Summary
➡ This conversation discusses the need for a warrant to investigate an American citizen, even in cases of potential terrorism. It explains that while some believe getting a warrant can be quick, others argue that in a classified setting, it can take too long and risk lives. The conversation also covers funding for Ukraine, with some arguing it’s necessary to prevent Russia from gaining more power, while others are skeptical. Lastly, it touches on the controversy around taxpayer funding for NPR, with some calling for more oversight and potential defunding due to perceived bias.
➡ The text discusses a conservative agenda, the challenges it faces, and the importance of the Fourth Amendment protections. It also talks about the potential misuse of government power and the need for skepticism towards it. The text further highlights the importance of the Constitution and criticizes the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Lastly, it mentions a health product and discusses the ongoing political issues in New York.
➡ The article discusses concerns about the federal government collecting information without a warrant, which is seen as a violation of the Fourth Amendment. It also criticizes the lack of a clear strategy in the Ukraine-Russia conflict and the potential risks of getting involved in a proxy war. The article ends with a discussion about a proposed law that could put consumer data at risk.
➡ Julie Kelly, a journalist, discusses the political prosecutions against Donald Trump by the Biden White House. She suggests that there is evidence of collaboration between the Biden White House, the Department of Justice, the National Archives, and other entities to build a case against Trump. Kelly also mentions that Biden himself may be guilty of the same crime he’s accusing Trump of, which is keeping and using national defense information for personal gain.
➡ The article discusses the author’s belief that the Biden administration is unfairly targeting Donald Trump and his associates. It suggests that Biden’s book deal and the handling of classified documents are part of a larger scheme to undermine Trump. The author also expresses concern about the upcoming election, fearing that if Biden’s party retains power, they will continue to persecute Trump supporters. The article ends with a discussion about Biden’s economic policies, which the author believes are contradictory and harmful to the American people.
➡ The text discusses how the U.S. is indirectly funding both sides of a conflict by not producing enough oil and natural gas, leading to purchases from Russia. It also criticizes Biden’s approach of giving money to corporations while raising corporate tax rates, arguing this incentivizes wealthy corporations to lobby for exemptions or subsidies. The text further explains that increasing corporate taxes can lead to higher prices for consumers, lower wages for employees, and lower returns for investors. Lastly, it warns against a proposed wealth tax, which would tax assets rather than income, potentially leading to a market crash as people sell off assets to pay the tax.
➡ The government might increase prices through inflation, which could lead to more taxes for people, even if their real wealth hasn’t increased. The Trump tax cuts, contrary to popular belief, benefited not just the rich, but also the lower half of income earners. Now, Biden wants to let these tax cuts expire, which could lead to higher taxes for many. There’s also talk of a wealth tax, which could mean people have to pay taxes on all their property, including stocks and collectibles.
Transcript
com. Any week they click on station finder to find out where there’s a station near you. We’ve got a great lineup for you this weekend as well. Let me get to our first sponsor, folks. Are you tossing and turning at night, unable to catch those elusive z’s? Trust me. Listen, I’ve been there. I’ve told you about my sleep issues. That’s just about feeling tired the next day. It’s about being productive.
It affects your exercise, your work, everything when you’re tired. But guess what? There’s hope on the horizon comes in the form of dream powder from beam. Beam stream powder. It’s been a game changer for me. When you’re sleeping well, everything falls into place. Your emotions are better regulated. You clear out all those nasty chemicals out of your brain at night, you’ll be sharper, focused. The shows are always better.
Beams dream powder. It’s like a lullaby in a cup. Big fan. And here’s the best part. Dream is formulated with all natural ingredients tested for high quality efficacy. No grogginess the next day. Just pure blissful sleep. And it’s so easy to incorporate into your nighttime routine. Just mix it up, sip it, and slip into sweet dreams. So if you’re ready to kiss those sleepless nights goodbye, head on over to shopbeam.
com bangino and use code Bongino for up to 40% off your order. The stuff is really, really delicious, folks. Give it a shot. You will sleep like a baby that shopbeam. com beam. Shopbeam. com bangino. Shopbeam. com bangino. Use code Bongino. Your future self, and more importantly, your morning self will thank you. Shopbeam. com bongino. Use code Bongino hey, welcome to our special Sunday podcast. Really appreciate you all tuning in.
This is going to be one of the most important debates you’re going to hear on this show. It’s kind of a debate, but not a debate. We’re going to play two separate interviews. First, Speaker Mike Johnson. An exclusive we got on our radio show where he defends the FISA bill, which I believe is a backdoor way to spying on Americans. I hate the bill. I think you’re going to sense from this interview, but I appreciated him coming on.
He aired his opinion. I obviously disagreed. I think it got a little tense at times, but it’s worth hearing. All right. Welcome back to the show. I am happy to welcome to the show speaker Mike Johnson. A lot going on right now and obviously a lot to discuss. So I wanted to give him an opportunity to give his side of the story going on. Speaker Johnson, welcome to the show.
Thanks for your time. Hey, Dan, thanks for your time. Appreciate you. Sure. So, Mister speaker, we’re dealing right now with a very slim majority you’re unfortunately well aware of. I wish we had a little bit of a buffer, but we don’t. Correct me if I’m wrong. I think we’re down to 431 members, 218 Republicans, so we can, you know, barely afford to lose a vote. You know, I get that we are in a, we’re in a lot of trouble.
I wish we had a better buffer, but there’s been a lot of, I think, legitimate complaints amongst republican voters and conservative voters that have funded these campaigns and volunteered for them that a lot of the votes we’re getting now into your speakership have been with the assist of the Democrat party. You know, how do you answer that, that complaint? Yeah, it’s my complaint, too, Dan. We have a one vote margin right now.
It’s the smallest in us history. And that’s why some people who’ve had this job before, like Newt Gingrich, say it’s now impossible. And I challenged him on that. It’s not impossible. It’s just, it’s an extreme challenge. We’re threading a needle with the tiniest, the tiniest eye of all time. And here’s the problem. When we want to advance legislation, that is things that we like. I mean, I’m a lifelong hardline conservative.
That’s my background for 50 years of my life, 30 years in public policy and the law and politics. We want to advance something that we prefer. We literally cannot sacrifice one vote. Well, the problem is right now we don’t have great unity in the conference because there’s lots of different ideas. And when we can’t keep every single member rowing in the same direction, that means to pass anything, democrats are going to be involved.
And that’s the problem. So we’re getting products that have, you know, 60 or 70 or sometimes 80% of our preferences, when really we could probably get 85 or 90% if we could keep the team together. And that’s been the challenge. Right now. It’s a very divisive time, but I’m an optimist. I think we can keep everybody moving in the same direction. The big heavy lift stuff is going to be off the desk after this last foreign aid vote, and we’re going to shift into election year Congress.
And that’s a very different thing where we put things on the floor that 100% unite our team and divide the other, and that’s how this game works. But in the meantime, heavy lifting every single day. Talking to Speaker Mike Johnson. Mister speaker, one of the issues that, as a former federal agent myself, is very personal to me is obviously our Fourth Amendment, our constitution, our bill of rights.
And this FISA legislation, as you well know, it’s been abused to target Donald Trump and others through foreign intelligence, surveillance, courts, and the using warrants against Carter Page and others, the probing of metadata databases, the reverse targeting of Americans. We strongly object, a lot of us civil libertarians and the conservative side, to moving this at all. We already have. And I really object to the argument that, well, there are protections built into the FISA reauthorization.
Mister speaker, we already have protections. It’s called the Constitution. Getting a warrant is not supposed to be easy. There’s a reason it’s difficult. How do you answer your critics on that who want to see this shut down? Yeah, great question, Dan. Thanks for bringing it up. So I came up the House Judiciary Committee. Before I was speaker, I served there for almost well over seven years. We heard about the abuses of the FBI.
I mean, absolutely. The last few years, they trashed it. I mean, a couple hundred thousand examples of Americans being surveilled by our own FBI. And of course, to your point, they used it to go after Trump and his campaign. With Carter Page and all the other abuses, FISA almost went to the scrap heat because of it. But instead, a very able group of folks led by our chairman and judiciary, Jim Jordan, who’s a dear friend of yours and mine, came up with 56 reforms.
We worked with between the Judiciary committee and the intel committee in a team effort, 56 reforms to fix the law. And Dan, the reforms are critical because now, if you’re an FBI agent and you abuse that law, you can go to prison for ten years. I mean, it’s real teeth. Lots of really important changes. The reason we couldn’t just throw FISA away is because that section 702 of the law is the most critical tool that we have.
And, you know, you’ve been on the inside. This is how we surveil foreign terrorists who are plotting evil things here in our homeland and we monitor their email and their phone calls and all that. We can’t not have that. I mean, you know, the people on the inside and the classified briefings and even in the public explain that. That’s how we’ve not had another 911 because of this tool.
It’s critically important, but it can’t be abused. So the 56 reforms will prevent that from happening and allow us to protect both our fundamental liberties as well as the safety of innocent american people. Look, I fought for our liberties in our courts for 20 years, Dan. I was a constitutional law litigator who went to court to defend our fundamental freedoms. I mean, I’m a privacy advocate. Mister Speaker, I want to let you make the case for Ukraine as well and other things, but I just want to ask one follow up to this, if I may, on the FISA issue, because again, it’s very important to me and a lot of my listeners when, and I appreciate you coming on, there are a boatload of people on my Facebook and rumble and elsewhere begging me to get an answer on this one very simple question.
Why not just get a warrant? Anytime? Anytime it ensnares an american. I understand what you’re saying. This is a valuable tool for foreigners. Foreigners on foreign soil have no constitutional protections. The Bill of rights is a non issue. Totally get it. You are correct. Point stipulated. Why can’t we just get a warrant when it involves an american? Thank you for asking a question. Let me answer it as clearly as I can.
A warrant is required anytime you’re going to surveil or investigate an american. Absolutely, 100%. We die on that hill. Okay. But when you’re using section 702 of five, this is what most people don’t understand. It is in its name, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance act. It’s only allowed to collect data, emails, phone communications, et cetera, from foreign terrorists or people that we suspect to be that. Now here’s a quick scenario to explain it as simply as I can.
Let’s say we have a terrorist in the Middle east and he sends an email to a guy named Jack Smith in Anytown, USA. And in the email, it’s intercepted by a CIA analyst and they’re looking at that. And the email says, components will be delivered to your house this afternoon for further assembly and delivery to the high school stadium during the game. Okay? If the CIA analyst sees that, that would probably put up some red flags if he’s monitoring unknown terrorists plotting things in the US, right? So what he would be able to do then is go through the emails between that terrorist and Jack Smith, if there any other in the collection, and try to call and see if he can piece together any details about what that plot may be.
Which high school stadium? What? Game night, what is it? A bomb? Right? What some of my friends were advocating for is they’re saying that we would have to require a warrant to do that. The problem is, what if the high school, what if they’re talking about the stadium on Friday night and this email is intercepted on Thursday afternoon? You know how it works to get a warrant. You’ve done all this.
It takes a long time. You got to go put on a probable cause hearing. Speaker three, Mister speaker. It really doesn’t. I’m sorry, but it doesn’t. You can get a phone warrant like that in an emergency circumstance. I think this is where you’ve been misled, and I’m sorry to tell you, but I’ve actually, this stuff, it is not hard to get a warrant in a situation like that.
It can happen in minutes. There’s a magistrate on duty for that. Right, but, but Dan, in a FIsa court, see, it’s in a classified setting. You have to do these things in a skiff because you’re sometimes you’re going with classified info. And what the analysts and the experts have told us is that would require a big time lag and you’d need a lot more judges to process it.
Remember, the FISA court only has less than a dozen judges nationwide to deal with these. They’re so rare. Here’s the thing. If the analyst wanted to investigate Jack Smith, to your point, he would have to get a warrant, right? The only thing that analysts can look at without the necessity of a warrant is the properly lawfully collected data from surveilling that terrorist. So he can’t go through Jack Smith’s emails and go through everything else.
He’s got to get a separate warrant to go investigate an american. But if it’s properly and lawfully collected data under section 702, that’s the subset of data that we’re talking about. And that’s where guys like we respect, Mike Pompeo and John Radcliffe and Devin Nunes and Robert O’Brien, Trump official guys who are in the intel space, NSA and others, DNI, they said, you can’t do that because it’s dangerous.
Like american citizens could lose their lives on the time lag that’s involved. And if a terrorist is having direct communication with Americans, that makes sense to us. Like those communications should be subject to speech. Mister Speaker, I got to move on. But I just, we’re going to have to just disagree on this. There’s a, that sounds like a logistics problem. We can hire more judges. We can’t find the new constitution.
We can amend it, but the one we have works just fine. So we’re going to have to disagree on that. But I want to let you make the case for Ukraine. My listeners out there wanted me to ask you about Ukraine. I’d like to ask about it as well. There’s obviously a substantial portion of the Republican Party. I think today in this vote, this rules vote, there were 165 Democrats voted for, 255 Republicans voted against it.
I think my math is accurate there. That’s a good portion of the republican party that’s objecting to this glide path to more Ukraine funding. Now, I know you feel strongly about this, and I want to say in advance, I have no doubt that you’re authentic. You authentically believe this is going to make a difference. A lot of people in my audience are skeptical. They don’t think there’s a victory plan for Ukraine.
So I want to give you the opportunity because I believe you’re passionate about it. I may feel differently, but I believe you’re genuine about it. Why do you think this is going to make a difference in this war that sadly has not gone Ukraine’s way? Speaker one. No, it hasn’t. They’re terribly outgoing. That’s part of the problem. I’ve voted against Ukraine funding in the past. Okay, but, and I did that at a protest because the Biden White House has made a mess of this, just as they have everything they touch and they haven’t communicated clearly what is the end game? What’s the strategy? How will we have oversight over what we’re sending? The fact of the matter is that us is the only nation in the world that can supply the weapons that are necessary to push Putin back, or at least to hold it to a stalemate.
I believe Donald Trump is going to be a reelected president. I’m doing everything I can to make that happen. And when he comes in, I believe he’s the only one strong enough to be able to broker a peace deal there. I think that the conditions have to be set for that to be done. If we invest a little bit right now, by the way, of the funding going to Ukraine, 80% of it goes directly into our defense industrial basis.
It is literally to be used for the replenishment of american weapons, stocks and facilities. That’s 80% of the funding, the rest of it, any of it would go to, like, help the governmental services there. We’re converting to a loan, which is an idea that, you know, conservatives are favorable to. Even President Trump has endorsed the idea of a loan for foreign aid. We put a lot of innovations in there and a lot of oversight.
What we’re getting is a change not only in oversight and accountability, but a strategy shift. Now, a lot of people believe, including generals on the ground there in charge of that area, right, that they tell us that they’re deeply concerned that Vladimir Putin, if Ukraine is going to effectively run out of bullets the end of this month, that’s what they told us. They run out of ammunition and what they need, right? They’re taking seven to one incoming right now, or a higher ratio than that.
If that happens and Putin rolls through, through the country and he takes Kharkiv and then Kyiv, right, he’s going to be camped out on the borders of NATO countries, right, the baltic states and Poland. And that is a serious, serious interest of the american people because if that happens, the NATO countries are going to be looking, waiting for Putin to make a move, and it’s going to cost us a lot more.
There’ll be demands for american troops on the ground. We don’t have a single troop there right now. And I’d rather, you know, bullets there than american boys, right? I mean, that’s what this is with investment in our interests to make sure that Putin doesn’t upset the world order since World War two. And that’s what’s at stake here. Sure. Mister speaker, last question. I have about two minutes left.
Just kind of a simple question about an issue that’s bothered a lot of Americans and it’s in the news. It seems like a simple one, but it speaks to this inability of Republicans when we have power to get things done. NPR, obviously in the news, funded by taxpayers, whistleblower comes out, says the place is obviously biased. You and I already know that. And in the remaining, say, minute, 30 seconds, why can’t the Republicans party, Republican Party, move on this pretty unanimous issue that we shouldn’t be funding our own media death by funding with taxpayer dollars? This left wing organization, we’re on it.
We worked on it this morning. We saw the news yesterday just as everybody else did. Look, Congress has an oversight responsibility and the, the purse. And this is something we take very seriously. I mean, you’ve seen us going after aggressively these universities that are getting federal funding and, you know, pushing anti american, anti semitic stuff. We’re doing this on turbo right now, and oversight is a critical responsibility and that’s something we don’t need Democrats assistance on at all.
They don’t assist, they impede that. Right. You’re going to see a lot more of that and you’re going to see more, as I said, if we shift into this, you know, the election year dynamics of all this, you’re going to see a full hard conservative agenda, an aggressive one, and you’ll see a lot of pushback from the other side. I mean, we owe that to the american people.
We’re here to do that every day. I wish I could throw a Hail Mary pass on every play with the margins we have right now is three yards in a cloud of dust. I understand that. I respect that and I really appreciate you coming on. I think you knew there were going to be hard questions and I want you to know I appreciate that. And I’ve made the case to my listeners.
I understand what you’re dealing with and I don’t think we need distractions before the election. But I just really hope you’ll consider what me and many others feel strongly about with FISA and their Fourth Amendment protections. I think having done it candidly, sir, I think you’re being, I think you’re being misled by some people. I understand that the experts have told you that, but the experts, some of them haven’t done it.
They may have run for office, but that’s not how that works. But I appreciate you coming on. Mister speaker, thanks a lot for your time. You got it Dan. Appreciate you my friend. You got it. Speaker Mike Johnson, folks, a lot of information there. And then we had Senator Mike Lee, come on. Who is a very talented lawyer as well. Make what I believe is a smarter case, that the constitution matters.
We can hire more judges. We can’t hire a new constitution. So up next, the counterpoint. But let’s talk about our next sponsor first. You know, again, I’m obsessed with life hacks and health. That’s why we have so many great sponsors in the health space because we get to choose our sponsors. Field of greens is my staple product. It is ground up, healthy, wholesome, organic fruits and vegetables. Listen, a brick house nutrition will acknowledge themselves.
The best thing to do is to go out and eat seven or eight different kinds of different colored fruits and vegetables a day, 100%. Whats the problem? Thats really hard to do. Its perishable. You got to cook it. It takes forever. You got to carry it around. Field of greens is your insurance. They ground all that stuff up into a great tasting powder. I take it twice a day.
I just had some in green tea, a little bit of curcumin powder. I loved it. It was really awesome. Field of green is a great product. I promise you’re going to love it. But here’s the thing. They’re so confident in this. They’re so confident they will give you a 100% money back guarantee, not 9100 percent money back guarantee. If you don’t like it, I got you 15% off your first order plus free rush shipping.
Go to brickhousenutrition. com Dan and use promo code Dan that’s promo code dan@brickhousenutrition. com. Dan Brickhousenutrition. com Dan, we talked with Senator Mike Lee. I asked him about what his thoughts are on the renewal and what Speaker Johnson had to say. Here’s his rebuttal. So many of you all, like me, have a lot of questions about the internal mechanics of what’s happening up on Capitol Hill with this spying bill, with this Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan funding.
And I’m not on Capitol Hill. I’ve decent sources up there, but I don’t work up there. So when we need information on what’s going on there, one of the guys who’s, one of the good guys who helps us out is Senator Mike Lee from Utah. Senator Lee, welcome back to the show. Thanks for spending some time with us. We appreciate it. Thank you, Dan. Good to be with you, as always.
Good to hear from you, too. Before we get to the FISA bill and the Ukraine funding bill, I just want to ask yourself opinion about this ongoing fiasco up in New York with this star chamber trial. We know it’s a, it’s a, it’s a legal hilarity, a tragic one at that. But senator, I mean, the police state is probably my biggest fear. There’s no source of human misery greater than governments around the world that have been weaponized.
The body bags have piled up for hundreds of years. This is a really dangerous precedent, using our legal system at the federal, state and local level, sometimes in conjunction with another, with one another, to basically destroy this man’s life. Yeah, there’s no question about it. When governments behave badly, it tends to hurt people. When government is run amok, the destruction of life, liberty and property can often be imminent because government, having been created for the purpose of protecting life, liberty and property, is uniquely capable of undermining those very same things, always with the justification of doing what only governments can do.
And so that’s why you’ve got to keep a really close watch on it. And that’s why when the law and prosecutorial resources are channeled, when they’re politicized and weaponized, as they have been against President Trump, really bad things happen. And I say shame on those people in New York who are allowing this to go on. And to an even greater degree, shame on those people who are themselves at the tip of the spear and making these decisions that can lead only to more political weaponization in the future.
And it’s bad for our constitutional Republican. Yeah. Talking to Senator Mike Lee from Utah. Senator, the reason I, everything I do on the show we do for a reason I started there is because, shockingly, you’re one of the few people on the republican side of the ledger speaking out against this foreign Intelligence Surveillance act, this spying court reauthorization, which is shocking because, one, you’re a constitutionalist, and knowing you personally, I understand why it bothers you for the same reason it bothers me.
We have this thing called the Constitution. Not really sure if they’ve read it up there, but this seems like such a ground ball for the Republican Party, and we can’t even get significant swaths of Republicans to see the danger, even though the FISA courts and the FISA court system, there are documented abuses of it being used to alter elections, specifically against Donald Trump. But many others I don’t understand.
And maybe you can help the audience understand, how is it that a party that claims to be conservative doesn’t have unanimity in going, you know what? We’ve already got a process for backdoor spying on Americans. It’s called the front door. It’s called the Constitution. Why is that? Well, it’s easy for Republicans to fall in love with power when they perceive it to be the type of power that they like.
You see, my wife Sharon, has a great saying. The saying is that the Constitution teaches us to trust people and be skeptical of government. And sometimes we flip that around. Sometimes Republicans, when starting with things that historically, Republicans have supported, things like the military and things like other resources, including our intelligence gathering agencies and law enforcement agencies, that help secure us from those who would harm us at home and especially abroad, when we become too comfortable with that apparatus of government, we cease to be skeptical of government.
And that’s where we get into trouble. And we get into even more trouble when we’re skeptical of our own people, our own citizens, far more so than we are of government and of the impulses within government to always expand government power. And that’s what happened last week. And you’re absolutely right, Daniel. This should have been an easy bipartisan layup for the republican party. We could have and should have supplied the votes.
We had some Democrat votes with us on this one because some of them are still civil libertarians, too. And we should have stood together behind the constitution. Instead, too many Republicans saluted, thinking they were saluting the flag in the constitution, but really just saluting the intelligence gathering agencies and the FBI. And if there’s one thing that we should have learned over the last few years is that you don’t just put faith at those institutions because you will come up short every time.
You know, it’s just shocking. I promise we’ll get to the Ukraine funding center. You have my word. But this is just. I had Speaker Johnson on. On Friday. I appreciate him coming on the show. I really do. I, you know, I don’t want to. It’s not a personal thing. However, I think you would attest to this as well as anyone. You’ve known each other a while. It’s not volunteer work, senator.
You’re up there, you’re paid nicely. It’s a decent job or you wouldn’t run for it. It’s not a personal thing. Okay. I don’t get into politicians because they put cowboy hats on or whatever. You’re supposed to go and vote, right? Meaning defend conservative values and allegiance to the constitution. And the defenses I’ve found about this FISA court, senators, they borderline on hilarious. And believe me, I mean that in the most tragic way.
They’re like, well, we can’t get a warrant if it somehow ropes in an american because it, like, takes time or something. I’m like, oh, really? Have you ever actually done an emergency warrant? Because we have in my prior line of work, and it’s actually not hard at all. You just call up a magistrate. It’s real. Well. And the answer was like, well, we don’t have enough magistrates. Oh, really? Well, you know, we could hire more, but we can’t hire a new constitution.
Like, I haven’t heard a viable defense yet as to why we just can’t get a darn warrant if it ropes in an american. No, exactly right, Dan. And we both worked in federal law enforcement. I was. I was a federal prosecutor many years ago, and, you know, back during the William Howard Taft administration, and getting a warrant was just part of the process. Never in a million years did we dream of saying, well, it’s just too much work.
And this is super important, and because this is super important, and it would take time to go and get a warrant, which is not going to do that. This is laughable. So this is, you know, I’ve been fighting against this thing for 13 years, ever since I’ve been in the Senate, because it goes against everything I believe in. To say the federal government could go out and collect all this information without a warrant.
It’s fine to do that on our adversaries overseas. It’s totally fine. We don’t. Right. They don’t have Fourth Amendment rights that are cognizable in our system. But when they use that warrantless surveillance in a way that sweeps up, incidentally, private communications by you as a us citizen or me or any of the other 330 million Americans on us soil, then there ought to be special protections that they should respect.
If they’re going to search for all communications incidentally collected on Dan Bongino in the 702 database, they should have to get a warrant for that. I’ve never heard a good argument against it. In fact, to the contrary, most of the time they will say that this is, it’s not going to happen because we’ve got good people in there. Really. I mean, say that to the guy. That’s funny.
The guy who was searched on 702 because he was renting an apartment from an FBI agent and the guy wanted to check him out, or the guy whose son worked at the FBI and he thought his dad was cheating on his mom, so naturally he ran them through the 702 database, or to the 19,000 donors to a particular political campaign who were all run through the FISA 702 database.
Say that to them, this is not risk free and we’re playing russian roulette with the Fourth Amendment. And we extended this thing, we expanded FISA and we reauthorized it without a single really binding condition, certainly without a warrant requirement last week. Shame on Congress for doing that. Yeah. I really can’t believe you’re one of the few guys speaking common sense. I wish you weren’t alone talking to Senator Mike Lee.
Senator, let’s get to this foreign aid bill. A lot of critics are really upset about this $95,000,000,000. 01 for obvious reasons. We just don’t have the money. And I’m getting sick of, really, the arguments. By the way, I just read one in the Wall Street Journal. Well, it’s only a small bit of GDP. You know the old saying, right, senator, a billion here, a billionaire. Right. So that, number one.
But forgetting the money part for a second, not deliberately, but, senator, I’m told on one hand that the Ukraine strategy is we’ve got to defeat Vladimir Putin, who’s a bad guy, period. Full stop on that. I get that portion of it, but that’s not the Biden administration strategy. The Biden administer administration strategy here. It seems they want GOP footprints on it, which we gave them without giving an actual strategy.
The strategy seems to be Ukraine, don’t lose this thing, but don’t win this thing either. And they wanted our fingerprints all over it with very little accountability other than some. Oh, yeah, the Biden team’s going to have to provide a strategy and whatever, 90 days, whatever’s in the bill, which, you know, they’re just going to make something up anyway. I mean, am I, am I the people who are talking to me? That’s what they’re telling.
They just want our fingerprints on this thing. Oh, I think you’re spot on. I think, and I think our fingerprints as Republicans are all over it. And I have yet to hear anyone left, right, Republican, Democratic House, Senate, White House, you name it. I have yet to hear anyone articulate an observation or an analysis about how this 60 to 61 billion that we’re sending over to Ukraine as part of this $95 billion package, how that’s going to win the war, for that matter.
Dan, I have get to hear anyone articulate how it is that Ukraine is going to defeat Russia in this. The closest they come is they say if we spend all this money, it’ll be good for us jobs because we’ll stimulate our own military industrial complex base. Oh, great. It’ll be good for our economy and it will degrade Russia’s industrial complex. Really? Because that’s not how it looks. It looks to me like beefing up Russia’s industrial complex.
We’ve driven Russia into China’s welcoming, warm embrace. We have undermined all sorts of things along the way. And there’s still no strategy as to how Ukraine is going to win the war with this money or how, with our assistance, anyone is going to arrange to secure peace or how this is going to result in a brokered, peaceful settlement. In fact, this appears to be moving us in the opposite direction of that.
Yeah, we’re talking to Senator Mike Lee. Senator, I only got about a minute left, but Holman Jenkins at the Wall Street Journal is certainly no pro Putin advocate. He writes exactly this, that they understand the Biden administration is almost looking for a messy outcome, neither victory nor defeat in Ukraine, he writes. But he says this kind of sharing would certainly suit the Democrats. It explains why they sat on their hands for months while Johnson flailed.
He goes, he notes, and, yes, it’s an awful moment in history for these games to predominate. I’m not telling you Vladimir Putin is a good guy. That would be insanity. That would be just stupid. He obviously would love to see us destroy ourselves externally or internally, but this is not a plan, senator. He wouldn’t give them fighter jets. He doesn’t want to give them long range missiles. He just seemingly wants to extend this thing so world War three doesn’t happen on his watch and he doesn’t lose Ukraine.
I got about 30 seconds left. That’s exactly right. And it’s utterly tragic. He’s not acknowledging what it is that he’s doing. Meanwhile, he’s moving us incrementally closer and closer toward what could become a conflict with Russia. Now, Russia has nukes. It’s got a lot of nukes. And I don’t mean to suggest we should never push back under any circumstances against a nuclear power, but that should be taken into account.
Count and proxy wars always begin as proxy wars. They hardly ever end as proxy wars, and we should be especially reluctant to get into one here. And that’s what we’re doing. It’s interesting you say that, Senator, because we just saw that thing that happened in the Middle east, the proxy war, that, oh, look, is now state on state action. So what you just said is sadly true and legitimately just happened.
So we don’t need an example from 100 years ago. We just need it from last week. Senator, I got a run. I’m out of time. Senator Mike Lee from Utah, as always, thanks a lot for your time. We appreciate it. Thanks so much, Tim. Take care. You got it. Senator Mike Lee. Folks, I can’t. I really, I’m genuinely shocked. I’m not messing with you. He’s one of the few guys on Capitol Hill speaking out about this stuff, the FISA funding and the fact that there’s zero plan in this Ukraine Russia fight.
Zero, zero. We know who the bad guys and the good guys are, generally speaking, but there’s no plan at all. Up next, one of our most popular guests, Julie Kelly, wrote the book on January 6. But first, our next sponsor. With cyber attacks on the rise, protecting your data security is more important than ever. So why is Congress considering a law that puts your data at greater risk of being hacked and exposed, exposed to foreign networks? The Durbin Marshall credit card bill shifts billions in consumer spending to less secure payment networks, all so that corporate megastores can make bigger profits don’t let Durbin Marshall steal your data.
Visit hands offmyrewards. com security and tell your senators, do oppose the Durbin Marshall credit card bill paid for by electronic payments coalition. Here’s Julie Kelly on this just scam of a case special. Tyrant Jack Smith is running as President Trump. There’s some really ugly stuff in here. We got the, we got our hands on some unredacted pages from Judge Cannon. Really revealing. Take a listen. All right. This is one of my favorite guests.
She’s a, I guess we could say a regular, right, Jim? She may be the guests. We’ve had the most on the show. And the reason we have Julie Kelly on the show as often as we do is because she’s that rare thing out there, an actual journalist who, it’s crazy folks, does like facts and actual journalism. It’s a rare fine. We’re happy to have her. Julie, welcome back to the show.
Thanks for joining us. Always so happy to be on Dan. Thank you so much for all your kind words and covering my work. You’re welcome. Well, your work is incredible. You should follow Julie on Twitter and truth. She’s. What is it at, Julie underscore Kelly two. Is that right? Correct. Yep. Okay. I got that right. That was just for memory. I didn’t even have it up on social media.
She’s fantastic. She’s been covering Judge Cannon and the Trump documents trial. But I wanted to take, let’s take the bird’s eye view here, Julie, for a minute, because there’s no one better to comment on this than you. I opened up the show today and I said, you know, one of the things that really bothers me about republicans that go on CNN, MSNBC, and talk to the New York Times is they hit us with this trick every single time.
You’ve probably seen it yourself. Where they go, well, Julie, there’s no evidence of that. And you look back and you go, well, actually, there’s evidence everywhere. You may be drawing a different conclusion, but the evidence is all over the place. So Dana Bash had Christy Noem on CNN, and she rightly so said, hey, these are politically directed prosecutions against Donald Trump by the Biden White House. And of course, Dana Bash said, there’s no evidence.
But, Julie, there’s evidence everywhere, including on your Twitter yesterday, where I found this little gem from the unsealed documents in the Jack Smith case, where it now appears that they were coordinating the national archives with the Biden White House. Can you elaborate on that? Because your social media was just incredible on this yesterday. Thank you. Yes. So I was comparing this motion to compel that the defense attorneys filed in January.
It’s very lengthy, and a lot of it was redacted based on the existing protective order in this case. It’s pretty standard, as you know, Dan. But, you know, they played by the rules and they redacted a lot of information that would have that did disclose what they called really alarming and extensive collaboration between the Biden White House, the Department of justice, the National Archives, and the intelligence community and a few other entities to concoct this documents case against Donald Trump.
Now, you know, Dan, we have all been told that, oh, gee, Nara was really, you know, pressuring Donald Trump to produce all these documents that they said were their records. And he turned over these 15 boxes, and lo and behold, there’s classified documents. Everyone at the archives is shocked. They call, you know, DOJ, they open an investigation and, oh, gee, these were class. No, this started the minute that Donald Trump left office in January of 2021.
The archivist, another political hack in the bureaucracy. Unaccountable, empowered, egotistical. He’s already working with the Department of Justice dating back to the spring of 2021, demanding these records, saying he’s running out of patients by June of 2021. Who are you? David Ferrero, the archivist, to tell Donald Trump they’re running out of patience with him five months after he leaves office. And get this, Dan, the documents that they claim they needed were presidential records.
The letter that Barack Obama left Donald Trump in the drawer, the standard letter, the letter’s correspondence between Trump and the north korean dictator president, and the Sharpie map. Remember the map of Hurricane Dorian marked up. These were the secret government records that they had to get back. Well, it was all a ruse, right, to concoct exactly what they did. First, it looked like it was going to be a records destruction investigation.
Then it switched over to classified documents as soon as he produced those 15 boxes to Nara. So that is what I have been posting. Thank you, Judge Aileen Cannon actually doing her job, unlike the other judges that we’re seeing, protecting the rights of the defendant, constraining government overreach, and really refuting and rejecting Jack Smith’s attempts to keep all of this from the public side. I’m sorry for the long winded question in the beginning, I’m just trying to lay the battlefield for the audience.
And you’re really good at this. So you just laid out in about two minutes and 20 seconds or so, whatever it was, that there are not only, there’s not only amount of evidence that biden and his team are, in fact, directing this political persecution of Trump. But there’s actual email chains of these people coordinating with the White House, correct them, from the National Archives. In other words, none of this happened by accident.
There’s actual evidence there that this happened. There are emails that were discovered in what they call discovery. The defense attorneys found this correspondence back and forth. But also, get this, Dan, the defense team in the classified documents case had to FOIA these agencies to get records that were not being handed over by Jack Smith and the Department of Justice. So they got some of this correspondence through FOIA requests, not even the normal court processes, because, of course, DOJ and Jack Smith are so untrustworthy that they had to seek other ways to get these communications that illustrated, demonstrated, proved the collaboration between the Biden, White House, Nara, and top officials at the Department of Justice.
So, and this is the correspondence they got. And it actually shows, Dan, how the DOJ was directing Nara, how to properly submit their criminal referral. So they said, well, here’s what you have to do. You go to your inspector general, you go to the intelligence community, inspector general, you guys say, we found these classified records. We need to open an investigation. Then they submit really, the referral to Department of Justice, and they immediately.
FBI opened a criminal investigation February of 2022, a month later. And it was called, get this, Dan, plasmic echo. Was the speaker one? I saw that. Yeah, it sounds like a porno or something like that. I’m like, what the hell is that plasma? What the heck is that? Like, these guys watching, like, like, skin a max after hours. Like, let’s call this plasmic echo. But, Julie, what makes this even, I know this is like, this is not your standard conservative talk radio, but what makes this even worse, the whole collusion case between the Biden White House and justice entities and Ag’s around the country to get Trump prosecuted is.
Joe Biden appears to be actually guilty of this crime by his own admittance. If you go back and listen to the recorded conversations between, uh, former Vice President Joe Biden at the time and the ghost writer for the book, apparently on these conversations, he admits multiple times. Oh, I’ve found the classified information downstairs. So Joe Biden, who had no authority to declassify whatsoever, he was the vice president, not the president.
He actually admitted to the crime on tape that the, his Justice Department is accusing, falsely, Donald Trump of who had absolute authority to take these documents based on the Clinton sock drawer case. Exactly right. And so what does the Biden White House do as they’re concocting this case against Donald Trump in May of 2022. The same day, Dan, that the DOJ sends a subpoena to the Trump team asking for more classified records.
That same day, Joe Biden or his lawyers direct top government officials, government employees, to go to the Penn Biden center to rifle through who knows how big of a trove of documents dating back to his Senate days to look for classified records. We don’t know what they found. We don’t know what they moved around. We don’t know possibly what they took and destroyed. We don’t have any of that evidence.
But of course, now we’ve got accusations of Trump’s two co defendants moving boxes from a storage room back to the residents and didn’t returned some of them. So they must have had classified documents. I mean, Joe Biden and his team working with the FBI, and the FBI actually reorganizing some of Joe Biden’s boxes, whatever he wanted to do. There was no raid, there was no subpoena. There’s no criminal referral from the National Archives.
This was all request based. Joe Biden and his team get to work behind the scenes, to your point, I think a far more egregious case of willfully keeping and using national defense information. He kept that material, Dan, as you know, so he could write a book about it. There was no way. Julie. Donald, this is from, I’ve read this from multiple credible journalists like yourself. We’re talking to Julie Kelly.
Give her a follow. She’s at. Julie, underscore Kelly on Twitter, on x, please. She’s, she’s a really fantastic journalist. Friends of mine are telling me that the reason Joe Biden pilfered and stole classified documents with no authority to declassify them is because he’s, he’s basically an egomaniac. And what he wanted to do later on is he wanted this historical record of him being right on decision. So he stole this stuff because he wanted people to believe he was smarter than he really is, because he’s genuinely a moron.
So he would take and pill for these documents. That’s the sickest part of this whole thing, Julie, that for him, apparently, it was all a profit motive to make money off a book, to show the american people, look, I’m smarter than all the people who call me a moron, which is pretty much everyone, including Obama. Exactly right. And so what was he initially going to write a book about his dispute with Barack Obama, about the Afghanistan war and his opposition to the surge at the end of 2009.
That’s why he kept that lengthy memo. God only knows what that memo looks like that he wrote to Obama over Thanksgiving of 2009, disagreeing with Obama and taught military and intelligence personnel that we should not search troops into Afghanistan. That was going to be his book. Then he kind of switched it to talking about the death of Beau Biden and how he managed his job and his travels as his son was tragically dying.
But what did Joe Biden get for a book advance? Daniel? $8 million. Robert Heard disclosed in his report. What did Donald Trump get? $8 million in legal fees, thanks to the government. So Joanne shared it with his ghostwriter, who then destroyed recordings proving that Joe Biden admitted he had classified files, a far more egregious criminal case. He skates, the ghostwriter skates. And Donald Trump now, and his attorneys and co defendants are fighting for their freedom in southern Florida in addition to other jurisdictions.
So, Julie, I think we’ve established conclusively that there are actually mounds of evidence that the Biden White House is criminally responsible for persecuting Donald Trump. We get that. But one of the most damning pieces of evidence, and I’d like, I’ll give you, we have about two minutes left, so I want to give the rest of the time to you, is the Matthew Colangelo situation, the number three at the DOJ, who actually gave the opening statement yesterday.
I mean, this, to me, it’s just so out and open and such a slap in the face. Even liberals should be able to understand this one. They definitely do understand it and they cheer it. You know, they love when this happens behind the scenes and they are the beneficiaries. So it’s hard. I’ve been trying to track down if Matthew Colangelo was involved in any of this classified documents chicanery behind the scenes.
It’s hard to imagine that he wasn’t since it was happening in 2021 and into 2022 before he went on loan to Alvin Bragg and I think Fulton county, too. But look, he’s just one of the many dirty prosecutors in DOJ with political ties. You’ve got the number two, Lisa Monaco and the head of the intelligence community now, Avril Haynes, working hand in glove on this classified documents case, both of them very close advisors to Barack Obama during his second term.
In fact, they called Avril Haynes, Lisa Monaco and Susan Rice, the Obama sisters. And now youve got two out of three of them in two of the most powerful positions in the Biden White House, again, continuing what they started in 2016 with Russia collusion using every level of power and law firm that they can to destroy Donald Trump and everyone around him. Julie, 30 seconds left. But are you as terrified about losing this election if we do as I am? I don’t even know what, I don’t even know if we’ll be staring at the same country anymore.
We won’t be. Because what they are getting away with now, they will only accelerate. And as you know, Dan, what they’ve done to 1400 Americans and counting, continuing to investigate, raid, arrest, prosecute and imprison people who protested Joe Biden’s election in 2020, I can’t even imagine what they will do if they retain power, what they will do to the rest of us. Yeah. Yeah, I know. And I so deeply value your opinion because you’re so, your better knowledge about everything that’s going on.
I just wanted to hear you say it, too, because I don’t want to think I’m crazy. I just, I really feel like we’ve had consequential elections in our lifetime. There’s zero doubt about that. But I just feel like this one, if we lose, like you just said, there will be no penalty whatsoever for this tyrannical, authoritarian, totalitarian government has been hoisted on our back. Julie Kelly, she has a book, by the way.
It’s about January 6. You know what the title is, folks? January 6. That’s, it’s an amazing book. If you ever want to know what really happened, go pick it up today. Wherever you buy a book, subscribe to her sub stack. It’s amazing. She’s at Julie underscore Kelly to on X, her follower on social media. Regret, if you know. Julie, thanks for your time. I really appreciate you coming on last minute.
Thanks a lot. Always grateful to be on Dan, thanks so much. You got it, folks. We called our Jim and I made an executive decision because there really is no one better on the backdoor attacks on Donald Trump using the government to do it. And I felt like if we were going to establish the premise for the show today that Biden is behind all this, then we better damn well bring the receipts.
And nobody brings receipts like Julie Kelly. More coming up next. We’ll be right back. Up next, an economics interview by popular request. I played this interview on the air, my radio show. Well, it happened live. And I got so many Facebook rumble messages, people saying, Dan, please put this on. The weekend show was so revealing about what’s going to happen to the economy if Biden gets elected. Folks, nothing says summer like the taste of juicy, tender burgers, grilled to perfection.
And nobody does burger perfection like my friends at Omaha steaks right now. You can taste burger perfection for yourself with the burger perfection flight. Their exclusive package includes 20 of their mouthwatering steak burgers. Get a little of this for each. But they’re pure ground filet mignon burgers. They’re New York strip burgers. The rib eye burgers, which are absolutely ridiculous. The brisket burgers and sirloin burgers. You’ll get all of this deliciousness for just $79.
99. That’s 20 beefy, juicy steak burgers for just $79. 99. Go to Omaha steaks. com and order today. These are the kinds of burgers that could only come from Omaha steaks. From the mild and tender filet mignon burger to the rich and buttery rib eyed burger, toasted bun on there. Every bite is back by the 100% unconditional guarantee. Go to Omaha steaks. com. Shop for the burger perfection flight today.
That’s Omaha steaks. com. Order the burger perfection flight for $79. 99. Your taste buds will thank you. You’re going to want to hurry. Supplies are limited by popular demand. EJ Antoni on the Biden taxes coming your way. Here you go. I love this guy. I follow him on Twitter. You should to. He is at real EJ. Antonio. A n t o n I e J. I got a beef with you though, man.
So I’m looking at your Twitter now. Me and you are going to have a problem here, Antonio, I’m assuming that’s a little bit italian. This may be some italian on italian violence. A little bit low. I like how you said that. It says heritage and comms for prosperity economists Vince Colon, ace enriched zo zioli show. I need a shout out on that as well. You are our official in house economist too.
So I will expect by the end of the show to be added to your, your, your bio on x. I can’t have you back. I’ll be offended, Dan. I’m going to have my people talk to your people. We’ll work something out. See, like a good Italian. He’s got peoples, he’s got people. That’s good. So, EJ, I always go to you because you’re a really bright guy. I really love your Twitter feed.
But you explain economics for a very smart guy in a very digestible sense. One of the things that’s bothering me about this upcoming election is that common sense economics. Common sense seems to have gone out the window. You know, on one hand, Biden’s making the case that the Chips act, where he gave a bunch of taxpayer dollars, hundreds of billions over years, to a bunch of billion dollar market cap companies, is a good idea.
Right? But then in the same speech, EJ, he’ll five or ten minutes later, rail against big corporations, how we should be taxing them more. And I’m trying to get through to people that. How does this make sense to you? You are paying on both sides. First, you’re giving your money to billion dollar market cap companies. And then when he taxes those companies, they just raise their prices to charge you more for the exact same product.
Either way, you’re getting screwed. Oh, absolutely, Dan. You’re 100% right. But you think about it. This mirrors very well what’s going on overseas. Where our taxpayer dollars are going to Iran so they can buy weapons to launch at Israel. And our taxpayer dollars are also going to Israel so that they can buy all kinds of military hardware to try to intercept all of those missiles. Same thing with the Ukraine.
We’re sending all this money to the Ukraine. Now, granted, only some of it’s going for military. A lot of it’s going to stupid stuff like pensions for bureaucrats. But then, at the same time, we’re also giving a ton of money to Putin’s war machine. Why? Because we are not producing enough oil and natural gas here. And so we’re having to buy it on the open market, some of which is actually coming from Russia.
So we are effectively funding both sides of that conflict. Now, domestically, as you pointed out, the same thing’s going on. Biden’s giving with one hand and taking away with the other. He’s going to give all of this money to corporations while at the same time raising corporate tax rates. Why on earth would he do that? Because if you can penalize all corporations, then what you do is you incentivize the wealthiest of those corporations to lobby you with political campaign donations in order to get exemptions or subsidies or handouts to counteract all of those taxes that you’re levying on them.
So it’s basically just a way to impose costs on taxpayers in order to get more money into Democrat campaign coffers. We’re talking to EJ and Tony. EJ, you’re right. I had a very bright guy tell me a long time ago that there’s no power in. Yes. The only power in government comes from telling people no. And then they want to lobby you to get to. Yes. So they make a campaign donate.
So you’re correct. But can you explain to my audience. I don’t know if I did a good job before the corporate tax. It’s one of the, it’s one of these things barking seal liberals. They always clap, corporations tax those evil corporations that I’ve tried to explain to them in graspable, common sense terms, that businesses get their money from customers when their costs go up because they have to give extra money to the government through an elevated corporate tax, which Biden wants to dramatically hike, by the way.
Dramatically. They have to find the money. So they either get it from their employees, their investors, or their customers. Is anything I just said wrong? Am I off on the analysis, or is it just too simple? No, Dan, that’s spot on. It’s absolutely correct. Look, taxes are just another cost of doing business, pure and simple. And so if your cost to do business goes up, you’re going to pass that cost along.
Now, you can do it in a variety of ways, which you just laid out. You can charge the customer more money, you can pay your employees less, or the holders of capital, which would include shareholders. That means people who are retirees, who have retirement accounts, or any saver, really, who has any kind of money that’s in stocks or investments, you’re all going to see a lower rate of return.
Now, what’s interesting, though, with the corporate tax, income tax specifically, is that because it affects all corporations, all corporations now can pass it along without fear that one competitor, rather, is going to undercut them. In other words, when you increase corporate income taxes, it’s not just WaLmART that’s going to increase prices and pass that on to consumers. They’re all going to do it. Everyone is going to do it, except those who have the thinnest margins are the ones who inevitably get hurt the most.
Because, again, a big corporation like Walmart might have enough wiggle room in their margins to get a slight decrease in per unit profitability. So they’ll make less money on one individual item, but because they sell so much, they make up for it. And so they’re able to raise prices just a little less than their competitors. And then what does the consumer do in the face of higher prices? They go to whoever raised them the least, Walmart.
Which the greatest irony of that, EJ, is that the Democrats who run on this equity nonsense and all these euphemistic buzz terms for collectivism and socialism, right, that they’re really empowering big corporations who have the most powerful set of lobbyists and lawyers, who can work their way around the tax code while simultaneously using economies of scale to engage in what you just said. So what liberals are actually doing with these corporate tax hikes, they’re not hurting big business.
They’re actually giving them a competitive advantage over midst size and small cap companies that simply can’t keep up. Exactly. And you know, Dan, that’s such a great point you bring up because it’s not uncommon to see some of the leaders of big corporations championing things like a higher minimum wage or a higher corporate income tax. Why? Because they know that they can get exemptions, they can get carve outs into things like the tax code, which will ultimately allow them to skirt these penalties.
But they’re smaller competitors don’t have that kind of flexibility. They don’t have those lobbyists. You know, there’s a reason why the tax code, not just what’s in statute, but also the regulations altogether is 35 million words long. It’s because there’s a lot of special interests in this country and they all need a little carve out for themselves. Yeah, we’re talking to EJ Antoni. He’s at real EJ Antoni on Twitter X EJ.
This is what scares me the most. The wealth tax. They’re not hiding it anymore. This is likely unconstitutional, but leaving it up to the courts is a fool’s errand. There is a strong likelihood if Joe Bribe and is elected for another term that he is going to push this. They’ve talked about it. Elizabeth Warren wants it. Bernie Sanders wants it. Explain to the audience a wealth tax, what that means.
Because I think what a lot of people, and I’m not knocking anyone, but what they assume it means is, oh, just wealthy people are going to pay more on their income, but that’s not what it means at all. You’re going to pay on your assets, not your income. That’s a big difference. Right? Exactly. And this is one of the things people sometimes fail to realize when they pay their property taxes.
That’s already a wealth tax, right? This is an asset that you ostensibly own, whether you have a mortgage or not. Put that aside for a moment. You’re paying the property tax. You’re paying the wealth tax on that, whether it’s monthly rolled into your mortgage payment or quarterly, annually, whatever the case may be. So now imagine that not just on your house, but on all the vehicles you own.
Some states already have that property tax. Imagine it on all of your retirement savings. If you happen to have a nice toy like a boat, let’s say whatever the case may be, you’re going to pay a wealth tax, aka a property tax. On all of that, you may say, well, how on earth do you tax my stock portfolio every single day? That’s changing in value. How do you assess what I owe on that? Well, see, this is where people like Elizabeth Warren show just how crazy they are.
They essentially want you to have to pay every time that goes up. But when it goes down, do I get a tax break? Oh, no. So they’re going to get you coming and going, essentially, right? That’s the. That’s critical, folks process for a moment. What EJ just said. We’re talking to EJ Antoni. The government wants to tax you not on stocks you’ve sold, on stocks you own. That’s the difference.
This is not a capital gains tax. If you have a stock portfolio for your retirement, let’s say, worth $50,000, just throw out whatever. Easy, random, say it’s a 10% wealth tax. Whatever they proposing, it’s more than that. But whatever that you’re going to get this $5,000 tax, you’re not going to get a refund the next year when the stock market crashes. Because EJ, in order to pay the $5,000 tax on the $50,000 stock portfolio that you’ve held for maybe 20 years, you’re going to have to sell the stock.
But so is everyone else, which is going to increase the supply of stock, which is going to crash the market. This is like not even Econ 101. This is like Charlie Brown Encyclopedia economics. Right, exactly. And this was something, actually, that happened if you go all the way back to FDR, because back during the depression, the withholding didn’t start on income taxes. In other words, the government basically had to wait until the following year to get income tax.
We didn’t have the current system where taxes withheld from your paycheck. And then every April, you basically have to figure out, okay, did I overpay or underpay and then adjust accordingly. So what happened was they changed it during FDR. So that not only did you. Were you paying the previous year’s taxes, but the current years as well. And so a ton of people ended up having to do exactly what you just described, where they had to sell off a bunch of stock and other assets, which caused a temporary crash in those prices.
Because everyone was trying to all of a sudden get revenue so that they could hand it right over to the government. But another really devious thing that’s going on here. It’s something. It’s a problem that already exists, Dan, with capital gains. And it’s the fact that we don’t account for inflation. So if prices double, prices for everything, including stocks, let’s say double, then what happens? You have to pay tax on that income tax, even though it’s not an increase in real value.
So the government took value from you to begin with, with the hidden tax or inflation, and now they’re going to take it from you through extra explicit taxes, whether it’s capital gains or now this crazy wealth tax they’re proposing. In other words, they have an even stronger, they have an even stronger incentive than ever before to increase asset prices through inflation. Yeah, they inflate monetizing the debt. I don’t know if it was you I was following on twitter, maybe it was you, but you were talking about how even monetizing the debt’s going to be difficult because of the, the indexing of entitlements to inflation.
But I’ll hold that for a minute. Well, I got about a minute left, but your last thought on this. Biden is now publicly claiming he wants to let the Trump tax cuts expire. There’s a myth out there that they were for the rich. But, EJ, I’m just looking at the Wall Street Journal right now. The Trump tax cuts, the average tax rate for the bottom half of taxpayers income earners dropped to 3.
4%. So the bottom half of talks, taxpayers got a tax cut too. That’s a myth that this was only tax cuts for the rich. That’s just a silly Biden talking point. Oh, absolutely. And you know, there have been numerous surveys and studies done on this topic. And every single one has had the exact, has come to the exact same conclusion, which is a majority of the benefits of these tax cuts accrued to the bottom half of income earners, not the wealthy.
A lot of the wealthy actually saw a tax increase because of the cap on salt deductions. The state and local income tax deduction. Yeah. Which ironically, liberals, liberals who claim they’re into equity and all these other buzz terms are actually fighting to get rid of. So they’re fighting essentially for what would be a tax cut for largely wealthy people. I mean, it’s. The hypocrisy is boundless. We’re talking to EJ Antoni.
He is at real EJ Antoni. A n t o n I on X. Give him a follow. He’s really terrific at this stuff. EJ, thanks a lot for your time. And we’ll be expecting a buyer update on X from your peoples immediately after departing this interview. So thanks for your time, buddy. Thank you, Dan. You got it. EJ Antoni, folks. I told you he’d explain. Wealth tax. You want to pay that? How do you feel about that? You want essentially a property tax on all your property.
That’s what that is. Stocks, art. You may have baseball cards. I’m serious. I’m not. Look it up. Don’t. Please don’t take my word for it. Go look it up. I’m begging you. Vote for Biden. That’s what you’re going to get. If that’s what you want, then yes. Vote for Biden. If you don’t, don’t come crying to me later when you get hammered with a $20,000 tax bill for your stock portfolio.
I tried to tell you you didn’t want to listen. Hey, thanks for listening to the show. I really appreciate it. We are live on rumble every day, noon to three for the radio show. Twelve noon to 03:00 p. m. Eastern time. Also, we’re on stations around the country. Go to Bonjour, station finder and you’ll see where we’re on near you. Thanks for listening. See you on Monday. You just heard the Dan Bonjino show.
.
See more of Dan Bongino on their Public Channel and the MPN Dan Bongino channel.
Author
