The Dan Bongino Show - They Fell For the Hoax Again! (Ep 1234)

Episode Date: April 22, 2020

In this episode, I address, and debunk, the troubling new report that came out which is being used by the media to attack President Trump. I also discuss explosive new information about the Wuhan Virus which changes everything.  News Picks: Devin Nunes says they’re making criminal referrals in the Spygate case.  Will there be another enormous government spending bill using money we don’t have? New evidence emerged that the Wuhan Virus may have been here earlier than reported. Why US oil prices fell below zero and why it matters.  Another solid article explaining what happened with oil prices. Michael Bloomberg spent a ridiculous amount of money on his failed campaign. Bill DeBlasio gets humiliated, again. Copyright Bongino Inc All Rights Reserved. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

get ready to hear the truth about america on a show that's not immune to the facts with your host dan bongino all right folks today's gonna be a little bit of a somber show for those of you following me on facebook and twitter you kind of get where i'm going with this i'll cover it a little bit at the end i've got a uh quick story or maybe an announcement i want to that's that's not a you know it's not the kind of thing I enjoy talking about, but in the interest of getting the show out, because if I do it in the beginning, I'm not sure I'll be able to continue with it.

I'll cover it at the end. Believe me, that's not a tease. It's just an effort to get you material you need to know. I've got that today. I've got an update on something I think we're just finding out about this Wuhan virus that is going to expand your base of knowledge and make you question

everything at this point. And of course, you probably came here for the Senate Intelligence Committee thing that came out yesterday. The media is at it again. Hey, look, there's evidence now that the Russians wanted Trump to get elected. No, no, no. I will debunk all of that nonsense. Don't worry. You were in the right place. Today's show is sponsored by ExpressVPN. Surf the web with peace of mind. Get a VPN now. Sign up at expressvpn.com slash Bongino. Welcome to the Dan Bongino Show.

Producer Joe, how are you today? I know you read the Facebook message as well. I appreciate your kind words. So thank you very much. Hey, listen, you bet, man. I'm always glad to be here. I'm doing well. And listen, when you go to Nunez, if you go to Nunez,

I got the translator waiting and ready to go. All right, we got the translator ready to rock and roll. Joe's always on the show. All right. So today's show brought to you by our buddies at We The People Holsters. Ladies and gentlemen, record numbers of people are buying firearms and ammunition for the first time. If you're one of them, please be safe.

And please holster that new firearm in a We The People holster. Starting at just $37, We The People holsters are custom designed to fit your firearm perfectly. These are beautifully made holsters. They're made right here in the USA and they are custom designed for your specific firearm. It's not just one size fits all. They have thousands of options to choose from, plus an amazing selection of printed holsters. They have holsters in support of the president, the constitution holsters. They have a bunch of really, they have the plain black holster. Their proprietary clip design

also allows you to easily adjust the cant and the ride of the holster so it fits comfortably and securely at all times. Now's the time to support American companies. Go to wethepeopleholsters.com slash Dan and get yours. Every holster ships free and comes with a lifetime guarantee. Get an additional $10 off with the offer code Dan.

Satisfaction's guaranteed. If it's not a perfect fit, send it back for a total refund. That's wethepeopleholsters.com slash Dan. wethepeopleholsters.com slash Dan. Offer code Dan for an extra $10 off. You won't get a finer holster for the money. And from a man who's carried a firearm my whole life, those one-size-fits-all holsters in the waistband can be dangerous.

You lean over, they fall out. These are custom-made for your individual farm. WeThePeopleHolsters.com slash Dan. Check it out today. All right, Joe, let's go. That's what I'm talking about. There's that bell. Yeah, baby.

We had to do a verbal bell yesterday for Joe. But he always feels if he had a technical meltdown on the bell. So let's get right to it. We have some explosive new information here about the Wuhan virus from China. That should change the way you look at this. Now, it doesn't change the outcome. The people who have died from the Wuhan virus, tragically, obviously are still dead. Their families have still lost them.

Their loss is tragic. And I believe their losses could have been preventable with some action from the WTO in China that never came. And when it did come, the information was, in fact, wrong and inaccurate and probably jeopardized lives and killed people. Yes, I mean every word of that. Having said that, I've said to you from the beginning, ladies and gentlemen, let me caveat this.

Obviously, I am not a medical doctor, an epidemiologist, or a virologist. I'm also not stupid. I can read data. Anyone can read data. You don't need to be a medical doctor to read data. Having said that, I've insisted to you from the beginning that two things matter about this Wuhan virus before we make drastic decisions about how to handle it. What matters is how contagious is it and how lethal is it? This isn't hard. You don't need to be a medical doctor, a DO, a virologist to understand that how we should respond to this virus depends on how lethal it is and, in fact, how contagious it is.

A quick example, if it's the Ebola virus and its fatality rate is somewhat of 25% to 50, that's a really serious virus that deserves a really serious response depending on how contagious it is. Point taken. If the virus was like, say you have a continuum and you don't know about this virus yet. So you have Ebola, Hanta, all these deadly viruses on one end. On the other end, you have the standard rhinovirus for the common cold. The common cold, shockingly, probably does kill some people, but it's not very lethal.

It's also highly contagious. When you know about those numbers and you have a grasp on them, you can gauge an appropriate public policy response. My beef with the public policy response from the beginning has been, we engaged in draconian measures based on information we didn't have. That's now being shown to be wrong. What do I mean by that? Let's go to this Axios report,

which will be in the show notes today. It's trying to get away from Axios, but once in a while, they'll put out some decent news stuff, even though they did some fake news stuff a couple weeks ago. Axios, this is important, really important. Hat tip to my wife, by the way, who told me this a long time ago. New data shows the first U.S. coronavirus death was earlier than thought.

Folks, there have been a number of people, some in this listening audience, friends of mine, members of the Republican Party I speak to, who shall remain nameless, and others, who have suspected that this Wuhan virus was in the United States much earlier. Now, they've been suspicions. Based on what? I know down here in Florida, as I said to you on a prior show, I don't have the antibody test yet. I'm reasonably convinced I contracted this thing down at the Super Bowl. I had the dry cough.

I had the fever. It was not, for me, the symptoms weren't that bad. For others, they are. For others, it results in death. Now we can confirm those suspicions that it was definitely here earlier than suspected from the Axios piece.

This matters. This is data. The Santa Clara Public Health Commission in California announced Tuesday that autopsy results found the patient who died on February 6th, folks, who had the novel coronavirus. February, why does that matter? who had the novel coronavirus. February, why does that matter? Well, it matters because the first known death from COVID-19 in the U.S. was declared on February 29th in Washington State. A second person who died in Santa Clara on February 17th

was also found to have the virus. Ladies and gentlemen, if we believe the first known case of death was February 29th, and an autopsy after the obviously after the death of an individual shows that this person had it and contracted it February 6th. Something's not marrying up, ladies and gentlemen. So everyone who was called the kooky conspiracy theorist and a nut saying, hey, I think this thing was here earlier. We've had outbreaks and pockets of sickness in areas of California and Florida and elsewhere before the stated date of the first death. All of those people, again, by some media folks, oh, you guys are just conspiracy theorists.

Now we have the evidence that we were right. That's important. You may say, well, why is it important? Ladies and gentlemen, it's important because a lot of the cases we may have attributed to deaths from flus or other things before we understood the Wuhan virus may in fact have been from the coronavirus. And many people who were asymptomatic and recovered and thought they had a common cold may have in fact may have in fact had the coronavirus it also matters because a lot more people may have been infected than we we may have been led to believe let's look at this red state article which again will be up in the show notes bongino.com slash newsletter if you'd like the show notes cluelessly contagious

headline a study reveals 32 percent of undiagnosed folks contracted the virus many were surprised they were even a carrier from the red state peace again this is important ladies and gentlemen and i'll wrap this up in a mix i got a ton of stuff to get to paula doesn't think i'm going to get to it all today we're going to try from the red state peace this past week in massachusetts the general hospital researchers took to the streets of chelsea for a wuhan flu experiment they asked passers-by to take a blood test, which identifies coronavirus antibodies, meaning you would had the bug. The limited study found that one third of participants tested positive.

They finger pricked Joe, 200 people on April 17th and 18th and 64 folks immune systems had the antibodies. It was another study out of Santa Clara, that same place the Axios report was about, about the early contraction of disease in February before the first case on the record we had in Washington State. Did a study in Santa Clara, Joe.

The estimates in Santa Clara, the infection rate based on the study they did of a random subject a subset of the population they thought they had about a thousand infections in santa clara they now think they had up to 48 to 81 000 coronavirus infections that is 50 to 85 times the infection rate. That's right. Meaning what? Meaning if you thought you had a thousand infections, just simple math, and let's say 10 people died, you have a fatality rate of 1%. If you had 85,000 infections and a fatality rate of 10, those are not the exact numbers. I'm simply suggesting to you why the math may have been wrong about how lethal this is.

Right, right. If you had 85,000 infections and 10 or even 50 deaths, the lethality rate, the fatality rate of this is obviously going to be far lower. It's simple math suggesting that the public policy response based on a fatality rate of 1% may have been grossly off. Many of you may have already had this and not even known. I'm setting this up because of my story in the end of the response to this i don't even want to i'll get into it later because i'm not going to be able to handle it

the response ladies and gentlemen was clearly at this point appearing disproportionate to the threat. And the response has now created its own threat of suicides, deaths, bankruptcy, depression, drug abuse, alcohol abuse, domestic violence. It has created another subset of threats that may be larger than the threat from the virus was. Finally, the Bongino rule, in effect again ladies and gentlemen please remember the media is telling you a story not the story i don't want to keep repeating that but i can't emphasize to you enough that they're not telling you what's going on they're telling you a narrative a myth

and the myth is usually donald trump awful here's why. So Donald Trump, President Trump, had repeatedly touted hydroxychloroquine as a potential, potential treatment for this virus. Well, a study came out. AP was all over this. A limited study, I believe, of 300 plus subjects, but a limited study nonetheless. And I believe it was retrospective. Well, they were eager to put this one out, Joe. More deaths, no benefit for malaria drug and va virus study by the ap now why would the ap that obviously hates the president interested in telling you a

story not their story the study actually happened the bongino rule which is always of course wait 24 to 72 hours in this case you don't have to wait you can read ap's own story right so the headline ap story and when you read the story it's clearly meant to take a shot at Trump. Look, Joe, here's the story they want to tell you. Yep. President Trump has said this could be a potential treatment. He's no doctor. He may have gotten people killed. Look at this study that

shows how terrible this drug was for people treated. And then you read the story, you find out, one, it's only 300 plus patients. It was retrospective. And you find out in their own story this, that about 28% given chloroquine plus usual care died versus 11% of getting routine care alone. Doesn't sound good.

About 22% of those getting the drug plus the Z-Pak died, too. Oh, wait, what's this? Let me read that there. But the difference between that group and usual care was not considered large enough to rule out other factors that could have affected survival. Wait, wait. Just to be clear, they did a statistical analysis,

which is how you eliminate confounding variables. What do I mean? Let me just get to the point first. Yeah, yeah, yeah. They did a statistical analysis and showed that it wasn't rigorous enough to say that the chloroquine didn't work? In your own report,

where you're touting how chloroquine doesn't work. Do you understand why statistical analysis matters, folks? Obviously, many of you do. You're obviously really smart based on the email correspondences i received from you i've explained a thousand times when you're studying the effect of a drug the reason you have a control group prospective studies and you eliminate confounding variables by random assignment is to make sure you're not giving a drug to people that's supposed to tout some kind of benefit

and you're only giving it to people who exercise and eat healthy. In other words, if you don't randomly assign people to categories and you assign only marathon runners and crossfitters to a blood pressure drug category, and then you only, you put a bunch of people who are obese,

in some case, grossly obese, who eat horribly and never exercise ever the other category. And then you only, you put a bunch of people who are obese, in some case, grossly obese, who eat horribly and never exercise ever. The other category, you go, look, Joe, the blood pressure worked on that CrossFit group. Amazing. What a great drug. Everybody's going to be like, what are you, an idiot? You have to randomly assign people to eliminate the effect of exercise. Folks, this statistical analysis on chloroquine couldn't even do that. exercise folks this statistical analysis on chloroquine couldn't even do that that's why they say in there if you read ap's own story these are journalists they're not very smart they don't understand statistics folks p levels they don't get any of that stuff i'm like i'm not patting myself on the back for doing years of this stuff in graduate school i'm simply telling

you a basic statistical course could have told you that this their own report they couldn't eliminate biases in the report in other words it may not have been the chloroquine read your own report you knuckleheads but of course joe they gotta dunk on trump gotta dunk on trump idiots all right i'm gonna get to this um you know let's do this uh forbes story first just quickly my wife's been wanting me to talk about this many of you have heard the story about oil prices are negative oh my gosh ladies and gentlemen oil prices did you see the story here's the story at forbes i'll have it it's a good primer a really good explainer of what's going on here's what negative oil prices really mean by Sarah Hansen and Ford.

I have it up in the show notes. It's worth your time. It's not very long. It explains what's really happening here. Again, Bongino.com slash newsletter if you like these stories. Paul is like, please explain this to the audience. You've probably heard the hysterical headlines, especially on CNN and elsewhere. Oil prices are negative.

If oil prices are negative, negative price, you know what a negative price means? Someone's paying you to take their product. What's the price? Joe has a price for his labor. Joe and I work together. I have to pay Joe for his labor. If it was a negative price, Joe would have to pay me to work for me. That does happen. Negative prices are, that does happen, by the way. There are loss leaders. There are products people sell as what they would call loss leaders. They take a loss on them because they realize they can sell other prices at a markup. It's not... Negative prices are a real thing. So in other words, if Joe and I had a bigger project down the road, Joe thought he could

make millions on, Joe might say to you, Dan, I'll pay you 10,000 to be your producer as long as you consider me later on for the movie project. That would be a negative price. Yeah. But if oil prices were negative, like all these people are hysterically reporting, why aren't they giving away gasoline at the gas station? It's negative. Joe's paying me to work for me.

Why aren't gasoline companies paying you to get gas? Because oil prices aren't negative. Here's what happened in a nutshell. These were futures contracts. There were financial speculators. Evil speculators. I hate that. There's nothing evil about price spec. Nothing. That's a liberal talking point. Price speculation is a good way to gauge how people can hedge. It serves a valuable role in a sound financial system. people can hedge. It serves a valuable role in a sound financial system. But there are people out there who engage in financial speculation on oil.

Very simply, without getting into derivatives and counterparty transactions, I don't want to make it too complicated. These people were not trading actual barrels of oil. They were trading a financial contract for oil. So let's say you bought a financial contract for oil to be delivered in May, but you have no intention of taking the oil. You're a Wall Street guy. You don't have an oil facility. You have no, your house can't take delivery of oil, but you've done this forever. You have a contract and you think oil, Joe, is going to be worth $30 a barrel in May. Joe is going to be worth $30 a barrel in May. So you buy a financial contract for delivery of that oil at say $20 in May, because you think it'll be worth 30. Therefore that contract's worth money. Right. Right. That contract's worth money. Because if you have a contract saying you could get the oil for 20 in May and oil's 30 in May, you got an asset there, right, Joe?

You bet, yeah. For $10 a barrel. That's right. Savings. But if you're a financial trader trading in those paper contracts and have no ability to take delivery of the oil, and nobody else can take delivery of the oil either because our oil facilities are stacked to the brim, and all of a sudden that contract for oil at $20 a barrel in May you bought when you thought it was going to be worth $30?

And oil in May is about $11 a barrel? What's that contract worth, Joe? Ooh. Zero. It's worth nothing. It's worth zero. Who the hell is going to buy a futures contract for oil at $20 a barrel if they can buy it right now for $11? Nobody.

It's worthless. So what happened is these people were stuck with paper contracts that were negative prices. They were paying people to please take this oil. I don't want to take a bath on this contract. You get it? Paula, did I explain that? Thank you. You have a paper contract that's worth negative money. No one's going to buy your contract for 20 bucks a barrel if they get oil right now for

11. Please take this contract off my hands. But oil itself is not negative. It's not negative. They're not giving it away. Okay, quickly. That was, I just wanted to get that out of the way. But read the story in Forbes.

It's very good. And thanks for the reminders yesterday about my earpiece. We fixed it. It was like dangling from my ear. Someone sent me a funny clip from something about Mary. You get the joke. It's hilarious. Very good catch, dude.

It was funny. Some of you may get that joke. I hope some of you don't. Okay, let's get to our second sponsor. I want to motor through on this Senate Intelligence Committee report because this is a scam on Diana Ball-like steroids. You are getting hoaxed again by the collusion hoaxers who I'm sure yesterday you're like,

I'm going to tune into Bongino. He'll explain it and I will. Today's show also brought to you by our friends at LifeLock. Listen, there are some people who seem like they're prepared for anything. You have a cut, they give you a bandaid. You need a battery, they have multiple sizes on hand. But if they're worried about identity theft and only monitoring their credit,

they may not be as prepared as they think. and they may not be able to help you. You have to help yourself here. Breaches seem like they're happening more these days. It happened to me. I had my identity stolen. I kid you not. People bought a bunch of real estate programs. It took me about six months to get out of it.

Worst mistake of my life. I had LifeLock before they were a sponsor. I have them now for me and my family. I love them. They send you a text on credit alerts. They send you an email. It is really super easy to use. When your information is breached, like your name, your social security number, and more, these criminals can commit identity theft. They can take your kid's identity too. That's why I have LifeLock protection for my kids. LifeLock sees more threats like someone taking out a payday loan in your name. It alerts

you to possible suspicious activity. And if you end up having identity theft issue, this is important. You'll have a dedicated identity restoration specialist, just a phone call away. I wish I would have had one of those when it happened to me. It was a nightmare. No one can prevent all identity theft or monitor all transactions in all businesses, but with breaches on the rise, it doesn't just make sense to be prepared. Join LifeLock today and save up to 25% off your first year. Go to LifeLock.com slash Bongino, B-O-N-G-I-N-O. That's LifeLock.com slash Bongino to save 25%. Do it today. Do it for yourself. Do it for your family. Nobody can

prevent all identity theft. We know that. But check out LifeLock.com slash Bongino today and save 25%. All right, let's get back to the show. So yesterday, you probably heard it. You probably saw it. The Senate Intelligence Committee, which has been an absolute disgrace and a disaster. Mark Warner, you know him, the Democrat senator from Virginia, who was texting a lawyer for a Russian oligarch connected to Putin, trying to contact dossier off their

Christopher Steele, that Mark Warner, he's on the Senate Intel Committee. Yeah. You know, who's leading the Senate Intel Committee right now, Joe, which I'm sure has nothing to do with the release of this report right now. Look, square one, Richard Burr. Yes. Republican, but awful Senator from North Carolina, Richard Burr, an atrocious, I mean, this guy's not even a rhino. This is like a Sino, a senator in name only, because the man has no character at all. Richard Burr's the same guy under investigation right now. And he asked for the, which is fair enough, for some allegedly suspicious stock trades he made on information about the Wuhan virus.

Same guy. Same guy, Richard Burr. The guy's been a disaster from the start. So a report emanated like a stench, like an overpowering stench out of this disastrous committee full of leaks. Remember the staffer, by the way, James Wolfe, who was arrested on charges related to leaks that came from the Senate Intel Committee? Yeah, this is the same committee. They released a report yesterday, Joe. Yes. Wow. And the media jumped on it. We now have proof. The intelligence community assessment that report the Obama administration released after the election where Trump beat Hillary, that the Russians wanted to help Hillary. I mean, help Trump. That report, we what the report said. The report was written by a bunch of hacks. So let's go through what's actually in it. But first,

I want to tell you what's really going on here. The ICA, I'll be referencing that throughout this segment, is the Intelligence Community Assessment, the abbreviation for the report I just referenced, written by the Obama administration after the election, which said, remember that report? 17 intelligence agencies agree that the Russians interfered and wanted to help Donald Trump. The report was nonsense. The report was based largely on information from the dossier. What? So not only was the dossier used to spy on Trump, the fake PP tape dossier, but it was also used in an

intelligence community assessment to then tarnish the incoming presidency of Donald Trump and said, hey, they won because the Russians helped them out. Yes, that's what I'm telling you. That's what's really going on. The great Congressman Devin Nunes, who's been on this from the start, calls the

ICA the Obama dossier. Yeah. Because like the PP-pee tape dossier, it's fake too. They did an investigation into this. They are finding some really serious problems with the Obama dossier, known as the ICA.

Maybe some of the intelligence used to conclude that the Russians wanted to help Trump, Joe, was manipulated. Oh, don't listen to me, though. Listen to Devin Nunes himself on Lou Dobbs' show talking about this Senate intel report and how he's really suspicious here. And ladies and gentlemen, keep in mind, the timing of this is awfully odd.

Nunes starts talking about these declassified footnotes, all of this stuff's coming out, the dossier was faking. Now we get this report? Listen to Nunes on Dobbs' show last night. What we found, Lou, is that the tradecraft was not up to snuff. And now the problem with Obama's dossier, with that intelligence community assessment, is it's either lies or omissions or both. So if the intelligence agencies had a plethora of information and didn't put it into an intelligence community assessment, how can it even be a true intelligence community assessment? So sometimes you just have to apply a little common sense to this. I don't know what happened

in the Senate. You'll have to ask them. But we stand by our our not only do we stand by what we found, but I would add this to that. One of our criminal referrals involves that community, that intelligence community assessment in that, you know, whether or not intelligence was manipulated for political purposes. And we've sent that to the Department of Justice now, you know, a year ago. All right. Producer Joe, can you please employ the nunes translator initiating noon yes translator den thank you sir you're welcome of course we need the devon nunes translator because devon obviously congressman nunes is limited in what he could say on television because he has some classified information based on a number of various sources things i put together some open source stuff,

some sources who've given me some stuff. I like to translate what I think he's telling you. I don't know, but I think he's telling you what he's telling you is this. He said two things. We think some of the information in the ICA was manipulated. And secondly, we made a criminal referral, meaning that manipulation of the information in the ICA, saying the Russians wanted to help Trump show, may have been deliberately faked. Really? And he made another point. He said it was either lies, omissions, or both.

What does he mean by that? Keep in mind what we're talking about. Don't lose the headline. Senate Intelligence Committee report. Yes, the ICA, they didn't use the dossier, and theussians really wanted to help trump there's no evidence of that none it's all garbage stuff he said at one point on there too that it would lies or omissions are both meaning what well nunes who has been on from for years way before trump was even running for office the holes we've had in gathering intelligence in Russia.

Nunes is saying to you there, and I'm translating, if we knew that the Russians were trying to help Trump in the election, how come that only appeared after the election in a quickie report they just put together in a few weeks? Joseph, you get what I'm saying? Oh, yeah, daddy-o. daddy oh during the election and in the two years basically the election went on this extended election cycle you had all this information about the russians interfering and trying to help candidates and then in the in 2016 you guys

knew about the russians trying to help trump this information was nowhere but in the dossier you had this information no one heard about it other than the dossier. It wasn't in official intelligence committee briefings or anything. Nunes was actually complaining about that. How come we don't know anything about Russia right now? And all of a sudden, Joe, after the election, Trump wins, and all this intel magically appears.

Wow! Wow! You guys are so good. It magically appears. And maybe, Joe, on the manipulation and criminal referrals point, maybe the information that it's magically delicious, like Lucky Chubbs, appears. Maybe that's fake too.

Manipulated. And maybe attributed to people. Fake information attributed to real people who were like, I didn't say that. Well, somebody said, Mr. Russian dude,

you said that. Who's the somebody who said the Russian dude said that when they didn't? Oh, oh, oh, oh. You all picking up what i'm putting down so holy russian dude a said this okay let's talk to russian dude a russian dude a did you say this i didn't say that what are you talking about well it's in the ica attributed to you hey how'd they get my name? I thought I was working for the intelligence community undercover.

Crazy. How did that happen? This report yesterday. And of course, the media suckers lapped it right up like the dogs they are. Here's this hapless loser, Burr. He tweets this yesterday. Again, North Carolina, this guy's totally useless um here he is again this guy now uh suspected of very suspicious stock trades who's had it in for trump from day

one this is him tweeting the senate intel committee released the fourth and penultimate volume in our bipartisan russian investigation which examines the 2017 intel community assessment on russian election interference in reviewing it we looked at two key questions. Did the final product meet the initial task given by the president? Was the analysis supported by the intelligence presented? We found the ICA met both criteria. No, it didn't. No.

So they're saying two things. And this is what the purpose of this Intel Committee report by the hapless Richard Burr was really designed to do. It was designed to take attention off of Nunes and the declassified footnotes and put it back on Trump won because the Russians wanted to help him, despite the fact that there's no evidence of that. So assertion one, the media has been running with. So we're clear because now we're going to destroy it. The Russians wanted to help Trump. And assertion two is the ICA didn't use the dossier. We had real people out there.

Okay, let's get to that. So the ICA, the Obama dossier, that 17 agencies report, you didn't use the dossier? You didn't use it. That's what the media is running with, folks, CNN and others. They didn't use the dossier. The dossier played no role. Remember John Brennan, Joe? The dossier played no role remember john brennan joe the dossier played no role in the ica no our real intel figured this out really because this is from the actual report let's check this out senate intelligence committee report

hat tip by the way the great at john w huber on twitter who's always always awesome director comey addressed the question of the dossier and its placement in the ICA when asked by Burr whether he, quote, insisted that the dossier be part of the ICA in any way, shape, or form. Director Comey replied, keep in mind, ladies and gentlemen, this is in the report that the media is telling you, Joe, the dossier played no role in the ICA.

Here's Comey's own words. I insisted that we, Joe, the dossier played no role in the ICA. Here's Comey's own words. I insisted that we bring in the dossier to the party. And I was agnostic as to whether it was footnoted in the document itself or put as an annex. I have some recollection of talking to John Brennan at some point saying, I don't really care. But I think it is relevant and it so ought to be part of the consideration. Did these media people even read the report? Did they even read it? It's I know it's about a hundred plus, but I know it's hard to get through. And to be fair, I haven't got to do the whole thing yet. Did you even read the report? Comey's own words. Yes yes I insisted we bring the dossier

to the party in other words again your senate intel committee conclusions the Russians now wanted to help Trump we know that and the dossier played no role in this because they don't want you to believe it's all based on a lie that's not what Comey said

he said the exact opposite did you even read it do you even read dude dude do you even read it? Do you even read, dude? Dude, do you even read? Oh my gosh. Yes. Now, showing you how, here's Fusion Kandalanian. Of all the Maggie Habermans and Natasha Bertrand, all the collusion hoaxers, Adam Goldman,

clueless people pretending to be journalists. One of the worst is this guy, Fusion Kandelanian, who really anytime you need a silly talking point parroted, this guy with a double digit IQ is the first one to do it. This is his tweet yesterday. The Senate report confirms what has long been known. known us intel agencies did not use information from the steel dossier to support their findings and conclusion in the 2017 assessment oh ken ken i can maybe watch the show i know you don't want to read the actual report watch the show we'll give you the cliff notes here ken i know this is hard for you being a reporter and all someone fed him that he's not really bright and he just tweeted it out right without even reading it

because that's who ken delaney's again another reason completely disregard the entire media apparatus it's a joke it's nothing but a disinformation campaign it's embarrassing okay so let's go back to this allegation so we just destroyed allegation number two by the way they didn't use the dossier to say the russians want to help trump um clearly they did what are you taking their word for it brennan who's been lying about it from the start he gave harry reed information that was only in steel's reports in august and then told people he didn't see the reports till december it's all in writing and harry reed's letter let's go back to assertion number one.

They're now sure, Joe, the Russians wanted to help Trump. They're sure of it now. Richard Burr. Ethically compromised Richard Burr. All right, well, let's look at that. Let's look at what they say in the report, which I don't trust as far as I could throw because of Mark Warner and Richard Burr, who hate the president. I don't believe any of this.

But let's just read the report to see how they came to this conclusion. The committee found the ICA presents a coherent and well-constructed intelligence basis for the case of unprecedented Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Huh. So basically they're telling us what? That the Russians interfered in the election?

Okay. Does anyone dispute that? Have we ever disputed that on this show? So you're telling us now what? For the fourth time what we already know? That the Russians have been interfering in every election since the onset of the Soviet Union? Thanks, guys.

Really well done. Let's go to this preference for Trump thing how they found this out screenshot number three from the report the committee found that the ica presents information from public russian leadership commentary hilarious russian state media reports joe that's never disinformation and you know the russians always say in public exactly what they mean yes specific intelligence reporting to support the assessment that putin and the russian government demonstrated a preference for candidate trump you may say well dan they just said it they have specific intelligence ladies and gentlemen they do where was this intelligence before the election why is it that this intelligence only appeared at the same time the dossier creeped

up in july of 2016 i'm going to get to that in a second and if this specific intelligence they had why did it only appear after the election so what you had whistleblowers after the election came out? Where are these whistleblowers? I don't understand. Because that's funny. I have specific intelligence saying Steele's subsources had already admitted a preference for Hillary Clinton. It goes on. Next screen cap from the Senate Intel report. This this is hysterical leave this up for a second so a bunch of people started to question that specific intelligence joe about putin wanting to help trump and the senate intelligence report even this report by written by people who hate donald trump came to this conclusion that differing confidence levels on one analytical judgment

are justified and properly represented. In other words, Joe, let me translate that for you. Even in a report written by a committee that hates Donald Trump, written by clearly biased people, even in that report, they come to the conclusion that,

hey, some people thought Trump was being, Putin wanted Trump, other people didn't, and those conclusionsing conclusions are all reasonable that's not what the media said joe that's not what they said the media is telling us no the senate report clearly says putin wanted trump and no dossier was used ever that's not not what the report says. That's not what the report. Did you just read that? Even the report written by these hacks who hate Trump came to the conclusion that differing opinions about who Putin really wanted elected were reasonable and justified.

Again, did you even read the report? Again, hat tip to undercover Huber for the highlights let's go to this one also was conveniently left out of the mainstream media coverage again this is from a committee that hates Trump the equivalent of the Andy Weissman Mueller probe that will write anything in any skewed fashion to attack the president you didn't hear this one on the news Joe did you listen to this little gem. The committee asked the NIO, these national intelligence officers who worked on this document, the ICA, how they handled the collusion question.

The NIO for Russia and Eurasia, this big shot in the intel community, responded, quote, oh, that didn't come up. We didn't have any evidence for that. There was not information that pointed us in that direction. Holy smokes. Oh.

So just to be clear, what you heard in the media yesterday, bipartisan report, Putin wanted Trump, and the dossier was not used, folks. It's not actually in that report anywhere. The report says Comey insisted

that the dossier was to be used. The Intel Committee came to the conclusion that there were reasonable differences on who Putin wanted. And finally, even the committee that hates him in their report had to admit that the intelligence professionals in the field said there was absolutely no evidence for collusion at all.

Damning report for the Trump team, damning report. Again, I'm really genuinely sorry that you're listening to the media on this. Who has an agenda? Obviously. Now, before I get to the second part, I just got a final rebut. The second part of this is important. This is actually a two-page show again today.

I got to go to my second page of notes. What's the real story again? The real story is this. The dossier is made up. They spied on Trump. To cover their spying for trump they wrote the ica afterwards saying putin wanted trump therefore our investigation was legitimate you get that everybody tracking me this was all all based on the dossier which was fake all of it

all of it which they attributed to real russians made up information. Then the FBI is trying to hide the fact that they knew about the dossier during the heat of the campaign in 2016 in the summer. I'm going to nail them the wall on that one in a minute to our final sponsor of the day, though. It's important. Please, please don't miss this. They show up to you by stamps.com. Hey, for all our sakes, we need to avoid crowds right now.

Anyway, we can. We use stamps.com here in the Bongino household because it's super easy. We save money, we save time, and we don't have to go to the post office, which saves us an enormous amount of legwork and time. What if you needed postage to send out letters and packages? Well, don't worry. Stamps.com is here to help. How? Anything you can do at the post office, you can do at stamps.com. You can print postage on demand, skip those long lines and crowds at the post office. Plus, you can save money. For us, it's been significant. With discounts, you can't even get at the post office.

Stamps.com brings all the post office services right to your computer in the safety and security of your own home or anywhere you're hunkering down. You're a small business sending invoices and online sellers shipping out products, or you're just working from home and you need to mail stuff. Stamps.com can handle it all easily. or you're just working from home and you need to mail stuff, stamps.com can handle it all easily. Simply use your computer to print official U.S. postage 24-7 for any letter, any package, any class of mail,

anywhere you want to send it. When it's ready, just leave it for your mail carrier or schedule a free pickup or drop it in the mailbox. No human context even required. It's that simple. Like I said with stamps.com, you get great discounts too. Five cents off every first-class stamp and up to 40% off USPS shipping rates.

It's been a big savings for us. In addition to offering discounted US Postal Service rates, stamps.com also offers UPS services with discount rates up to 62%. Plus with stamps.com, you won't even have to pay UPS residential surcharges. Some of you use UPS. You know what that means. You can save a lot of money here. Stamps.com is a no-brainer, especially now. It saves you time, saves you money, keeps you safe in these crazy times. Right now, our listeners get a special

offer that includes a four-week trial plus free postage and a digital scale without any long-term commitment. There you go. Just go to stamps.com, click on the microphone at the top of the homepage and type in Dan, D-A-N. That's stamps.com. Microphone at the top of the homepage. Click on it. Enter Dan. Stay safe. All right.

So this is important because the FBI, the IC, the writers of the Obama dossier, the ICA, and others are clearly trying to cover up what I just told you. dossier the ICA and others are clearly trying to cover up what I just told you the dossier the fake PP tape dossier was all the intelligence they ever had to spy on the Trump team and now they're pretending they didn't have it no we didn't use it in the ICA Joe we didn't use it despite Comey saying it in the actual report and that we didn't even get it till September the Steele reports really really you tracking me before we go forward please tell me i know you are i got you you got me i got you the dossier was everything it was fake information attributed to real russians used to spy on the trump team and used to write this crap ica afterwards to provide political cover for obama let's get this nonsense too i think you're just like there it is true my man Comey wanted number one Comey wanted the dossier in the ICA why I believe he knew Brennan was pushing this information I don't want to go into because

I've spoken about it before he knew Brennan wanted it was at the at some point Comey figures out Brennan was dealing with Steele's information and it's all a lie. And Comey then wants to make sure his butt is covered by putting that information in the IC. We know that. I just showed you the Senate Intel report. He admits to it, okay? Second, point number two, the FBI claims they didn't know about the dossier until September. That's nonsense. They're lying. How do we know they're lying? Well, let's go to this Lisa Page text. Here's a text from FBI lawyer Lisa Page in July. July, hat tip 279, by the way.

She's talking about an article she read. Again, this is July of 2016. I thought they didn't see the Christopher Steele information about the dossier until September, Joe. So how are they texting about things about it in July? July 28, 2016. Here's Lisa Page. Ha, the first line of this article made me smile. Does the US government know about rushing the DNC hack? Again, what's the date of this article? Well, let's go to the article she's talking about. It's an article by a noted insider on this case,

and I don't mean that in a positive way. Susan Hennessey, who writes at Lawfare blog, this little gem, on July 25th. What does the US government know about the Russia and the DNC hack? Monday, July 25th, 2016. Remember, the FBI is insisting they don't have any of Steele's information yet until September. But this is July. July is before September for the liberals listening.

The only allegations we have of the Trump team being involved with WikiLeaks and the DNC Act, the only allegations we have are the lies in the dossier the fbi says they don't have so if the fbi doesn't have them why is lisa page texting people about this article back in july why is she so interested i don't understand like she just randomly pulled she's she's an avid election for what is she a campaign advisor july see they're saying remember we don't know no no we didn't get the dossier until september really you didn't you sure the dossier was everything it is everything fake information attributed to real russians

it was always everything the fbi is lying because they don't want you to believe it was everything as they started the investigation in july no no we didn't want you to believe it was everything as they started the investigation in July. No, no, we didn't get the information later. It was everything. That article Susan Hennessey's written is information only in the dossier that Lisa Page is texting about in July. Now, conveniently, the day before this interview aired, July 24th, the day before Susan Hennessey writes that article that Lisa Page is texting about on July 28th about information only in the dossier the FBI claims it hasn't seen. This interview happens on CNN with Hillary's campaign lead, Robbie Mook, incredibly dumb enough to give an interview where he outs the dossier to CNN.

This information, he says, is only in the dossier. Hillary and her team and everyone like, oh, we didn't know anything about this. Check this out. What's disturbing to us is that we experts are telling us that Russian state actors broke into the DNC, stole these emails, and other experts are now saying that the Russians are releasing these emails for the purpose of actually helping Donald Trump. I don't think it's coincidental

that these emails were released on the eve of our convention here. Wow. Isn't that weird, Joe? So everybody's hands off. We didn't have anything to do with the dossier until September. But in July, Susan Hennessey, a noted insider in this case, is writing an article about things only in the dossier

that nobody's seen yet. Hillary's campaign manager guy, Robbie Mook, is on CNN talking about things only in the dossier they haven't seen. The FBI lawyer on the case, Lisa Page, is texting her buddies, smiling about the article written about the dossier the FBI claims it hasn't seen since September. Crazy.

Crazy time. I don't want to forget footnote three. That's right, Paula. Good call. Always there to rescue me. Now, you know what's weird remember that when the dossier is always everything they keep running from we didn't see it it had nothing to do with the ica either sure hat tip 279 for this maybe you can translate his handwriting you'll figure out who he is he writes block letters, so you'll never know. Here's a photo that great 279ers sent me today. This is really weird, Joe, how there's a report. You remember the dossier is

a compilation of about a dozen or so memos. That's what the dossier is. These memos all have different dates and were written over time. Look at this photo because there's a date missing on one of the memos. By the way, the only one. So dossier number 94 is dated July 19th, 2016. Five days before that interview, Hillary's campaign manager gives. Dossier number 95, Joe, is not dated. So we know the one before it's July 19th. So what's the one after it? Well, the one after we get up to 97 is dated July 30th, 2016.

So we know the dossier number 95 memo 95 was sometime between July 19th and July 3rd. Why is it not dated? May I suggest to you that dossier number 95, which is the bombshell dossier, I'm going to get to you, I'm going to tell you in a minute what's in it and why it matters,

that it wasn't dated because it was dated the exact same day Hillary Clinton's team and this lawfare writer may have gotten wind of it or may have gotten some information about it from either Steele or some secondary sources like Simpson and others who were getting it from Steele, that the FBI had already known about this? And you following me?

The reason they don't want the date is because they don't want that date on that report, that they may have ex post facto wiped the date clean because the date's the exact same day that Hillary sends her consigliere out there, Robbie Mook, to go put forth allegations in that report. So if the date's missing, nobody can say, hey, look, the dossier appeared in the same day Mook appeared on CNN. Does that make sense? It's the only one not dated. The only one.

Weird, right? Because then they can change. No, no, no, no, no. the dossier was not dated that dossier was after that was after uh robbie moog yeah yeah no hillary's campaign guy said stuff about the dossier the fbi is texting about the dossier and susan hennessey's writing about things in the dossier but it couldn't have been joe because there's no date and i'm telling you this dossier report 95 was released after all of that. Really? That's right. Well, what's in dossier number 95? Well, let me read to you

a few quotes about why dossier number 95 needed to be hidden. The date needed to be wiped out. And nobody wants you to know that it was launched at the exact same time. Hillary, the FBI, and all of these media folks like Hennessy and others started writing about it too. ACA 95 has this language in it. By the way, who do you think wrote this? Oh, Christopher Steele. You sure? Seems to be awful.

It sounds an awful lot like legal language. In other words, someone may have been coaching Steele. We need legal terminology to get a FISA warrant. So the word conspiracy appears in there. That's a quote referencing a conspiracy between the Trump team and the Russians. Conspiracy, interesting language. You mean like the crime? Who told Steele to write that?

Here's another quote from dossier 95 at the Trump team. Then the Russians quote agreed, agreed to an exchange of information in both directions, both directions, Joe, gosh, that could be criminal, right? Russians giving Trump information by the camp.

That sounds really bad. Yeah. It's report 95 with the mysterious date missing. Finally, quote that the Trump team was using moles within the DNC and hackers within the United States. Wow. Sounds like an electronics crime violation too.

All of that appears in 95, report 95. What's the problem? It's all fake. Right. It's all fake. It was all made up. Now you see why the FBI said, no, no, we didn't see that until September. No, no, you saw it in July.

So did Hillary's team. And so did people in the media who wrote about it. You saw it in July. And that's precisely why you started the case against Donald Trump on July 31st. On a lie. On a hoax. And you know it. And it's the reason you keep lying and saying you didn't see it until September.

You didn't see it. Why is everybody talking about it? Finally, let's go to one final footnote. Do you have a footnote 347? By the way, just to produce evidence here as well, because it matters. This is the great Catherine Herridge from CBS. This was footnote 347 that was recently redacted, showing you again that this support for Donald Trump line by Putin is total nonsense. The unredacted footnote says that an individual still used as the source and an individual in the Russian presidential

administration in July of 2016, June, July, and the sub source voiced strong support for candidate clinton in the 2016 election oh folks gosh you got to be a sucker to fall for this crap over and over and over again all right we're doing good on time here you get my point the dossier was everything all the time. The FBI knew about it. Hillary knew about it. Media people knew about it. It was the only thing they based their case on.

It was a lie. It was a hoax. It was attributed to real Russians. Where did those real Russians names come from? Oh my gosh, that could be a serious problem. Brennan was pushing it. Brennan was pushing it through politicians. When Trump won the election, they panicked. They then used the dossier again to put out the ICA, an intelligence community assessment, to justify their actions,

claiming Putin wanted Trump and claim, no, the dossier had nothing to do with it. It was everything the whole time, period, moving on. Let me get to some kind of bad news, good news section. I've been teasing this Wall Street Journal stuff all week. So Washington Examiner, finally, this is kind of bad news and good news. And one thing, had the story out today about finally with these spending, folks, the spending is out of control. We're looking at a period of potential hyperinflation that could destroy our economy. I get it. I understand the government did shut this down. I even, you know, I think a lot of conservative economists said backstopping the loss of jobs in the economy right now seems to make sense because of the capital loss. But there appears to be some now finally Republicans waking up, including Rand Paul, Mike Lee and others, even Mitch McConnell, shockingly, saying, hey, we got to get a hold of this man.

Republicans and Democrats are on a collision course for next spending measure by Susan Fariccio. Thank the Lord. And I'm not using his name in vain. Enough. Let's see how this works first. My gosh. Enough. So on the bad news, good news segment, we'll start with the bad news and with the good news.

Because I don't want to be apocalyptic. We are the United States. I think we can still fix this. And it's been kind of some sad news all week. Wall Street Journal, this is the bad news, has a piece out today. And it's excellent. of some sad news all week. Wall Street Journal, this is the bad news, has a piece out today. And it's excellent. It's by James Freeman.

And it's quoting Paul Singer. It says, waiting for good dough. I take on waiting for good dough, of course, for those of you who know the play. The lockdown's threat to our currency. Folks, I've been warning you, you cannot print money endlessly without people starting to question

if that money's worth anything. When civilians print money endlessly without people starting to question if that money's worth anything. When civilians print money without working for them, it's called counterfeiting. When government does it, it's called quantitative easing. Money without a backing of value is worthless. Hyperinflation is devastating. So apparently the Wall Street Journal got a hold of a memo from Singer. He wrote to his company and he's genuinely worried about hyperinflation. In other words, we're printing, ladies and gentlemen,

all this money going out into PPP and we don't have any money. It's fake money. I mean, it's real for you now, but it's not backed in. We're just printing it. So in the memo Freeman got a hold of, it says, you know, capitalism,

which is economic freedom, can survive a credit crisis. We have. We survived quite a hold of it says you know capitalism which is economic freedom can survive a credit crisis we have we survived quite a few of them including in 2008 the memo also says but we don't think it can survive hyperinflation we think that there are a number of really good reasons to stringently try to protect the purchasing power and trustworthiness of fiat money especially the primary reserve currency the almighty dollar but chief among those reasons is to keep a good distance away from the tipping point in which confidence is destroyed. Ladies and gentlemen, I'll translate that for you. We can't keep printing money. Everything you have is going to be worthless soon if you're holding it in dollar-denominated assets.

You cannot live on an island with 100 chairs and $100 and print $72 million. The chairs will be worthless money-wise. You would have had $100 chasing 100 chairs, a dollar a chair, roughly. Now you have $72 million chasing 100 chairs, which means every chair is going to cost what? $720-something thousand dollars a chair? That's inflation in a very simple, not-so-elegant nutshell. You can't print money

endlessly. Singer's saying, listen, the bells need to be going off right now. We are printing money we don't have. There is, as Rand Paul said yesterday, and Mike Lee hinted at on the Senate floor too, the money we're giving out to people is not real. It's not from a bank account. It's not savings. It's just made up, printed money at this point. At some point, that's going to destroy the value of every dollar you have now. We can't recover from that. What's the fix, ladies and gentlemen? The fix is we are going to have to, have to, have to normalize federal reserve policy when this is done.

Interest rates are going to have to go up, which is going to have to sop up some of this extra money. It's going to have to. The cost of money itself, the interest rate is going to have to go up. That's the bad news, is that if we don't do anything about it,

we're in a lot of trouble. Here's some good news about the economy. Just a couple of brief stories I want to touch on before I get to my final story. The Journal had another good story out there about a brilliant Trump executive order he just put out about space exploration. It was this.

It's in this Wall Street Journal article, but it's worth it. What does space exploration have to do with the economy? It does, believe me. We need to grow out of this because we're in too much debt right now. If we don't get richer, we won't be able to pay off the debt.

It's as simple as that. Trump opens outer space for business. So what did he do? From the piece, he basically signed this executive order in only a Trumpian type move, which I love, because only he would do this.

Encouraging international support for the recovery and use of space resources meant to spur a new industry. The extraction and processing of resources from the moon and asteroids to facilitate settlement of the solar system. You may say, what is that? Sounds like Star Trek stuff. It's very simple.

Forget the Star Trek stuff for a moment. Ladies and gentlemen, it's estimated on asteroids. If we can figure out a way, the technology isn't there now. Let's be clear. It is Star Trek stuff, the technology now, because we don't have it yet. It's estimated, Joe, that there are literally hundreds of trillions of dollars of rare, valuable minerals on asteroids in our solar system. If we could get it, mine it, and bring it home.

Right. Think about what I just told you. We're $24 trillion in debt. We've just added about $3 trillion more by printing money through these paycheck programs and the stimulus program. We probably have another $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities for Social Security and Medicare we can never pay. I just told you that money we're printing is not based on, we're just printing it. But what if it was based in real value?

What if we found a way, thanks to the president's executive order now, in the next decade or so to mine these asteroids and bring back actual chairs, 720,000 something chairs, to sop up some of the money we just printed to pay for the chairs? You know how much wealth, you know how wealthy we could be you know how easy would be now rare earth they're called rare earth minerals now because they're rare on earth what if they weren't rare

anymore we could have supercomputers ai super cheap the expenses for a lot of these things are not only the human capital, Joe, but the rare earth minerals, which are hard to find. What if they weren't hard to find? We could be looking at an extremely prosperous future. Again, it is a little Pollyanna-ish. The technology is not there now, but we could be there soon. One more quick note, a positive note here.

Great Wall Street Journal article about Trump's response to the Wuhan virus, how it's been totally different than responses to crises in the past. Headline by Christopher DeMuth, Trump rewrites the book on emergencies. President Trump actually cited this article in a presser on the Rose Garden. And he'd bring up an interesting point in this piece, that in the past, after 9-11 and the 2008 financial crash, the government got bigger. We had the TSA. We had the dreaded bailouts of the financial industry rescuing Fannie and Freddie

after 2008. Oh, yeah. And granted, there's been a lot of government spending now, but the moot points out an interesting point. But that disregards how Trump has done other things.

This epidemic and the highly disruptive measures, I'm quoting, that have been taken to control and spread have publicized many examples of official suppression of everyday initiative as well as crisis response. These are rare openings to create political disruption. Seizing them will vindicate the uses Americans are making of temporary liberties that will be given to them under duress. saying? That President Trump, in contrast to Bush and Obama and the other crises we lived through, who expanded the role of government, in many cases, Joe, has been massively deregulating.

In other words, pulling government back that may set a precedent for the future, getting government out of your life and unleashing the American entrepreneur, letting doctors operate across state lines, motoring the FDA through drug approvals and things like that. These may pay massive health dividends in the future. Certainly a different model than the Bush-Obama model of expanding government in a crisis. There may be some light at the end of this tunnel. I think there will be. Trying to stay somewhat positive here. Now, on a really negative note, I got some really bad news yesterday. It was terrible news, actually.

And I talked to Paul about it. And I'm not going to mention his name or anything about him because it's just, I don't know about his family or anything. But so, you know, I've been having this debate on my show recently between myself and many of you all and i get your emails and i read them and i appreciate your back and forth about how and when i opened up the show i think we made a catastrophic mistake in fully shutting down the economy and i was really angry that the responses to that that came into me well what are you protecting your stock portfolio some of the responses were absurd that came into me, well, what are you, protecting your stock portfolio? Some of the responses were absurd.

What do you want? Do you want people to die? You're going to have blood on your hands. And one of the responses I heard is, shut it down or people will die. Well, people are dying. Every day, little bits of them are dying off a little bit more as they lose their jobs,

their money, their prosperity, their ability to feed their kids. And I just got wind yesterday that a good friend of mine who I dealt with pretty much every day for years before I moved on to a different thing, he hung himself because he lost his livelihood. I'm not going to say how, but friends of mine know who it is. He was devastated. He hung himself. Apparently the second time he tried to kill himself.

Now, for those of you who know this individual, and I said to Joe before the show, he was one of the happiest guys I ever knew. I'm not joking. He was like an icon in the community I live in. People were stunned. I just found this out yesterday because we're under quarantine and we can't get out of our house. I literally just found this out yesterday through a Facebook message from a friend. I don't even know if he had a funeral.

Shut it all down or people will die. People are dying now. Slowly. Each day. All I'm asking, and that's why something like this again and wipe out the lives of tens of millions of Americans financially and people like my friend, literally, that maybe we get our arms around what we're dealing with first, maybe more measured response, understanding that when you tell people they can't work anymore and their meaning is lost, that you're going to find some of them

at the end of a rope in a condo in Florida like they found my friend. Shut it all down or people will die. People are dying right now. Don't you dare forget that. So I ask you, if we have blood on our hands because we simply want people to be able to feed themselves, then if we have blood on our hands because we simply want people to be able to feed themselves, then do you have blood on your hands too? I'll see you all tomorrow.

You just heard the Dan Bongino Show. Follow Dan on Twitter 24-7 at DBongino.