The Dan Bongino Show - Ep. 841 Did the Media Get Played Again?

Episode Date: November 1, 2018

Summary: In this episode I address Trump’s unparalleled gift for trolling the media and the Democrats. They play right into his hands. I also address troubling new undercover videos of the campaign of Florida gubernatorial candidate Andrew Gillum. Finally, I discuss the fascinating new report about the behind-the-scenes battle between Mueller and Trump.    News Picks: Shocking new video exposes the lies being told by the Andrew Gillum campaign.   Is “right-wing” terror a more significant problem than radical Islamic terror?   The horrors ahead if the Democrats win the House back.   Did Bob Mueller’s team already subpoena the president?   Why is the FISA court so silent about abuses in the Spygate case?   Rep. Mark Meadows is asking some hard questions about the FISA abuses.   Copyright CRTV. 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 all right welcome to the dan bongino show producer joe how are you today let's roll baby i'm doing good yep yeah a lot to get into today um i'm starting to figure out the strategy here again with trump and i i brought this up to you months ago about his strategy of getting the Democrats to uh pardon my language here but to show their their arses to people let's uh say that right all right so let's get right into the show because I got a lot to cover today's show brought to you by our buddies at Helix Sleep there's nobody on the planet like you so why buy some generic mattress built for everyone else but you. No good. NG. No good. Helix Sleep built a sleep quiz. It takes two minutes to complete and they use the answers to match your body type and sleep

preferences to the perfect mattress. Whether you're a side sleeper like me, a hot sleeper, me too, like a plush or firm bed. I like plush. With Helix, there's no more guessing or confusion. My Helix mattress is amazing. Thank you to Helix for sending that over. With Helix, there's no more guessing or confusion. My Helix mattress is amazing. Thank you to Helix for sending that over. No more confusion, no more guessing. Go to helixsleep.com slash Dan. That's helixsleep.com slash Dan. Take their two-minute sleep quiz, and they'll match you to a mattress that will give you the best sleep of your life. It's helped me a lot. Love it. For couples, Helix Sleep can even split the mattress down the middle, providing individual support needs and feel preferences for each side. My wife

sleeps on her back. I sleep on my side. She likes it a little firm. I like it a little more plush. So there you go. They can split it for you. They have a 10-year warranty and you get to try it out for 100 nights risk-free. Right now, Helix is offering, this is a special, up to $125 off all mattress orders. Don't forget that. Up to $125 off at helixsleep.com slash Dan. That's Helix, H-E-L-I-X, helixsleep.com slash Dan for $125 off your mattress order. helixsleep.com slash Dan. All right, a lot going on now just on this uh topic

before i get to the other news and there is a substantial amount today this is the gift of trump i brought this up before the gift of trump is not that he has changed that the democrats the democrats have always been the party of socialism far leftism big government planning confiscation of your economic well-being, your economic goods, your income, your health care, your kids' education. They've always been about that. The gift of Trump has been to expose them by not backing down. And we're seeing this again. I'm seeing this shift by Donald Trump, again, right before the election into another, what I believe to be tactically efficient and smart political move that has the Dems, again, showing themselves to the

American people, whereas they've hidden it a little bit better in the past. What do I mean by this? Folks, in the past, when we've had Democrats run, they've really hidden their entire agenda. You know, Obamacare, Joe, think about it. The best example is Obamacare. There's tons of these, but I'll just give you, Obamacare, Joe, think about it. The best example is Obamacare. There's tons of these, but I'll just give you the Obamacare one where they say things like,

you know, if you like your plan, you can keep your plan. Obama was big on that. The Obama team, listen to me, ladies and gentlemen, make no mistake, absolutely knew that the design of Obamacare was going to impact deeply your healthcare plan and there was a strong likelihood

your plan would be canceled. They knew this. That's not open for debate. They fully understood that. My point is that whether it comes to that or taxes under Obama, oh, don't worry, we're only going to hike taxes on people who are wealthy. Folks, that's not the way the economy works. When you hike taxes on people, they have to get the money from somewhere. We're going to hike taxes on corporations. Who do corporations get their money from? You, the customer. Now, this is economics 101. Democrats know this. So what they do is they hide their agenda in focus group tested talking points. The thing about Trump is Trump's refusal to back down has the Democrats so furious that they've

lost their tactical efficiency and are now showing their butts. Why am I bringing this up again now? I'm bringing it up again now in light of the 14th Amendment. Ladies and gentlemen, the 14th Amendment birthright citizenship debate. Trump has just reignited with this interview with Axios where he suggested a potential executive order, which would instruct executive agencies to to basically not give citizenship to illegal aliens born here. agencies to basically not give citizenship to illegal aliens born here. I don't believe before an election that that was, I'm not sure he's actually going to issue that EO, Joe, that executive order before, he might, but I believe the point of it, knowing it was going to be challenged by the court, was not to immediately stop the birthright

citizenship process, but was to do what? To provoke, Joe, a reaction out of the left. Brilliant! Brilliant! Which they hate this guy so much. Trump, they cannot control themselves. Rather than just coming out with a more muted, tactically efficient response to this, Joe,

and saying something to the effect of, well, listen, it may be an open constitutional question, which it is, as I'm not going to go into this again, but you understand it hasn't been decided by the Supreme Court. Rather than just saying, okay, folks, this is an open constitutional question, but we're Democrats and what they do in the past, we support love and peace and compassion for everybody. You know what they always do? Focus group tested talking points. That's not what happened. What did they do?

They came out again. This is already decided. People have a right to citizenship if they were born here. And how do you think, again, how do you think this appeals to the working class American voter across the country?

The answer is it doesn't. That's what happens. The American working class voter says, let me get this straight. The Democrats who, and Joe, listen, you are the audience on Buzz, but if this doesn't make sense, stop me. In the past, the Democrats in their tactically efficient, more strategic approach, believe me, they believe in birthright citizenship for everybody all around the world. They believe in birthright citizenship for people born in Russia getting American citizenship. They're an open borders crowd. I'm not suggesting their ideologies

change. Please follow my argument because it's a critical one. Their ideology has not changed. They have always been big time socialists, big government planners, open borders advocates, period, full stop. I'm simply suggesting to you that in the past they would hide this better because their aggravation at the republican president was muted by their want to take back power they hate trump so much driven by because i like to lay out a the reasons why anybody killed him so why why why why the why the the base they have been driven to such anger by the media that Trump is a Russian colluder, a traitor, a fascist, a Nazi, that the very base that is giving these campaigns money, Joe, and providing volunteers are getting in the face of Democrat politicians who are insisting on a new level of animosity. So the new level of animosity has them driven to saying and doing things that they wouldn't have done in the past. It's a layered argument, but it's a critical one to understanding what's going on in this election cycle, because I also believe it explains

why there will be significant pickups by the Democrats in this midterm on Tuesday, but I do not think there'll be a blue wave. Because where this anger is being driven to its peak insanity is largely in gerrymandered districts already dominated by Democrats now. I think in these suburban districts where we may take some losses, and some rural exurbs and agriculture and farm type districts and rural districts. What's happening is the anger by the fringe far left Democrats is being muted by the Democrats showing their asses to regular voters who vote for a living going, wait, wait, wait, that's not the Democrat party of my father

and the JFK Democrats. They're for open borders and everybody has a right to be here. They never said that before. They didn't. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Harry Reid were on the side of a more vigorous, robust immigration policy. We played the audio yesterday from Harry Reid. I could play you audio of Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama calling for, hey, you know, people who are here illegally shouldn't be working here and they shouldn't be able to just cross the border without penalty. Please tell me this makes sense to you, because it explains so much about where we are in American politics right now.

The Democrats have lied to you repeatedly over the years. They have always been open borders advocates, always. They have lied to you with public pronouncements about i don't know about birthright citizenship that doesn't sound right that was harry reid we played it yesterday barack obama and hillary clinton you know we need a stronger border you shouldn't be able to come here and work illegally that that's all on tape you can see all that stuff they didn't believe any of that therefore understand what i'm saying when people in rural districts exurbs certain suburbs across

america working class americans who are not hard partisans but are swing voters who may have been registered democrats but would consider a republican when they saw that in the past obama talking about borders and hillary clinton talking about you shouldn't be here illegally and harry reed talking about her birthright citizenship isn't fair. These swingy voters, Joe, were like, oh, all right, well, I'm not really crazy about some of those Republicans. These Democrats seem reasonable. In the era of Trump, driven by these hard partisan districts and the media, the media driving the narrative every day that he is a fascist, he's a traitor, he's a racist, he's a Nazi, has the Democrat money base and volunteer base so geeked up and wired up that they are, we're not going to donate unless you promise to impeach Trump and do all this, has them so wired up that the Democrats' response to everything Trump does is no longer muted and tactical.

It's emotional to appeal to their money donors and their volunteer base. Folks, take that to the bank. I'm telling you, that's what's going on. They are responding in a tactically inefficient and emotional way because they think that's what their money base and their volunteers want. And it is in effect showing suburban soccer moms, you know, farmers, agricultural communities, manufacturers and union workers, the real Democrat Party. They're like, wait, wait, that's not what Harry Reid said. That's not what Obama said years ago.

That's not what Hillary Clinton said. So let me get this straight. They're for open borders and anybody who comes here at any time, as long as you give birth in American soil, you're entitled to the benefits of citizenship. Hmm. That doesn't make sense to me. That is how Trump has entirely reset the argument. I, yes, I know. I, I, I, I, oh gosh, I have been so itching to put this out in a comprehensive format for you to understand the dynamic Joe's doing some dance back there. Because I know he likes this kind of stuff. This is the political analysis that I think the cultural elites and the media elites are entirely missing. They are missing this.

They are missing why Trump won pennsylvania despite the state being called fool's gold for republicans it hadn't been won since what the the bush reagan era it had been called fool's gold because republicans went into pennsylvania pretending they could win its its its large electoral college prize and they'd always get smoked yep remember that but now all of a sudden the whole dynamic has changed because the anger the media has stirred up at donald trump has them pushing for these entirely irrational uh responses to trump that are a break from the democrats historic strategic efficiency in their messaging they've been good at hiding themselves in the past. Trump is out of them.

And he's out of them because Trump is the greatest troll in American history. I don't mean it in a negative way. I mean, he has effectively used social media and message trolling to get the Democrats to show the American people who they are. Now, I described an example from the news recently. I described the 14th Amendment. But it's not just the 14th Amendment, but it's not just the 14th Amendment. There are other issues as well where Trump has acted like the ultimate troll, getting the Democrats to show their butts to people that they've historically been better at hiding. Here's

a couple other ones for you. I'll give you a perfect example here. I live down here in Florida. The race for governor between former Congressman Ron DeSantis and Tallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum is another case where the media has traditionally engaged in more effective strategic messaging, gotten the Republicans to shut up, and escorted the Democrats into office through their Democrat propaganda efforts. In the past, they would lob charges. Now, in case you're not familiar with the race down here in Florida, it's important. It's an example of how Trump constantly beats back the media and uses it against him. Andrew Gillum happens to be black. He's the former mayor of Tallahassee. Again, a component of the race entirely irrelevant to conservatives, but an obsession of the media,

obsessed with identity politics and race-based charges. Now, from the start of this race from day one, it has clearly been the media's plan to paint Ron DeSantis as a racist, despite the fact that Ron DeSantis is a dedicated patriot, former member of the U.S. military. The charges are abhorrent. They're disgusting, but so is the mainstream media's coverage of this race. So from the beginning, they have

been eager to paint any attacks on Gillum, Andrew Gillum, the unquestionably troubled mayor of Tallahassee. The problems in Tallahassee are epidemic. Just look him up where he was the mayor. Highlighting any of those issues, as I tweeted out last night, highlighting these new videos that broke, Project Veritas videos, which I have in the show notes today, folks, so

be sure to check them out. The show notes today have an article about this, an undercover Project Veritas video inside Gillum's campaign where they have people on his campaign calling Florida voters crackers and, you know, a racist statement, basically saying that they don't have the right to know where Gillum stands on issues. Any of the any of these criticisms of Gillum will be painted as racist, just like they did with Obama. Folks, it's made up. It's fabricated. The media is not telling you the truth. They never do. They're interested in making up false charges to distract you from Gillum's real record down here and to hope and pray that you don't highlight that record to anybody. So what do they do? Anytime you open your mouth about Gillum, you will be accused of being a racist now in the past

the media has frightened Republicans away with false racism charges because that's what they because they're not really media they're propaganda outlet for the Democrats they frightened you away what does Trump do Trump doubles down Trump tweets out he says listen this guy is a thief when he was the mayor of Tallahassee he comes out last night in a rally in Fort Myers. Trump was down here last night in a rally in southwest Florida, an area I know very well. And what does he do? He doubles down on attacking Gillum and his record. He is not going to be frightened away. And what does it do?

It makes it safe for everyone else to basically say, you know what? In the past, I was a little frightened about this kind of stuff. In the past, I was terrified of these media attacks, but not anymore. Not anymore. Trump is doubling down on this, and I'm going to double down on this too. This is the way this is going. So going after Gillum is safe again, because you know it's not a race-based attack. That's the media making that up. But Trump, in his refusal to back down to false identity politics-based media narratives, his refusal to do it has now made it safe for everybody else to pile on and look at his actual record, Gillum, which is atrocious. One more thing. One more thing I want to bring up.

And again, we're talking about Trump doesn't back down. The media then gets angry and makes it personal. They paint them out to be even worse. Like I said yesterday, he's a Nazi. He's the Nazi. It's not. He's the Nazi. It's Nazi of all. He's the worst. And what happens? It drives the volunteers and it drives the Democrat base to push their politicians to do the same thing, which gets Democrat politicians off message. Their message here was attacks on Gillum are racist. Everybody back away. What does Trump do? He goes, oh, attacks on Gillum are racist. Everybody back away.

What does Trump do? He goes, hey, look at Gillum's record in this corruption investigation into his administration in Tallahassee. And everybody goes, wow, the Florida Democratic candidate for governor, his administration was under an FBI investigation. That's crazy. In the past, that all would have gone away. But there's one more thing, and I'm going to move on.

One more thing, how he trolls these people, and he does it successfully joe every time trump yeah baby trump says i'm going to send 5 000 military personnel down to the border because of this uh this caravan headed our way threatening to cross the border illegally what are the democrats and the media do joe again in the past in the past, what would they have done? Because they were strategically and tactically efficient. In the past, they would have said, you know what? Okay. Listen, as long as they're there in a support fashion, we need to secure our border,

but we need to be... I'm telling you this is what they would have said. They would have had a focus group test to talk about, but we need to be compassionate, Joe. We need to look at these people. There is an asylum process. We need to check them out. We need to vet them. That's not what they said. That's not what they said. They're like, look, man, he's militarizing the border. Military. They can't do this. Posse Comitatus. They can't do it. So what does Trump do? Instead of the Bush administration and others that would have backed down Joe what does he do

he says okay we're not going to send 5,000 we're going to send 15,000 troops that's what he said folks I'm not making this up he goes okay five thousand you don't like that the media uh let's see let's triple that let's send 15,000 and what does the left do again instead of engaging in their historical tactical efficiently uh tactically efficient focus group tested talking points. OK, we got to secure the board. What do they do? They erupt. He has no right to do that. These people have a right to who in the past would have responded well to the Democrats' prior efficient message, are now seeing the Democrats for who they are. Wait, wait, wait. You oppose the military at our border when 7,000 plus people and multiple caravans behind it are approaching the border and threatening to enter the country illegally? You oppose that? Why exactly? That has been the gift of Donald Trump, folks.

Every single time. He gets them to show their butts. All right. I got a lot more to get to because it's a big news day, but that's an important point. All right. Today's show also brought to you by Zebra. Zebra has been reported that Americans are overpaying on car insurance by over $21 billion. Why would you do that? Why would you do that? But searching for a better deal can take hours and typically

results in a barrage of unwanted spam calls. I know, I get the emails too. Until now, thanks to zebra.com. Thanks to the zebra.com. Excuse me, the zebra.com, the zebra.com. The zebra.com is the nation's leading car insurance comparison site because it's the only place you can compare hundreds of policies from all the top carriers and choose the best for you. Plus, they will never sell your information to the spammers, so no worries. You won't get all those unwanted calls or emails.

You just answer a few questions on a simple, fast form. It's really easy, folks. Best way to shop. And they'll find you the best rates and coverage in your state. TechCrunch said it best. The Zebra is a kayak for auto insurance. It's quick. It's easy. Just an honest way to compare car insurance quotes from all the top providers all at once. Folks, don't overpay for car insurance. You're wasting money. You are wasting money. Go today and start saving at thezebra.com slash Dan. Thezebra.com slash Dan, spelled T-H-E-Z-E-B-R-A.com slash Dan, thezebra.com slash Dan. Check it out. Do not overpay for car insurance. There's no reason for you to do that. Okay. Moving on. Story number two. There are some interesting developments going

on in the FISA abuse process. They're quick, so I just want to highlight them because there's another story yesterday that's gotten a lot of attention, especially on Drudge, about Mueller and the potential for a subpoena for the president. But Mark Meadows, who has been just a terrific congressman, if he is your congressman in North Carolina, send his office a nice email or give him a call. He has been doing a spectacular job keeping a hold of this mark meadows joe sent a letter to rosemary collier who is the chief judge on the fisa court and i know by the way meadows just like john solomon and others i'm convinced knows um everything about what happened in the fisa abuse case and the spying operation on the Trump team. Remember, the FISA court was abused to get the FISA warrant on Carter Page to use the two hop rule to spy on the Trump administration.

And he asked, he asked about, don't you guys have concerns? Like, Joe, this has been a question. And I get it. I got an email. You know, I'm always candid with the audience. like joe this has been a question and i get it i got an email you know i'm always candid with the audience sometimes my you know people who are partners in the show are like dan maybe you shouldn't disclose everything the audience tells you sometimes no no that's fine i got an email from a guy this morning i don't know why people email me to tell me they don't like the show or

something or or uh or i don't want to listen anymore but sometimes they do which is okay and a guy emails me dan i love you you're great but i'm done i don't want to listen anymore because nothing's happening okay uh whatever thanks i appreciate done. I don't want to listen anymore because nothing's happening. Okay. Uh, whatever. Thanks. I appreciate that. Um, I don't know why you think nothing's happening. I don't even understand. I mean, Andy McCabe is under grand jury indictment. We, we have a special counsel, uh, excuse me, a special investigator at Huber looking into it, but that's fine. Whatever to each his own. But I only bring that email up and I give you my email to hear your feedback on the show. But I, okay, so you're giving up, but so fine. Don't kind of get that attitude. It's over for me. I'm just going to go

back and live my life. Good for you. You have fun on your own. We'll fight the fights here. But I do on understanding and empathizing a bit, I do understand your frustration. I bring it up in light of this story because a lot of you have asked me and I've received a lot of emails about this. Hey, Dan, if the FISA court was lied to to get the warrant to spy on Donald Trump, then what the hell is the FISA court doing? I get this email all the time. Right, Joe? Like, why aren't the FISA judges pissed? Now, folks, when I was a federal agent and swearing out warrants, if you lied on a warrant and got busted in court, oh, he's right.

That was like kind of a big deal, folks. You'd be in a lot of trouble. Giglio, Henthorne, you probably never, if you lied in a court of law, when that happens, by the way, so you understand the mechanics of federal and local law enforcement, if you were caught as a federal agent knowingly lying in a trial or lying to a judge under oath that has to be exposed to defense attorneys from that point on did you know that what does that mean that means you can never work a criminal investigation again oh why joe because every defense attorney is going to bring up at the trial that you're a liar you're done

it has to be disclosed if i swear out a warrant and I knowingly lie and the next case I work, they have to tell the defense attorney that. The defense attorney goes in front of a jury and goes, hey, by the way, Dan Bongino lied about this. He lied in this last case. So how can we trust them now? So if you are in fact caught doing that, you probably be fired or let go because you're useless in a criminal investigation. So fairly enough, a lot of people have emailed me in frustration saying, hey, if all these people went to the court and lied to the FISA court about using this fake dossier, then why the hell isn't the FISA court doing anything? Folks, I think people up on the hill

are asking the same question. So again, I'm not sitting here telling you, oh, dial down the temperature. You shouldn't be frustrated. And I'm saying that to sympathize with the guy who emailed me, even though he emailed me like, hey, I'm not listening anymore. I'm talking, all right, fine, whatever.

You give up. We'll continue to fight on here. But I do understand, to empathize with you, your frustration here. I'm asking the same questions. Mark Meadows apparently is asking the same question of the chief judge of the FISA court. Now, I have a piece from John Solomon in the Hill. It's very, very good. It is about this very issue. It is up in the show notes today. It's up with the Gillum story I have at Bongino.com. Please check out the show notes today.

They're critical. But the Solomon piece points out that Meadows has been asking this same question and he's asking the FISA court in a memo to them Joe don't you guys aren't you concerned about this like you guys just got worked you got work somebody walked into your FISA court Judge Collier and lied lied about the information they had being verified and didn't tell you the truth about where it came from. Now, Solomon points out in a piece, Joe, that there may be things going on behind the scenes. Listen, my sources are not telling me that. I'm just telling you what his are. And John Solomon is a trusted source.

I'm not vouching for that. I just want to be clear. So don't say I heard it from Dan Bongino. In John Solomon's piece, Solomon indicates that there could be some stuff going on behind the scenes we may not know about. And he's right. He's right. There may be. The court can have closed proceedings that we're not aware of. I'm just telling you, I'm not hearing that.

I don't know. When I don't know, I don't know. I'm not going to tell you something I don't know. But I understand your frustration. No, I don't know. I'm not going to tell you something I don't know. But I understand your frustration. Now, I bring up the article not to talk about how the FISA court, maybe, you know, Mark Meadows wants to know why they're not doing a damn thing about being lied to.

Okay, great. I don't have anything to add. They're pissed about it. So are we. I bring it up because there's a very interesting part of this piece I didn't want you to miss. Let me quote John Solomon. He says, quote, but a troubling whisper has begun inside the justice department quote fizes aren't required to include exculpatory evidence one official told me on

background in a recent text message wait what wait come again so evidence that you're not guilty is not to be at any folks this is bizarre it goes on that emerging sentiment should alarm all of us no matter our political stripe a court that excludes legal representation for the accused almost certainly will fail to protect civil liberty if it isn't allowed to see proof of evidence or evidentiary flaws folks this is a in the wonkery of this case, and I understand its complications sometimes, Newland, Brennan, all the ringleaders. Yeah, Joe, there is a bird's eye view of this case. We should never forget. The FISA court, folks, is a secret court. It is not adversarial. Meaning if I choose to use it to spy on joe like they chose to use it to spy on

carter page and the trump team joe has no ability none to find out that he's being either spied on or to plead his case that sounds to me like the star chamber folks in a constitutional republic as solomon accurately points out is the f FBI and the Justice Department's defense now seriously going to be? Just listen to it from the 30,000. Don't try to overanalyze this. The Department of Justice, apparently in a whisper campaign, is putting out to people now that they have no obligation in the FISA process, if they choose to spy on you, no obligation whatsoever to include information that you shouldn't be spied on. Chew on that a minute. I should have used Preparation H.

Yes, you should have. You're going to need it for that condition down there. See, you bet you are. Right? Think about what I just told you. That now that they've been busted using the FISA court, And Mark Meadows is starting to ask questions. Thank the Lord for Mark Meadows of the FISA court. Like, hey, fellas, ladies, Judge Collier, you were lied to.

Do you guys even care? Don't you, quote, have concerns? Now that they're asking that, the Department of Justice response is, yeah, yeah, we don't really have an obligation to put exculpatory evidence there. You have to take this out to 30,000 feet, right? 60,000, 100,000 feet. Look at the global picture here and say, wait, wait, are we serious?

We're now suggesting that the United States government, the United States government should continue with a secret court, not adversarial. You have no ability to defend yourself, to even find out you're being spied on. That those cases should be allowed to proceed despite the fact that there's evidence, I believe in the case of George Papadopoulos, overwhelming evidence of your innocence. You know, folks, I love this country to death. I mean, I think that's obvious.

It means everything to me. I mean, there's never been a group of people on a landmass with a governing system that organizes us all that has been as successful or prosperous ever in the history of civilized human beings. Never. But one of the bedrock principles that has kept this country prosperous is that basic respect for rule of law, that basic social compact between the government and us, that the government is not going to abuse its ability to target people, that the government's going to target crimes, not people. Right? We target crimes and find people. We don't find people and then find crimes later. Folks, if that evaporates,

this is done. This is finished. If the United States government, people we pay in the Department of Justice, is going to seriously try to make the case that they can go into a FISA court to spy on American citizens despite evidence that they should not be spied on. It's over. It is over. This is an important story.

You know, sometimes I get into the Newland stuff and the details and sometimes I pull it out. It's not just about the Spygate thing. It is about going forward, how that agreement between the citizenry and the government is going to proceed. If the government is insisting any citizen can be targeted at any time in a secret court, despite no evidence whatsoever that the person is guilty, matter of fact, the opposite, that the person is innocent, then we are in a world of trouble. All right. I have an article up by our resident debunker, Matt Palumbo, up at Bongino.com, also be in the show notes today. It's an important one. The reason I bring it up is I was on Laura Ingram's show last night on Fox. Folks, please tune in, by the way, when I'm on Fox. I appreciate

it. I typically do Hannity on Tuesdays and Thursdays, Ingram Wednesdays, schedule changes, sometimes talk around Fridays and Fox and Friends. I really appreciate you tuning in. Apparently my guest segments do very well, thanks to you. And I really appreciate that. But I was on last night and they had a liberal on. It was me, Matt Schlapp from the ACU and a liberal Scott. I forget his last name. Forgive me. Nice enough guy. But he made a point that I'm... You know what I love to do, Joe, debunk liberal nonsense. I wake up every day thinking about what's going to be their next talking point. And I'm starting to see this liberal talking point filter its way through the left wing media and the liberal ecosystem.

And the talking point is that right wing terror, Joe, is far more dangerous than Islamic expired terrorism and other kinds of terrorism this is the new talking point now you're you're saying oh i haven't really heard that dad are you sure because yeah i i know it's uh i so we we uh sick matt palumbo on the case he wrote a piece and he summarily debunks this nonsense now uh it came up last night in the debate with this guy scott who mentioned i didn't get a chance to rebut it on the on the debate panel because it was just so much going on and i had to talk about florida politics so forgive me but i wanted to i was sitting in my studio at home there's a little camera on the

wall when i do fox and i was like chomping at the bit but it's just not the way that it didn't flow that way but this guy this liberal Scott on the panel with Ingram Joe made this point that uh that that white nationalist uh terror or something that that radical right-wing terror is far more dangerous now you may say okay so one guy brought it up. No, no, no, Dan. That's not what happened. You have to understand it was at the heart of Don Lemon's comments as well. Don Lemon has been making some comments lately about how white men are the real problem with terror in this country. That is rooted in this same exact thing. This idea that right-wing terror is a bigger problem. Now, this wasn't fabricated out of thin air, folks.

Again, the Democrats are traditionally, even though they're losing it a little bit, very tactically efficient in their messaging. They don't make things up without being able to refer to something. Now, the something is typically made up, but there's, you know what I'm saying? It'll be a skewing of statistics. It'll be a glass is half full versus half empty. It depends on the interpretation. So Matt does a really good job of breaking down where they're getting this from. That right wing terror is so much worse.

And it's from a 2017 GAO study, government accountability office. So you may say, oh, well, what's wrong with that? If the government accountability office is right-wing terror is more dangerous than Islamic inspired terror, then maybe we should take it seriously. Folks, we should take all, all crimes seriously. There's no question about it. What I don't like is when people take statistics to make a political message rather than an actual message we can use. Now, here's why the study is flawed at best the premise that right-wing terror is is is a more pronounced threat well let me see there was another one hold on i want to see if i took a screenshot i didn't that's too bad oh no i wrote it down but here's cory booker cory booker

describes the problem democrat senator from new jersey Jersey, Joe, with the study. He says, quote, listen to the beginning. Since 9-11, we've had 85 major attacks in our country. 73% of them have been by white nationalist hate groups. So we've seen now Cory Booker, this guy on the panel last night referred to it with me, and we've seen Don Lemon kind of alluding to it as well. guy on the panel last night referred to it with me and we've seen don lemon kind of alluding to it as well well that's interesting joe that they would include body counts since 9-11 considering in 9-11 thousands of people to kind of skews the statistics a little bit yeah that's like saying you know george w bush the economy was great right up until it wasn't folks i think including the 9-11

attack in the united states only the most uh disturbing attack on United States soil since Pearl Harbor is kind of critical into factoring in the threat of Islamic terror call me crazy call me crazy but I think that would be an interesting data point to include am I Joe am I wrong there nah you're uh you're pretty much right pretty right right I mean considering you know I was up in the Melville, Long Island office the day that happened, I think I have the right to kind of talk about this a little bit. You're good, you're good.

So, Cory Booker's point since 9-11, the minute he says since 9-11, everyone should have said, wait, wait, T.O., time out. Cory, you're suggesting we should not factor in 9-11 when gauging the danger of radical Islamic terror?

Are you seriously suggesting that? So folks, email his office and just ask that question nicely. Are we suggesting we eliminate that from the analysis of the terror threat? So data point number one, where you should basically write off this GAO study. It doesn't factor in 9-11, the most important data point of all. It's like measuring the effect of something on the stock market and say, we're going to look at the stock market, just not the NASDAQ and the S&P.

We're going to look at every, what are you talking about? Those are two of the most important indexes. Secondly, this GAO study determined right-wing terror is far more dangerous than Islamic expired terror. Their definition of a, quote, terror attack is interesting, if not bizarre. Joe, they have these incidents here that, although horrible and unquestionably criminal, I'm curious as to why they describe them as terror attacks. They have prison fights in there where people were killed in prison fights. They have an incidence of a bunch of criminal, what is it, white supremacist groups attacking a guy.

These are hate crimes. There's no question about it. But they don't even know the motive. They don't even describe the motive for the attack. But they don't even know the motive. They don't even describe the motive for the attack. In other words, if the premise of your argument is that an ideology is far more dangerous, a radical right-wing ideology, than a radical Islamic-inspired ideology, Joe, that's your premise.

We're not talking about the depraved. They're all crimes. They're all depraved. They're all savage. You get my point? Yep. But don't misconstrue this. No, no. But that's not the premise you're making the premise you're making is that this ideology that drives

people to this one is more dangerous than the other which would mean in your study that you would want to pinpoint the ideology as the cause what i'm suggesting to you is prison attacks and and crimes in the street that maybe hate crimes, I don't know if that's terror in the traditional sense we use the word. So what they do is they aggregate, they aggregate the number of these incidents and they take out the, sadly, the body count because the body count is important here.

So they define a terror attack. One of them is, is again unquestionably crimes the other one involves some prison attack folks i'm not sure that's the definition of terror we should be using to allocate scarce government resources prison attacks no matter how disturbed disturbed and savage the people are. Last point on this, because you're going to see this come up often. They use the frequency, not the death toll.

Let me read from Matt's piece on my website. Quote, while there were 62 instances of instances, excuse me, instances of right wing terror in the GAO study study they resulted in he puts in quotes here only 106 deaths he meaning obviously it's serious he's not trying to say downplay it but they resulted in 106 deaths that's a death toll racked up in mere seconds on september 11th when one islamic terror attack can result in over 30 times the death of an inflated estimate of right wing terror deaths. Who in their right mind would think the right wing is more dangerous?

Again, we're talking about not danger. Unquestionably, if you're motivated by some what they call right wing sick ideology and you kill people, you're dangerous. The question is, what is more dangerous based on how we should allocate our resources to fight back? And Matt's right. When they run a bunch of planes into buildings and kill thousands of Americans, I think it's important that that's a pretty dramatic threat. Probably a more serious threat than gauging prison attacks. Folks, read the piece because it's another example of how the Democrats are trying to make a political argument. They're not trying to make a resource allocation argument. What we should be doing, rational people, is laying the playing field for this debate,

saying, Joe, obviously, people who are motivated by whatever it may be, race-based ideologies, people who are motivated to violence, prison violence, this is all a problem. The question is, what is the severity of the problem where we as taxpayers are going to give money to law enforcement and military assets to combat it? Do you want to give billions of dollars, potentially trillions over the decades, to combat a prison murder or flying planes into the World Trade Center and killing 3,000 people and destroying downtown New York City's infrastructure? The Democrats do this all the time because they are trying to make a political point, Joe. And a political point is that the right wing is a danger to the country. And don't worry too much about this other stuff. Don't get distracted by this enemy.

Please read the piece because you have to understand how to debate these people. I was eager to knock that down and say listen scott while i accept your premise here that there are disturbed people motivated by troublesome ideologies not limited only to islamic fundamentalism point stipulated the way those statistics were aggregated do not in fact buttress your point at all they make the opposite point how they define terror was open to interpretation the number one and number two the body count from islamic expired terror since uh you know including the 9-11 attack is far worse far worse but i didn't get that opportunity i wish i had okay folks today's show finally brought to you by our friends at pair of thieves, these are the best draws around.

I'm sorry, but they are. They are, right? Joe's got them too, aren't they? Yeah, I love them. They're so breathable. And when you work out and you live in Florida like me, it's a big deal, man. Anything you wear, underwear, outerwear, overwear, footwear, headwear, swimwear. Remember that commercial back in the day?

Swim. Evening wear. You want want it thin you want it breathable and there is nothing better than pair of these and the designs are killer i can say something here but i won't because my wife will kill me but the designs are fantabulous i love it because in these reads they like, feel free to deviate from the script. Oh, you know I'm going to. Deviate. Because I love your stuff. On average, Joe, men keep their underwear for seven long years. Guys, please, get rid of this stuff.

Once they're just tattered, soiled, and stained shell of what they once were, throw those things out. Don't be that guy. Pair of thieves are the most comfortable underwear I've ever worn. Big time. Their proprietary moisture-wicking fabric keeps you cool and fresh. Fresco.

It's like AC. It's like a portable air conditioning system. All clear. Feels like you're wearing nothing i love this read because they're that good i'm serious joe has them too i didn't even get him a free pair i got freebies joe buys them yeah baby what does proprietary mean anyway when it comes to their moisture wicking material in this case it means the competition has been trying to copy this fabric for four years and they failed one of the guys who started Pair of Thieves says all his wife

ever wants to see him in is a pair of these super fit briefs. And he's married to Jessica Alba. Try them out. If they're not instantly your favorite pair of underwear, they will give you your money back. I love this read. Every day when I see my little read sheet, I look forward to this one. For a limited time this month only, our listeners get 20% off their first order at pairofthieves.com slash Dan. That's pairofthieves.com slash Dan. Our listeners get 20% off when you go to pairofthieves.com slash Dan. Pairofthieves.com slash Dan. Check this stuff out.

They have the best draws around. We love them. They are terrific. Joe got them too, so he can vouch for them. Alright. So, crazy story that made headlines in Drudge yesterday. Crazy, crazy story.

I don't usually post links to Politico because they call it Bull Rucco for a reason. It's Politico. They're a bunch of left-wing hacks. But the story is interesting, and it's about Bob Mueller. And it is written by a former United States attorney, Joe,

who was looking at the docket in the D.C. Circuit Court, and he's like, hey, man, has Bob Mueller already subpoenaed the president? Folks, listen to me. Hold on. Everybody time out. That is not a small story if that's true, okay? The fact that Bob Mueller may have already subpoenaed President Trump personally

and nobody knows about it would be, one, an unprecedented act of secrecy. I don't mean, I mean, leaks are, you know what I'm saying? You see what I'm getting at? Leaks have been so common in D.C. You can't keep anything secret. If Bob Mueller subpoenaed the president, it's been kept secret.

I'm almost in awe, not in a qualitatively good way, of their ability to hide this thing. Now, the author of the piece who can read the docket and understands the intricacies of it was looking back at some reporting done by Darren Samuelson, a political, and he points out some fascinating things that Mueller may have already subpoenaed President Trump. I just want to read to you from the piece, because if this happened under our nose, this shows like, wait, what the hell's going on here?

Yeah. Yeah. Let me quote from the piece. piece because if this happened under our nose this shows like wait what the hell's going on here yeah here let me quote from the piece he's talking about the dc's uh circuit there there there's a docket and on that docket there's some publicly available information but the information is very cryptic and the case has been moving at lightning speed and And when he says the case, he thinks it may be a subpoena issued to Trump and the Trump team legally fighting back against the subpoena. Here's his evidence. Quote, at every level, this matter has commanded the immediate and close attention of the judges involved, Joe, suggesting that no ordinary witness and no ordinary issue is involved. witness and no ordinary issue is involved meaning this may be about trump it goes on but is it the president the docket sheets give one final but compelling clue and you can read

this piece in the show notes today when the witness lost the first time in the circuit court before the quick round trip to the district court he petitioned unusually for rehearing and bonk meaning the witness thought the case was so important that it merited the very unusual action of convening all 10 of the D.C. Circuit judges to review the order. That is itself telling. This witness believes the case demands very special handling. But the order disposing of the petition is even more telling.

This is interesting, Joe. By the way, the White House denies this. They say Trump has not been subpoenaed. It's out there. I'm just putting it out there, folks. You need to be aware of what's going on. This is interesting, Joe. Trump's sole appointee to the court reviewing this, the D.C. Circuit, Gregory Katsas, recused himself from this. It says says why did he recuse himself we don't know why by custom judges typically don't disclose their reasons for sitting out of matter but katsas previously served in the trump white house as one of four deputy white house councils wow would that be a just explosive neutron bomb of a revelation? Not a good one.

I'm not selling it, but listen to me. I am not saying this in any kind of a celebratory fashion. It just goes to show you the dramatic overreach of Bob Mueller who thinks he can subpoena a sitting president or potentially indict him. Well, that is a sucker punch to the gonads. Oh, it sure is, daddy-o. Big time.

Because he thinks he can drag him where, Joe? In front of a grand jury, the president. Yeah. Folks, again, it's a political piece. I hate giving them clicks. We make exceptions sometimes when the information is so critical that I think you need to store it

in your cerebral gray mass. This is an article I think you need to read because it portends big trouble on our side. If, if, if, and again, the White House denies this to be crystal clear. They are denying that Donald Trump was subpoenaed. But the evidence laid out, there's more. I just read to you one of the snippets I thought was, because some of it's a little legally wonky, but it's still an interesting read. I read to you the snippet I thought is the most telling in that.

Number one, it is moved with lightning speed, which is very unusual, which means something's going on. Somebody's been subpoenaed of importance. Yes, it does. Yeah. Secondly, the fact that Trump's only appointee has recused himself from this from any potential review review in this um is interesting in and of itself again is it hard evidence that it's trump given the trump denials it's not but the guy who writes the piece writes it from a fairly bland non-partisan perspective and he does lay out some legal review like looking at it from his legal expertise of the docket and he makes a pretty compelling case

he also talks about some statements issued by donald trump's one of donald trump's attorneys rudy giuliani and he and he he parallels the chronology of statements by the court on the docket and it's an interesting read folks it's first i've heard of it first i've heard of it at all i mean not even a gurgling yeah brother yeah i'm in the i was in the uh in the in this you know I have to sit in a sauna because of my horrendous arthritis after I work out. And I pulled up this article and it was on Drudge. And I thought, man, how is this not, you know, it did make the news that I want to undersell,

but how is this not a huge story? Yeah. A bigger story than it was. So interesting. Check that out. Let's see what else. I have to get to you. so interesting check that out uh let's see what else uh

where are we going with this oh oh i have this is i'm sorry i've been holding this for a couple days folks so forgive me i want to make sure i get to this um there is an interesting report that came out in the wall street journal the other day and i wanted to put it out because i'm i'm puzzled in this election cycle in the midterms here. I'm genuinely puzzled how this far left lurch of the Democrat Party, how it's starting to take place in states that are traditionally dominated by liberty loving patriots, Texas, Florida and elsewhere. We have seen a rebound. And I explained why in the beginning of the show. The media is just a relentless focus on calling Donald Trump everything from a Nazi to a traitor has really energized the far left base, which is taking over via money, volunteer work, personnel.

They're taking over the Democrat Party and pushing them to more radical positions. So let's be clear on that. Media's making Americans believe Trump is the worst of the worst. The Democrats are responding by requesting that their candidates respond to what they see as a unique threat to the Republican Donald Trump. It's pulling the party in turn farther towards these radicals that want them to respond. These radicals are the ones with the money and the power. Now, we're seeing this radical leftist take over and they're getting candidates elected in primaries, candidates that are far leftist.

You have Robert O'Rourke out in Texas, calls himself Beto, Robert Francis. And then in Florida, you have Andrew Gillum. These are far, far left candidates who, Joe, in a normal election cycle, would be laughed out of the politics in their state because of their far left positions. Right. But I thought handling this from a reasonable, practical perspective, right? I saw this article in the journal the other day. I thought,

isn't it clear that they're, what they're proposing big government, higher taxes, you know, the whole litany of far left things they want. Isn't it clear that this stuff is crap and just doesn't work. So I was waiting for someone to write a very simple piece, summing up why big government spending, debt and deficits,

what they're proposing in Florida, and Beto's running for Senate, not governor, but still, he can impact national policy. So my point in this is that you have these far left candidates running in purple, if not red states in Texas, running on big government heavy tax agendas. That's what Gillum wants. Gillum in Florida wants to hike the corporate tax by 40%. He wants to propose Medicare for all, which would drive Florida into a fiscal abyss. Beto stands for the same thing if he gets elected to the Senate out in Texas.

So isn't there a simple way to just determine if this stuff works? You may say, Dan, this is what 800 episodes of your podcast have been about, about how big government spending doesn't work. I get it. But I thought, is someone going to do just a simple correlation? Here we go. Wall Street Journal. This is great.

A piece they had in their editorial column the other day. Guy says, hey, if this big government debt and deficit spending stuff works, I quote here, a simple test occurred to me. The stimulus story suggests that in the years after they hit bottom, the countries that adopted relatively large fiscal deficits, i.e., big government here, folks, measured by the average increase in public debt from 20 to 11 to 2017 as a percentage of GDP would have a speedy recovery to show for it. Did they?

So here's the premise he sets up, which is quite simple. Gillum, Beto, Claire McCaskill, these big government liberals running in red states. If your premise that the government can rescue the economy, that prosperity is going to be bedrocked in big government spending, stimulus programs, and heavy debt, well, he asked a very simple question. If that's the case, given all these countries that suffered economic recessions, the governments that took on all this debt, Joe, did those countries recover well or didn't they? Thank you. Good job for doing this. Okay. Well, what's the answer? There's a chart in the, forgive me, the piece is subscription only, but he has a chart in there that just is a simple correlation. Amount of government spending and how quickly the economy recovered and how well

here's the summary of the chart show. As the chart shows, the evidence does not support the stimulus story. Big deficits did not speed up recoveries. In fact, the relationship is negative suggesting fiscal profligacy led to contraction and fiscal responsibility would have been better. What? Folks, this is what drives me absolutely wild about this kind of stuff.

It drives me crazy. It's not just that the Democrats' argument that government spending, debt and deficits drive prosperity is a failure. It's that the argument is the opposite. A simple chart. Here's how much countries spend in debt. Here's how fast their recoveries happen. The argument is the opposite. The more debt and deficits they took on, the worse their recovery was. Guys, ladies, do you understand that Gillum, Robert O'Rourke, these other candidates out there running this? I want to highlight another race today. Tina Smith out in Minnesota. You may say, why are you bringing that up? Here's another race where Housley, Karen Housley, a candidate in Minnesota running for Senate is shockingly in Minnesota

closing in on Tina Smith. So Minnesota, you're up. Closing in. Tina Smith doesn't even want to debate. These candidates running as far leftists in purple states like Minnesota are proposing economic agendas that not only don't work, Joe, they lead to negative consequences. Negative consequences, not positive ones. It's the exact opposite argument. The data is conclusive. Don't forget that race in Minnesota. I'm trying to get to some other folks out there who aren't getting a lot of the attention, even though I live in Florida, Minnesota, Housley, Tina Smith, Tina Smith, the Democrat show didn't show up for a debate. They had a statewide televised debate. Housley was on stage herself. The Democrat didn't even show up. And now the Republican, Housley's only six points behind. Folks, what they're proposing is garbage.

It doesn't work. I'm just giving you a simple correlational analysis. If you're serious about saying these kinds of things, oh, big government leads to increased prosperity. You should be able to show us evidence. You cannot. There is no evidence. The evidence is in the opposite direction, that it causes negative prosperity. Negative prosperity, not prosperity, anti-prosperity, bizarro Superman prosperity. You know, Jerry Seinfeld, George Costanza prosperity, where he does everything in reverse in that episode. Just it doesn't work out in the end. Crazy. We got to deal with this stuff.

It's so true. All right. One more quick note. I'm going to run. Jon Stewart, the left wing comedian, pointed out something. He rarely does he make a sage point, but he did in this case. He pointed out that the, and I just want to tie it back to the beginning of the show. He amazingly decided to take a shot at the media and

said, listen, you media guys and ladies out there, you're not committed to the facts anymore. You're committed to protecting your own reputations, and that's why you're losing in the era of Trump, because Trump's going to double down. Folks, he's right. Jon Stewart, shockingly, is correct. I only say that not to reiterate a point I can't add, and you know I don't do that. I'm bringing it up because I want to add to it. I've run for office a couple times. You know, I've been involved in this conservative space for a while.

I've sat in a lot of green rooms. Folks, I'm telling you, I have never in my life as a secret service agent flying on the press plane repeatedly overseas, flying with the press. I have never, sadly, I say this and I'm not talking about all of them. There are a lot of good people. I have never in my life seen a group of bigger egomaniacs than media folks. Never. The way they talk about themselves, the way they talk about themselves the way they talk about other people the way they talk amongst themselves about themselves it is i'm not listen i get it i know i'm a conservative a lot of you liberals will gaff this off saying oh he's just got a media but yep exactly joe i have never seen a bigger group of self-congratulatory idiots in my life not all of them there are a lot of good

people i remember a couple guys you know who are really nice there but a lot of good people. I remember a couple of guys who were really nice there, but a lot of these people are self-congratulatory Looney Tunes, who I'm telling you, you would not trust with your kids or your car. Some of them aren't that bright. Some of the conversations they had were so deeply disturbing and they are obsessed. They are so narcissistic. Even Jon Stewart's starting to see it. I'm just saying. All right, folks, I have that book signing tonight in Vero Beach, the Vero Beach Book Center. The details are on my website. It's at 6 p.m. if you're in and around Vero. Come join us.

I will see you there tonight. Please subscribe to the show on iTunes, iHeart. Go check it out at Bongino.com. It's free. We want to keep it free, and we appreciate all your support. Thanks a lot, folks. I'll see you all tomorrow.

You just heard the Dan Bongino Show. Get more of Dan online anytime free and we appreciate all your support. Thanks a lot, folks. I'll see you all tomorrow.