The Dan Bongino Show - Ugly Charges Resurface (Ep 1067)

Episode Date: September 16, 2019

In this episode, I address the explosive charges leveled by the failing New York Times this weekend against this prominent figure. I also address the latest revelation in the Andrew McCabe case, and what’s really going on behind the scenes. I discuss the Democrats’ hypocrisy on “red flag” laws and the pending explosion of big data and the “internet of things.”  News Picks:You’ll never believe who the newest Kavanaugh “accuser” is connected to.   The disgraceful, malicious attacks against Brett Kavanaugh continue.   The Inspector General report is finished but when will we see it?   Don’t be misled by the media leaks about the Andrew McCabe case. This article explains what’s likely going on.    Jerry Nadler is wasting everyone’s time with his sham “impeachment” nonsense.   The Democrats are perfectly fine with taking away the due process Rights of American citizens but not those gang members?   The world is going to change dramatically as computers spread into everyday objects.    Copyright Dan Bongino All Rights Reserved. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Does it matter to you if your cell phone company is supporting things you don't agree with? Of course it matters. Think about this. In 2016, certain cell phone providers sent hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Clinton campaign. And where did that money come from? It may have come from you. Enough's enough. Join Patriot Mobile and get cell phone service from a company that will do the right thing by you. They will donate to the NRA, pro-life groups, and others that love America and fight for our freedoms. Thousands of Americans are using Patriot Mobile's reliable nationwide service every day. You can keep your number, bring your own phone, or get a new one. And there's great unlimited talk and text and high-speed data plans to choose from. Switch today at patriotmobile.com

slash Dan. Again, that's patriotmobile.com slash Dan. Again, that's patriot mobile dot com slash Dan. Get ready to hear the truth about America on a show that's not immune to the facts with your host, Dan Bongino. Here we go. It starts again. Renewed attacks on of all people. You thought you heard the end of it. You have not. And of all people, you thought you heard the end of it. You have not. Brett Kavanaugh. Yes, the Kavanaugh conspiracy theories start again, ladies and gentlemen.

Sadly, it was a stacked news weekend. Welcome to the Dan Bongino Show. I'd welcome Producer Joe, but I gave him the Monday off. Today he's doing some behind-the-scenes production stuff. Didn't want to overwhelm with work. And just an FYI for our regular listeners, we love you. I really appreciate your loyalty to the show. We have a bit of a screwy recording schedule this week. So if the IG report drops and we'll get to that, don't worry. We're going to have you covered either way. But I've got a surprise announcement I'll make at the end of the week

or so. Some good news, not the novel one, but you want to stay tuned for it. But it's kind of tinkering with our recording schedule. Let's get right to it. Got a stacked show for you today. Today's show brought to you by our friends at Ollie. Ollie, the best dog food out there. But I don't even want to call it dog food because it's food. Because you could actually eat this stuff. It's that good.

It's human-grade food. I'm not kidding. O-L-L-I-E. Ollie, your dog's health is as important as every other member of your house. So we love our pets, right? And it starts with what you feed them. But you know what's in your dog's food? Do you know?

What about that kibble garbage? What they call, my mother-in-law calls them the pepitos. My dog's, my mother-in-law's dogs, we've adopted them. They don't want to eat that. Ollie puts dogs first with vet formulated recipes and fully transparent ingredients to give your dog the healthiest food possible. They make fresh meals, fresh, fresco, with real ingredients that people can eat and deliver on a regular schedule.

They beat out store-bought dog food at 10 to 1 on the palability scale. That's because they create vet-formulated recipes made with all natural ingredients. There's no garbage here, no preservatives. 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.

No guesswork. Your pup gets the perfect portion every time. They've delivered 5 million meals. Shipping is free. If your dog doesn't like the meals, money back guarantee, but your dog will love them. Ali's offering our listeners 60, that's 6-0% off your first box. What a discount. Plus a free bag of treats at myali.com slash try slash Bongino.

It's the best deal they have available anywhere. Go to myali.com slash try slash Bongino for 60% off plus your free bag of treats. You got Baby and Linda up there, the two dogs. They never look cuter. The reason they look so good is because of Ali. They eat Ali. You could eat Ali. It's that good.

Spelled myali.com slash try slash Bongino. All right, let's go. Ding, ding, ding. I've got to improvise the Joe Armacost bell. Story number one, Brett Kavanaugh, fake news in the New York Times, round 672,526,224. Astonishingly, the left, and by the left, I mean the New York Times, Washington Post, the Democrats, the liberals, the activist groups, and all those people out there,

will not let this story go. Now, there's a reason a lot of this Brett Kavanaugh stuff is surfacing right now. Here's a story in the New York Times we saw this weekend, so you see what I'm getting at. But there's a thing going on behind the scenes about Kavanaugh. I'll let you know in a second. So here it is. New York Slimes, Brett Kavanaugh fit in with the privileged kids. She did not. Of course, we got to do an identity politics thing and throw that in there. Deborah Ramirez's Yale experience says much about the college's efforts to diversify its student body in the 1980s. There's a new book coming out on Brett Kavanaugh,

and there are some resurfaced allegations about Kavanaugh and some trying to keep the show family friendly, let's call it sexual activities or whatever, that, ladies and gentlemen, if you just take your Democrat blinders off for a minute, you will see these are deeply, deeply flawed charges at best. Now, of course, the New York Times is going to write the story from Deborah Ramirez, a young minority woman and a disadvantage in Kavanaugh. Because they don't really have any evidence.

It's not about making a case. The New York Times is about slandering, tarnishing the image of Brett Kavanaugh. Because they're liberal activists. That's what they do. That's not a serious journalism outlet. Now, what happened? Well, in short, a person surfaced, and I'll get to him in a minute, and claimed that, well, at the same university, there's a new allegation that Kavanaugh, Kavanaugh was at a party.

And folks, I'm not, it's not funny. I'm just, the charge is so ludicrous because I don't even understand how this happened. The charge is this. This guy witnessed at a party, Brett Kavanaugh's thing downstairs. You get what I'm saying? Not one of his two legs.

That he witnessed someone push Brett Kavanaugh's thing into someone else. Not, like, just... I'm trying to, like, be... But we got to cover the story because it was the big news this weekend. That someone witnessed... Someone push that item, not into like, but like touching someone else.

If you're trying to imagine what I'm talking about, I don't get how this happened either. If you're watching on the YouTube, I don't know the mechanics of this exactly. Again, another charge against Kavanaugh amongst the litany of other charges that have been almost entirely discredited. The issue with the story, ladies and gentlemen, about this guy who witnessed another person do what I just said and you're probably trying to figure out what I don't know either the person that this allegedly happened to and had the thing pushed into

has no memory of the incident at all kind of an important component of the story no Paula is that an important part of the story thank you kind of an important component of the story. Paula, is that an important part of the story? Thank you. She's like Mr. Producer Rich on Levin Show. He doesn't even go over the mic.

The person who this allegedly happened to doesn't have any memory of the incident. Folks, when is it going to end? I'll get to what's really going on in a minute thank you national review has a great story along with matt palumbo on our website was another great story about the connections of the guy making the allegation but first john mccormick national review please read the show notes today they're really good i have matt's debunked this story too in their national review the new york times anti-kavanaugh bombshell is actually a dud. Ladies and gentlemen, there are two big problems with this.

First, the Times story. I'm going to go in reverse order. They're trying to claim now that the Ramirez story, which is a different story, that Kavanaugh exposed himself to this woman, Deborah Ramirez, that they're making into an identity politics story. National Review points out kind of a big problem with the Ramirez story, too. Check this out. Again, it never ends, folks. This is about the new book they're writing where all these allegations surface, right? The book isn't released until Tuesday, but the excellent Molly Hemingway, by the way, got a copy and she writes on Twitter, the book notes quietly that the woman Max Stier, or Stier, that's the guy alleging about the pushing of the thing into the person thing.

The book notes quietly, the woman Max Stier, named as having been supposedly victimized by Kavanaugh and his friends, denies any memory of the alleged event. Omitting this fact from the New York Slime story is one of the worst cases of journalistic malpractice in recent memory. Folks. You know. Listen.

I'm not virtue signaling by telling you, and I hate that term, and I really do, because you can't say anything without someone claiming you're virtue signaling something. But I feel the need to throw the caveat in there. Obviously, sexual assault, this stuff's not a joke. The problem is it's being treated as a joke and a farce by people at the New York Times who are now adding to the stigma that sadly surrounds some victims of sexual assault who have a serious story to take and sometimes may not

be believed because of reporting like this. You think it's an important fact to note that the person, this guy Steyer, oh, by the way, we have an interesting connection to him and the Clintons in our debunk this. Max Steyer, who's been a noted rival of Brett Kavanaugh for a long time.

And by the way, he's been curiously underspoken about this incident since he reported it to the FBI during the background check. You think it's important to note that the guy who reported this incident

against this person, that the person who it allegedly happened to has no memory of it? Folks, what's happening to Kavanaugh is a cosmic disgrace I have not seen in my lifetime. Well, I shouldn't say that. I remember Clarence Thomas. And of course, always led by horrible, awful people who claim to be liberals. They're not liberal at all. They're tyrants. Paul, is this making sense, this story? I don't have the audience on Budsman Joe with me, so I need your feedback. You get what I'm... Okay. There's another allegation in the story from the National Review piece. Check this out.

This is the Ramirez story. I said I was going to do it a bit backwards. Ramirez is a different story. There's been some allegation that Kavanaugh exposed himself there, but the National Review has an interesting take on this too. We already knew before Kavanaugh was confirmed last October

that the corroborating source for Ramirez's claim, again, a different claim than the one Steyer put out there, the new one, that the source for Ramirez's claim, classmate Kenneth Appel, was not present when the alleged incident occurred. than the one Steyer put out there, the new one. That the source for Ramirez's claim, classmate Kenneth Appold,

was not present when the alleged incident occurred. But Appold told the New Yorker he was 100% sure he heard about it from an eyewitness. Shortly before Kavanaugh was confirmed, the New Yorker reported that Appold's supposed eyewitness said that he had no memory of the incident. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm telling you what's happening to this guy. It's really unfathomable, the moral stain on their country that we're allowing this to happen

with our media. And, you know, Trump tweeted out this weekend and I agree with him. Kavanaugh needs to start suing people. I know he wants to take the high road. He's a Supreme Court justice. I get it. Listen to me. This is never, ever going to stop. So you understand the first story was made by a third party. The first story we talked about Steyer, this guy Steyer, he's not the victim. He says he knows of a person who was a victim of Kavanaugh, but the victim has no memory of it. Then we have this woman, Ramirez, who says, well, he exposed himself. Here's my eyewitness who says, well, I wasn't an eyewitness, but someone else told me about it. And the person he says told him about it says, I have no memory of that at all. Ladies and gentlemen, this is

real. This is real. This is really being reported as journalism. Kavanaugh, I agree with Trump in his tweet, needs to start suing immediately for millions of dollars, life savings on people. And I get it. There's going to be liberals. These people are survivors. They shouldn't be sued. No, ladies and gentlemen, there are legitimate survivors of sexual assault that they have a serious case to make. Unfortunately, the evidence should drive the case. Everybody in the United States, no matter how evil the charge or allegation is, is entitled to a presumption of guilt and due process. This is out of hand right now. You have an eyewitness who's not an eyewitness who says he heard it from an eyewitness who says he wasn't an eyewitness. And then you have another

case. A third party says it happened. The guy seemingly disappears, has connections to the Clinton atmosphere. And then all of a sudden shows up again, leveling charges against Kavanaugh about an incident that the victim of the incident says they have no memory of. Kavanaugh needs to start suing the living daylights out of everyone who does this. It's outrageous. You are destroying due process in this country and the credibility of legitimate survivors of sexual assault and people who have been sexually harassed and assaulted. You're destroying it. Because you're not adhering to the standards of journalism, you're adhering to the tactics of the liberal activist crowd.

And it is deeply disturbing. Now, I said I'd get to this. What's really going on? Two things. Number one, ladies and gentlemen, Donald Trump, before the end of this term, there's a possibility. Don't read into this at all. I don't have anyone's health records. I'm not a macabre guy. I don't wish ill health on anyone. You saying so is a lie. I'm simply

suggesting to you what I'm hearing from liberals, not conservatives. There may be another seat that opens up. May. It's very likely there'll be another Supreme Court seat that opens up if Donald Trump is reelected. Follow me. There may be a seat even in this term. Again, I'm not giving I don't have anybody's health records. I'm simply suggesting to you the obvious. That there's

a probability that could happen. The liberals are talking about this. They are terrified. Why are they terrified? Because right now they thought they had lost to a conservative majority with the appointment of Kavanaugh. They thought there was going to be at least for the temporary of five, four conservative majority because we have five alleged conservatives and four. The liberals, this kind of segues to part two. The liberals have successfully frightened

John Roberts into being the new swing vote. John Roberts is not really stuck to his guns and his principles on anything. He's no longer an originalist judge. He's become kind of an activist in and of himself. Once in a while, you get a decent ruling out of the chief justice, who, of course, was appointed by George W. Bush. But he's become a big flop, and he's really become a politician. He's easily influenced.

He's frightened by the op-ed columns. So the liberals have chalked this up for a victory, and their biggest victory yet was the citizenship question. Remember this one? Remember the citizenship question they wanted to put on the census? Liberal activist groups sued. John Roberts came out and unbelievably ruled no the trump team was perfectly within its rights to add the citizenship question we just don't like the

reason no good the liberals how did that happen now you regular listeners to my show remember this story but don't forget this roberts was likely going to vote for the rule of law and allow the citizenship question the liberals started writing op-eds they can frighten roberts he's not a very um robust uh kind of like uh i don't want to his skin is very thin i'll get i'll leave it at that they started writing up as if john roberts rules against us in this citizenship case he'll be discredited forever and roberts wants to go and and eat and drink fine wines and eat foie gras at the D.C. cocktail parties. And he wants to be beloved by the left. The op-ed columns frightened him. My point here is it ties into number one. Put these two together. Paula, you have the audience

on Bud's Manhattan. Stop me if this doesn't make sense. Liberals know now that they don't have, they haven't lost. They have a new Anthony Kedney and John Roberts. So when they know on the hotbed issues, they will win in the court system. They know if another seat opens up, they're not going to get that with Alito. Thomas is the best one we've got. Gorsuch's been solid. Kavanaugh, wishy-washy but generally pretty good

they know now that if they get another seat and it becomes 6-3 that the intimidating John Roberts is not going to do them any good oh you get where I'm going with this you see where I'm going

so now that they own Roberts through the op-ed columns, they're sending out flare, shoot the flare. They're sending out a warning signal to who? Kavanaugh. You're next, Brett. You want these charges to go away? You want these, I mean, you want to talk about thin gruel, no evidence charges that continue to appear that, I mean, can you imagine being on, you have kids, you go to church every

weekend and you have to read in the paper about charges about you exposing yourself and you're touching something and there's never an eyewitness and the eyewitness isn't the eyewitness and the person who can you imagine this how embarrassing this is for this poor guy liberals are trying to do what they did to roberts in a more personal vitriolic malicious way they are trying to frighten kavanaugh into submission with a little, hey, daddy-o, you want this stuff to go away? You give us a few good rulings on our side, maybe we'll let this go. Ladies and gentlemen, do, footnote Rush Limbaugh, thank you for this great expression. Do not doubt me.

And I'm sure Rush would tell you the same thing. That is exactly what's going on right now. Did that make sense? Thank you. You sure? All right, good. Now I know. All right, I got more news for you.

Don't go anywhere. The IG report has been concluded. That does not mean it's going to be released anytime soon. So everybody stand tight on that. I'm going to get to that in a second. Also, I don't want you to be misled by some of the news you saw about Andy McCabe this weekend. The media is at it again.

There's a reason they're doing what they're doing about the McCabe story. Stay tuned. I got a lot more ahead. Today's show also brought to you by one of my favorite sponsors, Saved Me and My Health. I had another up and down weekend on the mats

with my Brazilian jiu-jitsu class in grappling. I rolled with this younger kid. I must have outweighed this kid by 50 pounds. He's a white belt, four stripes. This kid was so fast. Ladies and gentlemen, I am just getting old. We did like a King of the Hill where they got to pass your guard.

This kid is like lightning. I held him for about, I don't know, two minutes or so. And I could, I could, it was like chasing chickens from Rocky one. I could not get this kid. He was too fast. He's really good. He's a competition kid.

So he passed. I was upset. So I came home. My back was hurting. I got on my teeter. Thank God. I love this product. It is terrific.

It's an inversion table. I can't say enough about it. Teeter uses gravity. You hang, you turn upside down, uses gravity to decompress using your own body weight, your spine. Let all those nourishing body fluids get into those discs. Oh, it's the, I mean, for me, it's been a lifesaver. I've had problems with my back and my shoulders. I decompress twice a day for a few minutes each day. It helps my shoulders, my hips and my back. I love it. I day for a few minutes each day. It helps my shoulders, my hips and my back. I love it. I can't say enough.

I got a really fantastic review. You know, I'm going to tell Tito, we should incorporate the email we got into this read. It was so great from a listener who said, this thing changed my life. I had back pain. Tito was absolutely great. I feel like a new man when I get off it.

Some products I use regularly. Some products aren't for everyday use. This one I use twice a day, the Tito Inversion Table. And over 3 million other people have put their trust in Teeter. They're the best known name in inversion tables on the market. For a limited time, you can get Teeter's brand new 2019 upgraded model of the inversion table. The Teeter Fit Spine with Bonix accessories. It has these stretch max handles you can push and further stretch out those back muscles and get some decompression

on those discs. Easy reach ankle system plus a free inversion program mat with 24 illustrated stretches and exercises in case you want to know how to use it. Teeter inversion tables have thousands of reviews on Amazon. They're rated at 4.6 stars. I give it my own personal five-star rating. And with this deal, you get $150 off when you go to Teeter, T-E-E-T-E-R, like a golf tee, T-E-E-T-E-R.com slash Dan. Teeter.com slash Dan. Teeter.com slash Dan. You'll get free shipping, free returns,

and a 60-day money-back guarantee. You ain't sending this thing back. No way. 60-day money-back guarantee is absolutely no risk for you to try it out. Remember, you can only get the new 2019 Teeter Fit Spine Inversion Table plus a free inversion program app by going to Teeter.com slash Dan. That's Teeter.com slash Dan. Check it out. out you won't regret it this stuff really got me through a rough weekend but i did have some good moments on the mat too i said it was up and down i pulled a slick

arm bar on a guy good man but he left his arm behind and even though he knew i was i got that i i my watch that left arm arm bar i always go for go for that. All right. Moving on. Epic Times has a good report here about the IG report. Michael Horowitz. The IG report, to be clear what it is, the IG is essentially the Internal Affairs Office for the Department of Justice. The Inspector General, Michael Horowitz, has been assigned to investigate the abuse of the FISA courts of spying on the Trump team. The report is done.

But ladies and gentlemen, that does not mean we're going to see it anytime soon. I suspect we'll see it anytime soon. I suspect we'll see it within a month to a few weeks possibly. It doesn't mean it's going to drop today on Monday. Again, if it does, don't worry. Due to the screwy recording schedule this week, I will get to you with either a special edition or immediately get on the air. I'm not going

to leave any of you behind. It's just important to me we put out a high quality show. So here's the Epic Times piece. It'll be in the show notes. Please check it out. By Peter Schwab. IG report on alleged spying abuse against Trump campaign may still be months away. I'm not sure it's going to be months, but here's what's going on behind the scenes. Folks, the FBI and DOJ are now in the process of determining what in that report is going to be classified and declassified for public consumption. Folks, I can guarantee you this is going to be a battle.

Why? The answer is obvious. I don't need to spend a ton of time on this. You probably already figured it out. The FBI, I do not trust Christopher Wray. I'm sorry, the new director of the FBI. I don't know the man. It's not personal.

He probably dislikes me because I've spoken out against him in the past. It's not my job to be his buddy. It's my job to get you what I believe to be the facts. Christopher Wray has clearly been an opponent of disclosure and transparency. And I believe the new director of the FBI is going to do every single thing in his power to make sure the FBI doesn't get a black eye in this report. And they're going to try to redact as much as possible. Remember that story we discussed a few weeks ago, that NCIS report on the whistleblower where they redacted the word not?

Remember that? They're like, there was classified information when it actually said there was not classified information, and they redacted the word not. So this is the kind of stuff we're going to be expecting. Now, having said that, to leave you with some good news before I move on to McCabe, I don't think Bill Barr is going to have that. If it's a legitimate national security reason, the burning of a source, whatever it may be, fine. But Barr is going to scrutinize that. I'm sure of it. Again,

I don't trust anybody fully, but I think Barr has done a decent job in his commitment to transparency far supersedes that of Ray, who I don't believe has any commitment to transparency at all. He just wants to make the FBI look good. That process is going to be a bit of a back and forth. I would expect it a couple of weeks to a month, but could be longer. It depends on what happens. And I believe there may still be some information out there, which as people start to talk, could open up some other opportunities, if you know what I mean. All right, moving on. This is an important story. More news that broke this weekend. And I just don't want you to be misled.

I've got a ton of stories to get through today. Today and tomorrow are going to be packed shows, a lot going on. Got some economic stuff too. What else do I got here? Oh, the debate. I still got something on the debate I missed. So don't go anywhere. There's a media narrative out there this weekend on Andy McCabe.

And the narrative out there, I want you to be sure you understand, is being done again for a reason. The media narrative is this. Andy McCabe's lawyer, I believe his name is Bromwich, who was involved, I believe, with the Blasey Ford case in Kavanaugh. I mean, it didn't intend to connect the two stories.

But this guy clearly has some allegiance to left-leaning causes. The lawyer put out a statement saying, well, I thought we had a grand jury. Remember we covered this last week, a grand jury impaneled on McCabe. If there was no indictment, then what, am I a client? What, he didn't do anything.

So we should put it out that there was no indictment and we should all move on. Folks, this is such a, you tracking me here? McCabe's law, and listen, McCabe's got the constitutional right to a solid legal defense. I don't I'm not knocking his lawyer because he works for liberals. Lawyers can work for whoever they want. I mean, even John Adams represented people who at the time others considered suspect.

One of our founding fathers. I'm not knocking this guy for getting an aggressive lawyer. McCabe McCabe. I'm like, I'm not a liberal. I'm a conservative. I'm not a tyrant. McCabe has the right of a presumption of innocence in a court of law and to an astute, smart, vibrant legal defense.

But the lawyer's statement is nonsensical. The lawyer who put out the statement, McCabe, listen, you need to put out a statement. There's no indictment. You should move on. He has no idea what's going on. Grand juries, the proceedings are secret. He doesn't know that.

Andy McCabe, excuse me, Andy McCarthy has a complete dismantling of this must-read National Reviewer of this nonsense. Andy McCarthy was a lawyer himself, a skilled one, and a brilliant analyst. National Review, National Review is getting a lot of work from us today.

Why it's unlikely the McCabe grand jury voted against indictment. September 14, 2019, Andrew C. McCarthy in the show notes today. Remember, the media is interested in getting this story out there in conjunction with McCabe's lawyer because McCabe is anti-Trump, doesn't like Trump. The media hates Trump and they're not doing journalism. So they're trying to put public pressure out there to speed up the Department of Justice to make this whole Andy McCabe thing go away because it's going to look bad for the anti-Trump conspirators. Does that make sense? Audience ombudsman, you get it?

She's not paying attention to me out there. You're not, right? You're not paying attention. You're not. I can tell you're not. See, when she answers, I nod. When when she doesn't I sit here and look confused so that's the story the Bromwich and McCabe legal team

they want to make it appear that Andy McCabe did nothing wrong folks this is nonsense there are a couple of points in this McCarthy piece I'm going to give you the inside baseball on what really happens with grand juries grand juries are not juries it Grand juries are not juries. It is not a trial.

A grand jury is a secret proceeding that is not adversarial. It is, I believe, 18 to 23 members. You don't have to have any unanimity in a grand jury. The proceedings are secret. They are not open. And the defense attorney

does not get an opportunity to present this case. What am I trying to tell you? McCabe's story and his lawyer here that there was, there was probably no indictment is if there was no one that they didn't seek it. Nobody seeks an indictment in the federal court system and doesn't get it. You ever hear the old line, you could indict a ham sandwich? Folks, it's true. I'm sorry, but it's true. I've sat in grand juries as a federal agent and testified there. If you, what's, I don't know any easier way to explain.

If you don't get what they call a true bill or an indictment, and you only need 12 of the grand jurors, you only need 12 of the 23, if you even have 23. If you have a quorum and you only need 12 of the grand jurors you only need 12 of the 23 if you even have 23 if you have a quorum and you get 12 you only need 12 of them if you can't get a true bill out of an indictment i'm not kidding and any lawyer please email me if i'm wrong email me if i'm wrong about this if you go to a grand jury and they don't give you a true bill,

ladies and gentlemen, you may be the worst attorney in the history of the legal profession. I do not know of a case I worked. I worked about 20 to 25 as an accessory agent and the case agent. I have heard of offices of agents in my office and in the other FBI office. Hoover, I have never, ever, amongst all of my work with DEA, IRS, TIGDA, ICE, CBP, whatever they were at the time, Customs and Border Protection. They were the Customs and ICE was separate back then. They were Immigration and Naturalization Service.

the Nationalization Service, I have never heard ever in my life of a U.S. attorney walking into a grand jury to get an indictment and not walking out with a true bill or an indictment on that person, ever. I can't even imagine the humiliation. You would have to do the walk of shame on steroids down the office. Everybody would close their door. Books would be written about your incompetence. Ladies and gentlemen, this almost never happens. Now, I kind of hinted at why, but I'll go through a couple of reasons. There's no double jeopardy in the grand jury. You know what double jeopardy is for a trial. If you try me and Paula for felonious mopery in the umpteenth degree and me and Paula win the case, the government cannot bring that charge again for that crime.

They can charge us for something separate. That's over. There is no double jeopardy. You do not get two bites at the apple at a trial. Ladies and gentlemen, that does not apply in a grand jury. You can go back as many times as you want and try to get that indictment.

So this is why this story is so ridiculous. Not that there's been no indictment. That the jury would have turned down an indictment is absurd. The attorney will just go back and ask the jury what they're missing. Remember, it's not a trial. The jury, the grand jury is instructed. You are not convicting this person. You are simply stating the evidence I'm giving you. Remember, there's no defense attorney to refute the evidence

in there. It's all secret. You are simply stating there's no probable cause that you just don't believe me. And then the U.S. attorney will go, what problem did we have, guys? And if really, if the case is really faulty, maybe the AUSA doesn't go back, the Assistant United States Attorney. But they would have never brought it in the first place if it was that faulty. So number one, there's no double jeopardy. You can keep biting at the apple. Number two, again, there's no defense. We already talked about it.

Number three, it doesn't have to be unanimous. You only need 12 people out of 23. You can even have a few people. Usually they are unanimous, by the way. Because there's no defense attorney. You just walk in there and tell the story you want to tell. You can't lie, obviously. When you're a federal agent, you go, I think this guy did it for this reason.

I swear this is true. Another big deal about this, about the McCabe, what I believe is fake news story. There may have been an indictment. It may have been sealed. Just because there was no public announcement of an indictment this weekend doesn't mean McCabe's got free. It could have been sealed because they're working on other cases. Finally, I'll leave this story. I just want to give you some behind the scenes because there's so many Bush League legal analysts out there. And folks, listen, I'm sorry, but I'm not a lawyer, but I worked in the legal system as an agent for a long time. You don't have to be a lawyer to figure out the basic mechanics of the legal system.

I mean, seriously, you don't have to be a doctor to figure out you've got a runny nose sometimes. More complicated problems, yes. You want Andy McCarthy to dress it down. This is a simple one no indictment came out this weekend there my guy scott free no dude you don't have to be alan dershowitz to figure this thing out this never ever happens i have never heard of it i've never seen it and either is mccarthy where a u.s attorney walked into a grand jury and did not get

an indictment on a case. It's unheard of. Don't read into that. I'm telling you that's fake news. All right, let me get to our last sponsor. I want to get to this red flag law thing too first. This is, pay close attention. This is a troubling, troubling story. It's our last sponsor today.

Today's show also brought to you by my buddies at My Patriot Supply. The world is changing. Sadly, you see it all over the headlines. Dangerous storms, emergency strike. Ladies and gentlemen, the time to prepare for an emergency is now while you're not in an emergency. Because you know what happens in an emergency?

We've seen it down here in Florida. Not lately. They've been doing a better job at this. But I have seen it even in a place as prepared as we are. The grocery shelves, they run dry when a hurricane hits. Do you want to be that person? God forbid an emergency runs out of food. You ensure everything in your life that matters.

Think about it. Your house, your car, your health. Why would you not ensure your food supply? It's so cheap and cost effective too for that peace of mind. Today is the day to act. It's National Preparedness Month. Make a plan. I have.

I have tons of this stuff. I built an emergency food storage supply plan. You should too. I prepare with my Patriot Supply. They lead the preparedness industry and sell emergency food, gear, and water filtration products that you may need at some point.

Act now and save $100 on a four-week emergency food supply when you go to this website, preparewithdan.com. That's preparewithdan.com. These tasty four-week food kits last up to 25 years in storage. That's a lot of.com. These tasty four-week food kits last up to 25 years in storage. That's a lot of security there, knowing you have that. And they average over 2,000 calories

a day. Order now and get free shipping from MyPatriotSupply, too. They'll ship it discreetly to your door. Don't ignore the writing on the wall. Prepare for what's coming and save $100. Go to preparewithdan.com. That's preparewithdan.com. Preparewithdan.com. Okay, I've been warning you about these red flag laws, otherwise known as gun violence protection orders. Ladies and gentlemen, I am adamantly, vehemently against these. Listen, I understand. I get it.

It is a sensitive issue. It is worthy of our time and attention. Gun violence in the country is not a joke. It is not meant to be toyed with. It's not funny, and it should not be a political talking point. There should be some bipartisan consensus on how to keep firearms out of the hands of the bad guys, not the good guys. The problem I have with these gun violence protection orders called red flag laws is, ladies and gentlemen, your due process goes out the window. The left, as we started talking about today during the show, doesn't seem to care about

due process anymore. It's their tyranny streak. But we've seen some Republicans jump on this red flag bandwagon as well. Now, to point out to you what this is really about, these red flag laws. Someone up on the Hill threw a little addendum into the red flag law legislation which let me be clear and please because i get a lot of emails when people misunderstand i do not support them at all i don't support them with appendices i don't support them with amendments i don't support You want to take someone's firearm away, then prove they're either a prohibited possessor or take them to court and convict them of a crime.

I don't want people with political motivations calling in fake threats on me and everyone else they don't like because we're conservatives and having police show up at my house on a fake threat saying, hey, we've got a red flag on you. From who? Well, your political opponent down the street doesn't like it. No.

I don't support that. Having said that, an entrepreneurial congressman up on the Hill put a little amendment into this red flag bill. Check out this story by Western Journal. This should get your antenna going up. You would think the Democrats would jump at this if the red flag was. Oh, no, no, no, no. Story by Jack Davis, Western Journal. This should get your antenna going up. You would think the Democrats would jump at this if they're for red flag. Oh, no, no, no, no. Story by Jack Davis, Western Journal. Democrats reject red flag amendment. So law enforcement can't target gang databases. Oh. Red flag laundry on the field, folks. This play needs review. So let me get this straight.

Again, I do not support red flag. I don't care what's in there. Period. But if you're going to put the Democrats on the spot, this is an interesting way to do it. Some entrepreneurial congressman says, hey, I got an idea. We're going to do this red flag law. In other words, you can say your neighbor is some kind of a threat and get his guns taken away, despite the fact

you can't convict him of a crime. I think we should be able to target gang members and use the gang database. The libs were like, wait, wait, wait, time out. No, no, no gang members. No, no, why? I thought you wanted to curb gun violence. So you're suggesting that red flagging people,

we just threw the red flag. Here, we need a soccer card red flag. Red flag, you're suggesting red flagging dangerous people will stop or reduce gun violence significantly, yet known gang members, and folks, they have due process too. I'm just telling you, because I don't want to get emails

that Mr. Trump won't say, but you're suggesting known gang members who, if anybody has a probability of using a gun in a violent act, are gang members. You're suggesting they should be exempt from this. Why would they do that? Paula, do you know why? I'll tell you.

Don't worry, my dear. I will tell you why. She said no. Because that switches the narrative for them, folks. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. How do you think it would sound to the Democrats if after Donald Trump, what was it, six, seven months ago, put out the tweet maybe a year ago? And, you know, me with time, I'm always all over the place.

Thank God for audience archivist judy she's always like that was actually two years ago remember that tweet about the ms-13 gang members and how we should secure our borders because we have gang members coming across the border remember that that narrative didn't work so well for the democrats why because they love open borders they they've always loved open borders. They don't believe in borders at all. The Democrats ran from that tweet. Remember them defending MS-13? Ladies and gentlemen, can you imagine how bad it would be for red flag laws if the government opened up the gang database and we found out that, let's say, 15 or 20,000 members of gangs, MS-13 included, were all in the United States,

were potentially here illegally, and were being red flagged, all of a sudden that red flag law isn't the same narrative you thought it was. Remember the narrative. Donald Trump is an evil, awful person. And it's his rhetoric that's inspiring all these crazy people to go around

and shoot up the towns and the movie theaters all around us. And we need a red flag to warn us against all those wink, wink, nod, nod, crazy Trump people out there. Yeah, a lot of those red flags are actually illegal immigrants who came over in the country and are gang members. No, no, not those people. Don't report on that story.

Shh, not that one. Senorita, you get it now? Thank you. Seriously, does it make sense? They don't want that story. Remember, the media is here to tell you a story, not the story. And the narrative, the a story they want to tell you is Donald Trump's rhetoric. He's such an evil, horrible person.

He's inspiring all of this stuff. And we need these laws to go get the guns from those evil Trump supporters. Actually, a lot of those people are gang members who may be in the country illegally. No, no, no, we don't want that. That's a law and order narrative that fits into the pro-Trump. We can't have that.

We're not here to do journalism. We're here to do activism. Liberals. Liberals are not here to stop gun laws. This is not a fake news story, by the way. This is a story about liberalism and the curse it's become. If you really support these things, gang members should be the first people you target.

They get an exemption? You must be kidding me. Always peel the onion, ladies and gentlemen. There's always a story here. Always a story beneath the story. All right, moving on. I saw a really good story in The Economist. They print a lot of left-wing garbage,

but they occasionally have really good stuff that I'll read and look into. I enjoy some of their stuff. They had this great piece up, just kind of a quick aside. I love economics and productivity and how we become wealthier and why we're the greatest country on earth and an economic powerhouse. And a lot of times my economic stories can be rather macabre and down and desperate and reek of despair. Ah, the debt, it's out of control. It is, the debt is out of control. And we should worry about it. And I talk about it all the time

and I don't think we're going to be able to pay our way out of it. But I have said to you often that if we could just get the government out of the way and let our economy flourish, we may be looking at an era of productivity through materials sciences, the sharing economy, healthcare and medicinal innovations. I mean, think about what a cure for cancer would be worth. We may be looking at an explosion in productivity and

wealth in this country that unbelievably could pay off the debt if our economy grows. Remember the rule of sevens, right? If we can hit anywhere close to 7% growth, the economy would almost double in 10 years. If you hit consistent 4% growth, we double in about 17, 18 years, which would make our debt appear smaller. I saw this piece in The Economist, it was fascinating, about how computers, the title is Chips with Everything, how the world will change as computers spread into everyday objects. The internet of things will fundamentally change the relationship between consumers and producers. It's a couple different angles in this piece.

One of them, the big angle takeaway of the piece is a little different than what I just said, but I'm going to tie it to that, how productivity and how these things will get better. But the angle of the piece is how when you buy products you think are products and not services now, you're not really buying a product anymore. You're buying a service too. And they give the example in a piece, I think it's of a washer and dryer. You're like, come on, Dan, that's not a service. We're not buying, you know, paying someone by the hour to wash their clothes.

You're buying a machine. It's a product, no question. Is it really? They tell this story in the piece how all these products now in the internet of things and in the future are going to be running complicated software. Probably software more complicated

than what went to the Apollo 13 mission. Computers are going to run these things. They're going to sense. They're going to report back to the homeowner on an app when the close to them, when the lint is building up. So it's interesting that what happens when that software code becomes obsolete and they write in

a piece. I love this story. The washer and dryer won't work anymore. And they're saying the problem they're having with a lot of these companies that sell what you thought were products, they're really selling services that when the service isn't around, the product doesn't work either. So what happens in five or six years if you buy a, I don't know, Joey bag of donuts washer and dryer, and it's great. And then the company goes out of business and they don't upgrade the software. And then the software craps out. Ladies and gentlemen, you're SOL, if you know what I mean. You got a washer and dryer that don't wash and dry anything because the service component of that is no longer valid.

And they tell an interesting story in there as well. I believe it's a Microsoft and how Microsoft had this ebook site and people accumulated these libraries of ebooks and the Microsoft shut it down and then everybody lost their ebooks. Like that was the end of it. So that's the downside.

The upside in the future, ladies and gentlemen, of this is that productivity is going to explode. Do you know how much time we are going to save in hospitals, in businesses, on inventories, having this vast, big data pool of when products and services are needed and are going to become available and what's seasonal and what's not seasonal anymore and how medicines can be tailored produced towards flu season and cold season here and whatever shingles season in a retirement community, how hospitals are going to have bar scans are going to be read by automated robots and optical scanners to tell when their medicines are running low that'll order just in time so they don't over accumulate and you don't

have medicines and food spoil anymore folks this is going to lead to such phenomenal productivity worker productivity computer productivity automated productivity that we have the potential to see our economy explode in the next generation it's a a fascinating piece. I have it up in the show notes. It's not very long. Sometimes they do really, really long pieces I enjoy, but they take a while. This one will get through quick, but it does bring up the ups and downs. Oh, great. Thanks for putting that out.

I forgot I gave you that. This is an interesting snippet from the piece. This is how it opens up. It says, on August 29th, as Dorian tracked towards America's East Coast, the hurricane, Elon Musk, the boss of Tesla, you know him, the Tesla cars, the electric car maker, announced to get, check this out, folks,

that some of his car makers in the storm's path would find out that their cars had suddenly developed the ability to drive farther on a single battery charge. You ask, how's that, right? Well, from the piece. Like many modern vehicles, Musk's products are best thought of as an internet-connected computer on wheels.

The cheaper models, it turns out, Tesla's lineup, have parts of their batteries disabled by the car's software in order to limit their range. Yet at the tap of a keyboard in Palo Alto, the firm was able to remove those restrictions and give drivers temporary access to the full power of their batteries. Cool story. That is just scratching the surface of the phenomenal... Remember what productivity is? Producing more output, more stuff. Stuff makes us wealthy. Stuff, medicine, food, water, cars, homes. We're going to be able to produce dramatically more stuff with even fewer inputs and we're putting in now that is the essence of wealth and it's going to happen here if we can just get the liberals and their big government policies out of the way speaking of liberals so on the debate last week i i did some debate coverage i didn't think we

went overboard with it because i knew you'd get a lot of it on cable news. And I wanted to kind of let things simmer and sit a little bit before I digested all of it. But the Wall Street Journal has a great piece. I think this one's by James Freeman. It was very good. And it covers one of the things we had is James Freeman. He says it's a rough night for socialism talking about the debate. And he says, welcome critiques of government run health care and the Venezuelan regime at Thursday's democratic debate folks. You know, I cover this a lot. It's kind of an evergreen topic on my show. And I honest to God, I don't do it to where you at. I know a lot of you like it. Very few of you don't, I get very few emails complaining about it, but this whole topic of I'm debating with my liberal friends and they're telling me they're not socialists.

They're democratic socialists like they are in Scandinavia. Ladies and gentlemen, the Scandinavian economy, economies, it's not one specific place or country, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, non-Scandinavian countries, Canada, but other countries, Japan, frequently cited by people like Bernie Sanders and others. By the way, Bernie loves communism. Bernie's on YouTube talking about the wonders of communism and socialism. So let's not pretend Bernie's anything else. But Bernie now is trying to change his tone and say, no, what he said in the debate was, you know, we're not talking about Venezuela, which he was. He praised Castro. He is talking about Venezuela. We're talking about the Scandinavian socialist countries. Ladies and gentlemen, the Scandinavian countries are not socialism, okay?

I don't care what modifier you put in front of it, democratic socialism, otherworldly socialism, cosmic socialism. I don't care. It's not socialism. They are market economies. Now, i have a couple of takeaways from this here's a piece from the wall street journal mr sanders rails against the trump cuts and business tax rates but get up folks digest this for a minute remember bernie sanders says he wants to be more like canada and sc. But the Canadians and Scandinavians

have gone even farther. Even after the 2017 Trump tax cuts, the combined state and federal corporate income tax rate in the United States is still higher than the rates in Canada, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden.

So is Bernie arguing for a tax cut? Folks, is anything I'm saying here unreasonable? Listen, I know we have liberals who listen. Again, you're always welcome here. I wish some of your stuff wasn't so silly all the time. But I'm asking you a common sense question. Bernie, who's already praised Venezuela and praised communism in the past, is now saying, no, no, that's not what I want to be like.

I want to be like Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Canada. Ladies and gentlemen, the combined tax burden there, when you look at the income tax and the corporate tax, are lesser tax burdens than we have in the United States now. So what are you suggesting? We should lower the tax burden? now. So what are you suggesting? We should lower the tax burden? Now, to be fair, some of these economies have value-added taxes, and when you look at the percentage of their economy

that is removed in taxes, yes, some of them pay a higher tax burden overall. But ladies and gentlemen, that makes my point, not Bernie's. Why? Put up that portion of the piece again, the heritage foundations index of economic freedom ranks Canada as the eighth

freest economy in the world with more economic Liberty, the United States, which ranks 12 is Bernie lobbying for that too. The Scandinavian countries are all in the top 30, whatever social services they are able to provide are possible because they rejected the Sanders anti-market agenda and allowed businesses to grow. A couple of takeaways here.

I didn't miss where I was. I wanted to put that out there first. Yes, the tax burden overall in these countries is high. I'm not going to lie to you like liberals do, many liberals. But the way they are taxed in these countries matters. Number one, the de facto taxes of regulation. Regulation is a tax. It's a cost.

You have to pay to hire lawyers to comply with government red tape. Some of these economies, ladies and gentlemen, are freer of red tape than the U.S. economy. Canada ranks higher on the economic freedom index than the United States. They allow businesses, generally speaking, to flourish free of a lot of the red tape we even have here. Is Bernie arguing for that too? Now you may say, okay, but they do tax their people a lot. Yeah, but they tax them differently, ladies and gentlemen. I'm going to get to this Joseph Sternberg story tomorrow.

And I've got another story about opportunities. I got some good stuff tomorrow too. I just, I'm too stacked today. But I'll get to this tomorrow. The way you tax people matters. Bernie and Elizabeth Warren, these other class warriors, have they not insisted to you repeatedly that their plans are going to target the evil rich? We're millionaires and billionaires.

Now he leaves the millionaire part out because he's a millionaire. You notice that? He only talks about billionaires now because he's a millionaire. The way the Scandinavian countries tax their people, ladies and gentlemen, are through regressive consumption-based taxes. Folks, in other words, these income taxes in the United States that tend to progressively target wealthier people with higher rates, they don't have enough money, the rich, to pay for all that. So these Scandinavian countries absolutely soak the middle class. Japan and others do value-added taxes. You know what value-added taxes are?

It's basically a tax at every level of consumption. And when you pay for the end product, it is a monstrous sales tax on that transaction. Why do these affect? Now, who do they affect more? And I'll get to this tomorrow, too. Who do those affect more? As a percentage of their income. Think about it.

Affects the poor, ladies and gentlemen. Consumption is the overwhelming majority of what people who are poor and middle class do. They have to go out and buy food. That food budget for a wealthy multimillionaire, potentially billionaire, is minuscule, folks. You can only eat so much. Consumption taxes on food and clothing for them is peanuts. It's one one-millionth of their income, if that.

But for the poor and the middle class, clothing, food, necessities, that's a lot of money.ities that's a lot of money and that's a lot of tax so in other words bernie's arguing we should be like scandinavia so he's arguing one for less regulation this is what he's if he wants us to be because they have less regulation some of them rank higher than the United States. Two, he's arguing for lower corporate income taxes and income tax rates, because many of those countries have lower rates than we do. And third, he's arguing that to make up for that loss in the corporate and income tax rates, that we should consumption tax people to death, which affects the poor and the middle

class and the elderly, by the way, as well, who have to consume products, obviously, to stay alive. And many wealthy folks obviously spend their money because they're at the end of their lifespan. You understand that nothing Bernie says to you is true. Everything he's arguing for is the exact opposite of what he claims he's arguing for. He says he wants to be like Scandinavia. What? Less regulation, lower taxes, and higher taxes on the poor middle class? That's what Bernie Sanders is arguing for. Don't believe any of the nonsense. All right, folks, thanks again for tuning in. Again, I got some good announcements for you this week, so looking forward to it. My book launches, too, on next Tuesday, but if you order on Amazon, Barnes & Noble now, you'll probably have it delivered just in time. It comes out on

September 24th, but I know Amazon delivers early sometimes, so you can check that out. I'd appreciate it. It's called Exonerated. And please subscribe to our YouTube account, youtube.com slash Bongino. We're really trying to get to 300,000 subscribers. We'd really appreciate that. And subscribe to our audio show on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts. It's available free, and it helps us move up the charts. We really appreciate it. I'll see you all tomorrow. Don't miss the show. I got some good stuff. Take care. 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.