The Dan Bongino Show - This Should Frighten All of Us # 998 (Ep 998)

Episode Date: June 10, 2019

In this episode I address this little-discussed surveillance rule and why it should frighten all of us. I also address the latest fake news about Trump’s big immigration win. Finally, I discuss big tech’s gross miscalculation in their continued attacks on conservatives. News Picks: The infamous “two-hop rule” explained. This is a brutal takedown of the Steele dossier. Democrats’ views on abortion are deeply unpopular. Media activists are poking fun at another one of Trump’s tweets, ignoring what he really meant.  The tech companies made a mistake by alienating conservatives. Now liberals want to break them up. Socialist China cracks down on liberal media outlets. Copyright Dan Bongino All Rights Reserved. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

get ready to hear the truth about america on a show that's not immune to the facts with your host dan bongino all right welcome to the dan bongino show producer joe how are you today happy monday daniel good to be here monday's never happy come on you know that we'll make your day happy me and joe will juice it up for you yeah we're trying our best here you know just another manic monday what was that the bangles or something that's very good i used to love that tune you know how many times i woke up to that song when i was a kid hey listen we got a lot for you today a couple thank yous to begin with but story-wise i have been receiving a boatload of emails seemingly almost coordinated um people looking to explain what the heck this two hop rule was.

In other words, this spying thing. So I got to get into this because I must have received a hundred emails saying, hey, Dan, I get it. Like we've gone over this whole scheme and Mueller and we get it. Okay, great. We're, you know, we've read the books coming out. I just finished it. But how exactly did it work?

And I said, you know what? I'm going to hit know what? I'm going to hit that today. I'm going to hit that. I'm going to hit the media lying again about Trump and what could potentially be the dumbest set of business decisions I've ever seen in my life about big tech. A couple of thank yous first. Thank you for watching Hannity on Friday. You guys and ladies kick butt out there where I guest hosted for Sean. I will be in today, Monday. Thank you, buddy. I always appreciate your kind words. On the 5, please tune in on the 5, 5 p.m. Eastern time

on the Fox News channel. I will be guest hosting the show with the regular crew over there. So check that out. And a big, fat, juicy thank you to my audience. I don't care what any other host tells you. I love the other hosts. They're some of my best friends.

But my audience, you guys and ladies are the best numero uno number one there was a survey done at liberty nation a pretty popular website amongst libertarians a survey about the best conservative podcasts out there and 5 000 people respond it is called liberty nation top 10 conservative podcasts to download in 2019. And who was number one? The Dan Bongino Show. Ladies and gentlemen, I did not push this survey out. I wasn't even aware of it.

It says the undisputed number one podcast for those who like liberty and audio form is the Dan Bongino Show. We not only won their author's survey, but the readers as well, making it the go-to source for what's good in podcast entertainment. Ladies and gentlemen, sincerely, I can't say this enough. You have made my life a distinct pleasure. This was never on my bucket list. I never intended my life to go this way. I thought I'd be a secret service agent, retire, and walk off into the sunset. But you have made my life and this show such a rewarding experience. And I saw that on a plane

coming back at 7. 30 in the morning on Saturday after doing Hannity headed back to my studio here. And I've been working really hard and I was, it's not a sob story, but I was very tired that morning. It had been a long night. And when that popped up on my Google alert, I'm telling you, I got a little bit choked up, which isn't that uncommon. I'm an emotional guy for a guy who pretends to be not emotional all the time. I got a little choked up on the plane. You all are awesome. I know it's not like the Emmy Awards

or anything like that, but it meant a lot to me. So God bless you and a sincere thank you from the bottom of my heart. Okay. Let's get to the material today. First, we got to pay for the show. Today's show is brought to you by Buddy said Helix Sleep. Helix has a sleep quiz that takes just two minutes to complete matches your body type with a mattress. I have two of these in my house. You know why I have two Helix Sleep mattresses in my house? True story. We have one for my daughter, Amelia, who's here today in the studio.

And it's so comfortable, I lost my wife. I'd be like, where's Paula? Before a clock in the morning, I'd roll over. You know, the hand goes over, you don't feel anything. There was no body there because my wife was sleeping on the Helix. I'm not kidding with my daughter. So we got another Helix Sleep for our bedroom. We love it. You a side sleeper, a hot sleeper, you like a flush or a firm bed, firm bed, excuse me. With Helix, there's no more guesswork, no more compromising. Take your sleep quiz, figure it out. You don't need to go to a

mattress store. It's right. Helix Sleep is rated number one by GQ and Wired Magazine and CNN called it the most comfortable mattress they've ever slept on. Just go to helixsleep.com slash Dan, take their two-minute sleep quiz, and they'll match you to a customized mattress that will give you the best sleep of your life. And for couples, Helix can even split the mattress down the middle, giving you individual support for each size. They have a 10-year warranty, and you'll get to try it out for 100 nights risk-free. They'll even pick it up for you if you don't love it, but you will. We love it. My house is nothing better than a Helix Sleep mattress. Helix Sleep is offering up to $125 off all mattress orders for all of our listeners. Get up to $125 off at helixsleep.com slash Dan.

That's helixsleep.com slash Dan for up to $125 off your mattress order. Helixsleep.com slash Dan. Please check it out. Their mattresses are really incredible. Best money out there for the best value out there for the price. All right, let's go. ding ding okay um what's this impeachment nonsense really about there's a hearing that's supposed to happen on wednesday supposedly discredited former felon john dean who was a an integral figure in the uhgate scandal, is going to testify.

Ladies and gentlemen, what's really going on is obviously, as I've said before, but I feel I need to say again, is the Democrats are trying to cover up the biggest spying scandal in American history, the weaponization of various assets within the government, the IRS, the NSA, the CIA, and the FBI to attack Obama's political opponents. I can't say this enough. This scandal is not just about Trump. Trump is a small part of a bigger puzzle here. The Obama administration's weaponization of the government. But the spying scandal, I've never really explained to you in detail

how exactly it worked because I mentioned it. The reason I didn't do it is I assumed when I said the two hop rule and how spying worked in the government that you all understood. That's my fault. I should not have assumed that because it can be a little complicated. Tablet Mag. I did a lot of homework over the weekend. I've actually been at this all day. I kid you not. And yesterday as well. Putting together what I thought were some of the best pieces out there. But the one I saw that summed it up the best is this piece by TabletMag, which I'm going to put in the show notes. Now, it's from a year ago by J.E. Dyer, March 6, 2018.

But this is a critical piece for you to read because it explains exactly why the Democrats are trying to impeach Trump. They're trying to hide what they did here. And this is how they did it. Now, the reason I'm bringing this up is because you're going to hear now this counterpoint air quotes from the left. And they're going to say, well, the Trump team wasn't spied on. They're going to, of course, admit now that there was a FISA warrant. It was a FISA warrant on Carter

Page. It was based on this dossier. But what they're going to say is, well, Joe, they weren't really spying on the Trump team or Trump per se because Carter Page in October had already been fired from the Trump team so follow me here yeah okay they're you get me they're frightened yeah we see you get to cheat because you've heard this before but their original story was there's no FISA right then they were like okay there was a FISA warrant but it was on a Russian cooperator oh then when they found out the dossier was bunk and Carter Page was not a Russian colluder, then the story became,

well, they really weren't spying on the Trump team, even though they made a mistake and used the dossier to spy on Page because Carter Page had already been fired. No, no, no, no, no. Nay. No, no, you're not, no, no, no. You're not going to get away with that.

Now, this piece of tablet mag is great, and it covers three particular components about why the FISA warrant on Carter Page was a warrant to spy on the Trump team. So, yeah, let's take piece number one from TabletMag, which discusses how the two-hop rule works. He says, this is the mistake you all are making when you say to yourself, oh, they weren't spying on the Trump team, they're spying on Carter Page, he'd been fired.

Nope. From the piece. The use of control should not obscure for us the scope of what's actually going on. They're talking about how this FISA warrant can let you hop from Carter Page to his contacts to their contacts. It goes on. Remember this line.

Data mining in particular is inherently about hunting through data, ladies and gentlemen, that's already there because it is routinely collected or stored under legal requirements and made available to the intel community on demand. Listen to this. For some types of communications data,

it is possible to retrieve information from as much as five years back in the relevant database hold on that one for a moment think about this this is not a prospective going forward warrant only a fisa warrant when the dossier was used disingenuously to lie about and spy on Carter Page. Another component of the spying was data mining retroactive information. Stuff that was already there in NSA databases and elsewhere.

Meaning, ladies and gentlemen, point number one. Remember, keep the headline in mind. Les Consolving, headline. Rest in man's soul. He died, right, Les? Yeah, point number one. Remember, keep the headline in mind. Less consoling. Headline. Rest in man's soul. He died, right, Les? Yeah, Les has left us, yes. Poor guy.

He was a good man. Headline. Yes, they were spying on the Trump team. Don't believe the liberal nonsense. Oh, Carter Page had already been fired. It doesn't matter. Dear Libs, this is what you should tell your liberal friends. You're aware, right, that they data mine on these warrants

and can go backwards as well as far as five years, right? You're aware of that, right? So unless Carter Page was fired five years ago from a Trump campaign that didn't exist five years ago, your point is stupid. Here we go. Thank you to the listeners who sent us 100 red flags. I got one for you. Red flag under the hood for review.

I'm serious. You guys, I should never ask for any. I was just kidding. And I got a, Paula, how many do we have out there? Like 20 red flags. If you send me one, we will use your red. That's red flag number two. We will use it on the show.

Red flag under the hood, review on the play. It doesn't matter if Carter Page was fired when the FISA war started. They data mine backwards. I mean, this is like explaining to idiots. I'm sorry. Not you. But it's like they just can't

tell the, just take the L. Take the L. Take the loss. My gosh. All right. Put up the first one again. Because it goes on. It says, in the case of a subject like Carter Page, that means investigators who obtain a warrant in October of 2016,

which is when the FISA was issued, can hunt through his communications going back several years before that date and can use their license to hop, listen to this, to probe the first and second order of correspondence linked to him at any point during that period in the same fashion. Meaning, they can go backwards, find out who Carter Page, when he was hired on the Trump campaign, emailed, and then figure out from there who they emailed,

and they basically have a circular drag net where they can encompass when he was hired on the Trump campaign email and then figure out from there who they emailed. And they basically have a circle, a circular drag net where they can encompass the entire team, the entire Trump team. Good catch. Stop talking nonsense. Is it Joe? You're the audience on budget.

They rely on you. Does this make sense? Yeah. I mean, it's made sense since I've heard it. Yes. I've understand this very clearly. Yes. But I don't think we have specifically addressed two hops.

I always assumed you all knew what it meant. But the two hops, just so you understand. So we have the top bullet again is Carter Page being, you know, being spied on was the Trump team being spied. And here's why. Point number one, these communications that they monitor are retroactive. It doesn't matter if he was fired in October. So that's takeaway number one. Takeaway number two on this is this, put the second cut from the piece, because this is

a very, very good piece. Please go to the show notes at Bongino.com. If you go to the podcast link in our menu, the drop down box, you can read all these articles. Subscribe to my email list. I'll send them to you. This is a great article worth your time. It says, what this means in practice, and they're talking about the two hop rule, is Drop down box. You can read all these articles. Subscribe to my email list. I'll send them to you. This is a great article worth your time.

It says what this means in practice. And they're talking about the two hop rule is that under a single warrant, any one page had a text or phone call with in the Trump campaign during the brief months of his association with the campaign was fair game. Yeah. As a direct connection all the way through the end of the last warrant extension period on Page in October of 2017. The second hop connections of those contacts, meaning everyone those people had contact with, are also fair game. In other words, folks, it's likely that almost everyone on the Trump campaign staff was included in the universe of first and second order contacts of Carter Page

and the entirety of their correspondence was covered by the warrant on Page. Folks, I'm a genuine libertarian, not a fake libertarian like some others out there. You know who I'm talking about. How, I don't understand how, please explain to me in a constitutional republic with Fourth Amendment search and seizures protection, please with a straight face explain to me how we should be allowing this.

It's for national security. Yeah, I'm sure it is, folks. We can get a warrant. When it involves a U.S. citizen, I have this line in my second book laid out with period, period, period. Get a warrant. You want to spy on foreigners? Good luck.

They have no constitutional protections unless they're in the United States. But you're a foreigner overseas and we need to spy on you for national security reasons? Knock yourself out. But I am a citizen of this country.

This is my country. It is Joe's, it is Paula's, and it is every one of you listening out there if you raised your right hand and pledged allegiance to the same. That Constitution is not toilet paper, and it was not a suggestion. The two-hop rule. The two-dump rule, the two dump rule. That's what it's worth. Flush the toilet on this piece of garbage.

Are you serious? The two hop rule. And by the way, in case you think this is some newfound Trump thing, I don't need to establish my bona fides. Many of you know me from, but when I ran for office, I was against the Patriot Act,

even though Bush signed it, because I thought it was a stupid idea then, and it's an even dumber idea now. National security. You can use that for anything. Yeah. Clearly. Spying on Carter Page, Joe.

National security. Of course, Daniel. But why? Yeah, I mean... Yes, Captain. National security. That's right. You got it.

National security, what? He was a cooperator in the FBI Biryakov case, Carter Page. yeah i mean yes captain national security that's right you got it that national security what he was a cooperator in the fbi buriakoff case carter page he's carter page is a threat to the republic all right there's one more piece i need you to read from this one more little uh outtake why did we need the russians in this now before we put this up this tab again this tablet mag piece is strongly worth your time but can i just make one quick aside i don't mean to sound distracted but i got an email from someone who's a new listener this week and they were like man dan you really cite a lot of these people's work i hope they're not upset with you i was like huh we're this we're like the second biggest conservative podcast. We cite people's work and we send traffic to their website, not ours.

So, sir, I appreciate you listening. And I don't usually address single emails, but we cite people's work and link to it. That's how they make money, not me. I'm serious. He was confused, Joe. He was like, you use the Epoch Times a lot. Do they get upset with you? I was like, no, they DM me stuff all the time.

Like, what's wrong with you? But this piece, I'm serious, is worth your time. There is a portion of it at the end where the writer, this J.E. Dyer, discusses why specifically we needed a Russian angle to this. In other words, the Russian collusion component of it enabled us to implement those surveillance tools, but to give the government a predicate reason to do so. I'm not explaining this well. To spy on American citizens, they needed this FISA warrant.

Now they can implement the hop rule and rope in the whole campaign. But ladies and gentlemen, they needed some kind of predicate first. And the predicate was going to be that the Russians were interfering in our election. Now, the Russians have interfered in every election. That enabled us to engage in an even more extensive surveillance dragnet with foreigners overseas,

and we don't need a warrant for them. But when they talk to an American citizen, we can listen in. You may say, yeah, but Dan, the American citizen's name is masked, right? Now it is the Obama administration's extensive use of unmasking. In other words, or the, or the, or the unmasking of the names of the American citizens. Now, does it make sense? What I'm trying to tell you, and I'll get to the piece in a second where they explain it maybe a little better than I am right now. Forgive me, I don't like what I do, but I want to make sure you get

it in granular detail here. What they didn't hoover up and vacuum up with the Carter Page FISA, who Carter Page emailed both in the past and after the FISA sign, and texted and called, right? And then who they called through the two hops.

If we can fabricate a collusion fairy tale, we can listen in on Russians for free, Joe, because they don't need a warrant for the Russians. And then when we get Americans talking to any of these Russians, we can just unmask them. And anyone left out there, we can just rope them into the surveillance perimeter, too. From the peace. I mean, really. Yeah. Deviously genius.

A final factor one seldom discusses from the piece conveys the sheer scope of the hopping effectively authorized with FISA surveillance. The factor in national security surveillance for which no special warrant is needed, pay attention to that, is one which starts with a foreign subject the fbi from july 2016 was conducting a counter intel investigation of russian activities as they related to the election wow

isn't that convenient the american public has no sense at this point of the scope of any electronic surveillance of russians incident to that investigation because to perform surveillance of Russian nationals, this is important, for national security purposes, the FBI does not need to obtain warrants from the FISA court naming those individuals. And for those routinely authorized types of searches, ladies and gentlemen, the two-hop rule still applies. gentlemen, the two hop rules still applies. Folks, do you understand the surveillance drag net that went on in the Trump team? Does it make sense now why they are so desperately,

viciously attacking Bill Barr? They were attacking Whitaker when he was the acting AG. They made Sessions recuse himself. Why are the Democrats, despite the unpopularity of their continued Russia attacks on Donald Trump, they're not stupid. If the numbers politically are not adding up and they're not, what was it, 30% or something of Americans want this thing to continue? Maybe 40, even if it was 40, it's still not even close to a majority. Why would Democrats who who are usually politically, strategically efficient, why would they throw all of that out the window to continue this ridiculous impeachment nonsense, knowing it is a loser? Because they are hiding a massive weaponization scheme by the Obama administration and a surveillance dragnet that you have no idea how big it was. But now you can start to process the scope.

The two pieces Carter page was spied on retroactively, proactively. It's the people he contacted were spied on and the people who they contacted were spied on. And whoever was left out of that, if there was a foreigner involved and that foreigner contacted a U.S. citizen, they would unmask the names of them. And then the two hop rule applies from that foreign call as well. Folks, this should really scare the hell out of everybody. Speaking of which, Paula, do we have the Martian video?

No. I'm a little out of order here, but this is really, you know, a little lighter note. I'm done with that story. Listen, everybody should be a little bit freaked out what's going on. But I got this 13 second, I don't usually run stuff like this,

but Tucker Carlson spiked my interest in all this UFO stuff he's been covering. This video popped up on Twitter and I caught it. It's on youtube.com slash Bongino for your audio listeners if you want to check it out. I'll describe it to you quick afterwards, but I just want to play this video. Someone caught on a home video camera outside their house. Tell me this isn't the freaky dekiest thing you've ever seen. Play that video. It looks like the dude from Harry Potter. I forget what his name is. The little like, he looks like a Martian in the Harry Potter thing.

Check it out on our YouTube. It's just like, obviously it's just like 10 seconds long, but I said it to Joe. I'm like, we got to play this to the show. That is like the weirdest thing I've ever seen. What's he doing with this? I mean, let's be honest, Joe. I wasn't even going to play the video today. And I just left you off with on a serious note, how crazy this Pfizer surveillance stuff is. And I'm like, you should all be frightened by this. I'm like,

tell you what frightens me. Look at this Martian cat. But it was weird. And listen, anybody could have done that. I mean, they could have gotten a suit and walked. I don't want to be overly dramatic about it, but it is kind of weird. You may enjoy it. All right. I got some other serious stuff to get to, including the dumbest business decision in American history by big tech to target conservatives, which is now blowing up in spectacular fashion in their faces. Big tech. Let's get let's attack conservatives. Yeah, but we're your friends. We're the ones who believe in economic liberty. You should be left alone by the government. Screw the conservatives. All right. Watch what happens. All right. Before we get to that, today's show also brought to you by my buddies at Harry's. Harry's.

This is my Harry's razor. It's got the safety travel cover on, so I have to worry about cutting myself. But you will not get a finer, closer shave anywhere than Harry's. This is a beautiful razor. Look at that handle. It's got some meat to it, too. I love this thing. Harry's razor.

I only have to shave once a day, but every other razor I have to shave twice, sometimes three times. Not with this baby from Harry's. Closest shave you'll ever get. Best value out there. Do you know the average guy will spend 3,000 hours of his lifetime shaving? Oh my gosh, that's brutal. I didn't know. This is a new copy for them. I was not aware of that. Don't waste four months of your life overpaying for poor performing razors where you get shaved like you're using a chainsaw. You come out, you're like, do I look okay? Sir, I think you need stitches. That's what happens when you use these horrible razors.

Happened to me once in a hotel. I called down to the concierge. I said, I forgot my razor. He gave me this crappy razor, and I nearly had to go to the hospital for blood loss. That's not an issue with the cleanest, closest shave around. Harry's erasers are so sharp, you can shave less often, save your skin, save money. Just $2 per blade.

Love Harry's. Join 10 million people who've tried Harry's. Claim your special offer now by going to harrys.com slash Bongino and redeem your trial set. Listen, Harry's founders were two regular guys tired of the nonsense. They were tired of the flexi balls,

the vibrating flexi balls, the handles that look like something out of Blade Runner and Star Wars, the flux capacitors. Just shave the face with a fine, well-produced razor blade. That's what Haris does. To keep prices low, they cut out the middleman. They have a world-class blade factory in Germany, and they have a 100% quality guarantee. You don't love your shave? Let them know.

They'll give you a full refund. You won't need it. You'll love your shave. Get a trial set that comes with everything you need for a clean, close, comfortable shave. Weighted ergonomic handle. There it is for an easy grip. Five blade razor with a lubricating strip and a trimmer blade for a close shave. Rich lathering shave gel that will keep you smelling great.

And a travel blade cover to keep your razor dry and easy on the go. Listeners of my show, redeem your trial set at harrys.com slash bongino. harrys.com slash bongino. Check it out for Father's Day. It makes a great gift. harrys.com slash bongino. Let them know we sent you to support the show. All right.

So, you know, this big tech thing, I get it. You know I respect my audience, and I always will tell you the truth. And there are a lot of things we disagree on. The most feedback we ever got on a show in our five-year history was the death penalty, where I had stated I was not a supporter of the death penalty, which surprised a lot of people, and it led to days of feedback back and forth. But I'll tell you that the second most, I don't know, controversial, I guess the best way to say it, viewpoint I've held with my own audience. Again, I'm not looking to alienate you. I owe you the truth, and we don't have to agree on everything. know controversial i guess the best way to say it viewpoint i've held with my own audience again i'm not looking to alienate you i just i owe you the truth and you know i we don't have to agree on everything i listen to your feedback my emails on the website not all of it's great sometimes you

guys don't like my opinions on stuff and ladies and that's fine but i don't believe the government should be getting involved in business without unnecessarily i mean obviously there are going to be limits to even the most freest of free markets contract law you can't steal from another company there's contract law patent law um there are going to be limits in in the freest of freest markets that are going to have to constrain everyone to a common set of rules okay but i don't believe the government turning big tech companies into effectively public utilities is a good idea. I don't, I'm sorry.

I'd like to see section two 30 of the community communications and decency act revised a bit because Twitter and Facebook and Google and others out there, YouTube, we had this thing last week. Many of them are acting like publishers we'll get demonetized for that immediately on youtube but that's okay um it's more important for me to get the message out there than it is to make a few extra beans right but the communications decency

act gives these platforms a pass on what's posted on their platforms. In other words, I'll use Twitter as an example. It's probably easier. Twitter can't be sued under certain circumstances if someone writes something really crazy on there because their out is, hey, we're a platform. We're not a publisher. Therefore, we don't condone it. So you can't sue us.

Now, a newspaper, on the other hand, is different. If a newspaper prints an article that says, you know, Joe Armacost robbed 16 banks this weekend and we know it, Joe can sue them. Joe can sue them and would probably win because they're a publisher, they're not a platform. I believe that if Twitter and Facebook and Google and YouTube, if they're going to act like publishers,

they should be treated like them. That's my take on it. But I don't believe the government should be introducing any new regulation into these companies because Democrats are eventually going to win back the White House one day, and it's going to turn into a total disaster where Democrats are going to use those said rules as a Trojan horse to kick every conservative off of these platforms, and they'll use it under some hate speech nonsense that's just made up. Does that make sense?

Yeah. Does that make sense, Joe? Yeah. I want to be clear on that. But sometimes I'll get emails saying, Dan, you're crazy. We got to get the government involved. We got to take it to these companies.

Yeah, great. You'll get a short-term high out of it. And then the minute the Democrats get in office, these companies will have a... I mean, there's a reason Mark Warner, a Democrat senator, wants the government to regulate these entities because they want to use it to regulate conservatives out of existence. At least now we have some fighting chance through modifying Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and hopefully maybe through some lawsuits and things like that.

But my point in this is we have been on the side of these big tech companies for a long time. Not because we're on their side, because we're on the side of economic freedom, even when it hurts us. Ladies and gentlemen, that's why I've always admired conservative thinkers out there. They do things and they say things because they believe in a set of principles that doesn't always benefit them. I'm telling you, YouTube's going to demonetize everything. They do it all the time. They do it all the time. And yet, you know, we continue to, I could kiss YouTube.

Oh, YouTube's so great. You guys, I love you. You know, I'm not going to do that. I think they've made serious mistakes. And if it costs us, it costs us. That's fine. But it's because I believe in a series of principles. And even though youtube demonetizes our videos for reasons they've never explained to us and folks i'm not whining i'm on youtube it's a free market i can get off anytime but they have have inflicted

financial pain on my show on youtube and me paula and joe still defend them yeah i'm like the government should not be i'm not looking for the government to help me here. I'm not. Because the government is the biggest disaster of all. Now, with that set up, YouTube, Google, Twitter, and Facebook going after conservatives

like they came after me and Crowder last week was quite possibly one of the dumbest moves I have ever seen in my life. Why? Oh, Joe. Yes. Oh, you thought the liberals were going to take care of you? Oh, yeah. That's good one. Very good. You thought liberals were going to because the Obama administration surgically attached itself to the rear of the big tech industry. You thought you were protected, right? Yes.

Well, here's the thing about big government liberals. They crave power. They will do anything to get power and they will stomp you like a palmetto bug down here in Florida in a heartbeat. Exhibit number one. Our good buddy, Elizabeth Warren. And by I mean good buddy, I one. Our good buddy Elizabeth Warren. And by I mean good buddy, I mean our not good buddy. Elizabeth Warren from Forbes. This article will be in the show notes today.

Worth your time again. By Kenneth Corbin. Elizabeth Warren wants to break up Amazon, Facebook and Google. Yes! Yes! There we go. What did I tell you? The Obama administration. We love Google. Google like had a seat in the Oval Office. We're going to really take care of help us get you? The Obama administration, we love Google. Google had a seat in the Oval Office.

We're going to really take care of it, help us get reelected. We love you, Google. The minute a—listen, Warren's moving up in the polls. Don't discount Elizabeth Warren. She's like number three right now. I thought her campaign was finished. I'll be candid with you. She's moving up in the polls.

This woman could be a serious contender for the presidency of the United States. These left-wing lunatics at these companies who thought by kissing the collective rears of the left, they were going to be protected. We were going to be made men. Therefore, we can't run ads on Twitter. No one's ever told us why we are banned from running ads on Twitter. The Dan Bongino show. We've never been given a reason, by the way. Twitter will not allow us to run ads. I still defend you idiots at Twitter still.

Twitter will not allow us to run ads. I still defend you idiots at Twitter. Still. Because unlike you guys and ladies over there, this show abides by a set of principles that matter. And you thought kissing the ass of the left was going to help you? Do we have a piece from that Forbes piece, Paula? We do.

How money is producer, I call the producer Paula. People went crazy with him. He's my wife. I love her to death, but she does produce the show. Senator Elizabeth Warren took to Medium to announce her plan to break up Amazon,

Facebook, and Google, much as the trust busters did to Standard Oil and J.P. Morgan's Northern Securities Company a century ago. Here's, listen to this. Warren contends

that the big three tech companies, she makes no mention of Apple, by the way, probably because they donated to her or something, have become too dominant and have leveraged their market position to squelch competition and harm consumers. Listen, you're not going to listen to me.

I get it, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube. I get it. You think me and Ben Shapiro and Crowder and Jordan Peterson and whoever's out there doing podcasting and who's developed some semblance of an audience out there, I get you think we're all idiots. That's fine. It's a constitutional republic. And although I think you guys are misguided, it is your right to think of us as buffoons. That's fine. Whatever. Your take. I think you guys personally are following the worst business strategy I've ever seen in my

life. But I'm just asking you to look at this from the common sense lens. What are you getting out of consistently attacking conservatives other than trying to align yourself with a movement that is leading the way to break you guys up? Now, in case you think this isn't going to get any worse, liberalism has embraced, and America is now embracing socialism. Oh, you don't believe me? There was just the Democrat, what, one of those conventions out there where they did the cattle call. John Delaney, who I had run against,

who's running for president, and John Hinkenlooper, they both got up on stage. One of them decried socialism and said socialism wasn't the path forward, and the crowd booed him. So liberals in california that was it was in california they love this stuff they love socialism it's their new thing there's a story

up at the ct post about china china which has gone full you know has been full socialist for a long time full-on socialism government controlling their means of production right there de facto indigere and here it is outlets such as bloomberg the new york times reuters and the wall street journal have been blocked for years in china so have social media outlets such as Bloomberg, the New York Times, Reuters and the Wall Street Journal have been blocked for years in China so have social media services such as Facebook and Twitter and all Google owned services including YouTube, popular services such as Dropbox, Slack

and WhatsApp are also prohibited. So to listen to all of you cool kids and by cool I mean uncool kids, you know you're 19, you're 20, you wear a Che Guevara shirt, you have no idea who Che Guevara is but you know it's really cool to wear it right? You know you're sitting there you know you're 19 you're 20 you wear a shea guavara shirt you have no idea who shea guavara is but you know it's really cool to wear it right you know you're sitting there you know socialism rules bernie bruh bruh we want socialism socialism is the future we love socialism bernie is my guy you're sitting there running your bernie bros i know you i've seen you out there you're

like we love bernie just understand you probably watch YouTube all day. You understand that socialist countries, as I just showed you from that CT Post piece, which is up at Drudge today, by the way, that those sites are effectively banned in China, which is a socialist country. Socialism, websites I like no good. Socialism, websites I like no good. Maybe you'll make the connection one day. I'm not trying to insult you. Actually, I kind of am. But this is really the height of stupidity. I like YouTube. Yeah, YouTube's not allowed in some socialist countries.

North Korea, China. No, that's not socialism. That's fake socialism. No, that's actual real socialism. The kind Bernie supports. I love socialism, especially China. It's the greatest. That's his thing.

The guy's on tape about Venezuela and Cuba. Cuba, you guys are the greatest. That's your guy. So I just don't get it. Why are you getting in bed with these far-left radicals? They're not going to save you. This is my plea to these

tech companies. You had a friend, I shouldn't say a friend, an ally, because I'm not your friend. Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, you've all done horrible things to me and my company. I'm not your friend, but I am your ally because I believe in economic

freedom, even for people that crap all over my company. You might want to rethink your strategy of tearing us all down, because let me tell you something. We're going to be the last men standing on this battlefield with you, and you are picking the wrong fight. Bank on it. Let's see if you're smart enough to figure it out. Okay. Story number three,

interesting tweet I saw. I had dinner with a friend of ours, a married couple this weekend, Paul and I, we don't get out much. It's a beautiful house, by the way. We went over there and we had a really, really good time. Guy's very, very smart. And we got into talking about politics and the economy. And I brought up how the yield curve, it's the 10-3 yield curve, the 10-year, 3-month, just inverted. Now, I don't want you to be, oh, what are you talking about? Ladies and gentlemen, it's really an important story. And the fact that it hasn't gotten more attention is actually a little surprising, considering what it portends and the fact that the media just hates Donald Trump, hates him. Now, I want to be clear.

I don't believe this is Trump's fault. Trump didn't invert the yield curve. So I want to explain what that means, what it is, why I think it's a story, and why you should be not overly concerned but a little bit worried right now. I saw this tweet up from this guy, Jaron Blockland, J.S. Blockland on Twitter. He's a verified account there. And it was interesting. I was going through a bunch of tweets and this was the one I thought that just explained

it the most succinctly. Yield curve update to 10-year, three-month yield curve briefly inverted in March and is now negative for 12 consecutive days. The 10-2, 10-year, two-year has not inverted so far, but it's actually steepened a little bit preceding the last. Here's the takeaway. Preceding the last five recessions, the 10-year, two-year always inverted first. Now, here's one of the charts he had on

there. This is interesting. I'll translate it for you. Yeah, please do. If you look at this chart here, and I'll explain for you audio listeners, don't worry. It's really simple. The gray areas are where a recession, an economic recession where we had negative growth, right? Those are where the negative recessionary events occurred. If you look right before those negative recessionary events, every time, what happened? The yield curve inverted every time. You'll see if you can see on the chart on the YouTube, and I'll just explain it to you. It goes below zero, meaning there was an inversion of that yield curve, and right after that, there was a recession. so the yield curve inverted again what does that mean um and why

does this uh you know again i don't want anybody to panic but this is a relatively good predictor of a potential recession ahead the yield curve is when the the yield the return the interest rate on a short-term denominated note and a long-term denominated note, usually if I lend you, Joe, I need you here. So rescue me if I get a little too wonky. But if I lend Joe money for, let's say we use the, because this was the 10-year, three-month. If I lend Joe money for 10 years, typically I'm going to demand a higher interest rate for Joe to pay me back because I'm lending my money out for a long time. There's a lot of risk. I mean, I love Joe, but Joe could get sick. I mean, he's not going to go bankrupt, but you get my point. I mean, I'm not trying to impugn

Joe's integrity, but anything can happen. I mean, it happens to people all the time. You lend money for a long time, you take on a lot of risk. Therefore, a lot of risk means a higher return. If me personally, if I was going to lend Joe money for three months, there's not a lot of risk in that. Knock on wood, nothing's going joe to money for three months there's not a lot of risk in that i don't you know knock on wood nothing's going to happen to joe in three months i you know i don't know exactly what joe makes you know it doesn't only work for me but i have a decent idea if he can pay me back it's not a ballad of risk in that so if i'm going to lend joe money for a long time watch the interest rate let me get in front of the camera the interest rate's going to be higher right a short time the interest rate's going to be higher. A short time, the interest rate's going to be lower.

But sometimes that yield curve, which is supposed to steepen, inverts. Now, why would that be? Why would someone be so willing to lend money out for a longer amount of time at a lesser interest rate than a short amount of time? It doesn't make any sense. Yeah, do tell. of time at a lesser interest rate than a short amount of time. It doesn't make any sense. Yeah, do tell. Well, the reason is before a recession, sometimes people who get these gloomy signals, these market watch analysts, are so desperate to lock in that higher long-term rate,

thinking, Joe, in other words, like, hey, listen, we better lock in these higher long-term interest rates now because the economy's about to tank. So everybody kind of rushes for the exits at the same time before a recession and tries to lock in and buy those longer-term securities. Now, when a lot of people are trying to buy those long-term securities, the prices go up, the yields go down, they move in the opposite direction. The prices go up. In other words, if they can sell it to a bunch of people, the prices and yields move in the opposite direction. The prices go up. In other words, if they can sell it to a bunch of people, the prices and yields move in the opposite direction.

So the bottom line is, it's a rush for the exits to buy the long-term stuff, and people kind of panic on the short-term end. So you get this inversion. Now, it was kind of a long way of explaining to you that, folks, the Trump economy is in good shape right now, but the big, big red warning sign, ding, ding, ding, bell that should be going off in everybody's head is our debt. Our debt situation and government spending levels are entirely, completely unsustainable. The fact that this yield curve has inverted and people are rushing for the exits to lock in longer term rates.

Remember, prices go up, yields go down. People start all, give me, give me, give me, give me, give me, give me, give me. Should say to you something's going on there. Now, I know the Trump administration, because Trump's a business guy, gets this. But to the congressional folks listening, you're the ones that spend the money. You've got to get a cap on this government spending. It is clearly a warning sign right now. Not everything is entirely hunky-dory. And you can always read by, it's very simple,

explaining the yield curve. If you go to any place like Investopedia or anywhere else, it'll explain it to you in basically one paragraph. It's really simple. It's basically people just rushing to get, lock in those higher long-term rates because they're panicking about the short-term and they think the long-term outlook isn't very good. So in other words, if the stock market's not going to return to me a lot of money in 10 years and I can lock in five percentages now, everybody go get it at the same time. And as the prices go up, the yields go down. So it's as simple as that. But worth bringing up, I'm really surprised we haven't heard more about it because the media people, they're always looking as if this is Trump's fault.

He's done everything he can. He proposed the tax cuts. He told them not to send him another spending bill. They keep sending him this garbage. Regulatory reform, just got the deal, the border deal with Mexico. Hey, one quick note on this border deal with Mexico, by the way. Don't believe the fake news out there. There's a fake news story that the border deal we struck with Mexico on Friday,

right before I went on the air doing the Hannity show, the New York Times was reporting in a story that, oh, this deal was struck months ago and Trump is just saying this now. Ladies and gentlemen, from the New York Times' own story, just to be clear what we're saying here, Trump had a big win on Friday. He threatened the Mexican government with 5% tariffs increasing weekly and monthly until they control the illegal immigration into their country,

which in turn flows into the United States. Copy? Trump said to them, I'm going to tariff your products if you don't fix it. The New York slimes, because they're slimy and that's what they do. They're good for cleaning up dog byproducts and lining your birdcage, maybe packing materials when you move. The Slimes puts out a story this weekend trying to take away Trump's political victory.

This stuff was agreed two months ago. Trump's full of it. From the New York Times on peace, folks. The promise to deploy up to 6,000 troops was larger than the previous pledge. And the Mexican government agreed to accelerate the migrant protocol protections, which would help alleviate catch and release. So in the New York slimes, in their own story,

they're trying to say all this stuff was agreed two months ago. Trump's just saying it now to look like he won concessions. In their own story, they acknowledge that the promise to deploy the troops was more than the previous pledge, and the Mexican government's agreed to accelerate their program to stop the catch and release thing, where they catch illegal migrants and re-release them.

That's their own story. Very rarely will a newspaper debunk its own story within its own story. You tracking me, amigo? What they say on this? Yes. That they're saying the deal was agreed to,

except it wasn't. I swear. Guys are great. What has two thumbs and sucks really bad? The New York Times, baby. You guys are awful. So bad. President Trump, he didn't get a deal.

They agreed to this months ago, except they didn't agree to it months ago. Nice story. Very well done. All right. I got another one. This Biden one is hysterical. I don't know if you saw Biden's.

Do you guys see Biden's tweet this weekend? I'll put that up in a second. This is one of the, if this is not a joke, Joe Biden's official social media shop sent out a tweet. I mean, get to after this read here. If this is not a joke, just lie to America and say it was.

Seriously. I'm not even your political ally, Joe Biden. But if this was a real tweet and not a joke, please just come out and make a public press release statement. Just say it was a joke. It's that bad. I'll get to it. Talk about a tease, right? All right. Ali, welcome back to Ali. Hey, your dog's health

is as important as every other member of your family. We love dogs. We have two dogs in this house. We adopted my mother-in-law's dogs, Baby and Linda. Linda! And it starts with letting you feed them. But you know what's in your dog's food? Listen, Ollie puts dogs first with vet-formulated recipes and fully transparent ingredients to give your dog the healthiest food possible.

My two, they can't get enough of this. Seriously, sometimes we don't even put table food in there anymore. Just give them to Ollie. They like it that much. It's delicious. Ollie makes fresh meals for dogs with real ingredients that people can eat and delivers them to you on a regular schedule. That's right.

It's human quality food. It's not that kibble, smelly garbage you get. They beat out store-bought dog food at 10 to 1 on the palatability scale. That's a pretty big beating right there. Because they create customized vet-formulated recipes made with all natural ingredients. No preservatives and sourced from U.S. family farms. Go to myali.com, answer a few questions about your dog,

and they'll customize recipes to your dog and ship pre-portioned meals so your pup gets the perfect portion every time. They've delivered 5 million meals and counting. Shipping is free. And if your dog doesn't like the meals, they have a money back guarantee. I've got an exclusive offer for you here. It's a good one. Ollie's offering our listeners 60, 60, that's six, 0% off your first

box. Plus a free bag of treats at this is a, this is pay attention here to this one. MyOllie.com slash try slash Bongino. Go to MyOllie.com slash try slash Bongino. That's 60% off your first order plus a free bag of treats spelled MyOllie.com slash try slash Bongino. Check it out. You will absolutely love this food for your pet. They will like you for it too. It is pretty good stuff based on the response of my two that I have adopted. Okay. Yeah, this tweet is just hard. Put this thing up. I don't even know. This thing speaks for itself. So Joe Biden puts out this tweet from his

at Joe Biden official account. Happy Best Friends Day to my friend Barack Obama. And it is a photo of two friendship bracelets intertwined. Joe, how bad is this? I can even say it for the audio listeners. It is two friendship bracelets intertwined with the words Joe and Barack. Joe, I've never heard you laugh like this on the show best friend's day to my friend i mean i'm trying on this show i i have an hour with you i really try to keep it content dense but once in a while i'd like to lighten up the mood like with the martian video before

this one is worse than the martian video the martian video is a little frightening if it's real this is so embarrassingly bad but it speaks to the clear utter desperation of these candidates to just suckle off the obama legacy it's so pathetic you know i ran for office you know it we had one race that i thought went really well to what one what primary one well um and one it didn't go so well but i i mean i can tell you having some experience with it that candidates inauthentic candidates just do not resonate they just don't i i thought that i mean joe gosh when you were at cbm how many candidates for office do you think in the 20 years you were there i mean thousands yeah seriously zillions man from baltimore city council to governors i How many candidates for office do you think in the 20 years you were there? I mean, thousands? Yeah.

Seriously. Zillions, man. From Baltimore City Council to governors. I mean, a governor, right? They all came in through Joe's studio. Yeah, you can't put a price on that. Can't you tell within two seconds with your sniffer who the frauds were? Oh, yeah, man. That was part of the control room fun, you know?

This guy's a phony. I agree. This tweet is embarrassing. Now, of course, I want to put some content to it we can make fun of it all day but i don't want to waste your time biden has you know now he's clearly sacrificed and forfeited all his principles away in addition to his dopey friendship bracelets joe loves barack or whatever so stupid he did the very rare flip. I had to write this down. Flip, flop, flop, flip, flip, flop. The flipper, flopper, flipperooski.

You know, in politics, we have the flip flop where you change your position. Rarely, as I said on Hannity on Friday, do you see a flip, flop, flip, flop, flop, flip, flipperooski, flipperooski, depardewski. This is a weird. So what happened? He did the 540. He didn't do a. So what happened? He did the 540. He didn't do a 180, a 360. He did a 540. So Biden, in 1976, I'm not kidding, by the way.

I was born in 1974. So two years after I was born, Biden came out in support of the Hyde Amendment. The Hyde Amendment is a federal prohibition on taxpayer money going to finance abortions. Very simple. Doesn't require any further explanation than that. Your tax dollars should not go to programs that finance abortion. Okay? Yep.

He has been consistent on that, Joe Biden, throughout the Obama administration and up until I believe June 6th was the date. And up until, I believe, June 6th was the date. On June 6th, he was asked about this, about the Hyde Amendment, and he reaffirmed his belief that the Hyde Amendment should stay. In other words, the federal taxpayer dollars should not finance abortions. Now, he is a pro-abortion guy, but his take was, I'm a Catholic, and even though I'm pro-abortion, I don't think people who aren't for abortion should have their money used to finance abortions. Which, again, I'm pro-life, so I don't believe any of that. But I'll take it if the Hyde Amendment is the best thing I can get out of you, I'll take it.

Just days after that, he's questioned by these radical far leftists about the Hyde Amendment. Hey, Joe, we heard you still support the Hyde Amendment. You don't want federal tax dollars going to pay for abortions. He does the flip-a-rooski. He flips again. He's like, no, no, no. We're changing our mind. We're changing our mind.

We don't back the Hyde Amendment anymore. So now all of a sudden, and forgive me, folks, I'm getting the flip-flop flip-a-rooski. I may even, because he flips so many times, I'm having a difficult time keeping track of how many flops and flips there were. All you need to know is this.

For 30-plus years, he supported the Hyde Amendment. Now, all of a sudden, overnight, when challenged by a bunch of radical progressives, he changes his mind and says, I don't support the Hyde Amendment anymore. Here is his staffer on CNN show trying to explain this. You know, you just said your guy was a Catholic and a Christian and he doesn't support tax payment.

Here's her flipping and flopping, trying to explain away this ridiculous lack of character by Joe Biden in the flip flop. What is the substantive explanation for how he changed his mind? Look, this was a tough personal decision for him. But the substantive explanation is that the moment that we're in now is a dramatically different one. Did he speak to advocates? How did he do it? Did someone give him evidence? What kind of evidence? Did he speak to advocates? Did he speak to women? What was the impetus? What was the inflection point that changed his mind? Well, look, but wait, I think the other thing that's getting lost here is that he has been an advocate for women's choice

for his entire career. I mean, look, in the last 50 years, Democrats have successfully kept one Republican Supreme Court justice nominee off the court. That was Robert Bork. And who led that fight? That was Joe Biden. And that was a fight about choice. That was a fight about talking about the high to suggest. But I think right. But I think to suggest I think to suggest that this is somehow out of step or out of sync with the way that he's viewed this issue is actually not true. Now, folks, to be clear about this. Because I know some of you may be thinking wow cnn what are they doing here that was cnn right you make holding liberals feet to the no no no no you're reading this all wrong that's not what's happening cnn are far-left radicals there is a democrat primary going on

right now they want the most radical leftist they can get in there because they're radicals They want the most radical leftist they can get in there because they're radicals. They will attack Joe Biden up until the end. If he takes any kind of moderate position, I use the air quotes because it's not moderate. None of this is moderate, but they will attack Joe Biden up until the day that the nominee is decided. If Joe Biden is, in fact, the nominee, I promise you, you will never see that conversation again. Mark my words. That commentator, they're doing that.

Now, you get what I'm saying, Joe? Because it's a primary going on. They're going to have to pretend to be somewhat newsworthy. So they'll be like, well, there's no penalty in attacking Biden now as long as we attack him from the left. And she goes after him. Why did he change his mind overnight? I thought he had these deep religious convictions about taxpayer money for abortions.

Overnight, he changed his mind after 40 years, and the lady's like, well, he kept Robert Bork up. Robert Bork. These kids in college couldn't even tell you who Robert Bork was, a lot of them. Robert Bork. I mean, for the Reagan era nominee? I forget the hostess's name. Forgive me. But she's like,

we're talking about the Hyde Amendment now. That will all stop on a dime, guaranteed, when the nominee is decided. There will be softball question upon softball question, and none of that will come up again, the flip-flop. But they're doing it now, and you can see they're going to struggle to explain it. Ladies and gentlemen, this was a gross political miscalculation. I'm not here to give Joe Biden advice, but I think Joe Biden, what he thinks his appeal was, it's not, but what he thinks his appeal was is as lunch bucket show. I'm the everyday guy. Every, he's not the everyday guy, guy folks the guy's been in office 40 years he's lived a catered pampered existence

he has got more scandals in his past with Ukraine and China than you can possibly imagine we'll get to him on this show over the course of the election he's not an everyday guy but him flip flopping on this issue after 40 years because Alyssa Milano and a bunch of progressive

activists called him out is frankly pathetic and sad and he's on this issue after 40 years because Alyssa Milano and a bunch of progressive activists called him out is frankly pathetic and sad. And he's really destroying his image almost overnight. This was a terrible political miscalculation. All right, folks,

thanks again for tuning in. I really appreciate it. Please watch The Five today. Again, if you can't watch it live at 5 p.m. Eastern time on the Fox News channel, please DVR it. I will be guest hosting.

You'll always see spicy debates on there. We'll be bringing it. And we will be hosting. You'll always see spicy debates. We'll be bringing it. And we will be here tomorrow with you at another live show. Please check us out on YouTube, youtube.com slash Bongino. Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, SoundCloud, iHeartRadio. The subscriptions are free. Click the subscribe button.

It doesn't cost you a dollar. Helps us move up the charts. Thanks a lot, folks. I really appreciate your support. Thanks for that poll. You really got me a little choked up on a plane. You mean the world to me. So thanks a lot. I'll see you tomorrow.