The Dan Bongino Show - The Hard Truth About Use of Force in Policing (Ep 1277)

Episode Date: June 17, 2020

In this episode I address the latest outrageous attack by the tech tyrants on conservative websites and content. I also address the Trump Executive Order on police reform and what it really means for our police departments. I also explain the difference between chokeholds and neck restraints.  News Picks: A huge announcement about my fight against the tech tyrants.  The “woke” crowd is bullying corporations into submission.  Head Coach at OSU issues pathetic “apology” for wearing a t-shirt. Tulsa judge shuts down efforts to stop the upcoming Trump rally. President Trump signs an Executive Order on police reforms. This 2016 article does a great job explaining the problems with the negative Trump polls. Although I disagree with some of the conclusions, this is a solid article on the police use of neck restraints.  Copyright Bongino Inc All Rights Reserved. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Metrolinx and Crosslinx are reminding everyone to be careful as Eglinton Crosstown LRT train testing is in progress. Please be alert, as trains can pass at any time on the tracks. Remember to follow all traffic signals, be careful along our tracks, and only make left turns where it's safe to do so. Be alert, be aware, and stay safe. Get ready to hear the truth about America

on a show that's not immune to the facts with your host, Dan Bongino. This is going to be an important show today, folks. There are a lot of police reform bills out there. We saw this morning, we saw Tim Scott, Senator from South Carolina, his bill. President Trump signed an executive order yesterday. There's a lot in it.

I want to get into some of the details because the details matter. And I don't want to get lost in talking points. This really matters, including the conversation about what I'm calling here chokeholds, because that's not what everybody wants you to believe it is. This is a very detailed, and I've got some really interesting news, by the way, about some potential spying that happened.

This should be fascinating. Today's show brought to you by ExpressVPN. My savvy listeners secure their internet and their online activity with a VPN. Go to expressvpn.com slash Bongino. Welcome to the Dan Bongino Show. Producer Joee how are you today fine sir well fine sir i'm doing pretty good man doing pretty good just um thank you thank you wonder what you got in store here today yeah you said yeah i know i haven't told you because uh i haven't told paula either i want to keep it a surprise she may have a little bit of an idea all right so let's get right to it

loaded show today today's show brought to you by friends at iTarget. Even though the country's opening up again, some of us are a little leery about being in confined spaces, excuse me, with the public. If you're looking for a great gift idea for Father's Day that's safe and COVID-free, please consider iTarget Pro. It's one of the coolest ways to drive, fire, train with your firearm at home using their proprietary app

and their laser rounds. Convenient, safe, will save you a ton of money. Here's what dry firing does, folks, is when you safely unload a weapon, check it, check it twice, you dry fire. I mean, there's no round in it. You depress the trigger on a safely unloaded weapon. You can then work on your sight alignment, your trigger control, your grip, your sight picture, all of the components of good marksmanship. And without good marksmanship, owning a firearm can be useless. You have to be able to engage and properly, God forbid you're in that situation when it's not a paper target,

hit that target to potentially save the life of yourself or someone in your family. I hope you never find yourself in that situation. For Father's Day, get the iTarget Pro Laser Round, and the target that comes with it. So now with the dry fire training, you know exactly where the round would have landed on the target because it emits a laser. You have to make any manipulations to your gun. For Father's Day, get 10% off plus free shipping

with the offer code DAN. Don't let circumstances dictate whether or not you're going to train with your firearm. Training matters. Train now. Train often. It's important.

Take back control with iTarget Pro. That's the letter iTargetPro.com. iTargetPro.com. Go pick it up today. Use offer code Dan. Check it out. You're going to love this system. The feedback on it is tremendous.

Train often with your firearm. It's important. iTargetPro.com. Promo code Dan. All right, folks. Let's go. Ding, ding. Before we get to all that, the tech tyranny is entirely, completely out of control.

Sincere thank you to everyone who heard my announcement about my partnership with Parler yesterday, the hottest social media location now on the internet. We deeply appreciate it. The signups were through the roof yesterday on Parler for people looking to escape Facebook, Twitter, and all the other tyranny out there amongst the tech tyrants. So showing you again, why they can't stand you, the tech tyrants and the fake news, mainstream media outlets. Here was a tweet yesterday by NBC's fake news outlet and an alleged reporter

who works there. I say alleged reporter, cause I'm not sure what kind of reporting this is. But she tweeted out yesterday. She was very proud of the fact that they worked with some left-wing group looking to de-platform and demonetize conservative outlets. This Adele Mamako Frazier, forgive me if I'm saying your name wrong, it's not intentional. She says new from NBC. Thanks to the SF fake news and CCD hate for their hard work and collaboration.

What is she talking about? She's talking about the demonetization of Zero Hedge and The Federalist. The Federalist and Zero Hedge, I'm on both of their email lists. The Federalist, I use their content all the time on the show. So this is hilarious. I mean, hilarious in the most tragic way. So just to be clear, NBC, the biggest fake news proponents out there, the employers of Moscow Maddow, Rachel Maddow, crazy Lawrence O'Donnell promoting Florida coronavirus conspiracy theories, Moscow Maddow, who told you collusion was real. Remember that? And that Spygate was a hoax. NBC,

the biggest unintentional comedy act on television, pretending to be journalists, unintentional comedy act on television, pretending to be journalists, are now working to make sure the Federalists, Molly Hemingway, Sean Davis, Margo Cleveland, you know, the writers who actually got the whole Spygate story, right? They're working to have them demonetized by Google because what's the allegation?

If you're scratching your head right now, like this can't possibly be true. This story is not a joke. This is not my Babylon Bee or the Onion segment. This is not satire. This is really happening. Fake News NBC, through this lady, Ms. Frazier here,

is working with a left-wing group to make sure the Federalist and their website can't make any money from Google ads. This is happening. The story's since been rewritten three or four times. Google's now saying, no, no, we basically just threatened the Federalists. Now, what is this about?

Again, now you'll see why I took an ownership interest in Parler, to get away from these lunatics. So what happened was the Federalist must have had an article up and some comments were, you know, the comments section. You ever go to like a newspaper outlet that you can write comments? Yeah. So apparently Google's saying, hey, listen,

there were some comments in the comments section that are inappropriate, so we're going to take away all your revenue from your website on Google Ads. Really? That's what you're going to do? Now Google's saying, no, no, we just threatened the Federalists with that. Well, let's check out Google's actual tweets because Google PR, you really need to hire a new PR person.

I'm really sorry. So here's authentic blue checkmark tweets from Google Communications. The Federalists was never demonetized. We work with them to address issues on their site related to the comments section. Our policies do not allow ads to run against dangerous or derogatory content, which includes comments on sites. We offer guidance and best practices to publishers on how to comply. Oh my gosh, this is hilarious. Now, the brilliant Paula brought up an interesting point this morning. She said, you know, in their terms of service, because we're not fake news like NBC. We're going to give you the truth.

She said, in their terms of service, when you sign up, because we have Google, you can't get away from them. I wish you could. I mean, Google, YouTube, you can't get away from them. I have to get the message out. You don't have a choice. It's the Newtown Square. But we can fight against them, and I'm not going to shy away.

I don't care what they do to my show on YouTube or anywhere else. Don't care one bit. We're going to put the truth out and I appreciate you watching. But Paula did indicate to me that in the terms of service, there are certain conditions about the comments. But I argued back to her and I'll argue to you because this is going to be their fallback. It's always their fallback.

Google, Twitter, Facebook, all of them. Hey, it's in the termsback. Google, Twitter, Facebook, all of them. Hey, it's in the terms of service. Line 672, subsection A, sub, subsection 1, sub, sub, subsection 1.263. You didn't read that? You may say, well, Dan, we have no idea.

That's not the question. The question is not, is it in the terms of service? The question is, why are the terms of service only applicable to conservative websites like The Federalist? That's the question. Because then they're not terms of service. They're weapons to be wielded only against your ideological opponents when you're a tech tyrant that doesn't like conservative content, to be selectively enforced to enforce an ideology, not to enforce the terms of service. I gave Paul an example. How would you feel if a restaurant was doing temperature checks on the way in, right, and said, this is our policy. If your temperature is 100 or above, you can't come in. And that temperature lets in all of the white people, white men and women, lets them in, even though they have temperatures of

100 or 101. And yet when a male, a male black shows up, they don't like, and his temperature is 101, they say, you can't come in. Look, it's in our terms of service. We didn't do anything wrong. We're not serving anyone above. Well, that's not true yet. Now you may say, my gosh, Dan, why bring identity politics into this? Because this is exactly what the left does to us. And then when you turn it around on them and describes, they don't like that. Maybe that example will ring their bell. Those are not terms of service. That's a racist policy you enact in order to keep a black man out of your restaurant because you let everybody else in. That's exactly on the terms of service side, although not identity politics. This is ideological politics. That's exactly what they're doing.

The terms of service are not the argument. It's that they're selectively enforced. Now, what's fascinating about this, too, are the tech tyrants who have blanket immune, almost blanket immunity, I should say. Well, precision matters. You can't have almost blanket immunity. They have near immunity on the content on their websites. Remember, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. I can't talk about this enough.

I'm going to put up a tweet by an FCC commissioner, Brendan Carr, who knows more about this than anyone. He's one of the FCC commissioners, Federal Communications Commission. Nobody knows more about it than this guy. He put a tweet out there bringing up an interesting point. Google is preserved from lawsuits about the stuff on websites. So if I go to a website, you know, whatever, joeybagadonuts.com, and on that website is some threats or terrorism threats or whatever, Google cannot be sued, even though

that website is searchable through google.com. They can't be sued because under section 230, they are immune from what's on there because they're saying we're just a platform. We're not a publisher. We don't decide what's on those websites. We're just basically a platform for those websites to be out there. So they're nearly immune from lawsuits. So that's an interesting point, Joe. So Google is saying we're immune from lawsuits and we shouldn't have to police the content.

Follow me, Joe, because we're just a platform. We're not a publisher. We're not policing it. We're not from lawsuits and we shouldn't have to police the content. Follow me, Joe, because we're just the platform. We're not a publisher. We're not policing it. We're not publishing it. We're not making editorial decisions. We shouldn't be responsible for policing our content. But you, the Federalist, are directly responsible for policing the comment section of a site? Just to be clear.

That's your point? So Google, so google facebook twitter we're okay we shouldn't have to police any of the content we're immune from you can't sue us but we're definitely going to go after the federalists for a comment section they're supposed to police hat tip brendan carr here's some of his comments let me read off here again an FCC commissioner who seems to understand how this is not going to end well for Google he says big tech has long argued it needs section 230's unique set of liability protections because websites simply couldn't operate if they were held liable for comments or user-generated posts that's big tech's argument he says well not so, according to Google's own ad policy.

Google's now holding the Federalist responsible for comments and user-generated posts, and Google will be demonetizing the website as a result. They're threatening to now, just to be clear. Google has no problem treating the Federalist as a publisher of comments and user-generated posts on the website for the purposes of Google's own ad policy, yet Google expends significant resources to protect its own platforms from that type of treatment under 230. Defend that one, Libs. I love how they tie themselves into pretzels trying to defend that. No, it's legitimate. The terms are service. Yes, sure it is. Can you tell me, please, a liberal website, a prominent liberal website like the Federalist that's a prominent conservative website? Can you tell me a counterparty liberal website of the same

significance as the Federalist that has been knocked for their comment section by Google? We'll wait. We'll wait. We can wait here all day. Of course you can. Paula said, well, Dan, we should, you know, you're going to have to find a comment. Are you, I said to her, are you seriously suggesting if you go to the comments section on a liberal website, you're not going to see insane, like, get Trump, rip him out of the White House. You'll see insanity on there.

But no, they're allowed to make the revenue all they want, earn revenue from Google. It's just the hypocrisy. And listen, I don't care what YouTube does to the show. We get demonetized all the time anyway. It has nothing to do with our content. I get it. I totally get it.

I appreciate you going to YouTube and watching our show because it helps us get the message out there and that is important. But I'm not, I don't care anymore. I'm done with that. This fight means too much. I'm really done caring. I'm not sitting this out for a few extra views here and there. Not a chance.

All right. Let me move on because this is important. So yesterday, President Trump gave an address from the Rose Garden, I believe, about this executive order on police reform. The executive order, you can see from the Washington Examiner I believe, about this executive order on police reform. The executive order, you can see from the Washington Examiner if you want a relatively decent analysis of it, article will be up in the show notes. It had three components to it. This article is by Rob Crilley,

Washington Examiner, without police, there's chaos. Trump reforms are embraced by his allies and law enforcement. That's important. There was a lot of buy-in by law enforcement on these proposals in the executive order. Keep in mind, executive orders are limited. They're not laws. They can be immediately revoked by the next president who's the next executive. But it was an attempt by

President Trump. It has three components. I don't want to spend too much time on the order. I want to spend some time on a component of it that, again, the media misinformation, I had it out again with Geraldo last night on Hannity about this is just absurd. The first component of it were grants from the federal government to law enforcement entities are going to be conditioned on some codified use of force.

In other words, you're going to have to put your use of force in writing now and it's going to ban chokeholds or what they call chokeholds. I'll get to that in a second. Unless it's a life or death scenario for the officer. That's going to be number one. Number two, they're going to initiate a co-responder program,

which by the way, is not a bad idea for emotionally disturbed people. When you responded to say, I don't believe it's going to involve violent folks who turn violent, but say you respond to a police officer response to a subway in New York City, homeless person, person has some obvious,

you know, a mental health issue. It's probably not a bad idea if you can get some social worker out there to help them out. If it's not a law enforcement, if it's a felony assault, that's a totally different scenario. Not a bad idea there.

I don't have any issue with that. Also, it's going to establish a database so they could communicate about officers who've been in trouble with that. Also, it's going to establish a database so they can communicate about officers who've been in trouble with either frequent use of force complaints who are just bad cops, so they can communicate so bad cops who are just bad seeds can't get hired by other departments. So that was the three tenets of President Trump's executive order. Now, here's what I want to do, and this is going to be an interesting segment, and I hope you can spread this around.

Folks, we're going to walk through the Atlanta video again. Not the whole thing. We're going to walk through a segment of it. Joe was kind enough to cut it up and put it in slow motion. Paula's going to stop and start a bit. Now, we're an audio audience first. I'm going to walk you through it on audio. If you'd like to watch it at home,

youtube.com slash Bongino, check it out and watch this segment because it's important. I want to headline this segment, Why Neck Restraints? The conversation is not as simple as people are making it out to be. Ladies and gentlemen, the term chokehold, as I've now said for the past two weeks,

is a rather inflammatory term that describes a number of different neck restraints. Some of them, in fact, are chokes. I don't want to play word games like the left does, and we shouldn't run from that. Some of them are not. And by engaging in an outright ban which this eo does not do executive order and neither does scottsdale it's not an outright ban although it creates incentives to eliminate them there's a problem with that the problem is that neck restraints are not all chokeholds and not all chokeholds are in fact correct. I'm explaining this poorly. Let me get to the video and I'll explain what I mean.

I want to play this video. I'm going to play it in slow motion. I want to show you why an outright ban of any kind of neck restraint is a bad idea that will probably result in more, not less fatalities. Again, this is going to be a common sense conversation. If you're not into it and you're liberals and you just want to say,

chokeholds, terrible, get out. This conversation isn't for you. We're going to talk about the science of control tactics here. Let's play the video. And I want to show you a key moment in this that matters. So here it is. You can see in slow motion,

these two Atlanta police officers and the Rashad Brooks. They're trying Rashad Brooks incident. They're trying to subdue him. Look at the officer to the right. You can see the officer behind him. You see it right there? Look, stop that right there. He has his right arm now around the neck of Mr. Brooks.

As the other officer is attempting to tase him, but Mr. Brooks has now grabbed the taser with his left arm so that there's two officers. The officer in the front of him is trying to tase him, but Mr. Brooks and the officer both have their hands on it. It's a fight for the taser with the one officer. The other officer behind him has an opportunity right now. Folks, I'm not Monday morning quarterbacking these officers.

Please. This is an important conversation about tactics and use of force. And if we can learn from this, if there was a video of me out there making a mistake in a control tactic situation that can help in the future, put it out there, folks. I have no shame in this game at all. I am not Monday morning quarterbacking them. I am genuinely trying to help. Having said that, look, you can see in the video, the officer behind him has his right arm around the neck of Mr. Brooks, has his left arm on the left bicep.

He looks like he has his knee up against the back. There is an opportunity right here. This is critical to end this right now in seconds. Instead, Mr. Brooks is dead. Now, what happens here? I can't get in the officer's head, of course. My guess here, I'm making an assumption, is that based on the media outcry against what they call chokeholds, which again are really neck restraints, they're not the same thing.

Sorry I explained that poorly before. I want to make sure precision matters here. My guess is he lets go of this because he knows that if in fact he enacts this hold, this neck restraint, no matter what happens, he will either probably be sued or potentially arrested for an illicit and illegal use of force. Illegal use of force. He lets go. Folks, this could have ended right here.

You see, he's still trying to get this. He's still, there we, there, he turns around and lets, he could have stopped it right there. He could have stopped it right there. He has, he's still trying to get this. He's still there. He turns around and let's, he could have stopped it right there. He could have stopped it right there. He has an opportunity here as well to stop it right here. Can we go back now and play this from the beginning? This is important. Play through. This is important. A choke hold is a tracheal restraint on the wind pipe where you compress the windpipe, that is definitely deadly force and is not recommended. You don't need it.

This opportunity here, he could have engaged in what's called a carotid restraint. The difference is the forearm bone, the bone in your forearm, your lower forearm, where it is. If that forearm bone is up against the windpipe and compressing it, that, ladies and gentlemen, can result and likely will result with enough pressure in death. You will either crush the windpipe or stop the airflow from coming in. That subject can't breathe and will die. That is not what a carotid restraint is.

A carotid restraint from behind. I wish I had someone here to demo with me. Yeah, Paula's like, I'm not doing that, which I appreciate. If you simply move the forearm, so envision this is the neck, right? That's a tracheal hold right there. The neck, forearm bone up against the windpipe, no oxygen in the lungs, definitely a deadly force scenario. It could be instant if you crush the windpipe. Ladies and gentlemen, with the proper training, and it's not even that long. I'm not talking about years. I'm talking about just a couple days, if not weeks. If you just move the crook of the elbow into where the trachea is, the windpipe, the windpipe is secured. Why?

Sorry, I have arthritic shoulders. But if you look up, because there's a crook there. You can't crush the windpipe then. So what happens? That V you have created, here's the windpipe in the crook of your elbow. It's not being compressed. Air is getting in. But the forearm bone and the bicep are now compressing these, the carotid arteries on the side of the neck. That's why it's called the carotid restraint and not the carotid choke. Ladies and gentlemen, what happens with just an inch's move over there?

You're not choking the person. Ladies and gentlemen, they typically lose consciousness in seconds may say that sounds horrible ladies and gentlemen it has happened to me my gosh the thousand times you wake right up it's not great it's not comfortable it's not a joyous occasion it's not something to test on your friends by the way disclosure i'm not kidding please don't it does take training to learn how to do it but it's not difficult do not try this at home i'm not kidding that's not one of those tv discards for real you will seriously hurt someone if you mess around. Having said that, where the places I train in, where men and women know how to do this,

it is completely and entirely safe. When you ban that and call it a chokehold, when it is not, you are not choking the subject. You are restraining the blood flow for just seconds so they will stop fighting and you can handcuff them. They will be up and at it in seconds and the fight will be over and handcuffs will be on. And most importantly, they will be alive. My guess is the officer lets that go because he understands. Now, to be clear, maybe he doesn't know how to do it.

In that case, don't touch it. If you don't know what you're doing, and that's bad training on the part of the police department, then don't do it. But if you know what you're doing, that fight would have been over right there and Mr. Brooks would have been alive. He had it.

He had it right there. Matter of fact, I've been doing this so long and have been had the carotid restraint restraint whether it's a triangle there's a number of different ways to do it whether it's a triangle whether it's a rear naked it has a number of different names on how to do it it's happened to me so many times and i've done it to others so many times in my training, that I've actually had to change the way I do it. The way you're supposed to do it is to weave, grab your own bicep, and push on. But I can't do that because my elbows don't work anymore.

So when I do this carotid restraint on a guy in jujitsu I'm rolling with, I have to do it like this, and I have to grab my own hand because my elbows don't even bend like that anymore. What I'm trying to tell you is it comes so easily with training to do that when you eliminate this and you make it a talking point, rather than talking about the science of control tactics, what do you do? Excuse me. You've taken a weapon out of the police officer's arsenal, the carotid restraint that is perfectly safe. And you've exchanged it with other impact weapons.

Now I got to hit him with a baton where you could kill him if you hit him in that, or now I have to shoot him. How does that make any sense? I'm asking an honest question. How is that compassionate? I'm not clear. So you're replacing a perfectly safe option, a karate restraint, which by the way, if you've ever watched a mixed martial arts match, UFC, whatever, the old pride, whatever it may be,

this happens literally in every single UFC event. At least one person has some kind of karate show and they do call them chokes but the term is not appropriate here they're not windpipe chokes why don't they ban them folks it's not an irrelevant question

it's a serious question you have a major sporting event around the world mixed martial arts fighting where this happens sometimes multiple times every night. And yet if it's so deadly, how come nobody's ever died? Where is this plague of deaths in American judo and jujitsu school where this happens 20, 30 times a class? It's not a joke. It's a serious question. How come there's not mass deaths? Ladies and gentlemen, because it's not dangerous.

It's not to be toyed with. It's not a joke. It's not to be practiced by people who don't know what they're doing without someone, you know, certified who knows what they're doing to teach you.

But it is not. It is not an alternative in the use of force toolbox that should be removed. That is not what I'm talking about with the tracheal choke. That's different. That is deadly force. You can seriously hurt someone quickly. Now, there's a lot of misinformed commentary out there on this

when you eliminate the carotid restraint the officer is not just going to get killed he is in preservation mode too he's being assaulted he is not going to give that up and just let you pound him into the concrete to steal his gun to shoot him. He's going to have to fight back. You're eliminating a low-end, low-risk maneuver, the karate restraint. Not totally without risk, by the way. There will be adverse reactions by some people, and that's always tragic. You're eliminating a low-end, low-risk option for an extreme high-end, high-risk option, a firearm or a baton.

How does that make sense? What's compassionate about that? I mean, again, are we thinking this through or is this, I'm not sure. Like, have we thought any of this through or is this just us catering to political whims of the day? Speak the truth, man. The truth matters.

I'm not advocating for anything other than sound control tactics policies where we can get subjects who have resisted safely locked up without hurting them or injuring them permanently. You have no evidence whatsoever that engaging with a firearm or baton is safer than a carotid restraint that will result in temporary unconsciousness where the subject will wake up 99.9999999% of the time with no adverse reaction whatsoever. You have no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the alternatives are better. You're just saying it because you're being pressured into it. I'm not going to do that. Now, there's an interesting article up at Reason.com. And listen, I don't agree with all the conclusions, but it's well thought out. And I encourage you to read it, please. It'll be in the show notes today. Bongino.com slash newsletter if you'd you to read it, please. It'll be in the show notes today.

Bongino.com slash newsletter if you'd like to read it. Jacob Sullivan, treating all neck restraints as deadly force would help curtail police brutality. Obviously, I don't agree with the conclusion there. They're not all the same. But I will say this in defense of Jacob Sullivan's article here, at least he's thought this stuff out. Again, I'm going to give you the point or counterpoint. I'm not just going to play games with talking points.

Ban all chokeholds. What do you mean by chokeholds? You're talking about the karate restraint? No, no. All of it. It's all the same. It's not the same. At least this writer, although I disagree with his conclusions, has thought this out. Here's a screenshot from the piece. He says, in practice,

however, the distinction between two kinds of techniques can be fuzzy. A vascular restraint, what I was just calling a karate restraint, can easily become a chokehold if the officer's technique is sloppy or if his arm slips as he struggles with the suspect who is actively resisting or reacting involuntarily to the maneuver. All right, come back to me. Fair point. Again, to give you both sides of this argument, because it's important and it matters. He's making a fair point.

If you are not trained to do this, do not do it ever. You will hurt someone, potentially kill them. Because he's not wrong, as I demonstrated to you before. If you have the windpipe in the safe crook of the elbow and you're restraining the carotid arteries and you don't know what you're doing and you move it just a little bit, you will compress the trachea and potentially kill someone. Very dangerous. But where I disagree respectfully with Jacob, who again wrote a very, I think, balanced article,

although I disagree with the conclusion. So what's your option then? Your option then is to have the officers go to impact weapons and electrocuting someone with a taser? That's your option? So don't train them better. Because, folks, once you're trained on this i can't emphasize this enough when you're trained how to implement an effective carotid restraint

rather than a windpipe choke you will not screw it up you won't you know exactly where the crook your elbow is even in the fog of war, if you're trained appropriately, you will feel the pressure of that windpipe if the bone is on immediately and you'll know to let go or to cinch up. Cinch up means put the trachea in the elbow. Just move it. I have never in my last 25 years of jujitsu ever, you'd be thrown out of your school immediately, by the way. Mistakenly trach choke someone. Ever. Ever. You will be thrown out immediately. It works the other way, too. If you're in a full mount position on a guy and you do an elbow shiv into his throat,

that's the same. You can kill him. You'll be thrown out of the school immediately. So my argument to Jacob is these are not black or white issues. Well, it could result in death if they screw it up. Well, let's train them better so they don't screw it up. Because then if you eliminate it, the chances of screwing up and shooting someone when you didn't want to because you had no other options are even greater.

Good article. I'm not knocking the guy. Nice piece. It's just the conclusion, I believe, is poorly thought out. Ban it because there could be an accident. Listen, there could be a really bad accident if you have to resort to a firearm or an impact baton. Again, did you think that through? I'm not trying to be a wise guy. This is not a difficult technique. I've seen 120 pound guys in jujitsu schools tap out using carotid restraints,

two- and 300-pound football players in a heartbeat who get up and say, what just happened? Not just once, by the way. Folks, it's time for sound, common-sense conversations. It is not compassionate to eliminate a low-end force option in exchange for a firearm or impact weapon and say you're helping community police relations. You're not. You just haven't thought any of this through.

My gosh. It could result in a mistake. Okay, well, let's train them better. You know what? I got more on that in a second. I'm sorry. I got more on that in a second. I'm sorry. I got to get to my sponsors.

It's, they paid to be here and paid to talk to you. So, and I appreciate it. I want to get to one more thing on that too. Because police training is a total train wreck, ladies and gentlemen. I got that. I got this Flynn thing too. Don't go anywhere on this.

I'm Mike Flynn. Yeah, this one's going to blow your mind. All right, today's show brought to you by friends at Omaha Steaks. Omaha Steaks has a limited time Father's Day offer for our listeners go to omahasteaks.com enter the code Bongino into the search bar save 55% on a gift dad will love we love them in our house Omaha Steaks are absolutely delicious we had burgers the other night I ate four of them yeah four of them I know it's a lot but they were delicious couldn't stop for $79.99 your gift will include four naturally lean top sirloin steaks, hand-carved and aged at least 21 days for tenderness and flavor.

They are delicious. You could cut them with a butter knife. I put a little adobo in their Omaha's. We cook them with the Omaha seasoning on it. Delicious. Here's what you'll get in this Father's Day pack. Four premium boneless chicken breasts. Four gourmet jumbo franks.

My daughter loves kielbasa sausages. A package of savory all-beef meatballs. You'll be addicted. Four gourmet jumbo franks. My daughter loves kielbasa sausages, a package of savory. All beef meatballs, you'll be addicted. Four perfectly brown potatoes au gratin, my daughter's favorite. Four made from scratch caramel apple tartlets, which my mother-in-law loves, and their signature seasoning, which is delicious. It's a perfect topping for those steaks. Dad will get all this delicious food, plus a free pound of steak cut bacon. Mouse watering, Very sorry. This amazing gift is ready to be shipped straight to dad's door in time for Father's Day for $79.99. Paula, tell Isabel this is what I want for Father's Day.

This Father's Day, send dad the gift he really wants. Go to omahasteaks.com and type Bongino, B-O-N-G-I-N-O in the search bar. Save 55% when you send the summer sizzle pack for $79.99 and get free steak cut bacon with your order. Don't wait. Go to omahasteaks.com and type Bongino in the search bar. Order the summer sizzle pack for Father's Day today. He will love this stuff. The food is absolutely outstanding. omahasteaks.com. Type Bongino in the search bar. Your dad will love it. Check that out. Okay. One more note on this very serious topic, which is not to be taken lightly, and I don't ever intend to. Police training, not all of it. I don't want to stereotype anyone, but I've seen a lot of it. Having been an instructor in our Secret Service Academy,

having gone through the NYPD Academy twice, not because I failed, because I was in the cadet program. And then I went back as a police officer, two separate things. So I actually went through twice. And having cross-trained when I was an instructor in the Secret Service Academy to a lot of other entities, police training, a lot of it is, I'm sorry, folks, it's just not very good. It's not.

You know, when I first got to the the secret service academy we had this thing called desmonics it was um it was just a made-up name but it was kind of like an aikido based control tactics where you know you if so you're attacked we do it folks i'm listen i'm just gonna be straight it didn't work we revised basically me and i had. It didn't work. We revised basically me. I didn't have a lot of input into it. We had just started doing it. I don't want to over-exaggerate anything. But we were getting into ground fighting back then, and I was frequently asked for some

input on it. And we revised the program to get away from that. And they get into more sound techniques using ground fighting stuff that actually worked. Now, I can tell you for a fact, the Secret Service Control Tactics training program is fantastic. There were some really forward-thinking folks over there. The problem now is we're still doing things we took out of the 60s. You go to police academies, they're like, let's jog around the gym a hundred times. Why? Why are you doing that? Have you ever asked yourself, why are you doing that? No, if you're a police control tactics instructor, a PT instructor, why are you doing that? Have you ever asked yourself, why are you doing that? No, if you're a police control tactics instructor, a PT instructor, why are you doing that?

We're building cardiovascular fitness. No, you're not. You're training people to jog. Why would a police officer want to jog? A serious question. Well, we get in foot pursuits. You jog at them? You jog in behind the guy?

You're like, hold on. I'm at a seven minute. What are you at? I'm at an eight minute. Why are you jogging? Train how you play. Play how you train. That's what we teach our athletes. We don't teach a sprinter to jog. Why? Because he sprints. So when a police officer is engaged in a use of force scenario, it's a sprint. And when God forbid he's in a ground fight, it's a ground fight. So why we're teaching a police officer boxing is beyond me. Why are we doing that?

I don't understand. Can you tell me a scenario where a guy gets in a boxing stance and a police officer should get in that boxing stance too? No. You take out your baton to stop him from boxing you. It doesn't make sense. We should not be doing any physical fitness not related to foot pursuits and actual sad but true the need to learn how to defend yourself in hand-to-hand combat. If you are not teaching your officers how to appropriately, in a life or death scenario,

use carotid restraints and joint manipulation for compliance so you can stop, not hurt anyone, so you can stop them from hurting you. There's a big difference. If you are not teaching them that, and many are, you are way, way behind the times. There's nothing wrong with showing officers how to take a punch, faint, and maybe throw a punch. Teaching them how to be boxers is a catastrophic disaster. Everything should be designed for quick, near-anaerobic bursts of energy and to stay alive in the street. It is your moral responsibility to teach your office. And I know many of you are, I get

your feedback. It's terrific. Please don't take this as any kind of pretentious condescending tone. It is not in any way intended to be that. But for those who haven't caught up to this, it is your responsibility to give those officers the confidence in the street that if they're attacked, thrown to the ground and violently assaulted like these officers in Atlanta, that they don't panic. They resort to their training. They fight as they train. They train as they fight. And when you don't panic, you don't overreact. I'll give you an extreme example. I wish I had the video, but I don't. The guy I learned most of my ground fighting techniques from when I lived in New York is one of the finest ground fighters of our generation.

I don't say that with any air of exaggeration. Matt Serra. He was a UFC welterweight champ. Beat George St. Pierre. One of the greatest upsets in UFC history. A lot of you remember that fight. I learned from Matt early. I had him on Fox and Friends about a year ago

where he demonstrated some techniques. Probably one of the finest ground fighters the world has ever seen. Matt was confronted. I believe in Las Vegas. It may have been. It doesn't really matter the location. But was confronted by a guy trying to test him.

You know how that is, Joe. Oh, look at you. Tough guy. UFC. Yeah, yeah. Matt's about, I don't know, 5'7", 5'8". Maybe about 200 pounds. He's not a, you know, overly enormous guy.

So the guy wanted to test Matt. Started to get physical with Matt. Matt is the most peaceful guy you've ever met in your life. He does not, believe me, he is not a violent guy despite his ability to do violence. Somehow the fight winds up on the ground. Matt mounts the guy, gets on top of him, straddles him, and basically knows exactly what to do.

One of the mistakes made in that video with the Atlanta officers, I'm not morning to morning quarterbacking, I'm just pointing it out. God forbid you're in this scenario, is officers have a tendency sometimes, if they haven't taken a lot of ground fighting classes, to want to control the legs. Ladies and gentlemen, that is an enormous mistake. Forget the legs. Control the hips.

The golden rule of ground fighting is he who controls the hips controls the fight. Controlling the legs is irrelevant. He's just going to hip escape right away and kick you in the face. Forget the legs. You have to control the hips. How does that relate to the video of Matt? Matt mounts the guy, sits on his hips.

The guy can't get up. Matt's not attacking him. Matt is not in any way panicked. I think it's a TMZ video. If you Google it, you can see it. Because I don't have the rights to it. But it's just TMZ, Matt, Sarah, you know, whatever, fight or something.

You'll see it. Matt is literally laughing, telling the guy to please calm down. The cops, I believe, show up later. Matt gets away. The guy, you know, doesn't get away. He just gets off the guy. You get what I'm saying?

And everything's resolved. No one was hurt. No one was damaged. No bones were broken. And thankfully, nobody died. Why? Because Matt wasn't panicked at all. He'd been in that situation a million times. He knew just to control the hips. He knows when you control the hips and get your weight on, they can't go anywhere. Forget the legs. We are doing our police officers a major disservice by not using these six to nine month police academies to mentally train them to be hard on the ground, to know this, to not panic.

You know what the kind of training, if you dump these stupid PT classes, let's do a hundred pushups. Why? How about we have them grapple for an hour so, God forbid, they're in the street with a subject, they don't panic. Teach them things like he who controls the hips controls the fight. Teach them things like the carotid restraint so you can incapacitate a subject with no long-term damage at all and handcuff them without having them hurt. Teach them things like the weapon. When they go for a weapon, a subject on top of you, you may say, Dan, that's got to be the worst scenario for a police officer.

Ladies and gentlemen, if you know what you're doing on the ground, on your back, that's actually the best scenario. Because the subject to get your weapon many times will cross the body and he's giving you a joint lock. He's giving it to you. If you've done it even a hundred times, you will see it. The weapon is an invitation to get a joint lock where you enact the joint lock. You initiate pain compliance. The subject says, ow, that hurts. Let me go. You then say, okay, please stop grabbing my weapon. Thank you.

Nobody gets hurt. But when you don't know that and he grabs for your weapon and you panic and you go for the weapon and he gets it, the tendency would be to grab it and shoot first. But we can't talk about this. Joint locks, that sounds terrible. You know what sounds terrible? Shooting someone. That that sounds terrible. You know what sounds terrible? Shooting someone. That sounds really terrible. I have to tell you, of all the shows I've ever done, I usually plan these out a little better. I didn't think I was going to get lost into this conversation. I'm

really serious. I have, I'm not joking, nine stories. I'm on story two because this really matters to me, folks. And I don't want to beat this thing to death, but I'm telling you it matters to me because you watch this again on my whole adult life, training myself. And so I saw this video on Twitter this morning, another one, this guy in a mall, just beating the snot out of this older guy. It's a black subject and a white guy. I don't know if it put out there. Listen, I'm not going to get into the whole identity policy thing. The guy on the ground just begging

to be left alone. Folks, please. I mean, again, I'm begging you. You have to train yourself. I'm not suggesting everybody out there has to go compete in the UFC, but my gosh, don't ever negotiate in your life from a point of weakness, ever. You have to train yourself. We live in a rough world full of really rough people. This stuff matters to me. I trained my whole life to never be in that scenario, ever.

You know why I haven't been in a street fight in 20 years? 20 years. And even the last one we were in ended really fast. Because I don't need to. I've got nothing to impress you with. Nothing. Nothing. I don't need to get in.

And by the way, men sniff out other men's weakness. Come on, you know that. They sniff it out. They can see it. But they also sniff out strength too. How many times have you been in that scenario where you know that guy is a dangerous guy and you see some other guy come up to him and start with the other guy walks away and he's like, probably not a good idea.

Happened to me once in a bar a long time ago. Guy tried to cut me in line. It was a bar I was in. There was one bathroom. There's a line of about 20 people to get in there. I was like number four. I'd been waiting seriously for 45 minutes. Guy tries to walk in front of me. And he says, not a joke. He says, I'm going to walk into the front of this line. If anybody has something to say about it you say it right now he's a big dude too so i sat there for a minute my younger and more uh temper intemperate days i guess best way to say it and i said listen mother not a joke i said i don't give a who you cut in this line but you ain't cut me, so I'm number four. So you can take your caboose, not what I said, and stand behind me and fight it out with the guy behind me because I don't care what he says, but you ain't getting in any way in front of me or the three people in front

of me. How does that sound? On my life, this happened. Dude who probably outweighed me by 50 pounds said, this mother is crazy and walked right behind me and never said another word then i went and peed and it was great on my life crossed my heart happened you can stand wherever you want just not in front of me true story no desire to fight the guy at all he calmed down real quick after that all right i got another sponsor and i have some really explosive information get ready for that because i'm not kidding i know i use that term a lot it's my show i get really excited about something this is really bad about the flynn case i'm going to ask you a i'm going to leave

i'm going to phrase it in the form of a question. All right, our last sponsor. This is the finest addition to my home gym we have had in a long time. I've had it forever, but now that we've got a bit of a bigger house, we can expand the home gym. I am still using the Teeter inversion table. I can't say enough about it. I use it twice a day. What is an inversion table? It basically inverts you, turns you upside down, and uses gravity in your own body weight to decompress your spine, relieve pressure not just on your back, but your surrounding nerves and your joints too. I have arthritis in my shoulders, not my back.

My back hurts because I had back surgery, but it helps my shoulders too. I decompress on the Teeter inversion table for a few minutes a day. I do it twice a day, and I do it after my workouts. If you have back pain, you've been lucky enough to even avoid it, great. Get a teeter anyway. Invert every day. Keep your back and joints feeling great. And a nice side benefit for me, I don't know about you, but I get a little

teeter high when I get off it. I don't know if it's the blood flow or whatever it is. I feel great when I get off it. 3 million people have put their trust in teeter. It's the best known name in inversion tables since 1981. For a limited time time now you can get teeter's new upgraded model the inversion table the fit spine with bonus accessories stretch max handles and an easy wrench ankle system it's really easy to get in and out of don't even worry about that super easy to put together i put it together i'm not very mechanically inclined don't even say anything armacost because i know you know that he's witnessed and i put it together. Lickety split. Get the free inversion program, Matt, for the ultimate. Thank you for your silence on that because you know the story. I'm so bad at this. Teeter inversion tables have thousands of reviews

on Amazon. They're rated at 4.9 stars. With this deal, get $150 off. That's right. When you go to Teeter, T-E-E-T-E-R.com slash Dan. Get free shipping, free returns, a 60-day money-back guarantee. No risk to try it out. Remember, you can get Teeter's FitSpine inversion table plus the free inversion program app by going to Teeter.com slash Dan. That's T-E-E-T-E-R.com slash Dan. Go today. Add this to your home gym.

Add it. Put it in your bedroom. When you get up in the morning, you're going to love it. Check it out today. Thank you, Joe. You could have piled on there. Not in a million years. Remember our studio when

we put that together oh yeah like that was wild you were like you really did you really can't be this stupid like you can't you can't drill a hole i've learned a little more since that drills can be fun yes you know they were for you that day you had the impact driver you were you were tearing up that table. Remember? All right. Listen, important story here. You know, the Mike Flynn case is an abomination. I mean, the things that happened to General Flynn, the targeting of him by the Obama administration, the targeting of him by the FBI, the continued targeting of him by Judge Sullivan in this ridiculous case where the government says, we don't have a case. Mike Flynn's attorney says, you don't have a case.

And the judge is like, no, I think we got a case, which is interesting. Interesting take for Judge Sullivan. Jeez. I just don't even know what to say anymore. So I got some information. What if I told you that Mike Flynn,

when he was a national Security Advisor for President Trump, that people from the FBI were contacting, let's just say security people involved with the White House, and that they were attempting to bug Mike Flynn's office. Oh. What? Oh, no. No, I'm not. Let me just throw that out there. Let me just. Joe, you may hear this in the coming weeks.

This may be coming. I just want to get you ready because we always break the stories here on the Spygate debacle weeks, if not months, before they actually come out. Remember that whole January 7, 2017 meeting with the primary subsource for Steele? We told you about that two years ago. Now it's like the big thing. Oh, my gosh. They interviewed Steele's subsource, said the whole case was BS in January of 2017.

Yeah, you know that if you listen to my show. Get ready for this doozy. That people, let's just say, people were approached by the FBI after, by the way, after they know they have nothing on Mike Flynn. Remember, January 4th of 2016, they determined they have no derogatory information on Flynn. They want to close the FBI case.

They have nothing. They've searched every database. They can't find one single piece of derogatory information on Mike Flynn. But for some reason after that, in an effort to get Flynn, they approached some people about bugging Flynn's work line. Flynn's work line. And some of those people were so concerned about what the FBI was trying to do that let's just say countermeasures were taken to prevent it. So just to be crystal clear on what you may see coming out in the coming weeks. A three-star general in the U.S. military,

an appointed national security advisor, who's being targeted by an FBI that's already concluded there's nothing to target him for. They may have tried to bug his office and were only stopped by another federal agency who was so concerned they would do it anyway that they took some countermeasures get ready for that one that should be fun shouldn't it folks

all right you heard it here first two pager today. All right. Even though we're running late on time on the show, I want to make sure I get to this story too, because it's a good one. The polls, ladies and gentlemen, we keep hearing about the polls.

Trump's down 40 in a poll in Texas. Okay, sure. Listen, I don't disregard polls. They're data points in time. All information is useful, candidly, even bad information, as long as you know it's bad, because then you know that it's bad. And if you know why it's bad, it can be helpful to make it good. Now, having said that, there's an older piece.

This piece from 2016, let me be clear, by our good friend Eddie Zipperer, who's terrific, one of the best political analysts around. He wrote this in 2016 in LifeSat, but it is worth reading today. He said the media should calm down about the polls, talking about in 2016, obviously, the Trump-Hillary polls. The article is absolutely relevant today. It's in the show notes. I strongly encourage you to read it, print it, save it, or whatever. Again, Bongino.com slash newsletter

is where you sign up for our newsletter. That is the show notes. Folks, with regard to President Trump's polls, there are three reasons they are almost, I'm not suggesting they're wrong in their conclusion. Listen, the president could lose. I hope he doesn't. He could lose. I'm trying to totally're wrong in their conclusion. Listen, the president could lose. I hope he doesn't. He could lose.

I'm trying to totally get out of the predictions game because I want to present to you fair analysis. And me telling you he's going to win, don't worry, doesn't do you any favors either because then apathy sets in. I want you to be a little anxious. You should be. So don't discount the polls completely. Having said that, the conclusions about how far ahead,

Biden's up 14 in a national poll, I believe are total garbage. Eddie lays out a few reasons, again, back in 2016, but are still relevant now, why these polls may be wrong. And this is very instructive for future elections too. Let's go to takeaway number one. First, are these registered voter polls or are they likely voter polls? Well, it makes a big difference. Because as Eddie says, if they're registered voter polls, he says basically unless you have a morning show on MSNBC, they're useless. Will the electorate look like a representative sample of registered voters

waited to reflect census data? No. Using registered voter polls to decide who will win an election is like trying to predict who will win a football game without knowing which players will show up. Registered voter polls have about the same predictive powers as a magic eight ball. Folks, you want likely voter.

Registered voter doesn't mean anything. Registered voters. Now, listen, we're like, we haven't missed an election ever my wife and I since I can vote I don't think at least since we've been in Florida and Maryland I can tell you that I'm sure but register voter votes a great point it's like saying you know the Patriots are playing the Dolphins or whatever but all their key players are out injured and not taking into account who's likely to play in the game matters, not who's registered on the team. These things are always, these registered voter polls seemingly always done to show an anti-Trump bias. The likely voter polls matter.

Second, why do they matter? Because who's likely to to vote it's not who could vote it's who does vote there are no brownie points for i could have voted but didn't you don't get a vote if you don't vote is this hard from eddie's piece all the way back in 2016 where he nailed how these these polls were wrong by the way says, it's always hard to determine who will actually show up to the polls. Gallup gave up and isn't even trying this time around. Remember, this is from 2016. It's always hard to predict who will show up,

but in this unprecedented political climate, it's going to be impossible. Will Democrat voters who turned up enthusiastically for Obama show up for Hillary too? Will the electorate look like it did in 2012 and 2010? What about 2004? Folks, 3 million Obama voters, people who voted, voted, not registered to vote, voted for Obama. 3 million didn't show up to vote for Hillary. That should worry you a little bit.

If those 3 million Obama voters do show up to vote for Biden, and we don't have an equal increased output on our side, we will lose. It's a matter of pure math. That's the bad news. So again, Eddie's first point, likely voter polls are really all that matters. Secondly, well, who actually shows up makes a difference. And determining what the composite of the electorate will be

is just a putrid science at this point. They keep getting it wrong. Will those 3 million Obama voters show up or not? That's the bad news. If they do, we will probably lose. Having said that, what's the excitement on our side? Well, I got a text from a friend this weekend, Maria, who I used to work with. And she said there was a boat parade.

There was. There was a boat parade down here in Florida. A boat parade for President Trump. I think about 2,000 vessels showed up. Maria was responsible for a couple hundred of them. Yeah. 2,000 vessels is a lot. She said something to me. It was interesting. She goes, Dan, all I can tell you is just in my county, I got a couple hundred of these boats to show up and there were at least four to five people on every boat. She said there were about 2,000 there. She's like, think about it. This is

just the boater population in a couple of counties. You have to have had a boat, boat to be out on the water. No one was swimming in the boat parade. It was boats. There were no swimmers. It's good. So she made this great point. She listens to my show.

So shout out to Maria. She's like, Dan, you have no idea the excitement for President Trump either. Again, are they being missed because you're taking a poll of registered voters and not who's actually likely to show up? The good news is there may be a silent majority out there. Let me make one final point on the polls. And I have to hat tip, right, Scoop? Forgive me, I would have put their article up, but I just saw it before I came on the air. And the interest of getting the show up on time, I don't have it for the show. But they made a great point in, right, Scoop,

as well, about polls. Saying another reason these polls are such a train wreck is in the, this is a fascinating point. In the past, the schism between college educated white voters and non-college-educated white

voters, whoa, almost lost my screen there, the chasm between them was slight. So follow me here, Joe, as the audience referee, I'm going to try to explain this. If you screwed up who you thought was likely to show up, you know, this percentage of college educated white voters, this percentage of non-college educated white voters, which is a huge portion of the electorate, by the way, if you screwed it up, who was going to show up the percentages, Joe, it didn't really matter because who they voted for was typically the same. The again, Grand Canyon separation now between who college educated white voters were vote for and non-college educated white voters is huge.

So if you screw up the percentages about who's likely to vote and you misrepresent in your poll, your poll could be off by a factor of 10 percentage points. Okay. That's a brilliant point. That's where they screwed up in 2016. There was no real difference, you know, in prior elections. Or not significant enough to alter the polls.

It's so wide now that if you screw it up and you mess up who's going to actually show up, your poll is meaningless. You're not even close to what the election day turnout's going to actually show up, your poll is meaningless. You're not even close to what the election day turnout is going to look like. Great point. Again, hat tip to Right Scoop, guys. Good job on that.

Terrific analysis. All right, I'm sorry I went really long on that topic. I did have a lot to get to. We'll get to more of it tomorrow. But it's really, really important, folks, that we speak the truth right now. And the truth is, if I just may leave you on this point and why I spent so much time on carotid restraints versus chokeholds

while use of force, use of force continuum scenarios, use of force ladders, because I honestly, from the bottom of my heart, I mean this, think it will save lives if we can train our officers to effectively defend themselves in the street and to not panic in some of these scenarios, I really believe it'll save officer lives, subjects in the street, and the best way to build community police relationships is not to have videos like this in the future. Not to have any of that. And I'm not condemning the officer.

I've defended, I believe, his use of force based on the taser incident was tragic but appropriate. I'm simply suggesting we can avoid a lot of this in the future. And the best way to do it is to come out of a scenario where you can engage in a use of force that may be temporarily painful but will have no long-term effects on the subject. Everybody wakes up alive, at peace, and the subject is constrained. That's the way to do it. All right. Thanks again for tuning in.

I really appreciate it. Please subscribe to my YouTube channel. It's the best way to fight these guys. YouTube.com slash Bongino. And again, thank you to everyone who signed up at Parler. I am now, I have an ownership stake in Parler. P-A-R-L-E-R. Thank you to everyone.

We had explosive growth on the platform. We are becoming the hottest new destination for social media content. And I put a big smile on my face. We are blowing up. Really appreciate it. P-A-R-L-E-R. Follow me there.

I am at D. Bongino. Sign up today. Go to the App Store. We appreciate it. Take care, folks. See you later. You just heard Dan Bongino.