The Dan Bongino Show - This Video on Big Tech Should Frighten Everyone # 1024 (Ep 1024)

Episode Date: July 17, 2019

In this episode I address the frightening ability of big tech to manipulate election outcomes. I also cover the disintegrating immigration debate and the Democrats changing positions. Finally, I address the hidden scheme behind the “government option” for healthcare. News Picks:John Solomon’s new piece decimates the dirty dossier. Barack Obama once supported the same immigration asylum position as President Trump. Nancy Pelosi violates House rules in a desperate effort to attack Trump. Unbelievable! Sanctuary State California released illegal aliens charged with murder and rape.   Population shifts are setting up a huge 2020 election fight.  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 dano producer joe is a-okay all systems go joe do you know what vocal fry is i was listening to uh uh yesterday to the radio. He does some good interviews. I think so. Yeah. Oh, he was talking about vocal fry. It drives me nuts.

I just listened to this interview between Gayle King and AOC and the squad. And the vocal fry is, oh, I can't take vocal fry. You know, vocal fry, I think they think it makes them sound more intelligent when they talk like that. It is so irritating. Yeah. I cannot take it. Just end your words. Just end them.

Please. Hello, Joe. How are you? Miss Turponchino. I'm doing well. End it. Cut it off. No vocal fry.

Oh, I can't take it. No vocal fry. I was just thinking. I was listening. We had a bit of a technical thing before this. I said, Joe, hold on a minute. I want to listen to this thing. You know, AOC and the squad are accusing Nancy Pelosi again of basically the death threats that they're getting.

She's trying to tie them and her squad to Nancy Pelosi. And the whole thing was the death threat. Oh, my gosh. The most annoying thing. Even us imitating it is annoying yes it is okay i've got a stacked show for you right in it i've got some video it's gonna blow your mind big hat tip to breitbart for picking this out yeah on potential big tech right this is good big tech manipulation of the election and i'll bet it's something you haven't thought of

before i got that another john solomon piece and the immigration crisis again exploding so let's get right to it today's show brought to you by our buddies at genu cell genu cell here is the jawline treatment as a matter of fact you wish that double chin would just disappear newsflash ladies and gentlemen people look at your jawline it simply simply tells your age. Here is the famous Robin from Lubbock, Texas. Famous. I put GenuCell jawline cream on my neck two or three days ago. It's the best my neck has looked in 20 years. People told me my face looks young.

I'm blown away. Robin was blown away. Using MDL technology and Chamonix proprietary base, GenuCell's brand new jawline treatment specifically targets the delicate skin around the neck for tight tight healthy younger looking skin that's what you want see results right before your eyes are 100 of your money back no questions asked order now and the classic genu cell for bags and puffiness is free with your order and to start seeing results in 12 hours or less, GenuCell immediate effects.

You got a date or something? Use immediate effects. No double chin. No turkey necks. Yeah. Yes. No sagging jaw lines because no one needs to know your age.

Go to GenuCell.com. That's GenuCell.com. Enter Dan25. That's Dan25 at checkout. That's G-E-N-U-C-E-L. GenuCell.com. Enter Dan25. That's Dan25 at checkout. That's G-E-N-U-C-E-L. GenuCell.com. Dan25 at checkout. Get you two free gifts, free express shipping.

Go to GenuCell.com. Enter Dan25 at checkout. That's GenuCell.com. All right, let's go. Nice. Right on target. Okay. Let's get right to this video.

This is Senator Ted Cruz. Again, big hat tip, bright part. I retweeted this video this is senator ted cruz again big hat tip bright part i retweeted this video hope you see it on my twitter account as well um the audio lays it out completely though this is an expert in online manipulation i think he's a social science researcher and he's talking about the threat Google, Facebook, and big tech can potentially pose manipulating an election. And he talks about this go out and vote message that could have been targeted to a specific population and what he thought would happen if he did.

You know what? Let me let him explain it. When he comes back, I will talk about this because, ladies and gentlemen, this is really, really scary stuff. Play the cup. Now, you described the go vote reminder and you said it wasn't a public service announcement, but rather manipulation. Can you explain how? I'm not sure everyone followed the details of that.

Well, sure. Mark Zuckerberg, for example, had chosen to send out a go vote reminder, say just to Democrats, and no one would have known if he had done this, that would have given that day an additional at least 450,000 votes to Democrats. And we know this without doubt because of Facebook's own published data, because they did an experiment that they didn't tell anyone about during the 2010 election. They published it in 2012. It had 60 million Facebook users involved. They sent out a go vote reminder and they got something like 360,000 more people to get off their sofas and go vote who otherwise would have stayed home. The point is, I don't think that Mr. Zuckerberg sent out that reminder in 2016. I think he was

overconfident. I think Google was overconfident. All these companies were. I don't think he sent that out. Without monitoring systems in place, we'll never know what these companies are doing. But the point is, in 2018, I'm sure they were more aggressive. We have lots of data to support that. And in 2020, you can bet that all of these companies are going to go all out. And the methods that they're using are invisible. They're subliminal. They're more powerful than most any effects I've ever seen in the behavioral sciences. And I've been in the behavioral sciences for almost 40 years. Folks, oh boy, that is not the most disturbing minute and 30 you've heard on election manipulation a long time. i don't know what is

that is a hat tip to senator cruz and bright bar for the video great question great line of questioning there and to the good doctor there in the social sciences for letting us know what happened there think about what he just said facebook's own internal data from a geo tv get out the vote um oh excuse me Google's internal data message, their own data seems to indicate that they could have moved hundreds of thousands of additional people to the polls. And he brings up a fascinating point. What if Google targeted this only to likely Democratic voters?

Ladies and gentlemen, 400,000 votes in select swing states could swing the entire presidential election. No question about it. gentlemen 400 000 votes in select swing states could swing the entire presidential election no question about it not to mention state senate state house of reps congressional seats u.s senate seats some of these races are decided by a sliver think of the norm colman minnesota election which flipped back and forth al franken wind up taking that seat based on some shady numbers. Folks, this is frightening stuff. Now, you know my stance if you're a regular listener. I don't believe government intervention here is going to help. I believe it's only going to exacerbate the problem when it comes to big tech because the government you're assuming is going to be acting in your best interest,

not in the effort to suppress conservative thought, which will likely happen in the long run because the government will not be run by conservatives the entire time. I do not trust the government. The issue and where I made the exception frequently, and I'll make it again, is when it comes to elections. We have very specific, I believe, very well done laws and regulations on election manipulation where the monitor is the FEC, the Federal Election Commission. Ladies and gentlemen, there has to be a standard, some sort of, again, big tech or consumer bill of rights for election that you can be expecting from these big tech companies. that you can be expecting from these big tech companies,

fair and open access to election data. And you can expect that any of their efforts that are pushed out to G O TV, get out the vote are not in any way manipulated with any partisan intent. If they are, then that would be effectively an in kind donation to the Democrats and would be illegal. If you didn't declare it, you track what I'm saying there. Yeah,

yeah, yeah, yeah. If there's going to be a Google, Facebook, whatever it may be, YouTube, Twitter effort to get out to vote, there cannot be any partisan intent. The FEC should be allowed to review those algorithms, the FEC, and to make sure they are not targeted at a specific political party, Democrat or Republican. I'm not kidding.

I have no interest in these big tech companies pushing either side. If they want to do it as a public service, broad-based, nonpartisan in intent, fine. But they should open that algorithm up for public review for the FEC to look at, because if Google is pushing out only what they believe to be Democrat voters to get out and vote and are manipulating elections, this is Orwellian frightening stuff. Oh, man. Very frightening stuff. And the good professor pointed out it was subliminal.

So I'm kind of wondering if they'll even know what to look for. You know, I don't know. That's why we have to open up these algorithms for review when it comes to electioneering, any type of electioneering. In kind, donate. Listen, I ran for office office a couple times so i'm pretty familiar with this in kind donations the way some people would attempt if you didn't have to declare in kind meaning not there wasn't a cash transaction let's say right the way people would get around donation limits if in kind donations you didn't have to declare them is, let's say you own a tech company and you want to give whatever,

Joe Biden's campaign, a bunch of free services. Well, Joe Biden's campaign doesn't have to pay for those services now. And if those services are worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, that's not fair to the other campaigns. So Joe Biden's campaign

has to declare those as in-kind, not cash exchange services, but free services given to them. You have to declare them. There are rules against that. If Google's going to do a massive get-out-the-vote effort and target it towards Democrats, that's an in-kind donation to the Democrat Party. You'd have to declare that. Of course,

Google would never do that. But you're right, Joe. Subliminal, it's kind of like that at the movie theater where they used to briefly flash the popcorn and the soda, and nobody saw it, and they're like theater where they used to briefly flash the popcorn and the soda. Nobody saw it. And they're like, yeah, you know what? I want a popcorn and a soda. Yes, we wouldn't know.

But that's why you have to open up these algorithms. Listen, I don't want to beat this story to death. I was actually going to cover this last. And I thought this is important enough that I open up the show with this. This is a very serious topic. Again, I'm not for government intervention. This is a very serious topic. Again, I'm not for government intervention,

but when it comes to a free and fair election, declaring in-kind donations, intent to these companies, an open and honest intent about what they're doing. If they are going to help the Democrats, and that's their intention, those algorithms should be open for government monitors and the FEC to look at. No question about it.

That would unquestionably be an in-kind donation and would be absolutely unfair to Republican candidates. All right, brother. That would unquestionably be an in-kind donation and would be absolutely unfair to Republican candidates. All right, moving on. Ladies and gentlemen, the immigration crisis is absolutely exploding here. I want to point out here, I've got this, I've got Solomon's story coming up, so don't go anywhere with that.

Another bombshell essay from John Solomon. Completely annihilating leftist narratives, by the way. But the immigration story's blowing up. I've been getting a lot of questions about the citizenship question, what it means, why Donald Trump attempting to put the citizenship question on the census is a big deal. I had described to you last week in one of the roadshows that one of the reasons the left fears the citizenship question is the way we allocate congressional representatives, not the Senate. Obviously, the U.S. Senate, you get two per state.

Doesn't matter what the population is. Montana gets two. New York gets two. I mean, I'm not talking down to anyone, but I do get a lot of questions. I just want to be sure we're clear on this. to the founders was to make one of the bicameral branches of our Congress, the House of Representatives, sensitive to population, while the other could display its own regional interests by having two per state. The House of Representatives being sensitive to population, you get roughly one congressman

for every 700,000 citizens. Now, every 10 years, because the population of the United States increases and decreases in certain areas, on net, we generally increase overall, but certain areas lose population, certain gain. California and New York have been hemorrhaging people for a long time. Florida and Texas have been gaining people. Therefore, they get more congressional representatives. Your state bumps up by 700,000 people, you'll get one extra congressman or congresswoman. That's obvious. Now, if that's based on a pure citizenship count, California, which is populated because of its sanctuary state status, and I'll get to that in a second too, by a lot of people

here illegally would likely lose members of Congress. The fact that they believe there is an undercount, there would be an undercount on the census on the citizenship question, although that's not its intent. And I believe it's perfectly fair and has been asked forever. An undercount of roughly six million people. The Democrats are panicking because they think they'd lose how many, Joe? About eight or nine congressional seats. That's it. Just it's not just the fact that the Democrats want representation in the House of Representatives based on illegal aliens populating those states that they want that.

They want to flood the country with people here illegally, not legally, and use them to gain voting power in the House of Representatives. But there's a second reason. The second reason is there's a cash value to this too in benefits paid for by who you of course you wall street journal piece today it's a good one talks about the actual cash value in certain places of having people counted in the country as who are here illegally and the cash value you're paying for it sanctuary cities get a census bonus yeah by peter a morrison and david a swanson in the end it's all about money money and voting power that's why keep in mind ladies and gentlemen this is not about legal immigration of course legal immigrants green card holders uh people who are here and have become citizens

resident aliens of course they should be counted in the citizenship and we in this and we should know how many people are here legally and illegally i don't think it's going to disincentivize people but democrats will tell you that again because they don't want to lose congressional seats. But here from the Wall Street Journal piece is what every person here in the country illegally is worth in Portland. Check this out. The citizenship question, quote, this also means more federal money. Population data from the 2020 census will direct the flow of billions of federal dollars to states and cities for 10 years thereafter.

Andrew Reimer, a professor of public policy at George Washington University, has identified more than 300 federal programs that allocate funding based on census population count. Using his data, we estimate that Portland stands to receive from these programs $2,772 per migrant and federal funds annually. This is worth $27,720 over the next 10 years, a quote, census bonus. Ladies and gentlemen, the Democrats never tell you their true intent. They're telling you, oh my gosh,

the census question asking about citizenship is going to frighten people. Why would it frighten people? Why would it frighten? If you're here in the country legally and not a citizen, what's the problem? You're here. Just answer the question. If you're here illegally in violation of our laws and you don't want to answer and don't want to answer the question, then maybe you should enter the country legally. This is not hard. This question has been asked throughout our history and was asked on the community research

survey, the long form. There's nothing controversial about this question. They ask everything else in the census. But now you know why. Number one, they're afraid of losing congressional representatives. And number two, they want your money. They want you to be able to finance sanctuary states and people who just don't care about our laws. How do we know that?

Because they entered the country illegally and said, ah, laws, schmoz, I don't really care. I never thought of it that way. So you're, well, now you know. Ladies and gentlemen, this is real money. roughly $2,700 per person here illegally in your money, while also allocating to those states that want and harbor people here illegally through sanctuary state status. In other words, come here, we won't enforce the laws. They want more voting power, too, to take more of your money.

This is an endless spiral, downward spiral of chaos. Take our money, we work for for and then get more voting power in those states to vote to take more of our money in the end and what a disgrace by the way to people in the country legally now immigration chaos continues it's not just that sanctuary cities up at bongino.com and sanctuary states look at. Look at this disaster up at our website. Ice Sanctuary State, California released illegal aliens charged with what? Pet it. Larceny.

No murder and rape. Yes. From the peace, ladies and gentlemen, as I, and I discussed this on Fox and friends the other day, you believe this? The report by Breitbart Breitbart did a report extensively outlined that Sanctuary State California

routinely, routinely Joe, released illegal aliens charged with drunk driving. California also released an illegal alien who was arrested for drug possession. One month later the same illegal alien was arrested for murder and is currently in ICE custody. Those charged with rape

have also been released. Folks, as I discussed in my regular Monday morning appearance on Fox and Friends, this is outrageous. This is outrageous. Not only is this a slap in the face, not only is this a hit to our wallet, financing the law breaking into our country and the harboring of people who have broken the law in sanctuary states, this is creating a public danger to the public because what they have essentially created,

and someone on Twitter misinterpreted my words during this Monday Fox and Friends appearance where I stated what the Democrats want to create is a class of super citizens. The guy on Twitter thought I meant super citizens. I mean it as a pejorative for the Democrats. In other words, you and I, Joe, are subjected to U.S. law, obviously. We have to obey laws we even don't like.

I can't stand Obamacare. Frankly, I live in the United States where this garbage law was passed, and we're forced to obey it until we can vote people out and change it. I don't break the law as a matter of practice. I mean, unless the law, you know, violates the civil liberties of others and civil disobedience is in order like we had in the Jim Crow Democrat run south, where luckily the freedom marchers went down there and broke this tyranny to pieces. We have to obey the law. That's not what the Democrats want. They want to create a class of air quotes,

super citizens who don't, who by the way, aren't citizens at all. They're here illegally. Right. And they don't have to not only obey the law, they're not even detained on murder and rape charges. These are people not subjected to any of it.

Our laws are meaningless to them. Ladies and gentlemen, this is the immigration chaos we have found ourselves in with the Democrat Party. It's utterly, completely absurd. The super citizen is not meant to be a compliment. Yeah, someone misinterpreted that. Yeah, yeah. What I mean is this is the Democrats' version

of where our country is going. That lawbreakers who enter the country illegally are not subjected to the same laws ironically of the people who actually are citizens, came here legally, were born here, financed the country, worked to pay the tax dollars, and worked

to make the country a better place. Now, one last story on this immigration chaos because I got a lot to get to. Folks, the Democrats morphing and evolving is the term they use, into the immigration chaos party, which is what they are now. Immigration is devolving into,

it's just, the Democrats Democrats standards now are open borders, taxpayer finance benefits for illegal aliens, sanctuary states, super citizen status for illegal aliens. It is entirely immigration chaos to show you how quickly they've evolved. Donald Trump and his team came out just the other day with an initiative to make people coming to the United States, filing for asylum to make them file in the first country they arrive at.

So if you're coming from Central America, Guatemala, Ecuador, and you traverse Mexico first, you have to declare asylum in Mexico before you try anything in the United States. Okay, is everybody clear on that? We're good. You land in Mexico, you land in Canada, you have to file the United States. Okay, is everybody clear on that? We're good. You land in Mexico, you land in Canada, you have to file for asylum there because your asylum claim is supposed to be based on you believing reasonably that there is a threat to you that you've been targeted for your political beliefs and that your life is in danger. In other words, you're not coming here for economic reasons.

You are coming here because you think you're going to be killed, tortured, or in prison because of who you are, your political beliefs. Right. Therefore, if you're escaping and you escape to Mexico, you should file for asylum there. Or in Canada, you should file for asylum there. The Democrats, of course, are claiming this is racist, xenophobic. Ladies and gentlemen, here's video Barack Obama saying the exact same thing the Trump team said. And notice there was zero goose egg media outcry at the time. None.

Because the media and liberal activists are frauds. They only want to impugn the integrity of Republicans who pose the exact same solutions as Barack Obama. Here's Obama again proposing the exact same thing. Big hat tip to the examiner that pulled this out. Check this out. As I explained to my fellow presidents, under U.S. law, we admit a certain number of refugees from all around the world based on some fairly narrow criteria. And typically, refugee status is not granted just based on economic need or because a family lives in a bad neighborhood or poverty.

It's typically defined fairly narrowly. You have a state, for example, that was targeting a political activist and they need to get out of the country for fear of prosecution or even death. There may be some narrow circumstances in which there is a humanitarian or refugee status that a family might be eligible for. If that were the case, it would be better for them to be able to apply in-country rather than take a very dangerous journey all the way up to Texas to make those same claims. up to Texas to make those same claims. But I think it's important to recognize that that would not necessarily accommodate a large number of additional migrants.

Do you understand that's the exact same policy as Trump? Where was the media? That's right. Crickets. Nothing. Folks, every day I wake up and say to myself, how can we point out the fact that hack media activists and their liberal cronies are only in this to attack Republicans, to diminish them, to gain political power?

Remember the golden rule. I discussed this last night on Hannity during my Fox appearance. We think liberals are people with bad ideas. Liberals think we are bad people with ideas. They are not attacking us on our ideas. How do I know that? Because Barack Obama just gave a speech

that could have been almost verbatim a Trump speech and the media said what? Come on, cricket guy. Come on, cricket guy. Yes, I love this. This is my favorite. Who sent this to me again? This is the cool.

If you're not watching this on YouTube.com, check this out. They sent me this. This is the cool. If you're not watching this on YouTube, check this out. They sent me this. This is the greatest thing ever. It's a good drop, too. Nothing. The media said nothing. They said zilch, zero, nada,

because this is not about attacking ideas. Liberals think we are bad people with ideas. It is about attacking and diminishing bad, air quotes, people. Therefore, go after go after trump well that's the same idea brought about by the obama administration how can we attack him come on knucklehead this isn't about ideas trump orange man bad we must take him out it's got nothing to do with ideas this is about power this is about votes this is about power. This is about votes. This is about money. And this is about attacking the GOP and conservatives and libertarians, regardless of the exact same idea proposed by Barack Obama. Ladies and gentlemen, please wake up to this. This is why I told you,

you're never debating the liberal. When you're out in public and you're talking and you're going back and forth with them, and I do it on Fox, you're not debating them liberal when you're out in public and you're talking and you're going back and forth with them. And I do it on Fox. You're not debating them. However, you should. Why? And that doesn't make any sense. Why would I talk to people who aren't interested in facts and data?

Because someone's listening and someone is going to hear at some point that, wait, Barack Obama supported the same thing. And this liberal guy is attacking the conservative guy. And the conservative guy pointed that out. Then why is the liberal guy object to the idea if Obama supported the same thing? Because the liberal guy just hates the conservative guy. She's maybe the conservative guy is my kind of guy because the liberal clearly has no facts and data to back things up. You're always arguing for the third person. Always, always. The liberal is lost. They are lost.

They have no adherence to principles or ideology at all. This is all about the personal diminishment of Republicans. Because remember golden rule number two. Golden rule number one, they think we're bad people with ideas. Golden rule number two, liberals never get you to vote for them. They get you to vote against the other guy. Whereas conservatives have a consistent platform that's been consistent for 40 or 50 years. Economic freedom, healthcare freedom, school choice, pro-life, pro-second amendment.

Liberals do not. Liberals have been all over the map. Obama was against gay marriage and he's for gay marriage. Obama was for asylum claims in other countries. Now the Democrats are against it. You had blue dogs that were for the Second Amendment in swing states who now can't stand the Second Amendment. Democrats' platform changes all the time. Why?

Because the platform is based on ideas. And again, they don't have any. Why? Because a platform is based on ideas. And again, they don't have any. They don't get you to vote for them because they don't have a consistent set of ideas. They get you to hate the other guy. And that's where identity politics fills in the hole.

They can't get you to hate the other guy's ideas. Why, Joe? Because they had the same ideas. I just played the tape for you, Barack Obama. They can't get you to hate the idea of asylum claims in a third country. Obama said it. So what do they get you to do? They say

asylum claims in a third country. You're definitely a racist and a total xenophobe. Getting xenophobe, getting you to hate the person. Don't vote for me. Vote against that maniac. Trump, he's definitely a xenophobe getting you to hate the person don't vote for me vote against that maniac trump he's definitely a xenophobe but obama said the same thing it's not about the ideas guys ladies please i know you listen to my show often if you understand those two rules you will your political instincts will never fail you we think they're people with bad ideas they think we're

bad people with ideas and Democrats never to get you to vote for them. It's they get you to vote against the other guy. If you understand that you'll be ready for the personal tax and you'll be ready to refocus it on the facts and the data that they don't have. I promise you, I have been debating liberals on television for eight years. I can tell you with no air of pretension, I know this, I don't even care if you think it's cocky or whatever. I can tell you I have never, ever left an appearance on Fox or anywhere else, CNN or MSNBC when I used to do those networks, where I felt like I lost the debate. It's not that I'm claiming some super high power social intelligence or IQq it's just that liberals don't know anything they just don't know it's an emotion-based argument always when they emotion you out emotion

them when they emotion you with facts that are wrong expose their facts as being wrong give them the right ones they have no argument all right i enjoyed that segment today's show brought to you by bravo bravo thank you again bravo company for the shirts if you're in the market for a rifle or a pistol bravo company is for you these are the finest rifles and pistols out there ladies and gentlemen what makes bravo company different because you may be saying yourself fair enough listening right now i have a lot of choices in rifles and pistols and self-defense firearms. Why Bravo? Ladies and gentlemen, because this is not a sporting arms company. I want to be clear about that. Bravo Company Firearms, they make life-saving equipment. They get input from people across the spectrum, end users, military, police officers, people who

are out there and have experience with firearms in life-saving situations. They make life-saving equipment. It's not a sporting arms company. You're going to have to go elsewhere for that. They understand every rifle they make in America's heartland, literally heartland Wisconsin, where they make their firearms. They understand that every precision rifle or pistol they're producing is to be made in spec to a life-saving standard. It's not sporting arms stuff.

They think every end user, when they're putting together their firearms, and every end user could be a military officer, a soldier, an infantryman, army, navy, marines, coast guard, air force, law enforcement, or it could wind up in the end user's hands who is someone who may, God forbid, one day have to use that firearm in a life-saving situation. Bravo Company Manufacturing understands that. This is one of my finest sponsors out there.

I have two of their firearms and I always tell the story when I picked them up, the owner of the FFL location where I picked it up who has extensive experience with firearms said, hey, listen, these are top of the line. If you are in the market for a rifle or a pistol, please go to bravocompanymfg.com. That's bravocompanymfg.com to learn more about their products. They have special offers there too. You want to check them out on their YouTube channel, go to youtube.com slash Bravo Company USA. USA.

Bravo Company. The finest rifles and pistols out there. Please check them out at Bravo Company. MFG.com. They make really cool T-shirts too. Check this out. Check it out at my YouTube. YouTube.com slash Bungie.

Looks like Captain America, right? Yeah, yeah. I need a shield or something. I need like a Captain America shield. I actually saw they have a replica of the Captain America shield from the Marvel movies. I'm thinking about getting it for my daughter for Christmas. She loves, she probably heard that.

She's out there. They're all from school. It's the summer. Good job, Shannon. But they're really cool. Yeah, yeah, I know. I just totally blew it. But it would be pretty cool.

It looks exactly like, I think it even has the claws on it from when Captain America's shield got clawed in that Avengers where Black Panther ripped it up. Yeah. Yeah. So I mean, it looks great. It's like the real deal, the leather straps and everything. Although I'm sure it's not made out of vibranium, which they allege in the Marvel movies.

I don't think vibranium is actually real. I'm actually 100% – liberals may think that, but I'm actually 100% confident. Oh, yeah. Vibranium. Oh, I've got one in my head. Vibranium. It's all Mace's return. All right, moving on.

John Solomon last night on Hannity. Another piece, blowing the Dems' nonsense, collusion, hoax narrative out of the water. Solomon always does great work. Here's his piece at the Hill, up at the show notes. Please check it out today. And check out, by the way, we did some upgrades to the website. I think you'll like it, Bongino.com we will have this article there uh john solomon at the hill fbi spreadsheet puts a stake through the heart of the steel dossier why this piece why now folks this is important you have seen in the last few days, I discussed again on one of last week's shows, a renewed media effort again to rescue Christopher Steele as a legitimate source.

What's the backstory? Why do you need to know this? And why does Solomon's story finally do one of those big Brave heart, like spears through the heart of the steel dossier. Okay. Number one, let's address question number one. Why is the media Politico, the Washington post and elsewhere trying to rescue Christopher steel,

the inspector general's report about the abuses directed at the Trump team and spy gate is about to come out soon. Folks. I assure you, it is going to be devastating. In that Inspector General report, from what I've heard, it's been out there in the public forum,

sources are indicating that Christopher Steele was interviewed by the Inspector General. Politico and the Washington Post put out reports suggesting that, well, the Inspector General found out that Christopher Steele, the source of the dossier used to spy on Trump, Joe, that is information that he may have been somewhat legitimate. And that all us crazy anti-Trumpers who debunked the dossier a long time ago, we may be the crazy ones. Why are they doing this now?

They're doing it because they don't understand what exactly the IG is saying. what exactly the IG is saying. Whatever sources told you Steele was credible, Joe, all right, I need you to put the ombudsman hat on here. That is not what the IG report is going to say. Christopher Steele's credibility, what they mean is he was telling the IG the truth about his bad information, not that the information he got

was true okay there you go does that make sense yeah yeah yeah but of course politico and the washington post in an effort to take the edge off this devastating ig report which is going to point out the extensive reliance on a foreign source christopher steel to generate fake information to spy on the trump team to take the edge off the post and politico were trying to pre-advance the narrative that steel was credible yes he was credible about his uncredibility there's a difference let me give you an analogy as a former law enforcement officer if i'm a source and i'm copping to the fact that i've been lying

to the police for years about my information, that I gave up all these people that weren't, in fact, criminals. And then I come in with a lawyer one day and all these people were falsely arrested based on my accusations. And I then in a proffer session or whatever it may be, say to the government attorney with my lawyer present, listen, I'm about to come clean. I said Joe Armacost robbed the bank. It to come clean. I said Joe Armacost robbed the bank. It's not true. I said Joe Armacost held up the local deli at gunpoint. That's not true, too.

I can come out of that and say to a prosecutor as an agent or a prosecutor in the room, hey, I think he's telling us the truth. That does not mean his other information was true. It is unbelievable how Politico and the Washington Post can't figure this out. So they're trying to advance

a narrative in advance of the IG report that Steele was somehow credible. We can now rescue the dossier. No. No. No. Now, sticking a heart in this stupid theory, so we have the theory, right? WAPO, Politico,

others. Steele may have been credible. Here is the first piece from John Solomon's excellent piece at the Hill. Some in the news media have tried in recent days to rekindle their love affair with former MI6 agent Christopher Steele and his now infamous dossier. The main trigger was a lengthy interview in June with the DOj inspector general which some news outlets suggested meant u.s officials have found steel the former hillary clinton back political muckraker to be believable no it goes on here's politico a quote from politico investigators ultimately found steel's testimony credible and even surprising. Again, Politico is not smart enough to figure out what I just said.

The Washington Post went even further, suggesting that Steele's assistance to the inspector general might, quote, undermine Trump world's all narrative that the Russia collusion investigation was flawed. Here we go again. This is fulltime political Washington Post activism, liberal activism for the... This should be an in-kind donation to the Democrats. Understand what's happening. Ombudsman Joe, get what's happening.

The IG report will be devastating. It's going to conclusively bury the Steele dossier as a fake document used to spy on a U.S. citizen. Period. Period. They are trying to rescue Steele dossier is a fake document used to spy on a U.S. citizen, period, period. They are trying to rescue Steele's reputation in advance so they can say in the end, well, you know, even the I.G. thought he was credible. So the FBI got fooled, too. Now we understand why they spied on Trump.

Nope. Sorry. That's not what they're saying. The I.G. suggesting they're credible are saying that his information now about coming clean is credible not the stuff he said before that's already been debunked okay but again they're not they're not smart enough to figure that out it's not hard or they are smart enough and they're engaged in full-time liberal activism the lat act activision that was a game system activism the latter is probably the more likely scenario okay uh takeaway number two from the john solomon

piece quote multiple sources familiar with an fbi spreadsheet tell me that the vast majority of steel's claims were deemed to be wrong or cannot be corroborated even with the most awesome tools available to the u.s intel community one of solomon's sources estimated that the spreadsheet found upward of 90 percent of the dossiers claims to be either wrong non-verifiable or open source intelligence found with a google search in other words it was mostly useless so let's be clear about what happened solomon reveals last night on hannity and in his piece. That is spreadsheet Joe has surfaced with the FBI. In that spreadsheet is allegation number one, status. Allegation number two by Steele, status. Allegation number three, where did these allegations surface?

The dossier and in Steele's other information. Remember, it wasn't just the dossier he produced. It was another series of information as well. You go back and listen to some of my older shows, you'll understand what I mean there. That's how Clapper and Brennan get around around the whole we didn't see the dossier yeah but you were talking to steel right it was other information the fbi ladies and gentlemen kept the spreadsheet and 90 of the claims in the fbi's own spreadsheet were unverifiable folks do you understand how bad that is for a credible air

quote source i could go to the gym tomorrow and ask a guy to speculate my day off my joints are sore ask a guy to speculate about the next al-qaeda attack in the united states and i can guarantee you probably 20 or 30 percent of their guests, one of them will be right. Well, it's going to be an attack maybe in New York, God forbid. They're probably going to use some kind of explosive. Seriously, if I ask someone to speculate on the next terror attack in the United States as a source, keep in mind, some rando in the gym

who has no intel experience at all, I can almost guarantee you 20 or 30% of their predictions, God forbid there are one, will be right. Steele was 90% wrong, unverified, or simply found the stuff on the internet. Jeez. Joe, if you ask kids in a grammar school who wants homework, you're going to get probably 10-15% that will raise

their hand. You have a better chance of getting kids to volunteer for homework than proving one of Christopher Steele's assertions right. The spreadsheet is going to be an apocalyptic disaster for these FBI managers who relied on Steele's assertions to spy on a U.S.

citizen. This is unheard of. This thing was useless. Takeaway number three from Solomon's piece at the Hill, the FBI's final assessment. They're talking about a steals credibility was driven by many findings contained in the classified footnotes at the bottom of the spreadsheet, but it was also

informed get a load of this i told you about this weeks ago we were ahead of this but it was also informed by an fbi agent's interview in early 2017 it happened in january that's me that can tell you that with a russian that steel claimed was one of his main providers of intelligence according to solomon's sources the fbi came to suspect that the Russian misled Steele either intentionally or through exaggeration, the sources said. Ladies and gentlemen, I've already described this to you. You're way ahead of the curve if you've been listening to my show.

The FBI, and Jim Comey knows about this, interviewed one of Steele's alleged Russian sources he was colluding with. Remember, that's the real Russian collusion scandal. Hillary paying Steele, going to Russians. That's the real collusion, right? The FBI located one of Steele's Russian sources, Joe, and interviewed them in January of 2017 and found the information to be a steaming hot pile of garbage. Well, why is that a problem? Because ladies and gentlemen, they continue to go back to the FISA court

three more times knowing Christopher Steele's information was debunked by the State Department in the Kavalec interview, by the spreadsheet Solomon just found that surfaced, and by the January 2017 interview with the Russian source Steele claimed to have who was garbage they had nothing that's why the Washington Post and Politico is desperate to establish Steele as credible

they're gonna say oh we all got fooled. Look, even the IG thought he was credible. Red flag under the hood for review. No ducks. There's laundry on the field, folks. This one actually landed right behind me. Thank you, everyone.

We need a yellow flag, though. We need a penalty flag. The red flag is to review the play. We need the yellow flag, though. We need a penalty flag. Because the red flag is to review the play. We need the yellow flag for holding 15 yards offense. We need a yellow flag, too. Cry in the wind. I get so much. I know.

Ever since this show exploded, every time I say that, people sense that. It's very nice. We got the whistles. We got the cricket. We got the red flag. We got the famous referee hat. We got props everywhere. We're moving to. We got the red flag. We got the famous referee hat. We got props everywhere. We're moving to a new studio.

We'll have more space in the future. So hopefully one of these days. Yeah, we'll have a prop room. Updates. I know. Seriously, right? Don't we? All right.

I've got a lot more to get to. Good stuff today in the show. Stack, stack lineup, including this story about why the government option, single payer, Medicare for all, is really a backdoor way to sleaze you out of your insurance plan now. Now we've got the numbers. Great story coming right up. All right, today's show, finally brought to you by our buddies at U.S. Law Shield. Are you carrying a firearm in self-defense? Listen, if you're doing it and you don't have U.S. Law Shield protections, you are doing it naked. Big, big mistake. Nobody wakes up thinking today will be the day they're going to be pushed into a corner

and forced to use their firearm in self-defense. But God forbid it is. What if it is? That was the case for a 64-year-old New York state man who fatally shot two prowlers rooting through his home. And this was the second time they hit this poor guy's house. That's not why this story is so crazy. After killing the suspects, the homeowner was arrested because the firearm which saved his life originally belonged to his dead father.

And he failed to, this is a true story, and he failed to register upon inheriting it. I read this story. It's amazing. He was arrested and charged with felony possession of an illegal handgun. Thankfully, he's out on bail, but his legal issues aren't over, possibly costing him thousands. I'll argue, probably costing him a whole lot more than thousands. Stories like this are exactly why I am a proud member, which I am, of U.S. Law Shield. For less than $11 per month, you will not only have immediate 24-7, 365 access to an attorney,

but you won't pay a penny in attorney's fees. Not a penny. Zero if this nightmare ever happens to you. Do not carry a firearm without U.S. Law Shield protections. You will be carrying naked. Go to uslawshield.com slash Dan and a special gift for my listeners. You'll get five defender reports. They're worth reading, worth $100, absolutely free. You'll be amazed how much useful information is inside. Given the choice, I feel better knowing U.S. Law Shield has my back. Join me in the fight to protect your right to keep and bear arms.

Go to uslawshield.com slash Dan. That's uslawshield.com slash Dan. Don't carry naked. You're going to need these protections. All right, folks, moving on. So interesting story in the Wall Street Journal today, again, about how this Medicare for all government option nonsense is a big scam. By Scott Atlas, title of the piece, Public Option Kills Private Insurance. Now, some of you are

being misled, or as Al Sharpton once called it, misled. You're being misled into, he did on a prompter, he misread the prompter, misled. You're being misled into believing that the government option is this benevolent thing. Now, what is the government option? What are Democrats saying? Why is it going to affect you? Number one, the government option is Joe Biden and others claiming, well, you know, if we just started a government run health care plan and don't force people off their private plan like Kamala Harris and Bernie Sanders wanted to do.

What's the harm there, Joe? No big deal. You can just go over to the government plan if your private insurance plan isn't meeting your needs. Even some moderate Democrats are kind of like, well, that doesn't sound so bad. Yeah. Ladies and gentlemen,

there's always a scam with the Democrats. Always. And leave it to the Dan Bongino show to uncover the scam for you what is the scam well number one what a government plan or option is intended to do is to cost shift the only way a government plan can stay in business joe is by rationing and underpricing that care, meaning paying doctors and hospitals less than their market share value. How do doctors and hospitals recoup those costs? By overcharging people with private free market insurance. As the piece indicates here, here are some meat on the bone numbers for you. Excellent work here. They say in the Wall Street Journal piece by Scott Atlas, consider the experience in Hawaii.

This is the only state in the union where they actually tried this. A public option. Only seven months, Joe, after offering care in 2008, the country's only statewide universal child health insurance, the state ended its optional program only seven months afterwards. Why? Because 85% that signed on to the health care already had private insurance.

Those costs were suddenly shifted onto the taxpayers. In other words, people who already had free market insurance, Joe, already had it, canceled it because they didn't want to pay the premiums to jump on to get taxpayer-funded government programs instead. The piece goes on. And the piece goes on. Wasn't that a song? The beat goes on. The beat goes on. This guy knows everything about music, Joe. I don't know.

I'm a pop culture. I always listen. Although everybody liked my Iron Mike Sharp reference yesterday on WWF. Thank you for the emails on that. The public option would cause premiums for private insurance to skyrocket because of underpayment by government insurance compared with the cost

for services. According to the American Hospital Association, annual underpayments by Medicare and Medicaid surged to nearly $76 billion in 2017, nearly doubling once Obamacare's regulations came into play. That added a burden of more than $1,500 a year on families paying private premiums. Ladies and gentlemen, the math is not complicated.

The government will not pay because they can't. The tax base is not there to finance insurance for the entire world. Illegal aliens, everybody who can afford insurance. Keep in mind, this is not a medicaid they're talking about a government option for everybody so what will the government do and again joe put the ombudsman i gotta get you an ombudsman hat put your ombudsman hat on for a moment if this makes sense here what the government will do because democrats want to destroy free market insurance you control they want to control your health care because the democrats are in love with control that's what they do that's their

socialist streak right in order to make sure private insurance disappears they will undercut their premiums dramatically you're paying whatever, $500 a month. Democrats will come in, institute a government plan for $250. Now, again, you may say, that's crazy. Okay, ladies and gentlemen, that may sound spectacular, but the problem is if you're costing $500 a month in those premiums based on your healthcare needs, someone's got to come up with the $250 that the Democrats are charging you

via the government plan. Who's going to do it? The answer is free market insurance. You're now going to pay $750,000, but to pay off the difference between what governments are paying doctors and hospitals and what people actually cost doctors and hospitals. You're going to pay.

Meaning what? That $250,000 you're paying in government insurance is now going to look a whole lot better compared to the now $750 you have to pay with free market insurance to cover the difference, which is going to wipe them out. How does that feel? They want to cancel your private insurance. So any of these lunatics out there on the left telling you, well, free market insurance, this isn't an attackatics out there on the left telling you, well, free market insurance, this isn't an attack on if you like your plan, you can keep your plan. Remember yesterday show Joe Biden dragging that thing out of the water again, that disastrous line. You will not

be able to keep your plan. A government option is a backdoor Trojan horse effort to undercut free market insurance you have now and many of you like to overprice it, to offset the difference, to drive them out of the market, to crush it.

Now, folks, there's another portion of the Atlas piece that should disturb you. You'll say, well, it works in Sweden and the United Kingdom. Oh, does it really?

We sure about that? Again, double red flags on the show. Under the hood for a view from the Wall Street Journal piece. Foreign experience is also instructive. More than 600,000 Swedes currently buy private insurance. How's that?

How is that? I thought they had single payer for everybody in Sweden. According to Insurance Sweden, on top of paying, on top of paying $20,000 per family annually through taxes for their socialized system. Digest that for a moment, please.

Digest that for a moment. Verdi, Verdi, V. Yeah. Bjorn Amaker. So, just to be clear on this, Bernie Sanders and all the socialists oh he loves sweden it's so great so in sweden where they have nationalized health care the average swede is paying twenty thousand dollars in taxes for health care that's allegedly free

it's free but it costs twenty thousand as pj o'rourke said you think health care is expensive now wait till it's free in addition to that six hundred thousand swedes are buying additional insurance for the insurance they're not getting through the free insurance they got that they until it's free. In addition to that, 600,000 Swedes are buying additional insurance from the insurance they're not getting through the free insurance they got that they paid $20,000 for.

Am I following correctly here? Oh my goodness. So the Swedes have free insurance that costs them $20,000 and in addition to the $20,000 they're paying for a free product, they're also, 600,000 are buying

additional insurance to subsidize the free insurance they got but the $20,000. Does this make any subsidize the free insurance they got. But the $20,000, does this make any sense? Yeah. If it doesn't, it shouldn't. Yeah. Moving on. In addition, while the United Kingdom is surely an example of how well this is going to work in practice,

despite spending thousands of dollars through taxes on the NHS, half of Britain's earning $50,000 a year or more by private insurance or plan to. And some 250,000 pay cash for medical services according to official statistics. Combine this with the statistic I read for you yesterday. It's 63,000 Canadians a year, despite free insurance,

are crossing the border into the United States to pay for it again here. Ladies and gentlemen, this is the biggest scam ever. Only suckers believe insurance or healthcare is free. Suckers, with a capital S. Yes, if you believe health insurance and healthcare are free, you're a sucker.

You are clearly not a bright person. I'm sorry. I'm not trying to insult you. It's just true. You're just not a bright person. You'm sorry. I'm not trying to insult you. It's just true. You're just not a bright person. You have no interest in facts or data or elsewhere. In socialized countries, people are paying again because the taxes they pay are still rationing their health care, so they have to pay cash. tried this government option they dumped it after seven months because people who could pay for health care canceled it to take your money taxpayer money to pay for health care allegedly that's free

scam scam scam one last thing quick story leave you off on uh we have a file on the show a file cabinet it's in my mind it doesn't really exist exist. There's no room in here. His office is too small. But we have the hat tip to Tom Moore, you're a racist file. We pull it out once in a while, and it's things you'll be accused of being a racist for by the left, because as we opened up the show, Democrats don't get you to vote for them. They get you to vote against the other guy. One of the ways to do that is by convincing Democrats that every Republican or conservative is somehow a racist. So everything's racist everything air conditioning um no it's true that's misogynistic turning the air conditioner on we talked about that last week voter id you know it's clearly racist according to democrats yeah but i gotta tell you joe this one even surprised me this is

the washington post which pretends to be a newspaper, declaring, Joe, that the moon landing, the moon landing, this is an actual tweet, is racist. Here's a tweet from the Washington Post. The culture that put men on the moon was intense, fun, family, unfriendly, and mostly white and male. So now the moon landing is racist. This is allegedly a serious newspaper. I mean, this is you will get more verified, better, more quality information from the National Enquirer than you will from the joke of an activist outlet called The Washington Post. But this is surely a new low. The moon landing was racist. So in the end, I want to I wanted to play this just quick video of this.

I mean, of course, if the moon landing was racist, then guys who advocate political leaders, Joe course if the moon landing was racist then guys who advocate political leaders joe for the moon landing am i right here have to be racist too i mean simple logic correct to be yeah i'm not thank you i mean of course of course they have to be so here is according to the democrats and washington post who must be a racist the great john f kennedy who apparently is now a racist advocating for going to the moon. We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard.

Now, I thought that was a great speech. I actually admire a lot about JFK including his push to cut taxes. But apparently according to the left in the Washington Post he was a racist for wanting to go to the moon. Again, if you're laughing at the idiocy and wondering why we cover this stuff it's not to embarrass you

or insult your intelligence. It's to show you that you're not dealing with rational people. And if you remember the two rules I told you, you will always understand what the liberal activists in the post are there for. Yeah. Liberals think we are bad people with ideas. We think they're people with bad ideas. Number one. Number two, liberals never get you to vote for them. They just demean and destroy the other guy and vote you to get it, get you to vote against them. You understand those two rules. your instincts politically will never ever be wrong you know what jfk was uh he was a spacist racist

of course joe has to throw in one of his witty joe one-liners at the end he must have been he must have been a spacist you don't even need the race you just need a spacist that says it all maybe we'll throw that on a t-shirt for that. Was JFK a Spaces people? What is that? Listen to the Dan Bongino show for answers. Episode 1024. Very nice, Joe.

You're a witty cat. Unlike me. All right, folks, please subscribe to our show. YouTube.com slash Bongino. You can subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, iHeart, SoundCloud. We're getting a lot of listens and subscriptions from all of those platforms. They're all free. Matters to me. Helps us move up the charts. We're getting a lot of listens and subscriptions from all of those platforms. They're all free. Matters to me.

Helps us move up the charts. We really appreciate your loyalty. We had our best podcast downloads on our audio show yesterday ever. Thank you so much. You just heard the Dan Bongino Show. You can also get Dan's podcasts on iTunes or SoundCloud and follow Dan on Twitter 24-7 at DBongino.