The Dan Bongino Show - The Coming Chaos (Ep 1351)

Episode Date: September 21, 2020

In this episode, I address the political chaos unfolding after the passing of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  News Picks: History is on the side of the GOP in filling the Supreme Court seat.  The lunatic Democrats are threatening chaos if the Supreme Court seat is filled.  Confirm a justice now.  President Trump says he will announce his choice for the Supreme Court on Friday or Saturday. What is something happens to one of the presidential candidates before Election Day? Is there an October surprise ahead in the 2016 Anthony Weiner laptop case?  Twitter is promising to censor their election coverage. With Parler you can get censorship-free coverage. Read the Parler Pledge. Copyright Bongino Inc All Rights Reserved. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

After decades of shaky hands caused by debilitating tremors, Sunnybrook was the only hospital in Canada who could provide Andy with something special. Three neurosurgeons, two scientists, one movement disorders coordinator, 58 answered questions, two focused ultrasound procedures, one specially developed helmet, thousands of high-intensity focused ultrasound waves, zero incisions, and that very same day, two steady hands. From innovation to action, Sunnybrook is special. Learn more at sunnybrook.ca slash special.

Get ready to hear the truth about America on a show that's not immune to the facts with your host, Dan Bongino. What do you say? 2020. So Friday night, I'm out going to get some food. My wife had called in an order. I'm going to pick it up. And in the car, I find out Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Supreme Court justice, had passed.

What else is going to happen in 2020? I don't even want to ask. I'm not a knock-on-wood guy. I don't even know if this is wood, but I'm knocking on it now. I've got a loaded show for you today, ladies and gentlemen, loaded. What we should do, the fight coming, the chaos ahead. I'm just preparing you for it. I am an optimist in the long run.

We are the United States of America. But we have a job to do and ignoring the chaos and pretending that, you know, oh, that's not happening. Don't worry. Close my eyes. It's not going to help. I've got that. I'm going to end the show today too, as well on a pretty optimistic note. I have two minutes of some of the most powerful television I have seen in a very, very long time. Jim Caviezel, an actor who's starring in the movie out now, Infidel, was on Fox and Friends and just lit it up this weekend. One more quick note, the Trump interview, my president with Donald Trump, the full interview is now available

everywhere. It was available exclusively on my Rumble account, rumble.com slash Bongino last night. It's now available everywhere. Rumble, Apples, Bongino.com. Please listen to it. It's about 25 minutes long. President Trump just, his answer on the, what he's going to do after the election with the chaos is great. You're not going to want to miss that. Also with social media, he lights it up.

So again, Rumble.com slash Bongino Apple Podcast. Check that out as well. It's about 25 minutes. Today's show brought to you by ExpressVPN. Keep your online activities safe from prying eyeballs. Get a VPN today. Do not wait. Go to expressvpn.com slash Bongino. Welcome to the Dan Bongino Show. Producer

Joe, how are you today? Fine, sir. Well, you know, it's Monday. I know. What a weekend, dude. Yeah, I had to let Joe in on some info this morning. It's been a fascinating weekend weekend stay tuned folks i will um have some more information on that later we'll have to bring up uh donnie

brosco and that and uh just uh stay tuned i'll just leave it at that all right let me get to like a great video showing you uh barack obama was finally correct no No, no, no, no, no. Yeah, yeah. And Biden too. I'll wait on that. Let's get to it. Today's show is brought to you by friends at iTarget. Listen, 2020 has reminded us about the importance of self-reliance.

Has it ever? We've seen COVID, civil unrest, and just about everything else. The fact is the police can't be everywhere all at once. We know that. That's why it's so important to be properly trained if you're an owner of a firearm. Can't own it if you don't know how to use it. You don't know how to use it safely and you're not proficient with it. iTarget Pro.

That's the letter, iTarget Pro. It's one of the best ways to drive fire train with your firearm today at home and safely. They have a proprietary app and it comes with a laser round. You insert in a firearm you have now. No special barrels, no changes. The firearm you have now, drop that laser round in. The target comes with a laser round. You insert in a firearm you have now. No special barrels, no changes. The firearm you have now,

drop that laser round in. The target comes with it. You can dry fire. Dry fire, I mean, it's obviously not live ammunition, and you can train safely. You don't have to go to the range. Some of the ranges are closed. Dry fire training develops muscle memory.

Trains you in sight alignment, sight picture, grip, all of those key skills. Target reaction speed to help you be more proficient with the firearm you have now. Do not wait to pick up this product. It makes a great gift too with the gift season coming up for the firearm owner in your life. iTarget comes in all major calibers, including.223,.556. Stay sharp. Keep your skills frosty.

Right now, get 10% off plus free shipping with the offer code DAN. Don't wait. Don't let circumstances dictate whether or not you're going to train, take control back now with I target pro. That's the letter. I target pro.com. I target pro.com. I target pro.com.

Use offer code. Dan go today. Don't wait. All right, Joe, let's go. All right, folks.

So, uh, Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed on Friday night. It was a shock to me. I had no inside information on that at all. I don't know if any of you did or if you have contacts inside, but nobody saw that coming. Nobody I know. She was 87, was not in the best of health.

Obviously, you know, we're all children of God and, you know, anyone's passing is tragic. But of course, within moments, the political mass and machinations started. That's always the way it's going to be in this hyper partisan, hyper political environment. Now, no one should expect any different. Having said that, there is now an empty seat. Donald Trump is the president United States. Mitch McConnell is the Senate majority leader. And Republicans have a 53 seat majority, meaning what? Meaning we have the power. You may not like that, Democrats, but that that's okay you don't have to like it there's an election in january and you can change that just like we changed the composition of the senate in the midterms in 2018

and we won now the democrats were already howling we shouldn't pick anyone the republicans for that open seat the senate shouldn't confirm anyone because there's an election coming up. So? So what? What does that mean? Now listen, well, Mitch McConnell said once in the Merrick Garland selection in the last year of Obama, when Antonin Scalia tragically died, Mitch McConnell said, we're going to keep that seat open

because there's an election coming up. No, no, Mitch McConnell was then in charge of a Republican majority of the Senate and Barack Obama was a Democrat totally different I'll get to that in a minute too I'm going to walk you through every you are going to be you're going to know everything about how this process works history precedent how it worked what we should do, let's go here to the video of Barack Obama back in 2016, who's absolutely right. There's an open seat. You're damn right.

You should pick it. So hot tip, Barack Obama. Listen to this one. Check this out. There is more than enough time for the Senate to consider, in a thoughtful way, the record of a nominee that I present and to make a decision. We're going to find somebody who is an outstanding legal mind, somebody who cares deeply about our democracy and cares about rule of law.

There's not going to be any particular position on a particular issue that determines whether or not I nominate them, but I'm going to present somebody who indisputably is qualified for the seat, and any fair-minded person, even somebody who disagreed with my politics would say would serve with honor and integrity on the court. Now, part of the problem that we have here is we've almost gotten accustomed to how obstructionist the Senate's become when it comes to nominations. So in some ways, this argument is just an extension of what we've seen in the Senate generally and not just on judicial nominees. Should we interpret your comments just now that you are likely to choose a moderate nominee? Would you know? OK, I don't know where you found that.

You shouldn't assume anything about the qualifications, the nominee. Other than they're going to be welcome. All right. Sounds good to me. Right? Yeah. There's Obama. There you go. So listen, before the Democrats out there and the lunatics in the media start saying,

McConnell, McConnell held up Obama's nomination to Merrick Garland because it was an election coming up. No, McConnell's a Republican. Obama's a Democrat. And Obama himself said, yeah, yeah, you guys should rock and roll and you guys should make sure my nominee gets pushed through. That's what we're supposed to do. Well done. Thanks, Barack. Appreciate that. We'll be playing that frequently throughout the coming chaos. I guarantee it's coming our way. Whether you think Kavanaugh was bad, wait till this one. Now, you may say, oh, well, that was just Obama.

No, no, here's Joe Biden as well, doubling down on that 2016, suggesting that, yes, if there's a Supreme Court vacancy in an election year, you're damn right, you should make that pick. Thanks, Joe Biden. Check this one out. Here's Sleepy. My consistent advice to presidents of both parties, including this president, has been that we should engage fully in the constitutional process of advice and consent. And my consistent understanding of the Constitution has been the Senate must do so as well.

Period. They have an obligation to do so. All right. Thanks, Joe. You got them on board. Barack and Biden on board. Obama-Biden again. Obama-Biden 2020.

They were all on board. We didn't edit that. That's just edited for time. That's their words. So again, hard pass from the media. You Republicans are hypocrites. You held up merrick garland no that's because we could we were in charge of the senate just like we are now and

we can do what we want and we will we better if mittens doesn't bail on us you can always count on mittens to screw you remember mitt romney's the mitt romney of Mitt Romney's. That's the problem with Romney. We already know Susan Collins, who is always useless, is out. And Murkowski, who is from Alaska, who we have no excuse. At least Collins is in a swing state. She has some excuse. I don't buy it, but it's an excuse. Hey, I'm in a swing state. I'm going to play to both political parties.

Murkowski's from Alaska. Murkowski is as useless. I'll leave the rest of that. Useless. Useless. Useless. Now we'll see what Mittens does. Now, you know I love these Biden versus Biden debates, right? That's a Bongino show thing.

I did the Obama versus Obama debates. I like the Biden versus Biden. We did that a couple weeks ago. Remember that? Well, here's Biden debating himself again. So that was biden in 2016 with obama saying if there's a vacant supreme court seat in an election like we have now you better fill it what does he said your period period now here's biden today again debating oh

biden from oh biden i just did it again debating biden from 2016 saying the exact opposite because biden can't be consistent on anything. So here's Biden again debating himself now suggesting that you shouldn't fill the seat he just said you should fill. Check this out. To jam this nomination through the Senate is just an exercise in raw political power. I don't believe the people of this nation will stand for it. nation will stand for it i may have to do i may be forced to do biden versus biden debates round two because there's just so much material we've been forced to leave out so biden in 2016 you better push that thing through that supreme court nomination in the senate and election year it's the right thing to do period oh. Biden now and Obama in 2016.

Now Biden now debating himself and Obama in 2016. No, no, no. This is just an exercise in raw political power. Don't you dare nominate someone. Now enter the lunatic brigade. There's always a brigade of far left. Radical lunatics led by Pelosi, Ilhan Omar, and that crowd, AOCy bernie sanders

elizabeth warren you know the lunatic brigade right here is one this this i i know you already got to preview this one joe but in one of the most insane appearances i've seen on a network news channel in recent years here's nutty n Nancy on, I think she said it was ABC, Stephanopoulos, Snuffleupagus, whoever it is. But here's Pelosi on suggesting or implying, after a question by Snuffleupagus, that they could impeach the president, that it may be a quiver in their arrow

to stop the president from executing his constitutional job to appoint someone to the Supreme Court and to get the advice and advice and consent to the Senate. But suggesting this will be Joe, the first president in the history of the United States impeached for being president. That should be the second. It'd be the second time. First president. Trump was impeached for being president. He'll be impeached again. This is how to enter the lunatic brigade here. Here's Nutty Nancy. Check this out. Some have mentioned the possibility if they try to push through a nominee in a lame duck session that you and the House could move to impeach President

Trump or Attorney General Barr as a way of stalling and preventing the Senate from acting on this nomination? Well, we have our options. We have arrows in our quiver that I'm not about to discuss right now. Ladies and gentlemen, these people are insane. What? Serious question for you all ponder this. serious question for you all ponder this what is the point of a structured constitutional republic with clearly delineated powers in each branch if when each branch executes those powers there is a threat of chaos and impeachment what's the point You see what I'm getting at here? The president of the United States who was elected, Donald Trump. I know the left disputes that, but again,

that's the insanity crap. To the sane people, he was elected. One of his constitutional powers, if not obligations, is to fill seats on the Supreme Court and other lower-level federal courts as they become available

and to seek the advice and consent of the Senate. There's nothing... You may not like that. You may not like the results of the election. You may not like that Donald Trump gets to do that. Joe, there's a remedy for that. That remedy is called the election. Yeah.

But right now, we're in charge. We may not be in January, but we're in charge now. And as I said on Fox & Friends this morning, you better damn well start acting like it, GOP. Mittens and others, we're in charge. You're going to impeach the president for being president?

This is insane. Now, you're going to start running into pseudo historians now. You know these types, Joe? They start inventing new history and precedent. In 1862.5, we had an incident with Joey Bag of Donuts on the Supreme Court court which indicates his prior i'm not interested ladies and gentlemen in your fake history i'm going to give you the real history right now in a terrific piece by dan mclaughlin at national review about what really happens when

a supreme court seat opens up in an election year because joe history meaning it actually happened this isn't that movie Tenet where you can go back in time through the reverse turnstile and reverse. There's an actual history, recorded history of what's happened. So don't let your liberal friends make it up. Dan McLaughlin,

National Review. Go to my show notes. Bongino.com slash newsletter, ladies and gentlemen, is where you get the show notes. It's free. Subscribe. I send them to you every day. Read this article. National Review, Dan McLaughlin. History's on the side of the Republicans filling a Supreme Court vacancy in 2020. Note when the article's written, folks. Look at the date. What's today's date? Today's date is September 21st, 2020. What's the date of that article? August 7th.

In other words, Dan wrote this article before the passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. So, oh no, no, you're rewriting history after the death of Ruth. No, no, no, no, this article was written before that. You can see that right there. So what's the real history of what happens in a vacancy during the election year? Well, let's go through it.

How often has this happened exactly where a Supreme Court seat is opened up in a presidential election year? Well, if you'd listen to the Democrats and the fake historians, Joe, who are now going to make up a fake history that's not real, they'd tell you, oh, Dan, that's rare. That's rare. Joe, it never happens. Never. Joe, this is an anomaly and should be treated as such by President Trump. It's anomalousalous joe for the liberals meaning doesn't happen often well thank you i know you guys the sources and dictionaries aren't really your thing but joe pretending to be a liberal and i know he knows what anomalous means because he's told me um so so what happens again they've told us it's exceedingly rare really quote national

review 29 times in American history, there's been an open Supreme Court vacancy in a presidential election year. Wow. Or in a lame duck session before the next presidential inauguration. 29 times. That kind of sounds like a lot.

Only been 45 presidents. 29 times. So 22 of them have had to deal with this? Wow. This counts vacancies created by new seats on the court but not vacancies for which it was a nomination already pending when the year began such as in 1835 36 and 1987 1988 the president now wait keep this up the president has made nominations in all 29 cases i thought this was weird and president trump's not supposed to make a nomination. It's an anomaly, Joe.

So it's happened 29 times, so it's not an anomaly. Again, in the real world, 29 times. And the president has made a nomination all 29 times. Weird. Washington did it. Adams did it. Jefferson did it. Lincoln did it. Grant did it. FDR did it. Eisenhower did it. And Barack Obama did it, too.

22 of the 44 men to hold office faced this situation and all 22 made the decision to send up a nomination, whether or not they had the votes in the Senate. So again, for your liberal friends screaming to you on your Facebook page and at the cocktail parties with the foie gras and the California rolls, that never happens. The precedent is to not nominate someone really Really? Because it's happened 29 times and half the men who've served in the office of the presidency have had to

do it and every one of them did. That's 29 out of 29. Joe, just checking the math, that's a batting average of exactly 1,000. Exactly. Thank you. Just checking.

Exactly, man. Joe has to get the quick Jay Zabacus out for you old school listeners. That's a Rio Linda reference. Like, that's old school. We haven't said that in so long. Joe Zabacus is out.

Jay Zabacus. And yes, that is a batting average of 1,000. So I'll take a hard pass, please, on your claims that this is some anomalous event. It's not. I want to get to some more history.

Let me get to my second sponsor here, but I want to get to some more history, too, because you may say, all right, Dan, well, this has happened 29 times, a vacancy and an election year, but what happens when it's a split White House and split presidency, like it was with Obama and

Merrick Garland? I got that. Don't worry. I got you. I've got other stuff too. Don't go anywhere. Today's show also brought to you by our friends at Tommy John. You're working hard. You're playing hard. You should be starting every morning in Tommy John. They are the most comfortable underwear out there. There's nothing better than them. Nothing. I was a Tommy John customer long, long before they were a sponsor. Why? Because they're awesome. Tommy John doesn't just have customers.

They have converts. Try them and you'll feel the difference instantly. Here's the downside to Tommy John. You say you have some other draws in your draw there, right? You're going to buy Tommy Johns and you're going to wash them and they're going to go to topper. You're never going to wear anything else again. And you're just going to wear those out.

So you got to buy a lot of them. That's the only way around it. My recommendation, Tommy John's cool cotton underwear for men and women that's made from premium natural Pima cotton for enhanced airflow, keeping you cooler and more comfortable than regular cotton. You know what I mean? Tommy John's breathable, lightweight moisture whipping fabric has four times the stretch of competing brands. It moves with you, not against you. Whether you're on the hunt for lounge pants, lazy day joggers, or the softest Zoom-ready tees and polos

you've ever worn, Tommy John is the place for you. They've got you covered. Their underwear alone has over 96% four-star plus reviews. I'm one of them, and over 11 million pairs sold. There's no reason not to try Tommy John.

If you don't love your first pair, you get a full refund with the best pair you'll ever wear, or it's free, guaranteed. Tommy John, no adjustment needed. We love Tommy John's in this house. Paula has hers too. Maybe one day we'll do a demo for you who knows go to tommyjohn.com and get 20 off your first order with offer code dan that's offer code dan d-a-n at tommyjohn.com tommyjohn.com offer code dan see site for details don't miss out go today all right so we've covered

the extremely not rare circumstance where a Supreme Court seat opens up 29 times. Twenty two presidents have had to do it. Not rare at all. Well, what happens when there's a vacancy on the court in election year and the president's from one party in the Senate's from the other? Like what happened with Barack Obama with the tragic death of Antonin Scalia when Barack Obama was a Democrat. The Senate was in Republican hands under McConnell and Obama nominated Merrick Garland. Well, obviously, McConnell squashed that, like he has the power to do.

His advice was, no thanks. And his consent was, you're not getting that either. Thank you. So let's see what happens, according to the National Review piece, when we have these scenarios with a split party, one in charge of the White House, one in charge of the Senate. Well, what's happened then? Because history does matter, right? Quote, in short, there have been 10 vacancies resulting in a presidential election year or post-election nomination when the president and Senate went from opposite parties.

So it's happened 10 times. In six of the 10 cases, a nomination was made before Election Day. in six of the 10 cases, a nomination was made before election day. Only one of those chief justice, Melvin Fuller's nomination by Grover Cleveland at 1888 was confirmed before the election. Four nominations were made in lame duck sessions after the election. Three of those were left open for the winner of the election.

Other than the unusual Fuller nomination, because the court was facing a backlog in the docket. Three of the other nine were filled after election day in ways that rewarded the winner of the presidential contest. All right. So just to be clear, when the parties are split like Obama and McConnell with the Garland nomination,

nominations went up every time they're 10 for 10. Only one of them got through. All right. So you're telling me when the parties are split in the white house and the Senate that the chances of them getting through are pretty slim. OK, great. Joe, is that the case now? The answer is no, it's not the case now because we're in charge of the Senate and the White House. Thank you.

So you can take your precedent, fake precedent and wazoo time. For those of you who are regular listeners, we're still trying to discover where the wazoo is exactly. We're in charge. And when we're in charge, we will do what political leaders in charge do, which is be political leaders and execute their duties. Having said that,

if we lose the Senate in January, which is possible, could lose the White House too. But say President Trump wins and we lose the Senate. There's a very small likelihood. He should nominate someone regardless. It's happened every time, just to be clear. But the chances of them getting through are slim.

Only one of those 10 have slipped by. That's in an election year, just to be clear. After the election, the chances are slim regardless, if we lose the Senate. Tell me again why we shouldn't do that now? Again, your fake historian friends will want to rewrite history here and say, oh my gosh, this is unprecedented. Now we know it's not. It's happened 29 times. We know that it's rare if there's split parties to get through, but that's not the case. So what happens when the same party's

in charge of the White House and the Senate like we have now with Republicans in charge of both? Well, we have history for that too. History, meaning it already happened for the liberals out there. Every little confused as they try to rewrite history and tell us what should be done because of precedent they literally made up.

Let's go back to this National Review piece it's great piece worth your time 19 times between 1796 and 1968 presidents have sought to fill a supreme court vacancy in a presidential election year like we have now while their party controlled the senate like we have now too 10 of those nominations came before the election. Nine of the ten were successful. Sounds good to me. The only failure being the bipartisan filibuster of the ethically challenged Abe Fortas as the Chief Justice in 1968.

Many of you remember that. Justices to enter the court under these circumstances included legal luminaries, such as Louis Brandeis and Benjamin Cardozo george washington made two nominations in 1796 one of them achieved justice replacing a failed nominee the prior year so just to be clear nine of the ten ninety percent have gotten through when the parties were the same during an election you want to again cite fake precedent for me? I'm listening.

Where exactly do you have that? It's the Merrick Garland rule. No, no, you're making that up. That's not the case. The Republicans are in the Senate now. Did you miss that? You may want to pay attention to your history. By the way, before I move on to my next segment here,

the insanity of what the Democrats are planning. By the way, before I move on to my next segment here, the insanity of what the Democrats are planning. Do you really need any more incentive to vote right now, folks? I mean, I don't. I'm not saying that any kind of a condescending matter. I'm just suggesting if you're watching my show and you're on the fence right now about voting, it doesn't matter. You sure? You want to save the lives of children in the womb? You want to keep your ability to defend yourself, your second amendment?

And to the never Trump alleged Republicans out there who are really fake Republicans, tell me again how Donald Trump's tweets give you the sads. I have the sads. Joe, his tweets are so not nice. Really? That's what you're worried about? That's what you're terrified about right now? You got the sads?

You need to have your diaper changed? So you're going to elect a president that's going to put someone on the Supreme Court that's going to advance end-of- of term abortion take away your second amendment rights because because what your your principal your principles yeah yeah tell me tell me that again but he tweets i get upset change your diaper never trumpers change your diapy get out like big boys and girls and go vote your principles how about saving lives how about freedom and liberty you know like real principles how about that stuff yeah yeah i thought so all right so the democrats are lunatics we all know that um how many examples we need to give you so So it wasn't but moments after the passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg that lunatic Democrats like Jerry Nadler started screaming about packing the court if we nominate a justice to the Supreme Court and that justice gets in.

Remember, we have 53 Republicans, so we can lose three. Pence would break the tie. Collins and Murkowski, you can probably already write them off. So we have one more to go. I don't trust Mittens either, but the Democrats are already losing their minds. Here's a piece of the Washington examiner. Again, in the show notes stage, you should read, be warned. This is only going to get worse. Nadler is already talking about packing the court. Meaning if that say, Amy Coney Barrett, Barbara Lagoa, whoever gets nominated gets through on the Trump side, that they want to expand and pack the Supreme Court in 2021

if the Trump nominee is confirmed, Michael Lee in the Washington Examiner. So let's war game this for a moment. Let's say whoever is the nominee gets through. So we now have a 6-3 conservative majority, which would really be 5-4 because John Roberts is really not a conservative. We all know that now. Still a conservative majority nonetheless.

Thomas is solid. Alito is solid. Kavanaugh, wishy-washy. Gorsuch's pretty solid. And then we'd have Lagoa, Barrett, whoever Trump nominates. Say, God forbid, Trump loses the White House and we lose the Senate. pretty solid and then we'd have lagoa barrett whoever trump nominates say god forbid trump loses the white house and we lose the senate the democrats are now saying we're going to pack the

court remember that fdr tried that his own party had to shut him down what does pack the court mean means we have nine justices now and we would have a 6-3 republican majority on the court republican appointed majority democrats are saying hey let's nominate two more. Let's give us 11 or even better. Let's nominate six more and make 15 judges. Of course, they would all be radical leftist lunatics and you would have a big leftist majority on the court. majority on the court. You'd have five Republican appointees if it were 15 and 10 liberal lunatics on the Supreme Court. So I tweeted out this weekend and put on my parlor account, okay,

you want to play those games? My knuckles are sharp. Buckle up, folks. Get ready. This ain't no time for halfway nonsense. You better get all in right now. Get ready for the fight ahead. They want to pack the court? Okay. You go ahead and pack the court. And then when we get in, if Biden were to win in 2024, we'll pack it again. We'll go to 21. we'll pack it again. We'll go to 21. Oh, when we get in, then we'll make it 25. Okay.

We'll make it 33. You want to play this game? I'm in. I'm all in. You want to play this game? Dan, norms. We got to get back to normal. Yeah, John McCain tried that.

Remember that? When he voted down the Obamacare, when we were to get rid of Obamacare and he gave the famous thumbs down saying, we got to get back to normal. Yeah, yeah. Good luck. That was a good call. Say that sarcastically, of course. So I tweeted that out. Mark Levin picked it up and was on Fox and Friends this weekend, an explosive appearance. It was really good. And here was Mark on Fox and Friends endorsing my idea that if the Democrats want to pack the court, we'll pack it to check this out. This party, the Democrat Party, is so far off the rails.

It is appalling. What are they proposing? They want to eliminate the Electoral College. That's in the Constitution. We talked about packing the Supreme Court. My buddy Bongino had an idea and I like it. You pack the court. Then when we take over, we'll add a few more justices too. So you better be careful what door you're opening here. Damn right. The great one. They don't call him the

great one for nothing. Had a great interview with President Trump last night on Life, Liberty, and Live In too. I strongly recommend it. You want to pack the court? Well, let's get everybody on the record right now from the Republican Party. We'll pack it too. By the time we're done, Joe, there'll be 6,427 judges on the Supreme Court. I'm okay with that. Yeah, man. You want to play ball? It's time to play ball. You want to act like sane, rational human beings?

You want to get back to Robert's no pun intended rule of order? I'll do that. But as I've said to you repeatedly, you better get in a wartime mentality right now. And I hate war analogies, but I mean it. When you're in the trenches with your buddy there and you got hot lead coming down your way, you don't worry about the nasty Christmas card your buddy sent to his friend he was upset at. You can handle that when the war's over. You got beefs. You never trump Republicans with the Republican Party

right now. You don't like Trump tweets. Fine. Not everybody does. Doesn't bother me. Does bother some, and I understand that. This isn't the time for that fight. We can handle it after the election. These people are coming for you today. They will stop at nothing. They are ruthless. Pelosi, I just played you the video. We have a lot of arrows in the quiver, consenting to, well, implying that impeachment, impeachment for what? For being president?

These people are lunatics. Ladies and gentlemen, we are in charge right now. Act like it. I don't want to hear about precedent. Precedent from a party that impeached the president for a phone call. Precedent from the party that spied on the president of the United States. Precedent for the party supporting late-term abortion. Precedent for the party that has active socialists inside of their party right now screaming about a takedown of our whole constitutional system. We're supposed to listen to these insane lunatics talking about packing the court,

talking about street fights after the election. We're supposed to listen to them and take our guidance from them. I'll take a very hard pass and take my guidance from the same crowd. I don't want to hear about precedent from them. Their precedent is disorder and chaos and destruction. That's their only precedent on the left. You want to pack the courts? We'll pack it too. You want to throw out the filibuster?

Fine. We will not change those rules back when we're in charge. Get everybody on the record now. I want to get to this piece in a second here by Michael Anton. I want to give him a shout out too, by the way. It's not a paid spot or anything, folks. But Michael Anton, who wrote that article, The Coming Coup, which I was using last week, which is terrific.

Those shows did bonkers numbers. He has a book out. He didn't ask me to do this, but they did send me over a copy. It's pretty terrific, by the way. There it is. The stakes, Michael Anton, highly recommended. America at the point of no return. You want more about what they're planning? Again, that's not a paid spot or anything like that. It's just really good. I don't know Michael personally. I've never met him. I'm just telling you, this guy writes great stuff. Read his article, The Coming Coup, but read this one too.

American Greatness. Same guy, Michael Anton. Make the pick. We're in charge. Damn it, you better act like it. Make the pick. This will be in the show notes today as well. You're damn right you are.

Make the pick. Play that again. I'm president and you're not. You're damn right. Make the pick. Confirm a justice now. It's no time for Senate Republicans to go wobbly to quote Thatcher. Confirm a justice now.

Read this piece by Anton. This guy's spot on. Why? confirm a justice now read this piece by anton this guy's spot on why obviously because we're in charge because as president trump just told us on the show he's the president you're not we won he told us that twice but not just that ladies and gentlemen there's another reason i'm going to get to a quick break here for another one of our sponsors, but there's another very serious reason we need this pick right now.

Folks, today's show also brought to you by our friends at Raycon. Raycon earbuds, these are the best in the business. They're sleek looking. They stay in my ears and my favorites. This is my personal set right here. Check them out.

That's a handy case. They come in. This is how I do my interviews, how I do my conference calls. It's how I do, I listen to my podcast when I listened as well. You know, the best way to listen to using a pair of premium wireless earbuds, check them out Raycon right here, especially if you can get them at less than half the price of other guys. That's why I recommend and use wireless earbuds from Raycon. My favorites Raycon's newest model, the everyday E25 earbuds are their best ones yet. I get a lot of really good compliments about these.

Six hours of playtime, seamless Bluetooth pairing. It's super easy, more basic, compact design, and a noise-isolating fit. I love it when I'm traveling. Raycon earbuds are stylish and discreet. No dangling wires or stems. The company was co-founded by Ray J. People are obsessed with their products. They are really, really good.

Give them a try. Don't overpay for other garbage earbuds. These are the best in the business right here. Give them a try. Raycon has a 45-day free return policy. You can make sure they're the pair of wireless earbuds for you. They are. I use them. I'm on the phone all day with them. For a limited time, get 15% off your order at buyraycon.com slash Bongino. That's buy, B-U-Y, Raycon, R-A-Y-C-O-N.com slash Bongino for a special 15% discount on Raycon wireless earbuds. We always like having them on the show. Make sure to check it out now while the deal's still running. Buyraycon.com slash Bongino. Go today. Really

cool, folks. They work great, too. The sound is absolutely terrific. Buyraycon.com slash Bongino. Okay, getting back to my coverage here. So there's another reason outside of the obvious ones. Back to my coverage here. This. So there's another reason outside of the obvious ones. Precedent is on our side. There have been 29 openings. All 29 people were nominated and nine out of 10 have gotten through when the parties are the same.

There is no precedent to not do this. Michael Anton is spot on. But he brings up another important point that candidly I hadn't considered until Ted Cruz brought it up this weekend on a Fox appearance. Ladies and gentlemen, we know the Democrats are planning chaos in this election. All of last week's shows, I covered that. I covered Anton's piece in the coming coup. Michael Anton's piece where he talks about how the Democrats are already calling for a street fight, quote, not a legal one. Get ready. Toughen up. Get ready. You're already there. You're as tough as you need to be. You got it in you. We all do. Get ready. Well, what happens, ladies and gentlemen, if this case, the election, we have a hanging Chad's Bush v. Gore disaster. And just like in 2000,

Bush versus Gore, this goes to the Supreme Court and we have to decide what these deadlines are. Well, then they're in the constitution. They've been written up legally by statute. Yeah. Ladies and gentlemen, we've seen those to be ignored just like they were in Pennsylvania where the deadline for ballot counting in Pennsylvania was written into the law and the judge ignored it. That just happened. So I'll take a hard pass on the fact that we're relying on judges. I'm just saying, do we have some legal avenue? Yeah. You say, well, maybe it'll go to the Supreme court. The Supreme court will decide. And they'll say, Hey, we're stopping this counting. This is ridiculous. These are not legitimate ballots. Well, what happens if it's

four, four? Well, Anton brings that up in his piece today. He says, this argument's not original, but it bears repeating. Democrats have assured the American people that unless Joe Biden wins in a landslide, they will litigate the living hell out of the 2020 election. You're damn right they will. One likely outcome, given the potentially huge number of lawsuits and the slow and cumbersome nature of the legal process, is that in order to have a president by January 21st, the Supreme Court will need to intervene as it did in December of 2000. Like I just said, listen to this, folks. Pay close attention. In that case, what happens if the court splits 4-4?

Who decides? There does not appear to be a clear constitutional mechanism. An unresolved electoral college vote constitutionally goes to the House. But what if, because of the legal chaos, electors are not designated? Well, then what? We decide the election in the streets? We can't have a 4-4 tie. We need a full complement

of nine Supreme Court justices now. Make the appointment and the confirmation now. No delays. You are in charge. Act like it. Even the New York Times agrees. Really? Hat tip, Mike Cernovich. Here's his Twitter feed right here. Pick this out. This is an old op-ed written by the New York Times, and I quote,

New York Times editorial board. Every day that passes without a ninth justice undermines the Supreme Court's ability to function and leaves millions of Americans waiting for justice or clarity as major legal questions are unresolved. Yeah, thank you, New York Times. So now we got Obama, we got Biden, and the New York Times on the record. Yeah, we need nine. Folks, I'm worried here. I don't want to alarm you. This is not an alarmist show. We will handle it. We always have. But you should be worried too.

Let's say states start rewriting their election laws like a Pennsylvania judge did, a politician pretending to be a judge. There's Pennsylvania courts where they rewrote Pennsylvania election law and said, no, no, you can count ballots after the election. Yeah, but that's not what Pennsylvania law says. We're rewriting the law. You don't think those cases will go to the Supreme Court? So then let's say they go to the Supreme Court and we don't have a ninth seat filled and the Supreme Court,

because you can't count on John Roberts, of course, splits four, four. Who's the president? Who's the president? Oh, Dan, it goes to the house by December 14th. They'll forfeit their votes.

Will they? What if lower courts say they won't? And there's no Supreme court to break that, break the lower. Have you thought about that? Get ready. Get ready. Now, folks, I debated doing this next segment here.

I still got this Jim Caviezel video, which we're not leaving the show today without doing it because it is some of the most explosive two minutes of TV I've ever seen. It came out of nowhere, too. We may have Jim Caviezel on the show if we can fit it in, by the way. I've got some interview stuff coming up. He's got a great movie out in Fidel, which I can't recommend highly enough. Working out some of that stuff now. But I'm going to get to that. But this segment I debated strongly doing. Because what I don't want to do, and I want to be crystal clear, is again, I'm not trying to alarm anyone. But folks, it is 2020.

And for some reason, this is the year, like 1968, where everything decided to happen at one time. Not having a plan is no excuse. Tim Carney at the Washington Examiner asked a question this morning in a piece. It's a must read, again, in the show notes. But what if something happens to biden or trump early voting creates another reason for the electoral college i don't want to sound depressing here but folks these are all things that have to be considered they're not spring chickens either one of these guys i obviously as i've said always about Ruth Bader Ginsburg,

whenever you're having these conversations, rest her soul now. I obviously don't wish ill on anyone. We're all children of God. That would be disgusting. But for us not to prepare for these types of questions, given all that's happened so far in 2020, is pure, unadulterated insanity. What happens if a health crisis arrives and one of these two can't follow through? Forget about the more tragic outcome.

What if they have to pull out of the race because of some, God forbid, some disease or something? Not a fair question to ask. What happens? Well, Carney addresses that in this piece and i strongly encourage you to read it strongly well the electors that's when the electors meet and stay capital so hold on keep keep this up a second remember what i told you december 14th you know what come back to me i just want to explain i should have done this my fault not paulus i should i shouldn't call for that as quickly as i did folks the presidential election does not

happen on election day that That's when you vote. Everybody understand that? You vote on election day. It's not a popular vote election. It's not. Your vote matters in your state, where whoever wins the popular vote within those states, with the exception of Nebraska and Maine

that have congressional districts that do it a little differently. If you win the popular vote in Florida, if Trump gets one more vote in Florida than Biden, then those 29 electors, presidential electors, they vote when? On December 14th. That's the real election day. You have to vote on November 3rd, just to be crystal clear. But the real selection of a president, ladies and gentlemen, occurs on December 14th, a date Joe and I and Paula now have brought up on this show 10, 15 times. December 14th is the day the president is picked. You vote on November 3rd.

But the presidential electors are the ones that pick a president through the electoral college. I'm sorry, I don't want to do basic history, but sadly, a lot of liberals are confused by this. They still think the popular vote determines the president. It doesn't. It has nothing to do with it. The popular vote in the states does. So what Carney's getting at here is what if something happens after election day, November 3rd, but before December 14th, when the presidential electors actually picked the president. Now, he's now he's to go back to the piece. Sorry.

That was my fault. Not Paula's. It's the audience feedback. They hate it. If you can't blame anything, Paula's, everybody loves Paula and Joe. I always get thrown under the bus here. They're the best. This was my fault.

So here you go. Tim Carney's talking about December 14th. That's when the electors meet in their state capitals and vote for president, December 14th. For that reason, the party of the deceased, God forbid, candidate wouldn't want to change the name on the ballot before Election Day in any shady ways. They could just rely on electors to do the work. In New Jersey, for instance, Democrats would simply leave Biden on the ballot and let him win the state, even if he couldn't serve. Then on December 14th, all 14 New Jersey electors will gather in Trenton and they could all just vote for Harris. So scenario number one.

You don't remove that person from the ballot, God forbid they're deceased or something else. The electors just meet and they pick who they want. As he gives the example of New Jersey, they'd meet and say, God forbid, again, something happens to Biden, Harris is their person. They can pick him. The electors can do what they want. There's another scenario here. Tim Carney, back to the Washington Examiner piece. He says, having said that, because that seems to clear it up, right, Joe?

The electors just pick who they want. If Biden or Trump can't serve they pull out withdraw they just pick pence or pick garris right carney goes on he says well i'm not saying there's no window for drama here however some states have faithless elector laws that prohibit electors from going rogue but the recent supreme court decision allow listen this, allowing those laws had a footnote. Quote, nothing in this opinion should be taken to permit the states to bind electors to a deceased candidate. Little background on that. Yeah.

Supreme Court just ruled on what they call faithless electors. Meaning, let's say again, Trump wins the popular vote in Florida. Trump, according to our law, gets all 29 of Florida's electors, meaning let's say again, Trump wins the popular vote in Florida. Trump, according to our law, gets all 29 of Florida's electors. That's it. Simple as that on December 14th. The Supreme Court just ruled on what's known as faithless electors, Joe, where one or two of those people in Florida say, no, I don't have to do what the popular vote says. I'm going to vote for Biden, even though Trump won the popular vote. The Supreme Court said, eh, no, you're not.

Faithless elector laws, you're going to vote who the state says you're going to vote for. Thank you, period, full stop. Tracking? Faithless electors, you can't do it. However,

little footnote there, Supreme Court says, but you're not bound to vote for a deceased candidate. God forbid something were to happen again. They're not bound to vote for anyone. Now, here's the ultimate chaos scenario. What if a state, because their faithless electors aren't bound to vote for a deceased candidate,

what if a state, if it happens before the election, changes the name on the ballot to someone else because one of those candidates can't go on? Well, that would create some real chaos because then what would happen? Ladies and gentlemen, some states are already voting, Virginia and otherwise, meaning the Democrat vote, say it were Biden,

and Biden withdrew, would be split amongst who, Joe? Biden and Harris. Tim Carney, takeaway number three. Read this piece. Also, the ability of Biden or Trump to serve could be ambiguous, which would also throw things into turmoil. Finally, one party could try to win a state

by removing the deceased candidate from the ballot partway through the election. Imagine Florida is very close and Biden dies two weeks out. Then Republicans could remove his name from the election day ballot and replace him with Harris, splitting the Democrat vote in a state and allowing Trump to win with a plurality well below 50%. Listen, I'm not trying to scare anyone, ladies and gentlemen. It's 2020. I am not taking anything off the table. I simply want you to have in your head what happens.

Your legislators should know that this stuff is all a possibility. And they should have a plan going forward what would happen. Not having a plan is a recommendation and a plan to fail. That's what that is. All right, let me get to my last sponsor and really some of the most terrific video. I can't speak highly enough about Jim Caviezel's appearance on Fox.

And finally, folks, listen, this has been one of my original sponsors, Brickhouse Nutrition. They have a product called Field of Greens. I don't think I'd be, Paula, can I take a little bit of credit for this? When Miles and I, Miles has great pride.

He runs Brickhouse Nutrition. It's his company. I said to him, I was using an old fruit and vegetable powdered supplement. It tasted terrible. And it was extract. And I called him, I kid you not. I said, Miles, you can do better.

I said, if you wouldn't mind, would you create a fruit and vegetable supplement and a powder, you see right here, field of greens, that uses actual real food? I'm not kidding. We had that conversation. Couple months later, after working with some of the best people in the business, he came out with Field of Greens. This product is now two or three years old. It sells off the shelves because it's simply wonderful. We all know we should be eating

wholesome, high quality fruits and vegetables, but we don't do it. Why? Some of you don't like the taste. Some of you don't want to cook them. You don't want to go shopping for them. That's okay. You have the answer right here. Packed with vitamins and antioxidants, ground up into a fresh, delicious powder, Field of Greens is delicious and easy to prepare. Look in the back. You see what the label says? It says nutrition facts. Why does that matter? Because it doesn't say supplement facts. Supplement facts are for extracts. This is real food. This is the nutrition facts. It's real food. Ground up, full serving of USDA organic healthy fruits and vegetables, which will power you with clean energy to fuel a healthier, happier lifestyle. We all need that now.

Don't mess around with your health. Go today. You're going to love this stuff. Go to brickhousenutrition.com slash Dan and get 15% off your first order of Fielder Greens today using promo code Dan. That's brickhousenutrition.com slash Dan and get 15% off your first order of Field of Greens today using promo code Dan. That's BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan. They have two flavors now. They have a wild berry flavor too. Both are spectacular. I mix it in green tea.

Paula puts it in orange juice, water, protein shakes. They're delicious. Check it out. Go to BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan. Use promo code Dan and pick up Field of Greens today. Do not wait another second. This is really good stuff. One of my first sponsors.

All right. So getting back to the show, this weekend I watch, I don't only work at Fox, I watch the network too. And Jim Caviezel, great actor. Remember him from Passion of the Christ and some other great movies he's been in. Jim Caviezel is a really religious man, and I appreciate that, and is not afraid to acknowledge his Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, neither am I.

So Jim was on Fox, and was given an interview. It was pretty good about his new movie, Infidel, which is spectacular. I have been privileged enough to get a screener copy. We'll try to get Jim on the show. I want to hear him talk about it. But about three quarters of the way through the interview, Jim Caviezel was asked by Pete Hegseth about a famous speech Ronald Reagan gave about a time for choosing. And Caviezel gave one of the most powerful, I'm getting goosebumps now talking about it, one of the most powerful answers I've heard on TV in a long time. This clip is about two minutes. Keep in mind, it's in the interest of time, I cut out the question, but it's Pete Hegseth asking Jim about the crisis we have now and the crisis Reagan highlighted in his speech at Time for Choosing.

And it doubles down on what I've told everyone listening to my show. This fight's coming to your door soon. It's already there now. You have a time for choosing too here's caviezel on that he said that and he said now also he said now let's set the record straight there's no argument over the choice between peace and war but there's only one guaranteed way you can have peace and you can have it in the next second surrender admittedly there's a risk in any course we follow other than this but every lesson in history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement.

And this is the specter our well-meaning Christian liberal friends, our priests, bishops, and pastors refuse to face. That their policy of accommodation is appeasement. And it gives us no choice between peace and war, only between fight and surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we will have to face the final demand, the final ultimatum. And what then?

When Satan has told the people of this world he knows what our answer is going to be. He has told them that we're retreating under the pressure of his cold war and someday when the time is right to deliver his final ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary because you see by then

we will have been so weakened from within spiritually, morally, economically. He believes us because from our side he's heard voices pleading for peace at any price or better red than dead or as one commentator put it he'd rather live on his knees than die in his feet and therein lies the road to war because those voices don't speak for the rest of us you and i know it and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin? Just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the Pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Ridge have refused to

fire the shot heard around the world? The martyrs of history were not fools in our beloved Wow. must not advance in the words of reagan evil is powerless if the good are unafraid wow paul and i were sitting there in our kitchen she was cooking for the kids and we both looked at each other like like i couldn't have said that better if i had spent six months planning that out in a speech. Folks, this fight's coming for all of you. Caviezel knows it. We all know it. There will be no surrender.

You should embrace this fight. I've warned you it's going to knock on your door. It's knocked on mine many times. I got another fight ahead that I'm hoping isn't the one I think it is. But there's a quote I bring up on the show often in moments like this, where I don't want you to be saddened by the fight ahead. I don't want you to fear it. I want you to embrace it. Every generation, as Caviezel said, whether through Moses to Jesus Christ to the revolutionaries at Concord,

has had an existential fight that they needed to fight. We have ours too. The light of liberty is about to be extinguished by people who don't give a damn about your economic freedom, your constitutional republic, the health and prosperity of your kids long-term. They just don't care. You can't avoid that fight. The author of the book, The Natural, Bernard Malamud, had a fantastic quote in the book. If you read the book, it's in the movie in a different form, but you need to remember this.

Anyone trying to escape the suffering ahead. Quote Malamud, We have two lives, the life we learn with and the life we live after that. Suffering is what brings us towards happiness. He's right. If we were happy all the time, you wouldn't know know what happiness was it would just be your state of being it's the foil of suffering and the fight and the struggle that we're going to win that leads us to real true authentic happiness caviezel knows that those are powerful words i can't recommend highly enough

all right folks i appreciate all your support last week. I've got some upcoming news I'm going to tease this week about Parler, which is a company I'm part owner of. It is an alternative to Twitter, the tech tyrants at Twitter. Twitter and Facebook are basically threatening the public with the censorship in the election. They're not going to allow anyone to predict winners or anything like that, which is insanity. This is like the Soviet union all over again. We will be announcing something at parlor this week.

If you want to get ahead of it a little bit, you can read this article in the show notes and up on gino.com, the parlor pred pledge written by my good friend, a co-owner of the company, Jeffrey Wernick, a brilliant guy. We're pledging you censorship free coverage, you know, like free societies do at Parler.

You want to predict the outcome of the election? Either side. You're a Biden camp member. You want to predict the outcome for your guy? Go right ahead. We're not going to ban you. We're not going to censor you. You think President Trump won? You speak freely on Parler. I also appreciate deeply your support of Rumble, which is another company I'm involved with. Rumble.com slash Bongino. My videos will be airing in an exclusive time window, half an hour time window on Rumble First from now on. It is free. It's better than YouTube. That's why I'm there. Rumble.com slash Bongino. We will not be deleting our YouTube account. The fight's everywhere, but we will be airing first on Rumble.

So if you'd like to watch my videos, please go to Rumble.com slash Bongino. Subscribe. It is free. Those videos will be there. They'll be crisp and clean and they look absolutely terrific. Please, Rumble.com slash Bongino from now on.

Let's not support these tech tyrants that are trying to tear us down. I really appreciate your support, folks. Thanks for everything. I will see you all tomorrow.