that if you were going to make a case to impeach the president and to show a crime, obstruction of justice, that you would at least have some kind of impediment to the case? Like, oh, the case slowed down. The case was stopped. The case was in the right lane instead of the left lane of traffic. Well, nothing's happened. You've had already three prosecutions. You've had Manafort, Papadopoulos.

You've had Flynn. I don't get it. Like, they obstructed justice except for the fact that justice is still going on. It doesn't make any sense, folks. I'm sorry. This makes absolutely no sense at all.

All right, I wanted to get that out there. I know I. This makes absolutely no sense at all. All right. I wanted to get that out there. I know I've spent a lot of time on it over the last couple of days, but it's really critical because your liberal friends are all having a meltdown right now. This is great. We got them. You got nothing. You got zip.

Nonsense. Give me a break. All right. Today's show brought to you by our friends at iTarget. I got a really nice email about this yesterday. I can't say his name, but he wrote to me an email. He goes, hey man, he goes, I am usually immune to advertisements.

He says, and if my advertisement immunity is like a bulletproof vest, he goes, you had a 50 caliber round. And I was like, I didn't get it. He's like, you basically penetrated my body armor against the advertisements with this I target thing. He's like, I don't usually listen to him. He goes, but you had me so interested in it.

He said, I went out and bought it. So I appreciate that. You know who you are who emailed me. It's a great product. Now, it's iTargetPro.com is the website. It's the letter I. Now, what is it? iTarget is a laser bullet that drops into the firearm you have now you don't have to buy a

special gun no special barrels you don't have to do anything i have a glock 43 and nine millimeter i have the eye target nine millimeter comes with this cool laser bullet you drop it in the gun you don't have to do anything to the gun no manipulation required at all yet when you depress the trigger it's not going to hurt your gun in any way. A laser comes out, and they send you a target, eye target. They send you the target, and in conjunction with an app, it's like playing a video game with your gun. It gets you to

work on your marksmanship safely in the confines of your own home. You don't have to go to the range, and I'm telling you, your marksmanship will go through the roof. As a former Secret Service agent, where marksmanship was everything, I wish I'd had this product when I was in the academy. I would have won the pistol award. Seriously, it's that good, folks. Go pick it up. Go to itargetpro.com. That's the letter I, targetpro.com. I'll give you a promo code for 10% off in a minute. But this is a really,

really good product. Remember, competitive shooters dry fire 10 times more than they live fire. Range fees are expensive. It's great to go to the range. You got to do it. But most people can't get there once a month, even once every few months. With this, you can get effective quality trigger time in the safety and security of your own home. And you can learn how to fire and knock the freaking wings off a dragonfly. Yeah.

It's that good. and knock the freaking wings off a dragonfly. It's that good. Again, go to itargetpro.com and stick in promo code Dan. That's my first name, D-A-N. They'll give you 10% off. Folks, I get feedback on this from everyone and they love this thing. Go pick it up today, itargetpro.com.

All right, I got a question. That's a good one and a fair one. And I know that guy who emailed me and he's like, I get it. I listen to your feedback all the time, folks. And he's like, hey, the tax, the tax thing. I know. I get it. I know you're all tired of it. But this is what's going on right now. And this is the nonsense we got to fight back against. quick point to make about this. It was a good question he sent. And I'm going to obviously summarize it because it was a long email. But the gist of it was this. He's like, hey, Dan, I did the math and I get a few bucks off here and a few bucks off there, but a couple of people are paying a few bucks more. And is this really going to do anything? The tax cut bill, Joe. And I thought to myself, you know what? I didn't explain that well. That is a very fair question. Here it is in a nutshell, folks. The answer is yes. And the answer is, sorry, my phone's ringing like crazy. People are always calling me,

all the time. Even when I put it on like airplane mode, they slip through somehow because they're in my favorites. Because here's the way to think about this. Tax reform, right, is not just about the rates. It's also about the design of the plan. And I sat here and I stood on this, Joe, and I thought, how do I simply explain this? And I thought, okay, here's an easy way to do it. Let's say we have this island and on this island, their primary export on the island is cars. This island, Joe, whatever it is, Guam, who cares? Papua, New Guinea, it doesn't matter.

On this island, they make cars. That's their thing. And their primary form of raising taxes on the island, Joe, is, you still there? Yeah. Oh, okay, sorry. I didn't know.

I didn't know if I lost Joe on that. We're doing the road just letting you go bro don't cut that out leave that that's pretty funny poor guy poor guy you gotta deal i don't know how you deal with me so but you're on this papa new guinea they make cars and the primary way they generate money joe is on a tax on exports on their exported cars right all right and let's say they raise whatever whatever, $100,000 a year. They don't have any other taxes, no income taxes, nothing else. Let's say someone comes in and says, I've got an idea.

We're going to institute a flat tax on the incomes of all the workers who make the cars, but we're going to dump the export tax, and our anticipation is it raises the same $100,000. Hmm. Now, a fair question, like the guy in the email said to me, Joe, would be, well, what the heck is that going to do? Right, right. If you're going to raise $100,000 either way, what's the difference? The difference is the tax design matters just as much as the rates.

The design of the first plan, Joe, where it was only a tax on the export of cars, made those cars, and I get it, most times it's in reverse, they tax imports, but I'm just trying to make this as simple as possible for you to understand, so I'm giving you dramatic examples, makes exporting cars more expensive. Right, Joe? Because if I'm in, let's say I export a car, and let's say it's like the Lta or whatever it is so on this island we make the lotta just like those old russian crap cars right boy let's say the car costs ten thousand dollars if there's an export tax on that of ten percent the car costs eleven thousand because you're ultimately you're gonna have it's gonna be built into the price so it's gonna cost someone at some point $1,000 more because somebody's paying the tax. So it makes the car more expensive and it distorts the whole market for cars. Now, why would that matter on this island? Because Joe, the primary export on this island is cars. So you want the cars to be priced effectively, not overpriced, and that's what the

tax does. It makes the cars overpriced at the expense of everything else. When you have a more fair tax code, I forget who said it, but the line was about taxes. The idea is to pluck the feathers from the goose with the least amount of pain and barking about it as possible. That's what taxes are, to get money out of people with the least amount of distortions possible. So why I think this thing is going to work, I don't think it's great, folks, I think, and we've done shows on it. I think there are a lot of really ugly portions of this,

but I think the good ultimately outweighs the bad, is it gets rid of a lot of distorting deductions like that export, that fictitious export tax on cars, number one. Number two, it lowers rates. And number three, it lowers the corporate tax, which is way too high, which is really distorting business investment in the United States. So the answer to your question is yes. Although some people are going to get a few dollars back, some people are going to get thousands back. Candidly, some people are going

to pay more. Some people are going to pay thousands more. I think in the end, the overall growth for the island, in our case, the United States, in relationship to my example, is going to be far greater than it was before. Very good question. I appreciate the question. But yes, the answer is design matters, not just the rate cuts, because it makes major distortions in the economy that we don't need. Speaking of that, I saw a really good article. This is a little bit of a longer one, but if you're as passionate as I am about what's going on in the movement,

and you're really interested in facts and data, and you like to read good pieces, but not overly wonky stuff. I mean, I like the wonky stuff, but after a while, it'll drive you crazy. There's a really, really good piece by, I think it's Hans von Spakovsky it'll drive you crazy there's a really really good piece by i think it's hans von spakovsky i love hans he's a good dude uh from the heritage foundation it's it's about 1500 words a little lengthy maybe three pages i will put the link to it in the show notes for today's show and it's about daca you can't read this thing and not be in my humble opinion be fully informed on what's going on at DACA. And for those of you who don't know what DACA is, DACA was the Obama administration immigration amnesty for what he said.

Oh, the kids. Remember, Joe, the kids were brought here illegally. And, you know, it's not their fault. Well, that was his. It was deferred amnesty for childhood arrivals. That's what DACA was. The reason I bring it up is there's an ongoing debate about the reauthorization of DACA. Sessions and the DOJ slowed this entire process down.

The Democrats want DACA. Why do you think they want DACA, Joe? For votes. Votes, man. Votes. Power. Control. I mean, that's what they want.

They need to replenish the ranks of Democratic voters. And traditionally, as I said yesterday, I would tease the Dennis Prager article, and Dennis is right. Success breeds damage for the Democrat Party. Because to claim victimhood, you need people who are damaged, damaged by something. And as the economy picks up, the Democrats are going to lose those votes and lose their appeal to victimhood. So they're trying to replace their voting ranks with a lot of illegal immigrants and illegal immigration. The Democrats are fighting passionately for DACA. But Hans has a, it's basically a debunking myths about DACA piece. It's so good. So I will put it in the show notes, but I'll summarize a couple of key takeaways I had from it in the show right now. Number one myth about DACA. You hear them say, well, you know, these, the, there are, you know, these,

the people who are coming here are all, you know, educated and they've been in the, and they're all, you know, they were kids. They were brought here by no, you know, no fault of their own. Listen, many of them are, many of them are well-educated. I'm certainly not knocking anyone as a group. I don't do stereotypes on the show, but here's just the facts, folks. 49%, only 49% of the people, despite their age, were here under DACA, who are now older, have a high school diploma. So I'm just giving you the numbers. We should be able to talk fairly about immigration policy if citizenship matters. But here's another one that I found interesting. One of the talking points that I find particularly disingenuous, Joe, that they've been throwing out there is this idea that, oh, they have been vetted.

The people coming here, they have been vetted. The people coming here, they have been vetted. This is the most amount of vetting we've ever seen. They have been put through the vetting ringer. Nonsense, folks. Hans points out in the piece

that the DHS, Department of Homeland Security, Joe, admits that 1,500 of the DACA recipients who got this amnesty had the DACA status terminated due to either gang membership or felony convictions. And he points out later in the piece

that the Obama administration themselves, and I'm quoting here, admitted to kind of a lean and light background check on them. So let's not, if we're going to argue about DACA, who's coming into the country and who's not coming into the country, let's argue on it on fair grounds using facts and data. Let's not make stuff up. Okay, not everybody coming here is a PhD in nuclear physics. Some may be, but that's just not the case. Only 49% of a high school diploma. Secondly,

that, oh, these people have been vetted. They've been vetted over and over again. Secondly, that, oh, these people have been vetted. They've been vetted over and over again. Not true. There is a vetting process. It's obviously better than the vetting process in the refugee program, but it is not a foolproof vetting process by any stretch. We've already had over a thousand people who've slipped through the process for being gang members or had these convictions.

So that's just nonsense. I don't like when Democrats throw stuff out there because then you can't make a rational decision and it's really not fair. All right. Good piece. Check it out. The show notes at Bongino.com. All right. I got a couple other things I really wanted to get to here. I mentioned yesterday the Prager piece. That's in yesterday's show notes. It's really good. It's in the Daily Signal. and it speaks to something that uh i've discussed on the show here often the idea that the democrats the the new democrat party of victimhood this is no longer the party of john f kennedy ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country that's over that's dead those democrats have now become uh moderate Republicans, in some cases conservative Republicans. That party is dead. The party figured out when the transformation was made, some would argue in the Vietnam War era, with that movement, the anti-war movement, I think it goes back a lot farther than that.

I think Fred Siegel's book points that out. The roots of this were planted a long time ago but the democrats got away from running on positive ideas like that and i'm not talking about like i'm not taking a shot again at individual democrat voters i'm talking about the party ideology but they got away from that a long time ago and they figured that they were going to run on an anti-message in other words it's not a message oh we're going to do this and we're going to do that the we're going to do that. The message was an anger message that the other guy hates you

and that we're going to be the ones to save you from the other guys. Does that make sense, Joe? Right, right. Yeah, yeah. It's not what we're going to do. It's what the other guy's going to do to you and we're going to save you. Right.

So Prager writes this really good piece which aligns with that and it's something we've talked about on this show all the time. I mean, we discuss it a lot the whole identity politics uh agenda of the left and he says how the democrats are in a real conundrum here because and he points out these groups joe how uh black voters latino voters and how couples who are now going to you know getting married and the re-emergence of social, how when marriage gets better and stronger in the United States, how when black voters get richer and wealthier

and jobs start picking up in black communities, how when immigrants and Latino immigrants and Latino voters in general come into the country and start developing nice 401k accounts and long-term job prosperity, nice neighborhoods, middle-class neighborhoods, that the tendency on sheer numbers alone, Joe, is for them to vote Republican. Those are just the facts, folks.

That's just how it works. And how the Democrats are anchored now to this entire sense of, well, what are we going to do now? Like, if we can't push victimhood because we're running out of victims, what are they going to do? And that's why I mentioned the DACA piece. So read the Prager piece. It's simple.

It's not very long long but it's good he talks about this how the democrats need i think the title of the piece is the democrats need you to be angry because they need to make you appear that you're the victim of republican politics and they're going to be the ones to save you no matter how bad your condition is now which which is really sad, folks. I mean, it's unbelievable. That's all they have to offer these days. But combine that with the story I just told you about DACA, and I think it makes a little bit of sense. This is why Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats want DACA so badly. They need it because they are running out of people to use as political pawns in their

victimology game. They're running out of groups. Dangerous, folks. That's why I'm so against DACA. Because to me, it's never been about immigration. It's always been about control. And I think you need to understand that. All right. Today's show also brought to you by our buddies at BrickHouse Nutrition. Man, I'll tell you, thanks to BrickHouse, I've had some really, really long days. I don't mind the road shows at all. It gets a little lonely here in hotel rooms. The shows give me something to look forward to. I like talking to you all.

This is fun for me. I really enjoy it. Good. It is. I do. I enjoy it. I mean, I don't need to do it anymore. I mean, thanks to all the opportunities that opened up.

But I really enjoy it. And you all are so pleasant to me and email and Twitter. I mean it. Gosh, all right. I'm going off on a tangent, but it does mean a lot. But Brickhouse Nutrition,

you guys are great. Brickhouse Nutrition's been with me from the beginning. I really like these guys. They love being part of our show. They've sponsored us from the beginning. And thanks to them, I get through these really long days on the road

because they have a terrific product called Dawn to Dusk. Dawn to Dusk, they solved one of the biggest issues in the energy industry today. You take these energy drinks. You take a big triple, double, mocha frappa, mochaccino. I don't even know what they call those things. And an hour later, you're like passed out on the couch. You get an hour of energy and 10 hours of I can't move.

I hate that. That's the worst. These guys said, hey, I got an idea. I hate that. That's the worst. These guys said, I got an idea. Let's do a time release energy product. And the best part about this product, you get about 10 hours of energy out of it. It gives you a nice boost throughout the day. And when you got days like this where you do Fox and Friends in the morning, and then you do a talker or something at night, it gets really, really busy.

And then you're doing a show in between. You need Dawn to Dust. Give this stuff a shot. If you're a working mom, working dad, you have tough days, we got pilots who have it, we got a carpenter guy who emails me all the time and loves it. Blue collar, white collar, give it a shot. Help you get through the day. Product's called Dawn to Dusk.

That's Dawn to Dusk. And it's available at BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan. That's BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan. Go give it a shot. Miles, who owns the company, really loves all of our viewers. They send me emails. I send them on to him,

and he really appreciates the feedback on the product. Brickhousenutrition.com slash Dan. All right. This is kind of a downer story. I think we do a fair job, Joe, of trying to critique the administration when there are things I'm a little worried about. And I'm getting a little worried, folks, about something. It's not the Russia thing or the other thing, but this has creeped up on the show in the past for you regular listeners out there.

But we're really starting to lean towards some very dangerous trade policies. And I think now is a good time to kind of warn you that we can't keep going down this road. Now, what do I mean? There was an article in the journal on, was it Monday or so? I'm not going to put it in the show notes. Because it's subscriber only and it drives people crazy. But I'll give you the gist of it. Maybe I'll try to find another piece that's not subscriber only.

But here's the deal. There's been a big battle going on about steel imports. And yeah, we've talked about this before the steel imports, but now it's going into aluminum as well. And the, the Trump administration, they're pushing for, or maybe pushing for some tariffs.

I should say may to be fair on aluminum folks. This is a bad idea. This is a really bad idea. Let me just give you one. I've given the example before, the two islands. You have these two islands, right? I mean, the best way I can explain why import taxes, in other words, taxes on, say, Chinese imports to us,

which sounds good in theory. You're like, oh, yeah, well, Chinese imports, tax them, tax them to death. Folks, this is a really dumb idea. When you have these two islands, and if you have island B that wants to make a bunch of stuff and give it to island A for free, you don't say if you're an island A person, no, no, we don't want that stuff, charge us a whole bunch of money for it. That's what an import tax is on imports. You're basically raising the price of imported goods that you're getting cheaply. Why you would want to do that is very puzzling to me.

Now, here's the problem. So that's problem number one, that you're basically increasing the cost of products you are buying. Problem number two is a big one. And this is what they brought up in the piece in the journal. And, you know, the journal, I have a lot of disagreements with them on immigration, sometimes on tax policy, but they're pretty spot on on a lot of trade stuff. And they bring up an interesting point that now the international community, if this aluminum tariff or proposed tariffs, because we've been accused of dumping a lot of these countries go through joe a lot of players in the international community what do you think they're saying they're saying well you're going to slap a tariff on our stuff well we're going to slap a tariff on your stuff now aluminum is let me get this number right here we have 600 million in aluminum imports every year a lot of money 600 million is a lot of a lot of bucks

yeah now you slap an import tax on that yeah you'll raise a few dollars but remember folks we have a 20 trillion dollar gdp you really think a tax on 600 million dollars of products at the border is going to make a difference now let me give you the other number that should scare the snot out of you the agricultural industry, America's farmers have warned people in the administration not to do this because Joe, the people sending aluminum in are now saying, you know what? You're going to tax our aluminum. We're going to tax your farm products. You know how much that's worth? 160 billion. Folks, that is asymmetric economic warfare at its worst. Do you see the point I'm making here, Joe?

Yeah. So China's going to send us aluminum, and we're going to tax it, accusing them of dumping it and export. We're going to put an import tax on it. Excuse me. Taxing their exports, our imports. Making aluminum more expensive.

Bad decision, I think, for a number of reasons. You imports, making aluminum more expensive. Bad decision, I think, for a number of reasons. You're just making products more expensive when they want to give it to you cheaper. Secondly, if they fight back and start taxing our agricultural exports, folks, we're going to be in a world of trouble. You're going to really do significant damage to the American farm industry. And I see no good reason to do it other than to make a point. And it's a silly point at that. So we really have to be careful with this tariff policy.

Sometimes I don't understand where we're going with it. I just, I get it. I understand that fair trade is definitely connected with free trade. The rules have to be level on both sides or else you're imposing costs through rules. Does that make sense, Joe? Yeah.

If you're posing a set of rules for Island A, like Island A, you have to do this and you have to take these environmental measures into account. But then Island B, you're free to do whatever. Well, Island B can dump all its industrial waste into the ocean. They don't have to pay for it. While the other island has to process the industrial waste, and this makes their products more expensive because they have to take into account environmental measures. You get what I'm saying? Sure.

So when the rules aren't fair, which I totally understand the people who say, oh, I'm a free trader, but it's not fair. You know what? You're right in a lot of respects. If the rules aren't the same, you're imposing a cost on someone else through rules and regulations that don't apply symmetrically to both sides. So I completely agree. But folks, we have to be smart about this. Getting into a trade war right now with a lot, not just China, by the way, but a number of other countries, it's ironic that they point out in the piece that China is not even the biggest exporter to the United States. We don't import the most of our aluminum from China anyway.

They're like top 10, but they're not number one by far. We'd be doing damage to some other countries as well if we institute this aluminum tariff. So it's a really bad idea, folks, and I just wish the administration would back off this. It's going to really damage the economy if we run through with it. Okay, let's see.

What else do I have? Oh, this one I wanted to get through yesterday. So I don't get into this much social issues on the show. I should more, but there's always so much going on with the Trump administration that I feel obligated to get to you the important news of the day and the week. But I am an avid pro-lifer from conception to natural death. I've had an epiphany on this a long time ago,

and life is life. I'm not trying to lecture anybody. I'm just telling you that's how I feel. That's where I stand. The life movement, the pro-life movement, has been largely taken abath, at least on the legislative side, Joe, for the last 30 years.

Now, on the public perception, public opinion side, we've been doing quite well. And there's a theory as to why the tables have turned on the abortion debate for the pro-abortionists out there, on the public perception side, Joe. And one of the dominant theories I've heard is that it's due to ultrasound. That pre-ultrasound, when you could not see the child in the womb, you know, the idea that it was a, quote, clump of cells, Joe, was okay. I mean, you can't see it. You don't know any different, you know. One of the theories out there is the reason America is largely moving in a pro-life rather than pro-abortion direction right now is because the advent and scientific breakthroughs associated with ultrasound have allowed people expecting parents and others to see their child in the womb.

And Joe, it gets really, really hard to argue that that's a clump of cells when you're like, it looks like a bunch of fingers to me. Certainly doesn't look like a clump of cells to me there, daddy-o. So on the public perception side, we're winning. On the legislative side, we have been getting crushed. Planned Parenthood has almost unfettered access to taxpayer money. It seems like nothing ever happens to get the taxpayer money to dry up on Planned Parenthood. They've been pulling all kinds of scams on us forever. They say, oh, Planned Parenthood's not allowed to use the money directly for abortion. That's all nonsense. You know, money, if you give Planned Parenthood money and they spend it on capital projects or whatever, and then, you know, they freeze up money to do abortions as well, it's

still money flowing into their bank account in the end. So it's nonsense. Money should not be going to Planned Parenthood. I bring this up because there's an article in the Daily Signal. It was in, I think it's in today's show. It's either in today's show notes or yesterday's, about how we're finally starting to turn the corner on this. And there's two things, two quick points here.

Number one, the Planned Parenthood savagery. to turn the corner on this and there's two things uh two quick points here number one the planned parenthood savagery remember the those uh those cases joe where they had these videos out there and you know the lady says at one point she goes well i'd like to do a little more than break even clearly showing that this was a money-making operation for entities associated with and you know planned parenthood, that case, unfortunately, California went after not Planned Parenthood, but California went after the filmmakers on that because that's what liberals do, which is extremely disappointing.

Finally, we've got a breakthrough. It looks like one of the committees up on Capitol Hill is going to make a referral to the Justice Department, and we may see an FBI investigation, thankfully, of this disgusting human infant body part trafficking operation, which is no easy way for me to say that to you folks. That's exactly what it was. It was an infant body part trading operation. That's it. I'm sorry that that sounds horrible to hear

on a podcast, but it looks like we may get an investigation. So that's a really good development on that front. Secondly, there was a case out of Arkansas where they defunded Planned Parenthood funding. They stopped a lot of Arkansas money, state money, going to Planned Parenthood in the case. Of course, Planned Parenthood sues. They feel like they're entitled to fleece taxpayer money, which is extremely disappointing. And they lost in court. Now, the Eighth Circuit was supposed to hear that case or, excuse me, refuse to hear that case, which means that this is a big decision, means that that case is going to stand. And now Planned Parenthood is going to, at least in Arkansas, is going to have lost access to money. Now, folks, this is a big deal because this is a big week for social issues.

Planned Parenthood, big win. Planned Parenthood, potentially two big wins if we get that Justice Department referral and we get an investigation. But the cake case starts this week, too, Joe. The cake case is being heard opening arguments today there is a baker i say you know the cake routine uh gay two gay men walk in they're having a gay wedding they want a cake custom made this is important they don't want a cake they want a custom-made cake guy says listen i, listen, I don't believe in gay marriage. I'm not going to design a cake for that, but you're free to basically buy whatever other cake you want.

Well, of course, what happens later? They sue. Case is being heard in the Supreme Court this week. Folks, this is huge. Now, let me just say, and I mean this. I know Joe feels the same way. I shouldn't talk for Joe, but I know him well enough to know. I don't harbor any ill will towards any person of any orientation. I shouldn't talk for Joe, but I know him well enough to know. Yeah. I don't harbor any ill will

towards any person of any orientation. I don't. It's not, you know, it is my job to see moral clarity in a lot of these situations,

but it's not my job to ultimately judge you. I'm a sinner. You know, I have my, I'll be judged myself. Your lifestyle's up to you. You have to pick what you want to do. I know what I picked. Your lifestyle is up to you. You have to pick what you want to do.

I know what I picked. I know my lifestyle, and I'm comfortable with that. The problem here with these cases with the cakes and the way I would strongly encourage you to look at this is there's only an application of government force in this in one direction. an application of government force in this in one direction. If this case is allowed to stand that you have to now bake a cake under penalty of law for a gay wedding, no matter how you feel about it, the application of government force only goes one way and that is deeply disturbing. Remember folks, cases like this are judged on these two criteria. Is there a compelling government interest in it? And is it done by the least restrictive means? Is there some compelling government interest to force a cake baker to have to bake a cake for a gay wedding?

The answer is unequivocally, in my opinion, absolutely not. And secondly, is it being done through the least restrictive means? Meanwhile, if he doesn't do it, they'll put him out of business and bankrupt him. The answer is, of course, no. So I think this case on legal grounds is a winner. But on just reasonable and kind of moral grounds, Joe,

the flow of government force goes in one direction. If those, if that, the gay men, those two gay men, if they walk out of there and they don't get that custom cake from that guy, their feelings may legitimately be hurt.

I understand. They may not like it. Totally understand. But Joe, you and I both know nothing will happen to them by the government. The United States government will not penalize them. It will not put them in jail. Feelings may be hurt. Understood.

Fine. I get it. People may not like it. Totally get it. But government will not come them in jail. Feelings may be hurt. Understood. Fine. I get it. People may not like it. Totally get it. But government will not come after you. We live in a constitutional republic. You should fear government force. The fact that when the,

if we lose the case though, if we lose the case, government force will flow freely in the other direction should bother everyone, those two gay men included. think about it joe although it's obviously not an appealing outcome for the for the gay men involved in this right nothing happens to them by the government but if the cake maker refuses to do this and doesn't get involved he his he may not like it either he

may say you know what i feel bad these are two nice guys but my religion doesn't get involved he his he may not like it either he may say you know what i feel bad these are two nice guys but my religion doesn't allow me to be involved in that my spirituality sorry guys the government force does flow freely in his direction because he will now be the subject of an investigation possible lawsuit possible litigation and in the case of kim davis who was a government employee in Kentucky, jail time. Folks, it's the government force and the use of government force is not the only important question, but it's the most important question in this. And that's how I would strongly encourage anybody making this case. That's why I brought up the Planned Parenthood thing, because it's

going to be a big social issues week. This case starts today. You're going to hear a lot about it. The outcome of this is going to be dependent on all of these cases in the future. I strongly encourage anybody involved with the courts, that's the appropriate lens that I think we should all be looking at this from. What is the application of government force here? And it's not obviously applied symmetrically. Only one side gets damaged by government force and that is the side who and ironically joe it's the side who expresses his sincerely held religious beliefs or hers bad news all right folks thanks again for tuning in i really appreciate it please go to bongino.com and subscribe to my email list i'll send you all

these stories right to your email box every day conveniently. So I always appreciate you tuning in and 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.